ft* Tor«Vin "i pa 1 QnnnATt' Tlr^fninnoTi
mmJ aJUm Cam \t0 J" %£* \m0 X JLXtJL ¦!¦ Vh# ChMm Ber J^*/ \m/F JLi lw# JLr \m/F l«JLJLIili^5 JL JL %#
for
CAP 2000 Proposal
-------
I. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to supply supplemental
information to support EPA's proposed rulemaking regarding
compliance programs for light-duty vehicles and trucks (CAP 2000)
rulemaking. Some of the data referenced in the this report are
claimed by the manufacturer to be confidential. In those cases,
non-confidential summaries of the data are included to assist
commenters in understanding the basis for the Agency's actions in
the rulemaking.
The bulk of the report is a review of the revised durability
program (RDP) which is a current regulatory option to obtain
certification. To date, thirteen manufacturers have Agency
approval to use the RDP provisions for certification. To a large
extent the proposed CAP 2000 durability procedures are built upon
the RDP procedures.
Other topics included in this staff report are:
(1) A discussion of the correlation procedures used by the Agency
to assure that accurate tests are run by manufacturers,
(2) A discussion of the information collected from manufacturers
which is not directly used in reaching the decision to grant a
Certificate of Conformity,
(3) A discussion of the effect of ambient weather patterns (warm
versus cold climates) on in-use deterioration and recalls in
support of the CAP 2000 requirement that some vehicles tested be
recruited from cold weather locales, and
(4) A discussion of the rationale used in proposing a durability
group concept for CAP 2000 rather than the current engine family
definition.
This report has been placed in the docket number A-96-50
associated with the CAP 2000 rule.
1
-------
II. Review of the Revised Durability Program (RDP)
A. Background
The Clean Air Act (CAA) prohibits manufacturers of new motor
vehicles from selling or introducing new motor vehicles into
commerce unless the vehicles are covered by a certificate of
conformity. EPA is charged with the responsibility of issuing
certificates of conformity based on testing which verifies
compliance with the appropriate emission standards over the
vehicles' useful life. This necessitates a prediction of the
durability or rate of deterioration of the vehicle's useful life
emission levels before actual production begins.
Light Duty Vehicle Durability.
The process of demonstrating emission durability for the
purpose of certification begins well in advance of production.
For light-duty vehicles, EPA's current standard durability
process requires manufacturers to accumulate mileage on a pre-
production vehicle over a prescribed driving cycle for 100,000
miles to simulate deterioration over the useful life. These
vehicles are termed durability data vehicles (DDVs); the mileage
accumulation cycle, specified in 40 CFR Part 86, is commonly
referred to as the AMA cycle.
In this process, emission data are generated at periodic
intervals during AMA mileage accumulation and a linear regression
of the data is performed to calculate a multiplicative
deterioration factor (DF)1 for each exhaust constituent. In the
current certification program, low mileage vehicles (referred to
as "emission data vehicles," or EDVs) are tested with
calibrations that the manufacturer intends to produce. The
emissions from these tests are multiplied by the DFs to calculate
the projected emissions levels (referred to as the "certification
multiplicative DF is calculated by performing a least-squares
regression of the emission versus mileage data for each exhaust emission
constituent and dividing the 100,000-mile emission level by the 4,000-mile
emission level. The DF is than used with other test vehicles to
determine compliance with the standards. The product of the emissions
multiplied by the DF (referred to as the certification level) must be less
than or equal to the emission standard to receive a certificate of conformity.
2
-------
levels") at 100,000 miles. The certification levels must be at
or below the applicable emission standards in order to obtain a
certificate of conformity.
Light Duty Truck Durability
Beginning with the 1984 model year, EPA durability
regulations2 for light-duty trucks (LDTs) have permitted
manufacturers to use their own methods, based on good engineering
judgment and targeted to represent in-use performance, to
determine DFs subject to review by EPA. Although EPA had
concerns initially regarding the accuracy of the DFs generated by
this method,3 the manufacturers improved their processes after
discussions between EPA and industry. As a result of these
discussions, manufacturers now generally base their light truck
dfs on actual AMA or RDP durability test data and, in some cases,
in-use data collected by the manufacturers. Also several
manufacturers combine data from several truck engine families
into groups (not unlike the durability groups proposed in CAP
2000) to expand the data pool and minimize the effect of outlier
data. The additional data collected under some of these truck
deterioration programs coupled with the incorporation of in-use
data represents an improvement over single AMA durability tests
run under the standard AMA durability process. Targeting a
process to represent in-use emission performance rather than
running a standard AMA cycle also represents an improvement over
AMA based durability. The Agency now believes that the light-
duty truck DFs generated by manufacturers using their own methods
are on the whole at least as representative as those based on AMA
mileage accumulation and in some cases represent an improvement
over AMA due to the addition of in-use data.
EPA has been concerned about the ability of any fixed cycle
- including the AMA cycle - to accurately predict in-use
deterioration for all vehicles. In fact, EPA has particular
concerns that the AMA does not represent the driving patterns of
today and does not appropriately age current design vehicles. As
a result, EPA believes that the AMA may have become outdated.
2 Reference CFR 86.092-24 (c) (2) prior to the 1994 model year.
Reference 40 CFR 86.094-13 (e).
3See 57 FR 18545 NPRM (April 30, 1992) on RDP 1.
3
-------
The AMA cycle, which was developed before vehicles were
equipped with catalytic converters, contains a substantial
portion of low speed driving to address concerns about engine
deposits (which were a major source of deterioration in pre-
catalyst vehicles). However, since the advent of catalytic
converters, better fuel control, and the use of unleaded fuel,
causes of deterioration have shifted from low speed driving to
driving modes which include higher speed/load regimes that cause
elevated catalyst temperatures. The AMA driving cycle does not
adequately focus on these higher catalyst temperature driving
modes and contains numerous driving modes which do not
significantly contribute to deterioration but do make the process
longer with little added benefit.
Instead of requiring an alternative mileage accumulation
procedure, EPA began a voluntary program in the 1994 model year
for light-duty vehicles which allows manufacturers to develop and
use their own procedures to evaluate durability and deterioration
(subject to prior Agency approval), provided that the
manufacturer conduct or fund an in-use "reality check" test
program to evaluate the effectiveness of its predictions. The
initial program, referred to as revised durability program I (RDP
I), was an interim program scheduled to expire after the 1995
model year and was intended to serve as a bridge to an
anticipated complete revision to the durability process (RDP II).
The provisions of RDP I have since been extended in a series of
regulatory actions.4
Although EPA investigated developing a standard mileage
accumulation procedure5 to replace the AMA as part of the RDP II
development, EPA was concerned about the appropriateness of any
single durability program to effectively predict in-use emission
deterioration for the entire range of automobile products.
Different catalysts formulations may have different sensitivity
to temperature extremes. Fuel control differences and different
catalyst placements could impact the amount of high catalyst
459 FR 36368 (July 18, 1994), 62 FR 11082 (March 11, 1997), 62 FR 11138
(March 11, 1997) and 62 FR 44872 (August 22, 1997).
Presented at an April 26, 1994 EPA workshop. See Appendix II for
details.
4
-------
temperatures that would occur in use. Vehicle engine, exhaust
system and drive train differences could cause the vehicle to
achieve different catalyst temperature exposures during identical
vehicle operation.
The Agency has now decided to address the revisions it was
considering in RDP II as part of the comprehensive redesigned
certification process, the CAP 2000 Program, for which this staff
paper provides supplementary information.
B. Types of Revised Durability Programs
Two major types of durability processes have emerged from
the RDP I experience: whole vehicle mileage accumulation cycles
and bench aging procedures.
The whole vehicle aging concept involves driving vehicles on
a track or dynamometer on an aggressive driving cycle of the
manufacturer's design. Typically, the speed, acceleration rates,
and/or vehicle load are significantly increased compared to the
AMA cycle or normal in-use driving patterns. The vehicle can be
driven either for full useful-life mileage, or, for a higher
stress cycle, the vehicle can be driven for a reduced number of
miles (e.g., 1 mile on the high speed cycle equals 2 miles in
use). In either case, the vehicle is tested periodically and a
DF is calculated. By choosing the profile of the cycle
carefully, manufacturers have been able to meet or exceed the in-
use deterioration goals of the program (based on the limited in-
use verification data receive to date) while taking significantly
less time to complete the durability process. Such a program
could take a quarter to half the time to complete as the AMA
cycle with the attendant cost savings.
The second type of RDP is bench aging. The bench aging
procedures involve the removal of critical emission components
(such as the catalyst and oxygen sensor) and the accelerated
aging of those components on an engine dynamometer bench.6
6An engine dynamometer bench consists of an engine dynamometer, a
"slave" engine, and required controllers and sensors to achieve the desired
operation of the engine on the dynamometer.
5
-------
During the aging process important engine/catalyst parameters are
controlled to assure proper aging. Typically, elevated catalyst
temperatures are maintained while fuel is controlled to include
lean and rich spikes and stoichiometric control. Typical bench
aging periods are 100-200 hours. Even with the setup time of the
engine test bench, the cost savings of such bench aging
procedures are very significant.
These bench aging procedures are based on the implicit
assumptions that (1) most emission deterioration on light-duty
vehicles and trucks is due to catalyst and oxygen sensor
deterioration, (2) that catalyst deterioration is largely due to
high thermal exposure during typical fuel control (including lean
and rich spikes), (3) other sources of deterioration can be
covered by additional aging of the catalyst.7 Through a series
of tests and measurements, manufacturers determine the amount of
time needed to bench-age a catalyst the equivalent of 100,000
miles. Other sources of deterioration (including any engine-out
deterioration) can be accounted for by aging the catalyst for an
additional amount of time. The overall effectiveness of the RDP
program is supported by the data presented by manufacturer during
the approval process.
C. EPA's RDP Review Process
EPA has been approving manufacturer alternative durability
programs under RDP-I since 1992 (starting in the 1994 model year
for Federal certification) and has provided guidance to assist
manufacturers in the approval process8. To receive approval
under RDP I, manufacturers are required to show that their
durability processes are designed to cover a significant majority
7To obtain approval to use this process, manufacturers supply evidence
that these assumptions are valid for their vehicles. Additional sources of
deterioration (such as engine-out deterioration and catalyst poisoning) may be
accounted for by over-aging the catalyst to account for these sources.
8Refer to the Agency's July 29, 1994 guidance letter "Alternative
Durability Guidance for MY 94 through MY 98", reference number: CD-94-13.
6
-------
of deterioration rates experienced by vehicles in actual use.9
The requirement that the procedure cover a significant majority
of the deterioration experienced by vehicles in use, rather than
the entire population, is not intended to relax the goal of the
program but is to allow for the uncertainty inherent in any
sampling plan.
D. Summary of RDP Programs Approved by EPA
The Agency has approved 17 RDP programs for 13 different
manufacturers and is actively reviewing five additional programs.
The RDP regulations became effective in the 1994 model year for
Federal applications and in the 1993 model year for California
applications.
The Agency has influenced manufacturers to make improvements
to their aging procedures and identified and corrected some
manufacturer mistakes. Table 1 contains a summary of the RDP
plans which were influenced by Agency review. In eleven of the
thirteen approved RDP process the Agency comments on the RDP or
the in-use reality check program resulted in improvements to the
manufacturers program. Based on this statistic, the Agency
believes that the review process by the Agency has been
important.
The Agency guidance10 for acceptance of RDP programs
requires (among other requirements) that the manufacturer
demonstrate that the RDP plan cover a "significant majority" of
the in-use deterioration of their vehicles. Table 1 contains a
summary of the manufacturers estimate of the percent of the in-
use data covered by their RDP. This percent coverage ranges from
75% to 99.9% percent. Most manufacturers (7 of 10) indicated
that their durability programs cover ninety percent of more of
the distribution of deterioration rates experienced by drivers in
Manufacturers have typically shown that their durability programs cover
ninety percent or higher of the distribution of deterioration rates
experienced by vehicles in actual use. See Table 1 in this report for further
details.
10 Refer to the Agency's July 29, 1994 guidance letter "Alternative
Durability Guidance for MY 94 through MY 98".
7
-------
actual use.
The Agency guidance also requires that the manufacturer
supply a comparison of catalyst temperatures and times at those
temperatures measured during their RDP cycle and during the AMA
cycle using identical vehicles. Using this time-at-temperature
data the Agency has compared the two cycles prior to approval.
The results of these comparisons are contained in Table 1. In
all cases, the Agency concluded that the net thermal exposure
that leads to catalyst deterioration was higher on the
manufacturers' RDP cycle that the AMA cycle. Based on these
data, the Agency believes that the approved RDP processes are
more severe for emission deterioration than the AMA cycle.
The current truck deterioration programs require the
manufacturer to develop its own deterioration program which is
designed to represent in-use deterioration. Durability procedures
used for trucks are often similar to those approved under the RDP
program for light duty vehicles. In some cases, in-use data is
collected and used for the truck deterioration program. Because
of these similarities to the RDP's, the Agency believes that the
truck deterioration programs are also more severe than the AMA in
most circumstances.
For bench aging RDP programs, EPA asked several
manufacturers to collect data on the engine-out deterioration
characteristics of their vehicles. Stable engine-out emissions
support the concept ot bench-aging catalysts and oxygen sensors
off the vehicle. However, proof of stable engine-out emission is
not absolutely necessary for RDP approval since the catalyst may
be over-aged to include other sources of deterioration. The
Agency's requirement to match a significant majority of in-use
deterioration rates is the pertinent data that supports the
validity of the manufacture's RDP. Consequently, the Agency did
not request supporting data from all manufacturers. The
manufacturers with data showing essentially no engine-out
deterioration are summarized in Table 1. Engine-out data for GM
and Chrysler (which provided more complete data) are contained in
Appendix I.
Table 2 contains a summary of reality check data which have
completed Agency review. Four manufacturers are represented on
the table. More manufacturers have promised to collect reality
8
-------
check data which is pending or have submitted preliminary data
which is undergoing Agency review. The collected data show that
the vast majority of the time (125 of 131 tests) the test
vehicles comply with the certification standards (which in most
cases are more severe that the applicable in-use standards with
which the manufacturers must comply during recall testing in-
use) . In the cases where an individual vehicle failed the in-use
standards, additional data was usually provided by the
manufacturer to explain the cause of the failure. The details of
data summarized in the Table I are contained in Appendix III.
Based on the data provided by the manufacturers showing that
their RDP covers typically ninety percent of the distribution of
deterioration rates experienced by drivers in actual use, the
Agency believes that these RDP cycles would be a good predictor
of deterioration in actual use. When coupled with the in-use
reality check, any significant shortfalls in the predictive
ability of a manufacturer's RDP could be identified. The Agency
requires that manufacturers agree to remedy any significant
shortfall uncovered by the in-use reality check data by making
corrections to their RDP for future model years. Also the Agency
can use the reality check data to direct its recall
investigations which could lead to more recalls. The
identification and repair of failing vehicles in-use (through the
recall process) would lead to lower in-use emissions under the
RDP program than under AMA durability protocols which lack the
in-use data. Ultimately, this will lead to a lower level of
emission non-compliance in use. Because the CAP 2000 proposal is
based on the RDP durability provisions coupled with other
improvements discussed in the preamble, the Agency expects that
under CAP 2000 the level of emission non-compliance will also be
reduced in use.
III. Correlation Testing Between SPA and Manufacturer Labs
EPA's test laboratory in Ann Arbor has been confirming
manufacturers' certification and fuel economy testing for over 20
years. The preponderance of data shows that EPA and
manufacturers correlate very well. Because EPA has total control
over the quality of its own test facility, including
dynamometers, calibration gases, analyzers, and all the other
aspects which are needed to perform a test in accordance with CFR
9
-------
requirements, it is assured of its level of accuracy. When a
manufacturer's vehicle is tested at the EPA lab, the results are
compared to the manufacturer's own test data (known as "paired
data). EPA has a vast amount of paired data, which has shown
overwhelmingly that manufacturers are indeed capable of running
accurate tests. When a correlation problem is identified, EPA
may require the manufacturer to take corrective action until the
offset is eliminated. Ongoing correlation programs are also
conducted by manufacturer assocications (such as AAMA and JAMA).
The data from these programs are used by EPA and manufacturers to
quantify individual laboratory offsets. All certification test
data, both manufacturer and EPA-run, is published annually per
the CAA requirement, and may be inspected at the EPA-OMS web
site, given in the Preamble to the proposal.
IV. Information Used for Granting Certificate of Conformity.
EPA's experience over the past 20 years in certifying
vehicles has been that it does not normally need such information
as technical descriptions of emission control components, part
numbers, and calibration specifications to make certification
decisions. The emphasis at the time of certification is
compliance with the emission standards: did the manufacturer
demonstrate that the vehicles it plans to produce are capable of
meeting the emission standards? The above-mentioned items, while
important for making future in-use compliance/enforcement
determinations, are not usually needed during the certification
process to determine compliance with the emission standards. In
the rare instance where such information may be needed, EPA has
the authority to request it prior to certification.
V. Warm Weather less Harsh Durability Conditions than Cold
Weather.
EPA believes that vehicles operated in colder climates may be
subject to harsher durability conditions based on our engineering
judgement of the impact of various conditions such vehicles are
exposed to that are not present, or present to a lesser degree,
in warmer areas. These factors include such things as increased
corrosion due to road de-icing chemicals, increased exhaust
condensation, longer operation in cold enrichment mode, and
10
-------
longer idle time(vehicle warm-up). We do not consider these
factors to be atypical or improper use; however, they could
contribute to deterioration patterns not observed in warmer
climates. There have been several EPA-influenced emission recalls
which included only vehicles located in colder areas.
VI. Engine Family to Durability Group Rationale.
EPA's decision to change from the "engine family" concept to
the "durability group" concept is based upon its 20-year
experience certifying vehicles. Two factors went into the
decision to do so: first, as stated in the Preamble, the engine
family criteria in the current regulations were focussed
primarily on engine-design parameters. EPA believed that since
the promulgation of those regulations, a combination of emission
control technology advancements and engine design improvements
made the "engine family" designated somewhat outdated. The
"durability group" accounts for both important engine design
features and adds more emphasis on the emission control elements
which are subject to deterioration over time. The second factor
which played into the decision was one of burden. Performing
durability testing for each engine family is one of the highest
costs to manufacturers in the certification process. The
proposed durability group criteria coincidentally result in fewer
durability demonstrations for the manufacturer.
11
-------
Table 1
Approved Revised Durability Plans
Mfr
Yr of
Approval
Type of
RPD
Mfr Est of % of In-
Use Dist Covered by
RDP
Kore Cat Temp
Exposure than
AMA
RDP Improved
in response to
EPA review
Mfr data shows
almost no
Engine-out
Deterioration
BMW
1993
Track -
accel mi
"More than 75%"
[75% +10 to 30%
safety factor]
yes
yes,
miles run
incr.by 60%
N/A
(not a bench
cycle)
Chry
1996
Bench
75%
yes
Yes,
safety factor
added
Yes
Ford
1995
Bench &
Track
95-98%
yes
yes, aging
incr 20%
Oral
Presentation
GM
1992-3
Bench
95-98%
yes
yes, reality
check
yes
Honda
1996
Bench &
Track
99.9%
yes
yes, reality
check
not required
Mazda
1994
Track
99.9% in-use
driving patterns
yes
yes, reality
check
N/A
Track proc
Daewoo
1998
Track
95%
yes
yes
N/A
Track proc
-------
Table 1, page 2
Mfr
Yr of
Approval
Type of
RPD
Mfr Est of % of In-
Use Dist Covered by
RDP
More Cat Temp
Exposure than
AMA
RDP Improved
in response to
EPA review
Mfr data shows
almost no
Engine-out
Deterioration
Nissan
1993 &
1996
Track &
Bench
up to 94%
yes
yes
yes
Porsche
1997
uses VW
RDP
Track
not avail
yes
No,
uses VW
N/A
Track proc
Saab
1998
uses GM
RDP
Bench
GM 95-98%
yes
No, uses GM
Yes with GM
Suzuki
1996
Bench +
Vehicle
aging
Driving patterns
exceed all 113 in-
use vehicles
surveyed
yes
Yes
Not provided,
vehicle is aged
in addition to
bench aging
Toyota
1993 &
1995
Track &
Bench
above 90%
yes
Yes,
analytical
errors
corrected and
bench aging
time increased
No
VW
1996
Track,
accel mi
In-Use data
provided, but
percent coverage
not calculated
yes
yes
No data provided
-------
Table 2
Summary of In-Use Reality Check Testing
I
Manufacturer
Program
Test Program
Year of Service
No of vehicles
passing/run
GM
4 93 - 1
3
5/5
4
5/5
* 94 - 1
2
5/5
3
5/5
4
3/5
2
2
6/7
3
7/7
4
6/7
3
2
5/5
3
5/5
4
5/5
' 95 - 1
2
5/5
3
3/3
2
2
3/3
3
3/3
3
2
0/1, passed retest
3
1/1
4 96 - 1
2
5/5
Ford
* 96 - 1
2
7/7
2
2
5/5
Honda
'97-1
2
5/5
2
2
5/5
Toyota
======MS=B«=Ba!I=
195-1
2
7/7
3
5/5
% 95-2
2
5/5
3
5/5
* 96-1
2
2/2
x 96-2
2
2/2
-------
Table 3
Revised Durability Plans Pending Approval
Mfr
Yr of
Approval
Type of
RPD
Mfr Est of % of
In-Use Dist
Covered by RDP
More catalyst
temp exposure
than AMA?
RDP Improved
in response to
EPA review
Mfr data shows
almost no
Engine-out
Deterioration
Mercedes
Under
develop
Track
yes
Yes - added
cold starts
N/A
Hyundai
Under
develop
Vehicle/
Bench
combo
Target 90%
TBD
EPA part of
development
KIA
Early
develop
Bench &
Track
Target 90%
TBD
EPA part of
development
TBD
Subaru
Under
develop
Bench
Volvo
Under
considera-
tion
Bench/
Poison
combo
yes
-------
ADnendix X
j
tKk
-------
r 23, 1996
!OWERTRAIN
RECEIVED
AU6 1 4 1996
VPCD
ML-GM495
Mr. D. J. Good, Team Coordinator
Certification Branch
Certification Division
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Rd.
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
GM W-oV" C6WSi(l«r
^ evA didb
4o be. 6H C«wW
-------
ATTACHMENTS TO GM LETTER ML-GM495:
GM LETTER ML-GM489
GARB LETTER C-96-072
GM LETTER ML-GM494
-------
GM
POWERTRAIN
September 30, 1996
ML-GM489
Mr. D. Nguyen
Mobile Source Division
Air Resources Board
9480 Telstar Avenue
Suite #4
El Monte, CA 91731
Dear Mr. Nguyen:
Subject: Reality Check Engine-Out Emission Testing
One of the original assumptions of the ADP program is engine-out emissions are stable over
the useful life of the vehicle. General Motors agreed to conduct engine-out testing on ADP
program customer vehicles to prove this assumption.
As part of our ADP reality check process agreement, GM has been conducting engine-out
testing on our 1992-94 California certified engine families. Based on 1992-94 model year
reality check data (attached), GM believes it is now appropriate to discontinue this engine-out
testing requirement.
The elimination of engine-out testing would save us test time and allow for quicker turnaround
of the customer vehicle.
We request CARB to please respond with your approval for allowing us to discontinue the
engine-out testing of reality check vehicles.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience on 810/685-6976.
Sincerely,
?.C.
R. C. Harvey
R. C. Harvey
Project Manager
Powertrain Control Center
RCH/SAF/ks
Attachments
Powertrain Control Center • M/C
-------
15 I
4
3.
2.
3.
.8
0
40
32
24
16
8
0
5
4
3
2
3
0
ERV.
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER CARS 09-0^-3995
ENGINE FAMILY P1G2.0WBJF35
TESTED AT VAN NUYS
2ND/3RD/4TH YEARS OF SERVICE CONFIDENTIAL
O- TAk-ERED/ABUSEO
CEL. ON/STORED COOES
AVE » 3.31
30
20
30
40
50
AVG - 32.73
=-¦¦! 4-
-rf*-
x
30
20
30
40
50
AVG - 1.73
_± K
I,.*...
DA
OA
-------
10 I
5
3
2
1
0
40
32
24
16
e
o
5
A
3
2
1
0
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER CARS 09-04-j99B
ENGINE FAMILY P1G3.1WBMCF5
TESTED AT VAN NUYS
ERV. 2ND/3RD YEARS 0F SERVICE GM CONFIDENTIAL
D- tampered/abused
CEL ON/STORED CODES
AVG - 2.62
. ± $ 4 +
10
..I l
20
30
40
50
AVG «= 15.4B
-4- ¦+
+ % +
10
20
30
40
50
AVG « 1.55
on
"3A
AfS
haP
-------
12 i
6
<4 ,
3.
2.
1 .
0
40
32
24
16
B
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
ERV,
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER CARS 09-04-1995
ENGINE FAMILY P1G4.6W8XEBB
TESTED AT VAN NUY5
2ND/3RD/4TH YEARS OF SERVICE qm CONFIDENTIAL
~ - TAMPERED/ABU5ED
CEt ON/STORED CODES
AVG - 3.17
10 20 30 40 50
AVG - 17.23
50 20 30 40 50
AVG « 1.52
on
n r\
A A
E.D ftpptp ^
-------
16 Of
6
4.8
3.6
2.4
3 .2
0
40
32
24
16
e
0
6
4.0
3.6
2.4
i .2
0
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER TRUCKS 09-cm-i936
ENGINE FAMILY P3G4.3X5XG3B
TESTED AT VAN NUYS
ERV. 2ND/3RD/4TH YEARS OF SERVICE Gm CONFIDENTIAL
~ - tampered/abused
CEL ON/STORED CODES
AVG - 2.50
j± , +„ + r1
10
30
30
40
50
AVG «= 12.13
4? ' * «r "t 1 ' "fr >
•t- -f
-4 *
« * * » 1
10
20
30
40
50
AVG « 2.84
h—<-
i
>4 t.
* r\
Ofs
-an
-,n (WTcl
-------
16 Df
6
4.B
3.6
2.4
1.2
0
40
32
24
- IS
e
o
6
4.8
3.6
2.4
1.2
0
ERV.
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER TRUCKS 09-05-5995
ENGINE FAMILY P3G5.7X5XG59
TESTED AT VAN NUYS
2ND/3RD/4TH YEARS OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
~ - TAMPERED/ABUSED
CEL ON/STORED CODES
AVG « 3.02
-+• t 4-
10
20
30
40
50
AVG - 16.69
AVG « 1.61
10
20
30
40
50
10 20
30
40
50 /WTo£
-------
5 0
6
4.
3.
2.
1 .
0
40
32
24
16
B
0
5
4
3
2
1
0
RV
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER CARS 09-0^-1996
ENGINE FAMILY R1G4.9VBG1EA
TESTED AT VAN NUY5
2ND YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
O- TAMPERED/ABUSED
CEL ON/STORED CODES
AVG - 2.64
JO
20
30
40
50
AVG « 15.63
-++,»
10
20
30
40
50
AVG - 1.50
10
20
30
40
-90 W
-------
10
4
3.
2.
1.
.8
0
40
32
24
15
B
0
5
A
3
2
1
0
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER CARS 09-04-i996
ENGINE FAMILY R1G2.2V7G2EA
TESTED AT VAN NUYS
cou 2ND/3RD YEARS OF SERVICE PTni_ tt
ERV. GM CONFIOENTI&L
O « TAMPEREO/ABUSED
CEL ON/STORED codes
AVG - 1.16
+¦" 1 ^ ^
10 20 30 40. 50
AVG - 10.10
J
10 20 30 40 50
AVG - 2.17
10 20 30
ODOMETER/1000 MILES
40
50 Ml.
-------
14
5
4
3
2
i
o
40
32
24
16
B
0
5
4
3
2
1
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER CARS 09-05-1996
ENGINE FAMILY R1G3.1V8GFEA
TESTED AT MILFORD / VAN NUV5
ERV. 2ND/3RD YEARS DF 5ERVICE GM CONFIDENTIAL
D « TAMPERED/ABUSED
CEL ON/STORED CODES
AVG - 2.48
1 "tu. **". i
7 tep
10 20 30 40 50
AVG - 10,86
'4 ^ 1 1
10 20 30 40 50
AVG - j.74
Hh
fcftplrt ll
-------
10
6 '
4.
3.
2.
1.
0
40
32
24
16
8
0
5
A
3
2
1
0
GM REALITY CHECK - CUSTOMER CARS 09-04-1995
ENGINE FAMILY R1G4.6VJG1EA
TESTED AT VAN NUYS
cow 2ND/3RD YEARS OF SERVICE
ERV. GM CONFIDENTIAL
O- TAMPERED/ABUSED
CEl ON/STORED CODES
AVG - 3.45
10
20 30 40 50
AVG - 15.73
J
10 ' 20 ' 30 40 50
AVG
1.69
10 20 30
ODOMETER/1000 MILES
40
50
-------
OCT-1-8-95 FRI 8:49 AM ARB/KSOD/CERT
FAX
818 575 6685
P.
w
CpZ/EPA
California
EoviroomtaUl
Prat fellon
Astncj
ocr i ;
Reference Ho. c-96-072
Pete Wiljoo
Governor
luiie« M. Strode
Secretary for
Environmental
Protection
Air Rwaurcei Board
HAAGEN-SM IT
LABORATORY
P.O. Box 1001
9321 TdfUr Avenue
EJ Monte, CA
9|7>4-$00I
Mr. R. C, Harvey
Project Manager
Powertrain Control Center
GM Proving Ground
General Motors Corporation
Milford, MI 48380-3726
Subject: Reality Check Engine-Out Emission Testing
Dear Mr. Harvey:
This is in response to your letter ML-GM489 to the Air
Resources Board (ARB) requesting approval of General
Motors' {GM's) plan to discontinue engine-out emission
testing for the in-use reality check of GM's Alternative
Durability Process.
Based on our review of your submitted engine-out emission
data from 1992-94 model-year California-certified engine
families, the ARB considers that overall the engine-out
emissions are stable over the useful life of the
vehicles. Thus, GM's request is hereby approved.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Due .Nguyen,
Manager, or Mr. Shewen Chen, Certification Staff, >
Certification Section at (818) 575-6661.
Sincerely,
Ld, Chief
Mobile Source" Operations Division
Post-It"* brand fax transmittal memo 7S?1 «•» hj« »
* ~fatf
Ce' CAf?5
0*pi
Phontl
n*'?97~ST$r(
ft* i
-------
OCf-22-96 TUB 3:42 PU ASB/MS0D/CE8T
OCT-22-88 TOE 15:07 GMPT EFEO
FAX HO. 818 575 6685
FAX HO, 5804 18106855604 ,
P. 1
P, 01/04
POWERTRAIN
October 22.1896
MM3M494
Mr. R. B. SummerfiaJd, Chief
Mobile Source Operations Division
Haagen-Smlt Laboratory
P.O. Box BOOt
BS26 Telstar Avenue
El Monte, CA 91734-8001
Port*' h*Hote/_7671 92m*JlW f_.,„
l"2"r*"-T
O**3*- CAAf. "V (In* —-
Dear Mr. Gummerfiald; i
Subject Alternate Durability Process (ADP) Vehicle Englno-Out Emfeaten Testing
One of the origin*! assumptions of the GM ADP Is that engine-out emissions are stable over the
useful life of the vehicle. In the original ADP agreement reached between OM and CARB, GM
agreed to conduct engine-out emission testing on the ADP durability data vehicle (DDV).
Recently, GM requested and motived CARB approval to eliminate engine-out emission testing
of reality check vehicles (reference attached GM letter ML-GM488 and CARB letter C-W-Q72),
On October 21.1996, In a telephone conversation with Mr. 8 he wen Chen of your staff, I
requested permission to eliminate engine-out emission testing on any current and future GM
ADP DDV's, There should be no reason to continue this requirement alnce the reality check
engine-out testing has been eliminated. Mr. Chen save verbal approval to discontinue the
•ngine-out emission testing on a 1993 model year &.7L MDV ADP DDV that la currently at the
low mileage test point Mr. Chen further Instructed me to send the CARB a letter formally
requesting the elimination of ADP engtne-out testing.
GM requests that the CARB approve this change to the GM ADP by approving the elimination
of ADP DDV engine-out emission testing.
Please call If you have any questions regarding thl» request
Sincerely,
Project Manager
Powertraln Control Center
JMKfcs
Attachments
approved
PawMtmiftCMfetfCMC* • lfC««-*H-»O0 • Wht
CEPJIHpATiON SijXTION
AfP AtfC. Date
flm/1 \ 9
Air Resources Board
Mobile Source DivWon
CEPJiriCATiONSnCTION
-------
PDWERTRAIN
October 22.1996 ML-GM494
Mr. R. B. Summerfield, Chief
Mobile Source Operations Division
Haagen-Smit Laboratory
P.O. Box 8001
9528 Telstar Avenue
El Monte, CA 91734-8001
Dear Mr. Summerfield:
Subject: Alternate Durability Process (ADP) Vehicle Engine-Out Emission Testing
Post-It* Fax Note 7671
Dil't0-Zi46 pages*
To VAe,.rfif|A Cfott
From -T«-
cow CAAV>
Phone »
Phone »
Fax*
Fax*
One of the original assumptions of the GM ADP is that engine-out emissions are stable over the
useful life of the vehicle. In the original ADP agreement reached between GM and CARB. GM
agreed to conduct engine-out emission testing on the ADP durability data vehicle (DDV).
Recently, GM requested and received CARB approval to eliminate engine-out emission testing
of reality check vehicles (reference attached GM letter ML-GM489 and CARB letter C-90-072).
On October 21, 1996, in a telephone conversation with Mr. Shewen Chen of your staff, I
requested permission to eliminate engine-out emission testing on any current and future GM
ADP DDVs. There should be no reason to continue this requirement since the reality check
engine-out testing has been eliminated. Mr. Chen gave verbal approval to discontinue the
engine-out emission testing on a 1998 model year 5.7L MDV ADP DDV that is currently at the
low mileage test point. Mr. Chen-further instructed me to send the CARB a letter formally
requesting the elimination of ADP engine-out testing.
GM requests that the CARB appjove this change to the GM ADP by approving the elimination
of ADP DDV engine-out emission testing.
Please call if you have any questions regarding this request.
Sincerely,
J. M. Kourt
Project Manager
Powertrain Control Center
JMK/ks
Attachments
Pow»rtr»ln Control C«nUr • IA/C 433-331-600 • GM Proving Ground • Mllford, Michigan 4S380-3726 L D
-------
ATTACHMENTS TO GM LETTER ML-GM494
GM LETTER ML-GM489
CARB LETTER C-96-072
-------
PDWERTRAIN
September 30,1996 ML-GM489
Mr. D. Nguyen
Mobile Source Division
Air Resources Board
6480 Telstar Avenue
Suite #4
Ei Monte, CA 91731
Dear Mr. Nguyen:
Subject: Reality Check Engine-Out Emission Testing
One of the original assumptions of the ADP program is engine-out emissions are stable over
the useful life of the vehicle. General Motors agreed to conduct engine-out testing on ADP
program customer vehicles to prove this assumption.
As part of our ADP reality check process agreement, GM has been conducting engine-out
testing on our 1992-94 California certified engine families. Based on 1992-94 model year
reality check data (attached), GM believes it is now appropriate to discontinue this engine-out
testing requirement.
The elimination of engine-out testing would save us test time and allow for quicker turnaround
of the customer vehicle.
We request CARB to please respond with your approval for allowing us to discontinue the
engine-out testing of reality check, vehicles.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at your convenience on 810/685-6976.
Sincerely,
R. C.Harvey
Project Manager
Powertrain Control Center
RCH/SAF/ks
Attachments
-------
OCM8-96 FKI 8:49 AM AEB/KSOD/CERT FAX HO. 818 575 6685
California
GoriroomroUl
(Vettclion
\gtntj
Uf Rwoiwtt* Bonrd
I AAOEN-tMIT
ABORATORY
.0. Bex 100!
521 Ttliur A»mm
1 Moou. CA
itMWOI
00! 1 7 M6
Reference No. C-96-072
PcU Wilton
Governor
Jiuu M. Strode
Secretary Jot
£n*irwtmcnul
Protection
Mr. R. c. Harvey
Project Manager
Powertrain Control Center
CM Proving Ground
General Motors Corporation
Milford, MI 48380-3726
Subject: Reality Check Engine-Out Emission Testing
Dear Mr. Harvey:
This is in response to your letter ML-GM489 to the Air
Resources Board (ARB) requesting approval of General
Motors' (GK's) plan to discontinue engine-out emission
testing for the in-use reality check of GM's Alternative
Durability Process.
Based on our review of your submitted engine-out emission
data from 1992-94 model-year California-certified engine
families, the ARB considers that overall the engine-out
emissions are stable over the useful life of the
vehicles. Thus; GM's request is hereby approved.
If you have any questions, please contact Mr. Due IJguyen,
Manager, or Mr.,Shewen Chen, Certification Staff, ^
Certification Section at (818) 575-6661.
Sincerely,
fR. B/'summerf j/ld, Chief
Mobile Source Operations Division
bond tu Vwnmittal mvmo 7S7t ]«•<*•»« »
** S+e** 7oM
w CA1?6
Oapt.
F"'
Nil
jW1pi£
-------
^chryslbr
W CORPORATION
Chrysler Corporation CIN
Chrysler Technology Center
CIMS <82-00-81
51
January 30,1998
c o i
DIVISION
Ms. Jane Armstrong, Director
Certification Diyision
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
Dear Ms. Armstrong
Re: Change Chrysler's Alternative Durability Process to Eliminate Engine-Out
Emissions Testing on Reality Check Vehicles
Chrysler Corporation's currently approved Alternative Durability Process (ADP) includes a
requirement to measure engine out emissions during reality check testing. This emissions
measurement was added at the request of the agency staff, and was consistent with the
requirements for other manufacturers at the time that Chrysler's process was approved.
Subsequently, it has been learned that both EPA and CARB have modified their position on the
requirement for engine out emissions measurements on ADP reality check vehicles.
On August 28, 1997, Chrysler petitioned CARB to eliminate engine out emissions requirements
from its reality check programs and received approval from CARB on September 23, 1997. At
this time, Chrysler is petitioning EPA, with supporting data, for approval to eliminate engine out
emissions for Chrysler's federal ADP reality check vehicles.
Chrysler's and most other AQP aging processes are based on the hypothesis that engine-out
emissions remain stable throughout a vehicle's useful life. For this reason, the process
concentrates on bench aging catalytic converters and using these with aged Oz sensors on
stable vehicles to develop our deterioration factors. Other main stream engineering durability
processes demonstrate the mechanical durability of components. The table below is a synopsis
of some supporting data that supports our ADP hypothesis. These data are based on the
attached summary of 34 irv-use fleet vehicles (Tier 0 level through prototype LEV).
Average % Emissions ijC £<2 NOx
These data show that engine out HC and NOx, on average, are less at 100K than at 4K, and CO
shows a very small increase (less than 1% at 100K). We believe that these data confirm that
engine out emissions data is not needed on ADP reality check vehicles. There are also other
reasons why Chrysler believes that engine out emissions should not be measured on customer
owned ADP reality check vehicles. These follow:
Increase (4K-50K)= -4.3% 4.7% -11.9%
(4K-100K) = -2.6% 0.8% -8.6%
-------
January 30,1998
Page 2
• Vehicle modifications are very difficult to make on many production vehicle
configurations. This is especially true on packages that use close coupled catalytic
converters.
• More extensive vehicle modification adds time to the process, and it is desirable to
minimize the time that customer owned vehicles are involved in the reality check
program.
• Modifications which involve installation of probes into the system increase the possibility
of exhaust leaks.
• Collecting additional emissions data introduces complexity and increases the chances for
testing error and subsequent retests.
• Test facility and engineering resources requirements are reduced.
Chrysler would appreciate prompt consideration of this request.
If you have any questions concerning this request please feel free to call me at (248) 576-7363.
Sincerely,
CHRYSLER CORPORATION
Edward J. Kanigowski REVIEWED AND A
Certification Planning Specialist
Vehicle Certification Programs
EPA REP.
PPS/EJK:sr
Attachment
EJKtafc)
-WJV-W
-------
Tier 0 thru LEV Prototype Engine-Out (E.O.) Deterioration Comparison
IS Fed
'IS
16
16
16
16
T7
50-5
Fed
C«I
Fed
50-3
Fed
12L
12L Turbo
12L
22L
2.SL
2.2L Turbo
15L
17
IS
II
II
It
II
II
19
19
50-S
Fed
Fed
54.4
M
2
3.4
174
1.6
4.0
15.1
1.1
11.9
A
3
2.4
1.3
20
22
122
15
-5.9
A
3
21
10.6
15
14
11.1
IJ
14.6
M
3
v30
14.6
1.1
19
16.3
17
-5.3
A
5
IS
13.0'
29
1.4
15.2
17
-10.0
A
4
1.9
11.1
13
1.1
9.7
11
-6.3
M
3
27
147
1.4
16
131
15
-4.4
A
3
1.4
11.6
2.7
1.3
11.1
25
-6.4
M
2
21
14.5
2.5
13
140
1.5
11.0
A
2.7
9.2
11
13
122
11
-12.4
A
13
93
1.9
1.9
11.4
12
-19.2
M
2
3.1
12.7
1.6
23
13.9
1.6
-26.0
A
3
1.6
147
3.7
1.4
16.6
3.1
-14.1
A
4
1.1
9.9
13
1.6
6.6
16
-11.0
A
5
24
9.1
15
2.1
11.2
U
-14.5
A
3
3.1
11.9
21
2.1
11.0
1.1
-9.2
A
4
10
10.4
14
1.7
121
1.5
-11.3
A
3
13
10.7
15
2.0
12.1
12
-111
A
4
1.4
15.2
)2
1.5
16.1
5.0
1.7
A
2
12
11.0
5.9
1.9
1.2
4.3
•15.1
A
2
21
100
13
12
10.0
12
4.1
A
2
10
9.0
10
11
10.0
I.I
5.0
A
5
1.1
9.2
17
19
1.4
14
5.6
A
4 y
3.1
10.0
22
11
10.0
1.1
-9.7
A
4 Tier t
26
111
3.6
14
12.1
19
-7.6
A
5
2.5
11.0
2.1
2.6
11.0
20
4.0
A
*
2.5
lis
25
14
13.2
12
-4.9
A
» 1
r
IS
97
10
2.7
9.6
12
1.0
A
S LEV
14
11.1
16
1.4
115
1.6
-0.7
A
1.2
11.5
24
1.1
10.1
17
-10.6
A
* J
r
1.1
9.4
13
1.2
9.1
14
7.1
U£
£B
NOi
*<|. W Mini
eaaiaci
i
1
5
•
-4J
4.7
-UJ
Avf. % wnltiloni iacnue (4-IMK) •
•2.6
IJ
-#.6
S3. SQi BE bqj hc co no%
00
20.6
0.0
-92
47.0
4.7
11.6
16.9
-17.1
-6.1
I.7
-3.4
326
22.6
9.4
12.9
-33.3
23.1
-7.6
23.1
19.6
5.9
-25.5
0.0
II.1
-1.7
0.0
97
00
5.6
-10
36
-6.1
•3.2
0.0
13.4
0.4
-27.4
•23.7
-15.1
-3.9
-40.1
-17.6
7.2
-71
-40.7
-23.1
I&3
-It
-ts.t
13.1
-47.0
-60.4
•319
-13.1
¦41
•27.4
-43
-10.0
-11.1
-lt.2
-111
16 11.2 16
-27 1.5 -27.6
¦4.1
•
Z4 11.9 t.f
•
-4.0 0.0 -9.5
-9J
12 112 13
-11.7 -14 -7.3
10.0
17 10.1 2.2
10 4.1 10.0
3.2
12.0
3.4
(*) m 7SK miUs only
Kj t^TE WEODB2.XLS
SRM 04/10/97
-------
-------
a Why is a New Durability a
^ Cycle Necessary?
• AMA was probably appropriate on precatalyst vehicles (1968 -
1975+) where changes in engine operation were the sole
source of emission deterioration
- » AMA cycle was not designed to provide representative catalyst
thermal deterioration (insufficient higher catalyst
temperatures)
• Surveillance data shows that actual dfs are larger than the
AMA certification df
• The manufacturer determined df program for truck's also has
higher in-use dfs
• Most approved ASAP cycles stress higher catalyst
deterioration.
Certification Division
Slide No. 1
Goals of the SMA
• Represent driving conditions which are reasonably expected to
be encountered by vehicle customers,
• Generate emission DFs representative of in-use.
• Assure 100K durability of emission control components.
• Consider the balance between schedule concerns and
the time to complete testing.
• Cycle & mileage accum fuel specs are compatible with future
technologies and fuels.
• Consider the needs of smaller manufacturers.
Certification Division
Slide No. 2
-------
tir Applicability of the SMA Cycle
• Applies to Cars and Trucks (the manufacturer determined df
program for trucks will be discontinued).
• Manufacturers which are not prepared to implement an ASAP.
• Manufacturers which have failed an ASAP and choose to revert
to the SMAP.
• Available for EDV mileage accumulation.
Certification Division Slide No. 3
O Development of the SMA Cycle
* We collected road data from vehicles run using several
possible cycles which were more severe than the AMA.
We analyzed the catalyst temperatures experienced in different
modes of operation.
We considered information provided for ASAP approvals.
• We considered information collected from the revised FTP
in-use driving studies. It is not our intention, however, to
match the survey results since this is an accelerated cycle.
Certification Division
Slide No. 4
*1.0 eab 4/21/94
Page 2
A^ipU P 2
-------
Results of Our On-Road Testing
Effect on Catalyst Temperature
Major effect; high RPM promoted high catalyst temps
Major effect; (same as engine RPM)
Major effect; high speeds promoted high catalyst temps
Major effect; high accels promoted high catalyst temps
Major effect; usually promoted the lowest catalyst temps
Variable; promoted higher catalyst temps on 2 vehicles
Moderate effect; high loads promoted high temps
Moderate effect; higher catalyst temps at) warm-ups
Moderate effect
Very little effect
Very little effect
Very little effect
•Parameter
• Engine RPM
• Downshifts
•Vehicle speed
• Acceleration rate
• Idles
• Closed throttle decels
• Vehicle test load
• Cold starts
• Throttle fluctuations
• Hot starts
• Ambient Conditions
•Fuel
•• No operational or overheating problems were encountered with any of the vehicles.
Certification Division
Slide No. 5
The Proposed Cycle
Base
No. of
Time/
Accel
Ave.
Lap Speed
Stops
Stop
Rate
1 70
2
Osec
Mod
55 mph
2 70
2
0 sec
Hard
56mph
3 70
2
15 sec
WOT
48 mph
Key off for stops
4 70
2
15 sec
WOT
48 mph
5 80
0
NA
Hard
74 mph
6 80
0
NA
NA
80 mph
7 80
0
NA
NA
80 mph
8 80
0
NA
NA
80 mph
9 80
0
NA
NA
80 mph
10 80
0
NA
NA
80 mph
11 80
0
NA
NA
80 mph
12 80
1
15 sec
NA
66 mph
13 65
1
5 min
Mod
58 mph
Key off 5 minutes
14 30
1
15 sec
Light
28 mph
15 30
4
15 sec
Light
21 mph
5 Decels to 10 mph
16 30
4
15 sec
Light
21 mph
5 Deeds to 10 mph
17 40
4
15 sec
Light
25 mph
5 Decels to 20 mph
18 55
1
5 min
Mod
51 mph
Idle for 5 minutes
'Includes 15 sec stops but not 5 min. idle or 5 min. key off.
Certification Division
Slide No
vl.O eab 4/21794
Page 3
/Wti
-------
80
70
60
SO
40
30
20
10
0
Description of Proposed
Standard Mileage Accumulation Cycle
[ftst
.
MS
§&
isinnii;
a:;; Si 2
m vat
-A inn'!?
BaiiBii
li'JBiU
SUBB
is*.'-«n
rinBb&i.s
I'-MD
«t nwr.a
1)9
IP
L'sgKiEsiiian
si#"
Ell in
KfiiiDi
users
»» nsp
IB " I-3?* from current AMA
Accelerations
Mod-moderate
Hard - hard
WOT - wide open throttle
NOTE: A# deeds are light
15 tec key off 1S see idle
Miitiiiiiifci&iC
¦r^r:
'!!!!!•»«*»
bSiil
light accets
and decels
iinuvasiiHi
\n$p;m
aftllfHN
Kijansijf
ijeasBS,
'HjjgjjgjSjgfSiL
tiSiPjfeiii.
15 sac idle S min key off
Lap No.
5 mm idle
in Drive
-------
Types of Operation
Vehicle Speed - 35% increase
in average speed
Overview of the Proposed SMA Cycle
COMMENTS
Reduces time duration to complete 100K miles
Accelerations - number of
higher rate accelerations
increases significantly
Decelerations - Closed throttle
from higher speeds
Engine RPM - downshift
operation
Idles (Key on) and Stops (Key
off)
City Driving concept retained
from current (AMA approx.
50% of driving time)
Specific load requirements -
ALVW
Cold Soaks
Specify a quantitative measure
for acceleration rates
Higher power requirements and engine exhaust
temperatures.
Reduced AF control would contribute to richer
mixtures and more catalyst activity.
Fuel enrichment as a function of A/F control
Raise power requirements
Engine wear
Fuel shut off/lean operation - higher catalyst
temperature. f
All deceleratons are light to prolong acceleration
mode and reduce tire wear.
Potential for increased oil
consumption/contaminate catalyst (reduces
catalyst efficiency)
Lean operation
Engine wear
Hot starts/vapor problems/fuel metering.
Canister purging
Exercise computer memory/time delays
Provides operation for many engine emission *
components at an increased rate of frequency and
low stress (low power requirements). An attempt
to not put all our emphasis on just catalyst
thermal deterioration.
Increases power requirements (F = mass X accel.)
at all rates of acceleration and speed.
Increases engine exhaust temperatures.
Not included in current AMA. Proposed on the
basis that higher emission levels during cold start
operation will contribute to emission system
deterioration.
Should contribute to improved test program
repeatability.
-------
A
A
Other SMA Provisions
ST0
• Mileage accumulation will be at ALVW ((Curb + GWR)/2).
• A full 100K mileage accumulation will be required; we will
eliminate 75K data projections.
• 100 Cold Starts will be required during 100k accumulation.
•We do not intend to allow modifications to the SMA cycle that
would reduce the top speed. This means that SMA cannot be \
run on public roads. It must be run on a closed track or dynos.
• The current Truck DF procedures will be discontinued.
Certification Division
Slide No. 9
Cycle Statistics
- Mileage Accum.
SMA
AMA
Average Speed (mph)
41.4
30.7
No. of 3.7 mile laps
18
11
Miles per cycle
66.6
40.7
Hours per cycle
1.61
1.33
No. of Cycles
1501 (100K)
1229 (50K)
Hours Required
2415 (100K)
1628 (50K)
Hours of Idle & Hot Soak
356 (100K)
184 (50K)
15 sec idle
106
184
5 min idle
125
0
5 min hot soak
125
0
Certification Division Slide No. 10
vl.O eab 4/21/94
Page 5
-------
Cycle Statistics - Accelerations
Acceleration Mod, ama hook) ama(50K)
Light:
from stop 19,513 45,454
from 10 mph 15,010 0
from 20 mph 7,505 55,282
Moderate: 6,004 0
Hard 4,503 0
WOT: jyMM im.
Total 54,036 103,193.
Certification Division Slide No. 11
Cycle Statistics - Idles & Stops
Event Mod. AMA (lOOK) AMA(gQK)
Idles (Drive) (15 sec) 25,517 44,244
(5 min) 1501 0
Total 27,018 44,244
Event Mod. AMA Q00K) AMA(50K)
Key-Off: (15 sec) 3002 0
(5 min) 1501 Q
Total 4503 0
Certification Division Slide No. 12
vl.O eab 4/21/94
Page 6
-------
The average speed, number of cold starts, and time required to complete durability testing
are shown below for the AMA schedule and the SMA schedule. Assumptions
include a 24 hour-per-day work schedule, 6 days-per-week, 2 days per test
(evaporative test not required), as follows:
Time Required for 100K (months)
Average
Cold
6 Day
6 Day
Cold
Schedule
Speed
Starts
Dvno
Road
Start
AMA
30.7
NA
7.2
8.6
NA
SMA
41.4
100
5.6
6.9 ,
0.3*
* Note: On a 6-day week, 1 test / 10K work effort, about 50 cold starts occur naturally
Certification Division
Slide No. 13
Reality Checks for SMA
• The type of data collected and the testing procedures will be
the same as for ASAPs.
• We will require less data than for the ASAP cycles, but some
minimum number of vehicles and some minimum distribution
of configurations over the test years will be required. For
example, 3 vehicles tested years 2 to 5.
• The pass/fail criteria are expected to be the same as (or at least
similar to) those specified for ASAPs. There is still some
development required to adapt the ASAP criteria to SMA use.
Certification Division
Slide No. 14
vl.O eab 4/21/94
Page 7
Mi,
o
-------
Small Mfr Considerations
We will continue to have assigned df available for a total of
10,000 sales.
We will allow manufacturers to use the SMA without a reality
check for a limited number of sales. The limit will be 10,000
sales reduced by the number sales which use an assigned df. The
total sales exempted from reality checks plus the sales which use
assigned dfs are limited to a combined total of 10,000 sales.
Certification Division Slide No. 15
a Consequences of an Individual a
^ Family Failing a Reality Check W
Correction factor = Reality^Check DFStatistic*
EPA is considering two options:
• 70% lower confidence value
• XX% of the difference
The factor would be applied to the df generated by the SMA
cycle which failed. A failing individual SMA durability df
could be carried-over by applying this factor.
Certification Division Slide No. 16
vl.O eab 4/21/94
Page 8
-------
Consequences of a Trend
Data Reality Check Failure "
If a manufacturer fails the reality check based on the trend data
of all/ni^jfamiHes run on the SMA, the correction factor will be
the average of all the manufacturer's individual family values.
This factor would apply to current and future SMA durability
showings.
Manufacturer could apply to EPA for a new trend study if they
can explain a significant change in their process. If the study
showed that there was no trend failure the factor would be
rescinded.
Certification Division Slide No. 17
Industry-Wide Correction Factor
EPA may calculate an Industry-Wide Correction Factor
•• It will be based on circumstances explained
in the regulations.
» Adequate advance notice would be given
before the correction factor is applied.
Certification Division
Slide No. 18
-------
Carryover of SMA DF J*
" and Reality Checks "
• EPA will consider the carryover of the DF and the reality check
data separately.
The DF carryover will be considered using current policy (or
updates to the policy).
If significant changes are made or new products are added to the
sales mix of the configurations which were outside the original
breadth considered when the reality check fleet was chosen,
EPA may require that a full or partial reality check be conducted
on carryover families.
Certification Division
Slide No. 19
-------
AipJe
-------
Appendix III
4m an
-------
^PDWERTRAIN
RECEIVED
98 HAY IU PH 2^ 5U
EPA PURCHASING
ANN ARBOR
May 12,1998
ML-TG147A
t!4
ews
PYI
Ms. Jane Armstrong, Director
Vehicle Programs & Compliance Division
Office of Mobile Sources
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Rd.
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
Dear Ms. Armstrong:
Subject: 1996 Model Year Reality Check Emission Test Data
General Motors Corporation submits the attached completed in-use verification (reality check)
emission test data for engine family TGM2.4VJGKEK.
TTiis last test of engine family TGM2.4VJGKEK now completes all of the 1996 model year
second year of service testing requirements (data previously reported in our letter ML-TG147).
Please call Steve Fogle of my staff on (248) 685-5145 if you have any questions regarding this
information.
Sincerely,
R. C. Harvey
Manager
Compliance & Certification
RCH/SAF/ks
Attachment
c: D.J.Good
Compliance & Certification • M/C 483-331-500 • GM Proving Ground » Milford, Michigan «>3su-3/za
-------
FEDERAL REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1996 SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE
TEST
ENG FAMILY
DATE
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
TGM2.4VJGKEK
IUSTD
0.25
3.4
0.4
1G2NE12T9TM505184
11/25/1997
13,906
0.07
1.0
0.18
1G2NE12T6TM557548
11/26/1997
14,319
0.11
2.5
0.18
1G1JF52TXT7103342
12/4/1997
19,605
0.12
2.0
0.10
1G2NE52T1TM552295
12/4/1997
20,436
0.12
2.4
0.33
1G2N E52T4TM523051#
4/28/1998
22,844
RETEST
4/29/1998
22,859
0.10
2.0
0.40
# - TEST ABORTED - FUEL CAP LEFT OFF DURING COLD SOAK
SAF/GMPT 5/12/1998
Atupffi/P
-------
*2/^/ Mi- r/» ^// & ./v/
FEDERAL REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
cc: 1994 MODEL YEAR
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
G^/llPA ^
Hi
GM CONFIDENTIAL
ENG FAMILY
TEST
DATE
MILES
TAILPIPE
NMHC CO
R1G2.2V7GFEA
R1G2.2V7GEEA - MAN TRANS ($)
NOx
VIN
IUSTD
0.32
3.4
0.4
1G1JC144XR7165954$
5/14/1997
58,636
1.11
9.9
0.17
RETEST@
5/20/1997
58,662
RETEST#
5/20/1997
58,670
RETEST%
5/29/1997
58,696
0.82
7.4
0.15
RETEST&
6/5/1997
58,733
0.09
1.4
0.37
1G1JC1448R7194272*
5/15/1997
32,398
CL09
1.3 |
0.66
RETEST(1)
5/16/1997
32,425
0.64
9.7
0.16
RETEST(2)
5/22/1997
32,452
0.64
8.2
0.16
RETEST(3)
5/29/1997
32,484
0.69
11.8
0.16
RETEST(4)
6/4/1997
32,516
0.11
1.6
0.14
1G1LV1548RY303177
5/15/1997
36,725
0.11
2.1
0.25
1G1JC1443R7151149
5/15/1997
47,961
0.13
2.0
0.43
1G1JC5449R7198046
5/16/1997
39,637
0.07
1.6
0.36
3
«
@ - TEST INVALID - HEAT BUILD TO TEST SITE EXCEEDED TIME - SITE ANALYZER PROBLEM
# - TEST INVALID - BENCH OPERATOR ENTERED EPAII INSTEAD OF EPAill
% - AFTER PERFORMING DIAGNOSTICS FOR MIS-FIRE AND INSTALLING NEW SPARK PLUGS
& - AFTER REPLACING THE EGR VALVE
* - AS RECEIVED - CODE 32 STORED (SIGNAL HOSE DISCONNECTED AT VALVE) AND OIL
CRANKCASE 2-2.5 QUARTS OVERFULL
(1) - RECONNECTED EGR HOSE
(2) - AFTER OIL AND FILTER CHANGE
(3) - AFTER PERFORMING DIAGNOSTICS FOR MIS-FIRE AND INSTALLING NEW SPARK PLUGS
FOUND NO. 4 PLUG WET WITH OIL
(4) - AFTER REPLACING THE EGR VALVE
-------
FEDERAL REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1994 MODEL YEAR
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TEST
TAILPIPE
ENG FAMILY
DATE
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
R1G3.1V8GFEA
VIN
IUSTD
0.32
3.4
0.4
, 1G3WH55M9RD420504
9/9/1997
30,645
0.18
2.7
0.27
1G3WH55M0RD404546
9/9/1997
31,035
026
4.2
0,30
RETEST(5)
9/18/1997
31,063 .
. . 0.20
3,0. ... .
D.25
1G1LD55MXRY283976
9/10/1997
31,257
0.22
1.7
0.32
1G2WJ52M9RF257662
9/11/1997
32,296
0.17
2.6
0.32
~ 1G1 tD55M9RY1208b3(6)
9/12/1997
38.731
0.17
2.0
0.28
RETEST
9/16/1997
38,759
0.17
1.7
0.25
1G2NE55MXRC779004
9/25/1997
53,276
0.19
"""2.2
0 50
1G2WJ12M6RF344220
10/15/1997
37,616
0.19
2.4
0.36
(5) - WITH NEW SPARK PLUGS AND PCV VALVE
(6) - TEST INVALID - DIURNAL FUEL RISE OUT OF SPECIFICATION
R1G4.6VJGAEA
THC
VIN IUSTD 0.41 3.4 1.0
1G6KS52YXRU828181#
•' 5/15/1997
41,271
RETEST
5/16/1997
41,285
0 34
1.8
0,40
1G6KS52 YXRU803409#
"5/15/1997
42,127
RETEST
5/16/1997
42,143
0.30
2.3
0.29
" 1G6KF52YXRU313704#
5/16/1997
41,791
RETEST
5/21/1997
41,806
0.24
1.8
0.28
1G6ET1298RU613717
5/16/1997
50,251
d 21
1.6
0.25
1G6KF52Y5RU288615
5/22/1997
47,144
0.27
1.6
0,43
# - TEST ABORTED - TRACTION CONTROL BECAME ACTIVE
SAF/PCC
REV 11-21-97
Af/pMlfP11
-------
Federal Reality Check
Engine Family RIG2.2V7GFEA(Auto) « R1 G2.2V7GEEA(Man)
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE EMISSIONS
.0
.4
-
FTP NMHC
.3
.2
-
.1
~
+ ,,
0
4 -
•** +
+
t
++
1
T
1
4
3.5
I ^
M
• 2.5
M
e
o 2
w
M
B 1.5
ua
1
.5
0
FTP CO
-Cart Std.
-Cart OF
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
c:\triplot\trlplt.bat
10
20 30
ODOMETER/1000
40
FTP NO*
Cart Std.
Cart DF
50 60
GMPTC/wf 11-21-1997
A A a TIT/} C
-------
California Reality Check
Engine Family R1G3.1V8GFEA
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE EMISSIONS
.4
FTP NMHC
In-Uaa Std.
-Cart Sid.
Cart DF
6
5
8
£ 3
m
VI
1 2
1
0
+
+ +
4- _
FTP CO
— — — — —Cart Std.
Cart DF
.6
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
+
FTP NOx
-
+
+
+ +
* 4-
Cart Std.
++
+ ++ / *
-Cart DF
-
1
1 _i.. ¦
i
10
c>\tr1ptot\triplt.bu
20 30
ODOMETER/1000
40
60 60
GHPTC/uf It-21
-------
Federal Reality Check
Engine Family R!G4.6V]GAEA
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE EMISSIONS
6
5
I
•• 4
I
m
c
0 3
M
m
1 2
1
0
FTP CO
Cart Std.
Cart OF
4+
j
1.2
FTP NOx
Cart Std.
Cart OF
x
j.
0 10 20 30 40 60 60
c:\tHplot\tiiplt.bai ODOMETER/1000 GHPTC/wf 12-01-1997^.
Ar>t)1flP >
-------
FEDERAL REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1995 MODEL YEAR
THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
S1G2.2V7GFEA
IU STD
0,32
3.4
0.4
1G1JC1246S7146679
7/17/1997
41,730
0.07
1.2
0.37
1G1JC1243SM110465
7/22/1997
27,710
0.07
1.1
0.23
1G1LV154XSY300917
7/22/1997
37,432
0.09
1.9
0.32
S1G3.1V8GFEA
0 32
3.4
0.4
1G4AG55M0S6476298
7/22/1997
28,150
0.22
2.3
0.42
S1G4.6V7GFEA
TEST
VIN
DATE
0,32
3.4
0,4
1G6KS52Y0SU835596@
7/29/1997
27,153
RETEST .
7/31/1997
27,176
0.15
2,0
0.41
1G3GR62C4S4135511 *
7/21/1997
29,001
0.18
3.1
0.42
RETESTS
7/23/1997
29,037
0.13
1.6
0.35
1G3GR62C7S4; 35597*
7/18/1997
30,219
0:13
1.6
0.32
RETESTS
7/22/1997
30,246
0.19
2.2
0.32
@ - TEST ABORTED - DIURNAL FUEL TEMPERATURE OUT OF SPEC
• = NORMAL TRANS MODE
5 = PERFORMANCE TRANS MODE
SAF/PCC
REV 10-02-97
At* f6
-------
FEDERAL REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1995 MODEL YEAR
SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TEST
TAILPIPE
ENGINE OUT
DATE
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
ENG FAMILY
S1G4.6V7GFEA
VIN
IU STD
0.32
3.4
0.4
1G6KS52 Y6SU835117
6/6/1996
12,934
0.15
0.9
0.34
3.32
13.00
2.18
1G3GR62C6S4146509$
6/10/1996
13,763
0.11
1.0
0.20
3.14
13.12
1.47
1G3GR62C6S4146509*
6/11/1996
13,789
0.13
1.2
0.22
3.16
13.47
1.59
1G3GR52C7S4100696$
6/11/1996
10,885
0.22
2.6
0.11
3.74
18.41
1.52
1G3GR52C7S4100696*
6/12/1996
10,912
0.19
2.3
0.11
3.64
17.79
1.59
S1G2.2V7GFEA
VIN
IU STD
0.32
3.4
0.4
1G1JC124XS7120263#
RETEST
6/7/1996
17,241
0.08
1.7
0.19
1.68
8.81
2.46
1G1 JC12R0S7148072&
6/10/1996
11,872
0.12
2.0
0.20
0.72
3.15
0.46
RETEST
6/11/1996
11,898
0.08
1.3
0.14
1.80
8.16
2.07
1G1LV1549SY222601 @
6/11/1996
10,765
0.06
1.1
0.18
1.47
6.98
2.39
RETEST
6/14/1996
10,797
0.08
1.6
0.10
1.34
9.39
2.32
S163.1V8GFEA
VIN
1G4AH55M356471979
RETEST
6/11/1996
6/14/1996
IU STD 0.32 3.4
14,795
14,840
0.26
0.24
3.9
2.7
0.4
0.35
0.33
3.05 17.29 2.85
2.74 14.02 2.74
# - INVALID PREP - NO TEST DATA
$ = PERFORMANCE TRANS MODE
* = NORMAL TRANS MODE
& = INVALID - DILUTION AIR LINE DISCONNECTED
@ = CANISTER LINE WAS UNPLUGGED AT SOLENOID
SAF/PCC
REV 03-06-97
3p 1
-------
ENG FAMILY MILES
R1G2.2V7G2EA IU STD
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1994 J CARS
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE
NMOG CO NOx
BAG
NMHC
HCHO
0.188 3.4 0.4 0.023
SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
ENGINE OUT SHED
HC CO NOx DIU
SOAK T<
2
42RCC401*
12,554
0.056
0.9
034
0.002
0.055
1.19
10.83
2.44
0.06
0.11
0
RETEST
12,581
1.0
0.39
NA
0.057
1.22
11.04
2.50
NA
NA
42RCC402*
20,420
0.059
1.2
0.21
0.001
0.059
1.08
10.55
2.19
0.11
0,13
0
42RCC403*&
16,915
0.065
1.1
0.18
0.002
0.065
1.20
10.12
2.21
2.17
1.08
3
RETEST
16,941
0.063
1.3
0.17
0.001
0.063
1.21
10.33
2.13
0.62
0.30
0
42RCC404*
23.338
0.056
0.7
0.21
0.002
0.055
1.22
9.83
2.21
0.08
0.10
0
42RCC405*
25,332
0.054
0.9
0.19
0.001
0.053
1.14
10.32
1.82
0.05
0.09
0
& - FOUND CANISTER PURGE HOSE OFF AT PURGE SOLENOID
THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
43CRCC401*
22,369
0,065
0.9
0.17
0.002
0.063
1.21
10.06
2.13
0.03
0.08
0.
43CRCC402*
38,672
0.068
0.8
0.29
0.002
0.066
1.12
8.94
2.04
0.07
0,08
0.
43CRCC403*
24,474
0.061
0.8
0.19
0.002
0.059
1.21
10.09
2.40
0.05
0.08
0.
43CRCC404*
28,524
0.064
1.2
0.53
0.003
0.063
1.10
10.26
2.36
0.03
0.07
0.
RETEST
28,558
0.063
1.1
0.50
0.002
0.062
1.10
10.11
2.41
NA
NA
43CRCC405*
28,878
0.063
0.9
0.23
0.002
0.065
1.16
10.04
1.89
0.04
0.08
0.
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
44CRCC4Q1*
41,186
0.062
t.O
0.22
0.002
0.060
44CRCC402*
45,488
0.070
0.9
0.43
0.002
0.069
44CRCC403*
44.171
0.061
0.9
0.29
0.002
0.059
44CRCC404*
58,482
0.076
1.0
0.41
0.003
0.072
44CRCC405*
30,929
0.054
0.7
0.19
0.002
0.052
PHASE 2 FUEL USED AND A RAF OF 0.98
• = SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
SAF/PCC REV 05-27-97
-------
California Reality Check
Engine Family HI G2.2V7G2EA
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE EMISSIONS
-
FTP NMOQ
-
=—Cart DP +
+—
- 1
_±—» *++4;—^
-J *
—m * -r"
'
4
3.5
1 3
M
• 2.5
M
c
e 2
TS *
M
f 1.5
iti
1
.5
0
-
FTP CO
- Cart Std.
"
— Cart OF
-
+—
v+
+ +
+ . .
•f
+ ,•,+ +
+ + +
^ " T T
j
FTP NOx
Cart Std.
++
Cart DF
j.
I
X
X
0 10 20 30 40 60 60
c:\tiiplst\trlplt.bas ODOMETER/1000 GMPTG/«rf 11-01-1M7
ir * //
-------
1994 MODEL YEAR
CALIFORNIA ENHANCED QUALITY AUDIT
ENGINE FAMILY R1G3.1V8GFEA
IN-USE STD
0.32
5 2
0.4
VIN
BLD
DATE
TEST
DATE
ODO
TRANS
ETW
DHP
NMHC
TAILPIPE
CO
NOx
1G3WH55M7RD384828
9404
961205
40378
A4
3625
S.9
0.210
1.31
0.23
1G3AG55M 5R6302726
6308
970108
41173
A4
3375
6.8
0.208
2.01
0.57
1G3 WH55M1RO309591
9309
961206
36565
A4
3625
5.9
0.145
0.89
0.16
1G2WJ52M4RF258637
9402
961206
45866
A4
3750
S.9
0.130
0.99
0.16
1G2NE55M5RM591615
9405
961210
30023
A4
3375
6.4
0.142
0.98
0.24
AVG
0.167
1.24
0.27
STDDEV
0.039
0461
0.171
% OF STD LIMIT
81.68
73.76
62.55
% OF STD
S1.38
23.54
60.44
COV LIMIT
0.992
9.406
0.686
COV OF SAMPLE
0.373
0.628
85,829 VEHICLES IN FAMILY
4,225 VEHICLES IN LA POUR COUNTY AREA
SAF/PCC
1/8/1987
iinp •
-------
**• GM CONFIDENTIAL **~
SUMMARY REPORT
Model Year : 1994
Body Type : AO^N.W
Eng. Disp. : 3.1
Convener : TWC (MC)
Trmro Type : AUTO
AJ.R. Type :NONE
01-22-1997
EPA Qass: B166
CUss Type: SURVEILLANCE
Easdac Family: R1G3.1V8GFEA
Compliance Eng.: RJ.DELMOTTE
APPLICABLE STA]
WARDS
NMHC
HC
CO
NOX
EVAP
0.32
3.40
0.40
2.00
TEST PATA
Eng
Cede
TEST WT.
/HJ».
Grams/Mile
Grams
EVAP
Veh#| Body
Mileage
Trans
NMHC
HC
CO
NOX
Avg?
0040 IW
38.671
AUTO
1A
3625 /5.40
0.175
1.306
0.267
0.160 Yes
0129 IN
29.534
AUTO
4A
3375 /4.60
0.138
1.078
0.329
0.310 ! Yes
0189 |L
28.657
AUTO
40
3250 /6.30
0.128
1.207
0.293
0.170 Yes
0407 |W
19.833
AUTO
1A
3625 /5.90
0.125
1.315
0.238
0.180 1 Yes
VEHICLE NO. 0407 TESTED AT THE WRONG DYNO H.P.
0.123
1.148
0.254
0.160 1 No
0434 |L I 16.0621 AUTO 4 I 3250/6.30
0.102
0.828 1 0.246
0.910
Yes
335 W | 39.686 AUTO 1 I 3625 /5.90
0.154
1.174 | 0.312
0.180 1 Yes
DATA SUMMARY
NMHC
HC
CO
NOX
EVAP
Average,
0.137
1.151
0.281
0.318
Standard
0.320
3.400
0.400
2.000
* Passing
6
6
6
6
# Tested
6
6
6
6
% Passing
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Average as % of Standard
42.8%
33.9%
702%
15.9%
-------
GM CONFIDENTIAL
SUMMARY REPORT
Model Year : 1994
Body Type : A.L.N.W
Eng. Disp. : 3.1
Converter : TWC (MC)
Trans Type : AUTO
AJ.R. Type :NONE
01-22-1997
EPA Class:
Class Type:
Engine Family:
Compliance Engr.:
B167
SURVEILLANCE
R1G3.1V8GFEA
RJJ5ELMOTTE
APPLICABLE STANDARDS
NMHC
HC
CO
NOX
EVAP
0.32
3.40
0.40
2.00
IfcST DATA
Eog
Code
TEST WT.
/H.P.
Grams/Mile
Grams
EVAP
Veh # Body Mileage Trans
NMHC
HC
CO
NOX
Avg?
0147 |N I 64,937 AUTO
4
3250 /6.20
0.152
1.212
0.431
0.270
Yes
k>147 WITH A NEW THERMOSTAT
0.143
1.252
0.433
0.440
No
0168 In
50.252 AUTO 4A 3250 /5.30
0.126
1.055
0.349
0.250 Yes
0312 |0^W
54.474 AUTO 1 3625 /5.40
0.166
2.146
0.340
0.530 1 Yes
DATA SUMMARY
Average
Standard
# Passing
# Tested
% Passing
Average as % of Standard
NMHC
HC
CO
NOX
EVAP
0.148
1.471
0.373
0.350
0.320
3.400
0.400
2.000
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
100.0%
100.0%
66.7%
100.0%
46.3*.
43.3%
93.3%
17.5%
A/
-------
FEDERAL REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1994 - THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE
ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
TEST
MILES
NMHC CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
VIN
DATE
R1G2.2V7GFEA
IUSTD
0.32
3.4
0.4
R1G2.2V7GEEA - MAN TRANS($)
1G1JC1447R7337020
8/21/1996
22,020
0.06
0.9
0.28
1.02
9.91
2.02
1G1JC5448R7110278
8/21/1996
30,953
0.07
1.1
0.24
1.10
10.17
2.23
1G1JC1442R7366781
8/22/1996
25,082
0.08
0.9
0.27
1.05
9.52
2.62
1G1LV1545RY218779
8/22/1996
25,834
0.09
1.9
0.14
1.57
11.32
2.04
1G1JC144XR7231449$
8/29/1996
40,262
0.09
1.9
0.20
1.67
10.17
1.84
R1G3.1V8GFEA
IUSTD
0.32
34
1G2NE55M8RC761486
8/7/1996
35818
0.13
1.0
0.23
2.57
10.46
1.39
1G2WJ52M0RF205949
8/8/1996
36298
0.13
1.0
0.26
2.35
11.12
1.74
1G1LD55M5RY289118
8/9/1996
30796
0.12
1.0
0.26
2.52
10.92
1.38
1G3WH55M2RD375003
8/14/1996
33976
0.13
1.0
0.24
2.40
10.79
1.58
1G1LD55MXRY164616
8/15/1996
36909
0.15
1.2
/04T\
2.49
10.86
1.69
1G3WH55M5RD357840
8/16/1996
38596
0.13
0.9
I 0.46
2.74
11.64
1.46
RETEST
8/20/1996
38623
0.13
0.8
| 0.45 J
2.72
11.42
• 1.45
1G3WH 55M9RD393823
8/16/1996
33270
0.13
1.0
0.27
2.47
10.25
1.71
THC
R1G4.6VJGAEA
J
IUSTD
0.41
3.4
1.0
1G6KS52 Y4RU830718
8/23/1996
29,073
0.21
1.5
0.15
3.14
14.59
1.99
1G6ET1294RU611446#
12/11/1996
42,817
RETEST®
12/12/1996
42,832
0.18
1.8
0.45
NA
NA
NA
RETEST
12/16/1996
42,859
0.13
1.0
0.46
NA
NA
NA
1G6KS52Y9RUB45280
8/23/1996
27,585
0.20
1.5
0.32
2.73
13.97
2.24
1G6KF52Y4RU307266#
8/28/1996
22,610
RETEST#
8/29/1996
22,633
RETEST
8/30/1996
22,648
0.20
1.6
0.35
2.86
14.98
2.24
1G6KF52Y3RU285647
8/28/1996
37,045
0.18
1.2
0.36
2.80
14.01
2.31
# = TEST ABORTED - TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT CAME ON
@ « CANISTER PURGE HOSE WAS DISCONNECTED AT THE SOLENOID
SAF/PCC 2/26/199?
A t>/0 ft,n I*
-------
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
V1N
ENG FAMILY
P1G2.0W8JF15
"TESil"
DATE
MILES
IUSTD
1993 J CARS
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE
NMHC CO NOx
0.32 5.2 0.55
ENGINE OUT
HC CO NOx
1G2 JC54H6P7580482 3/22/1996 34,707
1G2JC54H3P7589513 3/26/1996 40,278
1G2JC14H9P7596846 3/29/1996 38,584
1G2JC14H6P7501627 5/22/1996 33,201
1G2JC54H8P7590270 6/20/1996 58.367
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
0.11 1.3 0.27 1 15 12.85 1.93
0.11 2.0 0.31
0.09 1.4 0.20
0.13 2.0 0.13
0.15 1.9 0.20
0.98 13.14 1.84
0.88 11.50 1.40
1.42 14.68 2.03
1.13 11.73 1.34
SAF/PCC
3/3/1997
-------
fi// f/n J
^POWERTRAIN
6*6 March 13,1997 v.;~ "¦! r ' ^L-SG180
uA
56
U* ' '. ' ¦ ;-
* - - _'i ; ,'jiO. <
~y | a Ms. Jane Armstrong, Director
fyr" Vehicle Programs & Compliance Division
il*7 0ffice of Mobile Sources
' U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Rd.
«- Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
4 Dear Ms. Armstrong:
Subject: Reality Check Emission Test Data
General Motors Corporation submits the attached in-use verification (reality check) emission
test data for three Federal 1995 model year engine families certified using the GM alternate
durability process (ADP). The three 1995 Federal engine families are: (1) S1G2.2V7GFEA,
(2) S1G3.1V8GFEA and (3) S1G4.6V7GFEA.
Reality check testing for the subject families for the second year of service was completed at
our Milford Proving Ground vehicle emission laboratory.
No vehicles were rejected after initial procurement and no OBD or stored codes were observed.
The test procedure used was the normal FTP with a double prep. For each engine family, both
exhaust tail pipe and engine out emission data, if available, are provided as part of this
submission.
Please call Steve Fogle of my staff on (810) 685-5145 if you have any questions regarding this
information.
Sincerely,
Hp llLc ^
-------
FEDERAL REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1995 MODEL YEAR
SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TEST
TAILPIPE
ENGINE OUT
DATE
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
ENG FAMILY
S1G4.6V7GFEA
VIN
IUSTD
0.32
3.4
0.4
1G6KS52Y6SU835117
6/6/1996
12,934
0.15
0.9
0.34
3.32
13.00
2.18
1G3GR62C6S4146509$
6/10/1996
13,763
0.11
1.0
0.20
3.14
13.12
1.47
1G3GR62C6S4146509*
6/11/1996
13,789
0.13
1.2
0.22
3.16
13.47
1,59
1G3GR52C7S4100696$
6/11/1996
10,885
0.22
2.6
0.11
3.74
18.41
1.52
1G3GR52C7S4100696*
6/12/1996
10,912
0.19
2.3
0.11
3.64
17.79
1.59
S1G2.2V7GFEA
VIN
IUSTD
0.32
3.4
0.4
1G1JC124XS7120263#
RETEST
6/7/1996
17,241
0.08
1.7
0.19
1.68
8.81
2.46
1G1JC12R0S7148072&
6/10/1996
11,872
0.12
2.0
0.20
0.72
3.15
0.46
RETEST
6/11/1996
11,898
0.08
1.3
0.14
1.80
8,16
2.07
1G1LV1549SY222601 @
6/11/1996
10,765
0.06
1.1
0.18
1.47
8.98
2.39
RETEST
6/14/1996
10,797
0.08
1.6
0.10
1.34
9.39
2.32
S1G3.1V8GFEA
j
VIN
IUSTD
0.32
3.4
0.4
1G4AH55M356471979
6/11/1996
14,795
0.26
3.9
0.35
3.05
17.29
2.85
RETEST
6/14/1996
14,840
0.24
2.7
0.33
2.74
14.02
2.74
# - INVALID PREP - NO TEST DATA
$ = PERFORMANCE TRANS MODE
* = NORMAL TRANS MODE
& = INVALID - DILUTION AIR LINE DISCONNECTED
@ = CANISTER LINE WAS UNPLUGGED AT SOLENOID
SAF/PCC
REV 03-06-97
-------
A
cc
j fl&i- ^"/f9 fa?"^ /? £ ~/,/
PDWERTRAIN
February 6,1996 ML-RG227
Cert!fication Division
5g Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
ft U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Rd.
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
Dear Ms. Armstrong:
Subject: Reality Check Emission Test Data
General Motors Corporation submits the attached in-use verification (reality check) emission
test data for three Federal 1994 model year engine families and one California 1993 model year
carryover engine family certified using the GM alternate durability process (ADP). The three
K 1994 Federal engine families are: (1) R1 G2.2V7GFEA/R1 G2.2V7GEEA, (2) R1G3.1V8GFEA
3| Uu and (3) R1 G4.6VJGAEA. The 1993 California family is P1 G2.0W8JF15 (this 1993 reality check
data is being carried over to support 1994 engine family R1G2.0V7GFEA).
Reality check testing for the subject families for the second year of service was completed at
our Milford Proving Ground vehicle emission laboratory. The California family (third year of
service) was tested at our Los Angeles vehicle emission laboratory. The test procedure used
was the normal FTP with a double prep. For each engine family, both exhaust tail pipe and
engine out emission data are provided as part of this submission.
No vehicles were rejected after initial procurement and no OBD or stored codes were observed.
A tally of reasons that prospective vehicles were rejected from recruitment due to questionnaire
topics has not yet been received from our contract vendor. Upon receipt, a copy will be
forwarded to you.
In addition, per your request, ^ve have also attached a copy of reality check emission data for
other California families previously presented to CARB. The 1992 engine families have
completed testing for the second, third and fourth years of service. The 1993 engine families
have completed testing for the second and third year of testing. Finally, the 1994 engine
families have completed their second year of service testing.
General Motors is willing to meet with you and your staff to review the operation of the reality
check programs to facilitate further discussion of future certification streamlining. Please call
me on (810) 685-6976 if you have any questions regarding this information.
Sincerely,
<£. <£.
R. C. Harvey
Project Manager
Powertrain Control Center
RCH/SAF/ks
c: D.J Good
Powartrain Control Center • M/C 483-331-600 • OM Proving nd • Milford, Michigan 48380-3726 t /
faelJIfilt
-------
FEDERAL REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1994 - SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
ENG FAMILY
VIN
TEST
DATE
MILES
TAILPIPE
NMHC CO NOx
ENGINE OUT
HC
CO
NOx
R1G2.2V7GFEA
IUSTD
0.32
3.4
0.4
R1G2.2V7GEEA - MAN TRANS($)
6J- Si*t
¦?W
0,*
1G1J C144XR7165954-$
4/26/95
27,344
0.07
1.7
0.2
1.77
9.71
1.56
1G1JC1443R7225864
4/26/95
24,657
0.08
1.0
0.2
1.17
10.52
2.60
1G1LD5544RY279311
4/26/95
15,031
0.08
2.0
0.2
1.52
10.30
2.35
1G1JC5446R7225350
4/27/95
21,748
0.07
1.6
0.3
1.05
10.22
2.32
1G1JC1444R7252058
5/5/95
21,326
0.08
1.1
0.2
1.28
9.57
1.89
R1G3.1V8GFEA
\
IUSTD
0.32
3.4
0.4
1G2WJ12M6RF216057
5/2795
26,185
0.18
22
0.4
2.40
10.98
2.02
1G2WJ12M8RF337754@
4/28/95
16,512
0.14
1.3
0.2
2.47
11.34
1.72
RETEST&
5/4/95
16,538
RETEST
5/5/95
16,546
0.13
1.5
0.3
2.46
10.99
1.73
1G1LV15M3RY157139
5/2795
22,436
0.13
1.6
0.4
2.52
10.30
1.62
1G2WJ52M1RF282720
5/3/95
17,596
0.14
0.9
0.3
2.58
11.93
1.77
1G1LD55M8RY125846
5/9/95
14,878
0.12
1.0
0.3
2.41
10.08
1.82
1G2NE55M6RC702064
5/4/95
23,335
0.13
1.0
'0.6.'
2.37
11.30
2.47
RETEST®
5/10/95
23,364
0.11
0.8
0.5
2.32
10.08
1.85
RETEST®
5/11/95
23,384
0.11
0.7
0.5
2.26
10.04
1.91
RETEST
5/12/95
23,411
0.11
0.8
05^
2.31
10.03
1.85
1G2WJ12M7RF203124
5/10/95
21,378
0.14
1.1
0.4
2.37
10.65
1.93
,
THC
R1G4.6VJGAEA
IUSTD
0.41
3.4
1.0
1G6KS52Y4RU842254
5/9/95
13,318
0.22
1.0
0.1
3.56
15.66
1.91
1G6KS52YXRU821621
5/10/95
13,001
0.18
0.8
0.3
3.26
15.21
1.79
1G6KF52YXRU295527
5/10/95
24,865
0.27
0.9
0.4
3.06
12.96
2.42
1G6KF52Y7RU235334#
5/11/95
23,919
0.25
1.2
0.4
3.25
15.36
1.84
RETEST
5/12/95
23,945
0.29
2.4
0.5
3.50
16.83
2.17
RETEST
5/16/95
23,972
0.25
1.4
0.4
3.19
14.86
1.88
1G6ET1295RU619488
5/16/95
15,480
0.14
0.9
0.3
3.29
16.62
1.82
@ = INVALID - TEST CREW DID NOT TIGHTEN GAS CAP
& - INVALID - TEST CREW DID NOT TIGHTEN GAS CAP - TEST ABORTED
# - INVALID - DIURNAL EQUIPMENT PROBLEM
SAF/PCC
10/4/95
-------
SAF/PCC
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
11/8/95
1993 J CARS
ENG FAMILY
P1G2.0W8JF15
1G2JC54H3P7589513
1G2 JC54H6P7580482
1G2 JC14H9P7596846
1G2JC54H8P7590270
1G2 JC 14H8P7580668
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TEST TAILPIPE ENGINE OUT
DATE MILES NMHC CO NOx HC CO NOx
IU STD 0.32 5.2 0.55
THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
10/17/95 34,595 0.10 1.0 0.26 0.96 12.17 ' 1.75
10/18/95 29,224 0.11 1.5 0.23 1.19 12.39 2.07
10/18/95 34,674 0.10 1.5 0.21 0.95 11.95 1.44
10/20/95 40,893 0.13 2.3 0.15 1.11 12.73 1.36
10/31/95 47,055 0.11 1.5 0.34 1.08 12.41 1.73
M1
C
2* 0/V
l(W
-------
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1992 J/L
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY MILES NMHC CO NOx HC CO NOx
N1G2.2W8JF58 IU STD 0.32 5.2 0.55
SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
2.2L-J
17,875
0.17
2.1
0.22
1.51
9.64
2.73
2.2L - J
15,070
0.22
3.4
0.19
1.49
10.89
2.44
2.2L - L*
10,298
0.17
2.7
0.15
1.37
10.62
1.85
2.2L-J
19,823
0.20
2.6
0.17
1.61
10.71
2.62
2.2L-J
16,929
0.13
2.5
0.19
1.32
10.78
2.40
THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
2.2L - J
23,627
0.15
2.0
0.17
1.43
10.90
2.05
2.2L - L*
30,330
0.16
2.9
0.16
1.52
11.89
2.33
2.2L - J
28,763
0.21
4.1
0.17
1.51
11.50
2.31
2.2L - J
35,443
0.25
5.1
0.17
1.49
11.69
2,34
2.2L-J#
25,494
0.17
3.3
0.52
1.40
11.29
4.39
RETESTS
25,513
0.24
4.9
0.11
1.47
11.75
1.91
RETEST
27,076
0.23
3.3
0.16
1.35
10.49
2.24
2.2L- L*
20,136
0.20
2,3
0.16
1,38
11.23
1.92
# = VACUUM LINE TO EGR WAS OFF
$ = IMPROPER PRECONDITIONING
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
2.2L - J@
35,074
0.32
4.0
0.24
1.58
10.63
2.19
RETEST
35,100
0.29
3.4
0.24
1.58
9.84
2.23
2.2L-J
31,195
0.21
3.2
0.16
1.50
11.67
1.96
2.2L - L*
44,319
0.16
2.4
0.22
1.44
10.48
* 2.08
2.2L - L*
41,699
0.18
2.6
0.20
1.44
10.13
2.00
2.2L - L*
30,448
0.16
2.5
0.17
1.31
10.82
1.75
@= INVALID DIURNAL
* « SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
SAF/PCC
REV 08-09-95
-------
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1992 APV's
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
N3G3.1X5XA48
IUSTD
0.41
6.7
1.00
SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
3.1L- UVAN*
19,582
0.13
3.6
0.42
1.82
13.07
2.04
3.1 L - UVAN*
23,581
0.18
5.5
0.50
1.73
12.68
2.31
3.1 L- UVAN*
18,924
0.18
5.7
0.21
2.14
13.48
1.73
3.1 L-UVAN*
12,569
0.15
4.1
0.27
2.02
13.38
1.91
3.1L - UVAN*
20,667
0.21
6.0
0.26
2.11
14.57
2.19
THIRD YEAR
OF SERVICE
3.1 L - UVAN*
32,257
0.22
6.5
0.24
2.20
15.38
2.26
3.1L - UVAN*
30,318
0.21
5.1
0.11
2.25
14.14
1.97
3.1L- UVAN*
29,198
0.16
4.6
0.28
1.84
13.65
2.34
3.1 L - UVAN*
31,289
0.19
5.6
0.27
1.98
15.31
2.54
3.1 L - UVAN*
37,235
0.24
5.5
0.31
2.08
15.20
2.78
j
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
3.1L-UVAN*
41,139
0.15
4.0
0.56
1,87
13.42
2.56
3.1 L - UVAN*
53,312
0.18
5.3
0.46
1.92
14.17
2.59
3.1 L - UVAN*
49,998
0.15
4.1
0.37
1.76
13.07
2.35
3.1 L - UVAN*
40,561
0.18
4.6.
0.22
2.16
13.62
1.98
3.1 L - UVAN*
53,348
0.27
0.20
2.23
15.71
2.23
* = SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
SAF/PCC
REV 10-25-95
MpZ2-
-------
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1992 SFT UTILITIES
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
N3G4.3XBXE31
IUSTD
0.41
6.7
1.00
SECOND YEAR OF
SERVICE
4.3L-SUTIL
25,035
0.24
4.0
0.56
2.39
17.75
1.78
4.3L - S UTIL
10,497
0.22
3.1
0.58
2.56
15.00
1.78
4.3L - S UTIL
24,515
0.19
2.4
0.64
2.46
13.48
1.54
4.3L -T UTIL*
25,248
0.25
2.2
0.54
2.30
13.33
1.62
4.3L - T UTIL*
12,768
0.28
2.9
0.44
2.71
15.51
2.16
4.3L-TUTIL*
28,295
0.34
4.5
0.77
2.56
16.01
2.02
THIRD
YEAR
OF SERVICE
4.3L - S UTIL
20,515
0.20
1.8
0.50
2.23
13.05
1.56
4.3L - T UTIL*
26,903
0.21
2.7
0.84
2.80
16.07
1.92
4.3L - S UTIL
37,354
0.24
3.7
0.59
2.34
15.77
1.78
4.3L - T UTIL*
30,741
0.32
5.5
0.64
2.64
21.22
1.92
4.3L - T UTIL*
22,279
0.23
2.9
0.56
2.97
19.36
1.86
4.3L - T UTIL*
46,705
0.23
3.1
0.50
2.63
16.45
1.77
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
J
4.3L - T UTIL*
34,025
0.30
3.0
0.40
2.95
20.75
1.57
4.3L - S UTIL
37,151
0.31
5.5
0.44
2.35
18.56
1.41
4.3L - T UTIL*
40,398
0.28
3.2
0.90
2.78
14.71
1.78
4.3L - T UTIL*
30,875
0.27
3.0
0.60
2.91
17.94
1.90
4.3L - T UTIL*#
36,304
0.30
4.5
0.47
2.64
19.18
1.74
RETEST
36,369
0.31
4.6
0.50
2.59
19.20
1.65
# - INVALID - DIURNAL FUEL TEMP OUT OF RANGE
* = SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
SAF/PCC
REV 08-24-95
-------
SAF/PCC CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
11/8/95
1993 J CARS
ENG FAMILY
P1G2.0W8JF15
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE
MILES NMHC CO NOx
IU STD
0.32 5.2 0.55
ENGINE OUT
HC CO NOx
SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
2.0L - J*
13,502
0.12
1.9
0,19
1.25
13.22
2.16
2.0L - J*
16,484
0.10
1.5
0,17
1.18
12.36
1.63
2.0L - J*
12,503
0.10
1.2
0.17
1.19
12.75
1.63
2.0L - J*
10,059
0.13
1.6
0.13
1.27
13.06
1.88
2.0L-J*@
17,700
0.08
1.5
0,12
1.00
12.89
1.36
RETEST
18,541
0.08
1.2
0.15
1.00
12.85
1.45
f - DATA INVALID - VEHICLE TESTED AT WRONG WEIGHT
THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
2.0L - J*
34,595
0.10
1.6
0.26
0.96
12.17
1.75
2.0L - J*
29,224
0.11
1.5
0.23
1.19
12.39
2.07
2.0L - J*
34,674
0.10
1.5
0.21
0.95
11.95
1.44
2.0L - J*
40,893
0.13
2.3
0.15
1.11
12.73
1.36
2.0L-J*
. 47,055
0.11
1.5
0.34
1.08
12.41
1.73
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
-------
SAF/PCC CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
11/8/95 1993 W CARS
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY MILES NMHC CO NOx HC CO NOx
P1G3.1W8MCF5 IU STD 0.32 5.2 0.55
SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
3.1L-W*
12,392
0.16
1.9
0.12
2.62
11.44
1.50
3.11-W*
17,637
0.13
2.1
0.17
2.67
12.52
1.78
3.1L-W*
13,934
0.15
2.1
0.11
2.51
12.37
1.73
3.1L-W*
24,420
0.15
30
0.14
2.60
13.34
1.40
3.1L-W*
22,145
0.14
2.5
0.15
2.58
12.31
1.47
THIRD YEAR
OF SERVICE
3.1 L - W*#
34,386
0.14
1.7
0.50
2.91
43.18
0.99
RETEST®
34,414
0.14
2.4
0.50
2.95
46.29
0.96
RETEST
34,440
0.15
1.3
0.13
2.76
11.17
1.18
3.1 L - W*$
35,075
0.14
2.1
0.14
NA
NA
NA
RETEST
35,101
0.13
1.7
0.16
2.38
11.52
1.46
3.1L-W*
24,325
0.14
2.0
0.11
2.66
12.26
1.54
3.1L-W*
26,358
0.13
1.7
0.16
2.52
10.98
1.61
3.1L-W*
22,232
0.20
2.1
0.38
2.71
11.76
2.05
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
* - INVALID - NO SIDE COOLING
@ - VACUUM HOSE FROM MANIFOLD TO AIR MANAGEMENT VALVE WAS PINCHED
$ - INVALID - CE SAMPLE PUMP NOT WORKING PROPERLY
~ = SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
-------
SAF/PCC
11/8/95
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
1993 M VANS
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
P3G4.3X5XG38
IUSTD
0.41
6.7
1.0
SECOND
YEAR OF SERVICE
4.3L - M*
18,498
0.22
3.1
0.68
2.80
14.32
2.91
4.3L-M*
12,304
0.14
1.5
0.60
2.51
11.77
2.75
4.3L - M*
24,462
0.18
2.0
0.61
2.23
12.35
2.64
4.3L - M*
15,427
0.13
1.5
0.85
2.30
12.88
2.90
4.3L -M*
17,972
0.15
1.6
0.66
2.56
11.81
2.74
4.3L - M*
12,411
0,15
1.9
0.94
2.60
12.22
3.29
THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
4.3L - M*
37,577
0.20
2.7
0.80
2.42
11.84
2.82
4.3L - M*
" 37,417
0.18
2.6
0.72
2.46
11.83
2.41
4.3L - M*
29,865
0.17
2.4
0.48
2.48
13.51
2.75
4.3L - M*
33,395
0,18
1.9
0.70
2.42
11.93
2.80
4.3L - M*
' 25,720
0.15
2.0
0.83
2.61
11.69
3.22
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
= SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
fl/fjil if %
-------
SAF/PCC CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
11/8/95 1993 CADILLAC'S
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
P1 G4.6W8XEB8
IUSTD
0,39
7.0
0.7
(TIER 0)
SECOND
YEAR OF SERVICE
4.6L - E$
12,194
0.14
1.5
0.07
2.29
14.90
1.29
RETEST
12,220
0.11
1.4
0.09
2.23
14.57
1.28
4.6L - E
19,135
0.17
1.9
0.08
3.83
22.18
1.55
4.6L - K*
11,654
0.14
1.7
0.16
3.79
19.03
1,65
4.6L - K*
15,266
0.14
1.6
0.18
2.96
16.73
1.22
4.6L - K*
10,970
0.10
1.1
0.14
2.36
13.74
1.40
THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
4.6L-E
35,404
0.22
2.0
0.30
3.43
17.44
1.79
4.6L - E%
39,168
0.20
2.2
0.17
3.09
18.65
1.35
RETEST
39,194
0.23
2.2
0.13
3.02
18.48
1.29
4.6L - K*
26,412
0.15
1.3
0.26
3.39
17.56
1.31
4.6L - K*
48,475
0.27
3.1
0.33
3.04
16.27
1J2
4.6L - K*
31,102
0.16
1.6
0.18
2.88
15.26
1.30
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
* - SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
$ = NON OEM GAS CAP
% = FUEL LINE TO CANISTER WAS DISCONNECTED
-------
SAF/PCC CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY
11/8/95
1993 C/K PICKUPS
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY MILES NMHC CO NOx HC CO NOx
P3G5.7X5XG59 IUSTD 0.41 6.7 1.0
SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
5.7L - C
22,901
0.23
2.5
0.50
2.59
17.58
1.41
5.7L - C*
23,776
0.24
22
0.37
3.10
16.30
1.28
5.7L - C*
15,453
0.24
2.4
0.44
2.64
14.84
1.36
5.7L - C*
29,254
0.29
3.6
0.64
3.09
18.63
2.05
5.7L-C
14,192
0.24
2.0
0.31
3.24
18.07
1.37
THIRD YEAR OF SERVICE
5.7L - C*
41,199
0.30
3.1
0.47
3.07
17.16
1.36
5.7L - C*#
41,180
0.43
5.5
0.70
3.24
16.73
1.86
RETEST
41,207
0.33
4.9
0.60
2.97
16.93
1.53
5.7L - C*
31,740
0.31
2.8
0.48
3.50
16.77
2.12
5.7L-C*
.*5,864
0.32
3.5
0.54
3.33
19.03
1.70
5.7L-C*
33,730
0.29
4.1
0.53
3,03
17.34
1.69
FOURTH YEAR OF SERVICE
# = IGNITION TIMING NOT SET TO SPEC - RESET
* = SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
-------
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY PAGE 1 OF 2
1994 - SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE
ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMOG
CO
NOx
HCHO
HC
CO
NOx
R1G2.2V7G2EA
IUSTD
0.188
3.4
0.4
0.023
2.2L - J*
12,554
0.056
0.9
0.34
0.002
1.19
10.83
2.44
2.2L - J*
20,420
0.059
1.2
0.21
0.001
1.08
10.55
2.19
2.2L - J*&
16,915
0.065
1.1
0.18
0.001
1.20
10.12
2.21
RETEST
16,941
0.063
1.4
0.17
0.001
1.21
10.33
2.13
2.2L - J*
23,338
0.056
0.7
0.21
0.002
1.22
9.83
2.21
2.2L - J*
25,332
0.054
0.9
0.19
0.001
1.14
10.32
1.82
& - FOUND CANISTER PURGE HOSE OFF AT PURGE SOLENOID
PHASE 2 FUEL USED AND RAF OF 0.98
TAILPIPE
ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
R1G4.6VJG1EA
IUSTD
0.32
5.2
0.55
4.6L - K
18,325
0.17
1.4
0.06
3.40
14.15
1.77
4.6L - KSP*
21,368
0.12
1.1
0.13
4.04
19.55
1.84
4.6L - K@
15,639
RETEST
15,663
0.13
0.8
0.28
3.13
13.11
1.61
4.6L - KSP*
10,357
0.12
1.3
0.25
4.17
18.56
1.65
4.6L - KSP*
14,017
0.14
1.2
0.52
3.79
16.62
1.87
@ - INVALID - TEST ABORTED PHASE 3 - TRACTION CONTROL LIGHT CAME ON
TAILPIPE
ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
R1G4.9V8G1EA
IUSTD
0.32
5.2
0.55
4.9L - K*
18,565
0.17
2.8
0.11
2.86
15.80
1.38
4.9L - K*
20,840
0.12
2.1
0.38
2.74
15.27
1.87
4.9L - K*
19,868
0.14
2.2
0.16
2.81
16.02
1.29
4.9L - K*
13,730
0.12
1.9
0.18
2.78
15.11
1.45
4.9L - K*
14,431
0.14
2.0
0.14
3.03
15.93
1.49
* = SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
-------
CALIFORNIA REALITY CHECK SUMMARY PAGE 2 OF 2
1994 - SECOND YEAR OF SERVICE
GM CONFIDENTIAL
TAILPIPE
ENGINE OUT
ENG FAMILY
MILES
NMHC
CO
NOx
HC
CO
NOx
R3G3.125GFEA
IUSTD
0.41
6.7
1.0
3.1L-UVAN*
27,128
0.17
3.3
0.37
2.15
13.03
2.92
3.1L-UVAN*
16,743
0.17
3.0
0.23
2.09
12.13
3.08
3.1L - UVAN*&
12,778
0.14
2.3
0.14
2.27
11.40
4.22
RETEST
12,804
0.14
2.5
0.13
2.19
11.77
4.05
3.1L - UVAN*
12,940
0.13
2.3
0.25
2.28
11.15
3.41
3.1L - UVAN*
14,306
0.14
2.8
0.19
2.05
12.17
2.94
& - INVALID - SHED BROKE DURING DIURNAL
4 = SIMILAR TO ADP VEHICLE
-------
tt
"O
i;. co
C/">-
o' c.n
General Motors Corporation submits the attached in-use verification (reality check) emission
test data for three Federal 1994 model year engine families and one California 1993 model year
carryover engine family certified using the GM alternate durability process (ADP). The three
1994 Federal engine families are: (1) R1G2.2V7GFEA/R1G2.2V7GEEA, (2) R1G3.1V8GFEA
and (3) R1G4.6VJGAEA. The 1993 California family is P1G2.0W8JF15 (this 1993 reality check
data is being carried over to support 1994 engine family R1G2.0V7GFEA).
Reality check testing for the subject families for the third year of service was completed at our
Milford Proving Ground vehicle emission laboratory. The California family (fourth year of
service) and family R1G3.1V8GFEA were tested at our Los Angeles vehicle emission
laboratory.
No vehicles were rejected after initial procurement and no OBD or stored codes were observed.
The test procedure used was the normal FTP with a double prep. For each engine family, both
exhaust tail pipe and engine out emission data, if available, are provided as part of this
submission. In response to our letter ML-GM495, approval was given to discontinue engine out
emission testing on December 10,1996.
Please call Steve Fogle of my staff on (810) 685-5145 if you have any questions regarding this
information.
RCH/SAF/ks
c: D. J. Good
Sincerely,
R. C. Harvey
Project Manager
Powertrain Control Center
Powertrain Control Contor • M/C 443-331-500 • GM Proving Ground • Milford, Michigan 48380-3726
Am fflr>31
-------
# V
CA?
4.H
fc*)
«<•» -» F,t AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
1919 Torrance Boulevard • Torrance, CA 90501-2746
(310) 783-2000
Fy| - l%o
April 15, 1998 AHCERT-982500
P*v<
4*j%
j*
Director
Certification Division (EPA-335)
Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
ATTENTION: Mr. Dave Good
Dear Sir:
Enclosed is the report of the results of our first Reality Check test program conducted on 1997
model year Acura 3.0CL vehicles.
The exhaust emission test results are all satisfactory.
Yours truly,
J
AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.
rfian Gill
Assistant Vice President
Product Regulations Compliance, Certification
BG/llw
Enclosure(s)
S:\CERTIP.LAURA\DOCJEPA\REALTCHK.doc
-------
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Annual Report on In-use Verification Prooram
Model Year: 1997
Program Term : 1st (10k to 30k-mile interval)
Engine Family : VHN3.0VJGKEK (49-State, Tier-1)
Model: Acura 3.0CL (AT)
Test Cell: American Honda Ann Arbor Laboratory (Ml) #2 Cell
Test Fuel :lndolene 6.8gal
V.ID.
VIN
Test No.
Test Date
ETW
HPa
Odometer
NMHC
NMOG
CO
NOx
HCHO
Remarks
(lbs)
(HP)
(miles)
(g/mile)
(g/mile)
(g/mile)
(g/mile)
(g/mile)
R97AZF1
19UYA225XVL011468
l
02/10/98
3625
7.0
11,414
0.088
0.49
0.14
R97AZF2
19UYA2253VL010193
l
02/11/98
*3625
7:0
13,874
0.082
———
0.55
0.15
—
Slave tires were used due
to deformed wheel.
R97AZF3
19UYA22 4 4VL007 82 7
l
02/11/98
3625
7.0
15,461
0.091
—
0.52
0.19
—
R97AZF4
19UYA2 2 5 6VL009295
l
02/17/98
3625
7.0
15,202
0.089
—
0.60
0.24
—
R97AZF5
19UYA2254VL005178
l
02/17/98
3625
7.0
16,489
0.087
—
0.60
0.16
—
Other soeria! procedures *
Canister loading method : 2g breakthrough, off-vehicle
6-hour(min.) soak: omitted
Continuous analysis : diluted exhaust gas sample and compensation of CVS flow volume
Si
-------
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Annual Report on In-use Verification Program
Model Year:
Program Term :
Engine Family:
Model:
Test Cell:
Test Fuel :Phase2
1997
1st (10k to 30k-mile interval)
VHN3.0VJG2EK (California, TLEV)
Acura 3.0CL (AT)
Honda R&D of America (CA) #1 Cell
6.8gal
V.ID.
VIN
Test No.
Test Date
ETW
HPa
Odometer
NMHC
NMOG *1
CO
NOx
HCHO *2
Remarks
(lbs)
(HP)
(miles)
(g/mile)
(g/mile)
(g/mile)
(g/mile)
(g/mile)
R97AZL1
19UYA224XVL002129
l
03/03/98
3625
7.0
16,603
0.0651
0.0669
0.66
0.14
0.0018
R97AZL2
19UYA2241VL002147
1
03/04/98
3625
1.0
11,241
—
—
—
—
—
Void *3
2
03/05/98
3625
7.0
11,250
0.0790
0.0812
0. 95
0.13
0.0022
R97AZL3
19UYA2 P41VLO12662
1
03/04/98
3625
7.0
14,377
0.0803
0.0825
0.82
0.12
0.0022
R97AZL4
19UYA2241VL012628
1
03/10/98
3625
7.0
11,327
0.0712
0.0731
0.67
0.15
0.0019
R97AZL5
19UYA224XVL005385
1
03/10/98
3625
7.0
15,630
0.0663
0.0681
0.50
0.15
0.0018
Slave tires were used due
to nail-stuck.
*1: NMOG* NMHCx RatiOwMOG/NMHcP 0482]xRAF[0.98] 50K TVS*/ S-Ws: . »*S
*2: HCHO = NMHC x RatioHCHO/NMHc[0.0273]
*3: The engine failed to start due to the ignition wire disconnected during the canister removal and installation.
Other special procedures
Canister loading method : 2g breakthrough, off-vehicle
6-hour(minimum) soak: omitted
Continuous analysis : direct exhaust gas sample and return to CVS
=£>
-2-
-------
Annual Report on In-use Verification Program
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Procurement Information
V.ID.
VIN
A/C
Trans.
City, State
Answers for questionnaire *1
Remarks
Result
l
2
3
4-a)
4-b)
4-c)
4-d)
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
R97AZF1
19UYA225XVL0114 68
Y
AT
Ann Arbor, MI
N
N
11,100
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZF2
19UYA2253VL010193
Y
AT
Ann Arbor, MI
N
N
15,000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZF3
19UYA2244VL007827
Y
AT
Plymouth, MI
N
N
14,000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZF4
19UYA22S6VL009295
Y
AT
Ann Arbor, MI
N
N
15,030
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZF5
19UYA2254VL005178
Y
AT
Plymouth, MI
N
N
16,000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZL1
19UYA224XVL002129
Y
AT
Long Beach,
CA
N
N
16,253
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZL2
19UYA2 2 41VL0 02147
Y
AT
Whitter, CA
N
N
11,000
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZL3
19UYA2241VL012 662
Y
AT
Diamond Bar,
CA
N
N
13,500
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZL4
19UYA2241VL012628
Y
AT
LA Palma, CA
N
N
10,771
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Accept
R97AZL5
19UYA224XVL005385
Y
AT
Los Angeles,
CA
N
N
15,089
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
AT replaced
Accept
The vehicles were procured by Automotive Testing and Development Services Inc., (ATDS) in Michigan and California.
The vehicles were randomly selected using state registration information from R.LPolk.
No vehicles were rejected.
No MIL illumination were found.
*1: Refer to attached format of Telephone Questionnaire.
-A
Ai
Ln.
-3-
-------
Annual Report on In-use Verification Program
Honda Motor Co., Ltd.
Telephone Questionnaire
Date: Air Conditioning: DYES , DNO Transmission: OAUT0 , DMANUAL
Vehicle: Phone (Home) :
Owner: Times:
Address: (Work)
City/State/Zip • Times:_
VIN: License Plate State
No.
Question
Answer
Reject Criteria
1
Has the speedometer/odometer ever failed to work?
~Yes DNo
Yes
2
Has the speedometer been replaced?
~Yes DNo
Yes
3
What is the odometer reading?
1/ 01st interval : 10,000 to 30,000 miles
~2nd interval : 20,000 to 50,000 miles
~3rd interval : 40,000 to 70,000 miles
(Pre-selected by mfr.)
miles
Out of listed
range 1/
4
Have you used your vehicle for any of the
following activities?
a) As a taxi?
b) As a commercial delivery vehicle?
c) To race in competitive speed events?
d) To plow snow?
~Yes DNo
~Yes DNo
~Yes DNo
~Yes Dno
Yes
5
Do you often pull a trailer?
If yes, what is the trailer weight?
~Yes DNo
Lbs
more than
1000 Lbs
(Mfr. fills)
6
Have you ever operated your vehicle on leaded
gasoline?
~Yes ONo
Yes
7
Has your vehicle ever beeh involved in a
significant accident or flood damage?
~Yes Dno
Yes
8
Is any performance equipment installed? or. Have
you ever installed?
(e.g., power-improve devfce or lowered suspension)
~Yes QNo
Yes
9
Is there any history of major engine repair such
as piston, crankshaft, cylinder head or engine
block replacement?
~Yes DNo
Yes
10
Has the catalytic converter of your vehicle ever
been replaced or missing?
~Yes DNo
Yes
11
Are there any ominous noises or serious leaks of
coolant, oil or fuel from engine or transmission?
~Yes DNo
Yes
!2.
Are there any leaks from the exhaust system?
~Yes ONo
Yes
13
Does the check engine indicator flash (not turn
on) when you drive?
~Yes QNo
Yes
HONDA 1997 3.0CL 1st Program
-4-
A .Mb ?
-------
Ford Motor Company
wnaul ^ mmt Cm m mmtna
environ rnvnua m Mfvcy cngmvcnitQ
Ifah IflPjl CkuiMkBMAaial
vwiictf cnvtronrntfiw cfiQtfiMfing
ThoAmarican Road
Room 252 WHQ
D««tom, U1 Itltt
October 22,1997
Mr. Thomas M. Ball, Chief
United States Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Artwr, MI 48105
Dear Mr. Ball:
Ford Motor Company (Ford) plans to begin testing Reality Check vehicles for thel996 MY ADP family
TFM4.6VJGFFL October 27,1997. Attached, please fiat the list of the in-use vehicle coofiguratioos
Fad plans to test
Please contact Ms. Peg Gutmann at (313) 594-1035 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
O. W. Berens, Manager
Surveillance and Compliance Department
AmUU-.
-------
10/22/97
1996 FINAL REALITY CHECK VEHICLE SELECTION
FORD TFM4.6VJGFFL ENGINE FAMILY
Cariim: MARK VIII
CalfcraUpn
Aid* Transmission ETW
fofvatiiclas
Actual • of
vshlclas
% 9f Silts
t
2
6-381
6-38K
3.07
3.27
AUTO
AUTO
4000
4000
7357
2290
78%
24%
3.81
1.19
4
1
Total: 9ttf |
EPA Criteria: .5 vehicles selected based on calibration, axle, ETW, transmission and sales weight.
Result:: - 5 vehicles from 2 configurations were selected.
-------
1996 MY Reality Check
TFM4.6V8GFEL - 4.6L Crown Vic/Grand Marq/Town Car
Test Vehicle Configurations
Configuration
Model
Calibration..
Axle ,
Trans
ETW
Actual
Sales
Percent
of Sales
Vehicle
Estimate
Number of Test
Vehicles Required
1
Crown Victoria
Grand Marquis
6-18F
2.73
Auto
4000
110,631
55.3%
2.8
3
2
Town Car
6-18J
3.08
Auto
4250
54,788
27.4%
1.4
1
3
Crown Victoria
Police
6-181
2.73
Auto
4250
52,359
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
Not Eligible
4
Town Car
6-18E
2.73
Auto
4250
19,619
9.8%
0.5
1
5
Crown Vic.
Grand Marq.
6-18H
2.73
Auto
4000
15,059
7.5%
0.4
0
Total Engine Family Sales:
252,456
Selection Criteria: Five vehicles are selected based on proportional sampling. Total sales for calculations is 200,097
Configuration #3 not eligible, fleet vehicles.
-------
Cc;
Environmental and Room 252 WHQ
fkh4*\ DhKR Safety Engineering The American Road
' , Ford Motor Company Dearborn, Michigan 48121
(P*k £)
December 8,1997
/ Mr. Thomas M. Ball, Chief
V ^ United States Environmental Protection Agency
>f y I 2565 Plymouth Road
[)a^ h#*J ^na^X)r'^ 48105
Dear Mr. Ball:
Attached are the Alternate Durability Program (ADP) Reality Check reports for the 1996 MY
Engine Families TFM3.0V8GKEK and TFM4.6VJGFFL. The customer vehicles tested were in
their second year of customer service with mileage between 10,000 and 30,000 miles. The report
contains plots of the emission data, the logs of the vehicle emissions data and maintenance, the
OBD diagnostic codes report, and the procurement summary. Performance of the statistical
, outlier analysis indicated no outlier data points for either engine family.
The report for the TFM3.0V8GKEK engine family includes data for seven vehicles in their
second year of service. Also included are data for four vehicles which were void due to incorrect
dynamometer horsepower. One vehicle was rejected due to the customer having possibly created
a surge to the vehicles computer, by jumping the vehicle with the cables connected reversed.
The report for the 1996 MY engine family TFM4.6VJGFFL includes data for five vehicles in
their second year of service. jOne vehicle was rejected due to low oil.
If you have any questions or comments concerning this information please contact me.
Sincerely,
E7. W. Berens, Manager
Surveillance & Compliance
-------
TFM3.0V8GKEK
At)f>$if
-------
ATTACHMENT!
0.25
0,20
0.15
1
ro
o
z
0.10
0.05
0.00
NMHC "As-Received" Data for TFM3.0V8GKEK
NMHC Standard (50K): 0.25 g/mile
~ O
~
O ^ °
0 10000 20000 30000
40000 50000
Mileage
60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Ford Motor Company
-------
ATTACHMENT II
HC "As-Received" Data for TFM3.0V8GKEK
HC Standard (50K): 0.41 g/mile
t
10000 20000 30000
40000 50000 60000
Mileage
70000 80000 90000 100000
**»
3s
Ford Motor Company
9/16/97
-------
ATTACHMENT HI
4.0
3.0
2.0
O
o
1.0
0.0
CO "As-Received" Data for TFM3.0V8GKEK
•-
CO Standard (50K): 3.4 g/miie
/
„ o
8
0
0
o
o
0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Mileage
p Ford Motor Company
9/1F
-------
ATTACHMENT IV
NOx "As-Received" Data for TFM3.0V8GKEK
NOx Standard (50K): 0.4 g/mi!e
o 0.2
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Mileage
Ford Motor Company
9/16/97
-------
ATTACHMENT V
Vehicle Emission Data and Maintenance
Engine Family TFM3.0V8GKEK
(First Year Report)
Engine Family
In Service
Model Yr.
Test Loc.
Test Condition
TFM3.0V8GKEK
2
1996
CTL
Loaded Canister
Tracking No.
Model
Body Style
ODO
Test No.
VIN
Calibration
Trans
Test Date
Actual HP
ETW
Shift Sched.
NMHC
Total
Final Emission Level* (g/mile)
THC CO
Total | Eng. Out Total | Eng. Out
Total
NOx
| Eng. Out
Test Type
Comments
VF0101
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
14753
1
1FALP52U9TG284834
610BR11A
A
l 9-Jul-97
1 64
1 3625
I NA
0.095
0.109
0.99
0.21
As Received
^¦nested at incorrect
horsepower.
VF0101
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
14772
2
1FALP52U9T G284834
610BR11A
y "11-JUI-97
| 6.4
| 3625
} NA
0.093
0.107
2.063 0.78 10.66
0.21
2.26
Feedgas
riy^Tested at incorrect
horsepower.
VF0102
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
13662
1 ^
1FALP52U3TG292007
610BR11A
A
10-JUI-97
1 6.4
I 3625
1 NA
0.094
0.109
0.73
0.22
As Received
Ptttt. Tested at incorrect
horsepower.
VF0102
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
13681
2
1FALP52U3TG292007
610BR11A
A J
/ 15-Jul-97
i 6.4
K 3625
r NA
0.087
0.103
1.782 0.69 10.34
0.23
2.29
Feedgas
Tested at incorrect
horsepower.
VF0103
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
14169
1
1F ALP52U3TG281668
610BR11A
A
17-Jul-97
6.4
3625
NA
0.110
0.125
0.81
0.24
As Received
Tested at incorrect
horsepower.
VF0103
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
14188
2
1FALP52U3T G281668
610BR11A
A /
r 23-Jul-97
6.4
3625
I NA
0.099
0.113
1.962 0.94 10.59
0.22
2.36
Feedgas
Tested at incorrect
horsepower.
VF0104
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
20628
1 ^
1FALP52U9TG145187
610BR06A
A
I 19-Jul-97
I 6.4
* 3625
f NA
0.102
0.129
1.42
0.27
As Received
VHd. Tested at incorrect
horsepower.
VF0105
SABLE GS
SEDAN
22795
1MELM50U1TG655943
610AR11A
A...
25-Jul-97
\ 64
I 3625
NA
0.128
0.145
1.25
0.19
As Received
I
m*1
Ford Motor Company
< .u
.if
3. It
1 of 3
.4
9/16/97
-------
attachment V Vehicle Emission Data and Maintenance
Engine Family TFM3.0V8GKEK
(First Year Report)
Tracking No.
Model
Body Style
ODO
Test No.
VIN
Calibration
Trans
Test Date
Actual HP
ETW
Shift Sched.
NMHC
Total
Final Emission Levels (g/miie)
THC CO
Total | Eng. Out Total | Eng. Out
Total
NOx
| Eng. Out
Test Type
Comments
VF0106
SABLE GS
SEDAN
20534
1 MELM50UXTG6630ol
610AR11A j
29-Jul-97
6.4
W 3625
NA
0.102
0.120
1.17
0.25
VF0107
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
20495
1
1FALP52U1T G250497
610BR11A
A
31-Jul-97
6.3
3625
NA
0.094
S
0.110
1.11
0.22
As Received
-
VF0107
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
20514
2
1FALP52U1TG250497'
610BR11A i
A J
f 5-Aug-97
6.3
3625
NA
0.084
0.098 1.776
0.84 10.57
0.22
2.43
Feedgas
VF0108
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
1
1FALP52U2T G251786
610BR11A
*
Rejected
Customer jumped vehicle
w/ cables reversed.
VF0109
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
24558
1 —
1FALP52U2TG179827
610BR11A
A
6-Aug-97
6.3
3625
NA
0094
0.108
0.97
0.20
As Received
VF0109
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
24576
1FALP52U2TG179827
610BR11A .
A /
[ 11-Aug-97
6.3
3625
| NA
0.102
0.116 2.119
0.85 9.42
0.21
2.08
Feedgas
VF0110
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
15374
1 s
1FALP52U0TG274502
610BR11A
A
8-Aug-97
6.3
3625
b NA
0.090
0.105
0.97
0.21
As Received
VF0110
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
15393
2
1FALP52U0TG274502
610BR11A
A J
' 13-Aug-97
6.3
3625
NA
0.087
0.101 1.804
0.81 10.63
0.21
2.26
Feedgas
VF0111
TAURUS GL
SEDAN
20919
1FALP52U2TG125427"
610BR06A ,
A J
J 12-Aug-97
I 63
I 3625
1 NA
0.091
0.107
0.91
0.22
As Received
Ford Motor Company or 2 of 3 9/16/97
-------
attachment v Vehicle Emission Data and Maintenance
Engine Family TFM3.0V8GKEK
(First Year Report)
Tracking No.
Model
Body Style
ODO
Test No.
V1N
Calibration
Trans
Test Date
Actual HP
ETW
Shift Sched.
NMHC
Total
Total
Final Emission Levels (g/mile)
THC CO
| Eng. Out Total | Eng. Out
Total
NOx
| Eng. Out
Test Type
Comments
VF0112
SABLE GS
SEDAN
19428
1 1
1MELM50U6TG602140(
610AR07A
a i
14-Aug-97
6.4
3625
NA
0.127
0.147
0.92
0.23
As Received
"1
• ' L-
A i
^4
, k-
Ford Motor Company
3 of 3
9/16/97
-------
ATTACHMENT VI
Summary of DTC Codes
Engine Family TFM3.0V8GKEK
Vehicle Number
Code(s)
Code Description
Action Taken
VF0101
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0102
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0103
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0104
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0105
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0106
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0107
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
WBSSSf
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0109
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0110
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0111
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
VF0112
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASS
NONE
Note: A 111-111-111 code indicates system pass (I.e. no diagnostic trouble present).
A/la 1T/ O'
-------
Attachment VII
Summary of Vehicle Procurement and Vehicie Rejections
Engine Family TFM3.0V8GKEK. Year 2 of Customer Service
Results of Phone Survey
Number of Vehicles/Notes
Owners contacted
16
Vehicles acceptable
13
Vehicles eliminated
- Ford Motor Employee
3
Result of Procurement
Accepted
12 /
Rejected - Aftermarket Alarm
1
Vehicles Rejected at Laboratory
Rejected at Laboratory
1
- Vehicle ¦HRHF- Improper battery
jump by customer.
Approved by LaVonne Skinner, John
Beadmore contacted 7/29/97.
Outlier Vehicles
(Emission Constituent)
None
None
vehpro.xls
12/5/97
(Lo,
-------
TFM4.6VJGFFL
-------
Attachment 1
NMHC'As-Receive " Data for TFM4.6VJGFFL
NMHC Interim In-use standard @ 50k = 0.32 g/mlle
10000 20000 30000 40000
50000 60000
Milage
70000 80000 90000 100000
-------
Attachment II
THC "As-ReceiveM Data for TFM4.6VJGFFL
THC Certification Standard = 0.41 g/mile
0.35
0.25
o
z
0.3 ¦
0.15
0.05
t>
10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 60000 70000 80000 90000 100000
Mileage
1l i
-------
Attachment III
CO "As-Receive" Data for TFM4.6VJGFFL
CO Interim In use Standard ® SOK = 3.4 g/mile
o
o
40000
60000
20000
30000
70000
10000
80000 90000 100000
%
=4
a
-------
Attachment IV
Nox "As-Received" Data for TFM4.6VJGFFL
Nox Interim In-uae Standard @ 50k ¦ 0.4 g/rnile
40000
50000
70000
30000
60000
20000
< _
10000
80000 90000 100000
-------
Vehicle Emission Data and Maintenance
Engine Family TFM4.6VJGFFL
(Second Year Report)
Attachment
t~~Engin
-------
Summary of DTC Codes
Engine Family TFM4.6VJGFFL
Attachment VI
Vehicle Number
Code(s)
Code Description
Action Taken
VF0201
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASSED
NONE
VF0202
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASSED
NONE
VF0203
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASSED
NONE
VF0204
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASSED
NONE
VF0206
111-111-111
SYSTEM PASSED
NONE
Note: A 111-111-111 code indicates system pass (i.e. no diagnostic trouble present)
-------
Attachment VII
Summary of Vehicle Procurement and Vehicle Rejections
Engine Family TFM4.6VJGFFL. Year 2 of Customer Service
Results of Phone Survey
Number of Vehicles/Notes
Owners contacted
6
Vehicles acceptable
6
Vehicles eliminated (list reasons)
None
Result of Procurement
Accepted
6
Rejected (list reasons)
None
Vehicles Rejected at Laboratory
Vehicles rejected at laboratory
1
Vehicle #VF0205 - Low Oil On Dipstick
Approved by Hikmet Alie, John
Beadmore contacted 11/15/97.
Outlier Vehicles
(Emission Constituent)
None
None
vehpro.xls
12/5/97
4*/77i» 5
-------
1996 MY Reality Check
TFM3.0V8FFEK - 3.0L Taurus FFV (Methanol)
Test Vehicle Configurations
Configuration Model Calibration
Aitle
Trans
ETW
Actual
Sales
Percent
of Sales
Vehicle
Estimate
Number of Test
Vehicles Required
1 Taurus FFV 6-1OG
3.77
Auto
3750
501
100.0%
5.0
5
Total Engine Family Sales:
501
Selection Criteria: Five vehicles are selected based on proportional sampling.
-------
1996 "Y Reality Check
TFM3.0V8NFGK - 3.0L Taurus FFV (Ethanol)
Test Vehicle Configurations
Configuration
Model Calibration
Axle
Trans
ETW
Actual
Sales
Percent
of Sales
Vehicle
Estimate
Number of Test
Vehicles Required
1
Taurus FFV 6-1OC
3.77
Auto
3750
3,275
100.0%
5.0
5
Total Engine Family Sales:
3,275
Selection Criteria: Five vehicles are selected based on proportional sampling.
-------
1996 MY Reality Check
TFM4.6VJGFEK - 4.6L 4V Mustang Cobra
Test Vehicle Configurations
Configuration
Model
Calibration
Axle
Trans
ETW
Actual
Sales
Percent
of Sales
Vehicle
Estimate
Number of Test
Vehicles Required
1
Coupe
ZBJ
6-37M
3.27
M5
3750
7,139
74.6%
3.7
4
2
Convertible
ZBH
6-37N
3.27
M5
3875
2,431
25.4%
1.3
1
Total Engine Family Sales:
9,570
Selection Criteria: Five vehicles are selected based on proportional sampling.
%
-------
£
TOYOTA
TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER, USA, INC.
dc:
EAB
November 14,1996
Ll4 , o-:
^folvid Good
Vehicle Programs and Compliance Division
Mobile Source Pollution Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency c.?
2565 Plymouth Road
f i
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 ~
¦< «¦
. Dear Mr. Good:
CO "
h|is{K 5SC
Subject Alternate Service Accumulation Durability Program (ASADP) Reality Check Annual Report
Reference: Mr. Eldert A. Bontekoe's letter to E. Brune, General Manager, Powertrain Department AA-1
Toyota Technical Center (TTC), dated April 15,1994 no subject.
In accordance with the guidelines of "Dear Manufacturer's Letter CD-94-13," and the referenced letter
(Attached for your convenience), Toyota Technical Center herewith submits its first ASADP reality check
report. This report includes data from vehicles in the 2nd year of service with mileage's in the 10 to 30
thousand mile range. This report covers the following engine families and models:
ENGINE FAMILY MODEL
1) STY1.8 VJGFFA Corolla, Corolla Wagon
2) STY4.0VJGFFK 1995 Lexus (LS400)
The following attachments are provided in accordance with the guidelines of "CD-94-13":
Attachment I Vehicle Emission Test Data Summary
Attachment II Vehicle Procurement And Rejection Summary
Attachment III On Board Diagnostics (OBD) Summary & Service Codes
Attachment IV Engineering Reports
Attachment V Maintenance Summary
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Shinichi Matsumoto (313) 995-
3696 or Tom Beierschmitt (313)-995-3743.
Sincerely,
Naoki (Nick) Tsuji
General Manager
Powertrain Department AA-No. 1
IBM Woodridae. RR #7 Ann Artinr Michigan 48105 Tntenhnnn' Ml-PfiOO
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER ATTACHMENT I (PAGE 1 OF 2)
VEHICLE EMISSION TEST DATA SUMMARY
IENGINE FAMILY: STY1.8VHGFFA | |MODEL: COROLLA & COROLLA WAGONi |MODEL YEAR: 1995 |
ITEST SITE: TTC- ANN ARBOR j ITESTING YEAR: FIRST |
VEH. I.D.
TEST NO.
TEST DATE
FTP (WITH HEAT BUILD) TEST RESULTS
MODEL
VIN
TEST(HP)
ODO (MILES)
MODEL CODE
ETW (LBS)
(G/M1LE)
THC NMHC CO NOX
(MPG)
FE
COMMENTS
96-AA-39
COROLLA
17,809
1
2T1AE09BOSC105818
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/10/96
t.8
2875
0.171
0.155
2.45
0.15
30.1
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-40
COROLLA
28,622
1
2T1AE09BXSC098179
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/10/96
7.8
2875
0.178
0.162
2.67
0.21
29.9
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-41
COROLLA
13,869
1
2T1AE09BXSC098814
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/11/96
7.8
2875
0.165
0.151
2.14
0.15
30.6
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-42
COROLLA
22,336
1
1NXAE00B8SZ228410
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/17/96
7.8
2875
0.202
0.185
1.92
0.22
30.1
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-43
COROLLA
12,031
1
2T1AE09BOSC126331
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/18/96
7.8
2875
0.135
0.125
2.25
0.09
30.4
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-61
COROLLA
20,290
1
1NXAE09BXSZ285632
AE102L-DEMNKA
8/1/96
7.8
2750
0.195
0.176
1.89
0.12
31.3
TEST VOID ¦ WRONG DYNO
SEE ENG. REPORT
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-62
COROLLA
22,171
1
1NXAE09BXSZ315891
AE102L-DEMNKA
8/14/96
7.8
2750
0.179
0.161
2.12
0.19
32.8
A/C, PS, M/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT I (PAGE 2 OF 2)
VEHICLE EMISSION TEST DATA SUMMARY
IENGINE FAMILY: STY4.0VJGFFK
I
IMODEL: LEXUS LS 400
1 IMODEL YEAR: 1995 I
ITEST SITE: TTC- ANN ARBOR
1
Iteming year: fir£t I
VEH. I.D.
TEST NO.
TEST DATE
FTP (WITH HEAT BUILD) TEST RESULTS
MODEL
VIN
TEST (HP)
ODO (MILES)
MODEL CODE
ETW (LBS)
(G/MILE)
THC NMHC CO NOX
(MPG)
FE
COMMENTS
96-AA-44
LS400
22,048
1
JT8UF22E2S0Q17520
UCF20L-AEPGKA
8/J4/96
7.7
4000
0.137
0.129
0.68
0.15
21.3
A/C, P/S, Afl"
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-45
LS400
24,792
1
JT8UF22E7S0007842
UCF20L-AEPGKA
8/20/96
7.7
4000
0.139
0.129
0.78
0.18
20.7
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-46
LS400
20,219
1
JT8UF22E6S0013759
UCF20L-AEPGKA
10/9/96
7.7
4000
0.137
0.126
0.78
0.17
20.6
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-47
LS400
10,571
1
JT8UF22E3S0023892
UCF20L-AEPGKA
10/23/96
7.7
4000
0.141
0.131
0.71
0.13
20.4
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-48
LS400
19,303
1
JT8UF22E4S0010228
UCF20L-AEPGKA
10/30/96
7.7
4000
0.147
0.137
0.72
0.18
20.6
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
&
-------
TTC - TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT II
SUMMARY OF VEHICLE PROCUREMENT AND VEHICLE REJECTIONS
ENGINE FAMILY: STY1.8VJGFFA STY4.0JGFFK
MODELS AFFECTED COROLLA LEXUS LS 400
NUMBER OF MAILINGS 1 2
RESULT OF MAILINGS:
A. NEW LETTERS MAILED OUT 100 67
B. UNDELIVERABLE LETTERS 7 6
C. CUSTOMER RESPONSES 22 7
D. CUSTOMERS INTERESTED IN PROGRAM 22 7
RESULTS OF PHONE SURVEY:
A. CUSTOMERS CONTACTED 7 7
B. VEHICLES ACCEPTED 7 5
C. VEHICLES REJECTED 0 2
VEHICLES REJECTED AT TTC: NONE NONE
RESULT OF PROCUREMENT:
A. VEHICLES ACCEPTED 7 5
B. VEHICLES REJECTED (LIST REASONS) 0 2
HIGH MILEAGE 1
LOW MILEAGE 1
-------
TTC - TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT III
SUMMARY OF OBD DIAGNOSTICS AND SERVICE CODES
A. The. a were no Diagnostic Trouble Codes present for any of the vehicles tested.
B. The Malfunction Indication Light (MIL) was not illuminated on any vehicle as received.
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT IV
ENGINEERING REPORTS
Subject: Test Void for Vehicle 96-AA-61
Background Information:
A. Subsequent to testing and the return of the vehicle to the customer, it was ascertained that
Vehicle 96-AA-61 was tested on Chassis Dynamometer No. 1, "CH1".
B. CH1 is not maintained in accordance with the requirements of 40CFR.
Conclusion:
TTC-AA judges the test on vehicle 96-AA-61 to be void.
J
Xq$.iOi
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT V
MAINTENANCE SUMMARY
A. Toyota used slave tires for "Reality Check" testing on Lexus and Corolla vehicles.
B. Only maintenance performed on vehicles prior to "As Received" testing was that involving
addition of necessary fluids such as transmission fluid or engine oil to assure safe testing.
C. No extraordinary maintenance operations were performed on any vehicles.
-------
Sr«v
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105
OFFICE OF
AIR ANO RAOtATlON
April 15, 1994
Ed Brune
General Manager
Powertrain Department AA-1
Toyota Technical Center, U.S.A , Inc.
1588 Woodridge, RR #7
Ann Arbor, MI 48105
Dear Mr. Brune:
This letter serves to document the verbal approval previously
granted by EPA allowing Toyota to use an Alternative Service
Accumulation Durability Program (ASADP) for 1995 engine families
STY1.8VJGFFA, SNT1.8VJGFFA, and STY4.OVHGFFK. This approval is
based on information submitted in a number of correspondences and
in various meetings and telephone conversations.
The general elements of Toyota's ASADP program, as EPA
understands them, are outlined below. If Toyota feels there are
discrepancies in our understanding, these should be brought to
EPA's attention as soon as possible. Otherwise, if there is
agreement, Toyota should proceed with its plans. As required by
40 CFR 86.094-13(e)(8), the detailed elements of your approved
ASADP should be consolidated into a written agreement documenting
the details of your program for each engine family utilizing it.
The agreement should contain the information required by 40 CFR
86.094-13(e)(1) through (8), including a detailed description of
the in-use vehicle recruitment procedures, in-use vehicle
screening procedures, and in-use vehicle testing procedures. A
copy of the agreement must be included in the application for
certification, as required by 40 CFR 86.094-13(e)(8).
1. Mileage Accumulation Schedule:
Toyota is using a schedule known as the Toyota 9-Lap for mileage
accumulation. This whole-vehicle schedule contains higher speeds
and acceleration rates than the AMA schedule, thus decreasing the
number of hours for a vehicle to complete 100K durability mileage
accumulation. EPA will approve the use of this mileage
accumulation schedule for the above-named 1995 engine families.
Future plans to utilize this schedule should be coordinated with
EPA well in advance of certification. In any case, EPA is
authorized to approve this schedule only through the 1996 model
year. Further EPA guidance on durability requirements after that
-------
E. Reporting
Any engineering reports, and test results from all testing
performed will be submitted to EPA at the end of the test
program. EPA will use the engineering reports to determine
which test data it will use for determining in-use
verification.
3. Carryover of Reality Check and Durability Data:
EPA will consider carryover/carryacross of the df data and
the reality check data separately. Carryover of df data
will be considered on a case-by-case basis using criteria
similar to the policies in Advisory Circular 17F. However,
there will likely be cases where EPA would allow a df
carryover but still require a supplemental or a full in-use
reality check. EPA is treating such carryover requests on a
case-by-case basis. Toyota should notify EPA of its plans
to utilize carryover/carryacross of any data generated from
an ASADP program as soon as possible.
Please contact me or Linda Hormes of my staff if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Eldert A/Bontekoe
Senior Project Manager
Certification Branch
Certification Division
C:\..\eoyotadu.rl
(? f
-------
time will be issued separately. If Toyota desires to make any
changes to the approved 9-lap cycle, EPA must be notified as soon
as possible.
Toyota will perform emission tests at the intervals previously
submitted to and approved by EPA (letters from Toyota dated May
20, 1993 and July 14, 1993). Deterioration factors will be
calculated using the least-squares best-fit method using all data
points for the 100K dfs and for the 50K dfs.
2. In-Use Verification procedures:
A. Vehicle configuration selection
For each engine family, Toyota has agreed to test a minimum
of 5 vehicles selected in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th years of
service. These vehicles are to be selected from the
available configurations within the engine family and are
chosen to be representative of the actual sales proportions
of the configurations. Prior to certification, Toyota must
submit a list of configurations comprising a proposed test
fleet based on projected sales. As near to the end of the
production year as possible, Toyota will submit to EPA a
final selection based on actual sales. EPA reserves the
right to specify one configuration to be sampled each year.
Once the configuration fleet has been finalized, the same
configurations will be tested each year.
The vehicles are to be selected with a minimum of screening.
Toyota has developed a screening questionnaire which would
eliminate vehicles for reasons of safety, obvious tampering
and gross mis-use. EPA prefers (but will not require) that
an independent contractor be used for vehicle procurement to
minimize the risk of over-screening.
B. Testing
All vehicles accepted into the program will be tested in an
"as-received" condition. If, after the initial test,
maintenance is performed, Toyota will document what was done
and why in engineering reports.
C. Rejection of Vehicles
If Toyota wishes to subsequently reject any vehicle which
had been accepted into the program, advance EPA approval
must be obtained. Vehicles rejected during the
questionnaire screening process must be reported to EPA.
D. In-tJse Verification Pass/Fail criteria
EPA is not at this time agreeing to a methodology for
determining the acceptability of in-use verification data.
-------
3-^3-US'
4-7-3S
TOYOTA
TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER. USA, INC
March 20,1998
CC!
Mr. David Good
Vehicle Programs and Compliance Division
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
2565 Plymouth Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan
i-tf
B'-kiJ Dear Mr. Good:
Subject:
a
Alternate Service Accumulation Durability Program
(ASADP) Reality Check Annual Report
FVl - accordance with the guidelines of "Dear Manufacturer's Letter CD94-13"
Toyota Technical Center herewith submits its annual "ASADP Reality Check
Report* for the 1997- calendar year (CY). This report includes data from
vehicles in the 2M year of service for new families and the 3 year of
service for models tested in previous years as shown in table below:
EKGIKE FAMILY
1) STY1.8VJGFFA
2) STY4.OVJGFFK
3) TTY1.8VJGFFK
4) TTY4.OVJGKHK
MODEL
Corolla, Corolla Wagon
Lexus LS400
Corolla, Corolla Hagon
Celica
Lexus LS400
YEAS OF SERVICE MILEAGE RANGE
Third
Third
Second
Second
20-50K Miles
20-50K Miles
10-30K Miles
10-30K Miles
The following attachments are provided in accordance with the guidelines of
*CD94-13 . "
Attachment I
Attachment II
Attachment III
Attachment IV
Attachment V
Vehicle Emission Test Data Summary
Vehicle Procurement And Rejection Summary
Ofi Board Diagnostics (OBD) Summary 6 Service Codes
Engineering Report
Maintenance Summary
If you have any questions or need additional information please contact Mr.
Thomas A. Beierschmitt of my staff at (313)9953743.
Sincerely,
Fumiaki Otfya
General Manager
Powertrain Department AAI
1588 Woodfidge, RR #7, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Telephone: (313) 995-2600
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT I (PAGE 1 OF 4)
VEHICLE EMISSION TEST DATA SUMMARY
[engine Family: sWi.6Vjg£fA i imodel: corolla & corolla wagon! imopelyear: 1695 I
iTESf^lffi: nt-Mkkm 1 iTE^tlN^ Y&R: &66ND I
VEH. I.D.
TEST NO.
TEST DATE
FTP (WITH HEAT BUILD) TEST RESULTS
MODEL
VIN
TEST(HP)
ODO (MILES)
MODEL CODE
ETW (LBS)
(G/MILE)
THC NMHC CO NOX
(MPG)
FE
COMMENTS
97-AA-37
COROLLA
31,657
1
1NXAE09B8SZ314576
AE102L-DEPNKA
9/10/97
7.8
2875
0.188
0.165
2.33
0.2
30.9
A/C, P/S, AJT
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-38
COROLLA
26,213
1
1NXAE09B9S2280616
AE102L-DEPNKA
9/16/97
7.8
2875
0.176
0.161
2.86
0.23
29.8
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-39
COROLLA
25,581
1
1NXAE09B8SZ335461
AE102L-DEPNKA
9/16/97
7.8
2875
0.184
0.167
2.65
0.15
30.3
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-40
COROLLA
39,590
1
1NXAE00B9SZ226958
AE102L-DEMNKA
9/9/97
7.8
2750
0.217
0.187
1.98
0.25
31.6
A/C, P/S, M/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-41
COROLLA
33,309
1
1NXAE09B9SZ271012
AE102L-DEPNKA
2/4/97
7.8
2875
0.205
0.184
2.31
0.17
30.7
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
l«ate ^ SOK .2-r 3.V/
RC95COR2NDYR.XLS
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT I (PAGE 2 OF 4)
VEHICLE EMISSION TEST DATA SUMMARY
IENQINE FAMILY; STY4.0VJGFFK | |MODEL: LEXUS LS 400 ~| |MODEL YEAR: 1995 |
frgST SlYE: TTC-ANN ARBOR I ITESTINQ YEAR: SECOND-1
VEH. I.D.
TEST NO.
TEST DATE
FTP (WITH HEAT BUILD) TEST RESULTS
MODEL
VIN
TEST (HP)
ODO (MILES)
MODEL CODE
ETW (LBS)
(G/MILE)
THC NMHC CO NOX
(MPG)
FE
COMMENTS
97-AA-42
LS400
32,140
1
JT8UF22E1S0014785
UCF20L-AEPGKA
8/21/97
7.7
4000
0.137
0.122
0.59
0.25
20.9
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-43
LS400
23,021
1
JT8UF22EOS0032274
UCF20L-AEPGKA
8/27/97
7.7
4000
0.160
0.145
0.91
0.21
20.4
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-44
LS400
33,688
1
JT8UF22EOS0006080
UCF20L-AEPGKA
8/28/97
7.7
4000
0.168
0.143
1.12
0.25
20.8
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-45
LS400
29.307
1
JT8UF22E4S0008675
UCF20L-AEPGKA
8/13/97
7.7
4000
0.193
0.169
0.93
0.28
20.3
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-46
LS400
24,442
1
JT8UF22EXS0019564
UCF20L-AEPGKA
9/3/97
77
I 4000
0.141
0.124
0.84
0.20
20.5
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
^ t
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT I (PAGE 3 OF 4)
VEHICLE EMISSION TEST DATA SUMMARY
1 ENGINE FAMILY: TTY1.8VJGFFK1 | IMODEL: COROLLA & COROLLA WAGON. CELICA | lMODEL YEAR: 1996 "1
1TEST SITE: TTC-ANN ARBOR I ITESTINQ YEAR: FIR8T
VEH. I.D. 2
TEST NO.
TEST DATE
FTP (WITH HEAT BUILD) TEST RESULTS
MODEL
VIN
TEST(HP)
ODO (MILES)
MODEL CODE
ETW (LBS)
(G/MILE)
THC NMHC CO NOX
(MPG)
FE
COMMENTS
96-AA-39
COROLLA
17,809
1
2T1AE09B0SC105818
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/10/96
74
2875
0.171
0.155
2.45
0.15
30.1
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-40
COROLLA
28.622
1
2T1AE09BXSC098179
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/10/96
7.8
2875
0.178
0.162
2.67
0.21
29.9
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-41
COROLLA
13.869
1
2T1AE09BXSC098814
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/11/96
7.8
2875
0.185
0.151
2.14
0.15
30.6
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-42
COROLLA
22.336
1
1NXAE00B8SZ228410
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/17/96
7.8
2875
0.202
0.185
1.92
0.22
30.1
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-43
COROLLA
12.031
1
2T1AE09B0SC126331
AE102L-DEPNKA
7/18/96
7.8
2875
0.135
0.125
2.25
0.09
30.4
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-62
COROLLA
22.171
1
1NXAE09BXSZ315891
AE102L-DEMNKA
8/14/96
7.8
2750
0.179
0.161
2.12
0.19
32.8»
A/C, PS, M/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-47
COROLLA
12,572
1
1NXBA0230TZ467345
AE101L-DEH0KA
9/9/97
7.8
2750
0.176
0.154
1.60
0.17
28.4
A/C PS AT
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-48
COROLLA
12.513
1
1NXBA02E0TZU77938
AE101L-DEHDKA
9/23/97
7.8
2750
0.200
0.179
1.61
0.21
272
A/C, PS, M/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
1 This family has (2) 96MY 1.6L Corollas and (5) C/O 1.8L Corollas from family STY1.8VJQFFA. Approved 6/19/97.
' In 1996 CY Toyota tested (5) A/T Corollas and (1) M/T Corolla. Only (4) A/T were required.
C«^ k I
tv-U-Vt
DFjj
CO
tio.
J. H T-l
^ cr.siz
(,2-of
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT I (PAGE 4 OF 4)
VEHICLE EMISSION TEST DATA SUMMARY
I ENGINE FAMILY: TTY4.0VJGKHK'
I
I MODEL: LEXUS LS 400
1
IMODELYEAR: 1996
|
ITEST SITE: TTC- ANN ARBOR
1
ITESTINQ YEAR: FIRST
1
VEH. I.D.
TE8TNO.
TEST DATE
FTP (WITH HEAT BUILD a) TEST RESULTS
MODEL
VIN
TE8T (HP)
ODO (MILES)
MODEL CODE
ETW (LBS)
(G/MILE)
THC NMHC CO NOX
(MPQ)
FE
COMMENTS
96-AA-44
LS400
22.048
1
JT8UF22E2S0017520
UCF20L-AEPGKA
8/14/96
7.7
4000
0.137
0.129
0.68
0.15
21.3
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-45
LS400
24,792
1
JT8UF22E7S0007842
UCF20L-AEPGKA
8/20/96
7.7
4000
0.139
0.129
0.78
0.18
20.7
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-46
LS400
20.219
1
JT8UF22E6S0013759
UCF20L-AEPGKA
10/9/96
7.7
4000
0.137
0.126
0.78
0.17
20.6
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
96-AA-47
LS400
10,571
1
JT8UF22E3S0023892
UCF20L-AEPGKA
10/23/96
7.7
4000
0.141
0.131
0.71
0.13
20.4
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
&-AA-46
LS400
19.303
1
JT8UF22E4S0010228
UCF20L-AEPGKA
10/30/96
7.7
4000
0.147
0.137
0.72
0.18
20.6
A/C, P/S, AT-
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-56
LS400
10.928
1
JT8BH22F9T0067083
UCF20L-AEPGKA
9/23/97
7.7
4000
0.154
0.136
0.86
0.17
20.3
VOID: CANISTER NOT LOADED
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
97-AA-57
LS400
10.119
1
JT8BH22F1T0056501
UCF20L-AEPGKA
11/19/97
7.7
4000
0.136
0.122
1.13
0.16
20.5
CAN.LOADED TO 2G Breakthrouah
A/C, P/S, A/T
TEST WAS AS RECEIVED
1 This engine family consists of (1) 96MY LS400 and (5) C/01995 LS400 from family STY4.0VJGFFK. Approved by EPA 7/25/97.
* Canister loaded to 2 gram breakthrough for 97-AA-57.
5-0 ic
C«a~T i-ev
S f
,lS 3.4
PFS
kimH-c
MOM
CO
uoss
N0k
M91
5>l
-------
ATTACHMENT II
r
ENGINE FAMILY:
MODELS AFFECTED:
RESULTS OF MAILINGS:
NEW LETTERS MAILED OUT
UNDEUVERABLE LETTERS
CUSTOMER RESPONSES
CUSTOMERS INTERESTED IN PROGRAM
RESULTS OF PHONE SURVEY:
CUSTOMERS CONTACTED
VEHICLES ACCEPTED
VEHICLES REJECTED
VEHICLES REJECTED AT TTC
RESULT OF PROCUREMENT:
VEHICLES ACCEPTED
VEHICLES REJECTED & REASONS
HIGH MILEAGE
LOW MILEAGE
CUSTOMER CHANGED MIND
TESTING ALREADY COMPLETED
STY1.8VJGFFA STY4.0VJGFFK TTY1.8VJGFFK
1.8L Corolla Lexus
1.8L Corolla Wagon LS400
600 98
62 3
95 ' 95
95 10
5 • 6
5 5
90 1
NONE NONE
0 0
5 5
17 0
15 4
0 1
58 0
TTY4.0VJGKHK
Lexus
LS400
1.8L Corolla
1.8L Corolla Wagon
1.8L Celica, 1.6L Corolla
300 100
0 1
17 2
17 2
2 2
2 2
15 0
NONE NONE
0 0
2 2
2 0
3 0
0 0
10 0
-------
TTO TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT III
SUMMARY OF OBO DIAGNOSTICS AND SERVICE CODES
A. There were no Diagnostic Trouble Codes present for any of the vehicles tested.
B. The Malfunction Indicator Lamp (MIL) was not illuminated on any vehicle as
received.
97CYRCdagjds
AplUp 71
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT IV
ENGINEERING REPORTS
Subject: Test Void for Vehicle 97-AA-56
Background Informalioii:
A. Subsequent to testing and the return of the vehicle to the customer, it was
ascertained that Vehicle 97-M-56 was tested by using heat build instead of
canister loading as required by certification procedures.
B, Paragraph 5.b. of "CD-94-13" clearly states that "Each tailpipe emission test
must be conducted using EPA certification-quality test procedures, e.g. using
pre-loaded canister test procedures if the engine family is certified using those
test procedures."
Conclusion;
TTC-AA judges test on vehicle 97-AA-56 to be void since canister was not loaded.
-------
TTC- TOYOTA TECHNICAL CENTER
ATTACHMENT V
V
MAINTENANCE SUMMARY
A. Toyota uses slave tires for "Reality Check" testing on Lexus and Corolla vehicles.
B. Only maintenance performed on vehicles prior to "As Received" tesing was that
involving addition of necessary fluids such as transmission fluid or engine oil to
assure safe testing.
C. No extraordinary maintenance operations were performed on any vehicles.
-------
EPA-420-D-98-100
------- |