EPA-460/3-75-001-a
December 1974
EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL
AND STRATIFIED CHARGE
I POWERED CARS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Alternative Automotive Power Systems Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-75-001-a
EMISSIONS FROM DIESEL
AND STRATIFIED CHARGE
POWERED CARS
Prepared by
Karl J. Springer
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Drawer 28510
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas
Contract No. PH22-68-23
EPA Project Officer:
R. C. Stahman
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
December 1974
-------
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
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
the Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas, in fulfillment
of Contract No. PH22-68-23. The contents of this report are reproduced
herein as received from the Southwest Research Institute. The opinions,
findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not
necessarily those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of
company or product names is not to be considered as an endorsement
by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-75-001-a
11
-------
ABSTRACT
A total of ten passenger cars, four powered by diesel engines,
two by stratified charge gasoline engines, one by a stratified charge
operating on gasoline and diesel fuel, two by control equipped conven-
tional engines, and one powered by a gas turbine, have been subjected
to a wide variety of emissions evaluations. The vehicles, all late
model, low mileage, included a Nissan Datsun, a Mercedes 2ZOD, a
Peugeot 504D, an Opel Rekord 2100D, a standard Capri, a stratified
charge (PROCO) Capri, a low emission prototype Ford LTD, the Texaco
TCCS stratified charge powered Cricket operated on gasoline and on
diesel fuel, a Honda CVCC stratified charge, and a Chrysler gas turbine
car. All were 4-cylinder except the LTD and the gas turbine.
Tailpipe emissions were measured by the 1975 light duty Federal
Test Procedure for gaseous emissions. Smoke and fuel economy were
also determined during this test cycle. Chassis dynamometer versions
of the 1974 heavy duty diesel smoke and gaseous emissions tests were
employed. Odor and related instrumental-chemical measurements were
made under seven steady state and three acceleration conditions. The
Ford LTD and Chrysler turbine car evaluations were limited to odor and
related gaseous emissions. The prototype diesel odor analytical system,
developed under CRC contract, was applied to the exhaust from both
diesel and gasoline engines. Its use as a predictive method of diesel
odor was investigated. Noise measurements were taken by SAE driveby
as well as under a variety of exterior-interior conditions. Comparisons
of the results for all vehicles are by emission category. The emissions
from the group of diesel cars are compared to the conventional gasoline,
Ford PROCO, Texaco TCCS, and Honda CVCC.
111
-------
FOREWORD
This project was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency by the Department of Emissions Research, Automotive
Research Division of Southwest Research Institute. The EPA Project
Officer was Mr. Ralph C. Stahman. Assisting the Project Officer on
this project and hereby acknowledging their assistance were Mr. Tom
C. Austin, Mr. John J. McFadden, Mr. H. Anthony Ashby, and Mr.
Donald W. Plungis, all of the Ann Arbor, Michigan EPA laboratories.
The project was under the overall direction of Mr. Karl J.
Springer, Director of the Department of Emissions Research who
served as Project Manager. Mr. Harry E. Dietzmann was responsible
for odor studies with the prototype CRC CAPE-7 DOAS method. Mr.
Daniel A. Montalvo assisted in the conduct of the 13-mode HD tests and
with the Federal Smoke Test simulations.
The project began in June 1973 and was authorized under Modi-
fication 14 to Contract PH 22-68-23. It was known within Southwest
Research Institute as Project 11-2340-005.
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
FOREWORD iv
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS vii
LIST OF TABLES x
ABBREVIATIONS xii
I. SUMMARY 1
1. LD Gaseous 1
2. HD Gaseous 1
3. Odor 2
4. Smoke 3
5. Noise 3
II. INTRODUCTION 5
A. Background 5
B. Objective 6
C. Acknowledgement 6
III. DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLES, PROCEDURES, FUELS 8
A. Test Vehicles 8
B. Test Fuels 8
C. Test Plan 8
D. Procedures and Analysis 12
IV. RESULTS 44
A. RESULTS 44
B. 1974 HD Gaseous Emissions FTP Results 58
C. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses 62
D. 1974 HD Diesel Smoke FTP 104
E. Vehicle Noise 120
LIST OF REFERENCES 123
APPENDIXES
A. Computer Reduced 1975 Light Duty FTP
Gaseous and Fuel Economy Data
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd.)
B. Computer Reduced 13-Mode Results by
Chassis Version of 1974 HD FTP
C. Odor Ratings by EPA Q/I Method
D. Instrumental-Wet Chemical Exhaust
Data Taken During Odor Tests
E. DOAS Data Taken During Odor Tests
F. DOAS And Oxygenate Data Taken
During 1975 LD FTP
G. Correlation of DOAS With Odor Panel
H. Smoke Data by Chassis Version of
Federal HD Smoke Test
I. Noise Data
VI
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure Page
1 Cars Under Test by 1975 Light Duty FTP 14
2 Sampling Interfaces for HC, Oxygenates, and
Odor Traps Used with 1975 LD FTP 15
3 Diesel and Stratified Powered Cars Under Test
by Chassis Alternative of 13-Mode 1974 HD FTP 17
4 Odor Measurement by Trained SwRI Panel
Using EPA Q/I Rating System 20
5 Portion of LA-4 Driving Trace (1975 FTP) Used
for Idle-Accel and Accel Odor Evaluation of
Selected Cars 25
6 Stratified Charge and Gas Turbine Powered Cars
Prepared for Odor Testing 28
7 Measurement of CO, HC, NOX, and Oxygenates
During Odor Testing 32
8 SwRI Sampling Interface for DOAS Traps Taken
During Odor Testing 36
9 Exhaust Smoke Measurement Equipment and
Instruments 39
10 Schematic of One Cycle of Federal Smoke Compliance
Test - Engine Speed vs Time 40
11 Noise Evaluation of Diesel, Stratified Charge and
Gasoline Test Cars 43
12 Average Odor Ratings for Nissan-Datsun Diesel
Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 66
13 Average Odor Ratings for Mercedes 220 Diesel
Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 6?
14 Average Odor Ratings for Peugeot Diesel Light
Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 68
15 Average Odor Ratings for Opel Diesel Light Duty
Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 69
vii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd.)
Figure Page
16 Average Odor Ratings for Ford LTD Gasoline Light
Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 70
17 Average Odor Ratings for Ford Capri Gasoline Light
Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 71
18 Average Odor Ratings for Capri PROCO Light Duty
Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 72~
19 Average Odor Ratings for Texaco TCCS Powered
Plymouth Cricket Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution
- Diesel Fuel 73
20 Average Odor Ratings for Texaco TCCS Powered
Plymouth Cricket Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution -
Gasoline Fuel 74
21 Average Odor Ratings for Honda CVCC Civic Light
Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 75
22 Average Odor Ratings for Chrysler Gas Turbine
Satellite Light Duty Vehicle at 100:1 Dilution 76
23 Comparison of Gasoline and Diesel Fueled Texaco
TCCS Odor Ratings 82
24 Perceived "D" Odor Intensity Versus TIA by DOAS
for Four Diesel Cars and a Diesel Fueled Texaco
TCCS 100:1 Dilution 92
25 Perceived "D" Odor Rating versus TIA by DOAS for
Ford LTD, Standard Capri, PROCO Capri, Texaco
TCCS and Honda CVCC Gasoline Gars 100:1 Dilution 94
26 Summary of 1975 FTP DOAS Results 96
27 Correlation of Average 1975 FTP TIA Values with
Steady State and Transient Average "D" Odor Ratings 98
28 Smoke Opacity at Various Engine Speeds Under
Maximum Power Output Conditions 107
29 Typical Nissan-Datsun Diesel Car "Cold-Start"
Smoke Trace (First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP) 110
viii
-------
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Cont'd.)
Figure Page
30 Typical Mercedes 220D Diesel Car "Cold-Start
Smoke Trace (First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP) 111
31 Typical Peugeot 504D Diesel Car "Cold-Start"
Smoke Trace (First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP) 112
32 Typical Opel Rekord Diesel Car "Cold-Start"
Smoke Trace (First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP) 113
33 Typical Ford Capri Proco "Cold-Start" Smoke
Trace (First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP) 114
34 Typical Diesel Cricket TCCS "Cold-Start" Smoke
Trace (First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP) 115
35 Typical Gasoline Cricket TCCS "Cold-Start" Smoke
Trace (First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP) 116
36 Typical Gasoline Honda CVCC "Cold-Start" Smoke
Trace (First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP) 117
IX
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Description of Test Vehicles 9
2 Inspection Data for Diesel and Gasoline Test Fuels 10
3 Experimental Test Plan 11
4 Passenger Car Odor Test Operating Conditions 21
5 Federal Light Duty Emission Standards 28
6 1975 FTP Light Duty Emission and Fuel Economy
Results 45
7 Comparison of SwRI and EPA Average 1975 LD FTP
Results 49
8 Oxygenates and DOAS Results - 1975 FTP 52
9 Light Hydrocarbon Analysis and GC Hydrocarbon
Distribution Results for One 1975 LD FTP 56
10 Average 13-Mode Gaseous Emissions Test Results 59
11 Heavy Duty Gasoline and Diesel Emission Limits 61
12 Listing of Average Odor Panel Ratings at
100:1 Dilution 63
13 Comparison of Mercedes 220D Results to
Previous Reported Odor Ratings 80
14 Rough Comparison of Vehicle Odor Ratings 83
15 Exhaust Analyses Taken Simultaneously with Odor
Ratings During Steady-State Conditions 87
16 Comparison of TIA and "D" Odor Values 91
17 Difference in Observed and Predicted "D" Odor
Intensity Based on TIA (Four Diesel Car Test) 100
18 Distribution of Exhaust Hydrocarbon Emissions
During Steady State Odor Tests 102
19 Exhaust Smoke Opacity Readings 105
-------
LIST OF TABLES (Cont'd.)
Table Page
20 Average Steady State Smoke Readings During Full
Power Operation 105
21 Smoke Opacity Value's from Smoke Trace During
1975 FTP LA-4 Cold-Hot Start 119
22 Summary of Sound Level Measurements for Diesel
and Gasoline Powered Cars - dBA Scale 121
XI
-------
ABBREVIATIONS
ADL - A. D. Little
APRAC - Air Pollution Research Advisory Committee
CAPE - Coordinating Air Pollution Engineering
CFM - Cubic Feet per Minute
CL - Chemiluminescense
CRC - Coordinating Research Council
CT - Closed Throttle
CVCC - Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion
CVS - Constant Volume Sampler
DOAS - Diesel Odor Analytical System
FID - Flame lonization Detector
FTP - Federal Test Procedure
GC - Gas Chromatograph
GLC - Gas Liquid Chromatograph
HD - Heavy Duty
LCA - Liquid Chromatograph Aromatics
LCO - Liquid Chromatograph Oxygenates
LD - Light Duty
LDV - Light Duty Vehicle
NDIR - Non Dispersive Infra Red
PROCO - Programmed Combustion
PT - Part Throttle
Q/I - Quality-Intensity
RVP - Reed Vapor Pressure
TCCS - Texaco Controlled Combustion System
TIA - Total Intensity of Aroma
WOT - Wide Open Throttle
3O1
-------
I. SUMMARY
Ten passenger cars, four diesel and three stratified charge, two
conventional gasoline, and one gas turbine powered, have been subjected
to a variety of emissions evaluations. Gaseous emissions and smoke by
both light and heavy duty test procedures, odor, oxygenate, gaseous emis-
sions, and DOAS by transient and steady state procedures, and vehicle
noise were the major items of interest. The data was presented and analyzed
in each of five major measurement categories. The major findings are
summarized as follows.
1. LD Gaseous - The series of 1975 FTP runs with the four
diesels, a Nissan-Datsun, Mercedes 220D, Peugeot 504D and an Opel
Rekord, illustrated the inherent low emission capability of the diesel
powered car. With the exception of the Peugeot 504D,HC and CO were
both less than Federal limits for 1977-1978 of 0.25 g/km (0.41 g/mi) and
2. 1 g/km (3.4 g/mi) respectively. Two of the stratified charge powered
cars, the Ford PROCO and Texaco'TCCS (operated on gasoline and diesel
fuel), were below the 1978 Federal CO limit, but only the PROCO met
1978 HC limits. HC and CO from the Honda CVCC tested was above the
1977-1978 Federal limit. All cars tested were within the 1977 Federal
NOX limit of 1. 3 g/km (2.0 g/mi), but were above the 1978 NOX level of
0.25 g/km (0. 40 g/mi). The range for the four diesels of 0. 62 to 0. 95
g/km NOX is about 2. 5 to 3. 8 times the 1978 limit. It should be noted
that the tests were performed on the cars as-received and the results
agreed well with earlier tests by EPA.
Fuel economy results by both carbon balance and gravimetric
methods verify the range of 10. 6 to 12. 1 km/litre (24. 9 to 28. 5 mpg),
for the four diesels. The three gasoline fueled stratified charge cars
had fuel economy of 10. 3 to 11.7 km/litre (24. 2 to 27. 5 mpg). Measure-
ment of oxygenates (formaldehyde, aliphatic aldehydes, acrolein) and
hydrocarbon distribution from bag and trap collected samples was also
performed. As HC was lowest for the Mercedes, so were oxygenates
and as HC was highest for the Peugeot (of the four diesels tested), so
were oxygenates. The oxidation catalyst equipped PROCO produced
substantially lower oxygenates than the other cars.
2. HP Gaseous - Replicate tests were made by a chassis ver-
sion of the 1974 Federal diesel HD 13-mode test. As expected, the CO
from all four diesels were substantially below the most stringent level
specified by California for 1977. The PROC0 and CVCC were substan-
tially higher, by an order of magnitude of the Peugeot 504 CO rate, the
highest CO producer of the four diesels. The precious metal monolith
catalyst on the PROCO was unable to handle the 75 and 100 percent power
points. Combined HC+NO2 for the four diesels ranged from 5. 3 to 9. 4
g/kw-hr and for the three stratified charge from 9.5 to 12.4 g/kw-hr.
-------
The 1974 Federal standard is 21.4 g/kw-hr (16 g/bhp-hr) and the 1975
and 1977 California standards for HC+NOX are 13.4 and 6.7 g/kw-hr
(10 and 5 g/bhp-hr). HC from the Peugeot was about ten times the other
diesel cars. The diesels seemed to react similarly to the LD 1975 FTP
and the HD 1974 procedure. The HC and CO from the Peugeot was high-
est and Mercedes 220D the lowest by both methods.
3. Odor - All cars were subjected to a ten-mode odor test se-
quence in which each mode was replicated several times in random order
on two different days. The trained odor panel, using the EPA Q/I diesel
odor kit, rated the samples at the nominal 100:1 dilution level which had
been found in the earlier work to be typical for horizontal bumper height
exhaust from diesel buses. This 100:1 dilution factor may be low for
engines with less exhaust flow than the GM 6V-71 bus engine, such as the
diesel and gasoline powered car tested in this study. The dilution ratio
is probably high for the gas turbine car with its relatively high exhaust
flow. However, lacking definitive field test data on dilution typical of
these vehicles, it was decided that a consistent 100:1 dilution level would
be run for all the vehicles to provide a common relationship between the
odor panel and the raw (undiluted) exhaust.
Mostly mixed behavior in steady state and transient odor levels
were observed by the panel. Of the four diesels, the particular Peugeot
504D tested had exhaust odor intensity substantially higher than all other
vehicles, about 2 "D" intensity units above the nominal "D" -3.2 of the
Mercedes 220D. The diesel fueled Texaco TCCS produced odor equal to
that from the Peugeot 504D. When operating on gasoline, the TCCS ex-
haust was about two-thirds as odorous as when operating on diesel fuel.
Transients, more times than not, were the conditions producing the
highest odor intensities. For perspective, the "D" odor intensities from
the Peugeot were on the order of those measured from city buses equipped
with old style "S" injectors.
For the first time, the trained panel was used to evaluate the
odor from gasoline powered engines. Extensive pre-test operation and
careful selection of test conditions was required to operate each car with-
out production of excessive CO. Gasoline engine exhaust, diluted 100:1,
was found to be difficult to rate in terms of the Q/I kit. Especially trouble-
some were the quality ratings because of the significantly different odor
character. The very light ratings found under most conditions with the
catalyst-equipped Ford LTD and PROCO Capri and Chrysler gas turbine
are questionable, especially as they approach "D"-l. Some values were
below "D"-l, which is well below the limit of a panel trained at supra-
threshold levels. The Chrysler gas turbine car exhaust odor was very
slight except during cold start and to a lesser extent idle operation.
The CRC CAPE-7 DOAS for prediction of diesel odor intensity,
an instrumental technique developed by ADL, was found to correlate more
-------
or less to the odor panel ratings for the four diesel and some of the gasoline
data. This method depends on a suitably trapped and concentrated sample
of raw exhaust for which a special interface was developed by SwRI. It
was found, for the four diesels, that the observed "D" value was equal to
-2 + 3.2 TLA, the TIA being the principal outcome of the odor instrument.
Some diesel cars, such as the Nissan and to some extent the Mercedes,
exhibited a very close degree of agreement between predicted and observed
values. The Peugeot and Opel, however, lacked consistent agreement.
Nevertheless, the instrument has the promise of extending the use of the
human panel and thereby allow increased research of diesel odor.
One possible use of the DOAS, which is currently limited to
trapped samples of extended steady states, is to continuously trap and
integrate a sample of the diluted flow during the 1975 FTP. A number
of such experiments indicated this approach to have promise. The
DOAS, if suitably calibrated and correlated to perceived odor rating,
may allow odor prediction under transient operation. Much more work
needs to be done in this regard to assess this approach for passenger
car odor research. A number of supporting measurements of CO, CO2,
HC, NOX, O2, oxygenates, light HC, distribution of HC, etc. , were
obtained simultaneously with the odor and DOAS measurements.
4. Smoke - Several types of smoke tests were performed. The
chassis version of the Federal HD smoke test resulted in smoke from the
four diesel cars well below the 1974 limits for truck and bus engines.
For the diesel to be considered a viable automobile powerplant, the goal
should be an invisible exhaust which is 3 to 4 percent opacity by the EPA
diesel smokemeter. The "a" accel and "b" lugdown factors ranged from
3.3 to 5.4 and 2.7 to 7.4 percent opacity, respectively. The Mercedes
220D and Peugeot 504D, both currently in use and marketed in this country,
emitted the lowest smoke of the four by this test.
The performance of the four diesel cars on a full power smoke
test demonstrated grossly variable smoke output with engine speed. As a
result, generalizations about visible smoke from diesels in cars under
full load are not possible. The smoke from the four diesel and the three
stratified charge powered cars was measured continuously during the 1975 FTP
from cold start. Analysis of the strip charts revealed that the same four
diesels responded somewhat differently during the transient test. Notably,
the Mercedes, which produced low "a" and "b" factors, emitted on the
order of 10 percent during the idle periods of the L^-4 driving schedule.
The peak opacity during the accels after start.was higher than anticipated
by the Federal "a" factor.
None of the four diesels could consistently produce exhaust
with the extremely low levels of the PROCO and CVCC tested. Some of
the diesels showed promise as far as having practically an invisible exhaust.
-------
If smoke opacity is an indicator of exhaust particulate, then the diesel
appears to require much more development to match the gasoline car
if the test of these specific vehicles is any indicator.
5. Noise - The four diesel and three stratified charge powered
cars were found to have varying exterior/interior noise levels depending
on test conditions. The measurements continue to demonstrate that diesel
cars are not necessarily noisy or noiser than the conventional gasoline
powered car used as reference. During the SAE J986a acceleration test,
some diesels were higher and some lower than the reference car. Exterior
idle measurements indicate engine compartment noise to be definitely higher
from the diesel and the TCCS. The diesels were also 3 to 5 dBA higher
during driveby runs at 48. 3 km/hr (30 mph) cruise. These differences
are apparently due to the engine although specific survey data for the various
noise sources in each car were not performed.
-------
II. INTRODUCTION
In the search for a low pollution automotive power plant, the
diesel has too readily been associated with its sister engine, the spark-
ignition engine which operates on gasoline. Most diesels emit far less
toxic carbon monoxide (CO) and somewhat less unburned hydrocarbons
(HC) than comparable gasoline engines, while oxides of nitrogen (NOX)
have been considered to be about the same overall from both types of
engines when compared on the same basis. Although some diesels
emit noticeable smoke and/or odor under some operating conditions,
both are presently classed as nuisance emissions and not health hazards
in themselves.
In the United States, practically all automotive diesels are used
in truck and bus applications in intercity and intracity service. Until
recently, the Mercedes-Benz, powered by a 4-cylinder naturally aspi-
rated diesel, was the only diesel passenger car in use in this country.
Beginning in 1974, the Peugeot 504D offered in a sedan and station
wagon was offered for sale. It too is powered by a 4-cylinder diesel
of approximately the same power rating as the Mercedes.
A. Background
Emissions studies with the Mercedes 220 diesel were conducted
several years ago by SwRI^'* and then by EPA^ '. These results were
then summarized in a paper given in 1973^'. Beginning with the 1975
model year, diesel powered light duty vehicles will, for the first time,
be subjected to the same standards and procedures as gasoline spark-
ignition (SI) Otto cycle powered
More and more, the diesel engine is considered a viable alter-
native to the conventional SI engine for automobiles. Dieselization of
a large fraction of the light duty, not to mention the medium duty type
vehicles, predominantly gasoline powered, would carry with it a number
of advantages and disadvantages. The diesel has a clear superiority
over all other power plants in terms of fuel economy and durability. It
has demonstrated emissions low enough to meet original 1975 regulations
for HC, CO, and NOX without need of any additional change to the engine^ '.
The stringent, original, 1976 statutory NOX limit is currently being re-
considered and it is unknown whether the original Federal limit will be
revised upward. Both diesel and gasoline type engines will have a dif-
ficult time meeting the original standard.
* Superscript numbers in parentheses refer to the List of References
at the end of this report.
-------
The currently-manufactured diesel has several clear disadvan-
tages over the gasoline engine of particular concern. In addition to
poorer power to weight, cold startability, and higher noise than its
gasoline counterpart, it has been known for higher emissions of odor,
smoke, and particulate. Until more is known of these currently-unre-
gulated emissions, they are classed as nuisance emissions in that they
basically interfere with the general welfare. This is not to say they are
unimportant.
The Clean Air Act amendments of 1965 were specific in expressing
concern over diesel odor and smoke. A long range investigation of diesel
odor and smoke began in 1966 by SwRI on behalf of EPA (then NAPCA).
This study, currently in its eighth year, has resulted in a number of
reports and papers on the subject' * '. This study of diesel cars is,
in fact, Part VI of the long range investigation under PH 22-68-23, the
current contract. Several other studies regarding diesel odor and smoke
were made by SwRI under separate projects" •''. Particulate
from diesel engines has not been well researched. One such study is
currently in progress under Contract 68-02-0123 to Research Triangle
Laboratories of EPA.
In conclusion, the full potential of diesel powered cars has not
been adequately defined although the advantages seem to outweigh the
disadvantages. To intelligently judge the diesel and stratified charge
powered passenger car, accurate and complete basic data is important.
Thus, the justification of the series of tests and evaluations made with
several diesel and stratified charge gasoline cars under this project.
B. Objective
The object was to determine and compare emissions from four
diesel, three stratified charge, two gasoline, and one gas turbine
powered cars. One of the gasoline cars was a catalyst equipped proto-
type with a conventional engine and the other a standard 1974 model.
The cars were furnished EPA through the courtesy of the respective
manufacturers. In addition to measuring odor, smoke, and gaseous
emissions from the cars using methods adapted from those developed
for heavy duty diesel trucks and buses, comparative tests of the gaso-
line and diesel vehicles were made using the 1975 Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) for CO, HC, and NOX. Noise and fuel economy were also meas-
ured using standard, recognized procedures.
C. Acknowledgment
The Environmental Protection Agency selected and furnished the
cars for test to SwRI. The cars were provided to EPA for the SwRI
test program through the courtesy of the respective manufacturers.
-------
They were Mercedes-Benz of North America, Peugeot, General Motors
Corporation, Nissan Motors, Ford Motor Company, Texaco Incorporated,
Honda Motors, and Chrysler Corporation. This project could not have
been conducted without the cooperation and assistance of these companies,
for which we are grateful.
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLES, PROCEDURES, FUELS
This section describes the various elements involved in the wide
ranging series of tests and evaluations performed.
A. Test Vehicles
Table 1 lists particulars that describe each of the ten cars in-
volved in this test. All vehicles were delivered to SwRI by car carrier
transport.
B. Test Fuels
Table 2 lists pertinent inspection data for the three fuels used in
this project. The type 1-D and 2-D fuels conform to the fuel specification
given in Reference 20 for diesel emissions (smoke and gaseous) test
purposes. The 1-D fuel, a kerosene type diesel fuel, was used with the
gas turbine car. There is some concern over the use of this fuel for odor
testing and other analysis due to the abnormally high sulfur (intended for
durability testing to accelerate corrosion and wear) and the higher than
normal aromatics (to accentuate visible smoke emission). For lack of a
better or universally accepted fuel, the 1-D and 2-D fuels were used with
these reservations.
Also listed on Table 2 are the inspection data for the low lead
regular grade gasoline used in the three stratified charge and the two
gasoline fueled cars. This fuel was approved earlier by EPA for use
in Contract 68-01-0472 on control technology assessment of HD engines.
It conforms to the Federally specified unleaded fuel for emissions test
purposes per MSPCP Advisory Circular No. 26 "Lead and Phosphorous
Content of Unleaded Fuel for Certification Testing"(21). In the test of
the Cricket TCCS car, the gasoline was not treated with the base oil
additive as agreed with EPA and supplier representatives.
C. Test Plan
Table 3 lists the different tests performed on the ten cars.
Practically all tests were performed on the four diesels and three
stratified charge cars, while an abbreviated test plan was applied to
both conventional gasoline engine and the gas turbine vehicles. Note
that the Cricket TCCS vehicle was tested while operating on diesel fuel
and while operating on gasoline. All tests were performed in replicate,
usually two or more times for best data repeatability and accuracy.
The 1975 FTP runs were made on the four diesels as a group. The odor
test series was always followed by the 13-mode HD gaseous test. This
was the last test performed since it was generally most difficult on the
engine. Noise measurements were made in three groups with the standard
8
-------
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTION OF TEST VEHICLES
Model
Model Year
Car No.
Vehicle ID*
Type of .Vehicle
Number of Doors
Number of Passengers "
Color
Odometer, km
Number of Cylinders
Displacement, litre
Bore, m x 10"^
Stroke, m x lO"2
Compression Ratio
Output Power, kw
at rpm
Transmission Type
Speeds
Rear Axle Ratio
Tire Size
Empty Weight (Scale), kg
Test Weight (Inertia), kg
Nissan
Datsun
220C-QL230
1973
103467
D381
Sedan
4
6
Green
8754
4
2. 17
8.31
9.91
22:1
52.2
4000
Man
4
3.91
175SR14
1415
1588
Mercedes
220D
Z20D
1972
.
1861
Sedan
4
5
Blue
13,774
4
2.20
8.71
9.25
21:1
48.5
4200
Auto
4
3.92
6.95-14
1356
1588
Peugeot
504D
504A20
1973
.
DTM8633
Sedan
4
5
Maroon
7752
4
2. 11
8.99
8.31
22.2:1
48.5
4500
Man
4
3.89
175SR14
1266
1361
Opel
Rekord
2100D
1973
1810-39
LCJ-150
Sedan
4
5
Blue
13,023
4
2.07
8.82
8.48
22:1
50.7
4300
Auto
3
3.89
645-14
1243
1361
Ford
LTD
LTD
1973
A342-25
-
Sedan
4
6
Green
14,689
V8
6. 56
10.2
10.2
8.4:1
128.3
4000
Auto
3
-
HR78-15
1955
-
Capri
Std.
Capri
1973
2009
-
Sedan
2
4
Orange
2234
4
2.0
9.1
7.7
8.2:1
64.2
5400
Man
4
3.44
165SR13
1012
-
Capri
PROCO
Capri
1973
2018
XV Z
Sedan
2
4
Blue
1047
4
2.31
7.62
9.84
11:1
52. 2
4000
Man
4
3.44
165SR13
966
1134
Cricket
TCCS
TCCS Cricket
1972
RG239 16427
776-DUZ
Sedan
4
4
Gold
5234
4
2.3)
9.8
7.6
10:1
44. 7
3000
Auto
3
3.23
155SR13
1025
1134
Honda
CVCC
Honda
1975
SG 100698
ABC
Sedan
4
4
Brown
7547
4
1.56
7.37
8.64
7.7:1
48.5
5500
Man
4
4. 34
6.00SIZ-4
812
907
Chrysler
Gas Turbine
Satellite
1974
671
0407
Sedan
4
6
White
5648
-
,
-
-
4:1
103.7
44. 610
Auto
3
2.76
HR78-14
-
2041
*Per EPA Records.
-------
TABLE 2. INSPECTION DATA FOR DIESEL AND
GASOLINE TEST FUELS
Fuel Type
Fuel Code
Property
Gravity, °API
Sulfur, % by wt.
Aromatics, %
Olefins, %
Distillation, °F
Initial Boiling Point
End Point
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
Recovery, %
Res idue , %
1-D
EM-207-F
43.7
0. 14
12. 8
-
349
525
376
393
406
420
431
440
450
460
482
500
99.0
1.0
2-D
EM-195-F
34.5
0.3
37.6
-
386
658
436
461
481
498
514
530
546
564
605
648
99.0
1.0
Unlead
EM- 19
57.5
^0.01
30
3
94
382
133
220
328
Calculated Cetane No.
RVP, Ibs
Gum, mg/100 ml
Unwashed
Oxidation Stability
Lead g/gal
Phosphorus, g/gal
Octane No. , Research
Motor
53
46.7
*Determined using Atomic Adsorption Method
#*Determined using Dupont Method
8.8
^600
0.04*
0.007**
92.5
84
-------
TABLE 3. EXPERIMENTAL TEST PLAN
Item of Test
1975 LD FTP
Aide and Form
Acrolein
DOAS - Odor
Bag & Hot HC
Smoke
Fuel Economy
NissanH)
W S
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Mercedes Peugeot
220D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
504D
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Opel Ford Capri
Rekord LTD Std.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Capri
PROCO
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Cricket
Gasoline
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TCCS
Diesel
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Honda Chrysler
CVCC Gas Turbine
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
1974 HD Gaseous
(Chassis Version)
1974 HD Smoke
(Chassis Version)
Odor Evaluation
DOAS - Odor
Instrumental
Wet Chemical
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Vehicle Noise
SAE Driveby
Inter-Exter.
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(1>W - Winter Switch; S - Summer Switch
-------
Capri a member of the first two groups for control and comparison.
The odor test series was generally run one week per car with a week
delay between each car for sample analysis and preparation.
D. Procedures and Analysis
The specific test procedures and analysis systems used for each
emissions category are described in the following subsections. In
every case possible, recognized procedures published in the Federal
regulations were employed. Instruments, sampling and analysis, and
other facilities adher-ed strictly to these methods without exception.
Where Federal procedure, or chassis versions of Federal procedures,
do not exist, existing procedures for HD diesel vehicles were modified
or adapted as necessary for purposes of this project. The advice and
consent of the Project Officer was obtained on those areas of substantial
modification before proceeding.
1. Light Duty 1975 Federal Test Procedure
The cold start 1975 FTP was the basic gaseous transient pro-
cedure used. It is essentially the same for both gasoline and diesel
fueled cars. The basic gasoline procedure was described by Reference
20 and modified in more recent Federal Registers. The diesel procedure
was adequately described in Reference 4. Hydrocarbon values were
obtained by both the bag method, prescribed for gasoline engines, and
continuous hot analysis' '. All tests were on the same light duty
chassis dynamometer with the same CVS and analytical train. The
Federal Test Procedures for gaseous emissions were followed without
exception. No evaporative hydrocarbon tests were made.
In addition to the usual HC, CO, and NO measurements, sam-
ples were continuously taken and collected in reagents for wet chemical
analysis, or in suitably packed traps for later odor analysis. These
samples were withdrawn in the stainless steel pipe section connecting
the exhaust dilution point (below the CVS filter box) and the inlet of the
CVS heat exchanger. Multiopening stainless steel probes were used;
one probe for the aldehyde-formaldehyde bubblers in series, one for
the pair of acrolein bubblers in series, one for each of the three odor
trapping systems for the diesel odor analytical system (DOAS).
These probes were located adjacent to the probe used to obtain
the continuous HC sample. All sample lines and interfaces were heated
as required to maintain sample integrity for diesels. HC sampling and
diesel odor analytical systems (DOAS) traps were taken at gas temp-
eratures of 191° C (375°F) and aldehydes, formaldehyde, and acrolein
samples were maintained at 71 °C (160°F). This is the same temperature
used with raw exhaust samples to prevent condensation of water and loss
12
-------
of water soluble oxygenates. Gasoline burning engines were treated
somewhat differently. The HC and other continuous lines held at 71° C
since gasoline has a lower boiling range and losses are nil at this
temperature.
A digital integrator was used to integrate the time-concentration
signal from the HC analyzer, a flame ionization detector with linear
response. The other continuous samples depended on their absorbing
materials, reagent for wet collected samples, and chromosorb in the
case of the diesel odor traps to integrate a total representative sample
for the entire 1975 FTP. It should be understood that each test included
three separate bags for gaseous emissions. The integrator for HC was
wired to give three separate integrations.
In the case of wet collected and odor traps, the entire 23-minute
(Bags 1 and 2) and the third bag 505-second portion of the 1975 FTP were
taken in a single collector (bubbler or trap). This was necessary to ob-
tain sufficient sample for analysis and preclude the problem of switching
after the first 505 seconds of the run (cold start bag). For the larger
preparative traps collected for use by EPA Research Triangle Park, the
same trap was used each run so that generally as many as four complete
1975 FTP runs were collected on one trap.
All runs were made with the CVS main blower slowed to a nom-
inal 5.38m^ per minute (190 CFM). The reason was to prevent over-
dilution of the already air dilute exhaust so as to increase the sensitivity
of analysis. No problems were encountered by operating at this lower
than normal speed once the CVS was calibrated and propane checked.
A separate series of tests was made for the purpose of meas-
uring smoke continuously with the U. S. PHS smokemeter. This end
of stack unit required driving each car over the LA-4 driving schedule
but without the CVS connected. During all tests, net fuel consumption
was measured by weighing a separate 5 gallon fuel container before and
after the initial 23-minute test and before and after the final 505-second
run. Care was taken to intercept all fuel return lines to obtain net fuel
usage. Fuel inlet temperature was monitored and stayed within specifi-
cations. Figure 1 shows various views of the test set-up used with the
eight cars tested by the 1975 LD FTP. The driving aid strip chart, engine
cooling fan, chassis dynamometer, and variable inertia system are shown
in these photos.
Figure 2 (top two photos) shows the arrangement of the items used
to continuously monitor or sample the dilute exhaust for oxygenates, HC,
and odor. Three ovens housed the systems. Each interface was sep-
arate and had its own set of controls, heated sample line or lines. The
two center photos show the location and number of heated and insulated
13
-------
FIGURE 10 CARS UNDER TEST BY 1975 LIGHT DUTY FTP
14
-------
FIGURE 2. SAMPLING INTERFACES FOR HC, OXYGENATES, AND
ODOR TRAPS USED WITH 1975 LD FTP
L5
-------
lines and their location between the filter box and inlet to the CVS. The
lower left view shows the DOAS trap interface and part of the HC oven
relative to the CVS in left background. The lower right view shows the
sample interface for oxygenates with the filter box to the right of the
oven and the CVS in the background. Additional description of the DOAS
and the smoke tests will be given in later paragraphs.
2. 1974 Heavy Duty Gaseous Emissions FTP
(22)
The 1974 HD gaseous emissions test, known as the 13-mode test*
is described in Reference 20 as a stationary engine test. Prior to its
adoption by the EPA, an alternative chassis dynamometer procedure
had been published by the California Air Resources Board (GARB)* ^'.
The 39-minute long chassis procedure is a speed-load map of 13 modes
at 3 minutes per mode. In addition to CO and NO by NDIR (according to
SAE recommended practice J-215), air rate must be measured conti-
nuously (according to SAE recommended practice J-244). A Flo-Tron
system was used to measure the net.fuel consumption of the engine, which
in turn enabled the use of manufacturers' curves for inlet fuel rate and
engine flywheel horsepower to set power points.
The four diesel and one of the stratified charge engines investi-
gated had rated speeds of 4000 to 4500 rpm. One stratified charge
engine, the Honda CVCC, had a rated speed of 5500 rpm, while the Texaco
TCCS had a rated speed for test of 3000 rpm. For the 13-mode test,
the intermediate speed is defined as peak torque or 60 percent of rated,
whichever is higher. For this project, all intermediate speeds were
computed at 60 percent of rated. The procedure starts with low idle,
then 2, 25, 50, 75, and 100 percent load at intermediate speed followed
by low idle. Then speed is increased to rated at 100 percent load with de-
creases to 75, 50, 25, and 2 percent. Another idle is then run. Figure
3 shows the NDIR's for CO and NO and heated FID for HC used during
the 13-mode test series. Also shown in Figure 3 are various views of
the test cars located on the chassis dynamometer with fuel rate (Flo Tron)
and air rate (air barrel) attached.
The major difference between the stationary test used for certifi-
cation and the chassis alternative is the procedure used to determine the
engine operating points at 25, 50, and 75 percent of power and the actual
power output at 100 percent. The stationary 13-mode procedure uses
measured power output at the flywheel to determine the cycle weighted
power for division into the product of emission concentration tirfies
density of emission times flow of exhaust to get brake specific emission
rate. For engines installed in a chassis, there is no convenient way to
measure power output at the flywheel. It is possible to measure the net
fuel rate to the engine which can be used to determine power given
suitable curves from the manufacturer.
16
-------
FIGURE 3. DIESEL AND STRATIFIED POWERED CARS UNDER TEST
BY CHASSIS ALTERNATIVE OF 13-MODE 1974 HD FTP
17
-------
For most of the cars subjected to this test, a curve of fuel rate
versus flywheel power output, from no load to maximum power output
at rated and intermediate speed was available. The procedure was to
measure maximum fuel rate by operating at maximum power output at
each specified speed. Then, the power output for that fuel rate was read
from the curve. The part power fuel rate settings were then obtained
from the curve at 75, 50, and 25 percent of the maximum power reading.
The vehicle was then operated at these fuel rates during the test and the
power used in the calculations was that read or determined by the fuel-
power curves.
In some instances, such part load curves •were not available,
making it necessary to define the maximum flywheel power from full
load performance curves which were available. A straight line relation-
ship was then drawn between the full load fuel rate and the no load fuel
rate on a plot of fuel flow vs. load for each of the two test speeds. The
fuel flow corresponding to the 25, 50, and 75 percent load points were
taken from this curve as previously discussed. This practice, required
for the Nissan diesel car, assumes fuel rate and power output to be a
linear relationship which for most diesel engines, both light and heavy
duty, is not too bad an assumption. This assumption was, of necessity,
employed in the test of the stratified charge engines.
Of major concern was the choice of engine speeds. Passenger
cars are not designed to run the engines normally at rated speed although
this is the rule for truck-size or diesel engines in HD use. The rated
speed and high load operation, though not necessarily detrimental to
these small diesels, is not commonly a condition experienced in urban
driving. These concerns were discussed with the Project Officer prior
to this series of tests. It was decided, for purposes of this work, to
operate the 13-mode test according to the test specifications even though
these were determined for larger, lower speed engines. It was felt the
results could then be more easily compared to other diesels and to
published statutory limits by this test method. Modal emissions data
would also.be available that otherwise would not be obtained in the test.
program
3. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses
This subsection includes evaluation of odor by trained panel, the
measurement of gaseous emissions and trapping-analysis of odor samples
by the DOAS simultaneously with odor measurements.
a. Evaluation by Trained Panel
The EPA (PHS) quality-intensity (Q/I) or Turk kit method of
evaluation of dilute samples of diesel exhaust odor(24) was employed to
express odor judgments by the trained ten-person SwRI odor panel. The
18
-------
kit, shown in Figure 4, includes an overall "D" odor in steps of 1 through
12, 12 being strongest, that is made of four sub-odors or qualities. These
comprise burnt-smoky "B", oily "O", aromatic "A", and pungent "P"
qualities each in a 1 through 4 intensity series, 4 being strongest. Special
odor sampling, dilution, and presentation facilities^"* °) for diesel odor
research were developed eight years ago using design criteria obtained
in field studies of atmospheric dilution of bus and truck exhaust.
Horizontal exhaust at bumper height from a city bus was found to be
diluted to a minimum reasonable level of 100:1 before being experienced
by an observer. This dilution level was used in the odor test of seven
cars, although it is uncertain that this is the reasonable minimum
dilution level from a diesel, much less a gas turbine passenger car.
References 6 and 8 describe the odor facility and References 6, 7, and
8 describe the development of procedures and operating conditions for
research purposes.
Figure 4 shows a number of views of the test set-up used
during odor testing. The top left view shows the odor kit and top right,
a view of the odor room and panel. The center right view shows the
automatic dilution control system and the center left view shows the
Model 12A TECO dilution analyzer. The lower left view is of the
driver's controls for the dilution and odor measurement signalling
while the lower right view shows the relatively small inertia wheel
employed during transient operation odor testing.
Both steady state and transient vehicle operation were simulated
for odor evaluation. Table 4 lists pertinent operating data for each of the
test conditions. The steady state runs were made at three power levels,
normally zero, mid, and high power at a high and at an intermediate
speed. The seventh condition was a low idle of a well-warmed-up engine.
For the four diesels, mid load was defined as a fuel rate midway between
the fuels rates at full and no load (transmission in neutral). These
seven conditions were performed in random order so as to replicate
each condition three times for a total of 21 runs. To the extent practical,
cold start odor ratings were taken with all cars. A hot start and a
deceleration-relight were employed with the gas turbine along with the
conditions already mentioned.
The odor measurement procedures applied to the diesel powered
cars was in keeping with that used in 1971*1' 3) and was based on the exten-
sive previous work with diesel exhaust odor measurement fropti larger
size vehicles. One important change was made from 1971, however,
and that was to operate the cars more nearly as they might on the road.
This meant changing the engine speeds from rated and intermediate, as
defined for the 13-mode test, to lower speeds.
In accord with the Project Officer, high speed was defined as
the engine rpm corresponding to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) level road load.
19
-------
FIGURE 4. ODOR MEASUREMENT BY TRAINED SwRI PANEL
USING EPA Q/I RATING SYSTEM
20
-------
TABLE 4. PASSENGER CAR ODOR TEST OPERATING CONDITIONS
Engine High Speed, rpm
Engine Inter Speed, rpm
Fuel Rate High, high speed
(kg/hr) inter speed
Mid, high speed
inter speed
No, high speed
inter speed
Drive Gear, high speed
inter speed
Vehicle km/hr at high speed
inter speed
Engine Idle Speed, rpm
Idle-accel km/hr start
end
Driven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Accel time, sec
A'ccel range, km/hr, start
end
Driven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Accel time, sec
Decel range, km/hr, start
end
Driven in
Odor Test rpm
km/hr
Decel Time, sec
Nissan
Datsun
3800
1800
11. 2
6.3
7.0
3.9
2.9
1.5
3rd
3rd
64.4
38.6
1200
Mercedes
220D
3050
1830
9.7
5.4
6.4
3.4
2.9
1.5
D-4
D-4
90. 1
53. 1
800
Peugeot
504D
3000
1800
10.9
5.9
6.9
3.6
2.9
1.4
4th
4th
90. 1
51.5
750
Opel
Rekord
Steady
3250
1950
12.0
8.8
7. 5
5. 1
3.0
1.4
D-3
D-2
90. 1
35.4
600
Ford
LTD
Capri
Std.
Capri
PROCO
Cricket
Diesel
TCCS
Gasoline
Honda
CVCC
State Operation
2000
1200
23.8
5.4
11.8
4. 8
5.7
3.6
D-3
D-3
90. 1
49.9
900
2850
1700
9. 1
3.5
6. 1
2.5
3. 0
1.8
4th
4th
90. 1
53. 1
800
2850
1700
10.7
4.2
7.6
3.4
4.3
2.0
4th
4th
90. 1
54.7
900
3000
1800
10.2
3.4
6. 1
Z. 7
2.9
1.5
D-3
D-3
90. 1
53. 1
900
3000
1800
9.7
2.9
5.9
Z. 2
2.9
1.3
D-3
D-3
90. 1
53. ]
900
3800
2300
7.0
3. 1
4.8
2. 1
2.3
1. 3
4th
4th
90. 1
54.2
1200
Chrysler
Gas Turbine
2120
1272d)
24.9
9.8
14.7
7.8
7.4(2)
4.9(3)
D-3
D-3
90. 1
53. 1
-
Transient Conditions
0
32.2
1st
3900
32.3
5
38.6
80.5
3rd
3450
72.4
16
80.5
32.2
3rd
3000
40.2
12
0
32.2
D-l
3160
24. 1
3.5
48.2
80.5
D-4
2460
56.3
13.5
80.5
48.3
D-4
1930
56.3
13.5
0
32.2
1st
2930
24. 1
3.5
40.2
72.4
3rd
2950
64.4
7.5
80.5
40.2
3rd
2600
56.3
8.5
0
32.2
D-l
2100
24. 1
3.5
56.3
88.5
D-3
3000
80.5
12
88. 5
56.3
D-3
2400
64.4
13
0
32. 2
D-l
1200
24. 1
4
32.2
80. 5
D-3
1480
72.4
7
72.4
48.3
D-3
1200
56.3
13.5
0
32. 2
1st
2800
24. 1
4. 5
48. 3
80.5
4th
2Z50
72.4
9.7
80.5
56.3
4th
2000
64.4
15
0
32.2
1st
2700
24. 1
4.5
48.3
80.5
4th
2250
72.4
8
80.5
56.3
4th
2000
64.4
10
0
32.2
D-l
1950
24. 1
3
48.3
88.5
D-3
2700
80.5
10
80.5
48.3
D-3
1900
56.3
13
0
32.2
D-l
1950
24. 1
3.2
48.3
88. 5
D-3
2700
80. 5
12
80. 5
48.3
D-3
1900
56.3
13. 2
0
32.2
1st
2850
24. 1
4
48.3
80.5
4th
2900
72.4
12
72.4
48.3
4th
2200
56.3
16
0
32.2
D-l
1345(D
24. 1
4. 5
40. 2
88.5
D-3
1865(D
80. 5
6
80. 5
56.3
D-3
1575(D
67.6
7
(l)Power Turbine Speed into transmission.
(^)No load run in D-3, 2120 rpm, no neutral in transmission.
(3)No load run in D-l, 1415 rpm, no neutral in transmission.
(4)Decel-Relight same as Decel, except odor test is 2 sec after relight,
66 km/hr, 22, 000 rpm gas generator.
-------
In practice, the level road load, defined for a specific car test weight
(given in the Federal Register(20)) Was set in the dynamometer (80. 5
km/hr (50 mph) and then the car increased in speed to 90. 1 km/hr (56
mph). Most of the cars were, in high gear or high range of the trans-
mission, operating at approximately 3000 engine rpm at 90. 1 km/hr
(56 mph). The intermediate speed was then defined as 60 percent of
this speed, which was a nominal 1800 rpm for most cars.
In the afternoons, an acceleration after upshift, a deceleration
after a cruise, and an acceleration after idle, from rest, were run. These
three transients were replicated in random order four times, for a total
of twelve transients per afternoon.
An available 1769 kg (3900 Ib) inertia wheel was used to
simulate the inertia of all vehicles except the Cricket TCCS and Honda
CVCC. This wheel was larger than desired for all the cars except the
Ford LTD and Chrysler gas turbine. It had the effect of prolonging
accelerations which was good from the standpoint of being able to stress
the car and allow time for odor measurement consistent with the heavy
duty vehicles tested in the past. The next smallest available inertia
wheel of 1361 kg (3000 Ib) was used with the Cricket and Honda, which
was also larger than the test weight, but satisfactory for purposes of
odor measurement.
The accel after prolonged 1 minute idle normally involved
evaluation during a rapid wide open throttle (WOT) acceleration in low
gear. The odor was evaluated at nominally 24. 1 km/hr (15 mph), 1200-
3000 rpm which was reached 3. 5 to 5 seconds after start of the accel.
The accel was generally made in high gear after upshift and began at
about 32. 2 km/hr (20 mph) after start of accel. The accel ranged in
time from 7 to 16 sec depending on car performance. The decel was
from 80. 5 to 88. 5 km/hr (50-55 mph) to 40. 2 to 56. 3 km/hr (25 to 35
mph) with evaluation at 56. 3 - 64. 4 km/hr (35 to 40 mph) about 8. 5 to
15 seconds after closed throttle (CT). In all transients, the LD FTP
road load was preset in the water brake dynamometer at 80. 5 km/hr
(50 mph)
Operation of the three stratified charge and two control
equipped conventional cars posed some special problems in that they
were the first gasoline powered vehicles evaluated by the trained SwRI
odor panel. The carbon monoxide in most gasoline engine exhaust,
relative to that from diesels, is substantially greater and requires
special pre-evaluation examination of the test procedure and dilute test
levels of CO by staff of the Emissions Research Department and the
SwRI Committee on Protection of Human Subjects.
For example, the Ford LTD, a 1975 prototype, highly con-
trolled, car equipped with dual monolith type oxidation catalysts and air
22
-------
pump produced, under some operating conditions, an excessive amount of
CO, even when diluted to the nominal 100:1 for panel observation. Beck-
man NDIR (315B) CO analyzers were used to continuously monitor the
diluted exhaust presented to the panel. All conditions were found to
produce less than 50 ppm CO (diluted) except the accel transient.
Discussions with the Committee on Protection of Human Subjects,
prior to odor evaluations, were formalized by a memo dated April 10,
1974, that indicated the condition, the accel, to produce an average
(of several trials) CO of 411 ppm.
It should be noted that the current Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) limit is 50 ppm CO per eight hour working
day. There is no concern about CO levels at or below this level in the
dilute exhaust. For very brief exposures and a minimal number of
occurrences in a given working day, the range of 400 to 500 ppm CO
in air (one-hour or less exposure) has been considered the limit.
Beyond this, the experiment takes on other meaning and requires a
different approach.
The selection of the test conditions has a lot to do with the
specific CO encountered. And, just because CO is low by the light
duty 1975 FTP does not mean all conditions of operation are low. There-
fore, the selection of conditions can influence the difficulty of evaluation.
In the case of the Ford LTD, the vehicle was substantially overpowered
compared to diesel cars, trucks and buses, i. e. , power to weight was
much greater. The conventional steady state map of two speeds and
three loads used with the diesel cars (0, 50, and 100 percent power)
had to be reconsidered. After some preliminary testing, discussions
with the Project Officer were held to establish a test condition protocol
more consistent with the gasoline and gas turbine powered cars.
It was agreed to operate at 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) in high gear,
i. e. , 4th in the manual transmission Capri and Honda and in D-3 of the
Ford LTD, Texaco TCCS and Chrysler gas turbine, and call the engine
speed that coincides to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) the high speed as with the
diesels. As an example, for the Ford LTD, this was a nominal ZOOO rpm.
The other speed was then 60 percent of 2000 or 1200 rpm. The car speed,
still in D-3, was 50. 5 to 54. 7 km/hr (31. 5 to 34 mph), depending on
transmission slip. The loads were the most difficult to select since max
power was dramatically greater than road load of 9. 5 kw (12. 7 hp) for
the 2041 kg (4500-lb) car at 80. 5 km/hr (50 mph) per Federal Register.
For lack of a better approach, it was decided to run at four
times road load, if possible, and call this the high power condition. The
procedure was to preset a dyno load of four times road load - dyno loss
into the water brake at 80. 5 km/hr (50 mph) and then increase speed to
90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) and record the resulting manifold vacuum, fuel
rate, and rear wheel power level. In the case of the Ford LTD, this was
23
-------
48. 8 kw (65. 5 hp), 2'l. K k^/hr (52. 5 Ibe/hr) fuel and 127mm (5 inches)
vacuum. It produced an unacceptable CO level due to apparently "being
in power valve". In accord with guidelines given by the Project Officer,
the condition was modified to a 178mm (7 inch) 38. 8 kw (52 hp) condition
that brought CO back into control with less than 50 ppm dilute. Apparently,
from other measurements of O2 and HC, a CO "breakthrough" occurred
as operation progressed toward WOT.
The intermediate speed high power condition was based on the
present four times road load at 80. 5 km/hr (50 mph), but operating at
1200 rpm to give 49.9 km/hr (31 mph), 10.8 kw (14.5 hp) rear wheels,
and 5.44 kg/hr (12 Ibs/hr) fuel rate. The no load conditions were like
that for diesels, namely, operation in neutral at the 1200 and 2000 rpm
(Ford LTD). The intermediate power setting was not like the high power
condition but from two times road load at 80. 5 km/hr (50 mph) and then
increased to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) at 2000 rpm and then decreased to
1200 rpm.
The basic philosophy was to characterize odor over a range
of loads and speeds that could be encountered and over a wide enough
range to cover steep uphill plus moderate trailer towing as well as the
moderate load and no load conditions.
Two of the three transients were quite difficult to run in the
same way as diesel powered and lower power to weight vehicles. The
Ford LTD had substantial power and therefore a WOT 0 to 32. 2 km/hr
(0-20 mph) idle-accel was out of the question. As a substitute, an idle-
accel of the LA-4 driving schedule, starting at about 450 seconds of the
trace, was used. This is the most severe accel from rest noted in the
entire schedule, yet was no problem for, the Ford LTD. CO was also
acceptable with exposure at 24. 1 km/hr (15 mph).
The decel also had no problem in CO for the Ford LTD by CT
from 72. 4 to 48. 3 km/hr (45 to 30 mph) with evaluation at 56. 3 km/hr
(35 mph). The Ford LTD produced an average of 411 ppm CO (dilute)
during the part throttle accel from 32. 2 to 80. 5 km/hr (20 to 50 mph)
with evaluation at 72.4 km/hr (45 mph). Again, a WOT accel, normal
for diesel odor testing, was not acceptable, this time from excessive CO
and the violent downshift, high rate of accel uncommon to road operation
with this vehicle. To permit a repeatable part throttle accel that could
be considered stringent, yet typical, the accel rate established by the
idle-accel transient, using the LA-4 trace was employed. This particular
accel stops short of 80. 5 km/hr (50 mph) and therefore the linear accel
rate was merely extrapolated to 80. 5 km/hr (50 mph) by using a straight
line. The actual vehicle operation included a PT crowd of the accelerator
pedal to maintain a constant rate of accel. This approach was found to be
quite repeatable and the operator merely kept using the same piece of
chart paper, a copy of which is shown in Figure 5.
24
-------
t—4
G
G
JS
M
on
1J
o
50
H
I—I
O
^
r *
o *•
S °
O J30
M^
n
o
M
r
t>
Sniff '
|20-50mph
Accel
-------
The standard Capri four-cylinder Ford passenger car followed
the same test condition guidelines as the LTD. The CO from this less
well controlled vehicle required more attention with more conditions
producing higher than desired diluted CO. They were:
Condition Diluted CO, Avg.
no load idle at 800 rpm 191 ppm
90. 1 km/hr (56 mph 2800 rpm
4th gear 29. 8 kw (40 hp)
89 ppm
PT accel 102 mm (4 inches vac)
48.3 - 80.5 km/hr (30-50 mph)
sniff at 72.4 km/hr (45 mph),
road load 148 ppm
Operation of this car at WOT during the accel caused excessive
CO to be produced. Therefore, a part throttle crowd type accel main-
taining 102mm (4 inches) intake manifold vacuum was used. The idle-
accel was run similar to the LTD. The LA-4 test inertia for the two
Capris was taken at 1134 kg (2500 Ibs). This was equivalent to the
weight of the car, 966 kg (2130 Ibs) measured by certified public scales
+ 136 kg (300 Ibs) and rounded up to 1134 kg (2500 Ibs). This test weight
was discussed with Mr. Don Plungis of EPA who concurred in the 1134 kg
(2500 Ibs) instead of the 1247 kg (2750 Ibs) used in 1974 certification. A
memo dated April 16, 1974, to the SwRI Committee on Protection of
Human Subjects, described these test conditions and CO levels in detail.
The decel at CT was of great concern in that at 508+mm (20+
inches) vac, the CO was higher than desired. By decelerating at very
light part throttle 495mm (19.5 inches) constant, the CO was drastically
reduced. The driver operated the foot feed in reverse of a "crowd" and
was successful in holding a constant decel vac.
Fewer conditions exhibiting excessive CO were encountered
with the Ford PROCO stratified charge powered Capri since it was highly
controlled and featured an oxidation catalyst mounted just after the ex-
haust manifold. Nevertheless, a full check-out was made with practice
runs prior to odor panel evaluation. The only condition of some concern
was found to be cold start, which was run only once and the accel after
idle. The idle-accel was run per the Federal Register LA-4 driving
trace shown in Figure 5. Since the dilute CO was still less than 50 ppm,
no modification was made to the procedure.
The accel and decel transients were made at WOT and CT,
respectively, with no CO levels over 50 ppm measured in the diluted
stream. Using the four times road load at the two speeds did not
produce excessive CO or CO breakthrough as did occur during the 13-
26
-------
mode testing. The four times road load represented less than wide open
throttle where excessive levels of CO would have been produced.
Operating conditions for the Texaco TCCS powered Cricket
are listed on Table 4. The top two photographs in Figure 6 are the
Plymouth Cricket powered by the Texaco TCCS engine under test.
Whether operated on diesel or gasoline, the basic engine speeds of 3000
and 1800 rpm were the same as were transmission range, acceleration,
and deceleration conditions. The fuel rates, in kg/hr were higher for
the diesel fueled operation since the density of diesel fuel is 0. 851 kg/1
(7. 098 Ibs/gal) versus 0. 747 kg/1 (6. 233 Ibs/gal). The conditions of
Table 4 were arrived at after trial and error as with the Ford LTD and
Capri standard and PROCO powered cars.
The steady states were based on operating at 3 times the 80
km/hr (50 mph) road load prescribed by the Federal Register of 7 kw
(9.4 hp). The car was then accelerated to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) at which
point the engine rpm was measured at 3000 rpm which was the high
power high speed condition. The car was then slowed to 53. 1 km/hr
(33 mph) for 1800 rpm engine speed with the same road load. This
became the low speed high power point. The mid-power points were
similarly set using 1. 5 times the road load. No load conditions were
run with the transmission in neutral.
Transients were performed with a 1361 kg (3000 Ib) inertia
wheel and road load preset in the dynamometer at 80.4 km/hr (50 mph)
All accels were made at wide open throttle and all decels were made at
closed throttle between the speeds listed in Table 4. During the steady
state modes, the bell for odor panel operation was 1.5 minutes after
going to the condition with about 1 minute of steady state operation just
prior to the bell. The transients were always preceded by 30 seconds
of a given operation such as idle prior to the idle accel, cruise at 48. 3
km/hr (30 mph) prior to the accel or cruise at 80. 5 km/hr (50 mph) prior
to the decel. The cold start condition was made from an overnight soak
at 74°F with merely engine start followed by the cold idle. The bell for
panel evaluation was rung as the engine started. CO from both gasoline
and diesel fueled TCCS engine was found to be at or below 50 ppm in the
pre-runs of the diluted exhaust for odor measurement. Both the stratified
charge and the oxidation catalyst combine to prevent excessive CO levels
that would preclude odor measurement by the panel.
The Honda CVCC, also shown in the center two photos of
Figure 6, presented some different problems in that CO was substantial
at high load settings. However, by operating this car at 3 times road
load and monitoring CO production, it was found that this vehicle could
also be tested by the odor panel with CO well within acceptable levels.
Note from Table 4 the higher engine speeds employed with the CVCC
engine. The seven steady state conditions were in keeping with the other
stratified charge cars, the PROCO and TCCS.
27
-------
FIGURE 6. STRATIFIED CHARGE AND GAS TURBINE
POWERED CARS PREPARED FOR ODOR TESTING
28
-------
Transients were similar to other cars with the exception of
the idle-acceleration which had to be driven at part-throttle in first gear.
This accel to 32. 2 km/hr (20 mph) was made using the driving chart in
Figure 5. Cold start tests did generate fairly high CO levels but when
diluted 100:1 were below 100 ppm. The Honda front wheel drive car
required the use of a slightly longer than usual exhaust pipe connection
to the odor system. Otherwise, its operation was not grossly different
from other cars tested in this project.
The Chrysler gas turbine powered Plymouth Satellite, shown
in the lower two photos of Figure 6, entailed some special preparations
and pre-test experimentation to permit odor panel measurement. The
first special preparation involved obtaining a suitable sample of the
vehicle exhaust for odor and gaseous emissions measurement. The gas
turbine engine features twin exhaust ducts, rectangular in cross section
that are fitted beneath the floor pan of the vehicle. The ducts terminate
at a point forward of the rear axle assembly. This means the large
volume of exhaust from the engine comes from under the car rather
than at the rear bumper. A matched pair of exhaust pipes were fabricated
which extended into the open duct 0.4 m (16 inches). These 63.5mm (2 1/2
inch) outside diameter exhaust probes were manifolded by means of long
radius elbows into a common 127mm (5 inch) exhaust pipe which led to
the odor dilution system and gaseous emissions sampling location.
The two probes depended on the raw velocity of the turbine
exhaust to force the sample over to the dilution system where a smaller
sample is withdrawn for dilution and evaluation. It was found that this
system worked quite well. It necessitated keeping the laboratory high
bay doors open and the use of several large fans to expel the remaining
exhaust from the vehicle, a substantial flow. Response of the system was
not quite as rapid as the conventional closed system with time of the
exhaust to reach the dilution point increased by perhaps up to 1 second
at idle and much less at all other conditions. Provision was made to
shield the hot exhaust from the underside of the fuel tank.
By connecting the conventional Flo-Tron directly to the fuel
lines at the tank, the net fuel rate into the engine could be measured much
the same as with other engines with return fuel such as diesels. The
gas turbine car was unlike most other cars in that the transmission had
no neutral gear. This meant all no load conditions were actually run
with the car in gear, rear wheels rotating, but with no power absorption
in the water brake dynamometer. Another important difference is the
gas generator speed substantially higher and indirectly related to power
turbine speed. Since a standard three-speed automatic transmission
is employed and it is coupled directly to the power turbine shaft, the
power turbine speed was the speed used to set operating conditions. The
power turbine speed was essentially that which would be provided by a
29
-------
conventional engine to the transmission.
With these introductory remarks regarding the Chrysler gas
turbine car, the usual ten operating conditions, seven steady state and
three transients, were determined. They are summarized on Table 4.
The power turbine speeds are quite consistent with the Ford LTD. As
with the Ford LTD, the Chrysler gas turbine had a high power to weight
ratio and had excellent performance in terms of acceleration. To set
load points, four times and two times road load at 80. 5 km/hr (50 mph)
were used instead of 3 and 1.5 for the lower power to weight TCCS,
PROCO, and CVCC powered vehicles.
The 0-32.2 km/hr idle-accel, due to the acceleration per-
formance, had to be run at part throttle using the driving aid chart in
Figure 5. For the cold start, the bell was rung for the panel when the
starting sequence light on the dash went out. The gas turbine engine
has an automatic start sequence with cold start time to light of about 15
seconds. When the light goes out, the vehicle may be driven.
Two additional conditions were evaluated which included a
hot start, made like a cold start except with the engine fully warmed-up,
and a deceleration-relight. The gas turbine burner fuel is automatically
shut-off during all closed throttle decelerations. The gas turbine auto-
matically relights when the gas generator speed reaches about 22, 000
rpm. Thus, the normal deceleration condition was timed to be just
prior to the relight rpm at 23000 rpm and the relight condition 2 seconds
after the reignition of the burner. These additional conditions of decel-
relight, cold and hot start made the gas turbine total conditions equal 13.
Under no conditions did the gas turbine engine produce CO of
concern from a panel health standpoint. This is not surprising since the
gas turbine is a low CO emission engine and has substantial excess air
which serves to dilute the exhaust. Given an additional 100:1 dilution
for panel observation results in CO of negligible concentration.
b. Gaseous Emissions
Gaseous emissions were also taken during these steady-state,
speed-load odor maps. Measurements included HC by heated FID, CO,
NO and CO^ by NDIR, NO and NOX by chemiluminescence (CL), O^ by
polarographic method, acrolein, aliphatic aldehydes, and formaldehyde.
The chromotropic acid method for formaldehyde, 3-methyl-2-benzo-
thiazolone hydrazone (MBTH) method for aliphatic aldehydes, and the
4-hexylresorcinal method for acrolein, all of which are wet chemical
methods, were employed. These are described somewhat in Reference 7.
The seven conditions, in triplicate (21 runs) were repeated on
two mornings normally separated by one day for analysis and preparation.
30
-------
These measurements were intended to define the steady state
performance and characterize emissions beyond that possible from the
1975 LD FTP and the 1974 HD FTP 13-mode test. Also, the data would
be useful in comparison with and correlation to the odor panel ratings
and other measurements by the CAPE-7 DOAS instrument. Figure 7
shows a number of photos of the gaseous emissions instruments,
equipment, and analytical equipment utilized in this category of tests.
The classification of exhaust hydrocarbons by different molecular
weight categories was a requirement of this project. All such analyses
require a sample of concentrated exhaust for analysis by gas liquid
chromatograph (GLC). The type column (length and packing) has been
essentially standardized to the use of a 3. 05m x 3. 18mm (10 ft x 1/8
inch) 5 percent Dexil 300 on 60/80 AW/DMCS Chromosorb G columns
in which the sample is eluted by a carrier gas, nitrogen, while the
column temperature is slowly raised, temperature programmed from
100°C to 350°C at 10°C/min after 5 minutes of isothermal operation
at 100°C.
No common or agreed upon method for concentrating the
diesel exhaust hydrocarbons has been universally accepted. Initially,
it was planned to concentrate the exhaust in a "U" tube cold trap of
203. 2x3. 18mm (8 x 1/8 inch) stainless steel held at -40°C. This
method had been used in the past with mostly satisfactory results.
With the use of the Chromosorb 102 packing to collect hydro-
carbons and other odorous materials in the exhaust for later odor analysis
by the CRC A PR AC CAPE 7 liquid chromatograph, developed by A. D.
Little, Inc. , another, more convenient concentration-collection method
was available. The ADL diesel odor analysis system (DOAS) is described
in the next subsection and requires a non-aqueous, concentrated sample
of organic exhaust products for analysis. Chromosorb 102 will absorb
oxygenates and unburned fuel at slightly elevated temperatures, permitting
the water vapor to pass through the column. The trap can be capped off
and is reported reasonably stable for several days. During this time,
the absorbed organic matter can be extracted by eluting with a pre-purified
solvent, cyclohexane. A small amount of this extract is then used in the
DOAS and a small amount of the remainder is injected into the Varian
Model 1740 GC used for hydrocarbon analysis.
The resulting chromatogram is then analyzed for peak height,
area and elution time. These values are then compared to calibration
standards from which a quantitative and qualitative indication of hydro-
carbon distribution may be determined. The only change to usual labor-
atory practice for these measurements was the use of the DOAS sample.
This is considered to have definite advantages in sample integrity and
potential future use in evaluating the DOAS results.
31
-------
iB .M
r"~i * • •"•
I 1 t f ' o
FIGURE 7. MEASUREMENT OF CO, HC, NOX, AND
OXYGENATES DURING ODOR TESTING
32
-------
Because sampling requirements require a prescribed length
of time to acquire enough sample for use in GC analysis, only steady
state operation could be accommodated. The seven odor test conditions
were specified for HC analysis. As an experiment, it was also desired
to use the DOAS sample taken during the running of an entire 1975 LD FTP.
This sample, taken at a continuous rate from the CVS diluted exhaust, was
felt to represent as well as any other simple technique, the type HC usually
emitted by diesels in transient operation. Therefore, some data under
mostly transient (LA-4) type operation was obtained. Since some methane
is present in the CVS dilution air, a background correction of an average
of 2. 2 ppmC was made to the methane readings in the CVS sample bag.
Although the method described worked satisfactorily with the
cars operating on diesel fuel, the five cars running on gasoline posed
some special problems. For these cars, the Ford LTD, both Capris,
Cricket TCCS, and Honda CVCC, the analysis covered basically the Cj
to C3 range. This was necessary since the boiling range of gasoline is
much narrower and lower than diesel fuel. Small bag samples were
taken during the steady state conditions and analyzed by a Varian 600-D
gas chromatograph using a 3. 05m x 3. 18mm (10 ft x 1/8 inch) 80/100
phenylisocyanate/porasil C column held at 25°C. This permitted analysis
of light hydrocarbons of methane, ethylene, acetylene, and propylene.
This analysis was also satisfactory for ethane and propane; however,
these two species were not observed above trace quantities except in
a few of the cars operated on gasoline. The results thus obtained are
reported on an observed basis.
c. Diesel Odor Analytical System
As one result of approximately five years of research, spon-
sored under the CAPE-7 project of CRC APRAC, A. D. Little developed
a prototype liquid chromatograph for use in predicting diesel exhaust
odor. Called DOAS for diesel odor analytical system, the system provides
two results, one being an indication of the oxygenate fraction called LCO
for liquid chromatograph oxygenates, and the other called LCA for liquid
chromatograph aromatics. These were found by earlier research by
ADL to represent the major odorants in diesel exhaust. The ADL
studies had shown a correlation of the TIA (total intensity of aroma) to
sensory measurements by the ADL odor panel. TIA is equal to 1 +
Iog10 LCO.
Both LCO and LCA are expressed in micro-grams per liter of
exhaust using either the test fuel or a reference component for calibration.
The LCO is, by virtue of its use to express TIA, considered the most
important indication of diesel exhaust by this method. An entire series
of reports have been published by ADL describing their work with diesel
odorf25-29). Reference 29 describes the DOAS and its use, while
Appendix C in this same reference describes the sample collection
33
-------
procedure. Rather than repeat these instructions, this section will de-
scribe how the system was employed in this series of tests.
Until the prototype was furnished SwRI, one of the first three
built by ADL, the DOAS had been limited primarily to in-house ADL
development tests. Their work was based on a Detroit Diesel 4-71 engine
generator set. Although several fuels and injectors were tried, these
tests of a direct odor panel-DOAS type were limited to the single exhaust
odor source* Tests by Caterpillar with their in-house DOAS and samples
from Cummins and Detroit Diesel, as a part of the CAPE-7 project, had
demonstrated the DOAS to work with exhaust from a variety of engine
makes and design.
With the availability of this potentially useful odor prediction
method, it was decided to obtain simultaneous DOAS values with the
trained SwRI odor panel on all the vehicles in this project, if possible.
Recall the DOAS does not measure odor, but measures a class of odorants
and that it was intended and developed specifically for use with diesel
exhaust. Its application to exhaust from gasoline engines had never
been attempted. Serious reservations were voiced over its use with
gasoline exhaust, complete lack of calibration standards, etc.
Also, the prototype development by ADL had concentrated on
the liquid chromatograph and the electronic integration and calculation of
the LCO value to give a direct read-out of TIA based on a dialed-in sample
volume. Little had been done on the specific sampling and trapping
methods for collection of the sample except in the broadest general terms
of sample flow, temperature, and time. Therefore, one of the first
requirements was the design and fabrication of a suitable interface,
beginning with the sampling probe and extending to the preparative or
analytical trap.
The SwRI studies with the DOAS required only a single small
analytical trap for LCO and LCA evaluation at each steady state condition.
At the request of the Project Officer, duplicate analytical traps were
taken as well as the larger preparative trap for use in EPA Research
Triangle studies in-house and under contract to ADL. Three completely
independent interface trapping systems were provided to collect samples.
One system was used by SwRI on the three replicate runs of
each steady state. The other two were for samples requested by Mr.
John Sigsby, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA,
Research Triangle Park, N. C. , and confirmed in his letter of January
25, 1974. Only samples from the four diesel cars were of initial interest
to the Research Triangle EPA effort. Traps were not made available for
the initial tests with the Nissan powered Datsun car. Samples were
trapped on the other three diesel cars as requested.
34
-------
The samples for Mr. Sigsby were taken at three conditions,
namely, idle and half load at high and intermediate engine speeds.
Generally, it required six replications to sufficiently load the larger
preparative trap so one of the sampling systems was developed to this
use. All preparative traps were forwarded directly to ADL as advised
by Mr. Sigsby. The other sampling system was used to take the smaller
analytical traps so that replications 1, 3, and 5 were taken for subsequent
analysis by ADL and replications 2, 4, and 6 were provided to Mr. Sigsby
for analysis by the EPA Research Triangle Laboratories. One of the
original three ADL prototype DOAS units was obtained by EPA for in-
house testing. Normally, the steady-state odor runs were run in
triplicate but for idle and the two half-load conditions the number of
replications was increased to six.
To keep from disrupting the usual schedule, the additional
three runs were normally made in the late afternoon after the transient
evaluations. To obtain DOAS samples requires each test mode to be
extended. Double the running time, from a nominal three minutes to
six minutes, was needed to allow a full five minutes of trapping. The
first minute is to achieve a stable operating speed and load. Panel
evaluation is normally during the third minute of the run. No serious
problems of tire or engine overheating were encountered with this
schedule.
The sampling interface system is shown by the various photos
in Figure 8. Since the constraints of this project did not allow much in
the way of development of this interface, good laboratory practice as
applied to diesel hydrocarbon measurement was followed. The three
systems were identical and utilized a common oven held at 190°C (375 °F).
Each system consisted of a multi-opening stainless steel probe, as is
normal practice for HC measurement from HD diesel engines. The
sample was then transferred to the oven via a 9. 5mm (3/8 inch) diameter
stainless steel line 0.75m (30 inches) long covered by tubular exterior
electrical heating sleeves to maintain 190°C (375 °F) sample gas tempera-
ture. Between the probe and sample transfer line, a high temperature
bellows type stainless valve was placed for leak check purposes. Inside
the oven, the sample passed through a fiberglass filter, then into a
square head welded metal bellows (stainless) pump head mounted inside
the oven. Note these components in the upper right photo of Figure 8
are such that the pump motor drive is exterior of the oven. A small
fan helps to keep the motor cool.
Immediately as the flow exits the oven wall, the DOAS trap
is mounted so that it is accessible for change but is not located where
the sample could have intentionally cooled. This is shown by the center
right photograph where an analytical size trap is in use. Once the sample
passes through the trap, the sample goes through a drierite column, a
35
-------
J
FIGURE 8. SwRI SAMPLING INTERFACE FOR DOAS TRAPS
TAKEN DURING ODOR TESTING
36
-------
glass tube flowmeter, and then into a dry gas volume meter. The des-
sicant removes troublesome water which condenses in the flowmeter and
gas meter. The flowmeter allows monitoring of gas flow, by visual
observation, during the test while the gas meter measures the total flow
of gas during the test run.
Essentially no verification or parametric studies of this
interface have been made to date. The temperature and flow scheme,
rate, etc. , are all subject to improvement. The effect of these variables
singly and in combination on trapping efficiency remain to be determined.
The exact temperature, flow rate and sample time given the trap proper
is of concern. For example, it currently begins at room temperature
and then warms-up significantly during the five minute sampling time
as more and more hot sample is handled. The definition of sample
volume necessary for the DOAS understandably depends on concentration
of odorous contaminants. Using the sampling procedure in Appendix C
of Reference 29, the best sustained flow possible in any of the three
systems using the specified model 155 Metal Bellows pumps was about
5 1/min, about 50 percent of the ADL recommended flow. Although this
flow was less than the recommended flow of 10 1/min, it was considered
satisfactory.
The larger preparative traps generally had the same flow rates
as the analytical traps but significantly longer sampling periods were
required. These prep traps were designed to contain ten grams of the
Chromosorb 102 rather than the one gram in the smaller analytical
traps. Since no background emissions or odor data was available on
any of the engines, it was basically a guess on how much sampling would
be sufficient for adequate preparative trap loading. In the case of the
cars operating on the 1975 FTP transient LA-4 test, it was estimated
that the long sampling time of 31.4 minutes would compensate for the
intentionally diluted (estimated 5 to 7:1) exhaust by the CVS method.
Recall the dilution level was held to a minimum to prevent over-dilution
of the already air-rich diesel exhaust. This was one of the major reasons
for doing so. The trapping of four replicate 31.4 minute duration runs
on a single preparative trap was only an educated guess. As may be seen,
these DOAS interface, trapping, and sampling conditions are rather
preliminary and in need of substantial further study.
The lower left photo of Figure 8 shows several of the small
analytical traps being washed by the cyclohexane solvent. The lower
right photo of Figure 8 shows the DOAS liquid chromatograph instru-
ment, prepared by A. D. Little, and the recorder.
4. 1974 HD Diesel Smoke FTP
The Federal smoke test, promulgated in 1968 (Reference 31), was
37
-------
the basic smoke evaluation procedure utilized. It was improved and more
stringent standards adopted in 1972(20) for 1974 certification purposes.
There currently is no recognized U. S. smoke test procedure for light
duty passenger car exhaust. Although the heavy duty schedule of speed
and load versus time can be used with the light duty vehicle by a chassis
dynamometer version of the test, it is uncertain whether this test is
indeed representative of the way the smaller, higher speed diesels
operate. Specifically, engine rated speed is considered higher than that
normally encountered in passenger cars in urban use.
Replicate smoke tests were made using a chassis version of the
FTP on all cars and by two other tests on selected cars. One was a
smoke-power curve in which the engine was run in 400 rpm increments
and smoke measured at full power throughout the range of operating
engine speed. The other was to continuously record the smoke during
operation of the vehicle over the LA-4 transient driving schedule featured
in the Federal light duty gaseous emissions test.
Figure 9 shows various views of several of the test cars as pre-
pared for the smoke tests. Note the short 0. 61 meter (24 inch) exhaust
pipe extension of 50.8mm (2 inch) exhaust pipe. The PHS smokemeter
is mounted at the end of this pipe so that the centerline of the light beam
is 127mm (5 inches) from the tip of the pipe. The usual light duty water
brake Clayton 200 hp chassis dynamometer with belt drive inertia system
was employed. Figure 9 also shows the multi-pen strip chart recorder
used to monitor smoke opacity, vehicle and/or engine speed. The usual
driving aid was used to drive the LA-4 trace.
Figure 10 is a schematic of the Federal HD smoke test. It con-
sists of an initial engine acceleration from 150-250 rpm above the low
idle speed to 85-90 percent of rated engine speed in 5.0 ± 1.5 seconds, a
second acceleration from peak torque speed (or 60 percent of rated speed,
whichever is higher) to 95-100 percent of rated speed in 10.0 ±2.0 seconds,
and (following this second acceleration) a full-power lugdown from 95-100
percent of rated speed to the particular intermediate engine speed (peak
torque speed or 60 percent of rated speed) in 35. 0 ± 5 seconds). Three of
these sequences constitute one smoke test.
The average smoke opacity from the 15 highest-valued one-half
second intervals of the two accelerations determine the "a" factor, and
the average opacity from the five highest-valued one-half second intervals
of the lugdown mode determines the "b" factor. The maximum values
allowed for "a" and "b" factors of 1970 through 1973 certification engines
were 40- and 20-percent opacity, respectively. For 1974, the "a" factor
was reduced to 20-percent opacity and "b" factor was reduced to 15-
percent opacity. The new peak or "c" factor, which is the average of the
three highest one-half second intervals per cycle, is determined from the
"a" and "b" chart readings. The three cycle "c" values are then averaged
38
-------
FIGURE 9. EXHAUST SMOKE MEASUREMENT
EQUIPMENT AND INSTRUMENTS
39
-------
100
90
Lugdown
-a
u
0>
a
CD
c
W
o
c
u
CU
80
First
Acceleration
60
' Sec
FIGURE 10. SCHEMATIC OF
TIME, SEC
ONE CYCLE OF FEDERAL SMOKE COMPLIANCE TEST
ENGINE SPEED VS TIME
-------
to determine the "c" factor for the test.
5. Vehicle Noise
This series of tests was intended to determine the maximum in-
terior and exterior sound levels, in dBA scale, during idle and various
driving modes. SAE J986a, Sound Level for Passenger Cars and Light
Trucks, describes a test procedure that formed the basis for measure-
ment and vehicle operation. A General Radio Type 1933 Precision Sound
Level Analyzer, General Radio Type 1562-A Sound Level Calibrator,
and General Radio Wind Screen, meeting the requirements of Inter-
national Electrotechnical Commission Publication 179, were used.
Interior and exterior measurements can be made simultaneously, if
desired, by using two such precision sound level meters.
a. Acceleration Drive-by
Exterior drive-by measurements were made at 15. 24m (50
feet) using the test procedure outlined in SAE J986a. Under this test,
each vehicle approached a line 7. 6m (25 feet) before a line through the
microphone normal to the vehicle path and accelerated, using the lowest
transmission gear or range such that the front of the vehicle reached or
passed a line 7. 6m (25 feet) beyond the microphone line when maximum
rated engine speed was reached. The equipment used was a precision
sound level meter, a sound level calibrator, and a calibrated wind screen.
The test site was (as outlined in J986a) a flat open space, free of large
reflecting surfaces (i.e., signs, hills, buildings) within 30.5m (100 feet)
of the test track.
Measurements were made (as outlined in J986a) 1. 22m (4 feet)
above ground level and at 15. 24m (50 feet) from the centerline of the
vehicle. This distance was considered adequate if the maximum noise
level as measured on the "A-weighted" scale with a "fast" meter response
was 10 dB above the ambient noise level. If this criterion could not be
met, the measurements were made at 7. 6m (25 feet) by subtracting 6 dB
from the measured values to extrapolate to an equivalent reading at 15. 24m
(50 feet). If the level at 7. 6m (25 feet) was not 10 dB above ambient
levels on a reasonably quiet day, this point was noted as well as the
measured level and ambient level. The sound level for each side of the
vehicle was the average of the two highest readings which were within
2 dB of each other. The sound level reported was that of the loudest
side of the vehicle. Tests were made with all windows fully closed
and the vehicle accessories such as heater, air conditioner, or
defroster (radio excluded) in operation at their highest apparent noise
level.
Interior sound level determinations were the same as exterior
except that the microphone was located 0. 152m (6 inches) to the right
41
-------
side of the driver's right ear. All other test procedures were as pre-
sented in J986a.
b. Constant Speed Drive-by
The exterior noise level with the vehicle passing by the
microphone at a distance of 15. 24m (50 feet) was measured. The vehicle
was in high gear and driven smoothly at 48.3 km/hr (30 mph) ± 5 percent.
As in the accel test, the measurement was made at 7. 6m (25 ft) if "fast"
meter response was not 10 dB above ambient noise level on the "A
weighted" scale. Six dB was subtracted from the measured values to
extrapolate to an equivalent reading at 50 feet. Interior sound level
determinations were made in the same manner as during the accel test.
The sound level reported for this test was obtained in the manner out-
lined in the acceleration test already described.
c. Idle
This test included sound level measurements at 3. 05m (10 ft)
distances from the front, rear, left (street side) and right (curb side) of
the vehicle. The vehicle was parked and engine allowed to run at manu-
facturer's recommended low idle speed with transmission in neutral for
at least one minute. Accessory items such as air conditioner or heater
and defroster (radio excluded) operated at their highest apparent noise
level. The sound level meter was positioned 3.05m from each bumper
mid-way between the sides of the car and 3. 05m from each side mid-way
between the front and rear bumpers at 1. 22m (4 ft) height above the
ground. The vehicle was then turned around and headed in the opposite
direction and measurements repeated. Interior measurements were
also obtained at the same single point used in drive-by tests.
Figure 11 contains six photographs taken during typical noise
tests of the cars. The two top photos give some idea of the course and
the type of terrain where measurements were taken. The course was
identical to that employed in the earlier work with the Mercedes 220
diesel as part of the Federal Clean Car Incentive Test Plan project
conducted in 1971 for EPAv^l). in fact, the test procedure described
earlier in this subsection was identical to that developed and used in
1971. Figure 11 center photos also show typical locations around the
car during the idle test.
The General Radio Precision sound level instrument is shown
in the two lower photos of Figure 11. The left photo shows the tripod-
held meter at 15. 24m (50 ft) from the test course as a test car entered
the "gate". The right photo shows the hand-held meter adjacent to
the driver's right ear during the interior measurements.
42
-------
FIGURE 11. NOISE EVALUATION OF DIESEL,, STRATIFIED
CHARGE AND GASOLINE TEST CARS
43
-------
IV. RESULTS
For simplicity, the results are described in the same order as the
Experimental Test Plan, Table 3, and SectionlllD, Procedures and Analysis,
were discussed.
A.
Light Duty 1975 FTP Results
The contractual requirement to report all data and results in
modernized metric units (SI) requires a statement of equivalent emis-
sion standards for 1973 and later model year light duty cars in grams
per kilometer (g/km) for understanding. Table 5 lists the HC, CO, and
NOX limits in g/km with those published in appropriate Federal Registers
in g/mile in parentheses. The conversion was based on 1. 609 km equal
to 1 mile and were rounded to the same number of decimals as the
published limit. The metric equivalent levels are approximately 62 per-
cent of the mixed metric-English units.
TABLE 5. FEDERAL LIGHT DUTY EMISSION STANDARDS
Year
Units
1973-1974
1975 Interim
Original
1975 Statutory
1977 Statutory
1978 Statutory
g/km
(g/mile)
g/km
(g/mile)
g/km
(g/mile)
g/km
(g/mile)
g/km
(g/mile)
HC
2. 1
(3.4)
0.9
(1.5)
0. 25
(0.41)
0. 25
(0.41)
0. 25
(0.41)
CO
24
(39)
9.3
(15)
2. 1
(3.4)
2. 1
(3.4)
2. 1
(3.4)
NOX
1.9
(3.0)
1.9
(3.1)
1.9
(3. 1)
1.3
(2.0)
0.25
(0.40)
1. HC, CO, and NOX Emission Rates
Table 6 lists the replicate run results and their average for the
seven cars tested by the 1975 LD FTP. CO, NOX, and HC by two methods
are listed in g/km. In the case of the four diesel cars and the diesel-
fueled TCCS Cricket, the HC by continuous method should be used in
comparing to the Table 5 standards. The bag method HC results for the
gasoline powered PROCO Capri, TCCS Cricket, and CVCC Honda should
be compared to the standards as this is the proper method for gasoline
cars. It is interesting to consider the differences in HC by bag and
44
-------
TABLE 6. 1975 FTP LIGHT DUTY EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY RESULTS
Diesel Powered
Stratified Charge Powered
Emission Category
CO, g/km
NOX, g/km
HC, g/km
bag method(l)
HC, g/km
Continuous' ^'
Fuel Economy
Carbon Balance
km/litre
(Based on HC Cent)
Fuel Economy
Weighed
km/litre
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
Nissan
Summe r
0.95
0.85
0.60
0.94
0.84
0.98
0. 98
0.89
0.94
0.95
0. 11
0. 10
0. 09
0. 12
0. 11
0. 22
0.22
0.21
0.22
0. 22
10.3
10.6
11.3
10.3
10. 6
10. 0
10.3
10. 2
10.2
10. 2
Mercedes
220D
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
• o.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
11.
11.
11.
12.
12.
10.
11.
11.
11.
11.
88
60
59
55
66
73
82
72
74
75
08
08
07
06
07
14
15
17
14
15
9
7
9
8
1
5
2
2
4
1
Peugeot
504D
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
11.
11.
11.
11.
11.
10.
9.
10.
10.
10.
57
47
26
56
47
63
63
61
59
62
38
37
33
37
36
25
30
10
21
22
2
0
2
9
3
1
3
3
4
.0
Opel
Rekord
0.72
0.63
0.51
0.58
0.61
0.83
0.89
0. 77
0.77
0.82
0.09
0. 10
0.09
0. 10
0. 10
0.21
0.22
0.22
0.29
0. 24
10.4
11. 1
11.6
11. 1
11. 1
9.5
10. 1
10.5
10.8
10.2
Ford
PROCO
0.43
0.43
0.61
0.77
0.56
0.88
0.89
0.84
0.96
0.89
0. 10
0.07
0. 22
0. 13
0. 13
0.05
0.07
0. 17
0. 14
0. 11
10.4
10.7
10. 2
10.3
10.4
8.9
9.5
9.8
10. 1
9.6
Texaco TCCS
Diesel
0.88
0.87
0.87
_
0.86
1.25
1.48
1. 07
-
1. 27
0. 47
0. 54
0.51
_
0.51
1. 06
1.35
1. 24
_
1. 22
11. 7
11. 7
11.8
-
11.7
11.4
11.9
11.6
.
11.6
Honda
Gasoline CVCC
0.27
0.21
0.21
_
0.23
1. 16
1.33
1. 21
-
1.23
0.66
0.72
0.77
_
0.72
0.74
0.68
0. 59
_
0.67
11.4
9.9
10.5
-
10. 6
10.2
10.7
10.7
_
10. 5
3. 50
3.25
3. 19
-
3.31
0.97
0.95
0. 92
-
0.95
0.57
0.54
0.50
.
0.54
0.54
0.66
0.51
-
0.57
9.8
11.2
9.9
.
10.3
10. 1
10. 1
10. 5
-
10.2
Reference 20 for Light Duty Gasoline
(2>By Reference 4 for Light Duty Diesel
-------
continuous methods for the two types of cars. In the original work with
the Mercedes diesel car several years ago'*' *', it was shown that the
bag collected sample from the CVS would understate the actual diese.l HC
value as obtained by integrating a hot, continuously analyzed, sample by
about 50 percent.
The HC (bag) to HC (cont) ratio for the Nissan was 0.49, the
Mercedes was 0.48, the Peugeot was 0.30 and the Opel was 0.41 based
on the average data listed in Table 6. The overall ratio for the four
diesels is 0.42 or the bag method measures only about 42 percent of
that by the continuous hot technique. In the case of the gasoline car,
the continuous method was used as an experiment since no previous data
has been published. The diesel hot FID was reduced from the usual
190°C (375°F) to 71 °C (160°F) because of the lower boiling range and
lack of knowledge of HC measurement of gasoline exhaust at elevated
temperatures. The 71 °C (160°F) was an arbitrary level to prevent
possible moisture condensation and is consistent with other work
performed with the specific analyzer. A lower temperature of 38-52°C
(100 or 125 °F) could be used since the flow is diluted and moisture
condensation thereby prevented.
The average bag results for the PROCO, TCCS, and CVCC
gasoline cars were 118, 107, and 95 percent of the average continuous
HC, respectively. The overall average of 102 percent means the bag
and continuous results are essentially identical. It is unknown whether
this ratio is appropriate to gasoline cars in general or is somewhat
dependent on the specific CVS and HC FID analyzer employed. Perhaps
a much more inclusive project should be run where the same Beckman
400 analyzer used on the bag cart is used to monitor continuously the
diluted CVS flow. The plan of test involved the same diesel FID for
continuous analysis on both gasoline and diesel cars. These three cars
did cover a range of combustion systems that, except for the Honda CVCC,
used oxidation catalysts.
The Table 6 average CO, HC, and NOX g/km emission rates may
be directly compared to the Federal standards listed in Table 5. The
original 1975 Federal statutory limit of 0.25 g/km (0.41 g/mi) HC was
met by all cars except the Peugeot 504D, the Texaco TCCS, and Honda
CVCC. CO was, for most cars, substantially below the original 1975
standard of 2. 1 g/km (3.4 g/mi). The Peugeot hydrocarbons are
known to be considered typical of their early production fuel injection
system. This system has been reported to have been revised by the
manufacturer such that hydrocarbon emissions are better controlled.
How much improvement is possible remains to be verified. It is quite
likely, based on the ease with which the Mercedes 220D diesel meets the
1977 and 1978 HC limit, that the Peugeot can be modified to meet the
0. 25 g/km (0.41 g/mi) HC limit.
46
-------
NOX from the diesel fueled cars was within the 1977 statutory
NOX limit of 1. 3 g/km (2. 0 g/mi). All of the seven cars tested fell short
of meeting the 1978 statutory limit (original 1976 statutory) limit of 0. 25
g/km (0.40 g/mi) NOX. In general, this is the most difficult to all known
regulations on tailpipe emissions to meet and the range of the four diesels
of 0. 62 to 0.95 g/km NOX is about 2. 5 to 3.8 times the limit specified
in the 1970 Amendments to the Clean Air Act. The four stratified charge
cars ranged from 0. 89 to 1. 27 g/km, substantially higher than the limit
by about a factor of four.
The potential for reducing NOX to the 0. 25 g/km level is uncertain
for these cars. In the case of the diesel, insufficient research has been
conducted to even offer an appraisal of the possibilities. There has been
no incentive to conduct the needed research since until recently, the
Mercedes 220D was the only diesel car offered in the U.S. and its sales
have been limited. The uncertainties regarding the 0.25 g/km (0.4
g/mi) NOX limit and whether it will be modified by subsequent amend-
ments to the Clean Air Act have deferred industry research on the low
NOX diesel. In the event the 1. 3 g/km (2. 0 g/mi) interim limit is
retained, then little change is apparently needed to meet such levels
by these seven cars. NOX levels lower than 1. 3 g/km will require further
research and development to demonstrate.
2. Fuel Economy
The fuel economy results are also shown on the bottom of Table 6.
Listed first are the carbon balance results using the Federal Test Method
based on the 1975 FTP. These results are based on the continuous HC
measurements by heated FID. The repeatability of the carbon balance
based km/litre fuel consumption values was quite good just as the emis-
sions data were considered quite satisfactory. Listed at the bottom of
Table 6 are fuel economy values, based on direct weighing of the fuel.
Repeatability of this method based on dividing the total fuel consumed
by the distance traveled of 17.86 km (11. 1 mi) is considered satisfactory.
This method does not, by necessity, include the 43 and 57 percent
weighting factors used in the carbon balance method with the three-bag
1975 FTP. It was not practical to separately weigh the fuel consumed
during the first 505 seconds of the cold start 23 minute run by the equip-
ment used.
The carbon balance method requires accurate measurement of
CC>2 and accurate CVS air flow calibration using the propane check.
Experience from these and a number of other simultaneous gravimetric-
carbon balance fuel economy tests at Southwest Research Institute has
shown agreement within ten percent. Usually the agreement is much
better. Note the difference in methods for the Nissan was 4 percent,
Mercedes 8 percent, Peugeot 11 percent, Opel and PROCO 8 percent,
and 1 percent for the Texaco TCCS and Honda CVGC. Note that in each
47
-------
case, the gravimetric method was lower, indicating poorer fuel economy,
km/litre, than the carbon balance method. The consistent difference
indicates either the CVS carbon balance method did not completely re-
constitute the fuel consumed either due to CVS calibration accuracy,
CC>2 determination, etc., assuming the weighting factors discussed
earlier have little effect, or the gravimetric system is inaccurate and
over-rates fuel consumed during the run. As far as the test experience
at SwRI indicates, there is not enough known to explain all the possible
differences in the two methods. Perhaps the extent to which both agree
is in reality quite satisfactory when the vageries of both methods are
considered.
3. Comparison to EPA and Previous SwRI Results
The CVS and attendant systems employed were carefully calibrated
and checked according to the strict procedures specified by EPA. As a
measure of the apparent accuracy of the SwRI results, they are compared
on Table 7 relative to the results of two similar runs made by EPA in
the Ann Arbor laboratories prior to shipment of the cars to SwRI. The
results of the two EPA runs, provided for general information, are
averaged. The average of the two EPA tests and the replicate SwRI
tests indicate excellent agreement in most cases. In essence, these
seven vehicles form an extensive cross-check of low emission vehicles
between the two laboratories and attest to the fact that very similar
results can be obtained by two laboratories using the same procedures,
if done carefully. All SwRI gas analyzer calibration curves are in terms
of EPA named "golden standard gases".
Two vehicles lacked the laboratory to laboratory agreement
common with the other five. In the case of the Peugeot, there was a
noticeable difference between the two laboratories, specifically in HC.
This difference all but disappeared after the vehicle was retested on its
return to EPA at the conclusion of the SwRI tests, thereby validating the
SwRI four-run average. The Honda CVCC powered Civic car HC and
CO did not correlate well between the EPA and SwRI data as shown in
Table 7.
To investigate whether driver had an effect on the results of the
Honda CVCC Civic car, Mr. Jerry Douyard of the EPA Ann Arbor
laboratory drove several tests back-to-back with SwRI driver Tom Jack
on November 11 and 12, 1974. In the three-month interim between July
25 and November 11, 1974, the Honda car was subjected to a wide variety
of operation for evaluation of smoke, noise, odor and gaseous emissions
by the 13-mode test. The 13-mode test, performed just prior to the
operation with Mr. Douyard, is the most difficult test procedure in terms
of engine performance.
The results of the two cold starts are summarized on the next page.
48
-------
TABLE 7. COMPARISON OF SwRI AND EPA AVERAGE 1975 LD FTP RESULTS
Emission Lab
HC
CO
NO,
EPA
SwRI
EPA
SwRI
EPA
SwRI
EPA
SwRI
Run
1
2
Avg.
Avg.
1
2
Avg.
Avg.
1
2
Avg.
Avg.
1
2
Avg.
Avg.
Nissan Mercedes
Datsun 220D
Peugeot Opel
504D Rekord
Emissions, Grams per Kilometer
0. 12 0. 17 2. 03 0. 24
0. 16 0. 19 2. 11 0. 24
0. 14
0. 22
0.88
0. 79
0.84
0.84
0.89
0.80
0.85
0.95
Fuel
11. 8
12. 0
11.9
10. 6
0. 18
0. 15
0.69
0. 68
0. 69
0.66
0.99
1. 04
2.07
1. 22
2.53
2.50
2.52
1.47
0. 66
0. 70
1.02 0.68
0.75 0.62
Economy, km/litre - Carbon
11.3 9.9
12.5 9.6
11.9
12. 1
9.8
11. 3
0. 24
0.24
0. 75
0. 74
0. 75
0. 61
0.80
0.80
0.80
0.82
Balance
10. 1
10. 1
10. 1
11. 1
Capri
PROCO
0. 10
0.09
0. 10
0.13*1)
0.52
0. 20
0. 36
0.56
0.90
0.96
0.93
0.89
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.4(1)
TCCS
Diesel
No
EPA
Data
1. 22
0.48
0. 72
0.60
0.86
1. 09
1. 17
1. 13
1.27
12.3
11. 8
12. 1
11.7
Honda
CVCC
11.7
10.7
11.2
10.2
(l)Bag HC
-------
g/km . km/1
Date Driver HC CO NOX Economy
11-11-74 Jack 0.26 2.53 0.73 10.46
11-12-74 Douyard 0.37 2.33 0.63 10.54
These results may be compared to those obtained earlier and summarized
on Table 7, keeping in mind the time and operation of the engine in the
interim. HC by driver Jack were essentially identical to EPA data of
0. 24 g/km and, for some unknown reason, half the 0. 54 g/km found
earlier by SwRI. Both cold start runs, made on November 11 and 12,
1974, were made with the emergency brake set, the front wheel restraint
chain looser than normal, and the ignition key intentionally held in start
position with starter operating for five seconds. The cold start on
November 11, 1974, by SwRI driver Jack was with 3 second hold period.
The cold start CO values were less than the 3. 31 g/km measured
earlier by SwRI but still above those measured by EPA of 1.96 g/km.
The two drivers had results that repeated satisfactorily. NOX by both
drivers was less than either EPA or SwRI results listed on Table 7.
During a thorough review of SwRI cold start procedures, it was found
that the only difference of possible concern was the five second starter
engagement during cold start. The printed instructions as furnished with
the car implied an approximate five-second cranking time. This is the
only car known to have a manual starter engagement of 5 seconds even
with the engine already idling and this procedure as an emission certifi-
cation requirement is seriously questioned. If such a requirement is
deemed necessary by the manufacturer, then it should be in a programmed,
automatic starting sequence like the gas turbine engine.
To investigate possible driver differences further, general back-
to-back hot start tests were made which involved only the 23-minute first
two bags of the 1975 FTP. The results are listed below:
g/km km /I
Date Driver HC CO NOX Economy
11-11-74 Jack 0.26 1.65 0.74 10.62.
Douyard 0.25 1.55 0.65 10.84
Jack 0.24 1.54 0.70 10.87
Douyard 0.31 1.57 0.66 10.93
11-12-74 Jack 0.22 1.46 0.67 10.37
Jack 0.23 1.44 0.70 11.06
The above results indicate no specific trends were apparent due to driver.
50
-------
The last run on November 12, 1974, was made without holding the starter
on for five seconds, with the tighter restraining tension and without the
emergency brakes set. Comparing this final hot start against the other
hot starts makes any specific conclusion regarding the restraint, etc. ,
difficult. There seems to be little significance in these differences.
In summary of the additional Honda retesting, lower HC was
found, essentially equal to that reported by EPA. CO and fuel economy
was less than originally found by SwRI but greater than the EPA figures.
NOX was slightly below both original EPA and SwRI data. The reasons
for these changes in values are unknown. The same driver, CVS,
dynamometer, and inertia settings, bag cart, gas standards, gasoline,
etc. , were employed. Apparently the driver used by SwRI was not
noticeably different from the driver used in the EPA tests from the
cold and hot start back-to-back results.
One final comparison of the data is the currently tested Mercedes
220D with two similarly tested Mercedes 220D passenger cars reported
in reference 1. In the previous test work, SwRI reported 0. 54 g HC/km,
1. 00 g CO/km, and 1. 14 g NOx/km and EPA, on a separate series of
tests with a different car, reported 0. 22 g HC/km, 0.86 g CO/km, and
0.96 g NOx/km. Referring to Table 6, the SwRI results on this third
Mercedes 220D are substantially lower in HC and somewhat lower in CO
and NOX than previous test results. One reason for the lower HC and
CO was the use of an improved injection system featuring fuel "reverse
flow dampening valves" at each injector for improved fuel injection.
The reason for the lower NOX from this recent test series is not
known. Later tests (discussed in the next section) revealed the fuel rate
of the Mercedes engine was below specification at maximum power. It
is doubtful this had a sufficient effect on NO during the transient LA-4
driving schedule to account for the difference since the driving cycle
does not require much full power operation. NOX is a direct function of
power developed but, in the LA-4, the power required is dictated
basically by vehicle weight in terms of inertia and to a lesser extent by
road load.
4. Oxygenates
Several other emissions were measured during the course of the
LD 1975 FTP. Table 8 lists the oxygenates and DOAS results based on
a total single integrated sample of the entire 31.4 minute run. Aliphatic
aldehydes are listed first and are computed in terms of grams of formal-
dehyde per km (density of formaldehyde is 0.814 g/litre), followed by
formaldehyde. Acrolein, another partial oxygenate, is listed next based
on a density of 2. 29 g/litre. The MBTH and chromatropic acid methods
51
-------
TABLE 8. OXYGENATES AND DOAS RESULTS - 1975 FTP
Emission Category
Aldehydes, g/kn^1)
Formaldehyde, g/km
Acrolein, g/km
DOAS(2) TIA
LCO.^.g/1
LCA./.g/l
Run
No.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
Z
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
Nissan
Summer
0.0251
0.0248
0.0329
0.0316
0.0287
0.0216
0.0186
0.0189
0.0237
0.0210
0.0235
0.0233
O.OZ16
0.0222
0.0237
0.9
0.8
ND
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
ND
1.0
0.8
7.5
6.4
ND
12. 1
8.7
Mercedes Peugeot
220D 504D
0.0161
0.0150
0.0147
0.0192
0.0160
0.0069
0.0136
0.0077
0.0128
0.010
0.0098
0.0134
0.0079
0.0140
0.0117
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
2.0
4.7
4.0
6.2
4.2
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
24.
28.
20.
23.
24.
0383
0991
0940
0984
0820
0275
0463
0442
0680
0463
0454
0588
0493
0478
0474
2
3
2
2
2
6
8
5
5
6
1
7
3
5
2
Opel
Rekord
0.0202
0.0191
0.0237
0.0269
0.0223
0.0174
0.0180
0.0153
0.0198
0.0175
0.0177
0.0234
0.0176
0.0199
0.0196
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
3.3
3. 1
6.4
4.7
4.4
Capri
PROCO
0.0081
0.0081
0.0073
0.0087
0.0081
0.0025
0.0019
0.0012
0.0019
0.0019
0
0
0
0
0
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
Texaco TCCS
Diesel
0.
0.
0.
- i»
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
25.
27.
27.
26.
0903
0868
1026
0932
0504
0676
0656
-
0612
0244
0333
0289
0289
2
2
4
3
5
6
8
6
4
1
0
5
Gasoline
0.056]
0. 0499
0. 0300
-
0.0453
0.0225
0.0258
0.0231
-
0.0247
0.0141
0.0137
0.0083
0.0120
0.5
0.5
0.5
_
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.3
_
0.3
4. 1
2. 1
2.9
..
3.0
Honda
cvcc
0.0412
0.0429
0,0334
_
0.0392
0.0252
0.0272
0.0231
.
0.0252
0.0159
0.0174
0.0058
0.0130
0.3
0.3
0.3
_ •
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
_
0.2
4.5
5.4
3.8
_
4.5
(!)MBTH Aliphatic Aldehydes as Formaldehyde.
(2)CRC CAPE 7 Odor Instrument
-------
have been conventionally used to measure aliphatic aldehydes and
formaldehyde for lack of a better method. The precision of both
methods, when applied to diesel exhaust, has been uncertain since
insufficient research on interferences, calibrations, oxygenate
balances, etc. , has been performed. Accordingly, the oxygenate
data, aldehydes, formaldehyde and acrolein, are presented for
possible use in predicting exhaust odor and should be used only for
relative comparisons.
The nature of the experiments, involving wet collection and
subsequent colorimetric determination, precludes highly repeatable
measurements. Until an improved oxygenate analysis method is
developed, these measurements will likely continue to have unex-
plained high or low values, making replicate measurements mandatory.
Generally, unburned hydrocarbons and partially oxygenated
materials go together, the more HC, the more aldehydes, formaldehyde
and acrolein. Considering the HC in Table 6, it may be seen that as
HC was less for the Mercedes, so were all three oxygenate measure-
ments. And, as HC was substantially higher for the Peugeot, so were
all three oxygenates. The Nissan and Opel engines produced fairly
similar 0.22 and 0.24 g HC/km. Aldehyde, formaldehyde, and acrolein
results were all slightly lower for the Opel than the Nissan, a "reversal"
if small variations or differences can be considered valid trends.
Of importance was the substantially lower oxygenates (aldehydes,
formaldehyde, and acrolein) during the 1975 FTP of the PROCO as
related to the diesel cars and other stratified charge cars. Recall that
a fairly good trend was established between HC and oxygenates by the
four diesels. Although the LA-4 FTP HC results are only slightly
lower for the PROCO than the Mercedes, the aldehydes and formal-
dehyde rates were quite low. Aldehydes from the PROCO were one-
half and formaldehyde one-eighth that of the Mercedes. The HC for the
gasoline fueled Texaco TCCS and Honda CVCC were about five to six
times that of the PROCO and aldehydes likewise were five to six times
different. Formaldehyde was ten times higher from the other stratified
charge gasoline cars as compared to the PROCO formaldehyde g/km
results. Acrolein could not be acceptably measured with the PROCO.
Perhaps the oxidation catalyst equipped PROCO was effective in completing
combustion of the partially oxygenated materials. This would be a note-
worthy reason for catalysts if so, because some catalysts have been
known to increase partial oxygenates under some conditions.
The oxygenate results can be compared to those reported earlier
by SwRI in references 1 and 3. The average Mercedes 220D results from
the 1971 tests were 0. 012 g/km aldehydes, and 0. 009 g/km formaldehyde,
and 0.008 g/km acrolein. These values were based on using slowly
53
-------
bubbled exhaust from large bags instead of continuous collection through-
out the run. The results do not compare too well when the exhaust HC
differences are taken into consideration. It may be the previous bag
method allowed condensation or other possible losses not accounted for
and eliminated by the preferred continuous on-stream bubbling collection
trap method used in this project.
Tests with a gasoline powered Mercedes 220 passenger car, also
reported in References 1 and 3, indicated a much higher, four-fold
higher, aldehyde value of 0.051 g/km and 0.047 g/km formaldehyde and
0.037 g/km acrolein. These increases tended to be consistent with
the substantially higher HC for the gasoline than the diesel Mercedes
220. The gasoline powered cars similarly tested in this project resulted
in varying results which are difficult to sort out due to the possible
effect of the different catalysts used.
The PROCO was oxidation catalyst equipped and perhaps this
combination of catalyst and stratified charge is the reason for the very
low oxygenates even though gasoline-fueled. The TCCS, gasoline
powered, gave much higher oxygenates yet on a par with the average of
the four diesels. The TCCS was also equipped with an oxidation catalyst
system, different from that used on the PROCO. Apparently this
stratified charge-oxidation catalyst combination was not as effective
on oxygenates. The Honda CVCC does not use a catalyst and yet its
oxygenate values were quite consistent with the TCCS. This analysis
and rough comparison to previous work is interesting yet far from
conclusive. More work is necessary to separate the effect of the
specific catalyst systems on oxygenate removal versus conventional
and stratified charge gasoline engine oxygenate production.
5. DOAS Results by CAPE-7 Instrument
The bottom half of Table 8 lists the DOAS results obtained during
the 1975 FTP. The total intensity of aroma (TIA) values are listed first,
followed by the LCO and LCA values in micro-grams per litre. In
essence, these values represent specific fractions of the organic or
unburned fuel matter in the exhaust. The repeatability of measurement
of the DOAS values during the entire 1975 FTP is somewhat like the
formaldehyde, aldehyde, and acrolein measurements described earlier.
In a word, the repeatability is haphazard and a number of replicate
samples seem necessary to obtain a concensus. Prior to this test
series, however, such measurements had never been done and for an
experiment, the results and procedures look promising.
As with the oxygenate measurements, it is helpful to consider
the correlation of the DOAS results to the HC results on Table 6 and the
oxygenates. The LCO, TIA (TIA is 1 + logjo LC°) and LCA were low
54
-------
as were the Mercedes HC and were high along with the Peugeot HC. The
LCO and LCA values then decreased with the lower HC from the Opel.
Recall the Opel and Nissan had about the same HC emission rate. The
LCO (and TLA) values are fairly similar for the Nissan and Opel, but
the LCA for the Opel was half that of the Nissan. This is quite interesting
with regard to there being a possible shift in HC distribution to much
fewer aromatics from the Opel.
The three gasoline powered stratified charge cars (PROCO, TCCS,
and CVCC) had consistently low TIA (and LCO) values. The LCA, however,
was low only for the PROCO, with the gasoline TCCS and Honda CVCC LCA
approximately the same as the Mercedes 220D and Opel Rekord. The
diesel fueled TCCS TIA, LCO, and LCA were almost identical to the
Peugeot 504D. The diesel TCCS had double the HC (from Table 6) and
oxygenates (from Table 8) as the gasoline fueled TCCS, but the TIA,
LCO, and especially the LCA were significantly greater. The five to
six-fold increase in HC and oxygenates for the TCCS (gasoline) and
CVCC relative to the PROCO was not found in terms of TIA or LCO.
The TIA, LCO and LCA results for the gasoline powered vehicles
represent a first attempt to use the DOAS with a fuel it was not originally
intended to be used with. Accordingly, the results with the three gasoline
fueled cars should not be considered in the same way as the five diesel
fueled cars. The instrument was developed by ADL for diesel exhaust
only and neither the interface or trapping media are necessarily ap-
propriate to gasoline exhaust. Its performance in relationships with
hydrocarbons or other oxygenate readings should be used with caution.
The possibility of measuring odor by use of the DOAS during a
transient driving procedure is of some interest. This work has been
helpful in this regard and represents a first. The long-term use of
this method lies in the strength of the correlation between a trained
panel of observers, odor panel, and the LCO-TIA results. To be able
to use the method with the 1975 FTP, this relationship must be first
demonstrated during a number of steady state operating conditions.
This will be described in Subsection C of the Results.
6. Light HC and HC Distribution
Table 9 lists the light hydrocarbon and gas-liquid chromatograph
HC distribution results from a single run of the four replicate 1975 FTP
experiments. The light HC consist of methane, ethylene, ethane,
acetylene, propane, and propylene by GC analysis of the CVS sample
bags. Butane was not present in detectable levels by the method used.
In some instances, such as the Nissan, PROCO, TCCS and CVCC, the
methane present in the first bag, the 505 second cold start portion of
the test, was much greater than during bags 2 and 3. Ethane, where
55
-------
TABLE 9. LIGHT HYDROCARBON ANALYSIS AND GC HYDROCARBON
DISTRIBUTION RESULTS FOR ONE(l) 1975 Lrj, FTP
Exhaust Emission
Light hydrocarbons
Methane, ppmC
Ethylene, ppmC
Ethane, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propane, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
lag
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
1
Z
3
1
2
3
1
2
3
Nissan
Datsun
7.9
Z.9
2.9
3.0
0.9
1. 1
0. 3
0. 1
0.0
1.2
0.3
0. 5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.6
0.0
0.0
Mercedes
Z20D
3.0
3.3
3.0
0.7
0.4
0.6
0. 1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0. Z
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Peugeot
504D
3.5
3.5
3.8
3.4
2.8
4.0
0. 1
0.0
0.0
1. 1
0.7
1.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.9
1.3
Opel
Rekord
3.0
3.2
2.9
1.8
0.7
1.3
0. 1
0.0
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.0
Capri
PROCO
12.5
1.5
2.4
3.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0. 1
0.0
5.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
Texaco
Diesel
23.5
9.0
10.7
28.2
2.8
10. 1
2.5
0.7
0.7
10.4
0.6
2.3
0.2
0. 2
0.2
9. 1
1.4
3.8
TCCS(4)
Gasoline
4.4
2. 5
2.6
5.3
1.3
2.4
0.6
0.3
0.5
1. 1
0.0
0.2
0.5
0.0
0. 1
3.5
0.6
1.7
Honda
CVCC
8.2
1.2
2.0
21.2
4. 1
5.7
1.3
0.7
0.5
9.0
2.0
3. 2
0.0
0.0
0.0
11. 1
1.0
2. 1
HC Distribution, mole
'C1Z
C12-C13
C14-C15
C16-C17
C20+
3.8
14.2
36.5
26.7
17.0
1.8
3.6
14.0
36.8
27. 1
16.8
1.7
3.7
14. 1
37.2
27.3
16.6
1. 1
3.4
14.2
36.6
26.3
16.9
1.6
NR( '
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
3.5
14.3
37.0
26.5
16.8
1.9
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
H)Run 4 Diesel Cars, Run 3 PROCO
(2>HC distribution based on DOAS chromosorb 102 trapped
sample for odor analysis
(3)NR - Not Run, Elution Solvent Interference
(4)Average of 3 runs
56
-------
detectable, tended to follow the same trend as methane. Propane was
only found in the TCCS exhaust.
Ethylene, acetylene, and propylene concentrations were con-
sistently higher during bags 1 and 3, the cold and hot start 505 second
portions of the test except for the PROCO. In the case of acetylene and
propylene, none was found in the second and third bags from the PROCO,
indicating the importance of warm-up and, of course, activation of the
oxidation catalyst. Some idea of relative oxidation tendency of the four
light HC's measured can be seen from the PROCO data. More or less,
the four diesels acted like the PROCO when it came to acetylene and
propylene. The Nissan and the Opel both had propylene present only
in the first bag. Recall the Mercedes to have the lowest exhaust HC
of the four diesels, the Peugeot the highest, and the Opel and Nissan
about the same. This same trend is followed overall for the four
diesels with respect to the four light hydrocarbons measured.
Of the three stratified charge (gasoline fueled), the TCCS was
lowest in light HC concentrations overall and the PROCO highest in
methane and CVCC highest in ethylene, ethane, acetylene, and pro-
pylene. The diesel fueled TCCS was highest in nearly all light
hydrocarbons tested of all cars and all three bags.
In the lower half of Table 9 are the single LA-4 test HC distri-
bution using the solvent extracted DOAS trapped sample injected into
a temperature programmed GLC. The HC distribution results are in
terms of carbon number and are grouped as less than Cj2> greater than
C2Q> an<3 at four groupings in between. This analysis is only appropriate
to diesel fuel or middle distillate, higher boiling range, fuels. The
gasoline powered PROCO, TCCS, or CVCC were not appropriate for
this technique even though a trap sample was obtained for the DOAS
instrument.
The mole percent gives an idea of the distribution of various
molecular weight or boiling range materials. Note that C 14 through Ciy
accounts for over 60 mole percent of the HC in the exhaust. Also note
that about 3. 5 to 4 mole percent of the HC are below Cj2- It is
interesting to note the uniformity of the exhaust from the four diesels
and the diesel fueled TCCS. The fuel was identical in all tests and if
it is assumed that the majority of the HC in the exhaust is indeed raw,
unburned fuel, then it follows the GL/C trace and resulting peaks should
be very similar and calculated mole percents should be close. HC in
the exhaust are not completely unburned fuel but apparently, they were
not sufficiently affected by variations in the diesel engines to give
markedly different HC distributions.
7. Additional Detail
57
-------
Appendix A contains the full series of test data and computer
print-outs for the replicate LA-4 1975 LD FTP run for all cars thus
tested. The Appendix is organized by car; Nissan, Mercedes, Peugeot,
Opel, PROCO, TCCS and CVCC, the same order tested and the same
order listed on the text tables. Appendix Tables A-l through A-4 are
the Nissan results by continuous heated FID for HC. Tables A-5 through
A-8 are the same four runs but based on HC measured from the CVS
sample bags.
In like manner, Tables A-9 through A-16 are for the Mercedes
220D, Tables A- 17 through A-24 are for the Peugeot, Tables A-25
through A-32 are for the Opel and Tables A-33 through A-40 are for
the PROCO tests. Tables A-41 through A-47 are the TCCS (diesel),
and Tables A-48 through A-55 are the TCCS (gasoline), while Tables
A-56 through A-62 are for the Honda CVCC. Half of the tables of each
set are continuous heated FIA and the other half are based on HC as
measured by the conventional CVS bag. The continuous method results
are most appropriate for the diesels while the bag HC results are proper
for the gasoline powered vehicles.
B. 1974 HD Gaseous Emissions FTP Results
Table 10 lists the individual run results of the replicate gaseous
emissions tests by the chassis alternative 1974 HD 13-mode procedure.
The values are in grams of emission per kilowatt-hour (g/kw-hr). One
g/bhp-hr equals 1.34 g/kw-hr. Generally two or three complete 13-
mode tests were made and the repeatability found to be excellent.
Comparing the various cars, the Nissan and Mercedes had almost
identically low HC and CO. The TCCS operating on either gasoline or
diesel fuel had the lowest CO of all cars at a nominal 2 g/kw-hr. The
Opel had slightly higher HC and CO than the Nissan and Mercedes. The
Peugeot had the highest HC of all the cars by this test with the TCCS
next highest followed by the PROCO and the Honda CVCC. CO was
highest from the PROCO at 75. 6 g/kw-hr and the Honda at 60. 7 g/kw-hr
next highest. The Peugeot was next highest at 7. 3 g/kw-hr, about one-
tenth that of the PROCO and CVCC.
ranged from 3.71 for the Peugeot to 8.91 g/kw-hr for the
CVCC. The range of values for the four diesels was 3. 71 to 6. 77
g/kw-hr. Except for the PROCO, with NO2 of 5.73 g/kw-hr, the other
stratified charge cars had higher NO2, in the range of 8 to 9 g/kw-hr.
This is about 50 to 75 percent greater than the values for the four diesels.
Combined HC+NO2 for all cars ranged from 5. 27 and 5. 49
(Nissan and Opel) up to 12.36 g/kw-hr for the TCCS gasoline. The
three stratified charge cars gave HC+NO_ on the order of 9 to 12 g/kw-hr.
58
-------
TABLE 10.
AVERAGE 13-MODE GASEOUS EMISSIONS TEST RESULTS
(Chassis Alternative of Federal Procedure)
grams per kw-hr
Emission
Rate
HC
CO
NO,
HC+NO«
2
Run
No.
1
2
3
Avg.
1
2
3
Avg.
1
2
3
Avg.
1
2
3
Avg.
Nissan
Summer
0.455
0.428
0.436
0.44
4.705
5. 139
5. 142
4.99
4.695
4.897
4.897
4.83
5. 150
5.324
5.333
5.27
Mercedes
220D
0.474
0.439
0.417
0.44
5. 155
4. 909
4.973
5.01
6.694
6.865
6.746
6.77
7. 168
7.304
7. 162
7.21
Peugeot
504D
5. 759
5. 660
5. 750
5. 72
7.440
7.032
7.420
7.29
3.534
3.657
3.951
3.71
9.293
9.316
9.701
9.44
Opel
Rekord
0. 738
0.758
0. 763
0. 75
4.979
5.098
5. 272
5. 12
4.662
4.876
3.726
4.42
5.400
5. 634
4.489
5. 17
Capri
PROCO
3.523
4.016
3. 77
71.456
79.789
75. 62
5.950
5.501
5.73
9.473
9.517
9.50
Texaco
Gasoline
4. 028
4.872
-
4.45
1.093
1.223
-
1.16
8.035
7.778
-
7.91
12.063
12.650
-
12.36
TCCS
Diesel
3.436
3. 037
-
3.24
2.374
2.533
_
2.45
8.556
8.781
-
8.67
11.991
11.818
-
11.91
Honda
CVCC
1.996
2. 021
-
2. 01
61.006
60.402
-
60.70
8.996
8.817
-
8.91
10.992
10.838
-
10.92
-------
Except for the Peugeot HC+NC>2 of 9.44 g/kw-hr, the stratified charge
vehicles produced on the order of double the HC+NO2 by the chassis
version of the 13-mode test. The HC from the Peugeot was an average
of 5. 72 g/kw-hr which is about ten times that of the other diesel cars
and slightly higher than the catalyst-equipped PROCO. The Peugeot
HC+NO2 was substantially affected by the HC produced.
The CO from the PROCO was substantially higher than the
diesels at average of 75. 59 g/kw-hr. Although the PROCO featured
a precious metal monolith oxidation catalyst, it was unable to prevent
copious quantities of CO from being produced during 75 and 100 percent
of maximum power. The oxygen, HC, and CO readings during this
condition indicated the catalyst was overloaded and a "CO breakthrough"
occurred. The catalyst normally reduced HC and CO to very low levels
but under the high load conditions of the 13-mode test, these contaminants,
due to probably insufficient oxygen and catalyst surface area, were not
reacted to CO2 and water vapor. During the high load condition, the
catalyst and much of the exhaust system glowed red.
The Honda CVCC does not include a catalyst and its CO was almost
as high as the Peugeot. The high power points of 50, 75, and 100 percent
all resulted in increasingly higher CO concentrations which brought about
this result. The TCCS engine, combined with its oxidation catalyst-
arrangement, performed well insofar as CO is concerned.
One way to consider these results is to relate them or loosely
compare them to published standards for HC, CO and NOX for heavy
duty gasoline and diesel engines. They are listed on Table 11. Direct
comparison to these limits is not advised since the car engines are not
intended for HD application in vehicles over 2722 kg (6000-lb) gross
vehicle weight. Also, a chassis alternative procedure necessarily was
used which may not yield exactly the same results as the Federally
prescribed stationary test.
The uncontrolled diesels are all substantially lower in CO than
the Federal and California limits which are intended for gasoline type
HD engines. HC+NO2 are all below the 1973 California-1974 Federal
limit of 21.4 g/kw-hr. The 1975 California limit of 13.4 g/kw-hr was
easily met by all cars. The Peugeot and Opel produced HC+NO2 above
the 1977 California HD limit, the most stringent HD regulation on the
books. Recall that the four diesels were merely driven in and tested.
No emissions control systems or intentional tinkering or adjustment
was given the four diesel cars. The three stratified charge cars had
HC+NO2 below the 1975 California limit of 13.4 g/kw-hr. They were
50 to 75 percent above the 1977 limit, however.
Another way to consider the HD 13-mode test results is to examine
60
-------
TABLE 11. HEAVY DUTY GASOLINE AND DIESEL EMISSION LIMITS
Units CO HC+NO2
1973 California and g/kw-hr 53.6 21.4
1974 Federal (g/bhp-hr) (40) (16)
1975 California g/kw-hr 40.2 13.4
(g/bhp-hr) (30) (10)
1977 California g/kw-hr 33.5 6.7
(g/bhp-hr) (25) (5)
the ratio of the 1975 LD FTP to the 1974 HD FTP results for each con-
taminant. Although the procedures and units of measurement are quite
different, some insight on the behavior of the same vehicle under very
different type procedures may be learned. The ratio of HC and CO
results were not grossly different for the four diesel cars. Except for
the Honda CVCC CO and NOX, the TCCS (gasoline or diesel) and the CVCC
(HC only) had quite similar ratios of 13-mode to LA-4 FTP results.
The PROCO engine, however, showed an HC and CO ratio an
order of magnitude different from the diesels, indicating the gross
difference in results by the two procedures. Under the 1975 LD FTP,
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide were almost negligible for the highly
controlled PROCO engine. Under the heavier duty test, the control
system lost effectiveness and this resulted in the gross difference in
behavior attributable to test conditions. The PROCO engine was
developed and perfected to meet the 1975 LD FTP and it is not surprising
that it did poorly by the HD procedure. The NOX results by both tests
produced a consistent ratio of results for all cars, meaning the results
of one test could be predicted fairly well by the other test.
The final method of analyzing the 13-mode test results is to
consider the modal data on the computer print-out sheets included as
Tables B-l through B-20. These print-outs list the concentrations,
measured fuel and air rates, power outputs used, and the weighted
brake specific emission values. These are combined and NO2 cor-
rected to the prescribed 10. 7 x 10~3 g water per kg of dry air absolute
humidity (75 grains water per pound of dry air). The final results are
listed as cycle composite values in g per kw-hour. After each group
of tables for a given diesel car, a graph is included to show the emis-
sion concentrations versus power level at the rated and intermediate
speeds tested. The modal data plots, Figures B-l through B-8,
illustrate the behavior of the engine with speed and load.
The PROCO produced substantial HC and CO rates, per Tables
61
-------
B-13 and B-14, during Modes 5 and 6 (75 and 100 percent load, 2400 rpm)
and Mode 8 (100 percent load, 4000 rpm). This was when the "CO break-
through" mentioned earlier occurred and accounts for the higher HC and
CO from the PROCO than the uncontrolled diesels. The high HC of the
Peugeot may be attributed to all modes of the test (Tables B-7 through
B-9) and especially the light load modes, Modes 2 and 3 (2 and 25 per-
cent load, 2700 rpm) and Modes 9, 10, and 11 (50, 25 and 2 percent load,
4500 rpm). This HC behavior is shown in Figure B-3.
Much more analysis of the modal data in Appendix B could be
made, but it must be recalled that the HD test is not necessarily intended
for the higher engine speed, smaller diesels used in passenger cars.
The data can give valuable insight on the engines' performance but is
not considered especially suited for or realistic of car operation. The
selection of engine speeds is much too high for everyday operation.
The use of 75 and 100 percent of maximum power should get some
attention but should be weighted for less than the eight percent each
mode as now given. Further use of the results beyond that discussed
so far should be made with these qualifications in mind and caution
exercised.
The only major concern with these results was the apparent low
fuel rate of the Mercedes relative to manufacturer's values. For
example, the engine should consume about 15.4 kg/hr (34 Ibs/hr) fuel
at rated speed and maximum load. Measured fuel rate on the specific
Mercedes 220 diesel evaluated was 12. 5 (27. 6 Ibs/hr) at 4200 rpm.
Since this was the final test series run, the decision was to use the
data thus far determined with the knowledge that for some unknown
reason, the fuel rate and corresponding power output was low. No
obvious reason could be found for this lower than desired fuel rate,
though the vehicle, engine, and measuring equipment were thoroughly
checked. Its effect on 13-mode results is expected to be minimal due
to the brake specific type of expression employed.
C. Odor and Related Instrumental Analyses
This portion of the results will describe the odor and other
measurements made simultaneously with odor ratings.
1. Evaluation by Trained Panel
t
As indicated earlier, the odor panel rated the exhaust of all the
vehicles tested at the same 100:1 dilution level. The actual dilution of
exhaust from a vehicle in service varies greatly depending on the driving
mode, the position of the observer relative to the vehicle, the direction
of the exhaust discharge, and the rate of exhaust flow. These many
variables could not be accounted for in this study so an arbitrary decision
62
-------
TABLE 12. LISTING OF AVERAGE ODOR PANEL RATINGS AT 100:1 DILUTION
Vehicle
Condition
Intermediate
Speed, no load
Intermediate
Speed, mid load
Intermediate
Speed, high load
High Speed,
no load
High Speed,
mid load
High Speed,
high load
Idle Speed
no load
Odor
Kit
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
Nissan
Winter
3. 1
1. 1
0.9
0. 7
0.6
2.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.3
3.8
1. 1
1. 0
0.9
0.7
2.4
1.0
0.8
0. 5
0.3
3.7
1.3
1. 0
0. 7
0.7
4. 8
1. 7
1. 2
0.9
0.9
2.9
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
Summer
3. 1
1. 1
0.9
0.7
0.6
3.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0. 5
3. 7
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.7
2. 1
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.2
3. 1
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.4
3.9
1. 1
1.0
0.8
0.8
2.7
1.0
0.8
0. 7
0. 5
Mercedes
220D
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.3
3.4
1. 1
0.9
0.8
0.8
2.6
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.4
3. 1
1. 1
0.9
0.6
0.6
3.9
1. 2
1.0
0.8
0.9
3. 1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
Peugeot
504D
6.0
1.9
1.6
1.0
1.4
4. 1
1.3
1. 1
1.0
0.8
4.7
1.5
1. 1
1.0
0.9
6.0
1.9
1.7
1.0
1.4
4.7
1.5
1. 1
0.9
1.0
5. 6
1.8
1.4
1. 1
1.2
4.8
1.5
1.2
1.0
1.0
Opel
Rekord
Steady State
3. 5
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
4. 2
1.4
1.0
0.9
1.0
3. 7
1. 2
1.0
0.8
0. 7
3.3
1. 1
1.0
0.8
0.6
4. 5
1.5
1. 1
1. 0
1. 1
4.0
1. 3
1.0
0.9
0.9
3.3
1. 1
1.0
0.8
0. 5
Ford
LTD
Capri
Std.
Capri
PROCO
TCCS
Diesel
TCCS
10/8/74
Gasoline
10/11/74
Results
2.0
0.8
0,4
0.6
0. 2
1. 5
0.6
0.3
0.6
0. 2
1. 2
0. 5
0.4
0.4
0. 1
1.5
0.7
0.4
0. 5
0
1. 1
0. 5
0. 3
0.4
0
1.4
0. 7
0. 5
0.4
0. 1
1. 2
0. 6
0.4
0.3
0. 1
2.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.6
3.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
3.4
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
2.2
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.4
3. 5
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
3.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
3.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.4
0. 1
0. 2
0
0.8
0.4
0. 1
0.3
0. 1
1.0
0.4
0.2
0. 3
0. 1
0.8
0.4
0. 2
0. 2
0
1. 1
0. 5
0.3
0.2
0. 1
1. 3
0.5
0.3
0.4
0. i
0.7
0.3
0. 1
0.3
0. 1
5.7
1.9
1.4
1. 1
1.3
5.4
1.7
1.2
1.0
1. 3
5.0
1.6
1.3
1.0
1.2
6. 1
2. 1
1. 5
0.9
1. 5
4.4
1.4
1. 1
1.0
0.9
4.8
1.6
1.2
0.9
i. i
5.3
1.6
1.2
1. 1
1. 3
3. 7
1. 3
O'. 8
0.7
1. 1
2. 8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0. 7
3.4
1. 0
0.8
0.6
0.8
3.9
1. 3
1.0
0.8
0.9
3. 1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
3.3
1. '
0.9
0. 7
0.8
2. 7
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.4
4. 5
1. 4
0.9
0. 8
1. 3
3. 2
1.0
0.8
0. 7
0.8
3. 0
1. 1
0. 8
0. 7
0.6
4. 1
1. 3
1. 1
0.6
1. 2
2. 5
0.9
0. 8
0. 5
0.6
3. 0
1. 0
0.9
0.6
0.6
3. 1
1. 1
0.8
0. 7
0.9
Honda
CVCC
Z. 1
0. 7
0.6
0.6
0. 5
1. 5
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.2
1.5
0.7
0. 5
0. 5
0.2
1.9
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.4
1.6
0.7
0. 5
0.6
0.3
1.6
0. 7
0.5
0.5
0.2
3.2
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
Chrysler
Gas Turbine
1. 3
0.8
0.4
0.3
0. 1
1. 1
0.7
0.3
0.3
0. 1
1. 1
0.7
0.4
0.2
0. 1
1.0
0.6
0.2
0.2
0. I
1.0
0.7
0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
1. 2
0. 7
0.4
0.3
0. i
1. 5
0. 7
0.4
0.4
0.2
-------
TABLE 12 (Cont'd.) LISTING OF AVERAGE ODOR PANEL RATINGS AT 100:1 DILUTION
Vehicle
Condition
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Deceleration
Relight
Hot Start
Cold Start
Odor Nissan
Kit Winter
Summe r
Mercedes
220D
Peugeot Opel
504D Rekord
Ford
LTD
Capri
Std.
Capri
PROCO
TCCS
Diesel
TCCS
10/8/74
Gasoline
Honda
10/11/74 CVCC
Chrysler
Ga s Turbine
Transient Results
D 3. 5
B 1. 1
O 1.0
A 0.8
P 0.7
D 5.6
B 1.9
O 1.4
A 0.9
P 1.4
D 4.9
B 1.7
0 1.2
A 0.9
P 1.2
D
B
O
A
P
3.8
1. 2
1.0
0.9
0.7
5.0
1.7
1. 2
0.9
1. 1
5. 1
1.6
1.2
0.9
1. 1
4.0
1.4
1.0
0.8
0.9
3.4
1. 1
1.0
0. 7
0.9
3.7
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.8
5.6
1.9
1.4
1.0
1.3
6.0
2.0
1.6
1.0
1.4
5.5
1.7
1.4
1.0
l.Z
5.0
1.8
1. 2
0.9
1.4
3.8
1.2
1. 0
0.9
0.9
3.4
1. 1
1.0
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.3
0.2
0. 1
1.9
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.3
1.7
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
2.6
0.9
0.9
0.4
0. 5
3.2
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
2.9
1.0
1.0
0. 5
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.2
0. 3
0. 1
3. 1
1.0
0.9
0. 5
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.2
0. 2
0. 1
5.7
2.0
1.3
1.0
1.7
5.0
1.6
1. 2
1. 1
1. 1
4.9
1.6
1. 1
1.0
1.2
2.5
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.5
Z.5
1.0
0. 7
0.4
0.5
2.3
i. 0
0.6
0.4
0.4
3.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.8
2.8
0.8
0.9
0. 5
0. 7
2. 7
0.9
0.9
0. 5
0.6
3.4
1. 1
0.9
0.7
0.9
4.4
1.5
1.0
0.8
1. 1
2.6
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.8
0. 5
0.2
0. 2
0. 1
0.8
0.5
0. 2
0.2
0. 1
0.9
0.6
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0.8
0.5
0.2
0. 1
0
Engine Starting Results
D
B
O
A
P
D
B
O
A
P
2.0
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.2
3.4
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
4.3
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
4.5
1.3
1.0
0.8
1. 1
3.8
1.6
1.0
0.6
0.8
3. 1
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
4. I
1.2
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.3
0.7
0.3
0.3
0. 1
3.7
1.1
0.9
0.6
0.9
Intermediate speed IB 60 percent of high speed defined as the rpm in highest gear that coincides with 56 mph vehicle speed and level road load.
Mid load is fuel rate midway between no load (neutral) and high load fuel rates. Ford LTD, both Capris, and Chrysler gas turbine ran at four times level
road load at 50 mph (full load) and two times level road load at 50 mph (mid load). Texaco TCCS and Honda CVCC were run at three times level road load
at 50 rnph (high load) and 1. 5 times level road load at 50 mph (mid load). High speed (56 mph) and intermediate speeds based on preset road load settings
at 50 mph.
-------
was made to run all of the vehicles at the same 100:1 dilution level. The
common dilution permits a judgement of the relative ratings of the raw
exhaust, but the ratings should not be interpreted as necessarily relating
to how the vehicles would rank in actual service. The ranking in the
field requires judgements of the several factors affecting dilution which
this limited study does not attempt to make.
Table 12 is a summary listing of the average odor panel ratings
for each of the ten cars evaluated. Where possible, and starting with
the Ford LTD, cold start odor ratings were obtained and replicated. In
the case of the Chrysler gas turbine, two other conditions, a relight after
decel and a hot start •were added. Please see Table 4 for specification
of test conditions.
Figures 12 through 22 illustrate the tabular data for each car.
The top half of each figure is a plot of average "D" ratings versus power
level for the six steady state speed and load conditions. These three
point curves give some idea of the production of exhaust odor versus
power and speed. In the case of the Nissan-Datsun, Mercedes 220D,
standard Capri and PROCO Capri, the trend was a slight to moderate
increase in "D" odor intensity with an increase in load on the engine.
The Peugeot and Opel had opposite behavior to each other in that the
Peugeot "D" ratings were sharply lower at half load than at no load and
full load while the Opel peaked in "D" odor intensity at half load.
The Texaco TCCS(diesel fueled) had slightly different behavior at
the two engine speeds. At 3000 rpm the mid load condition gave lower
odor than at no load (highest) and high load. The 1800 rpm "D" ratings
tended to decrease slightly as power was increased. For the gasoline
fueled Texaco TCCS, the trend was more consistent with the diesel fueled
TCCS at 3000 rpm. The mid power condition was always lower than the
no load and, except for one instance, the high load condition.
Note on Table 12 and Figure 20 for the gasoline fueled TCCS,
odor data is reported and plotted for two separate days. The reason
for this is that during the usual repeat day of operation with this car,
on October 10, 1974, the engine stopped running during the morning
runs and could not be restarted. It was found that the distributor drive
shaft had "backed out" sufficiently to kill the engine. On examination
and after discussion with the staff of Texaco, it was learned that this
had happened once before and was something which rarely occurred.
The bevel drive gear is such that as it "backed out", a design deficiency
in the distributor installation, the spark timing advanced. Normally,
this happens gradually according to Texaco.
The distributor shaft was "pinned" to try and prevent a recur-
rence, reinstalled, and the basic spark timing set to specifications.
The engine then started easily and was subject to twice daily timing
65
-------
FIGURE 12. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR NISSAN-DATSUN DIESEL
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
66
-------
0
Load
1/2
Load
Full
Load
0 ' ' 1/2 'Full Idle Idle- Accel Decel
Load Load Load Accel
30^)0 rpm ; '
FIGURE 13. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR MERCEDES 220 DIESEL
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
67
-------
FIGURE 14. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR PEUGEOT DIESEL
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
68
-------
FIGURE 15. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR OPEL DIESEL
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
69
-------
0 Mid High
Load Load Load
1200 rpm
0
Load
Mid
Load
High
Load
Idle Idle- Accel Decel Cold
Accel Start
2000 rpm
FIGURE 16. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR FORD LTD
GASOLINE LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
70
-------
0 Mid High 0 Mid High Idle Idle- Accel Decel Cold
Load Load Load Load Load Load Accel Start
1700 rpm
2850 rpm
FIGURE 17. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR FORD CAPRI
GASOLINE LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
71
-------
0 Mid High 0 Mid High Idle Idle- Accel Decel
Load Load Load Load Load Load Accel
1700 rpm 2850 rpm
FIGURE 18. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR CAPRI PROCO
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
72
Cold
Start
-------
0 Mid
Load Load
High 0 Mid High Idle
Load Load Load Load
Idle- Accel
Accel
Decel
Cold
Start
1800 rpm
3000 rpm
FIGURE 19. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR TEXACO TCCS
POWERED PLYMOUTH CRICKET LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE
AT 100:1 DILUTION - Diesel Fuel
73
-------
I:::;:::::::::::!:::::::!;::::::::::::::::::
!•••••! •SSSEEESSf^f ~5SSSSEII *••••!•••! •••••••'
||B
mm-" tmmmmtmmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt tmmmt •••••••••
••»••••••• ••••• tmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt ••••• ••••> ••••• mmmmt ••••• mmmmt mmmmt ••••• ••••• ••••••••!
!••••••••• MM! ••••• ••••! ••••! ••••! ••••• • •••• ••••• ••••! ••••• ••••! •• •• ••••• ••••• •••••«••
*••••••••• ••••• ••••• ••••! •••m ••••• ••••• *•••• ••••• ••••! ••••• ••••• mm mt ••••• ••••• ••••*»••
••. ••••••• ••"•• ••••• •••»; J35S1 SSSS' "ESS11 '•""• ESS"! SSSS! SB""* •"••! SS *' """•• S"""* ••••" •*•
• •"•'•••••I •• M ••••!•• ••••.! ••••! ••••• •••••••••• ••••! ••••! ••••• ••••• *•• I ••••! • •
III ill
{«= ;:;: jj ;::].; : j.:: ::,:: : :: ::::: :::::::::;:::::::::: ::::: :•::•••••••::!::::!::::!:!
• • J'.^§L~M ••••• I* ••••••1 • •• ••••! ••••• ••••! ••••• ••••! • •••• «•••! ••••* ••••• *•••• ••••• ••
•••<')••••• ••••••• ••••••• • mt mmmmt ••••• ••••• ••••• mmmmt ••••• «•••• ••••• ••••• •••« mmmmt mmn
•••••••••• ••••• «!••• ••••• • •• ••••! ••••• ••••! ••••!••••* ••••• ••••! ••••• ••••!••••• ••••• •••
•••••••••• ••••• ••*••• imSSt m •• «*^-i ••«•• ••••• •••ptfl ••••• •*••• ••»F* ••••» ••••• nmm-t mmmmt mmm
•••••••••• ••••••!>' •••UB«« • •• «'• •IVIiv.l ••••• •• 4HI ••!•-• *•••• ••• *> ••._•*••••• •!'••! •«,__• •••
•••••••••i ••••• ••••• ••••• • •• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••! ••••• ••••• tmmmt ••••• ••••• ••••• •••
•••••••••• ••••» •*l'5« ••.-«• • •• mt,-** ••..-«• ••••* •.-•• ••» -» ••••• mt>*-* «k. -» ••••• tfc.-^i t-.-it mmm
0 Mid High 0 Mid
Load Load Load Load Load
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I !•••••••••
•••••• • •••••••••»••••••••••*••••••••••••••••••••»•••••••»»•••••••••••••••••••• tmSmmmmmmm
• • - - ' ' T - -
::: :::: ::::: :::: ::: :::: :::: ::: :::: :::: :::::::::::::: :i:: ::::: £::: :::: J?H
t mmmmt mmmmt ••••«••••• ••••! •••••••••• mmmmt Immmmmmmm" tmmmt ••••••••••»»••!••! mmmmt mmmmt mmm
t mmmmt mmmmt •••••••••• mmmmi •••••••••• ••••• •••••••••• tmmmt •••••••••• ••••• ••••• mmmmt mmmmt tmmmt
:i:::i ::::!::::: ::::i!:::i •:•:::»:• ::::: !::•:••:•! ::::•:»:! ::::i::::i»::i;:::ii:::ii::H
• ••••• ••••! ••••! ••••! ••••! ••••• !•••! ••••t ••••• ••••• ••••• •••••<*•••• ••••• ••••! ••••! ••••• ••!••
• ••••• ••••• ••••« ••••• ••••! ••••• ••••! ••••• ••••• ••••§ mmmmt ••••• ••••• ••••• mmmmt ••••• ••••• •••••
ii::::;»:!:i:::i:::ii::::!»:i;:::!in::i::r;™i::H::::::i:^
i[[[ ::::: tss :::s
:::::::::::::::: ::::: ::::; ::::: i::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::: :::::::::: :::;: :BC :Bg
i ••••• tmmmt ••••• ••••• ••••> ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• !•••* ••••• ••••• ••••• mmmmt ••••• ••••• ••••• •••••
• ••••• tmmmt mmmmt mmmmt tmmmt mmmmt tmmmt mmmmt tmmmt tmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmt mmmmrn
• ::;:::;U::::::::;H:;::U:!::^^
i : i !:::! ::::! i:::i ::::! ::::: ::::: ::::: ::::! !:::! :::::::::: !:::! ::::! ::::! ::::: ::::': ::|n
S S • !SES! SSSE! SSSS! !•••! SESSS ISSS! SEES! SS5SS 'SEE! SSSS! SEES! SSSSS SEES! !•!•• ••••! SSiSS SSfiB
• • • ••••! mmmmt ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• !•••• >•••• ••••• ••••• ••••* ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• •••••
• • • !•••! ••••• ••••• ••••! ••••• *•••! ••••• ••••• !•••! ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••! ••••! ••••• ••••• •••£•
• • • immmt ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• tmmmt tmmmt ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• tfi^H
Kl • I !»••! ••••• ••••• IBbkl »••• ••••! ••^•k ••••• !•••• ••••J ••••• !•••! IU«bl ••••! BMBMt ••••h •••••
i « » ••••• ••••• •••«• ••••! ••••• tmrr* mmmmt ••••• !•<•••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••• ••••! ••rvi ••••>< mM
S ! ".' "mmmi mmmmt ••••' \mmm' mmmm* 'mm *' "•••?!•••• !•* *• S~ ' mmmm't !»' " " m'ml •""E! S*Jli! 5""5 ' SSES
High Idle Idle- Accel Decel Cold
Load Accel Start
1800 rpm
3000 rpm
FIGURE 20. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR TEXACO TCCS
POWERED PLYMOUTH CRICKET LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE
-------
0 Mid High 0 Mid High Idle
Load Load Load Load Load Load
Idle- Accel
Accel
2300 rpm
3800 rpm
FIGURE 21. AVERAGE ODOR RATINGS FOR HONDA CVCC
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE AT 100:1 DILUTION
Decel
CIVIC
Cold
Start
75
-------
.. ]!!.! ! i . - -
- - H , !-| r ' j • • •
•*•••••••* ••••••»•••••••••••*•••••••••»••••••»•••••»••••«•«• »•••••••••!
i:~ (••••••• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I •••••••••• •••••••••••••••*•••••
• ••••••••I ••••••••••••••••••••••»• IhtT.l'l *»**»«*•••••••••••••*••••••••••
••••••P*I •••••••••••••••••••• ••*• ir«n,Bi*i MHOIBBB •••••••«•••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••»•»••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••1
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••MB
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a
•••••••••• •••»•»•• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••*•••!
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••*••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••!
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I
•••••••»«••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
•••••••*•• ••«••••••••••••••••••••«•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a
i[[[
r[[[
••SSSiSSSnSiSSnS»H»H»« •»»•»» »»III»»»H»»» »»»••»•
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••a
•••••«•••• •••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••••*••••••••••••••••••••••••••!
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••i
[[[
:s:::;:s:5:ss:::::::s::::ss::::::::::::s:s:::::::s:s:::s:::::::::::::::
•••••«•••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••»•••••••••••••••••••••••!
•••••••••• •••••••••••••••••*•••••••••••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••)
ummmmmmr.mm •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
••••••• zn •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •••••••••••
•••••••=!• •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••••••!
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• ••••••«•••••••••••••••••••••••!
••*:«•••••• •••••••••••••••••«•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
::!:::;:: :::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::
Illlllufillllllllllllllllllllllll^
0 Mid High 0 Mid Higl
Load Load Load Load Load Loa
....,!.. . . . -
. , ,1
1 .... ,
: t . , . . . . , !
j. ' -••
| I —
:;^Lict :::::::::::::::;::::::::::::::::: :::::::: Si :::::::::
.[.I 'IIHi it........ _.....-,. ..._...-..._.-..„--. .,....._...._.......
IllliJlljrilll'ulli^
-------
checks during the remainder of the test program. On October 11, 1974,
the second odor day was run without incident and is different from the
first day by whatever timing advance the engine may have had on Octo-
ber 8, 1974, the first odor day. The timing was not checked on October 8,
1974 or on October 10, 1974 before distributor removal.
All tests which were run after October 10, 1974, including all
diesel fueled odor and related chemistry and the 13-mode tests (both
gasoline and diesel fuel) were with the repaired distributor and at
specified timing. Prior to October 8, 1974, the noise tests were made.
Prior to that, smoke tests on the 1975 FTP were run. The initial test
series were made at specified timing. No problems in starting or re-
starting were noticed during any of the 1975 FTP operation for gaseous
or smoke with either fuel. When changing over from gasoline to diesel
during the noise tests, some difficulty was found in restarting the hot
engine. After a brief cool-down, the engine restarted with no difficulty.
Accordingly, it is likely that the distributor shaft began to "back-out"
during the noise testing, some of which involves brief wide-open throttle
accelerations. It was then probable that the first odor day, October 8,
1974, was at advanced timing. Accordingly, the odor results of October
8, 1974 are reported separately from October 11, 1974 and not averaged
as with the other cars except the Nissan.
The graph of "D" intensity against power on Figure 20 illustrates
the lack of an overall consistent effect of the probable advanced timing
on October 8, 1974 versus October 11, 1974 standard timing. At no
load, the advanced timing gave lower "D" ratings. At high load, the
opposite was true though the difference is so slight as to make it
within the day to day test repeatability. At mid power, the October 8,
1974 data was bracketed by the October 11, 1974 ratings. Overall, the
differences in observed "D" ratings during the steady state speed and
loads were slight and quite possibly within the test accuracy.
The Ford LTD and Honda CVCC showed a fourth characteristic
of slightly decreasing odor with power. The Chrysler gas turbine data,
average of three separate odor measurement tests (days) is depicted on
Figure 22. The effect of load was most pronounced between no load
and mid load at 1272 rpm, and between mid load and high load at 2120
rpm. These rpms are that of the power turbine and not the basic gas
generator which operated over a much narrower speed range. The
important finding was that at normal steady state speeds and loads
expected to be encountered by this vehicle, the observed odor was
"D"-l. 3 or less. The data graphed in the top of Figure 22 ranges from
"D"- 1 to "D"- 1.3, a very slight odor level and a very narrow odor
range of 0. 3 "D" units. Accordingly, it is difficult to relate these
findings to operating data, etc. , the conclusion being that the steady
state odor, diluted to 100:1, was quite low. In the case of the Ford
LTD and the Chrysler gas turbine, however, the loading relative to
that possible from the engine was less than the other six lower power-
to-weight ratio vehicles.
77
-------
The important point of the graphs on Figures 12-22 is that odor is
not necessarily a predicatble function of power. The commonly found mini-
mum odor on some large HD engines at mid-power did not hold true for
the passenger car diesels as these data indicate. This means that to quantify
or characterize the odor from diesel or gasoline powered vehicles will likely
require a multi-modal schedule of more than one or two test points.
The lower half of Figures 12 through 22 depicts the sum of the
"D"+"B'M-"O"+"A"+"P" average ratings for each of the ten conditions
for each car as given on Table 12. This approach gives essentially equal
weight to the "D" overall intensity and to the four quality ratings combined
and is used for discussion purposes only. The effect of load, or lack of
effect, may be seen in this summary representation for each engine
speed in the first six bars. Note in Figure 12, the Nissan winter (W)
and summer (S) results are shown side by side. The summer position
had the effect of decreasing the odor at 3000 rpm, some at half load
and more at full load. The winter position meant the intake air was
being preheated by drawing it from a sheet metal "stove" arrangement
around the exhaust manifold. The summer position ducted air from
the conventional air cleaner air horn under hood location to the left
of the radiator. The heated air at higher speed and load meant less
oxygen (less air density) and possibly poorer combustion. At 1800
rpm, the effect of the switch on the Nissan was opposite, but not con-
sidered substantially different.
Of importance on Figure 12 and the others in this series was the
substantially higher odor levels measured during certain of the transients.
For the Nissan it was, based on the summer position which is the most
important set of Nissan data, the accel and decel. They were substantially
higher than all other modes. In the case of the Mercedes 220D (Figure
13) all three transients were higher overall than any steady state except
3000 rpm full load. The no load 1800 and 3000 rpm tests with the
Peugeot (Figure 14) rated as high as the accel and these three conditions
would be of greatest concern along with idle-accel, decel, and full load
3000 rpm runs.
The idle-accel in Figure 15 for the Opel diesel is the condition
that produced highest odor. Surprisingly, the two half-load conditions
were next in importance. The four gasoline cars continued to show the
importance of one or more transients as far as producing exhaust odor
is concerned. The LTD Ford, Figure 16, produced odor ratings during
accel and decel on a par with the no load 1200 rpm. These were the
three conditions of highest perceived odor. The standard Ford Capri
accel, Figure 17, was about the same as a number of steady states
such as high load at 1700 and mid and high load at 2850 rpm. The
only odor level of consequence from the PROCO Capri, Figure 18, was
the accel. Evidently the other modes were adequately controlled either
by the stratified charge combustion system or by the oxidation catalyst
in the exhaust.
78
-------
From Figure 19, the idle-accel of the Texaco TCCS (diesel fueled)
car was the highest of all three transients and was next in severity to
the no load, 3000 rpm condition. This same engine and car, operating
on gasoline and depicted in Figure 20, resulted in transient odor levels
on a par with the mid and high power steady states but definitely below
the two no load conditions. The idle and three transient conditions were,
by the bar chart at the bottom of Figure 20, consistently lower, though
slightly, on October 8, 1974. Cold start results showed the opposite
trend.
The transient conditions definitely produced the highest odor from
the Honda CVCC car. The accel was about twice the overall "D"-t-"B" +
"O"+"A"+"P" rating of the six steady states. Idle and the idle-accel
was about 50 percent greater than the six steady states. For ref-
erence, the six steady states produced "D" ratings of 1.5 to 2, a
slight but noticeable odor level.
The four transients tested with the Chrysler gas turbine were all
even lower in odor than the six steady states previously discussed and
indicated as very slight, i.e., "D" of 1 to 1.3 intensity. The idle was
the highest odor level of all conditions and was just slightly higher than
the no load intermediate speed, high load high speed and hot start.
The cold start made was the condition found to produce odor of an
appreciable level.
Cold start ratings are depicted on Figures 16 through 22 for
those cars thus tested. In general, the cold start odor ratings were
among the highest, if not the highest, of any of the ratings given a
particular vehicle. This is particularly true for the LTD (Figure 16),
the standard Capri (Figure 17), the PROCO (Figure 18) where the cold
start equalled the only high odor found, the TCCS running on gasoline
(Figure 20) and the Honda CVCC (Figure 21). The cold start was
especially critical to the Chrysler gas turbine in that it was the only
appreciable odor making condition of an otherwise low odor vehicle.
The gas turbine cold start had a "D"+"B"-H'O"+"A"+"P" of 6. 7 com-
pared to a rough average of 2.3, almost triple. The "D" intensity
jumped from a nominal "D"-l at the twelve operating conditions to
"D"-3. 7 during cold start.
Even with 100:1 dilution of the gas turbine exhaust, an already
highly diluted engine exhaust, the odor was easily recognized and
evaluated. In this regard, the cold start, and to a much lesser extent
the idle, were the two most noticeable conditions. Yet, both of these
conditions may occur under circumstances unfavorable to dilution of
the odor. This is the cause of concern regarding the gas turbine
engine since, unless it is moving, its high exhaust rate even during
start and idle can rapidly envelope a closed or semi-open parking area,
garage or carport. The consequence of several such engines in a
79
-------
congested area with limited dilution capability should be further considered.
One first step may be to determine the reasonable minimum dilution that
occurs in the vicinity of such a vehicle under a variety of driving situations.
From the Table 12 data and Figures 12 through 22, some additional
discussion is justified. First, the Mercedes 220D tested in this project
was much lower in odor levels than the vehicle tested in 1971* ' '. A
comparison is shown in Table 13. Except for idle-accel, and to lesser
extent idle and full load high speed, greatly lower odor was observed
during the 1974 test program than in 1971.
TABLE 13. COMPARISON OF MERCEDES 220D RESULTS
TO PREVIOUSLY REPORTED ODOR RATINGS^. 3)
Load Engine rpm Date
1974
1971
1974
1971
1974
1971
1974
1971
1974
1971
1974
1971
1974
1971
0
Half
Full
0
Half
Full
1800
2500
1800
2500
1800
2500
3000
4200
3000
4200
3000
42000
Idle
Idle- 1974
Acceleration 1971
Acceleration 1974
1971
Deceleration 1974
1971
Average Odor Panel Rating
njjii "B" "O" "A"
Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic
2.6
6.0
2.6
3.8
3.4
4.0
2.6
4.4
3. 1
6. 1
3.9
5. 5
3. 1
3.9
4.0
4.5
3.4
5. 2
3.7
6.8
1.0
2.0
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.2
1.0
1.3
1. 1
2. 1
1.2
1.9
1.0
1. 1
1.4
1.4
1. 1
1.8
1. 1
2. 1
0.9
1.4
0.9
1. 0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1. 1
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.3
0.9
1.0
1.0
1. 0
1. 0
1.2
1. 0
1.7
0.5
1. 1
0.6
0. 8
0.8
0.9
0.5
1.0
0.6
1. 1
0. 8
1. 1
0.8
1. 0
0.8
1.0
0.7
1. 0
0.9
1.2
It JD1 l
Pungent
0.4
1. 5
0. 3
0.7
0. 8
0.8
0.4
1.0
0.6
1. 6
0.9
1. 3
0. 6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1. 2
0. 8
1.8
80
-------
A possible major reason may be the improvements made to the
Mercedes 220 fuel injection system. Another reason for the substantial
difference in the six steady state conditions may be the difference in
engine speeds employed. However, this seems of little consequence
in this particular case since odor was less at both speeds and the odor
at 3000 rpm (1974) versus odor at 2500 rpm (1971) continues to show
the important difference. In any event, the 1974 odor testing results
of the Mercedes 220D car are quite encouraging and show that this
specific diesel car engine does have much lower odor than that found
in 1971.
The Texaco TCCS powered Cricket, capable of operating equally
well on either gasoline or diesel fuel, permitted a direct comparison
of the odor ratings. Figure 23 shows both gasoline and diesel odor data
for the Texaco TCCS. The gasoline data is the October 11, 1974 ratings
since they were obtained at known, standard, spark timing and con-
sidered the most reliable of the two odor tests with gasoline. The "D"
intensity shown at the top of Figure 23 is much higher for the diesel
than the gasoline. These differences in "D" level were consistent at
both speeds regardless of load. The diesel fueled TCCS was also con-
sistently higher in odor, as shown by the bar chart also on Figure 23,
during the idle and three transients. Only during the cold start were
the ratings fairly close together. As a general comparison, there was
a two "D" rating difference between diesel, range of "D"-5. 5 to 6. 0,
and gasoline, range of "D"-3. 5 to 4. 0. These differences were typically
greater than "D"-2 during the idle and transients. A more thorough
comparison may be made by subtracting the gasoline odor ratings
(October 11, 1974) from the diesel TCCS ratings on Table 12.
In comparing the odor from vehicle to vehicle, it is necessary
to either consider each mode, which may be done by the bar charts
and Table 12, or to merely average the ten conditions together directlv.
This then gives 60 percent weight to the speed and load conditions, ten
percent to the idle, and 30 percent to the transients. Probably idle
should get 20 percent weight since it usually accounts for this much
operation in urban-suburban driving. The 30 percent weight factor for
transients could easily be argued higher but it would be just as arbitrary
as using, for purposes of this ranking, equal weighting. To make this
comparison simple, it is based only on the "D" intensity rating. This
is probably best since the panel experienced difficulty using the odor
quality standards with three of the gasoline cars. Table 14 lists these
averages and is an attempt at a rough comparison of the exhaust odor
from all cars tested. The cars are grouped as diesel and gasoline.
There is little doubt that the Peugeot and the Texaco TCCS powered
Cricket, both operating on diesel fuel, had, much stronger odor in-
tensities than any of the other cars and that they were consistently
high regardless of operating mode investigated. The diesel fueled
TCCS engine had very much the same odor marks as the Peugeot 504D.
81
-------
82
-------
The "D" ratings may be compared from Table 12 to give the following:
'D" Odor Rating
Speed
Intermediate
High
Idle
Idle-Accel
Accel
Decel
Load
no
mid
high
no
mid
high
Peugeot 504D
6.0
4.1
4.7
6.0
4.7
5.6
4.8
5.6
6.0
5.5
TCCS Diesel
5.7
5.4
5.0
6. 1
4.4
4.8
5.3
5.7
5.0
4.9
Difference
-1.3
+ 1.3
+ 0.3
+0. 1
-0.3
-0.8
+ 0. 5
+ 0. 1
-1.0
-0.6
The overall average difference from Table 14 is 0. 1 "D" level, the TCCS
being essentially equivalent in odor intensity as the Peugeot diesel.
TABLE 14. ROUGH COMPARISON OF VEHICLE "D" ODOR RATINGS
Type
Fuel
Diesel
3.4
3. 2
3.0
Car Evaluated
Nissan-Datsun W
S
Mercedes 220D
Peugeot 504D
Opel Rekord
TCCS Cricket
Chrys. Gas Turbine 1.1
Gasoline Ford LTD
Standard Capri
PROCO Capri
TCCS Cricket
10/8/74
10/11/74
Honda CVCC 1.7
Six Steady
States Idle
2.9
2.7
3. 1
Three
Trans.
4.7
4.6
3.7
All Ten
Conditions
3.8
3.6
3. 2
5.2
3.9
5. 2
1.. 1
1.5
3.0
1.0
3.3
3.4
4.8
3.3
5.3
1.5
1.2
3.3
0.7
' 2.7
3. 1
5.7
4. 1
5. 2
0.8
1.5
2.9
1.6
2.4
2.8
5.3
3.9
5. 2
1.0
1.5
3.0
1. 1
3.0
3. 2
3.2
3.5
2.4
83
-------
To give some idea of the possible difference in odorant concen-
tration, the expression used to develop the odor Q/I kit may be used to
compare the Peugeot to the Mercedes 220D, both diesel powered. The
Mercedes was the lowest diesel of the group tested and is the other
diesel car, beside the Peugeot, currently marketed in the U. S.
Odorant Concentration = 2n
where n is the difference in "D" bottle
intensity ratings
Raising 2 to the "D"-5. 3 minus "D"-3. 2 or 22- 1 equals 4.29. The "D"-
5. 3 and "D"-3. 2 are from Table 14 for all ten conditions, Peugeot and
Mercedes. Thus, if the exhaust odorants in the 100:1 diluted exhaust
follow this relationship, the Peugeot is over four times the odorant
concentration as the Mercedes. This means to reduce the perceived
odor level of the Peugeot to that of the Mercedes, for example, will
require a substantial reduction in odorant concentration since perceived
odor is related to odorant strength by a power function not specifically
defined for diesel exhaust.
It is not technically correct to compare the gasoline results to
that of the diesel fueled engines even though the same odor measure-
ment system was employed. This was the first time the EPA Q /I diesel
odor kit has ever been used with a gasoline fueled Otto or stratified
charge type cycle. The experiments, especially the first series of
tests, were most difficult and frustrating to the panel, trained to
evaluate dilute diesel exhaust samples. The odor from the gasoline
engine, with the exception of the Texaco TCCS, was generally not as
strong and had a different quality not at all like that of the diesel engines
previously evaluated. Of all the ratings made, most importance was
given to the "D" intensity rating.
Even though there was an odor to the exhaust, it was so unlike
diesel exhaust that the "D" values are somewhat suspect. Except for
the standard Capri and the Texaco TCCS, the gasoline cars all had odor
levels at "D"-2 or less (Ford LTD and Honda CVCC, except transients)
and "D"-1.3 or less (PROCO Capri) with the exception of PROCO accel.
For conventional odor measurement, "D"-2 is considered a light odor
and is the lowest level for which reliable ratings by the odor panel are
possible. For average ratings below "D"-2, more individual ratings of
"D"-l and "D"-1.5 are involved. As odor ratings approach 1, the
reliability of the rating decreases rapidly.
Below "D"-l, the odor ratings are merely guesses since the
threshold of detection is encountered and the Q/I kit is inappropriate.
Average values less than "D"-l, for most of the PROCO runs, are
considered to indicate the presence of an odor and nothing more. The
84
-------
Ford LTD runs gave "D"-l to "D"-2 and their reliability and precision
are somewhat of concern.
Of the gasoline cars evaluated, the standard Capri "D" values
were the highest overall, being in the "D"-2. 2 to "D"-3.5 range. The
three transients with the Honda CVCC resulted in "D" odor ratings of
"D"-2. 6 to 4.4, slight to moderately strong levels. Although the
Capri ratings were in the same range, though slightly lower than the
Mercedes 220D, the comparison should not be carried much further.
The gross difference in odor character between the gasoline and diesel
cars precludes any direct comparisons. The major conclusion of the
odor testing with the gasoline cars is that it can be done if conditions
are preset very carefully, and ratings can be made with difficulty by
the same basic procedure and method of expression used with diesels.
A relative comparison within the group of diesels and within the group
of gasoline cars is the extent to which the results should technically be
used at this time.
There are two reports'*^' *-®' and a paper(l7) which summarize
the results of public opinion surveys made of diesel exhaust odor. In
general, these studies show increasing public objectionability with
increased odor intensity. Although beyond the scope of this project,
it would be interesting to consider the specific objectionability of the
cars tested in this project. There is little doubt that all diesels
tested would be easily noticed by the general public. The specific
Peugeot, as tested, would be much more objectionable than the other
three diesels using the scale developed for city bus exhaust odor. It
would be unfortunate if widespread use of diesels happened to have an
odor intensity as high as the Mercedes. The goal must be no more
noticeable than the gasoline engine. Though debatable, a "D" level of
less than "D"-2 seems appropriate. None of the diesels in this project
have demonstrated this type of exhaust odor but some large size HD
diesels have approached it. With care and attention to detail, a
properly optimized and designed passenger car diesel should possess
an overall "D" odor level of less than "D"-2.
For additional odor panel measurement data, Tables C-l through
C-34 are provided. For each car, these tables are used to first sum-
marize the two days of work, three in the case of the Chrysler gas
turbine, and then tabulate the individual run results for each day. The
Appendix C tables are in the same order as the cars were tested and
summarized on Table 12 in the text. These detailed results are pro-
vided for further study and evaluation of run-to-run repeatability and
day-to-day agreement of not only the intensity but quality ratings.
2. Gaseous Emissions
Simultaneous with the odor ratings, a number of gaseous emis-
85
-------
sions were analyzed. Table 15 is a complete summary of these
instrumental-wet chemical ratings for the seven steady-states evaluated.
Also listed on Table 15 are the DOAS odor instrument values. This
data, from raw exhaust, correlates well with the 13-mode raw exhaust
concentrations although different speeds were involved. It is interesting
to note the behavior of HC and oxygenates versus load and to compare
this with odor intensity in Figures 12-22.
In the case of the Nissan, Mercedes, Capri Standard and PROCO,
the increase in HC was either incidental or did not correlate well with
the slight rise in odor experienced. Only the standard Capri, at high
speed, HC correlated with "D" odor. Yet the odor was not gasoline
odor. Oxygenates for the same four cars shows such mixed behavior
with load as to preclude any generalization. It is interesting to note
the substantially higher formaldehyde and aliphatic aldehydes from the
standard Capri relative to the PROCO Capri and the absence of
acrolein in the PROCO exhaust. Perhaps the abnormally high oxy-
genates from the standard Capri were in part responsible for its
abnormally high odor.
Similar analyses for the Peugeot, whose odor was minimum at
half load, indicates HC to have some degree of correlation. The
oxygenates, however, show mixed results relative to odor trends. The
reason the Peugeot odor and HC seem to "track" may be because the
HC are grossly higher from the Peugeot relative to the Mercedes and
Nissan. In prior projects, HC has been considered a good predictor
of odor until the HC is reduced to about 100 ppm. Below this level,
other exhaust odorants apparently are more important.
The Opel car had peak odor at half load. HC from Table 15
definitely do not agree trendwise. Neither do acrolein, formaldehyde,
or aldehydes correlate consistently to odor. The Ford LTD and Honda
CVCC both experienced a slight decrease in odor as load increased.
Only the high speed LTD HC data are consistent with the decrease in
odor of these two cars. Of the oxygenate data, the Ford LTD high
speed aldehyde values decreased as power increased. At intermediate
speed, the Honda CVCC formaldehyde and aldehyde ratings uniformly
decreased with the opposite trend noticed at high speed. The diesel
fueled Texaco TCCS decrease in odor with power increase correlated
with HC at high speed but not intermediate speed. The three oxygenate
values tended to track the "D" odor intensity but at high speed, like the
HC results.
The gasoline powered TCCS results for both 10/8/74 and 10/11/74
are shown on Table 15 for comparison. The 10/11/74 results with the
spark timing at known standard seemed to increase HC, CO and lower
NOX although under some conditions, such as 3000 rpm no load, the
effect was negligible. Idle showed the opposite trend with HC and CO
86
-------
TABLE 15. EXHAUST ANALYSES TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS
DURING STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS*
Vehicle
Condition
Intermediate
Speed, no load
Intermediate
Speed, mid load
Intermediate
Speed, high load
High Speed
no load
Exhaust
Emission
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL. ppm
0,. %
c62, %
Acrolein, ppm
Formaldehyde, ppm
Aliph. Aide. , ppm
TIA
LCA. ^/l
LCO, ^/l
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
02. %
co2, %
Acrolein, ppm
Formaldehyde, ppm
Aliph. Aide., ppm
TIA
LCA. ^.g/1
LCO>A£/1
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
02, %
C02. %
Acrolein, ppm
Formaldehyde, ppm
Aliph. Aide., ppm
TIA
LCA.^-g/l
LCOy^/1
HC, ppml.
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
02. %
Acrolein, ppm
Formaldehyde, ppm
Aliph. Aide. , ppm
TIA
LCA, -g/1
LCO.^/1
Dati
Winter
68
264
57
78
97
16.8
2.7
1. 1
5.0
11.0
1. 5
7
3.5
103
173
365
332
344
10.8
7.5
0.8
3.5
11.0
1.6
9
3.7
115
2792
384
380
380
1.3
14.4
1.0
3.7
9.4
1.7
17
4.8
60
326
129
138
153
15.7
3.2
0.8
4.2
12.9
1.8
26
6.9
sun
Summer
83
271
66
75'
96
17. 1
2.3
2.3
5.2
9. 1
1. 4
4
2.8
67
168
333
307
317
11.2
6.8
1.8
5.0
11.8
1.5
6
3.4
107
536
417
400
400
2.6
13.7
1.8
4.6
7.7
1.6
11
4.3
75
304
134
136
142
16.0
3.2
2.3
5.8
7.7
1.8
17
5.8
Mercedes
220D
76
227
66
75
83
16.4
2.8
0.9
2.4
9.6
1.6
12
4. 1
77
248
340
333
338
11. 1
7.0
0.7
3.4
10.5
1.6
13
4. 1
81
301
438
412
417
6.3
10.9
0.7
4.2
9.4
1.7
13
5.0
57
362
97
103
108
15.5
3.5
0.9
3.7
11.8
1.6
10
3.9
Peugeot
504D
1004
761
34
32
53
17.4
2.5
11.2
10.5
36. 0
2.2
134
16.0
339
237
221
194
208
11.4
7.2
2.9
10.7
17.8
2. 1
112
12.7
391
686
249
223
223
4.4
12.5
2.0
13.3
20.2
2. 1
128
15.7
952
466
56
53
76
16.7
3.0
5.0
11.9
24.8
2. 1
153
13.5
Opel
Rekord
94
246
59
94
115
15.6
2.7
2.7
3.8
10.6
1.7
12
5. 1
114
162
288
283
290
8.7
8.4
1.5
3.3
7.6
1.9
25
7. 1
140
541
293
306
310
3.2
13.2
1.0
3.6
7.8
1.9
20
7.9
98
362
85
106
128
14.9
3.4
3. 1
3.5
10.0
1.8
10
6.8
Ford
LTD
294
221
101
95
99
7. 1
10.0
1.3
8. 1
21.9
1.6
4
4.4
318
198
821
798
802
5.9
10.8
0.9
14.6
30.8
1.8
5
5.2
220
226
1409
1354
1363
5.4
11.3
1.8
11.4
31.3
1.8
•3
6.3
523
287
325
305
305
7.2
9.8
1. 1
6.5
27.0
1.9
6
6.6
Capri
Std.
1052
1.9%
65
59
62
3. 3
11.9
1.7
20.9
60. 5
1.9
26
8.3
1311
0.5%
654
541
559
3.6
12.2
3.7
21.9
57.7
2.2
41
14.6
1480
0.2%
1707
1413
1467
3.5
12.3
5.0
22.9
66.4
2.2 -
•39
47.9
144
0.4%
150
119
119
1.3
14.2
1.6
19.7
51.6
2.0
24
9.2
Capri
PROCO
21
3
118
109
110
5.4
11.2
0
0.8
9.5
0.7
0
0.6
7
4
288
279
273
2.2
14.3
0
1.0
7.6
0.7
0
0.6
8
0
668
643
644
2.9
13.4
0
1.8
9.0
0.5
0
0.4
9
4
212
203
204
4.8
11.8
0. 1
2.2
8. 1
0.6
0
0.6
TCCS
Diesel
2311
937
.
45
50
15.7
2.01
9.5
55.2
121. 1
2. 5
204.2
29.9
742
136
.
123
127
13.6
4.47
6.1
31.5
57.6
2.5
180.0
33.5
1182
92
-
240
247
12.0
5.77
3.5
39.6
64.9
2.4
159.7
26.3
1984
834
-
60
66
16.0
2.52
9.7
44.2
100.7
2.6
194.8
34.5
TCCS
10/8/74
2037
461
_
51
57
15.7
2.06
5.9
27.6
49. 5
1.9
20. 1
8.4
404
29
.
133
140
13.8
3.84
1.3
14.5
20.4
1.5
5.6
3.2
181
26
.
255
275
11.2
5.61
2.0
14.3
28. 1
1.5
4.2
2.9
2389
212
-
52
57
15.0
2.70
5.6
15.0
29.4
1.9
20. 1
8.0
Gasoline
10/11 /74
2603
534
_
43
48
15. 1
1.99
4.9
16.4
34.6
1.7
18.6
5.3
576
35
.
115
122
14. 1
3.97
1.4
12.2
21.3
1. 6
6.0
4.8
244
25
-
227
238
11.2
5.76
1.0
13.3
22.3
1.4
1.6
2.5
2400
165
-
48
53
15.3
2.79
3.6
14.8
31. 1
2.0
23.4
9.5
Monda
CVCC
158
4233
139
88
93
3.0
13.05
1.5
18. 5
36. 2
1.4
6.2
3. 2
38
1893
602
425
441
2.3
13.52
0.9
8.6
16.7
1.3
5.9
3.0
105
2728
1284
1138
1165
2.8
13. 18
1. 1
3.7
13.8
1.2
3.0
1.6
37
508
167
125
131
2.6
13.4
0.7
3.8
13. 1
1.4
4.0
2.7
Chrysler
Gas
Turbine
29
41
_
8
9
0.8
22
29
.
13
14
_
1.0
18
20
-
19
19
-
1.2
23
23
-
15
16
1. 1
-------
TABLE 15 (Cont'd.) EXHAUST ANALYSES TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS
DURING STEADY-STATE CONDITIONS*
Vehicle
Condition
High Speed,
mid load
High Speed,
high load
Idle Speed,
no load
Exhaust
Emission
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL, ppm
Oz, %
C02. %
Acrolein, ppm
Formaldehyde, ppm
Aliph. Aide., ppm
TIA
LCA.^^g/l
LCO.^/1
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR. ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NOX-CL. ppm
°Z, %
coz, %
Acrolein, ppm
Formaldehyde, ppm
Aliph. Aide. , ppm
TIA
LCA, ^/l
LCO(/^s/l
HC, ppmC
CO, ppm
NO-NDIR, ppm
NO-CL, ppm
NO.-CL. ppm
oz,»
co2>%
Acrolein, ppm
Formaldehyde, ppm
Aliph. Aide., ppm
TIA
LCA, >*g/l
LCO(/^/l
Dati
Winter
52
133
425
427
427
10.0
8. 1
0.4
2.9
8.3
1.6
11
3.7
481
11,555
398
378
382
0.4
14.5
0.3
3.3
10.5
1.7
14
5.0
59
169
96
97
126
16.6
2.5
0.9
4.0
11.8
1.7
42
5.2
sun
Summer
33
135
407
400
402
9.9
7.5
1.7
5.0
9.6
1.5
5
3.5
125
2261
428
423
423
1.5
14.0
1.7
3.3
6.3
1.6
9
3.9
39
151
84
96
104
17. 1
2.3
1.9
4.4
8.3
1.9
24
8.9
Mercedes
220D
55
252
412
388
391
10.3
7.8
0.7
4.4
11.3
1.6
10
3.8
92
273
565
534
534
5. 1
11.7
0.8
4.2
9.8
1.9
24
8. 1
116
254
99
107
110
16.2
2.9
0.9
2.7
10.3
1.6
13
3.6
Peugeot
504D
412
549
247
302
312
10.5
8. 1
5.4
15.4
20.0
2. 1
106
13.6
562
1099
315
304
306
3.4
13. 1
2.6
10.0
19.7
2.5
194
27.5
332
592
63
71
81
17.4
2.9
6.7
14.4
32.6
2.0
63
9.8
Opel
Rekord
172
242
351
336
344
9.0
8.2
2. 1
3.5
8.9
2.0
50
11.4
130
975
332
338
340
2.3
13.8
1.0
4.3
7.6
2.1
37
13.0
69
187
45
93
98
15.9
2.6
1.7
3.1
7.8
1.7
13
4.8
Ford
LTD
102
341
656
642
642
2.9
13.5
0.8
5.7
21. 1
1.4
3
4.9
63
596
696
679
679
1.8
14.1
0.9
5.9
18.7
1.6
4
4.0
116
133
67
70
70
6. 1
10.7
0.7
8.4
24.2
1.5
3
3.9
Capri
Std.
1075
0.4%
2473
1867
1883
1.2
14.0
4.4
25.0
62.6
2.2
36
14.5
1883
3.1
1944
1690
171J
0.4
13.7
2.4
25.2
58.3
2.1
53
14.8
2107
4.4%
27
22
25
8.3
7.2
2.9
18.4
54.7
1.9
34
9.0
Capri
PROCO
5
6
871
831
831
1.9
14.4
0
1.7
7.3
0.5
0
0.4
20
8
1396
1317
1323
4.7
11.7
0
1.0
9.5
1.1
0
1.3
51
5
46
61
61
9.2
8.1
0
1.7
8.3
0.6
8
0.5
TCCS
Diesel
331
120
_
309
317
12.6
5.35
4.3
50.0
71. 1
2.3
139.4
21.0
649
75
_
746
765
9. 1
8. 10
5.5
62.7
70.9
2.2
130.9
18.9
1037
767
.
84
87
14.9
3.22
8.5
46.3
100.2
2.2
146. 1
16. 1
TCCS
10/8/74
176
47
_
317
333
11.5
5.42
3.3
13.9
21.4
1.5
4.8
3.4
36
42
_
697
743
8.3
8. 10
2.4
14.5
23. 1
1.3
2.6
2.2
845
17
.
92
96
13.3
4.08
1.6
17.9
30.8
1.4
13.5
2.6
Gasoline
10/11/74
163
13
_
258
272
12.3
5.34
1.0
13.5
24.5
1.4
2.5
2.6
43
40
.
6)8
70S
8.3
8. 10
1.8
14.9
23.6
1.2
2.6
1.8
1781
176
.
85
87
14.7
2.94
1.5
13.5
32.2
1.4
13.4
2.7
Honda
CVCC
33
419
1368
963
987
2.7
13.54
2.0
9.3
14.5
1.4
2.5
3.0
60
1607
3011
2379
Z455
1.8
13.92
3.0
12.4
20.7
1.3
3.7
2.6
632
4796
100
66
70
3.7
12.58
6.0
6.6
21.7
2. 1
34.7
11.7
Chrysler
Gas
Turbine
26
11
_
39
39
1.4
52
10
_
67
68
.
1.7
35
52
.
7
7
•
0.7
"Intermediate Speed Is 60 percent of highspeed defined as the rpm in highest gear that coincides with 56 mph vehicle speed and level road load.
Mid load is fuel rate midway between no load (neutral) and high load fuel rates. Ford LTD, both Capris and Chrysler gas turbine ran at 4 times
level road load at 50 mph (full load) and 2 times level road load at 50 mph (mid load). Texaco TCCS and Honda CVCC were run at 3 times level
road load at 50 mph (high load) and 1. 5 times level road load at 50 mph (mid load). High speed (56 mph) and intermediate speeds based on preset
road load settings at 50 mph. For additional test condition description, refer to Table 4.
-------
higher at the standard timing . Assuming the timing was advanced on
10/8/74, the HC, CO and NOX results are consistent. Taking the
results of 10/11/74 at standard timing as the most representative,
the HC at both speeds correlate well at no load and mid load. The high
power conditions produced very low HC yet the odor persisted.
The TCCS engine includes a special Texaco developed oxidation
catalyst system. During the extended steady state odor tests of five
minutes duration, the catalyst was observed to be effective on HC and
CO. The effect was not as rapid, with time, as has been seen with other
oxidation units because the longer the vehicle operated, the lower the
HC and CO became. In some cases, depending on the previous mode,
the HC and CO increased with time. Examples of this were the idle
and no load conditions at 1800 and 3000 rpm. Chart reading became
most difficult since stabilized HC, and to a lesser extent CO, were
normally not attained until the last part of the five-minute run.
Since the odor panel rates the exhaust at a time between 30 and 90
seconds after reaching the operating speed and load, the HC and other
gaseous emissions were then time-averaged during the panel observa-
tion period. This rationale would then allow correlation analysis of
instrumental to odor values.
The Chrysler gas turbine gaseous emissions were obtained
basically for future reference in the event additional test work was
involved where replication of the conditions was required. Gas
turbine emissions are typically very low in concentration because the
engine has inherently low HC and CO and because of the large amount
of excess air typically handled by such an engine. HC seemed to
track well with observed odor in that at high speed and load, the HC
was high and at other modes where odor was low, HC was low. The
no load, intermediate speed, HC value was less than the high speed
and load though the odor at no load was higher. These types of incon-
sistencies make correlation most difficult. The idle odor condition
was the highest of the gas turbine, except cold start, yet the HC
concentration was less than the high speed and load concentration.
Consequently, except for the Peugeot, HC and oxygenates would be
expected to perform poorly as predictors of observed diesel odor.
In reviewing Table 15 data, some general remarks can be made.
First, no one engine or car was consistently the highest emitter. The
TCCS HC were generally as high or higher than most, especially when
operating on diesel fuel. Depending on operating condition, the TCCS
fueled with gasoline was higher. The diesel fueled TCCS was highest
in oxygenate production of all cars tested and only the Peugeot 504D
approached the acrolein values. Formaldehyde and aliphatic aldehyde
concentrations were as high or higher than any ever measured by
SwRI and were substantially higher than the Peugeot even though odor
ratings were quite comparable.
89
-------
Comparing the diesel to the gasoline TCCS, the odor differences
were occasionally but not generally borne out by the HC differences.
Although HC was higher from the gasoline TCCS under several con-
ditions, odor was always less. Thus, HC seems an even poorer
indicator of exhaust odor where two different types of fuel, gasoline
and diesel, are involved. From past diesel engine experience, HC
at the rather high levels encountered from the TCCS engine should
be fairly good in predicting observed odor.
There is a great deal more analysis that could be made of the
data on Table 15. The DOAS results will be discussed in the next sub-
section. For additional, more detailed, summaries of the instrumental
chemistry data taken simultaneously with odor tests, please refer to
Appendix D. As with Appendix C, there are three tables per car, the
first a summary of the two days of testing and one for each day, listing
results of each run. The gas turbine values listed on Table 15 are
overall averages of three separate odor tests in which each condition
was run three times. Each gas turbine value is the average of nine
measurements. Tables D-l through D-34 may be helpful in later
analyses, odor correlation, etc. , beyond the intent of this report.
3. DOAS Results - Steady State
Table 15 listed the TIA, LCO, and LCA values for the seven
steady state odor test conditions. These were summarized from the
extensive individual run data tabulated in Appendix D. To facilitate
comparison of the DOAS and trained panel results, Figures 24 and 25
are plots of the TIA versus observed "D" odor intensity. These graphs
are based on average "D" and TIA data listed in Table 16. Table 16
is a summary recompilation of the DOAS values in Appendix D and
the odor panel data in Appendix C.
Figure 24 illustrates the relationship of the "D" intensity and
TIA for the four diesel cars and the diesel fueled TCCS. Note the
full load conditions are grouped together at one end (solid points),
the half load are grouped in the center of the graph (denoted by points
half shaded), and no load points are all at the lower end of the graph
for the Nissan and Mercedes. The TCCS, Peugeot and Opel diesel
results showed less distinct grouping. This is not surprising relative
to earlier analyses of the effect of load on odor, Figures 12-22.
A straight line could be drawn through the points plotted on
Figure 24. Such a line would represent a linear relationship of pre-
dicted odor by TIA value, to that observed by the panel. More on this
specific relationship will be discussed later. The item of importance
is that there appears to be a relationship of TIA to observed diesel odor
that is promising. The Peugeot no load points (open triangles) are some
of the points furthest from a straight line relationship. This is the first
90
-------
TABLE 16. COMPARISON OF TIA AND "D" ODOR'VALUES
Diesel
Nissan^
Condition
Idle
No load
Inter, rpm
Mid load
Inter, rpm
High load
Inter, rpm
No load
High rpm
Mid load
High rpm
Highload
High rpm
Day
1st
2nd
Avg.
1st
2nd
Avg.
1st
2nd
Avg.
1st
Znd
Avg.
1st
Znd
Avg.
1st
Znd
Avg.
1st
Znd
Avg.
TIA
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.8
1. 5
1. 5
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.9
"D"
2.
2.
3.
3.
2.
3.
3.
3.
Z.
Z.
3.
3.
4.
3.
9
7
1
1
8
0
8
7
4
1
7
1
8
9
Mercedes
TIA
1.6
1. 5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1. 6
1. 5
1. 5
1. 7
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.8
1.9
"D"
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
Z.7
2. 5
2. 6
2.5
2.7
2. 6
3.5
3.3
3.4
2.3
Z.8
Z.6
3. Z
Z.9
3. 1
3. 7
4. 1
3.9
Powered
Peugeot
TIA
1.9
Z. 0
2.0
2. 1
2.2
2. 2
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2.0
2. Z
Z. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
Z. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2.4
2.5
2.5
"D"
4.
4.
4.
6.
5.
6.
4.
3.
4.
4.
4.
4.
6.
5.
6.
4.
4.
4.
5.
5.
5.
8
7
8
2
7
0
4
7
1
7
6
7
3
7
0
9
4
7
9
2
6
Opel
TIA
1.8
1.6
1. 7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
2. 1
1.9
2.0
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
"D"
3. 5
3. 0
3. 3
3.5
3. 5
3. 5
4. 3
4.0
4.2
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.3
4. 8
4. 1
4. 5
3.9
4. 1
4. 0
Tex.
TIA
2. 1
2.2
2. 2
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.5
2. 5
2. 5
2.4
Z.4
Z.4
Z. 5
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.3
Z. 2
Z. 2
2.2
TCCS
"D"
4.
5.
5.
6.
5.
b.
5.
5.
5.
5.
4.
5.
6.
6.
6.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
4.
8
7
3
0
4
7
4
3
4
7
3
0
1
0
1
2
6
4
8
7
8
Ford
TIA
1.8
1.3
1. 6
1.8
1. 5
1. 7
1.8
1. 7
1.8
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
1. 8
1. 5
1. 7
1. 7
1. 5
1. 6
LTD
"D"
1.
1.
1.
1.
2.
2.
1.
1.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1.
1
3
2
8
1
0
Z
7
5
9
5
Z
4
5
5
0
1
1
1
7
4
Gasoline
Capri Std.
TIA
2.0
2. 0
2. 0
2.0
1.9
2.0
2. 2
2. 2
Z. Z
Z. Z
Z. 3
Z. 3
Z. 1
1.8
Z.O
Z. 2
2. 2
2.2
2.2
2. 1
Z. Z
"D"
3.
3.
3.
2.
Z.
2.
3.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
2.
1.
2.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
3.
Z
3
3
5
9
7
4
6
0
4
3
4
6
Z
5
4
5
1
4
3
Capri
TIA
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
8
4
6
8
7
8
8
6
7
7
4
6
9
6
8
6
6
6
Z
1
Z
Powered
PROCO
"D"
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
1.
1.
7
6
7
7
8
8
8
7
8
3
7
0
0
b
8
4
8
1
4
1
3
Tex.
TIA
1.4
1.4
1.9
1. 7
1. 5
1. 6
1. 5
1.4
1.9
2. 0
1. 5
1.4
1.3
1. 2
TCCS** Honda
i>
2.
3.
3.
4.
Z.
3.
3.
3.
3.
4.
2.
2.
3.
3.
D"
7
1
7
5
8
2
4
0
9
1
9
5
3
0
TIA
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
1.5
1. 3
1.4
). 3
1. 3
1. 3
1. 3
1. 0
1. 2
). 5
1. Z
1.4
1. 2
1. 5
1.4
1. 4
1. 2
1. 3
CVCC
"D"
3.4
2.9
3.2
2.4
1.7
2. 1
1.4
1. 5
1.5
1.4
1. 5
1. 5
2. 2
1. 6
1.9
1. 5
1.7
1.6
1. 7
1. 5
1.6
*lst day winter, Znd day summer.
**lstday 10-8-74, Znd day 10-11-74
-------
2.5
3.0
3.5 4.0 4.5
Average "D" Odor Rating at 100:1 Dilution
5.0
5.5
6.0
FIGURE 24 . PERCEIVED "D" ODOR INTENSITY VERSUS TIA BY DOAS FOR
FOUR DIESEL CARS AND A DIESEL FUELED TEXACO TCCS
100:1 Dilution
-------
such opportunity to use the DOAS instrument on a variety of diesel fueled
engines with odor panel measurement simultaneously.
Figure 25 is a similar plot to Figure 24 but is for the three
gasoline cars. Recall that the DOAS was not developed for engines and
fuels other than the diesel. The results plotted on Figure 25 should
therefore be considered alone and distinctly from that on Figure 24.
It is interesting to note that for the five gasoline cars, the relation-
ship is not nearly as linear looking as the four diesels. Note the
general scatter of the data on Figure 25, the Honda CVCC and Texaco
TCCS both had lower TIA values than the other three cars. If a
straight line were drawn, a slope of about 0. 2 TIA per "D" bottle
intensity is noted. This slope is about the same as that roughly
determined for the diesel car relationship of Figure 24.
Below about "D"-1.5 on Figure 25, however, the slope of the
relationship, if in fact there is any, changes radically and is much
steeper. It may be possible that the instrumental method is still
working as it should but the limit of supra-threshold panel operation
has been exceeded. As mentioned before in this and the PartV final
report( 14), panel evaluation of low odor levels, below "D"-2, becomes
imprecise rapidly as odor strength is further reduced. This is
probably a good reason, though probably not the only reason, for the
noticeable break in the data. The majority of the very low odor levels
were from the stratified charge PROCO Capri equipped with oxidation
catalyst. Both items likely had a bearing on the results and could be
reasons for the change in DOAS-Panel relationship. The LCO, on which
the TIA is based, may well have been greatly decreased in this car
without affecting odor.
There probably is some minimum cut-off or limit to which the
DOAS is applicable in the TIA = 1 + logjg LCO. This entire question
has yet to be fully investigated for diesel exhaust, much less gasoline
burning engines. It is nothing short of good fortune that the DOAS even
worked with a gasoline engine exhaust, much less gave LCO values
which, when converted to TIA came out predicting about the same
increase in odor per increment of TIA as the diesels. The problems
below "D"-l. 5 are not surprising and not totally unexpected.
Ten graphs, one for each car, known as Figures E-l through
E-10 of LCA, LCO and TIA versus power level are included in Appen-
dix E. These plots are intended to help in relating DOAS results to
the odor, HC and oxygenate results previously discussed. Recall
the Nissan, Mercedes and both Capri autmobile odor ratings increased
more or less with power. It is fairly safe to state from Figures E-l,
E-2, and E-6 that the DOAS LCA, LCO, and TIA also increased with
load. A notable exception was the Ford PROCO which was not consistent.
Previous concern over the odor and DOAS ratings from this low emis-
93
-------
0.2
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0 2.5 3.0
Average "D" Odor Rating
3.5
FIGURE 25. PERCEIVED "D" ODOR RATING VERSUS TIA BY DOAS FOR
FORD LTD, STANDARD CAPRI, PROCO CAPRI, TEXACO TCCS AND HONDA CVCC GASOLINE CARS
100:1 Dilution
-------
sion car may explain this lack of correspondence and vice versa.
The Peugeot 504D has definitely minimum odor and HC at half
load. So did the LCA, LCO and TIA from Figure E-3. The Opel LCO
and TIA tended to increase consistently with an'increase in load. So,
only a partial agreement of DOAS trend with odor panel "D" ratings is
apparent. The Ford LTD basically had slightly less odor with increase
in load. The TIA, from Figure E-5, did not demonstrate a consistent
trend. Only the 2000 rpm TIA increased with load. The TIA increased
slightly at 1200 rpm as load increased.
The Texaco TCCS powered vehicle (diesel fuel) showed TIA, LCO,
and LCA values (Figure E-8, that were in basic agreement with the odor
data except at 3000 rpm, high load. The same engine, operating on
gasoline, produced LCO (TIA) and LCA that agreed trendwise with the
odor results at no load and mid load. Odor was increased at high
power, Figure 20, yet TIA , etc. , decreased per Figure E-9. The
higher odor levels of the diesel TCCS, on the order of "D"-4. 5 to 6 ,
were related to TIAs of 2. 2 to 2. 6. The gasoline fueled TCCS had
observed odor intensities ranging from "D"-2. 5 to 4.5 with TIAs
ranging from 1. 3 to 2. 0. It seems that one TIA unit is approximately
equal to about two "D" odor units from this analysis. From Figure 24,
this relationship of 1 TIA = 2 "D" is probably close but the same is
not as true from the gasoline data plotted on Figure 25.
The Honda CVCC DOAS results, plotted in Figure E-10, cor-
responded fairly well with the decrease in odor with increasing load
as shown in Figure 21. From these modal trends, the degree of
agreement between TIA and "D" rating is greater than the instances of
disagreement. For this reason, it must be concluded that the CAPE 7
DOAS system is worth further research and evaluation. It appears to
have promise for steady-state odor prediction although it appears far
from total agreement with the SwRI odor panel.
4. DOAS Results - Transient
An attempt was made to obtain TIA, LCO, and LCA values during
the 1975 FTP light duty test procedure. The object was to try and
relate transient TIA values to various odor ratings obtained by the
ten mode odor evaluation using the trained panel. Figure 26 is a bar
chart summary of the average 1975 FTP transient test LCA, LCO,
and TIA results. The difference in observed odor from the Peugeot
and TCCS (diesel) relative to the other vehicles is accentuated on
Figure 26 especially by the LCA graph. LCO and TIA were also
significantly higher than the other cars.
It may not be proper to show the gasoline DOAS results on the
same chart with the diesel. But, the preliminary nature of the test,
-------
-------
this being the first time such tests have been attempted with the tran-
sient test, may wash out the fact the system was intended for diesels.
The 1975 FTP DOAS results for the four gasoline powered cars thus
tested all resulted in the lowest measurements of the entire group.
TIA and LCD gave highest odor prediction to the TCCS with the CVCC
and PROCO about equivalent. LCA was lowest for the PROCO, possibly
due to the combination of stratified charge engine and the specific
oxidation catalyst employed. For a compilation of the DOAS results
for each run, please refer to Table F-l of Appendix F.
Figure 27 is an attempted correlation of the transient TIA results
with the arithmetic average of the ten mode odor test results. Also
shown on Figure 27 are plots of average TIA for the 1975 FTP versus
the seven steady state and the three transient modes. The average
odor panel ratings assume equal weight to each mode and are from the
data on Table 14. As expected from the basic data, the Peugeot and
diesel fueled TCCS stand alone as having highest TIA and observed
odor regardless of modal groupings. The PROCO and CVCC are at
the opposite end of the graph as having very low odor (PROCO) or very
low TIA (CVCC). The remaining diesel and gasoline powered cars
are in the middle.
The conclusion from this limited but informative test series is
that TIA from a 1975 FTP tends to correlate more or less with ob-
served odor from the ten mode test sequence for the same group of
cars thus tested. One implication of such a conclusion is that it
might be possible to determine odor from a car operating on a purely
transient test, where an odor panel is incapable of operating. This
supposes, of course, that the TIA to odor panel relationship has been
previously established and that the relationship is sufficiently close to
justify its use. The full potential of this finding has yet to be explored.
This is one of the more interesting developments of the project, however.
5. Prediction of Observed "D" Odor Ratings by TIA
Asa natural consequence of the steady state tests performed with
the four diesels, the TIA, LCO, and LCA data was subjected to a
multiple linear regression analysis with the observed "D" ratings ob-
tained at the same time. This analysis was limited to the four diesel
engines since the DOAS was developed strictly for use with diesel
engine exhaust odor. Each of the other engines included in this project
were "one-of-a-kind" or were distinctly different in their fuel require-
ments or design features to make their inclusion in a regression analysis
premature.
Appendix Tables G-l through G-4 list the pertinent values used for
each of the four cars. The observed DOAS results and the panel "D"
rating were the measured inputs. The last three columns on each table
97
-------
vO
00
0.4
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Average 1975 LD FTP TIA Value
1.0
1. 1
1.2
1.3
FIGURE 27. CORRELATION OF AVERAGE 1975 FTP TIA VALUES WITH
STEADY STATE AND TRANSIENT AVERAGE "D" ODOR RATINGS
-------
are the predicted "D" odor intensity using the following three equations:
Equation 1: "D"= -2. 0 + 3. 2 (TIA)
2: "D"= -0. 69 + 2. 3 (TIA) + 0. 045 (LCA)
3: "D" = -2. 9 + 4. 0 (TIA) + 0. 012 (LCA) - 0. 14 (LCO)
where L/CA and LCO are in g/1
and LCA is based on the ADL LCA standard
If, for example, the TIA value is used alone, then equation 1 would
be used and the predicted value would be above (+) or below (-) the ob-
served value as shown in Table 17 "diff" column. The TIA did better
on some cars than others. The Nissan odor was predicted best and the
Mercedes next best. The prediction of the Peugeot odor was poorest
of the four in comparison to the observed odor. In general, the over-
all prediction of all cars, if lumped together, was fairly close.
Odor research, however, is a science of specific engines and
conditions and for the DOAS to be of maximum usefulness, it would
seem that it must predict odor on most any diesel engine under most
any condition. In the case of the Peugeot and Opel, where the predicted
odor occasionally was substantially higher or lower than observed, the
use of the LCA, equation 3, was found, in combination with TIA and
LCO, to give a slightly better overall prediction. In other instances,
use of the LCA is questionable. The issue of concern is when to use
LCA in the equation and when not to since the researcher will likely
not have the luxury of a trained panel and their necessary facilities to
help him decide.
Of even greater concern is that usefulness of any predictive
method depends on its ability to correlate with perceived odor. The
DOAS does correlate with the panel. Its correlation is far from perfect
and to some merely marginal at best. The degree of agreement or
precision of predictability is an elusive target as it depends on the end
use of the results. For research purposes, most any degree of cor-
relation might do. However, as there is more and more at stake, in-
accuracies in odor measurement may not be tolerated to the extent
usually encountered, thus the need for an improved odor measurement
method.
There is no doubt that the odor prediction accuracy can be no
better than the odor measurement accuracy in the first place. Then if
±0. 5 "D" is the accuracy of the odor panel, ±0. 5"D" by the predictive
method using TIA would be equivalent. It would be except the predictive
method is based on the observed rating, thus the premise that the
predictive method, any predictive method, cannot exceed the accuracy
of the odor panel or human observer. It could approach and on rare
99
-------
TABLE 17. DIFFERENCE IN OBSERVED AND PREDICTED "D"
ODOR INTENSITY BASED ON TIA (FOUR DIESEL CAR TEST)
Nissan - Datsun
Mercedes 220D
Peugeot 504D
Opel Rekord
o
o
Condition
Idle
Intermediate
Speed, No Load
Intermediate
Speed, Half Load
Intermediate
Speed, Full Load
High Speed,
No Load
High Speed,
Half Load
High Speed,
Full Load
Day
KW)
2(S)
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Obs
2.9
2.7
3. 1
3. 1
2.8
3.0
3.8
3.7
2.4
2.1
3.7
3.1
4.8
3.9
Pred
2.8
2.5
3. 1
3.1
3.4
3.1
3.8
3.8
2.8
2.8
3.4
3.1
3.4
4.1
Diff
-. 1
-.2
0
0
+ .6
+ .1
0
+ .1
+ .4
+ .7
-.3
0
-1.4
+ .2
Obs
3. 1
3. 1
2.7
2.5
2.5
2.7
3.5
3.3
2.3
2.8
3.2
2.9
3.7
4.1
Pred
3. 1
2.8
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
2.8
3.4
3.1
3.1
2.8
3.1
2.8
4.1
3.8
Diff
0
-.3
+ .4
+ .6
+ .6
+ .1
-.1
-.2
+ .8
0
-.1
-.1
+ .4
-.3
Obs
4.4
4.7
6.2
5.7
4.4
3.7
4.7
4.6
6.3
5.4
4.9
4.4
5.9
5.2
Pred
4. 1
4.4
4.7
5.0
4.7
4.7
4.4
5.0
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.7
5.7
6.0
Diff
-.3
-.3
-1.5
-.7
+ .3
+ 1.0
-.3
+ .4
-1.6
-.7
-.2
+ .3
-.2
+ .8
Obs
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.1
4.3
4.0
3.6
3.8
3.3
3.3
4.8
4.1
3.9
4.1
Pred
3.8
3. 1
3.4
3.4
4. 1
3.8
4.1
4. 1
3.8
3.8
4.7
4.1
4.7
4.4
Diff
+ .3
+ . 1
-. 1
+ .3
-.2
-.2
+ .5
+ .3
+ .5
+ .5
-.1
0
+ .8
+ .3
-------
occasions be identical but never better.
6. Light HC and HC Distribution
Table 18 lists the results of GC and GLC analyses of bag and
DOAS trapped samples of raw exhaust hydrocarbons. These measure-
ments were made of samples obtained simultaneously with odor ratings
under the seven steady-state modes. For each mode, the four light
hydrocarbons present are listed in mole percent, i. e. , by weight per-
cent. On the surface, the differences in light HC by the two procedures
should be even greater since Table 9 transient results were of diluted
bags. The steady state runs, however, were under more optimum,
higher temperature conditions and may be the reason for the minimal
differences found. The GLC sample of the trapped material is then
listed to indicate the distribution of HC as "less than Cj2"» ^20 an^
above, and in four regions in between.
The results on Table 18 may be compared to those on Table 9
for the 1975 FTP transients. Of the four light hydrocarbons, methane
concentration continued to be the highest under most conditions. The
Peugeot and Opel at no load-intermediate speed, no load-high speed,
idle, and Peugeot half load-high speed were notable exceptions in which
ethylene was more predominant.
In general, the light HC results seem reasonable compared with
the transient values on Table 9. The Peugeot tended to have the highest
concentrations of the light HC and the Mercedes the lowest of the group
of four diesels by both transient and steady state tests. These are
general observations of the concentration data. The light HC consist of
methane, ethylene, acetylene, and propylene by GC analysis of the raw
exhaust sample. Other light HC, such as butane, propane, and ethane
were not present in detectable levels by the method used. The other
diesel fueled car, the TCCS, had light hydrocarbons that were on a
par or greater than the four diesels at no load and while at high load,
the reverse was true. The generally lower light HC at high load may
have been a function of the oxidation catalyst.
Also listed on Table 18 are the gasoline fueled car results. The
standard Capri had substantially more light hydrocarbons than the other
gasoline cars. This is not surprising since the Ford LTD, PROCO, and
TCCS powered vehicle use an oxidation catalyst. As with the diesel TCCS,
the effect of the catalyst was probably greater on the amount of light
HC production at high load than at no load. Some of the TCCS ethylene
and propylene values were as high as any other car during light loads
though not as high as the TCCS diesel or the standard Capri.
In the non-catalyst gasoline engine exhaust, acetylene, ethylene
and propylene are of more abundance than the catalyst cars. Except
101
-------
TABLE 18. DISTRIBUTION OF EXHAUST HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS DURING STEADY STATE ODOR TESTS
Vehicle
Condition
Intermediate
Speed, no load
Intermediate
Speed, mid load
Intermediate
Speed, high load
High Speed,
no load
Exhaust
Emission
Light Hydrocarbons
Methane, ppmC
Ethylene, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
HC Distribution, mole %
•~-ciz
C12-C13
C14-C15
Cj^-CjY
C)8-Clg
C20 +
Light Hydrocarbons
Methane, ppmC
Ethylene, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
HC Distribution, mole %
-------
TABLE 18 (Cont'd). DISTRIBUTION OF EXHAUST HYDROCARBON EMISSIONS DURING STEADY STATE ODOR TESTS
Vehicle
Condition
High Speed,
mid load
High Speed,
high load
Idle
Exhaust Nissai
Emission Datsu:
Light Hydrocarbons
Methane, ppmC
Ethylene, ppmC
Acetylene, ppmC
Propylene, ppmC
HC Distribution, mole %
-------
at idle, the Honda CVCC, a non-catalyst vehicle, was an exception to the
light HC trend shown by the standard Capri. The ethylene concentrations
for the Ford LTD and PROCO cars were quite different at the inter-
mediate speed. The LTD ethylene was much higher than would be
anticipated. Possibly the low engine speed of 1200 rpm was the reason.
Recall that the LTD odor and other emissions such as DOAS were some-
what different at 1200 than at 2000 rpm. Only methane of the four light
HC seemed to persist in the PROCO exhaust. This finding is in agree-
ment with the 1975 LD FTP transient results on Table 9.
The remainder of Table 18 are the HC distributions from C\2
to C2Q« The gasoline fueled cars were not included in this analysis due
to the substantially lower boiling range of gasoline and gasoline engine
exhaust hydrocarbons. In the discussion of Table 9, it was stated that
over sixty percent of the HC were between C 14 and Cjg. The same
holds true for the modal results of Table 18. In fact, there appears to
be very little difference in the mole percent between the four diesels
and the TCCS (diesel) for each portion of the distribution. About 3 to
3.5 percent below Cj2> *4 to 14.5 percent C\2~C ^3, 36 to 38 percent
C14-Ci5, 26 to 27. 5 percent C^-C^, 15. 5 to 16. 5 percent C jg-C jg
and 2 to 3 percent C£Q and above. Except for the C2Q and above, these
general conclusions are very similar to the results on Table 9. Since
these analyses were made with concentrated trap samples and expressed
in mole percent, there should be no difference due to whether a dilute
or raw sample was collected, trapped, and analyzed. Further analysis
of this basic data is beyond the scope of this project.
D. 1974 HD Diesel Smoke FTP
The results of the chassis simulated Federal smoke test are
summarized on Table 19. The "a" accel factors are listed first, fol-
lowed by the "b" lugdown and "c" peak smoke values. Three separate
runs were made and their individual results and average shown. Run-
to-run repeatability was termed good with the exception of the Opel
diesel run 1 versus runs 2 and 3. Only the four diesel cars were
operated on this procedure, basically intended for diesel engines in
trucks and buses.
The following are the smoke limits specified for the U. S.
beginning in 1970 and 1974 calendar years.
Federal Factor, % Opacity
"a" "b" "c"
Federal HD Limits 1970 40 20
1974 20 15 50
Although the chassis version is only a simulation of the Federal Test
104
-------
TABLE 19. EXHAUST SMOKE OPACITY READINGS
(Chassis Version of Federal Procedure)
Federal
Smoke
"a" factor
"b" factor
"c" factor
Run
No.
1
2
3
Avg.
1
2
3
Avg.
1
2
3
Avg.
Nissan
Summer
4.7
4.6
5.0
4.8
5.4
5.4
6.2
5.7
5.9
5.7
6.6
6. 1
Mercedes
220D
2.8
3.6
3.6
3.3
2.3
2.9
2.8
2.7
4.6
5.3
5.3
5. 1
Peugeot
504D
4. 1
4.0
3. 1
3.7
5.0
3.9
3.0
4.0
6.3
5.8
4.2
5.4
Opel
Rekord
7.0
4.8
4.3
5.4
10. 0
6.3
5.9
7.4
11. 1
6.8
6.8
8.2
TABLE 20. AVERAGE STEADY STATE SMOKE READINGS
DURING FULL POWER OPERATION
Nissan Summer
Mercedes 220D
Peugeot 504D
Opel Rekord
rpm
4000
3600
3200
2800
2400
2000
1600
Opacity
5.0
8. 0
6.5
4.5
4.2
3.5
3.2
rpm
4200
3800
3400
3000
2600
2200
1800
Opacity
2.5
2.5
2. 1
2.2
2.4
3.1
4.2
rpm
4500
4100
3700
3300
2900
2500
2100
Opacity
3.0
3.8
4.4
3. 3
4. 5
7. 1
6.3
rpm
4300
3900
3500
3100
2700
2500*
Opacity
11.8
9.8
5.5
5.5
5. 5
8. 8
^Downshifting of automatic transmission prevented
operation below 2450 rpm.
105
-------
Procedure, it is helpful to relate to these Federal limits as a frame
of reference. The Table 19 "a", "b" and "c" factors are all well below
the Federal limits for 1974 as they should be. The smoke levels of the
four diesel cars can better be compared to the limit of visibility of
exhaust smoke which is generally considered to be about three to four
percent opacity by the U. S. EPA full flow smokemeter used in this work.
The Mercedes and Peugeot both had "a" and "b" factors that are
considered very light as far as visibility is concerned. The "c" factor
is a peak smoke indication which means that at some short interval in
the test, smoke was in the vicinity of the "c" factor. The Opel diesel
car was the only vehicle to have what may be considered to be smoke
levels that would be noticed by a casual observer. The other cars
would be noticed only by someone who was interested in noticing the
smoke discharge. Appendix H includes the work sheets used to compute
the smoke factors. Please refer to these data sheets for specific
opacity readings taken from the strip charts from which the "a", "b"
and "c" factors were derived.
Table 20 lists the steady state smoke levels recorded at 400 rpm
increments from rated to below peak torque speed. These measurements,
made at maximum throttle or load, illustrate the effect of engine speed
on smoke behavior. Figure 28 is a plot of smoke opacity versus engine
speed for the four diesels. The Nissan showed an increase in smoke
with rpm to 3600 rpm and then a reduced output at 4000 rpm. The
Mercedes 220D engine decreased some in smoke output with an increase
in speed. The Peugeot 504D smoke decreased with an increase in speed
whereas the Opel Rekord increased steeply above 3500 rpm and below
2700 rpm. From Figure 28, it is hard to generalize about the visible
smoke from diesel engines in light duty applications under conditions of
maximum load.
It is interesting to compare the Mercedes smoke results to that
reported in references 1 and 3. The exhaust smoke in the 1974 tests
was about one-third that reported several years ago. There are several
possible reasons such as the cars were different year, or the cars could
have been adjusted differently. One fact is known and that is the current
tests revealed about 20 percent lower fuel rate than specified by the
manufacturer. What this means is the engine was operating in a derated
condition and this may have been one important reason for the lower
smoke readings.
A series of transient driving tests using the LA-4 (1975 FTP)
schedule were made with each vehicle. These replicate tests demon-
strated the ability of the U.S. EPA smokemeter to be used with a diesel
or stratified charge powered car during this transient chassis dyna-
mometer test. Evaluation of the traces has, of necessity, been of a
106
-------
12
11
10
o
o-
O
O
O
(VJ
O
o
o
o
co
CM
o
o
oo
CO
o
o
vO
CO
o
o
o
o
o
Engine Speed, rpm
FIGURE 28. SMOKE OPACITY AT VARIOUS ENGINE SPEEDS
UNDER MAXIMUM POWER OUTPUT CONDITIONS
107
-------
visual judgmental basis since no specific procedure has yet been developed
or suggested using such a transient, mostly light duty schedule. A well
designed diesel engine will not smoke appreciably until the last 10 to 15
percent of power demand, something that infrequently happens on the
LA-4 test even for the relatively low power to weight diesel powered
cars tested.
Table Zl is a listing of smoke values in percent opacity considered
important from a visual analysis of the traces. It was decided to look
for those conditions which might produce maximum noticeable smoke
during the cold as well as the hot start portion of the test. Since three
tests were made, three sets of readings are listed for each segment of
the LA-4 route evaluated. Table 21 starts with the initial cold start
which, for the diesel, usually results in a momentary peak value from
20 to 75 percent. Next, the cold idle which occurs immediately after
start produced negligible levels except for a couple of runs with the
Mercedes which seemed to smoke more at idle than the other cars.
This was noted throughout the test at each idle. The TCCS, operating
on diesel fuel, emitted smoke on the order of 7 percent opacity during
the initial cold idle.
Next, the initial accel with the still cold engine was rated for its
peak or maximum smoke level recorded. Each vehicle and engine re-
sponded differently with the Opel producing some very sharp spikes up
to 40 percent opacity. The duration of this peak was very short, hence
the work "spike". It is noticeable for a very brief period of less than
1 second. The Mercedes consistently produced peak opacities during
this initial accel in the range of 16 to 23 percent. The TCCS, operating
on diesel fuel, consistently produced peak opacities on the order of 60-
to 75 percent.
An interesting part of the entire 23-minute LA-4 driving pattern
occurs during the first 505 seconds or first bag. Starting at 164 seconds
of the test, the vehicle is accelerated from rest to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph)
The vehicle undergoes an upshift during this acceleration and for the low
power to weight ratio diesel cars, requires generally maximum power or
close to maximum power from the engine. In a sense, this accel is
similar to the two accels in the EPA HD smoke test procedures. Shown
on Table 21 is the average smoke during the idle just prior to the
acceleration and the maximum or peak opacity recorded during accelera-
tion to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph). The idle results are quite similar to that
during cold idle except the Mercedes which was more consistent with
other idles later in the 23-minute test. The TCCS, diesel fueled, smoke
was about half the initial cold idle.
The accel peak smoke for the five cars is the maximum value
measured by the smokemeter and in some instances represented a very
brief spike. Some of these peak values occurred twice during the accel
108
-------
and represented the two requirements for power during the speed time
trace. In general, the peaks were broader and more sustained than that
common to starting with an occasional spike, short puff, on top of the
smoke trace proper.
Figures 29 to 36 are typical cold start idle-accel to 90. 1 km/hr
(56 mph) for each of the five cars. The trace represents the first 300
seconds of the cold start and was considered typical. For Figures 29-
33, run number 2 was selected which in the case of the Peugeot was
the first set and for the Opel, the last set of data on Table 21. Run 3
was selected for the Honda CVCC and gasoline fueled TCCS while run 1
was used for the TCCS fueled with diesel. The Nissan, Mercedes,
Peugeot, Opel, and Capri PROCO charts were run at 0. 1 m/min chart
speed with 100 percent of chart equal to 96. 5 km/hr (60 mph) except
the Capri PROCO, Figure 33, which was 50 percent of chart. The
TCCS and Honda tests were made at 0. 1524 m/min chart speed. The
engine speeds shown on Figures 30 and 31 were equivalent to 5000 rpm
full scale or 100 percent.
The smoke trace indicates opacity from 100 percent of chart
equal to zero percent opacity to zero percent of chart equal to 100
percent opacity. In analyzing the smoke traces on Figures 29-33,
careful attention must be paid the physical distance between recorder
pens (offset) since a six-pen overlapping recorder was used. Contrary
to what some charts show, acceleration of the engine, vehicle, and
smoke output occurred essentially at the same time. Incidentally,
each major chart division from right (engine start) to left is 10 mm and
is equal to six seconds on Figures 29-33. On Figures 34-36, each major
chart division is 25.4 mm and equal to 10 seconds.
Continuing with the discussion of these smoke traces, Table 21
lists the hot start peak opacity subsequent idle average opacity readings
taken after the prescribed 10 minute soak. For one engine, the Nissan,
the hot start smoke peak was much lower than its cold start, while for
the other three diesel cars, there was some improvement but the peak
was still substantial and easily noticeable. The hot start TCCS and
Honda CVCC was higher, about double the cold start opacities. The
hot start idle readings basically replicated the cold idle values except
the diesel fueled TCCS which was much lower for some reason. The
first accel in the LA-4 hot start test was a repeat of the earlier cold
start first accel in the driving procedure. The peak smoke was, how-
ever, definitely lower for all diesel fueled cars. The Mercedes, Peugeot,
Opel, and TCCS diesel all showed measurable improvement and this
may be attributed to the engine being in a warm condition.
The next condition rated was the idle just prior to the accelera-
tion to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) which repeated the same type of idle but
during the cold start part of the test. Then, as now, the Mercedes for
109
-------
< i -9C
SOLTEC
H-25-1Z ISM
FIGURE 29. TYPICAL NISSAN-DATSUN DIESEL CAR "COLD-START" SMOKE TRACE
(First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP)
-------
H-25-1Z ISM
some
H-25-1Z 1SM
FIGURE 30. TYPICAL MERCEDES 220D DIESEL CAR "COLD-START" SMOKE TRACE
(First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP)
-------
H-25-1Z 19M
MM1UMHIJL
80LTEC
H-U-1Z
FIGURE 31. TYPICAL PEUGEOT 504D DIESEL CAR "COLD-START" SMOKE TRACE
(First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP)
-------
SOtTEC
FIGURE 32. TYPICAL OPEL REKORD DIESEL CAR "COLD-START" SMOKE TRACE
(First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP)
-------
H-1M1
FIGURE 33. TYPICAL FORD CAPRI PROCO "COLD-START" SMOKE TRACE
(First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP)
-------
FIGURE 34. TYPICAL DIESEL CRICKET TCCS "COLD-START" SMOKE TRACE
(First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP)
-------
FIGURE 35. TYPICAL GASOLINE CRICKET TCCS "COLD-START" SMOKE TRACE
(First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP)
-------
FIGURE 36. TYPICAL GASOLINE HONDA CVCC "COLD-START" SMOKE TRACE
(First 300 Seconds of 1975 FTP)
-------
some reason demonstrated a much higher idle smoke on the order of 8
to 12 percent, which is easily noticeable. These idle values may be
compared to those for the Mercedes recorded soon after start either
hot or cold. The higher idle smoke of the Mercedes 220D found during
the warm stabilization portion of the LA-4 test are of some concern
since this represents an important part of urban operation and could
give rise to complaints. The curious thing is the smoke increased to
about 10 percent opacity at idle after the engine had run for a short time
and was consistent thereafter. It is also curious that under highly loaded
conditions such as the 1974 FTP for HD, the smoke was substantially
lower, 3.3 percent "a" factor and 2.7 percent "b" factor from Table 19.
The rapid accel to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph) during the final 505
seconds resulted in peak opacities that were substantially lower than
the same driving sequence performed when the engine was cold. This
was true for all diesel cars tested except the Mercedes 220D which
was found to be about the same. The gasoline and diesel fueled TCCS
continued to exhibit relatively high acceleration peak opacities though
somewhat lower than during the 90. 1 km/hr accel of the cold 505 second
run.
Listed on the bottom of Table 21 are visual estimates of the time
average smoke percent opacity for the first 505 seconds of the cold
start, the remainder of the first 23-minute test, and the 505 second
hot start after 10 minute soak, and an overall judgment about the entire
1975 LA-4 test. For all cars, except the Mercedes and diesel fueled
TCCS, the overall smoke was below the visibility limit taken as 3 to
4 percent opacity by the U. S. PHS smokemeter. The repeated idles
and their 8 to 12 percent levels, made the average opacity for the
Mercedes 220D higher than it would otherwise have been. The
estimated 6 percent opacity shown for the Mercedes by the LA-4 is
about double that measured during the HD test of 3. 3 percent "a" and
2. 7 percent "b" factor. It is interesting to note the FTP for HD smoke
does not include measurement of opacity at engine idle. Practically
all engines have no idle smoke except after cold start or after a very
prolonged cold idle which produces a white smoke. The Mercedes
idle smoke was grayish black and not "cold smoke". The diesel fueled
TCCS had sufficient idle and acceleration smoke to result in the overall
rating of 4. 5 percent which is at or just above the limit of visibility.
The fifth car listed on Table 21 was the stratified charge Capri
PROCO. This gasoline powered car demonstrated very low smoke
throughout the entire 1975 FTP LA-4 driving sequence including cold
start, idle and acceleration. This set of measurements attests to the
invisible smoke from most gasoline cars. The sixth car listed on
Table 21 was the gasoline fueled TCCS which emitted more smoke
during engine start and accelerations than expected. The peak opacities
were transient in nature but yet noticeable and not as low as other
118
-------
TABLE 21. SMOKE OPACITY VALUES FROM SMOKE TRACE DURING 1975 FTP LA-4 COLD - HOT START
Texaco TCCS
Smoke Condition
Cold Start, peak %
Cold Idle, avg %
(After Start)
1st Accel, peak %
(After Cold Idle)
Idle at 125 sec, avg %
Accel at 164 sec, peak %
to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph)
Hot Start, peak %
Hot Idle, avg %
(After Start)
1st Accel, peak %
(After Hot Idle)
Idle at 125 sec, avg %
(During Final 505 sec)
Accel at 164 sec, peak %
to 90. 1 km/hr (56 mph)
(During Final 505 sec)
Estimated Average, %
During First 505 sec
(Cold Start)
Estimated Average, %
During Remainder of 23 min
(Warm Stabilization)
Estimated Average, %
During Last 505 sec
(Hot Start)
Estimated Average, %
Entire 1975 LA-4
Datsun
45.0
21.0
44.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
6.5
8.0
4.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
11. 5
34.0*
14.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.8
3.0
2.5
2.5
0.3
0.8
0.2
7.0
10.0
6.0
3.5
4.5
4.0
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.5
3.5
220D
24.0
29.5
25.0
2.5
5.5
7.5
16.0
17.5
23.0
10.0
10.0
11.0
11.0
5.5
7.0
23.5
23.0
20.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
10.0
10. 5
9.0
12.0
10.0
8.0
8.0
8.5
7. 5
7.5
6.0
7.0
6.5
5.5
6.0
5.5
6.0
5.5
6.5
6.0
6.0
504D
24.0
20.0
41.0
1.0
0.3
1.0
9.0
21.0
6.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
13.0
17.5
12.0
27.5
25.0
30.0
1.5
1
0.5
3.0
3.0
2.5
1.0
1.0
0. 5
7.0
7.5
6.5
2. 5
3.5
3.0
2. 0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.5
2.5
Rekord
77. 5
77. 5
70.5
2.0
1. 5
2.0
38. 5*
22.0
44. 5*
3.0
2.5
2.5
18. 0*
7.5
9.0
57.0
69.5
59.5
1.5
0.5
1.5
19.5*
9.5
4. 5
2. 5
2. 5
2. 0
5. 5
12.0
7. 0
3. 0
2. 5
3.5
1. 5
1.5
2. 5
2.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.0
3.0
PROCO
0.2
2.2
1.5
0
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.2
0
0.2
2. 1
1.5
1.5
1.6
0.3
3.0
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.6
1. 0
0.8
1. 1
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
Diesel
5.1
2.5
4.8
7.5
7.5
7.0
77.5
63.0
61.3
4. 0
4.0
3.5
21*4
21.6
28.1
5.0
9.0
11. 1
0.2
0.0
0.0
31.1
32.2
10.2
4.0
1.0
4. 5
14. 0
16.0
22.0
5.5
5.5
4.5
3.5
4.0
3.5
4.0
4.0
3.5
4.5
4.5
4.0
Gasoline
5.5
6.0
5.5
0.2
0.0
0.3
12.0
4.0
7.2
2.5
1.0
1.0
17.0
5.0
13.7
9.2
17.1
12.5
0.0
0.0
0.1
• 15.5
5.5
9.5
2.5
2.5
2.3
8.2
10.0
13.5
2.5
1.0
1.7
1.7
1.0
1.2
7.1
1.5
1.8
2.0
1.2
1.6
Honda CVCC
5.1
5.0
3.0
0.2
0.2
0.0
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.0
2.1
2.1
1.1
13.5
10.2
2.6
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.0
0. 0
0.0
0. 2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.1
*Spike
119
-------
gasoline powered vehicles. The last car, the Honda CVCC, also operated
on gasoline, produced negligible smoke throughout the test sequence.
The only exception was the peak during engine start which was found to
be higher during the start after the ten-minute soak than during the
initial cold start.
None of the five diesel fueled cars tested in this project could
consistently produce exhaust with the extremely low levels of the Honda
CVCC or Capri PROCO tested. Some of the diesels showed promise
as far as being low smoke and having essentially an invisible exhaust
But, if the smoke opacity may be considered a gross indicator of the
exhaust particulate, then the diesel fueled car indeed has a way to go to
match the gasoline in particulate if the test of these seven cars, one
with diesel and gasoline, can be considered any indicator.
E. Vehicle Noise
Table 22 summarizes the noise measurements made on the entire
group of cars with the exception of the Ford LTD. The data is listed in
three groups by when they were tested. The first group consisted of the
Nissan, Mercedes, and standard Capri, and was evaluated on March 5
and 6, 1974. The second group of cars, tested on March 26, 1974,
included the Peugeot and Opel diesels, the PROCO Capri, and the
standard Capri. The standard Capri was used as a "reference car" in
both of these test groups. The last group included the Texaco TCCS
operated on gasoline and diesel fuels, and the Honda CVCC. They
were tested on August 13, 1974.
The SAE Standard J986a recommends the sound level produced
by a new passenger car or light truck of 2722 kg (6000-lb) GVW or less
shall not exceed 86 dB on the A-weighted scale. The highest exterior
noise level recorded by this procedure was 77 dBA for the Mercedes 220
diesel during a right to left acceleration according to J986a. This is
substantially below the 86 dBA of the SAE practice and must be termed
quiet. Incidentally, this sound level was identical to that recorded three
years earlier by a similar but different car operating over the same test
course and under the same procedure(31). A different test crew and
sound meter were used. The other cars were all less than 77 dBA as
shown by the first line of results on Table 22. The Nissan was the
next highest diesel and the Opel had the lowest sound level of the four
diesels by this method.
The PROCO engine powered Capri was 76 dBA by the J986a test
which may be compared directly to the four diesels and the standard
Capri. The PROCO engine evidently resulted in 3 dBA higher exterior
sound level when compared to the nominal 73 dBA rating for the un-
modified 4 cylinder engine conventional Capri car. Note the close
agreement between the test results on the standard Capri of 73 dBA on
120
-------
TABLE 22. SUMMARY OF SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENTS FOR DIESEL AND GASOLINE POWERED CARS - dBA SCALE
Nissan Mercedes Capri Peugeot Opel Capri Capri Cricket TCCS
Date Tested
SAE J986a
Accel Driveby
Exterior
Interior
Blower On'1)
Off
48. 3 km/hr Driveby
Exterior
Interior
Blower On'1'
Off
Engine Idle
Exterior'^)
Interior
Blower On'1)
Off
Datsun
3-6-74
74.8
84
83.3
63.3
71. 3
69.5
79
67
66.8
220D
3-5-74
77
78.8
74.3
«.«
73.5
63.5
66
71. 5
51.5
Std.
3-6-74
73
82.3
81.5
».,<*>
70.5
65.8
63
70
54
504D
3-26-74
70. 8
80
78.5
61.3
72.3
66.5
68
70
52.3
Rekord
3-26-74
67. 5
73.8
73. 5
62.5
70
69
72
70
53.3
PROCO
3-26-74
76
83
83
58.5
72.3
70. 5
63.5
71
66
Std.
3-26-74
73.3
83
82.5
58
71.8
66.5
57.5
70. 5
53
Diesel
8-13-74
67
76. 8
76
59.8
74
73.3
72
66
62.5
Gasoline
8-13-74
66.8
75
75
59.8
72.5
72.5
70.5
66.5
65
Honda CVCC
8-13-74
72.5
82.3
81.8
56.5
75
75
58.5
65<4>
73.5
49
(!) Windows Up, Fresh Air Blower on High
(2) at 7.62 m
(3) at 2. 54 m
(4) Engine fan on
-------
March 6, 1974, and 73. 3 dBA on March 26, 1974. The driveby levels
for the Cricket and Honda were 67 dBA and 72. 5 dBA respectively.
The remainder of the noise tests were performed using proce-
dures developed for the Federal Clean Car Incentive Program'^ ^)
described in Section III. D. of this report. The interior and exterior
measurements are also summarized on Table 22. The highest interior
measurements were always found with the fresh air ventilation blower
in its highest position. Windows were up and radio was off. The noise
of this blower and air distribution system added a negligible amount
to the interior measurement during the J986a acceleration. The Mer-
cedes 220D had the highest apparent blower noise difference of 4. 5 dBA.
During the relatively quiet drive-by at a constant 48. 3 km/hr
(30 mph) the blower affected the interior noise level in varying degree
as may be seen from Table 22. On some cars, notably the Nissan,
Opel, PROCO, Cricket and Honda, the blower had only a small incre-
mental effect, while on the Mercedes, Peugeot and standard Capri, the
interior noise level was governed to a large extent by this item. It
is especially noted from the very quiet interior levels with the Mercedes
of 63. 5 dBA with blower off to 73. 5 dBA with blower on "high". These
differences are pointed out to indicate the basically quiet interior as
well as exterior sound levels of all the cars during the cruise operation.
Engine idle is a point of concern with diesel engines from a noise
standpoint. Table 22 also lists the results of exterior and interior
measurements made with the car at rest. The maximum exterior idle
noise measurement is given based on a 2. 54m (10 ft) distance from each
side, front and rear, of the vehicle. The highest engine idle exterior
values recorded were in front (center) of the Nissan, Opel, and Peugeot
diesel cars. The front and left side of the Mercedes gave equally high
values while the Capri gasoline cars registered their highest ratings
at the rear of the vehicle.
The diesel car exterior idle noise was higher than the gasoline
cars and has to be attributed to the engine compartment. The Cricket
TCCS exterior idle noise values were found to be on the order of the
Opel diesel and not as quiet as the other stratified charge cars evaluated.
It is interesting that the slightly higher noise levels for the TCCS
operating on diesel fuel, relative to gasoline, were noticed by the test
technicians. Another item of note was the effect of the Honda CVCC
engine radiator cooling fan, an electric drive unit, which when idling,
added substantially to the idle noise level by changing the level from
58. 5 to 65 dBA. Further identification of noise sources whether fan,
engine, or engine accessories, requires a more in-depth noise survey
and analysis.
The interior noise levels during idle were greatly affected by the
122
-------
ventilation air blower system and followed the same trends discussed
during the steady state cruise interior measurements. The very quiet
Mercedes interior during idle of 51.5 dBA was increased to 71. 5 dBA ,
about the same as during the cruise of 73.5 dBA. In this specific case,
the blower noise was likely masking other noise sources in the vehicle
including the diesel engine. The blower off data for the Mercedes does
show, however, that a diesel-powered car can be made as quiet or even
quieter than a gasoline car as shown by the comparison with the standard
Capri. The interior idle values of the Honda CVCC were very low,
49 dBA, until the fresh air blower was turned on high and then 73. 5
dBA was registered. The interior noise levels may be compared to
the current OSHA limit of 90 dBA for 8 hour exposure.
Appendix I contains the replicate sound level measurement data
for each car tested. Each table contains the complete test data for a
given car and they are arranged in the order listed from left to right in
Table 22. Please refer to this appendix for additional test detail.
In summary of this section, the four diesel and three stratified
charge cars were found to have varying exterior/interior noise levels
depending on the test condition and whether or not the fresh air blower
is on "high" or "off" (interior measurements only). These measure-
ments continue to demonstrate that diesel cars are not necessarily
noisy or noisier than conventional gasoline powered cars. Some diesels
were higher and some lower than the reference gasoline car during the
SAE J986a acceleration test. Exterior idle measurements indicate
engine compartment noise to be definitely higher from the diesel and
the TCCS powered Cricket than the gasoline reference car. The Honda
CVCC exterior idle noise was increased when the electric drive radiator
was in operation. Driveby exterior levels at 48. 3 km/hr (30 mph) show
the diesel cars to be 3 to 5 dBA higher than the reference standard
gasoline car. These differences are ostensibly attributed to the engine
compartment and engine proper although specific survey data of noise
sources, other than the fresh air system, have not been evaluated in
this project.
123
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. Springer, Karl J., "Emissions from a Gasoline- and Diesel-
Powered Mercedes 220 Passenger Car," Report No. AR-813,
Contract No. CPA 70-44, June 1971.
2. Ashby, H. Anthony, "Exhaust Emissions from a Mercedes-Benz
Diesel Sedan, " Final Report, July 1972.
3. Springer, Karl J., and Ashby, H. Anthony, "The Low Emission
Car for 1975 - Enter the Diesel, " Paper No. 739133, Intersociety
Energy Conversion Engineering Conference, August 1973.
4. Federal Register, Volume 38, Number 151, Part III,
August?, 1973.
5. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke - Parti, " Final Report to the U. S. Public
Health Service, Contract PH 86-66-93, March 1967.
6. Springer, Karl J. and Stahman, Ralph C., "An Investigation of
Diesel Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke, " National Petroleum
Refiners Association, FL 66-46 presented at the Fuels and
Lubricants Meeting, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, September 1966.
7. Springer, Karl J. , "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke, Part II, " Final Report, No. AR-644, Contract
PH 86-67-72, February 1968.
8. Stahman, Ralph C. , Kittredge, George, and Springer, Karl,
"Smoke and Odor Control for Diesel-Powered Trucks and Buses, "
SAE Paper No. 680443, Mid-Year Meeting, Detroit, Michigan,
May 20-24, 1968. Also SAE Transactions.
9. Springer, Karl J., "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Odor and Smoke - Part HI, " Final Report to the U. S. Public
Health Service, Contract PH 22-68-23, October 1969.
10. Springer, Karl J. and Harry E. Dietzmann, "An Investigation of
Diesel-Powered Vehicle Odor and Smoke - Part IV, " Final Report
to the Environmental Protection Agency, Contract PH 22-68-23,
April 1971.
11. Springer, Karl J. and Charles T. Hare, "Four Years of Diesel
Odor and Smoke Control Technology Evaluations - A Summary, "
ASME Paper No. 69-WA/APC-3, November 1969.
124
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (Cont'd. )
12. Dietzmann, Harry E. , Springer, Karl J. , and Stahman, Ralph C. ,
"Diesel Emissions as Predictors of Observed Diesel Odor, " SAE
Paper No. 720757, September 1972. Also SAE Transactions.
13. Springer, Karl J. and Dietzmann, Harry E. , "Diesel Exhaust
Hydrocarbon Measurement - A Flame lonization Method, " SAE
Paper No. 700106, January 1970.
14. Springer, Karl J. , "An Investigation of Diesel-Powered Vehicle
Emissions - Part V, " Final Report AR-936 to Environmental
Protection Agency, Contract PH 22-68-23, April 1974.
15. Springer, Karl J. and Hare, Charles T. , "A Field Survey to
Determine Public Opinion of Diesel Engine Exhaust Odor, " Final
Report to the National Air Pollution Control Administration under
Contract PH 22-68-36, February 1970.
16. Hare, Charles T. and Springer, Karl J. , "Public Response to
Diesel Engine Exhaust Odors, " Final Report to the Environmental
Protection Agency under Contract No. CPA 70-44, April 1971.
17. Hare, Charles T. , Springer, Karl J. , Somers, Joseph H. , and
Huls, Thomas A. , "Public Opinion of Diesel Odor, " SAE Paper
No. 740214, presented at the Automotive Engineering Congress,
Detroit, Michigan, February 25 - March 1, 1974.
18. "Guide to Reduction of Smoke and Odor from Diesel-Powered
Vehicles," Office of Air Programs Publication No. AP-81,
Environmental Protection Agency, September 1971.
19. Springer, Karl J. and Ludwig, Allen C. , "Documentation of the
Guide to Good Practice for Minimum Odor and Smoke from Diesel-
Powered Vehicles, " Final Report, Contract CPA 22-69-71,
November 1969.
20. Federal Register, Volume 36, No. 40, February 27, 1971.
21. "Lead and Phosphorus Content of Unleaded Fuel for Certification
Testing, " MSAPC Advisory Circular No. 26-A, U. S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, August 10, 1973.
22. Bascom, R. C. and Hass, G. C., "A Status Report on the Develop-
ment of the 1973 California Diesel Emissions Standards, " SAE
Paper No. 700671, National West Coast Meeting, Los Angeles,
August 24-27, 1970.
125
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES (Cont'd.)
23. State of California, Air Resources Board, "California Exhaust
Emission Standards, Test and Approval Procedures for Diesel
Engines in 1973 and Subsequent Model Year Vehicles over 6, 001
Pounds Gross Vehicle Weight, " amended February 17, 1971.
24. Turk, Amos, "Selection and Training of Judges for Sensory
Evaluation of the Intensity and Character of Diesel Exhaust Odors, "
U. S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, 1967.
25. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine
Fxhaust, Final Report, July 1969, CRC Project CAPE-7-68,
HEW Contract PH 22-68-20.
26. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine
Exhaust, Final Report, June 1970, CRC Project CAPE 7-68,
HEW Contract No. CPA 22-69-63.
27. Chemical Identification of the Odor Components in Diesel Engine
Exhaust, Final Report, June 1971, CRC Project CAPE 7-68,
EPA Contract No. EHSD 71-18.
28. Analysis of the Odorous Comp unds in Diesel Engine Exhaust,
Final Report, June 1972, CRC Project CAPE 7-68, EPA Contract
No. 68-02-0087.
29. Levins, P. L. and Kendall, D. A. , "Application of Odor Technology
to Mobile Source Emission Instrumentation, " CRC Project CAPE 7-68,
Contract No. 68-02-0561, September 1973.
30. Federal Register, Volume 33, No. 108, June 4, 1968.
126
-------
APPENDIX A
COMPUTER REDUCED
1975 LIGHT DUTY FTP
GASEOUS AND FUEL ECONOMY DATA
A-l
-------
TABLE A-Z.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. oo*
VtHICLE MODEL
1EST NO, 2
MSS*N DIESEL
DATE 2/20/7*
ENGINE Z. 17 LITRE
BAROMETER 731.27 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 27.2 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 12 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.* GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
MFGR. CODE 980
CURB NT. 1*1S KG
Test Weight 1S68 kg
NET BULB TEMP 18.3 DEC. C
AB3. HUMIDITY 1.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR.
1
•0.00
• 0.00
0.00
2
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
>•
I
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLONEH OIF. PRESS., 62, IBB.O MM. nao
BAG RESULTS
flAG NO. 1
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS 5310
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 32.1/2
HC SAMPLE PPM b*
HC BACKGHO METER READING/SCALE t.5/1
HC BACKGRD PPM " S
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE b.8/3
CO SAMPLE PPM 102
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE .7/3
CO BACKGRD PPM 10
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE bl.t/2
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT 2.07
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 2.1/2
C02 BACKCRD PERCENT .05
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE 25.2/3
NOX SAMPLE PPM 75.b
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE 1.3/3
NOX 8ACKGRO PPH 3.9
HC CONCENTRATION PPM bO
CO CONCENTRATION PPM 88
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT 2.02
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM 72.3
HC MASS GRAMS l.tS
CO MASS GRAMS t.2b
C02 MASS GRAMS ISIS.10
NOX MASS GRAMS S.bO
BLONER INLET PRESS.* 61 Ib7,b MM. HCO
BLONER INLET TEMP. to DEC. c
2
10H
20.1/2
to
3.8/1
t
s.t/a
78
.3/S
*
tb,3/2
2,3/2
.Ok
17.S/3
SB.S
1.0/3
3.0
37
71
l.Zt
t9.B
l.tl
5,77
IbOl.Bt
b.50
3
537fc
28.7/2
ts
3.3/1
3
b.b/3
IS
0,0/3
0
b2.S/2
l.»
2.1/2
.01
23.1/3
H.3
1.0/3
3.0
13
It
l.?8
bfc.7
1.02
t.ss
13b2.12
5.Id
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
MEIGnTEO MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.22 GNAWS/KILOMETRE
.85 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2,28 GKAMS/KILOMETHE
.98 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE
10.b KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-3.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. UOH
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 3
NISSAN DIESEL
DATE 2/21/7H
ENGINE Z. 17 LITRE •*
BAROMETER 7*0.Ib MH Of MG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ei,Z DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 32 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL «T.»
INITIAL wT.
DIFFERENCE
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
TOTAL .EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0,00
•0,00
0.00
MFGR, CODE SBO
CURB MT. 1»1S KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
NET BULB TEMP 12.8 DES, C
A8S. HUMIDITY S.» MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1S73
2
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., GS, 193.0 MM. H2o
BAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
• i
S397
33,1/2
hi
.2/1
0
S.S/3
88
0.0/3
0
b3.b/2
l.ib
2.b/2
.Ob
21.7/3
7«».l
.3/3
b8
78
1.81
73.3
l.b»
3.85
1*02.03
5.03
1*
.1/1
0
3,b/3
S»
.5/9
7
»3.0/2
l.H
2.2/2
.05
lb.9/3
SO. 7
.1/3
.3
3*
»S
S0.»
l.»l
3,75
1198.93
5,87
BLOWER INLET PRESS,* 61 170.2 MM. HiO
BLOHER INLET TEMP. »o OEG. c
3
53bl
17.2/2
3*
0.0/1
0
5.2/3
7i
.7/3
10
5^.8/2
1."
1.V2
.05
23.2/3
b«f.b
.1/3
.3
3*
bS
l.H
bl.3
.83
3.1-t
1303.75
».73
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,bO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
23S.7S GHAMS/KILOMETRE
.81 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE • 11.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-4
1175
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 00*
VEHICLt MODEL
TEST NO.
NISSAN DIESEL
DATE Z/ZZ/7*
ENGINE 2.17 LITRE
BAROMETER 7M.B1 MM OF HG.
DRY 8ULB TEMP. 2<»,1 DEG. C
BEL. HUMIDITY 17 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.. GRAMS
INITIAL HT., GHAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 380
CURB NT. ms KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
HET BULB TEMP 11.7 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 1.8 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1171
t
-0.00
-0.00
0,00
0.00 GRAMI
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS.. GB, iis.o MM. HBO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coe
coz
coz
coz
NOX
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METEK READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COZ CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COZ MASS GRAMS
NUX MASS GRAMS
1
Sb71
"»i.z/8
sz
b.l/l
b
"1,3/3
1*0
0.0/3
0
bS.I/Z
1.1»
Z.»/8
.Ob
Z7.0/1
81.0
77
131
1.81
80.5
1.11
7.0Z
15b8.13
S.5S
BLONER INLET PRESS.* 61 178.7 MM. HIO
BLONER INLET TEMP. *o DEC. c
z
i»i
18.8/8
ib
b.l/l
b
».8/l
7«
0.0/3
0
tb.i/t
1.10
a.>/{
,0b
1B.B/1
Sb.»
.»/!
l.Z
11
b*
l.ZS
55.1
l.Z^
S.Bb
IbbS.b*
b.lb
I
Sllb
18.1/8
17
5.1/1
S
b.l/l
41
0.0/1
0
bZ,Z/l
i.tz
l.S/Z
.05
ZS.Z/1
75. b
0.0/1
0.0
18
88
!.»»
75. b
1180.18
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COZ
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.ZZ GKAMS/KILOMETRE
.91 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
S.IS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,9» GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE * 10.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-5.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DOTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. OOH
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, 1
NISSAN DIESEL
DATE 2/1V7*
ENGINE 2.17 LITRE *
BAROMETER ?3fa.0<« MM OF H6.
ORY BULB TEMP. 2b.l DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 20 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT., SRAMS
INITIAL NT., CRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0,00
•0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 380
CURB NT, 1»15 KG
Test Weight: 1588kg
NET BULB TEMP 13.3 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY «.« MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR, 1S73
2
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOMER OIF. PRESS., 62, HO.S MM. H20
BAB RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
BLOMER INLET PRESS,, 61 IbS.l MM. H20
BLOMCR INLET TEMP. »o DEC. c
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACK6RD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
i
K38
»,2/3
1*
7,8/3
117
70,1/2
1,04
1.1/2
.03
28.7/3
.5/3
1.5
90
108
2.07
84.8
.75
s.»e
lb»0,5b
5.7S
WEIGHTED MASS HC
HEIGHTEO MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.11 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,SS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
257.77 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.SB GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2
W7
2.8/3
•a
S.S/3
•2
0.0/3
0
»b,»/2
1*10
l.S/2
,0»
IS, 1/3
SS?
.fc/3
1.8
15
80
l.*k
58.1
.hi
b.52
*,45
b.»8
3
SlbO
3.»/3
1*
1.1/3
11
b,7/3
100
.1/1
1
bt.2/Z
1.1)
2.S/2
.Ob
ZS.b/3
n.i
.fc/s
!*•
BS
75.2
1351. 40
»,97
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE • 10,* KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-6.
1S7S
VEHICtC EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT OOTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 004
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
NISSAN DIESEL
DATE Z/ZO/7*
EN6INE 2.17 LITRE
BAROMETER 711.27 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 27.2 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY »2 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.* GRAMS
INITIAL XT., 6RAH8
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
MF6R, CODE 380
CURB NT. 1*15 KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
NET BULB TEMP 18,3 DEG. C
AB8, HUMIDITY 1.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. "1173
1
•0,00
-0.00
0.00
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLONER OIF. PRESS.» sz, IBB.O MM, HBO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKCRO PPM
COZ SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COZ SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COZ MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
BLONER INLET PRESS., 61 Ib7.b MM, HBO
BLONER INLET TEMP, to DEO. c
i
B9BO
1.8/3
18
b.B/3
102
.7/1
10
b1.»/Z
2.07
Z.l/Z
,05
25.2/3
75. b
1.3/9
1.1
27
88
8,02
•>.2b
ISIS. 10
5,bO
2
10b8
3.3/3
11
1.1/3
11
5,2/3
?•
.3/1
It"
2.3/2
,0b
17.5/3
51.5
1.0/3
1.0
Ib
71
5,77
Ib01,83
b.SO
1
517b
3.1/3
11
1.7/1
17
b.b/3
11
0.0/1
0
bZ.S/Z
It"
2,1/2
.OS
23.1/3
H.l
1.0/3
1.0
bb.7
.SB
».ss
iibe.i2
S.lb
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COZ
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.10 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.85 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
zsz.zs GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,<)8 GHAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY 8* CAKBON BALANCE
10.b KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-7.
1475
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 00*
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 3
NISSAN DIESEL
DATE 8/Z1/7*
ENGINE 2. IT LITRE
-------
TABLE A-£
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 00*
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
NISSAN DIESEL
DATE 2/22/7*
ENGINE ^. n LITRE
BAROMETER 7*1.81 MM OF HG,
DRY BULB TEMP. 2*.* OEG. C
REL, HUMIDITY 17 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT.» GRAMS
INITIAL Hi., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
• 0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 980
CURB HT. ins KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
HET BULB TEMP 11.7 OEG. C
ABS, HUMIDITY 3,2 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1971
2
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 CRAM
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., 02, 193.0 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
HC SAMPLE
MC SAMPLE
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
Sb71
8.0/9
BO
2,5/3
86
S.3/1
1»0
0.0/3
0
bl.9/2
i.4*
2.1/Z
.Ob
27.0/9
81.0
.8/3
.b
59
80. S
1.52
7.02
lSb2,99
s.ss
9.1/1
11
2.0/1
ao
».a/3
72
0.0/1
0
»b.S/2
1,10
2.3/2
.Ob
18.8/9
Sb.»
.»/3
1.2
11
b9
l.»
55.3
.1*
S.8b
IbbS.b*
b.lfa
BLONER INLET PRESS,, GI 171.7 MM, HIO
BLOWER INLEI TEMP. »0 DEC. C
1
Sl»b
3,»/3
11
!.*/!
i»
b.1/3
41
0.0/3
0
b2.2/2
1.12
1.9/2
.OB
26.2/3
7S.b
0.0/9
0.0
22
88
1."
75.b
.SI
».31
1180.92
H.91
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.12 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,9* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
258,95 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.9* SHAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE • 10.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-9.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 002
VEHICLE MODEL
TE3T NO. 1
MERCEDES DIESEL
DATE 2/1S/7*
ENGINE 2.11 LITRE
BAROMETER 735.33 MM OF HG.
DRY BULb TEMP. 25.0 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 18 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL *T.r GRAMS
INITIAL WT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0.00
•0,00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 200
CURB NT. 135b KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
NET BULB TEMP 12.2 DEC, C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.7 MILLIGRAMS/KB
YR. 1*72
2
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., ca, no.s MM. HBO
BLOWER INLET PRESS., 61 IbS.l MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »o DEC. c
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKCRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRD PPM
cos SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
COZ BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGHD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COZ MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
I
5107
18, 0/3
*•
1,8/1
S
b.b/3
«
0.0/3
0
bl.3/2
2.03
2.1/2
tOS
22,1/3
bi,7
.1/3
.3
1.18
b8.»
I.Ob
».b2
1533.87
2
?i
b.4/3
••
*.•/!
S
».l/3
bl
0.0/3
0
•u.i/a
1.11
2.b/2
• Ok
l».3/3
ta.s
.1/3
.3
23
SS
1,07
ItOb,??
S.0/1
c
».§/2
1*8
.1/3
1
52.2/2
l.»8
Z.7/2
.07
14.3/3
57.S
.1/3
.3
13
132
l.M
57.b
,Sb
b.»S
1101.77
3.78
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,IH GNAMS/KILOMETRE
.88 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
223.27 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,73 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBUN BALANCE
11.
KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-10.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS '- Continuous Heated FID-HC
1175 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 002 TEST NO. 2
VEHICLE MODEL MERCEDES DIESEL
BAROMETER 73*.Ob MM OF KG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.S DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 51 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL HT.r GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
OATE 2/20/7*
ENGINE 2.. 11 LITRE t
1
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 200
CURB NT. 13Sb KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
NET BULB TEMP 17.2 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 9.8 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1172
2
-o.oo
-0.00
0.00
0.00 CRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., 62, 1S8.1 MM. H20
BLONER INLET PRESS., 61 170.2 MM, HIO
BLONER INLET TEMP, to DEC. c
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
COS SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGMD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COB CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GKAMS
1
S3b9
28.1/2
Sb
».8/l
5
b.0/3
SO
.2/3
3
bS.2/2
2. Ob
1.2/2
.03
22.8/3
bB,»
.3/3
.S
52
82
2.0»
b7.b
1.25
3.17
C02 MASS GRAMS 1553. Sb
NOX MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC ,15 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO ,faO GKAMS/KILOM£TRE
WEIGHTED MASS COl 22B.5b GKAMS/K1LO«ETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX .82 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
5,22
z
B7S?
i».i/e
2B
5.0/1
6
3.8/3
57
.5/3
7
•U.l/2
1.1!
1.7/8
.OH
13,»/3
»0,2
.5/3
1.5
2*
»8
1,09
38.8
»«
3.7b
13bl,07
1
5370
18, V2
17
8.8/1
9
5,1/3
81
.1/3
13
Sl.l/l
i.n
l.b/Z
.0»
21.2/3
b3.b
.1/3
.3
bS
I.b8
b3.3
.'0
3.15
1278. S»
FUtL ECONOMY fjl CARBON BALANCE = 11.7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-ll.
1<(7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. oua
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 3
MERCEDES DIESEL
DATE z/zi/7»
ENGINE z. 11 LITRE
BAROMETER 737.11 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. Z1.7 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 31 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL "T.r GRAMS
INITIAL HT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOT*L EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE ZOO
CURB NT. 1358 KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
NET BULB TEMP 1Z.2 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 5,1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1S72
2
• 0.00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00 GRANS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLONER DIP. PRESS., GZ, 205.7 MM. H80
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
COZ
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
coe
NOX
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
i
5378
zo.vz
»2
1.0/1
1
S.t/3
81
0.0/3
0
b3,«»/e
1.17
2.0/Z
.05
18,t/3
5b,7
1,7/3
S.I
77
1.83
52.3
.«
3.75
1*11.55
3.5«f
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.17 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.SS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2ZS.1S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,71 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1Z.1/Z
Zb
.8/1
1
3.»/3
SI
.3/3
*
•u.s/a
i»i»
Z.7/Z
.07
13.7/3
»1.1
.1/3
.3
25
»5
1,08
*0.8
1,03
3,73
BLOHER INLET PRESS,> ci IBS.* MM. HZO
BLOMER INLET TEMP. 17 DEC. c
3
537*
81,7/Z
«3
.5/1
1
1.8/3
72
.3/3
»
57.0/2
l.b»
3.3/2
.08
Zl.k/3
.1/3
.3
bS
1.S7
b».S
1.0»
3.1b
1107.11
».3b
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE * 11.1 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-12.
1S75
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 002
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. H
MERCEDES DIESEL
DATE 2/22/7*
ENGINE 2.11 LITRE
BAROMETER 7HS.B1 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 21 PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL HT.r GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
.0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR, CODE 200
CURB MT. 13Sb KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
NET BULB TEMP 11.7 OE6. C
AB8. HUMIDITY 3.7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
1172
2
• 0.00
>o.oo
0.00
0.00 CRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER DIF. PRESS,, Ge, 205.7 MM. H20
BLOMER INLET PRESS., 61 112.S MM. H|0
BLOWER INLET TEMP, i? DEC. c
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACXGRD METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER
"
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
i
S»22
23.1/2
*8
3.8/1
»
S.5/3
88
2.8/2
.07
Sl.b/3
b»,8
.5/3
1.5
7f
1.73
b3.S
1.10
a.bs
ISbb.tO
2
llflb
12.2/2
2»
3.2/1
1
3.3/3
b
37,0/2
1.01
2.2/2
.OS
.5/3
1.5
22
«2
fib
3,Sb
1271.72
3
5370
13.*/2
27
3.3/1
3
*.5/3
b?
.8/3
12
53.2/2
1.51
2. 4/2
.Ob
20.7/3
b2,l
0.0/3
0.0
2*
b2.1
,SS
2,bS
llft.fal
"tlGHTEO MASS HC
MtlGnTtLD MASS CO
WfclGMTEO MASS C02
HtlGHJtD MASS NOX
.!•» GHAMS/K1LOMETRE
,5S GHAMS/KILOMETRE
2Db.i» GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,7» GRAMS/KILOMtTRE
FUEL ECONOMT B* CARBON BALANCE = 12.8 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-13.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT OUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 003
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
MERCEDES DIESEL
DATE 2/1S/7*
ENGINE z. 11 LITRE *
BAROMETER 735,33 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 18 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL HT.r GRAMS
INITIAL NT,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
-0,00
0.00
MFGR. CODE ZOO
CURB NT, mi KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
HET BULB TEMP 12.2 DEG. C
A8S. HUMIDITY 3,7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR, 1S71
2
•0.00
•0,00
0.00
O.DO GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOMER OIF, PRESS., 02, iso.s MM. HIO
BA6 RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
coa
coa
coa
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE-
SAMPLE
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
co CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
5107
2,b/3
2b
,8/3
8
b.b/3
SS
0.0/3
0
b8.3/2
a,03
e.i/z
,05
22.s/3
kS,7
.1/3
.3
IS
s»
1.S8
b8.1
.»7
»,b2
1533,8b
2.1/3
II
.7/3
7
».l/3
bl
0,0/3
0
n.i/e
l.b/B
,0b
a/3
.3
1C
59
1,07
»2.b
tbO
It0b,77
BLONER INLET PRESS..
BLOMER INLET TEMP.
3
S»IO
2,2/3
22
118
.1/3
1
52.2/2
!.»«
8,7/2
.07
IS, 3/3
S7.S
.1/3
.3
IS
132
!.»»
57, b
,3b
b,»S
1101,77
3.78
61 IbS.l MM. H20
»0 OEG. C
WEIGHTED MASS HC
NEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.08 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,88 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
823.a? GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.73 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE « 12.0 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-14.
IS7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 008
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, 2
MERCEDES DIESEL
DATE 2/20/7*
ENGINE z.n LITRE »
BAROMETER 73H.Ob MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP, 23,S DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY SI PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.r GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
• 0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 200
CURB NT, 13Sb KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
HET BULB TEMP 17.3 DEC, C
ABS, HUMIDITY 1.8 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR, 1972
2
•0.00
• 0.00
0,00
0,00 6RAM8
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., 62, iss.i MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACK6RD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
BLOMER INLET PRESS., 61 170.2 MM. H80
BLONER INLET TEMP, *o DEB, c
i
53bS
3.S/3
3«t
b,0/3
SO
,2/3
3
bs.2/2
2, Ob
1.2/2
.03
22.B/3
b8.<»
.3/3
27
82
2,0*
b7.b
.bS
3. S?
1583,55
5.32
2
87B7
2,»/3
a»
l.V/3
1*
3.8/3
S7
.5/3
7
11.1/2
1,11
1.7/2
»0.2
.5/3
1*5
11
38.8
,»»
3,7fa
13bl,07
3
S170
2,9/3
•4
l.S/3
It
S,»/3
II
,V3
11
SS.1/2
1.71
l.b/2
,0»
21.2/3
b3.b
.1/3
,3
Ib
bS
l.bl
b3.3
.38
3.15
1278.S3
1.8S
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COB
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,08 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,bO GRAMS/KILOMETRE
228,55 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,82 GHAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY B» CARBON BALANCE « 11.7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-15.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 002
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, 3
NECEROES DIESEL
DATE B/21/7*
ENGINE 2. 11 LITRE
BAROMETER 737.11 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 21.7 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 31 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL *T., CRAMS
INITIAL NT., CRAMS
DIFFERENCE 6RAM8
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0.00
•0.00
0.00
MPGR. CODE ZOO
CURB HT, 13ib KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
MET BULB TEMP 12,2 DEG. C
AB8. HUMIDITY E.I MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 147!
2
•0.00
• 0.00
0,00
0.00 GRAMI
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER DIP. PRESS., 62, 20S.7 MM. H20
BAC RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
C02
NOX
SAMPLE
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO.
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKCRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACK6RD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
SI7I
3.1/3
II
1,5/3
IS
S,»/3
•1
0.0/3
0
bI.S/2
l.»?
2.0/2
.OS
18.1/3
Sfc.7
1.7/3
8.1
II
77
52.3
.M
3. '5
1*11.55
3,S»
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.07 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,5<< GRAMS/KILOMETRE
225.15 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.72 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2,0/3
ao
3,»/3
•1
.3/3
2.7/2
,07
19.7/3
,1/3
.3
12
»S
1,08
»0.8
,»8
3,73
1*21,87
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, GI ies.» MM. HIO
BLOHER INLET TEMP. 97 OEO. C
3
cm
2,2/3
22
,8/3
8
1.8/3
72
.3/3
»
57,0/2
l.k»
3.3/2
.08
2i.k/3
k».8
.1/3
,9
IS
bS
1.S7
b».B
.3k
3.1b
1207,10
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE » 11.<» KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-16.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 002
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, f
MERCEDES DIESEL
DATE
ENGINE 2.11 LITRE •
BAROMETER 7ft,81 MM OF HG,
DRY BULB TEMP, S3,3 DEG. C
PEL. HUMIDITY II PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL MT.t GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
•0.00
0,00
MFGR, CODE 800
CURB NT, 13Sb KG
Test Weight 1588 kg
H£T BULB TEMP 11.7 DEG, C
AHS, HUMIDITY 3,7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
I
•0,00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00 GRANS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER DIF. PRESS., 62, 805,7 MM. HBO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
coa
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACK6RO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COa BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKCRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
stza
a.b/a
tb
1.0/3
10
S.S/3
83
1.71
8. 8/2
.07
21,b/3
b».l
.5/3
1.5
17
7»
1.73
b3.S
.»3
3,b1
13bb.3S
BLOHER INLET PRESS,, Cl 182.S MM, H20
BLOHER INLET TEMP, 37 DEC, c
2 3
4lOb 5370
1.4/3 2,1/3
II
1.0/3
10
3.3/3
M
,»/3
b
37.0/2
1*01
2.2/2
.05
lt.b/3
*3.8
,5/3
1.5
10
3,Sb
1271,71
»,7b
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,0b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,55 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
208,li» GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,7» GRAMS/KILOMETRE
».S/3
b7
.8/3
li
53,2/2
1.51
2.V/2
.Ob
20.7/3
bt.l
0,0/3
0,0
13
54
l.»b
b2,l
.32
2,b<«
FUEL ECONOMY
CAHBON BALANCE « 12. S KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-17.
UNIT NO. OU3
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. i
PEU6EOT DIESEL
DATE
ENGINE
1175
2/11/7*
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
2.20 LITRE
BAROMETER 737,11 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. e$,b DEC. t
REL. HUMIDITY 11 PCI.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL *'T.r GRAMS
INITIAL wT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
•0,00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 110
CURB HT. 1280 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
HET BULB TEMP 12.8 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 1.0 MILLI6RAMS/KG
YR. 1173
• 0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., GZ> iio.s MM. Heo
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKCRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER RtADING/SCALE
COa BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C08 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C08 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
BLOHER INLET PRESS., 61 IbS.l MM. H10
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »o DEC. c
i
»8bO
SI, 3/3
205
2.H/1
a
11.8/3
171
.2/3
3
b7.3/a
1.11
1.2/2
.03
20.2/3
kO.b
.3/3
.1
203
Ibl
1.1?
S1.B
1370. b7
3.55
a
•ist
SS.O/3
iia
1.0/1
3
l.b/3
1»S
.3/3
»
»3.S/2
1.21
1.7/2
tO»
ia.s/3
J8.»
.8/3
.b
aai
137
1,83
11.01
1-H7.81
3
5371
SS.b/*
au
2.0/1
t
11.5/3
17»
0.0/3
0
51.0/2
l.»l
1.7/2
,0»
17.2/3
Sl.b
.1/3
.3
883
Ib7
I.b7
51.3
b.8«
8.1k
1285.b?
3.37
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
1.25 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.57 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
233.hi GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,b3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE * 11.2 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
A-18.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
- Continuous He-a ted FID-HC
UNIT NO. 003
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
PEUGEOT DIESEL
D*TE 2/20/7H
ENGINE 2.20 LITRE »
BAROMETER 732.03 MM OF HG.
DRY BULd TEMP. 2b.l DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY HI PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL "T./ GRAMS
INITIAL wT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GKAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE »10
CURB WT. , 1280 KG
Test Weight: 1361 kg
WET BULB TEMP 17.2 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 8.H MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR.
2
-0.00
-0.00
o.oo
0.00 GRANS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER OIF. PRESS., ce, iso.a MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOMER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGKO METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRD PPM
COB SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGHO METER
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX . SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NUX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CU2 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
S37b
2S.i/»
201
t.a/i
s
12.3/3
187
,7/3
10
b7.b/2
2,00
2.S/2
,0b
17,b/3
52.8
.8/3
a.1*
ISb
Ibl
1.1S
50.8
<*,?»
8.21
1500.53
3.83
2*8
V.8/1
S
8.8/3
132
,5/3
7
,0b
11.1/3
33.3
.5/3
1.5
121
1,16
31. <»
S.71
S,7»
ISO1*. 37
BLOMER INLET PRESS,, 61 157,5 MM, HIO
BLONER INLET TEMP. »o DEC. c
3
S3IO
C
11.3/3
1M
.1/3
1
SS.0/2
l.M
2.1/2
.OS
lS.t/3
fk.2
.1/3
.3
287
Ibe
l.bb
»s.s
b.^f
7. SO
1278, bS
3,»7
xElGHTEU MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C03
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
i.3o GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1,»7 GHAMS/KILOMETRE
23B.53 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,b3 GKAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY 8* CAHUON BALANCE = 11.0 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-19.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NU, 003 TEST NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL PEUGEOT DIESEL
BAROMETER 737.11 «M OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. aa.a DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 29 PCI.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT., GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
DATE 2/21/7*
ENGINE Z. 20 LITRE
1
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE »10
CURB NT. 1280 K6
Test Weight 1361 kg
HET BULB TEMP 12.2 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY »,S MILLIGRAMS/KB
YR. 1S73
2
• 0.00
-0,00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLONER DIP. PRESS., ee, 200.7 MM. HBO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
COz SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
COa BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGKD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
BLONER INLET PRESS,, Cl 171.1 MM, HCO
BLONER INLET TEMP. 37 DEC. c
i
537*
21.S/*
172
0.0/1
0
10.b/3
IbO
,7/3
10
b».l/2
1.88
Z.S/Z
,07
IB.1/3
S»,3
1.1/3
3.3
172
1**
1.82
51.S
».17
7.Ob
ItOS.bS
22,7/»
181
2.0/1
a
7,b/3
11*
1.2/3
18
13.3/i
1,20
Z.*/2
.Ob
12.0/3
3b.O
.1/3
.3
180
Sf
1.15
35.7
7,»3
7,8S
1510.55
t.ll
0.0/1
0
10.7/3
Ib2
.1/3
1
58,<*/2
1.70
e.b/e
.Ob
lS.b/3
•Hi. 8
.2/3
.b
l.bS
»b,3
7.05
7.52
1272. b3
3.12
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS COe
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
1.10 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.2b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
835.37 SHAMS/KILOMETRE
,bi GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE
11.2 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TAHLE A-ZO.
1S75
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 003
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
PEUGEOT DIESEL
DATE 2/22/7*
ENGINE z.zo LITRE *
BAROMETER 7*S.JU MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.S DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY JS PCt.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL MT.> GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE *10
CURB WT. 1280 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
NET BULB TEMP 11.7 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.S MILLI6RAMS/K6
YR. 1S73
2
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 6RAH8
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., 62, iss.o MM. MJO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOMER REVOLUTIONS
BLONER INLET PRESS,, Gl 170.1 MM, HIO
BLONER INLET TEMP. »o DEC, c
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
C0£
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METEH READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGKQ METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACHGWD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
i
53bH
»0.3/*
322
bB.8/2
138
11.8/3
ITS
.7/3
10
b3,S/2
l.Bb
1.7/2
.Of
IS.3/3
57.S
.5/3
1.5
20*
Ib3
1.82
Sb.b
5.00
8,0*
1*23,50
3.71
2
S17b
»».»/*
355
83.2/2
Ifab
-------
TABLE A-Z1.
1S75
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 003
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
PEU6EOT DIESEL
DATE Z/1V7*
ENGINE z.zo LITRE
BAROMETER 737.11 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 2S.b OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY It PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL *T,» 6RAM3
INITIAL WT., CRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
• 0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 110
CURB NT. 1880 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
NET BULB TEMP 12.8 DEC. C
AB3. HUMIDITY t.O MILLI8RAMS/K6
YR, H73
8
•0.00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00 8RAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOMER DIF. PRESS., eg,
BA6 RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
MM. HZO
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coz
coz
coz
COZ
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
coz
NOX
HC
CO
coz
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGKO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS CRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS CRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
mo
b.b/a
bb
.b/i
b
11.8/1
174
.8/3
3
b?.3/a
1.44
l.Z/Z
.01
20.8/3
bO.b
.3/3
.4
bl
its
1.47
54.8
1.33
7.»3
1370.bS
3.55
BLOWER INLET PRESS., ci ibc.i MM. HZO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »o DEC. c
2
• 418
7.3/3
73
.4/3
4
4,b/3
l»S
.3/3
*
*3.S/8
l,»l
1.7/8
,0»
18.8/3
3i.»
.8/3
.b
bS
137
37. •
11. OS
1*47,83
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COZ
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.38 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.S7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
z33.b
-------
TABLE A-22.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 003
VEHICLE MUDEL
TEST NO, 2
PEUGEOT DIESEL
DATE 2/20/7*
ENGINE 2.20 LITRE <»
BAROMETER 732.03 MH OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. Bb.l DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY HI PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL «T.> GRANS
INITIAL WT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
MFGR, CODE «10
CURB NT, 1280 KG
Test Weight 1361 kt
HET BULB TEMP 17,Z DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY s.s MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. IS?]
1
•0.00
•0.00
0,00
a
•0.00
-0.00
0,00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER OIF. PRESS,, ce, iso.3 MM. HZO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
MC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coa
C02
COa
coa
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
8ACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COa MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 187,E MM, HCO
BLONER INLET TEMP, to DEC. c
1
sm
8.7/9
87
l.b/3
Ib
18.3/3
187
.7/3
10
b»,b/a
a.oo
a.s/a
tOk
l7.b/3
sa.8
.8/9
*.»
73
Ib8
1.1S
50.8
1.77
B.ai
1500. »S
3.83
a
8MO
7,5/9
7S
1,7/3
If
8.8/9
132
.5/9
7
1
SI80
ll.S/3
111
a. a/3
at
11.3/3
171
.1/3
1
si.o/a
a.
-------
TABLE A-Z3.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 003
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 3
PEU6EOT DIESEL
DATE 2/Z1/7*
EN6INE Z. 20 LITRE
BAROMETER 737.11 MM OF H6.
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.Z OEG. C
REL, HUMIDITY ZR PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.r CRAMS
INITIAL HT.« CRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0,00
• 0.00
0.00
MFCR. CODE 110
CURB NT. 1280 KC
Test Weight 1361 kg
MET BULB TEMP 12.Z DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY ».* MILLICRAHS/KC
YR. H7J
2
•0,00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAM!
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., cz, 800.7 MM. HBO
BAC RESULTS
BAC NO,
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC
MC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
COS
SAMPLE
•AMPLE
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
METER READINC/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKCRO METER READINC/SCALE
BACKCRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READINC/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKCRD METER READINC/SCALE
BACKCRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READINC/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKCRO METER READINC/SCALE
BACKCRD PERCENT
METER READINC/SCALE
PPM
BACKCRD METER READINC/SCALE
BACKCRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
co CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS CRAMS
CO MASS CRAMS
C02 MASS CRAMS
NOX MASS CRAMS
1
sm
7.5/3
It
1.3/1
II
10,b/3
IbO
,7/3
10
b».i/z
1.88
2,V2
,07
18.1/3
S».3
1.1/3
3.3
1.88
81. 5
l.SS
7. Ob
l»OS,bl
3.»7
b.b/3
bb
l,b/3
Ib
7,b/3
11»
1.2/3
18
«3.3/2
1,80
8,»/B
• Ob
18,0/3
lb.0
.1/3
.3
II
3S.7
8.13
7,BS
1110, »8
BLOWER INLET PRESS,* Cl 17S.3 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP. 17 DEC, c
I
SS7»
10.8/3
108
l.i/3
If
10.7/1
Ib2
.1/3
1
SB.S/2
1.70
J.b/Z
.Ob
lS.b/3
»fc,8
.8/3
IS*
1."
»fc.3
8.1k
7. 52
1878, Sb
3,18
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COZ
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,33 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
l.Zb CRAMS/KILOMETRE
Z3S,3b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.fal GHAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE • 11,3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-24.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 003
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, •»
PEUGEOT DIESEL
DATE a/22/7*
ENGINE 2.20 LITRE
BAROMETER 7HS.30 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP, 23.S DEG. C
REL, HUMIDITY IS PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.r GRAMS
INITIAL NT,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0,00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR, CODE *10
CURB NT. 1280 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
WET BULB TEMP 11,? DEG, C
AbS, HUMIDITY 3,5 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1S73
2
•0,00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 CRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER OIF, PRESS,, sa, isa.o MM. Hao
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
COS BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
Mb*
7,b/3
7k
i.a/3
12
11.8/9
17S
.7/3
10
b3.S/2
i.ib
1,7/2
.Of
IS.3/3
S7.S
.5/3
l.S
bb
Ib3
1.82
Sb.b
l.bl
8,Of
1*23.*3
3.71
HEIGHTtD MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COB
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.37 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
l.Sb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
iS.lS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,SS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
7.1/3
71
l.»/3
1*
S.S/3
1<»I
.3/3
*
38.2/2
1*0*
l.S/2
,0*
11.7/3
36. 1
.3/3
58
135
1.01
3*. 3
a,»3
11, »S
13*8,02
3,8»
BLOHER INLET PRESS.* Gl 170.2 MM, H20
BLOHER INLET TEMP, »o DEG. c
3
sm
11.2/3
111
1.7/3
17
10.b/3
IbO
1.1/3
Ib
5*. 7/2
l.Sb
1.1/2
.03
15.8/9
1.1/3
3.3
1*0
l.M
**.S
2.37
b,S3
1200.88
a.sa
FUEL ECONOMY 01 CARBON BALANCE * 12.1 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-Z5.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 001
VtHICLE MUOEL
TEST NO. 1
OPEL aiOU 0
DATE 8/1S/7H
ENGINE 2.07 LITRE
BAROMETER 73b,35 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. efa.l DEC. C
RtL. HUMIDITY 18 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL IT., GRAMS
INITIAL WT,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0.00
•0.00
0.00
HFGR. CODE *00
CURB NT. 1250 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
NET BULB TEMP 12.6 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3.8 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1173
2
• 0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 6RAM8
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., ca, iss.o MM. HZO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOWER INLET PRESS., 61 Ib2.b MM, HIO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »o DEC. c
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coa
C02
COS
coa
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
coa
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACK6RD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGND METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPH
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
i
S37b
l»,8/3
SI
2.5/1
3
b.2/3
13
0.0/3
0
7S,s/a
2.21
2.1/2
.05
ab.5/3
".5
.3/3
.1
57
SB
2.25
7B.8
1.38
»,30
1731.SH
llbb
7.5/3
10
2.8/1
3
3.8/3
57
0.0/3
0
»».B/2
1.2S
1.3/2
.09
lb.1/3
»i.3
.2/3
.b
ss
1.22
»7.8
»,Sb
15<«S,2b
5,32
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS coa
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.72 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
257.70 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.83 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1».V3
•^
3.2/1
3
S.b/3
• *
0.0/3
0
bl.3/2
!.»•
1.8/2
.0»
22.<»/3
b7.2
.«/3
.b
57
80
1.75
bb.7
1.3'
3.11
1343.40
».3S
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE
10.» KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-Z6.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. OU1
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NU. 2
OPEL 21UU U
DATE 2/BO/7*
ENGINE 2.07 LITRE
BAROMETER 73>». Ob MM OK HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 2-t.t OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY US PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL MT.r GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GR&MS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE «00
CURB NT. 1250 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
NET BULB TEMP 17.8 OEG. C
ABS, HUMIDITY 61 IbS.l MM, H|0
BLONER INLET TEMP, to DEC. c
S1S»
1.2/3
37
5,2/1
S
3.»/3
Cl
1.11
1.2/2
.01
l».b/3
»3,8
.3/3
32
»3
1,10
H3.0
1.31
3,58
S,b3
i
SSI8
53,1/1
S»
1.S/1
S
5.0/3
75
0,0/3
0
bO,0/2
!.»»
1,3/2
.01
21.7/3
fcS.l
SO
71
1.71
b»,l
1.80
3.»3
FUEL ECONOMY
CARBON BALANCE
11.1 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-27.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 001
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 3
OPEL 2100 o
DATE 2/21/7*
ENGINE 2.07 LITRE
BAROMETER 735.33 NH Of HG.
DRY BULB TEMP, 21.7 OEG. C
RtL. HUMIDITY 28 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT.,
INITIAL NT.,
DIFFERENCE
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0.00
•0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE *00
CURB MT. liSO KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
NET BULB TEMP 11.7 DEC. C
AB3. HUMIDITY ».h MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1973
2
• 0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLONER DIF. PRESS., 62, 189.* MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
COB SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRO METER
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METEK
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX 8ACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
537*
18.1/3
78
2.5/1
3
5.5/3
82
0.0/3
0
b8.9/2
a.os
1.3/2
.03
22.b/3
b7.8
.3/3
.9
70
78
2.02
b7,0
I.b9
3.81
1557.92
7.3/3
89
2.5/1
I
2.9/3
»3
.b/3
q
3S.7/2
B.0/2
.OS
.1/3
.3
27
3»
1,0*
»2.9
1.11
2,79
13b7,38
»,87
BLOWER INLET PRESS., Gl Ibt.b MM. HiO
BLOHER INLET TEMP. »0 OEB. C
3
5310
l«.8/3
89
3.0/1
3
t.S/3
k7
.2/3
3
59.7/2
It"
1.3/2
.03
21.7/3
kt.l
.3/3
.9
S7
b2
1.70
b».3
1.37
3.01
1312.59
».29
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COB
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.22 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.51 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
230.82 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.77 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE
11. b KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-28.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 001
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
OPEL aiOU 0
DATE 2/22/7»
ENGINE 2.07 LITRE
BAROMETER 7»S.SS MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEC. C
REL. HUMionr a* PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT.,
INITIAL NT.,
DIFFERENCE
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0.00
•o.oo
0.00
MFGR. CODE «00
CURB NT. 1ZSO KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
NET BULB TEMP 12.2 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY ».3 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR, 1S73
2
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRANS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOMER OIF. PRESS., G2r 200.7 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOMER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
con
COS
COS
coa
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
6ACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COB CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COe MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
537*
22.5/3
to
2.0/1
2
b.7/3
100
l.S/3
28
72,0/2
2.1fa
1,8/2
.0*
2<>.0/3
72.0
1.0/3
3.0
88
72
2.12
bS.S
e.is
3.55
lbS3.
-------
TABLE A-Z9.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 001
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, 1
OPEL eiUU 0
DATE
ENSINE 2.07 LITRE
BAROMETER 73b,3S MM Of H6,
DRY BULB TEMP. ib.l DEC. C
REL, HUMIDITY 18 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL XT,, CRAMS
INITIAL WT., CRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 400
CURB WT, 1250 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
NET BULB TEMP 12.8 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 3,8 MILLICRAMS/KC
YR. H73
2
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 CRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., 62, 188.0 MM. H20
BAC RESULTS
BAC NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
COJ
coa
C02
NOX
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKCRD METER READING/SCALE
8ACKCRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACK6RD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKCRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKCRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
SI7b
3.3/3
33
.8/3
8
fa. 2/3
43
0.0/3
0
7S.S/8
at««»
2.1/2
.OS
8b.S/3
74.S
.3/3
8b
88
2.25
78.8
.b»
4.30
1791.53
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,01 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,78 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
257,70 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,83 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 Ibl.b MM, MIO
BLOWER INLCT TEMP, »o oec. c
2
Slbb
1.4/3
14
,8/3
•
3.8/3
S?
0.0/3
0
tt.B/8
1.3/2
.03
lb.1/3
»8.3
.8/3
.fc
12
SS
1.22
»7.8
5,32
3,3/3
33
.8/3
8
5,b/3
8*
0,0/3
0
bl.3/2
1.78
1.8/8
,0»
Z2.4/3
b7.2
,2/3
,b
ib
80
1,»S
bb.7
,b3
».3S
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE • 10.» KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-30.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 001
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. a
OPEL 210U D
DATE 2/BO/7*
ENGINE 2.0? LITRE *
BAROMETER 73H.Ob MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. a».» DEG, C
REL. HUMIDITY »S PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL «T., GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE »00
CURB NT. 1250 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
MET BULB TEMP 17,i DEG. C
A83. HUMIDITY 4.b MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1973
2
•0.00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00 GRANS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER OIF, PRESS., 62, 110,S MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
COS
C02
C02
C02
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
C3b7
».S/3
ts
1.1/3
11
7.b/3
114
.8/3
18
72.S/2
8, IB
1.5/2
,01
2».l/3
72.3
.3/3
3b
18
i, IS
M.S
.8b
».7»
lb«S.bfa
5.50
BLOHER INLET PRESS,, Gl IbS.l MM, H20
BLONER INLET TEMP, »0 OEG. C
t
S1S«
2.3/3
ai
1.2/3
12
3.V/3
SI
,»/3
b
11.0/2
i,ll
1.2/2
.03
lt.b/3
«3.8
.3/3
12
»3
1*10
»3.0
.»•»
3,58
1*38, SI
S,b3
1
SSil
3.5/3
1C
1.1/3
11
5.0/3
7i
0.0/3
0
bo.o/a
i.n
1,3/2
.01
21.7/3
l.i
2S
71
i.n
b».l
.bl
3,»3
130S.42
WEIGHTED MASS hC
HEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
HEIGHTED MASS NOX
,10 GRAMS/KILOMETRE'
,b3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
23S.73 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.81 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE • 11,2 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-31.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. 001 TEST NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL OPEL 210U D
BAROMETER 735.33 MM OF MG.
DRY BULB TEMP. ei,7 OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY 28 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT,» CRAMS
INITIAL NT,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
DATE 2/21/7*
ENGINE 2.07 LITRE
1
•0.00
• 0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE tOO
CURB NT. 1250 KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
WET BULB TEMP 11.7 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY ».b MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. H73
2
• 0.00
•0.00
0,00
0.00 OHANI
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF, PRESS., cz, IBS.* MM. HSO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
HETER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
coa MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
iS7»
3.3/3
33
.»/3
*
5.5/3
• 2
0.0/3
0
b8.S/2
1,06
1.3/E
,03
22.b/3
b7.8
.3/3
30
78
2,02
b?,0
.72
3.81
1657,92
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,09 GRAMS/KILOMET«E
.(1 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
230,82 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,77 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2,1/3
11
1,2/3
12
2.S/3
M
H.7/2
2.0/2
.OS
l»,»/3
•H.2
,i'3
.1
10
3
-------
TABLE A-32.
117S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, 001 TEST NO. *
VEHICLE MODEL OPEL 210U D
BAROMETER ?»<»,S5 MM OF MG.
DRY BULB TEMP, 13.3 DEC. C
REL, HUMIDITY 2» PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL MT.r GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
DATE 2/22/7*
ENGINE 2.07 LITRE »
1
•0.00
-0.00
0,00
MFGR. CODE «00
CURB NT. 12SO KG
Test Weight 1361 kg
NET BULB TEMP 12.2 DEC. C
AB3, HUMIDITY »,3 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1173
2
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
0,00 CRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER OIF. PRESS.* 01, 200,7 MM, H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
COe SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
B37»
t.2/3
»2
1.0/3
10
b.7/3
100
1.1/3
88
72.0/2
2.1b
1.8/2
.0»
2*.0/3
72,0
1.0/3
3.0
3*
72
2.12
bS.S
.82
3.55
lbS3.<<0
BLONER INLET PRESS,* 61 180,3 MM, M20
BLOHER INLET TEMP. »o DEC. c
2
Sib*
2,2/3
22
1.0/3
10
S.l/3
4b
.2/3
1
»0.1/2
1.11
1.8/2
.7/3
2.1
13
*2
1,08
»2.8
tSl
3. 53
I*
-------
TABLE A-33.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 3
BLUE PKOCO CAPRI
DATE »/18/7»
ENGINE z. 31 LITRE •»
BAROMETER 7»2.15 MM OF MG.
DRY BULB TEHP. 23.1 OEG. C
REL. hUMioitr be PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL »T., GRAMS
INITIAL WT., GKAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0,00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 31
CURB NT. 1011 KG
Test Weight 1134 kg
MET BULB TEMP 18.1 OEG. C
AB8. HUMIDITY 11.8 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
2
-0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
SLOWER DIP. PRESS., ce, 177.8 MM.
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, Gl 172,7 MM. H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP, »s DEC, c
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
C08 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
1828*
8.0/S
128
10.0/2
20
70.0/1
327
10.0/1
33
2
-------
TABLE A-34
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
- Continuous Heated FID-HC
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. »
bLUE PROCO CAPRI
DATE
ENGINE
BAROMETER 7*f,SB MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 83.9 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY bb PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT.r GRAMS
INITIAL *T., GHAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
2.31 LURE
1
• 0.00
•o.oo
0.00
MFGR. CODE 31
CURB NT. 1011 KG
Test Weight 1134 kg
NET BULB TEMP IS.* DEC. C
ABS, HUMIDITY 12.5 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR, 197*
2
-0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., 02, IBS,* MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
COS
co2
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
18050
S.B/S
ISb
9.5/8
19
71,0/1
333
11,0/1
37
72,5/2
2.18
.7/2
.02
21,8/3
89. »
1,0/3
110
282
2.17
8b.9
3.00
18.20
l»77.»S
b.SS
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
MEIGnTED MASS NOX
.07 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,i»3 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.Bs GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,8S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, GI 170.2 MM, H20
BLOMER INLET TEMP. »» PEC, c
2
90180
S.8/B
»
8.7/2
17
7.0/1
23
8.0/1
2b
51.3/2
1.0/2
,02
12.0/3
3b.O
.3/3
.9
"11
-1
I."
35.2
•.*0
-.09
lb*8.23
3
179*7
5.0/2
10
9,0/2
18
3.5/1
11
13
bb.3/2
1.9fc
l.b/2
.0*
2b,9/3
80.7
.5/3
l.S
• 5
-0
1.92
79.*
-.11
-.01
1305.31
S.Sb
FUEL ECONOMY b< CARBON BALANCE = 10.7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-35.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MUOEL
TEST NO, s
BLUE PROCO CAPRI
DATE f/28/71*
ENGINE z. 31 LITRE
BAROMETER 731.
DRY BULB TEMP.
REL. HUMIDITY
MM Of HG.
25.0 OEG. C
bO PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL *T.. GRAMS
INITIAL WT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 31
CURB NT. 1011 KG
Test Weight 1134 kg
NET BULB TEMP IS.* DEG, C
A8S. HUMIDITY 18.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. H7»
8
• 0.00
-0,00
0.00
0.00 6RAN3
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER DIF. PRESS.* 62,
MM. HZO
BLOKER INLET PRESS.* 61 172.7 MM. HiO
BLOMER INLET TEMP. »» DEC. c
SAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO "BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGKD METER READING/SCALE
C08 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGHD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
1
17fabl
e.o/fa
2S7
7.0/8
It
85. 5/1
»»b
».0/1
13
74.5/2
8.25
2.5/2
.Ob
28.1/3
8».3
.3/3
.1
B»S
»07
e.so
83. b
S.Ob
lb.17
C08 MASS GRAMS !*<»«. 11
NUX MASS GRAMS
WEIGHTED MASS HC ,17 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS CO ,bl GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS COS lhi.<\8 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
WEIGHTED MASS NOX .B* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
b.OO
2
30»IS
1.1/2
»
»,0/Z
•
1.0/1
3
1.0/1
3
Sb.3/2
l.fc?
Z.S/2
,0b
13.0/3
31.0
.b/3
1.6
• 3
0
l.Sb
37.*
-.18
.08
1773.11
3
18011
3.1/8
•
3.0/2
k
1.0/1
1
.5/1
Z
b8.2/2
t.OI
l.S/2
.0»
88.1/3
b«,7
.1/3
.3
3
8
1.11
b8.»
.Ob
.07
13»3.87
S.03
FUEL ECONOMY BY CAHHON BALANCE = 10.2 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-36.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO,
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. b
BLUE PROCO CAPRI
DATE »/Z3/7»
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE *
BAROMETER 7*1.05 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.9 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY bZ PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL »T.» GRAMS
INITIAL «T., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 31
CURB NT. 1011 KG
Test Weight 1134 kg
NET BULB TEMP 18,9 DEC. C
ABS, HUMIDITY 11.7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR, 197*
e
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., GZ, 177.a MM. HZO
BLOHER INLET PRESS,, 61 171,7 MM. HiO
BLONER INLET TEMP. M DEC. c
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRD PPM
COS SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
COS CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COZ MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
17907
b.O/b
193
b.O/Z
12
88,0/1
*b8
l.S/1
s
71,*/Z
2.1*
2.3/Z
.Ob
Z8.»/3
85.Z
.1/3
.3
183
H35
Z.09
B*.9
3.89
18. bS
1*15.73
b.18
2
30SS7
3.9/2
B
»,0/Z
8
,S/1
Z
.5/1
Z
S».7/Z
l,Sb
2.0/2
.OS
l*.B/3
»».»
.8/3
1
0
1.S8
*Z,3
.01
.01
175*. 7b
s.zs
3
179S*
5.3/Z
11
s.p/z
10
lb.0/1
ss
.5/1
2
b?.e/z
2,01
2.0/2
.OS
30.2/3
90. b
1.3/3
2
SO
1."
87.3
.0*
2. IS
1335. 7b
b.37
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COS
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.1* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.77 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
B.SS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,9b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY B» CARBON BALANCE = 10.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-37.
197S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT Ml).
VEHICLE HUOtL
TEST NO. 3
BLUE PROCO CAPRI
DATE f/18/71
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE
BAROMETER 7»2.9S MM OF hG.
DRY BULd TEMP. 23.1 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY bi PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT.. GRAMS
INITIAL XT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0.00
• 0,00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 31
CURB NT. 10X1 KG
Test Weight 1134 kg
MET BULB TEMP 18,9 DEC, C
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.8 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR.
2
-0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 CRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER OIF. PRESS., G2, 177.8 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
8LOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CU
CO
C02
C02
C02
cue
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRU METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACrtGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGHD METEK READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METEK READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGftO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
lees'*
12.2/3
122
22.1/2
22
70.0/1
327
10.0/1
33
2»1 GKAMS/KILOMETRE
.88 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLOHER INLET PRESS.,
INLET TEMP.
61 172.7 MM,
13 DEC. C
MtO
2
30SOB
2.1/3
21
1.1/3
IS
b.0/1
11
7.0/1
23
17.8/1
l,Sb
.1/1
,07
13.0/3
31.0
.1/3
Z.7
•1
1."
3b,b
as
-.OS
1715, OS
»,S3
3
18013
2*. 2/2
Z»
21.3/2
21
».0/1
19
3.S/1
11
22.1/1
1.S8
.8/1
,0b
27.<>/3
82. a
1.0/3
3.0
b
3
.13
.18
1312.41
5.85
FUEL ECUNOMY BY CARBON BALANCE = 10.t KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TAHLE A-38.
1S7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. *
PROCO CAFH1
DATE
ENGINE
BAROMETER 7'»'».SB MM OF MG.
DRY BULd TEMP. 83.S DEC. C
KEL. HUMIUITY bb PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.r GRAMS
INITIAL wT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE 6NAH3
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
2.31 LITRE
1
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 31
CURB MT. 1011 K6
Test Weight J134 kg
NET BULB TEMP IS.* DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 12.5 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 1S7»
2
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 GRANS
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLUNER DIP. PRESS., G2, IBS.1* MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG'NO.
RLONER REVOLUTIONS
MC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
COS
cos
coa
COS
NOX
SAMPLE
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?.
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
6ACKGKO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGHO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
UACKGRD METEH READING/SCALE
8ACKGt<0 PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGKD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGKD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS 6HAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
180SO
10.S/3
10S
3,0/3
30
71.0/1
331
11.0/1
37
7Z.S/2
e.iB
.7/Z
.02
1.0/3
3.0
81
882
2.17
Bt>.
-------
TABLE A-39.
_1 S. 7.5
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY.EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
ItST NU. 5
ULOE PROCO CAPRI
DATE
ENGINE
BAROMETER 73S.it MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 2S.O OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY bO PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL «T.» GRAMS
INITIAL f.T., UKAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
2. 3i LITRE
1
-0.00
•0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE 31
CURB WT. 1011 KG
Test Weight 1134 kg
YR.
rtET BULB TEMP
ABS. HUMIDITY
"*.* DEC. C
12.1 MILLIGRAMS/KB
2
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF, PRESS., G2, 182.9 MM. HZO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLOMER INLET PRESS.,
BLOWER INLET TEMP.
61 172.7 MM. HZO
»» DEC. C
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
cu
cue
C02
coe
C02
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CU
coe
NUX
HC
CO
coe
NUX
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD METER
BACKGRO PPH
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
bACKGHU METER
BACKGrtO PPM
SAMHLfc METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
SAMPLf PERCENT
BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
BACKGHD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGHD METER
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTxA UUN
CONCENTRATION
CONCENTRATION
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PHM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
17bbl
88.8/3
288
l.«l/3
IS
8S.S/1
•Hb
t.0/1
13
74.5/2
2.25
2.5/2
.Ob
28.1/3
8».3
.3/3
272
*07
2.20
83. b
S.b2
KE1GMTEU MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
MASS COS
MASS NOX
.82 GHAM3/KILOMETRE
,bl GRAMS/KILOMETRE
i.ss GKAMS/KILOMETRE
,8» GRAMS/KILOMF.TRE
b.OO
2
30»8S
18.5/2
18
15.1/2
IS
1.0/1
3
1.0/1
3
Sb.3/2
I.b2
2.S/2
,0fa
13.0/3
3S.O
.b/3
1.8
5
0
l.Sb
37. »
.IS
.02
1773.12
180S1
l».S/2
IS
12,5/2
13
1.0/1
3
.5/1
2
be.z/a
2.03
1.5/2
.0»
22.S/3
k§.7
.1/3
.3
2
l.SS
,os
.07
1343.2?
5.03
FUtL ECONOMt
CARBON BALANCE a 10.2 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TAbLE A-40.
1175
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NU.
VEHICLE MODEL
ItST NU. h
bLUE PROCO L'APRI
UATt
ENGINE
BAROMETER ?HS.Ub MM OF hG.
DRY bULfl TEMP. 23.q DEC. C
HEL. HUMIDITY be KCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL «T.,
INITIAL «t.
DIFFERENCE
GRAMS
GRAMS
GKAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
2.31 LITRE
i
-0.00
-o.oo
o.oo
MFGR. CODE 31
CURB NT. 1011 K6
Test Weight 1134 kg
NET BULB TEMP 18.9 DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.7 MILLICRAM3/K6
YR.
2
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0,00 6RAM8
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2> 177.8 MM, HBO
BAG RESULTS
HAG NO.
BLOHER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD Mt TER
CO BACKGRO PPM
COS SAMPLE METtR
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRO METER
READING/SCALE
COB BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD MtTER
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
COS CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS bRAMS
NUX MASS URAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
17S07
17.b/3
17fa
2.5/3
2s
88.0/1
»bB
1.5/1
5
71. 4/2
2.i»
2.3/2
.Ob
.1/3
.3
155
»35
a. os
8».S
3.21
18. bS
ins. 73
b.ia
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 172.7 MM. HZO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. *« DEC. C
2
30SS7
13.8/2
1»
13.1/2
13
.5/1
2
.5/1
2
5*.7/2
l.Sb
2.0/2
.OS
l*.8/3
»».»
.8/3
2.*
2
0
1.S2
<*2.3
.08
.01
17S«,7b
5.25
lb.S/2
Ib
19,1/2
13
lb.0/1
SS
.5/1
2
h7,8/2
2.01
2,0/2
.OS
30.2/3
SO.fc
1.3/3
3.S
S
50
I."
87,3
.11
2.IS
1335.77
b.37
WEIGHTED MASS MC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
wEIGnTEu MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.13 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.77 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
?S8.Sb GrtAnS/KlLOMETRE
,9b GKAMS/KILOMETRE
FUtL ECUNOdY BY CARBUN BALANCE » 10.3 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-41.
1S7S
VEHICLE CHIS3ION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO,
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, 1
CRICKET DIESEL Tex. TCCS
DATE 7/31/7-*
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 7H2.SS MM OF HG,
DRY BULB TEHP. 83.S DEC. C
BEL. HUHIOITY 7» PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.r CRAMS
INITIAL NT., CRAH3
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0.00
•0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE -0
CURB MT. 1025 Kg
Test Wt. 1134 Kg
MET BULB TEMP 20.b 016. C
ABS. HUMIDITY l»,l MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR.
2
• 0.00
•0.00
0,00
0.00 CRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOMER DIP. PRESS.> cz, 127.0 MM. HBO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOMER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
COS
coa
coa
C02
NOX
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
coa
NOX
HC
CO
COB
NOX
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKCRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
1
S»b7
8S.9/S
tie
11.0/1
11
lb.7/3
2Sb
.S/3
19
b3.1/2
1.8S
».S/J
t07
8*. 2/2
»05
230
1."
83,7
io.es
11.80
o.sb
7. S3
1M
11.0/1
11
a. 7/3
»0
,7/S
10
bS.1/3
1,01
-------
TABLE A-42.
1S75
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO,
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 2 DATE B/ l/7»
CRICKET DIESEL Tex. TCCS ENGINE 2.31 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 7Hl.bB MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. J7.E DEG. C
REL, HUMIDITY 80 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.. GRAMS
INITIAL MT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0.00
•0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE -0
CURB NT. 1025 Kg
Test Wt. 1)34 Kg.
NET BULB TEMP 2».» DEC. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 18.b MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. I'm
2
• 0.00
-o.oo
o.oo
0,00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLONER OIF. PRESS., Gar 187,0 MM, HZO
BAG RESULTS
RAG NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
COa
coa
coe
coa
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKCRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C08 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
S'H*
IS. 0/1
1,0/3
IS
bi.t/a
1.7S
».l/3
.Ob
77,S/a
77.5
.7/2
.7
»3b
eos
i.7»
7b.S
11,10
10, 7b
ma. 03
8,71
WEIGHTED. MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
i.3S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.8* CHAHS/KILOMETRE
B27.»S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1,*B GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLONER INLET PRESS,, 61 101,b MM. MJO
BLONER INLET TEMP. tl DEC, C
130S
3».S/3
1)4
1S.S/1
IS
2.b/3
31
.8/3
12
bS.7/3
3.7/3
,05
«8.0/2
»8.0
1.0/2
1.0
125
ab
l,0b
a, as
*,3<»
•Ml
3
5*50
13.7/b
*37
12.0/1
11
8.2/3
*
8b,0/3
1.53
3,t/3
.05
7?.b/2
77, b
1.7/2
i.7
113
l.»1
7b.l
10.78
S.7S
IH8.7S
8,b3
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE * 11.5 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-43.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
1S7S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 3 DATE B/ 2/7*
VEHICLE HOOEL CRICKET DIESEL Tex. TCCS ENGINE Z. 31 LITRE
BAROMETER 7»U.«U MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 33.9 DEC. C
REL. HUHIOITY 51 PCI.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL MT.. GRAMS
INITIAL HT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
•0.00
0,00
MFGR. CODE -0
CURB WT. 1025 Kg.
Test Wt. 1134 Kg.
NET BULB TEMP 18.3 OEG. C
AB8. HUMIDITY 11.1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR.
2
•0.00
•0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOHER DIF. PRESS., G2, lit,3 MM,
BAG RESULTS
RAO NO.
BLONER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
COa SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
coa
COa BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CPE BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRO PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COa MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
SSB8
13.2/b
si
15. 3/3
23»
.1/3
1
bi.B/2
1.80
a. i/a
.07
83.3/2
83.3
370
820
1.7»
sa.s
S.S»
11. »S
1*28.03
7.1*
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COa
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
1.2* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,87 GHAMS/KILOMETRE
225,ab GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.07 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLONER INLET PRESS,,
BLONER INLET TEMP,
Gl 101.b MM. H20
»1 DE6. C
IH
a.t/3
3h
.a/3
*
fc3.6/3
1,07
t.S/3
,07
tb.0/2
«b.O
».b/2
lib
30
1,01
11.8
S,lb
2,70
b.22
22,5/1
81
7.2/3
108
.3/3
»
8S,b/3
1.S2
3.8/3
.OS
75. I/a
75. 1
1.2/2
1.2
3S3
7H.O
10,00
5.07
1113.02
b.33
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE
u,7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-44.
1"7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO.
CRICKET DIEStL
1 DATE 7/31/7*
Tex. TCCS ENGINE 2.31 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 7»2.95 MM OF HC,
DRY BULB TEMP. 2J.H OEG, C
REL, HUMIDITY 7* PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL MT.i CRAMS
INITIAL «T,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
MFGR, CODE -o
CURB NT, 1025 Kg.
Test Wt. 1134 Kg.
WET BULB TEMP 10,k DEC, C
ABS, HUMIDITY 1»,1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
1
• 0.00
•0,00
0,00
2
-0.00
•0.00
0,00
0,00 0RAMI
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF, PRESS,, Gl, 127,0 MM, H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACK6RO PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
co BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
22,fc/l
lib
l»,3/2
l»
lfc.7/1
ISb
0/1
11
fci,i/2
it"
»,*/!
,OT
Bi.2/2
8»,2
.8/3
830
1.7*
81,7
S,»I
11.80
O.H
7,«»3
11,7/Z
10
kS.l/1
1,01
*,b/l
• 07
0,0/3
0,0
1,03
, 2S
BLOWER INLET PRESS., 01 m.fc MM, HIO
BLOWER *NLET TEMP, *i DCS. c
I
•Ml
10,1/1
101
lk,8/8
IT
7,1/3
110
• i/1
1
8k,7/1
1."
»,V1
• 07
7k.I/I
7k.8
0.0/3
0,0
8k
102
l.«8
7k.8
2.20
6,27
120b,70
7.11
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NQX
,*7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,88 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
22k.8S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
l,2b GRAMS/KILOMfcTRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE « 11,7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLfc A-45.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO,
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST HO, 2
CRICKET DIESEL Tex. TCCS
DATE B/ l/7»
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 7»l,b8 MM OF MC,
DRY BULB TEMP, J7.2 DEC. C
REL, HUMIDITY 80 PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT., GRAMS
INITIAL *T,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE 6RAM3
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0.00
• 0,00
0,00
MFGR, CODE -D
CURB WT, 1025 Kg.
Test Wt. ) 134 Kg.
MET BULB TEMP Z»,» DEG, C
ABS, HUMIDITY ie.h MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
t
• 0,00
• 0,00
0,00
0,00 6RAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF, PRESS., Gi, lt?,0 MM, HZO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
BLONER INLET PRESS,, 61 101,b MM, H«0
BLOWER »NLCT TEMP, *> Dec, c
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
COI
C02
COI
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
CO?
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READlNG/SCALfc
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCAL*
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
21,7/3
H7
11,»/J
H
15,»/1
lib
1.0/1
li
bl.H/Z
1,71
»,!/»
• Ob
77,5/2
77, S
,7/2
,7
no
201
,
7b,1
S.bl
10, 7b
i«m, is
874
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.S* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,B* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
I,»» GRAMS/KROMtTRE
1,»8 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
MOS
11,1/Z
• X
2,b/l
11
.•/I
1C
b(,7/l
i.a
3,7/3
,01
*8,0/i
18,0
1.0/2
1,0
b»
ib
l.Ob
t.it
11.3/3
111
11,1/2
H
i,e/3
id
,1/1
»
8b,0/3
1.1*
!,«/>
.01
77,b/2
77, b
i,7/e
ib
113
l.»1
7b.l
I.»3
5,75
1111. bl
B.bJ
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE « 11,7 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-46.
117S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO,
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, 3 DATE a/ 2/7*
CRICKET DIESEL Tex. TCCS ENGINE Z. 31 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 7»0.»1 MM OF HG,
DRY BULB TEMP, 21.1 DEC. c
REL. HUMIDITY 51 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL NT.. GRAMS
INITIAL NT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
MFGR, CODE «0
CURB l»T. 1025 Kg.
TestWt. 1134 Kg.
MET BULB TEMP 18,1 DEC, C
AB8, HUMIDITY 11,1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
1
• 0.00
• 0,00
0,00
• 0,00
• 0,00
0,00
0,00 ORAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER Dlf, PRESS,, 61, 111.3 MM, H20
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 101,k MM, HiO
BLONCR *NLET TEMP, «) DEG, C
BA6 RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRD PPM
co SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
co BACKGRD METER
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
CO! SAMPLE PERCENT
coz BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
COJ BACKGRO PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COe MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
till
2S,»/3
II*
bS.l/8
b)
15,3/1
ZS»
.1/1
1
bl.B/2
1,10
2,1/2
,07
83,3/2
83.3
.1/2
,1
200
220
82,5
S.l»
11. »5
i
Mil
10,7/3
107
SB,T/2
II
l,»/J
Ih
,3/1
»
H.I/S
1,07
V.I/3
,0?
«k,0/2
»fc,0
«,b/2
30
1,01
2.70
V.ib
k.22
1
Mil
ll.S/1
IBI
18,7/2
31
7.2/1
101
,1/3
*
1,8/3
,01
75, 1/2
>B,1
1.2/2
1.2
91
2.11
5,07
b,33
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,51 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,87 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
2J5.2S GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1,07 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL tcoNOMY ay CARBON BALANCE • 11,8 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-47.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, I
Cricket Gasoline Tex. TCCS
DATE 7/2S/7«t
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE »
BAROMETER 7»b.7b MM OF HG,
DRY BULB TEMP. 21,* OeC. C
REL. HUMIDITY »^ PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT., GRAMS
INITIAL NT.t GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0.00
•0,00
0,00
MFGR, CODE >0
CURB WT. 1025 Kg.
Test Wt. 1134 Kg.
NET BULB TEMP IB,] DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 11,0 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
I
• 0,00
• 0,00
0,00
0,00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP, PRESS,. Gl, 1(7.0 MM. HIO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
cot
CO*
C02 BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
COI
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
•AMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
METER READING/SCALE
PERCENT
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO* CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
Mil
37,3/1
1M
10,0/1
10
s.i/i
71
.*/*
b
bO,0/2
it"
•7.1/2
"•I
,1/1
,b
1*0
b<
l.h?
8b.b
l.SS
3,S»
1151, «
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.7* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,27 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
203,f2 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
l,lb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 101,b MM, HIO
BLOWCR INLET TEMP, M 010, C
12,7/3
111
• ,0/1
I
1,0/1
II
• 1/2
3
H.7/1
t«
1,3/*
,01
• 1
II*
12
«.ts
1,00
IbO
11,0/1
2,0/1
10
t»/«
I
•2,1/1
1.1/2
.01
1.2
110
2b
78,1
).»
1.33
1117, »1
b.bi
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE
11,» KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-48.
1075
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. ?
Cricket Gasoline Tex. TCCS
DATE 7/?b/7t
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE
BAROMETER 7»b.7b MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. IJ.3 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY bb PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT,. GRAMS
INITIAL WT,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0.00
• 0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE -0
CURB NT. 1025 Kg.
Test Wt. 1134 Kg.
NET BULB TEMP 18,* DEG, C
AB8, HUMIDITY 11.0 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
I
• 0,00
• 0,00
0,00
0,00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., 01, It7,0 MM, HtO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
MC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO?
(.01
C08
CO!
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALl
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
MfTER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COZ CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO! MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
Sb7l
88,5/3
11*
lb.O/1
Ib
»,3/3
b*
,1/Z
3
bi.o/e
,oc
M.S/Z
,s
.8/9
100
SB
8,bS
3.11
, 80
8,81
31,b/3
lib
It, 0/1
IS
,5/8
1,0*
I.O/t
,05
1,3/1
113
b
BLOWER INLET PRESS,. 61 101.b MM, HtO
BLOWER INLET TEMP, «i DEC. c
i
Sb7i
1,0/3
30
.3/«
B
IS, 1/3
Sl.b
S.OB
1100,
,0b
B«,S/I
8«.S
.V3
ei
l.Kb
88.1
3,»S
1.11
1838, »1
7,S<»
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,b8 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,81 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
?3H,bS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1,33 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE
KROMtTRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-49.
H7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO. TEST NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL Cricket Gasoline Tex. TCCS
BAROMETER 740,bt> MM OF HG,
DRY BULB TEMP. e*.» OEG. C
REL, HUMIDITY bl PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL MT.« GRAMS
INITIAL WT,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
DATE 7/ZV7*
ENGINE 2.31 LITRE
1
• 0,00
• 0.00
0.00
MFGR, CODE «0
CURB KT. 1025 Kg.
Test Wt. 1134 Kg.
MET BULB TEMP n,» oee, c
ABS, HUMIDITY U,» MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
e
• 0,00
• 0,00
0,00
0,00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLONER DIP. PRESS., SB, IIT.O MM, HID
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
COl SAMPLE
SAMPLE
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
METER READING/SCALE
COC SAMPLE PERCENT
coz BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COI BACKBRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COI CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COZ MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
»*
11, VI
l?»
IS, 0/1
IS
».S/1
b?
.J/s
t»
S4.0/I
I.M
I.l/Z
.Of
11*
bO
l.kk
78, »
I, IS
),OS
1111, l»
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,S* GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1,27 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.Z1 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
tl.l/1
m
is, o/i
n
,1/1
it
1,01
1,1/1
.0*
J0.8/Z
SO. I
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 101,fc MM, HIO
BLOWER INLET TEMP, «1 DEO. C
i
SlbT
ab.b/i
107
lb.0/1
Ib
1,^/1
II
.1/1
«
8Z.Z/I
1|»«
z.z/z
.Of
i.i/e
1.3
10k
b
1,01
M,»
«,Sb
,««
I,J1
?.se
71, S
I.M
1171, bl
7,10
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE • io,s KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-50.
VEHICLt EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO,
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, 1 DATE 7/8S/7*
CRICKET GASOLINE Tex. TCCSENGINE 2.31 LITRE 4
BAROMETER ?*t),7b My OF HG,
DRY BULB TEMP, 83,1 DEC, C
REL, HUMIDITY si PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT,.
INITIAL WT,
DIFFERENCE
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
1
• 0,00
• 0,00
0,00
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
MFGR, CODE -0
CURB WT, 1025 Kg
Test Wt. 1134 Kg.
WET BULB TEMP 18,3 DEC, C
ABS. HUMIDITY 11,0 MILLIGRAMS/KG
TR,
2
•0.00
•0,00
0,00
0,00 6RAM8
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF, PRESS,, 68, 127,0 MM, H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
CO? SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
co? nACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
COB BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
S»SS
21,b/l
Ilk
1.1/1
11
5,2/1
71
,!/i
b
bO.0/2
,01
87,1/2
•7,1
20b
bl
I,b7
Bb.b
S,2b
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, ci ioi,t MM, H»O
BLONER INLET TEMP, »| DEO, C
I
1013
10.b/3
10k
1.0/1
II
,1/Z
3
51,7/1
."^
3,3/J
,08
.1/1
,1
13
II
.11
3.S»
1353, S3
7,11
3,15
1.00
1(35, SI
b.11
MEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,bb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,?7 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
?0!.n GRAMS/KILOMETRE
l.lb GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3
1181
13.7/1
2,0/3
30
,1/Z
3
8E.1/3
,08
1,2
125
2b
1,"
78,1
1,1?
1,11
1117, »2
b.bB
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE • 11,» KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-51.
H7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO, i DATE 7/Bb/7»
CRICKET GASOLINE Tex. TCCS ENGINE 2.31 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 7»b,7b MH OF HG,
DRY BULB TEMP, 23,] DEC, C
REL, HUMIDITY tb PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL MTlf
INITIAL WT,
DIFFERENCE
GRAMS
CRAMS
CRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
• 0,00
• 0,00
0,00
MFCR, CODE »o
CURB VtT, 1025 Kg.
Test Wt. 1134 Kg.
MET BULB TEMP 18,4 DEC, C
ABS, HUMIDITY 11,0 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR, 147»
2
•0,00
•0,00
0,00
0,00 ORAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIP. PRESS., CZ, 117.0 MM. HZO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
coe
coz
CO?
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKCRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C08
NOX
NOX
NOX
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C08
NOX
BACKGRD PERCENT
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PPM
CONCENTRATION PCT
CONCENTRATION PPM
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
MASS GRAMS
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, 61 101,b MM, H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP, *l DIG. C
1
Ib78
20.2/3
tot
1,8/3
II
«,3/3
b»
.!/*
I
bi,o/e
i,»
2.Z/2
,05
41,5/2
•U.S
,8/J
18b
SB
H.45
3.11
ajei
1.33 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECOUQM* BY CARBON BALANCE • 4,4 KILOMETRE/LITRE
I
i
1Z.1/3
114
t,(/3
II
• *'*
1»
,S/«
I
bf.t/l
e.o/e
,08
*b,l/2
Sb.l
1,3/3
lOb
b
SS.b
1500,44
8.31
1S.T/3
117
1,1/3
(1
2,0/3
SO
,3/1
I
85,1/1
1.S1
£,*/!
.Ok
M.5/2
M.I
,4/3
1.7
118
21
l.»k
82,1
».!»
1.11
1212.11
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS co
WEIGHTED MASS COe
MASS NOX
.72 GRAMS/KlLOMETRt
,ei GRAMS/KILOMETRE
-------
TABLE A-52.
1175
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT MO,
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 3 DATE 7/JS/7*
CRICKET GASOLINE Tex. TCCS ENGINE 2^31 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 7»0.bb MM OF HG,
DRY BULB TtMR, et»,i» DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY b3 PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT,, CRAMS
INITIAL NT,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
i
• 0,00
• 0,00
0.00
MFCR, CODE -0
CURB NT. 1025 Kg.
Test Wt. 1134 Kg.
WET BULB TEMP 11.» DEC, C
AB8, HUMIDITY 12,» MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
2
• 0,00
•0,00
0,00
0,00 CRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF, PRESS,, 61, 117,0 MM, HZO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLOMER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER
HC BACKGRO PPM
co SAMPLE METER
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD Mf:TER
CO BACKGRD PPM
co2 SAMPLE METER
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
CO? BACKGRD METER
READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION
CO CONCENTRATION
C02 CONCENTRATION
NOX CONCENTRATION
HC MASS GRAMS
CO *ASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
READING/SCALE
HEADING/SCALE
PPM
PPM
PCT
PPM
1
S»87
2»,»/3
m
l.b/l
Ib
».S/3
k7
.3/3
»
si,o/e
i.n
2,1/2
,05
71.2/2
7S.J
.•»/*
bO
i.bb
78, »
S.BZ
3, OS
133S.IB
wEIGHTtD MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,7? GRAMS/HKOMETRE
,21 GHA«S/KILOM£TRE
?2i,27 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
1.21 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
i.t/i
11
.•/3
12
»»/3
b
bt,b/3
l.Ot
1,1/3
.OS
(0.8/2
10,1
,»/!
i.e
101
b
1,03
.52
,si
7,52
BLOMER INLET PRESS,, Dl iOl.k MM, HBO
BLOMER INLET TEMP, M OC6, C
3
Sib7
15,5/3
1SS
l,b/3
Ib
1,1/3
81
.3/3
»
52,2/2
,05
1,3/2
1.3
m
23
l.»3
78,5
3,bi
1178, bS
7.10
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCt » 10,5 KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-53.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
1S7S LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. 1
MONOA-CVCC Civic
0»TE 7/85/7*
ENGINE 1.56 LITRE
BAROMETER 7Hb.7b MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY bS PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT.» GRAMS
INITIAL HT.r GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE
CURB WT.
Test Wt.
-0
812 Kg.
"30? Kg.
YR.
HET BULB TEMP IB.3 DEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 11.5 MILLIGRAMS/KG
2
•0.00
• 0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLONER OIF. PRESS., GZ, 127,0 MM. M?O
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO, 1
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS SS07
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE SS.b/»
HC SAMPLE PPM
-------
TABLE A-54.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST NO. B
HONOA-CVCC Civic
DATE 7/Bb/7'»
ENGINE 1.56 LITRE
BAROMETER 7»b.7b MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. B3.9 OEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY bb PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT.,
INITIAL «T.,
DIFFERENCE
GRAMS
GRAMS
GHAM3
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE -o
CURB MT. 812 Kg
Test Wt. 907 Kg.
MET BULB TEMP 19.•» DEG, C
ABS. HUMIDITY IB.5 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 197»
B
•0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF. PRESS., GB, 127.0 MM. HBO
RAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
MC
HC
CO
CO
CO
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
COB SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COS SAMPLE PERCENT
coe BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
COS BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX RACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COB CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COB MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
S»0
15.0/1
IS
51.5/3
Bb7
.b/B
17
57.B/B
l.bS
B.l/B
.05
7».7/B
7».7
.5/3
1.5
SB7
807
l.bO
73.*
13.»S
»1.S7
130B.90
b.bO
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS COB
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
.fab GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3.BS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BOB.7b GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,95 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, GI ici.b MM. HBO
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »3 OEG. C
B
8b25
13.0/1
13
1B.S/3
110
.5/8
1»
bO.<*/3
1.01
B.O/B
.OS
35.0/B
35.0
1.3/B
1.3
3b
IfaS
."t?
33.8
l.»5
13,79
IBtO.bb
30.1/B
bO
13.0/1
13
17.9/3
B7b
.2/B
b
SB. 3/3
l.»5
B.b/B
.Ob
7S.9/B
75.9
.3/3
49
B57
1.39
75.1
1.2»
13. B7
1133. B3
b.7S
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE
11.B KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-55.
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS - Continuous Heated FID-HC
1S75 LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, TEST NO. 3
VEHICLE MODEL HONOA- cvcc civic
BAROMETER 7HO.S2 MM OF KG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 13,3 DEG. C
REL. HUMIDITY SB PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
DATE
ENGINE
CANISTER
FINAL NT..
INITIAL «T.
DIFFERENCE
CRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1. 56 LITRE
1
"0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE -o
CURB WT. 81Z Kg.
Test Wt. 907 Kg.
WET BULB TEMP 17.8 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. I'm
2
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., G2, 127.0 MM. HaO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRO PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
COB SAMPLE PERCENT
C02 BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C08 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C08 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
Stb*
Sb.*/*
It
»2.7/3
702
.2/3
3
S3.4/3
1,70
3.3/3
.05
bB.7/2
b8.7
»3S
bb3
l.fab
bB.»
11.13
33.SI
1337.2*
5.73
IS.S/e
3Z
13.0/1
13.
13.1/3
HI
0.0/3
0
be,e/3
i.u
3.7/3
,05
35.5/2
35.5
.b/2
.b
20
1<<1
1.11
35.0
,Bb
lb,bb
1522.57
BLOWER INLET PRESS., ci ioi.b MM.
BLOWER INLET TEMP. »3 DEC. c
3
5151
H. ffZ
45
11.0/1
11
17.7/3
273
.8/3
12
8b.b/3
1,5»
3.7/3
.05
0.0/2
0.0
3b
2»S
1.50
7b.S
.SO
12.72
1207.07
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,51 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3,IS GRAMS/KILOMETRE
230.8» GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,S2 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
FUEL ECONOMY BY CARBON BALANCE a S.S KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
TABLE A-56.
1<»7S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO, TEST NO, 1
VEHICLE MODEL HONOA.CVCC civic
BAROMETER 7Hb,7b MM OF HG,
DRY BULB TtMp, m,a DEC, c
REL. HUMIDITY bS PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT,, GRAMS
INITIAL WT., GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
DATE 7/25/7*
ENGINE 1.56 LITRE 4
1
• 0,00
•0,00
0.00
MFGH. CODE »0
CURB WT, 812 Kg.
Test Wt. 907 Kg.
NET BULB TEMP 18.3 OEG, C
ABB, HUMIDITY 11,1 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
2
• 0.00
• 0.00
0,00
0,00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER OIF, PRESS,, G2, 187,0 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
coe SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO? SAMPLE PERCENT
COS BACKGRD MFTER READING/SCALE
COa BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
5507
58,3/3
ill
1.1/3
11
SO, 7/3
IS8
0,0/2
0
Sb,V2
1,M
2,8/2
,07
bs.s/2
b8.5
1.2
513
807
1,58
b7,5
13.21
»1,<»2
12<*2,b3
s.n
MASS MC
WEIGHTED MASS CO
WEIGHTED MASS CO?
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,57 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3,50 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
?30,17 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
,97 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
I*
12,7/3
im
0.0/2
0
.
2.S/2
.Ob
37,7/2
17.7
BLONER INLET PRESS,, Gl 101.b MM, H20
BLOWER INLET TEMP, ») DEC, C
3
S»5i
87,7/2
II
1,1/3
11
18,9/1
148
0,0/2
0
85,7/3
1,18
C.b/2
,0b
77,2/2
1.2
1<
IBS
l.U
3b,b
.53
Ib.OS
1552,33
5,37
.2/1
»b
277
7b,7
1.18
l*.2b
1141.25
b.bS
FUEL ECONOMY 8V CARBON BALANCE «
-------
TABLE A-57.
117S
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MODEL
TEST MO. ?
HONDA-CVCC Civic
OATt 7/Jb/7t
ENGINE 1.56 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 7»b.7b MM Qt HG,
DRY BULB TEMP, 23.S DEC, C
REL. HUMIDITY fab PCT,
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL *T,, GRAMS
INITIAL NT,, GRAMS
DIFFERENCE GRAMJ
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
i
•0,00
•0,00
0,00
MFGR. CODE >0 .
CURB NT, 812 Kg.
Test Wt. 907 Kg.
WET BULB TEMP H.«t OEG, C
ABS, HUMIDITY 12,5 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR,
2
•0.00
• 0,00
0,00
0,00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF, PRESS,, G(, 117,0 MM. HIO
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO,
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
HC SAMPLE PPM
HC BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
HC BACKGRD PPM
CO SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
CO SAMPLE PPM
CO BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
CO BACKGRD PPM
C02 SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
C02 SAMPLE PERCENT
C0£ BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
C02 BACKGRD PERCENT
NOX SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
NOX SAMPLE PPM
NOX BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
NOX BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
M,b/J
-------
TABLE A-58.
1975
VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
LIGHT DUTY EMISSIONS TEST
UNIT NO.
VEHICLE MUOfcL
TEST NO. 3
HONDA-CVCC Civic
DATE 7/29/7*
ENGINE 1.56 LITRE 4
BAROMETER 710.12 MM OF HG.
DRY BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEC. C
REL. HUMIDITY 58 PCT.
EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
CANISTER
FINAL WT.,
INITIAL XT.,
DIFFERENCE
GRAMS
GRAMS
GRAMS
TOTAL EVAPORATIVE EMISSIONS
1
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
MFGR. CODE -0
CURB MT. 81Z Kg.
Test Wt. 907 Kg.
MET BULB TEMP 17.8 OEG. C
ABS. HUMIDITY 10.7 MILLIGRAMS/KG
YR. 197«»
I
-0.00
-0.00
0.00
0.00 GRAMS
EXHAUST EMISSIONS
BLOWER DIF. PRESS., 62, 127.0 MM. H20
BAG RESULTS
BAG NO.
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
HC
HC
HC
HC
CO
CO
CO
CO
C02
C02
C02
C02
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
NO*
NOX
NOX
NOX
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
SAMPLE
SAMPLE
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRO PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
SAMPLE METER READING/SCALE
SAMPLE PERCENT
BACKGRO METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PERCENT
METER READING/SCALE
PPM
BACKGRD METER READING/SCALE
BACKGRD PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
1
Stbt
47.5/3
»75
l.b/3
Ib
H2.7/3
702
.2/3
3
93.H/3
1.70
3.3/3
.05
b8.7/2
bB.7
bb3
l.bb
bB.f
11. b8
33.91
1337.25
5.73
WEIGHTED MASS HC
WEIGHTED MASS CD
WEIGHTED MASS C02
WEIGHTED MASS NOX
,50 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
3.19 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
230,«t GRAMS/KILOMETRE
.92 GRAMS/KILOMETRE
BLOWER INLET PRESS,, ci ioi.b MM. M20
BLONER INLET TEMP. 43 OEG. C
I
9311
35.5/2
35
2.7/3
27
13.1/3
199
0.0/3
0
b8.2/3
l.lb
3.7/3
.05
35,5/2
35,5
.b/2
.b
11
191
1.11
35.0
.»7
Ib.bb
1522,58
»,99
3
S"»59
52.8/2
S3
1.3/3
13
17.7/3
273
.8/3
12
Bb.b/3
1.5»
3.7/3
.05
7b,9/2
7b,9
0.0/2
0.0
2»9
1.50
7b.9.
1.05
12.72
1207.07
FUEL ECONOMY BV CARBON BALANCE = 9.H KILOMETRE/LITRE
-------
APPENDIX B
COMPUTER REDUCED
13-MODE RESULTS BY
CHASSIS VERSION OF 1974 HD FTP
B-l
-------
NISSAN OATSUN
Sft*i» *t-it* H-u- FLO* AIM
*?•• NKM KW M./Ml'i KG/" I** KG/MIN »»1 10
J 11'." 'i.li «'.ii .HI i 1 . 1 1 t . 12 .012
» i» tin. S;. i 1.3 .nSh ,».l»l 2.bb .022
t «"»ui. M. J 18.* .nBI 2.SJ 2.bS .032
b £*i».t IHS.h <>>.b .in1* d.Sl 2.b2 .013
7 HS'i O.t; O.i. . iU* 1.1? 1.13 .012
, i TtU1- -11. t* 13.') . 1 IE3tL EHISSlUN CYCll
ll-i?*Hn-nuS CHASSIS SIMULA!^ l J-MUof J-MIN MOOES 01-11-7* ItST-2
^EtO H-tJw FLO* FLOW AIR
J 1 S U ''.n n. () . u 1 •• 1 . 1 b 1.17 .012
J>1|il' 7.»..J IB.* .MM J e.S7 2.bS .032
11&.- (..n O.U .Ml. 4 1.17 1.18 .011
IUIM, TJ.S 31.1 .*nb 3.11 1.20 .052
I > -HIM. *1.2 I3.il .*^J H.13 ».2S ,030
1 1 U«.U (J.'- •>." .''I* 1.1B 1.11 .012
TABLE B-3. • --HOUi^ f-tUEMAL DlbStl. EMISSION CYCLE
1 1-2 jifi-uns> CHASSIS SI«UL*TEI> IS-MODI S-MIN MOOES oi-ii"?* TEST-S
DlESKL t»W u3Hl 52, 2k* 4-rvcl*- 3-Specd Manual Z. 17 litre 8. 31 Bore 9.91
Hlj^h e'-l'I^t 'uwuOt ^o-E- FUti- A IK EXHAUST FUEL
sntEu FLO* FLim FLOM AIR
rtpr* -< X H K* KG/fil* KG/hIN KG/H1N RATIO
I 11 SO [).n U." .(1M l.lb 1.17 .011
2 ^HUU D.n it.'1 ,O3f ('.Si 2.b2 .013
+ 21110 'J. 1 I*.* ,"B3 2.SW «.b1 .032
/ 11SH K.M U.n .t.11 1.1B l.lH .Oil
H tlJIK' 111.*- S2.? . r"*h I.Ub 1.31 .Obi
' 1UUH *i.^ ll.l .-"ib l.^S t.lb .052
11 HOIUI Jl.2 11. U .l
BSN02+**
+ CONVERTED TU MET BASIS
** CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
NISSAN DAT3UN
KOOE HC CO* NO**
1 3b 131 81
2 b8 108 52
3 bl 117 250
1 <*1 lOb 32S
S bO 111 338
b 110 311 33S
1 120 b31 IBS
10 88 258 130
11 bO 303 327
12 12 5B8 15b
13 Sb 151 72
CYCLE COMPOSITE OSHC •
b3CO» =
* CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
++ CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
NISSAN DAT3UN
Stroke 22:1CR
MODE HC co* NO**
21 127 8 1.SS
R rf
R #
HR
HR
HR
.? MILLIGRAMS
BSCO* BSNOe**
R K
H H
3.2b b.H2
.88 l.lb
.82 3. OS
1,18 2.31
R R
1.S7 3.31
3.12 1.1S
2.10 b.%b
» •>
R -*
HUM.
HILLI
fa.O
.0
.0
.0
.0
.0 .
.1
.1
.1
.0
.0
.0
.0
HUM.
MILLI
b.l
.1
.1
b.
b.
b.
b.
b.
b.
b.
AND CORRECTED 10 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
MEI6HTED
0.00
0.00
.75
1.H7
2.21
O.DU
'.IB
3.13
2.01
1.01
o.no
0.00
i «13b
5,112
5,333
BSHC
h
H
Iis
137
h
.38
R
H
GRAM/KN
GRAM/KM
GRAM/KM
BSCO* BSN02+*
R H
R N
3.23 b.bB
.88 1.37
1.03 3. GO
2,25 2.27
H h
3.31 1.13
S.bS b.71
S.bb 10.10
R K
R R
HR
HR
MH
HUM.
MILLI
G/KG
b.b
b.b
b.b
b.b
b.b
.S
U
.5
.S
.2
« CONVtHTEO 10 »Et 6»3I3
•« COXVEHIEO TO «EI BASIS AND CORRECTED 10 10.7 "1LLI6RAH3
«»HR PER «0 DRV AI»
-------
500
li
-R4-f-t-i^- '>-! r^-r — |--4~rH-T-|-rt;-X:- -
S:/: J.'i i'r .rT.. •
m^pSB&tSs
a&t^-KiL'iAiP^
-
25 50 75
Percent of Maximum Engine Power
100
FIGURE B-l. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MAP OF
NISSAN-DA TSUN DIESEL CAR
B-3
-------
TABLE B-4. 13-MUDt tEUEKAL OltSU- EMISSION CYCLE
1 1-.-M4I1-HI14 C
SPEEU
1 2S2U
5 2S20
b 252d
> Bib
10 12IIU
11 42uO
12 42Ult
HASS1S SIMULATED 13-HUDE 3-MIU
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
S-».3 11.3
luai? in'.t
a. a u. a
"0.0 35.2
10.0 17. b
20.0 8.8
0.0 0.0
FLOM
.1)12
.034
.077
.131
.013
.208
.112
.117
.042
FLO*
;Is8
2.b2
2. SI
2.bb
.**!
4.15
1.05
1.03
1.01
MUOES 01-21-71 TEST-1 MERCEDES
FLUN
2lbl
2.70
2.b1
2.71
.82
1.3b
1.11
1.15
1.13
AIR
.014 bl 111
.013 44 327
.021 4b 251
.034 48 210
.011 Ib 217
.Olb b8 18b
.050 72 328
.035 1 bo 428
.024 1 80 510
.023 1 104 775
YCLE COMPOSITE
N0*«
111
5
24
3k
40
12
411
473
3b8
281
171
118
BSHC
BSCO*
BSHC • 8SN02**
» CONVERTED TO NET BASIS
»» CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
"LIGHTED
0.00
0.00
1^71
2.28
0.00
2.82
2.11
1.11
.70
0.00
0.00
• sliss
BSHC
K
M
.25
.18
.27
M
.2b
.30
ill"
M
GRAM/KM
GRAM/KM
•NO CORRECTED TO
BSCO*
R
2.7S
1.53
R
2.3b
3.01
5.11
lb.13
HR
nH
BSN02.*
R
R
3^78
S.8<)
7. 20
a. as
IS. 73
K
R
HUM.
HILLI
.0
.0
.0
.0
.7
a!
&.
a.
8.
B.
8.
10.7 "1LLIGRAHS
TABLE B-5. 13-«ODt FEOEkAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
ll-p J1H-UU4 CHASSIS SIMULATED 13-MUOE 3-MIN hOOES 01-21-74 TEST-2 MERCEDES
SH-EFn
HPM
2 2520
b 25?o
11 12uf
\e 42HO
13 8.1b
* K H K"
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
27.1 7.2
bl.l 21.1
80.0 35.2
U . n U . 0
O.o 0.0
FLO"
KG/HI"
.nil
.031
.051
.102
.208
.013
FLOM FLOM
KG/HIN KG/MIM
.81 .82
2lb2 2!b8
2.54 2.b5
1.13 1.34
!«1 1 82
AIR
RATIO
.014
.013
.021
.040
.050
.035
. .023
.Olb
hODE
1
2
3
9
8
11
12
13
CYCLE
HC
7b
b2
54
80
bl
CO* HO**
112 125
278 188
235 283
213 403
178 127
328 507
312 4bl
100 785 Ibl
b8 111 87
COMPOSITE BSHC
HEIGHTED
o.no
.57
1.15
1.71
0.00
2.B2
2.11
0.00
0.00
BSHC
R
.b7
111
.17
R
.23
.30
h
ri
GRAH/KH
BSCO*
R
R
b.02
2.55
1.53
1.25
R
2.15
2.88
5.2b
R
H
HR
BSN02.*
R
b.7P
5.04
4.7b
3.10
R
5. IS
7.00
ft. 54
H
MILLI
8.5
B.S
8.4
8.4
8.5
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.3
8.1
8.1
8.1
+ CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
** COhVCRTEO TO MET BASIS AND CORRECTED '0 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
•«ME« PER KG DOY Alh
TABLE B-6. , 3-MODt FEOE«AL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
-ea^n-miS CHASSIS SIMULATEU 13-MODE 3-MIN MODES 01-21-7* TEST-3 MERCEDES
DIfcSkL C*»
^U 48. 5kw 4-Cyele 4-Speed Auto 2,2 litre 8.71 Bore 9. 25 Stroke 21:1CR
DE E™GI*I
SPEEU
BJb
242U
242U
2S2I1
252U
•21IU
j H Jb
.0,*UE PO.E-
0.0 0.0
27.1 7.2
54.3 11.3
Bl.l 21.1
1UB.2 28. b
0.0 0.0
bO.I' 2b.1
2u.O 8. a
11 . 0 U . U
FUEL
FLOM
.012
.051
.077
.102
.131
.011
.171
.11'
.1112
AIH
FLOM
.81
2.4B
2.57
2.55
2. bo
.75
1.03
1.03
.81
EXHAUST
FLO"
.82
2.b1
2.b4
2.b5
2.73
.77
4.20
4.15
.82
FUEL HODE HC CO* MO** WEIGHTED BSHC BSCO* BSK02** HUM.
AIR MILLI
.015 72 208 126 0.00 h R R 8.5
.013 Sb 311 bO 0.00 M rt M .5
.030 50 2t>8 27b 1.14 .27 2.87 1.85 .5
.010 50 230 313 1.71 .18 I.b5 4.b4 .7
.050 ib 233 421 2.28 .Ib 1.24 3.63 .7
.015 72 114 121 0.00 K R R .7
.043 Ib 270 472 2.11 .21 2.41 7.1b .7
.024 1 80 580 273 .70 1.10 15.84 12.24 .5
.015 13 b8 114 110 0.00 M R N .5
CYCLE COMPOSITE BSHC • .417 CRAM/KH HR
BSHC * B9N02*** 7.1b2 GRAM/KM HR
• CONVERTED TO MET BASIS
•• CONVERTED TO MET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
'ATER PER KG DRY AIR
-------
500
:-~~-: ^•^••••-••j^.~Ar^i2oo
iHStpEnHSF?
,] -1--I 'J LJTLT.J... i
•n.-rtirffidrFT"'1
:b^]:;i±fe;
Errfe.,±r:T
•.;' 1.11 •'. I;:.:.T! i;: •.fy^T^&.ff. I i '-J
1000
a so
a
a
U 70
DC
60
50
''"'
100
0 25 50 75
Percent of Maximum Engine Power
FIGURE B-2. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MAP OF
MERCEDES ZZOD DIESEL CAR
100
B-5
-------
TABLE B-7. 13-MODE FEUEkAL OICSEL CH13SIO* CYCLE
1 1-23*
DlfSfL
1
2
»
10
if
Li
CAM 1>5U1 52. 2k
SPtEO
7SU 0.0
27uu 0.0
27UI, 30.3
27uu bO.7
2'0(, "U.o
*suri iul.8
H5UU 51. u
45110 0.0
7SO 0.0
w 4 Cycle
0.0
0.0
B.b
17.2
25.7
17.1
21.0
0.0
0.0
4-Speed
FLO*
.011
.0*0
.070
.101
.132
.'.31
.170
.101
.Ull
Manual
FLO«
.10
a. on
3. ill
3.00
2.6k
1.I-1
».s«
».se
.'o
2. 11 litre
FLOM
.'2
3.01
3.07
3.10
2."
1.85
l.b'
i.b2
.'i
8.99 Bore
MR
.012
.013
.023
.031
.Olb
.1112
.052
.039
.022
.012
i PEUGEOT
8. 3 1 Stroke
HOOE
1
2
3
S
b
7
B
10
12
13
CYCLE
Z2.Z-.ICR
HC CO*
SSO 1113
101k >0b
1301 510
7'b SBb
bib 111
511 HOb
lib b03
77b 175
»1'2 111
7b8 350
181 1233
COHPoalTt
BSHC *
NO**
21
11
50
173
23S
211
bS
2'7
211
121
21
BSHC
BSCO*
WEIGHTED
0.00
0.00
.k'
1.37
2. t.
2. 1
0. 0
1. 1
1. 2
0. 0
0. 0
• S.7S'
• 7.110
BSHC BSCO* BSN02** HUH.
H1LLI
R B 11.5
R « 11. 5
13. 5 10. bO 1.70 11.5
1.1 b.H 2.'8 11.5
2.0 2." 2.bO 12. b
1.3 S.bl 2.0 12.8
R 12. a
2.2 5.71 2.B 12.8
B.I 1.t»7 1.1 " 13.3
R 13.3
« R 13.3
GRAH/KW HR
GRAM/KM HR
« CONVERtEO TO MET BA3IS
*• CONVERTEO TO «ET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
•ATER »E« KC DRY AIR
TABLE B-8. 13-nuDE fEOEKAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
il-23»n-UH5 CHASSIS SIMULATED 13 "Out 3-MIN MOOES 3-1-71 TEST 2 PEUCCOT
UIESt.L CAK D50* 52. Zkw 4Cycle 4-Spne •
B3N02***
BSHC * B3N02**B
"SIGHTED
O.QO
0.00
1.37
2. Ob
2.71
0.00
3.81
0.00
0.00
5.750
7.120
3. 'SI
'.701
BSHC
k
Lib
2.21
1.55
R
2.20
8. SI
11.80
R
GRAM/KH
GRAM/KM
CRAM/10
GRAH/lf*
BSCO*
R
R
1.83
3.UO
5.11
R
5.80
I.'B
b.77
R
M
HR
nR
HR
HR
BSNOtf**
k
R
2. '9
2?1B
R
3.11
1.0'
5.30
7. '2
R
HUH.
MILLI
12.1
12.1
12.1
11.'
11.'
11.'
11.'
11.'
11.'
11.'.
11.'
11.'
« CONVERTED TO hET SA3I3
•« CONVERTED TO HET BASH AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
HAIER PER «G DRY AIR
-------
500
1300
100
900
700
500
300
a
o
u
25 50 75
Percent of Maximum Engine Power
FIGURE B-3. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MAP OF
PEUGEOT 504D DIESEL CAR
100
B-7
-------
H.IUHAL i.'IiStl- IMSSION CYCLt
Bit :.» L ' *« PC' 1 I'n ''(*. 1 1".< 1 t vi !•• l -:->! 1 Aul.i £.U7 litri- K. XL Hor«* H. 48 Stroke 22. 0: 1<~~R
SMtfel) FLU" FLOW FLOW AIM
?S30 0.0 0,0 ,(i ?b ?. 71 2.7V .013
S dSati bS.h £J. 1 . I (i7 i?.SS 2.bb .OH2
« t liXi 7t.K H. » . t'^.' •».!* *.32 -0-»8
1 1 7211 O.n li.n . nii'-t l.r1? l.?8 .007
S^tLU FLU"" FLOW FLO* A|R
•jpM Nth K« hG/«iN KG/* IN KG/" IN RATIO
1 7i>n 0.0 0.0 .ntiq 1,27 1,28 .007
?2t» 0.0 O.U .nriH 1.2? 1,28 .007
1 * 3uu U.O O.I) .DBS "*.2,0 »,28 .020
' AIU.E \\-t£. 13-HOOE FEDEMAL HIEStL EMISSION CYCLE
1 ]-T IHH-IIO«, CHASSIS SIMULAlEU 13 MOOf. 3-MIN MOOES 3-JJ-7* TEST
_1._.L - I -
nOj,r t-iolNfc lijKuUE PO«EH F Of L MX EXHAUST FUEL
SPfcFO FIO« FLOW FLOW AIR
I 7?75 1BJ O.'IO K k P
13 Hfl l«,b 89 0.00 H u H
++ CONVERTED TO WET faASIS AND CORRECTED 10 10.7 *ILLIUNA*S
2 OPEL
MODE HC cu* NO** WEIGHTED HSHC BSLU* OSNO?**
1 7b 187 , ., tt O.nQ K R H
2 12* 32* ' .b3 0.00 K H R
3 12H 271 Ibl .bl 1.30 ?,.bb S.b2
•» 12« 170 313 1.23 ,b7 1.78 S.J^
S 15b 17* 333 1.6S ,S^ 1.1S S.b1*
7 8t ISb 122 0. (10 K R H
8 IbO 182D 2<»7 9,Sb .*? IP.fal 2.B*
12 IQt 2S3 218 O.OQ K H k
* CONVERTED TO WET BASIS
*•* CONVERTED TO *ET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
3 OPCL
_,-_.._-._
1 bt 17H b«f 0.00 f- R S
3 108 332 7b 0.00 k H R
5 128 181 2Sb 1,85 ,t3 1.21 ,ei
7 80 1S2 103 0.00 n H M
10 108 181 331 1. 78 .b 2.0<* .1
12 108 28* 18S 0.00 R
13 *»* 1S2 103 0.00 R
CYCLE COMPOSITE BSHC " .703 GRAM KM HR
133X0+ • S.??2 GRAM KM hH
BSHC * B3N02**" &.*2^ GRAM/KW MM
HUM.
MILL
.0
HUM.
MILL
;I
MILL
.0
.0
+ CONVERTED TO WET aASIS
** CONVEHTEO TO WET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILL!
WATER PER Kti DRV AIR
-------
500
400
£300
200
100
t
2500
2000
500
1000
500
50
25 50 75
Percent of Maximum Engine Power
100
FIGURE B-4. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MAP OF
OPEL REKORD DIESEL CAR
B-9
-------
SPLtU FLOW f LU* f LOW AIR
C/ I G/ I G/ I 10 PPM
2*"» 3.0 .7 .OS** .7»> .80 .OS2 2 48
»rt'M, 130. 7 S1*. 7 .311 i.Bl *.13 .082 B Sbb4 4
24
43
50
73
21
BSHC »
+* CONVEMTEO
SPLtU " FLO" FLOW FLOW AIM
8 0.0 h H M
14 .n 1 .SU 2.bt 15.18
be i.o .li .to a. 13
102 2. I .20 .45 S.b<<
lllb ,«»3 .1? .10 8.70
bB O.nO K R R
MlLLI
. ^
' . 4
.s
.8
TO MET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
CO*
3 24 till 51. b 13.0 .07S l.?n 1.78 .OHb 3 30 43
u 2-«uO !U7.t 27.0 . H<» 2.SS S.71 ,04b * bO 57
'" IUIIM 117.341.1 ,2bb 3.77 4.02 .Ob8 S 50 27
1 I tuiiU Sb.H 23.2 .1H2 2.H3 2.57 .058 11 13 22
L2 »UUU 2.7 1.1 .085 l.»J i.Sb .058 12 10 22
13 ILI" 0*0 U.il .UUH .HH .45 .001 13 22 £4
CYCLE COMPOSITE
* CONVERTED
4* CONVERTED
MATE.K PER
NO** MEItiHTEQ BSHC HSCO+ BSNQ2+*
en o.no M H *
707 1.04 ,12 .34 S.22
1131 2.1b .18 .33 10. R3
378 2.b? 5.5S 102. bU 2.8b
80 0,00 K H H
888 3.40 .0* .12 b.21
fa77 1.8b .04 .14 7.1b
248 ,0*» .40 I.7b 32.80
bb 0.00 N K W
BSHC • 3.523 GRAM/KM HR
HUM.
MILLI
9.4
1.4
l.t
8,7
8,7
8,7
a. /
8,3
8.3
8. 3
TO MET BASIS
TU MET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
KG OHV AIR
-------
1200
1000
g
a,
a
6000
!4000
2000 g
a
a
O
U
6000
4000
2000
25 50 75
Percent of Maximum Engine Power
FIGURE B-5. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MAP OF
CAPRI PROCO GASOLINE CAR
100
B-ll
-------
Table B-15. 13-MQOE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
11-23HO-OUS CHASSIS SIMULATED 13 MODE 3-MIN MODE 10-18-71 TEST 1 TEXACO TCCS IN
PLYMOUTH CRICKET 70 HP * CYL, 3-SPEED AUTO 1*1 CID DIESEL FUEL 2-D EMISSIONS
MODE
1
a
3
*
5
b
7
8
1
10
XI
it
13
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
9
-------
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
3000
2000
1000
25 50
Percent of Maximum Engine
75
Power
100
FIGURE B-6. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MAP OF TEXACO TCCS
POWERED PLYMOUTH CRICKET CAR - DIESEL FUEL
B-13
-------
Table B-17.
13-MODE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
11-23*0-0115 CHASSIS SIMULATED 13 MODE 3-MIN MODE 10-ai-7* TEST 1 TEXACO TCCS IN
PLYMOUTH CRICKET 70 HP *CY 3-SPEEO AUTO 1*1 CID UNLEADED 91 RON GASOLINE
MODE
1
2
3
*
5
b
7
8
q
10
11
12
13
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
900
18UO
18UO
18UO
1800
0
400
3000
3000
3000
30UO
3000
quo
TORQUE
N X M
0,0
0,0
»s.s
102,9
Ib3.0
0.0
0,0
159,3
119,*
79,8
39,9
0,0
0,0
POWER
KW
0,0
0,0
8,b
19.*
30.7
0,0
0,0
50,0
37,5
25,1
12,5
0,0
0.0
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MIN
.011
.023
,057
.091
.12*
.12*
.011
.185
.151
.117
.083
.0*1
.011
AIR
FLOH
KG/MIN
.77
2.18
2.39
2.81
3.20
3.20
.77
*.b»
*.2b
*.17
3.8b
3.b*
.77
EXHAUST
FLOH
KG/MIN
,78
2,20
2,*S
2,90
3.33
3,33
,78
*,83
*,*2
*,28
3,9*
3,b9
,78
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
.01*
.011
,oa*
.032
.039
.039
.01*
.0*0
.035
.028
.022
.01*
.01*
MODE
i
2
3
*
5
fa
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CYCLE
HC
PPM
bOO
2*80
280
57
19
0
IS*
25
19
58
350
*192
2000
COt NOtt WEIGHTED
PPM PPM KH
11 98
*9S S3
27 2*9
28 *97
3b 721
0 0
7 12*
»1 957
38 713
31 *2b
3b 220
313 73
*7* 110
0.00
0,00
,b9
1.55
2,*b
0.00
0.00
*,00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
COMPOSITE BSHC • *.oaa
BSCOt •
BSuoett"
BSHC * BSNOatta
1.093
8.035
la.obs
BSHC
G/KW HR
R
R
2.33
.25
.Ob
I
R
.07
.07
.29
3.20
R
R
GRAM/KM
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KM
GRAM/KH
BSCOt
G/KW HR
R
R
.*s
.2*
.23
I
R
.23
,2b
.30
.bS
R
R
HR
HR
HR
HR
B8N02tt
G/KM HR
R
R
b.7B
7.08
7.**
I
R
8.74
7.99
b.93
b.S8
R
R
HUM.
MILL!
G/KG
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
9.8
9.8
9.8
9.8
10.1
10,1
4,*
CONVERTED TO NET BASIS
CONVERTED TO MET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10,7 MILLIGRAMS
MATER PER KG DRY AIR
Tables-18. 13-MODE FEDERAL DIE3EL EMISSION CYCLE
11-23HO-005 CHASSIS SIMULATED 13 MODE 3-MIN MODE 10-81-7* TEST i TEXACO TCCS IN
PLYMOUTH CRICKET 70 HP * CYL 3-SPEED AUTO 1*1 CID UNLEADED 91 RON GASOLINE
MODE
1
2
3
*
S
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
quo
18(10
1BUO
18UO
18UQ
0
9UO
30UQ
30UO
30UO
3000
3000
9fjO
TORQUE
N X M
0.0
0,0
*s.s
102,9
U3.0
0,0
0,0
159,3
114,*
79,8
39.9
0.0
0.0
POWER
KM
U.O
0.0
8,b
19.*
30,7
0,0
U.O
su.o
37.5
25.1
12.5
0.0
0.0
FUEL
FLOW
KG/MIN
.011
.023
,057
.091
.12*
.12*
.011
.IBS
.151
.117
.083
.0*9
.011
AIR
FLOW
KG/MIN
.77
2.17
2.34
2.81
3.au
3.20
.77
*.b3
*.2b
*.lb
3.85
3.b3
.77
EXHAUST
FLOW
KG/MIN
,78
2,ao
a',4o
3.32
3.32
,78
*,82
*.*!
*,28
3,9*
3,bB
,78
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
.01*
.011
.02*
.032
,034
.034
.01*
.0*0
.03b
.028
.022
.01*
.01*
MODE
i
a
3
*
S
b
7
8
4
10
11
12
13
CYCLE
HC
PPM
1**0
33bO
270
50
14
0
1*5
17
17
bS
**0
*938
1808
Cnt NOtt
PPM PPM
3*b 108
b38 *2
IS 231
28 *bl
3* 775
0 0
7 lOb
37 9a*
35 bbn
29 *0b
3b 232
309 b3
*35 98
COMPOSITE BSHC s
SSCOt =
BSN02tte
BSHC t BSN02tt=
WEIGHTED
KH
0,00
0.00
,b9
1.55
2,*b
0,00
0,00
»,00
3.00
a. oo
i. no
0.00
o.no
*.B?a
1.J23
7.778
la.bso
BSHC
G/KM HR
R
R
2. a*
.22
.Ob
I
R
.05
.Ob
.32
*.02
R
R
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
GRAM/KW
BSCOt
G/KM HR
R
R
.25
.8*
.81
I
R
.21
.2*
.24
• bS
R
ft
HR
HR
HR
HR
BSNOatt
G/KW HR
R
R
b.27
b.Sfa
7,44
I
R
8,»7
7.34
b.bO
b.93
R
a
HUM.
MILLI
G/KG
10.3
10.3
10.3
U.3
11.3
11.3
11.3
U.3
10.3
10.3
10.3
10,3
10.3
t CONVERTED TP WET BASIS
tt CONVERTED TO WET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
H4TER PER KG DRY AIR
-------
1000
600
500
400 fi
SOOg
200
100
25 50 75
Percent of Maximum Engine Power
100
FIGURE B-7. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MAP OF TEXACO TCCS
POWERED PLYMOUTH CRICKET CAR - GASOLINE
B-15
-------
Table B-19. 1J-HUDE
DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
ll-L'3Htl-miS CHASSIS SIMULATED 13 *ODE 3-MIN MODE ll-b-7* TEST 1 HOND* CVCC CIVIC
b3 HP H CYL t SPtEU MAII l.^RB LlTEH 7* X 8b.S MM BXS UNLEADED SI RON GASOLINE
MODE
1
2
J
1
b
b
7
a
s
10
11
12
13
.ENGINE
SPEEO
RPH
10(10
3UUCI
30UO
JUUO
30UO
30UU
IDilO
SSuCJ
SSuG
SSUO
Sbuti
SSuQ
loun
T JiVuUE
N X M
0.0
0,0
2*.s
5o.i
75.0
ss,s
o.n
81. b
bi.2
*o.a
ao.s
0.0
0,0
t>0«Ex
Kh
'1.0
>J,0
7.8
15,7
23, b
31.*
u.O
H7.0
35.3
23,5
.11.8
0.0
o.o
FUEL
FLOM
KG/MIN
.013
,031
,0b2
,082
.108
.13*
.013
.833
.113
.153
.113
.073
.013
Al*
FLOW
KG/MIN
.ai
.54
.SS
1.33
l.bO
1."
.21
2.78
2.31
I. 01
I. "15
1.11
.21
EXHAUST
FLOW
KG/MIN
.23
.57
l.OS
I.»l
i.7i
1.12
.23
3.01
8,ss
e.2s
8.07
1.18
.23
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
.ObO
.057
,0b3
.Ob8
,0b7
.075
.ObO
.08*
.080
.073
.058
.Obb
.ObO
MODE
i
2
3
*
5
b
7
8
s
10
11
12
13
CYCLE
riC
PPM
b3b
21
IS
20
SOO
1280
Sib
1872
ISO*
100
Ib
IS
280
CO*
PPM
2bl2
80*
811
S78
3778
17013
2bl8
28*31
2S**S
*S«»S
*27
300
2*51
COMPOSITE
BSHC t
NOft WEIGHTED
PPM KM
8b
lOb
S3b
107*
28b3
208b
Ibb
801
*bl
Sb2
(>7b
801
88
BSHC =
BSCO+ »
BSNOatta
BSN02tt=
0.00
0.00
.b3
1.8b
l.B1*
2. SI
0.00
3.7b
2.82
1.88
,q*
0.00
o.oo
i.s'ib
bl.OOb
8,1Sh
10.9S2
BSHC
G/KM HR
R
K
.07
.05.
I.Ob
2.2«
«
3,**!
3.21
.28
.0«
K
R
GRAM/KH
GRAM/KM
GRAH/KM
GRAM/KH
BSCO+
G/KW HR
R
H
b.31
5. OS
15.11
bO.33
R
105, bQ
108,25
25. 51
t.3*
R
R
HR
HR
HR
HR
BSN02++
G/KH HR
R
R
b.85
S.11
IS. 80
12,15
R
-»,8S
3.22
8,77
11, 21
K
R
HUM,
MILL1
G/KG
S.I
S.I
S.I
8.2
8.2
7,
7.
7.
7.
b.
b.
5.8
5.8
» CONVERTED TO HET BASIS
+t CONVERTED TO MET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10,7 MILLIGRAMS
HATER PER KG DRY AIR
Table B-20.
13-MooE FEDERAL DIESEL EMISSION CYCLE
11-23*0-0115 CHASSIS SIMULATED 13 MODE 3 rtIN MODE ll-b-7*. TEST 2 HONDA CVCC CIVIC
b3 HP * CYL * SPEED MAN l.*88 LITER 7* X 8b.5 MM BXS UNLEADED SI RON GASOLINE
NODE
1
2
3
*
5
fa
7
8
S
10
11
12
13
ENGINE
SPEED
RPM
loon
30uO
aouci
30UO
30UO
30UO
lOllO
SSuO
5500
55uO
55UQ
5SuO
IQuO
TORQUE
N X M
0,0
0,0
Z^,<\
50,1
75, U
SS.S
0,0
81, b
bl,8
tQ, 8
ao.s
0.0
a.j
POHER
KM
U.O
U.O
7.8
15,7
23. b
31,*
II, J
*7,D
35,3
23.5
11.8
H, a
U.O
FUEL
FLO*
KG/MIN
,013
.031
,0b2
,082
.108
,13*
,013
,233
.113
.153
,113
,073
.013
AIR
FLOW
KG/MIN
.21
.55
.ss
1.3*
l.bl
1.7S
.21
2.77
2.35
2. Ob
l.SQ
l.OS
.21
EXHAUST
FLOH
KG/MIN
.23
.58
1,05
1,»3
1.71
1.18
.23
3,00
2. 55
2. 21
2.02
l.lb
.23
FUEL
AIR
RATIO
.ObO
,057
,0b3
.Obi
.Ob7
.075
.ObO
.08*
.082
.07*
.OSS
.Ob7
.ObO
MODE
1
e
3
*
5
b
7
8
S
10
11
12
13
CYCLE
HC
PPH
b20
IS
21
2b
580
1**0
588
1872
1*72
SS
10
S
280
cot NO++ HEIGHTED
PPH PPM KM
2S70 8* 0,00
7S1 SO 0,00
82S SOb .b3
1087 IDS* 1.2b
*128 28Sb 1.8S
l*bS2 8218 2.51
2Sfa8 181 0,00
2B8S7 70* 3,7b
8bll* *bS 2.82
*S7S S31 1.68
*3S 58* .S*
355 81* 0.00
8183 Sb 0,00
COMPOSITE BSHC * 2,021
BSCO+ a b1.*08
BSN08+ts 8,817
BSHC + 8SN02tts 10,838
BSHC
G/KM HR
R
H
.08
.07
1.10
8.57
H
3,*8
3,01
,2b
.05
H
H
GRAM/KH
GRAM/KH
GRAM/KH
GRAM/KM
B3CO+
G/KH HR
R
R
b.**
5.71
17. *1
52. OS
R
10b.S3
10S.88
2*.S7
*.3b
R
R
HR
HR
HR
HR
B3N08++
G/KH HR
R
R
b,*b
S,»*
IS, 78
18. SS
R
»,28
3.22
8.3»
1.58
R
R
HUM.
MILLI
G/KG
7.1
7.1
?.l
7,1
7.5
7.5
7.S
7.S
7.5
7.3
7.3
7.3
7.3
+ CONVERTED TO HET BASIS
ft CONVERTED TO NET BASIS AND CORRECTED TO 10.7 MILLIGRAMS
HATER PER KG DRY AIR
-------
iis
25,000
000
6000
a
a
O
u
4000
5 2000
25 50 75
Percent of Maximum Engine Power
FIGURE B-8. GASEOUS EMISSIONS MAP OF
HONDA CVCC CIVIC CAR
B-17
100
-------
APPENDIX C
ODOR RATINGS BY EPA Q/I METHOD
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l. ODOR SUMMAFY--NISSAN-DATSUN EVALUATION
100:1 Dilution
Condition Load
1800 rpm 0
1800 rpm 1/2
24 mph
1800 rpm Full
24 mph
3000 rpm 0
3000 rpm 1/2
40 mph
3000 rpm Full
40 mph
Idle
Idle -Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Date
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
Composite
3.1
3.1
2.8
3.0
3.8
3.7
2.4
2.1
3.7
3.1
4.8
3.9
2.9
2.7
3.5
3.8
5.6
5.0
4.9
5.1
Burnt
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1.7
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.6
Oily
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
Aromatic
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
Pungent
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.9
0. 8
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.4
1. 1
1.2
1. 1
W - Winter Switch
S - Summer Switch
C-2
-------
TABLE C-2. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Nissan - Datsun Diesel - Winter Switch
Date: January 8, 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
2.
15.
18.
6.
9.
11.
3.
14.
16.
5.
10.
17.
4.
13.
19.
1.
7.
21.
8.
12.
20.
23.
25.
30.
33.
24.
27.
28.
31.
22.
26.
29.
32.
Operating
Condition
Inter -0
Inter - 50
Inter - 100
High - 0
High - 50
High - 100
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
2.0
3.3
3.9
3.1
2.8
2.3
3.3
2.8
4.0
3.5
3.8
3.8
2.4
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
4.3
4.4
3.7
4.5
4.6
5.2
4.8
2.6
2.5
3.5
2.9
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.7
3.5
5.9
6.0
5.4
5. 1
5.6
5.0
5.1
4.6
5.0
4.9
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.7
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1.1
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.4
1.9
1.7
"O"
Oily
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1.1
1.2
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.4
1.0
1. 1
1.2
"A"
Aromatic
0.3
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
II JJM
Pungent
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.4
0. 1
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0. 1
0.4
0.8 .
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.7
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.4
1. 1
1.4
1. 1
1.0
1.2
C-3
-------
TABLE C-3. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Nissan - Datsun Diesel - Summer Switch
Date: January 10, 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
6.
14.
16.
5.
10.
21.
4.
11.
19.
2.
12.
20.
8.
13.
17.
1.
7.
15.
3.
9.
18.
23.
26.
29.
31.
22.
24.
28.
33.
25.
27.
30.
32.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 4.0
3.4
2.0
3.1
Inter - 50 2.6
3.2
3.3
3.0
Inter - 100 3.6
4.0
3.4
3.7
High - 0 2. 1
1.9
2.3
2.1
High - 50 " 2.7
3.3
3.4
3.1
High - 100 3.3
4.0
4.3
3.9
Idle 2. 3
2.9
Iti
2.7
Idle- Acceleration 3.6
4.3
3.0
4.4
3.8
Acceleration 5. 0
5.0
5.1
5.0
5.0
Deceleration 5.3
5.0
5. 1
5.0
5. 1
"B"
Burnt
1.3
1.1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.6
"O"
Oily
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.0
1.2
"A"
Aromatic
1.0
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
iipn
Pungent
0.9
0.8
0
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
C-4
-------
TABLE C-4.
ODOR SUMMARY--MERCEDES 220D EVALUATION
100:1 Dilution
'D'
'B1
"O"
Condition Load
1830 rpm
1830 rpm 1/2
33 mph
1830 rpm Full
33 mph
3050 rpm
3050 rpm 1/2
56 mph
3050 rpm Full
56 mph
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Date Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
2.7
2.5
2.6
2.5
2.7
2.6
3.5
3.3
3.4
2.3
2.8
2.6
3.2
2.9
3. 1
3.7
4. 1
3.9
3.1
3.1
3. 1
3.4
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.2
3.4
3.5
3.8
3.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1. 1
1.1
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.5
0. 6
0.6
0. 6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0. 6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
C-5
-------
TABLE C-5. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 220D
Date: January 15, 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
2.
10.
20.
1.
8.
18.
9.
11.
15.
6.
14.
19.
5.
7.
16.
3.
13.
21.
4.
12.
17.
22.
24.
27.
31.
26.
29.
30.
32.
23.
25.
28.
33.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 2.3
2.8
3.0
2.7
Inter - 50 2. 1
2.3
3.0
2.5
Inter - 100 4.0
3.4
3.2
3.5
High - 0 2.4
2.2
2.4
2.3
High - 50 3.4
3.6
2.6
3.2
High - 100 3.7
3.4
4.1
3.7
Idle 3. 1
2.9
3.4
3.1
Idle-Acceleration 3.4
4.2
3.1
3.0
3.4
Acceleration 3.3
3.5
3.3
3.8
3.5
Deceleration 3.3
3.0
4.1
3.6
3.5
"B"
Burnt
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.1
"O"
Oily
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
npii
Pungent
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.7
C-6
-------
TABLE C-6. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 220D
Date: January 17, 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
4.
10.
12.
2.
8.
11.
9.
17.
21.
3.
6.
20.
7.
15.
16.
5.
13.
19.
1.
14.
18.
24.
28.
31.
33.
23.
25.
26.
29.
22.
27.
30.
32.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 2.4
2.7
2.4
2.5
Inter - 50 3.3
2.4
2.4
2.7
Inter - 100 3.8
2.8
3.3
3.3
High - 0 3.4
2.6
2.3
2.8
High - 50 3.7
2.7
2.3
2.9
High - 100 4.2
3.9
4.2
4. 1
Idle 2. 6
3.2
3.4
3.1
Idle-Acceleration 4.4
3.6
5.1
4.8
4.5
Acceleration 2. 8
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.2
Deceleration 3.9
3.8
3.3
4.1
3.8
"B"
Burnt
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.4
1. 1
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.1
1. 1
"O"
Oily
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
. 1.0
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.1
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
II Till
Pungent
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
0.2
0.4
0.1
0. 1
0.2
0.9
0.3
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.4
0. 1
0.5
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.7
1.0
1. 1
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.8
C-7
-------
TABLE C-7.
ODOR SUMMARY--PEUGEOT 504D EVALUATION
100:1 Dilution
Condition
1800 rpm
1800 rpm
32 mph
Load
0
1/2
1800 rpm Full
32 mph
3000 rpm
3000 rpm 1/2
56 mph
3000 rpm Full
56 mph
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Date
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
"D"
Composite
6.2
5.7
6.0
4.4
3.7
4.1
4.7
4.6
4.7
6.3
5.7
6.0
4.9
4.4
4.7
5.9
5.2
5.6
4.8
4.7
4.8
5.3
5.8
5.6
6.1
5.8
6.0
5.7
5.2
5.5
"B"
Burnt
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.5
1.1
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.7
"O"
Oily
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.8
1. 6
1.7
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.2
1.4
It A It
Aromatic
0.9
1.1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
II J3I!
Pungent
1.6
1.2
1.4
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.5
1.2
I-4
1. 1
0.9
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1.2
1. 1
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.3
1. 1
1.2
C-8
-------
TABLE C-8. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot 504D
Date: March 5, 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
2.
10.
20.
1.
8.
18.
9.
11.
15.
6.
14.
19.
5.
7.
16.
3.
13.
21.
4.
12.
17.
24.
28.
31.
33.
23.
25.
26.
29.
22.
27.
30.
32.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 6. 2
6.1
6.3
6.2
Inter - 50 4.9
4.3
4.1
4.4
Inter - 100 5.0
5.2
3.8
4.7
High - 0 6.3
6.6
6.0
6.3
High - 50 4.8
4.8
5.0
4.9
High - 100 5.8
5.6
6.2
5.9
Idle 4. 3
4.4
5.7
4.8
Idle-Acceleration 5. 1
5.1
5.3
5.5
5.3
Acceleration 6. 8
6.1
5.8
5.8
6.1
Deceleration 5. 5
6.1
5. 1
5.9
5.7
"B"
Burnt
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.2
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.5
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.2
1.4
1.9
1.5
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.9
1.8
"O"
Oily
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.1
1. 1
1.1
1. 1
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.0
2.0
1.6
1.8
1.8
1. 1
1.0
1. 2
1. 1
1.7
1.3
1.7
1.6
1.0
1. 1
1.6
1.2
1.1
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.8
1.3
1.8
1.6
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
npii
Pungent
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1. 1
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.0
1. 1
0.7
0.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
1. 1
1.0
1. 2
1. 1
1. 2
1. 2
1.4
1. 3
1.0
1. 1
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.5
1. 1
1.4
1. 1
1.4
1.3
C-9
-------
TABLE C-9. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot 504D
Date: March 7. 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
"D"
Composite
5.3
5.9
6.0
5.7
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.7
4.5
4.6
4.6
4.6
5.8
5.9
5.3
5.7
4.2
5.0
4.1
4.4
5.4
5. 1
5.1
5.2
5.2
4.4
4.4
4.7
5.8
6.0
6.0
5.4
5.8
5.4
5.6
6.4
5.6
5.8
4.9
5.8
5.0
5.0
5.2
"B"
Burnt
1.6
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.7
1. 1
1.4
1.8
1.4
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.6
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.4
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.6
"O"
Oily
1. 1
1.6
1.7
1.5
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.0
1. 1
1.9
1.6
1.3
1.6
1. 1
1.2
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1.3
1.2
1.2
1.4
1. 1
1.0
1. 2
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.3
1. 5
1.6
1.4
1.5
1. 1
1.4
1. 1
1. 1
1.2
"A"
Aromatic
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.3
0.9
1.0
1. 1
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
0.9
1.1
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
"P"
Pungent
1. 1
1.2
1.3
1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.2
0.7
1. 1
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.3
0.9
1.1
1. 1
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.4
1. 1
1. 1
1.5
1.3
1.3
1. 1
1.3
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
C-10
-------
TABLE C-10.
ODOR SUMMARY — OPEL REKORD EVALUATION
100:1 Dilution
Condition
2300 rpm
Load
0
2300 rpm 1/2
22 mph
2300 rpm Full
22 mph
3250 rpm
3250 rpm 1/2
56 mph
3250 rpm Full
56 mph
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Date
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
"D"
Composite
3.5
3.5
3.5
4.3
4.0
4.2
3.6
3.8
3.7
3.3
3.3
3.3
4.8
4. 1
4.5
3.9
4. 1
4.0
3.5
3.0
3.3
5.2
4.8
5.0
3.8
3.7
3.8
3.4
3.3
3.4
"B"
Burnt
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.2
1.2
1.2
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.2
1.1
1.2
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
n pit
Pungent
0. 6
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0. 6
1. 2
0.9
1. 1
0.8
0.9
0.9
0. 6
0.3
0.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-ll. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Opel Rekord
Date: March 19. 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
2.
10.
20.
1.
8.
18.
9.
11.
15.
6.
14.
19.
5.
7.
16.
3.
13.
21.
4.
12.
17.
24.
28.
31.
33.
23.
25.
26.
29.
22.
27.
30.
32.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 3.6
3.8
3.0
3.5
Inter - 50 3.9
4.1
4.9
4.3
Inter - 100 4.0
3.3
3.4
3.6
High - 0 3.3
3.0
3.7
3.3
High - 50 4.2
4.8
5.4
4.8
High - 100 4.3
3.7
3.8
3.9
Idle 3.6
3.4
3.6
3.5
Idle-Acceleration 4.0
5.8
5.8
5.1
5.2
Acceleration 3. 1
3.5
4.1
4.6
3.8
Deceleration 2.6
3.9
3.4
3.6
3.4
"B"
Burnt
1. 1
1.4
1. 1
1.2
1. 1
1.4
1.8
1.4
1. 1
1.1
1.3
1.2
1. 1
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1.4
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.4
1. 1
1.3
1.3
1.1
1.1
1. 1
1. 1
1.4
1.9
2.0
1.7
1.8
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1.6
1.2
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
»O"
Oily
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1. 1
1. 1
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1.6
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.8
npll
Pungent
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
1. 1
1.0
1.4
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.4
0.6
0.7
1.0
1. 1
0.9
0.3
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.7
C-12
-------
TABLE C-12. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Opel Rekord
Date: March 21, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
Dilution Level: 100:1
2.
14.
18.
7.
12.
16.
4.
8.
11.
5.
15.
17.
1.
10.
21.
6.
13.
19.
24.
26.
29.
32.
22.
27.
30.
33.
23.
25.
28.
31.
Inter - 0
3. Inter - 50
9.
20.
Inter - 100
High - 0
High - 50
High - 100
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
3.9
3.2
3.5
3.5
3.8
4.1
4.2
4.0
4.5
3.7
3. 1
3.8
3.8
2.7
3.3
3.3
4. 1
4.0
4.3
4. 1
3.8
4. 2
4.3
4. 1
2.9
3. 1
3.1
3.0
4.7
5.4
4.3
4.8
4.8
3.3
4.2
3.7
3.6
3.7
3.0
3.6
3.1
3.3
3.3
"B"
Burnt
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.1
1.0
1.2
1.1
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1. 1
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.6
2.0
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.1
1.1
"O"
Oily
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.3
1. 1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.7
iipn
Pungent
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.2
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
1.3
1.4
1.0
1.3
1.3
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.7
C-13
-------
TABLE C-13.
Condition Load
1200 rpm 0
1200 rpm 2X
1200 rpm 4X
ODOR SUMMARY--FORD LTD EVALUATION
100:1 Dilution
2000 rpm
0
2000 rpm 2X
2000 rpm 4X
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Idle
Date
"B" "O" "A" iipn
Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/9/74
4/10/74
4/11/74
4/12/74
4/30/74
1.8
2.1
2.0
1.2
1.7
1.5
0.9
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
1. 1
0.8
1.0
2.2
1.5
1.9
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.7
2. 2
2.6
1.0
1.6
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0
0.4
0.4
0.8
•
-------
TABLE C-14. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Ford LTD
Date: April 12, 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
2.
6.
12.
1.
9.
17.
5.
10.
16.
4.
7.
20.
11.
15.
21.
3.
13.
19.
8.
14.
18.
22.
27.
29.
31.
23.
25.
28.
30.
24.
26.
32.
33.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 2. 1
1.9
1.4
1.8
Inter - 2X 1.2
1.1
1.3
1.2
Inter - 4X 0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
High - 0 1.5
1.7
0.9
1.4
High - 2X 1.3
0.9
0.9
1.0
High - 4X 0.9
1.7
0.7
1.1
Idle 1.5
0.6
1.2
1.1
Idle-Acceleration 1.3
0.9
0.9
1.3
1.1
Acceleration 2.4
2.4
2.2
1.9
2.2
Deceleration 1.4
2.3
2.0
1.2
1.7
"B"
Burnt
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.4
0. 5
0.7
0
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.8
MQi'
Oily
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0. 1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.6
0.4
0. 1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.1
0.4
0.4
0. 1
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.6
0. 1
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.4
"A"
Aromatic
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.1
0. 1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.1
0. 1
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.5
upti
Pungent
0.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.3
0.
0. 1
0. 1
0. 2
0
0.3
0
0
0. 1
C-15
-------
TABLE C-15. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Vehicle: Ford LTD
Date: April 30. 1974
Run
No.
1.
7.
16.
6.
11.
19.
5.
10.
20.
9.
14.
17.
4.
15.
21.
2.
8.
13.
3.
12.
18.
24.
28.
30.
31.
22.
26.
29.
32.
23.
25.
27.
33.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 2. 2
2.6
1.6
2. 1
Inter - 2X 2.5
1.4
1.3
1.7
Inter - 4X 1.9
1.3
1.2
1.5
High - 0 1.6
1.2
1.7
1.5
High - 2X 1.5
0.9
0.9
1. 1
High - 4X 2. 2
1.8
1.2
1.7
Idle 2. 3
0.6
0.9
1.3
Idle-Acceleration 0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
Acceleration 1. 3
1.4
1.5
1.9
1.5
Deceleration 2. 1
1.3
1.5
1.7
1.7
"B"
BUrnt
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
1.1
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.8
"O"
Oily
0.5
0.9
0.2
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.6
0.3
0.6
0.6
0.3
0. 1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.9
0.6
0.1
0.5
0.9
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.1
0. 1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
"A"
Aromatic
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0. 1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
0.3
iipu
Pungent
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.4
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0
0.3
0.2
0
0
0. 1
0
0
0
0.1
0
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
Cold Idle
1.6
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.1
C-16
-------
TABLE C-16. ODOR SUMMARY--CAPRI STANDARD EVALUATION
100:1 Dilution
"D1
'B'
"O1
"A1
IJ3II
Condition Load
Date
Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent
1700 rpm 0
1700 rpm 2X
1700 rpm 4X
2850 rpm 0
2850 rpm 2X
2850 rpm 4X
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Idle
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
2.5
2.9
2.7
3.4
2.6
3.0
3.4
3.3
3.4
2.6
1.7
2.2
3.5
3.4
3.5
3.1
3.4
3.3
3.2
3.3
3.3
2.8
2.3
2.6
3.0
3.3
3.2
3.0
2.8
2.9
3.6
3.2
3.4
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.7
0. 6
0.5
0. 6
0. 6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
0. 5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.6
.0.6
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0. 6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.5
0.7
C-17
-------
TABLE C-17. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Capri Standard
Date: April 24, 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
8.
14.
21.
1.
7.
17.
9.
11.
18.
5.
10.
16.
2.
6.
15.
4.
13.
20.
3.
12.
19.
22.
27.
30.
32.
24.
26.
28.
29.
23.
25.
31.
33.
Operating
Condition
Inter - 0
Inter - 2X
Inter - 4X
High - 0
High - 2X
High - 4X
Idle
Idle -Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
MJJIt
Composite
2.6
2.4
2.6
2.5
3.0
3.9
3.3
3.4
3.6
4.0
2.6
3.4
2.4
3.3
2.1
2.6
4.0
3.4
3.0
3.5
2.5
3.9
2.9
3. 1
2.5
3.7
3.3
3.2
3. 1
3.3
2.3
2.3
2.8
2.7
3.3
2.9
2.9
3.0
2.8
2.9
2.9
3.4
3.0
"B"
Burnt
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.7
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
IIQII
Oily
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
. 0.5
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
npii
Pungent
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.5
C-18
-------
TABLE C-18. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Capri Standard
Date: April 25, 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
3.
10.
17.
9.
12.
14.
5.
15.
18.
1.
8.
13.
2.
7.
19.
4.
11.
20.
6.
16.
21.
22.
25.
27.
33.
23.
24.
29.
31.
26.
28.
30.
32.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 2. 6
2.4
3.7
2.9
Inter - 2X 2.9
2.3
2.6
2.6
Inter - 4X 3.7
3. 3
3.0
3.3
High - 0 2. 1
1.9
1. 1
1.7
High - 2X 4.0
2.9
3.3
3.4
High - 4X 3.9
3.1
3.3
3.4
Idle 3. 1
3.3
3.6
3.3
Idle-Acceleration 2. 3
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.3
Acceleration 3.4
3.0
3. 1
3.7
3.3
Deceleration 2. 7
2.7
2.6
3. 1
2.8
"B"
Burnt
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.8
1. 2
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1. 0
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
"O"
Oily
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.5
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.3
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0. 5
0.7
0. 5
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.3
0.7
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.5
0.7
0. 5
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0. 3
tipn
Pungent
0.5
0.3
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.3
0. 3
0.3
0.3
0. 7
0. 5
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.5
0.5
0. 5
0.3
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.5
0.5
Cold Idle
3. Z
0.8
1.0
0.8
0. 5
C-19
-------
TABLE C-19.
Condition Load
1700 rpm 0
1700 rpm 2X
1700 rpm 4X
2850 rpm 0
2850 rpm 2X
2850 rpm 4X
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Idle
ODOR SUMMARY--CAPRI PROCO EVALUATION
100:1 Dilution
Date
"D"
"B"
MO"
"A1
11 pi i
Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5 /7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.3
0.7
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.4
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.1
1.3
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.1
0.8
1.0
3.4
2.9
3. 1
1.1
0.5
0.8
4.7
3.9
4.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.5
0.3
0.4
1.1
0.9
1.0
• ••— — * •
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0. 2
0.3
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0.2
0. 2
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0. 1
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.2
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.2
0.5
0. 2
0. 1
0. 2
0.9
0.6
0.8
0
0
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
0.2
0
0. 1
0
0
0
0.2
0
0.1
0.1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0.1
0. 1
0. 1
1.0
0.8
0.9
0. 1
0
0. 1
1.0
0.7
0.9
C-20
-------
TABLE C-20. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Capri PROCO
Date: May 7. 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run Operating "D"
No. Condition Composite
8. Inter - 0
12.
19.
5. Inter - 2X
14.
16.
4. Inter - 4X
7.
15.
1. High - 0
13.
20.
2. High - 2X
11.
18.
6. High - 4X
9.
21.
3. Idle
10.
17.
22. Idle-Acceleration
27.
29.
33.
23. Acceleration
25.
28.
32.
24. Deceleration
26.
30.
31.
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
1. 1
1.6
1. 1
1.3
1. 2
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.1
1.4
2.1
1.3
0.8
1.4
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.7
1. 5
0.9
0.8
1.0
1.1
3.4
3.4
3.6
3.2
3.4
1.3
1.3
0.7
1.1
1.1
11311
Burnt
0.4
0.1
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.8 -
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0. 1
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.3
0
0.2
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0. 5
"O"
Oily
0.1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.3
0
0
0. 1
0.3
0.4
0
0.2
0. 1
0
0. 2
0. 1
0. 2
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.2
0
0.3
0.2
"A"
Aromatic
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.4
0.4
0. 5
0. 3
0
0.3
0. 1
0.6
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.8
0.2
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.8
0. 1
0.2
0.1
0.3
0.2
itpii
Pungent
0
0.1
0
0
0.1
0.1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.3
0.3
0.2
0. 1
0
0
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.4
0.2
0.3
0
0
0.1
0
0. 1
0
0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0
0.1
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0. 1
0.3
0
0
0. 1
Cold Idle
4.7
1. 1
0.6
0.9
1.0
C-21
-------
TABLE C-21. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Capri PROCO
Date: May 9. 1974
Dilution Ratio: 100:1
Run
No.
3.
10.
14.
6.
8.
17.
7.
15.
18.
Z.
9.
21.
4.
11.
20.
1.
13.
16.
5.
12.
19.
22.
26.
28.
33.
23.
27.
30.
32.
24.
25.
29.
31.
Operating
Condition
Inter - 0
Inter - 2X
Inter - 4X
High - 0
High - 2X
High - 4X
Idle
Idle- Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.5
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.8
1.5
0.9
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
3.3
3.1
2.3
3.0
2.9
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
"B"
Burnt
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.4
0.1
0.3
0.5
0.3
"O"
Oily
0.1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0. 1
0.1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0.3
0. 1
0. 1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0.3
0. 1
0.3
0.2
0.1
0. 1
0.1
0. 1
0
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.2
0.2
"A"
Aromatic
0.1
0
0. 1
0.1
0.2
0
0.3
0.2
0
0.3
0.1
0.1
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.2
0
0
0.1
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0.2
0.2
0
0. 1
ii pi t
Pungent
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
0
0. 1
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0
0
0
0
0
Cold Idle
3.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
C-22
-------
TABLE C-22. ODOR SUMMARY--TEXACO TCCS CRICKET, DIESEL
100:1 Dilution
Condition
1800 rpm
Load
Date
"B" "O" "A" "pn
Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent
1800 rpm 1. 5X
53. 1 km/hr
1800 rpm 3X
53. 1 km/hr
3000 rpm
3000 rpm 1. 5X
90. 1 km/hr
3000 rpm 3X
90. 1 km/hr
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
6.0
5.4
5.7
5.4
5.3
5.4
5. 7
4. 3
5.0
6.1
6.0
6. 1
4. 2
4.6
4.4
4.8
4.7
4.8
4.8
5.7
5.3
6.1
5.3
5.7
5.0
4.9
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.9
3.5
5.4
4.5
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.3
1.6
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
0.9
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.2
1.4
1. 2
1. 1
1.2
1.5
1. 1
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.5
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1. 2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1. 2
1.4
1.2
1.3
1. 1
1.3
1.2
1. 2
1.0
1. 1
0.9
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1. 1
0.9
1. 1
1.0
0.9
1. 1
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1. 1
0.9
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
0.9
1. 1
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.3,
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
1.5
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1.5
1.3
1.9
1.4
1.7
1.2
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.2
1.2
0.9
1.3
1. 1
C-23
-------
TABLE C-23. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Texaco TCCS Cricket - Diesel
Date: October 15, 1974
Run Operating "D"
No. Condition Composite
7. Inter - 0
12.
14.
6. Inter - 1.5X
17.
21.
3. Inter - 3X
8.
15.
2. High - 0
9.
18.
1. High - 1.5X
10.
16.
4. High - 3X
13.
19.
5. Idle
11.
20.
23. Idle-Acceleration
26.
31.
33.
22. Acceleration
25.
29.
32.
24. Deceleration
27.
28.
30.
6.3
6.3
5.4
6.0
5.4
4.8
6. 1
5.4
4.3
6.3
6.4
5.7
5.6
6.6
6. 1
6.1
2.8
5.5
4.4
4.2
3.6
5.4
5.3
4.8
3.8
5.4
5.2
4.8
5.6
5.9
6.4
6.4
6.1
4.4
4.6
5. 1
6.0
5.0
4.5
4.9
5.3
5.3
5.0
"B"
Burnt
2. 1
2. 1
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.3
2. 1
1.8
1.1
2. 1
2. 1
1.8
2.0
2.3
2.0
2.1
0.9
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.1
1.9
1.7
1.6
1.3
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.9
2.3
2.0
2.0
1.1
1.1
1.7
2. 1
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.7
1.9
1.6
IIQII
Oily
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
1. 1
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.9
1.7
1. 5
1.3
2.0
1.4
1.6
1.0
1.3
0.9
1. 1
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.0
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.0
0.9
1. 1
1.4
1. 1
1. 1
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.2
"A"
Aromatic
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.8
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1.3
0.9
1. 1
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
iipn
Pungent
1.4
1.5
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1. 1
1.6
1.3
0.9
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.5
0.4
1.0
1.0
0,8
0.9
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.7
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1.7
1.2
1. 1
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1. 1
A.
Cold Start
3.5
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.9
C-24
-------
TABLE C-24. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Texaco TCCS Cricket - Diesel
Date: October 17, 1974
Run
No.
8.
10.
15.
1.
5.
16.
7.
14.
19.
4.
13.
20.
6.
12.
21.
3.
9.
18.
2.
11.
17.
24.
27.
29.
32.
23.
26.
30.
33.
22.
25.
28.
31.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 5.5
4.8
5.9
5.4
Inter - 1.5X 4.5
5.1
6.2
5.3
Inter - 3X 3.8
4.8
5.3
4.3
High - 0 5.3
6.5
6.1
6.0
High - 1.5X 3.6
5.5
4.6
4.6
High - 3X 4. 1
4.0
6.0
4.7
Idle 5.3
6.3
5.5
5.7
Idle-Acceleration 5.9
5.0
5.4
4.9
5.3
Acceleration 4. 1
4.9
4.9
5.7
4.9
Deceleration 4. 6
4.7
5. 1
4.7
4.8
"B"
Burnt
2.0
1.4
2.0
1.8
1.4
1.4
2. 1
1.6
1. 1
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.9
2.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
1.9
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.3
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
2.2
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.2
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.6
"O"
Oily
1.0
1. 1
1.4
1.2
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
0.9
1. 1
1.3
1. 1
1.3
1.6
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.4
0.9
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.4
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.8
0.8
1.3
1.2
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
1. 1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.1
0.9
1. 1
1.3
1. 1
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1. 1
0.9
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.2
1. 1
1.2
1.2
1.0
1.0
1. 1
M pii
Pungent
1.3
1. 1
1.6
.1. 3
0.9
1.3
1.6
1.3
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
1. 1
i.9
1.4
1.5
0.6
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.4
1. 1
1.3
1.7
1.4
1.5
1.7
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.4
0.7
1.0
1.0
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
A.
Cold Start
5.4
1.6
1. 1
0.9
1.3
C-25
-------
TABLE C-25. ODOR SUMMARY —TEXACO TCCS CRICKET, GASOLINE
100:1 Dilution
Condition Load
1800 rpm 0
1800 rpm 1. 5X
53. 1 km/hr
1800 rpm 3X
53. 1 km/hr
3000 rpm
3000 rpm 1. 5X
90. 1 km/hr
3000 rpm 3X
90. 1 km/hr
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
Date
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/10/74
10/11/74
Average
"D"
Composite
3.7
4.5
4. 1
2.8
3.2
3.0
3.4
3.0
3.2
3.9
4. 1
4.0
2.9
2.5
2.7
3.3
3.0
3.2
2.7
3. 1
2.9
2.5
3.0
2.8
2.5
2.8
2.7
2.3
2.7
2.5
3.8
4.2
3. 1
3.7
"B"
Burnt
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.1
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.6
1.3
0.8
1.2
"O"
Oily
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
0.9
0. 8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0. 6
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
0.7
0.8
0.8
0. 6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0. 6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.7
0. 6
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
i ipn
Pungent
1. 1
1.3
1.2
0.7
0.8
0.8
0. 8
0.6
0.7
0.9
1.2
1. 1
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
C-26
-------
TABLE C-26. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Texaco TCCS Cricket - Gasoline
Date: October 8, 1974
Run
No.
7.
13.
15.
2.
12.
19.
3.
9.
16.
4.
8.
20.
5.
11.
21.
6.
14.
18.
1.
10.
17.
22.
24.
29.
32.
23.
26.
30.
33.
25. '
27.
28.
31.
A.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 3.9
3.9
3.2
3.7
Inter - 1.5X 3.6
2.6
2.3
2.8
Inter - 3X 3.7
3.6
2.8
3.4
High - 0 3.5
4.2
4. 1
3.9
High - 1.5X 3.3
3.2
2.8
3. 1
High - 3X 3.0
3.8
3. 1
3.3
Idle 2. 8
2.6
2.6
2.7
Idle-Acceleration 2. 3
2.4
2.8
2.4
2.5
Acceleration 2. 6
2. 1
2.6
2.8
2.5
Deceleration 2. 5
2. 1
2.3
2.2
2.3
Cold Start 3.8
"B"
Burnt
1. 1
1.6
1. 1
1.3
1. 1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.4
1.4
1.3
1. 1
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.6
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.9
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
1.0
"A"
Aromatic
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.7
0.3
0.4
0.6
i ipi i
Pungent
1.0
1.3
1.0
1. 1
1.0
0.4
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.9
1. 1
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.8
C-27
-------
TABLE C-27. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Texaco TCCS Cricket - Gasoline
Date: October 11, 1974
Run
No.
7.
9.
15.
3.
10.
20.
6.
13.
19.
2.
14.
18.
1.
11.
17.
4.
8.
16.
5.
12.
21.
23.
26.
28.
31.
22.
25.
29.
32.
24.
27.
30.
33.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 4. 5
4.1
4.9
4.5
Inter - 1. 5X 3.3
4. 1
2.3
3.2
Inter - 3X 3.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
High - 0 3.9
4.4
4.1
4.1
High - 1.5X 2. 1
2.4
3.0
2.5
High - 3X 2.5
2.6
3.9
3.0
Idle 1.7
3.7
3.9
3. 1
Idle- Acceleration 3.3
2.4
3.0
3.3
3.0
Acceleration 2. 8
2.7
2.3
3.2
2.8
Deceleration 2. 3
1.8
3.0
3.5
2.7
"B"
Burnt
1.3
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.0
1.3
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.2
1. 1
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
IIQII
Oily
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.1
0.5
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
1.0
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.8
0.5
"P"
Pungent
1.0
1.2
1.7
1.3
0.8
1.2
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.5
0.7
0. 6
1.0
1.3
1.2
1.2
0.7
0.3
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.2
1.2
1.2
0.9
0.8
0.5
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.3
0.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
A.
Cold Start
3.1
0.8
0.7
0.7
1.0
C-28
-------
TABLE C-28. ODOR SUMMARY--HONDA CVCC CIVIC EVALUATION
100:1 Dilution
Condition Load
2300 rpm
2300 rpm 1. 5X
54. 2 km/hr
2300 rpm 3X
54. 2 km/hr
3800 rpm
3800 rpm 1.5X
90. 1 km/hr
3800 rpm 3X
90. 1 km/hr
Idle
Idle-Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Cold Start
Date
"B" "O" "A" npii
Composite Burnt Oily Aromatic Pungent
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/29/74
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
2.4
1.7
2. 1
1.4
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.5
2.2
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.5
1.6
3.4
2.9
3.2
3.3
3.5
3.4
4.4
4.4
4.4
2.7
2.5
2.6
4. 1
4.0
4.3
4TT
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.6
1.4
1.5
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.3
1. 1
1. 1
1.2
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
1. 1
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.0
0.9
1. 1
1.0
0. 6
0.3
0.5
0.2
0. 2
0. 2
0
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
0.6
0.6
0. 6
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.9
C-29
-------
TABLE C-29. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Honda CVCC Civic
Date: October 31, 1974
Run
No.
1.
7.
12.
5.
11.
17.
6.
15.
21.
2.
14.
19.
8.
13.
20.
4.
10.
16.
3.
9.
18.
22.
25.
29.
31.
23.
27.
30.
32.
24.
26.
28.
33.
Operating
Condition
Inter - 0
Inter - 1.5X
Inter - 3X
(high by 3 hp)
High - 0
High - 1.5X
(low by 3 hp)
High - 3X
Idle
Idle -Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
"D"
Composite
3.1
2.1
2. 1
2.4
1.2
2. 1
1.0
1.4
1.6
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.6
1.9
3. 1
2.2
1.6
1.5
1.4
1.5
2.0
2.0
1.1
1.7
3. 1
3.3
3.7
3.4
2.5
3.7
3.3
3.8
3.3
4.3
4.7
4.3
4.2
4.4
2.7
2.7
2.3
3.0
2.7
"B"
Burnt
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.1
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.1
1.5
1.7
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.0
"O"
Oily
1.0
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.7
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.2
1.2
1. 1
0.7
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.8
"A"
Aromatic
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.5
0.3
0.5
npii
Pungent
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.6
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0
0
0
0.3
0. 1
0.7
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.4
0
0.2
0.9
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.4
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.8
1.2
1.3
1.0
1.0
1. 1
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
A.
Cold Start
4.0
1. 1
0.9
0.9
0.9
C-30
-------
TABLE C-30. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Honda CVCC Civic
Date: November 5, 1974
Run
No.
1.
7.
12.
5.
11.
17.
8.
13.
20.
2.
14.
19.
6.
15.
21.
4.
10.
16.
3.
9.
18.
22.
25.
29.
31.
23.
27.
30.
32.
24.
26.
28.
33.
Operating "D"
Condition Composite
Inter - 0 1.8
1.6
1.7
1.7
Inter - 1.5X 1.4
1.9
1. 1
1.5
Inter - 3X 1.4
1.7
1.4
1.5
High - 0 1.3
1.2
2.3
1.6
High - 1.5X 1.9
1.4
1.7
1.7
High - 3X 1.5
1.8
1.3
1.5
Idle 3. 1
2.9
2.7
2.9
Idle-Acceleration 2.9
3.5
2.8
4.6
3.5
Acceleration 4.4
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
Deceleration 2. 5
2.4
3.0
2. 1
2.5
"B"
Burnt
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.5
0.9
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.3
1. 1
1.4
1.4
1. 1
1.6
1.4
1.0
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.8
"0"
Oily
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.9
1.0
0.8
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.5
0.8
"A"
Aromatic
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.5
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.3
0.5
tipn
Pungent
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0. 1
0.5
0
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0
0. 1
0.7
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
0.2
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.6
1. 1
0.9
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1. 1
0.3
0.5
0.9
0.7
0.6
A. Cold Start 4.3 1.1 1.0 1.1 1.0
C-31
-------
TABLE C-31. COMPARISON OF ODOR PANEL RATINGS
Chrysler Gas Turbine
Operating
Condition
1272 rpmO)
0 load
1272 rpm
53. 1 km/hr
2X load
1272 rpm
53. 1 km/hr
4X load
2120 rpm
0 load
2120 rpm
90. 1 km/hr
ZX load
2120 rpm
90. 1 km/hr
4X load
Idle
Idle - Accele ration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Deceleration -
Relight
Hot Start
Cold Start
Date
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
^9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/23/74
9/25/74
9/27/74
Average
9/18/74
9/19/74
9/Z3/74
9/24/74
9/25/74
9/26/74
9/27/74
Averaee
"D"
Composite
1.4
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
1.0
0.8
1.4
1. 1
1. 1
0.8
1. 1
1.0
0.8
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.5
1.0
1. 1
1.2
1.8
1.4
1.4
1.5
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.7
0.8
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.6
1.0
0.8
1.5
1.2
1.3
1.3
3.0
3.5
3.3
4.5
4. 1
4.0
3.6
377
"B"
Burnt
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.7
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.0
T7T
"0"
Oily
0. 4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0.4
0.2
0.2
0. 2
0.3
0.2
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0 2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.9
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.9
079
"A"
Aromatic
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0
0. 1
0.3
0. 1
0.3
0.4
0. 1
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0. 1
0
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0
0.2
0. 1
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0
0.3
0.8
0.8
0.9
0. 5
0.7
075
IIT5II
Pungent
0. 1
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0
0
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0
0
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.1
0.1
0
0. 1
0.1
0
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
0.8
1.0
0.4
1.0
0.9
1.0
1.0
079
(1)
Power Turbine.
C-32
-------
Vehicle: Chrysler Gas Turbine
Date: September 23, 1974
Run
No.
10.
12.
25.
2.
8.
17.
4.
11.
22.
9.
16.
18.
3.
13.
24.
6.
15.
20.
7.
19.
21.
26.
30.
35.
28.
33.
37.
27.
31.
36.
29.
32.
34.
5.
14.
23.
1.
Operating
Condition
Inter - 0
Inter - 2X
Inter - 4X
High - 0
High - 2X
High - 4X
Idle
Idle- Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Deceleration
Relight
Hot Start
Cold Start
"D"
Composite
1.9
0.9
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
0.9
1.2
1.3
0.7
0.9
1.0
1. 1
1.3
0.8
1. 1
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
1. 1
1.8
1.6
1.5
2.0
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.3
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.4
0.7
1.0
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.7
1.6
1.8
1.2
1.5
3.3
"B"
Burnt
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.8
0.9
0. 6
0.8
0.8
0. 8
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.3
0.5
0. 4
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1. 1
C-33
"O"
Oily
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.2
0
0.3
0. 2
0.6
0. 1
0.4
0.4
0.2
0. 2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0. 2
0.4
0.8
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0. 5
0.3
0.3
0
0. 2
0.3
0.3
0. 1
0. 2
0.6
0. 1
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3
0. 1
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.9
"A"
. Aromatic
0.8
0
0.4
0.4
0. 1
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0
0
0.2
0. 1
0
0.3
0
0. 1
0
0
0. 1
0
0. 2
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.2
0
0
0. 1
0.4
0. 1
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.8
M J>ll
Pungent
0.2
0
0.2
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
. 0
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0
0
0. 1
0
0
0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0.3
0
0
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.4
-------
TABLE C-33. VEHICLE ODOR EVALUATION SUMMARY
Vehicle: Chrysler Gas Turbine
Date: September 25, 1974
Run
N'o.
9.
16.
20.
4.
14.
21.
6.
17.
24.
8.
15.
25.
2.
• I.
19.
3.
12.
22.
7.
13.
18.
28.
?i.
37.
26.
?0.
3o.
27.
32.
5f>.
29.
31.
54.
5.
"0.
Z^.
Operating
Condition
Inter - 0
Inter - 2X
Inter - 4X
High - 0
High - 2X
High - 4X
Idle
Idle- Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Deceleration -
Relight
Hot Start
"D"
Composite
1.2
0.9
1.6
1.2
1.5
1,2
O.b
1. 1
0.9
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.3
0.8
0.7
0.9
1.2
1.1
0.6
1.0
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.8
1. J
0.7
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
1. ?
1. 3
1. 1
'.2
11311
Burnt
0.6
0.5
0.9
0.7.
0.6
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.9
0.4
0.8
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.8
0.6
0.7
"O"
Oily
0.3
0. 1
0.8
0.4
0.4
0.3
0. 1
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.1
0.2
0. 1
0.1
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0.2
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.3
0.1
0. 1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.4
0. 1
0. 1
0.2
0.3
0.2
0. 1
0.2
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
"A"
Aromatic
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.5
0.3
0. 1
0. 3
0
0. 1
0.5
0.2
0
0.4
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.5
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0. 1
0
0
0
0.4
0.3
0. 1
o.s"
0.2
0
0
0. 1
0
0
•)
0
0
0. 1
.0.5
0. '-
npr
Pungent
0. 2
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
0
0
0. i
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0. 1
0
0
0. 1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0
0
0. 1
~o"
0.1
0. 1
0
0. 1
0
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
0
0
0
0. ^
0.3
0
0.2
Cold Start
4. 1 1. 3
C-34
1.0
0.9
0.9
-------
Vehicle: Chrysler Gas Turbine
Date: September 27, 1974
Run
No.
2.
15.
17.
10.
19.
25.
5.
16.
23.
9.
11.
18.
3.
14.
7.
12.
21.
6.
8.
20.
27.
30.
35.
28.
32.
37.
29.
33.
36.
26.
31.
34.
4.
13.
22.
1.
Operating
Condition
Inter - 0
Inter - 2X
Inter - 4X
High - 0
High - 2X
High - 4X
Idle
Idle- Acceleration
Acceleration
Deceleration
Deceleration -
Relight
Hot Start
Cold Start
"D"
Composite
1.8
1.3
0.9
1.3
1.4
1.1
0.9
1. 1
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.3
0.9
1.2
1. 1
1.4
1.0
1.5
1.3
1. 1
1. 1
1.1
1. 1
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.7
1.0
1.4
1. 1
0.5
1.0
1.5
0.4
0.9
0.9
0.8
1.8
0.4
1.0
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
3.6
"B"
Burnt
0.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.9
0.4
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.8
0.4
0.6
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.9
0.3
0. 5
0.6
0.8
0. 5
0.6
1.0
"O"
Oily
0.5
0.4
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0. 1
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.4
0.2
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0.3
0.4
0
0.2
0.5
0
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0.4
0
0.2
0. 1
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.9
"A"
Aromatic
0.6
0
0. 1
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.4
0.4
0. 1
0.4
0.3
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.5
0.2
0.5
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.3
0.4
0.3 .
0.3
0
0.2
0.3
0. 1
0.2
0.2
0.4
0. 1
0
0.2
0.5
0.2
0.3
0.3
0.7
"P"
Pungent
0.2
0.3
0
0.2
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0
0.4
0. 1
0.2
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0
0
0.3
0. 1
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0
0.2
0
0. 1
0.4
0
0
0. 1
0.2
0
0. 1
0. 1
0
0.4
0
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
0. 1
1.0
C-35
-------
APPENDIX D
INSTRUMENTAL-WET CHEMICAL
EXHAUST DATA TAKEN DURING ODOR TESTS
D-l
-------
TABLE D-l. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--NISSAN-DATSUN EVALUATION
Condition
1800 rpm
1800 rpm
24 mph
1800 rpm
24 mph
3000 rpm
C/
3000 rpm
40 mph
3000 rpm
40 mph
Idle
Load Date
0 1/8/74 W
1/10/74S
1/2 1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
Full 1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
0 1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/2 1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
Full 1/8/74 W
1/10/74 S
1/8/74 .W
1/10/74 S
HC,
68
83
103
67
115
107
60
75
52
33
481
125
59
39
CO,
264
271
173
168
2792
536
326
304
133
135
11555
2261
169
151
NDIR
NO,
ppm
57
66
365
333
384
417
129
134
425
407
398
428
96
84
CL
NO,
ppm
78
75
332
307
380
400
138
136
427
400
378
423
97
96
NOX,
Ppm
97
96
344
317
380
400
153
142
427
402
382
423
126
104
02,
16.8
17. 1
10.8
11.2
1.3
2.6
15.7
16.0
10.0
9.9
0.4
1.5
16.6
17. 1
°%2>
2.7
2.3
7.5
6.8
14.4
13.7
3.2
3.2
8.1
7.5
14. 5
14.0
2.5
2.3
Acrolein,
ppm
1. 1
2.3
0.8
1.8
1.0
1.8
0.8
2.3
0.4
1.7
0.3
1.7
0.9
1.9
Formaldehyde,
ppm
5.0
5.2
3.5
5.0
3.7
4.6
4.2
5.8
2.9
5.0
3.3
3.3
4.0
4.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
11.0
9.1
11.0
11.8
9.4
7.7
12.9
7.7
8.3
9.6
10.5
6.3
11.8
8.3
DOAS Results
LCA,
7
4
9
6
17
11
26
17
11
5
14
9
42
24
LCD,
3.5
2.8
3.7
3.4
4.8
4.3
6.9
5.8
3.7
3.5
5.0
3.9
5.2
8.9
TIA
1. 5
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.9
W - Winter Switch
S«- Summer Switch
-------
TABLE D-2. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Nissan - Datsun Diesel - Winter Switch
Date: January 8, 1974
Run
No.
2.
15.
18.
6.
9.
11.
3.
14.
0 16.
OJ
5.
10.
17.
4.
13.
19.
1.
7.
21.
8.
12.
20.
Operating HC,
Condition-, ppm
Inter - 0 40
68
96
68
Inter - 50 96
80
132
103
Inter - 100 120
104
120
115
High - 0 52
72
56
60
High - 50 32
68
57
52
High - 100 400
504
540
481
Idle 40
72
64
59
CO,
ppm
252
243
298
264
137
156
226
173
1722
2197.
2261
2090
317
345
317
326
122
156
122
133
11500
10125
13039
11555
147
199
160
169
NDIR
NO,
ppm
72
57
43
57
341
365
389
365
389
377
385
384
127
154
105
129
422
431
422
425
381
398
414
398
116
101
72
96
CL
NO,
ppm
99
75
59
78
35
34
31
33
390
375
375
380
137
135
142
138
445
415
420
427
410
390
335
378
116
80
95
97
NOX,
ppm
105
91
94
97
37
34
33
34
390
375
375
380
162
145
152
153
445
415
420
427
410
400
335
382
148
i .0
120
126
o2,
«0
16.3
17.0
17.0
16.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
1. 5
1. 0
1.3
1.3
15.8
15.8
15. 5
15.7
10.0-
10.0
10. 0
10.0
0.3
0. 5
0.3
0.4
16. 0
16.8
17.0
16.6
CO,,
%
2.4
2.5
3. 1
2. 7
7.6
7.6
7.4
7.5
13.6
15.0
14.7
14.4
3.2
3. 2
3.3
3.2
7.9
8. 1
8.2
8. 1
14. 1
14.7
14.7
14.5
2.7
2.3
2.4
2.5
Acrolein,
ppm
2. 1
0.8
0.2
1. 1
0.3
1.7
0.5
0.8
0.5
1.4
1. 1
1.0
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0. 1
0.3
0.9
0.4
0.3
0. 2
0. 5
0.3
0.9
1.2
0.6
0.9
Formaldehyde,
ppm
6.2
4.4
4.4
5.0
3. 1
4.4
3. 1
3.5
2.5
3.7
5.0
3.7
3.7
5.0
3.7
4.2
2. 5
3. 1
3. 1
2.9
1.9
3.7
4.4
3.3
6.2
3. 1
2.5
4.0
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
10.7
13.2
9. 1
11. 0
9.9
12.4
11. 0
11.0
8.3
8.3
11.6
9.4
12.4
12.4
14.0
12.9
8.3
7.4
9.. 1
8.3
9. 1
9.9
12.4
10.5
14. 0
13.2
8.3
11.8
DOAS Results
LCA,
y*"g/l
7
11
8
9
7
19
27
18
25
24
30
26
10
8
13
10
7
25
11
14
22
54
49
42
8
9
4
7
LCO,
/:&!!
3.2
4. 4
3.6
3. 7
3.4
4.5
6.4
4.8
6.2
6.3
8.2
6.9
3.4
3.3
4.4
3.7
3.4
7.7
3.8
5.0
3.4
7.0
5.3
5. 2
4.0
4. 1
2. 5
3.5
TIA
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.5
1. 7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.8
1. 5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1. 5
1.9
1.6
1.7
1. 5
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.5
-------
TABLE D-3. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Nissan - Datsun Diesel - Summer Switch
Date: January 10, 1974
Run Operating
No, Condition
6. Inter - 0
14.
16.
5. Inter - 50
10.
21.
4. Inter - 100
11.
19.
O
i. 2. High - 0
12.
20.
8. High - 50
13.
17.
1. High - 100
7.
15.
3. Idle
9.
18.
HC.
ppm
96
80
72
83
72
64
64
67
96
120
104
107
56
80
88
75
24
44
32
33
120
120
136
125
44
40
32
39
CO,
ppm
298
262
252
271
164
176
164
168
570
597
442
536
298
317
298
304
126
139
131
135
2261
2261
2261
2261
147
156
151
151
NDIR
NO,
ppm
83
21
94
66
309
349
341
333
398
431
422
417
109
154
138
134
389
406
427
407
451
410
422
428
79
64
109
84
CL,
NO,
ppm
60
65
100
75
300
305
315
307
400
410
390
400
133
125
150
136
400
400
400
400
425
425
418
423
90
92
105
96
NOX,
ppm
95
87
105
96
315
310
325
317
400
410
390
400
141
135
150
142
405
400
400
402
425
425
418
423
100
103
110
104
°2-
%
17.3
17.3
16.8
17. 1
12.0
10.8
10.8
11.2
3.3
2.0
2.5
2.6
17.3
15.3
15.3
16.0
10.0
9.8
-2,1
9.9
2.0
1.3
1.3
1.5
18.3
16.5
16.5
17. 1
C02.
%
2.3
2.4
2. 2
2.3
6.5
7.0
7.0
6.8
13.3
14.0
13.7
13.7
3.1
3.2
3.2
3.2
7.9
6.9
7.8
7.5
14.2
13.3
14.4
14.0
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.3
Acrolein,
ppm
2.6
2.3
2.0
2.3
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
1. 7
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.1
2.4
2.4
2.3
1.7
1.9
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.5
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.0
1.8
1.9
Formaldehyde,
ppm
5.0
5.6
5.0
5.2
5.6
4.4
5.0
5.0
4.4
5.0
4.4
4.6
5.0
6.2
6.2
5.8
4.4
5.6
5.0
5.0
3.1
3.7
3. 1
3.3
4.4
5.0
3.7
4.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
9. 1
10.7
7.4
9. 1
12.4
12.4
10.7
11.8
9.9
11.6
6.6
7.7
9.1
6.7
7.4
7.7
12.4
8.3
8.3
9.6
6.6
7.4
9.9
6.3
7.4
7.4
9.9
8.3
DOAS Results
LCA,
**n
8
5
6
6
12
10
13
12
15
16
19
17
4
6
6
5
9
8
8
8
11
34
26
24
4
5
2
4
LCO,
^E/l
3.8
3.0
3.6
3.5
3.9
4.2
4.8
4.3
5. 2
5.7
6.5
5.8
2.9
3.2
3.0
3.0
4.5
3.6
3.7
3.9
3.9
11.4
11.4
8.9
2.6
3.0
2.8
2.8
TIA
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1. 7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
2. 1
2. 1
1.9
1.4
1.5
1.4
1.4
-------
TABLE D-4. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS — MERCEDES 220D EVALUATION
Condition
1830 rpm
1830 rpm
33 mph
1830 rpm
33 mph
3050 rpm
o 3050 rpm
1 56 mph
3050 rpm
56 mph
Idle
Load Date
0 1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/2 1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
Full 1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
0 1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/2 1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
Full 1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
1/15/74
1/17/74
Average
HC,
ppm
75
77
76
80
73
77
83
79
81
55
59
57
49
60
55
85
99
92
123
109
116
CO,
ppm
226
227
227
248
248
248
257
344
301
358
366
362
244
259
252
262
284
273
236
271
254
NDIR
NO,
ppm
63
68
66
353
327
340
435
440
438
96
98
97
414
409
412
570
559
565
111
86
99
CL
NO,
ppm
74
76
75
338
328
333
420
403
412
105
100
103
403
372
388
553
515
534
110
103
107
NOX,
ppm
80
85
83
342
333
338
428
405
417
110
105
108
408
373
391
553
515
534
117
103
110
Oy,
%
16.3
16.4
16.4
11.3
10.9
11. 1
6.4
6.2
6.3
15.4
15.5
15. 5
10.4
10.2
10.3
5.2
4.9
5. 1
16.0
16.3
16.2
C02,
%
2.8
2.8
2.8
6.8
7. 1
7.0
10.7
11.0
10.9
3.4
3.5
3. 5
7.6
7.9
7.8
11.4
12.0
11.7
2.9
2.9
2.9
Acrolein,
ppm
1.0
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.5
0.7
0.4
0.9
0.7
1. 1
0.6
0.9
0.4
1.0
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.8
1. 1
0.7
0.9
Formaldehyde,
ppm
2.9
1.9
2.4
2.9
3.8
3.4
3.9
4.4
4.2
3.7
3.7
3.7
4.6
4. 2
4.4
5.0
3.3
4.2
3.5
1.9
2.7
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
11.0
8.2
9.6
11.8
9. 1
10.5
11.0
7. 7
9.4
11.8
11.8
11.8
11.8
10.7
11.3
9. 1
10. 5
9.8
12.4
8.2
10.3
DOAS Results
LCA,
/--g/1
13
10
12
13
13
13
16
10
13
10
10
10
9
11
10
26
22
24
14
11
13
LCO,
/^l\
4.3
3.8
4. 1
4. 1
4. 0
4. 1
6.0
3.9
5. 0
4.2
3.5
3.9
4. 1
3.4
3.8
8.8
7.4
8. 1
4.0
3. 2
3.6
TIA
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1. 5
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.7
1..6
1. 5
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.5
1.6
-------
TABLE D-5. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes 220D
Date: January 15, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
2. Inter - 0
10.
20.
1. Inter - 50
8.
18.
9. Inter - 100
11.
15.
14.
19.
5. High - 50
7.
16.
3. High - 100
4. Idle
12.
17.
HC.
ppm
76
72
76
75
64
80
96
80
80
80
88
83
52
56
56
55
56
44
48
49
88
80
88
85
104
128
138
123
CO,
ppm
235
213
231
226
252
235
257
248
267
253
252
257
345
355
374
358
262
226
244
244
280
253
253
262
235
226
248
236
NDIR
NO,
ppm
69
58
61
63
309
357
394
353
427
431
448
435
102
94
91
96
411
419
411
414
576
585
550
570
117
102
102
111
CL
NO,
ppm
73
84
65
74
320
340
355
338
410
410
440
420
101
94
91
96
390
425
395
403
555
560
550
553
105
110
115
110
NOX.
ppm
85
87
68
80
320
350
355
342
415
420
450
428
116
115
100
105
400
430
395
408
555
560
545
553
116
115
120
117
02>
%
17.0
16.3
15.8
16.3
11.8
11.3
10.8
11.3
6.5
6.5
6.3
6.4
15.3
16.0
15.0
15.4
10.5
10.3
10.3
10.4
5.3
5.2
5.0
5.2
16.3
15.8
15.9
16.0
C02,
%
3. 1
2.6
2.7
2.8
6.3
7.0
7.0
6.8
10.6
10.6
10.8
10.7
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.4
7.3
8.0
7.6
7.6
11.2
11.7
11.3
11.4
2.9
2.8
3. 1
2.9
Acrolein,
ppm
1.0
0. 7
1.2
1.0
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.8
0.3
0.3
0.5
0.4
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
1. 1
0.5
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.8
0.9
0.8
0.8
1.1
1.2
1. 1
1. 1
Formaldehyde,
ppm
2.5
3. 1
3. 1
2.9
1.9
2.5
4.4
2.9
5.0
3.7
3.1
3.9
4.4
3. 1
3.7
3.7
4.4
5.0
4.4
4.6
4.4
5.6
5.0
5.0
3.7
2.5
4.4
3.5
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
13.2
10.7
9. 1
11.0
13. 2
9. 1
13.2
11.8
13.2
10.7
9.1
11.0
13. 2
11.6
10.7
11.8
10.7
13.2
11.6
11.8
9.1
9. 1
9. 1
9. 1
13.2
13.2
10.7
12.4
DOAS Results
LCA.
^&n
9
12
18
13
12
10
18
13
18
18
12
16
10
8
14
10
12
9
6
9
30
18
31
26
14
14
14
14
LCO,
+*l\
3.3
4. 4
5.2
4. 3
3.2
4.0
5. 1
4. 1
6.6
6.6
4.7
6.0
4.2
4. 1
4.4
4.2
5.0
4.0
3.2
4. 1
9.2
7.8
9.5
8.8
4.3
3.8
3.8
4.0
TIA
1.5
1.6
1. 7
1.6
1. 5
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.5
1.6
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.6
-------
TABLE D-6. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Mercedes Z20D
Date: January 17, 1974
Run
No.
4.
10.
\i.
2.
8.
11.
9.
17.
21.
3.
6.
0 20.
7.
15.
16.
5.
13.
19.
1.
14.
18.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter - 0 80
80
72
77
Inter - 50 84
64
72
73
Inter - 100 80
80
76
79
High - 0 60
60
56
59
High - 50 56
64
60
60
High - 100 80
120
96
99
Idle 96
112
120
109
CO,
SB.™-
235
222
224
227
257
253
235
248
336
345
350
344
364
360
374
366
253
262
262
259
299
253
299
284
271
270
271
271
NDIR
NO,
ppm
65
80
58
68
309
353
321
328
423
448
448
440
98
94
102
98
382
422
422
409
524
559
593
559
76
87
94
86
CL
NO,
ppm
75
80
72
76
320
340
325
328
395
410
405
403
95
100
105
100
370
380
365
372
520
505
520
515
100
100
110
103
NOX,
ppm
93
83
80
85
320
350
330
333
400
410
405
405
105
105
105
105
370
380
370
373
520
505
520
515
100
100
110
103
o2,
_2L
16.5
16.3
16.5
16.4
11. 0
10.8
11.0
10.9
6.3
6.0
6.3
6.2
15.3
15.8
15.5
15.5
10.3
10.3
10.0
10.2
5.0
5.0
4.8
4.9
16.5
16.3
16. 0
16.3
C02,
2.7
2.9
2.7
2.8
6.8
7.3
7. 1
7. 1
11.3
10.8
10.8
11.0
3. 5
3. 5
3.5
3.5
8. 1
7.7
8.0
7.9
12.3
11.8
11.9
12.0
2.8
3.0
3. 0
2.9
Acrolein,
ppm
1.0
0.7
1. 1
0.9
0. 3
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.3
0.6
0.6
1.0
0.9
1. 0
1.0
0. 3
0.9
1. 1
0.8
0. 7
0.7
0. 8
0. 7
Formaldehyde,
ppm
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
3. 1
5. 0
3.7
2. 5
3.7
5.0
5.0
3. 1
4.4
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
5.0
' 3.7
3.7
4.2
3.7
2.5
3.7
3.3
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
8.3
5.8
5.8
6.6
9. 1
9.9
8.3
9. 1
9.9
5.8
7.4
7.7
11.5
9. 1
14.9
11.8
9.9
10.7
11.6
10.7
9. 1
12.4
9.9
10.5
8.3
9. 1
7.4
8.2
DOAS Results
LCA,
/££/!
13
8
10
10
18
7
14
13
13
8
9
10
13
8
8
10
7
10
16
11
30
23
14
22
14
11
8
11
LCO,
4.4
3.2
3.8
3.8
4. 4
3. 1
4.6
4.0
4.6
3.2
3.9
3.9
4. 1
3.2
3. 2
3.5
3. 1
4. 0
3.2
3.4
10.0
7. 5
4.8
7.4
3.3
4. 0
2. 5
3.2
TIA
1.6
1. 5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.6
1. 5
1.6
1.6
1.6
1. 5
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.5
1.5
2.0
1.8
1.6
1.8
1. 5
1. 6
1.4
1.5
-------
TABLE D-7. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--PEUGEOT 504D EVALUATION
Condition
1800 rpm
1800 rpm
32 mph
1800 rpm
32 mph
.3000 rpm
O
l
00
3000 rpm
56 rpm
3000 rpm
56 mph
Idle
Load Date
0 3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
172 3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
Full 3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
0 3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
1/2 3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
Full 3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
3/5/74
3/7/74
Average
HC,
ppm
1040
968
1004
336
341
339
392
390
391
944
959
952
504
320
412
536
588
562
388
276
332
CO,
ppm
830
692
761
241
233
237
752
619
686
479
452
466
550
548
549
949
1249
1099
629
555
592
NDIR
NO,
ppm
18
49
34
210
231
221
263
235
249
60
52
56
247
246
247
321
308
315
60
66
63
CL
NO,
ppm
18
45
32
168
219
194
238
258
248
52
54
53
223
380
302
283
324
304
74
67
71
NOX,
ppm
43
63
53
189
226
208
238
258
248
70
82
76
238
385
312
283
328
306
76
86
81
02,
%
17.5
17.2
17.4
11.8
11.0
11.4
4.5
4.2
4.4
16.5
16.8
16.7
10.5
10.5
10.5
3.6
3.2
3.4
17.6
17.2
17.4
C02,
2.4
2.6
2.5
7.0
7.4
7.2
12.3
12.6'
12.5
3. 1
2.9
3.0
7.9
8.2
8.1
12.9
13.3
13.1
2.3
3.5
2.9
Acrolein,
ppm
11.2
11.2
11.2
2.7
3.0
2.9
1.7
2.2
2.0
5.9
4.1
5.0
6. 1
4.6
5.4
2.9
2.3
2.6
6.1
7.3
6.7
Aliphatic
DOAS Results
Formaldehyde, Aldehydes, LCA,
ppm
10.0
11.0
10.5
8.5
12.9
10.7
13.1
13.5
13.3
11.4
12.3
11.9
16.2
14.5
15.4
10.2
9.8
10.0
11.4
17.4
14.4
ppm
34.9
37. 1
36.0
17.3
18.2
17.8
16.1
24. 2
20. 2
26. 1
23.4
24.8
19.4
20.6
20.0
18.7
20. 6
19.7
28.0
37. 1
32.6
/*g/l
120
148
134
119
105
112
97
158
128
143
163
153
92
119
106
189
198
194
59
66
63
LCD,
/t*g/l
13.9
18.0
16.0
13.3
12.1
12.7
12.0
19.3
15.7
12.1
14.9
13.5
11.6
15.5
13.6
25.6
29.4
27.5
8.9
10.6
9.8
TIA
2. 1
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.1
2. 1
2.0
2.2
2. 1
2.1
2.1
2. 1
2.1
2.1
2. 1
2.4
2.5
2.5
1.9
2.0
2.0
-------
TABLE D-8. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot504D
Date: March 5, 1974
Run
No.
2.
10.
20.
1.
8.
18.
9.
11.
15.
7 6-
^0 14.
19.
5.
7.
16.
3.
13.
4.
1Z.
17.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter - 0 1040
1040
.
1040
Inter - 50 320
320
368
336
Inter - 100 312
512
352
392
High - 0 984
848
1000
944
High - 50 688
472
352
504
High - 100 640
432
-
536
Idle 320
348
496
388
CO.
ppm
788
709
992
830
253
244
226
241
794
709
-
752
498
427
513
479
627
555
467
550
1068
896
882
949
619
544
724
629
NDIR
NO,
ppm
29
14
11
18
219
196
215
210
270
270
249
263
58
72
50
60
272
211
257
247
327
309
327
321
80
65
36
60
CL
NO,
ppm
16
27
11
18
172
159
174
168
228
250
235
238
40
80 .
37
52
205
200
265
223
280
270
300
283
77
70
75
74
N0x,
ppm
45
45
40
43
189
180
197
189
228
250
235
238
67
-
72
70
225
215
275
238
280
270
300
283
78
76
75
76
°?.-
V
18.3
17.5
16.8
17.5
12.0
12.0
11.3
11.8
4.5
5.0
4.0
4. 5
17. 3
16.3
16.0
16.5
10.5
11.0
10.0
10.5
3.8
3. 5
3.5
3.6
18.0
17.6
17.3
17.6
CO2,
%
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.4
7.0
6.8
7.0
7.0
12.3
12.0
12.7
12.3
2.9
3.3
3.0
3. 1
8.0
7.7
8. 1
7.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
12.9
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.3
Acrolein,
ppm
12.0
9.7
11.9
11.2
2.6
2.7
2.7
2.7
1.6
2.0
1. 5
1.7
7.9
4. 3
5.4
5.9
7. 1
5.3
5.8
6. 1
2.9
2.4
3.5
2.9
5. 0
6. 1
7.2
6. 1
Formaldehyde,
ppm
8.7
11.2
10.0
10.0
8. 1
7.5
10.0
8.5
11.2
15.0
-
13. 1
10. 6
13. 1
10.6
11.4
16.2
15.0
17.4
16.2
8. 1
13. 1
9.4
10.2
9.4
14.3
10. 6
11.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
34.6
33.0
37. 1
34.9
16.5
18.2
17.3
17.3
14.9
17.3
'
16. 1
24. 7
26.4
27.2
26. 1
22.3
16.5
_
19.4
18.2
18.2
19.8
18.7
24.7
31.3
28.0
28.0
DOAS Results
LCA,
X-R/1
133
137
90
120
69
85
202
119
28
151
112
97
157
185
87
143
64
108
103
92
160
130
277
189
57
58
62
59
LCO,
/-E/l
14.5
14. 1
13.0
13.9
8.7
10.0
21. 1
13.3
5.9
17.2
12.9
12.0
12.8
14.5
9.0
12. 1
9.6
12.0
13.3
11.6
22.4
19.9
34.6
25.6
8.8
8.2
9.6
8.9
TIA
2.2
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
1.9
2.0
2. 3
2. 1
1.8
2.2
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
2. 2
2.0
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
-------
TABLE D-9. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Peugeot 504D
Date: March 7, 1974
Run
No.
3.
19.
21.
8.
11.
17.
1.
10.
14.
O
L 5.
0 7.
9.
2.
4.
15.
6.
12.
20.
13.
16.
18.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter - 0
944
992
968
Inter - 50 480
272
272
341
Inter - 100
560
220
390
High - 0
768
1150
959
High - 50
-
320
320
High - 100
392
784
588
Idle 276
320
232
276
CO,
ppm
.
707
676
692
285
213
200
233
_
619
.
619
-
441
462
452
_
-
548
548
.
1311
1187
1249
534
597
533
555
NDIR
NO,
ppm
.
25
72
49
192
254
246
231
.
285
184
235
-
39
65
52
.
-
246
246
_
270
345
308
102
36
61
66
CL
NO,
ppm
.
20
70
45
215
230
212
219
„
265
250
258
-
56
51
54
.
-
380
380
* .
318
330
324
85
65
52
67
NOX.
ppm
.
51
75
63
225
230
224
226
_
265
250
258
-
85
78
82
_
-
385
385
.
325
330
328
90
82
85
86
%
17.3
17.0
17.2
10.8
10. 8
11.5
11.0
..
5.0
3.4
4.2
-
17.0
16.5
16.8
_
-
10.5
10.5
_
3.0
3.4
3.2
16.3
17.8
17.5
17.2
co2>
%
.
2.5
2.6
2.6
7.6
7.2
7.3
7.4
_
11.8
13.3
12.6
.
3.0
2.8
2.9
_
-
8.2
8.2
- _
13.3
13.2
13.3
2.4
5.8
2.4
3.5
Acrolein,
ppm
10.9
12. 1
10.5
11.2
2.9
3.5
2.6
3.0
2.0
2. 1
2.4
2.2
4.4
3.4
4.5
4. 1
4.8
4.6
4.4
4.6
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.3
6.7
7.3
7.8
7.3
Formaldehyde,
ppm
10.0
10.6
12.5
11.0
13. 1
13. 7
11.8
12.9
12.5
13. 1
15.0
13.5
12.5
14.3
10.0
12.3
16.2
15.0
12.5
14.5
8.7
10.0
10.6
9.8
15.6
19.3
17.4
17.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
33.0
35.5
42 9
37. 1
17.3
19. 0
18.2
18.2
20.6
23. 1
28.9
24.2
22.3
24.7
23. 1
23.4
21.4
18.2
22.3
20.6
16.5
24.7
20.6
20.6
33.0
37.1
41.2
37.1
DOAS Results
LCA,
y^g/1
148
126
170
148
109
131
74
105
153
198
122
158
192
118
179
163
50
202
106
119
210
170
214
198
103
53
42
66
LCO,
/••g/1
17.6
16.2
20.2
18.0
10.7
13.4
12.3
12. 1
21.2
19. 1
17.6
19.3
18. 1
11. 1
15.4
14.9
6.7
27.0
12.7
15.5
29.4
22.2
36.5
29.4
12. 1
7.4
12.2
10.6
XI A
2. 2
2. 2
2.3
2.2
2.0
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2.3
2. 2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.2
2. 1
1.8
2.4
2. 1
2. 1
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.5
2. 1
1.9
2. 1
2.0
-------
TABLE D-10. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--OPEL REKORD EVALUATION
Condition
1950 rpm
2300 rpm
2550 rpm
3250 rpm
3360 rpm
3460 rpm
Idle
Load Date
0 3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
1/2 3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
Full 3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
0 3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
1/2 3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
Full 3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
3/19/74
3/21/74
Average
HC,
ppm
109
78
94
123
104
114
128
152
140
107
89
98
164
179
172
127
132
130
84
53
69
CO,
ppm
254
237
246
170
153
162
691
390
541
368
355
362
224
259
242
1322
627
975
204
170
187
NDIR
NO,
ppm
49
68
59
256
319
288
280
306
293
72
97
85
330
372
351
321
343
332
35
55
45
CL
NO,
ppm
86
102
94
273
293
Z83
295
317
306
102
110 .
106
323
349
336
328
348
338
93
92
93
NOX,
ppm
109
121
115
280
300
290
296
323
310
120
135
128
332
355
344
328
352
340
93
103
98
°f
15.2
16.0
15.6
8.3
9.1
8.7
2.8
3.5
3. 2
14.4
15.4
14.9
8.6
9.3
9.0
2.0
2.5
2.3
15.4
16.3
15.9
C02.
%
2.6
2.7
2.7
8.6
8.2
8.4
13.4
12.9
13. 2
3.4
3.3
3.4
8.4
8.0
8.2
13.9
13.6
13.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
Acrolein,
ppm
2.4
3.0
2.7
1.5
1.4
1. 5
0.8
1.1
1.0
2.7
3.5
3. 1
2. 5
1.7
2.1
1. 1
0.8
1.0
1.4
2.0
1.7
ppm
3.3
4.2
3.8
3.1
3. 5
3.3
2.5
4.6
3.6
3.3
3.7
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
2.9
5.6
4.3
3.3
2.9
3. 1
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
9.1
12. 1
10.6
6.3
8. 8
7.6
6.2
9.4
7.8
8.6
11. 3
10.0
8.3
9.4
8.9
DOAS Results
LCA,
16
7
12
35
_15
25
22
18
20
10
_9
10
66
33_
50
49
24
37
19
_7
13
TIA
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
2. 1
1.9
2.0
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
1.8
.L.6.
1.7
-------
Vehicle: Opel Rekord
TABLE D-ll. GASFOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Date: March 19, 1974
Run
No.
2.
10.
20.
1.
8.
18.
9.
11.
15.
6.
14.
7 19.
ro
5.
7.
16.
3.
13.
21.
4.
1Z.
17.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter - 0 104
108
116
109
Inter - l/Z 108
116
144
123
Inter - Full 132
112
140
128
High - 0 88
116
116
107
High - 1/2 112
216
-
164
High - Full 112
128
140
127
Idle 60
80
112
84
CO,
ppm
244
248
271
254
173
165
173
170
652
-
730
691
384
355
364
368
191
299
182
224
1311
946
1333
1322
257
173
182
204
NDIR
NO,
ppm
36
47
65
49
247
272
249
256
280
272
288
280
80
65
71
72
360
351
280
330
333
295
335
321
69
0
36
35
CL
NO,
ppm
85
92
80
86
295
265
260
273
300
295
290
295
96
120
90
102
340
330
300
323
345
320
320
328
95
90
95
93
NOX)
ppm
110
107
110
109
295
280
265
280
300
295
293
296
131
125
115
120
350
340
305
332
345
320
320
328
95
90
95
93
°2-
%
16.3
15. 0
14.3
15.2
9.0
8.3
7.8
8.3
3.0
2. 5
3.0
2.8
15.3
14.5
13.5
14.4
8.8
8.5
8.5
8.6
2.0
2.3
1.8
2.0
15.8
16.0
14.5
15.4
co2,
%
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.6
8.4
8.6
8.7
8.6
12.9
14.2
13.0
13.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
8.6
8.5
8.2
8.4
13.9
13.9
13.9
13.9
2.6
2.5
2.6
2.6
Acrolein,
ppm
2. 1
1.2
3.9
2.4
2.0
1.5
1. 1
1.5
0.7
_
0.9
0.8
3.4
2.7
2.0
2.7
0.9
1.5
5. 2
2.5
1. 1
0.8
1.4
1. 1
0.8
0.7
2.8
1.4
Formaldehyde,
ppm
3.7
1. 2
5.0
3. 3
2.5
3.7
3. 1
3. 1
2.5
.
2.5
2.5
3.7
3.1
3. 1
3.3
3. 1
4.4
3. 1
3.5
3. 1
2.5
3. 1
2.9
3.7
3. 1
3. 1
3.3
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
8.3
7.4
11.6
9.1
5.0
6.6
7.4
6.3
6.6
_
5.8
6.2
8.3
9.1
8.3
8.6
6.6
8.3
9.9
8.3
5.0
5.8
8.3
6.4
7.4
7.4
9.9
8.2
DOAS Results
LCA,
>-g/l
/—' "—
27
11
9
16
64
16
25
35
26
20
19
22
10
13
8
10
28
49
122
66
114
16
18
49
33
9
14
19
LCO,
s^n
6.8
5.2
5.3
5.8
10.3
6.0
9.5
8.6
7.5
8.5
9.2
8.4
5. 1
6. 1
6. 1
5.8
10.9
10.9
20.0
13.9
17.5
7.2
11.5
16.7
7.3
4.0
5.9
5.7
TIA
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.7
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.0
2.0
2.3
2. 1
2.2
1.9
2. 1
2. 1
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.8
-------
TABLE D-12. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Ope) Rekord
Date: March 21, 1974
Run
No.
2.
14.
18.
3.
9.
20.
7.
12.
16.
4.
8.
11.
5.
15.
17.
1.
10.
21.
6.
13.
19.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter - 0 64
83
88
78
Inter - 1/2 80 .
96
136
104
Inter - Full 192
132
132
152
High- 0 80
96
92
89
High - 1/2 88
128
320
179
High - Full 132
120
144
132
Idle 74
68
92
53
CO,
ppm
231
235
244
237
156
156
148
153
355
374
442
390
341
336
389
355
169
200
408
259
663
555
663
627
173
165
173
170
NDIR
NO,
ppm
64
76
65
68
319
327
311
319
264
327
327
306
100
92
100
97
391
375
351
372
360
359
311
343
36
80
50
55
CL
NO,
ppm
115
85
105
102
305
280
295
293
310
322
320
317
105
112
112
110
345
358
345
349
370
345
330
348
75
110
90
92
NOX,
ppm
115
115
132
121
305
290
305
300
315
330
325
323
135
130
140
135
355
365
345
355
370
345
340
352
95
110
105
103
°2'
%
16.3
15.8
15.8
16.0
9.3
9.3
8.8
9. 1
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.5
15.3
15.3
15.8
15.4
9.0
9.3
9.5
9.3
2.5
2.8
2.3
2.5
16.5
16.3
16. 0
16.3
C02,
%
2.6
2.6
2.9
2.7
8. 1
7.9
8.5
8.2
12.9
13.2
12.6
12.9
3.3
3. 3
3.4
3.3
8.3
8.0
7.8
8.0
13.5
13.3
13.9
13.6
2.5
2.6
2.7
2.6
Acrolein,
ppm
3.0
3.3
2.7
3.0
1. 5
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.2
0.8
1. 1
3.5
3.8
3.2
3.5
1.6
1.5
2.0
1.7
0.7
0.7
1. 1
0.8
2. 5
1. 1
2.3
2.0
Formaldehyde,
ppm
4.4
2.5
5.6
4.2
3. 1
3.7
3.7
3.5
2.5
4.4
6.9
4.6
2.5
5.6
3. 1
3. 7
2.5
2. 5
5.6
3.5
8.7
5.0
3. 1
5.6
2.5
3. 1
3. 1
2.9
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
11.6
11.6
13.2
12. 1
9. 1
9.9
7.4
8.8
9. 1
9.9
9. 1
9.4
9. 1
12.4
12.4
11.3
9. 1
9.9
9. 1
9.4
9. 1
8.3
9. 1
8.8
5.0
9.9
7.4
7.4
DOAS Results
LCA,
^g/1
7
7
8
7
9
14
22
15
23
15
15
18
5
14
7
9
17
26
57
33
28
21
23
24
7
7
7
7
LCD,
jV.g/1
4.6
3.9
4. 7
4.4
4.5
5.8
6.5
5.6
8.3
7. 1
6.8
7.4
4.3
6. 5
5. 1
7.8
6.7
7.4
12.7
8.9
9.9
9.0
8.9
9.3
3.9
3. 5
4.3
3.9
TIA
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
2. 1
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
-------
TABLE D-13. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--FORD LTD EVALUATION
o
Condition
1200 rpm
1200 rpm
1200 rpm
2000 rpm
2000 rpm
2000 rpm
Idle
Load
0
2X
4X
0
2X
4X
Date
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
4/12/74
4/30/74
Average
HC,
ppm
315
272
294
280
355
318
209
231
220
427
619
523
92
111
102
44
81
63
131
100
116
CO.
ppm
108
333
221
129
267
198
119
333
226
173
400
287
282
400
341
658
533
596
82
183
133
NDIR
NO,
ppm
114
88
101
890
752
821
1401
1416
1409
333
316
325
586
725
656
649
742
696
57
76
67
CL
NO,
ppm
95
95
95
875
720
798
1433
1275
1354
313
297
305
566
717
642
625
733
679
66
73
70
N0x,
ppm
102
95
99
883
720
802
1450
1275
1363
313
297
305
566
717
642
625
733
679
67
73
70
02,
%
7. 1
7.0
7. 1
5.6
6.2
5.9
5.0
5.8
5.4
7.0
7.3
7.2
2.9
2.9
2.9
1.6
1.9
1.8
6.2
6.0
6.1
C02,
10.2
9.8
10.0
11.2
10. 3
10.8
11.7
10.8
11.3
10.1
9.4
9.8
14. 1
12.9
13.5
14.5
13.7
14.1
10.9
10.5
10.7
Acrolein, Formaldehyde,
ppm
0.9
1.6
1.3
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.8
2.8
1.8
0.9
1.2
1.1
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.7
0.7
ppm
2.9
13.3
8. 1
8.3
20.8
14.6
7.5
15.2
11.4
3.2
9.8
6.5
2.9
8.5
5.7
2.7
9.1
5.9
6.4
10.4
8.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
13.5
30.2
21.9
19.8
41.8
30.8
14.9
47.7
31.3
14.6
39.3
27.0
14. 1
28.0
21.1
12.4
25.0
18.7
22.0
26.4
24.2
DOAS Results
LCA,
,^/l
5
2
4
6
3
5
6
3
5
7
4
.6
6
0
3
5
2
4
5
0
3
LCO.
/*g/l
5.3
3.4
4.4
6.0
4.4
5.2
7.6
5.0
6.3
7.2
6.0
6.6
6.5
3.2
4.9
5.1
2.9
4.0
5.7
2.0
3.9
TIA
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.8
.7
.8
.9
.7
.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.0
1.4
1.7
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.3
1.5
-------
Vehicle: Ford 1 TD
TABLE D-14. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Date: April 12, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
2. Inter - 0
6.
12.
1. Inter - 2X
9.
17.
5. Inter - 4X
10.
16.
0 4. High - 0
i 7.
on 20.
11. High - 2X
15.
21.
3. High - 4X
13.
19.
8. Idle
14.
18.
HC.
ppm
320
304
320
315
264
256
320
280
224
212
192
209
480
480
320
427
96
104
76
92
40
40
52
44
160
120
112
131
CO,
ppm
122
105
97
108
139
135
114
129
122
131
105
119
173
208
139
173
280
327
239
282
493
884
597
658
105
40
101
82
NDIR
NO,
ppm
100
129
114
114
1000
868
802
890
1470
1269
1463
1401
359
351
288
333
506
686
566
586
653
644
649
649
78
21
71
57
CL
NO,
ppm
95
95
95
95
950
925
750
875
1475
1375
1450
1433
340
300
300
313
500
637
560
566
650
600
625
625
65
66
67
66
NOX,
ppm
95
105
105
102
950
950
750
883
1475
1375
1500
1450
340
300
300
313
500
637
560
566
650
600
625
625
67
66
67
67
0 ,
V
6.8
7.0
7.5
7.1
5.5
5.3
6.0
5.6
5.3
4.8
5.0
5.0
6.8
7.0
7.3
7.0
3.5
2.5
2.8
2.9
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.6
6.0
6.7
6.0
6.2
CO2,
%
10.3
10.3
10. 1
10.2
11. 1
11.3
11.1
11.2
11.6
11.7
11.7
11.7
10. 1
10.0
10.3
10.1
14.2
13.9
14.2
14. 1
14.5
14. 2
14.8
14.5
10.8
10.8
11.2
10.9
Acrolein,
ppm
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
0.9
0.5
0.8
0.8
1. 1
0.8
0.9
1.0
0.5
0.9
0.8
1.0
0.9
0.9
0.9
0.8
0.6
0.5
0.6
Formaldehyde,
ppm
0.6
5.0
3. 1
2.9
14.3
4.4
6.2
8.3
2.5
1.3
18.7
7.5
1.3
1.3
6.9
3.2
2.5
5.0
1.3
2.9
2.5
4.4
1.3
2.7
2.5
11.8
5.0
6.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
10.7
14.9
14.9
13.5
15.7
20.6
23. 1
19.8
9.1
' 15.7
19.8
14.9
10.7
16.5
16.5
14.6
8.3
19.0
14.9
14. 1
9. 1
13.2
14.9
12.4
17.3
28.9
19.8
22.0
DOAS Results
LCA,
y£/J
2
5
9
5
6
6
5
6
6
. 7
5
6
7
5
8
7
9
6
4
6
6
4
5
5
6
3
6
1,
LCO,
/H?/l
2.9
4.5
8.5
5.3
6.6
5.4
5.9
6.0
7.5
8.9
6.4
7.6
7.8
4.6
9.2
7.2
8.5
5.7
5.2
6.5
4.4
4.9
6.0
5. 1
7.0
3.5
6.5
177
TIA
1.5
1.7
1.9
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.9
2.0
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.7
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.6
1.7
.8
.7
.8
.6
.8
T7Y
-------
Vehicle: Ford LTD
TABLE D-15. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Date: April 30, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
1. Inter - 0
7.
16.
6. Inter - 2X
11.
19.
5. Inter - 4X
10.
20.
9. High - 0
i 14.
cn 17-
4. High - 2X
15.
21.
2. High - 4X
8.
13.
3. Idle
12.
18.
HC,
ppm
216
280
320
272
344
304
416
355
232
212
298
231
600
600
640
619
110
112
112
111
87
82
75
81
100
80
120
100
CO,
ppm
400
400
200
333
400
200
200
267
400
400
200
333
600
200
400
400
600
200
400
400
600
600
400
533
400
100
50
183
NDIR
NO,
ppm
78
78
107
88
826
698
734
752
1659
1448
1142
1416
327
311
311
316
700
725
750
725
725
775
775
742
71
71
85
76
CL
NO,
ppm
100
88
98
95
700
690
770
720
1375
1200
1250
1275
300
300
290
297
675
700
775
717
700
725
775
733
75
70
73
73
N0x,
ppm
100
88
98
95
700
690
770
720
1375
1200
1250
1275
300
300
290
297
675
700
775
717
700
725
775
733
75
71
73
73
°2'
%
7.0
6.5
7. 5
7.0
6.0
6.5
6.0
6.2
5.6
6.5
5.5
5.8
7.0
7.5
7.5
7.3
3.0
3.0
2.8
2.9
2.0
1.8
2.0
1.9
6.0
6.0
6.0
6.0
co2,
%
10.0
10.0
9.5
9.8
10.4
10.2
10.4
10.3
11.0
10.8
10.7
10.8
9.6
9.4
9.3
9.4
13.0
12.9
12.9
12.9
13.7
13.9
13.6
13.7
10.7
10.4
10.4
10.5
Acrolein,
ppm
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1. 1
0.9
1.0
1.0
3.2
2.5
2.8
2.8
1.3
0.8
1.6
1.2
0.9
0.6
1.0
0.8
0.9
0.8
1. 1
0.9
1.0
0.6
0.6
0.7
Formaldehyde,
ppm
14.3
14.3
11.2
13.3
31.8
16.2
14.3
20.8
13. 1
21.2
11.2
15.2
10.0
8.7
10.6
9.8
6.9
11.2
7.5
8.5
12.5
8.7
6.2
9.1
10.6
10.0
10.6
10.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
28.9
31.3
30.5
30.2
58.6
33.8
33.0
41.8
35.5
77.5
29.7
47.7
38.8
25.6
53.6
39.3
23.9
39.6
20.6
28.0
29.7
25.6
19.8
25.0
29.7
23. 1
26.4
26.4
DOAP Results
LCA,
S>s-fJ\
3
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
3
4
3
3
5
3
3
4
0
0
2
0
3
3
1
2
1
0
0
0
LCO,
X^g/1
3.0
3.3
3.9
3.4
4.1
4.4
4.9
4.4
4.1
4.3
6.5
5.0
6.2
4.9
6.7
6.0
0.7
3.0
6.0
3.2
3.0
3.1
2.5
2.9
1.8
2.0
20.
2.0
T1A
1.5
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.7
1.8
1.8
0.9
0.5
1.8
1.0
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1*4,
1.3
*Read in percent on high-range CO instrument and converted to com.
-------
TABLE D-16. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--CAPRI STANDARD EVALUATION
Condition Load Date
1700 rpm 0 4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
1700 rpm 2X 4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
1700 rpm 4X 4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
2850 rpm 0 4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
2850 rpm 2X 4/24/74
0 4/25/74
— ' Average
2850 rpm 4X 4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
Idle 4/24/74
4/25/74
Average
HC,
ppm
1040
1064
1052
1267
1355
1311
1557
1403
1480
150
137
144
1173
976
1075
1952
1813
1883
2219
1995
2107
CO,
%
1.9
1.8
1.9
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
3.0
3. 1
3.1
4.3
4.5
4.4
NDIR
NO,
ppm
66
64
65
592
716
654
1584
1829
1707
144
156
150
2654
2293
2473
1877
2011
1944
23
31
27
CL
NO,
ppm
55
63
59
434
648
541
1312
1513
1413
106
131
119
1650
2083
1867
1558
1821
1690
21
23
22
NOX,
ppm
57
66
62
452
665
559
1342
1592
1467
106
132
119
1587
2179
1883
1500
1925
.1713
23
26
25
°2-
%
3. 1
3.5
3.3
3.6
3.6
3.6
3.3
3.7
3. 5
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.0
1.4
1.2
0.2
0.5
0.4
7.8
8.7
8.3
co2.
11.7
12.0
11.9
11.9
12.5
12. 2
12.2
12.3
12.3
13.9
14.5
14.2
13.7
14.3
14. 0
13. 5
13.8
13.7
7. 1
7.3
7.2
Acrolein,
ppm
1.5
1.9
T?7
3.2
4.3
3.7
5. 1
4.9
5.0
1.0
2. 1
1.6
5. 1
3.7
4.4
2.3
2.5
2.4
3.0
2.7
2.9
Formaldehyde,
ppm
24.9
16.8
IoT9
14.3
29.4
21.9
14.9
30.9
22.9
21.4
17.9
19.7
22.6
27.4
25.0
18.3
32.0
25.2
10.4
26.4
18.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
58.0
62.9
7JOTB-
59.6
55.8
57. 7
55.8
77.0
66.4
57.7
45.4
51.6
61.3
63.8
62.6
48.9
67.6
58.3
42.0
67.4
54.7
DOAS Results
LCA,
,-g/l
27
25
26
45
37
41
31
47
39
40
7
24
37
34
36
49
57
53
21
47
34
LCO,
^-g/1
9.0
7.6
8.3
14.2
15.0
14.6
15.2
20.6
17.9
12.4
6.0
9.2
12.8
16.2
14.5
15.7
13.8
14.8
9.1
8.8
9.0
TIA
1.9
1.9
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.2
2.0
2.3
2. 2
2.1
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2. 1
2. 1
1.9
1.9
1.9
-------
TABLE D-17. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Capri Standard
Run Operating
No. Condition
8. Inter - 0
14.
21.
1. Inter - 2X
7.
17.
9. Inter - 4X
o "•
i 18.
00
5. High - 0
10.
16.
2. High - 2X
6.
15.
4. High - 4X
13.
20.
3. Idle
12.
19.
HC,
ppm
1120
1104
896
1040
1264
1304
1332
1267
1536
1664
1472
1557
104
280
64
150
1264
1136
1120
1173
2048
2016
1792
1952
2272
2464
1920
2219
CO,
%
2.0
2.0
1.7
1.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.2
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.7
0.2
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.4
3.7
3.0
2.4
2.0
4.4
4.7
3.8
4.3
NDIR
NO,
ppm
64
71
64
66
515
601
662
592
1493
1599
1659
1584
144
144
144
144
3159
2149
.
2654
1587
1851
2194
1877
28
21
21
23
CL
NO,
ppm
49
59
58
55
370
413
520
434
1050
1500
1387
1312
96
100
123
106
1575
1500
1875
1650
1075
1725
1875
1558
16
25
23
21
NOX,
ppm
50
59
61
57
380
425
550
452
1050
1450
1525
1342
93
100
125
106
1600
1575
1900
1587
1125
1650
1725
1500
18
25
25
23
°2-
%
2.6
3.4
3.3
3. 1
3.5
3.5
3.7
3.6
3.3
3.3
3.4
3.3
1.2
1.0
1.5
1.2
0.9
1.0
1.2
1.0
0. 1
0.4
0.2
0.2
7.5
8.2
7.7
7.8
C02>
%
12. 1
11.6
11.6
11.8
11.8
12. 1
11.8
11.9
12.3
12.3
12. 1
12.2
13.9
14.2
13.7
13.9
14.0
14.0
13.2
13.7
13.2
13.5
13.7
13.5
7.0
6.9
7.4
7. 1
Date: April 24, 1974
DOAS Results
Acrolein,
ppm
1.7
0.9
1.8
1. 5
3.8
3.9
3.0
3. 2
5.2
5.7
4,4
5.1
1. 1
1.2
0.8
1.0
5.0
5.2
5.0
5. 1
2.5
1.7
2.6
Z.3
2.6
2.3
4^1
3.0
Formaldehyde,
ppm
18.7
6.9
49.2
24.9
8.7
24.9
9.4
14.3
10.0
17.4
17.4
14.9
38.0
15.6
10.6
21.4
4.4
25.5
38.0
22.6
20.6
10.0
24.J
18.3
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
50.3
38.8
85.0
58.0
31.3
61.0
86.6
59.6
35.5
50.3
81.7
55.8
59.4
70. 1
'43.7
57.7
29.7
66.0
88. 3
61.3
50.3
47.8
48.7
48.9
38.6
46.2
41.2
42.0
31
37
52
40
33
35
44
37
39
56
5J.
49
39
6
19
2T
14.9
8. 1
14.2
12.4
18.0
16.1
11.2
12.8
8.4
25.6
13.1
15.7
17.9
4.7
4.7
9.1
TIA
1.8
1.7
2.2
1.9
2.4
2.1
1.7
Z. 1
1.5
2.2
2.4
2.0
2.2
1.9
2.2
2. 1
2.3
2.2
2,0
2.2
1.9
2.4
2.1
2.1
2.2
1.7
1.7
1.9
-------
Vehicle;: Capr i Standard
TABLE D-18. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Date: April 25, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
3. Inter - 0
10.
17.
9. Inter - 2X
12.
14.
5. Inter - 4X
15.
18.
1. High - 0
8.
13.
2. High - 2X
7.
19.
4. High - 4X
11.
20.
6. Idle
16.
21. 2
HC,
ppm
920
1184
1088
1064
1248
1248
1568
1355
1328
1408
1472
1403
100
120
192
137
800
1088
1040
976
1776
1872
1792
1813
2080
1856
2048
1995
CO,
%
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.8
0.3
0. 5
0.4
0.4
0. 2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.3
0.6
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.3
0. 3
2.9
3.5
2.8
3. 1
4.9
4.2
4. 5
4.5
NDIR
NO,
ppm
64
64
64
64
716
662
770
716
1810
1846
1830
1829
144
188
136
156
2239
2262
2378
2293
1976
2018
2039
2011
49
14
28
31
CL
NO,
ppm
63
66
61
63
675
600
670
648
1388
1600
1550
1513
130
133
130
131
2088
2063
2100
2083
1863
1888
1713
1821
24
22
24
23
NOX,
ppm
65
69
64
66
640
625
730
665
1525
1675
1575
1592
130
134
133
132
2225
2187
2125
2179
2000
1850
1925
1925
28
28
23
26
°2-
%
4.2
3.2
3. 1
3.5
3.8
4. 1
3.0
3.6
3.7
3.7
3.7
3.7
1. 5
1. 5
1.2
1.4
1.5
1.5
1. 2
1.4
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.5
8.5
9.0
8.5
8.7
C02,
%
11.6
12.2
12. 1
12.0
12.3
12.2
13.0
12.5
12.3
12.6
12. 1
12. 3
14 4
14. b
14. 7
14.5
14.2
14.4
14.4
14.3
13.7
13.9
13.9
13.8
7.4
7.2
7.4
7.3
Acrolein,
ppm
1.5
2.0
2. 1
1.9
4. 1
5. 1
3.8
4.3
6.3
4.3
4. 1
4.9
1. 1
1.7
3.6
2. 1
2.9
4.7
3.6
3. 7
1.9
2.8
2.8
2.5
2.6
2.9
2.6
2. 7
Formaldehyde,
ppm
13. 1
21.2
16.2
16.8
16.8
23. 1
48.2
29.4
28.4
46. 1
18. 1
30.9
15.0
17.4
21.2
17.9
16.2
44.9
21. 2
27/4
30.5
37.4
28.0
32.0
17.4
44.9
16.8
26.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
41.2
53.6
94.0
62.9
53.6
64.3
49.5
55.8
70.9
100.6
59.4
77.0
37. 1
42.9
56. 1
45.4
47.0
88.3
56. 1
63.8
63.5
76.7
62.7
67.6
42.9
101.5
5.7.7
67.4
DOAS Results
LCA,
/~fj/l
22
28
38
25
33
35
43
37
38
51
53
47
6
6
8
7
32
36
33
34
68
51
51
57
56
49
37
Tf
LCO,
.^/l
7.0
7.8
8.0
7.6
16.3
12.3
16.3
15.0
19.2
22.5
20.0
20.6
6.0
6.6
5.5
6.0
17.4
16.5
14.6
16.2
18.0
11. 1
12.3
13.8
11.5
9. h
5.3
8.8
TIA
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.9
2. 2
2. 1
2.2
2.2
2.3
2.4
2.3
2. 3
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.8
2.2
2.2
2.2
2.2
2. 3
2.0
2. 1
2. 1
2. 1
2.0
1. 7
1.9
-------
TABLE D-19. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--CAPRI PROCO EVALUATION
Condition Load Date
1700 rpm 0 5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
1700 rpm 2X 5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
1700 rpm 4X 5/7/74
5/9/74
y Average
f\3
° 2850 rpm 0 5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
2850 rpm 2X 5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
2850 rpm 4X 5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
Idle 5/7/74
5/9/74
Average
HC,
ppm
21
21
21
6
8
7
8
8
8
7
10
9
1
8
5
16
24
20
52
49
51
CO,
ppm
5
0
3
8
0
4
0
0
0
8
0
4
11
0
6
16
0
8
9
0
5
NDIR
NO,
ppm
131
105
118
321
254
288
692
644
668
216
208
212
908
833
871
1464
1328
1396
47
45
46
CL
NO,
ppm
119
99
109
320
237
279
675
610
643
212
194
203
868
793
831
1350
1283
1317
68
54
61
NOX.
ppm
119
100
110
308
237
273
678
610
644
214
194
204
856
806
831
1354
1291
1323
68
54
61
°2«
%
5.5
5.2
5.4
2.5
1.8
2.2
2.8
3.0
2.9
5.2
4.3
4.8
1.7
2.0
1.9
4.5
4.8
4.7
9.3
9.0
9.2
C02.
%
10.9
11.4
11.2
13.8
14.7
14.3
13.3
13.5
13.4
11.5
12.1
11.8
14.3
14.4
14.4
11.7
11.7
11.7
8.0
8.2
8. 1
Acrolein,
ppm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0. 1
0
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Formaldehyde,
ppm
1.6
0
0.8
1.9
0
1.0
3.5
0
1.8
4.4
0
2.2
3.4
0
1.7
2.0
0
1.0
3.3
0
1.7
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
6.9
12.0
9.5
7. 1
8. 1
7.6
8.5
9.5
9.0
9.5
6.6
8. 1
8.0
6.6
7.3
6.0
12.9
9.5
9.1
7.4
8.3
DOAS Results
LCA,
X~g/l
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
6
4
0
0
0
LCD,
A--8/1
0.7
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.5
0.3
0.4
0.7
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.4
1.4
1.1
1.3
0.6
0.3
0.5
TIA
0.7
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
1.1
1.0
l.l
0.8
0.4
0.6
-------
TABLE D-20. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Capri PROCO
Date: May 7, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
8. Inter - 0
12.
19.
5. Inter - 2X
14.
16.
4. Inter - 4X
7.
15.
1. High - 0
13.
20.
2. High - 2X
11.
18.
6. High - 4X
9.
21.
3. Idle
.10.
17.
HC.
£E2L
25
18
17
21
6
7
6
6
5
10
9
8
1
13
7
7
1
1
1
1
22
18
9
16
55
51
50
52
CO,
PPm
8
8
0
5
24
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
20
4
0
8
24
8
0
11
20
24
4
16
20
8
0
9
NDIR
NO,
EEHL
210
100
85
131
311
343
311
321
716
698
662
692
226
219
204
216
902
921
902
908
1610
1493
1291
1464
57
42
42
47
CL
NO,
ppm
120
125
112
119
300
350
310
320
640
725
660
675
215
220
200
212
830
900
875
868
1400
1425
1225
1350
70
65
68
68
NOX,
SSHL
120
125
112
119
290
330
305
308
650
725
660
678
218
220
205
214
820
875
875
856
1413
1425
1225
1354
75
65
68
68
O,,
%
5.0
5.5
6.0
5.5
2. 5
Z.5
2.5
2.5
3.0
2.5
3.0
2.8
5.0
5.5
5.0
5.2
1.5
2.0
2. 0
1. 7
4. 5
4.0
5.0
4. 5
9.5
8.5
10. 0
9.3
co2,
11. 1
10. 8
10. 8
10.9
14. 0
13.7
13.7
13.8
13.5
13.5
12.9
13.3
12.3
11. 1
11. 1
11.5
14.7
14.4
13.7
14.3
11.8
11.8
11.6
11.7
8. 1
8. 1
7.8
8.0
Acrolein,
ppm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0. 2
0
0
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0. 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Formaldehyde,
ppm
1.9
1.2
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.2
2.5
1.9
4.4
3. 1
3. I-
3.5
3.3
4. 2
5.6
4.4
5. 3
1.2
0.6
3.4
3.6
1. 2
1. 2
2.0
7. 5
1. 2
1. 2
3. 3
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
8. 2
4.9
7.7
6.9
7. 4
6.6
7.4
7. 1
9.9
9.9
5.8
8.5
7.8
9.0
11.7
9.5
14.8
5.8
3. 3
8.0
7. 2
5.8
4.9
6.0
16.5
6.6
4. 1
9. 1
DOAS Results
LCA,
~t.ll
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.8
0
0
1. 3
0
0
0
0
LCO,
/&!±
0.5
1.3
0.2
0.7
0. 6
1.3
0.2
0. 7
0.8
0. 3
0. 3
0. 5
0. 1
1.8
0.4
0.7
0. 3
0.9
0. 1
0.4
1.9
1. 0
1. 2
1.4
0.7
0.7
0. 5
0.6
TIA
_
0. 7
1. 1
0.4
0.7
0. 8
1. 1
0.4
0.8
0.9
0. 5
0. 5
0.6
0.0
1.3
0.6
0.6
0.5
1.0
0.0
0. 5
1. 3
1.0
1. 1
1. 1
0.8
0.8
0. 7
0.8
-------
TABLE D-21. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Capri PROCO
Date: May 9, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
3. Inter - 0
10.
14.
6. Inter - 2X
8.
17.
7. Inter - 4X .
15.
0 18.
l
ro
ro
2. High - 0
9.
21.
4. High - ZX
11.
20.
1. High - 4X
13.
16.
5. Idle
12.
19.
HC,
ppm
21
21
20
21
7
7
9
8
6
9
10
8
14
7
8
10
12
4
7
8
28
24
20
24
50
48
50
49
CO,
ppm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NDIR
NO,
ppm
85
144
85
105
280
264
219
254
662
627
644
644
188
249
188
208
864
883
752
833
1379
1357
1248
1328
49
42
42
45
CL
NO,
ppm
95
103
100
99
260
240
213
237
620
610
600
610
188
193
200
194
800
830
750
793
1325
1300
1225
1283
52
60
50
54
NOX
98
103
100
100
260
240
213
237
620
610
600
610
188
193
200
194
840
830
750
806
1325
1300
1250
1291
53
60
50
54
02
%
5.5
5.0
5.0
5. 2
1.5
1.5
2. 5
1.8
2.5
3.0
3.5
3.0
4.0
4.0
5.0
4.3
1.5
2.0
2.5
2.0
4.5
5.0
5.0
4.8
8.5
8.5
10.0
9.0
CO2
%
11.6
11.6
11. 1
11.4
15.0
15.0
14. 0
14.7
14.4
13.2
12.9
13.5
12.3
12.3
11.6
12. 1
14.4
15.0
13.7
14.4
11.8
11.6
11.6
11.7
8.3
8.5
7.9
8.2
Acrolein,
ppm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Formaldehyde,
ppm
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
11. 7
11.2
13.2
12.0
7.7
6.6
9.9
8. 1
9.7
8.2
10.7
9.5
7.4
7.4
4.9
6.6
4.9
9.9
4.9
6.6
10.7
16.5
11.5
12.9
4.9
10.6
6.6
7.4
DOAS Results
LCA,
Vg/1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
LCO,
y*-g/l
1.0
0.2
0.3
0.5
0.4
0.4
0. 5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.7
0.5
0.0
0.4
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.4
1.5
1.3
0.5
1.1
0.5
0.3
0. 1
0.3
TIA
1.0
0.3
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0
0.4
0.8
0.7
0
0.5
0.9
0.6
0
0.5
1.2
1.1
0.7
1.0
0.7
0.5
0.0
0.4
-------
TABLE D-22. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--TEXACO TCCS CRICKET EVALUATION, DIESEL
Condition Load
1800 rpm 0
1800 rpm 1.5X
53. 1 km/hr
1800 rpm 3X
53. I km/hr
3000 rpm 0
3000 rpm 1/5X
90. 1 km/hr
3000 rpm 3X
90. 1 km/hr
Idle
Cold Start
CL
Date
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
10/15/74
10/17/74
Average
HC,
ppm
2824
1797
2311
592
89Z
742
1835
529
1182
2043
1925
1984
342
320
331
181
1117
649
266
1808
1037
3552
3968
3760
CO,
ppm,
955
919
937
121
15Q
136
105
78
92
770
898
834
98
142
120
67
82
75
15
1518
767
1874
3212
2543
NO,
ppm
45
45
45
117
123
252
228
240
63
57
60
327
290
309
727
765
746
91
76
84
35
30
33
NOX,
ppm
50
50
50
123
JLiI
127
262
232
247
68
63
66
338
295
317
747
782
765
95
78
87
45
45
45
%
14. 1
17.3
15.7
12.5
H.7
13.6
11.2
12.9
12.0
15.2
16.8
16.0
12. 2
13.0
12.6
8.2
10.0
9. 1
12.8
17.0
14.9
16.3
16.5
16.4
C02,
2.06
1.96
2.01
4.85
4. Og
4. 47
6. 10
5.45
5.77
2. 52
2.51
2.52
5. 40
5.29
5.35
8.31
7.89
8. 10
3.90
2.54
3. 22
3.31
3.43
3.37
Acrolein,
ppm
10.6
8.4
9.5
3.5
8.6
6. 1
3. 1
_3_._8
3.5
8.7
i°-/L
9.7
3.6
5.0
4.3
4.3
6.6
5.5
6.6
10.4
8.5
Formaldehyde,
ppm
64.6
45.7
55.2
24. 1
38.8
31.5
33.0
46. 1
39.6
39.5
48.8
44. 2
60. 2
39.8
50.0
36.8
88.5
62.7
34. 7
57._9
46.3
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
137.5
104._6
121. 1
49. 2
66.0
57.6
64.6
65.JJ
64.9
DOAS Results
LCO,
71. 1
50.0
91.8
70.9
230.7
177.6
188.4
130. 9
180. 3
209.3
194.8
139.9
13_8._9
139.4
133.8
127.9
130. 9
132.8
159.3
146. 1
34.2
25.6
204.2 29.9
158.6 30.8
201. 3 36. 1
180.0 33.5
30. 2
22.4
159.7 26.3
33. 2
15.J7
34.5
20.8
17.0
18.9
TIA
2.5
2_._4_
2.5
2. 5
2. 5
2. 5
2. 4
2.4
2.4
2. 5
2.6
2.6
2.2
2.4
2.3
2.2
2. 2
2.2
2. 1
2.J
2.2
-------
TABLE D-23. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Texaco TCCS Cricket - Diesel
Date: October 15, 1974
CL
Run
No.
7.
12.
14.
6.
17.
21.
3.
8.
15.
0
i
t\> •)
*. '••
9.
18.
1.
10.
16.
4.
13.
19.
5.
11.
20.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter - 0 4096
2720
1648
2824
Inter - 1.5X 400
528
848
592
Inter - 3X 2080
2320
1104
1835
High - 0 1824
2352
1952
2043
High - 1.5X 105
672
248
342
High - 3X 44
384
114
181
Idle 108
444
247
266
CO,
ppm
1068
973
823
955
56
85
222
121
89
123
104
105
846
565
900
770
75
116
102
98
56
73
73
67
11
20
13
15
NO,
£EHL
30
45
60
45
67
150
135
117
240
270
245
252
63
60
65
63
300
345
335
327
700
730
750
727
63
80
130
91
NOX.
ppm
40
50
60
50
69
160
140
123
245
290
250
262
68
65
70
68
320
350
345
338
720
750
770
747
65
85
135
95
°J'
%
14.4
14. 0
13.8
14. 1
9.9
14.4
13.3
12. 5
11.3
9.6
12.8
11.2
15.6
13.8
16. 1
15.2
12.9
10.6
13. 1
12.2
8.3
7.4
8.8
8.2
10.6
13.3
14.6
12.8
C02.
%
2.06
1.96
2. 16
2.06
6.23
4.26
4.06
4.85
5.90
6.41
5.98
6. 10
2.47
2.52
2.57
2.52
5. 19
5.42
5.58
5.40
8.24
8.35
8.35
8.31
5.82
2.79
3.10
3.90
Acrolein ,
ppm
17.5
9.9
4.5
10.6
3. 1
2.6
4.7
3.5
1.6
5.6
2.0
3.1
8.5
10.6
6.9
8.7
2.0
6.5
2.3
3.6
3.4
4.6
4.8
4.3
4.9
8.6
6.2
6.6
Formaldehyde,
ppm
77.9
64.8
51. 1
64.6
21.2
24.9
26.2
24. 1
17.4
54.2
27.4
33.0
32.4
49.2
36.8
39.5
13. 1
136.4
31.2
60.2
21.8
53.6
34.9
36.8
15.6
55.4
33.0
34.7
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
185.6
142. 7
84. 1
137.5
36.3
50.3
61.0
49.2
37.9
93.2
62.7
64.6
94.9
121.2
100.6
105.6
23. 1
168.3
52.0
81. 1
34.6
65.2
50.3
50.0
25.6
105.6
56.9
62.7
DOAS Results
LCA,
^K/l
236.2
222.8
233.0
230.7
160.8
175.5
139.5
158.6
106.1
260.6
198.6
188.4
128.5
220. 1
192.2
180.3
6.8
242.0
160.6
139.9
26.6
203.9
170.8
133.8
15.0
234.8
148.6
132.8
LCO,
**ll
38.6
35.2
28.7
34.2
33.8
30.0
28.7
30. 8
13.4
40.3
36.9
30.2
27. 1
37.4
35.2
33.2
3.6
31.2
23.6
19.5
7.8
27.0
27.6
20.8
4.3
24.2
16. 1
14.9
TLA
2.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
2.5
2. 5
2.5
2.5
2. 1
2.6
2.6
2.4
2.4
2.6
2.5
2.5
1.6
2.5
2.4
2.2
1.9
2.4
2.4
2.2
1.6
2.4
2.2
2.1
A.
Cold Start
3552
1874
35
45
16.3
3.31
-------
TABLE D-24. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Texaco TCCS Cricket - Diesel
Date: October 17, 1974
Run
No.
8.
10.
15.
1.
5.
16.
7.
14.
19.
4.
13.
20.
6.
12.
21.
3.
9.
18.
2.
11.
17.
Operating
Condition
Inter - 0
Inter - 1. 5X
Inter - 3X
High - 0
High - 1.5X
High - 3X
Idle
HC,
ppm
2016
1600
1776
1797
588
1032
1056
892
420
448
720
529
1840
1696
2240
1925
284
292
384
320
480
440
2432
1117
1600
2208
1616
1808
CO,
ppm
992
882
882
919
71
195
184
150
95
83
56
78
743
882
1068
898
187
106
132
142
73
66
106
82
1579
1487
1487
1518
NO,
ppm
45
45
45
45
130
125
130
128
230
245
210
228
60
60
50
57
270
310
290
290
685
810
800
765
89
55
85
76
CL
NOX,
ppm
50
50
50
50
133
125
135
131
230
250
215
232
70
65
55
63
275
320
290
295
695
835
815
782
90
60
85
78
16.1
18.0
17.9
17.3
15.8
13.9
14.5
14.7
12.0
12. 8
13.9
12.9
16.0
17.4
17. 1
16.8
12.3
13.3
13.3
13.0
9.9
10.3
9.9
10.0
16.8
17.6
16.6
17.0
C02>
1.96
2. 11
1.81
1.96
3.80
4. 19
4._26
4.08
5.34
5.65
5.26
5.45
2.68
2.42
2.42
2.51
5.34
5.34
5.19
5.29
7.82
7.72
8. 13
7.89
2.63
2.26
2. 74
2. 54
Formaldehyde,
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
DOAS Results
LCO,
8.4
8.6
11.6
5.6
8.6
4.3
5.6
1.6
3.8
11.6
11.3
9.1
10.7
4.8
7. 2
3.0
5.0
10.4
46.7
34.9
55.4
45.7
24.9
31.2
60.^t
38.8
39.8
57.9
40. 5
46. 1
44.9
49. 8
51.7
48.8
33.6
47.3
38.6
39. 8
117. 7
58.6
89. 1
88.5
62.9
62.9
48.0
57.9
100. 6
92.7
120.4
104.6
65.2
84. 1
101.5
101.5
95.7
53.6
67.6
62. 3
61.2
173. 2
129.4
110.5
137.7
190.4 23.0
167.8 22.4
174.7 31.5
177.6 25.6
164.3 24.6
209.2 30.2
23_0_._S_ 53.4
201.3 36. 1
118.3 17.8
174.7 31.5
99.6 18.0
130.9 22.4
255. 1
181.2
191.7
209.3
147.
158.
111. 1
100.4
163.7
119.6
127.9
157.
161.
158.
39.8
32.4
35.8
35.7
23.3
21.4
22.7
138.9 22.5
10.5
18.8
21. 7
17.0
16.9
23.6
11.4
159.3 17.3
TIA
2.4
2.4
ill
2.4
2.4
2.5
I.~5
2.3
2.5
2.3
2.4
2.6
2.5
276
2.4
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.0
2.3
2.3
2.2
2.2
2.4
2. 1
2.2
A.
Cold Start
3968
3212
30
45
16.5
3.43
-------
TABLE D-25. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--TEXACO TCCS CRICKET EVALUATION, GASOLINE
CL
Condition Load
1800 rpm 0
1800 rpm 1. 5X
53. 1 km/hr
1800 rpm 3X
53. 1 km/hr
3000 rpm 0
o
i
3000 rpm 1. 5X
90. 1 km/hr
3000 rpm 3X
90. 1 km/hr
Idle
Cold Start
Date
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average*
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
10/8/74
10/11/74
Average
HC,
ppm
2037
2603
2320
404
576
490
181
244
213
2389
2400
2395
176
163
170
36
43
40
845
1781
1313
_
5056
5056
CO,
ppm
461
534
498
29
35
32
26
25
26
212
165
189
47
31
39
42
40
41
17
176
97
_
1147
1147
NO,
PP"1
51
43
47
133
115
124
255
227
241
52
48
50
317
258
288
697
618
658
92
85
89
80
75
78
N0x.
ppm
57
48
53
140
122
131
275
238
257
57
53
55
333
272
303
743
705
724
96
87
92
80
80
80
02.
_%_
15.7
15. 1
15.4
13.8
14. 1
14.0
11.2
11.2
11.2
15.0
15.3
15.2
11.5
12.3
11.9
8.3
8.3
8.3
13.3
14.7
14.0
14.4
15.5
15.0
C02,
%
2.06
1.99
2.03
3.84
3.97
3.91
5.61
5.76
5.69
2.70
2.79
2.75
5.42
5.34
5.38
8. 10
8. 10
8. 10
4.08
2.94
3.51
4.12
3.37
3.75
Acrolein,
ppm
5.9
4.9
5.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
2.0
1.0
1.5
5.6
3.6
4.6
3.3
1.0
2.2
2.4
1.8
2. 1
1.6
1.5
1.6
Formaldehyde,
ppm
27.6
16.4 •
22.0
14.5
12.2
13.4
14.3
13. 3
13.8
15.0
14.8
14.9
13.9
13.5
13.7
14.5
14.9
14.7
17.9
13.5
15.7
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
49.5
34.6
42. 1
20.4
21.3
20.9
28. 1
22.3
25.2
29.4
31. 1
30.3
21.4
24.5
23.0
23. 1
23.6
23.4
30.8
32.2
31.5
DOAS Results
LCA,
^g/1
20.1
18.6
19.4
5.6
6.0
5.8
4.2
1.6
2.9
20. 1
23.4
21.8
4.8
2.5
3.7
2.6
2.6
2.6
13.5
13.4
13.5
LCO,
^£/L
8.4
5.3
6.9
3.2
4.8
4.0
2.9
2.5
2.7
8.0
9.5
8.8
3.4
2.6
3.0
2.2
1.8
2.0
2.6
2.7
2.7
TIA
1.9
1. 7
1.8
1.5
.6
.6
.5
.4
. 5
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.4
1.4
*Average based on before (10/8/74) and after (10/11/74) timing adjustment.
-------
M
-J
TABLE D-26. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Texaco TCCS Cricket - Gasoline
Date: October 8, 1974
CL
Run
No.
7.
13.
15.
Z.
12.
19.
3.
9.
16.
4.
8.
20.
5.
11.
21.
6.
14.
18.
1.
10.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter - 0 2272
1824
2016
2037
Inter - 1.5X 576
340
296
404
Inter - 3X 180
244
118
181
High - 0 2048
2752
2368
2389
High - 1.5X 210
134
184
176
High - 3X 30
33
46
36
Idle 1168
864
504
845
CO,
ppm
539
468
377
461
47
Zl
18
29
25
38
16
26
157
268
211
212
62
40
40
47
47
44
36
42
21
17
13
17
NO,
ppm
50
55
47
51
115
150
135
133
240
240
285
255
50
55
50
52
310
335
305
317
620
730
740
697
85
90
100
92
NOX.
ppm
60
60
50
57
120
155
145
140
255
260
310
275
55
60
55
57
320
360
320
333
660
780
790
743
90
93
105
96
°2>
%
16.1
15.6
15. 5
15. 7
13.0
13.6
14.9
13.8
11.0
11.6
11. 1
11. 2
13.8
15.0
16. 1
15.0
10.5
11.6
12.5
11.5
7.9
8.0
9. 1
8.3
13.3
13.4
13.3
13.3
coz.
%
2.06
2.01
2. 11
2.06
4.06
3.80
3.67
3.84
5.50
5.58
5.74
5.61
2.68
Z. 79
2.63
2.70
5.50
5.42
5.34
5.42
7.82
8.46
8.03
8. 10
4. 12
4. 12
3.99
4.08
Acrolein,
ppm
12.7
0.8
4. 1
5.9
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
2.9
1.8
2.0
3.8
7. 1
5.9
5.6
1.7
5.4
Z. 7
3.3
1.6
3.9
1.7
Z.4
2. 6
1.5
0.7
1.6
Formaldehyde,
ppm
39.8
21.2
21.8
27.6
13. 1
11. 2
19.3
14.5
8.7
18.7
15.6
14.3
8.7
20.6
15.6
15.0
12. 5
17.4
11.8
13.9
11.2
16.8
15.6
14.5
15.6
21.2
16.8
17.9
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
50.3
48.7
49. 5
49. 5
15.7
26.4
19.0
20.4
19.8
32.2
32.2
28. 1
31.3
42.9
14.0
29.4
23.9
31.3
9. 1
21.4
19.0
36.3
14. 0
23. 1
28.0
33.0
31.3
30.8
DOAS Results
LCA,
/-g/1
32.8
15.0
12.4
20. 1
9. 1
5.0
2.8
5.6
4.8
5.3
2.6
4.2
22. 1
22.2
16.0
20.1
9.4
3.4
1.6
4.8
3. 1
1.7
3.0
2.6
16.0
14.4
10.0
13.5
LCD,
^sA
14.7
6.0
4.4
8.4
4.8
3.0
1.7
3.2
2.9
4. 1
1.8
2.9
8.0
9.0
7. 1
8.0
4.9
Z. 7
2.7
3.4
2.0
2.2
2.4
2.2
3.3
2.5
1.9
2.6
TIA
2.2
1.8
1. 6
1.9
1.7
1. 5
1.2
1. 5
1.5
1.6
1.3
1.5
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.4
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.4
1.3
1.4
A.
Cold Start
80
80
14.4 4. 1Z
-------
TABLE D-27. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Texaco TCCS Cricket - Gasoline
Date: October 11, 1974
to
oo
CL
Run
No.
7.
9.
15.
3.
10.
20.
6.
13.
19.
2.
14.
18.
1.
11.
17.
4.
8.
16.
5.
12.
21.
Operating HC,
Condition PPm
Inter - 0 2656
2144
3008
2603
Inter - 1.5X 584
696
448
576 .
Inter - 3X 300
236
196
244
High - 0 2176
2880
2144
2400
High - 1.5X 122
212
156
163
High - 3X 37
53
40
43
Idle 1280
1504
2560
1781
CO,
ppm
548
412
643
534
36
44
24
35
24
28
24
25
156
191
148
165
24
40
28
31
40
36
44
40
12
89
427
176
NO,
ppm
40
45
45
43
115
110
120
115
195
255
230
227
50
45
50
48
275
240
260
258
640
555
660
618
80
80
95
85
NOX,
ppm
45
50
50
48
120
120
125
122
205
270
240
238
55
50
53
53
285
260
270
272
700
605
810
705
80
85
95
87
02.
%
14.6
14.3
16.4
15. 1
13.8
15. 1
13.5
14. 1
10.6
11.8
11.1
11.2
15.5
15.5
15.0
15.3
12.1
12.8
11.9
12.3
8.5
7.9
8.6
8.3
13.9
15.6
14.6
14.7
C02,
%
1.96
2.01
2.01
1.99
3.86
4. 12
3.93
3.97
5.65
5.90
5.74
5.76
2.79
2.79
2.79
2.79
5.26
5.42
5.34
5.34
8.13
8.03
8.13
8.10
3.13
2.90
2.79
2.94
Acrolein,
ppm
4.9
5.0
4.7
4.9
1.2
1.9
1.2
1.4
0.9
1.3
0.8
1.0
3.7
3.9
3.1
3.6
0.7
1.5
0.8
1.0
1. 1
2.0
2.2
1.8
2.2
1.7
0.6
1.5
F or maldehyde ,
ppm
14.3
15.0
19.9
16.4
8. 1
19.3
9.3
12.2
8. 7
23.7
7.5
13.3
10.0
23.7
10.6
14.8
15.0
9.3
16.2
13.5
10.6
14.3
19.9
14.9
12.5
13.1
15.0
13.5
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
33.8
22.2
47.8
34.6
17.3
30.0
16.5
21.3
19.0
35.5
12.4
22.3
23.9
46.3
23. 1
31. 1
26.4
20.6
26.4
24.5
17.3
22.2
31.3
23.6
27.2
37. 1
32.2
32.2
DOAS Results
LCA,
/xg/1
19.8
18. 1
17.8
18.6
5.4
9.8
2.9
6.0
1. 5
1.8
1.5
1.6
22.9
27.6
19.6
23.4
2.9
3.2
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
2.9
2.6
11.5
11.0
17.8
13.4
LCO,
>-e/i
6.8
5.7
3.3
5. 3
4.0
7.6
2.8
4.8
2.6
2.2
2.7
2.5
9.7
10.8
8. 1
9.5
2.4
3.6
1.7
2.6
1.7
1.7
2.1
1.8
2.5
2.2
3.3
2.7
TIA
1.8
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.4
1.6
1.4
1.3
1.4
1.4
2.0
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.4
1.6
1.2
1.4
1.2"
1.2
1.3
1-2
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.4
A. Cold Start
5056 1147
75
80
16.5
3.37
-------
TABLE D-28. EMISSIONS OBTAINED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH ODOR RATINGS--HONDA CVCC CIVIC EVALUATION
Condition Load
. 400 rpm 0
2300 rpm 1. 5X
54. 2 km/hr
2300 rpm 3X
54. Z km/hr
Q3800 rpm 0
3800 rpm 1.5X
90. 1 km/hr
3800 rpm 3X
90. 1 km/hr
Idle
Cold Start
NDIR CL
Date
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
10/29/74
10/31/74
11/5/74
Average
HC,
ppm
201
114
158
35
40
38
126
84
105
42
32
37
27
38
33
69
51
60
704
559
632
10,816
12, 288
12,800
11,968
CO,
ppm
4929
3537
4233
1957
1829
1893
2727 .
2728
2728
405
610
508
442
396
419
1413
1801
1607
4309
5282
4796
5394
6765
-
6080
NO, NO,
ppm ppm
78
139 98
88
360
602 49 1
425
1221
1284 1055
1138
118
167 132
125
801
1368 1125
963
1992
3011 2766
2379
62
100 69
66
55
29
36 20
35
.NOX>
ppm
83
102
93
378
503
441
1258
1071
1165
125
137
131
827
1146.
987
2043
2866
2455
67
72
70
60
34
20
38
02.
%
3.6
2.4
3.0
2.7
1.9
2.3
2.9
2.6
2.8
2.8
2.4
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.7
1.9
1.7
1.8
3.8
3.5
3.7
8.3
8.8
6.5
7.9
CO2, Acrolein,
%
12.63
13.47
13.05
13. 28
13. 75
13.52
13. 12
13.23
13. 18
13.40
13.46
13.43
13.45
13.62
13.54
13.74
14. 10
13.92
12.52
12.63
12. 58
11. 56
11.46
11.46
11.49
ppm
1.6
1.3
1.5
0.9
0.9
0.9
1.2
1.0
1. 1
0.8
0.6
0.7
1.7
2.3
2.0
3.0
2.9
3.0
6.3
5.7
6.0
Formaldehyde,
ppm
18.4
18.5
18.5
11. 1
6.0
8.6
3.9
3.5
3.7
4.4
3.1
3.8
6.7
11.8
9.3
13.4
11.4
12.4
6.8
6.4
6.6
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
35. 7
36.7
36.2
20.5
12.9
16.7
14. 1
13. 5
13.8
16.5
9.6
13. 1
12.0
17.0
14.5
19.9
21.5
20.7
18. 1
25.3
21.7
DOAS Results
LCA,
x'-S/l
6.9
5.5
6.2
5.7
6.0
5.9
4.6
1.3
3.0
5. 1
2.9
4.0
2.8
2. 1
2.5
4.5
2.9
3.7
39.4
30.0
34.7
LCO,
x-g/1
3.8
2.5
3.2
2.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1. 2
1.6
3. 5
1.8
2.7
1.7
4.3
3.0
3.3
1.8
2.6
13.2
10. 1
11.7
TIA
1.5
1.3
1.4
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1. 0
1. 2
1.5
1.2
1.4
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.4
1.2
1.3
2. 1
2.0
2. 1
-------
TABLE D-29. GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Honda CVCC Civic
Date: October 31, 1974
CL
Run
No.
1.
7.
12.
5.
11.
17.
6.
15.
21.
2.
14.
19.
8.
13.
20.
4.
10.
16.
3.
9.
18.
Operating HC,
Condition ppm
Inter - 0 300
132
172
201
Inter - 1. 5X 58
24
22
35
Inter - 3X 184
(high by 3 hp)114
80
126
High - 0 50
11
68
43
High - 1.5X 28
(low by 3 hp) Z9
25
27
High - 3X 80
76
50
69
Idle 720
480
912
704
CO,
ppm
4840
4612
5336
4929
2571
1626
1674
1957
2636
2772
2772
2727
433
306
477
405
450
450
425
442
1398
1442
1398
1413
2114
5207
5606
4309
NO,
ppm
65
90
80
78
340
350
390
360
1237
1150
1275
1221
110
125
120
118
787
730
887
801
2250
1835
1890
1992
60
65
60
"6T
NOX,
pj>m
70
95
85
83
360
365
410
378
1262
1187
1325
1258
115
135
125
125
812
745
925
827
2375
1850
1905
2043
65
70
65
67
°2-
%
3.4
3.6
3.8
3.6
2.5
2.8
2.9
2.7
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.9
2.5
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.6
2.6
2.6
1.5
2.3
1.9
1.9
3.3
3.8
4^4
3.8
C02,
%
12.52
12.68
12.68
12.63
13. 17
13.34
13.34
13.28
13. 17
13. 17
13.01
13. 12
13.51
13.51
13.17
13.40
13.51
13.51
13.34
13.45
13.68
13.68
13.86
13.74
12.68
12.68
12.21
12.52
Acrolein,
ppm
2.0
1.5
1.4
1.6
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.9
1.5
1.0
1.0
1.2
0.9
0.7
0.7
0.8
2.2
1. 1
1.8
1.7
3.5
3.0
2.6
3.0
8.0
6.0
4.9
6.3
Formaldehyde,
ppm
24.2
13.7
17.4
18.4
15. 1
13. 1
5.0
11. 1
3.7
5.0
3.1
3.9
4.3
5.8
3.0
4.4
8.0
5.6
6.2
6.7
26.0
9.1
5.0
13.4
8.1
6.8
5.5
6.8
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
44. 1
29.0
34.1
35.7
22. 1
23.3
16.0
20.5
14. 1
15.0
13.2
14. 1
19.0
15.7
14.8
16.5
14.0
11.3
10.8
12.0
33.3
18.5
8.0
19.9
19.0
15.6
19.6
18. 1
DOAS Results
LCA,
jC^g/l
9. 1
6.3
5.3
6.9
7.6
4. 7
4.9
5.7
6.7
4.6
2.4
4.6
7.5
3.5
4.3
5. 1
3.2
3.3
2.0
2.8
5.4
5.5
2.6
4.5
47.5
28.2
42.6
39.4
LCO,
^g/1
6.7
2.6
2. 1
3.8
2.0
1.8
2. 1
2.0
2.4
2.2
1.4
2.0
4.0
1.4
5.0
3.5
1.7
1.6
1.9
1.7
5. 1
3.4
1.3
3.3
14.4
9.8
15.3
13.2
TIA
1.8
1.4
1.3
1.5
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.3
1.4
1.3
1. 1
1.3
1.6
1. 1
1.7
1. 5
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.7
1.5
1. 1
1.4
2.2
2.0
2.2
2. 1
A. Cold Start 12, 288
6765
29
34
8.8
11.46
-------
TABLE D-30.GASEOUS EMISSIONS SUMMARY
Vehicle: Honda CVCC Civic
Date: November 5, J974
Run
No.
1.
7.
12.
5.
11.
17.
8.
13.
20.
a
- 2.
14.
19.
6.
15.
21.
4.
10.
16.
3.
9.
18.
A.
Operating HC,
Condition . ppm
Inter - 0 172
64
105
114
Inter - 1. 5X 20
53
46
40
Inter - 3X 80
106
67
84
High - 0 30
19
48
32
High - 1.5X 80
20
15
38
High - 3X 46
58
48
51
Idle 576
588
512
559
Cold Start 12,800
CO,
ppm
4039
2948
3625
3537
1674
2090
1723
1829
2636
3135
2413
2728
992
362
477
610
442
385
362
396
1269
1626
2507
1801
6040
4790
5015
5282
NDIR
NO,
123
154
139
139
549
665
592
602
1270
1216
1367
1284
132
192
177
167
1324
1445
1334
1368
3230
3203
2599
3011
95
95
110
100
36
CL
NO,
85
110
100
98
400
510
563
491
1038
1063
1063
1055
115
150
130
132
1125
1238
1013
1125
3030
2956
2313
2766
67
70
71
69
20
NOX,
ppm
95
110
100
102
420
515
575
503
1063
1075
1075
1071
120
155
135
137
1163
1250
1025
1146
3110
3062
2425
2866
70
73
72
72
20
°%
3.3
2.0
1.9
2.4
2.6
1.6
1.6
1.9
2.8
2.5
•2.4
2.6
2.8
2.0
2.5
2.4
3.8
2.0
2.3
2.7
1.8
1.5
1.8
1.7
3.9
3.3
3.3
3.5
6.5
C02.
12.68
13.86
13.86
13.47
13. 17
14.04
14.04
13.75
13. 17
13.34
13. 17
13.23
13.01
13.86
13.51
13.46
13.68
13.68
13.51
13. 62
13.86
14.04
14.40
14. 10
12.37
12.84
12.68
12. 63
11.46
Acrolein,
ppm
1.9
1.0
1. 1
1.3
0.7
1.2
0.9
0.9
1. 1
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.6
0.7
0.6
0.6
2.0
2.7
2. 1
2. 3
3.4
2.8
2.4
2.9
7.8
4.7
4.6
5.7
Formaldehyde,
ppm
24.3
17.4
13.7
18.5
8. 1
5.0
5.0
6.0
3.7
3. 1
3.7
3.5
3.7
2.5
3. 1
3. 1
6.9
14.3
14.3
11.8
16.2
10.7
7.4
11.4
7.4
5.6
6.2
6.4
Aliphatic
Aldehydes,
ppm
37.9
36.3
35.8
36.7
15.7
12.4
10. 7
12.9
15.7
11.5
13.2
13.5
9.9
10.7
8.2
9.6
14.0
20.6
16.5
17.0
28.0
19.3
17.3
21.5
28.9
23.9
23. 1
25.3
DOAS Results
LCA,
/fcE/l
11.0
2.4
3.2
5.5
13.0
2.9
2.0
6.0
1.5
1.6
0.8
1.3
3.0
1.8
3.9
2.9
5.0
0.8
0.4
2. 1
3.2
2.4
3.2
2.9
43.8
28.4
17. 7
30.0
LCO,
4.3
2.0
1.2
2. 5
10. 1
1.2
0.8
4.0
1. 1
1. 1
1.4
1.2
2.3
0.8
2.2
1.8
6. 1
6.0
0.8
4. 3
2.4
2.2
0.8
1.8
14.3
10.0
5.9
10. 1
TIA
1.6
1.3
1.1
1.3
2.0
1. 1
0.9
1.3
1.0
1.0
1. 1
1.0
1.4
0.9
1.3
1. 2
1.8
1.8
0.9
1. 5
1. 4
1.3
0.9
1.2
2.2
2. 0
1.8
2.0
-------
TABLE D-31. COMPARISON OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS
Chrysler Gas Turbine
Condition Load
1272 rpm(D 0
1Z72 rpm 1.5X
53. 1 km/hr
127Z rpm 3X
53. 1 km/hr
2120 rpm 0
2120 rpm 1. 5X
90. 1 km/hr
2120 rpm 3X
90. 1 km/hr
Idle
Hot Start
Cold Start
Date
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
HC,
ppm
Observed
25.5
29.5
32.6
29.2
19.8
18.2
28.5
22.2
15.0
15.0
24.7
18.2
31.5
17.0
21.4
23.3
24.0
17.5
35.3
25.6
53.7
39.5
63.2
52.1
32.8
41.2
31.8
35.3
30.8
34.8
34.0
33.2
376.0
320.0
348.0
CO,
ppm
58.2
38.9
24.3
40.5
42.2
26.2
17.5
28.6
28.0
17. 1
13.7
19.6
35.7
19.4
15.0
23.4
16.7
8.3
8.6
11.2
14.7
6.4
7.3
9.5
75.3
47.9
31.4
51.5
73. 1
47.0
28.0
49.4
93.4
110.0
101.7
NO,
ppm
9.0
7.2
8.7
8.3
12.5
11.8
14.4
12.9
17.0
17.0
22.0
18.7
14.2
13.7
18.3
15.4
36.0
36.2
43.2
38.5
60.0
63.8
77.3
67.0
6.7
8.0
7.3
7.3
6.5
6.2
8.2
7.0
_
-
NOX.
ppm
9.2
7.2
9.0
8.5
13.0
12.3
15.5
13.6
18.0
17. 7
22.3
19.3
14.6
14.2
18.8
15.9
37.0
36.5
43.3
38.9
62.0
64.3
78.3
68.2
7.0
8.0
7.4
7.5
6.7
6.3
8.3
7. 1
10.0
17. 0
13.5
C0?.
%
0.77
0.75
0.76
0.76
1.00
1.01
1.02
1.01
1. 14
1. 11
1.20
1. 15
1.06
1.04
1. 13
1.08
1.42
1.44
1.44
1.43
1.70
1.67
1.74
1.70
0.71
0.70
0.72
0.71
0.71
0.70
0.72
0. 71
2.07
2. 17
2. 12
Background
Air Intakes
9-23-74
9-25-74
9-27-74
Average
2.0
3.6
11.6
5.7
4.3
3.05
2.2
3.2
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.4
0.03
0.03
0.07
0.04
(l)power Turbine.
D-32
-------
TABLE D-32. SUMMARY OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Vehicle: Chrysler Gas Turbine
Date: September 23, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
10. Inter - 0
12.
25.
HC, CO,
ppm. ppm
Observed
28. 5
16.0
32.0
68.8
44.5
61.4
NO,
Ppm
11.5
8.5
7.0
NOX>
Ppm
11.5
9.0
7.0
C02,
%
0.74
0.85
0.73
2.
8.
17.
4.
11.
22.
9.
16.
18.
3.
13.
24.
6.
15.
20.
7.
19.
21.
5.
14.
23.
Inter - 2X
Inter - 4X
High - 0
High - 2X
High - 4X
Idle
Hot Start
1. Cold Start
10A. Air Intakes
25 A.
25.5
14.0
25. 5
19.8
58. 2
41.7
42.6
42.2
9.0
12.5
12.5
12.5
Background
0.5 6.7
3.5 1.9
2.0 4.3
9.2
0.4
0.2
0. 3
0.77
11.0
19.0
15.0
15.5
28.5
19.0
31.5
23.8
32.3
28.0
35. 1
37.9
34.2
35.7
18.0
16.0
17.0
13.0
13.0
16.5
14.2
19.0
17.0
18. 0
13.5
13.5
17.0
14.6
1. 17
1. 11
1. 14
1.02
1.03
1. 14
1.06
20. 0
28.0
24.0
45.0
59.0
57.0
53.7
30.0
28. 5
40.0
32.8
26. 5
36.5
29.5
30.8
16.2
17.2
16.7
17.2
13.4
13.4
14.7
79.9
70.6
75.3
75.3
77. 1
76.2
66.0
73. 1
36.5
35.5
36. 0
59.5
59.5
61.0
60.0
7.0
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.5
6.0
7.0
6.5
37.5
36.5
37.0
61.0
61.5
63.5
62.0
7.5
7.0
6.5
7.0
7.0
6.0
7.0
6.7
1.44
1.40
1.42
1.70
1.72
1.69
1.70
0.71
0.72
0.70
0.71
0.74
0.69
0.72
0.71
D-33
-------
TABLE D-33. SUMMARY OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Vehicle: Chrysler Gas Turbine
Date: September 25, 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
9. Inter - 0
16.
20.
4. Inter - 2X
14.
21.
6. Inter - 4X
17.
24.
8. High - 0
15.
25.
2. High - 2X
11.
19.
3. High - 4X
12.
22.
7. Idle
13.
18.
5. Hot Start
10.
23.
HC,
ppm
36.5
22.0
30.0
29.5
19.0
19.0
16.5
18.2
13.0
1.3.0
19.0
15.0
15. 5
17.5
18. 0
17.0
_
13.5
21.5
17.5
38.5
47.0
43.0
39.5
30.0
55.0
38.5
41.2
26.0
39.0
39.5
34.8
CO,
ppm
Observed
47.3
33.2
36. 1
38.9
28.5
26.3
23.8
26.2
19.0
16.2
16.2
17. 1
20.0
21.9
16.2
19.4
7.6
8.6
8.6
8.3
6.7
6.7
5.7
6.4
42.6
52.0
49. 2
47.9
48.3
52.0
40.8
47.0
NO,
ppm
6.5
8.0
7.0
7.2
12.0
12.0
11.5
11.8
16.0
17.0
18.0
17.0
14.0
13.0
14.0
13.7
41.0
33.5
34.0
36.2
61.5
58.0
72.0
63.8
12.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
6.5
6.0
6.0
6.2
NOX,
ppm
6.5
8.0
7.0
7.2
12.0
13.0
12.0
12.3
16.5
17. 5
19.0
17.7
14.5
13.0
15.0
14.2
41.0
34.0
34.5
36.5
62.0
59.0
72.0
64.3
12.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
7.0
6.0
6.0
6.3
co2,
%
0.72
0.81
0.74
0.75
0.98
1.05
1.00
1.01
1.09
1. 14
1. li
1. 11
1.05
1.04
1.03
1.04
1.54
1.42
1.38
1.44
1.66
1.70
1.66
1.67
0.73
0.69
0.70
0.70
0.72
0.70
0.68
0.70
1.
5A.
10A.
ISA.
20A.
25A.
Cold Start
Air Intakes
376.0
93.4
Background
3.0 2.87
3.0 2.87
4.5 3.82
3.5 3.82
4.0 1.91
3.6 3.05
10.0
0
0
0.5
0
0.5
0.2
2.07
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.04
0. 04
0.03
D-34
-------
TABLE D-34 SUMMARY OF GASEOUS EMISSIONS MEASUREMENTS
Vehicle: Chrysler Gas Turbine
Date: September 27. 1974
Run Operating
No. Condition
2. Inter - 0
15.
17.
10. Inter - 2X
19.
25.
5. Inter - 4X
16.
23.
9. High - 0
11.
18.
3. High - 2X
14.
24.
7. High - 4X
12.
21.
6. Idle
8.
20.
4. Hot Start
1.-.
22.
HC,
ppm
_
37.5
25.6
32.6
28.5
24.0
33.0
28.5
19.5
24.0
30.5
24.7
27.3
14.0
23.0
21.4
20.5
44.5
40.9
35.3
58.0
70.0
61.6
63.2
28.5
43.0
23.8
31.8
24.0
41. 0
36. 0
34.0
CO,
Ppm
Observed
.
26.6
21.9
Z4. 3
19. 1
16.2
17. 2
17. 5
13.4
14. 3
13.4
13. 7
17. 2
13.4
14. 3
15.0
8.6
8.6
8.6
8.6
7.6
7.6
6.7
7.3
34.2
32.
27.6
31.4
30.0
30.0
25.0
28.0
NO,
ppm
-
8.5
8.9
8.7
13.8
15. 2
14. 2
14.4
20.0
24.0
21.9
22.0
16.0
19.2
19.6
18.3
45.0
44. 2
40.5
43.2
76.0
74.5
81.5
77.3
7.0
7.6
7.3
7.3
8.0
7.5
9.0
8.2
NOX,
ppm
_
9.0
9.0
9.0
15.0
15. 5
16. 0
15.5
20.5
24. 3
22. 0
22. 3
17. 0
19.5
19. 8
18. 8
45.0
44. 5
40. 5
43.3
76.0
76.0
83. 0
78.3
7. 1
7.8
7. 3
7.4
8.5
8. 0
8.5
8.3
C02,
%
-
0.75
0,77
0. 76
1. 00
1. 03
1. 02
1.02
1. 15
1.25
1. 20
1.20
1. 04
1. 17
1. 17
1. 13
1.45
1.47
1.40
1.44
1.69
1.77
1. 76
1. 74
0.72
0.71
0. 74
0. 72
0. 70
0. 71
0. 76
0. 72
1.
5A.
10A.
15A.
20A.
25A.
Cold Start
Air Intakes
320.0
110.0
Background
7.0
8.0
15. 5
1Z.8
14.5
11.6
2.0
2.0
2. 5
2.5
2.0
2. 2
17. 0
1.0
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.2
0.7
2. 17
D-35
-------
APPENDIX E
DOAS DATA TAKEN DURING ODOR TESTS
E-l
-------
^•liip
mrrEft HE TffP WfCSfTi =-
iiili
. ,4 '.[ . I . j j . I .1 (• - , . I-r-4— --
. .^O-^-L^.. .4 i i_t . . 1-, . -- \- t-i '.-
*jrp;::' ..-fc-rh-H-'-rti:
rji.'kivj .".1-r \- "r'-u J
'<**- Wr-P L-i If4*; 'IfHT-i'L
^r^TitjikmSa-'iq-r if!
*1±r mp |]!. -Lb.:j44r|. iiit
4gm!ln:Tj-miffi:M
;•;.,,;H:;[ij:;4|;:n,M:j .• |. i.;[.;-; -rf\tfi^$$$.&i: tn?
: IS':iSlt: "i^Slliil
^.^i^^^i^p^riwmy
^rxii:...'- _^bu-_ .-... h .^Ht4;;--jP^fHfj-
""-'1-j • -, •'• irH-t-- ' ' '•'••'- -^ --iL:'ri":i--"i-"!:::H-);iTi]:
r4-:iLilii4te^j. :-i^-;^q%-frjfef;
.;;^-!'lt:iLMb- .frf^tiffl1
' J:jj i:'' ;i'i^f :i"r i - - '1 .hi:'' TLjj'iirl]
ii^j!:---('i-ilffi •;£'":::;'..;-^-^^ySix
IH-'-t^^^C^m:-^
Ef^l^-^^.^TOTfe
t -Hvjj : r i-ff^j-r;-, .-M -' .-i;-.-;;!'.;-.):)-. ;H-
En?-- "'v'l-i+j ±hti'!|: :! .::;, n^ Th^
j^;v;r.^f'''[-i:-:pi r-i|ff
1 .. .-.;.-j-Ht- rPt-±
^ute^Mal
Wi'J;-.. -T^-rrT^iJU'U.
.^fetar:1^±tMf
^M
iRI-rl
iai;
••: i - --QdVii^' ;"' f;t
ii?ll&J
~f^'.-~^['\Jf.5 :T.rir.)44"i-R'i"-i4-'4'"" i-> '• IT! 1-^' - '4: n K::"
iMSMfcJiffe: {•' R • jj::-, ••---! I jgt--' Id'; I - ^^f-JTtj^' -1 '-'•' • :-^J
Ui I |i-; ;.: '4;: T : i li.!.. :. - - -4 Xi, . rri U U '.j..' , .; -.: .-faF..<--H
-------
•'.'..:'J-~-i. I1. :_Lr.. ["H'; [-' ; ..•_.:.J.:i:r!jj3:i-E± :.li.U-:..'..'_. • / b''.:JJ:'':li_itH^'"'.'' ...--" ^.-i.li^ ... -'.:..:-_
K.:..-.. :n;r: '.d;-..^: ? -, ;;
fr-~t7—:.---l- :4---.-b"-t:-F
!", ••_,..• ••- .-",'(....; r:.. -i.".
L•"'..;. ;:|. FIGURE E-2. .ODOR; LEVELS BY CAPE 7 DOAS ANALYSIS ^
;; : = ._ _ . ; MERCEDES DIESEL LDV
" . .""T,
t . t
-- i .
E-3
-------
jj|.-<- - -- rr-.-
HglJ>OAS ANA LYSIS
E-4
-------
jS^^r-'rf'Hih'fjfi:':;-' • :: ;-i[p s^;ir;-:^-FH::y;R":^vi:''-:"-;-':r: . j "i
TT- V -, 'vki-^rt :!x:.t. .^t". ':•. '.'.-:. .Tr^l-. ;lrr, tt:[:ry^ rrtq':!::-;;. ;.iliT-:'-T^IiJ- • -': " T •+
::•.!..•:•;•.• ••-^r,L-.p':-Ui^i.rn-i-7-'-'-•'- - '.-:i:' :." :- .• I ^ • -' l-'4J-"-j[;!"';' • ••• -:i''-^ ':TI:I—TJ". •: r;~.v.T~i j . ••.
-^rrr-"iltrrrT-r:~t.-"••—r-^rq-rn .. IT •~n--~r".~-H-—T^Tf.rr;' .-LLLTTtrrrr:^.-.:;~: tr.^r.",~" ~ "'rS.l'C
"T'T'v!;! :.'.:'i\'r:-.—r" '••'.]' •;>? "I- -i;!-i--i! ' ^"r~~ ;"rrrr'~ T'pi—/"r-—T-nTTTT-.^Ttr: i; i-)-! ~rr~ ,•{ r.t~r:.' —h— ••*
.,:.: ,j -i -•-;.' - '- \,S-\ • S-i • .-.I-.-,-- !-!. • - H ,i .-l-H;!- .-'. ••.--..••.• - • •-• : .•: •: - I- .1
ii^-m^^^'''-^'^-:-^^:^'S
-^^^^1^:: i .-L-- :--k:- ?; M; rfc
iirfr-
•K^:" -ffjf^--'-|:^^ ^"^^ ;' :
" " " " ' " " ' ' ''" ' "
- i-
"
,^ _*_;(J ' '/i.i.:.., '. _; i .
. • •'--•.' -T ' '
:• . i .-Tji 172.
• - ""
. Full
;.;. • i- -
E~*. .. ODORXRVJ£LSJBY-JCAF»E-7.BOAS ANALYSIS
.•!;, ':: OPEL DIESEL LDV jj; •-.-; : '.. > ;i - ••
E-5
-------
E-6
-------
£r ir^T^^^^Hrt^ iH-H^E
iffim?F
jffrffirffi-H
+tr^ rhHjttteU^W
4nd-ri4lf^4T',^^
r[-"'~-:-f '-^tijfH 1- :::^..^a-q:iq^i4^j±j±i--3-p;-!
3--ffi- ^F^--^3d*rrTpr-i;?TO7" '
^^^ff^'rfFRff
-H-Utot tm - :• tr+f, .-4J
"^ T_. ' ' ' ! ' lj "r* '—r • ^"^ '"'"^ ""OT'"~T Cr~^ -' L 'TLLTr"ni
"TlT! ir:'''':-J-"lj":-: : 7':3t-H;:: '! j-^TJ-j-'f1'• ^ r|Li-| +
Tu£i ;rH^{Bhi^:ir-^^H|-|JT
- r-J i -,-,-, .--.--:,-;-: -.M—MJ, (j^t^TT,.. .j^T-, t
|^:|:fS^^^
•f'^TT.^'^iTv71".^
: i . ' • ' -i , ' I • • * **•* w V i
frii ^,f ;p:::|L-..'I.:..•-•;-^-'|r- :'^-H
flgj^tppF \^\ -^ \ j.:.;: ;'T" j[J" • • •: i^!
^jjfe^iSfe-if !jg !'€2jfe^S'' fegjgrfe'an; :tete-• i j ;agj
-i-THJ^.I:', --.••Sii.O'.-Tn
^TrijT-;;]-,;-:1,' '-;; .' '_ 7; r ! -^!
L, ..|..n--i-.1.'i-1 J-; -t..; J.' i ; ... -i-i ,
-i^-ir,- !-.rf£4-b|;:-; . r :;.r;,.;:£^
^^t^r-fev-'''jH-r'^
.H:x
SjSRT:lS-i
•wTp^^Tg^Tj^l^:^;
iHLl^jL.jirilfF; ! - i'-.'-!:
iL44.'ri"-4-!"---4 -^i .!-'." ' • ••••
tii: Th.p Tr^-h :1 |"i'.; -''. • ^ :l.
mjffiaiso^v ..=-.
m^~. ?i-: ^;: • ^; j: v i^. 1 j^pR.^^»^^fe; ^t.fe t:; ,ii^M^n-^^ ^.j *. g; i ^:
E-7
-------
E-8
-------
^d^d-rd:^^
L««YwS±£§2-
";.-." ir-1. 1:1-.-rJ
liu.--—::i-::-'-.hi
E-9
-------
E-10
-------
E-ll
-------
APPENDIX F
DOAS AND OXYGENATE DATA
TAKEN DURING 1975 LD FTP
F-l
-------
TABLE F-l. 1975 FTP DIESEL ODOR ANALYSIS SYSTEM RESULTS
Diesel Fueled
Gasoline Fueled
Test
1
2
3
4
Avg.
Nissan
0.9
0.8
ND***
1.0
0.9
Mercedes
0.7
0. 8
0.7
0.8
0.8
Peuge ot
TIA
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.2
1. 2
Opel
0.7
0.7
0.9
0.7
0.8
TCCS
1.2
1.2
1.4
_
773
LCO.^g/1
1
2
3
4
Avg.
1
2
3
4
Avg.
0.8
0.6
ND***
1.0
0.8
7.5
6.4
ND***
12. 1
8.7
0. 5
0. 6
0.5
0. 6
0. 6
2. 0
4. 7
4. 0
6.2
4.2
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.5
1.6
LCA*f/
24. 1
28.7
20. 3
23.5
24.2
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.5
0.6
/*€/!
3.3
3. 1
6.4
4.7
4.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
-
776
25.4
27.1
27.0
-
26. 5
PROCO TCCS Honda
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
2i
0.
3
5
3
3
4
2
3
2
2
2
5
5
3
3
4
0
0
0
"o
0
0
0
"o
4
2
2
"3
. 5
. 5
. 5
^
7~5
. 3
. 3
.3
-
~
. ]
. 1
.9
-
To
0
0
0
"o
0
0
0
"o
4
5
3
"4
.3
. 3
.3
_
7~3
.2
.2
.2
-
72
.5
.4
. 8
-
7s
*Based on ADL LCA calibration.
**Summer configuration.
*#*No data, trap leaked.
F-2
-------
APPENDIX G
CORRELATION OF DOAS WITH ODOR PANEL
6-1
-------
TABLE G-l. PREDICTED "D" VALUES WITH OBSERVED DOAS VALUES (DATSUN)
Observed DOAS Value
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
o 10
^ 11
12
13
14
Vehicle Condition
Idle - 1200 rpm
0% load - 1800 rpm
50% load - 1800 rpm
100% load - 1800 rpm
0% load - 3000 rpm
50% load - 3000 rpm
100% load - 3000 rpm
Idle - 1200 rpm
0% load - 1800 rpm
50% load - 1800 rpm
100% load - 1800 rpm
0% load - 3000 rpm
50% load - 3000 rpm
100% load - 3000 rpm
Date
l/8/74(w)
l/8/74(w)
l/8/74(w)
l/8/74(w)
l/8/74(w)
l/8/74(w)
l/8/74(w)
l/10/74(s)
1/10/74(8)
l/lO/74(s)
l/10/74(s)
l/10/74(s)
l/10/74(s)
l/10/74(s)
LCA,*
Aig/1
7
9
18
26
10
14
42
4
6
12
17
5
8
24
LCO,
>ug/l
3.5
3.7
4.8
6.9
3.7
5.0
5.2
2.8
3.5
4.3
5.8
3.0
3.9
8.9
TIA
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.5
1.7
1.7
1.4
1.6
1.6
1.8
1.5
1.6
1.9
SwRI
Panel
"D"
2.9
3.1
2.8
3.8
2.4
3.7
4.8
2.7
3.1
3.0
3.7
2.1
3.1
3.9
Predicted
"D"
by Equation
1
2.8
3.1
3.4
3.8
2.8
3.4
3.4
2.5
3.1
3.1
3.8
2.8
3.1
4.1
2
2.8
3.0
3.3
3.6
2.8
3.3
3.4
2.5
3.0
3.0
3.5
2.8
3.0
3.8
3
2.7
3.1
3.4
3.6
2.7
3.4
3.7
2.4
3.1
3.0
3.7
2.7
3.0
3.7
* Based on ADL LCA standard.
Equation 1: "D" = -2. 0 + 3. 2 (TIA)
Equation 2: "D" = -0.69 +2.3 (TIA) + 0.0045 (LCA).
Equation 3: "D" = -2. 9 + 4. 0 (TIA) -I- 0. 012 (LCA) - 0.14 (LCO)
Note: Equations 2 and 3, use LCA and LCO concentrations in^ig/1.
-------
TABLE G-2. PREDICTED "D" VALUES WITH OBSERVED DOAS VALUES (MERCEDES)
O
i
u>
Observed DOAS Value
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Vehicle Condition
Idle - 800 rpm
0% load - 1830 rpm
50% load - 1830 rpm
100% load - 1830 rpm
0% load - 3050 rpm
50% load - 3050 rpm
100% load - 3050 rpm
Idle - 800 rpm
0% load - 1830 rpm
50% load - 1830 rpm
100% load - 1830 rpm
0% load - 3050 rpm
50% load - 3050 rpm
100% load - 3050 rpm
Date
1/15/74
1/15/74
1/15/74
1/15/74
1/15/74
1/15/74
1/15/74
1/17/74
1/17/74
1/17/74
1/17/74
1/17/74
1/17/74
1/17/74
LCA,*
>ig/l
14
13
13
16
10
9
26
11
10
13
10
10
11
22
LCO,
^ug/1
4.0
4.3
4.1
6.0
4.2
4.0
8.8
3.2
3.8
4.0
3.9
3.5
3.4
7.4
TIA
1.6
1.6
1.6
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.9
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.8
SwRI
Panel
"D"
3.1
2.7
2.5
3.5
2.3
3.2
3.7
3.1
2.5
2.7
3.3
2.8
2.9
4.1
Predicted "D"
by Equation
1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.4
3.1
3.1
4.1
2.8
3..1
2.8
3.1
2.8
2.8
3.8
2
3.1
3.0
3.0
3.3
3.0
3.0
3.8
2.8
3.0
2.8
3.0
2.8
2.8
3.5
3
3.1
3. 1
3.1
3.2
3.0
3.0
3.8
2.8
3.1
2.7
3.1
2.7
2.8
3.5
* Based on ADL LCA standard.
Equation 1: "D" = -2. 0 + 3. 2 (TIA)
Equation 2: "D" = -0. 69+2.3 (TIA) + 0. 0045 (LCA)
Equation 3: "D" = -2. 9 + 4. 0 (TIA) t 0. 012 (LCA) - 0. 14 (LCO)
Note: Equations 2 and 3, use LCA and LCO concentrations in ug/1.
-------
TABLE G-3. PREDICTED "D" VALUES WITH OBSERVED DOAS VALUES (PEUGEOT)
Observed DOAS Value
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
o 10
I 11
12
13
14
Vehicle
Idle - 750
0% load -
Condition
rpm
1800 rpm
50% load - 1800 rpm
100% load
0% load -
- 1800 rpm
3000 rpm
50% load - 3000 rpm
100% load
Idle - 750
0% load -
- 3000 rpm
rpm
1800 rpm
50% load - 1800 rpm
100% load
0% load -
50% load -
100% load
- 1800 rpm
3000 rpm
- 3000 rpm
- 3000 rpm
Date
3/5/74
3/5/74
3/5/74
3/5/74
3/5/74
3/5/74
3/5/74
3/7/74
3/7/74
3/7/74
3/7/74
3/7/74
3/7/74
3/7/74
LCA,*
>ig/l
59
120
119
97
143
92
189
66
148
105
158
163
119
198
LCO,
£&
8.
13.
13.
12.
12.
11.
25.
10.
18.
12.
19.
14.
15.
29.
(±_
9
9
3
0
1
6
6
6
0
1
3
8
4
4
TIA
1.9
2.1
2.1
2.0
2.1
2.1
2.4
2.0
2.2
2.1
2.2
2.1
2.1
2.5
SwRI
Panel
"D"
4.8
6.2
4.4
4. 7
6.3
4.9
5.9
4.7
5.7
3.7
4.6
5.7
4.4
5.2
Predicted
"D"
by Equation
1
4.1
4.7
4.7
4.4
4.7
4.7
5.7
4.4
5.0
4.7
5.0
4.7
4.7
6.0
2
3.9
4.7
4.7
4.3
4.8
4.6
5.7
4. 2
5.0
4.6
5.1
4.9
4.7
6.0
3
4.2
5.0
5.1
4.6
5.5
5.0
5.4
4.4
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.4
4.8
5.4
* Based on ADL LCA standard.
Equation 1: "D" = -2.0 + 3.2 (TIA)
Equation 2: "D" = -0. 69+2.3 (TIA) + 0. 0045 (LCA)
Equation 3: "D" = -2. 9 + 4. 0 (TIA) + 0. 012 (LCA) - 0.14 (LCO)
Note: Equations 2 and 3, use LCA and LCO concentrations in^ig/1.
-------
TABLE G-4. PREDICTED "D" VALUES WITH OBSERVED DOAS VALUES (OPEL)
Observed DOAS Value
O
i
Ul
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Vehicle
Idle - 600
0% load -
50% load •
100% load
0% load -
50% load •
100% load
Idle - 600
0% load -
50% load -
100% load
0% load -
50% load -
100% load
Condition
rpm
1950
- 2300 rpm
- 2550 rpm
3250 rpm
- 3360 rpm
- 3460 rpm
rpm
1950 rpm
• 2300 rpm
- 2550 rpm
3250 rpm
• 3360 rpm
- 3460 rpm
Date
3/19/74
3/19/74
3/19/74
3/19/74
3/19/74
3/19/74
3/19/74
3/21/74
3/21/74
3/21/74
3/21/74
3/21/74
3/21/74
3/21/74
LCA,*
/>§/!
19
16
35
22
10
66
49
7
7
15
18
9
33
24
LCO,
£S/L
5.7
5.8
8.6
8.4
5.8
13.9
16.7
3.9
4.4
5.6
7.4
7.8
8.9
9.3
TIA
1.8
1.7
1.9
1.9
1.8
2.1
2.1
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.8
1.9
2.0
SwRI
Panel
"D"
3.5
3.5
4.3
3.6
3.3
4.8
3.9
3.0
3.5
4.0
3.8
3.3
4.1
4.1
Predicted
"D"
by Equation
1
3.8
3.4
4.1
4.1
3.8
4.7
4.7
3.1
3.4
3.8
4.1
3.8
4.1
4.4
2
3.5
3.3
3.8
3.8
3.5
4.4
4.4
3.0
3.3
3.6
3.8
3.5
3.8
4.0
3
3.7
3.3
3.9
3.8
3.6
4.3
3.8
3.0
3.4
3.7
3.9
3.3
3.8
4.1
* Based on ADL LCA standard.
Equation 1: "D" = -2. 0 + 3. 2 (TIA)
Equation 2: "D" = -0. 69+2.3 (TIA) + 0. 0045 (LCA).
Equation 3: "D" = -2. 9 + 4. 0 (TIA) + 0. 012 (LCA) - 0.14 (LCO)
Note: Equations 2 and 3, use LCA and LCO concentrations in ug/1.
-------
APPENDIX H
SMOKE DATA BY CHASSIS VERSION
OF FEDERAL HD SMOKE TEST
H-l
-------
TABLE H-l. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No.
Date
Evaluated By
L
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
-L
3
y
^
c
7
a
ft
/o
/f
/L
/3
/y
/$- '
Total Smoke %
•¥.3
10
S.D
s's.
7.0
•
^.0
•S'.O
J.O
3.3
3 r'
3.8
4O
4.0
V.Ce
42.
•S'.Ji,
*"0
S'.O
•£.0
fT.O
•f.X^
6*4-
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
/
J2^
3
/
r*
(?
7
$
1
/o
Jt
/Z,
J3
/•*
'S^
3.S~
•S-S'
J.3
-£/
4o
j 'C'
o*' * X
4a
3.3
-7.J
4 o
4s —
4s^
4. /
^^
-^=r^
> / /7
(0 /* f
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
j^
3
•I
.T
-S'.S
^r"
^.i —
t.o
S.z — '
Total Smoke % *£#.O
Factor (b) = •//£ = ^
/
J2,
J
^
^^
<*.
*f.O
£.£>
*2.fe.3^
/
-e
-3
/
£
^ ^
^. ^
S',^
r. 7
S-£~
077-J/
15
Comments:
-7.0
6.0
/<* . 7
4-
¥
H-2
-------
TABLE H-2. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION.OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. /fa.
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Se
Interval No.
/
.2,
3
-/
jr~
&
7
g
3
'O
//
'2s
/3
f¥
/5~~
Total Smoke %
Factor (a) : <£A
4
Lugging
First Se
Interval No.
/
-2/
_?
^
j-~"
Total Smoke %
Factor (b) = #t
Comments :
~f/. /__
^ *7
o&a^rts1 <o
•'/
/2s
'3
XV
,o '
Third Se
Interval No.
/
^
J
y.
£ — "
f&
*,
Sequence
Smoke %
4.0
4 O
4.0
4.S
J.f
3.£^
4.S^
4.5^
4- x~
•#•$"""
^.o
•^3
£*.4
-S.z
s/.s^'
6>J. 5
quence
Smoke %
6.0
^. O
^ •r"
^".s —
" #
ea?Z,^
6.0
^.^
=f '.S~
/^"~25
,H-3
-------
TABLE H-3. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. /ZLtASUt-1 ^oJ^^j Date ^--S^-Y^- Evaluated By Af/^
L
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. ^5
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
_2,
^5
4-
^f
£0
rf
g
£f
/O
//
/-Z,
/3
/4
/-5"
&..O;
1.O
7.0
^.S^
&.£>
6.7
^.3
J'.f
6.6
6.0
6 £)
6,^
6 ^
t>.s^
6.7
Total Smoke % f^, 4-
/
3,
3
jt
4 —
^
/
g
J
10
//
/Z>
/3
//
/J —
^. 5
6.0
^3. S"""
J.S^
3.7
i3.&>
4-6
4.0
4,o
4.$ —
s.o
£.3;
S.O
•$~.o
^.s"
tx.o
/
J2,
^3
4-
jr^
L
7
£
1
/O
//
/3->
/3
'4-
/J — '
<£.3s
3.0
3.2*
3.0
s.o
J.f~
3.S — "
J.7
-f(o
•4.3 —
4.7
s-.o
J'.O
6.0
^r.O
63.2
Factor (a) = 013^.7 = a?1 ^ ^>
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
-2
j
4.
5~*
&.z~~
6>.S~
7.0
7-0
4>.S~~
Total Smoke % *?3 .S
Factor (b) = %2 S = 6
/
.£.
J
4-
&"
>.**
15
Comments: %£>
6.0
6.0
£ 0
£>. O
-5-.,T~
**.s-
/
-^
.?
^
^
6.0
4.0
^.g~~
*f. 7
6-3
<*
-------
TABLE H-4. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. /TJtJuCJuU^ =3,30 &~ Date /- 7- / Y- Evaluated By /T,V
c
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
=?-
J
y
o
£
7
f
1
10
//
/As
/3
/¥•
/.£•"""
^.(0
^",^
V. s*"
3.0
J.7
^./
-2.d
J.Q
JO
-=>?./
o/. /
o?..3
^2.3
-2-3
c2.3-
Total Smoke % -^X /
Factor (a) : /ȣ A/ = ^f, c
1
3,
3
•f-
j^
^
7
/
^
/0
//
/2s
/3
/y
/r"
p^
2.*
¥.£*
^.o
cZJ
•2 &
3.0
/.^"
/ J""
/jT
/ i*"
x^~
/,^
/^
/ /
/..z
<2 o
J- O
/6,D
/
.2,
^3
<<:
^
<=z. #
^ 3
,*? /
«?-/
^ /
/4.t>
^_
Z2^
V.
H-5
-------
TABLE H-5. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. /T^h AAtM^U -23O /y~ Date Evaluated By X: 7*~
CT
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. «^
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
.2.
^
t£
S^
&
/
f
f
/o
/I
/z.
/3
/•/
ts*~
3.s-
^.3
~S^D
*££>
.*^
^.3
A. 5^
.S*
£.6
£,O
3, C,
*)£.£>
at,
££
a? C.
«?..£
^?.O
3.£j
^?.^~
^.X~
•3. (a
fjj "^
£ /. ^
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
/
^
J
y
^
&
7
j'
?
/&
//
JJL,
/3
/•/
/•>
_£ ^
£'.-?'
£. O
*£ S^
3.L>
r-J- (^
c3,^o
J.o
J.O
3.t>
3.0
3.0
3.ZL*
•J.1/-
J.& —
^3
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
<2*
~3
•^
s —
-3.0
J.£>
J.n
J.o
3.o
Total Smoke % /^.O
Factor (b) =. ^3-^" - «
/
-Z.
J
•/
f
1.9 y*
15
Comments: &3
«?. 7
o?7
of 7
4.7
of. 7
;3^
/
^.
^?
^
s —
3.0
3.0
3.O
3. O
J. 6
/£.£>
(,. &
/
~^T
~ 7. -ft—
-*Hr
H-6
-------
TABLE H-6. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. /?/^uu ^^ ^,2.^ AX_-Date /- 7- 7 *j- Evaluated By A //
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. \3
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
-2
J
^/
g~
6
7
£
1
/#
/i
/3-s
/-?
/' -f
,* — '
Total Smoke %
"/.0
•^-.^
<3.D
3. O
3-D
3.0
J.C>
J.O
*2-*7
*?.*?
•2.1
<2.tf
J2.3
Factor (a) : /&0'$ - <3- ^
1
Jt,
J
/
*T
&
7
/
1
so
//
/-^
.'3
'V
/f~~
', °/o
3,8
/**A
J, (*
^5^
*£&
&0
J.O
3 O
3,O
3.0
•3,/
•3.^3
3.$^
3,f
J..3 —
^^
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
/
A,
j
<4
5"
6,
7
f
f
.'O
//
/•e.
'3
.•••
/•£ —
^,£> —
6>.2>
•£~,£
4-.O
3.7
<*./
<=«?• /
*2. J
£. 3
eZ.f
J.o
&T>
3 £>
3.0
3.O
*-* r-
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
.2.
J
-V
^ —
*3. 0
JO
J.tJ
j.e>
3 Q
Total Smoke % /£^/9
Factor (b) = •// «5 = ^
/
3,
3
y
5 —
?• cf /&
•J.o
J.O
J. O
^ o
3 t>
/&0
/
~i-
3
9-
3~^
*2. £~
^.^
eZ.S
^2. 3^
tJ.S"
//^
15
Comments:
"r_ "
H-7
-------
TABLE H-7. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. f £*LSVUJ~ Date ^////7^ Evaluated By AT /V
/
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
.2,
^
•*.
_,— '
• £
7
/
9
/o
//
/3s
/-3
/«/
/5 — '
Total Smoke %
•^ #
f f~
S.3
r.o
^g
^d
^-.o
^^
/^/
Factor (a) ; //^^ = ^ /
1
j^
3
V
jj —
j.
7
a
•1
fo
//
/2s
'3
*¥•
/J
%
>?. J^
»?. ^
^T-Ex
^0
^&
•tf.Jb
*£
4.0
to
J.0
J 0
J.O
3.0
3 O
&.(,
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
/
-Z,
3
^
f*
^
7
f
^
/t>
/y
/i
^5
/^
/s —
"££,
^.5~
£.$''
¥.$
•^Cz,
^5^
*?. /
^, ^
j; y'
^ j"" '
JZ.t,
•z.f
•Z.S^
•2. f
-«?.S"~"
- S3.£T
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
<2s
3
^
_s —
£".(,
^/
3*.3
^3
S.3
Total Smoke % ^£ , ^
Factor (b) = /J^-2^ = J
1
^L
J
•y(
J
15
Comments: ^,3
J.O
J'.O
jF 'f~
&.D
& 3s
J7.7
y
j.
^
^
5—
4o
4.#
(••3
H-8
-------
TABLE H-8. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
^
Vehicle No. . /Ie^t^J^f~ Date ^/ /*?• /7 ¥ Evaluated By /t/V
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. J2_s
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval Nor Smoke %
/
_i,
^
.*'
f^
6>
7
f
7
/o
if
/3s
13
/•/
/5 —
3.9
£.0
4 S^
£ g^
6.3
&.£,
-7.0
?.f
$.f~
7.6,
J.O
^,t>
j» ^
3. I
^ix
Total Smoke % J7/ j"*"^
/
A*
3
4-
5^
«^
7
/
7
/tf
,1
J2,
/3
/•/
/J — '
3,(*
¥.3
4:3
4.0
3.5"
J.O
*g
<2.$
J..L
3. &
/.$
^25 —
-^.^ —
30
20
m.£
/
2.
3
V
f
(,
7
3
q
10
a
. /^L
13
rf
/S""
3. 2.
4.**"
J'.O
4.5t
4.tf
vf r*^
-?. /
^.n
~/./
2. 1
j. /
0?. /
^ c.
3.. 7
3.0
J^.O
Factor (a) : //# 9 ^ ^ 0 e/o
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
^
J
/
J-—
*3 £
4:0
3*?
^.^
^./
Total Smoke % X^.^-
Factor (b) = ^"^ g - J>
/
A,
j
S/
J
?.?y0
15
Comments: ^[. £"*"
*3. $ —
3 .T —
•¥ L>
*0
*/,3
/1.3
./
jj.
^
-figjXjt^
H-9
-------
TABLE H-9. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No.
Date
Model Engine
Evaluated By
Run No. o?
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
^
3
^
S^
(,
7
/
1
10
/I
li.
/3
/<{
if
4.o
4.7
4.4
4.*+
•$
o2.-S~
~2..r*~
-
/
A,
3
/
S~
£
1
g
^
/O
//
/a.
13
/^
/r~
<&.3.
-3.1
J1.^
J. S~
•3-f
J.^
3 b
3.^~
*2 2-
£ &
^. 3s
£'£,
.s.o
£ 0
<£..£>
/
.2.
,3
¥-
^
&>
7
8
9
/o
//
'/2,
/j?
/^
/S"
•J-7
•J0
Total Smoke %
Factor (b) =
Comments:
2.0
15
H-10
-------
TABLE H-10. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No.
Date
Evaluated By
" V
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. /
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
.2,
J
7
f
J
/£>
//
/£>
/3
/<*-
($ —
&X'
if
t.o
•tf.5^
v.£
4.7
•S'.O
^ n
^ ^
6 S~~
2.0
/o.o
.t)
^.3
6> &
6> S~
f.o
/.^
/.o
9,0
/0/.J
/
^
3
/
j^*
^
7
3
f
/o
//
/^
'3
/*£
'$
6.3
-Sf3
^.^
&>.f
7.£^
.?£>
f?-Z,
2.O
7.0
7.0
6 ?
£,.£,
7. S^
/o. s~~
// &
///x
Factor (a) r^?/X/ = /£>/£>
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke %
/
_2x
^
/
g
/o.o
9,s^
J.o
: /t
/
^2^
^
/yfj-
//.o
JO.O /3.-S /O.Z*'
/O.O /O,£~ /r).f~
1'J~~2 " ^k.0 ' 33, JO
'T1^? O
/ f . n
^ - //' / % "c- " *-£**^6a>u
H-ll
-------
TABLE H-ll. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No. QxLbjl^ Date ^/////V Evaluated By XT^f-
Model Engine
Accelerations
f
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. "^
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
t
/
-2x
^3
y-
g^
6,
7
#
•S'lO
6,,.O
6.0
t>.3
;
^
3
yt
sr
£
fl^
n
3
/D
//
/A*
/3
/yL
J$ —
£.6
£./
•£&
J.g
J 6
*3
g'.'f
g'.f^
4^ fif
jtf -7
y.o
y.o
*v, O
^D * ~T
£.5 —
Total Smoke % 7D, O
7J..S
••73.?.
Factor (a) -
j( / /O
45
Lugging
First Sequence
Interval No. Smoke
Second Sequence
Interval No. Smoke %
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke
/
^L
•3
t
sr~
6.;T
t,.o
^.S^
£-.f
S.f
1
tf
tf
7.0
u«
/
A,
3
{
f~~
6.3;
£.0
s.s
S.8
s>.r~
Total Smoke
Factor (b) =
Comments:
15
. I*
C
H-12
-------
TABLE H-1Z. SMOKEMETER OPACITY READINGS FROM
CHASSIS VERSION OF FEDERAL SMOKE TEST
Vehicle No.
Date
Evaluated By
(/
Model Engine
Accelerations
First Sequence Second Sequence
Run No. ^3
Third Sequence
Interval No. Smoke % Interval No. Smoke % Interval NOT Smoke %
/
-£x
V?
•/
^
(,
7
#
?
/0
//
/^/
A?
/y
/S^~
Total Smoke %
4. 0
• &J
(,.7
S.D
4.O
6>,z>
4.f
/?
si/
S'.Jj
s'.o
7.0
j'.C^
^f
&.O
#3 1
Factor (a) -/J^.S- r "p-, 3
/
3,
J
*/.
5 —
t,
7
g
a
/O
//
/.i-
S3
'4
/s~~
-%
S" 0
6.0
•y.f
^..^
el.t.
~3.f
•3.3
3.O
3.0
d.o
^.3
3.0
•^•S^
J'.D
y.±
S7.7
45
Lugging
First Sequence Second Sequence
/
^,
3
-/
^
?.&
^ s — "
t.o
&.3j
&.d
Total Smoke % <33.Y
Factor (b) = //, <2y = c
/
•z.
3
¥
,5~"
_%
15
Comments: ^^
6>. £.6 &.0
£'/>3 '/rta '/4-£~
6&,tf
*? *~ & •
-------
APPENDIX I
NOISE DATA
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1. DATSUN-NISSAN DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: March 6, 1974 Wind: 4. 8 km/hr SSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test 40-47
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
(1)
in
Constant
1st
74.5
73
82
83
Speed
Pass
2nd 3rd
74 75
73 73.5
83.5 83
84 84
48. 3 km/hr Driveby
Arithmetic
Average' '
74. 8
73. 3
83. 3
84
Ambient: Before Test 40-47 After Test 40-47
Pass
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
63
63
69
70
Engine Idle,
2nd
63. 5
62
68. 5
71. 5
Vehicle
3rd
63
62
70
71
at Rest
Arithmetic
Average(^)
63.3
62. 5
69. 5
71.3
Test 1 - Direction A
Interior 62 (67 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior
79
66.5 73 72.5
Test 2 - Direction B
61. 5 (66.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
79 66 74.5 72.5
Max
Reading
67
79
(^According to SAE J-986a.
verage of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-2
-------
TABLE I -2. MERCEDES 220 DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: March 5, 1974
Wind: 6. 4 km/hr SSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 45-55 After Test 45-55
Exterior at 15.
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
76
74
73.5
79
Pass
2nd
77
73
74.5
78. 5
3rd
77
73
74
•78.5
Arithmetic
Average^)
77
73.5
74.3
78.8
Constant Speed 48. 3 km/hr Driveby
Ambient: Before Test 45-55 After Test 45-55
Exterior at 7. 62m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
62
62
62.5
73
Pass
2nd
61. 5
62
64
74
3rd
62
62
63
72.5
Arithmetic
Average*^'
62
62
63.5
73.5
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
Ambient: Before Test 45-55 After Test 45-55
Test 1 - Direction A
Interior 51 (71.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 66 60 66 64. 5
Max
Test 2 - Direction B Reading
52 (71. 5 Blr On) 71.5
Front Rear Left Right
66 59 66 64 66
(^According to SAE J-986a.
'^'Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-3
-------
TABLE 1-3. CAPRI DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: March 6, 1974 Wind: 4.8km/hrSSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test 40-45
Exterior at 15.24m(1)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Pass
1st
74
74
81
82
2nd
72
72
79
81
3rd
72
72
82
82.5
Arithmetic
73
73
81.5
82.3
Constant Speed 48. 3 km/hr Driveby
Ambient: Before Test 45-50 After Test 42-46
Exterior at 7. 62m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
58. 5
58
65
71
Pass
2nd
57. 6
56
66.5
69
3rd
56
56
64
70
Arithmetic
58. 1
57
65.8
70.5
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
Ambient: Before Test 40-48 After Test 40-48
Test 1 - Direction A
Interior 54 (70 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 61.5 62 60.5 60.5
Test 2 - Direction B
54 (70 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
59.5 63 60 59.5
Max
Reading
70
63
(^According to SAE J-986a.
' 'Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-4
-------
TABLE 1-4. PEUGEOT DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: March 26, 1974 Wind: 9.7km/hrSSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test -
Pass
Exterior at 15.
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
70.5
70
76.5
>n 81
Constant Speed
2nd 3rd
71 70
70 70
78 79
79 78
48. 3 km/hr Driveby
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test -
Pass
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
61
59
67
72
2nd
61.5
60
65. 5
72.5
3rd
60.5
60
66
71
Arithmetic
Average^)
70.8
70
78.5
80
Arithmetic
Average(^)
61.3
60
66.5
72.3
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
Ambient: Before Test -- After Test —
Test 1 - Direction A Test 2 - Direction B
Interior
52. 5 (70 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
52 (70 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 68
58
64 64
66.5 58
64 63
Max
Reading
70
68
(^According to SAE J-986a.
(^Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-5
-------
TABLE 1-5. OPEL DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: March 26, 1974 Wind: 9.7km/hrSSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test 40-45
Exterior at 15.
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
67.5
67
73.5
74
Pass
2nd
67.5
67
74
72.5
3rd
67
67. 5
72.5
73
Arithmetic
Average(^)
67.5
67.3
73.8
73.5
Constant Speed 48. 3 km/hr Driveby
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test 40-45
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
61
62.5
65
70
Pass
2nd
61.5
62.5
70
71.5
3rd
61. 5
61
68
70
Arithmetic
Average'^'
61. 5
62.5
69
70
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
Ambient: Before Test 45-50 After Test 45-50
Test 1 - Direction A
Interior 53. 5 (70 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 71.5 63
69.5 69.5
Test 2 - Direction B
53 (69.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
72 63.5 69 69
Max
Reading
70
72
(^According to SAE J-986a.
of the two highest readings that are within x2dB of each other.
1-6
-------
TABLE 1-6. CAPRI PROCO DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: March 26, 1974 Wind: 9.7km/hrSSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test 40-45
Pass
Exterior at 15.24m(1)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
(!)
75
76
83
m 82
Constant Speed
2nd
75
76
82. 5
83 :
48. 3 km/hr
3rd
75.5
76
83
83
Driveby
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test 40-45
Pass
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
58
57
71
72.5
Engine Idle,
2nd
58
57
69
71
Vehicle
3rd
59
57
70
72
at Rest
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test 40-45
Arithmetic
Average(Z)
75.3
76
83
83
Arithmetic
Average(^)
58.5
57
70.5
72.3
Test 1 - Direction A
Interior 66 (71 Blr On)
Parent Rear Left Right
Exterior 63
Test 2 - Direction B
66 (71 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Max
Reading
71
55
60 61
63.5 55
61 61
63.5
(^According to SAE J-986a.
(^)Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-7
-------
TABLE 1-7. CAPRI DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: March 26, 1974 Wind: 9.7km/hrSSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 40-45 After Test 40-45
Pass Arithmetic
Average' '
Exterior at 15. 24m(1)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
73
71.5
82
83
Constant Speed 48.
Ambient: Before Test
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
40-45 After
1st
56
59
65
71.5
2nd
73. 5
71.5
80
82
3 km/hr
3rd
72
72
83
83
Driveby
Test 40-45
Pass
2nd
57
56
67
72
Engine Idle, Vehicle at
3rd
57.5
57
66
71
Rest
73.3
71.8
82.5
83
Arithmetic
Average' '
57.3
58
66.5
71.8
Ambient: Before Test 38-42 After Test 38-42
Test 1 - Direction A Test 2 - Direction B
Interior 53 (70.5 Blr On) 53 (70 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right Front Rear Left Right
Exterior 56 57.5 56 56 56 57.5 56 56
Max
Reading
70.5
57.5
(^According to SAE J-986a.
'^'Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-8
-------
TABLE 1-8. TEXACO TCCS CRICKET DIESEL CAR NOISE DATA -
dBA SCALE
Date: August 13, 1974
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45
Wind: 8. 0 km/hr SSE
Exterior at 15. 24m(1)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
67
67
76
76
Constant Speed
Ambient: Before Test
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Inte rior
Fresh Air Blr On
Pass
2nd
67
66.5
75.5
77
48.3 km/h
3rd
66
66.5
76
76. 5
r Driveby
Arithmetic
Average(Z)
67
66.8
76
76.8
43-45 After Test 43-45
1st
59 •
59.5
73.5
72.5
Engine Idle,
Pass
2nd
59.5
59
73
75
Vehicle at
3rd
59.5
60.0
73
73
Rest
Arithmetic
Average(^)
59.5
59.8
73.3
74
Ambient:
Interior
Exterior
Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45
Test 1 - Direction A Test 2 - Direction B
62. 5 (66 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
62 (66 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
72 62. 5 67
67
71
61
65
67
Max
Reading
66
72
(^According to SAE J-986a.
(2)Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-9
-------
Table 1-9. TEXACO TCCS CRICKET GASOLINE CAR
NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: August 13, 1974
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 39-40 After Test 39-40
Exterior at 15. 24m(1)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Wind: 8. 0 km/hr SSE
1st
67
65. 5
75
74. 5
Pass
2nd
66
66.5
74.5
75
3rd
66.5
67
75
75
Arithmetic
Average(2)
66.8
66.8
75
75
Constant Speed 48. 3 km/hr Driveby
Ambient: Before Test 39-40
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
60
58
72
73
After Test 39-40
Pass
2nd
59.5
58.5
72
71.5
3rd
59.5
61
73
72
Arithmetic
Average(^)
59.8
59.8
72. 5
72.5
Engine Idle, Vehicle at Rest
Ambient: Before Test 43-45 After Test 43-45
Max
Test 1 - Direction A Test 2 - Direction B Reading
Interior
Exterior
63 (66 Blr On) 65 (66. 5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right Front Rear _Lef_t Right
70
61.5 65.5 66
70.5 62.5 65
66
66.5
70. 5
(^According to SAE J-986a.
(2)Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-10
-------
TABLE I-10. HONDA CVCC CIVIC CAR NOISE DATA - dBA SCALE
Date: August 13, 1974 Wind: 4. 8 km/hr SSE
Acceleration Test (2nd Gear)
Ambient: Before Test 46-47
After Test 46-47
Exterior at 15. 24m(1)
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
1st
72
71
81. 5
81. 5
Constant Speed
Ambient: Before Te
Exterior at 15. 24m
Right to Left
Left to Right
Interior
Fresh Air Blr On
Pass
2nd
73
70
81
82
48. 3 km/hr
3rd
72
72
82
82.5
Driveby
Arithmetic
Average(Z)
72.5
71.5
81.8
82.3
st 43-44 After Test 43-44
1st
56
57
73
75
Engine Idle,
Pass
2nd
56.5
56
75
75
3rd
56
56
75
74
Arithmetic
Average^)
56.3
56. 5
75
75
Vehicle at Rest
Ambient: Before Test 45-48 After Test 45-48
Test 1 - Direction A Test 2 - Direction B
Interior 48 (73 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
49 (73.5 Blr On)
Front Rear Left Right
Max
Reading
73. 5
Exterior 58
55
53.5 53.5
58.5 56
54. 5 53. 5
58. 5
(^According to SAE J-986a.
(2)Average of the two highest readings that are within 2dB of each other.
1-11
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
i. REPORT NO.
EPA 460/3-75-001A
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIOI*NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
"Emissions From Diesel and Stratified Charge
Powered Cars"
5. REPORT DATE
December 1974
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
11-2340-005
7. AUTHOR(S)
Karl J. Springer
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
AR-975
9. PERFORMING ORG/VNIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
PH 22-68-23
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report - 12/74
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
A total of ten passenger cars, four powered by diesel engines, two by stratified
charge gasoline engines, one by a stratified charge operating on gasoline and diesel
fuel, two by control equipped conventional engines, and one powered by a gas turbine,
have been subjected to a wide variety of emissions evaluations. The vehicles, all
late model, low mileage, included a Nissan Datsun, a Mercedes 220D, a Peugeot
504D, an Opel Rekord 2100D, a standard Capri, a stratified charge (PROCO) Capri,
a low emission prototype Ford LTD, the Texaco TCCS stratified charge powered
Cricket operated on gasoline and on diesel fuel, a Honda CVCC stratified charge, and
a Chrysler gas turbine car. All were 4-cylinder except the LTD and the gas turbine.
Tailpipe emissions were measured by the 1975 light duty Federal Test Procedure
for gaseous emissions. Smoke and fuel economy were also determined during this test
cycle. Odor and related instrumental-chemical measurements were made under seven
steady state and three acceleration conditions. Noise measurements were taken by
SAE driveby as well as under a variety of exterior-interior conditions. Comparisons
of the results for all vehicles are by emission category. The emissions from the
group of diesel cars are compared to the conventional gasoline, Ford PROCO, Texaco
TCCS, and Honda CVCC.
7.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COS AT I Field/Group
Odor
Smoke
Emissions
Pollution
Car
Automobile
Exhaust
Engine
Diesel
Research
Test
Dilution
Noise
Economy
Light Duty Vehicle
Heavy Duty Vehicle
Federal Test Procedure
Fuel Economy
Emission Controls
HDV Chassis Test
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
323
Unlimited
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
1-12
------- |