EPA-460/3-77-021
December 1977
AN EVALUATION OF
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE
ON EXHAUST EMISSIONS
OF 1975-1976 MODEL YEAR
IN-USE AUTOMOBILES
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Waste Management
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
EPA-460/3-77-021
AN EVALUATION OF
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE
ON EXHAUST EMISSIONS
OF 1975-1976 MODEL YEAR
IN-USE AUTOMOBILES
by
Jeffrey C. Bernard
Jane F.Pratt
Calspan Corporation
4455 Genesee Street
Buffalo, N.Y. 14221
Contract No. 68-03-2386
EPA Project 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
December 1977
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to report technical data of
interest to a limited number of readers. Copies are available free of charge to Federal
employees, current contractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations-in limited
quantities-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.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by Calspan Corporation,
4455 Genesee St., Buffalo, N.Y. 14221 in fulfillment of Contract No. 68-03-2386. The
contents of this report are reproduced herein as received from Calspan Corporation. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author and not necessarily
those of the Environmental Protection Agency. Mention of company or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the Environmental Protection Agency.
Publication No. EPA-460/3-77-021
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Background 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Design of RM Program 1-2
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 2-1
3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EMISSION
RELATED SYSTEMS 3-1
3.1 A Discussion of Malperformance of All Vehicles
Taking the Initial Test by City and Manufacturer . 3-6
3.2 A Discussion of Malperformances for Vehicles
Passing the Initial Restorative Maintenance
Test by City and Manufacturer 3-10
3.3 A Discussion of Malperforraance of Vehicles
Failing the Initial Restorative Maintenance
Test by City and Manufacturer 3-13
3.4 A Comparison of Malperformance for Passed and
Failed Vehicles 3-15
3.5 Examination of Malperformances of Passed and
Failed Vehicles Whose Emissions are
Extrapolated to 50,000 Miles 3-17
4.0 EFFECT OF ADJUSTMENTS OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION
TOLERANCES FOR TIMING, IDLE RPM, AND IDLE CO 4-1
4.1 Percentage of Vehicles Within and Outside of
Specification Tolerances 4-2
4.2- Correlation Between Vehicles Within and Outside
of Specification Tolerances and the Failure of a
Vehicle to Pass the FTP 4-3
4.3 Degree to Which Maladjustments Affect Emissions
and Fuel Economy 4^-7
5.0 EFFECT OF THE RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE TESTS 1-4 ON
EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY 5-1
5.1 Empirical Distribution of Emissions . , 5-3
5.2 Vehicle Mean Emissions for Test Sequences 1-4 . . 5-11
5.3 Effect of Specific Malperformances on Emissions
and Fuel Economy (Tests 5-10) 5-13
5.4 Vehicles Failing the Emissions Standards for
Test Sequences 1-4 5-14
iii
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)
Section
Page
6.0 VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY 6-1
6.1 Driveability and Deviation from the Specification . 6-1
6.2 Owner-Perceived Driveability Problems 6-7
6.3 Contractor-Perceived Driveability Problems .... 6-8
6.4 A Comparison Between Pairs of Test Sequences . . . 6-12
6.5 A Comparison of Idle CO and Idle RPM Before
and After Adjustment 6-14
7.0 A COMPARISON OF CERTIFICATION AND RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE
FUEL ECONOMY 7-1
8.0 REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY TABLES 8-1
8.1 Linear Regression Analysis 8-1
8.2 Contingency Table Analysis 8-3
APPENDIX A - TABLES A-l through A-103 A-l
APPENDIX B - TABLES B-l through B-35 B-l
APPENDIX C - TABLES C-l through C-68 C-l
IV
-------
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the Restorative Maintenance (RM) program is twofold:
to determine the apparent reasons for the poor emission performance of the
1975-1976 model year vehicles and to examine and quantify the individual
and combined effects of malperforming emission components on emissions and
fuel economy. To this end, the analysis is performed individually for
hydrocarbons (HC), carbon monoxide (CO) , nitrous oxides (NO ), and for urban
A.
and highway fuel economies. The data are analyzed separately by manufacturer
and by city as well as for all vehicles combined.
1,1 Background
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducts annual vehicle
emission test programs, the Emission Factor Programs (EFP), for the purpose
of estimating the average emissions from a nationally representative sample
of in-use vehicles. The emissions data are used by various Federal, State,
and local agencies for the purpose of estimating the impact of light duty
vehicle emissions on air quality. Results of 2 recently completed EFP indi-
cated that a large percentage, approximately 60 percent, of the 1975 model
year vehicles in as-received condition have emissions above the 1975 Federal
Standards after only one year of use. The 1975 model year was the first model
year with large numbers of catalyst equipped vehicles. Similar results from
the most recent EFP indicate that approximately 55% of the 1976 model year
vehicles fail the Federal Standards after only one year of use.
Attempts were made to determine the probable reasons for the high
failure rate of 1975 and 1976 cars using existing data for investigation.
However, the purpose and design of the EFP do not include the needed meas-
urements, emission component checks, and emission tests to precisely deter-
mine the causes of high emissions. The RM program was specifically designed
to address the concerns about the high failure rate of the 1975 and 1976
model year vehicles.
1-1
-------
1.2 Purpose and Design of the RM Program
There are two purposes for the Restorative Maintenance Study:
1. To go beyond the basic Emission Factor testing in deter-
mination of apparent reasons for emission malperformance
of in-use vehicles.
2. To investigate and quantify the individual and combined
effects of defects, disablement or maladjustment actions
on exhaust emissions and fuel economy.
As a result of this program, EPA will:
1. Be able to assess the effectiveness of the present
Light Duty Vehicle Certification Process in relation-
ship to the performance of defect-free, properly tuned,
in-use vehicles.
2. Provide background for planning which could result in
further requirements for refinement of powerplants and
emission control devices. An example of this may be a
mandated restriction on the adjustment of sensitive
engine parameters such as idle mixture and basic
ignition timing.
3. Generate information which can be used in planning for
Inspection and Maintenance (I/M) programs, Selective
Enforcement Audit (SEA) and Recall.
This program is not expected to be able to assess who is responsible
for any maladjustments or disablements. However, since vehicles were tested
for driveability and owners were questioned as to the maintenance practices,
the program may begin to give some insight into why a large percentage of
1975/76 vehicles are maladjusted or have emission components disabled.
1-2
-------
Three hundred vehicles were tested in the RM Program, 100 vehicles
from each of three metropolitan areas; Chicago, Detroit, and Washington.
Independent testing laboratories under contract to the EPA performed the
testing. Three major domestic automobile manufacturers were represented
equally at each city location. Sales-weighting techniques were used to
specify the models and engines to be evaluated. Vehicles from the 1975
and 1976 model years were selected from the general public at random with
the requirement that they were less than twelve months old and had accumulated
fewer than 15,000 miles. In addition, the owners were asked questions to
preclude vehicles which had been abused or extensively modified and to
ascertain how the vehicle had been used and maintained and how well the
vehicle performed.
Once accepted into the program, a varying number of tests were
performed on each vehicle according to the test plan. Each of the tests was
separated from the following test by a decision point and an appropriate
action. Individual test sequences consisted of a 1975 Federal Test Procedure
(FTP) followed by a Highway Fuel Economy Test (HFET) and five short cycle
tests. This 1975 FTP was modified to exclude the evaporative emissions
and the extensive preconditioning procedures used in certification of the
vehicle. The short cycles were ones which are currently being employed or
considered for I/M programs by a number of state and local agencies. The
contractor also evaluated the driveability of each vehicle as part of each
test sequence.
A varying number of test sequences were performed on each vehicle,
depending upon whether the vehicle failed the FTP on the preceding sequence
and whether it required correction of a malperforming emission control item
or scheduled maintenance. The full test sequence consisted of four steps:
an initial test sequence, a sequence following correction of maladjustments
and disablements other than idle mixture and idle speed, a test sequence
after these idle settings were readjusted, and a fourth sequence after the
restoration of all emission control components in conjunction with a
complete tune-up.
1-3
-------
Certain test vehicles were then subjected to further test sequences,
Each vehicle selected at this point in the program had met the FTP standards
Most had received a complete tune-up, although some were accepted for addi-
tional testing after a successful emission component inspection. The
vehicles were then subjected to "selective maladjustments" where a single
engine parameter, e.g., ignition timing, or a specified combination of
parameters was maladjusted or disabled. Table A-102 provides a flow chart
and narrative of the Restorative Maintenance Program test plan.
1-4
-------
2.0 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The following results have been obtained by analysis of the
Restorative Maintenace (RM) program data:
1. For the 300 vehicles tested, 74% have at least one
malperformance of an emissions related component
or system.
2. Chrysler vehicles have the largest percentage, 96%,
of at least one malperformance and 94% of all
Chrysler vehicles have a malperformance of the
carburetor/fuel system.
3. Of the nine emission related systems investigated,
the carburetor/fuel system contributes the largest
percentage, 66%, of malperformances.
4. The emissions related components of the carburetor/fuel
system with the largest percentages of malperformance
are: disabled limiter caps, maladjusted idle mixture
screws, maladjusted idle speed settings, and maladjusted
choke assemblies.
5. Certain combinations of malperforming components,
particularly within the carburetor/fuel and ignition
systems, correlate with vehicles failing the standards,
although the exact relationship between combinations
of malperforming emission components and their additive
or multiplicative effect upon emissions is not yet known.
6. Seventy-two percent of the 300 vehicles were outside
at least one specification tolerance for either idle RPM,
idle CO or timing, and 93% of all Chrysler vehicles were
outside of at least one specification tolerance.
2-1
-------
Seventy-six percent of all Chrysler vehicles were
outside of the idle CO specification (that is,
had tailpipe idle CO greater than .5%).
7. General Motors vehicles with tailpipe idle CO
greater than .5% correlate with the failure of a
GM vehicle to meet the CO standards 90% of the time.
The same is true for Chrysler vehicles 74% of the
time and for Ford vehicles only 44% of the time.
8. It appears that disablement of the EGR valve or lines
strongly correlates with the failure to pass NOX
standards.
9. A significant change in emissions levels due to adjust-
ment or maladjustment of emission components outside
their specification tolerances is not necessarily
accompanied by a significant change in fuel economy.
10. Adjustment of the vehicle within accepted specification
tolerances does not imply acceptable driveability quality.
11. Disablement and maladjustment of any emission components
thought to be typical for a certain type of vehicle
almost always resulted in the failure of a vehicle to
meet the standards.
12. The overall ability of the short cycle tests to pass
or fail a vehicle as compared to the FTP is best for
the Federal Short Cycle Test.
13. Investigation of the distribution of emissions shows that
they are log-normally distributed as in Figure 2-1 ,
following:
2-2
-------
emission standard
emissions
Figure 2-1 LOG-NORMAL EMISSIONS
The median measurement (the 50th percent!le) of a log-normal
distribution is equal to the geometric mean, exp C-—^") , of the
measurements. A set of measurements whose distribution follows
the log-normal will have an arithmetic mean that is greater than
the median (or geometric mean). The arithmetic mean emission
value is used in air-quality projections. The log normal distri-
bution is used in the prediction of percent of vehicles failing
standards.
(14)
Investigation of the distribution of emissions for
vehicles with tailpipe idle CO less than or equal to
.5% and for vehicles with tailpipe idle CO greater
than .5% shows that, for the most part, vehicles with
high tailpipe idle CO correlate with vehicles failing
the standards, and the vehicles with less than or equal
to .5% correlate with vehicles passing the standards as
demonstrated in Figure 2-2 below.
(^-emission standard
vehicles within specifications
vehicles outside of specifications
emissions
Figure 2-2 EMISSIONS WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATIONS
2-3
-------
There is little doubt that vehicles with high tailpipe idle
CO (or vehicles outside any of the specifications for idle
RPM and timing) contribute to the log-normality of the
distribution of emissions for all vehicles, although it
cannot be ascertained if vehicles outside of specifica-
tions contribute exclusively to the log-normality of
the entire distribution. Whereas, the effect of being
outside of just the idle CO specification on emissions
was determined, the interrelationships between idle CO,
idle RPM and timing, and their combined effect upon
emissions as the three vary, cannot be determined,
although the implication is that they vary multiplicatively.
CIS) The interrelationships between malperforming emission
components and their effect on emissions was strikingly
highlighted by investigation of the emission behavior
of one vehicle: a 1976 GM Seville. When the Seville
was tuned to manufacturer's specifications, it passed
all FTP standards. When several components were inten-
tionally maladjusted (i.e., plugging the EGR line,
disabling the air pump, supplying full vacuum advance
to the distributor and advancing the timing to +15 degrees),
the Seville failed the FTP only because of high NOX
emissions. After the Seville was restored to manufacturers'
specifications and again passed the FTP standards, only
the EGR valve was disabled. The result was that the
Seville failed the FTP because of high NOX and high CO
emissions. Although this is the result for investigation
of one vehicle, it does demonstrate the tendency noted
throughout the RM program; that combinations of mal-
perforraances, whether disablements, defects of maladjust-
ments, and combinations of varying degrees or deviations
from all specifications, can result in increases in
emissions that may be different than the additive effects
of individual malperformances or deviations from specifications,
2-4
-------
3.0 ANALYSIS OF THE PERFORMANCE OF THE EMISSION RELATED SYSTEMS
The percent of emission component and/or system malperformances
given in this report are slightly inaccurate due to a number of minor changes
made to the data. These changes were made after the analysis given in this
report was completed. The changes that have occurred usually were the result
of a manufacturer representative's suggestion or clarification concerning
emission component functions. For example, the manufacturer representative
may have pointed out that a particular component was able to function but did
not function when the vehicle was tested due to a malperformance in a distinct
although associated component. Most cases such as this were caught early in
the program but some further problems were found during more extensive review.
In no case will the rate of malperformance given in this report deviate from
the correct rate of malperformance by more than two percentage points. There-
fore, the conclusions given in this report regarding emission component mal-
performance are still valid. The report was not redone because the small
error involved did not warrant the amount of work, cost, and time that would
be required to update the rates of malperformances given throughout the report.
The emission measurements were not affected by these changes and are accurate
as given.
The focus of the following analysis will be the performance of each
emission related system and each system component or subsystem. The purpose
is to investigate the emission systems and subsystems which do not perform
properly, to determine the frequencies or rates of malperformance for these
systems, to define types of malperformances and to delineate the specific
reasons for malperformance.
This analysis is conducted on all three hundred vehicles after they
complete their first test sequence in the Restorative Maintenance (RM) program.
The results of this section of the analysis are embodied in Tables A-l through
A-100 in Appendix A as well as in summary tables in the text. Included are
analyses by each major emission related system, by each component or subsystem,
by city, by manufacturer, by vehicles passing the initial test, by vehicles
3-1
-------
failing the initial test, and by vehicles'whose emissions are extrapolated
to 50,000 miles. Possible relationships between malper-formances , vehicle
mileage, and cubic inch displacement were investigated and are reported
wherever significant.
Nine major emissions related systems were examined for malperform-
ance of their subsystems or components. The following list displays the
nine systems and the components that were investigated in each system.
Emission Related Systems
Induction System
Emission Components for
Given System
Heated Air Inlet Door
Heated Air Inlet Diaphragm
Temperature Sensors, Switches,
Modulators
Delay Valve
Air Filter Element
Hoses, Tubes, Lines, Wires
Carburetor/Choke/Exhaust Heat Control
Valve System
Carburetor Subsystem
Choke Subsystem
Exhaust Heat Control
Valve Subsystem
Carburetor Assembly
Limiter Caps
Tailpipe ICO
Idle Speed
External Idle Enrichment
Idle Stop Solenoid
Dashpot and Other Throttle
Modulators
Fuel Filter Element
Hoses, Lines, Wires
Choke Adjustment
Vacuum Diaphragm
Electrical Controls
Hoses, Lines, Wires
Exhaust Heat Control Valve
Assembly
Actuating Diaphragm
Coolant Temperature Sensing
Switches
Check Valve
Hoses, Lines, Wires
Ignition System
3-2
Distributor Assembly
Initial Timing
Spark Plugs and Their Wires
Vacuum Advance Diaphragm
Spark Delay Devices
Coolant Temperature Sensing
Switches
Hoses, Lines, Wires
Dwell
-------
EGR System
EGR Valve Assembly
EGR Valve Backpressure
Transducer
EGR Time Delay Solenoid
Venturi Vacuum Amplifier
High Speed Modulator
Vacuum Reservoir
Coolant Temperature Sensing
Switches
Hoses, Lines, Wires
Air Pump System
Air Pump Assembly
Bypass and/or Dump Valves
Check Valve
Electrical PVS
Solenoid Vacuum Valve
Floor Pan Switch
Vacuum Differential Control
Drive Belt, Attaching Hardware
Hoses, Lines, Wires
PCV System
PCV Valve Assembly
Filters
Hoses, Lines, Wires
Exhaust System
Exhaust Manifold, Tailpipe,
Muffler Catalyst
Evap Control System
Evap Canister
Canister Filter
Hoses, Lines, Wires
Engine Assembly/Miscellaneous
Engine Assembly
Engine Oil and Filter
Cooling System
Mechanical Valve Adjustment
Carburetor and Intake
Manifold Mounting Bolts
Belt Tensions
Hoses, Lines, Wires
Tables A-l through A-100 present the percent of vehicles with each
type of performance for each subsystem of each major emission related system
by city and manufacturer. The performance of each system or component in its
as-received condition is defined by one of 8 performance codes which are
defined on each of the Tables A-l through A-100. The performance codes are
as follows:
3-3
-------
1 - no malperformance
3 - not applicable to particular vehicle
4 - maladjusted
5 - disabled
6 - defective
7 " inadequate or improper maintenance
8 - improper part - misbuild
9 - failure of non-OEM part
The performance codes used for components and systems in this program
were determined in accordance with the following reasoning:
No Malperformance: The component or system was present, inspected and found
to be operating properly. This code was also used in cases where
the component or system was not able to be inspected, but where there
was no evidence that it was not operating properly. An example
of this is mechanical valve adjustment on a vehicle which passed
early in the sequence and was released without an actual
inspection.
Maladjusted: This refers to an adjustable component or system which
was found to be outside of the tolerance band around the nominal
specification. Examples are idle speed, basic timing, and choke
settings. Acceptable ranges for the idle speed were ±100 rpm
while +2° was used for basic timing. Allowable ranges for choke
adjustments were the production tolerances as provided by the
manufacturer's representative.
Solely for the purpose of coding and analysis in this
program, as-received idle mixture adjustment was judged on the
basis of a 0.5% tailpipe idle CO cutpoint. This treatment had
no impact on the actual vehicle testing which was performed
according to manufacturers' specifications but is useful in making
comparisons among the various vehicles and in the evaluation of a
basic idle mode short test.
3-4
-------
Disabled: A component or system which is found not to be functioning
properly due to some person's willful or inadvertent action. Examples
are plugged, disconnected, or rerouted vacuum lines, carefully
damaged EGR valves, and broken or missing limiter caps.
Defective: A component which is found not to be functioning properly due to
a manufacturing fault or normal deterioration prior to any service
interval. Examples of these are leaking vacuum diaphragms, coolant
temperature sensing vacuum switches which do not open or close at
appropriate temperatures, timing devices which stay on or off too
long or too short, and broken EGR backpressure transducers.
This code is also used when the condition of the component or
system cannot be absolutely determined by the basic functional checks
prescribed in the program but a replacement and a subsequent emission
test reveals a significant difference in emission levels. This was
the case where carburetor replacements corrected a high CO problem.
Failure Due to Inadequate or Improper Maintenance: A component or system
which is not functioning properly due to the owner's neglect.
Examples of this are a dirty air cleaner, or lack of spark plug
change at a specified time. This code is only used in those cases
where the condition was determined to have a significant effect on
exhaust emission levels.
Improper Part Due to Misbuild: Lacking any firm evidence of replacement
after production, this is the determination that the component present
was not the correct one for the engine family/emission control system
applicable to the test vehicle. An example of this is an instance
in which the test vehicle was equipped with non-resistor spark plugs
when resistor type are specified.
Failure of Non-OEM Part: A failed component which is not an exact replace-
ment of original equipment. An example of this is an after-market
brand of spark plug which has fouled. Normally, however, such
components which were found to be operating properly received a "pass"
rating.
3-5
-------
3.1 A DISCUSSION OF MALPERFORMANCE OF ALL VEHICLES TAKING THE
INITIAL TEST BY CITY AND MANUFACTURER
The rates of malperformances given in this section are expressed
as a percent of the total number of vehicles being considered, not as a
percent of the total number of vehicles that are equipped with a given
component. The rates of malperformance will be expressed in this way
throughout this report unless it is stated otherwise.
Of the nine emission related systems investigated, the carburetor/
fuel system contributes the largest percentage of malperformances, 66%, of
any major system, followed by the ignition system, 26%, the exhaust gas
recirculation system, 15%, and the induction system, 6%. All remaining
systems have less than a 2% level of malperformance as indicated by Tables
III-l and III-2. For all three hundred vehicles tested, 74% have at least
one malperformance.
Analysis of malperformance by city indicates no relationship between
the two, but analysis of malperformance by manufacturer, Table III-2, indi-
cates that Chrysler vehicles have the largest percentage of malperformance
as compared to General Motors and Ford. For the carburetor/fuel system,
Chrysler has a 94% rate of malperformance as compared to 56% for Ford and 49%
for General Motors. For the ignition system, Chrysler has a 32% rate of
malperformance as compared to 25% for Ford and 21% for General Motors. For
the exhaust gas recirculation system, Chrysler and Ford have about the same
rate of malperformance, 19% and 18% respectively, with General Motors at 9%.
Ford and Chrysler vehicles have the largest rates of malperformance with 9%
for the induction system, followed by General Motors with about 2%. Overall,
Chrysler has a 96% rate of at least one malperformance followed by Ford with
69% and General Motors with 59%. Whereas the carburetor/fuel system is
undoubtedly the biggest contributor to malperformance for all vehicles,
this system's malperformance is especially significant for Chrysler vehicles.
3-6
-------
Tables A-l through A-18 present the percent of vehicles with each
type of performance for each component or subsystem of each major emission
related system. In each table, all the codes for each type of performance
are presented for completeness whereas only codes 4 through 9, inclusive,
are considered a malperformance. The reader should be informed that not
every manufacturer employs every subsystem or component indicated in the
tables. Therefore, in assessing the percentage of vehicles with a particular
malperformance for a component or subsystem, one must check to see if all
vehicles are equipped with the component. Code 3 of the performance codes
in each table indicates that the vehicle is not equipped with the subsystem
or component indicated. For instance, the external idle enrichment listed
in Table A-4 for the carburetor/fuel system does not apply to any of the
General Motors or Ford vehicles and does not apply to 41.4% of the 99 Chrysler
vehicles. That is, only 58 of the 99 Chrysler vehicles employ external idle
enrichment and 55 of the 58 have no malperformance. One of the 58 vehicles
has a disabled idle enrichment and two of the 58 vehicles have a defective
idle enrichment.
Analysis of the induction system, Tables A-l through A-2, indicates
that most of the malperformances, 4%, were due to disablement of hoses,
tubes, and wires. Table III-3 is a summary of the significant systems and
subsystems contributing to malperformance.
Analysis of the carburetor/fuel system, Tables A-3 and A-4, indi-
cates that the components with the largest percentage of malperformances
are the limiter caps, the idle mixture adjustment, the idle speed, and the
choke adjustment. The limiter caps were disabled on 45% of the vehicles,
the idle mixture was maladjusted on 38% of the vehicles, the idle speed was
maladjusted on 25% of the vehicles, and the choke was maladjusted on 10% of
the vehicles. There were very few defective components in the carburetor/
fuel system and these were scattered over 6 of the 16 remaining subsystems.
Further analysis by manufacturer, Table A-4, reveals that limiter
caps were disabled on 70% of all Chrysler vehicles as compared to 36% for
Ford and 30% for General Motors. The idle mixture adjustment was maladjusted
3-7
-------
on 71% of all Chrysler vehicles as compared to 15% for Ford and 27% for
General Motors. The idle speed was maladjusted on 31% of all Chryslers
as compared to 24% for Ford and 19% for General Motors. There seems little
doubt that the high malperformance rate for Chrysler is a result of the
large number of maladjusted idle mixtures and idle speeds.
Tables A-5 and A-6 present results of the ignition system by city
and manufacturer. These tables indicate that the initial timing was mal-
adjusted on 19% of all vehicles. Washington had a slightly higher rate
with 26% of Washington vehicles having maladjusted timing. Approximately
19% of the General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler vehicles had maladjusted timing.
Tables A-7 and A-8 present results of the exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) system and indicate that 14 of the 68 vehicles, or 21% (mostly Fords),
equipped with an EGR valve backpressure transducer were defective. Also 2
of the 40 Chrysler vehicles, or 5%, equipped with an EGR time delay solenoid
were defective. Approximately 8% of the Chrysler vehicles were found with a
disabled EGR valve. There were no General Motors vehicles equipped with
disabled or defective EGR valves and only 2 Chryslers and one Ford were
equipped with a defective EGR valve.
Analysis of combinations of malperforming emissions related systems
was performed and the results may be noted in Tables A-19 and A-20. Note
that the analysis determines how many vehicles have a malperformance in two
different systems simultaneously. The largest frequency of malperformance
for combinations of systems occurs between the carburetor/fuel system and
the ignition system with 65 of 300 vehicles having both malperforming
carburetor/fuel systems and ignition systems. The next largest frequency
of malperformance, 35 out of 300 vehicles, for a combination of systems occurs
between the carburetor/fuel system and the exhaust gas recirculation system.
The ignition and exhaust gas recirculation systems and the induction and
carburetor/fuel systems have 16 of 300 vehicles and 15 of 300 vehicles with
malperformances in both system combinations, respectively. The implication
of this analysis is that almost all, 65 of the 79, vehicles with ignition
3-8
-------
system malperforraances also have carburetor/fuel malperformances. Also,
35 of the 46 vehicles with exhaust gas recirculation malperformances also
have carburetor/fuel malperformances. Only 16 of the 46 vehicles with
exhaust gas recirculation malperformances also have ignition malperformances,
but 15 of the 19 vehicles with induction system malperformances also have
carburetor/fuel system malperformances. The conclusion is that the vehicles
with either ignition, exhaust gas recirculation, or induction system mal-
performances, most probably also have carburetor/fuel system malperforraances.
To further clarify which combinations of components or sub-
systems result in malperformances, Table III-4 is offered only for the
significant combinations of components or subsystems for maladjusted and
disabled components for all vehicles.
Table III-4 indicates that 93 of the 300 vehicles or 31% have both
disabled limiter caps and maladjusted idle mixtures. Presented another way,
93 of the 113 vehicles (82%) with maladjusted idle mixtures also have dis-
abled limiter caps. Thirteen percent or 39 of 300 vehicles have both
disabled limiter caps and maladjusted idle speeds. Ten percent of all
vehicles or 31 of 300 vehicles have both maladjusted idle mixtures and
maladjusted idle speeds. Also, 8% or 23 of 300 vehicles have both mal-
adjusted chokes and idle mixtures. Six percent or 19 of 300 vehicles have
both disabled limiter caps and maladjusted chokes.
Comparisons of malperformance for both the carburetor/fuel and
ignition systems show that 33 of 300 vehicles, or 11%, of all vehicles have
both disabled limiter caps and maladjusted timing. Nine percent or 26 of
300 vehicles have both maladjusted idle mixtures and timing, and 6% or 18
of 300 vehicles have both maladjusted idle speed and timing.
Comparisons of malperformances for both the carburetor/fuel and
EGR systems show that 9 of 300 vehicles have both disabled limiter caps
and disabled or defective EGR valves. Also, 9 of 300 vehicles have both
maladjusted idle mixtures and disabled or defective EGR valves.
3-9
-------
Comparisons of malperformances for both the carburetor/fuel and
induction systems show that 8 of 300 vehicles have both disabled hoses,
tubes and wires, and disabled limiter caps.
The above results confirm the interdependency of the subsystem of
the ignition, EGR and induction systems with the subsystems or components
of the carburetor/fuel system. Thus, not only have the major emission
related systems producing malperformances been reduced to the carburetor/
fuel, ignition, EGR and induction systems, but the components or subsystems
within each major system that produce the majority of the malperformances
have been defined.
The specific reasons for component/subsystem malperformance are
listed in Table A-101. The table also indicates the frequency of occurrence
of the various causes of the component or subsystem malperformances.
3.2 A DISCUSSION OF MALPERFORMANCES FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE TEST BY CITY AND MANUFACTURER
Of the 300 vehicles that took test 1, the as-received test, of the
RM program, only 125 or 41.7% passed all three emissions standards. Any emission
values less than or equal to 1.5 gin/mi. HC, 15 gm/mi. CO, and 3.1 gm/mi. NOX
were called passing vehicles in this report. When certified, the 1975 and
1976 model year vehicles were determined to pass if their emissions were
less than 1.55 gm/mi. HC, 15.5 gm/mi. CO, and 3.15 gm/mi. NOX. Therefore,
the passing rates given in this report may be slightly lower than those that
would result from using the cutpoints as used in the certification procedure.
The small difference in passing rates will not alter the conclusions of this
report. It is the purpose of this section to explore the relationship
between vehicles with emission component malperformances and vehicles that
passed the emissions standards. Vehicles that passed the standards are not
necessarily free of emission component malperformances.
The effect of an individual emission component or system malperform-
ance on emission levels and FTP failure rates cannot be estimated from the
3-10
-------
results given in this section. Further on, in Section 5.3, there is some
discussion of individual malperformances on emission levels. The vehicles
that have malperformances in a particular component or system may also have
malperformances in other systems. Because of the multiple system and/or
component malperformances, it is not possible to estimate the effect of an
individual system malperformance on emissions with the results of this section.
The results given here are an estimate of the combined effect of malperform-
ances on emissions and failure rate.
Tables III-5 and III-6 present the percent of malperformance by city
and manufacturer, respectively, for vehicles that passed the initial test.
The carburetor/fuel system has the largest rate of malperformance, 41%, for
passed vehicles, followed by the ignition system with 13%, the induction
system with 6% and the exhaust gas recirculation system with 4%. All
remaining systems have a malperformance rate less than 1%. For all 125
vehicles that passed the initial test, 50% have at least one ma1performance.
For three of the four systems accounting for the majority of malperformances,
the percentage of vehicles passing the initial test with a malperformance is
significantly less as compared to the percentage of vehicles with a malper-
formance for all vehicles. Only for the induction system does the percentage
of vehicles with a malperformance remain the same at 6%.
Table III-5 reveals that about the same number of vehicles pass the
initial test in each of the three cities. Also, about the same percentage
of vehicles have the same rate of malperformance in each emission related
system for each city. Table III-6, however, reveals that the number of
vehicles passing the initial test by manufacturer is greatly different for
Chrysler vehicles with 17 passing than for either General Motors or Ford,
each with 51 and 57 passing, respectively. Of significant importance is
that, although only 41% of all passed vehicles have a malperformance for the
carburetor/fuel system, 88% of Chrysler vehicles have a carburetor/fuel system
malperformance. Only 44% and 22% of Ford and General Motors vehicles
respectively have a carburetor/fuel system malperformance.
3-11
-------
A comparison of these carburetor/fuel system malperformance
percentages for vehicles that passed test 1 with the percentages for all
vehicles taking the initial test reveals that Chrysler vehicles have about
the same rate of malperformance, with Ford and General Motors vehicles
having a much smaller rate of malperformance for passed vehicles.
Examination of passed vehicles, with at least one malperformance by manu-
facturer, reveals that Chrysler vehicles have an 88% rate of at least one
malperformance as compared to 56% and 31% for Ford and General Motors,
respectively.
Review of the individual subsystems within each of four major
emission related systems producing malperformances, see Tables A-21 through
A-32, shows that the following subsystems or components contribute the
following rates of malperformance for the 125 passed vehicles: 19% with
disabled limiter caps, 9% with maladjusted idle mixtures, 18% with mal-
adjusted idle speeds, 7% with maladjusted chokes, 10% with maladjusted
timing, 0% with disabled or defective EGR valves, 3% with a defective EGR
valve transducer, and 4% with disabled hoses, tubes and wires related to
the induction system. The rates of malperformances for subsystems shows
that these rates are less for passed vehicles in their as-received condition
as compared to the rates for all vehicles in their as-received condition.
Tables A-21 through A-38 present the performance codes for all subsystems of
the major systems for passed vehicles.
An investigation of which combinations of systems result in mal-
performance is displayed in Tables A-39 by city and A-40 by manufacturer.
Nine of the 125 passed vehicles, or 7%, have malperformances in both the
ignition and carburetor/fuel systems. Six of the 125 passed vehicles, or 5%,
have malperformances in both the induction and carburetor/fuel systems.
Only 2 of the 125 passed vehicles, or 2%, have malperformances in both the
exhaust gas recirculation and carburetor/fuel systems. The result is that
there is a very small correlation between major emission systems for passed
vehicles with malperformances. Before making too general a statement, the
rates of malperformance for vehicles failing the initial RM test must be
examined. Rates of malperformance for failed vehicles will be discussed in
the next section.
3-12
-------
Table III-7 is a summary of the significant systems and subsystems
contributing to malperformances for vehicles passing the initial test by
manufacturer.
3.3 A DISCUSSION OF MALPERFORMANCE OF VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE TEST BY CITY AND MANUFACTURER
Of the 300 vehicles that took test 1, the as-received test, of the RM
program, 175 or 58.3% of all vehicles failed one or more of the emissions
standards for hydrocarbons, carbon monoxide, and nitrous oxides. This section
will investigate the rate of emission component malperformance for vehicles
failing the initial test to determine if vehicles failing the initial test
necessarily have a high rate of malperformance. Tables II1-8 and III-9 present
the rate of malperformance for all failed vehicles by city and manufacturer.
The carburetor/fuel system has the largest rate of malperformance with 84%,
followed by the ignition system with 36%, the exhaust gas recirculation
system with 23%, and the induction system with 6%. For the 175 vehicles
failing the initial test, 91% have at least one malperformance.
Table III-8 indicates that about the same number of vehicles fail the
initial test in each city location. Also, for each particular emission related
system, the rate of malperformance is approximately the same from city to city.
Examination of the rates of malperformance by manufacturer, Table III-9, shows
that Chrysler has the largest rate of at least one malperformance, with 98%,
followed by General Motors and Ford, each with approximately 86%. Chrysler
vehicles also have the highest rate, 95%, of malperformance in the carburetor/
fuel system as compared to General Motors with 76% and Ford with 71%. There
is little difference among manufacturers in the rate of malperformance for each
of the remaining emission related systems examined individually.
A comparison of the rates of malperformance for the 175 failed
vehicles with the rates of malperformance for all 300 vehicles indicates
higher rates of malperformance for failed vehicles for the carburetor/fue1,
the ignition and the exhaust gas recirculation systems. There is no differ-
ence in the rate of malperformance for failed vehicles as compared to all
vehicles for the induction system. There are other emission related systems
which show higher rates of malperformance for failed vehicles. However, the
3-13
-------
rates of malperformance for these systems, the air pump, positive crankcase
ventilation, exhaust, evaporative and engine assembly systems are 2% or less.
Examination of the malperformances for the significant subsystems for
failed vehicles, Tables A-41 through A-58, reveals the following rates and
types of malperformance: 64% with disabled limiter caps, 58% with maladjusted
idle mixtures, 30% with maladjusted idle speeds, 12% with maladjusted chokes,
26% with maladjusted timing, 6% with either a defective or disabled EGR valve,
6% with a defective EGR valve transducer, 11% with disabled EGR system hoses,
lines and wires, and 4% with disabled induction system hoses, lines and wires.
The rates and types of subsystem malperformance are greater for failed vehicles
as compared to the rates and types of malperformances for all vehicles taking
test 1.
Tables A-59 and A-60 present the frequencies of malperformance for
combinations of emission related systems by city and manufacturer, respectively.
Fifty-six of the 175 failed vehicles, or 32%, have both carburetor/fuel and
ignition system malperformances. Thirty-three of the 175 failed vehicles, or
19%, have both carburetor/fuel and exhaust gas recirculation system malperform-
ances. Sixteen of the 175 failed vehicles, or 9%, have both ignition and exhaust
gas recirculation system malperformances and 9 of 175, or 5%, have both
induction system and carburetor/fuel system malperformances. The result is
that 56 of the 63 vehicles with ignition system malperformances also have
carburetor/fuel system malperformances. Thirty-three of the 41 vehicles with
exhaust gas recirculation malperformances also have carburetor/fuel system
malperformances. Nine of the 11 vehicles with induction system malperformances
also have carburetor/fuel system malperformances. Only 16 of the 41 vehicles
with exhaust gas recirculation malperformances also have ignition system
malperformances. One conclusion that may be made is that a failed vehicle
with a malperformance in any or all of the following systems: the ignition,
exhaust gas recirculation or induction systems, has at least an 80% chance of
a malperformance in the carburetor/fuel system. Another, more obvious
conclusion is that the carburetor/fuel system, either alone or in combination
with other systems, contributes the largest rate of malperformance of any major
emission related system for all manufacturers in all cities for vehicles
failing the initial test.
Table 111-10 presents a summary of the significant systems and sub-
systems contributing to malperformances for vehicles failing the initial test
by manufacturer.
3-14
-------
3.4 A COMPARISON OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR PASSED AND FAILED VEHICLES
The section investigates the relationship between the rate of raal-
performance and whether a vehicle will pass or fail the emissions standards.
One-hundred and twenty-five vehicles pass the initial test and 175 vehicles
fail the initial test. Let us define, m , as the number of emission component
malperformances for vehicles passing the initial test, and, mc, as the
r
number of such malperformances for vehicles failing the initial test. Then,
(m /125) times 100% and (m /175) times 100% would be the percentages or
rates of malperformance for passed and failed vehicles, respectively.
Consider the case where m = 0 and m^ = 175. This case would
P F
imply that (m /125) times 100% equals 0% and (m /175) times 100% equals 100%.
This would mean that all vehicles passing the emissions standards would be
free of malperformances and that all vehicles failing the emissions standards
would all have malperformances. Thus, the statistic defined by
(mF/175 - m /125) times 100%
would equal 100% and all malperforming vehicles could be said to positively
correlate with all vehicles failing the initial test.
Next, consider the situation where m = 125 and mp = 0. Then
the statistic (m /175 - m /125) times 100% would equal -100% and all mal-
performing vehicles could be said to negatively correlate with all vehicles
passing the initial test.
If no correlation existed between malperforming vehicles and vehicles
that passed or failed the test, then m /175 would equal m /125 and the
statistic (m /175 - m /125) times 100% would be zero. Table III-ll presents
a summary of the statistic (mp/175 - m /125) times 100% for a selected number
of important systems and subsystems which have been shown in Sections 3.1,
3.2, and 3.3 to contribute to malperformance. The table also presents a
breakdown by manufacturer since differences between malperformance by manu-
facturer were shown to exist in previous sections. Reporting of the
3-15
-------
correlations between malperformances and passed and failed vehicles by manu-
facturer cause the statistic reported to be generalized to
(m , - m , ) times 100%
r/F P'p
where F and P are the number of vehicles failing and passing the test,
respectively, for each particular manufacturer.
The interpretation of Table III-ll is that most malperformances posi-
tively correlate with vehicles that failed the initial test, although some of
the correlations are very weak. Malperformances of the induction system do
not correlate with either a passed or failed vehicle. The carburetor/fuel
system has the strongest correlation between vehicles with a malperformance
and vehicles failing the initial test. Of the individual components,
maladjustment of the idle mixture correlates the best with vehicles
failing the test as compared to other components. Maladjustment of the
idle mixture for any vehicle implies that the vehicle will also fail the
emissions standards about 50% of the time. Of course, this failure rate for
maladjusted idle mixtures varies from manufacturer to manufacturer. Mal-
adjusted idle mixture on Chrysler vehicles implies that the same vehicles
will also fail the emissions standards 57% of the time, while maladjusted
idle mixtures for Fords will also fail the emissions standards only about
11% of the time.
Interpretation of these correlations for individual subsystems or
components is not advised, however. Previous sections have shown the inter-
relationships between malperformances and combinations of emission systems
and components. For instance, a maladjustment of the idle mixture might be
accompanied by maladjustment of ignition timing and/or idle speed. The
combined effect may result in emissions levels which may still pass the
standards. The effects of changing or maladjusting certain components or
combinations of components will be explored in later sections.
3-16
-------
3.5 EXAMINATION OF MALPERFORMANCES OF PASSED AND FAILED VEHICLES
WHOSE EMISSIONS ARE EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
The malperformance and emissions levels examined in the RM program
are for a sample of 300 vehicles with mileages between 0 and 15,000 miles.
Since 1972, new vehicles have been required to have emissions below the level
of the applicable standard in order to be certified by the Federal government.
Because of depreciation of a vehicle's engine and accompanying control equip-
ment (carburetor/fuel system, ignition system, EGR system, etc.) with time
123
and mileage, emissions are expected to change. Many studies ' ' have been
conducted on various groups of vehicles as a function of mileage and age
to determine the rate at which emissions deteriorate. Generally, the results
of these studies indicate that hydrocarbons and carbon monoxides increase
with increasing mileage. While NOX emissions decreased or remained constant
with time, prior to the introduction of NOX control, trends for NOX controlled
vehicles are not clear.
Results of deterioration studies show that linear regressions of
emissions with mileage are adequate to define the deterioration factors for
groups of vehicles. These deterioration factors were determined from
certification durability data and are expressed as the ratio of the 50,000
mile emissions levels to the emissions levels at the 4,000 mile or break-in
point. The 50,000 mile figure is used since in order to be certified, vehicles
must comply with the standards at 50,000 miles. Thus, the predicted emissions
levels for each RM vehicle at 50,000 miles can be calculated, through
interpolation, using the certification deterioration factor and the RM
vehicle emissions at the known test mileage. Deterioration factors less than
1.0 were set equal to 1.0 for this analysis since it was assumed that all
emissions increased or remained constant over the 4,000 to 50,000 mile range.
Since deterioration increases the emissions for the vehicle sample
under consideration in the RM program, more vehicles will fail the initial
RM test if deterioration is taken into account. Tables 111-12 through 111-15
present the malperformance rate for those vehicles projected to pass and fail
standards at 50,000 miles by city and manufacturer. Of course, the percent of
3-17
-------
malperforraances that would occur on the RM vehicles when they are at 50,000
miles is unknown. The tables in this section merely isolate the percent mal-
performance (at the RM test point) for that group of vehicles projected to
pass and/or fail standards at 50,000 miles. The rate of malperformance (at
the RM test point) for these vehicles is investigated to determine whether
the distribution of malperformances is different for these vehicles than for
vehicles that pass or fail at the time of the RM test. Section 3.4 demon-
strated a positive correlation between vehicles with malperformances and
vehicles failing the initial test. Discussions in this section will determine
if the correlation between malperformances and vehicles that are projected to
pass or fail at 50,000 miles is different as compared to the relationships
determined in 3.4.
Tables 111-12 through 111-15 show that only 102 vehicles pass the
initial RM test assuming deterioration to 50,000 miles. Therefore, 198
vehicles are projected to fail the initial test at 50,000 miles. The rate
of malperformance for the carburetor/fuel system for those vehicles projected
to pass at 50,000 miles is 38% as compared to 11% for the ignition system,
7% for the induction system, and 3% for the EGR system. The rate of mal-
performance for the carburetor/fuel system for those vehicles projected to
fail at 50,000 miles is 80% as compared to 34% for the ignition system,
22% for the EGR system, and 6% for the induction system.
The malperformance rate is higher for those vehicles projected to
fail than for those vehicles projected to pass at 50,000 miles for the
carburetor/fuel system, the ignition system and the exhaust gas recirculation
system. There is no significant difference in the rate of malperformance for
the induction system between the projected passed and failed vehicles at
50,000 miles.
Tables A-61 through A.-100 present the performance rates for each sub-
system of each emission related system by city and manufacturer for vehicles
projected to pass and for vehicles projected to fail at 50,000 miles. Table
III-16 presents the correlation between malperformances and the projected
passed or failed vehicles at 50,000 miles by manufacturer. Tabulated in
3-18
-------
Table 111-16 are the differences in performance rates between failed and
passed vehicles as in Section 3.4. Comparison of the percents of correlation
between the vehicles in Table III-11 in Section 3.4 with mileages between
0 and 15,000 and the vehicles in Table 111-16 all with mileages of 50,000
show little change in the correlations between malperformances and failed
vehicles for the subsystems investigated.
3-19
-------
TABLE III-l PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE
BY CITY GROUP FOR EACH EMISSION SYSTEM
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
100
100
100
300
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
8.00
7.00
4.00
6.33
CARBURETOR
FUEL
63.00
66.00
69.00
66.00
IGNITION
20.00
25.00
34.00
26.33
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA-
TION
16.00
12.00
6.00
15.33
AIR
PUMP
0.00
2.00
0.00
0.67
POSITIVE
CRANKCASE
VENTILATION
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.67
EXHAUST
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
EVAPORA-
TIVE
2.00
2.00
0.00
1.33
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0.00
3.00
0.00
1.00
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
71.00
76.00
76.00
74.33
I
NJ
O
-------
TABLE II1-2 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE
BY MANUFACTURER FOR EACH EMISSION SYSTEM
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
102
99
99
300
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
1.96
9.09
2.67
6.33
CARBURETOR
FUEL
49.02
55.56
93.94
66.00
IGNITION
21.57
25.25
32.32
26.33
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA-
TION
8.82
18.18
19.19
15.33
AIR
PUMP
0.00
2.02
0.00
0.67
POSITIVE
CRANKCASE
VENTILATION
0.00
1.01
1.01
0.67
EXHAUST
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
EVAPORA-
TIVE
0.98
1.01
2.02
1.33
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0.00
2.02
1.01
1.00
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
58.82
68.69
95.96
74.33
-------
TABLES III-3 FREQUENCY OF DISABLED, MALADJUSTED, AND DEFECTIVE
COMPONENTS OR SUBSYSTEMS BY MANUFACTURER
Manufacturer
General
Motors
Ford
Chrysler
Total
Subsystems of Carburetor/ Fuel System
Disabled Maladjusted Maladjusted Maladjusted
Limiter Idle Idle Choke
Caps Mixture Speed
31/102 28/102 19/102 13/101
36/99 15/99 24/99 6/99
69/99 70/99 31/99 11/99
136/300 113/300 74/300 30/299
Ignition
System
Maladjusted
Timing
19/102
20/99
18/99
57/300
EGR
System
Defective
or Dis-
abled EGR
Valve
0/102
1/99
9/97
10/298
Induction
System
Disabled
Hoses ,
Tubes
and Wires
1/102
6/99
5/99
12/300
NJ
-------
TABLE II1-4 FREQUENCY OF COMBINATIONS OF DISABLED OR MALADJUSTED COMPONENTS OR
SUBSYSTEMS FOR ALL VEHICLES
Maladjusted
Idle
Mixture
n- ui j 93/300
Disabled
Limiter Caps
Maladjusted
Idle Mixture
Maladjusted
Idle Speed
Maladjusted
Choke
Maladjusted
Timing
Disabled or
Defective EGR
Valve
Disabled Hoses,
Tubes, Wires
of Induction
Systems
Disabled
or Defec-
Maladjusted Maladjusted Maladjusted tive EGR
Idle Choke Timing Valve
Speed
39/300 19/300 33/300 9/300
31/300 23/300 26/300 9/300
7/300 18/300 2/300
10/300 1/300
3/300
_
_ -
Disabled
Hoses,
Tubes.
Wires of
Induction
System
8/300
4/300
5/300
1/300
1/300
0/300
-
Total
Frequency
of Disabled
or Maladjusted
Component
Taken by Itself
136/300
113/300
74/300
30/300
57/300
10/300
12/300
-------
TABLE III-5 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE BY CITY GROUP
FOR EACH EMISSION SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES THAT PASSED THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
44
49
32
125
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
6.82
10.20
0.00
6.40
CARBURETOR
FUEL
43.18
42.86
34.38
40.80
IGNITION
11.36
16.33
9.38
12.80
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA-
TION
2.27
6.12
3.13
4.00
AIR
PUMP
0
0
0
0
POSITIVE
CRANK CASE
VENTILATION
0.00
2.04
0.00
0.80
EXHAUST
0
0
0
0
EVAPORA-
TIVE
0
0
0
0
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA
NEOUS
0
0
0
0
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
47.73
57.14
43.75
50.40
trl
I
NJ
-------
TABLE III-6 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER FOR ALL CITIES FOR
EACH EMISSION SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES THAT PASSED THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
51
57
17
125
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
0.00
10.53
11.76
6.40
CARBURETOR
FUEL
21.57
43.86
88.24
40.80
IGNITION
11.76
15.79
5.88
12.00
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA
TION
3.92
5.26
0.00
4.00
AIR
PUMP
0
0
0
0
POSITIVE
CRANKCASE
VENTILATION
0.00
1.75
0.00
0.80
EXHAUST
0
0
0
0
EVAPORA-
TIVE
0
0
0
0
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0
0
0
0
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
31.37
56.14
88.24
50.40
-------
TABLE III-7 FREQUENCY OF DISABLED, MALADJUSTED, AND DEFECTIVE
COMPONENTS OR SYSTEMS BY MANUFACTURER, FOR VEHICLES
PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
Manufacturer
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
Carburetor/Fue 1
Dis-
abled
Limiter
Caps
2/51
14/57
8/17
24/125
Mal-
adjusted
Idle
Mixture
1/51
6/57
4/17
11/125
System
Mai- Mal-
adjusted adjusted
Idle Choke
Speed
6/51
11/57
5/17
22/125
2/50
5/57
2/17
9/124
Ignition
System
Mal-
adjusted
Timing
4/51
8/57
0/17
12/125
EGR
System
Defective
or Dis-
abled EGR
Valve
0/51
0/57
0/16
0/124
Induction
System
Dis-
abled
Hoses,
Tubes
5 Wires
0/51
4/57
1/17
_
5/125
3-26
-------
TABLE II1-8 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE
BY CITY GROUP FOR EACH EMISSION SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
56
51
68
175
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
8.9
3.9
5.9
6.3
CARBURETOR
FUEL
78.6
88.2
85.3
84.0
IGNITION
26.8
33.3
45.6
36.0
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA-
TION
26.8
17.6
25.0
23.4
AIR
PUMP
0.0
3.9
0.0
1.1
POSITIVE
CRANKCASE
VENTILATION
1.8
0.0
0.0
0.6
EXHAUST
0
0
0
0
EVAPORA-
TIVE
3.6
3.9
0.0
2.3
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0.0
5.9
0.0
1.7
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
89.3
94.1
91.2
91.4
-------
TABLE III-9 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE
BY MANUFACTURER FOR EACH EMISSION SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
42
82
175
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
3.9
7.1
7.3
6.3
CARBURETOR
FUEL
76.5
71.4
95.1
84.0
IGNITION
31.4
38.1
37.8
36.0
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA-
TION
13.7
35.7
23.2
23.4
AIR
PUMP
0.0
4.8
0.0
1.1
POSITIVE
CRANKCASE
VENTILATION
0.0
0.0
1.2
0.6
EXHAUST
0
0
0
0
EVAPORA-
TIVE
2.0
2.4
2.4
2.3
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0.0
4.8
1.2
1.7
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
86.3
85.7
97.6
91.4
I
N)
GO
-------
TABLE 111-10 FREQUENCY OF DISABLED, MALADJUSTED, AND DEFECTIVE COMPONENTS OR
SYSTEMS BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
Manufacturer
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
Carburetor/Fuel System
Mai- Mai- Mai-
Disabled adjusted adjusted adjusted
Limiter Idle Idle Choke
Caps Mixture Speed
29/51 27/51 13/51 11/51
22/42 9/42 13/42 1/42
61/82 66/82 26/82 9/82
112/175 102/175 52/175 21/175
Ignition
System
Mal-
adjusted
Timing
15/51
12/42
18/82
45/175
EGR System
Defective Disabled
or Dis- Defective EGR
abled EGR EGR Hoses,
Valve Transducer Lines
0/51 1/3 7/51
1/42 9/30 4/42
9/81 0/0 9/82
10/174 10/33 20/175
Induction
System
Disabled
Hoses,
Lines ,
Wires
1/51
2/42
4/82
7/175
-------
TABLE III-11 PERCENT CORRELATION BETWEEN EMISSION COMPONENT MALPERFORMANCES
AND VEHICLES THAT PASSED AND FAILED INITIAL TEST, BY MANUFACTURER
Manufacturer
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
ANY MAL-
PERFORMANCE
Carburetor/ Fuel System
Disabled Maladjusted Maladjusted Maladjusted
Limiter Idle Idle Choke
Caps Mixture Speed
+53.0 +50.9 +13.7 +17.6
+27.8 +10.9 +11.6 -6.4
+27.4 +57.0 +2.3 -0.8
+44.8 +49.5 +11.1 +4.7
+ 43.2
Ignition
System
Maladjusted
Timing
+ 21.6
+ 14.6
+ 22.0
+ 16.1
+ 23.2
EGR
System
Defective
or
Disabled
EGR Valve
0.0
-2.4
+ 11.1
+5.7
+ 19.4
Induction
System
Disabled
Hoses ,
Tubes ,
Wires
-2.0
-2.2
-1.0
0.0
-0.1
Difference between the ma1performance rates of failed minus passed vehicles. A + sign denotes
a positive correlation between a ma 1performance and a failed vehicle. A - sign denotes a negative
correlation or a correlation between a ma1performance and a passed vehicle. Zero represents no
correlation between malperformance and passed or failed vehicles.
-------
TABLK 111-12 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE BY CITY GROUP FOR EACH EMISSION
SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE AS-RECEIVED TEST AT 50,000 MILES
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
33
42
27
102
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
9.09
9.52
0.00
6.86
CARBURETOR
FUEL
39.39
40.48
33.33
38.24
IGNITION
6.06
19.05
3.70
10.78
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA-
TION
0.00
4.76
3.70
2.94
AIR
PUMP
0
0
0
0
POSITIVE
CRANK CASE
VENTILATION
0.00
2.38
0.00
0.98
EXHAUST
0
0
0
0
EVAPORA-
TIVE
0
0
0
0
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0
0
0
0
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
39.39
57.14
37.04
46.08
-------
TABLE III-13 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE BY MANUFACTURER FOR EACH EMISSION SYSTEM
FOR VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE AS-RECEIVED TEST AT 50,000 MILES
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
43
47
12
102
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
0.00
10.64
16.67
6.86
CARBURETOR
FUEL
16.28
44.68
91.67
38.24
IGNITION
11.63
12.77
0.00
10.78
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA
TION
2.33
4.26
0.00
2.94
AIR
PUMP
0
0
0
0
POSITIVE
CRANKCASE
VENTILATION
0.00
2.13
0.00
0.98
EXHAUST
0
0
0
0
EVAPORA-
TIVE
0
0
0
0
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0
0
0
0
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
25.58
53.19
91.67
46.08
-------
TABLE 111-14 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE
AS-RECEIVED TEST AT 50,000 MILES FOR EACH EMISSION SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
i
CARS
67
58
73
198
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
7.46
5.17
5.48
6.06
CARBURETOR
FUEL
74.63
84.48
82.19
80.30
IGNITION
26.87
29.31
45.21
34.34
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA
TION
23.88
17.24
23.29
21.72
AIR
PUMP
0.00
3.45
0.00
1.01
POSITIVE
CRANK CASE
VENTILATION
1.49
0.00
0.00
0.51
EXHAUST
0
0
0
0
EVAPORA-
TIVE
2.99
3.45
0.00
2.02
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0.00
5.17
0.00
1.52
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
86.57
89.66
90.41
88.89
-------
TABLE 111-15 PERCENT OF MALPERFORMANCB FOR VEHICLES PROJECTED TO
FAIL THE AS-RECEIVED TEST AT 50,000 MILES FOR EACH
EMISSION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
59
52
87
198
EMISSION RELATED SYSTEM
INDUCTION
3.39
7.69
6.90
6.06
CARBURETOR
FUEL
72.88
65.38
94.25
80.30
IGNITION
28.81
36.54
36.78
34.34
EXHAUST
GAS
RECIRCULA
TION
13.56
30.77
21.84
21.72
AIR
PUMP
0.00
3.85
0.00
1.01
POSITIVE
CRANKCASE
VENTILATION
0.00
0.00
1.15
0.51
EXHAUST
0
0
0
0
EVAPORA-
TIVE
1.69
1.92
2.30
2.02
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY &
MISCELLA-
NEOUS
0.00
3.85
1.15
1.52
AT LEAST
ONE MAL-
PERFORMANCE
83.05
82.69
96.55
88.89
CM
-£>.
-------
TABLE 111-16
PERCENT CORRELATION BETWEEN EMISSION COMPONENT MALPERFORMANCES
AND VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS OR PAIL AN AS-RECEIVED TEST AT
50,000 MILES BY MANUFACTURER
Carburetor/ Fuel System
Mai-
Disabled adjusted
Limiter Idle
Manufacturer Caps Mixture
GENERAL +48.5 +43.5
MOTORS
C^J
£ FORD +28.7 +4.5
CHRYSLER +13.0 +61.5
TOTAL +42.0 +43.7
ANY MAL-
PERFORMANCE +42.1
Mai- Mal-
adjusted adjusted
Idle Choke
Speed
+16.1 +13.8
+9.6 -8.7
-2.0 -6.4
+12.1 +1.7
Ignition
System
Mal-
adjusted
Timing
+ 16. 1
+ 18.2
+ 20.7
+ 16.4
+ 23.5
EGR
System
Defective
or Dis-
abled EGR
Valve
0.0
+ 1.9
+ 2.1
+4.1
+ 18.8
Induction
System
Disabled
Hoses ,
Tubes.,
Wires
+ 1.7
-0.6
-3.7
+0.1
-0.8
Difference between the malperformance rates of failed minus passed vehicles.
A + sign denotes a correlation between a malperformance and a failed vehicle.
A - sign denotes a correlation between a malperformance and a passed vehicle.
Zero represents no correlation between malperformance and passed or failed vehicles.
-------
4.0 EFFECT OF ADJUSTMENTS OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION TOLERANCES
FOR TIMING, IDLE RPM AND IDLE CO
The degree to which a vehicle subsystem or component is out of
adjustment is as important as the frequency or rate of malperforraance of
that component. A particular component may have a high rate of maladjust-
ment, but the degree to which it is maladjusted may have a very small effect
on emissions. On the other hand, it is possible for a component to have a
very small rate of malperformance, but the degree to which it malperforms
may be large (i.e., it may be totally disabled) and the result may be a
large increase of the level of emissions.
The most prevalent emission component or subsystem malperformances
found on the RM test vehicles are high idle CO, maladjusted idle speed,
and maladjusted timing. The analysis of this section examines these three
types of malperformances and their effect on emission levels and FTP failure
rates. It is emphasized that the effects of these malperformances as given
in this section are not independent of one another (nor are the effects
independent of other malperformances). For example, a vehicle with high
idle CO may also have maladjusted idle speed and perhaps other malperformances.
New vehicles are tested and certified with their vehicle parameters,
i.e., timing, at the mean of their allowable tolerance levels. That is,
every vehicle is tested when certified at the manufacturer's specification
for timing and idle RPM with tolerances of ±2° for timing and ±100 RPM for
idle RPM. Prior testing programs conducted by EPA have indicated a correlation
between excessive tailpipe idle CO rates and the failure of a vehicle to pass
the standards. Since most vehicles do not have idle CO specifications, an
idle CO value was selected to define the difference between adjusted and mal-
adjusted idle CO. A value of 0.5% was selected for the idle CO specification,
where values greater than 0.5% are considered outside of tolerances.
Investigations of the effect of maladjustments (adjustments outside
of the allowed tolerances) on emissions are considered for the 300 vehicles
for the initial test of the RM program. The effect of maladjustments on fuel
4-1
-------
economy (both the Federal Test Procedure, FTP, fuel economy and the Highway
Fuel Economy Test, HFET) will be explored. The FTP fuel economy is repre-
sentative of urban or city driving, and the HFET is representative of high
speed, non-urban driving. Differences between cities and manufacturers
are also explored.
4.1 PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION TOLERANCES
Tables IV-1 and IV-2 show the percent of vehicles outside of the
defined specifications for timing, tailpipe idle CO and idle RPM by city and
manufacturer. For instance, 35% of all vehicles were outside of the defined
specification tolerances for timing, 39% were greater than the idle CO speci-
fication of 0.5%, and 35% were outside of the defined specification tolerances
for idle RPM. Seventy-two percent of all vehicles were outside of at least
one of these specifications.
The largest differences between cities occur for timing with 24% of
Chicago vehicles out of specification tolerances and 45% of Washington vehicles
out of specification tolerances and for idle RPM with 27% of Chicago vehicles
out of specification tolerances and 46% of Detroit vehicles out of specifica-
tion tolerances. Chicago, thus, has the lowest percentage of vehicles outside
of specification tolerances for timing and idle RPM. There are no city
differences for idle CO.
There are no differences between manufacturers for timing. Chrysler
has the largest percent of vehicles outside of the specification tolerances
for idle CO with 76% and for idle RPM with 46%. Ninety-three percent of all
Chrysler vehicles are outside of at least one specification as compared with
64% for Ford and 61% for General Motors.
4-2
-------
4.2 CORRELATION BETWEEN VEHICLES WITHIN OR OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION
TOLERANCES AND THE FAILURE OF A VEHICLE TO PASS THE FTP
The purpose of this section is to determine if there is a correlation
between vehicles outside of specification tolerances for idle CO, timing
and/or idle RPM and vehicles failing the emissions standards. It has been
shown in Section 3 that 175 of the 500 vehicles in test 1 fail one or more
of the emissions standards for HC, CO, and NOX. If we assume that the
emissions are normally distributed (this will be discussed in more detail in
the next section), then the distribution for all 300 vehicles taking test 1
might be as postulated in Figure 4-1 for any of the three emissions.
emission standard
C/3
emissions level
Figure t-1 HYPOTHETICAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS ASSUMING
NORMAL DISTRIBUTION FOR 300 VEHICLES IN TEST 1
Figure 4-1 is only a qualitative example of an assumed normal distri-
bution whose mean is greater than a standard. If the distribution of vehicles
in Figure 4-1 was partitioned into two distributions, those vehicles within
specification tolerances, and those vehicles outside of specification tolerances
for a particular component (i.e., timing), then each distribution (also
assuming each is normally distributed) might be as portrayed in Figure 4-2.
4-5
-------
I emissions standard
r
vehicles within specification tolerances
vehicles outside of specifica-
tion tolerances
emission level
Figure 4-2 HYPOTHETICAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS FOR
VEHICLES WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATIONS
Quite clearly, if the distribution of vehicles represented in Figure
4-1 is normally distributed, then the partitioned distribution represented in
Figure 4-2 cannot also both be normally distributed. However, Figure 4-2 does
demonstrate qualitatively the distribution obtained when the emissions from
the 300 vehicles are partitioned into vehicles within and vehicles outside of
specifications. In fact, the means for the HC and CO FTP emissions and bag
values are always larger for the vehicles outside of specifications than for
vehicles within specifications, although the differences in the means between
within and outside of specifications is not always statistically significant.
Table IV-3 presents those FTP emissions and bag values whose differences in
means between within and outside of tolerances are statistically significant
at the 0.05 level for each component (timing, idle RPM and idle CO) by manu-
facturer. The group defined as "At Least One" is that group with vehicles
that have at least one of the three items (timing, idle RPM, and/or idle CO)
within tolerances or outside of tolerances. "At Least One" for vehicles
within specifications would be that group of vehicles within all three speci-
fications for timing, idle RPM and idle CO simultaneously.
Table IV-3 indicates that the differences between means of the within
and outside of specifications groups are significant primarily for idle CO for
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. In the few places where the differences are
4-4
-------
significant for nitrous oxides, the means for vehicles within specifications
are greater than the means for vehicles outside of specifications at the
0.05 level of significance.
If all the vehicles outside of a specification tolerance (i.e., idle
CO) failed the FTP standards, and if all the vehicles within a specification
tolerance passed the FTP standards, then all the vehicles less than the
standard (passing the standard) in Figure 4-1 would be within specification
tolerances and all vehicles greater than the standard (failing the standard)
would all be outside of specification tolerances. For this case, there would
be a positive correlation between vehicles outside of specification tolerances
and vehicles failing the FTP standards.
Next consider the situation where all the vehicles outside of speci-
fication tolerances also fail the FTP standards but the vehicles within
specification tolerances also fail the FTP standards for most vehicles.
The situation would be such that all of the vehicles outside of specifica-
tions would be greater than the standard (fail the standard) and most of the
vehicles within specifications would also be greater than the standard. Thus
no correlation could be said to exist between vehicles outside of tolerances
and vehicles failing the standard since most vehicles within specifications
also fail the standards.
The percent of vehicles failing the FTP standards for vehicles out-
side of tolerances minus the percent of vehicles failing the FTP standards
for vehicles within specification tolerances would be one statistic that
would classify the degree of correlation. The closer this situation is to
100%, the greater the degree of correlation between vehicles outside of
specification and vehicles failing the FTP standards. Also, by definition,
the closer this statistic is to 100%, the greater the degree of correlation
between vehicles within specifications and vehicles passing the FTP standards.
If the statistic is zero, there is no correlation. If there are no statis-
tically significant differences in the means between vehicles within and
vehicles outside of specifications, then the statistic is apt to be zero
and no correlation will exist.
4-5
-------
Tables IV-4 through IV-7 show the percent of vehicles failing each
standard and at least one standard for vehicles within and outside of
specification tolerances. The category "At Least One" for vehicles within
specification tolerances delineates those vehicles within specifications
for all specifications of timing, idle CO, and idle RPM simultaneously.
There are a total of 83 vehicles in this group and 36% or 30 vehicles fail
at least one of the FTP standards. Eleven of 40 General Motors vehicles
within all three specification groups fail the FTP, 15 of 36 Ford vehicles
within all specification groups fail the FTP, and 4 of 7 Chrysler vehicles
within all three specification groups fail the FTP. The group of vehicles
within all the specification groups simultaneously is an important one.
Since 36% of these vehicles fail the FTP, the other component malperformances
listed in Section 3 account for a number of the vehicles that fail to meet
standards. But even after all emission components and subsystems have been
adjusted and/or repaired,about 19% of the vehicles still fail standards.
These 19% will be discussed further in Section 5.
The remaining discussion will investigate each specification group
individually. Note, however, that these groups are not independent from one
another (nor are these malperformances independent from EGR, air pump, etc.
malperformances), and some linear combination of timing, idle RPM and idle CO
values might be a better discriminator to determine whether a vehicle will
pass or fail the FTP standards than any individual specification group.
Tables IV-4 through IV-7 show that idle CO is the best indicator of
a pass or fail of the FTP standards. The correlation statistic previously
defined is 52% for idle CO for all vehicles. The correlation statistic is
64% for General Motors, 21% for Ford, and 43% for Chrysler for idle CO.
Whereas the overall correlation is best for idle CO as compared to idle RPM
and timing, idle CO is a much better discriminator for General Motors vehicles
than for Ford or Chrysler.
Idle CO is an even better indicator of a pass or fail of the HC and
CO standards. The correlation statistic for all vehicles failing the HC
standard is 62%, 71% for General Motors, 20% for Ford, and 61% for Chrysler.
4-6
-------
The correlation statistic for all vehicles failing the CO standard is 76%,
90% for General Motors, 44% for Ford, and 74% for Chrysler. There is a very
low or negative correlation statistic for NOX.
Figures 4-3 through 4-8 substantiate the previous correlation
statistics and lend support to the hypothesized distributions of within and
outside of specification groups in Figure 4-2. Figures 4-3 through 4-8 plot
the vehicle number by emissions levels for HC, CO and NOX for vehicles with
tailpipe idle CO less than or equal to .5% and vehicles with tailpipe idle
CO greater than .5%. Most all of the vehicles with idle CO less than/equal
to .5% pass the HC and CO emissions standards which is indicated by the
vertical dashed line in each plot. A smaller but significant number of
vehicles with tailpipe idle CO greater than .5% fail the HC and CO standards.
Examination of the vehicles with low idle CO for NOX shows almost an equivalent
number of vehicles failing the MOX standard as the number of vehicles failing
the NOX standard for vehicles with the high idle CO values.
4.5 DEGREE TO WHICH IDLE CO, IDLE RPM, AND TIMING MALADJUSTMENTS
EFFECT EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY
Discussions in this section are divided into two parts: first, the
effect of the degree of idle CO, idle RPM, and timing maladjustments on
emissions, and, second, the effect of the degree of these maladjustments on
fuel economy. The results of Section 4.2 have demonstrated that there is a
high degree of correlation between GM and Chrysler vehicles that have idle
CO greater than .5% and GM and Chrysler vehicles that fail the HC and CO
standards. Because of the results of Section 4.2, discussions in this section
will focus primarily on the idle CO specification tolerances. The idle RPM
and timing specification tolerances will be discussed but to a lesser degree.
Tables IV-8 through IV-10 show that the magnitude of the mean emis-
sions increases as the positive deviation from idle CO of .5% increases.
Caution is advised in interpreting these tables since the mean emissions of
the vehicles in the groups with idle CO -1 to -2 deviations from 0.5% (or
means of all vehicles with tailpipe idle CO between 0 and 0.25%) is derived
4-7
-------
VEHIO I
360 +
320
280
o
o
to
, 240
a:
U)
200
O
160
6
n
UH
120
U
so
40
0 +
PLOT OF VEHICLES PASSING IDLE-CO
PLOT OF Vf.HID*FTPHC SYMBOL USED IS *
* <•* *
* * * *
* * »* *
e * ** *
** *
** * *
* *
*«* *
• * *
* * **
* * *« * *
* * ** *
M *tt * lit * *
* * * « * « *«r
* * * « *
ft * * *r *
*ft * « * *
.«* »* * *
*« * * *
* * * * * ft
* * * * *
* * * *
It ** * * * *
* * *
11C STANDARD
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2 2.4 2.6
1--
2.8
3.0 3.2 3.4
NOTE: 17 OBS HIDDEN
FTPHC HYDROCARBONS (gin/mi)
Figure 4-3 VEHICLES WITHIN IDLE CO SPECIFICATION FOR UC
-------
VEHID I
360 «•
320
280
'240
200
§
160
u,
120
(U
u
I— I
X
40
PLOT OF VEHICLES FAILING IOLE_CO
PLOT OF VEHID*FTPHC SYMBOL USED IS *
ft tt
* HI
* *
R*
** It
it
* *
*
* * *
*
* *
UC STANDARIJ
* * *M
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8 3.2 3.6 4.0 4.4 4.8 5.2
5.6 6.0 S. .1 (i. 8
FTPHO HYDROCARBONS (gm/rai)
NOTE: 2 OBS HIDDEN
Figure 4-4 VEHICLES OUTSIDE OF THE IDLE CO SPECIFICATION FOR UC EMISSIONS
-------
PLOT OF VEHICLES PASSING IDLE-CO
PLOT OF VEH1D*FTPCO SYMBOL USED IS «
VEHID 1
360 +
320
^ 280
1
i
d 24°
PS
W
200
^
§
U 160
1-1
PL,
|-~
«
Q 120
3
i— <
3 80
40
0
* * * *
* * * it
* *» **
** * * ** * *
* * ** *
** * ** *
** * *
* *** *
* * * *
* *
*** *
* * *
* * *
* it * *
* * **
** *****
* * * * * *
* * * it *
* * * *
*** * * * *
*
*
*
*
* * * * *
* * * * *
* * it * * *
* ** **
* * M * * It
* * * * *
* * * * *
** It * It **
* * *
*
**
*
•f *
0 3 6 9 12 1
*
*
* *
*
*
*
*
*
it
* it
*
CO STANDARD
*
* *
*
5 18 21 24 27 30 33 36 3D 42 45
NOTE: 14 OBS HIDDEN
FTPCO CARBON MONOXIUli (gn/mi)
Figure 4-5 VEHICLES WITHIN THE IDLE CO SPECIFICATION FOR CO EMISSIONS
-------
PLOT OF VEHICLES FAILING IDLE-CO
PLOT OF VEHID*FTPCO SYMBOL USED IS *
VEHID I
360 +
320
280
o
o
to
240
oc
w
200
160
*>• I-H
1 U,
U)
a 120
u
I—I
X
80
40
*
* *
0 +
* * «
* **
*
*
*
.CO STANDARD
* * *
* * *
* * « * * «
* *
* *
• * *
* * •
a * * * *
* * * * *
*
* *
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
FTPCO CARBON MONOXIDl (gra/mi)
120 130 MO
NOTE:
3 OBS HIDDEN
Figure 4-6 VEH1OLRS OUTSIDE OF THE IDLIi CO SPECIFICATION FOR CO
-------
VEHIO I
360 +
320
280
o
o
ro
-i 240
CQ
§ 200
O
I—I
U 160
U4
U4
I—(
OC
120
BO
40
0 *
PLOT OF VEHICLES PASSING IDLE.-CO
PLOT OF VEHID*FTPNOXC SYMBOL USED IS *
* * * *
* * *
* * *
•A * * * *
** * *
* III Ik* *
* * *
*-« **
* *
* Ik
ft* Ik *
* * * * * **
* * *
w
* * *ft
* **
* ** * *
* **
* *****
* * * * *
* ** *
* * * * *
* ** *
*tt ** * *
* *
* * **
* *
-NOX STANDARD
* *
*
* *
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0
6.5 7.0
^—
7.5
8.0 8.5
FTPNOKC (gm/nii)
NOTE: 7 OBS HIDDEN
Figure 4-7 VEHICLES WITHIN THE IDLE CO SPECIFICATION FOR NOX
-------
VEHID I
360 +
320
280
240
200
160
120
80
40
PLOT OF VEHICLES FAILING IDLE-CO
PLOT OF VEHID*FTPNOXC SYMBOL USED IS *
*
«r *
ft * * *
* * n
« ft * *
* * * *
ft* *
ft ft * ft
* ** *
*
-------
from 164 vehicles and mean emissions at positive deviations from .5% idle CO
are derived from populations of between 1 and 10 vehicles. The group of
vehicles in the deviation categories between 0 and +20 are vehicles with
idle CO greater than .5% and the vehicles with deviation between 0 and -2
represent vehicles with idle CO less than .5%. The number of vehicles with
idle CO less than .5% is large compared to the entire population of vehicles
and is concentrated in a very narrow range of deviation, -2 to 0, while the
number of vehicles with idle CO greater than .5% is comparatively small and
is almost uniformly distributed over a wide range of deviations, 0 to +20.
A histogram of the distribution of vehicles over the deviations from .5%
idle CO is presented in Figure 4-9 for all vehicles. The distribution of
vehicles over the deviations from .5% idle CO for General Motors, Chrysler
and Ford vehicles varies somewhat from the histogram in Figure 4-9. Figure
4-10 shows the histogram of the vehicle distribution for Chrysler vehicles
where the number of vehicles with idle CO less than or equal to .5% is almost
equivalent to the number of vehicles between 6 and 11 deviations (idle CO
between 1.5 and 2.75%) from .5%. In other words, the distribution of vehicles
in Figure 4-10 (see Table IV-9) may be divided into two separate distribu-
tions, the vehicles with idle CO less than .5% (of which there are 24) and
the vehicles between 6 and 11 deviations from .5% (of which there are 24).
Figure 4-11 shows the histogram of the vehicle distribution for Ford vehicles.
There are 84 of the 99 Ford vehicles with idle CO less than .5% and the
remaining Ford vehicles are randomly scattered from 0 to +20 deviations from
.5%. Examination of Table IV-10 shows that, as for Ford vehicles, a large
number (74 of 102 GM vehicles) have idle CO less than .5%, and the remaining
GM vehicles are grouped in a small number spread mostly between 6 and 11
deviations from .5% idle CO. The GM histogram is not presented since it is
similar to the Ford and Chrysler histograms.
Figure 4-12 plots the emissions at each deviation from the .5% idle
CO versus FTP HC and CO and may be considered as the deterioration of HC and
CO as the deviation from the .5% idle CO increases. Deterioration of emissions
as used previously and in the remainder of this report is generally considered
to mean the degree by which the vehicle's emissions change as the engine and
4-14
-------
200
150
5
>100
os
LU
OQ
50
-1012
FIGIIRI- 4-9
DEVIATION FROM .5% TAILP1PI] IDLE CO FOR ALL VEHICLES IN
AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (ONE DEVIATION EQUALS 0.25%)
-------
200
150
V)
U)
J
U
n
1100
PS
U4
50
-1 0 1
FIGURE 4-10
23 45 6 78 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
DEVIATION FROM .5% TAILPII'K I MLR CO FOR CHRYSLER VEHICLES IN
AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (ONE DEVIATION EQUALS 0.25%)
(The Y scale is kept at the same scale as Fig. 4-9 for comparison.)
16 17
18
-------
200
150
CJ
I—I
w
^
i
i—•
^j
100
50
0+1 +2 +'3 +4 +5 +6 +7 +8 +3 +10 +fl +12 +13 +^4 +15 +1*6
FIGURE 4-11 DEVIATION FROM .5% TAILPIPE IDLE CO FOR FORD VEHICLES IN
AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (ONE DEVIATION EQUALS 0.25%)
(The Y scale is kept at the same scale as Fig. 4-9 for comparison.)
+ 18
-------
50 i-
40 -
i
I
2
x
o
o
i
• I
do
30
20
10 »- 1.0
-2
234 567 8
DEVIATION FROM IDLE CO SPECIFICATION OF 0.5%
(ONE DEVIATION IS 0.25%)
10
11
Figure 4-12 DETERIORATION OF HC AND CO AS A FUNCTION OF DEVIATION
FROM THE IDLE CO SPECIFICATION FOR ALL VEHICLES
12 13 14
-------
all associated control equipment collectively depreciate with time and mileage.
However, for Figure 4-12 (and only for Figure 4-12) the terra deterioration is
applied for the idle CO measurement while neglecting any other malperforming
engine component. Figure 4-12 represents graphically that HC and CO emissions
increase as the deviation from the .5% idle CO increases.
Tables IV-11 and IV-12 present mean emissions and fuel economy at
each deviation from specification for idle RPM and timing, respectively.
Note that for each specification, the distribution of all vehicles is almost
normally distributed about the specification as may be seen in Figures 4-13
and 4-14. Figure 4-15 shows the distribution of GM vehicles about the timing
specification.
The question arises as to why the idle CO measurement appears to be
a better indicator than idle RPM or timing of whether a vehicle will pass or
fail the FTP emissions standards. One answer is evident from Table IV-8
and Figure 4-12 for idle CO. The table and figure show that HC and CO
emissions increase in what appears to be a linear relationship to the increase
in deviation from the .5% idle CO. Tables IV-11 and IV-12, however, indicate
no such straightforward relationship between increasing emissions and
increasing deviation from the idle RPM or timing specification.
It is appropriate to again mention that the .5% idle CO level is not
a manufacturer's specification but by engineering judgments is assumed to be
an appropriate cutpoint for defining high idle CO emissions for vehicles
from all manufacturers. Also, the idle CO parameter is a single value (0.5%)
whereas the idle RPM and timing specifications are double valued specifica-
tions (i.e., the idle RPM spec + 100 RPM and the timing spec ±2°). The result
is that a vehicle may be considered maladjusted for idle CO only if it has
greater than .5% idle CO, but the same vehicle may have maladjusted idle RPM
and timing if it is greater than or less than the tolerance limits specified.
Before discussing the effect of the deviation from the specifications
on fuel economy, Figure 4-16 is presented to demonstrate the dependence of fuel
economy on cubic inch displacement for all vehicles on the as-received test.
4-19
-------
i
K>
O
100
90
80
70
ft 60
u
n
ac
W
SO
U4
a 40
30
20
10
-3
-2
-1
0
+ 2
FIGURE 4-13 DEVIATION FROM THE IDLE RPM SPECIFICATION FOR ALL VEHICLES IN
AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (ONE DEVIATION EQUALS 50 RPM)
-------
250
200
W)
3
u
M
I
in
ta
150
100
50
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
FIGURE 4-14 DEVIATION FROM THE TIMING SPECIFICATION FOR ALL VEHICLES IN
AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (ONE DEVIATION EQUALS 2 DEGREES)
-------
250
200
150
4s.
i
u
t-t
3:
s
100
50
-2 -1 0 +1 +2
FIGURE 4-15 DEVIATION FROM THE TIMING SPECIFICATION FOR GM VEHICLES
IN AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (ONE DEVIATION EQUALS 2 DEGREES)
-------
Figure 4-16 is an important figure and any interpretation of the effects on
fuel economy should be interpreted in light of this figure. Figures 4-17
through 4-19, therefore, interpreted along with Figure 4-16, show that most
Ford and General Motors vehicles in the RM program are equipped with 350 or
351 cubic inch displacement engines, whereas vehicles in the Chrysler popu-
lation are dominated by vehicles of 225 cubic inch displacement. Fuel
economies as shown in previous EPA reports are harmonically distributed
and tests of significance between the means of fuel economy of two groups
are tested using the chi-square distribution with one degree of freedom.
Examination of Tables IV-13 through IV-17 shows no consistent trend
in fuel economy as a function of deviation from .5% idle CO for all vehicles
combined,for General Motors, for Ford, and for Chrysler vehicles. Table
IV-17 presents mean fuel economy by deviation from the timing specifications
for GM vehicles. Table IV-17 is presented in particular because of the
differences indicated in Table IV-3 in mean fuel economy between GM vehicles
within and outside of specifications for timing was statistically significant
at the 0.05 level. Fuel economy trends may be obscured in this table because
of differences in the vehicle mix of the deviation categories. However,
even if the difference in means is statistically significant for fuel economy,
the result could be meaningless if the mean fuel economy of one group was
composed of fuel economies of vehicles of a high cubic inch displacement
and the mean fuel economy of the other group was composed of fuel economies
of vehicles of a low cubic inch displacement.
4-23
-------
FIGUIUi 4-16
PLOT OF FTPMPG*CIND LEi^4D: A == 1 OHr. . R = 2 OSS . ET-.:
CUlilC INCH DlSPLACLMliNT AND FUliL LCONOMY
AB A
AA A AB A B
C A A C A
A
A AABCEII AAA A
BCOB3B A
ABCFBEEGGBIIADABA B A A
A CA AAAAAEEAACBAB
A A BA BCCCBBABA A
A B AA A
AA AA ABA BAAABB
AA
BA BAABBCBBDOCBABBABBA AA
A A
AAA B A
A A AB BAAABA
A A
0 +
• 't-
is
25
10
PTP
ECOMOflY (mi/gal
r'TPMP«i
°
30
-------
50
•£>.
I
Is)
tn
40
to
30
CJ
w
o
«
20
10
0
350
Only
225 300 349 350 400
FIGURE 4-17 CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT TOR CM VEHICLES
500
-------
so r
40
I
to
to
u
HH
I
oc
Ul
co
30
20
10
351
Only
0
225 300 349 351
FIGURH4-18 CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT FOR FORD VEHICLES
400
-------
50
40
30
a
u
I
IN)
IX
w
a 20
10
360
Only
224 225 350 360 400
FIGURE 4-19 CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT FOR CHRYSLRR VEHICLES
-------
TABLE IV-1
PERCENT OF VEHICLES OUTSIDE
OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR TIMING, IDLE CO
AND IDLE RPM BY CITY
CITY
NO. OF CARS
Specification Group
TIMING IDLE CO IDLE RPM
OUTSIDE OF AT
LEAST ONE
SPECIFICATION
CHICAGO
100
24.0 40.0
27.0
68.0
DETROIT
100
36.0 57.0
46.0
74.0
WASHINGTON 100
45.0 41.0
33.0
75.0
TOTAL
300
35.0 39.3
35.3
•* f* •*
/ 2. o
4-28
-------
TABLE IV-:
PERCENT OF VEHICLES OUTSIDE
OF SPECIFICATIONS FOR TIMING, IDLE CO,
AND IDLE RPM BY MANUFACTURER
Specification Group OUTSIDE OF AT
MANUFACTURER NO. OF CARS TIMING IDLE CO IDLE RPM LEAST ONE
SPECIFICATION
GENERAL
MOTORS
102
32.3 27.4
25.5
60.8
FORD
99
37.4 15.2
34.3
63.6
CHRYSLER
99
35.4 75.8
46.5
92.9
TOTAL
300
35.0 39.3
35.3
72.3
4-29
-------
[iroup
Designation
GENERAL
MOTORS
EORD
CHRYSLER
ALL VEHICLES
IN ALL
CITIES
Specification
Group
TIMING
IDLE CO
IDLE RPM
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE CO
IDLE RPM
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE CO
IDLE RPM
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE CO
IDLE RPM
AT LEAST ONE
I/)
e
o
•to
cd
o
o
T%
^J
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•o
4>
hi
r4 tO
"• C
<-» o
43 43
cd to
*-> cd
en o
o
•O h
o x
0 X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
+J
c w
4> C
•rt O
V> 43
C (-1
cd cd
to U
H 0
M
0 >
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4-1
C
•H C
in o
cd to
to cd
H 0
O
O X
t_> X
X
X
X
X
X
X
4)
-o
•r-t
X
O
I
C
o
41
cd
U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•a 4>
Q) -O
M *fH
ft X
•H O
•H C
rO O
O
to C
t- O
o cd
X U
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
a>
«-< ti
C -H
Q> X
•H O
H C
O
*X3 ,Q
o cd
u O
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
•^
i
X
T3
0)
M
•«H
i— H
•H
cd
f/>
*° >:
"o o
<_) *Z
X
o
z
•M
fj
4>
C
to
£—1
O
X
X
X
o
*-»
C
4>
•H
in
(-1
H
-o
p^
o
0
X
X
X
g
o
C
0
u
UJ
1— «
a>
a.
C
cd
r\
|
X
X
t-H
-------
TABLE IV-4 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING AT LEAST ONE EMISSION STANDARD
FOR VEHICLES WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION TOLERANCES
Manufacturer
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
Specification
Group
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
No. of
Cars
Outside
Specs
33
26
28
62
37
34
15
63
35
46
75
92
105
106
118
217
Percent of
Vehicles Failing
FTP Standards
and Outside of
Specifications
60.6
61.5
96.4
64.5
48.6
44.1
60.0
42.8
97.1
78.3
93.3
84.8
68.6
63.2
89.8
66.8
No. of
Cars
Within
Specs
69
76
74
40
62
65
84
36
64
53
24
7
195
194
182
83
Percent of
Vehicles Failing
FTP Standards
and Within
Specifications
44.9
46.0
32.4
27.5
38.7
41.5
39.3
41.7
75.0
86.8
50.0
57.1
52.8
55.7
37.9
36.1
4-31
-------
TABLE IV-5 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE HC STANDARD FOR VEHICLES
WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION TOLERANCES
Manufacturer
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
Specification
Group
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
No. of
Cars
Outside
Specs
33
26
28
62
37
34
IS
63
35
46
75
92
105
106
118
217
Percent of
Vehicles Failing
HC Standards
and Outside of
Specification
Tolerances
27.3
30.8
71.4
32.3
16.2
20.6
26.7
15.9
68.6
47.8
73.3
60.9
37.1
34.9
66.9
39.6
No. of
Cars
Within
Specs
69
76
74
40
62
65
84
36
64
53
24
7
195
194
182
83
Percent of
Vehicles Failing
HC Standards
and Within
Specifications
15.9
15.8
0.0
0.0
6.4
4.6
7.1
0.0
53.1
67.9
12.5
28.6 —
25.1
26.3
4.9
2.4
4-32
-------
TABLE IV-6 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE CO STANDARD FOR VEHICLES
WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION TOLERANCES
Specification
Manufacturer Group
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
Percent of
Vehicles Failing
No. of CO Standards Mo. of
Cars and Outside of Cars
Outside Specification Within
Specs Tolerances Specs
33
26
28
62
37
34
15
63
35
46
75
92
105
106
118
217
39.4
46.1
96.4
48.4
24.3
17.6
53.3
23.8
77.1
63.0
86.7
71.7
46.7
44.3
84.7
51.1
69
76
74
40
62
65
84
36
64
53
24
7
195
194
182
83
Percent of
Vehicles Failing
CO Standards
and Within
Specifications
27.5
26.3
6.8
5.0
11.3
15.4
9.5
2.8
64.1
73.6
12.5
28.6
34.4
35.6
8.8
6.0
4-33
-------
TABLE IV-7 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE NOX STANDARD FOR VEHICLES
WITHIN AND OUTSIDE OF SPECIFICATION TOLERANCES
Manufacturer
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
Specification
Group
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
TDLE RPM
rnr.E CO
AT LEAST ONE
TIMING
IDLE RPM
IDLE CO
AT LEAST ONE
No. of
Cars
Outside
Specs
33
26
28
62
37
34
15
63
35
46
75
92
105
106
118
217
Percent of
Vehicles Failing
NOX Standard
and Outside of
Specification
Tolerances
24.2
15.4
17.9
24.2
29.7
32.3
20.0
23.8
51.4
32.6
30.7
32.6
35.2
28.3
26.3
27.6
No. of
Cars
Within
Specs
69
76
74
40
62
65
84
36
64
53
24
7
195
194
182
83
Percent of
Vehicles Failir
NOX Standards
and Within
Specifications
24.6
27.6
27.0
25.0
29.0
27.7
30.9
38.9
21.9
32.1
37.5
28.6
25.1
28.9
30.2
31.3
4-34
-------
TABLE IV-8 FTP EMISSIONS LEVELS
AT VARYING DEGREES OF DEVIATION
FROM THE .5% IDLE CO FOR ALL VEHICLES
DEVIATIONS*
FROM
.5%
***
-1 to -2
0 to -1
0
0 to +1
+1 to + 2
+2 to -1-3
+3 to +4
+4 to +5
+5 to +6
+6 to +7
+7 to +8
+8 to +9
+9 to +10
+10 to +11
+11 to +12
+12 to +13
+13 to +14
+14 to +15
+ 15 to +1.6
+19 to +20
over +20
NO.
CARS
164
IS
3
9
6
7
4
3
2
10
2
9
3
9
1
6
2
0
1
2
42
HYDROCARBONS
(gin/mi)
ARITHMETIC
Mean S . D .
0.77 0.38
1.16 0.32
1.13 0.13
1.83 0.84
1.74 1.45
1 . 29 0 . 66
1.27 0.52
1.73 0.41
1.23 0.83
1.65 0.66
3.64 1.49
1.56 0.72
2.14 0.77
2.09 0.89
1.40
2.60 2.23
1.85 0.25
-
2.52
3.30 2.84
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm/rai)
ARITHMETIC
Mean S . D .
6.49 4.81
15.36 10.27
14.93 3.68
23.19 19.21
34.00 41.89
21.99 23.43
11.51 7.32
37.99 9.80
30.03 1.75
30.12 15.81
50.83 0.74
29.68 19.64
34.51 15.76
35.97 11.68
41.03
44.49 45.70
44.11 4.64
-
81.17
41.75 22.64
NOx **
(gm/rai)
ARITHMETIC
Mean S . D .
2.79 1.10
3.38 1.50
2.79 1.04
3.44 2.18
2.32 1.01
2.26 0.67
2.51 0.90
3.00 1.04
4.32 2.51
2.82 1.62
2.95 2.68
2.67 1.00
2.39 0.35
2.49 0.73
1.71
2.52 1.62
3.44 0.03
-
2.36
7.81 0.83
'
One deviation corresponds to 0.25% from the .5% Idle CO
NOY corrected for humidity
A.
*There are 111 vehicles between 0 and 0.025% idle CO
4-35
-------
TABLE IV-D FTP EMISSIONS LEVELS
AT VARYING DEGREES OF DEVIATION
FROM THE .5% IDLE CO FOR CHRYSLER VEHICLES
DEVIATIONS*
FROM
.5%
-1 to -2
0 to -1
0
0 to +1
+ 1 to + 2
+2 to +3
1 +5 to +4
+4 to +5
+5 to +6
+6 to + 7
j +7 to +8
+8 to +9
+9 to +10
+10 to +11
+11 to + 12
+12 to +13
+13 to +14
i
+14 to +15
+ 15 to +L.6
• • *
+19 to +20
over +20
NO.
CARS
15
7
2
8
4
3
2
2
1
6
1
7
0
6
1
2
1
0
1
2
28
HYDROCARBONS
(gra/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
1.06 0.42
1.10 0.43
1.06 0.06
1.89 0.88
2.20 1.63
1.66 0.69
1.46 0.48
1.88 0.45
1.17
1.65 0.63
4.69
1.64 0.81
-
2.14 1.07
1.40
3.51 0.77
2.03
2.52
3.30 2.84
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gin/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
8.95 3.50
11.47 12.10
15.65 4.14
25.53 20.51
42.24 51.51
32.21 34.81
14.15 1.69
39.63 13.27
31.27
30.01 10.17
50.30
32.02 22.01
-
37.00 14.42
41.03
68.00 21.58
47.39
81.17
41.75 22.64
NOX"
(gin/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
2.91 0.80
3.26 1.63
2.33 0.97
3.53 2.32
2. S3 1.22
2.70 0.15
3.12 0.93
2.80 1.39
2. 59
3.21 2.06
1.05
2.79 1.00
-
2.74 0.60
1.71
3.66 2.61
3.46
2.36
7.81 0.83
*0ne deviation corresponds to 0.25% from the .5% Idle CO
t*
NOY corrected for humidity
A
4-36
-------
TABLE IV-10 FTP EMISSIONS LEVELS AT VARYING DEGREES OF DEVIATION FROM
THE .5% IDLE CO FOR GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES
Deviations*
from
.S°6
-1 to -2
0 to -1
0
0 to +1
+1 to +2
+2 to +3
+3 to +4
+4 to +5
+5 to +6
+6 to + 7
+7 to +8
+8 to +9
+9 to +10
+10 to +11
+11 to +12
+12 to +13
+13 to +14
+14 to +15
+15 to +16
+19 to +20
over +20
No.
Cars
74
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
0
2
3
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
8
Hydrocarbons
(gm/mi)
Arithmetic
Mean S.D.
0.59 0.22
-
-
-
0.84
1.51 0.03
1.56
1.42
1.29
1.28 0.61
-
1.27 0.06
2.14 0.77
2.00 0.54
-
6.20
1.67
-
-
— _
2.30 0.42
Carbon Monoxide
(gm/mi)
Arithmetic
Mean S.D.
6.93 4.71
-
-
-
17.84
22.39 6.59
16.94
34.71
28.79
18.42 14.26
-
21.49 2.54
34.51 15.76
33.92 4.02
-
111.69
40.83
-
-
— —
54.74 17.31
**
NOX
(gm/mi)
Arithmetic
Mean S.D.
2.84 1.20
-
-
-
2.08
2.42 0.20
1.68
3.40
6.09
2.26 0.22
-
2.27 1.25
2 . 39 0 . 35
1.99 0.81
i
1.75
3.42
-
-
-------
TABLE IV-11
FTP EMISSION LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY AT VARYING DEGREES OF
DEVIATION FROM IDLE RPM SPECIFICATIONS FOR ALL VEHICLES IN AS-RECEIVED CONDITION
DEVIATIONS**
FROM
SPECIFICATION
-3 and beyond
-2 to -3
-1 to -2
0 to -1
0
0 to +1
+1 to +2
+2 to +3
+3 to +4
+4 to +5
+5 and beyond
NO.
CARS
11
19
23
61
39
51
51
18
14
6
7
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
1.94 1.11
1 . 39 1.32
0.93 0.57
1.11 0.84
1.23 0.93
1.32 1.08
1.58 1.05
1.56 1.03
1.35 0.69
0.76 0.35
1.80 1.25
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
22.69 17.38
18.95 27.14
12.30 15.65
15.20 18.12
19.72 25.74
19.06 23.55
29.37 27.87
24.68 22.21
21.90 21.69
11.39 13.08
28.42 19.54
NO/
(gro/roi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
2.95 0.98
2.69 1.11
2.17 0.53
2.80 1.01
3.29 1.67
2.75 0.97
2.63 1.05
3.39 2.18
3.19 1.38
2.40 1.08
2.80 1.07
FUEL ECONOMY
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
13.34 1.47
13.95 3.08
13.62 2.89
13.46 2.32
13.82 2.60
13.35 2.12
13.52 2.32
13.32 2.38
15.48 3.44
18.73 5.40
14.00 2.12
HIGHWAY FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
18.68 1.92
19.44 3.79
19.21 3.45
18.82 2.96
19.22 3.38
19.06 2.54
19.52 3.52
19.47 2.96
22.40 4.06
28.26 6.43
21.26 1.34
I
04
00
corrected for humidity
**
One deviation corresponds to 50 RPM from the specification
-------
TABLE IV-12 FTP EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY AT VARYING
DEGREES OF DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPECIFICATION FOR ALL VEHICLES IN
AS-RECEIVED CONDITION
DEVIATIONS
FROM
SPECIFICATION
-2 and beyond
-1 to -2
0 to -1
0
0 to +1
+1 to +2
+2 and beyond
NO.
CARS
13
12
59
152
35
15
14
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
1.40 0.73
1.09 0.53
1.23 0.99
1.18 0.90
1.70 1.16
1.93 1.14
1.82 1.28
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gin/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
19.74 18.78
17.50 16.19
17.73 21.18
16.43 18.52
29.77 30.02
40.86 38.99
29.41 26.64
NOX*
.'gin /mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
2.11 0.89
2.62 0.91
2.84 1.38
2.72 1.12
2.93 1.29
3.76 1.76
3.39 0.95
URBAN FUEL
ECONOMY
fti /gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
13.51 3.17
12.16 2.13
13.68 2.52
13.74 2.47
13.95 2.55
14.04 2.85
14.08 2.33
HIGHWAY FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi /gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
19.40 4.42
17.27 3.01
19.66 3.76
19.42 3.09
19.66 3.12
20.28 3.46
19.98 3.11
I
1/4
to
NOY corrected for humidity.
One deviation corresponds to 2° from the specification.
-------
TABLE IV-13
URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY ON
AS-RECEIVED TEST AT VARYING LEVELS OF DEVIATION
FROM .5% IDLE CO FOR ALL VEHICLES
DEVIATIONS
FROM
.5?i IDLE CO
-1 to -2
0 to -1
0
0 to +1
+1 to +2
+2 to +3
+3 to +4
+4 to +5
+5 to +6
+6 to +7
+7 to +8
+8 to +9
+9 to +10
+10 to +11
+11 to +12
+12 to +13
+13 to +14
+14 to +15
+ 15 to +1.6
+19 to +20
over +20
NO.
CARS
164
15
3
9
6
7
4
3
2
10
2
9
3
9
1
6
2
0
1
2
42
URBAN FUEL ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
13.85 2.67
13.51 2.50
14.35 4.92
13.01 1.74
15.29 2.74
12.64 2.20
14.66 2.89
13.08 3.19
11.80 0.09
14.14 2.55
12.56 0.56
13.66 2.70
13.26 1.34
13.98 3.29
11.60
11.83 1.81
13.84 3.43
-
11.36
15.02 2.47
HIGHWAY FUEL
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN
19.45
19.33
20.88
19.38
20.50
18.33
20.61
18.75
18.04
20.34
18.30
19.30
18.29
20.00
19.84
17.20
21,05
-
17.86
21.30
ECONOMY
S.D.
3.61
3.13
4.19
2.36
4.60
2.48
2.80
3.58
3.02
2.96
0.17
3.88
1.38
3.63
_
3.37
5.50
-
—
2.53
— ^ —
One deviation corresponds to 0.25% from .5% Idle CO.
4-40
-------
TABLE IV-14
URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY ON
AS-RECEIVED TEST AT VARYING LEVELS OF DEVIATION FROM
.5% IDLE CO FOR GENERAL MOTORS VEHICLES
DEVIATIONS*
FROM
.5% IDLE CO
-1
0
0
+ 1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+ 10
+ 11
+12
+ 13
+ 14
+ 15
+ 19
+20
to
to
0
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
to
-2
-1
+ 1
+2
+3
+4
+5
+6
+7
+8
+9
+10
+ 11
+ 12
+ 13
+14
+ 15
+ 16
+20
end
URBAN FUEL ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
NO.
CARS
74
0
0
0
1
2
1
1
1
2
0
2
3
3
0
1
1
0
0
0
8
HARMONIC
MEAN S . D .
13
-
-
-
20
13
15
11
11
15
-
12
13
13
-
13
11
-
-
-
12
.88 2.57
-
-
-
.30
.41 0.24
,02
.84
.87
.04 2.30
-
.93 4.11
.26 1.34
.66 3.59
-
.37
.77
-
-
-
.94 1.45
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S . D .
19.
-
-
-
28.
19.
20.
16.
16.
21.
-
18.
18.
19.
-
20.
17.
-
-
-
18.
47
31
57
91
20
13
85
49
29
90
65
77
67
3.52
-
-
-
-
1.29
-
-
-
3.81
-
6.11
1.38
4.71
-
-
-
-
-
-
2.09
*0ne deviation corresponds to 0.25% from -5% Idle CO.
4-41
-------
TABLE IV-15
URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY ON
AS-RECEIVED TEST AT VARYING LEVELS OF DEVIATION
FROM .5% IDLE CO FOR CHRYSLER VEHICLES
DEVIATIONS
FROM
.5% IDLE CO
-1 to -2
0 to -1
0
0 to +1
+1 to +2
+2 to +3
+3 to +4
+4 to +5
+5 to +6
+6 to + 7
+7 to +8
+8 to +9
+9 to +10
+10 to +11
+11 to +12
+12 to +13
+13 to +14
+14 to +15
+ 15 tp +1.6
• • *
>19 to +20
over +20
NO.
CARS
15
7
2
8
4
3
2
2
1
6
1
7
0
6
1
2
1
0
1
2
29
URBAN FUEL ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
14.11
15.16
15.21
12.95
14.84
13.81
14.50
13.81
11.73
15.00
12.17
13.89
-
14.15
11.60
13.16
16.78
-
11.36
15.02
2.77
3.74
7.48
1.83
2.36
2.91
4.87
4.66
-
2.62
-
2.S2
-
3.57
-
2.10
-
-
_
2.47
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC ~
MEAN S.D.
19.83
21.64
22.04
19.37
20.18
19.87
21.07
20.35
20.47
21.32
18.18
19.54
-
20.05
19.84
19.57
25.83
-
17,86
21.30
2.96
4.24
5.87
2.52
4.13
1.78
4.87
4.19
-
2.19
-
3.61
-
3.48
-
2.54
-
-
_
2.53
One deviation corresponds to 0.25% from .5% Idle CO.
4-42
-------
TABLE IV-16
URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY ON
AS-RECEIVED TEST AT VARYING LEVELS OF DEVIATION FROM
.5% IDLE CO FOR FORD VEHICLES
DEVIATIONS
FROM
SPECIFICATION
-1 to
0 to
0
0 to
+ 1 to
+ 2 to
+3 to
+4 to
1-5 to
+6 to
+ 7 to
+8 to
+9 to
+ 10 to
+ 11 to
+ 12 to
+ 13 to
+ 1.5 t.o
* •
+ 1*9 to
•
over
-2
-1
+ 1
+ 2
+ 3
+4
+5
+6
+ 7
+8
+9
+ 10
+ 11
+ 12
+ 13
+ 14
+ 1.6
+20
•
+20*
URBAN FUEL ECONOMY
NO. (mi/gal)
CARS HARMONIC
MEAN S . D .
75 13.78 2.77
8 12.33 0.77
1 12.90
1 13.57
1 13.60
2 10.68 0.99
1 14.66
0 -
0 -
2 11.49 0.44
1 12.96
0 - -
0 - -
0 -
0 - -
3 10.70 1.17
0 - -
0 - -
0 - -
5
HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
19.35 3.82
17.68 1.15
18.88
19.48
16.94
15.53 0.49
19.48
-
-
16.84 1.24
18.42
-
-
-
-
15.14 2.42
-
-
-
One deviation corresponds to 0.25% from .5% Idle CO.
4-43
-------
TAB Li: IV-17
URBAN AMD HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY ON AS-RECEIVED
TEST AT VARYING LEVELS OF DEVIATION FROM
SPECIFICATION FOR TIMING FOR GM VEHICLES
*
DEVIATIONS
FROM
SPECIFICATION
-2 and beyond
-I to -2
0 to -1
0
0 to +1
+1 to +2
+2 and beyond
NO.
CARS
4
6
29
50
9
3
1
URBAN FUEL ECONOMY
Crai/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN
11.51
12.64
13.50
14.30
13.37
15.49
13.24
S.D.
1.00
2.30
2.32
2.53
2.02
4.14
™
HIGHWAY FUEL
(mi/gall
HARMONIC
MEAN
16.77
18.20
19.43
19.86
18.53
22.06
19.11
ECONOMY
S.D.
1.57
3.19
3.73
3.33
2.79
4.67
-
One deviation corresponds to 2° from specification.
4-44
-------
5.0 EFFECT OF THE RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE, TESTS 1-4, ON EMISSIONS
AND FUEL ECONOMY
Thus far, only the results of Test 1, the initial test, of the RM
program have been discussed. All 300 vehicles in the RM program received an
initial test. Only 113 vehicles received Test 2 (after correction of mal-
adjustments and disablements other than idle mixture and idle speed), 143
vehicles received Test 3 (after adjustment of idle settings), and 83 vehicles
received Test 4 (after a major tune-up and replacement of any defective
components). The procedure and sequence for vehicles taking each of the tests
is outlined in the flow chart of Figure 5-1. (Table B-35 shows which tests
were received and the pass FTP(P) or fail FTP(T) outcome of each test by
individual vehicle.) Each test sequence is followed by an inspection procedure,
and/or a correction procedure if needed, and/or a measurement procedure to
determine if the vehicle passed the FTP standards.
The tests referred to in Figure 5-1 were chassis dynamometer tests
conducted over the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (TTP), the Highway Fuel Economy
Test (HFET) and five short cycle tests (which will be discussed in a following
section). An inspection for maladjustments or disablements was conducted
after the initial test on all 300 vehicles. The inspection results have been
discussed in Section 3. Any maladjustments or disablements other than idle
speed and idle mixture were then corrected. 113 vehicles were subjected to
Test 2 after these corrections were made. (Test 2 vehicles may have either
passed or failed Test 1.) All 300 vehicles underwent a check and a recording
of the condition of the individual emission control devices. The emissions
levels of all 300 vehicles were compared to the FTP standards. The idle speed
and idle mixture levels were recorded for the 148 vehicles passing the FTP
and these vehicles were excluded from the group taking Test 3. The 152
vehicles failing the FTP were inspected to determine if they were within the
specifications for idle speed and idle mixture. The nine vehicles of the 152
vehicles inspected that were within manufacturer's specifications for idle
speed and idle mixture were also excluded from the group of vehicles taking
Test 3. There were 143 vehicles outside of manufacturer's specifications for
idle speed and idle mixture, and these vehicles were then adjusted to specifi-
cations. All GM vehicles that failed the FTP standards prior to Test 3 had to
5-1
-------
300 VEHICLES
300 VEHICLES
PERFORM INSPECTION FOR
MALADJUSTMENT OR
DISABLEMENT
300 VEHICLES
NO
187 VEHICLES
INSPECT
EMISSION
COMPONENTS
148 VEHICLES
PASS
RECORD IDLE
SPEED S CO
1
SOME OF THESE
VEHICLES TAKE
TESTS 5-10
300 VEHICLES
1S2 VEHICLES
FAIL
INSPECT IDLE
SPEED § CO
NO
143 VEHICLES
143 VEHICLES
152 VEHICLES
YES
•gTEHICLES
^-69 VEHICLES
PASS
JZ.
83 VEHICLES
74 VEHICLES
FAIL
^
MAJOR
TUNE UP
Figure 5-1 RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE TEST SCENARIO FOR TESTS 1-4
5-2
-------
have their idle mixture and idle speed adjusted since GM provides no idle CO
specification but only provides a method of adjustment. Thus, technically,
the GM vehicles cannot be said to be outside of manufacturer's idle mixture
specifications. Of the 143 vehicles taking Test 3, 69 vehicles passed the
FTP standards and were excluded from the group taking Test 4. Seventy-four
vehicles failed the FTP standards after Test 3 and these vehicles, along with
the nine vehicles originally within manufacturer's specifications for idle
speed and idle mixture, received a major tune up which included correction of
defective emission control devices. The 83 vehicles then received Test 4
and their emissions were measured to determine if they passed the FTP standards,
Fifty six of the 83 vehicles failed the FTP standards after Test 4.
5.1 EMPIRICAL DISTRIBUTION OF EMISSIONS
Classically, it is assumed that as a result of random effects, the
distribution of a measured variable is normal. Under this assumption, the
usual procedures of analysis of variance can be employed and their findings
4
evaluated according to standard statistics. Past EPA studies, however,
indicated that emissions data tended to follow a log-normal distribution
rather than a normal distribution. Many possible reasons have been offered
as to why emissions are log-normally distributed, among these that several
sources of variability combine multiplicatively rather than additively as in
a normal distribution. Investigation of the emissions from vehicles in the
RM program indicate that emissions do tend towards log-normality. It is not
the purpose of the RM program, however, to show that emissions follow any
particular distribution, since often a distribution of variables can be
shown to be both normally and log-normally distributed. The interpretation
of influences and results, however, can be inaccurate if an incorrect assump-
tion is made. In some cases, as will be shown, the assumption of normality
is a very good one, whereas in other situations the assumption of normality
will bias the results of statistical tests. However, it should be noted that
nonparametric procedures which do not depend on the assumption of normality
or data transformations may be used successfully in cases where the data are
not normally distributed.
5-3
-------
Figures 5-2 through 5-7 present the relationships between cubic inch
displacement and emissions. There is no particular reason for using cubic
inch displacement except to delineate each individual vehicle and its respec-
tive emission level in relation to the emission standard. Figure 5-2, for
instance, demonstrates that most vehicles have HC emissions clustered very
close to the HC standard. The vehicles greater than the standard have emissions
spread over a much wider range. Figure 5-3 shows the effect on the vehicle
distribution of plotting the natural log of the HC emissions. The natural log
of the HC emissions are now more uniformly distributed over the entire range
of HC emissions. The same result may be noted for CO and to a lesser extent
for NO .
Visual examination of the distribution of emissions is not sufficient
to prove log-normality so the natural logs of the emissions were tested for
normality (if emissions are log-normally distributed then the distribution of
the variables transformed into logarithm space should be normally distributed)
using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov* (KS) statistic compared to the Lilliefors table
of significant values. Results of the KS test show that the natural logs of
emissions are normally distributed for the 300 vehicles in Test 1. The KS
statistic is 0.085 for HC, 0.067 for CO, and 0.060 for NO and these values
A
must be less than the asymptotic value 1.63/T5T» 0.0941 at the 0.01 level of
significance. Results of the KS test for the original emissions data show
the KS statistic is 0.156 for HC, 0.216 for CO and 0.141 for NOX, all of which
are greater than the asymptotic value of 0.0941. This result shows that CO
values deviate the most from normality.
The (CS test for normality was performed on the raw emissions levels
for the vehicles taking Tests 2 through 4. At each test sequence the emissions
HC, CO, and NOX were shown to deviate from a normal distribution except for
NOX for vehicles taking Test 4. The KS test was performed on the natural log
of the emissions HC, CO, and NOX at each test sequence. In every instance the
natural logs of the emissions were shown to be normally distributed. Two
important results of this analysis are: the distribution of CO emissions
deviated from normality the most as compared to HC and NO at every test
Jt
sequence 1 through 4, and NOX emissions at Test 4 were shown to pass the KS
test for normality for both raw data and log transformed data.
5-4
-------
PLOT OF FTPMC'CIND LEGEND: A = 1 OBS , B = 2 OBS , ETC
CIND
BOO
400
ui
u
a.
" 300
a
I •?
OQ
B 200
100
A A
BAG AAA !
ABAA A AjA A
CCAABB ACB AAA A BAAAAAA A A A
AAA CA A . A A BA AA A
COHEEOCBAABABACBDBCC A B B AA B AB A
AB ' OBAABAAB AAAA AA
AE AB B BAABA AC . A
AAAAAA
BAAAEBAAA \A A .
A ACA BA gBBDAA .
AA '
BAAA A
A A
BAA D C AAAA A A
B A A A
A
AAA
A FCA B
AA
A .A
I1C STANDARD
4 5
FTPHC HYDROCARBONS (gin/mi)
Figure 5-2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT AND HC EMISSIONS
-------
PLOT OF FTPHCLH*CIND LEGEND: A = 1 DBS , C = 2 ODS , ETC
NO
500
400
£300
a
g
a 200
100
A A
AA A AA A A AA
AAA AA A
A A A
AA A AAA A A A AAA A BAB AA A A AA.BA AAA A A A A A
AAA BB A ! A A BA AAA
AA A D ABC CAABAACAABA BAAA A AB A B ACADAACBA ABBB B BA A A
A AA C
AB BAABA.ABAASAAAAAABBAB A
B B AA AA B A ABA . A A
A A AA A A
A A AAA BBAB AA A
A AAA A
I A A . A A
B A BAAABCA A '. BAAAAA BB C BAA A A A AAA
A A
AA A A
BBB AB A A A
A A
A .A
-In OF IIC STANDARD
.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5 1.0 t .5
FTPHCLN NATURAL LOG OF HYDROCARBONS (nig/mi)
2.0
Figure 5-3 REUWHSHIP BEWEEN CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT AND In OF IK EMISSIONS
-------
PLOT OF FTPCO*CIND LEGEND: A - 1 DBS , B = 2 OOS , ETC
CIND
500
400
* B AA
C BB B
CB A A . A A
OBCECC A AA BA A B AA AA
o.
M 300
Q
5 200
100
A /
A EDOGCI
A . A A B A
FBEAADAAAC A CB AA A
A BC A A
AA AA A A
AADB AAA A AA B
BFEEAC !
BAAB I
GO AAAA: . B A
B AA A AABA AAA
A A
CAAOCBBBA. B B AB A C A BB AA A B AA A A
AA
I
BBAA j
BFA A
-------
PLOT OF FTPCOLN-CIND LEGEND: A = 1 OBS . U •= 2 ODS . ETC
I
A A A
A A
B A A
A A
A A A B
AA A A A A A AA
C B B AAAA
A A
.A AA BA ABAA AA A A
A A A. A A B A A BCAA
A CAAAA ACCCAADB ABA B EB BCA ACB AAC ABBA B A B B A A
A AC A
A A AA AAAA AB B CA A A AAA
A .AA A AAB
AAAAA ACAAAA A
A A
B AAB
A AAA A B AAA A AAB
. B A A
AB A AAC ABA B AAA A! B B AB AC AD AAAB B A A A
A A 3 A A
A AB AAA A
A BA
A A
In OF CO STANDARD
-1
234
FTPCOLN NATURAL LOG OF CARBON MONOXIDE (gin/mi)
Figure 5-5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT AND In OF CO EMISSIONS
-------
CIND
BOO
400
U!
U
3
o.
C/3
t-H
v. Q
i ~
300
CQ
g 200
100 *
0 +
PLOT OF FTPNOXC*C1ND LEGEND: A " 1 OBS , 8 - 2 OBS , ETC
AAAA A
A BA A ' . A A
\ A A AA B .A
A
j
A BAEA AABC0B BB BAA A A A A
A A AAACAABA . A A A
BAAD BAEO E EDfBCACBA ADCAAAO A A A A A
B ABA BACAD BAAA ABA
B A BB,ACB AA AAA BA AAA
A j.A .A A A
AA BB ABA BAAA A AA
!
A CA A ABABBAC A ABCABABABBA C
A I A '.
AAA jA . B
i •
A A AAAABAA C A
I A
A AA
NOX STANDARD
AA
A A
AA
6 3
FTPNOXC NOX CORRECTED FOR JJUMIDITY (gin/mi)
Figure 5-6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT AND NOX EMISSIONS
-------
PLOT OF FTPNOXLN'CINO LEGEND: A = 1 OBS . 0 « ..' Of;.; , ETC
A A AA
AAA A
A A A
A
A A
B AAOA AAABBfcAA CA BAA A A A A
AA
A A A AAC B| BA A AA
AAA A AA A AAAOAC E ODATBACABOA ADCAABCA AA AA
A A
A A
AAAA BA C ACA AA BA AB A
B A BAA1 BCAA A BA
A B
BA AAA A
A A
A UA .A A A
BAA A AAA BA AA A AA
AB A A AAAABAA^BA A ABCAAGBABC C
A
AAA
A A AA A BAA BA A
A
A
AAA
In OF NOX STANDARD
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
FTPNOXLN NATURAL LOG OF NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY (gin/mi)
Figure 5-7 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT AND In OF NO EMISSIONS
-------
5.2 VEHICLE MEAN EMISSIONS FOR TEST SEQUENCES 1 THROUGH 4
The mean emission levels at each test sequence are given in Tables
B-l through B-18. There are two sets of mean values for each test sequence.
The first set of values, Tables B-l through B-16, represents the mean emissions
of just those vehicles that received each test (i.e., the 300, 113, 143 and 83
vehicles that received tests 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). The mean emissions
of these groups of vehicles may be used to estimate the collective effect of
the specific set of maintenance procedures employed prior to the test on those
vehicles requiring such maintenance. The second set of mean values, Tables
B-l7 and B-18, represents the mean emissions of all 300 vehicles at each test
sequence (i.e., the mean emissions on the last test of the vehicles that did
not receive the specified test averaged with the mean emissions on the given
test of the vehicles that did receive that test). This latter set of mean
emission levels gives a measure of the cumulative effect of maintenance, as
prescribed in the RM program, on the total sample.
Tables V-20 through V-24 give a summary of emissions levels, and fuel
economies for just those vehicles that receive a particular test sequence.
The object is to determine the effect of a certain action (or collection of
actions) such as correction of a malperformance. To prevent the confounding
of more than one effect, only those vehicles subject to a particular action
are investigated prior to and after the action. Since every action is followed
by a test, the effect of every action may be determined by comparing the con-
dition of the vehicles prior to the test with the condition of the vehicles
after the test.
Comparisons between tests 1 and 2 (Table V-20) determine the effect
of correcting the maladjustments and disablements of emission components for
the 113 vehicles taking test 2. Correction of malperformances has no effect
on fuel economy, but emissions levels are reduced.
The comparisons given in Table V-21 illustrate the effect of adjusting
the idle CO and idle RPM for the 75 vehicles taking only tests 1 and 3. These
adjustments have no effect on fuel economy but significantly reduce HC and CO
5-11
-------
emissions. Similar results are illustrated in Table V-22 for the 68
test 3 vehicles that had other maladjustments or disablements corrected
prior to test 3 (i.e., those vehicles that received tests 1, 2 and 3).
NO emissions increase slightly in this latter case.
A
The comparisons given in Table V-24 illustrate the effect of a
major tune-up and the repair of defective emission components on the 36
vehicles taking only test 1, 2 and 4. The results indicate no change in
fuel economy and a reduction of emissions levels. Similar results are
given in Table V-23 for the 72 vehicles that received tests 1, 3 and 4.
In summary, the results given in Tables V-20 through V-24 indicate
that 1) very little change occurs in fuel economy following the three types
of RM prescribed maintenance, 2) HC and CO emissions are reduced following
each type of maintenance but the largest decrease results from idle CO and
RPM adjustment, and 3) NOX emissions are increased slightly following adjust-
ment of idle mixture and idle speed but are decreased following the other
maintenance procedures.
The cumulative effect of the maintenance procedures on the mean
emissions and fuel economy of all the test vehicles is illustrated in Tables
B-17 and B-18, The mean HC, CO and MOX emissions are reduced from 1.32,
20.27 and 2.82 gin/mi to 0.87, 7.65 and 2.55 gm/mi due to the cumulative
effects of the RM maintenance. The average urban fuel economy increases
slightly from 13.7 mpg to 14.0 rapg due to the program maintenance. Again,
the results in Tables B-17 and B-18 indicate that the largest decrease in HC
and CO emissions results from the adjustment of idle CO and idle RPM.
Tables B-19 through B-34 present the mean emissions at each test
sequence extrapolated to 50,000 miles for just those vehicles that received
each test. These tables indicate the effect of deterioration on the mean
emissions levels.
5-12
-------
5.3 EFFECT OF SPECIFIC MALPERFORMANCES ON EMISSIONS AND FUEL
ECONOMY (TESTS 5 - 10)
One of the purposes of the Restorative Maintenance Evaluation Project
on the 1975 and 1976 model year vehicles was to investigate and quantify the
individual and combined effects of maladjustments, disablements, and defects
on exhaust emissions and fuel economy. This was to be accomplished by the
sequential testing of vehicles after altering one or more operating parameters
to simulate such occurrences. Originally, only vehicles which met the
standards after undergoing the major tune-up would be eligible for this
additional testing. In order to fill the sample, however, other vehicles
which passed an earlier test were also used. The types of maladjustments
and disablements employed for these sequences were selected during the design
of the program. They were thought to represent typical actions that would be
used to improve fuel economy, driveability, or both. Although most of these
maladjustments and disablements were applied individually, 30 vehicles received
a single test in which 3, 4 or 5 of these actions were combined. As would be
expected, the FTP emission levels increased drastically. The average fuel
economy change associated with this action, as well as each of the individual
actions, was insignificant.
From the standpoint of percentage emission increases on the FTP,
disablement of a vehicle's air pump produced the most dramatic results with
HC and CO increases of 118% and 357%, respectively. Among the 103 vehicles
equipped with air pumps, however, only one was found to have a disablement
of this nature. Of more critical concern are the more common maladjustments
of idle mixture and disablements of the EGR system. NOX emissions more than
doubled when the vacuum line to the EGR valve was plugged while HC and CO
emissions increased by 85% and 211%, respectively, when the idle mixture
was enriched, generally to achieve the "classic" lean best idle condition.
Other induced problems resulted in smaller, but nonetheless significant,
increases in the regulated emissions. Table V-l lists the average emission
and fuel economy results from this assessment.
5-13
-------
A comparison between the mean emissions levels of test sequences 1
through 4 were made using the student t-test on the log transformed data.
The results of these statistical tests will be discussed in the next section.
5.4 VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR TEST SEQUENCES
1 THROUGH 4
Tables V-2 through V-ll present the percentage of vehicles failing
any one of the three FTP standards and each individual emission standard for
test sequences 1 through 4. The percent of failing vehicles given in these
tables is presented in two ways: first, as the percent of the number of
vehicles that received the given test (Tables V-2 through V-9) and, second,
as the percent of the total 300 vehicles in the sample (Tables V-10 and V-ll).
The first type of percent failing is given as a function of 1) the 300
vehicles tested as-received, 2) the 113 vehicles that received maintenance
due to some maladjustments or disablements on test 2, 3) the 143 vehicles
that had adjusted idle mixture and speed prior to test 3, and 4) the 83
vehicles that received a tune up or repair of defective components on test 4.
The majority of the vehicles failing Tests 1 and 2 fail because of high carbon
monoxide emissions, and the majority of vehicles failing Tests 3 and 4 fail
because of high NOX emissions.
Tables V-10 and V-ll give the percent of the total sample of
vehicles that still fail the FTP standards following the maintenance at each
test sequence. These tables show the cumulative effect of restorative
maintenance, as prescribed in the RM program, on the FTP failure rate. Fifty-
eight percent of the 300 vehicles fail standards in their as-received condition.
The failure rate for these 300 cars falls to 51% following correction of mal-
adjustments and disablements (except idle CO and idle RPM adjustment), to 27%
following idle CO and idle RPM adjustment, and to 18.7% following emission
component repair and tune-up. Again, it is apparent that the largest HC and
CO reduction follows adjustment of idle CO and idle RPM (test 3 results).
5-14
-------
Tables V-12 through V-19 present the percent failing FTP standards
at each test sequence extrapolated to 50,000 miles for just those vehicles
that receive the specified test. The effect of deterioration on the failure
rate can be estimated by comparing Tables V-12 through V-19 to Tables V-2
through V-9.
5-1S
-------
TABLE V-l PERCENT CHANGE IN EMISSION/FUEL ECONOMY FROM A
PASSED STANDARDS TEST TO TEST FOLLOWING INDICATED
TYPE OF MALPERFORMANCE
NUMBER
TESTED FOR
MALPERFORMANCE TYPE ESTIMATE
SELECTIVE MALPERFORMANCE
+5° TIMING
ENRICHED ICO
FULL MANIFOLD VACUUM
TO DIST.
CHOKE 3NR
EGR LINE PLUGGED
CHOKE HEATER DISCONNECTED
AIR PUMP DEACTIVATED
30
36
21
14
22
37
12
8
HC
86
24
85
36
23
21
30
118
CO
230
6
211
29
80
71
127
357
NOy
175
19
-4
11
15
123
-7
-9
URBAN
FE
0
2
-2
0
-2
1
0
1
HWY
FE
1
1
1
-1
-1
1
2
1
5-16
-------
TABLE V-2 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY CITY FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
100
100
100
300
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
27.0
31.0
30.0
29.3
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
37.0
37.0
42.0
38.7
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
26.0
22.0
38.0
28.7
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
56.0
51.0
68.0
58.3
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-17-
-------
TABLE V-3 PERCENT OF VEHICLE FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
102
99
99
300
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
19.6
10.1
58.6
29.3
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
31.4
16.2
68.7
38.7
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
24.5
29.3
32.5
28.7
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
50.0
42.4
82.8
58.3
•NO CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-1S
-------
TABLE V-4 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
#
CARS
35
40
38
113
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
17.1
42.5
44.7
35.4
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
28.6
47.5
57.9
45.1
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
25.7
10.0
36.8
23.9
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
51.4
55.0
89.5
65.5
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-19
-------
TABLE V-5 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED
TEST SEQUENCE 2
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
36
30
47
113
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
50.6
16.7
51.1
35.4
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
38.9
20.0
66.0
45.1
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
22.2
43,3
12.8
23.9
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
58.3
56.7
76.6
65.5
•^^^^""•"••l^^^^^—
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-20
-------
TABLE V-6 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY CITY FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 3
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
4
CARS
42
41
60
143
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
14.3
24.4
15.0
17.5
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
14.3
9.8
21.7
16.1
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
28.6
29.3
36.7
32.2
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
47.6
46.3
58.3
51.7
•NOv CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-21
-------
TABLE V-7 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED
TEST SEQUENCE 3
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
4
CARS
42
32
69
143
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
4.8
18.8
24.6
17.5
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
9.5
12.5
21.7
16.1
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
35.7
56.2
18.8
32.2
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
45.2
65.6
49.3
51.7
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-22
-------
TABLE V-8 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS BY CITY
FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
CJTY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
1
CARS
24
17
42
83
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
20.8
35.3
9.5
18.1
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
25.0
11.8
8.4
18.1
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
33.3
52.9
47.6
44.6
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
62. S
76.5
66.7
67. S
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-23
-------
TABLE V-9 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED
TEST SEQUENCE 4
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
#
CARS
17
30
36
83
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
5.9
16.7
25.0
18.1
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
17.6
6.7
27.8
18.1
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
58.8
63.3
22.2
44.6
•.
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
70.6
70.0
63.9
67.5
^
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-24
-------
TABLE V-10
PERCENT (CUMULATIVE) OF VEHICLES FAILING THE 1975/1976
FEDERAL STANDARDS BY TEST SEQUENCE* AND SITE
Site N
CHICAGO 100
WASHINGTON 100
DETROIT 100
ALL 300
CHICAGO 100
WASHINGTON 100
DETROIT 100
ALL 300
CHICAGO 100
WASHINGTON 100
DETROIT 100
ALL 300
CHICAGO 100
WASHINGTON 100
DETROIT 100
ALL 300
HC
27.0
30.0
31.0
29.3
20.0
28.0
27.0
25.0
6.0
8.0
8.0
7.3
5.0
4.0
4.0
4.3
Test 1
CO
37.0
42.0
37.0
38.7
Test 2
32.0
42.0
32.0
35.3
Test 3
7.0
13.0
5.0
8.3
Test 4
6.0
7.0
2.0
5.0
Any
NOX
26.0
38.0
22.0
28.7
16.0
31.0
14.0
20.3
14.0
27.0
10.0
17.0
8.0
20.0
9.0
12.3
of HC, CO,
NOX
56.0
68.0
51.0
58.3
44.0
66.0
43.0
51.0
23.0
40.0
18.0
27.0
15.0
28.0
13.0
18.7
*TEST 1: AS-RECEIVED
TEST 2: AFTER CORRECTION OF MALADJUSTMENTS AND DISABLEMENTS
(EXCEPT IDLE CO § IDLE RPM ADJUSTMENT)
TEST 3: AFTER IDLE CO AND IDLE RPM ARE RESET TO SPECIFICATIONS
TEST 4: AFTER EMISSION COMPONENT REPAIR AND MAJOR TUNE-UP
5-25
-------
TABLE V-ll
PERCENT (CUMULATIVE) OF VEHICLES FAILING THE 1975/1976
FEDERAL STANDARDS BY TEST SEQUENCE* AND (MANUFACTURER
Test 1
Manufacturer N
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
ALL
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
ALL
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
ALL
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
ALL
*TEST 1:
TEST 2:
TEST 3:
TEST 4:
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
300
AS-RECEIVED
AFTER CORRECTION
(EXCEPT IDLE CO §
AFTER IDLE CO AND
AFTER EMISSION CO
HC
19.6
10.1
58.6
29.3
Test
«_^^«>«>*«
16.7
8.1
50.5
25.0
Test
2.0
5.1
12.5
7.3
Test
1.0
3.0
9.1
4.3
CO
31.4
16.2
68.7
38.7
2_
27. 5
15.2
63.6
35.3
3
3.9
5.1
16.2
8.3
4
2.9
2.0
10.1
5.0
NOx
24.5
29.3
32.3
28.7
18.6
27.3
15.2
20.3
11.8
25.3
14.1
17.0
9.8
19.2
8.1
12.3
Any of HC,
CO, NOX
50.0
42.4
82.8
58.3
42.2
39.4
71.7
51.0
15.7
29.3
36.4
27.0
11.8
21.2
23.2
18.7
OF MALADJUSTMENTS AND DISABLEMENTS
IDLE RPM ADJUSTMENT)
IDLE RPM ARE RESET TO SPECIFICATIONS
MPONENT REPAIR AND MAJOR TUNE -UP
5-26
-------
TABLE V-12 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS BY
CITY FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1 FOR EMISSIONS EXTRAPOLATED TO
50,000 MILES
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
1
CARS
100
100
100
300
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
38.0
45.0
43.0
42.0
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
45.0
39.0
43.0
42.3
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
36.0
25.0
45.0
35.3
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
67.0
58.0
73.0
66.0
•NO* CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-27
-------
TABLE V-15 PERCEiYT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1 FOR EMISSIONS
EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
#
CARS
102
99
99
300
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
28.4
25.2
72.7
42.0
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
33.3
22.2
71.7
42.3
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
34.3
32.3
39.4
35.3
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
57.8
52.5
87.9
66.0
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-28
-------
TABLE V-14 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY CITY FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST
SEQUENCE 2 FOR EMISSIONS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
1
CARS
35
40
38
113
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
34.3
50.0
60.5
48.7
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
31.4
52.5
60.5
48.7
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
34.3
15.0
42.1
30.1
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
71.4
65.0
94.7
77.0
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-29
-------
TABLE V-15 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED
TEST SEQUENCE 2 FOR EMISSIONS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
#
CARS
36
30
47
113
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
41.7
23.3
70.2
48.7
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
41.7
20.0
72.3
48.7
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
33.3
43.3
19.2
30.1
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
72.2
60.0
91.5
77.0
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-30
-------
TABLE V-16 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS BY CITY
FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 3 FOR
EMISSIONS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
1
CARS
42
41
60
143
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
23.8
26.8
28.3
26.6
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
19.0
12.2
23.3
18.9
FAILING
NO**
STANDARD
40.5
31.7
50.0
42.0
FAILING
AT LiAST
ONE
STANDARD
66.7
51.2
75.0
65.7
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-31
-------
TABLE V-17 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED
TEST SEQUENCE 3 FOR EMISSIONS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
42
32
69
143
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
7.1
34.4
34.8
26.6
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
9.5
15.6
26.1
18.9
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
45.2
62.5
30.4
42.0
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
54.8
81.2
65.2
65.7
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-32
-------
TABLE V-18 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS BY CITY
FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4 FOR
EMISSIONS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
24
17
42
83
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
37.5
47.1
31.0
36.1
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
29.2
11.8
19.1
20.5
FAILING
NOX"
STANDARD
45.8
58.8
66.7
59.0
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
75.0
76.5
83.3
79.5
•NO, CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-33
-------
TABLE V-19 PERCENT OF VEHICLES FAILING THE EMISSIONS STANDARDS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST
SEQUENCE 4 FOR EMISSIONS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
17
30
36
83
FAILING
HC
STANDARD
5.9
43.3
44.4
36.1
FAILING
CO
STANDARD
17.6
10.0
30.6
20.5
FAILING
NOX*
STANDARD
64.7
76.7
41.7
59.0
FAILING
AT LEAST
ONE
STANDARD
76.5
86.7
75.0
79.5
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
5-34
-------
TABLE V-20 A COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS LEVEL AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMIES
BETWEEN TEST SEQUENCES 1 AND 2 FOR VEHICLES TAKING ONLY TESTS 1 AND 2
en
O4
en
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
36
30
47
113
TEST
SEQUENCE
BEFORE
TEST 2
AFTER
TEST 2
BEFORE
TEST 2
AFTER
TEST 2
BEFORE
TEST 2
AFTER
TEST 2
BEFORE
TEST 2
AFTER
TEST 2
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
1 . 34 1 . 20
1.21 0.98
1.21 0.80
1.13 0.64
2.20 1.16
1.92 1.14
1.66 1.17
1.48 1.04
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
25.42 30.86
21.67 25.79
12.87 15.12
10.26 13.19
39.65 24.64
32.63 25.71
28.01 26.95
23.20 24.64
NOX*
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
3.18 1.78
2.63 0.74
3.01 1.34
3.00 1.11
3.34 1.61
2.60 0.48
3.20 1.59
2.72 0.78
URBAN FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
13.37 2.04
13.37 1.43
13.28 2.65
13.65 1.89
13.69 2.41
13.54 2.23
13.47 2.36
13.52 1.90
HIGHWAY FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
19.09 2.68
19.13 2.58
18.59 3.54
19.01 3.20
19.99 2.73
19.85 2.88
19.32 3.02
19.39 2.88
NO., corrected for humidity
-------
TABLE V-21 A. COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMIES
BETWEEN TEST SEQUENCES 1 AND 3 FOR VEHICLES TAKING ONLY TESTS 1 AND 3
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
22
19
34
75
TEST
SEQUENCE
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
1.29 0.80
0.66 0.41
1.20 0.57
1.16 0.46
2.20 0.97
1.34 0.98
1.68 0.95
1.10 0.78
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(g»/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
23.90 20.23
8.32 8.00
14.73 11.54
7.41 4.88
40.56 24.70
13.76 18.51
29.13 23.28
10.56 13.62
NOX
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
2.89 0.72
2.74 0.69
3.40 1.38
3.92 2.41
2.77 1.24
2.86 1.27
2.96 1.17
3.10 1.59
URBAN FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
13.68 2.63
14.13 2.78
12.43 1.58
12.79 1.85
14.25 2.52
14.96 2.67
13.58 2.39
14.11 2.60
HIGHWAY FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
19.15 3.62
19.17 3.72
17.59 2.23
17.90 2.36
20.51 2.74
20.62 2.87
19.30 3.12
19.44 3.20
in
i
ON
NO corrected for humidity
A
-------
TABLE V-22 A COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMIES
BETWEEN TEST SEQUENCES 2 AND 3 FOR VEHICLES TAKING ONLY TESTS 1, 2 $ 3
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
20
13
35
68
TEST
SEQUENCE
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
1.56 1.11
0.64 0.37
1.50 0.79
1.16 0.56
2.23 1.15
1.16 0.70
1.89 1.12
1.01 0.63
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
32.93 29.70
8.21 10.25
17.74 17.49
8.20 7.22
40.89 24.80
11.56 6.09
34.12 26.33
9.93 7.80
NO/
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
2.70 0.91
2.69 0.78
3.55 1.09
3.82 1.99
2.50 0.47
2.56 0.43
2.76 0.85
2.84 1.10
URBAN FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
13.10 1.53
14.18 2.15
13.56 1.29
13.61 1.43
13.46 2.26
14.10 2.76
13.37 1.88
14.03 2.35
HIGHWAY FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
19.56 2.70
19.97 2.65
19.00 2.02
18.94 2.10
19.79 3.01
20.22 2.95
19.56 2.72
19.89 2.70
01
I
NOY corrected for humidity
A.
-------
TABLE V-23 A COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMIES
BETWEEN TEST SEQUENCES 3 AND 4 FOR VEHICLES TAKING ONLY TESTS 1, 3 & 4
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
i f.
22
34
72
TEST
SEQUENCE
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
HYDROCARBONS
(gHI/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
0.81 0.56
0.70 0.39
1.29 0.51
1.22 0.36
1.66 1.02
1.47 0.96
1 . 36 0 . 86
1.22 0.77
CARBON MONOXIDE
(go/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
12.39 13.16
11.24 12.50
8.60 6.43
7.86 4.07
17.29 18.12
14.98 15.04
13.55 14.70
11.98 12.36
1
NOX
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
3.17 0.87
3.16 0.92
4.58 2.32
3.32 0.79
2 . 86 1 . 30
2.61 0.72
3.45 1.77
2.95 0.84
JRBAN FUEL
ECONOMY
(»i/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
13.58 2.68
13.48 2.54
13.46 1.40
13.20 1.52
14.32 2.79
13.77 2.24
13.88 2.38
13.53 2.09
HIGHWAY FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
19.10 3.49
18.84 3.38
19.10 1.68
18.65 2.09
20.14 2.85
19.85 2.48
19.87 2.72
19.24 2.63
tn
i
CM
oo
NO., corrected for humidity
-------
TABLE V-24 COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMIES
BETWEEN TEST SEQUENCES 2 AND 4 FOR VEHICLES TAKING ONLY TESTS 1,254
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
8
4
14
36
TEST
SEQUENCE
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
HYDROCARBONS
(gra/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
0.91 0.91
0.70 0.48
1.48 0.74
1.16 0.37
2.35 1.50
1.34 0.92
1.69 1.24
1.13 0.68
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
20.67 39.38
11.73 17.68
16.55 17.09
7.08 4.16
40.60 32.10
14.21 8.18
26.82 30.47
10.88 10.20
NOX*
(gm/mi)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN S.D.
3.43 0.92
3.28 1.12
3.88 0.82
3.50 0.96
2.64 0.69
2.59 0.49
3.30 0.95
3.09 0.93
FUEL URBAN
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
13.68 2.10
13.80 1.99
13.46 2.04
13.75 2.07
13.23 2.16
13.50 2.70
13.42 2.05
13.66 2.27
HIGHWAY FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
19.91 2.20
19.24 2.39
19.50 2.88
19.19 3.05
19.56 2.22
19.49 2.46
19.61 2.44
19.32 2.63
i
O4
to
NO., corrected for humidity
-------
6.0 VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY
It may be inferred from the results of both Sections 4 and 5 that
low emissions could be obtained by an appropriate limitation of idle CO,
idle RPM, timing, etc. Whereas the choice of a limit or specification that
produces the lowest emissions might be possible, this choice might impair
the overall performance quality or driveability of a vehicle. Choice of an
appropriate specification for a vehicle may be a compromise between lowest
emissions and best driveability.
The question then arises as to how good is a certain choice for a
specification. If a vehicle is within manufacturers specifications will the
vehicle both meet standards and perform well (i.e., no stalling, stumbling,
dieseling, etc.)? Section 4 already explored the effect upon emissions as
the deviation from the specification increased. The results for idle CO
indicated clearly that HC and CO emissions increased as the deviation from
the specification increased. The results for idle RPM and timing, however,
showed no particular trend. This section will investigate possible correla-
tions between high emissions, poor driveability and specification tolerances.
6.1 DRIVEABILITY AND DEVIATION FROM .5% IDLE CO, OR TIMING,
IDLE RPM SPECIFICATIONS
Information provided by the owner as to engine performance, warranty,
and maintenance was obtained for every vehicle in the testing sample. The
answers to the question on vehicle warranty indicate that of the 300 vehicles
in the sample 250 were returned at least one time for warranty repairs.
Figure 6-1 shows the frequency of warranty action taken for each of the
300 vehicles. Vehicles returned for warranty action deviate from .5% idle
CO as much or more than vehicles never returned.
Figures 6-2 through 6-5 present the deviation from the timing
specification for only those 100 vehicles which had previously been returned
for the correction of a driveability problem. These 100 vehicles had been
returned for the correction of such problems as engine misfire, poor accelera-
tion, dieseling and others. Most of the 100 vehicles no longer have
6-1
-------
PLOT OF inLCODIF*VOCU9 LEGEND: A = 1 OBS , B = 2 DBS , ETC
VO019
§
i
NJ
1 3
DON'T KNOW
RETURNED
3 OR A
MORE TIMES
RETURNED
TWICE A
AA CA AAA BAAAA ACB ABA CBA AA C ABA A A ABA CAAAA B ABAG2
RETURNED
ONCE
NEVER A
RETURNED
NO WARRANTY
AAB AACA AABABABA AA 8 BBB EZ
A AAAA A A AA A B A CA A AA A B ASBBBDZ
B AAB AAAEZ
t-6
DEVIATION FROM .5% IDLE CO (ONE DEVIATION IS 0.25%)
Figure 6-1 WARRANTY ACTION AS FUNCTION OF DEVIATION FROM IDLE CO SPECIFICATION
-------
VOQO11D
2.0
NO
A LONGER
A PROBLEM
1.8
1.6
1 .4
STILL HAVE
DRIVEABILITY
1-0 + PROBLEM
-10
PLOT OF TIMGDIF"VOO011D LEGEND: A = 1 OBS , B = 2 OBS , ETC
-5
A
5
DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPEC (ONE DEVIATION IS 2°)
10
Figure 6-2 DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPEC FOR VEHICLES RETURNED FOR CORRECTION OF ENGINE MISFIRE
-------
PLOT OF TIMG01F*V00011E LEGEND: A = 1 DBS , B * 2 OBS , ETC
VOQO11E
2.0
1.8
1 .6
o
I
*»
1.4
1.2
NO
A LONGER A A
PROBLEM
STILL A
1-0 + PROBLEM
1+
-10
AOAFDZF DAB
CCA
A B C P
-5 0
DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPEC (ONE DEVIATION IS 2°)
A
-•f-
5
^-
10
figure 6-3 DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPEC FOR VEHICLES RETURNED FOR CORRECTION OF POOR ACCELERATION
-------
PLOT OF TIMGDIF*VOQ011F LEGEND: A - 1 OBS , B = 2 OBS , ETC
VOQ011F
2.0
Cf-
i
en
NO
+A LONGER A
A PROBLEM
1.6
1.6
1.4
1.2
STILL A
1.0 + PROBLEM
-10
B
N
-5 0
DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPEC (ONE DEVIATION IS 2°)
10
Figure 6-4 DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPEC FOR VEHICLES RETURNED FOR CORRECTION OF STUMBLING PROBLEM
-------
VOQ011G
2.0
A
1.8
1.6
1.4
NO
LONGER A
A PROBLEM
1.2
STILL A
1>0 + PROBLEM
-10
PLOT OF TIMGDIF*VOQ011G LEGEND: A = 1 OBS , B = 2 OBS , ETC
B
I
B
B
-5 0
DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPEC (ONE DEVIATION IS 2°)
10
Figure 6-5 DEVIATION FROM TIMING SPEC FOR VEHICLES RETURNED FOR CORRECTION OF DIESELING PROBLEM
-------
owner-perceived driveability problems. In most cases, the vehicles with
corrected driveability problems are farther from specifications than vehicles
still having driveability problems. Since the condition of the vehicle
(degree to which it deviated from the specification) before its return for
correction of the driveability problem is not known, nothing can be said
as to how the driveability problem was corrected (i.e., timing moved closer
to specification or farther from specification). It is evident, however,
that good driveability does not necessarily correspond to a condition in
which the vehicle is within the timing specification.
The same conclusion as that given above was reached when deviations
from .5% idle CO and the idle RPM specifications were investigated. The
deviation from the timing specification was presented as representative of
results observed for other specifications.
6.2 OWNER-PERCEIVED DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
Tables VI-1 through VI-7 show the percentage of vehicles with owner-
perceived driveability problems such as hard-starting, misfire, poor accelera-
tion, etc. Several of the different types of driveability problems occur with
almost equal frequency. Hard-starting, stalling, rough idling, poor accelera-
tion, stumbling, and dieseling problems occur between 13% and 19% of all
the vehicles tested. Misfiring and other problems occur for only 5-6% of all
vehicles. However, 66% of all vehicles have at least one driveability problem,
which implies that the problems as indicated by the owners are restricted to
one or two problems which are not common from owner to owner.
Investigation of the owner-perceived driveability problems by manu-
facturer as in Table VI-2 indicates that driveability problems are not manu-
facturer-related although Chrysler vehicles have a slightly higher rate of
hard-starting and stalling problems than Ford or General Motors. Seventy-
eight percent of all the Chrysler owners indicated that they had at least
one driveability problem as compared to 56% of the General Motors owners
and 65% of the Ford owners.
6-7
-------
Tables VI-3 through VI-6 present the frequency of each owner-
perceived driveability problem for vehicles passing the initial test
and for vehicles failing the initial test. There is no difference in the
frequency of each type of problem between vehicles passing the initial test
and vehicles failing the initial test.
Table VI-7 provides a breakdown of driveability problems by cubic
inch displacement (CID). The CID categories presented are certainly not the
most specific categories possible but the categories roughly correspond to
4,6, and 8 cylinder vehicles. The frequencies of driveability problems do
not necessarily have a functional relationship with CID; however, the mid-
size engine category (150-259 CID) have the highest rates of owner-perceived
problems for most of the driveability problems listed.
6.3 CONTRACTOR-PERCEIVED DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
A simple driveability test was performed by the testing contractor
on each RM vehicle at each test sequence. There was a separate contractor
for each of the three test cities or locations. Whereas the owner of the
vehicle tested could answer only yes, no, or most of the time to the question
of whether he was overall reasonably satisfied with the engine performance
of his vehicle, each contractor could specify the idle, acceleration and
cruise quality of each vehicle as either excellent, good, fair, poor, or fail
The contractor definitions of these quality indicators are;
Excellent - No trace of undesirable elements (smooth, even, responsiv
Good - Slight trace, small indication of an undesirable element
(initial unevenness, roughness, hesitation, quickly overcome")
Fair - Undesirable element exists yet reliability is maintained.
(Only intermittent misfire, surging, hesitation)
Poor - Undesirable elements exist which affect reliability or
driver confidence (steady misfire, roughness, lack of power
lack of response)
Fail - Extremely unreliable, possible unsafe conditions exist
(frequent stalling, die-outs on acceleration, lack of
throttle response)
6-8
-------
The owner driveability evaluation differs from the contractor evalua-
tion in two respects: 1) the owner was limited to a yes, no, or most of the
time response to whether he was overall reasonably satisfied with his vehicle's
engine performance, and 2) the owner evaluation probably included more extreme
conditions (e.g., temperature, type of driving, etc.) than the contractor
evaluation.
The contractor evaluated the vehicle quality for each segment of each
of five driving phases. The segments and the corresponding driving phases used
in the contractor evaluation are:
Constant Speed Phase
Acceleration quality
Cruise quality
Slight acceleration response (passing)
Idle quality at stop - w/air "on"
w/air "off"
Acceleration from Stop Phase
Quality of acceleration under 1/4 throttle
Quality of acceleration under 1/2 throttle
Quality of acceleration under 2/3 throttle
Quality of acceleration under 3/4 throttle
Re-start Phase
Idle quality after re-start
Cold Start and Idle Phase (Dynamometer)
Idle quality
Drive-away Phase (Dynamometer)
Acceleration quality
Idle quality after 0.2 mile @stop
Acceleration quality
Idle quality after 0.4 mile @ stop
6-9
-------
An overall contractor quality of a vehicle is defined by the authors to be
the rounded average of the qualities for each segment of each of the five
driving phases. A comparison between the owner-perceived and contractor-
perceived driveability of a vehicle can now be made where a yes response
by the owner is considered equivalent to good or excellent quality by the
contractor. A fair response by the contractor is considered equivalent to
the owner being satisfied with the vehicle performance most of the time
and a poor or fail contractor quality rating is considered equivalent to the
owner being unsatisfied with the vehicle's driveability. Results of the
comparison show that in one instance the owner was unsatisfied with his Ford
that the contractor rated as excellent. In 23 instances the owner rated as
unsatisfactory the vehicles that the contractor rated as good. In 26 cases
the owner was satisfied with the driveability of vehicles that the contractor
rated as fair. In one case, the owner rated as satisfactory his Chrysler
vehicle that was rated as poor by the contractor. Considering the extent to
which quality is subjective, owner-perceived quality agrees well with
contractor-perceived quality.
The percent of vehicles, in as-received condition, in each driveabili*.
quality category is given by driving phase in Tables VI-8 through VI-13. Each
driving phase presented is composed of two or more driving segments. Each
driving segment is rated by the contractor as to quality. The percent of
vehicles in each driving quality category for each driving phase is obtained
by averaging the particular quality over all the segments and rounding. For
example, Table VI-8 shows that most of the vehicles have good quality (code 4)
during the constant speed phase of the test. The constant speed phase, however
is composed of five segments each of which are assigned a quality by the
contractor. The driveability quality of any vehicle for the constant speed
phase is the rounded average of its driveability qualities for each segment
at that phase. The overall driveability quality is determined by calculating
the rounded average of each of the segment qualities in each of the driving
phases. Because of the rounding procedure used to determine overall
driveability quality, and because a code of 1, a fail, occurs so infrequently,
overall quality codes range between 2 and 5.
6-10
-------
Results show that 69% of all vehicles in all cities demonstrate
good overall driveability quality. Ninety-eight percent of all vehicles
have fair, good, or excellent driveability quality. Sixty-six percent of
all Chrysler vehicles have good driveability as compared to 71% for GM
and 72% for Ford. Ninety-four percent of all GM vehicles have good or
excellent driveability. Seventy-five percent of all Chrysler vehicles
have good or excellent driveability and 83% of all Ford vehicles have good
or excellent driveability.
Tables VI-10 through VI-13 present the percent of vehicles with each
type of quality for vehicles passing the initial test and for vehicles
failing the initial test. Results indicate that 66% of all vehicles passing
the initial test have good overall quality whereas 71% of all vehicles failing
the initial test have good overall quality. The results seem to indicate
that over all test vehicles no correlation exists between driveability and
the failure of a vehicle in as-received condition to meet emissions standards.
There is some indication that Chrysler vehicles that pass the standards in
their as-received condition have worse driveability quality than do failing
Chrysler vehicles.
The only consistent result observed for each driving phase is that
the percentage of good driveability quality vehicles is always less for the
drive away phase as compared to all other phases.
Finally, the most significant results of the investigation of
contractor driveability quality are presented in Tables VI-14 through VI-21
where driveability quality is presented for each manufacturer by cubic inch
displacement for each of the five driving phases and for the overall
driveability quality. Examination of these tables shows that the majority
of GM and Ford vehicles greater than 260 cubic inch displacement have a good
to excellent driveability quality whereas the majority of GM and Ford vehicles
less than 260 cubic inch displacement have a fair to good driveability quality.
Keep in mind that the majority of Ford and GM vehicles are 351 and 350 CID
and this fact biases the distribution. Nevertheless, even if the CID category
"greater than 310" were deleted to make the CID distributions more equivalent
6-11
-------
vehicles with small displacement would still tend towards fair quality and
vehicles with large displacement would tend towards good quality. There is
no obvious difference in driveability quality for different displacement
Chrysler vehicles.
6.4 A COMPARISON BETWEEN PAIRS OF TEST SEQUENCES
Tables VI-22 and VI-23 compared contractor driveability quality,
emissions levels, and fuel economies for pairs of test sequences. The object
is to determine the effect of a certain action such as correction of a mal-
performance. To prevent the confounding of more than one effect, only those
vehicles subject to a particular action are investigated prior to and after
the action. Since every action is followed by a test, the effect of every
action may be determined by comparing the condition of the vehicles prior to
the test with the condition of the vehicles after the test.
Comparisons between tests 1 and 2 determine the effect of correcting
the maladjustments and disablements of emission components for the 113 vehicles
taking test 2. Correction of these malperformances has no effect on contractor
driveability quality, as shown in Table VI-22.
The comparisons between tests 1 and 3 illustrate the effect of
adjusting the idle CO and idle RPM for the 75 vehicles taking only tests 1
and 3. These adjustments seem to slightly reduce driveability quality.
The comparisons between tests 2 and 3 illustrate the effect of
adjusting the idle CO and idle RPM for the 68 vehicles taking only tests 1,
2 and 3. These adjustments for the 68 vehicles indicate that driveability
quality remains the same.
The comparisons between tests 2 and 4 illustrate the effect of a
major tune-up and emission component repair on the 36 vehicles taking only
tests 1, 2 and 4. The results indicate no change in driveability quality
following this maintenance.
6-12
-------
The comparisons between tests 3 and 4 illustrate the effect of a
major tune-up on the 72 vehicles taking only tests 1, 3 and 4. There is
no change indicated in driveability quality following tune-up and repair
of defective components.
Vehicles taking tests 5 through 10 are subject to "selective mal-
adjustment." Each vehicle prior to one of the tests 5 through 10 is mal^
adjusted by altering some combination of engine parameters. For instance,
the EGR line is intentionally plugged, the idle mixture enriched, the timing
advanced, and/or the vacuum to the distributor fully advanced. All of these
actions may be taken on a selected group of vehicles at test sequence 5
or individually in 6 through 10.
The results of these intentional maladjustments show that driveability
quality is not affected for vehicles taking only tests 4 and 5, 4 and 6,
4 and 7, 4 and 8, 4 and 9, and 4 and 10. In every instance, the effect of the
maladjustment between test 4 and every succeeding test is to increase HC, CO
and NOX emissions. The selected maladjustments, however, do not affect fuel
economy.
Since no particular maladjustment was made for each vehicle within
the testing group, it is difficult to say anything more about the effect on
emissions, fuel economy and driveability. Many factors, such as engineering
design, enter into the problem of assessing the impact of a maladjustment.
For instance, a plugged EGR line could seriously degrade the performance of
one vehicle and have no effect on the performance of a different vehicle.
The cumulative effect of several disablements or maladjustments was in some
cases different than the combined effect of the individual disablements or
maladjustments. Whereas, it is conjectured that the cumulative effect of
several maladjustments would not decrease emissions, the relationship of
every maladjustment and combination of maladjustments with emissions is not
known.
6-13
-------
6.5 A COMPARISON OF IDLE CO AND IDLE RPM BEFORE AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT
Table VI-24 presents the percent change in emissions, driveability
quality* and fuel economy for each of the 143 vehicles taking tests 1 and 3.
Figure 5-1 in Section 5 shows that the 143 vehicles outside of specifications
prior to test 3 were adjusted to be within idle mixture and idle RPM specifica-
tions. Following this procedure, the 143 vehicles took test 3 and 74 vehicles
failed the FTP standards.
The following variable names are used in Tables VI-24 through 27
and are defined as:
DIDLCO
DRPM
the percent difference in idle CO from test 1 to 3
the percent difference in idle RPM from test 1 to 3
DQUAL - the percent difference in overall driveability
quality from test 1 to 3
DIQLTY - the percent difference in idle quality from test 1 to 3
Tl - the vehicle took test 1 but failed (T) or took test 1
and passed (P)
TT3 - the vehicle took test 3 and failed (T) or took test 3
and passed (P)
DFTPHC - the percent difference in HC emissions from test 1 to 3
DFTPCO - the percent difference in CO emissions from test 1 to 3
DFTPNX - the percent difference in NOX emissions from test 1 to 3
the pei
1 to 3
DFTPMPG - the percent difference in urban fuel economy from test
1 +n 1
Two different tests, in this case tests 1 and 3, are applied to the
same sampling of 143 vehicles. The probability of disclosing a difference
between the conditions at tests 1 and 3 when one actually exists is greater
if, in place of the difference between the means of tests 1 and 3, one mean
calculated from the sum of the pair differences is tested. In statistical
terms, this test is equivalent to a paired t test. The percent
-------
difference presented in Table VI-24 is the difference of test 1 minus test 2
all divided by test 1 times 100%. The percent difference is presented for
each of the 143 vehicles. The mean percent difference is then presented in
Table VI-25 by manufacturer. Three vehicles, vehicle numbers (VEHNUM) 38,
74 and 15, are deleted as outliers from the calculation of the mean percent
differences.
Table VI-25 shows that the largest percent changes are those for CO
and idle CO. The percent changes in idle RPM and fuel economy are not
significant. The percent change in HC levels is large for GM and Chrysler
vehicles but not for Ford vehicles. The percent change in NOX levels,
however, is significant for Ford but not for GM or Chrysler.
Tables VI-26 and VI-27 show that the overall driveability quality
decreases somewhat from test 1 to test 3 and the idle quality remains about
the same. The percent of vehicles in the overall excellent (code 5)
driveability quality category decreases from test 1 to 3 and the percent of
vehicles in the overall fair quality category increases from test 1 to 3.
6-15
-------
TABLE VI-1
PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES WITH OWNER-PERCEIVED
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
100
100
100
300
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
HARD-
START
21.00
13.00
6.00
13.33
STALL-
ING
18.00
19.00
21.00
19.33
ROUGH
IDLE
15.00
12.00
19.00
15.33
MISFIRE
1.00
11.00
3.00
5.00
POOR
ACCEL
23.00
14.00
20.00
19.00
STUMB-
LING
15.00
12.00
23.00
16.67
DIESELING
17.00
14.00
19.00
16.67
OTHER
12.00
4.00
1.00
5.67
AT LEAST
ONE
PROBLEM
77.00
53.00
68.00
66.00
-------
TABLE VI-2
PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES WITH OWNER-PERCEIVED
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
MANU-
FACTURER
CM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
102
99
99
300
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
HARD-
START
9.80
6.06
24.24
13.33
STALL-
ING
11.76
16.16
30.30
19.33
ROUGH
IDLE
12.75
11.11
22.22
15.33
MISFIRE
3.92
4.04
7.07
5.00
POOR
ACCEL
16.67
13.13
27.27
19.00
STUMB-
LING
14.71
11.11
24.24
16.67
DIESELING
7.84
23.23
19.19
16.67
OTHER
9.80
2.02
5.05
5.67
AT LEAST
ONE
PROBLEM
55.88
64.65
77.78
66.00
-------
TABLE VI-3
PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES WITH OWNER-PERCEIVED
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS FOR ALL VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
44
49
32
125
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
HARD-
START
22.73
10.20
9.38
14.40
STALLING
25.00
10.20
25.00
19.20
ROUGH
IDLE
15.91
6.12
12.50
11.20
MISFIRE
0.00
10.20
3.13
4.80
POOR
ACCEL
25.00
10.20
15.63
16.80
STUMB-
LING
15.91
8.16
15.63
12.80
DIESELING
15.91
12.24
18.75
15.20
OTHER
9.09
4.08
0.00
4.80
AT LEAST
ONE
PROBLEM
75.00
48.98
65.63
62.40
G^
I
OO
-------
TABLE VI-4
PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES WITH OWNER-PERCEIVED
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS FOR ALL VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANU-
FACTURER
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
i
NO.
CARS
51
57
17
125
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
HARD-
STARTING
15.69
7.02
35.29
14.40
STALLING
17.65
17.54
29.41
19.20
ROUGH
IDLE
7.84
10.53
23.53
11.20
MISFIRE
3.92
5.26
5.88
4.80
POOR
ACCEL
17.65
10.53
35.29
16.80
STUMB-
LING
11.76
12.28
17.65
12.80
DIESEL ING
9.80
22.81
5.88
15.20
OTHER
5.88
3.51
5.88
4.80
AT LEAST
ONE
PROBLEM
56.86
61.40
82.35
62.40
O^
I
-------
TABLE VI-5
PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES WITH OWNER-PERCEIVED
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS FOR ALL VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
56
51
68
175
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
HARD-
START
19.64
15.69
4.41
12.57
STALLING
12.50
27.45
19.12
19.43
ROUGH
IDLE
14.29
17.65
22.06
18.29
MISFIRE
1.79
11.76
2.94
5.14
POOR
ACCEL
21.43
17.65
22.06
20.57
STUMB-
LING
14.29
15.69
26.47
19.43
DIESELINC
17.86
15.69
19.12
17.71
OTHER
14.29
3.92
1.47
6.29
AT LEAST
ONE
PROBLEM
78.57
56.86
69.12
68.57
I
K>
O
-------
TABLE VI-6
PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES WITH OWNER-PERCEIVED
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS FOR ALL VEHICLES FAILING
THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
51
42
82
175
HARD-
START
3.92
4.76
21.95
12.57
STALLING
5.88
14.29
30.49
19.43
ROUGH
IDLE
17.65
11.90
21.95
18.29
MISFIRE
3.92
2.38
7.32
5.14
POOR
ACCEL
15.69
16.67
25.61
20.57
STUMB-
LING
17.65
9.52
25.61
19.43
DIESELING
5.88
23.81
21.95
17.71
OTHER
13.73
0.00
4.88
6.29
AT LEAST
ONE
PROBLEM
54.90
69.05
76.83
68.57
-------
TABLE VI-7 PERCENTAGE OF VEHICLES WITH OWNER-PERCEIVED DRIVEABILITY
PROBLEMS BY CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
OR EQUAL
TO 150
GREATER THAN
150 AND LESS
THAN OR EQUAL
TO 259
GREATER THAN
259
NO.
CARS
17
72
211
DRIVEABILITY PROBLEMS
HARD
START
11.76
22.22
10.43
STALLING
11.76
30.56
16.11
ROUGH
IDLE
11.76
16.67
15.17
MISFIRE
0.00
5.56
5.21
POOR
ACCEL-
ERATION
5.88
22.22
18.96
STUMBLING
11.76
22.22
15.17
DIESELING
0.00
25.00
15.17
OTHER
0.00
2.78
7.11
AT LEAST
ONE
PROBLEM
47.06
75.00
64.45
-------
TABLE VI-8 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY
CATEGORIES FOR EACH DRIVING PHASE BY CITY , AS-RECEIVED CONDITION
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
100
100
100
300
DRIVING PHASE
CONSTANT
SPEED PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
1.0
15.0
79.0
5.0
2.0
50.0
45.0
3.0
4.0
22.0
65.0
9.0
2.3
29.0
63.0
5.7
ACCELERATION
FROM STOP
PHASE QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
%
1.0
10.0
74.0
15.0
6.0
46.0
43.0
5.0
2.0
20.0
64.0
14.0
3.0
25.3
60.3
11.4
RESTART
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
4.0
74.0
22.0
5.0
24.0
53.0
18.0
1.0
17.0
56.0
26.0
2.0
15.0
61.0
22.0
COLD START
AND IDLE PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
3.0
14.0
63.0
20.0
4.0
4.0
28.0
47.0
17.0
0.0
3.0
16.0
61.0
20.0
1.3
3.3
19.3
57.0
19.0
DRIVE AWAY
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
5.0
31.0
49.0
15.0
7.0
6.0
28.0
42.0
17.0
0.0
3.0
28.0
60.0
9.0
2.3
4.7
29.0
50.3
13.7
OVERALL
DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
2.0
79.0
19.0
5.0
30.0
61.0
4.0
0,0
11.0
68.0
21.0
1.7
14.3
69.3
14.7
I
NJ
Ol
•CODE:
1 - FAIL {EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2 - POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 • FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 • GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
6- EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
-------
TABLE VI-9 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY* CATEGORIES
FOR EACH DRIVING PHASE BY MANUFACTURER, AS-RECEIVED CONDITION
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
102
99
99
300
DRIVING PHASE
CONSTANT
SPEED PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
2.9
15.7
73.5
7.8
1.0
31.3
62.6
5.1
3.0
40.4
52.5
4.1
2.3
29.0
63.0
5.7
ACCELERATION
FROM STOP
PHASE QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
%
2.0
15.7
66.6
15.7
1.0
33.3
56.6
9.1
6.0
27.3
57.6
9.1
3.0
25.3
60.3
11.3
RESTART
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
1.0
7.8
66.7
24.5
2.0
15.2
62.6
20.2
3.0
22.2
53.6
21.2
2.0
15.0
61.0
22.0
COLD START
AND IDLE PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
%
0.0
2.9
6.9
62.7
27.5
0.0
0.0
27.3
56.6
16.1
4.0
7.1
24.3
51.5
13.1
1.3
3.3
19.3
57.0
19.0
DRIVE AWAY
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
%
•— _^_^___
0.0
2.0
15.7
60.8
21.5
0.0
0.0
36.4
54.5
9.1
7.1
12.1
35.4
35.3
10.1
2.3
4.7
29.0
50.3
13.7
OVERALL
ORIVEABILITY
QUALITY
CODE
SS3S^=
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
5.9
70.6
23.5
1.0
16.2
71.7
11.1
4.0
21.2
65.7
9.1
1.7
14.3
69.3
14.7
to
-p.
•CODE: 1 • FAIL {EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE!
2 - POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY}
3 • FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE, SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
6 - EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
-------
TABLE VI-10
PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY CATEGORIES
FOR EACH DRIVING PHASE BY CITY FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
i
CARS
44
49
32
125
DRIVING PHASE
CONSTANT
SPEED PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
S
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
2.3
15.9
72.7
9.1
2.0
51.0
42.9
4.1
3.1
18.8
68.7
9.4
2.4
30.4
60.0
7.2
ACCELERATION
FROM STOP
PHASE QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
2.3
15.9
63.6
18.2
8.2
51.0
36.7
4.1
0.0
21.9
59.4
18.7
4.0
31.2
52.0
12.8
RESTART
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
4.6
79.5
15.9
8.2
18.4
57.1
16.3
0.0
15.6
59.4
25.0
3.2
12.8
65.8
18.4
COLD START
AND IDLE PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
4.5
9.1
68.2
18.2
4.1
6.1
22.5
51.0
16.3
0.0
0.0
9.4
65.6
25.0
1.6
4.0
14.4
60.8
19.2
DRIVE AWAY
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
2.3
29.5
56.8
11.4
10.2
2.0
28.6
42.9
16.3
0.0
0.0
21.9
71.9
16.2
4.0
1.6
27.2
55.2
12.0
OVERALL
DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
S
X
0.0
2.3
75.0
22.7
6.1
32.7
57.1
4.1
0.0
9.4
68.7
21.9
2.4
16.0
66.4
15.2
I
r-j
01
•CODE: 1 - FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2 - POOH (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 - FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 • GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
E • EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
-------
FABLE VI-11 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY* CATEGORIES
FOR EACH DRIVING PHASE BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
57
17
125
DRIVING PHASE
CONSTANT
SPEED PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
%
3.9
15.7
72.6
7.8
1.7
38.6
54.4
5.3
0.0
47.1
41.2
11.7
2.4
30.4
60.0
7.2
ACCELERATION
FROM STOP
PHASE QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
%
2.0
19.6
64.7
13.7
1.7
42.1
43.9
12.3
17.6
29.4
41.2
11.8
4.0
31.2
52.0
12.8
RESTART
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
K
2.0
7.8
66.7
23.5
3.5
12.3
66.7
17.5
5.9
29.4
58.8
5.9
3.2
12.8
65.6
18.4
COLD START
AND IDLE PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
%
0.0
3.9
3.9
64.7
27.5
0.0
0.0
24.6
57.9
17.5
11.8
17.6
11.8
58.8
0.0
1.6
4.0
14.4
60.8
19.2
DRIVE AWAY
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
2.0
13.7
62.7
21.6
0.0
0.0
35.1
57.9
7.0
29.4
5.9
41.2
23.5
0.0
4.0
1.6
27.2
55.2
12.0
OVERALL
DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
%
0.0
7.8
68.6
23.5
1.7
19.3
70.2
8.8
11.8
29.4
47.1
11.7
2.4
16.0
66.4
15.2
•CODE: 1 - FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2 • POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 - FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE, SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
6 • EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
-------
TABLE VI-12 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY CATEGORIES
FOR EACH DRIVING PHASE BY CITY FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
1
CARS
CA
51
68
175
DRIVING PHASE
CONSTANT
SPEED PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0,0
14.3
83.9
1.8
2.0
49.0
47.0
2.0
4.4
23.5
63.3
8.8
2.3
28.0
65.1
4.6
ACCELERATION
FROM STOP
PHASE QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
5.4
82.1
12.5
3.9
41.2
49.0
5.9
2.9
19.1
66.2
11.8
2.3
21.1
66.3
10.3
RESTART
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
%
0.0
3.6
69.6
26.8
2.0
29.4
49.0
19.6
l.S
17.6
54.4
26.5
1.1
16.6
57.7
24.6
COLD START
AND IDLE PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
1.8
17.9
58.9
21.4
3.9
2.0
33.3
43.1
17.7
0.0
4.4
19.1
58.8
17.7
1.1
2.9
22.9
54.3
18.8
DRIVE AWAY
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
7.1
32.1
42.9
17.9
3.9
9.8
27.4
41.2
17.7
0.0
4.4
30.9
54.4
10.3
1.1
6.9
30.3
46.9
14.8
OVERALL
DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
1.8
82.1
16.1
3.9
27.5
64.7
3.9
0.0
11.8
67.6
20.6
1.1
13.2
71.4
14.3
•CODE: 1 - FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2 - POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3- FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
5 - EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
-------
TABLE VI-13 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY CATEGORIES
FOR EACH DRIVING PHASE BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
51
42
82
175
DRIVING PHASE
CONSTANT
SPEED PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
%
2.0
IS. 7
74.5
7.8
0.0
21.4
73.8
4.8
3.7
39.0
54.9
2.4
2.3
28.0
65.1
4.6
ACCELERATION
FROM STOP
PHASE QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
2.0
11.8
68.6
17.6
0.0
21.4
73.8
4.8
3.7
26.8
61.0
8.5
2.3
21.1
66.3
10.3
RESTART
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
7.8
66.7
25. S
0.0
19.0
57.2
23.8
2.4
20.7
52. 4
24.4
1.1
16.6
57.7
24.6
COLD START
AND IDLE PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
%
0.0
2.0
9.8
60.8
27.4
0.0
0.0
30.9
54.8
14.3
2.4
4.9
26.8
50.0
15.9
1.1
2.9
22.9
54.3
18.8
DRIVE AWAY
PHASE
QUALITY
CODE
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
2.0
17.6
58.8
21.6
0.0
0.0
38.1
50.0
11.9
2.4
13.4
34.2
37.8
12.2
1.1
6.9
30.3
46.9
14.8
OVERALL
DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY
CODE
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
2
3
4
5
X
0.0
3.9
72.6
23.5
0.0
11.9
73.8
14.3
2.4
19.5
69.5
8.6
1.1
13.2
71.4
14.3
I
K(
GO
•CODE: 1 - FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2 - POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 - FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
6 - EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
-------
TABLE VI-14 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN AS-RECEIVED CONDITION IN EACH OF THE
CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY* CATEGORIES BY CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE CONSTANT SPEED PHASE
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
ISO
ISO TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
NO.
CARS
8
8
18
68
9
23
13
54
0
41
0
58
j
i— «
<
a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Qualit
Q£
8
a.
25
12
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
5
0
2
ee
<
u.
63
38
6
10
33
48
23
26
0
44
0
38
r
a
12
50
78
83
56
52
69
67
0
44
0
58
_!
tu
u
X
111
0
0
16
7
0
0
8
7
0
7
0
2
•CODE:
1 • FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2 • POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 - FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION Of UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
5 - EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
6-29
-------
TABLE VI-1S PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN AS-RECEIVED CONDITION IN EACH OF THE
CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY* CATEGORIES BY CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE ACCELERATION FROM
STOP PHASE
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
NO.
CARS
8
8
18
68
9
23
13
54
0
41
0
58
QUALITY
_j
i— i
<
Ci.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
Q.
12
12
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
7
0
5
ee.
HH
2
88
38
0
9
45
43
23
30
0
29
0
26
1
CJ
0
50
83
72
44
48
69
59
0
56
0
59
_3
tu
CJ
X
cu
0
0
17
19
0
9
8
11
0
8
0
10
•COOI:
1 - FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2- POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 • FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 • OOOO (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY O\/KB~.
9 • EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS) OVE«COMl)
6-30
-------
TABLE VI-16 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN AS-RECEIVED CONDITION IN EACH OF THE
CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY QUALITY* CATEGORIES BY CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE RESTART PHASE
•COOl:
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
NO.
CARS
8
8
18
68
9
23
13
54
0
41
0
58
QUAL1IY
u.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
1
11
0
0
2
0
5
0
2
si
i— i
50
37
0
2
11
13
8
18
0
22
0
22
o
50
63
61
71
45
74
46
65
0
51
0
55
oi
u
X
tu
0
0
39
26
33
13
46
IS
0
22
0
21
1 - PAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2 • POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RE LIABILITY)
3 • PAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4- GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION Of UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
8 • EXCELLENT (NO TRACE Of UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
6-31
-------
TABLE VI-17 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABIIITY
QUALITY* CATEGORIES BY CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT BY MANU-
FACTURER FOR THE COLD START AND IDLE PHASE
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
yWTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
NO.
CARS
8
8
18
68
9
23
13
54
0
41
0
58
QUALITY
s
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
4
1
a.
12
12
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
5
i— i
Cb
38
25
0
3
22
30
31
26
0
17
0
29
' -3
50
63
50
68
56
52
38
63
0
51
0
52
m
X
cu
0
0
44
29
22
18
31
11
0
17
0
10
•CODE:
1 • FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2- POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 - FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - 0000 (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVBRent*.
5 • EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS) KI«=OMt|
6-32
-------
TABLE VI-18 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY* CATEGORIES BY CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT BY MANUFACTURER
FOR THE DRIVE AWAY PHASE
•COM:
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
NO.
CARS
8
8
18
68
9
23
13
54
0
41
0
58
QUALITY
j
t— t
<
u.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
5
Of
8
Q.
12
0
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
11
Q£
U.
50
62
6
9
33
48
31
33
0
24
0
43
a
38
38
67
65
67
48
31
61
0
41
0
31
_i
cu
u
X
01
0
0
22
26
0
4
38
6
0
10
0
10
1 • PAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2- POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 • FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 • GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE. SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
5 • EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
6-:
-------
TABLE VI-19 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY* CATEGORIES BY CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT BY
MANUFACTURER FOR OVERALL DRIVEABILITY QUALITY
•CODE:
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
NO.
CARS
8
8
18
68
9
23
13
54
0
41
0
58
QUALITY
_j
_H
<
u.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
<£
8
a.
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
7
0
2
a:
I-H
<
u.
50
25
0
0
22
26
8
13
0
24
0
19
a
8
u
50
75
61
75
56
70
69
76
0
59
0
71
-j
U4
U
X
UJ
0
0
39
25
11
4
23
11
0
10
0
8
1 • FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2- POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 • FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - QOOD (SLIGHT TRACE, SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCn*«t
S - EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS) ""WE)
6-34
-------
TABLE VI- 20 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY* CATEGORIES BY CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT BY
MANUFACTURER FOR OVERALL DRIVEABILITY QUALITY FOR
VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
•COM:
MANUFACTURER
fiFNPHAI MOTORS
cnpn
r\jt\u
CHRYSLER
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
ISO TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
NO.
CARS
5
3
11
32
8
17
5
27
0
8
0
9
QUALITY
-j
HH
u.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
8
a.
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
25
0
0
C£
1-4
£
60
33
0
0
25
35
0
11
0
38
0
22
Q
8
u
40
67
55
78
50
65
100
74
0
25
0
67
_i
ai
u
X
w
0
0
45
22
13
0
0
15
0
12
0
11
1 - FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2 • POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 - FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE, SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY OVERCOME)
5 - EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
6-35
-------
TABLE VI-21 PERCENT OF VEHICLES IN EACH OF THE CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY* CATEGORIES BY CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT BY MANU-
FACTURER FOR OVERALL DRIVEABILITY QUALITY FOR VEHICLES
FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
•CODE:
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
LESS THAN
150
150 TO 259
260 TO 310
GREATER THAN
310
NO.
CARS
3
5
7
36
1
6
8
27
0
33
0
49
>-4
u.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
QUALITY
8
a.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
2
as.
1—4
a.
33
20
0
0
0
0
12
15
0
21
0
18
a
67
80
71
72
100
83
50
78
0
67
0
72
s
X
0
0
29
28
0
17
38
7
0
9
0
8
1 • FAIL (EXTREMELY UNRELIABLE)
2- POOR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS WHICH AFFECTS RELIABILITY)
3 • FAIR (UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT EXISTS BUT RELIABILITY IS MAINTAINED)
4 - GOOD (SLIGHT TRACE, SMALL INDICATION OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENT THAT IS QUICKLY
8 • EXCELLENT (NO TRACE OF UNDESIRABLE ELEMENTS)
6-36-
-------
TABLE VI-22 A COMPARISON OF CONTRACTOR DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY BETWEEN PAIRS OF TEST SEQUENCES
NO.
CARS
113
75
68
36
72
TEST
SEQUENCES
COMPARING TESTS
1 £ 2 FOR VEHI-
CLES TAKING
ONLY 1 $ 2
COMPARING TESTS
1 § 3 FOR VEHI-
CLES TAKING
ONLY 1 $ 3
COMPARING TESTS
2 § 3 FOR VEHI-
CLES TAKING
ONLY 1, 2 $ 3
COMPARING TESTS
2 fi 4 FOR VEHI-
CLES TAKING
ONLY 1, 2 S, 4
COMPARING TESTS
3 S 4 FOR VEHI-
CLES TAKING
ONLY 1,354
BEFORE
TEST 2
AFTER
TEST 2
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
BEFORE
TEST 3
AFTER
TEST 3
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
BEFORE
TEST 4
AFTER
TEST 4
CONSTANT
SPEED
PHASE
MEAN S.D.
3.67 0.60
3.67 0.59
3.73 0.58
3.65 0.64
3.60 0.60
3.60 0.60
3.67 0.53
3.64 0.48
3.76 0.64
3.68 0.47
ACCELERATION
FROM STOP
PHASE
MEAN S.D.
3.75 0.62
3.75 0.66
3.92 0.65
3.83 0.74
3.70 0.65
3.72 0.64
3.75 0.55
3.83 0.51
3.92 0.60
3.79 0.63
RESTART
PHASE
MEAN S.D.
4.02 0.74
3.88 0.61
4.04 0.67
3.93 0.70
3.82 0.64
3.86 0.67
3.86 0.64
3.83 0.44
3.94 0.71
3.79 0.56
COLD START
AND IDLE
PHASE
MEAN S.D.
3.84 0.82
3.77 0.84
3.88 0.73
3.77 0.85
3.72 0.79
3.66 0.80
3.78 0.48
3.61 0.64
3.79 0.75
3.71 0.64
DRIVE
AWAY
PHASE
MEAN S.D.
3.68 0.88
3.60 0.83
3.65 0.80
3.55 0.81
3.53 0.78
3.47 0.91
3.72 0.61
3.53 0.61
3.62 0.81
3.50 0.65
OVERALL
DRIVEABILITY
QUALITY
MEAN S.D.
3.92 0.63
3.93 0.61
4.04 0.56
3.89 0.56
3.93 0.63
3.78 0.59
3.94 0.47
3.92 0.37
3.96 0.52
3.93 0.49
I
C-4
-------
TABLE VI-23 A COMPARISON OF CONTRACTOR DRIVGABILITY QUALITY
BETWEEN PAIRS OF TEST SEQUENCES 4-10
o^
1
-------
TABLE VI-24 PERCENT DIFFERENCES BliTNF.fiN BEFORE AND AFTER TEST 3 VARIABLES
OBS CITY
MANUFACT VEHHUH CID MILEAGE DIDLCO
DRPM
DQUAL OIQLTY Tl TT3 OFTPHC DFTPCO DFTPMX OFTPMPG
1 CHICAGO
2 CHICAGO
3 CHICAGO
4 CHICAGO
0 CHICAGO
•5 CHICAGO
7 CHICAGO
a CHICAGO
9 CHICAGO
10 CHICAGO
11 CHICAGO
12 CHICAGO
13 CHICAGO
1-1 CHICAGO
16 CHICAGO
1(3 CHICAGO
17 CHICAGO
10 CHICAGO
19 CHICAGO
20 CHICAGO
21 CHICAGO
?.?. CHICAGO
23 CHICAGO
24 CHICAGO
2'3 CHICAGO
26 CHICAGO
P7 CHICAGO
2iS CHICAGO
29 CHICAGO
?» CHICAGO
31 CHICAGO
22 "CHICAGO
33 CHICAGO
34 CHICAGO
3S CHICAGO
36 CHICAGO
3V CHICAGO
38 CHICAGO
39 CHICAGO
40 CHICAGO
41 CHICAGO
4.J CHICAGO
43 WASHNGTN
44 WASHNGTN
4S WASHHGTN
4 ft WASHNGTIJ
4V WA:JW1GTN
43 UA'IMMGTH
40 WASHNGTN
50 WA;;IINGTM
b 1 WASHNGTN
I,:-,' UA3IINGTN
O.ri WASHNGTN
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORU
FORD
FORD
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHItYSLEi;
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRY'JLEP*
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
003
004
005
006
009
010
Oil
013
014
015
017
018
019
0^1
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
031
033
046
050
055
063
065
Oo7
070
0/4
075
ouo
037
Ofi9
090
091
092
093
097
093
100
001
002
003
004
005
007
Oi>8
009
010
Oil
012
225
225
225
318
318
360
310
360
.'25
225
22*;,
225
225
31B
318
318
360
318
225
318
225
360
171
3S1
351
400
400
460
231
350
oaii
400
350
3-30
400
260
35u
350
350
360
31JO
400
225
221J
22 -J
22S
226
310
318
318
3GO
31 y
360
8205
1695
1543
7837
3164
9559
4354
8107
4904
14336
1337
51170
1209
1039
6426
4323
8139
5278
9353
8597
4922
9400
1*56
4412
553d
90.27
9191
4942
58J3
9716
3035
10332
U422
12198
122*>1
3d 12
10990
4936
31 1)6
11471
3693
92o9
2007
9470
10603
1154'J
37-J3
9
•j
P
P
p
T
T
T
rj
T
T
P
T
T
P
P
T
?
T
P
T
FJ
T
P
T
P
P
P
T
Y
P
P
P
T
r
p
r
p
p
Y
T
T
P
T
P
T
P
35.543
21.033
63.441
43.31(3
£6.403
42.4-J7
23.761
62.604
69.669
62.7o7
39.563
47.837
•31.432
17.;jiil
55.741
32.40.)
41.119
77.756
52.60a
53. '.ill
5'J.297
£4.417
S.'iilS
-2.914
7.4-1.2
2i.7/J
- i 5 . 3 6 iJ
-u.:jS7
34.i,3o
"/S.739
-£2.4! 1
77.i;23
77.U41
7J.40?
2.430
-O.y-39
/:i.43J
61.7J7
53.544
20.9'jo
- 4 . 7 5 J
03. Ul 4
27.:::J'f
67.003
3'J.O<;.i
26.;io:)
65 .4-"7
U.339
63. an:
4 Z . .; 4 3
6S.727
10. ja.i
76.2i::
50.97
54.90
87.46
62.68
35.62
•32.42
26. 73
78.26
79.57
74.24
33.68
31.74
35.14
8.86
32.91
81 .19
69.77
84.14
76.34
78.95
/7.20
35.05
13.65
72.84
35.44
75.35
o0.77
-111 .21
47.90
79.99
-nO.Ol
90.03
09.17
77.80
-32.66
30.29
33.40
37.15
82.90
12.55
4.42
72.21
1)3.14
79.37
55.39
64 .70
77.81
-33.45
.31 .40
6A. 4 t
VG.2S
39.84
H6.07
-4.539
-41.291
2.982
0.042
-29.415
6.437
-2.780
-5.037
-48.544
-10.100
62.343
-4.456
-17.016
4.153
-4.465
66.995
-8.525
47.214
-2.479
5.750
-5.143
-14.537
1.491
--5.:?24
11.391
-49.440
-2.399
31.032
60.929
36.799
14 .023
56.079
-1 .293
-7.181
3.104
0.391
-3.7..-1
-3.760
-10.925
-6.302
-1.183
-2.066
-6.526
-25.088
-9,313
20.077
10.369
52.. M9
-16.039
-7.892
-22.362
9.803
-16.732
-3.081
-15.181
-7.046
0.'J!>2
-a.yoi
-2.T.72
-4.281
-0.406
-0.901
-5.159
5.223
-3.568
-1.326
-3.438
-6.n45
-3.017
-1.502
3.216
-3-327
-1.12U
-1 .700
-4.081
-3.096
3.103
-2.761
-10.414
-6.797
2. 425
3.435
.t.;:li3
-7.117
-3.710
-6.6C7
-
-------
TABLE VI- 24 PERCENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BEFORE AND AFTER TEST 3 VARIABLES
UBS
54
55
Sti
57
SB
59
bO
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
6tl
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
rt> ' *'
T 79
£ U'J
0 81
82
83
84
8ii
67
071
072
030
001
032
034
OU6
003
0:33
091
0)3
094
OOa
OrJil
100
001
002
004
005
CiO
400
225
225
225
225
225
318
22b
318
360
225
318
360
400
360
400
250
250
250
302
3S1
3S1
351
3'ol
400
4bO
250
302
'-02
S il
331
351
3'ol
2:;i
4 ',,'.>
SCO
3!iO
305
3t» j
3GO
350
3 HO
400
350
3bO
455
250
3GO
400
313
22-J
22!j
MS
MILEAGE
3152
37c9
5352
12430
3707
10917
3742
6319
11039
9972
U637
3341
5375
102'Jl
89 J 3
var;
13575
13593
64. U
12990
12L!c2
14312
9^03
13942
77/4
5i>/5
3 J : 4
11 si .i9
U'J.)4
K050
121174
bu -4
53/0
10/43
13411
0475
G 1 0 1
OJ.il
1514
7401
14643
7115
10li.>7
UO /o
1 1 !» 4 3
7o,;2
'Jli 14
72JJ
12131
OIDLCO
35.335
91 .667
•3/.?22
0.000
96.512
95.154
39.236
94.444
90.335
75.000
97.000
£6.354
30.030
53.333
95.522
45.455
.13.333
3H.235
06.657
-33.333
-JO.OOO
93.7/6
75.0 )0
75.0 JO
2b.o:o
-JO.OOO
o.OOO
25.000
33.333
J3.000
45.946
40.000
0.000
96.667
0.000
iS.'JOO
0.000
-:!3.33J
:)9.134
99.697
0.000
0.000
33.333
99.559
JJ.394
93.929
99.236
33.333
99.524
•10.130
1*3. 8 JO
70.000
73.000
ORPH
1.408
7 . 3 1 /
21.277
17.582
10.714
9.639
7.317
26.471
15.730
11.392
-5.634
23.571
5.405
10.256
17.647
16.667
-60.377
11.765
3.226
-4.839
3.000
13.750
2.935
14.474
-22.642
7.143
13.043
-4.839
20.73Z
15.335
-6.557
-6.557
-2.45J
11.75 -5
-9.031
0.000
-9.091
0.000
6.250
16.657
16.667
-1.695
3.226
-19.565
6.780
15.335
12.000
20.290
19.113
11.765
36.364
23.b2£>
-20.006
OOVAL
-25.000
0.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-33.333
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.000
0.000
25.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.00')
Zo.OOO
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2;i.OOO
o.OOO
0.000
-25.000
20.000
20.000
20.000
0.000
f.OOO
•).000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-33.303
20.000
0 . 000
-33.333
C.OOO
0 . 000
0.000
DI..J.YY
0.00
<».oo
o.OO
0.00
-33.33
25.00
-lid. 00
0.00
-.1 . 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
215.00
25.00
-33.33
6C>.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
2b.OO
0.00
0.00
0.00
-33.33
0.00
25.00
0.00
0.00
2G.OO
-33.33
2G.OO
0.00
20.00
ii.OO
0.00
o.oo
o.OO
0.00
0 . 00
0 . 00
2!i.(/0
-33.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
-33. 33
0.00
-)0(i.OO
0.00
Tl
T
T
T
T
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
(•
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
TT3
T
P
P
P
T
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
P
P
T
T
P
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
P
P
P
P
T
n
P
P
P
P
ABLES
Di IP;IC
7!. =17
-fin. la
/;.o2
-11. 35
H4.92
uG.73
13.53
- 1 :i . i y
-9.09
J5.L;'3
59. i3
-43. 14
39. J3
C:3..i3
IJ0..33
55.03
40.23
3.79
9 V6
3. 50
-23. 19
j. 40
12.71
20.G6
-» 2. ao
-GJ.R1
1 . 17
1 J . .) 1
9.00
•t . _' '-I
--4. 07
4.12
-5. 15
ti tl . j 0
-13.11
- ij :; . 1 3
- :< j . 1 9
-100. .'4
:; 1 . J 9
'.'•/ . 32
:• 4 . .i t
3.33
>2. -)2
. •> . 3 1
••.4.1 7
45.52
i.J. 13
3o . 00
74. 30
21.3J
i30.'J7
27.18
!i7./5
(cont.)
OFTPCCI
79.509
-39.251
37.340
14.264
75.05J
79.954
83.297
66.391
14.391
69.590
75.833
72.633
36.252
90.982
34.03'J
32.345
2.904
55.042
26.905
10.239
26.6S6
51.229
67.403
58.210
-26.874
67.80'.)
4.G4J
40.756
31.251
fil.3fi5
20.69.1
1 1.831
-30.02'J
92.822
-5I.26:1.
-35.53'J
-13.50.)
-<:i.42J
02.295
01 .06.1
21.230
-1 1.25-i
3 1.50 4
85.393
'3.013
73.62)
33.70o
30.343
92.571
55.371
81.594
10.302
75.596
DFTPNX
8.13
8.29
-0.43
b7.50
32.39
20.01
-57.83
16.32
-20.90
2.45
16.01
-0.51
30.31
10.40
-2U.46
3.06
-39.09
-i.'.98
25.33
-1.99
-39.39
-375.01
-24.05
-31.10
-13.76
15.30
3.52
19.32
14.70
-4.0CI
-43.42
9.31
22.49
59.74
-10.53
.!0.09
-1 1 .55
-0 .62
-12.39
12.G3
5.01
V.9.43
1 .09
-?0.08
-.J2.6S
-29.19
15.93
9.81
-8.07
(5.55
23.02
U.29
-41.17
OFTI'MPG
-1.763
0. 193
-10.463
-1.222
-16.250
2.654
-24. 122
-S.908
fi.317
-5.393
-17.636
-2.202
-0.397
2.24b
-4.016
-4.440
-6. 410
-1 .522
9.962
-0.480
-10.015
-G. 183
-5.372
-0.487
5.382
-4.214
-B.G99
1.BR7
-13.701
3.326
-0.707
1 . (1 1 0
3.221
-7.940
5.860
-6.4b6
4.013
3.367
-14.486
- 1 1/ . 0 1 7
-6.476
-3,::70
3.432
4.998
-lO.i.BO
-11 .617
-5.462
-10.772
-12... '04
-4.306
-4.081
-3.237
-6.612
-------
TABLE VI-24 PERCENT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN BEFORE AND AFTER TEST 3 VARIABLES (cont.)
OBS
107
100
100
110
111
112
113
114
1 lli
11G
117
11U
119
ir.o
121
i ;.j
123
U4
12'J
1 ?.C>
1L'7
12H
1 2'J
130
l ,-;l
13.?
133
1 :*«!
13!)
i :•(;
I IV
130
2'3'J
140
141
14:;
1 4 j
CITY
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DilTROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DEiROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
I'ETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
MANUFACT
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRVSLl-r
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FOIIO
FORD
FOR 11
FORD
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
UM
GM
GM
VEHNUM
006
007
010
Oil
012
Ol:J
010
01:3
021
022
023
025
026
027
023
03J
044
046
047
G4H
049
055
059
061
062
OliV
076
077
079
082
084
08U
087
OBJ
09o
000
09'.'
010
'>18
318
360
318
360
3cO
'•!25
225
313
22b
318
360
400
i25
JGO
400
102
iiSl
J51
i'.il
•3!il
400
702
:• a i
jlj 1
2 '3.1
UO
i- 1>0
T05
JOli
j ,j u
••lull
•:tio
:oo
j40
•1150
.itiO
MILE ACE
7031
11323
7896
9310
7090
4343
(i(52 1
9252
10^3
9237
11675
396 o
6248
40^5
6521
12433
5209
11613
G3SO
13490
7354
54 3 3
9235
j 2 il 1 0
j 1 ;> .j
3.'! U 9
6497
13470
1 1457
9i>93
14-323
1 1930
5G39
4504
12274
6.':9 1
10') 'Jo
D1DLCO
97.12
S9.74
99.81
94.12
0.00
99.20
-166.67
97.00
78.57
96.57
96.40
99.57
33.33
So. 12
39.47
98.75
,
99.63
93.85
65.67
-100.00
0.00
50.00
32.85
50.00
0.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
0.00
59.80
100.00
100.00
99.09
99.00
0.00
-iOO.O j
DRPM
7.143
33.324
1.667
33.333
5.405
12.338
34.211
14.286
23.529
23.529
13.333
12.500
7.143
21.196
32.000
27.778
9.091
-52.341
-14.286
-54.7G2
10.000
-5.000
-15.385
7.143
3.846
-3.696
4.000
5.660
-2J.316
-19.565
0.000
0.000
9.630
-30.000
11 .290
33.333
14.286
DuUAL
0.000
0.000
-33.333
0.000
-50.000
0.000
0.000
40.000
0.000
25.000
0.000
25.000
0.000
0.000
25.000
0.000
25.000
0.000
25.000
25.000
0.000
25.000
0.000
25.000
-33.333
25.000
25.000
25.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
-25.000
20.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
DIQLTY
-33.33
20.00
0.00
-33.33
-100.00
-50.00
0 . 00
40.00
-33.33
50.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
33.33
40.00
0 . 00
2li . 00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
28.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
BO. 00
25.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0 . 00
Tl
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
r
T
T
T
T
T
T
r
T
TF3
T
F
P
T
T
P
T
p
T
T
P
P
P
T
P
r
p
T
T
T
T
P
T
i
T
I'
P
P
i>
T
T
a
!»
rj
P
T
T
DFTPHC
55.7534
52 . b'J46
84.0767
41 . iJlSiii
37.9567
53.2/ijJ
- '•: . 'i i ;>•>
G9.«.J07
3'j. 7'J1 .?
5 •!.&:; 20
61 . ir.io
78.1401
3ti.S-j;?.l
30.3327
56 . ;ji»y /
23.3/33
-j. 141 1
3 O . 0 3 '<: .'!
- J .l»4!Jo
2V . 3M01
U . '^u"/4
l-l.j.'.'JZ
I .) . j: -' : j -.)
-> . a .' r i
!: . I'CI'.i
- I . 7 li .- •',
70 .07:.: J
•/.'..: . • )
9'.' . i: -j')i
2J . 7.j.-:?.
51 . i-;!iJ
7 ;i . o j . .i
tV;. 1 U J
7. '.:-..: 1:3
A .1 . 'J.J,;.!
10. J Jl) I
X .1 . 1.. 1 2 ':'
DFTPCQ
67.499
39.082
94.659
72.535
33.750
73.017
0.413
90.774
0).046
02.456
9G.274
95.026
66.541
67.538
84.191
41.775
63.407
93.353
53.675
22.302
63.316
-20.754
13.297
75.743
30.901
•1.075
6JJ.382
93.7U6
9.3. 165
3:3.045
61.157
34 .iJOO
75.J364
93.244
6R.422
10.999
iiJ.Gll
DFTPHX
2 . 700
64. 136
-9. 163
-27.0.36
6.713
-61 .663
10.747
1 . 7G9
4.599
-5.132
2.435
-2-3.095
9.!JC>n
-2.038
29.402
-1.620
7. 156
-27.926
-13.000
9.019
-6.032
9.764
19.532
-39.477
-4.943
0. 242
-22.944
-13. 1:07
-47.359
5.451
7.670
35 671
-4.U25
-U.303
6.9'3.?
5.329
-29.209
DFTPtlPG
-8.155
-3.910
-3.492
-18.81 1
-1 .EbO
- 1 2 . L li 1
-!i.:M2
-10.LC2
-7. 290
-4.1,71
-4.043
-36.S64
-2.134
-G.78G
-5.U37
-2.V41
-7.9b7
-O.f'bS
2 . F. 1 0
-4.123
-5.'d49
-11.717
-11.479
-9. Io7
0.400
-4. :J'G
3.471
-9.7fji3
-19.09&
-li.492
-0.075
-16.i;2ij
- 1 . 4 !i 4
-0.4DO
-3.HI5
-4 . 380
-8.602
-------
TABLE VI-25 MEAN PERCENT DIFFERENCES FROM TEST 1 TO TEST 3 BY MANUFACTURER
MEAN PERCENT IDLE CO
RPM EMISSION HPG
MANUFACT=GM
FROM TESTS 1 TO 3
VARIABLE
DIDLCO
DRPM
DFTPMPG
DFTPCO
DFTPHC
DFTPNX
DIDLCO
DRPM
DFTPMPG
DFTPCO
DFTPHC
DFTPNX
N
41
42
42
42
42
42
30
32
32
32
32
32!
MEAN
55.98093973
1.73193553
-4.76502035
48.28725588
38.19718178
2.69694563
37.16181008
-3.14614144
-2.92595510
32.24229324
5.74724238
-18.09444574
STANDARD
DEVIATION
58.17313798
13.91708293
6.18946823
47.41259005
43.91612764
23.85924020
52.99496781
20.47028401
5.60697153
41.09413910
22.35439834
70.01002677
MINIMUM
VALUE
-100.00000000
-30.00000000
-19.09499529
-52.65995011
-100.24085080
MAXIMUM
VALUE
100.00000000
33.33333333
5.86811353
98.16640125
92.89005089
-47.86924369 60.92858725
--— HANUr AC 1 =pOKU
-100.00000000 99.89795918
-60.37735849
-13.70140818
-111.21119628
-58.51142883
-375.01259240
21.42857143
9.96228896
93.85802964
80.03218784
31.83237897
STD ERROR
OF MEAN
9.08511780
2.14745252
0.95505568
7.31592147
6.77640561
3.68156069
9.67551310
3.61866916
0.99118190
7.26448611
3.95173666
12.37614117
SUM
2295.2185291
72.7412924
-200.1308547
2028.0647471
1604.2816346
113.2717166
1114.8543025
-100.6765261
-93.6305631
1031.7533838
183.9117560
-579.0222636
VARIANCE
3384.1139822
193.6851972
38.3095169
2247.9536949
1928.6262672
569.2633431
2808.4666131
419.0325276
31.4381297
1688.7282680
499.7191252
4901.4038490
C.V.
103.916
803.557
-129.894
98.189
114.972
884.676
142.606
-650.647
-191.629
127.454
388.959
-386.914
DIDLCO
DRPM
DFTPMPG
DFTPCO
DFTPHC
DFTPNX
68
69
69
69
69
69
82.73496437
10.25430028
-4.90036133
64.36361382
43.55404355
1.14817052
29.13172040
12.59133452
8.10365441
31.48332725
28.78750581
26.20498336
-33.33333333
-25.00000000
-36.96415236
-88.46036961
-66.17577009
-61.86349454
100.00000000
38.82352941
31.25138257
96.27394833
84.07672590
66.99525664
3.53274001
1.51581855
0.97556535
3.79014721
3.46560844
3.15470928
5625.9775770
707.5467192
-338.1249318
4441.0893537
3005.2290048
79.2237657
848.65713323
158.54170490
65.66921474
991.19989501
828.72049056
686.70115302
35.211
122.791
-165.369
48.915
66.096
2282.325
TOTAL
DIDLCO
DRPM
OFTPMPG
DFTPCO
DFTPHC
DFTPNX
139
143
143
143
143
143
65.00755690
4.75252787
-4.41878566
52.45389849
33.52043633
-2.70298448
48.27773711
15.96214430
7.07262588
40.72466529
35.94462198
40.40357639
-100.00000000
-60.37735849
-36.96415236
-111.21119628
-100.24085080
-375.01259240
100.00000000
38.82352941
31.25138257
98.16640125
92.89005089
66.99525664
4.09486422
1.33482156
0.59144269
3.40556760
3.00584029
3.37871679
9036.0504086
679.6114854
-631.8863496
7500.9074846
4793.4223954
-386.5267814
2330.7399009
254.7900506
50.0220369
1658.4983627
1292.0158491
1632.4489851
74.265
335.866
-160.058
77.639
107.232
-1494.776
-------
TABLE VI-26 OVERALL DRIVEABILITY QUALITY FOR VEHICLES AT
TEST 1 AND 3 BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFACM
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
ROW PCT
COL PCT
TABLE OF MANUFACM BY TEST 1
QUALITY CODE
TOTAL
2
1.40
20
13.99
98
68.53
I TOTAL
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
1.40
2.90
100.00
2 1
1.40 1
4.76
10.00
5
3.50
15.63
25.00
13
9.09
18.84
65.00
28
19.58
66.67
28.57
22
15.38
68.75
22.45
48
33.57
69.57
48.98
12
8.39
28.57
52.17
5
3.50
15.63
21.74
6
4.20
8.70
26.09
23
16.08
42
29.37
32
22.38
69
48.25
143
100.00
TABLE OF MANUFACM BY TEST 3
MANUFACM
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
ROW PCT
QF1NAL3
QUALITY CODE
COL PCT
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
2 1
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
1
0.70
1.45
100.00
3 1
5
3. SO
11.90
14.71
10
6.99
31.25
29.41
19
13.29
27.54
55.88
4 1
29
20.28
69.05
30.53
20
13.99
62.50
21.05
46
32.17
66.67
48.42
5 1
8
5.59
19.05
61.54
2
1.40
6.25
15.38
3
2.10
4.35
23.08
TOTAL
1
0.70
34
23.78
95
66.43
13
9.09
TOTAL
42
29.37
32
22.38
69
48.25
143
100.00
*QUALITY CODE: 1 - FAIL
2 - POOR
FAIR
GOOD
5 - EXCELLENT
6-43
-------
TABLE VI-27
IDLE QUALITY FOR VEHICLES AT TESTS 1 AND 3
BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFACM
FREQUENCY
PERCENT
ROW PCT
COL PCT
IQLTY
TABLE OF MANUFACM BY TEST 1
QUALITY CODE*
1 I
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
2
1.40
2.90
100.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
5
3.50
7.25
100.00
6
4.20
14.29
13.04
15
10.49
46.98
32.61
25
17.48
36.23
54.35
34
23.78
80.95
41.98
14
9.79
43.75
17.28
33
23.08
47.83
40.74
2 1
1 .40 1
4.76 1
22.22 1
3 1
2.10 t
9.38 1
33.33 1
4 1
2.80 1
5.80 1
44.44 1
TOTAL
2
1.40
5
3.50
46
32.17
81
56.64
I TOTAL
42
29.37
9
6.29
32
22.38
69
48.25
143
100.00
TABLE OF MANUFACM BY TEST 3
MANUFACM
FREQUENCY I
PERCENT I
ROW PCT
COL PCT
TOTAL
IQLTY3
1 I
QUALITY CODE
1
0.70
10
6.99
55
38.46
73
51.05
5 I TOTAL
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
0 1
0.00 1
0.00 1
0.00 1
0 1
0.00 1
0.00 1
0.00 1
1 1
0.70 1
1.45 1
100.00 I
—•o too
t^no
OIMO
•* 000
<0 tno
« • *
CMMO
-* *t
5
3.50
7.25
50.00
9 1
6.29 1
21.43 1
16.36 1
19 1
13.29 1
59.38 1
34.55 1
27 1
13.38 1
39.13 1
49.09 1
30
20.98
71.43
41.10
8
5.59
25.00
10.96
35
24.48
50.72
47.95
2
1.40
4.76
50.00
1
0.70
3.13
25.00
1
0.70
1.45
25.00
4
2.80
42
29.37
32
22.38
69
48.25
143
100.00
QUALITY CODE: 1 - FAIL
2 - POOR
3 - FAIR
4 - GOOD
6-44
5 - EXCELLENT
-------
7.0 A COMPARISON OF CERTIFICATION AND RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE
FUEL ECONOMY
A comparison of fuel economies was conducted in Sections 4.3 and 5.1.
As previously stressed, interpretation of the effects on fuel economy should
only be made in light of Figures 4-16, 4-17, 4-18, and 4-19 which demonstrate
the relationship between fuel economy and cubic inch displacement, and which
show the population of vehicles by cubic inch displacement for each manu-
facturer. For instance, Table VII-1 seems to indicate slightly better fuel
economy for Chrysler vehicles than for Ford or GM vehicles until examination
of Figure 4-19 shows that the population of Chrysler vehicles is dominated by
small displacement engines which obtain better fuel economy than large dis-
placement engines.
The certification fuel economies presented are the fuel economies
obtained after the engine has been broken in, but before substantial mileage
has been accumulated. These data are 4,000 mile data. The restorative
maintenance fuel economies presented in the tables are the fuel economies
obtained at the point the vehicle was tested in the RM program. The mileages
on the vehicles tested in the RM program range between 696 and 14,790 miles.
There are 51 vehicles of the 300 vehicles tested with mileages less than 4,000
miles.
Examination of Tables VII-1 through VII-6 shows that the greatest
percent difference between certification and restorative maintenance fuel
economies is 8% and for the sample sizes indicated, no statistically
significant differences may be noted in any of the tables. This result was
obtained by testing to see if the percent differences were statistically
different from zero as in Section 6.5. This is not the only test that may
be applied in this instance, however. A simple sign test may be applied to
determine if the number of + and - signs, when calculating the difference
between certification and restorative maintenance fuel economies, are
statistically equivalent. Unfortunately, the power of this test is severely
reduced because the values of the certification fuel economies are values
rounded to the nearest whole number. Results of the sign test indicate
7-1
-------
that the percent differences are not normally distributed about zero
and that the certification fuel economies are almost always larger than
the restorative maintenance fuel economies, although the magnitude of the
difference is not statistically significant.
Tables VTI-3 and VII-4 present the fuel economies of the 238
vehicles that passed one of the tests 1 through 4. Only the fuel economy
of the vehicle in the test in which it passed the FTP standards was used
in the calculation of the harmonic mean. As shown in Sections 5 and 6.4
a significant change in emissions levels due to adjustment or maladjustment
of specification tolerances is not necessarily accompanied by a significant
change in fuel economy.
7-2
-------
TABLE VII-1 A COMPARISON OF CERTIFICATION AND RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE
FUEL ECONOMIES AT THE INITIAL TEST BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFACTUREF
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
102
99
99
300
DRIVING
SEQUENCE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
CERTIFICATION
FUEL
ECONOMY*
Harmonic
Mean S.D.
14.35 2.15
19.77 3.18
16.37 2.49
14.14 2.50
19.53 3.44
16.15 2.83
14.53 2.90
20.39 2.92
16.68 2.93
14.34 2.52
19.89 3.21
16.40 2.75
RM FUEL
ECONOMY* IN
THE INITIAL TEST
Harmonic
Mean S.D.
13.75 2.44
19.42 3.37
15.83 2.75
13.32 2.50
18.77 3.44
15.32 2.82
14.05 2.60
20.26 2.89
16.30 2.71
13.70 2.52
19.46 3.32
15.81 2.79
PERCENT CHANGE
IN FUEL ECONOMY*
FROM CERTIFICATION
TO RM
Mean S.D.
3.42 6.74
1 . 39 5 . 74
2.75 5.47
5.39 7.81
3.52 8.12
4.76 7.36
3.11 8.69
0.21 8.94
2.12 7.90
3.97 7.81
1.70 7.80
3.20 7.04
* • / 1
Fuel economy in mi/gal
7-3
-------
TABLE VII-2 A COMPARISON OF CERTIFICATION AND RESTORATIVE
MAINTENANCE FUEL ECONOMIES AT THE INITIAL TEST
BY CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 225
225
GREATER THAN
225 AND LESS
THAN 300
GREATER THAN
300 AND LESS
THAN 350
350, 360
400
GREATER THAN
400
NO.
CARS
25
41
29
56
89
35
25
DRIVING
SEQUENCE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
CERTIFICATION
FUEL
ECONOMY*
Harmonic
Mean S . D .
20.25 2.96
28.38 4.87
23.25 3. 59
17.99 0.59
23.75 1.34
20.19 0.61
16.28 1.04
22.01 1.98
18.44 1.31
14.20 1.45
19.67 1.65
16.23 1.51
13.15 1.07
18.64 1.24
15.16 1.03
12.14 1.14
17.13 1.09
13.97 1.06
12.27 1.34
16.71 1.72
13.93 1.46
RESTORATIVE
MAINTENANCE
(RM) FUEL
ECONOMY* IN THE
INITIAL TEST
Harmonic
Mean S . D .
19.12 2.36
27.69 3.72
22.22 2.75
17.23 1.48
23.53 1.71
19.59 1.46
15 . 86 1 . 29
21.30 2.26
17.92 1.57
13.74 1.25
19.44 1.45
15.83 1.25
12.62 1.16
18.23 1.67
14.65 1.28
11.63 0.57
16.84 0.95
13.51 0.59
11.14 1.67
15.96 2.24
12.89 1.86
PERCENT CHANGE
IN FUEL
ECONOMY* FROM
CERTIFICATION
TO RM
Mean S.D
5.48 8. id
2 . 42 9 . SQ
4-44 8.31
3.55 8.44
0.55 7.M
2.52 7.H
2.29 5.5ft
2.94 5.71
2.58 4.*o
2.91 9.«
0.74 10.07
2.20 9.nn
3.68 6.7A
1.77 6.Q*
3.04 S.«4
4.19 7. fin
1.55 6.7*
3.28 6.dA
8.18 7.QQ
3.60 7.*?
6.57 7.7,
Fuel economy in mi/gal
7-4
-------
TABLE VII-3
A COMPARISON FOR CERTIFICATION AND RESTORATIVE
MAINTENANCE (RM) FUEL ECONOMIES BY MANUFACTURER
FOR ALL VEHICLES ON THEIR PASSING TEST SEQUENCE
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
NO.
CARS
86
77
75
238
DRIVING
SEQUENCE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
CERTIFICATION
FUEL ECONOMY
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
14.43 2. LI
19.89 3.20
16.46 2.47
14.51 2.75
19.89 3.81
16.52 3.12
14.44 2.95
20.32 3.01
16.60 2.99
14.46 2.60
20.02 3.35
16.52 2.84
RM
FUEL ECONOMY
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
14.13 2.32
19.58 3.38
16.15 2.66
13.67 2.61
19.09 3.80
15.68 2.97
14.42 2.57
20.40 2.77
16.61 2.65
14.07 2.51
19.67 3.42
16.13 2.79
PERCENT CHANGE
IN FUEL
ECONOMY FROM
CERT. TO RM
MEAN S.D.
1.54 6.84
1.14 6.18
1 . 49 5 . 39
5 . 36 9 . 36
3.63 7.50
4.87 7.94
-0.03 10.46
-0.58 8.49
-0.16 8.83
2.28 9.17
1.40 7.56
2.06 7.70
Fuel economy in mi/gal
7-5
-------
TABLE VII-4 A COMPARISON OF CERTIFICATION AND RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE
(RM) FUEL ECONOMIES BY CUBIC INCH DISPLACEMENT FOR ALL
VEHICLES ON THEIR PASSING TEST SEQUENCE
CUBIC INCH
DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
225
22"?
GREATER THAN
22S AND LESS
THAN 300
GREATER THAN
300 AND LESS
THAN 350
350, 360
400
GREATER THAN
400
NO.
CARS
23
30
26
41
66
30
22
DRIVING
SEQUENCE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
URBAN
HIGHWAY
COMPOSITE
CERTIFICATION
FUEL ECONOMY
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
20.20 2.76
28.33 4.58
23.20 3.36
18.06 0.31
23.90 1.38
20.29 0.60
16.30 1.08
22.01 2.05
18.46 1.36
14.30 1.46
19.86 1.60
16.36 1.52
13.30 1.05
18.70 1.27
15.29 1.01
12.10 1.21
17.20 1.17
13.96 1.13
12.38 1.44
16.76 1.86
14.02 1.59
RESTORATIVE (RM
MAINTENANCE
'FUEL ECONOMY
HARMONIC
MEAN S.D.
18.50 2.50
27.77 3.53
21.77 2.51
17.48 1.90 j
23.53 2.21
19.77 1.90
15.98 1.61
21.57 2.55
18.09 1.89
14.23 1.16
19.61 1.34
16.24 1.16
13.03 0.99
18.42 1.54
15.00 1.08
11.88 0.93
16.99 1.17
13.74 0.91
11.81 2.04
16.25 2.39
13.47 2.14
PERCENT CHANGE
IN FUEL
ECONOMY FROM
CERT. TO RM
MEAN S.D.
7.48 12. 5ft
1.89 10. iff
b.75 11.20
*.1Z 10.50
0.97 8.64
1.79 9.10
2.07 6. ."57
2.38 5.75
2.23 5.49
0.34 8.04
1.07 7.39
0.69 7. Of
1.75 7.d7
1.13 7.2n
1 • 60 6 . 00
1.54 9.34
0.90 7.4.?
1.36 8. On
3.51 11. la
2.46 7.14'
3.30 8.25
Fuel economy in mi/gal
7-6
-------
8.0 REGRESSION ANALYSIS AND CONTINGENCY TABLES
The purpose of this section is to determine the correlation between
the FTP and various short tests: the Federal Short Cycle, the New York,
New Jersey Short Cycle, the Two-Speed Idle Short Cycle, the Clayton Key
Mode Short Cycle, and the Federal Three-Mode Short Cycle. Two statistical
techniques are employed for this purpose: linear regression analysis and
contingency table analysis. Regression analysis reveals and measures the
functional relationships between two or more variables. Contingency tables
reveal associations between classifications. The results of this investiga-
tion are contained in Appendix C, Tables C-l through C-68.
8.1 LINEAR REGRESSION ANALYSIS
Tables C-l through C-25 present the linear regressions of the FTP
and bag emissions regressed on the short cycle tests. In this analysis, the
short cycle test values represent the independent variable, x, and the FTP
or bag emissions, the dependent variables, y, may be expressed by the
relationship, y * mx+b, where m is the slope of the regression line and b is
the intercept of the regression line at the origin (x » 0). The method of
least squares is employed to provide unbiased estimates of both m and b.
Two variables are provided in Tables C-l through C-25 to indicate
how well or to what degree the FTP tests correlate with each of the short
cycle tests. These variables are the standard error of estimate of the slope
of the regression line and the sample correlation coefficient. The deviations
of pairs of values of an independent and a dependent variable from a line of
regression reflect the goodness of fit of the line with the data. If it can
be assumed that the deviations or prediction errors are independent and
distributed normally about the line of regression, a numeric measure of these
variations, the standard error of the estimate, can be computed. For example,
a positive regression slope, m, minus approximately twice the standard error
of estimate of the slope, changes the sign of the regression slope, then the
relationship between the independent and dependent variables is not considered
8-1
-------
significant at the 0.05 level. That is, the slope is not significantly
different from zero. The sample correlation coefficients in the tables
are an empirical measure of the extent to which the short test emissions
and FTP emissions are related linearly. The range of this measure is from
-1 to +1. A correlation coefficient of 0 is interpreted to mean that the
FTP and short test emissions covary independently and are not related
linearly. As the sample correlation coefficient approaches ±1, the higher
the degree of correlation between the two tests. Both the standard error
of estimate of the regression slope and the correlation coefficient must be
examined to determine a significant interdependency. For instance, the
correlation coefficient may be close to +1, but the regression slope may
not be statistically significant from zero. For this case, no relationship
could be determined between the tests.
Of the individual shorts tests considered, the Federal Short Cycle
and the New York, New Jersey short cycle tests have the greatest correlation
with the HC, CO, and NOX FTP results. The linear regressions of each mode of
each of the short cycle tests are given in Tables C-l through C-ll. For the
Two-Speed Idle, Clayton Key Mode and Federal Three-Mode short cycle tests,
multiple linear regressions are performed on all the modes combined. These
results are given in Tables C-12 through C-14. The correlation coefficients
for the multiple regressed short cycle tests are high but still not as large
as for the Federal Short Cycle and New York, New Jersey short cycle tests.
The correlation coefficients for the multiple regressed short cycle tests
are larger than the correlation coefficients for the individual modes used
for the multiple regressions.
Tables C-1S through C-25 present the regressions for the same short
cycle tests but present the percent reduction in FTP emissions regressed on
the percent reduction in the short cycle test emissions at each test sequence.
Examination of these tables shows that the correlation between the percent
reduction in CO emissions for the FTP and short cycle tests is very low
between tests 1 and 2 for all short cycle tests, except for the Federal Three-
Mode in Drive and the Federal Three-Mode in Neutral.
8-2
-------
The best correlation between the percent reductions in short cycle
and FTP CO emissions is for the Two-Speed Idle test at 2250 RPM between tests
3 and 4. The best correlation between the percent reductions in short cycle
and FTP NOX emissions is also for the Two-Speed Idle Test at 2250 RPM
but between tests 2 and 3. The correlation between the percent reduction
in short cycle and FTP HC emissions is generally poor for all short cycle
tests for all test combinations.
8.2
CONTINGENCY TABLE ANALYSIS
A two-way classification table is employed for this analysis. The
two-way table contains four elements: the number of cars that passed both
the FTP and short cycle test, the number of cars that failed the FTP but
passed the short cycle test, the number of cars that passed the FTP but failed
the short cycle test, and the number of cars that failed the FTP and failed
the short cycle test. An example of this 2 by 2 matrix is taken from part
of Table C-29 and is presented below.
Failure
Rate
10%
Federal
Short Cycle
Test
# cars pass
# cars fail
#• cars total
Cut Point
# Cars
Passing
212
0
212
FTP HYDROCARBONS
# Cars
Failing
58
30
88
2.51
# Cars
Total
270
30
300
The problem that a two-way contingency table seeks to solve is
whether one classification is independent of the other. For example, the
above table seeks to answer the question of whether the Federal Short Cycle
test is as effective in passing or failing a vehicle based upon its HC level
as the Federal Test Procedure. In other words, the number of vehicles passing
the FTP and failing the short cycle test, an error of commission, should
approach zero, just as the number of vehicles failing the FTP but passing the
8-3
-------
short cycle test, an error of omission, should approach zero. Statistically-
speaking, we desire to reject the hypothesis of independence and to conclude
that the FTP and short tests are interdependent.
This investigation is principally concerned with determining the
errors of commission in order to assess the effectiveness of the short cycle
tests in passing or failing a vehicle. In our example above, the error of
commission for HC alone is zero. The commission errors were determined for
each short test assuming failure rates in the range of 10-50%. The cutpoints
which are associated with the failure rates were established on the test
sample by a ranking procedure . The short test emission results were ranked
from highest to lowest and the value (or values) corresponding to the 10th
through 50th percentile ranks were taken as cutpoints. This procedure is
simple when the cutpoint for a single pollutant is to be determined at a given
failure rate. However, to determine the cutpoints for the combination of all
three emissions, HC, CO and NOX, it was necessary to normalize the short test
emissions so that all emissions could be ranked without weighting the results
towards a particular emission (i.e., CO emissions have magnitudes much greater
than HC or NOX). Normalization of the emissions was accomplished by dividing
each pollutant value by a short test value which corresponds to a. standard.
Short test standards were obtained by linear regressions of short tests on the
FTP emissions and are presented in Tables C-26 through C-28 for HC, CO, and
NOX. The predicted short test standards are the values obtained by application
of the regression equations at the 1975 FTP standards.
The errors of commission and the errors of omission associated with
the short cycle cutpoints are presented in Tables C-29 through C-38 for each
emission separately and for the combination of all emissions for each short
cycle test. The Federal Short Cycle Test has the fewest errors of commission
for each emission separately. The greatest number of errors of commission
for all short cycle tests occur for NOX emissions, while CO emissions produce
the fewest errors of commission.
8-4
-------
The determination of the average potential effectiveness of the
short cycle tests to pass or fail a vehicle as compared to the FTP includes
the assessment of emission reductions as a function of failure rate.
To aid in this determination of effectiveness, Tables C-39 through C-68
are presented and give the sample mean emissions at failure rates of 10 to
50% for each short test. The means are listed for four categories of
vehicles: (1) passing both the FTP and short tests, (2) passing the FTP
but failing the short test, (3) failing the FTP but passing the short test,
and (4) failing both the FTP and short tests. The effectiveness of the
short tests at the various failure rates may be inferred from these tables
by determining the emission reductions that are possible on the percentage
of failed vehicles. Several assumptions can be made about the level to
which failed vehicles can be reduced. For example, it can be assumed that
failed vehicles will have their emissions reduced to either the FTP standard
or to the short test cutpoint. Using either of these assumptions (or others)
and the means given in Tables C-39 through C-68, it is possible to determine
the potential emission reductions at failure rates in the range of 10 to 50%
for any of the short tests.
-------
REFERENCES
1. A.C. Keller, Study to Determine Emission Deterioration from
Emission Factor Program Data, Calspan Corporation Report No.
NA-5S42-V-5 under Contract No. 68-03-0486 for the Environmental
Protection Agency, September 1976.
2. J.A. Gunderson and L. Resnick, Degradation Effects on Motor
Vehicle Exhaust Emissions, Society of Automotive Engineers
Congress and Exposition Report No. 760366 (1976).
3. Marcia E. Williams, John T. White, Lois A. Platte, Charles J. Domke,
Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance—Analysis of the FY72
Program, Environmental Protection Agency Report No. EPA-460/2-74-001
(February 1974).
4. Automobile Exhaust Emission Surveillance - A Summary. Environmental
Protection Agency Report No. APTD-1544 (March 1973).
5. Frank Massey, Jr., The Kolmogorov-Smimov Test for Goodness of Fit.
American Statistical Association Journal, March 1951.
6. Lois Platte, The Relationship Between FTP and Short Test Emissions
from 1975 Model Year Vehicles, unpublished internal EPA memo to
Marcia Williams, Chief of Characterization and Applications Branch,
September 23, 1976.
8-6
-------
APPENDIX A
TABLES A-l through A-105
A-l
-------
TABLE A-l PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
i
CARS
100
100
100
300
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
• 99.0
0.0
1.0
99.0
1.0
0.0
99.4
0.3
0.3
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
99.0
0.0
1.0
99.0
0.0
1.0
99.0
1.0
0.0
99.0
0.3
0.7
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
0
1
3
5
6
0
1
3
5
6
0
1
3
5
6
0
1
3
5
6
X
0.0
97.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
98.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
98.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.3
98.4
0.3
0.3
0.7
DELAY
VALVE
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.0
99.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.3
99.7
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES,
TUBES,
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
94.0
6.0
97.0
3.0
97.0
3.0
96.0
4.0
OTHER
CODE
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
99.7
0.3
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN If EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6- DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-2 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
102
99
99
300
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
98.0
1.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
99.4
0.3
0.3
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
99.0
1.0
0.0
98.0
0.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
0.3
0.7
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
0
1
3
5
6
0
1
3
5
6
1
3
S
6
0
1
3
S
6
X
0.0
99.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
97.0
0.0
0.0
3.0
0.3
98.4
0.3
0.3
0.7
DELAY
VALVE
(FORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
0.0
100.0
0.3
99.7
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
HOSES.
TUBES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
99.0
1.0
94.0
6.0
95.0
5.0
96.0
4.0
OTHER
CODE
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
99.7
0.3
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A3 PERU-NT OF VEHICLES Wl'ni EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
100
100
100
300
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
%
98.0
1.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
98.7
0.7
0.6
LIMITER
CAPS
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
%
53.0
47.0
67.0
37.0
44.0
56.0
54.7
45.0
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
%
60.0
40.0
63.0
37.0
64.0
36.0
62.3
37.7
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
88.0
12.0
65.0
35.0
73.0
27.0
75.3
24.7
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
19.0
80.0
0.0
1.0
17.0
83.0
0.0
0.0
19.0
79.0
1.0
1.0
18.3
80.7
0.3
0.7
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
8.0
92.0
0.0
00.0
0.0
17.0
83.0
12.0
88.0
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
1.0
99.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
0.3.
99.4
0.3
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
99.0
1.0
99.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
99.0
1.0
99.0
1.0
00.0
0.0
99.3
0.7
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
8 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-3 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPO OF PERFORMANCE
FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY (cont.)
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
100
100
100
300
CHOKE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
X
91.0
0.0
9.0
84.0
0.0
16.0
94.0
1.0
25.0
89.7
0.3
10.0
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
88.0
11.0
1.0
87.0
9.0
4.0
97.0
2.0
1.0
90.7
7.3
2.0
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
67.0
32.0
0.0
1.0
67.0
31.0
1.0
1.0
64.0
33.0
0.0
3.0
66.0
32.0
0.3
1.7
CHOKE,
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
98.0
0.0
1.0
1.0
98.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
98.0
0.3
1.3
0.3
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
29.0
71.0
33.0
67.0
33.0
67.0
31.7
68.3
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
20.0
79.0
1.0
19.0
81.0
0.0
24.0
76.0
0.0
21.0
78.7
0.3
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
20.0
79.0
1.0
19.0
81.0
0.0
21.0
79.0
0.0
20.0
79.7
0.3
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
4.0
:)6.0
3.7
)7.0
2.0
)8.0
3.0
J7.0
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
CHOKE
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
33.0
66.0
1.0
43.0
57.0
0.0
41.0
59.0
0.0
39 . 0
60.7
0.3
OTHER
CHOKE
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
LOO.O
100. 0
100. 0
00.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN If EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
8 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE \-4 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE"
FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
102
99
99
300
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
0.0
97.0
1.0
2.0
98.6
0.7
0.7
LIMITER
CAPS
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
69.6
30.4
63.6
36.4
30.3
69.7
54.7
45.3
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
x
72.6
27.4
84.8
15.2
29.3
70.7
62.3
57.7
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
31.4
18.6
75.8
24.2
68.7
31.3
75.3
24.7
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
%
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
55.6
41.4
1.0
2.0
18.3
80.7
0.3
0.7
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
9.8
90.2
19.2
80.8
7.1
92.9
12.0
88.0
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
1.0
99.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
0.3
99.4
0.3
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.0
2.0
99.3
0.7
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
1 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-4 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WI11I EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE*
FOR T1IE CARBURETOR FUEL/SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER (com.)
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
>
^j
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
102
99
99
300
CHOKE
ADJUST
COOC
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
X
86.3
1.0
12.7
93.9
0.0
6.1
88.9
0.0
11.1
89.7
0.3
10.0
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
*
98. 0
1.0
1.0
78.8
19.2
2.0
95. 0
2.0
3.0
90.7
7.3
2.0
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
CODE
1
3
5
6
3
S
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
7.8
91.2
0.0
1 .0
97.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
95.0
0.0
1.0
4.0
66.0
32.0
0.3
1.7
CHOKE.
LINES.
MIRES
CODE
1
3
S
6
I
3
S
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
S
6
X
96.0
1.0
2.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
98.0
0.3
1.3
0.4
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
55.9
44.1
7. 1
92.9
31.3
68.7
31.7
68.3
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
S4.9
44.1
1.0
7.1
92.9
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
21.0
78.7
0.3
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
52.0
47.0
1.0
7.1
92.9
O.i)
0.0
100.0
0.0
20 . 0
79.7
0.3
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
8.8
91.2
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
3.0
97.0
HOSES. LINES.
•VIBES FOR
CHOKE
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
ii
1
3
5
I
3
5
%
65.7
33.3
1.0
18.2
81.8
0.0
32.3
67.7
0.0
39.0
60.7
0.3
OTHER
CHOKE
COD
3
3
3
3
X
too.o
100.0
00.0
00.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
• • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
t - NO MALPt HFORMANCE
a -NOT UKO IN THIS PROGRAM
1-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
• •DISABLED
• • DEFECTIVE
1 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
I • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-5 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
i
CARS
100
100
100
300
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
X
99.0
1.0
0.0
97.0
2.0
1.0
99.0
1.0
0.0
98.4
1.3
0.3
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
88.0
12.0
81.0
19.0
74.0
26.0
81.0
19.0
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
95.0
3.0
2.0
98.3
1.0
0.7
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
96.0
2.0
2.0
99.0
1.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.3
1.0
0.7
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
23.0
76.0
0.0
1.0
16.0
82.0
1.0
1.0
23.0
76.0
0.0
1.0
20.7
78.0
0.3
1.0
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
21.0
79.0
0.0
21.0
78.0
1.0
29.0
71.0
0.0
23.7
76.0
0.3
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
9S.O
5.0
98.0
2.0
97.1)
3.0
96.7
3.3
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
I
00
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
6-DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
0 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-6 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
102
99
99
300
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
%
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
97.0
3.0
0.0
98.3
1.4
0.3
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
%
81.4
18.6
79.8
20.2
81.8
18.2
81.0
19.0
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
2.0
0.0
97.0
1.0
2.0
98.3
1.0
0.7
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
99.0
1.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
96.0
2.0
2.0
98.3
1.0
0.7
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
%
17.6
82.4
0.0
0.0
10.1
89.9
0.0
0.0
34.4
61.6
1.0
3.0
20.7
78.0
0.3
1.0
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
31.4
67.6
1.0
18.2
81.8
0.0
21.2
78.8
0.0
23.7
76.0
0.3
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
98.0
2.0
98.0
2.0
93.9
6.1
96.7
3.3
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
10
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NO MAI-PERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6-DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-7 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
100
100
100
300
EGR SUBSYSTEM
EGR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
92.0
0.0
6.0
2.0
98.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
O.I
l.(
1.0
96.0
0.7
2.3
1.0
EGR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
21.0
78.0
1.0
18.0
76.0
6.0
15.0
78.0
7.0
18.0
77.3
4.7
EGR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER)
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
9.0
90.0
1.0
15.0
85.0
0.0
14.0
85.0
1.0
12.6
86.7
0.7
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER)
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
23.0
77.0
23.0
77.0
35.0
76.0
27.0
73.0
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
(FORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
2.0
98.0
0.0
100.0
0.7
99.3
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
7.0
93.0
7.0
93.0
3.0
97.0
5.7
94.3
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
71.0
28.0
0.0
1.0
81.0
19.0
0.0
0.0
80.0
19.0
1.0
0.0
77.3
22.0
0.3
0.3
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
93.0
0.0
7.0
0.0
88.0
5.0
6.0
1.0
91.0
2.0
7.0
0.0
90.7
2.3
6.7
0.3
OTHER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
0.0
100.0
0.3
99.7
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-8 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
102
99
99
300
EGR SUBSYSTEM
EOR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
88.9
2.0
7.1
2.0
96.0
0.7
2.3
1.0
EQR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
5.9
92.2
1.9
48.5
39.4
12.1
0.0
100.0
0.0
18.0
77.3
4.7
EGR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER)
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
38.4
59.6
2.0
12.6
86.7
0.7
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER)
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
5.0
95.0
76.8
23.2
27.0
73.0
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
(FOROI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
2.0
98.0
0.0
100.0
0.7
99.3
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
IFORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
17.2
82.8
0.0
100.0
5.7
94.3
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
78.4
20.6
0.0
1.0
56.6
43.4
0.0
0.0
97.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
77.4
22.0
0.3
0.3
HOSES.
LINES,
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
91.2
2.0
6.9
0.0
91.9
3.0
4.1
1.0
88.9
2.0
9.1
0.0
90.7
2.3
6.7
0.3
OTHER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
0.0
00.0
0.3
99.7
tf-
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
• - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-9 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
100
100
100
300
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
34.0
66.0
34.0
66.0
35.0
65.0
34.3
65.7
BYPASS
VALVE.
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
34.0
66.0
34.0
66.0
35.0
65.0
34.3
65.7
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
34.0
66.0
34.0
66.0
35.0
65.0
34.3
65.7
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
1.0
99.0
3.0
97.0
3.0
97.0
2.3
97.7
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
2.0
98.0
3.0
97.0
6.0
94.0
3.7
96.3
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
2.0
98.0
1.0
99.0
1.0
99.0
VACUUM
OIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
5.0
95.0
30.0
70.0
4.0
96.0
13.0
87.0
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
34.0
66.0
34.0
66.0
35.0
65.0
34.3
65.7
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
35.0
65.0
0.0
32.0
66.0
2.0
35.0
65.0
0.0
34.0
65.3
0.7
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
LOO.O
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART - MttBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU: A- 10 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
102
99
99
300
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.0
99.0
100.0
0.0
3.0
97.0
34.3
65.7
BYPASS
VALVE.
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.0
99.0
100.0
0.0
3.0
97.0
34.3
65.7
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
1.0
99.0
100.0
0.0
3.0
97.0
34.3
65.7
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.0
99.0
6.1
93.9
0.0
100.0
2.3
97.7
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.0
99.0
10.1
89.9
0.0
100.0
3.7
96.3
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
I
3
%
0.0
100.0
3.0
97.0
0.0
00.0
1.0
99.0
VACUUM
DIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.0
99. (
38.4
61.6
0.0
100.0
13.0
87.0
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOME
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.0
99.0
100.0
0.0
3.0
97.0
34.3
65.7
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
2.0
98.0
0.0
98.0
0.0
2.0
3.0
97.0
0.0
34 . 0
65.3
0.7
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
5
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
I—'
04
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-11 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE*
FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
100
100
100
300
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
99.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
FILTERS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
99.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
x
98.0
1.0
1.0
99.0
0.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
0.3
0.7
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
8 • DBABLED
«• DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MI88UILO
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A- 14
-------
TABLE A-12 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE*
FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
#
CARS
102
99
99
300
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
99.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
FILTERS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
99.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
%
99.0
1.0
0.0
99.0
0.0
1.0
99.0
0.0
1.0
99.0
0.3
0.7
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-15
-------
TABLE A-15 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE'
FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CARS
100
100
100
300
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD.
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CATALYST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
99.0
1.0
98.0
2.0
97.0
3.0
98.0
2.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IP EQUIPPED
1 . NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-16
-------
TABLE A-14 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
102
99
99
300
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD,
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100,0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CATALYST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
98.0
2.0
96.0
4.0
98.0
2.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IP EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
S • DISABLED
8 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-17
-------
TABLE A-15 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EVAPORATION SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
100
100
100
300
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
%
99.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
HOSES,
LINES
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
%
99.0
1.0
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
99.0
0.7
0.3
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
x
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE COOK:
0 • NOT KNOWN IP EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERPORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
S • DISABLED
• • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-18
-------
TABLE A-16 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EVAPORATION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
102
99
99
300
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANBTER
FILTER
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
%
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
99.7
0.3
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
X
99.0
0.0
1.0
99.0
1.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
0.0
99.0
0.7
0.3
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN If EQUIPPED
1. NO MALPCRFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3.NOT APPLICABLE
4- MALADJUSTED
9-DISABLED
6•DEFECTIVE
7 . INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
•. IMPROPER PART - MI88UILD
•. NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-19
-------
TABLE A-17 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
100
100
100
300
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ENGINE
OIL&
FILTER
CODE
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
X
100.0
0.0
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
99.3
0.7
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
100.0
0.0
99.7
0.3
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
19.0
81.0
18.0
82.0
19.0
81.0
18.7
81.3
CARBURETOR
& INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
K)
O
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5-DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
* - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-18 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
102
99
99
300
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ENGINE
OIL&
FILTER
CODE
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
X
100.0
0.0
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
99.3
0.7
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
99.7
0.3
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
5.9
94.1
11.1
88.9
39.4
60.6
18.7
81.3
CARBURETOR
& INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES,
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
10
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MtSBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-19 FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR
ALL COMBINATIONS OF EMISSIONS SYSTEMS TWO AT A TIME BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CARS
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
300
SYSTEM CODE*
1 8.2
7
5
3
15
18.3
2
0
3
5
28,3
14
22
29
65
18.4
0
1
2
3
28,4
12
7
16
35
3&4
5
3
8
16
18.5
0
0
0
0
28.5
0
2
0
2
38.5
0
0
0
0
48.5
0
2
0
2
1&6
0
0
0
0
28,6
1
1
0
2
38,6
0
0
0
0
48,6
0
0
0
0
58,8
0
0
0
0
18,7
0
0
0
0
28,7
0
0
0
0
38,7
0
0
0
0
48.7
0
0
0
0
58,7
0
0
0
0
68,7
0
0
0
0
1 8,8
1
0
0
1
28,8
1
2
0
3
3&8
i
I
0
3
4&8
0
0
0
0
5&8
0
0
0
0
68.8
0
0
0
0
78.8
0
0
0
0
18,9
0
0
0
n
28,9
0
3
0
3
38.9
0
1
0
1
48.9
0
1
0
1
58,9
0
1
0
1
68.9
0
0
0
0
78.9
0
0
0
0
88.9
0
1
0
1
—
•SYSTEM CODE: 1 • INDUCTION SYSTEM
2 • CARBURETOR/FUEL
3 • IGNITION
4 • EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
5 • AIR PUMP
6-PCV
7•EXHAUST
8-EVAPORATION
9 • ENGINE ASSEMBLY
A-22
-------
TABLE A-20 PREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR
ALL COMBINATIONS OF EMISSIONS SYSTEMS TWO AT A TIME
MANUFAC-
TURER
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
500
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
300
102
99
99
300
SYSTEM CODE*
18.2
1
7
•7
15
18.3
0
2
j
5
28.3
16
19
30
65
18,4
0
2
1
o
28.4
5
11
19
35
38,4
2
S
9
16
18.5
0
0
0
0
28.5
0
2
0
2
38.5
0
0
0
0
48.5
0
2
0
2
146
0
0
0
0
28.6
0
1
1
2
38.6
0
0
0
0
48.6
0
0
0
0
5&S
0
0
0
0
1&7
0
0
0
0
28.7
0
0
0
0
38,7
0
0
0
0
48,7
0
0
0
0
S&7
0
0
0
0
68.7
0
0
0
0
18.8
0
1
1
2
28.3
1
1
1
3
38,8
1
1
1
3
4&8
0
0
0
0
S&8
0
0
0
0
8818
0
0
0
0
78,8
0
0
0
0
18.9
0
0
0
0
28.9
0
2
1
3
38,9
0
1
0
1
48.9
0
1
0
1
58.9
0
1
0
1
68.9
0
0
0
0
78,9
0
0
0
0
88.9
0
0
1
1
—
1 • INDUCTION SYSTEM
^ CARBURETOR/FUEL
3 • IGNITION
4- EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
5 -AIR PUMP
8-PCV
7 -EXHAUST
8 • EVAPORATION
9 -ENGINE ASSEMBLY
A- 2 3
-------
TABLE A-21 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CABS
44
49
32
125
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
96.9
3.1
99.2
0.8
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
0.0
2.0
96.9
3.1
0.0
98.4
0.8
0.8
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
%
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95.9
0.0
2.1
2.0
96.9
3.1
0.0
0.0
97.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
DELAY
VALVE
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.3
97.7
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.8
99.2
•
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
TUBES,
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
93.2
6.8
95.9
4.1
100.0
0.0
96.0
4.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MtSBUILD
0 • MOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-22 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
51
57
17
125
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.2
0.8
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
98.0
2.0
0.0
98.2
0.0
1.8
1 00.0
0.0
0.0
98.4
0.8
0.8
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
98.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
98.2
0.0
1.8
0.0
94.1
0.0
0.0
5.9
97.6
0.8
0.8
0.8
DELAY
VALVE
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
1.8
98.2
0.0
100.0
0.8
99.2
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
TUBES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
100.0
0.0
93.0
7.0
94.1
5.9
96.0
4.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
N>
tn
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
O • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3. NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
B - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-23 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
44
49
32
125
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
LIMITER
CAPS
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
%
77.3
22.7
91.8
8.2
68.7
31.3
80.8
19.2
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
x
90.9
9.1
87.8
12.2
96.9
3. 1
91.2
8.8
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
*
88.6
11.4
75.5
24.5
84.4
15.6
82.4
17.6
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
*
9.1
90.9
4.1
95.9
9.4
90.6
7.2
92.8
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
*
6.8
93.2
8.2
91.8
25.0
75.0
12.0
88.0
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
3
3
3
3
*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES LINES
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 1)
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
1 00 . 0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
0 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-23 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST (cont.)
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
44
49
32
125
CHOKE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
*
88.6
0.0
11.4
93.9
0.0
6.1
93.8
3.1
3.1
92.0
0.8
7.2
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
K
81.8
18.2
0.0
77.6
18.4
4.1
96.9
3.1
0.0
84.0
14.4
1.6
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
K
63.6
36.4
71.4
28.6
50.0
50.0
63.2
36.8
CHOKE.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
K
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
96.9
3.1
99.2
0.8
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
31.8
68.2
30.6
69.4
34.4
65.6
32.0
68.0
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
x
25.0
72.7
2.3
18.4
81.6
0.0
31.2
68.8
0.0
24.0
75.2
0.8
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
x
25.0
72.7
2.3
18.4
81.6
0.0
25.0
75.0
0.0
22.4
76.8
0.8
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
6.8
93.2
O.C
100.0
3.1
96.9
3.2
96.8
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
CHOKE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
36.4
63.6
44.9
55.1
46.9
53.1
42.4
57.6
OTHER
CHOKE
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
K)
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFOKMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
S • DISABLED
• - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MKBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU: A-24 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
51
57
17
125
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
«
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
LIMITER
CAPS
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
96.1
3.9
75.4
24.6
52.9
47.1
80.8
19.2
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
98.0
2.0
89.5
10.5
76.5
23.5
91.2
8.8
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
88.2
11.8
80.7
19.3
70.6
29.4
82.4
17.6
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
52.9
47.1
7.2
92.8
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
9.8
90.2
15.8
84.2
5.9
94.1
12.0
88.0
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100,0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
K>
CO
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
S - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU; A-24 PI:I«:I;NT 01 VEHICLES wrni HACM TYPE oi;
PKKHOHMANCE* KOR Tilt CARBURETOR SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER I:OR VEHICLES PASSING '1111; INITIAL TbST (cont.i
MANUF AC-
TIMER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
>
i
i j
10
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
51
57
17
125
CHOKE
ADJUST
coot
,
5
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
X
94.1
2.0
3.9
91.2
0.0
8.8
88.2
0.0
11.8
92.0
0.8
7.2
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
I
3
6
1
3
b
1
3
6
X
98.1
2.0
o.»
70.2
28.1
1.7
88.2
5.9
5.9
84. (1
14.4
1.0
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
11.8
88.2
98.2
1.8
100.0
0.0
63.2
36.8
CHOKE.
LIMES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.2
0.8
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
58.8
41.2
1.7
98.3
52.9
47.1
32.0
68.0
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
56.9
41.2
1.9
1.7
98.3
0.0
O.I)
100.0
0.0
24.0
75.2
0.8
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
ft
1
3
6
1
3
6
I
3
6
X
52.9
45.1
2.0
1.7
98.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
22.4
76.8
0.8
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
7.8
92.2
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
3.2
96.8
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
CHOKE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
72. 6
27.4
12.3
87.7
f>2.'.)
47.1
42.4
57.0
OTHER
CHOKE
COD
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
111(1.0
00.0
00.11
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
J.NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
f . DISABLED
• -DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART - MKMJILO
t - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-25 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
i
CARS
44
49
32
125
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
1
1
1
K
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
% .
93.2
6.8
87.8
12.2
90.6
9.4
90.4
9.6
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
97.7
2.3
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
98.4
1.6
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
9.1
88.6
2.3
10.2
89.8
0.0
15.6
84.4
0.0
11.2
88.0
0.8
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
9.1
90.9
0.0
16.3
81.6
2.1
28.1
71.9
0.0
16.8
82.4
0.8
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
%
97.7
2.3
98.0
2.0
LOO.O
0.0
98.4
1.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
O)
o
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
0 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU: A-26 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES PASSING HIE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
57
17
125
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
92.2
7.8
86.0
14.0
100. 0
0.0
90.4
9.6
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
98.0
2.0
00.0
0.0
94.1
5.9
98.4
1.6
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
13.7
86.3
0.0
3.5
96.5
0.0
29.4
64.7
5.9
11.2
88.0
0.8
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
27.4
70.6
2.0
10.5
89.5
0.0
5.9
94.1
0.0
16.8
82.4
0.8
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
98.0
2.0
98.2
1.8
100.0
0.0
98.4
1.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
i
en
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3. NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
8 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU: A-21 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
44
49
32
125
EGR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
99.2
0.8
EGR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
34.1
65.9
0.0
22.5
71.4
6.1
15.6
81.3
3.1
24.8
72.0
3.2
EGR SUBSYSTEM
EGR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
4.6
95.4
4.1
95.9
6.2
93.8
4.8
95.2
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER)
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
9.1
90.9
12.2
87.8
15.6
84.4
12.0
88.0
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
IFORO)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
4.1
95.9
0.0
100.0
1.6
98.4
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
11.4
88.6
14.3
85.7
6.2
93.8
11.2
88.8
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
50.0
47.7
2.3
77. 5
22.5
0.0
68.7
31.3
0.0
65.6
33.6
0.8
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
91.8
8.2
100. 0
0.0
96.8
3.2
OTHER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
2.0
98.0
0.0
100.0
0.8
99.2
I
O4
K)
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPEHFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 • DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
8 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-28 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
51
57
17
125
EOR SUBSYSTEM
EGR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
*
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
94.1
5.9
99.2
0.8
EGR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
7.8
90.2
2.0
47.4
47.4
5.2
0.0
100.0
0.0
24.8
72.0
3.2
EGR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER!
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
35.3
64.7
4.8
95.2
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER!
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
5.3
94.7
70.6
29.4
12.0
88.0
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
(FORD!
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
1
X
0.0
100.0
3.5
96.5
0.0
100.0
1.6
98.4
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
24.6
75.4
0.0
100.0
11.2
88.8
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
76.5
21.6
1.9
47.4
52.6
0.0
94.1
5.9
0.0
65.6
33.6
0.8
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
98.0
2.0
96.5
3.5
94.1
5.9
96.8
3.2
OTHER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
1.8
98.2
0.0
00.0
0.8
99.2
I
CsJ
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
O - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OH IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLli A-29 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
1
CARS
44
49
32
125
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
47.7
52.3
49.0
51.0
40.6
59.4
46.4
53.6
BYPASS
VALVE.
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
47.7
52.3
49.0
51.0
40.6
59.4
46.4
53.6
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
47.7
52.3
49.0
51.0
40.6
59.4
46.4
53.6
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
6.1
93.9
6.2
93.8
4.0
96.0
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100. 0
6.1
93.9
15.6
84.4
6.4
93.6
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FORD)
CODE
1
3.
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100. 0
4.1
95.9
3.1
96.9
2.4
97.6
VACUUM
DIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
4.6
95.4
42.9
57.1
12.5
87.5
21.6
78.4
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
47.7
52.3
49.0
51.0
40.6
59.4
46.4
53.6
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
50.0
50.0
49.0
51.0
40.6
59.4
47.2
52.8
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
U-l
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
O - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
B • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-30 PERCENT OP VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
57
17
125
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.0
98.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
46.4
53.6
BYPASS
VALVE,
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
2.0
98.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
46.4
53.6
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.0
98.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
46.4
53.6
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.0
98.0
7.0
93.0
0.0
100.0
4.0
96.0
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.0
98.0
12.3
87.7
0.0
00.0
6.4
93.6
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
5.3
94.7
0.0
LOO.O
2.4
97.6
VACUUM
DIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.0
98.0
45.6
54.4
0.0
100.0
21.6
78.4
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.0
98.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
46.4
53.6
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
3.9
96.1
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
47.2
52.8
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
01
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN tf EQUIPPED
t - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 -NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
a - DEFECTIVE
J • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-51 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY CITY
FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
44
49
32
125
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
97.7
2.3
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.2
0.8
FILTERS
CODE
1
3
1
o
1
3
1
3
%
97.7
2.3
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.2
0.8
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
3
5
1
•»
5
1
3
5
1
0
5
%
97.7
2.3
0.0
98.0
0.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.4
0.8
0.8
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 . NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 . NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3. NOT APPLICABLE
4. MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
» - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
I • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-36
-------
TABLE A-32 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY CITY
FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
57
17
125
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
.00.0
0.0
99.2
0.8
FILTERS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
.00.0
0.0
99.2
0.8
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
98.0
2.0
0.0
98.2
0.0
1.8
LOO.O
0.0
0.0
99.4
0.8
0.8
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
LOO.O
.00.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5- DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-37
-------
TABLE A-33 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY CITY
FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
44
49
32
125
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD.
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CATALYST
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
x
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3. NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
S • DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MffiBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-38
-------
TABLE A-34 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
if
CARS
51
57
17
125
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD,
MUFFLER
COOE
1
1
1
1
%
00.0
100.0
LOO.O
,00.0
CATALYST
COOE
1
1
1
1
%
00.0
100.0
.00.0
,00.0
OTHER
COOE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPCRFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
« • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-39
-------
TABLE A-35 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EVAPORATION SYSTEM BY CITY
FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
44
49
32
125
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES,
LINES
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
•V
J
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100,0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IP EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERPORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 . NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
S • DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MI8BUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-40
-------
TABLE A-56 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EVAPORATION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
57
17
125
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
00.0
LOO.O
LOO.O
00.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IP EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
9-DISABLED
6-DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MW8UILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-41
-------
TABLH A-37 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
44
49
32
125
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
ENGINE
OIL ft
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
11.4
88.6
22.4
77.6
18.7
81.3
17.6
82.4
CARBURETOR
ft INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-fc.
K)
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-38 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TF.ST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
57
17
125
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ENGINE
OIL ft
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
%
9.8
90.2
15.8
84.2
47.1
52.9
17.6
CARBURETOR
& INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
*.
l/J
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1. NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
S - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-39 FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR
ALL COMBINATIONS OF EMISSION SYSTEMS TWO AT A TIME
FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
i
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
OETROrr
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
44
49
32
i?1;
44
49
32
125
44
49
32
125
•MMMtata^tova
44
49
32
125
44
49
32
125
44
49
32
125
44
49
32
125
44
49
32
125
142
3
3
0
ft
MM^B^AM^H^MMI
1& 3
0
0
0
0
2&3
3
5
1
9
•••mHMVMMMI
•••••••M^BWft^MV
1&4
0
1
0
I
244
1
1
0
2
344
0
0
0
0
s
1&5
0
0
0
0
2&S
0
0
0
0
345
0
0
0
0
445
0
0
0
0
YSTEM CO
146
0
0
0
n
246
0
1
0
1
346
0
0
0
o
446
0
0
0
0
546
0
0
0
0
DE»
1 47
0
0
0
n
247
0
0
0
0
347
0
0
0
0
44 7
0
0
0
0
547
0
0
0
0
647
0
0
0
0
148
0
0
0
n
248
0
0
0
0
348
0
0
0
0
-*• — i
448
0
0
0
0
— mJSSS
548
0
0
0
0
648
0
0
0
0
748
0
0
0
0
149
0
0
0
f)
249
0
0
0
0
349
0
0
0
Q
=====
449
0
0
0
0
===:
649
0
0
0
0
-i-J-BHm!
649
0
0
0
0
k— &8SB
749
0
0
0
0
— — =BSS
849
0
0
0
0
—
—
™ *
n
1 4u
•SYSTEM CODE: 1 • INDUCTION SYSTEM
2 - CARBURETOR/FUEL
3-IGNITION
4 - EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
S-AIR PUMP
8-PCV
7•EXHAUST
8-EVAPORATION
9 - ENGINE ASSEMBLY
A-44
-------
TABLE A-40 FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR
ALL COMBINATIONS OF EMISSIONS SYSTEMS TWO AT A TIME
FOR VEHICLES PASSING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
—
OM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
<3M
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
OM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
Baeeaf™111 "=
OM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
— ' " '
OM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
OM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
•^•1 " "
QM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
OM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
#
CARS
51
57
17
125
SI
57
17
125
51
57
17
125
51
57
17
125
M^^MHI^^^^^
51
57
17
125
51
57
17
125
51
57
17
125
51
57
17
125
SYSTEM CODE*
142
0
4
2
6
1&3
0
0
0
0
2& 3
2
6
1
9
1&4
0
1
0
1
244
1
1
0
2
314
0
0
0
0
115
0
0
0
0
245
0
0
0
0
345
0
0
0
0
445
0
0
0
0
1 46
0
0
0
0
2&6
0
1
0
1
346
0
0
0
0
446
0
0
0
0
5&S
0
0
0
0
147
0
0
0
0
247
0
0
0
0
347
0
0
0
fl
447
0
0
0
0
547
0
0
0
0
647
0
0
0
0
148
0
0
0
0
248
0
0
0
0
348
0
0
0
n
448
0
0
0
0
S48
0
0
0
0
• 48
0
0
0
0
748
0
0
0
0
149
0
0
0
0
249
0
0
0
0
349
0
0
0
n
—
-^ ••»
...
0
0
0
0
549
0
0
0
0
849
0
0
0
0
749
0
0
0
0
849
0
0
0
0
2 • CARBURETOR/FUEL
3 • IGNITION
4 • EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
8-AIR PUMP
6-PCV
7•EXHAUST
8 • EVAPORATION
9-ENGINE ASSEMBLY
A-45
-------
TABLE A-41 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
56
51
68
175
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
CODE
1
6
1
6
I
6
1
6
%
100.0
0.0
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
%
98.2
1.8
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1
6
X
0.0
98.2
1.8
0.0
100.0
0.0
1.5
98.5
0.0
0.6
98.8
0.6
DELAY
VALVE
(FORDI
CODE
3
3
3
3
x
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES,
TUBES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
94.6
5.4
98.0
2.0
95.6
4.4
96.0
4.0
OTHER
CODE
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.5
1.5
99.4
0.6
I
*>.
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 •MALADJUSTED
S-DISABLED
6-DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
» - IMPROPER PART - MIS8UILD
0 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-42 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
51
42
82
175
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
%
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
100.0
0.0
97.6
2.4
100.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1
6
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
1.2
97.6
1.2
0.6
98.8
0.6
DELAY
VALVE
(FORD)
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
TUBES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
98.0
2.0
95.2
4.8
95.1
4.9
96.0
4.0
OTHER
CODE
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
99.4
0.6
I
-PL
--J
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
S - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-43 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
56
51
68
175
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
%
96.4
1.8
1.8
100.0
0.0
0.0
97.0
1.5
1.5
97.7
1.1
1.1
LIMITER
CAPS
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
%
33.9
66.1
43.1
56.9
32.3
67.7
36.0
64.0
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
35.7
64.3
39.2
60.8
48.5
51.5
41.7
58.3
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
%
87.5
12.5
54.9
45.1
67.6
32.4
70.3
29.7
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
%
26.8
71.4
0.0
1.8
29.4
70.6
0.0
0.0
23.5
73.5
1.5
1.5
26.3
72.0
0.6
1.1
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
8.9
91.1
13.7
86.3
13.2
86.8
12.0
88.0
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
x
1.8
98.2
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.5
1.5
0.6
98.8
0.6
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
98.2
1.8
ino.o
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
98.2
1.8
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.(
98.9
1.1
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Oo
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU; A-43 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST (cont.)
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CARS
56
51
68
175
CHOKE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
92.9
7.1
74.5
25.5
94.1
5.9
88.0
12.0
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
92.8
5.4
1.8
96.1
0.0
3.9
97.1
1.5
1.4
95.4
2.3
2.3
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
69.6
28.6
0.0
1.8
62.7
33.3
2.0
2.0
70.6
25.0
0.0
4.4
68.0
28.6
0.6
2.8
CHOKE.
LINES.
WIRES
COD
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
X
96.4
1.8
1.8
96.1
3.9
0.0
98.5
1.5
0.0
97.1
2.3
0.6
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
26.8
73.2
35.3
64.7
32.3
67.7
31.4
68.6
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
16.1
83.9
19.6
80.4
20.6
79.4
18.9
81.1
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
16.1
83.9
19.6
80.4
19.1
80.9
18.3
81.7
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.8
98.2
5.9
94.1
1.5
98.5
2.9
97.1
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
CHOKE
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
30.4
67.9
1.7
41.2
58.8
0.0
38.2
61.8
0.0
36.6
62.9
0.5
OTHER
CHOKE
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPCRFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
B - DISABLED
8 • DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
0 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU: A-44 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
v
1
in
o
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
i
CARS
51
42
82
175
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
97.6
2.4
0.0
96.3
1.2
2.5
97.7
1.1
1.2
LIMITER
CAPS
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
43.1
56.9
47.6
52.4
25.6
74.4
36.0
64.0
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
47.1
52.9
78.6
21.4
19.5
80.5
41.7
58.3
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
74.5
25.5
69.1
30.9
68.3
31.7
70.3
29.7
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
56.1
40.2
1.2
2.5
26.3
72.0
0.6
1.1
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
9.8
90.2
23.8
76.2
7.3
92.7
12.0
88.0
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
2.0
98.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
0.6
98.8
0.6
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
97.6
2.4
100.0
0.0
99 . 4
0.6
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
I
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
97.6
2.4
98.9
1.1
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEOUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU: A-44 PERCENT OP VEHICLES NITII EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CAKBUKETOK FUEL/SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOK VEHICLES FAILING HIE INITIAL TEST (cont.)
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
'jt
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
51
42
82
175
CHOKE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
78.4
21.6
97.6
2.4
89.0
11.0
88.0
12.0
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
COO
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
98. U
0.0
2.0
90.5
7.1
2.4
96.3
1.2
2.5
9S.4
2.3
2.3
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
I
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
3.9
94.1
0.0
2.0
95. 2
4.8
0.0
0.0
93.9
0.0
1.2
4.9
68.0
28.6
0.6
2.8
CHOKE.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
S
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
S
6
X
94.1
3.9
2.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
97.6
2.4
0.0
97.1
2.3
0.6
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
52.9
47.1
14.3
85.7
26.8
73.2
31.4
68.6
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
COO
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
52.9
47.1
14.3
85.7
0.0
100.0
18.9
81.1
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
51.0
49.0
14.3
85.7
0.0
100.0
18.3
81.7
CHECK
VALVE
COD
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
9.8
90.2
0.0
100. 0
0.0
1)0.0
2.9
97.1
HOSES. LINES
WIRES FOR
CHOKE
COO
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
58.8
39.2
2.0
26.2
73.8
0.0
28.0
72.0
0.0
3(> . 6
02.8
0.0
OTHER
CHOKE
COD
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NOMALPERFORMAMCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROOR AM
1 NOT APPLICABLE
4- MALADJUSTED
• • DISABLED
• •DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MMMMLD
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-45 PERCENT OP VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITV
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
§
CARS
56
51
68
175
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
X
98.2
1.8
0.0
94.1
3.9
2.0
98.5
1.5
0.0
97.1
2.3
0.6
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
83.9
16.1
74.5
25.5
66.2
33.8
74.3
25.7
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
92.6
4.4
3.0
97.1
1.7
1.2
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
94.6
1.8
3.6
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.3
0.6
1.1
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
33.9
66.1
0.0
0.0
21.6
74.5
2.0
1.9
26.5
72.1
0.0
1.4
27.4
70.9
0.6
1.1
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
30.4
69.6
25.5
74.5
29.4
70.6
28.6
71.4
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
92.9
7.1
98.0
2.0
95.6
4.4
95.4
4.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
>
U1
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 -NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
6-DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
0 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-46 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
42
82
175
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
x
100.0
0.0
0.0
95.2
2.4
2.4
96.3
3.7
0.0
97.1
2.3
0.6
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
%
70.6
29.4
71.4
28.6
78.0
22.0
74.3
25.7
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
x
100.0
0.0
0.0
95.2
4.8
0.0
96.3
1.2
2.5
97.2
1.7
1.1
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
96.3
1.2
2.5
98.3
0.6
1.1
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
x
21.6
78.4
0.0
0.0
19.0
80.9
0.0
0.0
35.4
61.0
1.2
2.4
27.4
70.9
0.6
1.1
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
35.3
64.7
28.6
71.4
24.4
75.6
28.5
71.4
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
%
98.0
2.0
97.6
2.4
92.7
7.3
95.4
4.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
en
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
S - DISABLED
• - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-47 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
56
51
68
175
EGR SUBSYSTEM
EGR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
85.7
0.0
10.7
3.6
98.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
97.0
0.0
1.5
1.5
93.7
0.6
4.0
1.7
EGR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
10.7
87.5
1.8
13.7
80.4
5.9
14.7
76.5
8.8
13.1
81.2
5.7
EGR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER!
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
12.5
85.7
1.8
25.5
74.5
0.0
17.6
80.9
1.5
18.3
80.6
1.1
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER)
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
33.9
66.1
33.3
66.7
44.1
55.9
37.7
62.3
HIGH-SP6ED
MODULATOR
(FORDk
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. (
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
(FORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
3.6
96.4
0.0
100.0
1.5
98.5
1.7
98.3
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
87.5
12.5
0.0
84.3
15.7
0.0
85.3
13.2
1.5
85.7
13.7
0.6
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
87.5
0.0
12.5
0.0
84.3
2.0
11.7
2.0
86.8
2.9
10.3
0.0
86.3
1.7
11.4
0.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100.0
I
en
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A^48 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
51
42
82
175
EGR SUBSYSTEM
EGR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
97.6
0.0
0.0
2.4
87.8
1.2
8.5
2.5
93.7
0.6
4.0
1.7
EGR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
3.9
94.1
2.0
50.0
28.6
21.4
0.0
100.0
0.0
13.2
81.1
5.7
EGR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER)
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
x
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
39.0
58.5
2.5
18.3
80.6
1.1
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER)
(FORO)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
4.8
95.2
78.0
22.0
37.7
62.3
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
(FORD)
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
0.0
100.0
7.1
92.9
0.0
100.0
1.7
98.3
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
80.4
19.6
0.0
69.0
31.0
0.0
97.6
1.2
1.2
85.7
13.7
0.6
HOSES.
LINES,
WIRES
CODE
I
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
%
84.3
2.0
13.71
0.0
85.7
2.4
9.5
2.4
87.8
1.2
11.0
0.0
86.3
1.7
11.4
0.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
00.0
tn
tn
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
O - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-49 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
56
51
68
175
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
K
23.2
76.8
19.6
80.4
32.3
67.7
25.7
74.3
BYPASS
VALVE.
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
23.2
76.8
19.6
80.4
32.4
67.6
25.7
74.3
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
23.2
76.8
19.6
80.4
32.4
67.6
25.7
74.3
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
1.8
98.2
0.0
100.0
1.5
98.5
1.1
98.9
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
3.6
96.4
0.0
100.0
1.5
98.5
1.7
98.3
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FORD)
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
VACUUM
DIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
5.4
94.6
17.6
82.4
0.0
100.0
6.9
93.1
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
23.2
76.8
19.6
80.4
32.3
67.7
25.7
74.3
HOSES.
LINES,
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
23.2
76.8
0.0
15.7
80.4
3.9
32.3
67.7
0.0
24.6
74.3
1.1
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
x
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
I
on
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED •
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE 7
2-NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM 8
3 • NOT APPLICABLE •
4-MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
DEFECTIVE
INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU: A-50 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
51
42
82
75
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.7
96.3
25.7
74.3
BYPASS
VALVE.
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
x
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.7
96.3
25.7
74.3
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.7
96.3
25.7
74.3
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
4.8
95.2
0.0
100.0
1.1
98.9
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
7.1
92.9
0.0
100.0
1.7
98.3
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FORD)
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
VACUUM
OIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
28.6
71.4
0.0
100.0
6.9
93.1
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.7
96.3
25.7
74.3
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
95.2
0.0
4.8
3.7
96.3
0.0
24.6
74.3
1.1
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
00.0
to
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLEA-51 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY CITY
FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
56
51
68
175
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
PCV SUBSYSTEM
FILTERS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES,
LINES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
98.2
1.8
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100. C
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IP EQUIPPED
1 .NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6-DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MtSBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-58
-------
TABLE A-52 PERCENT FOR EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
#
CARS
51
42
82
175
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
FILTERS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
%
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
99.4
0.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALFERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
8 • DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MIS8UILO
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-59
-------
TABLE A-53 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY CITY
FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
56
51
68
175
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD,
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CATALYST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
98.2
1.8
96.1
3.9
95.6
4.4
96.6
3.4
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPEHFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
8 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-60
-------
TABLE A-54 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL.
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
51
42
82
175
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD,
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CATALYST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
100.0
0.0
95.2
4.8
95.1
4.9
96.6
3.4
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFOR MANGE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
6•DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-61
-------
TABLE A-55 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EVAPORATION SYSTEM BY CITY
FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
56
51
68
175
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
" EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
%
98.2
1.8
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
HOSES,
LINES
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
x
98.2
1.8
0.0
96.0
2.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.3
1.1
0.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 .NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
.MALADJUSTED
• DISABLED
• DEFECTIVE
• INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
. IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
' NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-62
-------
TABLE A-56 PERCENT FOR EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EVAPORATION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR
FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
TOKO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
51
42
82
175
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
*
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
%
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
99.4
0.6
HOSES,
LINES
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
%
98.0
0.0
2.0
97.6
2.4
0.0
98.8
1.2
0.0
98.3
1.1
0.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
00.0
00.0
.00.0
LOO.O
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCC
Z - NOT U8CD IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
MALADJUSTED
DISABLED
DEFECTIVE
INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
IMPROPER PART - MIS8UILD
NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-63
-------
TABU- A-57 PERCENT OF VEHICLES WITH EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY CITY FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
55
25
66
146
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ENGINE
OIL 81
FILTER
CODE
1
7
1
7
1
7
I
7
X
100.0
0.0
96.1
3.9
100.0
0.0
98.9
1.1
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
100.0
0.0
98.0
2.0
100.0
0.0
99.4
0.6
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
25.0
75.0
13.7
86.3
19.1
80.9
19.4
80.6
CARBURETOR
& INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES,
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 • DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
»• NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-58 PERCENT FOR EACH TYPE OF
PERFORMANCE* BY THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
51
42
82
175
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ENGINE
OIL ft
FILTER
CODE
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
X
100.0
0.0
95.2
4.8
100.0
0.0
98.9
1.7
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
99.4
0.6
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.0
98.0
4.8
95.2
37.8
62.2
19.4
80.6
CARBURETOR
ft INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
t/1
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6- DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
< - IMPROPER PART - MiSBUILO
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-59 FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR ALL COMBINATIONS OF EMISSION SYSTEMS
TWO AT A TIME FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
56
51
68
175
56
51
68
175
56
51
68
175
56
51
68
175
56
51
68
175
56
51
68
175
56
51
68
175
•WM^MMMWM
56
51
68
175
SYSTEM CODE*
1&2
4
2
3
9
1&3
2
0
3
5
243
11
17
28
56
•
1 44
0
0
2
2
244
11
6
16
33
344
5
3
8
16
1 45
0
0
0
0
245
0
2
0
2
345
0
0
0
0
445
0
2
0
2
1 46
0
0
0
0
246
1
0
0
1
346
0
0
0
— 0—
446
0
0
0
0
•BMMP^BUWMBMW
5A6
0
0
0
0
147
0
0
0
0
247
0
0
0
0
347
0
0
0
=£=
447
0
0
0
0
P^BHMMB^^^
547
0
0
0
0
847
0
0
0
0
148
2
0
0
•y
248
1
2
0
3
348
2
1
0
— 3
448
0
0
0
0
— — —
348
0
0
0
848
0
0
0
0
748
0
0
0
0
149
0
0
0
o
249
0
3
0
3
349
0
1
0
— ] —
449
0
1
0
1
*—**-»
549
0
1
0
-,.ri ^
649
0
0
0
0
749
0
0
0
0
"
849
0
1
0
1
-fm_
— — JSSS
— — £S
**•«••
— Jj«a
•
•SYSTEM CODE: 1 • INDUCTION SYSTEM
2 • CARBURETOR/FUEL
3 • IGNITION
• EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
• AIR PUMP
• PCV
•EXHAUST
• EVAPORATION
• ENGINE ASSEMBLY
A-66
-------
TABLE A-60 FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR ALL COMBINATIONS OF EMISSIONS SYSTEMS
TWO AT A TIME FOR VEHICLES FAILING THE INITIAL TEST
MANUFAC-
TURER
.— "
-------
TABLE A-61 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS TIIF. INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
33
42
27
102
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
K
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
96.3
3.7
99.0
1.0
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
100.0
0.0
0.0
97.6
0.0
2.4
96.3
3.7
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
%
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
95.2
0.0
2.4
2.4
96.3
3.7
0.0
0.0
97.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
DELAY
VALVE
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
3.0
97.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
TUBES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
90.9
9.1
97.6
2.4
100.0
0.0
96.1
3.9
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
ON
00
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-MOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5-DISABLED
6-DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 • MOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-62 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
43
47
12
102
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
COO
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
97.7
2.3
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
HEATED AIR
MLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
97.7
2.3
0.0
97.9
0.0
2.1
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
97.7
2.3
0.0
0.0
97.9
0.0
2.1
0.0
91.7
0.0
0.0
8.3
97.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
DELAY
VALVE
IFORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
2.1
97.9
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES,
TUBES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
100.0
0.0
93.6
6.4
91.7
8.3
96.1
3.9
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
• • DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
» - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-63 PORCONT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS T1IE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY
1
o
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
33
42
27
102
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
LIMITER
CAPS
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
78.8
21.2
92.9
7.1
70.4
29.6
82.4
17.6
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
87.9
12.1
90.5
9.5
96.3
3.7
91.2
8.8
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
90.9
9.1
76.2
23.8
85.2
14.8
83.3
16.7
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
6.1
93.9
4.8
95.2
11.1
88.9
6.9
93.1
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
9.1
90.9
9.5
90.5
25.9
74.1
13.7
86.3
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
t - NO MALPERFOHMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
f - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
B - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-63 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PRaiECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES WITH
EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY (cont.)
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
33
42
27
102
CHOKE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
X
84.8
0.0
15.2
92.9
0.0
7.1
92.6
3.7
3.7
90.2
1.0
8.8
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
COD
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
4
1
3
6
x
75.8
24.2
0.0
76.2
21.4
2.4
96.3
3.7
0.0
81.4
17.6
1.0
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
69.7
30.3
69.0
31.0
44.4
55.6
62.8
37.2
CHOKE.
LINES,
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
96.3
3.7
99.0
1.0
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
27.3
72.7
28.6
71.4
40.7
59.3
31.4
68.6
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
18.2
78.8
3.0
21.4
78.6
0.0
37.0
63.0
0.0
24.5
74.5
1.0
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
21.2
78.8
21.4
78.6
29.6
70.4
23.5
76.5
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
3.fl
97. (
0.0
100. t
3.7
96.3
2.0
98.0
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
CHOKE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
30.3
69.7
42.9
57.1
51.8
48.2
41.2
58.8
OTHER
CHOKE
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - MOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
• - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLI- A-64 PERCENT Ol; VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS TNI: INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURED
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
43
47
12
102
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
LIMITER
CAPS
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
97.7
2.3
78.7
21.3
41.7
58.3
82.4
17.6
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
%
97.7
2.3
87.2
12.8
83.3
16.7
91.2
8.8
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
3
1
4
X
90.7
9.3
80.8
19.2
66.7
33.3
83.3
16.7
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
58.3
41.7
6.9
93.1
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
11.6
88.4
17.0
83.0
8.3
91.7
13.7
86.3
OASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3- NOT APPLICABLE
4- MALADJUSTED
S-DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU: A-b4 PERCENT OF VEHICLES I'KUIECTHU TO PASS Till; INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MII.IIS
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR 1111: CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER (conr . )
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTOR*
FORD
-4
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
«
CARS
43
47
12
102
CHOKE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
1
3
4
X
93.0
2.3
4.7
89.4
0.0
10.6
83.3
0.0
16.7
90.2
1.0
8.8
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
COO
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
97.7
2.3
0.0
66.0
34.0
0.0
83.4
8.3
8.3
81.4
17.6
1.0
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
COO
1
3
1
3
1
3
,
3
X
14.0
86.0
97.9
2.1
100.0
0.0
62.8
37.2
CHOKE.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
97.7
2. '.
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
58.1
41.9
2.1
97.9
50.0
50.0
31.4
68.6
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
COO
1
3
6
1
3
6
,
3
6
1
3
6
5S.8
41.9
2.3
2.1
97.9
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
24.5
74.5
1.0
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
,
3
X
53.5
46.5
2.1
97.9
0.0
100.0
23.5
76.5
CHECK
VALVE
COD
t
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
4.6
95.4
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
2.0
98.0
HOSES. LINES
WIRES FOR
CHOKE
COO
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
72.1
27.9
10.6
89.4
50.0
50.0
41.2
58.8
OTHER
CHOKE
COD
3
3
3
3
X
1 (K) . 0
100.0
100. 0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE;
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
I - NOMALMRFORMANCE
2 - NOT UCCO Ml TH« PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
• • DISABLED
• • DEFECTIVE
1 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART -MMmilLD
t - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU; A-^S PERCENT ov VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TI-:ST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE Ol- PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
33
42
27
102
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
x
93.9
6.1
85.7
14.3
96.3
3.7
91.2
8.8
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
97.6
2.4
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
6.1
93.9
4.8
95.2
18.5
81.5
8.8
91.2
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
6.1
93.9
0.0
14.3
83.3
2.4
25.9
74.1
0.0
14.7
84.3
1.0
OTHER
HOSES,
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
100.0
0.0
97.6
2.4
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
1 00 . 0
100.0
-^«
4-.
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
0-DISABLED
B-DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
0 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-66 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT 50.000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAt
t
CARS
43
47
12
102
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
90.7
9.3
89.4
10.6
100.0
0.0
91.2
8.8
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
91.7
8.3
99.0
1.0
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
9.3
90.7
4.3
95.7
25.0
75.0
8.8
91.2
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
23.3
74.4
2.3
8.5
91.5
0.0
8.3
91.7
0.0
14.7
84.3
1.0
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
100.0
0.0
97.9
2.1
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
-J
VI
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MlSBUILD
g - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-67 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS Till; INITIAL TliST AT 50.000 MILKS
WITH EACH TYPO OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
33
42
27
102
EGR SUBSYSTEM
EGR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
97.6
2.4
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
EGR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
x
39.4
60.6
0.0
21.4
73.8
4.8
14.8
81.5
3.7
25.5
71.6
2.9
EGR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
3.0
97.0
4.8
95.2
7.4
92.6
4.9
95.1
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER)
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
9.1
90.9
7.1
92.9
14.8
85.2
9.8
90.2
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
2.4
97.6
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
15.2
84.8
16.7
83.3
0.0
100. 0
11.8
88.2
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
45.4
54.6
76.2
23.8
70.4
29.6
64.7
35.3
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
90.5
9.5
100.0
0.0
96.1
3.9
OTHER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
2.4
97.6
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-68 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
i
CARS
43
47
12
102
EQR SUBSYSTEM
EGR
VALVE
COO
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
91.7
8.3
99.0
1.0
EGR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
9.3
88.4
2.3
46.8
48.9
4.3
0.0
100.0
0.0
25.5
71.6
2.9
EQR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLERI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
41.7
58.3
4.9
95.1
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER)
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
4.3
95.7
66.7
33.3
9.8
90.2
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
(FORO)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
2.1
97.9
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
25.5
74.5
0.0
100.0
11.8
88.2
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
76.7
23.3
46.8
53.2
91.7
8.3
64.7
35.3
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
97.7
2.3
95.7
4.3
91.7
8.3
96.1
3.9
OTHER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
2.1
97.9
0.0
100.0
1.0
99.0
•f
I
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED • •
1 - NO MALKRFORMANCE ?
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM a <
3-NOT APPLICABLE 9
4 - MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
DEFECTIVE
INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-69 I'liRCI-NT OF VHIIICU-S PROJECT!:!) TO PASS Till: INITIAL TliST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
i
CARS
33
42
27
102
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
54.6
45.4
50.0
50.0
33.3
66.7
47.1
52.9
BYPASS
VALVE,
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
54.6
45.4
50.0
50.0
33.3
66.7
47.1
52.9
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
54.6
45.4
50.0
50.0
33.3
66.7
47.1
52.9
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
7.1
92.9
3.7
96.3
3.9
96.1
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
O.C
100.0
7.1
92.9
14.8
85.2
6.9
93.1
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
»
0.0
100.0
4.8
95.2
3.7
96.3
2.9
97.1
VACUUM
DIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
6.1
93.9
42.9
57.1
14.8
85.2
23.5
76.5
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
54.6
45.4
50.0
50.0
33.3
66.7
47.1
52.9
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
57.6
42.4
50.0
50.0
33.3
66.7
48.0
52.0
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
1 00.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
-g
CO
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
5 DISABLED
8 • DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-70 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
43
47
12
102
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.3
97.7
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
47.1
52.9
BYPASS
VALVE.
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
2.3
97.7
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
47.1
52.9
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.3
97.7
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
47.1
52.9
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
K
2.3
97.7
6.4
93.6
0.0
100.0
3.9
96.1
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
2.3
97.7
12.8
87.2
0.0
100.0
6.9
93.1
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FOROI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
6.4
93.6
0.0
100.0
2.9
97.1
VACUUM
OIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
2.
97.7
48.9
51.1
0.0
100.0
23.5
76.5
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
2.3
97.7
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
47.1
52.9
HOSES.
LINES,
WIRES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
4.6
95.4
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
48.0
52.0
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100. 0
100.0
100. 0
00.0
i
^l
10
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROORAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
6 • DISABLED
«• DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MtiBUlLD
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-71 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT 50 000
MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
§
CARS
33
42
27
102
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
97.0
3.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
FILTERS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
97.0
3.0
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
%
97.0
3.0
0.0
97.6
0.0
2.4
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 . NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
e • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMFROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MIS8UILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-80
-------
TABLE A-72 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000
MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
43
47
12
102
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
*
97.7
2.3
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
FILTERS
CODE
1
3
1
0
1
3
1
3
*
97.7
2.3
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
HOSES,
LINES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
x
97.7
2.3
0.0
97.9
0.0
2.1
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
ft » DEFECTIVE
7 . INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
9 -NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-81
-------
TABLE A-73 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT
50,000 MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
33
42
27
102
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD,
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CATALYST
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
LOO.O
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
6•DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MIS8UILD
8 . NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-82
-------
TABLE A-74 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000
MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
l¥
CARS
43
47
12
102
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD,
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CATALYST
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
LOO.O
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 -NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPCRFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
8 • DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MIS8UILO
9 -NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-83
-------
TABLE A-73 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST AT
50,000 MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE
EVAPORATIVE SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
i
CARS
33
42
27
102
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES,
LINES
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IP EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3. NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
S - DISABLED
8 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-84
-------
TABLE A-76 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS THE INITIAL TEST
AT 50,000 MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE
EVAPORATIVE SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
43
47
12
102
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
LOO.O
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
00.0
LOO.O
LOO.O
00.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4. MALADJUSTED
5-DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
9 • IMPROPER PART - MOBUILO
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-8S
-------
TABU: A-77 PERCENT Or VI-IIICI.I-S PROJECTED TO PASS Till: INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
HITII EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
33
42
27
102
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ENGINE
OIL ft
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
2
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
15.2
84.8
19.0
81.0
18.5
81.5
17.6
82.4
CARBURETOR
& INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
.CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
oo
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
S-DISABLED
6•DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-78 PERCENT OH VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS HIE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES WITH
EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
43
47
12
102
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ENGINE
OIL&
FILTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
11.6
88.4
17.0
83.0
41.7
58.3
17.6
82.4
CARBURETOR
& INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES,
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
00
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 • DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-79 FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS
THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES FOR ALL COMBINATIONS OF
EMISSIONS SYSTEMS TWO AT A TIME BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
33
42
27
102
33
42
27
102
33
42
27
102
33
42
27
102
33
42
27
102
33
42
27
102
33
42
27
102
33
42
27
102
SYSTEM CODE1
142
2
0
5
1&3
0
0
0
0
243
2
5
1
8
144
0
0
0
0
244
0
0
0
0
344
0
0
0
0
1&5
0
0
0
0
245
0
0
0
0
345
0
0
0
0
445
0
0
0
0
MBUM^^BI^^^BMII
146
0
0
0
0
246
0
1
0
1
346
0
0
0
0
446
0
0
0
0
S46
0
0
0
0
147
5
0
0
0
247
0
0
0
0
347
0
0
0
0
447
0
0
0
0
647
0
0
0
0
647
0
0
0
0
148
5
0
0
0
248
0
0
0
0
348
0
0
0
0
448
0
0
0
0
848
0
0
0
0
5SS8SSS
648
0
0
0
0
748
0
0
0
0
149
0
0
0
0
249
0
0
0
0
349
0
0
0
0
=====
449
0
0
0
0
===
849
0
0
0
0
SSSSBBB
849
0
0
0
0
749
0
0
0
0
=====
849
0
0
0
0
-H.
- —
-
BB3^
Ul
•J.
•SYSTEM CODE: t • INDUCTION SYSTEM
2 • CARBURETOR/FUEL
3-IGNITION
4 • EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
5-AIR PUMP
6-PCV
7•EXHAUST
8 • EVAPORATION
9 • ENGINE ASSEMBLY
A-88
-------
(This page intentionally left blank)
A-89
-------
TABLE A-80 FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR VEHICLES PROJECTED TO PASS
THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES FOR ALL COMBINATIONS OF
EMISSIONS SYSTEMS TWO AT A TIME BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
QM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
QM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
QM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
i
CARS
43
47
12
102
43
47
12
102
43
47
12
102
43
47
12
102
43
47
12
102
43
47
12
102
43
47
12
102
1&2
0
3
2
5
1&3
0
0
0
0
2ft 3
2
6
0
8
144
0
0
0
0
2&4
0
0
0
0
3&4
0
0
0
0
1
1&5
0
0
0
0
2ft 5
0
0
0
0
3& 5
0
0
0
0
443
0
0
0
0
SYSTEM CO
1&6
0
0
0
0
2ft 8
0
1
0
1
3ft 6
0
0
0
0
446
0
0
0
0
S&6
0
0
0
0
DE*
1&7
0
0
0
0
2& 7
0
0
0
0
34 7
0
0
0
0
44 7
0
0
0
0
54 7
0
0
0
0
6ft 7
0
0
0
0
1&8
0
0
0
0
2&S
0
0
0
0
3ft 8
0
0
0
0
448
0
0
0
0
54 8
0
0
0
0
648
0
0
0
0
748
0
0
0
0
149
0
0
0
0
249
0
0
0
o
349
0
0
0
o
449
0
0
0
Q
549
0
0
0
n
649
o
0
0
o
749
0
0
0
o
8ft9
—
•SYSTEM C00€: 1 • INDUCTION SYSTEM ~~~*
2 • CARBURETOR/FUEL
3-IGNITION
4 • EXHAUST QAS RECIRCULATION
8 • AIR PUMP
8-PCV
7 - EXHAUST
8 • EVAPORATION
9 • ENGINE ASSEMBLY
A-90
-------
TABLE A-81 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
67
58
73
198
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
INLET DOOR
COD
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
%
100.0
0.0
98.3
1.7
100.0
0.0
99.5
0.5
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
98.5
1.5
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.5
0.5
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
COD
0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1
6
x
0.0
98.5
1.5
0.0
100.0
0.0
1.4
98.6
0.0
0.5
99.0
0.5
DELAY
VALVE
IFORD)
CODE
3
3
3
3
K
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES,
TUBES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
95.5
4.5
96.6
3.4
95.9
4.1
96.0
4.0
OTHER
CODE
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.6
1.4
99.5
0.5
>
<£>
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
8 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
ft - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-82 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO HAIL HIE INITIAL TEST AT 50 000 Ml IPS
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE INDUCTION SYSTEM BY MANHRAmjRER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
§
CARS
59
52
87
198
INDUCTION SUBSYSTEM
HEATED AIR
IN LET DOOR
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
98.3
1.7
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.5
0.5
HEATED AIR
INLET
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
100.0
0.0
98.1
1.9
100.0
0.0
99.5
0.5
TEMPERATURE
SENSORS
CODE
0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1
6
0
1
6
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
1.2
97.7
1.1
0.5
99.0
0.5
DELAY
VALVE
(FORD)
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
AIR FILTER
ELEMENT
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
TUBES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
98.3
1.7
94.2
5.8
95.4
4.6
96.0
4.0
OTHER
CODE
3
5
3
5
3
5
3
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
99.5
0.5
I
to
Nl
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
O - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 -NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5-DISABLED
• •DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-83 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
67
58
73
198
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
K
97.0
1.5
1.5
100.0
0.0
0.0
97.2
1.4
1.4
98.0
1.0
1.0
LIMITER
CAM
COD
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
%
40.3
59.7
48.3
51.7
34.2
65.8
40.4
59.6
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
46.3
53.7
43.1
56.9
52.0
48.0
47.5
52.5
IDLE
SPEED
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
K
86.6
13.4
56.9
43.1
68.5
31.5
71.2
28.8
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
COD
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
K
25.4
73.1
0.0
1.5
25.9
74.1
0.0
0.0
21.9
75.3
1.4
1.4
24.4
74.2
0.5
1.0
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
COD
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
*
7.5
92.5
12.1
87.9
13.7
86.3
11.1
88.9
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
1.5
98.5
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.6
1.4
0.5
99.0
O.S
FUEL
FILTER
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
*
98.5
1.5
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.5
0.5
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
*
98.5
1.5
98.3
1.7
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
to
Ol
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
• • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALKRFOHMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 -NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 • DISABLED
• - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
B - IMPROPER PART - MttBUILO
B - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLF. A-83 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES WITH
EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY CITY (cont.)
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
67
58
73
198
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CHOKE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
K
94.0
6.0
77.6
22.4
94.5
5.5
89.4
10.6
VACUUM
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
94.0
4.5
1.5
94.8
0.0
5.2
97.2
1.4
1.4
95.5
2.0
2.5
ELECTRICAL
CONTROLS
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
K
65.7
32.8
0.0
1.5
65.5
31.1
1.7
1.7
71.2
24.7
0.0
4.1
67.7
29.3
0.5
2.5
CHOKE.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
X
97.0
1.5
1.5
96.6
3.4
0.0
98.6
1.4
0.0
97.5
2.0
0.5
EXHAUST
HEAT
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
29.8
70.2
36.2
63.8
30.1
69.9
31.8
68.2
ACTUATING
DIAPHRAGM
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
«
20.9
79.1
17.2
82.8
19.2
80.8
19.2
80.8
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
19.4
79.1
1.5
17.2
82.8
0.0
17.8
82.2
0.0
18.2
81.3
0.5
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
I
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
4.5
95.5
5.2
94.8
1.4
98.6
3.5
96.5
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
CHOKE
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
%
34.3
64.2
1.5
43.1
56.9
0.0
37.0
63.0
0.0
37.9
61.6
0.5
OTHER
CHOKE
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
>
<£>
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
5-DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-84 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50.000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE CARBURETOR/FUEL SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
»
CARS
59
52
87
198
CARBURETOR/FUEL SUBSYSTEM
CARBURETOR
ASSEMBLY
COO
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
x
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.1
1.9
0.0
96.6
1.1
2.3
98.0
1.0
1.0
LIMITER
CAPS
COO
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
49.2
50.8
50.0
50.0
28.7
71.3
40.4
59.6
IDLE
MIXTURE
ADJUST
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
%
54.2
45.8
82.7
17.3
21.8
78.2
47.5
52.5
IDLE
SPEED
COD
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
X
74.6
25.4
71.2
28.8
69.0
31.0
71.2
28.8
EXTERNAL
IDLE
ENRICH
COO
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
55.2
41.4
1.1
2.3
24.3
74.2
0.5
1.0
IDLE
STOP
ASSEMBLY
COO
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
8.5
91.5
21.2
78.8
6.9
93.1
11.1
88.9
DASHPOT
AND
THROTTLE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
1.7
98.3
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
0.5
99.0
0.5
FUEL
FILTER
COD
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
100.0
0.0
98.1
1.9
100.0
0.0
99.5
0.5
HOSES. LINES.
WIRES FOR
FUEL
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
97.7
2.3
99.0
1.0
OTHER
FUEL
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
00.0
I
<£>
t/1
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
6 • DISABLED
e • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
B • IMPROPER PART - MttBUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABU; A-84 PERCENT 01 VEHICLES PROJECTED TO IAII. THE INITIAL TEST AT so.ooo MILES NITII
EACH TYPE 01 PERFORMANCE* I:OR TIID CARBURETOR/1 UL:L SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER (Cont )
MANUFAC
TIMER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
>
-------
TABLE A-8S PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAt
t
CARS
67
58
73
198
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
%
98.5
1.5
0.0
94.8
3.5
1.7
98.6
1.4
0.0
97.5
2.0
0.5
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
x
85.1
14.9
77.6
22.4
65.8
34.2
75.8
24.2
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
X
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
93.2
4.1
2.7
97.5
1.5
1.0
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
94.0
3.0
3.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.0
1.0
1.0
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
%
31.3
67.2
0.0
1.5
24.2
72.4
1.7
1.7
24.7
74.0
0.0
1.3
26.8
71.2
0.5
1.5
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
28.4
71.6
25.9
74.1
30.1
69.9
28.3
71.7
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
X
92.5
7.5
98.3
1.7
95.9
4.1
95.4
4.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 -NOMALKRFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
6 • DISABLED
• - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-86 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE IGNITION SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
59
52
87
198
IGNITION SUBSYSTEM
DISTRIBUTOR
CODE
I
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
1
6
7
%
100.0
0.0
0.0
96.2
1.9
1.9
96.6
3.4
0.0
97.5
2.0
0.5
INITIAL
TIMING
CODE
1
4
1
4
1
4
1
4
%
74.6
25.4
71.2
28.8
79.3
20.7
75.8
24.2
SPARK
PLUGS/
WIRES
CODE
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
1
6
8
%
100.0
0.0
0.0
96.2
3.8
0.0
96.6
1.1
2.3
97.5
1.5
1.0
VACUUM
ADVANCE
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
98.3
1.7
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
96.6
1.1
2.3
98.0
1.0
1.0
SPARK
DELAY
DEVICES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
23.7
76.3
0.0
0.0
15.4
84.6
0.0
0.0
35.6
59.8
1.2
3.4
26.8
71.2
0.5
1.5
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
37.3
62.7
26.9
73.1
23.0
77.0
28.3
71.7
OTHER
HOSES.
WIRES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
5
1
5
%
96.6
3.4
98.1
1.9
93.1
6.9
95.4
4.6
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100,0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
-------
TMILE A-87 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL TllE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOT At
§
CARS
67
58
73
198
EGR SUBSYSTEM
EGR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
%
88.0
0.0
9.0
3.0
98.3
1.7
0.0
0.0
97.2
0.0
1.4
1.4
94.5
0.5
3.5
1.5
EGR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
11.9
86.6
1.5
15.5
77.6
6.9
15.1
76.7
8.2
14.1
80.3
5.6
EGR TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER!
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
%
11.9
86.6
1.5
22.4
77.6
0.0
16.4
82.2
1.4
16.7
82.3
1.0
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
•CHRYSLER)
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
29.8
70.2
34.5
65.5
42.5
57.5
35.9
64.1
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
(FORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
1.7
98.3
0.0
100.0
0.5
99.5
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
3.0
97.0
0.0
100.0
4.1
95.9
2.5
97.5
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
83.6
14.9
0.0
1.5
84.5
15.5
0.0
0.0
83.6
15.0
1.4
0.0
83.8
15.2
0.5
0.5
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
x
89.6
0.0
10.4
0.0
86.2
1.7
10.4
1.7
87.7
2.7
9.6
0.0
87.9
1.5
10.1
0.5
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
10
to
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4- MAL ADJUSTED
B - DISABLED
e - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEOUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-88 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL HIE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITII EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EGR SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
59
52
87
198
EGR SUBSYSTEM
EQR
VALVE
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
*
100.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
98.1
0.0
0.0
1.9
88.5
1.2
8.0
2.3
94.4
0.5
3.6
1.5
EQR
VALVE
TRANSDUCER
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
X
3.4
94.9
1.7
50.0
30.8
19.2
0.0
100.0
0.0
14.1
80.3
5.6
EGft TIME
DELAY
SOLENOID
(CHRYSLER!
CODE
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
1
3
6
x
0.0
100.0
0.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
37.9
59.8
2.3
16.7
82.3
1.0
VENTURI
VACUUM
AMPLIFIER
(CHRYSLER)
(FORD)
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
5.8
94.2
78.2
21.8
35.9
64.1
HIGH-SPEED
MODULATOR
(FORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
1.9
98.1
0.0
100.0
0.5
99.5
VACUUM
RESERVOIR
IFORDI
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
9.6
90.4
0.0
100.0
2.5
97.5
COOLANT
TEMPERATURE
VACUUM
SWITCHES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
79.7
18.6
0.0
1.7
65.4
34.6
0.0
0.0
97.7
1.1
1.2
0.0
83.8
15.2
0.5
0.5
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
1
3
5
6
X
86.4
1.7
11.9
0.0
88.5
1.9
7.7
1.9
88.5
1.2
10.3
0.0
87.9
1.5
10.1
0.5
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
o
o
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
I - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
• -DISABLED
• • DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER. MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-89 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
67
58
73
198
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
COO
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
23.9
76.1
22.4
77.6
35.6
64.4
27.8
72.2
BYPASS
VALVE.
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
23.9
76.1
22.4
77.6
35.6
64.4
27.8
72.2
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
23.9
76.1
22.4
77.6
35.6
64.4
27.8
72.2
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
1.5
98.5
0.0
100.0
2.7
97.3
1.5
98.5
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
3.C
97. C
0.0
100.0
2.7
97.3
2.0
98.0
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FOROI
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
VACUUM
DIFF.
CONTROL
COD
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
4.5
95.5
20.7
79.3
0.0
100.0
7.6
92.4
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
23.9
76.1
22.4
77.6
35.6
64.4
27.8
72.2
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
%
23.9
76.1
0.(
19.0
77.6
3.4
35.6
64.4
0.0
26.8
72.2
1.0
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
LOO.O
t>
I
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
• NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
• NO MALPERFORMANCE
NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
NOT APPLICABLE
MALADJUSTED
DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
1 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• • IMPROPER PART •- MttBUILO
• • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-90 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE AIR PUMP SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
i
CARS
59
52
87
198
AIR PUMP SUBSYSTEM
AIR
PUMP
CODE
1
3
I
3
1
3
1
3
%
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.4
96.6
27.8
72.2
BYPASS
VALVE.
PUMP
VALVE
CODE
1
3
I
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.4
96.6
27.8
72.2
CHECK
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
*
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.4
96.6
27.8
72.2
ELECTRIC
PVS
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
5.8
?4.2
0.0
100.0
1.5
98.5
SOLENOID
VACUUM
VALVE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
7.7
92.3
0.0
100.0
2.0
98.0
FLOOR
PAN
SWITCH
(FOROI
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
VACUUM
DIFF.
CONTROL
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
28.8
71.2
0.0
100.0
7.6
92.4
DRIVE
BELT
ATTACHING
HOWE
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
0.0
100.0
100.0
0.0
3.4
96.6
27.8
72.2
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
1
3
5
X
0.0
100.0
0.0
96.2
0.0
3.8
3.4
96.6
0.0
26.8
72.2
1.0
OTHER
AIR PUMP
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
1 00 . 0
o
K)
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3-NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 • DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 • IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
• - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-91 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000
MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE PCV SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
67
58
73
198
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
FILTERS
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
5
1
5
1
S
1
5
*
98.5
1.5
00.0
0.0
100. 0
0.0
99.5
0.5
OTHER
CODE
5
5
5
3
%
00.0
00.0
100.0
LOO.O
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
9 • DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILO
»• NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-103
-------
TABLE A-92 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST
AT 50,000 MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE
PCV SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
#
CARS
59
52
87
198
PCV SUBSYSTEM
PCV
VALVE
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
FILTERS
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
s
1
s
1
5
1
S
X
100. C
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
99.5
0.5
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
x
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
- NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
- NO MALPERFORMANCE
• NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
NOT APPLICABLE
MALADJUSTED
• DISABLED
• DEFECTIVE
• INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
• IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
A-104
-------
TABLE A-93 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000
MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
67
58
73
198
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD,
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.
CATALYST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
98.5
1.5
96.6
3.4
95.9
4.1
97.0
3.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
5 - DISABLED
8 - DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MtSBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-10 5
-------
TABLE A-94 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT
50,000 MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EXHAUST
SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
#
CARS
59
52
87
198
EXHAUST SUBSYSTEM
EXHAUST
MANIFOLD.
MUFFLER
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CATALYST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
%
100.0
0.0
96.2
3.8
95.4
4.6
97.0
3.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 - MALADJUSTED
5 • DISABLED
8-DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-106
-------
TABLE A-95 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT
50,000 MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE EVAPORATIVE
SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
67
58
73
198
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
COOE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100,0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
%
98.5
1.5
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
99.5
0.
HOSES.
LINES
COOE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
X
98.5
1.5
0.0
96.6
1.7
1.7
100.0
0.0
0.0
98.5
1.0
0.5
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE COOE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 • NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 . NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
MALADJUSTED
DISABLED
DEFECTIVE
INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-107
-------
TABLE A-96 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST
AT 50,000 MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE
EVAPORATIVE SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRVSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
59
52
87
198
EVAPORATION SUBSYSTEM
EVAPORATION
CANISTER
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
CANISTER
FILTER
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0.0
98.8
1.2
99.5
HOSES.
LINES
CODE
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
1
5
6
X
98.3
0.0
1.7
98.1
1.9
0.0
98.8
1.2
0.0
98.5
1.0
0.5
OTHER
CODE
3
3
»
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 • NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 . NO MALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4 • MALADJUSTED
8- DISABLED
6 • DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
S • IMPROPER PART - MI8BUILD
9 • NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
A-108
-------
TABLE A-97 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES
WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY CITY
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL.
f
CARS
67
58
73
198
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
00.0
ENGINE
OIL&
FILTER
CODE
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
%
100.0
0.0
96.6
3.4
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
100.0
0.0
98.3
1.7
100.0
0.0
99.5
0.5
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
20.9
79.1
17.2
82.8
19.2
80.8
19.2
80.8
CARBURETOR
& INTAKE
BOLTS
COD
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100. 0
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
I
I—•
o
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
O - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 NOMALPERFORMANCE
2 • NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 - NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6 - DISABLED
6 - DEFECTIVE
7 - INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
B • IMPROPER PART -MISBUILD
«- NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-98 PERCENT OF VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE INITIAL TEST AT
50,000 MILES WITH EACH TYPE OF PERFORMANCE* FOR THE ENGINE
ASSEMBLY SYSTEM BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
f
CARS
59
52
87
198
ENGINE ASSEMBLY SUBSYSTEM
ENGINE
ASSEMBLY
CODE
1
1
1
1
%
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
ENGINE
OIL&
FILTER
CODE
1
7
1
7
1
7
1
7
X
100.0
0.0
96.2
3.8
100.0
0.0
99.0
1.0
COOLING
SYSTEM
CODE
1
6
1
6
1
6
1
6
X
100.0
0.0
100.0
0-0
98.8
1.2
99.5
0.5
MECHANICAL
VALVE
ADJUST
CODE
1
3
1
3
1
3
1
3
X
1.7
98.3
5.8
94.2
39.1
60.9
19.2
80.8
CARBURETOR
& INTAKE
BOLTS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
BELT
TENSIONS
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
HOSES.
LINES.
WIRES
CODE
1
1
1
1
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
OTHER
CODE
3
3
3
3
X
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
•PERFORMANCE CODE:
0 - NOT KNOWN IF EQUIPPED
1 - MO MALPERFORMANCE
2 - NOT USED IN THIS PROGRAM
3 • NOT APPLICABLE
4-MALADJUSTED
6-DISABLED
6-DEFECTIVE
7 • INADEQUATE OR IMPROPER MAINTENANCE
8 - IMPROPER PART - MISBUILD
9 - NOT ORIGINAL MANUFACTURERS EQUIPMENT
-------
TABLE A-99 FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE
INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES FOR ALL COMBINATIONS OF EMISSIONS
SYSTEMS TWO AT A TIME BY CITY
r T
CITY
CHICAGO
DBTROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL 1
^•••"BMBSSSS
CHICAGO
otTWorr
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
-
CHICAGO
OtTHOIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
—
CHICAGO
DBTROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
ocTRorr
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
I CHICAGO
ofTRorr
1 WASHINGTON
TOTAL
CHICAGO
ofTRorr
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
^••—••^^^ •
1
CARS
67
58
73
198
s^==:
67
58
73
198
67
58
73
198
-
67
58
73
198
67
58
73
198
67
58
73
198
67
58
73
198
: '
67
58
73
198
SYSTEM COOE* |
1*2
4
3
3
10
1&3
2
0
3
5
2*3
12
17
28
57
1&4
0
1
2
3
2*4
12
7
16
35
3*4
5
3
8
16
1&S
0
0
0
0
2&S
0
2
0
2
3&5
0
0
0
0
4*5
0
2
0
2
1*8
0
0
0
0
2*8
1
0
0
1
3&6
0
0
0
0
4*8
0
0
0
0
8*8
0
0
0
0
• ___.._
1&7
0
0
0
0
2*7
0
0
0
0
3*7
0
0
0
n
4*7
0
0
0
0
5*7
0
0
0
0
847
0
0
0
0
1*8
2
0
0
-)
2*8
1
2
0
3
3*8
2
1
0
—3
4*8
0
0
0
0
5*8
0
0
0
0
8*8
0
0
0
0
7*8
0
0
0
0
1*9
0
0
0
n
2*9
0
3
0
3
3*9
0
1
0
1
4*9
0
1
0
1
5*9
0
1
0
1
6*9
0
0
0
0
7*9
0
0
0
0
8*9
0
1
0
1
—
—
SYSTEM COOE: 1 • INDUCTION SYSTEM
2 • CARBURETOR/FUEL
3 • IGNITION
. EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
. AIR PUMP
• PCV
•EXHAUST
- EVAPORATION A 111
. ENGINE ASSEMBLY
-------
TABLE A-100
FREQUENCY OF MALPERFORMANCE FOR VEHICLES PROJECTED TO FAIL THE
INITIAL TEST AT 50,000 MILES FOR ALL COMBINATIONS OF EMISSIONS
SYSTEMS TWO AT A TIME BY MANUFACTURER
MANUFAC-
TURER
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
QM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
QM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
CM
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
6M
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
59
52
87
198
59
52
87
198
59
52
87
198
59
52
87
198
59
52
87
198
59
52
87
198
59
52
87
198
59
52
87
198
SYSTEM CODE*
142
1
4
5
10
MMMiVHIM^^BB
143
0
2
3
5
2ft 3
14
13
30
57
MMBMW^B^^H*
144
0
2
1
3
244
5
11
19
35
344
2
5
9
16
••••••^^^
1&S
0
0
0
0
2& S
0
2
0
2
3& S
0
0
0
0
4&5
0
2
0
2
__^_~__
146
0
0
0
0
246
0
0
1
1
348
0
0
0
0
446
0
0
0
0
546
0
0
0
0
^••^^ i ntmmm
147
0
0
0
0
2& 7
0
0
0
0
34 7
0
0
0
0
48,7
0
0
0
0
547
0
0
0
0
647
0
0
0
0
••^•MMMMM
1&8
0
1
1
2
248
1
1
1
3
348
1
1
1
3
4&B
0
0
0
0
1 •
S48
0
0
0
0
648
0
0
0
n
748
n
0
0
— Q
149
o
o
o
0
249
o
2
1
^
349
0
1
o
1
___£=B
449
0
1
o
1
i— — «B
549
0
1
o
1
649
0
o
o
T. n
j_usa£as
749
0
0
n
~ SZLULSSB
849
0
0
1
1
— — — ^.
•^•i
==-,
•«••*
sssas
•SYSTEM CODE: 1 - INDUCTION SYSTEM — •— *
3 - IGNITION
4 - EXHAUST GAS RECIRCULATION
5-AIR PUMP
6-PCV
7•EXHAUST
8 • EVAPORATION
9-ENGINE ASSEMBLY
A-112
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM
SYSTEM! INDUCTION
•—•••—•——•—•••—<• _
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! HKATED AIR INLET OOOP
I MALPERFORMANCES / 299 APPLICABLE « 0.33«
REASON FOR MALPCRFORMANCE
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100.A HEATED AIR INLFT OOOP HlNCE BROKEN.
. SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI ACTUATING DIAPHRAGM
? MALPERFORMANCE5 / 299 AP»LICABlf " 0.«7»
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100.0 LEAKS
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! TEMPERATURF SENSING VACUUM SWITCH
4 MALPERFORMANCES / 399 APPLICABLE - 1.34*
REASON FOR MALPERFORHANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
25.0 COLO WEATHER MODULATOR NIPPLE BROKEN
75.0 OPENING TEMPERATURE OUT OF SPEC.
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! DELAY VALVF
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 1 APPLICABLE • 0.0 »
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! AIR FILTER ELEMENT
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE • 0.0 %
-------
I
t—'
I—1
•f*.
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I MOSESt LINFS AND WIRES
o MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE • o.o »
/
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI OTHER
o MALPERFORHANCCS / o APPLICABIF « o.o «
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cent.)
SYSTEM! CARB / FUEL . •
—-••—•——-——- .
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I CARBURETOR ASSEMBLY
4 MALPERFORM4NCES / 300 APPLICABLE « 1.33*
WFASON FOR MALPERFORMANCE
FREQUENCY C«USE
25.0 DISCOVERED IOLF MIXTURE SCREWS BFNT AND DAMAGE TO SEATS UPSETTING IDLE
?5.0 CARBURETOR TOO RICH OFF IDLE, REPLACED AND PASSED TEST »
2s!o CARB. OVERHAULPO AFTFR DISCOVERY THAT VAC. PORTS WERE PLUGGED WITH GLUE
?5.o ULTI«<«ULY DISCOVERED ENLARGED CARBURETOR JET
*
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I LIMITER CAPS
n« MALPCRFORM#NCFS / 300 APOLICABIF « «5.33»
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY C«USE
HO.I MISSING
18.4 PROKFH
1.5 APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN OEMOVEO AND REPLACED
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT* «S-RECEIVEn TAILPIPE IDLE CO MEASUREMENT
113 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE • J
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
4.4 .51 ff> .75*
8.0 .76 TO 1.00ft
ll.S 1.01 TO |.50«
5.3 1.51 TO 3.00*
16.ft 2.01 TO 3.00*
?7.4 3.01 TO 5.00%
26.5 OVER 5.00*
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
r
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI AS-HECIEVEO IDLE SPEED
C 74 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABlE • 24.67*
•(- •. RFASON FOR MAL°FRFOPNANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
24.3 «10l TO »150 RPM
18.9 «151 TO «200 ROM
r 4.1 *20l TO *250 RPM
6.1 «?51 TO *300 RPM
1*4 «30l TO «3SO PPM
r 1*4 «40l TO «4SO RPM
29.7 -101 TO -ISO RPM
4.1 -1SI TO -200 RPM
8.I GREATER THAN -?00 RP"
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I EXTERNAL ir>LE ENRICHMENT COMPONENTS
3 MALPERFORMANCE5 / 59 APPLICAB)f « 5.08%
REASON FOR MAL»I-RFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
66.7 IE SOLENOID NIPPLE BeOKEN
33.3 IE/Er,R SOLENOID ENERM7EO TOO LONG
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I IDLE STOP SOLENOID
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 36 APPLICABLE • 0.0 *
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! OASHPOT ANH OTHER THROTTLE MODULATORS
I MALPERFORMANCES / 2 APPLICABLE » ^>o.oo%
REASON FOR MALPE.RFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100.0 LOOSE CONNECTIONS IN THROTTLE STOP SOLENOID
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! FUEL FILTER ELEMFNT
• MALPERFORMANCES / 299 APPLICARtf • 0.0 ft
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
ANDTHE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.) "
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI HOSES* LINFS AND WIRFS IN CARBURETOR SUBSYSTEM
2 MftLPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE » 0,67*
REASON FOR MALPLRFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
SO.O LINE TO IE VALVE NOT CONNECTED
SO.A VACUUM LINE TO IE/EGP TIME DELAY SOLENOID MISSING
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! OTHfff
0 MALPERFOWANCE5 / 0 APPLICABl E • 0.0 ft
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI CHOKE ADJUSTMENTS
31 MALPERFORMANCES / 299 APPLICABLE « 10.37*
RFASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
3.? WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES ,
6.5 1 MR
6.S 2 NR
3.? 3 NR
3.? 1 NL
6.5 2 NL
9.7 3 NL
6.5 GREATFR THAN 3 NL
6.5 ,0?IM» TO ,040»«R
6.S . .0*1"* TO ,060-R
12.4 GREATER THAN .060-R
6.5 .021HL TO .040"L
3.2 .OA1"L TO .060»L
16.1 GREATER THAN .060»L
3.? . ACTUAL MEASUREMENT NOT RECORDED
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I CHOKE KICKOOWN OP VACUUM BREAK DIAPHRAGMS
6 MALPERFORMANCEs / 2?e APPLICABLE * 2.16*
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
-------
TABLE A-101 T1IK SPRCIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND T1IH FREQUENCY OF. .THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (coi)t..).
r
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI ELECTRICAL CONTROLS
r
6 MALPERFORMANCES / 2«4 APPLICABl F « 2.94ft
r RFA.SON FOR HALPLRFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
r
50.0 CONTINUITY LONCER THAN TIME ALLOWED
16.7 CHOKF. HFATER RFSISTANCF TOO HIGH
r 16.7 CONTINUITY SHORTER T»'AN TIME REQUIRED
16.7 BATTFRY TERMINAL ON CHOKE TlHFR BROKEN
r
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! HOSESi LINES AND WIRES IN THE CHOKE SUBSYSTEM
i
5 MALPERFORMANCES / 299 APPLICABl F * 1.67%
I < RFASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
*
i FREQUENCY CAUSE
' i
> ' 20.0 VACUUM LINE TO PRIMA°Y VACUUM BRFAK SPLIT
' i 40.0 WIRE TO CHOKE HEATER NOT CONNECTFO
£ , ( 20.0 VACUUM LINE TO VACUUM BREAK DISCONNECTED
oo 20.0 SECONDARY VACUUM BREAK TVS BYPASsFO
I
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! EXHAUST HEAT CONTROL VALVF. ASSEMALY
(
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 95 APPLICAD)F " 0.0 ft
C
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I ACTUATING DIAPHRAGM
: c
i MALPERFORMANCES / 64 AP*>LICABIF « i.56ft
C REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCE
FREQUENCY CAUSE
r
100.0 MOUNTING NUTS LOOSE SO ACTUATOR CANNOT FULLY OPEN THE VALVE
r
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! COOLANT TEMPERATURE SENSING VACUUM SWITCHES
r
I MALPERFORMANCES / 61 APPLICABl F • 1.64%
C REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCE
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100.0 EFC-F&R TVV OP^NS TOO L*TC
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI CHECK VALVE
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 9 APPLICABLE • 0.0 %
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I HOSES* LINFS AND WIRES IN HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM
I MALPERFORMANCES / 118 APPLICABl F * O.HStt
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100.0 VACUUM LINES REROUTED SO THAT EFE AND DISTRIBUTOR RECEIVE FULL VACUUM
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! OTHER ITEMS IN CHOKE AND HEAT CONTROL SUBSYSTEM
o MALPERFORMANCES / o APPLICABLE • o.o «
>
I
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SYSTEM! IGNITION
^ •«.•••——•—•—————
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I DISTRIBUTOR ASSEMBLY
C 5 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABl F • 1.67«
REASON FOR MALPtRFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
20*0 MAXIMUM VACUUM ADVANCE 3 OEG. GREATER THAN TOLERANCE LIMIT
20.0 MECH. ADVANCE 7 OEG. GREATER THAN TOLERANCE LIMIT AT INTERMEDIATE SPEED
aO.O BOTH MECHANICAL ANO VACUUM ADVANCE CURVES OUT OF SPEC.
30.0 MAXIMUM VACUUM ADVANCE 9 OEG. GREATER THAN LIMIT
?0.fl VACUUM ADVANCE UNIT NOT SECURELY MOUNTED
> SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT* INITIAL TIMING
£ 57 MALPERFORMANCE*; / 300' APPLICABl E « 19.00%
I NFASON FOR MALPtRFORMANCE
FREQUENCY CAUSE
7.0
is.n
7.0
5.3
12.3
17.5
IS. 8
1.8
12.3
S.3
*3 OEG.
.4 OFG.
»S OFG.
«6 OEG.
>*6 otG.
-3 OEG.
-* OFG.
-5 OEG.
-6 DEG.
>-6 fit 6.
C
C
C
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I SPARK PLUGS ANO WIRES
r .
5 MALPERFORMANCE S / 300 APPLICABLE » 1.67*
r REASON FOR MALPERFORMAMCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
r
20.0 REPLACED PLUGS AS PART OF MAJOR TUNE-UP
20.0 WIRE CORRODED IN DISTRIBUTOR CAP
C *0»0 INCORRECT PLUGS INSTALLED (NOT RESISTOR TVPEI
20.0 ONE PLUG MISFIRING! CHANGED WITH MAJOR TUNC-UP
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT» VACUUM ADVANCE DIAPHRAGM
*~ 2 MALPERFORMANCES / 298 APPLICABLE • 0.67%
£ REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
W 100.0 LEAKS
'w
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTl SPARK DELAY DEVICES
4 MALPERFORMANCES / A* APPLICABI F * 6.as»
t, REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
25.0 OSAC VALVE NIPPLE BROKEN
> 75.0 DELAY TIME GREATER THAN SPEC.
K)
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTl COOLANT TEMPERATURE SENSING VACUUM SWITCHES
) MALPERFORMANCES / 78 APPLICABLE • 1.2fl%
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100. A
SUBSYSTEM X COMPONENTl HOSES. Ll»FS AND WIRES
10 MALPERFORMANCES / 900 APPLICABl F »
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
10. 0 VACUUM LINES RFROUTEO SO DISTRIBUTOR RECEIVES FULL VACUUM
3ft. 0 VACUUM LINE TO DISTRIBUTOR DISCONNECTED
10.0 TIC VALVE BYPASSED
70.0 OSAC VALVE BYPASSED
)A.A VACUUM tINeS BFROUTEn SO DISTRIBUTOR AND CFE RECEIVE FULL VACOU*
10.0 SPARK DEL. RESTR. APPARENTLY REMOVED ON INSTALLING AFTERMKT. CRUISE CONT.
10.0 SPAR* DELAY VALVE REPLACED WITH IN-LINE CONNECTOR
-------
Is)
to
r
r
C
r
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
_ AND THE FREQUENCY .OF_THE_REASON^_BY .SYSTEM (cont.)
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTt
0 M»LPERFORM»NCES / 0 APPLICABl E • 0.0 ft
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI OTHER
o MALPCRFORMANCES / o APPLICABLE • o.o »
• i
C
c
c
c
c
c
c
-------
TABLE A-Wt THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE-
AND THE FREQUENCY OF TOE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SYSTEM! EGR
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! FGR VALVE ASSEHBl Y
II MALPERFORMANCES / 298 APPLICABLF « 3.69%
KF*SON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
18.2 EXCESSIVE CARBON BUIl 0-UP REHOVEn AS PART OF MAJOR TUNE-UP
9.1 VALVE MOUNTING ARMS «FNT CAUSING STEM TO BIND
72.7 VALVF SEAT DETACHED PREVENTING PROPER SEALING
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! FGR VALVE FXHAUST BACKPRESSURE TRANSDUCER
14 MALPERFORMANCES / M APPLICABI E « 20.29*
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY ' CAUSE
92.9 PRESSURE TUAE BROKEN AT JUNCTION WITH DIAPHRAGM HOUSING
7.1 PRESSURE TUBE TRACKED AT BRAZED JUNCTION WITH DIAPHRAGM HOUSING
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI TIME DELAY SOLENOID
3 MALPERFORMANCES / sz APPLICABI F « 5.77*
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100.0 . TIMER ENERGIZED LONGFR THAN SPEC.
SUBSYSTEM./ COMPONENTJ VFNTURI VACUUM AMPLIFIER
A MALPERFORMANCES / 7* APBLICABIE « o.o •
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! HIGH SPEED MODULATOR
o MALPERFORMANCES / z APPLICABLE « o.o »
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! VACUUM RESERVOIR
0 MALPERFORMANCCS / 17 APPLICABI F • 0.0 «
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! COOLANT TEMPERATURE SENSING VACUUM SWITCH
r
2 MALPERFORMANCES / 234 APPLICABLE « 0.85»
£ REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF I
FREQUENCY CAUSE
50.0 NIPPLE OF CCEGR VALVF BROKEN, THfN GLUED TOGETHER TO PLUG THE LINE
50.0 EGR FFE TVV OPFNS TOO LATE'
r
r> . SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! HOSES, LINFS AND WIRES
21 MALPERFORMANCES / 293 APPLlCABl F « 7.|7*
r
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
«~ FREOUFNCY CAUSE
47.ft VACUUM LINE TO EGR VALVE PLUGGED
I- 4.ft VACUUM LINE TO IE/EGR SOLENOIO MISSING
19.0 VACUUM LINE TO EGR V'LVE NOT CONNECTED
9.5 EGR VACUUM PORT AT CaRBURETOP FILLED WITH GLUE
»• 4.8 PLASTIC "T" IN VAC. I INE TO EGR AND AIRPUMP BYPASS VALVES HAS SMALL HOLE
4.R SMALL CUT DISCOVERED IN VACUUM LINE TO EGR VALVE
9.5 VACUUM LINE TO EGR fiPT NOT
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE .FREQUENCY OF .THE .REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SYSTEMI AIR PUMP
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! AIR PUMP ASSEMBLY
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 103 APPLICABLE » 0.0 »
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! BYPASS (DUMP) VAl VE
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 1«3 APPLICABLE » 0.0 »
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! CHECK VALVF
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 103 APPLICABlF « 0.0 %
£ SUBSYSTEM /COMPONENT I ELECTRICAL PVS
tn
(^ 0 MALPERFORMANCES / 7 APPLICABlF = 0.0 %
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! SOLF.NNOIO VACUUM VALVE
o MALPERFORMANCES / u APPLICABLE » o.o %
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! FLOOR PAN SWITCH
0 MALPfRFORMANCES / 3 APPLICABLE « 0.0 »
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! VACUUM DIFFERENTIAL CONTROL
0 HALPERFORMANCES ' 39 APPLICABLE •> 0.0 %
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! ORlVE BELT
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 103 APPLICABlF » 0*0 *
-------
»—•
K>
4»
I
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! HOSFS* LINFS AND WIRES
2 MALPERFORHANCCS / 10* APPLICABLE • 1.92*
REASON FOR MALPERFORHANCF
FPFQUENCY C»USE
50.0 PLASTIC HTM |N VAC. , IN£ To EGR AND AIRPUHP BYPASS VALVES HAS S^ALL HOLE
I
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! OTHER
0 HALPERFORMANCES / 0 APPLICABl E » 0.0 ft
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SYSTEM! PCV
f*
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT J PCV VALVE ASSEMBl V
C 0 MALPERFOPMANCES ' 299 APP|_ICAB| f « 0.0 ft
i
c
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I FILTERS
V ° MALPERFORMANCES / 299 APPLlCABi F * 0.0 &
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I HOSfS AND LINES
3 MALPERFORMANCES / Z99 APPLICABLE * 0.67*
REASON FOR MALPCRFORMANCr
FREOUfiNCY CAUSE
SO.O VACUUM LINE TO CARBURETOR NOT CONNECTED
50.0 HOSE TO AIR CLFANER HOUSING NOT CONNECTED
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I OTHER
0 MALPCRFORMANCES / 0 APPLICAB) E « 0.0 ft
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SYSTEM! EXHAUST
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI EXHAUST MANIFOLD. MUFFLER. TAILPIPE
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE * 0.0 *
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I CATALYST
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 29* APPLICABLE • 0.0 »
*•
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENTI OTHER
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 0 APPLICABLE • 0.0 »
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SYSTEMS EVAPORATIVE CONTROL
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONfNTt CANISTER
0 HALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABl F
0.0 %
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! FILTER
1 MALPERFOftHANCES / 300 APPLICABLE *
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100.0 FILTER MISSING
0.33%
i
!—•
Kl
L
c
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I HOSES AND LINES
3 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABI e
REASON FOR MALPERFORMtNCF
FPFOUENCY CAUSE
1.00%
33.3
33.3
33.3
HOSE FROM TANK KINKER AT CANISTER
HOSES MISSING
HOSE FROM CANISTER PINCHED BY COMPRESSOR MOUNTING BRACKET
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I OTHER
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 0 APPLICABl E P
0.0 ft
-------
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SYSTEM! ENGINE ASSEMBLY
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! I-NO INF ASSEMBLY
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABl F • 0.0 ft
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! ENGINE OIL AND OIL FILTER
3 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE - 0.67ft
REASON FOR MALPERFORMANC?
FREQUENCY . CiUSE
100.0 CHANGED AS PART OF MAJOR TUNF-UP
ui
o
*
*
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! COOLING SYSTEM
1 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE • 0.33ft
RFASON FOR MALPERFORMANCF
FREQUENCY CAUSE
100.0 RADIATOR CAP FAILED AND WAS REPLACED AT MAJOR TUNE-UP
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I MECHANICAL VALVE ADJUSTMENT
o MALPERFORMANCES / 56 APPLICABIE « o.o «
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! MANIFOLD MOUNT I Nr, BOLTS
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABl F » 0.0 ft
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT! ORlVC BELTS
0 MALPWORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE » 0.0 «
-------
•f
I
H->
O)
TABLE A-101 THE SPECIFIC REASONS FOR COMPONENT/SUBSYSTEM MALPERFORMANCE
AND THE FREQUENCY OF THE REASONS BY SYSTEM (cont.)
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I HOSES. LlNfS AND WIRES
0 MALPERFORMANCES / 300 APPLICABLE • 0.0 ft
SUBSYSTEM / COMPONENT I OTHER
o MALPERFORMANCES / o APPLICABIF • o.o *
-------
TABLE A-102 RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION TEST PLAN
1/20/77
A-132
-------
RESTORATIVE MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
Narrative Test Procedures
(See flow chart for sequence)
LOCATE CANDIDATE VEHICLES - Potential test vehicles will be drawn from
the general public usiiig commercially-available mailing lists or other
means designed to ensure overall randomness of the sample.
SCREEM - Willing owners whose vehicles appear to meet the vehicle config-
uration criteria will be contacted to verify the information provided
and to obtain any missing items. At this time, the owner will be questioned
with regard to vehicle age and mileage, types of usage, and extent of
possible driveline modifications. He vill also be asked to allow a
tune-up or minor adjustments to be performed, if necessary, and informed
of the incentive package and possible test duration. The owner should
also be informed that his vehicle will be returned to him tuned to
manufacturer's specifications, in a condition that allows it to pass its
emission standards, or both. If the owner remains willing and the
vehicle still appears to be an acceptable candidate, the VIN will be
made available to the manufacturer's representative.
Upon arrival at the laboratory, the candidate vehicle will be given a
cursory examination to determine its suitability for the program. The
results of this may be noted on the Maladjustment and Disablement Inspection
Form although no corrective actions are to be taken at this time.
Normally, the complete inspection will be performed in conjunction with
the Emission Control Component Function Check following the initial test
sequence. Also during this screening process, a sample of tank fuel
will be drawn and tested for lead content and the owner will be inter-
viewed to complete the questionnaire.
The outcome of this portion of the sequence will be to accept or reject
the vehicle for further testing. A modest amount of maladjustment and
disablement on some vehicles is expected. However, vehicles which have
undergone modifications of any kind which are not readily, inexpensively
or ultimately restorable will be rejected from the sample at this point.
Normally, the contractor will make the determination although Bore
complex decisions may be made jointly be representatives of the contractor,
manufacturer and EPA. While a failing mark in a number of areas would
not disqualify a candidate vehicle, immediate rejection will result from
excessive age or mileage, extensive modifications, evidence of improper
use, or indications that a catalyst-equipped vehicle has used leaded
fuel. If accepted, the owner will complete the remaining loan vehicle
and test agreement forms and his vehicle will be retained for the program.
A-133
-------
DRAIN FUEL, COLLECT SAMPLES - Once accepted into the program, the fuel
in each vehicle will be drained, with two samples taken and stored in
containers approved for shipping by UPS. One of the samples will be
made available to the manufacturer while the other will be shipped to a
laboratory designated by the EPA Project Officer.
TEST - The actual test sequence on each vehicle begins with the addition
of test fuel to 40% of tank fuel volume, rounded to the nearest gallon.
The vehicle shall then be driven for at least ten minutes on city streets
to ensure the test fuel has fully purged the system. During this time,
a driveability evaluation of the vehicle in a */armed-up condition will
be conducted. Cold-start operation will be evaluated and recorded
during the subsequent FTP driving cycle.
The dynamometer test sequence begins after the prescribed soak period.
Tests to be performed are the 1975 FTP (but without fuel tank heat build
or evaporative emission measurements), the Highway Fuel Economy Test
(HFET) and the five short cycles. Appropriate dynamometer settings
(inertia weight, horsepower, air conditioning load) and vehicle starting
procedures will be provided by the manufacturer's representative. All
test settings and vehicle specifications are to be "as-certified". No
field fixes or running changes may be added without prior approval of
the EPA Project Officer.
Immediately after the dynamometer sequence, basic engine parameters
shall be measured and recorded. Emission test results should also be
calculated to permit a timely review of the test and to expedite routing
of the test vehicle through the program.
PERFORM INSPECTION FOR MALADJUSTMENT AND DISABLEMENT - This procedure
requires the use of the Maladjustment and Disablement Inspection Form
and may be conducted in conjunction with the functional checks of the
emission control components. For the purpose of this examination, the
pass-fail decision for each system will be based on whether it has
experienced malajustment or disablement. Areas that are deficient due
to deterioration or production defects are disregarded here but will be
treated as failures during the functional checks of the emission control
components.
ANY DISCOVERED - This block requires a decision based on review of the
Maladjustment and Disablement Inspection Form. Failures discovered in
areas other than limiter caps, idle speed and idle CO will cause a "yes"
answer, correction and another test sequence.
CORRECT - Maladjusted or disabled items, except those described above,
will be corrected. While out-of-spec idle speed and CO are also considered
maladjustment, their correction will be teated separately. The actions
performed will be recorded in the "Action" column on the Maladjustment
and Disablement Inspection Form with comments as appropriate.
A-134
-------
INSPECT EMISSION COMPONENTS - Each vehicle in the program will undergo a
functional check of each of the emission, control devices and other
emission related components. Precise procedures and specifications for
these inspections are found in the shop manuals but have been summarized
on the "Emission Component Function Check" worksheet. At this time, the
individual devices and systems are only to be inspected with the condi-
tions recorded. Any corrective actions required will normally be performed
later in addition to the major tune-up.
FTP RESULTS - This decision will be based on the outcome of the preceding
test sequence with regard to the standards applicable to each test
vehicle. Thus, results of tests on California vehicles will be compared
to the California Standards while others will be subject to Federal
Standards.
RECORD IDLE SPEED AND CO - Vehicles which pass test £l or $Z will be
returned to their owners. Before the vehicle is released, the idle
speed and idle mixture will be measured and recorded on the Emission
Component Function Check worksheet. Idle speed will be measured under
the conditions listed on the vehicle's emission sticker. Idle mixture
will be evaluated on Ford vehicles using the artifical enrichment method,
on Chrysler vehicles with a CO reading ahead of the catalyst and on GM
vehicles with a tailpipe CO measurement.
INSPECT IDLE SPEED AND CO - Chrysler and Ford vehicles which reach this
point will be inspected for idle speed and idle CO concentration using
the procedures specified by the manufacturer. Because the nature of
General Motor's procedure for idle CO settings precludes inspection,
these vehicles will proceed directly to the "Adjust" block. Results of
these adjustments are to be recorded on the "Idle CO and RPM Inspection
and Adjustments" form.
WITHIN SPECIFICATIONS - Chrysler and Ford vehicles may be found to be
within tolerances for both parameters. Such vehicles will not be adjusted
but will immediately receive the required maintenance and repair of
emission control devices.
ADJUST - General Motors vehicles and ones of the other manufacturers
which are found to be out of specifications xd.ll receive the appropriate
adjustments. In case of malfunctioning emission control devices x*hich
would prevent proper settings (e. g. idle stop solenoid), these may be
corrected at this time with appropriate notations made on the "Emission
Component Function Check" worksheet. Following this procedure, the
vehicle shall be given another test sequence with FTP results again
determining its disposition in the program.
MAJOR TUNE-UP AND EMISSION COMPONENT REPAIR - Vehicles which arrive at
this block will undergo correction of malfunctioning emission control
devices and other emission-related components, recording such actions
A-135
-------
on the "Emission Component Function Check" worksheet. The major tune-up
shall be performed as prescribed in the appropriate shop manual using
the "Schedule Maintenance" for reporting of findings and actions. The
manufacturer's representative may provide assistance and guidance in the
performance of these tasks. All replacemants shall be made with OH1
parts. A number of local auto dealers are to be contacted in an attempt
to obtain proper replacements for emission components. Responses of
dealers may be noted on the "Function Check" of "Maintenance" Foras. In
some cases, the manufacturer's representative may actually provide some
emission-related parts which are difficult to obtain from local sources.
This will not, however, reduce the requirement for contact with local
dealers.
SEEK COUNSEL OF EPA AND MANUFACTURER - Vehicles which are unable to pass
the FTP after a major tune-up and correction of all malfunctioning emis-
sion control devices will arrive at this block. A substantial number of
these should be very close to the standards and no further action will
be warranted. However, in some cases, the manufacturer's representative
may choose to examine the vehicle and its test results more closely to
determine a possible explanatation. This could result in previously
undiscovered maladjustments or disablements or in an extraordinary
problem with the vehicle itself. He may also wish to perform some
additional adjustments on the vehicle or perform an applicable field fix
or running change. While these instances are to be handled between the
manufacturer and EPA, there may be cases in which the vehicle x^ill
receive another test. Unless suitable financial arrangements are made
with the contractor, any additional tests or maintenance will be within
the original amount of contracted effort.
ONE OF CHOSEN 5 - Although each vehicle which passes test #4 will be
subject to further maladjustment, disablement and retesting, as many as
five vehicles from each manufacturer will be chosen to pass through the
"Selective Maladjustment" loop. The contractor shall notify the EPA
project Officer as each vehicle reaches this portion of the program.
The Project Officer will then determine whether the vehicle is one of
the chosen five.
SELECTIVE MALADJUSTMENT - This will represent what is considered to be a
prevalent form of modification to the make/engine family under test. It
will consist of some combination of engine parameter readjustments as
well as possible alteration of vacuum, mechanical or electrical signals.
The settings and other actions to be performed will be determined by the
EPA Project Officer after the vehicle has been selected for this phase
of the project. This will be done only once on each vehicle. Following
this "Selective Maladjustment," the vehicle will be tested and restored
to its condition prior to the test.
RESTORE TO SPECIFICATIONS - This block provides for restoration of the
vehicle's engine and emission control system to manufacturer's specifica-
tions prior to further testing or return to its owner. Since vehicles
which have arrived at this later stage of the program have received
extensive inspection and maintenance earlier, this action is simply the
reversal of the "Selective Maladjustment" or "Readjustment" actions.
A- 136
-------
ADJUST ONE PARAMETER - The purpose of this loop is Co identify and
quantify the effect of individual or multiple parameter readjustments on
exhaust emissions and fuel economy. At this point, one or more of the
basic parameters such as idle RPM, Idle CO or ignition timing will be
changed, holding the others constant. Alteration of vacuum, electrical,
or mechanical signals may also be involved. The EPA Project Officer
will provide the precise settings for each vehicle after it has been
accepted into this portion of the program. After this adjustment, the
vehicle will receive another test sequence.
SEQUENCE COMPLETE? - This decision is based on the number of tests re-
maining in the contracted effort but will also be based on the current
needs for information on certain vehicles and in various areas of read-
justments . Normally, each vehicle will cycle through this loop four
times. The EPA Project Officer will determine the length of the sequence
on an individual basis for each vehicle. Once the sequence is completed,
the vehicle will be readjusted to manufacturer's specifications.
RETURN VEHICLE TO OWNER - The contractor will prepare the vehicle for
return to its owner as well as fulfill the provisions of the incentive
package.
TESTING COMPLETE? - Once the prescribed number and types of vehicles
have been procured and successfully tested, the testing portion of the
project is complete.
PREPARE FINAL REPORT - The data gathered by the contractor is to be
assembled into a final report using a format supplied by the EPA Project
Officer. This report will include a narrative description of the project,
summary tables and individual test results on each vehicle.
A-137
-------
TABU: A-103 MAUMiRFORMANCE BY VEIIICU: AND SYSTliM FOR ALL Vl:IHCU:S IN AS-RI-CI:IVI:l) CONDITION
MILEAGE MANUFACT CIO MILEAGE MANUFACT MAKECODE SYSTEM1 SYSTEM2 SYSTEM3 SYSTEM4 SYSTEMS SYSTEM6 SYSTEM? SYSTEMS SYSTEM9
696
1028
1089
1209
1357
1412
1445
1514
1543
1685
1956
2007
2222
2343
2361
2470
2523
2529
2610
2653
2665
2726
2776
,'885
29^2
2933
2951
3035
3088
3106
3138
3152
3164
3249
3251
3262
3282
3289
3341
3344
3555
3695
3706
3742
3746
3795
3798
3857
3912
3941
3966
4025
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
FURD
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
FORD
GM
GM
GM
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
GM
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
GM
CM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
460
318
318
225
225
305
351
305
225
225
171
225
350
318
250
460
500
400
171
305
351
318
225
250
260
250
465
085
305
350
250
400
318
302
350
350
200
231
313
250
500
350
350
318
302
225
302
400
260
305
360
225
696
1028
1039
1209
1357
1412
1445
1514
1543
1685
1956
2007
2222
2343
2361
2470
2523
2529
2610
2653
2665
2726
2776
2885
2922
2933
2951
3035
3088
3106
3138
3152
3164
3249
3251
3262
3232
3289
3341
3344
3555
3695
3706
3742
3746
3795
3798
3857
3912
3941
3966
4025
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
FORD
GM
GM
GM
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
GM
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORO
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
07
12
12
12
12
03
06
03
10
10
06
10
02
12
06
07
02
09
06
03
06
12
10
08
01
05
04
03
03
04
06
10
10
08
03
03
06
01
12
08
02
05
03
12
06
10
08
08
04
03
12
12
OK OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK OK
OK OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK FAILURE OK FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK FAILURE
OK OK OK FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK Oi<
OK OK OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK OK OK OK
FAILURE FAILURc OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
CK FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK OK OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK OK OK FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK CK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK OK OK CK
FAILURE OK OK OK
FAILURE FAILURE OK 0<
OK FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE 0!<
OK OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE OX
OK FAILURE FAILURE 0;C
OK FAILURE OK FAILURE
OK OK OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK FAILURE OK OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
QIC
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OX
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
-------
TMU.V. A-103 MAUM-RFOUMANCE BY VEHICLE AND SYSTEM pOR ALL VEHICLES IN AS^RECEIVEO CONDITION front.)
MILEAGE MANUFACT CID MILEAGE KANUFACT MAKECODE SYSTEM1 3YSTEM2 SYSTEM3 SYSTEM4 SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEM? SYSTEMS SVSTEM9
4085
4104
4163
4230
4343
4431
4442
4487
4504
4581
4646
4682
4715
4767
4821
4823
4849
4864
4858
4859
4868
4894
4904
4922
i 4933
£ 4936
£ (942
5018
3075
5084
5171
5273
5278
5289
5303
5322
!3352
5370
5401
5433
5436
5533
5588
5602
5639
5670
5738
5833
5870
5875
r* rt n f\
3<»a»
5902
FORD 400
FORD 400
GM 350
FORD 200
CHRYSLER 360
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 351
CHRYSLER 400
GM 400
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 318
GM 250
CHRYSLER 318
CHRYSLER 318
GM 500
CHRYSLER 318
GM 305
CHRYSLER 318
FORD 460
CHRYSLER 318
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 171
GM 350
FORD 460
CHRYSLER 400
FORD 460
GM 086
FORD 171
FORD 140
CHRYSLER 318
FORD 302
CHRYSLER 318
GM 455
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 351
GM 3SO
FORD 400
FORD 3S1
FORD 351
GM 400
GM 140
GM 350
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 250
CHRYSLER 316
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 360
Jin 231
FORD 140
4085
4104
4163
4230
4348
4431
4442
4487
4504
4581
4646
4682
4715
4/67
4821
4823
4849
4854
4858
4859
4868
4894
4904
'922
4933
4036
4942
5018
5075
5084
5171
5273
5278
5289
5303
5322
5352
5370
5401
5433
5436
5538
5588
5602
5639
5670
5738
5S33
5870
5875
I- rt rtrt
aoaa
5902
FORD
FORD
GM
FORD
CHrtYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
FORD
FORD
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
FORD
FORD
FORD
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
/*»«
Ul'l
FORD
06
06
04
06
10
10
06
09
03
12
12
12
10
03
10
12
02
10
03
12
07
10
12
12
06
04
07
09
06
03
06
06
12
06
10
04
12
08
03
6
06
06
03
03
03
12
06
10
12
12
Ol
06
FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
FAILURE OK FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
FAILURE OK OK
OK OK FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK OK FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE CK
OK OK FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OX
OK
OK
o:<
o.<
OK
OX
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
o:<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OiC
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Oi.
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
CK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
o:<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
j;<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
CK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
CK
OK
OK
CK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
-------
TABLE A^1Q3 MALPEK!:QKMANCn HY VEHICLE AND SYSTEM FOR ALL VEHICLES IN AS-KECEIVEI) CONDITION (cont.)
MILEAGE MANUFACT CIO MILEAGE MANUFACT MAKECOOE 5VSTEM1 SYSTEM2 SVSTEM3 SVSTEM4 SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEM? SYSTEMS SYSTEM9
5998
6054
6133
6144
6248
6291
6299
6406
6426
6434
6497
6521
6545
6546
6621
6786
6799
6819
6903
6982
6983
6984
7031
7059
7070
7090
7114
7115
7143
7169
7245
7293
7401
7403
7598
7637
7730
7/65
7774
7785
7817
7U54
7857
7882
7890
7896
7964
7991
8078
8107
8129
U1B3
FORD 400
FORD 351
GM 400
FORD 302
CHRVSLER 400
GM 350
FORD 351
FORD 250
CHRYSLER 318
FORD 250
GM 140
CHRYSLER 360
GM 305
GM 3-50
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 351
FOKD 302
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 250
FORD 302
FORD 400
FORD 351
CHRVSLER 318
FORD 171
FORD 250
CHRYSLER 360
CHRYSLER 360
GM 350
GM 350
GM 305
GM 400
CHRYSLER 225
GM 350
GM 350
FORD 302
CHRYSLER 400
FORD 302
CHRYSLER 440
FORD 400
GM 140
FORD 250
FORD 351
CHRVSLER 318
GM 455
FORD 351
CHRVSLER 360
FORD 140
FORD 351
GM 350
CHRYSLER 360
FORD 351
GM 455
5998
6054
6133
6144
624U
6291
6299
6406
6426
6434
6497
6521
6545
6546
6621
6786
6793
6819
6903
6982
6983
6984
7031
7059
7070
7090
7114
7115
7143
7169
7245
7293
7401
7403
7B93
7637
7730
7765
7774
7785
7817
7854
7857
7882
7890
7896
7964
7991
8078
8107
8129
8183
FORD
FORD
GM
FORD
CHRVSLER
GM
FORD
FORD
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
CHRVSLER
FORD
FORD
CHRVSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
FORD
CHRVSLER
fORD
CHRVSLER
FORD
GM
FORD
FORD
CHRYSLER
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
GM
CHRVSLER
FORD
GM
06
08
03
06
12
05
08
06
12
06
03
12
03
03
12
05
06
12
8
06
6
05
10
06
06
10
10
03
03
03
05
10
03
04
06
09
06
09
06
03
06
6
10
04
06
10
06
08
04
10
8
04
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILIISE
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
GK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Ok
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Oi<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
o:<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
FAILUKE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
-------
TABLE A-103 MALPURFORMANCE BY VEHICLE AND SYSTEM FOR ALL VEHICLES IN AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (c.ont.)
MILEAGE MANUFACT CIO MILEAGE MANOFACT MAKECODE SYSTEM1 SYSTEM2 SYSTEMS SYSTEM* SYSTEMS SYSTEM6 SYSTEM? SYSTEMS SYSTEK9
8189
8205
8223
0262
8350
8361
8422
8475
8597
8637
8642
8707
8747
8757
8776
8789
8988
8994
9018
9019
9027
9093
9101
9191
9194
9203
9206
9236
9237
9252
9269
9278
9326
9377
9383
9400
9469
9470
9500
9559
9644
9688
9698
9716
9741
9754
9775
9810
9827
9948
9972
10133
CHRYSLER 360
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 400
FORD 351
FORD 351
GM 305
GM 350
GM 500
CHRYSLER 318
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 140
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 318
GM 500
GM 350
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 360
FORD 302
FORD 171
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 400
GM 231
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 400
FORD 140
FORD 351
GM 260
FORD 302
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 225
GM 400
GM 260
CHRYSLER 225
GM 140
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 360
GM 305
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 318
CHRYSLER 360
GM 250
GM 350
GM 305
GM 350
GM 350
CHRYSLER 360
GM 3bO
CHRYSLER 318
FORD 400
CHRYSLER 318
CHRYSLER 360
CHRYSLER 318
8189
8205
8223
8262
8350
8361
8422
8475
8597
8637
8642
8707
8747
8757
8776
8789
8983
8994
9013
9013
9027
9093
9101
9191
9194
9203
9206
9236
9237
92S2
9269
9273
9326
9377
9383
9400
9469
9470
9500
95S9
9644
9633
9693
9716
9741
9754
9775
9810
9327
9943
yy72
10133
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
FORD
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
CHRYSLER
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
FORD
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
CHRYSLER
CKftVSLtR
CHRYSLER
12
10
06
06
6
03
03
02
12
12
OS
12
12
02
04
12
09
03
06
12
06
01
10
00
06
06
04
08
12
12
05
05
10
os
12
09
03
10
12
10
05
01
03
01
01
09
05
10
8
10
12
10
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE:
FAILURE OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILitfc
OK FAILURE OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OX
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK.
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
oc:
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
CIC
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
O!-
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
0<
OK
OK
Oi<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Ol'
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
*Jl\
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
\Jt\
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
CI'
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Ok'
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Ok
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Gi(
OK
-------
TABU: A-103 MALPERI-'ORMANCE BY VEHICLE AND SYSTEM FOR ML VEHICLES IN AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (cont.)
MILEAGE MAMUFACT CID MILEAGE MANUFACT MAKECODE SYSTEM1 SYSTEM2 SYSTEM3 SYSTEM4 SYSTEMS SYSTEMS SYSTEM? SYSTEMS SYSTEM9
10239
10290
10291
10385
10387
10463
10567
10603
10665
10598
10748
10917
10932
10968
10990
10995
1009
1039
1173
1323
1401
1457
1471
1499
1508
1509
1514
1542
1543
1543
1571
1574
1584
1595
1613
1625
1675
1S82
1637
1807
1928
1930
12030
12131
12198
12201
2205
L'222
2253
2274
2374
2430
FORD 460
FORD 400
CHRYSLER 400
GM 455
FORD 351
GM 350
GM 400
CHRYSLER 225
FORD 460
FORD 250
GM 231
CHRYSLER 22S
GM 400
CHRYSLER 318
GM 350
GM 350
GM 140
CHRYSLER 318
GM 400
CHRYSLER 318
GM 85
GM 305
GM 260
CHRYSLER 360
FORD 140
FORD 302
GM 350
FORD 250
CHRYSLER 225
GM 350
CHRYSLER 318
CHRYSLER 400
GM 350
FORD 351
FORD 351
CHRYSLER 225
CHRYSLER 318
CHRYSLER 318
GM 4bS
CHRYSLER 225
GM 350
GM 400
GM 455
CHRYSLER 225
GM 350
GM 400
GM 350
GM 350
CHRYSLER 225
GM 140
FORD 351
CHRYSLER 225
10239
10290
10291
10385
10387
10463
10567
10603
10665
10698
10748
10917
10932
10968
10990
10995
11009
11039
11173
11323
11401
11457
11471
11499
11508
11509
11514
11542
11543
11543
11571
11674
11584
11595
11613
11626
11675
1 1682
11687
11807
11928
11930
12030
12131
12198
12201
12205
12222
12253
12274
12374
12430
FORD
FORD
CHRYSLER
GM
FORD
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
FORO
FORD
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
GM
FORO
CHRYSLER
6
8
09
Oi
6
05
03
10
7
06
01
12
03
10
04
05
03
12
05
10
03
03
05
10
06
08
01
05
10
04
10
09
03
6
6
I 2
12
10
04
12
01
03
01
10
03
03
03
04
12
05
09
12
OX FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK
FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK OK FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
CK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK Ok
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK CK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
FAILURE FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK UK FAILURE
QIC FAILURE OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
FAILUkE
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
o:c
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
o:<
OK
OK
0!<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
O.K
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
uK
OK
OK
OK
OK
-------
TABLE A-103 MALl'liRFORMANCE BY VEHICLE AND SYSTEM FOR ALL VEHICLES IN AS-RECEIVED CONDITION (cont.)
MILEAGE MANUFACT CIO MILEAGE MANUFACT MAKICODE SYSFFMl SYSTEM2 SYSTEH3 SYSTEM4 SYSTEMS SYSTEM6 SYSTEM? SYSTEMS SYSTEM9
12433
12478
12570
12710
12881
12898
12910
12990
12996
13135
13292
13302
13354
13377
13411
13470
13490
13495
13575
i 13534
•r* 13593
01 13699
13750
13862
13942
13947
14060
14207
14230
14293
14312
14328
14334
14336
1451»
H525
14648
14663
14705
14730
CHRYSLER 400
CHRVSLtfl 400
GM 350
CM 3SO
GM 400
FORD 400
FORO 351
FORD 302
GM 350
FORD 3S1
GM 455
FORD 140
FORO 140
GM 260
GM 4S5
GM 250
FORD 351
FORD 460
FORD 250
GM 3SO
FORD 250
FORD 351
FORD 351
FORD 351
FORD 3S1
FORO 140
FORD 351
CHRYSLER 360
GM 350
GM 350
FORD 351
GM 350
CHRYSLEA 225
CHRYSLER 225
GM 2SO
FORD :J51
GM 3-JO
FORU 400
GM 150
FORD 460
12433
12478
12570
12710
12861
12893
12910
12990
12996
13135
13292
13302
13354
13377
13411
13470
13490
13495
13575
135B4
13593
13699
13760
13852
13942
13947
14050
14207
14280
14293
14312
14328
14334
14336
14618
145Z3
14648
14663
14706
14730
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
GM
FORO
FORD
FORO
GM
FORD
GM
FORD
FORD
GM
GM
GM
FORO
FOKD
FORO
GM
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
CHRYSLER
GM
GM
FORD
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
GM
FORD
uM
FORD
GM
FORD
09
09
03
03
03
06
8
06
04
06
04
06
06
05
01
03
6
7
06
01
06
06
06
06
06
06
08
10
05
01
06
03
12
12
03
06
03
06
03
6
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK OK Ok'
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK OK FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK OK FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK OK OK
OK FAILURE OK
FAILURE FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE OK
OK FAILURE FAILURE
OK OK OK
OK OK OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
FAILURE
FAILURE
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
01*
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
0,<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Oi<
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
Oi:
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
OK
01'
OK
OK
-------
APPENDIX B
TABLES B-l THROUGH B-41
B-l
-------
TABLE B-l
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
BY CITY FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
100
100
100
300
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/rmi
ARITH
MEAN
1.26
1.36
1.34
1.32
METIC
S.O.
1.01
1.02
0.9S
0.99
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
19.74
19.63
21.47
20.26
METIC
S.D.
22. 2S
29.95
23.25
23.10
NO,*
(gm/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
2.86
2.55
3. OS
2.32
METIC
S.O.
1.37
0.90
1.33
1.23
URBAN
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gait
HARM
MEAN
13.74
13.87
13.50
13.70
ONIC
S.O.
2.59
2.65
2.34
2.53
HIGHWAY
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARM
MEAN
18.98
19.75
19.68
19.46
ONIC
S.D.
3.28
3. IS
3.50
3.32
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-2
-------
TABLE B-2
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
BY MANUFACTURER FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
102
99
99
300
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mil
ARITH
MEAN
0.99
0.99
1.99
1.32
METIC
S.D.
0.87
0.58
1.08
0.99
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/m»
ARITHK
MEAN
16.83
9.26
34.79
20.26
IETIC
S.O.
22.47
10.97
25.29
23.10
NO/
(gm/mi)
ARITH*
MEAN
2.76
2.73
2.98
2.82
4ETIC
S.O.
1.19
1.11
1.38
1.23
URBAN
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARM<
MEAN
13.75
13.32
14.05
13.70
>NIC
S.O.
2.44
2.50
2.60
2.53
HIGHWAY
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARMC
MEAN
19.42
18.77
20.26
19.46
)NIC
SJ>.
3.37
3.44
2.89
3.32
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-3
-------
TABLE B-5
MEAN BAG EMISSION LEVELS
BY CITY FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
CITY
if
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.O.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
100
100
100
300
7.53
7.49
8.19
7.74
5.71
4.22
4.29
4.79
113.17
99.91
127.05
113.38
122.14
97.43
92.78
105.17
12.62
11.35
13.24
12.40
S.D.
5.98
4.32
S.53
S.36
COLD STABILIZED DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
100
100
100
300
4.05
4.57
4.12
4.25
4.20
4.76
4.34
4.43
73.36
79.52
79.67
77.52
100.46
117.44
114.37
110.67
8.98
8.10
10.06
9.05
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
100
100
100
300
3.86
4.23
4.16
4.08
2.71
2.94
2.62
2.76
45.61
43.40
46.06
45.02
57.00
50.77
53.32
53.59
12.40
10.84
12.52
11.92
4.74
3.16
4.81
4.36
6.05
3.98
5.76
S.38
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-4
-------
TABLE B-4
MEAN BAG EMISSION LEVELS
BY MANUFACTURER FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
MANUFACTURER
*
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gin)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX"
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
6.86
5.78
10.60
7.74
2.93
2.96
6.27
4.79
102.23
67.17
171.06
113.38
92.15
51.62
129.10
105.17
12.87
10.75
13.57
12.40
5.05
4.81
5.82
5.36
COLD STABILIZED DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
2.88
2.88
7.02
4.25
4.38
2.50
4.72
4.43
61.12
27.60
144.33
77.52
111.18
51.61
121.06
110.67
8.45
9.59
9.13
9.05
4.12
4.03
4.86
4.36
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
2.86
3.53
5.90
4.08
2.45
1.70
2.99
2.76
37.15
22.70
75.46
45.02
47.45
24.30
65.93
53.59
11.80
11.02
12.95
11.92
5.20
4.77
5.97
5.38
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-5
-------
TABLE B-5
MEAN FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
BY CITY FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
35
40
38
113
HYDROCARBONS
(am/mil
ARITH
MEAN
1.08
1.57
1.77
1.48
METIC
S.D.
0,72
1.13
1.10
1.04
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gin/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
11.76
26.48
30.28
23.20
METIC
S.D.
1Q.24
26.88
28.17
24.64
NO/
(|jm /mil
ARITH
MEAN
2.82
2.47
2.92
2.72
METIC
S.D.
Q.62
0.77
0.87
0.78
URBAN
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARM
MEAN
13.81
15.52
13.25
12.06
ON 1C
S.D.
2.48
0.93
2.06
1.78
HIGHWAY
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARM
MEAN
19.16
19.55
19.45
19.39
ON 1C
S.D.
2,95
2.78
2.98
2.88
•NO CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-6
-------
TABLE B-6
MEAN FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 115 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
1
CARS
36
30
47
113
HYDROCARBONS
-------
TABLE B-7
MEAN BAG EMISSION LEVELS
BY CITY FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
if
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gml
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
35
40
38
113
6.85
7.94
10.46
8.45
3.45
3.92
6.48
5.01
87.77
128.46
155.24
124.86
COLO STABILIZED DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
35
40
38
113
3.12
5.78
5.79
4.96
3.06
5.49
4.68
4.70
35.03
112.63
122.93
92.06
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
45.74
162.82
106.11
119.72
12.97
10.91
12.39
12.05
51.29
123.67
136.71
117.43
8.59
7.47
9.71
8.57
3.72
3.43
3.24
3. 54
2.27
2.80
3.63
3.09
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
35
40
38
113
3.58
4.52
5.19
4.45
2.16
3.22
2.87
2,86
27.07
53.95
65.70
49.57
23.08
47.79
63.67
5Q,49
12.28
10.87
12.00
11,68
2.92
3.63
3.51
3,41
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-8
-------
TABLE B-8
MEAN BAG EMISSION LEVELS BY CITY
FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
MANUFACTURER
it
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(9m)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLO TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
36
30
47
113
7.71
6.41
10.31
8,45
3.74
4.16
5.73
5.01
122.02
67.46
163.67
124.86
165.21
65.52
87.92
119.72
12.82
11.63
11.72
12.05
3.57
4.54
2.66
3.54
COLO STABILIZED DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
36
30
47
113
3.94
3.54
6.65
4.96
4.89
2.56
5.15
4.70
85.08
34.72
134.00
92.06
116.14
63.29
129.63
117.43
7.77
10.50
7.94
8.57
2.72
4.11
1.89
3.09
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
36
30
47
113
3.20
3.81
S.83
4.45
2.45
1.47
3.24
2.86
43.84
23.26
70.76
49.57
42.20
~)~> ">">
it *> . «• fa
60.04
50.49
11.45
12.34
11.44
11.68
3.14
4.76
2.47
3.41
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-9
-------
TABLE B-9
MEAN FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
BY CITY FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 3
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
t
CARS
42
41
60
143
HYDROCARBONS
(grn/mJl
ARITH
MEAN
1.01
1.03
1.10
1.05
METIC
S.D.
0.73
0.58
0.80
0.71
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mil
ARITH
MEAN
11.27
8.51
10.74
.0.26
METIC
S.D.
16.11
8.63
8.23
11.20
NO/
(am /mi)
ARITH
MEAN
2.67
2.76
3.33
2.97
METIC
S.D.
0.69
0.86
1.87
1.38
URBAN
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gall
HARM
MEAN
14.05
14.82
13.61
14.07
ONIC
S.D.
2.67
20.51
2.25
2.47
HIGHWAY
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARM
MEAN
19.12
2.48
19.48
19.65
ONIC
S.D.
3.34
2.60
2.81
2.98
•N0x CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-10
-------
TABLE B-10
MEAN FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 3
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
I
CARS
42
32
69
143
HYDROCARBONS
NIC
SJJ.
2.47
1.75
2.74
2.47
HIGHWAY
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/g^l
HARMC
MEAN
19.54
18.31
20.42
19.65
mic
S.O.
3.29
2.30
2.90
2.98
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-ll
-------
TABLE B-ll
MEAN BAG VALUE EMISSION LEVELS BY CITY
FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 3
CITY
#
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gml
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gin)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm>
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
42
41
60
143
7.60
7.22
8.60
7.91
5.20
4.67
7.36
6.07
102.06
84.02
122.66
105.33
107.94
73.48
98.05
95.61
12.48
12.08
14.25
13.11
4.02
3.71
7.30
5.63
COLD STABILIZED DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
42
41
60
143
2.44
2.73
2.43
2.52
2.52
2.01
2.62
2.42
23.20
18.41
15.43
18.57
43.97
32.26
18.57
31.70
8.07
8.89
10.99
9.53
2.36
3.39
6.62
4.97
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
42
41
60
143
3.30
3.26
3.78
3.49
2.32
1.96
2.71
2.40
30.54
16.37
21.77
22.80
61.58
17.63
19.44
37.01
11.56
11.59
13.83
12.52
2.96
3.52
8.08
5.86
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-12
-------
TABLE B-12
MEAN BAG VALUE EMISSION LEVELS BY CITY
FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 3
MANUFACTURER
#
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
42
32
69
143
6.49
6.11
9.61
7.91
3.23
2.87
7.81
6.07
86.49
73.72
131.87
105.53
COLD STABILIZED DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
42
32
69
143
0.99
3.43
3.05
2.52
1.21
1.66
2.82
2.42
14.83
15.94
22.06
18.57
74.14
59.47
112.95
95.61
12.82
15.39
12.23
13.11
29.87
18.33
37.19
31.70
8.20
13.50
8.49
9.53
3.67
8.78
4.42
5.63
2.56
7.40
3.61
4.97
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
1 TOTAL
42
32
69
143
1.91
4.62
3.93
3,49
1.09
2.73
2.36
2.40
17.48
18.14
28.20
22.80
16.49
12.57
50.66
37.01
11.68
15.74
11.54
12.52
3.26
9.94
3.75
5.86
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-13
-------
TABLE B-13
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
BY CITY FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
»
CARS
24
17
42
83
HYDROCARBONS
(901 /mil
ARITH
MEAN
1.16
1.28
1.14
1.17
METIC
S.O.
3.82
3.49
3.77
3.73
CAflBON
MONOXIDE
(gin/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
L2.73
L0.70
10.37
11.12
METIC
S.D.
16.41
12.45
7.88
11.74
NO-*
(gm/rni)
ARITH
MEAN
2.78
2.95
3.17
3.01
METIC
S.D.
0.74
0.88
0.93
0.88
URBAN
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARM
MEAN
14.57
13.28
12.96
13.58
ON 1C
S.D.
3.01
0.40
1.90
2.34
HIGHWAY
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gal)
HARM
MEAN
19.92
19.33
18.60
19.11
ON 1C
S.D.
3.85
2.19
2.21
2.73
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-14
-------
TABLE B-14
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS AND URBAN AND HIGHWAY FUEL ECONOMY
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
t
CARS
17
30
36
83
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mil
ARITHI
MEAN
0.69
1.14
1.43
1.17
METIC
S.D.
0.38
0.38
0.95
D.73
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITHM
MEAN
11.04
7.04
14.56
11.12
HETJC
SJ>.
12.13
3.97
14.71
11.74
NIC
S4J.
2.45
1.77
2.24
2.34
HIGHWAY
FUEL
ECONOMY
(mi/gall
HARM<
MEAN
18.87
18.47
19.79
19.11
M4IC
SJ3.
3.28
2.54
2.47
2.73
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-1S
-------
TABLE B-15
MEAN BAG VALUE EMISSION LEVELS BY CITY
FOR THE 33 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
CITY
#
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gin)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NO/
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
24
17
42
83
7.63
7.30
9.23
8.37
5.58
2.74
7.59
6.30
107.41
81.81
120.94
109.02
121.59
55.68
102.53
101.07
12.82
12.10
13.33
12.93
4.21
3.97
4.27
4.17
COLD STABILIZED DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
24
17
42
33
3.14
4.02
2.40
2.95
2.76
1.97
2.32
2.45
28.73
30.91
13.42
21.43
40.01
55.58
13.74
34.83
8.48
10.10
10.54
9.86
2.70
3.58
3.65
3.46
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
24
17
42
83
3.97
4.27
3.83
3.96
2.70
1.60
1.76
2.03
36.13
24.80
21.71
26.51
61.25
28.08
18.82
37.72
12.02
11.95
13.21
12.61
3.21
3.13
4.00
3.63
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-16
-------
TABLE B-16
MEAN BAG VALUE EMISSION LEVELS BY MANUFACTURER
FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
MANUFACTURER
#
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(am)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
17
30
36
83
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
17
30
36
83
6.30
6.61
10.82
8.37
2.26
3.46
8.36
6.30
100.51
69.19
146.22
109.02
COLD STABILIZED DATA
1.22
3.35
3.42
2.95
1.57
1.56
3.01
2.45
25.75
13.36
26.11
21.43
60.67
48.91
132.09
101.07
14.29
15.03
12.20
12.93
54.56
14.30
35.00
34.83
9.50
12.30
7.99
9.86
4.47
3.85
4.22
4.17
3.05
3.38
2.37
3.46
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
17
30
36
83
2.23
4.17
4.59
3.96
1.07
1.28
2.43
2,03
24.23
17.06
35.47
26.51
28.41
9.57
52.21
37.72
13.50
13.83
11.17
12.61
4.02
3.64
2.96
3,63
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-17
-------
TABLE B-17
MEAN EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY BY
MANUFACTURER AND TEST SEQUENCE*
MEAN HC 1975 FTP EMISSIONS
GM
FORD
CHRY
TOTAL
TOTAL
N
102
99
99
300
1st
Test
1.00
0.98
1.99
1.32
2nd
Test
0.95
0.98
1.88
1.25
3rd
Test
0.81
0.91
1.18
0.90
4th
Test
0.60
0.90
1.11
0.87
MEAN CO 1975 FTP EMISSIONS
GM
FORD
CHRY
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
16.87
9.26
34.79
20.27
15.51
8.48
31.45
18.44
7.05
5.80
11.58
8.13
6.88
5.48
10.60
7.65
MEAN NOX 1975 FTP EMISSIONS
GM
FORD
CHRY
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
2.76
2.73
2.98
2.82
2.57
2.75
2.63
2.65
2.52
2.88
2.68
2.69
2.51
2.58
2.58
2.55
MEAN FUEL ECONOMY IN MPG
GM
FORD
CHRY
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
13.76
13.31
14.16
15.74
13.80
13.41
14.03
13.75
14.00
13.51
14.48
13.98
13.98
13.49
14.39
13.95
Test 1: As-received
Test 2: After correction of maladjustment and disablement
(except idle CO and RPM adjustment)
Test 3: After idle CO and RPM are reset to specifications
Test 4: After emission control component repair and major tune-up
B-18
-------
TABLE B-1S
MEAN EMISSIONS AND FUEL ECONOMY
BY SITE AND TEST SEQUENCE*
MEAN HC 1975 FTP EMISSIONS
DETR
WASH
CHIC
TOTAL
DETR
WASH
CHIC
TOTAL
DETR
WASH
CHIC
TOTAL
Test 1:
Test 2:
Test 3:
Test 4:
100
100
100
300
100
100
100
300
1st
Test
1.36
1.34
1.27
1.32
2nd
Test
1.31
1.34
1.11
1.25
3rd
Test
0.89
0.96
0.85
0.90
4th
Test
0.86
0.89
0.85
0.87
MEAN CO 1975 FTP EMISSIONS
19.63
21.44
19.74
20.27
18.38
21.29
15.67
18.44
MEAN NOX 1975 FTP
2.55
3.05
2.86
2.82
MEAN FUEL
13.86
13.51
13.85
13.74
2.45
2.91
2.58
2.65
7.10
9.01
8.29
8.13
EMISSIONS
2.46
3.05
2.57
2.69
6.58
8.38
8.00
7.65
2.42
2.73
2.51
2.55
ECONOMY IN MPG
13.95
13.45
13.85
13.75
14.24
13.73
13.99
13.98
14.20
13.67
13.98
13.95
100
100
100
300
As-received
After correction of maladjustment and disablement
(except idle CO and RPM adjustment}
After idle CO and RPM are reset to specifications
After emission control component repair and major tune-up
B-19
-------
TABLE B-19 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO
50,000 MILES BY MANUFACTURER FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORO
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
102
99
99
300
HYDROCARBONS
(am/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
1.47
1.31
2.35
1.71
METIC
S.O.
1.30
0.69
1.18
1.18
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITHf
MEAN
19.57
11.48
38.02
22.99
METIC
S.D.
24.85
13.66
26.47
24.94
NO/
(gm/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
3.06
2.88
3.18
3.04
METIC
S.D.
1.23
1.17
1.46
1.29
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-20
-------
TABLE B-20 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO
TO 50,000 MILES BY CITY FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
f
CARS
100
100
100
300
HYDROCARBONS
( gm/rnil
ARITH
MEAN
1.64
1.74
1.74
1,71
METIC
S.D.
1.14
1.23
1.17
1.18
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITHf
MEAN
22.64
22.21
24.12
22.99
METIC
S.D.
23.93
25.40
25.67
24.94
NO,*
(gm/mi)
ARITHI
MEAN
3.08
2.74
3.30
3.04
METIC
S.O.
1.47
0.93
1.37
1.29
»NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-21
-------
TABLE B-21 BAG VALUE EMISSIONS LEVELS
EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES BY CITY FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
CITY
#
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
100
100
100
300
9. 85
9.72
10.77
10.11
6.37
4.55
5.51
5.53
129.66
113.73
144.80
129.40
124.15
99.97
110.11
112.20
13.60
12.18
14.34
13.37
6.40
4.43
5.76
5.64
COLD STABILIZED DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
100
100
100
300
5.17
5.79
5.24
5.40
4.98
6.00
5.41
5.47
83.69
89.37
89.08
87.38
110.80
126.79
126.04
121.06
9.66
8.67
10.83
9.72
5.07
3.22
4.88
4.54
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
100
100
100
300
5.01
5.43
5.41
5.28
3.08
3.56
3.27
3.30
53.22
49.64
51.90
51.59
61.00
53.98
58.08
57.59
13.37
11.68
13.56
12.87
6.51
4.32
5.99
5.73
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-2I
-------
TABLE B-22 BAG VALUE EMISSIONS LEVELS
EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES BY MANUFACTURER FOR TEST SEQUENCE 1
MANUFACTURER
*
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gml
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gml
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
10.18
7.63
12.53
10.11
4.32
3.64
6.97
5.53
117.45
83.41
187.69
129.40
96.18
65.14
137.53
112.20
14.30
11.32
14.47
13.37
5.26
5.05
6.06
5.64
COLD STABILIZED DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
4.25
3. 75
8.24
5.40
6.41
2.96
5.27
5.47
71.37
33.90
157.35
87.38
125.15
63.85
128.03
121.06
9.32
10.10
9.74
9.72
4.25
4.20
5.13
4.54
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
102
99
99
300
4.24
4.67
6.97
5.28
3.60
2.07
3.35
3.30
43.69
28.66
82.65
51.59
53.00
30.01
68.93
57.59
13.08
11.62
13.90
12.87
5.40
5.07
6.46
5.73
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-23
-------
TABLE B-23
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY CITY FOR THE 115 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
35
40
38
113
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
1.39
1.69
2.27
1.79
MET1C
S.D.
0.80
1.18
1.32
1.18
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
13.47
27.48
33.80
25.26
MET1C
S.D.
11.90
27.19
31.25
26.32
NO/
(gin/ml)
ARITH
MEAN
2.97
2.56
3.17
2.89
METIC
S.D.
0.66
0.84
0.89
0.84
CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-24
-------
TABLE B-24
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
4
CARS
36
30
47
113
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mi)
ARITHI
MEAN
1.53
1.34
2.28
1.79
AETIC
S.D.
1.08
0.75
1.30
1.18
CARBON
MONOXIDE
fern/mi)
ARITHM
MEAN
23.09
11.41
35.77
25.26
IETIC
SJJ.
26.67
15.12
27,57
26.32
NO,*
Igm/mJ)
ARITHN
MEAN
2.78
3.12
2.81
2.89
IETIC
SJ>.
0.82
1.16
0.54
0.84
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-25
-------
TABLE B-25
BAG VALUE EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY CITY FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
CITY
#
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
35
40
38
113
8.96
8.52
13.44
10.31
3.96
3.98
7.32
5.74
100.53
132.89
173.06
136.38
COLD STABILIZED DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
35
40
38
113
3.95
6.21
7.41
5.91
3.63
5.68
5.74
5.30
39.80
116.85
137.28
99.86
49.16
162.65
118.05
124.14
59.94
125.96
151.43
126.08
13.64
11.37
13.46
12.78
9.04
7.78
10.51
9.09
3.96
3.63
3.42
3.79
2.38
2.96
3.71
3.26
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
35
40
38
1J3
4.57
4.93
6.73
5.42
2.58
3.54
3.59
3.35
31.54
56.28
73.34
54.35
27.28
49.04
71.18
54.99
12.96
11.41
13.05
12.44
3.17
4.16
3.66
3.75
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-26
-------
TABLE B-26
BAG VALUE EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 113 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 2
MANUFACTURER
*
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm\
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm>
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLO TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
36
30
47
113
10.10
7.66
12.17
10.31
4.75
S.17
6.18
5.74
130.93
76.62
178.68
136.38
165.14
83.30
90.67
124.14
13.54
12.07
12.65
12.78
4.08
4.68
2.77
3.79
COLD STABILIZED DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
36
30
47
113
4.81
4.16
7.88
5.91
5.33
2.84
5.91
5.30
90.15
37.73
146.94
99.86
122.54
69.79
139.10
126.08
8.23
10.93
8.58
9.09
3.00
4.32
2.05
3.26
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
36
30
47
113
4.10
4.61
6.96
5.42
2.88
1.80
3.84
3.35
46.94
26.11
78.05
54.35
44.54
24.72
65.80
54.99
12.09
12.84
12.43
12.44
3.45
4.99
3.05
3.75
»NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-27
-------
TABLE B-27
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY CITY FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 5
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
42
41
60
143
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mil
ARITH
MEAN
1.26
1.10
1.38
1.27
METIC
S.D.
0.72
0.60
0.82
0.74
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
12.75
8.91
11.72
11.22
METIC
S.D.
16.11
8.72
8.58
11.37
NO«*
(gm/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
2.84
2,86
3.61
3.17
METIC
S.D.
0.71
0.87
1.93
1.43
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-28
-------
TABLE B-28
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES BY
MANUFACTURER FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 3
(MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
*
CARS
42
32
69
143
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/rnl)
ARITHft
MEAN
0.86
1.39
1.46
1.27
AETIC
S.O.
0.43
0.56
0.86
0.74
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(om/mU
ARITHM
MEAN
8.93
8.88
L3.70
.1.22
ETIC
SJ>.
8.92
7.17
L3.66
11.37
NO,'
.
0.78
2.34
0.99
1.43
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-29
-------
TABLE B-29
BAG VALUE EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY CITY FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 3
CITY
#
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
42
41
60
143
13.26
7.72
10.82
9.62
4.08
4.62
7.46
6.33
115.88
86.73
133.88
115.07
107.87
72.58
101.09
97.32
9.76
12.50
15.47
13.97
5.66
3.74
7.58
5.86
COLD STABILIZED DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
42
41
60
143
8.59
2.95
2.96
2.95
2.42
2.17
3.07
2.68
25.86
19.61
16.63
20.19
44.64
33.33
19.34
32.53
2.94
9.19
11.87
10.14
2.61
3.36
6.78
5.12
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
42
41
60
143
12.34
3.52
4.79
4.23
3.25
2.10
3.22
2.72
35.03
17.47
24.10
25.41
61.92
18.41
22.06
38.09
4.13
12.06
15.02
13.38
2.35
3.76
8.40
6.19
•NOX CORRECTED POR HUMIDITY
B-30
-------
TABLE B-30
BAG VALUE EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES BY
MANUFACTURER FOR THE 143 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 5
MANUFACTURER
*
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
42
32
69
143
8.72
7.34
11.23
9.62
4.04
3.55
7.90
6.33
93.82
84.27
142.30
115.07
71.13
74.24
112.09
97.32
13.76
15.94
13.18
13.97
3.85
9.31
4.56
5.86
COLD STABILIZED DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
42
32
69
143
1.25
4.05
3.48
2.95
1.23
1.79
3.16
2.68
15.60
18.07
23.98
20.19
29.92
20.39
38.09
32.53
8.35
13.95
9.16
10.14
2.77
7.77
3.71
5.12
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
42
32
69
143
2.61
5.61
4.58
4.23
1.57
3.45
2.44
2.72
19.36
21.60
30.86
25.41
17.22
16.93
51.59
58.09
12.57
16.30
12.53
13.38
3.46
10.52
4.15
6.19
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-31
-------
TABLE B-31
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY CITY FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
CITY
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
*
CARS
24
17
42
83
HYDROCARBONS
(gnt/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
1.39
1.35
1.37
1.38
METIC
S.O.
0.79
0.48
0.76
0.71
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gin/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
14.36
10.95
11.47
12.20
METIC
S.D.
16.22
12.35
8.41
11.87
NO,"
(gm/mi)
ARITH
MEAN
2.92
3.04
3.40
3.19
METIC
S.O.
0.74
0.92
0.96
0.91
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-32
-------
TABLE B-32
FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE (FTP)
EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
MANUFACTURER
GENERAL
MOTORS
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
CARS
17
30
36
83
HYDROCARBONS
(gm/mi)
ARtTHI
MEAN
0.94
1.3S
1.60
1.38
rfETJC
S.O.
0.35
0.43
0.91
0.71
CARBON
MONOXIDE
(gm/mi)
ARITHM
MEAN
1.64
8.47
15.57
L2.20
IETIC
SJJ.
12.00
5.28
14.75
11.87
ivnAii)
ARITHM
MEAN
5.34
3.56
2.81
3.19
KTtC
SJJ.
1.02
0.84
0.77
0.91
•NO, CORRECTED TOR HUMIDITY
B-33
-------
TABLE B-53
BAG VALUE EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY CITY FOR THE 33 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
CITY
#
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gml
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLD TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
24
17
42
83
9.27
7.72
11.18
9.92
5.44
2.60
7.77
6.46
121.74
83.90
133.29
119.83
119.34
54.69
108.16
103.87
13.45
12.47
14.33
13.70
4.23
4.17
4.77
4.51
COLD STABILIZED DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
24
17
42
83
3.72
4.22
2.82
3.37
2.83
1.98
2.37
2.48
32.19
31.35
14.68
23.16
40.52
55.44
14.46
35.21
8.92
10.37
11.25
10.40
2.76
3.58
3.65
3.51
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
CHICAGO
DETROIT
WASHINGTON
TOTAL
24
17
42
83
4.82
4.55
4.71
4.71
2.58
1.76
2.00
2.11
40.67
25.82
24.63
29.51
60.87
28.15
22.96
38.84
12.68
12.37
14.14
13.35
3.39
3.63
4.17
3.89
*NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-34
-------
TABLE B-34
BAG VALUE EMISSIONS LEVELS EXTRAPOLATED TO 50,000 MILES
BY MANUFACTURER FOR THE 83 VEHICLES THAT RECEIVED TEST SEQUENCE 4
MANUFACTURER
if
CARS
HYDROCARBONS
(am)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
CARBON MONOXIDE
<«m)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
NOX*
(gm)
ARITHMETIC
MEAN
S.D.
COLO TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
17
30
36
83
8.72
7.94
12.14
9.92
2.70
4.49
8.28
6.46
107.15
83.96
155.72
119.83
60.60
66.64
131.95
103.87
15.38
13.46
13.10
13.70
5.18
3.82
4.63
4.51
COLD STABILIZED DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
17
30
36
83
l.SO
3.89
3.82
3.37
1.50
1.66
2.99
2.48
26.65
15.55
27.85
23.16
54.58
16.81
35.07
35.21
10.17
12.72
8.57
10,40
3.31
3.34
2.55
3.51
HOT TRANSIENT DATA
GM
FORD
CHRYSLER
TOTAL
17
30
36
83
3.09
4.96
5.26
4.71
1.27
1.61
2.44
2.11
25.57
20.86
38.58
29.51
28.80
13.46
53.58
38.84
14.49
14.30
12.03
13.35
4.52
3.62
3.47
3.89
•NOX CORRECTED FOR HUMIDITY
B-35
-------
TABLE B-35 HISTORY OF ALL TliSTS TAKF.N BY EACH 0V 300 VlilllCLliS
DBS
Tl
T2
T4
T5
T7
T8 T9
T10
VEHNUH
CI.Y
MANUFACT
oo
i
04
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
3i
32
33
34
35
36
37
3fj
39
40
41
12
43
4-t
4b
46
47
4(1
49
50
51
52
53
54
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
f
T
T
T
f
T
i
f
P
T
T
T
P
P
T
p
P
P
'f
P
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
P
P
P
P
T
T
\'
T
T
T
r
p
T
P
f
T
f
T
r
T
p
p
p
p
T
P
P
T
T
T
P
p
T
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
T
P
T
T
P
T
T
P
P
T
P
T
T
P
T
T
P
P
T
T
T
P
T
T
i1
P
T
P
T
T
T i> T T
T T T P
T T T T
T T P T
T T T T
T T T T
T T T T
T
T f P P
T P T
T T T T
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
P 013
T 014
015
016
017
oia
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
T 026
027
028
029
030
031
032
T 033
P 034
T 035
036
037
033
039
040
P 041
042
043
044
045
046
OJ7
043
049
050
051
052
OG3
054
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHI -AGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHITVJLER
CHRYSLER
CHRY.JLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
FORD
FORD
FORD
rORD
FOKO
FORC-
FORO
FORD
FOIIO
FO.tD
FORD
fOKD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
-------
TABLE B-35 HISTORY OF ALL TESTS TAKEN BY EACH OF 300 VEHICLES (cont.)
CDS
Tl
T10
VEHNUM
CITY
55
SS
57
S3
b9
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
6Q
70
71
72
73
74
7S
76
77
78
79
00
81
82
03
84
35
86
E?
30
O'J
90
y j
92
93
94
05
97
90
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
1C7
10U
r P
P P
P
P
P P
P
P
T
T T
f
f P
P
T T T
P
P P
T P
T P
P
P
r T
T T P
P
P
P
P
T ?
P
P
f
P
P
P
T P
T P
T T
T T
T T P
T P
T P
T P
P
T 7 T
T • T
P P
r ?
r T
T T P
T T !'
T T
T T T
P
T T T
T T P
P
T
P
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
T
T P T
T T T
T
T
T
P
P
T
T
T
T
P
P
T
T
T
MAMUFACT
005
056
057
058
059
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
067
T 068
069
070
P 071
072
073
074
075
076
077
078
079
OGO
081
OB2
083
004
085
006
087
088
089
090
091
002
D93
094
O'Jb
096
097
098
P 099
100
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
CHICAGO
WASHHGTN
WASHMGTN
WASHNGTN
WASHNGTN
V/ASHHGTN
WASHNGTN
WASHHGTN
WASHMGTN
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
<3M
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
r,n
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GH
GM
GM
GM
GM
CHRYSLER
CHRVSLE3
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHKYSLER
CHRYSLER
-------
TABLE B-35 HISTORY OF ALL TESTS TAKEN BY EACH OF 300 VEHICLES
oo
i
Ul
00
OBS
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
12!
122
123
124
125
126
127
!23
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
13V
130
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
1-16
14V
143
143
ISO
IS)
1S.2
153
154
15-5
15C
157
158
159
160
161
162
Tl
T
T
T
T
T
1'
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
V
r
T
1
T
7
T
T
T
T
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
T
P
P
T
P
T
P
T
T
T
T
T2
r
T
T
f
T
T
P
T
T
T
p
T
T
T
T
T
T
i
T
T
T
T
T3
T
P
T
P
T
P
P
P
T
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
P
P
T
T
P
P
P
T
T
T
(
r
T
p
p
T
T
T
T
T4 T5 T6
T
P T T
P
T
T
T
T
T
P
P T
P T
P
T
P
T
T
T
T
T
P T T
T
p r
T
T P
T
P T T
T
T
T7 T8 T9
T T T
T T T
TIT
P T
T P T
P
r T T
T10
VEIINUM
009
010
01 1
012
013
014
015
016
017
010
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
043
044
045
0
-------
TABLE B-55 HISTORY OF ALL TESTS TAKEN BY EACH OF 300 VEHICLES (cont.)
OBS
163
164
166
166
IS?
163
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
173
179
130
101
182
183
184
105
186
137
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
105
196
197
190
199
200
201
202
203
204
20S
206
207
203
209
210
211
212
213
214
/.15
216
Tl
T
T
T
P
T
P
I*
T
7
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
T
P
T
T
T
T
P
T
P
T
P
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
'i
P
T
T
'(
T
T
P
T
P
T2
T
T
T
P
"T
7
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
r
T3
T
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
P
f
T
T
P
P
P
P
T
P
P
P
P
P
T
f
P
T
T
P
T
T4
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
T
P
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T5
T6 T7 T8
T9
T10
P T P
7 P T
VtHNUM
063
064
065
066
067
068
069
070
071
072
073
074
075
076
077
078
079
080
081
C1J2
083
084
0;)S
036
0137
088
039
090
P P T
T T T
092
0-J3
094
095
096
097
098
093
100
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
001?
009
010
Oil
W12
013
014
015
016
CITY
UASHNGTN
WASHNGTN
WASHHGTH
WASHNGTN
WASHMGTH
WASMNS HI
WASHNGTN
WASHUGTM
VASHN-iTN
WASHNGTN
WASHMGTH
WASHMCfN
WASHNGTN
WASHNGTH
WASHfiGTN
WASHUCTN
WASHNGTN
WASHNG TN
WASHNGTN
WASHN3TN
WASHNSTN
WASHHfi fN
WASHHGTN
WASHNGTN
WASHNGTN
V/ASHNGTN
VMSHMGTN
WASHNGTN
WAiiHNiTH
WASHNGTN
WASHNGTN
V/ASHMaTM
VAS'IIKTN
V/AS!!N'tfN
WASHfJiTN
WASHflQTN
WASHNuTN
WASHNGTN
DETROIT
UE TltO IT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
MAHUFACT
FORO
FORD
FORD
FORO
GM
GH
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
Gil
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
GM
Gil
GM
Gil
GM
CHRVSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CIW/SLEP
CHRYSLER
C:l-!«Y3LER
CHKYSLER
CimSLER
CHKV5LER
CHRYSLER
CHRVSLER
CHRVSLER
CHRYSLER
-------
TABLF. B-35 HISTORY OF ALL TESTS TAKRN BY EACH OF 300 VEHICLES (cont.)
CP
i
ORS
Tl
T2
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
220
230
2;il
;;32
J33
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
2H4
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
J55
256
257
2'Jti
259
260
261
262
261
264
265
266
267
2iiO
2fa9
270
P
T
J
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
f
P
T
T
P
T
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
P
T
T
T
T
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
T
T
P
P
P
P
r
p
T
p
i-
p
T
P
T
T
•'
P
p
T
T
T
T
P
?
P
P
T3
T
T
P
P
P
f
T
f
T
T
T4
P
T
T5
T6
T7
T8
T10
VEIiNOM
T
T
T
T
T
P
T
T
P
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
T
P
P
T
T
T
P
P
P
CITY
MAMUFACT
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
023
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
043
044
045
046
047
043
04'J
050
051
052
053
054
055
056
057
053
059
060
061
062
063
064
065
066
067
068
069
070
OZTROJT
jETROIT
OETROIT
DETfOIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
L'ETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROl f
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROI F
DETROIT
DETROIT
D£TR-3iT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETUOIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
!)ETRO!T
DETROIT
OETROJ"
DETROIT
UETKOIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
.7ETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRV-JLEK
CHRYSLER
CURV!;i.£R
CHRVSLER
CIIRVJ.I.ER
CliRYi,LER
CHRYSLER
CHRYJLER
CHRVJLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHRYSLER
CHilViLEti
CHRYtiLER
CHRYSLER
?ORD
i;o;io
rORO
•ORD
KtaD
l-'ORD
r')«D
FORD
FORD
:-OV!D
t-'ORO
FC-RD
i;.;3o
FORD
rORfl
• OR.)
r'OJ'D
,-ORO
,-OUD
l-'OiJD
.:ORD
roiu)
'.•'j!\0
r-oRfj
r'ORO
FOKf)
rORO
^ORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORD
FORO
Gil
G(4
Gt\
GH
-------
TABLE B-35 HISTORY 0V ML TESTS TAKEN BY EACH 01= 300 VEHICLES (cont.)
OBS Tl T2 T3 T4 T5 T5 T7 T8 T'J T10 VEilMUM CITY HAMU.rACT
CO
I
271
272
273
274
275
2/o
277
27 a
27'J
230
281
-8 >
283
£94
>QS
286
20 7
283
239
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
^97
>293
299
300
P
P
P
P
P
T
T
P
T
T
P
T
P
T
T
P
T
P
T
P
P
P
T
P
P
T
T
T
T
V
f
T r1
T P
T P
P
T
T P P T P
T T T
T H
T P
p
p
T P T P P
P T P T P P
P
P
P
P
T
T T P
f
071
072
073
074
075
076
077
073
079
080
081
082
083
004
085
085
087
088
089
090
091
092
093
094
095
096
097
098
000
100
DETROIT
DETROIT
OETROiT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
OETROIT
OETROIT
DETROIT
OETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
OETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
OETROIT
DETROIT
DETROIT
" DETP.oTt
DETKOJT
GK
Gil
GM
Gli
Git
Gil
Gil
Gil
«:•!
GM
GM
GM
G!1
G;1
GM
G!l
GM
G!1
Gil
Gil
GM
Gil
GM
GM
<;;M
GM
GM
CM
Gtl
Gil
-------
APPENDIX C
General Note: Discrepancies in the number of tests,
observations or cars in the following
tables are due to unavailable data.
C-l
-------
TABLE C-l LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP
AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx +• b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gins/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gnu.)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gnus)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO. TESTS
834
834
834
834
834
834
834
834
832*
832*
834
834
SLOPE
M
0.84294
2.70981
3.81907
2.36412
0.98522
3.02548
4.82015
2.22467
0.87829
3.75346
3.08948
3.11973
INTERCEPT
(b)
0. 49568
5.53796
0.29637
1.79363
7.29757
87.60505
8.85299
14.40104
1.00083
4.26855
6.01500
2.48457
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.85132
0.48099
0.88544
0.82814
0.87635
0.50893
0.90857
0.84609
0.82580
0.70371
0.82865
0.80830
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.01801
0.17124
0.06949
0.05547
0.01877
0.17741
0.07683
0.04859
0.02082
0.09490
0.10814
0.07306
Missing data
C-2
-------
TABLE C-2 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP
AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY
SHORT CYCLE TEST
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx + b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO.
TESTS
834
834
834
334
834
834
834
834
832 *
834
834
832 *
SLOPE
(m)
0.43369
1.30789
2.00263
1.21517
0.49091
1.37479
2.46203
1.10286
1.09535
4.46300
3.74017
4.05794
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.60207
6.00735
0.72269
2.09372
7.09431
89.59516
6.67122
14.05294
0.49999
2.65186
4.52035
0.30016
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.77054
0.40840
0.81682
0.74885
0.83369
0.44153
0.88603
0.80082
0.86724
0.71772
0.90807
0.80931
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.01244
0.10134
0.04903
0.03728
0.01127
0.09685
0.04466
0.02859
0.02183
0.11243
0.12580
0.06489
missing data
C-3
-------
TABLE C-5 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP
AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE TWO SPEED IDLE SHORT
TEST AT IDLE NEUTRAL FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx + b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gins)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gins)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gros)
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS*
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
(m)
0.00329
0.01019
0.01476
0.00890
7.45041
20.58886
38.17854
15.51993
0.00336
0.01191
0.01370
0.01116
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.80504
6.21459
1.85566
2.64885
8.89072
88.71664
17.18503
19.90745
2.76132
12.21772
8.45804
12.27761
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.66310
0.41058
0.68072
0.63259
0.75061
0.39952
0.80109
0.71381
0.18771
0.1S617
0.22089
0.14172
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00016
0.00097
0.00068
0.00046
0.30516
2.20458
1 . 24445
0.80664
0.00075
0.00323
0.002S9
0.00334
no data available
C-4
-------
TABLE C-4 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP
AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE TWO SPEED IDLE SHORT
TEST AT 2250 RPM FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx * b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS*
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
(a)
0.00344
0.01393
0.01330
0.01147
19.92042
97.40506
76.22229
54.90645
0.00333
0.01340
0.01043
0.01545
INTERCEPT
(b)
1.00582
6.66620
2.91923
3.08409
13.97040
98.11350
46.04798
29.01964
2.31485
10.29297
7.32175
9.84850
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.29082
0.23059
0.25230
0.33520
0.49677
0.45172
0.40842
0.57840
0.46785
0.44113
0.42231
0.49255
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00048
0.00252
0.00218
0.00138
1.49073
8.24064
7.29704
3.31702
0.00027
0.00116
0.00096
0.00117
no data available
C-5
-------
TABLE C-5 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP AND
BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE CLAYTON KEY MODE IDLE SHORT
TEST FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx +• b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gras)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gras)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gins)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS*
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
(m)
0.00481
0.01505
0.02231
0.01281
6.55794
18.08043
33.63270
13.64427
0.00180
0.00626
0.00753
0.00575
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.70774
5.92256
1.37759
2.42762
8.66259
88.13429
15.98454
19.45112
2.67810
11.94764
8.08197
12.04620
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.72389
0.44393
0.75387
0.66724
0.71605
0.37560
0.76557
0.68216
0.24367
0.19820
0.29457
0.17640
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00020
0.00130
0.00083
0.00061
-••' —^^
0.28945
2.02620
1.20376
0.75518
0.00030
0.00152
0.00104
0.00136
no data available
C-6
-------
TABLE C-6 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP
AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE CLAYTON KEY MODE
LOW CRUISE SHORT TEST FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form rax + b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gins /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms/rai)
COLD TRANSIENT NOx
(gns)
COLD STABILIZED NOx
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS*
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
Cm)
0.01224
0.05004
0.04912
0.03709
23.32693
112.18978
93.29661
58.62059
0.00136
0.005181
0.00445
0.00623
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.65778
5.23377
1-49123
2.09041
13.90891
97.99295
45.42410
29.39611
1.82050
8.57629
5.61170
7.63909
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.49120
0.39383
0,44275
0.51543
0.49863
0.48570
0.41412
0.54541
0.61908
0.5S142
0.58271
0.64238
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00093
0.00500
0.00426
0.00264
1.92679
10.63638
9.27745
4.48277
0.00007
0.00033
0,00027
0.00032
*no data available
C-7
-------
TABLE C-7 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP
AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE CLAYTON KEY MODE
HIGH CRUISE SHORT TEST FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx + b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gras)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gras)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gras)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gras)
FTP NOx (gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gras)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOx
(gms)
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS*
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
Cm)
0.00957
0.05442
0.02904
0.03396
0.13696
0.96678
0.50528
0.18633
0.00106
0.00451
0.00320
0.00504
INTERCEPT
Cb)
0.82910
5.32374
2.55395
2.41246
16.06547
108.16820
54.07646
34.91633
1.30280
5.88014
4.38600
5.01149
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.28839
0.32146
0.19647
0.35410
0.09703
0.14313
0.07490
0.05233
0.71593
0.70842
0.61859
0.76758
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00136
0.00687
0.00620
0.00384
0.06518
0.34947
0.30380
0.15472
0.00004
0.00019
0.00017
0.00018
no data available
C-8
-------
TABLE C-8 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP
AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE FEDERAL THREE MODE IDLE IN
NEUTRAL SHORT TEST FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx + b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gins)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gins)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NO^ (gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NO
(gins)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS*
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
(m)
0.00260
0.00821
0.01185
0.00717
6.53238
17.47236
33.65637
13.72523
0.00261
0.01029
0.00977
0.00941
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.83096
6.29473
1.97659
2.71726
8.91903
89.43667
17.12840
19.83614
2.81308
12.31243
8.74357
12.38628
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.64472
0.40005
0.66089
0.61659
0.72540
0.37850
0.75985
0.75411
0.18918
0.17532
0 . 20444
0.15486
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00013
0.00081
0.00057
0.00039
0.30268
2.08643
1 . 26568
0.77881
0.00058
0.00246
0.00199
0.00255
no data available
C-9
-------
TABLE C-9 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP AND
BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE FEDERAL THREE MODE IDLE
IN DRIVE SHORT TEST FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx + b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gins /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gins)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOY
(gms) *
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS*
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
(m)
0.00470
0.01390
0.02194
0.01285
6.78774
18.72482
34.77809
14.17248
0.00157
0.00559
0.00654
0.00504
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.77369
6.20292
1.66940
2.57197
8.93084
88.8624
17.39561
19.95595
2.71339
12.04599
8.24077
12.15767
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.72425
0.41977
0.75847
0.68213
0.73169
0.38157
0.78109
0.70327
0.22862
0.19409
0.27146
0.16667
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00022
0.00142
0.00096
0.00068
0.30325
2.11200
1.26641
0.78776
0.00029
0.00123
0.00098
0.00128
no data available
C-10
-------
TABLE C-10 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP AND
BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE FEDERAL THREE MODE LOW SPEED
SHORT TEST FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx + b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gins/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP N0\ (gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOx
(pms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gins)
HOT TRANSIENT NOx
(gms)
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
(m)
O.OOSOS
0.01977
0.02074
0.01512
29.78253
156.64002
107.04765
85.90549
0.00123
0.00491
0.00402
0.00552
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.97788
6.58290
2 . 75402
3.06913
14.13455
98.16988
47.14441
29.21348
1.59362
7.47036
4.88988
6.75435
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.33363
0.25624
0.30780
0.34598
0.47362
0.46368
0.36698
0.56081
0 . 72297
0.67267
0.67778
0.73293
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00061
0.00319
0.00274
0.00176
2.75211
14.86819
13.35235
6.16649
0.00005
0.00023
0.00019
0.00022
no data available
C-ll
-------
TABLE C-ll LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP AND
BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE FEDERAL THREE MODE HIGH
SPEED SHORT TEST FOR ALL TEST SEQUENCES COMBINED
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx + b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOx
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO.
OBSER-
VATIONS*
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
547
SLOPE
(m)
0.00435
0.01931
0.01708
0.01274
13.23130
85.45049
32.81122
52.06990
0.00111
0.00484
0.00328
0.00526
INTERCEPT
(b)
1.02396
6.66582
2.97781
3,22031
15.05013
101.66340
51.66433
30.69547
1.13052
4.91387
3.97161
4.20062
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.28841
0.25090
0.2S418
0.29211
0.40668
0.51871
0.21350
0.63923
0.74346
0.75758
0.63093
0.79691
STANDARD
ERROR OF
ESTIMATE
OF SLOPE
0.00062
0.00319
0.00278
0.00179
1.51146
7.87097
7.38011
3.10288
0.00004
0.00018
0.00017
0.00017
no data available
C-12
-------
TABLE C-12 MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS
OF FTP AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE TWO SPEED
IDLE SHORT CYCLE
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form m^+n^x^b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gins)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gras)
COLD STABILIZE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOx (gms /mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
COLD STABILIZED NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO.
CARS
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
SLOPE 1
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
FOR IDLE
NEUTRAL
0.00364
(0.00034)
0.01270
(0.00196)
0.01680
(O.OOISO)
0.00887
(0.00101
7.21046
(0.44335)
21.42764
(3.00719)
36.75386
(1.97776)
14.22928
(1.09810)
0.00093
(0.00089)
0.00179
(0.00393)
0.00606
(0.00319)
0.00024
(0.00389)
SLOPE 2
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
FOR IDLE AT
22SO RPM
-0.00094
(0.00146
0.00228
(0.00841)
-0.00867
(0.00644
0.00110
(0.00435)
11.51527
(1.59783)
48,13347
(10.83768)
44.65360
(7.12770)
36.86592
(3.95745)
0.00339
(0.00048)
0,01629
(0.00211)
0.00942
(0,00172)
0.01586
(0.00209
INTERCEPT CORRELATION
(b) COEFFICIENT
0.86236
5.65523
2.45257
2.77780
8.02769
69.98469
18.96830
19.55443
1.98417
8.72S91
6.2394S
8.S7836
0.66152
0.49171
0.66718
0.60314
0 . 80608
0. 545 18
0.82972
0.77855
0,45851
0.48405
0.38868
0.47558
C-13
-------
TABLE C-13 MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF
FTP AND BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE CLAYTON MODE SHORT CYCLE
n
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form m x m x +b)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
(gras/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gms/rai)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZE
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX
(gms)
NO.
CARS
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
SLOPE 1
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE
FOR IDLE
0.00581
(0.00036)
0.02077
(0.00237
0.02704
(0.00159)
0.01332
(0.00117)
6.07568
(0.43501)
17.64227
(2.85018)
30.95780
(1.87569)
12.32189
(1.15907)
0.00099
(0.00028)
0.00182
(0.00131)
0.00191
(0.00121)
SLOPE 2
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
FOR LOW CRUISE
0.00111
(0.00167)
-0.00329
(0.01091)
O.OOS64
(0.00733)
0.00719
(0.00539)
20.20634
(0.18461)
68.86593
(20.86541)
94.34365
(13.73143)
48.40628
(8.48525)
0.00055
(0.00013)
0.00116
(0.00060)
0.00214
(0.00055)
SLOPE 3
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
FOR HIGH CRUISE
0.00323
(0.00194)
0.03961
(0.01260)
-0.00283
(0.00847)
0.01767
(0.00623)
0.06233
(0.04807)
0.74706
(0.31495)
0.14533
0.20727)
0.00163
(0.12808)
0.00063
(0.00008)
0.00351
(0.00038)
0.00316
(0.00035)
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.47160
3.74735
1.05669
1.52449
8.10163
71.17720
18.40627
20.61361
1.20231
5.76356
5.13806
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.80293
0.62344
0.80937
0.72964
0.78049
0.51789
0.82169
0.70096
0.74109
0.72273
0.76022
-------
TABLE C-14 MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF FTP AND
BAG EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE FEDERAL THREE MODE SHORT CYCLE
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the form NO.
m-X.+m-X.+m-x.+ra-x.+b) CARS
11 i L 56 44
FTP HYDROCARBONS
COLD TRANSIENT
HYDROCARBONS (gros)
COLD STABILIZED
HYDROCARBONS (gms)
n HOT TRANSIENT
^ HYDROCARBONS (gins)
tfi
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
(gras/mi)
COLD TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
COLD STABILIZE
CARBON MONIXIDE (gms)
HOT TRANSIENT
CARBON MONOXIDE (gms)
FTP NOX (gms/wi)
COLD TRANSIENT NOX (gins)
COLD STABILIZED
NOx (g«s)
HOT TRANSIENT NOX (gms)
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
SLOPE 1
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
FOR IDLE
IN NEUTRAL
0.00005
(0.00041)
-0.00109
(0.00260
0.00061
(0.00180)
0.00041
(0.00124
2.75742
(1.14165)
7.27927
(7.58314)
13.84532
(5.34400)
6.50049
(2.24100)
-0.00030
(0.00062)
-0.00019
(0.00282)
-0.00072
(0.00249)
-0.00252
(0.00254)
SLOPE 2
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
FOR IDLE
IN DRIVE
0.00508
(0.00069)
0.01790
(0.00437)
0.02391
(0.00302)
0.01143
(0.00208)
4.11232
(1.10973)
13.36517
(7.37116)
20.75439
(5.19459)
7.61584
(2.17832)
0.00098
(0.00027)
0.00164
(0.00122)
0.00556
(0.00108)
0.00194
(0.00110)
SLOPE 3
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
FOR LOW SPEED
0.00783
(0.00286)
0.01436
(0.01810)
0.03354
(0.01251)
0.03335
(0.00862)
15.01588
(4.02279)
26.18249
(26.72045)
76.93125
(18.83038)
42.85862
(7.89643)
0.00053
(0.00012)
0.00056
(0.00054)
0.00289
(0.00048)
0.00147
(0. 00049 J
SLOPE 4
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
FOR HIGH SPEED
-0.00352
(0.00323)
0.02506
(0.02049)
-0.02899
(0.01416)
-0.01440
(0.00976)
7.94172
(2.34602)
75.09642
(15.58294)
5.93576
(10.98157)
37.43106
(4.60507)
0.00062
(0.00009)
0.00413
(0.00043)
0.00080
(0.00037)
0.00367
(0.00038)
INTERCEPT
(b)
0.52898
4.04200
1.20301
1 . 80054
6.78319
65.15064
14.11868
15.33417
1.06730
4.86349
3.38632
4.43357
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.76863
0.57715
0.77643
0.72536
0.82648
0.62459
0.83040
0.88100
0.80478
0.80079
0.72764
0.83687
-------
TABLE C-1S LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE PERCENT
REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE PERCENT REDUCTION
IN THE FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE AT EACH TEST SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% Reduction
between
Tests 152
% Reduction
between
Tests 253
% Reduction
between
Tests 3 S 4
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form mx+b)
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
NO.
CARS
113
113
112*
68
67*
68
72
72
72
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
0.37663
CO. 04431)
0.00841
(0.00862)
0. 78901
(0.03693)
0.51145
(0.04759)
0.64361
(0.06935)
0.46993
(0.07053)
0.23561
(0.05379)
0.03449
(0.01366
0.14098
(0.03861)
INTERCEPT
(b)
4.50151
11.89804
0.24759
15.58995
10.33227
0.16110
3.67988
2.57304
6.07286
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.62793
0.09228
0.89766
0.79773
0.75490
0.63416
0.46376
0.28886
0.39993
"missing data
C-16
-------
TABLE C-16 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE PERCENT
REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE PERCENT REDUCTION
IN THE NY & NJ SHORT CYCLE AT EACH TEST SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% Reduction
between
Tests 1 § 2
% Reduction
between
Tests 2 § 3
% Reduction
between
Tests 3 § 4
DEPENDENT VARIABLE, Y
(where Y is of the
form rax+b)
HC
CO
NO,
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NO,
NO.
CARS
113
111
112
68
63
68
72
71
72
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
0.11274
(0.02546)
-0.00048
(0.00123)
0.73067
(0.05021)
0.42758
(0.04855)
0.32657
(0.04652)
0.39653
(0.05632)
0.12913
(0.03452
0.03247
(0.01376)
0.62757
(0.06046)
INTERCEPT
(b)
5.67922
11.25483
0,90156
19.61443
34.26640
0.65837
4,56187
1.99214
4.19505
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
0.38745
0.03805
0.81125
0 . 73SOS
0.65956
0.65492
0.40815
0.27328
0.77857
C-17
-------
TABLE C-17 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN TWO SPEED IDLE (32250 AT EACH TEST
SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 § 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 2 § 3
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 3 $ 4
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE
Y IS
OF FORM
mx + b)
He
Co
NOY
He
Co
NCT
He
Co
NO
NO.
CARS
75
58
75
37
32
23
37
30
25
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
.01658
(.0451)
-.0322
(.0679)
.025
(.0634)
.0757
(.038)
.0059
(.0189)
.122
(.0056)
.0362
(.0134)
.228
(.0055)
.0611
(.1564)
INTERCEPT,
b
8.156
13-608
2.62
30.82
51.378
-4.07
.08525
11.32
2.397
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.04298
-.0632
.4189
.3194
.0569
.978
.416
.992
.08118
C-18
-------
TABLE C-18 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN TWO SPEED IDLE 9 IDLE AT EACH TEST
SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 152
REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 253
REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 3 § 4
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE
Y IS
OF FORM
mx + b)
He
Co
NOV
X
He
Co
NOX
He
Co
NOY
A
NO.
CARS
75
63
75
37
33
23
37
30
25
SLOPE
STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
.0422
(.0197)
.00018
(.0011)
-.034
(.0536)
.1516
(.04)
.0899
(.0602)
.399
(.02)
.0433
(.0317)
-.0122
(.0866)
,0612
(.109)
INTERCEPT,
b
9.256
14.956
1.9
25.14
47.065
3.134
-.539
-56.8
2.78
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.2428
.01967
-.0737
.5385
.259
.974
.2246
-.02667
.1164
C-19
-------
TABLE C-19 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN CLAYTON KEY MODE HIGH AT EACH TEST
SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 § 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 2§3
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 3 § 4
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE
Y IS
OF FORM
mx + b)
He
Co
NO
X
He
Co
NO,
He
Co
NOX
NO.
CARS
75
59
'5
37
28
23
37
31
25
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
.172
(.07)
.01
(.0398)
.203
(.042)
.0206
(.085)
' .001
(.004)
. 136
C-126)
.1353
(.095)
-.822
(1.28)
.332
(.134)
INTERCEPT,
b
8.34
13.89
3.58
27.85
49.4
-18.34
-1.38
-25.46
1.62
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.2767
.0342
.49
.0408
.0648
.«S5
.233
-.1181 ~
.4596
C-20
-------
TABLE C-20 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN CLAYTON KEY MODE LOW AT EACH TEST
SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 3 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 2 § 3
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 3 § 4
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE
Y IS
OF FORM
mx + b)
He
Co
NOY
A
He
Co
NOV
X
He
Co
NOY
\
NO.
CARS
75
59
75
37
28
23
37
30
25
SLOPE
STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
.0601
(.045)
.0074
(.0313)
.0852
(.0318)
.1365
(.072)
- . 0042
(.0525)
.6498
(.04)
.1682
(.0556)
.2482
(.0115)
.203
(.0846)
INTERCEPT,
b
8.09
14.77
3.93
29.41
48.94
-7.5
.746
26.012
4.281
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.155
.0313
.2993
.3044
-.0156
.962
.4552
.971
.4476
C-21
-------
TABLE C-21 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN CLAYTON KEY MODE IDLE AT EACH TEST
SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 § 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 2 § 3
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 3 & 4
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE
Y IS
OF FORM
mx + b)
He
Co
NOV
X
He
Co
NOY
A
He
Co
NOV
X
NO.
CARS
75
64
75
37
34
23
37
31
25
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
.1155
(.0314)
.000089
(.00099)
.2042
(.0153)
.326
(.091)
.7078
1-126)
.136
(-126)
.029
(.07)
-.0093
(.074)
.1435
(.0578)
INTERCEPT,
b
8.776
16.576
4.546
14.12
.673
-18.34
-2.97
-53.77
6,29
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.395
.0115
.182
.5188
. 7"U43
.2285
.0692
-.0233
.46
C-22
-------
TABLE C-22 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FEDERAL THREE MODE HIGH SPEED
AT EACH TEST SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS I $ 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 2 § 3
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 3 & 4
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE
Y IS
OF FORM
mx + b)
He
Co
NOY
X
He
Co
NOY
He
Co
NOY
NO.
CARS
75
61
75
37
29
23
37
31
25
'
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
-1268
(.0747) '
.01866
(.0271)
.30512
(.037)
.0303
(.0897)
.000897
(.00563)
.444
(.307)
.18269
(.1097)
-.851
(1.081)
.336
(.1596)
INTERCEPT,
b
7.853
14.189
3.8396
28.044
50.1633
-25.09
^_
-1.929
-31.77
1.302
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.19487
.08927
.69313
.05708
.03063
.301
.27097
-.143
.402
C-23
-------
TABLE C-23 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FEDERAL THREE MODE LOW SPEED AT
EACH TEST SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 § 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 & 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 § 2
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE)
Y IS
OF FORM
mx + b)
He
Co
NOX
He
Co
NOX
He
Co
NOX
NO.
CARS
75
62
75
37
31
23
37
30
25
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
i~0742
(.0693)
.0108
(.0331)
.395
(.0456)
.1046
(.0605)
-.02121
(.0198)
.3837
(-0193)
.1967
(.0799)
-.76455
(.8618)
.2291
(.0963)
INTERCEPT,
b
7.956
15.97
4.871
29.73
49.1
-1.174
-1.1636
-35.615
2.809
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.1244
.04212
.7115
.2805
-.1953
.9744
.3844
-.1653
.444
C-24
-------
TABLE C-24 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FEDERAL THREE MODE IDLE IN DRIVE
AT EACH TEST SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 & 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 2 & 3
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 3 S 4
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE
Y IS
OF FORM
mx + b)
He
Co
NOX
He
Co
NOY
A
He
Co
NOV
A
NO.
CARS
75
64
73
35
33
21
34
29
22
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
.2304
(.0475)
.258
(.0695)
.0128
(.0217)
.3059
(.0816)
.7766
(.1186)
.2709
(.0211)
.008
(.058)
-.0132
(.0994)
.1339
(.0586)
INTERCEPT,
b
6.95
11.835
3.95
14.2
-7.062
7,214
-.629
-56,3
5.221
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.4987
.4269
.0702
.5467
.7619
.947
.0243
-.0256
.4547
C-25
-------
TABLE C-25 LINEAR REGRESSION AND CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS OF THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FTP EMISSIONS REGRESSED ON THE
PERCENT REDUCTION IN FEDERAL THREE MODE IDLE IN NEUTRAL
AT EACH TEST SEQUENCE
TEST
SEQUENCE
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 1 § 2
% REDUCTION
BETWEEN
TESTS 2 § 3
% RFniirTTDN
BETWEEN
TESTS 354
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE,
Y (WHERE
Y IS
OF FORM
mx * b)
He
Co
NOY
He
Co
NOY
He
Co
NOY
NO.
CARS
74
66
74
37
33
23
37
31
25
SLOPE
(STD. ERROR
OF ESTIMATE)
.1564
(.0272)
.2089
(.0421)
.00642
(.0117)
.1143
(.0356)
.0672
(.0493)
.4264
(.0257)
.0394
(.0273)
-.0123
(.07714)
.1518
(.1479)
INTERCEPT,
b
9.84
14.275
3.669
25.6
48.753
5.937
-.318
-54.67
1.994
CORRELATION
COEFFICIENT
.56
.5275
.0646
.477
.2381 "
.964
.2368
-.0296
.2092
C-26
-------
TABLE C-26 LINEAR REGRESSIONS OF SHORT TESTS ON FTP EMISSIONS
USED TO OBTAIN THE SHORT CYCLE STANDARDS FOR HC
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
(Short Cycle)
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY
CLAYTON KEY MODE HIGH
CLAYTON KEY MODE LOW
CLAYTON KEY MODE IDLE
TWO SPEED IDLE AT
2250 RPM
TWO SPEED IDLE AT
IDLE NEUTRAL
FEDERAL THREE
MODE HIGH
FEDERAL THREE
MODE LOW
FEDERAL THREE MODE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
FEDERAL THREE MODE
IDLE IN DRIVE
NO.
CARS
300
300
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
SLOPE
0.899
1.423
7.9
13.198
104.04
14.43
123.8776
11.793
16.0059
142.138
98.4236
FTP
STANDARD
1.5
l.S
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
INTERCEPT
-0.1797
-0.1863
27.824
26.271
-21.4
32.3676
-25.655
23.995
23.2387
-27.7215
-17.0482
SHORT CYCLE
STANDARD AT
FTP STANDARD
1.169
1.948
39.67
46.07
134.66
54.01
160.16
41.68
47.25
185.49
130.59
C-27
-------
TABLE C-27 LINEAR REGRESSIONS OF SHORT TESTS ON FTP EMISSIONS
USED TO OBTAIN THE SHORT CYCLE STANDARDS FOR CO
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
(Short Cycle)
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY
CLAYTON KEY MODE HIGH
CLAYTON KEY MODE LOW
CLAYTON KEY MODE IDLE
TWO SPEED IDLE AT
2250 RPM
TWO SPEED IDLE AT
IDLE NEUTRAL
FEDERAL THREE
MODE HIGH
FEDERAL THREE
MODE LOW
FEDERAL THREE MODE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
FEDERAL THREE MODE
IDLE IN DRIVE
NO.
CARS
300
.300
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
SLOPE
0.815
1.471
.09834
.00661
.07727
.01134
.072
.007633
.00627
.078556
.07444
FTP
STANDARD
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
INTERCEPT
-3.037
-1.954
-.33715
-.04877
.09839
-.08524
-.02115
-.06924
-.03964
.07922
.09952
SHORT CYCLE
STANDARD AT
FTP STANDARE
9.188
20.111
1.14
.05
1.26
.08
1.06
.05
.05
1.26
1.22
C-28
-------
TABLE C-28 LINEAR REGRESSIONS OF SHORT TESTS ON FTP EMISSIONS
USED TO OBTAIN THE SHORT CYCLE STANDARDS FOR NO
DEPENDENT
VARIABLE
(Short Cycle)
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE
NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY
CLAYTON KEY MODE HIGH
CLAYTON KEY MODE LOW
CLAYTON KEY MODE IDLE
TWO SPEED IDLE AT
2250 RPM
TWO SPEED IDLE AT
IDLE NEUTRAL
FEDERAL THREE
MODE HIGH
FEDERAL THREE
MODE LOW
FEDERAL THREE MODE
IDLE IN NEUTRAL
FEDERAL THREE MODE
IDLE IN DRIVE
NO.
CARS
300
300
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
200
SLOPE
0.7254
0.680
553.257
306.7532
32.632
60 . 1885
6.60197
612.457
448.254
11.08577
32.7681
FTP
STANDARD
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
3.1
INTERCEPT
0.129
0.28
-82.15
-70.68756
110.377
27.47
65.6687
-146.338
-237.922
52.311
122.1235
SHORT CYCLE
STANDARD AT
FTP STANDARD
2.378
2.388
1632.95
880.25
211.54
214.05
86.13
1752.28
1151.67
86.68
223.70
C-29
-------
TABLE C-29 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE TO PASS OR FAIL A
VEHICLE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR
HC, CO, AND NO SEPARATELY ON INITIAL TEST
^AILURE
RATE SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
10% NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gins/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
20% NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/nri)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
"if\9-
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
40% NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
50% NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
# CARS
PASS
212
0
212
# CARS
FAIL
58
30
88
# CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
2.51
210
2
212
30
58
88
240
60
300
1.74
193
19
212
17
71
88
210
90
300
1.26
174
38 *
212
6
82
88
180
120
300
0.95
149
63
212
1
87
88
150
150
300
0.67
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
* CARS
PASS
183
0
183
# CARS
FAIL
87
30
117
* CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
38.67
183
0
183
57
60
117
240
60
300
24.82
181
2
183
29
88
117
210
90
300
14.06
171
12
183
9
108
117
180
120
300
6.54
148
35
183
2
115
117
150
150
300
3.58
FTP NOy
* CARS
PASS
211
3
214
» CARS
FAIL
59
27
86
# CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
3.49
200
14
214
40
46
86
240
60
300
2.85
184
30
214
26
60
86
210
90
300
2.44
164
50
214
16
70
86
180
120
300
2.14
146
68
14
4
82
86
150
150
300
1.93
n
i
CM
o
-------
TABLE C-30 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE TO PASS OR
FAIL A VEHICLE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
FOR HC, CO AND NO COMBINED
FAILURE
RATE SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
10% NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gras/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
£ 20% NO. CARS TOTAL
f— •
CUT POINT (gins/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
30% NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
40% NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/iBi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
50% NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
FTP HYDROCARBONS
» CARS » CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
209
3
212
204
8
212
190
22
212
170
42
212
144
68
212
61
27
88
_
36
52
88
4.57
20
68
88
2.18
10
78
88
1.68
6
82
88
1.45
270
30
300
240
60
300
210
90
300
180
120
300
150
150
300
FTP
* CARS
PASS
183
1
184
181
3
184
175
9
184
160
24
184
139
45
184
CARBON MONOXIDE
» CARS » CARS
FAIL TOTAL
87
29
116
40.75
59
57
116
26.16
35
81
116
18.00
20
96
116
14.06
11
105
116
11.84
270
30
300
240
60
300
210
90
300
180
120
300
150
150
300
# CARS
PASS
191
23
214
171
43
214
151
63
214
138
76
214
125
89
214
FTP NOx
» CARS
FAIL
79
7
86
10.80
69
17
86
6.82
59
27
86
4.50
42
44
86
3.46
25
61
86
2.85
# CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
240
60
300
210
90
300
180
120
300
150
150
300
-------
TABLE C-31 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY SHORT CYCLE TEST TO PASS
OR FAIL A VEHICLE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR
HC, CO AND NO SEPARATELY
A
FAILURE
RATE
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
SHORT CYCLE
TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gras/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
FTP
» CARS'
PASS
208
4
212
202
10
212
194
18
212
172
40
212
147
65
212
HYDROCA1
0 CARS
FAIL
62
26
88
3.84
38
50
88
3.07
16
72
88
2.31
8
80
88
1.72
3
85
88
1.18
BONS
» CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
240
60
300
210
90
300
180
120
300
150
150
300
FTP C
« CARS
PASS
184
0
184
181
3
184
177
7
184
166
18
184
147
37
184
ARBON MC
0 CARS
FAIL
86
30
116
77.77
59
57
116
52.65
33
83
116
35.31
14
102
116
18 30
3
113
116
7.98
INOXIDE
# CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
240
60
300
210
90
300
180
120
300
150
150
300
# CARS
PASS
212
2
214
205
9
214
190
24
214
164
50
214
142
72
214
FTP NO
* CARS
FAIL
58
28
86
3.48
35
51
86
2.79
20
66
86
2.45
16
70
86
2.18
8
78
86
1.97
X
# CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
240
60
300
210
90
300
180
120
300
150
150
300
n
i
t/4
NJ
-------
TABLE C-32
EFFECTIVENESS OF THE NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY SHORT CYCLE TEST TO
PASS OR FAIL A VEHICLE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
FOR HC, CO and NO COMBINED
A
P}
O4
Ot
FAILURE
RATE
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
1
SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT (gms/mi)
F
# CARS
PASS
210
2
212
FP HYDROCA
» CARS
FAIL
60
28
88
8.36
199
13
212
41
47
88
5.77
188
24
212
22
66
88
HBONS
# CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
240
60
300
210
90
300
4.16
167
45
212
141
71
212
13
75
88
180
120
300
3.03
9
79
88
150
150
300
2.64
FTP
tf CARS
PASS
184
0
184
178
6
184
CARBON Ml
# CARS
FAIL
86
30
116
79.45
62
54
116
3NOXIDE
» CAR
TOTAL
270
30
300
240
60
300
54.83
172
12
184
153
31
184
130
54
184
38
78
116
210
90
300
40.02
27
89
116
180
120
300
32.47
20
96
116
150
150
300
25.05
# CARS
PASS
189
25
214
FTP NOX
0 CARS
FAIL
81
5
86
» CARS
TOTAL
270
30
300
-
169
45
214
71
15
86
240
60
300
6.52
152
62
214
134
80
214
122
92
214
58
28
86
5.41
46
40
86
3.69
28
58
86
210
90
300
180
120
300
150
150
300
2.97
-------
TABLE C-33 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TWO SPEED IDLE SHORT CYCLE TEST TO PASS OR FAIL
A VEHICLE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR IIC, CO, AND
NO SEPARATELY
A
FAILURE
RATE
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
FTP HYDROCARBONS
# CARS # CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
140 40 180
3 17 20
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
400
138 22 160
5 35 40
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
300 240
125 15 140
18 42 60
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
140 135
112 8 120
31 49 80
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
85 90
96 4 100
47 53 100
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
65 64
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
# CARS # CARS 0 CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
126 54 180
0 20 20
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
5 5
124 36 160
2 38 40
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
4.2 3.4
122 18 140
4 56 60
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
2.0 1.7
115 5 120
11 69 80
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
0.5 0.26
96 4 100
30 70 100
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
0.03 0.05
FTP NOX
» CARS * CARS ff CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
144 36 180
10 10 20
154 46 200
HIGH IDLE
360 640
131 29 160
23 17 40
154 46 200
HIGH IDLE
280 280
120 20 140
34 26 60
154 46 200
HIGH IDLE
225 270
111 9 120
43 37 80
154 46 200
HIGH IDLE
190 195
94 6 100
60 40 100
154 46 200
HIGH IDLE
162 172
n
-------
TABLE C-34 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE TWO SPEED IDLE SHORT CYCLE TEST TO PASS OR FAIL
A VEHICLE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR HC, CO AND NO
COMBINED
FAILURE
RATE
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
-
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
FTP HYDROCARBONS
* CARS tt CARS f CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
136 44 180
7 13 20
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
1300
134 26 160
9 31 40
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
300
124 16 140
19 41 60
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
165
111 9 120
32 48 80
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
128 380
94 6 100
49 51 100
143 57 200
HIGH IDLE
90
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
» CARS 0 CARS * CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
122 58 180
4 16 20
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
0.75 7.6
122 38 160
4 36 40
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
0.5 4.25
115 25 140
11 49 60
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
3.2
104 16 120
22 58 80
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
2.5
90 10 100
36 64 100
126 74 200
HIGH IDLE
1.8
FTP NOX
* CARS # CARS » CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
136 44 180
16 4 20
152 48 200
HIGH IDLE
1571 640
119 41 160
33 7 40
152 48 200
HIGH IDLE
360
106 34 140
46 14 60
152 48 200
HIGH IDLE
663 279
94 26 120
58 22 80
152 48 200
HIGH IDLE
492 187
81 19 100
71 29 100
152 48 200
HIGH IDLE
360 146
n
i
t/4
cn
-------
TABLE C-35 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CLAYTON KEY MODE SHORT CYCLE TEST TO PASS OR FAIL A VEHICLE
AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR HC, CO AND NO SEPARATELY
A
FAILURE
RATE
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
FTP HYDROCARBONS
It CARS * CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
141 39 180
1 19 20
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
320
137 23 160
5 35 40
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
250 - 235
129 11 140
13 47 60
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
145 135
114 6 120
28 52 80
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
80 85 81
96 4 100
46 54 100
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
60 60 60
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
» CARS 0 CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
126 54 180
0 20 20
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
7.4 - 5.9
125 35 160
1 39 40
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
4.0
122 18 140
4 56 60
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
3.6 2.2
116 4 120
10 70 80
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
0.8 0.65 0.65
99 ] 100
27 73 100
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
0.09 0.09 0.10
FTP NOx
# CARS # CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
147 33 180
5 15 20
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
2361 2400
134 26 160
18 22 40
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
2000 2050
122 18 140
30 30 60
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
1746 1750
107 13 120
45 35 80
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
1442 1451
92 8 100
60 40 100
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
1229 1250
o
I
-------
TABLE C-36 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CLAYTON KEY MODE SHORT CYCLE TEST TO PASS OR FAIL A VEHICLE
AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR HC, CO AND NOV COMBINED
o
1
O4
"fc^J
FAILURE
RATE
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
FTP HYDROCARBONS
# CARS # CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
140 40 180
2 18 20
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
250
134 26 160
8 32 40
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
550
124 16 140
18 42 60
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
145 410
110 10 120
32 48 80
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
95 110 315
91 9 100
51 49 100
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
80 100 280
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
* CARS » CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
126 54 180
0 20 20
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
8.0 0.31 6.9
120 40 160
6 34 40
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
0.22 5.0
113 27 140
13 47 60
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
0.15 3.8
102 18 120
24 56 80
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
0.13 3.0
86 14 100
40 60 100
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
0.11 2.6
FTP NOX
1 CARS # CARS K CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
135 45 180
17 3 20
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
121 39 160
31 9 40
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
840
109 31 140
43 17 60
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
5566 2698 644
94 26 120
58 22 80
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
3963 2050 511
78 22 100
74 26 100
152 48 200
HIGH LOW IDLE
1779 430
-------
TABLE C-37 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL THREE MODE SHORT CYCLE TEST TO PASS OR FAIL
A VEHICLE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR HC, CO, AND NO
SEPARATELY
FAILURE
RATE
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
FTP HYDROCARBONS
* CARS » CARS « CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
139 41 180
3 17 20
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
510 490
137 23 160
5 35 40
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
480 480
126 14 140
16 44 60
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
270 260 280 270
111 9 120
31 49 80
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
130 150 168 160
96 4 100
46 54 100
142 58 200
IIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
90 90 82 88
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
H CARS # CARS » CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
124 56 180
2 18 20
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
7.6 -- 5.8 6.0
124 36 160
2 38 40
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
4.2 4.3
121 19 140
5 55 60
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
3.0 2.5 2.6
115 5 120
11 69 80
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
1.2 1.4 1.0 0.9
99 1 100
27 73 100
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
0.11 0.11 0.10 0.10
FTP NOX
# CARS « CARS 0 CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
149 31 180
4 16 20
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NO.
2361 2400
136 24 160
17 23 40
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
2100 2192
124 16 140
29 31 60
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
1813 1829
108 12 120
45 35 80
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
1636 1650
91 9 100
62 38 100 j
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NO.
1450 1498
o
I
00
-------
TABLE C-38 EFFECTIVENESS OF THE FEDERAL THREE MODE SHORT CYCLE TEST TO PASS OR FAIL
A VEHICLE AS COMPARED TO THE FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE FOR HC, CO, AND NOx
COMBINED
FAILURE
RATE
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
SHORT CYCLE TEST
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT '
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
NO. CARS PASS
NO. CARS FAIL
NO. CARS TOTAL
CUT POINT
FTP HYDROCARBONS
# CARS # CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
134 46 180
8 12 20
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
1400
132 28 160
10 30 40
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
270 260 620 770
122 18 140
20 40 60
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
175 440 670
108 12 120
34 46 80
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
150 380 550
91 9 100
51 49 100
142 58 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
90 105 290 420
FTP CARBON MONOXIDE
0 CARS # CARS # CARS
PASS FAIL TOTAL
121 59 180
5 15 20
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
0.35 0.44 9.5 8.6
118 42 160
8 32 40
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
0.25 0.25 5.2 5.3
110 30 140
16 44 60
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
0.2 0.2 4.2 4.1
97 23 120
29 51 80
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
0.15 -- 3.6 3.5
84 16 100
42 58 100
126 74 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE NE.
0.11 0.11 2.8 2.7
FTP NOX
ff CARS # CARS # CAR
PASS FAIL TOTAL
139 41 180
14 6 20
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE 1
700
122 38 160
31 9 40
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE h
940 549
111 29 140
42 18 60
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE N
-- 4048 800 328
96 24 120
57 23 80
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE N
5060 3373 660 245
81 19 100
72 28 100
153 47 200
HIGH LOW IDLE DR. IDLE N
4000 2698 511 200
r>
i
<£>
-------
TABLE C-39 CLAYTON KEY MODE MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
HC ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N_
141
137
129
114
96
SHORT
N
1
5
13
28
46
Mean
0.805
0.792
0.777
0.738
0.695
TEST, PASS
Mean
0.877
1.173
1.092
1.08
1.04
SD
0.34
0.334
0.33
0.315
0.5
FTP
SD
_
0.266
0.299
0.295
0.297
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N^
39
23
11
6
4
SHORT
N
19
35
47
52
54
Mean
2.256
1.907
1.844
1.876
1.83
TEST, FAIL
Mean
3.17
2.98
2.72
2.63
2.61
SD
0.799
0.375
0.336
0.246
0.263
FTP
SD
1.2
1.11
1.07
1.06
1.05
C-40
-------
TABLE C-40 CLAYTON KEY MODE MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
CO ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
126
125
122
116
99
SHORT
N_
0
1
4
10
27
Mean
5.977
5.97
5.94
5.77
5.45
TEST, PASS
Mean
-
6.44
6.97
8.32
7.9
SD_
3.46
3.48
3.43
3.39
3.2
FTP
SD
-
-
4.8
3.65
3.75
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
54
35
18
4
1
38.87
28.92
25.32
21.64
16.97
23.37
10.78
10.22
6.29
-
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
20
39
56
70
73
54.22
55,67
48.71
44.24
43.38
20.44
24.69
23.77
23.54
23.46
C-41
-------
TABLE C-41 CLAYTON KEY MODE
MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
NOX ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST. PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
N
Mean
SD
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
147
134
122
107
92
2.22
2.19
2.18
2.14
2.09
SHORT TEST, PASS
N
5
18
30
45
60
Mean
2.13
2.42
2.40
2.41
2.42
0.494
0.493
0.496
0.487
0.47
FTP
SD.
0.477
0.452
0.442
0.459
0.464
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
53
26
18
13
8
SHORT
N_
15
22
30
35
40
Mean
3.65
3.67
3.69
3.82
3.88
TEST, FAIL
Mean
5.58
4.95
4.59
4.42
4.33
SD
0.414
0.441
0.496
0.513
0.629
FTP
SD
1.7
1.69
1.56
1.51
1.43
C-42
-------
TABLE C-42 FEDERAL 3 MODE
FTP mm EMISSIONS
HC ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
10
20
30
40
50
139
137
126
111
96
0.798
0.798
0.768
0.723
0.69
0.337
0.339
0.329
0.309
0.296
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
3
5
16
31
46
1.148
1.01
1.1
1.1
1.05
0.292
0.286
0.27
0.275
0.294
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
41
23
14
9
4
SHORT
N
17
35
44
49
54
Mean
2.41
1.97
1.82
1.72
1.823
TEST, FAIL
Mean
2.987
2.938
2.79
2.71
2.61
SD
1.0
0.65
0.298
0.203
0.245
FTP
SD
1.06
1.07
1.08
1.05
1.05
C-43
-------
TABLE C-43 FEDERAL 3 MODE
FTP MEAN EMISSIONS
CO ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
124
124
121
115
99
SHORT
N
2
2
5
11
27
Mean
5.97
5.97
5.93
5.75
5.23
TEST, PASS
Mean
6.27
6.27
7.2
8.35
8.7
SD
3.48
3.48
3.44
3.39
5.06
FTP
SD
2.67
2.67
4.19
3.45
3.54
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
56
36
19
5
1
SHORT
N
18
38
55
69
73
Mean
37.75
31.39
23.51
19.6
16.97
TEST, FAIL
Mean
59.41
54.04
49.83
44.72
43.38
SD
18.99
17.21
6.52
4.72
"
FTP
SD
28.78
23.52
23.42
23.41
23.46
C-44
-------
TABLE C-44 FEDERAL 3 MODE FTP MEAN EMISSIONS
NOX ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
H
149
136
124
108
91
SHORT
N
4
17
29
45
62
Mean
2.2
2.19
2.16
2.11
2.07
TEST, PASS
Mean
2.7
2.46
2.49
2.49
2.44
SD
0.492
0.496
0.497
0.49
0.484
FTP
SD
0.239
0.406
0.37
0.39
0.42
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
1
31
24
16
12
9
SHORT
N
16
23
31
35
38
Mean
3.62
3.61
3.61
3.69
3.73
TEST, FAIL
Mean
5.53
4.897
4.58
4.44
4.38
sp_
0.347
0.356
0.4
0.408
0.469
FTP
SD
1.67
1.63
1.52
1.49
1.44
C-45
-------
TABLE C-45 NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY
HC ONLY
MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N_
208
202
194
172
147
SHORT TEST
N_
4
10
18
40
65
Mean
0.809
0.796
0.779
0,746
0.693
, PASS
Mean
1.06
1.18
1.19
1.11
1.09
S£
0.336
0.329
0.322
0.310
0.277
FTP
S£
0.216
0.259
0.229
0.279
0.296
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
62
38
16
8
3
SHORT
N_
26
50
72
80
85
Mean
2.19
2.02
1.74
1.68
1.66
TEST, FAIL
Mean
3.42
2.96
2.73
2.64
2.58
SD
0.653
0.512
0.217
0.176
0.108
FTP
S£
1.05
1.03
0.976
0.969
0.968
C-46
-------
TABLE C-46 NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY
MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
CO ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
184
181
177
166
147
Mean
6.11
6.11
6.14
6.16
5.75
§£.
3.43
3.45
3.47
3.46
3.09
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
FAIL SHORT TEST. PASS FTP
Rate
N
Mean
SD
10
20
30
40
50
0
3
7
18
37
0
6.25
5.475
5.63
7.56
0
2.01
2.19
3.15
4.29
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
so
N_
86
59
33
14
3
SHORT
N
30
57
83
102
113
Mean
34.38
28.7
23.27
20.27
23.09
TEST, FAIL
Mean
66.55
57.19
50.42
45.78
43.22
SD
16.66
11.83
7.83
5.93
12.04
FTP
SD.
23.13
23.33
22.83
23.05
23.27
C-47
-------
TABLE C-47 NEW YORK, MEW JERSEY
MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
NOX ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
212
205
190
164
142
SHORT
N_
2
9
24
50
72
Mean
2.24
2.22
2.21
2.14
2.12
TEST, PASS
Mean
3.01
2.78
2.52
2.57
2.49
SD
0.476
0.476
0.48
0.468
0,476
FTP
SD
0.09
0.209
0.38
0.364
0.386
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
58
35
20
16
8
3.69
3.53
3.53
3.56
3.44
0.564
0.356
0.418
0.419
0.296
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
28
51
66
70
78
5.45
4.75
4.49
4.43
4. 35
1.72
1.54
1.46
1.44
1.39
C-48
-------
TABLE C-48 FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
HC ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST. PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N_
212
210
193
174
149
SHORT
N
0
2
19
38
63
Mean
0.814
0.812
0.776
0.735
0.67
TEST, PASS
Mean
0
0.994
1.2
1.18
1.16
§2.
0.336
0.337
0.320
0.303
0.2S9
FTP
S£
0
0.16S
0.236
0.222
0.23
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
58
30
17
6
1
2.137
1.872
1.681
1.686
1.69
0.514
0.343
0.161
0.19
«
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
30
58
71
82
87
3.35
2.90
2.76
2.61
2.55
1.127
0.997
0.962
0.969
0.966
C-49
-------
TABLE C-49 FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
CO ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
183
183
181
171
148
SHORT
N
0
0
2
12
35
Mean
6.11
6.11
6.08
5.91
5.43
TEST, PASS
Mean
0
0
9.01
8.73
8.93
S£
3.43
3.43
3.43
3.38
3.03
FTP
S£
0
0
0.949
3.09
3.56
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
87
57
29
9
2
SHORT
N
30
60
88
108
115
Mean^
33.52
28.09
21.64
21.43
26.91
TEST, FAIL
Mean
69.01
56.33
49.4
44.49
42.98
SD
13.82
12.05
6.22
7.12
14.21
FTP
SD
24.81
22.93
22.67
23.25
23.31
C-50
-------
TABLE C-50 FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
NOX ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
211
200
184
164
146
SHORT
N_
27
14
30
50
68
Mean
2.24
2.22
2.19
2.15
2.09
TEST, PASS
Mean
5.69
2.58
2.58
2.54
2.56
SD_
0.482
0.485
0.482
0.488
0.47
FTP
SD
1.6
0.213
0.299
0.3
0.323
PASS SHORT TEST. FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N_
59
40
26
16
4
Mean
3.61
3.57
3.4
3.36
3.41
SD
0.407
0.331
0.194
0.17
0.126
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
Mean
SD
10
20
30
40
50
3
46
60
70
82
2.51
4.86
4.64
4.47
4.32
0.24
1.6
1.47
1.42
1.38
C-51
-------
TABLE C-51 TWO SPEED IDLE MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
HC ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
140
138
125
112
96
SHORT TEST
N_
3
5
18
31
47
Mean
0.796
0.799
0.76
0.726
0.686
, PASS
Mean
1.24
0.979
1.11
1.09
1.05
SD
0.334
0.335
0.323
0.311
0.292
FTP
S2
0.317
0.432
0.289
0.278
0.297
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
40
22
15
8
4
SHORT
N_
17
35
42
49
53
Mean
2.38
1.92
1.97
1.86
2.01
TEST, FAIL
Mean
2.97
2.97
2.78
2.68
2.61
sp_
0.995
0.415
0.423
0.344
0.393
FTP
sp_
1.04
1.11
1.11
1.07
1.06
C-52
-------
TABLE C-52
TWO SPEED IDLE MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
CO ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
126
124
122
115
96
Mean
5.98
5.98
5.90
5.63
5.26
SHORT TEST, PASS
N
0
2
4
11
30
Mean
_
5.95
8.18
9.64
8.27
SD
3.46
3.48
3.44
3.24
3.01
FTP
SO
_
2.22
4.03
3.73
3.86
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N.
54
36
18
5
4
Mean
38.07
29.04
24.09
23.22
25.15
SD
21.56
10.19
6.34
9.29
9.51
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
N
Mean
SD
10
20
30
40
50
20
38
56
69
70
56.38
56.27
49.10
44.46
44.04
23.83
24,91
23.78
23.60
23.68
C-53
-------
TABLE C-53 TOO SPEED IDLE MEAN FTP EMISSIONS
NOX ONLY
PASS SHORT TEST. PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N_
144
131
120
111
94
SHORT TEST
£L
10
23
34
43
60
Mean
2.21
2.20
2.16
2.13
2.07
, PASS
Mean
2,37
2.36
2.43
2.47
2,47
sp_
0.505
0.512
0.507
0.502
0.487
FTP
SD
0.195
0.33
0.37
0.37
0.39
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
SO
I
36
29
20
9
6
SHORT
N.
10
17
26
37
40
Mean
3.98
3.81
3.84
3.66
3.78
TEST, FAIL
Mean
5.17
4.997
4.55
4.39
4.32
SD_
0.955
0.68
0.793
0.382
0.415
FTP
sp_
1.98
1.8
1.57
1.44
1.41
C-54
-------
TABLE C-54
CLAYTON KEY MODE MEAN NOX EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
10
20
30
40
50
140
134
124
110
91
0.34
0.34
0.331
0.316
0.312
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
40
26
16
10
9
Mean
SD
0,761
0.715
0.295
0.259
0.255
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N_ Mean SJD
10
20
30
40
50
2
8
18
32
51
0.986
0.907
0.875
0.879
0.916
0.154
0.382
0.394
0.406
0.359
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
SO
18
32
42
48
49
1.28
1.16
1.08
1.07
1.06
TABLE C-55 MEAN CO EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
126
120
113
102
86
3.46
3.47
3.54
3.55
3.59
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
54
40
27
18
14
16.15
16.15
10.68
10.98
12.44
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
0
6
13
24
40
Mean
5.67
5.15
5.85
5.91
SD
2.97
2.67
3.15
3.21
FAIL SHORT TEST. FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
20
34
47
56
60
31.89
25.99
24.55
24.41
24.05
C-55
-------
TABLE C-56 CLAYTON KEY MODE MEAN NOX EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
135
121
109
94
78
SHORT
N
17
31
43
58
74
Mean
2.26
2.25
2.24
2.22
2,19
TEST, PASS
Mean
1.92
2.10
2.16
2.22
SD
0.479
0.493
0.494
0.497
0.52
FTP
SD
0.515
0.481
0.491
0.489
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
45
39
31
26
22
SHORT
N_
3
9
17
22
26
Mean
4.17
4.11
3.83
3. 73
3.67
TEST, FAIL
Mean
5.48
4.63
5.02
4.87
SD
1.29
1.2
0.832
0.646
0.45
FTP
SID
1.72
1.47
1.73
1.67
C-S6
-------
TABLE C-57 TWO-SPEED IDLE MEAN HC EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST. PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
136
134
124
111
94
0.337
0.33
0.31
0.303
0.291
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
44
26
16
9
6
1.06
1.22
0.408
0.467
0,576
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate M Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
7
9
19
32
49
0.947
1.06
1.15
1.07
0.987
0.371
0.39
0.318
0.336
0.354
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
13
31
41
48
51
2.86
2.78
2.85
2.67
2.62
0.924
0.98
1.1
1.07
1.07
TABLE C-58 MEAN CO EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
122
122
115
104
90
3.41
3.41
3.43
3.45
3.55
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
58
38
25
16
10
39.67
36.55
28.96
25.29
24.58
18.47
18.32
9.92
7.52
5.93
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
4
4
11
22
36
6.41
5.25
5.25
3.88
3.54
3.25
FAIL SHORT TEST. FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
16
36
49
58
64
55.17
51.07
50.19
47.91
45.9
34.5
25.73
25.2
24.08
23.93
C-57
-------
TABLE C-59 TWO SPEED IDLE MEAN NOX EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
H
136
119
106
94
81
SHORT
N
16
33
46
58
71
Mean
2.22
2.23
2.23
2.25
2.25
TEST, PASS
Mean
2.18
2.18
2.2
2.17
SD
0.518
0.509
0.51
0.52
0.53
FTP
SD
0.5
0.433
0.456
0.448
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
44
41
34
26
19
SHORT
N_
4
7
14
22
29
Mean
4.21
4.2
4.11
3.78
3.73
TEST, FAIL
Mean
4.76
5.03
4.61
4.82
4.36
SD
1.31
1.3
1.35
0.637
0.46
FTP
SJD
1.75
1.58
1.27
1.7
1.7
C-58
-------
TABLE C-60 FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE MEAN HC EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
209
204
190
170
144
Mean
0.810
0.803
0.785
0.767
0.737
SHORT TEST, PASS
N.
3
8
22
42
68
Mean
1.09
1.09
1.06
1.01
0.979
SD
0.334
0.330
0.321
0.313
0.302
FTP
SD
0.42
0.391
0.362
0.359
0.346
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
61
36
20
10
6
SHORT
N
27
52
68
78
32
Mean
2.35
2.15
1.92
1.83
1.67
TEST, FAIL
Mean
3.0
2.83
2.74
2.64
2.62
SD
0.862
0.61
0.41
0.254
0.106
FTP
S£
1.05
1.07
1.0
0.984
0.969
TABLE C-61 MEAN CO EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N_
183
181
175
160
139
Mean
6.13
6.14
6.06
5.96
5.92
SD
3.43
3.44
3.39
3.37
3.33
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
N
Mean
10
20
30
40
50
1
3
9
24
45
2.74
4.07
7.05
7.09
6.71
SJ)
,23
,29
,75
3.7
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N_
87
59
55
20
11
SHORT
N_
29
57
81
96
105
Mean
33.7
28.52
23.78
21.35
20.12
TEST, FAIL
Mean
69.6
57.37
50.87
47.15
45.06
SD
13.89
11.88
7.66
6.55
5.83
FTP
SD
25.04
23.07
22.97
23.01
23.12
C-59
-------
TABLE C- 62
FEDERAL SHORT CYCLE MEAN NOX EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
191
171
151
138
125
Mean
2.24
2.25
2.25
2.25
2.23
SD
0.484
0.486
0.493
0.494
0.492
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
N
Mean
SD
10
20
30
40
50
23
43
63
76
89
2.32
2.24
2.22
2.24
2.26
0.446
0.459
0.451
0.456
0.465
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
79
69
59
42
25
SHORT
H
7
17
27
44
61
Mean
4.26
4.0
3.79
3.58
3.54
TEST, FAIL
Mean
4.31
5.35
5.31
4.91
4.56
SD
1.38
1.03
0.672
0.381
0.32
FTP
SD
1.11
1.92
1.83
1.61
1.5
C-60
-------
TABLE C-63 FEDERAL THREE MODE MEAN HC EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
134
132
122
108
91
0.34
0.34
0.324
0.312
0.308
PASS SHORT TEST. FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
46
28
18
12
9
1.04
1.13
1.15
0.316
0.358
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
8
10
20
34
SI
0.823
0.838
0.912
0.896
0.894
0.345
0.333
0.407
0.401
0.373
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
12
30
40
46
49
.03
.0
0.952
1.08
1.08
TABLE C-64 MEAN CO EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
121
118
110
97
84
3.46
3.47
3.5
3.48
3.S3
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
59
42
30
23
16
41.45
38.62
32.47
26.76
25.73
19. 5S
19.53
18.27
8.92
9.14
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
5
8
16
29
42
3.47
3.43
3.01
3.44
3.37
FAIL SHORT TEST. FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
15
32
44
51
58
49.18
50.26
50.21
50,35
47,79
35.29
26.43
24.12
24.39
24.05
C-61
-------
TABLE C-65 FEDERAL THREE MODE MEAN NOX EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
SO
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
159
122
111
96
81
SHORT TEST
N
14
31
42
57
72
Mean
2.25
2.24
2.22
2.22
2.22
, PASS
Mean
1.98
2.14
2.22
2.22
2.22
S£
0.463
0.478
0.48
0.47
0.463
FTP
SD
0.703
0.543
0.528
0.528
0.527
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
41
38
29
24
19
SHORT
N_
6
9
18
23
28
Mean
4.27
4.27
4.03
3.77
3.83
TEST, FAIL
Mean
4.11
4.52
4.62
4.78
4.56
SD
1.36
1.36
1.22
0.638
0.665
FTP
SD
1.32
1.54
1.48
1.68
1.6
C-62
-------
TABLE C-66 NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY
MEAN HC EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
210
199
188
167
141
0.335
0.327
0.321
0.316
0.313
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
60
41
22
13
9
0.9
0.7
0.593
0.201
0.211
FAIL SHORT TEST. PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
2
13
24
45
71
1.13
1.08
1.07
0.999
0.928
0.353
0.363
0.343
0.345
0.352
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
28
47
66
75
79
1.02
1.07
1.01
0.983
0.98
TABLE C-67 MEAN CO EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
184
178
172
153
130
3.43
3.48
3.47
3.45
3.54
PASS SHORT TEST. FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
86
62
38
27
20
16.76
12.22
12.25
8.39
6.69
FAIL SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
0
6
12
31
54
6.15
6.35
5.89
5.84
1.57
2.89
3.39
3.16
FAIL SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate N Mean SD
10
20
30
40
50
30
54
78
89
96
23.56
23.44
22.73
23.1
22.94
C-63
-------
TABLE C-68 NEW YORK, NEW JERSEY MEAN NOX EMISSIONS
FAILURE RATES FOR HC, CO, NOX
PASS SHORT TEST, PASS FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N_
189
169
152
134
122
SHORT TEST
It
25
45
62
80
92
Mean
2.23
2.24
2.26
2.25
2. 25
, PASS
Mean
2.33
2.27
2.22
2.24
2.24
SD
0.49
0.494
0.486
0.481
0.478
FTP
§2.
0.388
0.426
0.468
0.48
0.48
PASS SHORT TEST, FAIL FTP
Rate
10
20
30
40
SO
FAIL
Rate
10
20
30
40
50
N
81
71
58
46
28
SHORT
N_
5
15
28
40
58
Mean
4.26
4.07
3.79
2.74
3.52
TEST, FAIL
Mean
4.41
5.2
5.24
4.87
4.63
S£
1.56
1.17
0.684
0.684
0.282
FTP
S£
1.33
1.78
1.82
1.66
1.51
C-64
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Ptaae rcett lusxvctiws on the reverse before comptctwsi
V.
EPA-460/ 3- 77-021
-V. Tl TUc ANO SV."t''TL6
Aa Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance on Exhaust
Emissions of 1975-1976 Model Year In-Use Automobiles
. KECIPIKNT'S ACCESS*O.-»NO.
i. H6POHT OATS
December 1977
;. PERFORMING ORGAWZATtOW CODE
7.' AUTHORlSf
Jeffrey C, Bernard and JaneF. Pratt
3. PER FOR?
NAM£ AND AOOR6SS
1O. PROGRAM SUSMSNT NO.
Corporation
4455 Genasse St.
Buffalo, Kt 14221
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO7
68-03-2386
12. SPONSORING ACSNCY NAMS AMD AOOR6SS
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Emission Control Technology Division
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
13.TYP6OP REPORT AND PSRIOOCOV6RSO
14. SPONSORING AGENCY COOS
15.£UPPt.eMeNTAaY NOTES
IS. ABSTRACT
This report describes the results of an automobile exhaust emission testing program
conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The purpose of the program
was to go beyond EPA's basic surveillance testing to determine the reasons for
the difference in emission levels between vehicles on the road and their pre-
production counterparts in certification. A total of 300 vehicles were subjected
a series of tests before and after various stages of tune-up. The vehicles
were low-aileage 1975 and 1976 models of the three aajor domestic manufacturers
and were obtained from private owners. The testing was performed in three cities
by independent laboratories under contractor to EPA. Significant findings include
the confirmation of the relatively poor emission performance of newer vehicles,
the vide extent of maladjustments and disablements afrd the large emission re-
ductions possible upon correction of these problems.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. OESCR1PTORS
Exhaust Emissions
Maintenance Effects on Emissions
\\Z. Ul3TP|WUTlQN GTATEMiSNT
Unlimited
b.loeNTIFIHBS/OPBN 6NO8O TERMS
19. SECuniTY CLASS {lltis Kepvrtl
Unclassified
20. SECURITY CLASS (7Vt»>/Msc;
:. COSAT1 HeM/Onm?
iV MO. O* !'AGES
77. TBICE
EPA Perm 2S30-1 (V7V,
-------
INSTRUCTIONS
1. REPORT NUMBER
the tPA report number as it appears on (Jus cover of th« publication.
2. LEAVE BLANK
3. RECIPIENTS ACCESSION NUMBER
Reversed tut use Oy each tefoa
4. TITLE ANO SUBTITLE
TITLE AND SUBTITL6
Ttil< should ir.dKaie clearly and briefly ihe «ubiect covence of the report, anil be diiplayeil prominently. Set subtitle, if uvd. in mailer
type or olhervMW subordinate it (u num tide. \Vh«n a report i* prepared in raur* than one voiunte. repeat the primary title, add volume
number and include »ubtiUe lor the ipectlu: title.
5. REPORT DATE
REPORT DATE
Each report >halt wrry a dale indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was elected (e.g.. tiete ofiaue. date of
epp/uvcl. «i« of preparation, tic.).
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODS
Leave blank.
Give namctsi in conventional order (John R. Dot, J. Robtrt Doe. etc.}. Lut author's affiliation if it diftczi from the performing orpni*
UfUUL.
7. AUTHOR(S)
Given.
utioa.
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NUMBER
Invert if pettorminj ucpnixatioa vki^io* to ouifrt Uiis number.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME ANO ADDRESS
Give name, vucci. aty. *utc. and Zl? cod«. U»t no mute than two leveii of an organizational hircarvhy.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
iti« [MMjLTjm clement number under which the report was prepared. Subordinate rmmben may be included in pucruhcscs.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NUMBER
Invsn contract or ^roni number under which report was prepared.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME ANO ADDRESS
Include Z1H cou&
13. TYPE Of REPORT ANO PERIOD COVERED
Indicate tntenm final, etc., and it ippli<3bie. dut«s covered.
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
Leave blank.
1S» SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
LHWI uiitxnutioii nut included ciacwhere but utcfui, such M: Prepared in cooperation with. Translation of Presented at conference of.
To be pubtivV'i '•* Surm*?ii**_ ^uoalements. etc. '
16. ABSTRACT
To be published In. Superset!**, Supptentents. etc.
Include a brief &JO words or Ira) factual jumrrury of the nwtC jignificant information contained in the report. If th* repurt coitcaiw a
ji^niiwant bibliujxaphy or literature survey, mention it here.
17. KEY WORDS ANO DOCUMENT ANALYSIS .
pccit~te and precivi to b« us«m the J965 COSATT Subject Category L»«. Since the n»>
juriiy o4' docitmontt are muliidiM.tphrury in nature, the i'fitiury 1'ield/Croup assignment!*) wilt be ipeoiu: Uuciptine. area of human
cndcav»»r. at ty pe of plt>»«cal object. The application^) »ill be crcnurfel'erenced with secondary l-icld.Croupautpinwno '*«** *lH H>«»'w*
iliv primary po^tinco).
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
IX-mite reictkabtlity to the public or limitation for reason* other than securily for example ~Reta»« Unlimited." Cite any avaiuWHT ra-
the puMie. »«tli addresi and price.
19. SL 20. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION
DO NOT submit cU»Miicd reports to the National TechnkaJ Information service.
21. NUMBER OF PAGES
ln»e:t ihe total nutnrvr of pase*. ineluJim- this one and unnumbered page*, but exclude dhtribtttHm li«t. if any.
the price set by the National Technical tnformation Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
22. PRICE
I:
EPA foim 2SSO-I t»-/3) !««»«*•»
------- |