EPA-460/3-76-019
September 1976
AUTOMOBILE
EXHAUST EMISSION
SURVEILLANCE ANALYSIS
OF THE
FY 1974 PROGRAM
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-76-019
AUTOMOBILE
EXHAUST EMISSION
SURVEILLANCE ANALYSIS
OF THE
FY 1974 PROGRAM
by
Alan P. Berens and Michael Hill
University of Dayton Research Institute
300 College Park Avenue
Dayton, Ohio 45469
Contract No. 68-03-2384
EPA Task Officer: Lois A. Platte
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
September 1976
-------
This report is issued by the Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control,
Office of Air and Water Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
to report technical data of interest to a limited number of readers. Copies
of this report are available free of charge to Federal employees, current
contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - as supplies
permit - from the Library Services Office (MD 35), Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27711; or, for a fee, from the National Technical
Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-76-019
11
-------
ABSTRACT
The Environmental Protection Agency has recognized that a
realistic assessment of the effectiveness of Federal air pollution regulations
requires the measurement of emissions from production vehicles in the
hands of the motoring public. Accordingly, the Emission Factor Program
has been developed to obtain this needed information by testing fleets of
consumer-owned vehicles in major cities.
This report summarizes the results of the FY74 Emission Factor
Program and compares these results with those obtained in the FY71, FY72,
and FY73 Emission Factor Programs. HC, CO and NOX emissions are
summarized in terms of both arithmetic and geometric means and standard
deviations and fuel economy is summarized in terms of harmonic means
and standard deviations. Summaries are presented for each city and model
year combination, for each manufacturer for 1975 model year vehicles and
for the results of highway fuel economy tests, low and high speed
transient cycle tests and for loaded vehicle tests.
111
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE NO.
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND BACKGROUND
1. 1 Summary
1. 2 Conclusions
1.3 Background
EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM DESIGN
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
3.1
3.2
Emission Data and Results
Discussion
3. 2.1 City Effects
3. 2. 2 Performance in First Year
of Operation
3. 2. 3 Degradation Effects
3. 2. 4 Fuel Economy
3. 2. 5 Manufacturer Effects
3. 2. 6 Correlation of Emissions with
Ownership Characteristics
3. 2. 7 Highway Fuel Economy Tests
3. 2. 8 Low and High Speed Transient
Cycle Tests
3. 2. 9 Modal Emission Sequence
3. 2. 10 Loaded Vehicle and Vehicles
Towing Trailers Tests
REFERENCES
TABLES
1
2
7
11
14
16
18
19
20
22
24
25
25
26
29
30
31
32
35
36
-------
1. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND BACKGROUND
The EPA Emission Factor Program (EFP) is a continuing effort which
characterizes the emissions of light duty vehicles in their in-use condition.
This report summarizes the data from the fourth year (FY 74) in the series
and updates the sample to include 1975 model year vehicles as well as
provides continued monitoring of previous model years. State and local
agencies, Federal air pollution officials, automobile manufacturers, and
concerned citizens can use this summary to estimate the impact of light
duty vehicle emissions on air quality and to determine conformity of
vehicles to the standards under which they were certified.
The data summarized in this report were generated from a random
sample of in-use vehicles in seven cities: Chicago, Denver, Houston,
Los Angeles, Phoenix, St. Louis, and Washington D. C. Exhaust emission
tests were performed on each vehicle in accordance with the 1975 Federal
Test Procedure (FTP) which consists of a transient driving cycle with an average
speed of 19.6 mph. The 1975 FTP exhaust emission test procedure is
comprised of three phases:
(1) a cold transient phase representative of vehicle start-up
after a long engine-off period;
(2) a stabilized phase representative of engine operation after
the normal operating temperature has been achieved; and
(3) a hot transient phase representative of vehicle operation
immediately after a relatively short engine-off period.
The emission test results of the three phases of the 1975 FTP are weighted
20%, 53%, and 27% , respectively, before they are combined. The 1972
FTP emission test results can be calculated by combining the first two
phases of the test (weighted equally). The tests were conducted
by three contractors and more detailed information on specific tests or
results can be found in the reports of the contractors, References (1), (2),
and (3).
-------
When possible, comparisons are made between the results of the
FY74 Program with those of previous years, References (4), (5), and (6).
Such comparisons are made on the basis of the 1975 FTP since 1975 model
year vehicles were emphasized in this year's program. However, FY74
summary results are also presented for the 1972 FTP to facilitate comparison
if these weighting factors are preferred.
1.1 SUMMARY
The FY74 Emission Factor Program consisted of exhaust emission
tests on 1965 through 1975 model year in-use vehicles and light duty trucks
(LDT) under 6, 000 Ibs gross weight. Tests of hydrocarbon (HC), carbon
monoxide (CO), oxides of nitrogen (NOX), and carbon dioxide (CO ) emissions
j£
were performed in each of seven cities. The test locations were selected to
represent heavily populated areas of diverse meteorological, geographical,
and usage environments. The northeast sector and northern Great Plains
with long winters are represented by Chicago. The Great Plains region
having moderate winters is represented by St. Louis while that of a very
warm, humid climate is represented by Houston. Mountainous metropolitan
areas are represented by Denver. Los Angeles represents the temperate,
warm western region and Washington D. C. is typical of cities on the eastern
seaboard. For the first time in the Emission Factor Programs, the desert
areas are represented by the inclusion of Phoenix in the group of surveyed
cities.
The vehicles tested in each city were selected to be a nationally
representative (random) sample of cars within a model year but the number
of vehicles for each model year are not representative of the total population
of in-use vehicles. A sufficient sample of 1975 model year vehicles were
tested so that average emissions for each manufacturer could be used to
generate composite emission le'vels on the basis of a weighting by manu-
facturers. Therefore, in using the data, comparisons must be made on a
model year basis. The number of vehicles tested in each model year for
each city are as follows:
-------
75 LDT
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
74
53
30
30
30
30
50
30
73
51
27
27
27
50
— —
72
51
25
25
25
25
50
25
71
45
--
--
--
23
45
_ —
70
40
--
--
--
19
40
_ _
69
35
--
--
--
18
35
_ _
68
30
--
17
30
. _
67- 65
50
--
--
--
26
50
— *
MODEL YEAR
75_ 75 LPT
Chicago 168
Denver 35
Houston 117
Los Angeles 35
Phoenix 117
St. Louis 150
Washington 35
A summary of the FY 1974 Emission Factor Program results for 1975
model vehicles is presented in Table 1. The most noteworthy differences
displayed in this table indicate that emission rates in Denver and Los Angeles
are significantly different from those of the other cities. Los Angeles had
significantly lower HC and CO emissions than the other cities while Denver
had significantly greater HC and CO and significantly lower NOX emissions
than the other cities. For this reason composite tables have been prepared
combining all cities except Los Angeles and Denver. The composite
emissions from all test cities except Los Angeles and Denver are believed
to be the best single estimates representative of all the remaining sections
of the country (i. e. , non-California low altitude areas).
More stringent Federal standards went into effect for the 1975 model
year vehicles. The influence of these standards on the emission levels can
be realized by comparing the average emissions for each model year in its
first year of operation. Table 2 presents such arithmetic average emissions
for the composites of all cities except Denver and Los Angeles, for Denver,-
and for Los Angeles. It is noteworthy that average 1975 model year HC and
CO emissions are significantly less than those of previous years for the
composite, for Denver, and for Los Angeles. Average NOX levels are not
significantly reduced from those of the 1974 model year vehicles but are
significantly less than those of pre-1974 model years. The HC and CO
-------
TABLE I
FY 74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
SUMMARY TABLE OF EMISSION LEVELS USING
THE 1975 FTP FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR AUTOMOBILES
city
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
St. Louis
Washington, D. C.
5 Cities
Averaged
Los Angeles
Denver
Number
of
Vehicles
Tested
168
117
117
150
35
587
35
35
Mean
Miles
(Thous -
ands)
6.1
•
9.6
10. 2
9.5
11.1
8.8
8.1
13.5
Hydrocarbon*
GMS/MI
Arithmetic
Mean
I.Z9
1.49
1.30
1.26
1.Z6
1.32
0.52
2.ZZ
S. D.
O.B5
I.Z8
0.89
1.12
0.96
1.03
0.26
1.12
Carbon Monoxide
GMS/MI
Arithmetic
Mean
22.55
Z7. 11
23.66
20.88
16.99
22,92
6459
48.52
S.D.
19.15
31.83
21.28
Z3.30
16.17
23. 56
6.87
28.46
NOX
GMS/MI
Arithmetic
Mean
2.43
2.59
Z.35
2.28
2.97
2.44
2.38
1.62
S.D.
0.87
1.18
0.95
0.97
1.25
1.01
1.14
0.65
Fuel Economy
MI/GAL
Harmonic
Mean
13.08
13.35
14.07
13.81
13.51
13.51
12.76
14.45
S.D.
3. 12
3.35
3.52
3.25
3.41
3.31
3.30
3.55
Idle Hydrocarbons
Parts 'per Million
Hexane
Mean
117
98
98
191
117
1Z8
33
139
S.D.
128
117
84
259
166
170
43
107
Idle Carbon
Monoxide
Percent CO
Mean
1.46
1.48
1.29
1.57
1.13
1.44
0.14
1.61
S.D.
2.27
2.09
1.96
2.21
2.51
2.17
0.44
2.18
-------
TABLE 2
MEAN EMISSIONS AFTER APPROXIMATELY ONE YEAR OF OPERATION
FROM EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAMS -- 1975 FTP
Location
21*
City Composite'1'
FY71 EFP, 1971 Models
FY72 EFP, 1972 Models
FY73 EFP, 1973 Models
FY74 EFP, 1974 Models
FY74 EFP, 1975 Models
Denver
FY71 EFP, 1971 Models
FY72 EFP, 1972 Models
FY73 EFP, 1973 Models
FY74 EFP, 1974 Models
FY74 EFP, 1974 Models
Los Angeles
FY71 EFP, 1971 Models
FY72 EFP, 1972 Models
FY73 EFP, 1973 Models
FY74 EFP, 1974 Models
FY74 EFP, 1975 Models
Average
Mileage
(Thousands)
15.6
14.8
18. 1
?.0.?
8.8
15.2
14.1
14.3
24.6
13. 5
15.8
17.6
21.5
22.6
8.1
HC
GM/MI
3.07
3.02
3.59
3. 58
1.32
5.59
4.75
4.54
5.15
2.22
3.02
3. 56
3.85
2.57
0.52
CO
GM/MI
39. 56
36.88
46.96
41.77
22.92
88. 13
80. 36
84. 70
83.67
48. 52
42.26
46.68
39.39
37.05
6. 59
NOX
GM/MI
5.06
4.55
3.47
2.89
2.44
3.05
3.08
1.96
1.85
1.62
3.83
3.81
3.04
2.47
2.38
FY71 and FY72 -- Chicago, Houston, St. Louis, Washington, D. C.
FY73 -- Detroit, Houston, St. Louis, Newark
FY74 -- Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, St. Louis, Washington, D. C.
-------
reductions are probably attributable to the manufacturers conversion to
catalytic converters and other improvements in emission controls but it
should be noted that the average mileage for the 1975 vehicles at the time
of their tests was considerably less than that of the other model years.
The Federal 49 State Standards and 1975 California Standards for
emissions in grams per mile based on constant volume sampling are
summarized as follows:
HC CO NOX
Federal 1972 (1972 FTP) 3.4 39.0
49 State 1973/1974 (1972 FTP) 3.4 39.0 3.0
1975 (1975 FTP) 1.5 15.0 3.1
1975 Trucks (1975 FTP) 2.0 20.0 3.1
California 1975 (1975 FTP) 0.9 9.0 2.0
1975 Trucks (1975 FTP) 2.0 20.0 2.0
The 1975 standards are expressed in terms of the 1975 FTP. A conversion
between the 1972 FTP and the 1975 FTP depends upon vehicle mix but
approximately equivalent values for the 1972-1974 model year vehicles are:
1972 FTP
1975 FTP
HC
3.4
3.0
CO
39
34
NOX
3.0
3.1
The 1975 Federal 49 State Standards for HC and CO are considerably more
stringent than those of previous years while the NOX standard has not been
reduced. It is of interest to note that although average HC and CO emissions
have been significantly reduced in the 1975 models, the composite arithmetic
average for CO is still greater than the standard and the composite HC and
NOX averages are less than the standard. Average NOX emissions in
Denver for 1975 model year vehicles are less than the standard but average
HC and CO emissions exceed the standard in this city. The Los Angeles
average emissions are less than the Federal 49 State Standards but exceed
-------
the California Standards for NOX.
In addition to the basic tests of the Emission Factor Program, high-
way fuel economy tests, high and low speed transient cycle tests and loaded
vehicle tests were conducted during the FY 74 Program. (See Sections
3. 2. 7 through 3. 2. 10 for test descriptions. ) The data from these tests
are also summarized in this report. Each vehicle owner also completed
a questionnaire concerning usage, maintenance and repair of his vehicle.
An attempt was made to identify relationships between'response a and
emission rates but for most of the questions no consistent trends were
Identified.
1. 2 CONCLUSIONS
Results of the FY 74 Emission Factor Program summarized in this
report reveal that:
1. Individual vehicles of any stratification show wide dispersion
in exhaust emissions. The coefficient of variation (standard
deviation divided by the average) is typically greater than
50% and quite often is greater than 100%. Consequently,
two groups of vehicles, for example populations of vehicles
tested in two different cities, may show considerable overlap
of their statistical distributions even though the mean emissions
for the two groups are appreciably different. Generalizations
with regard to make, city or other categories of interest,
therefore, are often not applicable to comparison of individual
vehicles or small subsets of vehicles drawn from the two
categories.
2. The comparison of the average emission differences between
cities resulted in the conclusion that emissions from Denver
and Los Angeles vehicles are significantly different from those
of all other cities. Average HC and CO emissions in Denver are
-------
significantly greater than those of the other cities while average
NOX emissions are significantly less. These Denver differences
have been observed in past programs and have been attributed to
the effect of altitude on air-fuel ratios. Los Angeles vehicles had
significantly less HC and CO emissions than all other cities.
Some individual differences between cities for particular model
years were significant but such differences were not consistent
for all model years. There was a tendency for Houston to
have higher HC and CO emissions. Note in Tables 5-12 that
the model year by city stratification has relatively small sample
sizes for all model years except 1975.
3. The percentage of 1975 model year vehicles meeting the 1975
Federal Standards are presented in Table 3.
TABLE 3
PERCENT OF 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
MEETING 1975 FEDERAL 49 STATE STANDARDS--1975 FTP
Pollutant
HC
CO
NOX
AU three
Five City
Composite
(587 Vehicles)
70% or 411
51% or 300
79% or 465
37% or 215
Denver
(35 Vehicles)
23% or 8
6% or 2
97% or 34
6% or 2
Los
' Angele s
(35 Vehicles)
100% or 35
91% or 32
80% or 28
74% or 26
8
-------
4. The downward trend in HC, CO, and NOX from pre-1968
vehicles (pre-control in all cities except Los Angeles) that
had been noted in previous Emission Factor Programs is
continued with the addition of the 1975 model year vehicles.
Table 4 presents the 1965-1967, 1974 and 1975 model year
arithmetic averages and the percent reduction. Note that the
1975 model year vehicles had significant reductions in all
three pollutants in the composite of all cities except Denver
and Los Angeles. Note again, however, that the 1975 model
year vehicles had accumulated much less mileage than the
other model years.
5. Comparison of the results of the FY71, FY72, FY73, and FY74
Emission Factor Programs verified the general trend for HC
and CO average emissions to increase with the age of the vehicle.
6. The only definite relationships between average emissions and
the responses to the questionnaire that were identified, relate
to 1975 model year vehicles on the questions concerning presence
of hydrogen sulfide odor and the use of unleaded fuel. The
1975 model vehicles for which owners regularly detected the
hydrogen sulfide odor (8% of the vehicles) had significantly
larger average HC, CO, idle HC and idle CO levels and
significantly smaller average NOX than those for which the
odor was never detected. The regular use of leaded fuel in
1975 vehicles for which unleaded fuel is required produced
significantly larger average CO and idle CO emissions and a
trend to higher HC emissions but the NOX emissions were not
significantly changed. However, follow up questioning of a
sample of the participants regarding the use of leaded fuel in
1975 vehicles indicated that this question may have been
misunderstood.
-------
TABLE 4
COMPARISON OF FY74 EFP MEAN EMISSION LEVELS OF 1975 MODEL YEAR
VEHICLES WITH 1965-1967 AND 1974 MODEL YEARS--1975 FTP
Five City
Composite
1965-1967
1974
1975
Percent Reduction
65-67 vs 74
65-67 vs 75
74 vs 75
Denver
1974
1975
Percent Reduction
74 vs 75
Los Angeles
1974
1975
Percent Reduction
74 vs 75
HC
GM/MI
8.93
3.58
1.32
60*
85*
63*
5.15
2.22
57*
2.57
0.52
80*
CO
GM/MI
108.54
41.77
22.92
62*
79*
45*
83.7
48.5
,-#
42
37.05
6.59
82*
NOX
GM/MI
2.89
2.89
2.44
0
15*
16*
1.85
1.62
12
2.47
2.38
3
Mean
Miles (K)
80.8
20.2
8.8
24.6
13.5
22.6
8.1
r
N
126
193
587
30
35
30
35
*Signifleant at 95% level.
10
-------
7. The Low and High Speed Transient Cycle Tests indicate that
the low speed cycle (average speed 11.8 mph) produces
significantly more HC and CO and significantly less NOX
emissions than the high speed cycle (average speed 35. 0 mph).
Fuel economy is significantly greater in the high speed cycle
than in the low speed cycle.
8. Results of the loaded vehicle tests were in agreement with
those noted in the FY73 Emission Factor Program. Adding
1000 Ibs to simulate the towing of a trailer significantly
decreases fuel economy and significantly increases emission
levels. Although adding 500 Ibs also increases emissions and
decreases fuel economy, the change is not as severe.
1.3 BACKGROUND
The Congress, through the enactment of the Clean Air Act of 1963
and amendments thereto, provided for a national air pollution program
to monitor and control emissions from new motor vehicles. Administrative
responsibility for the air pollution control program is vested with the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
The first nationwide standards for exhaust emissions, together
with the testing and certification procedures, were issued in 1966 and were
applicable to 1968 model year passenger vehicles and light-duty trucks
under 6000 Ibs sold within the United States. Levels for maximum allowable
exhaust emissions were imposed initially on HC and CO pollutants only.
Hydrocarbons were restricted to 275 parts per million concentration and
carbon monoxide was restricted to 1. 5 percent. These pollutants were
measured using the 7-mode cold-start test procedure.
More stringent standards on a mass equivalent basis were introduced
for 1970 and 1971 model year vehicles. The Federal standards based on the
7-mode procedure, expressed in mass equivalents, were 2.2 grams/mile
for HC and 23 grams /mile for CO. In 1972, a change was made to a new test
11
-------
procedure. This procedure involved a new sampling method, the Constant
Volume Sampling Procedure (CVS), and a new driving sequence. At that
time the standards were again strengthened. HC was restricted to 3.4 grams/
mile and CO was restricted to 39. 0 grams/mild. The numerical increase
in the standards from 1971 to 1972 reflects the increased stringency of the
testing procedures. In terms of the 1972 test procedure, the 1971 standards
were equivalent to approximately 4.6 grams/mile for HC and 47 grams/mile
for CO. The first Federal Standards applicable to oxides of nitrogen were
set at 3. 0 grams/mile. For 1975 model year vehicles, the standards were
again strengthened with the promulgation of tighter standards under the
1975 test procedure. -The 1975 test procedure produces lower numerical
values than the 1972 test procedure. The 1973-1974 standards (3.4 gm/mi
HC, 39 gm/mi CO, 3. 0 gm/mi NOX) in 1975 FTP terms would be
3. 0 grams/mile for HC, 34 grams /mile for CO and 3. 1 grams/mile for NOX.
The first Federal evaporative emission standards were introduced for 1971
model-year vehicles.
Under the Clean Air Act, manufacturers are required to submit
applications containing data gathered during both phases of a two-part test
program in order to qualify for certificates of conformity. The first phase
of testing provides data on exhaust emissions which show the performance
of the control equipment after the engine has been broken in, but before
substantial mileage has been accumulated. These data are known as 4000
mile emission data. The second phase of the test program provides data on
the durability of the emission control system. These data are known as
50 000 mile durability data.
For 1968-1971 model year vehicles, compliance was demonstrated
whenever the mean emission level from a specified sample of emission-data
prototypes of each engine displacement, weighted according to projected
sales volume, was within the applicable standard. This mean incorporates
a deterioration factor determined from a sample of durability-data prototypes
representative of at least 70% of the manufacturer's engine displacement/
transmission options. Inherent in this method of certification is the fact
12
-------
that mean values for HC orCO near the levels specified in the standard may
result in as many as 50% of certified or in-use vehicles being above the standard
for either pollutant. (The 50% figure assumes that emissions of prototype
vehicles are symmetrically distributed. In the case of lognormality, less than
50% but still an appreciable fraction of the vehicles could be above the standard).
For 1972 and subsequent model year vehicles, every vehicle tested in
the certification sample must have emissions below the level of the applicable
standard. The certification prototypes are tested with vehicle parameter settings,
e. g. engine timing, at or near the mean of the allowable production range.
Therefore, to the extent that emissions vary within the allowable range of
parameter settings, some percentage of production vehicles might be expected
to emit pollutants above the certified standard. At the present time, no data
exist to quantify this percentage.
EPA has recognized that a realistic assessment of the effectiveness
of Federal air pollution regulations requires the measurement of emissions
from production vehicles in the hands of the motoring public. Accordingly, a
series of exhaust emission surveillance programs has been administered by
the EPA during the past several years to obtain such definitive information. Test
fleets of consumer-owned vehicles within various major cities were selected by
make, model, engine size, transmission, and carburetor categories in such
proportion as to be representative of the normal production vehicles sold (or
projected to be sold) for that model year in the United States.
The principle objective of such surveillance programs is to gather
emissions data from a representative sample of in-use motor vehicles. Using
the data from the surveillance programs, the appropriate in-use vehicle
emission factors are developed for in-use emission source inventories, state
transportation control plans, environmental impact statements, and other
emission control strategy evaluations. In addition, data are collected
which are used to model the effect of automobile emissions under arbitrary
traffic and road network conditions in order to evaluate emissions under
conditions other than the FTP.
13
-------
2. EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM DESIGN
The prime objective of the Emission Factor Program is to provide a
valid estimate of the emissions from the population of in-use vehicles.
Accordingly, considerable care has been exercised in the conduct of this
continuing effort to insure that a representative sample of vehicles would
be selected for testing, that the tests would be conducted under identical,
rigidly controlled conditions, and that all resulting data were subjected to
quality inspections. The FY 74 Emission Factor Program differed from
those of previous years only in the selection of the vehicles to be included
in the sample, in the performance of additional emission tests and in the
completion of an extensive owner questionnaire regarding vehicle usage and
maintenance characteristics. The additional tests were performed on a
subset of the sample and included Highway Fuel Economy Tests, Low Speed
Transient Cycle Tests, High Speed Transient Cycle Tests and Loaded Vehicle
Tests.
The following paragraphs describe the FY 74 selection of vehicles and
present a brief summary of the vehicle handling procedure. Further details
concerning the conduct of the testing can be found in the individual contractor
reports, References (1), (2), and (3), and in the report of the FY 72
Emission Factor Program, Reference (5).
The selection of the cities to be sampled in the FY 74 Emission
Factor Program were chosen to represent heavily populated areas of
diverse geographical and climatological regions as discussed in Section 1.
The selection of vehicles within a city were not chosen to provide a random
sample of all vehicles within a city. Rather, the sample selected was random
for each model year but the number of vehicles for each model year is not
representative of the in-use vehicles for the cities. This selection procedure
is the major difference between the FY 74 program and that of previous
years and was deliberately adopted to provide a large sample of 1975 model
year vehicles. Note that with the FY 74 Emission Factor Program sampling
14
-------
procedure, comparisons with previous programs must be made on a model
year basis and cannot be made on a basis of results averaged over several
model years.
Within each city and within each model year, the particular selection
of the desired number of vehicles was made to provide a random sample
based on national vehicle sales by vehicle make, engine size, carburetor
type, and transmission type. From an automobile registration list, a
sample of vehicles was selected which best fit the required vehicle popula-
tion profile. The owners of the selected vehicles were then contacted and
provided with inducements if their vehicles were used for testing. These
included a $50 U.S. Savings Bond, the use of a loan car while their car was
being tested, and a full tank of gasoline.
Upon delivery of a test vehicle to the laboratory it was inspected to
insure that it could be safely run on the dynamometer. Cars which failed
this inspection were rejected. Exhaust emissions were determined by the
constant volume sampling technique in accordance with the 1975 Federal
Test Procedure. The vehicles were tested in an as received condition so
that the resulting emission data would reflect variability in owner usage,
maintenance and repair practices. The additional tests which were per-
formed on a subset of the vehicles are described in Section 3 of this report.
Upon completion of testing, engine diagnostic procedures were performed
which included basic timing, point dwell and idle rpm. See References (1),
(2), and (3) for measurements.
15
-------
3. STATISTICAL, ANALYSIS
The thrust of the statistical analysis of the FY 74 Emission Factor
Program is to summarize the data in a form that is amenable to estimating
the emissions of the model year vehicles and to comparing emission results
of various subsamples of the total population. To achieve this objective the
primary summarization method adopted is that of presenting the data in
terms of sample means and standard deviations for stratifications of the
total population of in-use vehicles. For reasons to be discussed in the
following paragraphs the emission data are summarized by both arithmetic
and geometric means and standard deviations whereas fuel economy is
given in terms of harmonic means and standard deviations.
The in-use vehicles for a model year represent a broad spectrum of
manufacturers, models, weights, engine size and type, and levels of repair
and maintenance. Since all of these factors may have an impact on the
measured emissions and fuel economy, the data exhibit considerable vari-
ability for any major sub-grouping of the total sample, such as all vehicles
within a city. Previous studies on the distribution of the emissions (Refer-
ence 5) have indicated that the variability in data can reasonably be described
by a lognormal and/or a normal probability distribution with the lognormal
distribution being more universally applicable. Further, since the emissions
cannot be negative and since standard deviations approximately equal to the
mean are quite frequently observed in the data, the distribution of emissions
show a strong tendency to be positively skewed. Therefore, for estimating
the percentage of individual vehicles below given emission levels (percentiles
of the emission distributions), the lognormal distribution provides a reason-
able probability model. (A heuristic argument for this statement is given in
Reference 4. ) The lognormal distribution is completely characterized by the
geometric mean and standard deviation which explains the inclusion of these
parameters in the data summaries.
16
-------
On the other hand, comparisons of the impact of emission levels on
air quality can be conveniently made in terms of the arithmetic means and
standard deviations since the arithmetic mean represents what is being
emitted into the air, regardless of distribution shape. Statistical tests of
hypotheses regarding equality of arithmetic means can be made given the
sample means, sample standard deviations and the sample size. Therefore,
arithmetic means and standard deviations are included in the data summaries
to provide emission factors and to permit convenient tests for significant
differences.
The application of the geometric mean and standard deviation to
estimate percentiles of a lognormal distribution may require a brief
explanation. If the emissions are considered to have a lognormal distri-
bution then the logarithms of the emissions have a normal distribution. The
geometric means and standard deviations are, in actuality, the antilogarithms
of the means and standard deviations of the logarithms of the emissions.
Thus, working in the units of grns/mi, percentiles of the distribution are
obtained by multiplying the geometric mean by the geometric standard
deviation raised to the appropriate power. For example, since 84 percent
of a normal distribution is less than the mean plus one standard deviation,
84 percent of a lognormal distribution is less than the geometric mean
multiplied by the geometric standard deviation to the first power. Similarly,
97.5 percent of a lognormal distribution is less than the geometric mean
multiplied by the 1.96 power of the geometric standard deviation. This
procedure is entirely equivalent to that of finding the percentiles of the
logarithms of the emissions by standard normal distribution methods and
then taking antilogarithms to return to the practical engineering units of
gms/mi. Further, if the emissions have a lognormal distribution, then the
geometric mean is the 50th percentile (median) of the distribution.
As noted earlier, fuel economy data are summarized in terms of
harmonic means and standard deviation of the parameter observed miles
17
-------
per gallon. The average fuel economy for a group of vehicles can be defined
as total miles divided by total fuel consumed. It can be shown that since all
individual vehicles are driven the same distance in the tests, that average
fuel economy in miles per gallon is the harmonic mean of the fuel consumed
during the tests of the individual vehicles. See Reference (5) for the deriva-
tion of this equivalence and method of statistical inference regarding the fuel
economy parameter.
3. 1 EMISSION DATA AND RESULTS
The results of the FY 74 Emission Factor Program are summarized
in Tables 5 through 80, Appendix I, and Appendix II. The data of Tables 5
through 80 are specifically noted in the following text and are based on the
1975 FTP. In the event that a user would prefer other than FTP weighting
factors, Appendix I contains summaries of the cold transient, cold stabilized and
hot transient portions of the FTP test as well as the idle HC and CO test results
for each city and for the composite of all cities except Denver and Los Angeles.
In addition, summary tables are also included using the 1972 FTP for ease in
comparing with the results of previous years. Appendix II contains a
summary of the questionnaire data concerning the ownership characteristics
of the vehicles. To facilitate comparison with results of previous years,
Appendix III contains summaries of the major results of the FY 71, FY 72,
and FY 73 Programs.
Tables 5 through 12 present means and standard deviations of the
emissions for each model year by city combination and a composite of all
cities except Denver and Los Angeles. Tables 13 through 20 present the
number and percent of vehicles meeting Federal 1972, 1973/1974, and 1975
standards for each city and for the composite of all cities except Denver and
Los Angeles. Table 21 presents the percent of Los Angeles vehicles meeting
the California standards for these years and Table 22 presents a summary of the
emission and fuel economy data for 1975 model year Chicago vehicles as
stratified by period of time since passing the City of Chicago Inspection.
18
-------
Comparisons of FY 1974 results with previous years are contained in
Tables 23 and 24. The vehicle emissions and fuel economy results by
model year and inertia weight for the composite of all cities except
Denver and Los Angeles are presented in Table 25. Denver and Los Angeles
data are not presented in this format due to the small sample sizes that
result in this stratification of the data.
Tables 26 through 33 summarize the fuel economy results for each
model year by city combination and for a composite of all cities except
Denver and Los Angeles. The vehicle emission results by manufacturer are
presented as a composite of all cities except Denver and Los Angeles and
for Denver and for Los Angeles in Tables 34 through 39. Tables 40 and 41
present emission levels for each response on the questions from the
questionnaire concerning use of leaded fuel and presence of hydrogen
sulfide odor. These were the only two questions for which significant
relationships with emission levels were identified.
Finally, the results of the Highway Fuel Economy Tests, High and
Low Speed Transient Cycle Tests, Modal and Loaded Modal Tests are
presented in Tables 42 through 80.
3. 2 DISCUSSION
The following paragraphs present a review of the FY74 Emission
Factor Program in terms of identifying significant trends or differences
with respect to major sources of possible effects. In particular, the emission
data are considered in terms of city effects, performance of vehicles in first
year of operation, degradation effects, fuel economy, manufacturer effects,
and the correlation of emissions with ownership characteristics. The results
of the loaded vehicle, highway fuel economy, and high and low speed
transient cycle tests are also presented and discussed.
19
-------
3. 2. 1 City Effects
The cities selected for the FY74 Emission Factor Program were
4r
chosen to represent a broad spectrum of regional, geographical, and
meteorological attributes. The term "city effects" is used to describe the
accumulation of all possible factors in a particular locality which might
combine to yield emission levels which are characteristic of only that city.
The emission results for the cities were compared by model year using
the 1975 FTP emission levels given in Tables 5 through 12, the percent
meeting federal standards in Tables 13 through 21, and the idle HC and idle
CO measurements of Tables 1-34 through 1-41 of Appendix I.
The most noteworthy city effects discovered in the comparisons of
the FTP emissions were those of Denver for all model years tested and
of Los Angeles for 1975 model year vehicles, Denver vehicles displayed
significantly larger average HC and CO emissions and significantly
smaller average NOX emissions than those of other cities. These results
agree with those of past EFP Programs and are attributed to Denver's
altitude which affects carburetion by producing richer fuel mixture. Los
Angeles displayed significantly lower HC and CO emissions in the 1975
model year vehicles than any of the other cities but the NOX emissions were
not significantly different. Also, a significantly greater percentage of the
1975 Los Angeles cars met the Federal 49 State standards than those of the
other cities. This result is contrasted with that of the FY73 Emission
Factor Program in which the emissions from Los Angeles vehicles were
similar to some of the other cities of that program. Since the 1975
California standards are more stringent than the 1975 49 State Federal
standards, the observed differences in 1975 vehicles can be attributed
to the difference in standards, the difference in emission control systems
used to meet those standards, and the compliance techniques used to insure
those standards. The difference between Los Angeles and the other cities
is not consistently distinct for the other model years. The HC emissions
20
-------
tend to be lower for 1974 and 1972 vehicles (and significantly lower than
some of the cities) but the 1973 vehicles are indistinguishable from the
other cities. A similar statement can be made for the CO emissions.
NOX emissions are lower (but not significantly) for 1974 vehicles but
indistinguishable for 1973 and 1972 vehicles. It should be noted that all
Los Angeles differences should be viewed in terms of the relatively small
sample of cars in each of the model years for this city.
No consistently significant differences are apparent when comparing
the FTP emissions of the other five cities. Although a few of the individual
city comparisons resulted in the conclusion of a significant difference for
a particular model year, the differences were not sustained when other
model years were compared. There was a trend for Houston vehicles to
have higher HC and CO emissions, although these emissions were
usually not significantly different from the emissions of vehicles in the
other five cities. Since FY74 was the first time that a desert city (Phoenix)
was included in the Emission Factor Program, it may be interesting to note
that the emissions from Phoenix vehicles are within the range of emissions
from vehicles of the other sites (except Denver and Los Angeles).
With respect to the idle HC and CO emissions, the comparisons
between cities resulted in somewhat different conclusions. The following
conclusions are generally true for all model years. The Los Angeles
vehicles again have significantly lower emissions than those of all other
cities. However, St. Louis has significantly greater idle HC emissions
than all of the other cities and a trend to greater idle CO emissions than the
other cities. Denver data show a trend to higher idle HC (except for
St. Louis) and a somewhat stronger trend to higher idle CO but the differences
in many of the individual comparisons are not significant. On the other hand,
Phoenix displayed a trend to lower idle HC and idle CO emissions. It may
be of interest to note that within a city average idle HC and average idle CO
correlate reasonably well with average 1975 FTP HC and CO emissions,
respectively. For the three cities for which data were available over 9 model
21
-------
years (Chicago, Phoenix and St. Louis), the correlation coefficients ranged
between 0. 88 and 0. 96. However, significantly different correlating
equations were required for the individual cities. Therefore there is no
contradiction in the agreement between St. Louis and the other cities in
average 1975 FTP emissions and significant differences in idle HC and
idle CO emissions.
Vehicles in Chicago are subjected to the City of Chicago Inspection
Program. The results of this inspection were included in the FY74
Emission Factor Program by recording if each vehicle had passed, failed,
or not yet been inspected. For those vehicles passing the inspection, the
length of time ( in three month increments) since the last inspection was also
recorded. Table 22 presents the means and standard deviations of the
emissions and fuel economy for the 1975 model year Chicago vehicles as
stratified by the results of the Chicago inspection. The observed differences
in average HC and CO emissions are not significant for the time periods
since passing the inspection and for the vehicles not yet inspected. The
average HC and CO emissions for vehicles having failed the inspection are
significantly greater than the pooled average of those which passed. None
of the differences in average NOX are significant.
Since Denver and Los Angeles stand out from the other cities
in their FTP emissions, composites of all cities except Denver and Los
Angeles have been generated and included in this report to facilitate
comparisons of results with the previous program results. Note, however,
that the FY74 program surveyed a different set of cities than those of the
other programs. The results from the individual cities are also included
for all data sets which contained a sufficient number of test vehicles.
3. 2. 2 Performance in First Year of Operation
An excellent method of determining the trends of emission in
exhaust of in-use vehicles is to compare the results of the Emission Factor
Programs for cars in their first year of operation by using the data from
all fiscal years of the programs. This procedure minimizes the effect of
22
-------
the degrading influences which will be discussed in paragraph 3. 2. 3.
Table 23 presents the sample size and arithmetic mean and standard
deviation of the emissions using the 1975 FTP for each model year in its
first year of operation. The data for the 1971, 1972, and 1973 new model
year vehicles were obtained from Reference (6). The composite means
are over all cities except Denver and Los Angeles.
For the composite data, the 1975 model year vehicles displayed
significant decreases in all three average emissions when compared with
the previous model year vehicles in their first year of operation.
Comparing 1974 to 1975 model year vehicles, average HC decreased 63%,
average CO decreased 45% and average NOX decreased 16%. This is a
reversal of a trend that was noted in the FY73 Program, Reference (6).
In that Program, HC and CO emission increases with the 1973 and 1974
model year vehicles were interpreted as being the result of the imposition
of the Federal NOX standard for the first time during these years. The
1975 levels, however, are also significantly below the 1972 levels for
all three pollutants. This is apparently due to the manufacturers
conversion to catalytic converters and improvements in the ignition system
for emission control. It should be noted that the average 1975 model
year vehicles had been driven an average of 8800 miles whereas the
average mileage for the other years was approximately double. This
possibly degrading effect can only be subjectively taken into account.
The average HC and CO emissions from 1975 model year
vehicles in Denver are significantly lower than those of previous years.
Compared to the 1974 model year vehicles, average HC was reduced 57%
and average CO was reduced 42%. The 1975 model year average NOX
emissions are not significantly less than those of the 1973 and 1974 model
years but are significantly less than those of the 1971 and 1972 model years.
23
-------
The 1975 model years in Los Angeles also had significant reductions
in average HC and CO emissions. Compared to the 1974 model year vehicles,
average HC was down 80% and average CO was down 82%. Comparisons
with previous years yield greater percentage reductions. Average 1975 NOX
emissions are 3% percent less than for 1974 which is not a significant
decrease. The average 1975 NOX level is, however, significantly less
than the averages of the 1973 and earlier model years.
3. 2. 3 Degradation Effects
It has been demonstrated in the previous Emission Factor Programs,
that as the mileage of a vehicle increases so do the exhaust emissions.
This effect is attributed to the combination of many factors including aging,
engine maintenance practices, and repair. Although the mechanism for
this effect cannot be accounted for in this program, it is of value to add to
the body of data which demonstrates the trend. Table 24 presents a summary
of the emission and fuel economy data that were obtained for each model
year in the four Emission Factor Programs conducted to date. The data
were derived using the 1975 FTP and are for the composite of all cities
except Los Angeles and Denver.
Trends that were previously observed are generally continued
by the addition of the FY74 Program. For each model year, mean mileage
increases with time as represented by the four programs. Further, average
HC and CO emissions tend to increase with age but in the newer model
years this increase may be less significant. On the other hand average
NOX emissions display no consistent pattern with time and, in fact, the
inclusion of the FY74 data may indicate a decrease or leveling. All of
these trends, however, must be viewed in terms of the uncertainty in the
estimates of the means as would be reflected by confidence intervals about
the observed averages.
It is interesting to note that the average fuel economy does not
appear to be dependent on accumulated miles or on model year. In fact,
the 1974 EFP had consistently higher fuel economy than the 1973 EFP for
24
-------
all model years. The consistent fuel economy across model years may
be partially explained by the change in model mix from year to year.
3.2.4 Fuel Economy
In conducting the emission test for a particular vehicle, the
amount of CO_ emitted was measured in addition to the pollutants of HC,
CO and NOX. Since a fixed quantity of gasoline contains a known amount of
carbon and the total carbon emitted was measured, the amount of gasoline
used to traverse a fixed distance could be determined by the carbon balance
method. This method was employed and the fuel economy data are
reported in terms of miles per gallon i. e. , the inverse of the variable
gallons per mile which is measured. As previously mentioned, these data
are summarized in terms of harmonic means and standard deviations to
facilitate comparisons using the methods defined in Reference (5).
Table 25 presents the emissions data and fuel economy by
combinations of model year and 500 Ib increments of inertia weight for the
composite of all cities except Denver and Los Angeles using the 1975 FTP.
The known effect of inertia weight on fuel economy can easily be seen in
this table by observing the significant decreases in fuel economy as
weight increases for any particular model year. If there is an adverse
effect on fuel economy due to the addition of emission control devices, it
cannot be detected in this data. Tables 26 through 33 present summaries of
the fuel economy data for each model year and city as well as the composite
of all cities except Denver and Los Angeles. Included in these summaries
are the cold transient, cold stabilized, and hot transient portions of the
tests and the averages using the 1972 FTP and 1975 FTP weighting factors.
These data reflect no significant differences when comparing cities or
when comparing model years.
3. 2. 5 Manufacturer Effects
The emissions data for the 1975 model year vehicles were
summarized for each manufacturer and these data are presented in Table 34
for the composite of all cities except Denver and Los Angeles, in Table 35
25
-------
for Denver and .Table 36 for Los Angeles. Similarly, the data for the
light duty trucks are summarized in Tables 37 through 39. The manufacturer
designated "other" represents a composite of foreign cars. Analyses were
not performed on the Denver, Los Angeles, and light duty trucks data due
to the small sample sizes.
Figure 1 presents 1975 model year emission averages and 95%
confidence limits about the averages for each domestic manufacturer, the
composite of foreign manufacturers, and the composite of American
manufacturers. Differences between manufacturers can be assessed from
this figure. It is interesting to note that although most foreign vehicles
do not have catalytic converters, average CO and NOX emissions from
foreign vehicles are significantly less than those of American vehicles
while there is no significant difference between average HC emissions.
For the composite of the 453 American vehicles the arithmetic averages
and standard deviations of the emissions are as follows:
HC
CO
NOX
Average
1.32
25.22
2.52
Standard
Deviation
1.08
25.82
1.01
3. 2.6 Correlation of Emissions with Ownership Characteristics
As an added element of the FY74 Emission Factor Program, each
owner was required to complete a questionnaire concerning the vehicles'
usage, maintenance, and damage history. The questions and response
percentages are presented in Appendix II. The responses summarized
are those given by the owners and the accuracy of the responses could not
be checked. The extent to which owners misinterpreted the questions or
gave the answers they thought were "correct" rather than true is not
known although there is some indication of both of these sources of
inaccuracies. The effect of such inaccuracies on subsequent analyses is also
not known.
26
-------
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Foreign
American Composite
•e-
•6-
0.5 1.0 1.5
HC (gin/mi)
2:0
2.-5
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Foreign
American Composite*
/-s
-9-
10 20 30
CO ( grn/mi)
50
General Motors
Ford
Chrysler
American Motors
Foreign
American Composite
-e-
-e-
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
NOX ( gm/mi)
3.0
3.5
Figure 1. Average emissions and confidence limits for
manufacturers-1975 model year vehicles, 1975 FTP.
27
-------
The objective in the analysis of these data was to correlate emissions
and fuel economy with the ownership characteristics of the questionnaire.
Since the vehicles in the program were not chosen to represent a random
sample of all in-use vehicles, since the responses to many of the questions
could be influenced by the model year (particularly the 1975 models), and
since there are model year differences in emission levels, the total data
set had to be stratified by model year. However, in order to increase the
sample size in each level of stratification, the model years were grouped
in four categories: 1965-1967 models, 1968-1971 models, 1972-1974 models,
and 1975 models. For each model year grouping, the arithmetic mean,
standard deviation-and sample size were obtained for each response to each
question. This data set was then analyzed in an attempt to identify significant
trends and differences as a function of questionnaire response.
For most of the replies, no significant trends could be identified
when comparing vehicles of the same model year grouping. Some individual
differences were significant for a particular model year but such differences
tended to occur randomly and were contradicted ( but not necessarily
significantly) by the vehicles of the other model year groupings. It should
also be noted that only relatively small sample sizes were available for
many of the response-model year grouping combinations. The only
significant conclusions that could be found in the data apply to the 1975 model
year vehicles in response to the questions regarding use of leaded fuel and
the presence of a hydrogen sulfide odor.
In the 1975 vehicles for which unleaded fuel is required, the
average CO and idle CO emissions were significantly less for owners who
have never used leaded fuel than the owners who regularly used leaded fuel.
There were insufficient data points for other comparisons in this category but
the trend was increasing HC, CO, idle HC and idle CO with increasing use
of leaded fuel. The NOX emissions did not change significantly. The data
for this model year-question reply are presented in Table 40. Replies to
follow-up questions by owners who regularly use leaded fuel with a catalytic
converter indicated that owners may have misunderstood the question.
28
-------
The question concerning the presence of a hydrogen sulfide odor,
is only pertinent to 1975 model year vehicles. The vehicles whose owners
regularly detected this odor had significantly greater average HC, CO, idle
HC and idle CO emissions and significantly smaller NOX emissions than
those who never detect the odor. The data for this model year-question
reply are presented in Table 41.
3. 2. 7 Highway Fuel Economy Tests
The Highway Fuel Economy Test was performed on forty-five
1975 model year vehicles ( 35 passenger cars and the 10 light duty trucks)
in each city. The passenger cars were selected to match the characteristics
of the 35 cars of the Washington and Los Angeles data sets, thus permitting
valid comparisons between cities. The Highway Fuel Economy Test involved
vehicle operation on the dynamometer over a 10. 2 mile driving schedule of
765 seconds duration (48 mph). The test was started with the vehicle in
a warmed-up condition defined as at least 7. 5 miles of cyclic operation
having occurred within the proceeding 35 minute period. The vehicle was
operated at 50 mph for a period of three minutes. Within one minute of
the end of this cruise period, the vehicle was brought to an idle condition
and the test was started. A CVS sample bag was used to collect dilute exhaust
for the purpose of emission and fuel economy calculations. Load settings,
inertia weights and the speed and underhood cooling fan temperature
tolerances of this test are identical to those of the FTP. The results of
these tests are summarized in Tables 42 through 49. The city to city
differences displayed in these tables are not statistically significant except
for the lower average HC and CO emissions in Los Angeles and the higher
average HC and CO emission in Denver as compared to those of the other
cities.
To compare the Highway Fuel Economy Test Results with those
from the 1975 FTP, the average 1975 FTP fuel economy was calculated for
the same set of vehicles which had a Highway Fuel Economy Test for
each city. These data are summarized in Table 50 which also presents
29
-------
the ratio of the highway fuel economy to the 1975 FTP fuel economy. This
ratio is relatively constant for all cities and indicates that the Highway
Fuel Economy Test yields results which are approximately 41% greater than
those of the 1975 FTP.
3. 2. 8 Low and High Speed Transient Cycle Tests
The Low and High Speed Transient Tests were conducted as
part of the FY74 EFP in an effort to characterize in-use vehicle emissions
at average speeds less than and greater than the average speed of the FTP,
19.6 mph. The Low and High Speed Transient Cycles have average speeds of
11.8 mph and 35. 0 mph respectively. These tests were performed on the
same thirty-five 1975 model passenger cars used in the Highway Fuel
Economy Tests in each test site. In addition, twenty-five 1972 model
passenger cars also were subjected to the Low and High Speed Transient
Cycle Tests in each of the seven cities.
The Low Speed Transient Cycle Test is a mass emission test
similar to the Federal Test Procedure in that it consists of cold transient,
cold stabilized and hot transient portions. For the Low Speed Transient Cycle
Test, however, the cold transient, cold stabilized and hot transient portion
is collected in two parts. The first part is 240 seconds long, covers a distance
of 0. 82 miles and has an average speed of 12. 28 mph. The second part is
412 seconds in duration, covers 0. 91 miles with an average speed of 7. 97 mph.
Corresponding data on the cold stabilized portion are 658 seconds long over
2. 56 miles or 14. 01 mph while for the hot transient portion they are 652
seconds long over 1. 73 miles or 9. 56 mph. Total driving time excluding
a ten minute soak is 1962 seconds.
The High Speed Transient Cycle Test is also similar to the
Federal Test Procedure in that it consists of the three test portions but unlike
the Low Speed Transient Cycle Test, the cold transient portion is completed
in one part. Data on the cold transient portion are 520 seconds over 3. 835 miles
(26. 550 mph); on the cold stabilized portion are 878 seconds over 9. 773 miles
30
-------
(40. 072 mph); and on the hot transient portion are 520 seconds over 3. 835
miles (26.550 mph). Total driving time exclusive of the soak is 1918 seconds.
The vehicle preconditioning (soak), driving techniques, and
tolerances of these tests are identical to those of the Federal Test Procedure.
The sampling techniques are also identical except for the dilute exhaust
collection of the cold transient portion in two parts for the Low Speed Transient
Cycle Tests.
Comparison of the 1972 or 1975 FTP emissions to the emissions
from the Low and High Speed Transient Cycles can be made by weighting the
cold transient, cold stabilized, and hot transient portions of those tests in
the same proportion as the cold transient, cold stabilized, and hot transient
portions of the FTP are weighted to produce 1972 or 1975 FTP results.
The Low and High Speed Cycle emissions results which are weighted similar
to the 1972 or 1975 FTP will be labeled as the 1972 and 1975 weighting in
this report.
The results of the Low and High Speed Transient Cycle Tests are
presented in Tables 51 through 58. The low speed cycle produces significantly
more hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide and less NOX than the high speed
cycle. Fuel economy is greater in the high speed cycle than in the low
speed cycle. The 1975 vehicles produce significantly less of all three
emissions than the 1972 vehicles.
Table 59 presents the ratios of the average high speed weighting
to the average FTP emissions and fuel economy for the composite of all
cities except Denver and Los Angeles, for Denver, and for Los Angeles.
Table 60 presents similar ratios of the average low speed weightings. As
compared to the FTP, these tables also display that high speeds yield lower
HC and CO emissions, higher NOX emissions and higher fuel economies than
the low speeds.
3. 2. 9 Modal Emission Sequence
To develop models which are descriptive of the emission levels
during various phases of vehicle operation, it is necessary to have available
emission factors for a variety of steady states and driving modes,
31
-------
References (7) and (8). Toward this end a Surveillance Driving Sequence (SDS)
has been established which defines average acceleration/deceleration
transition rates between all combinations of 0 mph, 15 mph, 30 mph, 45 mph,
and 60 mph. In addition, acceleration/deceleration rates both higher and
lower than the average values were defined as transitions only between all
paired combinations of 0 mph, 30 mph, and 60 mph. The Surveillance
Driving Sequence for transitions thus consists of 32 acceleration/deceleration
modes and 7 (seven) steady conditions defined as idle, 5 mph, 10 mph, 15 mph,
30 mph, 45 mph and 60 mph. Table 61 lists the various transition modes
of the sequence with the corresponding time in mode, average speed, average
acceleration/deceleration rate, and distance traveled.
Modal tests were performed on the same forty-five 1975 model
year vehicles that were subjected to the Highway Fuel Economy Test
in each test site of the FY74 EFP. In addition thirty 1972 model year,
thirty-five 1973 model year, and ten 1974 model year vehicles were tested
on the modal sequence in each site of the FY73 EFP. The 1972-1974 model
year vehicles modal results are also presented in this report for purposes of
comparison.
Tables 62 through 76 present the average emission and fuel
economy obtained in each of the transition and steady state modes of the
Surveillance Driving Sequence in the FY74 EFP and FY73 EFP. Average
values are presented for low altitude, non-California sites, Denver, and Los
Angeles for 1975 model year automobiles, 1975 model year light-duty
trucks, 1974 model year automobiles, 1973 model year automobiles and
1972 model year automobiles.
3. 2. 10 Loaded Vehicle and Vehicle Towing Trailer Tests
In addition to the normal tests of the Emission Factor Program,
15 vehicles from Houston and Phoenix were subjected to loaded modal testing
to simulate the addition of passengers and the towing of a trailer. These
tests were conducted on 6 passenger cars of the 1974 model year, 6 passenger
32
-------
cars of the 1975 model year, and 3 light duty trucks of the 1975 model year.
The test sequence used was the Surveillance Driving Sequence of 32
acceleration/deceleration modes and 7 steady states as described in Section
3. 2. 9. The results of these tests are presented in Tables 77 through 80.
Test 1 represents the inertia weight and road load settings as specified in
the Federal Register. Test 2 simulated the addition of 500 Ibs of passengers
and baggage by increasing the inertia weight by 500 Ibs. without changing
the road load setting. Test 3 represents a condition which simulated the
towing of a 1000 Ibs trailer of a size recommended as suitable for the
given vehicle. This condition is achieved by increasing the inertia weight by
1000 Ibs and using a road load power setting as empirically determined from
road tests.
Tables 77, 78, and 79 summarize the data for the three
individual types of vehicles while Table 80 is a summary of all 15 vehicles
for all 32 modes. The row labeled SDS represents the Surveillance Driving
Sequence weighted average of the individual modes. It is apparent from the
tables that higher average HC, CO and NOX emissions and lower fuel
economy results as the loading is increased. These changes are particularly
large in comparing the 500 Ib test with the 1000 Ib test. It should be noted
that, although emissions tend to increase with increasing weight in these tests,
it cannot necessarily be concluded that a vehicle of light weight design will
necessarily have lower emissions than a vehicle of heavy design (see Table 25).
With respect to vehicular design, differences in weight can be offset by
adjustments to power plants and transmissions.
The data of Tables 77, 78, and 79 also indicate that, of the
steady state speeds tested, fuel economy is greatest at 30 mph, HC and CO
emissions tend to decrease with increasing speed although at the higher
speeds the trends of the emissions are not consistent, and NOX emissions
increase with speed. The steady state driving cycles are not representative
of normal stop and go driving. The FTP, highway, high and low speed
cycles are transient cycles which are representative of consumer driving
33
-------
at various speeds. Therefore, fuel economy and emissions estimates
over these transient cycles are better estimates of fuel economy and
emissions levels from the in-use vehicle population.
-------
REFERENCES
1. Study of Exhaust Emissions from 1972, 1974 and 1975 Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicles in Washington, D. C. , EPA Report EPA-460/3-76-
002, April 1976.
2. Study of Exhaust Emissions from 1965 through 1975 Model Year Light-
Duty Vehicles in Houston, Chicago, Phoenix, EPA-460/3-76-001,
April 1976.
3. Study of Exhaust Emissions from 1965 through 1975 Model Year
Light-Duty Vehicles in Ste Louis, Missouri, and Los Angeles, California.
EPA-460/3-76-003, April 76.
4. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - A Summary, EPA Report
APTD-1544.
5. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - Analysis of the FY 72
Program, EPA Report EPA-460/2-74-001.
6. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - Analysis of the FY 73
Program, EPA Report EPA-460/3-75-007.
7. Automobile Exhaust Emission Modal Analysis Model, EPA Report
EPA-460/3-74-005, January 1974.
8. Automobile Exhaust Emission Modal Analysis Model Extension
and Refinement, EPA Report EPA-460/3-74-024, October 1974.
35
-------
TABLE 5
FY7* EMISSION FACTUK PPI;C.RAH
F.MISSI"M RESULTS FfiR CHICAGO
»975 FTP
YEAR
65-67
I960-
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MEA.J
MILLS
N IK)
50 79.0
30 56.7
35 54.8
40 49.0
45 44.1
31 35.9
51 24.«
53 13.3
16B 6.1
10 3.1
1
HYDROCARBONS < Oil/Ill)
ARITHMETIC
Mr AN SO
9.20 10.02
7.31 8.46
6 .00 4.61
6.29 11.83
5.69 7.52
4.07 3.50
3.70 2.52
3.84 3.20
1.29 0.85
:).89 0.44
GFOMETPIC
:1E AN SI"
7.58
S.<»o
5.13
4.54
4.30
3.56
3.29
3.J4
1.07
.<>fl
.71
.tot
.73
.HO
.*>*
.V-'»
.'.;•?
."?
O.BO I.M
CARRHN M11N|]X!DF (C-M/fll)
_ _
ARITHMETIC
MPAN SO
99.04 40.57
87. 72 4«»."5
75.19 38.33
63.69 32.11
58.72 48.78
49.29 35.11
41.08 55.68
42.35 23.47
22.55 19.15
11-99 10.47
r-EMMF-TR 1C
MEAN so
— — —
B7.63
74.5f>
65.84
53.35
49.96
40.64
36.94
36.62
.72
.81
.73
.71
.69
.89
.93
.74
16.92 2.12
fl.79 2.34
MOX (GM/M1)
ARITHMETIC
.
MEAN su
3.43 .74
4.16 .71
5.20 .83
4.00 »52
4.07 .41
4.35 .32
3.37 2.06
2.88 1.17
2.43 0.67
2.13 0.36
GEOMETRIC
MFAU sn
3.03 1.67
3.0?. 1.54
4.83
3.67
3.80
4.04
2.95
2.65
2.27
.51
.56
.49
.62
.70
.52
.46
2.10 1.20
-------
TABLE 6
FY74 ElllSSIDN FAC1UI=
RESULTS FUi: H(lU'>WN
1975 F1P
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972'
1973
197*
1975
75LDT
MEAN
MILES
N (K)
—
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 47.6
0 0.0
30 24.7
117 9.6
10 11.1
1
HYDRfKAKBUllS < CM/MI)
._
ARITHMETIC
MF AN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.no
0.00 0.00
5.77 0.27
0.00 0.00
3.57 1.65
1.49 1.2"
1.46 0.76
GE1METKIC
ML AN Sli
j
0.00 0.00
0.1)0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 O.no
3.97 2.13
0.00 0.00
3 . <' 2 1 . < 0
1.16 1.90
1.27 1.1' 1
'CARBON nowixiOf i on/if)
(._ _ J
AR1THI1F.TIC
nr.Ati so
L
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.no o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
79.49 99.73
0.00 0.00
47.28 35.79
27.11 31.1)3
23.39 21.13
( tllrlF.TRJC
ML AN sr
;).t»U 0.00
< i.OO 0.00
n.OO O.'JO
(>.0(> 0.00
0.00 0.00
52.36 2.39
0.00 0.00
37.21 2.02
16.41 2.70
13.0<» 3.67
Nnx (OH/MI)
^ __-
ARITHMETIC
MFAN SO
L
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.94 . 1.70
o.oo 'o.oo
2.91 1.56
2.59 I. IB
2.11 0.71
GEOMETRIC
MEAN sr>
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.no
o.oo o.Oo
0.00 0.00
3.56 1.62
0.00 0.00
2.55 1.70
2.34 1.61
2.02 1.35
j
00
-------
TABLE 7
FY7'. I'HSSIMN FACTIW PKUCRAM
EMI'jSIIlM KESUI. IS FUU PHHFI-'IX
1975 FTP
YEAR
______
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MIAN
MILTS
N (K>
h____ _
26 68.1
17 78.2
18 70.0
19 67.1
23 53.7
25 45.0
27 30.0
30 25.3
117 10.?
10 8.5
HYOROCAHBUMS ( GM /HI)
ARITHMETIC
HE AM SI)
^__ ____ __-..
B.96 6.37
5.5B 2.44
5.41 2.15
4.39 1.30
6.19 8.29
3.71 1.17
1.19 1.16
3.70 3.34
1.30 0.89
1.71 1.66
GK'IHETRIC
MIJA'4 SO
______ _ -
7.71
'j.16
5.09
4.13
<..29
J.54
3.01
3.07
l.Oil
.66
.50
.<•!
,<«0
.05
.37
.41
.72
.64
1.23 2.22
CARHON HUMUXIOE (GH/JU)
ARITIIHFTIC
MHAN SO
i_ __ __
116.15 57.95
11.05 42.35
75.23 37.67
A4.56 29.f>B
4H.92 26.44
50.33 27.00
47. B6 29. P9
39.91 21.57
23.66 21.28
26.11 26.21
GEOMETRIC
MEAM SO
103.72
71.24
69.11
57.23
43.75
43.21
39.3fl
34.29
.63
.72
.49
.71
.60
.flO
.92
.BO
1C.. 35 2.3;»
16.9H 2.67
NOX
1.9B
2.70
3.40
3.14
3.4fl
3.12
2.41
2.52
2.16
.72
.65
.50
.33
.41
.43
.51
.68
.53
2.1« 1.34
oo
-------
TABLE 8
rV7'i H 1SSIIIN FACTLir I'Pfir.KAH
ItESULTS FOh ST. LOUIS
1975 FTP
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75I.DT
MEAH
MILES
N (K)
L — _-__
50 78.9
30 77.4
35 66.4
40 64.5
45 50.4
50 45.1
50 32.7
50 22.1
1 50 9.5
10 10.2
HYDRDCAKBDNS (GH/MI)
_ _
ARITHMETIC
MEAN su
t____ ____.
0.65 4.75
6.71 6.52
6.26 3. IB
4.85 2.35
4.22 2.25
3.5H 2.19
3.02 0.05
3.32 1.42
1.26 1.12
1.66 2.53
CtHMETRlC
I1EAH SI)
j
7.75
5.34
5.60
4.39
3.70
3.22
2.99
.58
.H3
.M
.56
.50
.53
.36
3.00 1.47
1.00 1.93
1.00 2.40
CARBON HOMO A I OL (r.d/MI)
^_ __.! _ j
ARITHMETIC
Ml: AN SO
L
113.17 52.69
70.84 45.03
P3.39 39.67
63.74 33.29
4«.t>9 20.26
44.23 29.84
41.12 23.03
39.10 26.53
20. OB 23.30
16.17 14.05
GEOMETRIC
HI: AN so
_______ j
102. «6
60.47
74.31
53.311
40.28
' 3t>. 1 1 <
33.44
32.00
.50
.72
.6S
.94
.93
.07
.74
.93
13.05 2.63
11.56 2.39
NOX (r.n/MI)
|.
ARITHMETIC
MfAM SD
L
2.69
3.37
3.60
3.50
3. 14
3.79
2.85
2.63
.11
.95
.27
.19
.29
.34
.22
.17
2.28 0.97
2.04 0.91
CEnMETRIC
MEAN SD
2.40 1.52
2.8R 1.84
3.36
3.31
1.61
3.54
2.64
2.41
2.12
.48
.41
.44
.49
.49
.53
.46
1.90 1.48
OJ
sO
-------
TABLE 9
FY74 EMISSION FACTUH PHIJOKA.1
EMISSION RESULTS FUK MASMIK'CTOM
1975 FTP
YEAR
—-.—___
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LOT
MEAH
HUES
M (K)
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 O.fl
25 39.2
0 O.O
30 19.8
35 11.1
10 B. 2
1
HYDRnCARBUMS (GM/flt)
ARITHMETIC
MFAN SD
L ___
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.83 6.20
0.00 0.00
3.47 1.17
1.26 0.96
1.70 1.58
Gt DNETRIC
HE AM sn
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.77 1.73
0.00 0.00
3.2? 1.39
1.05 1.77
l.on 2.77
CARIJflN MDNnxiOF (GH/M1)
ARITHMETIC
•It An SI)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
n.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
'.5.76 35.64
n.oo o.oo
41.05 19.98
16.99 16.17
16.46 19.59
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
—
U .00 0 . 00
U.OO O.OO
o.oo o.no
o.on o.oo
0,00 0.00
3r>.«8 1.90
:>.oo o.oo
36.77 1.62
13. in 1.94
9.53 3.00
NQX (GH/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
4.66 1.66
0.00 O.OO
3.38 1.79
2.97 1.25
3.70 1.21
GEOMETRIC
MF, AM SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
4.41 1.39
0.00 O.OO
3.01 1.63
2.73 1.53
3.52 1.40
-------
TABLE 10
FY74 r MISSION FACTUi- Pnm.
til SS Kill IMS'HIS Fflrt ALL CITIl
19/5 fl\>
tXCEPT I.IIS AilGEM.S AMP
1
1
1
1
I MIA:<
1 MILfeS
YEAR | II i HiJIUlxlUf (C.i'/'ll)
_. __ j
ARITHMr TIC
MR: A,I :,D
108. f>4 52.11
1)^.59 44.76
/n.'.6 3B.51
63-MB 31.03
52.69 37.55
51./9 4B./1
45.31 40. 42
41.77 25.69
22.9? 23.56
|B.H? 19.03
<•! ".IRTRIC
Ml ' t'tl SI)
S«'.69 |.65
71.3'i 1.75
6>.7ii 1.65
5<».9c 1.02
4-1.63 1.7<1
40.21 2. CM
36. B'. 1.P5
35.11 1.82
1.5.3'' 2.42
11.66 2.77
NQX (GH/HIi
__________ _ _
ARITHMETIC
HT AN SO
2.09 1.44
3.60
4.21
3.66
3.90
4.03
3.01
2. H9
2.44
.7fl
.71
.33
.33
.48
.62
.40
.01
?.45 1.02
fcFHMETRIC
'1C AN SO
2.56 l.oA
3.17 1.71
3.h9 1.55
3.42 1.46
3.66 1.45
3.73 1.54
2.70 |.5v
2.60 1.60
2.25 1.51
2.2B 1.45
-------
TABLE 11
PY7<( I MISS HIM F AC. I UK »'RIH-C/i1
MUSS HIM RIStlLTS Fl)M [)l NVFK
1975 FTP
YEAR
______
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MEA:I
MILLS
N (K>
j.___
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 40.9
27 32.8
30 24.6
35 13.5
10 14.1
1
IIYPkflCARPUHS < GM/MP
ARITHMETIC
HFAN SU
h__ _
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
(>.53 5.07
4.60 1.01
5.15 2.74
2.22 1.12
2.53 1.89
GEOMETRIC
'It AN Si>
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 C.OO
0 . 00 0 . 00
0.00 0.00
5.56 1.62
4.37 1 .37
4.71 1.46
2 .00 1 .60
1 . 99 2.13
CARitnu nmuixioi. (CM /MM
ARITHMETIC
ML AN SO
O.DO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 n.00
0.00 0.00
04.47 42.31
HO. 99 32.73
H3.67 38.54
48.52 2B.46
45.64 33.65
r.nif'ElRlC
HI 'H SO
._—__—___——_——__
'0.00 0.00
o.'»o o.oo
o.oo r.oo
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo
75.93 1.59
7S.6P 1.45
77.03 J.4B
41.43 1.03
34.11 2.37
NOX (CM/HI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
C.OO 0.00
2.69 1.22
2.06 1.26
1.Q5 0.84
1.62 0.65
1.75 0.72
GtriMETRIf
fin AH sn
0 .00 0 . 00
<».oo o.oo
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
c.oo o.oo
2.43 1.57
I.HI 1.64
1.6*5 1.67
1.51 1.48
1.61 1.5H
ts)
-------
TABLE 1 2
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
rMissinn RESULTS FOR LOS ANGELES
1975 FTP
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LOT
MEAN
MILES
N (K)
^__ _
_---. __
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 49.5
27 32.8
30 22.6
35 8.1
10 9.2
HYDROCARBONS (GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.14 1.69
3.52 3.18
2.57 1.38
0.52 0.26
0.95 0.58
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
2.01 1.60
2.97 1.64
2.31 1.59
0.47 1.66
0.84 1.61
CARBON MONOXIDE (GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
L
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
o-.oo o.oo
40.92 26.00
36.51 23.49
37.05 28.14
6.59 6.87
12.9J 18.96
GEOMETRIC
MIAN SD
0.00 0.00
(J.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
34.00 1.69
31.18 1.76
30.02 1.89
4.67 2.23
7.53 2.58
NDX (GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
,____ .
_—___—_ _______
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
4.19 1.78
3.72 1.44
2.47 1.49
2.38 1.14
2.12 0.97
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
3. Bo 1.62
3.42 1.55
2.14 1.67
2.17 1.52
1.93 1.58
00
-------
TABLE 13
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR CHICAGO
PERCENT MEETING FfcOEKAL STANDARDS
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1*772* STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCtMT
1 2.00
3 10.00
1 2.86
Z 5.00
3 6.67
10 -19.61
12 23.53
15 28.30
130 77.38
9 90. 00
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/1974** STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
2 5.00
3 6.67
1 1.96
3 5. an
9 16.98
90 53.57
9 90. 00
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1975***STANDARDS
MUMKER PERCENT
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
o o.no
o o.oo
0 0.00
0 0.00
55 32.74
9 90.00
TABLE 14
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSItlN RESULTS FOR HOUSTON
PERCENT MEETING FEDERAL STANDARDS
YEAR
65-*7
1961
196
0
(i
0
0
o
(1
1
39
it
FTP TEST DATA
1975***STANDAROS
F.P PCRCEMT
0.00
0.00
0.00
".00
0.00
u.oo
o.oo
3.33
33.33
40.00
*The 1972 Standards are 3. 4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
** The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi HC, 39 gm/mi CO, 3. 0 gm/mi NO3
*** Th« 1975 Standards are 1. 5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3. 1 gm/mi NOX
AA
-------
TABLE 15
FY74 F..MSSION FACTO* PRUGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FHR PHOENIX
PCRCF.NT MEET IMG FEDERAL STANDARDS
1972 FTP
YEAP
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
197?.
1973
1974
1975
75LIU
TEST DATA
PASSED 1972* STANDARDS
MUMRFR
0
2
0
2
7
3
11
n
R4
7
PERCENT
0.00
11.76
0.00
10.53
8.70
20.00
4O.74
43.33
71.79
70.00
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1973/
NIJMDtR
0
I
0
2
1
3
8
11
64
6
1974** STANDARDS
PERCENT
0.00
5.88
o.oo
10.53
4.35
12.00
29.63
36.67
54.70
60.00
1975 FTP
TEST DATA
PASSED l<>75*«» STANDARDS
NUMBER
O
0
0
O
0
0
0
n
39
6
PERCENT
0.00
o.no
0.00
0.00
o.no
0.00
0.00
o.no
33.33
60.00
TABLE 16
FY74 E^ISSIUN FACTPP PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR ST. LOUIS
PERCENT MEETING FCOEP.AL STANDARDS
YEAR
c.5-67
!9frH
1069
1970
1971
I"?*
1973
1974
1975
751 •ST
1972 FTP
TEST IJATA -| 1972 FTP TFST DATA
PASSm 1972* STAHOAPDS 1 PASSED 1973/
MI inn HA
i
I
2
',
in
Ih
I*
21
115
7
PERCENT 1 NUMBER
n.oo
3.33
5.71
10.00
22.22
32.00
36.00
42.00
76.67
70.00
0
0
2
I
3
5
13
14
96
5
1974** STANDARDS
PFRCGNT
o.oo
0.00
5.71
2.50
6.67
10.00
26.00
28.00
64.00
50.00
197? FTP
PASSEO 1975
NUMHF.R
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
69
6
TEST DATA
«"»*<;T/VNnARDS
PERCENT
0.00
0,00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
2.00
2. no
46.no
f>n. oo
*
The 1972 Standards* are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi HC, 39 gm/mi CO, 3. 0 gm/mi NOX
***The 1975 Standards are 1. 5 gm/ HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3. 1 gm/mi NOX
45
-------
TABLE 17
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PRL'GRAM
EMISSION Ri-SULTS FQR WASHINGTON
PERCF.NT MEETING FEDERAL STANDARDS
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
73LFT
1972 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1772* STANIURDS
Munnp.R PERCENT
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
5
31
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.00
0.00
16.67
•88.37
80.00
1972 FTP TEST PATA
PASSED 1973/1974** STANDARDS
NUMBER PERCENT
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
4
17
4
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
, 13.33
48.37
40.00
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSF.O 1975*** STANDARDS
NUMWEP PERCENT
0 0.00
0 0.00
o o.oo
o n.oo
o n.oo
0 0.00
0 o.OO
o n.oo
14 40.00
4 40.00
TABLE 18
FY74 EMISSITHI FACTOR PKOGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FCJP ALL CITIES EXCEPT LOS AMf.fcLM Ahf)
PERCF.NT MFETIMG FF.DEPAL STANDARDS
YPAP
03-67
I9*a
1969
1970
1971
1972
1971
1974
l«75
75Lf>r
1972 FTP TEST PATA
PASSFO 1972* STANDARDS
MUMBFR PERCTMT
1 0.79
<> 7.79
1 3.41
3 B.OB
15 13.27
'»3 24.43
41 32.03
61 31.61
444 75.64
37 74. 00
1972 FTP TEST -JATA
PASSED 1973/1974** STANDARDS
NUMRFR PFPCEMT
o o.oo
1 1 . 30
2 2.27
3 3.05
7 6.19
9 5.11
24 18.75
43 22. 2*
320 54.51
29 58. 00
1975 FTP TEST OA1A
PuSSGH 1075*** STANDARDS
jMHMt»Ep PERCENT
'» 0.00
H 0.00
" 0.00
0 0.00
O O.OO
o o.oo
1 :>.78
2 1.04
216 36.80
29 58.00
The 1972 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi HC, 39 gm/mi CO, 3. 0 gm/mi NOX
The 1975 Standards are 1. 5 gm/ HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3.1 gm/mi NOX
46
-------
TABLE 19
FY74 EMISSION FACTOk PRDGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FflR
PERCENT MEETING FEDERAL STANDARDS
YEAR
(•5-67
1«60
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
1972 FTP TEST UATA
PASSFO 1972* STA.'IOAROS
•UIMPPR PERCEMT
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
10 28.57
4 40. 00
1972 PI
PASSEO 197V
NUMB?*
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
3
P TEST DATA
1974** STANDARDS
PERCEMT
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
28.57
39.00
1975 FTP TEST DATA
PASSED l975***ST.\NUAPf)S
MUMfcF.R PERCENT
0 0.00
0 0.00
o o.no
0 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
o 0.00
(? 0.00
2 5.71
3 30.00
TABLE 20
FY74 EMISSION FACT3P PROGRAM
EMISSILiN RF.5ULTS FllR LMS ANP.ELES
PERCENT MEETIHC FEDERAL 4
0
0
~)
13
l'»
35
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
36.00
4ft. 15
46.67 .
100.00
90.00
1972 FTP TEST DATA 1 197* fTP
PASSED 197V1974** STANDARDS 1 PASSED 1075
NUHOFP PFRCCNT i MUMJFR
0
0
0
0
0
3
4
8
28
7
0.00
0.00
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
12.00
14.31
26.67
nO. 00
70.00
o
(•>
(1
0
II
(1
()
1
26
7
TEST DAM
PCRCEMT
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
o.no
:> . 00
,1.00
o.oo
3.33
74.29
70.00
The 1972 Standards are 3. 4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi HC, 39 gm/mi CO, 3. 0 gm/mi NOX
The 1975 Standards are 1.5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3. 1 gm/mi NOX
47
-------
TABLE 21
FV74 EMISSION FAf.llIH PROGRAM
fcHISSIU'4 RESULTS FUR I US AHf.FLtS
PfHCEilT HEiTlllG CALIFORNIA STAIIDAKDS
YEAR
65-67
196»
1969
1970
1971
1972
1971
|97'i
1975
7 SLOT
Itn FTP TEST DATA
PASSED 1972* STANDARDS
MUMIIIR PEKCCNT
0 0.00
n o.oo
0 * 0.00
0 0.00
0 0.00
4 16.00
4 14.81
a 26.67
211 HO. OO
1972 FTP TEST «»»TA
PASSF.I) 197)** S1AIIQARIIS
UUMP.ER PERCENT
0 0.00
0 0.00
O O.OO
0 0.00
0 0 . (10
3 12.00
4 14.01
U 26.67
26 80.00
1972 FTP TFST DATA
PASSEO 1974** STMIUAROS
HUMtiEP HErCiMT
0 0.00
0 0.00
ft 0.00
0 O.OO
O O.OO
0 O.OO
2 7.41
!S 16.67
17 4H.*7
1975 FTP TF.ST DATA
PASSF.O 1975***STAMl)ARns
HUHRER PFRCFNT
O 0.00
0 0.1)0
O 0.00
o o.-oo
O O.OO
O O.OO
0 O.OO
o o.oo
13 37.14
5 50.OO
The 197Z Standards are 3.4 gm/mi for HC and 39 gm/mi for CO
The 1973/74 Standards are 3.4 gm/mi HC, 39 gm/mi CO, 3.0 gm/mi NOX
The 1975 Standards are 1. 5 gm/mi HC, 15 gm/mi CO, 3. 1 gm/mi NOX
*#
***
-------
TABLE 22
MEAN EMISSIONS OF THE 1975 MODEL YEAR
CHICAGO VEHICLES, CATEGORIZED BY TIME SINCE
LAST PASSING THE CITY OF CHICAGO INSPECTION
vD
EMISSION RESULTS FOR 1975 CHICAGO VEHICLES
PASSED INSPECTION 19 TO 12 MONTHS PREVIOUS)
PASSED INSPECTION 16 TO 9 MONTHS PREVIOUS)
PASSED INSPECTION (3 TO 6 MONTHS PREVIOUS)
PASSED INSPECTION CO TO 3 MONTHS PREVIOUS)
NOT INSPECTED
FAILED INSPECTION
N
7
15
26
38
68
14
HYDROCARnONS
MEAN SD
1.08 0.60
1.11 0.63
1.27 0.76
1.24 0.97
1.28 0.86
1.77 0.94
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN SO
17.92 14.61
22.94 24.01
25.47 19.96
17.36 13.48
22.38 19.89
33.92 20.58
WX
MFAN SO
2.41 0.76
2.73 0.87
2.42 0.86
2.46 0.74
2.37 0.97
2.28 O.P7
FUC-L ECONOMY
MEAN SO
10.70 1.68
12.14 1.94
12.03 2.47
13. 4B 3.19
13.90 3.63
12.95 3.06
-------
TABLE 23
COMPARISON OF MEAN EMISSION LEVELS OF NEW VEHICLES IN THE FY71, FY72,
FY73, AND FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAMS
en
o
FISCAL YEAR
TESTED AND
MODEL YEAR
MC "*'
197Z
1973
1974
1975
CO "7«
1972
1973
1974
1975
•
NOX 1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1975 FTP fern/ml)
COMPOSITE
SAMPLE
SIZE MEAN S. D.
80 3.07 1.36
140 3.07. . 2.22
140 3.59 1.61
193 3.r>8 Z.37
587 1.32 1.03
'80 39. f.6 25.62
140 36. BR 24.04
140 46.96 32.90
193 41.77 25.69
587 22.92 23.56
80 5.06 1.84
140 4.55 1.59
140 3.47 1.63
193 2.89 1.40
587 2.44 1.01
DENVER
SAMPLE
SIZE MEAN S. D
20 5.59 1.42
35 4.75 2.42
35 4.54 1.79
30 5.15 2.74
35 2.22 1.12
20 88.13 35.96
35 80.36 32.46
35 84.70 41.27
30 83.67 38.54
35 48.52 28.46
20 3{05 1.59
35 3.08 1.39
35 1.96 0.87
30 1.85 a 84
35 1.62 0.65
LOS ANGELES
SAMPLE
SIZE MEAN S. D.
21 3.02 0.79
35 3.56 4.24
35 3.85 4.24
30 2.57 1.38
35 0.52 0.26
21 42.26 19.91
35 46.68 24.06
35 39.39 32.72
30 37.05 28.14
35 . 6.59 6.87
21 3.83 1.10
35 3.81 1.21
35 3.04 1.13
30 2,47 1.49
35 2.38 1.14
Vehicles tested in approximately their first year of operation.
-------
TABLE 24a
1975 FTP MEAN EMISSION LEVELS BY MODEL YEAR FOR
FY71, FY7Z, FY73, AND FY74 PROGRAMS
COMPOSITE OF ALL CITIES EXCEPT LOS ANGELES AND DENVER
Emissions in CM /Ml. Fuel Economy in MPG
Average Mileage in Thousands
Ui
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
1971 Program
Mean
458
68.5
8.74
86.5
3.54
14.2
69
48.5
5.73
69.33
4.44
13.6
72
39.9
5.Z5
59.99
5.45
13.7
70
29.5
3.77
47.55
5. 15
13.7
S.D.
_ _
7.63
40.3
1.91
2.8
7.80
61.37
1. 89
3. 3
--
4.72
32. 57
2.02
2.9
--
1.83
24.41
1.67
3.5
1972 Program
Mean
140
69.3
8.67
93.48
3.34
14.40
84
57.9
6. 18
64.60
4 32
14.37.
88
51.2
4.83
62.38
5.08
14.28
108
36.8
4.89
53.23
4.35
14.55
S.D.
--
6.97
40.18
1. 65
2.66
..
5.01
34.94
1.71
2.63
--
2.53
34. 18
1.93
2.59
_ .
--
4.21
36.87
1.67
3.48
1973 Program
Mean
68
68. 1
8.65
108.28
4.04
12.57
72
61. 0
7.09
74.75
5.21
12.95
84
57.8
6.30
67.69
5.56
13.22
88
51.4
5.07
65.02
4.95
12.68
S.D.
. _
--
5.84
53.09
1.84
2.67
8.59
44.63
2.48
2.85
5.77
34 29
Z. 16
2.37
_ .
--
3. 17
26. 91
2.08
2.62
1974 Program
Mean
126
80.8
8.93
108.54
2.89
13.71
77
69.5
6.30
82.59
3.60
13.60
88
62.5
5.98
78.46
4.Z5
13.66
99
58.8
5.34
63. 88
3.66
13.86
& D.
_ _
--
7.51
52. 31
1.44
Z.83
_ _
--
6.72
44.76
1.78
2.63
_ _
3.64
38.51
1.71
2.47
_ _
_.
7.67
31.83
1.33
2.89
-------
TABLE 24b
1975 FTP MEAN EMISSION LEVELS BY MODEL YEAR
FOR FY 71. FY 72, FY 73, AND FY 74 PROGRAMS--
COMPOSITE OF ALL CITIES EXCEPT LOS ANGELES AND DENVER
Emissions in GM/M1, Fuel Economy in MPG
Average Mileage in Thousands
Ui
YEAR
1971
1972
I97J
1974
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Mi.
HC'
CO
NOX
MPG
N
Ave. Mi.
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
1971 Program
Mean
80
15.6
3.07
39.56
5.06
13.3
S.D.
„ —
--
1.36
25.62
1.84
4.4
1972 Pro
Mean
120
26.4
3.94
51. 13
4.30
14.48
140
14.8
3.02
36.88
4.55
13.54
cram
S.D.
_ _
..
2.22
37.02
1.58
4.14
_ _
-.
2.22
24.04
1.59
3.40
•
1973 Program
Mean
108
37.4
4.22
51.53
4.83
12.93
120
28.7
4. 17
56.74
4.80
12.85
140
18.1
3.59
46.96
3.47
12.58
40
5.8
3.08
35.92
2.90
11.39
& D.
_ —
-*
2.39
32.29
2.01
3.45
_ .
--
3.85
42.60
2.09
3.34
. —
--
1.61
32.90
1.63
3. 20
--
1.22
24.20
1.19
2.46
1974 Program
Mean
113
48.5
5.21
52.69
3.90
13.58
176
41.9
4-23
51.79
4.03
13.40
128
29-0
3.33
45.31
3.01
13.02
193
20.2
3.58
41.77
2.89
12.77
S.D.
_ _
--
6.20
37.55
1.33
3.52
_ _
-.
4.50
48.71
1.48
3.75
_ _
_-
1.78
40.42
1.62
3.43
_ _
--
2.37
25.69
1.40
3.33
-------
TABLE 25
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR ALL CITIES EXCEPT LOS ANGELES AND DENVER
BY MODEL YEAR AND INERTIA WEIGHT
w
1
1
1
1
1
1
INEMM WT.
IliSI
<-tooo
IIC
CO
NOX
run ECONOMY
12001-2900
HC
CO
HOX
run ECONOMY
290I-1OOO
HC
CO
NOX
rllEl tCOflDNt
I
11001-1900
MC
CO
HOX
FUEL tcmnmT
190I-400O
CD
NOX
rUEl tCONOHV
4001-4900
HC
CO
NOX
rUEl EtOWMT
490I-90OO
HC
CO
HOX
ruEl Etommv
>900O
HC
CO
HOX
rUEl tcotmnv
TOIAl
HC
... ... CO .
NOX 1
Fl'El ECONOHV I
1
1 69-67
1 HE AN SO
1 N- 9
19.20 1.14
96.94 10.61
1.99 0.14
1 29.96 2.29
I N- 0
1 0.00 0.00
1 0.00 0.00
10.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
iH» 20
9.91 7.72
19.96 94.96
1 1.90 1.9)
1 16.94 2.16
!N« 10
T.Ol 3.09
99.44 11.92
2.99 0.11
14.79 1.12
II- 49
1.44 4.41
112. 01 91.00
1.19 1.99
12.94 2.OI
H- IT
11.17 19.92
146.97 39.11
2. IT 1.22
11.41 0.99
H- 1
I.Ol 1.29
111.00 4.11
.1.99 0.9T
10.14 0,69
H- 2
T.14 j.29
146. 9T 21.10
Z.Ol O.42
10.29 0.21
N'I26
1.91 T.5I
IOI.J4 . 92.11
2.19 1.44
11.71 2.1*
1961 1969
HE All SO HEAH SO
M- t I N- 1
9.14 5.11 I 9.61 4. IT
116.11 67.16 | }|.)0 19.92
1.96 I.Ol | l.ll 0.49
19.1) 1.94 1 21.41 0.91
N- 1 1 H* 1
6.11 0.00 I I. 14 1.29
144.64 O.Ot 1 74.01 46.36
0.44 0.00 I 1.19 2.T6
IT. 20 0.00 I 21.2) 1.20
M' 12 il N. 10
4.11 1.1* I 9.22 2. IT
41.41 21. Z9 .1 96. ZO 19.17
).M 2.47 '| 1.6) 1.31
17.99 1.91 1 |T. 41 1.29
N- 21 '( N- 21
7.99 7.19 if 9.92 1.91
79.99 19.14 II 79.01 14.17
l.TO I;JI II 4.21 1.91
14.92 Z.It 1 14.09 1.29
N« 22 1 N- 29
l.|6 9.19 I T.26 9.04
94.26 40.20 ll 16.69 41.92
).)9 1.64 1 4.11 |.9)
12.14 1.9) II 12. 9T 1.29
H. 17 ll H- II
9.19 1.94 :| 9.9) 1.00
102.19 94.14 I 16.79 40.14
1.19 1.61 1 9.14 1.7?
11.90 1.00 1 11.14 1.00
W 2 I N' 2
2.11 l.ll 1 1.14 O.I?
41.14 11.99 | 16.76 2.41
4.94 2.99 1 1.2) 0.7)
10.40 1.06 1 10.30 O.ZI
N« > 1 H* 0
0.00 O.OO 1 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 il 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 ll 0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo il o.oo o.oo
N- 77 1 N' ll
6. TO 6.7* 1 9.71 ).64
IJ.f0..44.7* j .71.46. 11.91
1.60 1.71 i 4.29 1.71
11.60 Z.6) 1 11.66 Z.47 1
1770
111 All SO
11 • 6
3.1? 1.46
11.90 l».62
I-)2 0.71
23.111 2.09
18- 4
7.76 0.46
24.99 12.71
3.14 1.4)
29.94 |.9|
II- 14
4.32 2.47
97.61 14.00
3.99 l.*l
If.. 4ft 2.72
H* 29
•.05 1*.I4
71.64 11.06
3.61 1.12
I).r9 2.01
N' 30
4.91 1.12
7P.I6 )).)2
3.47 1.29
12. A9 0.19
»- 17
4.71 1.02
70.26 27. «4
4.41 1.29
11.71 0.71
II- )
9.2) O.I?
49.97 21.1).
4.)l 0.71
II. 2ft 0.60
I** 0
0.00 O.OO
P. 00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 O.OO
N* 79
9.14 7.67
63.11 11.11
1.66 |.1|' 1
1). »6 2.19
1971
HEAH so
H- .6
9.IZ 11.20
41.44 12.94
2.)l 0.74
22. C6 2.29
fl* 12
1.71 l.ll
17.11 17.71
1.41 |.9I
21.71 l.ll
N- 11
3.51 0.94
46.14 21.29
).I4 0.17
16.92 1.66
N- 17
4.2) 2.09
47.)) )0.69
1.77 |.)4
11.79 |.)4
H- 22
4.77 9.)l
47.70 74.OO
4.IZ I.Z2
12.77 0.19
N- 26
7.91 9.99
62.14 11.11
4.90 I.ZO
II. 1) 1.61
M- 7
).«.? - Z.O)
97.71 III.)?
1.76 1.96
9.40 1.79
II- 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
N-lll
9.ZI 6.ZO
.92.6* 1T.99
1.70 l.ll 1
D.9I 1.92 1
1972
HE AN so
H- i
4. IT 0.00
40.94 0.00
Z.Ol 0.00
21.60 0.00
N> 16
l.ll l.ll
41.97 42.94
1.12 1.14
21.11 1.10.
N- Zl
2.99 O.ll
19.62 20.91
1.91 1-21
17.62 2.01
N- ID
4.90 4. IT
44. T6 36.71 '
I.T9 1.29
19.11 1.30
H- 21
1.79 1.19
64.23 Z?.l)
4.19 I.ZO
17.06 1.3?
II- 4Z
9. TO T.It
66.40 71.19
4.40 l.jl
11.00 1.66
N- 19
1.79 1.49
96.11 17.29
9.19 1.64
ll.)* 0,«6
M. 6
2.64 1.00
33.41 11.19
9.1) 2. no
9.72 1.41
N*IT6
4.2) 4.90
»I.Tt 41,71
4.0) 1.41
11.40 1.79
1971
HE AM SO
N- 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
II- 2)
1.19 1.06
36.71 17.13.
2.4] 0.16
21.10 1.14
M- 19
2.17 1.09
41.94 11.79
1.77 t.4)
11.17 2.19
II. 12
I.I) O.lf
91.24 21.4]
2.20 I.Ol
11.04 1.72
M- 29
9.11 0.71
17.11 21.79
3.0) 1.7?
12.01 1.09
H- 21
1.3? I.Ol
47.49 26.74
).)) 0.97
11.46 0.71
H- 19
4.11 ).99
61.61 19.44
).!! 1.71
?.*? 1.16
N* 2
2.99 O.I)
97.94 41.77
7.22 0.62
9.77 O.7I
1.11 1.71
49.11 40.42
I.Ol 1.62
11.02 1.4)
1974 1979
MEAN SO HEAH SO
N* 1 I H- 17
1.10 0.00 I 1.19 1.19
29.92 O.Ot 1 I0.4| 1.97
9.30 D.OO 1 1.62 0.10
21.30 0.00 1 2). 20 2.12
H- 21 | N- 91
1.4) I.OS 1 I.4T 0.96
17.94 17.00 | 16.04 11.96
2.61 1.02 1 2.11 O.ll
22.14 2.62 1 20.37 2.76
M' 31 | N'lol
I.IT 1.96 I 1.30 0.10
3). 61 11.29 | 11.11 17.14
2.24 1.19 I Z.14 0.97
17.31 Z.69 1 16.79 Z.97
N. 2) I N. »9
J.46 .1.21 1 1.20 1-04
44.02 21.46 1 19.14 2)>99
1.10 1.31 ' I 2.60 1.17
14.31 2.21 1 |4.99 I.I)
H- 42 I H*I06
1.12 l.tt 1 1.19 0.19
42.49 21.70 1 21.66 12.17
7.91 1.12 1 2.41 0.97
11.79 1.79 1 11.07 1.49
N- 49 1 II'I29
4.4) 4. It | 1.3? 1.14
46.91 10.79 I 29.1) 26.02
).I6 1.42 1 2-60 1-02
10.7) n.»? I ||.|6 |.z?
N- 22 I N. «4
1.10 0.99 1 1.36 0.74
34.02 29.1) I 21-94 24.00
J.TI I.IT | 2.43 0.19
9.99 0.91 1 10.72 1.21
H. 1 |N. 30
1.96 1.9? | I.T7 |. 10
62.90 46.71 I 44-94 39.91
3- IT 1.29 1 2.60 1-21
9.40 0.61 1 10.31 0.97
MM?) | N«9»t
I. 91 2. IT 1 |.)2 1-01
4I.TI 29.69 1 tt-92 21.96
I.I? 1.49 1 2.44 I.Ol
12. 77 ).)) | |).9I ).)!
HI 01
HI AH SO
II- 0
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo
p. 00 0.00
p. oo o.oo
N* O
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo
H- O
O.PO 0.00
p. oo o.oo
0-00 O.OO
o.no o.oo
N- 4
|.)l O.TI
31.44 11.61
2.)9 0.99
12.29 I. O2
N« 4)
|.)l 1.91
16.41 17.70
Z-14 0.71
17.70 1.6*
II* 2
)•)! 0.9?
40.0) 29.11
4. 09 O.ll
12.2? 0.42
N. 1
l.ll 0.00
13.19 0.00
4.2* 0.00
10.70 O.OO
H- 0
0-00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
H- 10
1.41 1.99
II. It 17.01
2.49 1.02
12.11 1.96
-------
TABLE 26
FY74 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Chicago
P»I6L fCHMOMY |H MIL85 "SP GALLON
YfAK M
63-*7f 30
1964 1 30
1969 | 33
1970 1 40
1971 1 43
1971 1 31
1973 I 3 1
197V | 33
1973 1 164
1
73LOTI 10
cnio
TRANS 1 6NT
•
*?AN SO
11.43 2.70
11.31 2.64
11.7% 2.46.
11.75 2.74
11.6* 3.40
II. SO 3.01
11.3? 3.04
11.36 2.77
U.9A 2.90
10.43 0.93
COLO
STABILIZED
HfAM Sn
13.80 2.9*
13.19 2.32
13.31 7.72
13.43 2.6«
12.93 3.73
13.21 ?.«2
12.30 3.29
12.20 3.19
12.91 3.11
11.03 0.37
HOT
TRAM5I8NT
M6AM SO
13.33 3.21
14.96 3.00
15.46 2.43
15.29 3.03
14.17 4.13
13.10 3.62
14.23 3.64
13.86 3.40
I*. 47 3.31
12.67 0.74
1972 PTP
MfAM sn
12.71 2.73
12.35 2.33
12.63 2.53
12.34 2.A6
12.30 3.63
12.51 3.16
11.92 3.1?
11.79 2.90
12.43 2.97
10.77 0.83
1973 PTP
MfAM sn
13.71 2.09
13.23 2.61
13.57 2.63
13.49 2.74
13.12 3.77
13.34 3.34
12.39 3.24
12.41 3.0<>
13.39 3.12
11.32 0.31
TABLE 27
FY74 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Houston
PU6L 6C3MUMY IN *tL5S PgU GALLON ' I
YSAR M
63-671 0
19*4
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1973
75LOT!
0
0
0
0
23
0
30
U7
10
COLD
TRANSIENT
M£AM SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
n.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.57 3.90
o.no o.oo
11.69 3.11
12.31 3.08
10.77 1.90
C:JLP
STABILIZED
*£AM SO
o.oo o.no
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.no
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
11.47 4.62
0.00 0.00
12.21 3.27
12.91 3.35
11.10 2.16
HOT
TPAHSIgMT
Mf AM SO
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
n.OO 0.00
14.44 4.37
0.00 0.00
14.25 3.73
14.47 3.73
12.79 3.23
1972 PTP
HgAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.no o.oo
o.oo o.oc
0.00 0.00
11.73 4.22
o.oo o.oo
11.93 3.14
12.62 3.19
10.93 2.02
1973 PTP
M6 AN SO
0.00 0.00
n.oo o.oc
o.on o.oo
o.on o.oo
0.00 0.00
12.42 4,37
o.oo o.oo
12.37 3.31
13.25 3.39
11.45 2.11
54
-------
TABLE 28
FY74 Emission Factor Program
FMI5L gCnwOMY M MILSS PS* GALLON
YEAR *•
65-671 26
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1973
17
18
19
23
23
27
30
117
75L3TI in
cntn
TWAMS1EHT
Mg&tt so
12.51 3.1JI
13.03 2.34
12.9* 2.J«>
12.90 3.30
13.23 3.03
12. AT 3. 91
12.** 3.55
12.3n 3.31
12. 91 3.23
l,-.00 1.38
cat1?
STAttlLTZEU
MEAN SO
13. J4 3.15
14.34- 2.30
13.34 2.*0
14.12 3.13
14. *3 3.49
13.62 4.35
13.43 3.50
12.72 3.25
13.77 3.34
12.33 1.50
•IOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
15.31 3.72
16. *6 2.71
15.92 2.95
16.38 3.52
16.70 3. A*
15.92 4,76
15.53 4,33
I?. 14 3.88
15.78 3.91
14.39 1.73
1972 FTP
MEAN SH
13.02 3.21
13.78 2.««
13.39 2.43
13.51 3.r»7
13.83 3.2?
13.13 3.97
12.97 3.65
12.52 3.>.<-
13.35 3.33
12.29 1.41
1975 FTP
MSAM SO-
13.73 3.23
14.6* 2.57
14.14 2.53
14.43 3.1*
14.69 3.41
13.9* 4.17
13.7* 3.35
13.20 3.39
14.07 3.52
12.«9 !.'+
-------
TABLE 30
FY74 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for Washington
PU«U ScnwiMV IM HtUfS PP* GAUIM
t cot.?
fgAM N
65-671 0
1968
1969
1970
i-m
1972
1773
197*
1973
75107
0
0
0
o
23
0
30
35
10
1- TRAMSJfNT
HfM W
0.00 0.00
e.no o.oo
o.OO O.OO1
0.00 0.00
o.oo a. oo
12.31 3.69
o.oo o.no
11.53 3.U3
12.34 3.03
U.64 1.25
cat,*.
STA81UZSO
M6AH SO
o.oo o.oo
O.OO 0.00
o.oo o.oo
o.no o.oo
O.OO 0.00
•13.26 3.10
'} . 00 0 .00
12.23 3.2-5
13.39 3.^2
12.94 1.23
HJT
TRANSIBMf
MCAil SO
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
15.39 4..97
0.00 0.00
I*. 02 3.78
I*.fl4 3.87
14.29 1.47
1
1972 PT9
MUM sc
0.00 9»UO
O.OU O.CO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OU
12.78 3.7*
0.00 0.00
11.38 3.12
12.87 3.2"
12.29 1.4J5
1975 CTP
HSAM so
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo
0.0ft 0.00
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo
13.56 4.04
o.oo o.oo
12.51 3.32
13.51 3.41
12.99 1.2ft
TABLE 31
FY74 Emission Factor Program
Fuel Economy Results for All Cities Except Los Angeles and Denver
PM6J. scoNnMY pi muss cga GAU.ON
YEAR H
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
?972
1973
1974
1975
731 37
126
7T
38
99
11?
176
128
193
587
50
COLO
TRANSIENT
*FAM SO
17.24 2.80
12.06 2.71
12.32 2.43
12.45 2.99
12.36 3.39
12.25 3.42
12.06 3.24
11.86 3.11
12.53 3.0?
11.39 1.45
CUIO
S7AOtU2fO
MfAW SO
13.62 2.86
13.49 2.63
13.41 2.44
13.63 2-79
13.28 3.50
13.08 3.12
12.47 3.38
12.43 3.32
13.23 3.29
11.8* 1.63
HOT
TRANSIENT
M6AN SO
15.27 3.08
15.30 2.«7
15.51 2.70
J5.73 3.25
15.40 3.88
15.19 4.13
14.69 3.14
14.33 3.7T
13.03 3.71
13.57 1.66
1972 PTP
MEAN su
12.93 2.75
12.77 2.57
12.87 2.38
13.04 2.81
12.82 3.39
12.67 3.57
12.37 3.29
12.13 3.17
12.38 3.1.1
1
11.62 1.30 1
1973 *TP
MSAN so
13.71 2.83
13.60 2.63
13.66 2.47
13.9* 2.39
13.3* 3.52
13.40 3.73
13.02 3.4?
12.77 3.33
13.51 3.31
12.14 1.56
56
-------
TABI-Z 32
FY74 Emission Factor Programs
*€A«
63-47
19*8
19*9
1970
1971
1972
1973
I97fc
1973
73UOT
N
0
0
a
0
o
23
27
30
35
r 10
F^ei
CtH.0
TRAMS I6«T
•1(F AM $0
o.oo o»oo
0.00 0.0*7
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
rt.no o.oo
13.13 3.39
t2.f'3 3.45
12.32 3.64
13.23 3.35
12.33 'J.iji
. et™*0»tV IN MIU
ciuc
STABILIZED
MM* sn
O.rtO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.92 3.20
I3.'«n 3.36
l».<6 3.50
l'..*2 3.^7
12. ?3 0.79
ES PS* f.AUOM
HUT
TpAMsrffir
Mf«M SO
(J.OO 0.00
o.co o.oo
c.uo o.oi
D.CO 0.00
o.oo o.no
13.7* 3.77
15.15 3-''5
l'».97 3.71
15.37 4.ot
l'».27 0.35
1972 HP
MEAN so
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.0*
0.00 C.tHl
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.wO
13.55 3.32
13. Oft 3.37
12. "93 3. 'i<7
13.32 3.3«
12.61 0.70
1973 *TP
«?AM SP
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.nn
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
'? . On o . no
1^.21 3.M
I?. 69 3.-'«-»
13.62 3.5?
I*. *5 3.35
13.03 0.74
TABLE 33
FY74 Emission Factor Program
FU6L ECONOMY IN MUSS PgR GALLON
VSAR M
63-^71 0
1968 1 0
1969 I 0
I 1970
1971
197?
1973
197*
1973
0
0
' 23
27
30
33
73UOT! 10
COLO
TRANSIENT
MEAN so
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0*00
12.91 3.28
12.29 3T.31
1U17 3.01
11.89 3.00
11.13 1.23
COLO
STABILIZED
MEAN SO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.63 3.39
13.07 3.62
11.77 2.9*
12. *7 3.20
11.94 1.32
HOT
TRANSIENT
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0..00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
13.72 3.74
I*. 32 3.83
13.^9 3.41
14.17 3.91
13.15 l.M
1972 FTP
MEAN so
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.29 3,38
12.68 3.41
11.48 2.93
12.19 3.07
11.32 1.23
1973 FTP
HgAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
14.QO 3.31
13.32 3.57
12.07 3.05
12.76 3.30
12.07 1.31
57
-------
TABLE 34
FY74 EMISSION F AC Till' PRIICRAH
f MISS I till RISMLIS FUR ALL C IT IIS EXCEPT I US AMGCLES AND
KF.SULTS OF 1975 FTP F||H 1975 WlUlt VFHH.LFS •'RlSF.MTEl) PY MANUFACTURER
ME AM
MILES
MANUFACTURE* M IK)
CEM. MOTORS 229 10.4
FORD 124 9.3
CHRYSLER 77 0.5
AMIR. IIHTUPS 23 7.5
OTHERS 134 5.5
TIKAL 5«7 8.«l
HYUKHCARnOHS I OH/HI) I LARIiriH HHHHXIQE IGM/MII 1 HQX CUl/Ml 1 1 < BELOW 1
APITIIMETIC GHIMITRIC
r«EAH SI) HE AH SO
.32 1.20
.70 O.B9
.59 1.04
.08 0.59 (
.33 O.H7
,32 Ii03
.01 ,
.01
.35
).9l
.13
.07
Z.02
.71
.79
.05
.80
.!»«
AR MIME TIC GIOMFlRlf.
HEAN so "HAH s»
2^.23 24.53 15.44 2.63
TI.I4 21.83 13.27 2.28
41.62 31.32 31.21 2.23
12. A7 9.08 10.25 2.0O
15.16 10.06 12.56 1.86
22.92 23.56 11.40 2.42
ARITHMETIC CEUHFrTP.lC
MEAN si> HEAII so
2.41 I.OB 2.22
2.74 0.95 2.60
2.41 O.H9 2.27
2.83 0.65 2.75
2.15 0;9ft |.92
2.44 1.1)1 2.25
.49
.39
.42
.28
.65
.51
FEI STHO |
1
IK CU NflXl
69 51 10 |
81 57 721
53 16 931
78 69 651
67 . 61 821
69 SI 791
00
TABLE 35
FY74 EMISSION FACTmt PRIir.M I
RTSIHIS FUR OLNVFK
KI-SULTS -IF 1975 FIT I OR 1975 MflDtL VEIMCLfS PRFSLNTE-l RV HAHHF/\C TtlKf.f
HE AM
HUES
MANUFACTURER N (K)
GEN. MOTORS 16 12.6
FHRD 7 18.2
CHRYSLER 5 15.0
AHER. MOTORS I 3.2
OTHERS 6 10. I
TOTAL 15 13.5
MY!)KHf AKRI1MS (Cli/Ml) 1 CAKHijN Ml.aiXIOH (CM/MI) 1 rlUX (CM/HI) 1 % KLLP*^
APUHMCTIC GEOMETRIC
Mf:AM SI) Mf. AM SO
2.45 1.40 2.18
1.60 0.70 1.45
2.72 0.86 2.59
2.26 0.00 ?..?.f> (
1.92 0.61 1.1'?
2.22. 1.12 2.00
.62
.6d
.A3
).00
.46
.60
AKIIImEM*. GFOnriRIC
HEAN ,n MEAN sn
57.69 35.94 48.89 1.03
36.67 21.S8 29.7* 2.21
52.UB 17.07 fO.lH l.*7
32.73 0.00 32.73 0.00
36.06 12. n? 34.70 l.SO
'i8.5^ 28. Ah 41.43 1.H3
ARITHMETIC GEIiMFTrilC
Ml; A"-. S!'' 'It AM SO
1.3R U.'il
1.52 0.49
2.00 0.43
3.52 o.:-o
1.76 O.jo
1.67 O.oS
.33 l.)0
.45 1.A3
.96 1.24
.5? 0.00
.5'. I.M
.51 I.'.-'.
FCi- ST1 -J
iic r i i"»y
2-i 6 100
42 14 I0i>
0 •» I0d
0 rJ "
16 o loot
22 *» °7I
-------
TABLE 36
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR LOS ANGELES
RESULTS OF 1975 FTP FOR 1975 MODEL VEHICLES PRESENTED BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFACTURER
GEN. MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
AMER. MOTORS
OTHERS
TOTAL
HE AN
MILES
N (K)
16 9.6
7 6.7
5 7.7
i 9.0
6 6.2
35 B.i
HYDROCARBONS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
0.56
0.48
0.42
0.36
0.59
0.52
SD
0.19
0.22
0.23
0.00
0.47
0.26
IGM/MII I CARBON MONOXIDE (CM/HI) 1
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
0.53 1.41
0.42 1.87
0.38 1.65
0.36 0.00
0.46 2.18
0.47 1.66
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
6.42 4.78
4.18 3.23
4.34 3.44
15.09 O.OO
10.29 13.63
6.59 6.87
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
5. OB 2.00
3.31 2.06
3.29 2.31
15.09 0.00
6.13 2. 63
4.67 2.23
NOX (CM/HI)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
2.53
2.14
2.52
1.61
2.26
2.38
SD
1.50
0.85
0.97
0.00
0.29
1.14
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
2.20 .69
1.99
2.36
1.61 (
2.25
2.17
.51
.44
.DO
.14
.52
I z nniiw
1 FCi. 40
ISTAT*1 STNO
I HC cn nnx
1100 93 751
1 100 100 H-M
1100 100 601
1100 0 100 |
lioo m 100 1
1 1 oo 91 am
sD
TABLE 37
fY74 EMISSION FACTUU PR'K KAH
EMISSION RLSl'l.TS FOR ALL C1TII S tXCEI'T LOS AilGELCS AMI)
RESULTS HF 1975 »TP FPR 1975 L. II. TRUCKS PRFSF'ITEH I»Y MANUFACTHP.Ek
MEAN
MILES
MANUFACTURER N IK)
GEN. MOTORS ?5 6.9
FORD ?0 10-4
CHRYSLER 5 6.6
AMER. MOTORS 0 O.O
CITHERS 0 0.0
TOTAL so 8.2
HYnjMlCAHBHNS CGH/I.I) 1
ARITHMETIC GLI'MITRIL
HC AN SI) HF.AN SO
1.22 1.25 0.91 2.04
1.77 1.95 1.21 2.32
1.63 0.98 1.40 1.B7
o.oo o.uo o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
l.'ifl 1.55 1.06 2.15
CARBUN HliHl'XIDF (CM/HI)
ARITHMETIC GirWETRIC
MIAN in MEAN SP
15.76 17.10 9.85 2.59
19.55 21.36 11.58 3.O3
31.22 16. IB 27.83 1.73
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1B.B2 19.03 11.66 2.77
I-K1X (CM/HI)
ARITHMETIC GfUMMRIC
MFAN s>i MEAH so
2.45 1.09 2.27 1.46
2.36 0.03 2.21 1.46
2.H2 1.14 2.66 1.45
O.OO 0.00 O.OO O.OO
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.45 l.o? 2.20 1.45
*? wri.iMi
FFn srnu
HC CO f!^X
84 7^ «'«
75 70 T.,
60 40 «o|
0 o 0
0 0 U|
78 70 »o|
-------
TABLE 38
FY74 FMI SSI LIN FACTUK PRl'GKAH
EMISSION RESULTS FOR DENVEK
RESULTS OF 1975 FTP Ff|R 1975 L. 0. TRUCKS PRESENTED OY MANUFACTURER
MEAN
MILES
MANUFACTURER N (K)
GEN. MOTORS 5 17.8
FOCD 4 e.n
CHRYSLER I 16.9
AMER. MOTOKS 0 0.0
OTHERS 0 0.0
TOTAL 10 14.1
HYDROCARBONS (CM/HI)
AR1THHF.T1C GCtlMtTRIC
MEAN SO MEAN SO
2.91 2.5H Z.I? 2.46
1.89 0.93 1.62 2.0'«
3.18 0.00 3.18 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.53 1.89 1.99 2.13
1 CARBf'N MUtiUXIDE (GH/HI)
ARITHMETIC GEOMETRIC
MEAN si. MEAN sn '
51.29 46.22 34.26 2.*5
36.95 19.54 30.50 2.29
52.17 0.00 52.17 O.OO
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo
45.64 33.65 34.11 2.37
I nnx (CM/HI)
ARlTHHfTIC GfOMETI'IC
MEAN sn MC AN sn
1.80 0.67 1.72 1.39
1.61 0.94 1.38 1.92
2.10 0.00 2.10 0.00
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo o.oo o.oo
1.75 0.72 1.61 1.58
1 % HFL:IV
FEU <=Tlin
HC CO NflX
40 40 100
25 25 100
O 0 III-
000
0 O (i
3D 30 1001
TABLE 39
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR LOS ANGELES
RESULTS OF 1975 FTP FOR 1975 L. D. TRUCKS PRESEUTEO BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFACTURER
GEN. MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
AMER. MOTORS
OTHERS
TOTAL
N
5
4
1
0
0
10
MEAN
MILES
(K)
7.8
10.0
13.2
0.0
0.0
9.2
HYDROCARBONS
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
O.R8
1.10
0.67
0.00
o.oo
0.95
SO
0.35
0.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.58
(CM/MI) 1 CARBON MONOXIDE (CM/MM 1 HOX (RM/MI)
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
0.83 1.49
0.91 1.94
0.67 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.84 1.61
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
8.23 7.02
20.47 29.75
6.07 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
12.91 18.96
GEOMETRIC
MEAN su
6.26 2.24
10.01 3.61
6.07 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
7.53 2.58
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
1.74 0.54
2.29 1.30
3.28 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
2.12 0.97
GEOHETR
MEAN
1.69
1.99
3.28
0.00
O.OO
1.93
1 X BtLUH 1
1
1C
SO
1.31
1.89
0.00
0.00
0.00
I. "SB
FET, 49 1
STATf STHD 1
HC CO HOXl
1
100 100 1001
75 75 501
100 100 Ol
O 0 01
o n o|
90 90 7O I
-------
TABLE 40
EMISSION RESULTS FOR 1975 VEHICLES IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION
CONCERNING USE OF LEADED FUEL -- 1975 FTP
Response
Not Required
Never
Once or Twice
Occasionally
Regularly
Don't Know
N
93
511
11
5
71
35
HC
GM/MI
Mean SD
1.58 0.92
1.27 1.06
1.59 0.95
1.36 0.73
1.63 1.58
1.18 0.97
CO
GM/MI
Mean SD
20.54 17.50
23.00 24.36
25.87 28.28
35.00 35.16
30.38 30.25
17.53 17.54
NOX
GM/MI
Mean SD
2.43 1.01
2.39 1.03
2.50 0.86
1.95 1.09
2.40 1.01
2.11 0.96
FUEL
ECONOMY
MPG
Mean SD
17.44 5.27
12.92 2.71
14.63 4.03
13.39 5.19
12.65 2.48
13.25 2.66
IDLE HC
PPM
Mean SD
132 118
119 174
136 122
65 47
154 248
79 88
IDLE CO
%
Mean SD
1.46 1.50
1.23 2.09
1.40 2.19
1.58 2.53
2.11 2.75
0.74 1.23
Question: If the vehicle requires unleaded fuel, has it been operated on leaded fuel?
-------
TABLE 41
EMISSION RESULTS FOR 1975 VEHICLES IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION
CONCERNING HYDROGEN SULFIDE ODOR -- 1975 FTP
Response
Never
Rarely
Occasionally
Regularly
Don't Know
N
451
22
82
67
104
HC
GM/MI
Mean SD
1.23 0.96
1.43 0.96
1.52 1.25
2.00 1.18
1.31 1.38
CO
GM/MI
Mean SD
19.01 20.62
26.05 21.30
30.71 26.89
45.28 30.18
21.13 23.99
NOX
GM/MI
Mean SD
2.49 1.05
2.12 0.59
2.36 1.16
2.05 0.84
2.22 0.85
FUEL
ECONOMY
MPG
Mean SD
13.71 3.42
11.78 2.04
12.97 2.60
12.63 2.52
13.22 3.09
IDLE HC
PPM
Mean SD
110 158
132 151
124 121
172 120
139 273
IDLE CO
%
Mean SD
1.00 1.72
1.48 2.57
1.83 2.47
3.11 2.81
1.16 1.96
Question: Have you or others noticed a hydrogen sulfide
(rotten eggs) odor in this vehicles' exhaust?
-------
TABLE 42
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY TEST FOR CHICAGO
ARITHMETIC
HYDROCARBONS
(CM/MI) GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI) GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI) GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
NOX (GM/MI)
GEOMETRIC
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
so
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
1975
0.32
0.29
0.21
2.61
7.18
10.92
3.08
3.91
464.00
117.69
4*7.24
1.33
2.92
1.25
2.65
1.59
' 18.63
4.76
1975 LOT
0.21
0.22
0.14
2.43
2.08
3.92
0.22
23.96
545.02
43.77
543.38
1.09
2.58
0.57
2.51
1.31
16.17
1.35
TOTAL
0.30
0.26
0.20
2.58
6.05
9.99
1.71
10.94
482.00
110.71
467.01
1.31
2.85
1.14
2.62
1.53
18.02
4.14
TABLE 43
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY TEST FOR HOUSTON
1975
1975 LOT
TOTAL
Jvnnn^ AnBflkic
fiTDROCAPBONS
(GM/MI)
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
«
NOX (GM/MI)
FUEL 'ECONOMY (
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
so
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SO
MEAN '
SO
0.30
0.29
0.20
2.61
5.26
10.68
1.77
4.94
463.44
113.44
447.93
1.32
3.32
1.86
2.77
1.96
18.78
4.43
0.38
0.38
0.25
2.57
5.16
9.17
1.25
15.77
541.14
87.92
534.23
1.19
2.58
1.04
2.41
1.47
16.12
2.56
0.32
0.31
0.21
2.59
5.24
10.27
1.64
6.58
480.71
112.21
465.81
1.30
3.16
1.73
2.69
1.86
18.12
4.09
63
-------
TABLE 44
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY TEST FOR PHOENIX
1975
1975 LOT
TOTAL
HYDROCARBONS
(CM/HI)
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NnX (GM/MI)
FUEL ECONOMY (
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN •
SO
0.38 1
0.43
0.24
2.37
7.93
13.73
2.78
5.47
434.59
107.63
419.76
1.32
2.99
1.53
2.55
1.91
19.80
4.76
0.51
0.70
0.21
4.28
4.38
6.67
0.94
8.79
495.66
52.85
493.14
1.11
3.12
0.78
3.05
1.25
17.60
1.79
0.41
0.50
0.23
2.89
7.14
12.53
2.18
6.33
448.16
100.91
435.06
1.29
3.02
1.39
2.65
1.79
19.27
4.20
TABLE 45
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY TEST FOR ST. LOUIS
1975
1975 LOT
TOTAL
uvnpnr Annnuc
n ? tj F, U V A l\ D U W j
(GM/MI)
.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NOX (GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
'
MEAN
SO
0.31
0.32
0.20
2.56
3.95
7.75
1.30
6.37
428.38
105.36
414.68
1.31
2.73
1.30
2.48
1.56
MEAN •( 20.38
SO 1 5.01
1
0.27
0.40
0.15
2.67
1.97
1.91
0.79
6.57
485.02
34.60
483.93
1.07
2.72
1.98
2.24
1.87
18.15
1.29
0.30
0.34
0.19
2.57
3.51
6.91
1.16
6.35
440.97
96.90
429.16
1.28
2.73
1.45
2.43
1.62
19.84
4.34
64
-------
TABLE 46
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
HIGHWAY FUFL ECONOMY TEST FOR WASHINGTON
ARITHMETIC
HYDROCARBONS
(CM/MI) GEOMETRIC
. ARITHMETIC
CARBON MONOXIDE
(CM/HI) GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI) GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
NtlX (GM/MI)
GEOMETRIC
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN-
SO
1975
0.37
0.91
0.21
2.78
4.91
7.«7
2.19
3.88
468.11
118.30
451.77
1.32
3.65
2.01
3.16
1.75
18.61
4.67
1975 LOT
0.66
0.75
0.23
5.82
2.46
2.57
0.88
6.60
520.23
40.13
510.00
1.08
4.66
1.32
4.48
1.36
16.87
1.33
TOTAL
0.43
0.58
0.22
3.32
4.36
6.75
1.79
4.55
479.69
107.81
465.87
1.29
3.88
1.91
3.41
1.70
18.19
4.06
TABLE 47
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY TEST FOR ALL CITIES EXCEPT LOS ANGELES AND
1975
1975 LOT
TOTAL
nvnoni* AonrtMC
n T l)l\UC AKBUrlo
(GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
t
NOX (GM/MI)
FUEL ECONOMY
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
(MPG)
MEAN
so
MEAN
so
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
sn
MEAN
so
MEAN-
so
0.33
0.38
0.21
2.60
5.85
10.36
2.12
5.34
451.70
112.56
435.94
1.32
3.12
1^63
2.71
1.76
19.21
4.73
0.41
0.53
0.19
3.39
3.21
5.4fl
0.71
11.10
517.41
58.17
514.18
1.12
3.13
1.43
2.84
1.57
16.95
1.89
0.35
0.42
0.21
2.77
5.26
9.55
1.66
6.77
466.30
106.45
452.22
1.30
3.13
1.59
2.74
1.72
18.66
4.20
65
-------
TABLE 48
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY TEST FOR DENVER
1975
1975 LOT
TOTAL
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/MI)
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI)
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NOX (GM/MI)
FUEL ECONOMY (
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN'
SD
1.03
0.92
0.72
2.43
29.75
29.80
19.69
2.70
402.83
. 107.24
387.31
1.34
1.99
0.95
1.80
1.56
19.60
5.19
0.66
0.46
0.51
2.21
15.72
13.32
8.32
4.51
469.76
44.82
467.86
1.10
2.42
1.34
2.06
1.86
17.87
1.44
0".95
0.85
0.67
2.39
26.64
27.52
16.26
3.21
417.70
100.45
403.92
1.32
2. OB
1.05
1.86
1.62
19.19
4.50
TABLE 49
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY TEST FOR LOS ANGELES
1975
1975 LPT
TOTAL
HYDROCARBONS
(GM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
CARBON MONOXIDE
(GM/MI) GEOMETRIC
CARBON DIOXIDE
(GM/MI)
NUX (GM/MI)
FUEL ECONOMY
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
ARITHMETIC
GEOMETRIC
(MPG)
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SO
MEAN
SD
MEAN
SD
0.11
0.14
0.07
2.28
1.79
4.65
0.24
10.30
491.39
132.47
472.87
1.34
2.89
1.66
2.54
1.64
' 17.95
4.77
0.29
0.50
0.15
2.76
5.47
15.60
0.26
17.61
533.90
71.64
529.19
1.15
2.33
1.10
2.11
1.60
16.33
1.6R
0.15
0.27
0.08
2.50
2.61
8.30
0.25
11.32
500.84
122.19
484.84
1.31
2.76
1.56
2.44
1.63
17.56
4.17
66
-------
TABLE 50
COMPARISON OF HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
WITH 1975 FTP FUEL ECONOMY
Location
Chicago
Houston
Phoenix
St. Louis
Washington
5 City Composite
Denver
Los Angeles
Average
Highway Fuel
Economy
18.63
18.78
19.80
20.38
18.61
19.21
19.60
17.95
Average
1975 FTP Fuel
Economy
13.04
12.96
13.93
14.07
13.51
13.49
14.45
12.76
Ratio
1.43
1.45
1.42
1.45
1.38
1.42
1.36
1.41
67
-------
TABLE 51
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR CHICAGO
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1972 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
(LOW
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
1
(HIGH
2: (SPEED
00 (DRIVING
(CYCLE
COLO-PARTI (12.28 HPH)
COLD-PART2 < 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 HPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
15.77 14.90
8.26 9.39
4.59 5.17
6.68 6.98
7.51 7.28
6.32 6.42
6.45 5.90
2.75 3.77
3.94 4.12
3.80 4.31
3.39 4.04
CARBON MONQXinE
MEAN SD
185.62 111.65
128.41 66.45
58.80 36.52
83.85 46.66
97.81 45.86
81.33 40.66
65.77 28.79
22.43 12.39
32.66 16.85
34.64 14.31
29.32 13.29
NOX
MEAN SD
4.48 2.53
4.21 2.98
4.13 1.57
3.86 1.91
4.21 1.88
4.10 1.69
5.09 1.51
5.52 1.67
5.14 1.77
5.40 1.59
5.40 1.64
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN so
7.02 2.71
7.29 2.69
11.76 4.64
9.46 2.75
9.34 3.46
10.08 3.50
13.13 3.50
19.02' 4.87
16.65 4.47
16.09 4.41
17.66 4.5H
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
(LOW
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
1
!„
(HIGH
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
I
COLO-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 HPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLO (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
10.38 11.09
2.92 2.25
1.24 1.02
2.11 1.59
3.34 2.54
2.35 1.58
2.80 2.26
0.43 0.35
1.14 1.14
1.10 0.71
0.83 0.52
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN so
133.67 136.42
57.66 61.79
21.83 22.51
34.10 33.11
50.81 45.86
37.11 33.24
44.96 42.19
11.71 12.94
17.70 I7.fl7
21. OB 1.B.22
16.70 15.22
NOX
MEAN so
3.19 1.75
2.17 0.84
1.96 0.75
2.08 0.72
2.24 0.77
2.11 0.72
2.87 1.15
2.78 1.14
2.45 0.97
2.81 1.11
2.74 1.09
FUEL ECPNDMY (MPG)
MEAN so
7.08 2.23
7.53 2.03
11.63 3.13
9.25 2.47
9.39 2.51
10.01 2.6-J
12.69 3.3.)
17.27 4.24
15.55 3.96
15.68 3.89
16.27 4.03
-------
TABLE 52
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR HOUSTON
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1972 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
LOW
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
HIGH
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 < 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
19.06 36.02
13.25 26.55
7.39 14.55
8.58 7.43
10.86 21.16
9.16 15.41
6.70 7.36
3.14 4.45
3.97 2.52
4.15 5.26
3.71 4.36
CARRON MONOXIDE
MEAN SD
223.35 218.60
194. 9B 221.46
100.84 133.46
135.23 134.43
144.23 163.54
127.40 145.32
85.61 85.95
39.39 60.94
49.11 46.36
52.41 67.09
46.54 60.53
NOX
MEAN
3.37
3.66
3.64
3.50
3.69
3.63
4.73
4.84
4.57
4.80
4.78
SD
'-.47
'.29
1.70
1.77
L.91
L.fll
.87
.88
.78
.86
.84
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN SD
6.70 2.90
6.49 2.66
10.84 4.19
8.30 2.9-'
8.60 3.44
9.17 3.51
12.36 4.17
17.92 5.67
15.66 4.9>
15.91 5.14
16.63 5.2fl
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
LOW
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
HIGH
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH) *
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
8.17 4.46
3.32 2.61
1.46 1.18
2.56 1.93
3.14 1.70
2.43 1.52
2.41 1.05
0.40 0.31
0.98 0.63
0.97 0.43
0.74 0.38
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN SD
118.28 83.11
75.60 B5.72
32.70 40.47
46.98 56.97
58.16 51.16
46.93 47.99
38.79 28.76
9.10 15.02
13.76 17.07
17.46 17.98
13.44 16.31
NtJX
MEAN so
3.33 1.58
2. 58 1.14
2.27 1.21
2.54 1.17
2.54 1.17
2.45 1.17
3.54 J.53
3.30 1.67
3.07 1.56
3.37 1.61
3.29 1.62
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN so
7.17 1.89
7.33 1.B4
11.59 3.01
9.06 2.32
9.34 2.3ft
9.92 2.5?
12.69 2.95
17.35 4.10
15.76 3.7.1
15.72 3.72
16.36 3.RP
-------
TABLE 53
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR PHOENIX
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1972 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
ILOW
1 SPEED
[DRIVING
1 CYC IE
1
IHIGH
(SPEED
(DRIVING
ICYCLE
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
12.17 5.74
8.09 4.45
4.16 2.06
6.53 2.59
6.53 2.71
5.72 2.40
4.81 1.51
1.87 0.61
3.43 1.71
2,70 0.72
2.47 0.68
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN sn
158.43 65.56
151.15 106.39
67.09 47.77
99.50 72.24
102.38 61.18
89.71 5«.B3
65.27 30.61
19.70 11.47
33.63 18.03
32.54 15.33
27.46 13.62
NOX
MEAN
3.34
2.87
3.11
3.01
3.11 .
3.09
4.28
4.57
4.34
4.49
4.50
SD
.09
.01
.16
.10
.04
.07
.33
.47
.51
.42
.45
FUEL ECONOMY' »
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
ILOW
(SPEED
(DRIVING
ICYCLE
1
IHIGH
(SPEED
(DRIVING
CYCLE
1
COLO-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
7.82 5.18
3.46 2.14
1.46 0.85
2.37 1.34
3.10 1.63
2.38 1.18
2.55 1.71
0.46 0.38
1.06 0.58
1.05 0.65
0.81 0.47
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN sn
111.87 65.79
66.55 59.53
27.67 28.07
39.80 39.66
52.01 36.01
40.92 33.56
43.15 38.12
10.91 13.84
15.91 14.43
19.99 18.46
15.62 15.31
NOX
MEAN
SD
2.75 0.81
2.30 0.82
2.06 0.87
2.31 0.«2
2.24 0.77
2.19 0.79
2.80' 1
2.79 1
2.62 1
2.79 1
2.76 I
.13
.32
.16
.23
.25
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN SD
7.87 2.01
7.94 2.01
12.43 3.10
9.76 2.51
10.10 2.51
10.70 2.67
13.47 3.19
18.53 4.45
16.79 4.01
16.76 3.99
17.45 4.16
-------
TABLE 54
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR ST. LOUIS
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1972 MOPEL YEAR VEHICLES
LOW
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
HIGH
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
•
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLO-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
10.81 4.35
7.72 4.06
4.23 2.12
6.45 2.93
6.23 2.54
5.60 2.40
4.58 1.66
2.01 0.73
3.06 1.18
2.73 0.93
2.49 0.84
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN so
156.24 77.16
141.17 96.25
62.33 45.69
97.48 67. B5
97.01 55.99
85.32 54.54
65.14 28.58
21.98 13.43
31.78 18.56
34.14 16.12
28.78 14.95
NOX
MEAN SO
3.31 • 1.50
3.18 1.28
3.21 1.15
3.20 1.19
3.22 1.11
3.21 1.13
4.11 1.22
4.76 1.66
4.37 1.53
4.58 1.52
4.62 1.57
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN sn
8.04 2.4?
7.57 2.01
12.29 3.21
9.24 2.46
9.97 2.67
10.45 2.77
14.00 3.7-»
19.81 5.27
17.06 4.46
17.74 4.70
10.41 4.87
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
LOW
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
HIGH
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLO-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
7.72 10.18
2.97 1.97
1.28 0.89
2.34 1.47
2.87 2.04
2.21 1.22
2.29 1.87
0.39 0.32
1.05 0.73
0.93 0.58
0.73 0.40
CARBON MONHXinE
MEAN SO
90.89 93.48
59.65 59.77
22.44 25.27
35.25 36.65
43.41 37.85
34.40 31.96
33.30 26.78
5.80 6.37
10.37 9.73
13.55 10.08
9.86 7.B2
NGX
MEAN SP
2.94 1.49
2.33 1.22
1.94 0.88
2.21 1.10
2.22 0.97
2.12 0.95
2.70 1.27
2.70 1.28
2.54 1.25
2.70 1.25
2.67 1.26
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN sn
7.90 2.35
7.89 2.07
12.56 3.2»
9.64 2.5?
10.14 2.6ft
10.72 2.80
14.27 3.46
19.2B 4.79
16.97 4.10
17.55 4.27
18.12 4.43
-------
TABLE 55
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR WASHINGTON
I HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1972 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
1
1
(LOW
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
1
(HIGH
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
COLD-PARTI (12.2ft MPH)
CULD-PART2 < 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
12.00 10.93
9.54 11.84
5.35 6.78
8.12 8.61
7.51 8.60
6.91 7.97
6.64 8.60
3.25 4.79
4.82 6.17
4.20 5.80
3.91 5.39
CARUPN HONUXIOE
MEAN so
1'36.34 76.12
127. 7B 113.34
56.98 5i.35
86.69 84.63
87.17 68.40
76.79 67.24
57.60 31.40
19.89 11.98
32.99 24.33
30.51 16.35
26.56 15.40
NOX
MEAN so
4.14 1.60
3.B9 1.42
4.12 1.41
4.17 1.57
4.07 1.36
4.11 1.41
5.47 1.63
5.53 2.12
5.26 1.93
5.51 1.93
5.48 1.98
FUEL LCIJNflMY UTC>
MEAN sn
8.14 2.89
7.81 2.6'»
12.41 3.fl'«
9.43 2.9"
10.13 3.?P
10.61 3.36
13.28 4.49
18.65 5.2''
12.57 14.4?
16.75 4.91
16.56 5.6'»
-J
IS)
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
LOW
ISPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
|
1
1 ___ .
(HIGH
ISPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLO-PART2 < 7.97 MPH)
HOT 114.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
8.67 4.71
2.64 2.36
1.32 1.40
2.22 1.95
3.01 1.54
2.25 1.46
2.45 1.26
0.41 0.40
1.21 1.08
0.99 0.52
0.79 0.50
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN so
109.95 84.37
54.91 120.36
20.55 61.44
29.99 87.81
44.93 74.13
33.20 72.44
31.51 17.65
6.08 7.24
12.46 12.47
13.24 9.15
10.18 8.48
NOX
MEAN so
3.47 1.46
2.81 1.42
2.27 1.14
2.66 LIB
2.62 1.07
2.51 1.07
3.43 1.43
3.26 1.64
3. IB 1.65
3.31 1.55
3.27 1.57
FUEL ECONOMY (MPf.)
MEAN sn
7.69 2. in
7.31 3. BO
12.49 3.4P
9.86 3.2'>
9.84 2.83
10.61 2.90
13.13 3.36
IB. 33 4.8)
16.43 4.21
16.49 4.22
17.19 4.40
-------
TABLE 56
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR ALL CITIES EXCEPT LOS ANGELES AND DENVER
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1972 MQDEL YEAR VEHICLES
*
HOW
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
1
(HIGH
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
COLO-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35. 0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
13.96 18.35
9.37 13.85
5.14 7.63
7.27 6.19
7.73 10.80
6.74 8.38
5.84 5.78
2.60 3.39
3.85 3.61
3.52 4.02
3.20 3.61
CARPON MONOXIDE
MEAN SD
172.00 125.22
148.70 132.03
69.21 73.54
100.55 86.87
105.72 90.66
92.11 82. B3
67.88 47.00
24.68 29. 87
36.03 27.54
36.85 33.49
31.73 30.41
NOX
MEAN so
3.83 1.95
3.56 1.97
3.64 1.4P
3.55 1.57
3.66 .55
3.63 .49
4.74 .58
5.04 .79
4.74 .73
4.96 .70
4.96 .73
FUEL FCHNUMY (HPC-)
MEAN so
7.51 2.81
7.33 2.5P
11.91 4.06
9.17 2.86
9.57 3.31
10.15 3.37
13.25 4.03
18.91 5.37
15.57 10.60
16.88 4.87
17.41 5.20
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
LOW
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
HIGH
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
COLO-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
8.56 7.66
3.06 2.27
1.35 1.08
2.32 1.66
3.09 1.91
2.32 1.39
2.50 1.68
0.42 0.35
1.09 0.86
1.01 0.58
0.78 0.45
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN su
112.93 95.51
62. B8 80.36
25.04 38.16
37.22 54.39
49.86 50.69
38.51 46.22
38.34 31.98
8.72 11.76
14.04 14.68
17.06 15.53
13.16 13.30
NOX
MEAN so
3.14 1.46
2.44 1.12
2.10 0.99
2.36 1.03
2.37 0.97
2.2H 0.96
3.07 .34
2.97 .43
2.77 .36
2.99 .38
2.95 .38
FUEL ECONOMY (MPG)
MEAN so
7.52 2.15
7.59 2.51
12.12 3.20
9.50 2.6o
9.7* 2.57
10.38 2.7i>
13.22 3.2o
18.12 4.5r,
16.28 4. no
16.41 4.0?
17.05 4.19
-------
TABLE 57
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR DENVER
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1972 MOflEL YEAR VEHICLES
HOW
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
1
!____ .
(NIGH
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 HPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35. 0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN so
17.54 11.72
12.49 10.88
6.95 6.69
10.49 8.45
10.15 8.19
9.14 7.69
7.58 6.05
3.90 4.38
5.72 4.84
4.94 4.81
4.64 4.62
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN sn
205.11 111.35
190.43 93.88
94.42 45.60
135.61 67.45
135.94 63.78
121.74 57.76
90.46 37.85
47.63 23.16
61.54 27.04
59.69 26.20
55.04 24.74
NHX
MEAN si)
2.25 0.97
2.07 0.95
2.54 1.16
2.27 1.09
2.38 1.02
2.41 1.07
3.28 1.3*
3.B8 1.64
3.47 1.63
3.7) 1.55
3.74 1.60
FUEL ECONOMY (MPf.)
MEAN sn
8.23 2.73
7.99 2.?n
12.83 3.44
9.67 2.70
10.39 2.93
10.97 3.01
13.92 3.71
19.17 4.8M
17.05 4.21
17.33 4.46
17.99 4.57
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
(LOW
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
1
(HIGH
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
1
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SO
10.41 8.13
4.55 2.47
2.01 1.27
3.16 1.80
4.16 2.19
3.20 1.60
3.16 1.43
1.07 0.84
1.98 1.14
1.66 0.93
1.47 0.90
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN SD
142-74 77.93
87.90 59.58
40.51 32.16
56.61 43.58
70.11 38.43
56.94 36.14
59.48 30.15
31.28 27.42
40.02 29.50
39.22 27.37
36.09 27.47
NOX
MEAN SO
2.20 0.85
1.59 0.80
1.45 0.70
1.57 0.75
1.62 0.65
1.55 0.68
2.03 0.92
1.99 1.08
1.80 0.93
2.00 1.01
1.96 1.02
FUEL ECONOMY (HPG)
MEAN so
8.63 2.21
8.60 2.07
13.33 .3.26
10.45 2.56
10.9? 2.61
11.51 2.79
14.25 3.43
18.80 4.R6
16.96 4.20
17.25 4.34
17.80 4.51
-------
TABLE 58
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR LOS ANGELES
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1972 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
ILOM
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
(
1
(HIGH
(SPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
COLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11. B MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
10.31 4.44
6. 68 5.37
3.64 2.57
6.20 4.40
5.56 3.32
5.05 3.28
3.69 1.63
1.64 0.73
2.79 1.47
2.22 0.88
2.07 0.87
CARBON MQNOXinE
MEAN SD
141.21 82.87
104.81 57.79
47.74 29.69
74.31 43.23
77.71 38.95
66.74 35.98
48.51 29.95
18.20 19.97
27.03 21.74
26.74 21.02
23.29 20.36
NIX
MEAN SO
4.39 2.69
3.54 2.01
4.00 1.84
3.72 1.95
3.98 1.98
3.93 1.91
5.11 2.06
5.73 2.49
5.15 2.17
5.55 2.35
5.56 2.37
FUEL ECHNHMY (HPG)
MEAN so
7.66 2.33
7.70 2.30
12.26 3.30
9,35 2.61
9.89 2.7R
10.44 2.8N
13.97 3.83
19.94 5. 05
16.74 4.3'»
17.80 4.61
18.43 4.70
1
1
HIGH AND LOW SPEED DRIVING CYCLES FOR 1975 MODEL YEAR VEHICLES
ILOM
ISPEED
(DRIVING
(CYCLE
1
1
HIGH
SPEED
DRIVING
CYCLE
COLD-PARTI (12.28 MPH)
CDLD-PART2 ( 7.97 MPH)
HOT (14.01 MPH)
HOT ( 9.56 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (11.8 MPH)
COLD (26.55 MPH)
HOT (40.07 MPH)
HOT (26.55 MPH)
1972 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
1975 WEIGHTING (35.0 MPH)
HYDROCARBONS
MEAN SD
5.60 3.74
0.71 0.54
0.34 0.26
0.86 0.45
1.43 0.76
0.93 0.40
1.27 0.53
0.13 0.13
0.53 0.26
0.45 0.18
0.33 0.14
CARBON MONOXIDE
MEAN SP
53.88 38.96
5.98 9.26
1.96 3.03
5.62 6.00
12.74 8.42
7.44 5.11
14.41 9.01
1.64 2.89
3.48 3.43
5.24 3.76
3.48 3.12
NOX
MEAN so
3.07 1.62
2.44 1.15
2.14 1.12
2.31 1.07
2.38 1.12
2.2B 1.09
2.76 1.40
2.71 1.72
2.63 1.47
2.73 1.60
2.70 1.62
FUEL ECPNUMY (MPG)
MEAN so
7.55 1.81
7.55 2.02
11.76 3.17
9.13 2.47
9.60 2.46
10.11 2.65
12-96 3.1-5
17.55 4.40
15.49 3.91
15.96 3.811
16.49 4.0
-------
TABLE 59
RATIOS OF AVERAGE HIGH SPEED WEIGHTING
TO AVERAGE FTP RESULTS*
Location
5 City Composite
72 High Speed Weighting
72 FTP
75 High Speed Weighting
75 FTP
Denver
72 High Speed Weighting
72 FTP
75 High Speed Weighting
75 FTP
Los Angeles
72 High Speed Weighting
72 FTP
75 High Speed Weighting
75 FTP
HC
0.69
0.57
0.70
0,66
0.63
0.63
CO
0.57
0.55
0.61
0.74
0.55
0.53
NOX
1.26
1.15
1.42
1.21
1.34
1.13
F.E.
1.32
1.26
1.28
1.23
1.34
1.29
The average speed of the FTP is 19.6 mph, the average
speed of the High Speed Cycle is 35. 0 mph.
76
-------
TABLE 60
RATIOS OF AVERAGE LOW SPEED WEIGHTING
TO AVERAGE FTP RESULTS*
Location
5 City Composite
72 Low Speed Weighting
72 FTP
75 Low Speed Weighting
75 FTP
Denver
72 Low Speed Weighting
72 FTP
75 Low Speed Weighting
75 FTP
Los Angeles
72 Low Speed Weighting
72 FTP
75 Low Speed Weighting
75 FTP
HC
1.52
1.71
1.44
1.44
1.58
1.79
CO
1.62
1.62
1.46
1.17
1.59
1. 13
NOX
0.93
0,89
0.91
0.96
0.96
0.96
F.E.
0.75
0.77
0.77
0.80
0.74
0,79
The average speed of the FTP is 19. 0 rnph, the average
speed of the Low Speed Cycle is 11.8 mph.
77
-------
TABLE 61
ACCELERATION/DECELERATION MODES OF SURVEILLANCE DRIVING SEQUENCE
» MODE
MO.
1
*
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
TYPE
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
ACCEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
DECEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
ACCEL
DECEL
DECEL
ACCEL
DECEL
ACCEL
ACCEL
DECEL
DECEL
SPEED RANGE
(mph)
0-30
30-0
0-15
15-30
30-45
45-30
30-60
60-45
45-60
60-16
16-60
604)
0-60
60-30
30-15
15-0
0-45
45-15
15-45
45-0
0-60
60-0
0-30
30-60
60-30
30-0
0-60
60-0
'0-30
30-60
60-30
30-0
TIME IN MODE
(sec)
12
16
8
11
13
12
17
12
14
30
26
21
32
23
9
8
22
16
18
19
25
28
15
25
18
10
38
35
18
21
14
13
AVERAGE SPEED
(mph)
18.05
16.66
9.04
23.07
37.65
38.05
45.80
53.01
52.54
40.40
43.42
33.83
38.24
46.86
23.18
7.81
28.85
31.33
30.55
24.72
38.28
33.88
17.73
45.14
47.23
15.99
38.01
33.87
17.73
45.27
46.63
18.40
AVERAGE ACCEL'
ERATION RATE
(mph/cee)
2.50
•1.88
1.88
1.36
1.15
-1.25
1.78
•1.25
1.07
•1.50
1.73
•2.86
1.88
•1.30
-1.67
•1.88
2.05
•1.88
1.67
•2^7
2.40
-2.14
2.00
1.20
•1.67
•3.00
1.58
•1.71
1.67
1.43
2.14
-2.31
DISTANCE
(miles)
0.0602
0.0741
0.0201
0.0705
0.1360
0.1268
0.2163
0.1716
0.2043
0.3367
0.3136
0.1973
0.3313
0.2994
0.0579
0.0173
0.1759
0.1392
0.1528
0.1304
0.2654
0.2634
0.0737
0.3134
0.2382
0.0444
0.4009
0.3293
0.0886
0.2599
0.1813
0.0592
•vj
00
Steady States idle, 5 mph, 10 mph, 15 mph, 30 mph, 45 mph, 60 mph
-------
TABLE 62
Modal Emissions For Low
Altitudes, Non- California
1975 Autos
MODE
kin
Nw»
'i
2
3
4
5
6
7
A
9
10
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
1«5 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
2.32
0.58
2.59
1.21
0.67
0.40
1.60
0.44
0.58
0.57
l.2«
0.77
I. .19
0.52
0.36
1.4?
1.33
0.46
1.14
0.6?
2.10
0.77
1.62
0.74
0.54
0.5-5
0.95
0.70
1.4A
1. 1?
0.56
0.58
0.78
0.34
4.00
1.A4
1.16
0.50
0.43
0.49
CO C02
53.90 1172.8
11. 51
71.18
?4.89
12.19
3.51
73.20
3.94
18.29
5.84
47.83
6.67
-------
TABLE 63
TABLE 64
Modal Emissions For Los Angeles
1975 Autos
Modal Emissions For
Denver 1975 Autos
MOOE
NO.
i
2
. 3
4
5
6
7
A
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
SAG
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPM
15 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
0.67
0.18
0.54
0..11
0.27
O.H
0.9*.
0.20
0.26
0.13
0.48
0.17
0.43
0.13
0.11
0.28
0.36
0.15
0.31
0.17
0.78
0.17
0.34
0.27
0.15
0.23
0.28
0.15
0.30
0.42
0.17
0.17
0.2*
0.05
0.9?
0.34
0.23
0.]4
0.08
0.07
CO
13.02
3.81
12.44
5.54
2.9*
0.9?
53.65
1.29
10.01
1.61
?5.28
2.02
20.00
1.77
3.45
9.18
8.95
2.55
7.70
3.23
47.00
2.52
8.59
9. 28
2.0?
5.30
8.40
2.63
7.57
22.02
2.37
5.13
8.95
0.24
2.63
0.68
0.80
0.11
0.1?
1.15
C02
1250.5
457.7
1398.5
840.9
710.2
297.1
852.6
338.6
693.9
313.6
922.0
348.2
915.9
333.1
382.9
825.2
949.0
348.2
857.8
390.8
1003.2
375.8
1050.2
700.2
368.8
563.5
823.8
387.5
924.9
721.6
396.8
512.3
594.9
98.8
1324.3
739.4
545.7
426.2
43S.I
492.7
NOX
7.13
0.64
4,25
4.06
4.71
0.84
6.79
1.18
5.61
1.08
7.36
1.17
7.09
1.39
0.71
1.09
6.41
0.91
5.62
1.02
7.65
1.34
5.28
5.19
1.66
0.99
6.12
1.44
4.33
. 5.47
1.87
0.96
3.32
0.11
1.13
0.71
0.64
1.26
1.87
3.47
FUEL
fCON
7.0
19.1
6.3
10.4
12.4
2«.7
9.4
2*.0
12.5
28.0
9.2
25.?
9.4
26.4
22.8
10.6
".2
25.2
10.2
22.4
8.2
23.3
8.3
12.4
23.8
15.5
10.6
22.6
«».5
11.7
?2.1
17.0
14.6
89.4
6.7
12.0
16.2
20.8
20.4
17.9
M00€
fcJrt
NO»
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
in
11
12
13
1*
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2A
29
30
31
3?
SAO
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
IS MPH
30 MPM
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
5.42
1.1*
4.31
2.50
2.07
0.7A
4.00
0.84
2.21
1.04
3.94
1.41
3.99
1.00
0.75
1.99
3. S3
fl.97
3.08
1.1*
5.11
1.2S
3.66
2.62
1.06
1.03
3.03
1.14
3.07
3.43
1.09
1.10
1.92
0.27
2.87
1.54
1.07
0.73
0.60
1.0?
CO
/*M
C02
184.il 1025.7
?3.64
l?9.0l
77. Ofl
73.06
12.37
219. 8?
15.01
115. 78
11.95
219.92
16.25
212. 4A
14.22
19.60
48.B8
158.18
15.33
140.16
18.18
?96.74
17.82
1?1.48
138.19
14,84
?3.2*
146.72
17. .12
104.46
200.29
15.75
25.01
77.94
5.80
55.54
76.42
18.67
12.22
12.50
10.99
307.6
1142.5
714.6
599. H
207.?
662.9
237.7
577.0
224.8
683.8
233.7
732.1
216.6
229.4
579.6
7*8.*
210.0
731.9
248.9
768.4
237.9
918.9
599. «•
210.2
317.1
679.3
240.4
827.1
620.8
206. o
302.4
456.8
72.8
919.7
566.5
393.8
325.9
363.5
425.8
NOX
4.02
0.53
2.10
2.24
2.95
o.S8
1.17
1.08
3.50
0.79
1.55
0.85
3.73
0.82
0.54
0.70
3.70
0.48
3.45
0.51
3.48
0.81
3.45
3.14
0.86
0.74
3.69
0.82
2.83
2.93
0.92
0.61
2.02
0.06
0.68
0.35
0.32
0.93
1.26
2.78
FlMTl
FTON
T. \. \ F "1
6.7
25.5
6.S
10. S
!?..!
1».7
8.4
.n.*
11. *
35.5
8.<5
33.6
8.?
36.7
34. n
11.4
H.S
37.4
9.2
31.6
7.1
32. 9
7.9
10.8
37. «;
24.
-------
TABLE 65
Modal Emissions For Low
Altitude, Non- California
1975 Light Duty Trucks
MODE
Mrt
Nv*
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
<*
-------
TABLE 67
Modal Emissions For Denver
1975 Light Duty Trucks
MOOE
NO.
t
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1ft
11
12
13
1*
IS
16
I?
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
15 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
6.3?
1.50
3.85
2.72
1.30
0.97
3.8?
1.10
1.21
1.18
3.44
1.71
3.50
1.19
0.83
2.60
4.07
1.12
3.31
1.38
5.12
1.51
4.38
1.65
1.27
' l.?n
2.7ft
1.30
3.61
2.2*.
1.31
1.2?
1.87
0.34
4.01
2.12
1.53
0.60
0.39
0.56
CO
1*8.83
?4.38
96.64
57.13
29.55
6.70
212.64
7.5*
"0.61
A.8&
170. 9*
9.9?
153.06
9.00
15.81
A4.73
177.83
9.75
107.75
13.5?
2*8.79
11.81
103.08
79. IS
8.6«5
26.45
101.87
11.83
83.56
1!*7.03
8.43
?5.34
56.33
7.35
82.43
43.99
33.12
12.41
4.0<*
19.29
C02 .
978.4
349.6
117Q.S
704.6
600.7
229.3
654.7
258.7
622.2
247.9
687.1
260.9
733.9
240.1
280.0
667.9
759.8
238.9
726.2
282.7
759.1
265.9
898,7
619.2
236.0
362.9
680.7
270.0
824.6
641.6
235.*
352.5
520.4
88.5
1057.1
691.4
490.0
433.2
404.6
495.1
NOX
1.48
0.29
1.77
2*19
2.74
0.41
2.39
0.96
3.34
0.65
3.40
0.72
3.67
0.72
0.30
0.54
3.37
0.36
3.04
0.40
2.89
0.67
3.10
3.19
0.71
0.39
3.72
0.68
2.37
2.58
0.80
0.17
2.26
0.04
0.4?
0.36
0.32
0.59
1.30
3.08
FlifL
f CON
7.0
22.6
6.7
11.1
13.6
36.5
8.9
32.4
12.6
33.4
9.2
31.5
9.1
34.4
28.9
11.4
9.1
34.4
9*8
?«.*
7.6
30.7
8.3
11."
35.0
21.7
10.4
30.3
9.2
10.?
.15.1
2?. 4
14.4
87.7
7.4
11.6
16.2
19.5
21.5
16.8
TABLE 68
Modal Emissions For Low Altitude
Non-California 1974 Autos
MODE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
9
9
10
11
1?
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
B*r,
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
15 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
-__..
5.21
3.75
6.68
3.11
2.27
1.90
3.62
2.17
2.57
2.61
3.49
3.50
3.82
2.62
3.01
7.05
3.50
2.52
3.13
3.16
5.4A
3.36
5.28
2.64
2.33
4.48
3.01
2.73
4.42
3.11
2.57
4.30
2.80
0.62
6.01
2.57
1.66
1.31
1.43
1.19
CO
•— «• -OM,
64.56
39.09
83.08
37.32
20.13
11.39
90.33
29.04
40.*rt
19.67
87.31
30.08
81.83
22.31
28.44
88.3*
59.55
26.19
53. OH
30.59
144.63
41.69
64.73
49.67
21.53
45.65
56.51
25.43
55.63
73.20
31.21
49. 5 J
46.62
9.35
107.64
52.48
32.95
13.41
6.03
7.70
C02
f\6 | ••«»«*«
951.9
659.4
1222.8
754.6
628.6
406.3
693.7
430.7
620.8
442.4
709.6
543.2
808.5
4Q3.0
474.0
1065.1
779.0
461.0
732.3
553.7
811.4
503.7
987.4
651.9
405.9
707.8
731.4
454.9
915.1
670.8
408.4
693.8
633.1
111.3
1304.2
782.4
592.0
425.6
436.7
474.2
NOX
._..
4.30
1.96
2.91
2.61
3.73
1.93
4.50
2.46
4.36
2.41
5.24
3.19
A. 00
2.39
1.69
2.74
4.78
2.02
4.15
2.41
5.12
2.55
4.27
4.81
2.46
2.60
5.40
2.37
3.71
4.77
2.42
2.32
3.80
0.23
1.63
0.82
0.69
1.47
2.27
3.78
FUEL
ECON
8.3
12.1
6.5
10.8
13.3
20.6
10.5
18.4
12.8
18.4
10.3
14.8
9.3
IV. 9
16.8
7.2
10. 0
17.4
10.7
14.5
8.4
15.3
8.0
12.0
19.8
11.2
10.7
17.6
8.7
11.2
1'}. 1
11.3
12.4
69.4
5.9
10.2
13.7
19.7
19.7
18.1
FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/«AL EXCEPT o MPH IN
FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/SAL EXCEPT o MPH IN
82
-------
TABLE 69
Modal Emissions For Denver
1974 Autos
TABLE 70
Modal Emissions For Los Angeles
1974 Autos
MODE
kin
NO*
i
2
3
4
s
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
1»
19
20
21
22
23
2*
2-5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
9*0
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
15 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
6.34
6.09
9.38
4.37
3.5ft
2.99
4.37
3.54
4.00
4.08
5.41
5.27
6.24
3.58
5. 68
12.59
S.20
4.08
4.67
4.83
6.15
4.92
7.18
4.10
3.56
7.56
4.68
4.07
6.80
4.66
4.00
7.66
4.63
1.00
10.16
4.48
2.55
1.87
1.92
2.18
CO C02
132.63 549.5
133.74
163.68
104.63
89.04
63.44
146.50
98.48
109.55
72.33
193.15
116.83
201.19
92.49
81.67
178.25
141.02
114.67
125.40
128.33
230.42
129.26
146,5?
140.34
91.46
120.31
160.77
91.69
IPS, 43
167.23
113.99
131.62
138.71
14.07
150.01
79.26
59.12
32.61
33.61
47.65
566.9
914.2
508.3
440.4
382.4
453.1
421.9
436.7
442.5
470.4
574.4
526.0
404.2
427.4
961.2
454.9
465.1
420.1
543.8
494.4
492.9
676.5
431.7
405.3
620.1
491.9
450.3
643.1
413.0
419.4
595.1
481.0
88.8
1079.1
584.8
470.0
360.8
390.9
439.6
NOX
1.87
1.11
1.45
1.43
2.29
1.41
2.56
1.89
2.65
2*03
2.56
2.33
2.74
1.66
0.96
1.46
2.13
1.35
1.78
1.45
2.05
1.75
2.05
2.39
1.69
1.51
2.48
1.85
1.67-
2.19
1.68
1.41
1.98
0.12
0.78
0.60
0.46
1.18
2.27
3.59
FUEL
erntd
C \0UN
11.4
U.I
7.4
12.9
15.0
18.1
12.7
IS. I
14. J
15.6
11.2
11.5
10.3
15.8
15.5
6.9
12.8
13.5
14.0
11.7
10.1
12.5
9.5
13. .1
IS. 8
10.7
11.7
14.6
9.2
12.9
14.5
10.7
12.4
77.8
6.6
12.3
15.5
21.2
19.7
17.0
MODE
ki/i
MO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
15 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
5.55
2.23
5.21
2.64
2.02
1.53
4.35
1.64
2.43
2.0.1
3.36
3.83
3.25
2.12
1.40
2.74
3.66
1.95
2.99
2.21
5.23
2.65
4.11
2.57
2.03
2.33
2.79
2.34
3.9S
3.52
2.56
2.49
2.28
0.44
5.33
1.82
1.09
1.10
0.88
0.84
CO C02
94.19 1579.5
18.37
101.43
38.63
21.62
7.1*
141.87
8.40
62.48
7.98
87.9<»
10.83
73.20
7.0*
17.31
57.77
79.85
10.82
65.58
14.89
156.44
12.68
62.90
62.49
9.73
34.84
51.49
10.79
63.73
96.35
10.30
31.12
36.54
5.90
71.49
33.09
18.65
8.76
5.63
7.69
482.6
1353.1
949.7
740.5
279.6
966.7
254.6
748.3
202.9
950.5
279.1
1044.8
226.0
319.8
760.8
1086.7
251.6
992.5
350.0
1162.9
284.2
1192.6
794.7
256.6
498.5
914.6
265.1
1085.9
843.6
229.7
534.3
620.9
113.0
1345.7
820.9
591.3
451.7
444.9
479.3
NOX
8.62
0.74
2.74
4.31
4.73
0.97
8.42
1.59
5.06
0.89
7.00
1.26
7.38
0.99
0.57
1.06
6.61
0.86
6.30
0.90
9.14
0.90
6.56
5.82
1.04
1.17
6.88
O.HS
5.49 '
5.96
1.09
1.04
2.97
0.09
1.07
0.68
0.53
0.89
1.66
2.61
FUEL
CfrtM
CUUN
5.1
17.1
5.8
8.7
11.4
30.0
7.4
32.5
10.4
31.5
8.1
23.8
7.6
36.4
25.3
10.3
7.3
32.3
8.0
23.1
6.2
28.4
6.8
9.9
32.1
15. H
ft. 8
30.7
7.4
8.8
34.9
15.0
12.9
71.7
6.0
10.1
14.2
19.9
19.4
18.0
FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCEPT o MPH IN MIN/OAL FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCEPT o MPH IN
83
-------
TABLE 71
TABLE 72
Modal Emissions For Low
Altitude, Non-California
1973 Autos
Modal Emissions For Denver
1973 Autoa
MODE
hiA
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
I*
15
16
17
IS
19
20
21
22
23
2*
25
26
27
23
29
30
31
32
SAG
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
15 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
5.67
3.83
7.95
3.41
2.91
2.16
4.Q9
2.51
2.83
2.76
3.79
3.01
4.24
2.59
3.13
7.41
3.99
2.62
3.60
3.28
5.23
3.61
5.43
2.81
2.57
4.53
3.29
3.09
4.95
3.23
2.81
4.54
3.10
0.75
6.76
3.11
1.90
1.39
1.27
1.39
CO CO?
69.97 829.5
43.61
105.65
40.3*
22.91
15.23
74.66
31.06
35.11
21.13
73.14
32.86
72. 7u
23.75
30.97
97.34
59.73
26,42
49.54
34.67
125.50
42. 4«J
68.85
42.62
21.8*
48.1?
57.01
26.67
63.12
55.15
27.78
52.76
44.96
12.71
134.21
62.23
35. SO
13.65
8.74
11.04
548.1
1060.0
667.2
553. 3
355.7
633.0
374.1
547.8
388.9
655.7
466.8
745.7
357.2
420.1
938.7
690.5
408.6
646.3
494.9
726.6
435.0
846.0
580.2
354.6
599.4
649.6
394. a
789.0
604.3
365.4
596.3
564 ;o
101.2
1123.9
709.3
530.0
389.6
386.9
431.6
NOX
5.29
2.14
2.98
3.56
4.79
2.46
5.94
3.26
5.95
3.11
6.45
3.95
7.21
2.86
1.71
2*44
S.98
2.51
5.42
2.82
6.16
3.02
5.55
5.99
3.03
2.61
6.68
2.90
4i97
6.30
J.22
2.85
4.68
0.14
0.93
0.63
0.56
1.48
3.04
5.23
FUEL
crniu
tti/it
9.3
14.1
7.1
12.0
14. A
23.0
11.6
20.6
14.5
20. (S
11.3
16.7
10.2
22.0
18.5
8.0
11.1
19.4
12.1
15.9
9.4
17.3
9.1
13.5
22.3
12.9
11.8
19.9
9.8
12.7
21.2
12.8
13.8
71.9
6.5
10.9
15.0
21.4
21.9
19.6
MODE
kif%
NO*
i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPM
15 MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
7.11
4.40
7.71
3.95
3.47
2.75
5.61
3.79
4.44
3.27
6.47
4.47
7.50
3.36
3.91
9.22
6.81
3.30
6.42
4.05
8.80
4.2«
7.13
5.53
3.41
5.41
6.52
3.84
6.99
6.13
3.70
5.78
4.49
§.79
7.97
3.73
2.43
1.89
1.86
2.30
CO C02
1*4.79 665.2
98.42
169.90
89.12
78.49
42.47
206.39
64. 7 J
130.62
52.27
226.05
76.77
216.50
56.31
58.81
152.78
198.28
70.55
146.58
81.82
270. 9fl
76.75
148.84
147.39
57.92
88.73
188.01
65.47
142.71
197.21
A9.71
96.97
119.04
15.16
156.03
78.64
55.38
34.80
32.71
47.12
391.0
907.2
576.5
483.6
258.1
547.5
288.2
480.7
310.0
553.1
348.7
587.0
284.2
315.1
733.5
580.6
317.1
517.7
367.9
602.1
332.6
732.1
488.9
276.8
442.0
539.0
311.3
688.7
516.8
283.0
422.9
453.9
70.8
836.2
542.6
426.9
329.9
354.6
394.7
NOX
3.13
1.04
2.16
2.68
3.59
0.99
3.03
1.44
3.50
1.63
3.12
1.79
3.49
1.44
0.81
1.08
3.26
1.10
2.74
1.23
3.25
1.54
3.42
3.12
1.43
1.08
3.18
1.38
2.92
2.96
1.46
1.12
2.23
0.07
0.72
0.59
0.52
1.02
2.40
3.64
FUEL
trs*ftki
C.UUN
9.4
16.3
7.4
12.2
14.4
26.6
10.0
22.1
12.7
22.0
9.6
18.4
9,3
23.2
21.2
8.9
9.9
20.2
11.6
17.4
8.4
19.0
9.0
12,0
23.4
14. A
10.4
20.9
9.5
10.5
22.0
15.0
13.5
91.4
8.0
13.1
17.0
22.7
21.5
18.6
FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCEPT o MPH IN MIN/GAL
FUEL ECONOMY IN Mf/<5AL EXCEPT 0 MPH IN MfN/GAL
84
-------
TABLE 73
Modal Emissions For
TABLE 74
Modal Emissions For Low
Los
MODE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
f>
7
*
9
10
11
\Z
13
14
15
1
-------
TABLE 75
Modal Emissions For Denver
1972 Autos
MODE
NO.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
19
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
IS MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
6.89
6.1?
9.77
4.45
3.67
3.35
5.16
4.18
4.42
4.40
6.15
5.79
7.26
4.49
6.33
14.77
6.17
4.95
5.67
6.12
7.53
6.48
8.75
5.07
4.57
9.33
6.41
5.60
8.11
5.64
4.89
10.32
5.55
0.84
8.38
4.04
2.80
2.08
2.41
2.63
CO
— — GM>
130.82
116.05
1*5.58
M9.19
75.96
S8.36
143.58
97.57
103.25
74,63
196.13
117.15
203.28
91.03
87.11
222.84
151.45
110.91
126.35
132.82
228.88
137.50
160.55
137.29
92.74
132.59
183.49
103.49
150.94
170.96
115.19
148.83
142.26
18.99
200.79
101.92
69.29
34.03
40.03
52.12
C02
'Ml——
502.8
513.5
810.7
489.2
423.3
349.2
412.6
365.5
387.5
379.8
430.3
447.9
479.2
337.0
355.7
729.0
414.8
393.4
382.0
456.8
451.7
425.5
618.6
403.2
349.9
519.3
445.6
384.6
570.3
410.8
368.5
526.6
436.0
70.1
874.9
580.3
431.8
317.8
318.8
364.0
NOX
.....
3.12
2.57
2.87
3.30
4.35
3.06
3.22
3.56
4.53
4.03
2.97
4.54
3.77
3.28
1.90
2.37
3.30
2.83
2.66
3.02
2.77
3.34
4.24
3.61
3.23
2.73
3.64
3.21
3.56
3.15
3.16
2.94
3.44
0.08
0.90
0.60
0.70
1.91
4.22
6.08
FUEL
ECON
12.2
12.4
7.8
.13.8
16.0
19.7
13.6
16.7
15.7
17.4
11*7
13.6
10.8
18.0
17.3
7.9
13.2
15.2
14.8
13.0
10.6
13.4
9.9
14.0
17.4
11.7
11.8
15.7
10.7
12.7
15.7
11.2
13.1
86.5
7.3
11.8
16.2
23.5
22.8
19.5
TABLE 76
Modal Emissions For
Loa Angeles 1972 Autos
MODE
NO.
f^W.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
BAG
0 MPH
5 MPH
10 MPH
IS MPH
30 MPH
45 MPH
60 MPH
HC
6.76
2.56
7.83
3.19
2.44
1.94
4.44
2.23
2.69
3.28
3.*9
4.62
3.82
2.93
1.89
3.98
4.73
2.67
3.68
3.24
5.86
3.46
5.04
2.60
2.36
2.95
3.12
3.37
4.76
3.10
3.04
3.46
2.89
0.56
6.52
3.17
2.30
1.36
1.63
1.54
CO
....... I'M
C02
jut ______
104.40 1190.7
27.04
144.94
49.61
26.74
13.20
105.26
11.17
30.36
15.79
68.54
18.56
59.01
13.92
22. IT
73.51
72.2?
17.53
56.99
26.05
133.86
19.84
80.60
38.35
15.21
38.68
45.60
21.61
81.80
53.76
13.83
43.24
29.61
9.30
107.37
37.71
19.37
6.97
4.93
8.39
345.4
1180.7
775.0
599.9
200.3
792.0
190.0
598.1
201.1
771.9
206.0
830.5
163.1
228.5
547.1
850.9
191.2
767.6
273.5
917.6
224.0
997.7
643.1
193.1
388.8
718.8
194.9
899.8
746.7
145.2
387.9
507.1
84.0
1050.9
711.3
534.4
359.5
346.4
389.1
NOX
14.06
1.08
4.46
6.46
9.53
1.84
11.73
3.42
11.32
2.50
13.21
2.92
14.84
2.02
1.06
0.81
12.91
1.57
11.83
1.72
13.13
2.05
10.36
12.59
2.60
1.66
14.13
1.89
8.77 '
13.40
2.68
1.70
5.40
0.06
0.80
0.69
0.65
1.29
3.82
6.26
FUEL
P/*rtM
6.4
22.4
6.2
10.3
13.7
39.1
9.1
41.4
13.6
37.6
10.0
35.5
9.5
45.7
33.0
13.1
9.1
39.1
10.2
27.3
7.7
33.4
7.8
12.5
39.5
19.3
11.1
37.0
8.5
10.6
50.3
19.0
15.8
88.4
7.2
11.4
15.5
23.7
24.7
21.8
FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCEPT 0 MPH IN MlN/GAL FUEL ECONOMY IN MI/GAL EXCEPT 0 MPH IN MIN/GAL
86
-------
TABLE 77
test # 1
Loaded Vehicle Test Results
Six 1974 Model year Automobiles
Test # 2
Test # 3
Mode
0 mph
5 mph
10 mph
15 mph
30 mph
45 mph
60 mph
SDS
HC
.81
9.82
4.72
3.42
1.79
1.48
1.70
3.24
CO
18.33
210.63
103.42
67.33
25.80
9.46
9.84
37.02
NOX
.16
1.51
.88
.60
1.26
4.48
7.17
6.32
Fuel
Economy
68.51
5.72
10.57
14.92
20.65
20.17
16.88
13.59
HC
.76
9.26
4.49
3.21
1.83
1.49
1.67
3.38
CO
17.43
201. 11
99.70
65.41
24.91
7.53
8.81
42.40
NOX
.15
1.43
.77
.57
1.08
4.35
7.51
6.77
Fuel
Economy
.69.41
5.77
10.89
15.08
21.06
20.29
16.67
13.04
HC
.75
8.97
4.26
2.89
2. 14
2.01
2.53
8.05
CO
16.39
190.41
91.24
58.49
19.11
8.31
30.27
79.38
NOX
.15
1.24
.76
.43
2.71
8.23
•**.
13.64
8.01
Fuel
Economy
71.73
5.92
11.29
15.02
18.83
15.46
11.06
10.01
oo
Emissions in gm/mi. t except idle in gm/min
Fuel Economy in mi/gal., except idle in min/gal.
-------
TABLE 78
Loaded Vehicle Test Results
Six 1975 Modal Year Automobiles
Test f 1
Test i 2
Test I 3
Mode
0 mph
Srnph'
}0 mph
15 mph
30 mph
45 mph
60 mph
SDS
HC
.18
2,23
1.19
,82
,16
.16
.13
»44
CO
3.30
38,60
16.63
7.11
.88
1.21
1.13
10.43
NOX
.08
,67
.44
.42
1.41
1,56
4.99
4,31
Fuel
Economy
73.23
5,99
10.43
14.71
19.29
18.72
17.00
13.69
HC
.14
2.01
1.05
.73
.12
.14
,13
,46
CO
1,88
27.75
10.72
5,84
,79
1,16
1.18
13,60
NOX
,07
.57
.34
.31
1.31
2.13
5.30
4,62
Fuel
Economy
76.88
6,31
11.08
IS. 32
20.75
17. 79
17,19
13.52
HC
»»5
1.93
1.00
.63
.15
.22
.48
,70
CO
2.65
24.83
10.33
5,46
,71
J.42
21.58
41.42
NOX
,07
.43
.30
.35
1.86
4.61
9.77
5,98
Fuel
Economy
74.43
6.21
10.43
15.07
17.91
15.40
10.96
10.14
*• . •
00
oo
Emissions in gm/mi, except idle in gm/min
Fuel Economy in xni/gal., except idle in min/gal.
-------
TABLE 79
Loaded Vehicle Test Results
Three 1975 Light Duty Trucks
Test jf 1
Test H Z
Test f 3
Mode
0 mph
5 mph
10 mph
15 mph
30 mph
45 mph
60 mph
SDS
HC
.40
5.03
2.46
1.14
.14
.19
.56
1.35
CO
8.61
96.24
53.94
37.56
2.48
2.17
12.95
22.95
NOX
.02
.21
.18
.26
.76
1.12
2.93
2.73
Fuel
Economy
80.71
6.70
11.85
13.50
16.83
15.98
14.71
13.07
HC
.34
4.82
2.29
1. 18
.26
.30
.62
1.44
CO
7.26
76.60
46.56
36.06
5.17
5. 16
14.60
25.36
NOX
.01
.01
.07
.19
• 54
1.45
2.83
3.17
Fuel
Economy
82.24
6.76
12.07
. 13.77
17.43
16.38
14.70
12.56
HC
.33
4.55
1.95
.87
.12
.74
.90
1.35
CO
8.16
78.77
45. 02.
32.69
1.76
13.60
22.43
39.21
NOX
.07
.06
.07
.22
.2.21
2.86
6.68
4.32
Fuel
Economy
85.94
.7.26
12.35
13.60
15.88
13.77
10.69
10.45
oo
Emissions in gm/mi, except idlo in gm/min
Fuel Economy in ml/gal., except ;idle in xnin/gal.
-------
TABLE so
LOADED VEHICLE TEST RESULTS
COMPOSITE OF IS VEHICLES FROM HOUSTON
AMD PHOENIX
MODAL EMISSION TEST PROCEDURE
Mod* • Fwl
No. HC CO CO2 NOX Ecoa
—..-.SECOND TEST———
FM!
HC CO COZ NOX Ecoa
-_-...-.THIRD TEST-
HC CO CO2 NOX Ecoa
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8.
9-
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20-
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
SOS ACT.
SOSCALC.
IDLE
5MPH
10MPH
19MPH
30MPH
49MPH
60MPH
4.01 63.9 1317.1 9.04 6.2
1.20 19.9 454.4 0.84 18.1
5.32 129.7 1449.1 2.37 5.3
2.27 36.1 912.3 4.85 9.1
1.62 12.9 760.0 6.78 11.3
0.64 4.9 285. 1.34 30.0
2.55 53.4 954. 10.31 8.5
0.63 4.9 302. 2.42 28.4
1.54 17.5 759. '8.78 11.2
1.56 9.4 288. 1.64 28.8
2.32 49. T 937. 10.90 8.5
1.84 9.8 300. 1.37 27.6
2.33 43.2 994.2 11. 50 3.3
1.20 7.2 276.4 1.36 30.5
0.75 12.9 344.3 0.87 24.2
3.01 83.4 832.0 0.79 9.1
2.71 38.1 1034.6 10.08 8.0
1.12 7.3 293.0 1.18 28.7
2.27 29.9 967.2 9.15 8.7
1.59 12.3 343.1 1.18 24.2
3.40 76.6 1094.7 11.99 7.2
1.39 11.6 306.6 1.71 26.8
3.21 53.5 1153.4 8.18 7.1
1.75 25.1 796.9 8.85 10. 5
1.06 6.2 272.5 1.94 31.1
1.17 19.5 468.2 1.03 17.7
2.02 30.1 384.1 10.16 9.5
1.74 12.2 317.4 1.69 23.9
2.90 46.8 1049.7 6.81 7.3
2.02 35.2 370.8 9.78 9.5
0.96 5.6 769.0 ?.ll 31.6
1.24 23.0 448.3 0.89 18.2
1.74 23.6 613.9 4.80 13.5
1.6a 23.4 604.6 5.20 13.7
0.47 10.4 104.3 0.10 72.6
5.33 118.9 1272.8 0.91 6.0
2.85 58.8 724.6 0.56 10.7
1.92 37.3 546.1 0.46 14.5
0.81 11.2 441.3 1.22 19.2
0.69 4.7 467.1 2.64 18.6
0.84 7.0 426.2 5.49 16.4
4.27
1.17
5.26
2.19
1.65
0.64
2.39
0.63
1.68
1.89
2.50
2.26
2.58
1.52
0.83
2.91
2.79
1.12
2.36
1.61
3.37
2.20
3.38
1.30
1.28
1.04
2.10
1.97
2.93
2.35
1.15
1.31
1.82
1.31
0.43
5.47
2.67
1.81
0.83
0.7t
0.34
72.7
18.4
123.5
32.1
12.3
4.5
73.7
4.5
22.2
9.1
58.3
10.0
54.9
7.1
13.3
80.4
47.3
8.3
35.1
11.9
96.5
11.7
56.6
28.6
6.2
18.5
35.3
12.5
46.6
44.6
6.1
23.3
27.5
26.3
9.2
106.9
53.5
35.7
11.3
4.5
6.9
1408.8
433.9
1317.2
966.4
798.2
272.6
992.5
292.4
794.4
279.4
1010.8
295.4
998.6
269.9
332.5
818.4
1087.8
285.8
1015.*
333.3
1134.7
299.7
1212.5
835.9
267.0
454.9
934.2
311.4
1097.6
909.7
263.2
434.5
627.3
616.8
103.1
123S.3
700.8
334.2
421.1
473.6
526.7
10.51
0.74
3.04
5.42
7; 41
1.29
10.99
2.43
9.85
1.63
11.97
1.92
12.65
1.89
0.77
0.73
10.74
1.12
10.07
1.17
12.76
1.73
9.16
9.93
1.97
0.82
11.04
1.73
7.54
10.49
2.08
0.87
5.19
5.57
0.09
0.80
0.46
0.39
1.06
2.38
5.69
5.8
19.0
5.1
8.7
10.8
31.5
7.9
29.4
10.6
29.6
8.0
27.9
8.1
31.0
24.9
9.3
7.6
29.3
8.2
24.9
6.7
27.3
6.8
10.0
31.6
18.2
8.9
26.3
7.5
9.0
32.1
18.7
13.1
13.4
74.6
6.2
11.2
14.9
20.1
18.4
16.4*
9.61
1.20
7.38
4.70
4.33
0.74
6.24
2.20
3.54
1.47
6.33
2.93
6.32
2.07
0.90
2.77
6.74
1.05
2.67
1.27
6.55
1.70
4.17
4.61
1.03
I. 11
6.13
2.39
3.98
4.37
0.96
1.16
3.77
3.30
0.42
5.27
2.49
1.58
0.94-
1.04
1.38
111.0
17.3
138.8
41.8
27.9
3.5
127.2
19.3
67.6
22.5
124.7
21.7
107.8
15.7
11.6
81.0
77.3
9.1
50.4
12.9
169.4
16.0
64.9
72.0
11.5
15.9
87.3
20.1
58.9
100.9
12.7
20.5
56.2
52.2
9.3
101.8
49.6
32.1
8.3
6.6
23.2
1309.7
464.0
1587.2
1029.3
902.6
335.5
1078. 9
422.0
946.8
391.2
1154. 1
399.7
1202. I
386.6
361.5
850.1
1209.7
339.8
1118.5
392.8
1274. 0
403.6
1318.2
964.8
376.7
492.9
1085. 5
414.3
1138.7
1018.0
364.4
473.3
774.6
750.7
102.0
1238.9
712.6
546.9
482.6
573.3
766.9
11.04
1.52
3.21
6.43
9.16
2.67
10.65
5.17
11.68
4.28
13.13
4.32
13.96
4.44
1.19
0.64
12.11
2.49
11.22
2.50
13.00
4.05
10.73
11.28
4.51
1. 35
12.58
4.15
3.30
11.39
4.52
1.47
6.46
7.57
0.09
0.68
0.44
0.36
2.27
5.71
10.70
5.2
17.9
4.9
3.0
9.2
25.6
6.3
19.3
8.3
20.6
6.5
20.0
6.4
21.2
23.2
9.0
6.6
24.3
7.4
21.3
5.7
20.4
6.2
8.1
22.3
17.0
7.1
19.6
6.9
7.5
22.9
17.4
10.1
13.5
75.3
6.3
U.I
14.7
17.8
15.1
10.9
EMISSION RESULTS IN CRAMS PER MILE (PER MINUTE FOR COLE)
FUEL ECONOMY IN MILES PER GALLON (MINUTES PER GALLON FOR IDLE)
90
-------
APPENDDC I
ADDITIONAL SUMMARY DATA FROM
FY 74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
1-1
-------
TABLE 1-1
FY74 EMISSION FAC1UR
EMISSIIIN RESULTS FUP CHICAGO
CHLD STADlLIZn
' Alt
YEAR
_
63-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
ML AH
MILTS
N (K)
j.
50 79.0
30 56.7
35 54.il
40 49.0
45 44.1
51 35.9
51 24.9
53 13.3
168 6.1
7 51 DTI 10 3.1
1
:IYOK'lt/»KHrM5 (GRAMS)
_ _ —
ARITHMETIC
MI-AN Ml
35.75 3H.22
27.09 31.43
22.10 18.06
22.5', 41.94
19.90 28.55
13.96 13.16
13.59 12.08
14.07 13.99
3.71 3.62
GL'IUETRIC
Mt AN SI)
29.06
21.50
Ifl. 66
16.05
l'i,73
11 .82
11 .37
1 1 .67
.13
.77
.72
.»?
.01
.64
.60
.68
2.25 2.93
1
1.99 1.82 1 1.44 2.28
1
CAptlHN MONOXIDE (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
382.37 209.46
336.08 103.54
29B.32 174.19
227.49 127.76
219.09 180.53
175. '.6 153.75
Ifle. 66 2'<4.38
157.78 120.97
70.67 85.70
26.51 30.68
'JtMIIETRIC
Ml .'N SLi '
3?l.7'i 1.B8
27H. 11 2.00
23^.85 2.17
184.62. 2.0q
17»'.53 1.83
131.53 2.19
!??.'» 7 2.20
1T>.73 2.16
2 i . b \ 7.13
2.54 37.65
NOX (GRAMS)
L__ — __— - —
ARITHMETIC
Mr AN SO
10.73 6.2T
12.78 5.78
16.17 6.40
11.94 4.29
12.13 4.37
12.58 4.22
10.60 10.74
0. 34 3.56
7.08 2.89
6.96 2.53
GEt'ilETRlC.
•1FAN SP
9.05
11.66
14.79
11.13
11.27
11.42
11.45
7.57
6.49
.83
.56
.57
.48
.51
.77
.88
.60
.55
6.60 1.40
TABLE 1-2
FY74 FMISSIflN FAClCR PHIM-KA.I
EMISSION RFSUUS FDP CHICAGO
COLO TRANSIENT
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MtA.'i
MllCS
M (K)
!_____
50 79.0
30 56.7
35 54.8
40 49.0
45 44.1
51 35.1
51 24.9
53 13.3
168 6.1
10 3.1
1
1
'•YOROCAI'ROMS (GRAMS) 1 CARBON MflNtiXIDE (CFAMS)
i
ARITHMETIC
MFAU SI)
i
41.17 46.45
34.98 3H.70
30.32 22.03
32.55 60.89
29.57 36.11
21.53 16.38
17.55 B.hf,
1«.9H 15.30
8.94 5.'i°
8.07 3.39
GEOMETRIC 1 ARITHMETIC
1
MEAN SO 1 ML AH $0
._ i
33.42
27.87
2^.23
23.27
21 .95
10.87
10.26
16.23
.72 1490.35 229.50
.76 1436.50 257.99
.77 I39rt.2fl 221.36
. /9 I375.fi? 211.91
.ft') 1322.21 24n.f>0
.50 1292.65 180.09
.V» I22'>.55 200.60
.61. |22'>.7? 120.66
7.86 1.6? 1150.27 110.67
1
7.30 1.66 Ill2.'i« 72.34
1
(M1METRJC
MIAN so
435.54
37H.1*
3<»«.3!>
320. e<»
268.50
244.96
192.30
200.03
123. 8H
.(S7
.71
.70
.01
.in
.04
.72
.66
.02
*»?.59 1.V9
NOX (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MFAN SO
»___________ _.
14.11 6.80
18.05 7.9',
21.16 8.99
16.98 7.88
18.23 6.78
19.83 6. 55
14.97 6.66
13.69 6.11
11.88 4.49
9.40 1.72
GEOMETRIC
MF.AN SO
12.74
16.14
1W.74
14.96
16.91
lft.53
13.53
12.44
11.03
.57
.67
.74
.72
.52
.53
.62
.56
.49
9.23 1.24
-------
TABL£ 1-3
I Y7'i f-nrSSIHf-1 FAtTI'l; f>l>, !!,
SUITS rnR run ACM
HIT TRAMS 1H4T
YEAR
65-67
1968
19A9
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
751 OT
Mr AII
MILKS
N (K)
50 79.0
30 56.7
35 54.8
40 49.0
45 44.1
51 15.9
51 24.9
53 13.3
160 6.1
10 3.1
HYnRflCAIBUNS (GRANS)
.
All ITIIME1 1C
M|.A:< SO
27.23 31.45
22.32 28.61
17.33 14. -»5
10.61 36.3?
17.71 23.98
12.81 11.03
11.66 7.2<»
11.54 8.01
3.67 2.85
2.14 1.45
GtrvtEfPlC
•ii. Art so
_
22.45 .66
17. 6B .71
I'. .79 .66
13.42 . /4
I?. 96 ."6
11.02 .58
10.46 1.53
10.38 1.51
,*.89 2.01
1.70 2.11
CApnnu minoxiOE (WANS)
j
ARITHMETIC
MtAN SU
272.96 162.17
??W.79 151.35
165.53 90.19
155.43 100.56
145.1? 161.60
120.02 104.03
128.43 165.69
109.33 62.29
59.32 56.38
26.38 25. 2\)
I LIME 1*1 C
KI-/MI Sl>
22«.87 !.«•»
181.09 2. (7
146.09 .66
13H.95 .f.O
"11 7.99 .74
96.f>0 .91
91'. 08 .91
9'..6| .72
4<». 0? 2.41
16.10 3.05
NHX (T.kAHS)
ARITHMETIC 1 r.F'l.iETRK
1
HtAN SD 1 H£AH SO
15.66 K.06
1 11 . 74 7 . ftS
24.10 7.99
18.86 7.92
18.52 6.56
20.28 6.78
14.51 6.28
12.91 5.54
10.5? 4.08
B.75 1.67
11.7(1 1.71
17.04
22.42
16.8'.
17.21
IH. 61
13.11
11.85
9.74
.5*
.51
.69
.52
.67
.63
.52
.50
'1.58 1.24
TABLE 1-4
FY7'. IHISS IliN FACIU"
I
CHLO
YEAR
__ ___
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
»972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
Mr A 1
MILIS
N
O 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0 . 0
25 47.6
0 0 . 0
30 24.7
117 9.6
10 H.I
ilYOIt'lCAKHHI
API rHMFTIl.
Hi: All SI-
O.OO O.OO
0 . 00 •.» . 00
O.OO O.OO
O.OO O.OO
O.OO O.OO
?.».«'> 24. 'i 7
0.00 O.UO
H'.J? 7.0?
".98 7.11
H.I/ «>.,;0
'S (GHAI'S)
GF'IMETfUC
MI.A'I SO
O.OO o.OO
0.00 0.00
o.OO 0.00
O.uO O.fiO
0.00 C.OO
in. 9? i.n6
O.OO O.OO
15.46 1.53
!.*>?. »./2
'. ,7n 1 .9"
:
f.AKHHN HlJhUX
ARITHKI T 1C
•IRAN SU
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
337.54 340. PI
ii. on o.oo
220. fl9 10(1.73
1 4 I. OS 121.34
I4o.cio II5.0U
IDF (OIAI'S)
Ml 'H sn
« .00 0.00
• i.OO 0.00
O.OO 0.0)
u.oo o.no
(..(>(! 0.00
24(1 . 14 2.16
u.OO (i.OO
194.70 1.73
1 OS. 37 2.0't
I0.--.2i- 2.47
mix <.;H
ARITHMETIC
MFAM SI)
•>.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
O.Oo O.OO
O.oo o.oo
I'l.Ol 7.05
(i.oo o.oo
14.37 7.61
12.74 5.V>
11.38 <*.?(>
\HS)
r.hi'METRlc
'"i AM <;D
•1.00 0.00
•'.'*.> 0.00
o.OO O.fiO
< .')0 O.OO
I'.OO O.OO
1 6 . 6 ? 1.51
•». in o.oo
U'.4T |.76
1 1 . •> 3 1 . r> »l
1 ' • . H 3 1 . 3 7
-------
TABLE 1-5
FY7* EMISSION F AC TDK PRIK.RA.1
EMISSION KESULTS FOlt HUUSIOM
COLD S1AOII IZFIJ
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MEAN
MILES
N (K)
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 47.6
0 0.0
30 24.7
117 9.6
10 11.1
HvnKucAKfliiNs
ARITHMbTH
NFAM SO
0 .00 0 . 00
0.00 0.00
o.oo a. oo
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
24.76 47.51
0.00 0.00
12. B7 6.91
'..92 5.01
4.B5 3.32
GlflMETHIC '
MEAN SP
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.81 2.58
0.00 0.00
11.16 1.76
2.99 2.95
3.79 2.1*
CARBOM MdHUXlDF (GRAMS)
.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
340.06 502.93
0.00 0.00
187.68 186.24
107.04 153.92
87.78 95.27
f 1 ((METRIC
M[At! SO
O.OC O.OO
(». 00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
194.91 2.75
o.oo P. no
124.43 2.58
3:».30 7.03
12.62 45.32
N(1X (HRAHS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
——————— — — —
n.oo o.on
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.67 6.OO
0.00 0.00
0.36 4.58
7.51 3.77
5.73 1.96
CFJIUETRIC
Mr AN sn
0.00 O.OO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
).o--> o.oo
9.52 2.23
O.OO 0.00
7.28 1.72
6.60 1.71
5.4ft 1.35
TABLE 1-6
FW« i "«;., HIM FAUuK PMh.RAM
FMI SSI MM »'FSUL1S FUR
TRANSIENT
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
HEAD
MILES
N (K)
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 47.6
0 0.0
30 ?4.7
117 9.6
10 11. 1
MYDROCAP.RUNS (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
14.54 9.58
0.00 0.00
11.69 5. 88
4.25 3.59
'..56 2.2B
GEOMETRIC
MEAII SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
12.33 1.77
n.oo o.oo
10.63 1.54
3.30 2.04
4.07 1.66
CARUOM MDNUXlUr (CHAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
103.27 190.12
0.00 0.00
126.15 87.80
60.i>2 74.02
47.4? 46.49
OFMHETRIC
Mr AH sn
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
o.on o.oo
O.OO 0.00
O.on 0.00
133.54 2.34
o.oo o.on
102.1'* 1.96
33.2? 3. 10
23.77 4.23
NHX (GKAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN Sll
0.00 O.OO
n.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
17.76 7.17
0.00 0.00
12.04 7.17
11.29 5.4<»
9.13 3.60
GEOMETRIC
MFAtl SU
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
16.26 1.57
0.00 0.00
11.12 1.7)
10.09 1.65
n.50 1.44
-------
TABLE 1-7
FY74 CMISSIUN FAC1UK PhMf.l'AM
EHISSIflll HFSULTS FUK PHIHIUX
COL!) TRANSIENT
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969-
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MF. AH
MILES
N IK)
h_ _ j
—
26 SB. I
17 78.?
IB 70.0
19 67.1
23 53.7
25 45.0
27 30.0
30 25.3
117 10.2
10 B.5
1
HYOKOCACnuMS (GRAMS) 1 CARBHN MUHUXIOF (UPAMS)
_ _ _ i _ .
ARI MIMETIC
MEAN SO
^_ _ _ _
__ — __ —
41.90 45,22
2'» »72 -10.22
22.52 6.5''
2?. 60 11.23
28.27 32.30
in. 51 10.14
17.80 10.21
It. 05 11.32
9.60 11.* 7
9.91 4.6H
GEOMETRIC 1 ARITHMETIC | r(H'IETR|C
1 1
Mf AN SO 1 MEAN SO 1 Mf/MI
i_
33.16
22. 79
21 .6?
20.61
20.83
16.86
15,96
14.0*
7.64
.HI 1472.91 239.40 I419.21J
.52 1399.43 233.54 I33>.9o
.35 1327.77 165.50 I29J.02
.53 1375.45 259.00 1315.90
.96 1267. HB 114.81 1240.64
.50 1246.43 114.67 |22
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
7510T
MEAN
MILfcS
M (K)
26 B8.1
17 78.2
18 70.0
19 67.1
23 53.7
25 45.0
27 30.0
30 25.3
117 10.2
10 8.5
HYDRQCAKPU'IS (CRAMS)
AP. I TIIMC TIC
MEAN f>U
34.3? 23.1.1
2J./!R 10.99
21.4f. 10.19
I!-. 05 <-.u6
23. 33 3^.93
13.21 4.64
10.79 J.74
I4.7'i ?1.25
3.66 3.15
5.72 7.73
CFHMETRIC
ME AM Sl>
29.69 1.65
19.37 1.54
19.00 .48
14. U2 .46
15.42 .15
12.49 .41
10.17 .',3
10.66 .95
2.44 2.61
?.01 3.47
CARHON MUNOXIDF 'GWAIl', )
___ — -
ARITHMETIC
Mb AN SO
478.57 255.42
311.98 194.78
312.'«4 14C.40
244.74 151.37
189.43 130.66
205.21 132.17
1R5.04 131.58
157.65 112.30
HI. 78 104.30
97.21 134.25
C-EIMETRIC
Ml- .Ml SU
42?. 62 .66
25". II .92
20/ 2.3'1
?'. ,'ic P. 94
? r. . 1 5 7.07
nnx (CRAMS)
_.
ARI1HMETIC
MIAN SO
6.45 3.09
9.07 4.72
1(>.H6 4.47
''.77 4.03
10.91 3.91
9.74 4.32
7.55 3.79
11.95 5.13
7.03 3.1«i
6.32 1.6?
CiriHETRir
M»:AN SO
5.53
7.78
10.04
0.14
10.27
U.9B
6.72
7.6H
6.30
.92
.85
.51
.44
.43
.50
.65
.7fl
.63
'-.14 1.29
-------
TABLE 1-9
FY74 (MISSION FAtTOI! -PRllM-A'1
EMISSIUM RrSlllTS FUl- l»H!i!r||X
HOF TKANSUHT
YEAR
__
t»5-67
I96fl
19«,9
1970
1971
1972
1973
197*
1975
75LOT
Ml. AH
M 1 L fc S
N IK)
26 00. I
17 7B.2
10 70. n
19 67.1
23 S3. 7
25 45.0
27 30-0
30 25.3
117 10.?
10 B.1
HVDKOC AKPil 15
ARI IHMI Tlf
HP AN SI)
^__ _ _ _
26.01 l^.J'fl
17.50 7. JO
16. 49 6.94
12.94 3.25
19.25 27.21
11.66 'i.71
9.60 2.ft2
10.73 6.46
3.41 2.02
5.00 '>.09
r.ennEiRic
HI A'J SI)
2,'. 91 1.60
It. .27 1.47
1">.40 1 .44
12.52 1.31
13. 03 2.05
10.95 1.4?
9.25 1.3J
9.52 1.60
2 . 90 1 . 9(>
3. '.9 2.36
r.AitnnN MDUUXIOE K.I'AMS)
ARI TIIMfT I)
MFAM SU
33'«.!>9 186. <*8
217.75 120.82
194.48 145.66
136. n? 69.93
109.28 61.60
116.31 60.36
118.86 75.24
103.T8 60.22
53.02 49.69
57.60 50.97
«;nijHETR|C
M» ^N Sf)
2nfl.'^l .7 ft
IB'). 6'. .70
160.50 .67
119.'J7 .76
«»', .52 .75
101.86 .72
97.73 1.92
on. 15 1.03
32.91 2.94
32- 3P 3.42
NflX (GflAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MCArj SO
10.32 4.62
13. R6 5.72
16.60 6.31'
15.73 4.79
17.26 5.96
15.29 6.24
11.96 4.86
12.37 6.23
10.37 4.53
10. 38 3.81
CFMdETRir.
MFAII Sl»
H.95
12.44
15.1°
15.00
16.22
14.23
11.12
HI. 99
9.42
.fl4
.70
.60
.3-5
.45
.47
.47
.65
.57
9.06 l.3«
TABLE I-10
FY7'. (MISSION FACTUi: PR.IC.PAH
Fiiissnm PFSUITS FUI; ST.
r.MLD 1KANSIEMI
YEAK
__,_
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973 '
1974
1975
75LOT
MtA"
MIUS
N (K)
|.
50 70.9
30 77.4
35 66.4
40 64.5
45 50.4
50 45.1
50 32.7
50 22.1
150 9.5
10 10.2
MYDRIICAKniiMS (GKAHSI
ARITHMETIC
HFAN SU
L ___ __ _ __
37.15 25.04
30.26 2i>-33
26.03 11. BO
23.67 17.17
20.09 13.9«>
16.20 7.10
14.55 7.75
16. OH 10.52
0.15 7.74
7.04 5.15
GKJMETRIC
.'11-AM SI)
3/.2'«
24.82
2 't . 4 ?
?0.2<>
1 II . 1 6
14.61
13.05
14 .50
A. 77
.6'i
. 79
.57
.67
.<•*
.61)
.65
.r>i
.<>'»
<..04 1.6'»
CAP.ItOf! HflNOXinF (f.pAMS)
ARITHMETIC 1 f.filiMETRlC
1
MEAN SO 1 Mf AH Sr;
462.90 248.50 1*11.87
't|0.?2 245.70 |35«).3',
36-7. U9 167.01 1330.41
297. IA |63.7l J25O.10
?(,?..?* (59.31 1215.47
215. i2 162.01 111^.27
l'H.)7 100.45 1173.1^
/O0.ri7 123.70 117(1.59
.6?
,7fl
.66
.90
.9*,
.n:)
.60
.75
12'«.59 108.71 I 94.53 2. (ft
1
103.10 54.04 1 91.63 1.66
1
NflX (-CRAMS)
— — — — — — —___——— _ _ — —____—__
ARITMMFT1C
Mf-All SO
11.59 4.66
12.97 ft. 77
13.09 5.07
14.76 5.50
16.76 5.67
16.33 5.53
12.26 5.05
11. B3 5.90
10.34 4.47
10.11 4.54
GEOMETRIC
MFAN Sf»
10.57
U. on
12.90
13.75
1^.76
15.3h
11.39
Hi. 59
9.56
.51
.75
.47
.43
.44
.44
.4B
.61
.47
9.36 1.49
-------
TABLE I-11
IY7'. r-'ISMUN FAtUH PlUlfRAM
r.illVSI'H 1'GSIILTS I I)'; ST. LIUMS
r.ni n >i Ai1 n in n
YEAR
i
65-67
19t>B
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LOT
MfcAM
MILES
N (K)
^_
50 78.9
30 77.4
35 66.4
40 64.5
45 50.4
50 45.1
50 32.7
50 22.1
150 9.5
10 10.?
IIYDROCAPBIINS »GRAHS»
ARITHMtTIC
MFArt 51)
i
34.67 19.90
25.27 26.37
25.13 14. B7
17.99 9.65
15.80 9.67
13. Ofl H.65
10.73 3.47
11.87 6.16
3.75 4.43
6.68 13.00
GEOMETRIC
'11. AH SO
_ _
30 . 70
19.36
?1.75
15.94
13.90
11.41
10.10
10.79
.63
.96
.71
.64
.65
.64
.45
.53
2.25 2.89
2.76 3.28
CAfUlfl'l HIJMUN SO
j
422. TJ 1.71
216. «4 2.04
297. 8F 1.95
2O7.?'. 2.29
14C..01 2.27
118.49 2.57
130.04 2. on
114.98 2.26
16.95 15.26
B.71 40. in
.
HUX (GRAMS)
L
ARITHMETIC
MFAN so
(. __- .
7.84 3.91
10.58 6.12
11.29 4.67
10.47 3.55
11.31 4.05
11.28 4.35
8.55 4.24
7.76 3.42
6.97 3.30
5.69 2.33
GEOMETRIC
HF/AN sn
7.00
il. 8?
10.17
9.92
10.56
10.36
7.73
7.10
6.34
.62
.95
.67
.39
.47
.56
.58
.54
.55
5.30 1.49
TABLE 1-12
FY74 rMlSSlllN TACIUI-1 PP.IKI'AI
instil.TS run ST. inms
IU1T TRANSIENT
VEAP
65-67
19<>8
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LD1
MTAH
MILLS
N (K)
50 78.9
30 77.4
45 66.4
40 64.5
45 50.4
50 45.1
50 32.7
50 ?Z. 1
150 9.5
10 10.2
HYORIK.AUHUNS (GRAMS)
ARITHMFl 1C
'1FAM SI)
24.92 13.83
21.10 21.17
10.04 fl.96
14.4? S.72
11.90 5.23
11 . 9 | 10.16
9.89 3.03
10.611 >.77
1.90 1.63
4.80 6.74
GF.'IHETRIC
Mr AM sn
2-^.65 .52
16.64 ,H6
J6.31 .57
13.41 .47
10.94 .51
10.50 .53
9.45 1.36
10.03 1.44
7.99 2.06
3.07 ?.34
CAUIUiri HIINDXIUF. (f.KAMS)
ARITHMtTIl.
MRAN SI)
304.87 147. fi2
197.96 151.4?
194.34 100.02
14B.74 BI.91
104.03 60.12
103.13 70.98
104.16 63.42
94.69 65.31
50.34 67.94
30. B) 21.66
I MIMETRIC
MLAH sn
273.4? 1.6?
153. 7P 2.06
170.30 1.7?
12/.<>7 1.99
87.39 1.R6
H/.69 2.00
89.60 1.7?
70.41 1.9^
36.72 3.21!
?0.07 ?.79
NilX (GKAMS)
h____ __-.__ _ . -
ARITMNEriC
Mr AN so
._—_—___——_
12.96 5.57
l?.9fl 9.31
17.02 5.99
16.60 5.9n
IK. 07 6.51)
17. HI 6.85
13.?? 5.49
12.0»l 6.16
10.01 4.41
9.20 4.0"
KLHMF.TRIC
MfcAM S(J
11 .82
M.40
1">.08
n.55
1^.76
If. .44
IX. 2fl
10.17
'J.20
.55
.93
.49
.4S
.50
.52
.47
.57
.51
".40 1.56
-------
TABLE 1-13
FY74 1 MISSION FAdUM PPHO.Ail
FMISSIPN I:FS»H1S FUH HA.SHIIlf.TMN
( I1LO TRANSIENT
YEAR
65-67
I96B
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
7310T
MFA;I
MILES
M (K)
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 O.O
o n.o
0 0.0
25 39.2
0 0.0
30 19.8
35 ll.l
10 B. 2
1
MYURUCAkPUNS (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.on
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.CO
21.49 24.0 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 .00 0 . 00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
17.54 1.65
0.00 0.00
16.64 1.3H
7.4iS 1.67
7.69 1.92
CARBON unmix i OF .'.4 67.55
121*19 67.82
105.09 61.62
i-.l 'UIK IRIC
MIIAII SO
o.Od 0.00
O.Oi- 0.00
O.OO 0.00
(i.OO 0.00
0.0" 0.00
184.79 1.70
o.oo o.oo
IBH.64 1.41
104.79 1.73
89.06 1.92
•
NflX (CRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
Ml AH SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.on
20.A1 6.63
o.oo o.oo
1,5.46 8.27
11.47 5.21
18.17 5.82
GFJIMETRIC
MtAM SO
O.OO 0.00
O.OO O.OO
O.OO 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
r>.9* 1.33
O.OO 0.00
13.42 1.75
12.42 1.51
17.33 1.39
I
00
TABLE 1-14
FYV'. EMISSION FACTOR
FI p.Sinn RFSHLTS FOR WA'
CHLO STAUILIZEI
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
19/4
1975
75LOT
MFA:I
Miirs
M (K)
^__— _ _ __
—————————
0 0.0
0 O.O
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 39.2
0 0.0
30 19.8
35 11.1
10 8.2
HYOROIAHPIJMS (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
«r.AN SO
i _
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.on
0.0') 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 . 00 0 . 00
IP. 42 2i.2?
0 . 00 0 . OO
12.58 5.25
3.66 4.46
5.70 6.55
GEOMETRIC
HtA'l !,i
0.00 O.CO
0.00 d.oo
O.OO O.CO
0.00 O.M1
o.oo o.oo
13.72 l.llft
O.OO O.(n)
1 1 . 60 1 . e I
/..?.\ 1.11
/.I') '>.<•!>
c ARunn MONUX i ME ( cc AMS )
AR1THMEI1C
•11 AN SO
0.00 0.00
O.oo 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
190.19 177.09
0.00 0.00
167.57 1C5.1B
50. R7 82.54
62.44 117.11
(iroMFTRIC
HI. AN SO
_
0.00 O.OO
o.oo o.oo
II. 0(' 0.00
0.00 0.00
it.oo. o.oo
139.17 2.19
o.oo o.oo
127.81 2.14
17.01 9.11
12.5? 7. -54
NOX (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
Mb'AII SO
O.OO 0.00
0.0(1 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 C.OO
0.00 0.00
14.19 5.91
0.00 0.00
10. 05 5.95
0.24 4.40
11.54 3.53
GEOMETRIC
IF.AH so
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
O.OO O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.14 1.48
0.00 0.00
M.U6 1.61
H.35 1.59
11.02 1.39
-------
TABLE 1-15
FY7<» EMISSION FACTUll PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FUR WASHINOTOM
nni TRANSI TNT
YEAR
„__
65-67
1966
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MF AH
MILES
N (K)
|.__ .]
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
•0 O.i)
0 0.0
25 39.2
0 O.P
30 19.8
35 11. I
10 8.2
1
IIYURdCACnuNS < CRAMS)
_ _
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
L
0.00 O.UO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
15. O4 19.25
0.00 0.00
10. 44 3.61
3. 79 3.05
5.31 4.99
GLOMETRIC
'1C AH SO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.79 1.7?
0.00 0.00
9.05 I.'i3
2.93 2.04
3.12 3.20
CARUOII HIJMOXIOF K.pAMS)
L J
ARITHMETIC
MfcAN SD
L •_.
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.1)0
ii.OO 0.00
O.OO O.OO
0.00 0.00
I0''.it3- 82.57
0.00 0.00
I0<«. 52 46.93
4?. 08 41.96
27.12 22.61
'
CEDMETRIC
ULAN so
O.OO O.OO
o.oo o.on
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.0)
o.oo o.oo
Q't.63 1.07
o.oo o.on
94.63 1.59
2V.54 2.39
1 'i . 4 9 4 . 0 *
NOX .uo o.oo
0.00 0.00
'J.OO O.OO
'».«0 O.OO
•i.OO 0.00
19.29 1.49
o.oo o.oo
13.43 1.66
11.50 1.59
l?.0'.» 1.73
TABLE 1-16
FY74 EMISSION FACTUH PROGRAM
IMISSHIM PESOUS FOR ALL C1TIIS KXCEPT LPS AtlGF.LES AND OFNVEI'
COLD TRANSIENT
YEAR
65-67
I960
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
Ml AM
NILI.-S
N
H.50 4.88
GCOHEFRK
Mf AH SO
32.89
25.4H
24.13
21 .51
20.14
17.10
14.87
15.35
7. '.3
.70
.72
.61
.69
.0]
.65
.56
.?5
.70
7.30 1.75
CARIUIN nnnnxiDt (GPAMS)
L_ „ _ j
ARITHMETIC
MFAH SO
(.
475.09 237.62
421-39 245.19
372.56 190.25
343. 'H 205. Bl
2B7.20 194.01
264.48 194.51
218.70 156.26
209.36 10B.58
140.67 113.22
123.07 80.55
rpMHETHJC
M|. AH SO
j
422.6]
36 1 . 1 r>
329.25
20?. 2B
242.35
217. 15
187.33
IP'. . 71
1 1 0 . 01
.64
.76
.67
.B6
.fH
.87
.70
.66
.97
10U.6? 1 ,9'»
MOX (GPAMS)
i _ _ _ ___ ^
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
j.
12.32 5.76
14.91 0.23
17.32 7.67
15.40 6.46
17.17 6.1R
1H. 02 6.45
13.32 6.03
13.42 6.72
11.56 4.8*
12.04 5.26
GEOMETRIC
1EAN SO
11. OR
12.92
15.59
13.90
16.02
16.83
12.14
11.90
10.62
.61
.74
.62
.64
.47
.48
.55
.65
.52
11.10 1.4B
-------
TABLE f-17
FY74 EMISSIUN FACTCP
EMISSII'N RtSULIS FHR ALL CITIIS
cnLn STADILIZCO
EXCF.PT LUS AHC.j.ltS AMD ni:NVEK
YEAR
65-67
I96H
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
J5LDT
I1C AM
M 1 1 If S
N (K)
126 HO. 8
77 69.5
88 62.5
99 58.8
113 48.5
176 41.9
128 29.0
193 20.2
587 8. 8
50 8.2
1
1
HYOKIICAITUINS (GRAMS) 1 CARBON MIINUXIDF .<>3
2K17 15.J'»
19.42 27.41
1'».00 2.76
1 '. . 5 3
1 <> . 3 1
10.60
11.19
2.42 2
2.50
.67 1439.34 231.31
.79 1316.09 194.71
.67 1324.00 177.39
.68 1246.16 141.25
.HI 1202.41 156.09
.79 1204.22 238.43
.54 1179.17 180.67
.07 (162.50 129.36
>.R6 1 80.05 110.80
1
>.15 1 66.67 96.61
1
GEHMETRlC
MI: AM sn
379.29 1.79
257.19 1.9fl
271.02 1.95
196.71 2.13
160.08 2.P2
14'). 41 2.38
132.24 2.17
120.21 2.25
24.00 9.44
9.8? 22.33
NUX (GrtAHS)
(.____ _ ____ ^
AUnilHETIC
HFAN SO
— _ __
0.70 5.13
11.11 5.67
13.14 5. OB
10.93 4.01
11.56 4.15
11.90 4.94
9.15 7.54
8.56 4.41
,7.26 3.37
7.25 3.25
GEOMETRIC
riEAll SO
7.38 1.81
9.56 1.81
11.77 1.65
10.23 1.44
10.78 1.43
10.67 1.72
7.78 1.72
7.60 1.64
6.53 1.61
6,65 1.51
I
!-•
o
TABLE 1-18
FY7'i IMIVilllM r-J'.MIII I'k.M KA.i
IH'l PfSHIIS ru" AIL CITl.-i i XCFfT
il'ir TH A|!S 11 NT-
I.IIS AiT.firS AMU "»f.lVF
YFAR
65-67
1968
1 969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
.
HfA J
N (K)
^__ __ _
____
126 1
99 58. P
113 48.5
176 41.9
128 29.0
193 20-2
587 8.8
50 8.2
IIYUKtllAHIMlMb ( GRAMS)
AciTimmc
n AH sn
h__ ___
_ _ _ — __ —
26.06 22. f?
20.81 2t'.3l
17.44 11.00
15.8'. 23.36
15.71 19.00
12.95 11.70
10.53 5.17
11.04 5.90
3.81 3. in
'..36 4.51
GEOMFIKIC
•11 Ail 5li
?.i .63
16.95
IS. 50
1 i . 2 '•
i;.13
11 .14
9. fl'l
1 >•> . 1 1
. f»9
.V|
. !.-n
.'-•5
.'ii
.••9
.43
.'|9
3.00 2.ni
2.97 <>.39
CARill^l MlirUJXlOF (CI'/vMS)
,_
ARIT'IMI r 1C
MfAil Sll
29H.34 16.!. 41
214.34 145.33
n/.'M 10 7.? 3
49.15 87. 'iO
21.46 113.15
2J.A5 110.33
16. ''3 1 1(>. 78
10<"I>7 65.46
55.03 61.49
37. U9 39.45
III All SO
257.69
171 .<>r>
159.50
12'j . 3')
100.07
96.47
94.61
89.59
.7't
.9fl
.6M
.1'*)
.01
.98
.83
.'J3
33.04 2.93
2o.4ft 3.43
Nl)X (f-KAMS)
____ _______ __ — — —
AltlfilMETIC
Mil AM SI)
13.49 6.81
16.59 fi.19
19.75 7.71
17.34 6.71
Hi. 08 6.4?
Ifi. 57 7.12
13.47 5.74
12.96 6.50
10.64 4.71
10.45 4.89
CIJtlMF.TKIC
11 -AH SI)
11.83
14. 4«
I H. 05
15.97
16.83
17.05
12.34
11.56
9.69
.71
.77
.58
.53
.50
.57
.54
.61
.56
'».56 1.51
-------
TABLE 1-19
FY74 FMISMMN FACTCi: PROi.RA »
io'i pFsons FOR I.UNVER
nun TRANS 11 IIT
YEAR
65-67
I960
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MF..AM
H I L R S
M (K)
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
d o.o
25 40.9
27 32. fl
30 24.6
35 13.?
10 14.1
HYDROCARBONS (GRAMS)
J
AfUTHMFTIC
MF AN SI)
o.oo o.oo
O.Ot) 0.00
0.00 0 . 00
0.00 0.00
O.OO fJ.l'O
2H.29 21.30
?2.24 0.29
2B.25 37.31
12.73 5.75
14.34 0.71
01 Hi-IETRlC
Mi: AN Sit
i). 00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
24.55 1.60
21.03 1.39
21.93 1.72
11.74 1.50
1 2 . 'i 2 I . 76
CARRON MUNUnIRK ((.RAMS)
j
ARITHME NC
Ml- AN SI)
^_
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00"
o.oo o.(>o
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
362.03 162.19
358.115 123. 43
394.74 247.91
254.02 128.40
232.06 87.84
('.I! ((METRIC
Ml! AM SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
O.OO O.OO
11.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
331.86 1.54
33V. 2? 1.41
352.32 1.55
227.82 1.61
215.30 1.53
finx (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11. «3 5.10
B.70 5.57
8.23 4.08
7.31 2.84
fl.91 4.14
GFOMETRIC
•IF. AN SO
<1.00 0.00
0.00 O.OQ
f.on o.OO
• •) . on o . oo
<>.on o.oo
10.87 1.52
7.64 1.66
7.07 1.B5
6.76 1.51
7.91 1.73
TABLE 1-20
FY74 EMISSION FACTUK PROGRAM
tMISS Kin RCSUI TS FOR DENVER
COLP STABILUEU
YEAR
— ____
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
751.DT
MF.AN
MILUS
N (K)
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 40.9
27 32. B
30 24.6
35 13.5
10 14.1
IIYI>IUIC ALBUMS (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SU
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
24.70 23.11
16.32 6.77
1 (> . 'M 6.00
7.1? 4.77
7.99 6.89
GEOMETRIC
ML AN SI)
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
20.43 1.70
15.22 1.45
16.11 1.36
CARRON miOnxiOF. UiHAMS)
__; J
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
o.oo p. oo
337.20 189.75
305.71 143.19
3Q4.47 144.78
5.50 2.21 1164. (16 113.00
1
5.1(1 2.95
165.71 177.91
GEOMETRIC
MtAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
291.70 i.7<>
280. 2R 1.51
27r>.46 !.«••»
114.81 3.07
40.11R 9.p»
1 1
NQX (CRAMS)
_——______.
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SI)
^__ _ _
0.00 0.00
O.(lf) 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
7.77 3.82
6.39 3.81
S.67 2.45
i>.04 2. 39
4.80 1.72
GEOMETRIC
MFAN SD
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 o.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
6.9? 1.64
5.60 1.65
5.08 1.67
4.60 1.54
4.52 1.46
-------
TABLE 1-21
FY74 EMISSION FACrUK PHI)(,I A i
tllSSION RLSUIIS Fll» HCNVOR
IIHT TRANS II Nl
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1173
1974
1975
7SLDT
MLA J
M I L I S
N (K)
——-—-——_—
0 0.0
0 O.O
0 0.0
o o.n
0 0.0
25 40.9
27 32. P
30 24.6
35 13.5
10 14.1
MVOMRAMHHNS (f.RAHS)
API THMCF 1C
MEAN Sf>
0.00 0.00
O.OO O.ltO
O.'IO 0.00
O.OO 0.00
O.OO 0.00
21. 29 1«.54
15.11 5,19
16. 83 0.10
7.16 3.76
B.43 7.02
GEOMETRIC
MEAN sn
0.00 O.OO
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
IB. as i.sn
14.40 1.36
15.9« 1.37
6.36 1.66
6.31 2.29
CAR ruin MUMUXIOF ««AMS)
ARITHMETIC
ML- AM SD
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
o.oo n.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
246.IR 11 6. 50
258.64 111.94
26R.99 129.09
157.50 112.54
134./0 89.78
GCriMFTKIC
MFA(! Sft
0.00 0.00
O.Oi. 0.00
0.00 0.00
M.«iO O.OO
0.00 0.00
223.90 1.55
237.97 1.52
243.96 1.55
12B.17 1.95
92.60 3.06
Nnx (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
Ml AM SI)
0.00 O.OO
O.OO O.OO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 O.OO '
0.0(1 0.00
12.69 5.99
9.31 6.11
11.17 3.96
7.01 2.91
7.91 3.69
CE'METRIC
,-^AM SO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 O . OO
I'.OO O.OO
n.oo o.oo
O.Oft 0.00
11.41 1.60
7.^8 1.70
7.23 1.68
6.47 1.50
7.05 1.70
I
H*
M
TABLE I-Z2
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR LOS ANGELES
COLD TRANSIENT
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LOT
MEAN
MILES
N (K)
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 49.5
27 32.8
30 22.6
35 8.1
10 9.2
(
HYDROCARBONS (CRAMS*
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SD
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
14. 67' 6.15
17.44 18.23
12.66 4.82
4.66 2.13
7.16 3.49
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
13.62 1.47
14.01 1.74
11.80 1.47
4.17 1.6/i
6.45 1.62
CARBON MUNQXIDtf (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00*
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
O.OQ 0.00
0.00 0.00
206.11 112.59
187.48 136.50
192.26 97.99
62.37 43.62
105.14 87.07
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
178.80 1.74
160.26 1.71
170.48 1.65
49.90 1.99
7B.62 2.21
NOX (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
O.OO O.OO
O.OO 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
19.46 7.61
17.24 7.29
11.94 7.41
10.55 4.88
8.85 3.86
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
17.90 1.56
15.82 1.54
10.24 1.72
9.66 1.51
8.21 1.49
-------
TABLE 1-23
FY74 EMISSFON FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS Fl)P LOS ANGELES
COLD STABILIZED
YEAR
65-67
196B
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MEAN
MILES
N IK)
0 0.0
o o.o
.0 0.0
o o.o
0 0.0
25 49.5
27 32.8
30 22.6
35 6.1
10 9.2
HYDROCARBONS (CRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
^_ __ _ _ _ __— .
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.66 8.4Q
12. 3B 11.13
R.B9 6.83
0.94 1.36
2.07 2.19
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
9.78 1.82
10.42 1.65
7.45 1.78
0.64 2.16
1.53 2.12
CAROON MONOXIDE (GRAMS)
(. _
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
160.33 113.03
145.12 120.36
139.67 144.33
14.55 42.11
30.62 77.61
GEOMETRIC
MEAN so
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
.124.07 2.18
112.32 2.12
94.85 2.44
1.57 21.54
1.37 58.78
NDX (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN so
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
11.64 5.88
10.99 4.99
7.33 4.33
7.58 3.90
7.42 3.96
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
10.30 1.70
9.85 1.65
6.37 1.6B
6.80 1.59
6.58 1.67
TABLE 1-24
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR LOS ANGELES
HOT TRANSIENT
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MEAN
MILES
N (K)
0 0.0
0 0*0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 49.5
27 32.8
30 22.6
35 B.I
10 9.2
HYDROCARBONS (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
9.79W 4.58
11.39*- 9.95
8.70 4.24
1.74 1.16
3.46 2.27
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
8.87 1.58
9.61 1.66
7.86 1.58
1.38 2.07
3.01 1.69
CARBON MONOXIDE (GRAMS)
i
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
101.70 77.22
84.33 55.65
97.35 72.44
14.07 16.28
36.83 64.32
GEOMETRIC
MEAM so
J
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
82.51 1.92
72.64 1.70
70.08 1.94
8.24 2.99
16.67 3.17
NOX (GRAMS)
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MRAN so 1 MEAN so
0.00 0.00 1 O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
20.03 8.31
16.68 6.46
10.61 6.94
10.02 4.96
B.16 4.20
0.00 O.OO
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
18.11 1.65
15.38 1.54
8.97 1.76
9.05 1.56
7.32 1.61
-------
TABLE 1-25
FY74 (Mission FACTOH PRHMCAM
tMissifiM HIS'" is FIIK CHICAGO
1972 FTP
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MFA.I
111 LFS
N (K)
50 79.0
30 56.7
35 54. B
40 49.0
45 44.1
51 35.9
51 24.9
53 13.3
168 6.1
10 3.1
HYORlltARRlMS (CM/MI)
ARI TUMI- TIC.
MEAN si*
10.26 11.13
8.20 f.».in
6.99 5.20
7.35 13.69
6.60 8.40
4.73 J.U3
4.15 2.56
4.41 3."'0
1.69 1.02
1.34 0.!><>
GEHllFfRIC
HI AM Si)
n.43
6.60
5.92
5. JO
5.00
4.15
3.75
3.79
1.45
.70
.73
.72
.77
.01
.55
.50
.(•?
.71
1.22 1 . M
CARRON MUMUXlOr (f.M/Ml)
AR ITHMf TIC
.
NFAN SO
116.36 52.77
103.01 54.25
9^.86 47.17
80.44 40.17
77.17 54.32
62-41 39.43
55.76 5B.OO
51.27 26.10
29.46 22.64
lfl.53 14.24
C.fcPIIETRIC
MC AM Sn
103.47 1.6H
PV.67 1.74
I)]. 9 7 . 6H
711.04 .7"
61.92 .70
5?. 3<» .85
44.31 .P5
45.11 1.69
23. 3d 1.95
14.47 2.14
NIIX (ftl!/rt|)
ARITHMETIC
Hf;AN SO
3.31 .62
4. II .72
4.r>8 .93
3.85 .95
4.05 .43
4.32 .30
3.41 3. 17
2.94 1.20
2.53 O.B9
2.18 0.2A
GEOMETRIC
•Iran sn
2.97
3.75
4.55
J.52
3.7H
4.04
2.97
2.70
2.37
.61
.56
.50
.57
.49
.56
.7U
.53
.45
2.16 1.15
TABLE 1-26
FV74 f-KISSI'IH FAf.TUI' PRIIf.KAH
crsut's ro« ti
1972 FTP
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
7510T
HCAN
MILhS
N
^__ j
—
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 47.6
0 0.0
30 24.7
117 9.6
10 11.1
1
HYnKncAPHi.ms
-------
TABLE 1-27
FYT'i IMIS'.IIIN (AC Illl- I'KI"I.\,1
FM1SSHIN KF.SllLTi, I UK Pll'i. i-llx
197? TIP
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LOT
MCAM
MILIS
N (K)
26 nn.i
17 78.2
13 70.0
*19 67.1
2J 53.7
25 45.0
27 30.0
30 25.3
117 10.2
10 8.5
iiYOKiH./MUjuMS
.'.RiTHMr ric.
HI:AM -I)
io.i6 i:.2*
<».13 _.56
5.07 2.06
5.13 1.90
6.n« n.r«>
4.23 1.62
l.Hl 1.74
'..11 3.43
1.77 1.60
2.0" 1.65
GtUHHTPK.
'U Arl SO
0.5^
5.67
li.57
't.Ul
4.87
3.9«
1.5?
3.42
1.44
.72
.51
.3fl
.'i5
.02
.41
.47
.71
.01
1.6B 1.91
r.ARtm'4 nuiiuxiDE
.. _
A«ITHf1l-T|i
MI? AH si-
^_ _ _ _ _
126.06 60.50
9'. .»5 47.33
H5.J6 3C.01
U2.69 40.08
60-97 2^.45
60.22 30.32
57.46 34.63
46.58 23. B3
31.20 25.59
33.35 27.86
liRHETRlC
11! 'N SO
Ii3.n/,
BJ.?5
79. (if
73.36
Sf'.^l
52.37
47. H3
40.75
.62
1.74
.49
.69
.51
.76
.OR
.7?.
2 » . I 3 2 . M
2^.25 2.1H
NlIX lr.M/,11)
^ _
API rilMETIC
MI; AM so
L _.
2.23 0.99
?-9l
3-65
3.09 (
1.57
3.29
2.63
?.«7
.34
.32
.94-
.22
.21
.21
.47
2.40 0.94
?.32 0.76
c-rnNHTRic
IfiAM SO
2.01 .64
2 . 64
3.42
2.97
3. an
*.ll
2.4|
2.54
2.21
.59
.41)
.31
.40
.40
.52
.67
.51
2.22 1.36
TABLE 1-28
i:Y74 EMISSIHN FACTOU ppur,i.-y\ i
EMISSION PFSl'LTS FOK ST. LtJUlS
1972
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
19/2
1971
1974
1975
/5LDT
MLAH
MILES
N (K)
________
50 78.')
30 77.4
15 66.4
40 64. f>
45 50. 4
50 45.1
50 12.7
50 22-1
150 9.5
10 10.2
IIYOKriCARRUHS (fill/Ml)
ARITHMETIC
MF AH SO
9.5'» 5.46
7.40 6. HI
6.93 3.30
5.5S 3.13
4 .9«i 2.U1
3.90 1.V5
4.37 1.15
3.71 1.9?
1.59 1.39
1.33 2.41
Gl. DUE TRIG
MLAM si-
J
11.50
5.99
6.24
4.91
4.34
3.55
3.19
3.41
1 .29
.61
.no
.60
.63
.61
.54
.40
.49
.HO
1.24 2 . IH
CARIMIN MUNUXIOr (Ml/Ill )
ARITHMETIC
Mr. AN SU
125.18 59.35
95.62 40.08
96.74 43.34
75.02 30.71
60.62 34.53
54.20 34.96
47.40 25.17
47.45 30.43
26.53 26.08
21.66 15.62
i.r.UUFTRIC
MbAt! SO
11<..<>2
84.01
87.3?
63.62
50.'i6
44.00
. 4/:.(9
39.27
.55
.67
.60
.89
.91
.00
.61
.B6
1 51 . 3 H 2.33
17.4? 1.9r»
NOX CCM/MU
ARITHMETIC
MF AN SO
2.59
3.14
3.36
3.36
3.74
1.68
2.77
2.61
.01
.89
.20
.16
.21
.24
.20
.Ifl
2.31 0.97
2.11 0.8B
GEOMETRIC
MI AM SI)
2.39
2.71
J.14
3.17
1.53
3.46
2.57
2.3B
.51
.76
.47
.42
.43
.45
.50
.55
2.15 .45
1.97 1.46
-------
TABLE 1-29
FY74 CHISSIIIN FAC1UK PRDGKAM
FM1SSHIN RESULTS FOlt WASHIM.TIIN
1972 FTP
'
YEAR
——————
65-67
I960
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LOT
ME AM
HUES
N (K>
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 39.2
0 0.0
30 19. »
35 U.I
10 4.2
HYDROCARBONS (CM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
Mr. AN SO
O.OU 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o . on
0.03 0.00
0.00 0.00
!i.32 6.51
0.00 0.00
4.01 1.28
1.61 1.05
2.00 1.65
GEDMETRIC
MEAN so
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0 . 00 0 . 00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
4.20 1.7?
0.00 0.00
3.81 1.1*9
1.39 1.71
1.44 2.36
CARUIJN MONOXIDE (KM/MI)
ARITIIML'IIC
MEAN SO
O.OO 0.00
O.OO O.OO
0 .00 0 . 00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
53.40 37.66
O.OO O.OO
46.27 21.12
27-94 17.47
22.46 22.44
r.EDIIETRIC
Ml- AM SO
___ __ _____J
d.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
n. oo r.oo
0.00 0.00
• •.00 0.00
44.27 1. "4
o.oo o.oo
44.33 1.52
111. 81 I.M4
IS. 29 2.49
NOX (GM/MI)
—
ARITHMETIC
MFAN SU
L _ _ _ .
O.OO O.OO
o.oo o.oo
O.O>') O.OO
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.oo'
4.67 1.57
o.oo o.oo
3.40 1.81
3.03 1.1ft
3.96 1.19
GEOMETRIC
.1C AN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
o.oo o.oo
4.45 1.36
0.00 O.OO
3.01 1.64
2.81 1.50
3.80 1.37
TABLE 1-30
FY74 IMISSHiri FAClOF PRM.rf I
F.MISSHIN REOIMS H)R ALL CI T 11 ', I Xf.FI'T LllS AMGLIES ANQ 01 NVEI
F1P
YEAR
--____
65-67
1966
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
MEAN
MILliS
M IK)
|.
126 P0.8
77 69.5
88 62.5
99 J>8.B
113 48.5
176 41.9
128 29.0
193 20.2
587 8.8
50 8.2
IIYORUC ALBUMS (G.1/NI)
_
ARITHMETIC
ME AM SO
9.97 8.61
7.46 7.20
(> . 7 :j 'j . ** 8
0.20 11.95
5.98 6 . li 1
4.76 4.98
3.77 1.96
4.05 _.OB
1.70 1.36
1.80 1.53
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SP
— — .
fl.41
6.14
5 .97
5.04
4.70
4.00
3.47
3.61
1 .'«!
.66
.71
.*>0
.65
.77
.64
.46
.56
.79
1.40 1.97
CARHdN MIJMIJXIDE C.M/11»
ARITHMETIC
ML AH SO
122.03 56.80
98.33 49.91
92.87 43.63
7U.08 39.29
65.79 42.77
62.49 54.15
53.05 42.80
49.58 27.94
29.43 26.77
25.30 21.64
(.1 (METRIC
Ml All SI)
109. (.n
8'-. J2
HJ.44
6 7 . •> 7
55.95
49. '10
44. 13
4?. 6?
.61
.70
.61
.110
.75
.95
.79
.75
21 .47 2. IB
1 >«.')? 2.34
Nl)X (CM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
Ml AH SO
-_.
/.no
?.47
4 . ()6
3.51
3.83
3.99
3 . 00
2.93
2.M
.35
.77
.71
.32
.31
.43
.68
.4?
.02
2.57 1.06
GEOMETRIC
Mf AN SO
2.51
3.06
1».70
3.27
3.60
3.71
2.66
?.62
2.3?
.61
.68
.56
.47
.45
.51
.59
.61
.50
2.30 1.45
-------
TABLE 1-31
FY74 HMISSIUN FACTliK f'RIIGKA't
FHISSIPN RCSUITS FUR OFNVER
1972 FTP
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
197*
1975
75LOT
HE AN
MILES
N (K)
— — •
0 0.0
o o.o
. 0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
25 40.9
27 32.8
30 24.6
35 13.5
10 14.1
MYORlltftKBlJUS IGH/HII
j
ARITHMETIC
MFAM SO
(__ _ ___ ____—-
0.00 O.OO
O.OO 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 n. OO
0.00 0.00
7.07 5.90
5.14 1 . 79
6.02 5.21
2.64 1.24
2.98 1.99
GKOHgTRIC
MtAN SD
_ j
0.00 O.OO
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.90 0.00
0.00 0.00
6.03 1.63
'..89 1.39
5.19 |.5«
2.41 1.55
2.47 1.94
CARBON IHIMUXIOR H.N/MII
_ _ ___ — _ j
ARITHHFTIf
HI Ah SO
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.c-o
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
93. V, 45.49
OR. 61 33.04
93.23 46. O3
55.85 29.40
53.04 32.95
C,£TIMETRIC
Ml M4 SO
O.OO O.OO
0.00 0.00
O.OO O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
84.32 1.5B
13. 40 1.42
85.36 1.49
49.13 1.71
43. 8fl 1.78
Mi IX IGH/Hll
i ____________ __ —
AKIIHHETIC
HK AN SO
_ _
0.00 O.OO
A.t)0 O.OO
O.OO O.OO'
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
2.61 1.15
2.02 1.23
1.85 0.85
1.65 0.63
1.R3 O.76
GEIItlFTRIC
MHAII sn
O.OO O.OO
0.00 O.OO
o.oo o.oo
o.oo o.on
o.oo o.oo
2.39 1.54
1-78 1.63
1.64 1.71
1.54 1.47
1.67 1.60
TABLE 1-32
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR LOS ANGFLES
197? FTP
YEAR
______
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LOT
HEAD
HILES
N
|.
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
0 0.0
o o.o
25 49.5
27 32.8
30 22.6
35 8.1
10 9.2
HYDROCARBONS (GM/Mp
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
L
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.51 1.75
3.98 3.79
2.87 1.43
0.75 0.31
GEOMETRIC
ME AM SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.19 1.55
3.30 1.67
2.61 1.55
0.68 1.6Q
1
1.23 0.65 I
1.1 1 1.60
CARBON MONOXIDE (CM/MI)
ARITHMETIC
MF.AN SD
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
48.06 2R.19
44.35 27.12
44.26 28.91
10.26 7.63
18.10 20.01
GEOMETRIC
MEAH SO
.__
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
41.69 1.80
38.13 1.75
37.30 1.79
7.98 2.06
12.15 2.41
N(1X (GN/HI)
|,
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
________
——————— —————— _ — .
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
4.15 1.73
3.76 1.51
2-57 1,53
2.42 1.13
2.17 0.92
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SD
0.00 O.OQ
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
3.79 1.59
3.46 1.55
2.23 1.6B
2.22 1.50
2.00 1.53
-------
TABLE 1-33
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR ALL CITIES EXCEPT LOS ANGELES AND DENVER
1
1 INERTIA HT.
1 IIISI
i <>2000
1 HC
j CO
1 MOX
IFUft ECDNOHV
(2001-2500
1 HC
1 CO
I MOX
IFUEI ICUNOHV
(2501-1000
( HC
1 CO
NOX
IFUEL tcoMonv
Iinoi-i5oo
1 HC
1 CO
1 NOX
IFUEL ECnHOHV
|_
1*501-4000
1 HC
1 CO
MOX
FUEl ECONOMY
4001-4500
HC
HO?
FUEl ECONOHV
4501-50OO '
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOHV
>5000
HC
CO
MOX
FUEl ECONOMY
TOTAL
HC
CO
NOX
FUEL ECONOMY
65-67
HE AM SO
H* 5
5.67 1.17
62.47 9.96
2.01 0.10
24.47 2.02
N- 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
N- 20
11.07. I. 01
91.65 56.71
1.16 1.95
15.56 2.64
N- 10
7.56 1.19
101.60 11.24
2.57 0.04
14.12 1.20
N- 49
9.74 6.26
110.00 64.22
9.01 1.40
12.11 • 2.00
M- IT
19.12 17.71
157.64 19. M
2.41 1.12
10.17 1.01
H* 3
•.44 1.40
199.07 21.00
1.81 0.56
9.59 0.15
N- 2
1.15 1.19
165.91 25.55
2.05 0.51
.9.55 0.21
11*126
9.97 1.61
122.01 56.10
2.60 1.15
12.9] 2.75
l?6t 1969
MEAN . so MEAN so
N« 2 I N. 1
9.48 5.30 I 6.90 6.16
119.24 67.62 1 $9.60 22.51
1.76 1.10 I 1.91 0.52
18.54 1.61 I 20.41 1.64
H* I | M* 1
6.51 0.00 I 1.61 1.62
147.01 0.00 1 76.61 46.10
0.49 0.00 | 1.49 2.11
16.10 0.00 1 20.12 2.B4
H* 12 1 M. 10
4.61 1.76 j 6.O7 2.55
57.52 25.75 1 66.06 |7.92
1.77 2.50 1 1*41 1.37
17.01 1.72 1 |6.1* 1.20
N- 21 1 M« 21
6.49 7.76 1 6.07 2.O4
65.17 40.06 1 91.99 42. 3»
3.63 1.47 I 4.06 1-74
11.61 2.15 1 -13.31 1.29
N« 21 1 M- 29
1.91 10.62 I 6.15 3.39
114.26 45.26 I 102.24 41-66
1.11 1.60 j 1.96 1-57
12.01 1.50 1 12.22 1.26
II* 17 I H- 16
6.61 2.01 I 6.67 3.36
121.10 60.52 1 106.17 42.07
1.70 1.59 1 5.10 1-64
10.77 1.01 1 11.04 C.92
M* 2 II H- 2
2.61 1.12 II 2.14 0.30
65.74 14.59 H 44.26 9.32
4.14 2.90 N 1.19 0-76
9.69 1.05 » 9.79 0.42
N- 0 M H- 0
O.OO 0.00 N 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 H 0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00 H 0.00 O.OO
o.oo o.oo II o.oo o.oo
N* 77 1 N- II
7.46 7.20 1 6.71 1.91
96.11 49.91 i 92-BI 41.6}
1.47 1.77 I 4.06 1.71
12.77 2.57 1 12.17 2.36
1970
MEAN SO
II* 6
3.50 1.61
35.15 19.16
2.42 0.01
22.90 1.91
M* 4
3.11 0.7)
26.24 14.72
1.93 1.43
24.40 2.12
N* 14
4.B? 2.70
69.34 40.01
3.47 1.62
IS. SI 2.69
N> 25
9.14 17.20
66.0) 3*. 22
3.16 1.15
12.91 2.23
N- 31
6.02 2.97
69.36 41.60
1.10 1.27
11.64 0.61
M- 17
5.3* 1.14
6). 41 25.16
4.24 1.26
11.2) 0.66
N- 1
1.67 0.26
52.45 24.42
4.31 O.H6
10.63 0.79
N» 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
O.OO 0.00
o.oo o.oo
N- 99
6.20 6.95
?8.6» 19.??
1.51 1.12
11.04 2.61
1971
MEAN SO
N* 6
9.76 13.76
46.94 11.96
2.12 0-69
21.06 2.31
H* 12
4.26 2.50
46.16 22.79
1.35 1.5*1
20.79 1.93
M* 11
4.27 |.I7
56.10 27.13
1.64 0.61
15.95 |.5!
H* 27
4.91 2-64
57. SI 14.65
1.75 1.14
13.06 1.26
H* 22
5.42 5.70
59.61 21.12
4.06 1.25
• 12.27 0.61
M- 26
6.77 10.66
61.15 21.21
4.10 1.21
10.41 1.60
M* 7
4.12 2.52
114.66 122.60
1.74 1.51
6.90 1.79
H* 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
O.OO O.OO
0.00 0.00
. H'lll
5.98 6.6|
65.29 42.77
1163 I.JI 1
12.62 1.19 1
1972
MEAN SO
M- 1
4.17 0.00
44.91 0.00
2.17 0.00
21.00 O.OO
N> 36
9 . 76 1 . 39
49. OR 46. Ol
3.21 1-31
19.9) 2.94
H* 23
1.18 0.97
47.52 23.24
4.00 1.20
16.71 1.14
H* 10
5.16 5.O7
54.11 39.61
1.71 1.21
12.41 1.27
N' 21
4.56 1.54
76.92 29.81
4.08 1.12
11.17 1.17
N* 42
6.44 6.62
79.14 87.16
4.11 1.11
10.42 1.62
N. 15
4.29 1.54
70.86 11.79
• 5.22 1.72
9.71 0.85
M« 6
1.22 l.ll
44.63 17.52
4.71 1.93
9.18 1.45
N-176
4.76 4.98
62.49 54. |5
}.99 1.41
12.67 1.57
1971
MEAN SB
H* O
O.OO 0.00
0.00 O.OO
O.OO 0.00
O.OO O.OO
II* 21
1.54 1.18
42.01 21.16
2.44 0.86
20. O9 1.66
H* 15
1.40 1.61
49.30 17.51
1.79 2.41
16.96 2.91
N* 12
1.74 1.61
63.65 11.20
2.11 1.05
12.12 1.66
H* 29
1.64 1.06
45.06 25.72
l.ll 2.20
11.41 1.06
N* 26
1.75 I. 10
55.76 26.14
1.27 1.04
10.66 O.66
N* 19
4.66 4.12
69.61 67.61
l.ll 1.70
9.19 1.12
N- 2
1.24 0.29
64.01 42.04
2.16 0.61
9.11 O.64
N*I28
1.77 1.96
51.05 42.60
1.00 1.46
12.37 1.26
1974
NEAH SD
N* 1
i:46 0.00
11.14 0.00
5.72 0.00
20. 50 O.OO
N* 21
1.77 1.12
44.54 17.1*
2.65 0.96
21.49 2.61
N* 11
1.17 1.67
17.77 16.66
2.12 1.27
16.49 2.57
N* 21
1.19 1.62
50.51 25.14
1.19 1.40
11.70 2.2)
N* 42
1.91 1.55
52.96 26.29
2.57 l.ll
11.16 1.12
H* 4»
5.00 4.64
54.96 11.17
3.20 1.42
10.41 0.62
N* 22
1.49 1.01
44.10 26.64
1.72 1.92
9.46 0.68 '
N« 6
4.95 2.74
74.60 46.00
3.11 1.49
9.01 0.62
11-19)
4.05 2.66
49.58 27.91
2.9) 1.42
12.15 1.17
1975
HE AH SO
H- IT
1.62 1.54
16. 76 11.14
1.64 0.66
21.16 2.45
H- 56
1.16 1.13
19.62 11.14
2.24 0.92
19.41 2. IT
N*IOO
1.56 0.16
21. SI 19.22
2.41 1.00
16.02 2.41
H* 85
1.57 1.1*
26.21 26.45
2.6T 1.21
13.65 1.72
H«I06
1.57 1.04
12.74 26.91
2.51 0.94
12.44 1.40
K»I29
1.76 1.61
11.45 29.1*
2.69 1.01
10*68 1.21
N* 54
1.16 1.12
16.62 10.57
2.49 0.14
10.19 !.!•
M* 10
2.11 1.16
51.75 17.19
2.62 1.16
9.67 0.91
N-587
1.70 1.16
29.41 26.77
2.5| 1.02
12.61 3.15
75101
Iff AH SO
II* 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
H* 0
O.OO O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
O.OO O.OO
N* 0
O.OO O.OO
O.OO O.OO
0.00 0.00
0.00 O.OO
N> 4
1.90 1.09
45.59 21.25
2.14 0.66
11.56 1.02
N. 41
1.66 1.54
21.94 19.71
2.46 1.01
11.66 1.59
«• 2
1.75 0.66
5i.22 26.61
4.47 O.01
11.44 0.49
M- 1
1.57 0.00
22.59 0.00
4.12 0.00
10. 1O O.OO
M- 0
0.00 O.OO
0.00 0.00
0. 00 0.00
0.00 0.00
N* SO
I.BO 1.51
25.10 21.64
2.57 1.06
11.62 1.50
oo
-------
TABLE 1-34
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR CHICAGO
IDLE HC AND IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
N
'so
30
35
40
45
51
51
53
168
10
MEAN
MILES(K)
79.01
56.66
54.84
49.04
44.07
35.89
24.87
13.34
6.11
3.15
IDLE HC
MEAN so
937 312
565 651
493 467
444 589
458 524
316 346
355 337
263 266
117 128
42 20
IDLE CO
MEAN SD
5.86 3.16
5.92 2.93
5.76 3.68
4.56 3.35
4.27 2.69
3.44 2.85
3.21 3.23
3.14 3.74
1.46 2.27
0.09 0.16
TABLE 1-35
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR
EMISSION RESULTS F3R
PROGRAM
HOUSTON'
IDLE HC AMD IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
N
0
0
0
0
0
' 25
0
30
117
10
MEAN
MILES(K)
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
47.64
0.00
24.66
9.65
11.09
IDLE HC
"JEAN SD
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
289 270
0 0
274 302
98 117
105 95
IDLE CO
MEAN SD
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0*00
0.00 0.00
3.01 2.29
0.00 0.00
2.32 2.36
1.48 2.09
1.13 1.48
1-19
-------
TABLE 1-36
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR PHOENIX
IDLE HC AND TDLE CU UST RESULTS
MODEL
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
N
'26
17
18
19
23
25
27
30
117
10
MEAN
MILES(K)
a*. 14
78.16
69.97
67.06
53.74
44.96
29.97
25.26
10.25
0.46
iOLE MC
MEAM so
650 438
436 427
351 434
23* 130
391 494
?.l* 119
1!>2 H8
14? 76
93 84
94 93
IDLE CtJ
MEAN SD
5.19 3.40
3.45 3.30
4.25 2.27
3.57 2.49
3.35 3.19
3.81 2.79
2.53 2.53
2.14 2.30
1.29 ' 1.96
1.18 1.80
TABLE 1-37
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RFSULTS FOP. ST.
IDLE HC AND IDLE CO TfST RESULTS
MODEL
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
N
-__ _ -
50
30
35
40
45
50
- 50
50
. 150
10
MEAN
MILES(K)
78.86
77.44
66.38
64.55
50.38
45.05
32.72
22.09
9.54
10.20
10LE HC
HE AN so
1039 612
74? 623
84?. 590
776 545
675 547
652 551
634 580
467 398
191 259
312 598
IDLE CU
MEAN SD
6.11 3.44
5.00 3,13
6.44 3,09
5.37 3.29
4.75 3.49
4.02 3.52
3.81 3.71
3.38 3.75
1.57 2.21
0.98 1.85
1-20
-------
TABLE 1-38
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RFSULTS FOR WASHINGTON
IDLE nc AND IDLE en TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
N
•o
0
0
0
0
25
0
30
35
10
MEAN
MILES(K)
0.00
' 0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
39.18
n.oo
19.79
11*06
8.23
IDLE MC
MEAN so
0 0
0 0
0 0
n 0
0 0
434 513
0 0
?33 240
1J.7 166
1? 66
IDLE CO
MEAN SO
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0*00 0.00
0.00 0.00
O'.OO 0.00
3.27 2.60
0.00 0.00
2.51 2,93
1.13 2.51
0.40 0.77
TABLE 1-39
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOP ALL CJTIES EXCEPT LOS AliGELFS AND DENVEK
IDLfc MC AMD IDLE CO TC3T RESULTS
MODEL
YEAR
65-67
I960
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
N
____-.
126
77
88
99
113
176
128
193
587
50
MEAN
MILES(K)
80.84
69.50
62.52
58.76
48.55
41.92
29.01
20.22
8.81
8.23
l^LE HC
MF.^N SO
918 601
606 AQ2
. 60'3 546
53° 551
531 537
411 440
421 474
294 309
)2R 170
125 281
IDLE cn
MEAN SD
5.82 3.31
5.02 3.19
5.72 3.27
4.70 3.22
4.28 3.15
3.57 2,94
3.30 3.31
2.82 3.25
1.44 2.17
0.76 1.39
1-21
-------
TABLE 1-40
FY74 EMISSION F/.U TIJR
EMISSION RESULTS FOR DEMVFK
IDLE HC AND IDLE CT 1LSF RESULTS
MUDF.L
YEAR
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
N
• 0
0
0
0
0
25
27
30
35
10
MEAN
MILES(K)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,00
40.91
. 32.80
24.63
13.53
1'».10
HUE HC
MF AN SO
0 0
0 0
" 0
0 0
0 0
48* 430
?37 136
ZB'i 21 *
13? 107
H9- 105
I OLE CO
MEAN 3D
0.00 0.00
o.oo o.oo
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
5.49 2-88
3.90 3.19
3.61 2.67
1.61 2.18
1.25 2.17
TABLE 1-41
FY74 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION RESULTS FOR LOS ANGELES
IDLE HC AND IDLE CO TEST RESULTS
MODEL
YEAR J
65-67
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
75LDT
N
h
0
0
0
0
0
25
27
30
35
10
MEAN
MILES(K)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0*00
49.55
32.76
22.62
8.13
9*24
IDLE HC
MEAN SD
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
99 97
147 180
78 104
33 43
39 45
IDLE CO
MEAN SD
0.00 0.00
0.00 0,00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
1.74 1.61
1.75 1.72
1.44 1.62
0.14 0.44
0*60 1.13
1-22
-------
APPENDIX II
PERCENT RESPONSES TO QUESTIONNAIRE
.11-1
-------
Did you buy the vehicle new or used?
4.
5.
New
Used
75.7
24.3
How long ago did you purchase the vehicle?
0-3 months
3-12 months
1-2 years
Over 2 years
On a yearly basis, how many
0-5000
5-10000
10-15000
15-20000
20-30000
Over 30000
Where is the driving done?
Downtown Driving
Suburban Driving
Expressway Driving
For what purpose?
To and from work
Shopping
Business
Other
9.2
35.0
17.5
38.3
miles is this vehicle driven?
9.3
35.2
33.9
14.5
5.3
1.9
All Most Some
12.3 38.5 25.2
4.4 46.6 39.5
1.8 19.6 64.9
All Most Some
12.3 38.5 25.2
8.9 19.0 53.3
3.6 8.7 23.3
6.6 11.4 57.2
None
23.9
9.5
13.7
None
24.0
18.7
64.3
24.8
II-2
-------
6. Would you consider that the vehicle has been maintained to the
manufacturers specifications?
Yes 87.5
No 3.1
Don't know 9.4
7. How long ago was the last oil change?
0-6 mo. 88.4
6-12 mo. 6. 5
Over 1 year 0. 2
Don't know 4.9
8. How long ago was the last engine tune-up?
0-6 mo. 64. 8
6-12 mo. 21. 7
Over 1 year 5.1
Don't know 8. 3
9. Who performed this tune-up?
Dealer 42.9
Independent garage 26. 5
Tune-up clinic 2.6
Yourself or friend 18.6
Don't know 9.4
10. Has the vehicle or engine been altered by the installation of exhaust
headers, modified exhaust system components, or performance
carburetor components, camshaft, or ignition equipment?
Yes 2.2
No 89.7
Don't know 8. 1
II-3
-------
11. Has the vehicle been operated 50 percent of the time on improved
roads, in competitive events, or in hauling or transporting loads
heavier than for which it was designed?
Yes 0.8
No 97.3
Don't know 1.9
12. Has this vehicle ever had major damage in any of the following areas?
(check one or more.)
Yes No
Cooling System 2.1 97.9
Engine 2.0 98.0
Fuel Tank 1.1. 98.9
Exhaust System 1.5 98. 5
No Damage 94.5 5.5
13. If the vehicle requires unleaded fuel, has it been operated on leaded
fuel?
Not Required 55.5
Never 31.1
Once or twice 1.6
Occasionally 1.6
Regularly 4.8
Don't know 5.4
14. Have you or others noticed a hydrogen sulfide (rotten eggs) odor
in this vehicles exhaust?
Never 78. 1
Rarely 2.0
Occasionally 5.2
Regularly 3.3
Don't know 11.4
H-4
-------
APPENDIX III
SUMMARY OF RESULTS FROM FY 71, FY 72, AND
FY 73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAMS
III-l
-------
TABLE III-l
(MISSION FACTO* PROGRAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS ton ALL cities EXCLUDING DENVER- AND LOS ANC.ELESI
1*75 FT*
YCAR
11947
11948
11949
11*70
11971
11972
11973
11*74
(TOTAL
1
1
1
1
(MAN
IMLfS
N 1 IKI
1
HYDROCARBONS CM/HI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
NCAM SO 1 NBAN SO
.1
CARBON MONOXIDE GH/HI
ARITHMETIC | GEOMETRIC
1
NCAM SO I Nf AN W
1
4t| 48.11 8.45 5.841 7.*6 -1.5TI 108.2* 33.0*1 93.14
721 41.0) 7.0* .5*1 5.72 1.7OI 74.7» 44.431 44.32
84| 57.81 4.30 .771 5.1* -1.4*1 47.4* 34.2*1 54.08
88) »1.4| 5.07 .171 4.45 1.451 45.02 24.»l| 5«.38
10« I 37. *l 4.22 .3*1 3.80 1.531 51.53 32.2*1 43.88
1201 28.71 4.17 .851 3.3* 1.4*1 44.74 42.4OI 44.49
1401 18.11 3.59 .411 3.33 1.451 44.94 32.901 38.89
401 5.8| 3.0» 1.221 2.87 1.441 35.92 24.201 29.40
720| 3*.«l 3.0ft 4.701 4.27 1.48| 41.84 41.301 50.52
II 1 1 1
MX CM/MI
ARITHMETIC | GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MAN SO
1
.721 4.04 1.841 3.54 1.711
.741 5.21 2.481 4.44 -1.471
.751 5.54 2.141 5.12 1.541
.541 4.95 2.081 4.53 1.551
.751 4.83 2.011 4.43 1.531
.001 4.80 2.0*| 4.3* 1.37)
.84) 3.47 1.431 3.17 1.54|
.881 2.90 1.191 2.71 1.451
.911 4.52 2.121 4.04 1.431
FV73 EMISSION FACTOR fROGRAM
EMISSION LtVFLS FOR DENVER
1*73 FT*
YEAR
11967
11968
11969
I19TO
11971
11*72
11*73
11974
1 TOTAL
1
1
1
1
(Mb AN
IMILES
N I IKI
1
171 66.4
HI 43.3
211 34.7
221 4S.7
271 32.7
30| 27.S
331 14.3
101 5.3
180) 37.1
1
HYURLCARBGNS GH/Nl
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MfAN
1
9.87 2.B7I ».30
7.65 3.2*1 7.0*
7.07 2.201 4.74
6.5tt 2.071 4.24
3.51 1.501 5.31
3.40 1.921 5.09
4.54 1.7*1 4.23
4.19 0.301 4.14
•.17 2.431 5.48
1
'
SO
.33
.4*
.38
.37
.31
.42
.48
.12
.30
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI '
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO I MtAM
144.12 42.441 139.19
*7.00 34.341 91.00
104.41 38.4*| 47.18
105.18 31.4*1 100.36
*4. *1 22.181 94.24
90.33 53.29) 79.80
84.70 41.271 74.44
78.98 14.7ZI 77.79
1 *«.04 41.441 90.57
1
'
SO
.41
.44
.51
.38
.28
.45
.71
.20
.53
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC I GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO 1 MEAN
f
2.22 .331 1.91 ]
3.21 .371 2.92 1
3.74 .44) 3.41
3.22 .351 2.93
3.18 .251 2.9*
3.2* .351 2.97
1.94 0.871 1.79
1.81 0.821 1.48
2.B7 1.441 2.54
1 1
SO
L.78I
.581
.381
.541
.411
.601
.54|
.48|
.441
1
1
FY73 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FUH. LOS ANGELES
1975 FT»
WAR
11947
11948
11949
11970
11971
11*72
11*73
11*74
ITOTALI
1
1
1
INC AN
IMILES
N I IXI
1
HYDROCARBONS CM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MtAN SO 1 MEAN SO
1
CARBON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN SO 1 MEAN SO
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC | GEOMETRIC
1
MEAN so I MEAN so
1
171 42.11 6.33 *.21l 4.45 2.13) 74.55 43.03) 4*.34 2.73)
18| 43.31 4.37 4.421 5.34 1.801 72.41 47.311 54.37 2.14)
211 4S.O| 5.32 2.771 4.R3 1.50) 6*. 22 3*. 50) 5ft.*7 l.*l|
221 51.01 4.50 4.*3l 4.93 l.VOl 44.*5 51.441 53.47 1.821
271 47.31 3.85 2.301 3.37 1.481 51.21 45.471 3«.0« 2.0*1
30| 32.9) 3.54 2.07| 3.11 1.48) 41.35 19.04) 37.29 1.39|
35) 21.5) 3.83 4.24) 3.04 1.771 3V. 3* 12.721 31.24 1.9OI
10| 11.3) 2.84 0.411 2.78 1.251 33.70 18.171 29.49 1.701
1801 43.31 4.75 4.771 3.79 1.811 34.42 45.431 42.13 2.031
II 1 1 1 1
.97
.87
.41
.5*
.17
.41
.04
.14
.32
.401 *.SO l.V4|
.84| 3.34 1.8*1
.401 3.32 1.541
.34) 3.21 U70|
.041 3.01 1.3*1
.*7| 3.50 1.29J
.131 2.84 1.47J
.211 !.*• 1.481
L.34I 3.02 1.581
1 1
NOX CORRECT60 FOR HUMIDITY
m-2
-------
TABLE IH-2
rvn MISSION FACTO* MOCRAM
COMPWITI MISSION uvfli* m «.«. einti IKIUOIM otMvit AW u*
If 72 FTP
1 < ttELOM |
1 LEVtL • |
IMCAN 1
IMIL6S 1
YEAR Nil*) HC CO NOX|
1 1
11467 68) 66.11 0 2 33 1
1468 721 61. wl * ,8 U|
11*6* 64| 97.81 2 11 81
11*70 88| 91.4| 6 7 151
11*71 11081 37.4| 23 23 221
11*72 11201 28.71 34 28 19 1
11*73 11401 18.11 41 37 421
11*74 1 40| 5.81 57 62 651
TOTAL|72i>l 34.81 21 22 2»l
1 1 1 1 1
NOX CORRECT cO FOR HUMIDITY
HC 3.4 M/MI
CO 34.0 GM/MI
NQX 3.0 GM/MI
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMtTK. I
1
MEAN SO I
1
7l»7
' 7.14
6.A2
4.83
«.6«
4.07
3.42
5./S
6.431
4.331
6. 11 |
3.731
2.84|
4.27|
2.C6|
1.491
GEOMETRIC
MtAN
6.6* 1
6.45 1
5.94 1
9.43
4.39
4.C5
J.75
3.1%
4.83 1
1
1
1
SO 1
1
.97)
.7 I
.60!
.ill
Is.i
1
LAhbClN MCNCXIOt CM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
NUN SO I
1
cl.62
71..-
6>Ii5
7Z.S.6
98. ht
Si.i-.!
41.t9|
I*.C3|
39.141
46.171
33.621
24.701
1
uEkMEMK 1
1
MtAN SO t
1
1C7.72
T7.e6
71.44
72. B 1
43l»9
34.82
1.691
I. Ml
1.9/1
ll/*l
1.7t|
1
NQX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN SO I
3.91
4.«7
i./V
4.tl
4.7:
..ob
1.611
2.OI
UV6I
1.6<|
1.4.11
1
GEOMET
MIAN
J.4V
4^31
3. to
t.av
1.731
1.681
1.531
1.6u|
1.311
1.351
1.54)
l.*4|
1.621
I
1
FY73 feMl^SION FACTOR
EMISS1CN LtVcuS I--JII
147.
YEAR
11967
11960
11969
11970
11971
11972
11973
11974
(TOTAL
1
1 1
1 1
t _ 1
IMILESI
N 1 (M 1
' 1 1
171 66.*|
181 63.51
211 S».7I
221 *5.n
271 32.71
301 27.51
331 14.31
101 9.3)
1801 37.11
1 1
HC.
C
4
3
1C
2G
w
7
t BCL'JM |
LEVEL • 1
1
CO NO X|
1
0 821
9 5C|
. * *7|
0 99)
0 511
6 46 1
8 881
0 901
3 63|
1
HYCRuCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC I
1
MEAN SO |
11.C2 3.38)
6.41 3.311
7.98 2.59|
7.53 2.7=1
6.16 1.74)
9.42 2.C3I
3.03 1.991
4.47 0.991
6.87 2.Y9I
1
GEOMETRIC
MtAN
10.53 1
7.86
7.SH
7.C5
5.42
5.99
4.7C
4.44 1
6. 30 1
CAVdON MQNGXIOc uM/Mt
ARITHMETIC 1 GEOMtlRIC
1
so MEAN sc I MEAN
.341 1SA.94 47.021 144.00 1
.4S| 1)6.76 36.971 10C.C8 1
.401 115.52 41.811 1C6.9I 1
.461 117.57 35.521 111.75
.3*1 106.66 *5.17| 1C3.49
.421 98.44 S2.wl| 88.06
.46) 93.34 4l.»2| 83.53
.131 83.37 14.64) 82.il.
.5:1 138.54 43.351 99.72
1 1
1
1
1
1
SO 1
1
.431
.4t|
.511
.41)
1*611
.69)
.181
.9-1
NOX WH1
ARITHMETIC 1
1
MEAN kO I
3.13
3.67
3.14
3.19
U99
i.a*
1.331
1.281
1.611
l.*b|
1.151
1.311
(,.431
I.. 67|
1
GEOMETRIC
MEAN S3
2.*fa
3.33
2.66
2.92
3..0
1.8C
1.74
2.33
1.76)
1.5*1
I. SSI
1.961
1.391
1.371
1.611
1.3V|
1 .6-
1
NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
HC 3.* GM/MI
CO 39.0 iM/MI
NOX 3.0 GM/MI
FV73 k»issiON FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LGS ANGELES
I97t FTP
YEAR
1967
11968
11969
11970
11971
1972
1973
1974
TOTAL
1
1
(MEAN
IMILES
N | (M
• 1
171 62.11
18| 63.3)
211 63.01
221 51. Cl
271 47.51
30| 32.9|
351 21.51
101 11.31
180) 43.51
1 1
NOX CORRECTED
t
I-
\ HC 3«-4 GM/MI
1 CO 39.0 CM/MI
I NOX 3.0 GM/MI
T 8ELOM |
LEVEL * 1
HC
29
16
9
la
*0
SC
37
70
37
FOR
CO
29
27
9
13
33
43
60
50
15
1
1
NOXl
1
38|
27|
331
361
3CI
371
90|
46 1
1
HYDROCARBONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
MEAN
7.98
7.01
6.i6
4.38
t.C.8
4.27.
3.2,6
9.44
1
SC. I
1
11.48)
9.361
3.46|
9.901
2.901
2.301
il77|
9.9»|
1
GEOMETRIC
MEAN
9.0C
3.84
5.92
5.6C-
3.85
3.59
3.40
3.18
4.20
SO
2.161
1.8v I
1.5* I
K67|
l.67|
1.78|
1.26|
1
CARSON MtwoxibE GM/MI
ARITHMtTIC I
MEAN
87.C6
85.;*
82.61
7H.33
63.33
08.89
47.94
4C.b2
63.21
|
SO I
1
72.2CI
78.28)
*9.49|
61.811
50.621
22.36)
38.411
IV. 331
52.94|
GEOMETRIC
MtAN
6? .63
66.30
64.32
65.41
49.51
44.34
39.26
36.8*
31.62
SI*
2.371
1.V9I
1.76)
2.061
1.56)
1.811
1.621
1.96)
KOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC 1
MEAN
2.8(1
3.79
slii
i.13
3.63
3.;:
2.23
I
SO 1
1
1.511
1.8«|
1.4al
l.Olj
t.97|
1.151
1.18)
1.3-1
1
GE&MfeTRli
McAN
2.**
3.13
2.23
3.13
3.92
2.75
2.c5
2.V7
HUMIDITY
SO
1 .96)
£ «£J 1
I.s7 I
1.721
1.371
1.281
I. ill
l.*9|
1.6*|
1
1
III-3
-------
TABLE III-3
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR MMMN
COMPOSITE CMISStON LEVtU KM Ml CITIES UCLUOIN8 DENVER AND LOS AN8CUS
1971 FIT
TCM
1966
1H7
TOTAL
19S»
1969
1*70
1971
\»n
TOTAL
M
»»^»
SI
72
140
M
88
IDS
120
140
•540
MIAN
MILES
IK)
~71.7
*7.0
69.3
57.9
51.2
36.8
26.4
14.8
34.4
HTOROCANW
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
9.55 8.55
7.84 4.81
8.67 6.97
6.18 5.01
4.83 2.53
4.89 4.21
3.94 2.22
3.02 2.22
4.39 3.45
DNS ON/MI
GEOMETRIC
MEAN ' SO
7.80 1.77
7.03 1.54
7.40 1.68
5.14 1.75
4.44 1.47
4.14 1.68
3.59 1.49
2.0 1.60
3.75 1.67
CARttOM MOM
AHITHMETIC
MEAN SO
95.6* 45.88
91.43 34.17
93.48 40.18
64.60 34.94
•62.31 34.18
•53.23 36.87
51.13 37.02
36.88 24..04
'51.78 34.64
9XIOC GM/MI
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
8S.03 7.66
84.70 '1.52
84.81 1.58
SS.3S .80
54.27 .71
•44.22 .84
42.18 .86
29.7* .99
42.27 1.93
MO* tM/MI
ARITHMETIC
NCM» SO
.3.19 1.61-
3.48 • ,1.69
"3.M 1.69
14.31 ,1.71
5.08 1.93
,4.35 !l.67
'4.39 11.58
4.56 1.59
4.50 1.70
GEOMETRIC
MC*N SO
2.78 ',1.82
3.11 11.64
2.93 11.73
3.94 1.51
4.66 1.56
4.04 1.48
'3.95 1.58
4.25 1.48
4.15 |1.S3
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
197S FT*
TEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970
1971 '
1972.
TOTAL
N
17
18
35
21
22
27
30'
35
135
MEAN
MILES
IK)
60.6
69.8
65.3
51.4
46.1
31.6
18.2
14.1
29.6
nrowoCAfcaONS GM/MI
AMirtiMETic
MEAN SO
9.78 6.60
13.92 9.46
11.91 8.35
6.89 3.70
5.97 1.28
5.56 1.56
5.19 1.74
4.75 2.42
5.54 2.33
GEOMETMIC
'MEAN so
8.58 1.60
11.78 1.76
10.10 1.71
6.28 1.51
5.83 1.26
5.37 1.30
4.97 1.34
4.39 1.45
5.20 1.41
CARttON MONOXIDE GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
123.56 54.33
1S7.S2 51.83
141.03 55.03
101.43 65.83
97.85 38.11 .
87.52 31.24
80.32 37.27 '
80.36 32.46
87.91 41.28
GEOMETRIC
MIAN SO
113.58 1.52
149.66 1.39
130.88 1.48
87.81 1.70
90.31 1.53
82.39 1.43
72.93 1.57
73.45 1.57
79.7* 1.56
MOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
2.30 1.60
1.77 1.10
2.03 1.37
2.86 1.25
2.93 1.47
3.32 1.11
2.74 1.31
3.08 1.39
2.99 1.31
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
1.79 !2.17
1.47 ;1.92
1.62
12.62
Z.61
3.14
2.48
2.78
.2.72
2.JH
1.54
1.65
1.43
l.SS
1.60
1.56.
FY72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
1975 FTP
TEA*
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
1970 •
1971
1972
TOTAL
«H
N
17
18
35
21
22
27
30
35
135
**"
BRREC
MEAN
MlLfS
IK)
73.0
66.7
69.7
65.0
49.5
40.2
32.1
17.6
37.9
ratVsr
HTOHUCAMHONS GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
7.46 11.98
5.36 4.44
6.38 8.86
6.97 5.50
5.42 5.3S
6.64 6.45
3.98 1.73
3.56 4.24
5.10 4.92
••^^^^•^^••^••i
Otifir.
GEOMETMIC
MIAN SO
4.97 2.03
4.29 1.92
4.60 1.97
5.66 1.86
4.39 1.81
5.2S 1.84
3.69 1.47
2.80 1.80
4.0S 1.84
CARtto* MONOXIDE GM/MI
AHITHMETIC
MEAN SO
86.90 43.27
75.38 46.21
80.98 44.01
60.05 29.10
71.61 33.01
78.47 38.32
59.66 26.48
46.68 24.06
62.07 31.84
GEOMETRIC
MtAN SO
76.30 1.74
63.01 1.89
69.16 1.81
53.06 .70
64.43 .63
69.91 .45
54.73 .52
41 .16 .67
54.56 1.68
NOX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
3.43 1.90
3.77 1.81
3.61 1.84
4.91 1.81
4.68 ,1.69
4.46 1.59
3.83 'l.OS
3.81 1.21
4.28 1.50
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
2.82 2.05
3.32 1.74
,3.07 11.89
' 14.53 11. 5?
'4.43 !l.40
•4.13 1.53
,3.68 1.34
:3.6S 1.3S
14.00 ] 1.44
in-4
-------
TABLE III-4
nn EMISSION FACTOR PWGRM
COMPOSITE {MISSION LEVaS FOR ALL CITIES EKLU01NS BEWE* AM LOS AJKCLES
1»72 flf
TEA*
19M
196*
TOTAL
1968
19M .
1970
1971
1972
TOTAL
N
68
72
140
84
88
108,
120 '
140
540
MEAN
MILES
IKI
71.7
67.0
69.3
57.9
51.2
36.8
26.4
14.8
34.4
« BELOM
LEVEL •
HC CO NOA
0 1 47
•0 3 49
a 2 48.
10 14 32
17 11 17
21 24 21 !
37 26 22
60 52 . 17
32 28 21 .
HTDHOCAkB
AKtTHMCTIC
MCAN SO
10.54 8.64
8.64 5.16
».S6 7.11
6.85 5.4*
5.54 3.14
5.64 5.04
4.41 2.50
X42 2.50
4.96 3.9S
ONS CM/HI
ocowcTRic
MEAN SO
8.81 1.72
7.76- 1.54
8.25 1.63
1.73 1.72
5.04 1.4*
4.71 1.68
4.00 I.JO
3.03 1.63
4.22 1.69
CARBON MOM
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
109. a 53.59
103.63 39.26
106.46 46.69
7S.84 41.35
76.73 41.94
66.15 4S.67
60.42 39.4S
43.79 25.84
62.31 40.40
OX ID* CM/HI
GEOMETRIC
NtAN SO
97.82 1.63
95.95 1.51
•M.e 1.57
:6S.*7 M.78
67.23 1.69
55.16 1.82
50.94 1.81
36.31 1.91
51.55- 1.89
MOX 9*V
MITHMCTIC
MEAN SO
3.09 11.54
3.3S 1.64
3.24 "1.S9
;4.12 11.67
:4.8V 11.90
,4.16 ,1.61
'4.24 ll.57
4.52 :1.S5
4.38 !1.66
Ml
aeoM
•CAN
,2.67
3.02
;2.84
3.75
4.43
3.85
3.89
4.23
4.03
CT«IC
SO
1.82
1.64
1.73
.57
.62
.51
.58
.47
1.55
FT72 EMISSION FACTO* PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR DENVER
1972 FT?
•
TEAR
1966
1967
TOTAL
1968
1969
19ft)
1971
1972
TOT At.
N
77
18
35
21
22
27
30
3S
135
MEAN
MILES
• 1RI
60.6
69.8
6S.3
61.4
46.1
31.6
18.2
14.1
29.6
% BELOM
LE¥EL •
HC CO HQt.
0 0 71
0 0 83
0 0 77
0 0 62
5 0 "73
0 0 48
3 7 63
14 9 49
5 4 58
NVOKOCAABONS GM/Ml
AMITHMETIC
HE AN SO
10.97 7.41
15.23 9.55
13.16 8.73
.23 5.22
.86 1.60
.36 1.72
.89 2.18
.61 4.34
6.43 3.41
GEOMETRIC
ME AM SO
9.64 1.59
13.16 1.70'
11.31 1.68
7.22 1.62
6.67 1.29
6.1S 1.30
S.59 1.37
4.97 1.53
5.92 1.46
CARBON MONOXIDE CM/MI
AMITHHEnC
MEAN SO
132.73 5S.71
172.00 51.43
152.93 56.39
121.51 83.14
113.92 42.50
102.9S 37.78
92.04 . 44.15
90.42 35.79
101.95 49.79
GEOMETRIC
MEAN SO
122.91 1.49
165.08 1.34
143.04 1.46
103.50 1.74
105.81 1.50
96.49 1.45
83.11 1.58
82.84 1.56
92.10 1.57
MX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MCAN SO
2.40 1.S7
1.67 0.90
2.02 1.31
2.66 ;1.20
2.79 il.38
.3.18 11.09
2.76 1.34
3.00 11.37
2.90 1.28
aCOMCTHIC
MCAM SO
1.92 :2.07
1.43 .1.81
,1.55 |1.9S
:2.37 .71
2.50 .60
1 3.00 .44
'2.48 .58
J2.71 .60
.2.52 (1.58 .
FT72 EMISSION FACTOR PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOR LOS ANGELES
1972 rtf
YEAR
1966
1967
TOTA4.
1968-
19691
1970;
19711
1972 '
TOTAL
N
17 ;
18
35
21
22
27
30
35
135
MEAN
MILES
Ml
73.0
66.7
69.7
65.0
49.5
40.2 '
32.1
17.6
37.9
» HCLOW
LEHtL •
HC CO NOA
12 6 47
28 11 26
»' 9 37
14 19 19
18 9 . 14
11 11 !i
33 10 27
57 31 31
30 17 22 .
HTOMUCAhHONS CM/M|
AMlTHHtriC
MEAN SO
7.97 11.31
6.25 4.75
7.09 8.50
7.63 5.54
6.24 5.50
7.51 7.18
4.54 1.77
4.07 4.87
5.77 5.32
GCO>*TM|C
MIAN SO
5.66 1.96
5.03 1.94
5.33 1.93
6.39 1.77
5.07 1.88
5.9* 1.8*
4.24 1.44
3.24 1.75
4.65 1.82
CARBON MONOXIDE CM/MI
AMITHMCTIC
MtAN SO
98.81 (2.27
87.77 52.25
93.13 47.30
71.74 32.31
84.26 32.63
90.14 42.49
69.39 26.88
55.77 25.41
72.83 33.97
GEOMETRIC
NtAN SO
88.8* 1.67
74.25 1.84
81.01 1.76
64.77 1.61
77.95 1.53
81.01 1.62
65.12 1.43
50.51 1.58
S5.53 ).60
MX GM/MI
ARITHMETIC
MCAM SO
3.41 1.97
3.70 1.75
13.56 1.84
' 4.94 '1.96
4.60 1.65
| 4.44 1.50
3.78 1.02
3.83 1.15
4.24 1.48
MS COMECTEO FOR HUMIDITY
OCOMCTHIC
MCAM SO
2.81 1 2.03'
3.27 : 1,72
3.04 . 1.87
14.54 .55
4.36 .39
4.15 .49
3.65 .33
,3.68 .33 ",
4.00 1.42" _
LEVELS
HC 3.4 SN/NI
00 39.0 GM/MI
NOI 3.0 GM/Nl
ni-5
-------
TABLE HI-5
(MISSION FACTOR PMOWM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS roil ALL CITIES CXCLUOIMft DENVER ANO LOS ANGELES
I«T» FTP
YEAH
TOTAL
«£•
ur*
196H
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
4S8
69
.72
70
M
291
.
MEAN
MILES
IK)
«8.S
o8.S
39,9
29.5
15.6
32.7
». 8ELOM
LfVEL •
HC CO NOX
t S «
22 28 29
15 -13 It
31 36 9
61 *9 11
33 32 IS
HYOROCAR8
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
t.M 8.01
6.*0 7.8J-
5.99 S.2«
*.22 1.99
3.*2 l.*7
*.»6 *.91
ONS ON/MI
OCOMETMIC
MEAN SO
8.0t 1.70
5.10 I.7S
5.07 1.65
3.91 . l.*S
3.1* l.*9
*.,» I.M
CAMBOM MON
ARITHMETIC
MEAN SO
M.2 43.5
78.91 62.98
78.73 .37.73
Ml ^ !*A T»
• IV cv« **
64.33 28.29
62.22 02.01
axioE ON/MI
GEOMETRIC
MEAN .- SO
'*•' '1-11
62.59 1.92
62.*2 l.M
08.88 l.M
38.89 1.80
51.71 1.83
NOX OH/
ARITHMETIC
MEAN 50
3.51 .1.87
5^29 2loO
5.02 1.63
0.99 1.79
0.91 1.85
Ml
GEOMETRIC
MtAlf SO
13.01 !1.7».
3.85 1.78
0.90 l.SO
0.77 |.38
. 0.65 1.08
*.S3 1.53
PT71 EMISSION FACTOR PHOGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS row DENVER
FTP
TEAK
TOTAL
KE-68
146(1
196V
1970
TOTAL
N
97.
17
17
20
72
MtAN
(S.I
3*^9
26.0
15.2
30.1
* i*ELO«
LEVtL •
HC CU NO*
0 1 S3
0 0 01
12 6 65
6 a S9
a s ;>s
• 3 6S
NvOHUCAMBONS GM/MI
AMlTuMtTIC
MtAN SO
11.31. 6.13
•.7* *.0ft
7.7* o.AV
7.04 *.23
6.73 2.10
7.7* J.»«.
GEOMtTHIC
MEAN Ml
10.27 1.51
H.OO 1.5J
6.*9 1.69
6.4| 1.70
6.00 1.3*
6.93 1.62
CAUHON HONDA 1U£ dM/Ml
ARITHMETIC
MtAN SU
131.8 SS.S
122.92 66.05
9i.62 57.72
110.18 39.76
100.00 39.72
106.00 *2.00
OEOftTHlC
ME.AN SO
125.8 1.S3
IOV.8M 1.60
79.72 1.72
I03.oo l.oS
92.16 1.5*
95. 6J 1.59
NOX GM/MI
AMITHMETIC
MEAN SO
1:93 1.11
2.38 1.11
2.52 1.21
2.72 1.13
3.0* 1.55
2.68 1.27
GEOMETRIC
MtAN SO
• l.M 1.7*
2.19 l.SO
2.20 1.78
2.08 1.59
2.73 1.59
2.00 1.61
rm EMISSION fActow PROGRAM
EMISSION LEVELS FOH LOS ANGELES
. 1972 FTP
TEAM
19M
1967
TOTAL
1968
1964
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
16
17
33
IS
17
16
21
69
«€AN
MILES
-------
TABLE in- 6
rvri EMISSION FAC^O* MOMAM
COMPOSITE EMISSION LEVELS fOd MX CITIES EZCLUOIN6 DENVER AND LOS ANGELES
H75 FTP
TEAM
TOTAL
PM-1
6*> '
1968
1969
1970
1971
TOTAL
N
4S8.
69
72
T«
••
391
MEAN
MILES
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-460/3-76-019
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance Analysis
of the FY 1974 Program
7. AUTHOR(S)
Alan P. Berens and Michael Hill
9. PERFORMING ORG \NIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
University of Dayton Research Institute
300 College Park Avenue
Dayton, Ohio 45469
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Air and Waste Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
gmission Control Technologv Division
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
September 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2384
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
16. ABSTRACT
The Emission Factor Program provides a realistic assessment of the effectiveness
of Federal air pollution regulations by testing production vehicles in the
hands of the motoring public. This report summarizes the results of the FY 74
Emission Factor Program and compares these results with those obtained in the
FY 71, FY 72, and FY 73 Emission Factor Programs. The FY 74 Program tested
a sample of 1965-1975 model year vehicles in seven cities.
u*
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. . DESCRIPTORS
air pollution
motor vehicles
surveillance
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEVENT
Unlimited
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COSATI 1 Jcld/Group
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22 PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
------- |