&EPA
United States Motor Vehicle Emissiw: ' aL.
Environmental Protection 2565 Plymouth Rd.
Agency Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Air
Light Duty Vehicle
Driveability Investigation
-------
EPA-460/3-78-012
LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY
INVESTIGATION
BY
H, A, TOULMIN, JR,
SUNTECH, INC,
P.O. Box 1135
MARCUS HOOK, PA 19061
CONTRACT No, 68-03-2607
EPA PROJECT OFFICER: ANDREW W. KAUPERT
PREPARED FOR:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF AIR, NOISE AND RADIATION
OFFICE OF MOBILE SOURCE AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
EMISSION CONTROL TECHNOLOGY DIVISION
CHARACTERIZATION AND APPLICATIONS BRANCH
ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN 48105
DECEMBER, 1978
-------
This report is issued by the Environmental Protection Agency to dis-
seminate technical data of interest to a limited number of readers.
Copies are available free of charge to Federal employees, current con-
tractors and grantees, and nonprofit organizations - in limited quan-
tities - from the Library, Motor Vehicle Emission Laboratory, Ann
Arbor, Michigan 48105, or, for a fee, from the National Technical Infor-
mation Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
This report was furnished to the Environmental Protection Agency by
Suntech, Inc., P.O. Box 1135, Marcus Hook, PA 19061, in fulfillment
of Contract No. 68-03-2607. The contents of this report are reproduced
herein as received from Suntech, Inc.. The opinions, findings, and con-
clusions 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 Pro-
tection Agency.
ii
-------
ABSTRACT
This report describes the results of an automobile driveability,
emission, fuel economy and performance testing program conducted for the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. A total of twenty-two 1977 and
1978 model vehicles were subjected to a series of tests when adjusted
to the manufacturers' recommended settings and when adjusted to simulate
maladjustments found on in-use vehicles in an earlier EPA Restorative
Maintenance Evaluation Project. The CRC driveability tests were per-
formed on a weather controlled large roll chassis dynamometer at 16°C and
the emissions and fuel economy tests were conducted according to the 1975
Federal Test Procedure, except that evaporative emissions tests were not
conducted.
iii
-------
FOREWORD
This project was initiated by the Characterization and Applications
Branch, Division of Emission Control Technology, Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, 2565 Plymouth Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 48105. The engin-
eering effort on which this report is based was accomplished by the Auto-
motive Laboratory of Suntech, Inc., P.O. Box 1135, Marcus Hook, Pennsyl-
vania. The project was authorized by Contract 68-03-2607 and began on
September 28, 1977 and was completed October 5, 1978.
The Suntech Project Leader was Dr. Robert E. Burtner, who supervised
all of the work in the Marcus Hook Laboratory. Mr. Harry A. Toulmin, Jr.
was Project Manager.
The Project Officer for this project was Mr. Andrew W. Kaupert, of
the Characterization and Applications Branch, Environmental Protection
Agency.
iv
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT iii
FOREWORD iv
LIST OF FIGURES vii
LIST OF TABLES viii
SUMMARY ix
I. Introduction 1
II. Equipment, Instruments, Preparations and Procedures 2
A. Vehicle Selection and Procurement 2
B. Car Preparation 4
C. Emission System Maladjustments 5
D. Test Fuels 5
E. Driveability Test Procedure 6
F. Emission and Fuel Economy Tests 8
G. Acceleration Procedure 9
III. Description of Test Program 10
A. Sequence of Testing 10
B. Baseline Vehicle Tests 10
C. Maladjusted Vehicle Tests ' 17
1. Effect of Disconnecting EGR 17
2. Effect of Rich Idle Mixture 19
3. Effect of Richer Choke Settings 21
4. Effect of Advancing Spark 21
5. Effect of Increased Idle RPM 24
6. Turbocharged Buick Maladjustments 24
7. Three-Way Catalysts Maladjustments 26
8. Effect of Multiple Maladjustments 26
IV. Recommendations 30
List of References 31
Appendix A
Engine Settings Used in Baseline Tests 32
Test Data from Vehicles on Baseline and Maladjustment Tests 34
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
Page
Appendix B
Driveability Test Procedure 57
Description of Emission Lab Instrumentation 65
Appendix C
Repeatability Data on Emission and Fuel Economy 66
Test Data for Individual Runs on Each Vehicle 68
Appendix D
Plots of Driveability vs. Acceleration Time, FTP 90
Fuel Consumption, HFET Fuel Consumption and HC, CO
and NOx Emissions on an Absolute Basis
Plots of Driveability vs. Acceleration Time, FTP 258
Fuel Consumption, HFET Fuel Consumption and HC, CO
and NOx Emissions on a Normalized Basis
vi
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Diagram of Testing Sequences for Vehicle Tests 11
2. Distribution of Driveability Demerits for all Cars Tested 13
3. Comparison of Driveability Demerits with Results of
CRC Tests on 1973, 1975 and 1977 Model Vehicles 14
vii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
I Driveability, Performance, Emission and Fuel Economy 12
with Baseline Adjustments
2 Stalls During Driveability Runs 16
3 Effect of Disconnecting EGR on Vehicle Driveability, 18
Emissions, Fuel Economy and Acceleration Time
4 Effect of Rich Idle on Vehicle Driveability, Emissions, 20
Fuel Economy and Acceleration Time
5 Effect of Rich Choke Setting on Vehicle Driveability, 22
Emissions, Fuel Economy and Acceleration Time
6 Effect of Advancing Spark on Vehicle Driveability, 23
Emissions, Fuel Economy and Acceleration Time
7 Effect of Increased Idle RPM on Vehicle Driveability, 25
Emissions, Fuel Economy and Acceleration Time
8 Effect of Multiple Maladjustments of Vehicle Driveability, 27
Emissions, Fuel Economy and Acceleration Time
9 Summary of "Fleet Average" Effects of Maladjustments on 29
Vehicle Driveability, Emissions, Fuel Economy and
Acceleration Time
viii
-------
SUMMARY
Twenty-two 1977 and 1978 passenger cars selected on the basis of high
sales volume and emission control technology were used to investigate and
quantify the relationship between prevalent engine maladjustments found in
in-use vehicles(1)* and their effect on vehicle driveability, exhaust emis-
sions, fuel economy and acceleration. Each vehicle was driveability tested in
accordance with the CRC Driveability Procedure^) at 16°C and exhaust emissions
and fuel economy were determined by the 1975 Federal Test Procedure. Tests
were conducted on a weather-controlled large roll chassis dynamometer. Each
test vehicle was tested with all engine and emission control system settings
according to the manufacturers' recommendations and also additional tests
were run with four sets of maladjustments which were representative of malad-
justments found on in-use vehicles in the EPA Restorative Maintenance Evalua-
tion.
There was a large variation in the driveability ratings among vehicles
when adjusted to standard settings. Driveability was improved by some of the
maladjustments but made worse by others. The response to a given maladjust-
ment varied widely among cars, probably because of the differences in the
calibration compromises made in the standard settings among vehicles.
From an overall fleet standpoint, disconnecting EGR improved driveabil-
ity by 31%, richer choke settings improved driveability by 27%, advancing
spark timing improved driveability by 11%, increasing idle rpm by 9%. The
richer idle settings decreased driveability by 4%.
These maladjustments frequently caused large changes in emissions with
NOx increasing 190% when EGR was disconnected, 20% when the timing was ad-
vanced and 12% when the idle rpm was increased. The rich idle increased CO
by 108% and the rich choke settings increased CO by 12%. The rich idle in-
creased HC by 48% and increasing idle rpm decreased HC by 16%. All other
maladjustments made less than 10% change in emissions.
Disconnecting EGR and advancing spark timing gave a slight improvement
in fuel economy and increased idle rpm reduced fuel economy. Richer idle and
richer choke settings changed fuel economy less than 1%.
Advancing the spark timing was the only modification that improved the
vehicle acceleration performance to the point that the change might be per-
ceptible to the driver (5%).
The overall average of the twenty cars with multiple maladjustments,
similar to those found on many of the maladjusted cars in the Restorative
Maintenance Evaluation Project, showed only a very slight improvement in
driveability at the expense of 142% increase in CO, 53% increase in HC
and a 13% increase in NOx. These maladjustments resulted in a 2% reduction
in overall fuel economy and no change in acceleration performance.
A summarv of the effects of the maladjustments is shown in Table 9.
* A number in parenthesis ( ) denotes references listed at the end of the
report.
-------
I. INTRODUCTION
Surveillance studies of exhaust emissions from in-use vehicles have been
conducted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a number of
years. Results of these programs have indicated that a large percentage of
in-use automobiles of the newest model year did not meet their exhaust
emission standards when tested in the as-received condition. Because of
this, EPA conducted a Restorative Maintenance Evaluation Project on
low-mileage 1975, 1976 and 1977 vehicles. This program concluded that mal-
adjustments and disablements within the emission control system were primarily
responsible for the poor emission performance. It appears that an important:
motivation for maladjustment is the owners* desire to improve the driveabil-
ity characteristics of the vehicle.
The objective of this program was to investigate and quantify the rela-
tionship between prevalent engine maladjustments and their effect on drive-
ability. Simultaneously, emissions, acceleration performance and fuel economy
were also measured.
-------
JI EQUIPMENT, INSTRUMENTS, PREPARATIONS AND PROCEDURES
This section describes the vehicles, facilities, instrumentation, pro-
cedures and fuels utilized in this project.
A. Vehicle Selection and Procurement
Twenty-two 1977 and 1978 passenger cars were selected for this program.
The vehicles were selected on the basis of engine sales volume and emission
control technology. Sixteen of the vehicles were certified to meet the
Federal emission standards and six were California models. All cars were
equipped with automatic transmissions. The following cars were used on the
program:
GM
1977
1977
1977
1978
1977
1977
1978
1977
1977
FORD
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
1977
CHRYSLER
1977
1977
1977
1977
Chevrolet Chevette
Chevrolet Chevelle
Pontiac Sunbird
Pontiac Grand Prix
Buick Skylark
Buick Century
Buick Regal
Oldsmobile Cutlass
Oldsmobile 98
Ford Pinto
Ford Maverick
Ford Maverick
Granada
Ford Granada
Ford LTD II
Plymouth Volare
Plymouth Volare
Plymouth Volare
Chrysler Cordoba
Cali-
bra-
Code* tion
Dis-
place-
ment No. Garb.
Liters Cyl. Bbls.
Catalyst
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
Fed.
Fed.
Cal.
Fed.
Fed.
Fed.
Fed.
Fed.
Fed.
1.6
5.0
2.5
4.9
3.8
5.7
3.8
5.7
6.6
L-4
V-8
L-4
V-8
V-6
V-8
V-6
V-8
V-8
1
2
2
2
2
2
/-•
4
4
Oxidizing
"
3 -Way
Oxidizing
"
11
\
"
"
J
K
L
M
N
0
Fed.
Fed.
Cal.
Fed.
Cal.
Fed.
2.3
4.1
4.1
5.0
5.0
5.8
L-4
L-6
L-6
V-8
V-8
V-8
2
1
1
2
2
2
Oxidizing
(2)
p
Q
R
S
Fed.
Fed.
Cal.
Fed.
3.7
5.2
5.2
6.6
L-6
V-8
V-8
V-8
1
2
2
4
Oxidizing
(3)
-------
AMC
1978 AMC Concord
IMPORTS
1978 Toyota Corolla
1978 Volvo 245-DL
Dis-
Cali- place-
^ bra- ment No. Garb.
Code tion Liters Cyl. Bbls. Catalyst
Cal. 4.2 L-6 1 Oxidizing
U Fed. 1.6 L-4 2 Oxodizing
(4")
V Cal. 2.1 L-4 FIV ' 3-Way
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
This letter code used to identify vehicles on tables in Appendix.
Turbocharged
Two-barrel variable venturi carburetor
"Electronic Lean Burn" emission system
Port Fuel Injection System
Most of the vehicles were leased from rental or leasing agencies or auto-
motive dealers and three of the vehicles were from the Suntech vehicle fleet.
Because of problems obtaining some of the California vehicles, three were
obtained from oil and additive companies and one was on loan from the manu-
facturer. An attempt was made to obtain all of the vehicles with between
4,000 and 15,000 accumulated miles, but in a few cases the only vehicles
available had mileage outside this limit. The following vehicles were tested
at mileages outside this limit:
California calibration
California calibration
California calibration
California calibration
California calibration
Federal calibration
Ford Maverick
Plymouth Volare
AMC Concord
Volvo 245-DL
Pontiac Sunbird
Chevrolet Chevette
Toyota Corolla
4.1 liter
5.2 liter
4.2 liter
2.1 liter
2.5 liter
1.6 liter
1.6 liter
Federal Calibration
27,800 miles
25,748
1,985 miles
2,020 miles
33,470 miles
20,577 miles
3,813 miles
In our opinion the difference in mileage on these vehicles would not
influence the ratings for these tests since all of the vehicles were thor-
oughly checked prior to test and parts, i.e., spark plugs and filters were
replaced on vehicles with over 10,000 miles. (See Section B)
The mileage on each vehicle at the start of this program is shown on
Table A-l in Appendix A.
-------
B. Car Preparation
Each test vehicle was set to the manufacturers' recommended settings
before test, using the following check list:
1. New spark plugs were installed in all vehicles with over 10,000 miles
of mileage accumulation.
2. The basic ignition timing and dwell (if equipped with breaker points)
were set to manufacturers' specification.
3. The ignition system was scope tested to check for any malfunctions.
4. Carburetor air and fuel filters were replaced on vehicles with more
than 10,000 miles.
5. The carburetor idle, and fast idle speed were set to manufacturers'
specification.
6. The idle mixture was checked and reset if necessary by the procedure
specified by the vehicle manufacturer. (Idle speed drop for GM, CO or pro-
pane enrichment for Ford and Chrysler, etc.)
7. The automatic choke mechanism and the choke vacuum break was set to
specifications.
8. The EGR system was carefully checked to see that it was functioning
properly.
9. All emission system linkages, hoses, heat valves, etc. were checked
for proper connections and operation.
10. The oil was drained and refilled with an SE quality 10W-40 grade.
11. All fluid levels and tire pressures were checked.
12. A vacuum gauge and tachometer was installed for use in the drive-
ability testing.
Recommended settings were obtained from the emission decal, engine shop
manuals and from the engineering departments of the vehicle manufacturers.
The settings used for the baseline tests are tabulated in Table A-l, Appen-
dix A.
Most of the tune-up settings were obtained from the emission decal and
the shop manuals without difficulty; however, in some cases the information
was not available from these sources or from the local automobile dealers
and had to be obtained directly from the manufacturers. Some of the informa-
tion on models with running changes was obtained from service bulletins from
the manufacturers.
-------
C. Emission System Maladjustments
After each vehicle was run with the standard (baseline) settings, it
was rerun at each of four maladjustment settings. These settings, which are
detailed on the data summary tables, A-2 through A-23, of Appendix A, were
obtained from EPA and represented settings and disablements found on similar
vehicles in their Restorative Maintenance Evaluation Project . In most
cases single maladjustments of one item were used on three of the tests
and the fourth test was run with two or more maladjustments combined.
D. Test Fuels
All emissions tests, with the exception of one test run on the turbo-
charged Buick, were run on Indolene 0, as specified in the Federal Register.
Acceleration tests, except on the turbocharged Buick, were run on this same
fuel.
Indolene typically has a lower 90% evaporated point than the average
commercial unleaded fuel in the marketplace and, therefore, the driveability
of a vehicle will be different on Indolene than on a typical fuel. Inspec-
tions on recent batches of Indolene have indicated that the 90% point is
about 158°C.
In order to make the program more meaningful, a test fuel meeting the
following specifications was made up for the driveability testing:
Max.
ASTM
D-439 Fuel
Specification Grade C DOE Used
10% Evaporated 51.7 + 3°C 60°C 49.4°C 50.6°C
50% Evaporated 104.4 + 3°C 116°C 105°C 107.2°C
90% Evaporated 173.9+5°C 185°C 167.2° 170°C
RVP, KPa 62 to 76 67.6 65.5
Driveability
Index* 238.5 213.3 217.5
* Driveability Index = 10% Pt/2 + 50% Pt + 90% Pt/2
This specification provides for a fuel that is slightly higher in
driveability index than the average unleaded fuel from the Department of
Energy Motor Gasoline Survey, BETC/PPS 78/1, but is well below the maximum
limits of ASTM Standard D-439 Specifications for Automotive Gasoline.
Inspection data for the fuel used in the program is shown in the table.
A third fuel was used in the program for one of the tests on the turbo-
charged Buick Regal. This fuel was specified by EPA as a high octane
unleaded premium type fuel to determine the effect of the use of high octane
-------
fuel on the performance of this vehicle. A comparison of this fuel with the
standard driveability fuel is shown in the following table:
Special High Standard
Octane Fuel Driveability Fuel
Research Octane No. 101.0 93.4
Motor Octane No. 90.6 84.7
RVP, KPa 51.7 65.5
10% Evaporated, °C 67 51
50% Evaporated, °C 115 107
90% Evaporated, C 149 170
Driveability Index 223 217.5
E , Driveability Test Procedure
The driveability quality of each car was evaluated by testing the vehicle
using, the Coordinating Research Council Cold Start Driveability Test Proced-
ure* ' on a controlled weather large roll chassis dynamometer. This cycle
simulates a 5.8 kilometer (3.6 mile) trip after starting from a cold soak
at 15.6°C (60°F). The cycle consists of a series of full and part throttle
accelerations performed at measured distances. Any vehicle malfunction such
as a stall, back fire, hesitation, stumble or surge is evaluated by the
driver and rated as to severity. These ratings are then translated into de-
merit ratings and combined into total demerits for the run. A detailed des-
scription of the test procedure can be found in Appendix B.
Before each driveability run, each vehicle is placed on the chassis dyna-
mometer and driven for ten minutes at 97 kph in order to obtain equilibrium
engine temperatures. The vehicle is then allowed to soak at the control
temperature for three hours with the hood up and the room temperature main-
tained at 15.6°C and the cooling air velocity at 22 kph. Details of the cool
procedure can be found in Appendix B.
At the beginning of the program, each of the two test drivers made one of
driveability tests on each car. Since driveability rating is very subject-
ive, there is always some difference in driveability rating, even among trained
blem has been encountered on several CRC driveability pro-
After" the first eight cars were tested, it was decided to conduct all of
the drlveafciiity runs on a car with one driver, since this would improve the
repeatability of ratings and the objective of the program was to compare the
effect of vehicle adjustment on driveability rather than to compare drive-
ability differences among cars. The last fourteen cars to be tested used this
-------
procedure. The repeatability of the driveability test was improved from a
standard deviation of 22.2 demerits for the first eight cars, using two
drivers per car to 8.5 demerits for the second group of fourteen cars using
the same driver for all of the runs on the car. The repeatability data was
obtained, using the formula given below modified for duplicate tests for each
car.
/N
'
Where: A = Range between duplicate determinations
N = Number of duplicate determinations
Detailed driveability data on each vehicle is shown in Table C-2 through C-23
in Appendix C.
Up to 1968 when the CRC driveability procedure was developed, most of the
driveability or "warm-up" tests reported in the literature were conducted to
compare fuels of different distillation characteristics and were conducted using
a road load and acceleration cycle on a chassis dynamometer. The CRC procedure
was developed to incorporate more vehicle maneuvers so that it could be used to
evaluate both vehicles and fuels.
In 1968-1970 Ethyl Corporation used this procedure to run an extensive
driveability program for the Air Pollution Research Advisory Committee of
CRC. A fleet of twelve 1968, '69 and '70 model cars were driveability
tested on the Ethyl large roll chassis dynamometer (which .is very similar in
all respects to the one used at Suntech) and then repeated some of the testing
on the test track with an overnight soak before each run.
This correlation program, which seems to be the only one published in the
literature, directly comparing driveability on the road and chassis dyna-
mometers, compared the demerits obtained on two fuels in four test cars
tested at 7°C on the dynamometer and at 4 to 10°C on the test track. The
results were as follows:
Average Demerits From Duplicate Runs
Fuel 1 Fuel 7
'69 Ford
'69 Rambler
'69 Olds
'69 Valiant
AVERAGE
Dyn.
57
134
47
42
70
Road
37
53
35
25
38
Dyn.
186
202
141
95
156
Road
155
137
74
48
104
-------
When the demerits from the individual malfunctions were compared, the
correlation was good for stalls, idle roughness and backfire, but "seat of
pants" feel of vehicle movement (surge, hesitation and stumble) are magnified
by the dynamometer. This CRC project concluded that the chassis dynamometer
is a satisfactory method of making driveability evaluations but is more severe
than road testing. The relative fuel rankings correlated fairly well between
the two tests. Details of this study can be found in the CRC report.^3)
F. Emission and Fuel Economy Tests
The emission and fuel economy tests were conducted in accordance with
the 1975 FTP procedure as specified in the Federal Register, Vol. 41, No. 177,
September 10, 1976, except that the tests were run on a large single roll
(1280 mm diameter) dynamometer and the room temperature was controlled to
22°C+2 to promote repeatability of runs. Evaporative emission tests were not
run but the evaporative emission control system was stabilized before each soak
by running an LA-4 test on Indolene immediately before each soak period. Details
of the CVS test equipment and instrumentation is given in Appendix B-2. Vehicle
inertia weight and horsepower settings were the same as used in the official
EPA vehicle certification tests for the engine family.
The repeatability of the emission and fuel economy tests was calculated
from the duplicate tests on each car. The coefficient of variation (CV) was
calculated by standard statistical procedures although our method of assessing
the standard deviation (S) may be more severe than at some other laboratories.
Since only duplicate emissions results are normally obtained for each car
modification,
we calculated S equal to
/l
V N-l
five times for each car.
( A is simply the difference between duplicate tests, and ^
from the mean.) 2
This S value reduces to
if \
/(A
V ~T~
is the difference
since N equals two and there are two ^ values.
2
Thus the standard deviation for each car is S
97222
4-<; +
-------
The following summary averages the coefficient of variation, (CV) (stand-
ard deviation, S, divided by the mean value, X) for the cars tested:
Emission Test Data CV x 100% Range, %
FTP Fuel Economy 1.9 0.5 to 5.3
Highway Fuel Economy 2.4 1.2 to 4.2
HC 9.5 4.0 to 20.6
CO 12.7 2.4 to 25.3
NOx 6.5 2.5 to 11.4
Detailed repeatability data on each vehicle is shown in Table C-l in
Appendix C.
G. Acceleration Procedure
The performance of each car was measured by determining the time for a
16.1 to 96.6 kph (10 to 60 mph) acceleration on the chassis dynamometer. The
16.1 kph starting speed was used to prevent wheel spin on the dynamometer rolls.
The acceleration time was the average of six runs at each test condition. The
dynamometer load and inertia settings were the same as used for the driveability
tests of the car.
-------
III. DESCRIPTION OF TEST PROGRAM
A. Sequence of Testing
In order to make maximum use of the chassis dynamometer facilities, the
program was laid out so that a block of four cars would be run during each
test period of approximately five weeks. The program layout is shown in
Figure 1 for a typical week's operation.
Since each vehicle was tested by running duplicate runs at each of five
adjustment conditions, baseline plus four maladjustments, each block of four
cars could be completed in five weeks if no breakdowns of cars or equipment
were encountered.
B. Baseline Vehicle Tests
Table 1 shows the results of the baseline tests (tests with all adjust-
ments to manufacturers recommended setting). Figure 2 shows the distribu-
tion of the driveability demerits. The driveability varied considerably
from a low of 12 demerits to a high of 269 demerits. (The lower the number
of demerits the better the driveability.) Such variability is not unusual
and similar results have been found in tests conducted on the road by CRC.
Figure 3 is taken from a recent CRC report and shows a comparison of
the average demerit level of three fleets of cars tested by CRC in three
recent programs ' *• / V. ; plotted against the fuel volatility as expressed as
the driveability index (in Fahrenheit units). The fuel used for this EPA
program had a driveability index of 456 (217.5 in Celsius units) and the
average demerit rating of the 22 cars is plotted against this driveability
index. The plot indicates that the average car from this program has better
driveability than the average 1973 and 1975 models tested by CRC but were
poorer than the CRC 1977 models.
The difference between the 1977 models tested by CRC and those run on
this program could have been due to differences in driver ratings, differ-
ences in the severity of ratings on the chassis dynamometer and the road,
and the selection of the cars tested. It is well known that there are
differences between expert driver ratings and CRC makes a statistical ana-
lysis of ratings from each driver used on each program and corrects the
driver bias out.
As discussed in the previous section, the program conducted by Ethyl
Corporation comparing driveability ratings on the chassis dynamometer and
test track has indicated that the chassis ratings are slightly more severe
than on the road although both cars and fuels were lined up in the same
order. Since the purpose of this program was to determine differences in
driveability due to changes in the car adjustment, the fact that the chassis
dynamometer procedure may have been slightly more severe should make little
difference in the relative ratings.
10
-------
FIGURE 1
TYPICAL MEEKLY SCHEDULE FOR
DRIYEABIHTY AND EMISSIONS TESTING
HON.
TUE.
WED.
THUR.
7 AM
d
9 AH
CAR
V CONDITION CAR A
FOR DRIVEABILITY
11 AM
I
1 PM
3 PM
7 PM
11 PM
/ %CONDITION CAR A
DRIVEABILITY DRIVEABILITY
TEST CAR A TEST CAR A
CHANGE TO**"— CONDITION CAR B DRIVEABILITY"-—CONDITION
CAR B TEST CAR B CAR B
DRIVEABILITY
TEST CAR B
V. CONDITION CAR C
FOR DRIVEABILITY ORIVEABILITY
TEST CAR A
DRWABlLITYl ^CONDITION CAR
CAR C / EMISSIONS
CONDITION CAR C EMISSIONS
SOAK CAR D/
1 AM
»CHANGE TO
CAR C
KAR C E
U PERF.
EMISSIONS^- .
TESTS///. \
CAR A EMISSION
/k
CONDITION CHASSIS &
SET-UP CAR C
'CAR D EMISSIONS
PCRF TESTS
SET UP CAR A LUNCH/ (CAR A E'1ftSION\
* PERF.yTESTS ^ET-UP
cot;niTim CAR A CAR D
IONS &j
,///A\\
DRIVEABILITY^CONDITIOII
CHANGE TO CAR D TEST CAR D CAR 0
» COND. F0"
DRIVEABILITY
VS_SET-UP i
CAR D COND. CAR B
KAR A EMISSIONS' .,.,.,,,,..,
|i PERF. TESTS^/X/j \fCAR D EMISSION
CONDITION CHASSIS
& SET-UP CAR A
SET-UP CAR D
"CAR B EMISSIONS;
PERF. TESTS
LUNCl
D L IISSIO^- SET-UP
» PERF. TESTS CAR B
CAR B
UP &
COND. CAR C
DRIVEABILITY
TEST CAR D
CONDITION
FOR EMIS-
SION &
REMOVE
FROM
CHASSIS
FRI.
J
_
(CONDITION CHASSIS
1 SET-UP CAR B
E'AR B EMISSIONS^
PERF. TESTS
CAR c EHISS10N
,WM
'VCAR c E'li:
THIS TIME OPEN FOR RETESTING
SET-UP CAR C
LUNCH
MISSION
t PERF. TESTS
-------
TABLE 1
Volare 318-C
Volare 318-F
Volare 225-F
LTD II 351W-F
Cordoba 400-F
Maverick 250-
Pinto 140-F
Granada 302-C
Cutlass 350-F
Concord 258-C
Sunbird 151-C
Chevelle 305-F
Maverick 250-C
Chevette 98-F
Skylark 231-F
Century 350-F
Buick 231T-F*
Oldsmobile 403-F
Granada 302-F
Grand Prix 301-F
Volvo 130-C
Toyota 97-F
DRIVEABILITY,
Drive-
ability
Demerits
v
;•
r
-F
•F
)-F
•C
•F
-C
•C
i-F
I-C
•F
F
F
•*
03-F
F
01-F
269
244
238
211
185
160
154
150
127
121
117
117
115
109
105
105
91
84
83
55
17
12
PERFORMANCE, EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY
WITH BASELINE ADJUSTMENTS
Accel .
Time
Sec.
11.8
10.1
14.4
10.4
9.7
12.9
14.0
11.4
10.1
17.4
14.9
10.6
15.5
14.2
14.7
11.9
10.1
9.7
11.1
9.8
14.0
13.0
Emissions
HC
gm/km
0.29
0.63
0.83
0.79
0.42
1.09
0.54
0.46
0.47
0.19
0.50
0.63
0.55
0.63
0.46
0.51
0.50
0.51
1.14
0.72
0.20
0.45
CO
gm/km
2.06
7.23
6.76
6.42
3.63
8.02
9.48
3.04
4.73
3.46
5.44
8.16
7.37
9.77
11.36
6.55
6.15
4.65
4.62
5.72
2.04
6.19
NOx
gm/km
1.17
0.89
1.12
1.50
1.07
0.90
0.90
0.70
1.25
0.69
1.21
1.69
0.80
1.12
1.03
1.04
0.78
1.59
1.27
1.03
0.42
1.15
Fuel Consumption
Urban Highway
Liter/ Liter/
100 km 100 km
22.25
18.62
14.40
17.07
20.70
13.90
12.70
19.30
16.12
17.83
10.88
16.08
16.18
9.89
15.17
16.33
14.51
16.49
16.05
14.30
12.58
10.65
15.19
13.24
11.10
12.25
13.63
10.60
9.60
13.50
11.87
15.00
8.32
12.60
12.94
7.26
10.36
11.88
11.21
12.06
12.35
10.19
9.27
8.52
* Turbocharged
12
-------
FIGURE 2
400
300
--
60
200
100
Distribution of Weighted Demerits with Baseline Settings
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Percent Cars Tested
90 95
98
-------
FIGURE 3
Driveability Comparison of Average of 1973, 1975 and 1977
Model Cars From CRC Tests^ and 1977-78 EPA Test
260
240 -
220
200 -
180 -
140 -
120 -
100 —
>1973 Models
1975 Models
0 /-
380 400 420 440 460
Driveability Index = 0.5 T,rt + T
480
500
10
50
90
520
-
-------
There has never been any good agreement within the industry on the level
of demerits which gives acceptable driveability. This is probably due to
the fact that demerits are assigned for many types of malfunctions and
different people have different sensitivity to different types of malfunc-
tions. For instance, a car that stalls twice every time that it is tested
may be very annoyable. yet it could finish a driveability test with an
excellent rating if the driveability was good in other respects. (Two
stalls after start-up only contribute 16 demerits.) A car with moderate
surge, however, on each maneuver of the driveability test would accumulate
192 demerits, yet it might not be objectionable to some drivers because the
car was always dependable during cold driveaway.
In the CRC 1977 test program, a subprogram was conducted to compare
driveability as evaluated by people not familiar with driveability testing
("customer" drivers) with the driveability performance as determined by
trained raters. The "customer" evaluated driveability in his every-day use
of the vehicle while the trained rater used the CRC driveability procedure.
The ratings were determined by the five "customers" driving nineteen of the
test cars on three different fuels of low, intermediate and high volatility.
The trained rater demerits for these three fuels on the average of the 18 cars
vas 114.1, 59.1 and 32.6 respectively.
The CRC report concludes - "Five 'customer' drivers were able to dis-
tinguish among the three main program test fuels on the basis of volatility-
related driveability problems. Their performance ratings indicated a high
degree of annoyance with the least volatile fuel, but few problems with either
of the other fuels."
This does not mean that there was a high degree of annoyance with car-
fuel combinations that gave 114 demerits on the CRC procedure since only some
of the cars on this fuel were rated low.
Although the program did not result in a go-nogo answer to the level of
demerits that are acceptable, it did indicate that the "customer" drivers
ranked the fuels much the same as trained drivers did under controlled con-
ditions and also concluded that the "customer" is critical only if major mal-
functions are observed.
It is apparent that much more work needs to be done on evaluating the
relationship between the customers tolerance to driveability and the ratings
obtained on a repetitive test procedure.
Table 2 summarizes the number of stalls obtained during all of the drive-
ability tests. The idle stalls usually occur immediately after the cold start
or when the transmission is shifted from park to drive. The moving stalls
occur during attempted acceleration maneuvers. The idle stalls can be very
annoying and the moving stalls can be dangerous if they occur in traffic.
Since the cars are listed in the order of decreasing driveability demerits,
it is obvious that there is only a slight correlation between the driveability
demerits and the number of stalls.
15
-------
TABLE 2
STALLS DURING DRIVEABILITY RUNS
Volare 318-C
Volare 318-F
Volare 225-7
LTD 351W-F
Cordoba 400-F
Maverick 250-F
Pinto 140-F
Granada 302 -C
Cutlass 350-F
Concord 258-C
Sunbird 151-C
Chevelle 305-F
Maverick 250-C
Chevette 98-F
Skylark 231-F
Century 350-F
Buick 231T-F
Olds 98 403-F
Granada 302-F
Grand Prix 301-F
Volvo 130-C
Toyota 97-F
Runs
10
12
14
10
10
10
10
14
13
10
14
11
8
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Idle
Stalls
9
18
13
14
8
0
2
4
0
0
0
4
0
5
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
Idle
Stalls/
Run
0.9
1.5
0.9
1.4
0.8
0
0.2
0.3
0
0
0
0.4
0
0.5
0
0
0
0
0.7
0
0
0
Moving
Stalls
10
7
34
15
0
5
7
6
0
1
18
11
0
8
0
4
10
1
4
0
0
0
Moving
Stalls/
Run
1.0
0.6
2.4
1.5
0
0.5
0.7
0.4
0
0.1
1.3
1.0
0
0.8
0
0.4
1.0
0.1
0.4
0
0
0
Total
Stalls/
Run
1.9
2.1
3.3
2.9
0.8
0.5
0.9
0.7
0
0.1
1.3
1.4
0
1.3
0
0.4
1.0
0.1
1.1
0
0
0
16
-------
Most of the Federal calibration cars met the 1977 Federal emission
standards and those that did not were very close to the limits. The fleet
average was 31% below the standards for HC, 27% for CO and 33% for NOx.
Only two of the California cars met the emission standards on all
pollutants. California cars were difficult to obtain on the East coast and
the four cars that did not meet the limits were all laboratory test cars that
had previously been used in other emission programs. After running a number
of tests on the Maverick 250 vehicle, thoroughly checking the components of
the emission system and rebuilding the carburetor, we found that the emissions
were still high and CO was unstable from run to run, so this vehicle has not
been included in the data analysis.
C. Maladjusted Vehicle Tests
The maladjustments used in this program were obtained from EPA and repre-
sented settings and disablements found to be prevalent in their "Restorative
Maintenance Evaluation Project". Since the maladjustments differed from
vehicle to vehicle, the effect of a class of maladjustment can best be eval-
uated by comparing the results on all of the vehicles upon which the malad-
justment was used.
1. Effect of Disconnecting the Exhaust Gas Recirculation Valve
This maladjustment was performed on all of the vehicles which used EGR
valves. The results are shown in Table 3, divided into three categories of
emission systems; i.e., Federal systems with oxidizing catalyst, California
systems with oxidizing catalyst, and one car with a three-way catalyst system.
Disconnecting the EGR valve improved driveability an average of 21%* on the
Federal emission control vehicles. Generally disconnecting the EGR valve
reduced or eliminated surge when it was present on baseline tests and reduced
hesitation on acceleration tip-in.
Although individual cars showed both higher and lower HC and CO emissions,
the average emissions of the fleet were the same. Disconnecting the EGR gave
the expected large increase in NOx emissions with the average of the fleet
increasing by 210%. The average fuel economy was improved slightly and the
acceleration rate was also improved slightly. The change in acceleration
rate was probably due to the fact that the accelerations were made from road
load 16.1 kph where the EGR would be functioning on the baseline runs.
* Fleet average percent change in Tables 3 through 8 is calculated by com-
paring the average demerits, emissions, or acceleration time from all of the
vehicles with the particular maladjustment with the average from the base-
line tests. The fuel economy percent change is calculated by comparing
the reciprocal of the average of the fuel consumption measurements from the
vehicles with maladjustments with the reciprocal of the average from the base-
line.
17
-------
TABLE 3
EFFECT OF DISCONNECTING EGR ON VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY,
EMISSIONS. FUEL ECONOMY AND ACCELERATION TIME
PERCENT
Drive-
ability
Demerits
Volare 318-F
Volare 225-F
LTD II 351W-F
Maverick 250-F
Pinto 140-F
Cutlass 350-F
Chevelle 305-F
Chevette 98-F
Skylark 231-F
Century 350-F
Regal 231-TF
Olds 403-F
Granada 302-F
Grand Prix 301-F
FLEET AVERAGE
Volare 318-C
Granada 302-C
Concord 258-C
FLEET AVERAGE
Sunbird 151-C
-20
-35
-40
-20
- 1
-34
+ 1
-18
-25
-47
-10
+11
-42
+40
-21.2
-49
-97
-72
-67.8
-10
CHANGE FROM
BASELINE
Emissions
HC
-13
+ 8
- 6
-26
+ 2
- 1
+14
-21
+39
- 1
+ 6
+13
-11
+11
- 1.4
-23
+26
-26
0
-32
CO
+ 7
+ 6
+ 3
+ 2
+ 6
-13
+12
-21
+10
-10
+ 6
- 3
+ 3
- 1
+ 0.9
-21
-23
-45
-31.0
-11
NOx
+ 85
+252
+248
+430
+186
+280
+ 36
+173
+198
+206
+227
+224
+252
+214
+210
+ 60
+206
+281
+159
- 3.1
Fuel Economy
Urban
+ 6.6
+10.7
- 1.6
+ 1.2
+ 6.1
+ 0.7
+ 2.3
+ 0.5
+10.0
+ 3.7
- 6.7
- 0.4
- 0.1
- 3.2
+ 2.0
+10.3
+ 7.1
+15.7
+10.8
- 0.3
Highway
+ 5.3
+12.1
- 2.7
- 2.2
+ 8.8
+ 2.7
+ 6.3
- 2.6
+ 5.2
+ 4.3
- 9.6
+ 0.4
- 4.6
- 5.0
+ 1.1
+16.2
+ 4.7
+28.4
+16.0
- 5.1
Accel.
Time
- 2.2
- 3.5
+ 0.5
- 2.3
- 5.7
- 1.4
- 0.8
- 3.5
- 3.3
- 0.8
- 2.4
- 0.5
- 1.4
- 0.5
- 2.2
0
+ 1.8
-26.7
-11.0
- 2.0
TOTAL FLEET AVERAGE -30.6 - 2.7 - 2.1 +190 + 3.7 + 3.7 - 3.8
18
-------
The three California cars with oxidizing catalysts showed a much larger
improvement in driveability when the EGR was disconnected. CO was reduced
by 31% but NOx was increased by 159%. Fuel economy was improved considerably
more on these California calibration cars than on the Federal cars both on
a fleet average basis and on the two individual cars, Granada 302 and Volare
318, where a comparison can be made with their counterparts in the Federal
fleet. The large change in acceleration time on the Concord 258 was due to
the EGR valve opening at full throttle high engine speed. This is inherent
in the calibration used on this engine.
Disconnecting the EGR on the one vehicle with a three-way catalyst made
much less difference in driveability, economy and emissions than on the
vehicles with oxidizing catalysts.
There are two side effects of disconnecting EGR that were not investi-
gated as part of this program. The recycled exhaust gas lowers the part throttle
octane requirement of the vehicle so disconnecting the EGR can increase the part
throttle octane requirement of the vehicle and cause knock problems in vehicles
with no part throttle knock with the normal calibration. Although knock obser-
vations were not specifically investigated in this program, knock was detected
during the driveability test on the Pinto 140-F, Maverick 250-F and Granada
302-F during the runs with the EGR disconnected.
Also, disconnecting EGR can lead to a reduction in the service life of
the clutches in automatic transmissions. The part throttle clutch pressure
in automatic transmissions is calibrated to match the engine torque output in
order to give smooth shifts. The transmission pressure is controlled by either
a mechanical linkage from the carburetor throttle linkage or by a pressure
modulator connected to manifold vacuum, depending on the make and model of the
transmission. Disconnecting EGR changes the manifold vacuum or throttle posi-
tion to engine torque relationship and results in lower clutch pressure during
part throttle shifts. This can result in clutch slippage and shorten clutch
life.
2. Effect of Rich Idle Mixture
The idle mixture was adjusted richer than specification on 15 of the
vehicles, as shown on Table 4. The amount of enrichment used (see the last
column of Table 4) was dependent upon the settings found on the EPA Restora-
tive Maintenance Evaluation Program and was described by the CO at idle with
the air pump, on those cars so equipped, bypassed. In most cases these
settings were only slightly richer than the standard setting and all settings
could be obtained within the limits of adjustment of the idle screws.
The fleet average driveability was not affected by the richer idle
settings. Some vehicles improved considerably and some were made worse. The
two vehicles with the largest percentage increase in driveability demerits
with the richer mixture were the Volare 225-F and the Volvo 130-C. When the
mixture on the Volare was enrichened it stumbled very badly on the part
throttle accelerations even when approaching the end of the test. In order
to be sure that this was due to the adjustment and not some other engine mal-
function, the baseline and the rich idle runs were rerun twice with the same
19
-------
TABLE 4
Volare 318-C
Volare 318-F
Volare 225-F
Cordoba 400-F
Maverick 250-F
Pinto 140-F
Granada 302-C
Concord 258-C
Chevelle 305-F
Century 350-F
Regal 231T-F
Granada 302-F
Grand Prix 301-F
Volvo 130-C
FLEET AVERAGE
EFFECT OF RICH IDLE ON VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY,
EMISSIONS, FUEL ECONOMY AND ACCELERATION TIME
PERCENT CHANGE FROM BASELINE
Drive-
ability
Demerits
-22
+ 3
+53
+15
- 9
-40
-58
+ 5
+ 3
-17
-18
+48
-F +22
+53
Emissions
HC
+ 17
+ 46
+ 51
+131
+ 42
+ 70
- 1
- 3
+126
+248
- 9
- 32
+112
- 3
CO
+ 7
+ 97
+ 85
+397
+ 67
+ 91
- 11
+ 0
+155
+379
+ 76
+ 14
+151
+ 19
NOx
-11
+ 8
- 8
- 1
+ 3
- 1
- 7
-13
+ 2
-25
-23
-22
+ 5
+42
Fuel Economy
Urban
+3.5
-4.2
+4.4
-3.8
+2.2
+3.9
+2.1
+0.2
+0.3
-7.1
-7.5
-2.7
+0.6
-2.1
Highway
+0.7
-1.8
+5.1
+2.5
+3.2
+7.2
+3.0
+3.5
+4.9
-2.5
+4.0
-3.0
+3.6
-5.3
Accel.
Time
0
-0.3
-2.8
+1.5
-6.2
-6.4
-1.8
-3.2
-0.7
-2.0
+1.9
+2.2
+0.4
+2.1
Idle
.Setting
% CO
2%
1%
4%
0.7%
1%
2%
2%
2%
3%
3%
2%
2%
1.5%
4%
+4.1 +48 +108 -7.9-0.9 +1.4 -1.2
20
-------
result. The Volvo 130-C had such low demerits on baseline that the increase
in nine driveability demerits with the rich idle mixture was within the
repeatability of the driveability procedure even though the percentage
change was large.
The increase in HC and CO with idle enrichment varied widely among
cars indicating that the effective mixture was being changed considerably
more on some cars than on others. In future programs it would probably give
more consistent results if the idle CO measurements were made ahead of the
catalyst instead of downstream as used on this program and the Restora-
tive Maintenance Program.
The total fleet average HC emissions were increased by almost 50% and
the CO was more than doubled. The richer mixtures resulted in a slight re-
duction in NOx.
Urban and highway fuel economy and acceleration time showed very little
change due to the change in idle mixtures.
3. Effect of Richer Choke Settings
The effect of richer choke settings was investigated on seven vehicles
as shown in Table 5. The two Chrysler vehicles used electric choke heaters
in the choke housing to increase the rate of choke heat. On these vehicles
the electric heater was disconnected. The four GM cars and the Granada all
used chokes with adjustable housings. These were set one notch richer on
the Chevette, two notches richer on the Oldsmobile 98 and three notches
richer on the other vehicles.
The richer chokes improved driveability by 27% on the fleet average
and showed the largest effect on the cars where the choke housing was ad-
justed. The richer choke settings reduced the demerits due to a reduction
in stumble. In cases where vehicles encountered idle and moving stalls on
the baseline runs the richer choke settings reduced the number of stalls
on the Volare and the Granada but did not eliminate them. It must be
remembered that these driveability runs were only run at one temperature,
16°C (60F), and other temperatures would probably show different influences
of the richer choke settings. As can be seen from the table, the choke
settings had little effect on emissions, fuel economy and acceleration time
of the vehicles.
4. Effect of Advancing Spark Timing
Spark timing was advanced on six of the vehicles, as shown in Table 6.
Driveability was improved 11% on the fleet average. The Volvo had only 17
demerits on baseline, so the increase in percentage demerits was within
the repeatability of the test even though the percentage is high. On an
average the NOx was increased by 20% with little change in HC and CO
emissions. Slight, improvements were obtained on fuel economy. Advancing
the spark was the only modification that improved the vehicle accelera-
tion time to the point that it might be perceptible to the driver.
21
-------
TABLE 5
EFFECT OF RICH CHOKE SETTING ON VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY,
EMISSIONS, FUEL ECONOMY AND ACCELERATION TIME
PERCENT
Drive-
ability
Demerits
Volare 318-C
Cordoba
Cutlass
Chevette
Skylark
Olds 98
Granada
400-F
350-F
98-F
231-F
403-F
302-F
- 4
-11
-39
-43
-68
-27
-43
CHANGE FROM BASELINE
Emissions
HC
-21
- 4
- 3
- 3
+35
+ 4
+ 2
CO
- 6
+44
+25
-13
+22
+14
+ 6
NOx
-13
+11
- 5
- 3
- 8
-12
+10
Fuel Economy
Urban
+3.5
-5.1
-1.6
+4.4
+4.3
+1.3
-1.8
Highway
+0
-1
+0
+3
+0
+4
-1
.6
.8
.4
.7
.4
.1
.4
Change
Accel, in Choke
Time Setting
-1
+1
-2
_o
-0
+1
-1
.7
.6
.4
.0
.5
.0
.0
(1)
(1)
3-R
1-R
3-R
2-R
3-R
FLEET AVERAGE
-27 + 2.6 +12.3 - 3.3 +0.3 +0.6 -0.5
(1) Disconnected electric choke heater
22
-------
TABLE 6
EFFECT OF ADVANCING SPARK ON VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY
EMISSIONS, FUEL ECONOMY AND ACCELERATION TIME
PERCENT CHANGE FROM BASELINE
Drive-
ability Emissions fuel Economy Accel. Spark
Demerits HC CO NOx Urban Highway Time Advanced
Volare 225-F -11 -10 -15 +8 +6.9 +5.9 -2.1 6°
LTD-II 351W-F +12 - 5 - 1 +16 -2.2 -4.4 -3.1 4°
Cordoba 400-F
Maverick 250-F
Pinto 140-F
Volvo 130-C
FLEET AVERAGE -10.9 - 2.9 - 7.0 +19.6 +1.8 +1.1 -4.6
- 4
-39
-25
+35
+ 6
0
- 1
- 6
+ 7
- 4
-19
+17
+18
+32
+32
+13
-2.
+4.
+8.
-0.
4
7
7
6
+2
+2
+7
-5
.4
.5
.4
.8
-6
-4
-10
-1
.0
.7
.7
.4
4
6
6
5
o
o
0
o
23
-------
It is well known that advancing the timing increases the knocking
tendency of cars. Although knock was not monitored as part of this program,
knock was observed on the Pinto 140-F and Maverick 250-F during the drive-
ability tests with the advanced spark settings.
5. Effect of Increased Idle RPM
The idle rpm was increased on four of the cars as shown in Table 7.
The increased idle speed improved the driveability on three of the cars
and was detrimental on the fourth. Generally, the increased rpm reduced
the stumble demerits except for the Skylark and on this car the stumble
demerits were greatly increased. HC and CO emissions were reduced with a
slight increase in NOx.
Fuel economy, particularly on the urban cycle, was reduced and there
was a slight improvement in acceleration time.
6. Turbocharged Buick Maladjustments
The turbocharged Buick Regal was treated as a special case. This
vehicle uses a knock sensor to determine when the engine knocks and elec-
tronically retards the spark. Since the operating ignition timing would
be different under knocking conditions when the vehicle is operating with
a high octane fuel than on a normal regular unleaded fuel, the accelera-
tion performance, and possibly the driveability, fuel economy and the
emissions might be different.
The complete data on the performance of this car is shown on Table A-7
in Appendix A. The baseline acceleration runs were made on Sunlite un-
leaded gasoline of a nominal 91.5 Research octane number. When the accel-
erations were made on the special high octane fuel, described in Section
II-D, the acceleration time was reduced by 9.5%. Driveability on this
high octane fuel was 13% poorer than on the 93 octane driveability fuel
but the driveability index of the high octane fuel was 223 (466 in °F
units) compared to 217.5 (456) on the driveability fuel. Previous drive-
ability/fuel volatility correlation programs would indicate that this
change in driveability index should give about this change in driveability
so it is believed that the high octane number of the test fuel had no
effect on driveability.
This vehicle has an external connection to the control of carburetor
power enrichment from the turbocharger boost pressure. If this hose is
disconnected, the power enrichment valve will be open at all times. This
modification improved driveability by 50% but the richer mixture at light
loads reduced fuel economy by 13 to 14% and increased HC by 183% and CO
by 745%. There was only a small improvement in acceleration time.
The idle CO and EGR disconnect modifications have been discussed in
previous sections.
24
-------
TABLE 7
EFFECT OF INCREASED IDLE RPM ON VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY
EMISSIONS, FUEL ECONOMY AND ACCELERATION TIME
PERCENT CHANGE FROM BASELINE
Drive- Inc.
ability Emissions Fuel Economy Accel. Idle
Demerits HC CO NOx Urban Highway Time Speed
Volare 318-F - 7 -10 +25 +4 -5.7 -2.2 0 250
Cutlass 350-F -44 - 9 - 1 +17 -6.4 -2.5 -1.3 125
Chevette 98-F -11 -36 -15 +13 -5.8 -3.0 -3.5 125
Skylark 231-F +32 - 4 -21 +11 +3.9 +1.0 -2.3 125
FLEET AVERAGE - 9 -16.1-6.4 +11.9-4.1 -1.6 -1.9
25
-------
7. Three-way Catalyst Vehicle Maladjustment
Two of the vehicles used on the program were equipped with California
calibration emission systems using oxygen sensors in the exhaust for feed-
back control of the fuel-air ratio. When the oxygen sensors were dis-
connected the Volvo, which had excellent driveability in baseline condition,
showed no change in driveability and the Sunbird showed a 15 to 24% improve-
ment. On the Volvo, the richer fuel metering with the sensor disconnected
reduced the fuel economy on the urban cycle by 2% and 5% on the highway
cycle and resulted in increases of HC, CO and NOx emissions of 59%, 193%
and 145%. When a combination of 5° advanced spark and a slightly richer
idle were combined with the 0« sensor disconnect, the HC was increased by
430% and the CO by 1200%.
The 0» sensor disconnect on the Sunbird resulted in a 14% reduction in
urban economy and a 13% reduction in highway economy. HC emissions were
increased by 220% and CO by 1000%. NOx was reduced by 65%.
Complete data on these two cars is shown on Tables A-22 and A-23 in
Appendix A.
8. Effect of Multiple Maladjustments
One of the modifications tested on all but one car in the fleet was the
maladjustment of two and sometimes three items at one time. These combina-
tions of maladjustments were similar to those found on many of the mal-
adjusted cars in the Restorative Maintenance Evaluation Project. Since the
type of maladjustment varied from car to car, it would not be expected that
these maladjustments would have the same effect on driveability, emissions
or fuel economy, but a fleet average of all of the tests may be representa-
tive of the portion of in-use cars with multiple maladjustments.
Table 8 shows the results of these tests divided into groups according
to the type of emission control system. Details of the maladjustments to
each car are given in Tables A-2 to A-23 in Appendix A.
The multiple maladjustments improved the driveability on nine of the
Federal calibration cars and made it worse on six for a fleet average of
3% improvement. Emissions of HC, CO and NOx were increased considerably
and urban fuel economy was reduced slightly. Highway fuel economy and
acceleration performance were improved very slightly.
The California fleet with oxidizing catalysts, although of very
limited sample size, showed a larger improvement in driveability and a
smaller increase in HC and CO and a reduction in NOx. The modifications
resulted in a slight reduction in fuel economy and acceleration performance.
The two California cars with three-way catalyst both showed large in-
creases in HC and CO since one of the maladjustments on each car was the dis-
connect of the 02 sensor, as discussed in the previous section.
26
-------
TABLE 8
EFFECT OF MULTIPLE MALADJUSTMENTS OF VEHICLE
Volare 318-F
Volare 225-F
LTD 351W-F
Cordoba 400-F
Maverick 250-F
Pinto 140-F
Cutlass 350-F
Chevelle 305-F
Chevette 98-F
Skylark 231-F
Century 350-F
Olds 98 403-F
Granada 302-F
Grand Prix 301-F
Toyota 97-F
FLEET AVERAGE
Volare 318-C
Granada 302-C
Concord 258-C
FLEET AVERAGE
Sunbird 151-C
Volvo 130-C
FLEET AVERAGE
OVERALL AVERAGE
DRIVEABILITY, EMISSIONS, FUEL ECONOMY
AND ACCELERATION TIME
PERCENT CHANGE FROM BASELINE
Drive-
ability
Demerits
- 4
+48
+ 6
+ 4
- 5
-11
-33
+16
-35
-40
-13
-54
+ 4
-F + 9
-100+
- 3.4
+15
-77
-12
-16.9
-12
+ 6
Emissions
HC
+ 37
+ 55
+ 15
+140
+ 63
+ 49
+ 8
+125
- 30
+ 81
+162
- 13
- 33
+ 78
+ 10
+ 40
+ 23
- 3
+ 39
+13.
+216
+431
CO
+111
+130
+ 31
+488
+ 69
+ 77
+ 55
+190
- 18
+ 31
+149
+ 4
+ 44
+185
+ 31
.1 + 80.9
+133
- 13
+ 83
8 +61.1
+1024
+1210
NOx
+ 13
- 13
+ 19
+ 12
+ 19
- 4
+ 34
- 8
+ 13
+187
+163
- 24
- 28
+172
- 13
+ 22.5
- 13
- 10
- 22
-14.4
- 64
+ 5
Fuel
Urban
-8.1
-0.2
-2.5
-6.8
-0.2
+1.4
-6.1
-1.2
-8.0
+10.6
+3.7
+1.1
-8.0
+1.3
+1.1
-2.1
-6.9
+3.7
+4.9
-0.3
-15.2
-3.2
Economy
Highway
-2.8
+2.7
-7.1
-4.3
-0.5
+2.5
-2.8
+4.8
-10.1
+5.1
+4.5
+4.4
-8.2
+4.9
-0.8
+0.3
-6.3
-1.5
+4.8
-1.2
-13.9
-6.2
Accel,
Time
-0.8
+0.7
-2.5
-0.3
-4.7
-5.7
-3.2
+5.3
+0.7
-3.9
-3.9
+1.6
+6.6
-3.7
0.0
-0.9
+9.3
0
+3.2
+4.1
-4.7
-2.1
. Malad-
justments^
IRPM, ICO
IRPM, ICO
+ Spark, RRPM
ICO, IRPM
+ Spark, ICO
IRPM, ICO
Choke, IRPM
- Spark, ICO
Choke, IRPM
EGR, Choke
EGR, ICO
Choke, IFI
- Spark, ICO
EGR, ICO
ICO, RFI
- Spark, ICO
RRPM, ICO
Choke , ICO
02, EGR
09, + Spark,
- 9.7
- 6.4
IRPM = Increase Idle RPM
RRPM = Reduce Idle RPM
EGR = Disconnect EGR
+277 +1074 - 46.2 -9.2 -10.0
+ 52.5 +141.7 + 13.0 -2.3 -0.8
Choke = Set choke richer
+ Spark = Advance spark
- Spark = Retard spark
-3.5
-0.4
0
= Disconnect 0^ sensor
IFI = Increase fast idle
RFI = Reduce fast idle
-------
The overall fleet with multiple maladjustments showed a slight improve-
ment in driveability at the expense of higher emissions and a slight re-
duction in fuel economy and acceleration time.
Table 9 is a summary of the "fleet average" effects of maladjustments
on vehicle driveability, emissions, fuel economy and acceleration time.
Appendix D contains plots of vehicle driveability vs. emissions, fuel
economy and acceleration time for each vehicle on an absolute basis and on
a normalized basis. It also contains plots of vehicle driveability vs.
emissions, fuel economy and acceleration time on an absolute basis and on
a normalized basis for each maladjustment.
28
-------
TABLE 9
SUMMARY OF "FLEET AVERAGE" EFFECTS OF
MALADJUSTMENTS ON VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY,
EMISSIONS. FUEL ECONOMY AND ACCELERATION TIME
PERCENT CHANGE FROM BASELINE
Disconnect EGR
Richer Idle
Richer Choke
Advanced Spark
Increased Idle
Multiple Malad-
Dr ive-
ability
Demerits
-31
+ 4
-27
-11
RPM - 9
just- - 6
Emissions
HC
- 3
+48
+ 3
- 3
-16
+53
CO
- 2
+108
+ 12
- 7
- 6
+142
NOx
+190
- 8
- 3
+ 20
+ 12
+ 13
Fuel Economy
Urban
+4
-1
0
+2
-4
-2
Highway
+4
+1
+1
+1
_2
-1
Accel.
Time
-4
— 1
-1
-5
-2
0
ment
- Means improved driveability, reduced emissions, better
acceleration performance, but poorer fuel economy.
29
-------
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
The results of this project has indicated that there is a wide
variation in the driveability of various makes of 1977 and 1978 passenger
cars when tested at 16°C and that the driveability can be improved by modi-
fications in the engine adjustment. These modified adjustments usually
cause large increases in vehicle emissions. This program was only con-
ducted at a mild temperature (16°C) and a lower temperature more representa-
tive of normal winter operation should be investigated to see if the lower
temperature would give different and probably more critical driveability.
Also, some of the maladjustments such as richer choke settings would pro-
bably show different effects on vehicle emissions if the emission tests
were run at lower temperature to simulate winter operation.
The CRC driveability procedure was developed in 1968 when engine cali-
brations were much different than at present. In general both carburetor
and choke calibrations were much richer and exhaust gas recirculation or
catalyst were not used. Since the procedure is over ten years old and
engines have changed drastically, it might be advisable to re-evaluate
the procedure as it applies to modern vehicles.
The demerit rating weighting system used in the CRC procedure (see
Appendix B, Driveability Test Procedure) assigns weightings to malfunctions
by the degree of severity. A trace hesitation, stumble or backfire is
counted 6 demerits, moderate 12 and heavy 24 demerits. An engine stall
when the vehicle is idling only counts 8 demerits and a stall while man-
euvering 32. Since stalls are more serious from a safety standpoint and
more irritating to the driver, it seems that the relative weighting of
stalls should be increased in future programs.
Also, more work needs to be done on evaluating the relationship
between the tolerance to driveability of the average customer in normal
vehicle operation and ratings obtained by trained raters on a repetitive
test procedure.
30
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. White, John T., III, "An Evaluation of Restorative Maintenance on
Exhaust Emissions from In-Use Automobiles", Society of Automotive
Engineers, Inc. No. 780082, March, 1978.
2. Coordinating Research Council, "Driveability Evaluation in Cool
Weather", Report No. 439, December, 1970.
3. Coordinating Research Council - APRAC, "Study of the Interactions
of Fuel Volatility and Automotive Design as They Relate to Drive-
ability", No. CAPE 4-68 (2-68), April, 1972.
4. Coordinating Research Council - 1972 CRC Intermediate Temperature
Driveability Program - Paso Robles, Report 483, December, 1975.
5. Coordinating Research Council - Driveability Performance of 1975
Passenger Cars at Intermediate Ambient Temperatures - Paso
Robles, No. CM-102-74, May, 1976.
6. Coordinating Research Council - Driveability Performance of 1977
Passenger Cars at Intermediate Ambient Temperatures - Paso
Robles, Report No. 499, September, 1978.
31
-------
TABLE A-l - APPENDIX A
u>
NJ
BASELINE TUNE-UP SETTINGS
Basic
Model
Volare
Granada
Maverick
Pinto
Chevelle
Skylark
Century
Cutlass
Cordoba
LTD II
Granada
Volare
Yr.
'77
'77
'77
'77
'77
'77
'77
'77
'77
'77
'77
"77
Cu . In .
Disp.
225-F
302-C
250-F
140-F
305-F
231-F
350-F
350-F
400-F
351-F
302-F
318-F
Garb.
1-Bbl.
2-W
1-Bbl .
2-Bbl.
2-Bbl .
2-Bbl.
2-Bbl .
4-Bbl.
4-Bbl.
2-Bbl.
2-Bbl .
2-Bbl.
Odom.
11555
10202
11509
10241
15937
5914
8822
8097
6996
14457
5379
8164
Idle Setting
Method
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Idle Speed Drop
Idle Speed Drop
Idle Speed Drop
Idle Speed Drop
Propane
Propane
Propane
Propane
Speed
Change
130 rpm
40 rpm
80 rpm
70 rpm
50 rpm
40 rpm
60 rpm
30 rpm
130 rpm
120 rpm
80 rpm
80 rpm
Idle
Speed
700-N
600-D
600-D
800-D
500-D
600-D
600-D
550-D
830-N
625-D
650-D
700-N
Fast Idle
Speed
1700
1900
1700
2000
(2nd)
(Hi)
(2nd)
(2nd)
Pre-set
Pre-set
1600
900
1400
2100
2100
1400
(Hi)
(Hi)
Choke Timing
Setting BTC
.080 CI
.110 Vac. Kick
Index
1-R
Index
Index
1-R
1-R
2-R
.100"
1-R
Index
.070 CI
2°
12°
6°
20°
8°
12°
12°
20°
20°
4°
2°
8°
.110 Vac. Kick
(1) Could not reach Specs.
-------
TABLE A-l - APPENDIX A
BASELINE TUNE-UP SETTINGS
Gu. In.
Yr. Disp.
Corolla '
Chevette '
Volare '
Maverick '
Grand Prix
w Olds 98
Concord '
Regal <2> '
Sunbird '
78
77
77
77
'78
77
78
78
78
97-F
98-F
318-C
250-C
301-F
403-F
258-C
231-F
151-C
Garb.
2-Bbl.
1-Bbl.
2-Bbl.
1-Bbl.
2-Bbl.
4-Bbl.
2-Bbl.
4-Bbl.
2-Bbl.
Odom.
3813
20577
25748
27800
12524
12079
1985
8636
33470
Idle Setting
Method
Idle Speed Drop
Idle Speed Drop
Idle CO (%)
Optimum Idle
Propane
Idle Speed Drop
Idle Speed Drop
Lean Best Idle
Propane
Speed
Change
70 rpm
50
0.5%
"0"
30
30
25
20
rpm
CO
Increase
rpm
rpm
rpm
rpm
1% CO
Idle
Speed
850-N
800-D
850-N
600-D
550-D
550-D
700-D
650-D
650-D
Fast Idle
Speed
3200
2400 (Hi)
1500
2100 (2nd)
2200 (Hi)
900 (Lo)
1600 (2nd)
2500 (Hi)
2200
Choke
Setting
Index
3-R
Elect.
2-R
2-R
2-R
Index
Index
1-R
Basic
liming
ETC
10°
8°
TDC
8°
12°
20°
8°
15°
14°
Volvo
245-DL '78 130-C
F.I.
2020 Idle CO
2.0% CO
900-N 900
None
(2) Turbocharged
-------
TABLE A-2
CRC Drivcability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 kin/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gin/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gin/mi)
NOx, gin/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 CHEVROLET CHEVETTE
1.6 LITER (98 CU. IN.) 1-BBL. FEDERAL CALIBRATION
Disconnect EGR
Base
109
14.2
9.89
(23.79)
7.26
(32.39)
0.63
(1.02)
9.77
(15.72)
1.12
(1.80)
Choke 1 Notch
Rich Incr .
Idle 125
Modification 1 Modification 2 Modification
A 1 z 2 Al z 2 £ 1
89
13.7
9.84
(23.91)
7.46
(31.55)
0.50
(0.81)
7.70
(12.4)
3.06
(4.92)
-20
-0.5
-0.05
(+0.12)
+0.2
(-0.84)
-0.13
(-0.21)
-2.07
(-3.32)
+1.94
(+3.12)
-18.
-3.
-0.
(+0.
+2.
(-2.
-20.
(-20.
-21.
(-21.
3
5
5
5)
8
6)
6
6)
1
1)
+173
(+173)
97
13.7
10.50
(22.4)
7.49
(31.42)
0.40
(0.65)
8.28
(13.33)
1.27
(2.04)
-12
-0.5
+0.61
(-1.39)
+0.23
(-0.97)
-0.23
(-0.37)
-1.49
(-2.39)
+0.15
(+0.24)
rpm
3
i.
-11
-3
+6
(-5
+3
(-3
-36
(-36
-15
(-15
+13
(+13
Choke 1 Notch Rich,
Incr. Idle 125 rpm
2
.0
.5
.2
.8)
.2
.0)
.3
.3)
.2
.2)
.3
.3)
Modification 4
A 1 % 2
71
14.3
10.75
(21.88)
8.08
(29.11)
0.44
(0.71)
7.97
(12.82)
1.27
(2.04)
-38
+0.1
+0.86
(-1.91)
+0.82
(-3.28)
-0.19
(-0.31)
-1.8
(-2.9)
+0.1'5
(+0.24)
-34.9
+0.7
+8.7
(-8.0)
+11.3
(-10.1)
-30.4
(-30.4)
-18.4
(-18.4)
+13.3
(+13.3)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-2-A
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 CHEVROLET CHEVETTE*
I ._6_LIJER (98 CU. IN.) _1-BBL. FEDERAL CALIBRATION
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Base'
109
Modification 1
A 1
Choke I Notch Rich
Modification 2
A 1
62
-47
-43.1
Modification 3
Modification 4
A 1
Acceleration, sec.
16.] to 96.6 kiu/h
(10 to 60 mph)
15.2
14.9
-0.3
-2.0
(Jj
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km 10.64
(mpg) (22.11)
Highway 1/100 tea 7.69
(mpg) (30.60)
10.
(23.
7.
(31.
19
08)
42
72)
-0
(+0
-0
(+1
.45
.97)
.27
.12)
-4,
(+4
— 3
(+3,
.2
.4)
.5
.7)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
0.48
(0.78)
9.14
(14.69)
1.22
(1.97)
0.47 -0.01 -2.6
(0.76) (-0.02) (-2.6)
7.99 -1.15 -12.5
(12.86) (-1.83) (-12.5)
1.19 -0.03 -2.5
(1.92) (-0.05) (-2.5)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Rebuilt trans, with old governor reinstalled.
-------
TABLE A-3
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 CHEVROLET CHEVELLE
5.0 LITER (305 CU. IN
Base
117
10.57
16.08
(14. 64)
12.6
(18.68)
0.63
(1.01)
8.16
(13.14)
1.69
(2.72)
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 Z 2
118
10.49
15.71
(14.98)
11.85
(19.85)
0.71
(1.15)
9.13
(14.69)
2.31
(3.71)
+1
-0.08
-0.37
(+0.34)
-0.75
(+1.17)
+0.08
(+0.14)
+0.97
(+1.55)
. +0.62
(+0.99)
+0.8
-0.8
-2.3
(+2.3)
-6.0
(+6.3)
+13.9
(+13,9)
+11.8
(+11.8)
+36.4
(+36.4)
.), 2-BBL,
Idle CO @ 3%
Modification 2
A 1
121
10.50
16.03
(14.68)
12.0
(19.6)
1.42
(2.28)
20.84
(33.53
1.73
(2.78)
+4
-0.07
-0.05
(+0.04)
-0.60
(+0.92)
+0.79
(+1.27)
+12.68
(+20.39)
+0.04
(+0,06)
. FEDERAL
2
+3.4
-0.7
-0.3
(+0.3)
-5.0
(+4.9)
+126
(+126)
+155
(+155)
+2.2
(+2.2)
CALIBRATION
Retard Spark
Modification
Al
110
11.60
16.80
(14.00)
13.22
(17.79)
0.70
(1.13)
11.76
(18.93)
1.24
(2.0)
-7
+1.03
+0.72
(-0.64)
+0.62
(-0.89)
+0.07
(+0.12)
+3.60
(+5.79)
-0.45
(-0,72)
4°
2
-6.0
+9.7
+4.5
(-4.4)
+4.9
(-4.8)
+11.9
(+11.9)
+44.1
(+44.1)
-26.5
(-26.5)
Retard Spark 4°
Idle CO 1? 3%
Modification 4
A 1 £ 2
136
11.13
16.26
(14.47)
12.02
(19.57)
1.41
(2.27)
23.95
(38.55)
1.56
(2.51)
+19
+0.56
+0.18
(-0.17)
-0.58
(+0.89)
+0.78
(+1.26)
+15.78
(+25.4)
-0.13
(-0.21)
+16.2
+5.3
+1.1
(-1.2)
-4.6
(+4.8)
+125
(+125)
+190
(+190)
-7.7
(-7.7)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-4
CRC Drlveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF 1978 PONTIAC SUNBIRD
2.
,5 LITER (151 CU. IN.
Disconnect
Bac,e
117
14. 9
10.88
(21.61)
8.32
(28.28)
0.50
(0.81)
5.44
(8.75)
1.21
(1.95)
0. Sensur
Modification
A 1
14
12.
(J8.
9.
(24.
j .
(2.
60.
(97.
0.
(0.
99
.5
71
51)
59
52)
62
61)
37
15)
41
66)
-18
-0.4
+1.83
(-3.1)
+1.27
(-3.76)
+1.12
(+1.8)
+54.93
(+88.4)
-0.8
'(-1.29)
1
-15.4
-2.7
H6.8
(-14.3)
+15.3
(-13.3)
+222
(+222)
+1010
(+1010)
-66.2
(-66.2)
J, 2-BBL.,
CALIFORNIA CALIBRATION
Disconnect Mix
Control Vac.Kose
From Solenoid
Modification 2
Al % 2
89
14.5
12.60
(18.67)
9.66
(24.35)
1.62
(2.61)
57.83
(93.07)
0.39
(0.63)
-28
-0.4
+1.72
(-2.94)
+1 . 34
(-3.93)
+1.12
(+1.8)
+52.39
(+84.32)
-0.82
(-1.32)
-23.9
-2 . 7
+15.8
(-13.6)
+16.1
(-13.9)
+222
(+222)
+964
(+964)
-67.7
(-67.7)
Disconnect EGR
Modification 3
£ 1 % 2
105
14 . 6
10.92
(21,54)
8.76
(26.85)
0.34
(0.55)
4.84
(7.79)
1.17
(1.89)
-12
-0.3
+0 . 04
(-0.07)
+0.44
(-1,43)
-0.16
(-0.26)
-0.6
(-0.96)
-0.04
(-0.06)
-10
-2.
+0
(-0.
+5.
(-5.
-32.
(-32.
-11.
(-11.
-3.
(-3.
.3
.0
.4
.3)
.3
.1)
.1
.1)
, 0
.0)
1
i -V.
1)
Combine 2 6. 3
Modification 4
A 1 % 2
103
14.2
12.84
(18.32)
9.66
(24.36)
1.59
(2. 5'.)
61.09
(98.31)
0.44
(0.71)
-14
-0
+1.
(-3.
+1.
(-3.
+1.
(+1.
+55.
(+89.
-0.
(-1.
.7
96
29)
34
92)
09
75)
65
56)
77 '
24)
-12.0
-4.7
+18.0
(-15.2)
+16.1
(-13.9)
+216
(+216)
+1024
(+1024)
-63.6
(-63.6)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-5
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(«pg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gin/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gin/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF
4.9 LITER
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
Base
55
9.84
14.30
(16.45)
10.19
(23.09)
0.72
(1.16)
5.72
(9.21)
1.03
(1.66)
77
9.79
14.47
(15.93)
10.72
(21.94)
0.80
(1.29)
5.69
(9.15)
3.24
(5.21)
A 1
+22
-0.05
+0.47
(-0.52)
+0.53
(-1.15)
+0.08
(+0.13)
-0.03
(-0.06)
+2.21
(+3.55)
2
+40
-0.5
+3.3
(-3.2)
+5.2
(-5.0)
+11.2
(+11.2)
-0.6
(-0.6)
+214
(+214)
(301 CU.
1978 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX
IN.) 2-BBL. FEDERAL
Idle CO @ 1.5%
Modification 2
67
9.88
14.21
(16.55)
9.83
(23.93)
1.53
(2.46)
14.37
(23.12)
1.08
(1.74)
Al
+12
+0.04
-0.09
(+0.1)
-0.36
(+0.84)
+0.81
(+1.3)
+8.65
(+13.91)
+0.05
(+0.08)
-------
TABLE A-6
OJ
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
Highway 1/100 km
(rapg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx gm/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF
. Base
105
14.72
15.17
(15.51)
10.36
(22.70)
0.46
(0.74)
11.36
(18.27)
1.03
(1.66)
3.8
LITER (231
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A r 2
79
14.23
13.8
(17.06)
9.85
(23.88)
0.64
(1.03)
12.5
(20.11)
3.07
(4.94)
-26
-0.49
-1.37
(+1.55)
-0.51
(+1.18)
+0.18
(+0.29)
+1 . 14
(+1.84)
+2.04
(+3.28)
-24.8
-3.3
-9.0
(+10.0)
-4.9
(+5.2)
+39.2
(+39.2)
+10.1
(+10.1)
+198
(+198)
CU. IN.),
1977 BUICK SKYLARK
2-BBL. .
FEDERAL CALIBRATION
Choke 3 Notches
Rich
Modification 2
A 1 2
34
14.65
14.55
(16.17)
10.32
(22.78)
0.62
(1.0)
13.84
(22.26)
0.95
(1.53)
-71
-0.07
-0.62
(+0.66)
-0.04
(+0.08)
+0.16
(+0.26)
+2.48
(+3.99)
-0.08
(-0.13)
-67.6
-0.5
-4.1
(+4.3)
-0.4
(+0.4)
+35.1
(+35.1)
+21.8
(+21.8)
-7.8
(-7.8)
Disconnect EGR
Choke 3 Notches Rich
Modification 3
63
14.14
13.72
(17.15)
9.86
(23.86)
0.83
(1.34)
14.8
(23.9)
2.96
(4.76)
-42
-0.58
-1.45
(+1.64)
-0.5
(+1.16)
+0.37
(+0.60
+3.50
(+5.63)
+1.9
(+3.1)
-40
-3.9
-9.6
(+10.6)
-4.8
(+5.1)
+81.1
(+81.1)
+30.8
(+30.8)
+187
(+187)
Incr. Idle 125 rpm
Modification 4
A f
139
14.38
14.92
(15.77)
10.26
(22.92)
0.44
(0.71)
8.95
(14.40)
1.15
(1.85)
+34
-0.34
0.25
(+0.60)
-0.1
(+0.22)
-0.02
(-0.03)
-2.40
(-3.87)
+0.12
+0.19
+32.
-2.
-1.
(+3.
-1.
+1.
-4.
(-4.
-21.
(-21.
+11
(+11
2
4
3
6
9)
0
0
0
0)
i-
2)
.4
.4)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-7
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 tan
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gin/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/rai)
PERFORMANCE
OF 1978 BUICK REGAL
3.8 LITER (231 CU. IN.) TURBOCHARGED ,
Base
91
10.07*
14.51
(16.21)
11.21
(20.98)
0.50
(0.81)
6.15
(9.90)
0.78
(1.26)
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 X 2
82
9.83*
15.56
(15.12)
12.41
(18.96)
0.53
(0.86)
6.52
(10.49)
2.56
(4.12)
-9
-0.24
+1.05
(-1.09)
+1.02
(-2.02)
+0.03
(+0.05)
+0.37
(+0.59)
+1.78
(+2.86)
-9.9
-2.4
+7.2
(-6.7)
+10.7
(-9.6)
+6.2
(+6.2)
+6.0
(+6.0)
+227
(+227)
4-BBL.,
Idle CO @ 2%
Modification 2
Al % 2
75
10.26*
15.69
(14.99)
10.78
(21.81)
0.46
(0.74)
10.81
(17.4)
0.60
(0.97)
-16
+0.19
+1.18
(-1.22)
-0.43
(+0.83)
-0.04
(0.07)
+1.66
(+7.5)
-0.18
(-0.29)
-17.6
+1.9
+8.1
(-7.5)
-3.8
(+4.0)
-8.6
(-8.6)
+75.8
(+75.8)
-23.0
(-23.0)
FEDERAL CALIBRATION
Disconnect External
Power Enrichment
Modification 3
46
9.93*
16.73
(14.06)
13.07
(17.99)
1.41
(2.29)
52.0
(83.7)
0.22
(0.35)
-45
-0.14
+2.22
(-2.15)
+1.86
(-2.99)
+0.92
(+1.48)
+45.85
(+73.78)
-0.56
(-0.91)
-49.5
-1.4
+15.3
(-13.3)
+16.6
(-14.3)
+183
(+183)
+745
(+745)
-72.2
(-72.2)
Special High
Octane Fuel
Modification 4
A 1
103
9.11
14.44
(16.29)
10.73
(21.92)
0.62
(1.0)
5.16
(8.3)
0.88
(1.41)
+12
-0.96
-0.07
(+0.08)
-0.48
(+0.94)
+0.12
(+0.19)
-0.99
(-1.6)
+0.1
(+0.15)
2
+13.2
-9.5
-0.05
(+0.05)
-4.3
(+4.4)
+23.5
(+23.5)
-16.2
(-16.2)
+11.9
(+11.9)
1 Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
All accel. tests run on 91 RON nominal Sunlite Fuel
-------
TABLE A-8
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gin/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE
Base
105
11.91
16.33
(14.41)
11.88
(19.82)
0.51
(0.81)
6.55
(10.53)
1.04
(1.67)
5.7 LITER
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 z 2
56
11.81
15.76
(14.94)
11.39
(20.67)
0.50
(0.80)
5.87
(9.44)
3.18
(5.11)
-49
-0.1
-0.57
(+0.53)
-0.49
(+0.85)
-0.01
(-0.01)
-0.68
(-1.09)
+2.14
(+3.44)
-46.7
-0.8
-3.5
(+3.7)
-4.1
(+4.3)
-1.2
(-1.2)
-10.4
(-10.4)
+206
(+206)
OF 1977 BUICK CENTURY
(350 CU. IN.), 2-BBL., FEDERAL CALIBRATION
Idle CO @ 3%
Modification 2
Al Z 2
87
11.67
17.58
(13.38)
12.18
(19.32)
1.75
(2.82)
31.36
(50.46)
0.78
(1.26)
-18
-0.24
+1.25
(-1.03)
+0.3
(-0.50)
+1.25
(+2.01)
+24.79
(+39.9)
-0.25
(-0.41)
-17.1
-2.0
+7.7
(-7.1)
+2.3
(-2.5)
+248
(+248)
+379
(+379)
-24.6
(-24.6)
Idle Drop 20 rpm
Modification 3
90
11.78
16.35
(14.39)
11.53
(20.40)
1.19
(1.91)
17.29
(27.83)
0.78
(1-25)
-15
-0.13
+0.02
(-0.02)
-0.35
(+0.58)
+0.68
(+1.1)
+10.75
(+17.3)
-0.26
(-0.42)
-14.3
-1.1
+0.1
(-0.1)
-2.9
(+2.9)
+13.6
(+136)
+164
(+164)
-2.5
(-2.5)
Disconnect EGR
Idle Drop 20 rpm
Modification 4
A ! x 2
91
11.45
15.74
(14.95)
11.35
(20.72)
1.32
(2.12)
16.31
(26.25)
2.73
(4.4)
-14
-0.46
-0.59
(+0.54)
-0.53
(+0.9)
+0.81
(+1.31)
+9.76
(+15.7)
+1.70'
(+2.73)
-13.3
-3.9
-3.6
(+3.7)
-4.5
(+4.5)
+162
(+162)
+149
(+149)
+163
(+163)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-9
CRC DriveabUity
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
Emissions,
HC, gin/km
(gin/ml)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
' PERFORMANCE OF 1977 OLDSMOBILE CCTLA
Base
127
10.14
16.12
(14.6)
11.87
(19,83)
0.47
(0.75)
4.73
(7.6)
1.25
(2.0)
5.
7 LITER (350 CD. IN.),
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1 2
84
10.00
16.0
(14.7)
11.6
(20.36)
0.46
(0.74)
4.12
(6.64)
4.7
(7.6)
-43
-0.14
-0.12
(+0.1)
-0.27
(+0.53)
-0.01
(-0.01)
-0.61
(-0.96)
4-3.45
(+5.6)
-33.9
-1.4
-0.7
(+0.7)
-2.3
(+2.7)
-1.3
(-1.3)
-12.6
(-12.6)
+280
(+280)
4-BBL.,
FEDERAL O.
Choke 3 Notches
Rich
Modification 2
A 1 Z2
77
9.90
16.38
(14.37)
11.81
(19.91)
0.45
(0.73)
5.92
(9.52)
1.19
(1.91)
-50
-0.24
+0.26
(-0.23)
-0.06
(+0.08)
-0.02
(-0.02)
+1.19
(+1.92)
-0.06
(-0.04)
-39.4
-2.4
+1.6
(-!.«)
-0.5
(+0.4)
-2.7
(-2.7)
+25.3
(+25.3)
-4.5
(-4.5)
.55
i: -RATION
Choke 3 Notches Rich,
Incr. Idle 125 rpm.
Modification 3
A I Z2
85
9.82
17.16
'13.71)
12.21
(19.27)
0.50
(0.81)
7.31
(11.77)
1.66
:.67)
-42
-0.32
+1.04
(-0.89)
+0.34
(-0.56)
+0.04
(+0.06)
+2.59
(+4.17)
+0.42
(+0.67)
-33.1
-3.2
+6.5
(-6.1)
-2.9
(-2.8)
+8.0
(+8.0)
+54.8
(+54.8)
+33.5
(+33.5)
Incr. Idle 125 rpm
Modification 4
A I %2
71
10.01
17.20
(13.67)
12.16
(19.34)
0.42
(0.68)
4.68
(7.53)
1.45
(2.33)
-56
-0.13
+1.08
(-0.93)
+0.29
(-0.49)
-0.04
(-0.07)
-0.04
(-0.07)
+0.21
(+0.33)
-44.1
-1.3
+6.7
(-6.4)
+2.4
(-2.5)
-9.3
(-9.3)
-0.9
(-0.9)
+16.5
(+16.5)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, +increase)
-------
TABLE A-10
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(rapg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/kin
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 OLDSMOBILE 98
Base
84
9.72
16.49
(14.26)
12.06
(19.50)
0.51
(0.82)
4.65
(7.48)
1.59
(2.56)
6.6 LITER
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 * 2
93
9.67
16.55
(14.21)
12.01
(19.58)
0.58
(0.93)
4.51
(7.26)
5.16
(8.30)
+9
-0.05
+0.06
(-0.05)
-0.05
(+0.08)
+0.07
(+0.11)
-0.14
(-0.22)
+3.57
(+5.74)
+10.7
-0.5
+0.4
(-0.4)
-0.4
(+0.4)
+13.4
(+13.4)
-2.9
(-2.9)
+224
(+224)
(403 CU. IN.), 4-BBL. FEDERAL
Choke 2 Notches
Rich
Modification 2
A 1 j 2
61
9.82
16.29
(14.44)
11.59
(20.29)
0.53
(0.85)
5.31
(8.54)
1.40
(2.25)
-23
+0.1
-0.2
(+0.18)
-0.47
(+0.79)
+0.02
(+0.03)
+0.66
(+1.06)
-0.19
(-0.31)
-27.4
+1.0
-1.2
(+1.3)
-3.9
(+4.1)
+3.7
(+3.7)
+14.2
(+14.2)
-12.1
(-12.1)
CALIBRATION
Fast Idle
Plus 150 rpm
Modification
Al
88
9.72
16.06
(14.65)
11.13
(21.13)
0.47
(0.75)
3.80
(6.12)
1.28
(2.06)
+4
0
-0.43
(+0.39)
-0.93
(+1.63)
-0.04
(-0.07)
-0.85
(-1.36)
-0.31
(-0.5)
+4.8
0
-2.6
(+2.7)
-7.7
(+8.4)
-8.5
(-8.5)
-18.2
(-18.2)
-19.5
(-19.5)
Choke 2 Notches Rich
Fast Idle + 150 rpm
Modification 4
39
9.88
-45
+0.16
16.32 -0.17
(14.41) (+0.15)
11.56 -0.5
(20.35) (^0.85)
-53.6
+1.6
-1.0
(+1.1)
-4.1
(+4.4)
0.44 -0.07 -13.4
(0.71) (-0.11) (-13.4)
4.84 +0.19 +4.1
(7.79) (+0.31) (+4.1)
1.21 -0.38 -24.2
(1.94) (-0.62) (-24.2)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-11
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, see.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE
2.3 LITER (140 CU. IN,
Base
154
14.0
12.7
(18.54)
9.6
(24.46)
0.54
(0.87)
9.48
(15.26)
0.90
(1.45)
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 X 2
152
13.2
12.0
(19.67)
8.8
(26.60)
0.55
(0.89)
10.04
(16.15)
2.57
(4.14)
-2
-0.8
-0.7
(+1.13)
-0.8
(+2.14)
+0.01
(+0.02)
+0.56
(+0.89)
+1.67
(+2.69)
-1.3
-5.7
-5.7
(+6.1)
-8.0
(+8.8)
+2.3
(+2.3)
+5.8
(+5.8)
+185.5
(+185.5)
OF 1977
,) 2-BBL
Advance Timing
Modification
Al
115
12.5
11.67
(20.15)
8.95
(26.27)
0.53
(0.86)
7.70
(12.39)
1.19
(1.91)
-39
-1.5
-1.03
(+1.61)
-0.65
(+1.81)
-0.01
(-0.01)
-1.78
(-2.87)
+0.29
(+0.46)
FORD PINTO
. FEDERAL CALIBRATION
6°
2
2
-25.3
-10.7
-8.1
(+8.7)
-6.8
(+7.4)
-1.1
(-1.1)
-18.8
(-18.8)
+31.7
(+31.7)
Idle CO
-------
TABLE A-12
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gra/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 FORD MAVERICK
A.I LITER (250 CU. IN.)
Base
160
12.9
13.9
(16.91)
10.6
(22.20)
1.09
(1.75)
8.02
(12.91)
0.90
(1.45)
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 i 2
128
12.6
13.7
(17.12)
10.8
(21.72)
0.82
(1.32)
8.15
(13.11)
4.77
(7.68)
-32 -20
-0.3 -2.3
-0.2 -1.0
(+0.21) (+1.24)
+0.2 +2.2
(-0.48) (-2.16)
-0.27 -25.6
(0.43) (-25.6)
+0.13 +1.55
(+0.20) (+1.55)
+3.87 +430
(+6.23) (+430)
, 1-BBL -
- FEDERAL CALIBRATION
Advance Timing 6°
Modification 2
A 1 % 2
97
12.3
13.29
(17.70)
10.33
(22.76)
1.09
(1.75)
7.71
(12.40)
1.19
(1.91)
-63
-0.6
-0.61
(+0.79)
-0.27
(+0.56)
0
(0)
-0.31
(-0.51)
+0.29
(+0.46)
-39.4
-4.7
-4.4
(+4.7)
-2.5
(+2.5)
0
(0)
-4.0
(-4.0)
31.7
(+31.7)
Idle CO @ 1%
Modification
Al
145
12.1
13.60
(17.29)
10.27
(22.90)
1.54
(2.48)
13.41
(21.57)
0.93
(1.50)
-15
-0.8
-0.30
(+0.38)
-0.33
(+0.70)
+0.46
(+4.73)
+5.39
(+8.66)
+0.03
(+0.05)
2
-9.4
-6.2
-2.2
(+2 . 2)
-3.1
(+3.2)
+41.7
(+41.7)
+67.2
(+67.1)
+3.4
(+3.4)
Idle CO @ 1%
Advance Timing 6°
Modification 4
^ 1 % 2
152
12.3
13.93
(16.88)
10.64
(22.10)
1.78
(2.86)
13.54
(21.79)
1.07
(1.73)
-8
-0.6
+0.03
(-0.03)
+0.04
(-0.10)
+0.69
(+1.11)
+5.52
(+8.88)
+0.17-
(+0.28)
-5.0
-4.7
+0.2
(-0.2)
+0.4
(-0.5)
+63.4
(+63.4)
+68.8
(+68.8)
+19.3
(+19.3)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-13
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 FORD MAVERICK
Base
115
15.5
16.18
(14.54)
12.94
(18.17)
0.55
(0.89)
7.37
(11.86)
0.80
(1.28)
4.1 LITER
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 z 2
51
15.0
15.03
(15.65)
11.97
(19.65)
0.46
(0.74)
5.29
(8.52)
4.09
(6.58)
-64
-0.5
-1.15
(+1.11)
-0.97
(+1.48)
-0.09
(-0.15)
-2.08
(-3.34)
+3.29
(+5.3)
-55.7
-3.2
-7.1
(+7.6)
-7.5
(+8.1)
-16.9
(-16.9)
-28.2
(-28.2)
+414
(+414)
(250 CU. IN.), 1-BBL. CALIFORNIA CALIBRATION
Choke 2 Notches Lean
Modification 2
Al % 2
53
15.6
16.12
(14.59)
12.85
(18.30)
0.49
(0.79)
5.64
(9.07)
0.78
(1.25)
-62
+0.1
-0.06
(+0.05)
-0.09
(+0.13)
-0.06
(-0.1)
-1.73
(-2.79)
-0.02
(-0.03)
-53.9
+0.6
-0.4
(+0.3)
-0.7
(+0.7)
-11.2
(-11.2)
-23.5
(-23.5)
-2.3
(-2.3)
Disconnect EGR
Choke 2 Notches Lean
Modification 3
A ! % 2
47
15.4
15.22
(15.45)
11.81
(19.91)
0.43
(0.70)
7.57
(12.18)
2.38
(3.83)
-68
-0.1
-0.96
(+0.91)
-1.13
(+1.74)
-0.12
(-0.19)
+0.20
(+0.32)
+1.58
(+2.55)
-59.1
-0.6
-5.9
(+6.3)
-8.7
(+9.6)
-21.3
(-21.3)
+2.7
(+2.7)
+199
(+199)
Idle CO @ 0.3%
Modification 4 **
A i r. 2
-
15.45
16.12
(14.59)
13.05
(18.02)
0.55
(0.88)
11.43
(18.40)
(0.62)
(1.00)
-
-0.05
-0.06
(+0.05)
+0.11
(-0.15)
0
(-0.01)
+4.06
(+6.54)
(-0.18)
(-0.28)
-
-0.3
-0.4
(+0.3)
+0.01
(-0.01)
0
(-0.01)
+55 . 1
(+55.1)
(-22.5)
(-22.0)
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(»Pg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gut/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
* Idle CO @ 3.2% w/o exhaust manifold air injection.
** Single run.
-------
TABLE A-14
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 tan/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 to
Highway 1/100 km
(«Pg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/kffl
(gn/ni)
CO, gm/km
(gin/mi)
NOx, gn/kn
(gn/ni)
PERFORMANCE 07
4.9 LITER (302 CU,
Base
11.
16.
(".
12.
(19.
1.
(1.
4.
(7.
1.
(2.
83
07
54
22)
26
19)
14
84)
62
43)
27
03)
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A1 <%2
48 -35 . -42.2
10.
16.
(14.
12.
(18.
1.
(1.
4.
(7.
4.
(7.
91
72
07)
85
31)
01
63)
76
65)
45
15)
-0.16
+0.18
(-0.15)
+0.59
(-0.88)
-0.13
(-0.21)
+0.14
(+0.22)
+3.18
(+5.12)
-1.4
+0.1
(-0.1)
+4.8
(-4.6)
-11.4
(-11.4)
+3.0
(+3.0)
+252
(+252)
1977 FORD GRANADA -
, IN.
,) 2-BEi. FEDERA:
Choke 3 Notches
Modification. 2
11.
16.
(13.
12.
(18.
1.
(1.
4.
(7.
1.
(2.
47
18
85
96)
43
92)
17
88)
89
87)
39
23)
A x
-36
-0
+0
(-0
+0
(-0
+0
(+0
+0
(+0
+0
(+0
.11
.31
.26)
.17
.27)
.03
.04)
.27
.44)
.12
.20)
Rich
V,2
-43.4
-1.
+1,
(-1.
+1.
(-1.
+2.
(+2.
+5.
(+5.
+9.
(+9.
0
9
8)
4
4)
2
2)
9
9)
9
9)
Idle CO @ 27.
Modification^ ,
A1" %2
123 +40 +48.2
11.31 +0.24 +2.2
16,99 +0.45 +2,7
(13.84) (-0.38) (-2.7)
12.64 +0.38 +3.1
(18.61) (0.58) (-3.0)
0.78 -0,36 -31,5
(1.26) (-0.58) (-31.5)
5.26 +0.64 +14.0
(8.47) (+1.04) (+14.0)
0.98 -0.29 -22.2
(1.58) (-0.45) (-22.2)
Idle CO @ 2%
Retard Timing 4e
Modification 6
A"1
86
+3
11.80 +0.73
17.98 +1.44
(13.08) (-1.14)
13.36 +1.10
(17.61) (-1.58)
0.77 -0.37
(1.24) (-0.60)
6.65
(10.7)
+2.03
(+3.27)
0.91 -0.36
(1.47) (-0.56)
+3.6
+6.6
+8.7
(-S.O)
+9.0
(-8.2)
-32.6
(-32.6)
+44.0
(+44.0)
-27.6
(-27.6)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-15
CRC Drlveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
_^ Fuel Economy
00 FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi.)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(go/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 FORD GRANADA
4.9 LITER (302 CU
Base
150
11.4
19.3
(12.18)
13.5
(17.46)
0.46
(0.74)
3.04
(4.90)
0.70
(1.12)
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 z 2
4
11.6
18.0
(13.05)
12.9
(18.28)
0.58
(0.93)
2.35
(3.79)
2.13
(3.43)
-146
+0.2
-1.3
(+0.87)
-0.6
(+0.82)
+0.12
(+0.19)
-0.69
(-1.11)
+1.43
(+2.31)
-97.3
+1.8
-6.7
(+7.1)
-4.4
(+4.7)
+25.7
(+25.7)
-22.7
(-22.7)
+206.3
(+206.3)
. IN.), 2-BBL., VARIABLE VENTURI - CALIFORNIA CALIBRATION
Retard Timing 4°
Modification 2
Al
45
13.0
20.52
(11.46)
14.25
(16.51)
0.43
(0.70)
2.85
(4.58)
0.69
(1.10)
-105
+1.6
+1.22
(-0.72)
+0.75
(-0.95)
-0.03
(-0.04)
-0.19
(-0.32)
-0.01
(-0.02)
% 2
-70.0
+14.0
+6.3
(-5.9)
+5.6
(-5.4)
-5.4
(-5.4)
-6.5
(-6.5)
-1.8
(-1.8)
Idle CO @ 27,
Modification
63
11.2
18.92
(12.43)
13.08
(17.98)
0.45
(0.73)
2.72
(4.38)
0.65
(1.04)
-87
-0.2
-0.38
(+0.25)
-0.42
(+0.52)
-0.01
(-0.01)
-0.32
(-0.52)
-0.05
(-0.08)
3
-58
-1.8
-2.0
(+2.1)
-3.1
(+3.0)
-1.4
(-1.4)
-10.6
(-10.6)
-7.1
(-7.1)
Idle CO 9 2%
Decrease Idle 50
Modification 4
35
11.4
18.62
(12.63)
13.68
(17.19)
0.45
(0.72)
2.65
(4.26)
0.63
(1.02)
-115
0
-0.68
(+0.45)
+0.18
(-0.27)
-0.01
(-0.02)
-0.30
(-0.64)
-0.07
(-0.10)
rptn
,2
-76.7
0
-3.5
(+3.7)
+1.3
(-1.5)
-2.7
(-2.7)
-13.1
(-13.1)
-10.0
(-10.0)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-16
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 FORD LTD II
5.8 LITER
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
Base
211
10.4
17.07
(13.79)
12.25
(19.21)
0.79
(1.27)
6.42
(10.32)
1.5
(2.42)
A "
126
10.45
17.34
(13.57)
12.6
(18.7)
0.75
(1.20)
6.64
(10.67)
5.24
(8.42)
-85
+0.05
+0.27
(-0.22)
+0.35
(-0.51)
-0.04
(-0.07)
+0.22
(+0.35)
+3.74
(+6.0)
a/0 '
-40.3
+0.5
+1.6
(-1.6)
+2.9
(-2.7)
-5.5
(-5.5)
+3.4
(+3.4)
+248
(+248)
(351 CU. IN
. ) 2-BBL., FEDERAL
Advance Timing 4°
Modification 2
A1 %l
237
10.08
17.44
(13.49)
12.81
(18.36)
0.75
(1.21)
6.38
(10.27)
1.75
(2.81)
+26
-0.32
+0.37
(-0.30)
+0.56
(-0.85)
-0.04
(-0.06)
-0.04
(-0.05)
+0.25
(+0.39)
+12.
-3.
+2.
(-2.
+4.
(-4.
-4.
(-4.
-0.
(-0.
+16.
(+16.
3
1
2
2)
6
4)
7
7)
5
5)
1
1)
CALIBRATION
Dec. Idle 100 rpm
Modification 3
243
10.42
17.53
(13.42)
13.30
(17.68)
0.87
(1.40)
8.87
(14.27)
1.22
(1.97)
A
+32
+0.02
+0.46
(-0.37)
+1.05
(-1.53)
+0.08
(+0.13)
+2.45
(+3.95)
-0.28
(-0.45)
% <-
+15.2
+0.2
+2.7
(-2.7)
+8.6
(-8.0)
+10.2
(+10.2)
+38.3
(+38.3)
-18.6
(-18.6)
Advance Timing 4". .
Dec. Idle 75 rpm u;
Modification 4
223
10.14
17.50
(13.44)
13.18
(17.85)
0.91
(1.46)
8.43
(13.56)
1.78
(2.87)
/a
+12
-0.26
+0.43
(-0.35)
+0.93
(-1.36)
+0.12
(-0.19)
+2.01
(+3.24)
+0.28
(+0.45)
f • •£
Ci
+5.7
-2.5
+2.5
(-2.5)
+7.6
(-7.1)
+15.0
(+15.0)
+31,4
(+'31. 4)
+18.6
(+18. 6)
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (-decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
EPa originally specified a 100 to 150 rpm reduction in idle speed; however, a 75 rpm reduction was the largest reduction possible to maintain a stall-tree
idle.
-------
Ul
o
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 tan/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gra/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gin/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gin/km
(gm/mi)
TABLE A-17
PERFORMANCE OF 1977_PLYMOUTH VOLARE
3.7 LITER (225 CD. IN.). 1-BBL., FEDERAL CALIBRATION
Disconnect EGR
Base
238
14.4
14.4
(16.32)
11.1
(21.21)
0.83
(1.34)
6.76
(10.88)
1.12
(1.80)
Modification
A 1
156
13.9
13.0
(18.07)
9.9
(23.78)
0.90
(1.45)
7.18
(11.56)
3.94
(6.34)
-82
-0.5
-1.4
(+1.75)
-1.2
(+2,57)
+0.07
(+0.11)
+0.42
(+0.68)
+2.82
(4.54)
1 ,2
-34.5
-3.5
-9.7
(+10.7)
-10.8
(+12.1)
+8.2
(+8.2)
+6.3
(+6.3)
+252.2
(+252.2)
Advance Timing 6°
Modification 2
A 1
211
14.1
13.48
(17.45)
10.47
(22.47)
0.75
(1.21)
5.76
(9.27)
1.21
(1.95)
-27
-0.3
-0.92
(+1.13)
-0.63
(+1.26
-0.08
(-0.13)
-1.0
(-1.61)
+0.9
(+0.15)
% 2
-11.3
-2.1
-6.4
(+6.9)
-5.7
(+5.9)
-9.7
(-9.7)
-14.8
(-14.8)
+8.3
(+8.3)
Idle
CO @ 4%
Modification 3
A*
363
14.0
13.80
(17.04)
10.55
(22.29)
1.26
(2.02)
12.53
(20.17)
1.03
(1.66)
+125
-0.4
-0.6
(+0.72)
-0.55
(+1.08)
+0.43
(+0.68)
+5.77
(+9.29)
-0.09
(-0.14)
Incr. Idle 120 rpra
Idle CO 9 42
, 2
— U
+52.5
-2.8
-4.2
(+4.4)
-5.0
(+5.1)
+50.7
(+50.7)
+85.4
(+85.4)
-7.8
(-7.8)
Modification 4
A i % 2
353
14.5
14.45
(16.28)
10.79
(21.79)
1.29
(2.07)
15.52
(24.98)
0.98
(1.57)
+115
+0.1
+0.05
(-0.04)
-0.31
(+0.58)
+0.46
(+0.73)
+8.76
(+14.1)
-0.14
(-0.23)
+48.3
+0.7
+0.3
(-0.2)
-2.8
(+2.7)
+54.5
(+54.5)
+129.6
(+129.6)
-12.8
(-12. C)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 tnph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 to
(»Pg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gra/mi)
Base
TABLE A-18
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 PLYMOUTH VOLARE
5.2 LITER (318 CU.IN..) 2-EBL.. FEDERAL CALIBRATION
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 » 2
Incr. Idle 250 rpm
Modification 2
A 1
Idle CO @ 1%
Modification 3
A 1 •/ 2
Idle CO i? 17.
Incr. Idle 250 r
Modification 4
A 1
244
10.05
18.62
(12.65)
13.24
(17.79)
0.63
(1.02)
7.23
(11.63)
0.89
(1.43)
195
9.83
17.44
(13.49)
12.56
(18.73)
0.55
(0.89)
7.73
(12.43)
1.65
(2.65)
-49
-0.22
-1.18
(+0.84)
-0.68
(+0.94)
-0.08
(-0.13)
+0.5
(+0.8)
+0.77
(+1.22)
-20.1
-2.2
-6.3
(+6.6)
-5.1
(+5.3)
. -12.7
(-12.7)
+6.9
(+6.9)
+85
(+85)
226
10.05
19.72
(11.93)
13.52
(17.4)
0.57
(0.92)
9.03
(14.53)
0.93
(1.49)
• i • •• «•
-18
0
+1.1
(-0.72)
+0.28
(-0.39)
-0.06
(-0.1)
+1.8
(+2.9)
+0.04
(+0.06)
-7.4
0
+5.9
(-5.7)
+2.1
(-2.2)
-9.8
(-9.8)
+24.9
(+24.9)
+4.2
(+4.2)
251 +7
10.02 -0.03
19.41 +0.79
(12.12) (-0.53)
13.46 +0.22
(17.47) (-0.32)
0.93 +0.3
(1.49)(+0.47)
14.25 +7.02
(22. 74) (+11. 31)
0.96 +0.07
(1.55H+0.12)
+2.9
-0.3
+4.2
(-4.2)
+1.7
-1.8
+46.1
(+46.1)
+97.2
(+97.2)
+8.4
(+8.4)
234
9.97
20.22
(11.63)
13.60
(17.3)
0.87
(1.4)
15.25
(24.54)
1.00
(1.61)
-10
-0.03
+1.6
(-1.02)
+0.36
(-0.49)
+0.24
(+0.33)
+8.02
(12.91)
+0.11
(+0.18)
-4
-C
«
+2
(-2
+37
(+37
+]
+1;
(+i:
Difference between, value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-19
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 PLYMOUTH VOLARE
Base
269
11.8
22.25
(10.57)
15.19
(15.48)
0.29
(0.47)
2.06
(3.32)
1.17
(1.88)
5.2 LITER
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 % 2
136
11.8
20.17
(11.66)
13.07
(17.99)
0.22
(0.36)
1.63
(2.63)
1.86
(3.0)
-133
0
-2.08
(+1.09)
-2.12
(+2.51)
-0.07
(-0.11)
-0.43
(-0.69)
+0.69
(+1.12)
-49.4
0
-93
(+10.3)
-14.0
(+16.2)
-23.4
(-23.4)
-20.8
(-20.8)
+59.6
(+59.6)
(318 CU. IN
.) 2-BBL
. - CALIFORNIA CALIBRATION
Disconnect Choke Heater
Modification 2
Al %2
259
11.6
21.50
(10.94)
15.10
(15.58)
0.23
(0.37)
1.93
(3.11)
1.01
(1.63)
-10
-0.2
-0.75
(+0.37)
-0.09
(+0.10)
-0.06
(-0.1)
-0.13
(-0.21)
-0.16
(-0.25)
-3.7
-1.7
-3.4
(+3.5)
-0.6
(+0.6)
-21.3
(-21.3)
-6.3
(-6.3)
-13.3
(-13.3)
Idle CO @ 2%
Modification 3
£l % 2
211
11.8
21.50
(10.94)
15.09
(15.59)
0.34
(0.55)
2.21
(3.55)
1.04
(1.67)
-58
0
-0.75
(+0.37)
-0.10
(+0.11)
+0.05
(+0.08)
+0.15
(+0.23)
-0.13
(-0.21)
-21.6
0
-3.4
(+3.5)
-0.7
(+0.7)
+17.0
(+17.0)
+6.9
(+6.9)
-11.2
(-11.2)
Idle CO Cd 2%
Retard timing 5°
Modification 4
A 1 % 2
308
12.9
23.90
(9.84)
16.22
(14.5)
0.36
(0.58)
4.82
(7.75)
1.01
(1.63)
+39
+1.1
+1.65
(-0.73)
+1.03
(-0.95)
+0.07
(+0.11)
+2.76
(+4.43)
-0.16
(0.25)
+14.5
+9.3
+7.4
(-6.9)
+6.8
(-6.3)
+23.4
(+23.4)
+133
(+133)
-13.3
(-13.3)
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(»pg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gin/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-20
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 CHRYSLER CORDOBA
b.6 LOITER (400 CU. IN.) 4-BBL. CARS.. LEAN BURN, FEDERAL CALIBRATION
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 raph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gin/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
Base
Disconnect Electric
Choke
Modification 1
A 1
Advance Timing 4°
Modification 2
Al
Idle CO @ .75%
Modification 3
Idle CO @ .75%
Incr. Idle 125 rpm
Modification 4
185
9.7
20.7
(11.36)
13.63
(17.26)
0.42
(0.68)
3.63
(5.83)
1.07
(1.72)
165
9.86
21.83
(10.78)
13.88
(16.95)
0.40
(0.65)
5.23
(8.42)
1.18
(1-90)
-20
+0.16
+1.13
(-0.58)
+0.25
(-0.31)
-0.02
(-0.03)
+1.6
(+2.59)
+0.11
(+0.18)
'"
-10.8
+1.6
+5.5
(-5.1)
+1.8
(-1.8)
-4.4
(-4.4)
+44.4
(+44.4)
+10.5
(+10.5)
177
9.12
21.21
(11.09)
13.30
(17.68)
0.45
(0.72)
3.88
(6.24)
1.26
(2.03)
-8
-0.58
+0.51
(-0.27)
-0.33
(+0.42)
+0.03
(+0.04)
+0.25
(-0.41)
+0.19
(+0.31)
-4.3
-6.0
+2.5
(-2.4)
-2.4
(+2.4)
+5.9
(+5.9)
+7.0
(+7.0)
+18.0
(+18.0)
213
9.85
21.52
(10.93)
13.29
(17.7)
0.98
(1.57)
18.00
(28.97)
1.06
(1.70)
+28
+0.15
+0.82
(-0.43)
-0.34
(+0.44)
+0.56
(+0.89)
+14.37
(+23.14)
-0.01
(-0.02)
+15.1
+1.5
+4.0
(-3.8)
-2.5
(+2.5)
+131
(+131)
+397
(+397)
-1.2
(-1.2)
193
9.67
22.21
(10.59)
14 .24
(16.52)
1.01
(1.63)
21.31
(34.3)
1.20
(1.93)
8
-0.03
+1.51
(-0.77)
+0.61
(-0.74)
+0.59
(+0.95)
+17.68
(+28.47)
+0.13-
(+0.21)
+4.3
-0.3
+7.3
(-6.8)
+4.5
(-4.3)
+140
(+140)
+48H
(+488)
+12.2
(+12.2)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-21
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Base
121
PERFORMANCE OF 1978 AMC CONCORD
*_.j_ LITER (258 CU._IN.), 1-BBL., CALIFORNIA CALIBRATION
Disconnect EGR
Modification 1
A 1 2
34
-87
-71.9
Retard Spark 3°
Modification 2
A 1 2
165
+44
+36.4
Idle CO @ 2%
Modification 3
127
+6
+5.0
Idle CO (3 2Z
Choke 2 Notches Ricli
Modification 4
106
-15
-12.4
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 kro/h
(10 to 60 mph)
17.43
12.78 -4.65 -26.7
18.4 +0.97
+5.6
16.88 -0.55
-3.2
17.98
+0.55
+3.2
l/i
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gin/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
17.83
(13.19)
15.00
(15.68)
0.19
(0.31)
3.46
(5.57)
0.69
(1.11)
15.41
(15.26)
11.68
(20.14)
0.14
(0.23)
1.92
(3.09)
2.63
(4.23)
-2.42
(2.07)
-3.32
(+4.46)
-0.05
(-0.08)
-1.54
(-2.48)
+1.94
(+3.12)
-13.6
(+15.7)
-22.1
(+28.4)
-25.8
(-25.8)
-44.5
(-44.5)
+281
(+281)
19.65
(11.97)
15.94
(14.76)
0.21
(0.33)
5.59
(9.00)
0.60
(0.96)
+1.82
(-1.22)
+0.94
(-0.92)
+0.02
(+0.02)
+2.13
(+3.43)
-0.09
(-0.15)
+10.2
(-9.2)
+6.3
(-5.9)
+6.5
(+6.5)
+61.6
(+61.6)
-13.5
(-13.5)
17.79
(13.22)
14.49
(16.23)
0.19
(0.30)
3.47
(5.59)
0.60
(0.97)
-0.04
(+0.03)
-0.51
(+0.55)
0
(-0.01)
+0.01
(+0.02)
-0.09
(-0.14)
-0.2
(+0.2)
-3.4
(+3.5)
-3.2
(-3.2)
+0.4
(+0.4)
-12.6
(-12.6)
17.01
(13.83)
14.32
(16.43)
0.27
(0.43)
6.34
(10.21)
0.54
(0.87)
-0.82
(+0.64)
-0.68
(+0.75)
+0.08
(+0.12)
+2.88
(+4.64)
-0.15 '
(-0.24)
-4.6
(+4.9)
-4.5
(+4.8)
+38.7
(+38.7)
+83.3
(+83.3)
-21.6
(-21.6)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-2 2
CRC Driveability
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
(mpg)
Emissions,
HC, gin/km
(gro/mi)
CO, gin/km
(gin/mi)
NOx, gin/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF
12
13.0
10.65
(22.09)
8.52
(27.62)
0.45
(0.72)
6.19
(9.96)
1.15
(1.85)
1.6 LITER
Retard Spark 4°
Modification. 1
A 1 7 2
12
13.4
10.31
(22.81)
8.49
(27.72)
0.42
(0.67)
6.04
(9.72)
0.99
(1.59)
0
+0.4
-0.34
(+0.72)
-0.03
(+0.1)
-0.03
(-0.05)
-0.15
(-0.24)
-0.16
(-0.26)
0
+3.1
-3.2
(+3.3)
-0.4
(+0.4)
-6.9
(-6.9)
-2.4
(-2.4)
-14.1
(-14.1)
(97 CU. IN.)
1978 TOYOTA COROLLA
, 2-BBL.
Dec. Fast Idle
200 rpm
Modification 2
A 1
6
12.8
9.96
(23.61)
8.48
(27.75)
0.42
(0.67)
4.98
(8.02)
1.30
(2.10)
-6
-0.2
-0.69
(+1.52)
-0.04
(+0.13)
-0.03
(-0.05)
-1.21
(-1-94)
+0.15
(+0.25)
FEDERAL CALIBRATION
z 2
-50
-1.5
-6.5
(+6.9)
-0.5
(+0.5)
-6.9
(-6.9)
-19.5
(-19.5)
+13.5
(+13.5)
Idle CO @ 1%
Modification
A 1
14
13.1
10.83
(21.71)
8.95
(26.29)
0.46
(0.74)
8.25
(13.28)
1.09
(1.76)
+2
+ 0.1
+0.18
(-0.38)
+0.43
(-1.33)
+0.01
(+0.02)
+2.06
(+3.32)
-0.06
(-0.09)
2
+16.7
+0.8
+1.7
(-1.7)
+5.0
(-4.8)
+ 2.8
(+2.8)
+33.3
(+33.3)
-4.9
(-4.9)
Dec. Fast Idle 200 rptn
Idle CO @ 1%
Modification 4
A 1 '/. 2
0
13.0
10.53
(22.33)
8.58
(27.41)
0.49
(0.79)
8.12
(13.06)
1.00
(1.61)
-12
0
-0.12
(+0.24)
+0.06
(-0.21)
+0.04
(+0.07)
+1.93
(+3.1)
-0.15
(-0.24)
-100
0
-1.1
(+1.1)
+0.7
(-0.8)
+9.7
(+9-7)
+31.1
(+31.1)
-13.0
(-13.0)
1 Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
2 Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
TABLE A-23
CRC Driveabillty
Demerits
Acceleration, sec.
16.1 to 96.6 km/h
(10 to 60 mph)
Fuel Economy
FTP 1/100 km
(mpg)
Highway 1/100 km
Emissions,
HC, gm/km
(gm/mi)
CO, gm/km
(gm/mi)
NOx, gm/km
(gm/mi)
PERFORMANCE OF 1978 VOLVO
2.1 LITER (130 CU. IN.) FUEL INJECTION -
Base
17
14.0
12.58
(18.70)
9.27
(25.36)
0.20
(0.32)
2.04
(3.28)
0.42
(0.67)
Disconnect
0_ Sensor
Modification 1
A 1 % 2
16
14.2
12.85
(18.31)
9.75
(24.12)
0.32
(0.51)
5.97
(9.60)
1.02
(1.64)
-1
+0.2
+0.27
(-0.39)
+0.48
(-1.24)
+0.12
(+0.19)
+3.93
(+6.32)
+0.6
(+0.97)
-5.9
+1.4
+2.1
(-2.1)
+5.2
(-4.9)
+59.4
(+59.4)
+193
(+193)
+145
(+145)
Adv. Ignition
Timing 5°
Modification 2
23
13.8
12.65
(18.59)
9.85
(23.89)
0.19
(0.30)
2.39
(3.84)
0.47
(0.76)
+6
-0.2
+0.07
(-0.11)
+0.58
(-1.47)
-0.01
(-0.02)
+0.35
(+0.56)
+0.05
(+0.09)
245-DL
CALIFORNIA
% 2
+35.3
-1.4
+0.6
(-0.6)
+6.3
(-5.8)
-6.3
(-6.3)
+17.1
(+17.1)
+13.4
(+13.4)
CALIBRATION
Idle CO @ 4%
Modification
26
14.3
12,85
(18.31)
9.79
(24.02)
0.19
(0.31)
2.42
(3.90)
0.59
(0.95)
+9
+0.3
+0.27
(-0.39)
+0.52
(-1.34)
-0.01
(-0.01)
+0.38
(+0.62)
+0.17
(+0.28)
3
2
+52.9
+2.1
+2.1
(-2.1)
+5.6
(-5.3)
-3.1
(-3.1)
+18.9
(+18.9)
+41.8
(+41.8)
Combine 1 , 2 ,
Modification
A 1
18
13.7
12.99
(18.10)
9.89
(23.79)
1.06
(1.70)
26.70
(42.97)
0.43
(0.70)
+1
-0.3
+0.41
(-0.6)
+0.62
(-1.57)
+0.86
(+1.38)
+24.66
(+39.69)
+0.01
(+0.03)
3
4
2
+5.9
-2.1
+3.3
(-3.2)
+6.7
(-6.2)
+431
(+431)
+1210
(+1210)
+4.5
(+4.5)
Difference between value for respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
Percent change between respective modification and base (- decrease, + increase)
-------
APPENDIX B-l
Driveability Procedure
The driveability procedure used in this test was developed by CRC in
1968 and updated in 1971, 1973, 1975 and 1977.
The drive-away phase of this procedure involves two different driving
modes. The first, is a driving cycle consisting of five maneuvers fol-
lowed by a 30 second idle period. Each maneuver is performed at 0.1 mile
increments. At the termination of each maneuver, the driver's evaluation
of the car's performance, categorizing the type of malfunction and its
severity, is recorded by the observer. The five maneuvers are performed
in the following order:
1. 0-25 mph light throttle acceleration
2. 25 mph cruise
3. 25-35 mph light throttle (detent) acceleration
4. 0-35 wide open throttle acceleration
5. 10-25 light throttle acceleration
6. 30 second engine idle
The attached log sheet shows the details of the procedure. This cycle
is repeated two more times.
This is followed by a second mode of three cycles in duration. Each
of these cycles consist of four maneuvers each followed by 30 second engine
idle period. Three of the maneuvers are performed at 0.1 mile increments,
while the fourth is a 0-45 mph crowd acceleration (at constant manifold
vacuum) of 0.4 mile duration. The four maneuvers are performed in the
order shown below:
1. 0-45 crowd acceleration (constant vacuum)
2. 25-35 light throttle (detent) acceleration
3. 0-35 wide open throttle acceleration
4. 10-25 light throttle acceleration
5. 30 second engine idle
This cycle is then repeated two more times.
The various accelerations described in the above maneuvers are per-
formed at predetermined manifold vacuum conditions, with the aide of a
vacuum gauge.
These accelerations are defined below:
Test Run
Operation of a car throughout the prescribed sequence of operating
conditions and/or maneuvers for a single test fuel.
57
-------
CRC driveability data sheet
Temperatures
Starting Tim*, sic.
tdlt N. Idli Dr.
oo
<5 Run No. Car
HI , . II . ,
1234 567
O Run No.
|2| , , |
1 234
•s
(3 Run No.
131 ,, I
1234
<3 Run No.
141 ,, 1
1234
Comments:
Fuel
II 1
8
0.0
1 I
1 1
39 40
0.5
1 ,
5 6
1.0
1 1
37 38
1.5
II
I i
5 6
2.2
I ,
31 32
2.9
1 ,
Rater Date
Ml,,
9 10 11 12
0-25 Lt. Th,
_ Stalls
S S Ac DC
, , , , I
41 42 43 44
. . . , 1
7 8 9 10
, , , , 1
39 40 41 42
0-45 Crowd
_ Stalls
a AC DC
, , , , 1
7 8 9 10
i i i i 1
33 34 35 36
•>
, , . . 1
Time Soak Run Initial Restart 1 Restart 2 Restart 3 Ruf Stalls Ruf Stalls
I I , , , I I , I I , I I , , I I , . I , . I I , . I I I . I I I , I
13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38
0.1 25 Cruise 0.2 25-35 Detent 0.3 0-35 WOT 0.4 10-25 Lt. Th. 0.5 Idle
« e . - Sti"' « c . Stalls ,e „ Stalls ... ,. Stalls
i a £ s AC DC i a * a AC DC I I S a AC DC 1 I S a AC DC Rut *••'•
1 1 . 1 . 1 1 L 1 . 1 1 . 1 1 1 . . , . , 1 111
45 46 47 48 49 SO 81 52 S3 64 SB 56 87 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 66 66 67 68 69 70
0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
1 i i i i t 1 Li i i i i J i i i i i 1 i i i i i 1 1 i J
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
1.1 1.2 1.3 1-4 1.5
I i i t i i I Li i i i i I I i i i i i 1 i i i i i ] III
43 44 45 46 47 48 49 SO 61 52 63 54 55 56 87 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 68 67 68
1.9 25-35 Detent 2.0 0-35 WOT 2.1 10-25 Lt. Th. 2.2 Idle
5 E . S S»"« «E - 3 Stal" « 6 . 5 SUI"
i « * 3 Ac DC 1 Si * a Ac DC I in S a Ac DC Ruf Stalls
( 1 1 1 l | | 1 i i l 1 i 1 1 1 l l 1 I 1 1
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
2.6 2.7 2.8 2.9
i i i i i i i i i i i i i 1 i i i i i i ( j.13 i
37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 S3 54 55 56 J f
3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 u<3
I . , i , . I I , , , . , I , , , , , I , I M
11 12 13 14 16 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 26 27 28 29 30 31
-------
Maneuver
A specified single vehicle operation or change of operating condition
(such as idle, acceleration or cruise) that constitutes one segment of the
driveability driving schedule.
Road Load
Operation at a prescribed constant vehicle speed with a fixed throttle
position on a level road. Cruise conditions are intended to be road load
operation.
Wide Open Throttle (WOT) Acceleration
"Floorboard" acceleration through the gears from prescribed starting
speed. Rate at which throttle is depressed is to be as fast as possible
without producing tire squeal or appreciable slippage.
Part Throttle (FT) Acceleration
An acceleration made at any defined throttle position, or consistent
change in throttle position, less than WOT. Several PT accelerations
are used. They are:
Light Throttle (LT th) - All light throttle accelerations are begun
by opening the throttle to an initial manifold vacuum and maintain-
ing constant throttle position throughout the remainder of the accel-
eration. The vacuum selected is that which just precedes carburetor
power enrichment as indicated by carburetor flow curves. These
vacuum settings will be obtained from the car manufacturers for
each test car.
Crowd - An acceleration made at a constant intake manifold vacuum
throughout the acceleration. Throttle opening continually increas-
ing with increasing engine speed. Crowd acceleration vacuums to be
used in each car are the same as the detent vacuums.
Detent - All detent accelerations are begun by opening the throttle
to the downshift position as indicated by transmission shift char-
acteristic curves. Manifold vacuum corresponding to this point at
25 mph is determined for each car prior to the first driveability
test. Maintain constant throttle position to 35 mph terminal speed.
At the end of each maneuver, the car's performance is evaluated by
the driver using the categories indicated below:
Stall
Any occasion during a test that the engine stops with the ignition on.
Two types of stall, indicated by location on the data sheet, are:
Stall; idle - Any stall experienced when the vehicle is not in motion,
or when a maneuver is not being attempted.
59
-------
Driveability Procedure
Stall; driving
Any stall experienced during motion, or coincidental to initiation
or elimination of motion of the vehicle.
Idle Roughness
An evaluation of the idle quality or degree of smoothness while the
engine is idling.
Backfire
An explosion in the induction or exhaust system.
Hesitation
A temporary lack of initial response to changes of throttle position
to increase acceleration rate.
Stumble
A short, sharp reduction in acceleration rate experienced under ac-
celeration or road conditions.
Surge
A continued or transient condition of fluctuations in power, exper-
ienced as changes in acceleration rate, which are short or long, cyclic,
and occurring at any speed and/or load.
The severity level of the malfunctions shown above are defined below
with the obvious exception of stalls.
Trace (T)
A level of malfunction severity that is just discernible to a test
driver but not to most laymen. A severity level of one (1) demerit.
Moderate (M)
A level of malfunction severity that is probably noticeable to the
average layman. A severity level of two (2) demerits.
Heavy
A level of malfunction severity that is pronounced and obvious to
both test driver and layman. A severity level of four (4) demerits.
60
-------
Driveability Procedure
A T, M, H, is entered in the appropriate block on the data sheet to
indicate both the occurrence of the malfunction and its severity. More
than one type of malfunction may be recorded for each maneuver. If no
malfunction occurs, enter a dash (-) to indicate that the maneuver was
performed and the car performance was satisfactory during that maneuver.
A data rating system provides for the vehicle malfunctions and
severity level experienced by the driver to be translated into a demerit
scale, which allows for a numerical ranking of driveability quality. As
shown above, the severity levels have been summarized by applying de-
merits to the three levels: Trace = 1, Moderate = 2, and Heavy = 4. These
demerits are then multiplied by the following weighting factors:
Malfunction Weighting Factor
Starting time (sec - 2.0) 1
Idle roughness 1
Hesitation 6
Stumble 6
Backfire 6
Surge 4
Stall, idle 8
Stall, driving 32
Demerits on each data sheet are totaled, counting only the maximum
weighted demerit on each line (maneuver), to obtain the total weighted
demerits (TWO) for each run. Thus, if two malfunctions occurred in one
maneuver, such as a heavy hesitation (24 demerits and a trace stumble
(6) demerits), only the heavy hesitation would contribute to the TWD for
the run.
Cool Down Procedure
The CRC Intermediate Temperature Driveability Procedure has been
adapted to the chassis dynamometer using a three-hour forced soak to
bring the vehicle temperatures down to the test temperature. For a test
temperature of 16°C (60°F) the forced soak procedure consists of opening
the hood and allowing temperature controlled room air (16°C) to be cir-
culated at 24 kph over the frontal area of the vehicle. For a. lower test
temperature, e.g. 4°C, the above procedure plus the use of an auxiliary
pump and external radiator placed in the path of the 24 kph room air temp-
erature is required. The pump is connected to the inlet-outlet radiator
hoses to the engine block, which allows circulation of engine coolant
through the external radiator and the block. At 16°C either of the above
procedures are adequate to bring the engine temperature, carburetor air,
engine oil, engine coolant and transmission fluid down to the test temp-
erature within a three-hour soak period.
At the 60°F test temperature specified in the contract, the drive-
ability test work conducted in this program was done without an auxiliary
pump. The data in Tables B-l and B-2 compares the cool-down rates with
61
-------
Cool Down Procedure
and without auxiliary cooling for two test cars, Plymouth Volare 225-F
and Ford Granada 302-C, used in this program. Temperatures were measured
using thermocouples placed (1) in the air horn for carburetor air,
(2) in the oil sump through the drain plug for engine oil, (3) at the
coolant temperature sensor for coolant temperature and (4) through the
transmission pan for transmission fluid. This data shows the trans-
mission fluid to be the most difficult to cool down. However, trans-
mission fluid temperatures reached test temperatures + 4°F before the
end of the three hour soak period. Also shown on Tables B-l and B-2
are the driveability test results (single determinations) using the
two soak procedures. Within the test accuracy there is no difference
in driveability demerits between the two methods.
62
-------
TABLE B-l
FORD GRANADA 302-C FORCED COOL DOWN DATA
TEMPERATURE, °F WITH NO AUXILIARY COOLING
Soak-
time
Hrs.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Carbure-
tor
Air
100
66
61
62
62
64
64
Engine
Oil
134
74
61
62
62
64
64
TEMPERATURE, °F
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
126
62
61
63
63
65
61
155
63
61
63
63
65
61
Coolant
196
176
130
100
83
73
64
Room
Trans. Air
180 69
111
88 57
78
73 60
70
64 61
Drive-
ability
Demerits
16
WITH AUXILIARY COOLING
190
63
61
63
63
65
61
188 61
106
78 59
68
63 61
65
61 59
30
63
-------
TABLE B-2
PLYMOUTH VOLARE 225-F FORCED COOL DOWN DATA
TEMPERATURE. °F WITH NO AUXILIARY COOLING
Soak-
time
Hrs.
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
Carbure-
tor
Air
72
67
64
64
64
63
62
Engine
Oil
170
92
69
64
64
61
62
TEMPERATURE, °F
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
73
65
62
64
64
63
62
167
97
73
64
64
63
62
Coolant
189
141
100
81
69
63
62
Room
Trans . Air
163 64
109
90 61
79
69 61
63
62 60
Drive -
ability
Demerits
435
WITH AUXILIARY COOLING
190
65
62
64
64
63
62
153 67
98
79 61
69
64 62
63
62 61
416
64
-------
APPENDIX B-2
EMISSION LAB
INSTRUMENTATION
Measurement Analyzer
Carbon Monoxide (CO) Mine Safety Appliances Co.
Model 200 FR Lira & Model 202 Lira
Infrared Analyzer (NDIR)
Maximum sensitivity = 0 to 50 ppm range
Carbon Dioxide (COO Mine Safety Appliances Co.
Model 303 Lira Infrared Analyzer
Calibrated for Maximum sensitivity =
0 to 1% scale
Unburned Hydrocarbons (UNHC) Mine Safety Appliances Co.
Flame lonization Detector
Model 800
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) Thermo Electron Corp.
Model 10A Self Contained Chemiluminescent
NO - NOx Gas Analyzer
Sampler
Constant Volume Sampler (CVS) - Scott Research Laboratories Inc.
Model 301 Mass Sampling System with Water heater-cooler control unit.
65
-------
REPEATABILITY OF EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY DATA
CAR
K
B
H
M
U
FTP Fuel Economy
S2 .02
S .16
X 17.18 19.
%CV .91 1.
HFE Fuel Economy
S2 .07
S .26
X 22.34 25.
%CV 1.18 1.
HC Emissions
S2 .02
S .14
X 2.03 1.
%CV 6.83 6.
CO Emissions
S2 .96
S .98
X 16.36 20.
%CV 5 . 99 2 .
NOx Emissions
S2 .01
S .10
X 2.85 2.
%CV 3.66 4.
04
20
33
02
14
37
70
44
004
07
10
13
23
48
10
40
01
10
04
79
.03
.17
12.34
1.42
.16
.40
17.48
2.29
.01
.12
0.76
15.23
.49
.70
4.38
15.98
.01
.08
1.54
4.95
.05
.22
17.03
1.29
.25
.50
22.28
2.22
.07
.26
1.62
15.85
7.46
2.73
15.37
17.76
.02
.14
2.66
5.40
.04
.19
14.55
1.34
.28
.53
19.10
2.76
.01
.11
1.57
7.05
1.40
1.18
23.77
4.98
.01
.09
2.74
3.43
.11
.33
16.18
2.05
.32
.57
23.24
2.44
.01
.10
.96
10.34
6.10
2.47
20.49
12.06
.02
.13
2.95
4.36
.08
.29
14.41
2.01
.16
.39
20.18
1.95
.04
.19
1.74
10.93
4.54
2.13
25.62
8.32
.04
.21
2.71
7.80
.08
.29
14.24
2.04
.66
.82
19.86
4.11
.001
.03
.74
3.98
1.43
1.19
7.85
15.21
.10
.31
3.13
9.96
.01
.10
10.95
0.94
.10
.31
17.23
1.81
.003
.05
1.05
4.78
1.60
1.27
16.75
7.55
.01
.10
1.85
5.60
.02
.14
13.54
1.00
.09
.30
18.35
1.64
.004
.07
1.31
5.08
1.30
1.14
11.82
9.63
.04
.21
3.70
5.64
.004
.06
13.83
.45
.15
.38
18.49
2.08
.005
.07
1.57
4.40
1.01
1.01
8.37
12.02
.02
.15
2.89
5.17
_ .•-
.13
.36
12.31
2.89
.54
.74
17.85
4.12
.02
.15
1.13
12.93
13.30
3.65
16.79
21.73
.03
.17
1.76
9.34
.27
.52
22.46
2.31
.57
.75
27.31
2.75
.002
.05
.72
6.40
1.58
1.26
10.71
11.74
.04
.20
1.77
11.15
-------
TABLE C-l
REPEATABILITY OF EMISSION AND FUEL ECONOMY DATA
RANGE
R
D
Ut»AX — ' • !•-—
FTP Fuel Economy
s2
s
X
%cv
HFE Fuel
s2
S
X
%cv
.70
.84
22.84
3.67
Economy
.69
.83
31.06
2.68
.06
.25
10.79
2.29
.27
.52
15.87
3.26
.02
.13
14.97
.90
.05
.23
18.79
1.22
15
1
20
2
.03
.17
.34
.13
.28
.53
.34
.60
.30
.54
16.37
3.33
.37
.61
23.36
2.61
.09
.29
14.43
2.04
.21
.46
20.18
2.26
13
5
16
4
.51
.72
.49
.31
.48
.70
.65
.18
.13
.35
19.73
1.79
.16
.41
25.67
1.58
.07
.27
18.40
1.46
.17
.41
24.23
1.70
HC Emissions
s2
S
K
%cv
.01
.09
.76
11.21
.002
.04
.46
9.09
.01
.11
.89
12.28
1
12
.02
.15
.14
.92
.10
.32
1.68
18.95
.001
.03
.79
4.09
20
.004
.07
.32
.63
.01
.08
1.83
4.31
.001
.04
.63
5.97
CO Emissions
s2
S
X
%cv
6.69
2.59
13.32
19.42
.16
.40
4.07
9.81
7.51
2.74
12.84
21.35
5
2
25
8
.13
.27
.95
.73
1.00
1.00
15.47
6.47
.69
.83
7.49
11.10
2
1
6
25
.84
.68
.65
.34
8.16
2.86
61.01
4.68
.52
.72
12.72
5.68
NOx Emissions
s2
S
X
%cv
.02
.13
2.56
4.99
.01
.12
1.96
6.13
.02
.14
3.28
4.40
1
2
.002
.04
.62
.46
.12
.35
3.04
11.41
.02
.13
3.41
3.90
1
10
.03
.17
.63
.27
.02
.12
1.17
10.54
.004
.07
.94
6.95
1.89
2.40
9.52
12.71
6.45
LOW
0.45
1.18
3.98
2.40
2.46
HIGH
5.31
4.18
20.63
25.34
11.41
-------
TABLE C-2
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (MI./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, CGms./Mt.)
00
CO, (Gms./MI.)
NOx, (Gms./MI.)
PERFORMANCE
Base
23.46
24.12
*(2l!87)
32.00
32.77
*(3K16)
1.07
0.96
*(°-7°)
16.67
14.77
1.78
1.82
*^2.02^
118
10)
OF 1977 CHEVROLET CHEVETTE - CAR NO.
98F CID - 1 BBL. CARS.
Modification 1 Modification 2
24.06 */22-32>
23.76 V23.83;
31.73 */31.5K
31.37 131.92;
0.82 £/0.79x
0.80 (0.73'
12.94 ./I4.20v
11.86 Ml. 51'
4.76 *r'-97v
5.08 M.87'
78 62
100 62
W-53
Modification 3
21.74
23.06
30.51
32.32
0.69
0.60
17.07
9.59
1.97
2.10
75
118
Modification 4
21.72
22.04
28.88
29.33
0.75
0.66
13.43
12.21
2.00
2.07
65
76
Drlveabtlity Demerits
*( ) Data with Rebuilt Transmission, Retaining Original Governor.
-------
TABLE C-3
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 CHEVROLET CHEVELLE - CAR NO. W-41
305F CID - 2 BBL. CARB.
FTP Fuel Economy (Mi. /Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Mi. /Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Cms. /Mi.)
CO, (Cms. /Mi.)
NOx, (Cms. /Mi.)
Driveabil ity Demerits
Base
14.63
18.48
18.88
0.99
1.02
12.78
13-49
2.69
2.74
105
129
Modification 1
14.88
15.08
19.96
19.74
1.16
1.14
15.43
13.95
3-76
3.65
124
112
Modification 2
14.84
14.52
19-96
19.24
2.37
2.18
34.26
32.79
2.70
2.86
136
105
Modification 3
14.20
13.81
17.18
18.39
1.12
1.14
18.98
18.88
1.92
2.08
105
114
Modi fi cat
14.61
14.32
19.18
19.95
2.12
2.41
37.04
40.06
2.43
2.58
124
156
128
-------
TABLE C-4
PERFORMANCE OF
, '51
Base
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.) 21. 47
21. Ik
Highway Fuel Economy (HI. /Gal.) 28.08
28.47
Emissions
o HC, (Cms. /Ml.) 0.76
0.86
CO, (Gms./Mt.) 9.25
8.25
NOx, (Cms. /Ml.) 1.95
1.95
DrlveabMIty Demerits 130 119
136 84
1978 PONTIAC
C CID - 2 BBL
Modification 1
18.15
18.87
2k. 6k
2k. 33
2.67
2.54
97.81
96.l»9
0.60
0.72
86
111
SUNBIRD - CAR NO.
CARB. (CALIF.)
Modification
18. 5k
18.80
24.56
24.13
2.52
2.70
95.25
90.88
0.76
0.49
77 116
85 78
X-02
2 Modification 3
21.88
21.19
27-34
26.36
0.56
0.53
7.80
7.78
1.82
1.96
112
97
Modification 4
18.49
18.15
24.63
24.10
2.58
2.54
94.44
102.17
0.60
0.81
94
111
-------
TACLE C-5
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 PONTIAC GRAND PRIX - CAR NO. W-56
30IF CID - 2 BBL. CARB.
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (MI./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./Mf.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Gms./Mi.)
DriveabMlty Demerits
Base
16.44
16.47
21.93
23.13
24.58
22.84
1.11
1.21
8.85
9.57
1.88
1.45
51
56
Modification 1
16.07
15.79
22.45
21.43
1.41
1.17
9-70
8.59
4.88
5.54
65
88
Modification 2
16.36
16.74
23.86
24.00
2.50
2.1»2
24.48
21.76
1.74
1.74
67
67
Modification 3
17.05
16.27
24.23
24.20
1.58
2.55
26*49
26.09
A. 22
4.82
56
64
Modlficati
15-51
16.97
23.24
23.94
1.45
1.42
9.16
10.00
2.29
1.82
52
66
-------
TABLE C-6
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 BUICK SKYLARK - CAR NO. W-42
23VF CIO - 2 BBL. CARB.
FTP Fuel Economy (Mi. /Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Mi. /Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./Mi.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Cms. /Ml.)
Driveability Demerits
Base
15-73
15.29
22.08
23.04
0.66
0.82
20.38
16.16
1.60
1.71
115
95
Modification 1
16.98
17.11
23. 49
2k. 27
0.97
1.09
19.87
20.3^
5.09
4.78
97
60
Modification 2
16.12
16.21
23.09
22.48
1.12
0.89
24.34
20.18
1.48
1.57
45
22
Modification 3
16.87
17-43
23.66
24.06
1.34
1.33
25.24
22.55
4.87
4.65
52
73
Modification 4
15.89
15.64
23.21
22.63
0.67
0.75
13.09
15.71
1.84
1.86
127
150
-------
."ABLE C-7
FTP Fuel Economy (Mi./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Mi./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./Mi.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Gms./Mi.)
Driveability Demerits
PERFORMANCE
. 23 IF
Base
16.13
16.30
20.48
21.49
0.82
0.80
10.19
9.61
1.28
1.24
92
90
OF 1978 BUICK REGAL - CAR NO. A-245
CID- 4 BBL. CARB. - (TURBOCHARGE)
Modification 1
15.02
15.22
19.39
18.53
0.88
0.83
10.90
10.08
4. 07
4.16
78
86
Modification 2
14.78
15.19
21.38
22.24
0.91
0.56
17.16
17.63
0.98
0.95
76
73
Modification 3
14.18
13-93
18.25
17-73
2.33
2.25
80.25
87.11
0.38
0.31
36
56
Modification 4
16.30
16.34
21.89
22.02
1.14
0.85
9.17
7.43
1.40
1.42
106
100
-------
TABLE C-8
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
H f ghway Fue1 Economy (MI./Ga J.)
Emissions
HC, (Cms./Ml.)
CO, (Cms./Mi.)
NOx, (Cms./Ml.)
Drlveability Demerits
PERFORMANCE
Base
14.41
14.41
19.49
20.14
0.95
0.67
11.15
9.91
1.76
1.57
105
104
OF 1977 BUICK
350F CID - 2
Modification 1
14.53
15.35
20.25
21.08
0.84
0.75
10.86
8.02
5.41
4.81
42
69
CENTURY - CAR NO.
BBL. CARB.
Modification
13.21
13.54
19.28
19.34
2.81
2.83
51.23
49.68
1.34
1.17
87
87
W-43
2 Modification 3
14.27
14.50
20.07
20.73
2.14
1.68
30.72
24.94
1.26
1.23
79
100
Modification 4
14.95
14.98
14.92
20.73
20.71
20.71
1.64
2.23
2.48
19.05
29.85
29.86
4.71
4.18
4.32
99
83
-------
TABLE C-9
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 OLDSMOBILE CUTLASS - CAR NO. W-44
350F CID - 4 BBL. CARS.
FTP Fuel Economy (Mi./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
-j
Ul
Emissions
HC, (Gms./MI.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Gms./MI.)
Driveability Demerits
^Average for an individual rater
Base
14.67
14.53
i 19.94
19.72
0.77
0.73
7.36
7.83
1.87
2.13
180*7 123*
67 '
Modification 1
14.17
15.43
14.57
18.94
22.33
19.80
0.73
0.72
0.78
6.33
6.03
7.56
8.60
6.65
7-57
1 08^^
Modification 2
14.27
14.46
19.74
20.09
0.74
0.71
9-83-
9.21
1.90
1.92
76
78
Modification 3
13.81
13.61
19.11
19.54
19.17
0.78
0.83
14.08
9.45
2.33
3.01
104
66
Modificati
13.76
13-57
19.47
19-20
0.67
0.68
7.09
7.96
2.44
2.21
79
62
18
78
-------
TABLE C-10
PERFORMANCE
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Mi. /Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Cms. /Ml.)
CO, (Cms. /Mi.)
NOx, (Cms. /Mi.)
Driveabii ity Demerits
Base
14.23
14.30
19.30
19.71
0.80
0.84
7.03
7.92
2.67
2.44
84
84
OF 1977 OLDSMOBILE "98" - CAR NO. W-57
403F CID - 4 BBL. CARB.
Modification 1
14.30
14.11
19.65
19.51
0.88
0.79
7.09
7.43
8.23
8.38
84
102
Modification 2
14.34
14.54
20.31
20.28
0.85
0.85
8.68
8.39
2.21
2.28
66
56
Modificat!
14.70
14.61
21.69
20.56
0.74
0.76
5.28
6.95
2.06
2.07
90
86
14.07
15.00
14.17
20.15
20.87
20.04
0.71
0.72
0.70
7.59
8.97
6.81
2.02
1.73
2.06
30
48
-------
TABLE C-ll
FTP Fuel Economy (Mi./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Mi./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Cms. /Mi.)
CO, (Cms. /Mi.)
NOx, (Cms. /Mi.)
Driveabflfty Demerits
PERFORMANCE
OF 1977 FORD
140F CID - 2
Base Modification 1
18.67
18.41
24.53
24.39
0.85
0.89
15.35
15.17
1.33
1.57
155
152
19-48
19.86
26.22
26.97
0.90
0.88
16.52
15.78
4.06
4.21
138
168
PINTO - CAR NO. W-38
BBL. CARB.
Modification 2
20.09
20.2
25.81
26.73
0.80
0.91
11.91
12.86
1.84
1.98
122
107
Modification 3
18.86
19.66
25.58
26.86
1.29
1.67
28.03
30.16
1.52
1.33
77
108
Modification 4
18.94
18.66
24.65
25.47
1.36
1.24
27.62
26.35
1.37
1.41
143
132
-------
TABLE C-12
oo
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 FORD MAVERICK - CAR NO. W-37
250F CID - 1 BBL. CARB.
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Cms. /MI.)
CO, (Gms./Mf.)
NOx, (Cms. /Ml.)
Drlveabillty Demerits
Base
16.84
16.98
22.04
22.36
1.57
1.93
11.56
14.26
1.48
1.42
147
173
Modification 1
17-22
17.02
21.51
21.92
1.27
1.36
13.63
12.59
7.81
7.55
118
138
Modification 2
17.76
17.64
22.53
22.98
1.81
1.68
12.95
11.85
1.85
1.97
108
86
Modification 3
17.10
17.48
22.67
23.12
2.41
2.55
21.61
21.53
1.48
1.51
126
164
Modification 4
16.80
16.96
22.01
22.19
2.79
2.92
21.74
21.84
1.80
1.65
140
164
-------
TABLE C-13
VO
FTP Fuel Economy
(Mi./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy
(Mi./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Cms./Mi.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Gms./Mf.)
Driveability Demerits
* Idle CO @ 0.3%
** Rebuild Carb. Idle CO @ 0.3?
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 FORD MAVERICK - CAR NO. W-55
250C C(D - 1 BBL. CARB. (CALIF.)
14.54
14.54
18.19
18.15
1.00
0.77
12.75
10.96
1.36
1.20
Base
*14.63
**I4.59
*I8.43
**I8.02
*0.96
**0.88
*11.87
**18.40
*1.27
**1.00
104
126
Modification 1
15. 6k
15.65
19.61
19.68
0.78
0.69
10.03
7.01
6.56
6.59
44
56
Modification 2
14.47
14.71
18.29
18.31
0.79
0.79
9.19
8.95
1.21
1.29
43
62
Modification 3
15.63
15.28
19.91
19.32
1.25
1.02
17.36
6.00
6.32
54
ko
-------
TABLE C-14
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./MI.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Cms. /Ml.)
Driveability Demerits
PERFORMANCE
Base
14.24
14.32
19.58
18.51
19.49
1.75
1.91
1.85
7.90
6.39
8.0)
2.05
2.06
1.99
79
86
OF 1977 FORD
302F CID -
Modification
14.05
14.09
18.31
18.32
1.63
1.64
7.37
7.93
7.37
6.93
53
43
GRANADA - CAR NO. W-50
2 BBL. CARB.
1 Modification 2 Mod!
13-93
13-99
19.04
18.79
1.96
1.80
7.45
8.29
2.26
2.19
48
49
fficatlon 3
13.81
13.86
18.83
18.38
1.26
1.26
8.53
8.41
1.65
1.51
116
130
Modification 4
13.10
13-05
17.39
17.78
1.27
1.20
11.99
9.41
1.45
1.49
90
82
-------
TABLE C-15
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 FORD GRANADA - CAR NO. A-243
J02C CID - 2 BBL. V.V. CARB. (CALIF.)
00
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./Ml.)
CO, (Cms. /Mi.)
NOx, (Cms. /MI.)
Drlveablllty Demerits
Base
12.2?
12.08
17-33
17.58
0.78
0.69
4.92
4.88
1.13
1.11
129 154
156 162
Modification 1
13.24
12.86
17.98
18.57
1.04
0.81
3.60
3-97
3.33
3.53
4
3
Modification 2
11.39
11.53
16.55
16.47
0.70
0.69
4.47
4.68
1.11
1.09
41 26
68 45
Modification 3
12.56
12.29
18.52
17.43
0.85
0.61
5.46
3.29
1.00
1.08
72
54
Modification 4
12.52
12.70
17.17
17.21
0.78
0.66
4.22
4.29
0.97
1.07
39
30
-------
TABLE C-16
00
N>
FTP Fuel Economy (MI./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Cms./MI.)
CO, (Cms./Ml.)
NOx, (Gms./MI.)
Drlveability Demerits
PERFORMANCE
Base
13.92
13-65
19.23
19.19
1.21
1.33
9.17
11.47
2.52
2.30
222
199
OF 1977 FORD
351F CID-
Modlfl cation
13.44
13.70
18.27
19.09
1.18
1.22
10.05
11.29
8.68
8.16
129
123
LTD II - CAR NO. W-49
2 BBL. CARB.
1 Modification 2
13. 46
13.51
18.49
18.22
1.13
1.29
11.48
9.06
2.65
2.96
234
240
Modification 3
13. 4J
13.43
17.62
17.73'
1.37
1.42
14.44
14.10
1.98
1.97
250
236
Modification 4
13.54
13.34
18.04
17.66
1.46
1.46
13.36
13.76
2.80
2.94
216
231
-------
TABLE C-17
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 PLYMOUTH VOLARE - CAR NO. A-241
225F CID - 1 BBL. CARB.
oo
OJ
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml. /Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./MI.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Gms./MI.)
OrlveablHty Demerits
Base
16.27
16.37
21.12
21.29
1.31
1.37
10.29
11.47
1.93
1.66
268-^ 269*
269^
207
Modification 1
18.10
18.04
23.13
24.43
1.28
1.62
11.55
11.56
6.39
6.28
116
196
Modification 2
17.40
17.49
22.67
21.98
22.76
1.33
1.08
10.70
7.84
1.84
2.05
224
198
Modification 3
16.99
17-09
22.09
22.49
2.10
1.94
23.75
16.59
1.75
1.56
379-7-366*
352'
360
Modificatio
16.61
15.94
21.63
21.94
2.40
1.73
26.83
23.12
1.47
1.67
328 377
329 372
*Average for an Individual rater
-------
TABLE C-18
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./MJ.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Cms./Ml.)
Drlveablllty Demerits
PERFORMANCE
Base
13.12
12.64
11.96
18.71
17.27
17.46
1.01
1.00
1.06
9.35
13.64
H.95
1.34
1.37
1.58
242
246
OF 1977 PLYMOUTH VOLARE
318F CID - 2 BBL CARB.
Modification I Mod?
13.66
13.32
18.83
18.62
0.87
0.91
11.61
13.25
2.65
2.64
197 192
183 206
- CAR NO
f fcation
11.96
11.90
17.57
17.23
1.00
0.83
16.96
12.09
1.34
1.64
220
231
. W-51
2 Modif!cati
12.31
11.84
12.21
18.69
16.46
17.25
1.65
1.22
1.60
25.27
16.66
26.87
1.37
1.76
1.51
257
244
Modification 4
11.73
11.52
17.39
17.21
1.33
1.47
23.29
25.79
1.53
1.69
226
241
-------
TABLE C-19
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 PLYMOUTH VOLARE - CAR NO. W-54
318C CID - 2 BBL. CARB. - (CALIF.)
oo
t-n
FTP Fuel Economy (Mi. /Gal.)
H I ghway Fue 1 Economy (M I . /Ga 1 . )
Emissions
HC, (Gms./MI.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Gms./Mi.)
Driveability Demerits
Base
10.53
10.61
16.22
15.34
14.87
0.50
0.43
3-57
3.08
1.79
1.97
263
Modification 1
11.53
1 1 .78
17.75
18.22
0.41
0.31
2.99
2.26
3.06
2.93
126
145
Modification 2
10.75
11.13
15.98
15.18
0.37
0.37
3.31
2.91
1.72
1.53
240
278
Modification 3
11.25
10.63
15.87
15.31-
0.52
0.57
3-91
3.18
1.57
1.76
197
224
Modificat
9-78
9.89
14.26
14.76
0.59
0.57
7-57
7.93
1.55
1.70
305
310
-------
TABLE C-20
oo
PERFORMANCE OF 1977 CHRYSLER CORDOBA - CAR NO. W-48
400F CID - 4 BBL. CARS. (LEAN BURN)
FTP Fuel Economy (Mi. /Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Mi. /Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./Mi.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Gms./Mi.)
DrlveabMIty Demerits
Base
11.34
11.38
17.23
17.29
0.68
0.69
6.11
5.55
1.84
1.59
183
187
Modification 1
10.70
10.84
16.51
17.39
0.63
0.67
9.03
7.80
1.90
1.88
156
170
Modification 2
11.19
10.99
17.61
17.75
0.64
0.79
5.13
7.35
1.96
2.10
187
167
Modification 3
11.03
10.82
17.54
17.86
1.58
1.55
30.42
27.52
1.74
1.65
207
218
Modification 4
10.59
10.59
16.46
16.41
16.70
1.63
1.64
33.84
34.76
1.86
1.99
198
187
-------
TABLE C-21
FTP Fuel Economy (MI./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
Emissions
25 HC, (Cms./Mi.)
CO, (Cms./MI.)
NOx, (Gms./Mi.)
Drlveabfifty Demerits
PERFORMANCE
258C
Base
13.45
12.93
15.88
15.^8
0.34
0.28
6.27
4.86
1.16
1.05
121
121
OF 1978 AMC
CID - 1 BBL
Modification
14.37
16.15
19.08
21.19
0.22
0.24
4.81
1.36
4.48
3.97
33
35
CONCORD - CAR NO. W-59
CARB. (CALIF.)
1 Modification 2
11.82
12.11
14.80
14.73
0.35
0.31
10.26
7-74
0.96
0.96
150
179
Modification 3
13.13
13.30
16.12
16.34
0.24
0.35
4.26
6.91
1.01
0.93
120
134
Modification 4
13-20
14.46
16.22
16.64
0.51
0.35
9.47
10.52
0.86
0.88
94
118
-------
TABLE C-22
oo
00
FTP Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Ml./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Gms./Mi.)
CO, (Gms./Mi.)
NOx, (Cms./Ml.)
Driveabillty Demerits
PERFORMANCE
Base
22.07
22.10
26. 9*
28.29
0.73
0.71
9.84
10.07
1.90
1.80
12
12
OF 1977 TOYOTA
97F CID - 2
Modification
22.62
22.99
27.86
27-57
0.66
0.68
10.19
9.25
1.52
1.66
12
12
COROLLA - CAR NO
BBL. CARB.
1 Modification
23. 94
23.27
28.36
27.13
0.69
0.64
8.28
7.76
1.98
2.22
6
6
. W-52
2 Modi ff cat i
20.83
22.48
21.82
25.36
26.99
26.53
0.82
0.67
0.73
14.54
11.34
13.96
1.91
1.96
1.42
18
9
Modification 4
22.02
22.63
27.15
27-67
0.82
0.76
14.27
11.84
1.51
1.71
0
0
-------
TABLE C-23
PERFORMANCE OF 1978 VOLVO 245 DL - CAR NO. X-03
130C CID - FUEL INJECTION (CALIF.)
00
FTP Fuel Economy (Mf./Gal.)
Highway Fuel Economy (Mi./Gal.)
Emissions
HC, (Cms./Ml.)
CO, (Cms./Mi.)
NOx, (Cms./MI.)
Driveablllty Demerits
Base
18.63
18.76
25. 94
24.78
0.31
0.32
3.25
3.31
0.70
0.64
14
19
Modification 1
18.44
18.17
24.35
23.89
0.48
0.53
8.83
10.37
1.73
1.56
13
19
Modification 2
18.28
18.89
23.92
23.86
0.31
0.28
4.31
3.36
0.73
0.78
23
23
Modification 3
18.55
18.06
24.03
24.00
0.32
0.30
3.99
3.80
0.93
0.97
29
23
Modification 4
18.16
18.03
23.97
23.60
1.65
1.75
43.66
42.28
0.66
0.74
15
21
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fi
uoo
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
- 125
oc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
; B
; Mib
I 1 I I I 1 I I - J- -
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1U 16 18
flCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
20
90
-------
oc
UJ
400
375
350
325
300
_ 275
UJ
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
S 150
^ 125
0 100
o
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE ft
50
25
0
4 8 12 16
2 6 10 14
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION
20 24
18 22
(L/1000KM)
26
91
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
£ 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
£ 125
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
.
•
.
.
.
•
B
: M*U
i i i i i t i i i i i i
0 U 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
92
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE ft
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
- 125
oc
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
—
.
.
.
•
.
•
B
M3M1
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2,
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
0
93
-------
DC
UJ
400
375
350
325
300
_ 275
UJ
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
>
~ 125
cc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
10 20 30 40 50 60
15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
94
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
£ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
*
.
.
•
.
_
.
.
' B«3
m
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.0 KO 2.0 3,0 U.O 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
95
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
£ 125
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
0
—
.
.
•
m
M«4
*^M3
i i i i i i i i i
2 U 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
flCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
-------
400
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
» ^v ^v
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
S 125
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
-
.
.
.
MU
^3
•
i i i i i i i i i i i i
U 8 12 16 20
2 6 10 1U 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
97
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
400
375
350
£ 325
^ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
^ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
cc
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
•
—
.
.
;
.
.
-
: ***
•
i i i i i i i t t t i i
0 U 8 12 16 20 2U
2 6 10 1U 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
98
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
HOO.
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
- 125
01
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
0.
.
_
.
•
.
.
_
M¥
BJM4 M2
•
i i i i
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
99
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
UOO
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
^ 125
or
o 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
.
-
.
.
MH
-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 145 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
100
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
400,
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
5 175
5 150
^ 125
cc
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
.
.
.
.
B
.
»
.
M4
u o ^B M 1
no
.
m
1 1 1 f 1 f 1 1 1 1 I
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
101
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
2 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
.
.
;
.
.
.
.
; 1
-
i i i t i i i i i
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
flCCELERflTION TIME
14 16 18
(SECS.)
20
102
-------
ABSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
400.
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
£ 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
- 125
cc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
.
.
;
.
.
-
B
•
t i i t i i i i i i i i
4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 m 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
103
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
•> w ^f
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
.
;
.
.
-
; B
-
i i i i i i i i i i i i
4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
104
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
• w «v i
375
350
£ 325
^ 300
£275
£ 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
.
,
.
•
.
.
-
uo B
hilll
-
fill
0.0
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
2.0
105
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
^ w w
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
o 100
5 50
25
0
.
.
•
.
.
•
:H? H^
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 UO 50 60
5 15 25 35 U5 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
106
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
- 125
CC
D 100
g 75
° 50
25
0
.
_
_
M
.
.
-
P%
BW |*
;
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE D
400 .
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
£ 125
o 100
c 75
0 50
25
0
„
.
.
IB
V
.
.
-
-
; *
i i i i i i i i i
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
flCCELERRTION TIME (SECS.)
20
108
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE D
400
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
- 125
Q 100
£ 75
u 50
25
0
—
.
.
B
.
.
.
.
-
Ml
*w
i I I I I I I I I I 1 1
4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
U09
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROH VEHICLE D
1400,
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
£ 12S
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
m
.
-
m
.
-
•
W£
1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 4 8 12 16 20
2 6 10 114 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/IOOOKM)
no
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE D
400
375
350
{2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
- 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
^
M»
_
•
.
.
-
Ml
uu M Q M2
B Ml* M3
i i i i
0 0.14 0.8 1.2 1,6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
in
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
4UU .
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
0 50
25
0
•
. MI
^ Mfi3
' till 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
10 20 30 »40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
112
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
400
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
>
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
B
.
.
.
.
-
uo M1
M VI II M Q
RnH n O
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 U.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
113
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
HUU
375
350
co 325
£ 300
£275
£ 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
^
£ 150
>
~ 125
cc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
p
•
»
t
M4
B
Ml
M3
M2
i i i i i i i _j
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1U 16 18 20
flCCELERflTION TIME CSECS.)
114
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
400
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
uj p75
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
400,
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
DC
o 10Q
c 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
m
m
•
.
,
•
.
B
Ml
M3
M2
i i i i i i i i i i t i
14 8 12 16 20
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
116
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
400
375
350
{2 325
£ 300
£275
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
LU 150
~ 125
oc
0 100
flC 75
° 50
25
0
.
_
.
•
.
.
MU
B
Ml
M3
M2
i i i i
0.0
4 0.8 1.2 1.6
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
2.0
117
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
t V V .
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
^ 125
o 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
_
•
»
.
•
MH
»
B
Ml
M3
M2
i i i i i i i j j 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 «45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
118
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
>
£ 125
0 100
c 75
U 50
25
0
0.
—
_
_
*
.
.
MU
B
Ml
M3
M2
t t t i i i i i i i i
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
119
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
£ 250
£ 225
^ 200
£ 175
5 150
£ 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
—
.
.
;
.
.
-
B
W
•
Ml
i i i i i i i i i
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
flCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
20
120
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
—
_
_
v
.
.
.
.
B
MH3M2
Ml
i i i i i i i i i i i i
4 8 12 16 20
2 6 10 14 18 22
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
26
121
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
HUU
375
350
J2 325
£300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
cc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
-
B
Ml
I 1 I 1 1 1 1 ._L 1 1 1 1
0
14 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 1U 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
122
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
i5 150
- 125
in
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
.
_
_
-
_
.
_
_
B
M3M4 M2
Ml
i i i i
0.0
0.4 0.8
HC EMISSION
1.2 1.6
(GM/KM)
2.0
123
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
HUU
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
cc
Q 100
£ 50
25
0
.
- B
me M2
. Ml
j » ' i 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' '
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
124
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
uoo
375
350
{2 325
£ 300
£275
Ld
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
- 125
(C
J 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
••
•
^
.
-
B
Ml
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 H.O 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3,5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
125
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
4UU
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
Q 100
S 50
25
v
'
M3
« ' i I 1 1 1 1 1
4 6 8 10 12
flCCELERRTION TIME
1U 16 18 20
(SECS.)
126
-------
400
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
~ 125
oc
0 100
U 50
25
0
.
.
.
.
-
.
.
-
M4
M3
1 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I
0 14 8 12 16 20 214
2 6 10 14 18 22
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
26
127
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
•x w w
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
- 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
C
_
-
m
.
.
.
B
•
M4
M2M1
M3
i i i i i i i i i i i i
) 4 8 M2 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
128
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
is275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
- 125
GC
D 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
0.
B
.
.
•
—
.
.
m
MU
u «l 1
M3
i i i i
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
0
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
129
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
*1 V U
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
~ 125
0=
o 100
5 50
25
0
»
.
-
"1
- "l M2
M3
i i i i i i i _j 1 1 1 1
0 10 20 30 140 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
130
-------
400
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
£
2
UJ
UJ
o
>:
_j
£
CE
U!
^
GC
0
O
GC
• w ^v
375
350
325
300
275
250
225
200
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
-
M4
• M2 M1
M3
-
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 U.O 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4,5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
131
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
nuu
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
£ 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
oc
Q 100
£ 75
0 50
25
0
m
.
B
VH
_
• ill 1 1 1 1 1
2 4 6 8 10 12 111 16 18
flCCELERRTION TIME CSECS.)
20
132
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
uoo
375
350
{2 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
u 150
~ 125
or
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
•tf
•
.
B
: ^3u
•
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
8
12
16 20
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
133
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
HUU
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
- 125
cc
0 100
£ 75
0 50
25
0
•
.
.
B
*• ^4 ^S
^HJ^LH^I
.
i i i i i i i 1 1 1 1 1
U 8 12 16 20 2U
2 6 10 I1! 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
134
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
400.
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
>
- 125
oc
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
•
.
.
.
B
Ift3
.
i i i i
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
135
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
•» V \J i
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
0 100
S 50
25
0
»
V
»
- B
"MM^3
i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 > 1
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
136
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
noo
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
^ 125
DC
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
M
W
•
.
.
-
B
Ma,M3 Ml
•
t i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 U. 0 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
137
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
1100
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
.
.
-
,
.
-
-
M2
i i i i i i i i i
2 il 6 8 10 12 1U 16 18
flCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
20
138
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
uoo
• •» •» 1
375
350
£ 325
^ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
5 150
~ 125
cc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
|0
.
.
-
kJ- 1
M%1
M2
i i i i i i i i i i i i
0
8
12
16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
139
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
uoo
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
.
.
.
m
.
.
-
-
•
Miy
M2
MU
i i i i i i i i i i i i
H 8 12 16 20 2U
2 6 10 1*4 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
140
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
^ 125
^ 100
0 75
oc ' ^
o _ _
50
25
0
0.
»
.
.
.
,
.
—
M2
i i i i
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
141
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
t Ul/
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
- 125
0=
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
•
m
•
»
.rttf
M2
,,.,111 j 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 HO 50 60
5 15 25 35 H5 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
142
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
«400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
^ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
—
_
_
k
m
.
.
-
_
M3 R ^ ^
M2
M4
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 14.0 5.0 6.
0.5 1,5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
143
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
-« \f w j
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
QC
° 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
„
.
•
.
.
.
.
MlB
M2
M3
.
i i i i i .. i ..._j 1 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
RCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
20
144
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
4QQ
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
m
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
CE
£ 150
>
£ 125
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
.
.
m
M*
""
M2
M3
.
m
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
145
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
uoo.
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
or
0 100
cc 75
° 50
25
0
G
p
.
.
m
.
.
.
.
MlB
M2
M3
.,
i i i i i i i i i i i i
1 U 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 1<4 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
146
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
400
375
350
J2 325
~ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
2 l25
Q 100
0 75
oc ' a
° 50
25
0
0.
»
.
.
M2
M3
>
i i i i
0 O.U 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION CGM/KM)
147
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
MOO
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
rr
5 150
~ 125
o 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
,
.
m
•
.
.
m
191
MH
M2
M3
„
.
i i i i i t i i i i i i
10 20 30 HO 50 60
5 15 25 35 US 55 65
CO EMISSION CGM/KM)
148
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
400
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
cc
uj 150
>
£ 125
0 100
oc 75
° 50
25
0
p
.
.
„
B Ml
M4
M2
M3
»
.
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
149
-------
R8SOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
1400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
S 150
~ 125
oc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0
—
.
.
.
»
•
»
»
uJB
Ml
M2
i i i i i i i i i
2 (4 6 8 10 12 Hi 16 18 20
RCCELERflTJON TIME (SECS.)
150
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
400.
375
350
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
«iuu
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
tr*
o too
£ 7S
0 50
25
0
iftj
My
1 1 W
Ml
M2
.
.
• ,
q 8 12 16 20 2*
2 6 10 1U 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
152
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
unn
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
>
~ 125
cc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
_
.
.
»
.
.
w
8 M,l
M3 n*
Ml
M2
.
.
.
till
0.0 O.U 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
153
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
400
375
350
to 325
£ 300
£275
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
Q 100
c 75
0 50
25
0
.
*
.
;
.
.
; B m
Ml
M2
.
i i i i i i i i i i i i
10 20 30 40 50 60
15 25 35 U5 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
154
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
400
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
£ 250
£ 225
^ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
QC
Q 100
c 75
U 50
25
0
0.
.
.
»
fc
^4
Ml
M2
_
i i i i i i i i i i i
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION CGM/KM)
155
-------
400
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
B
U 6 8 10 12
RCCELERflTION TIME
1U 16 18
(SECS.)
20
156
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
400
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
>
~ 125
0 100
S 50
25
0
—
_
_
;
.
.
B
' K*2
1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 t
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
157
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
~ 125
0 100
£ 50
25
0
.
_
_
_
-
.
.
B
- n$*
I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !
0 14 8 12 16
2 6 10 14
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION
20
18 22 26
(L/1000KM)
158
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
>
£ 125
0 100
£ 75
U 50
25
0
_
_
;
.
.
B
.
" JurTill ^B
n ^T4^^
i t i i
0.0
0.4 0.8
HC EMISSION
1.2 1.6
(GM/KM)
2.0
159
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
HUU
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
•
B
.
• *&3
i ' i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 HO 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
EMISSION (GM/KM)
160
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
400
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
- 125
or
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
0.
.
-
B
.
M2 M3 Ml
i i i i i i i i i i i
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
161
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
1 W \I
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~IN,
- 125
oc
0 100
S 50
25
0
»
-
M3
i i i i i i i i j ^ 1 1
0 il 8 12 16
2 6 10 14
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION
20
18 22 26
(L/1000KM)
162
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
- 125
DC
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
-
M3
B M4
N2
i i i i i i i i i i i i
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION CL/1000KM)
163
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
HUU
375
350
£ 325
~300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 1^5
S 150
~ 125
QC
0 100
S 50
25
0
.
M3
MH2
1 i i i 1 1 1 1 1
2 14 6 8 10 12
RCCELERRTION TIME
14 16 18 20
(SECS.)
164
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
400,
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
tu
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
5 150
~ 125
oc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
.
.
-
M3
Ml M2
i i i i
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
165
-------
RESOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
*4 U U
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£ 275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
£ 125
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
' M3
. BMU
N2
,,.11111 _i 1 \ 1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 U5 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
166
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
1 W W
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
£ 125
0 100
u 75
5 50
25
0
_
_
_
M3
M4 B
M2 Ml
I I I I I 1 1 1 1 .._L 1
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 il.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
167
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
^ W W I
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
£ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
V
•
.
.
B
M3
i i i i i MU J_. J 1
2 »A 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
flCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
20
168
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
t w u
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
>- 225
i—
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
£ 125
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
B
M3
i i i t t i i _L_ M4 1 1 1
4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
169
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
HUU
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
S 250
>- 225
~ 200
A 1*75
5 150
- 125
a:
Q 100
° 50
25
0
•
B
.
M3
i i i 1 1 IM4-J 1 l l • '
14 8 12 16 20 2»4
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
170
-------
fiBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
1400
375
350
{2 325
~ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
S 150
~ 125
QC
o 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
—
_
_
.
.
.
.
.
B
M3
i Ml i i i
0 O.U 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
171
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
4UU
375
350
J2 325
~ 300
£275
D 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
o 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
C
•B
p
.
M3
H1 i i i i i i i -J 1 1 1 1
) 10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
172
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
400 .
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
•
.
.
B
M3
i i i ft i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 U.O 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 U.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
173
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
noo
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
~ 125
cc
0 100
S 50
25
0
0
—
.
.
.
—
M^
B
•
Ml
i i i i i i i i i
2 4 6 8 10 12 m 16 18 20
flCCELERRTION TIME (SECS.)
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
400
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
LU
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
DC
Q 100
0 75
cc ' **
° 50
25
0
M4
-
Ml
i i i i i i i i i i i i
4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
175
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
•* v w
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
GC
Q 100
" 50
25
0
B
Ml
i i i i i i i I 1 1 1 1
0 14 8 12 16 20 2U
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
176
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
^ w w -
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
- 125
0 100
S 50
25
0
M2M3
B
-
Ml
i i i i
0.0
0.4 0.8
HC EMISSION
1.2 1
(GM/KM)
2.0
177
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
•* W \J
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
Q 100
^ 75
° 50
25
0
C
M jt* **
* Mil
B
m
• Ml
—
.
i i i i i i i i i i i i
) 10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 U5 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
178
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
uon
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
D 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
CE
u 150
~ 125
cc
Q 100
0 75
CC '3
° 50
25
0
^
.
.
M3 M2
Mil
B
.
-
Ml
.
.
.
.
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 il.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 li.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KH)
179
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
400
375
350
to 325
£ 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
£ 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
M(?4
.
6
M2
Ml
-
-
i i i i i i i i i
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
RCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
20
180
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
a:
uj 150
>
~ 125
cc
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
' ^
•
B
M2
.
Ml
-
.
.
.
i i i i i t i i i i i i
4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
181
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
*t V U
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
>
~ 125
oc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
1ft
B
M2
Ml
-
m
m
m
i i i i i i i i ..._i 1 1 1
4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
182
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
1400
375
350
J2 325
~ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
~ 125
oc
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
0.
1^4
B
M2
Ml
•
_
i i i i
0 O.U 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
183
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
^ W \f i
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
£ 125
S 10Q
S 50
25
0
M3M«I
.
-
.
B
M2
m
. Ml
•
i i i i i i i j 1 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 U5 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
184
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
bJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
- 125
oc
0 100
0 75
oc ' ^
U 50
25
0
0.
- fl?
B
M2
Ml
-
-
-
i i i i i i i i i i i
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4,5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
185
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
T \/ W
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
0 100
S 50
25
0
•
V&
Ml
•
-
i i i i i 1 1 1 i
0
2 14 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
flCCELERfiTION TIME (SECS.)
186
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
CD* 175
5 150
^ 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
•
••
IM
^13
Ml
-
-
t i i i i i i i i i i i
0 4 8 12 16
2 6 10 14
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION
20 24
18 22 26
(L/1000KM)
187
-------
RESOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
i* UU
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
>- 225
i_
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
cc
Q 100
£ 75
0 50
25
0
fte
Ml
•
-
i i i i i i i I .1 1 1 1
0
li 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
188
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
~ 125
or
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
0.
B M3
M2 M4
Ml
-
i i i i
0 O.U 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
189
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
^ V W I
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
— i
m 175
a:
uj 150
~ 125
a:
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
' B M3
MO M4
M2
Ml
•
—
.
.
« i « i i i i i I 1- 1 1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION CGM/KM)
190
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
^ w w
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
Q 250
>- 225
i—
~ 200
S 175
£ 150
- 125
cc
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0,
• B3
^
Ml
•
.
.
i i i i i i i i i i i
0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
191
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
1100
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
~ 125
OC
o 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
.
.
MU
M3
Ml
-
i i i i i i i i i
2 4 6 8 10 12
flCCELERflTION TIME
I 16 18
(SECS.)
20
192
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
400
375
350
£ 325
£300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
>
- 125
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
M4
M^
M3
Ml
-
i i i i i i i i i i i i
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
193
-------
LU
400
375
350
325
300
_ 275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
150
~ 125
Q 100
°
50
25
MH
M3
Ml
i ' ' i i I I 1 1 1 1 L
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 1U 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
194
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
UJ
UOO
375
350
325
300
_ 275
£ 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
s 125
0 100
50
25
0
0.0
M4
M3
Ml
1
1
1
1
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
2.0
195
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
noo
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 1251
oc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
.
.
.
. M4
M3
;,
-
1 1 1 1 1 1 __l 1 1 1 1 1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
15 25 35 H5 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
196
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
1100
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
~ 125
oc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
•
D
»
M3
Ml
-
I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 __L
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 lA.O 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
197
-------
400
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
* W *v
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
£ 125
o 100
£ ?5
° 50
25
0
m
.
.
;
M3
p4_U
• »5*
.
.
.
••
I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I
U 6 8 10 12
flCCELERflTJON TIME
16 18
(SECS.)
20
198
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
uoo.
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
0 100
g 75
° 50
25
0
•
M3
R MU
: ^
-
-
i i i i i i i i t i i i
14 8 12 16 20
2 6 10 11 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
199
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
-z x/ w I
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
5 175
5 150
~ 125
OC
o 100
c 75
0 50
25
0
C
_
•
^
•
M3
MM1
-
.
.
i t i i i i i i i i i i
) 14 8 12 16 20 2U
2 6 10 1«4 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
200
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
noo .
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
>
- 125
flC
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
»
•
M3
R M4
H2
Ml
—
•
i i t i
0 O.U 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
201
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
t \J V
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
o 250
>- 225
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
~ 125
oc
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
M3
' M4
•rfe
Ml
•
-
_
_
,,.1111 i 1 1 1 1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 U5 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
202
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
400
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
LU
Q 250
>- 225
H-
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
~ 125
oc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
M3
Ml2
-
.
-
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
203
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
rt w v/
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
~ 125
oc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
M2
M%
M4
.
.
Ml
i i i i i i I 1 1
0 2 14 6 8 10 12 1U 16 18
RCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
20
204
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
* W «« f
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
£ 150
^ 125
oc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
M2
HP
M4
.
Ml
i i i i i t i i i i i i
8
12
16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
205
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
HUU
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
;>
- 125
CC
P 100
c 75
0 50
25
0
M2
M «•
i5
M4
—
.
Ml
1111 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1
0
14 8 12 16 20
2 6 10 1U 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
206
-------
f
uoo
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
>- 225
i—
~ 200
S 175
S 150
^ 125
cc
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
ABSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
M2
.
»
. Ml
! 1 1 1
0 0,4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
207
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
1 U V
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
o 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
.
M2
. M4
-
i i i i i i i I — I 1 1 1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
208
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
400
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
UJ
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
o 175
£ 150
£ 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
.
_
_
_
_
_
M2
- M§
. M4
^
Ml
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
0
209
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
Q 250
>- 225
h-
-: 200
o
5 150
~ 125
oz
Q 100
75
50
25
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1U 16 18
flCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
20
210
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
~ 125
QC
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
—
_
_
;
.
.
-
-
i i i i $$$? i i i i i i i
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
211
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
cc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
C
•
.
-
.
.
i i i |ftp i i i i i i i i _
) 4 §** 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
212
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
400
375
350
(o qpq
•J C. \J
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
S 150
>
- 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
—
.
.
•
.
.
-
.
•
Miff.. i i i
0. 0
0.4 0.8
HC EMISSION
1.2 1.6
(GM/KM)
2.0
213
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
1100
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
~ 125
cc
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
C
-
-
m
,
hffKnl 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
1 10 20 30 140 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
214
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
>
0 100
U 50
25
0
—
.
.
;
.
-
-
i tfflfc?. i i i i i i i i i -
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
215
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
1 \J W
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~~IHII
- 125
Q 100
° 50
25
0
-
i i i i i i *r 1 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
RCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
216
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
400
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
>
~ 125
DC
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
-
-
i i i i i r^ i i i i i i
0 4 8 12 16
2 6 10 14
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION
20 24
18 22 26
(L/1000KM)
217
-------
flBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
^ w w i
375
350
en ^ps
O u. vJ
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
>- 225
i —
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
— 1 ,
£ 125
0 100
0 50
25
0
-
II
i i i i "r i i i i i i i
8
12
16
20
24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION CL/1000KM)
218
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
- 125
QC
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
-
-
M| Ml M4
i i i i
0.0
0.14 0..8 1.2 1.6
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
2. 0
219
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
t w u
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
>- 225
~ 200
S 175
£ 150
- 125
oc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
.
-
.
_
^ I1 I i i i I I 1 1 1 1 __L
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
220
-------
RBSOLUTE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
S I75
£ 150
- 125
cc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
-
-
-**fM,i ,
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
221
-------
VEHICLES MITH EGR DISCONNECTED
400
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
~ 125
0 100
0 75
oc '0
° 50
25
0
0
m
.
.
*
.
Q
*
n RK
g K
C
W RE
M F
T
i i i i i N i i i t
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
flCCELERRTION TIME (SECS.)
222
-------
VEHICLES WITH EGR DISCONNECTED
400
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
cc
o 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
«
i
Q
•
^^
* J
K „ 0 R
C
fl ED W1
T
i i i i i i i i K| i i i
14 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 m 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
223
-------
VEHICLES HITH EGR DISCONNECTED
uoo
375
350
co 325
2 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
— *
£ 175
cc
£ 150
~ 125
or
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
.
.
.
.
.
m
Q
k
J P
K B0^
C
ft if
F M
T
1 1 1 f 1 1 u 1 1 1 1 1 1
0 U 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
224
-------
VEHICLES WITH EGR DISCONNECTED
400
375
350
-------
VEHICLES WITH EGR DISCONNECTED
1 \J W
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
LU
o 250
>- 225
i —
~ 200
m 175
£ 150
^^
- 125
a:
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
Q
- P J
R n|/
D
- C
"rf^ E
• rf
j
M | | 1 1 I 1 1 J 1 1 1 1
0
10 20 30 40 50
15 25 35 45 55
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
60
65
226
-------
VEHICLES WITH EGR DISCONNECTED
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
- 125
DC
a 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0.
.
_
.
-
.
Q
" B K °
C
r i H l
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH IDLE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
400
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
LU
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
DC
o 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
m
P
_
.
Q
.
S R
.
K
B M T
.
F J
° N
V
i i i i i i " i i i
0 2 U 6 8 10 12
flCCELERflTION TIME
4 16 18 20
(SECS.)
228
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH IDLE MRLRDJUSTMENTS
ijnn
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
cr
uj 150
~ 125
a:
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
P
Q
1
K
B MT
•
J F
D N
V
I 1 I 1 1 U 1 1 ! 1 I 1 1
4 8 12 16 20 2U
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
229
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH IDLE MflLflOJUSTMENTS
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
C
P
_
—
„
Q
! S R
.
K
BM T
J F
D N
V
i i i i u i i i i i i i i
) 4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
230
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH IDLE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
1400
375
350
(0 QOC
U C. %J
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
2 125
0 100
^ 75
° 50
25
0
0.
P
.
.
Q
m
R S
m
K
• T M B
G
N D
- V
i^ i i i
0 0.4 0.8 1,2 1.6 2.
0
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
231
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH IDLE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
HUU
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
LU
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
QI
uj 150
^
- 125
0=
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
P
Q
Q
M
•
K
• TM B
.
J F
"N G D
-v
1 u 1 1 1 I 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1 — 1
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
232
-------
400
VEHICLES WITH RICH IDLE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
375
350
J2 325
£ 300
£275
LU
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
>
~ 125
GC
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
P
.
m
Q
.
8
m
K
• T M B
-
F
N 0
V
i r i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3,0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION CGM/KM)
233
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH CHOKE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
tuu
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
S 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
S 150
- 125
QC
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
R
S
-
H
I fl
M
i i i i i i 1 1 1
0
4 6 8 10 12
flCCELERflTION TIME
11 16 18
(SECS.)
20
234
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH CHOKE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
t \J \J
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
5 150
>
- 125
cc
a 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
R
S
H
fl I
M
E
,111111 i 1 1 1 1
0
14 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
235
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH CHOKE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
4 UU
375
350
CD qpc:
\J C. O
S 300
S 275
o 250
>- 225
| —
~ 200
S 175
S 150
- 125
cc
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
C
R
S
•
H
fl I
M
E
1,11111111 i 1
) 4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
236
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH CHOKE MflLRDJUSTMENTS
UOO
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
S 150
~-iii.
~ 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
0.
p R
S
•
H
fll
M
i i i i
0 O.U 0,8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
237
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH CHOKE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
*± \J \J
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
~ 125
DC
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
_R
S
-
- H
I fl
" M
,,,..iii _J 1 1 1
10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
238
-------
VEHICLES WITH RICH CHOKE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
2 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
R
S
.
H
fl I
M
E
i i i i i i i i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5,5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
239
-------
VEHICLES WITH SPflRK TIMING MRLRDJUSTMENTS
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LJ
D 250
>- 225
1
~ 200
5 175
cr
5 150
~ 125
or
Q 100
£ 75
/ *
° 50
25
0
to
.
.
.
.
0
P
s
-
J
%J
K \f
K
w
.
- ii
V
r i i i i i i i t
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 1U 16 18 20
flCCELERflTION TIME CSECS.)
240
-------
VEHICLES WITH SPfiRK TIMING MflLRDJUSTMENTS
uno
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
S 175
CL
uj 150
- 125
ac
• " i 4 ." > ,"\
^
_
.
.
.
0
P
s
-
J
' ' ' 1 I • • '
K
'' .,• . s
"•» -V '•
: J
25
0
"
V
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 I 1
U 8 12 16 20
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
241
-------
VEHICLES WITH SPflRK TIMING MflLflDJUSTMENTS
1 W
375
350
£ 325
£300
£275
UJ
a 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
~ 125
or
Q 100
£ 75
° 50
25
0
0
•
P
•
S
»
j
w
K
»
.
V
i i i i i i i l 1 1 1 1
14 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION CL/1000KM)
242
-------
VEHICLES NITH SPflRK TIMING MflLflDJUSTMENTS
400.
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
D 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
- 125
oc
D 100
0 75
OC ' ^
° 50
25
0
0.
•
0
P
s
J
K
.
• v
1 1 I 1
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
0
HC EMISSION CGM/KM)
243
-------
VEHICLES HITH SPflRK TIMING MflLflDJUSTMENTS
-z w w j
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
>- 225
|r |
~ 200
£ 175
(T
£ 150
- 125
0 100
£ 75
° 50
25
n
.
_
_
.
0
P
- s
-
J
» f_x
K
_
^
- » /
V
i i i i i i i i i i i i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
5 15 25 35 45 55 65
CO EMISSION (GM/KM)
244
-------
VEHICLES HITH SPflRK TIMING MflLflDJUSTMENTS
T W W •
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
CE
S 150
S 125
0 100
£ 75
u 50
25
0
0
»
P
S
•
J
•> • *
K
-
.
• v
i i i i i i i i I I I
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6,0
0,5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
245
-------
VEHICLES WITH IDLE RPM MflLflDJUSTMENTS
4UU
375
350
u"> qp5
w C. w
~ 300
Gu
£275
LU
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
CE
uj 150
>
- 125
cc
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
n
Q
E
fl
LJ
H
m
i i i i i i 1
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
flCCELERflTION TIME (SECS.)
246
-------
VEHICLES WITH IDLE RPM MflLflDJUSTMENTS
400
375
350
{2 325
£ 300
£275
o 250
>- 225
i—
~ 200
a 175
£ 150
~ 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
Q
.
E
fl
H
i i i i i i i i I J 1 1
0 4 8 12 16 20 24
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
247
-------
VEHICLES WITH IDLE RPM MflLflDJUSTMENTS
4UU
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
LU
o 250
>- 225
1—
~ 200
£ 175
5 150
>
- 125
oc
o 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
Q
E
^M
fl
H
—
lll» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
0
4 8 12 16 20 214
2 6 10 1U 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
248
-------
VEHICLES WITH IDLE RPM MflLflDJUSTMENTS
400
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
UJ
Q 250
£ 225
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
DC
0 100
c 75
0 50
25
0
0.
•
•
Q
-
.
E
fl
H
i i i i
0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
249
-------
VEHICLES WITH IDLE RPM MflLflDJUSTMENTS
4UU
375
350
{2 325
~ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
>- 225
1—
~ 200
£ 175
£ 150
~ 125
QC
0 100
c 75
0 50
25
0
Q
E
R
H
t •
m
i i i i i i i i I 1 1 1
50 60
145 55 65
CO EMISSION (CM/KM)
10 20 30 40
5 15 25 35
250
-------
VEHICLES WITH IDLE RPM MflLflDJUSTMENTS
400
375
350
{2 325
£ 300
£275
LU
D 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
5 150
- 125
cc
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
•
•
•
»
Q
-
_
E
• ^*%
R
H
I I
.
i i i i i i I i i i i
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0
0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
251
-------
VEHICLES WITH MULTIPLE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
400
^fc vv W f
375
350
£ 325
^300
£275
UJ
o 250
£ 225
~ 200
— '
£ 175
-------
VEHICLES HITH MULTIPLE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
^ w w i
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
£ 250
£ 225
~ 200
m 175
S 150
i 125
0 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
C
P
R
• o Q
S
K
J B
° FT
F HM
EO
I N
1 1 1 1 L. 1 1 1 1 1 t 1
) 4 8 U12 16 20 24
2 6 10 1U 18 22 26
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
253
-------
VEHICLES HITH MULTIPLE MflLRDJUSTMENTS
4UU -
375
350
£ 325
~ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
>- 225
i—
~ 200
£ 175
S 150
~ 125
oc
0 100
5 50
25
n
P
R
0°
S
K
J B
C T
FH M
fl e
I N
. . . , v, i i i i i J 1
14 8~ 12 16 20 2U
2 6 10 14 18 22 26
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION (L/1000KM)
254
-------
VEHICLES WITH MULTIPLE MflLRDJUSTMENTS
uoo.
375
350
£ 325
£ 300
£275
Q 250
£ 225
^ 200
m 175
S 150
~ 125
or
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
^
P
>
R
to
Qo
s
K
J B
H M F
« F
t o
V
1 II ' ' '
0.0
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6
HC EMISSION (GM/KM)
2.0
255
-------
VEHICLES WITH MULTIPLE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
1 V V
375
350
£ 325
^ 300
£275
UJ
o 250
>• 225
i—
~ 200
i
m 175
-------
VEHICLES WITH MULTIPLE MflLflDJUSTMENTS
1400
375
350
£ 325
2 300
£275
UJ
o 250
>- 225
~ 200
S 175
S 150
- 125
Q 100
c 75
° 50
25
0
0,
P
R
Q
0
S
K
J B
M H F
fl E
N !
i .1 i i i i i i i i i
0 1^0 2.0 3.0 U. 0 5,0 6.
0.5 1.5 2,5 3.5 4.5 5,5
NOX EMISSION (GM/KM)
257
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
X f vf
150
o
~ 100
i—
»— «
_i
1-1 7S
(D /O
(X
LU
S 50
o
25
0
7
B
M3
Ml
M2
-
0 80 90 100 110 12(
RCCELERflTION INDEX
258
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
CO
CC
UJ
cc
o
100
75
50
25
75
B
Ml
M3
Mil
M2
100
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
125
259
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
175
150
2125
o
100
CD
CC
LU
CC
o
75
50
25
B
M3
Ml
M2
_L
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
260
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
175
150
CD
CC
UJ
CC
CD
100
75
50
25
B
M3
Ml
MU
M2
I I I I
I
0 100 200 300 UOO 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
261
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
175
150
CD
CC
UJ
CC
a
100
75
50
25
h B
M3
Ml
M4
M2
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
262
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE fl
175
150
o
CO
cc
LU
CC
Q
100
75
50
25
B
M3
M4
M2
1
1
1
Ml
i
i
I _ I - 1 - L
0 100 200 300 1400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
263
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
Q
00
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
175
CD
CE
UJ
DC
Q
150 .
125L
100
75
50
25
M4
M3
0
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
265
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
175
150
Q
Z
CD
cr
LU
oc
Q
100
75
50
25
0
75
M4
B
M3
100
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
125
266
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
CD
cr
LU
oz
Q
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
M3
J L
M4
M2
I'll
J L
J L
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
267
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
00
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE B
175
150
CD
CC
LU
QC
a
100
75
50
25
M4
M3
i i
i i i i
j i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
269
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
175
150
£ 125
a
100
QD
CC
UJ
oc
a
75
50
25
0
70
1
B
M2
1
1
80 90 100 110
flCCELERflTION INDEX
120
270
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
CD
CL
LoJ
or
a
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
B
M3
M2
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
271
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
175
150
o
CD
CC
LU
CC
O
100
75
50
25
0
75
B
M3
M2
100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
272
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
175
150
£125
o
z
. 100
CO
CE
OC
Q
75
50
25
B
M3
M2
i i
i i i i i i
0 100 200 300 1400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
273
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
CO
cc
Lul
cc
Q
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
- B
M3
M2
J.
1
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
274
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE C
175
150
£125
Q
100
CD
CC
UJ
oc
Q
75
50
25
0
6
M3
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
275
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE D
175
150
•
UJ
a
125
100
75
cc
UJ
cc
o
50
25
.
0
70
Ml
M2
M3M4
B
80 90 100 110
flCCELERflTION INDEX
120
276
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE D
CD
-------
175
150
S125
o
z
~ 100
75
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE D
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE D
175
150
a
CD
CE
UJ
oc
o
100
75
50
25
Ml
B
M2
M3
0 100 200 300 100 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
279
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
175
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
280
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE D
CD
a:
LU
QC
a
100
75
50
25
Ml
M2
M4
B
M3
j_
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
281
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
175
150
125
100
£ 75
CE
oc
Q
50
25
70
M4
B
Ml
M3
M2
1
1
80 90 100 110
flCCELERflTION INDEX
120
282
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
175
150
£ 125
Q
100
CD
CC
LU
CC
Q
75
50
25
0
6
Ml
M3
M2
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
283
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
175
150
CO
CE
UJ
OC
Q
100
75
50
25
75
6
Ml
M3
M2
1
100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
284
-------
175
150
£125
o
100
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
GO
CC
LU
or
o
75
50
25
B
Ml
M3
M2
j_
_L
I
I
I
I
I
_L
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
285
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
175, . —
150
'
100
75
(X
LU
cc
o
50
25
6
Ml
M3
M2
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
286
-------
175
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE E
CO
en
LU
QC
O
150 .
125
100
75
50
25
0
B
M2
Ml
M3
0 100 200 300 HOG 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
287
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
QQ
CC
LU
oz
o
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
70
B
Ml
80 90 100 110
RCCELERflTION INDEX
120
288
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
X
LU
Q
i— i
X-
1 —
t— i
•— i
GO
CE
UJ
1-4
OC
o
I I \J
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
B
Ml M3 M2
-
Ml
-
i
75
100
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
125
289
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
175
150
00
C£
LU
cc.
o
100
75
50
25
0
75
8
MH3
H2
Ml
1
100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
290
-------
oo
cr
LU
a:
a
175
150
l25
100
75
50
25
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
B
Ml
M2
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
291
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
X
UJ
o
z
1— 1
>-
i—
»— «
— j
t—t
CD
CC.
UJ
H- 1
CC
o
I I \J
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
• B
*rTV 44 O
ric
p
.Ml
-
i i i 1 _
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
292
-------
CD
CE
UJ
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE F
0
B
Ml
i i
i i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
293
-------
CD
(T
LU
flC
O
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
70
B
Ml
M2
M3
80 90 100 110
RCCELERflTION INDEX
120
294
-------
175
150
£125
o
100
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
CO
CE
LU
OC
Q
75
50
25
B
i
Ml
M2
M3
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
295
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
CD
CE
UJ
CC
a
100
75
50
25
B
M2
Ml
M3
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
296
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
175
150
£125
o
100
CO
oc
kJ
or
o
75
50
25
B
Ml
M2
M3
0 100 200 300 UOO 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
297
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
175
150
100
1-1 75
tn '°
CL
LJ
oc
o
50
25
M4
B
Ml
M2
M3
1
1.
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
298
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE G
CD
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
X
UJ
0
1— I
>-
1—
fr"^
_J
1— «
CO
cc
UJ
»— 1
or
o
1
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
7
IV
m
B
N»l
%
II 1 1
0 80 90 100 110 12<
flCCELERRTION INDEX
300
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
X
UJ
o
z
»— 1
>-
1—
f.^
_J
h- 1
OQ
CC
UJ
CC
o
L t yj
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
B
Ml M3
M2 MU
-
•
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
301
-------
175
ISO
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
Q
CD
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
00
d
UJ
cc
a
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
B
i i i » i i i i
I I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
303
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
X
LU
O
i— i
t—
»—i
CD
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE H
175
150
GO
er
UJ
oc
o
100
75
50
25
6
M3
Ml
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 H50 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
305
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
1
150
2125
«MV
0
^ 100
1—
«-• 75
00 '°
UJ
i 50
0
25
0
7
•
Ml
M2
.
Mil
iiii
0 80 90 100 110 120
RCCELERflTION INDEX
306
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
o
CO
cc
UJ
cc
100
75
50
25
75
M3
HI
B
M2
100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
307
-------
175
150
2125
100
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
CD
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
CD
CE
UJ
flC
O
100
75
50
25
0
Ml
Ml
M2
I I I I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
309
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
175
150
CD
cr
UJ
cc
o
100
75
50
25
Ml
M2
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
310
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE I
o
QD
CT
UJ
GC
O
100
75
50
25
M3
B
M2
Ml
j_
_L
I
I
I
I
I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
311
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
175
150
2125
o
100
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
175
150
Q
CD
(X
UJ
CC
O
100
75
50
25
Ml B
M4
M2
M3
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
313
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
CD
CC
UJ
100
75
50
25
Ml
M2
M3
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
314
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
175
150
OQ
CC
UJ
or
Q
100
75
50
25
M<4
M2
M3
J L
J L
J.
I I I L
0 100 200 300 UOO 500 600
50 150 250 350 «450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
315
-------
RELflTJVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
175
X
UJ
0
^
»— 1
»— 1
CD
cc
UJ
cc
a
4» * ^^
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
•
m
• 01
MU
•M2
M3
.
•
i i t i
300 600 900 1200 1500
CO EMISSION INDEX
316
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE J
o
CD
CE
UJ
oc
Q
100
75
50
25
B
MH
M2
M3
Ml
j_
j_
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
317
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
CD
o:
UJ
cc
o
100
75
50
25
70
B
HI
H2
80 90 100 110
flCCELERflTION INDEX
120
318
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
CD
a:
cc
Q
100
75
50
25
75
M3
Ml
M2
100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
319
-------
175
150
2 125
Q
100
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
CD
a:
LU
cc
75
50
25
0
M3
Ml
M2
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
320
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
175
150
x 1 PR
LJ A"
Q
^ 100
h-
i— i
_J
l~l 75
CD ' ^
CE
LU
>
'- 50
cc ° u
25
0
• B Mr
Ml
M2
i i i i i i i i i i i
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
321
-------
RELflTJVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
175
X
LU
0
z
1— 1
1—
H— •
_J
»— 1
CD
ac
LU
1— «
cc
a
* • TV* i
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-
.
- B
Ml
M2
_
-
i I 1 L
0
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
322
-------
CD
CE
LU
DC
Q
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE K
Ml
M2
I
0 100 200 300 1400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
323
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
a
CD
a:
UJ
cc
a
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
70
6
Ml M2
niM3
80 90 100 110
flCCELERRTION INDEX
120
324
-------
CD
CE
LU
OC
Q
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
B
M2
j_
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
325
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
175
150
uj 125
o
. 100
CO
cc
LU
OC
a
75
50
25
B
1
M2
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
326
-------
Q
GO
cr
LU
cc
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
0
B
_L
_L
I
I
I
I
I
_L
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
327
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
Q
CD
CE
UJ
QZ
O
175
150
l25
100
75
50
25
B
0
JL
J_
1
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
328
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE L
175
150
£ 125
Q
100
CD
CC
oc
o
75
50
25
0
B
M2
M3
Ml
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
329
-------
o
CD
CT
LU
QC
Q
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
70
M3
B
M4
M1M2
80 90 100 110
RCCELERflTION INDEX
120
330
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
175
150
S125
Q
Z
. 100
in
UJ
cc
Q
75
50
25
M3
B
i
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
331
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
175
150
Q
Z
CD
-------
CD
CE
LU
CC
O
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
M3
B
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 U50 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
333
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
175
150
£ 125
O
100
CO
cc
UJ
cc
o
75
50
25
M3
N*
1
1
1
1
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
334
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE M
175
150
en
CE
LU
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
175
150
o
CO
CE
QC
O
100
75
50
25
70
B
M3
J.
JM-L
M2
80 90 100 110
RCCELERflTION INDEX
120
336
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
175
150
CD
cr
UJ
flC
o
100
75
50
25
0
75
B
M3
MU
M2
100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
337
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
175
X
UJ
a
•— *
i—
CD
UJ
i— «
oc
a
* • ^» I
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
•
-
B
.
M3
M2
M 1 '
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
338
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
175
150
00
CC
UJ
oc
Q
100
75
50
25
B
M3
M2
1
»M1 '
I _ I
1 - 1 - 1 - 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 U50 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
339
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
175
150
CD
CC
UJ
OC
O
100
75
50
25
• B
M3
H2
M4
1
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
340
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE N
175
150
£125
a
100
DO
cc
LU
CC
a
75
50
25
B
M3
M2
MU
_L
J I MU L
J I I L
0 100 200 300 ^400 500 600
50 150 250 350 U50 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
341
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
175
150
CD
C£
UJ
a:
a
100
75
50
25
70
M2
MU
M3
B
Ml
80 90 100 110
RCCELERflTION INDEX
120
342
-------
175
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
X
tu
a
h-
_J
i— i
CD
a:
i.i
LLJ
flC
a
• • ^v
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
•
m
fig
B
Ml
.
•
i
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
343
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
175
150
100
CD
cc
LU
CC
o
50
25
0
75
M2
B
M3
MU
Ml
100
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
125
344
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
175
150
GO
CC
UJ
CC
o
100
75
50
25
B
Ml
J.
J L
J.
J L
_L
1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 U50 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
345
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
CO
cr
LU
oc
o
100
75
50
25
M4
B
Ml
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
346
-------
175
150
S 125
Q
100
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE 0
CO
cr
UJ
QC
a
75
50
25
0
M3
M2
M4
B
Ml
1
J.
J L
1
J L
1
1
J L
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
347
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
175
150
'
100
S 75
CC
txl
oc
a
50
25
70
M3
B
M2
Ml
80 90 100 110
RCCELERflTION INDEX
120
348
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
175
150
£125
Q
100
00
cc
LU
QC
O
75
50
25
75
M3
B
M2
Ml
1
100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
349
-------
GO
CC
GC
a
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
6
M2
Ml
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
350
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
175
150
£125
o
100
CD
CE
LU
CC
75
50
25
B
M2
Ml
1
J L
_L
i.
J.
J L
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
351
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
175
150
100
75
cc
UJ
GC
o
50
25
B
M2
Ml
0 300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
352
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE P
175
150
CO
cr
LU
oc
Q
100
75
50
25
B
M2
1
i.
Ml
J I 1 L
0 100 200 300 UOO 500
50 150 250 350 U50 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
600
353
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
175
150
CO
CE
UJ
oc
D
100
75
50
25
70
Ml
1
_L
80 90 100 110
flCCELERflTION INDEX
120
354
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
175
150
100
S 75
cn
bJ
QC
o
50L
25
0
75
B
M3
M2
Ml
100
125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
355
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
175
150
CO
CE
LU
OC
a
100
75
50
25
0
75
Ml
100
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
125
356
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
175
150 .
2125
Q
100
CD
CL
LU
cc
Q
75
50
25
0
B
M2
Ml
M3
M4
_L
1
1
1
_L
0 100 200 300 400 500
150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
600
50
357
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
175
150 .
S
o
CD
CE
LU
o:
o
100
75
50
25
- B
M2
Ml
M3
M4
_L
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
358
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE Q
175
150
CD
ac
DC
D
100
75
50
25
0
Ml
0 100 200 300 400 500
150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
600
50
359
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
175
150
S 125
Q
100
CD
CC
LU
CC
Q
75
50
25
70
M2B
M3
Ml
-L
1
1
J_
80 90 100 110
RCCELERRTION INDEX
120
360
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
X
UJ
a
L™J
^HHf
>-
I—
»— 1
_J
1— 1
CD
CL
UJ
i— <
cc
a
* • ^^ *
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-
MH
M2 B
M3
Ml
-
i
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
361
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
175
X
LU
D
2
H-
i— «
_J
QD
cr
LU
t— t
cc
Q
«fc • ^^ i
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-
MH
Mi
M3
Ml
i
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
362
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
175
150
CD
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
175
150
S 125
a
100
CD
cr
UJ
or
o
75
50
25
M3
rMl
1
0
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
364
-------
175
150
S125
o
100
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE R
GO
cr
UJ
cc
Q
75
50
25
M4
M3
i
i
Ml
i
i
i
i
i
i
i i
i
0 100 200 300 UOO 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
365
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
175
150
CD
cr
LU
cc
Q
100
75
50
25
70
M2
1
M3
Ml
_L
80 90 100 110
flCCELERflTION INDEX
120
366
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
175
150
00
CL
UJ
100
75
cc
D
50
M3
6
M2
Ml
100
125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
367
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
175
150
S 12S
O
100
CD
CE
UJ
OC
O
75
50
25
M3
M2
B
B
Ml
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
368
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
CD
CE
UJ
oc
Q
100
75
50
25
0
Ml
M3
J.
J_
1
_L
1
_L
J_
J_
_L
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
369
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
X
UJ
Q
>_
i— «
i— i
00
CE
LU
1— 1
cc
o
1
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
-
M3
M4
Ml
.
•
-
i ' i -I
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
370
-------
175
150
£125
0
100
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE S
CD
CE
UJ
Q
75
50
25
M3
4'
Ml
,
i
i
i
i
1 - 1
1
1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
371
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
X
UJ
0
z
>— 1
>-
»
I—*
•— i
_J
»— «
00
cr
UJ
I— 1
cc
0
1
150
125
100
75
50
25
p
M2
M3B
M4
.
. Ml
iiii
70 80 90 100 110 121
RCCELERflTION INDEX
372
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
175
150
S125
o
100
00
CE
UJ
CC
Q
75
50
25
0
Ml
MU
i
M2
75 100
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
125
373
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
175
150
S 12S
o
100
CD
CC
UJ
0=
Q
75
50
25
.Ml
M2
B
M4
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
374
-------
175
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
150
S125
o
100
CO
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
X
ill
Mfc*
0
z
^«4
1— 1
_J
»— 1
CD
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE T
o
z
OQ
cr
UJ
QC
O
100
75
50
25
M2
Ml
M4
_L
J L
Ml
J L
_L
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
377
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
175
150
100
l"~l 75
OQ 'D
DC
a
50
25
M3
B Ml
M2
80 90 100 110
flCCELERRTION INDEX
120
378
-------
175
150
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
CQ
cr
DC
Q
100
75
50
25
M3
Ml B
M2
75 100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
379
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
175
150
2 12S
Q
Z
. 100
CD
en
or
o
75
50
25
M3
MB
M2
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
380
-------
175
150
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
CD
CT
UJ
oc
a
100
75
50
25
M3
MB
M2
1
1
J L
J L
1
J L
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
381
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
175
150
5125
Q
Z
. 100
GO
CE
UJ
DC
O
75
50
25
0
M3
•M2
-H*
i
1
1
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
382
-------
175
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE U
X
LU
a
i— i
i-
i— i
i— i
CD
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
175
X
LU
Q
»— <
X-
h-
»— i
_J
i— i
DO
CE
LU
i— i
cc
Q
* 1 >^ i
150
125
100
75
50
25
o
M3
M2
B
Ml
_
_
-
i i i i
70 80 90 100 110 12(
flCCELERflTION INDEX
384
-------
175
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
X
LU
a
z
^^
^^^
1-
1— «
1— «
CD
cr
LU
1— <
cc
a
* • ^** 1
150
125
100
75
50
25
o
M3
M2
B
Ml
—
—
-
i
75 100 121
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
385
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
175
00
-------
RELRTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
175
150
a
z
00
(X
LU
oc
Q
100
75
50
25
M3
M2
B
Ml
MU
0 100 200 300 UOO 500 600
50 150 250 350 U50 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
387
-------
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
CD
cr
UJ
cc
a
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
- B
M3
M2
Ml
_L
300 600 900 1200 1500
CO EMISSION INDEX
388
-------
175
150
£125
a
100
RELflTIVE RESULTS FROM VEHICLE V
CD
CE
LU
cc
a
75
50
25
0
M3
M2
M4
B
Ml
_L
I
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
389
-------
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - EGR DISCONNECTED
2
o
1— 1
1—4
_J
»— 1
CD
CE
UJ
>
Q
1
150
125
100
75
50
25
n
D
B
I
J
E
P H
^R
. T
1 I 1 M 1
70 80 90 100 110 121
RCCELERflTION INDEX
390
-------
175
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - EGR DISCONNECTED
X
UJ
o
1-1
£
,-,
.J
i— i
CD
CE
UJ
>
t—t
CC
Q
•• v ^w
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
D
I
J B
C G
—
Q K"
E
P H
c ° M
R F
T
M 1
75 100 12!
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
391
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - EGR DISCONNECTED
175
X
UJ
Q
»— «
>-
»
n^
»— i
_l
I— i
CD
K-«
or
Q
^^ i
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
»
D
I
J B
C G
Q KP
P ' H
OM
R F
. T
N '
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
392
-------
175
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - EGR DISCONNECTED
X
UJ
o
z
»— 1
>-
»— 1
1— 1
CO
d
UJ
1— 1
QC
Q
• V '^v
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
D
-
JB
C G
fa E
HP
R*
T
1 1 M 1 1 I I 1 1 1 1 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 U50 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
393
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - EGR DISCONNECTED
x
Lul
O
»— t
L_^_
r^
»— i
j
I. i
i— i
CD
cr
LU
cr:
0
1 f J
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
D
I
- 5
cc
-t
ft
-^
.T
^1 I 1 1 I
0
300 600 900 1200 1500
CO EMISSION INDEX
394
-------
175
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - EGR DISCONNECTED
X
UJ
Q
z
l-l
CD
CC
UJ
CC
Q
* • ^* •
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
D
I
D 1
C G
Q R K
P H
R F R
T
, , i I 1 HI J \ 1 1 1
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 U50 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
395
-------
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - RICH IDLE
CO
cc
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
70
p X
K
FRG
N
i
_L
80 90 100 110
RCCELERRTION INDEX
120
396
-------
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - RICH IDLE
175
150
a
•z.
CD
cr
UJ
100
75
50
25
0
75
D
§
K
R
J
N
M
S
Q
100
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
125
397
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH IDLE
175
150
oo
a:
UJ
ai
o
100
75
50
25
0
P N V
Q
K
R
N
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
398
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH IDLE
X
UJ
a
z
£
_i
CO
CC
UJ
I—I
CC
a
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
MV P
D
u s
T Q B
K
C"
1% 1
R
J
.
N
•
i i i i t i
0 100 200 300 400 500
150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
600
50
399
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH IDLE
175
150
S 125
o
z
. 100
QQ
cc
UJ
oc
Q
75
50
25
u °
T Q B
R
K
G
N
0
i
I
300 600 900 1200 1500
CO EMISSION INDEX
400
-------
175
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH IDLE
X
UJ
0
z
1— 1
t-
1— 1
_J
»— 1
CD
CE
UJ
i— •
QC
O
* « ^* *
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
P V
M
n
$
1*
K
. ER
J
-
N
-
i i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 '
0 100 200 300 400 500
150 250 350 U50 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
600
50
401
-------
175
150
2 125
D
100
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH CHOKE
CD
CE
LU
QC
a
75
50
25
0
70
H
M fl
80 90 100 110
RCCELERflTION INDEX
120
402
-------
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - RICH CHOKE
175
150
GO
d
LU
QC
Q
100
75
50
25
0
75
R
H
fl M
100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
403
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH CHOKE
175
150
x 125
LU
a
100
CO
a:
LU
QC
a
75
50
25
0
R
H
MR
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
404
-------
Q
CD
CE
LU
oc
Q
175
150
125
100
75
50
25 .
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH CHOKE
0
R
J I
0 100 200 300 UOO 500 600
50 150 250 350 1450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
405
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH CHOKE
175
150
x 125
LU
O
100
CO
cr
LU
cc
o
75
50
25
0
R
1
J_
0
300 600 900 1200 1500
CO EMISSION INDEX
406
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - RICH CHOKE
175
150
S125
o
100
03
CE
LU
CC
O
75
50
25
0
R
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
407
-------
NORMALIZED RESULTS - SPflRK TIMING
I/O
150
5 125
0
i— <
^ 100
^-
1—4
1
— J
1-1 75
(D
cr
LU
2 50
O
25
0
7
V
0
S
P
J
K
_
i i i _i
0 80 90 100 110 121
RCCELERflTION INDEX
408
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - SPflRK TIMING
175
150
0
00
cr
UJ
GC
0
100
75
50
25
0
75
0
S
K
100 125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
409
-------
175
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - SPflRK TIMING
X
LU
Q
2
t— <
>-
H-
i— i
_l
•— 1
QQ
d
LU
>
»— i
OC
Q
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
V
-
0
s
p
J
K
i
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
410
-------
00
en
LU
QC
CD
175
150
125
100
75
50
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - SPflRK TIMING
0
J
K
.L
-L
i.
J L
J_
1
0 100 200 300 «400 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
411
-------
175
150
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - SPflRK TIMING
2
Q
CD
(X
LU
oc
o
100
75
50
25
0
0
S
P
J
K
0
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
412
-------
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - SPflRK TIMING
175
150
OQ
CE
UJ
or
Q
100
75
50
25
0
0
J
K
J
L
1
i.
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
50 150 250 350 H50 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
413
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - IDLE RPM
X
LU
0
Z
| — ^
h-
i— «
1
»— i
DO
CC
LU
i— i
oc
O
i 1 W i
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
E
fl Q
H
-
i i i I ...
70
80 90 100 110
RCCELERRTION INDEX
120
414
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - IDLE RPM
GO
(X
UJ
175
150
125
100
75
DC
O
50
0 L
75
H
100
125
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
415
-------
175
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - IDLE RPM
150
x 125
Q
Z
^ 100
»—
1— «
1
*"• 75
QQ '°
CC
LU
S 50
Q
0
7.
—
E
Qfl
-
H
i
5 100 12!
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
416
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - IDLE RPM
175
QQ
CC
LU
CC
Q
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
R
Q
H
I I
0 100 200 300 1400 500
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
600
417
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - IDLE RPM
175
150 .
CD
cc
LU
QC
0
100
75
50
25
0
fl
Q
H
0
1
_L
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
418
-------
175
150
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - IDLE RPM
CD
CC
LU
CC
D
100
75
50
25
0
H
_L
_L
1
0 100 200 300 100 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
419
-------
NORMflLIZEO RESULTS - MULTIPLE MflL.
o
GQ
CE
UJ
or
D
175
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
70
B R
M
K Q
H R
N
i.
80 90 10"0 110
RCCELERRTION INDEX
120
420
-------
175
NORMfiLIZED RESULTS - MULTIPLE MflL.
X
D
Z
i^j
^^^
>-
I—
i — i
_J
»— i
CD
CC
LU
>
»— *
CC
o
150
125
100
75
50
25
o
P
B R
5 M
K Q
TF J c
-
H fl
E
_
I
N
.. i
75 100 12!
FTP FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
421
-------
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - MULTIPLE MflL.
175
150
GO
cr
LU
CC
D
100
75
50
25
B
D
R
K Q
H
R
N
100
75 100 125
HFET FUEL CONSUMPTION INDEX
422
-------
175
NORMRLIZED RESULTS - MULTIPLE MflL.
X
UJ
Q
z
"
1—
»— «
_J
OD
CH
UJ
>"
H— 1
flC
a
150
125
100
75
50
25
0
P
»
R B
. M ° ° S V
0 K
T-J p C
fl H
E
»
I
N
i i. i i i i i i i i i
0 100 200 300 tiOO 500 600
50 150 250 350 450 550
HC EMISSION INDEX
423
-------
NORMflLIZED RESULTS - MULTIPLE MflL.
i 1 %J 1
150
0
2
^ 100
I—
1— <
_J
l~* 7S
QQ '°
cc
UJ
*"" 50
oc ^ u
o
25
0
P
R
* ° s v
KO
4 F C
,,
fl P
»
I
" N
1 1 ._! 1
300 600 900 1200
CO EMISSION INDEX
1500
424
-------
NORMRLJZED RESULTS - MULTIPLE MflL,
175
150
D
•z.
OD
cr
oc
o
100
75
50
0
M
*
N
0
J.
1
_L
J L
J L
1
_L
J L
0 1DO 200 300 400 500
150 250 350 450 550
NOX EMISSION INDEX
600
50
425
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read fnstructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO. 2.
EPA-460/3-78-012
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Light Duty Vehicle Driveability Investigation
7. AUTHOR(S)
H. A. Toulmin, Jr.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Suntech, Inc.
P.O. Box 1135
Marcus Hook, PA 19061
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
5. REPORT DATE
December, 1978
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2607
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report describes the results of an automobile driveability, emission, fuel
economy and performance testing program conducted for the U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency. A total of twenty-two 1977 and 1978 model vehicles were subjected to a
series of tests when adjusted to the manufacturers' recommended settings and when
adjusted to simulate maladjustments found on in-use vehicles in an earlier EPA
Restorative Maintenance Evaluation Project. The CRC driveability tests were per-
formed on a weather controlled large roll chassis dynamometer at 16°C and the
emissions and fuel economy tests were conducted according to the 1975 Federal Test
Procedure, except that evaporative emissions tests were not conducted.
17. KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
a. DESCRIPTORS
Driveability
Exhaust Emissions
Fuel Economy
Acceleration Performance
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Unlimited
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Light Duty Vehicles
1975 FTP Emission Tests
Driveability Tests
Performance Tests
19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report^
2O. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
c, COSATI Field/Group
i
21. NO. OF PAGES
42 S _
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (Rev. 4-77) PREVIOUS EDITION is OBSOLETE
------- |