United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
EPA-460/3-80-002
Air
x>EPA
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF
LIGHT-DUTY DIESEL CATALYSTS
-------
EPA-460/3-80-002
PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION OF LIGHT
DUTY DIESEL CATALYSTS
by
Bruce B. Bykowski
Southwest Research Institute
P.O. Drawer 28510
6220 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas
78284
Contract No. 68-03-2220
Modification 8
EPA Project Officer: Robert J. Garbe
Prepared for
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air, Noise, and Radiation
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
January 1980
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of
interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available free of charge to Federal
employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organization - in limited
quantities - from the Library Services Office (MD-35), Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 22771; or, for a fee, from the National Technical Information Service, 5285
Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by Southwest Re-
search Institute, 6220 Culebra Road, San Antonio, Texas, in fulfillment of Contract
No. 68-03-2220. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from
Southwest Research Institute. The opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are
those of the author and not necessarily those of the Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention of company or product names is not to be considered as an en-
dorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-80-002
-------
FOREWORD
This project was conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the Department of Emissions Research of Southwest Research
Institute. The laboratory testing phase of the project began in May
1979 and was completed in July 1979. This project was conducted under
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2220, Modification 8 and was identified within
Southwest Research Institute as Project 11-4311-003. The EPA Task Officer
was Mr. Robert J. Garbe of the Emission Control Technology Division,
Environmental Protection Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
The Southwest Research Institute Project Manager was Mr. Karl J. Springer.
The project leader was Bruce B. Bykowski.
iii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the laboratory testing of prototype Diesel
catalytic converters on a production light-duty Diesel vehicle. Two
manufacturers submitted catalysts which were retrofitted on the vehicle's
exhaust system individually. Regulated and several unregulated emission
rates were determined during the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the
Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) for each system. Particulate rates and
particulate collection for Ames bioassay was also determined. In addition
to fresh Diesel catalysts, an aged Diesel catalyst was also evaluated.
The emission rates of hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), oxides of
nitrogen (NOX), individual hydrocarbons, aldehydes, sulfates, and parti-
culates are reported in grams per kilometer.
IV
-------
SUMMARY
A 1979 Oldsmobile Diesel vehicle was used to evaluate emissions from
prototype Diesel catalytic converters supplied by two manufacturers. The
vehicle's exhaust system was modified twice in order to accommodate each
of the manufacturer's systems. The vehicle was tested with and without a
converter over the Federal Test Procedure (FTP) and the Highway Fuel Economy
Test (HFET). During each driving cycle, a series of regulated and unregulated
emission tests were performed.
Tests of essentially new converters indicated catalytic activity by
reducing CO on the average of approximately 85 percent and HC by approxi-
mately 55 percent during the FTP. Activity for both catalysts was even
greater during the HFET with approximately 90 percent reduction of CO and
70 percent reduction of HC indicated. The particulate rates, for the most
part, increased slightly during both cycles relative to the standard
baselines. The sulfate rates increased substantially during both driving
cycles although there was one exception to this finding. One catalyst
exhibited good activity but no appreciable change in particulate and
sulfate during the FTP. The NOX levels increased slightly during both
cycles for both catalytic converters. The individual hydrocarbons
(methane, ethane, propane, ethylene, acetylene, propylene, benzene, and
toluene along with the various measured aldehydes) were generally reduced.
All the converters evaluated did not affect fuel economy.
An additional converter was also tested. It was identical to one of
the new, fresh converters, but had been subjected to 31000 km road
operation. The activity of this aged catalyst was somewhat reduced.
Instead of the 80 and 50 percent reductions when new, the CO and HC re-
ductions were 40 and 30 percent, respectively, during the FTP. The re-
sults during the HFET driving cycle indicated 60 percent reduction of CO
and 55 percent of HC. The particulate rate increased slightly over its
fresh counterpart.
The test plan also included particulate collection during the FTP for
Ames bioassay on each catalyst and baseline test. A single 20 x 25 cm
(8 x 10 inch) filter was used. The Ames results indicated essentially no
difference in sample activity as measured by revertant colonies per mass
of extracted organic matter for the catalyst samples, when compared to
the non-catalyst samples. Converter inlet oxygen, temperature and exhaust
back pressures were measured and are presented. The back pressure increased
approximately 10 percent with one converter system and approximately 25
percent with the other. The average maximum inlet converter temperature
was 215°C and the average minimum was 114°C during testing. It is inter-
v
-------
esting to note that the converters exhibited good catalytic activity at
relatively low temperatures. As expected, the application of catalytic
converters had little or no effect on fuel economy. No attempt was made
to measure or investigate possible storage and purge of exhaust particulates.
vi
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD iii
ABSTRACT iv
SUMMARY V
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES ix
I. INTRODUCTION 1
A. Objective 1
B. Approach 1
C. Scope 1
II. PREPARATION AND PROCEDURES 2
A. Description of Vehicle and Components 2
B. Description of Fuel 4
C. Test Procedures 4
D. Test Plan 9
E. Installation Photographs 9
III. RESULTS 16
A. Engelhard Catalyst Results 16
B. UOP Catalyst Results 19
C. Discussion 21
REFERENCES 23
APPENDICES
A. Baseline, FTP and HFET Results-Engelhard Catalytic
Converter System
B. Baseline, FTP and HFET Results-UOP Catalytic Converter
System
VI1
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1 Heated Hydrocarbon Analyzer System 6
2 Modified MVMA Driving Cycle 10
3 Diesel Catalyst Testing Installation 15
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1 Engine/Vehicle Parameters 3
2 Test Fuel Properties 5
3 Heated Hydrocarbon Analyzer Overflow Calibration and
Sample Flow Schematic Component Description 7
4 Experimental Test Plan 11
5 Test Schedule and Sequence 14
6 FTP, HFET and Particulate Emissions from 1979 Oldsmobile
Diesel Delta 88 With and Without a Catalyst 17
7 FTP, HFET and Particulate Emissions from 1979 Oldsmobile
Diesel Delta 88 With and Without a Catalyst 20
ix
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
On September 5, 1978, Modification 8 to Contract 68-03-2220 was
authorized by the EPA Contracting Officer, Mr. Albert W. Ahlquist. The
title of Modification 8 was "Light-Duty Diesel Vehicle Emission Testing."
This modification was intended to investigate the feasibility of oxidation
catalysts for emission control of Diesel-powered cars.
A. Objective
The objective of this project was to evaluate oxidation type catalytic
converters with a Diesel car. In addition to regulated emissions, a variety
of unregulated gaseous and particulate emissions were determined on a 1979
Oldsmobile vehicle equipped with a 5.7 liter Diesel engine. This vehicle
was operated with and without the prototype Diesel catalytic converters.
B. Approach
The experimental approach was to modify the vehicle's exhaust system
to accommodate the converters in the most optimum location. The vehicle
was then tested without the catalytic converter to establish a baseline,
and then with the converter system.
C. Scope
A total of three catalytic converters were evaluated, two fresh and
one aged. Two catalyst manufacturers supplied the converters at the EPA
Project Officer's request. A total of twenty-five gaseous and particulate
tests were performed on the vehicle. Eight tests established baselines
for the three converters and each unit was tested twice over two cycles.
Each converter system was subjected to replicate tests to verify and
increase confidence in the results.
-------
II. PREPARATION AND PROCEDURES
This section describes the preparations, vehicle and equipment, fuel,
catalysts, test procedures, and test plan employed.
A. Description of Vehicle and Components
The selection of the vehicle and catalytic converters were made by
the EPA Project Officer. The Project Officer made the arrangements with
the catalyst suppliers to provide the converters required for this research
effort. The arrangements for the vehicle were made by SwRI.
1. Vehicle
A 1979 Oldsmobile Delta 88 with a 5.7 liter V-8 Diesel engine
was selected as the vehicle to be used. The vehicle was leased from a
local automobile leasing firm. The description of this vehicle is listed
in Table 1.
2. Catalytic Converters
Two catalyst suppliers provided prototype Diesel oxidation
catalysts for this investigation. The converters were located and
installed in accordance with the wishes of both the supplier and EPA.
a. Engelhard
The two Engelhard converters employed were fresh monolithic
oxidation catalysts identified as PTX-516. The exhaust system of the car
was modified from its factory configuration in order to accommodate a
catalyst in each bank of the exhaust system. This involved rerouting the
crossover Y-pipe assembly from near the right exhaust manifold to near the
muffler inlet.
b. UOP, Inc.
There were two UOP monolithic catalysts identified as
UOP-99 and UOP-103. Both were identical with the exception that UOP-99
was subjected to 31,000 km of road aging on a similar vehicle before de-
livery to SwRI. For the UOP catalytic muffler, crossover Y-pipe assembly
was returned to the factory configuration. A single UOP converter was
installed close to the Y-pipe.
-------
TABLE 1. ENGINE/VEHICLE PARAMETERS
Manufacturer:
Model:
Engine:
Serial No:
Inertia wt, kg (Ib):
Power, kW (hp) @ rpm:
Road Load Power,
kW (hp) @ kn/h(mph)
Compression Ratio:
Injection System:
Combustion Chamber:
Fuel:
EPA Fuel Economy:
Transmission:
Tires:
Oldsmobile
1979 Delta 88
5.7 liter V8 Diesel engine
3N37N9X14905
1814 kg (4000 Ibs)
88.3 (120) @ 3600 rpm
8.97 (12.2) @ 31 (50)
22.5 : 1
Roosa Master
Pre-Chamber
Type 2-D Emissions
21 mph (city)
auto 3 speed
GR-78-15
(steel belted radials)
Body Style:
2-door sedan
-------
B. Description of Fuel
These tests were performed using a fuel that meets the Diesel fuel
specifications listed in the Federal Register. (D* This is the same fuel
specification as that listed in the 1981 regulations.(2) Table 2 lists the
results of the fuel analyses performed on the fuel used throughout this study.
C. Test Procedures
Test of all three catalytic converters as well as baseline gaseous
emission tests followed published Federal Test Procedures.d'2) The par-
ticulate emission rates were determined using the procedures published as
Proposed Rules in the Federal Register.(2)
Several unregulated emissions were also determined using procedures
documented in a recent EPA report prepared by SwRI.(^) Large particulate
samples were also collected on 20 x 25 cm filters using a procedure de-
scribed in Reference 4.
After completion of the regular 3-bag Federal Test Procedure(If 2),
additional evaluations were performed using the Highway Fuel Economy Test
Procedure.^
1. Federal Test Procedure (FTP)
All emission tests were performed on the vehicle according to
the procedures set forth in the Federal Register.(If 2) The vehicle inertia
weight was set to 1814 kg (4000 Ibs) and road load power at 31 km per hour
(50 mph) of 8.97 kw (12.2 hp). These settings were given by the EPA Project
Officer as those used during EPA certification. The gaseous emissions of
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) were
collected and analyzed using the procedures and equipment described in the
regulations. The method of hydrocarbon analysis followed an updated version
of what is proposed for 1981 in the Federal Register.(2' This system is
presently used by the EPA and is anticipated to become a part of the 1981
FTP. Figure 1 shows the configuration of the heated hydrocarbon analysis
system and Table 3 describes the components.
The tests were performed on a Clayton chassis dynamometer. A
Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) with a nominal capacity of 0.28 cubic meters
per second (600 CFM) was used in conjunction with a 45.7 cm (18 in.) di-
lution tunnel.
2. Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure (HFET)
All emission tests were performed on the vehicle according to
the procedures set forth in the Federal Register.(5) The equipment used
was identical to that previously described. The HFET was run after a
10-minute soak period following the FTP.
*Superscript numbers in parentheses refer to the List of References at the
end of this report.
-------
TABLE 2. TEST FUEL PROPERTIES
Fuel Code
Fuel Type
Properties
Density, g/ml
Gravity, °API
Cetane, (D976)
Viscosity, CS (D445)
Flash point, °C
Sulfur, wt. % (D1266)
FIA: aromatics, %
olefins, %
saturates, %
Distillation (D86)
IBP, %
10% point, °C
20% point,
30% point,
40% point, °C
50% point, °C
60% point,
70% point,
80% point, °C
90% point, °C
95% point,
EP point,
°C
°C
°C
°C
°C
°C
recovery, %
residue, %
loss, %
Carbon, wt. %
Hydrogen, wt. %
Nitrogen, wt. %
Gum (D381), mg/100 m.
EM-321-F
2D Emissions (Howell)
0.8403
36.9
49.07
2.40
68
0.29
30.5
1.1
68.4
194
209
220
231
237
253
265
276
288
306
324
349
99.0
1.0
0.0
85.76
12.80
0.53
10.6 (unwashed)
9.2 (washed)
-------
QC's
Air Zero
HC Span 1
HC Span 2
HC Span 3
Dilution
Tunnel
Headed Probe
(5/8" SS)
Denotes sample line components
' heated to 375°F
Beckman 402 HFID OR
SwRI Build with 402 Detector
FL2
FL3
Vent
Cal gas
(not used)
VIO
Vent
FID Fuel
FID Air
HFID
Detector
Figure 1. Heated hydrocarbon analyzer system
-------
TABLE 3. HEATED HYDROCARBON ANALYZER OVERFLOW CALIBRATION
AND SAMPLK FLOW SCHEMATIC COMPONENT DESCRIPTION
Component
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
Restrictor
Restrietor
Restrictor
Designation
VI
V2
V3
V4
V5
V6
V7
V8
V9
V10
Rl
R2
R3
Description of Function
regulating valve for zero air
regulating valve for HC span gas
regulating valve for bag sample
span/zero selector valve in HFID (not used)
sample backpressure regulator
FID fuel pressure regulator
FID air pressure regulator
HC span selector valve
HC span/zero/bag sample selector valve
leak check flow diverter valve
sample capillary
FID fuel restrictor
FID air restrictor
Gage
Gage
Gage
Filter
Filter
Pump
Pump
Flowmeter
Flowmeter
Flowmeter
Gl
G2
G3
Fl
F2
PI
P2
FL1
FL2
FL3
sample backpressure gage
FID fuel pressure gage
FID air pressure gage
heated 7.0 cm filter (probe)
heated 7.0 cm filter (oven)
bag sample pump
FID heated sample pump
overflow flowmeter
FID bypass flowmeter
leak check flowmeter
-------
3. Particulate
Particulate sampling followed the Proposed Rules in the Federal
Register.^ A multiprobe system was placed in the tunnel and will be
described in detail further in this report. One of the probes was used
for particulate sampling per the Proposed Rules(2) during both the FTP
and HFET.
4. Sulfate
The exhaust sulfates were collected on 47 mm Fluoropore membrane
filters with a 0.5 Vim pore size. Fluoropore filters are made of PTFE
(polytetraflurorethylene) and are a product of the Millipore Corporation.
The sampling system incorporated the same configuration and equipment as
the particulate collection. An additional probe was assigned for sulfate
collection. The filters were extracted and analyzed using the barium
chloranilate method.'-*'
5. Aldehydes
The aldehydes were measured using the 2,4 dinitrophenylhydrazine
(DNPH) method.^) The method consists of withdrawing a continuous sample
of dilute exhaust and bubbling the sample through glass impingers containing
DNPH in hydrochloric acid. This formed the aldehydes1 phenylhydrazone
derivatives which were eventually injected into a gas chromatograph using
a flame ionization detector for separation and identification.
6. Individual Hydrocarbons
The term individual hydrocarbons is used to define the collection
and analysis of the following compounds: methane, ethane, ethylene,
acetylene, propane, propylene, benzene, and toluene. The individual hydro-
carbon (IHC) procedure(3) consists of collecting dilute samples in Tedlar
(DuPont Co.) bags and injecting samples from the bags into a four-column
gas chromatograph for separation and identification.
7. Ames Testing
In order to collect sufficient particulate matter to perform an
Ames bioassay determination, larger Pallflex filters were used with a high
volume sample pump and large probe. Pallflex filters consist of a glass
fiber medium with a Teflon (DuPont Co.) binder and are a product of the
Pall Corporation. The large probe was also a part of the multiprobe
system installed in the dilution tunnel. The method used is described in
Reference 4. There were a few changes in that Pallflex filters were sub-
stituted for the originally used glass fiber filters. The flow rate of
the sample was 0.425 standard cubic meters per minute (15 SCFM) in order
to collect an optimum amount of particulate and yet maintain a satisfactory
filter face velocity.
8
-------
8. Mileage Accumulation
The vehicle and related systems used a modified MVMA driving
cycle(6) to accumulate mileage. The course is shown in Figure 2. This
course was used for preconditioning the vehicle, converter and exhaust
system prior to test.
9. Supplemental Parameters
Converter inlet oxygen concentrations and temperatures were
monitored with continuous analyzers. Several taps were installed on the
converters to withdraw raw exhaust samples for oxygen analysis by polaro-
graphy. Type K thermocouples were located in some of the taps to measure
the temperatures. Exhaust back pressures were measured at a 31 km per
hours cruise condition using a mercury manometer.
D. Test Plan
The experimental test plan, test sequence and test schedule are
listed on Tables 4 and 5.
E. Installation Photographs
Figure 3 is a series of photographs showing the installation of and
the various components used during'this investigation. Figure 3A shows
the catalytic converters supplied by two manufacturers. Figure 3B is a
view of the multiposition sampling probe installed in the dilution tunnel.
The probe extending out from the tunnel to the lower left hand corner of
the picture is the probe used for particulate collection. This probe, as
can be seen in the photograph, is split into two directions which is
controlled by a single valve. This valve separates filter collection
between the first 505 seconds and the last 866 seconds of the LA-4 cycle.
The large 20 x 25 cm filters are placed in the rectangular holder near
the top center portion of the picture.
Figure 3C and 3D show the location of each converter in the exhaust
system of the vehicle. It should be noted that the converters are
positioned as close to the exhaust manifold as possible. Figure 3E is
a view of the instrumentation used during the operation of the vehicle
on the dynamometer. Pictured in the center of the photograph is the strip
chart recorder used to record continuous temperature, oxygen and hydro-
carbon traces. On top of the recorder is two oxygen analyzers and to the
left is the heated hydrocarbon analyzer. Figure 3F shows the vehicle on
the dynamometer during test.
-------
Events Per Mile
Driving Mode
55 mph Top Speed
Stops
Normal Accelerations from Stop
Normal Accelerations from 20 mph
Wide-Open Throttle Accelerations
and Fast Deceleration
Idle Time
SwRI Course
1.02
0.92
1.11
0.09
AC No. 37
1.01
0.91
1.11
0.10
13.64 Sec.
Institute
road
South Lap: "A" to "H"-4.8 km (3.0 mi)
North Lap: "H" to "A"-4.7 km (2.9 mi)
11 Laps = 52.3 km (32.5 mi)
Light-/
-Loop
410 N.W.
Lap
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Speed
km/hr
64
48
64
64
56
48
56
72
56
89
89
mi/hi
40
30
40
40
35
30
35
45
35
55
55
Figure 2. Modified MVMA Driving Cycle
10
-------
Step
TABLE 4. EXPERIMENTAL TEST PLAN
Item
1 Modify the as-received vehicle exhaust system to accommodate one
Engelhard converter downstream of each exhaust manifold. This
involves relocating the cross-over Y-pipe further downstream.
The converters were to be as close to the exhaust manifold as
possible. Use flanges on the converters and exhaust system for
easy removal and installation.
2 Insulate the exhaust pipes from each exhaust manifold outlet
flange to each converter inlet flange.
3 Install pressure, temperature and sample taps on both the inlet
and outlet pipe section of each converter.
4 Construct straight exhaust pipes with the same dimensions as
the converters, again using flanges. Install pressure, temperature
and sample taps on the straight pipes.
5 Install straight pipes and fuel vehicle .
6 Accumulate 310 km using modified MVMA cycle .
7 Perform pre-test facility and instrumentation calibration.
Prepare for filter and chemical analyses.
8 Perform 3-bag Federal Test Procedure gaseous emissions test with
the following additions:
a. Analyze HC by heated FID using the probe overflow method.
b. Collect particulate samples on 47 mm filters.
c. Collect concurrently two sulfate samples.
d. Prepare to analyze each bag for individual hydrocarbons.
e. Generate a continuous trace of inlet oxygen concentration.
f. Generate a continuous inlet temperature trace .
g. Collect a sample for aldehyde analysis .
h. Collect a 20 x 25 cm Pallflex filter during cold transient
and cold stabilize portion of the test.
9 After a 10 minute soak, perform the Highway Fuel Economy Test
incorporating the following additions of Step 8: a, b, c, d, e,
and f.
10 If a 20 x 25 cm filter was collected in Step 8, then two additional
20 x 25 cm filters are to be taken as follows:
a. After the HFET, allow a 10 minute soak.
b. Run an additional LA-4 cycle (1371 sees) and collect a second
20 x 25 cm filter .
c. Allow an additional 10 minute soak.
d. Run another LA-4 cycle and collect a third 20 x 25 cm filter.
11
-------
TABLE 4 (Cont'd). EXPERIMENTAL TEST PLAN
Step Item
11 Repeat Step 7 .
12 Repeat Step 8a through 8g.
13 Repeat Step 9 .
14 Install the Engelhard converters .
15 Repeat Steps 6 through 10 .
16 Repeat Steps 6 and 7 .
17 Repeat Steps 8a through 8g.
18 Repeat Step 9 .
19 Reconstruct the exhaust system to accommodate a single UOP con-
verter for the entire exhaust stream. Relocate the cross-over
Y-pipe to the original location. The converter is to be as close
to the Y-pipe as possible. Use flanges on the converter and
exhaust system. Prepare UOP converters S/N 99 and S/N 103.
20 Repeat Steps 2 through S .
21 Repeat Steps 7 through 10.
22 Install UOP converter S/N 103.
23 Repeat Steps 6 through 10.
24 Repeat Step 7.
25 Repeat Steps 8a through 8g.
26 Repeat Step 9.
27 Install the straight pipe.
28 Repeat Step 7.
29 Repeat Steps 8a through 8g.
30 Repeat Step 9.
31 Install UOP converter S/N 99-
32 Accumulate 62 km using modified MVMA cycle.
12
-------
TABLE 4 (Cont'd). EXPERIMENTAL TEST PLAN
Step Item
33 Repeat Steps 7 through 10 .
34 Repeat Step 7.
35 Repeat Steps 8a through 8g.
36 Repeat Step 9 .
37 Remove converter and reconstruct the exhaust system to original
configuration.
13
-------
TABLE 5. TEST SCHEDULE AND SEQUENCE
Test No.
1-1
2-1
3-1
4-1
5-1
6-1
7-1
8-1
9-1
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
14-1
Number
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
Catalyst
None
None
Nona
PTX-S16
PTX-516
PTX-516
PTX-516
None
UOP-103
OOP-103
OOP-103
None
UOP-99
OOP-99
UOP-99
Test Description
313 km MVMA
FTP
HFET
LA- 4, LA- 4
FTP
HFET
310 km MVMA
FTP
HFET
IA-4, LA-4
310 km MVMA
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
IA-4, IA-4
310 km MVMA
FTP
HFET
IA-4, LA-4
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
62-kn MVMA
FTP
HFET
LA-4, IA-4
FTP
HFET
Type of Analysis
Analyses
-
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
3,3
1.2,4,5,6,7,8,9
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
-
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
3,3
-
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
1,3,3
-
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
3,3
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
1,2,4,5,6,7,8.9
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
-
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1,2,3,4,5,7,8,9
3,3
1,2,4,5,6,7,8,9
1,2,4,5,7,8,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
,9
Flf
CVS bags for CO, COj, HOx
Continious HC - Hot
20x25 cm Pallflex (gravimetric)
47 •• Pallflex (gravimetric)
Individual hydrocarbons
DMPH (aldehydes)
Continious oxygen trace
Contiaious temperature trace
Sulfate
Typical Full Test Sequence
old T
rans.i
05 1
1
2
— 3
4
5
7
8
Cold 10
Stab. *Mi
866 So
1
2
— »
4
5
7
8
• 9
Hot 1C
n.* Trans. *tu
ak SOS S<
1
2
-
4
5
7
8
>
in.* HFET
>ak
1
2
.
4
5
7
3
9
10
*Min.-
Soak
10
*ttin.*
Soak
14
-------
Figure 3A. UOP Converter (lfrt), Engelhard (right)
Figure 3B. Multiprobe installed into Tunnel
Figure 3C. Location of Engelhard Converters
Figure 3D. location of UOP Converters
Figure 3E. Exhaust Instrumentation
Figure 3F. View of Vehicle on Dynamometer
Figure 3. Diesel catalyst testing installation
15
-------
III. RESULTS
Although both catalyst systems were tested on the same vehicle using
the same facilities and analyses, the results will be divided into two
sections because of the different quantity of catalyst used in each system.
A. Engelhard Catalyst Results
FTP and HFET regulated and several unregulated emission results were
obtained along with various related data.
1. FTP Results
All the emission results obtained during the FTP are summarized in
Table 6. The catalysts exhibited significant activity by reducing CO by ap-
proximately 90 percent and HC by approximately 60 percent. There seemed to
have been a slight increase in NOX emissions. The tests were fairly repea-
table and the additional 310 km of aging that the vehicle and catalysts were
subjected to between Tests 6 and 7 did not apparently effect the catalysts'
performance. It is important to note that the application of the dual
Engelhard catalytic converters did not increase or decrease fuel economy.
The data summarized in Table 6 are from computer printout sheets
included as Appendix A-l to A-6 of this report. Tables A-l through A-4 are
the baseline and Engelhard FTP and HFET results. These printouts illus-
trate the cold-start and hot-start emissions performance of the catalytic
converters and are provided for additional review and analysis. Please
note on Tables A-2 and A-3 (second baseline and first Engelhard converter
test) that corrected composite FTP values are listed. The corrected values
were necessary to include the sample volume used in the 20 x 25 cm parti-
culate filter. These tests were run in addition to the standard FTP and
in effect increased the composite HC, CO and NOX and decreased fuel economy.
The amount of exhaust flow not accounted for by the CVS under the stan-
dard 1981 FTP was approximately 3 percent.
The aldehyde, individual hydrocarbon, and sulfate results also
support the extent of catalyst activity. The reduction of the total
amount of aldehydes was approximately 55 percent. Formaldehyde represents
over half the aldehydes measured but its reduction was no greater than the
others. Most of the individual hydrocarbons were reduced with the excep-
tion of methane and ethane which apparently have remained constant. The
sulfate emissions increased approximately five times the baseline emission
rate.
16
-------
TABLE 6. FTP, HFET AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM 1979 OLDSMOBILE
DIESEL DELTA 88 WITH AND WITHOUT A CATALYST
Test No.
1
3
5
7
2
4
6
8
8-2
8-3
Cycle
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
Catalyst
None
None
PTX-516
PTX-516
None
None
PTX-516
PTX-516
PTX-516
PTX-516
Date
5-31-79
6-01-79
6-06-79
6-13-79
5-31-79
6-01-79
6-06-79
6-13-79
7-26-79
7-27-79
HC
0.26
0.17
0.09
0.09
0.11
0.09
O.02
0.05
0.01
0.01
Emissions
CO
1.23
1.25
0.12
0.14
0.71
0.71
0.04
0.04
0.11
0.10
Rates , g/kra
NOV
0.93
0.99
1.07
1.14
0.67
0.87
0.74
0.85
0.85
0.79
CO,
328.98
330.58
334.69
333.14
228.5
230.7
228.9
224.7
230.3
226.0
Consumption
fc/100 km
10.75
10.79
10.87
10.82
8.55
8.63
8.52
8.37
8.57
8.41
Sulfate
mg/km
12.888
7.370
52.608
68.105
5.705
6.208
143.463
180.032
47.164
46.760
Particulate
Emission g/km
0.782
0.770
0.811
0.805
0.429
0.441
0.715
1.029
0.515
0.525
Individual Hydrocarbon Emissions Rate, mg/km
Methane Ethylene Ethane
Acetylene
Propane
Propylene
1
3
5
7
2
4
6
8
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
None
None
PTX-516
PTX-516
None
None
PTX-516
PTX-516
5-31-79
6-01-79
6-06-79
6-13-79
5-31-79
6-01-79
6-06-79
6-13-79
11.31
12.16
15.42
11.00
2.30
2.42
3.36
2.24
20.69
23.65
5.12
6.65
6.96
6.52
0.37
0.62
0.88
1.66
1.02
2.05
0.25
0.19
0.19
0.44
4.29
5.06
0.06
0.06
1.43
1.30
0
0
o
0
0
0.50
0
0
0
O
8.02
7.18
0.26
0.87
2.36
2.36
0
0
Benzene
9.01
8.06
1.47
1.37
2.49
2.61
0
0
Aldehydes Emissions Rates, mg/km
Toluene
0.81
1.47
0.64
1.12
0
0.50
0
0
1
3
5
7
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
None
None
PTX-516
PTX-516
5-31-79
6-01-79
6-06-79
6-13-79
Form- Al-
dehyde
3.4
6.1
1.1
2.4
Acet-
Aldehyde
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.7
Acetone2
0.1
0.8
0
0
Isobutyr-
Aldehyde
2.1
0
0
0
Methyethl
Ketone
0
0
0
0
Croton-
Aldehyde
0
0.2
0
0
Hex-
Aldehyde
0
0
0
0
Benzene
0
0.9
1.6
0.4
Total
6.8
8.9
3.3
3.5
- Includes acrolein and propanol
-------
The particulate emission rate increased approximately 4 percent
using the catalysts. One possible explanation for the increase in parti-
culate rates is that the increase of sulfate emissions with an oxidation
type catalyst contributed to the total particulate.
*.j
2. HFET Results
All the emissions results obtained during the HFET are also
summarized in Table 6. The catalytic converters indicated an improvement
in emissions performance over the FTP by reducing CO by approximately 90
percent and HC by 75 percent. The NOX emissions increased an average of
17 percent. The fuel economy again was not affected. Tables A-l through
A-4 in Appendix A contain the computer printouts for additional information.
Tables A-5 and A-6 were reruns to confirm earlier HFET results.
The reduction in individual hydrocarbons indicated the same
trends as seen during the FTP. Both methane and ethane did not seem to
be affected by the dual exhaust converters. The remaining hydrocarbons
were greatly reduced, however. Aldehyde data was not collected during the
HFET because the briefness of the cycle would not permit a sufficient
amount of sample to be collected.
The particulate rates for the two initially performed tests
(Tests 6 and 8) indicated a twofold increase in particulate over the
baseline tests. The sulfate emissions increased 30 times the baseline
emissions. Both tests showed good repeatability in regulated gaseous
emissions, but a lack of repeatability with particulate and sulfate
emissions. The activity of the catalyst during the HFET was in the same
ballpark of that seen during the FTP.
After the entire schedule for this research effort was completed
and all the results reviewed, it was decided to rerun Test 8. The rerun,
Test 8-2, showed particulate emission rate and sulfate emissions consis- •
tent with other data generated during this investigation. A second rerun,
Test 8-3, supported these results. Both reruns exhibited an average par-
ticulate rate that was 20 percent higher than the baseline rate. The sul-
fate emissions increased five times with the catalysts. This finding is
of some interest since prior work with Diesel cars has shown no significant
storage-purge of exhaust particulate.
3. Other Data
During both test cycles, the oxygen concentration of the raw
exhaust and measured continuously along with the inlet temperature. The
maximum and minimum values of each were tabulated for each cycle. All
the values from the strip charts were taken one minute after the beginning
of the cycle. The maximum inlet converter temperature was 196°C during the
FTP and 277°C during the HFET. The minimum inlet converter temperature was
76°C during the FTP and 127°C during the HFET. These data are presented in
Appendix A, Table A-7.
18
-------
The 20 x 25 cm Pallflex filters were weighed and stored in sealed,
nitrogen filled, Tedlar bags at a temperature of -24°C. These filters
were shipped to Frank Butler at the EPA, Research Triangle Park facility
for testing sample work-up and Ames bioassay analysis. A description of
the filters, the code numbers, and filter loadings are listed in Appendix
A, Table A-8. Results of the Ames tests indicated no appreciable differ-
ence in specific activity between the samples analyzed. The percent of
organic extractables ranged from 3.5 to 9.4 percent with no trends
apparent.
After the normal scheduled cycles were complete, the vehicle
remained on the dynamometer and the back pressure was recorded at the
converter inlet during a 31 km per hour cruise condition. It should be
noted that the back pressure increased approximately 10 percent when the
dual converter system was used. These back pressures are also listed in
Appendix A, Table A-8.
B. UOP Catalyst Results
FTP and HFET regulated and several unregulated emission results were
obtained along with various related data for both a fresh and aged catalyst.
1. FTP Results
The FTP emission results for both catalysts are listed in Table 7.
The fresh UOP catalyst (UOP-103) exhibited good activity by reducing CO by
approximately 80 percent and HC by approximately 50 percent. The NOX emis-
sions increased slightly, about 3 percent. The aged UOP catalyst (UOP-99)
exhibited considerably less activity than its fresh counterpart. CO and
HC conversions were approximately 40 and 30 percent respectively. The NOX
emissions increased 14 percent. The fuel economy was not affected. The
data summarized in Table 7 are from computer printouts included in Appendix
B, Tables B-l through B-7.
All the individual hydrocarbons were reduced during operation
with the fresh catalyst, with the exception of methane which remained
unchanged. The aged catalyst reduced the individual hydrocarbons but
only about half as efficiently as the fresh catalyst. The aldehyde and
sulfate emissions for both fresh and aged catalysts did not change appre-
ciably from baseline.
The particulate emission rate decreased slightly with both the
fresh and aged catalysts. The lack of increase of sulfate emissions
probably accounts for the decrease of the particulate rate.
19
-------
TABLE 7. FTP, HFET AND PARTICULATE EMISSIONS FROM 1979 OLDSMOBILE
DIESEL DELTA 88 WITH AND WITHOUT A CATALYST
'est No.
9-1
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
14-1
11-2
9-1
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
14-1
11-2
14-2
Cycle
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
Catalyst
None
UOP-103
UOP-103
None
OOP- 99
UOP-99
OOP- 103
None
UOP-103
UOP-103
None
UOP-99
UOP-99
UOP-103
UOP-99
Date
7-06-79
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-13-79
7-17-79
7-18-79
7-25-79
7-06-79
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-13-79
7-17-79
7-18-79
7-25-79
7-25-79
HC
0.27
0.13
O.O4
0.28
0.21
0.18
0.13
0.14
0.06
0.03
0.10
0.03
0.07
O.O5
0.06
Emissions
CO
1.18
0.18
0.23
1.09
0.66
0.64
0.44
0.66
0.06
0.08
0.61
0.20
0.28
0.11
0.31
Rates, a/km
NOV
1.02
0.97
1.12
1.01
1.16
1.14
1.11
0.75
0.70
0.75
0.75
0.84
10.81
0.80
0.87
C02
340.41
324.33
327.70
321.18
329.83
325.61
330.48
222.0
226.6
202.8
212.8
222.8
224.2
227.4
235.5
Consumption
VlOO km
11.12
10.54
10.64
10.50
10.75
10.61
10.75
8.34
8.44
7.55
7.96
8.30
8.36
8.47
8.78
Sulfate
ing /km
23,081
17.334
14.865
21.073
18.115
15.296
19.897
19.798
80.219
30.864
17,098
30.160
34.930
48.792
60.723
Particulate
Emission gA">
0.782
0.723
0.6051
0.756
0.711
0.670
0.761
_
0.535
0.410
0.452
0.467
0.505
0.511
0.513
Individual Hydrocarbon Emissions Rate, mg/km
to
0
9-1
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
14-1
9-1
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
14-1
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
HFET
None
UOP-103
UOP-103
None
UOP-99
UOP-99
None
UOP-1O3
UOP-103
None
UOP-99
UOP-99
7-06-79
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-13-79
7-17-79
7-18-79
7-06-79
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-13-79
7-17-79
7-18-79
Methane
12.21
8.57
10.95
11.46
11.98
10.94
4.56
3.57
4.22
3.77
4.98
4.55
Etnyiene
24.03
7.19
9.12
22.63
16.62
17.31
11.45
1.61
2.32
7.89
4.69
5.92
Ethane
2.33
0.53
1.09
1.44
0.90
1.22
0.59
0.46
0.65
0.24
0.50
0.50
Acetylene
4.74
0.17
0.25
4.29
1.12
1.31
2.19
0
0
1.48
0.22
0.22
t-ropane
0
0
0
0
0.93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
rropyiene
7.83
1.79
1.40
6.87
4.55
4.69
3.29
0.09
0.23
2.50
1.21
1.34
Benzene
10.01
2.23
3.21
7.25
5.40
4.70
4.01
0.40
0.66
2.36
1.96
2.05
loiuene
3.01
0.07
0.17
0.38
0.30
0.32
1.56
0
0.23
0.21
0.32
0
Aldehydes Emissions Rates, met/km
9-1
10-1
11-1
12-1
13-1
14-1
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
FTP
None
UOP-103
UOP-103
None
UOP-99
UOP-99
7-06-79
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-13-79
7-17-79
7-18-79
Form- Al-
dehyde
4.2
3.1
2.9
4.9
4.5
5.3
Acet-
Aldehyde
0.9
0.7
0.9
0.1
0
0
Acetone^
0
0
0.4
0
0
0
Isobutyr-
Aldehyde
0
0.6
0
0
0
1.6
Methyethl
Ketone
0
0
0
0
0
0
Croton-
Aldehyde
0
0
0
0
0.2
0
Hex-
Aldehyde
0
0
0
0
0
0
Benzene Total
0.6
0
0
0
0.2
1.2
5.8
4.4
4.2
5.0
4.9
a.i
- Piece of filter missing during weighing
- Includes Acrolein and Propanol
-------
2. HFET Results
The HFET results are listed in Table 7. As seen before, both
fresh and aged catalysts showed improved activity during the HFET cycle.
The fresh catalyst reduced CO approximately 85 percent and HC by 65
percent. The NOX emissions remained the same. The aged catalyst, as in
the FTP, displayed poorer activity than the fresh catalyst by reducing CO
by approximately 60 percent and HC by approximately 55 percent. The NOX
emissions increased by 12 percent. As previously mentioned in this report,
the fuel economy remained unchanged. The computer printouts of these HFET
results are in Appendix B, Tables B-l through B-7, alongside the FTP
results.
The individual hydrocarbon results support trends seen during
the FTP. The fresh and aged catalyst both reduced the individual hydro-
carbons, except methane, by a small degree. It should be noted that the
baseline individual hydrocarbon emissions during the HFET were approximately
half of those seen during the FTP. As stated earlier, no aldehyde emission
rates were determined during the HFET.
The particulate emission rate increased approximately 6 percent
during the fresh catalyst operation. The sulfate emissions from the same
catalyst were increased approximately 50 percent. These results are
contrary to those seen during the FTP. The aged catalyst indicated a
similar response. It appears that the direction of total particulate
emissions follow the direction of sulfate emissions but not necessarily
in a quantitative sense.
3. Other Data
As discussed earlier in this report, other data were collected
and are listed in Appendix B, Tables B-9 and B-10. This data includes
inlet oxygen concentrations, inlet and outlet temperatures, 20 x 25 cm
filter information, and exhaust back pressures during the various cycles.
The Ames results again indicated no appreciable difference in the samples
analyzed. The percent of organic extractables ranged from 4.4 to 6.8
percent. The maximum converter inlet temperature was 271°C during the FTP
and 289°C during the HFET. The minimum inlet temperature was 100°C during
the FTP and 152°C during the HFET.
C. Discussion
There is a tendency to consider oxidation catalysts as particulate
traps. While it is true that a Diesel particulate trap may incorporate one
or more washcoats of an oxidizing type catalyst and thereby combine the
best features of both for particulate reduction, this type system was not
evaluated in this project. The converters employed were Diesel versions
of the standard monolithic type substrate and arrangement popularly used
for control of HC and CO from gasoline burning cars and light trucks since
the 1975 model year. It is evident that these oxidation type catalytic
21
-------
converters did a substantial job on reducing both HC and CO, both items
for which they were intended. In so doing, however, substantial increases
in sulfate resulted. These three findings, lower HC and CO and higher
sulfate, were as anticipated from experiment.
What small improvements in particulate that may have occurred due to
a reduction in gas phase HC was more than offset by the substantial in-
creases in sulfate. Thus, on the surface, the use of oxidation catalysts
are of questionable value for the Diesel car. Improvements in CO are not
needed, since the Diesel CO is already very low and the trade-off of lower
HC for higher sulfates and possibly even higher NOX seems tenuous at best.
The use of the catalyst coatings on particulate traps and substrates
specifically designed to collect and burn-off is of major importance.
Based on the one vehicle tested, the future of catalysts in Diesel exhaust
applications appears to be tied to the development of workable particulate
trap systems. No attempt was made to investigate or study any possible
storage and purge mechanisms of exhaust compounds from systems employing
monolithic oxidation type catalysts.
22
-------
REFERENCES
1. Federal Register, Volume 42, No. 124, Part III, June 28, 1977.
2. Federal Register, Volume 44, No. 23, Part IV, February 1, 1979.
3. Analytical Procedures for Characterizing Unregulated Pollutant
Emissions from Motor Vehicles, Environmental Sciences Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, February 1979.
4. Methodology for Determining Fuel Effects on Diesel Particulate Emissions,
Chemistry and Physics Laboratory, National Environmental Research Center,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, March 1975.
5. Federal Register, Volume 43, No. 140, July 20, 1978.
6. 55 mph Alternate Mileage Accumulation Procedure (MSAPC A/C No. 37,
December 20, 1973, Enclosure 1).
23
-------
APPENDIX A
BASELINE, FTP AND HFET RESULTS
ENGELHARD CATALYTIC CONVERTER SYSTEM
-------
TABLE A-I
VEHICLE SESSION RESULTS
FTPC t HFET
VEHICLE NO. i
VEHICLE MODEL 71 B(.UE OLDS NO.l
ENGINE 0.0 L( -D CIO) V8
TRANSMISSION A3
GVM o KG( -0 LBS)
BAROMETER 731.10 MM HG(2i.is IN
DRV BULB TEMP. 23.3 DEG C(7».0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H?0(IN. HaO)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/ppM
METERX"ANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
>
(0
HC SAMpLE
HC BCKGRD
co SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
DILUTION F,
METERXRANGE/PPN
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CD GRAM.S/KM (GRA^S/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY ce
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
TEST NO. 1
DATE 5/31/71
TIME li:3b
DYNO NO. P
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO.
RUN 1
PROJECT NO. U-4311-003
TEST WEIGH)" 1818 KG( »000 LBS)
»CTUAL ROAU LOAD 1.1 KW( 18.2 HP)
DIESEL tM-3jiF
ODOMETER b.5)
.8* ( 1.3b)
11.33 ( 20.7b)
S.8» ( 3.b3)
HFET
508.0 (20.0)
"U1.1 (lb.5)
»3.1 (111.0)
IHQbl
20fa.3 (7287.7)
12.7X12X
S.5X 2X
S7.2X13X
11
55
bO.OX 3X I.Ob
•».!/ 3X .Ob
32.HX 2X 32
l.BX 2X 2
12.51
15
1.01
30.7
1.81
11.8*
3717.7
11.1»
.11 ( .18)
.71 ( 1.15)
228.5 ( 3b?.b)
.b7 ( 1.08)
8.bS ( 27.51)
Ib.b2 ( 10.33)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM
1.7b
-------
TABLE A-2. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP HFET
CO
VEHICLE NO. i
VEHICLE MODF.L 71 BLUE OLDS NO.l
ENGINF 0.0 L( -0 CIO) V-8
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW o K6( -0 LBS)
BAROMETER 742.95 MM HG(29.25 IN H6)
DRY BULB TEMP. 8S.O OEG C(77.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(OEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMpLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
co? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGF./PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COS CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM (MPG)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
TEST NO. J
DATE t,/ 1/79
TIME )i:37
OYNO NO. 2
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO.
RUN 3
PROJECT NO. ll-»3ll-(J03
TEST WEIGHT 1818 KG( »000 LBS)
ACTUAL RQAO LOAD «1.1 Kw( 12.2 Hp)
DIESEL EM-321F
ODOMETER 720
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 52 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY lO.fa GM/KGC 7».3 GRAlNS/LB)
1.21 (
J21.01 («
.« (
10.»B (
9.bS ( 2H.37)
COLD TRANSIENT
508.0 (20.0)
431.8 (17.0)
43.3 (110. 0)
9334
137. b (4BbO.O)
14.8/12/ 30
b.5/ 2/ 13
Sb.n/13/ 54
4.4/13/ 4
48. 5/
3.4/
21. S/
2.B/
15
•
18
1
7
3/ .
3/ .
2/
2/
.83
18
48
79
.9
.39
.bB
84
OS
21
3
STABILIZED
508.0 (20'0)
431.8 (17.0)
43.3 (110.0)
23b.2 (8343.2)
9.7/12/ 19
b.5/ 2/ 13
35.1/13/ 33
3.5/13/ 3
HOT TRANSIENT
SrjB.n (20.0)
431.8 (17.0)
43.3 (110.0)
932fa
137.5 (4855.0)
ll.S/12/ 23
7.0/ 2/ 14
45.b/13/ 43
2.9/13/ 3
3S.4/ 3/ .54 44. I/
3.
17.
3.
8/
8/
2/
24
9
14
8
3/
2
/
2/
m
2
4
•
m
•
1989.4 2088
*
.24
1.31
338.5
.84
12. b9
5.88
.95
(
( 2.
( 544
( 1.
( 18.
( 3.
38)
10)
.b)
3b)
53)
bS)
•
1.
332
1.
12.
b.
b
15
27
.3
Ob
45
29
•
<
(
(
(
(
(
b4
7
9
8
7
95
00
.2
b3
2
.Ob
18
3
3.9/
23. 3/
3.b/
17
•
H
b
3/ .
3/ .
2/
2/
.bl
10
39
70
• ^
.77
.29
75
Ob
23
»
1757.3
.24)
.05)
534. b)
1
18
3
.70)
.89)
.«U)
5
.13
1.03
2*7. b
.85
10.77
b.ll
.22
(
( 1.
( 4b2
( I-
( 21.
( 3.
eo)
bb)
.8)
37)
63)
8{J)
•CORRECTED COMPOSTIE FTP RESULTS
1
b
1
•Z
.2b)
.95)
.SO)
.54)
.44)
.17
1.25
330.58
.99
10.79
(
(2
(532
(1
(21
.27)
.01)
.00)
.59)
.77)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. ,99b7
HFET
SoB-0 (20.0)
»31.8 (17.0)
*5.0 (113.0)
1»1HO
207.5 (7328.1)
2h
1»
S3
2
Ob
Pb
38
1
12.9/12/
7.0/ 2/
S5.»/13/
2.S/13/
bO.l/ 3/ I
3.V 3/
37. 7/ I/
l.l/ 2/
13
»9
1.01
3b.7
1.53
11. RO
3837.2
It. 51
.09 ( .15)
.71 ( 1.1*)
230.7 ( 371.2)
.87 ( l.tO)
8.fc3 ( 27. ?H)
Ih.b3 ( 10.31*)
9.83
(23.93)
•RESULTS ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE SAMPLE PROBE FLOW RATES
-------
VEHICLE NO. i
VEHICLE MODEL 79 BLUE OLDS NO.l
ENGINE u.n L( -o CID) V-B
TRANSMISSION A3
GVH n KGC -II LBS)
BAROMFTER 738.38 MM HG(?q.o? IN
DRY HULA TEMP. 25.U OEG C(77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DKSCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20UN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM. HSOCIN. H?.O)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STO. cu. METRES(SCF)
TABLE A-B. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTPC HFET
TEST NO. 2 RUN 1
DATE b/ b/79
TIME 09!SO
DYNO NO. 2
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO. 1
HC
HC
CO
Ci)
SAMpLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
HCKGRO
CO? SAMPLE
CO? HCKGRD
NDX SAMPLE
NOX HCKfiRO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RAMGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C')? CONCENTRATION PCT
NDX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CD MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC IJRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GHAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUFL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/innKMfMPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GK'AMS/MIl.E)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GR»MS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/IDOKM (MPO
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY L/IQOKM (MPB>
PROJECT NO. 11-H311-OIQ
TEST WEIGHT 1818 KG( »000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAU LOAD 9.1 Kw( 12.2 HP)
DIESEL trt-321-F
ODOMETER 12bS
RELATIVE HUMIDITY bii PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 18.2 GM/KG( 85.2 GHAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0503
COLD TRANSIENT
508.0 (20.0)
131.8 (17.0)
3b.l ( 17.0)
9339
139.3 (1919.9)
STABILIZED
(20.0)
H31.8 (17.0)
37.8 (100.0)
Ibl38
239.8 (8*70.»)
HOT TRANSIENT
508.0 (20.0)
H31.8 (17.0)
35. b ( 9b.O)
139.7 C»932.B)
•CORRECT COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
.09 ( .11)
.11 ( .18)
321.19 (522.12)
1.01 ( l.b?)
in.«55 ( 22.30)
9.bH ( 21.11)
.09
.12
334.69
1.07
10.87
9.81
(0.14)
(0.19)
(538.61)
( 1.72)
(21.63)
(23.97)
HFET
508.0 (20.0)
131.8 (17.0)
40.b (105.U)
HISS
208.8 (7373.7)
b.5/12/ 13
i.S/ ?/ 9
11.0/13/ 11
3.1/13/ 3
1b.O/ 3/ .79
3.3/ 3/ .05
11. 7/ 2/ 20
•B/ 2/ 1
Ib.
10
1
7
b.7/12/ 13
I.S/ 2/ 1
1.7/13/ 5
2.7/13/ 3
31. 7/ 3/ .53
3. I/ 3/ .05
15. I/ 2/ 15
.b/ 2/ 1
as.
31
5
a
b.b/12/ 13
1.5/ 2/ 1
S.8/13/ b
2.5/13/ 2
12. 7/ 3/ .73
3. 1/ 3/ .OS
19. 3/ 2/ 11
.b/
18
.71 .18
•
•
327
•
12.
5.
18.
•
1.
1815
S.
Ob (
21 (
.1 (
92 (
20 (
79 (
9
3fa
21
.1
30
.10)
.31)
52b.9)
1.17)
19.28)
3.bO)
11.
•
•
2090
7.
.11 (
.09 (
33b.7 (
1.15 (
12.51 (
h.21 (
8
bb
55
.b
11
.17)
.11)
511.7)
1.85)
18. 7b)
3. Ufa)
1«
2/ 1
•
35
S
3
5.7/12/
S.D/ 2/
5.3/13/
2.3/13/
58. b/ 3/ 1.
3.7/ 3/ .
30. 2/ 2/
1.2/
2/
12.
92
2
3
11
10
5
2
01
Ob
30
1
b8 .18
•
•
•
I73b
S
.07
.09
301.1
.11
11.21
5.77
•
(
(
(
(
(
(
7
38
52
.5
2b
.11)
.11)
181.1)
1.17)
20.18)
3.58)
29.
•
•
3757
12
.02
.01
228.9
.71
8.52
lb.12
•
(
(
(
(
(
(
1
2b
71
.b
20
*
•
3b8
1.
27.
10.
03)
07)
.3)
20)
b2)
20)
•RESULTS ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE SAMPLE PROBE FLOW RATES
-------
TABLE A-4. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP FET
VEHICLE NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL ?s BLUE OLDS NO.I
ENGINE 0.0 L( -0 CID) V-8
TRANSMISSION A3
GVM n KG( >n LBS)
BAROMETER 715.71 MM HG(89.3b IN
DRy BULB" TEMP. B3.q DEG C(75.D DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. HaO(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. HaodN, H?O)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CV3 FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMpLE
HCKGRl)
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METfR/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
Ui DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/iOUKM (MPG)
TEST NO. 2
DATE h/13/71*
TIME OSres
DYNO NO. Z
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO.
RUN 2
PROJECT NO. 11-1311-003
TEST WEIGHT 1818 KG( 1000 L8S)
ACTUAL ROAO LOAD S.I KM( 12.2 HP)
DIESEL EM-sglF
ODOMETER 18*3
RELATIVE HUMIDITY sb PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 10.3 GM/K6( 78.1 GRAlNS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. .9877
COLO TRANSIENT
soe.o (eo.o)
131.8 (17.0)
13.3 (110.0)
9358
13B.5 (1893.1)
.01 ( .11)
.1* ( .23)
333.lt (53fa.03)
1.11 ( 1.83)
10.8? ( SI.75)
STABILIZED
508.0 (20«0)
131.8 (17.0)
12.2 (108.0)
iboo2
237.5 (8388.1)
HOT TRANSltNT
508.0 (20.0)
131.8 (17.0)
13.3 (110.0)
9332
138.1 (1878.3)
HFET
S08.Q (20.0)
131.8 (17.0)
13.3 (110.0)
11111
209.3 (7393.9)
8.3/I2/ 17
3.b/ 2/ 7
ia.7/13/ 12
2.1/13/ 2
18. 7/ 3/ .81
3. I/ 3/ .05
21. O/ 2/ 21
I.I/ 2/ 1
IS.Bb
10
10
.80
22.7
.78
1.55
2023.7
5.91
.13 ( .22)
.27 ( .13)
318. b ( 5b0.9)
I. OS ( l.bS)
13.00 ( 18.10)
5.81 ( 3.bl)
S.b/12/ 11
3.b/ 2/ 7
1.8/13/ 5
2.2/13/ 2
32. S/ 3/ .51
3.S/ 3/ .05
18. a/ Zf 18
1.2/ S/ 1
21.72
1
3
.19
17.0
.58
.70
siab. 9
7.bS
.09 ( .15)
.11 ( .18)
312.7 ( 551.1)
1.23 ( 1.98)
12. 7b ( 18.13)
fa. PI ( 3.8b)
5.2/12/ 10
3.b/ 2/ 7
b.9/13/ 7
3.1/13/ 3
13. B/ 3/ .75
1.0/ 3/ .Ob
21. 1/ 2/ 21
l.b/ 2/ 2
17.85
1
1
.b9
22.9
.29
.59
1717. b
5.97
.05 ( .08)
.10 ( .17)
303.1 ( 188.?)
1.01 ( l.b?)
11.30 ( 20.82)
5.7b ( 3.58)
S.7/12/ 11
a.b/ a/ s
1.8/13/ 5
2.1/13/ 2
57. ?/ 3/ 1.02
3.?/ 3/ .Ob
3b.7/ 2/ 37
1.5/ 2/ 2
13.15
7
2
.9b
35.3
.83
.58
3b99.1
13.97
.05 ( .08)
.01 ( .Ob)
221.7 ( 3bl.b)
.85 ( 1.37)
8.3? ( 28.12)
Ib.lfa ( 10.23)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM
9.71 ( 21.22)
-------
TABLE A-S. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FET
VEHICLE NO. i
VEHICLE MODEL ?s BLUE OLDS NO.I
ENGINF n.n L{ -o CIO) v-s
TRANSMISSION A3
GVH o KG( -n LBS)
BAROMFTER ?3s.i» MM HG(2«*.io IN HG)
DRY BOL'B TEMP. 57.2 DEG cm.o DEC F
BAG RESULTS
«AG NUMBER
BLOWER OIF P MM. K20(IN. H20)
BLOWER IMLFT P M*. H20(iN. Hen)
BLOWER INLFT TEMP. DFG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER Rr.voLUTiciNS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
HCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? HCKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRO
METER/RANRE/PPM
MtTEH/HANGE/PPM
HFTER/RANIiE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RAN6E/PPH
HETEM/RANGE/PPM
OILUflON FACTOM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO* CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GMAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? tiRAMS/KM (GRANS/MILE)
NOX GBAMS/KM LOAD l.b K»( i.i HP)
DIESEL tM-3gl-F
ODOMETER
RELATIVE HUMIDITY 58 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 13.5 GM/KG( Sf.fa GRAINS/LB)
HFET
f57.2 (18.0)
•m.l (lb.5)
tb.l (115.0)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.1015
208.2 (7353.5)
5.2/1S/ 10
•».B/ 8/ 10
S.3/13X 8
1.0/13/ 1
SB. I/ 3/ 1.03
3. I/ 3/ .05
32. B/ a/ 33
l.b/ ?/ 2
13.05
2
7
.48
31.9
1.71
37*2.?.
13.7*
.01 ( .02)
.11 ( .17)
3311.3 ( 3711.5)
.85 ( 1.3b)
B.S7 ( ?7.H-O
lb.2S ( 10. in)
-------
TABLE
A-6. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FET
V
-J
VEHICLE NO. i
VEHICLE MODEL 79 BLUE OLDS NO.I
ENGINE n.o L{ -n ciD) V-B
TRANSMISSION A3
GVH 0 KG( -0 LBS)
BAROMETER 739.39 MM HG(29.n IN HG>
DRV BUL'9 TEMP. 85.0 DEC C(77.0 DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG MUMBER
BLOMER DIP p MM. HZOCIN. nao)
BLOWER INLET p MM. H?O(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. C(DEG. F)
BLOMER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
9CKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
COS SAMPLE
COt BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRO
METER/RANGE/PPM
NETER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM CHILES)
TEST NO. 8
DATE 7/87/79
TIME 1513?
OYNO NO. S
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO.
RUN 3
PROJECT NO. 11-^311-003
TEST WEIGHT 1818 KGC »000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.1 KW( 12.2 HP)
DIESEL EM-321F
ODOMETER 2823
RELATIVE HUMIDITY b3 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 12.9 GM/KGC 90.4 GRAINS/LB)
HFET
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.0779
(18.0)
419.1 (Ib.S)
»«..! (115.0)
808.9 (7378.7)
S.2/12/ 10
t.B/ ?/ 10
8.1/13/ 7
.t/13/ 0
57. S/ 3/ 1.01
3. I/ 3/ .05
30. 9/ 2/ 31
.8/ il 1
13.20
2
b
.97
30.2
.19
1.58
3709.5
12.99
.01 ( .02)
.10 ( .IS)
22b.O ( 3h3.7)
.79 ( 1.87)
8.11 ( 27. 9b)
lb.11 ( 10.20)
-------
TABLE A-7. ENGELHARD CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
CONVERTERS INLET OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE
Inlet
Temperature, °C
Percent 02
Cycle
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
Catalyst
None
None
None
None
PTX-516
PTX-516
PTX-516
PTX-516
Date
5-31-79
5-31-79
6-01-79
6-01-79
6-06-79
6-06-79
6-13-79
6-13-79
Left
273
157
296
202
254
119
277
179
193
76
223
127
196
86
235
151
Right
241
113
264
177
242
103
261
162
223
98
248
147
222
91
250
162
Left
18.56
6.30
18.71
9.50
18.76
5.75
18.71
9.75
18.76
7.00
18.51
9.83
18.76
7.18
18.51
10.00
Right
18.26
8.25
18.51
11.33
18.56
6.70
18.51
10.83
18.68
7.50
18.53
10.30
18.83
7.38
18.53
10.18
A-8
-------
TABLE A-8. DUAL ENGELHARD CATALYTIC CONVERTERS
EXHAUST BACK PRESSURES DURING 31 km/hr CRUISE
Exhaust Back Pressure, kPa
Right Bank
9.45
11.48
14.18
Catalyst
None
PTX-516
PTX-516
Date
6-01-79
6-06-79
6-13-79
Left Bank
9.45
11.48
14.86
Type Test
20x25 cm Particulate Filters
Catalyst
Date
Filter No.
Filter Loading, mg
Cold FTP
Hot FTP
Hot FTP
Cold FTP
Hot FTP
Hot FTP
Cold FTP
Hot FTP
Hot FTP
None
None
None
PTX-516
PTX-516
PTX-516
None
None
None
6-01-79
6-01-79
6-01-79
6-06-79
6-06-79
6-06-79
6-27-79
6-27-79
6-27-79
PL- 15 06
PL-1507
PL-1509
PL-1510
PL-1511
PL-1512
PL- 15 14
PL-1515
PL-1516
114.5
152.0
165.7
229.7
166.6
167.0
165.8
188.0
180.5
A-9
-------
APPENDIX B
BASELINE, FTP AND HFET RESULTS
UOP CATALYTIC CONVERTER SYSTEM
-------
70 OLOS CItSFL
rini v-e
-o
MR)
pipi; cf'p.o
BAG
TF«P.
_ n.i.
. F)
HC
S^'-TlF "prFrt/»4MRE /PPM
bC*";»ri Mr TFQ/UAMRE/PPM
Sl^e-lf VrTTR/oargRE /PPH
«CKr,Pf> MpTFR/PAraREXPPM
CO? SAMPLF. "cTPP/PAMRfc/PfT
CO? flCKRPO MplFH/RAMfit/PCT
«FTFK/PAMRfc /PPM
CO
CO
"IOX
to
to
».'OV HCKr.PD '-'cTFP/PANCf /PPM
HC Cn-!rFwT«»TT.nM PPM
CO COMCEWT«»ATIO?i PPM
CO? CO'»CFNT'».«TTOlll PCT
COn!CF»'TPdT TON PPM
CO
co?
RPAvg
v (f;PA'.«S/nlLF)
CO
FUEL
COMPOSITE FTP
BY C« t
TABLE B-l. VEHICLt EMISSION RESULTS
FTP HFET
TEST NO.
DATE 7X
TIME
DYNO NO.
CVS NO.
9-1 RUN 1
PROJECT NO. U-H311-003
TEST HEIGHT 1818 KG( »000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.1 K*( 12,2 HP)
DIESEL EM-321-F
ODOMETER 1922
RAG C»»T NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY bO PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 12.b GM/KG( 88.2 GRAINSXLB)
/"Ti E )
/"TI. F )
HY r.K L/IIOKM
COLO TRANSIENT
5t5.b (20. 3)
»11.S (17.0)
38.3 (IPl.O)
9310
HP. 9 ("»90*.9)
Jfc.3X12X 3*
5.8X ?X 12
"S.7X13X »•»
.3X13X 0
"»h,5X 3/ .80
2.9X 3X ,0»
l«.bX 2X 19
.7X ?X 1
lb.59
?3
V?
.7b
17.9
1.81
b.78
5.08
.31 ( .51)
1.18 ( l.«9)
33Y.7 ( 538. b)
.88 ( 1 ,*2)
l?.«ib ( 18. 7»)
5.7b ( 3.58)
STABILIZED
515. b (20.3)
H31.B (17.0)
38.3 (101. 0)
IbOll
238.8 (8*34.5)
12.2X12X 2»
b.OX 2X 12
30.5X13X 28
.1X13X 0
31. 5X 3X .52
3. OX 3X .OS
1».3X 2X 1*
,BX 2X 1
25. »0
13
27
.18
13.5
1.78
7.*3
2092.0
b.S9
.29 ( ,»7)
1.22 ( 1.9b)
3»2.b ( 551.2)
1.08 ( 1,7»)
12.85 ( 18.31)
b.ll ( 3.80)
HOT TRANSIENT
515. b (20.3)
»31.8 (17.0)
»0.b (105.0)
9399
139.5 (»927.1)
11.1X12/ 22
b.lX 2X 12
39.HX13X 3b
.1X13X 0
H2.9X 3X ,73
2.8X 3X ,0»
1B.9X 2X 19
,»X 2X 0
18.17
11
35
,b9
18.5
.17
5.b9
17bb.S
5.27
.15 ( .2*)
1.00 ( l.bl)
310. b ( »99,8)
.93 ( 1 ,*9)
11. b3 ( 20.23)
5.b9 ( 3.53)
•CORRECTED COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
,2K ( .»?)
l.JS ( 1^85)
32.15 (53».<»3)
1.00 ( l.bO)
10.85 ( 21. b?)
.27 (.43)
1.18 (1.90)
340.41 <547.8I)
1.02 (1.64)
11.12 (21.03)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. l.Obbl
HFET
508.0 (20.0)
5S.8 (127.0)
1"*152
203.2 (717b.l)
1«.OX12X 28
5, 1/ 2X 10
50.bX13X »8
.8X13X 1
58, 2X 3X 1.03
3.7X 3X .Ob
30. 2/ 2X 30
,bX 2X 1
12.95
19
»5
.97
29. b
10.71
3b27.S
12.26
.13 ( .22)
.bb ( I.Ob)
222.8 ( 358. H)
.75 ( 1.21)
8.3* ( 28.21)
lb.28 ( 10.12)
9.7P ( 2"».20)
9.91
(23.75)
•RESULTS ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE SAMPLE PROBE FLOW RATES
-------
TABLE B-2. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
VEHICLE NO. i
VEHICLE MODEL 79 BLUE OLDS NO.l
ENGINE 0.0 L( -0 CID) V-8
TRANSMISSION A3
6VH o KG( -o LBS)
BAROMETER 737.be MM HG(a9.0t IN HG)
DRV BULB TEMP. 25.0 DEC C(77.0 OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. HaOdN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20CIN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STD. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
COa CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
COS MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COa GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/lonKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/lfinKM (MPG)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY L/IOOKM
to
1
U)
HC SAMPLE
HC 8CKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRD
Coa SAMPLE
COa BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
DILUTION Fi
TEST NO. 10
DATE 7/11/79
TIME 10:27
DYNO NO. a
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO.
RUN 1
PROJECT NO. Il-t311-003
TF.ST WEIGHT 1B1H KG( *000 LBS)
ACTUAL HO«U LO*D "1.1 *"( 12.2 HP)
DIESEL trt-sei-F
ODOMETEH etbB
RELATIVE HUMIDITY Sfa PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 11.t GM/KG( 80.1 GR»INS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F.
.13 (
.17 (
».tb ('
.SS (
9.t5 ( at.89)
COLD TRANSIENT
508.0 (ao.O)
t31.8 (17.0)
37.8 (1011. 0)
930b
J38.0 (t875.7)
9.3/ia/ 19
s. a/ a/ 10
17.1/13/ IS
.1/I3/ 0
t5.9/ 3/ .79
3.0/ 3/ .05
20. I/ a/ 20
i.?/ a/ a
lb.92
9
15
.75
18.5
.71
?.3t
IBSt.S
5.00
.IP ( .20)
.tO ( ,b5)
32b.l ( 52t.7)
.87 ( 1.39)
12.17 ( 19.33)
5.78 ( 3.59)
STABILIZED
508.0 (an.o)
tSl.8 (17.0)
tO.O (lOt.O)
IbOlt
23b.2 (83tt.O)
7.5/12/ 15
t.2/ a/ B
2.7/13/ 2
.8/13/ 0
30. 8/ 3/ .51
2.9/ 3/ .0*
lt.8/ S/ 15
l.l/ Z/ 1
2b.l9
7
2
.t7
13.7
.93
.58
aoai.b
b.3b
.is ( .at)
.09 ( .15)
32b.O ( Sat. 5)
1.03 ( I.b5)
12.15 ( 19.37)
b.20 ( 3.85)
HOT TRANSIENT
508.0 (20.0)
t31.3 (17.0)
tO.b (105. U)
9303
137.0 (tg39.8)
7.2/12/ It
t.2/ 2/ 8
fa.5/13/ b
.1/13/ 0
tl.7/ 3/ .71
2.7/ 3/ -Ot
20. t/ 2/ 20
i.t/ a/ i
18. 8t
h
5
.b?
1^.1
.5-1
. Ufa
lbU2 . 2
5.12
.09 ( .it)
.15 ( .«!t)
291.3 ( tbB.7)
.89 ( l.tj)
10. H5 ( 21. b7)
5.78 ( 3-59)
"CORRECTED COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
.20)
.28)
109.19)
l.St)
22.88)
.13 (.21)
.18 (.29)
324.33 (521.94)
.97 (I.5C)
10.54 (22.19)
HFET
50B.O (ail.O)
t31.H (17.0)
t3.3 (110. (I)
207.0 (7309.7)
7.1/1B/
3.u/ a/
S.U/13/
.3/13/
57.M/ if
3.1/ 3/
32.1/ e/
i.H/ a/
13.10
9
if
.98
311. t
i.tn
It
b
t
n
.na
.MS
>.9
12.3t
.Ub (
.Kb (
aab.b i
.75 (
.HI)
.(19)
.5)
1.2))
8.tt I 27.PS)
b.3S ( 10. lb)
9.63
(24.44)
•RESULTS ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE SAMPLE PROBE FLOW RATES
-------
VEHICLE NO. T
VEHICLE MODEL 79 BLUE "LOS NO.1
ENGINE n.o n -n CID) v-a
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KG( -n LBS)
TABLE B-3. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. 11 RUN I
DATE 7/12/79
TIME 10130
OYNO NO. 2
CVS NO. 1
BAG CAST NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 11-H311-OQ3
TEST WEIGHT 1818 KG( »ODO L8S)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD S.I KV» ( 12,2 HP)
DIESEL EM-321F
ODOMETER 2505
CO
I
BAROMET.ER 71q'.b* MM HG(?9.12 IN HG)
DRY BULB TE«P'. ??.» OEG C(73.o OFG
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOrtER OIF P MM. HJCHIN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM, HJOCIN. H?
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEC. CCDEG
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STD'. cu. METRES(SCF)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY b<» PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 12.* GM/KG( 8b.t« GRAINS/L8)
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. l.05?h
HC SAMPLE
HC
CO
CO BCKGRR
C02 SAMPLE
co? BCKGRI>
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRO
MFTFR/RANGF/PPM
MFTFR/RANGE/PPM
MFTFR/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PPM
MFTFR/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
COLD TRANSIENT
508.0 (20.0)
Ml.8 (17.0)
33.9 ( 93.0)
19
11
Ib
1
.'8
.0*
22
2
CO MASS GRAMS
C02 MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DTSTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RFSHLTS
HC GRAMS/*M (GRAMS/MILE) ,0» (
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) .22 (
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE) 319.71
NOX GRAMS/KM fGRAMS/MIiE) 1.09 (
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM («PG)
COMBINED FljEL ErONOMY L/1POKM (Mpc)
•RESULTS ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE SAMPLE PROBE FLOW RATES
9.7/12/
5.7/ ?/
18.S/13/
.b/13/
^S.2/ 3/
2.9/ 3/
21.7/ Zt
17.20
9
15
.73
19.b
.'1
?.50
1883.8
5.57
.12 (
,»f (
3?7,8 (
.97 (
1?.?3 (
5.75 (
.Ob)
.35)
.Hl)
1.7h)
10.38 ( 22.b?)
9.11 ( 25.83)
STABILIZED
508. n (20.0)
»31.8 (17.0)
38.3 (101.0)
31.I/ 3/
3.0/ 3/
17.5/ 2/
25.9*
-n
3
.»'
15.2
.9-*
20bl.5
7.3*
fS»38.H)
9
10
H
0
.52
.05
18
2
-.00 ( -.01)
.15 ( .25)
335,2 ( 539.*)
1.19 ( 1.92)
( 18.85)
12.
HOT TRANSIENT
508.0 (jn.O)
»31,8 (17,0)
3b,7 ( 98.0)
933*
139.3
h,
»,
',
\
»0,
2,
Zi,
2,
,2/l2/
,fi/ 2/
,9/13/
,1/13/
,!/ 3/
,B/ 3/
,2/ ?/
,2/ 2/
12
10
7
0
,b8
,0-*
23
2
.80)
.70)
527.*)
1.5b)
19.23)
3.57) b.15 ( 3.R?)
•CORRECTED COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
19. bb
3
7
.b*
20.1
1.07
Ib29.8
5,b7
.05 ( ,08)
.19 ( ,30)
28».» ( *fS?.b)
,99 ( 1,59)
10.bO ( 22.20)
5,73 ( 3.St.)
0.04
0.23
327.70
I. \2
10.64
9.41
(0.06)
CO.36)
(527.26)
( 1.80)
(22.10)
(25.00)
HFET
508.0 (20.0)
»31,8 (17.0)
»b.l (115.0)
lH3b»
209.* (739*.b)
13
9
b
0
,90
.o»
30
2
b,<
».S/ 2/
b.5/13/
,1/13/
51,9/ 3/
2,9/ 3/
30.S/ 2/
1,9/ 2/
1»,80
•»
5
,8b
28,7
,52
1,31
330b,9
12,17
.03 ( .05)
.08 ( .13)
202.8 ( 32b.H)
.75 ( 1,20)
7.55 ( 31.1»)
lb,30 ( 10,13)
-------
VEHICLE NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL "» BLUE OLDS NO.I
ENGINE 0.0 Lf -0 CIO) V-B
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW 0 KG( -0
TABLE B-9. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
TEST NO. 13 RUN 1
DATE 7/13/79
TIME 09t3b
DYNO NO. 2
CVS NO. 1
RAG CART NO. 1
PROJECT NO. 11-H311-003
BAROMETER 7»o',lb MM HG(39.1» IN HG)
DRV BULB TEMP. 2».>» DEG C(7b.O DfG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIF P MM. HSOHN. H?O)
BLOWER INLET P MM. M?0(IN. M?n)
BLOWER INLFT TE«P. REG. CtDEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STO. cu
W
cn
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO BCKGRO
CO? SAMPLE
COH BCKGRO
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
DILUTION Fi
METER/RANGE/PPM
MFTFR/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METFR/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGEXPCT
METFR/RANGE/PPM
METERXRANGt/PPM
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GPAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS SPAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
COa GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM fGRAMg/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY C8 L/l OOKM(MPK)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES!
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GPAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM ffiPAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION «Y C« L/100KM (MPG)
TEST WEIGHT J818 KG(
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9,1
DIESEL EM-321-F
ODOMETER ?S?7
HOOO LBS)
KW( 12.2 HP)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY b3 PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 12.* GM/KG( Bb.b GRAINS/LB)
NOX HUMIDITY C,F, 1.0578
1
COLD TRANSIENT
508.0 (20.0)
»31.8 (17.0)
HO.b (105.0)
138.0 (»873.9)
15.9X12X
5.3X 2X
*b. 7X1 3X
,bX13X
Hb.bX 3X
3.2X 3X
?n.3X ?x
a. ox ?x
Ib.Sfa
22
32
11
"»»
1
.80
.05
zo
2
18.*
l.7»
b.70
1910.3
5.10
.30 ( ,»8)
l.lb ( 1.87)
331.3 ( 533.0)
.89 ( !.»»)
12.»2 ( 18.93)
5.77 ( 3.58)
.88 (
1.09 ( 1,75)
321.18 (Sib. 78)
1.01 ( I.b2)
10.50 ( ?2.Hl)
STABILIZED
508.0 (20.0)
«31.8 (17.0)
"»0.0 (10»,0)
Ib057
237.B (8399.8)
12
H
29
31
3
15
1
•2X12X
,8X 2X
.8X13X
.5X13X
.8X JX
,bX 3X
,»X 8X
,"»X 2X
85. If
15
2b
2*
10
27
0
.53
.Ob
15
1
l».l
2.09
7.13
b.7b
.3f (
1.1* ( 1.R*)
332.3 ( 53*.b)
1.09 { 1.75)
12.H7 ( 18.87)
b.22 ( 3,87)
HOT TRANSIENT
50B.O (20.0)
»31.8 (17.0)
HO.b (105.0)
0338
138.1 («»877.S)
10.3X12X
5. OX 2X
37.3X13X
.2X13X
»8.2X 3X
3.7X 3X
20. 7X 2X
1.2X 2X
18. SO
11
33
.b7
21
10
3H
0
,72
.Ob
21
1
.89
5.29
.15 ( .85)
.92 ( l.HB)
292.b ( »70.7)
.95 ( 1.53)
10.95 ( 21.»8)
S.75 ( 3.57)
HFET
508.0 (20.0)
<»31.8 (17.0)
-------
VEHICLE NO. 1
VEHICLE MODEL 79 BLUE OLDS HS
ENGTNE 5.7 LOSO CID> v-8
TRANSMISSION AS
GVM n KG( -o LBS)
BAROMFTER 7*3.20 MM HG(29.2b IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 2b.i DEG c(?9.o OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H20(iN. H20)
BLOWER INLET P MM. HSOCIN. H?O)
BLOWES INLET TEMP. DEG. C{DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STO. cu. METRESCSCF)
METER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGF/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
C02 CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
C02 GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB LX100KM (MPG)
COMBINED FUEL ECONOMY LXIOOKM (MPG)
TABLE B-5. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTPC + HFET
TEST NO. 13 RUN 1
DATE 7/17/79
TIME
OYNO NO. ?
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO. 1
RELATIVE HUMIDITY b» PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 13.9 GM/KG( 97.«
to
1
HC
HC
cn
CO
Co?
C02
NOX
NOX
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
COLD TRANSIENT
508. 0 (PO.O)
•H9.1 (lb.5)
»2.2 (108.0)
9397
139.3 (*918. 7)
11.7/12/ 23
S.3/ 2/ 11
27.1/13/ 2»
.3/13/ 0
»S.b/ 3/ .78
3. I/ 3/ .05
20,«»/ 2/ 20
.8/ 2/ I
17.01
13
23
.7»
19. b
l.OR
3.77
1882.9
5.85
.19 ( .30)
.bf> ( I.Ob)
3?9.8 ( 53D.7)
1.02 ( l.bS)
12.33 ( 19.08)
5.71 ( 3.55)
STABILIZED
508.0 CPO.O)
•H9.1 (Ib.S)
39.* (103.0)
159bH
238.1 (8*08. B)
10.5/12/ 21
».!/ 2/ 8
18.h/13/ lb
.2/13/ 0
30. »/ 3/ .50
3. I/ 3/ .05
ib.«»/ e/ ib
1.9X 2X 2
2b.tb
13
lb
.»«>
l».b
i.sn
».39
1993.1
'.•»2
.29 ( .»7)
.'2 ( 1.15)
3?».7 ( 522.5)
1.21 ( 1.9f)
12.15 ( 19.35)
b.l» ( 3.81)
HOT TRANSIENT
508.0 (20.0)
»19.1 (lb.5)
HO.b (105.0)
•»330
138.8 (H9Q1.7)
5.7X12X 11
».2X 2X 8
19.8/13/ 18
.3/13/ 0
»?.!/ 3/ .?2
2.S/ 3/ .Of
22. O/ 2/ 82
I.?/ 2/ 2
18. b2
•»
17
.bB
20. »
.28
2.71
1730.2
b.05
.05 ( .08)
.»* ( .")
30*. 7 ( -»90.2)
1.07 ( 1.71)
11.37 ( 20.70)
S.bB ( 3.53)
•CORRECTED COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
.?n ( .33)
.b» ( 1.03)
3?0.?8 (S15.33)
1.13 ( 1.82)
in.f» ( 2?.s»)
.21 (.
.66 (1.
329.83 (530.
1.16 (1.
10.75 (21.
34)
06)
79)
87)
86)
PROJECT NO. ll-*3il-003
TEST WEIGHT 1818 KG( »000 LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LOAD 9.1 KW( la.? HP)
DIESEL
ODOMETER 2bbO
GRAINS/LB) NQX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.117b
HFET
508.0 (?0.0)
»19.1 (Ib.S)
fb.l (11S.D)
1*178
207.8 (7338.7)
b.2/12/ 12
•».?/ a/ 9
lb.2/13/ 1»
.2/13/ 0
Sb.S/ 3/ .99
3. I/ 3/ .05
31. 5X 2/ 31
13. »5
.95
30.7
3.89
bl*.2
13. b2
.03 ( .n*)
.80 ( .33)
222.8 ( 358.5)
.B» ( 1.35)
8.30 ( 26.33)
lh.22 ( 10.08)
9.66
(24.36)
•RESULTS ADJUSTED TO INCLUDE SAMPLE PROBE FLOW RATES
-------
VEHICLE NO. i
VEHICLE MOOFL ?Q BLUE OLDS SB
ENGINE 5.7 LOso CID) v-g
TRANSMISSION AS
GVM n KGC -n LBS)
BAROMETER 739.b5 MM HG(29.i2 IN
DRY BULB TEMP. 22.8 DEC C(73.0 DEC F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER DIP P MM. H?0(IN. HgO)
BLOWER INLET P MM. H20(IN. H20)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DEG. CCDEG.
BLOHER RF.VDLUTIONS
cvs FLOH STD. cu. METRESCSCF)
TABLE B-6. VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTPC-HFET
TEST NO. it RUN 1
HATF 7/18/7S
TIME
DYNO NO. ?
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO. i
HC
HC
CO
CO
03
SAMPLE
BCKGPO
SAMPLE
9CKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? 8CKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRD
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
MFTER/RANGF./PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PCT
METFR/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGF/PPM
J DILUTION FACTOR
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS GRAMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC 5RAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
Co GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? SRAMF./KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX SRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO SRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUF.L CONSUMPTION BY CB L/1DOKM (MPG)
COMBINE!) FUEL ECONOMY L/100KM (MPG)
PftOJECT NO. Il-»311-0n3
TEST WEIGHT HUB KGC »ooo LBS)
ACTUAL ROAD LC1»0 9.1 K
-------
TABLE
B-7.VEHICLE EMISSION RESULTS
FTP
VEHICLE NO. 1
VFHICLE MODEL 71 BLUE OLDS NO.l
ENGINE il.II L( -0 CID) V-H
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW I) KG( -n L8S)
BAROMETER 73b.B5 MM HG(21.M1 IN HG)
DRY BULB TEMP. 2H.«> DEG C(7b.O DEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMBER
DESCRIPTION
BLOWER OIF P MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM. HSOCIM. HSO)
BLOWER INLET TEMP. DFG. CCOEC. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
CVS FLOW STO. CU. METRES(SCF)
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
METER/RANQE/PCT
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/KANGE/PPM
ro
i
00
HC SAMPLE
HC BCKGRD
CO SAMPLE
CO 8CKSRD
CO? SAMPLE
C02 BCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX 9CKGRD
DILUTION F,
HC
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO?. CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO MASS GRAMS
CO? MASS G»AMS
NOX MASS GRAMS
HC GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co GWAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GPAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
NO< GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/inOKM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM CMILES)
COMPOSITE FTP RESULTS
HC CHAWS/KM (CRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
co? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILF.)
NOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUEL CONSUMPTION BY CB L/lonKM (MPG)
TEST NO. 11
DATE V/25/71
TIME 01:38
DYNO NO. 2
CVS NO. 1
BAG CART NO.
RUN 8
PKOJECT NO. Il-
-------
TABLE
03
I
VD
VEHICLE NO. i
VEHICLE MODEL ?i HLUE OLDS NO.I
ENGINE n.n L( -0 CID) V-H
TRANSMISSION A3
GVW II KG( -0 LHS)
BAROMETER ?3b.bo MM HG(?s.(in IN HG)
DRY BUCB TEMP. 28.3 DEG C(83.0 OEG F)
BAG RESULTS
BAG NUMRF-H
PLOWER DIP P MM. H?0(IN. H?0)
BLOWER INLET P MM. M20(IN. H?0)
RLOWER INLET TEMP. OEG. C(DEG. F)
BLOWER REVOLUTIONS
cvs FLOW STO. cu. METRESCSCF)
HC
HC
CO
CO
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
SAMPLE
BCKGRD
CO? SAMPLE
CO? OCKGRD
NOX SAMPLE
NOX BCKGRO
METER/RANGE/PPM
METER/RANGF./PPM
METER/RANGE/PPM
METF.R/KANGE/PPM
METER/RANGE/PCT
MF.TER/RANGE/PCT
MFTER/RANGE/PPH
METER/RANGE/PPM
OILUflON FACTOH
HC CONCENTRATION PPM
CO CONCENTRATION PPM
CO? CONCENTRATION PCT
NOX CONCENTRATION PPM
HC MASS GRAMS
CO " LO»D <».l
DIESEL t.M-32i-F
ODOMETER ?7b8
HOOO LBS)
KW( IZ.i HP)
RELATIVE HUMIDITY sb PCT
ABSOLUTE HUMIDITY 13.9 GM/KG( 97.3 GRAlNS/LB)
HPET
NOX HUMIDITY C.F. 1.1171
»0b.f (lb.0)
»3.3 (111). tl)
I'M 33
207. 2 (731b.b)
S. 4/12X IS
S.b/ ?/ 11
2H.b/l3/ S2
.b/13/ 1
59. •»/ 3/ 1.05
?.b/ 3/ .Ot
3».o/ e/ a*
e.n/ ?/ ?
1.01
3?.?
i. no
5. no
38»B.»
HC G3AMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
CO? GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
MOX GRAMS/KM (GRAMS/MILE)
FUFL CONSUMPTION RY C8 L/100KM(MPG)
CALCULATED DISTANCE KM (MILES)
.Ob ( .10)
.31 ( .**)
235.5 ( 378. *)
.B7 ( l.HO)
8. 78 ( 2b.7fl)
lb.3f ( 10. Ib)
-------
TABLE B-9. CONVERTER INLET OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURES
UOP CATALYTIC CONVERTER
Temperatures °C
Cycle
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
FTP
HFET
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
Catalyst Date
None 7-6-79
None 7-6-79
UOP- 10 3 7-11-79
UOP-103 7-11-79
UOP-103 7-12-79
UOP-103 7-12-79
None 7-13-79
None 7-13-79
UOP-99 7-17-79
UOP-99 7-17-79
UOP-99 7-18-79
UOP-99 7-18-79
Inlet
—
—
227
103
263
132
212
100
230
152
__
--
262
126
281
172
271
127
289
175
Outlet
256
119
281
182
253
103
276
179
231
93
247
174
261
127
278
178
260
117
276
178
261
107
278
177
Percent
18.83
7.00
18.56
10.50
18.88
6.88
18.76
9.53
19.03
7.55
18.73
10.80
18.96
7.50
18.51
10.50
18.78
7.80
18.26
10.25
18.58
7.25
18.51
10.70
B-10
-------
TABLE B-10. EXHAUST BACK PRESSURES DURING 31 KM/H CRUISE
UOP CATALYTIC CONVERTER
Exhaust Back Pressure, kPa
Catalyst
UOP- 10 3
UOP- 10 3
None
UOP-99
UOP -9 9
Date
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-13-79
7-17-79
7-13-79
Right
15.
15.
12.
15.
15.
Bank
53
53
16
53
53
20 x 25 cm Parti culate Filters
Type Test
Cold FTP
Hot FTP
Hot FTP
Cold FTP
Hot FTP
Hot FTP
Cold FTP
Cold FTP
Hot FTP
Hot FTP
Catalyst
None
None
None
UOP- 10 3
UOP- 10 3
UOP- 10 3
UOP- 10 3
UOP-99
UOP-99
UOP-99
Date
7-6-79
7-6-79
7-6-79
7-11-79
7-11-79
7-11-79
7-12-79
7-17-79
7-17-79
7-17-79
Filter No.
PL-1517
PL- 15 18
PL-1519
PL-1520
PL-1521
PL- 15 2 2
PL-1523
PL-1524
PL-1525
PL-1526
Filter Loading, mg
295.0
189.3
158.4
233.6
159.7
158.1
183.6
175.3
157.0
162.9
B-ll
------- |