M ANUF ACTUR ABILITY
AND COSTS OF
PROPOSED LOW-EMISSIONS
AUTOMOTIVE
ENGINE SYSTEMS
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Office of Air and Wasle Management
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
CONSULTANT REPORT TO THE:
Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions
Commission on Soeioteehnical Systems
National Research Council
SEPTEMBER 1974
-------
CONSULTANT REPORT
to the
Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions
Commission on Sociotechnical Systems
National Research Council
on
manufacturability and COSTS OF PROPOSED LOW-EMISSIONS
AUTOMOTIVE ENGINE SYSTEMS
PREPARED BY:
LeRoy H. Lindgren, Chairman
Merrill Ebner, Consultant Editor
Hayward A. Gay
William A. Johnson
James Kittrell
Carl R. Maxwell
Washington, D.C.
November 1974
-------
NOTICE
This consultant report was prepared by a Panel of Consultants
at the request of the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions of the Na-
tional Academy of Sciences. Any opinions or conclusions in this con-
sultant report are those of the Panel members and do not necessarily
reflect those of the Committee or of the National Academy of Sciences.
This consultant report has not gone through the Academy review
procedure. A preliminary version was reviewed by the Committee on
Motor Vehicle Emissions to determine its suitability as a partial basis
for the report by the Committee. The final version was received too
late to be reviewed again before making it available in this published
form.
The findings of the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions, based
in part upon material in this consultant report but not solely depen-
dent upon it, are found only in the Report by the Committee on Motor
Vehicle Emissions of November 1974.
ii
-------
PREFACE
The National Academy of Sciences, through its Committee on Motor
Vehicle Emissions (CMVE), initiated a study of automobile emissions-
control technologies at the request of the United States Congress and
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in October 1973. To help
carry out its work, the CMVE engaged panels of consultants to collect
information and to prepare consultant reports on various facets of mo-
tor vehicle emissions control. This Consultant Report on Manufactur-
ability and Costs of Proposed Low-Emissions Automotive Engine Systems
is one of five consultant reports prepared and submitted to the Commit-
tee in connection with the Report by the Committee on Motor Vehicle
Emissions of November 1974. The other consultant reports are:
An Evaluation of Catalytic Converters for
Control of Automobile Exhaust Pollutants,
September 1974
Emissions and Fuel Economy Test Methods and
Procedures, September 1974
Emissions Control of Engine Systems,
September 1974
Field Performance of Emissions-Controlled
Automobiles, November 1974
These five consultant reports are NOT reports of the National Academy
of Sciences or its Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions. They have
been developed for the purpose of providing a partial basis for the
report by the Committee as described more fully in the cover NOTICE.
iii
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The Panel of Consultants would like to thank the following
individuals for their significant contributions to this consultant
report:
Donald N. Dewees -- for analyzing the Panel of Consultants'
data discussed in Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this consultant report;
Glenn Bresnahan, Gene Goldstein, James Ritteman and Wahid Sheik,
Boston University graduate students -- for assisting in the
computerization of the calculations used in Appendices F, G, K,
M and N;
Bette Bholkej Leslie Coleman and Claudia Chalitour -- for
typing the final draft.
Staff members of the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions were
also of valuable assistance in the overall preparation of this report.
A special thanks to:
Emerson W. Pugh -- for his many contributions as Executive
Director of the Committee;
Earl W. Evans -- for his technical assistance;
Kay Harris and Patricia McDevitt -- for their editorial work
and supervision of the final typing of the manuscript;
Anne Brown -- for assistance in typing the final manuscript
and for distribution of the report.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
1. Introduction 1
2. Industry Activity Through 1974 3
3. Vehicle Configurations Considered 10
4. Scenarios Considered 16
5. Single-Car Comparisons and Yearly Costs
for Various Scenarios 32
6. Investment Costs for Various Scenarios 61
7. Development, Tooling, and Manufacturing
Constraints 72
8. Comments on Alternative Industry Strategies 84
9. Summary of Findings 88
APPENDICES
A. Schedule of the Panel of Consultants on
Manufacturability and Costs 93
B. Summary of Industry Answers to
Panel of Consultants Questionnaire 98
C. Vehicle Structure in the Configuration File 102
D. Tooling Constraints in the Automotive Industry 111
E. Manufacturing Assessment of
Alternative-Engine Technologies 132
F. Assumptions for Scenarios and
Detailed Time-Phased Plans 154
G. Methodology for Summarizing Yearly
Operating Costs 200
H. Automotive Fuel Cost and Availability 206
I. Vehicle Fuel-Economy Data 222
v
-------
J. Vehicle Maintenance Data 230
K. Sticker List Price Data 235
L. Methodology for Calculating Investment
Costs for Alternate Scenarios 243
M„ Summary of Investment Cost Data 251
N. Summary of Yearly Vehicle Operating Costs 295
vi
-------
TABLES
Table Title Page
2-1 Emissions-related Investments by U.S.
Automobile Companies . 5
3-1 Definition of the Seven Vehicle Sizes in
Each Vehicle Class 11
3-2 Vehicle Classes Available in the Current Study 13
4-1 Projected New-Car Sales in the United States,
1970-1985 17
4-2 Percentage of Annual Domestic Production for
Domestic Sales by Vehicle Size: Normal Scenario .... 19
4-3 Percentage of Imported Cars 21
4-4 Percentage a£ Annual Production for Domestic
Sales by Vehicle Size: Small-Car Pattern 22
4-5 Emissions Standards for Scenarios 27
4-6 Timing of Standards in Scenarios 28
5-1 Single-Car Costs of Standards on Schedule 33
5-2 Costs of Standards on Schedule, Other Studies 35
5-3 Single-Car Costs of Various Standards in 1980-85 .... 39
5-4 Single-Car Costs of Delaying Standards 42
5-5 Total Scenario Cost of Various Standards,
Scenarios A-3, J . . 44
5-6 1985 Scenario Costs of Various Standards,
Scenarios A-E, J .... 47
5-7 Scenario Savings From Delaying Standards,
Scenarios 1, J, K 49
5-8 Single-Car Costs of Alternative Technologies . 52
5-9 Scenario Costs of Alternative Technologies,
Scenarios ESC, ED, EW 55
vii
-------
5-10 Study of Reduction in Emissions-Control Costs
for Small Cars 59
5-11 Scenarios Costs of Small-Car Strategy,
Scenarios C, J 60
6-1 Comparison cf Scenario Investment Costs per Car
for the Dominant Technology To Meet Progressive
Standards 63
6-2 Comparison of Scenario Investment Costs per
Car for a Conventional Engine, Dual-Catalyst,
(All Vehicles are Intermediate-A Cars Which Meet
the US78 Emissions Standards.) 64
6-3 Comparison of the Investment Costs per Vehicle
for Alternative Technologies To Meet the T277
Standard (1.0 g/tni NO ) 66
6-4 Comparison of Scenario Investments Costs per Car
for Wankel Vehicles to Two Different Emissions
Standards ..... 68
6-5 Yearly Investment in New Manufacturing Facilities
for Scenarios E, Fl, J, and JSV (Incremental In-
vestment Over Scenario A) 69
6-6 Yearly Investment in New Manufacturing Facilities
for Alternative Technologies To Meet 177 Standards ... 71
7-1 Effect of Shift to Small Vehicles and Progressive
Emissions Standards on Srles by U.S. Dealers of
Domestic Production 73
7-2 Estimated Capacity of the U.S. Automotive Tooling
Industry in 1974 78
7-3 Emissions-Related Investment by the U.S.
Automotive Industry 1970-1974 79
7-4 Combinations of Engine Technologies and
Standards Studied 80
7-5 Annual Investment Costs of Meeting Various
Emissions Standards Under the Assumption of Table 7-4 , 82
8-1 Effect of Shift to Small Vehicles and Progressive
Emissions Standards on Sales by U.S. Dealers of
Domestic Production 85
viii
-------
BL Emission Systems Sticker Price Increases Over
1974 Carbureted Piston Engine Vehicles with
Gatalyst Subsystems 101
Cl Engine Classification System 107
C2 Detailed Scheme for Defining CMVE Car Classes. . . , 108
C3 Details of the Significant Part Numbering System . . 109
Dl Survey of the Automotive Tooling Industry 120
D2 Estimated Capacity of the U.S. Automotive Tooling
Industry in 1974 in Millions of Dollars 121
D3 Comparative Costs of Metal-Cutting Transfer Lines
to Make Various Types of Car 126
El Typical Component Sticker Price Used in Developing
Vehicle Costs 142
E2 Impact of a Conversion of a Conventional 1974
Engine Complex to Various Alternative Engine
Systems 152
E3 Impact of Conversion of a Conventional 1974 Engine
Complex to a Wankel Engine 153
Fl List of Scenarios for This Study 155
F2 Comparison of Car Shipments, Sales, and Registrations
for 1970-1973 157
F3 New Car Sales by Franchised Dealers 159
F4 Comparison of the Product-Mix Matrix for the Normal
and Small-Car Patterns 160
F5 Projected 1975 Model Year Sales by Configuration
Class. 162
Gl Total Vehicles-in-Use and Pre-1970 Cars Remaining
as Used in All Cost Summary Calculations 20L
G2 Typical Aging Factor 203
II Fuel Economy (mpg) by Car Class and Size 224
ix
-------
Jl Summary of Fuel and Emissions-Related Mainten- .ce
Data 232
J2 Cost to Replace All Catalytic Converters in Each
Car Having Them 234
K1 Comparison of Industry and Panel of Consultants on
M/C Vehicle Costing for Vehicle 9 (a 1971-72 subcom-
pact) in Scenario B 241
K2 Nominal Selling Prices (in dollars) by Car Size
Developed by the Panel of Consultants on M/C. . . . 242
Ml Summary of Investment Costs by Vehicle for the
Various Scenarios 252
M2 Summary of Investment Costs by Year for the Various
Scenarios 291
Nl Abbreviations Used in the Cost Summary Output
Reports 296
x
-------
FIGURES
Figure Title Page
5-1 Marginal Costs of Achieving Standards on
Schedule for a Single Car 37
CI Standard Pattern of Disaggregation Used in
Creating the Product Data Base 104
D1 Production Flow in Automotive Manufacturing. . 112
El Typical EFI System 140
E2 Engine Displacement (CID) as a Function of
Car Weight for 1973 Model Year, U.S. Produced
Cars 146
E3 Comparative Performance of U.S. Produced, 1973
Gasoline Engines and Three Imported Gasoline
Engines 147
II CMVE Smoothed Fuel Consumption for Early 1970's
Baseline Car by Inertial Weight 223
Kl Cost Structure in Automotive Manufacturing . . 236
K2 Relationship of Markup Factor to Manufacturing
Cost 240
LI Schematic of the Procedure for Calculating
Investment Costs 244
xi
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The broad task of the Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability
and Costs was to assess the capability of the U.S. automotive industry
to produce a variety of alternative emissions technology and to compare
the associated fuel, maintenance, sticker price and investment-cost
penalties to the driving public. More specifically, the task was:
Evaluate the manufacturing requirements to produce the
configurations for optimum fuel economy for various
levels of NO as determined by the Panel of Consultants
X
on Technology.
Develop various implementation schedules for preproduction
and mass production as agreed upon with the Panel of Con-
sultants on Technology and determine the cost impacts on
automotive manufacturing facilities, fuel facilities, and
related vendor resources.
Determine the costs to car owners for the various configu-
rations considering benefit and penalty costs as well as
hardware, maintenance, fuel and design or weight penalty
cos ts.
Determine the investment capital costs of tooling, equip-
ment and facilities and amortize these over the production
schedules.
The basic data on which this consultant report is built were
gathered from several sources:
1. Visits by the Panel of Consultants to manufacturing
plants (Appendix A).
2. A questionnaire sent by the Panel of Consultants to
the four major U.S. automotive companies (Appendix B).
3. Data and evaluation obtained from the Panel of Con-
sultants on Technology in this study (Appendices C,I,J).
1
-------
4. Data on the projected cost of gasoline and diesel
fuel from a special Subpanel of Consultants on Fuels
(Appendix H).
5. Assessment of manufacturing technology and capability
by individuals on the Panel of Consultants on Manu-
facturability and Costs (Appendices D,E).
6. Results, using data from the prior five sources, from
the Panel of Consultant's own calculations (Appendices
F,G,K,L,M,N).
In the course of this work, a very large amount of data was col-
lected and analyzed. Consequently, a special effort has been made in
the presentation of this consultant report to provide as much of this
data as space permitted in the Appendices for direct use by the Commit-
tee on Motor Vehicle Emissions''" and future investigators. Some of the
more compelling implications of the data are then discussed in brief
in the main body of this consultant report.
This same data has also been made available to Professor Donald N.
Dewees of the Committee on the Costs and Benefits of Automobile
Emission Control, NAS/NAE (hereinafter called the "CBC Report").
2
-------
2. INDUSTRY ACTIVITY THROUGH 1974
The U.S. automobile industry has moved ahead on many fronts
since the time of the report''' of our antecedent Panel of Consultants
in January 1973. Therefore, the present study had to be formulated
to evaluate the activity during the periods July 1972 to July 1973 as
a basis for projecting future automotive manufacturability and costs.
In this section we shall describe the basic working design for the
Panel of Consultants and what was learned regarding industry activity
2
through September 1974.
The basic design for the Panel of Consultant's work in this
study was as follows:
Data Gathering and Manufacturing Assessments
o Assessment of capability of the machine-
tool industry to make transfer-line
equipment;
o Assessment of the capability of U.S. industry
to manufacture alternative engines.
Systematic Analysis of Costs
o Definition of relevant vehicle configurations;
o Construction of detailed data bases for
components and manufacturing resources;
o Establishment of alternative patterns of
standards of interest to the Committee;
o Projection of total yearly car sales and
product mix by car size;
o Development of detailed time-phased pro-
duction plans (scenarios);
o Simulation of automobile industry use and
shift of resources, including production
balancing and plant conversion;
Manufacturability and Costs of Proposed Low Emission Automotive
Engine Systems , Report by the Panel on Manufacturing and Produci-
bility to the Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions, National Academy
of Sciences, January 1973.
This section of the consultant report was completed in September and
not revised, whereas, other portions were completed in November 1974.
3
-------
o Calculation of total cost to owner of all
vehicles in use, including fuel, emissions-
related maintenance, and sticker-price costs.
The overview results of the Panel of Consultant's work are pre-
sented in the main body of this Consultant report and the supporting
detail is contained in the Appendices.
The automobile companies have made numerous changes to the
engines and vehicles since 1970 in response to the requirements of the
Clean Air Act amendments. These changes, mostly to the engines, have
created the need for major investments in development engineering and
also in equipment, manufacturing engineering and facilities. The Panel
of Consultants has summarized the major manufacturing investments
between 1970 and 1975 by major component in Table 2-1. The estimated
expenditures by the automobile companies in the United States for the
years 1970 through 1974 for emissions-related and fuel-economy-related
improvements are approximately $654 million, of which the Panel of
Consultants estimates that $452 million, or about 70%, is tooling and
equipment, and the balance, launching and facilities costs.
The anticipated investment cost for 1975-1985 will be estimated
later for alternative hypothetical scenarios.
The catalytic-converter-manufacturing facilities, typical of the
emissions-related investments up to 1975, are among the most modern
mass-production facilities for metal fabrication components in the
United States. Once the decision was made to produce pellet-type
converters, a new facility was built and new tooling and equipment were
provided within 18 months. The product development had been completed
between 1973 and 1974, so the whole process took about three to four
years. The investment totalled $150,000,000 for launching, equipment
and facilities for a facility with the capacity to produce 6,500,000
4
-------
TABLE 2-1
Emissions-Related Investments by
U.S. Automobile Companies
TOTAL
YEAR OF
INVESTMENT
COMPONENTS
INVESTMENT
(Thousands of
PCV Valve
1968/1970
3,300
Fuel Evaporation Control
1970/1974
2,300
Transmission Spark Control
1972
1,700
Air Pump
1973
50,000
1974
35,000
Air Injection Controls
1973
5,000
1974
5,000
Air Injection Piping
1973
1,100
EGR Valves
1974
3,300
PEGR Valves
1974
4,900
Exhaust Manifolds
1973/1974
12,800
Intake Manifolds
1973/1975
34,500
Coolant Radiator
1972/1973
9,000
Anti-dieseling Solenoid
1973/1975
7,300
Carburetor
1974
12,000
Aluminum Die Casting
1974
5,300
Electric Choke
1974
3,300
Altitude Compensation
1976
31,500
High Energy Ignition
1975/1976
30,000
Carburetor - Venturi
3974/1975
50,000
Aluminum Die Casting
1974/1975
9,500
Venturi Components
1974/1975
7,000
Carburetor - IFC Air Valve
1974/1975
40,000
Aluminum Die Casting
1974/1975
9,500
IFC Components
1974/1975
4,000
Pellet Catalytic Converters
1974
16,000
Pellet Can
1974
123,000
Pellets
1974
10,800
Alloy Y Piping
1974
2,800
Monolith Converter
1973/1974
73,000
Monolith Can
1973/1974
11,000
Monolith Substrate
1973/1974
22,000
Monolith Catalysts
1973/1974
8,500
Alloy Y Piping
1973/1974
2,800
Lean Thermal Reactor
1975/1976
6,800
654.000
TOTAL
Total Investment includes engineering and launching costs, equipment
and tooling costs, and facilities costs.
5
-------
catalytic converters. Using a three-year period for investment recovery,
the added investment cost per converter is about $8.00.
The major companies are also making major investments in new,
small engines by bringing in engines of European design from their
overseas divisions. The tooling and transfer lines have been ordered
from U.S. tooling companies totaling $33 million. Not all of these are
complete engine lines. In some cases, current lines will be converted,
and in other cases new head manifold lines will be introduced to run in
parallel with the current engine production lines. The current estimate
is that 8 to 10 new engine lines have been ordered for model years 1976
and 1977 production of smaller vehicles to achieve better fuel per-
formance and lower emissions. The addition of 10 new engine lines would
increase the number existent from 30 to 40. In some cases, new tooling
is being provided for aluminum manifolds (4.76 lbs each), saving
15 pounds per engine for a 1.3 liter, 4-cylinder engine.
2
The summary of planned new engine production is:
Two V-6 engines are being introduced in 1976 and 1977
for compact and intermediate cars. The Panel of Con-
sultants has not included this engine in the scenarios
but it has included it in the data base.
Several 4-cylinder engines ranging from 104 CID to
150 CID are being tooled for 1977 production. These
engines have reputations of being economical engines.
These engines are planned for mini-compact, compact
and subcompact cars.
Two V-8 engines with displacements of approximately 262
CID have been evolved from heavier designs to provide
lighter engines for intermediate and standard cars.
2
This synopsis was collected primarily from Metal Working News,
June to October 1974.
6
-------
The Wankel rotary engine has been tooled for limited
production of about 250,000 engines per year. The manu-
facturing and design engineers are debugging the design
and the manufacturing processes. Automated assembly
and testing have been included in the Wankel tooling.
The vendors for seals are still offering test components
to improve the fuel economy components to improve the
fuel economy of the Wankel engine. One company has
eliminated the thermal reactor to reduce the back pressure
and power loss. It has replaced it with a pellet con-
verter to gain fuel economy and emissions control.
There is no evidence that a light automotive diesel will
be in production in the U.S. in the .\ext two years.
Some evidence exists that suggests that stratified-charge
engines may be in production in the next two or three
years. The conversion can be made rapidly by using the
slightly modified current components and adding new
head designs onto existing transfer lines.
Son\p advanced planning has been done on electronic-fuel-
injection systems, but only tentative mass-production
commitments have been made at this time.
The 1975-76 expenditures for emissions and fuel-economy tooling
will probably be concentrated on fuel-economy engines and weight re-
duction for which the companies have ordered tooling and equipment
tooling of $33 million, exclusive of $93 million in launching and
facilities costs.
In an economic environment which is changing rapidly, such as
that in which the auto industry currently finds itself, it is natural
to establish operational priorities. Informal discussions with industry
representatives suggest that the emphasis currently runs in the following
order: (1) fuel economy improvements, (2) emissions, (3) safety, and
(4) cost reductions. Because of these interactions and priorities, it
is clear that the Panel of Consultants must consider what is happening
and what is possible in emissions work in the context of other concurrent
activities, particularly the energy crisis.
7
-------
It is the energy crisis of 1973-1974 which has forcefully raised
fuel economy to first priority. The effect has been a marked drop in
total sales in 1974 (estimated here as 11% overall), a shift to smaller
cars, and consideration of fuel-conserving changes to the vehicle.
These latter changes, including radial tires, reduced weight and drag,
and fuel-conserving transmissions and axle ratios, when combined, have
the potential for 257, to 407, improvement in fuel economy over 1973 cars.
These changes, which are not included in the fuel-economy estimate of
the present study, could be accelerated when the report of the 120-day
EPA/DOT study authorized under the Emergency Energy Bill of 1974 is
completed in October 1974. The industry has anticipated these changes
to some extent as follows:
The percentage of new cars fitted with radial tires as
standard equipment will approach 907, in 1975 and 100%
in 1976. The reduction in rolling friction generates a
fuel-economy improvement varying between 3.07o and 4.07<>
depending upon vehicle sizes.
The drive systems will be improved to reduce driving
loads, thereby improving fuel economy and emissions.
Most cars will be equipped with "economy" rear-axle
ratios. Overdrive is expected to return as optional
equipment. In the case of at least one domestic model,
it will appear in the form of a fifth gear in a manual
transmission. It will also surface as the fourth gear
in an automatic transmission. It has been proposed that
a 'lock-up mechanism" be provided in automatic transmis-
sions to reduce slip and thereby reduce fuel usage.
Some experts project between 0.5 to 1.0 miles per gallon
improvement in fuel-economy performance.
The vehicle-design improvements that will contribute to
improved fuel economy and lower emissions are unitized
body designs eliminating the heavy frames, use of
aluminum components for hood levers, door liners and
trunk components, and use of plastic components for the
grill and energy-absorbing bumper systems. These changes
can reduce the total vehicle weight between 300 to 500
pounds without a new vehicle concept design. The in-
vestments to achieve these improvements could total
8
-------
$55,000,000 for the body component changes and $147,000,000
for the new bumper savings. These changes could add 2.0
to 3.0 miles per gallon to fuel usage performance.
As the tasks of the Panel of Consultants were defined, such
changes for achieving fuel-economy savings are outside of its scope of
work. They must be taken note of here initially, however, to reflect
properly the rapidly changing environment which characterizes the in-
dustry after the energy crisis.
9
-------
3. VEHICLE CONFIGURATIONS CONSIDERED1
For every emissions standard considered in this study, one or
i >re sets of emissions technology are expected to meet that standard.
I ach technology configuration or system which meets a specified
f= candard constitutes a vehicle class. Within a vehicle class there are
seven vehicle sizes. These range from a mini-compact through five
intervening cars, up to a luxury car. The size definition of these
s..'ven sizes is unchanged for all classes, although the technology used
in building cars of each size varies. See Table 3-1 for definitions
o, the seven sizes.
All sizes of vehicles in a given class will have essentially
the same hardware, but will differ in list price, fuel consumption, and
maintenance cost. Thus, a single vehicle configuration is uniquely
determined by its hardware, its maintenance cost, fuel use, and emissions
standard. Adding or deleting even one emissions-control part requires
creation of a new vehicle class. Similarly, retuning an engine to meet
two different standards (with different fuel economy) would require
c.Jo classes, even if the hardware were identical. Thus, half a dozen
vehicle classes may be defined to meet a single emissions standard, so
that alternate technologies must be compared. The total number of
vehicle configurations will be seven times the number of vehicle classes,
to allow for the seven sizes.
It is clear that specifying vehicle configurations requires
detailed knowledge of how standards will or could be met. We have,
of course, such information for all standards applied through 1974
from observing what has been manufactured. In addition, the designs for
I
The text for Sections 3, 4 and 5 of this report is adapted from an
analysis of the Panel of Consultants data presented by Prof. Donald
fJ. Dewees as Chapter 2 of the September 1974 CBC report.
10
-------
TABLE 3-1
Definition of the Seven Vehicle
Sizes in Each Vehicle Class
Type
Cylinders
Engine Displacement
(CID)
Current Example
I.
Mini-Compact'''
4
90
Honda Civic
2.
Subcompact
4
153
Vega
3.
Compact
6
250
Dart
4.
Intermediate A
6
290
Torino
5.
Intermediate B
8
350
Chevelle
6.
Standard
8
400
Fury
7.
Luxury
8
450
Buick Electra
There is currently no domestic mini-compact. Two examples of
foreign mini-compacts are the Honda Civic and the Austin Mini.
11
-------
1975 cars are committed at this time so that they can be known with
some certainty. Even 1976 models can be anticipated with great
accuracy at this time, since the production planning lead time for
components is over one year. We can, therefore, specify the hardware
to be incorporated in 1976 cars with a high degree of reliability, based
upon interviews with manufacturers, suppliers, and the machine tool
industry which produces the equipment that will manufacture the hard-
ware itself.
At this time, it is unclear what standards will be applied in
1977 and later years, since the current legislation for 1977 may be
modified in some respect. For 1977 and future years, we have made the
best possible estimates of hardware to be employed by manufacturers
based upon current technological capabilities and the stated intention
of the manufacturers themselves. While we have reasonable confidence
in our 1977 configurations, our confidence must necessarily diminish
in later years. It is very difficult to anticipate with precision what
technology may emerge in the late 1970's and early 1980's and when that
technology might be employed. We have, therefore, taken the conservative
approach of evaluating the systems most likely to be employed, and some
which are less probable but show promise of good cost effectiveness.
It is important to state explicitly, however, that while we do estimate
the cost effectiveness of systems which have the potential of meeting
the U.S. 1978 standards, to our knowledge none of these systems has
yet met this standard for 50,000 miles.
The vehicle classes available in the present study are listed
on Table 3-2. In total there are 31 classes, each with 7 vehicles of
different size for a total of 217 vehicles. More vehicles are listed
in Table 3-2 than were actually used in the scenarios to be described
later, simply because the possibility existed to the very last moment
that a wider selection of vehicles might be needed. Each vehicle is
-------
TABLE 3-2
Vehicle Classes Available in the Current Study
Class
No. *
Vehicle Description**
Statute
Emissions
HC CO NOjj
CVS-CH Equivalent
Emissions***
85 OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
99 OC EFI/ECU PEGR/HCAT
113 OC/SC EFI/ECU PEGR
169 W STD/CARB TR/AI
176 W AV/CARB IFC/HCAT
190 D/DC MFI
204 OC/MFI ECU/EGR/HCAT
211 OC/SC MFI/HCAT
134 OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02
155 OC/SC/MFI EGR/HCAT
197 D/EC MFI/EGR
218 OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNCAT
225 OC/SC VEN/CARB PEGR/TR
232 W AV/CARB IFC/02/HNGCAT
64 OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HNCAT/EFE
71 OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT
78 OC VEN/CARB Al/PEGR/TR/QTR/NCAT
92 OC/SC VVEN/CARB PEGR/TR
127 OC AV/CARB ECU/02/AI/PEGR/ HNCCAT
141 OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCA-FC2
148 OC/MFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02
11 II
II 11
II >1
II H
11 II
fl II
II II
II II
0.41 3.4 1.0
0.41 3.4 0.4
STD
22
OC
STD/CARB
2.2
23.0
NR
F70
1
OC
STD/CARB
3.4
39.0
NR
F72
8
0C
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
3.4
39.0
3.0
F73-
15
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
It
11
ip
n
29
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
1.5
15.0
3.1
F75
36
0C
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
11
fl
11
ii
43
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR/HCAT
0.9
9.0
2.0
C75
106
OC
EFI/ECU
PEGR/C2
1 1
II
1 f
H
50
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE
0.41
3.4
2.0
177
57
0C
VEN/CARB
PEGR/TR/EGR
II
it
II
m
None
578
HC
CO
N2x
3-9
33.3
6.0
3.0
28.0
5.0
3,0
n
28.0
it
3.1
II
1.5
n
15.0
II
3.1
II
0,9
ii
9.0
2.0
11
0,41
if
3.4
11
2.0
If
ii
rr
II
ii
ii
II
ii
fi
II
ii
rt
N
ii
n
II
ii
rt
II
ii
rt
II
ii
it
11
0.41
11
3.4
tt
1.0
11
11
11
11
II
II
11
It
M
11
11
II
11
0.41
II
3.4
rt
0.4
II
II
ii
II
IT
n
tl
11
ii
It
¦kit
The class number is the same as the vehicle number of the mini-compact in that class.
Definitions for the Vehicle Description Code:
Engine Type
OC = Otto cycle (conventional)
SC = Stratified charge
W = Wankel
D = Diesel
Fuel Induction
***
STD ¦=>
VEN -
WEN !
AV =
IFC =
EFI =
MFI =
FI =
ECU =
EFE =
DC =
Emissions
Automotive Emission Control Report, p. 123.
Emission Control
AI » Air injection
EGR or E = Exhaust gas recirculation
DIG or D ¦ Dual diaphragm exhaust gas
recirculation
PEG or P = Proportional exhaust gas
recirculation
HCAT ¦ Oxidizing catalyst
HNCCAT = 3-way catalyst
HNGCAT ¦ Dual catalyst plus getter
TR - Exhaust thermal reactor
02 = Oxygen sensor for feedback
QTR = Questor
Standard carburetor
Venturl carburetor
= Variable Venturi carburetor
Air Valve carburetor
Integrated fuel control
Electronic fuel injection
Mechanical fuel injection
Diesel fuel injection
Electronic emission control unit
Early fuel evaporation
Divided chamber diesel
conversion from Prof. Donald N. Dewees, NAS Committee on Costs and Benefits of
13
-------
built up of approximately 90 subunits (body, engine, chassis, etc.) for
purposes of determining the unit costs and the requisite manufacturing
units needed to make the vehicle. A typical breakdown of an Inter-
mediate A vehicle of Class 50 is given in Appendix C.
Each vehicle configuration has associated with it a fuel con-
sumption (Appendix I), an expected maintenance cost for emissions hard-
ware (Appendix J) and a list price exclusive of investment (Appendix K).
The investment cost for a particular vehicle configuration will vary
depending on the scenario under which it is built.
Investment costs, those costs related to providing the production
facilities required to make a specified time-phased pattern of vehicles,
were allocated in two different alternative ways. In the first analysis,
the investment costs and investment recovered are allocated to the
vehicles which subsequently use the part made in a particular facility.
For example, all cars requiring a diesel fuel pump made after the new
fuel pump facility was built would share equally the cost of building
the facility. The total investment cost for a diesel vehicle would
then simply be the sum of these investment costs from the production
2
resources which it used.
The second method of presenting investment cost was simply to
sum the total investments made in a given year and sum the total in-
vestment recovered. The values and the net value obtained by addLng
them (investment recovery being considered as a negative investment)
could then be displayed on a yearly basis. Both types of investment
data for the scenarios are given in Appendix M.
2
For the purposes of calculating investment costs, the basis for
comparison is Scenario A. In Scenario A, the 1970 car (Class 22)
continues to be built from 1970 through 1985. The costs of all other
scenarios are then the increment required over Scenario A costs.
14
-------
Two methods are also used to determine the operating costs of
alternative policies. The first method, the "single-car study", uses
data specifying the average cost per car for an Intermediate A-size
vehicle, in configurations designed to meet each of a number of
standards. The costs for these configurations are used to address th
basic questions of interest. All costs are compared to those for a c. r
meeting the 1970 pollution-control standards.
The second method of cost comparison is to define a set of
scenarios, and to calculate the pollution-control costs involved fur all
3
cars in each scenario. A scenario specified the number of cars of each
type sold in each year over the period to be considered, the pollution-
control standards which new cars must meet in each year of the period
and the control technology to be used. The difference between scenar s
is the emissions standards and their date of adoption. Over a dozen
scenarios have been defined to explore the issues of interest to the
Committee on Motor Vehicle Emissions.
As noted, the single-car comparisons and the cost summaries calculated
for a given scenario have basically different purposes and caution
must be used in moving from one to the other. Single-car comparisors
focus on the Intermediate-A car, which is smaller than a typical car
in 1973, slightly smaller than the typical car in 1985 for the norm i
size-mix pattern, and larger than a typical car in 1985 for the sma -
car size-mix pattern. Thus, any hypothetical calculation using dat
for an Intermediate-A car as typical could be substantially in errc
15
-------
4. SCENARIOS CONSIDERED1
4.1 Sales Volume and Mix
The seven vehicle sizes listed in Table 3-1 above are defined by
engine and body sizes that are constant throughout all years of all
scenarios. Also identical in all scenarios are total sales each year
and (except for the small-car scenarios) the allocation of total sales
among vehicle sizes. Table 4-1 shows new car sales for each year from
1970 through 1985 as used in the scenarios, including domestic pro-
duction for domestic use, imported cars, and the total of all cars sold
in the United States. The figures for 1970 through 1973 are taken from
historical sources (see Appendix F). It is assumed, based on sales in
early 1974, that the total car-sales volume drops in that year by 11%.
We then assume that sales increase at an annual rate of 3.5% per year
from 1974 until 1985. This growth rate is slightly less than the
historical growth rate. Thus, we assume that the increased fuel price
which contributed to the drop in sales in 1974 has a continuing effect
uniform over the remainder of years. In short, there is no sudden re-
covery from the 1974 slump. Foreign cars are assumed to hold 15% of
the market after 1974.
Many people attempt to forecast auto sales, and the validity of
the figures presented here is subject to endless debate. Since all
scenarios use the same numbers, errors in the estimated total sales
will affect the total cost of all scenarios approximately equally.
The difference in cost from one scenario to another will be little
The scenarios were developed jointly by the Committee on Costs and
Benefits of Automotive Emission Control (CBC) and the Committee on
Motor Vehicle Emissions (CMVE). Most of the data were gathered by
the Consultant Panel on Manufacturability and Costs of Proposed Low-
Emissions Automotive Engine Systems of the CMVE.
16
-------
TABLE 4-1
Projected New Car
Sales in the United States 1970-1985
(millions of vehicles)
Domestic ^
Foreign
Tot^l U.S.
Year
Production
Production
Purchases
1970-
7.12
1.23
8.35
197H
8.68
1.53
10.2
1972]?
9.32
1.59
10.9
19731
9.67
1.73
11.4
19744
8.63
1.52
10.2
1975
8.93
1.58
10.5
1976
9.24
1.63
10.9
1977
9.56
1.69
11.3
1978
9.90
1.75
11.6
1979
10.2
1.81
12.1
1980
10.6
1.87
12.5
1981
11.0
1.94
12.9
1982
11.4
2.00
13.4
1983
11.8
2.07
13.8
1984
12.2
2.15
14.3
1985
12.6
2.22
14.8
1
U.S. dealer sales of U.S. and Canadian-produced vehicles.
2
Net imports to U.S. except from Canada.
3
From Ward's Automotive Yearbook.
4
An 117, drop in total U.S. sales (purchases) is assumed in 1974, and
growth at 3.5^ per year thereafter.
17
-------
affected by total sales volume and the ranking of scenarios in terms of
2
total costs insensitive to sales volume.
The allocation of domestic vehicles sales each year to the seven
vehicle sizes is shown in Table 4-2. Here the relative sales volume
changes substantially between 1970 and 1980, and is assumed to remain
constant after 1980, since there is no clear reason to predict further
changes. This allocation of sales is based upon extensive discussions
with personnel in the automobile industry in Detroit and upon our own
interpretation of outside forces operating on the automobile market.
3
Production of the subcompacts grows from 0% in 1970 to 14% in
3
1980. Sales of the full-sized V-8 drop from over 20% of the market
in 1970 to 12% in 1980. Even the luxury car loses 3%, of the total
industry sales volume or 20% of its own sales volume throughout this
period.
These substantial shifts from large to small cars are extrapola-
tions of current trends, and reflect the continuing effect of higher fuel
prices throughout the period of the scenarios. Recall that we assume
gasoline prices to have risen from 42c, including tax, in 1973 to 55<:,
including tax,in 1974, and to remain there until 1985. This 407o price
2
It is unlikely that errors in the total vehicles in use, and, thus,
total costs, could exceed 10%, which, is small compared to possible
sources of error in both cost and benefit calculations.
3
In the scenarios, it is assumed that production and sales essentially
remain in balance (no inventory fluctuation) and, hence, production
and sales are equivalent.
18
-------
TABLE 4-2
Percentage of Annual Domestic Production for Domestic
Sales by Vehicle Type: Normal Scenarios
Size
Category (CID)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Year
(90)
(153)
(250)
(290)
(350)
(400)
(450)
1970
0
0
13
19
32
21
15
1971
0
7
12
18
30
19
14
1972
0
9
11
18
29
19
14
1973
0
8
10
18
30
21
13
1974
0
9
11
18
29
20
13
1975
1
10
12
18
28
18
13
1976
2
11
13
18
27
16
13
1977
3
12
14
18
25
15
13
1978
3
13
15
18
25
14
12
1979
3
14
16
18
24
13
12
1980-85
3
14
17
18
24
12
12
Note: Foreign cars not shown here.
ClD = Cubic-Inch Displacement
19
-------
increase is expected to continue to shift the market away from large
automobiles towards smaller, more economical models--a shift reflected
in Table 4-2.
As is the case with total sales, the allocation of sales by
vehicle size (Table 4-2) is identical for all except the small-car
scenarios. Thus, if the future actual market shares of various sizes
of vehicles are somewhat different than that specified here, they will
affect all scenarios equally, and have little impact on the relative
costs of the alternative policies.
In the investment analysis, the impact of a scenario on the U.S.
industry only is considered. Hence, for the investment analysis,
Tables 4-1 and 4-2 only are needed to define the yearly production
volume by car size. In the Cost Summary analysis, however,
in use are of concern. These include vehicles remaining from pre-1970
sales, as well as yearly additions of domestic and imported cars. In
this case, a pattern of import car sales by car size was developed as
shown in Table 4-3. In this table, the current tendency of foreign
manufacturers to gradually move toward somewhat larger cars is apparent.
The market shares for the small-car scenarios are shown in
Table 4-4. By 1980, the shares of the three smallest sizes are shown
as 8%, 217=, and 23%, compared to 3%, 147>, and 17% in the normal
scenarios. The largest three sizes occupy 12%, 47=, and 8% of the
market, compared to 247OJ 13% and 127°. While these shifts are not
revolutionary, they represent a substantial short-term shift in size
mix. The small-car pattern effectively levels the total industry auto
sales dollar volume for the next decade because of the smaller list
price of smaller cars (see discussion in Section 8). A more radical
shift to small cars would lead to an actual decline in automobile
sales revenue.
-------
TABLE 4-3
Percentage of Imported Cars by Size
Size Category (CID)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Year
(90)
(153)
(250)
(290)
(350)
(400)
(450)
1970
4
90
4
1
1
0
0
1971
4
90
4
1
1
0
0
1972
4
90
4
1
1
0
0
1973
4
90
4
1
1
0
0
1974
5
86
6
2
1
0
0
1975
6
83
8
2
1
0
0
1976
7
79
10
2
2
0
0
1977
8
76
12
2
2
0
0
1978
9
73
13
3
2
0
0
1979
10
71
14
3
2
0
0
1980
11
68
15
3
3
0
0
1981
12
67
15
3
3
0
0
1982
12
66
15
4
3
0
0
1983
12
66
15
4
3
0
0
1984
12
65
15
5
3
0
0
1985
12
65
15
5
3
0
0
21
-------
TABLE 4-4
Percentage of Annual Domestic Production for Domestic
Sales by Vehicle Size: Small-Car Pattern
Year
1
(90)
Size Category (CID)
2 3 4
(153) (250) (290)
5
(350)
6
(400)
7
(450)
1970
_
0
13
19
32
21
15
1971
-
7
12
18
30
19
14
1972
-
9
11
18
29
19
14
1973
-
8
10
18
30
21
13
1974
-
9
11
18
29
20
13
1975
1
11
13
19
26
17
13
1976
3
13
15
20
23
14
12
1977
5
15
17
21
20
11
11
1978
6
17
19
22
18
8
10
1979
7
19
21
23
15
6
9
1980
8
21
23
24
12
4
8
1981-85
8
22
24
24
11
3
8
Note: Foreign cars not shown here.
CID = Cubic Inch Displacement
22
-------
4.2 Technology
Most scenarios have applied emissions-control technology that was
used in the past and the best judgment as to technologies to be used
in the future. At the time this is written, we know what controls have
been installed through 197A. We also know what will be used in 1975,
since all prototype testing for 1975 is now complete, and manufacturers
are preparing to put those cars into production. We have good information
on 1976 technology since contracts with suppliers and the machine-tool
industry are already set for the 1976 production year. There may be
small changes between now and that time, but major technological change
is most unlikely.
By 1977, however, there is greater uncertainty about the devices
which will be installed to meet the standards which might apply at that
time, and our knowledge becomes much less certain about years after
1977. We do assume that no new technology is introduced after 1980, so
that beyond that point no technological change takes place. The only
changes in scenarios occur as one class of vehicle replaces another
due to increases in production capacity for the new technology. For
example, stratified-charge engines may be introduced in 1975, but may
take several years to become a major factor in the market since the
industry would need several years to increase production capacity for
such a new engine.
The major problem in specifying technology occurs in the few
scenarios in which no new standards axe Bet after an early date, such
as 1973 or 1975. Over time, manufacturers develop new, better, and
less-expensive ways to meet any given standard. While it may have
cost $35.00 to meet 1970 emissions standards in 1970, with our present
knowledge, those standards could probably be met in 1974 for only a few
23
-------
dollars per car, particularly when the concomittant cost reductions
are properly accounted. If we identify a given technology class with
a given set of standards, then once a final standard is set, no techno-
logical change takes place and costs do not fall. Thus, our methods
of calculation only partially account for the very real ability of the
industry to lower control costs as time passes.
Cost reductions can occur in three ways. First, production
experience with a given device can lead to improved production methods
and greater productivity. This "learning-curve" experience is not in-
corporated in our data; we assume production costs after most of this
learning has taken place. Thus, we show no cost changes resulting
from the learning curve.
A second source of cost reduction is design improvements which
yield the same performance, but reduce manufacturing cost by using less
material or simpler components. In the few cases where such redesign
can be anticipated, we included the new design as a separate vehicle
technology class with its own cost. The historical data clearly in-
clude such product improvements, and they are incorporated in our costs.
Generally, however, we cannot predict the rate of cost reduction for
future devices, so costs are presented for known designs. Thus, the
costs for future years are probably overstated.
A third source of cost reduction is the development of a new
technology which achieves the same standards at lower cost than an
earlier technology, or meets more stringent standards. The vehicle
technology classes developed by CMVE include a number of devices or
engines which are not now in volume production, but could be in the
future. In many cases, they show dramatic cost reductions. Their
emergence may depend, however, upon incentives which will induce the
automobile manufacturers to bring them into production.
24
-------
Stringent standards may lead directly to the development of a
technology to meet them. For example, it is most unlikely that the
catalytic reactors that will be installed on many 1975 cars would have
been developed in the absence of the standards set for 1975 and 1976
in the 1970 amendments to the Clean Air Act. Thus, the rate of
technological development may be highly dependent upon the legislated
standards.
The exact relationship between standards and technological
progress, however, is unclear. It has been said that the pressure of
strict standards has been so great that the industry has investigated
familiar technologies that were certain of meeting the standards at
high cost, rather than investigating more novel low-cost technologies
which could not be depended upon to meet the standards on the legal
timetable. Stringent standards will lead to technological development,
but it is not clear that the fastest imposition of stringent, feasible
standards will lead to the development of the most cost-effective
technology.
We have incorporated estimates of future technological change
by identifying technologies likely to be used for the rest of this
decade and the dates upon which they cquld be in volume production.
It is reasonable to expect that if no further standards had been imposed
after 1970 or 1973, some technological progress would have taken place.
Since these developments are more hypothetical than future developments
according to the current law, there is little data on costs of meeting
past standards if they had not been changed. Thus, we overstate the
costs of those scenarios which impose, no new standards after 1970 or
1973, as compared to other scenarios which adopt more stringent
standards for which we have better data on technological progress.
25
-------
4.3 Emissions Rates in Scenarios
The primary difference between the various scenarios is in the
emissions standards that must be met in each year. These standards and
the year of their application are selected from a set we have compiled
for this purpose (Table 4-5).
Each standard is expressed according to the form of measurement
4
used when the standard was imposed, and according to CVS-CH terms
when the former is different. The conversion to CVS-CH is necessary
because total emissions rates from a mixed vehicle fleet can be cal-
culated only if all emissions are on a comparable basis.
All standards through US78 are ones which have been enacted into
federal law as new-car standards. The C75 standard is to be applied
in California in 1975. The 177 standard is the interim standard for
1977, adopted when the original 1976 standard was postponed to 1977.
Table 4-6 shows the schedule of standard application for the
scenarios. Scenario A is the baseline scenario against which the
others will be compared. In A, all standards are applied through 1970
as they were actually applied in the past. No further emissions controls
are required after 1970. Thus, in Scenario A, vehicles built from
1970 through 1985 will all be designed to meet only the 1970 emissions
standards.
Constant volume sampling using both cold and hot starts (CVS-CH) is
the official test method for federal certification beginning with
1975 vehicles. Previous tests used the cold start only (CVS-C) or
the so-called federal test procedure (FTP).
26
-------
TABLE 4-5
EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR SCENARIOS
(By Legislated Test Method and by CVS-CH)
Standard
Name
Year(s)
Applied
Exhaust (grams/mile)
HC CO NO
X
Test
Pre-1968
1960-67
8.7
87
4.0
CVS-CH
US68
1968
3.4
35
NR
FTP
5.9
50.8
5.0
CVS-CH
US 70
1970
2.2
23
NR
FTP
3.9
33.3
6.0
CVS-CH
US 71
1972
2.2
23
NR
FTP
3,9
33.3
6.0
CVS-CH
US72
1972
3.4
39.0
NR
CVS-C
3.0
28.0
5.0
CVS-CH
US73
1973
3.4
39.0
3.0
CVS-C
3.0
28.0
3.1
CVS-CH
175
1975
1.5
15.0
3.1
CVS-CH
C75
1975
0.9
9.0
2.0
CVS-CH
177*
1977
0.41
3.4
2.0
CVS-CH
T177
0.9
9.0
1.0
CVS-CH
T277
0.41
3.4
1.0
CVS-CH
T377
0.9
9.0
0.4
CVS-CH
US78*
1978
0.41
3.4
0.4
CVS-CH
Source: Dewees, D.N.; A Report by the Coordinating Committee on Air
Quality Studies, Vol. 4, National Academy of Sciences, Wash-
ington, D.C., September 1974, Ch. 2, p. 57.
NR = not regulated
CVS-CH » Constant Volume Sampling, Cold and Hot Start
FTP « Federal Test Procedure
* These standards are referred to as 176 and US77, respectively,
in the source document. Present usage corresponds to that in the
Emergency Energy Act of 1974.
27
-------
TABLE 4-6
Timing of Standards in Scenarios
Year
S
C E N A
RIO
A
B
C
E
F
I
J
K
1970
US 70
US70
US70
US70
US 70
US 70
US70
US 70
1971
US 71
US71
US 71
US71
US 71
US71
US 71
1972
US 7 2
US72
US7 2
US72
US 7 2
US 7 2
US 7 2
1973
US73
US73
US73
US73
US 7 3
US 7 3
US73
1974
1975
175
175
175
175
175
175
1976
177
1977
177
177
US 7 8
17 7
177
1978
T277
US78
1979
1980
US 7 8
Source: Dewees, D. N.; A Report by the Coordinating Committee on Air
Quality Studies, Vol, 4, National Academy of Sciences, Wash-
ington., D.C., September 1974, Cti. 2, p. 59.
Notes: 1. Scenario A is the Baseline Scenario.
2. The alternate technology cases are on Scenario E.
3. The small-car case is run on Scenarios C, J, and K.
4. The 2-car case applies Scenario B (or C) to 63% of the
fleet, and Scenario J to 37%.
5. This listing agrees with Table 2-8 in the Source report,
except that Scenario G there is called F here, and
Scenarios F and H there are omitted here.
28
-------
Scenarios B and C are designed to investigate how much we have
paid for extending controls beyond the 1970 standards to the 1973 and
interim 1975 standards. Scenario B imposes no further requirements
after 1973, so that all cars built after 1973 for the scenario must
meet that standard alone. Scenario C applies the interim 1975 standards
(federal and California) to all vehicles produced in and after 1975.
Scenarios E, F and J are designed to investigate the cost of increasingly
stringent final emissions standards. Scenario J represents the recently
amended legislation with 0.4 g/mi NO required in 1978.
X
Scenarios I,J and K are designed to investigate the cost dif-
ference associated with different timing of the same standards.
Scenario I represents one year's postponement of the originally
legislated 1975 and 1976 standards. Scenario J represents the same
standards with the last two standards delayed by one year (identical
to standards in the Energy Emergency Act), and Scenario K represents
the same situation but with the final U.S. 1978 standards postponed
until 1980. A comparison of Scenarios i,j, and K should reveal whether
a more gradual approach to the same ultimate standard can save signifi-
cant expenditures on pollution control, and should reveal what air-
quality penalties must be suffered to achieve these savings.
Several variations were run on some of the individual scenarios.
First, we explored the cost of using technological mixes that differ
from those the industry plans to use. Scenario E was rerun with the
introduction of diesel engines, with the introduction of the stratified-
charge engine, and with the introduction of Wankel engines."' The
introduction date was the earliest feasible (see Section 7), the
In the final stages of this study, a second set of E scenarios were
run which eliminated the small amount of EFX (Class 134) production
included in Scenarios E, ED (diesel), and ESC (stratified-charge).
These were designated Scenarios E-2, ED-2, and ESC-2.
29
-------
introduction rate was 3-5 years, and final volumes were enough to load
at least one engine transfer line. The purpose of modifying the
scenario was to see whether the alternative technologies would be more
or less expensive in terms of list price, fuel economy and maintenance
costs than the scenario with the original technological mix.
The emissions from these variations were identical, since the
standards are unchanged; only the costs changed.
Another set of variations involved a rapid conversion to a mix
of vehicle types in which small cars predominate. We assume that
higher gasoline prices or public policies such as a tax on horsepower
or taxes on the length or weight of a car would cause a more rapid shift
to small cars. We simulate conversion of production capacity from large
cars to small cars as rapidly as is feasible at a reasonable cost, and
then compare the cost with the original scenarios. This small-car
strategy was run for Scenarios C,J, and K. Naturally, small cars are
cheaper than large cars, so that substantial savings appear. At the
same time, the consumer may be less satisfied because he has a smaller,
less powerful car than before; so care must be used in interpreting the
results of these modifications. By comparing the cost increases for
small cars for Scenarios C,J, and K with the cost increase for the
standard car sizes for these same scenarios, we get the saving on
emissions controls from producing small cars.
Finally, we considered a two-car strategy in which only part of
the vehicle fleet must follow a stringent set of standards. We have
defined the two-car strategy such that 637„ of the fleet follows
Scenario B (or C) while 37% follows Scenario J. These scenarios are
identified as B'J' and C'J' in the Appendices. These percentages were
arrived at by identifying all states which include metropolitan areas
3D
-------
that the Environmental Protection Agency expects will not be able to
meet air-quality standards by 1977, and by assuming that all cars in
those states must meet the stringent standard. Those states included
approximately 37% of the total automobile population in 1970. This
two-car strategy might be less expensive than if J were set for the
entire country, but it would lead to higher emissions rates.
6
The areas which will not meet the air-quality standards by 1977 are
listed in "The Clean Air Act and Transportation Control: An EPA
White Paper" by Holmes, Horowitz, Reid and Stolpman, the Environmental
Protection Agency, August 1973, p. 31. The states in which these
areas are found are: Pennsylvania, District of Columbia, Utah,
Texas, New York, California, Colorado, Arizona, Alaska, Massachusetts
and Maryland. Automobile registrations are found in the Motor Vehicle
Manufacturers Association's "1972 Automobile Facts and Figures",
Detroit (1973), pp. 24-25. In 1970, these states registered 32.7
million automobiles out of a national total of 89.2 million. They
thus include 37% of the auto population. Incidentally, these states
also contain about 377o of the human population of the country as a
whole.
Covering an entire state includes many areas where strict controls
are not necessary. On the other hand, if one adopted a regional
rather than state-wide strategy, one would include parts of New Jersey
and Connecticut which are not listed in the EPA report. There*would
thus be little reduction in the total number of cars controlled.
Furthermore, it is administratively much easier to divide the regu-
lation by state.
31
-------
5. SINGLE-CAR COMPARISONS AND YEARLY
COSTS FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS
5.1 The Cost of Alternative Final Emissions Standards
The cost of meeting alternative emissions standards is calculated
first on a single-car basis and then for the entire fleet over the
fifteen years of a scenario. The single-car costs consist of the
change in list price, and the maintenance and fuel-economy data
associated with each selected configuration. For the single-car study,
only the Intermediate-A-size vehicle is examined, and all costs are
compared to the 1970 configuration. This results in an approximation
of the average cost for all vehicle sizes, but an investigation of
the variation of costs with size cannot be carried out.
Table 5-1 shows the 100,000-mile lifetime costs of meeting the
set of legislated standards of Scenario J (plus the 1975 California
standard) for the Intermediate-A vehicle. They are based on the best
data available now, but rapid changes in auto pollution-control costs
in the past suggest caution in relying on these results for more than
the near future.
The list price for a vehicle increases steadily from the con-
figuration meeting the 1970 standards to the configuration meeting the
ultimate 0.4 g/mi N0x standard. The largest increase occurs in 1978,
when complex control systems, including an air pump, proportional
exhaust gas recirculation, and a dual catalyst, will be required to
meet the 0.4 g/mi NO emission level. Lifetime maintenance costs,
X
calculated on the basis of the manufacturer's recommended maintenance
schedule, increase through 1973, then drop in 1975 as use of unleaded
gasoline reduces spark-plug and exhaust maintenance, while electronic
ignition systems cut ignition adjustment and repair. The cost of fuel
use increases through 1973, then decreases in 1975 as catalyst systems
improve fuel economy (thus, more than offsetting the increased price
32
-------
TABLE 5-1
Single-Car Costs of Standards on Schedule
(Lifetime Cost Increase Over 1970 Intermediate-A Vehicle, 1974 Dollars)
Config-
uration
List
Life
Mainte-
Life
Fuel
Life
Total
Present
Value^
Standard
Year
Number
Price
nance
Tax
Ex Tax
Tax
Ex Tax
Tax
US 70
1970
25
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
US72
1972
4
0
275
0
0
275
275
158
TJS73
1973
11
49
325
379
296
753
670
432
175
1975
39
109
ioo3
56
76
26 53
2853
203
C75
1975
46
150
1133
184
178
447
440
330
17 75
1977
53
176
1133
184
178
4733
4663
361
US785
1978
74
302
754
467
407
8444
7784
649
See Appendix A for description of each configuration.
Lifetime maintenance and fuel costs discounted at 15%.
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $114.
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $312.
These standards are referred to as 176 and US77 in the CBC Report.
-------
of unleaded fuel). This decrease is sufficient to bring lifetime total
costs for the interim 1975 standards well below those of the 1973
standards. Fuel costs jump again for the 0.4 g/mi NO standards in 1978.
X
It is interesting to note the relative importance of manufacturing,
maintenance, and gasoline costs in the costs of these alternative
standards. The range of lifetime maintenance cost is similar to the
range of list price. The variation in fuel costs covers a slightly
wider range than does the list price, and for several standards, the
fuel-economy penalty is greater than the list-price cost. No one cost
component alone can adequately reflect total costs.
Several other studies have estimated the costs of auto-emissions
control. Prominent among these is that of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), shown in Table 5-2, with the fuel prices and other costs
adjusted to 1974 dollars to be consistent with our other calculations.
The primary difference between our costs and those of the EPA is that
the EPA shows almost negligible maintenance costs for all standards,
while we show significant maintenance costs, especially in 1972, 1973,
and 1977. Part of this difference arises because the EPA considers
only the cost of maintenance permitted during a certification procedure
test, while our maintenance costs include those recommended by the
manufacturers. Our costs include all items which can affect emissions,
including tune-ups, air-filter replacement, and even oil-filter re-
placement. The EPA maintenance costs may understate the cost of
maintenance which would be required to keep a car within reasonable
bounds of its emissions standard over the full 100,000-mile life.
Still, their figures show lifetime total costs and the present value
of those costs rising steadily through the 1977 standards.
34
-------
TABLE 5-2
Costs of Standards on Schedule, Other Studies
(Lifetime Costs, Gasoline Tax Included)
(Cost Increases Over 1970 Vehicle, Fleet Average Per Car)
Config-
List
Lifetime Costs
Study
Standard
Year
uration
Price
Maintenance
Gas
Total
1
EPA
US 70
1970
NI
0
0
0
0
EPA
US73
1973
NI
55
0
209
264
EPA
175
1975
NI
242
20
44
306
EPA
177
1976
NI
268
40
201
509
EPA
US78
1977
NI
337
120
241
598
NAS2
US70
1970
NI
0
0
0
0
NAS
US 73
1973
EGR, AI
74
NE
NE
74+
NAS
177
1975
CAT
232.80
NE
NE
233+
NAS
US 78
1976
DUAL CAT
366.80
NE
10423
1408+
"The Cost of Clean Air--1974," The Environmental Protection Agency, May
1974, Draft Version, CH III, pp. III-7, 8, 9, 11, 13, 14. Converted
to 1974 dollars, 55c/gallon of gasoline.
2
Report by the Conanittee on Motor Vehicle Emissions, National Academy of
Sciences, February 1973, pp. 94, 102-3. Converted to 1972 dollars.
3 The NAS assumes a 25% fuel penalty in 1976 over 1970, which at 55
-------
The cost estimates from a 1973 National Academy of Sciences
report are also shown in Table 5-2. The list price changes are quite
similar between the EPA and NAS reportss but the NAS assumption of a
25% fuel-consumption penalty for the dual-catalyst car yields a much
higher fuel-cost estimate for the final 0.4 g/mi NO standard. The
X
list price increases shown in Table 5-1 are about $50 less than the
previous NAS estimates, despite decreases in the value of the dollar.
Another way of examining emissions cost data is to relate them
to the emissions standards themselves, by dividing the emissions
reduction of each standard into the incremental lifetime cost for that
standard. In the absence of a generally accepted emissions index,
consider the average percent reduction in exhaust emissions of each of
the three pollutants from a controlled car as compared to an uncontrolled
car. Figure 5-1 shows the increase in total lifetime costs for each
standard from Table 5-1 divided by average percentage reduction in
emissions for that standard, when plotted against the average percentage
reduction in emissions. These marginal costs rise to 1973, then be-
come negative with the introduction of catalysts and unleaded gas in
1975. From 1975 to 1977 they rise even more abruptly than before.
Thus, total costs and marginal costs increase as the degree of control
increases, except when new technology in the form of catalysts is
introduced in 1975. In short, technical progress can overcome the
tendency of marginal costs to rise continuously with the degree of
control.
The above calculations are for changing emissions standards
over time. It is also interesting to analyze the costs incurred by
different standards imposed at a particular time. Since new technolo-
gies become available and can be produced in high volume as time
36
-------
30
20
10
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
IS 73
US73
1970
20
uncontrolled
40
60
PERCENT REDUCTION IIM EMISSIONS
80 100
complete control
FIGURE 5-1 Marginal Costs of Achieving Standards on Schedule
for a Single Car.
37
-------
progresses, the cost of achieving a given standard declines over time.
For example, the 1970 standards could now be met at almost no total
cost penalty over an uncontrolled car. We have, therefore, calculated
the cost of meeting the 1976-1978 standards in 1980-1985, using
technology which might possibly be in volume production at that time,
depending upon the imposition of standards and industry commitments.
The results of these calculations, using current cost estimates for
that technology, are shown in Table 5-3. These are, of course,
highly tentative, since all technologies could change substantially
in the intervening years. The standard of comparison is still the
technology used for meeting the 1970 standards.
The data of Table 5-3 suggest that by the early 1980's the
cost of meeting the 177 standard will be little greater than for
meeting the 175 or C75 standards, so they are all compared together.
The 177 standard can be met by a diesel, which could be in large-
volume production by the early 1980's. This vehicle, Configuration
193, saves $899 in lifetime costs, including fuel tax, compared to
the 1970 car. Problems of noise, odor, and performance may, however,
1
limit diesel-market presentations. An advanced stratified-charge
engine, which would save $252 over its life compared to a 1970 car,
could be available about the same time. Thus, this high degree of
control is costless for some engine types by the early 1980's, if
these data accurately reflect the costs and performance of these systems.
The Scenario F standards, with a 1.0 g/mi NO level, can also
X
be met by a diesel vehicle, but with exhaust gas recirculation. The
1
The diesel scenario shows less than 10% of new cars equipped with
diesels in 1980. This suggests the difficulty or cost of producing
these engines in very large volume in a short time.
38
-------
TABLE 5-3
Single-Car Costs of Various Standards in 1980-85
{Lifetime Cost Increase Over 1970 Intermediate-A Vehicle, 1974 Dollars)
Standard
Name
N0X
Standard
Config-
uration
Number
List
Price
Life
Mainte-
nance
Life
Fuel
Life
Total
Present
Value^
Tax
Ex Tax
Tax
Ex Tax
Tax
US 70
(25) 1970
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Baseline
Car
177 (also
2.0
(193) Die-
131
-75
-955
-733
-899
-717
-533
175 and
sel
4
4
4
C75)
(214) CCS
201
13
-465
-335
-252
-122
- 94
T277
1.0
(137) EFI
284
133
56
76
3
352
3
372
327
with 3-way
Cat.
(200) Die-
149
-25
-633
-524
-509
-400
-277
sel
US78
0.4
(144) EFI
359
384
152
152
4
548
4
548
479
with 3-way
Cat.
5
258
„ 5
„ 5
(151) MFI
347
38
286
671
643
555
with 3-way
Cat.
All vehicles are Intermediate A cars. See Table 3-2 for description of each configuration.
m
Assuming 15% discount rate.
3
Replacement of the complete catalytic unit at 50,000 miles would add $156.
i
Replacement of the complete catalytic unit at 50,000 miles would add $114.
Replacement of the complete catalytic unit at 50,000 miles would add $135.
Strat=stratified charge engine; EFI= electronic fuel injection; MFI=mechanical fuel injection
-------
cost is actually a saving of $509 over the 1970 vehicle. A fuel-
injection engine with catalysts will also meet this standard at a cost
of $352. Thus, unless the diesel is widely accepted, the cost of re-
ducing NO from 2.0 to 1.0 grams per mile is substantial even in the
X
19801s.
The US78 standard, with NO at 0.4 g/mi, costs $548 for a fuel-
injection engine with a three-way catalyst, or $671 for an engine
with mechanical fuel injection with a three-way catalyst. If these
data and configurations are accurate, it appears that in the longer
run the 177 standards can be met at very little cost, while costs rise
rapidly from that point to the 0.4 NO level.
X
If these are reasonable estimates of technology and of its cost,
that could be available in the early 1980's, then it appears that the
177 standards can be met in those years at little cost compared to a
car meeting 1970 standards. Only changes from the 2.0 g/mi NO
X
standard to the final 0.4 NO standard impose a real cost penalty.
This analysis suggests that there are two major issues in
evaluating emissions standards: time and the final N0x level. It
suggests that in the long run, substantial control can be achieved at
a moderate cost. The larger costs which have been and probably will
be associated with emissions control may stem not only from strict
standards, but from their rapid application. Already there is 1975
hardware which is less costly over the vehicle life than 1973 hardware,
despite lower emissions of the former. Thus, it is most meaningful to
ask: What would it cost to meet a given standard in a particular year?
Industry's ability to develop and put into production new and more
efficient technology is a very important factor in determining emissions-
control costs.
40
-------
Another way to view these data is to consider how much the
costs for meeting a standard change over time as new hardware is brought
into large-volume production. Table 5-4 is a rearrangement of the
earlier data, showing different configurations for standards from 175
to US78. The cost per car of meeting 175 standards drops from $265 in
1975 to zero in the early 1980's. (While the cost of the stratified-
charge or diesel engine is less than the 1970 car, the savings could
occur independently of pollution controls; so they cannot be attributed
to controls alone.)
Greater cost reductions might occur for the 177 standard, it
may cost $473 to meet this standard in 1977, but $0 in the early 1980's.
The T277 standard costs $844 if introduced in 1978, but only $352 by
the early 1980's, and $0 if the diesel is used. Even the US78
(0.4 g/mi NO ) standard, which costs $844 if introduced in 1978, could
drop by $300 by 1980, although the current data do not show any re-
duction after that. Thus, the greatest effect of time on the standards
is for the 177 and T277.
The above cost calculations are for a single Intermediate-A
vehicle. The production of all vehicles from 1970 through 1985 were
also simulated, meeting sets of emissions standards specified in the
scenarios. These scenario cost calculations provide an estimate of the
total national cost of emissions controls for a variety of scenarios.
The average cost per car of a given configuration in these scenarios
should be about the same as that used in the single-car cost calcula-
tions above. Some differences in total costs may arise because of
calculation procedures, but the input data is the sane. The configura-
tions are those used in the single-car cost calculations above.
41
-------
Table 5-4
Single-Car Costs of Delaying Standards
(Lifetime Cost Increase Over 1970 Intermediate-A Vehicle,. 1974 Dollars)
Stand.
J Year
Ccrnfig-1
uration
List
Price
Life
Main-
tenance
Life
Fuel
Life
Total
Present
Valued
Tax
Ex Tax
Tax
Ex Tax
Tax
175
1975
39
Cat,
109
1003
56
76
2653
2B53
203
1980-85
214
Strat.
201
13
-465
-335
-252
-122
-94
193
Diesel
131
-75
-955
-773
-899
-717
-533
17?
1977
53
Cat.
176
3
113
184
178
4733
4663
3
361
1980-85
214
Strat,
201
13
-465
-335
-252
-122
-94
193
Diesel
131
-75
-955
-773
-899
-717
-533
X27
1978
74
Dual Cat.
302
75*
467
401
4
844
7784
5944
System
s
5
s
19B0-B5
137
EFI
284
13
56
76
352
372
327
200
Diesel
149
-25
-633
-524
-509
-400
-277
with EGR
US7b
1978
74
Dual Cat.
302
756
467
401
844^
778^
694^
1980
144
EFI with
359
38
152
152
548
548
479
3-Ttfay Cat
All vehicles are Intermediate-A cars; see Table 3-2
for description of each configuration.
Lifetime total cost discounted at 15%.
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $114.
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $312.
Catalyst replacement at 50s000 miles wouLd add $156.
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $135.
Cat. = Conventional engine
with catalytic reac-
tor
EFI » Electronic Fuel In-
jection with 3-wa.y
catalyst
Strat. = Stratlfied-charge en-
gine with mechanical
fuel injection
42
-------
These scenario cost calculations provide more reliable estimates
of the costs of standards over time, and of the rate at which alter-
native technologies can be introduced.
Table 5-5 shows the costs of pollution control from 1970 to
1985 for those scenarios designed to investigate the costs of alternative
final emissions standards. The numbers in the first four columns are the
sum of the costs incurred in each year, without discounting. The last
column shows the present value of these costs in 1970, when discounted
to that year at a h% rate.
Surprisingly enough, the second most expensive scenario is B,
which applies no new standards after 1973 yet costs $46.8 billion more
than Scenario A. The major reason for this high cost is fuel costs
greater than those of all the other scenarios. Such high fuel consump-
tion arises from an assumption that with no new standards after 1973,
the same vehicle classes would be built until 1985. Yet, Table 5-1
shows that the 1973 cars use substantially more fuel than vehicles
designed to the 175 standards, and thus cost $500 more over their
lifetime than the 175 cars.
This comparison is probably not fair to Scenario B. Since the
technology has been developed for the 175 vehicles, and it is less
expensive over the life of the vehicle than the 1973 technology,
reasonable motorists would prefer the 175 vehicle to the 1973 vehicle,
and reasonable manufacturers would build the 175 vehicle even without
the 175 standard, once that vehicle was developed. Or, they would use
the knowledge developed by 1975 to design a vehicle which meets the
1973 standards with total costs still lower than the 175 vehicle. In
either case, the B scenario would produce costs much lower than shown
here, and perhaps lower than the C scenario. Costs might not be equal
43
-------
TABLE 5-5
Total Scenario Costs of Various Standards: Scenarios A-E, J
(Billions of 1974 Dollars, Costs Increase Over Scenario A)
Costs (174$) 1970-
1985
Total
Discounted
Scenario
List
Price
Mainte-
nance Fuel
Total
to 1970
at 4%
(174$)
A
0
0 0
0
0
B
2.6
14.0 30.2
46.8
31.7
C
16.9
8.51 9.4
34.81
24.3
E4
21.3
8.22 16.0
45.62
31.1
J4
34.7
8.93 24.8
68.43
45.6
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $10.8 bil-
lion for the 95.2 million cars built between 1975 and
1982, at $114 per vehicle.
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $12.0 bil-
lion for the 95.2 million cars built between 1975 and
1982, at $114 and $156 per car.
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $15.3 bil-
lion for the 95.2 million cars built between 1975 and 1982,
at $312 and $135 per car.
The final technology in Scenario E is Vehicle Class 50.
In Scenario J, the final configurations are vehicle classes
71 (Dual Crt.) and 141 (EFI with 3-way catalyst).
44
-------
to or lower than the C scenario only if the B scenario meant that no
standards were even contemplated after those for 1973, and thus, little
technological progress occurred without the spur of the 175 and later
standards. It is, of course, quite difficult to predict what would
happen in this hypothetical case.
Scenarios C,E, and J show steady increases in the list price of
cars built between 1970 and 1985. Maintenance costs drop after
Scenario B, and are reasonably constant in the other three scenarios.
Fuel costs which drop dramatically from B to C, increase substantia"? v
from C through E. The undiscounted total scenario cost increases by
$10.8 billion from C to E, and by $22.8 billion from E to J. This
confirms the conclusions of the single-car analyses that the largest
cost differences occur in reducing NO from 2.0 g/mi to 0.4 g/mi.
A
In fact, one third of the excess cost of the J scenario over the A
scenario is accounted for by the difference between E and J, the
difference in cost between achieving 2.0 g/mi and 0.4 g/mi of NO^.
The direct calculation of the scenarios does not include catalyst
replacement for any cars. If the catalysts were replaced at 50,000
miles in all catalyst-equipped cars (assuming the entire unit must be
replaced), the cost of Scenario C would increase by $10.8 billion, the
cost of Scenario E would increase by about $12 billion, and J would in-
crease about $15.3 billion. Thus, policy decisions on catalyst replace-
ment have a large cost impact; they could add 30% to the cost of
Scenario C, and add 20% to 25% to the costs of Scenarios E and J.
When the scenario costs are discounted to 1970 at a 4% rate,
total costs are about one third lower than without discounting. The
reduction is about proportional for all scenarios, and their rank
ordering does not change.
45
-------
Table 5-6 shows the costs in the year 1985, for the same set of
scenarios represented in Table 5-5. This year is chosen for comparison
because by that year most of the cars in the fleet meet the most
stringent standard in the scenario. It thus represents an equilibrium
cost level, assuming no further technological change. Scenario B is
still the second most expensive at $5.06 billion per year. Again, this
reflects the unrealistic assumption that 1973 cars would be produced
until 1985 in Scenario B.
Scenario J is 707o more expensive than Scenario E in 1985, al-
though its total cost in over the 15 years from 1970 to 1985 was only
50% more expensive (see Table 5-5). This confirms the results of the
single-car comparison that, over time, the 177 standard will become
relatively inexpensive as better technology is developed, but that the
US78 standard will remain expensive.
The single-car calculations in Table 5-1, however, showed life-
time costs of $844 per car for the US78 standard. This should amount
to almost $10 billion per year for 114 million cars by 1985, yet
Table 5-6 shows only $7.91 billion in 1985 for Scenario J. The reason
for this difference is that better technology is developed over time
for meeting the 0.4 g/mi N0„ standard, as shown in Table 5-3. By the
early 1980's, a configuration is available which meets the standard for
only $548 in lifetime costs. Since this less expensive vehicle comes
Into production before the more expensive one has become a large part
of the vehicles in use, the average cost for all vehicles in use never
reaches the $844 level in any year, even in Scenario J.
5.2 Cost Changes from Delaying Standards
The preceding sub-section examined the costs of achieving several
different final emissions levels, on a particular schedule, at a single
-------
TABLE 5-6
1985 Scenario Costs of Various Standards: Scenarios A-E, J
(Billions of 1974 Dollars, Cost Increase Over Scenario A)
Costs in 1985
List
Mainte-
1985
Total
Scenario
Price
nance
Fuel
($)
A
0
0
0
0
B
0.24
1.54
3.29
5.06
C
1.73
0.781
0.50
3.011
E
2.28
0.722
1.67
4.682
J
4.13
0.843
2.94
7.913
1
Catalyst replacement at
$1,5 Billion.
2
Catalyst replacement at
$1.6 billion.
3
Catalyst replacement at
$2.7 billion.
50,000 miles vouid add about
50,000 miles would add about
50,000 miles would add about
47
-------
time. In this sub-section, the different timetables for imposing a
given set of standards are investigated, since the previous analysis
suggested that costs could change significantly over time.
While a single-car analysis is useful for determining the long-
run equilibrium costs of alternative final emissions standards, it is
less useful for choosing among alternative timetables. The single-car
calculations use costs based on efficient volume production with pro-
duction difficulties worked out. They compare configurations as if
one standard would be met by a single technology and another standard,
perhaps a year or two later, by a quite different technology. Some of
the major differences in various timetables, however, arise from the
need to build or convert plants rapidly, and to phase in production
or new equipment while working out production problems. There are
real production constraints on the rate at which one technology can
be substituted for another. Only through the scenario analysis (using
the production and investment programs described in Appendix L) is it
possible to determine what volume of a given configuration could be
produced in each year. Thus, only the scenario results are presented
here.
Scenarios I,J, and K represent three different timetables for
reaching the 0.4 g/mi NO standard. The costs for these scenarios are
shown in Table 5-7. Scenario J is the current law, applying the final
standard in 1978, with costs which were shown in Table 5-5. Scenario I
advances both the 177 and US78 standards by one year to 1976 and 1977.
This represents the law as it stood in 1973. Scenario I costs
$3.88 billion more than Scenario J, with the difference composed of
equal parts of list price and fuel consumption. Both scenarios build
the same vehicle classes, so the cost of differences result from a
one-year delay in building the more expensive 177 and US78 cars.
48
-------
TABLE 5-7
Scenario Savings from Delaying Standards: Scenarios I, J, R
(Billions of 1974 Dollars, Excess Over Scenario A)
Total 1970-1985 Costs
Scenario
List
Mainte-
nance
Fuel
Total
I
36.51
8.95
26.82
72.28
J
34.73
6.88
24.80
68.40
K
33.43
8.52
19.53
61.47
49
-------
In Scenario K, the US78 standard is delayed until 1980. In
addition, a new vehicle classs incorporating mechanical fuel injection
with a three-way catalyst, is used to meet this standard when it is
introduced. This scenario saves $6.93 billion over Scenario J, con-
sisting largely of the saving from a two-year delay in meeting the
0.4 g/mi NO standard, and partly from the substitution of the mechanical
X
and electronic fuel-injection classes for Catalyst Class 71 after the
standard is imposed.
The total savings from a delay of standards such as that shown
in Scenario K depends on what the automobile industry does during the
delay. If it is clear that the standard will be applied ultimately,
the industry may use the time to develop more efficient technology for
meeting that standard, resulting in lower costs in the future. This
development may actually proceed faster than if the standard were im-
posed earlier, because energies are not diverted to development of an
inefficient interim technology. If, on the other hand, it is believed
that the standard may be abandoned before it is scheduled to take effect,
no development may take place. It is difficult to forecast perceptions
of a scheduled standard and, thus, to predict its effect. We have
followed a conservative approach here, assuming that the delay would be
used to develop a modest amount of new technology.
5.3 Cost of Alternative Technologies
The cost calculations in the previous sections used technological
combinations and configurations which may be produced by the auto in-
dustry. In the scenarios, attempts were made to calculate the cost of
the most likely outcome of any particular standard. Here consideration
is given to whether some mix of technology other than that most likely
to be used would result in lower costs or a different distribution of
50
-------
costs among the components. Three technologies are considered: the
stratified-charge engine, the diesel engine, and fuel-injected engines.
All of these may be produced in some measure by the auto industry over
the next decade; this analysis increases their market share and compares
their costs with the conventional Otto-cycle engine for each of several
standards.
Table 5-8 shows the single-car costs of these alternative tech-
nologies for several standards. Many of these technologies will not be
available at the time the standard is originally introduced. Thus, we
are considering cost differences at such time as the alternative tech-
nology could be produced in substantial volume, which could be the early
1980's.
The first part of Table 5-8 compares the two primary technologies
for meeting the 175 standard with a diesel engine, which easily meets
that standard. While Configuration 39, with an oxidizing catalyst,
has a higher list price, and uses more expensive unleaded fuel, its
maintenance costs and fuel costs are lower than those of the non-
catalyst Configuration 32. The unleaded gasoline and electronic ig-
nition system on 39 substantially reduce ignition maintenance, and un-
leaded gasoline also reduces maintenance on other engine and exhaust
components. The catalyst allows tuning the engine for more power and
economy so that the higher gasoline price is more than offset by lower
fuel consumption. The lifetime cost of the catalyst system is $400
less than the non-catalyst configuration, and $300 less with replacement
at 50,000 miles.
The diesel engine saves $899 over the 1970 vehicle, and more
than $1,100 over the catalyst configuration meeting the 175 standards.
It saves more than $1,300 over the catalyst-equipped car meeting th®'
51
-------
TABLE 5-8
Single-Car Costs of Alternative Technologies
(Lifetime Cost Increase Over 1970 Intermediate-A Vehicle, 1974 Dollars)
Life
Present
Config-^
List
Mainte-
Life
Fuel
Life Total
Value
Standard uration
Price
nance
Tax
Ex Tax
Tax
Ex Tax
Tax
175
0C, EGR and Cat. 39
109
3
100
56
76
2653
2853
203
OC, EGR only 32
74
325
269
210
668
609
436
Dilsel 193
131
-75
-955
-773
-899
-717
-533
177
o
OC, PEGR and Cat. 53
176
113-
184
178
473o
4603
3613
SC with MFI 214
201
13
-465
-335
-252
-122
-94
Diesel 193
131
-75
-955
-773
-899
-717
-533
US 78
4
844*
Dual Catalyst 74
302
4
75s
467
401
4
778^
649c
EFI and 3-way Cat. 144
359
385
152
152
548
548
429
SC with Thermal
O
O
Reactor 95
148
225
1,591
1,288
1,964
1,661
1,312
Cat, - Catalytic Reactor
^ All vehicles are Intermediate-A cars; see Table 3-2 for description
2 of each configuration.
Lifetime cost discounted at 15%.
3
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $114.
4
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $312.
5
Catalyst replacement at 50,000 miles would add $135.
52
-------
177 standards. If these figures have any validity, the diesel would
seem to be the technology of choice not only for meeting these two
emissions standards, but for any less strict standard.
But even if greater consumer demand for diesels were apparent,
it is not clear that they would be produced in North America given
present pollution-control laws. Tfoe large investment in tooling and
plants to produce a new engine would only be made by the industry if
there were a prospect for a significant market for perhaps a decade,
so that the investment costs could be allocated over a large number of
vehicles. Yet the diesel will not meet the 0.4 g/mi N0x standard, and
only with exhaust-gas recirculation would it meet the 1.0 g/mi NO^
standard. Thus, it is not likely to be produced at all unless legis-
lation does not require N0x levels below 1.0 g/mi. If a final standard
were relaxed from 1.0 to 2.0 g/mi NO , the probability of domestic
x
diesels being produced would increase.
Table 5-8 shows results for a stratified-charge engine for the
177 and US78 standards. For 177, the stratified-charge with Mechanical
Fuel Injection is $725 less expensive than the catalyst car, not counting
the cost of catalyst change. Since this does not have any of the
diesel's disadvantages, it would seem the dominant system for an 177 law.
When applied to the 0.4 g/mi NO standard, however, another stratified-
X
charge engine is $1,120 more expensive than the conventional engine
with catalysts. The fuel consumption of this engine has been greatly
increased in adapting it to meet the 0.4 g/mi NO standard, rendering
A
it more competitive with other alternatives. It is still more expensive
than the fuel-injection system which appears dominant for the US78
standard. This suggests that the manufacturers' choice between fuel-
injection and stratified-charge would depend upon their expectations
as to the final NO standard to be applied. Setting a strict standard
53
-------
may eliminate a configuration which would be highly desirable at some
intermediate standard, since it is uneconomic to produce any engine for
only a year or two. It also suggests that no single technology is a
panacea for all problems. While it makes good sense to include many
technologies in cost calculations which are a basis for choosing a set
of standards, it would probably be a mistake to legislate in favor of
any single technology; there are too many variables and too much chance
for future cost or performance changes.
The relative costs of alternate technologies not included in the
normal scenarios have also been investigated in a set of modified
scenarios. The modified scenarios use the standards of Scenario E,
which limits N0x only to 2.0 g/mi, allowing diesel vehicles to meet the
standard easily. Three alternate technologies have been examined:
stratified-charge with mechanical fuel injection, diesel, and Wankel.
In each case, the new engines are introduced at a reasonable rate given
an industry decision in 1974 to adopt the engines. There is no maximum
rate of introduction of new technology; rather, there are trade-offs.
The more rapidly something comes in, the more it costs, the less reliable
it is, and the less well it performs. The schedules shown here are rea-
sonable, but not near the conceivable limit, if cost were no object.
Table 5-9 shows the costs of the technological variations on
Scenario E. The stratified-charge variation saves $5.49 billion over
the life of the scenario, and $1.55 billion in 1985 alone. This is
achieved with a market share1 of 23.3% of new cars in 1980 and 38.2% in
1985. Thus, even a substantial market share results in modest savings
for this technology. The saving is small compared to the difference
between Scenarios C and E or G and J, and less than the saving from a
two-year delay of the 0.4 g/mi NO^ standard.
* Market shares for the total U.S. market, including imports.
-------
TABLE 5-9
Scenario Costs of Alternative Technologies: Scenarios ESC, ED, EW
(Billions of 1974 Dollars, Compared to Scenario A)
Market
Share
List
Mainte-
Fuel
1980
1985
Scenario
Price
nance
Total
fo
/o
Total 1970-1985
Normal E (Excess)
0
0
0
0
Stratified Charge
0.445
0.475
-6. 36
-5.49
(S)
23.3
38.2
Diesel
0.34
-0.2851
-4.08
-4.07
(S)
7.2
11.6
Wankel
-3.56
0.286
2.49
-0.83
(S)
6.1
10.7
1985 Costs Only
Normal E
0
0
0
0
Stratified Charge
0.119
0 .099
-1.76
-1.55
(S)
Diesel
0 .05
-0 .08
-1.13
-1.16
Wankel
-0 .67
0 .064
0 .52
-0 .09
S = saving
T~
If catalysts were to be changed at 50,000 miles in the normal E scenario,
the diesel scenario would save an added $1.2 billion.
55
-------
The diesel scenario saves $4.07 billion over 15 years compared
to Scenario E, and $1.6 billion in 1985. This saving consists almost
entirely of fuel conservation, since list prices are higher than in
Scenario E. The diesel market share, however, is only 7.2% of new
cars in 1980, and 11.6% of new cars in 1985. This explains why the
total savings are so small in the face of single-car savings of $800
to $1,100 over other technologies. The savings per car are large, but
there are few diesel cars.
It is no accident that the market share of the diesel is so much
smaller than that of the stratified-charge vehicle. The stratified-
charge engine is quite similar to a conventional engine; most changes
are in the head, manifolds, and carburetor. Thus, existing engine lines
can be converted to stratified-charge production with some dispatch.
The diesel, however, is completely distinct from a conventional gasoline
engine. The block, crankshaft, pistons, and virtually all components
differ from a conventional engine of similar size. Thus, it can be in-
troduced much more slowly, for a giv6n rate of production investment.
A rather consistent picture emerges from these facts. An engine
that is moderately different can be introduced rapidly, but it saves
little per vehicle. Introducing an engine radically different from
current ones may save much more (because it is so different), but it
must be introduced more slowly if investment rates are to be the same.
In short, savings may be closely related to the rate of investment.
For a fixed rate of investment, a fixed rate of saving can be achieved,
regardless of technology. The major question is not what technology
will be used, but what rate of investment can be sustained for new
technology.
5&
-------
Table 5-9 also shows a Wankel scenario. This saves less than
$1 billion over the life of the scenario, and about $0.1 billion in 1985.
While there is a large saving in list price, this is nearly offset by
increased fuel costs. Large investment penalties, not shown here,
would further increase total costs. Furthermore, the Wankel, as a
radical technological change, is introduced only slowly. These cost
differences seem insignificant, and suggest that emissions control costs
at the 2.0 g/mi N0x level are not sensitive to the proportion of Wankel
engines in the fleet, or may be increased by the Wankel when investment
is fully accounted for.
5.4 Cost of Small-Car Strategy
It has been suggested that if there were a shift to smaller cars,
the cost of emissions controls could be reduced. Clearly, the total
cost of motoring will be less with smaller cars; the problem is to
separate the reduction in control costs from the reduction in total costs.
This has been addressed in a crude way with a single-car analysis and
on a more sophisticated basis with a comparison of small-car scenarios.
For the single-car analysis, assume that the size of an average
vehicle were originally represented by the Intermediate-A vehicle.
Suppose that specific public policies, such as tax on vehicle power and
weight plus increased gasoline taxes, caused the average vehicle to be
reduced in size to a compact vehicle. The question then is: How much
is the increase in lifetime cost from stiffer emissions standards re-
duced by the shift in vehicle size? More specifically, consider the
cost of moving from the 1970 U.S. standards to the 0.4 g/mi NO^ standard.
The difference in this pollution-control cost for the two vehicle sizes
is the control cost saving achieved by shifting to smaller cars.
57
-------
Table 5-10 shows the redaction in emissions-control costs for a
small-car strategy using single-car data. Application of the 1978
standards increases lifetime costs by $738 for a compact and by $844 for
an Intermediate-A vehicle. Smaller cars save about $106 per car at the
0.4 g/mi NO level.
This problem is better suited to scenario analysis, in which the
entire mix of vehicle production can be shifted to smaller sizes.
Table 5-11 shows the scenario costs of a small-car strategy, using
Scenarios C and J. With the normal car sizes used in all scenarios,
moving from Scenario C to J (i.e., from the 175 to the US78 standards)
increases the cost of emissions controls by $33.6 billion over the life
of the scenario, and by $4.9 billion in 1985 alone. When both scenarios
are rerun using the small-car mix described in Table 4-4, the cost in-
crease of J over C is $30.63 billion over the life of the scenario, or
$4.34 billion in 1985 alone. Thus, the cost of meeting the standards
of Scenario J rather.than those of Scenario C is reduced by $2.97 billion
over the life of the scenario, or $0.56 billion in 1985 alone. These
cost differences are small compared to the differences caused by other
policy options analyzed here. In short, emissions-control costs are
not very sensitive to vehicle size, given the data used here. A shift
to smaller cars can save many billions of dollars, but those savings
are independent of pollution-control costs. The savings of small cars
occur almost independently of emissions standards, and the cost of
emissions controls are almost independent of vehicle size.
58
-------
TABLE 5-10
Single-Car Study of Reduction in Emissions-Control Costs
for Small Cars
(Lifetime Costs Per Car)
Compact
Intermediate-A
US70 Standard (Class
22)
List Price
$3,351
$3,992
Fuel
3,571
4,167
Maintenance
500
550
Total
$7,422
$8,709
US78 Standard (Class
71)
List Price
$3,631
$4,294
Fuel
3,904
4,634
Maintenance
625
625
Total
$8,160
$9,553
Cost increase
$ 738
$ 844
Pollution-control cost saving
for compact =
$106/vehicle
Class 22 - Conventional engine
Class 71 - Dual-catalytic reactor
59
-------
TABLE 5-11
Scenario Costs of Small-Car Strategy: Scenarios C, J
(Billions of 1974 Dollars, Excess Over Scenario A)
Total
1970-1985
Costs'*"
Scenario
List
Price
Mainte-
nance
Fuel
Total
1985
Only
Total
C
16.89
8.55
9.40
+34.80
+3.01
J
34.73
8.88
24.80
+6 8.40
+7.91
(Increase)
33.60
4.90
C Small Vehicle
-32.57
7.64
-13.83
-38.76
-8.66
J Small Vehicle
-L4.61
7.46
- 0.97
- 8.13
-4.32
(Increase)
30.63
4.34
With small cars, scenario cost increases from C to J
are reduced by $2.97 billion over 15 years, and by
$0.56 billion in 1985.
60
-------
6. INVESTMENT COSTS FOR VARIOUS SCENARIOS
Investment costs are important in understanding the ability of
the automotive industry to introduce new hardware to meet emissions
(or other legislative) requirements.''" Investment cost impacts the in-
dustry in several ways. First, the investment costs reasonably assigned
to different engine systems or technologies determine the relative
competitiveness of each. Second, as the average investment per car
rises, the amount of new technology being introduced generally increases
with an associated mandate for altering production lines and facilities.
This increased level of activity and disruption increasingly stresses
the rather fixed cadre of experienced operational managers within the
industry, and increases the risk of missing production schedules and
of introducing poorly made equipment in the field. Third, as the in-
vestment per vehicle rises, it begins to approach the limit of total
capital investments which has traditionally been available to the in-
dustry yearly for building manufacturing capacity for new products.
While difficult to estimate precisely, the limit on capital investment
of this type for the domestic industry in recent years has been $300 to
$400 million, or about $30 to $40 per car. Other new-product innova-
tions besides emissions changes, of course, also compete for this
allocation; for example, changes in production facilities to produce
more small cars. Finally, the commitment to new production capability
must be viewed not only from the total cost in a specific year, but also
in terms of the pattern of investment being committed over a period of
years. Clearly, some current decisions may bind company investment
funds for only a year or so, while others may, in effect, lay claim to
these investment dollars for the next decade.
In the current study, investment costs are calculated on both a
per-vehicle basis and on a time-phased yearly basis. In the process
It is appropriate to repeat, th&t in this consultant report, investment
in the design and construction of new manufacturing facilities, outfit-
ting them with equipment, and launching the product is addressed. The
associated investment in product R and D is not included.
61
-------
of obtaining these numbers, investment was calculated for each production
resource, such as a transmission assembly line, one by one (see Appendix L).
This data is too microscopic and extensive to be reported here, and, hence,
is not included in this consultant report. The net effect of all such
shifts in resources, however, is reported.
In Table 6-1, the investment costs per vehicle are compared for an
Intermediate-A car for the dominant technology meeting progressively
tighter emissions standards. Total investment costs per car are progres-
sively more substantial, as one would expect. To meet the US70, US73, C75,
177 standards, in that order, requires equilibrium investments per car of
$0, $22, $11.99, $13.30, and $12.60. It should be stated again that these
numbers would change somewhat if the individual time-phased scenario plans
were changed, but the general trend would be the same. For Scenario J,
two systems are equally dominant: Configuration 74 (dual catalysts) and
Configuration 144 (EFI with three-way catalysts). Interestingly, although
both systems are near the $30-$40 area for the upper-bound cost, $33.77 and
$26.88 per car, respectively, the EFI system is only half as expensive in
equilibrium price, $9.76 vs. $24.36 per car. Since this cost for EFI is
of the same order as the industry has already made to meet the US75 stan-
dards, we would indeed expect EFI technology to be strongly competitive,
as was assumed in scenarios I, J and K (see Appendix F).
The investment costs per car for alternative ways of implementing
the US78 standard (0,4 g/mi NO^) are compared in Table 6-2. The production
volumes assumed are also indicated in Table 6-2, since investment costs,
in the comparisons which follow, are sensitive to production volume.
For the dominant system (Otto-cycle engine with dual catalysts), the
equilibrium investment cost ranges from $21.54 to $38.50 per car. In
Scenario K, where MFI technology is included (Car 151), this carries
an investment per car of $15.77, intermediate between Vehicle 74 and
Vehicle 144. This justifies the assumption in that scenario that MFI
62
-------
TABLE 6-1
Comparison of Scenario Investment Costs per Car for the
Dominant Technology To Meet Progressive Standards
(All cars are Intermediate-A size. Data for all car sizes are given in Appendix H.)
Scenari n
Standard
Serial
No.
Vehicle Description
Investment
Principal
$/car
Interest
Total1
76-79Max^
1985
Sales
(000)
A
US70
25
OC, Baseline car
0
0
0
0
2,266
B
US 73
18
OC, EGR
.21
.01
.22
.36
1,223
C
US75
39
OC, DEGR, HCAT
11.27
.72
11.99
17.97
1,472
c
C75
46
OC, DEGR, AI, HCAT
12.50
.80
13.30
19.99
702
E
177
53
OC, PEGR, AI, HCAT
11.80
.79
12.60
19.50
2,266
J
US78
74
OC, Dual-Cat. system
22.72
1.65
24.36
33.77
1,133
144
OC, EFI, 3-way Cat.
8.97
.78
9.76
26.88
1,133
Investment per car based on investment recovery over three years production, averaged over
the entire scenario. This number is referred to in the text as "equilibrium investment
cost."
Maximum investment per car during the years 1976 to 1979 based on investment recovery over
three years production. This number is referred to in the text as the "upper-bound cost."
63
-------
TABLE 6-2
Comparison o£ Scenario Investment Costs per Car for a Conventional Engine,
Dual-Catalyst Vehicle, and a Vehicle with EFI and a Three-May Catalyst.
All Vehicles Are Intermediate-A Cars Which Meet the US78 Emissions Standard.
(Data for all car sizes are given in Appendix K.)
Investment, $/car
1985
Scenario
Standard
Serial
Ho.
Vehicle Description
Principal
Interest
Total*
76-79Max*
Sales
(000)
I
US78
74
Dual Cat.
20.00
1.55
21.54
34.98
1,133
J
US 7 8
74
22.72
1.65
24.37
33.77
1,133
JSV**
US78
74
32.02
2.34
34.36
42.78
1,510
K
US 78
74
26.55
2.06
28.60
32.10
679
KSV**
US78
74
35.57
2.92
38.50
40.69
906
I
US78
144
EFI with
3-way Cat.
8.61
.74
9.35
22.59
1,133
J
US 78
144
8.97
.78
9.76
26.88
1,133
JSV**
US78
144
21.48
1.83
23.32
40.06
1,510
K.
US78
144
7.91
.86
8.78
22.58
906
KSV**
US78
144
20.63
1.82
22.45
35.96
1,208
K
US 78
151
MFI with
3-way Cat.
14.33
1.44
15.77
39.70
679
KSV**
US78
151
25.79
2.33
28.12
49.48
906
See footnotes in Table 6-1.
The first letter indicates the pattern of emissions standards to be followed (Table 4-6)
and "SV" indicates that the small-car size mix (Table 4-4) was used.
64
-------
technology would be competitive. In Scenario J (US78 standards in 1978),
no MFI was included because we felt it was unlikely MFI technology and
2
EFI technology could both be introduced for mass production by 1978.
In Scenario K where the US78 standard is delayed until 1980, however,
it was assumed both could be in production by 1980.
It is interesting to note the effect of the small vehicle shift
on the investment cost per car in Table 6-2. In nearly all cases, the
sales volume for this Intermediate-A car increases by about 507o between
normal and small-car scenario versions. Comparing Scenarios J and JSV,
the dual-catalyst system (74) increases in investment cost per car
slightly less than 50% ($24.37 to $34.36 in equilibrium investment cost).
EFI systems with three-way catalysts more than double their investment
cost ($9.76 to $23.32) because a substantially higher rate of invest-
ment is necessary to produce the additional volume. This would increase
the risk of going to EFI technology in the face of a concurrent shift
to smaller cars. Taken in total, Table 6-2 shows that the investments
associated with the US78 (0.4 g/mi NO ) standard are of the same order
as the total investments per car for new facilities traditional in the
industry.
Scenario F1 compares the investments costs per car of bringing
in a variety of alternative engine technologies in modest volume,
assuming that the NO standard were relaxed to 1.0 g/mi in 1978. Data
X
for Scenario Fl are presented in Table 6-3. Many alternative engine
systems which simply cannot compete at 0.4 g/mi N0x are very competitive
at 1.0 g/mi NO . Ranked in order of per-car-investment costs (Table 6-3),
X
these are: EFI (137), Diesel (200), CVCC Honda (288), and
2
The problems of introducing two or more new technologies in the same
time-frame is discussed more fully in the next section.
65
-------
TABLE 6-3
Comparison of the Investment Costs per Vehicle for Alternative Technologies
To Meet the T277 Standard (1.0 g/mi NO^). All cars are Intermediate-A Size.
(Data for all car sizes are given in Appendix M.)
Scenario
Standard
Serial
No.
Vehicle Description
Investment,
Principal
$/car
Interest
Total*
76-79Max*
1985
Sales
(000)
F1
T277
137
EFI with 3-way Gat.
5.34
.73
6.08
27.84
679
F1
T277
158
MFI (CCS) with
44.31
2.29
46.60
78.28
226
Oxy. Cat.
F1
T277
200
Diesel with EGR**
6.10
.61
6.71
29.37
271
F1
T277
221
Dual-Cat. System
18.04
1.2 8
19.33
27.42
815
F1
T277
228
Stratified Charge
13.35
.57
13.93
15.42
135
(CVCC)
F1
T277
235
Wankel with Dual
794.91
32.32
827.23
850.63
135
Cat.
See footnotes in Table 6-1.
ie-k
Assumes a diesel engine with high engine-block compatability with gasoline-engine transfer
lines,
66
-------
Dual-Cat. System (221). The associated investments per car are: $6.08,
$6.71, $13.93 and $19.33. Such a ranking is not absolute, but merely
indicative, since the particular numbers are sensitive to the production
volumes which differ for the various technologies. The CCS system (158)
is a weak competitor at best ($44.60 per car) and the Wankel (235) would
appear to be out of the running unless a substantial investment pass-on
to customers were possible ($827.23 per car).
In Table 6-4, comparative investment data on Wankel cars at
Standards 177 and T277 (Scenarios E and F) are presented. The risk of
introducing new engine technology into the market during a time of rapid
change is amply illustrated. Originally, the Wankel was developed for
introduction by the U.S. industry in 1970-1972, at a time when performance
improvement and weight reduction were major concerns. With the shift in
emphasis to fuel economy and emissions as the result of continuance of
strict emissions standards and the energy crisis, the Wankel has had a
difficult fight for survival. The penalty for better emissions per-
formance, combined with a drop in sales volume, shows dramatically in
Table 6-4. For an Intermediate-A car, the equilibrium investment per
car increases from $328.38 to $827.23 as the NO changes from 2.0 to
X
1.0 g/mi and the volume drops from 339,000 to 135,000 units for 1985.
The total yearly investment for the automotive industry under
Scenarios E, Fl, J and JSV are presented in Table 6-5. These invest-
ments are the incremental investments over those required for Scenario A.
Thus, they reflect the relative additional penalties of following the
particular condition assumed in a specific scenario.
Table 6-5 shows the progressive investment-cost penalty over the
ten years from 1974 to 1983 of tighter emissions standards. Sor
Scenarios E (2,0 g/mi NO ), Fl, (1.0 g/ml NO ) and J (0.4 g/mi NO ),
X X X
67
-------
TABLE 6-4
Comparison of Scenario Investment Costs per Car for Wankel Vehicles to
Two Different Emissions Standards
(Data for all car sizes are given in Appendix M.)
Scenario
Standard
Serial
No.
Vehicle
Description
Investment,
Principal
$/car
Interest
Total
76-79Max
1985
Sales
(000)
EW
177
177
Wankel
Subcompact
116.31
3.86
120.18
137.58
440
EW
177
178
Wankel
Compact
241.60
9.01
250.61
330.49
428
EW
177
179
Wankel
Inter-A
317.46
10.92
328.38
354.29
339
F1
T277
233
Wankel
Subcompact
726.54
32.14
758.69
773.03
105
F1
T277
234
Wankel
Compact
674.27
29.71
703.98
718.66
128
F1
T277
235
Wankel
Inter-A
794.91
32.32
827.23
850.63
135
68
-------
TABLE 6-5
Yearly Investment in New Manufacturing Facilities for Scenarios E, Fl, J and JSV
(Incremental Investment Over Scenario A}
Year
Scenario
Inves tment
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
E
+
198
109
219
24
48
19
31
21
11
5
-
-11
-9
-13
-2'
-7
-2
-14
-2
-10
-2
Total
net
187
100
206
22
41
17
17
19
1
3
613
Fl
+
198
109
306
293
272
40
97
45
28
6
-
-11
-9
-27
-25
-33
-10
-19
-70
-28
-45
Total
net
187
100
279
268
239
30
78
-25
0
-39
1,117
J
+
198
107
382
201
163
94
58
41
31
12
-
-11
-9
-23
-23
-34
-7
-35
-2
-10
-4
Total
net
187
98
359
178
129
87
23
39
21
8
1,129
JSV
+
230
151
341
754
468
231
549
70
76
27
-
-11
-13
-138
-176
-231
-166
-163
-57
-15
-113
Total
net
219
138
203
578
237
65
386
13
61
-86
1,814
+ = Yearly investment in millions of dollars
- = Yearly investment recovery in millions of dollars
net = Net yearly investment in millions of dollars
69
-------
the corresponding investment costs are $613, $1,117 and $1,129 million,
respectively. The heaviest years of investment in all cases are the
years 1976 through 1978. In terms of the traditional $300 million limit
for investment of this type, these three scenarios just stay within
this ceiling.
As the investment per car figures showed earlier, the combina-
tion of a more drastic shift to smaller cars and the 0.4 g/mi NO
x
standard in 1978 substantially increases the total investment costs.
In this case, the investment is $1,813 million, just less than twice
that for Scenario J ($1,128 million). While it is difficult to say
categorically that Scenario JSC is undoable, having as it does an average
yearly investment over the ten years of $181 million, it certainly would
stress the industry in the extreme, as well as curtail other options for
alternative uses of this investment.
Were the NO standard held at 2.0 g/mi NO as assumed in all
x x
E scenarios, the investment costs are considerably lower. In Table 6-6,
the costs of Scenarios E, ED, ESC and EW are compared. The total costs
are $613, $630, $730 and $868 million, respectively. Diesel investments
and stratified-charge engine investments are roughly comparable to those
of conventional technology, while Wankel-engine investments are about
50% greater than conventional engine technology. With average yearly
investment of $61 to $87 million, the investment costs for all of these
alternatives are clearly affordable.
70
-------
TABLE 6-6
Yearly Investment in New Manufacturing Facilities for
Alternative Technologies To Meet 177 Standards
Year
snario
Investment
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
E
+
198
109
219
24
48
19
31
21
11
5
-
-11
-9
-13
-2
-7
-2
-14
-2
-10
-2
Total
net
187
100
206
22
41
17
17
19
1
3
613
ED
+
198
132
189
15
41
38
18
58
13
0
-
-11
-9
-13
-2
-7
-2
-14
-2
-10
-2
Total
net
187
123
176
13
34
36
4
56
3
-2
630
ESC
+
198
29
312
27
78
74
74
29
44
-
-11
-9
-13
-11
-7
-5
-13
-2
-8
-4
Total
net
187
20
299
16
71
69
61
27
36
5
791
EW
+
242
250
265
123
31
65
31
37
52
30
-
-11
-9
-13
-43
-7
-47
-14
-54
-15
-45
Total
net
231
241
252
80
24
18
17
-17
37
-15
868
+ « Yearly investment in millions of dollars
- » Yearly investment recovery in millions of dollars
net =5 Net yearly investment in millions of dollars
EDITOR'S NOTE: These changes are to make the conversion in ESC
comparable to that done later for ESC-2.
71
-------
7. DEVELOPMENT, TOOLING, AND MANUFACTURING CONSTRAINTS
Having compared the lifetime costs (Section 5) and the invest-
ment costs (Section 6) of alternative engine technologies in the prior
section, it is appropriate here to examine the problems of transferring
that technology from development into mass production. In particular,
the earliest date at which a given technology might be mass-produced is
sought, as is some sense of how fast that production can be scaled up.
These questions are answered by reviewing the current status of al-
ternative engine technologies, by examining the constraints in intro-
ducing each of them, and by reviewing the data on the investment
implications of selected combinations of emissions standards and
technology.
7.1 Status of Alternative Engine Technologies
The precise status of the development work for various alternative
engines, with the associated problems, has been considered in detail in
the Consultant Report on Emissions Control of Engine Systems.''' The task
here is to consolidate this detailed information into a schedule which,
¦while recognizing the difficulties and unresolved developmental issues,
estimates the earliest practical date for mass production of the various
alternative engine technologies. These estimates are summarized in
Table 7-1.
The tooling lead times for the various technologies or the time
from initiation of the tooling effort to production, are given in
Table 7-1. This time is estimated to be 18 months for the dual-catalyst
system, 36 months for the fuel-injected, divided-chamber, stratified-
charge engine, and 30 months for all other systems.
1
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., September 1974.
72
-------
TABLE 7-1
Timetable for the Fastest Transfer of Alternative
Engine Technology from Development to Mass Production
Engine Technology
1. Dual Catalyst
2. EF1 with 3-way catalyst
3. CVCC (Honda)
4. Fuel-injected, divided
chamber, stratified-
charge
Phase
Development
Tooling
Production
Development
Tooling
Production
Development
Tooling
Production
Development
Tooling
Production
Start
Present
Jan, 76
July 77
Pre»74
July 74
Jan. 77
Pre-74
Jan. 75
July 77
July 74
July 75
July 78
Finish
July 76
Jaii. 77
July 76
Jan. 77
Jan. 77
July 77
July 77
July 78
5. CCS (Texaco)
6. Diesel of taported
design, U.S. built
7. Diesel of U.S. design,
U.S. built
Development
Tooling
Production
Development
Tooling
Production
Development
Tooling
Production
Pre-74
July 76
Jan, 79
July 78
Jan. 79
-Completed-
Jan. 75 July 77
July 77
July 74
Jan. 77
July 79
July 78
July 79
-------
The much shorter time for the dual-catalyst system results from
he fact that no modifications of the engine itself are required,
icilities must be constructed to fabricate the dual-catalyst housing,
assuming both catalysts (plus oxygen getter for certain systems) are
housed in one metal unit, or to fabricate separate housings if they are
Tt in one unit. Facilities for manufacturing pellet, monolith or base-
TGtal units must also be provided. None of these are particularly
jphisticated components, so a minimum amount of time would be required.
he 18-month estimate for these dual-catalyst facilities is based partly
a the industry's recent experience in developing oxidizing catalyst
f acilities.
A number of other automotive tooling times are quite similar:
1. Vehicle assembly lines, including chassis assembly
lines, will require about 20 months;
2. Body assembly lines require about 20 months to
design and build the automatic press welders,
body bucks, work-handling conveyors, etc;
3. Body press and forming lines require about 15 to
18 months.
4. Engine assembly lines require about 20 months; and,
5. Component assembly lines require 12 to 16 months
to design and build.
The multi-station, metal-cutting transfer lines used to manu-
facture cylinder blocks, cylinder heads, manifolds, transmission cases,
/ :ar-axle housings, carburetor bodies, etc., require two to three years
f j design, install and debug (see Appendix D). Such lines may be
several hundred feet in length with numerous metal-cutting-tool operating
''ations, and range in cost from $2 million to $15 million. Typical,
74
-------
annual production of such a line is 300,000 units on a two-shift,
five-day-per-week schedule, and almost twice that on three shifts and
six days per week. All of the emissions-controlled engine systems in
Table 7-1, except the dual-catalyst system, would require some new
lines of this latter class or major modifications of existing lines.
This fact is reflected in the estimated lead times shown in the table.
In developing the data for Table 7-1, it was assumed one of the
major U.S. automobile manufacturers had made a major commitment to pro-
duce the engine specified, and the earliest date of mass production
was then estimated. If two or more technologies were to be brought in
together, the engine system given priority by the manufacturer would
have the schedule indicated, while lower priority systems would be
delayed. It should also be mentioned that at the present time, no
U.S. manufacturer is committed to bringing in any of the systems
specified on the schedule indicated.
7.2 Constraints on Rapid Introduction of Alternative Engine Technologies
If the American automotive industry were to bring in a new engine
technology on the schedule indicated in Table 7-1, it would not be
possible to change over to that technology completely in the first year
of production. The reason is that several constraints or limitations
exist on the rate of production expansion of a new engine technology,
which is described below.
The U.S. automotive industry Is characterized in its production
activity by its sheer size and delicate internal balance of the factors
of production. Among the many factors of production which the industry
seeks to balance are the following:
75
-------
1. To keep the production volume in mass production
lines balanced. Parts costs are lowest when
lines are run near their optimum volume.
2. To keep individual profit centers profitable.
The division of the major companies into
identifiable profit units has been a major
fiscal control strategy, which may occasionally
impede the rapid introduction of new technology.
3. To limit warranty costs. Warranty costs per car,
which are in the range of $5 for the engine/drive
train system, are rapidly increased with even
small changes in engine systems reliability be-
cause of the large production rates. As few as
6 to 12 field failures in a given particular
part are sufficient to trigger strong corrective
action.
4. To use proven, experienced manufacturing managers.
In auto making, experience is highly valued.
Typically, senior manufacturing managers have
over 20 years experience in the industry. If
the pace of new product and facilities intro-
duction is accelerated, this pool of experienced
managers is extremely overloaded, and only a
few acceptable managers can be brought in from
other industries.
5. To minimize disruption of the vast network of
vendors and suppliers. The automotive industry
has traditionally used a large number of
vendors for the production of small parts
and assemblies for which transportation and
materials handling costs are relatively insig-
nificant. These parts are made by numerous
vendors who, in turn, have a network of sup-
pliers. Large-scale and rapid product changes
severely dislocate this network, raise costs,
and increase scrap rates.
6. To balance the load on the machine-tool industry.
In 1974, nine companies supplied 96% of the metal-
cutting transfer lines used by the U.S. auto in-
dustry. Since this capability is small, highly
76
-------
skilled and difficult to expand, it is im-
portant that the industry do what it can to
balance their requirements on this sector.
Table 7-2 describes the capacity of this
sector in detail. In this table, it can be
seen that in 1974 the automotive industry
used 92/260 or 35% of the capacity of this
sector appropriate to automotive manufacturing.
7. To invest conservatively in facilities for new
product designs. In recent years, the U.S.
automotive industry has allocated 300 to 400
million dollars, or $30 to $40 per car, for
new production facilities to make products of
new design. This investment is, in a sense,
speculative, compared to that made to replace
plant and equipment for continuing, proven parts
and subsystems. From 1970 to 1974, $130 million,
or $14.99 per car, of this allocation has been
devoted to new emissions-control designs (see
Table 7-3).
To question, then, what limits the rapid conversion from current
engine technology to an alternative technology, such as diesel engine
technology, the complete answer must speak to all seven of these
constraints. Recognizing, however, that most of these are difficult to
evaluate in detail and that all are interelated, the investment costs
of various alternatives will be used as the lead indicator in the fol-
lowing sub-section.
7.3 Alternative Engine Changeovers Studied in Detail
To determine the investment impact of different combinations of
emissions standards and engine technologies, a series of hypothetical
time-phased production plans (scenarios) were studied. The final
emissions standards and the final engine technology used in these
scenarios are summarized in Table 7-4 (see Appendix F for more details
on these scenarios). All scenarios cover the period 1970-1985 and the
77
-------
TABLE 7-2
Estimated Capacity of the U.S. Automotive
Tooling Industry in 1974
(Tooling here is taken as meaning metal-cutting transfer lines,)
(Million $)
1. U.S. Capacity for Making All Types
of Metal-Cutting Transfer Lines 335.
2. Total Capacity Appropriate to
Automotive Operations (787., of
Item lj 260.
3. Amount of Item 2 Exported 46.
4. Amount of Item 2 Sold to Other Industries 122.
5. Net Amount Used for Automobiles in 1974 92.
Source: Appendix D.
78
-------
TABLE 7-3
Emissions-Related Investment by the U.S. Automotive Industry 1970-1974
1. Total Emissions-Related
Investment 1970-1974 §650,700,00 *
2. Average Investment per year 1970-1974
(Item 1 divided by five years) $130a140,0
3. Total car production by U.S.
builders (including Canadian 1970 7,115,000 cars
production) for the U.S. market 1971 8,676,000
1972 9,321,000
1973 9,669,000
1974 8,625,000 . t.)
TOTAL 43,406,000 vrs
4. Average Emissions-Related Investment
per Car 1970-1974 (Item 1 divided by
Item 3) $14.99 per cjr
This number can be derived from Table 2-1 by subtracting the $3,300,000 spent ir 1968/70
for PCV-valve tooling.
79
-------
TABLE 7-4
Combinations of Engine Technologies and Standards Studied
Ulti-
Calen-
Domestic
Domestic
mate
dar Year
1980
1983
Emissions
Car
of Intro-
Market
Market
Scenario
Standard
C lasses
Engine Technology
duction
Share
Share
A
US70
22
Baseline Car
1969
100
100
C
US75/C75
29
Conventional Engine with.
Air Injection & EGR
1974
12
12
36
Conventional Engine with
EGR & Oxidizing Catalyst
1974
47
47
43
Conventional Engine with
EGR, Oxidising Catalyst,
1974
35
35
50
and Air Injection
Conventional Engine with
Proportional EGR, Oxidizing
Catalyst, and Air Iniection
1974
6
6
E
177
50
As above
1974
91
91
134
Conventional Engine with
EFI and 3-way catalyst
1976
9
9
E-2
177
50
As above
1974
100
100
ED
177
50
As above
1974
86
81
134
As above
1976
5
5
190
Diesel
1977
12
14
ED-2
177
50
As above
1974
88
83
190
Diesel
1977
12
17
ESC
177
50
As above
1974
73
59 ^
85
CVCC with lean thermal
reactor
1977
11
14
211
(CCS) Stratified-charge
engine with mechanical
fuel injection and oxi-
dizing catalyst
1977
16
27
ESC-2
177
50
As above
1974
73
59 ^
85
CVCC with Lean Thermal
Reactor
1977
27
41
J
US78
71
Conventional Engine with
Air Injection and Serial
1977
64
46 —¦
141
Catalyst System
Conventional Engine with EFI
and 3-way Catalyst
1977
36
54
Source: Appendix P.
80
-------
final standard is assumed to remain in effect after it is once operative.
Also listed in Table 7-4 is the calendar year in which the particular
engine technology is assumed to be introduced and the market share it is
assumed to have in 1983. While those scenarios are hypothetical, they
do use those engine technologies which were deemed likely at a given
standard by the Technology consultants, at a time consistent with
Table 7-1, and at a rate deemed practical by this Panel of Consultants.
The results of the study of these investment scenarios are sum-
marized in Table 7-5. If the US75 standards were to continue, the
average yearly investment rate would drop from the $130 million yearly
for 1970-1974 (Table 7-3) to $30 million yearly for 1975-1979. If the
177 standard were introduced in 1977, the yearly investment would be
in the range of $77-$89 million yearly for the period 1975-1979. The
assumption of emissions standards is much more important than the
engine technology assumed, since the conventional-engine scenario (E),
the diesel-engine scenario (ED), and the stratified-charge-engine
scenario (ESC) all fall in this range. The corresponding scenarios yhich
introduce only a single competitive technology (E-2, ED-2 and I3SC-2)
have a similar range of average yearly investment ($56-$98 million).
In all of these cases, the yearly manufacturing investment is less than
the $130 million yearly the industry has already spent, and, therefore,
is clearly affordable.
In the case of the two scenarios with the stricter NO standards,
x
Fl (1.0 g/mi NO ) and J (0.4 g/mi NO ), the average yearly investments
X x •
for the same five-year period are $183 million and $170 million,
respectively. Since these lie between the $130 million spent between
1970 and 1974 and the total available level of $300 million, these
scenarios are also concluded to be practical, although expensive. The
same conclusions, of course, can be drawn using the per-car costs as
the basis for argument.
81
-------
TABLE 7-5
Annual Investment Costs of Meeting Various Emissions
Standards Under the Assumption of Table 7-4
~~ " Dollar/Car
Emissions Yearly Investment, Million $ Average
Scenario Standard In 1975 Average 1975-1979 1975^1979**
_ ~ —_ _
A US70 (3.9/33/6.0) 0 0 0
C US75 (1.5/15/3.1) 7 30 3.13
C75 (0.9/9.0/2.0)
E 177 (0.41/3.4/2.0) 100 77 8.04
E-2 " " " " 20 56 5.87
ED " " " " 123 76 7.94
ED- 2 " " " " 50 62 6.51
ESC ,! " " " 20 95 9.30
ESC-2 " " " " 20 98 10.27
J US78 (0,41/3.4/0,4) 93 170 17.76
HC/CO/KO^ emissions given in grams per mile.
Sales of 47,872,000 units are assumed over this period.
82
-------
The principal conclusion here, then, is that the difficulty and
cost of effecting a particular scenario depends primarily on the
emissions standards assumed, and much less on the assumed technology.
As expected, tighter standards lead to higher investments, but these
are affordable even for the 0.4 g/mi NO standard. The introduction
X
of competitive alternative engine technologies introduced in 1977-1979,
and rising to a market share of 5% to 207<> in 1983, is practical and does
not greatly alter the total yearly investment.
83
-------
8. COMMENTS ON ALTERNATIVE INDUSTRY STRATEGIES
In addition to direct-cost information, work with and considera-
tion of the various scenarios provided some additional insights into
the impact of the alternative emissions legislation on the automotive
industry.
8.1 Shift to Smaller Cars
The shift to smaller cars and its timing is very uncertain ground
for industry planners; therefore, should the switch to smaller cars be
more rapid than anticipated (by the small-car pattern instead of the
normal pattern), what would then be the possible industry attitudes
toward emissions?
In Table 8-1, the total new-car dealer sales (total sticker list
price) are given for three standard scenarios (C, J and K) and for their
small vehicle versions (CSV, JSV and KSV). Comparing C and J in 1980,
we see that J provides $2 billion per year more revenue than C
($53 vs. $51 billion) because of the sale of more expensive hardware.
Similarly, in the event the shift to small cars was according to the
more radical small-car pattern, JSC would provide $2 billion more
revenue to the industry than CSV ($48 vs. $46 billion). Note the
implicit assumptions that the hardware will meet the 0.4 g/mi NO
X
standard (still unproven) and that the 0.4 NO hardware has good enough
customer acceptance to avoid any drop in new car sales. Even so, if
some confidence were to build in these two areas, the stricter standard
would then have the effect of giving a much-needed lift to potentially
sagging industry new-car sales revenue.
8.2 Catalytic Converters
Based on current knowledge, both catalytic and noncatalytic
emissions-control systems continue to be investigated in automotive
84
-------
TABLE 8-1
Effect of Shift to Small Vehicles and Progressive Emissions Standards on
Sales by U.S. Dealers of Domestic Production
Scenario
75
76
77
CALENDAR
78 79
YEAR
80
81
82
83
84
85
C
45
46
48
48
50
51
53
55
57
59
61
CSV
45
45
45
45
46
46
47
49
51
52
54
J
45
47
48
50
52
53
55
57
59
61
64
JSV
45
45
46
47
48
48
49
51
53
55
57
K
45
47
48
49
51
53
55
57
59
62
64
KSV
45
45
46
46
47
48
49
51
53
55
57
Dealer
Sales in
Billions
of 1974 Dollars
Source: Appendix N.
85
-------
research and development laboratories. It is important to note, however,
that the industry has been forced to introduce catalytic-converter tech-
nology to mass production to meet the California and Federal standards
in 1975, In addition, all dominant vehicle classes (71, 141 and 148)
for 0.4 g/mi NO currently use catalytic technology. In 1974-75, the
industry will produce both monolith and pellet hardware in volume. But
major questions remain such as: (a) is the monolith or the pellet the
superior system; (b) will the driving public accept the converter tech-
nology without political ruckus; (c) will the government require, and
enforce, catalyst change at 50,000 miles, and (d) will an effective
base-metal catalyst be developed to permit elimination of platinum?
It is clear that it will be both difficult and risky for the industry
to move forward with confidence to stricter standards until such data
is available. Presumably, adjustments in Federal regulations would
consider such data limitations.
8.3 Diesel Technology
Considering the problems of the shift to smaller cars, pressures
for fuel—economy improvements and uncertainties in emissions regulations
and test procedure, it is not surprising that the industry is not
placing high priority on the automotive diesel, in spite of its good
fuel economy. In many ways, the uncertainty in emissions standards
generally and for diesel in particular becomes a convenient justifica-
tion for limited work toward introducing automotive diesel engines.
One major move toward promoting diesel development would be to
publish a separate emissions regulation and test procedure for auto-
motive diesel engines. This is not unreasonable, since the engine is
acknowledged to have special problems with particulates, sulphur dioxide,
odor, and noise. Publication of such a separate regulation may well lead
to some subsequent diesel entrepreneurship by one of the domestic
manufacturers~
86
-------
8.4 Production Facilities for Fuel Distribution Hardware
At the present time, major efforts have been made by the auto
industry to retain the carburetor rather than to change to EFI. Should
EFI in time be seen as a desirable replacement for the carburetor in
some cars, it is interesting to inquire as to what the major obstacle
to be overcome is, in getting from carbureted, serial catalysts to EFI
or MFI technology.
In making this analysis, it is relevant to think of the analogous
development of the facilities for the pellet oxidizing catalytic con-
verter. The pellet converter permitted substantial decoupling of the
problems of engine design and tuning, under-body modifications, pellet
development, pellet-coating development, and cannister manufacture.
At the same time, it provided an easy evolution into the leading three-
way catalyst system. Through this decomposition of the problem, an
11th hour commitment was obtained to make the plant investment.
It would appear that a similar decomposition of the problem
would be necessary to get some company to commit themselves to a fuel
pumping (or distribution) hardware manufacturing facility. Alternative
designs for a pumped fuel-delivery system (MFI and EFI) would need to
be rationalized so that any mix of pumps, tubing and nozzles co|uld be
made within this facility on a volume basis. With such flexible capa-
city, an EFI, MFI, CCS and diesel fuel-delivery system could be made,
depending on subsequent product decisions. It is interesting to note
that the Panel of Consultants visited a fuel distribution hardware
plant, which was extraordinarily modern and efficient, that is a po-
tential model for the facility.
87
-------
9. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
In completing a study with the detail of the present one, the
constant concern necessarily and properly is the completeness, accuracy,
and consistency of the detailed data. In the very process of handling
the data, certain assumptions and dominant trends assert themselves.
For the present work, these were as follows:
A. The manufacturing of automobiles in the United
States has proved to be a substantially more
dynamic, difficult, and uncertain business in
the late 1970's than it was earlier in the
decade. The change has been the result of the
compounded effects of government regulations
for safety and emissions (and potentially, gas
economy), the energy crisis, materials shortages,
and the pressures for serious development of
alternative engine technologies.
B. In spite of an industry investment for emissions
in excess of $300 million per year on research
and development and approximately $200 million
to $300 million yearly for new manufacturing
facilities, the solutions used through model year
1974 to reduce emissions have also been extremely
costly to the American driving public. This
penalty has been exacted by a 10%-15% reduction
in gasoline economy over that of 1970 cars.
C. The oxidizing catalytic converter, which has now
been design rationalized and tooled for mass pro-
duction, substantially eliminates in 1975 model
year cars the earlier fuel-economy penalty.
Public acceptance of the catalytic converter is
a major unanswered question which will depend
strongly on the durability of production units
in the field, the consequences of occasional
converter burnout, the government position on
enforcement of catalyst replacement at 50,000
miles, and the speed with which effective base-
metal catalysts can be developed.
38
-------
D. One dominant short-term automotive concern from
1975 to 1980 wilL almost certainly be the shift
to smaller cars with improved gasoline economy.
In the present study, it is shown that this
shift is extremely cost effective, saving the
driving public in total approximately $12 billion
each year by the mid-80's, as well as conserving
gasoline* The extent of the shift that will
occur naturally is an open and difficult question.
Fortunately, for the purposes of this study, the
scenario comparisons suggest that the question
of the optimum NO emissions level can, to a first
approximation, be considered separately from the
small-car shift issue.
If the current law is followed, requiring Q.A g/mi
NO in 1978, vehicles meeting that standard in
that year may cost about $850 more over their
lifetime than vehicles meeting a 1970 standard.
Total national automobile-pollutian-control ex-
penditures could reach almost $8 billion per year
by 1985 if no catalyst changes are required, and
$10 to $11 billion if all catalyst vehicles are
required to change catalysts at 50,000 miles.
F. If the most stringent standard requires only 2.0
g/mi NO instead of 4.0 g/mi, vehicles meeting
that standard may cost about $475 more over their
lifetime than vehicles meeting a 1970 standard.
Total national automobile-pollution-control ex-
penditures could reach $4.7 billion per year
without catalyst changes, and $6 to $7 billion
per year with complete catalyst change. Thus,
adoption of a 2 JO g/mi NO standard in place of 0.4
g/mi HO would save ove$ $22 billion by 1985, and
save oviar $3 billion per year about 1985.
G. Although no emissions technology or system has
clearly demonstrated its ability to meet the
US7U (0.4 g/mi NO ) emissions standards, all
systems under serious development use the
catalytic converter either serially or with
closed-loop controls. Consequently, their long-
term cost effectiveness is closely tied to the
resolution of the unanswered questions regarding
converters cited in Sub-section C above. While all
89
-------
such systems are inherently more complex than
those used to meet US75 standards, none pose
any solvable problems in being design-
rationalized and tooled for mass production.
H. Because the manufacturing capacity is largely
in place and field history is being generated,
the industry is most likely to proceed with a
serial catalyst system (such as the Gould system)
if the 0.4 g/mi N0X standard is retained. Other
systems with superior fuel economy, such as the
electronic-fuel-injection systems, would probably
be introduced in time. The combination, however,
of a changing industry environment, a domestically
unproven technology, limited reliability and
field experience, a substantial new investment
and reinvestment in production facilities, and
an intensified stress on experienced management
talent at the operational level provide strong
deterrents to rapid introduction of even superior
engine technologies.
I. Were the US78 N0X standard relaxed to a level
of 1.0 to 1.5 g/mi, a number of other alternative
engine technologies would come back into com-
petition, such as diesel, stratified charge (CVCC),
and, possibly, Wankel. The introduction of any
one or some combination of these is subject to the
same problems cited in Sub-section H and also to the
requirement of attaining a reasonable production
volume over which to amortize the related in-
vestments.
J. The capacity of the U.S. machine-tool companies
to design, build and install high-volume
transfer-line equipment is a major constraint on
the rate at which new engine technologies can
be reintroduced. The limitation arises from the
relatively small size of this transfer-line-
manufacturing capacity, its long-term level of
comaitment to nonautomotive work, its dependence
on experienced (and irreplaceable) employees,
and its traditional fear of overexpansion.
K. Given that the automotive diesel technology is
particularly cost effective, that there is no
special incentive for its introduction as noted
90
-------
in Sub-section I, and that it has certain unique
problems in regard to particulates, noise and
odor, it would appear to make sense to consider
a separate emissions regulation and test pro-
cedure for automotive diesel cars.
91
-------
LIST OF APPENDICES
A. Schedule of the Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability and Costs
B. Summary of Industry Answers to Panel of Consultants Questionnaire
C. Vehicle Structure in the Configuration File
D. Tooling Constraints in the Automotive Industry
E. Manufacturing Assessment of Alternative-Engine Technologies
F. Assumptions for Scenarios and Detailed Time-Phased Plans
G. Methodology for Summarizing Yearly Operating Costs
H. Automotive Fuel Cost and Availability
I. Vehicle Fuel-Economy Data
J. Vehicle Maintenance Data
K. Sticker List Price Data
L. Methodology for Calculating Investment Costs for Alternate Scenarios
M. Summary of Investment Cost Data
N. Summary of Yearly Vehicle Operating Costs
92
-------
APPENDIX A
Schedule of the Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability and Costs
(Compiled by LeRoy H. Lindgren)
Nov. 18, 1973 Lindgren attended planning meeting in Washington,
D.C. at National Academy of Sciences.
Nov. 29, 30, 1973 Lindgren attended CMVE meeting in Washington, D.C.
at the National Academy of Sciences.
Dec. 1, 1973 Ebner and Lindgren attended a preliminary meeting
at Boston University to develop schedules.
Dec. 14, 15, 1973 Lindgren attended CMVE meeting in Washington, D.C.
at the National Academy of Sciences
Dec. 26, 1973 Ebner and Lindgren met at Boston University to
prepare schedule of appointments.
Jan. 3, 1974 Ebner and Lindgren visited Popular Science office
of Jan Norbye to review the European technology
status of Wankel, diesel, and stratified-charge
engines.
Jan. 9, 10, 1974 Panel of Consultants meeting with Maxwell, Lindgren
and Ebner to review work statement and schedules.
Jan. 11, 1974 Panel of Consultants meeting with Ebner, Lindgren,
Gay, and Maxwell at Boston University to review
computer capabilities.
Jan. 17, 18, 1974 Meetings with Ford, Chrysler, and General Motors
Automobile Division executives in Detroit
(Lindgren, Ebner, Gay, and Maxwell attending) to
define the questionnaire requirements and to
review the current status of manufacturing emissions-
related components.
Jan. 24, 25, 1974 Lindgren, Ebner, Maxwell, and Gay attended CMVE
meeting in Washington, D.C. at the National Academy
of Sciences. A coordinating meeting with repre-
sentatives of the Costs Benefits Committee was held
on Friday, January 25.
Feb. 3, 4, 1974 Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell visited Cincinnati
Wilacron with M. E. Merchant of the CMVE Committee
to review the status of transfer-line production
capacities.
93
-------
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
1974
Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell visited the Cross Mfg.
Co. and Holley Carburetor in Detroit with E. Pugh
of CMVE to review the production of carburetors
for advanced engines.
Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell visited with executives
of the Excello Corp. in Detroit to review transfer
line designs for production of diesel and Wankel
engine components as well as for conventional
engine components.
Plant visit to Caterpillar Co. in Peoria, IL and
Davenport, IA to see the latest production trans-
fer lines for the new V-8 engine for truck appli-
cations.
Plant visit to International Harvester Co. in
Chicago to see the new transfer lines. Gay,
Lindgren, and Ebner met with the manufacturing
executives.
Lindgren and Ebner attended meeting at Universal
Oil Products in DesPlaines, IL to review the
manufacturing status of monolith and pellet
catalytic converters.
Lindgren visited the Caterpillar Co. production
facility in York, PA which produces computer-
controlled manufacturing, testing, and assembly
facilities.
Gay, Maxwell, and Lindgren visited Gleason Mfg.
Co. in Rochester, NY to review the Wankel compo-
nent transfer line and machine tool manufacturing.
Ebner, Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell visited the GM
carburetor plant to review the production of new
design carburetors.
Ebner, Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell visited the GM
engine production facilities in Tonawanda, NY to
review the new engine production planning.
Coordinating meeting with Costs Benefits Committee
member D. Dewees, CMVE Executive Director E. Pugh, and
CMVE Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability
and Costs members Lindgren and Ebner at Boston
University.
94
-------
Mar. 5, 1974 Meeting at Rath & Strong in Lexington, MA between
Lindgren and Maxwell to review Maxwell's paper on
diesel and stratified-charge engines.
Mar. 6, 7, 1974 CMVE meeting in Washington, DC attended by Lindgren,
Gay, and Maxwell.
Mar. 26, 1974 Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell visited Kearney &
Trecker in Milwaukee, WI with company executives
to review the tooling companies' position in meet-
ing the automotive companies' tooling requirements.
Mar. 27, 1974 Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell met in Janesville, WI
to prepare the automotive and tooling impact
tables to produce alternate engines.
Mar. 28, 1974 Visit to Gilman Engineering to see the automatic
assembly transfer line tooling for Wankel engines,
air conditioners, and air pumps. Lindgren, Gay,
and Maxwell attended a meeting with the corporate
officers.
April 8, 9, 10, 1974 Lindgren visited Chrysler, Ford, and General
Motors in Detroit to review the status of the
questionnaires being prepared for the CMVE Panel
of Consultants on Manufacturability and Costs.
April 11, 1974 Lindgren and J. John met in Bowling Green, OH to
review the configurations and scenarios prepared
by the Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability
and Costs.
April 23, 1974 Meeting at Rath & Strong in Lexington, MA with
Lindgren, Ebner, and Merchant to review Mr. Gay's
paper on tooling constraints in automotive trans-
fer line manufacturing.
April 24, 25, 1974 Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell attended CMVE meeting
in Washington, DC to present the Panel of Con-
sultants on Manufacturability and Costs tooling
status report.
May 14, 15, 1974 Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability and Costs
meeting in Chicago at the Marriott Hotel to pre-
pare the resource data-base estimates as well as
the inventory of tooling capacities. Lindgren,
Gay, Maxwell, and Ebner attended.
95
-------
May 21, 22, 1974
May 23, 24, 1974
June 3, 1974
June 4, 1974
June 5, 1974
June 24, 25, 1974
July 8, 1974
July 22, 1974
July 23, 24, 1974
July 25, 1974
Meeting in Washington, DC at the National Academy
of Sciences to listen to the foreign automobile
manufacturing companies' representatives. Lindgren,
Ebner, and Maxwell attended.
Maxwell attended the above meeting.
Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability and
Costs meeting in Detroit with Pugh, Merchant,
Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell to review the Panel of
Consultants report status.
Meeting with Bendix fuel injection engineers in
Detroit in the morning, and the Ford Motor Co.
carburetor engineers at Rawsonville, MI in the
afternoon. Lindgren, Gay, and Maxwell attended.
Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability and
Costs meeting with GM manufacturing engineers in
Milwaukee, WI to visit their catalytic converter
facility. Gay, Maxwell, Lindgren and Ebner attended.
Lindgren and Ebner met at Boston University -with
Pugh, Evans, and Dewees to develop fuel and main-
tenance data and scenarios.
Lindgren and Ebner met at Boston University with
Pugh and Evans to prepare final fuel and mainte-
nance data.
Gay and Lindgren met at Rath & Strong, Inc. in
Lexington, MA. to prepare the final investment
data for production tooling for the automobile
companies.
CMVE meeting in Washington, DC at the National
Academy of Sciences to present Panel of Consultants
on Manufacturability and Costs investments, scenarios
and costs. Lindgren, Gay, Ebner and Dewees attended.
Meeting in Washington, DC at the National Academy
of Sciences with Panel of Consultants on Technology
to coordinate configurations, fuel and maintenance
and scenario data. Lindgren and Ebner attended.
96
-------
July 29, 30, 31, 1974
August 13, 14, 1974
September 23, 24, 1974
October 17, 18, 1974
November 7, 8, 1974
Meeting at Boston University with Pugh and
Dewees to complete the configurations and the
cost data base. Lindgren and Ebner attended.
Lindgren and Ebner attended CMVE meeting in
Washington, DC at the National Academy of Sciences.
Lindgren and Ebner attended CMVE meeting in
Washington, DC at the National Academy of
Sciences.
Lindgren attended CMVE meeting in Washington,
DC at the National Academy of Sciences.
Lindgren and Ebner attended CMVE meeting in
Washington, DC at the National Academy of
Sciences,
97
-------
APPENDIX B
Summary of Industry Answers to
Panel of Consultants Questionnaire
(Compiled by LeRoy H. Lindgren)
The Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability and Costs (herein-
after referred to as the Panel of Consultants on M/C) prepared a manu-
facturing questionnaire which requested the following information:
1. The engine configurations that are likely to meet the follow-
ing standards:
HC
CO
NOx
Year
I
3.4
39.0
3.0
US/73/74
II
0.9
9.0
2.0
C 75
III
0.41
3.4
2.0
I 77
IV
0.41
3.4
0.4
US 78
The configuration data sheet contained sufficient component de-
tailed to identify the specific components required for each
engine. The Panel of Consultants on M/C requested detailed
costs component or by subsystem. The four companies provided
subsystem incremental costs over a 1974 baseline. This data
was sufficient for the Panel of Consultants on M/C to develop
comparative costs to its own estimates.
2. The fuel economy data for each configuration meeting the cor-
responding standards. The 1973 vehicle configurations were
selected as the baseline.*
*For purpose of the questionnaire only, all data was subsequent-
ly referred to a 1970 baseline, as reported in Appendix I.
98
-------
3. The maintenance data for each configuration for the fuel distri-
bution and emission subsystems. The questionnaire requested
detailed maintenance service intervals and costs at the com-
ponent level.
4. The investment impact tables for the actual investments made
to date and the planned investments for future configurations
and alternative engines.
Each of the four U.S. companies responded to the questionnaire in
varying levels of detail. Each company explained the meaning of the
cost data and some qualified the data as follows:
a. Care must be taken when comparing financial data among auto-
mobile companies. Differences in areas such as accounting conven-
tions, exclusion/inclusion of cost categories, planned make/buy
patterns, and sourcing of research and development efforts make
financial data comparsions between the various manufacturers
difficult. Further, t ere may be substantial differences in hard-
ware approaches among the manufacturers to meet the same emission
standards,
b. The costs are each companies' estimate of the retail price for
an average car. These data include variable costs, unique long-
term average fixed costs which include tooling, facilities, launch-
ing and engineering and normal dealer mark-up. Not all companies
included profit.
c. These retail values were developed on the basis of cost
estimates and may not necessarily reflect the actual price of the
vehicle. In the long run, retail prices for emission equipment
and alternate engines would have provided a rate of return on the
related investment. Some companies included a contingency factor
which provides for revision of cost estimates.
99
-------
d. None of the estimates provide for future economics because of
the difficulty at this time of forecasting future model year
economic conditions.
In Table Bl, the costs for emissions systems and related modified
fuel distribution systems as presented by the U.S. companies are sum-
marized. These data are incremental costs over 1974 systems. Since
not all 1974 systems were identical, the 1975 costs vary somewhat de-
pending upon the specific configuration offered in 1974 by each com-
pany. Table Bl also includes our Panel of Consultants estimates for
comparsion with the automobile company data. These are the hardware
costs computed at economic quantities. The investment payback as de-
picted in our investment scenarios add about $4 to $33 to the base
sticker price, as indicated in Table Bl.
Comparsion of the industry estimates with those of the Panel of
Consultants on M/C in Table Bl indicates that the Panel of Consultants
numbers being fully discounted for savings due to production learning,
whereas, the industry numbers are current estimates which are not dis-
counted for possible (and likely) future production learning.
Data for fuel economy and maintenance returned on the questionnaires
were presented in varying degrees of detail, that for advanced systems
and alternative engines being especially tentative. This data has
been weighted into the fuel economy and maintenance estimates of
Appendices I and J, without any explicit presentation here.
Investment data from the questionnaire were also somewhat uneven.
By using this data, however, together with information gathered during
plant vists and through review of trade publication such as Metal
Working News, it was possible to summarize the investment by U.S. in-
dustry to date for facilities to make emissions hardware. This com-
posite estimate of investment is presented in Table 2-1, where it can
be seen that $654 million has been spent to date. The greater part of
this investment was associated with production capacity for oxidizing
converters to meet the US75 standards.
100
-------
TABLE Bl
Emission Systems Sticker Price Increases Over 1974 Carbureted
Piston Engine Vehicles with Catalyst Subsystems
U.S.
1975
U.S.
1977
U.S
. 1978
U.S.
CMVE M/C Panel
U.S.
CMVE M/C Panel
U.S.
CMVE M/C Panel
Engine
Size
Co.
Est.
Hardware
Estimate
Invest-
ment
Total
Co.
Est.
Hardware
Estimate
Invest-
ment
Total
Co.
Est.
Hardware
Estimate
Invest-
ment
Total
4-cyl.
100 to 150
135
95
12
107
184
137
13
150
250
24
274
CID
96
18
114
140
19
159
256
33
289
6-cyl.
200 to 260
130
100
12
112
180
152
13
165
287
271
24
295
CID
165
104
18
122
258
167
19
186
323
293
33
326
8-cyl.
262 to 450
155
133
4
137
220
185
6
191
367
333
19
352
CID
220
150
7
157
311
213
L0
223
498
389
30
419
Scenario
Reference
A/C Class 36
A/E Class 50
A/J Class 71
Notes:
1) Two U.S. companies did not submit data for Federal 1978 Emissions Standards.
2) 1974 baseline vehicle emission system has PCV/fuel evap./EGR/improved carburetor/TSC (spark, control).
3) All costs include tooling, equipment, and facilities investments amortized according to company
practices. Two companies included profit and contingencies and two companies did not include profit.
4) The two cost figures in each box relate to the upper and lower CID for each engine class.
-------
APPENDIX C
Vehicle Structure in the Configuration File
(Written by LeRoy H. Lindgren)
The Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability and Costs created
a vehicle and manufacturing resource data base which include vehicles
previously or currently produced as well as the likely or proposed
future vehicles equipped with various emission and fuel distribution
systems. The modules of data base are:
The product or component data base from which the vehicle
configurations are constructed. This product data base
includes the basic descriptive and cost data needed to
build up vehicle costs.
The resource or manufacturing data base which identifies the
specific resources required to produce the product or com-
ponent. This data base includes the cost of introducing a
new facility including launching, labor, equipment, and the
building for new facilities as well as an estimate of
the cost to close a facility, to restore it to saleable condi-
tion and transfer it from the automotive sector. The lead
time to acquire and install the new facility also included in
this data base.
Product/resource structure file which is used to construct the
"where used" tables for the scenarios. This file indicates
all of the resources (facilities) that are needed to create
each vehicle which may be made in a given scenario.
The vehicle configuration file which is the detailed listing
of the components required for each type and size of vehicle.
The vehicle file and maintenance file which is the basic
source file for the vehicle-in-use applications, such as the
yearly operating cost programs. The file includes the fuel
usage and maintenance data requirements for emissions and
fuel distribution subsystems. Also included are the aging
factors for car population, fuel usage and maintenance over
the expected life of the cars.
102
-------
The Panel of Consultants on M/C used the data base of the pre-
vious CMVE study as a basic source document. This foundation was
then expanded to accommodate the alternate engines, emissions sys-
tems, and fuel distribution systems needed for this study and more
recent data was added.
The vehicle configuration as used here is illustrated in Figure
CI. The car is subdivided into three sub-parts: body, power plant,
and chassis; these in turn are divided into 28 smaller subdivisions.
The car was deliberately disaggregated in a way which matched the
major resources used to produce the product. Then the Panel of
Consultants on M/C was able to proceed to compute the significant
investments resulting from changes in vehicle configurations as
described in Appendix L.
As indicated in Table 3-1, seven vehicle size categories were
used.
Mini-compact
A small vehicle (not currently produced domestically)
patterned after European and Japanese designs equipped
with 4-cylinder engines ranging from 85 to 120 CID.
The weight would range from 1,800 to 2,300 lb, depending
upon the accessory equipment added. Domestic companies
are considering this size vehicle, equipped with either
front or rear wheel drive systems, particularly if the
pressure for smaller cars intensifies.
Subcompact
A relatively new vehicle in the U.S. which is becoming
major competition for European vehicles offered in this
same size range. It normally is equipped with a 4-
cylinder engine, although some U.S. and foreign sub-
pacts are equipped with 6-cylinder engines. The weight
would range from 2,300 to 2,600 lb.
103
-------
Automobile
r
Body
Body Components -
Trim
Interior-
o
¦P-
Accessories-
Lights
Glass
Bumpers-
I
Transmission
I
Power Plant
1
- Engine
-Components
Air Fuel
Dist. System
Engine
Electrical
-Ignition
-Emission System
-Bearings
—I
Auxiliaries-
Car _
Electrical
Power
Steering
Options
Air
Conditioning"
Power
Brakes
I
Chassis
— Frame
—Drive System
Suspension
System
—Brake System
Steering
System
—Coolant System
—Wheels
—Tires
FIGURE CI Standard Pattern of Disaggregation Used in Creating
the Product Data Base.
-------
Compact
A small car manufactured in the U.S. designed to compete with
those European small cars equipped with higher performance engines.
These vehicles are normally sold with 6-cylinder engines, although
many are equipped with high performance V-8 engines. With the pres-
sure for improved fuel economy, there are plans to offer these cars
with V-6 engines based on European engine designs and in addition to
the customary 4-cylinder engines. The weight of this size vehicle
ranges from 2,600 to 3,400 lb. There are in limited production ex-
pensive specialty vehicles which could be considered as a separate class.
But for this study, we considered them in the compact class, since
they are built in the same resources used to build the popular com-
pact.
Intermediate
A medium size vehicle manufactured in the U.S. that is equipped
with several engines. It is for this reason that two classes of inter-
mediates are considered. The Intermediate A, normally equipped with the
6-cylinder engine or the new 260 CID V-8, could also be equipped with
the new V-6 engines. The weight range of the Intermediate A is between
3,400 to 3,600 lb.
The Intermediate coded as INT-B is a higher price medium-size
vehicle that is equipped with larger V-8 engines ranging from 300 to
360 CID. The weight of this class ranges from 3,600 to 4,000 lb.
Standard
This full-size vehicle manufactured in the U.S. can vary from
medium-priced customs to high-priced fully equipped standards. The
engines offered generally range from 350 to 429 CID. The weight varies
from 4,000 to 4,500 lb.
Luxury
This class of vehicle is the largest automobile manufactured in
105
-------
.S. and, when fully equipped with accessories and powered by 440 to
r>00 CID engines, is the most expensive. The weight varies from 4,500
1 5,800 lb, depending upon the engine size and other special equipment.
Within these size categories, alternative engine and emissions
echnology, as defined by the Panel of Consultants on Engine Systems,
¦ould be specified. The broad classifications of the vehicle tech-
nology were as follows:
1. Standard carbureted piston engines.
2. Modified carbureted piston engines with various emission sys-
tems required to meet the proposed standards.
3. Electronic fuel-injection piston engines with various emission
subsystems.
4. Stratified-charge carbureted piston engines with prechambers
and additional valving.
5. Stratified-charge, fuel-injection piston engines with pre-
chambers and various emission systems.
6. Diesel fuel-injection piston engines with pre-chambers (and EGR
in some cases).
7. The rotary engine (Wankel) equipped with various emission sys-
tems and carbuerated subsystems.
The basic procedure for classifying engines is shown in Table CI.
In this Table, eight engine classes, with their nominal displacement
values, are indicated. Using this engine classification system, all
cars are then sorted into an extended 10 category classification system
by engine size, weight and body size in Table C2. The technique used
to reduce these 10 sizes to the 7 sizes used in the present study is
also indicated in Table C2.
To keep track of a specific car of specified size and technology,
n 10 digit numbering system was developed. The meaning of each of the
10 digits is defined in Table C3. This system proved to be very
effective in defining the nature of a particular car and in locating
U and its associated properties in the computer files. Since the
106
-------
TABLE CI
Engine Classification System
Engine Engine CMVE Nominal Actual
Class No. Type Size CID Range
Class
CYL.
CID
1
L-4
98
85
-
120
2
L-4
140
121
-
160
3
L-6
250
170
-
260
4 *
V-6
160
150
-
200
5
V-8
290
260
-
320
6
V-8
350
321
-
390
7
V-8
400
391
-
430
8
V-8
500
431
-
500
* This engine was available in the data base, but was not used in this
study.
107
-------
TABLE C2
Detailed Scheme for Defining CMVE Car Classes
CMVE Designation
Extended Car Designation
Nominal
Weight
Body Size
Car
Engine
Class
Designation
Weight
Range
Code
Type
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Mini-compact
2,000
1,800 - 2,300
M
Mini
1
Subcompact
2,500
2,300 - 2,600
S
Subcompact
2
3
Compact
3,000
f 2,600 - 3,300
A
Compact
3
4
t 3,000 - 3,400
A
Compact (Specialty)
6
Intermediate A
3,500
3,400 - 3,600
B
Intermediate A
5
Intermediate B
4,000
3,600 - 4,000
B
Intermediate B
6
Standard
4,500
r~*+,000 - 4,300
C
Standard A
6
| 4,300 - 4,500
C
Standard B
7
Luxury
5,500
r~4,500 - 5,000
D
Luxury A
7
1^5,000 - 5,800
D
Luxury B
8
-------
TABLE C3
Details of the Significant Part Numbering System
Digit Within Part Number*
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Code
Vehicle
or
Resource
Subsystem
Body
Size
Transmission
&
Drive Type
Engine
Type
Fuel
Distribution
Type
Signific
Otto
Cycle
ant Within
Wankel
Engine Type
Diesel
0
0 in a column denotes column is not significant to the number item.
1
Car
Car
Mini
Manual/Rear
Otto Cycle
(not
stratified
charge)
SSS Turbine
Carburetor
Fixed
Venturi
4 cyl.
in line
98 CID
1 Rotor
114 CID
NA
2
Truck
Body
Subcompact
Manual/Mid
Otto Cycle
Stratified
Charge
SSRG Turbine
Carburetor
Variable
Venturi
4 cyl.
in line
140 CID
2 Rotor
226 CID
4 cyl.
165 CID
3
Bus
Engine
Compact
Manual/Front
Wanke1
(not
stratified
charge)
SSRC Turbine
Fuel
Injection
6 cyl.
in line
250 CID
2 Rotor
273 CID
6 cyl.
250 CID
4
Transmission
Inter-
mediate
Automatic/
Rear
Wanke1
Stratified
Charge
2SRG Turbine
Electronic
Fuel
Injection
6 cyl.
V 160
5
Plant
MFG or
ASM
Drive
Standard
Automatic/
Mid
Diesel
(not
divided
chamber)
2SRC Turbine
Sonic
Carburetor
8 cyl.
V
290 CID
2 Rotor
Heavy
Duty
290 CID
8 cyl.
265 CID
6
Transfer
Line
Operating
Parameter
Luxury
Automatic/
Forward
Diesel
Divided
Chamber
Reformer
8 cyl.
V
350 CID
4 Rotor
350 CID
8 cyl.
350 CID
7
Vendor
Field
Support
CVT
Turbine
8 cyl.
V
400 CID
4 Rotor
456 CID
8 cyl.
350 CID
8
Plant-
Tool &
Die
Engine/
Chassis
Rankin
8 cyl.
V
500 CID
4 Rotor
500 CID
8 cyl.
450 CID
9
Refinery
If the particular unit is a vehicle, the last three positions (8, 9, and 10) would indicate the emissions level;
if not, it would contain data on that particular resource.
-------
complete computer outputs and files are too extensive to be included
this report, Table C3 will be of limited directed use to the reader,
except as it gives him a better general insight into the methodology
of the study.
110
-------
APPENDIX D
Tooling Constraints in the
Automotive Industry
(Written by Hayward A. Gay)
I. Automated Manufacturing
Automated manufacturing flow in an automobile plant involves a
very large investment with limited flexibility and long lead time,
but it produces masses of similar parts and assemblies at low cost.
We describe below the various types of transfer lines that are
utilized to perform the major operations.
1. The metal cutting trartsfer line is a complex multi-station
machine tool which extends several hundred feet in length and
has numerous metal cutting machine tool operating stations.
Each station performs specific operations on a complex part.
All cutting stations perform their operations simultaneously
on the part located at their station and then retract the tools
so that the transfer mechanism may move all pieces simultaneous!
to the next station.
Net output ranges from one to two pieces per minute, but
there may be as many as 40 pieces in procest through as many
work stations within the machine.
Such lines range in price from $2,000,000 to $15,000,000
each depending on the size and complexity of the part and the
degree of automation employed.
Parts produced on such lines include cylinder blocks,
cylinder heads, manifolds, ttansmission cases, rear axle
housings, carburetor bodies, pump bodies, etc. The generalized
flow of parts in automotive flianufacturing is shown schematically
in Figure Dl.
Ill
-------
Electrical I
Stampings
Body
Components
ID &}
i 5
i.
VI
Stampings
Trim
Frame
Mfg.
FIGURE Dl
l^xhaast3^Converter3^^«tJ^
Production Flow in Automotive Manufacturing.
Engine
Assembly
and
Test
<
Platinum*
Foundry j
Cast I ron
Steel
Aluminum
I
Engine
Components
Transfer Lines
Block
Head
ManifoSd
Pistons
Conn. Rods
Crank Shaft
Cam Shaft
-------
2. Automotive transfer assembly lines fnr power plant components
are used to assemble the parts included in a subassembly such
as the cylinder head, transmission, starter, carburetor, power
steering, air conditioner, water pump, etc. These components
are smaller and less complex so the assembly lines are likewise
shorter and simpler than would be needed for the main engine
assembly.
The body of the assembly is mounted into a fixture which
may be indexed to various positions and is attached to a trans-
fer mechanism. The transfer, with multiple fixtures attached,
is advanced from station to station on a timed cycle and at
each station a part or parts are assembled into the body by
hand or automatic mechanism. Automatic inspection is frequently
applied at several stations along the line.
3. The etiaine assembly line ranges from 400 to 800 feet long and
starts with the cylinder block mounted in an index fixture on
the transfer mechanism. With the block upside down, the crank-
shaft, main bearings and bearing caps are assembled. Then
(with the block on its side) the piston, piston ring and
connecting rod subassemblies are inserted into the cylinders
from the top side of the block and the connecting rod bearings
are bolted around the crankshaft pin bearing diameters. The
oil pump and oil pan are also added at this point. Then with
the block upright, the cylinder head assembly including camshaft
and valve train is added, followed by manifolds, transmission,
carburetor, starter, alternator, water pump, fan, belts, dis-
tributor, power steering and power brake system, front cover,
air conditioner, etc.
The assembled engines are finally put on a test stand for
a short run-in aid check for water leaks, oil leaks, adjustment
of timing, etc. After test and final inspection they are painted
113
-------
and marked for transfer to a vehicle assembly plant.
4. The chassis assembly line starts with the frame of the tar
mounted on an individual station of the transfer mechanism.
As the frame advances along the line, various subassemblies
are mounted thereon such as the suspension system including
springs and shock absorbers, the rear axle, housing, engine
assembly with transmission attached, drive shaft, steering column
with linkages, brake system, radiation and cooling system, gas
tank, muffler with converter and exhaust pipes, etc.
5. The body assembly line runs in parallel with the chassis assembly
iine in the same or a separate building- Stampings are welded
together in forming or holding fixtures and the unit moves by
automatic transfer frcm station to station untiL the body
structure is complete.
After multiple inspections insure that all doors and deck
covers fit properly, the unit goes through a sophisticated paint
line. Then it goes to final body assembly where inside and out-
side trim and seat cushions are installed.
Because of the bulk of bodies which makes storage difficult,
they are computer-scheduled by style and color so they can move
right off the end of this line and over to the chassis assembly
line in proper sequence.
6. The vehicle assembly line may be an extension of the chassis
assembly line or separated from it. In any case, this is where
the finished body meets the proper chassis as controlled by
the sequencing computer- After the body is mounted on the chassis
(which now contains the complete drive train), the front fenders,
grill, lights, battery, hood, bumpers, wheels with tires, etc.
are added and all components wired and interlocked to make the
finished vehicle.
Gasoline is added at the end of the line and the car is
114
-------
driven to final inspection where every car is checked in detail
before being released for delivery.
II. The Effect of Engine Changes on Manufacturing Facilities
1. To build a small engine of current design to replace a
large engine will require new metal cutting machine tool transfer
lines for the major parts such as the block, head, manifolds,
transmission case, carburetor body, etc., as these parts are of
smaller size and difference in configuration. Alteration of
existing transfer machine lines is not practical, and in most
cases not even possible, with such major changes in part con-
figuration.
Most single-operation machine tools can be converted by
minor changes and do not need to be replaced. These include gear
cutters, lathes and grinders for transmission internal parts,
camshaft grinders, valve grinders, piston and piston ring machines,
connecting rod broaching, drilling and boring machines, etc.
However, some single-operation machines, such as crankshaft
lathes, probably will need to be replaced because the new shafts
are smaller and a different shape.
Many dies for forgings, stampings and body parts must be
new but can be used on existing presses. The industry capacity
for die making has been seriously reduced during the last five
years as a result of numerous die-making shops going out of
business.
The various assembly lines will undergo considerable
modification, but the original transfer system and floor space
may be utilized if the small car is replacing the larger model.
Since the new car is smaller and simpler, the plant layout and
space allocation will be changed considerably. Also, the lines
for component assembly will be modified extensively.
115
-------
2. To change existing engines to the stratified-charge
configuration will apparently gain the most in emission control
with the minimum of engine and car conversion. It is believed
that there would be no important changes to the cylinder block
or its assembled parts below the cylinder head face and no change
to the transmission, running gear, suspension or body.
The cylinder head, camshaft, rocker arms, valves, mani-
folds, fuel system and ignition system would probably all involve
change. A new transfer line to machine the cylinder head would
be the primary expense and the longest lead-time item. Machinery
for making the camshaft, rocker arms, valves and manifolds can
probably be altered if the new engine is of the same size. New
machinery for the fuels and ignition systems depend upon what
system is used, but in any event the lead time would not be
greater than the cylinder head machine.
The various assembly lines would be unchanged except for
the cylinder head subassembly and possibly the fuel system and
ignition system subassemblies.
3. To change to a light automotive diesel configuration
does not involve new manufacturing technology. Many companies
around the world are now making small automotive and medium to
large truck diesel engines in volume. However, there would be
many changes from existing processes and equipment because the
diesel is heavier for a given horsepower and utilizes a different
fuel and ignition system.
The small diesel designs could be imported for installation
in small American cars with minimum change in the front end suspen-
sion and engine compartment. However, to manufacture small diesel
engines in quantity would require a major investment in plant and
equipment.
The larger diesel engine designs 250 tft 450 CID would
116
-------
be new. Hopefully, this could be accomplished by dieselizing
the existing automobile engines. If the diesel was approximately
the same overall size as the gasoline engine, it would fit the
same cars with very little change, although it would be a little
heavier and would give slightly less performance.
If we dieselized the existing larger gasoline engines,
the block, head, crankshaft, pistons, connecting rods and bearings
would be heavier but would generally have the same critical dimen-
sions and in most cases could be made on the existing machine tool
equipment with minor alterations. This would save considerably
in both investment and lead-time after the design and prototype
testing is completed.
The primary objection to the above suggestion is that the
existing production line would be shut down for six months to a
year to make the tooling conversion. Also, new crankshaft lathes
may be required as the diesel may use a forged crankshaft, instead
of cast. Finally, it will be necessary for someone to tool a
high pressure fuel-injection system for mass production in this
country.
If the larger automobile diesel engines are to be a
wholly new design without regard to existing gasoline engine
design, then the capital investment and lead times would be
greatly expanded.
Assembly of a diesel engine is not much different than
for a gasoline engine of the same size and configuration. It
is believed that all assembly lines could be used with minor
rearrangement of parts supply, tools and inspection equipment.
The carburetor and ignition lines would not be needed and a fuel-
injection subassembly line would be added.
4. To change to a rotary engine configuration involves the
greatest design, tooling and manufacturing expenditure in both
117
-------
time and money if the full benefits of this engine are to be
realized. Because of the smaller size and lighter weight,
optimum benefit is derived only with a completely new body design,
new suspension and probably a front-wheel drive with a new
transmission.
There are practically no parts or subassemblies in a
rotary engine that are similar to the piston engine. Hence, we
are confronted with completely new engine manufacturing facilities
utilizing many new manufacturing technologies. The generation of
the trochoid housing shape with proper metalizing, surface
finish, close tolerances, plus the unique side seals and apex
seals of the rotor are only a few examples. Designs are not
frozen for mass production because there still is much to learn
on these matters as well as engine lubrication, combustion,
ignition, economy, etc.
Until the economy, durability and low emissions of the
rotary engine is developed and proven, multiple production lines
for this configuration are not likely to be instituted in the U.S.
III. Impact of Pressure for Fuel Conservation
The automobile industry is making some progress in improving the
fuel economy of existing engines while maintaining emission control.
However, the primary activity of the industry toward fuel economy
is for much more capacity to build small cars with small engines.
This involves a major investment for conversion of existing plant
and tooling plus additional major expenditures for new transfer lines
to produce new engines not now available in this country.
The combination of major new tooling programs for smaller engines,
plus the need for tooling programs to make new configuration engines
for better emission control, coupled with an expanding machine tool
requirement by nonautomotive metal working industries, have made the
machine tool industry one of the primary restraints in a rapid conver-
118
-------
sion to new configuration automobile engines.
IV. The Machine Tool Industry
The characteristics of the machine tool industry should be
understood to comprehend better the relationship it maintains with the
automobile industry and its manufacturing problems.
The machine tool industry is unique and little understood.
It is small in total size and is made up of more than 100 small
companies or subsidiaries of larger corporations. Some summary data
on the larger of these companies (based on our survey) is shown in
Tables Dl and D2.
Prior to 1950, probably 807o of the machine tool companies were
privately owned and ranged from 3 to 15 million dollars annual sales
volume. The machines were primarily mechanical mechanisms actuated
by hydraulic or electric drives and controlled by an operator in full-
time attendance. So-called machine lines for machining a large part,
such as an automobile cylinder block, in large volume were usually
only individual semiautomatic machines connected together by a conveyor
and still requiring considerable labor.
Today, since conglomeration, more than half of the machine tool
companies have been merged into larger diversified companies. Today's
machine tools are more sophisticated with computer controls, automated
work handling, in-process gauging, and automatic tool-changing plus
greater accuracy and speed.
The technical sophistication of new machine, tools provides many
advantages for the user, but makes it more difficult to expand
machine tool manufacturing capacity rapidly. There is a shortage of
skilled engineering and shop personnel, where a lot of art as well as
since is concerned. There is frequently a shortage of working
capital and a high risk factor on large special machines. Further,
the cyclical nature of the business cautions against becoming over-
extended.
119
-------
TABLE D1
Survey of the Automotive Tooling Industry
A
Metal Cutting
Primary Builders Transfer Line Amount Appropriate
of Metal Cutting Est. Capacity to Automobile
Transfer Line All Types Type Oper.
Machine Tools 1974 1974
B C D E
% Sold of
"A" not Amount Sold
% of "A" Amount Ex- for Automo- Not for Auto-
Exported ported $s biles mobiles
1974 1974 1974 1974
(million)
(million)
(million)
50
(million)
A
$60.0
$45.0
15
$ 6.7
$20.0
B
50.0
40.0
10
4.0
25
10.0
C
45.0
35.0
20
7.0
70
24.0
D
35.0
30.0
70
21.0
70
21.0
E
35.0
30.0
ih
2.1
30
9.0
F
43.0
30.0
0
0
50
15.0
G
25.0
20.0
20
4.0
25
5.0
H
17.0
12.0
10
1.2
85
10.0
I
10.0
8.0
0
0
35
3.0
Ml Others
15.0
10.0
0
0
50
5.0
TOTALS
$335.0
$260.0
187,
46.0
47%
$122.0
120
-------
TABLE D2
Estimated Capacity of the U.S. Automotive
Tooling Industry in 1974 in Millions of Dollars
(Summary of Data from Table Dl)
1.
U.S. Capacity for Making All Types of Metal
Cutting Transfer Lines
$335
2.
Total Capacity Appropriate to Automotive
Operations (78% of Item 1)
$260
3.
Amount of Item 2 Exported
$ 46
4.
Amount of Item 2 Sold to Other Industries
$122
5.
Net Amount Used for Automobiles in 1974
$ 92
121
-------
Most machine tool companies make only a small segment of the
various types of machines needed in an automobile plant.
a. At least 95% of the companies who make metal-cutting
machines do not make metal-forming machines; the reverse
is also true.
b. At least 757o of the companies that make standard or semi-
standard metal-cutting machine tools make only one type.
Examples of the different types of machines are turning,
milling, drilling, grinding, gear cutting, etc.
c. A small group of about 10 companies make only specially
tailored transfer lines for completing all machining
operations on a complex part, such as an automobile
cylinder block or head.
d. Of the approximately 20 companies making turning equipment,
only two make automobile crankshaft and camshaft automatic
lathes; of the 10 or more companies making precision grinding
machines, only two make crankshaft and camshaft grinders.
Total shipments of metal cutting machine tools, as reported by
the National Machine Tool Builders Association, peaked in 1968 at
$1,358,000,000 and then dropped to a low of $672,000,000 in 1971. In
1973 the industry recovered to $1,074,000,000 and $1,325,000,000 is
projected for 1974. This is about the capacity of the industry with
existing facilities and operating conditions. It is noteworthy that
the entire metal-cutting machine tool industry, so vital to national
productive capacity, is smaller than each of the 150 largest industrial
companies listed in the last inventory in Fortune magazine.
122
-------
Governmental policy in 1969 did substantial damage to the machine
tool industry. Money was made tight and expensive and the investment
tax credit was repealed with the result that capital expenditures just
about stopped. The metal cutting machine tool industry backlog dropped
to a low of $408,000,000 as of 12/31/71, which was only 31% of the
previous peak. This was the greatest percentage drop since the
Depression of 1932. The backlog has now recovered to $1,454,000,000
as of 12/31/73. These figures confirm the cyclical nature of this
industry.
Today, when the government wants maximum help from the machine
tool builders, there are many who are unmoved by the appeal. This is
not a lack of patriotism; it is a lack of faith. We are not threatened
by war, and the government projected machine tool requirement is subject
to sudden change - just as the investment tax credit has been changed
several times in 10 years with every new legislative philosophy. The
industry will do all it can for its customers, but not many plan to
expand their facilities extensively until they are convinced there is
long-term justification.
Our survey indicates that most of the builders who have dropped
out of the transfer line business do not plan to reenter the business.
The risk is too high because of the high unit value of special machines;
they tie up too much capital and floor space with low turnover, and
regular product lines are selling at capacity.
We have taken the 1974 estimated shipments as the existing
capacity of the industry. That segment of the industry which builds
special metal-cutting transfer lines for making automobile type parts
is estimated to have a capacity of $260,000,000 in 1974 tnd will probably
expand 207. during the next three years to a volume of $312,000,000
123
-------
in 1974." However, in 1974 about 187° of this volume will be exported
and another 477° is sold for heavy diesel trucks, farm tractors,
off-highway equipment, stationary engines, etc. This leaves only 357=,
or $92,000,000, being shipped to domestic automobile companies in
1974 (see Table D2).
If we assume that in two years this ratio can be reversed and
657. of the capacity would be applied to new automobile engine configura-
tions and the industry did expand 20%, we could then project a capacity
for chip making transfer lines at 657. of $312,000,000 or $202,000,000.
In our projections of total machine tool capacity to equip
the domestic automobile industry for new engines to meet the Clean
Air Act, we are assuming that the most capital intensive and longest
lead-time equipment items needed would be the large, metal-cutting
transfer lines for making cylinder blocks or cylinder heads.
If new crankshaft, camshaft, valve, piston, ignition, fuel control
or converter parts, etc. are required, we believe the new machine
tool equipment for these items could be acquired within the time
necessary for a new cylinder block or cylinder head line. The machine
tool equipment for the smaller parts is usually of shorter lead time
and made by machine tool builders other than those who make transfer
lines.
As of June 1974, order backlogs of transfer line machine tool
builders range from 14 to 24 months. The average is about 17 months.
Government figures show shipments of transfer lines at $132,600,000
in 1972. Figures for 1973 are not yet published. Total machine tool
shipments will increase 86% from 1972 to the estimated 1974 figures;
applying the same ratio would indicate 1974 transfer line volume at
$246,000,000. This checks very closely with our estimate of $260,000,000
and our slightly higher figure is justified because recent large orders
from farm implement and diesel truck customers have probably pushed the
special segment of the industry a little faster than the industry as
a whole.
124
-------
This lead time could increase drastically if there was a large influx
of automotive orders (or drop drastically if business conditions are
depressed). During other periods of urgency, deliveries of this class
of equipment have extended to 30 months or more.
After surveying the major builders of large, metal-cuttirtg trans-
fer lines, we belive the average price, including work holding fixtures
and tooling, of a line to produce 300,000 pieces per year operating
at normal efficiency on a two-shift basis is shown in Table D3.
These prices are for metal-cutting machinery only and do not include
building space, installation and start-up costs, part washing and
inspection equipment, etc.
Another segment of the machine tool industry involves th£ design
and building of automatic transfer assembly machines for subassembly
units such as carburetors, pumps, starters, disc brakes, air conditioners,
etc. A few builders of metal-cutting transfer lines also build
assembly transfer lines, but the majority of such builders specialize
only in assembly operations.
Foreign machine tool builders are not potential suppliers of
automatic transfer lines for American industry. Their limited capacity
is already committed to similar demands of their local industry and
exports to the Eastern Block Countries. Further, the American automobile
industry has never bought transfer lines from abroad because of the
high technical sophistication and complexity of such units, the massive
size and shipping costs, the long installation and try-out time and,
finally, the continuing supplier service required. It is noteworthy
that 977« of the metal-cutting transfer line machines are built within
a 400 mile radius of Detroit and most automobile manufacturing plants,
except body and assembly plants are in the same area.
Single purpose machine tools such as gear cutters, grinding
machines, lathes, etc. can be imported from abroad if technology
price and delivery are advantageous. However, since the metal-cutting
125
-------
TABLE D3
Comparative Costs of Metal-Cutting Transfer Lines To Make
Various Types of Car
(1974 Dollars)
Type of Car to Be Made
Metal-Cutting Transfer Line Typical 1974 Car Stratified Charge Light Diesel
4-Cyl. Head $ 4,900,000
6-Cyl. Head 6,000,000
4-Cyl. Block 8,000,000
6-Cyl. Block 9,500,000
V-8 Cyl. Block 11,000,000
4-Cyl. Manifold 2,300,000
6-Cyl. Manifold 3,000,000
V-8 Exhaust Manifold 2,900,000
V-8 Intake Manifold 4,000,000
2 Barrel Carburetor Body 1,400,000
4 Barrel Carburetor Body 2,000,000
Fuel-Injection Pump Body
$ 6,400,000
7,800,000
7,900,000
9,600,000
11,000,000
2,700,000
3,300,000
3,100,000
3,600,000
2,200,000
3,000,000
$ 5,900,000
7,200,000
9,400,000
11,500,000
13,200,000
2,700,000
3,600,000
3,600,000
4,500,000
3,800,000
126
-------
transfer line machines have the longest lead times, the single purpose
machine tools can usually be obtained in the domestic market in adequate
time.
Minor design changes on a part or subassembly can usually be
accommodated by minor changes in the automatic transfer line for
machining the part or assembling the unit. This is done by modifying
the operations at selected stations by changing cutting tool sizes,
adding or deleting a whole work station. An assembly machine can be
similarly altered within limits.
Primary design changes such as a stratified-charge cylinder
head, or a small 4-cylinder block for a subcompact, will require a
completely new metal-cutting transfer line since the part size and
configuration is quite different and modification of existing equip-
ment would cost as much and take as long to build a new machine and
there would be no extensive down time during conversion.
V. Conversion Lead Times
The proper lead time concept is important and involves the
magnitude of the manufacturing problems in making a relatively simple
engine change such as the stratified charge versus the more complete
engine change as in the case of the diesel and finally an even more
far reaching change in methods and facilities as would be necessary
with the rotary engine.
1. The vehicle assembly line, including the chassis assembly,
will require about 20 months to construct and equip with
feeder conveyors, tools, stock bins, etc. An existing line
could be converted to assemble a different car in four to
eight months.
2. The body assembly line will require 20 months to design, and
build the automatic press welders, body bucks and/or body
side "gate" fixtures, plus work handling conveyors, etc. If
127
-------
an existing line is being converted to a different car, it will
still take 12 to 17 months to design and build the new tooling.
3. The body press and forming line will require 15 to 18
months to design and build the stamping presses. The lead time
to design and build the body dies ranges from 10 to 24 months
depending on the size and complexity of the dies.
4. The engine assembly line is quite complex and would require
20 months to design and build. This includes the transfer
mechanism, multiple fixtures, feeder conveyors, parts banks,
tools, gages, etc. To convert an existing line to a new engine
of similar size would require 6 to 10 months.
5. The component assembly lines, which usually include automatic
assembly machines, require 12 to 16 months to design and build.
Such lines could be converted to a new design of similar unit
assembly in 10 to 12 months.
6. The primary parts manufacturing lead time is probably the
greatest of all segments of the automobile manufacturing
operations. It costs $8,000,000 to $13,000,000 per transfer
line to machine a cylinder block and lead times of 24 to 30
months to design, build, install and debug such a line. Net
production would be about 300,000 units on a two shift five-day
schedule and about 550,000 units on a three shift six-day
basis.
Similar lines for machining manifolds, carburetor bodies,
etc. will cost less but still require 16 to 24 months lead time.
7. Lead time for the first lines of new configuration cars
is a minimum of three years since it will take 30 months to get
the primary metal-cutting transfer line for the cylinder block.
This minimum time is after all necessary technology and designs
are established. If prototype testing is still involved,
we are talking 42 to 48 months.
128
-------
The lead time of three years is for one facility to produce
about 300,000 cars per year on a two shift five-day schedule
or 550,000 on a three shift six-day schedule. If several com-
panies wish to establish new lines simultaneously, the machine
tool industry might be a limiting factor.
From an efficient operating point of view, the limitation
on capital, skilled labor, machine tool capacity and the necessity
of proven customer acceptance of the new model, all indicate
the necessity of phasing into whatever engine configuration is
ultimately found to be most desirable.
8. Lead times for total industry conversion to a new engine
configuration is a variable figure due to variations between
companies and variations between several engine configurations.
Considering the various limitations and present state of
the industry technology, we have established an industry wide
conversion time table as follows:
Each automobile company to complete technological
development and one production facility for:
Stratified-charge engine - 4 years
Light diesel engine
Rotary engine
5 years
6 years
The complete automobile industry to complete con-
version of all car and light truck engines to a new
configuration in four basic sizes and a volume of
15 million engines per year to:
Stratified-charge engines - 10 years
Light diesel engines
Rotary engines
12 years
14 yealrs
129
-------
VI. Current Industry Status
Current industry progress in converting to new configuration
engines seems to still be primarily in the development and prototype
stage. All cars through the 1976 model year will be the conventional
piston engines with air injection, exhaust gas recirculation and oxi-
dizing catalytic converters.
The stratified-charge, or prechamber, engine seems to
be the most accepted next step in meeting the emission stan-
dards, and all companies are working on one or more versions.
The Honda configuration seems to be preferred because it is
simpler and cheaper to manufacture. This engine is favored as
an intermediate and possibly as a final solution to the problem.
It is preferred because it gives good driveability and emissions
performance with minimum change to the engine - only from the
cylinder head gasket up! However, at this date we know of no
machine tool orders which have been placed to machine prechamber
cylinder heads.
The light diesel technology is well known, but at this date,
we do not know of any machine tool purchases to make parts for
light duty automobile engines of this type.
Initial production equipment for the rotary engine has
been committed by General Motors and most of the machine tool
equipment is completed. In our visits, we saw the trochoid
housing machines, the transfer line for machining the rotor,
an automatic assembly machine for the rotor and seals and a
test stand for final run-in. However, delivery is being
delayed pending possible engineering changes as a result of
continuing research to improve the fuel economy, durability and
emissions characteristics of this engine. We do believe
General Motors will ultimately market the rotary at a volume
of possibly 250,000 per year in an existing car.
130
-------
Ford and Chrysler appear to have no interest in mass
producing the rotary at this time. This observation is based
on a complete absence of orders for tooling for rotaries from
these companies, so far as ve know.
131
-------
APPENDIX E
Manufacturing Assessment of
Alternative-Engine Technologies
(Written by Carl Maxwell)
Overview
Before the advent of emission control legislation, the conven-
tional, spark-ignition automotive engine had been brought to a high
state of development with power, smoothness and noise as major criteria.
A secondary criterion was fuel consumption. Emissions were not con-
sidered at all. As a result, automobile engines underwent gradual
changes to meet the laws as they became effective. The changes were
principally leaner mixtures at idle, quicker choke opening, elimination
of quench areas in the combusticn chamber, and a trend toward longer
stroke/bore ratios. In some cases, an air pump was added to promote
cambistion of HC and CO in the exhaust manifold. These changes were
quite effective and, with the exception of the air pump, cost the con-
sumer very little in terms of first cost, fuel consumption or performance.
Some minor problems with driveability did arise. NC>x was limited for the
first time in 1973, starting a trend toward lower compression ratio, re-
tarded spark timing and exhaust gas recirculation (EGR), and leading to
a serious reduction in gasoline mileage.
In late 1973, the oil shortage became severe and gasoline prices
rose drastically. Major efforts were immediately started to produce cars
with better gas mileage. With the tight HC and CO specifications for
1975, most cars will be forced to use catalytic converters at an appre-
ciable increase in first cost and maintenance. A favorable result is
that by retuning the spark advance and air-fuel ratio and better pro-
gramming of EGR, some improvements in gas mileage will be realized.
However, no-lead gas, which is more expensive to produce, will be es-
sential. So far, and at least to 1976, it is possible to meet the laws
132
-------
by modifications or add-ons to the conventional carbureted, spark-
ignition engines. Meanwhile, more drastic modifications and other types
of engines have been investigated.
The resources in manufacturing facilities for the present engines
are enormous. The facilities needed for a drastic change in type of
engine would be equally enormous. Therefore, the industry looks most
favorably to, and is trying hardest to qualify, those engines allowing
maximum use of the present resources„
There is another factor favoring minimum change. The machine tool
industry has a very limited capacity in the building of transfer line J.
The more drastic the changes, the more time needed to convert the total
industry. A complete retooling of the automobile engine production lines
would take about 10 years. Although the maximum rate might be higher, it
is doubtful that the average output of a single engine transfer line is
over 300,000 per year. Some may be much lower due to limited demand for
certain engines. At 300,000 engines per year per line, a total require-
ment of 12,000,000 engines per year (exclusive of trucks) and estimating
that the machine tool industry can produce four new automobile engine
transfer lines per year, it would take 10 years for the 40 lines.
A third consideration has to be research, engineering, testing,
and. development. A simple modification such as an EGR system may be
engineered and developed for production release in, perhaps, a year.
A completely new engine concept has to be analyzed for results to be
expected, for adaptability co present vehicles, for new techniques that
might have to be developed, for costs, for customer acceptance, and
finally for profitability. If the study looks favorable, prototypes
will be designed, built, and tested. The more drastic the change, the
longer and more thorough will be the testing. Tooling may be planned
but -will not be ordered until there is considerable confidence in the
design.
133
-------
Perhaps the most significant engine modification retaining most of
the tooling for present engines would be the conversion to electronic
fuel injection (EFI). New high-production facilities would have to be
provided for the fuel injectors and faster manufacturing techniques
developed. The electronic controls are still under development to simplify
them and to reduce their cost but techniques are known and facilities
could be provided. New inlet manifolds would be needed. Carburetors
would no longer be used. The trade-off costs of the EFI system would be
somewhat higher than the carburetor. The claimed advantages are closer
control of air/fuel ratio (possibly eliminating the need for oxidizing
catalysts) and better control of fuel distribution between cylinders
(allowing leaner mixtures to be used and improving fuel economy).
If NO is limited to 1.5 g/mi or below, either dual-catalyst of a
x
three-way catalyst system will be needed. It may not be possible to
justify the added cost of EFI unless catalysts can be eliminated. It
will probably appear in one or more cars in 1975 by the expedient of im-
porting parts. The system is well-developed but needs further testing
to improve confidence. If this system proves effective, it will need no
major changes in basic engine tooling but will need additional tooling
for the fuel system. Conversion of a substantial part of the industry
to EFI would take at least two years for further development and high
production tooling. This will delay quantity production until perhaps
1977.
Next in order of necessary changes to tooling is the divided
chamber, carbureted, stratified-charge engine as exemplified by the
Honda CVCC. Only the cylinder heads and manifolds would need new
transfer lines. Carburetor lines would have to be changed to some extent.
No extensive changes would be needed in the rest of the engine. With
this system, it is possible to hold NO^ below 2.0 g/mi with little
sacrifice in fuel economy and without the use of catalytic converters.
A reactor type exhaust manifold is needed, however. Before this system
134
-------
comes into general use, there will be a lot more testing of driving
characteristics and maintenance factors to guard against high warranty-
costs and customer dissatisfaction. Although there may be an intro-
duction of this system as early as 1976 in a few models, it should not
be expected to appear in substantial production before late 1977. Be-
cause of the limitations of engineering, test facilities, and procure-
ment of tooling, additional models in any one company will probably be
spaced at two year intervals.
A modification of this CVCC concept uses fuel injection into the
pre-chamber rather than carburetion. There may be engineering advantages
to this system since it does not need an extra inlet valve. It does need
a timed, high-pressure fuel system, however. The main-chamber fuel supply
may be either injected or carbureted. Development of this system has not
progressed to the point where an accurate assessment of advantages can
be made. It will need a new cylinder head (to accommodate the pre-chamber),
a new fuel-injection system (possibly dual injection), a new exhaust
manifold (for thermal reaction), and perhaps a new inlet manifold. In
any case, it would not appear before 1978 at the earliest.
The true stratified-charge engine is exemplified by the Texaco
TCCS and the Ford PROCO engines. These engines, by directing the inlet
air, cause orderly swirl in the main combustion chamber. Fuel is in-
jected into this swirl and is carried over to the spark plug where ig-
nition takes place. Ideally, throttling of the inlet air is not neces-
sary, an ignitable mixture should exist at the spark plug regardless of
the excess air. In practice, some throttling may be used to reduce the
HC at light loads (because the mixture is not ideally stratified) and to
keep the exhaust temperature up for the catalytic converter which seems
to be necessary. Texaco has achieved some excellent results in proto-
type engines but has never manufactured engines for coraoercial sale.
Engine manufacturers have shown considerable lack of enthusiasm for this
type of engine. Production would require new cylinder head lines,
135
-------
new manifold linos, changes or additions to the cylinder block lines,
and, above all, a timed, high pressure fuel system identical in principle
to that used in a diesel engine. It is most probable that the relation-
ship between fuel system and ignition system over the spectrum of speed
and load invites maintenance problems. The main advantage seems to be
insensitivity to octane ratings of fuels. It is doubtful that emissions
are noticeably better than in the divided chamber engines and the power
output will be seriously reduced because of the stratified charge. This
engine has been undergoing vigorous development for 20 years and is not
in commercial production anywhere in the world. This does not instill
confidence in its release for production in the near future. It must
be expected that development and testing will be continued until the
reliability and reproducibility of the system are assured. The manu-
facture of the fuel system in large quantities calls for new high pro-
duction techniques and extensive tooling. A breakthrough might change
the picture but it is not likely to appear before 1979.
Only slightly more involved than the PROCO or TCCS in tooling
complexity is the light automotive diesel. It requires a completely
new cylinder head, new inlet manifold, and many modifications to the
cylinder block. A timed, high pressure fuel pump and individual fuel
nozzles are needed. Some increase in structural strength is also needed
in pistons, connecting rods, and crankshaft. Some increase in weight
is inevitable, but the light-duty automotive diesel should not be confused
with the heavy-duty diesels now almost universally used in large trucks
and heavy machinery and becoming increasingly popular in medium-duty
trucks up to 45,000 lb GVW. The life of a light-duty automotive diesel
need be no greater than that of a good automotive, spark-ignition
engine. Consequently, the weight will not be prohibitively different.
Unlike the PROCO or the TCCS engines, the diesel has proven itself over
the years -- all the way down to medium-size cars -- as a thoroughly
reliable, economical engine. The quickest way to get into production
with this type of engine would be to import existing engines from Europe
136
-------
or Japan. Since little tooling would be needed, this could occur as
early as 1976. Three American automobile manufacturers have such sources
available. There are two disadvantages to this. One, there probably is
very little excess capacity in any of these foreign plants. Two, these
are small engines, suitable only for compact and mini-compact cars.
These proven engines could be tooled up in the U.S. with minimum delay
for development. The fact that they are small is unfortunate since there
is a real need for a larger engine, say 350 CID, to power pick-ups, other
light trucks and the larger-size family cars. The most optimistic
schedule might be: small diesel imports in 1976; the same engines tooled
in the U.S., 1977; and new larger engines engineered, developed, and
tooled by 1979. Again it should be emphasized that this is for the first
engine model. Because of the extensive tooling changes, other models
would have to be scheduled at perhaps two year intervals.
The primary advantage of diesel engines would be a very sub-
stantial reduction in fuel consumption. A secondary characteristic is
the normally low HC, CO and NO emissions for the divided chamber diestI
x
without the need for fine tuning, without reduction in efficiency, and
without catalysts. As a matter of fact, the cool exhaust and large
quantities of excess air makes oxidizing catalysts ineffective and cur-
rent reducing catalysts for N0x control unusable. A reduction in
permissable NO^ to lower than 2 g/mi would rule out this efficient,
reliable engine.
Another engine which seemed so promising a few years ago is the
Wankel. It has many attractive features. It has no reciprocating parts.
It works on the 4-stroke cycle with each stroke lasting 270° and with
one power stroke per revolution. At any time, three of its four strokes
are acting. Each rotor is therefore effectively equivalent in the
smoothness to a three cylinder, 4-cycle engine. Its displacement is the
rotor area (corner-to-corner length x width) x 3 times the crank radius
for every revolution of the crank. This produces large swept volume in
a small space and promises high performance. Total balance is accomplished
137
-------
aasily by means of counterweights on the crankshaft. Unit inertia forces
are low (very short stroke and large bearing allowing high speeds with low
'earing loads). It is easy to see how attractive this becomes to someone
looking for a high performance vehicle. Its minimal size and low weight
illow new economical vehicle designs.
Nevertheless, there are drawbacks. The piston face is rectangular
Ln cross section, rather than circular, causing leakage problems at the
corners. The apex seal travel is one third the periphery of the trochoid
surface per revolution in the same area of the trochoid which induces high
i.ocal temperatures. There is no way to return lubricating oil to the pump
so the amount of lubrication at the apex seals is limited to the quantity
of oil wasted. All this leads to very critical seal wear problems. The
combustion chamber extends from corner to corner of the rotor. Variously
shaped pockets in the rotor have been tried in an effort to improve the
combustion chamber shape and some progress will be made. Nevertheless,
combustion is relatively slow with a strong tendency to quench out on
the large surfaces. Poor fuel consumption and high emission of HC and CO
are to be expected. At the same time, the low combustion temperature and
the recirculation of exhaust gas during the unavoidable overlap keeps the
NO^ at a low level. If efforts to improve the efficiency are successful,
unquestionably the N0x output will increase. Thermal reactors or catalysts
will be needed to oxidize the HC and CO. If the N0x limit shoulcj be re-
duced to much below 2.0 g/mi, an effective reduction catalyst will be
needed.
Production tooling for building this engine is on order. It should
be expected that some small cars will be equipped with these rot4ry engines
in 1976, but because of the high fuel consumption and indeterminate en-
Jurance, it is doubtful that there will be large volumes produced in the
foreseeable future.
A composite summary of development, tooling and production lead
times based on the discussion above is presented in Table 7-1.
138
-------
It should be realized that responsible management will not will-
ingly take the long-term risks needed to engineer, develop and produce
any new type of engine without assurances that the emissions laws will
remain stable long enough to allow recovery of the investment before the
product becomes obsolete.
Electronic Fuel-Injection Systems*
The electronic fuel-injection systems for gasoline piston engines
are primarily a development of European technology although the Bendix
Corporation in the U.S. has a cross-licensing arrangement with Bosch in
Germany for technology exchange. No mass production manufacturing
facility exists in the U.S. to produce electronic fuel-injection and
electronic emission-control subsystems for gasoline piston engines.
The EFI system that is being introduced in Europe for U.S. sales
is illustrated in Figure El. The prime components of this system are:
Fuel pump (39PSIG) - an electrically driven motor
coupled to a constant flow rotary pump.
Fuel filter - a close tolerance filter that elim-
inates particles that would clog the fuel nozzles.
Fuel intake manifold - with provision for mounting
the fuel rail.
Fuel nozzles - a precision solenoid operated by the
electronic control unit.
Throttle body - the basic air control unit that Includes
a bottle sensor and a cold start air control.
Speed sensor unit - the magnet assembly equipped with
a reed switch assembly for sensing the engine RPM.
Electronic control unit - this system provides the con-
trol signals and the feedback response from water and
air sensors, pressure sensors and a fuel pressure
regulator.
Contributed by LeRoy Lindgren.
139
-------
EFI SYSTEM INSTALLATION
OXYGEN SENSOR
4>«
o
ELECTRONIC CONTROL UNIT
• ELECTRONIC CIRCUITS
• PRESSURE SENSOR
INTAKE MANIFOLD
• PRO/ISION FOR MOUNTING-
FUEL RAIL £ INJECTORS
• WATER-TEMPERATURE SENSOR
• AIR-TEMPERATURE SENSOR
(LOCATED IN RUNNER)
• FUEL-PRESSURE REGULATOR
FUEL FILTER
¦A
Go
THROTTLE BODY
• THROTTLE-POSITION
SENSOR
• COLD START AIR
CONTROL
FUEL PUMP (39-PSlO)
• CONSTANT FLOW
SPEED SENSOR
• MAGNET ASSEMBLE
• REED-SWITCH
ASSEMBLY
FIGURE El Typical EFI System
-------
Oxygen sensor - the platinum-coated ceramic sensor
located in the exhaust stream.
This EFI system coupled with a three-way pellet catalyst converter is
being tested in Europe and U.S. Some European automobile companies are
planning to use this system for tighter standards.
The Panel of Consultants on Manufacturability and Costs has as-
sembled the estimated costs of the components of this system using data
supplied from U.S. companies and some European suppliers. These costs
are original equipment manufacturer (OEM) estimates with appropriate
volumes of production; that is, they are costs for the component on a
car made in mass production. Table El illustrates the detailed costs
for EFI components and for components needed for several alternative
engine technologies.
The data supplied to the Panel of Consultants on M/C indicated
that the electronic control unit would not reduce in cost as the production
increased. This was based on the assumption that this unit would be de-
signed to incorporate ceramic encapsulated, integrated circuit technology
and that the cost would remain constant. It is the opinion of the Panel
of Consultants on M/C that some cost reduction would be achieved. There-
fore, a 127o cost reduction due to learning has been applied to the manu-
facturing costs listed in Table El for EFI technology when using manu-
facturers low-volume cost data.
Introducing a new engine technology such as EFI is a more gradual
and evolutionary process than might be inferred from Table 7-1. For pro-
duction of electronic fuel-injection systems, the following schedule is
typical once a decision has been made to introduce EFI in a significant
number of cars:
141
-------
TABLE El
Typical Component Sticker Price
Used in Developing Vehicle Costs
Component
Sticker
Price, in
Dollars*
4 Cyl.
6 Cyl.
8 Cyl.
Air Injection-Pump-Valves-Piping
27
31
33
Fuel-Evaporation Control
8
10
11
Distributor Assembly
7
14
21
PCV Valve
2
2
3
Improved EGR
1L
12
14
Most Advanced EGEt
15
20
22
Oxidation-Catalyst Pellet Converter
—
--
76
Oxidation-Catalyst Monolith Converter
47
58
—
Reducing-Catalyst Pellet Converter
--
—
82
Reducing-Catalyst Monolith Converter
63
74
—
Oxygen Sensor
4
4
4
Three-way-Catalyst Pellet Converter
80
92
92
Fuel-Injection Nozzles
25
42
57
Electronic-Emissions Control Unit
50
56
57
Investment allocation is not included. Blanks in table indicate that
costs were not needed for the computer analysis and, therefore, were
not developed for this study.
142
-------
Year
Volume
Production Plan
1975
1976/77
5,000
200,000
1978/79
.500,000
1979/80
1,000,000 to
5,000,000
Purchase all the components from
known U.S. and European sources.
Start manufacturing nozzles, throt-
tle bodies, fuel pumps and ECU unitr
Purchase the valves and sensors.
Purchase mass production tooling.
Redesign the ECU using integrated
circuits and combine some external
functions into the ECU. Provide
for mass production facilities of
the major components. Include the
major valves as manufactured items.
Develop a new cost reduction design
and include the balance of the items
in the manufacturing program. Tool
up the final mass production facili
ties for all components.
The total investment for such a facility to produce 5,000,000
units per year would be $55,000,000 which include launching costs and
equipment costs. Over $11,200,000 would be expended for tooling nozzle
alone.
The Stratified-Charge Engine
As discussed earlier, a quick, but not necessarily, a final, ar ;r
to the energy and emission problem appears to be minor modification of
existing production engines. The next step, in order of ease of altera-
tion, appears to be some form of the stratified-charge engine. There ate
so many permutations of the so-called stratified-charge engines that the
most promising compromises may not yet have been sorted out. All versions
are capable of low N0x and CO. Hydrocarbons can be high for unthrottl', 3
engines to fairly low for throttled versions. Fuel consumption can be
normal for divided chamber engines or low for high compression, unthrot ad,
swirl chamber engines. Fuel systems can be relatively simple carburet* s
or highly sophisticated injection systems. Power loss can be minimizes
143
-------
(with some loss in emission control) or emissions can be minimized with
same loss in power. The best compromises will be based on experience
and judgment and, of course, the legal requirements which must be met.
The costs of getting into production with any of these systems
would be the tooling costs for the new cylinder heads, say $4,000,000/
per engine line plus the building and services. The swirl-controlled
stratified-charge engine would also need high volume tooling for the
injection systems, $15,000,000 per transfer line. Many millions of
dollars have been spent on developing the first production engine. If
the results are favorable, additional engine models can be developed at
lesser costs.
Since additional tooling may be required only for the cylinder
head and fuel system, plus minor block changes, the time frame may be
dictated by the amount of testing and development necessary to assure a
commercially acceptable engine. At least a two year delay period is
indicated for limited production, with perhaps a four year delay for
large volume production. This time frame may be compared to that
required for diesel engines.
Light Automotive Diesels
One of the alternative engines promising a measure of relief to the
critical fuel supply, and at the same time offering a large reduction in
the naturally emitted exhaust pollutants, is the light-duty automotive
diesel. This is not a new concept nor is it a new unproven engine.
Almost all heavy trucks are now diesel powered. Many medium-sized trucks
are beginning to use diesel power. In Europe, many light trucks, taxi-
cabs and passenger cars are now diesel powered. But in spite of their
general acceptance in Europe, diesel engines are usually regarded as
unsatisfactory for American passenger cars because of poor performance,
excessive weight and high cost. On the other side are the inherent
advantages of low fuel consumption and low emissions of unburned hydro-
carbons, carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen without fine tuning or
complicated add-ons.
144
-------
While the Panel of Consultants on M/C is primarily interested in
costs, it is essential to have a background on which to base these costs.
For instance, engine performance requirements determine engine size which
determines weight, both of which affect cost. Much of the objection to
diesel engine performance is based on the Mercedes MB 220D in which a
134 C1D diesel developing 55 horsepower net is installed in a vehicle
weighing 3,100 lb. In Europe, cars are small, engines are smaller, and
spark-ignition engines are tuned up to a very high specific output. This
performance can not be matched with a diesel engine. In the U.S., a
different policy is followed. Engines of more -modest specific output but
larger displacement provide a high degree of vehicle performance. The
relationship between displacement and car weight for 1973 cars is plotted
in Figure E2. Also shown in the MB 220D which is well below the U.S.
average. If the diesel were of larger CID, vehicle performance would
certainly improve. But if we increase the size of the diesel to exactly
equal the performance of the spark-ignition engine, we will exaggerate
the other disadvantages of the diesel, weight and cost, which could be-
come prohibitive.
A more practical approach would be to match displacement of the
spark-ignition engine rather than the power. There will be some loss of
power but we can evaluate this loss by using as a performance parameter,
horsepower per unit piston area corrected for bore/stroke ratio, a valid
and dimensionally rational parameter.
The published performance of standard equipment engines for 1973
model cars showed an average output of 1.71 Hp/Ac with a one sigma spread
from 1.47 to 1.94 as shown in Figure E3. The dashed lines enclose the one
sigma limits for 68% of the engine population. The scatter is of little
significance since all of these engines can be stepped-up in power and
most of than are offered in higher power options. This figure shows that
three European diesels have a specific performance inside the scatter
band of the standard equipment spark-ignition engines. Since all of the
145
-------
500r
400
300
200
1001
2,000
O Mercedes 220 diesei
1
2,400 2,800 3,200 3,600 4,000
SHIPPING WEIGHT OF CAR-ib
4,400
5,000
FIGURE E2 Engine Displacement (CID) as a Function of Gar
Weight for 1973 Model Year, U.S. Produced Cars (•). Mercedes
220 Diesel Is Included for Comparison.
-------
ENGINE DISPLACEMENT, CID
FIGURE E3 Comparative Performance of U.S. Produced, 1973
Gasoline Engines (•) and Three Imported Gasoline Engines.
High Performance Engines Are Excluded.
-------
U.S. engines are sold in high sales volume cars, we can assume that their
performance was acceptable to a large segment of the market. We can also
conclude that the diesel engines can deliver comparable specific perfor-
mance if they are equal in displacement to spark-ignition engines.
If we accept a diesel of the same displacement as the spark-ignition
engine, we have a basis on which to compare other values, weight for
instance. A diesel engine of the same displacement will be heavier than
a spark-ignition engine. Exactly how much heavier is impossible to say
unless we compare similar designs. The crankshaft, connecting rods, and
pistons may be 50% heavier. Heavier flywheels may be necessary in 4- and
6-cylinder engines. The cylinder heads may weigh 20% more. There will
be more metal in critical areas of the cylinder block. However, a diesel,
built to the same standards of reliability as the spark-ignition engine,
would be less than 25%, heavier. Considering the many engine options that
are offered in today's cars, a weight increase of 25% should not be pro-
hibitive. At most, there would be a net increase in weight of 10% on the
front suspension over the largest fully optioned gasoline engine which
will fit in the car. All of the special considerations regarding the
conversion are summarized below:
1. All diesel engines need fuel pumps with timed in-
jection requiring a half speed, positive drive from
the crankshaft.
2. Crankshaft bearings are larger in diameter for
strength to provide adequate bearing area and for
torsional stiffness because of higher peak pressure.
3. Crankshafts may have to be heat treated for strength,
especially if turbocharged. Turfriding, Elo-therm
fillet hardening, deep harding to at least Rc 30,
or fillet rolling should be considered.
4. Pistons will be designed for high compression loads;
wrist pins will be large in diameter. A ring groove
insert may be needed for good life. A closely con-
trolled combustion chamber will be machined into
the piston top.
148
-------
5. Cylinder heads will need at least five evenly spaced
hold down bolts because of high gas pressure.
6. If lowest emissions are to be achieved, a divided-
combustion chamber will be needed with an inserted
pre-combustion or swirl chamber in the head.
Dimensional control must be precise.
7. There will be no vacuum available for operation of
brakes or auxiliaries.
8. The performance and efficiency of a diesel engine
depend on the shape of the combustion chamber and
tailoring the fuel system to fit. This involves a
great deal of experimentation and development.
Therefore, it is not a simple thing to change a
bore or stroke.
9. Diesel engines have high cyclic torque variations,
even at idle, because of high compression pressure.
Engine mountings must absorb these torques.
10. Diesel engines prefer long stroke/bore ratios be-
cause of the more compact combustion chamber. In-
line engines are more compact, lighter, and
probably cheaper to build with short strokes, even
though there may be same sacrifice in performance
and efficiency. Therefore, it is economical to
build 4- and 6-cylinder engines of the same con-
figuration as a family,but it is not good policy
to build a V-8 of the same bore and stroke as an
in-line.
The cost of manufacturing engines in quantities of at least
200,000 per year is approximately proportional to weight. Tooling costs
for a diesel may be somewhat greater than for a spark-ignition engine
because of the greater mass of the components. An increase in tooling
cost of perhaps 10% can be expected.
Although the tooling of the diesel and spark-ignition engines will
be similar, it will not be feasible to phase out the spark-ignition
engine and phase in the diesel on the same tooling for several reasons.
First, so many dimensions are so different it is unlikely that any large
149
-------
part of the old tooling could be adapted. Second, no manufacturer can
afford to take out of production a popular engine for the period of a
year or more necessary for a changeover. Third, even if an engine is
taken out of production, service and maintenance commitments dictate
that a considerable part of the tooling will be in use for several years.
New tooling is therefore mandatory.
At today's prices, transfer line tooling for 200,000 engines/year
will cost approximately $80,000,000, not including the building. Design,
development, and testing of prototypes will add another $20,000,000. A
building to house the operation could cost $6,000,000, bringing the total
to $106,000,000. This is a conservative estimate of the investment cost
for only one engine line. Obviously, these costs will have to be amor-
tized over a large number of engines.
Conversion of Manufacturing Facilities
The Panel of Consultants on M/C considered at length the conver-
sion impact of changing transfer lines from the conventional 1974 engine
to the following:
a. Conventional engine with a dual-catalyst emissions
system.
b. Diesel engine using the Mercedes-Benz technique of
maximizing the compatibility between gasoline diesel
engine production.
c. Diesel engine using an all-new light-duty automotive
design.
d. Piston engine with electronically controlled fuel-
injection and emission system.
e. Stratified-charge, 3-valve design (Honda CVCC).
f. Stratified-charge (TCCS/PROCO) with mechanical
fuel injection.
g. Wankel engine.
150
-------
The result of this composite Panel of Consultants judgment is
presented in Table E2 for engines a through jf and in Table E3 for the
Wankel engine (j?) . From Table E2, it can be seen that the progressive
order of increasing impact is dual-catalyst, EFI, CVCC, TCCS, diesel and
Wankel. This is the same ordering presented earlier in this Appendix.
When conversion is viewed from the perspective of these impact tables,
the industry tendency for favoring technologies, such as dual-catalyst
systems, which minimize the disruption becomes more rational.
151
-------
TABLE E2
Impact of Conversion of a Conventional 1974 Engine
Complex to Various Alternative Engine Systems
Transfer Line
Im
pact
Dual Catalyst
Diesel
Elect.
Fuel
Inject.
Strat. Charge
3-Valve CVCC
S/C
TCCS
Texaco
MFI
D/C
Con v. **
New
Block
N
L
N
N
l.SQfl
Head
N
L
L
50$
L
L
Intake Manifold
N
25R
L
L
L
L
Exhaust Manifold
3orA
20&
L
N
L
L
Front Cover
N
L
L
N
N
L
Oil Pan
N
N
L
N
N
N
Valve Cover
N
L
L
N
L
L
Clutch Hsg
N
N
L
N
N
N
Flywheel
N
20|?
20R
N
N
N
Camshaft
N
M
N
N
1(i?
N
Crankshaft
N
m
L
N
N
N
Pistons
N
*8
L
N
N
2°fl
Piston Pins
N
N
N
N
N
N
Connecting Rods
N
15fi
15fl
N
N
N
Valves
N
50
50
N
100
5$
Rocker Arms
N
*8
*8
N
m
Distributor
N
NR
NR
20S
N
3$£ dual
Oil Pump
N
N
N
N
N
N
Booster Fuel Pump
N
L
L
L
N
L.
Fuel Inj. Pump
NR
L
L
L
NR
L
Inj. Nozzle
NR
L
L
I
NR
L
Governor
NR
L
L
NR
NR
L
Fuel Filter
N
m
m
30fl
N
m
Air Filter
N
3Qs
3oa
30£
N
30a
Carburetor Assembly
M
NR
NR
NR
MA
NR
Carburetor Body
M
NR
NR
NR
MA
NR
Throttle Body
NR
NR
NR
L
NR
L
PCV Valve
N
15S
158
N
N
N
Fuel Evap. System
N
NR
NR
N
N
N
Converter Can
L
NR
NR
MA
NR
L
Catalyst Substrate
L
NR
NR
MA
NR
L
Engine Assembly
M
*88
w
m
308
m
Foundry Changes
308
n
2>m
* Numbers are associated investment costs in thousands of dollars.
** Impact for a dieselized gasoline engine, rather than a totally new diesel engine design.
KEY:
N - No change in the original transfer line.
M - Minor changes in the original transfer line.
MA - Major change required in the original transfer line.
NR - Original transfer line not required for the new engine system.
L - New transfer line is required.
152
-------
TABLE E3
Impact of Conversion of a Conventional
1974 Engine Complex to a Wankel Engine
(Note the relative high degree of incompatibility between the two engine systems.)
Transfer Line
Impact
Engine Assembly
L
Engine Test
L
Transmission
"t'SSo*
Drive
L
Air Pump
50fl
Thermal Reactor
L
Catalyst Converter
L
PCV
N
Fuel Evap. System
N
Carburetor IFC
L
Front Hsg
L
Trochoid Rotor Hsg
L
Rotor
L
Side Seals
L
Rear Hsg
L
Crankshaft
L
Distributor
200
M
Oil Pan
108
Flywheel Hsg
L
Flywheel
L
Oil Pump
L
Fuel Pump
300
M
Transfer Line
Fuel Filter
Air Cleaner
Carburetor IFC
Apex Seals
Car Assembly
Foundry
Fuel Storage Pit
Exhaust/Muffler Pit
Power Options
Coolant System
Brake System
Drive System
Wheels
Tires
Air Conditioning
Accessory Equipment
Electrical System
Body
Ignition System
Suspension System
Power Options
Impact
Transfer
N
L
L
3,OOU
M
L
30S
3Q8
N
N
N
L
N
N
N
V
N
300
M
N
N
Numbers are associated investment costs in thousands of dollars
Key: N - No change; M - Minor change; MA - Major change; L « New transfer line required;
NR ¦ Old transfer line not required.
153
-------
APPENDIX F
Assumptions for Scenarios and
Detailed Time-Phased Plans
(Compiled by Merrill L. Ebner and
LeRoy H. Lindgren)
As used in this study, a scenario is defined to mean a time-
phased pattern of cars selected from the list of available configura-
tions in Table 3-2.* The pattern in some cases is that which the
domestic automobile industry might make given a certain pattern of
emissions standards (the E Scenario is such a case). Other more hypo-
thetical scenarios (such as Scenario ED-2) ask what time-phased pattern
might result i_f the industry decided to introduce a significant amount
of a new technology such as automotive diesel.
In the present study, 19 different scenarios are created and
evaluated. These are listed in Table Fl. The corresponding pattern
of emissions standards are given in Table 4-6. In all cases, the first
letter in the scenario designation indicates the applicable pattern of
standards which applies in that scenario.
Scenarios can be divided into five groups according to the
general purpose that they serve. One group (A,B,C,E,E-2,I,J and K)
represents emissions patterns as they have existed, as they now exist,
or as they might exist (K). A second group is created to study the
11 11
two-standard strategy (B J and C J ). A third group is used to
evaluate the effect of a more radical small-car shift (CSV, JSV and KSV).
A fourth group (ED, ED-2, ESC, ESC-2 and EW) assumes a special emphasis
on new technologies, and the fifth and final group (containing only Fl)
assumes both a mixture of new technologies and a hypothetical final
standard (1.0 g/mi for NO ).
X
*A scenario, if it were implemented, would be called a production plan.
154
-------
TABLE F1
List of Scenarios for This Study
Final
Scenario Emissions Standard
A US70
B US 73
B1J' US73 & US78
C US75
C'J' US75 & US78
CSV US75
E 177
E-2 177
ED 177
ED-2 177
ESC 177
ESC-2 177
EW 177
F1 T277
I US78
J US78
JSV US 78
K US78
KSV US78
Comment
Baseline scenario
Standards as applied through 1973
Two-car strategy; 637L B pattern, 377, J pattern
Standards
Two-car strategy; 63% C pattern, 37% J pattern
Same as C, but using a small-car product mix
Advanced oxidizing catalyst and EFI systems to a
2.0 g/mi NO standard
x
Advanced oxidizing catalyst system to a 2,0 g/mi
NO standard
x
Diesel and EFI
Diesel introduction
CVCC and CCS introduction to a 2.0 g/mi NO^ standard
CVCC introduction to a 2.0 g/mi N0x standard
Wankel introduction at a 2.0 g/mi NO standard
x
Several alternative technologies to a 1.0 g/mi
NO standard
x
Standards as in original Clean Air Act Amendments
of 1970
Standards as in Emergency Energy Act of 1974
Same as J, but using small-car product mix
Same as J, but with 0.4 g/mi NOx deferred to 1980
Same as K, but using small-car product mix
155
-------
Because it is the input, or driving function, for the evaluation
of impacts on both the driving public and the industry, the quality of
the scenario is of considerable importance. Consequently, scenarios
reflect the learnings from the Panel of Consultants on M/C questionnaire
{Appendix B), the data gathered by the Panel of Consultants, the in-
formation on tooling constraints (Appendix D), and lead-time considera-
tions (Appendix E) as accurately as was possible under the conditions
of the study. That is to say that new vehicles are brought into the
scenario in ways which are possible in a development and production
sense. How relatively cost effective the scenario is will then be
determined by subsequent investment and operating cost analysis.
The function of the scenario is to describe the new cars added
to the U.S. vehicles-in-use population. The basic scenario (as they
will be presented in this appendix) indicates the yearly additions from
U.S. and Canadian plants to the U.S. market. This basic scenario is
the one used in the investment analysis, since the investment impact
on U.S. producers was sought. The contribution of imported cars is
then added to this basic scenario to create the extended scenario used
for the vehicle operating cost calculations (Appendix G). Imported
cars are those imported by U.S. manufacturers and those exported to the
U.S. by overseas manufacturers.
The total yearly car sales is the same in all scenarios and is
assumed to be as shown in Table 4.1. This table contains historical
data for 1970 through 1973. An 11% drop in total sales for 1974 over
1973 is assumed, as in a 3.57« yearly increase, subsequently. The ratio
of import sales to total sales is assumed to be 157a from 1974 to 1985.
Initially, there was some question as to whether production or
sales data is preferable as a basis in the scenarios. Consequently,
the comparative sales and production data for the U.S. in the period
1970 to 1973 was tabulated as shown in Table F2. In some years, as can
be seen, (1970 and 1972) sales run ahead of production and in other
156
-------
TABLE F2
Comparison of Car Shipments, Sales, and Registrations for 1970-1973
Domestic
Total Shipments
Total Dealer Sales
Calendar Year
1970 1971 1972 1973
6,869 8,901 9,189 9,941
7,116 8,676 9,322 9,670
Imports
Total Import Sales"
n/o 1,533 1,586 1,733
Total U.S.
Total Sales
Total New Car Registrations
n/o 10,209 10,908 11,403
8,388 9,831 10,488 11,351
Source: Ward's Yearbook 1973 and Ward's Yearbook 1974.
Domestic factory shipments including exports plus imports from Canada
minus exports by domestic producers.
^Imports by domestic producers plus exports to the U.S. by all non-
Canadian overseas producers.
•Wo = not obtained
157
-------
years (1971 and 1973), the reverse is true. The differences represent
fluctuations in new-car inventories. In all cases, sales and pro-
duction are reasonably close. Consequently, sales data are used and
sales and production are considered to be equal to a first approximation.
Another feature included in the scenarios to bring them into
correspondence with industry practice is the distinction between the
model year and the calendar year. The model year production traditionally
begins about September 22. As a compromise here, the start of the
model year is assumed to be September 1. Data for automobile sales for
the first three quarters and the last quarter of the years 1970-1973 are
given in Table F3. On the average, as can be seen, 25% of the yearly
production is in the final quarter. Consequently, on the worksheets on
which the scenarios are built, the total production is divided 7570/257o.
The 757o volume is assigned to the prior model year and the 25% to the
next model year. Thus, a small volume of production of a diesel car ap-
pearing for the first time in 1977 is, in fact, the fourth quarter's
sales of a 1978 model year vehicle.
Once a yearly volume is established, it is divided among the
seven car sizes according to the normal pattern (Table 4-2) or the small-
car pattern (Table 4-4). The data from these two figures are consoli-
dated and presented here again as Table F4. In this table, the rela-
tively greater severity of the small-car shift in the small-car pattern
is apparent. The Intermediate B and standard cars are the main losers
in this shift. In Table F4, the percentages for the years 1970 to 1974
are the same for both product-mix patterns. The percentages for 1970
to 1973 are historical based on Ward's data, and the 1974 data are an
estimate for that year. All scenarios used the normal product-mix
pattern, except for those designated "SV" which used the small-car
pattern.
For the model years 1970 to 1974, all U.S. auto companies met
the progressive emissions standards with very similar hardware. In
158
-------
TABLE F3
New Car Sales by Franchised Dealers
Calendar Year
1970
Sales Volume
%
Jan. - Sept.
5,625,884
79.1
Oct. - Dec. Total
1,489,653
20.9
7,115,537
100.0
1971
Sales Volume
%
6,246,476
72.0
2,429,808
28.0
8,676,284
100.0
1972
Sales Volume
%
6,780,232
72.7
2,541,271
27.3
9,321,503
100.0
1973
Sales Volume
%
7,461,434
77.2
2,208,255
22.8
9,669,689
100.0
NAS Scenarios
4-Year Aug.
Value Used
75.2
75
24.8
25
Source: Ward's Yearbook 1973, p. 134; Ward's Yearbook 1974.
p. 140.
159
-------
TABLE F4
Comparison of the Product-Mix Matrix for the
Normal and Small-Car Patterns
(Numbers are the percentage of a given year's sales in that car size.)
Projected Car Sales by Car Size
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
MINI
s/v
0
0
0
0
0
1
3
5
6
7
8
8
8
8
8
8
N
0
0
0
0
0
1
2
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
S/C
s/v
0
7
9
8
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
22
22
22
22
22
N
0
7
9
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
14
14
14
14
14
14
COMP
S/V
13
12
11
10
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
24
24
24
24
24
N
13
12
11
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
17
17
17
17
INT-A
S/V
19
18
18
18
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
24
24
24
24
24
N
19
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
18
INT-B
S/V
32
30
29
30
29
26
23
20
18
15
12
11
11
11
11
11
N
32
30
29
30
29
28
27
25
25
24
24
24
24
24
24
24
STD
S/V
21
19
19
21
20
17
14
11
8
6
4
3
3
3
3
3
N
21
19
19
21
20
18
16
15
14
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
LUX
S/V
15
14
14
13
13
13
12
11
10
9
8
8
8
8
8
8
N
15
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
N = normal pattern
S/V = small-car pattern
160
-------
model year 1975, however, a variety of different vehicles are being pro-
duced, especially if note is taken of the special emissions configura-
tions for California. To get detailed data on these various configura-
tions well in advance of the new model introductions (i.e., in June and
July of 1974), an extensive study of the EPA and California certifica-
tion tests was undertaken. From this study, a composite estimate of
the 1975 models by configuration is obtained, as shown in Table F5. To
maintain realism in the scenarios, all scenarios containing 1975
standards (Scenario C and beyond) maintain this percentage distribution
by configuration class for the 1975 model year cars.
The complete set of basic scenarios follow. Configuration
numbers refer back to Table 3-2, with the class numbers corresponding
to the number of the mini-compact car in each class. Listed in Table F5
are the estimated number of cars to be sold in that year in thousands
of units. The total number of car sales indicated at the bottom of each
column may differ slightly from column totals as a result of round-off
errors.
161
-------
TABLE F5
Projected 1975 Model Year Sales by Configuration Class
(Numbers are the percentage of cars in the
selected size with the configuration indicated.)
CMVE Configuration Class
Vehicle
29
36
43
50
11 Mini
0
90
0
10
22 Subcompact
44
46
5
5
33 Compact
37
53
7
3
45 Inter-A
0
65
31
4
46 Inter-B
0
5
87
8
57 Standard
0
56
39
5
68 Luxury
0
75
18
7
Source: EPA and California certification
data.
162
-------
i i n
197 I
IS f i
I9f;
1974
22.
lUi!4n9
0
3
0
0
23.
211!>4i9
0
6 36
S38
7 73
7 76
;41154o9
9 2 4
1J40
102 5
¦33d
948
25.
1 *50
1 b ^1
1 ufT
1 7+0
1552
20.
•«"ll luiO'J
2276
c J-d
2 7 02
2930
2531
27.
541 1 7 46-f
i-'t'iZ
z^a
1 770
l
-------
i 9 7 J
L 9 71
1972
19 73
1974
L.
111 1 lu5i>
I
J
J
c
0
0
2.
2111265b
0
tj
251
0
0
3.
-41 I ;o5a
J
1 J4
•07
0
0
4 •
• 41 15 &5o
0
1 5d
5J3
0
0
5.
4-+1 1 565:s
J
3
0
0
0
0
9.
2H12t5»
0
0
75
278
279
10.
34113655
>
92
347
341
1 1.
44115653
0
•J
150
c>2 6
558
12.
¦~41 1 6o5i>
0
243
1044
900
13.
i tl 1 7t5>
J
¦)
159
695
589
14.
o411.-ifc55
J
0
117
437
434
15.
111 Ut55
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
J
0
112
417
419
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
511
18.
4411^655
0
0
226
93.9
83a
19.
~411£cd5
">
0
3o4
1566
1 35 J
20.
541I7 65:?
J
0
23d
1 J43
d 84
21.
64118655
0
)
176
73 J
!J 5 1
22.
1111 l*«o9
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
J
545
398
77
7/
24.
34113469
9 24
9 3 o
4 36
96
94
25.
~ tl I 54t^
1353
1 tOi
796
174
155
26.
• ill 5469
£2 7 6
Z 342
1233
290
250
27.
541 1 <) 4 69
1 ,6'j
1 .92
519
135
12 J
fOTAL
PTi'Jl4l J JN
7115
di. 76
9321
9669
362 5
19 75
19 76
19 77
1978
1979
1980
19dl
1982
1933
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
J
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3!
66
1 J2
106
110
114
118
122
126
131
135
321
365
412
462
515
534
552
572
592
612
634
385
432
431
534
589
648
671
694
718
744
7 70
578
59d
619
641
663
686
710
735
761
788
815
399
39 7
860
890
884
915
947
930
10 15
1351
1087
5 7 8
531
515
498
478
457
473
490
507
525
543
417
432
44/
426
442
457
473
490
507
525
54 3
47
99
154
159
165
1 71
177
183
190
196
203
461
548
6i a
694
773
801
329
358
8 88
919
951
577
648
722
801
884
972
1037
L042
1078
1116
1155
867
897
929
961
995
1030
1065
11 33
1 14 2
1182
12 23
1 343
1346
12 9 J
1335
1327
13 73
1421
1471
1523
1576
1631
367
797
773
747
718
686
710
735
761
788
315
626
648
670
640
663
686
710
7 35
761
788
815
8
Id
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
39
101
114
128
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
L06
120
133
148
163
1 80
1 36
192
199
206
214
160
166
172
178
134
190
197
2 04
211
218
226
249
249
233
24 7
245
254
263
2 72
282
292
302
luO
147
143
138
1 32
127
131
136
140
146
150
1 16
12 3
124
113
122
127
131
1 36
140
146
150
392 r
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
11 756
12167
12593
SCEMAftlO-B "ACE 1 J8/29/74
-------
H7 ?
1 >71
IS72
1W3
1974
19 75
1.
11111656
J
J
3
3
0
3
2.
ZHIZj *6
¦)
to
253
0
0
J
3.
111! V6-J6
j
1 3 3
3 36
3
0
0
4.
44115SV6
j
155
532
3
3
3
5.
44116o56
0
2 59
310
0
0
0
6.
54117o5j
j
163
53:
0
3
0
7.
£411 rii>5o
3
123
39 3
0
0
3
8.
111ilc55
0
s/
0
.3
20
9.
21112 a55
0
0
74
27 6
252
231
10.
341136^5
j
3
93
346
338
242
11.
44115635
j
0
153
c25
535
3 64
12.
441I6655
0
J
243
1043
315
566
13.
5 411 7i>55
J
0
153
69 5
534
364
14.
o41i 8655
0
3
116
436
393
262
15.
1111 li>55
0
0
0
3
3
30
16.
<:1U2o55
¦3
3
112
415
379
302
1/.
S4ll?655
o
3
136
520
*64
363
16.
44115055
J
0
225
933
759
546
19.
44116655
J
3
364
1565
1223
(549
20.
54117655
3
0
238
1042
832
546
21.
64113655
0
0
174
730
590
394
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
5
23.
21112469
3
5
3c/o
76
69
56
24.
34113^69
-12 3
933
485
9 5
35
67
25.
44115469
135J
1 *»03
795
173
140
131
26.
44115'f69
in-*
2 340
1283
289
226
157
2/.
54117469
1493
1461
839
192
148
101
28.
6411 8469
1 366
1391
619
135
139
72
29.
111213 <6
')
J
¦j
0
¦j
30.
21122 34*
3
3
0
0
31
144
31.
3412 3346
J
0
0
o
32
146
32.
4412S3 46
0
0
3
a
3
J
33.
44126346
J
J
0
0
0
0
34.
541273<.6
3
3
0
0
0
3
35.
64 128i46
n
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
o
J
0
0
2d
37.
21122346
i
>
J
0
32
151
38.
341c i i 4 6
\
3
0
*
V6
239
39.
44125 j4 j
j
0
J
3
«2
385
40.
441X0346
3
J
0
0
11
46
tl.
5412 7146
j
!J
J
0
34
3 42
42.
64123 546
3
J
0
3
¦?3
32 1
1976
1977
1 9 7d
1979
1980
1931
1982
1983
1984
1935
0
J
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
*1
6 *
66
69
72
7t
77
79
82
85
233
259
291
324
336
347
3 60
372
385
399
272
3 33
336
371
408
422
437
452
468
485
3 76
3 93
403
417
432
447
463
479
496
514
565
541
560
557
576
596
618
639
661
685
334
324
313
301
2 83
298
303
319
330
342
272
231
269
278
288
298
308
319
330
342
62
97
133
104
133
111
115
119
123
127
345
339
437
437
504
521
540
559
578
599
<33
454
534
557
612
633
656
679
703
727
504
585
605
626
643
671
695
719
744
771
847
312
841
835
865
895
927
959
992
1028
502
487
470
452
432
44 7
463
479
495
514
403
422
403
417
432
447
463
479
495
514
11
18
18
19
20
20
21
2 2
22
23
64
72
33
90
93
96
100
103
107
110
75
84
93
103
113
117
121
125
130
134
104
108
112
116
120
124
128
133
137
142
156
153
155
154
160
165
171
177
183
190
92
90
87
83
83
82
85
88
91
95
75
73
74
77
30
82
85
88
91
95
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
3
3
J
0
0
3
0
0
0
123
3
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
A
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
0
0
12 9
3
J
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
176
3
3
3
0
3
J
0
3
0
299
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
34
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
229
J
J
0
0
3 .
0
0
0
0
24-/
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
3
0
S L
= M A < [ 0
-1' J '
"4Gc
1 33/29/7'
-------
1 »70
1472
197;
1974
1*75
43 .
U12L'ii
.1
.1
0
3
3
0
44.
21122234
3
J
J
1 6
45 .
3-*12 i23i
_
*
3
6
2 7
46.
44125234
0
0
0
0
44
1 83
47.
4412 6234
J
0
J
3
200
333
48.
5412 7234
o
0
3
53
2U
49.
b 412 82 3 «
j
3
J
0
19
7 7
50.
1 11211 2-.
0
V"
0
0
0
3
51.
2112212%
•J,
1
)
3
16
52.
34123124
J
0
J
j
2
I 1
53.
44125124
J
3
0
0
5
23
54.
44126124
J
0
0
0
18
73
55.
54 12 712't
3
0
0
3
7
29
56.
6 4 12 812 4
)
3
0
3
7
10
71.
11121121
j
J
'J
0
0
72.
21122121
j
3
0
3
0
0
73.
34 123121
J
j
0
J
0
0
74.
44125121
%
a
0
j
c
u
75.
44126121
0
0
0
0
0
0
76.
5412 7121
0
0
0
J
0
0
77.
64128121
«•
0
0
J
0
0
134.
1114112 2
3
0
0
3
0
0
135 .
21142122
0
0
0
0
0
0
136.
34143122
0
J
3
3
0
137.
44145122
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 3d.
44146122
0
0
3
0
3
J
0
14
3
0
3
0
2 3
J
3
0
0
142
3
J
0
0
602
3
3
0
0
159
J
3
a
0
59
0
J
0
3
13
39
0
0
0
79
222
J
3
0
12 3
371
3
0
0
1 7 1
477
3
0
0
2 85
663
J
0
0
156
398
0
0
0
134
345
0
0
0
3
13
54
56
58
a
63
3 33
311
294
0
110
4 80
468
449
0
1 *3
575
527
475
0
1 98
799
704
635
0
118
447
331
317
0
103
377
323
270
s.
19
3
3
3
23
95
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
J
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13
54
5o
58
3
37
1 72
218
253
0
U
68
136
216
0
15
82
153
229
0
22
114
204
335
0
13
63
110
152
0
11
60
130
199
982
1983
19S4
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
62
64
67
69
294
304
314
326
383
369
382
396
406
39 1
404
419
541
521
540
558
239
2 0 8
216
223
1B8
156
162
167
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
62
64
67
69
2 94
304
314
326
3 29
369
382
396
349
391
404
419
466
521
540
558
264
312
324
334
314
364
3 78
390
1931
3
0
3
3
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
a
j
o
50
284
404
423
571
279
2 30
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
2 84
284
201
401
206
255
SCENARIO-fl» J'
"4GE
2 08/29/74
-------
19 70
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
1 1 I 1 1 (> 5 '3
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
211I2o5o
0
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
1J4
307
0
0
0
4.
4 + ll3t>!)o
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
0
0
7.
6411865o
0
121
391
0
0
0
8.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
O
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1344
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
487
325
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
o
0
112
417
314
0
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
383
0
18.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
¦J
3t>4
1566
1013
0
20.
5411/655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
730
488
0
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
211124 69
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
25.
44115 ¦~69
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1233
290
107
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
84 0
193
122
0
28.
64 i18469
1 j66
1392
619
135
90
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
392
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
07
395
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126;46
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54127346
U
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
1112i;46
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
09
410
38.
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
567
39.
4412 534o
0
0
0
0
252
1043
40.
441263 46
0
0
0
0
31
124
41.
5412 /3*c>
0
0
0
0
?.2'V
*99
42.
64128346
0
0
0
0
225
3 70
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
447
504
565
630
652
675
699
723
748
775
444
495
549
606
666
690
714
738
765
791
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
165
257
266
275
285
295
306
316
327
339
467
527
551
659
68 2
706
730
756
782
810
636
709
786
868
954
988
1022
1058
1096
1134
1060
1113
1157
1198
1240
1283
1328
1375
1422
1472
124
119
123
122
127
131
136
141
146
151
32 7
302
775
744
712
736
762
7fl«»
817
845
900
931
889
921
954
987
1021
1057
1095
1132
SCENARIO—C
PAGE I
08/29/74
-------
Is-70
1*71
-•>72
1973
1974
<*3.
liL'UVt
0
0
0
J
0
44.
21 12223'.
0
0
¦J
0
9
45.
3412 i2:-4
0
0
c
0
1 6
46.
^125?:>4
0
J
0
a
120
47.
4412i234
J
0
0
0
543
48.
i>412 72is
0
a
0
0
159
+9.
5412 3234
0
0
0
0
5 4
50.
11121124
0
u 1
L)
0
J
pi.
21122124
0
' j
J
9
52.
3412 3124
a
0
0
0
7
53.
'.4125124
3
0
0
0
1 5
54.
*•4 12o 1 2 4
'j
J
J
0
5J
55.
5.12 7124
0
0
0
0
23
56.
~>4126124
0
0
0
0
21
TOTAL
PJPJL AT 1 ON
711s
iib 7 t>
9321
9669
6625
1975
1976
1977
197d
1979
1930
1981
19 32
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
44
50
5 1
64
71
74
76
79
32
65
88
74
34
93
1 03
11-.
126
130
1 35
139
1 44
149
497
515
53 i
552
571
591
611
633
655
678
702
21 73
2 169
2079
2151
2138
2213
2 2 90
2370
2454
2540
2628
o 2 6
5 76
353
5 4J
518
496
513
531
5t9
569
538
203
216
223
213
221
228
236
245
253
262
271
B
iU
23
29
30
31
32
34
35
3 i>
37
.4
50
57
64
71
74
76
79
82
a5
88
32
36
40
44
49
54
55
57
59
62
64
64
66
68
71
73
76
78
31
84
87
90
199
199
191
197
196
203
210
217
225
233
241
33
73
71
S9
66
63
65
68
70
73
75
81
34
36
33
36
o9
92
95
98
102
105
3927
9 240
95 (>3
9398
1J2 44
10603
109 74
11358
11756
12167
12593
SCEMARIO-C
PAGE 2
08/29/74
-------
19 j.
19 71
1972
1973
1974
1 975
1.
lllllaSS
3
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
3
60
2 50
C
0
0
3.
3 til 1656
1 "*3
306
3
0
3
4.
441l5o5c
3
155
532
3
0
3
5.
44116656
A
2 59
810
0
0
J
6.
5411765c
j
163
530
•3
0
0
7.
64118656
3
12 J
393
0
0
3
8.
11111655
.)
0
0
0
.0
0
9.
21112653
0
74
27b
208
0
10.
34113<.5a
3
0
90
346
255
0
11.
44115655
J
J
150
62 5
417
0
12.
44116655
'J
0
243
1043
674
0
13.
54117655
0
0
158
695
441
0
w.
64I18655
3
0
116
436
325
0
15.
11111655
J
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
J
3
112
415
313
0
IT.
3411 Si55
\i
3
136
520
383
0
18.
44115655
3
0
225
93d
62 7
0
19.
44116659
j
3
364
1565
1011
0
20.
54ll7o55
0
0
238
1042
662
0
21.
64118655
J
0
174
730
487
0
22.
11111469
J
0
0
0
0
0
23.
2111<:469
3
544
396
7 6
57
0
24.
34113*69
c<2 3
933
485
95
70
0
25.
4411*>469
1 35 J
14 33
795
173
116
0
26.
44116469
22 74
2;h0
1283
239
187
0
27.
541174o9
1493
1431
839
192
122
0
28.
64116469
106.,
10°1
619
135
90
0
29.
11121346
0
0
•3
0
V/
3
30.
21122340
3
0
0
3
94
3 JO
31.
3412334a
o
3
0
J
87
3 V5
32.
44125346
J
0
0
0
0
0
33.
4*126346
3
a
0
0
0
0
34.
5412 7346
J
3
0
0
0
0
35.
6412 8;46
o
0
0
0
0
0
36.
1112134o
0
3
0
3
0
78
37.
21122346
0
3
0
3
6 3
439
23.
34123i4o
J
J
3
•»
1 2h
566
39.
441253*16
J
3
0
0
250
1042
40.
4412634u
0
0
J
0
30
124
41.
541i 73 46
-
J
0
3
22 8
3 9 8
-.2.
6 412 3 Wo
'J
J
0
0
?2 5
353
L976
1977
1978
1979
1*80
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
'3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
405
31 7
356
396
410
402
311
345
381
419
J
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
149
162
167
1 73
180
423
332
372
414
429
576
t *6
495
546
631
978
704
728
754
783
112
75
77
77
33
7^9
5 J5
^33
^69
448
816
5 36
561
579
aOO
L982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
•o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
440
455
471
488
449
465
481
498
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
192
198
206
213
460
476
493
510
6 44
666
690
714
837
865
895
923
35
88
91
95
-»80
497
514
533
643
666
688
714
1931
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
425
434
0
0
0
0
185
444
6 22
308
82
46-+
621
SCENARI 0 — C' J'
PAGE
1 3 3/2 9/74
-------
i'-j7 2 .
i "71
1972
ir- 7;
i S 7-i
19 7 5
¦< 3 .
1 i C
>
,
.)
j
44 .
211222 }4
J
)
0
9
~ 4
45 .
3 + 12 3 2 3 »
)
J
j
16
7 +
46 .
4 4 12 52 3'«
0
0
J
0
119
496
47.
4 412 62 34
3
j
o
0
541
21 72
48 .
5412 7?J +
J
1
156
125
49.
c«412d2 34
J
0
J
J
53
2 36
50.
111211-2'»
0
0
c
0
£
51.
2112212+
i;
"¦
'J
<3
44
52.
34123124
0
J
0
3
6
31
53.
44125124
0
0
c
0
14
05
54.
4412612+
J
J
3
*9
198
55.
5 412 712 t
0
3
J
0
19
79
56.
64 126124
0
J
0
0
20
31
71.
11121121
J
)
0
0
72.
21122121
0
0
0
0
0
J
73.
34123121
J
J
0
3
0
0
74.
44125121
0
A
c
J
0
Q
75.
44 126121
3
0
0
3
0
0
76.
54127121
0
0
0
0
0
0
77.
6*128121
•'
1
-
3
n
r
134.
11141122
3
J
J
3
0
3
135.
2 1 i 42122
J
0
J
0
0
0
Ii6 .
3*14312?
J
V
0
0
0
137.
44145122
0
0
3
0
0
3
138.
44146122
3
0
3
0
0
0
139.
5+147122
o
n
3
0
3
143.
641*dl22
J
J
3
3
J
0
141.
111-+U21
J
0
0
0
0
0
142.
2 11*2121
J
J
3
0
0
3
143.
J41-+3121
J
J
3
0
0
3
144.
44145121
0
0
0
0
0
3
145.
** 1 '+612 1
J
3
0
3
146.
34147121
3
0
3
0
3
3
147.
641+3121
J
0
0
0
0
3
19 76
1977
1978
19 79
19 3u
3
J
4o
43
45
46
75
53
65
72
79
466
3 16
347
3 59
372
1967
1339
1355
1346
1393
521
351
3 40
326
312
195
143
134
1 39
1 44
24
37
18
19
20
111
253
40
45
46
112
396
28
30
34
212
520
44
46
48
•+10
7 <13
124
123
128
232
443
43
41
40
136
399
52
54
56
3
13
54
56
53
3
/>8
303
311
294
3
113
4 80
468
449
3
143
575
527
475
0
198
799
734
635
3
118
447
331
51 7
0
133
377
323
2 70
8
39
3
0
0
23
95
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
13
5*
56
58
3
37
172
218
253
3
12
68
136
216
0
15
32
153
229
0
22
114
204
305
0
13
63
110
152
0
11
60
130
199
SCENARIO
1982
1983
1984
1935
50
51
53
55
85
88
91
94
399
412
427
442
1 493
1545
1599
1656
334
346
358
371
154
159
165
171
21
22
22
23
50
51
53
55
36
37
39
40
51
53
55
57
137
142
147
152
42
44
45
47
60
62
64
66
62
64
67
69
2 94
304
314
326
383
369
382
396
406
391
404
419
541
521
540
558
239
208
216
223
138
156
162
167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
62
64
67
69
294
334
314
326
329
369
382
396
349
391
404
419
466
521
540
558
2 64
312
324
334
314
364
37a
390
PAGE 2 38/29/74
1981
48
82
385
1442
323
149
20
48
35
49
132
41
58
60
284
404
428
571
279
230
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
60
2 84
2 84
301
401
206
255
-C»J*
-------
l51
3
0
3.
J * 113656
0
i.; ~
3m 7
(J
0
44115656
0
1 56
533
3
3
5.
44115656
0
260
810
3
0
o .
5411 7o56
¦J
16-r
531
3
7.
64118656
0
121
39 1
0
0
».
11111655
a
3
0
0
3
9.
2111i6?5
:\
\
75
273
2 J9
10.
3411365a
3
0
92
347
255
11.
4411 5655
o
0
150
o26
419
12.
*4116C 55
;>
,T
243
1044
fc 75
13.
54117b55
0
3
159
733
465
14.
<>4113655
J
a
117
452
302
1!>.
11111055
j
•J
0
3
0
16.
clll2055
j
3
112
41 7
314
17.
34113655
3
a
138
521
333
19.
44115655
u
3
226
939
628
19.
44116655
J
3
364
1566
1013
20.
"54117655
0
0
238
1095
698
21.
i4113655
•)
0
176
678
454
22.
I IIIl4o9
3
3
3
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
53
24.
3-*l13469
92*»
937
436
96
71
25.
'*4115469
1353
1405
796
174
116
26.
44116469
22 76
2 342
1283
290
187
27.
>•~11 / <69
1493
1463
840
202
129
29.
64118469
1 Joo
1392
619
125
84
29.
11121246
0
J
0
0
0
3C .
211223**9
• )
"J
0
0
65
31.
34123346
0
3
3
9
87
32.
~4125346
£
3
0
a
0
33-
¦*412 6346
*
¦J
3
•3
0
34.
j"»12 7346
0
3
0
3
3
35.
6412 3346
u
3
0
0
3
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
37.
21122346
J
J
3
3
H9
it>.
2 •~ 12 3 3 <6
J
J
0
0
125
39.
~ * 12 i346
J
3
0
3
2 02
40.
~41 2 6346
J
J
3
3
31
41.
S41 2 Tj'ti
'J
J
3
3
241
-.2.
t>*1283*6 ,
)
.)
3
213
1976
197 7
1978
1979
1980
1981
1932
1983
1984
1985
3
3
3
0
J
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
3
•3
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
¦)
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
J
3
3
3
0
3
3
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
J
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
a
3
0
0
3
0
•3
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
3
a
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
0
a
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
a
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
528
630
743
855
9 7V
1061
1099
1137
1177
1210
512
631
695
795
932
974
1038
1043
1080
1117
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
248
429
533
644
763
769
817
846
875
935
552
6 59
773
894
1323
1109
1149
1139
1230
1273
734
361
996
1139
1292
1395
1444
1495
1547
1631
1231
1305
W 15
1531
1653
1711
1771
1833
1898
1963
136
95
89
76
63
AO
62
64
66
69
724
587
442
3 43
237
193
193
197
203
211
¦531
787
741
690
636
657
631
735
729
754
see j-'i* io-csv
=>". ,c
i
' r '
? -
19 75
3
0
3
0
0
0
3
a
a
a
o
j
o
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
o
o
o
o
0
*31
429
0
a
o
0
79
451
-------
X-i 7 0
1 J 7 1
1972
1973
XV 74
4 3.
I Ii 2 1 £ 34
0
J
0
•>
¦J
0
44.
2112 22 j 4
0
0
J
0
9
ib.
3412 323-f
0
J
0
0
16
¦46 •
44125234
0
3
0
0
120
47.
4412 62 i4
J
J
u
0
54 3
¦*8.
5 <1 > 72 i*
I-*
0
0
0
163
49.
j-» 12 92 j4
0
J
J
0
50
50.
11121U4
0
0
0
0
51.
2X122124
o
0
0
0
9
52.
3412 3124
3
0
0
0
7
53.
44125124
0
0
0
0
15
54.
4412 SI2t
0
0
0
0
50
55.
3412 7124
0
0
3
0
21
5t>.
o 4 12 o 1 2 4
0
-1
J
0
19
fOT4L
»j'jnTiai
7115
86 7o
<»32l
-J 669
8625
X 9 75
1 J 76
19.7 7
197b
1979
0
0
0
0
J
~ 9
60
71
8-»
97
dl
96
113
131
X 50
525
572
622
674
730
2018
184 7
1663
1549
1336
591
5 04
409
303
2 39
203
199
138
176
165
8
27
+ 7
59
7 X
49
60
71
84
97
34
41
48
56
64
67
73
8 J
87
94
135
169
152
142
122
75
64
52
39
30
dl
77
73
69
6 4
8927
9 240
9563
9898
10244
1981
1982
1 3 83
19 84
1985
a
0
0
0
0
120
12t
129
133
138
X 84
193
197
2 04
2X1
816
344
8 74
905
936
1049
1036
1124
1163
1204
127
1 32
137
141
X47
157
163
169
175
181
87
90
94
97
100
120
124
129
133
138
78
81
84
87
90
105
108
112
116
120
96
99
103
106
110
16
17
17
18
18
61
63
55
68
70
10974 11358 11756 12167 12593
I960
0
111
170
786
1106
165
152
84
111
73
101
101
21
59
10603
SCENARIO-CSV
PAGE 2
08/29/74
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
9
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
0
0
7.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
8*
11111655
0
0
0
0
9
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
to.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
487
325
0
IS.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
383
0
18.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
730
488
0
22.
11111469.
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
193
122
0
26.
64118469
1066
1092
619
135
90
0
29.
11121146
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
392
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
395
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54127346
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
410
38.
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
567
39.
44125346
0
0
0
0
252
1043
40.
44126346
0
0
0
0
31
124
41.
54127346
0
0
0
0
229
899
42.
64128346
0
0
0
0
225
870
L976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
I)
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
477
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
620
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCEHARIO-E
PACE 1 01/21/T5
-------
43.
11121234
44.
21122234
45.
34123234
46.
44125234
47.
44126234
48.
54121234
49,
64128234
SO.
11121124
51.
21122124
52.
34123124
53.
44125124
54.
*4126124
55.
54127124
56.
64128124
134.
11141122
135.
21142122
136.
34143122
137.
44145122
138.
44146122
139.
54147122
140.
64148122
TOTAL POPULATION
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
44
0
0
0
16
74
0
0
0
120
497
0
0
0
543
2173
0
0
0
159
626
0
0
0
54
208
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
9
44
0
0
0
7
32
0
0
0
15
64
0
0
0
50
199
0
0
0
20
80
0
0
0
21
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8676
9321
9669
8625
8927
1970
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7115
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
386
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1627
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
165
573
643
716
742
768
794
822
851
881
327
1338
1484
1638
1801
1865*
1930
1997
2068
2140
464
1721
1781
1844
1908
1974
2044
2116
2189
2266
772
2390
2473
2458
2544
2633
2725
2821
2920
3021
424
1433
1385
1330
1272
1316
1362
1410
1460
1510
363
1242
1186
1229
12 72
1316
1362
1410
1460
1510
23
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
127
573
643
716
742
768
794
822
851
881
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
117 56
12167
12593
SCENARIO—E
PAGf 2
01/21/75
-------
I.
11111656
2.
21112656
3.
34113656
4.
44115656
5.
44116656
6.
54117656
7.
64118656
8.
11111655
9.
21112655
10.
34113655
11.
44115655
12.
44116655
13.
54117655
14.
64118655
15.
11111655
16.
21112655
17.
34113655
18.
44115655
19.
44116655
20.
54117655
21.
64118655
22.
11111469
23.
21112469
24.
34113469
25.
44115469
26.
44116469
27.
54117469
28.
64118469
29.
11121346
30.
21122346
31.
34123346
32.
44125346
33.
44126346
34.
54127346
35.
64123346
36.
11121346
37.
21122346
36.
1412 3346
39.
44125346
40.
44126346
41.
5412 7346
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
0
0
0
0
0
60
251
0
0
0
104
307
0
0
0
156
503
0
0
0
260
810
0
0
0
164
531
0
0
0
121
391
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
278
209
0
0
92
347
255
0
0
150
626
419
0
0
243
1044
675
0
0
159
69 5
442
0
0
117
487
325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
112
417
314
0
0
138
521
383
0
0
226
939
628
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
0
238
1043
663
0
0
176
730
488
0
0
0
0
0
0
545
398
77
58
0
936
486
96
71
0
1405
796
174
116
0
2342
1263
290
187
0
1483
840
193
122
0
1092
619
135
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
392
0
0
0
87
395
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G
0
79
0
0
0
89
410
0
0
0
125
567
0
0
0
252
1043
0
0
0
31
124
0
0
0
229
899
0
'.Z )
8^
X970
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
924
1350
2276
1493
1066
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
477
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
620
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V'' 0
931
>38 ;
921
87
1021
iu j <
10- .
i'. 1
SCENARIO-E-2
PAGE 1
12/20/74
-------
1970
43.
11121234
0
44.
21122234
0
45.
34123234
0
46.
44125234
0
47.
44126234
0
48.
54127234
0
49.
64123234
0
50.
11121124
0
51.
21122124
0
52.
34123124
0
53.
44125124
0
54.
44126124
0
55.
54127124
0
56.
64128124
0
134.
11141122
0
135.
21142122
0
136.
34143122
0
137.
44145122
0
138.
44146122
0
139.
54147122
0
140.
64148122
0
TOTAL
POPULATION
7115
1972
1973
1974
1975
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
44
0
0
16
74
0
0
120
497
0
0
543
2173
0
0
159
626
0
0
54
208
0
0
0
8
0
0
9
44
0
0
7
32
0
0
15
64
0
0
50
199
0
0
20
80
0
0
21
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
111
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9321
9669
8625
8927
1971
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8676
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
386
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
216
223
213
221
228
236
245
253
262
271
36
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
165
573
643
716
742
768
794
822
851
881
32 7
1338
1484
1638
1801
1865
1930
1997
2068
2140
464
1721
1781
1844
1908
1974
2044
2116
21 89
2266
7 TZ
2390
2473
2458
2544
2633
2725
2821
2920
3021
424
1433
1385
1330
1272
1316
1362
1410
1460
1513
84
86
83
86
89
92
95
98
1 02
105
23
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
508
573
643
716
742
768
794
822
851
881
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
11756
12167
12593
SCENAR10—E-2
PAGE 2
12/20/74
-------
1970
1.
11111656
0
2.
21112656
0
a.
34113656
0
4.
44115656
0
5.
44116656
0
6.
54117656
0
7.
64118656
0
8.
11111655
0
9.
21112655
0
10.
34113655
0
il.
44115655
0
12.
44116655
0
13.
54117655
0
14.
64118655
0
15.
11111655
0
16.
21112655
0
17.
34113655
0
18.
44115655
0
19.
44116655
0
20.
54117655
0
21.
64118655
0
22.
11111469
0
23.
21112469
0
24.
34113469
924
25.
44115469
1350
26.
44116469
2276
27.
54117469
1493
28.
64118469
1066
29.
11121146
0
30.
21122346
0
31.
34123346
0
32.
44125346
0
33.
44126346
0
34.
54127346
0
35.
64128346
0
36.
11121346
0
37.
21122346
0
38.
34123346
0
39.
44125346
0
40.
44126346
0
41.
54127346
0
42.
64128346
0
1972
1973
1974
1975
0
0
0
0
251
0
0
0
307
0
0
0
503
0
0
0
810
0
0
0
531
0
0
0
391
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
278
209
0
92
347
255
0
150
626
419
0
243
1044
675
0
159
695
442
0
117
487
325
0
0
0
0
0
112
417
314
0
138
521
383
0
226
939
628
0
364
1566
1013
0
238
1043
663
0
176
730
468
0
0
0
0
0
398
77
58
0
486
96
71
0
796
174
116
0
1283
290
187
0
840
193
122
0
619
135
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
85
392
0
0
87
395
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
0
89
410
0
0
125
567
0
0
252
1043
0
0
31
124
0
0
229
899
0
0
225
870
1971
0
60
104
156
260
164
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
545
936
1405
2342
1483
1092
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
477
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
93
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
620
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
675
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
SCENARIO-ED
PAGE
1
01/21/75
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
*3.
11121234
0
0
0
0
0
0
44.
21122234
0
0
0
0
9
44
45.
34123234
0
0
0
0
16
74
46.
44125234
0
a
0
0
120
497
47.
44126234
0
0
0
0
543
2173
48.
54127234
0
0
0
0
159
626
49.
64128234
0
0
0
0
54
208
50.
11121124
0
0
0
0
0
8
51.
21122124
0
0
0
0
9
44
52.
34123124
0
0
0
0
7
32
53.
44125124
0
0
0
0
15
64
54.
44126124
0
0
0
0
50
199
55.
54127124
0
0
0
0
20
81
56.
64128124
0
0
0
0
21
81
134.
11141122
0
0
0
0
3
0
135.
21142122
0
0
0
0
0
0
136.
34143122
0
0
0
0
0
0
137.
44145122
0
0
0
0
0
0
138.
44146122
0
0
0
0
0
0
139.
54147122
0
0
0
0
0
0
140.
64148122
0
0
0
0
0
0
190.
11631123
0
0
0
0
0
0
191.
21632123
0
0
0
0
0
0
192.
31633123
0
0
0
0
0
0
193.
4463 5123
0
0
0
0
0
0
194.
44636123
0
0
0
0
0
0
195.
54637123
0
0
0
0
3
0
196.
64638123
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
POPULATION
7115
8676
9321
9669
8625
8927
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
386
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
208
762
829
895
897
898
901
921
953
986
318
1287
1383
1478
1571
157T
1572
1597
1654
1712
464
1708
1714
1719
1726
1746
1768
1798
1860
1926
772
2372
2380
2292
2302
2330
2357
2397
2 482
2567
424
1433
1385
132 1
1243
1273
1304
1339
1387
1434
363
1242
1186
1222
1243
1273
1304
1339
1387
1434
23
143
148
153
158
164
1 70
176
182
188
76
340
369
397
396
395
393
394
408
422
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
42
86
139
189
241
293
328
340
352
9
50
100
159
229
293
357
399
413
428
0
12
66
124
181
226
275
317
328
339
0
17
92
165
241
302
367
423
438
453
0
0
0
6
28
42
57
70
73
75
3
0
0
6
28
42
57
70
73
75
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
11756
12167
12593
SCENARIO-ED
PAGE 2
01/21/75
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
0
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
0
0
7.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
8.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
487
325
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
383
0
18.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
730
4aa
0
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
6
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
193
122
0
28.
64118469
1066
1092
619
135
90
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
392
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
395
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
"44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54127346
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
410
3D*
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
567
39.
44125346
0
0
0
0
252
1043
40.
44126346
0
0
0
0
31
124
41.
54127346
0
0
0
0
229
899
42.
64128346
0
0
0
0
225
870
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
477
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
620
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENARtO-ED-2
PAGE 1
12/20/7%
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
197*
1975
*3.
1112123*
0
0
0
0
0
0
**.
2112223*
0
0
0
0
9
*4
*5.
3*12323*
0
0
0
0
16
7*
* 6 •
**12523*
0
0
0
0
120
497
*7.
4*12623*
0
0
0
0
5*3
2173
*8.
5*12 723*
0
0
0
0
159
626
*9.
6*12823*
0
0
0
0
5*
208
50.
1112112*
0
0
0
0
C
8
SI.
2112212*
0
0
0
0
9
**
52.
J* 12312*
0
0
0
0
7
32
53.
**12512*
0
0
0
0
15
6*
5*.
**12612*
0
0
0
0
50
199
55.
5*12712*
0
0
0
0
20
80
56.
6*12812*
0
0
0
0
21
81
190.
11631123
0
0
0
0
0
0
191 .
21632123
0
0
0
0
0
0
192.
31633123
0
0
0
0
0
0
193.
**635123
0
0
0
0
0
0
19*.
**636123
0
0
0
0
0
0
195.
5*637123
0
0
0
0
0
0
196.
6*638123
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
POPULATION
7115
8676
9321
9669
8625
8927
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
386
0
0
0
0
1627
0
0
0
0
*32
0
0
0
0
162
0
0
0
0
59
286
296
306
317
208
762
829
895
897
318
1287
1383
1*78
1571
*6*
1708
171*
1719
1726
772
2372
2380
2292
2302
*2*
1*33
1385
1323
12*3
363
12*2
1186
1222
12*3
0
0
0
0
0
83
383
*56
537
58 6
9
50
100
159
229
0
12
66
12*
181
0
17
92
165
2*1
0
0
0
6
28
0
0
0
6
28
92*0 9563 9898 102** 10603
1982
1983
198*
1985
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3*0
352
36*
377
901
921
953
986
15 72
1597
165*
1712
1768
1798
1860
1926
2357
2397
2*82
2567
130*
1339
1387
1*3*
130*
1339
1387
1*3*
0
0
0
0
687
723
7*8
775
357
399
*13
*28
2 75
317
328
339
367
*23
*38
*53
57
70
73
75
57
70
73
75
11358
11756
12167
12593
1981
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
328
898
1571
1 7*6
2330
127 3
1273
0
637
293
226
302
*2
-*2
1097*
SCENARI0-ED—2
PACE 2
12/20/7*
-------
1970
19 71
1*72
19 73
1974
1.
lllliO'JO
3
'¦J
0
0
0
2.
21I12:i 56
0
T.3
251
0
0
_ •
;4l 12 65-i
0
i04
207
0
0
4.
-~til >030
0
156
503
0
a
5.
-~-ill tjo5i>
3
260
810
0
0
6.
>-~11
0
164
5; 1
0
0
7.
Si11o65 5
0
121
391
J
J
P.
11111655
J
0
0
0
9.
211iib55
¦J
0
7 5
273
2:9
10.
3"»11 3655
J
J
92
347
255
11.
44115ip5
0
0
150
626
419
12.
44110655
0
0
242
1044
675
13.
54117655
a
0
159
695
442
14.
34118655
o
J
117
487
325
15.
1111lc55
0
3
¦J
j
lt>.
21112655
0
j
112
417
314
17.
341i 3655
J
0
138
521
3d3
18.
*4115e55
0
0
226
939
628
l<».
44116655
0
3
364
1566
1013
20.
54117655
3
0
238
1043
663
21.
6<»113t.55
0
0
i 7o
730
488
22.
111 U4b9
0
0
0
0
0
25.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
24.
34115'•69
9 24
936
486
96
71
25.
44115*69
1350
1405
796
174
116
2b.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
27.
5tl17469
1493
1483
340
193
122
2o.
S<>11 3409
1366
1092
619
135
90
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
30.
2ll2.?3i6
j
J
0
J
35
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
32.
*412 5346
¦J
3
0
C
3
33.
~4126346
3
3
J
3
34.
5*12 7346
3
J
0
J
0
35.
64128346
.1
0
0
0
J
36 .
lll2Ut6
J
.>
j
37.
21122;!'«6
J
0
J
0
3 >
3d.
}4123346
0
J
J
J
125
iv.
'~* 1 2 3 3 -to
, t
J
}
2 >2
40.
¦~4126346
0
0
0
3
31
41.
5412 7 V»6
"*
0
0
J
229
42.
3
0
5
1 \
225
1 *75
1976
19.7 7
1973
1979
I9d3
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
V>
3
J
J
3
J
0
j
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
•3
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
¦3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j
!J
0
3
J
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
J
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
j
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦J
3
J
3
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
J
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
392
335
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
395
333
0
0
3
3
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
}
3
J
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
124
0
0
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
410
3 50
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
567
477
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
1
til 3
3
3
3
V
¦3
0
0
0
0
124
93
0
0
0
3
3
3
3
0
0
399
620
0
0
0
3
0
3
0
0
0
3 7.J
0 75
3
¦3
0
J
j
0
0
0
0
SCEMA" I';-c r.
¦>a-;r i
-------
1W3
1971
197 2
UTi
197*
43.
111212 34
3
J
3
3
3
44.
21122234
0
0
C
3
9
43.
J*l2i2i-»
'j
•j
•J
16
4t>.
4*125234
c
3
r\
3
123
47.
441252 34
J
J
¦y
0
543
49.
5412 72i4
0
0
'j
159
49.
Oil2 32U
0
0
3
3
54
50.
111-21124
0
0
3
3
0
51.
211>212*
•J
J
¦j
9
52.
3412 j124
3
3
3
3
7
53.
44125124
J
0
0
0
15
54.
4412ol24
0
0
0
j
5 j
55-
54127124
0
3
J
3
23
56.
6412 5l24
0
0
3
3
21
85.
U2213»6
J
r,
:
3
3
66.
212223*6
0
3
3
3
3
a/.
34223346
3
3
3
3
0
88.
-»*?25346
'J
i>
3
3
0
89.
44226346
3
3
3
3
0
90.
54227346
0
0
0
0
0
91.
0«22d346
3
3
0
0
0
134.
1L141122
3
0
3
3
3
135.
21142122
0
0
0
0
0
136.
34143122
0
0
3
0
0
137.
44145122
0
3
0
3
3
138.
44146122
0
0
0
0
0
139.
5-»l 47122
3
0
0
o
0
140.
64143122
0
3
3
3
0
211.
1122 1124
3
3
U
3
0
212.
212 1212 +
j
J
£
3
3
213.
34233124
3
3
3
3
3
214.
442 35124
3
0
3
0
0
215.
~4236124
0
0
J
0
0
21b.
54237124
3
3
3
3
3
217.
64233124
0
0
¦3
0
3
TOTAL
PJPJLATI IN
7115
8o 76
9321
9669
3625
1975
1976
19? 7
1978
1979
1933
1991
19 82
19 83
1984
1935
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
0
44
38
3
0
3
3
3
3
0
0
0
74
63
3
J
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
49 7
386
3
0
3
3
3
3
0
3
3
2173
1627
3
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
626
4 32
J
3
J
0
3
3
0
0
0
233
162
3
3
3
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
59
27S
263
244
229
219
214
238
205
207
t4
292
1117
1131
1146
1375
1329
1001
9 74
961
969
32
32 7
1334
1335
1313
1305
1249
1215
1183
1168
1177
64
464
1678
1567
1475
1383
1322
1287
1253
1236
1246
199
772
2 33 3
2176
1966
1844
1764
1716
1671
1649
1661
33
424
1397
1218
1364
922
881
858
835
824
830
31
363
1211
1043
983
922
881
858
835
824
830
0
3
3
17
26
35
43
45
50
54
56
3
3
14
73
125
166
188
210
2 34
255
264
0
0
16
85
143
232
228
255
284
310
321
0
3
21
102
161
214
241
270
301
328
339
0
0
29
142
215
286
322
361
401
438
453
3
0
17
79
116
143
161
180
200
219
226
0
0
15
68
107
143
161
180
200
219
226
0
D
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
3
0
3
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
3
18
34
51
68
80
93
103
113
0
3
14
83
161
241
318
377
435
485
528
3
0
16
92
184
292
386
458
529
589
642
3
0
21
111
207
310
439
485
560
623
679
0
0
29
154
276
413
546
647
747
832
906
3
0
17
86
149
236
273
323
373
416
452
0
0
15
74
138
206
273
323
3 73
416
452
8927
9240
9563
9898
13244
10603
13974
11358
11756
12167
12593
SCE.M4R 10-E S <>*GE 2 38/29/74
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
211126S6
0
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
0
0
7.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
e.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
48 7
325
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
383
0
IS.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
730
488
0
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
193
122
0
28.
64118469
1066
1092
619
135
90
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
392
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
395
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54127346
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
410
38.
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
567
39.
44125346
0
0
0
0
252
1043
40.
44126346
0
0
0
0
31
124
41.
5412 7346
0
0
0
0
229
899
42.
64128346
0
0
0
0
225
870
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
477
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
620
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENAR10-ES-2
PAGE 1
12/20/74
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
43.
11121234
0
0
0
0
0
0
44.
21122234
0
0
0
0
9
44
45.
34123234
0
0
0
0
16
74
46.
44125234
0
0
0
0
120
497
47.
44126234
0
0
0
0
543
2173
48.
54127234
0
0
0
0
159
626
49.
64129234
0
0
0
0
54
208
50.
11121124
0
0
0
0
0
8
51.
21122124
0
0
0
0
9
44
52.
34123124
0
0
0
0
7
32
53.
44125124
0
0
0
0
15
64
54.
44126124
0
0
0
0
50
199
55.
54127124
0
0
0
0
20
90
56.
64128124
0
0
0
0
21
81
85.
11221346
0
0
0
0
0
0
86.
21222346
0
0
0
0
0
0
87.
34223346
0
0
0
0
0
0
88.
4422 5346
0
0
0
0
0
0
89.
4422 6346
0
0
0
0
0
0
90.
5422 7346
0
0
0
0
0
0
91.
6422 8346
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PHPULATIOM
7115
8676
9321
9669
8625
8927
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
386
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.1627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
278
260
244
229
219
214
208
205
207
292
1117
1131
1146
1075
1029
1001
974
961
969
327
1304
1305
1310
1305
1249
1215
1183
1168
1177
464
1678
1567
1475
1383
1322
1287
1253
1236
1246
772
2330
2176
1966
1844
1764
1716
1671
1649
1661
424
1397
1218
1064
922
881
858
835
824
830
363
1211
1043
993
922
891
858
835
824
830
0
7
35
61
87
108
125
143
158
169
0
28
154
236
408
536
587
670
740
792
0
33
178
327
495
615
714
813
899
963
0
43
213
363
524
651
756
862
952
1019
0
59
296
491
699
868
1008
1149
1270
1359
0
35
166
265
349
434
503
574
635
679
0
31
142
245
349
434
503
574
635
679
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
11756
12167
12593
SCENARIO-ES-2
PACE 2
12/20/7*
-------
1970 1971 1972 1973 197* 1975 1976 1977 197B 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 198* 1985
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
0
60
251
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
0
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U.
64118655
0
0
117
487
325
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IT.
34113-655
0
0
lJfl
521
383
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
18.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
730
488
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22.
1111*469
0
fr
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
59
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
0
0
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
193
122
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
28.
64118469
1066
1092
619
135
90
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
368
320
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
31.
34123346
0
a
0
0
87
395
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54127346
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64E28346
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
36.
U121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
405
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38.
123346
O
0
0
0
125
567
477
a
0
a
a
a
a
0
0
0
39.
44125346
0
a
0
0
252
1043
BLO
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
40.
44126346
0
a
0
0
31
124
93
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
41.
5412 7346
0
0
0
0
229
899
620
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
42.
64124346
0
0
a
0
225
87a
6>J5
0
o
a
0
0
a
0
0
0
SCENARIO-EM PAGE 1 01/21/75
-------
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
150
933
1712
1926
2718
1510
1510
150
387
0
0
0
0
0
75
440
428
339
302
0
0
2593
1/75
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
42
0
0
0
0
16
74
0
0
0
0
120
497
0
0
0
0
543
2173
0
0
0
0
159
626
0
0
0
0
54
208
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
9
44
0
0
0
0
7
32
0
0
0
0
15
64
0
0
0
0
50
199
0
0
0
0
20
80
0
0
0
0
21
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7115
8676
9321
9669
8625
8927
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
138
138
139
138
139
138
140
730
803
870
882
879
866
871
1287
1383
1478
1571
1571
1572
1597
1712
1732
1742
1760
1761
1768
1798
2390
2460
2396
2429
2461
2493
2 538
1433
1385
1330
1272
1316
1362
1410
1242
1186
1229
127?
1316
1362
1410
136
137
136
137
136
138
140
318
344
369
367
368
373
361
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
19
29
40
51
62
70
97
138
193
233
287
349
411
50
100
159
229
293
357
399
8
48
101
147
212
275
317
0
12
61
114
171
231
282
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
11756
SCENAR10—EW PAGE 2
1976
0
30
63
386
1627
432
162
36
200
318
464
7/2
424
363
22
71
0
0
0
0
0
I
58
9
0
0
0
0
9240
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
0
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
0
0
T.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
8*
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
487
325
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
383
0
IS.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
21.
64118655'
0
0
176
730
488
0
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
193
122
0
28.
64118469
1066
1392
619
135
90
a
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
392
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
395
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54127346
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
8-i
410
38.
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
567
39.
44125346
0
0
0
0
252
1043
40.
44126346
0
0
0
0
31
124
41.
54127346
0
0
0
0
229
899
42.
64128346
0
0
0
0
225
870
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
477
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
310
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
620
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
900
699
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENARI0-F1
PAGE I
01/21/75
-------
43.
1L121234
44.
21122234
45.
34123234
46.
44125234
47.
44126234
48.
54127234
49.
64128234
50.
11121124
51.
21122124
52.
34123124
53.
44125124
54.
44126124
55.
54127124
56.
64128124
134.
11141122
135.
21142122
136.
34143122
137.
44145122
13B.
44146122
139.
54147122
140.
64148122
155.
11231124
156.
21232124
157.
34233124
158.
44235124
159.
44236124
160.
54237124
161.
64238124
197.
11631123
198.
21632123
199.
31633123
200.
44635123
201.
44636123
202.
54637123
203.
64638121
216.
11121121
219.
21122121
220.
34123121
221.
44125121
222.
4.4126121
223.
54127121
224.
64128121
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
9
44
0
0
0
16
74
0
0
0
120
497
0
0
0
543
21 73
0
0
0
159
626
0
0
0
54
203
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
9
44
0
0
0
7
32
0
0
0
15
64
0
0
0
50
199
0
0
0
20
80
0
0
0
21
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
of
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1970
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
a
o
o
o
o
0
a
o
o
o
0
a
a
a
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
19B5
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
386
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
432
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
216
167
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
107
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
165
430
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
32 7
1094
0
0
0
p
0
0
0
0
464
1291
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
772
1793
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
424
1075
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
84
65
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
127
458
141
214
281
353
421
468
510
528
0
33
163
245
342
428
511
569
620
642
0
43
195
276
362
453
541
603
656
679
0
59
309
552
826
1086
1260
1410
1460
1510
0
35
173
299
413
542
629
705
730
755
0
31
148
276
413
542
629
705
730
755
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
6
35
66
99
135
164
170
176
0
0
7
40
81
121
164
199
206
214
0
0
8
46
85
128
173
211
218
226
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IJ
0
6
35
66
99
135
172
204
211
0
0
7
40
SI
121
164
209
248
256
0
0
e
46
85
128
173
222
262
271
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
148
151
158
164
170
176
182
188
0
257
1125
1110
1001
883
762
666
612
634
0
300
1298
1269
1215
1072
926
808
744
770
0
3B7
1558
1429
1287
1135
981
856
788
815
0
537
2163
1904
1717
1546
1464
1410
1460
1510
0
322
1211
1030
658
773
732
705
730
755
0
279
1037
952
858
773
732
705
730
755
SCENARIO-Fl
PAGE 2
01/21/75
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
225.
11221124
0
0
0
0
0
0
226.
21222124
0
0
0
0
0
0
227.
34223124
0
0
0
0
0
0
228.
44225124
0
0
0
0
0
0
229.
44226124
0
0
0
0
0
0
230.
5422 7124
0
0
0
0
0
0
231.
64228124
0
0
0
0
0
0
232.
11321469
0
0
0
0
0
0
233.
21322469
0
0
0
0
0
0
234.
34323469
0
0
0
0
0
0
235.
44325469
0
0
0
0
0
0
236.
44326469
0
0
0
0
0
0
237.
5432 7469
0
0
0
0
0
0
238.
64328469
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
POPULATION
7115
8676
9321
9669
8625
8927
00
vO
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
17
33
0
0
3
20
40
0
0
4
23
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
17
33
0
0
3
20
40
0
0
4
23
42
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
67
86
102
105
82
104
124
128
86
111
131
135
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
67
86
102
105
82
104
124
128
86
111
131
135
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11358
11756
12167
12593
1981
0
~9
60
64
0
0
0
0
49
60
64
0
0
0
10974
SCENAR10-f1
PACF 3
01/21/75
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
0
60
251
0
0
0
3*
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
16*
531
0
0
0
7.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
8»
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
487
325
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
c
0
112
417
314
0
IT.
34113655
t
0
138
521
383
0
ia.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
730
488
0
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
193
122
0
20.
64118469
1066
1092
619
135
90
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
3
0
0
85
294
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
297
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54127346
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
59
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
307
38.
14123346
0
0
0
0
125
425
39.
4412,5346
0
0
0
0
252
783
40.
44126346
0
0
0
0
31
93
41*
54J27346
0
0
0
0
229
674
42.
64128346
0
0
0
0
225
652
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENARIO-1
PAG5
1
Ol/Zl/15
-------
1970
~3,
11121234
0
44.
21122234
0
45.
34123234
0
46.
44125234
0
47,
*4126234
0
48.
54127234
0
49.
64128234
0
50.
11121124
0
51.
21122124
0
52.
34123124
0
53.
44125124
0
54.
44126124
0
55.
54127124
0
56.
64128124
0
71.
11121121
0
7Z,
21122121
0
73.
34123121
0
74.
44125121
0
75*
44126121
0
76.
54127121
0
77.
64128121
0
134.
11141122
0
135.
21142122
0
196.
341*3122
0
137.
44145122
0
138.
44146122
0
199.
54147122
0
140.
64148122
0
1^1*
11141121
0
142,
21142121
0
143.
3414it21
0
144.
44145121
0
145 »
44146121
0
146,
54147121
0
147,
64148121
0
1972
1973
1974
1975
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
33
0
a
16
56
0
0
120
373
0
0
5*3
1630
0
0
159
469
0
0
54
156
0
0
0
17
0
0
9
189
0
0
7
291
0
0
15
449
0
6
50
773
0
0
20
461
0
0
21
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
o
0
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
66
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1971
0
0
0
0
0
0
o.
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
a
a
0
0
TOTAL POPULATION
7115 8676 9321 9669 8625 8927
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
533
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
900
0
0
0
0
ff
0
0
0
8
1247
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1871
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1108
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
165
730
755
770
742
768
794
822
851
881
270
1170
1150
1105
1058
1002
965
998
1034
1070
373
1505
1380
1244
1120
1061
1022
1058
1094
1133
560
2091
1916
1659
1494
1415
1362
1410
1460
1510
332
1253
1073
897
731
625
544
563
584
603
270
1071
845
706
604
493
408
422
438
452
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
223
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23
143
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
88
415
530
662
742
768
794
822
851
881
30
167
333
532
742
862
965
998
1034
1070
41
215
400
599
787
912
1022
1058
1094
1133
62
298
556
798
1049
1217
1362
1410
1460
1510
36
179
311
432
540
690
817
845
876
905
30
170
340
522
667
822
953
986
1022
1056
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
11756
12167
12593
SCENARIO-I
P*GE 2 01/21/75
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
i.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
0
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
0
0
7.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
8.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
Q
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115055
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
a
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
487
325
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
383
0
18.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
J3C
488
0
22.
1I111469
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
193
122
0
28.
64118469
1066
1042
619
135
90
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
392
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
395
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54127346
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
410
38.
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
567
39.
44125346
0
0
0
0
252
1043
40.
44126346
0
0
0
0
31
124
41.
54127346
0
0
0
0
229
a99
42.
64128346
0
0
0
0
225
870
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
477
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
620
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
675
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENARIO-J
PAGE
1
01/2U75
-------
1970
43.
11121234
0
44.
21122234
0
45.
34123234
0
46.
44125234
0
47.
44126234
0
48.
54127234
0
49.
64128234
0
50.
11121124
0
51.
21122124
0
52.
34123124
0
53.
44125124
0
54.
44126124
0
55.
54127124
0
56.
64128124
0
71.
11121121
0
72.
21122121
0
73.
34123121
0
74.
44125121
0
75.
44126121
0
76.
54127121
0
77.
64128121
0
134.
11141122
0
135.
21142122
0
136.
34143122
0
137.
44145122
0
138.
44146122
0
139.
54147122
0
140.
64148122
0
141.
11141121
0
142.
21142121
0
143.
34143121
0
144.
44145121
0
145.
44146121
0
146.
54147121
0
147.
64148121
0
1972 1973 1974 1975
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
44
0
0
16
74
0
0
120
497
0
0
543
2173
0
0
159
626
0
0
54
208
0
0
0
8
0
0
9
44
0
0
7
32
0
0
15
64
0
0
50
199
0
0
20
80
0
0
21
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
V
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1971
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL POPULATION 7115 8676 9321 9669 8*25 8927
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
386
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1627
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
lor
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
215
602
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
327
1004
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
464
1291
0
0
0
¦o
0
0
0
0
772
1793
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
424
1075
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
363
932
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
0
185
819
841
797
768
794
822
851
881
0
300
1298
1269
1215
1095
1037
998
1034
1070
0
387
1558
1429
1287
1159
1098
1058
1094
1133
0
537
2163
1904
1717
1546
1464
1410
1460
1510
0
322
1211
1030
858
756
647
563
584
603
0
279
1023
875
731
625
510
422
438
452
23
107
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
76
258
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
148
153
158
164
170
176
182
188
0
100
466
591
686
768
794
822
851
881
0
33
185
368
585
769
892
998
1034
1070
0
43
222
414
620
814
945
1058
1094
1133
0
59
309
552
826
1086
1260
1410
1460
1510
0
35
173
299
413
559
715
845
876
905
0
31
163
353
540
690
851
986
1022
1056
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
11756
12167
12593
SCENARIO-J
PAGE 2" 01/21/75
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
0
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
J
0
7.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
e.
11111655
0
0
0
0
3
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
730
465
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
452
302
0
IS.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
383
0
18.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1095
698
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
678
454
0
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
937
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
202
129
0
28.
64118469
1066
1092
619
125
84
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
431
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
429
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
5412 7346
0
0
3
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
451
38.
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
614
39.
44125346
0
0
0
0
252
1102
40.
44126346
0
0
0
0
31
116
41.
5412 7346
0
0
0
0
241
849
42.
64U3346
0
0
0
0
210
870
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
396
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
384
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
186
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
550
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
543
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
623
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENARIQ-JSV
PAGE
1
01/21/75
-------
1970 1911 1972 1973 1974 1975
43.
11121234
0
44.
21122234
0
45.
14123234
0
46.
44125234
0
47.
44126234
0
48.
54127234
0
49.
64128234
0
SO.
11121124
0
51.
21122124
0
52.
34123124
0
53.
44125124
0
54.
44126124
0
55.
54127124
0
56.
64128124
0
71.
11121121
0
72.
21122121
0
73.
34123121
0
74.
44125121
0
75.
44126121
0
76.
54127121
0
77.
64128121
0
134.
11141122
0
135.
21142122
0
136.
34143122
0
137.
44145122
0
138.
44146122
0
139.
54147122
0
140.
64148122
0
141.
11141121
0
142.
21142121
0
143.
34143121
0
144.
44145121
0
145.
44146121
0
146.
54147121
0
147.
64148121
0
TOTAL
POPULATION
7115
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
49
0
0
16
81
0
0
120
525
0
0
543
2018
0
0
168
591
0
0
50
208
0
0
0
8
0
0
9
49
0
0
7
34
0
0
15
67
0
0
50
185
0
0
21
75
0
0
19
81
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ft
0
9321
9669
862 5
8927
0
0
0
0
0
a
o
o
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8676
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1385
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
378
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
149
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
179
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
255
752
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
377
1219
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
517
1506
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
658
1434
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
371
788
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
788
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
59
296
358
424
438
454
470
486
503
0
232
1072
1142
1196
1206
1249
1292
1338
1384
0
365
1645
1666
1645
1546
1464
1410
1460
1510
0
451
1904
1825
1717
1546
1464
1410
1460
1510
0
430
1558
1190
858
708
671
646
668
692
0
235
691
475
286
188
161
140
145
150
0
235
853
656
487
416
340
282
291
301
34
179
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
90
322
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
59
296
358
424
438
454
470
486
503
0
125
609
802
1029
1206
1249
1292
1338
1384
0
40
235
483
792
1086
1260
1410
1460
1510
0
50
272
530
826
1086
1260
1410
1460
1510
0
47
222
345
413
497
5/7
646
668
692
0
26
98
138
137
139
178
211
218
22 6
0
26
135
264
360
460
567
658
681
704
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
10974
11358
11756
12167
12593
SCENAR10-JSV
PAGt 2 01/21/75
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
0
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
0
0
7.
641.1 B656
0
121
391
0
0
0
B.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
695
442
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
487
325
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
17.
34113655
0
0
138
521
303
0
IB.
44115655
0
0
226
939
62B
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1043
663
0
21.
64118655
0
0
1T6
730
480
0
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
u
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
936
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
193
122
0
28.
64118469
1066
1092
619
135
90
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
392
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
395
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
3
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
54 1 2 7346
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
0
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
410
38.
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
567
39.
44125346
0
0
o
0
252
1043
40.
44126346
0
0
c
0
31
124
41.
5412 7346
0
0
0
0
229
899
42.
64128346
0
0
d
0
225
870
.976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Or
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
335
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
333
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
350
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4 77
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
810
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
93
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
620
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
675
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
scenario-k
PARE 1 01/21/75
-------
1970
43.
11121234
0
44.
21122234
0
45.
34123234
0
46.
44125234
0
47.
44126234
0
40.
54127234
0
49.
64128234
0
50.
11121124
0
51.
21122124
0
52.
34123124
0
53.
44125124
0
54.
44126124
0
55.
54127124
0
56.
6412B124
0
71.
11121121
0
72.
21122121
0
73.
34123121
0
74.
44125121
0
75.
44126121
0
76.
54127121
0
77.
64128121
0
134.
11141122
0
135.
21142122
0
136.
34143122
0
137.
44145122
0
138.
44146122
0
139.
54147122
0
140.
64148122
0
141.
11141121
0
142.
21142121
0
143.
34143121
0
144.
44145121
0
145.
44146121
0
146.
54147121
0
147.
64148121
0
148.
11131121
0
149.
21132121
0
150.
*4133121
0
151.
44135121
0
152.
44136121
0
153.
54137121
0
154.
64138121
0
TOTAL POPULATION 71 15
1972
1973
1974
1975
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
44
0
0
16
74
0
0
120
497
0
0
543
2173
0
0
159
626
u
0
54
208
0
0
0
8
0
0
9
44
0
0
7.
32
0
0
15
64
0
0
50
199
0
0
20
80
0
0
21
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
c
a
0
9321
¦3669
3 62 5
3927
1971
0
3
0
0
0
0
a
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
¦3
0
0
0
8676
1976
1977
1978
1979
1989
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
63
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
386
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1627
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
432
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
162
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
36
138
121
80
0
0
0
0
0
0
203
724
729
569
0
0
0
0
0
0
282
1103
1075
798
0
0
0
0
0
0
423
1505
1380
968
0
0
0
0
0
0
710
2121
2009
1290
0
0
0
0
a
0
369
1189
1024
648
0
0
0
0
0
0
318
1030
877
599
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
88
68
51
35
36
37
0
0
0.
161
630
499
357
246
255
264
0
0
0
224
945
792
627
499
517
535
0
0
0
276
1097
937
766
634
656
679
0
0
0
337
1303
1020
885
705
730
755
0
0
0
166
620
559
442
352
365
377
0
0
0
153
620
559
442
352
365
377
11
72
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
174
205
172
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
0
11
72
98
168
176
190
198
211
218
226
38
174
205
297
537
633
734
822
851
881
30
150
241
348
472
582
699
798
827
856
41
193
289
391
500
616
740
846
875
906
31
149
309
552
826
1086
1294
1551
1606
1661
36
161
24 2
382
524
625
783
916
949
981
30
139
207
353
524
625
783
916
949
981
6
3
18
34
51
69
89
105
109
113
12
71
144
232
315
40 3
496
5 75
595
616
15
83
166
266
382
489
603
698
723
749
0
21
111
207
310
419
536
6 34
656
679
31
119
154
2 76
413
526
544
564
5 84
604
18
ol
117
132
127
131
136
140
146
150
15
71
100
122
127
131
136
140
146
150
92<»0
9563
9898
102'»4
10603
10974
11358
T1756
12167
12593
SCENARIO-K
PAGE 2
01/21/75
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1.
11111656
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.
21112656
0
60
251
0
0
0
3.
34113656
0
104
307
0
0
0
4.
44115656
0
156
503
0
0
0
5.
44116656
0
260
810
0
0
0
6.
54117656
0
164
531
0
0
0
7.
64118656
0
121
391
0
0
0
8*
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
9.
21112655
0
0
75
278
209
0
10.
34113655
0
0
92
347
255
0
11.
44115655
0
0
150
626
419
0
12.
44116655
0
0
243
1044
675
0
13.
54117655
0
0
159
730
465
0
14.
64118655
0
0
117
452
302
0
15.
11111655
0
0
0
0
0
0
16.
21112655
0
0
112
417
314
0
IT.
34113655
0
0
138
521
383
0
18.
44115655
0
0
226
939
628
0
19.
44116655
0
0
364
1566
1013
0
20.
54117655
0
0
238
1095
698
0
21.
64118655
0
0
176
678
454
0
22.
11111469
0
0
0
0
0
0
23.
21112469
0
545
398
77
58
0
24.
34113469
924
937
486
96
71
0
25.
44115469
1350
1405
796
174
116
0
26.
44116469
2276
2342
1283
290
187
0
27.
54117469
1493
1483
840
202
129
0
28.
64118469
1066
1092
619
125
84
0
29.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
0
30.
21122346
0
0
0
0
85
431
31.
34123346
0
0
0
0
87
429
32.
44125346
0
0
0
0
0
0
33.
44126346
0
0
0
0
0
0
34.
5412 7346
0
0
0
0
0
0
35.
64128346
0
0
0
0
p
0
36.
11121346
0
0
0
0
0
79
37.
21122346
0
0
0
0
89
451
38.
34123346
0
0
0
0
125
614
39.
44125346
0
0
c
0
252
1102
40.
44126346
0
0
0
0
31
116
41.
54127346
0
0
c
0
241
849
42.
64128346
0
0
0
0
210
870
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
r>
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Q
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
396
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
384
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
186
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
414
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
550
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
900
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T 9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
543
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
623
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
scenario-ksv
PACE
1
01/21/75
-------
43.
11121234
44.
21122234
45.
34123234
46.
44125234
47.
44126234
48.
54127234
49.
64128234
50.
11121124
51.
21122124
52.
34123124
53.
44125124
54.
44126124
55.
54127124
56.
64128124
71.
11121121
72.
21122121
73.
34123121
74.
44125121
75.
44126121
vO
76.
54127121
VO
77.
64128121
134.
11141122
135.
21142122
136.
34143122
137.
44145122
138.
44146122
139.
54147122
140.
64148122
141.
11141121
142.
21142121
143.
34143121
144.
44145121
145.
44146121
146.
54147121
147.
64148121
148.
11131121
149.
21132121
150.
34133121
151.
44135121
152.
44136121
153.
54137121
154.
64138121
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9
49
0
0
0
0
16
81
0
0
0
0
120
525
0
0
0
0
543
2018
0
0
0
0
168
591
0
0
0
0
53
208
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
9
49
0
0
0
0
7
34
0
0
0
0
15
67
0
0
0
0
50
185
0
0
0
0
21
75
0
0
0
0
19
81
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
u
0
0
3
0
w
0
a
TOTAL POPULATION
7115 867b 9321 966"? 8625 8927
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
72
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
429
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1385
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
378
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
149
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
55
230
243
187
0
0
0
0
0
0
240
906
954
773
0
0
0
0
0
0
325
1340
1363
1048
0
0
0
0
0
0
471
1756
1687
1236
0
0
0
0
0
0
605
1696
1447
806
0
0
0
0
0
0
323
871
584
299
0
0
0
0
0
0
293
871
731
449
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
53
237
181
138
94
97
100
0
0
0
218
946
784
562
387
401
415
0
0
0
295
1279
1119
885
705
730
755
0
0
0
353
1462
1250
1021
846
876
906
0
0
0
211
651
467
405
323
334
346
3
0
0
76
206
139
110
88
91
94
0
0
0
115
413
372
295
235
243
251
17
120
115
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
45
218
269
233
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
123
197
393
472
508
5 31
564
583
603
45
213
269
403
806
995
1155
1292
1338
1384
34
182
305
456
639
822
987
1128
1168
1208
46
22 5
353
503
667
822
987
1128
1163
1208
26
119
222
345
413
497
593
713
735
761
32
113
138
176
174
155
195
228
236
245
27
118
173
264
349
416
522
611
632
653
0
5
37
80
137
186
238
282
291
301
15
89
189
316
473
633
780
904
936
969
17
101
211
349
518
691
851
987
1022
1057
0
25
136
265
413
559
715
846
« 876
906
26
95
111
172
206
241
249
2 58
267
276
16
60
67
61
42
32
34
35
36
27
13
60
64
92
S*
87
9^
97
100
9240
9563
9898
10244
10603
109 74
11358
ll7-5o
12167
12593
SCENARIO-KSV
PAGE 2
01/21/75
-------
APPENDIX G
Methodology for Summarizing
Yearly Operating Costs
The purpose of the calculations summarizing yearly
operating costs is to evaluate the likely impact of various policy
options, such as alternative emissions standards, on the U.S. driving
public. The estimate proceeds from a time-phased scenario of cars
to be made as described in Appendix F. It is always a matter of
judgment on the part of the investigator preparing the scenario as
to how he sees the U.S. automobile industry responding to a certain
combination of hypothetical conditions. The scenario can be checked
in various ways for reasonableness, but never completely verified. So
the final estimates, no matter how precisely calculated, can be of
no better quality than the scenario input.
The scenario requests that certain car sizes and configurations
be made in specified volume (or discontinued) year by year from 1970
to 1985. Each vehicle configuration has associated with it a fuel
consumption rate (Appendix I), yearly maintenance cost (Appendix J),
and list price (Appendix K).
A complete scenario consists of three subsections: (a) cars
to be produced by domestic manufacturers from 1970 to 1985 (numbered
1 to 238), (b) cars to be imported from overseas from 1970 to 1985
(numbered 701 to 705), and (c) cars already in use in the U.S. prior
to 1970 (all combined into class 999), Cars in categories (a) and
(b) were treated on a car-by-car basis as will be described below.
Category (c) cars, those existing prior to 1970, were treated as a
single typical vehicle whose residual population remaining was attenuated
so as to have a vehicle-in-use population in reasonable accord with
vehicle registration data. The resultant attention factors (aging
factors) and vehicle-in-use population are listed in Table Gl. Since
the same pattern of pre-1970 cars and vehicles-in-use was obtained
in every scenario run, it would be expected that the final incremental
200
-------
TABLE G1
Total Vehicles-in-use and Pre-1970 Cars
Remaining as Used in All Cost Summary Calculations
Vehicles-in-use Total Pre-1970 Total of all
Aging Factor for Cars Remaining Vehicles-in-use
Year Pre-1970 (999) Population (Millions) (Millions)
1969
1.000
74.366*
74.366
1970
.918
68.3
76.6
1971
.767
57.0
75.5
1972
.685
50.9
80.2
1973
.589
43.8
84.1
1974
.479
35.6
85.4
1975
.384
28.6
87.6
1976
.315
23.4
91.1
1977
.233
17.3
92.7
1978
.151
11.2
93.4
1979
.082
6.1
94.0
1980
.055
4.1
97.0
1981
.027
2.0
99.5
1982
-0-
-0-
101.8
1983
-0-
-0-
106.0
1984
-0-
-0-
110.1
1985
-0-
-0-
113.9
*To find the remaining 999 cars in any year, multiply the aging factor
for that year from Column 2 by this number.
201
-------
c st between scenarios would be relatively insensitive to small
absolute errors in the detail with which the pre-1970 cars were treated.
Each vehicle which may be used in any scenario, including
imported cars (700's) and pre-1970 cars, has an initial value and
a set of aging or attenuation factors for the following parameters:
vchicles-in-use, miles per year driven, fuel consumed per mile,
maintenance per year, HC emissions per mile, CO emissions per mile,
and NO emissions per mile. The values used for three typical cars
(:o's 53, 703, and 999) are shown in Table G2. The initial values
i\ r vehicles-in-use is 0.0, which indicates it must be obtained from
uie scenario. All aging factors are the same for all vehicles,
except the 999 vehicles-in-use aging factor discussed above. All
new cars drive 16,000 miles per year, burn the amount of fuel per
mile indicated in Appendix I, and have a maintenance cost per mile
determined by dividing the maintenance per year from Appendix J by
the 16,000 miles driven in the first year. Initial emissions values
are taken as the grams per mile value for the standard to which the
engine would be certified.
As a preliminary to the cost calculation, several parameters
are calculated on a yearly basis: the total vehicles-in-use; total
miles driven and average miles driven per car; total and average
number of gallons of fuel consumed; total average per car and average
per mile cost of maintenance; ajad total and average grams per mile of
HC, CO and NO emissions. These calculations are all carried forward
X
in an analogous fashion. For a given year and car, for example, the
contribution of new cars of class 50 to the vehicles-in-use in 1980
is looked up. To this is added the number of one-year old cars of
Cass 50 existant in 1980 by multiplying the number of new class 50
Ci.rs made in the prior year by the second year's aging factor, and
proceeding through class 50 cars of all ages in 1980. The total tally
is stored, and the process is continued until all car classes and years
202
-------
VEHICLE SERIAL i 53.
VEHICLES—IN—USE
0.0
1.000 0.997
0.987 0.968
0.934
0.871
0.769
niv.es/year
16000.000000
1.000 0.900
0.780 0.680
0.590
0.540
0.520
eiJEL
p.076300
1.000 1.010
1.020 1.030
1.040
1.050
1.050
maintenance
0.003300
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.090
1.050
1.150
1.200
HC-EMTSSIONS
0.400000
0.830 0.930
0.980 1.000
1.020
1.020
1.030
CO-EMISSION
9.000000
0.780 0.900
0.970 1.000
1.020
1.030
1.040
NQX-EMISSION
2.000000
0.900 0.950
0.983 I.000
I.010
1.020
1.030
VFHICLE SERIAL « 703.
fo
O
u>
VEHICL ES-IN-USE
0.0
I.000 0.997
0.987 0.968
0.934
0.871
0.769
MILES/YEAR
16000.000000
1.000 0.900
0.780 0.680
0.590
0.540
0.520
FUEL
0.059200
1.000 1.410
1.020 1.030
1.040
1.050
1.050
MAINTENANCE
0.002800
I.004 1.000
1.000 1.000
1.059
1.159
1.200
HC-EMISSIGNS
0.400000
0.830 0.930
0.980 1.000
1.020
1.020
1.030
C9-EMISS1«W
3.400000
0.780 0.900
0.970 1.000
1.020
1.030
1.040
NOX-EHISSION
6.000000
0.900 0.959
A.980 1.000
1.010
1.020
1.030
VEHICLE SERIAL • 999.
VFHICLES-IN-USe
0.0
0.918 0.767
0.68S 0.589
0.479
0.384
0.315
MILES/YEAR
16000.000000
0.590 0.540
0.520 0.500
0.450
0.430
0.360
FttFL
0.075800
1.040 1.050
l.OSO 1.050
1.050
1.050
1.050
MAINTENANCE
0.002000
t.OSd 1.159
1.200 1.203
1.209
1.200
1.200
HC-ENISSltWS
3V90O00ff
1.020 1.020
1.030 1.040
1.050
1.060
1.070
C9-EMISSI0N
33.003000
1.020 1.030
1.040 1.050
1.060
1.070
1.060
HOX-EHISSION
6.000000
1.010 1.320
1.033 1.040
1.040
1.040
1.050
TABLE G2
Typical Aging Factor
0.644
0.500
1.050
1.200
1.040
1.050
1.040
0.644
0.500
1.050
1.200
1.040
1.050
1.040
0.233
0.300
1.050
1.200
1.080
1.080
1.060
0.515 0.3B2
0.450 0.439
1.050 1.050
4
1.200 1.200
1.050 1.060
1.060 1.070
1.040 1.050
0.515 0.382
0.450 0.430
1.050 1.050
1.200 I.200
1.050 1.060
1.060 1.070
1.040 1.050
0.151 0.082
0.270 0.270
1.050 1.050
1,200 1.200
1.090 1.100
1.080 1.080
1.060 1.070
0.283 0.208
0.360 0.300
1,050 1.050
1.200 1.200
1.070 1.060
1.080 1.080
1.060 1.060
0.283 0.208
0.36Q 0.300
1.050 1.050
1.200 1.200
1.070 1.080
1.080 1.080
1.060 1.060
0.055 0.027
0.270 0.270
1.050 1.050
1.200 1.200
1.100 1.100
1.090 1.090
1.070 1.070
0.151 0.110
0.270 0.270
1.050 1.050
1.200 1.200
1.090 1.100
l.oao l.oao
1.070 1.070
0.151 0.110
0.270 0.270
1.050 1.050
1.200 1.200
1.090 1.100
1.080 1.080
1.070 1.070
0.0 0.0
0.270 0.270
1.050 1.050
1.200 1.200
1.100 1.100
>.090 1*090
1.070 1.070
0.080 0.0
0.270 0.0
1.050 0.0
1.200 0.0
1.100 0.0
1.090 0.0
1.070 0.0
0.080 0.0
0.270 0.0
1.050 0.0
1.200 0.0
1.100 0.0
1.090 0.0
1.070 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.270 0.0
1.050 0.0
1.200 0.0
1.100 0.0
1.090 0.0
1.070 0.0
-------
have been considered. The yearly columns are then totalled and averaged
appropriately. All of the intermediate matrices cited above are
retained and printed with the output to provide complete data trace-
ability.
The cost summary report lists, by year from 1970 to 1985,
the total cost of fuel, maintenance, and sticker price, and the
average per car of these same qualities. It also presents the incre-
mental difference in each of these quantities over the baseline
scenario (Scenario A). Fuel cost is obtained by multiplying miles
driven times gas mileage (gpm) times cost of fuel* for each age of
car in a given class and summing over all cars in use in that year.
Maintenance is obtained by calculating miles driven times maintenance
cost per mile for each age of car in a given class and summing over
all cars in use in that year. Sticker price is simply the sticker
list price total for new cars sold in a particular year. Provision
was made for adding in the investment cost from the investment program,
but this feature was not used.
All cost calculations use constant 1974 dollars. In most cases
the data were gathered in 1974, so no conversion was necessary.
Where data obtained in other years were used, they were converted to
1974 dollars using the consumer price index for the appropriate year.
This constant dollar basis is important because of the uncertainties
associated with current inflation rates.
Since all calculations are in constant 1974 dollars, the appro-
priate interest rate for amortizing capital costs or discounting past
or future expenditures is one from which inflation has been removed.
Although current interest rates may be in two figures for borrowing
purposes, most of this is in fact a compensation for the inflation
*Cars use either leaded or unleaded regular gasoline or diesel fuel
as appropriate.
204
-------
rate. The real interest rate, or an appropriate discount rate for
project evaluation, would be on the order of 37» to 47». We have
used 4% to discount all fuel, maintenance, and sticker costs back to
1970. These values (marked p.v.) all appear on the cost summary
report.
A complete set of cost summary reports for all scenarios
considered in the present study are included here as Appendix N.
205
-------
APPENDIX H
Automotive Fuel Cost and Availability
(Written by William A. Johnson and James Kittrell)
In 1972, world oil demand was about 53 million barrels per
day (of which the free world accounts for 85% and the U.S. alone for
30%). World demand has been increasing at between TL and 8% over
the last 10 years,^ with recent annual production increments of about
3 million barrels per day—about 1.5 times projected Alaskan pro-
duction from the North Slope (the largest field ever found in the U.S.
and the fifth largest in the world). By 1980, unconstrained world
oil demand could reach 90 million barrels per day requiring annual
increments on the order of 5 million barrels per day to satisfy
projected demand. Middle East production alone could increase by
22 million barrels per day, accounting for 70% of the total free
world increase between 1972 and 1980. Even with these potential
unconstrained production increases, the resource base seems adequate
in the short term. By 1985, however, the reserve-to-production
ratio in the Middle East could fall from the present level of about
50 years to 20 years. This could signal alarm to the producing
countries and cause them to impose production controls even though
technically the reserve-to-production ratio could fall as low as 10
years, as is the case now in the U.S.
Any assessment of when reserves will become limiting is spec-
ulative and depends upon estimates of: the rate at which new oil
in place is discovered (or reported); the rate at which recovery
factors improve (worldwide, only about 307» of the discovered oil in
place is now classed as recoverable); and the rate at which the oil
demand grows. Analysis is further complicated by the fact that
published reserve figures are not reported on a consistent basis,
particularly outside North America. Our best estimate is that the
world will become supply-limited in the early 1990's. Production will
206
-------
not immediately decline when this point is reached; decline may not
set in until 15 or 20 years later.
The production of crude oil from any given country will depend
upon (1) the total volume of oil reserves; (2) proportion of oil
reserves which may be economically recovered; (3) maximum production
rates that can be achieved without reservoir depletion; (4) investment
in productive capacity already implemented; and (5) political constraints
on production rates. Assuming that all non-OPEC countries produce
at the maximum productive capacity and that a constrained oil demand
rate of 37a to per year exists, it is likely that total world supply
capability will exceed demand through 1985. Furthermore, four OPEC
countries already generate revenues in excess of their domestic
expenditure level before the recent oil price rise (Saudia Arabia,
Kuwait, Abu Dhabi and Libya). An analysis of world production capacity
indicates that a surplus revenue country cartel could control world
production to maintain prices at the present level without internal
economic hardships.
Hence, it is concluded that world energy prices in constant
dollars will probably remain at current levels through 1985, with
short-term fluctuations due to supply/demand imbalances. These
levels will reduce the previous high growth rates in petroleum con-
sumption and stimulate the supply of petroleum and alternate energy
sources.
U.S. Petroleum Supply/Demand
Projection of U.S. petroleum supply/demand is subject to many
of the uncertainties evident in world supply/demand projections.
Pre-embargo forecasts of domestic crude oil and natural gas production
2
in 1985 were around 10 million barrels pter day , including Alaskan
3
production and synthetic crudes. Recent projections indicate that
1985 domestic production could reach 15 million barrels per day, with
sustained high crude prices, accelerated offshore federal leasing
207
-------
programs, and opening the offshore U.S. East Coast and offshore
Alaskan areas to exploration. Clearly, domestic U.S. production
capability will be dependent upon governmental policy decisions.
Petroleum demand (including imported products, crude ard natural
2
gas liquids) has been about 16 million barrels per day. Pre-
4
embargo growth forecasts were about 4"L per year; post-embargo growth
forecasts project a flat growth through 1975 and a 2% growth rate
3
thereafter, although predictions of price elasticity and economic
growth are quite important to this projection. Furthermore, projections
of the growth rate of specific products, such as residual fuel oil,
vary from very high (to supplant natural gas) to negative (due to
conservation and alternative energy sources).
Even considering these variables, it is clear that the U.S.
will be dependent upon imported Middle East crude oil through 1985.
A recent survey of petroleum companies indicated that 20% to 50%
of the U.S. crude run will be imported in 1985, consistent with the
above projections. Hence, a primary conclusion of these projections
can be drawn. It is unrealistic to insulate U.S. energy prices from
world parity. Further increases in domestic crude price will constrain
demand and increase supply to where the U.S. should be able to essentially
maintain its current level of dependency on foreign supply sources
through 1985.
Supply Economics - Leaded Regular Gasoline
To assist the fuel supply portion of this study, a comprehensive
seven-page questionnaire was prepared to solicit comments on general
background as well as specific detailed information relative to the
economics of fuel supply. This questionnaire was sent to nine oil
companies representing a cross-section of the industry in regard to
size (both majors and independents participated) and to cover all
geographic regions in the U.S. Industry cooperation was good and
only one recipient did not respond. Several companies provided
208
-------
considerable useful information.
There are essentially five elements comprising the cost of
supplying automotive fuel to the consumer at the service station pump.
These include: (1) crude oil cost, (2) refining margin, (3) distri-
bution (primary, secondary and terminal costs) (4) service station
margin, and (5) federal, state and local taxes. By adjustment of
5
recently published statistics using questionnaire results, we have
made estimates for each of these various elements in constant 1974
dollars. These estimates are:
Gents Per
Gallon
Crude Oil 24.0
Refining 5.0
Distribution 5.0
Service Station 9.0
Taxes 12.0
TOTAL 55.0
It can be seen that the most important element in establishing
the cost of leaded regular gasoline at the pump is crude oil. This
is also the element about which the greatest uncertainty exists as
discussed in the previous section. The 24.0 cents per gallon is
equivalent to a $10.08/barrel average crude cost.
We estimate the refining cost element for leaded regular
I-
gasoline compared to crude oil will be 5.0 cents per gallon. The
historical margin between regular gasoline and crude oil has ranged
between 2.0-3.0 cents per gallon. However, refinery construction
costs have increased dramatically during the past few years. Since
the volumetric yield of marketable products from a refinery represents
about 95% of the raw material input, when the absolute value of crude
209
-------
oil rises, the required margin between a composite of finished pro-
ducts over crude oil must increase further.
Although growth in refinery construction costs has been greater
than inflation in general in recent years, we do not expect this trend
to continue over the next decade. We anticipate increases in pro-
ductivity in refinery construction, improved design technology, and
increased economies of scale will all offset somewhat the rise in
basic construction costs. Therefore, we have assumed that the re-
fining cost of 5.0 cents per gallon will be maintained in constant
1S74 dollars throughout the study period.
Our estimate of distribution costs (which is also 5.0 cents
per gallon) covers primary distribution from the refinery to terminal,
terminating expenses, and transportation from the terminal to the
service station. We expect the first two items comprising the overall
distribution cost to slightly decrease over time in constant 1974
dollars. A continuing higher percentage of primary distribution
products are moved by pipeline (for cost and environmental reasons)
which is less susceptible to inflation than other transportation
methods. It is usually possible to increase product throughputs
through existing terminals without major construction programs.
The delivery of the product from the terminal to the service station
(usually by transport truck) will experience increased labor and fuel
cc its, the combination of which could slightly increase in constant
lc.'74 dollars, thus cancelling out potential savings of the other two
i t ^ ms.
Service station costs will be influenced by land values,
service station construction costs, and labor rate and productivity
of station attendants. Historically} the independent gasoline marketer
was able to operate with a service station margin of about 6.0 cents
per gallon while the typical major service station required an additional
1.0-2,0 cents per gallon. These margins have risen to about 9.0
210
-------
cents per gallon in the last few months which is probably a more
realistic level for the long term. More sophisticated planning
techniques by the oil companies -will review carefully the desirability
of building labor intensive, full-service stations. Improved labor
utilization will probably enable marketers to maintain this 9.0
cents per gallon margin in constant dollars.
It is difficult to predict the political environment which
will control taxes on automotive fuels. Gasoline taxes are generally
considered to be regressive in nature and at current national sales
volumes, a 1.0 cents per gallon increase in tax represents approximately
1 billion dollars a year in revenue. We feel no major changes in
present taxing levels will take place, however, increased pressures
for governmental revenues will probably keep pace with inflation.
Supply Economics - Other Conventional Fuels
We have tabulated our estimate, based in part on survey infor-
mation, of differential pump prices in constant dollars for the
alternative conventional fuels considered in this study.
Product
Differential Pump Price Vs.
Leaded Regular Gasoline
Leaded Premium Gasoline
Unleaded Regular Gasoline (min 91/83 R0N/M0N)
Unleaded Premium Gasoline (min 95/87 RON/MON)
Diesel Fuel
Fuel Suitable for TCCS (Texaco Controlled-
44.0
+2.0
+5.0
-2.0/-1.0*
Combustion Systems)
-3.0
* -2.0 until 1980, -1.0 thereafter
211
-------
It should be noted that we expect constant differentials to
prevail through 1985 with the exception of diesel fuel.
Leaded Premium Gasoline
Historically, this product has been priced 3.0-4.0 cents per
gallon greater than leaded regular gasoline although manufacturing
costs are only about 1.0-2.0 cents per gallon higher. Distribution
and marketing costs for supplying two grades of gasoline have been
allocated primarily to the premium grade. It is recognized that
premium gasoline has been a "higher profit" product for the oil
companies.
Premium gasoline as a percent of total U.S. sales peaked about
1970 at around 457° of total gasoline. Since then, a combination of
factors such as lower compression ratio engines in late model cars
and a growing awareness among the motorists that it is not necessary
or desirable to "overbuy" octane have reduced the percentage to
around 357„. ks. premium gasoline volume declines, the manufacturing
cost to supply this grade decreases but the expense of maintaining
separate storage and distribution facilities for this grade must be
allocated over a smaller base. Thus, we do not believe that the oil
companies will reduce the present attractive margins on premium
gasoline as this product is gradually phased from the market place.
Unleaded Regular Gasoline
Many studies have been made in the past several years concerning
supply economics for unleaded gasolines. Most of these studies have
concentrated on the lower octane ranges (between 91 and 92.5 RON).
The automotive manufacturers plan to initially produce engines re-
quiring a minimum 91/83 R0N/M0N product. These are also the mini-
mum specifications required by the EPA. There is some doubt as to
whether these octane qualities will prove satisfactory over total
212
-------
engine life. It has also been noted that when refiners no longer have
the flexibility to add lead for trim octane blending control, they
will probably raise their blending target to prevent off-specification
product. Thus, based upon results of the questionnaire, the average
of actual product supply to the market place might be in the range
of 91.5 to 92 octane number in order to guarantee a minimum 91.
Nevertheless, the consensus of most of these studies is that at the low
octane requirements, there is little manufacturing penalty for supplying
this product versus the composite of conventional grades.
There are a variety of estimates of the current U.S. average
clear octane pool. Actually there is no "fixed" clear pool quality
since each individual refiner can change the clear octane of his
pool by adjusting internal unit operations, such as catalytic reforming
intake/severity, catalytic cracking intake/conversion, alkylation
operations, etc. Each refiner will constantly monitor his plant
operations and product blend requirements, and continually recalculate
the optimum octane supply by comparing processing adjustments versus
lead addition. We estimate a typical clear research octane number
for the U.S. to be about 89 and the motor number to be about 81.
The processing costs in a large (100,000 barrels a day), efficient
refinery for increasing the clear pool octane from 89/81 to 91/83
is about 0.5 cents per gallon which is offset by, the cost savings
(also about 0.5 cents per gallon) from not purchasing and adding
lead.6
There are increased distribution and marketing costs associated
with supplying a new grade of gasoline and we estimate these costs
will be about 0.5 cents per gallon.^ Using a composite pump price
for today's leaded regular and premium gasoline of 1.5 cents per
gallon greater than leaded regular, and adding 0.5 cents per gallon
for increased distribution/marketing cost, we arrive at a pump price
for unleaded regular gasoline of 2.0 cents per gallon greater than
213
-------
leaded regular.
Unleaded Premium Gasoline
The supply economics for producing an unleaded premium gasoline
(minimum 95/87 RON/MON) are not as well defined. One major oil
company today supplies an unleaded prepium gasoline of even higher
octane specifications. However, this refiner also supplies leaded
regular gasoline and, thus, has an outlet for very low octane blending
stocks. This unleaded high octane premium grade is currently priced
equivalent to competitive premiums, in some cases perhaps a 1.0
cents per gallon higher. Increasing the octane number of unleaded
gasoline raises costs exponentially and incurs significant yield
losses. It appears about the 95 to 96 clear research octane level
8 9
represents a practical maximum for most gasoline pools. ' We esti-
mate increased manufacturing cost of about 3.0 cents a gallon will
occur from increasing the clear octane from 91/83 to the 95/87 level
and, thus, consider unleaded premium gasoline will be 3.0 cents a
gallon higher than unleaded regular gasoline and, therefore, about
5.0 cents a gallon greater than the leaded regular grade.
Diesel Fuel (at present sulfur levels')
Present diesel fuel production from U.S. refineries represents
about 4% to 57» of crude intake or about one tenth the yield of
gasoline.(The total distillate pool including furnace oil and
distillate fuels for railroads, ships, etc. represents about 21%
of crude intake). If a major shift in automotive engines occurred
to diesel engines, it would take until 1980 before diesel fuel require
ments became a significant percentage of total automotive fuel.
The maximum diesel fuel yield from crujie oil required from U.S.
refineries by 1980 would only be in the range of 10% to 15%. We
estimate this production level can be achieved fairly readily without
significant additional processing costs and, thus, estimate a diesel
214
-------
value about 2.0 cents a gallon below leaded regular gasoline. Of
course, total refinery product revenues must maintain an adequate
return on capital investment for the composite of existing and new
manufacturing facilities.
However, when diesel fuel production approaches 15% of refinery
output, then major modifications to existing conversion facilities
would have to be made to maximize distillate production instead of
gasoline. This would be a cheaper operation than conventional
refining because it would not be necessary to increase the octane
number of this stream as is now practiced with gasoline. Therefore,
we estimate the diesel fuel price post 1980 will be 1,0 cents a gallon
below regular leaded gasoline. However, any large-scale introduction
of diesel-powered automobiles into the U.S. car population could lead
to severe diesel fuel supply/demand imbalances. Such a situation
raises difficulties beyond the simple physical capability of the in-
dustry to produce diesel fuel, such as integration with other products
like petrochemical feedstocks or hydrogen consuming low sulfur fuel
oil. Product pricing must also consider return on existing refining
investment, which was directed towards gasoline production. We
believe that any policy decisions regarding major refinery product
replacements must be precedented by a detailed, special study in
cooperation with appropriate industry groups.
Fuel Suitable for TCCS (with no sulfur specifications)
This fuel quality has the least restrictive product specifi-
cations and, thus, would be the easiest to manufacture. This fuel
can be produced merely by simple distillation from crude oil and
will experience the least manufacturing cost. This product would offet
the most flexibility''"*' in balancing other naptha/light distillate
product demands such as for petrochemical use, aviation fuels, and
home heating requirements. Higher yields of this fuel can be pro-
215
-------
duced than any other potential automotive fuel. The flexibility
to divert hydrocarbon streams not suitable for supplying other con-
ventional fuels will improve the supply economics for a TCCS quality
product. Therefore, we have assumed a TCCS quality fuel would be
priced 3,0 cents a gallon below regular leaded gasoline (or only 2.0
cents per gallon above crude costs). Again, if the total refinery
motor fuel output were a TCCS fuel, pricing must be consistent
with an adequate return on capital investment. Any policy decisions
regarding replacements of major refinery products should be preceded
by a detailed, special study in cooperation with appropriate industry
groups.
Energy Consumption in Fuel Supply
U.S. refineries presently operate with about a 90% thermal
efficiency in supplying energy to the market.^ The U.S. Bureau of
Mines statistics show that, in 1972, U.S. refineries consumed on the
average 685,000 BTU of energy per barrel of crude oil processed
(which represents 10.9%). This energy is consumed by refinery fuel
systems and electric power to drive pump and compressor motors, and
in combustion of catalyst coke.
To switch from conventional leaded gasolines to an unleaded
regular gasoline would increase refinery energy consumption from about
5
10.97o to 11.0% of crude oil. However, to supply a higher octane
premium unleaded gasoline would increase this consumption to about
12.0%.8
To replace conventional motor gasolines with diesel fuel would
reduce refinery energy consumption, perhaps to as low as 9% to 10%
of crude when conventional gasoline was completely replaced with diesel
fuel. Refinery energy consumption would be even lower in supplying
a TCCS quality fuel, perhaps 7% to 8% of crude.
When considering alternative automotive fuels, it should be
216
-------
noted that if all the changes in refinery energy consumption on a crude
oil basis are allocated solely to the volume of automotive fuel pro-
duced (about one half of the crude run), then the magnitude of each
change is essentially doubled. However, care must be taken in evalu-
ating the scenarios in which either diesel or TCCS fuel replaces
gasoline. The U.S. petroleum industry markets products on a volume
basis, and it is well known that a gallon of diesel fuel has about
a 10% higher heating value than gasoline, primarily because it contains
more pounds of hydrocarbons. When it is estimated that producing
diesel fuel consumes 1% to 2% less energy oncrude (or 2% to 4% less
energy based on the quantity of automotive fuel supplied), this means
that about 3% more pounds of automotive fuel are supplied but the
volume of diesel fuel would be about TU less than if gasoline con-
tinued to be the prime product.
It is not realistic to optimize refinery energy consumption in
isolation as one considers different automotive fuels, because the
total fuel consumption requirements will change. For example, al-
though there would be more energy consumed in supplying higher octane
fuels, the only reason for supplying these higher octane products is
to satisfy higher compression ratios in automotive engines which are
9
inherently more efficient. Overall energy balances (and cost benefit
analyses) must be made to determine cost and energy consumptions
for producing various quality fuels versus actual fuel consumption
in the particular engine considered.
Investment Implications
It is difficult to assess how severe the investment implica-
tions for changes in automotive fuel supply will be, because of un-
certainties in the elasticity of both petroleum consumption and supply
to the much higher price levels now in effect. Somfe recent projections
3
based on minimum demand indicate that current U.S. refining capacity
217
-------
(including construction programs now underway) will provide sufficient
crude capacity through 1980, with an additional 1 million barrels
per day of capacity (to 17 total) required by 1985. If this is true,
then the current construction bottlenecks could be relieved by the late
1970's and, thus, not inhibit the potential for changes in automotive
fuel supply. However, the preponderance of petroleum industry estimates
of the present survey indicate a domestic crude run of about 19 million
barrels per day by 1985, leading to a $25 billion capital investment
requirement, exclusive of lead or sulfur limitations on gasoline.
A similar investment would be required for distribution and marketing.
Based upon the survey, an additional $2 billion investment would be
required through 1985 by U.S. refiners to produce unleaded regular
gasoline in lieu of today's conventional mix. This level would in-
crease to about $5 billion if it is necessary to manufacture an
g
unleaded premium instead of regular.
A lower investment would be required if diesel fuel were to be
the prime (supplying greater than 50% of the automotive fleet by 1985)
automotive fuel instead of motor gasoline. Perhaps $1 billion, less
cumulative investment, would be required by refiners through 1985 than
they would have spent if gasoline continued to be the prime product.
The investment savings would be even greater for supplying a TCCS
quality fuel, perhaps as much as another billion.
It would appear that the demand uncertainties are highly
significant in determining the total capital investment requirements
through 1985, with from $10 to $50 billion investment in refining
and distribution required, depending upon the range of projections.
In every case, unleaded gasoline investments represent a significant
impact on total investment, but not in themselves sufficient to strain
the construction industry. With the implications of overall U.S.
demands on the construction industry, unnecessary additional contri-
butions are, of course, to be avoided.
218
-------
Sulfur Removal for Automotive Fuels
The sulfur content of today's leaded gasolines are relatively
12
low (about .04% weight for regular and about .03% weight for
premium). The generation of sulfur dioxide by the combustion process
in today's automotive engines is not normally considered a health
hazard. Thus, there is no need at this time to further desulfurize
conventional leaded gasolines. However, recently there has been
some concern about emissions of sulfuric acid aerosols from vehicles
equipped with catalytic converters. If these emissions prove to be
an air quality problem, it might be necessary to reduce the sulfur
content of unleaded gasolines to very low levels. If it is necessary
to reduce the sulfur content of unleaded gasolines (perhaps to as
low as ,0037c weight), there are additional economic and energy
penalties. It has been estimated that the increased manufacturing
costs to desulfurize either regular or premium unleaded gasoline
13
will be about 1.5 cents a gallon, which would be reflected in the
pump price. Based upon survey results, we also estimate an additional
$5 billion of capital expenditures would be required by the U.S.
refining industry through 1985 to reduce the sulfur content, and
we estimate refinery energy consumption would increase by about .4%.
Diesel fuel presently supplied in the U.S. today averages about
14
.2% weight sulfur content (or nearly 10 times the sulfur content of
motor gasoline). Thus, if diesel fuel continues to be produced at
this sulfur level and if it essentially replaced gasoline as the
prime automotive fuel, then sulfur oxide emissions from vehicles would
increase by a factor of nearly 10. Based upon survey results, the
cost for reducing the sulfur content of diesel fuel would be of the
same order of magnitude as for lead-free gasoline (i.e., about 1.5
cents per gallon, and it also would involve an additional investment
of about $5 billion through 1985. Refinery energy consumption would
increase by about .5% of crude to produce a diesel fuel with a sulfur
219
-------
content equivalent to today's motor gasolines. We estimate the economic
and energy implications for supplying a low sulfur TCCS fuel would
be about the same as for supplying a low sulfur diesel fuel.
220
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
REFERENCES
International Petroleum Encyclopedia, 1973.
Shell Oil Company, "The National Energy Outlook,11 1973.
Arthur D. Little, Inc., "New Energy Sources - Business and
Investment Implications," June 1974.
National Petroleum Council, "U.S. Energy Outlook," 1972.
NPRA Meeting, San Antonio, Texas, April 1973.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, "Impact of Motor
Gasoline Lead Additive Regulations on Petroleum
Refineries and! Energy Resources - 1974-1980, Phase I," 1974.
Bonner and Moore Associates, "An Economic Analysis of Proposed
Schedules for Removal of Lead Additives From Gasoline," 1971.
Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Overview - U.S. Refining Capability
to Supply Proposed New GM Motor Gasolines," 1973.
Data submitted to the Committee on Motor Vehicles Emissions by
Universal Oil Products, April 1974.
Bureau of Mines, Annual Petroleum Statements.
Coppoc, W.J. (Texaco) in letter to E.E. Petrick, January
23, 1974.
Bureau of Mines, Petroleum Products Survey, No. 83.
Arthur D. Little, Inc., "Capability of U.S. Refining Industry
to Supply Low Sulfur Unleaded Gasoline," 1974.
*
i
Bureau of Mines, Petroleum Products Survey, No. 77.
221
-------
APPENDIX I
Vehicle Fuel-Economy Data
(Compiled by Earl W, Evans, James E.A. John,
Emerson W. Pugh, and Robert F. Sawyer)
For purposes of the CMVE study, it was necessary to create a
composite set of data representing typical fuel economy for cars pre-
sently being produced and those which may be produced in the future.
Fuel economy, as measured by the EPA, was tfye test method with typical
1970 cars being the basis of comparison. Data was required for all 34
different technologies listed in Table 3-2 and for seven car sizes in
each class. These data were generated by the various consultants for
CMVE with the assistance of the CMVE staff using a wide variety of
sources including EPA certification results, data from their visits,
and testimony to the government and to the CMVE. It should be noted
that while the amount of data available is large, a substantial amount
of technical judgment was involved in making these estimates.
The 1970 baseline fuel economy was obtained from the data listed
in Appendix B of A Report on Automobile Fuel Economy by EPA of October
1973 by fitting a smooth curve through the data for 1970-1972. The
curve for this baseline is included in Figure 1-1. The actual fuel
economies obtained for the seven vehicle classes used for CMVE, mini
through luxury, are listed in Table 1-1 for all classes of vehicle.
In this listing, Class 22 is the 1970 baseline vehicle; this data
represent the fuel economy baseline data.
The 1973 fuel economy was obtained from a smoothed curve fitted
to average data for 1973 model year cars in Appendix B of the EPA report
cited. Fuel economy for 1974 model year cars was assumed to be the
same as in 1973. The change in fuel economy from the 1970 baseline to
the 1973-1974 average is as follows:
222
-------
MINI
SUBC COMP
INT-A
INT-B
STD
LUX
z
o
—I
<
o
DC
111
a.
tn
Ui
EPA 1970
EPA 1970-1972 AVG
25 30 35 40
INERT1AL WEIGHT, 100 lb
FIGURE II CMVE Smoothed Fuel Consumption for Early 1970's
Baseline Car by Inertial Weight. (Data from A Report on
Automotive Fuel Economy, EPA, October 1973) .
-------
TABLE 1-1
Fuel Economy (mpg) by Car Class and Size
(Zeros indicate that no estimate was made for these cars,)
CAR SIZE
CLASS*
MINI
SUBC
C0MP
INT-A
INT-B
STD
LUX
1
23.0
18.4
15.4
13.2
11.7
10.7
9.9
8
23.0
18.4
14.5
12.1
10.4
9.2
8.5
15
23.0
18.4
14.5
12.1
10.4
9.2
8.5
22
23.0
18.4
15.4
13.2
11.7
10.7
9.9
29
23.0
18.4
14.5
12.4
11.0
9.7
9.0
36
24.2
19.1
15.9
13.5
11.8
10.8
10.0
43
23.7
18.6
15.4
13.1
11.5
10.4
9.5
50
23.7
18.6
15.4
13.1
11.5
10.4
9.5
57
22.5
18.0
13.7
11.7
10.4
8.8
8.1
64
23.0
18.4
14.2
12.3
10.8
9.6
8.9
71
23.0
18.4
14.6
12.3
10.8
9.6
8.9
78
21.8
17.5
13.4
11.5
10.2
9.1
8.4
85
23.9
19.1
15.2
13.1
11.5
10.2
9.4
92
19.6
15.1
13.6
9.9
8.4
0.0
0.0
99
25.5
20.4
16.0
13.7
12.1
11.2
10.4
106
24.4
19.3
15.2
12.9
11.5
10.6
9.8
113
23.9
19.1
15.1
12.9
11.3
10.2
9.4
120
29.0
24.1
19.0
17.0
13.1
12.3
10.5
127
23.2
18.5
14.8
12.5
11.0
9.8
9.0
134
24.2
19.1
15.9
13.5
11.8
10.8
10.0
141
23.7
18.8
15.6
13.2
11.5
10.3
9.3
148
24.2
19.3
14.9
12.8
11.3
10.1
9.3
155
26.0
20.6
17.1
11.9
12.6
11.4
10.4
162
21.6
17.3
13.7
11.7
10.4
0.0
0.0
169
21.6
17.3
13.7
11.7
10.4
0.0
0.0
176
29.2
23.2
19.4
16.5
14.6
0.0
0.0
183
17.1
14.2
11.2
10.0
7.7
7.3
6.2
190
29.2
23.2
19.4
16.5
14.6
13.3
12.3
197
27.6
21.7
17.9
15.0
13.1
11.8
10.7
204
25.5
20.4
16.0
13.7
12.1
11.2
10.4
211
27.1
21.5
18.0
15.4
13.7
12.4
11.5
218
23.0
18.4
15.3
12.9
11.4
10.4
9.6
225
22.5
18.0
14.8
12.2
10.5
9.4
8.7
232
22.3
21.8
14,2
12.2
10.8
0.0
0.0
* The
configurations of
vehicles
in each class
are given in Figure 3-2
224
-------
Mini and subcorapact—same as 1970
Compact (3,500 lb)--6% less than 1970
Standard (4,500 lb)-44% less than 1970
The miles per gallon for all technologies as listed in Table 1-1
were estimated from this base by the various consultants for CMVE with
the assistance of the CMVE staff. The rationale for these estimates
are summarized below.
Conventional ICE
Fuel economy for vehicles equipped with control systems designed
to meet the 1975 Federal Emissions Standard are based on the following
technical considerations:
1) Catalyst cars can have their spark advance and
EGR optimized for fuel economy and will, there-
fore, have the largest fuel economy gain over
1974 vehicles, i.e., 5% for mini, up to 15% for
standard and luxury. This results in fuel
economies about equal to the 197G baseline for
standard and luxury and a 5% improvement over
1970 for the mini;
2) The use of air pumps above is a systems-design
decision which is assumed not to effect fuel
economy; and,
3) Cars with only EGR or 1GR and air pump will have
the same fuel economy as similar 1973-74 cars
for mini- and subcompact cars and up to a 5%
improvement for standard and luxury cars. Fuel
economy improvements in larger cars are a result
of secondary changes not necessarily related to
emission controls.
Large cars meeting the 1975 California Emissions Standards are
assumed to have fuel economies about 8% less than a vehicle with a
similar control system (such as air pump, EGR, and oxidizing catalyst)
meeting the 1975 Federal Emissions Standards. However, the change to
proportional EGR (PEGR) gives a little better fuel economy so that
large cars are about 4% less than the 1970 baseline and small cars are
about 17o better than the 1970 baseline due to other improvements,
225
-------
Conventional engines are assumed to be able to meet the 1977
Federal Emissions Standard with only minor extensions of their present
control systems. General Motors states in their status report that
fuel economy will be 7% better than 1974, whereas, Ford states that it
will get a 5%-137=, penalty compared to 1975. Both of these statements
are equivalent to a 2%-10% loss in fuel economy compared to California-75
cars. However, variable venturi carburetors, which give better mixture
control, and improved quick-heat manifolds were assumed to be standard
equipment on the conventional ICE meeting the 177 standard (Class 50).
Hence, it has been assumed that these cars will have slightly better
fuel economy than the manufacturers predict. Also, since certification
data shows C-75 systems are easily meeting the HC and CO standards, we
assume no fuel economy loss from C-75. Recent data on fleet vehicles
operated by the California Highway Department tend to support this
conclusion.
In order to meet the 1978 Federal Emissions Standards by 1978,
reducing (NO ) catalysts will be required. Three-way catalyst systems
X
with feedback control are assumed to be the one important system.
General Motors states in their status report to EPA that there will be
a 15% improvement in fuel economy oyer 1974, while Ford states in their
status report that there would be a 157c-23% penalty from 1975. In terms
of 1974, this appears to be a penalty of 07o-10%. We believe greater
use of PEGR, required because of poor durability of reducing catalysts,
will result in a 2%-7% penalty over catalyst-equipped cars meeting the
Federal 1973 Emissions Standards.
Another premising configuration for meeting the 1978 standard
is the dual-catalyst system with an oxidizing catalyst upstream of
the reducing catalyst to prevent damaging oxygen-rich mixtures from
reaching the reducing catalyst. Because the system must operate on the
rich side of stoichiometry, it will have some fuel economy penalty. We
assumed a 3% penalty compared to the 3-way catalyst system.
226
-------
Stratlfied-Charge Engine with Pre-chamber
The fuel economy for the stratified-charge engine with pre-chamber
and lean thermal reactor (LTR) is based primarily on Honda test results.
Because it operates lean, an uncontrolled Honda should get about 5%
better fuel economy than an uncontrolled conventional engine of equi-
valent compression ratio and horsepower and still be able to meet the
Federal 1975 Emissions Standard.
In order to meet the California 1975 Emissions Standards, a
slight penalty may be incurred (l%-2%).
The stricter HC control required to meet the 1977 Federal Emisj-
sions Standard -would cause a fuel-economy penalty compared to the cars
meeting the 1975 California Emissions Standard. A 0%-4% penalty over
C-75 was assumed.
With regard to the 1978 Federal Emissions Standards, the in-
creased use of EGR with an already marginal combustion process will re-
sult in large fuel economy penalties.
The Honda data indicate that the fuel economy of the 2,000 lb
vehicle decreases from 28.4 to 19 rapg to meet the 1978 standard. This
is a 30% penalty due primarily to the use of PEGR. Consistent with
this result, we assumed a 19%-24% penalty over catalyst cars meeting
the Federal 1975 Emissions Standard,
Wankel Engine
The fuel economy for the Wankel is based primarily on the latest
certification results supplied by the Toyo Kogyo Company on its Wankel
engine with a lean thermal reactor, and to a lesser extent is based on
more optimistic (but less well documented) reports from GM, Curtiss-
Wright, and others. The lower theoretical efficiency and technical
problems of getting good seals are partly offset by the fighter weight
engine. Therefore, only a 3% penalty is assumed over a conventional
ICE of equivalent performance and with similar control systems meeting
the same 1975 Federal or California Emissions Standard.
227
-------
The high HC emissions will cause the Wankel to suffer in meeting
the 1977 Federal Emissions Standard. A 47o-6% penalty was, therefore,
assumed compared to vehicles meeting the C-75 standard. In order to
meet a stricter NO standard at the same 1977 HC and CO standard, it
x '
would probably be necessary to use a reducing catalyst. With a dual-
catalyst system, the Wankel would not suffer much fuel economy penalty
and due to other system improvements, the net result would be a slightly
better fuel economy than 1970 baseline vehicles.
There is probably little chance of meeting the 1978 "NO^ standard
unless a stratified-charge design were used. This concept is not de-
veloped to the stage where fuel economy could be predicted. Therefore,
this system was not included in 1978.
Fuel Injected, Stratified-Charge Engine
The fuel economy for the fuel-injected, stratified-charge
engines, such as the Texaco TCCS and the Ford PROCO, are based primarily
on data from Texaco with some caution inserted by information from
foreign licensees. We placed the economy between an uncontrolled ICE
and a diesel and closer to the diesel, i.e., 167„-18% better than an
uncontrolled, conventional ICE.
Using an oxidizing catalyst to reduce the HC emissions, the
maximum fuel economy would result in NO emissions below 2 g/mi.
Therefore, no fuel economy penalties would be incurred until emissions
were reduced below 1 g/mi. At this emission level, the fuel economy
penalty would be expected to be about 3%-97o with the higher value for
larger cars because of the larger amounts of EGR required in heavier
vehicles.
In order to meet the 1978 standard, a larger penalty could be
expected so that a 13%-20% fuel economy penalty was assumed when com-
pared to uncontrolled vehicles using this class of engine.
228
-------
Diesel
The fuel economy for the diesel is assumed to be about 24%,-28%
better than the conventional, uncontrolled engine based primarily on
the Southwest Research Institute report, discussions with Ricardo,
and data from Daimler-Benz. Equal performance was assumed although a
weight penalty of 100, 150, and 200 lb for SC, C, and I-S-L was assumed
and factored into the final economy estimates and a larger displacement
engine is required, e.g., a 400 CID diesel replaces a 350 CID ICE in
the large cars.
Emissions from the diesel without controls will be within the
1977 standard so that no fuel economy penalty would be expected until
the NO level is reduced below 2 g/mi. At 1 g/mi NO , the EGR requ; ~ed
X X
would cause a larger penalty on large cars than small. A 7%-167<, penalty
over uncontrolled was, therefore, assumed. The diesel was not assumec
to meet standards below 1 g/mi NO «
Numerical data on fuel economy by vehicle class and size are
summarized in Table 1-1.
229
-------
APPENDIX J
Vehicle Maintenance Data
(Compiled by R. Robert Brattain, James E. A. John, and LeRoy H. Lindgren)
The vehicle maintenance data is defined in this study as the
maintenance costs associated with emissions and fuel distribution
systems. It is assumed that all other vehicle maintenance costs will
not change due to the introduction of new emission or fuel-distribution
systems.
The fundamental concepts used by the various consultants for
CMVE to develop the maintenance costs for each vehicle configuration
are:
Conventional ICE Engines
1. Low-lead gasoline will increase the life of
spark plugs from 15,000 miles, typical of
engines run with leaded gasoline, to 30,000
miles.
2. Distributor points, condensor, and tuneup
costs will be eliminated by the introduction
of electronic distributors. The only excep-
tion to this statement is a timing check cost
at 30,000 miles when the spark plugs are replaced.
3. Since the catalytic converter system is
designed to have in excess of a 50,000 mile
life, catalyst replacement costs are not
included in the maintenance cost schedule.
4. Some reduction in carburetor maintenance is
anticipated, in spite of the fact that a more
sophisticated carburetor design is planned
for post-1975/76 vehicles.
5. The transmissions control system for spark
advance control requires less maintenance in
1975 systems than previously.
230
-------
6. Improvements in PCV and EGR valves have
resulted in reduced maintenance costs for
the 1975/76 systems.
7. Design improvements have been introduced into
the fuel evaporation and the air distribution
system resulting in the increase of service
interval and the reduction of the maintenance
costs over 50,000 miles.
8. The air-injection system is assumed to require
no maintenance over 50,000 miles.
The alternative engines and major modifications of the conven-
tional engine have significantly different maintenance schedules and
associated costs. The maintenance costs used in this study are
summarized in Table J-l. Special assumptions regarding maintenance
by engine type follow.
Nonconventional Engines
The CVCC (Honda) engine (classes 85, 225, and 92) requires
additional carburetor, choke, and spark/fuel control components and
thereby requires an increase in maintenance costs over the li975
catalyst-equipped vehicles. The additional valving system is expected
to require no maintenance (beyond normal oil changes) over the 50,000
miles.
The TCCS or PRQCO stratified-charge engines (classes 211 and
155) are expected to require additional maintenance on a 1970 car
(class 22) due to the increase in the number of spark plugs required
by the PROCO design. Some increase in maintenance for the PROCO
was also predicted because of the more sophisticated fuel delivery
system. The European version of the TCCS will also require an in-
crease in maintenance over the 1975 catalyst-equipped cars with car-
bureted fuel systems.
The diesel engine (classes 190 and 197) already has the
reputation for having low maintenance costs. Therefore, it was assumed
231
-------
TABLE J-l
Summary of Fuel and Emissions-Related Maintenance Data
(The number listed is the average yearly cost ($/year) for the
first 50,000 miles of vehicle life; zeros indicate that no
data were developed for these cars.)
CAR SIZE
CLASS
MINI
SUBC
C0MP
INT-A
INT-B
STD
LUX
1
46.0
48.0
52.0
66.0
66.0
82.0
82.0
8
52.0
56.0
58.0
70.0
70.0
88.0
88.0
15
48.0
50.0
52,0
74.0
74.0
82.0
82.0
22
32.0
36.0
40.0
44.0
44.0
52.0
52.0
29
55.0
55.0
58.0
70.0
70.0
87.0
87.0
36
40.0
43.0
45.0
52.0
52.0
67.0
67.0
43
42.0
45.0
47.0
53.0
53.0
69.0
69.0
50
40.0
45.0
47.0
53.0
53.0
69.0
69.0
57
40.0
46.0
48.0
53.0
53.0
70.0
70.0
64
32.0
48.0
50.0
50.0
58.0
72.0
72.0
71
32.0
48.0
50.0
50.0
58.0
72.0
72.0
78
32.0
48.0
50.0
50.0
58.0
72.0
72.0
85
50.0
52.0
52.0
70.0
70.0
81.0
81.0
92
50.0
54.0
54.0
62.0
62.0
83.0
83.0
99
44.0
48.0
50.0
57.0
57.0
72.0
72.0
106
44.0
48.0
50.0
57.0
57.0
72.0
72.0
113
44.0
48.0
50.0
57.0
57.0
72.0
72.0
120
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
127
32.0
41.0
50.0
50.0
58.0
72.0
72.0
134
38.0
43.0
45.0
45.0
49.0
67.0
67.0
141
42.0
45.0
47.0
47.0
60.0
69.0
69.0
148
42.0
45.0
47.0
47.0
60.0
69.0
69.0
155
42.0
45.0
47.0
47.0
60.0
69.0
69.0
162
36.0
38.0
44.0
48.0
48.0
0.0
0.0
169
50.0
52.0
52.0
71.0
81.0
0.0
0.0
176
44.0
48.0
48.0
68.0
68.0
0.0
0.0
183
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
190
30.0
33.0
33.0
38.0
38.0
50.0
50.0
197
34.0
37.0
37.0
42.0
42.0
54.0
54.0
204
44.0
48.0
50.0
57.0
57.0
72.0
72.0
211
40.0
43.0
45.0
45.0
58.0
67.0
67.0
218
32.0
48.0
50.0
50.0
58.0
72.0
72.0
225
40.0
46.0
48,0
53.0
53.0
70.0
70.0
232
44.0
48.0
48.0
68.0
68.0
0.0
0.0
232
-------
that the automotive light-duty design proposed in this study would
have maintenance costs lower than those of the baseline 1970 vehicle.
The EGR on the diesel in class 197 was presumed to increase the main-
tenance slightly.
The Wankel or rotary engine (class 169) has a warranty on
the thermal reactor system to cover all replacement costs over 50,000
miles, so no maintenance for the air-injection or manifold system
was predicted. Since some designs include two spark plugs and addi-
tional distributors, an increase in maintenance costs for the rotary
engine designs was predicted. More recent data indicate that the
single distributor designs are now available.
The electronic fuel-injection systems are relatively main-
tenance-free if the electronic component reliability is held to
design projections. The feed-back systems do, however, require
replacement of the sensors every 10,000 miles. Therefore, there is
some maintenance penalty for EF1 compared to the carbureted systems
planned for 1975/76.
Our Panel of Consultants on M/G and the Costs Benefits Committee
decided to present the costs for the replacement of catalyst systems
as a separate cost element, since there is still considerable contro-
versy over the necessity of schedule for maintenance of catalytic
systems over the total life of the car. Catalytic unit replacement
costs are summarized in Table J-2. These data are not included in
the vehicle maintenance costs presented in Table J-l, but are available
for future computation should a regulatory inspection system introduced
for emission diagnosis and replacement be mandated.
233
-------
TABLE J-2
Cost to Replace All Catalytic Converters in
Each Car Having Them (in dollars)
CAR SIZE
CLASS
MINI
SUBC
COMP
INT-A
INT-B
STD
LUX
1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
29
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
36
87.0
87.0
87.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
43
87.0
87.0
87.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
50
87.0
87.0
87.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
57
88.0
88.0
88.0
156.0
156.0
156.0
156.0
64
198.0
198.0
198.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
71
285.0
285.0
285.0
312.0
312.0
312.0
312.0
78
199.0
199.0
199.0
267.0
267.0
267.0
267.0
85
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
92
87.0
87.0
87.0
114.0
114.0
0.0
0.0
99
87.0
87.0
87.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
106
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
113
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
120
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
127
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
i J4
100.0
100.0
100.0
135.0
135.0
135.0
135.0
141
100.0
100.0
100.0
135.0
135.0
135.0
135.0
148
100.0
100.0
100.0
135.0
135.0
135.0
135.0
155
87.0
87.0
87.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
162
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
169
88.0
88.0
88.0
156.0
0.0
156.0
0.0
176
87.0
87.0
87.0
114.0
114.0
0.0
0.0
183
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
190
0.0
0.0
6.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
197
0.0
0.0
o.o
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
204
87.0
87.0
87.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
211
87.0
87.0
8t.O
114.0
114.0
114.0
114.0
218
198.0
198.0
198.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
225.0
225
88.0
88.0
88.0
156.0
156.0
156.0
156.0
232
285.0
285.0
285.0
312.0
312.0
0.0
0.0
234
-------
APPENDIX K
Sticker List Price Data
(Compiled by LeRoy H. Lindgren)
The vehicle list price data used in this study are based on
manufacturing costs estimates generated by the CMVE Panel of Consultants
on Manufacturability and Costs. These manufacturing costs are based
on component costs obtained from several sources:
1. Vendor OEM costs to the industry obtained by the
Panel of Consultants on M/C.
2. Industry cost data supplied on the questionnaire
submitted to the U.S. companies by the Panel of
Consultants on M/C (Appendix B),
3. Selling price data supplied by car dealers, auto-
motive supply catalogs, and automotive service
centers.
4. Computations by the Panel of Consultants on M/C
using cost per pound reference data to confirm
the estimates.
In the automobile industry, the sticker list prices are developed
from a build up of costs based on economic production volumes.
Figure K-l illustrates the build up of costs and their relationships.
In such a discussion as the present one, it is proper to define
language. As used here, these terms are:
A. Variable Costs. The labor and material costs that
are sensitive to volume. In the estimates used by
the Panel of Consultants on M/C, it was assumed
that economic volumes were achieved.
B. Fixed Costs. Those costs that are applied to vari-
able costs that represent overhead, materials,
labor, and expenses.
C. Factory Costs. The summation of variable and
fixed costs as well as the amortization of tooling
and equipment. Also included in the factory costs
235
-------
FIGURE Kl Cost Structure in Automotive Manufacturing.
236
-------
are the warranty costs of the products that the
factory produces. A profit is applied at the
factory level. These factory costs, which in-
clude some production design engineering costs,
are often compared to vendor prices for the same
product at equivalent volumes to ascertain make-
or-buy decisions at the purchasing levels.
Each automotive production factory maintains a
competitive cost position to outside vendors for
the same product.
D. Corporate Costs. The factory costs are assigned
a share of the corporate costs which includes
general and administrative costs as well as the
investment allocation for new product tooling,
equipment, and facilities. It is here that the
pay back of investments period is defined over
the appropriate production and the resultant
additional investment cost is added to the
vehicle price. Also included are research and
development and marketing costs.
E. Corporate Profit. The corporate profit is as-
signed at this level of costing.
F. Wholesale Selling Price. This is the factory
delivered selling price FOB Detroit. This is
the selling price that is used to compute company
sales dollars.
G. Dealer Markup. The dealer markup is the multi-
plier factor used to assign the dealers share
of vehicle selling price. The markup percentage
is 22% of sticker list price for the base
vehicle. The customer options or accessories
have another markup that is around 4C% of the
option or accessories add-on selling price.
These options are not considered in our basic
car configuration. We are considering as
standard equipment; power steering and brakes
and air conditioning in our basic car prices.
H. Dealer Preparation Costs. These costs are as-
signed by the manufacturer to each vehicle
delivered to the dealer for the costs of
cleaning up the car to the customer's satis-
faction. These costs are not considered in the
price of the vehicle in this study.
237
-------
I. Transportation Costs. These are the direct
transportation costs assigned to the vehicle
to cover the costs of delivery to the dealer.
These costs are not considered in this study.
J. Warranty Costs. These costs are the costs of
warranty that are required to cover the costs
of labor and material to replace premature
failures within warranty periods. These costs
are assigned to specific products at the factory
level and are included in the factory costs.
These costs are measured separately so that
actual failure costs of a product are charged
back to the factory. If these budgeted costs
are exceeded at the factory, the managers and
engineers take corrective action to eliminate
the excess costs,. The study cost data includes
the warranty costs in the manufacturing costs.
K. Emissions Inspection Costs. These costs are
add-on costs in California to cover the costs
of emission testing of a percentage of the pro-
duction vehicles shipped to or produced in
California. These costs are not considered in
this study, sincp the other states do not
require production testing for emissions.
The customer selling price is the summation of the prior costs
plus applicable taxes. The customer selling price involves some dis-
counting due to trade-ins and customer negotiations (which are also not
considered in this study).
The study as prepared by the Panel of Consultants on M/C does
not attempt to develop the detailed costs as defined above. Instead,
the Panel of Consultants on M/C developed the manufacturing costs of
the significant components of the vehicle and engine (see Appepdix C).
Then by developing a gross xjiarkup factor curve for a given base manu-
facturing cost, a nominal (pre-investment) selling price was computed
for each individual vehicle. The equations for the markup factor and
nominal selling price are:
238
-------
Markup Factor = .00029176 x Manufacturing Cost + 1.40833 (Eq. Kl)
Nominal Selling Price = Markup Factor x Manufacturing Cost (Eq. K2)
The relationship between the markup factor and the manufacturing
cost is plotted in Figure K-2.
It is to be noted that the CMVE curve was revised from previou
CMVE data. This was done to reflect more realistically the current ii -
dustry position of establishing the costs and prices of the smaller
vehicles. The shift to smaller sizes has created the need to increase
the markup of smaller vehicles in order to hold the gross levels of
industry profit at the past levels. The adjusted line, representing
about a 12% increase in a subcompact car, was an estimate based on the
best judgment of the Panel of Consultants on M/C,
The cost methodology of the Panel of Consultants on M/C is com-
pared to industry's pricing methods in Table K-l. The comparison il-
lustrates that the industry factory costs and the CMVE manufacturing
costs are equal. The Panel of Consultants on M/C does not identify tl c
warehouse selling price, so no comparisons can be made at this level.
The sticker list prices, however, are again equal.
The computed vehicle sticker prices are included in Table K-2
for each vehicle configuration in the data base.
239
-------
2.61-
1000
CMVE it
[EQ K-1]
CMVE I
1500
4000
2000 2500 3000 3500
MANUFACTURING COST {$)
FIGURE K2 Relationship of Markup Factor to Manufacturing Cost.
4500
240
-------
TABLE K-l
Comparison of Industry and Panel of Consultants on M/C Methods of
Vehicle Costing for Vehicle 9 (a 1971-72 Subcompact) in Scenario B
Automotive Industry's Procedure
Factory Cost
Tooling Amortization
(.02 x SLP)
Corporate G & A
(.10 x SLP)
Corporate Profit
(.10 x SLP)
Investment
Warehouse Selling Price
Dealers Markup
(.22 x SLP)
Sticker List Price (SLP)
1,355
49
245
245
14
1,908
538
2,446
Sticker List Price (SLP) 2,446
Dealer^ Preparation Charges 40
Transportation Costs 75
Emissions Insp. Costs 10
(Calif. Only)
Suggested Customer Price 2,571
Panel of Consultants on
M/C Procedure
1,355 Manufacturing Cost
1,088
2,443
2,446
Total Dollars of
Markup (for illustra-
tion, not normally
calculated)
Nominal Selling Price
= 1.8035 (from Ecj.Kl)
x (Mfg. Cost)
Scenario Investment
(B)
Sticker List Price
(SLP)
The percentages used are from the NAS report entitled Manufac-
turability and Costs of Proposed Automotive Eneine Svstems.
January 1973, P. l4.
241
-------
TABLE K-2
Nominal Selling Prices (in dollars) by Car Size
Developed by the Panel of Consultants on M/C Method
CAR SIZE
CLASS
MINI
SUBC
COMP
1
2132.38
2401.25
3351.99
8
2172.66
2442.92
3398.22
15
2139.78
2408.91
3360.49
22
2132.38
2401.25
3351.99
29
2205.68
2474.86
3431.20
36
2234.76
2504.93
3464.53
43
2268.04
2539.33
3502.64
50
2276.65
2548.23
3512.50
57
2230.27
2500.28
3449.56
64
2356.75
2631.00
3604.15
71
2389.67
2665.01
3631.79
78
2395.79
2671.33
3638.78
85
2169.69
2437.64
3448.09
92
2248.70
2497.40
3492.30
99
2270.41
2541.77
3513.74
106
2272.56
2544.00
3525.09
113
2300.81
2573.20
3570.61
120
2373.52
2648.33
3654.01
127
2378.75
2653.73
3642.52
134
2354.79
2628.98
3619.33
141
2410.44
2686.47
3683.04
148
2393.82
2669.30
3699.10
155
2280.96
2552.68
3569.38
162
1943.41
2209.10
2996.96
169
2008.64
2276.66
3070.99
176
2007.81
2275.79
3070.04
183
2130.27
2402.57
3208.81
190
2257.29
2514.90
3530.77
197
2264.82
2522.66
3539.42
204
2293.90
2566.06
3584.26
211
2273.42
2544.89
3560.70
218
2326.35
2599.59
3559.46
225
2223.84
2493.64
3442.?1
232
2193.52
2468.02
3280.38
INT-A
3992.61
4041,68
4001.63
3992.61
4066.30
4101.62
4142.02
4168.15
4169.20
4265.37
4294.68
4472.64
4180.20
4140.98
4181.50
4184.12
4216.13
4304.47
4318.73
4276.19
4351.68
4339.46
4202.22
3513.74
3561.94
3590.72
3736.81
4132.62
4141.76
4262.73
4193.04
4217.97
4116.98
3812.12
INT-B
4021.00
4070.19
4030.04
4021.00
4105.27
4163.97
4204.58
4215.09
4203.27
4323.28
4363.37
4486.07
4219.55
4248.49
4228.49
4207.73
4255.61
4344.24
4347.57
4307.91
4355.66
4448.79
4259.83
3513.74
3561.94
3612.86
3736.81
4247.97
4257.19
4310.04
4250,60
4286.23
4150.90
3839.80
STD
5305.39
5359.82
5315.41
5305.39
5389.99
5454.85
5499.70
5511.30
5498.25
5630.71
5674.93
5810.19
5580.20
5612.30
5526.10
5503.18
5620.18
5718.41
5663.14
5613.76
5666.43
5745.50
5619.02
4818.71
4872.61
4929.49
5141.13
5614.63
5624.86
5616.09
5608.79
5589.82
5498.25
5182.72
LUX
7676.34
7739.29
7687.92
7676.34
7760.87
7835.77
7887.54
7900.93
7872.50
8038.64
8076.09
8231.71
7983.77
8020.78
7918.00
7891.56
8029.87
8143.07
8093.55
8019.09
8079.80
8062.58
8011.69
6828.87
6890.49
7099.10
7197.10
8117.33
8129.18
8021.79
7999.91
7978.05
7872.50
7244.52
242
-------
APPENDIX L
Methodology for Calculating Investment Costs for Alternate Scenarios
(Written by Merrill L. Ebner)
The purpose of the investment programs^ is to measure the com-
parative impact of a particular scenario on domestic automobile
manufacturers. Hence, only the basic or domestic parts of each
scenario (see Appendix F) are used in these assignments. The invest-
ment cost for a given scenario is not calculated in absolute terms,
but rather as the increment over the comparable costs for Scenario A.
Scenario A, it will be recalled, assumes that 1970 emissions standards
are continued through 1985. Incremental costs are used because (a) they
are the mos t relevant in assessing the relative cost of different
scenarios and (b) they avoid assigning a current value to 20 year old
plants for which the investment was recovered long ago, as would be
necessary in a total investment accounting.
The basic scheme used is to identify 273 different types o£
automotive production facilities. For reference, a "resources-
used" table is kept which specifies which production facilities aire
required for each configuration of vehicle which may be produced.
Different kinds of production facilities are defined as different,
resources. A resource could be a foundry to make intake manifoldls,
an engine metal-cutting transfer line for 350 CID engines, a car
buretor assembly line, or some other identifiable unit of productive
capacity.
An overview of the procedure for calculating investment coists
is shown schematically in Figure LI. As can be seen, the primary
inputs are the scenarios or hypothetical production plans. Two
scenario inputs are used: the baseline scenario (Scenario A) and;
^ The procedures to be described here were organized as computeir
programs.
243
-------
FIGURE Ll Schematic of the Procedure for Calculating Investment
Costs.
244
-------
the test scenario (any one of the other 18 in Table Fl). Each of these
are considered separately in steps A through C in a completely analo-
gous fashion, as will be described.
For each resource, a standard yearly capacity has been speci-
fied in the Resource Capacity file. This value, the estimated yearly
production for a two-shift, five-day week, is relatively constant
for a given resource since these are mostly high-volume transfer
lines. To load the scenario into the production resources, the volume
of cars of a given configuration to be produced in a given year is
selected from the scenario input table. This volume is then loaded
in the same year in all of the resources used by this car, as indi-
cated in the resources-used table. The load impact is expressed in
"standard plant" units by dividing the car volume in the scenario by
the standard volume for each resource expressed as the standard numr
2
ber of units to make one car. This process is continued and a yearly
tally is kept by resource, car by car and year by year, until the
complete scenario is loaded. The result is the yearly load imposed
on each of the 273 resources by the scenario.
The next step is to match the pattern of available plants to
the number of standard plants needed, realizing that the operations
manager would tend to use variations in utilization whenever possible
to smooth his investment in new capacity. For this purpose, a simple
decision matrix was incorporated into the computer calculation which
was roughly equivalent to a very conservative operations comptroller
of very average intelligence. Decision parameters were set based on
the initial utilization and the long term trend in capacity for that
particular resource. With some minor variations, the program would
To illustrate, the standard volume per car for a tire line is
1,000,000 units per year, or one fifth the actual production rate
of 5,000,000 tires per year, since there are five tires per car.
245
-------
begin in .1974, the first year in -which he could decide to build a
3
new plant, look ahead to his projected utilization, and build a new
line if his utilization was over 1.6 or close a resource if the
utilization was below 0.7. But only one new resource could be added
or removed in any one year. In this way, the number of resources of a
a given type (e.g., the number of engine lines to make 350 CID V-8
engines) were obtained year by year for §ach resource. The baseline
and test scenarios would be treated in like fashion and the results
summarized as report C in Figure LI. At this stage, the total number
of resources of a given type, resource by resource and year by year,
would be indicated.
In Step D of Figure Ll, the incremental resources needed were
summarized resource by resource. This program would select a given
resource, go to the base line Resources Needed file, and scan
along it noting the years in which the niimber of resources increased
or decreased by one. Years in which there is no change would be
marked "0" and those in which there is a change by +1 or -1, as
appropriate. The same procedure is used on the same resource in the
test scenario, and then the procedure is repeated for the next resource
until all are complete. The result is two strings of O's and
+ l's, one for the baseline scenario and one for the test scenario,
for each of 273 resources. These represent the change in resources
needed to effect the two scenarios.
The next step, Step E in Figure Ll, is to assign an invest-
ment value to the changes in resources determined in Step D. One
part of this problem is to assign a dollar value to building or closing
a unit of a particular type of resource. The solution was to build
a matrix of building and closing costs resource by resource called
3
And also the year in which the existing plant inventory had been
determined.
246
-------
the Build/Close Cost Matrix. The cost to "build" included the cost
of the facility, the cost of the equipment, and the cost of installing
the equipment. The cost to "close" imagines that the facility is
deactivated, the equipment is removed, the space is rehabilitated,
and the facility is sold out of the automotive sector. Labor to
remove the equipment is taken as 507» of the cost to install it,
equipment is sold at 3% of new value for transfer lines and 20%
for standard equipment, and the restored space is sold after reno-
vation for 62% of its cost to build. Using these procedures and a
variety of industry cost data, the costs to build and close one unit
were obtained for each of the 273 resources.
With each investment in the Build/Close Cost Matrix is
associated a decision lead time. This is the estimated time from
a decision to build a new resource until it is in production. For
most resources, the decision lead time is 2 to 3 years. The investment
lead time, the time when the investment for building the resource
is effectively committed, is taken as half the investment lead time,
or about a year in most cases.
One other factor in the handling of the investments should
be noted at this point. Investments made late in the simulation
have limited vehicles over which to amortize them. Consequently,
investments made in the last four years are attenuated to account
for this effect. SpecifiCftiiy) investments to be made in 1982, 1983,
1984 and 1985 are reduced 20%, 40%, 60% and 80%, respectively.
We are now in a position to transform the Incremental
Resources Table into an Incremental Investment Table as is done by
the incremental investment program. For a given resource starting
in 1970, compare the incremental resources for the baseline and the
test scenario. If these two numbers are the same (whether 0, +1 or -1),
there is no incremental investment. If the number in the test scenario
is +1 and the baseline is 2ero, we must invest in the prior year
247
-------
to build one resource. If the number in the test scenario is -1
and the baseline is 0, we will recover the "close" cost a year later.
If the number in the test scenario is 0 and the baseline is +1,
we have avoided building one resource and will recover that investment
a year earlier. And, finally, if the number in the test scenario is
0 and the baseline is -1, we have failed to close a resource in the
test scenario and will be penalized the amount of the close cost a
year later. Proceeding in this fashion, we convert the Incremental
Resources Needed file into a schedule of Incremental Investment
Needed for the test scenario. This investment is then totalled by
year for investment, investment recovered, and the net of these. The
results are printed in the Yearly Investment Report, completing Step
E.
Initially it -was thought that investments could be evaluated
without taking interest into consideration. Adding interest into
the calculation brought sufficient realism to the study, particularly
for economists, that it was considered worth-while. The real interest
rate (after removal of inflation) was taken as 4%.
The interest calculation was done in the following iterative
way. Select a resource and find the net investment over the term
of the scenario. Guess the total amount of interest over the scenario
as a percentage of the total investment (an arbitrary initial choice
of 5% was used based on experience). Starting with the year of first
investment, add the principal outstanding at the end of the prior
year (zero for the first year of investment) to the investment to be
made in that year. Regard this amount as the average principal
outstanding for the year and calculate the interest for the year at 4%.
At the end of the year, add the average principal plus interest
together and then decrease it by the investment recovered through sales
for that year. The investment recovered by sales is simply the
fraction of cars using this resource (the sales of cars using this
resource this year divided by the total scenario sales using this
248
-------
resource) times the scenario total interest plus investment for this
resource. This process is continued year by year through the scenario,
until the final year's principal outstanding is found. This, of
course, should be zero. If it is not, a new estimate is made of the
total interest, and the process is repeated iteratively until the
final principal outstanding is zero. The final interest is noted
year by year for that resource, and the process is repeated for all
resources. At the end, principal and interest are available year
by year and resource by resource for that scenario, completing Step
F.
The final Step G in Figure Ll is.to apportion the investment
4
costs and interest by the type of vehicle using the resource. The
purpose here is to determine the relative competitive position of
different technologies.
In the assignment process, investment interest and invest-
ment (both positive and negative) are treated in an analogous fashion
and so all will be referred to generically as investment expenditures
in what follows. Select a resource and the first year of investment
expenditure for that resource. Find the total number of cars being
sold for the next three years which use that resource. Divide this
number into the investment expenditure and get an average investment
assessment per car. Tally the assessment year by year, and continue
this process for all investment expenditures for that resource. The
final result is an investment assessment which fluctuates from year
to year, through the time frame of the scenario. Two summaries are
then prepared. The first summary prepared is the sales weighted
average of this investment assessment which is the average assessment
It should be understood that this is an alternative way of summar-
izing investment to the yearly summary. The investment pattern
fot both, year by year and resource by resource, is the same.
249
-------
per car and which might be assigned to recover the principal plus
interest. The difficulty with this measure is that it assumes that
future sales which will use this resource are as certain as near-term
sales, a fact contrary to the experience Df most businessmen. Conse-
quently, a businessman's number is also reported, that being the
maximum value of the investment assessment per car over the period
1975 to 1979. The assumption is that the assessment would be dis-
continued once the investment is recovered.
Following this procedure, the interest and principal are
calculated seperately and then the results are added. In the output
reporter, these are titled "Interest," "Principal," and "Total."
The maximum total investment assessment per car between 1975 and 1979
is titled "75-79 Max" in the output report.
In the computer program which does these calculations and
generates these reports, all intermediate outputs are printed out for
each run. This procedure greatly facilitates traceability of the
changes induced in the scenario under test. For data control, each
page of printout also contains a documentation line which lists
explicitly all input files and programs used to create the data on
that page. This procedure greatly reduces the possibility of sec-
tions of different computer runs being mistakenly collated together.
The output reports resulting from the application of these
procedures to the 18 scenarios of Table F1 are presented in Appendix
M.
250
-------
APPENDIX M
Summary of Investment Cost Data
(Compiled by Merrill L. Ebner and LeRoy H. Lindgren)
In this appendix, the output data from the investment cal-
culations described in Appendix L are presented. Table Ml presents
the investment data by vehicle for 18 scenarios. A designation such
as A/K indicates that A is the baseline scenario against which invest-
ments are being compared, and the K is the scenario being tested.
The first part of the serial number is the vehicle number as defined
in Table 3-2. Investment numbers are in 1974 dollars per vehicle.
A minus sign indicates that a net investment recovery of the amount
indicated has been credited to that car. The meanings of the various
investment columns are defined in Appendix G.
Investments, over Scenario A, are summarized by year for 18
scenarios in Table M2. All figures are in thousands of 1974 dollars.
A minus sign indicates a net investment recovery. The IN'T line
indicates the sum of all investments ¦which must be made (considered
as positive investments). The RV'Y line indicates the sum of all
investment recovered in that year (considered as negative investments).
The NET line is simply the arithmetic sum of the IN'T and RV'Y
values. Except of EXC and EXC-2, the values presented exclude any
consideration of conversions (that is, only complete lines are built
and closed as needed). The figures for EXC and ESC-2 do include a
conversion investment taken as $15 million for each additional 350,000
units of sales volume (scenario volume) in CVCC cars.
251
-------
TABLE Ml
Summary of Investment Costs by Vehicle for the Various Scenarios
252
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.4647
-0.0386
-0.5033
0.0
2
21112656
oc
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4MC
39C0
4.0N0X
-5.3127
-0.4041
-5.7168
0.0
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-9.4364
-0.6048
-10.0412
0.0
4
44115656
OC
STO/CARB
I NT A
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-1.2187
-0.2781
-1.4968
0.0
5
44116656
OC
STD/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TP,
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-1.4523
-0.1162
-1.5685
0.0
&
54117656
OC
STD/CARB
std
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
5.9872
0.2997
6.2868
6.4826
7
64118656
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
4.0N0X
-2.7132
-0.1695
-2.8827
0.0
8
11111655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
MINI
14
93-CID
M/TR
3. *HC
39C0
3.0NOX
1.8634
0.1138
1.9772
3.0705
9
21112655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
1.8634
0.1138
1.9772
3.0705
10
34113655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/FGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
1.8634
0.1138
1.9772
3.0705
11
44115655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
inta
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4MC
39C0
3.0N0X
1.8634
0.1138
1.9772
3.0705
12
44116655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
1.8634
0.1138
1.9772
3.0705
13
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
1.8634
0.1138
1.9772
3.0705
14
64118655
nc
STD/CARB
AI/FGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
1.8634
0.1138
1.9772
3.0705
15
11111655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
O.llll
0.0071
0.1182
0.2106
16
21112655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.1111
0.0071
0.1182
0.2106
17
34113655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0. 1111
0.0i)71
0.1182
0.2136
18
44115655
OC
STD/CAPB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.2074
0.0142
0.2216
0.3548
19
44116655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.2074
0.0142
0.2216
0.3548
20
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
std
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.2074
0.0142
0.2216
0.3548
21
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.2074
0.0142
0.2216
0.3548
22
11111469
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.4647
-0.0386
-0.5033
0.0
23
21112469
OC
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-5.3127
-0.4041
-5.7168
0.0
24
34113469
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-9.4364
-0.6048
-10.0412
0.0
25
44115469
OC
STD/CARB
INTA
V8
290-C10
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-1.2187
-0.2781
-1.4968
0.0
26
44116*69
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-1.4523
-0.1162
-1.5685
6.0
27
54117469
OC
STO/CARB
STD
V8
400—CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
5.9872
0.2997
6.2868
6.4826
26
64118469
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.7132
-0.1695
-2.8B27
0.0
Investment summary
SCENARIO A/B
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTERF5T
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90—C ID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NQX
-0.5112
-0.0285
-0.5398
-0.2625
2
21112656
oc
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-C ID
M/TR
3.4HC
3<>cn
4.0N0X
-0.5112
-0.0331
-0.5444
-0.2625
3
34113656
DC
STD/CARB
COUP
16
250-CID
A/TP
3.4HC
3VCQ
4.0N0X
-0.6571
-0.0852
-0.7423
-0.2625
4
44115656
DC
STD/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CQ
4.0MQX
-2.1985
-0.1326
-2.3312
-0.8572
5
4411b656
DC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.6856
-0.0583
-0.7439
-0.8572
6
54117656
OC
STD/CARB
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3-4HC
39C0
4-0N0X
-1.7297
-0.1222
-1.8520
-0.8572
7
64118656
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
4.0N0X
—0.6856
-0.0583
-0.7439
-0.8572
8
11U165S
oc
STD/CARB
AI/PGR
mini
14
90—CID
N/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3-onqx
0.6874
0.0684
0.7558
1.7929
9
21112655
oc
STD/CARB.
ai/egr
SUBC
14
153-C ID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NQX
0.6B74
0.0639
0.7512
1 .7929
10
34113655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COM*
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CQ
3.0NOX
0.5415
0.0119
0.5533
1.7929
11
44115655
oc
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4MC
39CH
3.ONOX
—0.9999
-0.0357
-1.0356
1.1983
12
44116655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
I NTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
0.5130
0.0387
0.5516
1.1983
13
54117655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
STO
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-0.5311
-0.0253
-0.5564
1.1983
14
64118655
oc
STD/CARB
Al/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NQX
0.5130
0.0387
0.5516
1.1983
15
11111655
ac
STO/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-0.4003
-0.0225
-0.4228
-0.1115
16
21112655
ac
STO/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.4Q03
-0.0271
-0.4273
-0.1115
17
34113655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
3">C0
3.ONOX
-0.5461
-0.0791
-0.6252
-0.1115
IS
44115655
nc
STO/CAPB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9989
-0.1200
-2.1189
-0.5716
19
44116655
oc
STD/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-C1D
A/TR
3.4HC
39CD
3.0N0X
-0.4859
-0.0457
-0.5316
-0.5716
20
54117655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.5301
-0.1096
-1.6397
-0.5716
21
64118655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
-0.4859
-0.0457
-0.5316
-0.5716
22
11111469
oc
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
H/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.5112
-0.0285
-0.5398
-0.2625
23
21112469
ac
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.5112
-0.0331
-0.5444
-0.2625
24
34113469
oc
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
2.QWC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.6571
-0 .0852
-0.7423
-0.2625
25
44115*69
oc
STD/CARB
INTA
V8
290—CID
A/TR
2.0HC
2JC0
NRNOX
-2.1905
-0.1326
-2.3312
-0.8572
26
44116469
oc
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-C10
A/TR
2.DHC
2 KG
NRNOX
-0.6856
-0.0583
-0.7439
-0.8572
27
54117469
ac
STD/CARB
STO
vs
400-tlD
A/TR
2.0KC
23CO
Nf?N3*
-1.T297
-0.1222
-1.052-3
-0.8572
28
64118469
oc
STO/CARB
LUX
Vfl
500-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CD
NRNOX
-0.6856
-0.0583
-0.7439
-0.8572
29
11121346
oc
VEft/CARB
AI/OEC.ft
MINI
14
90—CID
M/TR
l.SHC
15C0
3 .1N0X
3.1774
0.1974
3.3T4T
2.3072
30
21122346.
oc
VEN/CARB
Al/DEGft
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15CD
•3-.1N0X
3.1774
0.1928
3.3701
2.3072
31
3412 3346
ac
VEW/CAR-B
AI/BEGG
CQWP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1 • 5 H C
I SCO
3.1N0X
3.0315
0.1407
3.1722
2 .3072
32
44125346
ac
VFM/CAP6
AI/QEGR
INTA
YS
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1NCIX
1.6644
0.1231
1.7675
2.3072
33
44126346
oc
VFN/CARfi
AI/flEGfc
INTB
vs
350-CID
A/TR
1 .5-HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.5595
0.2326
3.1922
4.7691
3*
54127346
oc
VEV/CAR6
AT/f5EGR
STO
ve
400-CID
A/Tft
1.5HC
I 5C0
3.1NC3X
1.8154
0.16B7
1.9841
4 .7691
35
64128346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/QEGP
LUX
ve
500-CID
A/TR
l.SMC
1 5CD
3,1NOX
2.8595
0.2326
3.0922
4.7691
36
11121346
oc
VEN/CAR8
DEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
20.8936
1.2056
22.0993
21.2265
3T
21122346
oc
YEN/CAR6
DEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15CD
3.1N0X
20.8936
1.2010
22.3947
21.2265
38
34123346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COHP
16
250-CID
A/TR
l.SHC
15C0
3.1N0X
20.7478
1.1490
21.8968
21.2265
39
44125346
DC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTA
V«
290-CID
A/TR
l.SHC
15C0
3.1N0X
19.3807
1.1313
20.5120
21.2265
40
44126346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTS
VS
350-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1NQX
8.1444
0.5394
8.6838
9.9283
41
54127346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
STO
Vft
400—CIO
A/TR
l.SHC
15C0
3.1N0X
7.1002
0.4755
7.5757
9.9283
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/B'J'
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
ro
Ul
u
42 64128346
43 11121234
44 21122234
45 34123234
46 44125234
47 44126234
48 54127234
49 64128234
50 11121124
51 21122124
52 34123124
53 44125124
54 44126124
55 54127124
56 64128124
71 11121121
72 21122121
73 24123121
74 44125121
75 44126121
76 54127121
77 64128121
134 11141122
135 21142122
136 34143122
137 44145122
139 44146122
139 54147122
140 64148122
141 11141121
142 21142121
143 34143121
144 441*5121
145 44146121
146 54147121
147 64148121
OC VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500—CIO A/TR 1.5HC 15C0 3.1N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ON
OC VEN/CAR8 Al/OEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CI0 M/TR .9HC 15C0 2.0N
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB At/OEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-C10 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT STD V8 40O-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ON
OC VFN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB At/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STO V8 400-C1D A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
0C VEN/CARB Al/EFE/HNGCAT SUBC 14 153CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 ".4N0
nC VEN/CARB Al/EFE/HNGCAT COMP 16 250CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC VEN/CARB Al/EFE/HNGCAT INTA V8 290CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.
OC VEN/CARB Al/EFE/HNGCAT INTB V8 350CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB Al/EFE/HNGCAT STO
OC VEN/CARB AI/FFE/HNGCAT LUX
OC EF1/ECU HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 STO V8 400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PFGR/HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250CID A/TR «4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/€CU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INT* V8 290CT0 A/TR ,4HC 3.4CO .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 STD V8 400CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
.4C0 .4N0
• 4N0
V8 400CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
V8 500C1D A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
8.1444
21.9813
21.9813
21.8354
20.4683
9.2323
8.1879
9.2320
22.2183
22.2183
22.0724
20.3875
9.4690
8.4249
9.4690
39.5447
39.5447
39.5447
39.2269
32.6360
32.6360
32.6360
34.3613
34.3613
34.2154
32.8484
34.3613
33.3172
34.3613
35.6860
35.6860
35.5401
34.1730
35.5599
34.5158
35.5599
0.5394
1.2966
1.2920
1.2399
1.2222
0.6303
0.5664
0.6303
1.2924
1.2878
1.2358
1.2534
0.6262
0.5623
0.6262
2.4003
2.4003
2.4103
2.4356
2.1361
2.1361
2.1361
1.6867
1.6821
1.6301
1.6124
1.6867
1.6228
1.6867
1.7912
1.7866
1.7346
1.7169
1.7837
1.7198
1.7837
8.6838
23.2778
23.2732
23.0753
21.6906
9.8623
8.7543
9.8623
23.5107
23.5061
23.3082
21.6409
10.0952
8.9872
10.0952
41.9451
41.9451
41.9451
41.6625
34.7721
34.7721
34.7721
36.0480
36.3434
35.8455
34.4608
36.0480
34.9400
36.0480
37.4772
37.4726
37.2747
35.8899
37.3436
36.2355
37.3436
9.9283
23.1309
23.1309
23.1309
23.1309
11.8327
11.8327
11.8327
23.3809
23.3809
23.3809
25.8428
12.0827
12.0827
12.0827
42.5589
42.5589
42.5589
45.0208
37.7742
37.7742
37.7742
50.4764
50.4764
50.4764
50.4764
50.4764
50.4764
50.4764
52.6485
52.6485
52.6485
52.6485
52.5319
52.5319
52.5319
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/B* J *
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90—C10
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
2
21112656
OC
STD/CARB
SURC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
CO MP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3. 4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
4
44115656
OC
STO/CARB
I NT A
VB
290—CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
5
44116656
OC
STO/CARB
I NTH
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STD/CARB
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
7
64118656
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
8
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/FGR
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
0.8710
0.0740
0.9450
2.0185
9
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
3.8710
0.0740
0.9450
2.0185
10
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/FGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.8710
0.0740
0.9450
2.0185
11
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
I NT A
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.8019
0.0740
-0.7278
2.0185
12
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/FGR
INTB
V 8
350—CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
-0.8019
0.0740
-0.7278
2.0185
13
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-0.6019
0.0740
-0.7278
2.0185
14
64118655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
va
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
3.0N0X
-0.8019
0.0740
-0.7278
2.0185
15
11111655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0"
3.0Nnx
-3.3584
0.0
-0.3584
3.0
16
21112655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
17
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
3.0NOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
IS
44115655
nc
STO/CARB
EGR
INT 4
VB
290-CID
A/TR
3.*HC
39C0
3.3N0X
-1.9102
0.3073
-1.9030
3.1987
19
44116655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9102
0.0073
-1.9030
0.1987
20
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9102
0.0073
-1.9030
0.1987
21
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9102
0.0073
-1.9030
0.1987
22
11111469
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
23
21112469
OC
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
24
34113469
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
25
44115469
OC
STD/CARB
INT A
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
26
44116469
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350—CI 0
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
27
54117469
OC
STD/CARB
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
2 .OHC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
28
64118469
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
MINI
14
90-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
2.5698
0.1934
2.7631
3.9271
30
21122346
OC
VEN/CAR8
AI/OEGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15CQ
3.1N0X
2.5698
0.1934
2.7631
3.9271
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5FJC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.5698
0.1934
2.7631
3.9271
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.5698
0.1934
2.7631
3.9271
33
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3559
0.1725
2.5284
3.8452
34
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
STO
VB
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15 CO
3.1N0X
2.3559
0.1725
2.5284
3.8452
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
LUX
VB
500-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3559
0.1725
2.5284
3.8452
36
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
11.2687
0.7230
11.9917
17.9675
37
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1NQX
11.2687
0.7230
11.9917
17.9675
38
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.LN0X
11.2687
0.7230
11.9917
17.9675
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
11.2687
0.7230
11.9917
17.9675
40
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350—CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.1632
0.2832
4.4464
6.8144
41
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
4.1632
0.2832
4.4464
6.8144
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/C
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
42
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
43
11121234
oc
VEN/CAR8
44
21122234
OC
VEN/CARB
45
34123234
OC
VEN/CARB
46
44125234
oc
VEN/CARB
47
44126234
oc
VEN/CARB
48
54127234
oc
VEN/CARB
49
64128234
oc
VEN/CARB
50
11121124
oc
VEN/CARB
51
21122124
oc
VEN/CARB
52
34123124
oc
VEN/CARB
53
44125124
oc
VEN/CARB
54
44126124
oc
VEN/CARB
55
54127124
oc
VEN/CARB
56
64126124
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR 1.5HC 15CO 3,
AI/OEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-C10 M/TR . 9HC 9.0CO
AI/OEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CI0 M/TR .9HC 15CO
AI/OEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CID Am .9HC 9.0C0
AI/OEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-C10 A/TR .9HC 9.0CO
AI/OEGR/HCAT INTO V8 350-CIO A/TR .9HC 9.0CO
AI/OEGR/HCAT STD V8 400-C10 A/TR .9HC 9.0CO
AI/OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3,
AI/PEGR/WCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3,
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CIO A/TR .4HC 3,
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CIO A/TR *4HC 3.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTO V8 350-CIO A/TR .4HC 3,
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STO V8 400-CI0 A/TR
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CID A/TR
.4HC 3
•4HC 3
INOX
2.0NOX
2.0NDX
2.0NOX
2.0NHX
2.0N0X
2.0N0X
2-.0N0X
,4C0 2.
,4C0 2.
4CO 2.
4C0 2.
4C0 2.
4C0 2.
4CO 2.
4.1632
0.2832
4.4464
12.4981
0.7971
13.2952
12.4981
0.7971
13.29S2
12.4981
0.7971
13.2952
12.4981
0.7971
13.2952
5.3926
0.3573
5.7499
5.3926
0.3573
5.7499
5.3926
0.3573
5.7499
12.8632
0.8138
13.6771
12.8632
0.8138
13.6771
12.8632
0.8138
13.6771
12.6494
0.7930
13.4424
5.7577
0.3741
6.1318
5.7577
0.3741
6.1318
5.7577
0.3741
6.1318
NJ
Ul
"Nl
6.8144
19.9860
19.9860
19.9860
19.9860
8.8329
8.8329
8.8329
20.3047
20.3047
20.3047
20.2227
9.1516
9.1516
9.1516
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/C
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90—CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-0.3592
0.0
-0.3592
0.0
2
21112656
OC
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39CQ
4.0N0X
-0.3592
-0.0045
-0.3638
0.0
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CTD
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
4.0N0X
-0.5051
-0.0567
-0.5618
0.0
*
44115656
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
293-C I 0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-3.5481
-0.0743
-3.6224
0.0
5
44116656
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.0349
0.0
-2.0349
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARB
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-3.0786
-0.0639
-3.1425
0.0
7
64118656
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
4.0N0X
-2.0349
0.0
-2.0349
0.0
8
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
1.2361
0.1288
1.3649
5.0187
9
21112655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
1.2361
0.1242
1.3603
5.0187
10
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
1.0902
0.0721
1.1623
5.0187
11
44115655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290—CI 0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9528
0.0545
-1.8983
5.0187
12
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-C10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.4396
0.1288
-0.3108
5.0187
13
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
STD
V8
400-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.4833
0.0649
-1.4184
5.0187
1*
64118655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-0.4396
0.1288
-0.3108
5.0187
15
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.1680
0.0493
0.2173
3.3869
16
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.1680
0.0448
0.2128
3.3869
IT
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.0221
H) .0073
0.0148
3.3869
18
44115655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-2.9157
-0.0172
-2.9329
3.5475
19
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.4025
0.0572
-1.3454
3.5475
20
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-2.4462
-0.0067
-2.4530
3.5475
21
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.4025
0.0572
-1.3454
3.5475
22
11111469
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.3592
0.0
-0.3592
0.0
23
21112469
OC
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.3592
-0.0045
-0.3638
0.0
24
34113469
OC
STD/CARB
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.5051
-0.0567
-0.5618
0.0
25
44115469
OC
STD/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-3.5481
-0.0743
-3.6224
0.0
26
44116469
OC
STD/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.0349
0.0
-2.0349
0.0
27
54117469
OC
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-3.0786
-0.0639
-3.1425
0.0
28
64118469
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.0349
0.0
-2.0349
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15CQ
•3.1N0X
2.3400
0.1936
2.5336
3.6563
30
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3400
0.1891
2.5291
3.6563
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.1941
0.1370
2.3311
3.6563
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
0.8268
0.1193
0.9461
3.6563
33
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
2.3948
0.1988
2.5936
3.9695
34
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.3511
0.1349
1.4860
3.9695
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
LUX
V8
590-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3948
0.1988
2.5936
3.9695
36
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.6674
0.7167
11.3841
17.4818
37
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.6674
0.7122
11.3796
17.4818
38
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.5215
0.6601
11.1816
17.4818
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCXT
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
9.1541
0.6424
9.7966
17.4818
40
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.5113
0.3232
4.8345
7.5584
41
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
3.4675
0.2593
3.7269
7.5584
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/C»J«
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
N
Ul
(O
42 64128346
43 11121234
44 21122234
45 34123234
46 44125234
47 44126234
48 54127234
49 64128234
50 11121124
51 21122124
52 34123124
53 44125124
54 44126124
55 54127124
56 64128124
71 11121121
72 21122121
73 34123121
74 44125121
75 44126121
76 54127121
77 64128121
134 11141122
135 21142122
136 34143122
137 44145122
138 44146122
139 54147122
140 64148122
141 11141121
142 21142l2i
143 34143121
144 44145121
145 44146121
146 54147121
147 64148121
OC VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR 1.5HC 15C0 3.1N0X
OC VEN/CAPB AI/DEGP/HCAT MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .9HC 9.0CC1 2.0N
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CI0 H/TR . 9HC 15C0 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR *9HC 9.0C0 2.0N
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INT8 V« 35Q-CIO A/TR- .9HC 9.0CO 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT STD V8 400-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CC1 2.ON
OC VEN/CARB. AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB Al/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-C1D A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STD V8 400-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB A!/EFE/HNGCAT MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT SUBC 14 153CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC V^N/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT COMP 16 25\>CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.'tC0
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTA V8 290CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTB V8 350CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT STO
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFg/HNGCAT LUX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 MINI 14
• 4N0
• 4N0
• 4N0
• 4N0
• 4N0
V8 400CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4NQ
V8 500CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CQ .4N0
90—CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CID A/TR . 4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CID A/TR »4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC €F!/ECU HMCCAT/n2 I+tTB V8 350-CIO A/TR y+HC 3.4C0 ItONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/A2 STD V8 400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500-CID A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU AI/»»EGR/HNCCAT/n2 MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/FCU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 STO VB 400CI0 A/TR *4HC 3.4C0 .4
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500CID A/TR «4HC 3.4C0 .4
4.5113
0.3232
4.8345
7.5584
11.7355
0.7962
12.5317
19.1136
11.7355
0.7917
12.5271
19.1136
11.5896
0.7395
12.3291
19.1136
10.2223
0.7219
10.9441
19.1136
5.5794
0.4027
5.9821
9.1902
4.5357
0.3388
4.8744
9.1902
5.5794
0.4027
5.9821
9.1932
11.8541
0.8030
12.6570
19.2289
11.8541
0.7984
12.6525
19.2289
11.7082
0.7463
12.4545
19.2289
10.3956
0.7338
11.1295
19.5421
5.6980
0.4094
6.1074
9.3055
4.6543
0.3456
4.9998
9.3055
5.6980
0.4094
6.1074
9.3055
29.2361
1.9142
31.1504
38.4715
29.2361
1.9142
31.1504
38.4715
29.2361
1.9142
31.1504
38.4715
29.2909
1.9194
31.2103
38.7847
25.8861
1.7665
27.6526
33.6665
25.8861
1.7665
27.6526
33.6665
25.8861
1.7665
27.6526
33.6665
34.3344
1.6905
36.0249
50.4921
34.3344
1.6860
36.0204
53.4921
34.1885
1.6339
35.8224
50.4921
32.8212
1.6162
34.4374
50.4921
34.3344
1.6905
36.0? 4-9
50.4921
33.2907
1.6266
34.9173
50.4921
34.3344
1.6905
36.0249
50.4921
35.5839
1.7812
37.3641
52.3270
35.5839
1.7757
37.3596
52.3270
35.4380
1.7235
37.1616
52.3270
34.0707
1.7059
35.7766
52.3270
35.9297
1.8193
37.7490
55.5107
34.8860
1.7554
36.6414
55.51Q7
35.9297
1.8193
37.7490
55.5107
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/C•J•
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90—CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
76.5063
3.9460
80.4523
82.8356
2
21112656
OC
sto/carb
SU8C
14
153-C10
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
29.4131
2.5610
31.9741
46.1390
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39CQ
4.0N0X
35.9222
2.9980
38.9202
36.8878
4
44115656
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
11.0822
0.9842
12.0665
14.3501
5
44116656
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-18.3562
-1.2420
-19.5982
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-142.0713
-11.4900
-153.5613
-1.1676
7
64118656
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
4.0NOX
-14.1983
-0.6758
-14.8740
0.0
8
11111655
OC
std/carb
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
77.8543
4.0279
81.8821
85.0038
9
21112655
OC
std/carb
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.9N0X
30.7611
2.6428
33.4039
48.3072
10
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
37.2701
3.0799
40.3500
39.0560
11
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
12.4302
1.0661
13.4963
16.5183
12
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-17.0082
-1.1631
-18.1683
2.1682
13
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-140.7233
-11.4081
-152.1314
1.0006
14
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-12.8503
-0.5939
-13.4442
2.1682
15
11111655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C9
3.0NOX
76.5063
3.9460
80.4523
82.8356
lb
21112655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
29.4131
2.5610
31.9741
46.1390
17
34113655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
35.9222
2.9980
38.9202
36.8878
IB
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-C1D
A/TR
3.VIC
39C0
3.3N0X
11.2387
0.9932
12.2319
14.5655
19
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTB
VB
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-18.1997
-1.2331
-19.4327
0.2153
20
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-141.9149
-11.4811
-153.3959
-0.9523
21
64118655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CIQ
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-14.0418
-0.6668
-14.7086
0.2153
22
11111469
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
76.5063
3.9460
80.4523
B2.8356
23
21112469
OC
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153—CI 0
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
29.4131
2.5610
31.9741
46.1390
24
34113469
OC
STD/CARB
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23CQ
NRNOX
35.9222
2.9980
38.9202
36.8878
25
44115469
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
11.0822
0.9842
12.0665
14.3501
26
44116469
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
2.OHC
23C0
NRNOX
-18.3562
-1.2420
-19.5982
0.0
27
54117469
OC
STD/CARB
STO
VB
400-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-142.0713
-11.4900
-153.5613
-1.1676
28
64118469
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
VB
500-CI0
A/TR
2.<)HC
23C0
NRNOX
-14.1983
-0.6758
-14.8740
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
MINI
14
90—C10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
79.8208
4.1737
83.9946
87.3122
30
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
32.7277
2.7887
35.5164
50.6155
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
I.5HC
I5C0
3.1N0X
39.2367
3.2257
42.4624
41.3644
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
16.0690
1.2120
17.2809
18.8267
33
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-13.3742
-1.0230
-14.3972
4.7463
34
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DFGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-137.0893
-11.2710
-148.3603
3.5787
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-9.2163
-0.4567
-9.6730
4 . 7463
36
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
85.1458
4.6508
89.7966
98.3633
37
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
38.0526
3.2658
41.3184
61.6666
38
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250—CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
44.5617
3.7028
48.2645
52.4155
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAt
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
21.3939
1.6890
23.0830
29.8778
40
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-10.6220
-0.8275
-11.4495
9.4335
41
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-134.3371
-11.0755
-145.4126
8.2659
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/CSV
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
42
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
43
11121234
oc
VEN/CARB
44
21122234
oc
VEN/CARB
45
34123234
OC
VEN/CARB
46
44125234
OC
VEN/CARB
47
44126234
oc
VEN/CARB
48
54127234
oc
VEN/CARB
49
64128234
oc
VEN/CARB
50
11121124
oc
VEN/CARB
5L
21122124
oc
VEN/CARB
52
34123124
oc
VEN/CARB
53
44125124
OC
VEN/CARB
54
44126124
OC
VEN/CARB
55
54127124
OC
VEN/CARB
56
64128124
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CTD A/TR 1.5HC 15C0 3.1NOX
AI/DEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CIO M/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CI0 M/TR .9HC 15C0 2.0N0X
AI/OEGR/HCAT COW 16 250-CID A/TR .9HC 9.QC0 2.0N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
AI/OEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CIO A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
AI/OFGR/HCAT STD V8 400-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.0NOX
AI/OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE HINT 14 90-C1D M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/FFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STD V8 400-C1D A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 50O-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
-6.4641
-0.2612
-6.7253
9.4335
86.4938
4.7327
91.2265
100.5314
39.4006
3.3476
42.7482
63.8348
45.9097
3.7B46
49.6943
54.5836
22.7419
1.7709
24.5128
32.0459
-9.2740
-0.7456
-10.0196
11.6017
-132.9891
-10.9936
-143.9827
11.4341
-5.1161
-0.1794
-5.2955
11.6017
86.8783
4.7508
91.6291
100.8721
39.7851
3.3658
43.1509
64.1754
46.2941
3.8028
50.0970
54.9243
23.1216
1.7804
24.9020
32.6562
-8.8896
-0.7274
-9.6170
11.9423
-132.6047
-10.9754
-143.5801
10.7747
-4.7317
-0.1612
-4.8928
11.9423
to
ON
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/CSV
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90—C10
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
2
21112656
OC
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153—CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250—CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.3584
0.1
-0.3584
0.0
4
44115656
OC
STD/CAR8
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
5
44116656
OC
STD/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
T
64118656
OC
STO/CARR
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0.N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
8
11111655
OC
ST0/CAR8
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.4979
0.0794
0.5773
1.3048
9
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CI0
M/TR.
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
3.4979
0.0794
0.5773
1.3048
10
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.4979
0.0794
0.5773
1.3048
11
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
A!/EGR
INTA
V8
290—CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-1.1750
0.0794
-1.0956
1.3048
12
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V 8
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.1750
0.0794
-1.0956
1.3048
11
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.1750
0.0794
-1.0956
1.3048
14
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V 8
500-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-1.1750
0.0794
-1.0956
1.3048
15
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
lb
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
17
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.-0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
IB
44115655
t)C
STO/CARB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9470
0.0078
-1.9392
0.1285
19
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTB
V 8
350—CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9470
0.0078
-1.9392
0.1285
20
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9470
0.0078
-1.9392
0.1285
21
64118655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-1.9470
0.0078
-1.9392
0.1285
22
11111469
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-C 10
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
23
21112469
OC
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
24
34113469
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
25
44115469
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-C 10
A/TR
2.0HC
2iC0
NRNOX
-2.0313
O.T
-2.0313
0.0
26
44116469
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350—CI 0
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
27
54117469
OC
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
2«
64118469
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
5C0-C 10
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4028
0.2180
2.6208
3.5540
30
21122346
OC
VEN/CAR8
AI/OEGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4028
0.2180
2.6208
3.5540
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4028
0.2180
2.6208
3.5540
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4028
0.2180
2.6208
3.5540
33
44126346
OC
VEN/CAR8
AI/OEGR
INTB
V8
350—CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3571
0.2206
2.5777
4.1776
3*
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TP.
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3571
0.2206
2.5777
4.1776
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CAPfl
AI/OEGR
LUX
V8
500—CIO
A/YR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
2.3571
0.2206
2.5777
4.1776
36
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.8396
0.7043
11.5439
17.2739
3/
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
SU8t
14
153-C10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.8396
0.7043
11.5439
17.2.739
38
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.8396
0.7043
11.5439
17.2739
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.8396
0.7043
11.5439
17.2739
40
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTB
va
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.5359
0.3259
4.8617
7.8574
41
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.5359
0.3259
4.8617
7.8574
investment summary
SCENARIO A/E
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
42
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
43
11121234
nc
VEN/CARB
44
21122234
OC
VEN/CARB
45
34123234
OC
VEN/CARB
46
44125234
OC
VEN/CAPS
47
44126234
OC
VEN/CAP8
48
54127234
OC
VEN/CARB
49
64128234
OC
VEN/CAPB
50
11121124
OC
VEN/CARB
51
211221Z4
OC
VEN/CARB
52
34123124
OC
VEN/CARB
53
44125124
OC
VEN/CARB
54
44126124
OC
VEN/CARB
55
54127124
OC
VEN/CARB
56
64128124
OC
VEN/CARB
134
11141122
OC
FFI/ECU
135
21142122
OC
EFI/ECU
136
34143122
OC
EFI/ECU
137
44145122
OC
EFI/ECU
138
44146122
OC
EFI/ECU
139
54147122
OC
EFI/ECU
140
64148122
OC
EFI/ECU
AI/DEGR/HCAT SUBC
AI/OEGR/HCAT COMP
OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR 1.5HC 15CO 3
AI/DEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .9HC 9.0C0
14 9.03—CID M/TR ,9HC 15C0
16 Z50-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AI/OEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.9C0
AI/OEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AI/OEGR/HCAT STD V8 400-CtD A/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AI/OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR *4HC 3
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3
a?
CO
AI/PEGR/HCAT/FFE
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE
HNCCAT/02 -MINI 14
HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14
HNCCAT/02
HNCCAT/02
STO V8 400-CI0 A/TR .*HC 3
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3
90-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 1
153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 I
HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 1
HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 1
HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 1
STO V8 400-CID A/TR «4HC 3.4C0 1
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 1
. 1N0X
2.0NOX
2.0N0X
2.0N0X
2.0N0X
2.0NOX
2.0NOX
2.0N0X
•4C0 2.
•4C0
»4C0
• 4C0
.4C0 2.
•4C0 2.
•4C0 2.
.ONOX
.ONOX
.ONOX
.ONOX
.ONOX
.ONOX
.ONOX
2.
2.
2.
4.5359
0.3259
4.8617
7.8574
11.6959
0.7B37
12.4796
18.5787
11.6959
0.7837
12.4796
18.5787
11.6959
0.7837
12.4796
18.5787
11.6959
0.7837
12.4796
18.5787
5.3922
0.4052
5.7974
9.1622
5.3922
0.4052
5.7974
9.1622
5.3922
0.4052
5.7974
9.1622
11.8491
0.7906
12.6397
18.8777
11.8491
0.7906
12.6397
18.8777
11.8491
0.7916
12.6397
18.8777
11.6034
0.7932
12.5966
19.5013
5.5454
0.4122
5.9576
9.4612
5.5454
0.4122
5.9576
9.4612
5.5454
0.4122
5.9576
9.4612
37.1766
2.0881
39.2648
45.0166
37.1766
2.0881
39.2648
45.0166
37.1766
2.0881
39.2648
45.0166
37.1766
2.0881
39.2648
45.0166
37.1766
2.0881
39.2648
45.0166
37.1766
2.0881
39.2648
45.0166
37.1766
2.0881
39.2648
45.0166
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/E
-------
SERIAL ND.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
I
11111656
OC
STO/CARB
1! NT
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
—0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
2
21112656
oc
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4MC
39CQ
4.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.3
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
4.0N0X
-0.3534
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
4
44115656
oc
STD/CARB
INTA
VB
290—CID
A/TR
2.4HC
39CO
4.0NOX
-2.0313
o.o
-2.0313
0.0
5
44116656
oc
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-C 10
A/TR
3.
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 NAX
42
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
43
11121234
OC
VEN/CARB
44
21122234
OC
VEN/CARB
45
34123234
OC
VFN/CARB
46
44125234
OC
VEN/CARB
47
44126234
OC
VFN/CARB
48
54127234
OC
VEN/CARB
49
64128234
OC
VEN/CARB
50
11121124
OC
VEN/CARB
51
21122124
OC
VEN/CARB
52
34123124
OC
VEN/CARB
53
44125124
OC
VEN/CARB
54
44126124
OC
VEN/CARB
55
54127124
OC
VEN/CARB
56
64128124
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR L.5HC 15CO 3<
A!/DEGR/HCAT MINI I* 90-CID M/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AI/DEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CID M/TR .9HC 15CO
AI/DEGR/HCAT C01P 16 250-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AI/DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CCJ
AI/DEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO
AI/OEGR/HCAT STf) VB 400-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AI/DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0
AT/PPGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR
,4HC 3.
. 4HC 3
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3,
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/FFE
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE
STD V8 400—C10 A/TR .4HC 3
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3
INOX
2.0NOX
2.0N0X
2.0MOX
2.0NOX
2.0NOX
2.0N0X
2.0NOX
4C0 2.
4C0 2.
4C0 2.
4C0 2.
4C0 2.
4C0 2.
4C0 2.
4.5359
0.3259
4.8617
7.8574
9.4941
0.7644
10.2585
17.1752
9.4941
0.7644
10.2585
17.1752
9.4941
0.7644
10.2585
17.1752
9.4941
0.7644
10.2585
17.1752
5.3276
0.3997
5.7272
9.0761
5.3276
0.3997
5.7272
9.0761
5.3276
0.3997
5.7272
9.0761
9.6724
0.7702
10.4426
17.4536
9.6724
0.7702
10.4426
17.4536
9.6724
0.7702
10.4426
17.4536
9.7571
0.7796
10.5367
18.0051
5.5058
0.4055
5.9113
9.3544
5.5058
0.4055
5.9113
9.3544
5.5058
0.4055
5.9113
9.3544
N>
O
U>
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/*--2
-------
5ERI AL *n.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRTICTPAl
TNTroest
total
76-79 MAX
I
11111656
oe
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TK
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
2
21112656
OC
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-3.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
"9
34113656
DC
STD/CARB
COUP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.'tHC
39C0
4.ONOX
-0.35B4
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
4
44115656
OC
STD/CARB
I NT A
V8
290-CIO
A/TR
3.4NC
39Cn
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
Q.O
5
44116656
OC
STD/CARB
INTB
Vfl
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARQ
std
V8
410-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CQ
4.ONOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
T
64118656
oc
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
8
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.ONOX
0.4102
0.0739
0.4841
1.3171
9
21112655
OC
STD/CARB
A I/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR.
3.'+HC
39C0
3.0NOX
0.4102
0.0739
0.4841
1.3171
10
34113655
nc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3 .4MC
39CQ
3.0N0X
0.4102
0.0739
0.4641
1.3171
11
4411 5655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
3.ONOX
-1.2627
0.0739
-1.1888
1.3171
12
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
Al/EGR
INTB
V8
35Q-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-1.2627
0.0739
-1.1888
1.3171
13
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-1.2627
0.0739
-1.1888
1.3171
1*
64118655
nc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4MC
39C0
3.0NOX
-1.2627
0.0739
-1.1888
1.3171
15
11111655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
HtNI
14
90-cin
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.35B4
0.0
16
21112655
nc
STO/CARB.
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.35B4
0.0
17
34113655
oc
STD/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250—CID
A/TR
3.4 HC
39CO
3 .-ONOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
18
44115655
T3C
STD/CARB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-1.9556
0.0073
-1.9483
0.1297
19
44116655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
INTB
VB
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-1.9556
0.0073
-1.9483
0.1297
20
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-1.9556
0.0073
-1.9483
0.1297
21
64118655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3. ONOX
-1.9556
0.0073
-1.9483
0.1297
22
11111469
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
23
21112469
OC
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.35B4
0.0
24
34113469
OC
STD/CARB
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
25
44115'*69
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
26
44116469
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
VB
350-C10
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
27
54117469
OC
STO/CARB
STO
VB
400—C10
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
28
64118469
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
2.0 HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3 »1N0X
2.4024
0.2134
2.6159
3.5868
30
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4024
0.2134
2.6159
3.5868
31
34123346
OC
ven/carb
AI/OEGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1. 5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4024
0.2134
2.6159
3.5868
32
44125346
nc
VEN/CAR3
AI/OEGR
INTA
V8
290-CIO
A/TR
1 . 5KC
15C0
3.INOX
2.4024
0.2134
2.6159
3.5868
33
44126346
oc
VEN/CARB
Al/DEGB
INTB
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.2266
0.2017
2.4283
3.7942
24
5412T346
oc
VEN/CARB
*I/OEGR
STO
VB
400-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
V5C0
3.1N0X
2.2266
0.2017
2.4283
3.7942
35
64128346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.2266
0.2017
2.4283
3.7942
36
11121346
oc
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
1 .5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
11.0204
0.7336
11.7540
17.2889
37
21122346
oc
VEN/CARB
0EGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
11.0204
0.7336
11.7540
17.2389
38
34123346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
11.0204
0.7336
11.7540
17.2889
39
44125346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
11.0204
0.7336
11.7540
17.2889
40
44126346
oc
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15CQ
3.1N0X
4.552?
0.3206
4.8733
7.5536
~ 1
54127346
oc
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.5527
0.3206
4.8733
7.5536
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/EQ
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
N>
a»
42
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
43
11121234
oc
VEN/CARB
44 21122234
OC
VEN/CAR8
45
34123234
oc
VEN/CARB
46
44125234
oc
VEN/CARB
47
44126234
oc
VEN/CARB
48
54127234
oc
VEN/CARB
49
64128234
oc
VEN/CAPB
50
11121124
oc
VEN/CARB
51
21122124
oc
VEN/CARB
52
34123124
oc
VEN/CARB
53
44125124
oc
VEN/CARB
54
44126124
oc
VEN/CAPB
55
54127124
oc
VEN/CARB
56
64128124
oc
VEN/CARB
134
11141122
oc
EFI/ECU
135
21142122
oc
efi/ecu
136
34143122
oc
EFI/ECU
137
44145122
oc
EFI/ECU
138
44146122
oc
EFI/ECU
139
54147122
oc
EFI/ECU
140
64148122
oc
EFI/ECU
190 11631123
* Q/OC MFI
191
21632123
tt/DC MFI
192
31633123
D/DC MFI
193 44635123
D/DC MFI
194 44636123
Q/OC MFI
195
54637123
D/DC MFI
196
64438123
D/DC MFI
.4C0 2.
,4HC 3.4CO 2.
DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR 1.5HC I5CO 3.1N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .9HC 9 .OCO 2.0N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT SU8C 14 9.03-CID M/TR .9HC 15C0 2.0N0X
AI/OEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.0N0X
Al/DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.OCO 2.0N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.0N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT STD V8 400-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .9HC 9.OCO 2.0N0X
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CIO M/TR ,«HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-ClD M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR
AI/PEGR/HCAT/FFE STO V8 400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4CO l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4MC 3.4CQ l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 STD V8 400-CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO l.ONOX
mm 14 90-CID M/TR Q.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
SUBC 14 165-CI0 M/TR 0.4HC 3.4CO 2.0N0X
COMP 16 250-CID M/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
INTA V8 250-CID A/TR 0.4HC 3.4CO 2.0N0X
INTB V8 250-CI0 A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
STD V8 350-CID A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
LUX V8 450-CI0 A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
4.5527
11.7889
11.7889
11.7889
11.7889
5.3213
5.3213
5.3213
11.8928
11.8928
11.8928
11.7169
5.4251
5.4251
5.4251
45.8657
45.8657
45.8657
45.8657
45.8657
45.8657
45.8657
8.271a
8.2710
8.2710
8.2710
8.2710
8.2710
8.2710
0.3206
0.8075
0.8075
0.8075
0.8075
0.3945
0.3945
0.3945
0.8138
0.8138
0.8138
0.8020
0.4308
0.4008
0.4008
2.6616
2.6616
2.6616
2.6616
2.6616
2.6616
2.6616
0.8757
0.8757
0.8757
0.8757
0.8757
0.8757
0.8757
4.8733
12.5965
12.5965
12.5965
12.5965
5.7158
5.7158
5.7158
12.7066
12.7066
12.7066
12.5189
5.8259
5.8259
5.8259
48.5273
48.5273
48.5273
48.5273
48.5273
48.5273
48.5273
9.1467
9.1467
9.1467
9.1467
9.1467
9.1467
9.1467
7.5536
18.6061
18.6061
18.6061
18.6061
8.8707
8.8707
8.8707
18.7464
18.7464
18.7464
18.9538
9.0111
9.0111
9.0111
52.6602
52.6602
52.6602
52.6602
52.6602
52.6602
52.6602
26.5763
26.5763
26.5763
26.5763
26.5763
26.5763
26.5763
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/ED
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
S3
&
oo
1
11111656
nc
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90—CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
2
21112656
oc
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
3
34113656
nc
STD/CARB
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.3 584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
4
44115656
oc
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C3
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.3313
0.0
5
44116656
oc
STO/CAPB
INTR
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
6
54117656
oc
STO/CARB
STD
V8
400—CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
7
64118656
oc
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.3313
0.0
8
11111655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-C I D
M/TP
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0. 5341
0.0827
0.6169
1.2997
9
21112655
oc
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-C 10
M/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
0.5341
0.0827
0.6169
1.2997
10
34113655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
3 9C0
3.0NOX
0.5341
0.0827
0.6169
1.2997
11
'~4115655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.1387
0.0827
-1.0560
1.2997
12
44116655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3. 4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.1387
0.0827
-1.0560
1.2997
13
54117655
nc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.1387
0.0827
-1.0560
1.2997
14
64118655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/CGR
LUX
V 8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-1.1387
0.0827
-1.0560
1.2997
15
11111655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-C 10
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
16
21112655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
17
34113655
oc
STD/CARB
EG"
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
3.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
18
44115655
oc
STO/CAPB
EGP
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-1.9434
0.0081
-1.9353
0.1280
19
44116655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9434
0.0081
-1.9353
0.1280
20
54117655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
STO
VB
400-C ID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-1.9434
0.0081
-1.9353
0.1280
21
64118655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
LUX
VB
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9434
0.0081
-1.9353
0.1280
22
11111469
oc
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.3 5 84
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
23
21112469
oc
STO/CARB
SUBC
T 4
153-CIO
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
24
34113469
oc
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
2 .OHC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
25
44115469
oc
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
26
44116469
oc
STD/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
2.OHC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
27
54117469
oc
STO/CARB
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
2.OHC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
28
64118469
oc
STO/CA"B
L1JX
V 8
500-CID
A/TR
2.OHC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
29
11121346
oc
VFN/CARB
AI/DEGR
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4705
0.2175
2.6880
3.4815
30.
21122346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4705
0.2175
2.6880
3.4815
31
34123346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.4705
0.2175
2.6880
3.4815
32
44125346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C3
3.1N0X
2.4705
0.2175
2.6880
3.4815
33
44126346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3567
0.2108
2.5676
3.7845
34
5412 7346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3567
0.2108
2.5676
3.7845
35
6412 8346
oc
VEN/CA03
AI/OEGR
LUX
V8
500-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3567
0.2108
2.5676
3.7845
36
11121346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.8171
0.7138
11.5309
17.4076
37
21122346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.8171
0.7138
11.5309
17.4076
38
34123346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.8171
0.7138
11.5309
17.4076
39
4412 5346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.8171
0.7138
11.5309
17.4076
40
44126346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350—CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.5589
0.3209
4.8798
7.5614
41
54127346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.5589
0.3209
4.8798
7.5614
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/ED-2
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
42
64128346
OC
VEN/CAPB
43
11121234
OC
VFN/CARB
44
21122234
OC
VFN/CARH
45
34123234
OC
VE
1/CARB
46
44125234
OC
V^N/CARB
4?
44126234
OC
VEN/CARB
43
5412 7234
OC
VEN/CARB
49
64128234
OC
VEN/CARB
50
11121124
nc
ve
N/CARB
51
21122124
OC
VFN/CARB
52
34123124
OC
VEN/CARB
53
44125124
OC
VEN/CARB
54
44126124
OC
VEN/CARB
55
54127124
OC
VEN/CAR B
56
6412 SI 24
OC
VEN/CARB
190
11631123
* D/OC
MP I
191
21632123
D/OC
MF I
192
31633123
0/OC
MF I
193
44635123
"Vt>C
MF I
194
44636123
D/OC
MF I
195
54637123
D/DC
MF I
196
64638123
o/oc
MF I
DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI
Al/QEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-
AI/DEC/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03
AI/OEGR/HCAT CHMP 16 250
AI/DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290
AI/DEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-
AI/DEGR/HCAT
AI/OEGR/HCAT
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC
STO V8 400-
LUX V3 500
T4
14
AT/&EGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16
AI/PEGR/HCAT/FFF INTA V0
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFF
AI/»EGR/HCAT/EFE
MINI 14
SUBC
14
STD V8
LUX V8
90-CID
165—C ID
COM® 16 2 50—CID
INTA V8 250—CIO
I NT8 V8 250—CID
STD V8 3 50—CID
LUX V8 450-CID
N>
o»
vO
D A/TR 1.5HC 15C0 3.1NOX
CID M/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.0N0X
i-CID *i/TR .9HC 15CD 2.0NOX
CID A/TR .9HC 9.3C0 2.QN0X
CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
CID A/TR ,9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
CIO A/TR •9HC 9.0C0 2.0NOX
¦CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.0N0X
90-C!f) M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
153—CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
250-C1D A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
350-C1D A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
M/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
M/TR 9.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
M/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0NOX
A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
A/TR 0.4HC 3.4CQ 2.0NQX
A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0N0X
A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.0NOX
4.5589
0.3209
4.8798
7.5614
11.7096
0.7965
12.5062
18.7073
11.7096
0.79S5
12.5062
18.7073
11.7096
0.7965
12.5062
18.7073
11.7096
0.7965
12.5062
18.7073
5.4515
0.4037
5.8551
8.8611
5.4515
Q.4037
5.8551
8.8611
5.4515
0.4037
5.8551
8.8611
11.8360
0.8037
12.6397
18.8439
11.8360
0.8037
12.6397
18.8439
11.8360
0.3037
12.6397
18.8439
11.7223
0.7970
12.5193
19.1469
5.5773
0.4108
5.9887
8.9977
5.5 778
0.4108
5.9887
8.9977
5.5778
0.4108
5.9887
8.9977
8.7679
0.7839
9.5518
20.5909
8.7679
0.7339
9.5518
20.5909
8.7679
0.7839
9.5518
20.5909
8.7679
0.7839
9.5518
20.5909
8.7679
0.7839
9.5518
20.5909
8.7679
0.7839
9.5518
20.5909
8.7679
0.7839
9.5518
20.5909
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/EO-2
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
1L1U656
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-0.5481
-0.0527
-0.6008
0.0
2
21112656
OC
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-0.5481
-0.0527
-0.6008
0.0
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
T6
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.5481
-0.0577
-0.6058
0.0
4
44115656
OC
STD/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.3383
-0.0962
-2.4345
0.0
5
44116656
OC
STD/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.2210
-0.0527
-2.2737
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARB
STD
va
400-CI0
A/TR
3.
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
N>
-J
42
64120346
43
11121234
44
21122234
45
34123234
46
44125234
47
44126234
48
54127234
49
64128234
50
11121124
51
21122124
52
34123124
53
44125124
54
44126124
55
54127124
56
64128124
85
11221346
86
21222346
87
34223346
88
44225346
89
44226346
90
54227346
91
64228346
134
11141122
135
21142122
136
34143122
137
44145122
138
44146122
139
54147122
140
64148122
211
1123112*
212
21232124
213
34233124
214
44235124
215
44236124
216
54237124
217
64238124
OC VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT LUX VB 500-CID A/TR I.5HC 15CO 3.1NOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT MINI I* 90-CI0 M/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CID M/TR .9HC 15CO 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT STO V8 400-CI0 A/TR ,9HC 9.0CQ 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AT/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA VB 290-C1D A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STO V8 400-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC/SC WEN/CAR* TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC/SC WEN/CAS 8 TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC EFI/ECU
OC ePf/ECU
OC EFI/ECU
OC EFI/FCU
OC FFI/ECU
OC EFI/ECU
OC EFI/EC'J
OC/SC MFI/HCAT
OC/SC MFI/HCAT
OC/SC MFI/HCAT
OC/SC MFI/HCAT
OC/SC MFI/HCAT
OC/SC MFI/HCAT
OC/SC MFI/HCAT
MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4CO .4N0X
COMP 16 250-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4NOX
INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
INTB VB 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.'tCO .4N0X
STO V8 400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 1.ONOX
mecAT/o? stme ia i?3-eio m/tr .4hc 3.-4C0 i.onox
HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-C10 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 I.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 I.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 I.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 STO VB 400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 I.ONOX
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 I.ONOX
MINI !4 90—CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.ONOX
SUBC I4 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.ONOX
COMP 16 250-CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
INTA V8 290—CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
STD V8 400—CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
LUX V8 500-CIO A/TR *4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
HNCCAT/02
4.9138
0.3652
5.2789
8.2610
11.5207
0.7756
12.2963
18.2764
11.5207
0.7756
12.2963
18.2764
11.5207
0.7706
12.2913
18.2764
11.4033
0.7322
12.1355
18.2764
5.8890
0.4434
6.3324
9.6178
5.3319
0.4078
5.7398
9.6178
5.8890
0.4434
6.3324
9.6178
11.6480
0.7787
12.4266
18.4310
11.6480
0.7787
12.4266
18.4310
11.648')
0.7737
12.4217
18.4310
11.3609
0.7256
12.0865
18.5726
6.0163
0.4465
6.4627
9.7724
5.4592
0.41>9
5.8701
9.7724
6.0163
0.4465
6.4627
9.7724
33.8541
1.5320
35.3861
37.7855
11.0304
0.T140
11.7443
16.3116
12.3797
0.8048
13.1846
16.5835
15.8210
1.2268
17.0479
25.5143
12.6852
1.0487
13.7339
24.2463
15.2403
1.2401
16.4804
26.8760
15.3375
1.2587
16.5962
27.5909
2.1411
0.1971
2.3383
4.0194
2.1411
0.1971
2.3383
4.0194
2.1411
0.1922
2,3333
4.0194
2.0238
0.1537
2.1775
4.0194
2.1411
0.1971
2.3383
4.0194
1.5841
0.1616
1.7457
4.0194
2.1411
0.1971
2.3383
4.0194
47.1361
2.7958
49.9319
97.6195
17.4856
1.3568
18.8424
31.6921
18.8350
1.4427
20.2777
31.9640
20.7522
1.5775
22.3297
35.3249
11.0368
1.0699
12.1067
23.0752
13.0349
1.2256
14.2606
25.7049
13.6892
1.2 798
14.9690
26.4198
INVt> (Mti-.. S: • "1ARY
SCENARIO »/£4t.
-------
SERIAL NT. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
1
11111656
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39CQ
4.ONOX
-0.3584
0.0
n
c.
21112656
DC
STO/CARQ
SUBC
14
153-CIO
m/tr
3.^HC
39C0
4.0^0X
-0.3534
-0.0310
3
34113656
rtc
STD/f.ARR
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
3 9 CO
4.ONOX
-1.8T45
-0.0910
4
44115656
DC
STD/CA^a
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TH
3.4HC
39C0
4 .kJ^iOX
-3.4755
-0.0T84
5
44116656
0C
sto/cars
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.+HC
39CQ
4.ONOX
-2.031 3
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STn/CAR<*
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
30CQ
4.0WX
-3.1725
-0.0312
7
64118656
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
V 6
500-CID
A/ TR
3.'+HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-2.0313
0.0
8
HI 11655
r>C
STO/CARB
A!/EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3. *HC
39C0
3 .ONOX
0» 6169
0.0782
9
21112655
oc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR.
3.4HC
39CU
3 .ONOX
0.6168
0.0772
10
34113655
OC
S TO/CAR 8
AI/FGR
CDMP
16
250—CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3. ONOX
-0.8992
-0.0128
11
44115655
oc
STO/CAR ft
A I/PGR
I NT A
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NDX
-2.5003
-0.0002
12
44116655
nc
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-Clf)
A/TR
3.4HC
39CH
3.ONOX
-I .0561
0.0782
13
54117655
OC
ST0/CA«
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-19 MAX
42
43
44
45
46
64^28346
11121234
2112223*
34123234
44125234
47 44126234
48 54127234
64128234
11121124
21122124
34123124
4*125124
4*126124
54127124
64128124
11221346
21222346
34223346
44225346
44226346
54227346
64228346
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
OC VEN/CARB OEOR/HCAT LUX V8 50*)-CI0 A/TR 1.5MC 15C0 3.1N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .WC 9.0C0 2.0NOX
OC VEN/CAR8 Al/fVEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CID M/TR »9HC 15C0 2.0NOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB Al/DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TP
OC VFN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR
STO V8 490-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.9N3X
LUX VB 500-00 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
90—CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
•9HC 9.0CO 2.0N0X
,9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
.4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT
OC VEN/CAR8 AI/OEGR/HCAT
OC VEN/CAR8 AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14
OC VEN/CARB AI/^EGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CAR6 AT/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR' .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INT8 V8 350-CI0 A/TR .*HC 3.4C0
OC VEN/CARB Al/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STO V8 400-CI0 A/TR
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR
nc/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB. TR
OC/SC VVFN/CARB TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
OC/SC VVEN/CARB TR
.4HC
> 4HC
2.
3.*C0 2.
3.4C0 2.
14 90-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
14 153-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
MINI
SUBC
COMP 16 250—CIO A/TR
INTA V8 290-CID A/TR
I NT8 V8 350-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
STD V8 400—CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
LUX V8 500—CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
.4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
.4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
4.9096
0.3735
5.2832
8.3219
12.0369
0.8616
12.8986
19.0342
12.0369
0.8606
12.8975
19.0417
10.5209
0.7706
11.2915
19.0342
10.5927
0.7833
11.3759
19.0342
5.8849
0.4517
6.3366
9.6787
4.7436
0.3706
5.1142
9.6787
5.8849
0.4517
6.3366
9.6787
12.1642
0.8647
13.0289
19.1888
12.1642
0.8637
13.0279
19.1963
10.6*81
0.7737
11.4218
19.1888
10.6839
0.7879
11.4719
19.4781
6.0121
0.4548
6.*670
9.8333
4.8709
0.3736
5.2*45
9.8333
6.0121
0.4548
6.*670
9.8333
28.4289
1.3807
29.8096
33.9367
6.0001
0.5726
6.5727
12.8751
7.3456
0.6631
8.0087
13.1423
11.9*80
1.0779
13.0259
19.9128
8.9510
0.9109
9.8619
18.7972
11.5011
1.1012
12.6023
21.4023
11.6001
1.1202
12.7203
22.1295
K>
"si
U>
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/ESC-2
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
2
21112656
oc
STO/CARB
suae
! 4
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39 en
4.0N0X
-0.3534
-0.0242
-0.3826
0.0
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-11.6454
-0.6466
-12.2920
0.0
4
44115656
nc
std/carb
I NT A
V8
290-C10
A/TR
3 . 4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.0313
-0.0236
-2.0549
0.0
5
44116656
oc
STO/CAPB
INTB
V8
35'1-C 10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.3N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
6
54117656
oc
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C3
4.0N0X
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
7
64118656
nc
sto/carb
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
8
11111655
oc
STfl/CAUB
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
3. '+HC
39C0
3.JN0X
0.5367
0.0830
0.6197
1.3113
9
21112655
oc
STD/CARB
AI/PGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.5367
0.0588
0.5955
1.3113
10
34113655
oc
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-10.7502
-0.5636
-11.3139
1.3113
11
44115655
oc
STD/CAPB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.1362
0.0594
-1.0768
1.3113
12
44116655
nc
STO/CARB
AI/FGR
INTB
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C n
3.0N0X
-1 .1362
0.0830
-1.0532
1.3113
IS
54117655
oc
STO/CA"B
AI/EGR
STO
V8
400-C!0
A/TR
3.4HC
39Cn
3.0N0X
-1.1362
0.0830
-1.0532
1.3113
14
64118655
nc
ST0/CAR3
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-cin
A/TR
3.4HC
39cn
3.0NOX
-1.1362
0.0830
-1.0532
1.3113
15
11111655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-C I 0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.3584
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
16
21112655
oc
ST9/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
-0.3584
-0.0242
-0.3826
0.0
17
34113655
nc
STD/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CTO
A/TR
3.4HC
39.C0
3.ON0X
-11.645'+
-0.6V66
-12.2920
•J.o
19
44115655
nc
STO/CAPB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CTO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1 .9432
-0.0155
-1.9586
0.1291
19
44116655
oc
STD/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9432
0.0082
-1.9350
0.1291
20
54117655
nc
std/carb
EGR
STO
V8
400-C TO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.9432
0.0082
-1.9350
0.1291
21
64118655
oc
5T0/CA"3
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
3.0NOX
-1.9432
0.0082
-1.9350
0.1291
22
11111469
oc
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
2.0HC
23 CO
NRNOX
-0.3534
0.0
-0.3584
0.0
23
21112469
oc
STO/CAPB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
2.3HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.35B4
-0.0242
-0.3826
0.0
24
34113469
oc
STO/CAPB
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-11.6454
-0.6466
-12.2920
0.0
25
44115469
oc
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.0313
-0.0236
-2.0549
0.0
26
44116469
oc
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNnX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
27
54117469
oc
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TP
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.0 313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
28
64118469
oc
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.0313
0.0
-2.0313
0.0
29
11121346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1NCIX
2.5141
0.2272
2.7413
3.6055
30
21122346
nc
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
SUBC
14
153—CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15 CO
3-.1N0X
2.5141
0.2031
2.7172
3.6055
31
34123346
oc
VEN/CAP3
AI/DEGR
COM°
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-8.7723
-0.4194
-9.1923
3.6055
32
44125346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTA
V8
290-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.5141
0.2036
2.7177
3.6055
33
44126346
oc
VEN/CAPB
AI/OEGR
INTB
V 8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3175
0.2233
2.5408
4.2396
34
54127346
oc
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
STD
VB
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.3175
0.2233
2.5408
4.2396
35
64128346
oc
VEN/CARB
•AI/OEGR
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1Nnx
2.3175
0.2233
2.5408
4.2396
36
11121346
oc
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HC.AT
MINI
14
90-CID
M/T<*
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.4860
0.6767
11.1627
17.0456
37
21122346
oc
VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-C1D
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.4860
0.6525
11.1385
17.0456
38
34123346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-0.8009
0.0300
-0.7739
17.0456
39
44125346
oc
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/tR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.4860
0.6530
11.1390
17.0456
40
44126346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.4577
0.3250
4.7827
7.9134
41
54127346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
4.4577
0.3250
4.7827
7.9134
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TDTAL 76-79 MAX
fc3
m
42
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
43
11121234
nc
VEN/CARB
44
21122234
oc
VEN/CARB
45
34123234
oc
VEN/CARB
46
44125234
oc
VEN/CARB
47
44126234
oc
VEN/CARB
48
5412 7234
nc
VEN/CARB
49
64128234
oc
VEN/CARB
50
11121124
ac
VEN/CARB
51
21122124
oc
VEN/CA'B
52
34123124
oc
V*N/CARB
53
44125124
oc
V=N/CARB
54
44126124
nc
VFN/CAR9
55
54127124
ac
VEN/CARB
56
64129124
oc
VCN/CA°B
134
11141122
nc
EFI/ECU
135
21142122
nc
EE 1/ECU
1?6
3414312-2-
be
IfS/££U
137
'~4145122
oc
FFl/ECd
138
44146122
oc
EFI/ECU
139
54147122
nc
EF1/ECU
14>
64148122
oc
EFI/ECU
176
11321124
w
AV/CARB
177
21322124
w
AV/CARft
178
34323124
w
AV/CARB
179
44325124
w
AV/CARB
ISO
44326124
V
AV/CARB
181
54327124
w
AV/CARB
182
64328124
w
AV/CARB
OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/TR 1.5HC 15CQ 3.1N0X
Al/DEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
AI /OEGR/HCAT SUBC 9.03-CID H/TR . 9HC 15C0 2.0N0X
AI/fJEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .9HC 9 .OCO 2.ONOX
AI/DEM/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
AI/flFGo/HCAT INTB VB 350-C1D A/TR
STD VB 400-CID A/TR
AI/DEGR/HCAT
At/OEGR/HCAT
•9HC 9.ICO 2.ONOX
.9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO Z.ONOX
At/PEf;R/HC\T/EFE MINI 14
.4HC 3.4CO 2.
90-CfO M/TR
AI/P5GR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
AI/PFGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2,
AI/PEf.R/HCAT/FFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .'~»« 3.VCO 2.
AI/PEC.R/HCAT/EFE INTB VS 350-CID A/TR .4IIC 3.4CO 2.
Al/PEGR/HCAT/FFE STD VB 400-CID A/T* .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/P^C/HCAT/EFF LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90-CIO M/TR .4HC
HNCCAT/02 SUBC T4 153-CID M/TR ,4HC
HNCCAT/Q2 COM? 16 250-CID A/TR . 4HC
HNCCAT/02 INTA VB 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 1.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
STD V8 400-CTD A/TR »4HC 3.4CO I.ONOX
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR
3.4C0 1 .ONCJX
3.4C0 I.ONOX
3.4CO I.ONOX
HNCCAT/02
HNCCAT/H2
IFC/HCAT MINI
IFC/HCAT SUBC
IFC/HCAT COMP
.4HC 3.4CO 1.ONOX
I» 114-CID M/TR 0.',HC 3.4C3 2.ONOX
2R 228-CID M/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.3NOX
2R 228—CID M/ 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
IFC/HCAT INTA 2PH 273-CID A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
IFC/HCAT INTB ZRH 273-CID A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
IFC/HCAT STD 4R 456-CID A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
IFC/HCAT LUX 4R 456-CID A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 2.ONOX
4.4577
0.3250
4.7827
7.9134
11.3811
0.7597
12.1408
18.3569
11.3811
0.7355
12.1166
18.3569
0.0942
0.1130
0.2072
18.3569
11.3811
0.7360
12.1172
18.3569
5.3528
0.4080
5.7608
9.2247
5.3528
0.40RO
5.7608
9.2247
5.3523
0.4080
5.7608
9.2247
11.5080
0.7669
12.2748
18.4949
11.5080
0.7427
12.2507
18.4949
0.2210
0.1202
0.3413
18.4949
11.3113
0.7393
12.0506
19.1291
5.4797
0.4152
5.8948
9.3627
5.4797
0.4152
5.8948
9.3627
5.4797
0.4152
5.8948
9.3627
52.0580
3.0227
55.0806
57.9195
52.0580
2.9985
55.0565
57.9195
43.7710
2.3760
43.1470
57.9195
52.0580
2.9990
55.0570
57.9195
52.0580
3.0227
55.0806
57.9195
52. n 58-1
3.0227
55.D806
57.9195
52.0580
3.0227
55.0806
57.9195
1060.8 313
36.3226
1097.1543
0.0
116.3116
3.86*6
12^.1761
137.5769
241.6012
9.0132
250.6144
330.4878
317.4622
10.9161
328.3782
354.2903
277.1609
10.3945
287.5552
303.8157
64.5913
2.0128
66.6041
77.2571
64.5913
2.0128
66.6041
77.2571
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/EW
-------
SFRIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
nc
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4MC
39CQ
4 .ONOX
-2.5178
-0.2733
-2.7911
0.0
2
21112656
oc
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-2.8893
-0.3186
-3.2079
0.0
3
34113656
nc
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/T1
3.4HC
39CQ
4.ONOX
-14. 1645
-0.8227
-14.9872
0.0
4
44115656
oc
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-8.9406
-0.5619
-9.5025
0.0
5
44116656
nc
STD/CARB
I NTH
V3
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-5.6176
-0.3866
-6.3042
0.0
6
54117656
oc
STD/CAPB
STO
V8
400-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-6.8794
-0.4870
-7.3664
0.0
7
64118656
oc
STU/CARB
LUX
V8
500-C10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-7.0679
-0.5019
-7.5699
0.0
8
11111655
nr.
STO/CARB
Al/FGR
MINI
14
90-aio
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-0.7246
-0.1189
-0.8435
9.2153
9
21112655
nc
STO/CARB
AI/E6R
SUBC
T 4
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-1.0961
-0.1642
-1.2603
9.2153
10
34113655
nc
STO/CARB
AI/FGR
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-12.3713
-0.5682
-13.0396
9.2153
11
44115655
nc
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-7.1474
-0.4075
-7.5549
9.2153
12
44116655
nc
STD/CAPB
AI/FGR
I NTS
V8
350-C10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-3.8244
-0.2322
-4.0566
9.2153
13
54117655
DC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
STD
V8
400-C10
A/TR
3 . 4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-5.0862
-0.3326
-5.4188
9.2153
14
64116655
DC
STO/CARB
Al/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-5.2747
-0.3475
-5.6222
9.2153
15
11111655
nc
STO/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39 CJ
3.ONOX
-1.7917
-0.2075
-1.9992
7.7471
16
21112655
DC
STO/CARB
EGR
SUBC
! 4
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-2.1631
-0.2528
-2.4160
7.7471
IT
34113655
nc
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-13.4384
—3.7569
-14.1952
7.7471
18
44115655
oc
STO/CAPB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39 en
3.ONOX
-8.1094
-0.4874
-8.5968
7.8916
19
44116655
oc
STO/CARB
EGR
I NTB
V8
350-CI 0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-4.7864
-0.3121
-5.0985
7.8916
20
54117655
nc
STD/CARB
EGR
STD
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-6.0482
-0.4125
-6.46T7
7.8916
21
54118655
oc
STD/CAPB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39CG
3.ONOX
-6.2367
-0.4274
-6.6641
7.8916
22
11111469
nc
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.5178
-0.2733
-2.7911
0.0
23
21112469
nc
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.8893
-0.3186
-3.2079
0.0
24
34113469
nc
STD/CAPB
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23Cn
NRNOX
-14.1645
-0.8227
-14.9872
0.0
25
44115469
oc
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-8.9406
-0.5619
-9.5025
0.0
26
44116469
oc
STO/CAPB
I NTB
VB
350-C10
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-5.6176
-0.3866
-6.0D42
0.0
27
54117469
nc
STO/CARB
STD
V8
400-C10
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-6.8794
-0.4R70
-7.3664
0.0
28
64118469
nc
STO/CAPB
LUX
V8
500-CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23CQ
NRNOX
-7.0679
-0.5019
-7.5699
0.0
20
11121346
nc
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
MINI
14
90-C! 0
M/TR
1.5HC
iscn
3•1N0X
2.2628
0.193S
2.4566
3.9483
3")
21122346
nc
VEN/CARB
AT/OEGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.8913
0.1485
2.0398
3.9483
31
34123346
oc
VEN/CAP B
AI/OEGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
1 SCO
3.1N0X
-9.3839
-0.3555
-9.7394
3.9483
32
44125 346
oc
VFN/CAPB
AI/DFGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.INrtX
-2.4871
-0.0948
-2.5819
3.9483
33
t41263V6
oc
VEN/CA»B
AI/OEGR
I NTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
0.7891
0.0847
0.8738
4.4557
34
5412 7346
oc
VFN/CARB
AI/OEGR
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1NDX
-0.4727
-0.0157
-0.4884
4.4557
35
64120346
nc
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-0.6612
-0.0306
-0.6918
4.4557
36
11121346
"C
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-C 10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.9132
0.7719
11.6850
18.3989
37
21122346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.5417
0.7265
11.2682
18.3989
38
34123346
oc
VEN/CARB
OEGR/tlCAT
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
iscn
3.1N0X
-0.7335
0.2225
-0.5110
18.3989
39
44125346
oc
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
6.1633
0.4832
6.6465
18.3989
40
44126346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
I NTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1NQX
3.1544
0.2363
3.3907
8.6247
~ 1
54127346
oc
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
1.8927
0.1359
2.0285
8.6247
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/Fl
-------
serial no. vehicle description
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
M
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
197
108
199
200
201
202
64128346
11121234
21122234
34123234
44125234
*4126234
54127234
64128234
11121124
2112212+
34123124
44125124
44126124
54127124
64128124
11141122
21142122
34143122
44145122
44146122
54147122
64148122
11231124
21232124
34233124
4423512 4
44236124
54237124
64238124
116 31123-
21632123
31633123
44635123
44636123
54637123
203 64638123
218 11121121
21122121
34123121
221 44125121
222 44126121
OC VEN/CARB Al/OEGR/HCAT
OC VPN/CARS AI/DEGR/HCAT
219
220
OC VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR 1.5HC 15C0 3.1N0X
OC VEN/CARB At/DEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .9HC 9.0CD 2.0N0X
OC VCH/CARB Al/OFGR/HCAT SU3C 14 9.03-CID ^/TR .9HC 15C0 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB M/OFGO/HCAT CO*P 16 250-CID A/TR ,9HC 9 .OCD 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.ONOX
STO V8 400—CIO A/TR .9HC 9.0C3 2.0N0X
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .9HC 9 .OCQ 2.0NOX
OC VEN/CARB-AI/"EGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-C10 H/TR . 4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB A1/PEG«/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-C10 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VCN/CAP8 AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CT0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARH At/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STO V9 400-CIO A/TR ,*»HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2,
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90-CID M/TR . 4HC 3.4C0 1.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 1.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .*HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 STD V8 400-CID A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
LUX Vft 500-CID A/TS ,4HC 3.4CO l.ONOX
MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ON
SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ON
COMP 16 253-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ON
INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ON
INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ON
STD V8 400-CID A/T<» .^HC 3.4C0 l.ON
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ON
' D/DC HFI/ECU MINI 14 90-CID M/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
D/DC MFI/FCU SUBC 14 165-C1D M/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
D/OC MFI/CC'J CO MP T 6 250-CIO M/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
D/DC MFI/ECU INTA V8 250-CIO A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
O/OC MFl/ECU INTB V8 250-CIO A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 1.3N0X
O/OC MFI/ECU STD V8 350-CID A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
D/DC MFI/ECU LUX V8 450-CID A/TR 0.4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNCAT MINI 14 90-CID M/TR ,*HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNCAT SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNCAT COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNCAT INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR .*HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNCAT INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02
OC EFI/ECU
OC EF I /EC'J
OC EFI/ECU
OC EFI/ECU
OC EFI/ECU
OC EFI/ECU
OC/SC/MFI EGR/HCAT
OC/SC/MFI EGR/HCAT
OC/SC/MFI EGR/HCAT
DC/SC/MF1 EGR/HCAT
OC/SC/MFI EGR/HCAT
OC/SC/MFI EGR/HCAT
OC/SC/MFI EGR/HCAT
1.7041
0.1209
1.8251
8.6247
11.9802
0.8605
12.8407
19.8671
11.6088
0.8151
12.4239
19.8671
0.3335
0.3111
0.6447
19.8671
7.2303
0.5719
7.8022
19.8671
4.2214
0.3249
4.5463
10.0929
2.9597
0.2245
3.1842
10.0929
2.7712
0.2096
2.9807
10.0929
12.0453
0.8653
12.9105
19.8709
11.6736
0.8199
12.4937
19.8709
0.3986
0.3159
0.7145
19.8709
7.2486
0.5838
7.8294
20.3783
4.2865
0.3*97
4.6161
10.0967
3.0247
0.2293
3.2540
10.0967
2.8362
0.2143
3.0505
10.0967
10.0958
1.0187
11.1145
27.8425
9.7244
0.9733
10.69T7
2 7.842 5
-1.5509
0.4693
-1.0815
27.8425
5.3459
0.7301
6.0760
2 7.842 5
8.6689
0.9054
9.5742
27.8425
7.4071
0.8050
8.2121
27.8425
7.2186
0.7900
8.0086
2 7.8425
15.4249
1.2279
16.6527
41.9762
3/.8689
2.0 786
39.9475
66.2879
27.0713
1.5968
28.6681
66.7953
44.3131
2.2893
46.6024
78.2820
5.3603
0.5359
5.8962
28.1125
4.0986
0.4355
4.5341
28.1125
3.9100
0.4206
4.3306
28.1125
10.8579
0.8945
11.7524
29.3671
10.4 864
0.8492
11.3356
29.3671
-0.7888
0.3452
-0.4437
29.3671
6.1080
0.6059
6.7139
29.3671
9.4309
0.7812
10.2121
29.3671
8.1692
0.6808
8.8500
29.3671
7.9806
0.6659
8.6465
29.3671
18.0886
1.2797
19.3683
26.9175
18.0886
1.2797
19.3683
26.9175
11.3357
1.0096
12.3453
26.9175
18.0418
1.2839
19.3757
27.4249
8.8693
0.8225
9.6917
17.2901
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/Fl
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
223 54127121
224 64128121
225 11221124
226 21222124
227 14223124
223 44225124
229 44226124
230 54227124
231 64228124
232 11321469
233 21322469
234 31323469
235 44325469
23 6 44326469
237 54327469
238 64328469
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNCAT
OC VEN/CARB Al/PFE/FNCAT
OC/SC VEN/CARB PEGR/TR
OC/SC VEN/CARB PEC/TR
OC/SC VFN/CA"ft PEGR/TR
OC/SC VEN/CARB PEGR/TR
OC/SC VEN/CARB PrGR/TR
OC/SC VEN/CARB PEGR/TR
OC/SC VEN/CARB PEGR/TR
W AV/CARB IFC/02/HNGCAT
W AV/CARB IFC/02/HNGCAT
W AV/CARB IFC/02/HNGCAT
W AV/CARB IFC/02/HNGCAT
H AV/CARB IFC/02/HNGCAT
W AV/CARB IPC/02/HNGCAT
W AV/CARB IFC/02/HNGCAT
STO V8 400-CI0 A/TR .
LUX V8 5'30-CI0 A/TR .
MINI 14 90-CIO M/TR
SU9C 14 153-C10 M/TR
CONP 16 250-CI0 A/fR
INTA V8 290-CIO A/TR
INTB V8 350-CIO A/TR
STO V8 401-CI0 A/TR
LUX V8 500—CI0 A/TR
114-CID M/TR
228-CIO M/TR
228-CIO M/TR
INTA 2RH 273—CIO A/TR
INTB 2RH 273—CID A/TR
456—CIO A/TR
456—CID A/TR
MINI 1R
SUBC 2P
COMP 2R
STO 4R
LUX 4R
4HC 3
4HC 3
• 4HC
• 4HC
• 4HC
.4HC
• 4HC
• 4HC
• 4HC
.4HC
.4HC
.4HC
• 4HC
.4HC
• 4HC
.4HC
• 4C0 1
• 4C0 1
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
3.4C0
•ONOX
• ONOX
l.ONO
l.ONO
l.ONO
l.ONO
l.ONO
1 ..ONO
l.ONO
I.ON
l.ON
I.ON
l.ON
l.ON
l.ON
l.ON
8.8693
8.8693
13.4065
13.4065
6.6536
13.3597
13.3597
13.3597
13.3597
305.4563
726.5403
674.2681
794.9124
366.5442
366.5442
366.5442
0.8225
0.8225
0.5692
0.5692
0.2991
0.5734
0.5734
0.5734
0.5734
11.6107
32.1445
29.7070
32.3165
13.5482
13.5482
13.5482
9.6917
9.6917
13.9757
13.9757
6.9527
13.9331
13.9331
13.9331
13.9331
317.0669
758.6851
703.9751
627.2288
380.0923
380.0923
380.9923
17.2901
17.2901
14.9103
14.9103
14.9103
15.4177
15.4177
15.4177
15.4177
335.1021
773.0281
718.6648
850.6331
397.3284
397.3284
397.3284
ro
oo
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/Fl
-------
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90—CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.8657
-0.0393
-0.9050
-0.4087
2
21112656
oc
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-1.3090
-0.0843
-1.3933
-0.4087
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-3.643B
-0.2240
-3.8678
-0.4087
4
44115656
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-3.2873
-0.1764
-3.4637
-0.4087
5
44116656
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-4.0865
-0.1689
-4.2554
-0.4087
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-5.0690
-0.2159
-5.2849
-1.7185
7
64118656
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
590-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-4.6028
-0.1468
-4.7495
-0.4087
8
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
0.1151
0.0413
0.1564
0.9673
9
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
SIIBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
-0.3283
-0.0038
-0.3320
0.9673
10
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-2.6630
-0.1435
-2.8065
0.9673
11
44115655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-2.3065
-0.0958
-2.4024
0.9673
12
44116655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-3.1057
-0.0884
-3.1941
0.9673
13
54117655
nc
STO/CARB
AI/FGR
STO
V8
400—CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39 cn
3.0NOX
-4.0882
-0.1354
-4.2236
-0.3425
14
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
-3.6220
-0.0662
-3.6882
0.9673
15
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.6474
-0.0288
-0.6762
-0.1744
16
21112655
OC
STD/CAPB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-1.0908
-0.1739
-1.1646
-0.1744
17
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-3.4255
-0.2136
-3.6391
-0.1744
18
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-2.9940
-0.1590
-3.1530
-0.0620
19
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.*HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-3.7932
-0.1516
-3.9447
-0.0620
20
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
STO
V8
400-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0NOX
-4.7757
-0.1985
-4.9742
-1.3718
21
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
PGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
-4.3094
-0.1294
-4.4388
-0.0620
22
11111469
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-CIO
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.8657
—0.0393
-0.9051
-0.4087
23
21112469
OC
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-1.3090
-0.0843
-1.3933
-0.4087
24
34113469
OC
STD/CARB
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-3.6438
-0.2240
-3.8678
-0.4087
25
WIWOT
DC
STTVCARB
INTA
VB
290-CI0
A/TW
2.0MC
23CO
NRNOX
-3.2873
—0.1T64
-3v4637
-0*4087
26
44116469
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-4.0865
-0.1689
-4.2554
-0.4087
27
54117469
OC
STD/CARB
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
2. OUC
23CO
NRNOX
-5.0690
-0.2159
-5.2849
-1.7185
28
64118469
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-4.6028
-0.1468
-4.7495
-0.4087
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.0980
0.1809
2.2789
2.6723
30
21122346
OC
ven/carb
AI/OEGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.6546
0.1359
1.7905
2.6723
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-0.6801
-0.0039
—0.6843
2.6723
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.3492
0.0*438
1.3930
2.6723
33
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
0.5285
0.0593
0.5878
3.5363
34
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
STO
VB
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-0.4541
0.0123
-0.4418
2.2265
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
Al/HEGR
LUX
V8
500-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
0.0122
0.0814
0.0936
3.5363
36
11121346
nc
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90—CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.6009
0.7571
11.3581
15.8886
37
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.1576
0.7121
10.8697
15.3886
3B
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
7.8228
0.5724
8.3952
15.8886
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTA
VB
290—CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
9.8521
0.6201
10.4722
15.8886
40
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15 CO
3.1N0X
3.5405
0.2551
3.7955
8.7017
41
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.5579
0.2081
2.7660
7.3919
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/I
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
NJ
00
O
42 64128346
43 11121234
44 21122234
45 34123234
46 44125234
>7 ,4^126234
4fl 5412 7234
49 64128234
50 11121124
51 21122124
52 34123124
53 44125124
54 44126124
55 54127124
56 64128124
71 11121121
72 21122121
73 34123121
74 44125121
75 44126121
76 54127121
77 64128121
134 11141122
135 21142122
136 34143122
137 44145122
138 44146122
139 54147122
140 64148122
141 11141121
142 21142121
143 34143121
144 44145121
145 44146121
146 54147121
147 64148121
9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
DC VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT LUX VB 500-CID A/TR 1.5HC 15C0 3.1N0X
QC VEN/CARS AI/DEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CID M/TR •9HC 9.0CO 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT StIBC 14 9.03-CJD M/TR . 9HC 15CO 2.ONOX
DC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2 .ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR „9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INTS V8 350-CI0 A/TR
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT STD V8 400-CID A/TR
OC VEN/CARS Af/DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR
OC VEN/CARB. AI/PPGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STD V8 400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARS A1/EFE/HNGCAT MINI 14 90 CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT SUBC 14 153CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT COMP 16 250CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTA V8 290CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTB V8 350CID A/TR .4MC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARS AI/EFE/HNGCAT STD V8 400CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT LUX V8 500CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 1.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4CO l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 STO V8 400-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 1.1N0X
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR . 4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153C1D M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 35QCID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EfI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 STD V8 400CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
3.0242
0.2772
3.3014
8.7017
11.3635
0.8272
12.1907
17.0302
10.9201
0.7822
11.7023
17.0302
8.5853
0.6425
9.2278
17.0302
10.6146
0.6902
11.3048
17.0302
4.3030
0.3252
4.6282
9.8433
3.3204
0.2782
3.5986
8.5335
3.7867
0.3473
4.1340
9.8433
11.6526
0.8373
12.4899
17.7104
11 .2093
0.7923
12.0015
17.7104
8.8745
0.6525
9.5270
17.7104
10.8823
0.7082
11.5905
18.5743
4.5921
0.3352
4.9274
10.5235
3.6096
0.2882
3.8978
9.2137
4.0759
0.3574
4.4332
10.5235
20.0169
1.5381
21.5550
34.1174
20.0169
1.5381
21.5550
34.1174
20.0169
1.5381
21.5550
34.1174
19.9953
1.5461
21.5415
34.9814
17.8662
1.3893
19.2555
30.1906
17 .8662
1.3893
19.2555
30.1906
17.8662
1.3893
19.2555
30.1906
8.1384
0.7911
8.9294
20.7661
7.6950
0.7461
8.4411
21.7661
5.3603
0.6063
5.9666
20.7661
7.3896
0.6540
8.0435
20.7661
6.5904
0.6615
7.2518
20.7661
5.6079
0.6145
6.2223
19.4563
6.0741
0.6836
6.7577
20.7661
9.3589
0.8780
10.2369
22.5879
8.9155
0.8329
9.7485
22.5879
6.5808
0.6932
7.2740
22.5879
8.6101
0.7409
9.3510
22.5879
7.5712
0.7420
8.3132
22.1421
6.5886
0.6950
7.2836
20.8322
7.0549
0.7641
T.8190
22.1421
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO KtI
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.8478
-0.0402
-0.8879
0.0
2
21112656
OC
std/carb
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-1.2543
-0.0562
-1.3106
0.0
3
34113656
OC
sto/carb
COMP
16
250—CI 0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-5.2450
-0.3071
-5.5521
0.0
4
44115656
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-3.5076
-0.2781
-3.7856
0.0
5
44116656
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-3.9476
-0.1535
-4.1011
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARB
STO
va
400-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-5.0505
-0.2373
-5.2877
0.0
7
64118656
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-4.5244
-0.1626
-4.6870
0.0
8
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
0.2389
0.0470
0.2859
1.5456
9
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-0.1677
0.0309
-0.1367
1.5456
10
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-4.1584
-0.2199
-4.3783
1.5456
11
$4115655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
29G-CID
A/TR
3.4IJC
39C0
3.0N0X
-2.4209
-0.1909
-2.6118
1.5456
12
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-2.8609
-0.0663
-2.9272
1.5456
13
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
STD
V8
400-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-3.9639
-0.1501
-4.1139
1.5456
14
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-3.4378
-0.0754
-3.5132
1.5456
15
11111655
OC
STO/CAP B
EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.5570
-0.0273
-0.5843
0.3113
16
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3 . 4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-0.9635
-0.0434
-1.0069
0.3113
17
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-4.9542
-0.2942
-5.2485
0.3113
18
44115655
nc
STO/CARB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-C10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-3.1384
-0.2579
-3.3963
0.4328
19
44116655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
INTB
V 8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-3.5784
-0.1233
-3.7118
0.4328
20
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-4.6814
-0.2171
-4.8984
0.4328
21
64118655
nc
STD/CAP8
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-4.1553
-0.1424
-4.2977
0.4328
22
11111469
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.8478
-0.0402
-0.8879
0.0
23
21112469
nc
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-1.2543
-0.0562
-1.3106
0.0
24
34113469
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-5.2450
-0.3071
-5.5521
0.0
25
44115469
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-3.5076
-0.2781
-3.7856
0.0
26
44116469
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-3.9476
-0.1535
-4.1011
0.0
27
54117469
OC
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
2.QHC
23C0
NRNOX
-5.0505
-0.2373
-5.2877
0.0
28
64118469
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-4.5244
-0.1626
-4.6870
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.8971
0.1750
2.0721
3.7478
30 21122346
OC
VEN/CABB
Al/OEGP.
suae
U
1S3^CI0
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.4906
0.1589
1.6495
3.7478
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3 . 1N0X
-2.5002
-0.0919
-2.5921
3.7478
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTA
V8
290-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
0.9101
-0.0629
0.8473
3.7478
33
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTB
V 8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
0.5470
0.0772
0.6242
4.1291
34
5412 7346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-0.5559
-0.0066
-0.5625
4.1291
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-0.0299
0.0681
0.0382
4.1291
36
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.0874
0.7571
10.8445
16.6007
37
21122346
OC
VfN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
9.6808
0.7411
10.4219
16.6007
33
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
5.6901
0.4902
6.1804
16.600 7
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
9.1004
0.5193
9.6197
16.6007
40
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
3.2112
0.2523
3.4635
8.5767
41
54127346
OC
VEN/CARS
DEGR/HCAT
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
2.1083
0.1686
2.2769
8.5767
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/J
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
to
00
NJf
*2 641283*6 OC
43 11121234 OC
44 21122234 OC
45 34123234 OC
46 44125234 OC
47 44126234 OC
48 5412/234 OC
49 64126234 OC
50 11121124 OC
51 21122124 OC
52 34123124 OC
53 44125124 OC
54 44126124 OC
55 54127124 OC
56 64128124 OC
71 11121121 OC
72 21122121 OC
73 34123121 DC
74 44125121 OC
75 44126121 OC
76 54127121 OC
77 64123121 OC
134 11141122 OC
135 21142122 OC
136 34143122 OC
137 44145122 OC
138 44146122 OC
139 54147122 OC
140 64148122 OC
141 11141121 OC
142 21142121 OC
143 34143121 OC
144 44145121 OC
145 44146121 OC
146 54147121 OC
147 64148121 OC
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CAPB
VEN/CAP b
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VFN/CAOB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
VEN/CARB
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
FFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU AI
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
EFI/ECU
DEGR/HCAT LUX VB 500-CID A/TR 1.5HC 15C0 3.1N0X
A-I /DEGR/HCAT MINI
AI/DEGR/HCAT SIJBC
14 90-CID M/TR .9HC 9.OCO 2.0N0X
14 9.03-CI0 M/TR .9HC 15C0 2.0N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CID A/TR ,9HC 9 .OCO 2.0N0X
AI/DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.OCO 2.0N0X
INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.3C0 2.0N0X
STD V8 400-CIO A/TR .9HC 9.OCO
AI/DEGR/HCAT
AI/OEGR/HCAT
AI/DEGR/HCAT
2.0N0X
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .9HC 9.OCO 2.0N0X
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .^HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR
•4HC 3.4C0 2.
• 4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
AI/PEG"/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
STD V8 400-CID A/TR *4HC 3.4C0 2.
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
•4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
AI/PEGR/HCAT/FFE
AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI
AI/EFE/HNGCAT MINI 14 9T CIO M/TR
Al/EFE/HNGCAT SUBC 14 153CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 -.4N0X
AI/EFE/HNGCAT COMP 16 250CID A/T« .4MC 3.4C0 .4N0X
AI/EFf/HNGCAT INTA V8 290CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTB V8 350CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
V8 400CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
V8 501CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
90-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CI0 M/TR .4MC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTB VB 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
STO V8 400-CID A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
LUX V8 500-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290CID A/TR *4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
/J>£GR/HNCC AT/02 INTB V8 350CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
V8 400CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
V8 500CID A/TR
AI/EFE/HNGCAT STO
AI/EFE/HNGCAT LUX
HNCCAT/02 MINI 14
HNCCAT/02
HNCCAT/02
/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 STO
/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 LUX
>4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
2.6343
0.2433
2.8776
8.5767
10.8833
0.8315
11.7147
17.8351
10.4767
0.8154
11.2921
17.8351
6.4860
0.5646
7.0506
17.8351
9.8963
0.5936
10.4899
17.8351
4.0071
0.3267
4.3337
9.8110
2.9041
0.2429
3.1470
9.8110
3.4302
0.3176
3.7478
9.8110
11.1826
0.8385
12.0212
18.3977
10.7761
0.8225
11.5986
18.3977
6.7853
0.5717
7.3570
18.3977
10.2725
0.6162
10.8886
18.7790
4.3064
0.3338
4.6402
10.3737
3.2035
0.2500
3.4535
10.3737
3.7295
0.3247
4.0542
10.3737
22.6403
1.6312
24.2715
33.3871
22.6403
1.6312
24.2715
33.3871
22.6403
1.6312
24.2715
33.3871
22.7171
1.6467
24.3638
33.7684
17.3729
1.4540
18.8269
29.5336
17.3729
1.4540
18.8269
29.5336
17.3729
1.4540
18.8269
29.5336
8.7913
0.9321
9.7234
24.9985
8.3848
0.9160
9.3008
24.9985
4.3941
0.6652
5.0593
24.9985
7.8044
0.6942
8.4986
24.9985
7.3644
0.8188
8.1832
24.9985
6.2615
0.7350
6.9965
24.9985
6.7875
0.8097
7.5972
24.9985
9.9579
1.0222
10.9800
26.8829
9.5513
1 .0061
10.5574
26.8829
5.5606
0.7553
6.3159
26.8829
8.9709
0.7843
9.7552
26.8829
8.4510
0.9060
9.3570
26.5441
7.3481
0.8222
8.1703
26.5441
7.8741
0.8969
8.7710
26.5*41
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/J
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
ST0/CAR8
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
75.9681
3.9038
79.8719
82.7803
2
21112656
OC
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
4.0N0X
28.6984
2.4830
31.1864
46.7613
3
34113656
OC
STD/CAR8
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
?V.1508
2.7592
36.9101
35.8324
4
44115656
OC
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
9.0740
0.7891
9.8632
15.3274
5
44116656
OC
STD/CAP8
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.DN0X
-20.6527
-1.4590
-22.1117
0.0
6
54117656
oc
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
4.0N0X
-146.1001
-11.8544
-157.9545
-1.1670
7
64118656
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-17.8728
-0.9632
-18.8360
0.0
8
11111655
OC
ST0/CAR8
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
77.1418
4.0138
81.1555
86.0300
9
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
29.8721
2.5979
32.4700
50.0110
10
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
35.3245
2.8692
38.1937
39.0822
11
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
10.2477
0.8990
11.1468
18.5772
12
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-19.4790
-1.3491
-20.8281
3.2498
13
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
STO
V8
400-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-144.9264
-11.7445
-156.6709
2.0828
14
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0N0X
-16.6991
-0.8533
-17.5524
3.2498
15
11111655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
76.3427
3.9390
80.2817
84.7846
16
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
29.0730
2.5231
31.5961
48.7656
17
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
34.5254
2.7944
37.3198
37.8367
18
44115655
OC
STO/CAPB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
9.5273
0.8316
10.3589
17.4543
19
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-20.1994
-1.4165
-21.6159
2.1269
20
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
STO
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-145.6468
-11.8120
-157.4588
3.9599
21
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-17.4196
-0.9207
-18.3403
2.1269
22
11111469
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
2 .OHC
23C0
NRNOX
75.9681
3.9038
79.8719
82.7803
23
21112469
OC
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
28.6984
2.4880
31.1864
46.7613
24
34113469
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
2. OHC
23CO
NRNOX
34.1508
2.7592
36.9101
35.8324
25
44115469
OC
STD/CAR3
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
2.OHC
23CO
NRNOX
9.0740
0.7891
9.8632
15.3274
26
44116469
OC
STD/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
2. OHC
23CO
NRNOX
-20.6527
-1.4590
-22.1117
0.0
27
54117469
OC
STO/CARB
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
2. OHC
23CO
NRNOX
-146.1001
-11.8544
-157.9545
-1.1670
28
64118469
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
590-CTD
A7TTT
2. OHC
2 3 CD
NRNOX
-17.8728
-UV9632
-18.8360
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
78.6529
4.1184
82.7713
86.4329
30
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
ai/oegr
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
31.3832
2.7026
34.0857
50.4139
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
36.8356
2.9738
39.8095
39.4851
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CAP.B
AI/DEGR
INTA
V 8
290-CID
A/TR
1. 5MC
15C0
3.1N0X
13.4310
1. 0*037
14.4347
18.9801
33
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-16.1704
-1.2358
-17.4063
4.0231
34
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
I .5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-141.6178
-11.6313
-153.2491
2.8561
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-13.3906
-0.7400
-14.1306
4.0231
36
11121346
OC
VEN/CAPB
DEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
85.5474
4.5958
90.1432
97.1976
37
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
38.2777
3.1800
41.4576
61.1786
38
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
43.7301
3.4512
47.1814
50.2497
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
20.3255
1.4811
21.8066
29.7447
40
44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-13.4125
-1.0246
-14.4371
9.5561
41
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
STD
V8
400-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-138.8599
-11.4201
-150.2800
8.3891
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/JSV
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL fNTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 ««X
fo
co
¦P>
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141-
142
143
144
145
146
64128346
11121234
21122234
34123234
44125234
44126234
54127234
64128234
11121124
21122124
34123124
44125124
44126124
5412 7124
64128124
11121121
21122121
34123121
44125121
44126121
5412 7121
64128121
11141:22
21142122
34143122
44145122
44146122
54147122
64148122
11141121
21142121
34143121
44145121
44146121
54147121
•4HC 3.4CO 2.
.4HC 3.4CO 2.
•4HC 3.4CO 2.
147 64148121
OC VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-C10 A/TR 1.5HC 15C0 3.1N0X
DC VEN/CARB AI/OEGH/HCAT MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CIl) M/TR . 9HC 15CO 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI /DEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CQ 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB At/DEGR/HCAT STO V8 400-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT LUX VB 500-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.ONOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/PFGR/HCAT/ EFE MINI 14 90-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGP./HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4UC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PECR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CAP.B AT/PEGR/HC4T/EFE INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CAR9 AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STB VB 400-CID A/TR
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CID A/TR
OC VEN/CAPB AI/EFE/HNGCAT MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR .VHC 3.4CQ .4N0X
DC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT SUBC 14 153CID M/TR .4HC 3.4CQ .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT CHMP 16 250CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTA V8 290CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTB VB 350CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB A[/EFF/HNGCAT STO V8 400CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VE*f/CAR B AI /FFF/HNGCAT LUX V8 500CIO A/TR . 4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 I.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EEI/ECU HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 I.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CID A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CID A/TR »4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 STD V8 400-CID A/TR »4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500-CID A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFT/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 ,4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 ,4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 STO V8 400CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
X EEI/ECU Al/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
-10.6327
86.3465
39.0768
44.5292
21.1246
-12.6135
-138.0608
-9.8336
86.5856
39.3159
44.7683
21.4890
-12.3743
-137.8217
-9.5945
96.4955
48.8060
55.1450
32.0169
4.6406
-116.8798
7.8109
85.6002
38.3305
43.T829
20.3783
-9.3484
-134.7958
-6.5686
86.7096
39.4399
44.6924
21.4877
-8.1747
-133.6221
-5.3949
-0.5288
4.6706
3.2547
3.5260
1.5559
-0.9498
-11.3453
—0 .4540
4.6747
3.2589
3.5301
1.5686
-0.9457
-11.3411
-0.4499
5.3604
3.9221
4.3449
2.3438
0.3965
-9.6692
0.8853
4.8622
3.4463
3.7176
1.7475
-0.5006
-10.B961
-0.0048
4.9498
3.5339
3.8052
1.8350
-0.3907
-10.7862
0.1051
-11.1615
91.0171
42.3315
48.0552
22.6805
-13.5633
-149.4061
-10.2876
91.2603
42.5748
48.2985
23.0576
-13.3200
-149.1629
-10.0444
101.8559
52.728I
59.4898
34.3607
5.0371
-126.5489
8.6962
90.4624
41.7768
47.5006
22.1258
-9.8491
-145.6919
-6.5734
91.6594
42.9738
48.6975
23.3228
-8.5654
-144.4083
-5.2898
9.5561
98.4430
62.4240
51.4952
30.9901
10.8016
9.6346
10.8016
98.9177
62.8987
51.9699
31.8353
11.2763
10.1093
11.2763
112.0271
74.3976
65.0792
42.7829
29.4879
28.3209
29.4879
105.7056
69.6 866
58.7577
38.2527
22.9254
21.7584
22.9254
107.5130
71.4940
60.5652
40.0602
26.1751
25.0081
26.1751
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/JSV
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
I
11111656
OC
STO/CARB
NTNl
14
90-C1D
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-0.6173
-0.0170
-0.6343
0.0
2
21112656
DC
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-0.6173
-0.0170
-0.6343
0.0
3
34113656
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.2771
-0.0984
-2.3755
0.0
4
44115656
OC
STO/CARB
INT A
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-2.7854
-0.0484
-2.8338
0.0
5
44116656
nc
ST0/CAR8
INTB
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
4.0N0X
-2.6706
—0.0412
-2.7119
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARB
STO
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
4.0NOX
-3.6744
-0.1247
-3.7991
0.0
7
64118656
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.ONOX
-3.0595
-0.0654
-3.1249
0.0
8
11111655
OC
STD/CA»8
AI/ECR
MINI
14
90—CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
0.4352
0.0632
0.4984
1.4932
9
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
0.4352
0.0632
0.4984
1.4932
10
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
COUP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.0NOX
-1.2247
-0.0812
-1.2428
1.4932
11
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
I NT A
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.ONOX
-1.7330
0.0318
-1.7012
1.4932
12
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-1.6182
0.0390
-1.5792
1.4932
13
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
STO
V8
400-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-2.6220
-0.0444
-2.6664
1.4932
14
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4MC
39C0
3.ONOX
-2.0070
0.0148
-1.9922
1.4932
15
11111655
OC
STO/CAPB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-0.4732
-0.006a
-0.4800
0.1520
16
21112655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39 CO
3.ONOX
-0.4732
-0.0068
-0.4800
0.1520
17
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-2.1330
-0.0882
-2.2212
0.1520
la
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-2.5519
-0.0313
-2.5833
0.2840
19
44116655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-2.4371
-0.0242
-2.4613
0.2840
20
54U7655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
STO
VB
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.ONOX
-3.4409
-0.1076
-3.5485
0.2840
21
64118655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
LUX
VB
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39CO
3.ONOX
-2.8260
-0.4830
-2.8743
0.2840
22
11111469
OC
STO/CARB
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-0.6173
-0.0170
-0.6343
0.0
23
21112469
OC
STO/CAPB
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-0.6173
-0.0170
-0.6343
0.0
2*
34113469
OC
STO/CARB
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23CO
NRNOX
-2.2771
-0.0984
-2.3755
0.0
25 44115469
OC
STO/CAPB
INTA
V8
290—CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.7854
-0.0484
2.8338
0.0
26
44116469
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-2.6706
-0.0412
-2.7119
o.o
27
54117469
OC
STO/CARB
STO
VB
400-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-3.6744
-0.1247
-3.7991
0.0
28
64118469
OC
STO/CAPB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
-3.0595
-0.0654
-3.1249
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.8284
0.1411
1.9695
3.1051
30
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
SUBC
14
153-C10
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.8284
0.1411
1.9695
3.1051
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
0.1686
0.0597
0.2283
3.1051
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CWB
AI/OEGR
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.3331
0.1097
1.4428
3.1051
33
44126346
OC
VEN/CAPB
A1/DEGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.8951
0.1766
2.0717
4.0022
34
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
STO
V8
400—CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
0.8913
0.0932
0.9845
4.0022
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
LUX
VB
500-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
1.5063
0.1525
1.6587
4.0022
36
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-CIO
M/TR
1 • 5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
11.6777
0.8719
12.5495
19.0595
37
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CID
H/TR
1.5HC
1 SCO
3.1N0X
11.6777
0.8719
12.5495
19.0595
38
34123346
OC VEN/CARB OEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
10.0178
0.7905
10.8083
19.0595
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTA
ve
290—CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
11.1823
0.8405
12.0220
19.0595
40 44126346
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
INTB
ve
350—CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
3.7392
0.3437
4.0829
8.5665
41
5412 7146
OC
VEN/CARB
OEGR/HCAT
STO
va
40O-CIQ
Am
1.5HC
15CU
3.1N0X
2.7354
0.2602
2.9957
8.5665
INVESTMENT SUtlMARY
SCENARIO A/K
-------
SERIAL NO
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
N>
00
a.
42 64128346
43 1112123*
44 21122234
45 34123234
46 44125234
47 44126234
48 54127234
49 64128234
ISO 11121124
51 21122124
5Z 34123124
53 44125124
54 44126124
55 5412T124
56 64128124
71 11121121
72 21122121
73 34123121
74 44125121
75 44126121
76 54127121
77 64128121
134 11141122
135 21142122
136 34143122
137 44145122
138 44146122
139 54147122
140 64148122
141 11141121
142 21142121
143 34143121
144 44145121
145 44146121
146 54147121
147 64148121
148 11131121
149 21132121
150 34133121
151 44135121
152 44136121
DC VEN/CARB OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CID A/T«* 1.5HC 15C0 3.1N0X
~C VEN/CAPB AI/OEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-CT0 M/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
DC VEN/CARB At/OEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CID M/TR . 9HC 15C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT CDMP 16 250-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CC1 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB Al/DEGR/HCAT INTA va 290-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0NOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CO 2.0NOX
OC VEN/CARB Al/OEGR/HCAT STO V8 400-CID A/TR .9HC 9.0CD 2.0N0X
flC VEN/CAR3 AT/OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 9O-CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SU8C 14 153-C10 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE COMP 16 250-CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTA VB 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VtN/CARS *1 /S»tGR/Ht«.T/fFE SID V8 400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.400 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE LUX V8 500-CID A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARS AI/EFF/HNGCAT MINI 14 90 CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/FFE/HNGCAT SUBC 14 153CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 -.4N0X
t)C VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT COMP 16 250CI0 A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0.4NOX
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFF/HNGCAT INTA V8 290CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTB VB 350CID A/TR
DC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT STO
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT LUX
OC EFI/ECU HNC.CAT/02 MINI 14 90-ClD M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250-CID A/TR . 4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU HNCCAT/02 STO V8 400-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EF I /EC1J HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500-CID A/Ti* . 4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFl/ECU AI/"EGR/HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4CH .4N0
OC EFWECU Al/PEG»/HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290CI0 A/TR ,4HC 3.4CO .4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 INTB V8 350CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/^EGR/HMCCAT/02 STO V8 400CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC/MFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02 MINI 14 90CI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N
OC/MFT EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02 SUBC 14 153CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N
OC/MFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02 COMP 16 250C1D A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N
OC/MFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02 INTA V8 290C1D A/TR .4HC 3,4C0 .4N
OC/MFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02 INTB V0 350CID A/TR *4HC 3.4C0 .4N
,4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
V8 400CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
V8 500CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
3.3504
0.3195
3.6699
8.5665
12.5860
0.9419
13.5280
20.4007
12.5860
0.9419
13.5280
20.4007
10.9262
0.8606
11.7867
20.4007
12.0907
0.9106
13.0013
20.4007
4.6476
0.4137
5.0613
9.9077
3.6438
0.3303
3.9741
9.9077
4.2587
0.3 896
4.6483
9.9077
12.6981
0.9485
13.6466
20.6462
12.6981
0.9485
13.6466
20.6462
11 .0382
0.8672
11.9054
20.6462
12.6499
0.9770
13.6269
21.5433
4.7596
0.4203
5.1800
10.1532
3.7559
0.3369
4.0928
10.1532
4.3708
0.3962
4.7669
10.1532
26.1034
I .9907
28.0940
31.200 6
26.L034
1.9907
28.0940
31.2006
26.1034
1.9907
28.0940
31.2006
26.5506
2.0551
28.6010
32.0976
22.9370
1 .7880
24.7251
27.5389
22.9370
1.7880
24.7251
27.5389
22.9370
1.7880
24.7251
27.5389
7.3216
0.8116
8.1332
20.9094
7.3216
0.8116
8.1332
20.9094
5.6618
0.7302
6.392}
20.9094
6.8263
0.7802
7.6065
20.9094
6.9411
0.7874
7.7285
20.9094
5.9373
0.7039
6.6413
20.9094
6.5522
0.7632
7.3155
20.9094
8.4133
0.8969
9.3102
22.5835
8.4133
0.8969
9.3102
22.5635
6.7535
0.8155
7.5690
22.5835
7.9180
0.8655
8.7835
22.5835
7.9935
0.8676
8.8611
22.4025
6.9398
0.7842
7.7739
22.402 5
7.6047
0.8434
8.4481
22.4025
37.0673
2.1252
39.1925
54.062 8
19.9814
1.3392
21.3207
36.0195
11.2424
1.1858
12.4282
36.7709
14.3254
1.4445
15.7699
39.7003
15.4781
1.4970
16.9751
40.6750
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/K
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL INTEREST
TOTAL 76-79 MAX
153 5*137121
154 6*138121
OC/MFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02 STO
OC/MFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02 LUX
V8 400CI0 A/TR-.4HC 3.4C0 .4N 33.6140 2.3t?l 35.9261 5*v4847
V8 500CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N 37.6236 2.4640 40.0877 56.1530
NJ
00
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/X
-------
SERIAL NO.
VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
PRINCIPAL
INTEREST
TOTAL
76-79 MAX
1
11111656
OC
std/carb
MINI
14
90-C10
M/TR
3. 4MC
39C0
4.0NOX
76.3511
3.9320
80.2831
82.9447
2
21112656
OC
STD/CARB
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
29.1752
2.5261
31.7013
46.1942
3
34113656
OC
STD/CARB
COMP
16
250-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
34.8559
2.9139
37.7698
37.1248
4
44115656
nc
STO/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
9.9255
0.9083
10.8338
14.2919
5
44116656
OC
STO/CARB
1NTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-19.2125
-1.3069
-20.5194
0.0
6
54117656
OC
STO/CARB
STD
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0N0X
-142.9094
-11.5597
-154.4691
-1.1673
7
64118656
OC
STD/CARB
LUX
VS
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
4.0NOX
-16.1568
-0.8057
-16.9625
0.0
8
11111655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
77.4571
4.0121
81.4692
84.4967
9
21112655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
30.2812
2.6062
32.8874
47.7462
10
34113655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
COMP
16
25Q-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
35.9619
2.9941
38.9559
38.6767
u
44115655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NQX
11.0315
0.9884
12.0199
15.8438
12
44116655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
INTB
V6
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NQX
-18.1065
-1.2267
-19.3332
1.5520
13
54117655
OC
STO/CARB
AI/EGR
STD
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-141.8033
-11.4796
-153.2829
0.3847
14
64118655
OC
STD/CARB
AI/EGR
LUX
V8
500-CIO
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-15.0508
-0.7256
-15.7764
1.5520
15
11111655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
MINI
14
90-CI0
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
76.5281
3.9396
80.4678
83.1345
16
21112655
OC
STD/CARe
EGR
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
29.3522
2.5338
31.8860
46.3840
17
34113655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
COMP
!6
250-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
35.0329
2.9216
37.9545
37.3146
18
44115655
OC
STO/CARB
EGR
INTA
V8
290-C10
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NQX
10.1940
0.9231
11.1171
14.6158
19
44116655
nc
STO/CARB
EGR
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-18.9440
-1.2921
-20.2360
0.3239
20
54117655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
STD
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0NOX
-142.6409
-11.5449
-154.1857
-0.8434
21
64118655
OC
STD/CARB
EGR
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
3.4HC
39C0
3.0N0X
-15.8883
-0.7909
-16.6792
0.3239
22
11111469
OC
STD/CARB
MINI
14
90-CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23CH
NRNOX
76.3511
3.9320
80.2831
82.9447
23 21112469
OC
STO/CARB
SUBC
14
153—CID
M/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
29.1752
2.5261
31.7013
46.1942
24
34113469
OC
STD/CARB
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
34.8559
2.9139
37.7698
37.1248
25
44115469
OC
STD/CARB
INTA
V8
290-CID
A/TR
2.0HC
23C0
NRNOX
9.9255
0.9083
10.8338
14.2919
26
44116469
OC
STO/CARB
INTB
V8
350-CI0
A/TR
2. OUC
23C0
NRNOX
-19.2125
-1.3069
-20.5194
0.0
27
54117469
OC
STD/CARB
STD
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
2.3HC
23C0
NRNOX
-142.9094
-11.5597
-154.4691
-1.1673
28
64118469
OC
STO/CARB
LUX
V8
500-CID
A/TR
2.OHC
23C0
NRNOX
-16.1568
-0.8057
-16.9625
0.0
29
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/0EGR
MINI
14
90-CIO
M/TR
1. 5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
79 . 40 31
4.1617
83.5647
87.2539
30
21122346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
SUBC
14
153-CID
M/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
32.2272
2.7558
34.9830
50.5034
31
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/DEGR
COMP
16
250-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
37.9078
3.1437
41.0515
41.4339
32
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/PEGR
INTA
V8
290-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
14.6496
1.1380
15.7876
18.6010
33
4*126346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
INTB
V8
350-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-14.8525
-1.1103
-15.9628
3.6969
34
54127346
OC
VEN/CARB
AI/OEGR
STD
V8
400-CIO
A/TR
1.5MC
15C0
3.1N0X
-138.5494
-11.3632
-149.9125
2.5296
35
64128346
OC
VEN/CARB
Al/OEGR
LUX
V8
500—C10
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-11.7968
-0.6092
-12.4060
3.6969
36
11121346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
MINI
14
90-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
87.6014
4.7756
92.3770
100.7209
37
21122346
OC .VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
SUBC
14
153-CIO
M/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1NQX
40.4255
3.3698
43.7953
63.9704
38
34123346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
COMP
16
250-CIO
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
46.1062
3.7576
49.8638
54.9009
39
44125346
OC
VEN/CARB
DEGR/HCAT
INTA
V8
290-C10
A/TR
1.5HC
I SCO
3.1N0X
22.8480
1.7520
24.5999
32.0680
40
44126346
OC VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT
INTB
V8
350-CID
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0
3.1N0X
-11.8620
-0.8572
-12.7192
9.7040
41
54127346
OC VEN/CARB DEGR/HCAT
STD
V8
400-CI0
A/TR
1.5HC
15C0 3.1N0X
-135.5509
-11.1100
-146.6689
8.536 7
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/KSV
-------
SERIAL HO. VEHICLE OESCRIPTlCN PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL 76-79 MAX
oo
\o
42 64128346
43 11121234
44 21122234
*5 34123234
46 44125234
47 44126234
48 54127234
49 64128234
50 11121124
51 21122124
52 34123124
53 44125124
54 44126124
55 54127124
56 64128124
71 11121121
72 21122121
73 34123121
74 44125121
75 44126121
76 54127121
77 64123121
134 11141122
135 21142122
136 34143122
13 7 44145122
13® 44146122
139 5414?12*
140 64148122
141 11141121
14? 21142121
143 34143121
144 44145121
145 441>6121
146 54147121
147 64148121
148 11131121
149 21132121
150 34133121
151 44135121
152 44136121
QC VEN/CARB OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 5Q0-CI0 A/Tft 1.5HC 15C0 3.1N0X
OC VEN/CARB Al/DEGR/HCAT MINI 14 90-C1D M/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
CC VEN/CARB AI/DEGR/HCAT SUBC 14 9.03-CIO M/TR . 9HC 15C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT CONP 16 250-CI0 A/TR ,9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INTA V8 290-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.0C0 2.0NUX
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT INTB V8 350-CI0 A/TR .9HC 9.QC0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT STO VB 400-CI0 A/TR . 9HC 9.0C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/OEGR/HCAT LUX V8 500-CI0 A/TR . 9HC 9.3C0 2.0N0X
OC VEN/CAOB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE MINI 14 90-CID M/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB AI/PEGR/HCAT/EFE CQMP 16 250-CID A/TR ..4HC 3.4C0 2.
flC VFN/CARB AI /PEGS /HCAT/EFE INTA V8 290-C10 A/TR .4HC 3.4CO 2.
OC VEN/CARB Al/PEGR/HCAT/EFE INTB V8 350-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 2.
OC VEN/CARB Al/PEGR/HCAT/EFE STO V8 400-CID A/TR «4HC 3.4C0 2.
0C VEN/CARB AI/PEG'/HCAT/FFE LUX V8 500-CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4Cn 2.
OC VEN/CAP8 AI/EFE/HNGCAT MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR .4HC 3.4C3 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT SUBC 14 153CID M/TR #4HC 3.4C0-.4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT CO*P 16 250CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VcN/CARB Al/EFiE/MNGCAT INTA VB 290CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4CQ .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT INTB VB 350CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT STO VB 40X10 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
DC VEN/CARB AI/EFE/HNGCAT LUX V8 500CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0X
OC EFT/ECU HNCCAT/Q2 MINI 14 90-C10 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
OC EFI/FCU HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153-CIO M/TR . 4HC 3.4CQ l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 CQMP 16 250-CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTA VB 290-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 INTB VB 350-CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 STO V8 400-CIO A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 l.ONOX
HNCCAT/02 LUX VB 500-CID A/TR .4HC
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 MINI 14 90 CIO M/TR
OC tFI/FCM AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 SUBC 14 153CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
Oft 6#l/feu AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 COMP 16 250CIJ0 A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PES"/HNCCAT/02 INTA V8 290CI0 A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/FCU AI/pEGv/hNCCAT/02 IflTB VB 3SOCIO &/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC eFI/FCU AI/PEGP/MNCCAT/02 STO V8 400CI0 A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC EFI/ECU AI/PEGR/HNCCAT/02 LUX V8 500CID A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC FF1/ECM
OC EFI/ECU
OC EFl/BCU
OC EFI/ECU
OC EFI/ECU
3.4C0 l.ONOX
4HC 3.4C0 .4N0
OC/MFI EGP/HNCCAT/ECU/02
QC/MF1 EGB /HNCCAT/ECU/02
OC/MFI EGR/HMCCAT/ECU/02
OC/MF! EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02
OC/MFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02
MINI 14 9GCI0 M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 ,4N
SUBC 14 153CID M/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N
COMP 16 250CI0 A/TR ,4HC 3.4C0 .4«
INTA V8 290CID A/TR .4HC 3,4C0 .4N
INTB V8 350CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N
-8.8063
88.5304
41.3545
47.0351
23.7769
-10.9330
-134.6299
-7.8774
88.6179
41.4420
47.1227
23.5004
-10.8455
-134.5424
-7.7898
100.6953
52.8597
59.20)1
35.5778
15.3949
-106.2140
18.5662
84.2995
37.1236
42.8043
19.5461
-9.5919
-133.2888
-6.5362
85.3872
38.2113
43.8920
20.6338
-8.4859
-132.1328
-5.4302
96.5818
41.1581
47.5188
25.7880
13.8592
-0.3560
4.8481
3.4422
3.8301
1.8244
-0.7348
-11.0376
-0.2836
4.8522
3.4463
3.8342
1.7954
-0.7806
-11.0334
-0.2794
5.9863
4.5434
4.9664
2.9232
1.2134
-8.8634
1.7026
4.7544
3.3485
3.7364
1.7307
-0.4844
-10.7373
0.0167
4.8396
3.4338
3.8216
1.8160
-0.4043
-10.6571
0.0969
5.3417
3.7082
4.1489
2.3306
0.5978
-9.1624
93.3784
44.7967
50.8652
25.6313
-11.7178
-145.6675
-8.1609
93.4701
44.8884
50.9569
25.2957
-11.6261
-145.5758
-8.0692
106.6816
57.4032
64.1665
38.5009
16.6082
-115.0774
20.2687
89.0539
40.4721
46.5406
21.2768
-10.0764
-144.0261
-6.5195
90.2268
41.6451
47.7116
22.4497
-8.8902
-142.8399
-5.3334
101.9235
44.8662
51.6678
28.1186
14.4570
9.7040
102.0830
65.3325
56.2630
33.4331
11.0661
9.8988
11.0661
102.3104
65.5600
56.4905
33.0452
11.2936
10.1263
11.2936
111.0806
73.2939
63.9809
40.6928
35.6819
34.5146
35.6819
102.9349
66.1844
57.1149
34.2820
19.9903
18.8230
19.9903
104.6118
67.8613
58.7918
35.9593
21.5423
20.3750
21.5423
118.0616
78.2925
70.1375
49.4824
47.3720
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/KSV
-------
SERIAL NO. VEHICLE DESCRIPTION
153 54137121 OC/HFI EGR/HNCCAT/ECU/02
15* 64138121 OC/MFI £GR/HNCCAT/ECU/02
M
\D
O
INVESTMENT SUMMARY
SCENARIO A/KSV
PRINCIPAL INTEREST TOTAL 76-79 MAX
STO V8 400CID A/TR . 4HC 3.4C0 .4N -88.2399 -7.2532 -95.4931 71.1484
LUX V8 500CI0 A/TR .4HC 3.4C0 .4N 30.6281 2.2417 32.8699 62.9448
-------
TABLE M2
Summary of Investment Costs by Year for the Various Scenarios
291
-------
l«»ro
1971
1972
1973
J 97 *
197S
1976
1977
1973
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
SfENARII-EO
IN'T
RV'Y
NET
0
fi
0
0 197S76 131710 189484 14638 41488 37624 17724 58178 1299* 0
0 -10963 -9110 -12769 -2424 -7147 -2094 -14387 -2094 -10091 -2094
0 186616 122600 176715 12264 34341 35530 3337 56094 2903 -2094
0
0
0
SCFNAR10 FO-2
IN'T
RV'Y
NET
0
0
0
0 197576 58910 189484 48288 30988 17724 56924 21296 13413 0
0 -10960 -9110 -12769 -2424 -7147 -2094 -14387 -2094 -10089 -2094
0 186616 49800 176715 45864 23841 15630 42537 19202 3324 -2094
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENARIO FSC
IN'T 0 0 0 0 197576 29110 312208 26688 77608 73394 73764 28711 43781 9117 0 0
RV'Y 0 0 0 0 -10960 -9110 -12769 -10724 -7147 -4696 -12653 -2094 -8355 -4453 0 0
NET 0 0 i) 0 186616 23000 299439 15964 70461 68968 61111 26617 35426 4664 0 0
SCENARIO FSC-2
IN'T
g RV'Y
S NET
0 0 0 197576 29110 283088 47338 102688 84074 56124 22335 23975 10808
0 0 0 -10960 -9110 -12769 -10724 -17449 -4696 -14387 -2094 -12678 -4453
0 0 0 186616 20000 270319 36614 85239 79378 4173T 2024! 1129T 6355
0
0
0
SCENARIO EW
IN'T
RV'Y
NET
0
0
0
0 0 0 241905 249710 265014 122988 30988 65224 30824 36931 51681 30249
0 0 0 -10960 -9110 -12769 -42724 -7147 -47194 -14387 -54010 -14708 -44685
0 0 0 230945 240600 252245 83264 23841 18030 16437 -17079 36973 -14436
0
0
0
SCENARIO Fl
IN'T 0 0 0 0 197576 108610 305584 292698 271838 40494 96594 45356 2B23T 5741 0 0
-------
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
0
0
0
0
0
0
21034
0
21034
1734
0
1734
21034
0
21034
SCENARIO B
1734
0
1734
1900
0
1900
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENARIO B«J'
0 0 177458 82722 182772 7472 37054 52600 0 14622 29901 0
0 0 -8634 -8709 -14609 -11232 -10632 0 -6900 0 -4336 -2359
0 0 168824 74013 168163 -3760 26422 52600 -6900 14622 25565 -2359
0
0
0
0 78882
0 -9226
0 69656
15880 77818
-9110 -11035
6770 66783
SCENARIO C
17718 58518 11194 23324 39994 18772 12567
-2424 -4349 -2094 -12653 -2094 -8357 -2094
15294 54169 9100 10671 37900 10415 10473
0
0
0
0 197576
0 -10960
0 186616
97374 344788
-9110 -18669
88264 326119
SCENARIO C'J«
22188 60618 53594 11194 20312 28959 0
-13326 -16385 -2094 -12653 -2094 -10089 -4453
8862 44233 51500 -1459 18218 18870 -4453
SCENARIO CSV
0 0 197576 106876 381652 201377 163075 94194 57990 41274 30994 11708
0 0 -10960 -9110 -23228 -23100 -33766 -7285 -34689 -2094 -10091 -4453
0 0 186616 97766 358424 178277 129309 86909 23301 39180 20903 7255
0
0
0
0 1 975 76
0 -10960
0 186616
108610 218784
-9110 -12769
99500 206015
SCENARIO—E
23988 47688 18724 30824 21296 11391 5050
-2424 -7147 -2094 -14387 -2094 -10089 -2094
21564 40541 16630 16437 19202 1302 2956
0
0
0
0 197576
0 -10960
0 186616
29110 205488
-9110 -12769
20000 192719
SCENARIO E-2
30188 30988 18724 93824 21296 11588 19448
-2424 -7147 -2094 -14387 -2094 -10089 -2094
27764 23841 16630 79437 19202 1499 17354
-------
1970
1971
1972
1973
197%
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
SCENARIO J
I N'T 0 0 0 0 197576 106876
RV'V 0 0 0 0 -10960 -9110
NET 0 0 0 0 186616 -97766
381652 201377 163075
-23228 -23100 -33766
358424 178277 129309
94194 57990 41274
-7285 -34689 -2094
86909 23301 39180
30994 11708
-10091 -4453
20903 7255
0
0
0
SCENARIO JSV
IN'T 0 0 0 0 229576 151110
RV* 0 0 0 0 -10960 -13310
NET 0 0 0 0 218616 137800
34065& 753756 468058
-138124 -175951 -230758
202532 577305 237300
230994 548994 70064
-165918 -163271 -56603
65076 385723 13461
75934 26986
-14711 -113082
61223 -86096
0
0
0
0
0
0
SCENARIO K
IN'T 0 0 0 0 197576 199226
RV* 0 0 0 0 -10960 -9110
NET 0 0 0 0 186616 190116
181184 65918 260538
-12769 -3018 -32942
168415 62930 227596
135990 67890 75983
-19773 -153T1 -2804
116217 52519 73179
34784 11708 0 0
-10253 -10737 0 0
24531 971 0 0
SCENARIO KSV
IN'T
RV'Y
$ ™
0 0 0 0 229576 207526
0 0 0 0 -10960 -13310
0 0 0 0 218616 194216
192588 678022 571558
-129586 -165037 -221936
63002 512985 349622
316394 550200 114800
•173525 -156776 -71983
142869 393424 42817
68340 32884
-28374 -116821
39966 -83937
0
0
0
0
0
-------
APPENDIX N
Summary of Yearly Vehicle Operating Costs
(Compiled by Merrill L. Ebner and LeRoy H. Lindgren)
The procedures and program to estimate the cost of a particular
scenario on the U.S. driving public are outlined in detail in
Appendix G. In this appendix, selected output data from these
analyses are presented. Since, as mentioned in Appendix G, all
intermediate calculations were printed in the actual output report,
a complete listing is too extensive to include here.
The final output reports list, on a yearly basis from 1970
to 1985, average cost per car, total costs for all vehicles-in-use,
and incremental costs over Scenario A. Each report indicates the
cost contribution for fuel, maintenance, and sticker price, and the
total of these. All three of these reports (average, total, and incre-
mental) are presented for Scenario A only. For all other scenarios,
only the report for the incremental costs over Scenario A is presented.
In these reports, numbers with no scale factor are in 1974 dollars;
numbers with a scale factor of 1.00 D 08 are in hundred millions
of 1974 dollars. The run date is the final time the program was
run to generate the output report and is generally available long
after the output report was initially available. Other abbreviations
used in these output reports are defined in Table Nl.
295
-------
TABLE N1
Abbreviations Used in the Cost Summary Output Reports
Abbreviation
Scenario B'
C
CS
ES
ES-2
JS
KS
pv
investment
Meaning
B'J' (Two-car strategy)
C'J' (Two-car strategy)
CSV (Small-car strategy)
ESC (Stratified charge)
ESC-2 "
JSV (Small-car strategy)
KSV "
present value in 1970 at a
4% discount rate
investment for new facilities
from investment program
(not used in this study)
296
-------
WAS SCMn-'.-l2} FUIJArA-LHtaiJ-059 AGFCTo-0NGtfl9-060 SUMPG"<-138 RUN DATE = 09/17/74
AVERAGE COST SUGARY REPORT
1970 197T 19/2 1971 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1932 1983 1984 1985
AVG FtJFl C^Sr 4%3. <53. 4to7. 475. 467. 466. 454. '+51. 456. 463. 462. 461. 461. 457. 455. 454.
4VS HAINI C^ST 22.6 25.5 27.4 28.2 28.1 28.6 23.4 28.9 29.6 30.4 30.4 30.5 30.6 30.4 30.2 30.2
AVG STKR »RIC£ 4*43*2 't2'J4.8 4291.6 4299.9 4277.7 4203.3 4150.8 4106.9 4048.9 4019.9 4007.0 4006.4 4008.7 4008.9 4011.6 4011.2
AVG lHVESTIt^T 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
TOT AVG MSr -.909.1 4/ 73.1 4775.6 4303.3 4772.8 4697.8 4632.8 458S.9 4534.7 4513.6 4498.9 4497.5 4500.3 4496.4 4496.4 4495.3
TOTAL C'JST SUT4ARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR3 1.000 08
tS 197^ 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
"*1
TOT FUEL COST 339.64 342.11 3/4.42 400.26 399.43 408.83 413.99 419.29 427.10 436.54 448.76 459.37 470.19 485.47 501.73 517.86
FV. C¥• H4IWT C"ST 17.29 18,50 20.30 21.13 20.58 20.63 20.52 20.38 20.25 20.10 19.97 19.74 19.49 19.38 19.28 19.14
TOT STKK P«UCE J73.5I 439.20 466.74 490.30 433.B5 441.22 450.94 461.82 471.17 484.24 499.63 516.98 535.45 554.23 574.06 594.01
PV. STK* PRICE 370.52 421.34 431.53 435.61 370.85 362.65 356.39 350.95 344.28 340.22 337.54 335.82 334.44 332.86 331.51 329.84
TOT HIV£S.t&£"iT 0.0 0.0 0.0. O.a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
INfVeSTMW 0.0 0.0 O.O 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 O.f) 0.0
raw H.S. CiJST 727.45 799.55 863.13 914.03 857i35 075.15 «90.90 937.93 925.98 949.39 977.961006.731036.851071.971109.171146.35
U.S. COST 727.45 768.80 798.01 312.57 732.87 719.31 704.09 689.96 676.61 667.03 660.68 653.96 647.62 643.80 643.52 636.53
COST SUMMARY
MAS SCENARIQ-A
-------
MAS SCNRO-A-UO FUOATA-LHl31J-059 AGfCTa-DM08lO-060 SUNPGM-138
RUN DATE = 09/17/74
1970 1971 1972 1973
INC FUEL CCST 0.00
pv. FUFt cnsr o.jj
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTQR= I.000 08
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980
0..30 0.03 -0.30
0.)0 -0.00 -0.00
0.00 0.3J 0.00 0.00 -0.00
-0.00 0,00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00
1981 1992 198J 1984
1985
0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00
0.00 -0.13 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
INC HA INT COST
PV. MAI NT COST
0.00 -0.03 0.30 0.00
0.00
0.00
-0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00
-O.JO 0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -Q.00 0.00
INC ST KB P*UCE -0.00 -O.JO 0.03 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00
PV. STKK p!>ICE —0.03 0.30 -0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
NJ
oo IMC U.S. CIST
PVf U.S. COST
-0.3 -0.0 -0.0
-3.0 — 0.3 —-0 . 0
0.00 -0.30 -0.00
0.00 -0.03 -0.3J
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00 -0.00
0.30 -0.00
0.00
0.00 -0.00 -0.00 0.00 -0.00 -O.JO -0.00 0.00 0.00
0.00
TOTAL Cl'ST Op SCPNAPTO INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TDT
FUEL COST
6845.00
INC
FUEL COST
0.02
PV.
FUEL ens T
5J76.77
PV.
F'JEL COST
0.01
TOT
1AI NT COST
431.80
INC
H4INT COST
-O.JO
"V.
MA I NT COST
316.67
PV.
MAI NT COST
-0.01
TnT
sr*n >V.
INVt ST.MfcNT
0.0
PV.
INVESTMENT
0.0
TOT
U.S. COST
15059.85
INC
U.S. COST
-0.0 I
PV.
U.S. COST
Til 79.77
PV.
U.S. COST
-0.01
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARI0-A
-------
MAS SCNRO-8-120 FUOATA-LHL810-059 AGFCTR-DND810-060 SUMPGM-138
RUN DATE = 01/2U75
J9T0 1971 1972 1973 1974
INCREMENTAL COST SUM1ARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR= 1.000 08
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1990
i9ai
1982
1933 1984
1985
INC
FUEL COST
0.00
-0.20 0.59
6.52
11.07
15.00
13.31
21.00
23.42
25.46
27.15
28.53
29.76
30.80
31.83
PV.
FUEL COST
0.00
-0.19 0.54
s.ao
9.46
12.33
14.47
15.96
17.11
17.8?
18.34
18.53
18.59
18.50
18.36
INC
MAINT COST
0.00
0.17 1.29
3.55
5.25
6.74
8.07
9.31
10.50
U.54
12.40
13.12
13.75
14.31
14.83
PV.
MAINT COST
o.oo
0.17 1.20
3.16
4.49
5.54
6.38
7.08
7.67
8.10
8.38
a. 53
8.59
8.59
8.56
INC
STJCR PRICE
-0.00
-0.16 0.09
1.96
1.66
1.69
1.84
1.74
1.80
1.78
1.92
1.98
2.18
2.19
2.45
PV.
STUB PRICE
-0.00
-0.14 0.08
1.74
1.43
1.39
1.45
1.32
1.31
1.25
1.29
1.29
1.37
1.31
1.41
INC
INVESTMENT
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
PV.
3
vJD
IMC
INVESTMENT
U.S. COST
-0.0
0.00
-0.0 -0.0
-0.1S 1.96
-0.0
12.04
-0.0
17.99
-0.0
23.43
-0.0
28.21
-0.0
32.06
-0.0
35.72
-0.0
38.7T
-0.0
41.46
-0.0
43.64
-0.0
45.69
-0.0
47.29
-0.0
49.11
PV.
U.S. COST
0.00
-0.17 1.81
10.70
15.38
19.26
22.30
24.36
26.10
27.24
28.01
28.34
28.54
28.40
28.36
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF !
SCENARIO
TOT
PV.
FUEL COST.
FUEL COST
7147.
5280.
09
72
INC FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
302.11
203.96
TOT
PV.
MAINT COST
MAtWT COST
5 72.
4L1.
03
65
INC MA INT COST
PV. MAINT COST
140.23
94.97
TOT
PV.
STKR price
STKR PRICE
7808.
580*.
55
15
INC SIKR
PV. STKR
PRICE
PRICE
25.50
17.82
TOT
PV.
INVESTMENT
INVESTMENT
0.
0.
0
0
IMC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
0.0
0.0
TOT
PV.
U.S. COST
U.S. COST
15527.67
11496.53
INC U.S.
pv. U.S.
chst
COST
467.81
316.74
8.5*
2.39
1.32
-0.0
-0.0
COST SUMMARY
MAS SCENARIO-B
-------
NftS SCMRO-8*J-131 FUOATA-LHL810-059 AGF CTR-DNDB10-060 SUMPGH-138
PUN DATE = 01/22/75
1970 1W1 1972 1973
INCRFMfcNTAL COST S'JMHARY PtPORT
SCALE FACTOR" 1.00D 03
1974 1975 1976 1977 197d 1979 1980
1981 1982 1«83 1984 1985
INC FUEL COST -0.02 -0.33 0.33 6.IT 9.36 8.91
PV. FUEL COST -0.02 -0.32 0.29 5.49 8.00 7.32
9.10 12.29 16.33 19.71 22.35 24.31 26.02 27.48 28.87 30.27
7.20 9.33 11.93 13.04 15.09 15.79 16.26 16.51 16.67 16.81
INC MAINT COST
PV. HA I NT COST
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PR'tCE
INC INVESTMENT
w PV. INVESTMENT
O
O
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
0.00 0.16 1.27 3.52 4.93 5.32 5.85 6.95 8.09
0.00 0.16 1.18 3.13 4.21 4.38 4.62 5.28 5.90
9.04 9.77 10.36 10.93 11.48 12.00 12.53
6.34 6.60 6.73 6.83 6.89 6.93 6.96
-0.12 -0.87 -0.80 1.32
-0.12 -0.83 -0.74 1.17
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
2.70 12.20 10.60
2.32 10.03 8.37
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0
8.38 12.27 12.78 13.47 13.75 14.59 15.00 15.52 16.63
6.36 8.97 8.98 9.09 8.93 9.12 9.01 8.96 9.23
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.14 -1.03 0.79 11.01 IT.00 26.43 25.55 27.61 36.69 41.52 45.58 48.43 51.54 53.95 56.39 59.42
-0.14 -1.00 0.73 9.79 14.53 21.73 20.19 20.98 26.81 29.17 30.79 31.46 32.19 32.40 32.57 33.00
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
7086.13
5236.97
TOT MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
544.00
392.93
TOT STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
7930.47
5885.19
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
0.0
0.0
TOT J.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
15560.61
11514.99
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
241.15
160.21
INC MAINT COST
PV. MM NT COST
112.20
76.15
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PPICE
147.43
98.86
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
0.0
0.0
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
500.74
335.20
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-B'
-------
NAS SCNRO-e-121 FSJ0AT^LHl3ia-359 AGFCTtl-0.*JD810-060 SUMP'^-138
RUN OATE = 09/17/74
INC FUEL COST
PV„ FUEL COST
INC »MNT CIST
f»V. *MNT OST
1970 1971
0.03 -0.20
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTor= 1.00D 08
197Z 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
0.59 6.52 9.89 9.49
O.Od -0.19 0.54 5.30 8.45 7.83
3.05 0.17 1,29 3.55 4.97 5.37
0.0) 0.17 1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41
1980
8.95 8.31 7.89 7.50 7.03
7.07 6.32 5.77 5.27 4.75
5.73 6.13 6.58 6.95 7.16
4.53 4.66 4.81 4.87 4.84
1981 1982
6.43 5.86
4.16 3.66
1.21 7.37
4.72 4.61
1983
1984 1985
5.39 5.11 4.99
3.24 2.95 2.77
7.48 7.62 7.83
4.49 4.40 4.35
INC STKR PRICF -0.0J -0.16 0.09 1.96 4.01 12.90 13.35 13.39 13.80 14.08 14.67 14.99 15.63 16.06 16.84 17.30
f»V. STKiV PRlCr -0.0) -0.14 3.03 1.74 3.44 10.60 10.55 10.17 10.09 9.90 9.90 9.74 9.77 9.64 9.72 9.60
INC INVESMEIT -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
»V. INVESTMENT -0.0 -0.) -0.0 -0.) -3.0 -0.0 -0.3 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
INC u.s. chst
PV.' U.S. COST
0.00 -0,18 1,96 12.14 18.87 ?7.75 28.03 27.34 28.27 28.52 28.85 28.67 28.86 28.92 29.57 30.10
0.00 -0.17 1.81 to.70 lb.13 22.81 22.15 21.15 2J.66 20.04 19.49 18.62 18.03 17.37 17.08 16.72
TPTAL COST OF !
SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST
OF SCENARIO
TTT FUEL COST
6938.70
INC
FUEL COST
93.72
PV. FUEL COST
5145.10
PV.
FUEL COST
69.34
TUT HAlNT COST
517.28
INC
MAI NT COST
85.48
PV. MMNT COST
3/6.14
PV.
MAINT COST
59.46
TOT STKR PSJCE
7951.96
INC
STKR PRICE
168.91
PV. STKR PRICE
5901.13
PV.
STKR PRICE
114.79
TUT INVESTMENT
0.0
INC
INVESTMENT
0.0
PV. IMVESTMfcNT
0.0
PV.
INVESTMENT
0.3
TOT U.S. COST
1-S407.93
INC
U.S. COST
348.07
PV. U.S. COST
11422.37
PV.
U.S. COST
242.58
COST SUMMARY
HAS SCENAR10-C
-------
MAS Sf.W'J-C• J-136 FII0VTA-U1L810-059 AGFCTR-PND810-060 SUMPGM-138
RUN DATE = 09/17/74
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
INC MAINT C'1$T
PV. MAI NT COST
1970
1971 1912 1973
-0.0? -0.33
-0.02 -0.32
0.00
0.0')
0.16
0.16
INC IMVESTHENT -0.0
pv. investment -o.o
-o.o -o.o
-o.o -o.o
INC1FHENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR* 1.000 08
1974 1975 1976 19T7 1978 1979
1.27 3.52
1.19 2.13
INC STKR PRICE -0.12 -0.8/ -0.30 1.32
PV. STKR PRICE -0.12 -0.a3 -0.7
-------
NAS SCNRO-CS-132 FUOATA-IHLBIO-OM AGfCTH-0NO8lO-060 SUMPOM—138
ftUN DATE * 01/21/75
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
INC HAINT COST
PV. NAINT COST
1970 1971 1972 1973 1974
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR* 1.000 08
1975 1*76 1977 1978 1979
1980
198 £
1982 1983 1984
1985
0.00 -0.19 0.59 6.43 9.76 8.77 6.51 3.01 -1.17 -6.32 -12.79 -19.55 -25.69 -31.21 -36.10 -40.33
0.00 -0.18 0.54 5.71 8.34 7.21 5.15 2.28 -0.86 -4.44 -8.64 -12.70 -16.05 -18.74 -20.85 -22.39
0.00 0.17 1.29 3.55 4.97 5.35 5.65 5.93 6.22 6.40 6.38 6.25 4.13
0.00 0.17 i.20 3.16 4.25 4.40 4.47 4.51 4.55 4.49 4.31 4.06 3.83
6.04 5.99 6.02
3.62 3.46 3.34
INC STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.12 0.09 -0.39 2.18 9.59 1.07 -9.63 -16.74 -27.39 -39.99 -45.69 -47.11 -48.69 -50.57 -52.26
PV. STKR PRICE -0-00 -0.11 0.08 -0.39 1.87 7.88 0.84 -7.32 -12.23 -19.24 -27.02 -29.68 -29.42 -29.24 -29.21 -29.02
u
©
u
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
O.OO -0.14
0.00 -0.14
-0.0
-0.0
1.96
1.82
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
9.59 16.91 23.71 13.22 -0.69 -11.69 -27.32 -46.41 -58.98 -66.68 -73.88 -80.68 -86.58
8.52 14.45 19.49 10.45 -0.53 -8.54 -19.19 -31.35 -38.32 -41.65 -44.37 -46.59 -48.07
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL
PV. FUFL
cosTr
COST
TOT NAINT COST
PV. NAINT COST
TOT STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
TOT INVESTNENT
PV. INVESTMENT
TOT U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
6706.68
5001.13
508.15
370.48
7457.39
5584.16
0.0
0.0
14672.22
10955.78
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INC FUFL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
-138.29
-15.62
INC NAINT COST
PV. MAINf COST
76.35
53.80
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
INC INVESTNENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
-325.66
-202.17
0.0
0.0
-387.64
-224.01
COST SUNNART
NAS SCENARtO-CS
-------
MAS SCNRTI-F-135 FU0ATA-LHLIU9-C59 AGFCTR-OND810-060 SUMPGM-138
RUN DATE * 09/17/74
INC FUFL COST
PV. FUEL COST
1973 1971
19 72
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR" l.OOD 09
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
O.Jj -0.20 0.59 6.52 9.89 9.49 9.31 10.29 11.44 12.53 13.45 14.12 14.74 15.35 16.00 16.70
0.00 -0.19 0.54 5.80 8.45
7.80
7.36 7.82 «.36 8.80 9.08 9.17 9.21 9.22 9.24
9.28
INC KATNT CllST
PV. MAI NT CIST
0.0 J 0.17
0.00 0.17
1.29
3.55 4.97 5.37 5.71 6.05 6.43 6.73 6.87
6.91
6.94 7.00 7.08 7.24
1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41 4.52 4.60 4.70 4.72 4.64 4.49 4.34 4.20 4.09 4.02
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STXR PRICE
-3.00 -0.16 0.09 1.96 4.01 12.90 14.20 17.43 18.09 18.65 19.26 19.96 20.63 21.29 22.14 22.82
-3.0J -0.14 0.08 1.74 3.44 10.60 11.22 13.24 13.22 13.10 13.01 12.97 12.89 12.79 12.78 12.67
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVeSTMfNT
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -rO.O -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
0.00 -0.18 1.96 12.04 18.87 27.75 29.22 33.77 35.96 37.89 39.57 41.00 42.32 43.62 45.22 46.75
0.0) -0.17 1.81 10.70 16.13 22.81 23.10 25.66 26.27 26.62 26.73 26.63 26.43 26.20 26.12 25.96
TOTAl COST OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT
F'lEL COST
7005.20
INC
FUFL COST
160.22
PV.
FUFL COST
5186.69
PV.
FUFL COST
109.93
TOT
HAI NT COST
514.12
INC
MA INT COST
82.32
PV.
MAINT COST
374.17
PV.
MAI NT COST
57.49
TOT
STKR PPICE
7996.30
INC
STKR PRICE
213.27
PV.
STKR PRICE
5929.93
PV.
STKR PRICE
143.59
TOT
INVESTMENT
0.0
INC
INVESTMENT
0.0
PV.
investment
0.0
PV.
INVESTMENT
0.0
ror
U.S. COST
15515.63
INC
U.S. COST
455.77
l»V.
U.S. COST
11490.79
PV.
U.S. COST
311.01
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARI0-E
-------
MAS SGNRO-E-199 FUOATA-LHL810-059 AGFCTR-0N0810-060 SUKPGM-13B
RUM BATE « 12/21/74
MC fUEt COST
PV. ftlEt COST
IMC HAtNT COST
PV. MINT COST
INC STKR MICE
PV. STKK MICE
IMC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
IMC (|.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
1970 l»Tl 19T2 1973 19?*
0.00 »tt.20
0.00 -0.19
0.59
0.54
6.52
5. SO
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.17
-0.00 -0.16
-0.00 >0.1*
0.09
0.08
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY RETORT
SCALE FACTO*" 1,000 08
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 4981 1982 1983 198* 1985
1.29 3.55
l>20 3.16
9.89
8. *5
*.97
*.25
9.*9
7.80
5.37
*.*1
9.W V0.85 \2.38 13.83 15.08 16.0* 16.9* 17.80 18.67 19.57
7**5 8.2* 9.0* 9.72 10.18 10.*2 10.58 10.69 10.78 10.87
5.73
*.53
6.12
*.65
6.55
*.78
6.88
*. 83
7.06
*.77
7.15
*.6*
7.21
*.51
7.30
*.38
7.42
*.28
1.96
1.7*
0.00 "0.18 1.96 12.0* 18.87 27.75 29.37 3*.61 37.06
0.00 HI.17 1.81 10.70 16.13 22.81 23.22 26.30 27.08
7.63
*.22
*.01 12.90 1*.23 17.65 18.1* 18.68 19.30 19.97 20.66 21.*0 22.1* 22.91
3.** 10.60 It.2* 13**1 13.26 13.13 13.03 12.97 12.91 12.85 12.78 12.72
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -O.o -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.3
—0.0 "0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0*0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0
39.39 *1.*3 *3.16 **.81 *6.*9 *8.23 50.07
27.68 27.99 28.03 27.99 27.92 27.85 27.81
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
TOT MAlNf COST
W. MA INT COST
TOT STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
tOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
TOT OiS.
Mf. U.S.
COST
COST
7021.8*
5197.12
5X6.18
375**6
7996.91
5930.3*
0.0
0.0
1553*.93
11502.92
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
176.86
120.37
INC Mi.INT COST
PV. NAINT COST
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
8* .38
58.78
213.87
1**.01
0.0
0.0
*75.06
323.1*
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-E-2
-------
NAS SCNWJ-ED-126 FUDATA-IH1810-059 AGFCTR-0N0810-060 SUMPGH-138
RUN DATE = 01/21/75
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY »EPORT
SCALE FACTOR= I.000 08
1970 1971 1972 1973 197%
1975
1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 198* 1985
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
0.00 -0.20 0.59 6.52 9.89
0.00 -0.19 3.54 5.80 8.45
9.49 9.37 10.50 11.32 11.63 11.27 10.32 9.04
7.80 7.41 7.97 8.27 8.17 7.61 6.70 5.65
7.61 6.41 5.41
4.57 3.70 3.01
INC NA1NT COST
PV. MAINT COST
0.00 0.17 1.29 3.55 4.97 5.37 5.T2 6.08 6.44 6.68 6.73 6.65
0.00 0.17 1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41 4.52 4.62 4.70 4.69 4.54 4.32
6.55 6.45 6.40 6.42
4.09 3.87 3.69 3.56
INC STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.16 0.09 1.96
PV. STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.14 0.08 1.74
4.01 12.90 14.28 17.86 18.38 18.83 19.50 20.19 20.98 21.76 22.73 23.34
3.44 10.60 11.28 13.57 13.43 13.23 13.16 13.12 13.11 13.07 13.13 12.96
INC INVESTMENT
w PV. INVESTMENT
o
o\
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0
0.00 -0.18 1.96 12.04 18.87 27.75 29.38 34.43 36.14 37.13 37.48 37.17 36.57 35.81 35.54 35.16
0.00 -0.17 1.81 10.70 16.13 22.81 23.22 26.16 26.40 26.09 25.32 24.14 22.84 21.51 20.53 19.53
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
TOT MA INT COST
PV. MAINT COST
TOT STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVFSTMENT
TOT U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
6964.14
5162.22
511.27
372.48
7999.70
5932.11
0.0
0.0
15475.12
11466.81
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
INC MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
119.17
85.46
79.47
55.80
216.66
145.77
0.0
0.0
415.25
287.02
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-ED
-------
HAS SCNRO-EO-201 FU OAT A-LHL 810-059 AGFCTR-DN0810-060 SUNPCM-138
RUN DATE = 12/21/74
1970
incremental cost SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR" 1.000 08
1971 1972 1971 197* 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1985
1HC F'lEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
0.00 >0.20 0.59 6.52 9.89 9.49 9.29 10.06 10.53 10.50 9.85 8.65 7.17 5.54 4.21 3.08
0.00 >0.19 0.54 5.80 8.45 7.80 7.35 7.64 7.69 7.38 6.65 5.62 4.48 3.34 2.43 1.71
Ul
O
IMC MAINT COST 0.00 0.17
PV. MA1NT COST 0.00 0.17
1.29 3.55 4.97 5.37 5.71 6.04 6.38 6.59 6.62 6.53 6.40 6.29 6.22 6.24
1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41 4.92 4.59 4.66 4.63 4.47 4.24 4.00 3.77 3.59 3.46
INC STKft MICE
PV. STKR PRICE
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
-0.00 -0.16 0.09 1.96
-0.00 -0.14 0.08 1.74
-0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0
0# 00 —0.18
0.00 -O.IT
4.01 12.90 14.18 17.39 17.87 18.28 18.97 19.64 20.43 21.20 22.12 22.76
3.44 10.60 11.20 13.21 13.06 12.85 12.81 12.76 12.76 12.73 12.77 12.63
—0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0
—0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -O.O -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
1.96 12.04 18.87 27.75 29.18 33.49 34.78 35.37 35.43 34.83 34.00 33.04 32.55 32.06
1.B1 10.70 16.13 22.81 23.0? 25.44 25.41 24.85 23.93 22.62 21.23 19.85 18.80 17.81
TOTAL. COST OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
TOT MA1NT COST
PV. NAINT-COST
TOT 5TKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
TOT M.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
6950.16
5153.44
510.19
371.81
7994.68
5928.83
0.0
0.0
15455.03
11454.08
INC
FUEL COST
105.18
PV.
FUEL COST
76.68
INC
MAINT COST
78.39
PV.
MA INT COST
55.13
INC
STKR PRICE
211.63
PV.
STKR PRICE
142.50
INC
INVESTMENT
0.0
PV.
INVESTMENT
0.0
INC
U.S. COST
395.17
PV.
U.S. COST
274.29
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO—E0"2-
-------
NAS SCMRO-ES-128 FUDATA-LHL810-059 AGFCTR-DND810-060 SUMPC-W-138
R'W DATF = 01/21/75
»9T0 19/1 1972 1973
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
INC HAINT COST
PV. HAINT COST
0.00 -0.2Q
0.00 -0.19
0.00 0.17
0.00 0.17
INC STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.16
PV. STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.14
u>
o
00
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S. COST
PV, U.S. COST
-0.0
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR^ 1.000 0*
197* 1975 1976 1977 1973 1979 1980
1981
1962 1983 1984 1985
0.59 6.52
0.54 5.80
9.89 9.49 9.42 10.59 11.12 10.92
8.45 7.80 7.45 8.04 8.13 7.67
1.29 3.55 4.97 5.37 5.73 6.12 6.60 7.01
1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41 4.53 4.66 4.82 4.92
9.83
6.67
7.28
4.91
8.09 6.01
5.25 3.75
3. 68
2.21
1.33 -0.94
0.77 -0.52
7.4* T.59 7.76 T.96 8.22
4.83 4.74 4.66 4.60 4.57
0.09 1.96 4.01 12.90 14.23 17.24 17.98 18.81 19.57 20.48 21.35 22.09 23.16 23.98
0.08 1.74 3.44 10.60 11.24 13.10 13.14 13.22 13.22 13.31 13.34 13.26 13.37 13.31
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0
0.00 -0.18
0.00 -0.17
1.96 12.04 18.87 27.75 29.37 33.96 35.70 36.73 36.72 36.OZ 34.95 33.52 32.45 31.26
1.81 10.70 16.13 22.81 23.22 25.80 26.08 25.81 24.80 23.39 21.83 20.14 18.74 17.36
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
6941.36
5148.58
TOT MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
518.87
377.10
TOT STKR PIICE
PV. STKR PRICE
8000.75
5932.56
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
0.0
0.0
TOT U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
15460.98
11458.24
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INC FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
96.39
71.82
INC MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
87.07
60.42
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKt PRICE
217.70
146.23
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
0.0
0.0
401.12
278.46
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-ES
-------
NAS SCNRO—ES-200 FUOA7A-LHL810-059 AGFCTR-0N0810-060 SUMPGM-138
RON DATE * 12/21/74
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR* 1.000 08
O
«0
WTO
1971
19T2
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
INC
FUEL COST
0.00
-0.20
0.59
6.52
9.89
9.49
9.42
10.74
11.83
12.59
12.91
12.81
12.58
12.25
11.92
PV.
FUEL COST
0.00
-0.19
0.94
5.80
8.45
7.60
7.45
8.16
8.65
a. 85
8.72
8.32
7.86
7.36
6.88
INC
HAINT COST
0.00
0.17
1.29
3.55
4.97
5.37
5.73
6.14
6.70
7.25
7.72
8.13
8.55
9.02
9.53
PV.
MAINT COST
0.00
0.17
1.20
3.16
4.25
4.4L
4.53
4.67
4.89
5.09
5.21
5.28
5.34
5.41
5.50
INC
STKR PRICE
-0.00
-0.16
0.09
1.96
4.01
12.90
14.23
17.46
17.79
18.24
18.75
19.37
20.02
20.70
21.41
PV.
STKR PRICE
-0.00
-0.1*
0.08
1.74
3.44
10.60
11.24
13.27
13.00
12.82
12.66
12.58
12.51
12.43
12.36
INC
INVESTMENT
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-D.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
PV.
investment
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0,0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0
INC
U.S. COST
0.00
-o.ia
1.96
12.04
18.87
27.75
29.37
34.35
36.32
38.08
39.37
40.31
41.14
41.96
42.86
PV.
U.S. COST
0.00
-0.17
1.01
10.70
16.13
22.81
23.22
26.09
26.54
26.76
26.60
26. 18
25.70
25.21
24.75
TOTAL COST
OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF :
SCENARIO
TOT
PV.
FUEL i
FUEL
COST
COST
6989.
5177.
98
87
INC FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
145.01
101.11
TOT
PV.
MAINT
MAINT
COST
COST
526.
381.
03
40
INC MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
94.23
64.72
TOT
PV.
STKR PRICE
STKR PRICE
7992.
5927.
00
23
INC STKR
PV. STKR
PRICE
PRICE
208.96
140.90
TOT
PV.
INVESTMENT
INVESTMENT
0.
0.
0
0
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
0.0
0.0
TOT
PV.
U.S. i
U.S. i
COST
COST
15508.
11486.
02
50
INC U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
448.15
306.73
1985
6.43
5.61
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-ES-2
-------
MAS SCNftO-EM-127 FUDATA-LHL810—059 A6FCTR-DND810-060 SUMPGM-138
RUN DATE = 01/21/75
1970
1971
1972
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR® 1.00*1 08
1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1973 1979
1980
1981 1982 1983 198V 1985
INC FUEL COS7
PV. FUEL COST
0.00 -0.20 0.59 6.52 9.89 9.49 9.43 10.83 12-38 13.96 15.42 16.70 18.00 19.32 20.63 21.91
0.00 -0.19 0.54 5.80 8.45 7.80 7.46 8.23 9.05 9.81 10.42 10.85 11.25 11.61 11.91 12.17
INC NAINT COST 0.00 0.17
PV. NAINT COST 0.00 0.17
1.29 3.55 4.97 5.37 5.72 6.10 6.53 6.88 7.08 7.20 7.32
1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41 4.53 4.64 4.77 4.83 4.79 4.68 4.58
7.47 7.64 7.87
4.48 4.41 4.37
INC STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.16 0.09 1.96 4.01 12.87 14.10 17.30 17.11 16.64 16.19 15.68 15.21 14.98 15.58 16.09
PV. STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.14 0.08 1.74 3.44 10.58 11.14 13.15 12.51 11.69 10.93 10.19 9.50 8.99 8.99 8.93
INC INVESTMENT -0.0
PV. INVESTMENT -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
0.00 -0.18 1.96 12.04 18.87 27.73 29.25 34.24 36.03 37.47 38.69 39.59 40.53 41.76 43.84 45.87
0.00 -0.17 1.81 10.70 16.13 22.79 23.12 26.01 26.32 26.33 26.13 25.72 25.31 25.08 25.32 25.47
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
TOT NAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
TOT STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
TOT U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
7029.87
5201.90
516.99
375.93
7960.70
5908.05
0.0
0.0
15507.57
11485.89
INC FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
INC MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
184.90
125.14
85.19
59.25
177.66
121.72
0.0
0.0
447.70
306.10
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-EW
-------
NfiS SC.NSO-r 1-129 FMUTA—'.HI 313-059 AGFCTff.-WJD810-060 S'JNPGM-139
RUN DATE = 09/17/74
INC FUCL COST
PV. FUR CCST
1970 1971
J.J> -0.20
O.OJ -0.19
1972
1973
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY RE°ORT
SCALE FACTOR® I.000 08
1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
1980
1981
1982 1983 1984 1985
1.59 6.52
0.54 5.30
9.89 9.49 9.31 10.16 10.62 10.66 10.18 9.23 8.09 6.86 5.72 4.77
3.45 7.80 7.36 7.72 7.76
7.49
6.87
5.99 5.06 4.12 3.30 2.65
ItiC *M\T CIST 0.DO 0.17 1.29 3.55 4.97 5.37 5.71 6.10 6.66 7.06 7.23 7.24 7.21
PV. fAI*T COST 0.» 0.17 1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41 4.52 4.64 4.87 4.95 4.88 4.71 4.51
7.17 7.It 7.23
4.30 4.14 4.01
inc stkk p^ice -o.'M -o.ia -).t> i.nt,
PV. STKR PRICE -O.O-J -0.14 0.38 1.74
't.Ol 12.90 IV. 20 18.93 24.19 24.86 25.59 26.55 27.41 28.29 29.20 30.06
3.44 10.60 11.22 14.38 17.68 17.47 17.28 17.25 17.12 16.99 16.86 16.69
U
INC IMVESTMCNT
PV. INVESTMr-NT
INC U.S. C-1ST
PV. U.S. COST
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.0
•>.o
0.0
0. >
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.03 -0.18
0.00 -0.17
1.96 12.J V 18.87 27.75 29.22 35.19 41.47 42.57 42.99 43.03 42.71 42.31 42.09 42.05
1.81 10.70 16.13 22.81 23.10 26.74 30.30 29.91 29.04 27.95 26.67 25.41 24.31 23.35
TOTAl. COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL COST
PV. F JPL COST
6956.86
5157.Vrf
TOT HAJMT COST
PV. «*A!N1 COST
515.95
3T5.2S
TOT STKP PRtCF
PV. S TKR PKICE
8351.13
5964.93
TOT I WESTHr*lT
»*V. ?"tVC«;T«tFMT
0.0
0.0
tot (j.s. cm
?V. U.S. COST
15523.^5
'11*97.86
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
INC MA I NT COST
PV. MAINT COST
INC STKR PRICF
PV. STKR PRICE
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
111.89
80.72
84.15
58.71
268.08
178.65
0.0
0.0
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
464.08
318.07
COST SUMMARY
MAS SCENARIO—Fl
-------
MAS SCNRO—1-124 FUO AT A- L HL 810- 059 AGFCTR-ON0810-060 SUMPGM-138
RUN DATE = 01/21/75
1970 19/1 1972 1973
1974
INCREMENTAL COST SUfNARV REPORT
SCALE FACTOR' I.000 03
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984
1985
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
0.00 -0.20 0.59 6.52 9.89 9.91 12.23 17.24 21.19 24.03 25.86 26.92 27.60 28.21 28.83 29.38
0.00 -0.19 0.54 5.80 8.45 8.15 9.67 13.10 15.48 16.88 17.47 17.49 17.24 16.95 16.65 16.32
INC NA1NT COST 0.00 0.17 1.29 3.55 4.97 5.37 $.76 6.33 6.90 7.34 7.60 7.75 7.88 8.02 8.18 8.40
»>V. MAI NT COST 0.00 0.17 1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41 4.55 4.81 5.04 5.15 5.14 5.04 4.92 4.81 4.72 4.66
INC STKft PRICE -0.00 -0.16 0.09 1.96 4.01 13.72 20.56 31.15 32.21 33.38 34.67 35.99 37.38 38.54 40.23 41.34
PV. STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.14 0.08 1.74 3.44 11.28 16.25 23.67 23.54 23.46 23.41 23.38 23.35 23.14 23.23 22.95
INC INVESTMENT
w PV. INVESTMENT
f
N>
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
-0.0 -0.0 -9.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
0.00 -0.18 1.96 12.04 18.87 29.00 38.55 54.72 60.29 64.75 68.12 70.68 72.86 74.76 77.24 79.10
0.00 -0.17 1.81 10.70 16.13 23.84 30.47 41.58 44.05 45.49 46.02 45.91 45.51 44.90 44.61 43.93
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
TOT MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
TOT STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
TOT U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
7113.18
5256.74
521.31
378.71
8148.12
6029.11
0.0
0.0
15782.63
11664.56
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
INC MAI NT COST
PV. "AI NT COST
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
IHC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
268.21
179.98
89.51
62.03
365.09
242.78
0.0
0.0
722.77
484.78
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-I
-------
MAS SCNRO-J-125 FUDATA-IHL810"059 AGFCTR-DND810-060 SUMPGM-138
RUN DATE = 01/21/75
1970 1971 1972 1973
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR* 1.000 08
197* 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
INC FUEL COST
P** FUEL COST
0.00 -0.20 0.59 6.52 9.89 9.49
0.00 -0.19 0.54 5.80 8.45 7.80
9.40 11.77 16.97 21.03 23.86 25.69 26.91 27.72 28.60 29.41
7.43 8.94 12.40 14.77 16.11 16.68 16.81 16.65 16.51 16.33
INC (MINT COST 0.00 0.17
PV. MAI NT COST 0.00 0.17
1.29 3.55 4.97 5.37
1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41
5.72 6.15 6.76 7.24 7.53 7.70 7.84 7.98 8.16 8.39
4.53 4.67 4.94 5.08 5.09 5.00 4.90 4.79 4.71 4.66
INC STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.16 0.09 1.96 4.01 12.90 14.28 21.16 32.12 33.16 34.47 35.91 37.29 38.54 40.23 41.34
PV. STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.14 0.08 1.74 3.44 10.60 11.28 16.08 23.47 23.30 23.28 23.33 23.29 23.14 23.23 22.95
INC INVESTMENT -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
¦0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
W PV. investment
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0
0.00 -0.18 1.96 12.04 18.87 27.75 29.41 39.08 55.85 61.42 65.85 69.30 72.03 74.23 76.99 79.12
0.00 -0.17 1.81 10.70 16.13 22.81 23.24 29.69 40.81 43.15 44.49 45.01 44.99 44.58 44.46 43.94
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
TOT MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
TOT STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. investment
TOT U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
7092.61
5241.80
520.63
3T8.23
8130.35
6015.42
0.0
0.0
15743.59
11635.44
INC FUEL
PV. FUEL
COST
COST
INC MAINT COST
PV. NAJNT COST
INC STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S.
PV. U.S.
COST
COST
247.63
165.04
88.83
61.55
347.31
229.08
0.0
0.0
683.73
455.66
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-J
-------
NAS SCNRO-JS-133 FU0ATA-LHL810-059 AGFCTR-nND810-060 SUMPGM-138
RUN DATE = 01/21/75
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
INC MA INT COST
PV. MAI NT COST
1970 19)1 1972 19 73 197*
0.00 -0.19
0.00 -0.18
0.00
0.00
0.17
0.17
0.59
0.54
1.29
1.20
INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY REPORT
SCALE FACTOR* I.000 08
1975 1976 1977 1978 1979
6.43
5.71
3.55
3.16
9.76
8.34
8.77
7.21
4.97 5.35
4.25 4.40
7.00
5.54
6.45
4.90
7.12
5.20
5.64 5.90 6.25
4.46 4.48 4.57
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
5.61
3.94
6.43
4.51
1.58 -3.50 -8.42 -13.05 -17.13 -20.75
1.07 -2.27 -5.26 -7.83 -9.89 -11.52
6.34 6.11 5.88 5.69 5.55 5.5t>
4.28 3.97 3.68 3.41 3.20 3.05
INC STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.12 0.09 -0.39 2.18 9.59 2.10
PV. STKR PRICE -0.00 -o;il 0,08 -0.35 1.87 7.88 1.66
INC INVESTMENT -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0
w PV. INVESTMENT
-F>
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
-1.66
-1.26
-0.0
-0.0 —0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
1.35 -8.27 -20.06 -24.71 -25.28 -25.98 -26.98 -27.98
0.99 -5.81 -13.56 -16.05 -15.78 -15.60 -15.58 -15.54
—0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0 —0.0
0.00 -0.14 1.96
0.00 -0.14 1.82
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0
-0.0
-0.0
-0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
9.59 16.91 23.71 14.74 10.69 14.73
8.52 14.45 19.49 11.65 8.12 10.76
3.76 -12.15 -22.09 -27.82 -33.34 -38.56 -43.24
2.64 -8.21 -14.35 -17.38 -20.02 -22.26 -24.01
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
6835.25
5982.25
TOT NAINT COST
PV. NAINT COST
506.43
369.47
TOT STKR PRICE
PV. STKR PRICE
7636.93
5699.16
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
0.0
0.0
TOT U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
14978.62
11150.88
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INC FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
-9.72
5.49
INC MAI NT COST
PV. MAI NT COST
74.63
52.79
INC STKR price
PV. STKR price
-146.11
-87.17
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
0.0
0.0
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
-81.25
-28.91
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO-JS
-------
MS SCNRO-K-130 FU0ATA-LH1810-059 AGFCTR-0ND8I0-060 SUMPGM-138
RUN RATE = 01/21/75
INCRFMFNTAL COST SUMSARV RFPORT
SCALE FACTOR= 1.000 08
1970 1971 1972 19T3 197% 197S 1976 1977 1978 1979 1989 1981 1982 1983 198* 1985
INC FUEL COST 0.00 -0.20 0.59 6.52 9.89 9.49 9.38 10.60 11.86 13.57 16.72 18.99 20.51 21.45 22.44 23.43
PV. FUEL COST 0.00 -0.19 0.54 5.80 8.45 7.80 7.42 8.05 8.67 9.54 11.29 12.34 12.81 12.89 12.96 13.01
INC (MINT COST 0.00 0.17 1.29 3.55 4.97 5.37 5.T2 6.08 6.47 6.81 7.10 7.27 7.39 7.51 7.66 7.87
PV. MAI NT COST 0.00 0.17 1.20 3.16 4.25 4.41 4.52 4.62 4.72 4.78 4.79 4.72 4.62 4.50 4.42 4.37
INC STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.16 0.09 1.96 4.01 12.90 14.69 19.86 21.83 26.31 35.02 36.60 38.05 39.47 41.25 42.42
PV. STKR PRICE -0.00 -0.14 0.08 1.74 3.44 10.60 11.61 15.09 15.95 18.49 23.65 23.78 23.77 23.70 23.82 23.55
INC INVESTMENT -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
PV. INVESTMENT -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0 -0.0
INC U.S. COST 0.00 -0.18 1.96 12.04 18.87 27.75 29.79 36.54 40.16 46.69 58.83 62.86 65.95 68.42 71.35 73.71
PV. U.S. COST 0.00 -0.17 1.81 10.70 16.13 22.81 2J.55 27.76 29.34 32.80 39.74 40.83 41.19 41.09 41.21 40.93
TOTAL COST OF SCENARIO
INCREMENTAL COST OF SCENARIO
TOT FUEL COST
PV. FUEL COST
7040.23
5200.12
INC FUEL COST
PV. FU1EL COST
195.26
131.37
TOT MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
517.02
375.93
INC MAINT COST
PV. MAINT COST
85.22
59.25
TOT STKR PRfCE
PV. STKR PRICE
8117.34
6005.46
INC STKR PRICF
PV. STKR PRICE
334.30
219.12
TOT INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
TOT U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
0.0
0.0
15674.60
11589.52
INC INVESTMENT
PV. INVESTMENT
INC U.S. COST
PV. U.S. COST
0.0
0.0
614.73
409.73
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975- 512-419:223
COST SUMMARY
NAS SCENARIO—K
------- |