HIGH ALTITUDE VEHICULAR EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM
VOLUME XII ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICAL
APPLICATION OF AN INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM IN THE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS
PREPARED FOR;
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DENVER, COLORADO 80220
/automotive
ATI/ tisting
-------
A.a<-(">
ozaC
I HIGH ALTITUDE VEHICULAR EMISSION CONTROL PROGRAM
VOLUME XII ANALYSIS OF THE PRACTICAL
APPLICATION OF AN INSPECTION AND
MAINTENANCE PROGRAM IN THE
PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTORS
PREPARED FOR:
STATE OF COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
DENVER, COLORADO 80220
/automotive
ATL/ TESTING
-------
An
Analysis of
Che
Practical Application
of an
Inspection and Maintenance
Program
in the
Public and Private Sectors
prepared for
State of Colorado
Department of Health
Denver, Colorado 80220
submitted by
Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc.
19900 East Colfax Avenue
Aurora, Colorado 80011
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the Colorado Air Pollution Control
Commission by Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc. in fulfillment
of Contract No. 6B-Pilot Test-3. The contents of this report are
reproduced herein as received from the 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
commission.
-------
SUMMARY
The study was designed tc Investigate on a pilot scale the social
and economic impacts of an area wide light-duty vehicle inspection/
maintenance program in both the public and private sectors. Toward
this end, we employed ten privately-operated Metro-Denver automotive
service centers to act as a pilot Inspection network. The network was
comprised of: a fleet vehicle maintenance facility, three independent
garages, three service stations and three new car dealerships. A single
state-operated inspection facility was utilized to evaluate a program
in the public sector.
We employed the pilot network to develop a variety of technical,
cost and other data and Information.
It was used on an experimental level to inspect a representative
sample of 1100 vehicles from 1960 through 1974 model-years. The sample
included a representative sub-sample of 300 vehicles which were strenu-
ously tested by laboratory procedures both before and after station
inspection. The data which resulted from laboratory tests were used to
evaluate the condition of the vehicle population as reported in previous
studies. In this respect, we found the more current exhaust hydrocarbon
emission levels to be significantly lower than in previous studies while
carbon monoxide levels remained essentially unchanged. We attribute
the lower hydrocarbon levels to HC reducing maintenance factors precipi-
tated by the energy crisis. We also found that the I/M procedures
relative to the subject study were less effective in achieving HC and
CO emission reductions than those applied previously. We believe this
finding merely demonstrates the sensitivity of I/M procedures.
We also utilized the network and other information to provide
indications of workload capabilities which were used to define minimum
network requirements. In this respect, we found the minimum require-
ment for a public sector network to be 36 test lanes. The minimum
number of private sector test lanes or facilities was found to be 410.
Based on other available Information, however, it is reasonable to
expect that 663 privately-operated facilities will participate. We
also found that the existing repair network is capable of handling any
additional work resulting from an I/M program in either network.
Using cost data we developed from pilot station operation and
other sources, coupled with certain elements we propose in connection
with program administration, enforcement and public protection measures,
a table of program supporting fees was developed for various amortization
schedules and vehicle rejection rates. At a 30 percent rejection rate,
5 year amortization period, for example, the fee is $2.95 per vehicle
for a state-operated network. The corresponding fee for a privately-
operated network is $5.76 per vehicle.
We also made a determination of costs to the motorist in connection
with I/M time and travel requirements relative to each sector. Using
-------
data derived from the pilot effort, we found the time and travel cost
factor for a network in the public sector to be $8.67 per vehicle while
the cost factor associated with a private sector network is $6.97 per
vehicle.
Information resulting from network operation and other sources was
used to establish skill and training levels required of inspection and
repair personnel. In this respect, we found that functional literacy
as defined by the U. S. Office of Education is more valid as an educa-
tional requirement than a minimum level based on formal education. We
also found performance of inspection and repair personnel to be satis-
factory after a minimum training period of 6 hours and 32 hours respec-
tively. We propose that qualified inspectors and repairmen have at
least one year of recent vehicle tune-up experience.
To document the requirement for public protection measures, we
administered questionnaires to the one-thousand private car owners
participating in the effort. These questionnaires were designed to
elicit opinions regarding vehicle related air pollution in the Denver
AQCR. They were also designed to measure any changes in opinion resulting
from the I/M process. While a quantity of information was developed in
these regards, one of the more significant findings is that the public
is apparently willing to accept an I/M program administered through
either the public or the private sector. Another finding of particular
significance is that the public is strongly in favor of a referee site
being provided for a second opinion. We recognized the possibility
that participant responses may have inherent biases. For this reason
we surveyed a number of randomly selected vehicle operators. While
certain disparities in opinion was evident between the two groups, we
found the majorities to be in agreement on major issues.
In conclusion, we also used the pilot operation to identify enforce-
ment problems and to develop recommendations on administrative and
procedural rules which would be needed to expand the effort to an area-
wide program. In these respects, our more significant findings indicate;
the need for a comprehensive study to provide strategic public sector
station locations; requirements for an adequate network surveillance
program; the advisability of limiting the Inspection requirement to
a single re-test; the importance of an active data monitoring program;
the importance of a stringent instrument accreditation and monitoring
program; and the utilization of a single sticker to indicate compliance
with both safety and emission inspection requirements.
-------
CONCLUSIONS
1. The emission data which resulted from the subject study were used
to evaluate the condition of the vehicle population as reported in
previous studies. We found the more current exhaust HC levels to
be significantly lower (at a 90% confidence level) than those
reported In previous studies, while CO emissions remained essentially
unchanged. Using sample means, the subject baseline HC, CO and NO^
levels are 5.35 g/m, 91.1 g/m and 2.49 g/m for 1968-1974 model-
year vehicles compared to 6.36 g/m, 91.3 g/m and 2.87 g/m for the
previous year which covered the 1968-1973 model-years. Where
applicable, these same trends apply on a vehicle age by vehicle
age basis. We attribute the lower HC levels to HC reducing (fuel
economy) maintenance factors precipitated by the energy crisis.
We consider the fleet HC, CO and N0X baseline levels of 4.07 g/m,
77.3 g/m and 2.76 g/m to be reflective of near minimum emission
levels achievable as a result of an I/M or mandatory maintenance
effort.
2. We also found that the I/M procedures applied relative to the subject
effort were less effective in achieving HC and CO reductions than
those applied previously. Using sample means for comparison purposes,
the subject effort at a 40 percent rejection rate, for example,
produced HC, CO and NOg reductions of 6.6%, 5.7% and 0.3% on the
newer cars as opposed to earlier reductions of 18.0%, 10.8%, and
1.1% using somewhat different procedures. We atttribute the smaller
HC reductions not only to the procedures, however, but also to the
lower HC baseline or before maintenance state. We believe the
relatively small reductions found in the subject effort merely
demonstrate the sensitivity of maintenance procedures.
Fleet vehicle HC, CO and N0X reductions of 0.4%, 1.0% and 0.2% were
found to be minimal for the reason given above. Using failure limits
for privately owned vehicles, the actual failure rate for the fleet
was 16 percent.
3. Using data derived from the state-operated station, we concluded
the following relative to an annual inspection program.
3.1 Based on the idle test procedures used in the investigation,
we found that a state lane could process and inspect about ten
vehicles per lane per hour.
3.2 Assuming that 10 year old and newer vehicles are subject to
the inspection requirement and a second retest will not be
required, we project an annual requirement for 1,020,000
inspections. This projection also assumes full implementation
beginning mid-1977 and a 30 percent rejection rate.
-------
3*3 A state-operated network should be comprised of a minimum of
36 test lanes to service the DAQCR. This estimate includes a
factor of 30 percent to compensate for irregular workload
demands. Additional lanes are desirable, however.
3.4 Using the existing voluntary inspection site as a model, the
land (75 feet wide by 130 feet deep) required for a two lane
operation is estimated to cost $50,000. Other criteria used
to derive the estimate are that the site is to be situated
about one-half city block from a major arterial road and that
it be zoned for business or light industry.
3.5 The analytical, data processing and office equipment is estimated
to cost $81,000 per site.
3.6 Construction of a two-lane facility is estimated to cost $57,000,
a figure which includes the building and site Improvements.
3.7 Annual operating costs, including direct labor and overhead is
estimated to cost $79,900 per site.
3.8 Administrative costs are estimated to be $185,300 annually.
3.9 At a 30Z rejection rate, 5 year amortization schedule, the
fee to support the above costs is estimated to be $2.95 per
vehicle.
3.10 Assuming the motorist's time is valued at $5.00 per hour and
his vehicle operating cost is 12 cents per mile, time and travel
requirements relative to the I/M process are estimated at $8.67
per vehicle.
3.11 Combination of the 30% rejection rate fee and time and travel
costs results in a total cost to the motorist of $11.62 per
vehicle.
4. Using data derived from the privately-operated network, we
concluded the following relative to an annual inspection program.
4.1 The requirement for 1,020,000 inspections per year applies to
a private-sector network as well.
4.2 Taking current workloads into consideration, a privately-
operated network should be comprised of a minimum of 410 stations.
It is more realistic to believe that 663 stations will partici-
pate, however.
4.3 We visited 43 repair facilities to determine building and
equipment investment requirements. From this survey we
concluded that the average building improvement and equipment
requirements would cost about $2,300 per lane.
-------
4.4 We also solicited extensive cost data from each of the facilities.
From these data we derived an average direct labor rate of
$4.67 per hour and an average overhead rate of 90.22 per direct
labor hour.
4.5 We also found the average inspection time to be 0.3 hours.
4.6 The public strongly favored the concept of referee test sites.
We concluded that six should be provided to adequately service
the DAQCR. The investment and operating costs of such sites
were assumed to be equivalent to those established for a
public sector network.
4.7 Program administration including both the private network and
the public referee sites is estimated to cost $120,800 annually.
Certain other administrative costs are included in referee
site operation.
4.8 We proposed a manual data collection process in connection with
a private sector network. Operation of this process is esti-
mated to cost $166,000 annually.
4.9 At a 30 percent rejection rate, 5 year amortization schedule,
the fee to support the above requirements is estimated to be
$5.48 per vehicle.
4.10 Assuming the motorist's time is valued at $5.00 per hour and
his vehicle operating cost is 12 cents per mile, time and travel
requirements in connection with the I/M processes are estimated
to cost $6.97 per vehicle.
4.11 Combination of the 30 percent rejection rate fee and time and
travel costs results in a total cost to the motorist of $12.45
per vehicle.
5. With regards to maintenance costs, we found the average to be $11.00
per failed vehicle for vehicles tested in the private sectot and
$13.75 per failed vehicle for vehicles tested in the state facility.
While the higher cost factor associated with state failed vehicles
may indicate some disparity between the two sectors, the higher
state-inspected vehicle repair cost is related almost exclusively
to the fact that many of the state-failed vehicles were repaired at
the facility found otherwise to exhibit the highest repair charges.
In examining the factors affecting repair costs, we found no reason
to believe a repair cost disparity would exist between the two
sectors.
At $10.76 per failed vehicle, the fleet vehicle repair costs (at
fleet repair rates) are nearly the same as those found in connection
with the privately-owned vehicles.
These cost data compare favorably with the $10.57 per failed vehicle
established in the previous study.
-------
6. Our survey of the 43 privately operated repair facilities included
questions regarding facility workloads and personnel utilization.
On this basis we concluded the Denver AQCR repair facilities could
handle any additional work resulting from a program in either sector.
7. After deliberating over the problem of enforcement, we concluded
that the only workable solution was to implement a single sticker
system to indicate compliance with both safety and emission inspection
requirements regardless of the sector chosen. Since the logistics
requirements relative to the stickers are currently handled within
the Department of Revenue and reasons for altering this practice
have not emerged, we believe the practice should be continued.
8. While there may be specific reasons, either political or otherwise
for collecting the Inspection fee at the time the vehicle is pre-
sented for inspection, we believe the fee-payment process should
be made a part of the motor vehicle registration requirement.
With respect to a privately-operated network, however; since the
station level fee collecting process of the safety inspection
program has a record of satisfactory operation, there is no reason
to believe the same procedures should not be utilized.
9. Based on data developed during the subject effort training phase and
the Colorado State University pilot training program, we conclude that
functional literacy as defined by the U. S. Office of Education is
more valid as an educational requirement for inspectors and repair-
men than a minimum level based on formal education.
We also found performance of inspection and repair personnel to be
satisfactory after a minimum training period of 6 hours and 32 hours
respectively.
In addition, we propose that qualified inspectors and repairmen
have at least one year of recent vehicle tune-up experience.
10. From our opinion survey of the one-thousand vehicle owners who
participated in the study we have concluded:
10.1 The majority of participants believe the air pollution problem
in Metro-Denver is serious.
10.2 The majority believe automobile exhaust emissions are a major
source of pollution.
10.3 The majority also believe the state should require automobile
emission inspections.
10.4 Participants were divided on the question of who should conduct
the Inspections, the state versus the private sector. However,
those frequenting the state station were more In favor of the
state performing the inspection after the process was experi-
enced while those frequenting the private stations were more
-------
In favor of private stations performing the inspection after
the process was experienced. On this basis, we have concluded
that motorists would accept a program in either sector.
10.5 The majority favored an annual inspection frequency as opposed
to a semi-annual frequency.
10.6 The majority considered $5.00 to be a reasonable Inspection
fee. However, after the inspection process was experienced,
the number of state lane participants who supported the fee
dropped a significant amount. The number of private lane
participants who supported the fee remained the same after
the process was completed. On this basis we have concluded
that motorists would accept a $5.00 fee for inspection in the
private sector but may possibly object to the same fee in the
public sector.
10.7 The majority of participants favored the concept of a referee
test site.
10.8 The majority also believed an inspection program would reduce
air pollution.
10.9 We also surveyed a number of randomly selected vehicle opera-
tors. While certain disparities in demographics and opinions
were evident between the test participants and the randomly
selected group, we found the majorities to be in general
agreement on major issues.
We also used the pilot operation to identify enforcement problems
and to develop recommendations on administrative and procedural
rules needed to expand the effort to an area wide program. Our
conclusions in these regards are as follows:
11.1 Participants tended to frequent those facilities which
provided inspection services outside the normal business
hours. On this basis we have concluded that the motorist
should be provided with an area wide network which offers
this kind of service.
11.2 On the basis of the relatively poor correlations between
laboratory and station inspection, we have concluded that an
inspection instrument certification program is essential to
the success of an area wide program.
As a result of our Inspection instrument monitoring program,
we have also concluded that the analytical instruments should
be completely recalibrated at intervals not to exceed two
months.
On this basis we have also concluded that the minimum frequency
at which private sector facilities should be inspected is each
two months.
-------
11.3 It is our opinion Chat the problems we encountered in the
pilot effort were minimal primarily due to: the quality of
personnel we employed; the training provided not only in
the classroom but the on-site program as well; the forms
utilized to document the I/M process; the network monitoring
strategy which includes surveillance of both network personnel
and equipment; and the fact that participating motorists
were well Informed as to the I/M procedures. Consequently,
we came to certain conclusions regarding program elements
that would provide the degree of public protection necessary.
These are:
11.3.1 The success of any I/M program rests within the
ability of the repair industry to provide the required
maintenance.
11.3.2 Vith reference to personnel training, we have concluded
that adequate training must be mandatory for those
engaged in the I/M process regardless of the sector
chosen.
11.3.4 We are of the opinion that some form of mechanic or
repair facility certification will be required to
provide protection not only to the consumer but to
the repair industry as well.
In this same respect, we have concluded that each
phase of the I/M process should be properly documented.
11.3.5 Virtually all of the major I/M related problems could
be easily identified and expeditiously corrected
through properly designed and frequently updated
data monitoring procedures.
11.3.6 With regards to the above, we cannot help but
conclude that a well informed public would be a key
factor as it relates to the public providing its
own protection.
-------
Table of Contents
Page
1. INTRODUCTION 1-1
2. DISCUSSION OF STUDY DESIGN 2-1
2.1 OBJECTIVES 2-1
2.2 STUDY DESIGN 2-2
2.2.1 Inspection Network 2-2
2.2.2 Task 1, Vehicle Testing 2-4
2.2.3 Task 2, Determination of Idle
Emission Inspection Costs 2-8
2.2.4 Task 3, Required Inspector Skill
and Training Levels 2-10
2.2.5 Task 4, Documentation of Needed
Public Protection Measures 2-11
2.2.6 Task 5, Enforcement Problems and
Solutions 2-12
3. DISCUSSION OF STUDY FINDINGS 3-1
I.3.1 VEHICLE TESTING 1-1
1.3.1.1 Distribution of Test Vehicles by
Station 1-1
1.3.1.2 Administration of Experimental
Program 1-2
1.3.1.3 Inspection and Repair Procedures 1-4
1.3.1.4 Station Performance 1-5
1.3.1.5 Vehicle Maintenance Costs 1-9
1.3.1.6 Emission Related Effectiveness 1-10
II.3.2 INSPECTION COSTS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR II-l
11.3.2.1 Site Workload Capabilities II-l
11.3.2.2 Minimum Network Requirements II-2
-------
Table of Contents (Cont.)
Page
11.3.2.3 Administrative and Enforcement
Requirements II-3
11.3.2.4 Data Processing Requirements II-5
11.3.2.5 Collection of Inspection Fees
and Handling of Purchasing
Requirements II-8
11.3.2.6 Real Estate, Building and Equip-
ment Costs II-8
11.3.2.7 Site Operating Costs 11-10
11.3.2.8 Consumer Time and Travel
Requirements1 11-11
11.3.2.9 Estimate of the Inspection Pee 11-13
III.3.3 INSPECTION COSTS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR III-l
111.3.3.1 Site Workload Capabilities III-l
111.3.3.2 Minimum Network Requirements III-3
111.3.3.3 Administrative and Enforcement
Requirements III-3
111.3.3.4 Data Processing Requirements III-8
111.3.3.5 Collection of Inspection Fees III-9
111.3.3.6 Capital Outlay III-9
111.3.3.7 Direct Labor and Overhead Costs 111-10
111.3.3.8 Consumer Time and Travel
Requirements 111-12
111.3.3.9 Estimates of the Inspection Fee 111-14
IV.3.4 MINIMUM INSPECTOR AND REPAIRMAN SKILL AND
TRAINING LEVELS IV-1
IV.3.4.1 Study Phase Findings IV-3
IV.3.4.2 Recommended Minimum Requirements IV-7
-------
Table of Contents (Cont.)
Page
V.3.5 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY-NEEDED PUBLIC
PROTECTION MEASURES V-l
V.3.5.1 Analysis of Survey Results V-2
V.3.5.2 Estimate of Overcharges V-21
V.3.5.3 Consumer Complaints V-22
V.3.5.4 Needed Public Protection Measures V-23
VI.3.6 ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS VI-1
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
The 46th Colorado General Assembly launched a formal program
to Investigate and find solutions to the State's air pollution problems
through Its establishment of the Air Pollution Control Commission (APCC)
In 1970. The assembly's purpose in establishing the APCC was to take
the air pollution control standards setting process out of the legis-
lature and place It into a smaller regulatory body. Consequently,
the APCC was directed to develop and administer the State's air
pollution control programs. As the significance of the contribution
of motor vehicles to the air pollution problem began to emerge, the
48th General Assembly enacted a bill to establish the Motor Vehicle
Advisory Committee (MVAC) to the commission. The MVAC was directed
to develop and evaluate experimental motor vehicle emission data and
report on the effectiveness and the social and economic impact of
various motor vehicle emission control alternatives.
The legislative effort to establish a technical program culminated
in Senate Bill 393 which was enacted in June of 1973. The study programs
conducted during this first phase of technical effort provided detailed
and specific information on various motor vehicle emission control
alternatives including related costs and effectiveness of each alter-
native Investigated. The study program consisted of the following
experiments:
* A survey to establish the frequency and extent of engine malad-
justments and malfunctions in the vehicle population of the
Denver Air Quality Control Region (DAQCR).
Experiments to characterize the costs and effectiveness of both
an idle inspection and repair program and a mandatory engine
maintenance program.
-------
A survey to establish the effectiveness of Denver area garages
In measuring emissions and diagnosing necessary engine repair
or adjustments based on those measurements.
Experiments to determine the costs and effectiveness of high
altitude engine parameter modification kits and several leading
sea-level retrofit kits.
Experiments to establish the Influence of selected engine
adjustments on vehicular emissions.
Experiments to ascertain the effect of altitude on vehicular
emissions.
The results of these studies demonstrated that an inspection and
maintenance (I/M) program and a retrofit program could provide a
significant reduction in the emissions of hydrocarbons and carbon
monoxide to the atmosphere. Both strategies were shown to be effective
and cost effective. Still unanswered, however, were questions regarding
the effect of engine degradation with its consequent increase in
emissions and the procedural, logistic and administrative guidelines
necessary to properly manage the programs.
The technical Investigation into the effect of engine degradation,
comprising the second phase of the I/M study, required a year to
complete. The study concluded, after allowances for engine degradation,
that I/M was still a viable emission control strategy.
The third phase of the program was designed to explore In more
detail the administrative, logistic and procedural requirements of
I/M and retrofit programs. During the Initial part of Phase III, the
criteria for accreditation of retrofit devices, emission inspection
instruments, emission inspectors, inspection stations and inspection
procedures were developed. These criteria have been submitted to the
Air Pollution Control Commission to be considered in the public hearing
process.
-------
This report presents study results comprising the middle and
final part of Phase III. In response to questions regarding the social
and economic aspects of an I/M program, experiments were undertaken to
evaluate the positive and negative implications of an I/M program
operated by the State versus privately owned and operated State-licensed
emission inspection stations. Other goals of the study include identi-
fying the various administrative requirements necessary to operate the
program regardless of the sector chosen.
-------
2. DISCUSSION OF STUDY DESIGN
2.1 OBJECTIVES
The major objective of this segment of the Phase III program was
to investigate the socio-economic Impact of an I/M program in both the
State and private sectors. In this respect, the Colorado Health Depart-
ment specified that idle inspection facilities be established in the
State and private sectors to determine costs, effectiveness and cost/
effectiveness of the two alternatives. More specifically, the services
that were to be performed are listed as follows:
Ten privately-owned service centers which were to act as pilot
emission inspection stations were to be established in the DAQCR. The
centers were to be distributed throughout a large segment of the region
so as to be convenient to a large segment of the motoring public. The
centers were to include a representation of the various categories of
motor vehicle service and repair facilities found in the region Including
both fleet and private vehicle repair facilities.
A State-operated facility which was to act as a State-operated
pilot emission inspection station was also to be established. The
State facility was to be situated such as to be convenient to a large
segment of the motoring public.
Both the privately-operated and the State-operated facilities
were to be used in support of the following tasks:
Task 1 - The centers were to be used for Inspecting a representative
sample of DAQCR light-duty vehicles. To be included in the sample was
a statistically valid number of vehicles to be strenuously tested by
mass emission testing procedures before and after inspection at the
inspection facilities. The test data were to be utilized to evaluate
the condition of automobiles as reported in previous studies.
Task 2 - The State and privately-operated facilities were to be used
to determine the costs of idle emission Inspections In both the public
and private sectors. This determination was to include the required
initial investment, actual direct labor costs, actual overhead labor
allocations, in shop equipment evaluation, maintenance and calibration
requirements, and other direct and indirect costs of operating such
stations in the public and private sectors. This effort was to culmi-
nate In a precise recommendation concerning the Inspection fee structure.
Task 3 - The service centers were to be utilized to document skills
and training levels required for the proper operation of emission
inspection equipment.
-------
Task 4 - The pilot operation was to be used to document needed public
protection measures. This information was to be obtained through such
sources as interviews with test program volunteers, Inquiries received
during testing and reactions from those who passed or failed the test.
Data were also to be acquired on possible areas of overcharge, on
additional training or certification necessary for instruments and/or
inspectors, on minimal data recording necessary in the event of court
action and on areas of interference and non-cooperation by Inspectors,
Investigators, owners of test vehicles and site operators.
Task 5 - The pilot operation was to be utilized to identify and make
recommendations on enforcement problems and solutions and administrative
procedural rules which would be needed to expand the effort to a region-
wide program. Such recommendations were to help determine fair and
reasonable variance criteria and procedural steps for variance and
permanently exempt vehicles. It was also to be used to verify if search
and inspection authority is needed and to identify those activities
such as false documentation, operation without a permit and circum-
vention which should be designated as areas requiring legal study.
Also to be included in the recommendations were data on investigator
workloads, site inspection frequency, pattern and thoroughness and
inspection time requirements under varying working conditions.
2.2 STUDY DESIGN
The overall objective of the program was to determine and subse-
quently investigate the major social and economic Impacts of an I/M
program as related to both the State and private sectors. One of the
primary concerns in these regards was to obtain a measure of the
motorist's reaction to both a State and privately-operated inspection
program. Other considerations included a re-evaluation of the then
current condition of light-duty vehicles, a determination of a reason-
able inspection fee and other direct and Indirect costs, minimum
acceptable inspector skill levels, necessary public protection measures
and needed enforcement and administrative rules and guidelines.
The program was approached by dividing the effort into specific
tasks to coincide with the objectives described above.
2.2.1 Inspection Network
-------
to service the DAOCR test area, an area which included Commerce City
to the north, Aurora to the east and was bounded by Colorado Boulevard
on the west and Hampden Avenue on the south. The network was comprised
of:
One (1) privately-owned fleet facility
Three (3) privately-owned service stations
Three (3) privately-owned independent garages
Three (3) privately-owned new car dealerships
A State-operated inspection facility was also provided by the Health
Department.
A map showing the distribution of the privately-operated inspection
sites and the location of the State-operated site is presented in
Figure 2-1. Here it may be seen that the privately-operated inspection
stations were well distributed throughout the test area and that the
State-operated site was somewhat centrally located.
In preparation for the testing phase of the project, personnel
from each facility were trained in accordance with the requirements
of the study. The nucleus of the training effort was derived from
the Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection/Maintenance program developed
for the Department by Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc. (ATL) under
sub-contract to Colorado State University. The training program was
abbreviated to provide 15 hours of classroom instruction and about 15
hours of on-the-job training.
-------
Figure 2-1. Distribution of Inspection Sites in DAQCR
2.2,2 Task 1, Vehicle Testing
A block diagram showing the general approach to the vehicle
inspection task of the program is presented in Figure 2-2.
-------
Figure 2-2. Inspection and Testing Phase Flow Diagram
Concurrently, mailing materials consisting of an introductory
letter from the State (signed by the Governor), an introductory letter
from ATL, and a post-paid information reply card and a list of vehicles
registered within the test area were developed. The vehicle listing,
comprised of a random (nth name) selection of registered vehicles, was
derived from motor vehicle registration files and provided by the
-------
Colorado Department of Revenue, Motor Vehicle Division. The letters
and reply-cards which requested and provided for the submission of
certain vehicle identification data were mailed to each of the 15,000
vehicle owners comprising the listing.
To develop a high affirmative response to the request for test
candidates, Incentives were offered. These were comprised of:
A $10 check to be provided each owner whose vehicle was selected
for laboratory testing.
An additional $10 check to be provided each owner whose vehicle
was selected for laboratory testing but whose vehicle failed
the station inspection and was returned for a second laboratory
test.
Up to $50 in maintenance to be provided each vehicle which failed
the station inspection.
A late-model loan car to be provided each participant whose
vehicle was selected for laboratory tests.
Fuel for the loan cars.
The inspection fee (somewhat arbitrarily established in advance
at a cost of $4 per Inspection).
Subsequent to the mailing, when affirmative replies were received,
a reply-card file containing the requested vehicle and other information
was established. This file was utilized to select vehicles for testing.
The test vehicle sample, comprised of 1,000 privately-owned DAQCR
1960 through 1974 model-year light-duty vehicles was selected on the
basis of DAQCR vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT) by model-year and was
further delineated by make, engine size, transmission and carburetion.
The Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company (Mountain Bell)
light-duty vehicle fleet was selected to evaluate fleet vehicle emission
inspection. Consequently, a representative fleet sample of 100
Mountain Bell vehicles was chosen to evaluate the various aspects of
-------
fleet vehicle emission inspection.
Of the privately-owned sample, 300 vehicles, comprising a valid
sub-sample, were utilized as contol vehicles to obtain a measure of
maintenance costs, effectiveness and other factors relating to the
I/M program. Vehicles comprising this sample were routed in the
following manner:
1. Vehicle delivered to laboratory by owner
2. Laboratory tests and vehicle examination
3. Vehicle delivered to station by owner
4. Emission inspection at station
5. Maintenance of failed vehicles
6. Final emission test at station
7. Maintained vehicles delivered to laboratory by owner
8. Final laboratory tests and vehicle examination
A sub-sample of 30 of the fleet vehicles were similarly routed.
The balance, 700 of the privately-owned and 70 of the fleet-
owned vehicles, were routed as follows:
1. Vehicle delivered to station by owner
2. Emission inspection at station
3. Maintenance of failed vehicles
4. Final emission test at station
During the testing phase, vehicles were scheduled for station
inspection at the rate of about 60 vehicles per week. Of these, about
one-third were previously tested in the as-received condition by the
more rigorous laboratory testing procedures, the 1975 Federal Test
-------
Procedure. These same vehicles were emission inspected using the
garage-type inspection equipment under laboratory conditions. Laboratory
tested vehicles, included in the study to provide data to indicate the
accuracy and effectiveness of the State, fleet and privately-operated
facilities were integrated into the overall sample. Stringent control
measures were developed and applied to assure the confidentiality of
the control strategy relative to test site personnel. Maintained
vehicles which failed inspection station tests, were subsequently
retested by laboratory procedures to determine effectiveness and the
validity of repairs.
2.2.3 Task 2, Determination of Idle Emission Inspection Costs
The methodology applied to determine costs associated with a
State-operated network is shown in the flow diagram presented in
Figure 2-3.
Costs associated with a State-operated network were determined
on the basis of workload capabilities of the pilot site expanded to
include minimum requirements of an area-wide program. Data were
provided by the Colorado Health Department and are based on the actual
personnel labor costs, personnel overhead and other overhead costs.
Initial investment costs including typical real estate values, building
costs and equipment costs were researched and developed. In addition,
cost factors to describe the time and travel demands on the motorist
were researched and developed.
Methodology applied to develop costs relative to a privately-
operated network is shown in the flow diagram presented in Figure 2-4.
-------
STATE OPERATED SYSTEM
Figure 2-3, Task 2 Flow Diagram
With respect to initial investment by the private sector, real
estate and building costs were not considered applicable and only the
investment in test equipment was examined. Stations participating in
the pilot effort were utilized to establish a cost basis for the
inspection fee. This was derived from a determination of actual
personnel pay rates, personnel overhead and shop overhead rates.
Administration and enforcement costs were determined from an analysis
-------
PRIVATELY OPERATED SYSTEM
Figure 2-4, Task 2 Flow Diagram
of the number of DAQCR facilities expected to participate, site
inspection requirements, the anticipated level of variance and referee
related activities and the anticipated data handling, compiling and
processing requirements.
2.2.4 Task 3. Required Inspector Skill and Training Levels
As indicated earlier, personnel from each participating facility
were trained in accordance with study requirements. A training program
of about 15 hours of classroom instruction was provided at the outset
of the study. Additionally, a nominal 15 hours of on-the-job training
was provided each emission inspector during the testing phase on a
demand basis. This was provided through both scheduled and unscheduled
-------
visits to each site by an emission inspection and control specialist
from the ATL staff. During these visits the specialist provided
guidance and assistance to site personnel in solving inspection and
repair problems.
To document the minimum personnel skills and training levels
required for the proper operation of test equipment, the experience and
results of the Colorado State University (CSU) Mechanic/Inspector pilot
training program were applied. The results of student testing during
instrument operation training phases of the CSU pilot training project
were referenced and applied towards developing the specific requirements
related to this task. In addition, other criteria relating to minimum
educational requirements and related work experience were investigated
and developed. These criteria were used as the basis for evaluating
inspection and repair personnel during the training and testing phases
of the project. As a final result, recommendations regarding minimum
educational and skill levels were developed.
2.2.5 Task 4. Documentation of Needed Public Protection Measures
The reactions of test participants to the pilot study and certain
cost and other information developed during the testing phase were
utilized to develop documentation relating to the requirement for
public protection measures.
The reactions of participants were measured at two stages in the
program, upon initial selection and acceptance of a vehicle and, conse-
quently its owner, and again after all testing was completed. To
measure these reactions, a questionnaire was devised which included
questions relating to the causes of air pollution, the seriousness of
the situation, who should conduct the inspections, the frequency of
-------
inspection, inspection fees, and other questions relating to a mandatory
inspection program. In addition, questions regarding a mandatory retrofit
program were included. The questionnaires were also designed to elicit
data relating to the so-called nuisance factors which include time and
travel requirements and to the social, economic and enforcement impli-
cations of a mandatory program.
In addition to measuring participant reaction, estimates relating
to possible areas of overcharge, additional training or certification
necessary for instruments and/or inspectors, minimal data recording
necessary in the event of court action and other factors were documented
and evaluated.
The manner in which the requirements relating to Task A were
approached is depicted in the Task 4 Flow Diagram presented in Figure
2-5.
2.2.6 Task 5. Enforcement Problems and Solutions
Much of the data and information to meet the requirements of Task 5
were developed in connection with the preceding tasks.
The pilot inspection network was utilized to identify enforcement
problems and solutions and administrative guidelines needed to expand
the effort to a region-wide program. Such recommendations were developed
from this experience and from public reaction to the pilot network as
reflected in the response to the questionnaires and the change in
response. The pilot network and the public's reaction to its many aspects
were also used as a measure to determine requirements for variance
activities and for exempt vehicles, and to identify those activities
such as false documentation, operation without a permit and circumvention
which should be designated as areas requiring legal 3tudy.
-------
Figure 2-5, Task A Flow Diagram
-------
3. DISCUSSION OF STUDY FINDINGS
In Section 2 cf this report ve described the program objectives
and included a general discussion of study design.
In this section, provided in 6 parts, we present our findings
with additional amplification of the design elements when considered
necessary to clarify certain aspects of the results.
Part I includes a discussion of the testing phase which describes:
the administration of the experimental program; the inspection and
repair procedures; and station performance including pass/fail rates,
Instrument drift rates, instrument correlations, maintenance costs,
and emission related effectiveness.
Part II describes the public sector fee structure and the manner
in which It was developed.
Part III describes the private sector fee structure and the manner
in which it was developed.
Part IV describes the minimum Inspector and repairman skill and
training levels and the manner in which they were determined.
Part V describes the results of the public opinion survey, an
estimate of overcharges, an evaluation of consumer complaints and a
discussion of needed public protection measures.
Part 71 Includes a summary of the problems expected in connection
with an area wide inspection network.
-------
1.3.1 VEHICLE TESTING
1.3.1.1 Distribution of Test Vehicles by Station
Before the testing phase was implemented we developed several
alternative plans to distribute test vehicles among stations comprising
the network. These were presented to and discussed with the Department.
At the outcome of these discussions, it was generally concluded that
an approach which permitted the motorist freedom-of-choice relative
to the site he selected would best meet program objectives. On the
other hand, it was considered desirable to force the distribution
such as to provide about 10 percent of the privately-owned vehicle
sample to the State-operated test site. Consequently, the vehicle
distribution by site was nominally 10 percent to the State site and
90 percent to the privately-operated sites. No attempt was made to
bias the sample assigned to the privately-operated network along any
particular lines. The fleet vehicles, of course, were limited to
inspection at the fleet-owned station.
The distribution which resulted from the strategy is presented
in Table 3-1. Here it may be seen that nearly 47 percent of the
motorists assigned to the private network chose the three service
stations in which to have the inspection performed. Of the balance,
nearly 31 percent chose the new car dealerships and nearly 23 percent
chose the independent garages. Of particular significance in this
respect is that nearly 29 percent of the motorists chose SS-4 for the
inspection. We attribute this to the greater number of hours this
particular facility was available to perform inspections. Respective
of this factor, we would be led to believe that stations comprising
-------
Station
Type of
Veh.
Inspected
Business Hours
Code
Station
(4)
-------
which the inspection was to take place. In this respect, a one week
time period was prescribed. This information was provided by directing
an appointment card, on which the prescribed week was indicated, to
the motorists attention. The card not only alerted him to the inspection
time requirement, but also served to introduce him at the inspection
site. A map showing station locations and business hours and a detailed
set of instructions were also provided.
The site manager was also provided instructions. With the motorist's
arrival at the site, the station was Instructed to:
1. Write up a repair (inspection) order as on any job.
2. Complete the last four lines on the Inspection form (Figure
3-1, page II-6) using information provided on the customer's
I.D. card.
Verify the engine size before completing the bottom line of
the inspection form,
3. When the inspection is completed:
A. The original of the inspection form and one copy of the
costed repair order is given to the customer.
B. The remaining copy is to be mailed to the laboratory.
4. Invoice the laboratory on a monthly basis.
Support the invoice with copies of repair orders.
Maximum amount that will be paid for a "passed" vehicle is
$4.00.
Maximum amount that will be paid for a failed vehicle is
$54.00 ($4.00 for inspection and $50.00 for repairs).
As indicated, the fee we provided for the inspection was $4.00 per
vehicle, a cost excluding administrative fees determined on the basis of
results obtained from the Volume II study report, High Altitude Vehicular
Emission Control Program. A nominal maintenance cost, not to exceed $50
per vehicle, was also provided because of program cost constraints.
-------
As also Indicated, the motorist was provided a copy of the costed
repair order. The particular purpose of this strategy was to bring
repair costs to his specific attention. Since his opinion on the entire
process was being measured, we believed this to be an acceptable substi-
tute in lieu of his actually paying for the repairs.
1.3.1.3 Inspection and Repair Procedures
In designing the I/M procedure, it was our belief that greater
exhaust hydrocarbon (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) reductions could be
achieved relative to the procedures applied In earlier high altitude
I/M studies by slightly modifying the repair sequence. As will be
later discussed, this did not prove to be the case. In any event, the
procedures we prescribed were as follows:
1. Perform HC and CO inspection at curb idle.
2. If vehicle falls HC, CO or both, perform lean best idle and
idle rpm adjustments.
If vehicle falls HC, adjust ignition timing as well.
3. If after step 2 operations are performed the vehicle continues
to fail, perform up to $50.00 in maintenance using procedures
prescribed In the training program.
As a final step, perform lean best idle and idle rpm
adjustments.
4. If after step 3 operations are performed the vehicle continues
to fail, estimate malfunction and probable cause.
Since the State facility performed no repairs, the function
performed by State personnel was related solely to the inspection
process. A vehicle which failed the test at the State station was
required to utilize one of the nine private stations to have repairs
performed. This facet of the Inspection process obviously placed an
additional burden on the motorist since he was required to take the
-------
failed vehicle to a repair facility for repairs and return to the
State station for a final inspection. In this respect, it should be
noted that we did not require the process to be continued beyond the
initial retest.
1.3.1*4 Station Performance
1.3.1.4.1 Pass/Fall Rates
Pass/fail limits were designed to fall 50 percent of the privately
owned vehicles. These same limits were utilized as pass/fail criteria
for fleet-owned vehicles. The HC/CO standards shown in Table 3-2 were
applied in the inspection process and were determined in advance of
the testing phase through a parking lot survey conducted by the Health
Department.
Model Year
Failure
Limits
1968-1974
JSğ
O
o
ppm
HC
5.0%
CO
1960-1967
900
ppm
HC
6.5%
CO
Table 3-2, Idle HC/CO Emission Inspection Standards
Using these limits, the actual pass/fail rates as determined in
the testing phase are shown by Inspection station in Table 3-3. As
indicated, the actual pass/fail ratio for vehicles tested in the
private sector was 54/46 while the ratio for vehicles tested in the
State sector was somewhat different at 64/36. This disparity may be
due to instrument, procedural and other factors which in our opinion
are easily resolved and should not reflect on the quality of inspection
in either sector. Not shown in the table is the pass/fail rate for
fleet vehicles. This was found to be 84/16 which may indicate these
-------
Station
300 Monitored
700
Vehicles
All
Vehicles
Not Monitored
Vehicles
Tested
Pass
Fail
Tested
Pass
Fail
Tested
Pass
Fail
#
(2)
(Z)
#
(%)
(%>
i
CO
(%)
IND-1
28
68
32
70
56
44
98
59
41
D-2
30
63
37
80
52
48
110
55
45
IND-3
26
69
31
62
55
45
88
59
41
SS-4
103
51
49
158
59
41
261
56
44
SS-5
11
54
46
33
58
42
44
57
43
D-6
26
54
46
89
56
44
115
56
44
D-7
13
31
69
44
48
52
57
44
56
IND-8
5
40
60
15
53
47
20
50
50
SS-9
28
46
54
94
39
61
122
41
59
Total
270
645
915
Mean
55
45
53
47
54
46
ST 10
30
57
43
55
67
33
85
64
36
Table 3-3t Pass/Fall Rates by Station and by Private and Public Sector.
vehicles were in a relatively good state of repair before inspection.
1.3.1.4.2 Inspection Instrument Drift Rates
Instrument models used in the nine private stations, the single
State-operated station and the single fleet station are listed in
Table 3-4. Also shown are maximum drift rates in percent of instrument
full scale per month which we measured and recorded during the nominal
three and one-half month operational Interval. These rates were
determined as a result of on-site inspection and calibration of the
instruments made on a periodic basis throughout the Interval.
Calibrations of these Instruments were performed using standard
HC and CO gas blends. No data were developed for the instrument used
at the State site since the facility was in operation a relatively short
period of time near the end of the testing phase.
With further regards to instrument drift rates, maximum observed
-------
Station
Mfgr.
Model
Max. Drift
(ZF.S./Month)
HC
CO
IND-1
SDN
EPA-75
+1.0
+3.0
D-2
SDN
EPA-75
-4.0
+3.0
IND-3
SDN
EPA-75
-4.0
+5.0
SS-4
SDN
EPA-75
-6.5
+3.0
SS-5
SDN
EPA-75
-1.5
+2.0
D-6
SDN
EE-910
+1.5
+4.0
D-7
SDN
D-912
+2.5
+1.0
IND-8
SDN
EE-910
+5.0
+3.0
SS-9
SDN
EPA-75
-2.5
+2.0
ST-10
SDN
EPA-75
-
FL-11
SDN
D-912
+4.4
+5.0
n
SDN
EPA-75
0.0
+1.0
Table 3-4, Maximum Inspection Instrument Drift Rates by Station.
for CO was 5.0 percent per month. From this indication we concluded
that it would be a good practice to perform a calibration using gas
blends (as opposed to a mechanical or electrical calibration) at
an Interval not to exceed each two months. This conclusion is based
on the assumption that the performance of the Instrument becomes
unacceptable when its response to a standard gas indicates it is out
of calibration more than 10 percent.
I.3.1.4.3 Station Inspection Correlation With Laboratory Inspection
During the testing phase, we utilized a representative subsample
of 330 vehicles to monitor the quality of station inspections and
other aspects of an I/M program.
The monitoring strategy was applied to obtain an Indication of
instrument performance and the Inspector's proficiency in operating
the Instruments and performing the inspections. The procedure Involved
a laboratory performed pre-station Inspection of each of the 330
vehicles comprising the control sample. The Inspection was performed
using laboratory-grade HC and CO instruments (Beckman Model 315 NDIR
-------
After all data were gathered, correlation coefficients to describe
the relationship between the laboratory and station inspections were
developed. As shown in Table 3-5, where off-scale instrument readings
are not considered, correlation coefficients for HC vary relative to
private sector facilities from a low of .498 (IND-8) to a high of
.745 (SS-9) Coefficients relative to the State operation and the
fleet operation were found to be lower at .475 and .104. Correlation
coefficients for CO vary in the private sector stations from .488
to .869 with the coefficient for the State site falling at .698, a
point about mid-range in the coefficients found relative to the private
sites. At .299, the fleet facility Indicates the lowest coefficient
for CO also.
Station
HC
CO
Observations
Coefficient
Observations
Coefficient
IND-1
26
.546
28
.634
D-2
28
.589
28
.755
IND-3
24
.674
26
.555
SS-4
91
.548
100
.611
SS-5
11
.669
11
.635
D-6
25
.549
23
.657
D-7
12
.771
13
.799
IND-8
3
.498
5
.488
SS-9
25
.745
27
.869
ST-10
30
.475
28
.698
FL-11
30
.104
30
.299
Table 3-5, Laboratory Inspection Versus Station Inspection Correlation
Coefficients.
As we indicated earlier when discussing pass/fail rates, we do not
consider the coefficients to be a true measure of station performance.
The State, for example, did not derive' full benefit from our instrument
monitoring procedure since its facility was in operation for such a
-------
short period of time. Also, we believe the apparent poor performance
of the fleet facility Is more a problem of instrument accuracy than
inspector performance. As may be inferred from the relatively low
fleet vehicle failure rate, many of the readings were taken on the
lower end of the instrument scales where correlations are expected to
be inherently poor.
1.3.1.5 Vehicle Maintenance Costs
Average maintenance costs associated with failed vehicles are
shown in Table 3-6.
As indicated, the minimum average cost by station to repair a
failed privately-owned vehicle was $8.17 while the maximum was $19.60.
The mean cost to repair vehicles failed by the private sector network
was found to be $11.00 while $13.75 was the cost associated with
repairing vehicles failed by the State facility. While the higher
cost factor associated with State failed vehicles may be construed
to indicate some cost disparity between the two sectors, the higher
Station
# Veh.
Pass/Fail
Avg. Cost/Failed Veh.
Tested
(No./No.)
IND-1
98
58/40
$ 8.17
D-2
110
61/49
$ 9.68
IND-3
88
52/36
$19.60
SS-4
261
147/114
$ 8.30
SS-5
44
25/19
$14.41
D 6
115
64/51
$ 9.51
D-7
57
25/32
$12.57
IND-8
20
10/10
$13.12
SS-9
122
50/72
$12.59
ALL 9
915
492/423
$11.00
ST-10
85
54/31
$13.75
FL-11
100
84/16
$10.76
Table 3-6, Average Maintenance Costs Per Failed Vehicle by Station.
-------
State-Inspected repair co9t is related almost exclusively to the fact
that many of the State-failed automobiles were repaired at IND-3, the
facility found otherwise to exhibit the highest repair charges. As
also indicated, the average failed fleet-vehicle repair cost, $10.76
is very nearly the same as the failed privately-owned vehicle repair
cost.
In examining the various factors affecting repair costs and
further supported by actual data, we can find no reason to believe a
repair cost disparity would exist between the two sectors.
1.3*1.6 Emission Related Effectiveness
In review: one aspect of the study was to test a representative
sample of vehicles by model-year, make, engine size, etc. with the
representation by model-year based on VMT. In this respect, it was
intended that vehicle sub-samples be utilized to evaluate the advan-
tages and disadvantages of inspection in the public versus the private
sectors. While we originally designed with these factors in the fore-
front, it became increasingly more difficult to maintain the design
criteria due to the delay in start-up connected with the State facility.
As opposed to simply halting test activities, the testing rate was
merely slowed considerably at some point to ensure that an adequate
number of vehicles were available for testing at the State Inspection
site. As a consequence, the vehicle sample ultimately tested at the
State site was skewed toward the newer model-years, a factor which
need be considered as results are presented. In this same respect,
the fleet vehicle sample may appear to be skewed toward the newer
model-years. It should be remembered, however, that fleet vehicles
represent the distribution of vehicles under the operator's control.
-------
Aside from providing a quantity of vehicles to be used to evaluate
the various aspects of a public versus a private sector network, the
purpose of the testing phase was to provide an indication of the current
emission related conditions of DAQCR motor vehicles in contrast to
the conditions found In previous studies. In these regards the
Department was particularly interested in comparing results from the
subject program, which we will call the FY-74 program against the
previous year's I/M study, which we will call the FY-73 program.
To make this determination we were particularly concerned with
examining the 1968 and newer vehicle population and elected to utilize
a 90 percent confidence level. With respect to both HC and CO emissions
we looked for significant statistical differences as follows:
FY-74 before I/M results versus after I/M results
FY-73 before I/M results versus after I/M results
FY-74 before I/M results versus
FY-73 before I/M results
FY-74 after I/M results versus
FY-73 after I/M results
FY-74 before I/M results versus
FY-73 after I/M results
FY-73 before I/M results versus
FY-74 after I/M results
In these regards it should be noted that the after I/M data are based
on slightly different rejection rates which we do not believe will alter
the conclusions. The rejection rate we examined for the FY-74 program
was 41% while the FY-73 rejection rate was 40%.
As may be seen in Table 3-7, at the 90 percent confidence level
we found a statistically significant reduction in HC emissions resulting
-------
from the current I/M process. Similarly, we found a significant
reduction resulting from last year's I/M process. However, we also
found a statistical difference in emission levels between last year's
HC baseline sample and this year's baseline sample with the current
year indicating a lower baseline level. With further regards to these
data, we found no difference in the final HC levels between last year's
and this year's program and no difference between this year's base-
line and last year's after I/M HC levels. In addition, we did find a
difference between last year's baseline and this year's after I/M HC
levels.
Pairs Tested
#Veh.
Mean
S.D.
Statistical
(gr/mi)
(gr/mi)
Difference?
FY-74 before I/M
231
5.35
2.2
FY-74 after I/M
231
5.00
1.8
yes
FY-73 before I/M
190
6.36
4.7
FY-73 after I/M
190
5.22
1.6
yes
FY-74 before I/M
231
5.35
2.2
FY-73 before I/M
190
6.36
4.7
yes
FY-74 after I/M
231
5.00
1.8
FY-73 after I/M
190
5.22
1.6
no
FY-74 before I/M
231
5.35
2.2
FY-73 after I/M
190
5.22
1.6
no
FY-73 before I/M
190
6.36
4.7
FY-74 after I/M
231
5.00
1.8
yes
Table 3-7, Results of Statistical Differences Test of Various Pairs of
FY-73 and FY-74 HC Data at the 90 Percent Confidence Level,
1968 and Newer Model-Year Vehicles.
These findings would lead us to conclude that while the current
year's I/M process resulted in statistically significant HC reductions,
these reductions are not as great as those achieved previously due
-------
apparently Co a general lowering of the baseline level. This Indicates
to us that more attention was recently given the HC related tune-up
parameters, a factor caused perhaps by the recently emerging energy
shortage and Its higher attendant fuel costs.
A similar analysis was performed relative to CO emission levels.
As may be seen In Table 3-8, at the 90 percent confidence level
ve found no significant reduction in CO emissions resulting from the
current I/M process while we did find that the I/M process of last
year produced a significant reduction in CO. However, we found no
difference between last year's CO baseline sample and this year's
baseline sample. With further regards to these data, we found no
difference in the final CO levels between last year's and this year's
program but did find a difference between this year's baseline and
last year's after I/M CO levels. In addition, we found no difference
between last year's baseline and this year's after I/M CO levels.
Our findings in these regards would lead us to conclude,, very
simply, that while the potential for CO reduction existed relative to
the more recent effort, for some reason it was not attained. While
we do not have solid evidence to indicate this to be the case, we
have surmised that one of two factors, or both, tended to have an
adverse effect on the I/M benefits. In viewing the two programs, the
only real differences we could find, however subtle, were related to
both the inspection and the repair procedures. In the prior year's
program a two mode Inspection procedure (curb idle and 2500 rpm) was
employed while in the current study a single mode (curb idle only)
procedure was utilized. Also, in the prior year, an engine rpm/lean
-------
Pairs Tested
#Veh.
Mean
S.D.
Statistical
(gr/rai)
(gr/mi)
Difference?
FY-74 before I/M
231
91.1
48.3
FY-74 after I/M
231
86.0
47.1
no
FY-73 before I/M
190
91.3
44.1
FY-73 after I/M
190
81.5
31.1
yes
FY-74 before I/M
231
91.1
48.3
FY-73 before I/M
190
91.3
44.1
no
FY-74 after I/M
231
86.0
47.1
FY-73 after I/M
190
81.5
31.1
no
FY-74 before I/M
231
91.1
48.3
FY-73 after I/M
190
81.5
31.1
yes
FY-73 before I/M
190
91.3
44.1
FY-74 after I/M
231
86.0
47.1
no
Table 3-8, Results of Statistical Differences Test of Various Pairs
of FY-73 and FY-74 CO Data at the 907. Confidence Level,
1968 and newer Model-Year Vehicles.
best idle adjustment was prescribed for vehicles failing CO only. In
the current program, this procedure was prescribed for all failed
vehicles including those which failed HC as well as' CO. In any event,
we believe these varying degrees of success merely Indicate the sensi-
tivity of an I/M program to a variety of factors, not all of which
are clearly understood.
In this light, the mean I/M emission level data for the current
year are presented in contrast to the results obtained in last year's
program. These may be seen in Table 3-9 where data relating to the
fleet vehicles are also shown. In this regard, we are of the opinion
that the data shown for the fleet vehicles, although based on the rela-
tively low 16% rejection rate, are reflective of near minimum emission
levels which may be achieved as a result of a totally effective I/M or
mandatory maintenance program.
-------
Rejection
HC
CO
NO*
MPG
Rate
*73
121
J73
12i
'73
'74
'73
'74
Baseline
6.36
5.35
91.3
91.1
2.87
2.49
14.68
14.98
20Z
5.56
5.06
86.1
87.6
2.84
2.49
14.79
14.98
30%
5.29
5.04
83.3
86.9
2.84
2.48
14.85
14.95
40%
5.22
5.00
81.5
86.0
2.84
2.48
14.88
14.93
Fleet 16Z
4.07
77.3
2.76
14.50
Table 3-9, 1968 and Newer Model-Year Vehicle Emission Levels (gr/mi)
at Various Rejection Rates for the FY-73 and FY-74 I/M
Study Programs.
In Table 3-10 are shown effectiveness data in terms of percent
reduction from the baseline condition. Regarding these data, we believe
it important to note that at the higher rejection rates, the HC and CO
effectiveness factors for the current year are respectively about 1/3
and 1/2 of what they were in the FY-73 program, the reasons for which
have been discussed. It is also important to note that fleet emission
reductions based on mean values were relatively insignificant.
More detailed data relating to the subject study are presented in
Appendix B.
Rejection
HC
CO
NO*
MPG
Rate
'73
'74
121
'74
'73
'74
121 121
20Z
12.6
5.4
5.8
3.8
1.0
0.1
-0.76 0.03
30Z
16.9
5.9
8.8
4.6
0.8
0.2
-1.14 0.30
40Z
18.0
6.6
10.8
5.7
1.1
0.3
-1.37 0.40
Fleet 16Z
0.4
1.0
0.2
-0.25
Table 3-10, 1968 and Newer Model-Year Vehicle Emission Reductions (Z)
at Various Rejection Rates for the FY-73 and FY-74 I/M
Study Programs.
-------
II.3.2 INSPECTION COSTS IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
II.3.2.1 Site Workload Capabilities
The Department reported the capacity of a State-operated Inspection
facility having two inspection lanes would be about 12.5 inspections
per hour per lane which is equivalent to 4.8 minutes per inspection.
This information was obtained from the Department's experience in
operating its pilot test site in Aurora. The Department further
reported the estimate takes into account the amount of time required to:
e Elicit the needed information from the vehicle owner.
9 Position the vehicle in the inspection lane.
Connect the diagnostic and inspection equipment.
° observe and record appropriate instrument readings.
Relate test results to the owner.
° Respond to any questions the owner may have relative to the
process.
However, the 12.5 lnspections/hour/lane testing rate does not take
equipment breakdowns, personnel absenteeism and other factors affecting
production into account. It Is our estimate, based on a survey of 43
automotive repair facilities, that an effectiveness factor of 0.8 may
be applied to determine the effective production level of an automotive-
oriented facility.
We agree with the Department's estimate relating to the Inspection
time. The Department provided estimate is roughly equivalent to the
actual average inspection time reported by the vehicle owners who
frequented the State-operated facility in connection with the testing
phase. While an average of 6.3 minutes per inspection was reported,
we believe the Interval would eventually be reduced to coincide with
-------
the Department's estimate as test personnel gain experience and the
efficiency of the operation generally improves*
Taking the various factors into account, we believe the actual
test rate would be more nearly 10 lnspections/hour/lane.
11.3.2*2 Minimum Network Requirements
Our estimates on the number of inspections to be performed are
based on*
Projected light-duty vehicle population as of mid-1977.
The assumption that 10 year old and newer vehicles are to be
subject to the Inspection requirement.
A rejection rate of 30 percent.
A second retest of a failed vehicle will not be required.
We project there will be about 891,000 light duty vehicles regis-
tered in the DAQCR in 1977. Approximately 88 percent or 784,000 will
be 10 years old or newer. At a 30 percent rejection rate, the number
of inspections required on an annual I/M basis would be about 1,020,000
inspections per year.
Drawing on our experience and the information developed during
the testing phase, we believe the public should be provided, and would
accept, a network which generally operates at a minimum:
Weekdays from 7:00 A.M. to 8;00 P.M.
Saturdays from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
thus providing about 74 hours/lane/week in which inspections may be
performed. On this basis, and at a rate of 10 lnspections/hour/lane,
a total of 740 inspections/week or about 38,000 Inspections per year
may be performed in each lane. Considering the annual number of 1,020,000
inspections to be performed, about 27 lanes would be required. However,
-------
this estimate assumes a uniform workload throughout the testing week. In
order to prevent vehicle back-up in the test lanes, particularly during
the late afternoon, evening and Saturday hours, we believe the number
of lanes estimated above should be increased by a factor of 1.3 which
results in a DAQCR requirement for about 36 test lanes.
II.3.2.3 Administrative and Enforcement Requirements
On the basis of experience derived in the pilot test lane effort,
it would appear that many of the administrative tasks may be Integrated
into the duties performed by site management personnel. As a consequence,
the purely administrative elements of a State-operated network appear
to be minimal. We believe the same is true of the enforcement aspects
whereby enforcement measures, excluding any activities which may be
generated relative to the granting of variances, may be handled In
much the same manner existing safety Inspection regulations are handled,
through local and State lav enforcement agencies. If this strategy is
employed, however, it would be necessary to modify certain of the regu-
lations applicable to the safety inspection network.
The revisions should contain the following as a minimum:
Provisions for applying the existing safety inspection sticker
to indicate compliance with both safety and emission inspection
requirements. Slight modifications to existing sticker design
would be required.
° Provisions to require the existing safety inspection network and
the proposed emission Inspection network to transfer certain
information from the old sticker to the new.
Provisions within the regulations granting authority to law
enforcement agencies to enforce the new and revised regulations.
In proceeding along these lines, the requirement for a second sticker
would be negated and the enforcement problems connected with identifying
-------
a vehicle registered within a county affected by the emission inspection
requirements would be no greater than they currently are relative to
the safety inspection program. Administrative elements of the proposed
strategy are as follows:
The safety inspector, at the time of inspection, would determine
the county in which the vehicle was registered.
If registration is found to be outside the DAQCR, the inspector
would, in effect, grant a variance relative to the requirement
for emission inspection and issue a safety inspection sticker
which expires in 12 months.
If registration is found to be within the DAQCR, the inspector
would issue a sticker which expires when the next emission
inspection is due.
The emission inspector, at the time of inspection, would issue
a sticker which expires when the next safety Inspection is due.
Since the logistic requirements relative to the stickers are currently
handled within the Department of Revenue and reasons for altering this
practice have not become apparent, we believe the practice should be
continued*
In line with the above discussion, we believe a State-operated
network may be adequately administered by employing within the Health
Department:
An administrator to provide overall direction relative to the
program and to serve as the program spokesman.
An Assistant Administrator to assist in these regards and to
coordinate activities within the Department of Revenue.
A Secretary to provide clerical and other administrative assistance.
Two Engineers with administrative experience to coordinate personnel
assignments, equipment calibrations, logistics, and other network
requirements.
One Data Analyst to coordinate data processing and related activi-
ties and review and modify pass/fail limits as applicable.
-------
Two Electro-Mechanical Equipment Technicians to provide equipment
calibration and maintenance support for the network.
It is also our belief that the Department of Revenue should employ in
addition to its current staff:
An Engineer with administrative experience to coordinate Depart-
ment of Revenue activities relative to the inspection network..
Two clerks to provide assistance in issuing and accounting for
the stickers used within the emission inspection network.
II.3.2.4 Data Processing Requirements
On the basis of our experience in the inspection phase of the pilot
effort, coupled with our knowledge of the importance of maintaining
accurate and current data files which help in Indicating potentially
troublesome areas, we believe the Implementation of a data processing
system is essential to the success of the program. In this regard, we
recommend the quality and cost control procedures employed in the pilot
effort be utilized with particular emphasis on the use of the Vehicle
Inspection Form (Figure 3-1). This form, which requires some modifi-
cation and refinement for use In connection with a computerized State-
operated network, was and may be used to document emission readings,
the type of adjustments and repairs made and repair costs relating
solely to the I/M process. The form should be printed in an original
and two copies with the following disposition;
In the case of a passed vehicle, the original is retained by
the vehicle owner, and one copy is retained by the station for
subsequent processing. The second copy may be destroyed or
retained in a dead file.
In the case of a failed vehicle, the original and one copy is
retained by the vehicle owner to be presented to the repair
facility when repairs are scheduled. The repair facility is
required to indicate on the forms the repairs made and the costs
incurred. Subsequent to this, the owner is required to present
the completed forms at the time of retest.
-------
STOP WHEN VEHICLE PASSES!
Model Year Failure Limits
1968-1974; HC 400 ppm CO 5.0%
1960-1967: HC 900 ppm CO 6.5Z
READING
COST
INITIAL
INSPECTION
HC
4.00
CO
ADJUSTMENTS
if vehicle fails:
adjust idle RPM,
set lean best idle
HC
CO
if vehicle fails HC:
adjust timing,set
lean best idle
HC
CO
REPAIRS ($50.00 LIMIT)
HC
& set lean best idle
CO
TOTAL COST
If vehicle still fails,estimate malfunctions
and probable cost
Inspection
Station
Vehicle
Owner
Vehicle
Number Year
Make
Engine
Number of
Displacement
Cylinders
Figure 3-1, Sample of Vehicle Inspection Form
-------
If the vehicle passes the retest, the original is retained by owner
and the copy is retained by the station for processing.
If the vehicle falls the retest, the original and one copy is to
be again presented at the repair facility where additional mainte-
nance is to be performed. The extent of this additional maintenance
is to be recorded on the forms. We do not consider a second retest
advisable. Consequently, the owner is simply required to present
the completed form at an inspection site where a sticker will
automatically be granted. At this time, the original is retained
by the owner and the copy is retained by the station for subsequent
processing.
It is our opinion that a minimal, yet effective, data collection
and processing system comprised of both manual and automatic data
processing operations could be implemented in a reasonably short period
of time. In general, the system would utilize a keyboard terminal and
a real-time mini-computer and would operate as follows:
When the initial test is performed, vehicle and owner data would
be entered via keyboard and stored on magnetic tape. Subsequent
to this and at the appropriate time, emission test data (RC and
CO readings) would automatically be entered and stored on tape.
Concurrently, a hard copy of the Vehicle Inspection Form would
also be produced for utilization in the procedures relating to
maintenance and cost data.
As described above, in the case of a failed vehicle the computer
generated original and one copy would be retained by the vehicle
owner for presentation at the repair facility.
Following repairs and the completion of the form by the repair
facility, the vehicle would be returned to the inspection station
to be retested. At this time, data relating to the vehicle,
owner, retest emission levels, maintenance and costs would be
entered and stored on tape for subsequent processing.
In the case of a second failure, the same information would again
be recorded, this time to include maintenance and cost data
relating to the second repair attempt.
Finally, the tape stored data would be collected periodically
and transferred to a central data center for processing. At the
center, data from the various stages would be combined and pass/
fail rates, maintenance data, cost data and other desirable
information would be reported in an appropriate format.
-------
11.3.2.5 Collection of Inspection Fees and Handling of Purchasing
Requirements
While there may be specific reasons, either political or otherwise,
for collecting the Inspection fee at the time a vehicle is first presented
for the annual inspection, we believe the fee-payment process should be
made a part of the annual motor vehicle registration requirement. With-
out getting into a detailed discussion of the security and other ramifi-
cations of an on-site fee collection process, we believe it sufficient
to say that a combined registration/inspection fee collecting arrange-
ment at the time the vehicle is registered is a workable arrangement.
A requirement for three or four additional personnel within the Depart-
ment of Revenue to properly account for and transfer monies into the
appropriate State fund and one or two additional personnel within the
Purchasing Department to procure materials and supplies required by
the network should be adequate.
11.3.2.6 Real Estate, Building and Equipment Costs
In researching real estate costs we found land values to vary over
a wide price range. Values, for example, were on the high side for
parcels of land situated with frontage on main thoroughfares in devel-
oping or newly developed neighborhoods and on the low side for parcels
situated off main thoroughfares In or near decaying neighborhoods or
undeveloped areas. After encountering such significant variations in
values, we came to the realization we would have to rely on the opinion
of real estate agents and appraisers.
In seeking such opinion we established the following criteria to
describe a typical inspection site:
The site was to be of a size equivalent to the pilot test site
-------
currently in operation in Aurora with a frontage of about 75
feet and a depth of 130 feet.
It was to be situated about one-half of a city block from a major
arterial road.
It was to be situated in an area zoned for business or light
industry.
In discussing such requirements with the various individuals and companies
we contacted, the consensus of opinion was that such a site would cost
about $50,000 on the average.
The Health Department provided cost data relating to certain of
the equipment required. The Department indicated that capital outlay
for an Inspection facility could be divided into two major areas,
scientific equipment and office equipment.
The scientific equipment cost estimate provided by the Department
included an ignition analyzer, tachometer, dwell meter, volt-ohm meter,
vacuum gauge, compression tester, positive crankcase ventilation tester
and automotive repair and adjustment hand tools. These items were
reported as costing $5,700 totally. In addition, we derived an estimate
of $12,000 to provide an emissions analytical console containing labora-
tory-grade HC and CO pollutant measuring instrumentation and a CO2 analyzer
for inspection quality control purposes. The console also Includes
sample diverting, flow control and conditioning components. The data
acquisition system (mini-computer) is estimated to cost about $25,000
and includes the computer with 16K memory, interface apparatus, a real-
time clock, an A-D converter, a 30 cps terminal and sufficient software.
The Department provided estimate for office equipment was $1,500
and included items such as desks, chairs, file cabinets and storage
cabinets.
-------
We researched building costs and found the range to be from $20/sq.
ft. to $30/sq. ft. In evaluating the design requirements of an Inspection
facility, we concluded that the $30/sq. ft. figure should be applied.
This estimate takes Into account a building of 35' X 45' dimensions
which Is provided with two separate restrooms, a heated and air conditioned
two lane test area, an air conditioned office area, automatic garage door
openers and an exhaust gas ventilation system. On this basis, the
building is estimated to cost about $47,000. Other required site
Improvements including landscaping and asphalt paving came to an esti-
mated total of $10,000.
II.3.2.7 Site Operating Costs
The Department also provided estimates based on actual operating
costs of the Aurora facility.
In its estimate, the Department indicated each site would be
staffed with 5 personnel consisting of:
One Supervisor to: supervise personnel, maintain supply and
material inventories, prescribe equipment calibration schedules,
perform public relations activities and manage overall operations.
Two Senior Engineering Technicians (one per lane) to operate
scientific equipment and perform the inspections.
Two Senior Maintenance Mechanics (one per lane) to operate the
vehicle during the inspection process and otherwise assist in
the inspection.
However, since the pilot effort did not include tasks which relate
to the removal of old stickers and the Installation of new, we believe
one additional person (clerk) should be provided to perform these and
related tasks in each lane.
Annual salaries of these Individuals, including payroll overhead,
was estimated at $72,250.
-------
Annual operating expenses were reported at $7,650 and included
office supplies, laundry, building and equipment maintenance, laboratory
supplies, utilities and security system rental and maintenance.
II.3.2.8 Consumer Time and Travel Requirements
One of the purposes in conducting the testing phase of this study
was to obtain a measure of the time and travel requirements placed on
the motorist. This was accomplished by requiring the participants to
record:
The character of the trip. Was it made solely for inspection
purposes or was it made in conjunction with other business?
The distance to the site.
ğ The time in transit to the site.
The time spent in waiting at the site not to include the time
spent in the inspection process.
Data in these regards were reported by the motorists assigned to the
State facility as follows:
° 67 percent reported the trip was scheduled solely for inspection
purposes.
ğ 33 percent reported the trip was scheduled in conjunction with
other business.
° 5.1 miles was the average distance traveled to the site.
° 15.1 minutes was the average time (one-way) spent in transit.
Ğ 1.3 minutes was the average wait before the Inspection process
was started.
While it may appear that these data could not be applied to determine
time and travel requirements relating to a State-operated network simply
due to experimental design, we do not believe this to be the case. In
support of our belief:
The Denver-Metro area, including those suburbs bordering the Denver
city limits, is contained within an area of 30 miles by 30 miles
-------
square. It may be assumed that 50 percent or 9 of the 18 inspection
stations will be situated within the square.
Further assuming the 9 stations are evenly distributed within the
900 square mile area, one station would service an area of about
100 square miles or 10 miles by 10 miles square. On this basis,
the mean straight line distance to the site would be about 3 miles.
Since straight line travel is rarely possible, however, a more
realistic distance to the site would be 5 miles which is equivalent
to the 5.1 travel miles reported by participating motorists.
It is our opinion that the only data reported by the motorist
which does not necessarily apply to an area-wide network is the time
spent in the waiting line. We believe this is a difficult question to
resolve. For our purposes, however, we are assuming the average waiting
time will be 15 minutes.
Regarding the above, we are now able to obtain an approximation of
the costs, expressed In dollars, relating to motorist time and travel.
The average cost of time and travel per vehicle is based on the following
data:
Average distance to a test lane: 5.1 miles
Average waiting time before inspection: 0.25 hrs.
Average time during inspection: 0.10 hrs.
Average distance to a repair facility; 3.7 miles
Average waiting time before repairs: 0.17 hrs.
Average time for repairs: 0.9 hrs.
And the following assumptions:
Average transport speed: 20 raph
Average value of vehicle owner's time: $5.00 per hour
Average transport expense: $0.12 per mile
The cost of a special trip (s) is the transport expense plus the cost
of time to the owner relating to: transport; the wait before inspection;
-------
and the wait during inspection.
S ğ (2 X 5.1 X $.12) + (.25 X $5 X 2) + (.25 X $5) + (.10 X $5)
S - $5.47
The cost of a trip combined with other business (B) is figured as
specified above except that only one-half of the travel distance and time
are charged to the inspection.
B - (5.1 X $.12) + (.25 X $5) + (.25 X $5) + (.10 X $5)
B - $3.61
The cost of a repair trip (R) is the vehicle travel expense plus the time
spent in travel; during the waiting period before repair; and during the
repair process.
R - (2 X 3.7 X $.12) + (.17 X $5 X 2) + (.9 X $5)
R - $7.09
The data also shows that 67 percent of all persons making the inspection
trip made a trip specifically for Inspection purposes. The remainder,
33 percent, combined the inspection trip with other business.
Assuming an initial test rejection rate of 30 percent and a second
test rejection rate of 6 percent (Volume II, High Altitude Vehicular
Emission Control Program), the total average expense in connection with
time and travel is calculated:
TE - .67S + .33B + .30 {r + (.67S + .33B) + .06 [R + (.67S + .33B)]}
TE Ĥ .88S + .44B + .32R
TE Ğ $8.67 per vehicle
II.3.2.9 Estimate of the Inspection Fee
On the basis of data provided by the pilot test effort and further
utilizing the assumptions developed relative to these and other data and
-------
information, we obtained an estimate of the fee connected with a public
sector network.
The fee structure is based on the estimated number of inspections
to be performed which in our opinion dictates the number and quality
of personnel required to perform them and the facilities and equipment
needed for this purpose. The fee Is derived as follows:
1) Administrative Costs
In developing administrative costs we, firstly, established what
we considered to be reasonable personnel requirements to cover the prob-
able range of inspections required to achieve the I/M objectives. These
were estimated to comprise the personnel listed in Table 3-11 at the
salary levels indicated. Secondly, we assumed the total annual adminis-
trative costs would be equal to the total administrative personnel salaries.
Number
Annual
of People
Position
Salary
1
Administrator
20,000
1
Assistant Administrator
17,000
1
Secretary
9,800
2
Engineer - to coordinate program
14,500
1
Data Analyst
14,500
2
Equipment technicians
13,500
1
Engineer - to coordinate with
Department of Revenue
14,500
2
Clerks
8,000
1
Accountant
13,500
3
Accounting clerks
8,000
TOTAL
185,300
Table 3-11, Estimated Public Sector Program Administrative Personnel
Requirements.
2) Number of Inspection Sites Required
To develop information relating to capital outlay and other program
-------
requirements, we made a determination as to the number of sites that
would be required to adequately service the DAQCR. This number Is a
function of the number of tests to be performed each year and can be
expressed in equation form as follows:
NV X (FR + 1)
NS
where,
NS - the number of sites required
NV - the number of vehicles to be Inspected per year
FR - the inspection failure rate, expressed as a fraction
NI - the number of inspections a site is able to perform per year
3) Facility and Equipment Cost3
To develop the specific information relating to capital outlay
requirements we made a determination of the costs of real estate, buildings
and site improvements, analytical instrumentation and office equipment.
Each of these items may be amortized over a given number of years to
arrive at the respective annual cost. This cost can be expressed in
equation form as follows:
FET Ğ NS X (RE + BI + CO)
where,
FET Ĥ Total facility and equipment cost per year
NS Number of sites required
RE a Real estate cost per site amortized to a yearly figure
BI Ĥ Building and improvements per site also amortized
CO Ĥ Capital outlay cost per site also amortized
4) Site Operating Costs
Operating expenses include items such as materials and supplies,
utilities, etc. Site operating personnel are also included in these
requirements with each site staffed with the personnel shown in Table
3-12.
-------
Number
of People
Position
Annual
Salary
1
2
2
2
Supervisor
Sr. Gnginering tech.
Vehicle operator
Clerks
14,250
11,500
9,500
8,000
TOTAL
72,250
Table 3-12, Estimated Public Sector Inspection Site Personnel Requirements.
Site operating costs in equation form are expressed as:
SO - NS X (OE + SP)
where,
SO - Site operating costs per year
NS - Number of sites
0E - Annual expenses per site per year - $7,650
SP - Site personnel salaries per site per year - $72,250
5) Inspection Costs Per Vehicle
Inspection costs on a per vehicle basis may be found by adding
annual administrative costs, amortized facility and equipment costs
and annual operating costs and dividing by the number of inspections
required on an annual basis as follows:
CV - Cost per vehicle for an inspection sticker
AC - Administrative costs to conduct the program per year
FET - Facility and equipment costs per year
SO - Site operating costs per year
NV - Number of vehicles tested per year
Using the various equations, we developed the data shown in
Table 3-13 to indicate our estimate of what a reasonable public sector
inspection fee under the conditions described should be.
_ AC + FET + SO
NV
where,
-------
Number
Administrative
Operating
Cost per
Failure
Amortization
of Sites
Costs
& Investment
Sticker
Rate
Period
Required
per Sticker
Cost/Sticker
30%
10 years
18
.24
2.52
$2.76
40%
10 years
20
.24
2.80
$3.04
50%
10 years
21
.24
2.94
$3.18
30%
5 years
18
.24
2.71
$2.95
40%
5 years
20
.24
3.01
$3.25
50%
5 years
21
.24
3.16
$3.40
Table 3-13, Estimated Inspection Fee for Public Sector Program at Various
Rejection Rates and Capital Outlay Amortization Schedules.
-------
III.3.3 INSPECTION COSTS IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
III.3.3.1 Site Workload Capabilities
To make a determination concerning the workload capabilities of a
privately-operated network, we utilized two sources of information; the
Safety Inspection Station Survey conducted by SRI Community Response,
Inc. and our own survey which involved personal interviews of management
personnel from 43 DAQCR automotive repair facilities.
SRI sought to determine the number of facilities currently per-
forming safety Inspections within the DAQCR that were interested in
performing emission inspections over a range of inspection fees. For
our purposes, we chose to evaluate network workload capabilities based
on the number of stations which Indicated a willingness to participate
at the $6.00 fee level. Of the estimated 1252 DAQCR stations, approxi-
mately 60% or 663 stations (excluding service centers) responded in the
affirmative to this fee level. SRI reported no statistically signifi-
cant variances were found relative to sub-groups, although it did appear
that independent garages and new car dealerships may have been slightly
more definite about participating than service stations. Based on this
information we conclude the following quantities of the various types
of organizations will participate at a $6.00 level:
455 Service Stations
138 Independent Garages
70 New Car Dealerships
Our survey of 17 servica stations, 17 Independent garages and 9 new
car dealerships Indicated the following average numbers of repair person-
nel deemed to have the potential to become inspectors;
-------
2.4 personnel at service stations
3.5 personnel at Independent garages
6.2 personnel at new car dealerships
Our survey also Indicated the following average number of hours each
type of facility was open for repair work during the week;
Service Stations: 56 hrs.
Independent Garages: 51 hrs.
New Car Dealerships; 52.5 hrs.
In addition, it Indicated the current shop workload based on the current
personnel level at:
Service Stations: 72%
Independent Garages: 80Z
New Car Dealerships: 82Z
Using the total number of each type of repair facility expected to
participate in emission inspection, the average number of personnel
employed, the average number of hours each facility is open for repair
(Inspection) work and the average current shop workloads, we calculated
the number of hours, on an annual basis, the network may have available
to perform the inspection and possibly the repair work. Results of
these calculations are as follows:
Service Stations: 890,000 hrs.
Independent Garages: 256,000 hrs.
New Car Dealerships: 213,000 hrs.
Total; 1,359,000 hrs.
In reference to the time required to perform both the inspection
and related maintenance, we found the average inspection and maintenance
-------
time, as reported by motorists assigned to the experimental privately-
operated Inspection network, to be 23.1 minutes (.40 hrs.). We believe
this figure to be closer to 0.55 hrs. for a 302 rejection rate. Using
our time factor and the annual inspection count of 1,020,000 inspections,
we find the time required for the private sector to perform both the
inspection and repairs (30% rejection rate) to be 561,000 hours. Comparing
this figure to the 1,359,000 hours of work we estimated the network could
handle before reaching capacity, we find a surplus of 798,000 hours. On
this basis we conclude that a 663 station network can handle not only
the 1,020,000 annual inspections, but also all of the repair work asso-
ciated with the inspection process.
111.3.3.2 Minimum Network Requirements
By further utilizing the Information presented above and assuming
it is not advisable for a facility to operate at more than a 10 percent
increase over the current workload, it is possible to make a determination
regarding the minimum number of sites required to perform the projected
number of inspections. While many combinations are possible, the follow-
ing is one example of the composition of a minimum network:
252 Service Stations
100 Independent Garages
58 New Car Dealerships
The difference between the potential size of the network as revealed by
SRI's survey and the minimum network size may allow the I/M administra-
tors to establish relatively high station acceptance criteria, thereby
improving the overall quality of the network.
111.3.3.3 Administrative and Enforcement Requirements
As we proposed relative to the State-operated network, we believe
-------
Che enforcement of a privately-operated network should closely parallel
enforcement of the safety Inspection program.
Enforcement of a privately-operated inspection program would also
require modification of certain of the governing regulations. As we
discussed earlier, the revised regulations should include provisions
for applying the safety Inspection sticker to indicate compliance with
and violations of emission regulations as well. Revisions should be
included whereby one network is required to observe sticker expiration
dates as determined by the other network. In addition, the revised
regulations should grant enforcement agencies authority to enforce the
new and revised regulations. In this respect, we also propose that the
safety inspector be required to determine the county in which the vehicle
is registered. If registration is found to be outside the DAQCR, a 12
month sticker would be Issued. If registration is found to be within the
DAQCR, the Inspector would be required to issue a sticker which indicates
the expiration of the emission inspection certificate. Conversely, the
emission Inspector would be required to issue a sticker which indicated
the expiration date of the safety Inspection certificate.
We also believe that the Department of Revenue should continue to
maintain its role in providing stickers, not only to the safety inspec-
tion network, but to the proposed emission Inspection network as well.
Beyond this task, the Health Department may be assigned the responsi-
bility of maintaining accountability relative to the emission inspection
network.
With regards to administration of a privately-operated network, we
believe the top level should be structured along the same lines of a
-------
State-operated network with personnel requirements as follows:
An Administrator
An Assistant Administrator
A Secretary
Two Engineers
One Data Analyst
We also believe a team of technicians (Investigators) to monitor inspection
quality of the network should be provided.
During operation of the pilot network, we supplied calibration and
other services to the experimental stations. As a result, we were able
to obtain an approximation of a desirable calibration frequency and to
define the other assistance a privately-operated station should be
provided. On the basis of this experience, we concluded each site should
have the calibration of its inspection equipment checked about each two
months. We also concluded that one technician could perform 5 facility
visits and calibrations per day for a total of about 1300 visits per
year.
Assuming the network is comprised of 455 Service Stations, 138
Independent Garages and 70 New Car Dealerships for a total of 663
facilities, and further assuming each facility will be visited each
two months, a total of about 4,000 calibration visits will be required
each year to provide adequate quality control and surveillance of the
network. On this basis and using the figure of 1300 technician visits
per year, we estimate that a minimum of 3 technicians will be required
to cover the calibration and surveillance activities. In this regard,
however, it will be necessary for these technicians to cover the entire
five county area comprising the DAQCR (Adams, Arapahoe, Denver, Boulder
-------
and Jefferson Counties). Consequently, a minimum of 6 Inspectors should
be provided to cover the area which may be divided as follows:
Eastern halves of Adams and Arapahoe Counties
Western halves of Adams and Arapahoe Counties
Jefferson County
Boulder County
Northern Half of Denver County
Southern Half of Denver County
On this basis, each Technician would have roughly one-sixth of the
DAQCR network under his surveillance.
To permit him to carry out his assigned duties, each technician
should be supplied with a mobile standards laboratory. The laboratory
may be contained within a one-half ton van and should Include, as a
minimum; network standard HC and CO calibration gases, a calibrated
HC/CO analyzer, a standardized tachometer, a standardized timing light
and other of the items listed in the Colorado Motor Vehicle Emissions
Inspection Handbook. Volume I. An adequately equipped laboratory is
estimated to cost $12,000.
In our discussions relating to the administration of a State-
operated network, we indicated that the Department of Revenue should be
staffed with three additional personnel, an Engineer to coordinate the
Department's Involvement relative to the issuance of stickers and other
related matters and two Clerks to assist in issuing and accounting for
the additional stickers, a requirement imposed by the emission inspection
network. We believe these same personnel are required to help in admin-
istering a privately-operated network.
Another item to be resolved concerning a privately-operated network
-------
relates to providing referee test sites. In our opinion survey of
motorists who participated in the pilot effort, we found on the basis
of the pre-test questionnaire that 86 percent of the sample employed
to evaluate the private sector were in favor of a referee test site.
Eighty-eight percent of the same sample expressed the same opinion
after experiencing the inspection process. Similarly, the pre-test
questionnaire indicated 88 percent of the sample employed to evaluate a
State-operated program indicated they were in favor of a referee site.
The percentage in favor of a referee site dropped slightly to 86 percent
as indicated on the post-test questionnaire. In view of the opinions
expressed so strongly in favor of a referee site, we believe such sites
should be established. In a State-operated network, the fact that
other State sites are available should satisfy this requirement. With
reference to a privately-operated network, however, there are moderate
indications that State-operated referee sites should be provided. This
is evidenced by the fact that the survey of private sector participants
Indicated:
Pre-test: 47 percent in favor of a State network and 39 percent
in favor of a private network.
Post-test: 42 percent in favor of a State network and 49 percent
in favor of a private network.
while public sector participants indicated:
Pre-test: 48 percent in favor of a State network and 34 percent
in favor of a private network.
Post-test: 65 percent in favor of a State network and 24 percent
in favor of a private network.
which Indicates a greater opinion change from pre to post-test in favor
of a State network.
-------
With reference to the referee sites, we believe about six sites
should be established to provide coverage of the areas described relative
to our discussion of the mobile standards laboratories and the 6 tech-
nicians required to provide network surveillance. While there is no data
to provide an estimate of the required referee site activities, it is our
opinion that each of the sites should provide for two test lanes and
be staffed with a minimum of three personnel. These same sites may be
utilized as a center for storing surveillance gases and for conducting
variance related activities.
III.3.3.5 Data Processing Requirements
We believe the discussion that was applied to describe the importance
of data processing relative to a State-operated network, applies equally
as well to a privately-operated network. While the end result should be
the same regardless of the sector chosen, the intermediate steps are
decidedly different.
Due to the significantly greater number of stations required to
adequately administer a privately-operated network, an automated data
acquisition (computerized) system appears to be highly impractical. As
an alternative, we believe a more basic system should be implemented.
The Vehicle Inspection Form utilized in the pilot effort was used
to determine data processing requirements. In our examination of the
form, we found that an average of about 70 characters would be required
to record on a per vehicle basis the vehicle/owner information and data
and other information relating to the inspection and repair process.
At this average level, the annual data requirements involve the transfer
of information to data cards and subsequent computer processing of
about 55,000,000 characters. These steps are considered necessary to
-------
develop Che information needed to properly administer the program and
to provide the data upon which an adequate public protection program
could be sustained.
With regards to the data processing operations, we estimate a key
punch operator can produce at a rate of about 40 characters per minute,
16,800 characters per day or 3,500,000 characters per year. At this
rate it would require about 16 operators to manually transfer data from
the Vehicle Inspection Form to data cards for input to the computer.
On this basis, we estimate the personnel requirements to be:
A Supervisor
A Data Analyst
A Collating Machine Operator
16 Key Punch Machine Operators
We assume the existing State data processing center (ADP) will have the
capacity to handle the additional network data processing requirements.
111.3.3.5 Collection of Inspection Fees
Since the station level fee collecting process of the safety
inspection program has a record of satisfactory operation, there is no
reason to believe the same procedures to collect fees could not be
applied to a private sector inspection network. We recommended that
fees relative to a State-operated emission inspection network be
collected at the time of vehicle registration to eliminate cash handling
problems at the inspection site. However, these problems in a privately-
operated network would be of a lesser magnitude due to the smaller
amounts of cash each station would be expected to handle.
111.3.3.6 Capital Outlay
While SRl's survey indicated that approximately 32 percent of the
-------
sample was currently equipped with emission analytical equlpmenty no
specific models were listed. For this reason and also due to the fact
that no information Is available to determine the percentage of instru-
ments in use which may meet inspection Instrument specifications, we
are assuming that none of the Instruments in use are suitable for
inspection purposes.
In developing our estimates of private sector minimum Investment
requirements, we utilized appropriate sections of the Colorado Motor
Vehicle Emission Inspection Handbook. Volume 1^ as the standard for
private sector stations. From the Handbook, we compiled a list of
minimum site requirements relating to a proper emission inspection. The
list included items such as* minimum floor area, fire prevention equip-
ment, emissions analytical equipment and other engine diagnostic and
repair equipment. In the course of our 43 station survey, we evaluated
the existing floor space, safety equipment and engine diagnostic and
repair equipment against the listing recommended in the Handbook. On
this basis we concluded the average Investment by each type of facility
would be as follows:
Facility Average Investment
Type Building Equipment Total
Improvement
Service Stations $88.00 $2200 $2288
Independent Garages $73.00 $2200 $2273
New Car Dealerships $62.00 $2200 $2262
III.3.3.7 Direct Labor and Overhead Costs
Our direct labor and overhead cost estimates are based on infor-
mation provided by management personnel from each of the 43 facilities
surveyed. In this regard, it should be noted that we had no particular
-------
auditing authority and that the information was provided on a purely
voluntary basis. Our inquiries were made from a list we developed which
contained the 34 following items:
1. Sales Tax License
2. Rent or Mortgage Payments
3. Utilities
4. Insurance
5. Equipment Maintenance
6. Stock Shrinkage
7. Public Relations
8. Consumables
9. Advertising
10. Equipment Rent/Lease
11. Association Dues
12. Donations
13. Housekeeping Services
14. Workmen's Compensation
15. Federal Unemployment Tax
16. State Unemployment Tax
17. FICA
18. Vacation Pay
19. Sick Pay
20. Company Provided Employee Insurance
21. Franchise Payments
22. Office Supplies
23. Bookkeeping Services
24. Personal Property Taxes
25. Inventory Tax
26. Company Paid Personnel Training
27. Interest on Loans
28. P.U.C. License (Wrecker)
29. Credit Card Discounts
30. Building Maintenance
31. Stock Obsolescence Losses
32. Bad Debts
33. Subscriptions to Technical Publications
34. Shop Manuals and Reference Sources
We also inquired into direct labor rates payable to personnel
classifications we deemed potentially qualified to perform emission
inspections. We derived the following average pay rates from the infor-
mation provided:
Service Stations: $4.33 per hour
Independent Garages: $5.35 per hour
-------
New Car Dealerships* $5.60 per hour
By utilizing these average pay rates, the number of direct labor
hours (percent of productive time) and total payroll and shop overhead
costs (34 items listed above), we developed the following average over-
head rates based on direct labor costs:
Service Stations: 89%
Independent Garages: 89%
New Car Dealerships: 101%
On this basis, we conclude the following average hourly rates may be
applied to describe "break-even" points:
Service Stations* $8.18 per hour
Independent Garages: $10.00 per hour
New Car Dealerships: $11.26 per hour
III.3.3.8 Consumer Time and Travel Requirements
As indicated in our discussion of a State-operated network, a
measure of time and travel requirements was made. Data in these regards
were reported by motorists assigned to the privately-operated network
as follows:
73 percent reported the trip was scheduled solely for inspection
purposes.
° 27 percent reported the trip was scheduled in conjunction with
other business.
° 3.7 miles was the average distance traveled to the site.
10.3 minutes was the average time (one way) spent in transit.
13.4 minutes was the average wait before the inspection.
We have no reason to believe the data provided above, with the
exception of the time and distance data, are not representative of what
could be expected relative to a privately-operated network. In evaluating
-------
the validity of the time and distance data, the same procedures applied
to test these factors relative to a State-operated network were applied
here as follows:
Again, the Denver-Metro area is contained within an area of about
30 miles by 30 miles square. It may be assumed that 50 percent or
about 330 of the 663 Inspection stations will be situated within
the square.
Further assuming the 330 stations are situated within the 900
square mile area, one station would service an area of about 3
square miles or 1.7 miles by 1.7 miles square. On this basis,
the mean straight line distance to the site would be about 0.7
miles. Since straight line travel is rarely possible, however, a
more realistic distance to the site would be about 1 mile. While
this distance is theoretically possible as an average, it is
reasonable to assume a person will not necessarily frequent the
site closest to him. Consequently, an assumed average distance to
the site of 2 miles will be used.
Using the data presented above, we are now able to obtain an approxi-
mation of the costs, expressed in dollars, relating to motorist time and
travel. This average cost is based on the following data:
Average distance to a test site: 2.0 miles
Average waiting time before inspection: 0.25 hrs.
Average time during inspection (and repair): 0.55 hrs.
Average distance to a repair facility: 0.0 miles
Average waiting time before repairs: 0.0 hrs.
Average time for repairs: 0,0 hrs.
And the following assumptions:
Average transport speed: 20 mph
Average value of vehicle owner's time: $5.00 per hour
Average transport expense: $0.12 per mile
The cost of a special trip (s) is the transport expense plus the cost
of time to the owner relating to: transport, the wait before inspection
and the wait during inspection (and repairs).
-------
S - (2 X 2.0 X $.12) + (0.10 X $5 X 2) + (.25 X $5) + (0.55 X $5)
S ğ $5.48
The cosC of a trip combined with other business (B) is figured as
specified above except that only one-half of the travel distance and time
are charged to the inspection.
B - (2.0 X $.12) + (0.10 X $5) + (.25 X $5) + (0.55 X $5)
B - $4.74
The cost of a repair trip (R) is the vehicle travel expense plus the
time spent: in travel; during the waiting period tfefore repair; and
during the repair process. Since these requirements were considered in
the inspection process:
R - 0
The data also shows that 73 percent of all persons making the I/M trip
made a trip specifically for I/M purposes. The remainder, 27 percent,
combined the I/M trip with other business.
Assuming an initial test rejection rate of 30 percent and a second
test rejection rate of 6 percent (Volume II, High Altitude Vehicular
Emission Control Program), the total average expense In connection with
time and travel is calculated:
TE - .73S + .27B + .30 {r + (.73S + .27B) + .06[R + (.73S + .27B)j}
TE - .96S + ,36B + .32R
TE - $6.97 per vehicle
III.3.3.9 Estimates of the Inspection Fee
Using data gathered from the pilot test program and using assumptions
developed relative to this data we were able to arrive at an estimated
fee structure connected with a privately operated Inspection program.
The estimated fee is based on the number of inspections required on the
-------
vehicle population, the operating costs of typical Inspection station
operations, and the costs of administration connected with quality
control and consumer protection.
The fee structure Is broken down as follows:
1) Administrative Costs
These costs were determined by, firstly, establishing a reasonable
requirement as to the personnel needed to effectively achieve the
objectives of the program. These estimates are shown in Table 3-14
along with the salary-associated with the position.
Number of
Annual .
People
Position
Salary
1
Administrator
$ 20,000
1
Assistant Administrator
17,000
1
Secretary
9,800
2
Engineers - Program Coordination
14,500
1
Data Analyst
14,500
1
Engineer - Coordinate with Dept.
of Renvenue
14,500
2
Clerks
8,000
TOTAL
120,800
Table 3-14, Estimated Private Sector Program Administrative
Personnel Requirement
It was further assumed that the total administrative costs would equal
the total administrative salaries.
2) Facility and Equipment Costs
These items are related to the operation of six referee sites and
six mobll equipment vans. The real estate and equipment costs were
determined as described for a public inspection program. Each of the
items may be amortized over a given number of years to arrive at an
annual cost.
-------
3) Facility Operating Costs
The operating costs of the sites and mobile units include such
items as materials, supplies, utilities, etc. The salaries of required
personnel are also included in this category. The estimated staff is
listed in Table 3-15.
Number of
Annual
People
Position
Salary
6
Site - Supervisor
$ 14,250
6
Site - Sr. Engineering Tech.
11,500
6
Site - Sr. Maintenance Mechanic
11,500
6
Van - Mobile Laboratory Operators
13,500
TOTAL
304,500
Table 3-15, Estimated Private Sector Referee Sites and Mobile
Units Personnel Requirements
4) Data Processing Costs
The data processing costs were determined by calculating the number
of data items generated during the course of the program from which we
were then able to establish personnel requirements. These personnel are
shown in Table 3-16.
Number of
Annual
People
Position
Salary
1
Supervisor
$ 15,500
1
Data Analyst
14,500
1
Collating Machine Operator
8,000
16
Key Punch Operators
8,000
TOTAL
$166,000
Table 3-16, Estimated Private Sector Data Processing Personnel
Requirements.
-------
Again, we assumed that the total data processing costs would equal the
total salaries.
5) Private Sector Capital Outlay
We determined these costs from the survey of various stations which
revealed the average number of equipment items and facility improvements
required to be licensed as a Inspection facility. This was found to be a
relatively minor item at about $2280.
6) Private Sector Break Even Inspection Labor
This cost is determined by the number of inspections required, the
time necessary to perform the inspection, and the labor rate of the
inspection station. We then combined these items to arrive at an
average labor cost for an average station.
7) Inspection Costs Per Vehicle
Inspection costs per vehicle may be found by adding the various
costs and dividing the total Inspection cost by the number of vehicles
to be inspected on an annual basis. The Inspection costs are dependent
on a number of factors as previously discussed and are best demonstrated
as shown in Table 3-17.
Failure
Rate
Amortization
Period
State Costs
Per Sticker
Private Sector
Cost Per Sticker
Cost Per
Sticker
30%
10 years
.90
4.56
5.46
40%
10 years
.90
4.84
5.74
50%
10 years
.90
5.10
6.00
302
5 years
.92
4.56
5.48
40%
5 years
.92
4.84
5.76
50%
5 years
.92
5.10
6.02
Table 3-17, Estimated Inspection Fee for Private Sector Program at
Various Rejection Rates and Amortization Schedules.
-------
IV.3.4 MINIMUM INSPECTOR AND REPAIRMAN SKILL AND TRAINING LEVELS
In approaching this task we had one objective in mind respective
of an emissions inspector, be he employed in either the private or the
public sector;
to document the minimum Inspector skill and training levels.
It was also our purpose to:
document the minimum skill and training levels required of an
emission control technician
As an off-shoot of our efforts, we were also able to establish a basis
for recommending the minimum requirements for a State-employed inves-
tigator.
In this phase of the study we utilized 31 men with various work
backgrounds and educational levels who were to participate in the
inspection effort. Our initial effort was to obtain an indication of
the practicability of the Automotive Emission Control Technician (AECT)
course developed by CSU as it applies to evaluating both the emissions
inspector and the mechanic. Upon finding the AECT course to be satis-
factory in this respect, we reviewed test results of those persons who
took the AECT course and developed minimum Inspector, investigator and
repairman education and skill levels.
The AECT course was evaluated as follows:
By our definition, the 31 man study sample was comprised of two
groups of persons which we classified as follows:
"A" Class - certain individuals who successfully completed the
CSU AECT course.
"B" Class - certain Individuals who had not participated in the
CSU training program.
-------
The sample was comprised of Individuals employed in both government
and industry with participants from industry representing both privately-
owned garages and fleet-owned garages as follows:
Sector No. of Participants
"A" Class "BM Class
Private 10 9
Fleet 4 4
State 0 4
The "B" class group was further divided into the classifications of
Inspector and Repairing Technicians. "A" Class training sessions were
held from September 16 through September 20, 1974 and "B" Class sessions
were held September 23 through September 27, 1974. All sessions were
held in the evenings during the hours of 7:00 P.M. - 10:00 P.M. which
resulted in a course duration of 15 hours for each class. On-the-job
training was provided during the period September 19 through October 12,
1975. Both groups received an abbreviated version of the AECT course.
The "A" Class training course placed emphasis on the task of
inspecting and repairing vehicles. Hands-on experience, "live" demon-
strations and diagnosis were stressed. Training aids and worksheets
were developed to simulate the forms and procedures necessary to the
pilot inspection program.
The "B" Class training course was structured to provide condensed
instruction on the theory of emission control and principles of operation.
In addition, the "B" Class students were provided with AECT course
instructional materials. In cooperation with "A" Class students, the
"B" Class participants were subjected to 3 hours of practical experience
in inspecting, diagnosing and repairing malfunctioning vehicles under
-------
the direct supervision of their more experienced counterparts.
The evaluation of the AECT course was performed in two segments:
immediately after its abbreviated version was administered and again
during the on-the-job training period.
The student's final examination prior to the OJT period was
comprised of a practical examination. The examination consisted of an
inspection phase whereby the student's Inspection technique was tested
and a repair phase whereby his diagnostic and repair ability was
evaluated. "Live" vehicles with built-in malfunctions were used jLn
the evaluation, on the basis of these exams, we concluded that the
AECT course was adequate as it related to providing the specific knowledge
required of both an emissions Inspector and an automotive emission
control technician. In this respect, however, we found the students
somewhat deficient in the areas of meter reading, diagnosing engine
malfunctions from meter readings and completing paperwork.
The OJT evaluation was not as much an examination as it was an
effort to correct the deficiencies noted during classroom instruction
and testing. The OJT program, followed by regular visits to each
inspection site, minimized these errors and other field problems which
otherwise would have required the continual presence of a fully trained
and experienced automotive emission control specialist. It Is our
opinion that the duties performed by our specialist would closely
parallel those of a State-employed investigator.
IV.3.4.1 Study Phase Findings
After finding that the AECT course embraced the elements required
to adequately train both the emissions Inspector and the automotive
emission control technician, with exceptions as noted, we examined test
-------
scores of students who participated in the CSU developed and adminis-
tered pilot training program.
As shown in Table 3-18, the scores achieved on the Inspector's
Examination after six hours of related training are generally acceptable
for all students having from 9 to 18 years of formal education.
Years of Formal
Education
Corresponding Student Test
Scores (Percent)
9
81
10
75
11
93
12
84
13
90
14
80
15
87
16
91
17
n/a
18
87
Table 3-18, Student Test Scores, Inspector Examination after 6 Hours
of Training vs. Years of Formal Education.
On this basis we concluded that the minimum educational requirement for
an emissions inspector is at some point below the 9th grade level. How-
ever, since the CSU classes were not comprised of students having less
than 9 years of formal education, we were not able to precisely define
the minimum education limit to qualify a person as an emissions inspector.
As an alternative, we propose that functional literacy as defined by
the U.S. Office of Education is a more valid minimum requirement than
a minimum level established on the basis of formal education. Having
researched the concept of functional literacy, we concluded that if the
prospective inspector can successfully complete the written examination
and other requirements not relating to formal education, he is properly
-------
equipped with the 'Knowledge and skills necessary to perform the inspection
tasks.
We then sought to establish the minimum skill level or experience
required of an inspector. As shown in Table 3-19, relatively low
scores were achieved on the pre-training examination for all students
regardless of the number of years of tune-up experience. After six
hours of training, however, generally high scores were achieved on the
inspectors examination by all students. While the tests were structured
differently and, consequently, no conclusions can be drawn to relate
the specific value of the six hours of instruction to the student's
progress, we can conclude that relatively little automotive experience
is necessary to qualify a person as an emissions Inspector. It should
be noted, however, that each of the students was employed as a full-
time tune-up technician.
Tune-Up
Corresponding Student Test Scores (Percent)
Experience
Pretraining
Inspector's Exam
(Years)
Evaluation
After 6 Hours
1
61
89
2
63
91
3
55
81
4
57
87
5
52
96
6-10
59
81
10-15
70
90
over 15
67
82
Table 3-19, Student Test Scores, Pretraining Examination and Inspector's
Examination After 6 Hours of Instruction.
Having examined the minimum education and skill levels required on
an Inspector, we sought to establish minimum requirements for a repairing
technician.
-------
As shown In Table 3-20, the scores achieved on the Repairing
Technicians Examination after 32 hours of instruction were generally
acceptable for all students. On this basis we concluded that the
minimum education requirement for a repairing technician is at some
point below the 9th grade level. For this and the reasons presented
in our discussions of inspector requirements! we concluded that the
repairing technician be tested on the basis of functional literacy as
opposed to requiring him to meet a minimum educational limit.
Years of Formal
Corresponding Student Test
Education
Scores (Percent)
9
81
10
77
11
84
12
84
13
86
14
84
15
88
16
88
17
N/A
18
90
Table 3-20, Student Test Scores, Repairing Technicians Examination
After 32 Hours of Training versus Years of Formal Education.
The next data we examined was in an effort to establish minimum
skill levels relating to a repairing, technician.
As may be seen in Table 3-21, there is no apparent correlation
existing between the tune-up technician's years of experience and either
the test scores after 15 hours of instruction or the test scores after
32 hours of instruction. For this reason, we concluded that experience,
at least over some minimum level, is not an acceptable criteria on which
the technician should be judged. On the other hand, we see in examining
test scores that 15 hours of training is apparently inadequate to
-------
qualify a repairing technician as indicated by the relatively poor
grades while 32 hours of instruction appears to be adequate as indicated
by the generally high test scores, on this basis, we concluded that
the amount of emission related training the technician is subjected to
is a more acceptable criteria for establishing his skill level.
Year8 of Tune-Up
Repairing Technician Exam Scores (Percent)
Experience
After 15 Hours
After 32 Hours
1
61
84
2
71
87
3
64
85
4
59
85
5
62
84
6-10
61
86
10-15
62
84
Table 3-21, Student Test Scores, Repairing Technicians Examination
After 15 Hours of Instruction and After 32 Hours of
Instruction versus Years of Tune-up Experience.
IV.3.4.2 Recommended Minimum Requirements
With regards to the emissions inspector, we recommend a potential
inspector have at least one recent year of experience as an employed
tune-up technician. We also recommend he be required to attend the six
hour Emissions Inspector Course developed by CSU. In addition, we
propose that he will have met minimum educational requirements by
passing the emissions inspector's written and practical examination.
With reference to the repairing technician, we recommend a potential
technician have at least one recent year of experience as an employed
tune-up technician. We also recommend he be required to attend the 32
hour AECT course developed by CSU. In addition, we propose that he will
have met minimum educational requirements by passing the automotive
-------
emission control technician written and practical examinations.
Regarding the State-employed investigator, we propose the following:
All persons functioning as State investigators will be required to
exercise dual roles. The primary task of quality control through surveil-
lance of sites, inspectors, equipment and the inspection procedures will
be equivalent in many respects to the role of the specialist we assigned
to monitor the program. The investigator will also be involved in
disciplinary actions and on many occasions will be required to mediate
inspection related consumer complaints. Since the degree of consumer
acceptance as well as the accuracy of the network will depend to a large
extent on the expertise of these Individuals, the minimum requirements
for an investigator are recommended as follows:
We recommend a State-employed Investigator have at least 12 years
of formal education. The G.E.D. certificate should be an acceptable
substitute. We also recommend he have at least five years of recent
experience in the automotive repair industry, at least two years of
which should be comprised of tune-up experience. We also believe he
should have at least 3 years experience In some area involving contact
with the public. This experience may be in the capacity of a salesman,
policeman, automotive shop foreman, service writer, etc. In addition,
we recommend he be required to take the courses prescribed for persons
under his surveillance and to demonstrate his knowledge of the tasks
of inspector and repairing technician by passing related tests. Finally,
we recommend he be required to demonstrate his knowledge of regulations
pertaining to his assignments by passing a test in these regards.
-------
V.3.5 PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY - NEEDED PUBLIC PROTECTION MEASURES
One of the fundamental questions to be answered by the study was
in relation to the public's opinion on the air pollution problem as a
whole, its attitude toward an automobile inspection program, who should
conduct the Inspection and other related matters. We also believed the
public should be provided the opportunity to express its opinion as to
how often inspections should be performed, what a reasonable fee should
be, and to help resolve questions relating to enforcement and other
difficult matters to resolve. We also thought it would be of benefit
to find out what the change in motorist's attitude might be in these
same respects after the inspection/maintenance process was experienced.
Toward these ends we designed and administered three questionnaires.
Questionnaire I (QI) was comprised of certain questions relating
to air pollution problems and solutions and was administered by telephone
prior to the participant's further involvement in the program.
Questionnaire II (QII) was comprised of questions relating to the
Inspection process. Included were questions concerning the purpose of
the trip, distance to the site, time in travel to the site and the wait
before and during the inspection process. The specific purpose of these
questions was to gather information on time and travel and other infor-
mation referenced earlier in this report. Questionnaire II also con-
tained questions relating to the pass or fail status of the final
inspection and the total charges incurred. The purpose in requesting
information on the latter was to make certain the motorist was aware of
the inspection and repair charges since the I/M fees, to a limit of
$50.00, were provided at no charge to the participant. QII was administered
-------
by providing the questions and the space to respond on a post-paid
reply card. Instructions to complete the information as soon as prac-
tical were also provided.
Questionnaire III (QUI) was similar to (QI) and was administered
by telephone after the I/M operations were completed. QUI also
solicited certain demographic information.
The questionnaires were administered to several major subgroups as
follows:
300 participants in quality control effort (laboratory tested)
State tested
Privately tested
Non-differentiated
700 participants in the I/M effort only (non-laboratory tested)
State tested
Privately tested
Non-differentiated
100 non-incentive oriented participants selected at random to
determine if the responses of the above were forced by the
program's monetary and repair Incentives and other factors.
7.3.5.1 Analysis of Survey Results
A complete analysis of survey results to include both major and
minor subgroups and combinations thereof is outside the scope of the
study. However, we believed the response of incentive oriented indi-
viduals including those assigned to the State site, the privately-
operated sites and the group as a whole, and the non-incentive oriented
individuals, should be presented and discussed. In this regard, how-
ever, certain qualifications should be noted:
Every effort was made to present the questionnaires in a uniform
and unbiased manner. In this respect, however, some biases may
-------
have been Inadvertently introduced.
Some of the data presented are based on hypothetical situations
insofar as the respondents are concerned. In this respect the
actual performance under given circumstances may or may not
coincide with the individuals predicted performance. In this
same respect, it should be remembered that opinions stated in
this report are nothing more than opinions and nay not represent
a concrete measure of the public's actions when and if an I/M
program is implemented.
V.3.5.1.1 Incentive-Oriented Total Population
In taking several of the more prominent subgroups into account, we
believed the response of the incentive-oriented subgroup, comprised of
the total population participating in the testing phase, should be
presented and discussed firstly. In this same regard, we believed the
response to QI, to QUI and the difference in the two responses should
also be presented and discussed.
In Table 3-22 are shown the tabulated results where the column
titled "Questionnaire I" indicates the opinions of all test lane par-
ticipants (both State and private sector) before involvement in the
I/M process and the column titled Questionnaire III indicates the
opinions after the I/M process was completed.
-------
Table 3-22, Survey opinions Tabulated,
Non-Differentiated Incentive-Oriented Group
Question #
Questionnaire I
Questionnaire III
N
%
N
%
n
Do you believe the air
Yes
945
94.5
936
93.6
pollution problem in Metro-
No
43
4.3
47
4.7
Denver is serious?
n/a
7
0.7
14
1.4
Other
5
0.5
3
0.3
n
Do you believe automobile
Yes
797
79.7
827
82.7
exhaust emissions are a
No
128
12.8
120
12.0
major source of our
N/A
61
6.1
45
4.5
pollution?
Other
14
1.4
8
0.8
#3
In order to reduce
Yes
891
89.1
907
90.7
pollution should the State
No
55
5.5
46
4.6
require automobile emission
N/A
48
4.8
45
4.5
inspections?
Other
6
0.6
2
0.2
#4
Who should conduct the
State
467
46.7
435
43.5
emission inspections?
Pri.Sta.
386
38.6
467
46.7
N/A
113
11.3
70
7.0
Other
34
3.4
28
2.8
#5
Do you believe the State
Yes
710
71.0
749
74.9
can adequately supervise
No
181
18.1
167
16.7
a private emission
N/A
102
10.2
76
7.6
inspection program?
Other
7
0.7
8
0.8
#6
Do you have confidence in
Yes
440
44.0
501
50.1
the honesty and ability
No
397
39.7
336
33.6
of private stations to
N/A
49
4.9
64
6.4
perform these inspections?
Other
114
11.4
99
9.9
#7
How often should auto-
6 mo.
339
33.9
311
31.1
mobiles be inspected
12 mo.
588
58.8
624
62.4
for pollution?
N/A
63
6.3
52
5.2
Other
10
1.0
13
1.3
#8
Would you consider two
Yes
935
93.5
967
96.7
miles a reasonable
No
40
4.0
18
1.8
distance to travel for an
N/A
22
2.2
12
1.2
inspection?
Other
3
0.3
3
0.3
#9
Do you think 30 minutes
Yes
856
85.6
930
93.0
is a reasonable time for
No
46
5.6
48
4.8
inspection?
N/A
92
9.2
18
1.8
Other
6
0.6
4
0.4
-------
Survey Opinions Tabulated (Cont.)
Question if
Questionnaire I
Questionnaire III
N
%
N
%
#10
Would you consider $5.00
Yes
740
74.0
741
74.1
a reasonable Inspection fee?
No
172
17.2
210
21.0
N/A
63
6.3
31
3.1
Other
25
2.5
18
1.8
#11
If your car falls an
Avg.
emission inspection, what
Ans.
5.84
9.53
do you consider a reasonable
N/A
813
81.3
685
68.5
repair charge to be?
#12
If a car fails the
Yes
862
86.2
874
87.4
inspection and the owner
No
111
11.1
97
9.7
believes it should have *
N/A
23
2.3
26
2.6
passed, should a referee
Other
4
0.4
3
0.3
test site be available for
a second opinion?
#13
If your car wa3 given a
Yes
163
16.3
121
12.1
passed sticker and you know
No
805
80.5
851
85.1
the inspection had not been
N/A
26
2.6
21
2.1
performed would you return
Other
6
0.6
7
0.7
to the same inspector?
#14
Should automobiles be
Yes
729
72.9
742
74.2
required to have pollution
No
152
15.2
148
14.8
control devices?
N/A
104
10.4
89
8.9
Other
15
1.5
21
2.1
#15
Should the State require
Yes
432
43.2
453
45.3
additional devices be
No
393
39.3
382
38.2
installed to further reduce
N/A
152
15.2
141
14.1
pollution?
Other
23
2.3
24
2.4
#16
Do you believe $40.00 would
Yes
543
54.3
573
57.3
be a reasonable cost for
No
204
20.4
234
23.4
such additional devices?
N/A
242
24.2
190
19.0
Other
11
1.1
3
0.3
#17
If the owner cannot afford
the cost of repairs or
devices do you believe:
Car temp, excluded
from req.
286
28.6
281
28.1
Car banned from highway
301
30.1
346
34.6
State assume costs
237
23.7
235
23.5
N/A
150
15.0
118
11.8
Other
26
2.6
20
2.0
-------
Survey Opinions Tabulated (Cont.)
Question i?
Questionnaire I
Questionnaire III
N
%
N
%
m
Do you believe that
Yes
865
86.5
905
90.5
penalties should be Imposed
No
76
7.6
56
5.6
on those who violate the
N/A
41
4.1
32
3.2
vehicle emission control
Other
18
1.8
7
0.7
laws?
if 19
Do you believe an auto-
Yes
891
89.1
898
89.8
mobile emission inspection
No
53
5.3
51
5.1
program will reduce air
N/A
45
4.5
37
3.7
pollution?
Other
11
1.1
14
1.4
no
If emission reduction
Perform.
329
32.9
351
35.1
results in poorer
Emi. Red.
470
47.0
466
46.6
vehicle performance,
n/a
135
13.5
135
13.5
what do you believe
Other
66
6.6
48
4.8
should have 1st
consideration?
An analysis of the incentive oriented population yields the
following highlights:
1. as a general statement, it can be said that the respondents
held the same opinions after the I/M experiences as before.
In other words, in most cases there was no statistical dif-
ference in the before and after responses at the 95 percent
confidence level.
2. The respondents overwhelmingly believed that air pollution
is a serious problem in the Denver-METRO AREA (QI Ĥ 94.5% yes,
QUI - 93.6% Yes).
3. The change (3%) in yes answers to the question, "Is the auto-
mobile a major source of pollution?" is just barely significant
at the 95% confidence level. Perhaps more significant is the
increase in yes answers from before I/M (79.7%) to after (82.7%).
It is also Interesting to note that a greater percentage
believed the State should require automobile inspections to
reduce pollution (appx. 89%) than thought the automobile was
the major cause (appx. 81%). The difference is significant
at the 99% confidence level.
It should also be noted that some ambiguity apparently existed
in the participant's understanding of the question. The
-------
interviewers believed that many of the respondents failed to
grasp the significance of the word "major" which may have
biased the responses.
4. In response to the question, "Who should conduct the emission
inspections?", 46.7% indicated the State while 38.6% indicated
private stations before the I/M process was experienced, while
43.5% indicated the State and 46.7% indicated private stations
after the I/M process was completed. While the change appears
to favor a privately-operated inspection network, it should be
considered in light of any changes relative to: the subgroup
frequenting the State site and the subgroup frequenting the
privately-operated sites: as will be discussed later in these
regards.
The questions, "Do you believe the State can adequately super-
vise a private emission inspection program?" and "Do you have
confidence in the honesty and ability of private stations to
perform these inspections?" should also be considered in this
light.
However, the overwhelming majority (QI - 71% yes, QUI 74.9%
yes) believed the State could adequately supervise a private
inspection program while approximately one-half (QI Ĥ 44% yes,
QUI Ĥ 50.1% yes) expressed confidence in the honesty and
ability of private stations to perform the inspections.
5. The majority favored an annual Inspection as opposed to a
semi-annual at a ratio of about 2 to 1.
6. An overwhelming majority (QI 93.5% yes, QUI " 96.7% yes)
believed two miles to be a reasonable distance to travel for
an inspection. The distance of two miles was arbitrarily
established. In view of our findings relating to time and
travel requirements, the only value to be derived from this
response is in connection with a privately-operated network.
Similarly, an overwhelming majority (QI ğ 93.5% yes, QUI ğ
96.7% yes) indicated 30 minutes is a reasonable time for
inspection.
7. Nearly three-fourths of the respondents considered $5.00 to be
a reasonable inspection fee. No change was noted after the
I/M process was completed. An increase In negative responses
was noted, however, apparently at the expense of the no answer
(N/A) and "other" responses which may reflect an increased
awareness of the procedures.
Related to the fee question is the question of reasonable repair
costs. Respondents apparently had little knowledge of expense
in repairing a failed vehicle. Prior to I/M, only 18.7%
responded to yield an average repair cost of $5.84. After the
-------
I/M process, 31.52 responded to yield an average repair cost
of $9.53. The increase in both the number of respondents and
the reasonable repair charge is probably indicative of an
awareness of charges developed through contact with the I/M
process.
8. An overwhelming majority of the respondents (appx. 87%) indicated
they believed a referee site should be available for a second
opinion if a car fails the inspection.
9. There is some evidence that a fairly substantial number of
motorists would attempt to circumvent the program. When asked
"If your car was given a passed sticker and you know the
inspection had not been performed, would you return to the
same inspector?", before the process, 16.3% admitted they would
while after the process, 12.1% admitted they would.
10. Several of the questions attempted to elicit opinions on the
need, cost and socio-economic affects of emission control
devices. Question 14 was in regards to a requirement for use
of emission control devices (i.e., new car devices) while
question 15 related to a requirement for additional (retrofit)
devices. About 73% were of the opinion that automobiles should
have pollution control devices while about 44% thought the
State should require additional devices. It should be noted,
however, that the respondents may not have been able to discern
this subtle difference.
A majority (54.3%) thought $40.00 was a reasonable cost for
such additional devices while 20.4% did not. After the I/M
process, both responses Increased about 3% at the expense of
those who indicated no answer initially.
11. The respondents had rather interesting opinions regarding
the enforcement of emission control laws. While they approved
overwhelmingly (QI Ĥ 86.5% yes, QUI 90.5% yes) of penalizing
violators, they indicated no strong opinion as to any relief
which may be a part of such laws. Before the I/M process, 28.6%
indicated the car should be temporarily excluded from the
requirement, 30.1% indicated it should be banned from the
highway and 23.7% believed the State should assume the costs
of repair. The only significant change after the I/M process
was that an additional 4.5% thought the car should be banned
from the highway.
12. Finally, when asked "If emission reduction results in poorer
vehicle performance, what do you believe should have first
consideration?" 32.9% indicated performance and 47.0% indicated
emission reduction. After the I/M process, the percentage
indicating emission reduction remained unchanged while the
percentage indicating performance Increased 2.2%.
In Table 3-23 are shown the demographic responses to the survey.
-------
N
%
r.
Participant age
18-24
48
4.8
(QUI 21)
25-34
193
19.3
35-49
280
28.0
50-64
310
31.0
65 or over
164
16.4
N/A
5
0.5
2.
Sex (QUI 26)
Male
727
72.7
Female
273
27.3
3.
Education
Eighth grade or less
24
2.4
(QUI 22)
Some high school
77
7.7
High school grad.
221
22.1
Some college
308
30.8
College grad.
206
20.6
Post grad.
130
13.0
7ocational school
27
2.7
N/A
7
0.7
4.
Income
Less than $5,000
48
4.8
(QUI 23)
$5,000-$7,999
69
6.9
$8,000-$10,999
151
15.1
$11,000-$14,999
220
22.0
$15,000-$19,999
197
19.7
More than $20,000
251
25.1
N/A
64
6.4
Table 3-23, Survey Denographic Responses, Non-Differentiated
Incentive-Oriented Group.
V.3.5,1.2 Non-Incentive Oriented Population
We recognized the possibility that responses of the incentive-
oriented groups may have been biased. For this reason we thought it
advisable to survey a number of randomly selected individuals to provide
some indication of what these biases may have been. Our source for these
individuals was the telephone book with the only acceptance criteria
being that the respondent hold a valid Colorado driver's license. Data
to compare responses of both the incentive-oriented and the non-incentive
oriented total populations are shown in Table 3-24.
-------
Table 3-24, Survey Opinions Tabulated, Incentive versus
Non-Incentive Oriented Groups
Questionnaire I
Incentive
Non-Incentive
#1
Do you believe the air
Yes
94.5%
91.6%
pollution problem in
No
4.3
4.8
Metro-Denver is serious?
n/a
0.7
2.4
other
0.5
1.2
n
Do you believe automobile
Yes
79.7
68.7
exhaust emissions are a
No
12.8
16.9
major source of air
n/a
6.1
14.5
pollution?
Other
1.4
0.0
n
In order to reduce pollution,
Yes
89.1
75.9
should the State require
No
5.5
9.6
automobile emission
N/A
4.8
14.5
inspections?
Other
0.6
0.0
#4
Who should conduct the
State
46.7
35.9
inspections?
Private
38.6
48.2
N/A
11.3
16.9
Other
3.4
0.0
05
Do you believe the State
Yes
71.0
57.8
can adequately supervise
No
18.1
30.1
a private emission
N/A
10.2
12.0
inspection program?
Other
0.7
0.0
H
Do you have confidence
Yes
44.0
42.2
in the honesty and ability
No
39.7
37.3
of private stations to
N/A
4.9
14.5
perform these inspections?
Other
11.4
6.0
07
How often should auto-
6 mo.
33.9
30.1
mobiles be inspected for
12 mo.
58.8
57.8
pollution?
N/A
6.3
12.0
Other
1.0
0.0
#8
Would you consider 2 miles
Yes
93.5
91.6
a reasonable distance to
No
4.0
3.6
travel for an Inspection?
N/A
2.2
4.8
Other
0.3
0.0
#9
Do you think 30 minutes
Yes
85.6
80.7
is a reasonable time for
No
4.6
12.0
inspection?
N/A
9.2
7.2
Other
0.6
0.0
-------
Questionnaire I
Incentive
Non-Incentive
#10
Would you consider $5.00 a
Yes
74.0
47.0
reasonable Inspection fee?
No
17.2
42.2
N/A
6.3
10.8
Other
2.5
0.0
#11
If your car falls an
Avg.
emission inspection what
Ans.
$5.84
$3.67
do you consider a
N/A
81.3
85.5
reasonable repair charge?
#12
If your car fails an
Yes
86.2
81.9
inspection and the owner
No
11.1
15.7
believes it should have
N/A
2.3
2.4
passed, should a referee
Other
0.4
0.0
site be available for a 2nd
opinion?
#13
If your car was given a
Yes
16.3
21.7
passed sticker and you know
No
80.5
75.7
the inspection had not been
N/A
2.6
3.6
performed, would you return
Other
0.6
0.0
to the same station?
#14
Should automobiles be
Yes
72.9
62.7
required to have pollution
No
15.2
21.7
control devices?
N/A
10.4
14.5
Other
1.5
1.2
#15
Should the State require
Yes
43.2
37.3
additional devices be
No
39.3
36.1
installed to further reduce
N/A
15.2
25.3
pollution?
Other
2.3
1.2
#16
Do you believe $40 would be
Yes
54.3
31.3
a reasonable cost for such
No
20.4
39.8
additional devices?
N/A
24.2
28.9
Other
1.1
0.0
#17
If the owner cannot afford
the cost of repairs or
devices do you believe:
Car temp. excluded
from req.
28.6
18.1
Car banned from highway
30.1
31.3
State assume costs
23.7
26.5
N/A
15.0
24.1
Other
2.6
0.0
-------
Questionnaire I
Incentive
Non-Incentive
#18
Do you believe that
Yes
86.5
79.5
penalties should be imposed No
7.6
10.8
on those who violate vehicle N/a
4.1
9.6
emission control laws? Other
1.8
0.0
#19
Do you believe an auto- Yes
89.1
79.5
mobile emission inspection No
5.3
10.8
program will reduce air N/A
4.5
3.6
pollution?
Other
1.1
1.2
no
If emission
reduction
Perform.
32.9
39.8
results in poorer
Emission
vehicle performance,
Reduction
47.0
43.4
what do you
believe
N/A
13.5
15.7
should have
1st
Other
6.6
1.2
consideration?
Age?
18-24
4.8
8.4
25-34
19.3
47.0
35-49
28.0
28.9
50-64
31.0
9.6
65 or over
16.4
6.0
N/A
0.5
0.0
Sex?
Male
72.7
34.9
Female
27.3
65.1
Education?
8th grade or less
2.4
3.6
Some high school
7.7
3.6
High school grad.
22.1
26.5
Some college
30.8
44.6
College grad.
20.6
14.5
Post grad.
13.0
6.0
Vocational school
2.7
0.0
N/A
0.7
1.2
Income?
less than $5,000
4.8
6.0
$5,000-7,999
6.9
6.0
$8,000-10,999
15.1
8.4
$11,000-14,999
22.0
27.7
$15,000-19,999
19.7
48.2
more than $20,000
25.1
3.6
N/A
6.4
0.0
In comparing the incentive-orientad population against the non-
incentive oriented as related to the demographic data, we find that
certain disparities exist. Nonetheless, we still find that survey
-------
response trends which exist relative to the incentive-oriented sample
also exist within the non-incentive oriented.
In these regards, we find that the majority of each group believes:
1. The Metro-Denver air pollution problem is serious where 94.5%
of the incentive-oriented (I) sample and 91.6% of the non-
incentive oriented sample (N-I) responded in the affirmative.
2. Automobile exhaust is a major cause of pollution (I Ğ 79.7%,
N-I - 68.7%).
3. The State should require auto emission inspections (I = 89.1%,
N-I - 75.9%).
A. The State can adequately supervise a private program (I Ĥ 71.0%,
NI - 57.8%).
5. Automobiles should be inspected each 12 months (I Ĥ 58.8%,
N-I - 57.8%).
6. Two miles is a reasonable distance to travel (I Ĥ 93.5%,
N-I - 91.6%).
7. 30 minutes is a reasonable time (I Ğ 85.6%, N-I ğ 80.7%).
8. A referee site should be available (I = 86.2%, N-I = 81.9%).
9. Automobiles should be required to have pollution control
devices (I ğ 72.9%, N-I - 62.7%).
10. Penalties should be imposed on those who violate vehicle emission
control laws (I ğ 86.5%, N-I Ĥ 79.5%).
11. An auto emission inspection will reduce air pollution (I ğ 89.1%,
N-I - 84.3%).
Irrespective of Issues on which the majorities agreed, major disagree-
ments within each population were in the areas of:
1. Who should conduct the inspections where 46.7% of the incentive-
oriented sample indicated the State and 38.6% indicated private
stations whereas 35.9% of the non-incentive oriented sample
indicated the State and 48.2% indicated private stations.
2. The question of a reasonable inspection fee where 74.0% of
the incentive-oriented group indicated $5.00 was reasonable
and only 47.0% of the non-incentive oriented group had the
same opinion.
-------
3.
The State requiring additional vehicle pollution control
devices be installed where the I sample indicated 43.2% yes,
39.3% No and the N-I sample indicated 37.3% yes and 36.1% No.
4. The question of $40 being a reasonable cost for auch additional
devices where the I sample indicated 54.3% yes, 20.4% No and
the N-I sample Indicated 31.3% yes and 39.8% No.
5. On the question of enforcement; 28.6% of the I sample indicated
the car should be temporarily excluded from the requirement
as opposed to 18.1% of the N-I sample.
V.3.5.1.3 Incentive-Oriented Population Divided Into Persons Assigned
to the State Site and Persons Assigned to Privately-Operated
Sites
Table 3-25, presents a composite of opinions differentiated between
those persons assigned to the State inspection site and those persons
assigned to privately-operated inspection sites.
In these regards, specific mention should be made of sample size
disparity. The number of vehicles tested at privately-operated stations
was 915 while only 85 vehicles were tested in the State-operated station.
Since the State-tested population was less than 10% of the privately-
tested population some disparity in responses may be indicated. How-
ever, it is our opinion that the Important thing to note is the
difference in responses of each group from before to after the I/M
process.
-------
Table 3-25, Survey Opinions Tabulated
, Incentive-Oriented
State
Lane
Participants Versus Private Lanes Participants
Question #
Questionnaire I
Questionnaire III
State
Private
State
Private
Z
%
2
Z
01
Do you believe the air
Yes
90.6
94.9
90.6
93.9
pollution problem in Metro-
No
5.9
4.2
4.7
4.7
Denver is serious?
N/A
3.5
0.4
4.7
1.1
Other
0.0
0.5
0.0
0.3
n
Do you believe automobile
Yes
84.7
79.2
83.5
82.6
exhaust emissions are a
No
11.8
12.9
10.6
12.1
major source of air
n/a
2.3
6.5
4.7
4.5
pollution?
Other
1.2
1.4
1.2
0.8
#3
In order to reduce
Yes
90.6
88.9
88.2
90.9
pollution, should the
No
7.0
5.4
3.5
4.7
State require automobile
N/A
2.4
5.0
7.1
4.3
emission inspections?
Other
0.0
0.7
1.2
0.1
Who should conduct the
State
48.3
46.6
63.5
41.6
emission inspections?
Private
34.1
39.0
23.5
48.9
N/A
14.1
11.0
10.6
6.7
Other
3.5
3.4
2.4
2.8
#5
Do you believe the
Yes
64.7
71.6
76.5
74.8
State can adequately
No
29.4
17.0
17.6
16.6
supervise a private
N/A
5.9
10.6
5.9
7.8
emission inspection program?
Other
0.0
0.8
0.0
2.8
#6
Do you have confidence
Yes
42.3
44.2
27.1
52.2
in the honesty and
No
47.1
39.0
54.1
31.7
ability of private
n/a
4.7
4.9
11.8
5.9
stations to perform these
Other
5.9
11.9
7.0
10.2
inspections?
#7
How often should auto-
6 mo.
34.1
33.9
37.6
30.5
mobiles be inspected for
12 mo.
50.6
59.6
55.3
63.1
pollution?
n/a
14.1
5.5
4.7
5.2
Other
1.2
1.0
2.4
1.2
#8
Would you consider 2 miles
Yes
94.1
93.5
96.5
96.7
a reasonable distance to
No
3.5
4.0
2.3
1.8
travel for an inspection?
N/A
2.4
2.2
1.2
1.2
Other
0.0
0.3
0.0
0.3
#9
Do you think 30 minutes
Yes
90.6
85.1
89.4
93.3
is a reasonable tine for
No
7.1
4.4
10.6
4.3
inspection?
n/a
2.3
9.8
0.0
2.0
Other
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.4
-------
Question #
Questionnaire I
Questionnaire III
State
Private
State
Private
*.
Z
%
%
no
Would you consider $5.00
Yes
67.1
74.6
57.7
75.6
a reasonable inspection fee?
No
27.1
16.3
37.6
19.4
N/A
4.7
6.5
4.7
3.0
Other
1.2
2.6
0.0
2.0
#11
If your car fails an
Avg.
emission Inspection what
Ans.
$7.35
$5.65
$9.69
$9.51
do you consider a
N/A
67.1
87.6
60.0
69.3
reasonable repair charge?
m
If a car falls the
Yes
38.2
86.0
86.9
87.5
inspection and the owner
No
7.1
11.5
11.8
9.5
believes it should have
n/a
3.5
2.2
2.3
2.6
passed, should a referee
Other
1.2
0.3
0.0
0.4
test site be available for
a 2nd opinion?
#13
If your car was given a
Yes
16.5
16.3
12.1
12.2
passed sticker and you know
No
77.6
80.8
85.1
85.1
the inspection had not been a
N/A
5.9
2.3
2.1
1.9
performed would you return
Other
0.0
0.6
0.7
0.8
to the same station?
#14
Should automobiles be
Yes
67.0
73.4
69.4
74.7
required to have pollution
No
20.0
14.8
10.6
15.2
control devices?
N/A
11.3
10.3
12.9
8.5
Other
1.2
1.5
7.1
1.6
#15
Should the State require
Yes
41.2
43.4
43.5
45.5
additional devices be
No
42.3
39.0
36.5
38.4
Installed to further
N/A
15.3
15.2
18.8
13.6
reduce pollution?
Other
1.2
2.4
1.2
2.5
#16
Do you believe $40 would
Yes
51.8
54.5
48.2
58.1
be a reasonable cost for
No
25.9
19.9
30.5
22.7
such additional devices?
N/A
22.3
24.4
20.0
18.9
Other
0.0
1.2
1.2
0.2
#17
If the owner cannot afford
the cost of repairs or
devices do you believe:
Car temp. exc. from
req.
31.8
28.3
27.1
28.2
Car banned from highway
25.9
30.5
41.2
34.0
State assume costs
15.3
24.5
12.9
24.5
N/A
24.7
14.1
15.3
11.5
Other
2.3
2.6
3.5
1.9
-------
Question #
Questionnaire I
Questionnaire III
State
Private
State
Private
%
Z
2
%
#18
Do you believe that
Yes
83.5
86.8
87.0
90.8
penalties should be imposed
No
10.6
7.3
9.4
5.3
on those who violate
N/A
2.4
4.3
1.2
3.4
vehicle emission control
Other
3.5
1.6
2.4
0.5
laws?
#19
Do you believe an auto-
Yes
87.1
89.3
91.8
89.6
mobile emission Inspection
No
8.2
5.0
2.4
5.4
program will reduce air
N/A
2.4
4.7
3.5
3.7
pollution?
Other
2.3
1.0
2.3
1.3
no
If emission reduction
Perform.
29.4
33.2
31.8
35.4
results in poorer
Emission
vehicle performance,
Reduction
47.1
47.0
49.4
46.8
what do you believe
N/A
18.8
13.0
16.5
13.2
should have first
Other
4.7
6.8
2.3
5.0
consideration?
An analysis of the differentiated population yields the following
highlights:
1. After the I/M process, the percentage of respondents assigned
to the State-site who believed auto emissions were a major
cause of air pollution dropped an insignificant amount (84.7%
to 83.5%) while the percentage increased for persons assigned
to the private stations (79.2% to 82.6%).
The same is true regarding the question of should the State
require automobile inspections to reduce pollution. State-
lane respondents decreased slightly while private-lane
respondents increased a slight amount.
2. After participation at the State site, many more (48.3% versus
63.5%) indicated the State should conduct the inspections.
The change is significant at the 95% confidence level. At
the same level of confidence, those persons assigned to
private sites increased from 39% to 48.9% in favor of privately
operated sites.
After the I/M process, the percentage expressing the opinion
that the State could adequately supervise the inspections
increased for both groups (64,7% versus 76.5% for State-
lane participants and 71.6% versus 74.8% for private-lane
participants).
3. The participants had no predominant opinion regarding the
honesty and ability of private stations to perform the inspections.
-------
It is Interesting to note that participants having their cars
tested by the State more emphatically doubted the honesty and
ability of private stations after the process. Conversely,
the participants assigned to private stations increased their
appreciation of these stations. The fact that neither group
had its cars tested in the other's environment shows the
responses to be more a comment on human nature than an evalu-
ation of confidence in the private station.
4. Also of interest is the fact that the percentage favoring an
annual inspection requirement increased in both groups (50.6%
vs. 55.3% for State-lane participants and 59.6% vs. 63.1% for
private-lane participants) although the percentage of State-
lane participants favoring a semi-annual program also increased
(34.1% vs. 37.6%) while private-sector responses favoring a
semi-annual program decreased (33.9% vs. 30.5%).
Another interesting aspect is that the before-to-after responses
of State-lane participants remained essentially unchanged
(90.6% vs. 89.4%) regarding 30 minutes being a reasonable
inspection time while more private-lane participants believed
30 minutes was reasonable (85.1% vs. 93.3%).
Also interesting is the fact that fewer State-lane partici-
pants (67.1% vs. 57.7%) thought $5.00 was a reasonable inspec-
tion fee after the process while the percentage of private-
station participants remained essentially unchanged on the
question (74.6% vs. 75.6%). This change of opinion on the
part of State-lane participants is probably reflective of the
apparent relative ease by which State-lane Inspections were
performed. Also important to consider is the fact that no
repairs were performed at the State site resulting in that
inspection being relatively trouble-free.
5. The affirmative responses of each group remained essentially
unchanged on the question of should a referee site be available
for a second opinion.
A comparison of the demographic and inspection process survey
results (Tables 3-26 and 3-27) also yields some interesting highlights.
After allowing for the previously described problem of sanple size,
the major discontinuity between the groups occurs relative to the
inspection process Itself. Participants at the State site traveled
farther to reach the site and have the inspection performed. This was
merely reflective of the fact that a single State site was provided
-------
to service the test area. Consequently, the trip to the State site
required more in the way of time.
Of greater importance is the actual time lapse during the inspection.
The State site, which was specifically designed and operated around
the inspection process was able to complete the inspection in about
one-tenth the time required by the privately-operated stations.
Also of significance is the fact that total charges for the
inspection/maintenance process, as viewed by the vehicle owners, is
State
Lane
Private Lanes
N
%
N
%
1. Participant
age 18-24
3
3.5
45
4.9
(QUI 21)
25-34
19
22.4
174
19.0
34-49
26
30.6
254
27.8
50-64
25
29.4
285
31.2
over 64
11
12.9
153
16.7
N/A
1
1.2
4
0.4
2. Sex
Male
60
70.6
613
67.0
(QIII 26)
Female
25
29.4
302
33.0
3. Education
eight grade or less
0
0
24
2.6
some high school
9
10.6
68
7.4
high school grad.
16
18.8
205
22.4
some college
21
24.7
287
31.4
college grad.
17
20.0
189
20.7
post grad.
20
23.5
110
12.0
vocational school
0
0
27
3.0
N/A
2
2.4
5
0.5
4. Income
less than $5,000
1
2.3
46
5.0
(QIII 23)
$5,000 to 7,999
4
4.7
65
7.1
$8,000 to 10,999
14
16.5
137
15.0
$11,000 to 14,999
26
30.6
194
21.2
$15,000 to 19,999
11
12.9
186
20.3
more than $20,000
22
25.9
229
25.0
N/A
6
7.1
58
6.4
Table 3-26, Survey Demographic Results Differentiated by Testing Site.
-------
the same for both groups although data reported by the repair facilities
indicate somewhat higher costs to repair vehicles failed at the State
site. We attribute this primarily to the fact that a relatively high
percentage of State lane failures were repaired at a facility exhibiting
higher than average repair charges.
State
N
Lane
%
Private
N
Lanes
%
1.
Number of cars owned
(QUI 24)
Avg.
1.58
-
1.90
-
2.
Perform own tuneups?
(QI 21)
Yes
No
N/A
Other
21
62
0
2
24.7
72.9
0
2.4
272
617
2
24
29.7
67.4
0.2
2.7
3.
Months between tuneup?
(QI 22)
Avg.
6.26
-
6.86
-
4.
Miles between tuneup?
(QI 23)
Avg.
5117
-
4908
-
5.
Cost of tuneups
(QI 24)
Avg.
$28.93
-
$25.08
-
6.
I/M trip
(QII 1)
Special
w/business
57
28
67.1
32.9
670
245
73.2
26.8
7.
Distance to site
(QII 2)
Avg.
5.1
miles
-
3.69
miles
-
8.
Trip time
(QII 3)
Avg.
15.1
min.
-
10.3
min.
-
9.
Inspection wait
(QII 4)
Avg.
1.3
min.
-
13.4
min.
-
10.
Inspection time
(QII 5)
Avg.
6.34
min.
-
23.1
min.
-
11.
Inspection results
(QII 6)
Pass
Fail
84
1
98.8
1.2
873
42
95.4
4.6
12.
Total I/M charges
(QII 7)
Avg.
$8.86
-
$8.87
-
Table 3-27, Survey Automotive Results Differentiated by Testing Site.
-------
V.3.5.2 Estimate of Overcharges
As part of the program to document instances of overcharge or
fraudulent and misleading inspection or repair charges, we required
each privately-operated station to detail charges in connection with
each phase of inspection, adjustment and repair. Details were supplied
on the Vehicle Inspection Form. These and the repair orders provided
by each site were monitored for indications of: overcharge, unnecessary
work, work performed but not charged, work performed but not reported,
and undercharge.
Vehicles comprising the 300 car control sample were utilized for
this purpose. Within the control sample, 135 vehicles were reported
by the stations as having failed the inspection. As they were returned
to us for testing to determine the effectiveness of the repairs, each
vehicle was subjected to a rigorous inspection as part of the post-
repair operations. In evaluating the site reported repair information
against the results of the physical inspection, we found 17 instances
where they did not agree as follows:
8 instances involving unnecessary work were observed. The
total charge in these regards was $81.26.
There were no instances where flagrant attempts to overcharge
were observed.
There was one instance where work was performed but not charged.
The estimate in this regard was $3.50.
There was one instance where work was performed but not the work
reported on the forms. This amounted to an estimated $12.50 in
favor of the vehicle owner.
There were two Instances where corrective action which may have
resulted in a passed vehicle was simply not attempted.
There were also two instances where questionable diagnostic
procedures were applied.
-------
Finally, there were three Instances where vehicles were passed
by the inspector while emission readings indicated a failure.
In evaluating the 8 cases involving unnecessary repairs, we found that
four of these situations could be attributed to the technician's
overzealous desire to perform additional work not essential to bring
the vehicle into compliance and four could be related to Incorrect
diagnosis of the malfunctions causing failure. Of the $81.26 charged
for additional work, $16.45 can be attributed to enthusiasm while $64.81
reflects charges due to incorrect diagnosis.
V.3.5.3 Consumer Complaints
During the course of the investigation, dissatisfaction with the
repair effort was reported to us by four of the vehicle owners. These
vehicles were recalled for a laboratory evaluation and the necessary
corrective action. At the time of recall, concerted attempts were
made to correct not only site related problems but also faults in the
vehicle due to normal wear and tear.
Our findings indicated the following:
Three of the complaints were attributed to normal wear and tear.
In one of these cases, the site recorded the initial HC reading
above the allowable maximum and performed the first step in the
repair process involving an engine idle speed adjustment and a
mixture adjustment to lean best idle. This brought the vehicle
into compliance. However, the owner complained of hard starting
and fast idling. We concurred. The subsequent examination
revealed: ignition dwell was six degrees less than specifications,
the distributor cap was not properly indexed and was attached by
only one slip, the vacuum advance diaphram was ruptured, the
spark plugs were gapped .005" too wide, the PCV vent filter was
plugged, and the carburetor bowl overflowed after shut-down. If
corrected in the average shop, total charges were estimated to
be $32.00.
In the second case, the site recorded both HC and CO readings
above standards and performed the first step in the repair process,
an rpm and lean best idle adjustment. This brought the vehicle
-------
into compliance. However, the owner complained that the air
cleaner fell off. We concurred. The examination revealed that
in the past the fuel line had been routed over the air cleaner
housing air horn. Continual stress on the air horn eventually
caused the air cleaner bracket to weaken and give way. If
corrected in the average shop, total charges were estimated to
be $61.75.
In the third case, the site recorded the initial CO reading above
the standard and performed the first step in the repair process,
an rpm and lean best idle adjustment. This brought the vehicle
into compliance. However, the owner complained that the engine
died after a cold start and died during drive-away. The exami-
nation revealed that a choke link was missing which caused the
choke plate to bind in the mid-position. If corrected in the
average shop, total charges were estimated to be $6.03.
One of the complaints was attributed to site error. In this case,
the site recorded the initial HC reading above the standard and
performed the steps prescribed in the repair process. Additional
work was also performed to the $50.00 limit bringing the vehicle
into compliance. However, the owner complained of dieseling after
shut-down. We concurred. The examination revealed that initial
timing had been mis-set. If corrected in the average shop, the
charges would have been about $5.00.
V.3.5.3 Needed Public Protection Measures
It is our opinion that the problems we encountered in the pilot
effort were minimal primarily due to:
The quality personnel selected to act as inspectors and repairing
technicians.
The training provided not only in the classroom but the on-site
OJT program as well.
Ths forms utilized to specify and document the inspection/repair
process.
The network monitoring procedures employed which include surveil-
lance of both network personnel and equipment.
Participating motorists were well informed as to the inspection/
repair procedures.
Consequently, we came to certain conclusions regarding program elements
that would provide the degree of public protection necessary.
Firstly, we are of the opinion that the key to the success of any
-------
program be it in either the public or the private sector, rests within
the repair industry. As demonstrated in the pilot effort, it was a
relatively simple task to set-up the mechanical requirements of a net-
work, i.e., to define and select a site, to define minimum equipment
requirements and to define minimum inspection procedures. While the
subject study was not designed to and did not provide information to
document all of the negative aspects of an inspection program, we
believe the subject effort represents significant improvements over
prior work in the areas of defining inspector and repairmen qualifi-
cations and selecting personnel to meet these qualifications. We
believe this is demonstrated by the mere fact that overcharges, consumer
complaints and administrative problems were minimal compared to those
encountered previously.
In these same regards, we would have to conclude that an adequate
training program, such as that employed in the subject effort, be made
mandatory as a prerequisite to the performance of emission related work
on vehicles failing the inspection. While emission reductions were
disappointingly low for reasons discussed, it is conceivable that no
reduction would be attained without the utilization of proper repair and
adjustment procedures. In addition, problems with the consumer's com-
plaints would become staggering if he was unable to have his car repaired
to such an extent that it would pass an inspection.
Regarding both personnel and their training, we are of the opinion
that some form of mechanic or repair facility licensing will be required
to provide protection not only to the consumer, but to the repair
industry as well. Further, we believe these procedures should be
implemented well in advance of a mandatory inspection program.
-------
We also believe the forras, or appropriate versions thereof,
utilized to specify and document the inspection/repair process, should
be Incorporated into, and made a part of, any I/M program. We recommend
the repair facility be required to provide documentation relating to
the repair process not only on the inspection form, but should also be
required to detail and document the parts and labor employed. On the
basis of our experience in evaluating complaints, we believe such
documentation would serve as the basis for resolving legal problems.
In previous sections of this report we described the procedures
employed to monitor emission analyzer accuracy and the performance of
inspection and repair site personnel. On the basis of our findings,
particularly as related to instrument performance, we are of the opinion
that serious problems could develop due to poor instrument correlations
within the network itself and between the network and the repair facili-
ties. Consequently, we strongly recommend, firstly, that an inspection
instrument accreditation program be implemented to include both those
instruments used for inspection and for repair procedures and, secondly,
that a site to site instrument correlation program be implemented as a
primary part of the public protection program.
Xn a previous section we also described some minimal data processing
requirements and recommended these be utilized to indicate potentially
troublesome areas. Our experience relating not only to the subject
study but also to prior studies indicates that virtually all of the
major I/M related problem areas could be easily identified and expedi-
tiously corrected through utilization of a properly designed and fre-
quently updated data monitoring program. The program should have, as a
-------
minimum, the capability of providing listings of pass/fail rates for
each vehicle population by station (State or private) and I/M related
repair costs by station, the latter again suggesting a requirement for
State licensed repair sites. Implementation of these measures, we
believe, will provide positive indications of inspection and maintenance
related problems requiring State investigation.
With regards to the above, we cannot help but conclude that the
public, well informed on the total I/M process, would be a key factor
as it relates to the public providing for its own protection. In this
respect, we believe a concerted effort to inform the public as to what
the I/M process entails, the costs which may be expected, and what
recourse it may have should be the major elements comprising the public
protection program.
In final regards to the question of needed public protection
measures, we believe the public has provided certain indications of what
it would require as indicated in its response to the public opinion
survey. In examining responses to one of the more significant questions
which can be related to public protection, we found the public to over-
whelmingly favor the concept of a referee test site. For this reason
and because these sites can provide a variety of functions, we recommend
the network, particularly a privately-operated network, contain at least
a minimal number of referee site3.
-------
VI.3.6 ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS AND SOLUTIONS
In previous parts of this report we made reference either directly
or indirectly to a variety of problems that either developed or may
develop relative to an I/M program. In these respects, we consider it
necessary to summarize some of these problems and briefly review the
procedures we believe will serve to minimize them.
We believe there will be significant problems relating particularly
to an I/M network in the public sector if the sites are not properly
situated and distributed. In the pilot effort we saw indications that
the car owners tend to favor one site over another for reasons probably
relating to site accessibility due to both its location and its operating
hours. Consequently, we believe a comprehensive study in this regard
should precede the implementation phase. This may also be a problem
with a private sector network if its size is much below the minimum we
prescribed.
On the basis of our experience with I/M related studies over the
last-three years and as indicated in this report, we believe the I/M
effort is sensitive to a variety of factors. Among these are the par-
ticulars of both the inspection and the repair process. For this reason,
we also believe an adequate surveillance program is essential to main-
taining the integrity of the program.
In the course of the State station inspection effort, we could see
the distinct possibility that significant problems would develop if the
motorist was required to return to a State site in repeated attempts
to get his problem (either real or otherwise) vehicle passed. Consequently,
we suggest the motorist be awarded a valid certificate at the time he
-------
would ordinarily return for a second retest. The only requirement in
this respect would be evidence showing he had a reasonable amount of
the proper type of work performed. In effect the site would grant a
variance to remain in effect until the next inspection became due. We
believe the same criteria should be applied in a private sector network
whereby the referee site would grant the variance upon submission of
the proper evidence.
We believe the importance of an active data monitoring program
cannot be over-emphasized. As we described, the program may be utlized
to monitor both the I/M rejection rates on a per station basis and the
repair charges on a per station basis. A properly implemented and
active program will provide the basis for early disciplinary action
and subsequent legal action if necessary.
We also believe the State should provide instrument calibration
and monitoring services. In a public sector network, this function
may be easily performed by on-site personnel. In a private sector
network, this task should be performed by State personnel utilizing the
portable standards laboratories we discussed. In these same regards,
we believe a stringent analytical instrument accreditation program
should be implemented. Not only our experience but the experience of
State personnel operating the Aurora facility should provide strong
indicators for such a program.
The overwhelming majority of the nearly 1100 licensed drivers we
sampled indicated they believed a referee site should be available for
a second opinion. We strongly recommend a minimum of six sites be
established in the DAQCR to perform not only this function but also to
provide logistics support for the mobile vans and to serve as the
-------
zone headquarters for variance activities.
Regarding variance activities, we recommend these be handled in
a State-operated network by site personnel. The State may wish to
make provisions to this effect by assigning a number of people to the
network for the purpose of handling variance related activities. We
believe these matters may be handled in a private sector network by
personnel assigned to the referee sites. The State may also wish to
provide a complement of field investigators to be available on an as
needed basis to respond to problems in the field.
As proposed, we believe enforcement of the emission inspection
program should closely parallel enforcement of the safety inspection
program to such an extent that the same window sticker and other cer-
tificates are used. The specific procedures for administering the
issuance of certificates are discribed elsewhere in this report.
In all of our studies we can find no evidence to indicate a given
class or category of light-duty motor vehicles should be granted across-
the-board exemptions from compliance with emission requirements except
as listed in the proposed Colorado Motor Vehicle Emission Inspection
Handbook, Volume I submitted to the Department earlier this year.
Finally, while we have no cause based simply on the pilot test lanes
effort to believe that any of the participating stations operated in other
than strict compliance with the guidelines provided, we can envision a
variety of situations in a region wide program where this may not be
the case. With regards to areas requiring legal study, we propose that
the Handbook, Volume I meets all of the requirements in this regard and
need merely to be reviewed for possible conflict with existing regulations.
-------
appendices
-------
VEH
001
002
003
004
005
006
007
008
009
010
Oil
012
013
014
015
016
017
018
019
020
021
022
023
024
025
026
027
028
029
030
031
032
033
034
035
036
037
038
039
040
041
042
043
044
045
046
047
048
049
050
IDLE INSPECTION CONTROL VEHICLES
VEHICLES TESTED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
COSTS Ĥ
YEAR MAKE MODEL CID CYL CARB TRAN I.WT ODOM. FAILURE INSP. MTCE.
1967
FORD
FAIR
289
8
2
A
3000
077290
PASS
4.00
0.00
1971
CHEV
ELCA
250
6
1
3
3500
063508
HC
4.00
34.55
1967
BUIC
SPEC
340
8
4
A
3500
049527
CO
4.00
12.50
1968
BUIC
SPEC
350
8
2
A
3500
052191
BOTH
4.00
3.50
1964
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
4000
123000
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
FORD
PINT
122
4
2
4
2750
015120
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
PONT
VENT
350
8
2
A
3500
021668
PASS
4.00
0.00
1971
CHEV
CAPR
400
8
2
A
4500
050726
PASS
4.00
0.00
1974
AMMO
GREM
232
6
1
A
3000
013524
PASS
4.00
0.00
1974
VOLK
SEDA
97
4 .
1
A
2250
006608
HC
4.00
7.00
1973
CADI
DEVI
472
8
4
A
5500
011048
PASS
4.00
0.00
1974
DODG
DART
225
6
1
3
3500
007343
BOTH
4.00
3.50
1970
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
4
A
4000
100052
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
fONT
LEMA
350
8
2
A
4000
016568
PASS
4.00
0.00
1962
FORD
GALA
352
8
2
A
4000
045453
CO
4.00
3.45
1961
CHEV
IMPA
348
8
4
A
4000
037830
BOTH
4.00
3.50
1971
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
4000
023924
PASS
4.00
0.00
1971
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
3500
010778
PASS
4.00
0.00
1974
CHEV
VEGA
140
4
1
4
2750
011267
PASS
4.00
0.00
1968
VOLK
SEDA
91
4
1
4
2000
098192
PASS
4.00
0.00
1963
VOLK
SEDA
72
4
1
4
1750
082984
CO
4.00
4.50
1973
FORD
MAVE
250
6
1
A
3000
019322
PASS
4.00
0.00
1961
FORD
STAW
292
8
2
3
4500
094163
BOTH
4.00
34.00
1962
PONT
CATA
400
8
2
A
4000
084794
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
PONT
CATA
400
8
2
A
4500
027853
PASS
4.00
0.00
1960
FORD
FAIR
352
8
2
A
3500
059894
PASS
4.00
0.00
1966
PLYM
VALI
170
6
1
A
3000
078286
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
CHEV
CAPR
400
8
2
A
4500
018543
PASS
4.00
0.00
1970
VOLK
SQBK
97
4
FI
4
2500
070234
PASS
4.00
0.00
1968
PLYM
FURY
383
8
2
A
4000
059717
PASS
4.00
0.00
1966
CHEV
NOVA
230
6
2
A
3000
042747
PASS
4.00
0.00
1960
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
4000
112456
PASS
4.00
0.00
1963
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
4
A
4000
094170
PASS
4.00
0.00
1963
FORD
STAW
260
8
2
A
4500
065575
HC
4.00
32.20
1964
BUIC
SKYL
300
8
2
A
3500
070080
BOTH
4.00
5.60
1970
BUIC
LESA
350
8
2
A
4000
061817
PASS
4.00
0.00
1963
PONT
LEMA
389
8
2
3
3000
080744
HC
4.00
32.98
1973
FORD
STAW
400
8
2
A
5000
020722
HC
4.00
0.00
1965
AMMO
CLAS
232
6
2
A
3000
049032
CO
4.00
2.50
1965
FORD
MUST
289
8
4
A
2750
060713
PASS
4.00
0.00
1970
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
038724
CO
4.00
2.50
1966
DODG
STAW
383
8
2
A
4000
081092
PASS
4.00
0.00
1970
FORD
GALA
351
8
2
A
4000
079302
PASS
4.00
0.00
1967
FORD
THUN
428
8
4
A
5000
041378
PASS
4.00
0.00
1969
CHEV
NOVA
230
6
1
A
3000
044243
BOTH
4.00
31.38
1969
AMMO
REBE
290
8
2
A
3000
073398
PASS
4.00
0.00
1969
BUIC
LESA
350
8
4
A
4500
052657
CO
4.00
7.50
1965
BUIC
SPEC
300
8
2
A
3500
090289
CO
4.00
5.60
1966
BUIC
LESA
340
8
4
A
4000
066834
CO
4.00
5.60
1966
FORD
STAW
200
6
1
3
3500
034377
PASS
4.00
0.00
-------
IDLE INSPECTION CONTROL VEHICLES
VEHICLES TESTED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
I.WT
ODOM.
FAILURE
COSTS
INSP. MTCE.
051
1966
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A
4000
096614
HC
4.00
38.47
052
1974
PLYM
VALI
318
8
2
A
3000
005304
PASS
4.00
0.00
053
1973
FORD
MUST
302
8
2
A
3500
013197
PASS
4.00
0.00
054
1973
BUIC
APOL
350
8
2
A
3500
013157
PASS
4.00
0.00
055
1972
BUIC
SKYL
350
8
2
A
4000
025458
BOTH
4.00
44.30
056
1966
FORD
GALA
352
8
4
A
4000
089594
CO
4.00
13.23
057
1965
CHEV
CHE2
194
6
1
3
3000
100418
PASS
4.00
0.00
058
1972
CHEV
IMPA
400
8
2
A
4500
031472
PASS
4.00
0.00
059
1970
FORD
XL
390
8
2
A
4000
036248
PASS
4.00
0.00
060
1971
DODG
SWIN
318
8
2
A
3000
040117
CO
4.00
7.50
061
1968
PLYM
SATE
318
8
2
A
4000
099679
HC
4.00
5.50
062
1973
FORD
STAW
400
8
2
A
4500
009924
PASS
4.00
0.00
063
1968
AMMO
JAVE
232
6
1
A
3000
062696
HC
4.00
10.00
064
1968
CADI
DEVI
472
8
4
A
5000
070372
PASS
4.00
0.00
065
1972
AMMO
GREM
232
6
1
A
2750
025290
PASS
4.00
0.00
066
1972
CHEV
VEGA
140
4
1
A
2500
021880
HC
4.00
3.50
067
1969
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
4
A
4000
060644
CO
4.00
7.50
068
1974
CHEV
MONT
400
8
2
A
4000
011274
PASS
4.00
0.00
069
1971
CHEV
VEGA
140
4
1
A
2500
041462
BOTH
4.00
3.50
070
1971
PONT
CATA
400
8
4
A
4500
060266
PASS
4.00
0.00
071
1967
PLYM
STAW
318
8
2
A
4500
079614
CO
4.00
3.50
072
1971
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
3
3500
025580
PASS
4.00
0.00
073
1970
CADI
DEVI
472
8
4
A
5000
056530
PASS
4.00
0.00
074
1974
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
3
3000
004552
PASS
4.00
0.00
075
1972
OLDS
DELT
455
8
4
A
4500
027534
PASS
4.00
0.00
076
1972
MERC
MONT
302
8
2
A
3500
022781
PASS
4.00
0.00
077
1972
PLYM
SATE
318
8
2
A
3500
023480
BOTH
4.00
3.50
078
1972
MERC
MONT
429
8
4
A
5000
029470
CO
4.00
4.50
079
1971
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
A
3500
026356
PASS
4.00
0.00
080
1973
PLYM
FURY
360
8
2
A
4000
006977
CO
4.00
3.00
081
1972
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
3
3000
011805
PASS
4.00
0.00
082
1969
VOLK
FTBK
96
4
1
A
2250
046960
PASS
4.00
0.00
083
1971
CHRY
NEWP
383
8
2
A
4500
035271
PASS
4.00
0.00
084
1972
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
021659
PASS
4.00
0.00
085
1973
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
4500
020355
PASS
4.00
0.00
086
1969
FORD
FALC
200
6
1
3
3000
046816
PASS
4.00
0.00
087
1972
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
4000
049611
PASS
4.00
0.00
088
1972
CHRY
NEWP
400
8
2
A
4500
026202
CO
4.00
7.50
089
1974
FORD
MAVE
250
6
1
A
3000
006265
PASS
4.00
0.00
090
1968
CHEV
CAPR
396
8
4
A
4000
065567
PASS
4.00
0.00
091
1971
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2000
040296
PASS
4.00
0.00
092
1968
VOLK
TRAN
97
4
1
4
3000
045604
HC
4.00
0.00
093
1972
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
4000
040836
PASS
4.00
0.00
094
1964
OLDS
F85
330
8
2
A
3500
127483
CO
4.00
6.00
095
1965
CHEV
MALI
283
8
2
A
3500
055129
HC
4.00
10.00
096
1964
PLYM
SAVO
318
8
2
A
3500
063314
BOTH
4.00
2.50
097
1964
PONT
STAR
389
8
2
A
4500
097933
PASS
4.00
0.00
098
1969
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
4
A
4000
060710
BOTH
4.00
3.00
099
1969
CHEV
MALI
350
8
2
A
3500
046705
BOTH
4.00
3.00
100
1965
CHEV
MALI
283
8
2
A
3500
061679
PASS
4.00
0.00
-------
IDLE INSPECTION CONTROL VEHICLES
VEHICLES TESTED
IN
THE
PRIVATE SECTOR
COSTS
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN I.WT
ODOM.
FAILURE
INSP.
MTCE.
========
======:
sssssss
=====
:====
====
S5SS8
===============
:========
:======
======
101
1964
VOLK
SEDA
73
4
1
4
2000
118007
BOTH
4.00
12.00
102
1974
BUIC
LESA
455
8
2
A
4500
020427
PASS
4.00
0.00
103
1974
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3500
014159
PASS
4.00
0.00
104
1974
FORD
PINT
122
4
2
4
3000
005818
PASS
4.00
0.00
105
1970
VOLK
SQBK
97
4
FI
4
2500
049502
HC
4.00
0.00
106
1969
VOLK
SEDA
91
4
1
4
2000
103148
BOTH
4.00
2.50
107
1969
PONT
FIRE
350
8
2
A
4000
057767
BOTH
4.00
3.00
108
1971
CHEV
MALI
350
8
2
A
3500
045647
HC
4.00
3.00
109
1968
FORD
FALC
200
6
1
3
3000
060786
PASS
4.00
0.00
110
1974
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
009875
HC
4.00
3.50
111
1967
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
4
A
4000
073302
PASS
4.00
0.00
112
1974
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2250
007751
HC
4.00
5.50
113
1973
CHEV
MALI
350
8
4
A
4000
038635
PASS
4.00
0.00
114
1973
CHEV
MALI
350
8
2
A
4000
008844
PASS
4.00
0.00
115
1973
AMMO
STAW
304
8
2
A
4000
029275
PASS
4.00
0.00
116
1974
OLDS
98
455
8
4
A
5500
004403
CO
4.00
3.00
117
1969
PLYM
FURY
318
8
2
A-
4000
046524
PASS
4.00
0.00
118
1967
CHRY
NEWP
383
8
2
A
4000
079571
HC
4.00
16.95
119
1967
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
4000
061193
CO
4.00
7.50
120
1967
CHEV
MALI
283
8
2
A
3500
042473
PASS
4.00
0.00
121
1968
FORD
TRUC
240
6
2
3
3500
072021
BOTH
4.00
52.59
122
1970
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
A'
3500
059371
CO
4.00
7.50
123
1970
AMMO
REBE
232
6
1
A
3500
052777
PASS
4.00
0.00
124
1970
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
A
2750
060832
PASS
4.00
0.00
125
1970
PONT
LEMA
350
8
2
A
4000
031939
HC
4.00
28.65
126
1970
PONT
BONN
455
8
4
A
4500
078624
PASS
4.00
0.00
127
1967
CHEV
BELA
283
8
2
A
4000
118993
PASS
4.00
0.00
128
1969
FORD
FAIR
302
8
2
A
4000
048084
BOTH
4.00
6.00
129
1968
CHEV
CAME
250
6
1
A
3000
073994
PASS
4.00
0.00
130
1969
DODG
CHAR
318
8
2
A
3500
079527
HC
4.00
5.00
131
1973
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2250
022713
BOTH
4.00
3.50
132
1968
FORD
STAW
302
8
2
A
4500
082941
HC
4.00
9.00
133
1970
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
3500
048024
PASS
4.00
0.00
134
1968
CHEV
BELA
307
8
2
3
4000
033260
PASS
4.00
0.00
135
1971
MERC
COME
302
8
2
A
3000
046702
CO
4.00
5.50
136
1973
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
010191
PASS
4.00
0.00
137
1973
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2250
023020
BOTH
4.00
2.50
138
1974
DATS
B210
78
4
2
4
2250
005038
BOTH
4.00
5.00
139
1973
DATS
610
108
4
2
4
2750
003278
BOTH
4.00
2.00
140
1973
AMMO
HORN
258
6
1
A
3000
016038
CO
4.00
3.00
141
1969
FORD
LTD
390
8
2
A
4000
078946
HC
4.00
49.89
142
1974
PLYM
DUST
225
6
1
A
3000
005882
PASS
4.00
0.00
143
1971
FORD
PINT
122
4
2
4
2250
054479
CO
4.00
2.50
144
1971
BUIC
SKYL
350
8
2
A
3500
026432
PASS
4.00
0.00
145
1971
FORD
MAVE
200
6
1
A
2750
040648
PASS
4.00
0.00
146
1971
DATS
B110
71
4
1
4
2000
048628
HC
4.00
29.82
147
1973
VOLK
THIN
97
4
1
4
2250
009888
BOTH
4.00
3.90
148
1971
AMMO
GREM
258
6
1
3
2750
040309
PASS
4.00
2.00
149
1965
DODG
DART
273
8
2
A
3000
101491
PASS
4.00
0.00
150
1968
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
074515
PASS
4.00
-------
VEH
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
IDLE INSPECTION CONTROL VEHICLES
VEHICLES TESTED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
I.WT
ODOM.
FAILURE
COSTS
INSP. MTCE.
1967
VOLK
SEDA
91
4
1
4
2000
047804
HC
4.00
3.00
1971
PLYM
VALI
225
6
1
A
3000
033424
CO
4.00
3.00
1968
FORD
GALA
390
8
2
A
4000
082339
PASS
4.00
0.00
1971
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
025800
CO
4.00
3.00
1973
DODG
DART
318
8
2
A
3000
019091
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
4000
012048
CO
4.00
3.00
1973
PONT
CATA
400
8
2
A
4500
011289
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
MERC
COME
302
8
2
A
3000
026388
PASS
4.00
0.00
1968
CHRY
NEWP
383
8
2
A
4000
070112
HC
4.00
68.68
1974
PLYM
DUST
318
8
2
A
3000
013232
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
DODG
DEMO
225
6
1
A
3000
015321
CO
4.00
6.00
1974
AMMO
SPOR
304
8
2
A
3500
007974
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
CHEV
CHEL
350
8
4
A
3500
007856
HC
4.00
5.00
1970
PLYM
VALI
225
6
1
3
3000
048935
PASS
4.00
0.00
1967
FORD
MUST
200
6
1
A
3000
056547
HC
4.00
174.72
1964
CHEV
NOVA
194
6
1
A
3000
105912
BOTH
4.00
7.80
1962
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
4
A
4000
070192
HC
4.00
44.15
1964
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
4
A
3500
103054
BOTH
4.00
7.50
1964
FORD
FALC
260
8
2
A
2750
063969
PASS
4.00
0.00
1965
OLDS
F85
330
8
2
A
3500
063234
CO
4.00
5.10
1962
BUIC
SKYL
215
8
4
A
3000
059028
BOTH
4.00
7.50
1974
TOYO
CORO
97
4
2
0
2250
013117
PASS
4.00
0.00
1965
FORD
FALC
200
6
1
A
2750
080112
PASS
4.00
0.00
1965
PLYM
VALI
225
6
1
A
3000
103808
BOTH
4.00
24.00
1965
PONT
TEMP
326
8
2
A
3500
071670
CO
4.00
3.90
1966
CHEV
CHEV
283
8
2
A
3500
079864
BOTH
4.00
5.10
1966
CHEV
IMPA
283
8
2
A
4000
055871
CO
4.00
7.50
1966
VOLK
SEDA
78
4
1
4
2000
072342
HC
4.00
50.00
1965
VOLK
SEDA
72
4
1
4
2000
094068
BOTH
4.00
6.00
1965
FORD
MUST
289
8
2
4
3000
051833
PASS
4.00
0.00
1966
OLDS
CUTL
330
8
4
3
3500
069083
HC
4.00
51.83
1974
BUIC
APOL
350
8
4
A
4000
003030
PASS
4.00
0.00
1966
CHEV
CORV
327
8
4
A
3500
047539
PASS
4.00
0.00
1966
FORD
MUST
289
8
4
4
3000
071043
PASS
4.00
0.00
1974
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
3
3500
013742
PASS
4.00
0.00
1964
FORD
STAW
170
6
1
A
3000
049241
BOTH
4.00
3.90
1967
PONT
LEMA
326
8
2
A
3500
090686
BOTH
4.00
3.00
1967
OLDS
F85
330
8
2
A
4000
028647
CO
4.00
3.00
1967
MERC
COUG
289
8
4
A
3500
026498
CO
4.00
3.90
1971
AMMO
MATA
304
8
2
A
4000
048757
PASS
4.00
0.00
1967
CHEV
CAME
250
6
1
A
3000
056744
PASS
4.00
0.00
1967
PONT
EXEC
400
8
2
A
4500
071009
PASS
4.00
0.00
1968
OLDS
DELT
455
8
2
A
4500
087392
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
CADI
COUP
472
8
4
A
5000
029984
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
DODG
DART
225
6
1
A
3000
012840
PASS
4.00
0.00
1963
AMMO
STAW
196
6
1
3
3000
057189
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
DODG
CORO
318
8
2
A
3500
016720
PASS
4.00
0.00
1971
FORD
TORI
302
8
2
A
4000
062236
PASS
4.00
0.00
1969
CHRY
NEWP
383
8
2
A
4500
055612
BOTH
4.00
3.00
1972
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
2750
029770
PASS
4.00
0.00
-------
IDLE INSPECTION CONTROL VEHICLES
VEHICLES TESTED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
.COSTS
VEH YEAR MAKE MODEL CID CYL CARB TRAN I.WT ODOM. FAILURE INSP. MTCE.
3 = = = =
:======
=======
sssss
Ĥ===
SS3S3
======
s=sss:
=========
S333SSS
======
======
201
1970
CHEV
MONT
350
8
4
A
4000
055539
PASS
4.00
0.00
202
1968
PONT
FIRE
350
8
2
A
3500
069360
BOTH
4.00
7.50
203
1969
PLYM
FURY
383
8
2
A
4000
077968
BOTH
4.00
7.50
204
1968
CHEV
IMPA
327
8
4
A
4000
064555
HC
4.00
32.75
205
1968
MERC
COUG
302
8
2
A
3500
030565
BOTH
4.00
6.00
206
1969
DODG
POLA
383
8
2
A
4000
102126
BOTH
4.00
3.00
207
1968
PONT
GTO
400
8
4
A
4000
069074
BOTH
4.00
18.00
208
1969
CHEV
CHEL
307
8
2
A
3500
079338
HC
4.00
18.00
209
1966
PONT
BONN
389
8
4
A
4500
068383
HC
4.00
34.02
210
1968
CHEV
CAMA
327
8
2
3
3000
046003
PASS
4.00
0.00
211
1969
FORD
GALA
302
8
2
A
4000
078049
PASS
4.00
0.00
212
1974
FORD
STAW
400
8
2
A
4500
008903
PASS
4.00
0.00
213
1969
VOLK
SEDA
91
4
1
4
2000
078678
BOTH
4.00
8.00
214
1971
TOYO
CORO
71
4
2
4
2000
037302
HC
4.00
3.90
215
1969
MERC
COUG
351
8
4
A
3500
103036
PASS
4.00
0.00
216
1972
FORD
STAW
429
8
4
A
5000
026436
PASS
4.00
0.00
217
1974
OPEL
MANT
116
4
2
A
2500
009421
BOTH
4.00
18.00
218
1969
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
2
A
3500
077776
BOTH
4.00
6.00
219
1974
CADI
DEVI
472
8
4
A
5500
019737
PASS
4.00
0.00
220
1971
PLYM
SATE
318
8
2
A
3500
040273
PASS
4.00
0.00
221
1971
PLYM
FURY
383
8
2
A
3500
035336
CO
4.00
7.50
222
1970
FORD
STAW
302
8
2
A
4000
062317
CO
4.00
5.50
223
1970
FORD
FAIR
302
8
2
3
3500
052662
HC
4.00
3.90
224
1970
TOYO
CORO
113
4
2
A
2500
031163
PASS
4.00
0.00
225
1970
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
043135
PASS
4.00
0.00
226
1970
CHEV
CAPR
400
8
2
A
4000
037056
PASS
4.00
0.00
227
1970
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
3500
038277
PASS
4.00
0.00
228
1972
TOYO
STAW
120
4
2
4
2750
030643
BOTH
4.00
6.00
229
1974
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
003720
PASS
4.00
0.00
230
1974
FORD
BRON
302
8
2
3
3500
021491
PASS
4.00
0.00
231
1974
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
4500
009757
PASS
4.00
0.00
232
1974
MERC
MONT
400
8
2
A
3500
009600
HC
4.00
2.50
233
1974
MERC
COUG
351
8
2
A
4500
003527
PASS
4.00
0.00
234
1974
PONT
GRAN
455
8
4
A
4500
010666
BOTH
4.00
3.00
235
1974
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
4000
005348
PASS
4.00
0.00
236
1971
FORD
TORI
302
8
2
A
3500
064575
PASS
4.00
0.00
237
1969
PONT
FIRE
400
8
4
A
3500
102209
PASS
4.00
0.00
238
1970
CHEV
NOVA
230
6
1
A
3000
031259
BOTH
4.00
6.00
239
1970
MERC
COUG
351
8
2
A
3500
103270
BOTH
4.00
26.74
240
1974
VOLK
STAW
110
4
1
A
2750
006736
PASS
4.00
0.00
241
1966
FORD
GALA
352
8
4
A
4000
058060
CO
4.00
2.50
242
1974
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
026874
PASS
4.00
0.00
243
1971
FORD
GALA
400
8
2
A
4500
049133
CO
4.00
3.00
244
1971
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2250
042446
PASS
4.00
0.00
245
1974
FORD
BRON
302
8
2
3
3500
011950
CO
4.00
3.00
246
1971
CADI
COUP
472
8
4
A
5000
024499
PASS
4.00
0.00
247
1974
FORD
BRON
302
8
2
A
3500
006647
PASS
4.00
0.00
248
1973
PLYM
SATE
318
8
2
A
4000
017401
CO
4.00
2.50
249
1972
FORD
PINT
122
4
2
4
2500
021248
CO
4.00
3.50
250
1971
FORD
STAW
351
8
2
A
4500
047717
PASS
4.00
0.00
-------
VEH
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
IDLE INSPECTION CONTROL VEHICLES
VEHICLES TESTED IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
I.WT
ODOM.
FAILURE
COSTS
INSP. MTCE.
1973
FORD
MAVE
302
8
2
A
3000
018457
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
CHRY
NEWY
440
8
4
A
4500
010086
BOTH
4.00
7.40
1971
DODG
POLA
360
8
2
A
4500
030632
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
MERC
MONT
400
8
2
A
4500
019777
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
PLYM
VALI
225
6
1
A
3000
015202
BOTH
4.00
6.00
1969
FORD
MUST
351
8
2
A
3500
060310
BOTH
4.00
2.50
1972
PLYM
SATE
318
8
2
A
3500
035226
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2250
029227
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
FORD
MUST
351
8
2
A
3500
004015
BOTH
4.00
3.50
1970
PLYM
SATE
318
8
2
A
3500
075504
BOTH
4.00
2.50
1971
VOLK
STAW
97
4
1
4
2500
055622
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
TOYO
CORO
120
4
2
4
2500
014673
BOTH
4.00
5.50
1974
FORD
STAW
400
8
2
A
5000
003484
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
FORD
TORI
351
8
2
A
4000
022117
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
PLYM
DUST
225
6
1
A
3000
024200
CO
4.00
8.14
1972
FORD
BRON
302
8
2
3
3500
032406
CO
4.00
2.50
1974
CHEV
IMPA
400
8
2
A
4500
013798
PASS
4.00
0.00
1973
CHEV
VEGA
140
4
1
3
2500
043040
BOTH
4.00
4.00
1973
OLDS
DELT
455
8
4
A
4500
015426
PASS
4.00
0.00
1972
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
1
4
2250
045721
PASS
4.00
0.00
-------
IDLE INSPECTION CONTROL VEHICLES
VEHICLES TESTED IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR
COSTS
VEH
YEAR
MAKE
MODEL
CID
CYL
CARB
TRAN
I.WT
ODOM.
FAILURE
INSP.
MTCE.
======
======
:======
=======:
=====
:===:
======
===========
========
=========
:======:
======
272
1973
VOLK
SEDA
97
4
FI
A
2500
012541
HC
4.00
37.00
273
1974
CHEV
BLAZ
350
8
4
A
4500
013900
PASS
4.00
0.00
274
1974
VOLK
DASH
90
4
1
4
2500
004830
CO
4.00
7.50
275
1972
CHEV
MONT
350
8
4
A
4000
018592
PASS
4.00
0.00
276
1973
CHEV
NOVA
307
8
2
3
3500
020463
PASS
4.00
0.00
277
1972
CHEV
MONT
350
8
4
A
4000
059037
CO
4.00
7.50
278
1972
TOYO
CORO
97
4
2
A
2250
030422
BOTH
4.00
29.47
279
1972
CHEV
NOVA
250
6
1
A
3000
023513
PASS
4.00
0.00
280
1966
FORD
GALA
289
8
2
A
4000
028757
CO
4.00
2.50
281
1972
VOLK
STAW
103
4
FI
4
2500
025721
CO
4.00
7.50
282
1971
PONT
STAW
455
8
4
A
5000
054888
PASS
4.00
0.00
283
1967
FORD
STAW
390
8
2
A
4000
059755
PASS
4.00
0.00
284
1972
CHEV
CHEL
350
8
4
A
3500
037072
CO
4.00
13.00
285
1974
OLDS
OMEG
350
8
4
A
3500
021580
PASS
4.00
0.00
286
1971
VOLK
STAW
103
4
FI
A
3000
046019
PASS
4.00
0.00
287
1974
FORD
BRON
302
8
2
A
3500
003271
PASS
4.00
0.00
288
1973
TOYO
CORO
120
4
2
A
2750
019689
HC
4.00
13.50
289
1974
CHEV
MONT
400
8
2
A
4000
009321
PASS
4.00
0.00
290
1973
OLDS
OMEG
350
8
4
A
3500
016123
CO
4.00
6.00
291
1973
OLDS
CUTL
350
8
4
A
4000
020786
PASS
4.00
0.00
292
1974
TOYO
CORO
97
4
2
4
2250
010036
BOTH
4.00
23.50
293
1973
CHEV
IMPA
350
8
2
A
4500
017537
PASS
4.00
0.00
294
1974
DODG
DART
225
6
1
A
3500
007912
PASS
4.00
0.00
295
1972
FORD
PINT
122
4
2
A
2250
027331
CO
4.00
2.00
296
1974
FORD
PINT
140
4
2
A
2750
011192
BOTH
4.00
34.44
297
1973
FORD
STAW
400
8
2
A
4500
016744
PASS
4.00
0.00
298
1973
FORD
LTD
400
8
2
A
4500
032313
HC
4.00
49.80
299
1974
PONT
LEMA
455
8
4
A
4000
009748
PASS
4.00
0.00
300
1974
CHEV
NOVA
350
8
2
A
3500
004521
PASS
4.00
0.00
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS BEFORE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
# OF
HC
CO
C02
NOX
MPG
VEH.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.34
1.5
77.98
28.6
419.7
80.3
2.73
1.66
16.2
BUICK
13
8.58
6.9
132.90
82.2
468.6
126.4
1.82
1.23
12.7
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1.4
127.12
47.2
726.7
63.9
1.90
.28
9.5
CHEVROLET
64
6.47
4.0
100.24
44.7
482.3
111.2
2.19
1.19
14.0
CHRYSLER
6
7.89
4.0
114.70
38.4
547.8
69.8
3.14
1.04
11.9
DATSUN
3
4.98
1.3
55.36
3.9
243.2
23.7
1.49
.14
25.7
DODGE
16
6.49
4.2
99.86
19.7
453.1
68.3
2.94
1.25
14.2
FORD
73
6.39
2.5
95.75
38.0
483.0
111.9
2.68
1.36
14.2
MERCURY
11
6.47
2.8
102.70
58.5
520.6
110.3
2.69
1.66
13.0
OLDSMOBILE
14
7.76
4.8
157.68
125.7
532 .4
78.2
1.70
.97
11.6
OPEL
1
4.32
0.0
89.81
0.0
312.7
0.0
2.12
0.00
19.0
PLYMOUTH
24
9.80
16.3
121.48
41.2
436.7
83.6
2.24
1.11
13.8
PONTIAC
21
8.20
6.4
99.75
50.8
537.5
92.0
3.02
1.54
12.4
TOYOTA
8
4.24
0.6
62.12
16.0
286.7
40.6
2.66
.82
22.6
VOLKSWAGON
28
5.67
2.2
77.27
28.2
258.5
42.4
1.77
.88
22.5
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15.5
1961
2
16.05
3.1
1962
4
11.87
7.7
1963
5
11.44
5.2
1964
10
8.95
2.9
1965
13
10.17
5.3
1966
16
15.71
19.5
1967
17
8.30
2.3
1968
22
6.13
1.5
1969
24
7.32
3.4
1970
25
5.21
1.6
1971
34
4.96'
1.0
1972
36
5.11
1.6
1973
43
5.49
2.9
1974
47
4.41
1.5
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
5.16
1.9
151 - 250
40
6.06
3.8
251 - 350
127
7.74
8.0
MORE THAN 350
83
6.49
4.2
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
5.12
1.9
2800 - 3799
127
6.68
3.6
3800 - 4799
105
7.82
8.9
4800 - 5799
13
5.35
2.0
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
11.36
10.4
1968 - 1974
231
5.35
2.2
ALL VEHICLES
300
6.74
5.9
AUTOMOTIVE
117.36
184.44
142.07
117.36
129.13
131.33
147.25
130.56
103.77
99.88
84.41
77.83
91.73
101.95
83.54
71.51
97.30
110.21
107.43
71.57
103.12
111.97
122.44
135.26
91.12
101.27
6.6
87.4
90.1
44.0
37.8
48.9
54.6
47.8
42.8
38.4
36.3
28.1
40.6
79.2
37.6
25.2
48.6
48.0
64.6
25.1
45.1
64.0
51.0
50.5
48.3
52.2
500.9
425.2
452.2
393.7
370.8
330.6
396.4
444.2
480.0
431.9
471.9
448.3
470.0
508.6
497.8
55.0
20.6
103.9
125.5
78.5
72.8
69.7
98.1
112.2
88.9
101.5
136.8
138.3
141.9
157.1
2.30
2.34
2.98
2.12
1.97
1.52
1.91
2.41
2.63
3.22
2.96
3.17
2.52
2.07
1.66
272.4 42.3
373.6 60.7
476.5 77.8
585.5 86.4
286.1 65.7
439.4 81.6
545.0 84.0
684.9 76.4
399.0 92.5
476.8 133.6
458.9 129.5
.15
1.96
1.86
1.53
.68
.82
1.32
1.30
1.08
1.75
1.12
1.43
1.01
1.20
.72
2.00 .84
2.44 1.43
2.23 1.22
2.85 1.42
2.11 1.03
2.21 1.19
2.73 1.46
2.66 1.24
2.07 1.21
2.49 1.30
2.39 1.29
12.0
11.7
12.6
15.1
15.3
16.5
13.6
13.5
14.1
15.3
15.0
16.2
15.1
14.1
15.0
22.4
16.5
13.4
11.7
21.9
14.5
12.1
10.0
14.3
15.0
14.8
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES,
12 HC FAILURES, 11 CO FAILURES,
0.0% FAILURE RATE
9.1% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.
.34
1.
.5'
77,
.98
28,
.6
419,
.7
80.3
2.
.73
1
.66
16,
.2
BUICK
13
8,
.58
6,
.9
132,
.90
82,
.2
468,
.6
126.4
1,
.82
1
.23
12,
,7
CADILLAC
6
4.
,28
1,
.4
127,
.12
47.
.2
726,
,7
63.9
1,
.90
.28
9,
.5
CHEVROLET
64
6.
,38
3.
.8
99.
.06
43,
.6
484,
.3
111.3
2,
.17
1
.17
14.
,0
CHRYSLER
6
6.
,34
1.
.5
104,
.32
42,
.5
559,
.2
53.5
3,
.30
1,
.15
12.
,1
DATSUN
3
4.
,65
1,
.5
52,
.25
1,
.8
269,
.5
44.0
1,
.39
.30
24.
.4
DODGE
16
6.
.49
4.
.2
99,
.86
19,
.7
453,
.1
68.3
2,
.94
1
.25
14,
.2
FORD
73
6.
,28
2.
.5
95,
.19
38.
.0
482,
.9
111.2
2,
.63
1
.29
14,
.3
MERCURY
11
6.
.30
2.
.8
100,
.89
59,
.7
525,
.3
108.8
2.
.72
1
.66
12,
.9
OLDSMOBILE
14
7.
,76
4.
.8
157,
.68
125,
,7
532,
.4
78.2
1,
,70
.97
11.
,6
OPEL
1
3.
.24
0,
.0
85,
.76
0,
.0
301,
.5
0.0
1.
.64
o'
.00
19.
,9
PLYMOUTH
24
9.
.13
16,
.3
113,
.13
40,
.2
444,
.0
85.2
2,
.33
1
.20
14.
,0
PONTIAC
21
8.
.05
6,
.5
95,
.49
49,
,7
540,
.2
91.8
3,
.09
1,
.61
12.
,5
TOYOTA
8
4,
.24
0.
.6
62,
.12
16.
.0
286,
.7
40.6
2.
,66
.82
22,
.6
VOLKSWAGON
28
5.
.66
2,
.2
76,
.98
28,
.3
258,
.7
42.1
1,
.78
.88
22,
.6
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
16,
.42
15
.5
117,
.36
6.6
500.9
55,
.0
2.
.30
.15
12.
.0
1961
2
16
.05
3,
.1
184,
.44
87.4
425.2
20,
.6
2,
,34
1
.96
11,
.7
1962
4
11
.87
7
.7
142,
.07
90.1
452.2
103,
.9
2.
.98
1
.86
12,
.6
1963
5
11.
.44
5,
.2
117.
,36
44.0
393.7
125.
.5
2.
,12
1
.53
15.
.1
1964
10
8,
,95
2,
.9
129,
.13
37.8
370.8
78,
.5
1.
.97
.68
15,
,3
1965
13
10,
.17
5,
.3
131.
.33
48.9
330.6
72,
.8
1.
.52
.82
16,
.5
1966
16
15,
.71
19
.5
147,
.25
54.6
396.4
69,
.7
1.
.91
1
.32
13,
.6
1967
17
8
.30
2
.3
130,
.56
47.8
444.2
98,
.1
2.
.41
1
.30
13,
.5
1968
22
5.
.86
1
.3
98,
.96
41.6
484.9
113,
.7
2.
,64
1
.11
14,
.2
1969
24
6,
.17
1
.6
91,
.28
33.9
438.6
91,
.4
3.
.15
1
.63
15,
.6
1970
25
4,
.96
1
.0
81,
.47
32.9
475.6
102,
.7
3.
.02
1
.20
15.
.0
1971
34
4,
.96
1
.0
77.
.79
28.1
448.3
136.
.8
3.
.17
1
.43
16,
.2
1972
36
5
.09
1
.6
90,
.93
40.5
470.6
138,
.6
2.
.54
1
.00
15,
.1
1973
43
5,
.46
2
.9
100,
.75
78.8
509.5
140,
.9
2,
.08
1
.19
14,
.1
1974
47
4,
.32
1
.5
82,
.63
37.6
500.3
153,
.8
1.
.63
.72
15,
.0
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
5.06
1.9
151 - 250
40
5.97
3.8
251 - 350
127
7.56
7.9
MORE THAN 350
83
6.28
4.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
5.03
1 .9
2800 - 3799
127
6.54
3.6
3800 - 4799
105
7.59
8.8
4800 - 5799
13
5.35
2.0
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
11.36
10.4
1968 - 1974
231
5.15
1.8
ALL VEHICLES
300
6.58
5.8
AUTOMOTIVE '
70.49 24.8 274.9 43.1 1.97 .86 22.4
96.02 47.6 373.9 60.3 2.43 1.43 16.6
108.22 47.5 478.4 78.1 2.22 1.17 13.4
105.57 64.7 587.4 84.4 2.89 1.44 11.7
70.64 24.7 288.4 65.7 2.09 1.04 21.9
101.40 44.4 440.3 82.0 2.20 1.18 14.6
109.69 63.9 548.0 81.8 2.75 1.44 12.1
122.44 51.0 684.9 76.4 2.66 1.24 10.0
135.26 50.5 399.0 92.5 2.07 1.21 14..3
88.91 47.3 479.2 132.9 2.49 1.29 15.0
99.57 51.8 460.7 129.2 2.39 1.28 14.9
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
BUICK
CADILLAC
CHEVROLET
CHRYSLER
DATSUN
DODGE
FORD
MERCURY
OLDSMOBILE
OPEL
PLYMOUTH
PONTIAC
TOYOTA
VOLKSWAGON
VOLVO
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES,
12 HC FAILURES, 11 CO FAILURES,
0.0% FAILURE RATE
9.1% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX MPG
MEAN S.D. MEAN
12
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
64
0.09
0.9
1.18
5.7
-1.9
16.3
0.02
.25
-0.0
6
1.55
3.6
10.37
27.7
-11.5
20.9
-0.16
.33
-0.2
3
0.33
0.6
3.11
5.4
-26.3
45.6
0.10
.17
1.3
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
73
0.11
0.5
0.56
4.0
0.1
12.1
0.05
.32
-0.0
11
0.16
0.5
1.81
6.0
-4.7
15.6
-0.03
.09
0.0
14
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.48
0.00
-0.9
24
0.67
2.1
8.36
23.5
-7.2
21.2
-0.10
.36
-0.2
21
0.15
0.8
4.27
16.2
-2.7
10.3
-0.06
.28
-0.1
8
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
28
0
0.01
0.0
0.29
1.6
-0.2
1.2
-0.01
.03
-0.0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
2
0.00
.0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
4
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
10
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
17
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
22
0.27
1.1
4.81
16.6
-4.9
15.8
-0.01
.18
-0.1
24
1.16
2.7
8.59
23.5
-6.8
37.1
0.07
.76
-0.2
25
0.26
1.4
2.93
11.7
-3.7
12.7
-0.06
.26
-0.0
34
0.01
0.0
0.05
0.3
-0.0
0.2
-0.00
.00
-0.0
36
0.02
0.2
0.80
3.4
-0.6
3.2
-0.01
.08
-0.0
43
0.03
0.2
1.20
7.9
-0.9
5.9
-0.01
.05
-0.0
47
0.10
0.4
0.91
4.5
-2.5
13.5
0.03
.14
0.1
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
0.10
0.4
1.02
4.5
-2.4
13.1
0.03
.14
0.0
151 - 250
40
0.08
0.3
1.28
8.2
-0.4
7.5
0.01
.13
-0.1
251 - 350
127
0.17
1.0
2.00
9.4
-1.9
15.7
0.01
.31
-0.0
MORE THAN 350
83
0.21
1.3
1.86
12.4
-1.9
11.4
-0.03
.21
-o.o
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
0.09
0.4
0.93
4.3
-2.2
12.5
0.03
.14
0.0
2800 - 3799
127
0.14
0.7
1.73
9.7
-0.9
8.1
0.01
.19
-0.1
3800 - 4799
105
0.24
1.4
2.29
11.8
-2.9
18.4
-0.02
.33
-0.0
4800 - 5799
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
231
0.20
1.1
2.21
10.9
-2.3
15.1
0.00
.27
-0.0
ALL VEHICLES
300
0.16
1.0
1.70
9.6
-1.8
13.2
0.00
.24
-0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0-0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 12 HC FAILURES, 11 CO FAILURES, 9.1% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
BUICK
13
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
64
1.37
1.18
0,
.85
-0.07
15.7
208.6
3.3
CHRYSLER
6
19.62
9.04
-5
.26
-1.85
97.1
650.4
-10.3
DATSUN
3
6.71
5.62
6,
,45
5.07
59.0
548.7
17.0
DODGE
16
0.00
0.00
o,
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
73
1.80
0.59
1.
.93
-0.25
21.3
103.9
9.6
MERCURY
11
2.54
1.77
-1,
.06
0.24
36.1
398.8
-6.3
OLDSMOBILE
14
0.00
0.00
o,
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22,
.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
6.86
6.88
-4,
.25
-1.18
144.1
1790.8
-20.4
PONTIAC
21
1.88
4.28
-2,
.06
-0.74
26.9
745.5
-10.9
TOYOTA
8
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
VOLKSWAGON
28
0.16
0.38
-o
.30
-0.10
2.1
68.8
-1.2
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1961
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1962
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1963
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1964
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1965
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1966
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1967
17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
22
4.34
4.64
-0.32
-0.66
22.1
400.2
-0.7
1969
24
15.83
8.60
2.09
-1.56
196.6
1457.6
11.4
1970
25
4.91
3.48
-1.98
-0.21
48.8
559.3
-11.2
1971
34
0.12
0.06
-0.02
-0.01
1.2
9.2
-0.2
1972
36
0.30
0.87
-0.54
-0.09
3.4
178.4
-3.0
1973
43
0.62
1.18
-0.38
-0.21
8.2
290.0
-1.9
1974
47
2.20
1.09
2.05
0.39
18.6
174.8
6.5
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
1.87
1.43
1.45
0.19
18.1
192.8
5.5
151 - 250
40
1.37
1.31
0.35
-0.35
13.1
202.1
1.3
251 - 350
127
2.21
1.81
0-58
-0.28
33.9
397.0
2.6
MORE THAN 350
83
3.16
1.73
-1.16
-0.28
41.4
375.2
-6.7
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
1.71
1.30
1.25
0.18
16.8
179.3
5.1
2800 - 3799
127
2.03
1.67
0.43
-0.35
26.3
335.8
1.9
3800 - 4799
105
3.02
2.04
-0.68
-0.26
42.9
414.7
-3.4
4800 - 5799
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968 - 1974
231
3.79
2.43
0.12
-0.22
36.2
394.7
0.5
ALL VEHICLES
300
2.32
1.68
0.10
-0.17
29.9
325.3
0.4
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
30 HC FAILURES, 30 CO FAILURES, 20.3% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.
.34
1.
.5
77.98
28.
.6
419,
.7
80,
.3
2,
.73
1.66
16,
.2
BUICK
13
8.
.50
6.
.9
129.86
83.
.8
468,
.1
126,
.5
1,
.84
1.28
12,
.8
CADILLAC
6
4.
.28
1.
.4
127.12
47.
.2
726,
.7
63,
.9
1,
.90
.28
9,
.5
CHEVROLET
64
6.
.31
3.
.8
98.56
43.
.6
486.
.3
110.
.5
2,
.15
1.11
13,
.9
CHRYSLER
6
5.
.34
0.
.7
85.66
18.
.6
580.
.3
58,
.6
3,
.50
1.02
12,
.2
DATSUN
3
6.
.67
5.
.0
59.87
13,
.3
297,
.0
65,
.2
1
.46
.38
22,
.3
DODGE
16
6,
.40
4.
.3
97.96
19,
.4
454,
.2
67,
.1
2,
.95
1.25
14,
.3
FORD
73
6.
.23
2.
.5
'93.84
37.
.7
483,
.1
110.
.2
2,
.63
1.28
14,
.3
MERCURY
11
5,
.96
3.
.0
97.08
60.
.5
534,
.2
107,
.5
2
.74
1.64
12,
.9
OLDSMOBILE
14
7.
.68
4.
.8
163.61
133,
.0
531,
.9
74,
.9
1,
.74
.96
11,
,5
OPEL
1
3.
.24
0,
.0
85.76
0.
.0
301,
.5
0,
.0
1
.64
0.00
19,
.9
PLYMOUTH
24
8,
.97
16,
.3
110.63
36,
.6
446,
.7
82,
.2
2
.35
1.15
14,
.1
PONTIAC
21
8,
.05
6,
.5
95.49
49,
.7
540,
.2
91,
.8
3
.09
1.61
12,
.5
TOYOTA
8
3.
.99
0.
.5
57.42
15.
,2
295.
.2
41.
.3
2,
.69
.81
22,
,6
VOLKSWAGON
28
5,
.69
2.
.2
78.88
25.
.6
259.
.3
43,
.4
1
.71
.77
22,
.4
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
16
.42
15.
.5
117.36
6
.6
500.
.9
55.
.0
2.
.30
.15
12.
.0
1961
2
16
.05
3.
.1
184.44
87
.4-
425.
.2
20.
.6
2.
,34
1.96
11,
,7
1962
4
11
.87
7,
.7
142.07
90
.1
452,
,2
103.
.9
2.
.98
1.86
12,
,6
1963
5
11
.44
5.
.2
117.36
44
.0
393,
.7
125.
.5
2.
.12
1.53
15.
,1
1964
10
8
.95
2,
.9
129.13
37
.8
370,
.8
78,
.5
1.
.97
.68
15,
.3
1965
13
10
.17
5,
.3
131.33
48
.9
330,
.6
72,
.8
1.
.52
.82
16,
.5
1966
16
15
.71
19,
.5
147.25
54
.6
396,
.4
69.
.7
1.
,91
1.32
13.
,6
1967
17
8
.30
2,
.3
130.56
47
.8
444,
.2
98.
.1
2,
.41
1.30
13,
.5
1968
22
5
.81
1,
.3
98.26
42
.0
485,
.0
114,
.0
2,
.63
1.10
14,
.2
1969
24
6
.06
1,
,6
88.64
31
.5
441,
.6
91.
,9
3.
.10
1.52
15,
.6
1970
25
4
.87
1,
.0
80.31
32
.5
477,
.5
102,
.2
3,
.03
1.19
15,
.0
1971
34
4
.95
1,
.0
76.66
27
.5
450,
.0
137,
.0
3,
.16
1.42
16,
.2
1972
36
4
.85
1,
.3
85.47
34
.8
477,
.4
138,
.5
2.
.60
1.00
15,
.2
1973
43
5
.43
3,
.1
99.85
77
.6
511,
.9
136,
.6
2,
.07
1.15
14,
.0
1974
47
4
.22
1,
.5
84.52
47
.4
501,
.9
151.
.9
1.
,62
.70
14.
,9
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
5.08
2.2
151 - 250
40
5.85
3.7
251 - 350
127
7.53
7.9
MORE THAN 350
83
6.13
4.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
5.05
2.2
2800 - 3799
127
6.43
3.6
3800 - 4799
105
7.51
8.8
4800 - 5799
13
5.32
2.0
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
11.36
10.4
1968 - 1974
231
5.06
1.8
ALL VEHICLES
300
6.51
5.9
AUTOMOTIVE '
71.00 23.6 279.6 46.4 1.94 .80 22.1
93.66 44.9 375.8 59.1 2.41 1.33 16.7
107.24 47.8 479.4 78.5 2.23 1.17 13.4
104.37 67.4 589.5 83.2 2.91 1.43 11.7
71.10 23.6 292.6 66.8 2.05 1.00 21.6
99.23 43.5 441.7 81.3 2.20 1.14 14.6
108.05 63.9 550.2 82.4 2.76 1.44 12.1
132.35 70.5 681.8 80.6 2.67 1.22 9.9
135.26 50.5 399.0 92.5 2.07 1.21 14.3
87.64 47.7 481.8 131.7 2.49 1.27 15.0
98.59 52.3 462.7 128.5 2.39 1.26 14.8
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. $0Oli
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 30 HC FAILURES, 30 CO FAILURES, 20.3% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.
.00
0.
.0
0.0
0,
.0
BUICK
13
0.96
2.28
-1.30
-0,
.94
10,
.7
395.1
-3.
.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0,
.0
0.0
0,
.0
CHEVROLET
64
2.44
1.68
2.15
0,
.27
24,
.3
259.2
7,
.3
CHRYSLER
6
32.29
25.32
-11.73
-3,
.12
138,
.3
1575.7
-20,
.0
DATSUN
3
-33.98
-8.15
1.76
13,
.41
-267,
.2
-712.7
4,
.1
DODGE
16
1.34
1.90
-0.09
-0,
,45
20,
.7
450.3
-o,
.6
FORD
73
2.62
2.00
1.83
-0.
.51
26,
.9
307.4
7,
.9
MERCURY
11
7.79
5.47
-2.02
0.
.49
70.
.0
779.9
-7,
.5
OLDSMOBILE
14
1.03
-3.76
-2.62
0.
,42
17,
.2
-1276.7
-9,
.6
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22.51
-4,
.71
49,
. 1
184.1
21,
.7
PLYMOUTH
24
8.44
8.93
-5.33
-1.
,61
157,
.9
2073.2
-22,
.8
PONTIAC
21
1.88
4.28
-2.06
-0.
.74
26,
.9
745.5
-10.
.9
TOYOTA
8
5.99
7.55
-0.85
0.
.28
33,
.4
615.2
-3,
.0
VOLKSWAGON
28
-0.30
-2.08
3.26
0.
.73
-2,
.9
-274.1
9,
.9
VOLVO
0
~MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
5.22
5.31
-0.22
-0.90
25.7
443.0
-0.5
24
17.32
11.25
3.65
-1.62
167.4
1482.4
15.5
25
6.48
4.86
-2.30
-0.24
53.4
649.1
-10.8
34
0.29
1.51
0.17
0.05
2.8
226.2
1.0
36
4.99
6.83
-3.16
-0.51
38.8
953.3
-12.1
43
1.10
2.05
0.10
1.05
9.1
313.5
0.3
47
4.42
-1.16
2.88
0.95
32.2
-160.2
7.9
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
1.37
0.72
3.29
1.41
151 - 250
40
3.35
3.74
1.07
-0.66
251 - 350
127
2.67
2.70
0.22
-0.39
MORE THAN 350
83
5.47
2.85
-1.82
-0.39
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
1.26
0.65
2.83
1.31
2800 - 3799
127
3.66
3.77
0.32
-0.67
3800 - 4799
105
3.95
3.50 Ĥ
-1.18
-0.31
4800 - 5799
13
0.48
-8.10
-0 .46
1.13
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1968 - 1974
231
5.44
3.82
0.11
0.03
ALL VEHICLES
300
3.33
2.64
0.09
0.02
AUTOMOTIVE
TESTING
LABORATORIES
10.0 72.6 9.3
27.4 491.5 3.5
37.0 533.0 0.9
57.2 493.1 -8.4
9.4 68.7 8.8
41.8 666.6 1.2
46.1 585.7 -4.8
6.1 -2344.4 -2.9
0.0 0-0 0.0
42.1 502.3 0.4
35.9 428.3 0.3
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. §001i
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
30 HC FAILURES, 30 CO FAILURES, 20.3% FAILURE RATE
HC CO C02 NOX MPG
MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.00
0.0
0,
.00
o.
.0
0
.0
0.0
0
.00
0
.00
0
.0
BUICK
13
0.08
0.3
3,
.03
8,
.7
0
.5
2.7
-0
.02
.07
-o,
.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.
.00
0,
.0
0
.0
0.0
0,
.00
0
.00
o.
.0
CHEVROLET
64
0.16
0.9
1,
.68
7,
.7
-4
.0
18.0
0,
.05
.33
0.
.0
CHRYSLER
6
2.55
3.4
29.
.04
35.
.0
-32
.6
38.7
-o.
.37
.46
-o.
.4
DATSUN
3
-1.69
3.8
-4,
.51
16.
.6
-53
.9
46.7
0.
.03
.25
3.
.5
DODGE
16
0.09
0.3
1.
.90
7,
.6
-1
.0
4.1
-0
.00
.01
-0,
.1
FORD
73
0.17
0.6
1,
.91
7,
.4
-0
.0
14.8
0.
.05
.32
-o.
.1
MERCURY
11
0.50
0.9
5,
.62
10.
.3
-13
.7
23.5
-o.
.05
.11
o.
.1
OLDSMOBILE
14
0.08
0.2
-5,
.93
37,
,5
0
.5
14.3
-o
.04
.13
o.
.0
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.
.05
0,
.0
11
.2
0.0
o.
.48
0
.00
-0.
,9
PLYMOUTH
24
0.83
2.1
10.
.85
27.
.6
-9
.9
23.0
-o.
.12
.40
-0.
.2
PONTIAC
21
0.15
0.8
4.
.27
16.
.2
-2
.7
10.3
-o.
.06
.28
-o.
.1
TOYOTA
8
0.25
0.5
4.
.69
9.
.7
-8
.5
16.8
-o.
.02
.32
o.
.1
VOLKSWAGON
28
-0.02
0.2
-1,
,61
8,
.1
-0
.9
2.8
o.
.06
.27
o.
.2
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.0
0.
.00
0.
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.
.00
0,
.0
1961-
2
0-00
0.0
0.
.00
o.
.0
0.0
0.0
0-00
o.
.00
0.
,0
1962
4
0.00
0.0
0.
.00
0,
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.
.00
o.
.0
1963
5
0.00
0.0
0,
.00
0,
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
o.
.00
o,
.0
1964
10
0.00
0.0
0.
.00
0.
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
o.
.00
0,
,0
1965
13
0.00
0.0
0,
.00
0,
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
o.
.00
o,
,0
1966
16
0.00
0.0
0.
.00
0.
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.
.00
0.
,0
1967
17
0.00
0.0
0,
.00
0,
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.
.00
0,
,0
1968
22
0.32
1.1
5.
.51
18,
.1
-5.0
16.1
-0.01
.20
-0,
.1
1969
24
1.27
2.7
11.
.23
25.
.2
-9.8
37.7
0.12
.84
-0,
.2
1970
25
0.34
1 .4
4,
.10
12.
.8
-5.6
15.4
-0.07
,26
-0,
,0
1971
34
0.01
0.1
1,
.18
6.
.2
-1.7
6.9
0.01
.03
o.
,0
1972
36
0.25
0.8
6.
,26
17.
.8
-7.3
20.7
-0.08
,27
-o,
.1
1973
43
0.06
1.2
2,
.09
13.
.9
-3.3
17.3
0.00
.25
o,
.1
1974
47
0.20
0.5
-0,
.97
20.
.3
-4.1
17.7
0.05
.17
o.
,1
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
50
0.07
1.0
0.52
9.9
-7.2
18.7
0.07
.28
0.3
40
0.20
0.7
3.64
15.1
-2.3
11.4
0.03
.32
-o.i
127
0.21
1.0
2.98
11.1
-2.9
16.8
0.00
.32
-0.1
83
0.35
1.4
3.06
21.8
-4.0
19.6
-0.05
.24
-0.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
0.06
1.0
0.47
9.4
-6.5
17.9
0.06
.27
0.3
2800 - 3799
127
0.24
0.9
3.89
13.5
-2.2
13.0
0-01
.26
-0.1
3800 - 4799
105
0.31
1.4
3.92
14.7
-5.2
21.6
-0.03
.36
-0.0
4800 - 5799
13
0.03
0.1
-9.92
35.8
3.1
11.0
-0.01
.04
0.1
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
231
0.29
1.2
3.48
17.2
-5.0
19.6
0.00
.34
0.0
ALL VEHICLES
300
0.22
1.1
2.68
15.1
-3.8
17.4
0-00
.29
0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
46 HC FAILURES, 45 CO FAILURES, 29.9% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.33
1.5
77.86
28.6
BUICK
13
8.50
6.9
129.86
83.8
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1.4
127.12
47.2
CHEVROLET
64
6.33
3.8
97.80
44.0
CHRYSLER
6
5.34
0.7
85.66
18.6
DATSUN
3
6.79
4.9
65.86
13.5
DODGE
16
6.46
4.2
98.27
20.0
FORD
73
6.19
2.5
93.25
38.2
MERCURY
11
5.77
2.9
90.35
52.2
OLDSMOBILE
14
7.68
4.8
163.61
133.0
OPEL
1
3.24
0.0
85.76
0.0
PLYMOUTH
24
8.84
16.4
106.66
35.3
PONTIAC
21
8.15
6.5
99.19
53.7
TOYOTA
8
3.93
0.4
59.02
24.7
VOLKSWAGON
28
5.64
2.2
78.29
25.6
VOLVO
0
420.1
468.1
726.7
487.7
580.3
307.7
451.0
483.2
546.1
531.9
301.5
448.9
542.0
306.1
260.1
80.0
126.5
63.9
110.3
58.6
48.0
68.1
110.3
114.2
74.9
0.0
87.7
93.8
32.8
43.5
2.69
1.84
1.90
2.15
3.50
1.37
2.88
2.63
2.84
1.74
1.64
2.39
2.99
2.70
1.73
1.66
1.28
.28
1.12
1.02
.37
1.24
1.28
1.72
.96
0.00
1.16
1.63
1.18
.76
16.2
12.8
9.5
13.9
12.2
20.8
14.3
14.3
12.8
11.5
19.9
14.1
12.4
21.7
22.4
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15.
.5
117,
.36
6.
.6
500,
.9
55,
.0
2,
.30
.15
12,
.0
1961
2
16.05
3.
.1
184,
.44
87,
.4
425,
.2
20,
.6
2,
.34
1.96
11,
.7
1962
4
11.87
7,
.7
142,
.07
90.
.1
452,
.2
103,
.9
2,
.98
1.86
12,
.6
1963
5
11.44
5,
.2
117,
.36
44.
.0
393,
.7
125.
.5
2,
.12
1.53
15,
.1
1964
10
8.95
2,
.9
129,
.13
37.
.8
370,
.8
78,
.5
1,
.97
.68
15,
.3
1965
13
10.17
5,
.3
131,
.33
48,
.9
330,
.6
72,
.8
1,
.52
.82
16,
.5
1966
16
15.71
19,
.5
147,
.25
54.
.6
396,
.4
69,
.7
1,
.91
1.32
13,
.6
1967
17
8.30
2.
.3
130.
.56
47.
.8
444,
.2
98.
.1
2,
.41
1.30
13,
.5
1968
22
5.89
1.
.4
101.
.28
43.
.6
486.
.5
114,
.2
2,
.56
1.15
14,
.1
1969
24
5.95
1,
.5
88,
.31
33,
,7
440.
.9
90.
.8
3,
.02
1.49
15,
,6
1970
25
4.96
1,
.1
79.
.45
33,
.5
480.
.1
102.
.0
3,
.04
1.20
14.
.9
1971
34
4.92
1,
.0
75.
.46
25.
.4
453.
.3
133,
.5
3,
.16
1.43
16.
.0
1972
36
4.76
1,
.2
83.
.92
30.
.7
481.
.4
140,
.8
2.
.63
1.11
15,
.1
1973
43
5.39
3,
.1
98.
.45
77,
.3
512.
.7
138,
.0
2,
.09
1.16
14,
.0
1974
47
4.19
1,
.5
83,
.53
48.
.1
502.
.8
152,
.0
1,
.63
.72
14,
.9
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
5.06
2.2
151 - 250
40
5.83
3.8
251 - 350
127
7.54
7.9
MORE THAN 350
83
6.07
4.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
5.03
2.2
2800 - 3799
127
6.42
3.6
3800 - 4799
105
7.51
8.8
4800 - 5799
13
5.16
1.8
*P0PULATI0NS
1960 - 1967
69
11.36
10.4
1968 - 1974
231
5.04
1.8
ALL VEHICLES
300
6.49
5.9
AUTOMOTIVE '
71.28 24.3 282.4 45.4 1.94 .86 21.9
92.84 44.7 376.3 60.5 2.40 1.33 16.7
107.08 48.0 480.0 78.6 2.21 1.15 13.4
102.84 67.4 591.7 84.4 2.92 1.46 11.7
71.36 24.3 295.2 65.8 2.06 1.05 21.4
98.35 43.8 442.4 81.9 2.19 1.14 14.7
107.96 64.3 551.2 83.0 2.75 1.44 12.1
127.86 67.5 687.5 81.5 2.74 1.31 9.9
135.26 50.5 399.0 92.5 2.07 1.21 14.3
86.93 47.6 483.6 131.7 2.^8 1.28 14.9
98.04 52.3 464.1 128.7 2.39 1.27 14.8
nutvaviivij LinUV/lUllUulLtJ *
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES? 46 HC FAILURES, 45 CO FAILURES, 29.9% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.01
0.1
0.13
0.4
-0.4
1.3
0.04
.13
0.0
BUICK
13
0.08
0.3
3.03
8.7
0.5
2.7
-0.02
.07
-0.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
CHEVROLET
64
0.14
1.0
2.45
8.4
-5.3
18.9
0.04
.34
0.0
CHRYSLER
6
2.55
3.4
29.04
35.0
-32.6
38.7
-0.37
.46
-0.4
DATSUN
3
-1.81
3.8
-10.50
17.3
-64.5
28.3
0.12
.29
4.9
DODGE
16
0.03
0.5
1.59
10.6
2.1
12.8
0.06
.20
-0.1
FORD
73
0.20
0.7
2.50
8.8
-0.2
14.8
0.05
.32
-0.1
MERCURY
11
0.69
1.0
12.35
18.4
-25.5
30.1
-0.15
.29
0.1
OLDSMOBILE
14
0.08
0.2
-5.93
37.5
0.5
14.3
-0.04
.13
0.0
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.48
0.00
-0.9
PLYMOUTH
24
0.96
2.1
14.82
28.9
-12.2
26.1
-0.16
.42
-0.3
PONTIAC
21
0.06
1.0
0.56
25.8
-4.5
13.3
0.04
.53
0.0
TOYOTA
8
0.31
0.7
3.10
16.9
-19.4
24.4
-0.04
.58
0.9
VOLKSWAGON
28
0.03
0.3
-1.01
8.5
-1.6
5.5
0.04
.28
0.1
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
o.
.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1961
2
0.00
o.
.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0-00
0.0
1962
4
0.00
o,
.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1963
5
0.00
0
.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1964
10
0.00
0
.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1965
13
0.00
o,
.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1966
16
0.00
0
.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1967
17
0.00
0
.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968
22
0.24
1
.2
2.48
23.9
-6.5
16.7
0.07
.34
-0.0
1969
24
1.37
2,
.7
11.57
29.1
-9.1
39.8
0.20
.89
-0.3
1970
25
0.25
1.
.6
4.96
12.9
-8.2
17.5
-0.08
.26
0.0
1971
34
0.05
0,
.2
2.37
8.5
-5.1
17.3
0.01
.08
0.2
1972
36
0.35
0
.9
7.81
20.9
-11.3
24.2
-0.11
.38
0.0
1973
43
0.10
1
.2
3.49
16.4
-4.1
18.5
-0.02
.27
0.1
1974
47
0.22
0
.5
0.02
21.0
-5.0
18.0
0.03
.20
0.1
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
0.10
1.1
0.23
11.6
-10.0
20.7
0.06
.35
0.5
151 - 250
40
0.23
0.7
4.46
15.3
-2.7
14.5
0.03
.33
-0.1
251 - 350
127
0.19
1.1
3.13
12.4
-3.5
18.6
0.02
.35
-0.0
MORE THAN 350
83
0.42
1.5
4.59
25.3
-6.1
21.7
-0.06
.31
-0.1
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
0.09
1.0
0.21
11.0
-9.1
20.0
0.05
.33
0.5
2800 - 3799
127
0.26
0.9
4.77
14.3
-3.0
15.8
0.01
.27
-0.1
3800 - 4799
105
0.32
1.5
4.02
18.2
-6.1
22.2
-0.02
.41
-0.0
4800 - 5799
13
0.19
0.6
-5.42
40.5
-2.7
24.2
-0.09
.27
0.1
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
231
0.32
1.3
A.19
19.5
-6.7
21.9
0.01
.39
0.0
ALL VEHICLES
300
0.24
1.2
3.23
17.2
-5.2
19.4
0.00
.34
0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,:
INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
46 HC FAILURES, 45 CO FAILURES, 29.9% FAILURE RATE
PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.33
0.16
1.38
0.03
3.0
26.0
7.8
BUICK
13
0.96
2.28
-1.30
-0.94
10.7
395.1
-3.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
64
2.23
2.44
1.76
0.33
21.2
359.0
5.7
CHRYSLER
6
32.29
25.32
-11.73
-3.12
138.3
1575.7
-20.0
DATSUN
3
-36.35
-18.96
8.09
19.09
-111.3
-645.1
7.4
DODGE
16
0.52
1.60
2.10
-0.93
6.7
318.7
12.4
FORD
73
3.18
2.61
1.81
-0.65
32.5
399.6
7.8
MERCURY
11
10.70
12.03
-5.63
0.81
85.3
1522.8
-18.7
OLDSMOBILE
14
1.03
-3.76
-2.62
0.42
17.2
-1276.7
-9.6
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
9.81
12.20
-7.11
-2.14
170.6
2632.2
-28.2
PONTIAC
21
0.70
0.56
1.30
0.40
8.3
82.0
5.7
TOYOTA
8
7.32
4.99
-1.39
4.02
24.8
247.0
-2.9
VOLKSWAGON
28
0.55
-1.31
2.20
0.63
4.9
-160.0
6.1
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
3.86
2.39
2.69
-0.12
17.3
181.1
5.2
24
18.73
11.58
6.28
-1.81
162.7
1371.7
24.0
25
4.75
5.87
-2.81
0.06
36.1
723.3
-12.1
34
0.96
3.05
0.33
1.24
7.1
355 .6
1.6
36
6.84
8.52
-4.30
0.06
44.9
1004.7
-14.0
43
1.84
3.43
-1.12
0.78
14.8
511.3
-3.4
47
4.97
0.02
1.94
0.86
.34.9
2.6
5.1
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
50
1.93
0.33
2.93
2.35
11.4
26.6
6.7
40
3.72
4.58
1.28
-0.74
28.6
565 .6
4.0
127
2.49
2.84
0.88
-0.35
32.. 7
531.6
3.3
83
6.45
4.27
-2.27
-0.45
63.6
698.4
-9.9
55
1.77
0.30
2.52
2.19
10.9
25.4
6.4
127
3.83
4.63
0.57
-0.76
41.1
765 .6
2.0
105
4.04
3.59
-0.74
-0.18
44.9
571.2
-2.9
13
3.58
-4.43
-3.23
0.96
41.8
-1184.9
-18.8
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
1968 - 1974 231 5.91 4.60 0.23 0.32 41.3 547.1 0.7
ALL VEHICLES 300 3.62 3.19 0.18 0.25 35.7 473.3 0.6
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLESr 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 69 HC FAILURES, 70 CO FAILURES, 40.3% FAILURE RATE
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.31
1.5
76.82
27.7
BUICK
13
8.46
6.9
129.38
83.8
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1.4
127.12
47.2
CHEVROLET
64
6.32
3.8
97.54
44.1
CHRYSLER
6
5.34
0.7
85.66
18.6
DATSUN
3
6.79
4.9
65.86
13.5
DODGE
16
6.20
4.2
95.85
21.5
FORD
73
6.14
2.4
92.21
36.8
MERCURY
11
5.77
2.9
90.35
52.2
OLDSMOBILE
14
7.60
4.9
160.81
134.4
OPEL
1
3.24
0.0
85.76
0.0
PLYMOUTH
24
8.80
16.4
105.49
35.3
PONTIAC
21
8.15
6.5
99.19
53.7
TOYOTA
8
3.84
0.5
58.60
25.0
VOLKSWAGON
28
5.75
2.5
78.10
25.3
VOLVO
0
423.6
472.7
726.7
488.2
580.3
307.7
448.2
484.8
546.1
536.9
301.5
449.2
542.0
303.3
261.8
80.7
127.7
63.9
110.2
58.6
48.0
70.9
110.1
114.2
81.6
0.0
87.8
93.8
29.4
45.8
2.70
1.87
1.90
2.16
3.50
1.37
2.86
2.62
2.84
1.77
1.64
2.39
2.99
2.60
1.74
1.65
1.29
.28
1.12
1.02
.37
1.23
1.27
1.72
.98
0.00
1.17
1.63
1.12
.77
MPG
MEAN
16.1
12.8
9.5
13.9
12.2
20.8
14.5
14.3
12.8
11.5
19.9
14.2
12.4
21.9
22.3
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15,
.5
117
.36
6.6
500.9
55,
.0
2.30
.15
12.
.0
1961
2
16.05
3
.1
184
.44
87.4
425.2
20,
.6
2.34
1.96
11,
.7
1962
4
11.87
7,
.7
142
.07
90.1
452.2
103
.9
2.98
1.86
12,
.6
1963
5
11.44
5,
.2
117
.36
44.0
393.7
125,
.5
2.12
1.53
15.
.1
1964
10
8.95
2
.9
129
.13
37.8
370.8
78
.5
1.97
.68
15.
.3
1965
13
10.17
5.
.3
131
.33
48.9
330.6
72
.8
1 .'52
.82
16,
.5
1966
16
15.71
19,
.5
147
.25
54.6
396.4
69,
.7
1.91
1.32
13.
,6
1967
17
8.30
2,
.3
130
.56
47.8
444.2
98,
.1
2.41
1.30
13.
,5
1968
22
5.89
1,
.4
101
.28
43.6
486.5
114,
.2
2.56
1.15
14.
,1
1969
24
5.77
1
.2
86
.80
33.1
444.0
92,
.7
3.07
1.49
15,
.6
1970
25
4.96
1
.1
78
.96
33.8
480.3
101
.7
3.01
1.20
15.
.0
1971
34
4.91
1,
.0
74
.66
24.7
454.4
132
.4
3.14
1.42
16.
.0
1972
36
4.73
1,
.0
82
.63
28.8
482.4
141
.4
2.62
1.10
15.
,1
1973
43
5.34
3,
.2
96
.02
76.6
514.6
140,
.3
2.08
1.14
14.
,1
1974
47
4.17
1,
.4
83
.55
48.3
504.3
151,
.0
1.66
.73
14.
,8
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
5.13
2.4
151 - 250
40
5.82
3.8
251 - 350
127
7.50
7.9
MORE THAN 350
83
5.99
3.9
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
5.09
2.4
2800 - 3799
127
6.38
3.6
3800 - 4799
105
7.44
8.8
4800 - 5799
13
5.16
1.8
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
11.36
10.4
1968 - 1974
231
5.00
1.8
ALL VEHICLES
300
6.46
5.9
AUTOMOTIVE 1
71.47
92.61
105.86
101.98
71.53
97.12
107.20
127.86
135.26
85.95
97.29
24.0
44.5
48.2
67.1
23.9
43.8
64.1
67.5
50.5
47.1
52.2
283.1
375.7
482.3
591.6
295.9
443.9
552.0
687.5
45.7
60.7
79.9
84.5
65.8
84.0
82.5
81.5
399.0 92.5
484.9 131.9
465.1 129.0
1.92 .83
2.40 1.33
2.22 1.14
2.92 1.46
2.04 1.03
2.19 1.12
2.76 1.44
2.74 1.31
2.07 1.21
2.48 1.27
2.39 1.27
21.8
16.7
13.4
11.8
21.3
14.7
12.1
9.9
14.3
14.9
14.8
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES; 69 HC FAILURES, 70 CO FAILURES, 40.3% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.
,04
0.
.1
1.16
3
.6
-3.
,9
12.0
0.03
.14
0,
.0
BUICK
13
0.
.12
o.
.3
3.52
8
.7
-4,
.1
17.0
-0.06
.13
-0,
.1
CADILLAC
6
0,
.00
0.
.0
0.00
0
.0
0,
,0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0,
.0
CHEVROLET
64
0,
.16
1.
.0
2.70
8
.6
-5,
,8
19.2
0.03
.34
0,
.0
CHRYSLER
6
2,
,55
3.
.4
29.04
35
.0
-32,
,6
38.7
-0.37
.46
-0,
.4
DATSUN
3
-1.
.81
3,
.8
-10.50
17
.3
-64,
,5
28.3
0.12
.29
4,
.9
DODGE
16
0,
.29
0,
.9
4.00
11
.8
4,
.9
15.1
0.08
.34
-0,
.3
FORD
73
0,
.25
0.
.8
3.54
14
.2
-1,
,8
17.5
0.06
.35
-0,
.1
MERCURY
11
0,
,69
1,
.0
12.35
18
.4
-25,
,5
30.1
-0.15
.29
0,
.1
OLDSMOBILE
14
0,
.16
o.
.4
-3.13
39
.4
-4,
.5
23.7
-0.07
.15
o,
.1
OPEL
1
1,
.08
0,
.0
4.05
0
.0
11,
.2
0.0
0.48
0.00
-0,
.9
PLYMOUTH
24
1,
,00
2,
.1
16.00
28
.6
-12,
.4
26.0
-0.16
.42
-0,
.3
PONTIAC
21
0,
.06
1,
.0
0.56
25
.8
-4,
.5
13.3
0.04
.53
0,
.0
TOYOTA
8
0.
,40
0,
.7
3.51
16
.9
-16,
,6
28.0
0.06
.65
0.
.7
VOLKSWAGON
28
-0,
.08
0,
.9
-0.83
9
.0
-3,
.3
11.2
, 0.03
.31
0,
.3
VOLVO
0
~MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
~POPULATIONS
I960 - 1967
1968 - 1974
ALL VEHICLES
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
4
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
10
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
17
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
22
0.24
1.2
2.48
23.9
-6.5
16.7
0.07
.34
-0.0
24
1.56
2.7
13.08
28.8
-12.1
40.9
0.15
.92
-0.3
25
0.26
1.6
5.45
13.6
-8.4
19.3
-0.05
.32
-0.0
34
0.06
0.3
3.18
9.1
-6.2
19.0
0.03
.22
0.2
36
0.37
1.0
9.10
21.6
-12.3
25.8
-0.10
.39
0.0
43
0.15
1.4
5.93
17.6
-6.0
22.7
-0.01
.31
0.0
47
0.24
0.7
-0.01
24.2
-6.5
19.1
0.01
.22
0.2
50
0.03
1.3
0.04
11.9
-10.7
22.4
0.08
.38
0.6
40
0.23
0.7
4.69
15.3
-2.2
15.0
0.03
.33
-0.1
127
0.24
1.1
4.36
15.3
-5.8
21.4
0.01
.37
-0.0
83
0.49
1.5
5.45
25.5
-6.0
21.9
-0.06
.34
-0.1
55
0.02
1.2
0.04
11.3
-9.7
21.6 0.07
.36
0.6
127
0.30
1.0
6.00
16.7
-4.5
18.8 0.01
.31
-0.1
105
0.38
1.5
4.77
18.4
-6.9
22.8 -0.03
.42
-0.0
13
0.19
0-6
-5.42
40.5
-2.7
24.2 -0.09
.27
0.1
69
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.0
231
0.36
1.4
5.17
20.7
-8.1
23.6 0.01
.41
0.1
300
0.27
1.2
3.98
18.3
-6.2
21.0 0.01
.36
0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
69 HC FAILURES, 70 CO FAILURES, 40.3% FAILURE RATE
PERCENT REDUCTIONS
HC CO NOX MPG
MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.83
1.49
0.97
0,30
7.1
228.2
5.2
BUICK
13
1.42
2.65
-3.08
-0.43
14.7
426.3
-6.8
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
64
2.41
2.70
1.42
0.34
22.7
394.0
4.5
CHRYSLER
6
32.29
25.32
-11.73
-3.12
138.3
1575.7
-20.0
DATSUN
3
-36.35
-18.96
8.09
19.09
-111.3
-645.1
7.4
DODGE
16
4.43
4.01
2.81
-2.40
50.3
700.3
14.5
FORD
73
3.92
3.70
2.18
-0.39
34.2
483.3
8.0
MERCURY
11
10.70
12.03
-5.63
0.81
85.3
1522.8
-18.7
OLDSMOBILE
14
2.11
-1.99
-4.01
0.47
32.3
-617.2
-13.4
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
10.22
13.17
-7.11
-2.38
165.7
2645.1
-26.3
PONTIAC
21
0.70
0.56
1.30
0.40
8.3
82.0
5.7
TOYOTA
8
9.49
5.65
2.37
3.18
28.3
246.8
4.4
VOLKSWAGON
28
-1.33
-1.07
1.61
1.17
-10.7
-117.6
4.1
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1961
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1962
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1963
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1964
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1965
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1966
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0'.
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1967
17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
22
3.86
2.39
2.69
-0.
.12
17.3
181.1
5.2
1969
24
21.24
13.10
4.61
-1.
,84
142.1
1194.6
13.6
1970
25
4.90
6.46
-1.78
-0,
.06
34.8
743.5
-7.2
1971
34
1.16
4.08
0.97
1,
.51
8.1
445.2
4.3
1972
36
7.31
9.92
-3.89
0.
.03
45.1
1099.6
-11.9
1973
43
2.70
5.81
-0.29
0.
.32
19.4
776.8
-0.8
1974
47
5.49
-0.01
0.56
1.
.43
37.0
-1.3
1.4
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
50
0.51
0.06
4.03
2.76
2.7
4.4
8.5
40
3.82
4.82
1.43
-0.89
28.8
583.8
4.3
127
3.10
3.95
0.45
-0.29
38.5
698.9
1.6
83
7.62
5.07
-2.19
-0.71
67.1
738.8
-8.5
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
0.46
0.05
3.48
2.56
2.6
4.2
2800 - 3799
127
4.53
5.82
0.63
-0.84
45.9
911.9
3800 - 4799
105
4.86
4.26
-1.11
-0.27
49.3
619.2
4800 - 5799
13
3.58
-4.43
-3.23
0.96
41.8
-1184.9
8.2
2.1
-3.9
-18.8
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 69 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
1968 - 1974 231 6.64 5.68 0.26 0.38 42.7 621.1 0.8
ALL VEHICLES 300 4.06 3.93 0.21 0.30 37.3 543.2 0.7
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES;
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
65 HC FAILURES, 74 CO FAILURES, 40.7% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.32
1,
.5
78,
.24
28.3
428,
.3
73.9
2,
.72
1
.64
BUICK
13
8.46
6,
.9
129,
.38
83.8
472,
.7
127.7
1
.87
1
.29
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1.
.4
127,
.12
47.2
726,
.7
63.9
1,
.90
.28
CHEVROLET
64
6.32
3,
.8
97,
.54
44.1
488,
.2
110.2
2,
.16
1
.12
CHRYSLER
6
5.34
0
.7
85,
.66
18.6
580,
.3
58.6
3
.50
1
.02
DATSUN
3
6.79
4,
.9
65,
.86
13.5
307,
.7
48.0
1,
.37
.37
DODGE
16
6.20
4.
.2
95,
.85
21.5
448.
,2
70.9
2,
.86
1
.23
FORD
73
6.14
2.
.4
92,
.21
36.8
484,
,8
110.1
2,
.62
1
.27
MERCURY
11
5.77
2,
.9
90,
.35
52.2
546,
.1
114.2
2
.84
1
.72
OLDSMOBILE
14
7.60
4,
.9
160.
.81
134.4
536,
.9
81.6
1,
.77
.98
OPEL
1
3.24
0.
.0
85,
.76
0.0
301,
.5
0.0
1,
.64
0
.00
PLYMOUTH
24
8.80
16.
.4
105,
.49
35.3
449,
,2
87.8
2,
.39
1
.17
PONTIAC
21
8.15
6.
.5
99,
,19
53.7
542,
,0
93.8
2
.99
1,
.63
TOYOTA
8
3.84
0.
.5
58,
.60
25.0
303,
,3
29.4
2,
.60
1
.12
VOLKSWAGON
28
5.75
2,
.5
78,
.10
25.3
261,
.8
45.8
1.
.74
.77
VOLVO
0
MPG
MEAN
15.8
12.8
9.5
13.9
12.2
20.8
14.5
14.3
12.8
11.5
19.9
14.2
12.4
21.9 v
22.3
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15.
.5
117
.36
6.
.6
500,
.9
55.0
2.
.30
.15
12.
.0
1961
2
16.05
3,
.1
184
.44
87,
.4
425,
.2
20.6
2,
.34
1
.96
11,
,7
1962
4
11.87
7.
.7
142
.07
90,
.1
452.
.2
103.9
2.
.98
1
.86
12,
.6
1963
5
11.44
5.
.2
117
.36
44,
.0
393,
.7
125.5
2,
.12
1
.53
15.
.1
1964
10
8.95
2,
.9
129
.13
37,
.8
370,
.8
78.5
1,
.97
.68
15.
.3
1965
13
10.17
5,
.3
131
.33
48,
.9
330,
.6
72.8
1,
.52
.82
16,
.5
1966
16
15.71
19,
.5
147
.25
54,
.6
396,
.4
69.7
1,
.91
1
.32
13,
.6
1967
17
8.30
2,
.3
130
.56
47.
.8
444,
,2
98.1
2.
.41
1,
.30
13.
.5
1968
22
5.89
1,
.4
101
.28
43,
.6
486,
.5
114.2
2,
.56
1
.15
14,
,1
1969
24
5.77
1,
.2
86
.80
33.
.1
444,
.0
92.7
3,
.07
1
.49
15.
.6
1970
25
4.96
1,
.1
78
.96
33,
.8
480,
.3
101 .7
3,
.01
1
.20
15.
.0
1971
34
4.91
1,
.0
75
.16
25.
.0
456,
.1
130.7
3.
.14
1
.42
15.
.9
1972
36
4.73
1,
.0
82
.63
28,
.8
482,
.4
141.4
2
.62
1
.10
15.
.1
1973
43
5.34
3,
.2
96
.02
76,
.6
514,
.6
140.3
2,
.08
1
.14
14.
,1
1974
47
4.17
1,
.4
83
.55
48,
.3
504,
.3
151.0
1,
.66
.73
14.
,8
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
5.13
2.4
71.47
151 - 250
40
5.82
3.8
92.61
251 - 350
127,
7.50
7.9
105.99
MORE THAN 350
83
5.99
3.9
101.98
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
5.10
2.4
71.84
2800 - 3799
127
6.38
3.6
97.12
3800 - 4799
105
7.44
8.8
107.20
4800 - 5799
13
5.16
1.8
127.86
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
11.36
10-4
135.26
1968 - 1974 231 5.00 1.8 86.02
ALL VEHICLES 300 6.46 5.9 97.34
24.0 283.1 45.7
44.5 375.7 60.7
48.2 482.8 79.0
67.1 591.6 84.5
24.2 296.9 66.2
43.8 443.9 84.0
64.1 552.0 82.5
67.5 687.5 81.5
50.5 399.0 92.5
47.1 485.1 131.6
52.2 465.3 128.8
1.92 .83
2.40 1.33
2.22 1.14
2.92 1.46
2.04 1.02
2.19 1.12
2.76 1.44
2.74 1.31
2.07 1.21
2.48 1.27
2.39 1.27
21.8
16.7
13.4
11.8
21.3
14.7
12.1
9.9
14.3
14.9
14.8
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 65 HC FAILURES, 74 CO FAILURES, 40.7% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.02
0.1
-0.26
6.4
-8.6
19.4
0.01
.15
0.3
BUICK
13
0.12
0.3
3.52
8.7
-4.1
17.0
-0.06
.13
-0.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
CHEVROLET
64
0.16
1.0
2.70
8.6
-5.8
19.2
0.03
.34
0.0
CHRYSLER
6
2.55
3.4
29.04
35.0
-32.6
38.7
-0.37
.46
-0.4
DATSUN
3
-1.81
3.8
-10.50
17.3
-64.5
28.3
0.12
.29
4.9
DODGE
16
0.29
0.9
4.00
11.8
4.9
15.1
0.08
.34
-0.3
FORD
73
0.25
0.8
3.54
14.2
-1.8
17.5
0.06
.35
-0.1
MERCURY
11
0.69
1.0
12.35
18.4
-25.5
30.1
-0.15
.29
0.1
OLDSMOBILE
14
0.16
0.4
-3.13
39.4
-4.5
23.7
-0.07
.15
0.1
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.48
0.00
-0.9
PLYMOUTH
24
1.00
2.1
16.00
28.6
-12.4
26.0
-0.16
.42
-0.3
PONTIAC
21
0.06
1.0
0.56
25.8
-4.5
13.3
0.04
.53
0.0
TOYOTA
8
0.40
0.7
3.51
16.9
-16.6
28 .0
0.06
.65
0.7
VOLKSWAGON
28
-0.08
0.9
-0.83
9.0
-3.3
11.2
0.03
.31
0.3
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1961
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1962
4
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1963
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1964
10
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1965
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1966
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1967
17
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968
22
0.24
1.2
2.48
23.9
-6.5
16.7
0.07
.34
-0.0
1969
24
1.56
2.7
13.08
28.8
-12.1
40.9
0.15
.92
-0.3
1970
25
0.26
1.6
5.45
13.6
-8.4
19.3
-0.05
.32
-0.0
1971
34
0.05
0.3
2.68
9.7
-7.8
20.9
0.03
.22
0.3
1972
36
0.37
1.0
9.10
21.6
-12.3
25.8
-0.10
.39
0.0
1973
43
0.15
1.4
5.93
17.6
-6.0
22.7
-0.01
.31
0.0
1974
47
0.24
0.7
-0.01
24.2
-6.5
19.1
0.01
.22
0.2
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
0.03
1.3
0.04
11.9
-10.7
22.4
0.08
.38
0.6
151 - 250
40
0.23
0.7
4.69
15.3
-2.2
15.0
0.03
.33
-0.1
251 - 350
127
0.24
1.1
4.22
15.4
-6.3
21.8
0.01
.37
-0.0
MORE THAN 350
83
0.49
1.5
5.45
25.5
-6.0
21.9
-0.06
.34
-0.1
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
0.02
1.2
-0.27
11.6
-10.8
22.4
0.07
.36
0.6
2800 - 3799
127
0.30
1.0
6.00
16.7
-4.5
18.8
0.01
.31
-0.1
3800 - 4799
105
0.38
1.5
4.77
18.4
-6.9
22.8
-0.03
.42
-0.0
4800 - 5799
13
0.19
0.6
-5.42
40.5
-2.7
24.2
-0.09
.27
0.1
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
231
0.35
1.4
5.10
20.7
-8.3
23.8
0.01
.41
0.1
ALL VEHICLES
300
0.27
1.2
3.93
18.3
-6.4
21.2
0.00
.36
0.1
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING ]
LABORATORIES.:
INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLES? 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 65 HC FAILURES, 74 CO FAILURES, 40.7% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.52
-0.34
0
.48
2.02
4.3
-50.0
2,
.5
BUICK
13
1.42
2.65
i-3
.08
-0.43
14.7
426.3
-6,
.8
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0,
.0
CHEVROLET
64
2.41
2.70
1
.42
0.34
22.7
394.0
4.
,5
CHRYSLER
6
32.29
25.32
-11
.73
-3.12
138.3
1575.7
-20,
.0
DATSUN
3
-36.35
-18.96
8
.09
19.09
-111.3
-645.1
7,
.4
DODGE
16
4.43
4.01
2
.81
-2.40
50.3
700.3
14,
.5
FORD
73
3.92
3.70
2
.18
-0.39
34.2
483.3
8,
.0
MERCURY
11
10.70
12.03
-5
.63
0.81
85.3
1522.8
-18,
.7
OLDSMOBILE
14
2.11
-1.99
-4
.01
0.47
32.3
-617 .2
-13,
.4
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22
.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.
,7
PLYMOUTH
24
10.22
13.17
-7
.11
-2.38
165.7
2645.1
-26.
.3
PONTIAC
21
0.70
0.56
1
.30
0.40
8.3
82.0
5.
.7
TOYOTA
8
9.49
5.65
2
.37
3.18
28.3
246.8
4,
.4
VOLKSWAGON
28
-1.33
-1.07
1
.61
1.17
-10.7
-117.6
4,
.1
VOLVO 0
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
17
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
3.86
2.39
2.69
-0.12
17.3
181.1
5.2
24
21.24
13.10
4.61
-1.84
142.1
1194.6
13.6
25
4.90
6.46
-1.78
-0.06
34.8
743.5
-7.2
34
1.C6
3.44
0.82
2.12
7.3
371.8
3.6
36
7.31
9.92
-3.89
0.03
45.1
1099.6
-11.9
43
2.70
5.81
-0.29
0.32
19.4
776 .8
-0.8
47
5.49
-0.01
0.56
1.43
37.0
-1.3
1.4
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151 50 0.51 0.06 4.03 2.76 2.7 4.4 8.5
151 - 250 40 3.82 4.82 1.43 -0.89 28.8 583.8 4.3
251 - 350 127 3.09 3.83 0.39 -0.09 38.2 675.6 1.4
MORE THAN 350 83 7.62 5.07 -2.19 -0.71 67.1 738.8 -8.5
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
^POPULATIONS
" I96? 69 °*00 °*00 °-oo 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
1968 - 1974 231 6.62 5.60 0.23 0.48 42.5 611.6 0.7
ALL VEHICLES 300 4.05 3.88 0.19 0.37 37.2 535.0 0.6
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
55
0.41
-0.38
3.34
2.84
2.3
-30.2
7.8
127
4.53
5.82
0.63
-0.84
45.9
911.9
2.1
105
4.86
4.26
-1.11
-0.27
49.3
619.2
-3.9
13
3.58
-4.43
-3.23
0.96
41.8
-1184.9
-18.8
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLESr 25 HC FAILURES, 29 CO FAILURES, 59.4% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 65 HC FAILURES, 74 CO FAILURES, 40.7% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.29
1.
.5
76,
.24
26,
.6
428.
.8
73
.4
2,
.71
1
.64
15.9
BUICK
13
6.72
4.
.3
119,
.96
75.
.2
479,
.1
120
.8
1,
,92
1
.25
13.0
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1,
.4
127,
.12
47,
.2
726,
.7
63
.9
1,
,90
.28
9.5
CHEVROLET
64
6.17
3,
.8
95,
.49
43,
.4
490,
.1
108
.4
2,
.15
1
.11
14.0
CHRYSLER
6
5.30
0,
.7
87,
.94
20.
.1
563,
.0
67
.8
3,
.22
.81
12.5
DATSUN
3
6.79
4,
.9
65,
.86
13,
.5
307,
.7
48
.0
1,
.37
.37
20.8
DODGE
16
6.19
4,
.1
96,
.48
21,
.7
445,
.3
69
.5
2,
,80
1
.20
14.6
FORD
73
5.79
1,
.9
89.
.25
36.
,5
487,
.0
108
.0
2,
,64
1
.27
14.4
MERCURY
11
5.62
2.
,5
87.
.75
45,
.4
546,
.9
112
.6
2,
,86
1
.69
12.9
OLDSMOBILE
14
7.05
4,
.3
155.
,63
134,
.6
536,
.4
81
.2
1,
.76
.98
11.7
OPEL
1
3.24
0.
.0
85.
.76
0,
.0
301.
.5
0
.0
1.
,64
0
.00
19.9
PLYMOUTH
24
6.35
5.
.3
98.
.47
25.
.9
453.
.4
84
.6
2,
.55
1
.19
14.4
PONTIAC
21
9.15
10.
.4
109.
.09
59.
.6
537,
.8
100
.1
2,
.80
1
.73
12.1
TOYOTA
8
3.84
0,
.5
58,
.60
25,
.0
303,
.3
29
.4
2,
.60
1
.12
21.9
VOLKSWAGON
28
5.53
2,
.3
75,
.22
21,
.4
261,
.2
45
.9
1,
.71
.79
22.6
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15.5
117.36
6
.6
500
.9
55
.0
2
.30
.15
12.
0
1961
2
14.03
5.8
174.39
110
.3
449
.9
27
.9
2
.67
2.10
11.
8
1962
4
9.05
4.7
124.53
89
.1
444
.2
103
.1
3
.01
1.89
13.
5
1963
5
16.95
17.0
154.49
46
.3
359
.1
110
.0
1
.17
.57
14.
7
1964
10
7.02
2.1
104.83
39
.1
388
.6
81
.2
2
.29
1.17
16.
2
1965
13
8.89
4.5
118.95
46
.5
344
.3
76
.7
1,
.56
.85
16.
8
1966
16
11.30
7.8
134.46
54
.3
401
.1
70
.5
1,
.94
1.36
14.
2
.1967
17
7.28
1.9
124.77
43
.6
440
.9
88
.6
2,
.22
.99
13.
9
1968
22
5.89
1.4
101.28
43
.6
486
.5
114
.2
2,
.56
1.15
14.
1
1969
24
5.77
1.2
86.80
33
.1
444
.0
92
.7
3
.07
1.49
15.
6
1970
25
4.96
1.1
78.96
33
.8
480
.3
101
.7
3
.01
1.20
15.
0
1971
34
4.91
1.0
75.16
25
.0
456
.1
130
.7
3
.14
1.42
15.
9
1972
36
4.73
1.0
82.63
28
.8
482
.4
141
.4
2
.62
1.10
15.
1
1973
43
5.34
3.2
96.02
76
.6
514
.6
140
.3
2
.08
1.14
14.
1
1974
47
4.17
1.4
83.55
48
.3
504
.3
151
.0
1,
.66
.73
14.
8
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
5.01
2.2
151 - 250
40
5.10
2.4
251 - 350
127
6.73
4.0
MORE THAN 350
83
6.24
5.8
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
4.99
2.2
2800 - 3799
127
6.13
4.5
3800 - 4799
105
6.74
4.8
4800 - 5799
13
5.16
1.8
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
69
9.74
7.0
1968 - 1974
231
5.00
1.8
ALL VEHICLES
300
6.09
4.2
AUTOMOTIVE '
69.86 21.3 282.8 45.9 1.91 .84 22.0
86.66 40.3 379.8 59.7 2.42 1.33 16.9
102.51 45.0 485.1 75.5 2.23 1.13 13.5
103.78 68.4 588.8 88.4 2.86 1.47 11.8
70.38 21.8 296.6 66.4 2.03 1.03 21.5
93.96 40.8 446.8 81.5 2.19 1.13 14.8
105.96 63.7 550.8 82.3 2.74 1.43 12.2
127.86 67.5 687.5 81.5 2.74 1.31 9.9
126.39 50.6 402.1 87.9 2.02 1.18 14.8
86.02 47.1 485.1 131.6 2.48 1.27 14.9
95.31 50.8 466.0 127.7 2.38 1.26 14.9
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 25 HC FAILURES, 29 CO FAILURES, 59.4% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES? 65 HC FAILURES, 74 CO FAILURES, 40.7% FAILURE RATE
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.05
0.1
1.74
9
.5
-9.1
19,
.2
0
.02
.15
0.
,2
BUICK
13
1.86
2.6
12.94
16
.9
-10.5
18,
.8
-0
.11
.18
-0.
.3
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0
.0
0.0
0.
.0
0
.00
0.00
0,
.0
CHEVROLET
64
0.30
1.1
4.75
11
.4
-7.7
21,
.3
0
.04
.38
-0,
.0
CHRYSLER
6
2.59
3.4
26.76
37
.7
-15.2
68,
.2
-0
.08
.97
-0,
,6
DATSUN
3
-1.81
3.8
-10.50
17
.3
-64.5
28,
.3
0
.12
.29
4,
.9
DODGE
16
0.30
0.9
3.38
12
.3
7.8
18,
.2
0
.15
.41
-0,
.4
FORD
73
0.61
1.7
6.50
20
.3
-4.0
21,
.4
0
.05
.52
-0.
, ?
MERCURY
11
0.85
1.0
14.95
18
.5
-26.4
29,
.4
-0
.17
.29
0,
.0
OLDSMOBILE
14
0.71
1.5
2.05
41
.7
-4.0
24,
.3
-0
.06
.16
-0,
,1
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0
.0
11.2
0.
.0
0
.48
0.00
-0.
.9
PLYMOUTH
24
3.45
11.1
23.01
31
.1
-16.6
29,
.0
-0
.31
.55
-0,
.5
PONTIAC
21
-0.95
6.0
-9.34
47
.8
-0.2
32,
.3
0
.22
.86
0.
.3
TOYOTA
8
0.40
0.7
3.51
16
.9
-16.6
28,
.0
0
.06
.65
0,
.7
VOLKSWAGON
28
0.14
1.1
2.05
11
.5
-2.8
12,
.4
0
.06
.33
-0,
.1
VOLVO,
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.0
2
2.02
2.7
10.05
22.9
-24.7
7.3 -0.33
.15
-0.1
4
2.82
3.1
17.54
15.8
8.1
13.5 -0.03
.12
-0.9
5
-5.52
11.9
-37.13
78.9
34.6
53.1 0.94
1.42
0.4
10
1.93
3.2
24.30
34.9
-17.8
26.0 -0.33
1.00
-0.9
13
1.28
2.0
12.38
18.6
-13.7
20.3 -0.04
.25
-0.3
16
4.41
13.5
12.79
29.4
-4.7
14.4 -0.03
.41
-0.5
17
1.02
1.7
5.79
12.2
3.3
34.1 0.19
.54
-0.3
22
0.24
1.2
2.48
23.9
-6.5
16.7 0.07
.34
-0.0
24
1.56
2.7
13.08
28.8
-12.1
40.9 0.15
.92
-0.3
25
0.26
1.6
5.45
13.6
-8.4
19.3 -0.05
.32
-0.0
34
0.05
0.3
2.68
9.7
-7.8
20.9 0.03
.22
0.3
36
0.37
1.0
9.10
21.6
-12.3
25.8 -0.10
.39
0.0
43
0.15
1.4
5.93
17.6
-6.0
22.7 -0.01
.31
0.0
47
0.24
0.7
-0.01
24.2
-6.5
19.1 0.01
.22
0.2
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
1968 - 1974
ALL VEHICLES
50
0.15
1.3
1.65
13.0
-10.4
22.9
0.10
.39
0.4
40
0.95
2.2
10.63
23.4
-6.3
19.7
0.01
.59
-0.4
127
1.01
5.0
7.71
19.2
-8.6
25.0
-0.00
.45
-0.1
83
0.24
3.3
3.65
33.4
-3.3
28.8
-0.01
.53
-0.1
55
0.13
1.3
1.19
12.6
-10.5
22.8
0.09
.37
0.5
127
0.55
3.0
9.16
26.4
-7.3
24.7
0.01
.52
-0.2
105
1.08
5.5
6.01
21.9
-5.7
27.1
-0.01
.52
-0.1
13
0.19
0.6
-5.42
40.5
-2.7
24.2
-0.09
.27
0.1
69
1.62
7.6
8.86
32.2
-3.2
29.1
0.04
.68
-0.4
231
0.35
1.4
5.10
20.7
-8.3
23.8
0.01
.41
0.1
300
0.64
3.9
5.96
23.8
-7.1
25.2
0.01
.48
-0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN BOTH SECTORS
25 HC FAILURES, 29 CO FAILURES, 59.4% FAILURE RATE
65 HC FAILURES, 74 CO FAILURES, 40.7% FAILURE RATE
PERCENT REDUCTIONS-
HC CO NOX
MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
1.23
2.23
0.69
1.50
9.8
318.3
3.5
BUICK
13
21.70
9.74
-5.86
-2.57
168.0
1167.4
-9.6
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
64
4.60
4.74
2.04
-0.02
36.3
579.0
5.5
CHRYSLER
6
32.80
23.33
-2.68
-5.17
121.8
1258.9
-4.0
DATSUN
3
-36.35
-18.96
8.09
19.09
-111.3
-645.1
7.4
DODGE
16
4.62
3.39
4.95
-2.68
48.4
546.4
23.5
FORD
73
9.47
6.79
1.69
-1.08
55.1
591.9
4.1
MERCURY
11
13.10
14.55
-6.45
0.32
100.1
1765.3
-20.5
OLDSMOBILE
14
9.17
1.30
-3.44
-1.10
72.7
210.0
-6.0
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
35.24
18.94
-14.02
-3.78
388.0
2585.8
-35.2
PONTIAC
21
-11.56
-9.36
7.39
2.36
-91.3
-899.4
21.5
TOYOTA
8
9.49
5.65
2.37
3.18
28.3
246.8
4.4
VOLKSWAGON
28
2.46
2.65
3.30
-0.26
14.3
210.5
6.0
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1961
2
12.59
5.45
-13.98
-0.60
88.9
441.7
-14.4
1962
4
23.78
12.35
-1.02
-6.88
158.9
986.7
-1.7
1963
5
-48.27
-31.64
44.57
2.49
-307.8
-2070.1
52.6
1964
10
21.53
18.82
-16.59
-5.91
225.8
2848.9
-38.2
1965
13
12.56
9.43
-2.40
-1.81
152.2
1475.4
-4.4
1966
16
28.08
8.68
-1.70
-3.85
256.9
744.6
-1.9
1967
17
12.26
4.43
7.98
-2.49
58.4
332.4
11.0
1968
22
3.86
2.39
2.69
-0.12
17.3
181.1
5.2
1969
24
21.24
13.10
4.61
-1.84
142.1
1194.6
13.6
1970
25
4.90
6.46
-1.78
-0.06
34.8
743.5
-7.2
1971
34
1.06
3.44
0.82
2.12
7.3
371.8
3.6
1972
36
7.31
9.92
-3.89
0.03
45.1
1099.6
-11.9
1973
43
2.70
5.81
-0.29
0.32
19.4
776.8
-0.8
1974
47
5.49
-0.01
0.56
1.43
37.0
-1.3
1.4
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
50
2.84
2.31
4.87
1.95
13.3
150.0
8.9
151 - 250
40
15.72
10.93
0.47
-2.18
70.3
785.5
0.8
251 - 350
127
13.00
6.99
-0.20
-0.82
116.3
891.4
-0.5
MORE THAN 350
83
3.78
3.39
-0.20
-0.60
28.4
423.2
-0.7
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
55
2.55
1.66
4.06
2.09
12.5
114.4
8.2
2800 - 3799
127
8.25
8.88
0.53
-1.40
57.7
959.9
1.2
3800 - 4799
105
13.86
5.37
-0.28
-1.01
107.2
594.6
-0.8
4800 - 5799
13
3.58
-4.43
-3.23
0.96
41.8
-1184.9
-18.8
*P0PULATI0NS
1960 - 1967
69
14.23
6.55
2.07
-2.91
113.8
624.4
3.0
1968 - 1974
231
6.62
5.60
0.23
0.48
42.5
611.6
0.7
ALL VEHICLES
300
9.57
5.89
0.60
-0.28
66.6
615.9
1.5
AUTOMOTIVE
TESTING
LABORATORIES
.INC.
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS BEFORE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.34
1.5
77.98
28.6
419.7
80.3
2.73
1.66
16.2
BUICK
13
8.58
6.9
132.90
82.2
468.6
126.4
1.82
1.23
12.7
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1.4
127.12
47.2
726.7
63.9
1.90
.28
9.5
CHEVROLET
55
6.72
4.2
101.66
44.6
467.8
109.1
2.23
1.17
14.2
CHRYSLER
6
7.89
4.0
114.70
38.4
547.8
69.8
3.14
1.04
11.9
DATSUN
3
4.98
1.3
55.36
3.9
243.2
23.7
1.49
.14
25.7
DODGE
15
6.63
4.3
97.32
17.5
458.9
66.5
3.10
1.13
14.2
FORD
66
6.35
2.4
93.45
32.8
483.7
111.3
2.76
1.38
14.3
MERCURY
11
6.47
2.8
102.70
58.5
520.6
110.3
2.69
1.66
13.0
OLDSMOBILE
11
8.36
5.3
167.80
137.1
523.0
85.8
1.69
1.06
11.5
OPEL
1
4.32
0.0
89.81
0.0
312.7
0.0
2.12
0.00
19.0
PLYMOUTH
24
9.80
16.3
121.48
41.2
436.7
83.6
2.24
1.11
13.8
PONTIAC
19
8.72
6.6
106.55
47.9
527.4
89.0
2.83
1.45
12.4
TOYOTA
5
4.21
0.6
62.11
18.8
286.5
38.2
2.64
.87
22.8
VOLKSWAGON
23
6.02
2.2
80.01
27.8
249.1
37.1
1.72
.80
22.8
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960 2
1961 2
1962 4
1963 5
1964 10
1965 13
1966 15
1967 16
1968 22
1969 24
1970 25
1971 32
1972 28
1973 35
1974 37
16.42 15.5
16.05 3.1
11.87
11.44
8.95
10.17
7.7
5.2
2.9
5.3
15.79 20.2
8.36 2.4
6.13
7.32
5.21
5.01
5.24
5.60
4.38
1.5
3.4
1.6
1.0
1.7
3.2
1.6
117.36
184.44
142.07
117~36
129.13
131.33
139.02
130.78
103.77
99.88
84.41
78.60
97.46
104.85
81.53
6.6
87.4
90.1
44.0
37.8
48.9
45.1
49.4
42.8
38.4
36.3
28.8
41.8
84.2
34.5
500.9
425.2
452.2
393.7
370.8
330.6
394.6
439.2
480.0
431.9
471.9
448.2
491.8
503.5
499.0
55.0
20.6
103.9
125.5
78.5
72.8
71.7
99.1
112.2
88.9
101.5
137.2
136.8
148.9
153.6
2.30
2.34
2.98
2.12
1.97
1.52
1.99
2.37
2.63
3.22
2.96
3.13
2.57
2.04
1.66
.15
1.96
1.86
1.53
.68
.82
1.32
1.33
1.08
1.75
1.12
1.37
.98
1.23
.62
12.0
11.7
12.6
15.1
15.3
16.5
13.9
13.6
14.1
15.3
15.0
16.2
14.3
14.2
15.1
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
5.37
2.0
72.66
151 - 250
38
6.12
3.9
96.26
251 - 350
115
7.92
8.3
110.06
MORE THAN 350
77
6.62
4.3
109.53
25.5 265.5 40.5
49.4 372.4 61.8
45.0 467.9 74.1
65.8 583.4 88.2
1.94 .79
2.50 1.44
2.26 1.22
2.86 1.40
22.7
16.6
13.5
11.7
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.27
2.0
2800 - 3799
118
6.78
3.7
3800 - 4799
94
8.09
9.3
4800 - 5799
12
5.43
2.1
72.59 25.0 283.8 69.6 2.07 1.02 22.0
103.19 45.4 434.7 77.3 2.26 1.21 14.6
112.84 62.9 540.7 84.3 2.80 1.46 12.1
127.73 49.4 693.7 72.6 2.39 .81 9.8
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 67
1968 - 1974 203
ALL VEHICLES 270
11.37 10.5 133.36 48.4 396.7 92.6 2.08 1.21 14.4
5.45 2.3 92.22 48.9 477.4 131.9 2.53 1.30 14.9
6.92 6.1 102.43 51.8 457.4 128.0 2.42 1.29 14.8
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
12 HC FAILURES, 9 CO FAILURES, 9.4% FAILURE RATE
HC CO C02 NOX MPG
MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4,
.34
1
.5
77
.98
28.6
419
.7
80,
.3
2,
.73
1
.66
16.2
BUICK
13
8,
.58
6.
.9
132
.90
82.2
468
.6
126,
.4
1,
.82
1
.23
12.7
CADILLAC
6
4.
.28
1.
.4
127
.12
47.2
726
.7
63,
.9
1.
.90
.28
9.5
CHEVROLET
55
6,
.64
4,
.0
100
.51
43.4
470.
.0
109,
.4
2,
.20
1
.15
14.2
CHRYSLER
6
6.
.34
1,
.5
104
.32
42.5
559,
.2
53,
.5
3,
.30
1
.15
12.1
DATSUN
3
4,
.65
1,
.5
52
.25
1.8
269,
.5
44,
.0
1.
,39
.30
24.4
DODGE
15
6.
.63
4.
.3
97
.32
17.5
458,
.9
66,
.5
3,
.10
1
.13
14.2
FORD
66
6.
.26
2,
.4
93
.28
32.8
482,
.9
111,
.6
2,
.72
1
.30
14.3
MERCURY
11
6,
.30
2,
.8
100
.89
59.7
525,
.3
108,
.8
2.
.72
1
. 66
12.9
OLDSMOBILE
11
8.
.36
5.
.3
167
.80
137.1
523,
.0
85,
.8
1.
,69
1
.06
11.5
OPEL
1
3.
,24
0,
.0
85
.76
0.0
301,
.5
0.
.0
1.
.64
0
.00
19.9
PLYMOUTH
24
9.
.13
16.
.3
113
.13
40.2
444.
.0
85,
.2
2.
.33
1
.20
14.0
PONTIAC
19
8,
.55
6.
.6
101
.84
47.3
530.
.3
89,
.2
2.
,90
1
.55
12.5
TOYOTA
5
4,
.21
0.
.6
62
.11
18.8
286.
.5
38,
.2
2.
.64
.87
22.8
VOLKSWAGON
23
6.
.01
2.
,2
79
.65
28.0
249,
.4
36,
,7
1,
,73
.80
22.8
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
I960
2
16.42
15.5
117.36
6.6
500.9
55.0
2.30
.15
12.0
1961
2
16.05
3.1
184.44
87.4
425.2
20.6
2.34
1,
.96
11.7
1962
4
11.87
7.7
142.07
90.1
452.2
103.9
2.98
1,
.86
12.6
1963
5
11.44
5.2
117.36
44.0
393.7
125.5
2.12
1,
.53
15.1
1964
10
8.95
2.9
129.13
37.8
370.8
78.5
1.97
.68
15.3
1965
13
10.17
5.3
131.33
48.9
330.6
72.8
1.52
.82
16.5
1966
15
15.79
20.2
139.02
45.1
394.6
71.7
1.99
1
.32
13.9
1967
16
8.36
2.4
130.78
49.4
439.2
99.1
2.37
1
.33
13.6
1968
22
5.86
1.3
98.96
41.6
484.9
113.7
2.64
1,
.11
14.2
1969
24
6.17
1.6
91.28
33.9
438.6
91.4
3.15
1,
.63
15.6
1970
25
4.96
1.0
81.47
32.9
475.6
102.7
3.02
1
.20
15.0
1971
32
5.00
1.0
78.55
28.8
448.2
137.2
3.13
1,
.37
16.2
1972
28
5.25
1.7
96.86
41.9
492.5
137.2
2.57
.98
14.3
1973
35
5.56
3.2
103.38
83.7
504.6
147.7
2.05
l'
.22
14.2
1974
37
4.33
1.6
81.17
34.7
500.8
150.8
1.64
.62
15.0
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
5.31
2.0
72.12
25.6
267.3
40.3
1.92
.79
151 - 250
38
6.03
3.9
94.91
48.4
372 .8
61.3
2.49
1.43
251 - 350
115
7.74
8.3
107.96
44.4
470.0
74.6
2.25
1.17
MORE THAN 350
77
6.40
4.1
107.53
65.9
585.5
86.0
2.89
1.42
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.22
2.0
72.12
25.2
285.4
69.1
2.06
1.03
2800 - 3799
118
6.64
3.7
101.43
44.6
435.6
77.8
2.24
1.20
3800 - 4799
94
7.83
9.2
110.29
62.9
544.0
82.0
2.82
1.44
4800 - 5799
12
5.43
2.1
127.73
49.4
693.7
72.6
2.39
.81
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
67
11.37
10.5
133.36
48.4
396.7
92.6
2.08
1.21
1968 - 1974 203 5.23 1.9 89.91 47.8
ALL VEHICLES 270 6.76 6.1 100.69 51.4
479.8 131.4
459.2 127.9
2.53 1.29
2.42 1.28
22.6
16.7
13.6
11.7
21.9
14.7
12.2
9.8
14.4
14.9
14.8
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES; 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 12 HC FAILURES, 9 CO FAILURES, 9.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
BUICK
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
0.09
1.0
1.15
6.0
-2.2
17.5
0.03
.26
-0.0
CHRYSLER
6
1.55
3.6
10.37
27.7
-11.5
20.9
-0.16
.33
-0.2
DATSUN
3
0.33
0.6
3.11
5.4
-26.3
45.6
0.10
.17
1.3
DODGE
15
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
FORD
66
0.09
0.5
0.17
2.1
0.9
11.2
0.04
.32
-0.0
MERCURY
11
0.16
0.5
1.81
6.0
-4.7
15.6
-0.03
.09
0.0
OLDSMOBILE
11
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.48
0.00
-0.9
PLYMOUTH
24
0.67
2.1
8.36
23.5
-7.2
21.2
-0.10
.36
-0.2
PONTIAC
19
0.17
0.9
4.71
17.0
-3.0
10.8
-0.07
.29
-0.1
TOYOTA
5
0.00
0.0
O.OO
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.01
0.1
0.36
1.7
-0.3
1.3
-0.01
.03
-0.0
VOLVO
0
~MODEL YEAR
1960
2
0-00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o,
.0
1961
2
0.00
0.0
O.OO
0.0
0.
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o.
.0
1962
4
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o.
.0
1963
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0,
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o,
.0
1964
10
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o.
.0
1965
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0
.0
1966
15
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o,
.0
1967
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0,
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o,
.0
1968
22
0.27
1.1
4.81
16.6
-4,
.9
15.8
-0.01
.18
-0
.1
1969
24
1.16
2.7
8.59
23.5
-6.
.8
37.1
0.07
.76
-0
, n
1970
25
0.26
1.4
2.93
11.7
-3,
.7
12.7
-0.06
.26
-o
!o
1971
32
0.01
0.0
0.05
0.3
-0,
.0
0.2
-0.00
.00
-o
.0
1972
28
-o.oi
0.1
0.60
3.2
-0.
.7
3.6
0.00
.00
-o,
.0
1973
35
0.04
0.2
1.47
8.7
-1,
.1
6.6
-0.01
.06
-0
.0
1974
37
0-06
0.2
0.36
1.7
-1,
.8
13.2
0.02
.09
0
.1
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
1968 - 1974
ALL VEHICLES
40
0.06
0.2
0.54
2.0
-1.9
12.7
0.02
.09
0.1
38
0.09
0.4
1.35
8.4
-0.4
7.7
0.01
.13
-0.1
115
0.18
1.0
2.10
9.8
-2.1
16.5
0.02
.32
-0.0
77
0.22
1.3
2.00
12.9
-2.1
11.9
-0.04
.22
-0.0
46
0.05
0.2
0.47
1.9
-1.6
11.8
0.01
.08
0.1
118
0.14
0.8
1.76
10.0
-0.9
8.5
0.01
.19
-0.1
94
0.26
1.5
2.55
12.5
-3.3
19.5
-0.02
.35
-0.0
12
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
67
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
203
0.21
1.1
2.31
11.4
-2.4
15.7
0.00
.28
-0.0
270
0.16
1.0
1.74
9.9
-1.8
13.7
0.00
.25
-0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES,
1968-1974 VEHICLES? 12 HC FAILURES,
0 CO FAILURES,
9 CO FAILURES,
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG
0.0% FAILURE RATE
9.4% FAILURE RATE
MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
HC CO NOX
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
BUICK
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
1.28
1.13
1.38
-0.03
15.1
202.4
5.4
CHRYSLER
6
19.62
9.04
-5.26
-1.85
97.1
650.4
-10.3
DATSUN
3
6.71
5.62
6.45
5.07
59.0
548.7
17.0
DODGE
15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
66
1.41
0.19
1.62
-0.25
17.8
34.4
8.9
MERCURY
11
2.54
1.77
-1.06
0.24
36.1
398.8
-6.3
OLDSMOBILE
11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
6.86
6.88
-4.25
-1.18
144.1
1790.8
-20.4
PONTIAC
19
1.95
4.42
-2.43
-0.82
28.8
798.6
-11.7
TOYOTA
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.18
0.45
-0.37
-0.12
2.5
82.6
-1.5
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
.0
0.0
0.0
1961
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
.0
0.0
0.0
1962
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0,
.0
0.0
0.0
1963
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
.0
0.0
0.0
1964
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.
.0
0.0
0.0
1965
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.
.0
0.0
0.0
1966
15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
.0
0.0
0.0
1967
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
.0
0.0
0.0
1968
22
4.34
4.64
-0.32
-0.66
22,
.1
400.2
-0.7
1969
24
15.83
8.60
2.09
-1.56
196.
.6
1457.6
11.4
1970
25
4.91
3.48
-1.98
-0.21
48.
.8
559.3
-11.2
1971
32
0.13
0.06
-0.03
-0.01
1.
.3
9.7
-0.2
1972
28
-0.26
0.61
0.01
-0.03
-3,
.3
143.0
0.1
1973
35
0.75
1.41
-0.48
-0.26
10,
.0
353.5
-2.3
1974
37
1.28
0.44
1.25
0.54
12.
.2
78.2
4.5
"^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
40
1.09
0.74
0.80
0.27
12.2
113.3
3.2
38
1.43
1.40
0.36
-0.37
13.5
208.7
1.4
115
2.28
1.91
0.83
-0.28
35.9
417.9
3.7
77
3.34
1.83
-1.24
-0.30
44.0
398.4
-7.1
46
0.96
0.65
0.65
0.24
10.9
100.6
2.9
118
2.03
1.70
0.64
-0.36
26.9
342.9
2.8
94
3.27
2.26
-0.75
-0.29
46.5
448.9
-3.7
12
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 67 0.00 0.00
1968 - 1974 203 3.93 2.50
ALL VEHICLES 270 2.33 1.70
0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
0.07 -0.23 38.3 413.5 0.3
0.06 -0.18 31.0 334.4 0.3
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
26 HC FAILURES, 27 CO FAILURES, 20.2% FAILURE RATE
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.34
1.5
77.98
28.6
419.7
80.3
2.73
1.66
BUICK
13
8.50
6.9
129.86
83.8
468.1
126.5
1.84
1.28
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1.4
127.12
47.2
726.7
63.9
1.90
.28
CHEVROLET
55
6.57
4.1
100.39
43.0
471.5
108.1
2.15
1.08
CHRYSLER
6
5.34
0.7
85.66
18.6
580.3
58.6
3.50
1.02
DATSUN
3
6.67
5.0
59.87
13.3
297.0
65.2
1.46
.38
DODGE
15
6.53
4.4
95.29
16.8
460.0
65.1
3.10
1.13
FORD
66
6.21
2.4
91.87
32.3
482.9
110.4
2.72
1.29
MERCURY
11
5.96
3.0
97.08
60.5
534.2
107.5
2.74
1.64
OLDSMOBILE
11
8.26
5.3
175.34
145.1
522.4
81.8
1.74
1.05
OPEL
1
3.24
0.0
85.76
0.0
301.5
0.0
1.64
0.00
PLYMOUTH
24
8.97
16.3
110.63
36.6
446.7
82.2
2.35
1.15
PONTIAC
19
8.55
6.6
101.84
47.3
530.3
89.2
2.90
1.55
TOYOTA
5
4.03
0.6
56.76
17.7
291.1
44.6
2.78
.79
VOLKSWAGON
23
6.01
2.2
80.24
27.4
249.6
36.9
1.71
.78
VOLVO
0
MPG
MEAN
16.2
12.8
9.5
14.2
12.2
22.3
14.2
14.3
12.9
11.5
19.9
14.1
12.5
23.0
22.8
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
16.
.42
15.
.5
117,
.36
6.
.6
500.
,9
55,
.0
2,
.30
.15
12.
.0
1961
2
16.
.05
3.
,1
184.
,44
87,
.4
425.
,2
20,
.6
2,
.34
1
.96
11,
.7
1962
4
11,
.87
7.
.7
142.
.07
90,
.1
452.
,2
103,
.9
2,
,98
1
.86
12,
.6
1963
5
11.
.44
5.
.2
117,
.36
44,
.0
393.
.7
125,
.5
2,
.12
1
.53
15.
.1
1964
10
8.
.95
2,
.9
129,
.13
37,
.8
370.
.8
78,
.5
1,
.97
.68
15.
.3
1965
13
10.
.17
5,
.3
131.
.33
48,
.9
330.
,6
72,
.8
1,
,52
.82
16,
.5
1966
15
15.
.79
20,
.2
139,
.02
45,
.1
394,
.6
71,
.7
1,
.99
1
.32
13,
.9
1967
16
8,
.36
2,
.4
130,
.78
49,
.4
439,
.2
99,
.1
2,
.37
1
.33
13,
,6
1968
22
5.
.81
1,
.3
98,
.26
42
.0
485,
.0
114,
.0
2,
.63
1
.10
14,
.2
1969
24
6.
.06
1,
.6
88,
.64
31,
.5
441.
,6
91.
.9
3,
,10
1
.52
15.
.6
1970
25
4,
.87
1,
.0
80,
.31
32,
.5
477.
,5
102,
.2
3,
.03
1
.19
15.
.0
1971
32
4.
.99
1,
.0
77,
.35
28,
.1
450.
.0
137,
.4
3,
.12
1
.36
16,
.2
1972
28
4.
.96
1,
.3
90,
.75
34,
.7
499.
.3
134,
.8
2,
.63
.97
14,
.4
1973
35
5.
.52
3,
.4
101,
.30
83,
.3
507.
.1
143,
.0
2,
.07
1
.22
14,
.1
1974
37
4.
.23
1,
.5
83.
.85
47,
.6
501.
.7
150.
.3
1,
.64
.61
14,
.9
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
5.35
2.3
151 - 250
38
5.91
3.8
251 - 350
115
7.70
8.3
MORE THAN 350
77
6.25
4.1
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.26
2.3
2800 - 3799
118
6.52
3.7
3800 - 4799
94
7.76
9.2
4800 - 5799
12
5.40
2.0
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
67
11.37
10.5
1968 - 1974
203
5.14
1.9
ALL VEHICLES
270
6.69
6.1
AUTOMOTIVE '
72.03 25.4 271.8 44.8 1.92 .79 22.4
92.43 45.5 374.8 60.1 2.47 1.33 16.7
107.10 44.5 470.6 74.7 2.25 1.17 13.6
106.31 68.8 587.6 84.8 2.91 1.41 11.7
72.05 25.0 289.3 70.5 2.06 1.03 21.8
99.10 43.6 437.1 77.1 2.24 1.16 14.7
108.78 62.6 545.9 82.7 2.83 1.44 12.2
138.47 69.9 690.4 77.8 2.40 .78 9.7
133.36 48.4 396.7 92.6 2.08 1.21 14.4
88.48 48.5 482.2 130.1 2.54 1.26 14.9
99.61 52.1 461.0 127.2 2.42 1.26 14.8
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES? 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 26 HC FAILURES, 27 CO FAILURES, 20.2% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.0
BUICK
13
0.08
0.3
3.03
8.7
0.5
2.7 -0.02
.07
-0.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
0.16
1.0
1.27
7.4
-3.6
18.2 0.07
.34
0.0
CHRYSLER
6
2.55
3.4
29.04
35.0
-32.6
38.7 -0.37
.46
-0.4
DATSUN
3
-1.69
3.8
-4.51
16.6
-53.9
46.7 0.03
.25
3.5
DODGE
15
0.09
0.4
2.03
7.8
-1.1
4.3 -0.00
.01
-0.1
FORD
66
0.14
0.5
1.58
6.9
0.8
14.4 0.04
.32
-0.1
MERCURY
11
0.50
0.9
5.62
10.3
-13.7
23.5 -0.05
.11
0.1
OLDSMOBILE
11
0.10
0.2
-7.54
42.6
0.7
16.3 -0.06
.14
0.1
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0.0
11.2
0.0 0.48
0.00
-0.9
PLYMOUTH
24
0.83
2.1
10.85
27.6
-9.9
23.0 -0.12
.40
-0.2
PONTIAC
19
0.17
0.9
4.71
17.0
-3.0
10.8 -0.07
.29
-0.1
TOYOTA
5
0.19
0.4
5.35
12.0
-4.6
10.2 -0.14
.30
-0.2
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.02
0.1
-0.23
3.4
-0.5
1.7 0.01
.09
0.0
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0-0
1961
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1962
4
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1963
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1964
10
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1965
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1966
15
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1967
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968
22
0.32
1.1
5.51
18.1
-5.0
16.1
-0.01
.20
-o.i
1969
24
1.27
2.7
11.23
25.2
-9.8
37.7
0.12
.84
-0.2
1970
25
0.34
1.4
4.10
12.8
-5.6
15.4
-0.07
.26
-o.o
197 J
32
0.02
0.1
1.25
6.4
-1.8
7.2
0.01
.03
0.0
1972
28
0.27
0.9
6.71
19.7
-7.5
21.7
-0.06
.28
-0.1
1973
35
0.08
1.3
3.55
13.5
-3.6
19.1
-0.04
.13
0.1
1974
37
0.15
0.4
-2.32
22.2
-2.7
17.1
0.02
.12
0.1
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
151
40
0.02
1.1
0.63
7.6
-6.3
18.7
0.01
.19
0.3
151 - 250
38
0.21
0.7
3.83
15.5
-2.4
11.7
0.03
.33
-0.1
251 - 350
115
0.22
1.1
2.96
11.4
-2.7
17.0
0.01
.32
-0.1
MORE THAN
350
77
0.37
1.4
3.22
22.6
-4.2
20.3
-0.06
.25
-0.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
1968 - 1974
ALL VEHICLES
A-32
46
0.02
1.0
0.55
7.1
-5.5
17.5 0.01
.17
0.2
118
0.25
0.9
4.09
14.0
-2.4
13.5 0.01
.26
-0.1
94
0.33
1.5
4.05
15.4
-5.1
22.2 -0.03
.37
-0.0
12
0.03
0.1
-10.75
37.2
3.3
11.5 -0.01
.05
0.1
67
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.0
203
0.31
1.3
3.74
17.9
-4.8
20.2 -0.00
.33
-0.0
270
0.23
1.1
2.81
15.6
-3.6
17.6 -0.00
.29
-o.o
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
26 HC FAILURES, 27 CO FAILURES, 20.2% FAILURE RATE
PERCENT REDUCTIONS
HC CO NOX MPG
MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
HC CO NOX
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.
,00
0
.00
0.
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0,
.0
BUICK
13
0.
.96
2
.28
-1.
.30
-0.94
10.7
395.1
-3,
.1
CADILLAC
6
0.
,00
0
.00
0.
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0,
.0
CHEVROLET
55
2.
.33
1
.25
3.
,35
Oc 33
24.0
195.1
11,
.4
CHRYSLER
6
32.
.29
25
.32
-11.
,73
-3.12
138.3
1575.7
-20,
.0
DATSUN
3
-33.
.98
-8
.15
1.
.76
13.41
-267.2
-712.7
4,
.1
DODGE
15
1.
.40
2
.08
-0.
.09
-0.48
22.0
478.7
-0,
.7
FORD
66
2.
.18
1
.69
1.
.50
-0.53
26.7
305.6
8,
.0
MERCURY
11
7.
.79
5
.47
-2.
.02
0.49
70.0
779.9
-7,
.5
OLDSMOBILE
11
1.
.22
-4
.50
-3,
.36
0.54
21.1
-1565.8 Ĥ
-11,
.8
OPEL
1
24.
.97
4
.51
22,
.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21,
.7
PLYMOUTH
24
8.
.44
8
.93
-5.
,33
-1.61
157.9
2073.2
-22,
.8
PONTIAC
19
1.
,95
4
.42
-2.
,43
-0.82
28.8
798.6
-11,
.7
TOYOTA
5
4,
,48
8
.61
-5.
,14
-0.87
37.0
1048.9
-26,
.6
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.
.25
-0
.29
0.
,64
0.18
3.2
-49.1
2,
.4
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
2
0.00
0.00
0.00.
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
5.22
5.31
-0.22
-0.90
25.7
443.0
-0.5
24
17.32
11.25
3.65
-1.62
167.4
1482.4
15.5
25
6.48
4.86
-2.30
-0.24
53.4
649.1
-10.8
32
0.31
1.59
0.18
0.06
2.9
236.9
1.1
28
5.24
6.88
-2.47
-0.65
41.8
1020.8
-9.6
35
1.43
3.38
-1.81
0.56
16.7
737.4
-7.7
37
3.46
-2.85
1.49
0.98
30.0
-459.6
4.9
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
^POPULATIONS
I960 - 1967
1968 - 1974
ALL VEHICLES
40
0.37
0.87
0.76
1.20
3.6
114.4
2.7
38
3.49
3.98
1.10
-0.70
28.2
505.2
3.6
115
2.72
2.69
0.66
-0.42
38.6
531.3
2.7
77
5.66
2.94
-1.97
-0.41
65.4
563.0
-9.8
46
0.33
0.75
0.62
1.08
3.3
103.1
2.4
118
3.76
3.96
0.53
-0.69
43.4
696.2
2.0
94
4.11
3.59
-1.07
-0.36
52.0
632.7
-4.7
12
0.52
-8.41
-0.55
1.26
6.6
-2528.3
-3.1
67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0
203 5.65 4.06 -0.19 -0.12 47.3
270 3.35 2.75 -0.15 -0.09 39.3
572.5
477.7
0.0
-0.7
Ĥ0.6
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES? 41 HC FAILURES, 40 CO FAILURES, 30.0% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4,
.33
1.5
77,
.86
28,
.6
420.
.1
80.
.0
2,
.69
1,
.66
16.2
BUICK
13
8,
.50
6.9
129,
.86
83
.8
468,
.1
126,
.5
1,
.84
1,
.28
12.8
CADILLAC
6
4,
.28
1.4
127.
.12
47
.2
726,
.7
63,
.9
1,
.90
.28
9.5
CHEVROLET
55
6.
.58
4.0
99,
.50
43
.5
473.
.0
108,
.0
2,
.16
1
.08
14.2
CHRYSLER
6
5.
,34
0.7
85.
,66
18,
.6
580.
.3
58.
.6
3,
.50
1.
.02
12.2
DATSUN
3
6.
.79
4.9
65,
.86
13,
.5
307.
.7
48,
.0
1,
.37
.37
20.8
DODGE
15
6.
.59
4.4
95,
.62
17,
.6
456.
.7
66,
.5
3,
.03
l!
.13
14.3
FORD
66
6.
,17
2.4
91,
.22
32,
.8
483.
,1
110.
.4
2,
.72
1,
.29
14.4
MERCURY
11
5,
.77
2.9
90,
.35
52,
.2
546,
.1
114,
.2
2
.84
1,
.72
12.8
OLDSMOBILE
11
8,
.26
5.3
175,
.34
145,
.1
522,
.4
81,
.8
1,
.74
1,
.05
11.5
OPEL
1
3.
,24
0.0
85,
.76
0,
.0
301.
.5
0,
.0
1,
.64
0,
.00
19.9
PLYMOUTH
24
8.
,84
16.4
106.
,66
35,
.3
448.
.9
87,
.7
2,
.39
1,
.16
14.1
PONTIAC
19
8,
,66
6.6
105,
.93
51,
.3
532.
.3
91.
.7
2,
.79
1,
.55
12.3
TOYOTA
5
3.
,77
0.2
52,
.83
20,
.9
309,
.1
29,
.3
2,
.98
1,
.12
22.2
VOLKSWAGON
23
5.
.95
2.3
80,
.04
27
.4
249.
.9
36,
.9
1,
.73
.78
22.8
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15
.5
117.36
6.6
500
.9
55
.0
2,
.30
.15
12.
.0
1961
2
16.05
3
.1
184.44
87.4
425
.2
20
.6
2,
.34
1,
.96
11.
,7
1962
4
11.87
7
.7
142.07
90.1
452
.2
103
.9
2,
.98
1,
.86
12,
.6
1963
5
11.44
5
.2
117.36
44.0
393
.7
125
.5
2,
.12
1,
.53
15.
.1
1964
10
8.95
2
.9
129.13
37.8
370
.8
78
.5
1,
.97
.68
15,
.3
1965
13
10.17
5
.3
131.33
48.9
330
.6
72
.8
1,
,52
.82
16.
.5
1966
15
15.79
20
.2
139.02
45.1
394
.6
71
.7
1,
.99
l!
.32
13.
,9
1967
16
8.36
2
.4
130.78
49.4
439
.2
99
.1
2,
.37
i,
.33
13.
.6
1968
22
5.89
1
.4
101.28
43.6
486
.5
114
.2
2,
.56
l
.15
14.
.1
1969
24
5.95
1
.5
88.31
33.7
440
.9
90
.8
3,
.02
i,
.49
15,
.6
1970
25
4.96
1
.1
79.45
33.5
480
.1
102
.0
3
.04
l,
.20
14,
.9
1971
32
4.96
1
.1
76.08
26.0
453
.6
133
.8
3,
.11
l,
.38
16,
.0
1972
28
4.81
1
.2
87.60
29.7
504
.5
136
.7
2,
.70
i.
.07
14.
,4
1973
35
5.47
3
.4
99.59
83.0
508
.0
144
.7
2,
.10
l,
.23
14.
,1
1974
37
4.20
1
.5
82.92
48.4
502
.4
151
.0
1,
.65
.64
15.
.0
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
5.30
2.3
71.88
25.8
275 .0
44.2
1.95
.86
22.2
151 - 250
38
5.89
3.8
91.57
45.3
375.3
61.6
2.47
1.33
16.8
251 - 350
115
7.72
8.3
106.93
44.8
471.2
74.9
2.23
1.15
13.6
MORE THAN 350
77
6.18
4.1
104.66
68.9
590.0
86.1
2.93
1.44
11.7
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.21
2.3
71.91
25.3
292.1
69.4
2.08
1.07
21.6
2800 - 3799
118
6.51
3.7
98.16
44.0
437.9
77.9
2.24
1.16
14.7
3800 - 4799
94
7.75
9.2
108.68
63.2
546.9
83.4
2.81
1.44
12.1
4800 - 5799
12
5.22
1.9
133.60
67.1
696.5
78.1
2.48
.95
9.7
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
67
11.37
10.5
133.36
48.4
396.7
92.6
2.08
1.21
14.4
1968 - 1974
203
5.11
1.9
87.56
48.3
484.2
130.2
2.54
1.27
14.9
ALL VEHICLES
270
6.66
6.1
98.92
52.2
462.5
127.6
2.42
1.27
14.8
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 41 HC FAILURES, 40 CO FAILURES, 30.0% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.01
0.1
0.13
0
.4
-0
.4
1.3
0,
.04
.13
0.0
BUICK
13
0.08
0.3
3.03
8
.7
0
.5
2.7
-0.
.02
.07
-0.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0
.0
0
.0
0.0
o.
.00
0.00
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
0.14
1.1
2.16
8
.4
-5
.2
19.3
0,
.06
.35
0.1
CHRYSLER
6
2.55
3.4
29.04
35
.0
-32
.6
38.7
-o.
.37
.46
-0.4
DATSUN
3
-1.81
3.8
-10.50
17
.3
-64
.5
28.3
o,
.12
.29
4.9
DODGE
15
0.04
0.5
1.70
11
.0
2
.3
13.3
0
.07
.20
-0.1
FORD
66
0.18
0.6
2.23
8
.6
0
.6
14.4
0,
.04
.32
-0.1
MERCURY
11
0.69
1.0
12.35
18
.4
-25
.5
30.1
-0
.15
.29
0.1
OLDSMOBILE
11
0.10
0.2
-7.54
42
.6
0
.7
16.3
-0
.06
.14
0.1
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0
.0
11
.2
0.0
0.
.48
0.00
-0.9
PLYMOUTH
24
0.96
2.1
14.82
28
.9
-12
.2
26.1
-0
.16
.42
-0.3
PONTIAC
19
0.06
1.1
0.62
27
.2
-4
.9
14.0
0
.04
.56
0.1
TOYOTA
5
0.44
0.5
9.28
11
.0
-22
.6
25.5
-0
.34
.42
0.6
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.07
0.2
-0.03
3
.5
-0
.8
4.6
-0
.01
.12
0.0
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
4
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
10
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o.o
15
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
22
0.24
1.2
2.48
23.9
-6.5
16.7
0.07
.34
-0.0
24
1.37
2.7
11.57
29.1
-9.1
39.8
0.20
.89
-0.3
25
0.25
1.6
4.96
12.9
-8.2
17.5
-0.08
.26
0.0
32
0.05
0.2
2.52
8.7
-5.4 .
17.8
0.01
.09
0.2
28
0.42
1.0
9.86
21.9
-12.7
25.7
-0.13
.36
-0.1
35
0.13
1.3
5.27
16.5
-4.5
20.4
-0.07
.18
0.0
37
0.18
0.4
-1.39
23.0
-3.4
17.5
0.01
.15
0.1
40
0.08
1.1
0.78
8.4
-9.5
21.3 -0.01
.25
0.5
38
0.24
0.7
4.69
15.7
-2.9
14.8 0.03
.34
-0.1
115
0.20
1.1
3.13
12.8
-3.3
18.9 0.03
.36
-0.1
77
0.44
1.5
4.88
26.3
-6.5
22.5 -0.07
.32
-0.1
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799 46 0.07 1.0 0.68 7.9 -8.3 20.1 -0.01 .23 0.4
2800 - 3799 118 0.27 1.0 5.03 14.8 -3.2 16.4 0.02 .28 -0.1
3800 - 4799 94 0.34 1.5 4.15 19.1 -6.2 22.9 -0.02 .43 -0.0
4800 - 5799 12 0.21 0.6 -5.88 42.2 -2.9 25.2 -0.09 .28 0.1
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 67 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0
1968- 1974 203 0.34 1.4 4.66 20.2 -6.8 22.7-0.01 .39 0.0
ALL VEHICLES 270 0.26 1.2 3.50 17.6 -5.1 19.9 -0.00 .33 0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
41 HC FAILURES, 40 CO FAILURES, 30.0% FAILURE RATE
PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.33
0.16
1.38
0.03
3.0
26.0
7.8
BUICK
13
0.96
2.28
-1.30
-0.94
10.7
395.1
-3.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
2.10
2.13
2.91
0.40
20.4
313.3
9.4
CHRYSLER
6
32.29
25.32
-11.73
-3.12
138.3
1575.7
-20.0
DATSUN
3
-36.35
-18.96
8.09
19.09
-111.3
-645.1
7.4
DODGE
15
0.54
1.75
2.13
-1.00
7.1
335.5
13.0
FORD
66
2.81
2.39
1.48
-0.69
34.2
427.9
7.8
MERCURY
11
10.70
12.03
-5.63
0.81
85.3
1522.8
-18.7
OLDSMOBILE
11
1.22
-4.50
-3.36
0.54
21.1
-1565.8
-11.8
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
9.81
12.20
-7.11
-2.14
170.6
2632.2
-28.2
PONTIAC
19
0.72
0.58
1.54
0.45
8.8
86.8
6.1
TOYOTA
5
10.43
14.94
-12.89
2.79
62.1
1310.3
-48.1
VOLKSWAGON
23
1.22
-0.04
-0.32
0.09
15.0
-6.7
-1.1
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800
2800
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
3.86
2.39
2.69
-0.12
17.3
181.1
5.2
24
18.73
11.58
6.28
-1.81
162.7
1371.7
24.0
25
4.75
5.87
-2.81
0.06
36.1
723.3
-12.1
32
1.01
3.21
0.35
1.32
7.4
368.6
1.6
28
8.11
10.11
-5.18
-0.52
60.1
1394.2
-18.8
35
2.32
5.02
-3.33
0.23
26.0
1053.8
-13.6
37
4.16
-1.71
0.54
0.89
35.5
-271.6
1.8
40
1.42
1.08
-0.69
2.09
11.5
118.0
-2.0
38
3.87
4.87
1.31
-0.77
29.3
580.3
4.1
115
2.52
2.85
1.38
-0.37
33.8
529.8
5.3
77
6.69
4.45
-2.45
-0.48
72.3
795.9
-11.4
2799
46
1.25
0.94
-0.56
1.88
10.5
108.2
-1.8
3799
118
3.95
4.88
0.79
-0.80
42.5
799.7
2.8
4799
94
4.21
3.68
-0.59
-0.21
50.2
613.3
-2.4
5799
12
3.82
-4.60
-3.90
1.07
44.8
-1270.3
-20.1
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0
1968 - 1974 203 6.25 5.05 -0.21 0.13 47.4 649.0 -0.7
ALL VEHICLES 270 3.70 3.42 -0.17 0.10 40.1 548.1 -0.6
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES;
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
63 HC FAILURES, 61 CO FAILURES, 39.9% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.31
1.5
76.82
27.7
423.6
80.7
2.70
1.65
16.1
BUICK
13
8.46
6.9
129.38
83.8
472.7
127.7
1.87
1.29
12.8
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1.4
127.12
47.2
726.7
63.9
1.90
.28
9.5
CHEVROLET
55
6.57
4.1
99.20
43.7
473.6
108.0
2.17
1.08
14.2
CHRYSLER
6
5.34
0.7
85.66
18.6
580.3
58.6
3.50
1.02
12.2
DATSUN
3
6.79
4.9
65.86
13.5
307.7
48.0
1.37
.37
20.8
DODGE
15
6.32
4.3
93.05
19.0
453.7
69.8
3.01
1.12
14.5
FORD
66
6.11
2.3
89.90
31.2
485.1
109.9
2.71
1.28
14.3
MERCURY
11
5.77
2.9
90.35
52.2
546.1
114.2
2.84
1.72
12.8
OLDSMOBILE
11
8.26
5.3
175.34
145.1
522.4
81.8
1.74
1.05
11.5
OPEL
1
3.24
0.0
85.76
0.0
301.5
0.0
1.64
0.00
19.9
PLYMOUTH
24
8.80
16.4
105.49
35.3
449.2
87.8
2.39
1.17
14.2
PONTIAC
19
8.66
6.6
105.93
51.3
532.3
91.7
2.79
1.55
12.3
TOYOTA
5
3.77
0.2
52.83
20.9
309.1
29.3
2.98
1.12
22.2
VOLKSWAGON
23
6.02
2.7
80.15
26.8
250.6
38.5
1.75
.80
22.7
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15,
.5
117,
.36
6
.6
- 500.
9
55
.0
2,
.30
.15
12
.0
1961
2
16.05
3,
.1
184,
.44
87
.4
425.
2
20,
.6
2,
.34
1
.96
11
.7
1962
4
11.87
7,
.7
142,
.07
90.
.1
452.
2
103,
.9
2,
.98
1.
.86
12
.6
1963
5
11.44
5.
.2
117,
.36
44,
.0
393.
7
125,
.5
2,
.12
1.
.53
15
.1
1964
10
8.95
2,
.9
129.
.13
37.
.8
370.
8
78,
.5
1,
.97
.68
15
.3
1965
13
10.17
5
.3
131
.33
48,
.9
330-
6
72,
.8
1,
.52
.82
16
.5
1966
15
15.79
20
.2
139
.02
45,
.1
394.
6
71,
.7
1,
.99
1
.32
13
.9
1967
16
8.36
2
.4
130,
.78
49,
.4
439.
2
99,
.1
2,
.37
1,
.33
13
.6
1968
22
5.89
1.
.4
101.
.28
43.
.6
486.
5
114.
.2
2.
.56
1.
.15
14
. 1
1969
24
5.77
1.
.2
86.
.80
33,
.1
444.
0
92.
.7
3,
.07
1.
.49
15
.6
1970
25
4.96
1
.1
78,
.96
33,
.8
480.
3
101
.7
3.
.01
1,
.20
, 15
.0
1971
32
4.95
1
.1
75,
.22
25,
.3
454.
7
132,
.6
3,
.09
1,
.36
16
.0
1972
28
4.72
1.
.0
85,
.83
27
.2
505.
3
138
.0
2,
.70
1,
.05
14
.4
1973
35
5.47
3.
.5
97.
,81
82,
.2
509.
0
145,
.0
2.
.10
1.
.23
14
.2
1974
37
4.17
1.
.5
82,
.95
48.
.6
504.
4
149,
.7
1.
.68
.65
14
.8
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
5.36
2.6
151 - 250
38
5.88
3.9
251 - 350
115
7.68
8.3
MORE THAN 350
77
6.10
4.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.27
2.5
2800 - 3799
118
6.47
3.7
3800 - 4799
94
7.68
9.2
4800 - 5799
12
5.22
1.9
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
67
11.37
10.5
1968 - 1974
203
5.06
1.9
ALL VEHICLES
270
6.63
6.1
AUTOMOTIVE '
72.12 25.3 276.1 45.2 1.95 .86 22.1
91.32 45.1 374.7 61.7 2.46 1.33 16.8
105.92 45.0 473.2 75.4 2.24 1.14 13.6
103.73 68.6 589.9 86.2 2.93 1.44 11.8
72.13 24.8 293.1 69.7 2.09 1.07 21.5
97.17 44.1 438.9 78.8 2.23 1.14 14.7
107.84 62.9 547.8 82.9 2.82 1.45 12.2
133.60 67.1 696.5 78.1 2.48 .95 9.7
133.36 48.4 396.7 92.6 2.08 1.21 14.4
86.64 47.9 485.4 130.1 2.54 1.27 14.9
98.23 52.0 463.4 127.6 2.42 1.27 14.8
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. §00li
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLESr 63 HC FAILURES, 61 CO FAILURES, 39.9% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.04
0.1
1.16
3.6
-3
.9
12.0
0.03
.14
0.0
BUICK
13
0.12
0.3
3.52
8.7
-4
.1
17.0
-0.06
.13
-0.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
0.15
1.1
2.46
8.6
-5
.8
19.6
0.06
.35
0.1
CHRYSLER
6
2.55
3.4
29.04
35.0
-32
.6
38.7
-0.37
.46
-0.4
DATSUN
3
-1.81
3.8
-10.50
17.3
-64
.5
28.3
0.12
.29
4.9
DODGE
15
0.31
0.9
4.27
12.1
5
.3
15.5
0.09
.35
-0.4
FORD
66
0.24
0.8
3.55
14.5
-1
.4
17.4
0.05
.35
-0.1
MERCURY
11
0.69
1.0
12.35
18.4
-25
.5
30.1
-0.15
.29
0.1
OLDSMOBILE
11
0.10
0.2
-7.54
42.6
0
.7
16.3
-0.06
.14
0.1
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0.0
11
.2
0.0
0.48
0.00
-0.9
PLYMOUTH
24
1.00
2.1
16.00
28.6
-12
.4
26.0
-0.16
.42
-0.3
PONTIAC
19
0.06
1.1
0.62
27.2
-4
.9
14.0
0.04
.56
0.1
TOYOTA
5
0.44
0.5
9.28
11.0
-22
.6
25.5
-0.34
.42
0.6
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.00
1.0
-0.14
4.4
-1
.5
10.4
-0.03
.18
0.1
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
4
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
10
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
15
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
22
0.24
1.2
2.48
23.9
-6.5
16.7
0.07
.34
-0.0
24
1.56
2.7
13.08
28.8
-12.1
40.9
0.15
.92
-0.3
25
0.26
1.6
5.45
13.6
-8.4
19.3
-0.05
.32
-0.0
32
0.06
0.3
3.38
9.3
-6.6
19.5
0.03
.23
0.3
28
0.52
1.0
11.62
22.4
-13.5
27.1
-0.14
.36
-o.i
35
0.13
1.5
7.04
16.9
-5.5
22.0
-0.06
.20
-0.0
37
0.21
0.7
-1.43
26.7
-5.4
19.1
-0.02
.19
0.2
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
40
0.01
1.3
0.54
8.8
-10.6
22.4 -0.02
.27
0.6
38
0.24
0.7
4.93
15.7
-2.3
15.4 0.04
.34
-0.2
115
0.24
1.2
4.14
15.5
-5.4
21.1 0.02
.38
-0.0
77
0.52
1.5
5.80
26.4
-6.4
22.7 -0.07
.35
-0.1
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
0.01
1.2
0.47
8.2
-9.3
21.1 -0.01
.25
0.5
2800 - 3799
118
0.31
1.0
6.02
17.0
-4.2
18.5 0.02
.31
-0.1
3800 - 4799
94
0.41
1.6
5.00
19.3
-7.1
23.5 -0.03
.44
-0.0
4800 - 5799
12
0.21
0.6
-5.88
42.2
-2.9
25.2 -0.09
.28
0.1
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 67
1968 - 1974 203
ALL VEHICLES 270
0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0
0.38 1.5 5.58 21.3 -8.0 24.0 -0.01 .41 0.0
0.29 1.3 4.19 16.6 -6.0 21.1 -0.01 .35 0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
63 HC FAILURES, 61 CO FAILURES, 39.9% FAILURE RATE
PERCENT REDUCTIONS-
HC CO NOX
MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
MPG HC CO NOX
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.83
1.49
0.97
0.30
7.1
228.2
5.2
BUICK
13
1.42
2.65
-3.08
-0.43
14.7
426.3
-6.8
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
2.29
2.42
2.51
0.41
22.2
353.8
8.1
CHRYSLER
6
32.29
25.32
-11.73
-3.12
138.3
1575.7
-20.0
DATSUN
3
-36.35
-18.96
8.09
19.09
-111.3
-645.1
7.4
DODGE
15
4.63
4.39
2.85
-2.57
52.6
732.3
15.1
FORD
66
3.72
3.80
1.71
-0.42
37.0
556.7
7.4
MERCURY
11
10.70
12.03
-5.63
0.81
85.3
1522.8
-18.7
OLDSMOBILE
11
1.22
-4.50
-3.36
0.54
21.1
-1565.8
-11.8
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
10.22
13.17
-7.11
-2.38
165.7
2645.1
-26.3
PONTIAC
19
0.72
0.58
1.54
0.45
8.8
86.8
6.1
TOYOTA
5
10.43
14.94
-12.89
2.79
62.1
1310.3
-48.1
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.03
-0.17
-1.48
0.53
0.4
-25.2
-4.7
VOLVO
0
~MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
*INERTIA WEIGHT
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
4
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
10
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
13
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.o'o
0.0
0.0
0.0
15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
22
3.86
2.39
2.69
-0.12
17.3
181.1
5.2
24
21.24
13.10
4.61
-1.84
142.1
1194.6
13.6
25
4.90
6.46
-1.78
-0.06
34.8
743.5
-7.2
32
1.22
4.30
1.04
1.61
8.3
460.4
4.4
28
9.88
11.93
-5.30
-0.89
70.1
1576.5
-18.5
35
2.38
6.72
-2.95
-0.04
24.6
1299.0
-11.1
37
4.83
-1.75
-1.21
1.62
38.7
-261.2
-3.7
40
0.16
0.74
-0.88
2.62
1.2
77.1
-2.4
38
3.98
5.13
1.47
-0.94
29.5
598.7
4.5
115
3.06
3.76
1.03
-0.31
38.8
664.4
3.7
77
7.93
5.29
-2.37
-0.76
75.1
829.7
-9.7
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
46
118
94
12
0.14
4.54
5.09
3.82
0.65
5.84
4.43
-4.60
-0.72
0.97
-0.99
-3.90
2.35
-0.88
-0.31
1.07
1.1
46.5
54.7
44.8
71.0
910.4
663.9
-1270.3
-2.2
3.3
-3.7
-20.1
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
1968 - 1974
ALL VEHICLES
67
203
270
0.00
7.04
4.17
0.00
6.05
4.09
0.00
-0.35
-0.28
0.00
0.21
0.16
0.0
49.3
42.1
0.0
716.2
612.4
0.0
-1.1
-1.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
59 HC FAILURES, 64 CO FAILURES, 40.4% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.
,32
1.5
78.
.24
28,
.3
428,
.3
73,
.9
2,
.72
1.64
15,
.8
BUICK
13
8,
.46
6.9
129,
.38
83,
.8
472
.7
127,
.7
1,
.87
1.29
12
.8
CADILLAC
6
4.
.28
1.4
127,
,12
47.
.2
726,
.7
63,
.9
1,
.90
.28
9,
,5
CHEVROLET
55
6.
.57
4.1
99.
.20
43,
.7
473,
.6
108,
.0
2,
.17
1.08
14,
.2
CHRYSLER
6
5,
.34
0.7
85,
.66
18,
.6
580,
.3
58,
.6
3,
.50
1.02
12,
.2
DATSUN
3
6.
,79
4.9
65.
,86
13,
.5
307,
.7
48,
.0
1,
.37
.37
20,
.8
DODGE
15
6.
.32
4.3
93,
.05
19,
.0
453,
.7
69,
.8
3,
.01
1.12
14.
,5
FORD
66
6,
.11
2.3
89,
,90
31,
.2
485,
.1
109,
.9
2,
.71
1.28
14,
.3
MERCURY
11
5,
.77
2.9
90,
,35
52,
.2
546,
.1
114,
.2
2,
.84
1.72
12,
.8
OLDSMOBILE
11
8,
.26
5.3
175,
,34
145,
,1
522,
.4
81,
.8
1,
.74
1.05
11,
.5
OPEL
1
3.
.24
0.0
85,
,76
0,
.0
301
.5
0,
.0
1,
.64
0.00
19,
.9
PLYMOUTH
24
8.
.80
16.4
105.
,49
35,
.3
449,
.2
87,
.8
2,
.39
1.17
14,
,2
PONTIAC
19
8.
,66
6.6
105.
,93
51.
.3
532,
.3
91.
.7
2,
.79
1.55
12,
,3
TOYOTA
5
3,
.77
0.2
52,
,83
20,
.9
309,
.1
29,
.3
2,
.98
1.12
22,
.2
VOLKSWAGON
23
6.
.02
2.7
80.
,15
26.
.8
250,
.6
38,
.5
1,
.75
.80
22,
.7
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15.5
117.36
6
.6
500,
.9
55
.0
2
.30
.15
12
.0
1961
2
16.05
3.1
184.44
87
.4
425.
,2
20
.6
2
.34
1,
.96
11
.7
1962
4
11.87
7.7
142.07
90
.1
452,
.2
103
.9
2
.98
1,
.86
12
.6
1963
5
11.44
5.2
117.36
44
.0
393,
.7
125
.5
2
.12
1,
.53
15
.1
1964
10
8.95
2.9
129.13
37
.8
370,
.8
78
.5
1
.97
.68
15
.3
1965
13
10.17
5.3
131.33
48
.9
330.
.6
72
.8
1
.52
.82
16
.5
1966
15
15.79
20.2
139.02
45
.1
394,
.6
71
.7
1
.99
1
.32
13
.9
1967
16
8.36
2.4
130.78
49
.4
439,
.2
99
.1
2
.37
1
.33
13
.6
1968
22
5.89
1.4
101.28
43
.6
486
.5
114
.2
2
.56
1
.15
14
.1
1969
24
5.77
1.2
86.80
33
.1
444
.0
92
.7
3
.07
1
.49
15
.6
1970
25
4.96
1.1
78.96
33
.8
480.
.3
101
.7
3
.01
1,
.20
15
.0
1971
32
4.95
1.0
75.76
25
.6
456,
.5
130
.8
3
.10
1,
.36
15
.9
1972
28
4.72
1.0
85.83
27
.2
505,
.3
138
.0
2
.70
1
.05
14
.4
1973
35
5.47
3.5
97.81
82
.2
509,
.0
145
.0
2
.10
1
.23
14
.2
1974
37
4.17
1.5
82.95
48
.6
504,
.4
149
.7
1
.68
.65
14
.8
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
5.36
2.6
151 - 250
38
5.88
3.9
251 - 350
115
7.68
8.3
MORE THAN 350
77
6.10
4.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.27
2.5
2800 - 3799
118
6.47
3.7
3800 - 4799
94
7.68
9.2
4800 - 5799
12
5.22
1.9
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
67
11.37
10.5
1968 - 1974
203
5.07
1.9
ALL VEHICLES
270
6.63
6.1
AUTOMOTIVE 1
72.12 25.3 276.1 45.2 1.95 .86 22.1
91.32 45.1 374.7 61.7 2.46 1.33 16.8
106.07 44.9 473.7 74.4 2.24 1.14 13.5
103.73 68.6 589.9 86.2 2.93 1.44 11.8
72.50 25.0 294.3 70.3 2.09 1.07 21.4
97.17 44.1 438.9 78.8 2.23 1.14 14.7
107.84 62.9 547.8 82.9 2.82 1.45 12.2
133.60 67.1 696.5 78.1 2.48 .95 9.7
133.36 48.4 396.7 92.6 2.08 1.21 14.4
86.73 47.9 485.7 129.7 2.54 1.27 14.9
98.30 52.0 463.6 127.4 2.43 1.27 14.8
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 59 HC FAILURES, 64 CO FAILURES, 40.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.02
0.1
-0.26
6.
.4
-8
.6
19.4
0.01
.15
0.3
BUICK
13
0.12
0.3
3.52
8.
.7
-4
.1
17.0
-0.06
.13
-0.1
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.
.0
0
.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
0.15
1.1
2.46
8,
.6
-5
.8
19.6
0.06
.35
0.1
CHRYSLER
6
2.55
3.4
29.04
35.
.0
-32
.6
38.7
-0.37
.46
-0.4
DATSUN
3
-1.81
3.8
-10.50
17,
.3
-64
.5
28.3
0.12
.29
4.9
DODGE
15
0.31
0.9
4.27
12
.1
5
.3
15.5
0.09
.35
-0.4
FORD
66
0.24
0.8
3.55
14.
.5
-1
.4
17.4
0.05
.35
-0.1
MERCURY
11
0.69
1.0
12.35
18.
.4
-25
.5
30.1
-0.15
.29
0.1
OLDSMOBILE
11
0.10
0.2
-7.54
42.
.6
0
.7
16.3
-0.06
.14
0.1
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0,
.0
11
.2
0.0
0.48
0.00
-0.9
PLYMOUTH
24
1.00
2.1
16.00
28,
.6
-12
.4
26.0
-0.16
.42
-0.3
PONTIAC
19
0.06
1.1
0.62
27,
.2
-4
.9
14.0
0.04
.56
0.1
TOYOTA
5
0.44
0.5
9.28
11,
.0
-22
.6
25.5
-0.34
.42
0.6
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.00
1.0
-0.14
4,
.4
-1
.5
10.4
-0.03
.18
0.1
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN
151 - 250
251 - 350
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
1968 - 1974
ALL VEHICLES
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
4
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
10
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
13
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
15
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
16
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
22
0.24
1.2
2.48
23.9
-6.5
16.7
0.07
.34
-0.0
24
1.56
2.7
13.08
28.8
-12.1
40.9
0.15
.92
-0.3
25
0.26
1.6
5.45
13.6
-8.4
19.3
-0.05
.32
-0.0
32
0.06
0.3
2.84
10.0
-8.3
21.4
0.03
.23
0.4
28
0.52
1.0
11.62
22.4
-13.5
27.1
-0.14
.36
-o.i
35
0.13
1.5
7.04
16.9
-5.5
22.0
-0.06
.20
-0.0
37
0.21
0.7
-1.43
26.7
-5.4
19.1
-0.02
.19
0.2
151
40
0.01
1.3
0.54
8.8
-10.6
22.4 -0.02
.27
0.6
38
0.24
0.7
4.93
15.7
-2.3
15.4 0.04
.34
-0.2
350
115
0.24
1.2
3.99
15.6
-5.9
21.6 0.02
.38
-0.0
77
0.52
1.5
5.80
26.4
-6.4
22.7 -0.07
.35
-0.1
46
0.00
1.2
0.10
8.6
-10.5
22.2 -0.02
.26
0.6
118
0.31
1.0
6 .02
17.0
-4.2
18.5 0.02
.31
-0.1
94
0.41
1.6
5.00
19.3
-7.1
23.5 -0.03
.44
-0.0
12
0.21
0.6
-5.88
42.2
-2.9
25.2 -0.09
.28
0.1
67
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.0
203
0.38
1.5
5.49
21.4
-8 = 3
24.2 -O.Oi
.41
0.0
270
0.29
1.3
4.13
18.7
-6.2
21.3 -0.01
.35
0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES; 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES? 59 HC FAILURES, 64 CO FAILURES, 40.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.52
-0.34
0
.48
2.02
4.3
-50.0
2.5
BUICK
13
1.42
2.65
-3
.08
-0.43
14.7
426.3
-6.8
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0
.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
2.29
2.42
2
.51
0.41
22.2
353.8
8.1
CHRYSLER
6
32.29
25.32
-11
.73
-3.12
138.3
1575.7
-20.0
DATSUN
3
-36.35
-18.96
8
.09
19.09
-111.3
-645.1
7.4
DODGE
15
4.63
4.39
2
.85
-2.57
52.6
732.3
15.1
FORD
66
3.72
3.80
1
.71
-0.42
37.0
556.7
7.4
MERCURY
11
10.70
12.03
-5
.63
0.81
85.3
1522.8
-18.7
OLDSMOBILE
11
1.22
-4.50
-3
.36
0.54
21.1
-1565.8
-11.8
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22
.51
-4.71
49.1
184.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
10.22
13.17
-7
.11
-2.38
165.7
2645.1
-26.3
PONTIAC
19
0.72
0.58
1
.54
0.45
8.8
86.8
6.1
TOYOTA
5
10.43
14.94
-12
.89
2.79
62.1
1310.3
-48.1
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.03
-0.17
-1
.48
0.53
0.4
-25.2
-4.7
VOLVO 0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1961
2
0.00
0.
.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1962
4
0.00
0.
.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1963
5
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1964
10
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1965
13
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1966
15
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1967
16
0.00
0,
.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
22
3.86
2.
.39
2.69
-0.12
17.3
181.1
5.2
1969
24
21.24
13,
.10
4.61
-1.84
142.1
1194.6
13.6
1970
25
4.90
6.
.46
-1.78
-0.06
34.8
743.5
-7.2
1971
32
1.12
3,
.62
0.88
2.25
7.6
384.4
3.7
1972
28
9.88
11,
.93
-5.30
-0.89
70.1
1576.5
-18.5
1973
35
2.38
6,
.72
-2.95
-0.04
24.6
1299.0
-11.1
1974
37
4.83
-1.
.75
-1.21
1.62
38.7
-261.2
-3.7
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
0.16
0.74
-0.88
2.62
1.2
77.1
-2.4
151 - 250
38
3.98
5.13
1.47
-0.94
29.5
598.7
4.5
251 - 350
115
3.04
3.63
0.97
-0.09
38.5
638.8
3.5
MORE THAN 350
77
7.93
5.29
-2.37
-0.76
75.1
829.7
-9.7
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
0.07
0.14
-0.89
2.68
0.6
14.8
-2.8
2800 - 3799
118
4.54
5.84
0.97
-0.88
46.5
910.4
3.3
3800 - 4799
94
5.09
4.43
-0.99
-0.31
54.7
663.9
-3.7
4800 - 5799
12
3.82
-4.60
-3.90
1.07
44.8
-1270.3
-20.1
*P0PULATI0NS
1960 - 1967
67
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968 - 1974
203
7.02
5.96
-0.38
0.32
49.1
704.6
-1.2
ALL VEHICLES
270
4.16
4.03
-0.30
0.24
42.0
602.5
-1.1
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST FROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 25 HC FAILURES, 28 CO FAILURES, 59.7% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 59 HC FAILURES, 64 CO FAILURES, 40.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
4.29
1.5
76.24
26.6
428.8
73.4
2.71
1.64
15.9
BUICK
13
6.72
4.3
119.96
75.2
479.1
120.8
1.92
1.25
13.0
CADILLAC
6
4.28
1.4
127.12
47.2
726.7
63.9
1.90
.28
9.5
CHEVROLET
55
6.41
4.0
96.82
42.9
475.8
106.1
2.16
1.07
14.2
CHRYSLER
6
5.30
0.7
87.94
20.1
563.0
67.8
3.22
.81
12.5
DATSUN
3
6.79
4.9
65.86
13.5
307.7
48.0
1.37
.37
20.8
DODGE
15
6.31
4.3
93.71
19.3
450.6
68.5
2.94
1.09
14.6
FORD
66
5.77
1.8
86.76
31.2
486.9
107.8
2.73
1.29
14.4
MERCURY
11
5.62
2.5
87.75
45.4
546.9
112.6
2.86
1.69
12.9
OLDSMOBILE
11
7.56
4.8
168.74
146.1
521.8
81.1
1.73
1.05
11.7
OPEL
1
3.24
0.0
85.76
0.0
301.5
0.0
1.64
0-00
19.9
PLYMOUTH
24
6.35
5.3
98.47
25.9
453.4
84.6
2.55
1.19
14.4
PONTIAC
19
9.77
10.8
116.87
56.7
527.6
98.2
2.59
1.64
12.0
TOYOTA
5
3.77
0.2
52.83
20.9
309.1
29.3
2.98
1.12
22.2
VOLKSWAGON
23
5.76
2.5
76.65
22.5
250.0
38.4
1.71
.82
23.1
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
2
16.42
15.5
117.36
6
.6
500
.9
55
.0
2.30
.15
12,
.0
1961
2
14.03
5.8
174.39
110
.3
449
.9
27
.9
2.67
2
.10
11,
.8
1962
4
9.05
4.7
124.53
89
.1
444
.2
103
.1
3.01
1
.89
13,
.5
1963
5
16.95
17.0
154.49
46
.3
359
.1
110
.0
1.17
.57
14,
.7
1964
10
7.02
2.1
104.83
39
.1
388
.6
81
.2
2.29
1
.17
16,
.2
1965
13
8.89
4.5
118.95
46
.5
344
.3
76
.7
1.56
.85
16.
.8
1966
15
11.29
8.1
125.93
43
.7
396
.6
70
.5
2.02
1
.37
14,
,5
1967
16
7.28
2.0
124.63
45
.1
435
.6
88
.8
2.17
1
.00
14,
.0
1968
22
5.89
1.4
101.28
43
.6
486
.5
114
.2
2.56
1,
.15
14,
,1
1969
24
5.77
1.2
86.80
33
.1
444
.0
92
.7
3.07
1,
.49
15,
.6
1970
25
4.96
1.1
78.96
33
.8
480
.3
101
.7
3.01
1
.20
15,
.0
1971
32
4.95
1.0
75.76
25
.6
456
.5
130
.8
3.10
1,
.36
15,
.9
1972
28
4.72
1.0
85.83
27
.2
505
.3
138
.0
2.70
1,
.05
14,
,4
1973
35
5.47
3.5
97.81
82
.2
509
.0
145
.0
2.10
1,
.23
14,
.2
1974
37
4.17
1.5
82.95
48
.6
504
.4
149
.7
1.68
.65
14,
.8
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
5.21
2.4
151 - 250
38
5.12
2.4
251 - 350
115
6.86
4.1
MORE THAN 350
77
6.37
5.9
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
5.14
2.4
2800 - 3799
118
6.20
4.6
3800 - 4799
94
6.92
5.0
4800 - 5799
12
5.22
1.9
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
67
9.75
7.1
1968 - 1974
203
5.07
1.9
ALL VEHICLES
270
6.23
4.4
AUTOMOTIVE '
70.11 22.1 275.8 45.4 1.93 .87 22.3
85.06 40.5 379.0 60.9 2.49 1.33 17.0
102.29 41.4 475.9 70.7 2.26 1.13 13.6
105.68 69.9 586.9 90.3 2.86 1.45 11.7
70.75 22.4 294.0 70.5 2.07 1.08 21.6
93.77 40.8 441.9 76.1 2.24 1.15 14.8
106.54 62.6 546.0 83.2 2.80 1.43 12.3
133.60 67.1 696.5 78.1 2.48 .95 9.7
124.35 48.5 399.3 87.5 2.03 1.18 14.9
86.73 47.9 485.7 129.7 2.54 1.27 14.9
96.06 50.6 464.3 126.2 2.41 1.26 14.9
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 25 HC FAILURES, 28 CO FAILURES. 59.7% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 59 HC FAILURES, 64 CO FAILURES, 40.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
0.05
0.1
1.74
9.5
-9.1
19.2
0.02
.15
0.2
BUICK
13
1.86
2.6
12.94
16.9
-10.5
18.8
-0.11
.18
-0.3
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
0.32
1.2
4.84
11.8
-8.0
22.0
0.07
.39
-0.0
CHRYSLER
6
2.59
3.4
26.76
37.7
-15.2
68.2
-0.08
.97
-0.6
DATSUN
3
-1.81
3.8
-10.50
17.3
-64.5
28.3
0.12
.29
4.9
DODGE
15
0.32
0.9
3.61
12.7
8.3
18.7
0.16
.43
-0.4
FORD
66
0.58
1.7
6.70
21.0
-3.1
21.0
0.03
.54
-0.2
MERCURY
11
0.85
1.0
14.95
18.5
-26.4
29.4
-0.17
.29
0.0
OLDSMOBILE
11
0.80
1.7
-0.95
46.0
1.2
17.1
-0.04
.16
-0.2
OPEL
1
1.08
0.0
4.05
0.0
11.2
0.0
0.48
0.00
-0.9
PLYMOUTH
24
3.45
11.1
23.01
31.1
-16.6
29.0
-0.31
.55
-0.5
PONTIAC
19
-1.05
6.4
-10.32
50.3
-0.3
34.1
0.25
.91
0.3
TOYOTA
5
0.44
0.5
9.28
11.0
-22.6
25.5
-0.34
.42
0.6
VOLKSWAGON
23
0.26
1.1
3.36
8.6
-0.9
11.8
0.01
.23
-0.3
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.0
1961
2
2.02
2.7
10.05
22.9
-24.7
7.3 -0.33
.15
-0.1
1962
4
2.82
3.1
17.54
15.8
8.1
13.5 -0.03
.12
-0.9
1963
5
-5.52
11.9
-37.13
78.9
34.6
53.1 0.94
1.42
0.4
1964
10
1.93
3.2
24.30
34.9
-17.8
26.0 -0.33
1.00
-0.9
1965
13
1.28
2.0
12.38
18.6
-13.7
20.3 -0.04
.25
-0.3
1966
15
4.51
14.0
13.09
30.4
-2.0
9.7 -0.03
.43
-0.6
1967
16
1.08
1.8
6.15
12.5
3.5
35.2 0.20
.56
-0.4
1968
22
0.24
1.2
2.48
23.9
-6.5
16.7 0.07
.34
-0.0
1969
24
1.56
2.7
13.08
28.8
-12.1
40.9 0.15
.92
-0.3
1970
25
0.26
1.6
5.45
13.6
-8.4
19.3 -0.05
.32
-0.0
1971
32
0.06
0.3
2.84
10.0
-8.3
21.4 0.03
.23
0.4
1972
28
0.52
1.0
11.62
22.4
-13.5
27.1 -0.14
.36
-0.1
1973
35
0.13
1.5
7.04
16.9
-5.5
22.0 -0.06
.20
-0.0
1974
37
0.21
0.7
-1.43
26.7
-5.4
19.1 -0.02
.19
0.2
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
0.16
1.4
2.55
10.4
-10.3
22.9 0.00
.29
0.4
151 - 250
38
1.00
2.2
11.19
23.9
-6.6
20.2 0.01
.61
-0.4
251 - 350
115
1.06
5.3
7.77
19.8
-8.0
25.0 0.01
.47
-0.1
MORE THAN 350
77
0.26
3.5
3.86
34.6
-3.5
29.9 -0.01
.55
-0.1
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
0.13
1.3
1.85
10.1
-10.2
22.7 -0.00
.27
0.4
2800 - 3799
118
0.57
3.1
9.42
27.2
-7.3
24.9 0.02
.53
-0.2
3800 - 4799
94
1.17
5.8
6.30
23.0
-5.3
27.9 -0-00
.54
-0.1
4800 - 5799
12
0.21
0.6
-5.88
42.2
-2.9
25.2 -0.09
.28
0.1
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
67
1.62
7.7
9.00
32.7
-2.6
29.1 0.05
.69
-0.4
1968 - 1974
203
0.38
1.5
5.49
21.4
-8.3
24.2 -0.01
.41
0.0
ALL VEHICLES
270
0.69
4.1
6.36
24.6
-6.9
25.6 0.00
.49
-0.1
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.:
INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PRIVATE SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 25 HC FAILURES, 28 CO FAILURES, 59.7% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 59 HC FAILURES, 64 CO FAILURES, 40.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
12
1.23
2.23
0.69
1
.50
9.8
318
.3
3.5
BUICK
13
21.70
9.74
-5.86
-2
.57
168.0
1167
.4
-9.6
CADILLAC
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
.00
0.0
0
.0
0.0
CHEVROLET
55
4.75
4.76
3.23
-0
.00
37.5
568
.5
8.5
CHRYSLER
6
32.80
23.33
-2.68
-5
.17
121.8
1258
.9
-4.0
DATSUN
3
-36.35
-18.96
8.09
19
.09
-111.3
-645
.1
7.4
DODGE
15
4.82
3.71
5.02
-2
.87
50.5
569
.4
24.5
FORD
66
9.18
7.17
1.24
-1
.21
56.2
645
.3
3.3
MERCURY
11
13.10
14.55
-6.45
0
.32
100.1
1765
.3
-20.5
OLDSMOBILE
11
9.55
-0.56
-2.63
-1
.46
73.9
-87
.5
-4.1
OPEL
1
24.97
4.51
22.51
-4
.71
49.1
184
.1
21.7
PLYMOUTH
24
35.24
18.94
-14.02
-3
.78
388.0
2585
.8
-35.2
PONTIAC
19
-12.02
-9.69
8.72
2
.62
-94.8
-933
.6
22.3
TOYOTA
5
10.43
14.94
-12.89
2
.79
62.1
1310
.3
-48.1
VOLKSWAGON
23
4.38
4.20
0.64
-1
.19
30.3
386
.0
1.3
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1961
2
12.59
5.45
-13.98
-0.60
88.9
441.7
-14.4
1962
4
23.78
12.35
-1.02
-6.88
158.9
986.7
-1.7
1963
5
-48.27
-31.64
44.57
2.49
-307.8
-2070.1
52.6
1964
10
21.53
18.82
-16.59
-5.91
225.8
2848.9
-38.2
1965
13
12.56
9.43
-2.40
-1.81
152.2
1475.4
-4.4
1966
15
28.54
9.42
-1.42
-4.15
252.0
732.0
-1.6
1967
16
12.94
4.70
8.60
-2.63
59.2
336.9
11.2
1968
22
3.86
2.39
2.69
-0.12
17.3
181.1
5.2
1969
24
21.24
13.10
4.61
-1.84
142.1
1194.6
13.6
1970
25
4.90
6.46
-1.78
-0.06
34.8
743.5
-7.2
1971
32
1.12
3.62
0.88
2.25
7.6
384.4
3.7
1972
28
9.88
11.93
-5.30
-0.89
70.1
1576.5
-18.5
1973
35
2.38
6.72
-2.95
-0.04
24.6
1299.0
-11.1
1974
37
4.83
-1.75
-1.21
1.62
38.7
-261.2
-3.7
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
40
2.96
3.51
0.20
1.63
17.9
287.1
0.4
151 - 250
38
16.37
11.63
0.48
-2.28
71.4
797.2
0.9
251 - 350
115
13.40
7.06
0.36
-0.90
119.5
875.4
0.9
MORE THAN 350
77
3.87
3.52
-0.22
-0.64
30.7
463.2
-0.8
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
46
2.56
2.55
-0.01
1.79
16.3
222.8
-0.0
2800 - 3799
118
8.48
9.13
0.87
-1.48
58.6
961.2
2.0
3800 - 4799
94
14.42
5.58
-0.05
-1.17
114.5
618.1
-0.1
4800 - 5799
12
3.82
-4.60
-3.90
1.07
44.8
-1270.3
-20.1
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
67
14.24
6.75
2.18
-3.00
112.0
622.6
3.1
1968 - 1974
203
7.02
5.96
-0.38
0.32
49.1
704.6
-1.2
ALL VEHICLES
270
9.97
6.21
0.16
-0.49
73.0
673.4
0.4
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS BEFORE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
4.92
1.4
91.58
46.7
570.9
82.8
1.97
1.33
12.5
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
4.47
0.0
137.96
0.0
366.1
0.0
0.65
0.00
14.9
FORD
7
6.79
3.6
117.44
71.1
476.6
126.1
1.92
.77
13.8
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
5.56
1.2
120.61
78.5
566.5
27.1
1.75
.70
11.7
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
3.30
1.6
35.19
33.6
634.2
77.8
4.84
1.47
12.7
TOYOTA
3
4.29
0.6
62.13
13.5
287.0
53.5
2.70
.91
22.4
VOLKSWAGON
5
4.06
1.3
64.67
29.2
301.7
41.8
2.00
1.30
21.4
VOLVO
0
~MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
14.52
0.0
270.67
0.0
423.8
0.0
0.59
0.00
9.9
1967
1
7.37
0.0
127.00
0.0
524.5
0.0
2.96
0.00
11.9
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
4.25
0.2
65.59
9.4
449.9
182.8
3.86
2.86
16.4
1972
8
4.65
1.2
71.68
30.7
393.8
121.8
2.37
1.18
17.9
1973
8
4.99
1.4
89.23
54.9
530.7
111.6
2.22
1.13
14.0
1974
10
4.52
1.3
91.01
48.7
493.3
178.2
1.68
1.05
14.9
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
4.29
1.0
66.91
24.5
300.2
39.6
2.27
1.04
21.3
151 - 250
2
4.79
0.5
117.05
29.6
394.9
40.8
1.22
.80
14.9
251 - 350
12
5.99
2.9
111.70
73.4
559.4
65.4
1.91
1.20
12.0
MORE THAN 350
6
4.73
2.0
80.44
41.1
612.4
59.1
2.80
1.85
11.8
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
4.31
1.0
66.32
26.0
297.9
41.3
2.32
1.09
21.5
2800 - 3799
9
5.39
1.1
102.25
44.1
501.9
113.0
1.55
.62
13.6
3800 - 4799
11
5.55
3.3
104.56
75.1
581.9
75.0
2.19
1.36
11.8
4800 - 5799
1
4.42
0.0
58.93
0.0
579.2
0.0
5.88
0.00
12.9
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
10.94
5.1
198.83
101.6
474.1
71.2
1.77
1.67
10.9
1968 - 1974
28
4.68
1.2
83.16
43.7
472.5
148.1
2.19
1.29
15.6
ALL VEHICLES
30
5.09
2.2
90.87
54.8
472.6
143.5
2.16
1.29
15.3
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
0 HC FAILURES, 2 CO FAILURES, 7.1% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
4.82
1.3
90.23
46.0
571.1
82.6
2.02
1.33
12.5
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
4.47
0.0
137.96
0.0
366.1
0.0
0.65
0.00
14.9
FORD
7
6 .44
3.9
113.22
72.9
483.5
116.0
1.80
.83
13.9
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
5.56
1.2
120.61
78.5
566.5
27.1
1.75
.70
11.7
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
3.30
1.6
35.19
33.6
634.2
77.8
4.84
1.47
12.7
TOYOTA
3
4.29
0.6
62.13
13.5
287.0
53.5
2.70
.91
22.4
VOLKSWAGON
5
4.06
1.3
64.67
29.2
301.7
41.8
2.00
1.30
21.4
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960 0
1961 0
1962 0
1963 0
1964 0
1965 0
1966 1
1967 1
1968 0
1969 0
1970 0
14.52 0.0 270.67
7.37 0.0 127.00
65.59
70.16
89.23
88.05
1971
2
4.25
0.2
1972
8
4.54
1.0
1973
8
4.99
1.4
1974
10
4.28
1.4
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
4.04
1.0
151 - 250
2
4.79
0.5
251 - 350
12
5.92
2.9
MORE THAN 350
6
4.73
2.0
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
4.04
1.1
2800 - 3799
9
5.29
1.0
3800 - 4799
11
5.55
3.3
4800 - 5799
1
4.42
0.0
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
10.94
5.1
1968 - 1974
28
4.55
1.2
ALL VEHICLES
30
4.98
2.2
AUTOMOTIVE '
63.96
117.05
110.68
80.44
63.04
100.90
104.56
58.93
0.0
0.0
9.4
28.3
54.9
48.6
21.1
29.6
73.4
41.1
22.1
43.7
75.1
0.0
423.8
524.5
0.0
0.0
198.83 101.6
81.67 43.3
89.48 54.6
449.9 182.8
394.1 122.0
530.7 111.6
498.2 173.0
305.0 42.8
394.9 40.8
559.5 65.2
612.4 59.1
303.2 45.0
502.1 113.0
581.9 75.0
579.2 0.0
474.1 71.2
474.3 146.3
474.3 141.8
0.59 0.00
2.96 0.00
3.86 2.86
2.43 1.15
2.22 1.13
1.60 1.06
2.19 1.10
1.22 .80
1.95 1.20
2.80 1.85
2.23 1.16
1.61 .65
2.19 1.36
5.88 0.00
1.77 1.67
2.18 1.31
2.15 1.30
9.9
11.9
16.4
17.9
14.0
14.9
21.3
14.9
12.1
11.8
21.5
13.7
11.8
12.9
10.9
15.6
15.3
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. $00li
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 2 CO FAILURES, 1.1% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
0.10
0.3
1.35
4.1
-0.2
0.6
-0.06
.17
-0.0
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
FORD
7
0.35
0.9
4.22
11.2
-6.9
18.2
0.12
.32
-0.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
TOYOTA
3
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
VOLKSWAGON
5
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1972
8
0.12
0.3
1.52
4.3
-0.2
0.6
-0.06
.18
-0.0
1973
8
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1974
10
0.25
0.8
2.95
9.3
-4.8
15.2
0.08
.26
-0.0
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
0.25
0.8
2.95
9.3
-4.8
15.2
0.08
.26
-0.0
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
251 - 350
12
0.08
0.3
1.01
3.5
-0.1
0.5
-0.04
.14
-0.0
MORE THAN 350
6
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
0.27
0.8
3.28
9.8
-5.3
16.0
0.09
.28
-0.0
2800 - 3799
9
0.10
0.3
1.35
4.1
-0.2
0.6
-0.06
.17
-0.0
3800 - 4799
11
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
0.12
0.5
1.49
6.0
-1.8
9.1
0.01
.19
-0.0
ALL VEHICLES
30
0.11
0.5
1.39
5.8
-1.7
8.8
0.01
.18
-0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES? 0 HC FAILURES, 2 CO FAILURES, 7.1% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
2.11
1.48
-2.83
-0.35
19.1
248.3
-10.2
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
7
5.20
3.59
6.22
-0.24
39.6
472.9
13.4
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOYOTA
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
VOLKSWAGON
5
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1972
8
2.51
2.12
-2.64
-0.27
20.8
270.4
-11.1
1973
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1974
10
5.47
3.24
4.97
-0.16
33.2
396.7
11.2
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
5.77
4.41
3.68
-0.11
33.2
396.7
11.2
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
251 - 350
12
1.30
0.91
-2.19
-0.27
15.3
199.4
-8.2
MORE THAN 350
6
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
6.37
4.95
4.00
-0.12
35.1
419.2
11.9
2800 - 3799
9
1.92
1.32
-3.59
-0.32
19.1
248.3
-10.2
3800 - 4799
11
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
*P0PULATI0NS
I960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
O.CO
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
2.60
1.79
0.55
-0.14
21.4
261.5
2.1
ALL VEHICLES
30
2.23
1.53
0.52
-0.14
20.4
249.0
2.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
4 HC FAILURES, 3 CO FAILURES, 21.4% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
4.76
1.3
87.40
48.3
577.0
81.0
2.09
1.38
12.5
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
4.47
0.0
137.96
0.0
366.1
0.0
0.65
0.00
14.9
FORD
7
6.35
3.9
112.42
73.1
484.4
117.2
1.80
.83
13.9
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
5.56
1.2
120.61
78.5
566.5
27.1
1.75
.70
11.7
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
3.30
1.6
35.19
33.6
634.2
77.8
4.84
1.47
12.7
TOYOTA
3
3.93
0.2
58.54
13.4
301.9
43.3
2.53
1.01
21.9
VOLKSWAGON
5
4.23
1.1
72.61
15.4
304.2
46.4
1.72
.76
20.6
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
I960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
14.52
0.0
270.67
0.0
423.8
0.0
0.59
0.00
9.9
1967
1
7.37
0.0
127.00
0.0
524.5
0.0
2.96
0.00
11.9
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
4.25
0.2
65.59
9.4
449.9
182.8
3.86
2.86
16.4
1972
8
4.47
1.1
66.98
29.9
400.6
131.2
2.51
1.18
17.9
1973
8
5.02
1.1
93.50
49.0
533.1
109.6
2.05
.87
13.5
1974
10
4.17
1.4
86.98
49.3
502.6
166.3
1.55
1.03
14.8
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
4.02
0.8
151 - 250
2
4.79
0.5
251 - 350
12
5.87
3.0
MORE THAN 350
6
4.63
1.8
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
4.01
0.9
2800 - 3799
9
5.29
1.0
3800 - 4799
11
5.44
3.4
4800 - 5799
1
4.42
0.0
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
10.94
5.1
1968 - 1974
28
4.50
1.2
ALL VEHICLES
30
4.93
2.2
AUTOMOTIVE '
66.85
117.05
108.56
79.51
66.25
100.90
101.74
58.93
14.5
29.6
75.0
40.8
15.2
43.7
76.7
0.0
198.83 101.6
81.60 42.4
89.41 54.0
310.7 40.6
394.9 40.8
563.9 64.6
613.4 59.1
309.6 42.9
502.1 113.0
587.2 73.0
579.2 0.0
474.1 71.2
478.4 144.9
478.1 140.4
2.00 .88
1.22 .80
2.00 1.24
2.79 1.85
2.02 .93
1.61 .65
2.24 1.39
5.88 0.00
1.77 1.67
2.13 1.26
2.11 1.26
20.8
14.9
12.0
11.8
20.9
13.7
11.8
12.9
10.9
15.4
15.1
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
4 HC FAILURES, 3 CO FAILURES, 21.4% FAILURE RATE
HC CO C02 NOX MPG
MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
0.16
0.3
4.18
8.9
-6.0
17.4
-0.12
.24
-0.0
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
FORD
7
0.44
0.9
5.01
11.0
-7.8
17.9
0.12
.32
-0.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
TOYOTA
3
0.36
0.6
3.59
6.2
-15.0
25.9
0.17
.29
0.5
VOLKSWAGON
5
-0.16
0.4
-7 .94
17.8
-2.5
5.6
0.27
.61
0.7
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960 0
1961 0
1962 0
1963 0
1964 0
1965 0
1966 1
1967 1
1968 0
1969 0
1970 0
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.0
0.0
1971
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1972
8
0.19
0.4
4.70
9.4
-6.8
18.5
-0.14
.25
-0.0
1973
8
-0.03
0.4
-4.27
14.5
-2.4
4.7
0.17
.48
0.4
1974
10
0.36
0.8
4.03
9.6
-9.3
19.6
0.13
.29
0.1
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
0.27
0-9
0-06
16.9
-10.6
19.4
0.27
.48
0.5
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
251 - 350
12
0.12
0.3
3.14
7.9
-4.5
15.1
-0.09
.21
-0.0
MORE THAN 350
6
0.10
0.3
0.93
2.3
-1.1
2.7
0.00
.01
-0.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
0.30
0.9
0.07
17.9
-11.7
20.1
0.30
.50
0.5
2800 - 3799
9
0.10
0.3
1.35
4.1
-0.2
0.6
-0.06
.17
-0.0
3800 - 4799
11
0.11
0.2
2.82
7.7
-5.4
15.8
-0.05
.18
0.0
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
*P0PULATI0NS
I960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
0.17
0.6
1.56
11.1
-5.9
15.3
0.06
.35
0.2
ALL VEHICLES
30
0.16
0.5
1 .46
10.7
-5.5
14.8
0.05
.34
0.2
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES? 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 4 HC FAILURES, 3 CO FAILURES, 21.4% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS 0
BUICK 0
CADILLAC 0
CHEVROLET
u
9
3.35
4.56
-6.17
-0.15
26.3
665.9
-19.3
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
7
6.50
4.27
6.31
-0.31
27.5
312.7
7.6
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOYOTA
3
8.46
5.78
6.15
2.22
30.7
303.6
14.0
VOLKSWAGON
5
-4.05
-12.28
13.69
3.42
-14.4
-696.6
24.0
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1972
8
3.99
6.56
-5.76
-0.12
28.3
716.7
-20.8
1973
8
-0.52
-4.78
7.76
3.22
-1.7
-287.4
11.6
1974
10
7.88
4.43
7.93
0.84
36.4
411.6
13.6
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
6.39
0.09
11.88
2.31
20.3
4.5
20.0
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
251 - 350
12
2.06
2.81
-4.78
-0.12
21.7
549.3
-16.0
MORE THAN 350
6
2.17
1.15
0.07
-0.09
8.4
75.4
0.2
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
7.06
0.10
12.93
2.54
20.9
4.6
20.6
2800 - 3799
9
1.92
1.32
-3.59
-0.32
19.1
248.3
-10.2
3800 - 4799
11
1.91
2.70
-2.41
0.12
11.5
306.2
-5.7
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
3.70
1.88
2.64
1.07
17.5
158.0
5.8
ALL VEHICLES
30
3.17
1.61
2.50
1.02
17.0
153.5
5.7
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
5 HC FAILURES, 5 CO FAILURES, 28.6% FAILURE
RATE
#
OF
HC
CO
C02
NOX
MPG
VEH.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
1.38
CHEVROLET
9
4.76
1.3
87.40
48.3
577 .0
81.0
2.09
12.5
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
14.9
DODGE
1
4.47
0.0
137.96
0.0
366.1
0.0
0.65
0.00
FORD
7
6.35
3.9
112.42
73.1
484.4
117.2
1.80
.83
13.9
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
5.56
1.2
120.61
78.5
566.5
27.1
1.75
.70
11.7
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
3.30
1.6
35.19
33.6
634.2
77.8
4.84
1.47
12.7
TOYOTA
3
4.20
0.6
69.33
31.7
301.1
44.5
2.23
1.37
21.0
VOLKSWAGON
5
4.23
1.1
70.20
13.3
307.4
43.6
1.75
.71
20.7
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
I960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
14.52
0.0
270.67
0.0
423.8
0.0
0.59
0.00
9.9
1967
1
7.37
0.0
127.00
0.0
524.5
0.0
2.96
0.00
11.9
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
4.25
0.2
65.59
9.4
449.9
182.8
3.86
2.86
16.4
1972
8
4.57
1.1
71.03
32.9
400.3
131.6
2.39
1.28
17.6
1973
8
5.02
1.1
93.50
49.0
533.1
109.6
2.05
.87
13.5
1974
10
4.17
1.4
85.77
49.4
504.3
163.9
1.56
1.01
14.8
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
4.10
0.9
68.88
18.1
312.1
39.3
1.93
.91
20.6
151 - 250
2
4.79
0.5
117.05
29.6
394.9
40.8
1.22
.80
14.9
251 - 350
12
5.87
3.0
108.56
75.0
563.9
64.6
2.00
1.24
12.0
MORE THAN 350
6
4.63
1.8
79.51
40.8
613.4
59.1
2.79
1.85
11.8
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
4.10
0.9
68.51
19.2
311.1
41.5
1.94
.97
20.6
2800 - 3799
9
5.29
1.0
100.90
43.7
502.1
113.0
1.61
.65
13.7
3800 - 4799
11
5.44
3.4
101.74
76.7
587.2
73.0
2.24
1.39
11.8
4800 - 5799
1
4.42
0.0
58.93
0.0
579.2
0.0
5.88
0.00
12.9
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
10.94
5.1
198.83
101.6
474.1
71.2
1.77
1.67
10.9
1968 - 1974
28
4.53
1.2
82.32
42.7
478.9
144.2
2.10
1.28
15.3
ALL VEHICLES
30
4.96
2.2
90.09
54.1
478.6
139.8
2.08
1.27
15.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES? 5 HC FAILURES, 5 CO FAILURES, 28.6% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
0.16
0.3
4.18
8.9
-6.0
17.4
-0.12
.24
-0.0
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
FORD
7
0.44
0.5
5.01
11.0
-7.8
17.9
0-12
.32
-0.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
TOYOTA
3
0.10
0.9
-7.20
22.5
-14.1
26.7
0.47
.46
1.4
VOLKSWAGON
5
-0.16
0.4
-5.53
19.8
-5.7
8.0
0.24
.63
0.7
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1972
8
0.09
0.5
0.66
16.2
-6.4
18.6
-0.02
.45
0.3
1973
8
-0.03
0.4
-4.27
14.5
-2.4
4.7
0.17
.48
0.4
1974
10
0.36
0.8
5.24
9.8
-10.9
19.4
0.12
.30
0.1
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
0.19
1.0
-1.97
20.3
-11.9
19.2
0.35
.52
0.7
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
251 - 350
12
0.12
0.3
3.14
7.9
-4.5
15.1
-0.09
.21
-0.0
MORE THAN 350
6
0.10
0.3
0.93
2.3
-1.1
2.7
0.00
.01
-0.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
0.22
1.0
-2.19
21.5
-13.2
19.9
0.38
.54
0.8
2800 - 3799
9
0.10
0.3
1.35
4.1
-0.2
0.6
-0.06
.17
-0.0
3800 - 4799
11
0.11
0.2
2.82
7.7
-5.4
15.8
-0.05
.18
0.0
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
0.14
0.6
0.84
13.0
-6.4
15.4
0.09
.39
0.3
ALL VEHICLES
30
0.13
0.6
0.78
12.5
-6.0
14.9
0.08
.37
0.2
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 5 HC FAILURES, 5 CO FAILURES, 28.6% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
3.35
4.56
-6.17
-0.15
26.3
665.9
-19.3
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
7
6.50
4.27
6.31
-0.31
27.5
312.7
7.6
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOYOTA
3
2.25
-11.59
17.38
6.11
4.5
-332.4
21.7
VOLKSWAGON
5
-4.05
-8.55
12.20
3.29
-12.8
-428.6
18.9
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1972
8
1.83
0.92
-0.97
1.71
8.3
64.1
-2.2
1973
8
-0.52
-4.78
7.76
3.22
-1.7
-287.4
11.6
1974
10
7.88
5.75
7.05
0.74
33.8
496.6
11.2
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
4.52
-2.95
15.23
3.46
11.3
-114.7
20.1
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
251 - 350
12
2.06
2.81
-4.78
-0.12
21.7
549.3
-16.0
MORE THAN 350
6
2.17
1.15
0.07
-0.09
8.4
75.4
0.2
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
5.00
-3.30
16.57
3.82
11.6
-117.4
20.6
2800 - 3799
9
1.92
1.32
-3.59
-0.32
19.1
248.3
-10.2
3800 - 4799
11
1.91
2.70
-2.41
0.12
11.5
306.2
-5.7
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
3.09
1.01
3.89
1.64
12.9
74.7
7.6
ALL VEHICLES
30
2.64
0.86
3.67
1.56
12.5
72.9
7.4
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
6 HC FAILURES, 9 CO FAILURES, 42.9% FAILURE RATE
HC CO C02 NOX MPG
MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
4.76
1.3
87.40
48.3
577.0
81.0
2.09
1.38
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
4.47
0.0
137.96
0.0
366.1
0.0
0.65
0.00
FORD
7
6.41
3.8
113.96
71.8
482.3
120.6
1.76
.78
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
5.17
0.9
107.56
81.8
590.0
67.1
1.86
.84
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
3.30
1.6
35.19
33.6
634.2
77.8
4.84
1.47
TOYOTA
3
3.95
0.9
68.23
32.9
293.5
32.9
1.96
.95
VOLKSWAGON
5
4.49
1.1
68.67
15.4
313.2
44.7
1.72
.71
VOLVO
0
14.9
13.9
11.7
12.7
21.5
20.4
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
14.52
0.0
270.67
0.0
423.8
0.0
0.59
0.00
1967
1
7.37
0.0
127.00
0.0
524.5
0.0
2.96
0.00
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
4.25
0.2
65.59
9.4
449.9
182.8
3.86.
2.86
1972
8
4.78
1.0
71.42
33.0
402.1
130.3
2.34
1.29
1973
8
4.78
1.1
88.19
48.3
539.1
123.4
1.99
.71
1974
10
4.17
1.4
85.77
49.4
504.3
163.9
1.56
1.01
9.9
11.9
16.4
17.4
13.7
14.8
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
4.19
1.0
151 - 250
2
4.79
0.5
251 - 350
12
5.77
3.0
MORE THAN 350
6
4.63
1.8
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
4.21
1.1
2800 - 3799
9
5.16
0.9
3800 - 4799
11
5.44
3.4
4800 - 5799
1
4.42
0.0
*P0PULATI0NS
1960 - 1967
2
10.94
5.1
1968 - 1974
28
4.52
1.1
ALL VEHICLES
30
4.95
2.2
AUTOMOTIVE 1
68.86 18.7 311.2 37.7
117.05 29.6 394.9 40.8
105.30 75.3 569.7 70.7
79.51 40.8 613.4 59.1
68.49 19.8 310.2 39.8
96.55 43.5 509.9 122.4
101.74 76.7 587.2 73.0
58.93 0.0 579.2 0.0
198.83 101.6 474.1 71.2
80.92 42.1 481.1 147.2
88.78 53.9 480.6 142.6
1.80 .73
1.22 .80
2.02 1.25
2.79 1.85
1.80 .78
1.64 .70
2.24 1.39
5.88 0.00
20.6
14.9
12.0
11.8
20.7
13.7
11.8
12.9
1.77 1.67 10.9
2.07 1.25 15.3
2.05 1.25 15.0
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
6 HC FAILURES
, 9 CO
FAILURES, 42
.9% FAILURE
RATE
#
OF
HC
CO
C02
NOX
MPG
VEH.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
S.D.
MEAN
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
.24
CHEVROLET
9
0.16
0.3
4.18
oo
-6.0
17.4
-0.12
-0.0
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0^0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
o.o
FORD
7
0.39
1.0
3.48
12.5
-5.7
19.8
0.16
.32
-0.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.39
O
1
13.05
22.6
-23.4
40.6
-0.11
.19
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
TOYOTA
3
0.34
1.0
-6.10
23.1
-6.5
34.7
0.74
.21
0.9
VOLKSWAGON
5
-0.43
0.6
-4.00
20.6
-11.5
12.1
0.28
.62
0.9
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1972
8
-0.13
0.7
0.27
17.0
-8.2
21.7
0.03
.47
0.5
1973
8
0.21
0.6
1.04
21.2
-8.3
27.0
0.23
.56
0.3
1974
10
0.36
0.8
5.24
9.8
-10.9
19.4
0.12
.30
0.1
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
0.10
1.1
-1.95
20.8
-11.0
23.8
0.47
.49
0.7
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
251 - 350
12
0.22
0.4
6.40
12.9
-10.4
24.1
-0.12
.22
-0.0
MORE THAN 350
6
0.10
0.3
0.93
2.3
-1.1
2.7
0.00
.01
-0.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
0.11
1.2
-2.17
22.1
-12.3
24.9
0.52
.49
0.8
2800- - 3799
9
0.23
0.5
5.70
13.2
-8.0
23.4
-0.09
.19
-0.0
3800 - 4799
11
0.11
0.2
2.82
7.7
-5.4
15.8
-0.05
.18
0.0
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
0.15
0.7
2.24
15.1
-8.6
21.1
0.12
.42
0.2
ALL VEHICLES
30
0.14
0.7
2.09
14.6
-8.0
20.4
0.11
.41
0.2
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES; 6 HC FAILURES, 9 CO FAILURES, 42.9% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
3.35
4.56
-6.17
-0.15
26.3
665.9
-19.3
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
7
5.71
2.96
8.48
-0.15
23.8
213.1
10.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
7.02
10.82
-6.31
0.20
65.1
2175.7
-18.4
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOYOTA
3
7.96
-9.81
27.26
3.84
13.1
-233.1
28.1
VOLKSWAGON
5
-10.65
-6.19
13.90
4.31
-30.0
-278.0
19.3
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1972
8
-2.78
0.37
1.47
2.58
-11.3
23.3
3.0
1973
8
4.26
1.17
10.40
1.91
12.3
60.2
13.4
1974
10
7.88
5.75
7.05
0.74
33.8
496.6
11.2
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
2.24
-2.92
20.78
3.33
4.9
-100.1
24.2
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
251 - 350
12
3.69
5.73
-6.22
-0.07
35.6
1030.7
-19.1
MORE THAN 350
6
2.17
1.15
0.07
-0.09
8.4
75.4
0.2
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
2.48
-3.27
22.60
3.67
5.0
-102.2
24.7
2800 - 3799
9
4.34
5.58
-5.95
-0.26
38.3
933.3
-15.1
3800 - 4799
11
1.91
2.70
-2.41
0.12
11.5
306.2
-5.7
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
3.23
2.70
5.41
1.59
12.3
183.1
9.6
ALL VEHICLES
30
2.77
2.30
5.11
1.51
12.1
178.9
9.4
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES,INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES? 6 HC FAILURES, 10 CO FAILURES, 42.9% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
4.76
1.3
87.40
48.3
577.0
81.0
2.09
1.38
12.5
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
4.47
0.0
137.96
0.0
366.1
0.0
0.65
0.00
14.9
FORD
7
6.41
3.8
113.96
71.8
482.3
120.6
1.76
.78
13.9
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
5.17
0.9
107.56
81.8
590.0
67.1
1.86
.84
11.7
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
3.30
1.6
35.19
33.6
634.2
77.8
4.84
1.47
12.7
TOYOTA
3
3.95
0.9
68.23
32.9
293.5
32.9
1.96
.95
21.5
VOLKSWAGON
5
4.49
1.1
68.67
15.4
313.2
44.7
1.72
.71
20.4
VOLVO
0
*M0DEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
14.52
0.0
270.67
0.0
423.8
0.0
0.59
0.00
9.9
1967
1
7.37
0.0
127.00
0.0
524.5
0.0
2.96
0.00
11.9
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
4.25
0.2
65.59
9.4
449.9
182.8
3.86
2.86
16.4
1972
8
4.78
1.0
71.42
33.0
402.1
130.3
2.34
1.29
17.4
1973
8
4.78
1.1
88.19
48.3
539.1
123.4
1.99
.71
13.7
1974
10
4.17
1.4
85.77
49.4
504.3
163.9
1.56
1.01
14.8
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
4.19
1.0
68.86
18.7
311.2
37.7
1.80
.73
20.6
151 - 250
2
4.79
0.5
117.05
29.6
394.9
40.8
1.22
.80
14.9
251 - 350
12
5.77
3.0
105.30
75.3
569.7
70.7
2.02
1.25
12.0
MORE THAN 350
6
4.63
1.8
79.51
40.8
613.4
59.1
2.79
1.85
11.8
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
4.21
1.1
68.49
19.8
310.2
39.8
1.80
.78
20.7
2800 - 3799
9
5.16
0.9
96.55
43.5
509.9
122.4
1.64
.70
13.7
3800 - 4799
11
5.44
3.4
101.74
76.7
587.2
73.0
2.24
1.39
11.8
4800 - 5799
1
4.42
0.0
58.93
0.0
579.2
0.0
5.88
0.00
12.9
^POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
10.94
5.1
198.83
101.6
474.1
71.2
1.77
1.67
1968 - 1974
28
4.52
1.1
80.92
42.1
481.1
147.2
2.07
1.25
ALL VEHICLES
30
4.95
2.2
88.78
53.9
480.6
142.6
2.05
1.25
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
10.9
15.3
15.0
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 5 HC FAILURES, 10 CO FAILURES, 42.9% FAILURE RATE
# OF HC CO C02 NOX MPG
VEH. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
0.16
0.3
4.18
8.9
-6.0
17.4
-0.12
CM
-0.0
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
FORD
7
0.39
1.0
3.48
12.5
-5.7
19.8
0.16
.32
-0.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.39
0.7
13.05
22.6
-23.4
40.6
-0.11
.19
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
TOYOTA
3
0.34
1.0
-6.10
23.1
-6.5
34.7
0.74
.21
0.9
VOLKSWAGON
5
-0.43
0.6
-4.00
20.6
-11.5
12.1
0.28
.62
0.9
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1972
8
-0.13
0.7
0.27
17.0
-8.2
21.7
0.03
.47
0.5
1973
8
0.21
0.6
1.04
21.2
-8.3
27.0
0.23
.56
0.3
1974
10
0.36
0.8
5.24
9.8
-10.9
19.4
0.12
.30
0.1
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
0.10
1.1
-1.95
20.8
-11.0
23.8
0.47
.49
0.7
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
251 - 350
12
0.22
0.4
6 .40
12.9
-10.4
24.1
-0.12
.22
-0.0
MORE THAN 350
6
0.10
0.3
0.93
2.3
-1.1
2.7
0.00
.01
-0.0
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
o.n
1.2
-2.17
22.1
-12.3
24.9
0.52
.49
0.8
2800 - 3799
9
0.23
0.5
5.70
13.2
-8.0
23.4
-0.09
.19
-0.0
3800 - 4799
11
0.11
0.2
2.82
7.7
-5.4
15.8
-0.05
.18
0.0
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
0.15
0.7
2.24
15.1
-8.6
21.1
0.12
.42
0.2
ALL VEHICLES
30
0.14
0.7
2.09
14.6
-8.0
20.4
0.11
.41
0.2
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 6 HC FAILURES, 10 CO FAILURES, 42.9% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
3.35
4.56
-6.17
-0.15
26.3
665.9
-19.3
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
7
5.71
2.96
8.48
-0.15
23.8
213.1
10.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
7.02
10.82
-6.31
0.20
65.1
2175.7
-18.4
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOYOTA
3
7.96
-9.81
27.26
3.84
13.1
-233.1
28.1
VOLKSWAGON
5
-10.65
-6.19
13.90
4.31
-30.0
-278.0
19.3
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1967
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1972
8
-2.78
0.37
1.47
2.58
-11.3
23.3
3.0
1973
8
4.26
1.17
10.40
1.91
12.3
60.2
13.4
1974
10
7.88
5.75
7.05
0.74
33.8
496.6
11.2
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
2.24
-2.92
20.78
3.33
4.9
-100.1
24.2
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
251 - 350
12
3.69
5.73
-6.22
-0.07
35.6
1030.7
-19.1
MORE THAN 350
6
2.17
1.15
0.07
-0.09
8.4
75.4
0.2
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
2.48
-3.27
22.60
3.67
5.0
-102.2
24.7
2800 - 3799
9
4.34
5.58
-5.95
-0.26
38.3
933.3
-15.1
3800 - 4799
11
1.91
2.70
-2.41
0.12
11.5
306.2
-5.7
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968 - 1974
28
3.23
2.70
5.41
1.59
12.3
183.1
9.6
ALL VEHICLES
30
2.77
2.30
5.11
1.51
12.1
178.9
9.4
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLESr
1968-1974 VEHICLES?
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 1 CO FAILURES, 50.0% FAILURE RATE
6 HC FAILURES, 10 CO FAILURES, 42.9% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D.
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
4.76
1.3
87.40
48.3
577 .0
81.0
2.09
1.38
12.5
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
4.47
0.0
137.96
0.0
366.1
0.0
0.65
0.00
14.9
FORD
7
5.98
2.8
112.78
68.8
488.8
118.1
1.77
.76
13.8
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
5.17
0.9
107.56
81.8
590.0
67.1
1.86
.84
11.7
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
3.30
1.6
35.19
33.6
634.2
77.8
4.84
1.47
12.7
TOYOTA
3
3.95
0.9
68.23
32.9
293.5
32.9
1.96
.95
21.5
VOLKSWAGON
5
4.49
1.1
68.67
15.4
313.2
44.7
1.72
.71
20.4
VOLVO
0
~MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
11.52
0.0
262.45
0.0
469.1
0.0
0.69
0.00
9.7
1967
1
7.37
0.0
127.00
0.0
524.5
0.0
2.96
0.00
11.9
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
4.25
0.2
65.59
9.4
449.9
182.8
3.86
2.86
16.4
1972
8
4.78
1.0
71.42
33.0
402.1
130.3
2.34
1.29
17.4
1973
8
4.78
1.1
88.19
48.3
539 .1
123.4
1.99
.71
13.7
1974
10
4.17
1.4
85.77
49.4
504.3
163.9
1.56
1.01
14.8
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
4.19
1.0
151 - 250
2
4.79
0.5
251 - 350
12
5.52
2.2
MORE THAN 350
6
4.63
1.8
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
4.21
1.1
2800 - 3799
9
5.16
0.9
3800 - 4799
11
5.17
2.6
4800 - 5799
1
4.42
0.0
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
9.44
2.9
1968 - 1974
28
4.52
1.1
ALL VEHICLES
30
4.85
1.8
AUTOMOTIVE 1
68.86 18.7 311.2 37.7
117.05 29.6 394.9 40.8
104.61 73.7 573.5 63.0
79.51 40.8 613.4 59.1
68.49 19.8 310.2 39.8
96.55 43.5 509.9 122.4
100.99 74.9 591.4 63.6
58.93 0.0 579.2 0.0
194.72 95.8 496.8 39.1
80.92 42.1 481.1 147.2
88.51 52.9 482.2 142.2
1.80 .73
1.22 .80
2.03 1.24
2.79 1.85
1.80 .78
1.64 .70
2.25 1.38
5.88 0.00
20.6
14.9
12.0
11.8
20.7
13.7
11.7
12.9
1.82 1.60 10.8
2.07 1.25 15.3
2.05 1.24 15.0
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
0 HC FAILURES, 1 CO FAILURES, 50.0% FAILURE RATE
6 HC FAILURES, 10 CO FAILURES, 42.9% FAILURE RATE
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02
MEAN S.D,
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
0.16
0.3
4.18
8.9
-6.0
17.4
-0.12
.24
-0.0
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
FORD
7
0.82
1.4
4.65
12.5
-12.2
24.5
0.15
.33
0.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
0.39 v
0.7
13.05
22.6
-23.4
40.6
pH
rH
0
1
.19
0.0
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
TOYOTA
3
0.34
1.0
-6.10
23.1
-6.5
34.7
0.74
.21
0.9
VOLKSWAGON
5
-0.43
0.6
-4.00
20.6
-11.5
12.1
0.28
.62
0.9
VOLVO
0
~MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0.
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
3.00
0.0
8.
.22
0.0
-45.3
0.0
-0.09
0.00
0.2
1967
1
0.00
0.0
0.
.00
0..0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.0
o,
.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1972
8
-0.13
0.7
o.
,27
17.0
-8.2
21.7
0.03
.47
0.5
1973
8
0.21
0.6
1,
.04
21.2
-8.3
27.0
0.23
.56
0.3
1974
10
0.36
0.8
5,
.24
9.8
-10.9
19.4
0.12
.30
0.1
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
10
0.10
1.1
-1.95
20.8
-11.0
23.8
0.47
.49
0.7
2
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
12
0.47
0.9
7.08
12.8
-14.2
25.9
-0.13
.22
0.0
6
0.10
0.3
0.93
2.3
-1.1
2.7
0.00
.01
-0.0
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
0.11
1.2
-2.17
22.1
-12.3
24.9 0.52
.49
0.8
2800 - 3799
9
0.23
0.5
5.70
13.2
-8.0
23.4 -0.09
.19
-0.0
3800 - 4799
11
0.38
0.9
3.57
7.8
-9.5
19.7 -0.06
.18
0.0
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.00
0.00
0.0
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
1968 - 1974
ALL VEHICLES
2
1.50
2.1
4.11
5.8
-22.7
32.1 -0.05
.07
28
0.15
0.7
2.24
15.1
-8.6
21.1 0.12
.42
30
0.24
0.9
2.37
14.6
-9.6
21.5 0.11
.41
0.1
0.2
0.2
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
TESTED IN PUBLIC SECTOR
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 1 CO FAILURES, 50.0% FAILURE RATE
1968-1974 VEHICLES: 6 HC FAILURES, 10 CO FAILURES, 42.9% FAILURE RATE
# OF PERCENT REDUCTIONS MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
VEH. HC CO NOX MPG HC CO NOX
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
0
BUICK
0
CADILLAC
0
CHEVROLET
9
3.35
4.56
-6.17
-0.15
26.3
665.9
-19.3
CHRYSLER
0
DATSUN
0
DODGE
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
FORD
7
12.01
3.96
7.79
0.11
48.9
279.0
9.0
MERCURY
0
OLDSMOBILE
3
7.02
10.82
-6.31
0.20
65.1
2175.7
-18.4
OPEL
0
PLYMOUTH
0
PONTIAC
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
TOYOTA
3
7.96
-9.81
27.26
3.84
13.1
-233.1
28.1
VOLKSWAGON
5
-10.65
-6.19
13.90
4.31
-30.0
-278.0
19.3
VOLVO
0
*MODEL YEAR
1960
0
1961
0
1962
0
1963
0
1964
0
1965
0
1966
1
20.64
3.04
-15.66
2.50
460.9
1264.9
-14.3
1967
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1968
0
1969
0
1970
0
1971
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1972
8
-2.78
0.37
1.47
2.58
-11.3
23.3
3.0
1973
8
4.26
1.17
10.40
1.91
12.3
60.2
13.4
1974
10
7.88
5.75
7.05
0.74
33.8
496.6
11.2
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
10
2.24
-2.92
20.78
3.33
4.9
-100.1
24.2
151 - 250
2
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
251 - 350
12
7.86
6.34
-6.63
0.10
73.4
1104.0
-19.7
MORE THAN 350
6
2.17
1.15
0.07
-0.09
8.4
75.4
0.2
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
9
2.48
-3.27
22.60
3.67
5.0
-102.2
24.7
2800 - 3799
9
4.34
5.58
-5.95
-0.26
38.3
933.3
-15.1
3800 - 4799
11
6.82
3.41
-2.79
0.32
40.1
378.1
-6.5
4800 - 5799
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
2
13.69
2.07
-2.62
1.14
285.3
783.1
-8.8
1968 - 1974
28
3.23
2.70
5.41
1.59
12.3
183.1
9.6
ALL VEHICLES
30
4.73
2.61
4.97
1.57
20.4
200.9
9.1
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. $0011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS BEFORE INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
FLEET VEHICLES
1960-1967 VEHICLES: 0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
# OF
VEH.
HC
MEAN S.D.
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS
BUICK
CADILLAC
CHEVROLET
CHRYSLER
DATSUN
DODGE
FORD
MERCURY
OLDSMOBILE
OPEL
PLYMOUTH
PONTIAC
TOYOTA
VOLKSWAGON
VOLVO
4
0
0
0
0
0
5
19
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
CO
MEAN S.D.
C02 NOX MPG
MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
3.55 1.0 49.93 13.4 488.4 108.3 3.51 .12 15.8
4.75 1.2 88.92 28.8 601.8 31.6 3.27 1.83 11.8
3.76 0.9 74.31 18.4 463.6 64.4 2.39 1.22 15.2
6.27 0.7 130.79 43.2 505.8 25.6 3.55 .33 12.2
~MODEL YEAR
1960 0
1961 0
1962 0
1963 0
1964 0
1965 0
1966 0
1967 0
1968 0
1969 0
1970 5
1971 8
1972 1
1973 6
1974 9
4.93
1.2
80.25
46,4
550.5
36.9
3.88
1.44
12.9
4.01
1.0
62.37
20.1
481.6
73.5
3.64
.36
15.2
3.26
0.0
50.16
0.0
411.9
0.0
4.30
0.00
17.7
4.97
0.9
94.20
17.7
584.4
39.9
2.21
.60
11.9
3.32
0.6
82.93
20.5
429.9
48.1
1.44
.65
15.7
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
9
2.91
0.5
75.37
17.1
405.2
3
3.66
0.4
60.67
13.3
438.7
12
4.23
0.8
67.27
22.4
515.5
7
5.19
1.3
100.88
35.8
574.4
1
3.26
0.0
50.16
0.0
411.9
15
3.28
0.6
71.75
22.7
431.9
14
4.96
0.9
85.10
30.5
563.7
22.1
23.6
66.1
54.5
0.0
43.6
49.1
1.94 1.23
4.16 .21
2.77 .90
3.35 1.50
4.30 0.00
2.36 1.28
3.08 1.20
16.7
16.3
14.2
11.9
17.7
16.1
12.5
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 0
1968 - 1974 30 4.07 1.1
ALL VEHICLES 30 4.07 1.1
77.26 27.2 492.7 81.1 2.76 1.29 14.5
77.26 27.2 492.7 81.1 2.76 1.29 14.5
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1960-1967 VEHICLES:
1968-1974 VEHICLES:
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
FLEET VEHICLES
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
0 HC FAILURES, 2 CO FAILURES, 6.7% FAILURE RATE
^VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS 4
BUICK 0
CADILLAC 0
CHEVROLET 0
CHRYSLER 0
DATSUN 0
DODGE 5
FORD 19
MERCURY 0
OLDSMOBILE 0
OPEL 0
PLYMOUTH 2
PONTIAC 0
TOYOTA 0
VOLKSWAGON 0
VOLVO 0
HC
MEAN S.D.
CO C02 NOX MPG
MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN S.D. MEAN
3.55 1.0 49.93 13.4 488.4 108.3 3.51 .12 15.8
4.68 1.2 85.94 29.6 588.3 20.5 3.20 1.85 12.1
3.76 0.9 73.89 18.6 465.0 65.8 2.40 1.23 15.2
6.27 0.7 130.79 43.2 505.8 25.6 3.55 .33 12.2
*MODEL YEAR
1960 0
1961 0
1962 0
1963 0
1964 0
1965 0
1966 0
1967 0
1968 0
1969 0
1970
5
4.92
1
.2
78.64
47.1
556.1
30.3
3.91
1.43
12.8
1971
8
4.01
1
.0
62.37
20.1
481.6
73.5
3.64
.36
15.2
1972
1
3.26
0
.0
50.16
0.0
411.9
0.0
4.30
0.00
17.7
1973
6
4.91
1,
.0
91.71
19.5
573.1
26.3
2.15
.53
12.1
1974
9
3.32
0,
.6
82.93
20.5
429.9
48.1
1.44
.65
15.7
^DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
9
2.91
0.5
75.37
17.1
405.2
22.1
1.94
1.23
16.7
3
3.66
0.4
60.67
13.3
438.7
23.6
4.16
.21
16.3
12
4.22
0.8
66.60
22.5
517.9
66.3
2.78
.91
14.2
7
5.13
1.3
98.75
37.1
564.7
44.8
3.30
1.53
12.1
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
2800 - 3799
3800 - 4799
4800 - 5799
1
3.26
0.0
50.16
0.0
411.9
0.0
4.30
0.00
17.7
15
3.28
0.6
71.75
22.7
431.9
43.6
2.36
1.28
16.1
14
0
4.93
0.9
83.46
31.0
560.9
41.5
3.07
1.21
12.6
*POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967 0
1968 - 1974 30 4.05 1.1 76.50 27.2 491.4 77.9 2.76 1.29 14.5
ALL VEHICLES 30 4.05 1.1 76.50 27.2 491.4 77.9 2.76 1.29 14.5
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
EXHAUST EMISSION REDUCTIONS AFTER INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
FLEET VEHICLES
1960-1967 VEHICLES r
1968-1974 VEHICLES?
# OF
VEH.
0 HC FAILURES,
0 HC FAILURES,
0 CO FAILURES,
2 CO FAILURES,
HC '
MEAN S.D.
CO
MEAN S.D.
0.0% FAILURE RATE
6.7% FAILURE RATE
C02
MEAN S.D,
NOX
MEAN S.D.
MPG
MEAN
*VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS 4
BUICK 0
CADILLAC 0
CHEVROLET 0
CHRYSLER 0
DATSUN 0
DODGE 5
FORD 19
MERCURY 0
OLDSMOBILE 0
OPEL 0
PLYMOUTH 2
PONTIAC 0
TOYOTA 0
VOLKSWAGON 0
VOLVO 0
0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0
0.07 0.2 2.98 6.7 13.5 30.2 0.07 .16 -0.3
0.00 0.0 0.42 1.8 -1.5 6.5 -0.01 .04 0.0
0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0
*MODEL YEAR
1960 0
1961 0
1962 0
1963 0
1964 0
1965 0
1966 0
1967 0
1968 0
1969 0
1970
5
0.01
0.0
1.61
3,
.6
-5.7
12.6
-0.03
.07
0.1
1971
8
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1972
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0,
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
1973
6
0.06
0.1
2.48
6
.1
11.3
27.6
0.06
.14
-0.2
1974
9
0.00
0.0
0.00
o,
.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
*DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
9
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
3
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
12
0.01
0.0
0.67
2.3
-2.4
8.2
-0.01
.05
0.0
7
0.05
0.1
2.13
5.6
9.6
25.5
0.05
.13
-0.2
*INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
1
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
2800 - 3799
15
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.00
0.00
0.0
3800 - 4799
14
0.03
0.1
1.64
4.4
2.8
20.1
0.01
.11
-0.1
4800 - 5799
0
*POPULATIONS
I960 - 1967 0
1968 - 1974 30 0.01 0.1 0.76 3.0 1.3 13.5 O.Ol .07
ALL VEHICLES 30 0.01 0.1 0.76 3.0 1.3 13.5 0.01 .07
Ĥ0.0
-0.0
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
-------
PERCENT REDUCTIONS AND REDUCTIONS PER DOLLAR
1960-1967 VEHICLES!
1968-1974 VEHICLES!
# OF
VEH.
1975 FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURE
FLEET VEHICLES
0 HC FAILURES, 0 CO FAILURES, 0.0% FAILURE RATE
0 HC FAILURES, 2 CO FAILURES, 6.7% FAILURE RATE
~VEHICLE MAKE
AMER. MOTORS 4
BUICK 0
CADILLAC 0
CHEVROLET 0
CHRYSLER 0
DATSUN 0
DODGE 5
FORD 19
MERCURY 0
OLDSMOBILE 0
OPEL 0
PLYMOUTH 2
PONTIAC 0
TOYOTA 0
VOLKSWAGON 0
VOLVO 0
PERCENT REDUCTIONS
HC CO NOX MPG
0.00
0.00
MILLIGRAMS/MILE/DOLLAR
HC CO NOX
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
0.0
1.53 3.35 2.16 -2.45 14.7 603.5 14.3
0.09 0.57 -0.36 0.12 0.7 94.3 -1.9
0.0 0.0 0.0
~MODEL YEAR
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
0.26
2.01
-0.84
0.52
2.2
274.2
-5.6
8
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
1
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
6
1.22
2.64
2.67
-2.02
12.7
519.3
12.3
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
~DISPLACEMENT
LESS THAN 151
151 - 250
251 - 350
MORE THAN 350
9
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
3
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
12
0.13
1.00
-0.49
0.20
1.1
140.3
-2.9
7
1.00
2.11
1.51
-1.73
11.1
455.7
10.8
~INERTIA WEIGHT
1800 - 2799
1
0.00
O.OO
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
2800 - 3799
15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.0
0.0
0.0
3800 - 4799
14
0.62
1.93
0.44
-0.63
6.1
327.6
2.7
4800 - 5799
0
~POPULATIONS
1960 - 1967
0
1968 - 1974
30
0.35
0.99
0.23
-0.25
3.2
171.2
1.4
ALL VEHICLES
30
0.35
0.99
0.23
-0.25
3.2
171.2
1.4
AUTOMOTIVE TESTING LABORATORIES.INC.
19900 E. COLFAX, AURORA, COLO. 80011
------- |