HIGH ALTITUDE VEHICULAR EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM
VOLUME II. EXPERIMENTAL CHARACTERIZATION OF IDLE
INSPECTION, EXHAUST CONTROL RETROFIT
AND MANDATORY ENGINE MAINTENANCE
PREPARED FOR:
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DENVER, COLORADO 80220
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION VIII
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
ATI /AUTOMOTIVE
ATL/ TESTING
-------
DlscI a Imer
This report was furnished to the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission by
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc. in fulfillment of Contract No. C290526
and the Environmental Protection Agency, Region VIII, Contract No. 68-O2-O0U8,
Task Order 22. The contents of this report are reproduced herein as received
from tha contractor. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed are
those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Air Pollution Control
Commission. Mention of company or product names Is not considered as an
endorsement by the Colorado Air Pollution Control Commission.
U.S.EPA REGION 8
Technical Library 80C-L
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202
-------
PREFACE
This report Is the second of a seven volume report prepared for the State
of Colorado, Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency,
Region VIII. The title of each respective volume Is as follows:
Volume I Executive Summary
VoIume I I Experimental Characterization of Idle Inspection. Exhaust Control
Retrofit and Mandatory Engine Maintenance
Volume III Impact of Altitude on Vehicular Exhaust Emissions
Volume IV Analysis of Experimental Results
Volume V Development of Techniques. Criteria, and Standards to Implement
a Vehicle Inspection. Maintenance and Modification Program
Volume VI The Data Base
Volume VI I Experimental Characterization of Vehicular Emission and Engine
Deterioration
These reports describe the design, conduct, findings and conclusions of
study programs initiated in compliance with the requirements of the Colorado
Department of Health and the Environmental Protection Agency. Volume II
describes the design of an experimental program to Investigate several elements
of emission control; Idle emission Inspection, exhaust control retrofit,
modified engine tuning specifications and mandatory engine maintenance.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was completed as a result of the combined efforts of a great
many people. While It Is not possible to acknowledge the assistance of all who
were Involved from Initial conception of the study to Its completion, project
management wishes to express its appreciation to the following:
f:r. Don Sorrels, Colorado Project Officer and Chief of the Motor Vehicle
Pollution Control Section, Colorado Department of Health, for his fine display
of leadership and decisiveness with respect to the project. A special thanks Is
extended to Mr. Robert Taylor and Miss Lindsay Tipton for their professional
assistance and guidance.
Mr. Dale Wells; EPA Project Officer for his guidance and assistance particularly
with regards to the procurement of high altitude kits.
Mr. Lane Klrkpatrlck, Technical Secretary to the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission and Dr. Gerald Wood, Director of the Air Pollution Control Division
of the Colorado Department of Health for their guidance and assistance partic-
ularly with respect to the procurement of the enabling legislation which made
this study possible.
Members of the Technical Advisory Committee to the Colorado Air Pollution
Control Commission and In particular to Mr. A1 Heln, Mr. Richard Deane and
Mrs. Laboyta Garnand, Chairman, for their guidance and assistance.
Dr. Owen Hall of TRW, Inc. for his able leadership and assistance In the design
of many of the experimental procedures.
Dr. Robert Gafford and Mr. Don Maruoka of Olson Laboratories, Inc. for their
guidance and assistance particularly with regards to the development of Idle
emissions test procedures.
Mr. D. Douglas Graham, a consultant, for his contributions and assistance in the
area of garage personnel training and his observations and comments on mainte-
nance and repair procedures.
Sun Electric Company and In particular Mr. Gene Haight for his cooperation and
assistance In providing and maintaining garage Inspection instruments.
To the following exhaust control retrofit manufacturers for their assistance:
Perfect Circle Division of Dana Corporation and in particualr Mr. Don Vance and
Mr. W. C. "Mac" McCullough.
STP Corporation and in particular Mr. Floyd Wheeler and Mr. and Mrs. Mel Scott.
Colspan Environmental Systems, Inc. and In particular Mr. Robert A. Strleby.
Ech1 In Manufacturing Co. and In particular Mr. Norman Savacol and Mr. Jim Compton.
Central Motive Power, Inc. and In particular Mr. Harry Vogler.
To the domestic car manufacturing companies for their assistance:
American Motors Corporation and In particular Mr. Dan Hittler.
-------
Chrysler Corporation and In particular Mr. Walter Fagley, Jr.
Ford Motor Company and In particular Mr. Lou Farago.
General Motors Corporation and In particular Mr. William Hlckok, G. M. Emissions
Laboratory, Denver.
In addition, a sincere thank you Is extended to:
Mr. Jim Phillips of Texaco, Inc. for his assistance with regards to the "parking
lot survey".
Continental Oil Company (Conoco) for providing gasoline during critical periods ¦
of fuel shortage.
Finally, a sincere thanks for a job well done Is extended to the staff and
personnel of Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
-------
SUMMARY
A sample of 300 of the 196U through 1973 model-year vehicles was utilized
to Investigate the effectiveness and feasibility of several exhaust emission
control strategies as might be applied in the Colorado environment. Four
strategies were evaluated; idle emissions Inspection In the private sector,
exhaust control retrofit, modified engine tuning specifications and mandatory
engine maintenance. Each of the strategies proved to be effective In reducing
exhaust hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions. Increased oxides of nitrogen
emissions were measured with respect to certain of the strategies.
Summarily, It was shown that hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions can
be decreased 11? and 7% respectively by idle emissions Inspection and mainte-
nance at i»0% rejection of vehicles. A slight decrease in oxides of nitrogen
emissions and a slight Increase In fuel economy were also measured.
The more costly exhaust control retrofits were the most effective in HC
and CO reduction with catalytic systems showing reductions of 75% and 85%
respectively. Of the less costly systems investigated, the air bleed and float
bowl pressure regulation systems show good HC and CO reduction at 20% and 35£
respectively with an Increase In N0X emissions of about 25%. On the average
the high altitude modification kits showed little change in HC emissions, a
reduction In CO emissions of about 15% and an Increase In N0X emissions of
about 30%. The Air Bleed/EGR systems appear to represent the best compromise
in emissions control with a range in reduction of 20% HC, 30% CO and 25% N0X.
Certain combinations of modifted engine tuning adjustments showed good
potential for HC and CO reduction of about 10% and 20% respectively although
N0X emissions increased about 20% as a result of this application.
Mandatory engine maintenance also showed good potential for HC and CO
reduction with HC reduction measured at 20% and CO reduction measured at 10%.
Application of mandatory maintenance resulted also In decreased N0X emissions
of about 10%. Mandatory maintenance was shown to be one of the least cost
effective of all strategies Investigated, however.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
Each of the strategies Investigated was found to be effective In reducing
HC and CO emissions.
1.1 The range of reduction for HC Is from a low of about 1% for the
high altitude kits to a high of about 75% for catalytic retrofit.
1.2 The range of CO reduction Is from a low of about 3% for Idle
emissions Inspection at 20% rejection to a high of about 85% for
catalytic retrofit.
1.5 The range of NO* reduction Is from a low of about -50% for the
high altitude kits to a high of about U5% for VSAD/AIr Bleed
retrofIt.
The range of cost effectiveness (CE) Is wide.
2.1 CE for HC ranges from a low of 5 mi 111 grams/mlle/dollar (mmd) for
the high altitude kits and LPG conversion to a high of about 100
mmd for Idle emissions Inspection at 30 to 60% rejection and certain
combinations of modified engine tuning adjustments.
2.2 CE for CO ranges from a low of about 75 mmd for LPG conversion to
a high of about U000 mmd for certain combinations of modified
engine tuning adjustments.
2.3 CE for NO* ranges from a low of -75 mmd for the high altitude kits
to a high of about 50 mmd for VSAP/Air Bleed retrofits.
With respect to Idle emissions Inspection and maintenance:
3.1 The effectiveness curve for HC rose sharply from 0 to 30% rejection
and continued to rise at a reduced rate to 60% rejection. HC
reduction at 30% rejection Is about 10%. At 60% rejection HC
reduction Is about 13%. CE for HC rose sharply from 0 to 30%
rejection. The CE curve Is relatively flat from 30 to 60%
rejection at a level of about 100 mmd.
3.2 The effectiveness curve for CO rose sharply from 0% to 30% re-
jection and continued to rise at a reduced rate through 60%
rejection. CO reduction at 30% rejection is about 5%. At 60%
rejection CO reduction Is about 9%. CE for CO rose sharply
from 0% to 30% rejection and continued to rise at a reduced
rate through 60% rejection. CE at 30% rejection is about 750 mmd.
At 60% rejection CE Is about 1000 mmd.
3.3 The effectiveness curve for NO* rises gradually from 0 to 60%
rejection. At 60% rejection N0X reduction Is about 2%. The CE
curve rises sharply from 0 to 20% rejection and continues to rise
at a reduced rate through 60% rejection. CE at 30% rejection Is
about 3 mmd. At 60% rejection CE Is about 5 mmd.
3.i» The garages (licensed safety Inspection stations) selected to
perform Idle emissions Inspection represent a cross-section of
the automobile repair Industry.
3.5 Training provided to station personnel was adequate with respect
to task objectives. However, more extensive training Is required
with respect to an overall emissions control program.
3.6 The idle emissions inspection, adjustment and repair procedures
provided to garages was adequate. Application of these procedures
resulted in substantial emissions reductions and reasonable cost
-------
with station personnel with respect to data transmittal and
attention to Inspection pass/fall limits.
3.7 Actual Inspection failure rates were higher than design failure
rates. The difference Is attributed primarily to the performance
of one station which failed all vehicles tested. One other
station appears to be borderline In this respect.
3.8 Inspection charges range from an average low of $1.50 per Inspec-
tion at one station to an average high of $6.00 per Inspection
at another station. The overall average Inspection charge Is
$i».05 which Is consistent with laboratory estimated Inspection
costs.
3.9 The average station cost per failed vehicle ranges from a low of
$2.53 to a high of $1U.25. The overall average cost per failed
vehIcle Is $10.57.
3.10 The average station repair cost per vehicle for all vehicles
ranges from a low of $0.76 to $12.26. The overall average cost
per vehicle for all vehicles Is $6.1U.
3.11 The average combined station cost (Inspection and repair) per
failed vehicle ranges from a low of $U.76 to a high of $ 1U.76
. with an average cost per vehicle of $10.18.
3.12 Average overcharge per failed vehicle Is estimated to range from
8 to 22% as determined from direct charges. Average overcharge
per failed vehicle Is estimated to be as high as 38% If direct
repair charges and estimated repair charges to repair problem
vehicles are combined. In terms of costs average overcharge per
station Is from $0.85 to $2.31 per failed vehicle or as high as
$U.66 per failed vehicle.
3.13 Correlation coefficients developed between laboratory Instrumenta-
tion and garage instrumentation are wide In range. Average station
correlation coefficients range from a low of 0.U3 to a high of
0.83 for HC emissions at curb Idle. At 2500 engine rpm the cor-
relation coefficients range from 0.26 to 0.8U. For CO at curb
Idle the range of correlation coefficients Is from 0.U8 to 0.89.
At 2500 engine rpm the range Is from 0.26 to 0.89. In this respect
the performance of two of the stations (20% of the sample) Is
unacceptable.
i». With respect to exhaust control retrofit:
U.l For HC and CO reduction the catalytic system was the most effective
with reductions of 75% and 85% respectively. The catalytic system
was followed by LT, conversion with U0% and 55% reduction for HC
and CO respectively. Catalytic system CE was about 25 mmd for
HC and U50 mmd for CO. The CE ratio for LPG conversion was about
5 mmd for HC and 75 mmd for CO.
i».2 Of the remaining retrofits, EGR/AIr Bleed combined. Air Bleed
alone and Float Bowl Pressure Regulation (FBPR) systems are the
most effective HC and CO reducing retrofits with a range from
about 17% to 20% HC reduction and 20% to nearly 50% CO reduction.
U.3 For N0X reduction the VSAD/AIr Bleed, VSAD/EGR, EGR/AIr Bleed
and EGR retrofit are the more effective systems with a range
from about 25% to U5% N0X reduction.
U. it The change In fuel economy for the various retrofits ranges from
an Improvement of about 21% for LPG conversion to a deterioration
of about 8% for EGR only and VSAD/AIr Bleed systems. Of the less
costly and elaborate systems fuel economy improved about 2.5%
for EGR/AIr Bleed and FBPR systems.
-------
4.5 CE for HC ranges from a low of about 5 mmd for EGR and high alti-
tude kit retrofit to a high of about 50 to 60 mmd for EGR/AIr
Bleed and VSAD/Air Bleed respectively.
U.6 CE for CO ranges from a low of about 75 mmd for LPG conversion
to a high of about 1150 mmd for Air Bleed and FBPR systems.
4.7 CE for NOx ranges from a low of -75 mnd for the high altitude
kits to a high of about 50 mmd for VSAD/Air Bleed retrofit.
U.8 Retrofit kits are relatively easy to install except LPG systems
and catalytic systems where air pumps are not currently installed.
Intrinsic problems are associated with high altitude kit instal-
lation performed under typical garage-type conditions.
4.9 The application of retrofit Is broad with respect to the add-on
systems and the high altitude modification kits. Nearly 100%
of the light-duty vehicle population can be retrofitted with one
or more systems. High altitude kits supplied by Chrysler Corp-
oration are limited to certain of the carburetor models. Other
models are recommended for retrofit as a complete carburetor
replacement only.
i*.10 Labor and parts costs as applied to the high altitude kits is
reasonable with a range from about $3.90 to $13.64 per vehicle.
With respect to the add-on systems the range Is from about $20
for Air Bleed systems to about $650 for LPG systems installed.
Labor and parts costs for high altitude kit installations are
expected to be higher if Installed under more exacting conditions.
5. With respect to modified tuning specifications:
5.1 The greatest HC reductions are obtained from modified adjustment
combinations of A/F ratio-Idle rpm and A/F ratio-choke, both of
which are on the order of 15%. Individually, the greatest HC
reduction Is obtained from the experimental A/F ratio setting
where HC reduction Is about 10%.
5.2 The greatest CO reductions are derived from modified adjustment
combinations of A/F ratio-IgnItion timing, A/F ratio-idle rpm
and A/F ratio-choke which are on the order of 25 to 30%. Indi-
vidually, the greatest CO reduction Is obtained from the experi-
mental A/F ratio setting, where reduction is about 25%.
5.3 Each of the adjustments Individually and In combination result
In NO* Increases on the order of 20 to 35%.
5.U Modified tuning adjustments are relatively easy to perform. How-
ever, Idle rpm adjustments to the experimental value pose problems
relating to safety.
5.5 Adjustments can be applied to virtually all light-duty vehicles.
5.6 Adjustment cost for any two of the parameters investigated is
estimated to be about $5.00 per vehicle.
5.7 Low costs and high effectiveness combine to make certain combin-
ations of modified tuning specifications by far the most CO cost
effective of the strategies Investigated. The most HC cost ef-
fective strategy Is shared equally by certain of the combined
modified tuning specifications and Idle Inspection and maintenance
at the higher rejection rates.
6. With respect to mandatory engine maintenance:
6.1 Mandatory engine maintenance Is effective In reducing HC, CO an:l
N0X emissions. HC reduction is In the order of 20%, CO reduction
-------
Is about 10% and NOx reduction is about 8%. An overall fuel
economy Improvement of about 1% was obtained.
6.2 Cost effectiveness ranking Is low primarily because of associated
high costs for maintenance. CE for HC was about 50 mmd as opposed
to CE for HC of about 100 mmd for Idle Inspection at 30% and
higher rejection rates and modifier) tuning specifications. CE
for CO was about 200 mmd as opposed to a CE for CO of about U000
mmd for modified tuning spedf1 at Ions.
6.3 Costs are estimated to average from a low of about $33.00 per
vehicle to a high of about $60.00 per vehicle.
6.U Problems relating to parts Installation and engine adjustments
are not expected to be unusual.
6.5 Application to light duty vehicles Is 100%.
-------
2. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Since Idle emissions Inspection and maintenance was found to be an effective
and cost effective strategy to reduce exhaust hydrocarbon and carbon mon-
oxide emissions without an accompanying Increase In oxides of nitrogen
emissions. It Is recommended that Idle emissions Inspection of light-duty
vehicles be Implemented In the State of Colorado.
1.1 Because of the various problems which developed through utilization
of licensed safety Inspection stations to perform Idle emissions
Inspection, It is not recommended that Inspection be performed In
the existing network of stations. A state owned, state operated
network or a privately operated, state enfranchised Inspection
network exist as alternative Inspection strategies. It Is recom-
mended that these alternatives be considered.
1.2 Since the experience gained as a result of the pilot emissions
Inspection and maintenance program Indicates that overall Imple-
mentation of this strategy will be a sizeable task. It Is recom-
mended that a program be developed whereby statewide Inspection
will ultimately be realized through application of several phases
of Implementation.
1.3 Since the Idle emissions Inspection adjustment and repair procedures
utilized In the program were shown to be both effective and cost
effective with regard to emissions reduction. It Is recommended
that these procedures be adapted to suit the specific Inspection
program ultimately selected.
l.U As a result of apparent problems relating to garage-type emissions
Inspection Instrumentation, It Is recommended that a thorough
evaluation of emissions analytical Instrumentation be performed
to serve as a basis upon which analytical Instrumentation can be
selected.
2. Since certain of the California approved exhaust control retrofit devices
were found to be both effective and cost effective in reducing exhaust
hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide and oxides of nitrogen emissions. It Is re-
commended that a program of mandatory retrofit device Installation be
Implemented.
2.1 For economic and other reasons It Is recommended that light-duty
vehicles be defined as comprising three categories of vehicles;
fleet vehicles (10 or more vehicles under common ownership), pre-
controlled vehicles (1967 and older model-year vehicles) and
controlled vehicles (1968 through 1972 model-year vehicles).
2.1.1 It Is recommended that emissions standards of retrofit
performance be established for application to fleet
vehicles. It Is further recommended that emissions
standards established for fleet vehicles be related to
emissions reductions shown to be feasible by catalytic
converter and LP gas conversion tests.
2.1.2 It Is recommended that standards of retrofit performance
be established for application to pre-control1ed vehicles.
It Is further recommended that emissions standards estab-
lished for pre-control1ed vehicles be related to emissions
reductions shown to be feasible by EGR/AIr Bleed retrofit
system tests.
2.1.3 ' It Is recommended that standards of retrofit performance
be established for application to controlled vehicles.
It Is further recommended that emissions standards
established for controlled vehicles be related to emissions
-------
reductions shown to be feasible by EGR/Air Bleed retrofit
system tests.
3. Because of Intrinsic vehicle operational problems resulting from Instal-
lation of the altitude kits under typical garage-type conditions, appli-
cation of the strategy Is not recommended.
U. Certain modified engine adjustments have been shown to be both effective and
cost effective In reducing exhaust hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions
although the modified adjustments caused an Increase In emissions of nitro-
gen oxides. Consistent with vehicle warranty constraints, an effective
program of hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions reduction could be
Implemented.
5. Although engine maintenance was shown to be an effective exhaust hydrocarbon,
carbon monoxide and nitrogen oxides reducing strategy, emissions reductions
achieved were not substantially different from those obtained from Idle
emissions Inspection and maintenance. Therefore, a program of mandatory
engine maintenance only Is not recommended because of Its relatively poor
cost effectiveness. It Is recommended, however, that voluntary engine
maintenance be encouraged.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. CONCLUSIONS ix
2. RECOMMENDATIONS xlII
3. INTRODUCTION 1
i». TECHNICAL DISCUSSION - PART I 4
4.1 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES 4
4. 2 PROGRAM DESI GN 4
U. 3 TEST VEHICLES 6
4.3.1 Vehicle Sample Specifications 7
4.3.2 Test Vehicle Procurement 9
4.3.3 Incentives 12
4.3.4 Initial Vehicle Acceptance and Handling 13
4.4 LABORATORY TESTING ANO EVALUATION PROCEDURES 15
4.4.1 Exhaust Emtsslon Test Procedures 15
4.4.1.1 Federal Test Procedures 16
4.4.1.2 Key Mode Test Procedures 17
4.4.1.3 Idle Test Procedures 18
4.4.2 Drlveabtllty Evaluation Procedures 19
4.4.3 Fuel Consumption (Economy) Determination 20
4.5 LABORATORY FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT 21
4.5.1 Physical DIscrlptlon of Facilities 21
4.5.2 Constant Volume Sampler 22
4.5.3 Emission Analytical Console 23
4.5.4 Data Acquisition System 25
4.5.5 Chassis Dynamometer 25
4.5.6 Laboratory Application of Garage Instrumentation 26
4.5.7 Laboratory Standard Calibration Gases 26
4.5.8 Miscellaneous Equipment 26
4.6 DATA HANDLING 2 7
4.6.1 Data Collection 27
4.6.2 Quality Audit 30
4.6.3 Data Reduction 31
-------
Pate
5. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION - PART II 55
5.1 EVALUATION OF EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES 33
5.1.1 Idle Emission Inspection 33
5.1.1.1 Pass/Fall Limits 33
5.1.1.2 Station Selection 35
5.1.1.3 Personnel Training 36
5.1.1.it Testing and Evaluation 37
5.1.2 Exhaust Control Retrofit - California Approved i»0
5.1.2.1 Vehicle Selection l» 1
5.1.2.2 Retrofit Description and Procurement
-------
Pa&
-------
Page
7.J.I Effectiveness Data 80
7.5.2 Cost Effectiveness 81
7.J.5 Drlveablllty and Performance Affects 82
7.U MODIFIED TUNING SPECIFICATIONS 82
7.U.1 Effectiveness 82
7.U.2 Drlveablllty and Performance Affects 8U
7.5 MANDATORY ENGINE MAINTENANCE 8U
7.5.1 Effectiveness 8i»
7.5.2 Cost Effectiveness 85
7.6 OBSERVATIONS 86
8. REFERENCES 90
9. APPENDICES 91
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
PaKC
1. Sample of State of Colorado Vehicle Procurement Letter 10
2. Sample of ATL Vehicle Procurement Letter 11
J. Sample of Procurement Post-Card 11
it. Sample of Letter to Alert Vehicle Owner to Testing
Re-Call for Emissions Degredatlon Study 1 it
5. Segment of Federal Driving Schedule 20
6. Classification of Ten Selected Safety Inspection Stations 36
7. Determination of Maintenance Status 37
8. Engine and Component Diagnostic Procedures 38
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1. Relative Distribution of Light-Duty Vehicles 7
2. Distribution of Test Vehicle Sample 8
3. Distribution of Sample by Engine Size 9
It. Key Mode Operation 17
5. Key Mode Analytical Instrumentation 18
6. Concentrations of Gaseous Project Standards 27
7. Composition of Vehicle Routing and Data Collection
Form Packets 30
8. CO and HC Idle Limits at 50% Rejection Rate 35
9. Sea-Level Retrofit Sample U 1
10. Sea-Level Retrofit Types and Sample Size U2
11. High Altitude Retrofit Vehicle Sample <»it
12. Modified Tuning Specifications Vehicle Sample U7
13. Test Sequence Order for Modified Tuning Specifications
Experiment <«9
|i». Mandatory Engine Maintenance Vehicle Sample 50
15. Summary of Deficiencies and Dlscrepencles Found In
Data Reported by Garages 55
16. Inspection Station Identification 56
17. Inspection Pass/Fall Data by Station 56
18. Summary of Inspection Charges 57
19. Summary of Maintenance Costs by Station 58
20. Summary of Inspection and Maintenance Costs by Station 58
21. Overcharge Estimated from Direct Program Charges 59
22. Garage Repair Cost Estimates to Bring Problem Vehicles
Into Compliance 60
23. Correlation Coefficients, Laboratory Inspection Data versus
Garage Inspection Data 62
2U. Cost of Installed Retrofit by Class 66
25. Summary High Altitude Kit Parts and Labor Costs 68
26. Summary Mandatory Engine Maintenance Costs 71
27. Idle Emissions Standards at Various Rejection Rates 7U
28. Absolute Emissions and MPG Data at Various Rejection Rates 75
29. Absolute Emissions Reduction and Fuel Economy Improvement
at Various Rejection Rates 75
-------
Page
30. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel Economy Improvement
at Various Rejection Rates 75
31. Summary of Cost Effectiveness at Various Rejection Rates 76
32. Summary of Combined Cost Effectiveness and Percent
Emissions Reductions at Various Rejection Rates 76
33. Absolute Baseline Emissions and MPG Data for Sea-Level
Retrof11 Sample 78
3U. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel Econony Improvements
for Sea-Level Retrofits 78
35. Summary of Cost Effectiveness of Sea-Level Retrofits 79
36. Summary of Combined Cost Effectiveness and Percent Emissions
Reduction of Sea-Level Retrofit 79
37. Drlveablllty and Performance Affects of Sea-Level Retrofit 80
38. Absolute Baseline Emissions and MPG Data for High Altitude
RetrofIt Sample 80
39. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel Economy Improvement
for High Altitude Kits 81
U0. Summary of Cost Effectiveness for High Altitude Kits 81
i»l. Summary of Combined Cost Effectiveness and Percent Emissions
Reduction for High Altitude Kits 82
i»2. Drlveablllty and Performance Affects of High Altitude Kits 82
U3. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel Economy Improvement
for Modified Tuning Specifications 83
Uit. Drlveablllty and Performance Affects of Modified Tuning
Specifications 8U
U5. Absolute Baseline Emissions and MPG Data for Mandatory
Engine Maintenance 85
U6. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel Economy Improvement
for Mandatory Engine Maintenance 85
i»7. Summary of Cost Effectiveness for Mandatory Engine
Maintenance 86
U8. Summary of Combined Cost Effectiveness and Emissions
Reduction for Mandatory Engine Maintenance 86
i»9. Summarized Cost Effectiveness and Emissions Reduction
Data for Strategies Investigated 87
-------
3. INTRODUCTION
The State of Colorado faces a unique situation with respect to its air
pollution problems. With regards to the severity of pollutant levels, the
populated area east of the front ran^e was given a Priority I designation by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Priority I was assigned to those
areas with the most acute air pollution problems. In this respect, motor
vehicles are known to play a major role.
Colorado, situated In the Rocky Mountain region, has a topography which
ranges from a low of 3,000 feet in elevation to a high of over 14,000 feet.
In this regard, problems associated with transportation caused air pollution
are compounded by the fact that emission levels are adversely affected by the
higher altitudes of the state.
As indicated In the state's air pollution control plan*, mobile air pollu-
tant sources account for the major part of the state's air pollution. The
plan, submitted In compliance with the requirements of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), reports that mobile air pollutant sources in the
Metropolitan Denver Air Quality Control Region account for roughly 90 percent
of the carbon monoxide emissions and 60 percent of both hydrocarbon emissions
and the resultant photochemical oxidants formed by atmospheric reaction of
hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides.
In order to deal with air pollution problems caused by mobile sources,
the Colorado Legislature, In June of 1973, passed Senate Bill 393 (S.B. 393).
The act provided for the establishment of a motor vehicle emissions control
program in the State of Colorado. More specifically, it directed the depart-
ments of health and revenue to complete certain testing programs and studies
and make Joint recoirnendat I ons to the governor and general assembly.
As outlined In S.B. 393, the departments of health and revenue were
required to develop pilot and testing programs on a representative sample of
motor vehicles. Various emission control alternatives were designated for
Investigation. These were to include emission inspection and maintenance, air
pollution control tune-up, and certain vehicle modification alternatives.
Based on the results of pilot programs, the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission was charged with the responsibility of developing recommendations
-------
for Implementing control programs. Such recommendations were to include
Information on the costs and air pollution control effectiveness of control
measures. The commission was further charged with the responsibility of
recommending legislative and regulatory measures necessary to Implement an
effective program.
Recognizing the significance of the state's emission control program, the
EPA, through Its regional office, elected to supplement the state's program.
With the supplemental funding provided by the EPA, an overall program was
subsequently established to Investigate the several emission control strategies
under consideration. Services of Independent contractors were sought, proposals
and bids were accepted and contracts were let.
Several contractors were selected. Each was charged with specific re-
sponsibilities relative to the overall program. Olson Laboratories, Inc.,
which had completed an emission control and Inspection program for the state In
1972, contracted to provide consulting services with respect to the development
of techniques, criteria, and standards to Implement a vehicle Inspection,
maintenance and modification program. The Olson contract was also to Include
an assessment of the legal changes required to permit a vehicle modification
program and to evaluate public attitudes with respect to proposed emission
control programs. Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc. (ATL) was selected by
the state to provide testing and other consulting services to experimentally
Investigate and characterize the various emission control alternatives outlined
in S.B. 395. TRW Inc., by way of an agreement with EPA, Region VIII, contracted
to do the analysis, interpretation and evaluation of data developed In the ATL
study. The EPA also provided additional support to the program by funding a
portion of the ATL study In an area of particular Interest to the EPA. The
overall program was thereby established.
This report. Volume II, Is one of seven volumes which have been prepared
in response to S.B. 393. It describes the design, conduct, findings, and
conclusions of the program designed to evaluate Idle emission Inspection,
exhaust emtsslon control retrofit, modified tuning specifications and mandatory
engine maintenance.
Because of the complexity of the overall program, the technical discussion,
which follows, is presented In three parts.
-------
Part I describes In general the program objectives, design and methodology.
Part II describes In more detail the methodology applied with respect to
each of the control strategies.
Part III describes specific problem areas which were encountered with
respect to several of the strategies Investigated. Summary cost data are also
presented.
The main body of the report Is concluded with a presentation of effective-
ness and cost data.
Appendices are provided and are presented In the order in which they are
mentioned In the text. Appendices include flow charts which serve to clarify
certain aspects of the study, data forms used to accumulate and process data,
computerized programs for data audit, standard and special testing programs and
tabular test results.
-------
!». TECHNICAL DISCUSSION
PART I
U.l PROGRAM OB.1FCTIVFS
Primary objectives of the study were to characterize the various elements
Idle emissions Inspection
Exhaust control retrofit
Modified tuning specifications
Mandatory engine maintenance
A secondary objective was to select, prepare, and test a sample of vehicles for
determination of emissions degredatlon. Details and results of this determin-
ation are to be presented In Volume VII, Experimental Characterization of
Vehicular Emissions and Engine Deterioration, to be completed In June, 197U.
To support both primary and secondary objectives of the study the following
tasks were to be considered:
A representatIve sample of vehicles was to be procured to establish
effectiveness and cost data to be utilized to evaluate Idle emissions
Inspection In the private sector. This sample was also to be employed
to evaluate the overall feasibility and practicality of such a plan.
An active sample of state licensed safety Inspection stations was to
be selected to perform Idle emissions Inspection and maintenance func-
tions. Subordinate tasks Included the training of vehicle Inspection
and repair personnel to perform these functions and establishment of
Idle emissions Inspection failure limits.
Generic exhaust control retrofits were to be selected and evaluated
and effectiveness and cost data were to be established. Selection of
vehicle sub-samples was required.
High altitude retrofit (modification) packages were to be procured
and evaluated. Effectiveness and cost data were to be established
and the feasibility and practicality of retrofit was to be Investi-
gated.
A quantitative measure of the affect of varied engine tuning specifi-
cations was required. A prerequisite to the evaluation was selection
of a vehicle sub-sample.
A measure of the effectiveness and costs of mandatory engine mainte-
nance was required. To perform this task a sub-sample of vehicles was
requI red.
A representative sample of vehicles was to be Initially maintained and
tested. Certain of the emission related parts were to be identified with
coded markings and adjustments were to be sealed for six month testing
recall to determine emissions degradation and the extent of tampering.
-------
The following Is a discussion of general criteria and specifications of the
s tudy.
Much of Colorado's air pollution Is concentrated in the Denver Air Quality
Control Region (AQCR). Light-duty vehicles, le, passenger cars and light trucks,
comprise the majority of vehicles in operation. The general test area was
dictated by these factors.
The east-central segment of the Denver AQCR was selected as the test site.
The area was selected for the following reasons:
It provided an abundance of light-duty vehicles from which a sample
could be procured.
It provided an adequate representation and quantity of vehicle safety
inspection/repair facilities.
It was In close proximity to ATL personnel and laboratory facilities.
Examination of Colorado registration data Indicated that the 1955-1973
model-year segment* represented about 98 percent of the population. However,
It did not appear to be practical to Investigate the older vehicles. The
cut-off level was established at 90 percent which excluded 1963 and older model
year vehicles. This segment was culled principally because of the relatively
small number registered, high cost anticipated for emissions reduction, and the
relatively low monetary vehicle value. To meet these criteria a sample of 300
of the 196U through 1973 model-year vehicles was subsequently selected.
To evaluate Idle emissions Inspection a sample of 10 state licensed safety
Inspection stations was selected. To assure overall uniformity and standard-
ization of procedures, training and instrumentation were provided.
Assuming a loose definition of the term, numerous exhaust control retro-
fits are marketed. To minimize the potential nuisance of rendering judgement
with respect to retrofits offered as candidates, only proven or accredited
retrofits were judged to be acceptable. These were primarily confined to
California accredited and gaseous fuel systems.
A second category of exhaust control retrofits was scheduled for evalu-
ation. This segment, sponsored and funded by the EPA, was to be comprised of
hardware specified for application at altitude, commonly referred to as "high
altitude kits". Assistance in this regard was provided by domestic car
•Examined with respect to a precedent established in the State of California.
-------
manufacturers. Kits for foreign made vehicles were not evaluated.
To quantitatively define the affects of certain modified tuning specifi-
cations (variable engine adjustments), an experimental adjustment procedure
was required. The procedure, designed by TRW, Inc., took Into account major
emissions related engine adjustment parameters. A vehicle sub-sample to
represent the more popular engine/component combinations was required.
In the Initial stages of program design. It became apparent that a large
segment of the vehicle sample would be exposed to maintenance. These vehicles,
destined for utilization In the various vehicle sub-samples, were selected to
comprise a sample to evaluate mandatory engine maintenance. Qualification of
the sub-sample was to be accomplished by way of a carefully designed test and
evaluation procedure.
Finally, implementation of design criteria discussed above would produce
a substantial quantity of vehicles which would qualify as candidates to estab-
lish emissions degredatlon factors. In this respect a well designed testing
sequence was also required.
in addition to the crlterta discussed, standardized testing and evaluation
procedures were required to evaluate the various strategies designated for
Investigation. The 1975 EPA exhaust emissions testing procedure was selected
as the basis by which emissions effectiveness data were to be developed. Key
mode operation was employed as an engine diagnostic tool and as a reference to
be utilized In developing additional emissions data*. The California Warm
Vehicle Drlveablllty Evaluation Procedure was used with respect to certain of
the tasks to measure and compare objectionable vehicle operating character-
istics. To transfer, process and analyze data generated by the study, both
standard and specially designed procedures and methods were employed.
u.3 TEST VEHICI.ES
The Colorado light-duty vehicle population is comprised of nearly 1.1
million vehicles. This figure Is reported In current registration data compi-
lations. Of this number, nearly 60 percent are registered In the Metro-Denver
area. In developing the test sample it was assumed that distribution In the
•Key mode emissions testing was employed to develop certain of the data for
Volume III, Impact of Altitude on Vehicular Exhaust Emissions.
-------
Metro-Denver area paralleled statewide distribution.
As discussed, program objectives dictated the general test area. The east-
central portion of the Metro-Denver area was selected. With the test area
defined, the task of sample selection and procurement remained. Sample
requirements were then defined in greater detail.
it.3.1 Vehicle Sample Specifications
For reasons discussed, the sample was to be comprised of 196U—1973 model
year vehicles. A sample of 300 vehicles was considered adequate to represent
the population. With the segment and size fixed, a standard hierarchy of
selection criteria was utilized to further define sample distribution. This
hierarchy ranks the relative importance of specifications In the following
order:
1. Model-year
2. Make
3. Engine size
U. Transmission type
5. Carburetor type
The task of selection by model-year and make was accomplished by employing
the following approach.
A compilation of 1964-1973 model-year vehicles was referenced. A matrix
was developed for the 1964-1973 model year population by model-year and make.
The matrix was developed in terms of percent distribution and was Increased by
a factor of three to equate the sample to 300 vehicles (Table 1.). By rounding
MMJE MODEL-YEAR
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
TOT
Ammo
1.17
1.07
0.99
0. 88
0. 82
1 .08
0.75
1 . 48
1.43
1.43
11.10
Bulc
1 . 36
1.51
1. 56
1 . 59
1.9 U
1.54
1.48
1 .20
1.15
1.15
14.48
Cadi
0.52
0.55
0. 58
0.67
0. 73
0.55
0. 62
0. 53
0.51
0.51
5.77
Chev
6.64
6. 6It
6. 74
5. 80
7. 29
6.45
5. 74
6.67
6. 50
6. 50
64.97
Ch ry
0.51
0. 71
1 . 02
0. 88
1. 03
0.73
0.51
0. 64
0.62
0.62
7.27
Dodg
1 .31
1.67
1 . 82
1 . 42
2.01
2.05
1 .69
1 .96
1 . 89
1. 89
17.71
Ford
4. 39
6. 7U
6.98
6.22
5.25
6.48
7. 66
8.55
8. 31
8. 31
68. 89
1 mpe
0. 08
0.07
0. 06
0. 1 0
0. 08
0. 08
0.06
0.04
0. 04
0. 04
0.65
L1 nc
0. 12
0. 14
0. 19
0.19
0. 18
0.27
0.21
0. 26
0. 24
0. 24
2. 04
Merc
0. 83
1 . 05
1.15
1. 71
1. U 2
1.39
1.15
1 . 49
1.47
1.47
13.13
Olds
1.45
1 .60
1 . 82
1 . 85
2. 07
1 . 72
1 . 56
1 .48
1 . 42
1.42
16. 39
PI ym
1.37
2. 18
2.23
2. 01)
2. 47
2.42
2. 19
2. 82
2.75
2. 75
23.22
Pont
1.93
2.25
2.40
2. 70
3.1 7
2.38
1 . 73
1 .54
1 . 49
1 . 49
21 . 08
1 mpo
1. 20
1 . 36
1 . 75
2. 38
3. 13
3.27
3. 04
5.90
5.58
5. 58
33.19
TOTAL
22.88
27.53
29.29
28. Uit
31.59
30.42
28.38
34.57
33.43
33.43
300
Table 1. Relative Distribution of Light-Duty Vehicles
-------
matrix data to the nearest whole number, the desired composition of the sample
was easily determined. Test sample composition by model-year and make Is shown
In Table 2*.
UM£ MOD EL-YFAR
6"t
65
§6
67
68
69
79
71
n
7}
TOT
Ammo
l
1
l
1
1
1
l
l
1
1
10
Bui C
I
2
2
2
2
2
l
l
1
1
15
Cad 1
l
1
1
1
1
1
l
l
1
1
10
Chev
7
7
6
7
6
6
7
7
7
67
Chr y
l
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
Dodg
1
2
2
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
18
Ford
7
7
6
5
6
8
9
8
8
68
Merc
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
Olds
l
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
16
Plym
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
3
22
Pont
2
2
2
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
20
Volk
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
3
20
Toyo
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Dats
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
Opel
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
3
Vol v
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
Total...
11
29
30
29
30
29
?0
55
5?
5?
300
Table 2. Distribution of Test Vehicle Sample
Since 1973 model-year registration figures were not compiled, data from
1972 model-year vehicles were utilized as a reference to establish 1973 model-
year representation. Also, foreign made vehicle registrations are reported In
a miscellaneous category. This segment (foreign made vehicles) was assumed to
comprise 50 percent of miscellaneous vehicles. This assumption was tested with
respect to data formulated by the EPA and was found to be correct. The balance
of miscellaneous vehicles are comprised of fleet type vehicles Including
taxlcabs (Checker Motors), recreational vehicles (Jeep, Bronco, Scout, etc.)
and other vehicles of relatively low sales volume.
With distribution established by model-year and make, a further delineation
was required. National data, with respect to engine sales, was referenced.
These data appear to be representative of sales In the Denver AQCR +. Engines
were selected for respective model-years and vehicle makes by proportional
sampling (similar to that procedure employed to select sample by model-year and
~Table 2 also Indicates, with one exception, the distribution of vehicles
actually tested. One of the Cadillacs, a 1965 model, was represented upon
delivery by the owner to be a 1966 model. An audit of vehicle Information
later Identified the vehicle as a 1965 model.
~Inferred from Figure 2.6 of the referenced study.
-------
make). This procedure yielded the more popular engines by cubic Inch displace-
ment and excluded engines of relatively low sales volume. Table 3. shows
engines tested with respect to those desired by displacement class.
DISPLACEMENT CLASS
(cubic Inches)
NUMBER SELECTED
NUMBER TESTED
Less than 251
87
86
251-330
10U
1 00
331-399
69
68
More than 399
UO
i»6
Table 3. Distribution of Sample By Engine Size
National sales data relating to transmission type anri carburetlon Is not
regarded as applicable to the Denver area* and an extensive Inquiry failed to
turn up locally applicable data. Since these data were unavailable, no attempt
was made to force the sample In this respect. It was deemed a more reasonable
approach to allow the various transmission and carburetor types to be Influ-
enced by local factors than to force the sample to fit national data. It was
assumed that local factors would be reflected In the random nature of procure-
ment efforts.
U.3.2 Test Vehicle Procurement
Once the vehicle sample was defined, the next task was to procure selected
vehicles for testing. A standard procurement procedure was employed to gain
access to the population.
A local statistical and mailing firm, Hibbert Laman, was contacted. Laman
was provided sample specifications. Since 1973 model-year data had not been
published, the Colorado Department of Revenue was also contacted. The depart-
ment furnished data with respect to 1973 model-year vehicle registrations.
Laman and the department supplied lists of vehicle owners residing In the
test area. The area was defined by postal Zip Code and names were selected
from computer files by a method of n1*1 name selection. Selected names comprised
a mailing list. Concurrent with the development of mailing lists, mailing
materials were designed and printed.
Printed materials were developed and supplied to test candidates In three
forms; an Introductory letter provided by the State of Colorado, an introductory
•Also Inferred from Figure 2.6 of referenced study.
-------
letter supplied by ATL, and a post-paid Information reply card. (Figures I, 2,
and 3). Materials were assembled, stamped and mailed 10 days In advance of
scheduled test start-up.
EXECUTIVE CHA M'B E Ft S
JOHN O. VANOCRHOOf
Oovemo'
July 23, 1973
A MESSAGE TO THE VEHICLE OWNER
The Air Pollution Control Division of the Colorado Department of
Health, in carrying out the legislative charge of the Colorado Motor Vehicle
Emission Control Act of 1973, has contracted with Automotive Testing Labo-
ratories, Inc. to conduct emissions tests on certain randomly-selected model
vehicles. The purpose of these tests is to develop emission factors for
Colorado. The test results from any individual vehicle will be used by the
Department of Health in comparison with the test results from all similar
vehicles. The outcome of the test on any individual vehicle cannot result
in any enforcement action against the vehicle owner
The enclosed letter to you explains this project in detail To assure
valid results from this program, the specific vehicles that will comprise the
sample to be tested are randomly selected in proportion to a statewide vehicle
population average, without bias, from vehicle registration lists provided by
private research firms . Your vehicle has been tentatively selected by means
of this process . The purpose of this message is to urge that, if at all possible,
you allow your vehicle to be tested in this program. Your participation in
the teBt will represent a real and significant contribution to the cause of
clean air.
Please read the enclosed letter. You will note that it says a follow-up
will be made. Should you have an unlisted telephone number, or if for any
other reason it may be difficult for the testing organization to reach you by
phone, please call the number given in the enclosed letter to arrange for your
participation.
Sincerely yours.
JDV-.ks
Enclosure
Figure I.
-------
H AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
ftp 19900 East Colfax Avenue e Aurora Colorado 80011 • <303> 343-0930
Dear Colorado Vehicle Owner:
You may be able to make an important contribution towards controlling
the State's air pollution problem, receive a $10.00 check for your coopera-
tion, and a tune-up with a value of up to $50.00 if your car needs it.
As you may know the Colorado Health Department is conducting an im-
portant motor vehicle pollution testing program in the Denver area. Our
organization has been selected by the Health Department to conduct this
program. We are writing to you because your vehicle has been randomly
selected as 3 candidate for testing.
Enclosed is a postpaid reply card which we ask that you complete and
return at your earliest convenience. Printed on the card is your name and
the model year and make of a vehicle which sometime this year was registered
in your name. Please indicate if you are willing to submit this vehicle or
any vehicle you own to our laboratory for tests. Tests will be conducted
under normal driving conditions and your vehicle will be tuned as required.
No unusual operations will be performed. In exchange for your vehicle we
will provide you with a late-model fully insured rental car and fuel for
your use during the time your vehicle is tested. In addition we will replace
fuel wa have used in the conduct of our tests.
We are confident you will want to be a part of this important project.
Please complete in as much detail as possible, the enclosed postage-paid
reply card and return today. We will contact you shortly to schedule the
test.
Sincerely,
Douglas R. Liljedahl
President
Figure 2.
For* Na AMi-2
Yes, I am willing to volunteer my car for pollution testing
Moke of cor Model
My car's engine displacement is
Serial Number
Corburetor
cubic Inches
Transmission-
Home Phone
I barrel
4 barrel
Automatic
2 barrel
Fuel ln|.
Manual
Business Phone
Farm Approved
OMS IM W2033
Yeor
Fill In as FILL OUT
completely AND RETURN
O. possible POSTCARD TODAY!
Ext.
USD 65
HUBERT U BOWERS
7*0 S POTOMAC ST
AURORA CO 80010
If the above it incorrect, please correct.
Figure 3.
-------
Upon return of post-paid reply cards, a candidate vehicle file was estab-
lished. The file, established by vehicle model-year and make, was later
utilized for test scheduling.
A key element to obtaining a valid sample of vehicles Is owner response;
as owner response Improves, the validity of the sample Improves. Sample
validity can be Improved by employing a combination of carefully designed
and executed procurement strategies. These can be described as comprising
two elements; owner contact and Incentives. Incentives provided by this
program will be described In paragraph U.3.3. The following discussion Is
offered to indicate the validity of the sample.
In all, 7500 names of vehicle owners residing In the test area were
Initially selected. Of the 7500 mailings, about 1200 were returned for various
reasons, but primarily because owners had moved and left no forwarding address.
In this respect It appeared that about 6300 mailings were delivered and pre-
sumeably received candidate review. Of materials delivered, about 1700 or 27
percent were returned to ATL expressing an affirmation of interest. This rate
of return Is considered to be excellent when compared to the normal return rate
of 5 to 10 percent experienced In similar procurement programs. The unusually
high rate of return Is probably due to the evidence of support from the
Governors office (Introductory letter) and the Department of Health (news
releases), a high level of public Interest, the Incentive program and other
factors.
u.3.3 Lncent.1 ves
A major factor In the success of a procurement plan Is the Incentive
program. To enhance the program In this respect, several Incentives were
offered and are listed as follows:
1. A check In the amount of 10 dollars.
2. Up to 50 dollars In engine maintenance.
3. The loanof a late-model car.
U. Fuel for the loan car.
Checks were provided to test participants and were delivered Immediately
after Individual vehicle tests were completed.
-------
Some maintenance was performed on all cars except those which Initially
passed the Idle emission test and were not further utilized for retrofit and
modification sub-samples. More extensive maintenance was performed on sub-
sample vehIc1es.
Leased 1973 model-year vehicles of Intermediate size were furnished to
participants at no charge. Loan cars were issued upon delivery of test vehicles
to the laboratory and were provided by way of a contractual agreement with
Dollar-A-Day Systems, Denver. All but a relatively small number of partici-
pants required loan cars.
Fuel for loan vehicles was also provided. A major segment of the project
was performed during the summer and early fall months when gasoline was In
short supply in the Denver area. By way of assistance provided by the Depart-
ment of Health, a contact was established with one of the major oil companies.
Additional fuel was provided from this source through a purchase agreement to
supplement fuel deliveries via normal supply channels. An average of about
four gallons of fuel per day was provided to participants for loan vehicles.
Fuel consumed for testing purposes was replaced.
U.J.U Initial Vehicle Acceptance and Handling
Nearly all vehicles comprising the 300 car sample were delivered to the
laboratory for testing. In a few isolated instances, where an owner found it
inconvenient to deliver a vehicle, laboratory personnel made the pick-up.
Prior to acceptance for testing, vehicles were Inspected by laboratory
personnel. Inspections were performed to reduce potential laboratory liability
with respect to existing dents, scratches, broken windows, missing equipment,
etc. and to ascertain general vehicle condition with respect to safety and
exhaust system Integrity. Approximately 7 percent of vehicles Inspected were
rejected for both safety reasons (2 vehicles) and excessive exhaust system
leakage (19 vehicles).
Upon acceptance, contracts between the laboratory and the vehicle owner
were executed. Contracts outlined laboratory and owner liability with respect
to both the loan car and the test vehicle. Since many of the test vehicles
were utilized for more than one task, a packet of materials was assigned to
each vehicle. These packets contained routing and data forms consistent with
-------
the respective tests to which the vehicle was assigned.
When vehicle testing was completed, the owner was notified and the vehicle
was scheduled for pick-up. Certain engine components and adjustments were
Identified and sealed In preparation for subsequent recall In the degredatlon
study. When the owner arrived for pick-up, a final Inspection was completed
and the vehicle was released to Its owner. Upon acceptance by the owner, the
owner was Informed of the potential recall In the form of a letter from ATI
(Figure k).
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
1 9900 East Colfax Avenue • Aurora Colorado 0OO1O
Dear Test Participant;
We wish to express our appreciation to you for the interest you have
shown in the current Colorado Emission Study Program. Your participation
is a key to the success of this program and to future vehicle related
prograns which may be developed to improve the quality of Colorado's air.
Unless your car is listed among the few we tested which required
extensive maintenance, you may rest assured that your car will now pass
an engine idle emission test. It is not known, however, how long your
car will remain in this condition. As you may know, one of the objectives
of the study in which you participated is to evaluate the effectiveness of
emission inspection and engine maintenance in existing licensed safety
inspection stations and garages. Information developed from this phase
of the study will help to determine the practicality of such a plan on a
state-wide level. Assuming the test data does indicate that such a plan
is practical, the next question which is posed relates to the frequency
of inspection and maintenance. In order to determine a reasonable inspection
frequency it will be necessary to accumulate more data. In this regard, we
may wish to test your vehicle six months from now. If you tentatively agree
to presenting your car for a re-test, we will:
1. Provide a reasonable amount of emission related maintenance
on your car for the next six months.
2. Provide you with another $10 check after the six month re-test.
3. Provide you with a late model loan car during the time your
car is being re-tested.
We understand that during the next six months the car we tested may
require maintenance. If it does, and you suspect that it may relate directly
to the engine or to the fugl or ignition systems, please contact us before
any corrective maintenance is accomplished. At that time we will advise
you and arrange to make repairs within the scope of our activities. You
may, of course, arrange for emergency repairs, or any repairs for that
natter, without consulting us. In this regard, we wish to emphasize that
we have no legal authority and that your participation is purely voluntary.
The following list is comprised of, but is not limited to, engine
parts which could deteriorate:
-------
1. PCV systen
2. Carburetor including air/fuel mixture and speed adjustments
3. Air Filter and/or filter element
4. Spark Plugs
5. Distributor parts including points and condensor, and timing
and dwell adjustments
6. Spark Plug wires
7. Air pump and air injection syitem if so equipped
8. N0X emission control system (1973 model-year only)
Many of the usual preventative maintenance procedures have no affect
on emissions and may be attended to without consulting with us. These are
1. Battery
2. Charging system
3. Oil filter replacement
4. Oil changes
5. Lubrication
If there is any doubt as to the impact maintenance may have on the
program, however, please do not hesitate to call us at 343-8938. We will
respond promptly.
Again, we wish to express our appreciation for your participation.
Hopefully, the data which we are developing as a result of your cooperation
will lead toward cleaner air in Colorado.
Gratefully yours,
Douglas R. Llljedahl
President
Figure <*.
U.U LABORATORY TFSTING AND EVALUATION PROCEDURES
The study was designed to determine the effectiveness of various emission
control strategies and resulting; side affects. To do so, testing and evalu-
ation procedures were required. Key mode emissions testing was included in
the testing and evaluation sequence solely for engine diagnostic purposes and
as a tool to develop data for an altitude emissions study*. It was not under
investigation as an alternate to idle emissions Inspection. The following
paragraphs describe the procedures selected and employed.
1 Exhaust Emissions Test Procedures
Three procedures were utilized; the Federal mass emission test procedure,
a key mode (Clayton Mfg. Co.) test procedure, and an Idle test procedure. The
Idle test procedure was utilized In the laboratory as a strategy to monitor
safety Inspection stations.
•Volume III of subject study, Impact of Altitude on Exhaust Emissions.
-------
1.1 Federal Test Procedure
Laboratory standard exhaust emission tests were performed according to
procedures stipulated In the Federal Register, Volume 38, Number 12k, Part III
dated June 28, 1973. As stipulated, emission tests were preceeded by a minimum
12 hour temperature soak at laboratory ambient temperature conditions (68 to
72°F, controlled by laboratory heating and air conditioning systems).
Prior to the first test of the day, the dynamometer was temperature
stabilized using a non-test vehicle. Vehicles were pushed or towed onto the
dynamometer for cold start tests as prescribed. Dynamometer load settings were
established prior to cold starts using a non-test vehicle. Drive tires were
Inflated to UO psl and devices to restrain the vehicle during testing were
installed. An engine cooling fan was situated to the front of the vehicle to
provide cooling to the radiator and underhood. An auxiliary 2 1/2 ton air
conditioner was utilized to maintain cooling air at constant temperature during,
peak temperature loading conditions.
Immediately preceedlng vehicle start up, constant volume sampler (CVS)
bags were evacuated and CVS blower revolution counters were re-set to zero.
To alert the test operator to test start-up a switch was activated to start
the data acquisition system clock. Simultaneously the engine was cranked and
the cold transient segment of the test began.
At the 505 second point of the driving schedule the Instrument operator
was again alerted signalling the end of the cold transient segment and the
start of the cold stabilized segment of the test. The Instrument operator
responded by diverting exhaust and background sample flow Into the cold stabi-
lized sample bags. Composition of the cold transient bag was then analyzed and
stored by the data acquisition system on computer punch tape for subsequent
process Ing.
The driving schedule was continued to the end of the 1372 second Federal
test cycle. Two seconds prior to cold stabilized sampling termination, the
engine was shut down. Cold stabilized sample composition was then analyzed and
stored on punch tape for processing.
Upon termination of the cold stabilized segment, the CVS exhaust collector
tube was disengaged from the vehicle tailpipe, the vehicle cooling fan was shut
down and the engine compartment hood was closed. The vehicle was then allowed
-------
to hot soak for a period of 10 minutes.
Following the 10 minute Interval, the exhaust collector tube was connected
to the vehicle tailpipe, the vehicle hood was opened, the fan was started and
the hot transient segment of the test was begun. Sampling continued to the
505 second point in the driving schedule, at which time the Instrument operator
was again alerted. Sample flow was diverted and the composition of the hot
transient sample bags was analyzed and recorded on punch tape. At this point
the mass emission test was complete.
i).i*.1.2 Kev Mode Test Procedure
Key mode tests were performed In accordance with procedures outlined by
Clayton Manufacturing Company of El Monte, California. Key mode emission tests
were performed on all vehicles at all test conditions for reasons already
discussed and to be discussed In more detail in Volume 111.
Key mode emissions testing followed thp Federal mass emission test. Tests
were performed from a hot engine start as recommended. Testing was performed
at speeds and loads shown in Table 4. (It should be noted that the loads
utilized for key mode testing were not corrected for frlctional losses Internal
to the dynamometer. These losses were measured by the coast down technique
for dynamometer calibration at about 4 horsepower. In this respect the loads
Indicated in Table 4. can be Increased by 4 hp to determine actual loading
during key mode operation.).
MODE
VEHICLE
VEHICLE
DYNAMOMETER
WEIfiHT
SPEED
LOAD
(lbs)
(mDh)
(hD)
HI gh
Over 5800
49
29
CruIse
2800-3800
4 5
23
Under 2800
37
1 4
Low
Over 3800
33
1 1
Cruise
2800-3800
30
9
Under 2800
23
5
Idle
-
-
-
Table 4. Key Mode Operation
During key mode operation, exhaust emissions were measured directly from
the tailpipe of the vehicle under test. Emissions measurements were performed
utilizing the variety of instrumentation shown in Table 5. Since key mode
-------
emissions were not collected In sample bags, a standard analytical procedure
was employed.
EXHAUST
INSTRUMENTATION
UNITS OF
CONSTITUENT
PRINCIPLE
QUALITY
MEASUREMENT
CO
NDI R
LAB
Mole %
CO
NDI R
GARAGE
Mole %
HC
FID
LAB
ppm Carbon
HC
NDI R
LAB
ppm Hexane
HC
NDIR
GARAGE
ppm Hexane
NO
CHMLMNSCNT
LAB
ppm NO
CO 2
NDIR
LAB
Mole %
Table 5. Key Mode Analytical Instrumentation
The vehicle was operated at prescribed speed during which time the
analytical system recorders were allowed to run. During this Interval (normally
about one minute), the Instrument operator observed the pen traces for an Indi-
cation of emission stabilization. This period was also utilized to diagnose
the recorded hydrocarbon (HC) traces as a function of engine performance.
Abnormal Indications In hydrocarbon levels were recorded on engine diagnosis
sheets. When emission levels appeared to be stable, the Instrument operator
activated a switch which signalled the data acquisition system (DAS) the sampling
period had started. Sampling of tailpipe emissions continued for about 30
seconds. At termination of the sampling Interval, the DAS was again alerted.
The DAS then performed an Integration of emission levels and a punch tape was
produced for further processing.
In addition to the analytical system and DAS, other equipment was employed
for key mode operation. A fan provided cooling air to the radiator and under-
hood of the vehicle. An engine tachometer was used to monitor and record
engine rpm and dynamometer meters were utilized to operate the vehicle at
prescribed speeds and loads.
U.U.I.3 Idle Test Procedure
Since one of the modes of key mode testing includes an emissions measure-
ment at Idle, Idle test procedures were Integrated with key mode testing. In
addition to emission measurements at curb idle (Drive gear for automatic
transmission equipped vehicles) a no-load emissions measurement was performed
at 2500 engine rpm. Analytical procedures were similar to those applied for
-------
key mode testing. The engine was first operated at the prescribed condition
until emissions stabilized. The sample, obtained over a 30 second Interval,
was then Integrated by the DAS. Data was stored on punch tape for subsequent
processing. Emission analytical Instrumentation employed during Idle emissions
Inspection were Identical to that shown for key mode operation (Table 5.).
Idle emissions testing was performed under laboratory conditions as a
means of monitoring the field Inspections performed by selected licensed safety
Inspection stations. Inspection station emission data was compared at regular
Intervals to Idle emission data developed In the laboratory. Employment of
this monitoring strategy provided an effective means of early detection of
personnel and Instrumentation operational problems.
U.U.2 Drlveabllltv Evaluation Procedure
The California Warm Vehicle Drlveablllty Evaluation Procedure4 was used
to evaluate certain of the emission control strategies with respect to drlve-
ablllty and performance. Evaluations were performed using tank fuels (fuels
provided with test vehicles).
In the course of evaluation, the vehicle Is operated at curb Idle (neutral
and/or drive gear), at various part throttle and wide open throttle acceleration
rates, and at several road load or cruise conditions. During the various
operating modes, a trained driver operates the vehicle and Identifies objec-
tionable driving characteristics. Objectionable characteristics are rated as
to severity and quantltively defined through application of a weighted demerit
system. During this procedure hot start engine cranking time Is recorded along
with the number of false starts noted during engine cranking and stalls during
idle and off-Idle operating modes.
A segment of the procedure also relates to engine performance. Engine
performance Is determined by accelerating the vehicle at wide open throttle
from 0 to 70 miles per hour. Elapsed time (E.T.) during the acceleration
Interval Is measured with a stop-watch. Data reported is an average of two
sets of E.T, data derived from each of two opposing directions.
Engine braking characteristics are also measured as part of the drive-
ability evaluation procedure. Elapsed time Is recorded during closed throttle
^Formerly the Automobile Manufacturers Association (A.M.A.) Procedure.
-------
operation from 70 to 30 miles per hour. Data reported Is an average of two
data sets derived from each of two opposing directions.
U.l».3 Fuel Consumption (Economy) Determination
Fuel economy (miles per gallon) data was developed for the mileage Interval
accumulated by the vehicle during Federal driving schedule operation. Data
was obtained for the cold transient, cold stabilized and hot transient segments
of the test and mathematically combined to yield a single mlles-per-galIon
flcure.
The Federal driving schedule (1975 Procedure) Is a 11.15 mile trip of
31 minutes and 17 seconds driving time. The schedule Is Interrupted after the
first 7.5 miles for a 10 minute soak Interval. During this time the engine is
shut-down. The schedule was designed to simulate vehicle operation In a
metropolitan area. A segment of the time-speed profile of the schedule is
presented In Figure 5.
'
— ¦
i i '
i :
I - ¦ ¦
1 1 1
1"
L ' !
! ! :
j I
Figure 5.
-------
Fuel economy data was obtained through application of a carbon balance
equation' which takes Into account the carbon content of emissions measured
In the CVS exhaust and background sample bags. The fuel economy equation is
based on a fuel hydrogen/carbon ratio of 1.85. The equation Is as follows:
2808 grams fuel/gal x ¦] 8' 375
MPG = 1 » flit
HC grams/mlle x 73^875
~ CO grams/mile x 1
~ CO2 grams/mile x q] ^
where:
12.011 = molecular weight of carbon
13.875 = molecular weight of carbon ~ 1.85 x (H»1.008)
28.01 = molecular weight of CO
UU.01 » molecular weight of CO2
As indicated, the equation applied assumes a fuel hydrogen/carbon(H/C) ratio
of 1.85*. To maintain uniformity in this respect over the entire program, a
quantity of summer grade premium fuel was utilized for emissions testing*.
Fuel was Introduced to the engine via an auxiliary tank. A hydrogen/carbon
ratio determination was not performed although prior analysis indicates the
vendor supplied summer-grade fuel to vary from an H/C ratio of 1.8U to 1.87.
Examination of the equation In this regard indicates the possible error to be
less than ± 0.5 percent.
U.5 LABORATORY FACILITIES AND EUUIPi-lCNT
The following paragraphs describo the facilities provided and the test
equipment employed in the conduct of the study.
. 5. 1 Physical Description of Facilities
Laboratory tests were performed in ATL facilities situated at 19900 East
Colfax Avenue, Aurora, Colorado. The laboratory is located at an elevation
of 5,390 feet above mean sea-level.
The laboratory Is housed in a building containing about 1600 square feet
of office area and 8000 square feet of laboratory and shop area. A total of
•The equation is based on the H/C ratio of Indolene 30, a standard test fuel.
~A batch of this fuel was set aside for subsequent application for the emissions
degredation study.
-------
22 1/2 tons of air conditioning Is provided In laboratory areas to maintain
ambient air temperatures well within the limits prescribed for emissions
testing. Space Is available to temperature soak up to 18 vehicles simultan-
eous 1 y.
Two complete equipment and Instrumentation sets, both capable of testing
by the 1975 EPA procedures are provided. One set was used exclusively for
conduct of the subject study. In addition, supplementary engine monitoring
and tune-up equipment was utilized.
U.5.2 Constant Volume Sampler
The constant volume sampler (CVS) designed and constructed by Automotive
Environmental Systems, Inc. of Westminister, California Is of a nominal 325 cfm
flow capacity. The CVS mass pump Is driven by a line synchronous, 2U0 volt,
5 hp motor through a gear-belt arrangement. A count of blower revolutions Is
generated by a magnetic pick-up and displayed on an electlcal digital counter.
Dilute exhaust temperature Is maintained by a gas to water heat exchanger with
control functions modulated by a temperature controller. The CVS Is equipped
with two sets of exhaust and backgound sample bags. Dilution air Is provided
through a filtration system comprised of absolute particle and charcoal filters.
Prior to testing, the CVS was flow calibrated. A Merlam laminar flow
element, Model 50, rated at 1000 cfm at 8 Inches of water differential pressure,
was utilized to determine CVS flow rates. Auxiliary devices; a mercury baro-
meter, U-tube water and mercury manometers, an Inclined water manometer and
thermometers were utilized to observe test conditions. Mass flow through the
laminar flow element was calculated as follows:
VLFE SCFM ¦ ISCFM x TLC x
PL "H2O
U06.8"H20
where:
VlFe SCFM ¦
absolute flow rate of the laminar flow element In
standard cubic feet per minute
I SCFM = Indicated flow rate of the laminar flow element In
standard cubic feet per minute
Tlc
pl"h2o
<• temperature correction factor
¦ Inlet pressure to the laminar flow element In inches
of water
and:
i»06.8"H2O » standard absolute pressure In inches of water.
-------
The laminar flow element calibration Is traceable to flow standards of the
National Bureau of Standards.
With VlfE SCFM established, CVS mass pump flow rate was calculated In cfm
as follows:
Vo „ VLFE SCFM x U06.8"H20 x Tp Or
° Rpm Pp"H20 530°R
where:
VQ » volume of the mass pump In scfm per revolution
SCFM ¦ volume of laminar flow element In scfm
Rpm " mass pump rpm
U06.8"H2O = standard absolute pressure In Inches of water
Pp"H20 » mass pump Inlet pressure in Inches of water
Tp °R *» mass pump Inlet temperature In decrees absolute
530°R •» standard absolute temperature in degrees absolute.
Blower Inlet flow rates were determined at several Incremental changes In mass
pump Inlet pressures (Pp) and mass pump differential pressures (Ap). Data
were then compared with previous inlet and outlet flow rates and plotted. Mid-
range Pp and Ap were determined and the corresponding VQ was selected to be
utilized in mass emissions calculations.
As an additional check of the blower flow rate calibration, propane
recovery tests were performed. Propane recovery tolerances of ~ 2 percent were
attained and the Initial CVS calibration was completed.
A propane recovery test Is a technique employed to examine the CVS and
emissions analytical system. A weighed quantity of propane is Injected Into
the CVS exhaust collector tube. With the CVS In operation, a sample of Injected
propane Is simultaneously collected In the sample bag and analyzed. Results
of this analysis are used to calculate the amount of propane recovered In the
CVS sample system. Recovery values are compared with the weighed Injected
value. Recovery within ~, 2 percent of the quantity Injected is an acceptable
tolerance. Propane recovery tests were performed on a dally basis for the
duration of the program to verify testing accuracy.
U.5.3 Emission Analytical Console
An analytical console, designed and constructed by ATL was used to measure
and record exhaust emission levels. The console Is comprised of the following
-------
major test equipment:
Beckman Model 315A NDIR CO analyzer with stacked cell arrangement, 6
range capability and optical CO2 Interference filter.
Beckman Model 315B NDIR CO2 analyzer with 3 rani?e capability.
Beckman Model U00 Hydrocarbon Flame Ionization detector with it range
capabl11ty.
Thermo-Electron Model 10A Chemllumlnescent NO and N0X analyzer equipped
with thermal converter and 8 range capability.
Texas Instrument 2 and 3 channel potentlometrlc 10 inch recorders.
Flow control and directional valves and flow rate Indicators for
Introduction and flow control of zero, span and sample gases.
A refrigerated Ice bath and filter system for sample gas conditioning.
The analytical console was designed and constructed In accordance with specifi-
cations prescribed In the Federal Register. Because of the relatively high
emission levels expected to be encountered, console modifications for drying
emission samples and absorbing CO2 from the CO sample stream were not provided.
In view of the specific requirements of the study, a supplemental analytical
console was also utilized. The console was equipped with a Beckman 315A NDIR
hydrocarbon analyzer, a Texas Instruments potentlometric recorder, and flow and
directional control valves, flow rate Indicator, and sample conditioning system.
Prior to test start-up, the analytical system was calibrated at a minimum
of five points for each operating range. Calibrations were performed using
gaseous standards traceable to standards of the EPA Laboratories In Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Best fit calibration curves were established with curve fit toler-
ances maintained within ~, 2 percent of gaseous standard concentrations.
During the testing phase, mid and high range calibration points were
checked and verified for compliance with calibration standards on a weekly
basis. Complete analytical system cal Mirations were performed and verified
at monthly intervals. Up-scale calibration points were established both before
and after analysis of each exhaust sample. CVS and analytical system plumbing
was verified to be free of leaks and in good operating condition on a dally
basis. In addition, the thermal converter of the chemllumlnescent N0-N0x
analyzer was tested and verified for proper operating efficiency on a dally
basls.
-------
U.S.It Data Acquisition System
To provide for the orderly accumulation and processing of emissions data,
a data acquisition system (DAS) was utilized. The system is comprised of a
Data General, Nova 1200, mlnl-computer, connected through a multiplexer to the
analytical instrumentation. Each analyzer is equipped with range encoding
devices which transmit range code signals to the computer. Analytical instru-
ments from both the CVS analytical console and the supplemental NDIR hydrocarbon
console are wired to the system.
Although the DAS Is capable of modal analyses under transient emissions
monitoring conditions, It was utilized solely to collect, process and record
CVS collected bag emission data and emissions monitored during steady state
operation (key mode and Idle). Analyzer signals are sampled at a rate of 10
times per second and temporarily placed In storage. At termination of the 30
second sampling Interval, accumulated analyzer signals are Integrated by the
Nova computer, range signals are decoded and both Instrument range and inte-
grated sample data Is output on a teletype machine. DAS output data Is then
Input to a time-share computer. Service Bureau Corporation, Call 370, for
processing. CVS emissions data were processed in accordance with calculation
procedures of the Federal Register. Key mode and idle emissions data are output
In terms of mole percent or parts per million as applicable.
Prior to test start-up, the operation of the L)AS was qualified with respect
to range encoding and interpretation and print-out of respective analyzer
output signals. Thereafter, DAS calibration and performance were checked and
verified on a dally basis.
U.5.5 Chassis Dynamometer
A Clayton Manufacturing Company, Model CT-200, chassis dynamometer was
utilized to load the vehicle during CVS and key mode emission testing. The
dynamometer has been modified to improve the sensitivity and resolution of load
settings. A low scale meter and torque bridge Is Installed.
Prior to testing, a dynamometer calibration was performed. The dynamometer
was Initially calibrated for proper speed Indication. A line synchronous strobe
light was utilized to relate roll speed to a true speed meter Indication. A
dead weight calibration was then performed using a Clayton-built calibration
-------
ktt. Dynamometer Internal power losses were then determined by the Federal
Register coast-down technique. An Indicated versus actual horsepower calibra-
tion table was developed from coast-down data and was utilized by the vehicle
operator to establish load settings for CVS testing operations. During the
testing phase coast-down calibrations were performed and verified at monthly
Interva1s.
U.5.6 Laboratory Application of Garaee Instrumentation
Sun Electric Company, Model EPA-75, non-dispersive Infrared Instruments
were supplied to the 10 selected Inspection stations. In addition, two Instru-
ments were utilized In the laboratory. One was provided for retrofit instal-
lation and adjustment purposes. The other was utilized In key mode and idle
emissions Inspection to monitor the quality of garage inspection. The EPA-75
measures carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons and Is equipped with two ranges of
sensitivity for each exhaust constituent. The unit also Incorporates a sample
conditioning system (particulate filter and condensate trap), a sample pump and
flow rate Indicator and an Indicating light to warn of sample flow restriction.
Each of the EPA-75 Instruments was calibrated across the entire operating
range prior to test start-up. Gaseous carbon monoxide and hydrocarbon standards
were used. Instrumentation was checked for proper calibration at two week
Intervals through the testing phase of the program. In addition, a pre-test
calibration was required at the inspection station level prior to the perform-
ance of emissions Inspection. Calibration at the station level did not employ
a reference to gaseous standards, but rather a reference to an electrical zero
and up-scale check point.
U.5.7 Laboratory Standard Calibration Gases
A variety of gaseous standards was applied to establish standardized
analytical Instrumental ion response curves. A listing of gaseous standards Is
shown In Table 6. The gases shown are traceable to standards of the EPA Labor-
atories In Ann Arbor, Michigan.
U.5.8 Miscellaneous Equipment
During the course of the program, a variety of garage-type engine tune-up
equipment was utilized to maintain and prepare vehicles for testing. The
-------
HC( DDTTlC )
39.6
250.5
978. 0
5619.0
19906.0
58.2
322. 2
1263. 0
5772.0
56295.0
108.0
513. 0
1909.5
7068.6
109.5
592. 5
2957.0
8045.0
C0(mole
%)
0.0172
0.2061
0.65
2.98
9. 83
0.0511
0.2078
1. 01
3.22
11. 58
0.0607
0. 2977
1.02
3. 73
0. 0984
0.3103
1.13
5.53
0. 1064
0.3963
1.67
7.65
0.1797
0.5500
2.07
7.71
CO2(mole
%)
0.4573
3.0275
3.63
7.95
11.08
0. 601*2
3.0800
4.08
8.00
11.92
0.9940
3.1100
4. 82
8.93
13.87
2.0462
3.4100
5. 56
10. 25
N0x(ppm)
32
109
204
411
785
49
178
250
523
974
98
191
324
69 5
1188
Table 6. Concentrations of Gaseous Project Standards
equipment assortment Is comprised of various Ignition timing lights, engine
tachdwellmeters and pressure and vacuum gauges as would normally be required In
the performance of maintenance and tune-up work. Prior to utilization in the
program, tune-up support equipment was sent to respective manufacturer's repair
facilities for check-out and calibration.
It.6 DATA HANDLING
The following discussion describes the system designed and utilized to
collect test results and other pertinent data, the techniques employed to Insure
validity of the data, and the methods of data reduction.
4.6.1 Data Col lection
To provide an orderly and efficient method of accumulation and handling of
data, flow charts of all possible testing sequences were constructed. During
testing sequence design, primary consideration was to develop a maximum amount
of data with a minimum number of tests. (Flow charts developed for a minimum
of tests are presented In Appendix 1).
The next task In order was the design of each of the various forms required
to collect the data. Since a vehicle would be subjected to varied tests and
Inspections several data forms were designed. These are shown in Appendix 2 and
-------
are described as follows:
1. Vehicle Information - containing designated test sequence, vehicle
number (ATL), equipment and test Information.
Vehicle Inspection - showing status of Incoming vehicle with respect
to Its general physical condition (dents, scratches, etc.), owner
Identification and block for signature to Indicate owner acceptance
of Initial Inspection.
Condition When Returned - showing outgoing odometer reading and
owner acceptance of outgoing vehicle.
2. Emission Test - showing existing test conditions (barometer, dry
and wet bulb temperature, etc.)
Federal mass emission test data
Key mode and Idle emission test data
Key mode and Idle diagnostics
3. Maintenance Status Information - showing the condition of emission
related components, parts and adjustments, both before and after
garage Inspection and maintenance.
i». Inspection Statton Results - showing Initial emission results of
garage Inspection and results after adjustment of Idle rpm.
Ignition timing. Idle mixture, and other maintenance as required.
Cost Information at the garage level Is also reported for
Inspection and maintenance.
5. Warm Vehicle Drlveabllity Test Form - Indicating presence and severity
of adverse driving characteristics and other vehicle performance
data.
In the conduct of the study a packet of forms, as applicable to a given
test sequence, was assigned to each vehicle. These packets were designed to
govern vehicle flow through respective testing sequences. Forms accompanied
test vehicles to the soak area to await testing. .
During the emission test sequence analyzer ranges and millivolt output,
corresponding to emission concentrations, were collected by the DAS. CVS blower
revolutions, pump Inlet pressure depression and Sun analyzer key mode emission
data were observed by the Instrument operator and recorded on raw data forms.
Ambient test Information was recorded both on test forms and logged In the DAS
via teletype communication. Certain test parameters; blower counts. Inlet
pressure and Sun analyzer readings were not programmed for automatic collection
by the DAS. These data were manually punched on paper tape using a remote
te1etype unit.
Upon completion of emission tests, the condition of various engine
components, component parts and adjustments was ascertained by various tnspec-
-------
tlon techniques. Inspection results were entered on the appropriate sectlo.-i of
the Maintenance Status Inspection form (As Received from Owner). The first set
of emission and maintenance status data comprised all data required prior to
delivery of the vehicle for garage Idle inspection. The vehicle was then
transferred to the garages for ldls emission Inspection.
For garage Inspection, an Inspection Station Results form and an engine
adjustment specifications sheet were provided. At the garage, inspectors per-
formed a totally Independent Inspection. The Inspection was performed without
knowledge of laboratory Idle emission Inspection results. Inspections were
generally performed In accordance with the Idle Test Procedures for Partici-
pating Garages (Appendix 3) following guidelines presented at inspector and
mechanic training sessions. An Inspection was performed by the (arbitrarily
designated) Inspector and required maintenance was performed by the (arbitrarily
designated) mechanic. Garage inspection data, including costs, were recorded
on the Inspection Station Results sheet.
Upon completion of garage inspection, the vehicle was returned to the
laboratory. Garage inspection forms were then reviewed. If Initial garage
Inspection Indicated the vehicle failed, a re-test was scheduled and the vehicle
was returned to the soak area. Following the soak Interval, the vehicle was
subjected to re-test by Federal mass, key mode and Idle emissions testing
procedures. A second maintenance status Inspection was performed. Results of
this Inspection were indicated on the Maintenance Status Information form In
the section titled. As Returned from Inspection Station. If a vehicle passed
Initial garage Inspection, an emission re-test was not performed and the vehicle
had now completed the Idle Inspection phase of the project. From this point,
the vehicle was either returned to Its owner or was further maintained In
preparation for additional utilization In one of the vehicle sub-samples.
I
If additional testing of a given vehicle was required, an appropriate data
sheet packet was assigned to the vehicle. Form packet distribution was com-
patible with the various tasks and related testing sequences to which the
vehicle was assigned. The composition and description of each of the various
form packets Is shown In Table 7.
With respect to the various testing sequences, vehicles were routed In
accordance with the requirements of each task. A testing sequence is a series
-------
Test Sequence Assignment
Form Packet ComDoslrion
1.
Idle Emission Inspection
1
Vehicle Information
2
Emission Test
1
Maintenance Status Information
1
Inspection Station
2.
Tune-up Evaluation
1
Routing Sheet
8
Emission Test
8
Warm Vehicle Drlveablllty
Test
3.
High Altitude Retrofit
1
Rout i ng Sheet
with Ma 1ntenance
2
Emission Test
2
Warm Vehicle Drlveablllty
Test
i».
Sea Level Retrof1t
1
Routing Sheet
wlth Maintenance
2
Emi ss ion Test
2
Warm Vehicle Drlveablllty
Test
5.
Sea Level and High
1
Routing Sheet
Altitude Retrofits
3
Em 1ss ion Tes t
3
Warm Vehicle Driveabllity
Tes t
6.
High Altitude Retrofit
1
Routing Sheet
without Maintenance
1
Emi ss1 on Test
2
Warn Vehicle Drlveablllty
Tes t
7.
Sea Level Retrof i t
1
Rou 11ng Sheet
without Maintenance
1
Emlsslon Test
2
Warm Vehicle Drlveablllty
Tes t
Table 7. Composition of Vehicle Routing and Data Collection Form Packets
of adjustments, equipment Installations or removal, emissions tests, and drive-
ability evaluations. Forms utilized to route vehicles through testing sequences
are shown In Appendix U.
Data collection and vehicle routing procedures have been described. Data
was stored in the manner Indicated until all tests on a given vehicle were
completed. Stored data were then transferrred via remote teletype to the
Service Bureau Corporation (SBC) Call 370 (Computer) System for processing. An
Intermediate step of proof reading and data audit is described next.
<1.6.2 Qual 1 tv Audi t
A substantial quantity of data was collected and processed. To establish
confidence In the conclusions resulting from the testing program. It was
necessary to Insure the reliability of the data. To attain a valid compilation
of data, the potential for Introduction of error via data collection and trans-
mission techniques was minimized through a system of quality control and data
audit. In short, measures were required to verify the validity of all accumu-
lated data.
-------
Integrity of analytical Instrumentation was discussed In paragraph U.5.
With particular regards to the accuracy of data transmission, amplifiers
connecting each analyzer to the data acquisition system were checked and
adjusted each morning to Insure that data collected by the OAS were In agreement
with scale readings on the chart recorders. DAS output data were also compared
at random Intervals throughout the day for agreement with strip chart data.
When manually recorded data forms were completed, each form was scanned to
verify that pertinent data had been collected and recorded. A further review
was completed to verify that recorded data were In an acceptable form for
Introduction to the SBC Call 570 System. As forms were Inspected and determined
to be acceptable, the auditor Indicated such by signing off in the appropriate
quality audit block of the data form. Data was then punched on paper tape for
Introduction Into computer storage. The data punch block of the quality audit
was then signed off by the computer operator. Data were then entered Into a
temporary Call 370 file. Input data were listed out and reproofed to check and
verify the quality of on-line data transmission and storage. Discrepancies In
raw data files were then resolved and affected files were corrected. A
computer edit program (Appendix 5) was then applied to stored data. The
program was written to test and compare each data point to predetermined data
tolerances. Data of questionable validity were output, descrepancIes were
resolved, and corrected data were entered into file. Upon completion of data
audit procedures, data were transferred Into a permanent file in preparation
for processing.
U.6.3 Data Reduction
In the permanent file, emission data were processed as applicable. Federal
mass emission data were processed In accordance with the Federal Register,
Volume 38, Number 12U, Part III, dated June 28, 1973. Results are expressed in
terms of grams per mile for CO, CO2, HC and N0X emissions. Grams per mile data
for CO, CO2, and HC are then applied In the fuel economy equation and a miles
per gallon figure is calculated. Liquified petroleum gas (LPG) fuel economy
data were calculated using a hydrogen/carbon (H/C) ratio of 2.67 Instead of
the 1.85 H/C ratio applied for gasoline fueled vehicles. LPG fuel economy data
were then converted to a gasoline equivalence and was reported as miles per
gal Ion.
-------
Key mode and Idle emission Inspection data were adjusted on a dry exhaust
volume basis as outlined In the California Exhaust Emission Standards and Test
Procedures for 1972 Model-Year Gasoline-Powered Motor Vehicles under 6,001
Pounds Gross Vehicle Weight. CO readings were reported In mole percent, N0X
was reported In parts per million, HC as measured by the FID principle was
reported In parts per million as carbon. NDIR HC was reported In parts per
million as n-hexane. Key mode and Idle emission data obtained from the Sun
EPA-75 required no reduction and were reported In mole percent for CO and parts
per million as n-hexane for HC.
Drlveablllty demerit ratings were manually recorded and calculated by the
California Warm Vehicle Drlveablllty Evaluation Procedure. Recorded demerits
were first weighted as applicable to the vehicle operating mode. A sum of
weighted demerits was then developed to represent overall adverse driving
character Is 11cs.
Performance data were measured as part of the drlveablllty evaluation.
Elapsed time (ET) data were obtained during wide-open throttle (WOT) acceler-
ations from 0 to 70 miles per hour. WOT accelerations were performed In two
sets with one set comprising two WOT ET's measured In one direction. WOT ET's
were performed from each of two opposing directions to cancel affects introduced
by wind and grade variations. Perfornnnce dnta are reported as a single average
elapsed time for a VJDT acceleration fron 0 to 70 mph.
Engine braking characteristics were also evaluated as part of the drive-
ability evaluation procedure. Elapsed times were measured from 70 to 30 miles
per hour during closed throttle operation. Two sets of data were developed,
one set from each of two opposing directions. Closed throttle deceleration
ET's are reported as a single average elapsed tine from 70 to 30 mph.
-------
5. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION - PART II
Part I of the technical discussion covered overall program objectives and
the criteria of design. It also described specifications and procurement
efforts with respect to the prI mary sanple of vehicles. In addition It outlined
the testing procedures, laboratory facilities and equipment and general data
handling and processing procedures employed in the conduct of the study.
Part II of the technical discussion follows. It describes In greater
detail the various vehicle sub-samples, and control strategies and outlines the
various testing and evaluation techniques applied.
5.1 EVALUATION OF EMISSION CONTROL STRATEGIES
Four emission control strategies were to be considered; idle emissions
Inspection; exhaust control retrofit comprising two elements, California
approved and high altitude kits; modified tuning specifications and; mandatory
engine maintenance. By design, a sample of 196U-1973 model-year vehicles was
to be employed to evaluate each control strategy. Before the evaluations
could proceed however, several subordinate tasks were to be accomplished.
5.1.1 Idle Emission Inspection
A 300 vehicle sample representing the various makes, model-years, engine
sizes and other significant parameters of the 196U-1973 model-year population
was considered adequate to evaluate idle emission inspection. In the absence
of applicable data, a prerequisite to this phase of the study was to establish
Idle emission pass/fall limits. Also, because of the heretofore untried
approach to emission control In the test area, a sample of state licensed
Inspection stations was required to test the effectiveness of the strategy and
to develop associated costs. Because of the wide and varied backgound of
Inspection and repair personnel, speclftc training was required In advance of
actual evaluation. Finally, a testing and evaluation sequence was required to
indicate the effectiveness of the Inspection effort.
5.1.1.1 Pass/Fal1 Limlts
In the design of the study an emission standard which would fatl about 50
percent of the population was stipulated. In concept, this falure rate would
-------
permit an assessment of the effectiveness and costs of any failure rate of 50
percent or less. Because two populations were represented In the sample, 1968
and newer model-year vehicles with factory Installed exhaust control systems
and pre-1968 model-year vehicles without factory control systems, two failure
limits weri: required.
To develop data from which emission failure limits could be determined,
arrangements were made at the local level to utilize two national oil company
service stations. These facilities were procured for the purpose of conducting
a "parking lot survey" of emissions levels. The oil company agreed to provide
facilities, electrical power to power test Instrumentation, and access to Its
customers. The survey was scheduled for completion In a period of three days
and was designed to sample about 300 automobiles.
During the Interval the survey was scheduled, the Denver area was expel—
lenclng a gasoline shortage. As a result, a majority of stations were
scheduling gasoline sales starting about 7:00 A.M. and continuing until 50
percent of the dally fuel quota was sold, normally until about 10:30 to 11:00
A.M. Sales would then be terminated for a period of time. At about 2:00 P.M.
sales would again continue until the dally fuel quota was sold for that day.
During the time period when fuel was available, customers were normally routed
In a one-way fashion through the station. Nearly all customers seeking fuel
would pass a given point. With the cooperation of service station management
and personnel, exhaust analyzers and ATL personnel were stationed at critical
points. Gasoline customers passing these points were invited to participate
In the survey. An affirmative reply was the normal response and a relatively
large number of Inspections were performed.
Sun Electric Company, Model EPA-75 hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide analyzers
were used to survey emission levels. Emissions at curb Idle and at 2500 rpm,
no-load, were recorded along with vehicle Identification data.
In all, UUi vehicles were surveyed. Of these, 27 vehicles were considered
to be outside the area of Interest (1963 and older vehicles). The remaining
it 1U vehicles were distributed as follows:
1968-1973 335 Vehicles
-------
Admittedly, this distribution Is not representative* of the overall vehicle
population. However, representation of respective samples was considered
adequate to define failure limits.
In considering failure limits with regard to both a carbon monoxide and
hydrocarbon emission standard. It should be recognized that an Infinite variety
of combinations can be selected. For the subject study, however, the Colorado
Health Department required failure limits for both CO and HC which would fall
an equal number of vehicles respectively. These limits were found by varying
the failure limits for HC and CO Independently. Values were then selected at
which failures caused by HC equalled the number of failures caused by CO and
the total number of failures comprised 50 percent of the sample. Table 8 shows
the hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide limits established from parking lot survey
data. These data were utilized by selected safety Inspection stations as pass/
fall criteria for Idle emission inspection.
Vehicle Population
HC
CO
196U-196 7
800ppm
6.0%
1968-1973
330 ppm
U.0%
Table 8. HC and CO Idle Limits at 50% Rejection Rate
5.1.1.2 Station Selection
Ten stations were selected to represent state licensed vehicle safety
Inspection stations. Since safety Inspections are performed by several segments
of the automobile repair Industry, It was desirable that each segment be
represented.
Sun Electric Company, through Its local sales program, demonstrates an
Intimate knowledge of the local repair Industry. As a result Sun was contacted
and agreed to supply a list of candidate stations'. From the list furnished by
Sun, nine candidate stations were contacted. Details of the project were
presented and station participation was solicited. One of the stations declined.
Eight stations accepted and were joined by two additional stations initially
contacted by ATL. All stations selected were located In the Aurora and east
• The sample was probably biased toward newer models owned by a predominantly
middle class station clientele.
-------
Denver area, the same area from which the primary car sample was obtained.
Figure 6. shows the distribution of selected stations by nature or class of
buslness*.
OuantItv
Class 1f1ca tIon
5 ea
Servlce Stations
3 ea
Independent Garages
2 ea
New Car Dealerships
Figure 6. Classification of Ten Selected Safety Inspection Stations
5.1.1.3 Personnel .Training
In order to Impart a level of standardization of idle emission Inspection
and resulting maintenance, training was provided. Training was comprised of
two phases, classroom and on-site.
Statton personnel were divided Into two groups, inspectors and repair
personnel. In this regard. It should be noted that In many cases a classifi-
cation of personnel was purely arbitrary. Two classroom sessions were provided
at the Sun Electric Company Training Center. Each lasted about U hours.
The first session, attended by Inspectors and repair personnel. Included
about one hour of program orientation during which the objectives and purpose
of the program were presented. The next hour was devoted to the concept of Idle
emissions Inspection and Included a run-through of Idle Inspection, adjustment,
and maintenance procedures (Appendix 3) to be applied in the program. An
Introduction to the Sun EPA-75 HC-CO Instrument was then presented. The intro-
duction lasted about one-half of an hour. Finally, the session was concluded
with about one and one-half hours of "hands-on" Instrument experience and
demonstrations of various engine malfunctions using an engine mock-up. Prior
to dismissal, each Inspector/mechanic team was required to perform an Inspection
of a vehicle used to provide transportation to the session. The second session,
attended by repair personnel, was comprised of a more detailed course on engine
adjustment and repair procedures.
The second phase consisted of on-site or on-the-job training and was
provided on a limited basis as conditions warranted. To demonstrate:
•Terms of partIclpatIon do not allow partlclpatlng stations to be further
I dent IfIed.
-------
A system was devised whereby station performance could be monitored.
An element of the system Included an evaluation of station performance
whereby an Inspection sheet, filled out by station personnel and returned
to ATL with the test vehicle after Inspection and maintenance, was
closely scrutinized. Upon delivery of the next vehicle to the station
In question, station personnel were made aware of any deviation from
prescribed test, adjustment and maintenance procedures. These on-site
training sessions were performed faithfully by laboratory personnel
through the first five vehicles delivered to each station. Sessions
were then discontinued except where gross deviations In procedures were
noted.
A continuing review of station performance and personal Interviews of station
personnel, indicated the training provided was adequate Insofar as station
personnel were concerned.
3. 1.1. U Testing and Evaluation
Each of the 300 vehicles utilized to evaluate Idle emission inspection
was tested In the as-received condition, le, the same condition in which the
vehicle was found when delivered by the owner. Following initial vehicle check-
out and acceptance procedures, the vehicle was allowed to temperature soak a
minimum of 12 hours.
Following the soak Interval Federal exhaust emission tests, key mode
emission tests and laboratory Idle emission Inspections were performed. The
vehicle was then moved to a staging area where the maintenance status of the
vehicle was determined (Figure 7.). Idle rpm, ignition timing and dwell we,-e
measured and compared to manufacturers specifications (MS). Departure from
1.
2.
3.
Polnts/Condenser ok? YES NO
Distributer cap ok? YES NO
1gnltIon wlres ok? YES NO
l».
Alr Pump ok?
HA
YES
MO
5.
Idle RPM
- (MS)
=
6.
Timing Degrees
- (MS)
_
7.
DwpI 1
- (MS)
_
8.
PCV ok?
NA
YES
NO
9.
Air Cleaner ok?
YES
NO
10.
Choke ok? (Vacuum kick & heat riser)
NA
YES
NO
11.
Idle CO MS
12.
Misfire?
YES
NO
13.
N0X Control ok?
NA
YES
NO
Figure 7. Determination of Maintenance Status
-------
manufacturers specifications was then determined and the difference was re-
ported. With the exception of Idle CO, all other parameters of Interest were
Inspected visually or subjected to a performance check where applicable. Per-
formance and diagnostic procedures employed are shown In Figure 8. Upon com-
pletion of Initial emission tests and engine and component diagnostics, vehicles
were transferred to Inspection stations for Idle emission Inspection.
1. Air Pump - With the engine running, the air pump hose Is pulled off.
If air Is flowing, the pump Is assumed to be working. With the
engine off, the belt tension Is checked for sufficient tension to
drive the pump at high speed.
2. Idle RPM and dwell will be measured with a Sun Electric Company
Tach-Dwell Meter.
J. Timing will be measured with a Sun timing light.
it. The PCV system test procedure Is as follows:
Remove PCV valve from valve cover, note RPM. Cover valve Inlet,
again note RPM. If the system Is working properly the RPM should
fall off at least 50 RPM when the Inlet Is covered.
5. The air cleaner Is assumed to be OK If It Is not oil soaked or
excessively dusty.
6. The choke Is assumed to be OK If the heat riser Is not bent and Is
operating freely, and If the vacuum kick responds to vacuum and Is
operating freely.
7. The Idle CO will be measured with a Beckman Model 315A NDIR CO
analyzer, during key mode Idle.
8. Misfire will be noted by monitoring HC as the car is accelerated
to key mode low cruise and again as the car Is accelerated to key
mode high cruise.
9. NO* Control - The distributer vacuum advance will be examined at
key mode low cruise and at key mode high cruise. At low cruise
there should be no vacuum, at high cruise there should be vacuum
to the dlstrlbutor.
-------
Stations were assigned code numbers (1 through 10) and test cars were
normally transferred to stations on a pre-determlned rotational basis, le, car
#1 to station #1, car #2 to station *2 . . . car #11 to station #1. In actual
practice, however, the rotational system could not be maintained. Several
stations were reluctant or refused to service certain cars, eg, a dealership
would accept only those makes sold by the dealership; other stations would not
service foreign made vehicles. In any event, each station received and In-
spected one-tenth of the sample or about 30 cars.
At the Inspection station, Idle emission inspections were performed
Independently and without knowledge of laboratory Inspection results. As part
of the Inspection procedure (Appendix 3) an Inspection Station Results form
(Appendix 2) was utilized. The data form provided data blocks in which Inspec-
tion results were to be recorded and on which ln-use Instrument ranges were to
be reported. The Inspector was also required to Indicate a "pass" or "fail"
based on a comparison of measured emission levels as a function of vehicle
model-year (196U-1967 and 1968 & newer), versus pre-determlned emission
standards (Table 6). Vehicles designated by the inspector as "passed" were
transferred back to the laboratory without regard to laboratory Inspection
data. No adjustments or maintenance were performed by station personnel.
Vehicles "failed" by Inspectors were transferred to station repair personnel
for corrective action.
The garage idle emission Inspection, and subsequent adjustment and repair
procedures were designed to regulate the sequence of adjustment and repair and
thereby hold guess-work to a minimum. The procedures require that several
relatively simple yet effective adjustments be performed In sequence. If these
adjustments fall to produce the desired results, more extensive maintenance is
allowed. The inspection, adjustment, and repair sequence is prescribed to be
performed In the following manner:
1. Inspect HC and CO at curb Idle and at 2500 rpm, no load.
2. If vehicle passes, stop. If vehicle falls HC, CO or both, check
curb Idle rpm. Adjust if out of specifications. Measure HC and
CO. If vehicle passes, stop.
3. If vehicle failed CO, adjust carburetor idle mixture screw to leaner
air/fuel mixture setting. Re-adjust curb Idle rpm as required. If
vehicle passes, stop.
-------
l». If vehicle failed HC, check Ignition timing. Adjust If out of speci-
fications. If vehicle passes, stop.
5. A list of probable cause for high emission levels Is provided as
an aid In diagnosing causes for failure. Only those repairs
necessary to bring Idle HC and CO Into compliance are permitted.
Maintenance and Inspection cost controls were established for the project.
A per vehicle cost limit was established at $50 for combined Inspection and
repair charges. Garages were Instructed to contact the laboratory when costs In
excess of the limit were anticipated. In a situation such as this, a decision
to repair or not to repair was made against the backgound of the magnitude of
repair required. Repairs to bring the vehicle Into compliance were normally
authorized If In the range of $50 to $100. If, because of excessive costs,
repairs were not authorized, the vehicle was returned to the laboratory. In
this situation station personnel were Instructed to prepare an estimate of
charges to bring the vehicle into compliance. Aside from the recommended
Inspection, adjustment, and repair procedures and the $50 cost limitation, no
other constraints were applied. Station personnel were Instructed and encour-
aged to charge the program consistent with the respective practices of each
facI 11ty.
Passed vehicles were returned to the laboratory without regard for Inspec-
tion results or actual engine condition (eg; a passed vehicle may have obviously
required an Idle adjustment as evidenced by rough idling characteristics; the
adjustment was not performed since emission levels were below standards).
Vehicles which failed Initial inspections and required maintenance were
presumably adjusted and maintained in accordance with the best judgement of
repair personnel. Vehicles which failed Initial inspection were maintained
and re-Inspected -jntil acceptable emission levels were attained, then returned
to the laboratory for re-test.
At the laboratory, vehicles were temperature soaked for the prescribed
Interval and another series of emission tests were performed. The idle emission
Inspection phase was thereby complete.
5.1.2 Exhaust Control Retrofit - California Approved
Several generic types of exhaust control retrofit systems were scheduled
for evaluation. Selection of specific types was determined in consultation
-------
with the Colorado Health Department and the various contractors Involved In the
study. A sub-sample of 50 vehicles was to be utilized to evaluate selected
retrofits. Testing and evaluation procedures were applied with respect to
emissions, drlveablllty, performance and fuel economy.
5.1.2.1 Vehicle Selection
A total of 50 vehicles were selected from the Idle Inspection sample and
were prepared and tested after Idle emissions Inspections were completed.
Vehicles were selected on the basts of appearance In the overall population with
respect to model-year, make and engine size. These criteria dictated that the
more popular vehicles be represented. On this basis, the sample shown In Table
9. was selected.
Make
No.
Vehicles
Selected
t? Y
Model
-Year
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
6U Total
Ammo
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Bui c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Cadi
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Chev
0
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1 10
Chry
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Dodg
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0 5
Ford
0
3
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
2 15
1 mpe
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
LI nc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Merc
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
Olds
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
0
1 3
PI ym
0
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
1
0 7
Pont
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
1
1
0 5
Volk
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0 2
Tota 1
1
6
6
U
6
U
5
6
5
U 7
Table 9. Sea-Leval Retrofit Sample
1973 model-year vehicles were not originally scheduled for retrofit evaluation.
However, a single 1973 model-year vehicle was accepted since It was one of a
few available vehicles outfitted for liquified petroleum gas (LPG) operation.
Arrangements to equip 3 vehicles were provided solely to comply with project
requlrements. Efforts to locally procure 3 natural gas (NG) fueled vehicles
which were also part of original requirements, proved to be fruitless.
5.1.2.2 Retrofit Description and Procurement
Specific types of retrofit were to be considered. They are as described
below and were designated for evaluation on factory Installed emission control
•Total Is 3 vehicles short of 50. 3 vehicles were originally scheduled for
-------
cars and uncontrolled cars as shown In Table 10. Detailed retrofit sub-samples
are presented In Appendix 6.
Model-Years
Samele
Descrlotion
size
4 ea
Cata1y11 c
Converter
1968
3 ea
LPG Fuel System
5 ea
NG Fuel System
through
5 ea
Air B1eed
5 ea
Float Bowl
Pressure Regulation
1972
U ea
Air Bleed
- EGR
b ea
EGR
1961*
6 ea
Air Bleed
- VSAD
through
7 ea
Air Bleed
- EGR
1967
3 ea
EGR - VSAD
Table 10. Retrofit Types anrl Sample Size
Each of the described retrofits shown In Table 10. can be considered to
comprise five types. They are described as follows:
Catalytic converters and LPG and NG fuel systems although functionally
different are considered as one class of retrofit, primarily because
they are the more effective and costly types. Catalytic converters
are normally oxidizing and, at Colorado altitudes, require secondary
air to sustain the oxidation reaction. An oxidation catalyst In Itself
has little affect on NO*. LPG and NG fuel systems normally operate at
lean air/fuel mixtures. As a result '.laulfled gas fuel systems can
achieve low levels of CO, HC and N0X.
Air bleed systems normally Introduce secondary or bleed air to the
Induction system. They can be effective In reducing CO and HC but
normally cause NOx to Increase. Float bowl pressure regulation does
not utilize bleed air but produces roughly the same affects as air
bleed. The desirable affect of bowl pressure regulation Is to enlean
the air/fuel mixture thereby reducing CO and HC emissions.
Air bleed - EGR systems utilize secondary air bleed to the Induction
system thereby reducing CO and HC. Exhaust gas recirculation (EGR)
tends to reduce NOx by recirculating nearly Inert exhaust gas back
through the combustion process. An Inert gas acts as a diluent and
lowers peak combustion temperature. High combustion temperatures
result In NOx producing reactions.
EGR of Itself primarily limits NOx formation as described above.
Afr bleed - VSAD systems utilize secondary air and either total or
partial vacuum spark advance disconnect. Air bleed tends to reduce
CO and HC. Vacuum spark advance disconnect (VSAD) or modified spark
(MSA) result primarily In N0X control although VSAD or MSA can achieve
HC reduction.
ERR - VSAD (MSA) systems as described Individually, normally control
NOx and HC.
Retrofit systems were procured from several of the various manufacturers
which, in most situations also provided representatives to Install and adjust
the respective system. Because of the requirements of the study, several of
-------
the retrofit manufacturers provided partial systems as opposed to the total
retrofit system normally marketed. Terms of participation preclude manufacturer
Identification with regards to a specific type.
5.1.2.3 Testing and Evaluation
Vehicles utilized for retrofit evaluation were selected from the sample of
vehicles used In the evaluation of Idle emission Inspection. Upon completion
of all testing related to Idle Inspection, vehicles selected for retrofit sub-
samples were retained and prepared for further testing. Engine components and
parts and engine functions were extensively inspected for Indications of
malfunction. Malfunctions were corrected, borderline parts were replaced as
required and engines were adjusted to manufacturer's recommended specifications.
Idle air/fuel mixtures were adjusted at manufacturer's recommended Idle speed to
an Indicated exhaust value of 1 to 3 mole percent CO. Mixtures were adjusted
to achieve best Idling characteristics within the prescribed CO range. Vehicles
were then released to manufacturer's representatives for retrofit Installation.
Following retrofit Installation and adjustment, vehicles were retired for
the temperature soak. Mass emission tests were performed from a cold start.
Key mode and Idle emission tests were performed. Vehicles were then drive-
ability and performance rated by the California Warm Vehicle Drlveablllty
Evaluation Procedure (Appendix 7). Retrofit systems were then removed by
manufacturers representatives or by laboratory personnel as appropriate.
Engines were again Inspected to verify normal operation. Altered settings
were re-set to specifications and vehicles were retired for temperature soak.
Following the prescribed soak Interval cold start mass emission tests were
performed. Key mode and Idle emissions tests followed. The evaluation sequence
was concluded with a drlveablllty and performance evaluation. Engine component
sealing and Identification procedures, in preparation for the 6 month emission
test re-call (degredatlon study) were completed, and vehicles were scheduled
for owner pick-up. This segment of retrofit evaluation was thereby completed.
5.1.3 Exhaust Control Retrofit - High Altitude Kits
To evaluate the high altitude kits, a 100 vehicle sub-sample was chosen
from the primary Idle Inspection sample. Kits and recommended Installation
procedures and adjustment specifications were procured from automobile
-------
manufacturers. Foreign-made vehicles were not scheduled for evaluation.
Testing procedures were selected and a testing sequence was designed and
executed In a manner consistent with overall program objectives.
5.1.3.1 Vehicle Selection
Since only the major domestic automobiles were to be evaluated, the vehicle
sample was comprised of light-duty vehicles manufactured by American Motors
Corporation (AMMO), Chrysler Corporation (CHRY), General Motors Corporation
(GMC), and Ford Motor Company (FORD). Sample vehicles were selected to
represent vehicles of high and moderate sales volume. Table 11 shows sample
distribution by model-year and make. (A more detailed distribution Is presented
In Append Ix 8).
Make
Mfusr.
Ng,
of Vehicles
Selected
bv Model-Year
73
72
71
70
69
68
Total
Ammo
AMMO
1
1
1
0
1
0
Bulc
GMC
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Cad 1
GMC
0
1
0
0
0
1
2
Chev
GMC
5
it
(4
k
U
5
26
Chry
CHRY
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
Dodg
CHRY
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Ford
FORD
5
5
5
5
U
3
27
Impe
CHRY
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
LI nc
FORD
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Merc
FORD
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
Olds
GMC
1
1
1
I
1
1
6
PI ym
CHRY
2
1
2
1
1
1
8
Pont
GMC
1
1
1
1
2
2
8
Total
18
17
1 7
1 5
1 7
16
1 00
Table 11. High Altitude Retrofit Vehicle Sample
5.1.3.2 Retrofit Description and Procurement
As Indicated by Table 11, high altitude kits were to be evaluated on 1968
through 1973 model-year vehicles only. Each of the various domestic car manu-
facturers was contacted and the details of the project were presented. Com-
ponent parts to comprise the various kits and recommended engine adjustment
specifications were solicited. Each of the manufacturers responded and re-
quirements were fulfilled.
High altitude kits were comprised of various carburetor and distributor
parts and were accompanied by an application list. In some instances an Idle
adjustment procedure was specified. Each of the various kits supplied are
-------
American Motors Corporation
Lean main fuel metering Jets
5 degree advance In basic Ignition timing
Idle adjustment procedure not prescribed. Idle adjustment
performed as generally recommended.
Chrysler Corporation
10% lean main fuel metering jets
Mixture enrichment staging springs which function at a
vacuum 2 Inches Hg less than standard (net result - leaner
power enrichment).
5 degree advance In basic Ignition timing.
Idle adjustment procedure not prescribed. Idle adjustment
performed as generally recommended.
Limitations - parts supplied are applicable to Carter
carburetors only. Hoi ley equipped cars are recommended for
complete carburetor replacement. Replacement carburetors
were not supplied.
Ford Motor Company
Model Year Choke Basic Timing Power Valve Jets
(defirqes) (Inches He)
1968 - +U it.5 2v 2 lean
1969 - +U U.5 2v
1970 Link 2v *4 l|.5 2v
1971 Link 2v U. 5 2v
1972 Link 2v + 4 U.5 2v
1973 Link 2v +U 4.5 2v
Lean main metering fuel jets for 1968 models.
Lean Power valve assemblies for all 2v carburetors.
l»o advance In basic Ignition timing for all models.
Link provided with altitude notch to reduce (enlean) choke
angle setting for 1970-1973 2v equipped models.
Idle adjustment procedure prescribed for all models.
General Motors Corporation
Distributor vacuum advance mechanism calibrated to operate
5 Inches Hg less than standard resulting In Ignition timing
advance at lower engine load.
Lean power enrichment springs and assemblies.
Idle adjustment procedure not prescribed. Idle adjustment
performed as generally recommended.
Kit Installation and adjustment procedures were generally performed as
Indicated above. In several instances, parts supplied by one manufacturer were
utilized to equip vehicles of another manufacturer as applicable, eg, an
-------
American Motors vehicle, equipped with an Autollte or Motorcraft (Ford) carbu-
retor was equipped with a Ford kit. In other Instances where a specific com-
ponent of the kit did not apply to a given situation, the component was not
utilized for replacement. In this respect It should be noted that a general
approach to high altitude retrofit was applied. Individual parts supplied were
not necessarily tailored to this application In particualr but were assembled
and provided as off-the-shelf Items.
5.1.3.3 Testing and Evaluation
The high altitude kit sub-sample was derived from the sample of vehicles
utilized for Idle emission Inspection. After completing tests related to Idle
Inspection, test vehicles were subjected to diagnosis, worn or damaged engine
parts were replaced and high altitude kits were installed. Installations were
performed by laboratory personnel In accordance with directions supplied by the
respective manufacturers. Engine adjustments were then checked and where
applicable, kit adjustment specifications were applied.
After kit Installation, vehicles were temperature soaked; mass, key mode
and Idle emission tests were performed and warm drlveabllity evaluations were
completed. Kit hardware was then removed, original parts were replaced and
adjustments were re-set to factory specifications. Emissions and drlveabllity
evaluations were completed at factory standard configurations and engine
component and adjustment I terns were sealed and identified for 6 month recall
tests. High altitude retrofit evaluation was thereby completed.
5.1.U Modified Tuning Specifications
Twenty-five vehicles were selected to be utilized to evaluate modified
tuning specifications. An experimental procedure was devised whereby the more
significant emission related variables were evaluated. Testing procedures were
chosen and flow charts were established to facilitate test vehicle routing
through the various routines assigned.
S.l.ii.l Vehicle Selection
Twenty five vehicles were selected from the primary sample. Selection
was such as to achieve representatIon of the various vehicle model-years and the
more popular makes registered. Table 12 shows the sub-sample selected to
-------
perform the evaluation of modified tuning specifications by make and model-year.
Make
NC-.
of
Vehlc
les
by
Model
-Year
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65 6it
Total
Chev
1
1
l
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
10
Ford
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 1
10
Pont
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0 0
2
Vol k
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0 0
3
Total
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2 2
25
Table 12. Modified Tuning Specifications Vehicle Sample
5.(4.1.2 Description of Specifications
Four significant emission related engine variables were selected for
evaluation on each of 25 cars.
Vacuum choke kick
Basic Ignition timing
Idle air/fuel mixture
Idle speed (rpm).
Each variable was assigned an experimental value which would presumeably work
to Improve combustion efficiency during cold and warm engine operation.
Settings were established at what w.is presumed to be the maximum allowable
limit without Incurring severe drlveablllty penalties. Experimental values are
described as follows:
Vacuum choke kick
Set leaner than specifications at 1.5 x pull-off specified by
manufacturer.
Basic Ignition timing
Advanced from specified timing by 8 degrees.
Idle air/fuel mixture
Set leaner than specifications. Enleanment expressed in terms of
drop In Idle speed of 200 rpm. 200 rpm drop due to enleanment was
recovered by Increasing the throttle blade opening (Idle speed screw).
Idle speed
Set higher than specified. Speed Initially set as recorrwnended by
manufacturer In specified gear (drive or neutral). Shift selector
then moved to neutral gear (if automatic transmission) and Idle
speed adjusted to achieve additional 200 rpm.
A certain amount of Interaction exists between certain of the variables.
An advance in ignition timing, for example, causes an Increase In engine rpm.
By taking this Interaction Into account an adjustment sequence was designed
-------
as follows:
1. Vacuum choke kick (choke plate pull-off after cold engine start)
Is Independent of other variables. It was adjusted firstly.
2. Basic timing was adjusted secondly at recommended engine rpm.
Where the experimental adjustment procedure called for high
Idle rpm, basic Ignition timing was not readjusted regardless
of change caused by higher Idle rpm.
5. Thirdly, Idle air/fuel mixture was adjusted as described above.
U. Finally, Idle speed was adjusted as described above.
Eight each tests were scheduled for each test vehicle. Prior to testing
each of the vehicles were set to the combinations shown In Table 13, where:
a «• Choke to specs
Timing to specs
Idle A/F to experimental value
Idle rpm to experimental value
b ¦ Choke to experimental value
Timing to specs
Idle A/F to specs
Idle rpm to experimental value
c ¦ Choke to specs
Timing to experimental value
Idle A/F to experimental value
Idle rpm to specs
d = Choke to experimental value
Tlmlng to specs
Idle A/F to experimental value
Idle rpm to specs
e = Choke to specs
Timing to experimental value
Idle A/F to specs
Idle rpm to experimental value
f ¦ Choke to experimental value
Timing to experimental value
Idle A/F to specs
Idle rpm to specs
g » Choke to experimental value
Timing to experimental value
Idle A/F to experimental value
Idle rpm to experimental value
The final test on each vehicle, s, was performed with each of the variables
set to manufacturer's specifications.
To perform the experiment, a random order of adjustment was applied to
evaluate the variables singularly and In combination as shown In Table 13.
-------
Car
Coded Adlustment
Procedure
UOi.
Test Number
1
2
3
k
5
6
7
8
1
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
s
2
b
d
f
e
a
g
c
s
3
e
a
c
g
b
d
f
s
It
e
f
a
c
g
d
b
s
5
c
d
g
b
f
e
a
s
6
a
b
g
e
f
d
c
s
7
b
g
a
d
c
f
e
s
8
b
f
d
a
g
c
e
s
9
g
f
c
b
a
d
e
s
10
g
f
d
a
b
e
c
s
1 1
d
a
e
c
b
f
g
s
12
d
a
c
f
e
b
g
s
13
g
c
f
a
e
d
b
s
1U
e
b
f
g
a
c
d
s
15
d
e
a
f
b
c
g
s
16
c
f
a
e
g
d
b
s
17
d
f
c
a
g
b
e
s
18
d
f
a
e
b
g
c
s
19
e
c
g
a
b
f
d
s
20
a
e
b
f
g
c
d
s
21
g
f
b
e
a
c
d
s
22
d
g
a
f
c
b
e
s
23
b
e
d
a
g
c
f
s
2U
d
c
a
g
b
f
e
s
25
d
g
a
e
c
b
f
s
Table 13. Test Sequence Order for Modified Tuning Specifications Experiment
5.1.U.3 Testing and Evaluation
Vehicles used In the modified tuning specifications evaluation were
selected from the Idle Inspection sample. Upon completion of Idle Inspection
related tests, vehicles were diagnosed. Malfunctions were corrected. Engines
were then set to specifications and de-tuned In accordance with the experimental
adjustment procedure. Cold start mass emissions tests were performed and key
mode and Idle emissions tests were conducted. Drlveablllty and performance
evaluations were then completed. Engines were then tuned to experimental values
and testing was repeated. The adjustment and testing sequence was repeated
until each of the eight tests were complete. This phase of the program was
then completed with engine component Identification and sealing for emissions
degredatlon and return of vehicles to owners.
5.1.5 Mandatory Engine Maintenance
In order to evaluate mandatory engine maintenance a sample of vehicles was
selected from the primary sample. The method of selection is described below.
Experimental mandatory engine maintenance requirements were then established
and testing procedures were selected.
-------
5.1.5.1 Sample Selection
Vehicles eppearlng In the retrofit (California approved and high altitude
kits) and modified tuning specifications sub-samples were utilized to evaluate
mandatory engine maintenance. 100 vehicles were used to evaluate altitude
retrofit kits, kk vehicles were used to evaluate California approved or sea-
level retrofits, excluding gaseous conversion/ and 25 vehicles were used to
evaluate modified timing specifications for a total of 169 vehicles. However,
1U of the 169 vehicles were used for more than one task leaving a total of 155
vehicles In the mandatory engine maintenance sub-sample. Distribution of the
155 vehicle sub-sample by model-year and make Is shown In Table 1U.
M&fc£
NO.
of
Vehicles
bv Model
-Year
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
6
-------
of an engine which.passed Idle Inspection was not considered adequate to
evaluate mandatory engine maintenance effectiveness and In many cases additional
maintenance and adjustments were required.
As discussed, vehicles used to evaluate retrofits and tuning specifications
were assigned to the mandatory maintenance sub-sample. Prior to utilizing any
vehicle In retrofit or tuning specification sub-samples, each vehicle was
subjected to extensive engine diagnosis and set to manufacturer's specifications.
Parts which showed obvious malfunction and parts of questionable or borderline
serviceability were replaced. Although diagnostic procedures were applied to
the engine In general, particular emphasis was applied to certain engine parts
and adjustments which, with regards to this aspect of Investigation, constitute
mandatory engine maintenance. Mandatory engine maintenance was thereby defined
to comprise replacement of the following parts:
Spark plugs
Distributor contact points
Condensor
Air f11ter element
and adjustment of the following parameters:
Contact point dwell
Ignltlon tlmlng
Idle Air/fuel mixture
Engine Idle rpm.
To reiterate; for the experimental program, only those parts which by diagnosis
Indicated anywhere from borderline to total malfunction were actually replaced.
The potential change attributed to the replacement of acceptable parts relating
to emission performance was assumed to be minimal.
5.1.5.3 Testing and Evaluation
Upon completion of tests relating to Idle emission Inspection vehicles
were subjected to extensive engine diagnosis. Parts were changed as applicable
and engines were set to specifications. Retrofit kits were Installed on
respective vehicles, retrofit evaluations were performed, kits were removed
and engines were re-tuned to specifications. Regarding the modified tuning
specifications vehicle sample, vehicles were re-tuned, evaluated, re-tuned,
evaluated, etc., until the tuning sequence was complete. Final tests were
then performed on each vehicle.. In each case final tests were performed with
engines set to manufacturers specifications. Engine parts and adjustments were
-------
then Identified and sealed as described and vehicles were returned to owners.
-------
6. TECHNICAL DISCUSSION - PART Ml PROBLEM AREAS AND COSTS
In the course of Investigation of the various control strategies, several
problems became evident, particularly with respect to Idle emissions inspection
and high altitude kit Installation. The following paragraphs discuss the high-
lights of the Investigation with respect to each control strategy and define the
problem areas. Summary cost data are also presented and discussed.
6.1 IDLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION
To review; 10 licensed safety Inspection stations were selected, both
class-room and on-site training was provided, and Instrumentation was furnished
and maintained. Beyond Initial orientation and training. Initial on-site
training, and stand-by consultation services provided by laboratory personnel,
Inspection personnel operated more or less Independently of laboratory super-
vision.
6.l/l Preview of Inspection Facilities. Capabilities and Personnel
In order to determine the performance and capabilities status of the 10
selected stations with respect to the automotive repair Industry at large, the
services of a consultant were employed. The consultant, with over 30 years
experience In nearly all aspects of automotive repair, demonstrates an Intimate
knowledge of the repair Industry. The consultant was utilized to conduct
personal inspections of participating garages and to interview station manage-
ment and personnel. The general Impressions of the consultant In this regard
are as follows:
"The ten stations accurately represent a cross-section of the state-of-the-
art ranging from a facility of general repair not offering tune-up service, to
one of exclusively tune-up repair. The mechanics also ranged from no conception
of tune-up concepts and practices to those who exhibited In-depth knowledge and
skill In repair of carburetlon and Ignition problems. However, It did not
follow that the better equipped shops or the more tune-up oriented ones,
boasted the more skilled mechanic."
The following paragraphs should be considered against this background.
6.1.2 Personnel Training
-------
The training provided to inspection station personnel was designed solely
to cover only those aspects of inspection and maintenance which relate directly
to the objectives of this study. The adequacy of training was unanimously
expressed by garage management and personnel when surveyed and was further
demonstrated by the fact that significant emission reductions were achieved
(as will be shown in 7. Results). In this respect, however, It should be
understood that:
1. There were only 10 stations Involved In the study.
2. Classroom training sessions, although relatively short, were devoted
solely to inspection procedures and the specifics and Importance of
proper engine adjustment.
3. Limited personalized on-site training was provided which was geared
primarily to the detection and correction of technical and admini-
strative problems.
U, Throughout the program laboratory personnel were on stand-by to
consult on technical problems of special concern to station
personne1.
5. Mention of the monitoring function of the laboratory was purposely
avoided. However, garage personnel undoubtedly understood labora-
tory functions.
Although the adequacy of training was demonstrated, the training program,
particularly that presented In the classroom, was at best minimal. Because of
the program constraints, particularly with respect to the time allowed, training
covered only the basics In Instrument theory and operational procedures, and
touched lightly on engine diagnostic procedures, adjustment and repair.
It was not within the scope of this study to develop an extenstve In-
spection and mechanic training program. However, against the background
provided by the study, the following elements of a training program are deemed
desIrable.
1. Background information should be provided on the motor vehicle as
a source of air pollution to demonstrate the Importance of the
overall emission control program.
2. The general theory of engine operation and emission control func-
tions should be stressed to provide the basis for understanding of
diagnostic and repair procedures. The lack of knowledge In this
regard was amply demonstrated by the questions raised and the
discussions which followed during classroom training sessions
provided by the program.
3. The fundamentals of engine and component diagnostics through utili-
zation of the various diagnostic equipment available should be
emphasized. A general lack of knowledge with respect to the appli-
cation of diagnostic equipment was demonstrated during visits to
the various garages.
-------
k. The significance of proper engine repair and tune-up should be
emphasized with both classroom and shop instruction provided. A
detailed review of the first 50 cars, for example. Indicated that
10 percent of the cars adjusted to reduce one pollutant were also
mal-adjusted In such a way as to Increase another pollutant.
6.1.3 Inspection and Repair Procedures
During both classroom sessions and on-site training visits, strict confor-
mance to prescribed Inspection and repair procedures was advocated. Although
personnel at several of the stations expressed frustration with constraints of
the garage Inspection, adjustment and repair procedure, the systematic approach
presented by the procedure presumeably proved to be a major factor in main-
taining a reasonable cost effectiveness ratio (7. Results).
In the review and processing of inspection technical and cost data (Inspec-
tion Station Results form), several deficiencies with respect to the complete-
ness of forms and other dlscrepenc1es In data were found. These are summarized
In Table 15. With respect to Table 15, Inspection data sheets Indicating a
"passed" vehicle where falling emission levels were actually recorded and
sheets Indicating a "failed" vehicle where passing emission levels were actually
recorded are most commonly attributed to inspector error as to what allowable
limits actually constitute a passed or failed vehicle (intentional or unln-
ten 11onal ).
Descrl Dtlon
Forms Improperly filled out or incomplete 199 66
Cars on which unnecessary adjustments were
performed or adjustments were performed
out of sequence 2U 8
Cars which were marked "failed" but which
Inspector's own readings indicated a pass 39 13
Cars which were marked "passed" but which
Inspector's own readings Indicated a failure 9 3
Table 15. Summary of Deficiencies and DIscrepencies
Found In Data Reported by Garages
6.1.
-------
Code Assigned
Type of Act 1vltv
SS-1
Service Station
D-2
New Car Dealership
0-3
New Car Dealership
INO-U
Independent Garage
IND-5
Independent Garage
SS-6
Service Station
IND-7
Independent Garage
SS-8
Service Station
SS-9
Service Station
SS-1 0
Service Stat Ion
Table 16. Inspection Station Identification
6.1.U.1 Station Pass/Fall Rates
Although the program was designed such that each station was to inspect
30 vehicles, for various reasons an equal distribution of vehicles was not
achieved. The range In vehicles Inspected per station was from 28 vehicles
at a minimum to 31 vehicles at a maximum. Table 17 shows the total number of
vehicles Inspected by each station and pass/fall performance data. The code
assignments presented in Table 16 apply.
S tat Ion
No. of Veh.
VehIcles
Vehicles
Failed
Code
1nsDected
Passed
HC
CO
Both
No.
U>
(No. )
IV
(No. )
(%)
(No. )
U>
SS-1
30
1U
i»7
3
1 0
8
27
5
17
D-2
29
12
-------
apparent disparity In the actual failure rate versus design failure rate Is
attributed primarily to the performance of two of the stations, D-3 and IND-7.
6.1.U.2 Station Inspection Charges
As Indicated previously, each of the participating stations was encouraged
to charge the project at rates consistent with practices norma) to the garage
respective of both Inspection and maintenance charges. Table 18 shows the
average Inspection costs charged to the program by each station.
S tat 1 on
No. of Vehicles
Lnspectlon
Costs
Cffdp
1nsoected
Total(J) Av*/Veh($)
SS-1
30
75.00
2.50
D-2
29
158.00
5.45
D-3
31
186.00
6. 00
IND-4
30
150.00
5.00
1 ND-5
31
170.50
5. 50
SS-6
31
139.50
4. 50
IND-7
29
72. 50
2.50
SS-8
30
105.00
3.50
SS-9
28
112.00
4.00
SS-10
_1L
46.59
1 .50
STA.AVG.
30
121.50
4.05
Table 18. Summary of Inspection Charges
As shown In Table 18, the average inspection cost Is $4.05 per vehicle with
an average range by station from $1.50 per vehicle to $6.00 per vehicle.
Estimates by laboratory personnel establish Inspection labor to be In the
range of 0.25 to 0.33 man-hours per vehicle. This estimate Includes Initial
customer contact, performance of Idle emissions Inspection, completion of test
forms (as utilized by the laboratory), and final customer contact. The time
estimate assumes the vehicle exhaust system Is Intact, the engine Is warm (a
requirement of Inspection procedures), and instrumentation Is in a stand-by
condition. At the labor rate of $12.00 per hour (assumed to be a typical
hourly rate) the laboratory estimated Inspection rate is In the range of $3.00
to $4.00 per Inspection, which is consistent with the average rate of $4.05 per
Inspection charged to the program.
6.1.U.3 Station Maintenance Costs
A summary of adjustment and repair costs is shown In Table 19, where the
average station cost for failed vehicles (Avg/Falled Veh.) ranges from $2.53
to $14.25 per vehicle and the average station cost for all vehicles Inspected
-------
(Avg. all Veh.) ranges from $0.76 to $12.26 per vehicle. The mean cost per
failed vehicle Is $10.57 and the mean cost per vehicle inspected Is $6.14.
S tat 1 on
Number
of Cars
Maintenance Costs
Code
Inspected
Mainta i ned
Total($)
Ave/Falled Veh($) Ave al1
Veh($)
SS-1
30
16
216.59
13.51* 7.22
D-2
29
17
159.07
9.36 5.48
D-5
31
23
268.25
11.66 8.65
IND-4
30
16
i»0. 50
2.53 1.35
IND-5
31
1 7
165.00
9.71 5.32
SS-6
31
19
265.91
14.00 8. 58
IND-7
29
29
355.65
12.26 12.26
SS-8
30
18
187.25
10.40 6.2U
SS-9
28
8
21.22
2. 65 0. 76
SS-1 0
31
12
170.9?
lit. 25 5. 51
STA.AVG.
30
17.5
185.0U
10.57/Veh. 6.14/Veh.
Table
19. Summary of
Maintenance/Costs by Station
6.1.4.4 Combined Station Costs
Tah 1
3
2 0 shows a
cost summary
of combined Inspection and maintenance costs.
Station
Number of
Cars
Combined Costs
Cede
Inspected Maintained
Total Ave all Veh($)
SS-1
30
16
291.59 9.72
D-2
29
1 7
317.07 10.93
D-3
31
23
U5U. 25 11*.65
1 ND-4
30
16
190.50 6.35
1 ND-5
31
1 7
335.50 10.82
SS-6
31
19
405.41 13.08
IND-7
29
29
428.15 14.76
SS-8
30
18
292.25 9.74
SS-9
28
8
133.22 4.76
SS-1 0
, ?1
1 2
217.45 7.01
STA.AVG.
30
17.5
306. 54 I 0.18/Veh.
Table 20. Summary of Inspection and Maintenance Costs by Station
As shown, the average cost for both Inspection and maintenance Is $10.18 per
vehicle. Costs shown reflect only those charges which were actually billed and
are not Inclusive of charges estimated to bring certain of the vehicles into
compliance (those which failed Inspection and were not repaired due to exces-
sive costs to the program),
6.1.11.5 Estimate of Overcharge
As discussed In other sections, a request was made of station personnel to
detail charges In connection with each phase of Inspection, adjustment and
repair. In addition, station personnel were requested to supply cost estimates
with respect to those vehicles which could not be brought Into compliance
-------
within the cost limitation. Cost data were transmitted to the laboratory via
Inspection Station Results data sheets.
Upon receipt of garage data, a review of Inspection, adjustment and repair
data was performed. These data were then compared with data obtained as a
result of an after-maintenance engine status Inspection. This Inspection was
performed on all vehicles which were reported to have Initially failed the
garage Inspection and were subjected to garage maintenance. The cost data
developed from the comparison Is presented In Table 21. As Indicated, the
total cost for repairs performed unnecessarily Is S1U9.52 and the total cost
for questionable repairs Is S25U.37 with a combined total of $U03.89. These
figures ($11*9.52 and $U03.89) represent the range of overcharge with respect
to direct costs (exclusive of repair estimates) actually charged to the program.
Station
Np..
-------
Table 22 was constructed from estimated costs reported by the various
garages to bring certain of the failed vehicles Into compliance. The data shown
In Table 22 applies to those vehicles which required repair In excess of the
nominal $50 repair limit or those vehicles on which malfunctions causing failure
could not be Identified.
Station
Vehicle
Amount of
Type of ReRiMr
Justified
Code
No.
Estimated)
m
SS-1
1
«
•
•>
2
1*0
•
?
3
200
VALVE JOB,CARB OHAUL
VALVE JOB
0-2
1
101
VALVE JOB
No
2
200
VALVE JOB, MAJOR T.U.
No
3
90
MAJOR T.U.
No
D-3
None
-
-
-
IND-it
1
*
*
¦>
IND-5
1
i»5
CARB OHAUL 1NTA.GSKTS.
No
SS-6
1
*
*
?
2
*
*
1
3
*
*
?
U
30
*
¦>
5
U 5
NEW CARB.
Yes
6
•
*
?
7
50
*
?
IND-7
1
35
#
1
2
UO
MINOR T.U.
Yes
SS-8
1
30
*
?
SS-9
1
150
VALVE JOB
Yes
SS-10
1
28
•
?
* NOT PROVIDED
? UNABLE TO DETERMINE
Table 22. Garage Repair Cost Estimates to Bring Problem Vehicle Into Compliance
From cost data supplied, the average cost to bring problem vehicles Into
compliance Is $77 per vehicle. This average Is based on the 14 vehicles for
which cost estimates are provided (station operators are reluctant to provide
estimates). Assuming the average applies to all problem vehicles, the total
estimated charges are $ 15U0. Assuming further, that the ratio of total justi-
fied to total reported charges can be applied ($385 f $108U ¦ 0.36) the total
Justified cost Is $55i» (0.36 x $15U0 = $55U) and the total unjustified cost is
$986 ($15<»0 - $55i» = $986) or an additional $5.63 per vehicle for the 175
vehicles which failed initial inspections.
Since there appears to be no reason to doubt the motives of garage person-
nel with respect to the estimates provided, it can be assumed that If allowed
to proceed, costs would have been Incurred. Assuming that 50% of the estimated
costs were actually Incurred, average per vehicle repair costs for the 175
failed vehicles would be Increased by $2.82 per vehicle. Maximum estimated
-------
overcharge l.s now calculated to be:
A maximum per vehicle average for 175 vehicles of 38? or $5.13 per
vehlcle.
where:
$13.39 ¦ adjusted average repair cost/failed vehicle ($10.57 + $2.82).
$ 5.13 ¦ prior estimate ~ latter estimate ($2.31 + $2.82).
In summary then, the estimated minimum overcharge Is 8% or $0.85 per failed
vehicle and the estimated maximum overcharge Is 38% or $5.13 per failed vehicle.
6.1.5 Garage Inspection (Analytical) Instrumentation
As discussed In other sections garage-type emissions Inspection Instru-
mentation was supplied to each of the 10 garages. Instrumentation supplied to
each station was of the same manufacturer and model. Sun Electric Company,
EPA-75 HC/CO analyzers. Instrumentation was Initially calibrated using n-
hexane standard gaseous blends. In addition. Instrument calibration curves
were checked and reset to agree with gaseous standards at Intervals of two to
three weeks throughout the testing phase. Calibrations were presumeably checked
by garage personnel In accordance with specified Inspection procedures prior to
the performance of emissions Inspections on Individual test cars.
Station monitoring strategy Included a laboratory Inspection of all
vehicles prior to delivery to garages for Inspection. Laboratory emissions
inspections were performed using two analytical systems plumbed In parallel to
the sample source, the vehicle tailpipe. A Sun EPA-75 HC-CO Instrument com-
prised one analytical system and one Beckman 315A CO analyzer and one Beckman
315A HC analyzer comprised the other system. Calibration curves were es-
tablished Initially using gaseous standards which were applied commonly to both
systems. Calibration set-points were established immediately prior to tests on
Individual vehicles. The Beckman analyzers are of laboratory quality and have
long been considered a standard Instrument applied In automotive exhaust gas
analyses.
A total of 300 Idle emission tests with parallel Beckman/Sun analyses were
performed. Data from each system was recorded and retained for analyses. In
addition, garage Inspection data was recorded and retained for further analyses.
Linear regression analyses were then performed to establish correlations with
-------
respect to certain of the data sets.
The regression analyses established correlation coefficients of 0.9U2 for
Beckman CO versus Lab Sun CO data sets and 0.701 for Beckman HC versus Lab Sun
HC data sets. Because of the care and control exercised with respect to the
accumulation of these data, the coefficients obtained are probably the highest
which can be achieved and are therefore considered the standard by which other
data sets can be evaluated*.
Linear regression analyses were also performed to establish correlations
between the Sun Instrument utilized In the laboratory and each of the garage
Instruments. Results of these analyses are presented In Table 23.
S tat Ion
Idle Emls
s1 on Data
2500 Enelne
Rom Data
.Code
HC
ofr?
SS-1
0.i»3
0. 83
0. 72
D-2
0.U1
0. 83
0.37
0. 88
D-3
0.59
0. i»8
0. 26
0.59
1 ND-I+
0.83
0. 76
0. 73
0. 76
IND-5
0.68
0. 81
0. 79
0.87
SS-6
0.5U
0.81
0. 60
0. 77
IND-7
0. i»9
0. 71
0.i»3
0.26
SS-8
0. 76
0.73
0. 8lt
0. 89
SS-9
0.6U
0.8i»
0.69
0. 7i»
SS-10
0. iiU
0.89
0.61
0. 80
Table 23. Correlation Coefficients, Laboratory Inspection
Data versus Garage Inspection Data
As may be Inferred from the data shown in Table 23, substantial differences
exist with respect to garage Inspection data where the range In correlation
coefficients Is found to be:
HC at Idle from 0.
-------
supplied as new equipment) and drift was relatively uniform with respect to
all Instruments.
The range In correlation coefficients established by linear regression
analyses of laboratory versus garage data can be attributed to several factors.
Among these factors are engine variables. Individual Instrument response charac-
teristics/ and Instrument operating environment. The greatest single factor,
however, appears to be the care and handling of the Instrument Itself and the
manner In which ft is operated.
As noted In various paragraphs of Part III, problems were experienced with
two of the ten stations, particularly as related to excessively high vehicle
failure rates. As can be seen In Table 23, the stations with the highest fail-
ure rates, D-5 and IND-7, also demonstrate the poorest correlation coefficients
with respect to Inspection Instrumentation provided. Since neither of the two
Instruments appeared to be out of line with other Instruments during periodic
calibration checks, It is concluded that the poorer correlations are attributed
to poor operating practices.
6.1.6 Summary of Observations
1. In general, the stations selected represent a cross-section of the
automotive repair Industry.
2. With respect to program objectives, the training provided to station
personnel was adequate. However, to provide a better understanding
of emission control concepts, more extensive training is required.
3. Garage Inspection procedures were adequate. However, several
problems were experienced with station personnel with respect to
attention to standards and the transmission of data.
U. Actual Inspection failure rates were higher than design failure
rates. The differences can be attributed to an abnormally high
rate of failure at one station (IND-7 as shown in Table 17) which
failed all vehicles tested. One other station (D-5) appears to
borderline In this respect.
5. Inspection charges ranged from an average of $1.50 per Inspection
at one station to $6.00 per Inspection with an overall average In-
spection charge of $U.05 per vehicle. The average charge is consis-
tent with laboratory estimates.
6. The average station cost per failed vehicle ranges from $2.53 to
J1U.25 per vehicle with an overall average of $10.57 per failed
vehicle.
The average station cost for all vehicles inspected ranges from
$0.76 to $12.26 per vehicle with an overall average of $6.1U per
vehicle.
7. The average combined station cost (Inspection and repair) per
failed vehicle ranges from $U.76 to $ 1U.76 per vehicle with an
overall average of $10.18 per vehicle.
-------
8. Overcharge Is estimated to range from 8% to 22? for failed vehicles
or 8% to 38% as determined from direct program charges and direct
program charges plus estimates to bring problem vehicles Into
compliance. In terms of costs, the ranges are from $0.85 to $2.31
per failed vehicle and $0.85 to $U.B6 per failed vehicle respectively.
9. Correlation coefficients developed for various data sets show
relatively large differences In the quality of emissions Inspections.
In this respect, the performance of two stations (D-3 and IND-7)
Is of lower quality than the performance of the remaining stations.
6.2 EXHAUST CONTROL RETROFIT - CALIFORNIA APPROVED
Several classes of retrofit were evaluated. Systems were supplied by the
various manufacturers. installation and initial adjustment labor was also
provIded.
6.2.1 Installation
Based on observation of actual installation of the various systems, with
the exception of the more costly retrofits, installations are performed rela-
tively easily. Only a normal assortnent of hand power tools and assorted
wrenches, screwdrI vers, etc., are required. Installation of the more costly
systems, catalytic converters and L-P gas systems, are more complex as reflected
In Installation charges.
With respect to catalytic systems, Installation on a vehicle already
equipped with an air pump requires converter installation only. This can
normally be accomplished In much the same manner that exhaust system mufflers
are Installed. Where an air punp Is not already mounted on the engine, instal-
lation becomes more difficult and removal of the radiator and/or relocation of
an existing air conditioning compressor may occasionally be required. It should
be noted that these difficulties were not encountered during the course of this
program. Catalytic systems also require the use of lead-free fuels.
L-P gas systems require the addition of a supplemental fuel tank specially
designed to handle the higher vapor pressure of L-P gas. Carburetor replacement
Is also a requirement since L-P systems require special carburetion. It Is also
desirable, particularly with respect to V-8 engines, to remove the intake
manifold and block the exhaust gas passage which normally supplies heat to
vaporize fuel In the Intake manifold during cold engine operation.
6.2.2 Appl1 cat Ion
-------
manufacturer with regards to application.
Catalytic Converters
Approximately 60% of the 1968-1970 model-year vehicles.
751 of the 1971 model-year vehicles.
Nearly 100$ of the 1972-1975 vehicles.
These vehicles comprise nearly 68% of the light-duty vehicle population and can
operate on 91 octane lead-free fuel. The manufacturer also reports that at the
moment the only make of vehicle which Is not recommended for retrofits Is
Volkswagen. However, Volkswagen systems will probably be available within one
year.
L-P Gas Systems
While almost any gasoline engine can be converted to L-P gas
with good results, from the standpoint of economics and/or
fuel availability, the supplier feels It Is feasible to convert
only fleet vehicles or Individually owned automobiles which
are operated In excess of 25,000 miles per year.
Air Bleed
With the exception of a few vehicles, air bleed systems can
be Installed on nearly 100? of the light-duty vehicle population.
Float Bowl Pressure Regulation
With the exception of a few vehicles, float bowl pressure
regulation systems can be Installed on all light-duty vehicles.
Air Bleed/EGR
Applicable to all vehicles In the 1964-1972 range with a few
exceptions (fuel Injection, vehicles with more than one carbur-
etor, custom built vehicles, etc.).
m
Applicable to all vehicles In the 196U—1972 range with exceptions
as noted In Air bleed/EGR.
Air Bleed/VSAD (MSA)
Applicable to all 1964-1972 model-year vehicles except those
wlthout vacuum spark advance.
EGR/VSAD (MSA)
Applicable to all 1964-1972 model-year vehicles except those
wlthout vacuum spark advance.
-------
6.2.3 Costs
Table 2U was developed from cost data submitted by exhaust control retrofit
manufacturers. The costs shown for catalytic converters range from a low of $52,
which applies to a k cylinder engine already equipped with an air pump, to a
high of $155 for a V-8 Installation requiring an air pump. Converter Instal-
lation costs are based on retrofitting In excess of one-half million cars. It
Is assumed that costs submitted by other manufacturers are also based on a
relatively large sales volume with the possible exception of L-P gas systems.
Retrofi t Tvoe
Average Installed Cost($)
Catalytic Converter
52-155.00
L-P Gas
650.00
Air Bleed
20. 00
Bowl Pressure Regulation
2U. 1 0
Air Bleed/EGR
35-36.95
EGR
32. 15
Air Bleed/VSAD
2U.q5
EGR/VSAO
25. 00
Table 2U. Cost of Installed Retrofit by Class
6.2.1* Summary of Observations
1. Retrofit systems are relatively easy to Install except L-P gas systems
and catalytic converter systems requiring air pump Installations.
The converter Itself Is easily installed.
2. The application of retrofit is broad. Nearly 100% of 196U-1972
model-year vehicles can be retrofi tted with one or more systems.
L-P gas retrofit Is recommended particularly for fleet and vehicles
which accumulate high mileage.
J. The range in costs of retrofit is wide with a minimum of $20 for
air bleed devices to a maximum of about $650 for an L-P gas system.
6.3 EXHAUST CONTROL RETROFIT - HIGH ALTITUDE KITS
Altitude kit hardware was supplied by the various domestic car manufactur-
ers. Hardware was Installed and adjusted in accordance with recommended pro-
cedures by laboratory personnel.
6.3.1 Instal1 at Ion
As discussed in several preceedlng paragraphs, high altitude kit Instal-
lations were performed by laboratory personnel. In this respect no attempt was
made to provide personnel Installing kits with special working conditions and
for the most part. Installations were performed under what can be described as
normal garage-type conditions. A log book was maintained as part of the Instal-
lation procedure. In It records were maintained with respect to parts Installed
-------
and labor required to perform the various tasks.
As noted, kit hardware was Installed under normal garage-type conditions
(le, special lighting, tools, bench area, etc, were not provided). From time to
time an observation of several of the Installations was made (observations were
made under pretense by the consultant described In 6.1.1). As a result, the
following observations were recorded.
1. Assemblies to be modified were neither cleaned nor removed.
2. No new parts or gaskets were routinely replaced except those which
comprised the kit Itself. On occasion a part or gasket Inadvert-
ently damaged during the replacement operation was replaced.
3. Linkage# levers or settings disturbed for the necessary disassembly
of the unit were not cross-checked against a parts application or
specification list to verify that proper parts were currently
Installed.
i». No positive Identification of the unit part was attempted.
5. Installers were not required by experience or training to qualify
as "experts" In the carburetlon and Ignition fields.
A combination of the five factors suggests that the benefits of modifi-
cation would largely be cancelled by the errors and oversights committed during
the Installation process.
Kits were removed before vehicles were returned to owners (removal was
accomplished as suggested by certain of the manufacturers to eliminate conflicts
relating to car warranties). As a result the potential for installation errors
and oversights was doubled. In any event, owner complaints developed. Exami-
nation of problems relating to owner complaints revealed that dirt contamination
Inside choke assemblies, carburetors and distributors was present In sufficient
quantities to disable certain machanisms. Another source of complaints was
attributed simply to normal wear and tear. Settings and adjustments which had
become operationally borderline failed to function properly once disturbed.
6.3.2 AppII cat Ion
Application of high altitude kits with respect to the parts and specifi-
cations supplied appears to be quite extensive. The parts supplied by General
Motors were Intended for use on all 1968-1973 model-year vehicles with a few
possible exceptions. The same Is true of kits supplied by Ford and American
Motors. Parts supplied by Chrysler Corporation, however, were limited in
application to Chrysler products equipped with Carter 2bbl carburetors only.
-------
As a result, additional test vehicle procurement efforts were required.
6.3.3 Costs
Table 25 was constructed from log book data. Parts are charged at retal1
list prices and labor Is charged at a typical labor rate of $12.00 per hour.
Mfxr
Cart
L of
Labor
Labor
P?rts
Combined
(bbl)
Veh
Hours
Cpsttii
C°St($)
Unlt Cost($ )
AMMO
2
2
0.55
6.60
1 .00
7.60
-------
according to a random sequence to yield a total of 7 combinations of variables
on each of the 25 cars. The experiment was performed through the exclusive use
of laboratory personnel.
6 • . 1 Ad 1 us tments
The adjustment procedure has been described In detail In other sections.
There were no particular problems which developed as related to the adjustment
procedure Itself although vehicle operational problems relating to safety were
experienced. Several of the experimental settings called for a neutral Idle
rpm Increase of 200 rpm. The Increased rpm adversely affects engine braking
characteristics during closed throttle decelerations which results In Increased
wheel braking requirements during deceleration and Idle operating modes. It
should be noted, however, that exper(mental values were selected to represent an
extreme In adjustment tolerance and were devised specifically to attempt to
reduce CO emissions.
6.U.2 Application
Although the experiments were performed on a limited number of vehicle-
engine combinations, there Is no reason to believe that certain of the more
effective adjustment combinations will not apply to nearly all of the 196U-1972
light-duty vehicle population.
6.U. 3 Costs
A discussion of costs Is not applicable.
6.U.U Summary of Observations
1. Modified tuning adjustments are relatively easy to perform.
However, Idle rpm adjustment to the experimental value poses
problems relating to safety.
2. Adjustments can be applied to virtually all light-duty vehicles.
6.5 MANDATORY ENGINE MAINTENANCE
A quasI-theoretIcal approach was employed to evaluate mandatory engine
maintenance. Mandatory maintenance was defined as routine replacment of certain
of the emission related engine and component parts. Resulting from extensive
diagnosis, certain of these parts which were either defective due to normal
wear and tear or In borderline condition were replaced. An evaluation was
-------
then performed to determine the effectiveness of mandatory maintenance based on
the assumption that replacement of parts In proper operating condition would
result In minimal additional emissions reduction.
6.5.1 Installatlon
Because of the approach which was employed to evaluate mandatory engine
maintenance, parts were not changed as a matter of routine. However, there Is
no reason to expect that problems of any magnitude would develop as generally
applIed.
6.5.2 ApdII cation
Since maintenance Is now performed as a matter of routine on all vehicles
there is obviously no problem with respect to application.
6.5.3 Costs
In order to establish costs for mandatory engine maintenance a flat rate
manual and retail parts list were consulted. Part costs are based on replace-
ment of the following items which are designated to comprise mandatory engine
maintenance:
Spark plugs
Contact polnts/condensor
Air fI 1ter element
Labor is based on the flat-rate time indicated in the manual to Install the
above parts and to perform the following adjustments which In essence comprise
a minor tune-up:
Ignition dwell adjustment
Ignition timing adjustment
Idle air/fuel mixture adjustment
Idle speed adjustment
Summary cost data for mandatory engine tune-up are shown in Table 26.
As indicated in Table 26, the cost range for mandatory engine maintenance
Is from $33.35 for an 8 cylinder American Motors product to $58.77 for 8 cylin-
der Buicks and Cadillacs.
-------
Make
i_fl£
t of
Labor
labor
Paris
Comb 1ned
Veh
C Y1 .
Hours
£ostS
Cost*
Unlt Cost$
Ammo
4
8
2.00
24.00
9. 35
33. 35
Bui c
6
8
2. 80
33.60
25. 17
58.77
Cadi
2
8
2.80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
Chev
5
6
1.90
22. 80
19.itl
42. 21
Chev
36
8
2. 80
33.60
23.97
57. 57
Chry
1
8
1.90
22.80
21.51
44.11
Oodg
1
6
1. 60
19. 20
17.41
36.61
Dodg
8
8
1.90
22.80
21.31
44. 1 1
Ford
8
6
1 .60
19.20
18.55
57.95
Ford
37
8
1 , 80
21.60
22.87
44. 4 7
Merc
6
8
1. 80
21.60
23.52
45. 12
Olds
8
8
2. 80
33.60
2*4. 1 3
57. 73
PI ym
1
6
1 .60
19. 20
17.41
36.61
PI ym
14
8
1. 90
22. 80
21.35
44. 15
Pont
13
8
2. 80
33.60
23.77
57. 37
Volk
5
it
2.00
24 . 00
10.55
34. 55
Table 26. Summary Mandatory Engine Maintenance Costs
6.5.4 Summary of Observations
1. Since mandatory engine maintenance Is comprised of the same elements
as minor tune-ups currently being performed as a matter of routine,
no unusual problems are anticipated.
2. For the same reasons discussed above, mandatory engine maintenance
can be applied to all vehicles.
3. Costs range from about $33.35 (or lower) to about $58.77 per unit.
The majority of vehicles are expected to fall within this range.
-------
7. RESULTS
This section contains the results of the study In summary form In terms of
both effectiveness and cost effectiveness. In this respect It should be noted
that effectiveness data Is based solely on the Immediate affects that were
measured as a result of strategies applied. Potential deterioration which can
be expected to occur has not as yet been measured, although emissions degre-
datlon factors on unmodified engines Is forthcoming. In a similar regard, cost
data which was utilized to establish cost effectiveness ratios do not take Into
account any of the factors which may be applied to determine the possible long
term effects.
7.1 IDLE EMISSIONS INSPECTION
The paragraphs which relate to Idle emission Inspection Include effective-
ness and cost effectiveness data with respect to emission reduction and fuel
economy at 0, 20, 30, U0, 50 and 60 percent rejection rates. Since the effect-
iveness and cost effectiveness data Is developed from data obtained at roughly
a 60 percent rejection rate the data shown which corresponds to 60 percent
rejection Is accurate as presented. This Is not to Imply that data shown for
other rejection rates are Inaccurate.
In developing the tables an HC and CO Idle emission standard was found
which failed vehicles equally by HC and CO at the rejection rate In question.
Once the standard was found, the group of vehicles which failed the new standard
were rejected. A cost analyses was performed and a new cost basis (CB) was
established as follows:
Inspection costs + maintenance costs
5 •*
where:
" number of vehicles rejected
Inspection costs are equal to Inspection costs for all
vehicles (300 vehicles x $U.05/vehIcIe ).
maintenance costs are equal to all maintenance costs to
repair failed vehicles.
number of vehicles rejected Is equal to the number of vehicles
rejected by the standard In question.
The new cost basis was then combined with the effectiveness data and cost
effectiveness was established for the rejection rate In question.
-------
Since the average vehicle cost at OS rejection Is JU.05 per vehicle (the
average inspection cost) and the average vehicle cost at 60% rejection Is $10.22
per vehicle, the approximate Increment.al cost from 0 to 60? rejection Is about
$ 1.00/vehIcle for each additional 10% rejection or one-sixth of the difference
In average costs. Because the vehicles were not actually adjusted to comply
with the tdle standard In question but were actually adjusted to the standard
which failed 60% of the vehicles, average maintenance costs at other than 60%
rejection are somewhat higher than would be measured If vehicles were adjusted
to the corresponding standard. However, In a similar regard emission reductions
at rejection rates other than 60% are also higher since vehicles were adjusted
to the more stringent 60% rejection standard. Cost effectiveness data obtained
are therefore representative of cost effectiveness data which would have been
developed If vehicles had actually been adjusted to the Idle standard at cor-
responding rejection rates. Idle emissions standards which were found to fall
the vehicle sample at various rejection rates are shown In Table 27.
REJECTION
1964-196 7
Model-rear
1968-1973
Model-Year
RATE
HC(nam)
C9U)
HC(BBlTl)
COU)
20
1500
8.7
760
7.6
30
1100
8.2
580
6. i»
1*0
850
8.0
l» 6 0
5.2
50
700
7. 1
1(00
i».5
Table 27. Idle Emissions Standards at Various Rejection Rates
A presentation of effectiveness and cost effectiveness data for idle
emissions Inspection follows. Fuel economy data is also presented. Drive-
ability and performance data were not generated for this element of the study.
7.1.1 Effectiveness Data
Table 28 shows the emissions and fuel economy data in grams per mile and
mpg which were measured at the various rejection rates. As can be seen In the
Table, HC, CO and N0X emissions tend to decrease at each successively higher
rejection rate and fuel economy tends to Improve.
Table 29 shows the emissions and fuel economy data In terms of absolute
-------
REJECTION
GRAMS
PER
MILE
ECONOMY
RATE
tiZ
CO
NO*
MPQ
0
7.98
110.
3
2.59
14.53
20
7.37
106.
5
2. 59
14.61
30
7. 14
m.
2
2. 57
14.66
40
7.08
102.
8
2. 56
14. 70
SO
6.96
101 .
1
2. 56
14. 75
60
6.92
100.
2
2.55
14.77
Table 28. Absolute Emissions and MPG Data at Various Rejection Rates
REJECTION
GRAMS PER
Ml LF
ECONOMY
RATE
NO*
MPG
0
0
0
0
0
20
0.61
3.85
0.019
0.08
30
0. &4
6. 09
0.027
0.14
40
0.90
7. 53
0. 037
0. 1 7
50
1.02
9. 24
0. 032
0.23
60
1.05
10.16
0. 047
0.25
Table 29. Absolute Emissions Reduction and Fuel
Economy Improvement at Various Rejection Rates
Table 30 shows emission reductions and fuel economy Improvement In terms
of percent at the various rejection rates.
REJECTION
* REDUCTI
ON
% IMPROVEMENT
MI£
H£
CQ
NOx
ECONOMY
0
0
0
0
0
20
7.63
3. U9
0. 74
0.57
30
10. 48
5. 52
1.05
0.95
40
11 . 24
6.82
1.42
1.18
50
12. 72
8.37
1.23
1.57
60
13.21
9.21
1.80
1.71
Table 30. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel
Economy Improvement at Various Rejection Rates
As can be seen In the Tables above, HC, CO, and N0X reductions become
greater with each successively higher rejection rate and fuel economy tends to
improve. An examination of emissions and fuel economy data by vehicle make,
model-year, engine size, vehicle weight and the emission controlled and uncon-
trolled vehicle populations Indicates that emission reductions and fuel economy
improvements are similarly achieved for each successively higher rejection rate.
In this regard It can be concluded that vehicle Inspection, rejection and
maintenance Is effective with respect to all of the factors Investigated.
7.1.2 Cost Effectiveness Data
-------
Cost data, Including both inspection and maintenance fees, were combined
with emissions data and a cost effectiveness (CE) ratio was developed. The CE
ratio expresses the cost effectiveness relationship In terms of emissions
reduction/dollar actually spent (cost estimates to repair problem vehicles are
not Included). In order that cost effectiveness data may be conveniently
presented In terms of whole numbers, CE data Is expressed as ml 111 grams/mi 1e/
dollar. Table 31 shows cost effectiveness data at the various rejection rates.
REJECTION
MlLLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
RATE
H£
NO*
0
0
0
0
20
8 U
533
2.6
30
10U
75M
3.it
i»0
101
8 U 9
U.2
50
105
951
3.3
60
103
99U
U.6
Table 31. Summary of Cost Effectiveness at Various Rejection Rates
As Indicated In Table 31, the CE ratio for HC rises sharply from 0 to 20
percent rejection and Is relatively level from 30 through 60 percent rejection.
The CE ratio for CO, however, rises sharply from 0 and continues to rise at a
decreasing rate through 60 percent rejection. CE for NO emissions Is similar
to that shown for HC. An examination of CE data by make, model-year, engine
size, weight and the emissions controlled and uncontrolled vehicle population
(Appendix 11) Indicates roughly the same trends. In this respect It can be
concluded that cost effectiveness data applies equally to all of the factors
Investlgated.
Table 32 Is comprised of summary data showing emissions reduction In per-
cent and cost effectiveness at the various rejection rates.
REJECTION
HC
CO
NOx
RATE
(CE)
(%)
(CE)
1%)
(CE) (*)
0
0
0
0
0
0 0
20
8 it
7.6
533
3. U
2.6 0.7
30
10tt
10.5
75U
5.5
3.It 1.1
<»0
101
11.2
8 it 9
6.8
U.2 l.U
50
105
12.7
951
8.U
3.3 1.2
60
103
13.2
99U
9.2
U. 6 1.8
Table 32. Summary of Combined Cost Effectiveness and Percent
Emissions Reduction at Various Rejection Rates
-------
Table 32 Is particularly useful as demonstrated by the following example.
A reduction In CO emissions is required at say a 8.5 percent level.
The 8.5 percent level Is near the 50 percent rejection level. At the
50 percent rejection level:
1. The CE ratio for HC is at an optimum level.
2. The HC reduction can be predicted to be nearly 13£.
3. The CE ratio for CO is less than optimum but Is reasonable
nonetheless.
i». The CE ratio for N0X is near optimum (A second degree best
fit curve to the data would probably indicate CE for N0X
to be optimum near 502 rejection).
5. The N0X reduction can be predicted to be about 1.25 percent.
7.2 EXHAUST CONTROL RETROFIT (CALIFORNIA APPROVED)
The following paragraphs which relate to the California approved retrofit
systems Include data on emissions reduction effectiveness, and cost effective-
ness and fuel economy data. Drlveablllty and performance data are also shown.
Since changes In drlveablllty characteristics are not normally presented In
terms of percent, changes are shown as an absolute difference In demerit
ratings. Performance data are based on percent changes In acceleration and
deceleration time as Initially measured in seconds. Acceleration data are
related to engine power output and deceleration data are related to engine
braking characteristics during closed throttle engine operation.
There are no standards to which warm drlveablllty character Istlcs can be
compared aside from an Improvement or deterioration from one vehicle condition
to another. However, an Indication of demerit ratings by vehicle population
has been developed from the data generated. In this respect It has been found
that the average demerit rating for 1964-1967 model-year vehicles Is 25 and the
average demerit rating for 1968-1973 model-year vehicles Is 10. Average demerit
ratings were developed from the sample of vehicles utilized to evaluate sea-
level and altitude retrofits at baseline conditions. Each of the vehicles In
the sample had been well tuned prior to evaluation.
7.2.1 Effectiveness Pat?
Table 33 shows summary baseline emissions and fuel economy data for the
various samples utilized to evaluate retrofit.
-------
RETROFIT # of
GRAMS
PER
MILE
ECONOMY
im Mx
m
Wx
MPG
19§4-19fi7 Model-Years
VSAD/A.BLD. 5
7.7
120
2.6
15.0
VSAD/EGR 8
9.8
155
1.2
13.9
EGR/A.BLD. 7
11.2
157
2.0
12.7
1968-1972 Model-Years
CATALYTIC M
5.6
81
2.1
1M.3
LPG 3
6.9
95
¦». 1
11.8
A.BLD. 6
U.2
63
3.1
17.2
EGR 5
5.1
62
2.8
17.2
EGR/A.BLD. i»
U. 8
96
2.7
13.3
FBPR 5
5.4
103
2.5
13.0
Table 33. Absolute Baseline Emissions and MPG
Data for Sea-Level Retrofit Sample
Table 3U shows the emissions reduction and fuel economy Improvements In
terms of percent change as a result of retrofit effectiveness.
RETROFIT
i
REDUCTI
ON
t IMPROVEMENT
II££
m
NQ*
ECONOMY
196». Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel
Economy Improvement for Sea-Level Retrofits
Based on the data shown In Table 3
-------
Cost data Including hardware and Installation charges were combined with
effectiveness data and a CE ratio was developed. Cost effectiveness data for
the various sea-level retrofit types are shown in Table 35.
RETROFIT
MlLLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
TYPE
H£
£0
NOx
1964-196 7.
VSAD/A.BLD.
57. 4
U12.0
U 7. 8
VSAD/EGR
102. 7
690. 7
13.lt
EGR/A.BLD.
67.8
899.6
13.5
J 968-19 72
CATALYTIC
25.9
U35. 8
-0.4
LPR
U. 3
78.5
- 0.2
A.BLD.
29.2
1047.1
-29.0
EGR
11.1
U2. it
36.6
EGR/A.BLD.
22.3
1240.1
21.3
FB PR
39.9
1266.6
-23.7
Table 35. Summary of Cost Effectiveness of Sea-Level Retrofit
Summary cost effectiveness and emissions reduction data are combined and
are shown In Table 56. This table Is also of particular benefit since it is
useful In selecting the type of retrofit which would be required to achieve a
balance between effectiveness and cost effectiveness.
RETROFIT
HC
CO
NOx
TYPE
ilLLl
LU
(CE)
ill
(CE)
w
1964-1967
VSAD/A.BLD
57.4
18.6
U12.0
8.6
47.8
46. 8
VSAD/EGR
102. 7
26. 1
690. 7
11.2
13. 4
27.6
EGR/A.BLD.
67.8
22. 4
899. 6
21.2
13.5
25.4
1968-1972
CATALYTIC
25.9
72.3
4 3 5.8
83.5
- 0.4
- 2.8
LPG
4. 3
40.5
78. 5
53.5
- 0.2
- 3.8
A.BLD.
29. 2
17.5
104 7. 1
4 1.8
-29.0
-23.7
EGR
11.1
7.1
42.4
2.2
36.6
42.8
EGR/A.BLD.
22. 3
17.0
1 240. 1
48.0
21.3
28. 8
FBPR
39.9
18.0
1266.6
29. 7
-23.7
-22. 6
Table 36. Summary of Combined Cost Effectiveness and
Percent Emissions Reduction for Sea-Level Retrofit
7.2.5 Vehicle Drlveabllltv and Performance
Orlveablllty and performance affects of the various retrofits are shown In
Table 37 where a negative sign (-) Indicates a penalty In terms of both drive-
ability demerits and percent change in performance data.
-------
RETROFIT
DRIVEABILITY
PERFORMANCE
JXEE
(CHQ, in PPMERIT5)
0.-70
(1 70-30
1 96*»-1 96 7
CHG. )
VSAD/A.BID.
3
- 6
- 1
VSAD/EGR
- 9
- 3
- 2
EGR/A.BLD.
-50
- 2
-1 1
1968-1972
CATALYTIC
30
-1 3
- 1
LPG
U 3
-25
12
A.BLD.
- 7
- 3
- U
EGR
- 1
- 2
4
EGR/A.BLD.
- 7
0
- 2
FBPR
- 1
- 5
2
Table 37. Drlveablllty and Performance Affects of Sea-Level Retrofit
7.3 EXHAUST CONTROL RETROFIT (HIGH ALTITUDE KITS)
The following paragraphs which relate to the evaluation of high altitude
kits contain effectiveness and cost effectiveness data. The affects of the
high altitude kits are also presented In terms of drlveability and performance.
7.3.1 Effectiveness Data
Baseline emissions and fuel economy data Is shown In Table 38.
MAlKE
* Of
GRAMS
PER MILE
ECONOMY
VEH.
NOx
MEG
AMMO
i»
5. 78
67. 3
2.97
13.1
BUIC
6
it. 86
100.8
3.01
ll.it
CADI
2
3. UU
1 09. 5
1.85
9.8
CHEV
26
5. 11
72.7
2.63
13.6
CHRY
1
U. 29
12.'J
2. i»3
11.5
DODG
6
7. 02
101.7
2.37
13.7
FORD
27
5.19
78.3
2.57
1M.0
MERC
6
5.1 3
61 .5
3.67
IU.0
OLDS
6
U. fi 7
75.0
2.67
12.7
PlYM
8
5.81
102. 5
2. 1U
1 3.6
PONT
8
4. 94
90. 3
3.32
12.1
ALL
100
5.23
81 . U
2. 70
13.3
Table 38. Absolute Baseline Emissions and MPG
Data for Hltfh Altitude Retrofit Sample
Table 39 shows emission reductions and fuel economy Improvement In percent
as a result of high altitude kit installations.
As indicated in Table 39, the kits provided by American Motors Corporation
caused Increases in HC, CO and N0X emissions and a slight Improvement In fuel
economy. Kits supplied by General Motors Corporation caused a reduction In CO,
except as applied to 01dsmobI 1e, and improvements In fuel economy. GM kits also
caused Increases In HC and NOx emissions. Installation of kits furnished by
-------
MM£
MFGR
I
REDUCTION
* IMPROVEMENT
ECONOMY
AMMO
Ammo
- 9.5
-12.2 -
17.4
1.7
BUIC
GM
- 8. 4
8.6 -
19.2
2.3
CAOl
GM
-49.3
23.3 -
138.9
6.2
CHEV
GM
- 6. 5
3.1 -
28.9
4.9
CHRY
Chry
-76.6
6.1 -
40.0
7. 7
DOOG
Chry
28. 2
59.9 -
97.9
8.5
FORD
Ford
0.5
8.0 -
20.2
3. 2
MERC
Ford
2. 5
13.5 -
3.8
3. 1
OLDS
GM
- 8.5
- 6.0 -
23.7
0.5
PLYM
Chry
33.6
54. 3 -
79. 3
9.6
PONT .
GM
2. 3
18.3 -
23.7
2.8
ALL
1.4
15.6 -
31 . 1
4. 3
Table 39. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel
Economy Improvement for High Altitude Kits
Chrysler Corporation resulted in CO reductions and a HC reduction except as
applied to a Chrysler make (1 car in sample). Chrysler supplied kits generally
caused N0X emission to increase and fuel economy to improve. Kits provided by
Ford Motor Company caused CO reductions and slight reductions In HC. Fuel
economy Improved and N0X emissions increased. With respect to the overall
sample the kits caused a 1.4 percent decrease In HC, a 15.6 decrease in CO, a
31.1 percent Increase In N0X and a 4.3 percent Improvement In fuel economy.
7.3.2 Cost Effectiveness
Cost data, Including both Installation and parts costs, were combined with
emissions data and a cost effectiveness ratio was developed. The CE ratio as
determined by vehicle make Is shown ,i n Table 40.
MAKE
MI LLIGRAMS/MI LE/D01.LAR
AMMO
- 71.6
-1073.8
- 67.5
BUI C
- 32.3
689. 2
- 45.8
CADI
-138.9
2090.2
-210.1
CHEV
- 27.6
188.0
- 63.4
CHRY
-366.9
<49 3. 9
-108.7
DODG
201 . 1
6175.9
-235.0
FORD
2.6
653. 7
- 54.3
MERC
1 2. 3
810.0
- 13.5
OLDS
- 30.2
- 343.6
- 4 8. 2
PLYM
229.7
6541 .9
-199.2
PONT
7.8
11 U 8. 2
- 54.6
ALL
6.9
1161.1
- 76.7
Table U0. Summary of Cost Effectiveness of High Altitude Kits
-------
for HC vary from -366.9 to 229.7. For CO the CE ratio ranges from a low of
-1073. 8 to a high of 65i»1.9 and for NO the range Is from -235. 0 to -13.5.
Table U1 Is comprised of summary data showing emissions reduction In
percent and corresponding cost effectiveness ratios.
MAKE
HC
CO
NO x
(CE)
ill
(CE)
ill
(CE)
in
AMMO
-71.6
- 9.5
-1073.8
-12.2
- 67.5 -
17. k
BUI C
- 32.3
- 8. It
689. 2
8.6
- U5.8 -
19.2
CADI
-138.9
-U9.3
2090.2
23.3
-210.1 -
138.8
CHEV
- 27.6
- 6.5
188.0
3. 1
- 63.U -
28.9
CHRY
-366.9
-76. 6
U93.9
6. 1
-108.7 -
U0. 0
OODG
201. 1
28.2
6175.9
59.9
-235.0 -
97.9
FORD
2.6
0. 5
653. 7
8.0
- 5U.3 -
20.2
MERC
12.3
2.5
810.0
13.5
- 13.5 -
3.8
OLDS
- 30.2
- 8.5
- 3U3.6
- 6.0
- 1*8. 2 -
23.7
PLYM
229.7
33.6
65U1 . 0
5U.3
-199.2 -
79. 3
PONT
7.8
2.3
1H8.2
18.3
- Sit. 6 -
23.7
ALL
6.9
1 . It
1161.1
15.6
- 76.7 -
31.1
Table Ul. Summary of Combined Cost Effectiveness and Percent
Emissions Reduction for High Altitude Kits
7.3.3 Driveabilltv and Performance Affects
Changes In drlveabillty and performance are shown in Table k2.
MAKE
DRIVEABILITY
PERFORMANCE
(CHG. In DEMERITS)
0-70 (S
70-30
AMMO
-11
-2 CHG)
It
BUI C
- 3
-3
- 4
CADI
11
-5
20
CHEV
2
-5
1
CHRY
-28
-8
1 2
DODG
- 8
0
2
FORD
0
2
- 6
MERC
- 2
. -2
- 7
OLDS
-2U
-1
-10
PLYM
- 9
-5
- u
PONT
2
-3
- i«
ALL
- 3
Table U2. Drlveabillty and Performance Affects of Hij-.h Altitude Kits
7.i< MODIFIED TUNING SPECIFICATIONS
The following paragraphs relate to the results that were obtained In the
evaluation of modified tuning specifications. Cost data is not applicable.
7.iul Effect I veness
In Table U3 is shown the emission reductions and fuel economy Improvements
which were obtained as a result of modified tuning specifications. The experi-
ment was designed primarily to reduce CO emissions. Substantial CO reductions
-------
were achieved as a result of the strategy. In addition, several combinations
of modified adjustments resulted In slight HC reductions and Improvements In
fuel economy. All combinations resulted In slight Increases In NO*. The
PARAMETERS AT
* of
%
REDUCT
ON I
IMPROVEMENT
EXPERIMENTAL
TESTS
HC
S3.
NOX
ECONOMY
SETTINGS
SINGLE ITEMS
a/f ratio
99
9.5
25.0
-29.2
0.2
BASIC TIMING
100
-l4.lt
16. 8
-34.5
0.9
IDLE RPM
100
2. 5
14.0
-26. 7
-1.8
CHOKE
100
-0.6
16.6
-28. 7
-0. 3
COMBINATIONS OF 2'
A/F-TIMING
50
3. 7
27. 7
-38.4
1.8
A/F-RPM
50
8.6
24.9
-31.1
-0.9
a/f-choke
51
9.0
28.6
-32.6
0. 3
TIMING-RPM
50
-2.9
17.3
-35.9
-0.6
TIMING-CHOKE
51
-8.5
20.9
-37. 8
1. 3
RPM-CHOKE
50
-0. 5
16.2
-31. 4
-1.4
A/F-TIM1NG ONLY
25
4.9
22.2
-33.4
2. 7
A/F-RPM ONLY
25
15.3
20.4
-16.0
-2.4
A/F-CHOKE ONLY
24
16.9
24.3
-16. 8
-0.6
TIMING-RPM ONLY
24
-2.7
4.4
-27. 0
-2. 3
TIMING-CHOKE ONLV
23
-14.4
7.0
-30. 3
1.0
RPM-CHOKE ONLY
2k
2.4
2.5
-13. 4
-4.0
COMBINATIONS OF 4
ALL PARAMETERS
25
2.7
29. 8
-41.6
0. 5
MRGRS. SPECS.
25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Table 43. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel Economy
Improvement for Modified Tuning Specifications
following Js offered to explain the method by which summary data were obtained.
It should be remembered that 8 tests were conducted on each of 25 cars for
a total of 200 tests. Generally, each parameter was adjusted to the experi-
mental value In combination with one other parameter except that in one case
all parameters were adjusted to experimental values (ALL PARAMETERS) and In one
other case none of the parameters were adjusted to experimental values (MFGRS.
SPECS.). In viewing each parameter Individually then, each parameter set to
the experimental value appears In 100 tests. In viewing a combination of two
parameters without regard for other parameters, a combination of two appears
In 50 tests. The combination of two parameters set to experimental values by
itself appears In 25 tests*.
•Because of an error In the adjustment sequence which was not noticed until
testing was completed, the absolute number of tests prescribed at each experi
mental setting was not performed. Data shown In Table 43 is based on the
actual number of tests performed at prescribed settings.
-------
7.i».2 DrIYeflt?IM ky and .Performance Affects
The results of drlveablllty and performance tests are shown in Table <>
-------
baseline data for mandatory engine maintenance are shown In Table US.
Percent emissions reduction and fuel economy Improvement are shown In Table U6.
MAKE
* of
GRAMS PER MILE
ECONOMY
VEH
£0
_M0
H£G
AMMO
It
6.60
99. 2
2.Ill
12. 7
BUIC
6
5.92
127. U
2.U5
11.3
CADI
2
3. 80
111.3
1 .Sit
9. 9
CHEV
U1
8. 85
110.3
2.57
13. 1
CHRY
1
U. 63
73.8
2.U3
11.9
DODG
9
7.68
106.1*
2. 79
Hi. 3
FORD
U 5
7. 19
88.3
3.02
1U.I*
MERC
6
5. 31
62. 3
3.2it
114. 7
OLDS
8
6. 70
117.8
2. 33
11.9
PLYM
15
8. 57
129.6
2.27
13.it
PONT
13
7.U0
113.7
2.8U
12.3
VOLK
5
5.1.1
80. 3
1 .89
21.2
ALL
155
7. 53
103.6
2.68
13.6
Table it5. Absolute BaselIne Emissions and MPG Data
for Mandatory Engine Maintenance Sample
* of
%
REDUCTION
% IMPROVEMENT
VEH
AC
m
ECONOMY .
AMMO
14
12.it
32. 1
-23. 3
3.0
BUI C
6
17. 8
20. 1
-22. 8
1. it
CADI
2
9.it
1.6
- 0.6
-I. 1
CHEV
III
30.it
12.5
12.0
2.6
CHRY
1
7. It
1.2
0. 1
-3.7
00DG
9
- 1.2
- 9. 1
19. U
-l.U
FORD
it 5
12.9
3.it
15. 5
-0. 1
MERC
6
3. 5
1.3
-13. 5
-it. 6
OLDS
8
16. 2
16.0
- 1.7
5. 1
PLYM
15
26.9
13. 1
6. 7
2. 1
PONT
13
10. 2
7.9
1.3
1.1
VOLK
5
8. U
6. 5
lit. 3
k.7
ALL
155
19. 2
9. 1
8. 2
1.2
Table U6. Percent Emissions Reduction and Fuel Economy
Improvement for Mandatory Engine Maintenance
7.5.2 Cost Effectiveness
Costs, Including both parts and flat rate manual labor rates and associated
costs, were combined with emissions data and cost effectiveness data for manda-
tory engine maintenance were developed as shown In Table it7. Mandatory mainte-
nance appears to be cost effective with respect to several of the various makes
and less so for several of the others. On the average It appears that mandatory
engine maintenance Is less cost effective than certain of the other strategies
Investigated particularly as related to CO emissions. In Table U8 Is shown
percent emissions reduction and cost effectiveness data.
-------
MAKE
MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
Hi
HSU
AMMO
2U.6
955.9
-16.9
BUIC
17.9
453.2
- 9.5
CADI
6. 1
29.9
- 0.2
CHEV
lt8.lt
2U8. 1
5.5
CHRY
7. 7
20.5
0.0
DODG
-2.1'
-222.6
12.5
FORD
21. U
69. It
10.9
MERC
!». 1
18.<4
- 9.7
OLDS
18. 8
327.1
- 0.7
PLYM
52.9
387.3
3.5
PONT
20.8
1 56.2
0. 7
VO LK
13. 1
151.8
7.8
ALL
29.6
192. 7
it.5
Table U7. Summary of Cost Effectiveness for Mandatory Engine Maintenance
HAKE
HC
CO
NO
*
lill
111
i££l
ill
l£JLi
111
AMMO
24.6
12. 4
955.9
32. 1
-16.9
-23.3
BUIC
17.9
1 7. 8
It53. 2
20.9
- 9.5
-22.8
CADI
6. 1
9.14
29. 9
1.6
- 0.2
- 0.6
CHEV
48.4
30. M
248. 1
12.5
5.5
12.0
CHRY
7.7
7. it
20. 5
1.2
0.0
0. 1
DODG
-2.1
- 1.2
-222.6
- 9. 1
12.5
19.U
FORD
21.1*
12.9
69. it
3.it
10.9
15.5
MERC
It. 1
3. 5
18.4
1.3
- 9.7
-13.5
OLDS
18. 8
16. 2
327. 1
16.0
-0.7
- 1.7
PLYM
52.9
26.9
387. 3
13.1
3. 5
6. 7
PONT
20.8
16. 2
156.2
7.9
0. 7
1.3
VOLK
13. 1
8.It
151.8
6. 5
7. 8
1 it. 3
ALL
29.6
19. 2
192. 7
9. 1
it.5
8.2
Table U8. Summary of Combined Cost Effectiveness and Emissions
Reduction for Mandatory Engine Maintenance
7.6 OBSERVATIONS
Table U9 has been prepared from data presented and discussed In previous
sections. The Table has been prepared to show on a relat Ive basis the effect-
iveness and cost effectiveness of each of the strategies Investigated. The
basis for costs and effectiveness are derived from data presented In previous
sections except as applied to modified tuning specifications where cost data
were not developed. To develop the CE data for modified tuning specifications
It was first assumed that two of the adjustments In combination would produce
reductions of 10| HC, 20% CO and -20% N0X. Examination of percent reductions
for modified tuning specifications as shown In Table 43 will verify this assump-
tion to be correct (adjustments Involving A/F ratio alone, A/F and choke, A/F
and rpm only and A/F and choke only). It was then assumed that costs to adjust
-------
STRATEGY
HC
CO
NOx
ECON.BENE.
IDLE INSP.
(CE)
ill
ill
(CE)
ill
U)
20%
80
8
500
3
3
1
1
30%
100
10
750
5
3
1
1
i»0%
100
11
850
7
1*
1
1
50%
100
12
950
8
t»
1
1
60%
100
13
1000
9
5
2
2
RETROFIT
CATALYTIC
25
75
1»50
85
0
0
0
LPG
5
UO
75
55
0
- 5
21
EGR/A.BLD
50
20
1000
30
15
25
2
A.BLD-FBPR
25
20
11 50
35
-25
-25
2
VSAD/A.BLD
60
20
UOO
10
50
M 5
- 8
HIGH ALT.KIT
5
1
11 50
15
-75
-30
t»
MOD.TUN.SPEC.
1 00
10
UOOO
20
-20
-20
0
MAND.MAINT.
30
20
200
10
5
10
1
Table U9. Summarized Cost Effectiveness and Emissions
Reduction Data for Strategies Investigated
any two of the parameters would be $5.00. Effectiveness data (as assumed) and
cost data (5.00/two adjustments) were combined and a cost effectiveness ratio
was established for modified tuning specifications.
With respect to emissions and cost data as represented and without regard
for other factors, the following observations are developed.
1. Each of the strategies Investigated is effective In reducing HC
and CO emissions.
The range of reduction for HC Is fron about 1% for the high altitude
kits to about 75% for catalytic retrofit.
CO reduction ranges from a low of about 3% for an Idle emissions
rejection rate of 20% to about 85% for catalytic retrofit.
The range of reduction for NOx emissions Is from about -30% for
the high altitude kits to about ii5% for the VSAD/Air Bleed retro-
fIt system.
2. Each of the strategies generally produced slight Increases In fuel
economy. An 8% decrease In fuel economy was measured for appli-
cation of VSAD/Air Bleed, however.
3. The range of cost effectiveness Is wide:
CE for HC ranges from low of about 5 mI 11 I grams/ml 1e/do11 ar (mmd)
for the high altitude kits to a high of about 100 mmd for idle
emission rejection rates at 30% and above and 100 mmd for the
more effective modified tuning specifications.
CE for CO ranges from a low of about 75 mmd for LPG conversion
to a high of about U000 mmd for the more effective modified
tuning specifications.
CE for N0X ranges from a low of -75 mmd for the high altitude
kits to a high of about 50 mmd for VSAD/Air Bleed retrofit.
i». Of the various Idle emission rejection rates, rejection of failed
vehicles at about the ^0% rejection level appears to be about
optimum for CO and HC reduction. At U0% rejection:
-------
CE for HC Is optimum and HC reduction Is relatively high.
CE for CO Is well up toward the optimum level and CO reduction Is
relatively high. (A 50% rejection level gains 1% additional CO
reduction but a 30$ rejection level loses 2% CO reduction).
Both CE and $ reduction for N0X emission are near optimum.
5. Of the sea-level retrofits Investigated:
Catalytic and LPG systems represent the highest level of CO and
HC reduction.
For reasons relating to Initial costs, fuel availability, etc., the
VSAD/EGR, EGR/AIr Bleed, Air Bleed and Float Bowl Pressure Regula-
tion (FBPR) systems are probably more suitable for broad application
to passenger cars In Colorado. It may be desirable to limit the
application to VSAD/EGR and EGR/AIr Bleed systems In view of the
relatively large Increases In NOx emission attributed to Air Bleed
and FBPR systems.
Catalytic and LPG systems could be applied In fleet operations
where costs and special fuel requirements for LPG would be borne
by business as opposed to Individuals.
6. Of the high altitude kits Investigated:
All kits generally caused an Increase in NOx emissions and an
Improvement In fuel economy.
The GM supplied kits generally Increased HC emissions and reduced
CO emissions.
The Ford supplied kits generally lowered HC emissions (slightly)
and reduced CO emissions.
The Chrysler supplied kits generally lowered HC and CO emissions
(except on the one Chrysler make In the sample).
The American Motors supplied kits generally caused Increases In
HC and CO.
7. Modification of tuning specifications proved to be an effective
and cost effective HC and CO reduction strategy although NO*
emissions were generally increased. Of the parameters Investigated:
The experimental A/F ratio setting appears to be the most effective
In reducing HC and CO. In combination A/F ratio and choke experi-
mental settings appear to be the most effective In reducing HC and
CO. A/F ratio and rpro experimental adjustments are also very
effective In reducing HC and CO.
Certain of the more effective HC and CO reducing combinations of
adjustment are the most cost effective of all strategies Investi-
gated.
8. Mandatory engine maintenance was effective In reducing HC, CO and
NOx emissions. However, mandatory engine maintenance Is one of
the least cost effective of all strategies Investigated.
As a final note It should be observed that emissions reductions and cost
effectiveness are additive with respect to certain combinations of strategies.
For example: all retrofit effectiveness and cost effectiveness data are additive
-------
with respect to the effectiveness and cost data developed for mandatory engine
maintenance since all vehicles utilized In retrofit samples were tuned-up prior
to retrofit Installation. In this respect the following applies:
Sea-level retrofit reductions can be added to mandatory engine mainte-
nance with the possible exception of catalytic and LPG systems.
High altitude kit reductions can be added to mandatory engine mainte-
nance.
Modified tuning specification reductions can be added to mandatory
engine maintenance.
Beyond the three combinations mentioned a simple relationship does not exist.
To combine these affects. It should be realized that absolute emissions reduc-
tions and costs must be taken Into account as opposed to a direct combination
of reduction data by percent.
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES
1. State of Colorado, Department of Health; the State of Colorado Air Pollution
Control Transportation and Land Use Plan; May lit, 1973.
2. A Study of Emissions from Light-Duty Vehicles In Denver, Houston and
Chicago, Fiscal Year 1972. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Air and Water Programs, Certification and Surveillance Division, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, Contract No. 68—01-0U55 to Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
Publication No. APDT-I50i(. July, 1973. 1U p.
3. Wlers, Ward W., and Scheffler, Charles E., "Carbon Dioxide CCO2) Tracer
Technique for Modal Mass Exhaust Emission Measurement", SAE Paper 720126
(January 10-1U, 1972).
-------
APPEND ICES
-------
CONTENTS OF APPENDICES
Aonendtx No.
Description
££&£
1.
Test Vehicle Flow Charts
93
2.
Data Accumulation Forms
97
5.
Idle Test Procedures for Participating Garages
103
i*.
Vehicle Routing Forms
11 2
5.
Computer Edit Program
119
Sample Run Edit Program
127
6.
Sea-Level Retrofit Vehicle List
128
Sea-Level Retrofit Test Results
129
7.
California Warm Drlveablllty Evaluation Procedure
131
8.
Altitude Retrofit Vehicle List
136
Altitude Retrofit Test Results
138
9.
Modified Tuning Specification Vehicle List
H2
Modified Tuning Specification Test Results
1 U3
10.
Mandatory Maintenance Vehicle List
U6
Mandatory Maintenance Test Results
1 50
11.
Idle Inspection Vehicle List
15U
Idle Inspection Test Results
160
Idle Inspection Correlation Plots
176
-------
APPENDIX 1
TEST VEHICLE FLOW CHARTS
Before testing commenced, flow charts for the possible test sequences were
constructed as are shown on the following pages (Figures 1 through 5). These
were constructed to assure that all required data were collected while per-
forming no unnecessary testing. A further benefit was the Insurance that
vehicles would leave the testing program In a known condition* and, therefore,
be available for a subsequent deterioration test program.
•Vehicles undergoing a Combination Retrofit Test sequence (Figure U) would not
be available for deterioration studies. However, Investigation revealed only
a maximum of 19 vehicles would go through this sequence. It was not felt that
this number would detract from the deterioration program.
-------
INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE TESTS
FIGURE 1
-------
SEA-LEVEL RETROFIT TESTS
FIGURE 2
ALTITUDE RETROFIT TESTS
FIGURE 3
-------
COMBINATION RETROFIT TESTS
FIGURE 4
MODIFIER TUNING SPECIFICATION TESTS
FIGURE 5
-------
APPEND I X 1
DATA ACCUMULATION FORMS
The various data forms were designed following the construction of vehicle flow
charts. Each Is designed to collect the data generated at a major test point
Indicated on the flow charts of Appendix 1.
The forms were utilized as follows:
1. Vehicle Information (Figure 1)
The vehicle number was assigned and critical Information obtained from
the owner was recorded at the time the vehicle was scheduled by the
procurement specialist. This information was confirmed at the time the
vehicle was accepted for. testing to Insure compliance to sample
specifications. The other data blanks were also filled In at the time of
vehicle acceptance.
2. Emission Test (Figure 2)
This Information was collected during the Federal Mass Emission Test,
the Keymode Test, and the Idle Emission Test.
3. Maintenance Status Information (Figure 3)
This inspection was performed following each emission test of the Idle
Emission Inspection Evaluation.
i». Inspection Station Results (Figure U)
The Information recorded on this form was collected by the Inspector
and mechanic at the inspection station.
5. Warm Vehicle Drlveabillty Test Form (Figure 5)
The drlveabillty Information was taken during the drlveabillty test
following each emission test of the Retrofit Evaluation and the Modified
-------
VEHICLE INFORMATION
TEST SEQUENCE.
YEAR
MAKE
VEHICLE NO..
MODEL
ODOMETER
CYL
CID
B3L
TRN
IN.WT.
HP
EMC
EVC
PCV
(E | I | F)
LICENSE NO.
VEHICLE INSPECTION
STATE
FEDERAL I.D. NO.
Antenna
Left rear fender
Left door(s)
Left front fender
Hood
Grille
Front bumper
Right front fender.
R1 ght door(s)
Right rear fender _
MI see 1laneous
Trunk 1 i rl
Rear end
Hear bumper
Top
Window glass
Tires
Hub caps
Mirrors
Interior
Tape Deck? Yes_
No
Agreed to
.(Date), by
(Initial)
NAME.
INCOMING DATE AND TIME
INSPECTION STATION
PHONE:HOME
WORK
Odometer
CondIt i on
Check t
SEALED.
CONDITION WHEN RETURNED
Date
< n i t i a 1
J> y_
Punched
Input Proofed
Input Corrected
veh. Info. Proofed
I Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
FIGURE 1
-------
LINE NO..
TEST NO.
BAROMETER
50 MPH LOAD_
OPERATOR
COLD TRANS. BKGND
COLD TRANS. SAMPLE
COLD STAB. BKGND
COLD STAB. SAMPLE
HOT TRANS. BKGND
HOT TRANS. SAMPLE
COLD TRANSIENT
COLD STABILIZED
HOT TRANS IENT
IDLE
LOW CRUISE
HIGH CRUISE
EMISSION TEST
INSTRUMENT SET
DATE VEH.NO.
DRY BULB
INERTIA WT.
WET BULB.
TIME
Dl( I VER
HC
EPA TEST
CO
BLOu'ER REV.
HC
KEYMOUE
CO
C02
NO,
LHC
PRESSURE
C02
NOi
LHC
SUN IDLE
SUN LOW CRUISE
SUN HIGH CRUISE
SUN 2500 RPM
MISFIRE
YES NO
YES NO
NOxCONTROL OK?
NA YE§ tJJ).
NA YES NO
Emission Test Proofed
chart Proofed
Input Punched
input Proofed
> Automotive Testing Labotatofiftfr jiy. Corrected
Output
FIGURE 2
-------
MAINTENANCE STATUS INFORMATION
TEST NO.
1. Points/Condenser ok?
2. Distributer cap ok?
3. I gnltIon wlres ok?
VEH.NO.
As Received i-rom uwrier
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
DATE
i*. Air Pump ok?
5.. Idle RPM _
6. Timing Degrees _
7. Dwe 1 1 _
8. PCV ok?
9. Air C leaner ok?
10. Choke ok? (Vacuum kick & heat riser)
11. 1 clle CO MS
12. Misfire?
13. NOx Control ok?
- (MS)
- (MS)
- (MS)
As Returned From Inspection Station
Polnts/Condenser ok?
Distributer cap ok?
IgnI11 on wlres ok?
YES NO
YES NO
YES NO
U. Air Pump ok?
5. Idle RPM _
6. Timing Degrees
7. Dwell _
8. PCV ok?
9. Air Cleaner ok?
10. Choke ok? (Vacuum kick S heat riser)
11. Idle CO MS
12. Misfire?
13. NOx Control ok?
- (MS)
- (MS)
- (MS)
NA YL" -j NO
1.LL.
NA
YL.-
.'LLi.
,_Ny
N'\
Y L ^
MQ
NA YF£ NO
NA YE6 NO
Info. Proofed
Input Punched
input Proofed
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
NA YES NO
Input Corrected
ou tpu t
FIGURE 5
-------
INSPECTION STATION RESULTS
INSPECTION STATION
VEHICLE NO. .
DATE
Circle Hleh(H) or
Low(L) Scale. PASS or FAIL
INITIAL INSPECTION
IDLE HC H L
2500 RPM HC H 1
PASS
FA
I,
IDLE CO H L
2500 RPM CO H L
PASS
FA
I
COST
ADJUST IDLE RPM? YES NO
IDLE HC H L 2500 RPM HC H L
KILE CO H L 2 50 0 RPM CO H L
COST =
ADJUST~IDLE MIXTURE?~YES
IDLE HC H L ________
IDLE CO H L
COST
ADJUST~IDLE MlXTURE?~YES NO ADJUST TIMING? YES NO
IDLE HC H L 2500 RPM HC H L . PASS FAIL
IDLE CO H L 2500 RPM HC H L PASS FAIL
COST
REPAIRS
PASS FAIL
PASS FAIL
NO ADJUST TIMING? YES NO
2500 RPM HC H L PASS FAIL
2 5 00 RPM CO H L PASS FAIL
COST OF ABOVE RE PA IRS
IDLE HC H L
IDLE CO H L
FINAL INSPECTION
2500 RPM HC H L
2500 RPM CO H L
PASS FAIL
PAS? FAIL
IF THE CAR STILL FAILS, WHAT IS THE
ESTIMATED COST TO BRING INTO COMPLIANCE?
Resu1ts Proofed
Input Punched
Input Proofed
l Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc. 'nPut Corrected,
Output.
FIGURE li
-------
VEH. NO.
TEST *
TJJTRm VEHICLE DRIVEABILITY test FORM
Vehicle License
Da*e ; Time: Start a.m./p.m. Finish a.m./p.m.
Odometer Reading: Start Finish
Temperature: Start ... Finish
Test Driver: Observer
Remarks:
Idle
Drive Mode
Tota 1 Oemer 1 t-s
MODE
S
a
t
1
s
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
•
R
o
u
g
h
s
t
a
S
a
t
(
5
f
a
c
t
o
r
y
*
D
e
t
0
n
a
t
1
0
n
*
H
e
s
1
t
a
t
!
0
n
*
S
t
u
IT1
b
1
e
*
5
t
r
e
t
c
h
n
e
s
5
B
a
c
k
f
1
r
e
*
s
u
r
K
e
RPM
He
Idle N
D
Road Load 20 "lPh
NY^
\S\'
30 moh
Vv
,V\S
1 Vi
i\r
\N. *.
k ^
\Si)
U0 mDh
VO
"-N ¦
v\\
50 mDh
6 0 Tip h. .
h ^
70 mDh 1
\V
V
. s
20-30 Man. Trans, or
WOT Accel. 0-30 Auto Trans.
Suddpn Throttle ODenlne
\
¦N;
Mod. Throttle ODenine
i\\'
¦fu
S low Thro tt le ODeni n/r -
20-30 Man. Trans, or
PT Accel. 0-30 Auto Trans.
1M Throttle
\\
V.<
"-.V,
\
\\'v:
X \\\
1/2 Throttle
3/it Throttle
^ \ \
20-70
PT Crowd 15" H*
S v
V -X
Vs
v \
' N
10" He
5" He
V1
PT Tip In
^ •
"S V
' . \ '
; w
From 2 0 mph
1
2
s\1"-
. \ 'V
\x*
From 30 mph
1
v:
2
vN
v\ '•
\\V
Accel.Time 0-70 mo
h
sec.
» \
\v
• , *
S. v
\ N \
•V
k" r
\\ N.
'vT\'
K\ \x
Decel Time 70-30 mo
h
sec.
•'N'
. > ^
v'
\
\
\ On
V v '¦
Soak Number of Start Attempts
Total crank 1ne time
s
A
v.
\ \ "•
'"v'
V
:;•>
V\
\
\\ ¦
\ \ ^
W
sec.
Idle Neutral
Drive
RPM
Hk
s '
s V
>v
RPM
He
•T-Trace, M-Moderate
H-Heavy
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
19900 E. Colfax Ave., Aurora, Colorado 80011
Form EV-0173
FIGURE 5
-------
APPENDIX 3
IDLE TEST PROCEDURES
FOR
INSPECTORS AND MECHANICS
AT
PARTICIPATING GARAGES
July 20, 1973
prepared by
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
19900 EAST COLFAX AVENUE
AURORA, COLORADO 80011
( 303 ) 3U 3-89 38
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
You have been selected to participate In a unique
study program In the State of Colorado. You have been
requested to assist the Colorado Health Department In
solving an extremely difficult problem In the State. In
order that you may develop an appreciation for what we are
are jointly trying to accomplish we would like to Intro-
duce you to some of the details of the study program.
As you know, the State of Colorado is plagued with
an air pollution problem which Is continually worsening.
Although this problem has been created by the discharge
of pollution from a great many sources, we know that the
main contribution Is from motor vehicles. Slnply result-
ing from the substantial number In operation, light duty
vehicles, that is, passenger cars and light trucks, are
the major offenders.
In recognition of tils, the Colorado Legislature
appropriated funds to evaluate ways to reduce pollution
from motor vehicles. The Health Department Is conduct-
ing an emission testing program involving 300 vehicles
from model-years 196U through 19 73 . These vehicles will
be selected to represent about 90% of the cars regis-
tered In the State. All of them will be privately owned.
Although there are many aspects to the program, the
primary consideration is to evaluate emission Inspection
at Idle.
1
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
-------
As you know, the State of Colorado has an existing
vehicle Inspection program, safety Inspection. In view of
the fact that the safety Inspection program Is already estab-
lished, It Is likely that emission Inspection will be com-
bined with safety Inspection. This appears to be a logical
approach. However, the effectiveness of such an approach
Is as yet unknown. This is precisely what we jointly will
be trying to establish, the effectiveness of emission In-
spection Integrated with the existing safety Inspection
profiram.
> Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
-------
2. DESIGN OF THE PROGRAM
A sample of 300 cars wl11 be selected and scheduled
for tests and maintenance over a period of about three and
one-half months. About 5 cars will be tested each day.
Laboratory emission tests will be performed. Emission
Inspection at Idle will also be performed by laboratory
personnel. When this sequence is completed vehicles will
be delivered to selected licensed safety inspection
stations for emission Inspection and maintenance If requir-
ed. Licensed stations will each receive about 30 vehicles
In the three and one-half month period.
Upon delivery to the station, vehicles will be
emission tested (Inspected) according to the procedures
described later in Section 3. A vehicle will either pass
or fall depending on its level of emissions. Vehicles
which pass the test will be returned to ATL without adjust-
ment or maintenance. Vehicles which fail will be adjusted
and /or repaired to the extent necessary to effect a pass.
Repairs to failed vehicles will be nominally limited to
S5O.00 per vehicle for parts and labor at normal garage
rates. Vehicles which have been repaired will be re-tested
to determine compliance with standards. Vehic1es which
pass the re-test will be returned to ATL for additional
evaluations. Vehicles which fail the re-test will be re-
turned to ATL when $50.00 In repairs have been exhausted.
At this point It should b(? mentioned that a vehicle
3
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
-------
which falls to comply with enlsslon standards after 1n-
currlnE the limit o,: $50. 00 probably has a gross malfunct-
ion. Gross malfunction could bp described as a faulty
carburetor, burned valves, worn or damaged rings, etc. If
a gross malfunction is indicated. It should be diagnosed
and an estimate of repair costs should be prpparerl and
forwarded to ATL.
After the vehicle is returned to ATL, It will be re-
tested. Emission data obtained before and after Inspection
and maintenance will then be combined with cost data and
the effectiveness of the Inspection and maintenance
procedure will be evaluated.
-------
tlonS/ and ordinances, unless such action will result
In continuing compliance with the applicable emission
requi rements.
3.2.1 Instrumentation
Table 2 lists the recommended equipment reauired
to perform eml ss I on-orl ente'l service and repair.
TARLE 2'
RECOMMENDED EQUIPMENT
HC and CO Analyzer
Ignition Analyzer, Oscilloscope
Ignition TimlnF, Light
Tachometer
Distributor Advance Tester
Voltmeter, Ammeter, Ohrineter
Vacuum Gauge, Pressure Gauge
Compression Tester
Dwel1 Meter
3.2.2 Inspection Procedure
3.2.2.1 Pre-Test
Prepare vehicle and equipment for test.
Test Eoui pment - Service, warm-up, and calibrate
HC/CO test equipment per manufacturers
spec i f i ca t i ons.
Test Veh I c 1 e - Verify engine is at normal
operating temperature (warm-up as required).
Hook-uo - Insert probe In exhaust pipe (driver
side if dual exhaust), hook-up tachometer per
manufacturers Instructions.
*
6
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
-------
3.2.2.2. Test
The Inspector will perform HC/Cf) and rpm measurements
and compare HC/CO measurements to Idle Test Standards.
2500 rDm - Operate engine In neutral at 2 500 rpm;
record HC/CO.
Hl Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
-------
The Table should be used as an alrl In diagnosing the cause
for failure. General diagnostic steps are:
Evaluate test results - as provided In this sit-
uation by the Inspector.
Consult information sources - probable malfunct-
ions table (above), owners vehicle manual, manu-
facturers manual, automotive shop service manual.
Perform diagnosis - as determined from above in-
formation sources and test results, and from the
use of test equipment as necessary.
Repair malfunction - remove and replace defective
components; adjust as reautred.
Re-test - as per paragraph 3.2.2.
In diagnosing malfunctions which are Indicated by
high HC/CO, It is helpful to know the following:
High HC - Is normally related to a malfunction In the Ignit-
ion systen or caused by leaking exhaust valves. Ignition
system malfunction may be caused by an over-lean fuel mixture
such as might be experienced with carburetor unbalance or a
leaking intake manifold. A malfunction may also be caused
by over-advanced ignition timing, a fouled spark plug, a
faulty ignition wire (insulation), or Improperly adjusted
poi nt dwe11.
Ignition mis-fires may be diagnosed by use of an
oscilloscope, timing problems by a timing light.
Valve failure may be detected by cylinder balance
testing and /or compression testing.
High CO - is normally related to an over-rich fuel mixture.
This may be caused by a poor Idle circuit adjustment, a
stuck or partically closed choke, or an abnormally restric-
ted air cleaner. Rough Idle may be caused by a clogged PCV
valve. Any of these conditions may also cause moderately
hIgh HC. In this situation. If CO is reduced, HC will also
be reduced.
Figure 1, Is a block diagram showing the steps which
must be followed to assure compliance with the Inspection,
adjustment, and repair procedures just described. When
9
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
-------
the vehicle Is delivered to you it will be accompanied by
the necessary Inspection, adjustment, repair, and estimate
forns. We ask that you fill In the required data accurat-
ely and completely. The data which you report to us Is
most Important to thp success of the project.
10
i Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
-------
APPENDIX U
VEHICLE ROUTING FORMS
The following forms were all developed after the vehicle flow charts had been
constructed. The forms were designed In such a manner that simply filling
In the Information as It became available would Insure that the vehicle had
the proper tests performed and that the tests were conducted In the proper
order. The routing sheets were attached to a form packet containing the data
forms necessary for the Indicated test sequence. The form packet then remained
with the vehicle until the vehicle was returned to the owner.
-------
ROUTING SHEET
VEH NO
TUNE-UP EVALUATION
RUN NO.
Perform /H3IHrenW6 IV
requlred
A/F
1 . RPM
TIMING
CHOKE
Cold Soak
Emlsslon
Test No. ,
Dr 1veab i11ty
Test No.
A/F
1 .RPM
TIMING
CHOKE
Cold Soak
Emlss1 on
Test No.
Drlveabl11ty
Test No.
A/F
1 .RPM
TIMING
CHOKE
Cold Soak
Emlss1 on
Test No.
Dr1veabl11ty
Test No.
A/F
1 .RPM
TIMING
CHOKE
Cold Soak
EmlssIon
Test No.
Dri veabl11ty
Test No.
A/F
1 .RPM
TIMING
CHOKE
Cold Soak
Emlsslon
Test No.
Drlveabl11ty
Test No.
A/F
1 .RPM
TIMING
CHOKE
Cold Soak
Emlsslon
Test No.
TU Eval Proofc
Dri veabl11ty
Test No.
Input Punched
A/F
1 .RPM
TIMING
CHOKE
Cold Soak
Emlsslon
Test No.
1nput Proofed
Drlveabl11ty
Test No.
Input Corrctd
A/F
1 .RPM
TIMING
CHOKE
out DUt
Cold Soak
Emlss1 on
Test No.
Drlveabl11ty
Test No.
FIGURE 1
-------
ROUT IMG SHEET
HI Gil ALT I THOU KETIIOF I T
ItAHUFACTUREf!:
TYPE:
Instal 1 HA I! ft Cold Soak
Emission Test NO.
Drlveabllity Test MO.
CASE LI HE
Renovp HAR
Drlveablllty Test NO.
FIGURE 2
-------
ROUTING SHEET
HIGH ALTITUDE RETROFIT with MAINTENANCE
MANUFACTURER:
TYPE:
.Install HAR, Perform Maintenance S Cold Soak
Emission Test NO.
Drlveablllty Test NO.
BASE LINE
Remove HAH S Cold Soak
Emission Test NO.
Drlveablllty Test NO.
Maintenance Required
Points/Condenser
Distributer cap
Ignition Wires
Air pump
Idle RPM
TI m I ng
Owe 11
PCV
Air Cleaner
Choke
Idle CO
Misfire
N0X Control
FIGURE 3
-------
ROUTING SHEET
SEA LEVEL and HIGH ALTITUDE RE THQ f" I To
SEA LEVEL
MANUFACTURER: CIG COL DAN ECU NLP PSC STP UOP
TYPE: A.BLO A. BLQ*EGR A.Bt.Q*VSAU CftT EGR EGR* VSAD N.GAS PROP
Install SLR, Perform any required Maintenance A Cold Soak
Emlsslon Test No.
Drlveablllty Test No.
BASE LINE
Remove SLR 4 Cold Soak
Emission Test No.
Drlveablllty Test No.
HIGH ALTITUMl.
MANUFACTURER:
TYPE:
Install MAR Jt Cold Soak
Em I I on Tl No . _ _ _
I, ' i v '.'d r 1 ' t r v ' ~ '¦>
Remove HAR
Maintenance Required
Points/Condenser
Distributer cap
Ignition Wires
Air pump
Idle RpM
Tlmln*
Dwell
PCV
Air Cleaner
Choke
Idle CO
Misfire
N0X Control
FIGURE it
-------
ROUTING SHEET
SEA LEVEL RETROFIT
VEH.NO.
MANUFACTURER:
£±S_
COL
PAN
ECU
N UP
psc
STP
JJ££
TYPE: A.BLD a.Bio»egr A.RiD+vsAD CAT EGR EQR+VSAP N.fiAS PBQE
Install SLR & Cold Soak
Emission Test No.
Drlveablllty Test No.
BASE LINE
Remove SLR
Drlveablllty Test No.
Routing Proofed
Input Punched
Input Proofed
Input Corrected
Ou tput
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
FIGURE 5
-------
ROUTING SHEET
VEH.NO.
SEA LEVEL RETROFIT with MAINTENANCE
MANUFACTURER: CIG COL DAN ECH NLP P5C STP UQP
TYPE: A.BLD A.BID-*-EGR A.BLD + VSAD CAT EGR EfiR+VSAP N.CA5 PRQ-E
Install SLR, Perform Maintenance & Cold Soak
Emission Test No.
Drlveablllty Test No.
BASE LINE
Remove SLR A Cold Soak
Emission Test No. .
Drlveablllty Test No.
Maintenance Required
Points/Condenser
Distributer cap
IgnltIon Wlres
Air pump
Idle RPM
Timing
Dwell
PCV
Air Cleaner
Choke
Idle CO
Misfire
N0X Control
Routing Proofed
Input Punched
Input Proofed
Input Corrected
Output
Automotive Testing Laboratorieo, Inc.
FIGURE 6
-------
PP.00F393
DATA EDIT PROGRAM
JO DIM KSC1H),C,I,flC3,P),K<3. 5>
20 DIM SC4.2). TS(16). V.'$(20)» RSC20)
95 REM**********+PO SS I PL F. ^AKFS******+******+
100 DATA 'BUIC*.'CADI 1.'CHtV.'OLDS'. "PONT* . ' FOhl)' . ' GARB ' . 'MEPC '
105 DATA 'CHRY'.1 DO DG"
110 DATA 'GARB'.'PLYM' . 'AMfO*.1 DATS'.'TOYO'.'VOLK*. 'OPEL'.*VOLV*
115 REM* *********POSSIPLE CID BY MAKF**»******
120 DATA 350.430.300.340.401.4P5.0.472.429.0
130 DATA 140.250.307.350.400.230.327.396.283.194.164.0
140 DATA 350.455.330.425.0.400.350.3P6.389.421.0
150 DATA 98.200.302.351.400.170.?50.289.390.240.352.0.0.302.351.289
155 DATA 190.0
160 DATA 360.383.361.0.198.318.383.170.273.225.0.0
170 DATA 198.318.400.383,273,170.2P5.0.304.290.232.0.97.0
180 DATA 120.71.116.0.97.102.91.7P.73.0.116.0.121.0
185 REM*********POSSIBLE CID BY YEAR*******
190 DATA 97.98.102.116.120.140.198.200.2 50.302.304.30 7.318.350.351
195 DATA 360.400.472.0
200 DATA 97.98.102.116.120.140.170.198.250.302.304.307,318.350.351
205 DATA 360.400.472.0
210 DATA 71.97.98.116. 1 PI. 140.170. 198.2 50.302. 304.307.318.350. 351.383
215 DATA 400.472.0
220 DATA 71.97.170.198.200.230.2 50.302.304.307.318.350.351.38 3.400
225 DATA 455.472.0
230 DATA 91.116.17 0.200.2 30.250.290.302.307.318.327.350.351.383.400
235 DATA 430.455.472.0
240 DATA 91.116.200.230.27 3.289.290.302.307.318.327.350.383.390.396
245 DATA 400.430.455.47 2.0
250 DATA 91 . 17 0/200.230.2 50.27 3.283.289.290.300,318,326,327,330,340
255 DATA 38 3,390,400,42 5,429,0
260 DATA 78, 194,200,230,232.326.273,283.289. 318.327,330, 340,352
265 DATA 389,38 3,390,401,42 5,429,0
270 DATA 7 3,164,200,225,2 30,232,283,289,300,318,326,327,330,383,389
27 5 DATA 390,396,401,42 5,429,0
280 DATA 73,170,194,200,230,232,283.289.318.327.330.361,389,390
285 DATA 421,425,429,0
287 REM*******IN.VT.-HP COMBINATIONS********
290 DATA 2000,8.3,22 50,8.8,2500,9.4,2 7 50,9.9,3000,10.3,3500,11.2
300 DATA 4000,12.4500,12.7.5000,13.4,5500.13.9
305 P.EM******PO SSIBLE SLR MANUFACTURERS******
310 DATA "C1G"."COL"."DAN","FCH","NLP"."PSC"."STP"."UOP"."CMP". "0"
315 REM********»PCSSIBLE SLR TYPES********
320 DATA "A•BLD"."A•BLD+EGR"A«BLD+VSAD"."CAT"."BGR"»"EGR+VSAD"
330 DATA "N.GAS"."PROP"."FBPR"."0"
335 REM*******POSSIBLE HAR MANUFACTURERS***********
340 DATA "FORD"."GM","CHRY","AMMO","0"
345 REW*******POSSIPLE HAR TYPES*******************
350 DATA "FORD","GM","CHHY"."AMMO","0"
400 PRINT "FILE NAME";
410 INPUT GS
420 OPEN 1,GI,INPUT
500 FOR X«= 1 TO 18
510 READ KSCX)
520 NEXT X
530 FOR X«= 1 TO 18
540 FOR Y = 1 TO 12
550 READ CCX.Y)
560 IF C(X.Y)= 0 THEN 580
570 NEXT Y
580 NEXT X
590 FOR X= 1 TO 10
600 FOR Y= 1 TO 21
610 READ DCX,Y)
-------
6P0 IF D(X#Y)"0 THFN 640
6 30 NEXT Y
<•40 NEXT X
650 FOR X= t TO PO
660 READ ICX>
670 NFXT X
6R0 FOR X«= I TO 10
690 READ VS(X)
70(1 IF VS (74-Y1) * 15000 THEN 8130
PllO If Cl< <74-Yl> * 6000 THEN P130
P180 GO TO 2140
P 1 30 PRINT ',»0DCC"5
P140 GO TO 8170#PPO0>PP30 ON Cl/P-1
PI 50 PhINT ",CY1
P t 60 GO TO PP4D
P170 If CP< 71 THEN 2150
PI 80 IF CP> 140 THEN 2150
PI 90 GO TO PP40
8200 If C8< 164 THEN PI 50
PS10 IF CP» 250 THEN S150
P280 GO TO 2840
P230 IF CP< P60 THEN P150
8835 IF CS > 478 THEN 8150
P240 GO TO 226 0» 2260» 2P60» PR50*8860* ON Bl + 1
P250 PRINT "*CARB"J
8860 GO TO 8280* 2270* 22R0 » PPROj ON 1P
P270 PRINT ".TRAN";
2880 FOR X= 1 TO 11
8890 IF C X)=0 THFN P3P0
P300 IF CCM1#X)=CP THEN ?340
P310 NFXT X
P380 PRINT ,'»CID,,J
P325 GO TO P400
P 340 Y«= 74-Y1
P350 FOR X=1 TO 20
P360 If r>(Y»X)-= 0 THEN P390
-------
2370 IK DCY.X) » C2 THEN 2400
2380 NEXT X
2390 PRINT ",CID"J
2400 FOR X «¦ 1 TC 20 STEP 2
2410 IF I1=I(X> THEN 2450
2420 NEXT X
2430 PRINT "#I.WT/HP";
2440 GO TO 2460
2450 IF H1<>I(X+l> THEN 2430
2460 IF ES» "YES" THEN 2490
2470 IF E5» "NC" THEM 2490
2480 PRINT ">EMC"J ,
2490 IF VSo "YES" THEN 2520
2500 IF VS- "NO" THEN 2520
2510 PRINT ",EVC";
2520 IF PS« "YES" THEN P543
2530 IF PS= "NC" THEN 2543
2540 PRINT ">PCV"J
2543 IF Tl<»8 THEN 2550
8545 Tl»4
2547 GOTO 3000
P550 REM ***** GET EMISSION DATA ****
2555 PRINT
P560 GET T$
2580 REM ***** CHECK 1ST EMISSION TEST ****
2590 PRINT USING 80000,Ti!
2595 GCSUB 61000
2700 GCSUB 62000
2710 GET SS
27 15 E2=1
2717 tf$»5$
2720 IF S$=TS THEN P770
2730 RE!" **** CHECK 2ND EMISSION TEST ****
2740 PRINT
2750 PRINT USING 80000# $$J
2755 GCSUB 61000
2760 GCSUB 62000
2762 GET SS
2765 E2<=2
2770 REM **** CHECK 1ST MAINTENANCE STATUS ****
2780 PRINT
2790 PRINT "1ST MTCE"5
2800 IF SS=T$ THEN 2820
2810 PRINT ", TEST#"S
2820 REM VEH# DATE
2830 GET V2, DI
2840 IF V2=V1 THEN 2860
2850 PRINT ",VEHf";
2860 REM *** CHECK MTCE DATA ****
2870 GCSUB 63000
2880 IF E2C1 THEN 2930
2890 REM *** CHECK 2ND MTCE STATUS ****
2900 PRINT
2910 PRINT "2ND MTCE";
2920 GCSUB 63000
2930 REM **** CHECK INSPECTION STATION DATA ****
2940 PRINT
2950 PRINT "INSP«"J
2960 GET V2
2970 IF V2«= VI THEN 2990
2980 PRINT ",VEH#";
2990 GCSUB 64000
3000 GOTO 3020,3100,3400, 3400/3800,4100,4100/ ON T1
3010 PAUSE
3020 PRINT
3030 PRINT "****»*"
3040 GOTO 1000
3100 REf *** TUNE UP SEQUENCE ***
-------
3110 PRINT
3120 PRINT "TU"J
3130 GET V2
3140 IF V2»V1 THEN 3152
3150 PRINT "VEH#"J
3152 GET R7
3153 IK R7>25 THEN 3157
3155 IF R7> 0 THEN 3160
3157 PRINT "/RUN#";
3160 FOR X"2 TO 16 STEP 2
3170 GET TSCX-1>> T$(X>
3180 IF TS (X) n TS(X-l) THEN 3200
3190 PRINT USING 80050* X/2J
3200 NEXT X
3210 FOR Z =2 TO 16 STEP 2
3280 GET $$
3230 PRINT
3240 PRINT USING 80000> $$)
3250 IF $S= TJ(Z-l) THEN 3270
3260 PRINT "tTST#"i
3270 REM **** CHECK EMISSION & DRIVEABILITY DATA ***
3275 GCSUB 61000
3280 GCSUB 62000
3300 GCSUB 65000
3310 NEXT Z
3320 GCTC 3020
3400 REM **** RETROFIT WITH MTCE SEOUENCE ****
3410 PRINT
3420 GO TO 3440>3460 ON Tl-2
3430 PAUSE
3440 PRINT "HAR";
3445 Xl=10
3450 GO TO 3470
3460 PRINT "SLR".
3465 X1=0
3470 REM **** CHECK TYPE 6 MANUF ***
3480 GCSUB 66000
3570 FOR X = 2 TO 4 STEP 2
3580 GET T$ THEN 3610
3600 PRINT USING 80050,X/2;
3610 NEXT X
3620 REM **** CHECK EMISSION « DRIVEABILITY ***
3630 FOR Z=2 TO 4 STEP 8
3640 GET $S
3650 PRINT
3660 PRINT USING R0000>$$;
3670 IF $$= T$(Z-1) THEN 3690
3680 PRINT "»TSTt"!
3690 GCSUB 61000
3695 GCSUB 62000
3700 GCSUB 65000
3710 NEXT Z
3720 GCTC 3020
3800 REM *** COMBINATION RETROFIT SEQUENCE *****
3810 PRINT
3820 PRINT "SLR";
3830 X1=0
3840 REM *** CHECK SLR TYPE 6 MANUF ***
3850 GCSUB 66000
3860 FOR X = 2 TO 4 STEP 2
3870 GET TS CX-1), TSCX)
3880 IF Tt(X-l) = TI(X) THEN 3890
3885 PRINT US INR 80O50.X/P;
3890 NEXT X
3891 PRINT
3892 PRINT "HAR";
3893 REM **** CHECK HAR TYPE & MANUF *****
-------
3894 Xl«10
3895 GCSUB 66000
3896 GET TS<5># TS<6>
3897 IF TS < 5) » TS<6> THEN 3910
3898 PRINT USING 80050*l;
3910 REM CHECK EMISSION 4 DRIVEABILITY ****
3980 FOR Z- 2 TO 6 STEP 2
3930 PRINT
3940 GET SS
3950 PRINT USING 80000#SSJ
3960 IF TS(Z-l) = SS THEN 3980
3970 PRINT "#TST#"#
3980 GCSUB 61000
3985 GCSUB 62000
3990 GCSUB 65000
4000 NEXT Z
4010 GCTC 3020
4100 REM **** RETROFIT (NO MTCE) SEQUENCE *****
4110 PRINT
4120 GC TC 4140# 4170# CN Tl-5
4130 PAUSE
4140 Xl = 10
4150 PRINT "HAR";
4160 GC TC 4190
4170 Xl-0
4180 PRINT "SLR";
4190 REM *** CHECK TYPE & MANUF ***
4200 GCSUB 6 6000
4300 REM **** CHECK ROUTING ****
4310 GET TS<1 ># TSC2)
4320 IF TS( 1 ) » TI( 2) THEN 4340
4330 PRINT USING 80050. 1 J
4340 GET TS< 3 >
4370 IF TS( 3 > = #S THEN 4410
4380 PRINT USING 80050#3J
4390 GC TO 4410
4400 IF T$< 3) <>SI THEN 4380
4410 REM *** CHECK EMISSION & DFt I V EABIL. IT Y ****
4420 PRINT
4430 GET SI
4440 PRINT USING 80000#IS;
4450 IF SS = T$<1> THEN 4470
4460 PRINT "#TST*M;
4470 GCSUB 61000
4480 GCSUB 62000
4490 Z=2
4500 GCSUB 65000
4510 Zb3
4520 PRINT
4530 PRINT "B.LINE";
4540 GCSUB 65000
4550 GCTC 3020
60000 REM *** VEHICLE INFO SUBROUTINE *~*
60010 REM *** TEST SEQ. VEH# YR MK MODL CDCM CYL CID BBL
60020 GET Tl# VI# Yl# KS# MS# 01# CI# C2» B1
60030 REM ***
60040 REM *** TRN IN.WT HP FMC EVC PCV
60050 GET T2# II# HI# F$# VS# PS
60060 RETURN
61000 REM EMISSION DATA GET SUPRCUTINE***
61010 REM + *» DATE VEH# BARO. D.BULB V.BULB
61020 GET DS# V2# BS# T8» T9
61030 MAT GET E
61040 MAT GET B
61050 MAT GET K
61060 MAT GET S
61070 RETURN
62000 HEM *** EMISSION DATA CHECK SUBROUTINE »*+*
-------
62010
62020
62030
62040
620 50
(>2060
62070
62080
62090
62100
621 10
62120
621 30
62140
621 50
62160
62170
621 80
6?. 190
62200
62210
62220
62230
62240
62250
62260
62270
62280
52290
62300
62310
62320
62325
62330
62340
62342
62350
62360
62370
62372
6237 4
6237 6
62380
62390
62400
62410
62420
62430
62440
62450
62460
62470
62480
62490
62500
62510
62520
62530
62540
62550
62560
62565
62570
62580
62590
62600
62605
62610
IF V2 = VI THEN 62030
PRINT ">VEH";
IF B2 < 24.3 THEN 62050
IF B2 < 25 THEN 62060
PRINT "»R4R.MJ
IK Tft>R6 THEN (S20H0
IF T8>=68 THEN 62090
PRINT "sDB";
IF T9>T8 THEN 62110
11- T9>T8-25 THEN 62120
PRINT "»WB";
FOR X = 1 TO 6
IF E < 200 THEN 62150
IF E(X,1)< 500 THEN 62160
PRINT ",FHC")
IF E < 100 THEN 62180
IF E(X*2)< 700 THEN 62190
PRINT "> ECC"J
IF E(X»3>< 100 THEN 62210
IF E < 900 THEN 62250
PRINT "»ENCX";
IF E(X* 5> < 100
IF E(X>5) < 400
PRINT "# ELHC"»
NEXT X
FOR X = 1 TC 5
FCP Y = 2 TC 6
IF E(YjX)>=E(Y
PRINT 'SBKGD";
NEXT Y
NEXT X
FOR X = 1 TO 3
IF X<>2 THEN 62374
IF B(X,1 )> 26300 THEN 62370
IF B(X#1)> 25700 THEN 62380
PRINT "iPEV";
GO TO 62380
IF B 9800
B(X,1>< 9400
B(X,2>> 11.2
THEJJ 62270
THEN 62280
STEP
-1,X>
2
THEN
623
THEN
THEN
THEN
THEN
62370
62 370
62 400
62410
IF
IF
IF B(X# 2) > 10-8
PRINT ".PRES";
NEXT X
FOR X*= 1 TO 3
IF K(Xil) < 200 THEN 62450
IF KCX/1X 500 THEN 62460
PRINT "#KHC"»
IF K< Xj 2)<100 THE!N 62480
IF K(X> 2)< 700 THEN 62490
PRINT "#KCOM;
IF K(Xj 3>< 100 THEN 62510
IF K( X, 3)< 400 THEN 62520
PRINT ,,>KC02";
IF K ( X> 4)< 500 THEN 62540
IF K(X» 4)< 900 THEN 62550
PRINT •SKNOX";
IF K(X#5)< 100 THEN 62570
IF K(X<5)< 400 THEN 62580
IF X(X*5>=2500 ThEN 62580
PRINT "»KLHC";
NEXT X
FOR X = 1 TC 4
IF SCX, IX 50 THEN 62620
IF S(X#1> < 2001 THEN 62630
-------
62620
6S630
62640
68650
62660
68670
62680
63000
63010
63020
63030
63040
63050
63060
63070
63080
63090
63100
631 10
63120
63130
631 AO
63150
631 60
63170
63180
63190
63200
63210
63220
63230
63240
63242
63244
63246
63248
6 32 50
63260
63270
63280
63290
63300
63310
63320
64000
64010
64020
64030
64040
64050
64060
64065
64070
64080
64090
64100
641 10
64120
64130
641 40
641 50
64160
64170
64180
64190
64200
64210
64220
PRINT " ° 20 THEN 62670
PRINT ",SCO"J
NEXT X
RETURN
REM **•* MTCE DATA CHECK SUBROUTINE
AP RPM TIM DWELL PCV
REM
GET
REM
GET
IF AS
IF AS
AS* RO/ TOj DO.
A.CL. CHOKE I.CO
OS. CI* I0>
="YES" THEN 63090
»"NA" THEN 63090
IF AS«"NC" THEN 63090
PRINT "»A.PMP"i
IF ABSCRO)< 500 THEN 63110
PRINT "» I•RPM"J
IK ABS < 15 THEN 63130
PRINT ">TIM";
IF ABS(DO) < 20 THEN 63150
PRINT
IF PS
PS
MISFIRE NOX
FS, NS
IF PS
IF PS
IF 0$
PFINT
IF 10
IF 10
PRINT
IF NS
IF NS
DWL" J
"NA" THEN 63190
"YES" THEN 63190
"NO" THEN 6 3190
PRINT "»PCV"i
IF 01 = "YES" THEN 63220
"NO" THEN 63220
jA«CL"}
.1 THEN 63240
12 THEN 63242
*i.co";
IF CS="YES" THEN 63250
IF CS»"NC" THEN 63250
IF CSo-NA" THEN 63250
PRINT "#CHOKE"J
IF FS= "NO" THEN 63280
IF FS = "YES" THEN 63280
PRINT "#M•FIRE"}
"NA" THEN 63320
"YES" THEN 63320
IF NS = "NO" THEN 63320
PRINT "/N.CTRL";
RETURN
REM **+
FOR X =
FOR Y =
GET H5
IF H5> 2000 THEN 64080
IF H5>50 THEN 64090
IF H5 «= 0 THEN 64090
PRINT USING 80010.XJ
GOTO 64090
IF H5<>250C THEN 64065
NEXT Y
REM +** CHECK FAILURE CODE ****
GOSUB 64400
FOR Y= 1 TO 2
GET C5
IF C5>10 THEN 64190
IF C5>•2 THEN 64200
IF C5=0 THEN 64200
PRINT USING 80020,X;
GOTO 64200
IF C5<>20 THEN 64170
NEXT Y
REX *** CHECK FAILURE CODE ***
GOSUB 64400
INSPECTION STATION DATA CHECK ****
1 TO 5
1 TO 2
-------
64830 GET M5
64240 Iy M5 < 0 THEN 64260
64S50 IF M5 < 11 THEN 64270
64260 PRINT USING 80040*X;
64270 IF X<> 4 THEN 64320
64280 GET M5
64290 IF M5<0 THEN 64310
64300 IF M5<35 THEN 64320
64310 PRINT M*CCSTR";
64320 NEXT X
64330 RETURN
64400 REM *** FAILURE CODE CHECK SUBROUTINE ****
64410 GET HS
64420 IF HS = "FAIL" THEN 64460
64430 IF HS = "PASS" THEN 64460
64440 IF HS = "0" THEN 64460
64450 PRINT USING 80030*X;
64460 RETURN
65000 REM +*** DRIVEABILITY CHECK SUBROUTINE ****
65010 REM VEH# TEST# DEMERITS
65020 GET V2» $$/ D2
65030 IF V2 = VI THEN 65050
65040 PRINT "#DVEH«"J
65050 IF $$ = TSCZ) THEN 65070
65060 PRINT " tDTSTt"i
65070 IF D2<0 THEN 65090
65080 IF D2<125 THEN 65100
65090 PRINT "*DEM•"J
65100 RETURN
66000 REM *+* RETROFIT TYPE & MANUF. CHECK SUBROUTINE ****
66005 GET VJ$
66010 FOR X= 1 TO 10
66030 IF WS = WSCX+X1) THEN 66060
66040 NEXT X
66050 PRINT "*MANFM;
660 60 GET R$
66070 FOR X=1 TO 10
66080 IF R$ = RSCX+Xl) THEN 66110
66090 NEXT X
66100 PRINT "tTYPE"J
66110 RETURN
80000 t EM•TST
80010 ijHCt
80020 t,CO#
80030 :»FAIL#
80040 :/COST#
80050 :tRT#
800 60 :tf
80070 :0&&
90000 END
-------
SAMPLE RUN
DATA EDIT PROGRAM
RUN PRCCr'393
PRC0F393 13:12 12/03/73 MONDAY 104
FILE NAME7 V141T147
*******
141j CDCM
EM.TST»C0328
1ST MTCE
INSP.
******
143/CDCM
EM.TST«C0340
1ST MTCE
INSP.
SLR
EM.TSTtC0383#BKGD
EM«TST»C0409
******
144
EM•TST tCO342
EM.TST»C0353»SHC
1ST MTCE
2ND MTCE
INSP•tHC11HC2*HC3» HC5
SLR
HAH
EM.TST1C0420
EM« TST»C0393« BKGD
EM.TSTJC0406
******
145,CDCM
EM •TST »C0343
1ST MTCE
INSP* » CC1»COS
HAR
EM.TSTtC0376,VB
B.LINE
******
147>CDCM
EM.TSTiC0345
EM.TSTlC0379*VB# BKG D
1ST MTCE
2ND MTCE
INSP.
TU
EM»TST»C0368*BKGD
EM* TSTlC0402
EM•TST t C0421
EM.TST J CA433* REV* SCO
EM.TST«C0448#SCC
EM« TST »CO462,BAR• , REV* SCO
EM.TST JC0471> SCO* SHC
EM.TST tC0493
-------
SEA LEVEL RETROFIT EVALUATION VEHICLES
RETROFIT INSTALLED
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
TYPE
COST
015
1967
FORD
STAW
2 89
8
2
3
3500
060240
EGR+VSAD
25.00
017
1966
CHEV
BISC
283
8
2
A
4000
051045
EGR+VSAD
25.00
021
1967
PLYM
BELV
2 73
8
2
A
3500
070009
EGR+VSAD
25.00
025
1966
DODG
VAN
273
8
2
3
3500
054740
EGR+VSAD
25.00
028
1964
OLDS
STAW
330
8
2
A
4000
089020
EGR+VSAD
25.00
029
1965
PONT
TEMP
326
8
2
A
3500
059585
EGR+VSAD
25.00
035
1965
DODG
POLA
383
8
2
A
4000
064463
EGR+VSAD
25.00
037
1961*
FORD
FAIR
2 89
8
2
3
3500
052629
EGR+VSAD
25.00
0<»0
1968
FORD
CUST
302
8
2
A
4000
019445
A.BLD
25.00
0U1
1970
CHEV
NOVA
230
6
2
A
3000
030980
A.BLD
25.00
01)2
1969
PLYM
BELV
318
8
2
A
55 00
039269
A.BLD
25. 00
Oil 3
1971
FORD
MAVE
170
6
2
3
2750
020583
A.BLD
25.00
045
1972
DODG
DART
225
6
1
A
3000
005414
A.BLD
25.00
098
1972
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
026575
CATALYTIC
155.00
099
1971
CHEV
BLAZ
350
8
4
it
4000
019987
CATALYTIC
155.00
100
1969
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3000
047190
CATALYTIC
155.00
104
1968
PLYM
BELV
273
8
2
A
3500
058630
CATALYTIC
155.00
138
1973
DODG
TRUC
360
8
2
A
4000
001000
PRO PANE
650.00
139
1970
FORD
TORI
250
6
1
3
3500
031895
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
100
1966
OLDS
DYNA
U25
8
2
A
4500
048553
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
1D3
1966
FORD
MUST
2 89
8
2
A
3000
038659
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
144
1972
FORD
GALA
400
8
2
A
4000
012721
EGR
32.15
146
1969
OLDS
DELT
U 55
8
2
A
4000
061594
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
11*8
1972
PLYM
SATE
400
8
2
A
3500
014660
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
150
1971
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
026700
EGR
32.15
152
1971
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
4000
029562
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
153
1965
CHEV
BELA
283
8
2
A
4000
130460
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
155
1968
CHEV
BELA
307
8
2
A
4000
066417
EGR
32.15
156
1971
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
it
2000
024425
EGR
32.15
166
1970
VOLK
SEDA
97
it
1
it
2000
012474
EGR
32.15
169
1965
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
4000
113497
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
171
1965
FORD
STAW
2 89
8
2
A
4500
071092
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
172
1964
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
3500
110629
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
178
196t*
FORD
GALA
390
8
4
A
4000
059024
A.BLD+EGR
36.95
215
1972
FORD
TRUC
360
8
2
A
5000
019696
PROPANE
650.00
216
1969
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
4
A
4000
021573
PRO PANE
650.00
242
19 70
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3500
016785
FBPR
24. 10
2*8
1969
PONT
LEMA
350
8
2
A
4000
027997
FBPR
24. 10
2*9
1971
PLYM
FURY
383
8
U
A
4000
030259
FBPR
24. 10
255
1972
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3000
032867
FBPR
24. 10
265
1969
CHEV
CAPR
327
8
it
A
4000
030213
A.BLD
24.95
267
1967
FORD
FALC
200
6
1
3
2750
103550
A.BLD+VSAD
24.95
271
1967
PONT
Fl RE
326
8
it
A
3500
059028
A.BLD+VSAD
24.95
2 72
1966
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
4000
092494
A.BLD+VSAD
24.95
276
1966
PONT
LEMA
326
8
It
A
3500
073426
A.BLD+VSAD
24.95
280
1967
CHEV
STAW
327
8
It
3
4000
096491
A.BLD+VSAD
24.95
283
1968
PONT
CATA
400
8
it
A
4500
075255
FBPR
24.10
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
SEA LEVEL RETROFIT EVALUATION
EXHAUST EMISSIONS BEFORE INSTALLATION
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
9 OF HC CO NOX MPG DEMERITS
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D.
• 1964 - 1967 VEHICLES
VSAO & A.BLD
5
7.71
3.4
120.3
45.7
2.55
1.4
15.0
it. 0
20.>t
18.8
VSAD A EOR
8
9.84
3.2
154. 7
28.6
1.21
0.6
13.9
1.5
48.2
38.3
EGR & A.BLD
7
11.17
2.6
156.9
ItU.9
1.96
1.2
12.7
1.5
13.1
8.1
•1968 - 1972 VEHICLES
CATALYTIC
4
5.55
0.8
80.9
36.9
2.13
0.9
lit.3
0.6
49.2
58.3
LPG CONVERSION
3
6.93
1.0
95. 3
52.0
It. 05
1.4
11.8
0.5
it it.3
37.6
A.BLD
6
it. 18
0.5
62. 5
16.9
3.06
0. it
17.2
3.2
42.0
29.3
EGR
5
5.08
1.5
61.9
19. 4
2.75
1.1
17.2
it.3
8.6
7.8
EGR ft A.BLD
4
i*. 8(i
0. 7
95.6
34. 8
2.73
1.2
13.3
2.0
8.0
4.8
PBPR
5
5. 36
0. 7
102. 7
55.1
2.52
1.4
13.0
2.it
12.0
11.7
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSTALLATION
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
t OF
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
DEMERITS
VEH.
MEAN S
.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN S
.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
•1964 - 1967
VEHICLES
VSAD ft A.BLD
5
6.27
2.7
110.0
49.0
1.35
0.5
13.8
4.2
17.2
15.6
VSAD ft EGR
8
7.27
1.5
137.4
26. 3
0.88
0.4
13.9
1.5
56.9
35.5
EGR ft A.BLD
7
8.67
2.4
123. 7
47. 5
1.46
0. 8
13.0
1.5
42.9
46. 2
•1968 - 1972
VEHICLES
CATALYTIC
4
1.54
0.3
13.3
16.1
2.19
1.0
14. 5
1.4
19.5
22.9
LPG CONVERSION 3
4.12
2.9
44.3
35.0
4.20
1.5
14.3
1.2
1.3
2.3
A.BLO
6
3.45
0.4
36.4
26. 0
3.79
0.9
17.0
4.6
48. 7
42.8
EGR
5
4.73
1.3
60.6
15.5
1.57
0.4
15.7
3.6
9.2
2.3
EGR a A.BLD
4
4.01
0.5
49. 7
15.8
1.94
0. 8
13.5
1.8
14.5
9.3
FBPR
5
4. 39
0.8
72. 2
28.0
3.09
1.6
13.3
1.9
12.6
20.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
SEA LEVEL RETROFIT EVALUATION
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSTALLATION
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
* OF HC CO NOX MPG DEMERITS
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D.
•196b - 1967 VEHICLES
VSAD a A.BLD
5
1. U32
l.fc
10.28
25.2
1.192
1.1
1.20
1.5
3.20
32.6
VSAD a EGR
8
2.566
2.1
17.27
21.1
0.33U
0.3
0.06
0. 7
-8.62
31. 7
EGR A A.BLD
7
2.506
1.1
33.2U
12.5
0.U98
0.5
-0.31
1.0
-29.71
>•3.9
•1968 - 1972 VEHICLES
CATALYTIC
U
U. 013
0.5
67.55
21.3
-0.059
0.2
-0.2U
1.1
29. 75
38.6
LPG CONVERSION
3
2.806
2.9
51.03
i»7. 2
-0.156
0.6
-2.50
0. 7
U3.00
39.9
A.BLD
6
0. 730
0.3
26.17
15.3
-0.72 U
0.9
0.15
1.7
-6.67
26.0
EGR
5
0.358
0.5
1.36
10.3
1. 177
0.8
1.51
1.0
-0.60
8. 8
EGR a A.BLD
U
0.82U
0. 7
U5.82
22.3
0. 787
O.U
-0.23
0.l»
-6.50
7.6
FBPR
5
0.962
0.5
30.52
U1.5
-0.571
0. 8
-0.33
0.8
-0.60
9.6
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
• 196<> - 1967
VEHI
CLES
VSAD a A.BLD
5
18.
58
8.
55
U6.
82
8.
01
57.
,<«
U12.
0
U7.
8
VSAD a EGR
8
26.
08
11.
,16
27.
,61
0.
, U3
102.
,7
690.
,7
13.
k
EGR a A.BLD
7
22.
,l»3
21.
, 18
25.
, U1
-2.
,l»U
67.
.8
899.
6
13.
,5
•1968 - 19 72
VEHI
CLES
CATALYTIC
U
72.
, 30
83.
,51
-2.
79
-1.
, 71
25.
,9
<~35.
,8
-0.
It
LPG CONVERS11
ON
3
UO.
,50
53.
53
-J.
, 8<4
-21.
,20
U.
,3
78.
,5
-0.
,2
A.BLD
6
17.
, U 8
Ul.
, 8U
-23.
,65
0.
,87
29.
,2
10U7.
,1
-29.
,0
EGR
5
7.
.05
2.
20
U2.
, 8U
8.
, 78
11.
,1
i»2.
,U
36.
6
EGR a A.BLD
U
17.
,0t»
t»7,
,95
28.
,81
-1.
.70
22.
,3
mo.
.1
21.
.3
FBPR
5
17.
,96
29.
72
-22.
,63
-2.
, 55
39.
,9
1266.
.6
-23.
, 7
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
APPENDIX 7
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
AIR RESOURCES BOARD
DRIVEABILITY PROCEDURE
Revised 3/30/72
-------
-1 -
driveability test procedure
(WARM)
The following Is the test procedure to be used for vehtcle driveability evalu-
ation. Three tests are to be performed by three different drivers as delineated
In the test procedure. If a chanre Is made to the vehicle, tests should be run
both with and without the change. A level smooth-surface road, free of traffic
Interference, should be selected for desirable repeatability of the tests.
I. Vehtcle Preparation
a. Install engine tachometpr and Intake manifold vacuum gauge - warm
up vehicle (minimum 5 miles, driving).
b. Set engine RPM, fuel mixture and distributor timing to manufacturer's
spec!fI cat Ions.
II. rfarm Vehicle Drlveahnitv Procedure - (See data sheet)
a. Warmup - Warm up vehicle for approximately 10 miles at freeway speeds.
b. Curb Idle Evaluation - Operate vehicle In neutral (N) for manual
transmissions plus drive (D) gear for automatic transmission. Record
Idle quality, RPM, and vacuum.
c. Road Load Operations - Operate vehicle at constant speed cruise
conditions at 20, 30, U0, 50, 60, and 70 mph. Record drive quality,
RPM, and vacuum at each speed mode.
d. Wide Open Throttle (WOT) Accelerations - With automatic transmission
(AT) vehicle, make the slow, moderate, and sudden WOT accelerations
from 0 through 30 mph. Wlih manual transmission (MT) vehicles,
accelerate In high gear from 20 through 30 mph at WOT for the three
throttle opening rates. Record drive mode quality. Be sure that
throttle Is wide open before reaching 30 mph.
e. Part Throttle CPT) Accelerations - With automatic transmission vehicle,
make accelerations from 0 through 30 mph at 1/U, 1/2 and 3/'i constant
throttle positions. With manual transmission vehicle, these PT
accelerations are to be made from 20 through 30 mph. Record drive
mode qua I Ity.
*May omit this step If vehicle was previously warmed up.
-------
-2-
f. Partial Throttle Crowd - "Crowds" are evaluated In high gear from
30 through 70 mph. Tests should be made by continually Increasing
the throttle opening as needed to maintain a constant vacuum for
each of the following readings: 15", 10", and 5" Hg. Record drive
mode qualIty.
g. Partial Throttle Tip-In - Evaluate the "tlp-ln" characteristics by
making PT accelerations from 20 and 30 mph. Do not accelerate at
a load which will cause the automatic transmission to down-shift.
Record drive mode quality.
h. Acceleration Time - Run WOT acceleration from 0 through 70 mph and
record time of acceleration.
I. Deceleration Time - Engine coast down conditions are evaluated from
70 mph (stabilized) to 30 mph at closed throttle, record decelera-
tion time. Repeat In the opposite direction to cancel effect of wind.
J. Soak - After the above tests have been completed, perform three
consecutive WOT accelerations from 0 through 70 mph and then Idle
for 30 seconds. Shut off engine and soak for 15 minutes. Check
for dleseltng. Restart at 1/2 throttle and hold at 1500 rpm for
3 seconds, return to Idle, maintain Idle for 10 seconds In Neutral
for MT and 10 seconds In Drive for AT. Record number of starting
attempts, cranking time and Idle quality, RPM and vacuum.
k. Repeat tests (a) through (J), above, two additional times using
different drivers. Record results on separate data sheets, then
average the results.
III. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS APPLICABLE TO ATTACHED DRIVEABILITY PROCEDURE
a. Road Load - A fixed throttle position which maintains a constant
vehicle speed on a level road.
b. Coast - Deceleration at closed (curb Idle) throttle.
c. Wide Open Throttle (WOT) Acceleration - An acceleration made entirely
at wide open throttle (from any speed).
d. Part Throttle (PT) Acceleration - An acceleration made at any fixed
throttle position less than WOT.
-------
-3-
e. Tlo-ln - Vehicle response (up to 2 seconds In duration) to the
Initial opening of the throttle.
f. Crowd - An acceleration made at a continually Increasing throttle
open Ing.
K. Idle OualItv - An evaluation of vehicle smoothness, wlth the engine
at the curb idle in drive as judged fron the driver's seat,
h. BackfI re - An explosion In the Induction or exhaust system.
I. HesI tat I on - A temporary lack of Initial resnonse in acceleration
rate.
J. S tumb1e - A short, sharp reduction in acceleration rate,
k. Lean Ope rat I o'n - This condition, depending on its severity, can
manifest Itself as outlined In the following categories:
(1) S tre tch I ness - A lack of anticipated response to throttle
movement. This may occur on slight throttle movement from
road load to during li^ht to moderate accelerations.
(2) Surg)ng - A condition of leanness, resulting short, sharp,
fluctuations. These may be cyclic or random and can occur
at any speed and/or load.
1. De tona 11 on ( au to! r.n I t i on ) - a knock or ping which Is recurrent or
repeatable In terms of ajditibi1ity.
m. Diesel Ing - Engine continues to run after Irnltion turned off.
n. Stall at S tar t - Engine stops during warm-up or curb Idle,
o. Stall. Driving - Engine stops during any driving condition or
during 30 mph sudden brake application.
-------
-5-
Drlveablltty Evaluation Scale
Demerits and Weighting Factors for
Different Malfunctions
."OTerlts
Malfunction Rated Trace Moderate Heavy lea
Idle Roughness 1 2 3 -
HesI tat Ion 1 3 6
Stretchlness 1 3 6 -
Stumble 1 3 6 -
Surp.e 1 2 3 -
Stall at Start - - 6
Stall, Driving - 6
Backfire 12 3 -
Detonation 13 6 -
Dlesellng - 6
Starting Time - Time per each Start (Sec. - 2.0)
(If value negative - 0 demerits)
WeightIng
Factor
1
u
u
It
3
2
6
3
2
1
1
-------
ALTITUDE
RETROFIT
EVALUATION VEHICLES
LABOR
-COSTS-
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
HOURS
LABOR
PARTS
TOTAL
070
1972
PONT
CATA
400
8
2
A
4500
016700
1.00
12.00
4.28
16.28
077
1972
CHEV
IMPA
400
8
4
A
4500
027848
1.00
12.00
3.81
15. 81
082
1971
PLYM
STAW
585
8
2
A
4000
050843
0. 40
4.80
1. 75
6. 55
091
1975
PONT
LEMA
400
8
2
A
4000
006704
1.00
12.00
4.28
16. 28
098
1972
FORD
MAVE
502
8
2
A
5000
026575
1.00
12.00
2.78
14. 78
099
1971
CHEV
BLAZ
550
8
4
4
4000
019987
1.00
12.00
3. 81
15.81
100
1969
FORD
MUST
502
8
2
A
5000
04 7190
1.00
12.00
1. 85
15. 85
101
1969
CHEV
STAW
527
8
2
A
4500
068576
0.80
9.60
4.28
13. 88
117
1970
OLDS
CUTL
550
8
2
A
4000
053727
1. 00
12.00
4.28
16. 28
125
1971
PONT
CATA
400
8
2
A
4500
029602
0.70
8.40
4.28
12. 68
155
1970
FORD
TORI
551
8
2
A
3500
045898
1. 00
12.00
2.78
14.78
159
19 70
FORD
TORI
250
6
1
3
3500
031895
0. 30
3.60
0. 00
5.60
1U2
1972
CHEV
NOVA
5,50
8
2
A
3500
025592
1.00
12.00
4.28
16.28
144
1972
FORD
GALA
400
8
2
A
4000
012721
0.80
9.60
2. 78
12. 38
145
1975
FORD
MAVE
502
8
2
A
3000
005516
0. 80
9.60
2. 78
12.38
11*6
1969
OLDS
DELT
4 5 5
8
2
A
4000
061594
0. 70
8.40
4.28
12.68
150
1971
DODG
DART
518
8
2
A
3000
026700
1.00
12.00
1. 75
13. 75
152
1971
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
4000
029562
1.00
12.00
2.78
14. 78
155
1968
CHEV
BELA
307
8
2
A
4000
0 (5 6 417
0.70
8.40
4.28
12.68
161
1969
MERC
COUG
351
8
2
A
3500
047191
0.70
8.40
1.85
10.25
175
1972
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
3500
026639
0. 70
8.40
4.28
12. 68
182
1968
CHEV
CAME
327
8
2
A
3500
083926
0.70
8.40
4.28
12.68
184
1971
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
4000
035988
0.50
6.00
4.28
10. 28
187
1975
FORD
LTD
351
8
2
A
4500
004725
0.50
6.00
2. 78
8. 78
188
1971
MERC
COUG
351
8
2
A
4000
017215
0.50
6.00
2. 78
8. 78
194
1968
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
4
A
4000
054000
0. 80
9.60
3.81
13.41
195
1975
CHEV
CHEV
350
8
2
A
4000
006886
1.00
12.00
4.28
16.28
196
1971
CHEV
CAPR
400
8
2
A
4500
036250
0. 70
8.40
4.28
12.68
200
1972
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
015710
0. 70
8.40
4.28
12.68
204
1970
FORD
GALA
390
8
2
A
4 000
020723
1.00
12.00
2.78
14. 78
205
1969
CHEV
STAW
350
8
4
A
4500
093878
0. 80
9.60
3. 81
13.41
211
1970
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
4000
063652
0. 80
9.60
1. 75
11. 35
217
1972
CADI
COUP
472
8
4
A
5000
017251
0.60
7.20
3. 81
11.01
218
1975
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
016372
0. 80
9.60
4.28
13. 88
220
1968
BUI C
LESA
350
8
4
A
4500
074568
0.50
6.00
3. 81
9. 81
2 24
1968
CHEV
MALI
250
6
1
A
3500
043307
0. 30
3.60
0. 00
3.60
225
1968
CHEV
STAW
396
8
4
A
4 500
048577
0. 70
8.40
3. 81
12.21
226
1975
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
003813
0. 80
9.60
1. 75
11. 35
227
1975
AMMO
STAW
304
8
2
A
3000
003437
0. 80
9.60
2.00
11.60
251
1975
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
A
3500
007751
0.60
7.20
1. 75
8.95
252
1975
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
3
2 5 0 0
003468
0.30
3.60
0.00
3.60
255
1972
BUIC
LESA
350
8
4
A
4 500
020861
1.00
12.00
3.81
15. 81
254
1968
MERC
COUG
302
8
4
A
3 500
074758
0. 70
8.40
1.85
10.25
257
1968
CADI
FLEE
472
8
4
A
5000
065733
0.80
9.60
5.81
13.41
258
1969
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
051016
0. 80
9.60
1. 75
11.35
242
1970
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3500
016785
0.70
8.40
2.78
11.18
245
1969
PONT
CATA
400
8
2
A
4000
057823
0. 70
8.40
4.28
12.68
245
1968
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
3
3500
077348
0.60
7.20
2. 78
9.98
246
1968
OLDS
DELT
455
8
2
A
4500
114750
0.50
6.00
4.28
10.28
247
1968
FORD
GALA
390
8
2
A
4000
046034
0.80
9.60
1.85
11.45
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
VEH
2U8
250
251
252
25*
255
261
262
265
273
2 7i»
282
2 83
2 8U
2 85
286
287
2 88
291
292
293
29k
295
297
298
299
301
302
303
30t»
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
31U
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
32 U
325
ALTITUDE
RETROFIT
EVALUATION VEHICLES
LABOR
-COSTS-
YEAR
HAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
HOURS
LABOR
PARTS
TO T AL
1969
PONT
LEMA
350
8
2
A
4000
027997
0.70
8.40
4.28
12.68
1970
CHEV
CAME
350
8
2
4
3500
047370
0.50
6.00
4.28
10. 28
19 73
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
4
A
4000
006702
0.60
7.20
3.81
11.01
1973
OLDS
OMEG
350
8
4
3
3500
009599
0.60
7.20
3.81
11. 01
1970
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3000
036423
0.60
7.20
2.78
9.98
1972
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3000
032867
0. 70
8.40
4.28
12.68
1969
FORD
MUST
200
6
1
3
3000
068680
0.40
4. 80
0. 00
4.80
1973
CHEV
STAW
454
8
4
A
4500
017416
0. 70
8.40
3. 81
12.21
1969
CHEV
CAPR
327
8
4
A
4000
030213
0. 80
9.60
3.81
13.41
1970
CHEV
CAPR
400
8
2
A
4000
047305
1. 00
12. 00
4.28
16.28
1970
BUIC
SKY L
350
8
4
A
4000
034266
0. 70
8.40
3.81
12.21
1968
FORD
FALC
170
6
1
3
3000
097889
1.00
12.00
1.85
13.85
1968
PONT
CATA
¦*00
8
4
A
4500
075255
0.90
10. 80
3. 81
14.61
1971
AMMO
AMBA
1*01
8
4
A
4000
031837
0.40
4. 80
1.40
6. 20
1968
PLYM
BARR
318
8
2
A
3500
060568
0. 80
9.60
1. 75
11. 35
1968
DODG
CHAR
318
8
2
A
3500
065609
0.60
7.20
1.75
8.95
1971
BUIC
LESA
4 55
8
4
A
4500
017998
1.00
12.00
3.81
15.81
1968
PONT
TEMP
350
8
2
A
3500
040178
0. 80
9.60
4.28
13.88
1969
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
4000
052667
0.50
6.00
1.75
7.75
1971
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
029533
0.80
9.60
4.28
13.88
19 72
FORD
MUST
351
8
4
A
3500
019843
0.20
2.40
0.00
2.40
1969
CHRY
NEWP
383
8
2
A
4500
065163
0.60
7. 20
1.75
8.95
1970
DODG
POL A
383
8
2
A
4500
053254
0.60
7.20
1.75
8.95
1971
PLYM
DUST
198
6
1
3
3000
027784
0.40
4. 80
lo 75
6.55
1972
AMMO
J AVE
360
8
4
4
3500
023737
0.60
7.20
2.00
9.20
1972
PLYM
SATE
318
8
2
A
3500
028091
0.60
7. 20
1. 75
8.95
1973
MERC
COME
30 2"
8
2
A
3000
010804
0.60
7.20
2. 78
9.98
1973
BUIC
CENT
350
8
4
A
4000
006508
0.50
6.00
3.81
9.81
1973
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
A
3500
006473
0.40
4. 80
1. 75
6. 55
1972
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
022983
0.40
4. 80
0.00
4.80
1969
AMMO
AMBA
290
8
2
A
4000
054001
0. 30
3.60
0.00
3.60
1969
BUIC
ELEC
430
8
4
A
4500
034898
0. 70
8.40
3. 81
12.21
1969
CHEV
NOVA
230
6
1
A
3000
029124
0.40
4. 80
0.00
4.80
1969
FORO
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
021037
0. 50
6.00
1.85
7. 85
1969
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
074369
0. 70
8.40
1.85
10. 25
1972
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
008455
0.60
7.20
2. 78
9.98
1972
FORD
MAVE
250
6
1
A
2750
022036
0.40
4. 80
0.00
4. 80
1972
MERC
COME
302
8
2
A
3000
008589
0. 70
8.40
2.78
11.18
1971
FORD
BRON
302
8
2
3
3500
020440
0.60
7.20
2. 78
9.98
1971
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
4
A
3500
026169
1.00
12.00
3.81
15.81
1970
MERC
MONT
302
8
2
3
3500
027532
0. 70
8.40
2.78
11.18
1971
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
A
2750
023567
0. 30
3.60
0.00
3.60
1971
FORD
GALA
400
8
2
A
4000
040209
0. 30
3.60
2. 78
6.38
1971
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
013444
0.40
4.80
2.78
7.58
1973
FORD
MUST
351
8
2
A
3500
003445
0.60
7.20
2. 78
9.98
1970
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
A
3500
012130
0. 30
3.60
0.00
3.60
1970
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
032511
0.80
9.60
4.28
13.88
19 70
PONT
TEMP
350
8
2
A
3500
030849
1.00
12.00
4.28
16.28
1973
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
3
3500
004682
0. 30
3.60
0.00
3.60
1973
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
4500
016385
0.60
7.20
2. 78
9.98
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
ALTITUDE RETROFIT EVALUATION
EXHAUST EMISSIONS BEFORE INSTALLATION
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
t OF
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
DEMERITS
VEH.
MEAN
S.O.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN S
.D.
MEAN S
.D.
MEAN
S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
4
5. 78
2.3
67. 3
27. 3
2.97
1. 1
13.1
0.5
8.2
8.3
BUI CK
6
It. 86
1.1
100. 8
37.2
3.01
1.9
11.4
1.3
8.0
6. 7
CADILLAC
2
3.44
0.1
109.5
22.3
1. 85
0. 3
9.8
1.2
15.5
9. 2
CHEVROLET
26
5. 11
1.3
72.7
30. 7
2.63
1.1
13.6
1.7
12.0
15. 0
CHRYSLER
1
4. 29
0.0
72.9
0.0
2.43
0.0
11.5
0.0
30.0
0. 0
DODGE
6
7.02
4.7
101. 7
60.0
2. 37
1.0
13.7
1.6
5.3
4. 3
FORD
27
5. 19
.l.U
78. 3
31.5
2.57
1. 3
14.0
2.3
7.9
9.9
MERCURY
6
5.13
1.0
61. 5
24. 7
3.67
2. 2
14.0
1.4
5.8
5.6
OLDSMOBILE
6
4.67
1. •»
75.0
38.0
2.67
1. 0
12.7
1.1
10. 5
16.0
PLYMOUTH
8
5. 81
2.8
102. 5
18.3
2.14
0.7
13.6
1.8
6.9
5. 1
PONTIAC
8
4.94
0.9
90. 3
54.2
3. 32
1.5
12.1
1.0
11.4
13.4
•MODEL YEAR
1968
16
6.00
2.8
98.5
44. 8
2.45
1.4
13.4
2.1
12. 3
11.8
1969
17
6. 00
2.3
88.4
41.5
3.24
1.4
13.5
1.3
7.4
8. 5
1970
15
5.22
1.0
87.5
35.1
2.66
0.8
13.4
2.1
11.1
13.0
1971
17
5.03
0.9
70. t»
26.9
3. 37
1.3
13.4
1.9
12.4
16.9
1972
17
5. 06
1.8
70. 6
34.4
2.78 .
1.2
13.0
2.0
8.3
8. 5
1975
18
4. 20
0.8
75.0
24.2
1.71
0.7
13.3
2.1
5.6
6.2
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
0
151 - 250
11
4.45
1.0
72.3
30.0
2.17
1.1
16.7
1.6
12. 7
14. 5
251 - 350
53
5.49
2.2
83.3
33.6
2.45
1.1
13.5
1.3
9.3
12.5
MORE THAN 350
36
5. 10
1.4
81. 3
40.5
3.22
1.5
12.1
1.3
8.6
8.1
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
3
4. U9
1.2
64. 7
26. U
2. 56
1. 7
17.9
2.2
23.0
23.3
2800 - 3799
51
5.44
2.1
80. 0
35.8
2.38
1.1
14.1
1.6
7. 5
8.3
3800 - 1(799
44
5. 13
1.6
82. 8
36. 7
3. 11
1.4
12.2
1.0
10.5
12.9
4800 - 5799
2
3. 44
0. 1
109. 5
22.3
1. 85
0.3
9.8
1.2
15.5
9.2
ALL VEHICLES
100
5.23
1. 8
81. it
35.7
2.70
1.3
13.3
1.9
9. U
11. 3
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
ALTITUDE RETROFIT EVALUATION
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSTALLATION
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1 OF
HC
CO
NOX
MPfi
DEMERITS
VEH.
MEAN S
.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN S
.0.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
U
6.33
2.7
75.5
30. 0
3.49
1.6
13.4
1.6
19.5
13.4
BUICK
6
5.27
0.9
92.1
30.5
3.59
1.7
11.7
1.2
10. 7
6.9
CAOILLAC
2
5. 14
0.6
8
-------
ALTITUDE RETROFIT EVALUATION
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSTALLATION
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN S.D.
DEMERITS
MEAN S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
4
-0.548
0.9
-8. 21
41.3 -0.516
1.0 -0.22
1.5
-11.25
15.5
BUICK
6
-0.407
0.7
8.69
38.3 -0.577
1.2 -0.26
0.9
-2.67
8.3
CADILLAC
2
-1.697
0.8
25. 52
62.0 -2.565
2.2 -0.60
0.1
11.50
9.2
CHEVROLET
26
-0.331
1. 7
2.25
26.4 -0.759
0.7 -0.67
2.8
1.96
16.6
CHRYSLER
1
-3.284
0.0
4.42
0.0 -0.973
0.0 -0.88
0.0
-28.00
0. 0
DODGE
6
1.982
3. 7
60. 88
55.5 -2.317
2.4 -1.17
0. 8
-8. 83
15.4
FORD
27
0.025
1.4
6.24
23.2 -0.519
0.7 -0.44
1.0
0.30
11.0
MERCURY
6
0. 126
0. 8
8. 32
15.8 -0.138
0.3 -0.43
0.9
-1.67
6.9
OLDSMOBILE
6
-0.396
0.6
-i».51
12.8 -0.633
1.5 -0.07
0.6
-23.50
44. 3
PLYMOUTH
8
1.952
2.6
55.61
9.7 -1.693
0.9 -1.30
1.0
-8.50
16.9
PONTIAC
8
0. 113
0. 8
16. 56
20.0 -0.787
1.5 -0.35
0.4
1.75
13.9
•MODEL YEAR
1968
16
-0.059
3. 1
14.69
46.2 -1.342
1.5 -0.60
1.2
1.88
9.0
1969
17
0. 198
2.5
18. 56
42.4 -1.356
1.7 -0.63
0.7
-6.06
13.0
1970
15
0.207
0.7
16. 41
23.2 -0.737
0.7 -0.46
0. 8
-11.80
32.1
1971
17
-0.002
0.9
11.52
23.3 -0.727
0.8 -0.48
1.1
1.47
20.5
1972
17
0. 249
1.7
6. 58
30.7 -0.451
0.8 -0.30
0.8
-2.24
14.6
1973
18
-0.120
1. 1
9.05
26.1 -0.451
0.7 -0.93
3.4
-0.11
5.3
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151 0
151 - 250 11 -0. 385 0.9 4.69 23.9 -0. Ui+9 0.8 -0.42 1.3 2.45 15.3
251 - 350 53 0.398 1.9 19.08 33.6 -0.969 1.2 -0.86 2.0 -4.28 21.0
MORE THAN 350 36 -0. 259 1. 8 5.68 32.2 -0. 762 1. 2 -0.20 0. 7 -1. 81 12. i»
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 -
2799
3
-0.145
0.3
-5. 49
10.2 -0.018
0.4 0.37
1.3
12.33
24. 0
2800 -
3799
51
0. 314
1.8
17.41
33.9 -0.779
1.2 -0.60
1.0
-0.84
11.4
3800 -
4 799
44
-0.105
2.0
7. 83
30.6 -0.883
1.1 -0.61
2.2
-6.41
22.4
4800 -
5799
2
-1.697
0.8
25. 52
62.0 -2.565
2.2 -0.60
0.1
11.50
9.2
ALL VEHICLES
100
0.076 1.8 12.67 32.6 -0.837 1.2 -0.57 1.6 -2.65 17.7
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATDRIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
ALTITUDE RETROFIT EVALUATION
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
9 OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
4
-9.
U8
-12.
21
-17.
37
-1.
65
-71.6
-1073.8
-67.5
BUICK
6
-8.
38
8.
62
-19.
18
-2.
30
-32.3
689. 2
-45. 8
CADILLAC
2
-49.
31
23.
31
-138.
76
-6.
16
-138.9
2090.2
-210.1
CHEVROLET
26
-6.
47
3.
10
-28.
89
-1).
92
-27.6
188.0
-63.4
CHRYSLER
1
-76.
63
6.
07
-39.
98
-7.
72
-366.9
493.9
-108.7
DODGE
6
28.
20
59.
87
-97.
90
-8.
53
201.1
6175.9
-235.0
FORD
27
0.
48
7.
,97
-20.
22
-3.
17
2.6
653. 7
-54.3
MERCURY
6
2.
It 6
13.
53
-3.
76
-3.
10
12.3
810.0
-13.5
OLDSMOBILE
6
-8.
50
-6.
02
-23.
68
-0.
51
-30.2
-31*3.6
-48.2
PLYMOUTH
8
33.
58
54.
27
-79.
26
-9.
60
229.7
65141.9
-199.2
PONTIAC
8
2.
28
18.
3U
-23.
71
-2.
88
7.8
1148.2
-54.6
•MODEL YEAR
1968
16
-0.
,99
14.
,91
-54.
82
-u.
i»6
-5.2
1288.2
-117.7
1969
17
3.
,29
21.
, 00
-41.
89
-4.
66
19.3
1809.3
-132.2
1970
15
3.
,96
18.
,75
-27.
71
-3.
47
17.8
1409.3
-63.3
1971
17
-0.
,03
16.
,35
-21.
59
-3.
55
-0.1
1081.0
-68.3
1972
17
4.
92
9.
, 32
-16.
20
-2.
31
22.1
583.7
-40.0
1973
18
-2.
, 86
12.
,07
-26.
33
-7.
01
-11.6
870.4
-43.3
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
0
151 - 250
11
-8.
,65
6.
. U9
-20.
67
-2.
51
-75.2
915.1
-87. 7
251 - 350
53
7.
,26
22.
,90
-39.
59
-6.
36
33.6
1610.9
-81. 8
MORE THAN 350
36
-5.
,07
6.
,98
-23.
66
-1.
65
-22.9
502. 0
-67. 3
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
3
-3.
,24
-8,
.50
-0.
71
2.
07
-36.3
-1373.7
-4.5
2800 - 3799
51
5.
, 78
21.
. 76
-32.
77
-U.
21
30.5
1692.0
-75.6
3800 - 4799
44
-2.
, 05
9,
.45
-28.
35
-4 .
96
-8.7
649.9
-73.3
4800 - 5799
2
-49.
. 31
23,
.31
-138.
76
-6.
16
-13 8.9
2090.2
-210.1
ALL VEHICLES
100
1,
. 44
15,
. 57
-31.
06
-4.
29
6.9
1161. 1
-76. 7
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MODIFIED TUNING SPECIFICATION EVALUATION VEHICLES
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
RUN
039
1968
PONT
VENT
1(28
8
4
A
4500
069716
01
057
1971
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2000
034981
02
059
1965
CHEV
STAW
327
8
4
A
4000
079730
03
075
1971
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
022051
05
07U
1965
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
A
3500
073336
04
103
1973
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
009029
06
106
196b
FORD
GALA
289
8
2
3
4500
030087
07
111
1972
FORD
TORI
302
8
2
A
4000
017170
08
112
1970
FORD
MUST
351
8
2
A
3500
051330
09
113
1969
CHEV
STAW
350
8
4
A
4000
075334
10
115
1967
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
4000
064860
11
123
1964
CHEV
IMP
283
8
2
A
4000
085172
12
1U7
1970
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
4000
080466
14
1*9
1966
FORD
GALA
352
8
4
A
4000
078274
13
175
1972
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
021117
15
179
1973
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
017115
20
180
1968
FORD
GALA
302
8
2
A
4000
076747
19
181
1968
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3000
042449
18
183
1971
CHEV
STAW
400
8
2
A
4500
021163
17
193
1969
FORD
FAIR
302
8
2
3
3500
054596
16
198
1966
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
4000
083297
24
210
1973
VOLK
SEDA
97
1*
1
4
2000
015868
21
212
1907
FORD
MUST
289
8
2
3
3000
051835
22
21li
1966
PONT
CATA
389
8
2
A
4000
046086
23
289
1969
VOLK
SEDA
91
4
1
4
2000
063512
25
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MODIFIED TUNING SPECIPICATION EVALUATION
EXHAUST EM ISSIONS
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
PARAMETERS AT
EXPIREMENTAL « OF HC CO NOX MPG DEMERITS
SETTING TESTS MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D.
«SINGLE ITEMS
A-F RATIO
99
6.42
2.8
86. 7
43.5
2.92
1.6
14.5
3.0
23.8
32.0
BASIC TIMING
100
7.32
3.5
92.3
45.0
3. 17
1.7
14.6
2.8
25.0
35.0
IDLE RPM
100
6. 83
3.2
94.6
45.3
2.83
1.6
14.2
2.8
24.2
32.5
CHOKE SETTING
100
7. 04
3.3
92. 5
1(1*.6
2.91
1.6
14.4
2.9
25.7
34.3
«COMBINATIONS OF
TWO
A/F-TIMING
50
6. 75
3.0
84. 5
40.6
3.37
1.8
14.7
3.0
26.0
34.4
A/F-RPM
50
6.44
2.9
86. 3
43.6
3.02
1.7
14.3
2.9
25.2
34.7
A/F-CHOKE
51
6.41
2.8
8U. 7
42.0
3.06
1.7
14.5
3.0
26. 8
37.2
TIMING-RPM
50
7.20
3.6
91.9
45.1
3.24
1.8
14.4
2.8
27.4
38.4
TIMING-CHOKE
51
7.62
3.8
89. 1
44. 3
3.34
1.8
14.7
2. 7
27.6
38.8
RPM-CHOKE
50
7.03
3. 3
92.9
43. 0
3.03
1.8
14.3
2. 8
27.3
34. 1
AF-TIM. ONLY
23
6. 82
3. 0
88. 2
43.3
3.10
1.7
15.0
3.1
22.2
25.7
AF-RPM ONLY
25
6.07
2.7
89.6
U8. 0
2.47
1.2
14.1
2.9
19.0
25.6
AF-CHOKE ONLY
24
6.11
2.5
88.6
4 5.9
2.45
1.1
14.4
3.3
24.1
33.5
TIM.-RPM ONLY
24
7.25
3.7
103. 5
48. 5
2.85
1.5
14.1
2.7
24.2
36.0
TIM.-CHOKE ONLY
23
8.36
4.0
100. 7
48. 4
2.96
1.6
14.7
2.7
26. 7
37.9
RPM-CHOKE ONLY
24
6. 89
3. 0
105. U
43.6
2.40
1.2
13.9
2.8
23.9
25. 1
•COMBINATIONS OF
FOUR
ALL PARAMETERS
25
6. 81
3. 1
83. 1
39. 5
3.56
2.0
14.5
2.9
31.5
41.5
MANUF. SPECS.
25
7.00
2.9
107.9
44.2
2.08
0.9
14.5
3.3
15.2
16.3
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MOD IFIEO TUNING SPECIFICATION EVALUATION
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS FROM MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
PARAMETERS AT
EXPIREMENTAL ~ OF HC CO NOX MPG DEMERITS
SETTING TESTS MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D.
•SINGLE ITEMS
A-F RATIO
99
0.611
2.2
21.66
22. 2
-0.854
1.0
-0.03
1.0
-8.67
25.7
BASIC TIMING
100
-0.318
2.5
15. 54
23. 5
-1.093
1. 1
-0.14
1.2
-9. 89
30. 2
IDLE RPM
100
0.171
2.2
13.28
23. 3
-0.756
1.0
0.25
1.1
-9.05
25.9
CHOKE SETTING
100
-0.0U6
2.4
15. 34
24. 2
-0.835
1. 1
0. 04
1.1
-10.50
28.2
•COMBINATIONS OF
TOO
A/F-TIMING
50
0.250
2.3
23.41
23.1
-1.296
1.2
-0.27
1.0
-10.88
28. 7
A/F-RPM
50
0; 556
2.2
21. 52
23.5
-0.939
1.1
0.13
1.1
-10.08
26.1
A/F-CHOKE
51
0. 580
2.1
24.25
23. 2
-0.996
1.1
-0. 04
0.9
-12.14
30. 5
TIMING-RPM
50
-0.208
2.5
15.92
24.4
-1.164
1.2
0.09
1.1
-12.28
32.9
TIMING-CHOKE
51
-0.648
2.8
18.64
25.8
-1.261
1.2
-0. 19
1.1
-12.73
32. 2
RPM-CHOKE
50
-0.035
2.5
15.00
26. 1
-0.949
1.2
0. 19
1.0
-12.14
26. 5
AF-TIM. ONLY
23
0.335
2.5
19.57
20. 3
-1.038
1.0
-0.40
0.9
-6.26
23.2
AF-11PM ONLY
25
0.927
2.1
18. 31
21.9
-0.395
0.6
0.34
1.2
-3.80
14. 3
AF-CHOKE ONLY
2 4
1.032
1.8
21.50
20. 8
-0.411
0.5
0.09
0.9
-9.12
28.6
TIM.-RPM ONLY
24
-0.197
1.7
4. 59
16.6
-0.769
1.0
0.33
1.2
-8.46
33.4
TIM.-CHOKE ONLY
23
-1.199
2.5
7. 05
20.9
-0.899
1.1
-0. 15
1.2
-10.74
33.1
RPM-CHOKE ONLY
24
0. 163
1.8
2.68
20.2
-0.321
0.6
0.56
1.0
-8.17
17. 3
•COMBINATIONS OF
FOUR
ALL PARAMETERS
25
0. 185
2.3
24. 73
25.1
-1.483
1.3
-0.07
1.0
-16.36
33.3
MANUF. SPECS.
25
0.000
0.0
0. 00
0.0
0. 000
0.0
0.00
0.0
0. 00
0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MODIFIED TUNING SPECIFICATION EVALUATION
PERCENT REDUCTIONS FROM MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
PARAMETERS AT
EXPERIMENTAL
SETTING
# OF
TESTS
HC
•PERCENT REDUCTIONS-
CO NOX
MPG
•SINGLE ITEMS
A-F RATIO
BASIC TIMING
IDLE RPM
CHOKE SETTING
99
100
100
100
9. 51
¦I• . 35
2. 50
¦0.65
2U. 97
16.83
li». OU
16.58
-29.23
-3i».l»7
-26.67
-28.67
•0.21
-0. 9i»
1. 78
0. 28
•COMBINATIONS OF TWO
A/F-TIMING 50 3.71
A/F-RPM 50 8.63
A/F-CHOKE 51 9.0i»
TIMlNG-RPM 50 -2.89
TIMING-CHOKE 51 -8.50
RPM-CHOKE 50 -0.50
AF-TIM. ONLY 23 i».91
AF-RPM ONLY 25 15.28
AF-CHOKE ONLY 2U 16.90
TIM.-RPM ONLY 2U -2.72
TIM.-CHOKE ONLY 23 -11». 35
RPM-CHOKE ONLY 2U 2.37
27.72
2U.92
28.62
17.31
20.90
16.16
22. 19
20. i»i»
2U. 27
U.li3
7. 00
2. 5l»
38. U2
31.12
32.56
35.91
37.77
31.36
33. i»i»
15.96
16.81
27.00
30.31
13.37
•1.85
0.93
•0. 30
0. 59
-1.30
1.37
*2.67
2. 39
0.65
2.33
-0.99
U. 01
•COMBINATIONS OF FOUR
ALL PARAMETERS
25
2.71
29. 75
-U1.6U
-0.1(8
MANUF. SPECS.
25
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.00
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MANDATORY MAINTENANCE EVALUATION VEHICLES
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
LABOR
HOURS
LABOR
-COSTS-'
PARTS
TOTAL
015
1967
FORD
STAW
2 89
8
2
3
3500
0602U0
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
017
1966
CHEV
BISC
283
8
2
A
UOOO
0510U5
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57.11
021
1967
PLYM
BELV
273
8
2
A
3500
070009
1.90
22. 80
21.31
UU. 11
025
1966
DODG
VAN
273
8
2
3
3500
05U7U0
1.90
22. 80
21.31
UU. 11
02 8
196U
OLDS
STAW
330
8
2
A
UOOO
089020
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
029
1965
PONT
TEMP
326
8
2
A
3500
059585
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57.11
035
1965
DODG.
POLA
383
8
2
A
uoon
06UU63
1.90
22. 80
21.31
UU. 11
037
196U
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
3
3500
052629
1. 80
21.60
22.75
UU. 35
039
1968
PONT
VENT
1)28
8
U
A
1)500
069716
2. 80
33.60
25. 17
58. 77
0U0
1968
FORD
CUST
302
8
2
A
UOOO
019UU5
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
0U1
1970
CHEV
NOVA
230
6
2
A
3000
030980
1.90
22. 80
19.U1
U 2. 21
0i»2
1969
PLYM
BELV
318
8
2
A
3500
039269
1.90
22. 80
21.31
UU. 11
0U3
1971
FORD
MAVE
170
6
2
3
2750
020583
1. 60
19. 20
18.55
37. 75
0U5
1972
DODG
DART
225
6
1
A
3000
005U1U
1.60
19. 20
17.U1
36. 61
057
1971
VOLK
SEDA
97
U
1
it
2000
03U981
2. 00
2U. 00
10. 55
3U. 55
059
1965
CHEV
STAW
327
8
1)
A
UOOO
079730
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
070
1972
PONT
CAT A
U00
8
2
A
U 500
016700
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57. 11
073
1971
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
022051
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
074
1965
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
A
3500
073336
1.80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
077
1972
CHEV
IMPA
UOO
8
I)
A
U500
0278U8
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
082
1971
PLYM
STAW
383
8
2
A
UOOO
0508U3
1.90
22.80
21.31
UU. 11
091
1973
PONT
LEMA
1)00
8
2
A
UOOO
00670U
2. 80
33. 60
23.51
57.11
098
1972
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
026575
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
099
1971
CHEV
BLAZ
350
8
U
it
UOOO
019987
2. 80
35.60
25.17
58.77
100
1969
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3000
OU 719 0
1.80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
101
1969
CHEV
STAW
327
8
2
A
U500
068576
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57.11
103
1973
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
009029
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
104
1968
PLYM
BELV
273
8
2
A
3500
058630
1.90
22. 80
21.31
UU. 11
106
1964
FORD
GALA
2 89
8
2
3
U500
030087
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
111
19 72
FORD
TORI
302
8
2
A
UOOO
017170
1. 80
21.60
22.75
UU. 35
112
1970
FORD
MUST
351
8
2
A
3500
051330
1.80
21.60
22. 75
UU. 35
113
1969
CHEV
STAW
350
8
i*
A
UOOO
07533U
2. 80
33. 60
25. 17
58. 77
115
1967
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
UOOO
06U860
2.80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
117
1970
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
UOOO
053727
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57. 11
123
1961*
CHEV
IMP
283
8
2
A
UOOO
085172
2.80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
125
1971
PONT
CATA
UOO
8
2
A
U500
029602
2. 80
33. 60
23.51
57. 11
133
1970
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
0U5898
1. 80
21. 60
22. 75
UU. 35
139
1970
FORD
TORI
250
6
1
3
3500
031895
1.60
19.20
18. 55
37. 75
1U0
1966
OLDS
DYNA
U25
8
2
A
U500
OU 85 53
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
1U2
1972
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
025592
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57.11
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
VEH
1U3
Hit
145
1U6
Id 7
148
li»9
150
152
153
155
156
161
166
169
171
172
173
175
178
179
180
181
182
183
18U
187
188
193
19b
195
196
198
200
204
205
210
211
212
21U
MANDATORY MAINTENANCE EVALUATION VEHICLES
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
LABOR
HOURS
LABOR
-COSTS-
PARTS
TOTAL
1966
FORD
MUST
2 89
8
2
A
3000
038659
1.80
21.60
22. 75
l»4. 35
19 72
FORD
GALA
400
8
2
A
itOOO
012721
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44. 35
1973
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
005516
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
44.35
1969
OLDS
DELT
U 55
8
2
A
uo no
0 615 9 U
2.80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
1970
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
ItOOO
0 8 0 4 6 G
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1972
PLYM
SATE
uon
8
2
A
3500
01466 0
1.90
22. 80
21.31
44.11
1966
FORD
GALA
352
8
It
A
ItOOO
07 82 74
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44.35
1971
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
026700
1.90
22. 80
21. 31
44.11
1971
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
ItOOO
029562
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
44.35
1965
CHEV
BELA
283
8
2
A
ItOOO
130460
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57. 11
1968
CHEV
BELA
307
8
2
A
ItOOO
066417
2.80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1971
VOLK
SEDA
97
it
1
it
2000
024425
2.00
24.00
10. 55
34. 55
1969
MERC
COUG
351
8
2
A
3500
01(7191
1.80
21.60
22.75
44. 35
1970
VOLK
SEDA
97
it
1
it
2000
012474
2.00
24.00
10. 55
34. 55
1965
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
ItOOO
113497
1.90
22. 80
21.31
44.11
1965
FORD
STAW
289
8
2
A
4500
071002
1.80
21.60
22.75
44. 35
1964
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
3500
110629
2.80
33.60
23. 51
57. 11
1972
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
3500
026639
2.80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
19 72
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
021117
2.80
33.60
23.51
57.11
196U
FORD
GALA
390
8
it
A
ItOOO
059024
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44. 35
1973
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
017115
2.80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
1968
FORD
GALA
302
8
2
A
ItOOO
076747
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44. 35
1968
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3000
042449
2.80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
1968
CHEV
CAME
327
8
2
A
3500
083026
2. 80
53.60
23.51
57.11
1971
CHEV
STAW
400
8
2
A
it 5 00
0211B3
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57.11
1971
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
ItOOO
035988
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57. 11
1973
FORD
LTD
351
8
2
A
4 500
004725
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44.35
1971
MERC
COUG
351
8
2
A
ItOOO
017215
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
44. 35
1969
FORD
FAIR
302
8
2
3
3500
054596
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44. 35
1968
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
It
A
itOOO
054000
2.80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
1973
CHEV
CHEV
350
8
2
A
U000
006886
2.80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1971
CHEV
CAPR
400
8
2
A
I* 500
036250
2.80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1966
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
U000
083297
2.80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1972
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
015710
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1970
FORD
GALA
390
8
2
A
U000
020723
1.80
21.60
22.75
44. 35
1969
CHEV
STAW
350
8
It
A
1» 5 00
093878
2.80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
1973
VOLK
SEDA
97
It
1
It
2000
015868
2.00
24.00
10.55
34.55
19 70
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
ItOOO
063652
1.90
22. 80
21.31
44. 11
1967
FORD
MUST
289
8
2
3
3000
051835
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44.35
1966
PONT
CATA
389
8
2
A
ItOOO
046086
2.80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MANDATORY MAINTENANCE EVALUATION VEHICLES
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
LABOR
HOURS
LABOR
-COSTS-
PARTS
TOTAL
217
1972
CADI
COUP
472
8
4
A
5000
017251
2.80
33.60
25. 17
58. 77
218
1973
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
016372
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57.11
220
1968
BUI C
LESA
350
8
4
A
4500
074568
2.80
33.60
25. 17
58.77
22b
1968
CHEV
MALI
250
6
1
A
35 00
043307
1.90
22. 80
19.41
42.21
225
1968
CHEV
STAW
396
8
4
A
4500
048577
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
226
1973
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
003813
1.90
22.80
21. 31
44.11
227
1973
AMMO
STAW
30U
8
2
A
3000
003437
2. 00
24.00
9.55
33. 55
231
1973
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
A
3500
007751
1.90
22. 80
21.31
44.11
232
1973
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
3
2500
003468
1.60
19.20
18. 55
37. 75
233
1972
BUI C
LESA
350
8
4
A
4500
020861
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
2 34
1968
MERC
COUG
302
8
4
A
3500
074758
1. 80
21.60
27.35
48.95
237
1968
CADI
FLEE
472
8
4
A
5000
065733
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58.77
238
1969
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
051016
1.90
22.80
21.31
44.11
2U2
1970
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3500
016785
1. 80
21. 60
22. 75
44.35
243
1969
PONT
CATA
400
8
2
A
4000
057823
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57.11
245
1968
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
3
3500
077348
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44. 35
246
1968
OLDS
DELT
U 55
8
2
A
4500
114750
2.80
33.60
23. 51
57. 11
21. 7
1968
FORD
GALA
390
8
2
A
4000
046034
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
44. 35
248
1969
PONT
LEMA
350
8
2
A
4000
027997
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
249
1971
PLYM
FURY
383
8
4
A
4000
030259
1.90
22. 80
21.93
44. 73
250
1970
CHEV
CAME
350
8
2
4
3500
047370
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57. 11
251
1973
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
4
A
4000
006702
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
252
1973
OLDS
OMEG
350
8
4
3
3500
009599
2.80
33.60
25.17
58.77
254
1970
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3000
036423
1. 80
21.60
22. 75
44.35
255
1972
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3000
032867
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
261
1969
FORD
MUST
200
6
1
3
3000
068680
1.60
19.20
18.55
37. 75
262
1973
CHEV
STAW
i»54
8
4
A
4500
017416
2. 80
33.60
25. 17
58. 77
265
1969
CHEV
CAPR
32 7
8
4
A
4000
030213
2.80
33.60
25. 17
58.77
267
1967
FORD
FALC
200
6
1
3
2750
103550
1.60
19. 20
18.55
37. 75
271
1967
PONT
FIRE
326
8
4
A
3500
059028
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
272
1966
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
4000
092494
1.90
22.80
21. 31
44. 11
273
19 70
CHEV
CAPR
400
8
2
A
4000
047305
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
274
1970
BUI C
SKYL
350
8
4
A
4000
034266
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
2 76
1966
PONT
LEMA
326
8
4
A
3500
073426
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57. 11
280
1967
CHEV
STAW
327
8
4
3
4000
096491
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
282
1968
FORD
FALC
170
6
1
3
3000
097889
1.60
19.20
18.55
37. 75
283
1968
PONT
CATA
400
8
4
A
4500
075255
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58. 77
2 84
1971
AMMO
AMBA
401
8
4
A
4000
031837
2. 00
24. 00
9.55
33. 55
285
1968
PLYM
BARR
318
8
2
A
3500
060568
1.90
22. 80
21.31
44. 11
286
1968
DODG
CHAR
318
8
2
A
3500
065609
1.90
22. 80
21.31
44. 11
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
VEH
287
288
2 89
291
292
293
294
295
297
298
299
301
302
303
30U
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
MANDATORY MAINTENANCE EVALUATION VEHICLES
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
LABOR
HOURS
LABOR
-COSTS-
PARTS
TOTAL
1971
BUI C
LESA
U55
8
4
A
1)500
017998
2. 80
33.60
25. 17
58.77
1968
PONT
TEMP
350
8
2
A
3500
0U0178
2. 80
33.60
23. 51
57.11
1969
VOLK
SEDA
91
U
1
4
2000
063512
2.00
24.00
10.55
31). 55
1969
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
<1000
052667
1.90
22. 80
21.31
44. 11
1971
CHEV
NOVA
30 7
8
2
A
3500
029533
2. 80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1972
FORO
MUST
351
8
4
A
3500
01981)3
1.80
21.60
27.35
U8.95
1969
CHRY
NEWP
383
8
2
A
i«500
065163
1.90
22. 80
21.31
UU. 11
1970
OOOG
POLA
383
8
2
A
1)500
053251)
1.90
22. 80
21.31
1)1). 11
1971
PLYM
DUST
19 8
6
1
3
3000
027781)
1.60
19.20
17.1)1
36.61
1972
AMMO
JAVE
360
8
I»
4
3500
023737
2.00
21). 00
9.55
33.55
1972
PLYM
SATE
318
8
2
A
3500
028091
1.90
22.80
21. 31
44.11
1973
MERC
COME
302
8
2
A
3000
010801)
1.80
21.60
22. 75
i«i). 35
1973
BUI C
CENT
350
8
4
A
1)000
006508
2.80
33.60
25.17
58.77
1973
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
A
3500
0061)73
1.90
22. 80
21.31
1)1). 11
1972
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
022983
1.90
22.80
21.31
i)U. 11
1969
AMMO
AMBA
290
8
2
A
1)000
051)001
2.00
21).00
8.75
32. 75
1969
BUI C
ELEC
U 3 0
8
U
A
1)500
03U89 8
2. 80
33.60
25. 17
58. 77
1969
CHEV
NOVA
230
6
1
A
3000
029124
1.90
22.80
19.1)1
1)2.21
1969
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
021037
1.80
21.60
22.75
Uit.35
1969
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
071)369
1.80
21.60
22.75
44. 35
1972
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
0081)55
1.80
21.60
22. 75
i»i). 35
1972
FORD
MAVE
250
6
1
A
2 750
022036
1.60
19.20
18.55
37.75
1972
MERC
COME
302
8
2
A
3000
008589
1.80
21.60
22.75
44. 35
1971
FORD
BRON
302
8
2
3
3500
0201)1)0
1.80
21.60
22.75
1)1).35
1971
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
U
A
3500
026169
2. 80
33.60
25.17
58.77
1970
MERC
MONT
302
8
2
3
3500
027532
1.80
21.60
22. 75
44.35
1971
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
A
2750
023567
1.60
19. 20
18.55
37.75
1971
FORn
GALA
400
8
2
A
1)000
01)0209
1.80
21.60
22. 75
1)1).35
1971
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
0131)1)1)
1.80
21.60
22. 75
1)1). 35
1973
FORD
MUST
351
8
2
A
3500
0031)1)5
1.80
21.60
22.75
1)1).35
1970
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
A
3500
012130
1.90
22.80
19.1)1
1)2.21
1970
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
032511
2.80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1970
PONT
TEMP
350
8
2
A
3500
03081)9
2.80
33.60
23.51
57.11
1973
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
3
3500
001)682
1.90
22. 80
19.U1
1)2.21
1973
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
1)500
016385
1.80
21.60
22. 75
41).35
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MANDATORY MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
EXHAUST EMISSIONS BEFORE MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
~ OF
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
VEH.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
U
6.60
2.60
99. 2
30. 8
2. (* 1
1. 26
12.75
0.94
BUICK
6
5.92
2.03
127.1*
1*2.6
2. I*5
1.01
11.28
1.41
CADILLAC
2
3.80
1.01
111.3
10. 3
1.8U
0.69
9.92
1.34
CHEVROLET
U1
8. 85
8.1*9
110.3
61*. 3
2.57
1. 36
13.09
1.96
CHRYSLER
1
It. 63
0. 00
73. 8
0.0
2. I* 3
0. 00
11. 90
0.00
DODGE
9
7.68
5. 76
106.1*
38.2
2. 79
1.03
11*. 25
1.59
FORD
1*5
7.19
i».i»i*
88. 3
32. 1
3.02
1.65
11*. 1*2
2.62
MERCURY
6
5.31
1.04
62.3
23.7
3.24
1.72
14.69
1.77
OLDSMOBILE
8
6. 70
3.63
117.8
1*9. 1
2.33
1.09
11.88
0.97
PLYMOUTH
15
8. 57
6. 36
129.6
1*7. 9
2. 27
1. 18
13.37
1.84
PONTIAC
13
7.1*0
i*. 3U
113.7
53.6
2. 8U
1.37
12. 30
1.04
VOLKSWAGEN
5
5.1*1
0.93
80. 3
13.0
1. 89
0.1*7
21.22
1.23
•MODEL YEAR
196l<
6
12. 27
2.66
160.9
33.6
1.61
0. 59
12. 71*
0.92
1965
7
12.95
6. 87
183.6
70.7
1.79
1.56
12.27
1.67
1966
9
13.59
11. 70
11*0.9
35.6
2.1*3
0.90
12.92
1.61
1967
7
11. 12
I*.07
11*5.0
52. 5
1. 75
1.1*0
11*.98
3.42
1968
21
6.98
2. 22
113.2
58.8
3.01
1.98
13. 56
2.07
1969
21
7.1*6
7.1*2
95.7
39.9
3.11
1. 11
13. 80
2. 70
1970
19
7. 87
6.06
89.7
39.1*
3. 17
1. 19
11*.20
2.58
1971
23
6.68
5.07
85.0
29.6
3. 39
1.1*7
11*. 00
3.65
1972
21
5. 11
1.63
90.0
31.5
2.61
0.97
13. 22
2.31
1973
21
4.22
1.03
75.3
21.5
1. 80
0.63
13. 65
2.45
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
5
5. 4 1
0.93
80.3
13. n
1. 89
0.1*7
21.22
1.23
151 - 250
15
5.07
1.66
80.1*
26. 3
2.1*1
1.10
16.98
2. 89
251 - 350
88
8. 75
6. 85
112.3
55 .9
2.53
1.33
13.1*9
1.64
MORE THAN 350
1*7
6. 21*
3.91
97.1
37.0
3. 15
1.51
12. 03
1.47
• INERTIA WE I CUT
1800 -
2709
10
4.99
1. 16
75.5
21.5
2. 26
1.07
20.28
2.71
2800 -
3799
74
6. 79
3. 41
94.7
41.3
2.52
1.21
14. 30
1.65
3800 -
4799
69
8. 79
7. 71
116.0
55. 5
2.94
1.57
12.07
1.18
4800 -
5799
2
3. 80
1. 01
111.3
10. 3
1.8 4
0. 69
9.92
1.34
• POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
1968 - 1973
ALL VEHICLES
29
126
155
12.57 7.41
6.37 4.65
7. 53 5. 78
156.1» 50.2
91.U 39.4
103.6 1*8.6
1.91*
2. 85
2.68
1. 16
1. 38
1. 38
13. 22
13. 73
13.6U
2.25
2.66
2. 59
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LARORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MANDATORY MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
EXHAUST
EMISSIONS
AFTER
MAINTENANCE
1975
FEDERAL
TEST PROCEDURE
# OF
HC
CO
NOX
MPfi
VEH.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
4
5.78
2.26
67.3
27.3
2.97
1.13
13. 13
0.4 7
BUICK
6
4. 86
1.12
100. 8
37. 2
3. 01
1.92
11.44
1.32
CADILLAC
2
3.tfh
0. 1U
109. 5
22. 1
1. 85
0. 33
9. SI
1. 22
CHEVROLET
1(1
6.16
2. 71
96. 5
52. 5
2.27
1.10
13.42
1.60
CHRYSLER
1
1». 29
0.00
72.9
0.0
2.1(3
0. 00
11.46
0.00
DODGE
9
7. 77
5. 16
116. 1
59.5
2.25
1.02
14.05
2.03
FORD
45
6. 26
2.87
8 5.3
31+. 3
2. 55
1.22
14. 41
2.60
MERCURY
6
5. 13
0. 99
61.5
24. 7
3.67
2.15
14.01
1.42
OLDSMOBILE
8
5.61
2. 17
98.9
55. 1
2.37
1. 04
12.48
1.02
PLYMOUTH
15
6.26
2.43
112.7
29. 5
2.12
0. 79
13.65
1.93
PONT 1 AC
13
6.21
1.93
1014. 7
48.1
2. 80
1.44
12.43
0.99
VOLKSWAGEN
5
4.95
1. 02
75. 1
8 . !(
1.62
0.28
22.23
1.14
~MODEL YEAR
1964
6
11. 02
2. 79
167. 8
33. 7
1.21
0. 75
12. 70
1.20
1965
7
9. 71
2. 32
160.3
33. 3
1.60
0. 84
12.92
1.05
1966
9
9. 32
3. 03
135.3
43.8
2.33
1. 06
13.43
1. 38
196 7
7
9.64
3. 44
13 3.1
45.3
1.68
1.25
15.57
3.28
1968
21
6. 12
2.66
98.3
41.3
2.47
1. 26
13.41
1.91
1969
21
5.95
2. 18
86.0
37.8
3. 16
1.36
14.20
2 . 49
1970
19
5. 14
1. 06
83.1
33.6
2.60
0. 82
13.97
2. 76
1971
23
4.90
0.90
73.0
27. 8
3.07
1. 30
14.47
3.75
1972
21
5. 01
1.67
76. 5
34.0
2 . 69
1.14
13. 20
2.12
1973
21
4.20
0. 81
74.9
22.6
1.69
0. 70
13.69
2.57
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
251 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
5
4.95
1.02
75.1
8.4
1.62
0. 28
22.23
1. 14
15
4. 32
0. 88
68.8
27.7
2.45
1. 08
17.58
2.33
88
6.68
3.02
103.0
46.0
2.20
1.10
13. 55
1. 36
47
5.65
2.22
87.7
40. 7
3. 05
1.34
12.17
1.30
-INERTIA WEIGHT
1800
- 2 799
10
4.6 5
0.99
67.9
16.4
2.24
1. 19
20.93
2.44
2800
- 3799
74
6.01
2. 73
89. 0
41.3
2. 29
1. 10
14. 28
1.64
3800
- 4799
69
6.44
2.80
103.0
46.9
2.70
1.34
12.37
1.01
4800
- 5799
2
3.44
0. 14
109. 5
22.3
1. 85
0. 33
9.81
1.22
•POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
1968 - 1973
ALL VEHICLES
29
126
155
9.84 2.85
5.22 1.78
6. 08 2. 71
147.7 1(0.6
81.8 33.8
94.1 1(3.5
1.77 1.04
2.62 1.21
2.1(6 1.22
13.67
13.83
13.80
2.15
2.67
2.57
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING . LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MANDATORY MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
# OF
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
VEH.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
s.n.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
4
0. 819
1.16
31.88
38.22
-0.562
1.00
-0.386
0.69
BUICK
6
1.054
1. 12
26.63
39. 55
-0.560
1.3-7
-0.156
1. 39
CAOILLAC
2
0. 357
1.15
1. 76
11.92
-0.011
0. 36
0. Ill
0. 13
CHEVROLET
41
2. 694
V. 39
13.82
39. 44
0. 309
0.86
-0.337
1.27
CHRYSLER
1
0. 34 0
0. 00
0.91
0. 00
0.001
0.00
0.443
0. 00
DODGE
9
-0.090
3.61
-9.63
39. 02
0.54 0
0. q 2
0. 203
0.71
FORD
45
0.928
4.05
3.01
24. 76
0.470
1.15
0. 009
1.03
MERCURY
6
0. 186
1.25
0. 83
25.44
-0.436
1.30
0.673
1.48
OLDSMORILE
8
1. 087
3. 30
18.89
2 3.43
-0.039
0. 55
.-0.604
0.77
PLYMOUTH
15
2. 309
6.48
16.91
21. 85
0.152
0.6 3
-0.287
1. 16
PONT 1 AC
13
1. 195
4.28
8.96
25. 10
0.038
0.56
-0.135
1.07
VOLKSWAGEN
5
0.452
1. 07
5.25
14.87
0. 270
0.29
-1.003
1.45
•MODEL YEAR
1964
6
1.253
3.98
-6. 88
22.60
0.400
0. ? 5
0.046
0.90
1965
7
3.243
5. 76
23. 36
45. 16
0. 1K3
0.96
-0.649
1.12
1966
9
4. 276
10. 57
5. 59
22. 84
0. 091
0.46
-0.514
1.03
1967
7
1.483
1. 89
11.13
23. 08
0. 070
0.42
-0.594
0.71
1968
21
0. 859
3. 23
14.88
47. 31
0.539
1.22
0. 148
1.3 7
1969
21
1.510
7. 50
9.71
40.9 7
-0.044
1.15
-0.397
1.20
1970
19 '
2. 733
6. 06
6. 58
26. 79
0.571
1.38
0. 237
1. 32
1971
23
1. 780
5.24
12.00
17. 79
0.318
0.78
-0.475
0.95
1972
21
0. 104
1.28
13.50
29.72
-0.078
0.94
0. 020
1.13
1973
21
0. 021
0. 62
0. 38
13. 75
0.111
0.35
-0.047
0. 89
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
5
0.452
1. 07
5.25
14. 87
0.270
0.29
-1.003
1.45
151 - 250
15
0. 757
1. 56
11.58
27.90
-0.045
0.58
-0.604
1.14
251 - 350
88
2.077
6.05
9. 30
35.17
0. 331
0.92
-0.054
1. 19
MORE THAN 350
47
0. 594
4. 02
9. 38
2 4. 84
0. 09 5
1.14
-0. 137
0.92
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2 719 10
2800 - 3799 74
3800 - 4 799 69
4800 - 5799 2
0. 3U 1 0.84
0. 782 2.1)1
2.352 7.19
0. 357 1. 15
7.r,9 2 0. 96
5.66 26.02
13.92 36.74
1.76 11.92
0.016
0.230
0. 2 it 8
-0.011
0.58
0.98
1.00
0. 36
-0.6U5 1.21
0.021 1.18
-0.298 1.05
0.111 0.13
~POPULATIONS
19614 - 1967
1968 - 1973
ALL VEHICLES
29
126
155
2.727 6.66
1.15 3 4. 69
1.447 5.13
8.64 30.03
9.59 31.32
9.41 30.99
0. 172
0.232
0.221
0.57
1.03
0.96
-0.450 0.94
-0.097 1.16
-0.163 1.13
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LARORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
MANDATORY MAINTENANCE EVALUATION
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
* OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MI L L I GRAMS/M I L E/DO L LAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
4
12. U2
32. 14
-23.34
-3. 03
24.6
955.9
-16.9
BUI CK
6
17. 81
20.90
-22.83
-1.38
17.9
453. 2
-9. 5
CADILLAC
2
9. 39
1.58
-0.58
1.12
6. 1
29.9
-0. 2
CHEVROLET
Ul
30.it3
12.53
12.00
-2.57
48.4
248. 1
5.5
CHRYSLER
1
7. 35
1.23
0.05
3. 73
7.7
20.5
0.0
DODGE
9
-1. 17
-9 . 05
19. 39
1. 42
-2.1
-222.6
12.5
FORD
U5
12.92
3.40
15. 54
0. 06
21.4
69.4
10.9
MERCURY
6
3. 50
1.33
-13.47
4. 58
4.1
18.4
-9.7
OLDSMOBILE
8
16. 22
16. 03
-1.65
-5. 08
18.8
32 7. 1
-0. 7
PLYMOUTH
15
2 6.94
13. 05
6.69
-2. 14
52.9
38 7. 3
3.5
PONTIAC
13
16. 15
7. 88
1. 34
-1.10
20.8
156.2
0. 7
VOLKSWAGEN
5
8. 36
6. 53
14. 30
-4.73
13.1
151.8
7.8
•MODEL YEAR
196U
6
10. 21
-4.27
24.84
0. 36
24.7
-135.6
7.9
1965
7
25.03
12.72
10.27
-5.29
65.2
469.5
3.7
1966
9
31.46
3.97
3. 77
-3.98
83.2
108. 7
1.8
1967
7
13.33
7.67
3.98
-3.97
30.2
226.8
1.4
1968
21
12. 30
13.14
17.97
1.09
16.8
290.2
10. 5
1969
21
20. 2lt
10. 14
-1.42
-2.88
31.4
201.8
-0.9
1970
19
34. 72
7.33
18.01
1.6 7
56.9
137.0
11.9
1971
23
26.66
14.12
9. 38
-3.40
38.1
2 56 .6
6.8
1972
21
2.03
15. 00
-2.98
0.15
2.1
2 75.2
-1.6
1973
21
0. 49
0.51
6. ir,
-0. 34
0.4
7.9
2.3
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
5
8. 36
6. 53
14.30
-4.73
13.1
151.8
7.8
151 - 250
15
14.92
14.41
-1. 86
-3. 56
19.4
296.4
-1. 1
251 - 350
88
23. 73
8.29
13.01
-0.40
40.8
182.9
6.5
MORE THAN 350
U 7
9. 51
9.66
3. 02
-1. 14
11.9
188. 5
1.9
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
10
6. 84
10. 17
0.71
-3. 18
9.4
212.6
0.4
2800 - 3799
74
11. 52
5.97
9.13
0.14
16.6
120.3
, 4.9
3800 - U799
69
26. 75
11.90
8.42
-2.47
44.9
265 .6
4.7
1*800 - 5799
2
9. 39
1.58
-0. 58
1.12
6.1
29.9
-0. 2
• POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
29
2 1. r,g
5. 52
8.88
-3.40
54.2
171. 7
3.4
1968 - 1973
126
18. 10
10. 50
8. 14
-0. 71
23.7
197. 7
4.8
ALL VEH1CLES
155
19. 22
9. 09
8. 24
-1.20
29.6
192.7
4.5
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
IDLE INSPECTION EVALUATION VEHICLES
COST5
VEH
YEAR.
MAKE
MODEL
CI D
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
FA 1 LURE
1 NS P.
MTCE.
001
1965
OLDS
DELT
4 2 5
8
4
A
4500
040150
PASS
4. 00
0.00
002
1967
MERC
COUfi
289
8
4
A
3500
070863
CO
2. 50
35.00
003
1966
Bill C
LESA
340
8
4
A
4000
022 75 0
BOTH
3.50
16.25
004
1967
BUIC
SPEC
300
8
2
A
3500
048935
CO
4.50
3.60
006
1967
CADI
SEDA
429
8
4
A
5000
104304
CO
1. 50
3.00
007
1966
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
4
A
4000
043884
HC
5. 50
6.60
008
19 6 U
VOLK
SEDA
73
4
1
4
2000
105861
PASS
5. 00
0. 00
010
1966
CHRY
300
383
8
4
A
4000
0 60648
CO
6. 00
6. 00
Oil
1966
CHEV
CHE 2
191+
6
1
3
3000
072251
CO
5.50
5.50
012
1967
CHRY
ST AW
383
8
4
A
5000
063004
PASS
2.50
0.50
013
1965
Donn
DART
225
6
1
A
3000
032679
PASS
3. 50
0. 00
014
1964
CHEV
CHE 2
191)
6
1
3
3000
049237
PASS
4. 00
0. 00
015
1967
FORD
ST AW
289
8
2
3
3500
060240
CO
5. 00
2.00
016
1967
FORD
FALC
289
8
2
A
3000
059003
PASS
5.50
0.00
017
1966
CHEV
Bl SC
283
8
2
A
4000
051045
PASS
1. 50
0.00
010
1965
AMMO
CLAS
2 32
6
1
3
3000
062545
CO
4. 50
3.00
020
1967
OLDS
DELT
4 25
8
4
A
4500
080113
HC
5.50
9.90
021
1967
PLYM
BFLV
273
8
2
A
3500
070009
PASS
6. 00
0.00
022
1971
CHEV
VEGA
1U 0
4
2
4
2 500
040186
CO
5. 50
6.60
023
1973
FORD
STAW
400
8
2
A
5000
003001
HC
3.50
2. 00
024
196 U
CHRY
NEW P
31.1
8
2
A
4 500
099340
CO
6. 00
36. 57
025
1966
DODG
VAN
273
8
2
3
3500
054740
PASS
4.00
0.00
026
1965
CADI
DEVI
429
8
4
A
5000
084961
PASS
2.50
0.00
027
1965
MERC
MONR
390
8
2
A
4000
072548
PASS
4.00
0. 00
028
19 6 U
OLDS
STAW
330
8
2
A
4000
089020
BOTH
4.50
5. 00
020
1965
PONT
TEMP
326
8
2
A
3500
050585
PASS
5.00
0.00
030
196a
CADI
DEVI
1(29
8
4
A
5000
048156
CO
2.50
7.50
031
1964
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
4
A
35 00
060672
CO
2.50
48.07
033
1965
FORD
MUST
200
6
1
A
3000
065042
HC
1. 50
4.50
035
1965
DO DC,
POLA
383
8
2
A
4000
064463
PASS
6. 00
0.00
036
1965
BUI C
SKY L
300
8
2
A
3500
075400
BOTH
3. 50
15.30
037
1961)
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
3
3500
052629
HC
5. 50
5.50
038
1966
FORD
GALA
390
8
4
A
4000
054520
PASS
4. 50
0.00
039
1968
PONT
VENT
42 8
8
4
A
4 500
069 716
HC
5.50
5.50
040
1968
FORD
CUST
302
8
2
A
4000
019445
HC
1.50
18. 84
041
1970
CHEV
NOVA
230
6
2
A
3000
0309 SO
BOTH
5.50
6.60
042
I960
PLYM
BELV
318
8
2
A
3500
030269
BOTH
2.50
7. 50
043
1971
FORD
HAVE
170
6
2
3
2 750
020583
PASS
5. 00
0.00
044
1967
CHEV
CAPR
327
8
4
A
4000
046046
PASS
4.00
0.00
Oil 5
1972
DO DC,
DART
225
6
1
A
3000
005414
HC
6. 00
6.00
0U6
1965
PLYM
VALI
225
6
1
3
3000
085428
PASS
4.00
0.00
Oil 8
1967
MERC
STAW
390
8
2
A
4 50 0
064033
PASS
1.50
0. 00
0U9
1967
CHEV
CAI1A
2 5 0
6
1
4
3000
076864
BOTH
4. 50
6. 00
051
1969
OLDS
DELT
it 55
8
2
A
4500
064800
PASS
2.50
0.00
053
196U
DODG
POLA
318
8
2
A
4000
042474
BOTH
3.50
4.50
055
1966
FORD
MUST
200
6
1
A
3000
054749
CO
2.50
7.50
056
1964
CHEV
BELA
230
6
1
A
3500
046660
CO
1.50
0.00
057
1971
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2000
034981
CO
5.00
1.00
059
1965
CHEV
STAW
327
8
4
A
4000
079730
BOTH
2.50
10.35
060
1970
CADI
DEVI
4 72
8
4
A
5000
045946
PASS
4.50
0. 00
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
IDLE INSPECTION EVALUATION VEHICLES
COSTS--
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CI D
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
odoh.
FA 1 LURE
1 NSP.
MTCE.
061
1972
CHEV
VEGA
mo
U
2
U
2500
025S79
PASS
5.00
0.00
063
1967
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
UOOO
OU2005
HC
3.50
7.50
06U
1970
AMMO
REBE
232
6
1
A
3500
06U875
PASS
U.50
0.00
065
1970
CHRY
NEW P
383
8
2
A
U 500
036717
BOTH
6.00
11. 20
066
1970
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
3
3000
03 73 61
BOTH
2.50
7. 50
067
1971
CADI
DEVI
U72
8
U
A
5000
0U1770
PASS
2.50
0.00
068
1968
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
3500
05U881
BOTH
5.00
6.00
069
1967
FORD
LTD
390
8
2
A
UOOO
0U8253
CO
5.50
11.00
070
1972
PONT
CATA
uoo
8
2
A
U 5 0 0
Olfi 700
HC
1.50
3.00
071
1972
VOLK
SEDA
97
U
1
U
22 50
OU13U7
CO
5. 00
1.00
072
1972
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
A
3000
01283't
BOTH
5.00
U.90
073
1971
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
35 00
022051
PASS
5.50
0. 00
07U
1965
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
A
3500
0 7 3 3 3 f>
PASS
3.50
0.00
075
1971
FORD
PI NT
98
It
1
U
2250
012609
BOTH
5.00
11. 00
076
1967
BUI C
LESA
340
8
U
A
UOOO
021887
PASS
2.50
0.00
077
1972
CHEV
IMPA
UOO
8
U
A
U 5 00
0278U8
PASS
3.50
0.00
078
1972
FORD
STAW
351
8
2
A
uono
020U3U
PASS
5.50
0.00
079
1971
FORD
STAW
UOO
8
2
A
U 5 00
03528U
BOTH
2.50
18. 00
080
1967
CHEV
MALI
283
8
2
3
3500
075280
BOTH
5.50
6.60
082
1971
PLYM
STAW
383
8
2
A
UOOO
0508U3
BOTH
6.00
6.00
083
1970
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
016 300
CO
2.50
5.00
08k
1970
PONT
GTO
uoo
8
U
A
UOOO
0U28U6
HC
U.00
0.00
085
1968
BUI C
R 1 VI
U 30
8
U
A
U 500
060029
BOTH
5.50
5.50
087
1967
OLDS
STAW
330
8
2
A
UOOO
06U223
PASS
U.50
0. 00
088
1967
AMMO
STAW
290
8
2
A
UOOO
072UU0
BOTH
2.50
7.50
090
1970
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
A
2 750
0 2 2 U 6 7
PASS
5.00
0.00
091
1973
PONT
LEMA
UOO
8
2
A
UOOO
00670U
PASS
5.00
0.50
09 2
1970
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
A
2 750
035000
BOTH
1.50
U. 50
093
1972
PLYM
DUST
198
6
1
A
3000
020817
BOTH
6.00
6.00
09 h
1969
BUI C
LESA
350
8
U
A
U 500
03U309
BOTH
U. 00
0.00
095
1968
AMMO
STAW
290
8
2
A
UOOO
052932
CO
2.50
U. 00
096
1965
PONT
CATA
389
8
It
A
UOOO
076369
BOTH
3.50
38.05
097
196U
PLYM
VALI
170
6
1
3
3000
026268
PASS
5.50
0.00
098
1972
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
026575
HC
2.50
7.50
099
1971
CHEV
BLAZ
350
8
U
U
UOOO
019987
BOTH
5.50
3.30
100
1969
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3000
OU 7190
BOTH
5.00
2.00
101
19r;9
CHEV
STAW
327
8
2
A
U 500
06 8 5 76
BOTH
1.50
70.59
102
19BU
MERC
PARK
390
8
U
A
U 5 00
055285
PASS
U.50
0.00
103
1973
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
009029
PASS
5.50
0.00
10U
1968
PLYM
BELV
273
8
2
A
3500
058630
BOTH
U. 00
0.50
106
196U
FORD
GALA
2 89
8
2
3
U 500
030087
PASS
5.00
0.00
107
1965
CHEV
CORV
16 U
6
2
U
2 750
076078
BOTH
2.50
7.50
108
19 6 U
FORD
FALC
200
6
1
3
3000
08733U
PASS
1.50
0. 00
109
19C6
AMMO
AMER
232
6
1
3
3000
06U169
PASS
1.50
0. 00
110
1969
CHEV
CHEV
307
8
2
A
3500
OU 55 77
CO
2. 50
7.50
111
1972
FORD
TORI
302
8
2
A
UOOO
017170
PASS
3.50
0.00
112
1970
FORD
MUST
351
8
2
A
3500
051330
PASS
U.50
0.00
113
1969
CHEV
STAW
350
8
U
A
UOOO
07533U
CO
6.00
6. 00
115
1967
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
UOOO
06U860
PASS
5.50
0. 00
116
1975
CHEV
VEGA
1U0
U
2
3
2500
009706
BOTH
2.50
7. 50
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
IDLE INSPECTION EVALUATION VEHICLES
--COSTS
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CI P
CYL
CARR
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
FAILURE
1 NSP.
MTCE.
117
19 70
OLOS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
UOOO
053727
BOTH
5.00
2.00
118
1967
PONT
CATA
UOO
8
2
A
UOOO
071128
PASS
1. 50
0. 00
119
1971
PONT
LEMA
350
8
2
A
3500
031776
PASS
5. 50
0.00
120
1967
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
0UU9U2
HC
6.00
6.00
121
1967
VOLK
SEDA
91
U
1
U
2000
OU 85 82
BOTH
5.00
2.00
122
1967
PONT
FIRE
326
8
2
3
3500
0U21U6
BOTH
2.50
25. U9
123
196U
CHEV
IMP
283
8
2
A
UOOO
085172
PASS
3.50
0.00
12U
1973
VOLK
BUS
102
It
2
U
3000
003006
HC
2.50
5.00
125
1971
PONT
CATA
UOO
8
2
A
U 500
029602
PASS
u. no
0.00
126
1966
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
U
A
UOOO
033735
BOTH
5.50
6.60
127
1966
dodg
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
OU 8?19
CO
6.00
6.00
128
1966
MERC
MONT
390
8
2
A
UOOO
108053
BOTH
U. 50
13.50
129
1965
CHEV
Bl SC
283
8
2
A
3500
073598
BOTH
3.50
7.00
130
1965
ford
MUST
200
6
1
3
2 750
092515
PASS
2.50
0.00
132
1965
VOLK
SEDA
73
U
1
U
2000
089782
HC
5. 50
11. 00
133
1970
FORD
TOR 1
351
8
2
A
3500
OU 5 89 8
BOTH
2.50
U3.50
13U
1969
DODG
CORO
225
6
1
A
3500
0386G5
CO
6.00
6.00
135
1969
VOLK
SEDA
91
It
1
U
2000
068227
HC
5.00
U. 50
136
1965
OLOS
CIJTL
330
8
2
A'
3500
01(5665
PASS
U. 00
0.00
137
196U
CHEV
STAW
327
8
U
A
U 50 0
07108G
PASS
U. 50
0.00
139
15 70
FORD
TORI
250
6
1
3
3500
031895
HC
2.50
7.U7
1U0
1966
OLOS
DYNA
42 5
8
2
A
U50fl
0U8553
BOTH
5.50
6.60
1U1
1972
TOYO
STAW
120
U
2
A
2 750
0098UO
PASS
5.50
0.00
ll»2
1972
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
025592
PASS
U. 00
0.00
1U3
1966
FORD
MUST
289
8
2
A
3000
038659
PASS
5.00
0.00
1UU
1972
FORD
fiALA
uno
8
2
A
UOOO
012 721
BOTH
3.50
U . 50
1U5
1973
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
005516
PASS
1.50
0. 00
1U6
1969
OLDS
DELT
l»55
8
2
A
UOOO
06159 U
CO
U. 50
1.50
1U 7
1970
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
UOOO
0 8 0 U 6 6
HC
6.00
12.00
1U8
1972
PLYM
SATE
UOO
8
2
A
3500
01U 6 6 n
CO
6.00
6.00
1U9
1966
FORD
GALA
352
8
U
A
UOOO
07 8? 7U
CO
5.50
11.00
150
1971
dodg
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
0 2 6 7 0 0
CO
2.50
3.00
151
1971
VOLV
1U5S
121
U
2
U
3000
Oil 59 U 5
PASS
5.00
0.00
152
1971
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
UOOO
029562
HC
U. 50
30.01
153
1965
CHEV
BELA
283
8
2
A
UOOO
130U60
PASS
3.50
0. 00
15U
1968
VOLK
SEDA
91
1)
1
A
2000
050U86
BOTH
2.50
11. 00
155
1968
CHEV
BELA
307
8
2
A
UOOO
0R6U17
BOTH
1.50
3.00
156
1971
VOLK
SEDA
97
U
1
U
2000
02UU25
PASS
5.00
0. 00
157
1973
VOLK
SEDA
97
U
1
U
2000
007972
PASS
5.50
0.00
158
1970
OLDS
STAW
U 5 5
8
U
A
U 500
0337U7
PASS
U.00
0.00
159
1968
CHEV
BELA
250
6
1
A
UOOO
009065
PASS
5.50
0.00
160
1969
CADI
FLEE
U 72
8
u
A
5000
036519
PASS
U. 50
0.00
161
1969
MERC
COUG
351
8
2
A
3500
OU 7191
PASS
2.50
0.00
162
196U
CHEV
S TAW
283
8
U
A
UOOO
07U6U3
BOTH
3.50
U. 50
163
1972
DATS
STAW
97
U
1
U
2500
02U888
HC
5.50
12.50
165
196U
PONT
CATA
389
8
2
A
UOOO
05U195
BOTH
2.50
51. U5
166
1970
VOLK
SEDA
97
U
1
U
2000
012U7U
BOTH
5. 00
1.00
168
1966
VOLK
SEDA
78
u
1
U
2000
OU 85 75
CO
5.50
11.00
169
1965
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
UOOO
113U97
BOTH
6.00
6.00
170
1966
FORD
MUST
2 89
8
2
A
3000
081058
BOTH
2.50
7.50
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
11900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
IDLE INSPECTION EVALUATION VEHICLES
COSTS
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
THAN
1 .WT
onon.
FAILURE
1 NSP.
MTCE.
171
1965
FORD
STAW
289
8
2
A
It 5 0 0
071092
CO
3. 50
2. 50
172
196U
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
35 00
110629
BOTH
5. 50
9.90
173
1972
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
3500
026639
PASS
1. 50
0. 00
17U
1969
FORD
FAIR
302
8
2
A
3500
055127
BOTH
U. 50
U. 50
175
1972
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
021117
PASS
2.50
0.00
176
1973
CADI
DEVI
U72
8
it
A
5000
007U05
PASS
3.50
0.00
177
1972
CHRY
NEWP
I* 00
8
2
A
1(500
0291)93
BOTH
6. 00
39.95
178
196U
FORD
GALA
390
8
it
A
It 000
05902U
PASS
1.50
0.00
179
1973
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
017115
PASS
2.50
0.00
180
1968
FORD
GALA
302
8
2
A
1)000
07671)7
BOTH
U. 50
32.07
181
1968
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3000
0U2UU9
BOTH
3.50
7.00
182
1968
CHEV
CAME
327
8
2
A
35 00
083926
BOTH
U. 00
0. 00
183
1971
CHEV
STAW
1(00
8
2
A
1)500
021163
PASS
2.50
0. 00
18U
1971
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
1)000
0 3 59 88
BOTH
5. 50
6.60
185
1971
TOYO
CORO
71
U
2
it
2000
029881
BOTH
5.50
12.50
186
1970
VOLK
SEDA
97
U
1
it
2000
OU 8300
BOTH
5.00
U.00
187
1973
FORD
LTD
351
8
2
A
1)500
001)725
PASS
1.50
0.00
188
1971
MERC
COUG
351
8
2
A
1)000
017215
PASS
U. 00
0. 00
189
1971
DODO
DART
225
6
1
A
3000
011166
BOTH
6.00
6. 00
190
1973
PLYM
DUST
225
6
1
A
3000
008056
PASS
U. 00
0.00
191
1967
CHEV
CHE2
19 U
6
1
3
3000
0 2 2 2 66
BOTH
U. 50
2.50
192
1966
CHEV
CHEV
230
6
1
A
3500
01)69 73
CO
2.50
5. 00
193
1969
FORD
FAIR
302
8
2
3
3500
05 U 596
BOTH
2.50
15.00
19 U
1968
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
it
A
1)000
051)000
BOTH
5.50
U5. 87
195
1CJ73
CHEV
CHEV
350
8
2
A
1)000
006386
BOTH
2.50
5. 00
196
1971
CHEV
CAPR
i»00
8
2
A
1)500
036250
PASS
3.50
0.00
197
1972
FORD
PINT
122
It
2
A
2250
011175
PASS
1.50
0. 00
198
1966
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
UOOO
083297
BOTH
U. 00
13. 85
199
1967
VOLK
SEDA
91
It
1
It
2000
068155
BOTH
5.00
1.00
200
1972
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
015710
BOTH
5.50
9.90
201
1973
FORD
PI NT
122
it
1
A
2500
010729
BOTH
2.50
26.90
202
1973
DATS
1200
71
it
1
it
2000
000519
PASS
5. 50
0. 00
203
1973
CHRY
NEUP
U00
8
2
A
1)500
059U07
BOTH
6.00
27. U5
201*
1970
FORD
GALA
390
8
2
A
UOOO
020723
PASS
U. 50
0. 00
205
1969
CHEV
STAW
350
8
it
A
it 50 0
093878
BOTH
U.00
6. 87
206
1965
CADI
FLEE
<4 29
8
it
A
5500
0531U6
PASS
3.50
0.00
207
1972
VOLK
SQRK
97
It
F 1
it
2500
011511
PASS
5.00
0. 00
208
1971
DATS
510
97
it
1
it
2000
027615
BOTH
5.50
5. 50
209
1966
BUI C
ElEC
U01
8
'i
A
1(500
056U28
BOTH
2.50
7. 50
210
1973
VOLK
SEDA
97
it
1
it
2000
015868
CO
5.50
5. 50
211
1970
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
It 00 0
063652
HC
6.00
U 5. 08
212
1967
FORD
MUST
2 89
8
2
3
3000
051835
CO
1.50
3. 00
213
1966
CHEV
STAW
283
8
2
3
UOOO
061637
PASS
5. 50
0.00
2 1U
1966
PONT
CATA
389
8
2
A
UOOO
0U6086
PASS
2.50
0. 00
217
1972
CADI
COUP
U 7?
8
it
A
5000
017251
PASS
U. 50
0. 00
218
1973
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
016372
PASS
U.00
0.00
219
1968
CHRY
STAW
383
8
it
A
1)500
071302
CO
6. 00
6. 00
220
1968
BUI C
LESA
3 5 0
8
it
A
1)500
07U568
BOTH
5.50
6.60
221
1961)
PONT
GRAN
389
8
It
A
UOOO
07UU01
BOTH
2.50
15.00
222
19614
AMMO
AMER
196
6
1
3
3000
068526
PASS
1.50
0. 00
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
IDLE INSPECTION EVALUATION VEHICLES
---COSTS
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
FAILURE
1 NSP.
MTCE.
223
1964
BUIC
Wl LD
401
8
It
A
4500
051818
HC
2.50
2.00
221*
1968
CHEV
MALI
250
6
1
A
3500
043307
CO
4.50
1.50
225
1968
CHEV
STAW
396
8
It
A
4 50 0
048577
BOTH
3.50
56.65
226
1973
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
003813
BOTH
2.50
7. 50
227
1973
AMMO
STAW
3014
8
2
A
3000
003437
PASS
4.00
0.00
228
1971
OPEL
1900
116
It
1
A
2 250
0116 20
PASS
5.50
0.00
229
1972
VOLK
SEDA
97
14
1
It
2000
018774
BOTH
5.00
4.00
230
1966
PLYM
BELE
225
6
1
3
3500
099961
CO
6.00
6.00
231
1973
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
A
3500
007751
BOTH
6.00
6.00
232
1973
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
3
2500
003468
PASS
1.50
0. 00
233
1972
BUI C
LESA
350
8
It
A
4500
020861
PASS
5.00
0. 00
234
1968
MERC
COUG
302
8
4
A
3500
074758
BOTH
2.50
49. 11
235
1965
BUI C
Wl LD
U 2 5
8
It
A
4500
078046
BOTH
4. 50
48.92
236
1965
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
It
A
4000
061259
BOTH
2.50
7.50
237
1968
CADI
FLEE
4 72
8
It
A
5000
065733
PASS
4.00
0.00
238
1969
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
051016
HC
1.50
18. 82
239
1968
VOLK
SEDA
91
U
1
it
2000
084309
CO
5.50
0. 00
2(40
1965
CHEV
CHEV
230
6
1
A
3000
071640
PASS
3.50
0.00
2 U1
1965
CHEV
IMPA
396
8
a
A
3500
101402
BOTH
5.00
0.00
2 U 2
19 7.0
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3500
016785
HC
3.50
4. 50
2 4 3
1969
PONT
CATA
<400
8
2
A
4000
057823
BOTH
2.50
12.50
2U5
1968
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
3
3500
077348
HC
4.50
6.00
2 U 6
1968
OLDS
DELT
U55
8
2
A
4500
114750
PASS
1.50
0.00
247
1968
FORD
GALA
390
8
2
A
4000
046034
PASS
1.50
0. 00
2 it 8
1969
PONT
LEMA
350
8
2
A
4000
027997
PASS
5.00
0.00
249
1971
PLYM
FURY
383
8
it
A
4000
030259
PASS
6.00
0. 00
250
1970
CHEV
CAME
350
8
2
it
3500
047370
ROTH
2. 50
7. 50
251
1973
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
it
A
4000
006702
PASS
5.50
0.00
252
1973
OLDS
OMEG
350
8
4
3
3500
009599
PASS
4.00
0. 00
2514
1970
FORP
MUST
302
8
2
A
3000
0 36423
PASS
3.50
o. on
255
1972
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3000
0 3 2 86 7
BOTH
1.50
1. 50
256
1966
OLDS
CUTL
330
8
2
A
3500
053077
HC
4.50
41. 20
257
1965
CHRY
STAW
i* 13
8
it
A
5000
083241
PASS
5.50
0.00
258
1965
FORD
THUN
390
8
it
A
5000
0 8 3010
CO
2.50
2. 00
259
1966
VOLK
FAST
97
14
2
it
22 50
115141
PASS
5.50
0.00
260
1971
CHRY
IMPE
U it 0
8
it
A
5000
023677
PASS
c. no
0.00
261
1969
FORD
MUST
200
6
1
3
3000
068680
PASS
5.00
0.00
262
1973
CHEV
STAW
454
8
it
A
4500
017416
PASS
5.50
0.00
263
1968
DODG
DART
273
8
2
3
3000
065448
PASS
6.00
0. 00
264
1972
OPEL
1900
11G
U
2
it
2250
022672
HC
5.50
5.50
265
1969
CHEV
CAPR
327
8
4
A
4000
030213
BOTH
2.50
5.00
266
1967
FORD
MUST
200
6
1
3
3000
064477
CO
4.50
3. 00
267
1967
FORD
FALC
200
6
1
3
2750
103550
BOTH
2.50
7. 50
268
1973
DODG
DART
225
6
2
A
3000
025094
PASS
6. 00
6. 00
269
1968
TOYO
CORO
11G
It
2
14
2500
061312
PASS
5.50
0. 00
270
1971
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
A
3500
095217
PASS
5.50
0. 00
271
1967
PONT
FIRE
326
8
it
A
3500
059028
PASS
4.00
0. 00
272
1966
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
4000
092494
CO
6.00
6.00
273
1970
CHEV
CAPR
400
8
2
A
4000
047305
CO
3.50
4. 50
27U
1970
Bill C
SKY L
350
8
4
A
4000
034266
PASS
1.50
0.00
AUTOMOTIVE TEST I NG LABORATORIES,INC.
19000 E. COLrAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
IDLE INSPECTION EVALUAT I 0 •' VEHICLES
COSTS--
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
1 .WT
ODOM.
FAILURE
1 NSP.
MTCE.
276
1966
PONT
LEMA
326
8
it
A
3500
073U26
BOTH
5.00
1.00
277
1966
FORD
ST AW
289
8
2
A
3000
08U032
CO
2.50
11. 20
278
1965
FORD
MUST
289
8
it
A
3000
059885
PASS
2.50
0. 00
2 79
1973
TOYO
STAW
120
it
2
A
2500
003829
PASS
5.50
0.00
280
1967
CHEV
STAW
327
8
it
3
UOOO
096U91
BOTH
5.50
6.60
281
1966
FORD
MUST
200
6
1
A
3000
059352
PASS
U. 50
0. 00
282
1968
FORD
FALC
170
6
1
3
3000
09 7889
PASS
U. 00
0. 00
283
1968
PONT
CATA
UOO
8
It
A
U 50 0
075255
PASS
2.50
0.00
2 81»
1971
AMMO
AMBA
U01
8
U
A
uuoo
031837
HC
1. 50
UO. 20
285
1968
PLYM
BARR
318
8
2
A
3500
060568
HC
U . 50
it. 50
286
1968
oo or,
CHAR
318
8
2
A
35"0
065609
BOTH
6.00
6.00
287
1971
BUI C
LESA
it 5 5
8
it
A
it 5 0 0
017998
BOTH
2. 50
5.00
288
1968
PONT
TEMP
350
8
2
A
3500
0U0 178
CO
3. 50
U.00
289
1969
VOLK
S EOA
91
it
1
it
2000
063512
PASS
5.50
0.00
291
1969
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
UOOO
052667
BOTH
2. 50
11. 70
292
1971
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
029533
PASS
5.50
0.00
293
1972
FORD
MUST
351
8
U
A
3500
0198U3
PASS
1. 50
0. 00
29U
1969
CHRY
NEWP
383
8
2
A
U 500
065163
PASS
U. 00
0. 00
295
19 70
DODO
POLA
383
8
2
A
U 50 0
05325U
CO
3.50
2. 00
296
1965
FORD
MUST
260
8
2
A
3000
052813
BOTH
5.00
2.00
297
1971
PLYM
DUST
198
6
1
3
3000
02778U
BOTH
6. 00
0. 00
298
1972
AMMO
JAVE
30 0
8
it
it
3500
023737
PASS
5.00
0. 00
299
1972
PLYM
SATE
3 18
8
2
A
3500
028091
BOTH
U.00
0.00
300
1973
OPEL
MANT
116
it
2
It
2 250
006817
CO
5.50
11.00
301
1973
MERC
COME
302
8
2
A
3000
01080it
BOTH
2. 50
7. 50
302
1973
BUI C
CENT
350
8
it
A
UOOO
006508
PASS
5.50
0. 00
303
1973
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
A
3500
006U73
PASS
U. 50
0. 00
30lt
1972
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
022983
PASS
6. 00
0.00
305
1969
AMMO
AMBA
290
8
2
A
UOOO
0 5 U 001
PASS
2.50
0. 00
306
1969
Bill C
ELEC
1)30
8
it
A
U 50 0
0 3 U 89 8
CO
U. 50
1. 50
307
1969
CHEV
NO A
230
6
1
A
3000
0 2 912 U
BOTH
5.50
9.90
308
1969
FORD
TOR I
351
8
2
A
3500
021037
PASS
1.50
0. 00
309
1969
FORO
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
0 7 U 3 6 9
BOTH
3.50
2. 00
310
19 7 2
ford
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
0 08 U 5 5
BOTH
2.50
7. 50
311
1972
FORD
HAVE
250
R
1
A
2 750
022036
CO
5.00
2. 00
312
1972
MERC
COME
302
8
2
A
3000
008589
PASS
U.00
0. 00
31U
1971
FORD
BRON
302
8
2
3
3500
020UU0
HC
It. 50
36.07
315
1971
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
U
A
3500
026169
PASS
5.50
0. 00
3 3 ii
1970
MERC
MONT
302
8
2
3
3500
027537
HC
2.50
U. 00
317
1971
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
A
2 750
023567
PASS
5.00
0.00
318
1971
FORD
GALA
UOO
8
2
A
UOOO
OU 0 209
BOTH
U.00
0. 00
319
19 71
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
013UUU
CO
3.50
U . 50
320
1973
FORD
MUST
351
8
2
A
3500
003UU5
PASS
1. 50
0.00
321
1970
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
A
3500
012130
PASS
6. 00
0.00
322
1970
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A
3500
032511
BOTH
2.50
7.50
323
1970
PONT
TEMP
350
8
2
A
3500
0308U9
BOTH
U. 50
21. 5U
32U
1973
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
3
3500
00U682
PASS
3. 50
0. 00
325
1973
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
U 500
016385
PASS
1.50
0. 00
326
1969
TOYO
CORO
116
it
2
U
2500
076050
HC
5.50
U6. 50
327
1970
TOYO
CORO
113
it
2
U
2500
051836
HC
5.50
0. 00
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIE S , INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS BEFORE INSPECTION
1975 FFOERAL TEST PROCEDURE
* OF HC CO NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAM S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
7.
. 33
2.
, 38
102.
. q
27.
9
2.
, 70
1.
,27
15.
, 00
2.
74
BUI CK
15
10.
,01
6.
, 82
lit 8.
, 3
4 3.
, U
2.
, 3 it
1.
,22
12.
, 01
1.
35
CAOILLAC
10
6.
, 89
3.
, 81
12 7.
,9
60.
, it
2.
, 69
1.
,28
10.
,42
1.
, 35
CHEVROLET
67
8.
,97
7.
, Oil
119.
, it
63.
, 8
2.
, 29
1.
, 2 it
13.
,93
2.
. 6 8
CHRYSLER
10
11.
,51
9.
, lit
172.
7
67.
, 8
2.
, 11
1.
,07
10,
. 81
1.
, 34
DATSUN
3
It.
,21
0.
95
It 1.
, 1
5.
, 0
2.
,77
1.
,00
23.
,41
1.
,58
DODGE
18
7.
,28
5.
, 09
102.
, 2
«t 2.
, 8
2.
, 96
1.
, 14
14.
,94
1.
,92
FORD
68
7.
, 23
3.
93
95.
, 2
35.
. 8
2.
,98
1.
, 71
14.
, 81
2.
.94
MERCURY
11
7.
, 81*
4.
10
99.
. it
69.
6
3.
,'t 9
2.
,67
13.
,56
1.
,95
OLDSMOBILE
16
7.
, 80
4.
, 38
119.
, 7
i»0.
, 3
2.
,36
1.
,08
12.
,25
1.
, 14
OPEL
3
U.
, 51
1.
5!|
70.
0
29.
, 3
2.
, 19
1.
, 08
21.
, 53
1.
, 00
PLYMOUTH
22
8.
, 38
5.
, 58
123.
, 0
itG.
, 2
2.
, 26
1.
, 06
14,
,33
2.
, 25
PONTIAC
20
9.
, 17
7.
29
118.
, 3
64,
, 8
2,
,67
1.
, 32
12.
,46
1.
, 30
TOYOTA
6
>t.
, «t 3
1.
,62
72.
, 8
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
19 75 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
19614-1967 VEHICLES: 13 HC FAILURES, 13 CO FAILURES, 20.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 22 HC FAILURES, 21 CO FAILURES, 20.0% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
7.
, 07
2.
,22
100.
5
27.
, 3
2.
, 81
1.
,42
15.
, 13
BIJ 1 CK
15
8.
, 63
5.
, 83
145.
, 0
46.
,9
2.
, 29
1.
, 14
12.
, 09
CADILLAC
10
6.
, 89
3.
, 81
127.
9
60.
, 4
2,
, 69
1.
,28
10.
,42
CHEVROLET
67
8.
, 70
7.
, 20
11 it.
8
53.
. 1
2,
.25
1.
, 09
14.
, 02
CHRYSLER
10
7.
63
2.
, 60
13 it.
1
43.
, 7
2.
,37
0.
,95
11.
, 53
DATSIJN
3
i».
, 21
0.
,95
41.
1
5.
, 0
2.
,77
1.
, 00
23,
.41
DOOr,E
18
6.
,66
4.
, 25
97.
4
37.
, 9
3.
, 00
1.
, 07
15.
. 11
FORD
68
6.
, 66
2.
, 80
93.
3
35.
, 7
2.
,96
1.
, 62
14.
, 84
MERCURY
11
7.
93
5.
, 21
107.
0
88.
, 3
3.
, 46
2.
,66
13.
, 12
OLDSMOBILE
16
9.
, 26
11.
, 44
114.
3
37.
, 7
2.
,41
1.
, 13
12.
, 30
OPEL
3
4.
,51
1.
, 5 it
70.
0
29.
3
2.
, 19
1.
, 08
21.
,53
PLYMOUTH
22
7.
07
3.
26
116.
2
45.
¦>
2.
, 26
1.
,05
14.
, 59
PONTIAC
20
7.
27
3.
, 77
117.
5
65.
5
2.
, 70
1.
45
12.
, 50
TOYOTA
6
4.
06
1.
, 24
71.
q
38.
, 0
2.
,42
1.
, 10
18.
,91
VO LKSWAGON
20
6.
, 00
2.
,32
81.
8
24.
, 0
1.
,02
0.
, 76
21.
, 40
VOLVO
1
3.
, 29
0.
, 00
30.
,9
0.
, 0
4.
, 82
0.
, 00
21;
, 66
•MODEL YEAR
1964
22
9. 23
3. 34
138.1
54. 1
2. 19
1.58
14. 38
3
1965
30
11.21
8.21
146.4
62. 7
2. 04
1. 18
14. 17
'3
1966
29
11. 30
8. 74
142. 9
49. 7
2.15
0.95
14. 18
3
1967
29
9.92
4.16
138.3
53. 2
2.11
1.67
14. 4C
3
1968
30
6. 53
2.31
105.0
37.6
2. 69
1. 39
14. 34
2
1969
29
6.82
6.4 1
91.1
35.2
3.29
1.36
14.21
2
1970
30
5. 38
1.07
81.6
30. 2
3. 11
1.21
14. 74
3
1971
35
5. 32
1. 34
78. 8
34. 1
3. 31
1.47
15.30
4
1972
33
5. 09
1.57
84.6
32.6
2.68
1. 05
15.00
3
1973
33
4.44
1. 74
77. 7
31.6
2. 00
0. 86
15.01
4
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
5. 38
2. 05
78.0
32. 1
2. 09
0.99
2 0.97
2
151 - 250
47
6.6 3
3. 84
96.6
4 6.4
2. 39
1.30
17.08
2
251 - 350
126
7. 84
4.62
112.5
47.7
2.45
1. 20
13. 72
1
MORE THAN 75 0
88
7.97
7.23
115.7
58. 1
3.07
1.62
11.75
1
•1NERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.40
2. 04
76. 4
31.3
2.20
I. 17
20. 81
2
2800 - 3799
127
7. 30
4. 76
101.5
44. 5
2.45
1.21
14. 84
2
3800 - 4799
112
8. 32
6. 59
121. 8
56. 7
2. 86
1.57
12.31
1
4 80 0 - 5799
15
6. 89
3.25
126.6
51. 3
2. 70
1. 18
10. 80
,1
*PO PtJLATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
10. 50
6.70
141.7
54.6
2.12
1. 34
14. 29
3
1968 - 1973
190
5. 56
3. 00
86. 1
34.4
2.84
1. 31
14. 79
3
ALL VEHICLES
300
7. 37
5.27
106.5
50.6
2.57
1. 36
14.61
3
AUTOMOTIVE TEST INfi LABORATOR IES,I NC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
D.
83
53
35
57
3 4
58
87
09
85
34
00
25
20
85
35
00
41
76
10
36
59
93
19
53
61
03
55
1*0
45
U 9
58
03
40
38
38
56
50
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1964-1967 VEHICLES: 13 HC FAILURES, 13 CO FAILURES, 20.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-19 73 VEHICLES: 22 HC FAILURES, 21 CO FAI L'IRES, 20.0% FAILURE RATE
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN S.D.
*VEH1 CLE MAKE
AMEP. MOTORS
10
0.
,2 59
1.
, 30
2.
, it 5
13.
, 3 it
-0.
101
0.
, 29
-0.
122
0.
. G 1
BUI CK
15
1.
,372
5.
,65
2.
. 6 6
10.
4 7
0.
051
0.
,28
-0.
,082
0.
,43
CADILLAC
in
0.
000
0.
, 00
0.
, on
0.
, 00
0.
, 00(1
0.
, no
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
CHEVROLET
67
0.
273
5.
, 05
it.
68
25.
9 7
0.
OM.
0.
,48
-0.
093
0.
, 75
CHRYSLER
1 0
3.
8 86
9.
, 88
38.
, 60
79.
89
-n.
2(>'i
0.
, 60
-0.
722
1.
,47
DATSUr:
3
0 .
, 000
0.
no
0.
, 00
0.
, 00
0.
000
0.
00
0.
000
0.
, 00
DODGE
18
0.
611
2.
55
it.
83
12.
81
-0.
, 0 it 8
0.
, 20
-0.
171
0.
,42
ford
68
0.
577
2.
99
1.
,90
12.
,28
0.
, 016
0.
, 70
-0.
026
0.
, 69
MERCURY
11
-n.
, 096
1.
, 38
-7.
, r, i
22.
ir,
0.
030
0.
,'37
0.
it 3 3
0.
,83
OLDSMOBILE
16
-1.
, it 5 2
12.
5.
itit
27.
UO
-o.
Olt'l
n.
,31
-0.
055
0.
,63
OPEL
3
o.
000
0.
00
0.
on
0 .
, 00
0.
, oon
0.
, 00
0.
,000
0.
,00
PLYMOUTH
22
l.
3 lit
it.
,93
6.
74
H.
, 89
-n.
002
0.
,35
-0.
, 266
0.
,55
p;;'jriM-"
20
l.
,902
5.
, 30
0.
, 81
22.
22
-o.
028
0.
, 32
-0.
, 04 9
0.
,46
TOYOTA
6
0.
370
0.
, n 1
0.
89
2.
19
0.
008
0.
, 24
-0.
,083
0.
. 20
VO LKSWAGO H
20
0.
, 359
0,
, 8 it
0.
, ns
6.
, 58
0.
2 8°
0.
, 71
-0.
, 038
0.
,58
VOLVO
1
0,
,000
0.
, 00
0.
, no
0.
, 00
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
'MODEL YEAR
1964
22
0.
, 79 7
2.27
8.
,53
27.
36
-0.
0 5?
0. 33
-0.231
0.77
1965
30
0.
714
7. 12
1.
,99
18.
55
-0.
01."
0. 19
-0.072
0.41
1966
29
-0.
190
10.62
-2.
31
19.
,69
0.
Olf
0.27
0.032
0.65
1967
29
-0.
121
1.91
-0.
,9 2
12.
09
0.
, 049
0. 38
0.084
0.66
1968
30
0.
6 7 3
1.90
8.
,47
34 .
, 72
0.
142
0.77
-0.060
1.03
1969
29
0.
, 327
0. 71
6.
,41
16.
05
-0.
, 053
0. 50
-0.153
0.39
1970
30
1.
, 5 o i
4. 79
4.
, 80
21.
12
0.
258
0.97
-0. 128
0.91
1971
35
1.
\ 131
U. 23
3.
, 86
11.
08
-0.
, 10r'
0.41
-0.208
0.60
1972
33
0.
949
5.50
7.
, 94
43.
, 12
-0.
, 035
0. 36
-0.097
0.80
1973
33
0.
, 133
0.77
0,
, 62
3.
, 58
-0.
, 002
0.01
-0.017
0.10
*DI SPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
39
0.442
1.08
1.24
6. 59
0. 165
0.53
-0.106
47
0.096
2. 14
0. 74
12.18
0. 017
0. 14
-0.035
126
1.128
4. 30
5. 34
20. 7fi
0.018
0 . 46
-0. 132
88
0. 215
7. 33
4.53
34. no
-0.042
0.63
-0.029
0.56
0.65
0.66
0. 7U
*1NERTIA WEIGHT
1800
- 2 799
46
0.300
1.01
1.51
6. 74
0. 160
0. 50
-0.128
2 800
- 3799
127
0.271
3.57
2. 13
15. 52
-0.009
0. 50
0.019
3800
- 4 799
112
1. 164
7. 10
7.28
34. 14
-0.005
0.52
-0. 192
4800
- 5 799
15
0. 000
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.000
0. 00
0.000
0.57
0.63
0.78
0.00
•POPULAT I ONS
196(4 - 196 7
1968 - 1973
ALL VEHICLES
110
190
300
0.272 6.68
0.80U 3.58
0. 6 09 U.9 U
1.39 19.71
5.27 25.26
3 . 85 2 3 . it 2
0.002
0. 029
0. 019
0.30
0.58
0. 50
¦0.035
¦0.111
-0.083
0.6 3
0. 70
0.67
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
19 75 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1964-1967 VEHICLES: 13 HC FAILURES, 13 CO FAILURES, 20.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 22 HC FAILURES, 21 CO FAILURES, 20.0% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
•VEHI CLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
3.53
2. 38
-3. 8it
-0. 81
3 it. 9
330. 7
-14.0
BUI CK
15
13. 71
1. 79
2.28
-0.68
161. 7
313.3
6.3
CADILLAC
10
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 0
0. 0
0.0
CHEVROLET
67
3. 04
3. 92
2. 02
-0.67
46.4
795. 8
7.9
CHRYSLER
10
33. 76
2 2. 36
-12.50
-6.67
2 85.3
2833.9
-19. 4
DATSUN
3
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 0
0. 0
0.0
DODGE
18
8. 51
U. 73
-1.61
-1.15
104. 7
816.7
-8.0
FORD
68
7.97
1. 99
0. 52
-0.18
84.7
2 78.6
2.3
MERCURY
11
-1.73
-7.65
0. 85
3.19
-10.4
- 8 2 3. J
3.2
0 LDSMOB1 LE
16
-18.60
U . 54
-2. 06
-0. U5
-178.4
6 6 8.1
-r,. o
OPEL
3
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 0
0.0
0. 0
PLYMOUTH
22
15.68
5.'t8
-0.11
-1. 85
1C3. 5
8 • . 5
-0. 3
PONTIAC
20
20. 75
0. 69
-1. Oit
-0. 39
206. 7
. 5
-3.0
TOYOTA
6
8. 36
1. 23
3.90
-0. it it
28.0
67.5
7.4
VOLKSWAGON
20
5.65
0. 10
13. 09
-0.18
58.4
12.8
4 7.0
VOLVO
1
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0 . 00
0.0
0.0
0.0
*MCDEL YEAR
19 6 U
22
7.95
5. 82
-2. it3
-1. 6 it
94.1
1006.4
-6. 1
1965
30
5.99
1. 34
-0.91
-0. 51
98.4
2 73.5
-2.5
1966
29
-1.71
-1.65
0. 73
0. 22
-25. 1
-305.3
2 . 1
1967
29
-1. 23
-0.67
2. 29
0.57
-24.0
-182.9
9.8
1968
30
9. 3It
7. 46
5. 00
-0. U2
72.4
910.6
15.2
1969
29
it. 58
6. 58
— 1. 6't
-1.09
50.7
992.9
-8.2
1970
30
22. 83
5. 56
7.66
-0. 87
168.9
509. 0
27. 4
1971
35
17. 5It
it.67
-3. 27
-1.38
130. 3
444.6
-12. 1
1972
33
15. 71
8. 58
-1. 33
-0. 65
170. 7
1428.4
-6. 3
1973
33
2.92
0. 80
-0. 12
-0. 11
27.2
127.1
-0.5
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
7. 59
1. 57
7. 32
-0. 51
57. 3
161. 0
21.4
151 - 250
4 7
1.1*3
0. 76
0.73
-0.21
20.0
155.0
3.6
251 - 350
126
12.58
it. 53
0. 71
-0.97
157. 7
746. 7
2.5
MORE THAN 350
88
2.62
5. 77
-1. itO
-0. 25
25.5
538. 2
-5.0
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
It6
6. *3
1.04
6. 78
-0.62
54.7
211.6
22.4
2800 - 3799
127
3. 58
2.05
-0. 35
0. 13
44.3
34 7.6
-1.4
3800 - 4 799
112
12. 28
5.64
-0. 17
-1. 58
128. 4
803.1
-0. 5
U800 - 5799
15
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 0
0. 0
0.0
•POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
2.53
0.97
0. 09
-0.25
38.9
199. 2
0. 3
1968 - 1973
190
12. 61
5. 77
1.02
-0. 76
109.3
716.4
4.0
ALL VEHICLES
300
7.63
3. it9
0. 74
-0. 57
84. 3
532. 7
2.6
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
196U-1967 VEHICLES: 20 HC FAILURES, 21 CO FAILURES, 30.9% FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 56 HC FAIL'IPES, 34 CD FAILURES, 30.5% FAILURE RATE
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.O.
CO
MEAN S.O.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
6. 85
2.29
97. 5
27.2
2.81
1.42
15.47
3.47
BUI CK
15
8.48
5. 84
141.4
44.4
2.31
1.12
12. 18
1.51
CADILLAC
10
6. 73
3.63
127.0
58.9
2.67
1.30
10.47
1.33
CHEVROLET
67
8. 02
6.25
110. 5
58. 5
2. 22
1.13
14.05
2.44
CHRYSLER
10
7.63
2.60
134.1
43.7
2.37
0.95
11.53
1.34
DATSUN
3
4.21
0.95
42.5
fi.n
2. 54
0. 76
23.33
1.69
DODGE
18
6.45
4.28
92.9
40.0
2.88
1.00
15.30
1.94
FORD
68
6.66
2. 73
93.2
35.2
2.96
1.62
14.83
3.05
MERCURY
11
7.93
5.21
107.0
88. 3
3.4 6
2 . 66
13.12
1. 85
OLDSMOBILE
16
o. 10
11.46
111.5
38.6
2.42
1.13
12.34
1. 39
OPEL
3
4.51
1. 54
70. 0
29. 3
2 .19
1.08
21.53
1.00
PLYMOUTH
22
6. 79
2.90
112.4
44. 0
2.32
1.14
14.71
2. 34
PONTIAC
20
7. 16
3.83
115.0
66.0
2. 71
1.46
12. 56
1.23
TOYOTA
6
3. 82
1.03
67. 1
41.2
2.50
1. 17
19. 10
1. 86
VOLKSWAGON
20
5. 88
2.25
81.2
23.7
1.9 2
0. 76
21.46
2.37
VOLVO
1
3. 29
0. 00
30.9
0.0
4. 82
0.00
21.66
0. 00
~MODEL YEAR
1964
22
9.23
3. 34
13 ft . 1
54.1
2.19
1.58
14.38
3.41
1965
30
10. 88
8. 26
144. 7
61.1
2. 01
1.20
14.23
3. 76
1966
29
11. 05
8.81
138.8
52.0
2. 09
0.84
14. 33
3.12
1967
29
9.95
4. 15
130. 1
52. 3
2.07
1.69
14.46
3. 35
1968
30
6.41
2.24
101.5
33.7
2.70
1.37
14.43
2.54
1969
29
5.61
1.43
8U. 5
28.8
3.31
1.42
14.34
2.81
1970
30
5.22
1. 09
70. 4
32.0
3. 12
1.21
14. 70
3.22
1971
35
5.17
1.32
7H. 2
34. n
3.28
1.47
15.40
4.56
1972
33
5.01
1.53
8 2. 3
32.8
2.71
1.11
15.06
3.67
1973
33
4. 4li
1. 74
77.7
31.6
2.00
0. 86
15.01
4.03
•DlSPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
5. 22
1.9 7
7r>. r,
32.5
2.09
0.98
21.07
2. 52
151 - 250
47
6. 56
3. 88
96. 1
47.7
2. 36
1.34
17.05
2. 44
251 - 350
126
7. 38
3.61
107.8
46.9
2.44
1.21
13.82
1.42
MORE THAf! 35 0
88
7.95
7.23
115.6
57.9
3.07
1.62
11. 76
1.48
• 1HERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.24
1.94
75. 8
31.8
2. 19
1.17
20.82
2. 59
2800 - 3799
127
7. 1G
4.78
98.9
45.0
2.42
1.21
14.91
2. 10
3800 - 4799
112
7.95
5.87
119. 0
56.0
2.87
1.58
12.37
1.38
4800 - 5799
15
6. 79
3. 12
12 G. 1
50. 2
2.69
1.20
10.83
1. 36
• POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
10. 35
6. 72
140.4
54.4
2.08
1.33
14.35
3. 38
1968 - 1973
190
5. 29
1.68
83. 3
33. 1
2. 84
1.32
14. 85
3. 56
ALL VEHICLES
300
7. 14
4.92
104. 2
50. 3
2.57
1.37
14.66
3. 50
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
196U-196 7 VEHICLES: 20 HC FAILURES, 21 CO FAILURES, 30.9% FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 36 HC FAILURES, 34 CO FAILURES, 30.5% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
0.
4 75
1.
42
5.
50
15.
94
-0.
104
0.
29
-0.
462
1.
20
BUI CK
15
1.
527
5.
64
6.
88
18.
,79
0.
033
0.
30
-0.
171
0.
, 54
CADILLAC
10
0.
164
0.
52
0.
86
2.
, 73
0.
021
0.
,06
-0.
053
0.
, 17
CHEVROLET
67
0.
,953
6.
it 3
8.
,93
32.
, 48
0.
070
0.
, 71
-0.
122
0.
, 99
CHRYSLER
10
3.
, 886
9.
, 88
38.
,60
79.
, 89
-0.
264
0.
,60
-0.
, 722
1.
,47
DATSUN
3
0.
001+
0.
01
-1.
,47
2.
, 54
0.
, 235
0.
,41
0.
, 086
0.
, 15
DODGE
18
0.
830
2.
, 56
9.
, 34
16.
, 84
0.
, 072
0.
, 56
-0.
, 360
0.
,65
FORD
68
0.
, 570
3.
, 03
1.
,99
13.
, 86
0.
, 018
0.
, 71
-0.
022
0.
, 73
MERCURY
11
-0.
, 096
1.
38
-7.
,61
22.
,16
0.
030
0.
, 37
0.
,433
0.
, 83
OLDSMOBILE
16
-1.
, 382
12.
25
8.
, 20
28.
,99
-0.
, 062
0.
,31
-0.
, 092
0.
,65
OPEL
3
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
0.
, 00
0.
, 00
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
0.
,000
0.
, 00
PLYMOUTH
22
1.
,586
4.
. 9 4
10.
, 59
16.
,62
-0.
, 059
0.
,43
-0.
,377
0.
,65
PONTIAC
20
2.
, 005
5.
, 31
2.
, 40
24,
.96
-0.
, 031
0.
, 35
-0.
, 107
0.
, 57
TOYOTA
6
0.
, 611
0.
,98
5.
,63
11.
, 37
0,
,020
0.
, 34
-0.
, 268
0.
. 46
VOLKSWAGON
20
0.
. U82
0,
.96
0.
, 72
7,
,16
0.
,284
0.
, 72
-0.
, 100
0.
,64
VOLVO
1
0,
, 000
0.
, 00
0,
. 00
0.
, 00
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
•MODEL YEAR
1964
22
0. 797
2.27
8.53
27. 36
-0.052
0. 33
-0.231
0. 77
1965
30
1.043
7.14
3. 72
20.95
0. 013
0.24
-0.130
1.01
1966
29
0. 070
10.66
1.77
23.69
0. 069
0.49
-0. 114
0. 81
1967
29
-0.146
2. 10
-1. 73
14.73
0. 090
0.40
0.088
Q . 80
1968
30
0. 79 5
1.92
11.96
36. 5f?
0.135
0. 78
-0.146
1. 06
1969
29
1. 537
6. 09
12.92
31.6 7
-0.077
0.92
-0.284
0.67
1970
30
1.754
4 . 7 C
6. 92
21.65
0. 249
0.98
-0.086
0.98
1971
35
1.280
4.22
6.4 6
14. 03
-0.076
0.44
-0.312
0.68
1972
33
1. 030
5.50
10. 25
43.64
-0.069
0.41
-0. 155
0. 84
1973
33
0. 133
0. 77
0.6 2
3. 58
-0.002
0.01
-0.017
0. 10
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
0. 598
1. 16
2. 59
8.41
0. 167
0. 55
-0.205
0.66
151 - 250
47
0. 159
2.23
1. 20
16.30
0. 046
0.31
-0.000
1. 05
251 - 350
126
1. 583
5. 15
10. 03
26. 24
0. 024
0.62
-0.240
0. 77
MORE THAN 35 0
88
0.233
7. 33
4.6 0
34. 00
-0.041
0.6 3
-0.037
0. 75
•1NERTIA WEI GUT
1800 - 2799
46
0.553
1. 09
2.02
9.47
0. 168
0. 52
-0.137
0.85
2800 - 3799
127
0. 406
3.61
4 . 69
18. 57
0.019
0.57
-0.050
0. 80
3800 - 4799
112
1. 538
7. 71
10. 08
37.31
-0.019
0.64
-0.253
0. 84
4800 - 5799
15
0. 109
0.42
0. 58
2.23
0. 014
0. 05
-0.035
0. 14
•POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
0.424
6. 72
2. 73
21. 76
0. 035
0. 38
-0.089
0. 85
1968 - 1973
190
1.075
4.27
8.03
28.34
0. 023
0.6 7
-0.167
0. 78
ALL VEHICLES
300
0. 836
5. 30
6. 09
26. 21
0. 027
0.58
-0. 138
0. 80
AUTOMOTIVE TEST I NO LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEf.T PROCEDURE
196U-1967 VEHICLES: 20 HC FAILURES, 21 CO FAILURES, 30.n* FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 36 HC FAILURES, 34 CO FAILURES, 30.53 FAILURE RATE
t OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS M I L LI GRAMS/M I LE/DO L LAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
6.48
5. 34
-3. 8G
-3.08
61.5
712.2
-13. 5
BUI CK
15
15.27
4. 64
1.39
-1.42
171.2
771.3
3.6
CADILLAC
10
2. 37
0.68
0. 76
-0.51
44.8
236.6
5.6
CHEVROLET
67
10. 62
7. it 7
3.04
-0.87
118.6
1110.9
8. 7
CHRYSLER
10
33. 76
22. 36
-12.50
-6.6 7
2 85.3
2833.9
-19.4
OATSUN
3
0.08
-3. 57
8. li 7
0.37
0. 5
-200. 1
32.0
DODGE
18
11. U1
9. 14
2. 44
-2.41
123.0
1383. 8
10. 7
FORD
68
7. 88
2. 09
0.6 2
-0.15
80.9
282 . 1
2.6
MERCURY
11
-1.23
-7.65
0. 35
3. 19
-10.4
-823.8
3.2
OLDSMOBILE
16
-17.70
6. 85
-2. r,?
-0.75
-162.3
962.9
-7. 3
OPEL
3
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
PLYMOUTH
22
18.93
8.61
-2.63
-2.63
171.2
1143.2
-6.4
PONT 1 AC
20
21. 87
2. 03
-1. 17
-0. 86
190.4
227.8
-3.0
TOYOTA
6
13. 77
7. 7U
0. 78
-1.43
4 6.1
425.2
1.5
VO LKSWAGON
20
7.58
0. 87
12. 39
-0.47
77. 1
114.5
45.5
VOLVO
1
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.0
0.0
0. 0
•MODEL YEAR
1964
22
7.95
5.82
-2.1(3
-1.64
94. 1
1006.4
-6. 1
1965
30
8. 75
2. 51
0.6 2
-0.92
129. 7
462. 4
1.6
1966
29
0.63
1. 26
3. 20
-0. 80
8.5
215.0
8.4
1967
29
-1.49
-1.26
4. 10
0.60
-22. 7
-268.1
14.0
1968
30
11. 04
10. 5it
4. 78
-1.03
81. 8
1229.9
13.9
1969
29
21.52
13.25
-2.37
-2. 02
158.3
1330.5
-7.9
1970
30
25. 14
8. 02
7.1(0
-0. 59
172. 8
682. 1
2 4.6
1971
35
19. 85
7. 82
-2. 38
-2.07
137.6
695. 1
-8.2
1972
33
17. 05
11. 08
-2.61
-1.04
165.5
1647.7
-11. 1
1973
33
2.12
0. 80
-0. 12
-0.11
27.2
127. 1
-0. 5
•DlSPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
10.27
3.27
7. U1
-0.98
74. 1
321.0
20.7
151 - 250
47
2.37
1. 24
1.93
-0.00
28.0
211.5
8.1
251 - 350
126
17.66
8.51
0.98
-1.77
181.9
1153.0
2.8
MORE THAN 350
88
2.85
3. 82
-1.35
-0.31
27.6
543.4
-4.8
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
U 6
9.55
2.6 0
7. 14
-0.66
72.8
266.5
22.2
2800 - 3799
127
5. 36
It.52
0. 76
-0. 34
57.4
663. 0
2.6
3800 - 4799
112
Hi. 22
7. 82
-0. 68
-2. 09
153.2
1004.1
-1.9
4800 - 5799
15
1.58
0. 1(5
0.51
-0. 33
32. 1
169. 4
4.0
•POPULATIONS
196!i - 1967
110
3.93
1.91
1.6 6
-0.62
5 4.7
352 .2
4.5
1968 - 1973
190
16.90
8. 79
0. 79
-1.14
130. 1
971.8
2. 7
ALL VEHICLES
300
10. it8
5. 52
1. 05
-0.95
103.5
753. 8
3.4
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1175 FECERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1964-1967 VEHICLES: 28 HC FAILURES, 25 CO FAILURES, 31.15 FAILURE RATE
196 8-19 73 VEHICLE?: 47 HC FAILURES, 48 CO FAILURES, 40.0% FAILURE RATE
* OF HC CO NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
6.
, 51
1.
,15
94.
, 6
23.
,4
2.
, 71
1.
,41
15.53
3.41
BUI CK
15
8.
, 4 2
5.
, 85
141,
, 1
45,
,2
2,
.24
1.
, 18
12.16
1.46
CADILLAC
10
6.
, 73
3.
r. 3
127.
, 0
58.
, 9
2.
,r,7
1.
, 30
10.47
1. 33
CHEVROLET
67
8.
, 00
6.
26
110.
, 4
58.
,9
2.
,21
1.
, 13
14. 06
2.46
CHRYSLER
10
6.
,11
1.
, 80
121.
, 3
32.
, 5
2.
,49
1.
,00
11.64
1.22
DATSUN
3
4.
, 21
0.
95
42.
, 5
6.
,0
2,
,54
0.
76
23.33
1.69
DODGE
18
6.
, 48
4.
,28
92.
6
39.
,9
2.
,89
1.
, 00
15.30
1.94
FORD
68
6.
, 59
2.
, 73
91.
1
34.
8
2.
, 88
1.
,51
14.90
3. 05
MERCURY
11
7.
,13
5.
,21
107.
, 0
88.
, 3
3.
,46
2.
, 66
13.12
1.85
OLDSMOBILE
ID
9.
,25
11.
, 44
109.
,6
38.
, 8
2,
,42
1.
, 13
12.32
1.39
OPEL
3
4.
, 11
1.
58
fj 3.
, 8
28.
,6
2.
,20
1.
,07
21.59
1.01
PLYMOUTH
2?
6.
, 70
2.
,15
109.
, 3
43.
, 3
2,
,32
1.
, 14
14.78
2.26
PONT 1 AC
20
7.
, 19
3.
, 81
113,
, 4
67.
,6
2.
, 85
1.
, 49
12.71
1.28
TOYOTA
6
3.
, 82
1.
, 03
67.
2
41.
, 2
2.
,50
1.
,17
19.10
1. 86
VOLKSWAGON
20
5.
. 86
2.
, 24
81.
, 0
23.
,6
1,
,93
0.
, 80
21.42
2.42
VOLVO
1
3.
,29
0.
00
30.
,9
0.
, 0
4.
,82
0.
, 00
21.66
0. 00
•MODEL YEAR
1964
22
9.
, 3U
3.
.37
138,
, 1
54.
, 2
2,
. 19
1.
, 59
14.39
3.41
1965
30
10.
,90
8.
,25
144.
, 8
61.
, 0
2,
,00
1.
,20
14.23
3.77
1966
29
10.
, 87
8.
, 85
136.
, 8
53.
, 6
2,
,08
0.
, 87
14.41
3.12
1967
29
9.
, 85
4.
, 17
138.
, 2
52.
.4
2.
,05
1.
,69
14.49
3. 35
1968
50
6.
, 32
2.
, 18
99,
.0
32.
, 3
2.
.74
1.
, 38
14.44
2.55
1969
29
5.
,55
1.
38
82.
7
28.
,5
3.
,25
1.
, 26
14.48
2. 75
1970
30
5.
2fi
1.
12
78.
4
31.
, 1
3,
,12
1.
,20
14.69
3.23
1971
35
5.
,16
1.
32
76.
2
34.
,9
3.
.23
1.
,39
15.41
4. 56
1972
33
4.
.92
1.
50
79.
, 7
30.
. 2
2,
,69
1.
, 10
15.13
3.65
1973
33
4.
24
1.
11
74.
G
24.
, 8
2,
,03
0.
,87
15.01
4.00
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
5. 18
1.98
76. 1
32.5
2.09
1. 00
21.05
2.54
151 - 250
47
6.57
3. 88
95. R
4 7,7
2.35
1.33
17.07
2.44
251 - 350
126
7. 33
3.62
106. 8
46.9
2.40
1.15
13.85
1.U3
MORE THAN 35 0
88
7. 85
7. 21
112. 7
5 7.4
3.09
I. 59
11.83
1.52
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5. 20
1.15
75.0
31.8
2. IS
1.18
20.83
2.57
2800 - 3799
127
7. 11
4. 79
97.9
44. 7
2.33
1.15
14.95
2.09
3800 - 4799
112
7. 8G
5. 84
116.6
55. 8
2. 81
1.57
12.41
1.39
4800 - 5799
15
6. 79
3. 12
126. 1
50.2
2.69
1.20
10. 83
1.36
•POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
10. 30
6. 73
139. 6
5 4.9
2.07
1.34
14.38
3.38
1968 - 1973
190
5.22
1. 58
81.5
31.1
2. 84
1.27
14.88
3.54
ALL VEHICLES
300
7. 08
4.9 1
102. 8
50. 0
2.56
1.35
14.70
3.49
AUTOMOTIVE TESTINC, LABORATOR I ES, I NC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1964-196 7 VEHICLES: 28 HC FAILURES, 25 Cn FAILURES, 39.IS FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: ti 7 HC FAILURES, it 8 CO FAILURES, 40.0"; FAILURE RATE
* OF HC CO fJOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D.
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
0.
73 f>
1.
56
8.
37
17.
36
-0.
091
0.
30
-0.
530
1.
19
BUI CK
15
1.
¦582
5.
6 3
7.
17
11.
, 31
0.
inn
0.
,38
-0.
15 it
0.
59
CADILLAC
10
0.
1614
0.
52
0.
, 86
2.
73
0.
021
0.
, 06
-0.
053
0.
17
CHEVROLET
67
0.
072
6.
, U It
9.
"It
32.
69
0.
, 08 1
0.
, 71
-0.
, 130
1.
00
CHRYSLER
10
4.
599
9.
, 71
51.
, 37
77.
66
-0.
, 385
0.
,61
-o.
, 830
1.
, it 3
DATSUN
5
0.
. 00'(
0.
, 01
-1.
it 7
2.
5 it
0.
235
0.
,'t 1
0.
, 086
0.
15
DODGE
18
0.
803
2.
57
9.
, 61
16.
72
0.
,068
0.
, 56
-0.
,359
0.
, 66
FORD
68
0.
.630
3.
, 09
3.
,27
15.
,25
0.
,09 7
0.
,82
-0.
, 036
0.
, 78
MERCURY
11
-0.
096
1.
, 38
-7.
,61
22.
16
0.
,030
0.
,37
0.
, it 3 3
0.
, 83
OLDSMOBILE
16
-1.
4 49
12.
25
10.
, l't
21.
,'t 'i
-o.
. 065
0.
,31
-0.
, 075
0.
, 65
OPEL
3
0.
,406
0.
, 70
6.
, 18
10.
, 70
-0.
, 003
0.
, 00
-0.
, 061
0.
, 10
PLYMOUTH
22
1.
. 6 8't
4.
,92
13.
,66
IS.
, 12
-0.
, 062
0.
, U 3
-0.
, it it 8
0.
, 72
PONTIAC
20
1.
,981
5.
, 32
U.
, Tit
26.
72
-0.
, 17 'i
0,
.59
-0.
,251
0.
,95
TOYOTA
6
0.
,611
0.
,98
5.
,63
11.
, 37
0,
, 020
0,
. 3 it
-0,
, 268
0.
,i»6
VOLKSWAGON
20
0.
, 'i9 7
0.
, 96
0,
, 86
7.
, 78
0,
. 280
0,
, 75
-0.
, 065
0.
.67
VOLVO
1
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
0.
, 00
0.
, 00
0,
, 000
0.
, 00
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
~MODEL YEAR
1964
22
0.
,695
2.
, 38
8.
55
27.
'i 2
-0.
, 055
0.31)
-0.
238
0.79
1965
30
1.
,025
7.
15
3.
66
21.
01)
0.
029
0.26
-0.
135
1.01
1966
29
0.
. 2 it 1
10.
68
3.
,82
25.
5fi
0.
, 085
0.51
-0.
, 195
3. S7
1967
29
-0.
050
2.
, 16
-0.
, 83
15.
7Q
0,
,109
O.itO
0.
, 056
0.81
1968
30
0.
883
1.
,95
11).
ill)
37.
51)
0.
, 095
0. 81
-0.
, 162
1.08
1969
29
1.
, 591
6.
, 08
11).
, 76
32.
09
-0.
,018
1.19
-0.
,418
0.88
1970
30
1.
718
it.
, 78
7.
,96
22.
,05
0,
, 2 it 8
0.98
-0.
, 077
0.98
1971
35
1.
, 285
it.
, 22
6.
,1)2
14.
06
-0,
, 030
0.it9
-0,
,321
0.68
19 72
33
1.
, 12 U
5.
,it9
12.
, 87
1)1).
,02
-0,
.053
0. it 2
-0.
,2 24
0.90
1973
33
0.
, 339
1.
, 15
3,
. 7U
13.
,1)9
-0,
.036
0. 14
-0.
,011
0.19
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
0.637
1. 16
3. 14
9. 02
0. 165
0.57
-0.192
0.68
151 - 250
47
0. 156
2.23
1. 74
16.52
0.051
0.31
-0.021
1.06
251 - 350
126
1.642
5.16
11. 09
26. 52
0. 066
0.69
-0,267
0. 79
MORE THAN 350
88
0. 341
7. 36
7. 46
35. 81
-0.069
0.70
-0.108
0. 87
~1NERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
0. 588
1. 00
2.10
10. 24
0.173
0.54
-0.146
0. 87
2800 - 3799
127
0. 45 7
3.6 4
5. 70
19. 32
0. 053
0.64
-0.089
0.83
3800 - U799
112
1.628
7. 72
12.42
38. 31
-0.034
0.70
-0.296
0.90
4800 - 5799
15
0. 101
0.42
0.58
2. 23
0.014
0.05
-0.035
0.14
• POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
0. 469
6. 74
3. 50
22. 46
0. 048
0. 39
-0. 121
0. 88
1968 - 1973
190
1. 144
4.28
9. 86
29. 25
0. 030
0. 74
-0.201
0.83
ALL VEHICLES
300
0. 897
5.31
7. 53
27. 10
0.037
0.63
-0.172
0.85
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1964-1967 VEHICLES: 28 HC FAILURES, 25 CO FAILURES, 39.1% FAILURE RATE
1968-1975 VEHICLES: 47 HC FAILURES, 8 CO FAILURES, 40.0? FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MI LLI GRAMS/MI LE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
10. 06
8.13
-3. 36
-3.53
87. 1
988.2
-10.7
BUI CK
15
15. 81
it. 83
't. 27
-1.28
156.1
706.9
9.9
CADILLAC
10
2. 37
0.68
0. 76
-0.51
lilt. 8
236.6
5.6
CHEVROLET
67
10. 84
7.57
3.55
-0.9 It
107.0
995 .1
9.0
CHRYSLER
10
39.96
29. 75
-18.25
-7.68
271.1
3027.7
-22. 7
DATSUN
3
0. 08
-3.57
8.1*7
0.37
0.5
-200.1
32.0
DODGE
18
11.02
9. 1(0
2. 29
-2. UO
113.3
1356.U
9.6
FORD
68
8. 83
3. U t,
3. 25
-0.58
82.5
it 22.9
12.5
MERCURY
11
-1.23
-7. 65
0. 85
3. 19
-10.lt
-823.8
3.2
OLDSMOBILE
16
-18.57
8.47
-2. 7it
-0.61
-167.8
1173.8
-7.5
OPEL
3
8.99
8. 83
-0. 13
-0.28
It it.2
6 7 It. 2
-0.3
PLYMOUTH
22
20. 09
11. 11
-2.73
-3. 13
176.6
1432.8
-6.5
PONT 1 AC
20
21.60
4.17
-6. 50
-2.02
173. 3
It 3 2. 0
-15.2
TOYOTA
6
13.77
7. 7't
0. 78
-1. it 3
U6.1
it 2 5. 2
1.5
VOLKSWAGON
20
7.82
1. 06
12. 70
-0. 31
70.3
122.2
39.6
VOLVO
1
0.00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0.0
0.0
0.0
•MODEL YEAR
196U
22
6.93
5. 83
-2. 56
-1. 6 8
78.9
970.5
-6.2
1965
30
8.60
2.1*7
1. It 5
-0.96
119.8
U28.1
3.4
1966
29
2. 17
2. 72
3.93
-1.38
25.7
406. 3
9.0
1967
29
-0.51
-0. 60
5. Oit
0. 38
-7. 2
-119.2
3 5.7
1968
30
12.25
12. 72
3. 3U
-1.13
71.0
1161.7
7.6
1969
29
22.27
15. H
-0. 55
-2.97
15it.fi
1433.5
-1. 7
1970
30
24.63
9.22
7.35
-0.53
168.2
779.0
24.3
1971
35
19.92
7. 76
-0.95
-2.13
136. 3
680.5
-3.2
1972
33
18.60
13.91
-2. 00
-1. 50
168.0
1923.7
-7.9
1973
33
7. i*l
It. 78
-1. 79
-0.07
5 U. 3
600. 1
-5.7
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
10.94
3. 9f>
7.31
-0.92
72.6
358.1
18.8
151 - 250
47
2.32
1. 79
2. 12
-0. 12
26. 7
298.4
8.7
251 - 350
126
18.31
9. U1
2. 69
-1.97
177. 3
1197.1 ,
7.2
MORE THAN 35 0
88
4.16
6. 21
-2. 29
-0.92
3it. 2
7U9.4
-7. 0
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
U6
10.15
3.73
7.33
-0. 71
71.3
352.3
21. 0
2800 - 3799
127
6. 03
5. 50
2. 17
-0.60
60.6
756. 5
7. 0
3800 - 4799
112
17. 17
9.63
-1.18
-2. 44
1U3.U
1094.1
-3.0
4800 - 5799
15
1. 58
0. it5
0.51
-0.33
32. 1
169.4
4.0
•POPULATIONS
196U - 1967
110
U. 35
2.U5
2.28
-0. 85
55. 8
416.4
5.7
1968 - 1973
190
17.99
10. 70
1. 06
-1.37
125.3
1079.7
3.3
ALL VEHICLES
300
11.24
6. 82
1.42
-1.18
101.2
849. 1
4.2
AUTOMOTIVE TEST I NO LABORATORIE5,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
196U-1967 VEHICLES: 37 HC FAILURES, 36 CO FAILURES, 50.0? FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 61
HC FAILURES,
6U CO FAILURES,
50.05 FAILURE
RATE
t OF
HC
CO
NOX
MPG
V£H.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
6. 59
1.95
91*.6
23.1,
2. 79
1.1*1
15.53
3
BUICK
15
8.3U
5. 88
138.7
1*5.1*
2.25
1.21
12.23
1
CADILLAC
10
6.73
3.63
127. 0
58.9
2.67
1. 30
10. i*7
1
CHEVROLET
67
7.68
5.82
106.1
53.9
2.23
1. 13
11*. 16
2
CHRYSLER
10
6.91
1. 80
121.3
32. 5
2.1*9
1.00
11.61*
1
DATSUN
3
it.21
0.95
1*2. 5
6.0
2.51*
0. 76
23. 33
1
DOOGE
18
6. 70
1*. 36
96. 7
1*0. 6
2.82
1.02
15.22 '
1
FORD
68
6.1*6
2. 50
91.0
3U.6
2. 89
1.1*9
U.90
3
MERCURY
11
7. 82
5. in
96. 7
85. 8
3.61
2.58
13.32
1
OLDSMOBILE
16
9. 25
11. I* ii
109.6
38.8
2.1)2
1. 13
12. 32
1
OPEL
3
it. 11
1.58
6 3. 8
28.fi
2.20
1.07
21. 59
1
PLYMOUTH
22
6.67
2.96
108.3
1*1*. 5
2. 33
1. 15
lit. 73
2
PONT 1 AC
20
7.20
3.31
113.1*
67. 5
2. Sh
1.1*9
12. 70
1
TOYOTA
6
3.53
0.65
6' t. 6
1(2 . 9
2. 39
1. 19
19. 70
2
VOLKSV/AGON
20
5.65
2.05
78.5
22.1
1.91
0. 80
21.69
2,
VOLVO
1
3. 29
0. 00
30 . 9
0. 0
i*. 82
0.00
21.66
0
•MODEL YEAR
1961*
22
9.27
3. 39
13 n. 9
53.0
2.18
1.60
11*. U 7
3
1965
30
10. 29
7. 72
131.6
53.7
2.07
1. 19
1 '*. 3 2
3
1966
29
10. 82
8. 89
130.0
5U. 1
2.05
0. 89
11*. 57
3
1967
29
9.6 3
3.92
13 ti. i*
51.6
2. no
1.68
lit. 56
3
1968
30
6. 31
2.15
98.it
31.8
2.73
1. 38
1 it. i* 7
2
1969
29
5.1*7
1. 29
81.3
29. 9
3.22
1. 26
l't. 57
2
1970
30
5.25
1. 1?
77. £
30. 3
3.11*
1. 19
lit. 68
3
1971
35
5. P 7
1.3'*
7i*. i.
3it. 1
3.22
1. 39
15.58
i*
19 72
33
It. 89
1. 52
71. 2
30.1.
2.71
1. 10
15. 06
3
1975
33
I*.21
1. 11
73.1*
25.1
2.02
0. 83
11*.96
i*
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
5.03
1. 81*
71*. i*
32.2
2.07
0. 99
21.28
2
151 - 250
1* 7
6.55
3. 8P-
9<*. 7
1*6. U
2.33
1. 31*
17. 11*
2
251 - 350
126
7. 10
3. 08
103.9
1*3. 5
2. It 2
1.12
13.89
1
MORE THAU 350
88
7.85
7. 22
112.3
57.1*
3.10
1. 59
11.82
1
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
1*6
5.07
1. 81*
73.5
31.5
2.17
1. 18
21.02
2
2800 - 3799
127
7.02
1*. 72
96.2
1*3. it
2.38
1. 11*
11*. 99
2
3800 - i»799
112
7. 70
5.57
llh.H
53.6
2.91
1. 55
12.1*1*
1
i*R00 - 5799
15
6. 76
3. Hi
12 5.8
50.5
2.68
1. 19
10. 80
1
*P0PULATIONS
1961* - 1967
110
10.05
6.53
136.7
52.i>
2. 09
1.31*
11*. 1(8
3
1968 - 1973
190
5.18
1.57
80.1*
31.1
2. 83
1.27
1U.91
3
ALL VEHICLES
300
6.96
1*. 76
101.1
1*8. 5
2. 56
1.31*
11*. 75
3
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
170
D.
ui
us
33
37
22
69
98
10
90
39
01
26
28
96
38
00
39
72
1*2
32
55
81
2U
78
59
00
52
38
37
51
65
06
38
3U
1*3
59
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1964-19 6 7 VEHICLES:
1968-1973 VEHICLES:
37 HC FAILURES, 36 CO FAILURES, 50.0% FAILURE RATE
61 HC FAILURES, 6U CO FAILURES, 50.0? FAILURE RATE
t OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN S.D.
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
0.
, 738
1.
, 56
8.
37
17.
36
-0.
091
0.
30
-0.
530
1.
19
BUICK
15
1.
667
5.
, 6 3
9.
58
20.
35
0.
092
0.
39
-0.
227
0.
64
CADILLAC
10
0.
16U
0.
52
0.
86
2.
, 73
0.
,021
0.
06
-0.
053
0.
17
CHEVROLET
67
1.
288
6.
. 79
13.
, 32
38.
,64
0.
, 060
0.
75
-0.
,233
1.
19
CHRYSLER
10
I*.
, 599
9.
,71
51.
, 37
77.
, 66
-0.
, 385
0.
,61
-0.
830
1.
,43
DATSUN
3
0.
, oou
0.
, 01
-1.
,1(7
2.
, 54
0.
,235
0.
,41
0.
086
0.
,15
DODGE
18
0.
, 585
2.
83
5.
, 57
22.
,61
0.
. 1'»0
0.
, 59
-0.
,275
0.
, 78
FORD
68
0.
, 775
3.
, 15
4.
,21
16,
, 18
0.
, 092
0.
, 84
-o.
, 090
0.
, 85
MERCURY
11
0.
019
1.
,42
2.
, 69
36.
, 52
-0.
,118
0.
,62
0.
,236
1.
,17
OLDSMOBI LE
16
-1.
, U1* 9
12.
, 25
10.
, 14
29.
, 44
-0.
, 065
0.
, 31
-0.
,075
0.
,65
OPEL
3
0.
. 406
0.
, 70
6.
, 18
10.
. 7(1
-0.
,003
0.
, 00
-0.
, 061
0.
, 10
PLYMOUTH
22
1.
, 709
4.
,91
14.
,66
17.
,91
-0.
, 076
0.
, it 3
-o.
, 'i 0 7
0.
,82
PONTI AC
20
1.
, 9 6 U
5.
, 33
4.
, 87
26,
.73
-0.
, 167
0.
.60
-0.
, 244
0.
,95
TOYOTA
6
0.
,908
1.
, 02
8.
, 16
11.
,55
0,
, 125
0.
, U 2
-0.
,871
1.
,41
VOLKSWAGON
20
0.
. 711
1.
.11
3.
.40
10,
, 81)
0.
.293
0.
, 74
-0.
,327
1.
.06
VOLVO
1
0.
, 000
0,
. 00
0,
, 00
0,
, 00
0.
, 000
0.
,00
0.
, 000
0,
, 00
•MODEL YEAR
1964
22
0. 758
2.38
9.77
27. 53
-0.04 0
0. 35
-0.321
0.81
1965
30
1.629
7. 86
8. 85
38. 51
-0.041
0. 40
-0.225
1.32
1966
29
0. 297
10. 70
4.63
25.97
0. 114
0. 54
-0.360
1.07
1967
29
0. 172
2. 58
2.97
25.09
0. 063
0. 53
-0.016
0.9 8
1968
30
0. 894
1.95
15. 08
37.47
0.101
0. 81
-0.187
1.09
1969
29
1.672
6.07
16. 12
31.92
0.019
1.21
-0.514
0.93
1970
30
1. 721
4.77
8.57
22. 07
0.234
0.99
-0.069
0.98
1971
35
1. 377
4.21
8. 24
14.65
-0.022
0.51
-0.492
0.91
1972
33
1. 150
5.48
13.37
4 3.94
-0.072
0.43
-0.157
1. 02
1973
33
0. 367
1.15
4. 96
16. 14
-0.026
0. 18
0. 040
0. 37
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
0. 792
1.22
4. 83
10. 38
0. 188
0.57
-0.419
1.03
151 - 250
47
0. 178
2.24
2. 59
17. 10
0.076
0.33
-0.093
1.09
251 - 350
126
1. 867
5.40
14.00
31. 70
0.042
0.74
-0.307
0.98
MORE THAN 350
88
0. 340
7. 36
7.92
35.98
-0.076
0. 70
-0.102
0. 87
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
0. 719
1. 15
4. 34
11. 32
0.192
0.54
-0.338
1. 13
2800 - 3799
127
0. 546
3. 70
7.42
21.60
0.058
0.68
-0.128
0.94
3800 - 4799
112
1. 786
7. 89
14.43
41. 52
-0.062
0. 72
-0.326
1.01
4800 - 5799
15
0. 131
0.42
0.83
2. 37
0.020
0.06
0.001
0.20
~POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
0. 719
7. 00
6.37
29. 72
0.027
0.47
-0.225
1.07
1968 - 1973
190
1. 185
4.27
10.90
29. 45
0.035
0.75
-0.230
0.92
ALL VEHICLES
300
1. 015
5.43
9.24
29. 58
0.132
0.66
-0. ?28
0.98
AUTOMOTIVE TEST I NO LABORATOP. I ES, I NC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
196U-1967 VEHICLES: 37 HC FAILURES, 3G CO FAILURES, 50.0* FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 61 HC FAILURES, 6U CO FAILURES, 50.0? FAILURE RATE
# OF
VEH.
PERCENT R EDUCT10 NS-
HC CO NOX
MPG
MlLLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
HC CO NOX
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
10.
, 06
8.
13
-3.
, 36
-3.
,53
87.
, 1
988.
2
BUI CK
15
16.
, 66
6.
U6
3,
,92
-1.
, 89
Ht7.
,it
81* 7.
0
CADILLAC
10
2.
, 37
0.
68
0,
, 7B
-0.
, 51
1*1*.
, 8
236.
6
CHEVROLET
67
1U.
36
11.
15
2.
.61
-1.
,68
12 it.
, 0
12 82 .
1
CHRYSLER
10
'39.
, 96
29.
75
-18.
, 25
-7.
,68
271.
, 1
302 7.
7
DATSUN
3
0.
, 08
-3.
57
8.
. U 7
0.
, 37
0.
5
-200.
1
DODGE
18
8.
, OU
5.
It 5
U.
. 73
-1.
, 81*
65.
,9
627.
3
FORD
68
10,
. 72
U.
1*2
3.
, 09
- 0,
,61
9it.
, U
512.
2
MERCURY
11
0.
, 2U
2 .
71
-3.
, 36
1.
, Ik
1.
, i*
205 .
6
OLDSMOBILE
16
-18.
, 57
8.
1*7
-2.
, 71)
-0.
,61
-167.
, 8
1173.
8
OPEL
3
8.
,99
8.
83
-0.
, 13
-0,
,28
Ult.
,?
671*.
2
PLYMOUTH
22
20.
, 1(0
11.
92
-3.
,37
-2.
, 814
168.
, 1*
1U i*i*.
8
PONTIAC
20
21.
, U 2
U.
12
-G.
26
-1.
,96
168.
9
U1 8.
9
TOYOTA
6
20.
, i* 7
11.
21
li.
95
-it.
,63
59.
, 2
5 32 .
0
VOLKSWAGON
20
11.
, 18
4.
15
13.
, 29
-1.
, 53
92.
, 7
1* it 3.
it
VOLVO
1
0.
, 00
0.
00
0.
no
0.
, 00
0.
,0
0.
0
-10.7
8.1
5.6
5.8
-22.7
32.0
15.7
11.2
-9.0
-7.5
-0. 3
-7.5
-1U.U
8.1
38.2
0.0
•MODEL YEAR
1961*
22
7. 56
6.66
-1.
88
-2.27
68.9
888 .0
-3.7
1965
30
13.67
5.'36
-2.
01*
-1.60
181.3
985.0
-1*.6
1966
29
2.67
3.29
5.
, 26
-2.53
29. 0
1*52. 5
.11.1
1967
29
1. 75
2. 1(S
2.
,90
-0.11
19.9
3 it U . 0
7.3
1968
30
12.1*0
13.21
3.
, 57
-1.31
70.9
1195.9
8.0
1969
29
23. 1*1
16. 5 ft
0.
58
-3.6 5
139.0
1339.9
1.5
1970
30
21*. fi 7
9.92
6.
, n
- 0. it 7
166. 1
826 .5
22.6
1971
35
21.36
9. n 7
-0.
7 0
-3. 26
137.0
819. 8
-2.2
1972
33
19. 03
11*. U5
-2.
, 72
-1.05
16 5.1
1920.2
-10. 3
1973
33
8.03
6.33
-1,
. 30
0.27
51.8
699. it
-3.7
•DlSPLACEHENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2 80 0 - 3799
3800 - U799
1+800 - 5799
•POPULATIONS
1961* - 1967
1968 - 1973
ALL VEHICLES
39
13. 51
6. 10
8. 3?
-2.01
8 U. 3
5 1U. 0
1*7
2.61*
2.6G
3. 18
-0.55
29. 7
i* 33 . I*
126
20. 82
11.82
1. 71
-2.26
171.9
1288.6
8 8
it. 15
6.59
-2. 50
-0.87
33.3
77 7.9
1*6
12. it2
5.57
8.15
-1.63
82.0
i* 91*. 2
127
7.21
7.16
2 . iiO
-0. 86
60.6
823 .5
112
IS. 8 3
11. 19
-2.19
-2.69
152.5
1232.8
15
1. 89
0.65
0. 7it
0. 01
37.0
233 .6
110
6.6 8
i*. 1*5
1.28
-1.58
71*. 7
661.9
19 0
18.63
11.93
1.21
-1.57
121.5
1116.8
300
12. 72
8.37
1.23
-1.57
101*. 5
951.1*
20.0
12.8
3.9
-7.1*
21.9
6.5
-5.3
5.7
2 . 8
3.5
3.3
AUTOMOTIVE TESTIMG LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EM ISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1175 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
19614-1967 VEHICLES: U2 HC FAILURES, 57 CO FAILURES, 60.1? FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 87 HC FAILURES, 85 CO FAILURES, 57.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
6. 59
1.15
9it.fi
23.4
2. 79
1.41
15.53
3.41
BUICK
15
8. 34
5. 88
138.7
4 5. 4
2.25
1.21
12.23
1.45
CADILLAC
10
6.67
3. 58
123. 8
55.2
2.67
1.30
10. 54
1.30
CHEVROLET
67
7.61
5. 78
104. 8
52. 7
2.23
1.13
14.19
2.33
CHRYSLER
10
7.114
2. 31
120. 2
30. 1
2.4 8
1.01
11.67
1.22
DATSUM
3
4. 00
0. 70
40.9
5.5
2.57
0. 79
23. 16
1. 76
DODGE
18
6.60
U. 37
94.3
41.8
2.83
1.01
15.28
1.92
FORO
68
6.48
2.54
91.0
35. 4
2. 83
1.45
14.89
3.13
MERCURY
11
7.82
5. 19
96. 7
85. 8
3.61
2.58
13.32
1.90
OLDSMOBILE
16
9.25
11. 44
109. 6
38. 8
2.4 2
1.13
12.32
1.39
OPEL
3
3.714
0.98
57.9
19.6
2.32
0.95
21.90
0.54
PLYMOUTH
22
6.68
2.96
108.4
43.6
2.25
0.95
14. 71
2. 28
PONTIAC
20
6. 85
3.0U
110.7
64.1
2. 86
1.45
12.71
1. 30
TOYOTA
6
3. 53
0.65
64.6
42.9
2. 30
1.19
19. 70
2.96
VOLKSWAGON
20
5.65
2. 09
77.0
21.6
1.9 2
0.71
21.86
2. 30
VOLVO
1
3.29
0. 00
30.9
0.0
4. 82
0.00
21.66
0. 00
•MODEL YEAR
19 6it
22
8. 88
2. 88
132.3
4 9.0
2. 22
1.60
14. 53
3.37
1965
30
10.21
7. 73
137.9
52.3
2.07
1.18
14. 35
3.71
1966
29
11.01
8. 84
13 5.7
54.0
2. 05
0.90
14. 59
3.41
1967
29
9.54
3. 81
134.3
50. 0
2. 06
1.65
14. 56
3-. 31
1968
30
6.28
2. 18
97.0
33.1
2.66
1.19
14.53
2. 72
1969
29
5.47
1. 29
81. 3
29.9
3.22
1.26
14. 57
2.81
1970
30
, 5.28
1.22
77.9
30. 3
3. 12
1.19
14.67
3.21
1971
35
5.07
1. 34
74. 4
34. 1
3.22
1.39
15. 58
4.78
1972
33
4. 73
1.52
76. 7
32,0
2.68
1.04
15. 12
3.69
1973
33
4.25
1.15
73.6
25. 1
2.00
0.80
14.96
3.98
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
5. 02
1. 87
73. 1
32.0
2.08
0.95
21.36
2.58
151 - 250
t»7
6.61
3.90
94.6
46. 8
2.32
1. 32
17.16
2.37
251 - 350
126
7.03
3. 03
102.9
42.7
2.40
1.08
13.91
1.37
MORE THAN 350
88
7.79
7. 17
111. 1
56. 1
3. 08
1.57
11.82
1.52
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - U799
4800 - 5799
~POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
1968 - 1973
ALL VEHICLES
46
5.08
1. 85
72. 8
30. 8
2.18
1.13
21.07
2.65
127
7.04
4. 72
96. 2
43.7
2. 36
1.11
14.99
2.07
112
7.56
5. 50
112. 7
52.4
2.89
1.52
12.47
1.43
15
6. 81
3. 15
124.4
48. 2
2.67
1. 19
10. 81
1.30
no
9.98
6.47
135. 2
50.9
2. 09
1.33
14. 50
3.42
190
5.16
1. 59
79. 8
31.5
2.81
1.23
14.93
3.62
300
6.92
4. 72
100. 2
47.8
2.55
1.31
14. 77
3.55
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES
, 1 NC.
19900 E.
COLFAX,
AURORA,
CO LO.
80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1964-1967 VEHICLES: 42 HC FAILURES, 57 CO FAI L'JRES,. 60.0?, FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 87" HC FAILURES, 35 CO FAILURES, 57.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.n. MEAN S.D. I1EAN S.D.
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
0.
, 73."
1.
, 56
8.
37
17.
36
-0.
091
0.
30
-0.
530
1.
19
BU1 CK
15
1.
66 7
5.
,63
9.
53
20.
,35
0.
, 09?
0.
39
-0.
22 7
0.
,64
CADILLAC
10
0.
22 7'
0.
, 53
4.
05
10.
14
0.
,027
0.
07
-0.
118
0.
25
CHEVROLET
67
1.
35?
6.
,81
14.
6 It
39.
, 05
0.
059
0.
, 75
-0.
,259
1.
,21
CHRYSLER
10
It.
367
9.
, 86
52.
47
76.
. 9 3
-0.
368
0.
62
-0.
, 861
1.
,41
DATSUN
3
0.
213
0.
,36
0.
, 18
4.
,67
0.
, ?oo
0.
,44
0.
,.257
0.
,26
DODfiE
18
0.
6 7"
2.
83
7.
12
23.
65
0.
126
0.
61
-0.
342
0.
, 78
FORD
68
0.
, 75 4
3.
,17
4.
, 15
16.
, 6 0
0.
14 8
0.
,88
-0.
,077
0.
, 89
MERCURY
11
o.
019
1.
, 4 2
2.
69
36.
52
-0.
118
0.
62
0.
,236
1.
,17
OLDSMOBILE
lfi
-1.
Mi 9
12.
,25
10.
, 14
29.
, 4 4
-0.
, 065
0.
,31
-0.
, 075
0.
,65
OPEL
3
0.
775
0.
,67
12.
05
10.
, 45
-0.
,131
0.
22
-o,
, 365
0.
,48
PLYMOUTH
22
1.
702
4.
,12
14.
, 59
18.
,51
0.
, 004
0.
,64
-o,
,377
0.
, 89
PONTIAC
20
2.
315
5.
, 39
7.
, 59
27.
, 57
-o.
, 189
0.
60
-0.
,255
0.
.96
TOYOTA
6
0.
,908
1.
, 02
8.
, 16
11.
, 55
0.
,125
0.
,42
-0.
,871
1.
,41
VOLKSWAGON
20
0.
, 713
1.
.22
4.
,94
14.
, 32
0.
, 2 86
0,
, 81
-0.
,497
1.
.09
VOLVO
1
0.
, 000
0.
, 00
0.
, 00
0.
, 00
0.
, 000
0,
, 00
0,
, 000
0.
,00
•MODEL YEAR
1964
22
1.
, 153
2.64
14.
39
28.
38
-0.
080
0.
3 7
-0.376
0. 82
1965
30
1.
, 709
7. 88
10.
55
39.
80
-o.
, 047
0.
40
-0.250
1.34
1966
29
0.
, 104
10. 72
4.
88
26.
24
0.
115
0.
54
-0.377
1. 08
1967
29
0.
,256
2.65
3.
10
25.
55
0.
, 096
0.
55
-0.018
0.98
1968
30
0.
, "2 5
1.94
16.
4 7
37.
83
0.
,174
0.
94
-0.242
1.17
1969
29
1.
,672
6. 07
16.
,12
31.
92
0.
,019
1.
21
-0.514
0.93
1970
30
1.
, 69 8
4. 80
8.
4 4
22.
37
n.
, 248
0.
99
-0.063
0.99
1971
35
1.
, 377
4.21
1.
, 24
14.
65
-o,
.022
0.
,51
-0.492
0.91
1972
33
1.
, 308
5.46
15.
, 82
43.
56
-o,
, 035
0.
,54
-0.220
1. 09
1973
33
0.
, 321
1.18
4.
,77
lfi.
21
-o.
, 007
0,
,22
0. 033
0.41
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
151
39
0. 804
1. 30
6. 09
12. 39
0. 170
0.62
-0.501
1.06
151 - 250
47
0. 112
2.28
2.69
17. 70
0. 086
0.35
-0.112
1.12
251 - 350
126
1.939
5.39
14.95
32.02
0.064
0.77
-0.326
1.00
MORE THATI
350
88
0.401
7.39
9. 08
36.17
-0.055
0.73
-0.100
0.89
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
0. 714
1.24
5.08
13. 32
0. 179
0.58
-0.388
1.16
2800 - 3799
127
0.526
3. 71
7. 46
21. 77
0. 078
0.70
-0. 133
0.96
3800 - 4799
112
1.923
7.90
16. 36
41.62
-0.041
0. 75
-0.356
1.02
4800 - 5799
15
0. 082
0.59
2.25
9.02
0.029
0.06
-0.008
0.30
*POPIJLATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
0. 791
7.05
7. 86
30.66
0.027
0.48
-0.248
1.08
1968 - 1973
190
1. 206
4.27
11. 49
29.56
0.058
0. 79
-0.250
0.95
ALL VEHICLES
300
1.054
5.45
10. 16
29.97
0. 04 7
0.69
-0.249
1.00
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORI ES, I NC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
1964-196 7 VEHICLES: 42 HC FAILURES, 57 CO FAILURES, 60.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1973 VEHICLES: 87 HC FAILURES, 85 CO FAILURES, 57.4°; FAILURE RATE
i OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS HI LLIGRAMS/MI LE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO - NOX HPO HC CO NOX
•VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
10
10. 06
8.13
-3. 36
-3. 53
87.1
988.2
-10.7
BUI CK
15
1 r>. 66
6.46
3.12
-1. 89
147.4
84 7. 0
8.1
CADILLAC
10
¦ 3. 29
3.17
1.02
-1. 13
51.5
920.2
6.2
CHEVROLET
67
15. 13
12.26
2. 5G
-1. 86
125.1
1348.B
, 5.4
CHRYSLER
10
37.94
30. 39
-17.47
-7.97
248.6
2986.9
-21.0
DATSUN
3
5. 06
0.4 3
7. 21
1. 10
18.5
15.4
17.4
DODfiE
18
9. 31
7. 75
4. 2G
-2. 29
73. 4
857.3.
13.6
FORD
68
10. Ii2
4. 36
4.17
-0. 52
84 . 6
465. 2
16.5
MERCURY
11
0. 24
2. 71
-3. 36
1.74
1.4
205 .6
-9.0
OLDSMOB1LE
16
-18.57
8.4 7
-2. 74
-0.61
-167.8
1173.8
-7.5
OPEL
3
17. 17
17.22
-5.96
-1. 69
70. 4
109 5.4.
-11.9
PLYMOUTH
22
20.31
11.87
0 . 16
-2.63
160.2
1373.4
0.3
PONTIAC
20
25.25
6.41
-7. 06
-2. 05
184.8
605. 5
-15.1
TOYOTA
6
2 0. 4 7
11.21
4.95
-4.63
59. 2
532.0
8.1
VOLKSWAGON
20
11.21
6.03
12.96
-2. 33
88.8
615.6
3 5'. 6
VOLVO
1
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 00
0. 0
0.0
0.0
~MODEL YEAR
19 64
22
11. 50
9. 81
-3.77
-2. 66
94.3
1176.6
-6.6
1965
30
14. 33
7.11
-2.31
-1. 77
183.6
1134.4
-5.0
1966
29
0.93
3.47
5.30
-2. 65
9.4
440.6
10.4
1967
29
2.61
2.25
4.45
-0.12
28. 9
339.4
10.5
1968
30
12. 84
14.52
6. 15
-1. 70
69. 1
1230.3
13.0
1969
29
23.41
16. 54
0. 53
-3.6 5
139. 0
1339.9
1.5
19 70
30
24. 34
9. ','8
7.37
-0.43
158.5
788. 1
23.2
1971
35
21.36
9.97
-0. 70
-3.26
137.0
819.8
-2.2
1972
33
21.65
17. 09
-1. 31
-1.47
165.2
1997.8
-4.4
1973
33
7.01
6. on
-0.37
0.22
43.0
639.6
-1.0
•DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
39
13. 81
7.68
7. 54
-2. 40
78. 5
595. 1
16.6
151 - 250
47
1.66
2. 77
3. 59
-0.66
16.4
396.6
12.7
251 - 350
126
2 1. n 3
12.69
2.60
-2.40
173.2
1335.6
5. 7
MORE THAN 35 0
88
4. 89
7. 56
-1. 80
-0. 85
37.6
853.5
-5. 1
•INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
12.33
6.53
7.61
-1.88
74.9
533.1
18.8
2800 - 3799
127
6.95
7.20
3. 19
-0. 89
56. 3
799 .3
8.3
3800 - 1(799
112
20. 27
12.68
-1.43
-2.94
156. 1
1328.6
-3.3
(•800 - 5799
15
1. 19
1. 77
1. 06
-0. 08
19. 7
539. 3
6.9
•POPULATIONS
1964 - 1967
110
7. 35
5.49
1.26
-1. 74
76. 8
762. 3
2.6
1968 - 1973
190
18.96
12. 58
2.03
-1. 70
118. 7
1130.2
5.7
ALL VEHICLES
300
13. 21
9.21
1.80
-1. 71
103.2
99 4. 1
4.6
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500-»
2250-
2000-
17 50-
1500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
1
1
11 1
1
1 111
1 1 1
1 1
1
CORRFLATION COEFFICIENT! 0.427
t t t
500 1000 1500
INSPECTION STATION NO
»
2000
t
2500
t
3000
LEGENDS DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT. AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES. INC.
19900 E. COLFAX. AURORA. COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 2500 RPM
2500-
2250-
2000-
1750-
1 500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
312
2
1 12
2 31
3 1
11
1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: 0.831
» t t
500 1000 1500
INSPECTION STATION NO.
r
2000
1
t
2500
t
3000
LEGEND! DIGITS SH0V7N ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
10.0-
9.0-
6.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1.0-
0.0-
11
1
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: 0.756
0.0
t
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
6.0
t
10.0
t
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 1
LEGENDS DIGITS SHOV.'N ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT# AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2500 RPM
10.0-
9.0-
R 8.0-
A
T
Y 7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
11
1
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.720
t
0.0
t
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
t
10.0
»
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 1
LEGEND:
DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT. AN *X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX< AURORA, COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500-
2250-
2000-
1750-
1500-
1250-
1000-
07 50-
0500-
0250-
0000-
I
1 1
II
11
1
U
I
1
1 11
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 0.411
1 t t t
500 1000 1500 2000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 2
1
2500
3000
LEGENDl DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA/ COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 2500 RPM
2500-
2250-
2000-
1750-
1500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
1
2
3
41
1
1
1
1 1 1
1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.373
1
t t » i
500 1000 1500 2000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 2
t
2500
• ->
t
3000
LEGENDt DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT/ AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABOP.ATCRIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX/ AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
10.0-
9.0-
fi.O-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1.0-
0.0-
1 1
1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
0<0
t
2.0
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: 0.831
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
t
10.0
»
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 2
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT, AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA. COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 8500 RPM
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1 .0-
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
21
2 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.882
0.0--
t
0.0
t
2.0
4.0
6.0
t
8.0
t
10.0
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO.
LEGEND!
DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN *X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES/ INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500
2250-
L
A
B
0
R 2000-
A
T
R
Y 1750-
1500-
1250-
1000-
07 50-
0500-
0250-
0000-
1 1
1 1 1
1
1 1
I
1 1 1
11 11
1 1
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 0.592
t
500
t
1000
1500
t
2000
2500
3000
INSPECTION STATION NO- 3
LEGEND; DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES/ INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA/ COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 2500 RPM
2 500-l
2250-
R 2000-
A
T
Y 1750-
1500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1 1
~ 111 1
-14 1 1
-11 1
+
0000-+ +-¦
t
0
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 0.262
t
500
t
1000
1
2000
1 500
INSPECTION STATION NO. 3
t
2500
¦ ->
t
3000
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT, AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLF.
10.0-
9.0-
6.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
t
0.0
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.476
»
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
i
10.0
¦ - >
t
12 .0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 3
LEGEND: DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA/ COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2500 RPM
10.0-»
9.0-
R 8.0-
A
T
Y 7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
8.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 1
1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.593
t
c.o
t
2.0
»
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
10.0
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 3
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT, AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500-
2250-
2000-
1750-
1500-
1250-
1000-
07 50-
0500-
0250-
0000-
1 1
1 1
1
21 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.831
t » t t
500 1000 1500 2000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 4
t
2500
¦ - >
t
3000
LEGEND* DrGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
2500-
HYDROCARBCNS AT 8 500 RPM
2250-
2000-
1750-
1 500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
1
1
1 1
1
I 21
3 1
1111
121
II
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.725
t
500
»
1000
t
1500
r
2000
2500
3000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 4
LEGENDS DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
10.0-
9.0-
6.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
1 1
1 1
1 1
11
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.756
0.0
t
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
r
8.0
10-0
t
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 4
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX. AURORA* COLORADO 60011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2 500 RPM
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
8.0-
1.0-
0.0-
1 1
1
0.0
1 1
1 1
11
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.759
- t
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
t
10.0
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO.
LEGEND!
DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT/ AN *X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500-
2250-
2000-
17 50-
1 500-
1250-
1000-
07 50-
0500"
0250-
0000-
1
1
1
i i 121
11
2 2
1 2
1
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.682
t
500
1000 1500
INSPECTION STATION NO.
t
2000
t
2500
• ->
t
3000
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 2500 RPM
2500-t
2250-
2000-
17 50-
1500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
2
1 12
41 1
I 1
121
3
221
2
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT* 0.788
t
500
t
1000
t
1 500
t
2000
t
2500
»
3000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 5
LEGENDt DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
10.0-1
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
a.o-
1 .0-
0.0-
0.0
11
1
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.807
t
2.0
t
4.0
i
6.0
r
8.0
10.0
i
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO- 5
LEGENDS
DIQITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABCRATCRIESi INC.
19900 E. COLFAX/ AURORA, COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2 500 RPM
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1 1
1 11
1 1
1
1 1
I
II
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.867
7
0.0
t
2.0
»
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
»
10.0
t
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 5
LEGENDr DIGITS SHOWN CN GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT# AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500-
2250-
L
A
B
o
R 2000-
A
T
A
V
R
Y 1750-
1 500-
1250-
+ 1 1
+
1000-+ 1
0750-+
+ 1 1
+
~ 1
4 11 11
0500-+ 1 1
~ 1 11
~
+
+ 111
0250-+ 1 1 1
~ 1 1
~ 1 1 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: 0.535
~
~ 1
0000-+ ~ + + + + + + + + >
t t t t t t t
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 6
LEGENDS DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT, AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 2500 RPM
2500-»
2250-
2000-
1750-
1 500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
2
It
2 1 1
1 1
11
212
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.604
t t t
500 1000 1500
INSPECTION STATION NO.
~
2000
t
2500
3000
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN CN GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES/ INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
10.0-
9.0-
R 8.0-
A
T
Y 7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
I .0-
0.0-
0.0
11
1 1
1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.813
»
8.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
t
10.0
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 6
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT# AN *X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABCRATCRIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2500 RPM
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
1
1 1
1
o.o
1
1 1
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.773
r
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
10.0
¦ - >
t
12*0
INSPECTION STATION NO- 6
LEGEND!
DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
EUTA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500-
2250-
2000-
1750-
1500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.490
t t t t
500 1000 1500 2000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 7
i
2500
t
3000
LEGEND: DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA, COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 2500 RPM
2500-
2250-
2000-
17 50-
1500-
1250-
1000'
07 £0-
0500-
02-50-
0000-
2
1
21
1
1
1 1
21
1 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.427
»
500
»
t
1500
1000
INSPECTION STATION NO.
»
2000
2500
-->
t
3000
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES' INC.
19900 E. COLFAX> AURORA# COLORADO 60011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1.0-
0.0-
1 2
2
1 1
11
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.709
0-0
t
8.0
»
4.0
r
6.0
t
8.0
r
10-0
i
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 7
LEGEND] DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2 500 HPM
10.0-t
9.0-
F,.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
.0-
0*0-
t
0.0
»
e.o
i
I l
i
l
l
II
i i
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT* 0.256
t
4.0
t
6.0
i
8.0
t
10.0
¦ ->
t
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO-
LEGENDI DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX. AURORA. COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500-»
2250-
L
A
B
0
R 2000-
A
T
o
R
Y 1750-
1500
1250-
1000-
07 50-
0500-
0250-
0000-
1 1
1
I
1
II
n
i i
i
i
i i
i
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT* 0.757
t t t
500 1000 1500
INSPECTION STATION NO.
t
2000
8
t
2500
¦ ->
»
3000
LEGEND! DIGITS CHOVN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT/ AN *X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES. INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA/ COLORADO 60011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 2500 RPM
2300-t
2350-
R 8000-
A
T
V 17 50-
1500-
1850-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0850-
0000-
3
1 1 1
1
11
1 1
811 1
111
31
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.842
t
500
t
1000
t
1500
t
2000
t
2500
• ->
t
3000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 8
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
10.0-t
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3-0-
2.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
1 1 1
1
2
1
1
t
0.0
f
2.0
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0*730
t
4.0
r
6.0
t
8.0
r
10.0
• ->
i
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 8
LEGENDt DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS- IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2500 RPM
10.0-t
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
8.0
1 .0
0.0-
11
1 1 1
11
e
»
0.0
1 1
1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.891
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
8.0
t
10.0
18.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 8
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2 500-
2250-
2000-
1750-
1 500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
1 1
2 1
3 1
2 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 0.640
1
500
1
1000
t
1500
2000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 9
1
2500
i
3000
LEGENDI DI3ITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN *X•
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 8500 RPM
£500-t
2250-
L
A
B
R 2000-
A
T
0
R
Y 1750-
1500
1250-
1000-+ 1
+
~
+
+ 1
0750-+
+
+ 1
+
+
C500-+ I
+
+ 1 1
1
+ 1 1
0C50-+ 1 1
+ 11
+ 211 CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: 0.686
+231 t
+2 1
0000-+ + + + + + + + + + + +
t t » r « t t
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 9
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX* AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
L
A
B
«"\
K,
R
A
T
R
Y
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
I .0-
0.0-
1 1
1 1
I
2
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0-638
0.0
1
2.0
r
4.0
t
6.0
r
6.0
I t
10.0 12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 9
LEGEND: DJ.G ITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT/ AN *X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. CCLFAX, AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2 500 RPM
10.0-
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0'
2-0-
1 .0'
0.0
1 1 1
1 1
1 1
1
1
1 1
2
1 1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0-739
0*0
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
»
8.0
t
10.0
t
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 9
LEGEND: DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN "X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES» INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT IDLE
2500-
2250-
2000-
1750-
1500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
0500-
0250-
0000-
11 1
14
211
1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT 0.439
~
500
»
1000
»
1500
»
2000
t
2500
t
3000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 10
LEGEND! DIGITS SHCVN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT# AN 'X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA# COLORADO 80011
-------
HYDROCARBONS AT 2500 RPM
2500-»
4-
2250-
R 2000-
A
T
Y 1750-
1500-
1250-
1000-
0750-
050C-
0250-
0000-
1
1
1 1 1
1 12
12
1 SI
22 1
21 1
1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT! 0.605
t
500
t
1000
»
1500
T
2000
2500
3000
INSPECTION STATION NO. 10
LEGEND: DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT* AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES* INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA* COLORADO 80011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT IDLE
10.0-t
9.0-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
1 1
1
1 1
1 1 1
1
1
CORRELATION COEFFICIENT: 0.891
T
0.0
t
2.0
t
4.0
t
6.0
r
8.0
10.0
t
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 10
LEGENDS DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT, AN 'X'
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES, INC.
19900 E. COLFAX# AURORA, COLORADO 60011
-------
CARBON MONOXIDE AT 2500 RPM
L
A
B
n
R
A
T
r\
R
Y
10.0-
n.O-
8.0-
7.0-
6.0-
5.0-
4.0-
3.0-
2.0-
1 .0-
0.0-
1 1
1 12
1 21 1
2 1
2
1
1
t
0.0
t
2.0
CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS 0.802
t
4.0
t
6.0
t
8-0
10.0
t
12.0
INSPECTION STATION NO. 10
LEGEND! DIGITS SHOWN ON GRAPH REPRESENT THE NUMBER OF COINCIDENT
DATA POINTS. IF MORE THAN NINE ARE COINCIDENT/ AN "X*
IS PRINTED.
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES# INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA# COLORADO 80011
------- |