A STUDY OF Tm: RELATIONSHIP 

BETWEEN EXHAUST EMISSIONS 

AND FUEL ECONOMY 

by 

Jensen P. Cheng 

Larry c. Landman 

Robert D. Wagner 

May, 1983 

NOTICE 

EPA/AA/CTAB/TA/83-2 

Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 

positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of issues using 

data which are currently available. The purpose in the release of such 

reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform 

the public of technical developments which may form the basis for a final 

EPA decision, position or regulatory action. 

prepared by 

u.s. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air, Noise and Radiation 

Office of Ml>bile Sources 

Emission Control Technology Division 

Control Technology Assessment and Characterization Branch 

2565 Plymouth Road 

Ann Arbor, M:lchigan 48105 
A STUDY OF THE RELATIONSHIP 

BETWEEN EXHAUST EMISSIONS 

AND FUEL ECONOMY 

by 

Jensen J?. Cheng 

Larry c. Landman 

Robert D. Wagner 

May, 1983 

NOTICE 

EPA/AA/CTAB/TA/83-2 

Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions or 

positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of issues using 

data which are currently available. The purpose in the release of such 

reports is to facilitate the exchange of technical information and to inform 

the public of technical developments which may form the basis for a final 

EPA decision, position or regulatory action. 

prepared by 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Air, Noise and Radiation 

Office of Mobile Sources 

Emission Control Technology Division 

Control Technology Assessment and Characterization Branch 

2565 Plymouth Road 

Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 
CONTENTS 

I. Summary • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

II. Background • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

III. Fleet Level Effects 

IV. 

A. Fuel Economy of 1974 and Newer Vehicles 

Compared to Uncontrolled Vehicles • • • • • • • • 

B. Fuel Economy of 1975 and Newer Vehicles 

Compared to Previous Year Vehicles. • • • • • • • 

c. Fuel Economy of Federal versus California 

Vehicles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . 

D. The Relationship Between Emission Standards 

or Levels and In-use Fuel Economy • • • • • • • • 

Data Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

A. 

B. 

c. 

o. 

Two Variable Linear Regressions • • • • • • • • • 

Two Variable Linear Regressions with 

Stratification by Model Year • • • • • • • • • • 

Stepwise Backward Regression Analysis • • • • • • 

Residual Analysis • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 

I-1 

II-1 

III-1 

III-7 

III-8 

III-20 

IV-1 

IV-6 

IV-11 

IV-29 

IV-34 
E. Subconfiguration-Matched Data Analysis . . . . . 

F. Special Engine Over Time Trends • • • • • • • • • 

G. Sensitivity Coefficient Study • • • • • ••••• 

H. Data Stratification by Emission Control System. • 

I. Is There a "Knee" in the Relationship between 

Tailpipe Emissions and Fuel Economy? . . . 

v. Individual Manufacturer Discussions 

A. 

B. 

c. 

D. 

E. 

F. 

G. 

H. 

I. 

General Motors • • • • • . . . . . . . . Ford • • • • • • • • • • 

Chrysler • • • • • • 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Toyota • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • · . . Nissan 

Honda • 

. . . . . . . . . Volkswagen 

Toyo Kogyo 

. . . . . . . American Motors •• 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

VI. Appendixes 

1. Prediction of Federal Test Procedure 

Results from Hot Emission.s Data • • • . . . . . . 

2. Calculation Methodology for Fuel 

Economy Change Allocation .• . . . . . . . . 

3. Variability Estimates for· Emissions 

and Economy over the FTP • • • • • • • • • • • • 

IV-39 

IV-43 

IV-53 

IV-55 

IV-69 

V-1 

V-36 

V-53 

V-65 

V-73 

V-87 

V-96 

V-104 

v-112 

1-1 

2-1 

3-1 
4. Two Variable Linear Regression Plots 

of Emissions versus Economy • • • • • 

S. Results from Stepwise Backward Regression of 

Vehicle Parameters and Emissions versus Fuel 

Economy • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • . . 

6. Residual and Ratio Regressions. • • • • • • • • • 

7. Plots of Emissions and Fuel Economy 

from Special Engines over Time • • • • • • • • • 

8. Multicollinearity Discussion • • • • • ••••• 

9. Plots of Ton-Miles per-Gallon versus 

Emissions by Emission Control System •••••• 

10. Plots of Ton-Miles per Gallon versus 

Emissions by Emission Control System 

4-1 

5-1 

6-1 

7-1 

8-1 

9-1 

and Transmission Type • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 10-1 

11. Adjusted Fuel Economy versus Emissions 

by Emission Control System and 

Transmission Type. • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11-1 
SECTION I 

I. Summary 

This report contains analyses of the: fuel economy/emissions relationships 

for 1981 model year and earlier vehicles. The 1981 model year Federal 

emission standards are the most stringent Federal standards to date. "A 

Study of the Relationship Between Exhaust Emissions and Fuel Economy" is the 

title for this report. However, this does not mean that these are the only 

I 

two important variables-. The relationship between the fuel economy and 

exhaust emissions does not exist in isolation, but rather is intertwined 

with many other vehicle characteristics. These associated characteristics 

include, but are not limited to; driveability, performance, costs, octane 

requirement, production lead time, and fuel economy/exhaust emissions 

control technology. Ideally, an 1examination of fuel economy/exhaust 

emissions relationships would include quantification of the concurrent 

interactions with these other vehi.cle characteristics. Unfortunately, 

neither this report nor any other reports available to EPA have identified 

data allowing such quantificaton. 

This report is briefly summarized as follows: First, the background for the 

report was reviewed, including pas1~ EPA 

emissions. Second, a literature search 

addressed fuel economy and emission.s. 

reports on fuel economy and 

identified other reports which 

Third, the 1981 car fleet was 

examined and its fuel economy/emissiom; performance assessed. 

The historical fuel economy and emission standards trends show an overall 

trend of increasing fuel economy and decreasing emissions over time. This 

is not meant to imply that the reduction in emissions is necessarily a 

causal factor in the fuel economy risie. Many other vehicle characteristics 

including weight and engine displacem1ent were also changing over this same 

time period. 

An important observation to make and the major conclusion of this study is 

that the twin goals mandated by Congress for the early 1980's have 

essentially been met. Fuel economy has been improved substantially and 

emissions have been greatly reduced. 

I-1 
SECTION II 

II. Background 

This report has been prepared to examine the relationship between exhaust 

emissions and fuel economy of automobiles. This report treats the 

relationship between emissions and fuel economy in more detail than any 

previous EPA work. This subject is of considerable interest to EPA due to the 

importance of any changes in fuel economy on cost to the consumer of various 

emission standards. The Congress of the United States is also interested in 

the relationship between exhaust emissions and fuel economy. The interest of 

the Congress is expressed in Section 203(a) of the Provisions of Public Law 

95-95 which do not amend the Clean Air Act. The Congressional interest in the 

subject was an important consideration in the decision to conduct this study. 

"Emission control reduces fuel economy. Is it true or false? This cliche is 

typical of many statements which are made in reference to an interaction 

between vehicle emissions and fuel economy. Three very noticeable 

shortcomings are evident in this cliche. First, the vehicle(s) for which the 

emission/fuel economy relationship is being cited is not defined. Many 

automobile design parameters can affect a vehicle's emissions and/or fuel 

economy. Secondly, the implied comparison made in the example statement does 

not identify the basis for comparison.. Gain, loss, reduction, improvement, 

better and worse mean nothing without a clearly stated basis of comparison. 

Finally, the type of emission control system is not stated. During· the time 

period through which new vehicles have been subject to emission standards, the 

type of pollutants, the pollutant levels and the test procedures have all 

changed. In addition, the State of California has its own set of emission 

standards, which differ from the Federal standards. 

II-1 
EPA has studied and reported extensively on both vehicle fuel economy and 

exhaust emissions. Several of these :reports have addressed the relationship 

between fuel economy and emission standards. Prior to a review of some 

conclusions from these reports, a bri.ef discussion of fuel economy will be 

presented. 

Fuel economy of automobiles is often expressed in terms of miles per gallon 

(MPG). Many methods are used to generate mpg values. EPA has developed test 

procedures which measure a vehicle's mileage over an "urban" driving cycle 

and a "non-urban" or "highway" driving cycle. Exhaust gas is monitored as a 

vehicle is operated over these cycle!S and the fuel economy is calculated 

using the carbon balance method discussed below. 

To calculate fuel economy, in miles per gallon (MPG), from an emission test, 

the following equation applies: 

Miles = 

Gallon 

gms carbon/gal of fuel 

gms carbon in exhaust/mile 

The carbon in the fuel is: 

grams cf uel = srams fuel x 

gallon 

molecular wt. c 

molecular wt. fuel 

(2798) x (.866) 

= 2423 

where: 

2798 is a density typical of test gasoline, in grams/gallon; and 

.866 is typical of the weight frac.tion of carbon in the fuel. 

II-2 
The carbon in the exhaust is contained in the unburned fuel hydrocarbons 

(HC), carbon monoxide (CO), and carbon dioxide (C02), as follows: 

grams CHC = 

= 

grams Ceo = 

= 

grams cc02 = 

So we have: 

or 

Miles 

Gallon 

MPG 

= 

= 

= 

gm HC x molecular wt. c 

molecular wt. HC 

gm HC x (.866) 

gm CO x molecular wt. c 

molecular wt. co 

gm co x (.429) 

gm C02 x molecular wt. c 

molecular wt. C02 

gm C02 x ( .273) 

2423 

(.866gmHC + .429gmCO + .273gmC02)/miles 

2423 x miles traveled 

.866gmHC + .429gmCO + .273gmC02 

Example: In a 10-mile test, a car's exhaust emission measurements show the 

following amounts of carbon compounds: HC, 9 grams; CO, 124 grams; co 2, 

3641 grams. 

Using the above equation, the fuel economy is: 

MPG 2423 x 10 

.866(9) + .429(124) + .273(3641) 

= 24,230 = 23.0 MPG 

7.8 + 53.1 + 993.7 

II-3 
The measured fuel economies observed over these two driving cycles are the 

urban mileage (MPGu) and the highway mileage (MPG11 ). The MPGu and 

MP<\i can be used to calculate· a composite mileage (MPGc) by means of a 

weighted harmonic averaging technique. 

Suppose a motorist takes the following three trips: 

200 miles, using 15.0 gallons; 

100 miles, using 9.4 gallons; 

140 miles, using 11.8 gallons. 

The fuel economies of these three trips are: 

200 miles 

= 13.3 MPG; 15.0 gal. 

100 miles = 10.6 MPG; 9.4 gal. 

140 miles 

= 11.9 MPG. 11.8 gal. 

If he merely averages the individual t·rip MPG's he gets: 

(13.3 + 10.6 + 11.9)/3 = 11.9 MPG 

But this is incorrect. the motorie1t traveled 440 miles and used 36. 2 

gallons, so his overall fuel economy w.as: 

440/36.2 = 12.2 MPG 

To get the correct fuel economy for multiple trips, the following equation 

must be used: 

Miles 

Gallon = total miles traveled total gallons used 

II-4 
If the individual trip lengths and fuel economy values are known, but the 

gallons used are not known, the proper equation is: 

miles 1 + miles 2 + ... + milesN 

MPG = miles1 miles 2 + 

milesN ... + + 

MPG1 MPG2 MPGN 

where miles = length of trip "x"; MPG = gas mileage to trip "x"; and 

x x 

N = number of trips. 

For a number of test trips of the same le~th, the above equation is 

equivalent to: 

mile st x N 

MPG = 1 1 1 milest (MPG + MPG2 

+ ... MP"G) 

1 N 

where milest the standard test length and N = the number of tests. 

The above equation simplifies to: 

MPG = N/S~ 1 

which is the harmonic average of the MPGs from the tests. 

To calculate the composite MPG from known city and highway MPG' s, the 

apportionment of total mileage between city and highway driving must be 

used. If a motorist drives 55% of his mileage in the city and 45% on the 

highway, his composite fuel economy is: 

II-5 
MPG total miles = .SS( total miles) + .4S(total miles) 

City MPG Highway MPG 

= 1 

.ss 

+ 

.45 

MPGC MPGH 

In addition to the carbon balance method, fuel economy can 

calculated from vehicle speed and fuel consumption rate, as followsl.' 

Miles 

Gallon 

= Miles/Hour 

Gallons/Hour 

also be 

But fuel consumption rate is related to the engine power output (not the 

power rating) by the expression: 

So fuel economy is: 

or 

Gallons 

Hours = HP x lbs fuel 

HP-Hr 

Miles 

Gallon = (Mi/Hr) (HP) x (lbs/gal) 

(lb/HP-Hr) 

MPG = 

MPH x Df 

HP x SFC 

x 

Gals 

lb 

Where Df is fuel density, pounds per gallon (approximately 6.2 for 

gasoline); and 

SFC is specific fuel consumption, pounds per hour per horsepower output. 

SFC is a commonly-used engineeri~~ term directly related to engine 

efficiency. The more efficient an engine is, the less fuel it needs to 

deliver a given power output. For a typical gasoline fuel, the relationship 

between SFC and engine efficiency is approximately: 

SFC = 13.S 

Efficiency 

(An efficiency of 13.5% corresponds to an SFC of 1.0 lb/HP-Hr) 

II-6 
Substituting, 

= MPH x 6.2 x Eff. MPG = 

MPH x Df 

HP x 13.S/Eff. HP x 13.S 

So we see that fuel economy is a function of speed (MPH), engine load (HP), 

and engine efficiency according to: 

MPG = .46 MPH HP x Efficiency 

for a typical gasoline fuel. 

Example: An intermediate size car requires an engine output of 26 HP to 

cruise at SO MPH. The engine efficiency for this condition is 22.0% (SFC = 

0.614). Using the above equation, the fuel economy is: 

MPG = .46 x 50/26 x 22 = 19.5 MPG 

To cruise at 70 MPH, the. same car requires 51 HP, and the engine efficiency 

is 25.4% (SFC = 0.532). The fuel economy is: 

MPG = .46 x 70/51 x 25.4 = 16.0 MPG 

Also, note that the instantaneous fuel economy of any automobile can range 

from zero to infinity. Examples are a vehicle stopped with an idling engine 

(zero MPG) and a vehicle coasting with the engine stopped (infinite MPG). 

The remainder of this section lists some conclusions which have been 

presented in previous EPA reports. The reader will notice that some fuel 

economy estimates for the same subject group of automobiles are different 

between reports. This is a function of the dynamic process of estimation. 

As time has passed, the data available to EPA have changed, and analysis 

technqiues have been improved. 

II-7 
An early EPA report* contained the following conclusions: 

Vehicle weight is the single most important parameter affecting 

urban fuel economy; a 5000 pound vehicle demonstrates 50% lower 

fuel economy than a 2500 pound vehicle. 

The fuel economy loss for 1973 vehicles, compared to uncontrolled (pre '68) vehicles, is less than 7%. The average fuel 

economy loss due to emission control for all controlled (68-7 3) 

vehicles is 7.7%. 

Data on 172 1970 and 1971 GM cars did not demonstrate any effect 

on fuel economy of reduced compression ratio. 

The Diesel and stratified charge engines show better fuel economy 

than the conventional engine with the Diesel showing a fuel 

economy improvement of more than 70%. 

A year later, in October 1973, another EPA report** stated the following 

concerning emissions/fuel economy relationships: 

* 

** 

The sales weighted average fuel economy loss due to emission 

controls (including reduction :Ln compression ratio) for 1973 

vehicles, compared to uncontrollE!d (pre-1968) vehicles, is 10.1%. 

However, vehicles less than 3,500 pounds show an average 3% gain 

(attributable to carburetor challlges made to control emissions) 

while vehicles heavier than 3, 500 pounds show losses up to 18%. 

The size of these losses, however, is highly dependent on the type 

of control systems the manufacturE!r has chosen to use. 

The reduction in compression ratto ·employed by most manufacturers 

to enable their vehicles to op4:!rate on 91 octane gasoline has 

resulted in a 3.5% fuel economy l()SS• 

Fuel Economy and Emission ControJ:_, u. s. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Mobile Source Pollution 

Control Program, November 1972. 

A Report on Automobile Fuel Econo!!!l_, u.s. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Office of Mobile Source 

Air Pollution Control, October 19:73. 

II-8 
By the 1975 model year, catalytic converter equipped vehicles were 

being produced in sizeable numbers. In the Fall of that year, the EPA 

again reported on automotive fuel economy. This report* presented the 

following conclusions: 

There is no simple or inherent relationship between fuel economy 

and the emissions standards that new cars are required to meet; 

especially misleading is the contention that fuel economy always 

becomes poorer as emissions standards are made more stringent. 

With the use of catalyst technology, the average fuel economy of 

1975 cars is nearly 24% better than the 1974 models, although 

their emissions are lower than the 1974's. In fact, fuel economy 

of the 1975's is as good as cars built before emission controls 

were introduced. 

There is no guarantee of superior fuel economy through the use of 

catalytic converters. 1975 cars using catalysts can give excellent or poor fuel economy, depending on the manufacturer's overall 

design. Cars which do not use catalysts can also give excellent 

or poor economy, again depending on the overall design. 

At the beginning of 1975, EPA published a report which was an overview 

of the technical status of automobile emission control.** The chapter 

of this report which covered fuel economy contained the following 

discussion on the effects of emission standards: 

* 

** 

The net effect on fuel economy of a given emission standard 

depends on the combination of control techniques used to achieve 

compliance. Analysis of EPA certification data has clearly shown 

that the fuel economy performance of nominally identical cars 

(e.g. same weight, engine size, axle ratio, etc.) can be 

significantly different while the emissions are nearly the same. 

Factors Affecting Automotive Fuel Economy, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Air and Waste Management, Mobile Source 

Air Pollution Control, Emission Control Technology 

Division, September 1975. 

Automobile Emission Control - The Technical Status and Outlook as of 

December 1974, A Report to the Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, Emission 

Control Technology Division, January 1975. 

II-9 
The difference in fuel economy is the result of the difference in 

the usage of fuel efficient C<>ntrol technology. At a fixed 

emission level fuel economy is a function of the usage of fuel 

efficient control technology. 

Erroneous conclusions about emission control and fuel economy can 

result from ignoring differences in the control technology 

available and looking at the effect of · different levels of 

emission control using a particular control system. With a fixed 

emission control system fuel economy is a function of the degree 

of emission control required. When alternative control approaches 

are not considered, changes in emission level can only be achieved 

by altering basic engine calibrations such as spark timing. 

Since minimum emissions and maximum fuel economy are usually not 

simultaneously achieved, lower emission levels with a given system 

result in degraded fuel economy. 

Besides looking at emission control system/emission level/fuel 

-economy relationships with the control system held constant or the 

emission levels held constant, it is also possible to consider the 

fuel economy level held constan.t. With a fixed level of fuel 

economy the degree of emission c:ontrol achievable depends on the 

type of control technology used. For example, the change in 

emission level from uncontrolle~d to the 1975 Federal Interim 

levels (1.5, 15, 3.1) has been accomplished at a fixed fuel 

economy level by selection of lean engine calibrations and 

catalytic exhaust treatment systems. 

The three underlined statements above are three different ways of 

looking at control system/emiss:lon level/fuel. economy relationships. Each statement is a two·-dimensional analysis of a three 

dimensional problem, however. Unless one fully understands the 

three dimensional aspects of thE! tradeoffs involved, it is possible to be misled about the expected impact of a particular 

emission standard. Since there is no fixed relationship between 

fuel economy and emission standards, it is impossible to guarantee 

a change in fuel economy by a change in emission standards. 

Every year since 1975 EPA authors have written Society of Automotive 

Engineers (SAE) papers that discuss the current status and trends in fuel 

economy and, more importantly for this report, discuss estimates of the 

various reasons why the fuel economy of one group of vehicles might be 

different from the fuel economy of another group. Some of the differences 

have been attributed to emissions or t·o emission standards in the past. 

II-10 
A summary of these reports is shown below. 

Previous Reports That Contain Fuel Economy and Emissions Discussions 

Year SAE Paper 

1978 780036 

1979 790225 

1980 800853 

1981 810386 

1982 820300 

1983 830544 

Title 

Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy ••• 

Trends Through 1978 

Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy ••• 

Trends Through 1979 

Passenger Car and Light Truck Fuel 

Economy Trends through 1980 

Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy ••• 

Trends through 1981 

Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy ••• 

Trends through 1982 

Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy ••• 

Trends thru 1983 

This section has only touched upon some highlights from previous EPA technical 

reports which addressed the emissions versus fuel economy issue. The 

following bibliography is provided to assist those readers who wish to obtain 

the reports which were reviewed in preparation of this section. 

II-11 
Bibliography 

1. Automobile Emission Control - A Technology Assessment As Of December, 

1971, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mobile Source Pollution 

Control Program, Office of Air Programs, January 1, 1972. 

2. Fuel Economy and Emission Control, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Office of Air and Water Programs, Mobile Source Pollution Control 

Program, November, 1972. 

3. ·A Report on Automobile Fuel Economy, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air and Water Programs, Office of Mobile Source Air 

Pollution Control, October, 1973. 

4. Automobile Emission Control - The Development Status As of April 1974, A 

Report to the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, Emission Control Technology 

Division, April, 1974. 

5. Automobile Emission Control - 'I'he Technical Status and Outlook as of 

December 1974, A Report to the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mobile Source Pollution Control Program, Emission 

Control Technology Division, January, 1975. 

6. Tradeoffs Associated With Possible Auto Emission Standards, A Report to 

the Administrator, U. s. Environmental Protection Agency, Mobile Source 

Pollution Control Program, Emission Control Technology Division, 

February, 1975. 

7. Factors Affecting Automobile Fuel Economy, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Office of Air and Waste Management, Mobile Source Air Pollution 

Control, Emission Control Technology Division, September, 1975. 

II-12 
8. Automobile Emission Control - The Current Status and Development Trends 

as of March 1976, A Report to the Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control, Technology Assessment and Evaluation Branch, Emission Control Technology 

Division, April, 1976. 

9. Automobile Emission Control - The Development Status, Trends, and Outlook as of December 1976, A Report to the Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air and Waste Management, Mobile 

Source Air Pollution Control, Emission Control Technology Division, 

April, 1977. 

II-13 
SECTION III 

III. Fleet Level Effects 

III A. Fuel Economy of 1974 and Newer Vehicles Compared to Uncontrolled 

Vehicles 

The summary of most fuel economy/ emission relationships studies is represented in a figure like that shown in figure III .A-1. In general, those 

that claim fuel economy penalties for controlling emissions have estimates 

in the region labeled A. In region A, for each and every percentage 

reduction there is a penalty and the percentage value of the penalty 

increases as the stringency increases. EPA can fairly be said to have made 

estimates like those shown in B in the past - a small effect - it could go 

either way. Almost nobody can be found that espouses the relationship 

labeled as C in the figure. 

In order to investigate this issue with some data, SAE paper 810386* was 

studied. The nominal emission standards in figure 4 of that reference were 

transformed to percent reductions from an uncontrolled base of 8.7 HC, 87.0 

CO, 3.5 NOx. The base, nominal emissions standards and percent reductions 

are shown in table III.A-!, along with the constant-weight-mix fuel economy 

ratio. The term "nominal emission standard" is used to denote the most 

typical emission requirement, and is used to account for those cases where 

waivers (1981 Federal) or optional standards (California) make a single 

triplet of values not precisely correct. 

The analysis is based on each model year's total fuel economy change from 

the pre-emission control level and total emission standards change, also 

from the pre-control level. The data in table I II .A-1 are presented 

graphically in figure III.A-2 through figure III.A-4. It should be pointed 

out that these figures are at a constant weight mix, so that the improvement in fuel economy due to reduced weight cars takin3 a larger 

* J .A. Foster, J .D •. Murrell, and S .1. Loos, SAE Paper 810386, "Light Duty 

Automotive Fuel Economy •••• Trends through 1981", U.S. EPA. 

III-1 
>- 0 ::c N 0 

z .....; a 

u 

lLJ 

_J 

lLJ 

:::> 

u.. 

C) 

lLJ 

_J 

_J 

0 

a: 0 t- 0 z . a .....; u 

z 

:::> 

>-

CD 

Cl 

w 

C) 

-

> 

-

Cl 

0 

>- co L 

a 0 

z 

a 

u 

w 

....J 

w 

=> 

1.1.. 

b.00 

Figure III. A-1 

Concepts of Changes in Fuel Economy with 

Changes in Stringency of Emission Standards 

20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 

STRINGENCY 

EXPRESSED AS PERCENT REDUCTION FROM UNCONTROLLED 

III-2 

100.00 
Table III. A-1 

Percent Emission Reductions 

and 

Fuel Economy Ratios Com12ared to Uncontrolled Emissions 

and Fuel Economy 

(Nominal Emissions Standards) 

HC Standard CO Standard NOx Standard 

Year Fed or Cal (% Red) (% Red) (% Red) MPG Ratio** 

pre - control 8.7 (0%) 87 (0%) 3.5 (0%) 1.00 

1974 Fed*** 3.0 (66%) 28. (68%) 3.1 (11%) 1.00 

1974 Cal*** 2.9 (67%) 28 (68%) 2.1 (40%) 0.94 

1975 Fed 1.5 (83%) 15 (83%) 3.1 (11%) 1.14 

1975 Cal 0.9 (90%) 9.0 ~90%) 2.0 (43%) 1.07 

1976 Fed 1.5 (83%) 15 (83%) 3.1 (11%) 1.26 

1976 Cal 0.9 (90%) 9.0 (90%) 2 .a ( 43%) 1.12 

1977 Fed 1.5 (83%) 15 (83%) 2.0 (43%) 1.30 

1977 Cal 0.41 (95%) 9.0 (90%) 1.5 (57%) 1.14 

1978 Fed 1.5 (83%) 15 (83%) 2.0 (43%) 1.30 

1978 Cal 0.41 (95%) 9.0 (90%) 1.5 ( 57%) 1.14 

1979 Fed 1.5 (83%) 15 (83%) 2.0 ( 43%) 1.28 

1979 Cal 0.41 (95%) 9.0 (90%) 1.5 (57%) 1.17 

1980 Fed 0.41 (95%) 7.0 (92%) 2.0 (43%) 1.32 

1980 Cal 0.41 (95%) 9.0 (90%) 1.0 (71%) 1.26 

1981 Fed 0.41 (95%) 3.4 (96%) 1.0 ( 71%) 1.43 

1981 Cal 0.39* (95%) 7.0 (92%) 0.7 (80%) 1.39 

* 0.39 NMHC treated equal to 0.41 THC for this study 

** From SAE paper 810386, page 13, figure 4 

*** Approximate 1975 FTP equivalent 

III-3 
>-

z 

0 

:z: 

0 

u 

:.L.J 

_J 

w 

:::> 

1.1.. 

Cl 

w 

_J 

_J 

0 

a: 

Iz 

0 

u 

z 

:::> 

>-

CD 

Cl 

w 

Cl 

-

> 

-

Cl 

>-

z 

0 

z 

0 

u 

w 

_J 

w 

:::> 

1.1.. 

0 

Figure III. A-2 

Fuel Economy of the Federal and California Fleets 

Divided by the Fuel Economy of Uncontrolled Vehicles 

Versus Stringency of the HC Standard 

FIXED WEIGHT MIX 

POLLUTANT: HC 

o......-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~--, 

N 

0 

CD 

81F 

• 80C 

: 77F, 78F • SOF 

. • soc 

\79F 0 

N 79C 76F . . • 76C . 77C, 18C 75F 

• 75C 74F 

J4C 

CJ 

CD 

d 

c:> 

~ 

c:> 

CJ 

CJ 

q.. o0.00 68.00 76.00 84.00 92.00 100.00 

STRINGENCY 

EXPRESSED AS PERCENT REDUCTION FROM UNCONTROLLED 

III-4 
>-

~ 

0 

z 

0 

u 

lJ.J 

_J 

lJ.J 

:::> 

LL. 

a 

lJ.J 

_J 

_J 

0 

a: 

tz 

0 

u 

z 

:::> . 

>-

a:l 

a 

lJ.J 

a 

_, 

> 

...... 

a 

>-

~ 

a 

z 

0 

w 

lJ.J 

_J 

lJ.J 

:::> 

LL. 

= 

Figure III. A-3 

Fuel Economy of the Federal and California 

Fleets Divided by thE! Fuel Economy of Uncontrolled 

Vehicles Versus Stringency of the CO Standard 

FIXED WEIGHT MIX 

POLLUTANT: CO 

0-r-~~~~~~~~~-~~~~-.,..~~~~~~~~~~~----. 

N 

CJ 

(0 

-

. 81F 

/77F, 78F • 81C 

• 79F . 80F . CJ . 76F • soc 

N 

• 79C - 75C =,nc, 78C 

- 7!.i.Ti' "\t~E 

. 74C 

c::> 

CI) 

0 

CJ 

-qc::> 

CJ 

c::::l 

!30.00 68.00 76.00 84.00 92.00 100.00 

STRINGENCY 

EXPRESSED RS PERCENT REDUCTION FROM UNCONTROLLED 

III-5 
>-

:::;: 

D 

z 

D 

u 

w 

.....J 

w 

::::::> 

LL. 

Cl 

w 

.....J 

.....J 

D 

a: 

Iz 

D 

u 

z 

::::::> 

>-

CD 

Cl 

w 

Cl 

-

> 

-

Cl 

>-

4 

0 

:z 

a 

u 

w 

.....J 

w 

::::::> 

LL. 

CJ 

<.D 

-

CJ 

Figure III. A-4 

Fuel Economy of the Federal and California Fleets 

Divided by the Fuel Economy of Uncontrolled Vehicles 

Versus Stringency of the NOx Standard 

FIXED WEIGHT MIX 

POLLUTANT: NOX 

81F 81C 

. ~9t' 78F . soc ·76F " 79F 

N. . 79C - 75F 

• 76C · nc, 78C 

• 75C 

74F 

74C 

CJ 

co 

d 

CJ 

..qCJ 

CJ 

0 

lJ.00 20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 

STRINGENCY 

EXPRESSED RS PERCENT REDUCTION FROM UNCONTROLLED 

III-6 

100.00 
fraction of the fleet is not shown. Something else other than weight is 

responsible for the trends. The figures show that since 197 5 there have 

been no combinations of emissions standards that have caused fuel economy to 

fall below the line. There is not much of a trend for HC and CO, but that 

could be because they both fall between about 66% and 95% in percent 

reduction space. For NOx there is a wider spread, from 11% reduction to 80% 

reduction, but there does not seem to be a consistant trend here either. 

One thing is clear, however, if there is a trend such as A (figure III A-1) 

in the data it is not showing up at the constant weight level of 

aggregation. If anything, the data seem to reflect a trend more like the 

"C" example. 

III. B. Fuel Economy of 1975 and Newer Vehicles Compared to Previous Year 

Vehicles 

Another way of associating fuel economy changes with emission standards is 

to compare each model year's fuel economy and emission standards with those 

of the preceding year. This has been done using two methods. 

The first method considers the Federal and California vehicle fleets 

separately and considers fuel economy of these fleets on a constant weight 

basis. The constant weight basis is the 1978 model year weight mix of the 

Federal fleet. Referring to the emission standards given earlier in table 

III .A-1 for the various model years, this approach assigns (for example) a 

35% reduction in the 49-States NOx stc:mdard for 1977 (2.0 grams/mile) compared to 1976 (3.1 grams/mile), and a. 50% reduction in the 49-States NOx 

standard for 1981 ( 1.0 grams/mile) compared to 1980 (2 .0 grams/mile). The 

weight-normalized fuel economy changes for the 49.:..States and California 

fleets can then be linked to the emission standards changes of the same two 

subfleets. 

The second method treats year-to-year changes in emission standards as a 

value equal to the 49-States change weighted 90% and the California change 

weighted 10%. This yields an emission change representing a pooled 

50-States value. The corresponding 50-States year-to-year changes in fuel 

economy are determined using a different analytical technique than the 

III-7 
weight-normalization used above. This technique isolates the fuel economy 

change due to factors other than changes in weight mix, changes in engine 

mix within the weight classes, and changes in transmission mix shifts within 

discrete weight/engine combinations. The method is described more fully in 

appendix 2 of this report. Suffice it to say here that the resulting fuel 

economy change, dubbed "system optimization", provides a better estimate 

(than weight-normalized) of the fuel economy change due only to emission 

standards and the emission control technology employed to meet those 

standards. 

Table III.B-1 gives the 

analysis. Using either 

results 

method, 

of these two 

this tabie 

methods of 

shows that 

year-to-year 

along with 

year-to-year changes in emission standards which have always been downward, 

fuel economy changes have always been upward (with the single exception of 

1979, when fuel economy dropped in response to factors other than emissions 

standards, which were unchanged from 1978). Figures III.B-1, III.B-2, and 

III.B-3 illustrate the data from table III.B-1. 

In general it should be noted that the fuel economy went up in some years 

when the year-to-year change in a given emissions standard was zero. These 

are plotted on the figures as zero percent reductions. Figure III.B-1 shows 

that fuel economy tended to go up when no change was made in the HC emission 

requirements. As in the case where the comparison was made to uncontrolled 

vehicles as a base, figures III.B-1, III.B-2, and III.B-3 indicate no 

penalty for changes made from one year to the next even when these changes 

are substantial reductions in emissions. In fact the resulting fuel economy 

effects are shown to be positive, not negative. 

III. c. Fuel Economy of Federal versus California Vehicles 

There is yet another method of analysis that can be applied to the certification data. Within a given model year, the system optimization fuel 

economy difference between the 49-States and California fleets can be compared, along with the differences in 49-States and California emission 

standards. This would indicate, at a fixed point in time, the fuel economy 

effects of two levels of emission standards. If one assumes that at a given 

III-8 
Table III. B-1 

Changes in Emission Standards and Heet 

Fuel Economy Compared to the Previous Year Values 

-----Method 1------ ------Method 2------

(Federal and California Fleets Separately) (Federal and California Fleets Combined) 

SO-States 

Change in Weight-Normal Change in SO-State System Optim. 

Year Emission Std. FE Change** Emission Std. FE Change*** 

Fed HC, -SO% Fed, +14% ( 1.14) HC, -S2% 

74-7S co, -46% co' -48% +11. S% ( 1.12) 

Cal HC, -69% Cal, +14% (1.14) NOx, -0.S% 

co, -68% 

NOx, -S% 

7S-76 No Change Fed, +11% (LU) No Change + 8.8% (1.09) 

Cal, +S% (1.0S) 

Bed NOx, -3S% led, +3% (1.03) HC, -S.4% 

76-77 Cal HC, -S4% Cal, +2% ( l. 02) NOx, -34% + 2.8% ( 1. 03) 

NOx, -2S% 

77-78 No Change No Change No Change + O.S% ( 1. 01) 

78-79 No Change Fed, -2% ( o. 98) No Change - 2. 3%* (0.98) 

Cal, +3% ( 1. 03) 

Fed HC, -73% Fed, +3% ~1.03) HC, -66% 

79-80 co, -S3% Cal, +8% (1.08) co, -48% + 2.6% (1.03) 

Cal NOx, -33% NOx, -3.3% 

Fed co, -Sl% E'ed, +8% (1.08) 

80-81 NOx, -SO% Cal, +10% ( 1.10) co, -48% + 2.7% ( 1. 03) 

Cal co, -22% NOx, -48% 

NOx, -30% 

* More than half of this change in FE was due to test procedure changes 

(dynamometer loading) made to restore the rigor of the 197S procedure - See SAE 

79022S, Appendix C. The net system optimization change independent of this test 

** 

*** 

procedure effect is estimated at -1.0%. 

Calculated values from figure 4 of SAE Paper 810386, page 13. 

From SAE Paper 8008S3, page 36. 

III-9 
= C) 

C) 

(Y') 

C) 

C) 

N 

N 

a: 

a: 

w 

>-

U') 

;:) C) 

0 C) 

...... 

> "<!" 

w 

a: 

0... 

::c 

0 

a: 

u.. 

>- = 

::E C) 

0 to 

z 

0 

u 

w 

_J 

w 

;:) 

IJ... C) = 

z 0li ...... I 

w 

<...'.) 

z 

a: 

I 

u = 

x 0 

= 

I -SO.OD 

Figure III. B-1 

% Change in Fuel Economy Versus 

% Change in HC Standard 

from Previous Year 

POLLUTANT: HC 

X= System Optimization 

• = Weight - Normal 

• 75C . 75F 

x ·75 . 8~~ . 76 x 

• soc, 81F 

.. 

.-1~c 

• so:i.x so 77C 77 ~l ~ 77F, 79C 

78X Ji3F~ 7GC 

(No change) 79~ 79F 

-60.CO -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 

/. CHANGE lN EMISSION STANDARD FROM PREVIOUS YEAR 

-in-10 
a: 

a: 

w 

>-

Cf) 

'.:) 

a 

..... 

> 

w 

a: 

a.. 

L 

a 

a: 

LL.. 

>-

L 

a 

:z 

a 

u 

UJ 

__, 

w 

'.:) 

LL.. 

:z 

UJ 

<..=> 

:z 

a: 

r 

u 

::-..: 

0 

0 

Figure III. B-2 

% Change :ln Fuel Economy Versus 

% Changi~ in CO Standard 

from l?'!'evious Year 

POLLUTANT: CO 

d"T-~~~~~~~~~--~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

(Y) 

0 

0 

N 

('\I 

0 

0 75C 75F ~ 

x 75 76F 81C 

x 76 • 81F . BOC 0 

0 

co 76C • 

80F . x 80, 81 77 ~ 77F, 79C 

• 77C 

78 x 0 78F, 78C 0 

N (No change) 79 ~ 79F 

I 

c::> 

c::> 

= 

I -SO.DO -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 

% CHANGE IN EMISSION STANDARD FROM PREVIOUS YEAR 

III-·11 
a: 

a: 

w 

>-

U1 

::::) 

0 

...... 

> 

w 

a: 

a... 

L 

0 

a: 

LL. 

>-

L 

0 

z 

0 

u 

w 

.....I 

w 

::::) 

LL. 

z 

..... 

w 

<..:l 

z 

a: 

:r: 

w 

:-...: 

c::J 

c::J 

Figure III B-3 

% Change in Fuel Economy Versus 

% Change in NOx Standard 

From Previous Year 

POLLUTANT: NOX 

ci,-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

('I') 

c::J 

c:::> 

N 

(\I 

c::J 

c:> 

...,. 75C • • 75F 

x 75 

• 81C 76F 

x 81F BOC 76 

• c:> 

c::J 

co • 76C 

81 x 77Fx. 77 nc 80 x • 79C, 80F 

x 78 0 '\.73p c:> 73C ' N ~ (No change) 7~ 79F 

I 

0 

0 

ci 

I -SO.DO -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 

I. CHANGE IN EMISSION STANDARD FROM PREVIOUS IEAA 

III-12 
point in time, roughly the same emission control and fuel economy technology 

is available to the Federal (49-Stat.es) and California fleets, then the 

technological capability could be said to be the same. This is probably 

roughly the case, but it must be pointed out that the emission control 

technology used in California in a given year in some cases is more 

sophisticated, due to the use of California as a proving ground for the 

newer technology. The results of using this method are given in table 

111.c-1. Figures III.C-1, III.C-2 and III.C-3 illustrate the data of table 

III.C-1. 

Looking at table III.C-1 and figures III.C-1 through III.C-3 it can be seen 

that the nature of the relationship has changed. Comparing 49-States to 

California for the same year generally shows California to be more stringent 

in emissions and lower in fuel economy. 

From table III. C-1 the Federal vs. California data appear at first to be 

five equations in four unknowns: 

-73h :- 40c -25n + k -11.Sf 

-73h - 40c -25n + k = -11.lf 

-73h - 40c -25n + k -10.lf 

-Oh + 29c -son + k = -q .6f 

and -Oh +106c -30n + k = -1..7f 

where: h, c, and n = % change in HC, CO, and NOx coefficients respectively 

f= % change fuel economy and k = constant. 

At second glance, however, the first three equations. have no possible unique 

solutions for h, c, and n, since the right sides of the three equations are 

unequal. Also, the constant terms (k) have no basis in reality, since the 

FE change due to no emissions changes must be zero (treating emission 

differences as the sole source of I?E change). Interpreting the -11.8, 

-11.1, and -10.1 figures as random variances around the true~ FE that comes 

from a combined -73% ~ HC, -40% 4 CO~ and -25% 6. NOx, we can average them 

and construct 3 equations. Setting k = 0, there are now 3 equations in 3 

unknowns. 

III-13 
Year 

1977 

1978. 

1979 

1980 

1981 

Table III. C-1 

Federal vs. California Emissions 

and 

Fuel Economy (System-optimization Method) 

Difference in Emission 

Standard 

HC, -73% 

co, -40% 

NOx, -25% 

HC, -73% 

co, -40% 

NOx, -25% 

HC, -73% 

co, -40% 

NOx, -25% 

HC, same .. co, +29% 

NOx, -50% 

HC, .. .. same 

co, +106% 

NOx, -30% 

System Optimization 

FE Difference* 

-11.8% (0.88) 

-11.1% (0.89) 

-10.1% (0.90) 

-4.6% (0.95) 

,...1.7% (0.98) 

*From SAE paper 800853, page 50, 

and SAE paper 810386, page 12 

:nr-14 
z 

CJ 

-Ia: 

N 

-::4 

-Ia_ 

CJ 

::4 

lJ..J 

Ien 

>-

(/') 

>-

::4 

CJ 

z 

CJ 

u 

lJ..J 

_, 

lJ..J 

=> 

IJ.. 

z 

-lJ..J 

(.'.) 

z 

a: 

:::c 

u 

Iz 

LU 

u 

a: 

LLJ 

a... 

0 

Figure III. C-1 

% Diffe::-e.nce in Fuel Economy Versus % Difference 

in HC :...::: ldard for the California Fleet Coranared 

to t~ ::! ;:-c.::eral ?leet :Ln the Same Hodel Year 

POLLUTANT: HC 

o....-~~~~~~~~~~-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~---. 

~ 

0 

0 

c:i (No Difference) 

(!) 81 

0 

0 

~ 

I 

(!) 80 

0 

0 

<D 

l 

(!) 79 

0 78 0 (!) 

N 

- (!) 77 

I 

0 

0 

u:) 

I -so.oo -60.00 -40.00 -20.00 0.00 20.00 

/. CHANGE IN EMIS. STANDARD C CALIF VS FED l IN THE SAHE IEAR 

III-15 
z 

Cl 

-Ia: 

N 

-:l: 

-Ia.. 

Cl 

:l: 

l.LJ 

I-

(/') 

>-

(/') 

>-

~ 

0 

z 

0 

w 

l.LJ 

_J 

l.LJ 

:::::> 

LL.. 

z 

-l.LJ 

~ 

z 

a: 

:I: 

w 

Iz 

l.LJ 

w 

cc: 

w 

(l_ 

0 

Figure III. C-2 

% Difference in Fuel Economy Versus % Difference 

in CO Standard for the California Fleet Compared 

to the Federal Fleet in the Sarne Model Year 

POLLUTANT: CO 

o...-~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- ....,. 

0 

0 

d (No Difference) 

(!) 81 

0 

0 

....,. 

I 

(!) 80 

0 

0 

co II 

(!) 79 

0 78 0 (!) 

N (!) 77 -I 

0 

0 

c.D 

I -60.00 -20.00 20.00 60.00 100.00 140.00 

/. CHANGE IN EHIS. STANDARD ( CAL1F VS FED l IN THE SAME YEAR 

III-16 
z 

0 

...... 

Ia: 

N 

...... 

L 

...... 

I0... 

0 

L 

w 

I-

(f) 

>- (f) 

>-

L 

0 

z 

0 

u 

w 

_J 

w 

::J 

1.1-

z 

-

w 

<..::> 

z 

a: 

J: 

u 

Iz 

w 

u 

a: 

w 

0... 

Figure III. C-3 

% Difference in Fuel Economy Versus % Difference 

in NOx Standard for the California Fleet Compared 

to the Federal Fleet in .the Same Hodel Year 

POLLUTANT: NOX 

= 

~ 

= (No uirrerence) 

(!) 81 

Cl 

= 

"<t ~ 

I (!) 80 

= = 

CD 

I 

(!) 79 

Cl 78 ~ (!) 

N 77 (!) - ~ I 

= 

= c.o 

I -60.00 -50.00 -40.00 -30.00 -20.00 -10.00 

I. CHANGE IN EMIS. STANDARD C CALIF VS FED J IN THE SAME YEAR 

111-17 
-73h -40c -25n = -11.0f 

+29c -son -4.6f 

+106c -30n -1. 7f 

The solution to this system is: 

11.0 11.8 + 11.1 + 10.1 

3 

h 0.110246, c 0.011964, n 0.098939 

(all decimals are necessary) 

So the dependence of % A FE on % AX, where X HC, CO, NOx is: 

·%A FE = .110246 (%A HC) + .011964 (%A CO) + .098939 (%A NOx) 

Note that all coefficients are positive, meaning that ·if any emission 

standard goes down (tighter control), FE also goes down (suffers a 

penalty). 

In the ballpark sense, FE responds at 1/10 sensitivity to HC and NOx changes 

(lowering either standard by 50% would penalize fuel economy by 5%), but is 

less sensitive to CO (lowering the CO standard by 50% would penalize FE by 

.012 x 50 = 0.6%). 

The previous equation can be used to calculate a fuel economy difference for 

sets of standards which may be of particular interest: 

1. Base 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx 

2. "80" 0.41 HC, 7 .O CO, 2.0 NOx 

3. "Hybrid" 0.41 HC, 7 .O CO, 1.5 NOx 

The HC change for all cases is zero. For Base versus "80" or Hybrid the CO 

III-18 
change is (7 .O - 3 .4 )/3 .4 = 1.058824 ( 1.05 .8824%). The NOx changes are 

1.0000(100%) and 0.5(50%). 

"80" vs. Base = 0.110246(0) + 0.011964(105.8824) + 0.098939(100) 

"80" vs. Base = 0 + 1.266770 + 9.8939 - +11.2% 

Hybrid vs. Base 0 + 0.922320 + 4.946950 +6 .2% 

Note that this is the only fuel economy relationship quantified. The other 

positive trends could also have been quantified. 

As a check on the accuracy of the equation relating Federal and California 

fuel economy in the same model year for more general application, the change 

in fuel economy from the 1980 to the 1981 Federal standards was compared. 

In the previous calculations, this would be the negative of "80" vs. Base or 

a predicted loss of 11.2% fuel economy for this change in emission 

standards. This compares poorly with the 2.7% increase in fuel economy from 

1980 to 1981 due to system optimization (from table III.B-1), both in sign 

and in magnitude, and leads to the conclusion that while the 

California/ Federal relationship for prior years may be quantifiable, that 

relationship has little utility when one attempts to predict changes due to 

differences in Federal or 49-State emission standards. 

In summary, California vehicles have achieved less fuel economy than their 

Federal counterparts in recent years. The difference has been declining and 

is now 1.7% less. 
III. D. 

III. D.l 

The Relationship Between Emission Standards or Levels and In-use 

Fuel Economy 

Background 

For the past four years EPA and DOE have analyzed differences between EPA 

test fuel economy and "on-road" fuel economy of in-use cars. The purpose of 

that work was to measure fuel economy shortfall, that is, the offset between 

"on-road'' fuel economy and fuel economy as measured on EPA tests. The fleet 

shortfalls reported in the 404 Report* are typical of the results of these 

early analyses; 

Model Year Road Shortfall (vs. EPA Composite MPG) 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

- 6.9% 

-12.4% 

-19.2% 

-19.6% 

-19.2% 

-16.1% 

Note that the shortfall increases with time (model year) through 1977, after 

which it decreases. Before attempting to relate this trend to possible 

emissions influences, however, we must consider the matter of vehicle technology. 

Since model year 1978, manufacturers have introduced changes both in engine 

technologies and in drivetrains that result in a much less homogeneous mix of 

technologies in the u.s. fleet. Recent analysis disaggregates the large 

sample of in-use vehicles in the current data base (model years 1978 to 1980) 

into technology-specific subgroups to consider the shortfall for each technology subgroup. 

* EPA, "Passenger Car Fuel Economy: EPA and Road", Report EPA-460/3-80-010, 

September, 1980. 

III-20 
For the purposes of this discussion, the following technologies are defined 

as "conventional" technologies. 

° Front engine, rear wheel drive vehicles 

0 Spark ignition ( S. I.) gasoline engines 

° Carburetor for fuel metering 

0 Automatic transmissions 

The 1974-78 vehicles studied in early analyses employed predominantly 

conventional technologies. "Alternative'' technologies are defined as follows: 

0 Gasoline fuel-injection for fuel metering 

° Front engine, front-wheel drive vehicles 

0 Diesel engines 

0 Manual transmissions 

A contractor working for both EPA and DOE has recently performed a 

statistical analysis of the current in-use data base to study shortfall for 

technology-specific subgroups of vehicles. The results of this analysis suggest that vehicles utilizing some of these alternative technologies had lower 

shortfall than conventional technology vehicles. 

The objective of this discussion is to examine the engineering principles that 

govern the MPG performance of alternative technologies on the EPA test procedure and under in-use conditions. The results can be used to interpret the 

observed shortfalls of alternative tec.hnologies. The discussion examines each 

of the four technologies in comparison to their conventional technology 

counterpart. Thus, manual transmissions are compared to automatics, fuel inIII-21 
jected s.I. engines to carburetted S.I. engines, front-wheel drive vehicles to 

rear-wheel drive vehicles and Diesel engines to carburetted S.I. engines. The 

synergy between multiple alternative technologies is not examined in this 

analysis, although it may be that vehicles with combinations of these technologies will exhibit greater reductions in shortfall than will any single 

application of technology. 

Differences in shortfall of the four technologies in comparison to conventional technologies are associated with responses to the following performance 

factors: 

0 

0 

0 

The response of the technology ~o the EPA test procedure (FTP and 

HFET). The EPA fuel economy is measured over fixed driving cycles on 

a dynamometer and the. technology's response to the EPA procedure 

will affect the shortfall. 

The in-use maintenance characteristics of the technology. The state 

of tune of the vehicle is an important contributor to shortfall. 

The response of the technology to non-FTP driving conditions. The 

effects of cold ambient temperatures, extended idling and different 

driving cycles are also important contributors to shortfall. 

Manual Transmissions 

Earlier studies on shortfall showed that b~tween model years 1974 and 1977, 

shortfall for manuals started at a level on par with automatic transmissions 

in 1974 and increased to approximately 10 percent above the shortfall for 

automatics by 1977. EPA* explained that manual transmission shift points were 

variable in the hands of the user, whereas the automatic was calibrated to 

shift at preprogrammed points. It was also suggested that vehicle owners 

drove, on the average, more aggressively than on the EPA cycle, i.e. , the 

shifts are generally at higher engine speed/load points thus leading to higher 

* Ibid. 

III-22 
shortfall for manual transmission equipped vehicles in comparison to those 

equipped with automatic transmissions. 

New analyses by Ford, GM, and DOE contractors, with much larger and more 

recent data bases show the reverse to be true, i.e., manuals have less shortfall than automatic transmissions. The data bases included vehicles from 

model years 1978 through 1980. While the earlier results may be suspect 

because of the small sample of vehicles with manual transmissions in the data 

base, there may be two technological reasons behind this change: (i) EPA 

changed the manual transmission shift· points during the FTP for model year 

1979 and succeeding years. In previous years, manufacturers were allowed to 

specify shift points and pat terns which were of ten unrealistic, but which 

tended to maximize fuel economy on the FTP. EPA changed the test requirements 

to restore the rigor of the 1975 procedure, and appears to have succeeded in 

reducing shortfall for vehicles equippE~d with manual transmissions. 

automatic transmissions were unaffected by this ruling, leading 

explanation for the observed change in relative shortfall. (ii) 

However, 

to one 

As fuel 

economy became more important, manufacturers optimized shift points for 

automatic transmissions so that upshifts occured as early as possible and 

downshifts were delayed during the FTP cycle. Torque convertor lock-up was 

also calibrated for maximum effectiveness on the FTP, i.e., the lock-up is 

engaged more frequently on the test than in "real-world" driving. This may 

have led to an increase in shortfall for newer automatics in comparison to 

automatic transmission equipped vehicles of earlier years. This, in turn, 

provides a second explanation for the observed changes in relative shortfall 

between manual and automatic transmissions. 

Fuel Injection 

EPA' s Emission Factors program annually tests a large sample of vehicles on 

the FTP and checks these vehicles for maladjustments and mis tuning~ EPA has 

noted that carburetor idle mixture and choke maladjustments are the most 

common malperformances in these vehicles and that the adjustments were predominantly richer than the manufacturers' recommendations, leading to fuel 

economy reductions as large as 10 percent depending upon the degree of 

maladjustment. 

III-23 
Fuel injection systems could be expected to have lower shortfall than carburetted vehicles primarily because most users are less likely to tamper with 

fuel injection systems than carburetted vehicles, for two reasons. One reason 

for tampering and maladjustment is customer dissatisfaction with driveability, and it is generally conceded that fuel injection vehicles offer 

superior driveability in comparison to carburetted vehicles. The second 

reason for a possible relatively low level of maladjustments in fuel injected 

vehicles is user unfamiliarity with the system, leading to reduced tampering. 

However, these differences could diminish for MY 1981, because the choke and 

idle mixture will be much less easy to adjust in use. 

Fuel injected vehicles also should have lower shortfall than carburet ted 

vehicles because, at low ambient temperatures and during transients, fuel 

injected vehicles need less enrichment than carburetted vehicles. A Canadian 

study* found that fuel injected vehicles showed smaller decreases in fuel 

economy at cold ambients in comparison to carburetted vehicles. This is the 

result of fuel being delivered to the intake ports, rather than to the intake 

manifold as in carburetted vehicles where excess fuel is required to ensure 

adequate evaporation and transport of fuel to the cylinders. The precise 

delivery of fuel possible in fuel injected vehicles also reduces the need for 

enrichment during transient operation. Operation at ambient temperatures 

below those encoutered on the FTP, and rapid accelerations and decelerations · 

not encountered on the FTP~ are important causes of shortfall. 

Front-Wheel Drive 

On the chassis dynamometer, FWD vehicles are penalized relative to rear wheel 

drive (RWD) vehicles, regardless of whether the power absorption unit (PAU) 

setting on the dyamometer is determined by coastdown techniques or by EPA's 

"cookbook" method. To a large extent· it is believed that this is because the 

FWD vehicle places a greater load on the driven wheels than a RWD vehicle. 

For example, a FWD vehicle with a 60/40 weight distribution will have 33 

percent more load on the driving wheels than 

* N. Ostrouchov, "Effects of. Cold Weather on Motor Vehicle Emissions and 

Fuel Consumption - II", SAE Paper 790229, 1979. 

III-24 
a RWD vehicle with a 55/ 45 weight distribution. These distributions are 

nominal values for each type. The additional load on the driving wheels 

increases the tire rolling resistance, and hence, the actual horsepower 

required to drive the vehicle on the chassis dynamometer. 

If the EPA "cookbook" technique is used to determine the PAU setting, these 

losses are uncompensated as the present formula does not differentiate between 

RWD and FWD vehicles. Although coastdown techniques correct this situation 

somewhat, the FWD vehicle is still penalized. This is because the PAU setting 

is determined for tractive effort at 50 mph during the coastdown procedure. 

At speeds below 50 mph the FWD vehicle must still overcome .a greater load on 

-the dynamometer than an equivalent RWD vehicle. This is be.cause rolling 

resistance is the dominant force at low speeds, while aerodynamic drag is more 

important at high speeds. Since about 75 percent of the mileage in the EPA 

test is accumulated below 50 mph, the FWD vehicle suffers a net fuel economy 

penalty in the FTP compared to the RWD vehicle; this would translate into 

decreased shortfall for FWD vehicles in comparison to RWD vehicles. 

A second, possibly minor, effect which could reduce the shortfall of FWD 

vehicles relative to RWD vehicles is the influence of the cooling fan during 

the FTP test. Since the vehicle is stationary during the test, cooling air is 

provided by an external fan. This f a.n operates at constant speed and does 

not provide adequate cooling air at higher vehicle speeds. 

have electric fans which are controlled thermostatically; 

Most FWD vehicles 

these fans remain 

on during much of the FTP, because of the inadequate external cooling, unlike 

the real world situation. The electrical power absorbed by the cooling fan is 

supplied by the engine through the alternator. This power requirement lowers 

the fuel economy on the FTP relative to "on-road" conditions, resulting in 

decreased shortfall for FWD vehicles. RWD vehicles, a majority of which 

employ engine driven fans, do not have this difference in operating mode 

between FTP and "on-road" conditions. While the effect of the cooling fan is 

believed not as significant as the effect of tire loading, the cooling fan 

does make a contribution to shortfall reduction of FWD vehicles relative to 

RWD vehicles. 

III-25 
Diesel 

Diesel engines differ markedly from spark ignition (gasoline) engines in their 

fuel delivery systems and the type of combustion employed. These principal 

technological differences could account for decreased shortfall in comparison 

to spark ignition engines. The reasons are as follows: 

(1) The fuel injection system in the Diesel engine is factory calibrated 

to tight tolerances and sealed at the factory. Spark ignition engines 

on the other hand, have carburetors where the user can adjust the 

idle air/fuel ratio and the choke. As detailed earlier, EPA has 

found that a large majority of spark ignition engines are maladjusted 

to richer air/fuel ratios, leading to increased shortfall. 

on the other hand, are rarely maladjusted. 

Diesels 

(2) In Diesel engines, the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder 

head, unlike carburetted S.I. engines where fuel is generally 

distributed via an intake manifold to the individual cylinders. At 

low ambient temperatures, Diesel engines need very little enrichment 

in comparison co an S.I. engine, where extra fuel is needed to ensure 

adequate vaporization and transport of fuel to the cylinders. 

(3) Diesel engines are less sensitive to transient and non-FTP driving 

modes than carburetted S. I. vehicles in that the fuel consumption 

changes are less dramatic. This is due to two reasons: (a) the 

Diesel consumes very little fuel at idle in comparison to an S.I. 

engine (up to 70 percent less). Thus, extended idling, common in 

inner city driving, has a much smaller impact on the fuel consumption 

of Diesels than of S.I; engines; (b) transient operation such as 

sharp accelerations and decelerations not encountered on the FTP 

increase fuel consumption dramatically for an S. I. engine .but not as 

much for a Diesel engine. A carburetted S. I. engine has very poor 

transient air/fuel ratio control and requires special devices such as 

acceleration enrichment pumps and deceleration fuel shutoffs to 

TII-26 
control the transient air/fuel ratio. Diesels, on the other hand, use an 

accurate system of fuel metering where transient operation does not 

disturb the combustion process as much. 

The combined effect of reduced tampering, lower enrichment at cold ambients, 

and decreased sensitivity to variations in driving cycle should reduce the 

shortfall for Diesel engines in comparison to s.r. engines. 

III. D. 2. Technology-specific In-use Data 

Against the background above, which theorizes why some advanced technologies 

should have lower shortfall behavior, we can now examine what actual data 

reveal. 

Figure III.D-1 shows the shortfall characteristics of a number of vehicle 

technologies expressed as the ratio of road gallons per mile. to EPA 55/ 45 

gallons per mile, plotted against the EPA 55/45 MPG (this ratio is the same as 

EPA MPG/Road MPG). 

The slanted lines are regression lines for three technology subclasses of 

vehicles: all are rear wheel drive, carbureted (gasoline) cars. The topmost 

line, labeled "Automatic" consists almost completely of standard (non-lockup 

or overdrive) automatics, while the "·Manual" line represents just that. The 

band around the Manual line is the 95% confidence interval. 

confidence· interval for Automatics is within the width of the line. 

The 95% 

The line labeled "Auto-lockup and/or O/D" has been added to the chart on the 

basis of a recent finding* that automatic overdrive gives a shortfall between 

that of manuals and standard automatics. The assumptions that this line has 

a slope parallel to the other two lines, and that it also represents lockup 

automatics, whether or not overdriven, are our own assumptions. 

* South, "1978 to 1980 Ford On-Road Fuel Economy", SAE Paper 

810383, February 1981. 

III-27 
H 

H 

H 

I 

N 

00 

Impact of 

Technology 

on Shortfall 

1978-1980 CARS 

Figure III. D-1 

RATIOGPM 

l.35T-------------'-

1.30 

1.25 

1.05 

1.00 

.90 -· 

.85 

Fl/A/FWDi 

(!) 

@ 

C/M/FWD2 

I D/M/R\'ID 

C/A/FWD2 ® ~ . 

'i'. IC/t~~WD1 D/M/FWDl 

--- @ -- __________ ® @.., • 

. fl/M/FWD 

® . Fl/A.1 FWD;2 

· /\__ · D/A/FWD 

y 15 ,-----.--~~ 20 25 ------1-----·-i----.-----_J 

30 35 40 45 

EPA Composite MPG 
The spots and vertical bands on the figure require additional explanation. 

Each spot represents a particular technology, and the vertical bands 

95% confidence intervals. For some technologies, these intervals 

because the sample sizes are small.. The technology descriptions are: 

Fuel System: 

Transmission: 

Drive: 

FI = Fuel inj1:!cted gasoline 

C Carbureted gasoline 

D Diesel 

A Automatic 

M Manual 

FWD Front 

RWD = Rear 

span the 

are large 

The subscripts for some groups designate two inherently different subsets of a 

given technology. This becomes obvious when looking at table III.D-1, which 

gives the number of cars, and model types, included in each spot. 

III-'29 
Technology Group 

( 1) FI/ A/FWDl 

(2) FI/A/RWD 

(3) D/A/FWD 

(4) D/A/RWD 

(5) D/M/RWD 

( 6) C/M/FWD2 

(7) C/A/FWDl 

(8) FI/A/8WD2 

(9) C/A/FWD2 

(10) FI/M/FWD 

(11) C/M/FWDl 

(12) D/M/FWD 

(13) C/M/ FWDl 

TABLE II I. D-1 

EXPLANATION OF FIGURE III. D-1 

No. Cars 

8 

14 

2 

191 

40 

90 

26 

5 

83 

73 

184 

72 

411 

Models Included 

All Eldorados 

13 Sevilles + 1 BMW 

Toronados 

Half GM, rest Mercedes & Peugeots 

39 Peugeots, 1 Mercedes 

Fiestas & Japanese, all 1978 models 

All GM: Rivieras, etc. 

Rabbits & Foxes 

78-79 Japanese, Omnis, 1980 X-cars 

Rabbits, Foxes, Sciroccos 

Same as (6) plus Omnis, all 1979's 

Rabbits & Dashers 

1980 model Fiestas 

III-30 
Interpretation 

The following can be gleaned from figure III. D-1 and table III. D-1: 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

the behavior of the eight Eldorados in set (1) is anomalous. 

Fuel injection makes no significant difference in shortfall, compared 

to carbureted versions of similar vehicles. 

The high shortfall for the 90 cars in set (6) can be attributed to 

the 1978 test procedure, not to the cars themselves; nearly 600 of. 

the same types of cars (but 1979-80 models) included in sets- ( 11) 

and (13) show no such high average shortfall. For all three sets, 

(6), (11) and (13), average road MPG is consistently about 30; 

they were rated by the 1978 test at about 36, and by the 1979-80 

test at about 31. 

Rear wheel drive Diesels have essentially the same shortfall as 

KWD manual gasoline cars. 

Transmission type makes no signifii::.ant difference in shortfall for 

front wheel drive cars. 

The location of set (12), the VW front wheel drive Diesels, on the map 

would.appear to be due to their front wheel drive rather than 

their "Dieselity". 

The bottom line £or all of this is that these data suggest four 

distinguishable technology groupings, each with its own shortfall 

algorithm: 

Front wheel drives, l/R = 1.02/E 

RWD Manuals and Diesels, l/R = 0.70/E + 0.016 

III-31 
RWD Automatics, lockup or O/D, 

(gasoline) 

RWD Std. automatic (gasoline) 

Implication 

where R 

E 

Road MPG and 

EPA 55/45 MPG 

l/R = 0.77/E + 0.016 

l/R = 0.85/E + 0.016 

When unique shortfall behaviors of specific technolo5y strata are accounted 

for, time trends in aggregated fleet shortfalls can result from time changes 

in the mix of the various technologies. As an example, this type of analysis 

was done for Chrysler Corporation, who has changed from almost entirely 

"conventional" vehicle technology in 1975 to almost entirely "advanced" 

vehicle technology in 1981. Table III.D-2 shows the results. In the earlier 

years, we would expect increasing shortfall for the conventional part of 

Chrysler's fleet simply because the shortfall algorithm for these vehicles is 

MPG dependent, and overall fleet MPG is increasing. In fact, the calculated 

shortfall for conventional vehicles continues to worsen through 1981. As 

advanced technologies increase to significant market penetrations in the later 

years, however, their lower shortfall characteristic influences overall fleet 

behavior more and more, and aggregate fleet shortfall decreases. 

Understanding now the significant role of vehicle technology changes in the 

shaping of time trends in fuel economy shortfall, let us compare technology 

specific calculated shortfalls for the entire fleet of manufacturers with the 

latest observed shortfalls, in table III.D-3. 

III-32 
Table III. D-2 

Example of Variation in Calculated, Technology-Specific 

In-Use FE Shortfall (Chrysler Corp. Domestic l"leet) 

Shortfall for 

Model EPA RWD. Automatics % Use of Advanced Fleet 

Year MPG (Conventional Technology) Technology * Shortfall 

1975 14.7 - 7.7% 3% - 7.6% 

1976 15.9 - 9.2% 6% - 9.0% 

1977 15.7 - 9.0% 8% - 8. 9% 

1978 17. 8 -11. 0% 12% -10.3% 

1979 19.8 -12.4% 24% -10.7% 

1980 20.0 -12.3% 88% - 5.5% 

1981 25.6 -14.3% 96% - 5.1% 

(*) Manual or lockup transmissions, overdrive, front wheel drive. 

III-33 
Table Ill. D-3 

Similarity Between Observed ~leet Shortfall and 

Calculated Technology-Specific Shortfall (All Manufacturers) 

Model Observed Calculated Technology Federal 

Year Fleet Shortfall 1 Specific !?leet Shortfall 2 Emission Stds. 3 

1975 -8.9% -7.2% 1.5/15/3.1 

1976 -9.4% -9.6% 1. 5/ 15/3 .1 

1977 -15.4% -10.6% L5/15/2.0 

1978 -15.0% -11. 7% 1. 5/15/2. 0 

1979 -10.2% -11. 5% 1. 5/15/ 2. 0 

1980 - 3.1%( 4) -10.4% .41/7 /2. 0 

1981 - 9.7% • 41/ 3 • 4 Ii. o 

(1) From Contractor analysis (EEA), January 1981 (unpublished) 

( 2) Calculated using only technology-specific shortfall behavior, 

no model year dependence assumed. 

(3) HC/CO/NOx grams per mile. 

~4) Sample size much smaller than prior model years. 

III-34. 
Note the parallel increasing/ decreasing trends for the observations and the 

calculations. Three "step changes" in observed shortfall are not fully explained satisfactorily by the technology-specific theory: the six percent increase in shortfall from 1976 to 1977, the five percent decrease from 1978 to 

1979, and the seven percent decrease from 1979 to 1980. 

Taking the second of these first, there was no change in emission standards 

between 1978 and 1979, so the .. five percent shortfall decrease cannot be 

related to emissions effects. As mentioned earlier, loopholes in the EPA test 

procedures were closed in 1979, and we attribute this improvement in shortfall 

to the test procedure. 

The 1976 to 1977 shortfall increase came simultaneously with a tightening of 

the NOx standard from 3 .1 to 2. 0 grams per mile, and could be concluded to be 

an adverse by-product of the more stringent NOx standard. 

In the case of the 1979 to 1980 improvement in observed shortfall, there was 

at the same time a tightening of the HC and CO (but not NOx) standards, so it 

could be concluded in this case that reduced shortfall is a beneficial 

by-product of the more stringent HC and/o.r CO standards. 

The HC/CO conclusion relationship is less strong than the NOx conclusion, 

because 1980 data used for this study represented a much smaller sample size. 

A test case for the premise that tighter NOx control adversely affects 

shortfall will be the in-use data from 1981 model cars, as 1981 NOx is cut in 

half from the 1980 level. If a relationship exists between shortfall and the 

NOx standard change, it should certainly appear in 1981 cars. Unfortunately, 

there are no 1981 in-use fuel economy data currently available. 

III-35 ·.·· 
SECTION IV 

IV. Data Analysis 

The computer data bases used to support the analyses for this document were 

derived from two EPA sources; the Emission Factors data base, and the 

Certification Division data base which includes tests performed by EPA and by 

the individual manufacturers. From these sources, three data bases were 

generated for use in this study. The data bases in this study will be 

referenced as the EF, CERT/EPA and CERT/MFR data bases respectively. They 

only include data for vehicles tested under the 1975 Federal Test Procedure 

(FTP) and the EPA Highway Fuel Economy Test Procedure (HFET). 

Certification records used to create the CERT/EPA and CERT/MFR data bases 

were gathered from five certification data bases. These include VEHSUM, 

CERTESTSUM, and DFRSLTS, which are part of the MICRO Information System, and 

files 1200D and 1202D-MFR (as they appeared on February 7, 1981). The VEHSUM 

file contains vehicle descriptions taken from the vehicle identification 

sheet. CERTESTSUM includes emission test results and other pertinent 

information from the test data sheet. ·Engine family deterioratfon factors 

came from DFRSLTS. 1200D included bag data and 1202D-MFR included 

information on whether tests were performed at high altitude or not. 

The data in CERTESTSUM comes from two 

emissions laboratory and b) tests 

facilities. The CERT/EPA data base~, 

sources; a) tests run at the EPA 

performed at the manufacturers' 

which was created specifically to 

support this report, is a compilation of selected information from the five 

Certification Division data bases discussed above, but only for vehicles 

which were tested at EPA. Likewise, the CERT/MFR data base was limited to 

vehicles tested at the manufacturers' facilities. The information selected 

for inclusion in the CERT/EPA and CERT/MFR files is discussed below. 

IV--1 
From the file VEHSUM, all vehicles with a Car Line Code* of less than 50,000 

were selected, except those whose Sales Class* was Both Trucks, California 

Trucks, or Federal Trucks. The object was to select only light duty vehicles. 

The test results used from CERTESTUM were restricted to those gathered under 

the FTP and the HFET. Tests with Certification Test Dispositions* of VOID, 

NEWTEST and ZEROMILE were not included in the CERT/EPA and CERT/MFR data 

bases. For the FTP, the Test Types* included were emission data tests, 

durabiL~ty tests, and fuel economy tests. For the highway fuel economy test 

procedu:·~·e, only emission data tests and fuel economy tests were used. 

The resulting data set from CERTESTSUM was then joined to the resulting data 

set from the VEHSUM files •. They were matched by Internal Vehicle Number* and 

by Version Number*. In order to eliminate duplicate test results in the new 

data bases, carryover data were assigned to a single model year which 

corresponds to the last model year the data were used. 

Using information from the certification data files 1200D and 1202D-MFR, 

high altitude tests were removed, and bag data for the EPA tests were added 

to the new data base. Bag data were not available for manufacturers' tests. 

This data base was then segregated into the CERT/EPA and EF files. Table 

IV-1 lists the field names which were included in the CERT/EPA and EF files. 

The CERT/MFR file was identical to the CERT/EPA file except that the CERT/MFR 

file did not contain bag emissions data. 

Combined fuel economy values were calculated for each vehicle which had both 

FTP and HFET data. The objective was to calculate a combined fuel economy 

value for each vehicle configuration for which both urban and highway 

miles/gallon (mpg) data were available. A method was selected to achieve 

* These are field names for the data base. Explanations of these terms 

can be found in the August 28, 1980 letter from Robert E. Maxwell, 

Director, Certification Division of EPA, to light-duty motor vehicle 

manufacturers. This letter transmitted the Supplement to the Application 

Format for Certification of Light-Duty Motor Vehicles, 1981 Model Year. 

1V""."2 
Table IV-1 

Information Contained in the Data Bases Used for This Studv 

DATA BASE VAPlABLE.S<FIELDS) SUMMARY "l(" MEANS THt: VAf.i!Af:lLE IS AVA!LAALE I 

=================================== 

DATA tMSF CEKT-EPA FMISSION FACTORS <t.F> 

<--------------><----------------------------------------------------> *SI TF.: 75- HS LAJw flMSF 

YEAR 79 80 81 79 19 78 77 76 IS 74 7J 72 79 77 

VAR NAME ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- t!l. HC ( dAG l HC I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

1:31.co (bAG l CO> x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

B 1 • NOX (BAG l NOX I X X X X X X X X X X X X. X X 

dc.HC <E:lAG 2 HCJ X X X X X X X X X x X X X X 

t32.C\J (HAG 2 CO> X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

B2 .NOX !1'AG 2 NOX l X X X X X X X X X X X X' X X 

83.HC <t:!AG 3 HCl X X X X X X X X X X x X X X 

BJ.CO (f:lAG 3 CO) x X X X X X X X X X X x X X 

oJ.NUX (oAG 3 NOXJ x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 

FfPHC <FTP HCJ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

FTPCU <FTP Cul X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

FTPNOX <FTP NUXl X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

UMPG (uR~~N MPG> X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

HMP\, (Hl'IY MP<;J X X X X X X X X X X X 

CMPG <COMR MPGJ X X X X X X X X X X X 

FEHC (H\olY HC) X X X X A X X X X A X 

FECO (Hl'IY CO) X X X X A X X x X X X 

FENOX (HWY NQX) X X X X X X X X X X X 

SITF <TEST SITEJ x X x X X x X X X x X 

VEH. !VE.H. NO.I X X X X X X X X X X X 

TEST <TEST SEW.l x X X x x X X X X x X 

FTP8i-> <FTP tJM<O. P.> x x x X X X x X x X X 

ODOMtMILt X X X X X x X x x X x X x X 

FEBP (HwY BARO. P.J X X X X 

MAKE (MAKE OF AUTO> X X X X X X X X X X X 

MFR,MfG(MANUF.l X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

MDYRtMYR<MOOEL YEAkJ X X X X X X X X X X X X X X. 

MODL.MDL<MOOELI x X X X X X x X X X x x x X 

DISP,CID X x x X X x x X X X x X X X 

VTRNtTRAN<TRANSM) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

1HrnL,CARtl!#OFBBL.) X X X x X X X X X X X x X X 

#CYL (#OF CYLIN.l X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

VNRTtlNER(INERTIA WT.I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

AOHPtHP<ACTUAL OYNO HP) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 

AIR.INJ<AIR INJECTE.O?l X X X X X X X X X 

CATA <CATALYSTl X X X X X X x X X 

THER <THEHMAL k(ACTOM> x X X X X X X X X 

ENfM•ENFY<ENG FAM!LYI X X X X X X X X X X 

EGR !\ x x X 

l~OTE----- ~s1rE: HS = HOUSfON • LA3W = LA JW CAT ~ MMSF = RESTUMATIV~ MAINT ~AN FRAN. 

IV-3 
Tahle IV-1 (con't) 

DATA 8ASE VARIAP.LES(F!ELOSl SUMMARY ( "X" MEAr~S THE VA,.-IAHLE b AVAILAnLE J 

=================================== 

DATA 8ASE CEf.<T-EPA c. MI s s I (JN 

<--------------><----------------------------------------------------> "SITF 75- HS ll\3'·" RMSr-

. ,. 7~ so 81 79 1~ 78 77 f6 rs f4 13 12 19 r1 

VAR NAME ---------··------------------------------------------------~----------------------- MAL.DISP(MAL ADJ UlSPl 

AXLRtAXRAIAXLE PAfIOJ 

MUD! ([NG MODIFICA'IIONl 

PCV 

TIMING 

INTa (INTERNAL NO.J 

VRSN (VE!-iSIONl 

VIO <VEH. lDENT.l 

CL!N <CAR LlNEl 

OVDR IOVERORIVEJ 

i:lOl-iE 

STRK 

RTHP 

ETYP 

llCR8 

FIN 

CMPR 

N/VR 

ECSl 

ECS.? 

ECSJ 

ECS4 

ECS':> 

FTYP 

SACL 

vss 

ENCU 

UFVl 

nrno 

VTYP 

RCNIJ 

CRCD 

TNUM 

TTYP 

flCHG 

TPRO 

RTST 

AOHfJ 

CTU 

FElJ 

TA Yh' 

Ehl 

( S TROKr. l 

!RATED HPJ 

IENG. TYPEl 

ttio. OF CA~85> 

<FUt.L INJ.J 

lCUMP. RATlOl 

( N/V RATIO) 

(EM CONT SYS ll 

<EM CONT SYS :>J 

(EM CONT SYS JJ 

(EM CONT SYS 4l 

IEM CONT SYS SJ 

( FUEL TYPE l 

(SALES CLASSl 

(SHIFT SPEED cnUEJ 

<El~G coot:> 

IOURA FAC VEHJ 

ITURBOCHARGEOl 

( VEH TYPE l 

( RllNN I NG CHAl~GF: it l 

<CPITICAL CODEJ 

I TEST NUM8U~ l 

<TEST TYfJEl 

!RUNNING CHAN(jf:) 

(TEST PROCEOUl-IE l 

<RETEST CODEl 

!ACTUAL OYNO HP) 

(CERT TEST ors~.) 

tF.E. TEST DISi--J 

!TEST ACTIVE Y~l 

(EOUIV TEST. WTJ 

" x 

x x 

x x 

" x 

x x 

x " " x 

x x 

x 

x x " 

x x 

A x 

" x 

x x 

x x 

x x 

x x 

" x 

" x 

x x 

x x 

x x 

x x A x 

" x 

x x 

x x 

" x 

x x 

" A 

x x 

x 

x " x 

x " " x " 

x " x 

" x 

x x x x x x " x 

x x x x x f.. 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x " 

x 

x 

x 

x 

" x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

x 

" x 

" x 

x 

x 

" 

IV-4 
this, while simultaneously attempting to avoid combining city and hic;hway 

data for different configurations of the same vehicle. The last four digits 

of the city and highway test numbers WE!re compared. Those test numbers which 

were within + 3, for vehicles having the same internal vehicle number and 

version number, were used in calculating the combined fuel economy value. 

This method of "pairing" city and highway tests allows more than one combined 

fuel economy value to be generated for vehicles which had more ·than one set 

of paired tests. 

EPA' s emission factors data base included data on vehicles from 1972 thru 

1981. The EF data base, which was also created specifically to support this 

report, included information selected from EPA's emission factors data base. 

Table IV-1 lists the field names which were included in the EF file. 

Again, only FTPs and HFETs were used.. Other tests such as inspection and 

maintenance tests and steady state tests were not used. 

IV-·5 
IV. A. Two Variable Linear Regressions 

This was the initial step in a series of plotting and regression exercises. 

Three large data bases (CERT/EPA, CERT/MFR and EF) were used in this work. 

First, two· dimensional scatter plots of fuel economy and emissions for each 

of the following were generated. 

1) UMPG* versus FTPHC** 

2) UMPG versus FTPCO** 

3) UMPG versus FTPNOx** 

4) UMPG versus FEHC*** 

5) UMPG versus FECO*** 

6) UMPG versus FEN Ox*** 

7) HMPG* versus FTPHC 

8) HMPG versus FTP CO 

9) HMPG versus FTPNOx 

10) HMPG versus FEHC 

11) HMPG versus FECO 

12) HMPG versus FEN Ox 

13) CMPG* versus FTPHC 

14) CMPG versus FTP CO 

15) CMPG versus FTPNOx 

16) CMPG versus FEHC 

17) CMPG versus FECO 

18) CMPG versus FENOx 

*UMPG, HMPG, and CMPG respectively mean urban fuel economy as measured on 

the 1975 Federal Test Procedure (FTP), highway fuel economy as measured on 

the EPA highway test and composite fuel economy as calculated by EPA from 

urban and highway economy respectively. 

**FTPHC, FTPCO, and FTPNOx mean HC, CO, and NOx emissions, respectively, as 

measured on the 1975 FTP. 

***FEHC, FECO, and FENOx mean HC, CO, and NOx emissions, respectively, as 

measured on the EPA highway test. 

IV-6 
For the sake of brevity, these are called "the 18" plots. These 18 plots 

were generated for each of the three data bases for all the data in each 

data base. A total of 54 plots were generated. 

There was no apparent linear or other relationship between any of the two 

variables. Some of the plots are included as appendix 4 to this report. 

The various plots that were gene.rated were not totally adequate for 

visualizing lines or curve shapes because multiple points in one spot appear 

as a number (or x which means 10 or more points at t~e same spot) which is 

difficult to visually weight compared to single points. Linear regressions 

were performed that corresponded to each of the plots. A summary of the 

regressions is presented in table IV. A-1 through table IV. A-3. 

Summary 

There are several items of interest that can be deduced from these tables. 

First, there is no correlation for any of the regressions as evidenced by 

values of r-squared which always have a zero as the first digit to the right 

of the decimal point. Second, the slopes of the regression lines (COEFF in 

the tables) are consistently negative except for occasional, positive values 

for HC and CO as measured on the highway fuel economy test. Negative slopes 

mean that, as the ~missions increase, the fuel economy decreases. Positive 

slopes mean, as emissions increase, fuel economy increases. The final item 

of interest is that highway HC and CO emissions are not regulated. 

No readily apparent linear or other relationship between exhaust emissions 

and fuel economy is seen at this le!vel of analysis. Clearly, no negative 

impact on fuel economy due to emissions can be identified in these data. 

There may be several reasons for this. These reasons include a lack of 

stratification of the data and th:! effects of other variables on fuel 

economy. Other approaches used later will be improved in some areas, but by 

necessity the number of data points available for analysis will be reduced 

with increasing stratification. 

IV-7 
<-------

CASE TAYR xx xx 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

~ 7 

I 8 

00 9 

10 

1 1 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

* 

Table IV. A-1 

Two Variable Linear Regressions _U:=>i!•_E __ i~_':'_i~t:L!J·_il 1"11 D;1t<.1 Frnii: the EPA Laboratory 

CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

--------------------------------------·------------------- FILE: CERT /EPA FEB. 27, 1981 PAGE NO. 

CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL* TOTAL 

xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx DEP(Y) INO(X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CONST R-SQ STD. ERR 

UMPG FTPHC 4605 5753 -0.5,168 18.814 0.00092 5.7657 

UMPG FTP CO 4605 5753 -o. 1968 19.627 0.01907 5 ., .. :ii .. 

UMPG FTPNOX 4605 5753 -2.2268 21. 608 0.04811 5.6279 

UMPG FEHC 2975. 5753 3.0094 18.204 0.00803 5.6870 

UMPG FECO 2975 5753 0. 1799 18.395 0.00280 5.7019 

UMPG FENOX 2975 5753 - 1 . 028 1 20. 191 0.02363 5.6421 

HMPG FTPHC 2977 5753 -0.2919 26.222 0.00012 7.7974 

HMPG FTPCO 2977 5753 -0.2683 27.505 0.01474 7.7401 

HMPG FTPNOX 2977 5753 -3. 1631 30.389 0.04854 7.6062 

HMPG FEHC 4123 5753 5.6186 26.001 0.01325 7.8347 

HMPG FECO 4123 5753 0. 1999 26.448 0.00179 7.8800 

HMPG FENOX 4123 5753 - 1 . 3075 28.623 0.01942 7.8102 

CMPG FTPHC 2977 5753 -0.3914 21 . 464 0.00033 6.4044 

CMPG FTP CO 2977 5753 -0. 2300 22.498 0.01606 6.3538 

CMPG FTPNOX 2977 5753 --2.5551 24.757 0.04694 6.2533 

CMPG FEHC 2975 5753 3.8268 20.835 0.01032 6.3733 

CMPG FECO 2975 5753 0. 1933 21. 109 0.00257 6.3982 

CMPG FENOX 2975 5753 - 1. 1262 23.073 0.02252 6.3339 

Actual size is less than total size in this and subsequent comp~ter outputs 

due to the method used in construction of the data base. In general the 

difference between actual and totai size is an indicator that not all urban 

tests have paired highway tests and that not all highway tests have paired 

111.'ban tests. Tliis difference is not an indicator t:lrnt data were ignored or 

delete,_~ : or any reason. 

<-------REMARKS --------> 
Table IV. A-2 

Two Variable Linear Regressions Using Data From the Emission Factors (In-Use) Program 

EMISSION FACTOR MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

----------------------------------------------------------- FILE: 2G14D-EF(ALL) MAR. 02. 198 I PAGE NO. 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE MDYR xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CON$T R-so· STD. ERR <-------REMARKS --------> 

1 UMPG FTPHC 8987 8987 -0.2666 16.218 0.04230 4.3084 2 UMPG FTPCO 8987 8987 -0.349,1 16.718 0.08816 4.2040 3 UMPG FTPNOX 8923 8987 -0.6145 17. 156 0.05339 4.2879 4 UMPG FEHC 6615 8987 -0.3909 16.313 0.00980 4.3758 5 UMPG FECO 6353 8987 -0.2959 16.360 0.01282 4.4133 6 Ut-1PG FENOX 6616 8987 -0.3973 17.142 0.02551 4.3407 7 HMPG FTPHC 6616 8987 -0.4714 23.596 0.02841 6.3079 8 HMPG FTP CO 6616 8987 -0.5040 23.991 0.04939 6.2395 9 HMPG FTPNOX 6552 8987 - 1 . 088 1 25. 186 0.04889 6.2503 10 HMPG FEHC 6615 8987 -0.6566 23. 127 0.01305 6.3581 1 1 HMPG FECO 6353 8987 -0.5447 23.252 0.02050 6.3977 H2 HMPG FENOX 6616 8987 -0.6451 24.460 0.03175 6.2971 <:i 'I 

I ·- CMPG FTPHC 66!6 8987 -0.3978 !9.2!4 0.03237 4.9756 l.014 CMPG FTP CO 6616 8987 -0.4333 19.567 0.058,13 4.9082 15 CMPG FTPNOX 6552 8987 -0.8058 20.312 0.04297 4.9527 16 CMPG FEHC 6615 8987 -0.4816 18.779 0 01124 5.0300 17 CMPG FECO 6353 8987 -0.3797 18.850 0.01595 5.0691 18 CMPG FENOX 6616 8987 -0.4815 19.779 0.02832 4.9861 

f. \. t<.1 
Table IV. A-3 

Two Variable Linear Kegressions Using Certification Data From Vehicle Manufacturers 

CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

---------------------------------------------------------

FILE: CERT /MFR FEB. 27, 1981 PAGE NO. 

<------- CATEGORICAL. VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE TAYR xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE SIZE COEFF CONST R-SQ STD. ERR <-------REMARKS -------

1 UMPG FTPHC 9786 10425 -2.4196 20. 134 0.01156 5.5006 

2 UMPG FTPCO 9786 10425 -0.2674 20.344 0.02429 5.4650 

3 UMPG FTPNDX 9786 10425 -0.9418 .20. 260 0.00654 5 .~5145 t•; 

4 UMPG FEHC 5072 10425 1.3907 19.324 0.00079 5.6312 

5 UMPG FECO 5072 10425 -0.3842 19.476 0.00012 5.6330 

6 UMPG FENOX 5072 10425 -0. 6959. 20.328 0. 00910 5. 6077 

7 HMPG FTPHC 5087 10425 -2.2697 28.391 0.00787 7.3664 

8 HMPG FTP CO 5087 10425 -0.4437 29.544 0.03971 7.2472 

9 HMPG FTPNOX 5087 10425 -2.6842 30.645 0.03305 7.2723 

~10 HMPG FEHC 5710 10425 1 . 6638 27.361 0.00074 7. /:02 ! 

I 1 1 HMPG FECO 5710 10425 -0.1514 27.641 0.00129 7. 4000 

612 HMPG FENOX 5710 10425 -0.8867 28.646 0.00858 7.3730 

13 CMPG FTPHC 5087 10425 -2.1011 23.169 0.00951 6.2012 

14 CMPG FTPCO 5087 10425 -0.3692 24.046 0.03874 6. 1090 

15 CMPG FTPNOX 5087 10425 -2.1332 24.845 0.02941 6. 1386 

16 CMPG FEHC 5072 10425 1.6749 22.218 0.00093 6.2289 

17 CMPG FEGO 5072 10425 -0.7912 22.429 0.00042 6.2305 

18 CMPG fENOX 5072 10425 -0.7872 23.363 0.00952 6.2021 
IV. B. Two Variable Linear Regressions with Stratification by Model Year 

Various stratifications of the data analyzed in section IV. A of this report 

could be done. Intuitively,the stratification of choice appears to be by 

emission control system; however, data base limitations would not permit 

this stratification without greatly reducing the available data or without 

modifying the available data. The stratification chosen was by vehicle 

model year (or for certification data by test active year). This 

stratification was accomplished with mi'nor losses of data. Stratification 

by emission control system was accomplished later by data modification (see 

section IV. H). 

Plots were generated for each of the three data bases for each of the 18 

emission versus fuel economy relationships for each model year. Again, no 

linear or other relationships between fuel economy and emissions were seen. 

Those plots were not reproduced for inclusion in this report. 

Linear regressions were again run using the 18 emission and fuel economy 

variables for each of the 3 data bases stratified by model year. The 

results of these regressions are presented here in table IV. B-1 through 

table IV. B-3. In the following discussion of these results, only cases 

where sample size ("actual size" in the tables) was greater than or equal to 

25 are considered. 

Correlation 

Of the 126 cases (144 minus 18 cases with less than 25 data points) generated for the CERT/EPA data base, r-squared did not exceed 0.100 in any 

case. 

A total of 135 cases were generated for the Emission Factors data base. 

r-squared exceeded 0 .100 in 9 of these cases. The range of r-squared was· 

from 0.12 to 0.24 for those 9 cases. The emission variable was CO as 

measured on the 1975 FTP in each case. The fuel economy variables were 

urban fuel economy for model years 1966 through 1971 and model year 1978, 

IV-11 
Table IV. B-1 

Two Variable Linear :R,egr~ssion R.esults Using Data From the E~,A Labo1;atory !)trat~f~·e,d by Mod.e,l Year 

CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

--------------------------------------------------------- FILE: CERT /EPA FEB. 27, 1981 PAGE NO. 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE TAYR xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xxxx xx xx xx xx DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CONST R-SQ STD.ERR <-·- - - - - -REMARKS --------> 

1 75 UMPG FTPHC 77 79 -0.9647 14.887 0.00413 4.5903 

2 76 UMPG FTPHC 699 712 2.4851 15.413 0.02918 5.0591 

3 77 UMPG FTPHC 1021 1270 3. 1122 15.216 0.04120 5. 1099 

4 78 UMPG FTPHC 1010 1264 2.5999 16.465 0.01702 5.7337 

5 79 UMPG FTPHC 730 970 1.2941 18.598 0.00488 5.3140 

6 80 UMPG FTPHC 597 804 1. 9355 20.245 0.00393 5.2231 

7 81 UMPG FTPHC 459 638 -9.4330 24.485 0.01550 6. 1586 

8 82 UMPG FTPHC 12 16 14.6460 22.572 0.36566 1. 3838 

9 75 UMPG FTPCO 77 79 -0.2156 15.574 0.02694 4.5375 

10 76 UMPG FTP CO 699 712 0. 1560 16.099 0.01116 5. 1059 

11 77 UMPG FTPCO 1021 1270 0. 8463 16.851 0.00004 5.2184 

12 78 UMPG FTP CO 1010 1264 0.5813 ti. 847 0.00002 5.7831 

13 79 UMPG FTPCO 730 970 -0.2370 20.744 0.02657 5.2558 

14 80 UMPG FTP CO 597 804 -o. 1216 21. 120 0.00950 5. 2085 

15 81 UMPG FTPCO 459 638 -1 .0629 24.692 0.04405 6.0686 

16 82 UMPG FTPCO 12 16 0.3123 24.973 0.02966 1.7115 

17 75 UMPG FTPNOX 77 79 -2.1416 18.260 0.08407 4.4023 

18 76 UMPG FTPNOX 699 712 -0.2024 17.432 0.00056 5. 1332 

19 77 UMPG FTPNDX 1021 1270 -1.5465 19. 115 0.01587 5. 1770 

20 78 UMPG FTPNOX 1010 1264 -2.3144 2 1 . 155 0.02502 5.7103 

21 79 UMPG FTPNOX 730 970 -o. 1435 19.275 0.0 5.3270 

22 80 UMPG FTPNOX 597 804 0.6743 20.680 0.00004 5.2333 H 23 81 UMPG FTPNOX 459 638 2.2990 21. 075 0.01375 6. '.6C <l 

I 24 82 UMPG FTPNOX 12 16 5.2000 22.751 0.14608 1.6056 ..... 25 75 UMPG FEHC 53 79 -1.0659 15.033 0.00139 4.9253 N 26 76 UMPG FEHC 499 712 5.7056 16.028 0.06505 4.8766 

27 77 UMPG FEHC 602 1270 4.4349 16.414 0.03163 5.0628 

28 78 UMPG FEHC 654 1264 5.5106 17. 17 4 0.01904 5.5784 

29 79 UMPG FEHC 470 970 8.0557 18.405 0.05812 5.3372 

30 80 UMPG FEHC 399 804 17.4420 19.584 0.03709 5.2256 

31 81 UMPG FEHC 291 638 -8.3948 22.942 0.00524 6.0643 

32 82 UMPG FEHC 7 16 29.4920 23.741 0.40186 1. 1835 

33 75 UMPG FECO 53 79 -0.5268 15.413 0.01979 4.8798 

34 76 UMPG FECO 499 712 0.9041 16. 177 0.06846 4. 8677 

35 77 UMPG FECO 602 1270 0.2441 16.721 0.01049 5. 1178 

36 78 UMPG FECO 654 1264 0.4111 17.356 0.01789 5.5817 

37 79 UMPG FECO 470 970 0. 2103 19. 152 0.00535 5.4847 38 80 UMPG FECO 399 804 0.4229 20. 430 0.00198 5.3200 39 81 UMPG FECO 291 638 -0.8565 22.902 0.01522 6.0338 40 82 UMPG FECO 7 16 2.0213 24.569 0.08247 1. 4658 4 1 75 UMPG FENOX . 53 79 -0.2926 15.455 0.00311 4.9211 42 76 UMPG FENOX 499 712 0.3374 16.375 0.00331 5.0351 43 77 UMPG FENOX 602 1270 -0.5603 17. 900 0.00661 5. 1278 44 78 UMPG FENOX 654 1264 -0.4961 18.589 0.00356 5.6223 45 79 UMPG FENOX 470 970 0.8466 17. 929 0:01013 5.4698 46 80 UMPG FENOX 399 804 0. 1203 20.442 0.00024 5.3246 47 81 llMPG FENOX 291 638 1. 8915 2 1 . 572 0.01386 6.0380 48 82 UMPG FENOX 7 16 11. 5760 21. 875 0.69915 0.8393 49 75 HMPG FTPHC 53 79 0.7283 21. 366 0.00001 7.4875 50 76 ilillili'G ~~c ~9 ...m.112 ...... 67 ~5()-?')~:143 
Table IV. B-1 (can't) 

Two Variable Linear R.~&ressio'n. Results Us inf; Data Frqm the EPA Laboi;atory Stratified by Model Year 

CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

--------------------------------------------------------- FILE: CERT /EPA FEB. 27, 198 1 PAGE NO. 2 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE TAYR xx xx xx xx xxxx xxxx xx xx xx xx xx xx DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CONST R-SQ STD. ERR <-------REMARKS -------

51 77 HMPG FTPHC 603 1270 4.8582 2 1 . 381 0.04336 7.0975 

52 78 HMPG FTPHC 655 1264 4.2126 22.748 0.02490 7. 1732 

53 79 HMPG FTPHC 470 910 2. 2011 25.750 0.00658 7.5346 

54 80 HMPG FTPHC 399 804 5.0576 27.689 0.00442 7.0481 

55 81 HMPG FTPHC 291 638 -16.1820 34.987 0.02569 7.9703 

56 82 HMPG FTPHC 1 16 9.9569 37.413 0.04686 3.2960 

57 75 HMPG FTPCO 53 79 -0.1755 22.365 0.00685 7.4619 

58 76 HMPG FTPCO 499 712 0.5201 21 . 228 0.05271 7. 1089 

59 77 HMPG FTPCO 603 1270 0.3837 23.726 0.00032 7.2553 

60 78 HMPG FTPCO 655 1264 0.6078 24.557 0.00098 7.2606 

61 79 HMPG FTPCO 470 970 -0.3200 28.850 0.02317 7.4715 

62 80 HMPG FTPCO 399 804 -0.7609 31 .070 0.02691 6.9680 

63 81 HMPG FTPCO 291 638 - 1 . 1599 33.956 0.02918 7.9560 

64 82 HMPG FTPCO 1 16 -1. 8525 42.504 0.20755 3.0054 

65 75 HMPG FTPNOX 53 79 -2.0638 24.957 0. 02988 7.3748 

66 76 HMPG FTPNOX 499 712 -o. 1682 24.552 0.00016 7.3034 

67 11 HMPG FTPNOX 603 1270 -2.2369 27.089 0.01323 7:2083 

68 78 HMPG FTPNOX 655 1264 -2.7885 28.860 0. 02 119 1. 1868 

69 79 HMPG FTPNOX 470 970 -0.8743 28.046 0.00178 7.5528 

70 80 HMPG FTPNOX 399 804· -0.1912 29.146 0.00019 7.0631 

7 1 8 1 HMPG FTPNOX 291 638 1. 3128 30. 796 0.00262 8.0641 

72 82 HMPG FTPNOX 7 16 -10.5250 44.478 0. 16395 3.0869 

~ 73 75 HMPG FEHC 55 79 1. 1857 21.101 0.00075 7.3875 

74 76 HMPG FEHC 512 712 9.2636 22. 401 0.08063 7 .0145 

I 75 77 HMPG FEHC 851 1270 9.5841 23.340 0.06417 7.3233 .... 

w 76 78 HMPG FEHC 908 1264 9.5990 24.450 0.03365 7.3608 

77 79 HMPG FEHC 710 970 12.1710 25.411 0.06635 7.0808 

78 80 HMPG FEHC 606 804 17.8260 28.259 0.02318 1. 1825 

79 8 1 flMPG FEHC 470 638 -9.3569 32.298 0.00386 7.7928 

80 82 HMPG FEHC 1 1 16 32.7580 38.221 0.05394 4.0747 

8 1 75 HMPG FEGO 55 79 -0.2885 21. 589 0.00257 7.3807 

82 76 HMPG FECO 512 712 1. 4175 22.707 0.07868 7.0220 

83 77 HMPG FECO 851 1270 0.3728 24. 178 0. 01098 7.5286 

84 78 HMPG FECO 908 1264 0.6196 24.848 0.02264 7.4026 

85 79 HMPG FECO 710 970 O. 181G 26.621 0. 00221 7.3200 

86 80 HMPG FECO 606 804 -0.2046 29.320 0.0 7.2672 

87 81 HMPG FECO 470 638 -1 .0284 32 .

0

322 0.01693 7.7415 

88 82 HMPG FEGO 1 1 16 8.2762 38.293 0.19722 3.7535 

89 75 HMPG FENOX 55 79 -0.2169 21. 729 0.00075 7.3874 

90 76 HMPG l'ENOX 512 712 0.7796 22.458 0.00846 7.2846 

91 77 HMPG FENOX 851 1270 -0.2460 24.980 0.00060 7.5679 

92 78 HMPG FENOX 908 1264 -0.7263 25.584 0.00004 1. 4877 

93 79 HMPG FENOX 710 970 1.5880 24. 176 0.02130 7.2496 

94 80 HMPG FENOX 606 804 0.3283 28.931 0.00095 7.2638 

95· 81 HMPG FENOX 470 638 2. 1895 30.725 0.01028 7.7677 

96 82 HMPG FENOX 1 1 16 19.5270 34.413 0.26174 3.5995 

97 75 CMPG FTPHC 53 79 -0.8800 17.667 0.00202 5.7843 

98 76 CMPG FTPHC 499 712 4.5425 16.897 0.06662 5.5949 

99 11 CMPG FTPHC 603 1270 4.0372 17.363 0.04617 5. 7076 

100 78 CMPG FTPHC 655 1264 3.3158 18.617 0.02116 6. 1368 
Toole lV. rl--1 tcnn t) 

Two Variab1e Linear Regression Resu1ts Using Data From the EPA Laboratory Stratified by Mode] Year 

CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

------------~--------------------------------------------

FILE: CERT /EPA FEB. 27, 1981 PAGE NO. 3 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE TAYR xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xxxx DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE SIZE COEFF CONST R-SQ STD. ERR <-------REMARKS --------> 

101 79 CMPG FTPHC 470 970 1. 7048 21.253 0.00592 6. 1583 

102 80 CMPG FTPHC 399 804 2.9416 22.876 0.00217 5.8601 

103 81 CMPG FTPHC 291 638 -18.0520 29.567 0.04611 6.5661 

104 82 CMPG FTPHC 7 16 12.2850 27.499 0.23732 1 . 6164 

105 75 CMPG FTP CO 53 79 -0.2475 18.561 0.02276 5.7239 

106 76 CMPG FTP CO 499 712 0.3728 17.542 0.04309 5.6650 

107 77 CMPG FTP CO 603 1270 0. 4982 19.208 0.00084 5.8416 

108 78 CMPG FTPCO 655 1264 0.3507 20. 128 0.00045 6.2014 

109 79 CMPG FTP CO 470 970 -0.2609 23.735 0.02306 6. 1049 

110 80 CMPG FTPCO 399 804 -0. 7270 25.641 0.03562 5.7610 

1 1 1 81 CMPG FTPCO 291 638 -1. 1704 28. 164 0.04285 6. 5773 

1 12 82 CMPG FTPCO 7 16 -0.8932 29.846 0.00161 1. 8494 

113 75 CMPG FTPNDX 53 79 - 1 . 8013 20.307 0.03807 5.6789 

114 76 CMPG FTPNDX 499 712 -0.3706 19.768 0.00001 5. 7911 

115 77 CMPG FTPNOX 603 1270 - 1 . 6855 2 1 . 863 0. 01 159 5.8101 

116 78 CMPG FTPNOX 655 12G4 -2.3144 23.595 ·0.02002 6. 1404 

117 79 CMPG FTPNOX 470 970 -0.2981 22.513 0.00031 6. 17 56 

118 BO CMPG FTPNOX 399 804 -0.4040 24.048 0.00123 5.B629 

119 81 CMPG FTPNDX 291 638 1. 5035 24.868 0.00495 6.7062 

120 82 CMPG FTPNOX 7 16 0.8689 29.249 0.00372 1. 8474 

12 1 75 CMPG FEHC 53 79 -0.3822 17.26B 0.00013 5.7B9B 

122 76 CMPG FEHC 499 712 6.9418 18.356 0.07303 5.5756 

123 77 CMPG FEHC 602 1270 5.5638 1B.783 0.03B54 5. 733~ .... ~24 78 CMPG FEHC 654 1264 6.7633 19.656 0.02366 6. 1269 

I 125 79 CMPG FEHC 470 970 9.6356 20.956 0.06592 5.9695 ~126 80 CMPG FEHC 399 804 17.7050 22.586 0.03149 5.7734 

127 B1 CMPG FEHC 291 E38 - 10. 5730 26.353 0.00681 6.7000 

128 82 CMPG FEHC 7 16 27~95BO 28.695 0.24686 1. 6062 

129 75 CMPG FECO 53 79 -0.4927 17.725 0.01254 5.7537 

130 76 CMPG FECO 499 712 1 . 0796 1B.558 0.07406 5.5726 

131 77 CMPG FECO 602 1270 0.2655 19. 2 11 0.00961 5.6196 

132 78 CMPG FECO 654 1264 0.4461 19.935 0.01738 6. 1466 

133 79 CMPG FECO 470 970 0.2196 21. 883 0.00462 6. 1623 

134 BO CMPG FECO 399 804 0.3307 23.481 0.00100 5.B635 

135 81 CMPG FECO 291 638 -1.0222 26.275 0.01773 6.6630 

136 82 CMPG FECO 7 16 1. 4628 29.529 0.02952 1.B233 

137 75 CMPG FENOX .53 79 -0.2959 17. 809 0.00230 5.7B35 

138 76 CMPG FENOX 499 712 0.4637 18.65B 0,00474 5.7774 

139 77 CMPG FENOX 602 1270 -0.5462 20.390 0.00486 5.8335 

140 78 CMPG FENDX 654 1264 -0.4346 21 .095 0.00226 6. 1937 

14 1 79 CMPG FENDX 470 970 0.9950 20.417 0.01175 6. 1402 

142 80 CMPG FENOX 399 804 0. 1765 23.:393 0.00043 5.B652 

143 B1 CMPG FENOX 291 638 1. 9572 24. 8:32 0.01214 6.6820 

144 B2 CMPG FENOX 7 16 10.B230 26 .96,1 0. ·11776 I . 4 123 
.. bl-. 1lm 

Two Variable Linear ·Regression Results Using Data From the Emission Factors 

()n-Use) Program Stratified by Model Year 

EMISSION FACTOR MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

FILE: 26140-EF(ALL) MAR. 02, 1981 PAGE NO. 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE MDYR XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE SIZE COEFF 

1 66 

2 67 

3 68 

4 69 

5 70 

6 71 

7 72 

8 73 

9 74 

10 75 

11 76 

12 77 

13 78 

14 79 

15 80 

16 66 

17 67 

18 68 

19 

20 

21 

22 

H 23 'f 24 f-' 25 

\J1 26 

27 

28 

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

4 1 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

49 

50 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

7 1 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

lJMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

LJMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

UMPG 

lJMPG 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPHC 

FTPCO 

FTPCO 

FTPCO 

fTPCO 

FTP CO 

FTP CO 

FTPCO 

FTPCO 

FTPCO 

FTPCO 

FTPCO 

FTPCO 

FTP CO 

FTP CO 

FTP CO 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FTPNOX 

FEHC 

FEHC 

FEHC 

FEHC 

FEllC 

102 

212 

235 

260 

294 

343 

391 

211 

63 

994 

2133 

1264 

834 

1448 

201 

102 

212 

235 

260 

294 

343 

391 

2 1 1 

63 

994 

2133 

1264 

834 

1448 

201 

102 

212 

235 

260 

294 

343 

391 

2 1 1 

63 

980 

2114 

1233 

834 

1448 

201 

3 

987 

1869 

1264 

834 

102 -0.2918 

212 -0.1442 

235 -o. 1293 

260 -0.1391 

294 -0. 2646 

343 -0.3583 

391 -0.2828 

2 11 

63 

994 

2133 

1264 

834 

1448 

201 

102 

212 

235 

294 

343 

391 

2 11 

63 

994 

2133 

1264 

834 

1448 

201 

102 

212 

235 

260 

294 

343 

391 

2 11 

63 

994 

2133 

1264 

834 

1448 

201 

63 

994 

2133 

1264 

834 

-0.4029 

-0.6192 

-0.2071 

-0.7144 

-0.2820 

-0.3606 

-0.3888 

-1.2391 

-0.2913 

-0.3144 

-0.2903 

_I"'\ ~C'C:J'"\ 

\J. JUJV 

-0.5069 

-0.4967 

-0.3908 

-0.3193 

-0.2076 

-0.2173 

-o. 1808 

··O. 4038 

-0.5933 

-0.3283 

-0.3402 

-0.4006· 

-0.1553 

-0.3354 

-0.3272 

-0.4140 

-0.8092 

-0.8385 

-0. 1970 

-0.6904 

-0.2195 

0.2542 

-0.3222 

-0.7974 

.-0. 5890 

-0.1929 

1. 8516 

-0.2441 

-0.6931 

-0.2297 

-0.3847 

CONST R-'SQ STD.ERR 

14.802 0.00746 3.0236 

15.212 0.06997 3.2868 

15. 130 0.06823 2.9439 

15.033 0.03326 3.0975 

15.780 0.07501 3.9029 

16.464 0.02524 4.9243 

15. 185 0.03304 4.7207 

15.325 0.04529 4.2832 

12.913 0.00030 4.3164 

14.771 0.03153 4'.'0396 

14.730 0~00102 3.7216 

16.553 0.02057 4.2895 

17.787 0.05827 4.4195 

18.269 0.00653 4.4996 

19.601 0.07153 3.2484 

17.412 0.21332 2.6918 

17.248 0.23857 2.9739 

16.395 o. 18895 2.7466 'c oc. ... IV, UJ""t 

17.743 

17.823 

16. 148 

15.447 

13.566 

15.007 

15.025 

17.071 

18.695 

18.379 

19.324 

14.656 

14.526 

15.735 

15.807 

16. 130 

18.263 

17.675 

14.424 

14. 471 

14.876 

14.559 

16.727 

18.622 

18.791 

19.261 

19. 102 

14.504 

15.029 

16. 130 

17.286 

r\ f nl"lCI"'\ V. 1.J'-VV 

o.22261 

0. 13749 

0.09519 

0.07490 

0.01825 

2.8308 

3.5780 

4.6321 

4.5665 

4.2163 

4. 2775 

0.04222 4.0172 

0.01855 3.6888 

0.05447 4.2146 

0.13132 4.2446 

0.02138 4.4659 

0.03827 3.3060 

0.00050 3.0341 

0.00681 3.3965 

0.05245 2.9688 

0. 0466 1 3. 0761 

0.03470 3.9870 

0.08123 4.7808 

0.09672 4.5627 

0.00490 4.3729 

0.03815 4.2339 

0. 00430 4. 1000 

0.00009 3.7321 

0.00828 4.3313 

0.05698 4.4225 

0.01509 4.4802 

0.00192 3.3680 

0.80572 0.7122 

0.00895 4.0827 

0.00019 3.7228 

0.00316 4.3274 

0.02289 4.5017 

<-------REMARKS --------> 
Table Ty. B-2 (ton',t) 

Two Variable Linear Regression Results Using Data From the Emission Factors 

(In-Use) Program Stratified by Model Year 

EMISSION FACTOR MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

----------------------------------------------------------- FILE: 26140-EF(ALL) MAR. 02, 1981 PAGE NO. 2 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE MDYR xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx OEP(Y) INO(X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CONST R-SQ STD.ERR <-:------REMARKS - - -

51 79 UMPG FEHC 1447 1448 0. 1417 17. 814 0.00025 4.5154 

52 80 UMPG FEHC 201 201 -1.7874 19.243 0.04419 3.2959 

53 74 UMPG FECO 3 63 1. 9628. 17.574 0.99530 0. 1445 

54 75 IJMPG FECO 963 994 -0.2447 14.642 0.01606 4. 1010 

55 76 IJMPG FECO 1828 2133 -o. 1301 15. 100 0.00358 3.7397 

56 77 UMPG FECO 1240 1264 -0.1500 16. 144 0.00263 4.3546 

57 78 IJMPG FECO 819 834 -0.2883 17.262 0.01232 4.5057 

58 79 UMPG FECO 1325 1448 -0.3354 18.233 0.01056 4.5880 

59 80 UMPG FECO 165 201 -0.4582 19.491 0.04126 3.3081 

60 74 UMPG FENOX 3 63 -3.7610 25.548 0.73873 1 . 0769 

61 75 UMPG FENOX 987 994 -o. 1383 14.752 0.00332 4.0942 

62 76 UMPG FENOX 1869 2133 -0.7454 15.231 0.00123 3.7209 

63 77 UMPG FENOX 1264 1264 -0.1192 16.291 0.00226 4.3294 

64 78 UMPG FENOX 834 834 -0.4624 18. 163 0.04446 4.4517 

65 79 UMPG FENOX 1448 1448 -0.1463 18 . 138 0.00175 4.5104 

66 80 lJMPG FENOX 201 201 0.2491 18. 683 0 .00469 3.3633 

67 74 HMPG FTPHC 3 63 2.6777 26.222 0. 89085 1. 1935 

68 75 HMPG FTPHC 987 994 -0.2417 20.840 0 02156 5.7453 

69 76 HMPG FTPHC 1869 2133 -0.2236 21 .. 312 0 .00526 5.2945 

H 70 77 HMPG FTPHC 1264 1264 -0.4066 23.550 0 .02135 G.0690 

<: 71 78 HMPG FTPHC 834 834 -0.5008 25.324 0.05433 6.3703 ~ 72 79 HMPG FTPHC . 1448 1448 -0.3570 25.616 0.00242 6.8081 °' 73 80 HMPG FTPHC 201 201 -1.6618 28.744 0.05895 4.8313 

74 74 HMPG FTP CO 3 63 3.0168 21. 960 0.92521 0.9880 

75 75 HMPG FTP CO 987 994 -0.2556 21 . 124 0.02929 5.7226 

76 76 HMPG FTPCO 1869 2133 -0.2842 21. 599 0.02188 5.2501 

77 77 HMPG FTPCO 1264 1264 -0.5214 24. 134 0.04533 5.9942 

78 78 HMPG FTPCO 834 834 -0.8199 26.574 0. 12121 6. 1409 

79 79 HMPG FTP CO 1448 1448 -o. 4065 25.883 0.01438 6.7672 

80 80 HMPG FTPCO 201 201 -0.4164 28.336 0.02627 4.9145 

81 74 HMPG FTPNOX 3 63 -8.9538 4 1 . 970 0.99640 0.2166 82 75 HMPG FTPNOX 973 994 -0.3802 21. 275 0.00641 5.8078 83 76 HMPG .FTPNOX 1850 2133 -0.2849 21. 709 0.00541 5.3060 84 77 HMPG FTPNOX 1233 1264 -0.6128 24. 103 0.01492 6. 1175 85 78 HMPG FTPNOX 834 834 - 1. 3355 26.942 0.07726 6.2926 86 79 HMPG FTPNOX 1448 1448 -0.9813 26.793 0.01837 6.7535 87 80 HMPG FTPNOX 201 201 -o. 6484 . 28.807 0.00994 4.9555 88 74 HMPG FEHC 3 63 3.3498 27.023 0.98589 0.4291 89 75 HMPG FEHC 987 994 -0.3849 20.567 0.01109 5.7760 90 76 HMPG FEHC 1869 2133 -0.3363 21. 098 0.00225 5.3026 91 77 HMPG FEHC 1264 1264 -0.4913 23.031 0.00721 6. 1127 92 78 HMPG FEHC 834 834 -0.6259 24.692 0.02929 6.4541 93 79 HMPG FEHC 144 7 1448 0. 2500 25. 163 0.00034 6.8168 94 80 HMPG FEHC 201 201 -2.7121 28.306 0.04662 4.8629 95 74 HMPG FECO 3 63 2.9064 25.247 0.74220 1 . 8342 96 75 HMPG FECO 963 994 -0.4289 20.841 0.02457 5.7862 97 76 HMPG FECO 1828 2133 -0.2940 21. 158 0.00897 5.3232 98 77 HMPG FECO 1240 1264 -0.3546 23.065 0.00732 6. 1556 99 78 HMPG FECO 819 834 -0.6501 24.837 0.03018 6.4327 100 79 HMPG FECO 1:)_25 __11_<18 -0.52770 _2_5~ 880 0.01381 ". 8912 
T..._ 1v.-..-2 ~',t) 

Two Variable Linear Regression Results Using Da ti-l From the Emission Fae tov;:; 

(In-Use) Program Stratified by Model Year 

EMISSION FACTOR MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

-------------------------------------------·---------------- FILE: 2614D-EF(ALL) MAR. 02, 1981 PAGE NO. 3 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE MDYR xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xxxx xx xx xx xx OEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CONST R-SQ STD. ERR <-------REMARKS ------· 

101 80 HMPG FECO 165 201 -0.7032 28.751 0.04442 4.8852 

102 74 HMPG FENOX 3 63 -7.4836 39.582 0.99474 0. 2620 

103 75 HMPG FENOX 987 994 -0.1622 20.781 0. 00228 5.8017 

104 76 HMPG FENOX 1869 2133 -0.9794 2 1 . 224 0.00104 5.3058 

105 77 HMPG FENOX 1264 1264 -0.2565 23.378 0.00524 6. 1187 

106 78 HMPG FENOX 834 834 -0.8178 26.279 0.06722 6.3267 

107 79 HMPG FENOX 1448 1448 -0.2986 25.809 0.00319 6.8055 

108 80 HMPG FENOX 201 201 -0.3762 27.992 0.00005 4.9802 

109 74 CMPG FTPHC 3 63 1 . 6364 2 1. 746 0.66758 1. 4703 

110 75 CMPG FTPHC 987 994 -0.2286 17 .013 0.02976 4.6048 

1 1 1 76 CMPG FTPHC 1869 2133 -0.1913 17.502 0.00602 4.2344 

1 12 77 CMPG FTPHC 1264 1264 -0.3274 19.083 0.02135 4.8863 

1 13 78 CMPG FTPHC 834 834 -0.4125 20.501 0.05842 5.0488 

114 79 CMPG FTPHC 1448 1448 -0.3919 20.942 0.00488 5.2497 

115 80 CMPG FTPHC 201 201 - 1 . 3962 22.840 0.07000 3.7030 

116 74 CMPG FTP CO 3 63 2.2141 18. 191 1 .00000 0. 2005 

1 17 75 CMPG FTP CO 987 994 -0.2401 17.276 0.03990 4.5806 

118 76 CMPG FTPCO 1869 2133 -0.2562 17.780 0.02779 4. 1878 

1 19 77 CMPG FTPCO 1264 1264 -0.450!) 19.637 /"'\ /'"\CI'\ '"l/'"\ A nr"\n A 

V. V.J.t:..JV "'t .UVU""t 

120 78 CMPG FTPCO 834 834 -0.6791 2 1 . 54 2 0. 13181 4.8480 

12 1 79 CMPG FTPCO 1448 1448 -0.3629 21. 104 0.01923 5.2117 

122 80 CMPG FTPCO 201 201 -0.3717 22.518 0.03521 3. 7717 

H123 74 CMPG FTPNOX 3 63 -6. 1825 32.343 0.95331 0. 5511 

<:124 75 CMPG FTPNOX 973 994 -0.2950 17.262 0.00597 4.6692 I t-'125 76 CMPG FTPNOX 1850 2133 -0.1888 17.694 0.00371 4.2486 

°'126 77 CMPG FTPNOX 1233 1264 -0.4187 19.376 0.01077 4.9315 

127 78 CMPG FTPNOX 834 834 -0.9788 21. 590 0.06577 5.0290 

128 79 CMPG FTPNOX 1448 1448 -0.7179 21. 665 0.01649 5.2190 

129 80 CMPG FTPNOX 201 201 -0.3536 22.638 0.00497 3.8303 

130 74 CMPG FEHC 3 63 2.3516 21. 992 0.97502 0.4031 

131 75 CMPG FEHC 987 994 -0.2931 16.700 0.00993 4.6516 

132 76 CMPG FEHC 1869 2133 -o. 1560 17. 245 0.00076 4.2456 

133 77 CMPG FEHC 1264 1264 -0.3147 18.620 0.00457 4.9280 

134 78 CMPG FEHC 834 834 -0.4677 19.947 0.02593 5. 1351 

135 79 CMPG FEHC 1447 1448 0. 1745 20.474 0.00028 5.2636 

136 80 CMPG FEHC 201 201 -2. 1030 22. 448 0.04716 3.7482 

137 74 CMPG FECO 3 63 2.3047 20. 340 0.93649 0.6427 

138 75 CMPG FECO 963 994 -0.3064 16.882 0.01936 4.6684 

139 76 CMPG FECO 1828 2133 -0.1851 17.314 0.00556 4.2639 

140 77 CMPG FECO 1240 1264 -0.2166 18.641 0.00422 4.9607 

14 1 78 CMPG FECO 819 834 -0.4078 19.976 0.01887 5. 1330 

142 79 CMPG FECO 1325 1448 -0.4188 20.992 0.01215 5.3373 

143 80 CMPG FECO 165 201 -0.5400 22.759 0.04432 3.7555 

144 74 CMPG FENOX 3 63 -4.9750 30. 440 0.88217 0.8754 

145 75 CMPG FENOX 987- 994 -o. 1506 16.948 0.00303 4.6678 

146 76 CMPG FENOX 1869 2133 -0.8366 17.427 0.00119 4.2447 

147 71 CMPG FENOX 1264 1264 -o. 1642 18.842 0.00331 4 . 93 11 

148 78 CMPG FENOX 834 834 -0.5806 21. 058 0. 053"10 5.0614 

149 79 CMPG FENOX 1448 1448 -0.1941 20.899 0.00226 5.2566 

150 80 CMPG F E'NOX 201 201 o. 1526 21. 970 0.00136 3.8373 
Two Variable Lineac l<eg cession Results Using Ila ta F com Vehicle Manufacturecs Stratified 

by· Hodel Year 

CERTIFICATiON MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

----------T----------------------------------------------

FILE: CERT /MFR FEB. 27, 1981 PAGE NO. 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE TAYR xx xx xx xx xx xx xxxx xxxx xx xx xx xx DEP(Y) IND(X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CONST R-SQ STD.ERR <-------REMARKS ------

75 UMPG FTPHC 3 3 0.5091 17. 557 o. 16434 9. 3332 

2 76 UMPG FTPHC 5 7 5.5321 16.475 0.51724 2. 1049 

3 77 UMPG FTPHC 824 966 4.0976 14.846 0.04890 5.4831 

4 78 UMPG FTPHC 1204 1347 2.7378 16.611 0.01463 5.5696 

5 79 UMPG FTPHC 1544 1690 0. 1996 18.582 0.00012 4.8273 

6 80 UMPG FTPHC 1470 1567 -10. 2590 22.521 0.02502 4.9152 

7 81 UMPG FTPHC 4182 4290 -13.4490 23.263 0.05858 5.6307 

8 82 UMPG FTPHC p54 555 -23.2490 25.998 o. 17516 4.2765 

9 75 UMPG FTPCO 3 3 1.2363 8.862 0.97871 1.4897 

10 76 UMPG FTP CO 5 7 0. 6078 16.683 0.85145 1. 1676 

1 1 77 UMPG FTPCO 824 966 0.9042 16.521 0.00370 5. 6119 

12 78 UMPG F,TPCO 1204 1347 0.3553 17.761 0.00049. 5.6094 

13 79 UMPG FTP CO 1544 1690 -o. 1475 19.634 0.01215 4.7982 

14 80 UMPG FTPCO 1470 1567 -0.5664 21. 693 0.02554 4.9138 

15 81 UMPG FTP CO 4182 4290 -0.4487 20.968 0.02513 5.7299 

16 82 UMPG FTPCO 554 555 -0.3299 20.872 0.00013 4. 7085 

17 75 UMPG FTPNOX 3 3 -50.2540 156.220 0.82536 4. :.!667 

18 76 UMPG FTPNOX 5 7 1. 5813 16.494 o. 18700 2.7315 

19 77 UMPG FTPNOX 824 966 -0.2613 17.461 0.00030 5.6215 

20 78 UMPG FTPNOX 1204 1347 0. 6058 17.141 0.00140 5.6069 

21 79 UMPG FTPNOX 1544 1690 1. 1992 17.063 0.00972 4.8041 

22 BO UMPG FTPNOX 1470 1567 -0.2877 20. 4 11 0.00082 4.9758 

H23 81 UMPG FTPNOX 4182 4290 0.3005 19.644 0.00023 5.8026 f 24 82 UMPG FTPNOX 554 555 5.7161 16.636 0.05898 4.5678 I-' 00 25 75 UMPG FEHC 3 3 31. 0530 7.279 0.94910 2.3035 

26 76 UMPG FEHC 4 7 11.5860 17. 398 0. 79957 1. 4189 

27 77 UMPG FEHC 572 966 7.5231 16. 130 0.04667 5.7342 

28 78 UMPG FEHC 908 1347 7.0138 17. 124 0.02609 5.4889 

29 79 UMPG FEHC 1298 1690 3.6784 18.292 0.01117-4.6793 

30 80 UMPG FEHC 1304 1567 2.5578 20.021 0.00053 4.9724 

31 81 UMPG FEHC 972 4290 -0.5882 22.307 0.00002 6. 1982 

32 82 UMPG FEHC 1 1 555 42.7210 23.831 o. 11674 1. 6750 33 75 UMPG FECO 3 3 3.0276 11 . 02 1 0.89052 3.3782 3~ 76 UMPG FECO 4 7 1. 8974 17.826 0.90808 0. 9609,,' 35 77 UMPG FECO 572 966 0.2698 16.763 0.00808 5.8491 36 78 UMPG FECO 908 1347 0.5154 17.300 0.02750 5.4849 37 79 UMPG FECO 1298 1690 0. 7666 18.622 0.00115 4.7029 38 80 UMPG FECO 1304 1567 -0.2686 20. 155 0.00001 4.9736 39 81 UMPG FECO 972 4290 -0.5237 22.589 0.00977 6. 1679 40 82 UMPG FECO 1 1 555 0.3393 24.939 0.00309 1. 7795 41 75 UMPG FENOX 3 3 -13.4960 57.533 o. 0406510. ooo,:· 42 76 UMPG FENOX 4 7 1.1218 17.522 0. 18099 2.8683 43 77 UMPG FENOX 572 966 -o. 4107 17. 836 0.00342 5.8628 44 78 UMPG FENOX 908 1347 0.6088 16.876 0.00600 5.5452 45 79 UMPG FENOX 1298 1690 1. 7 137 16.050 0.05160 4.5826 46 80 UMPG FENOX 1304 1567 0.7345 19.284 0.00916 4.9508 47 81 UMPG FENOX 972 4290 2.8403 20.990 0.02200 6. 1297 48 82 UMPG FENOX 1 1 555 7.4766 23. 077 0.23127 1. 5626 49 75 llMPG FTPHC 3 3 0.9115 26.729 0.1697316.3910 50 76 HMPG FTPHC 4 7 4.2570 25.761 0. 19994 3.7031 
Two Variable Linear Regression Results Using Data From Vehicle Manufacturers Stratified by Model Year 

CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

---------------------------------------------------------

FILE: CERT /MFR FEB. 27, 1981 PAGE NO. 2 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE TAYR xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx DEP(Y) IND( X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CONST R-SQ STD. ERR <-------REMARKS - - - . 

51 77 HMPG FTPHC 576 966 6.9677 20.365 0.06522 :7.6069 

52 78 HMPG FTPHC 917 1347 5. 1777 22.782 0.03257 6.9085 

53 79 HMPG FTPHC 1300 1690 1.5365 25.616 0.00412 6.3242 

54 80 HMPG FTPHC 1304 1567 -11.8460 3 1 . 395 0.02055 6.3953 

55 81 HMPG FTPHC 972 4290 -19.2640 35. 417 0.03394 7.7846 

56 82 HMPG FTPHC 1 1 555 27.9560 34.835 0.22443 3.4589 

57 75 HMPG FTPCO 3 3 2. 1806 11. 450 0.98075 2.4960 

58 76 HMPG FTPCO 4 7 0.6881 24.856 0.82058 1.7536 

59 77 HMPG FTPCO 576 966 o. 1606 23.247 0.00505 7.8479 

60 78 HMPG FTPCO 917 1347 o. 7640 24.886 0.00146 7 .0187 

61 79 HMPG FTPCO 1300 1690 -0.1737 27.489 0.00902 6.3086 

62 80 HMPG FTPCO 1304 1567 -0.5719 30.227 0.01573 6. 4110 

63 81 HMPG FTPCO 972 4290 - 1. 2997 34 .012 0.03574 7.7774 

64 82 HMPG FTPCO I 1 555 0. 3409 39.000 0.00698 3.9139 

65 75 HMPG FTPNOX 3 3 -88.2490 270.310 0.81984 7.6356 

66 76 HMPG FTPNOX 4 7 0.7534 26.970 0.03382 4.0694 

67 77 HMPG FTPNOX 576 966 -0.2558 24.630 0.00014 7.8672 

68 78 HMPG FTPNOX 917 1347 0. 4220 24.775 0.00042 7.0223 

69 79 HMPG FTPNOX 1300 1690 0.9827 25.074 0.00402 6.3245 

70 80 HMPG C'Tot..1nv 

t '. ,,. .... ,, 1304 1567 -0.5408 29. 195 0.00171 6.4565 

71 81 HMPG FTPNOX 972 4290 1. 3180 30.589 0.00206 7.9121 

72 82 HMPG FTPNOX 1 1 555 1. 0492 39. 114 0.00101 3.9256 

H 73 75 HMPG FEHG 3 3 54.6200 8.719 0.94587 4.1853 

<: 74 76 HMPG FEHC 6 7 -12. 1070 30.974 0. 14297 6 .8969 

I 75 77 HMPG FEHG 714 966 7.7147 23. 143 0.03915 7 .5565 I-' 

l.O 76 78 HMPG FEHC 1051 1347 10. 1670 24.508 0.03307 7 .0089 

77 79 HMPG FEHC 1444 1690 5.5643 25.868 0.01374 6 . 4054 

78 80 HMPG FEHC 1400 1567 - 1 . 8986 28.702 0.00017 6.4205 

79 81 HMPG FEHC 1080 4290 0.5927 31. 310 0.00001 7.8609 

80 82 HMPG FEHC 12 555 93.5170 36.742 0.10735 3.6586 

8 1 75 HMPG FEGO 3 3 5.3479 15.236 0.89499 5. 8293 . 82 76 HMPG FECO 6 7 -1.3187 29.515 0.06231 7.2142 

83 77 HMPG FEGO 714 966 0. 1623 24.003 0.00305 7.6972 

84 78 HMPG FECO 1051 1347 0.6312 24.894 0.02445 7.0401 

85 79 HMPG FECO 1444 1690 -0.5253 26.569 0.00030 6.4489 

86 80 HMPG FECO 1400 1567 -0.6269 28.635 0.00003 6.4209 

87 81 HMPG FEGO 1080 4290 -0.8138 31. 825 0.01553 7.7997 

88 82 HMPG FECO 12 555 1 . 2315 38.928 0.00937 3.8541 

89 75 HMPG FENOX 3 3 -24.6130 99.566 0.0435617.5930 

90 76 HMPG FENOX 6 7 0. 1386 27.538 0.00025 7.4491 

91 77 HMPG FENOX 714 966 -0.2045 24.578 0.00048 7.7071 

92 78 HMPG FENOX 1051 1347 1.3593 23.398 0.01777 7.0641 

93 79 HMPG FENOX 1444 1691) 2.4570 22.678 0.05596 6.2668 

94 BO HMPG FENOX i400 1567 0. 8011 27.673 0.00665 6.3997 

95 81 HMPG FENOX 1080 4290 3.3975 29.799 0.01948 7.7841 

96 82 HMPG FENOX 12 555 7.2794 37.535 0.04605 3.7821 

97 75 CMPG FTP HG 3 3 0.6413 20. 767 0. 16658 11 . 6630 

98 76 GMPG FTPHC 4 7 4.5981 20.324 0.33446 2.8206 

99 77 GMPG FTPHG 576 966 5.6828 16.541 0.06240 6.3523 

100 78 CMPG FTPHC 917 1347 3.9208 18. 589 0.02490 6.0063 
Tao.Le I \t • l3,...J {con··t) 

Two Variabl.e ~~·nE!a;t; R,eg r: es s i~) μ Results Using Data 'From Vehicle Manufacturer$ Strattfied by Model Yt!ar 

CERTIFICATION MICRO DATABASE DATA REGRESSION RUNS SUMMARY 

--------------------------------------------------------- FILE! CERT /MFR FEB. 27, 19B1 PAGE NO. 3 

<------- CATEGORICAL VARIABLES -------> ACTUAL TOTAL 

CASE TAYR xx xx xxxx xxxx xxxx xx xx xxxx xxxx OEP(Y) lNO(X) SIZE SIZE COE FF CONST R-SO STD. ERR <-------REMARKS - --- -

101 79 CMPG FTPHC 1300 1690 0.B291 21. 079 0.00175 5.2374 

102 BO CMPG FTPHC 1304 1567 -11.4400 25.901 0.026B4 5.3B66 

103 B1 CMPG FTPHC 972 4290 -19.60BO 29.6B4 0.04799 6.6151 

104 B2 CMPG FTPHC 1 1 555 17. 3590 27.01B 0.2449B 2.0283 

105 75 CMPG FTPCO 3 3 1.5477 9.898 0.97957 I. 8261 

106 76 CMPG FTP CO 4 7 0.6074 20.047 0.91677 0.9975 

107 77 CMPG FTP CO 576 966 0. 1158 18.9BB 0.00378 6.5479 

10B 7B CMPG FTPCO 917 1347 0.5059 20. 228 O.OOOB5 6.0800 

109 79 CMPG FTP CO 1300 1690 -0.1251 22. 287 0.00684 5.2240 

110 80 CMPG FTPCO 1304 1567 -0.5820 24.857 0.02282 5.3978 

1 1 1 81 CMPG FTPCO 972 4290 -1.1774 27.95B 0.04003 6.6427 

112 B2 CMPG FTPCO 11 555 0.3191 29.3B9 0.01731 2.3140 

113 75 CMPG FTPNOX 3 3 -62.79BO 194.070 O.B2307 5.3740 

1 14 76 CMPG FTPNOX 4 7 1. 4783 20.370 0. 1B673 3. 1180 

1 15 77 CMPG FTPNOX 576 966 -0.743B 19.B22 0.00002 6.5602 

116 7B CMPG FTPNOX 917 1347 0.3314 20.0B2 0.00035 6.0B15 

117 79 CMPG FTPNOX 1300 1690 1.0099 20. 14 1 0.00620 5.2257 

1 1 B BO CMPG FTPNOX 1304 1567 -0.4021 23.641 0.00133 5.4568 

119 B 1 CMPG FTPNOX 972 4290 1 . 3B6 1 24.743 0. 00310 6.7693 

120 B2 CMPG FTPNOX 1 1 555 5.9561 26.806 0.09251 2.2237 

121 75 CMPG FEHC 3 3 3B.B300 7.934 0.94776 2.9200 ~122 76 CMPG FEHC 4 7 12.39BO 20. 230 0.76946 1 . 6601 

I 123 77 CMPG FEHC 572 966 B.B059 1B.52B 0.05102 6.4047 ~124 78 CMPG FEHC 908 1347 8. 1960 19.719 0.029B7 5.9831 

125 79 CMPG FEHC 1298 1690 4.3929 20.998 0.01282 5.2119 

126 80 CMPG FEHC 1304 1567 1. 207B 23. 133 0.00010 5.4601 

127 81 CMPG FEHC 972 4290 -0.3053 25.5BO 0.0 6.779B 

12B B2 CMPG FEHC 1 1 555 55.0210 28.452 0 112B8 2 . 19B6 

129 75 CMPG FECO 3 3 3.7926 12.594 O.B9239 4.1910 

130 76 CMPG FECO 4 7 . 2. 12 19 20.576 0.95431 0. 7390 

131 77 CMPG FECO 572 966 0.30B5 19.279 0.00B43 6.5469 

132 78 CMPG FECO 90B 1347 0.5490 19.9B1 0.02616 5.9946 

133 79 CMPG FECO 129B 1690 0.3629 21. 456 0.00021 5.2451 

134 BO CMPG FECO 1304 1567 -0.3753 23.206 0.00002 5.4604 

135 B 1 CMPG FECO 972 4290 -0.6275 25.941 0.01172 6.7399 

136 B2 CMPG FECO 11 555 1. 1443 29.636 0.02045 2.3103 

137 75 CMPG FENOX 3 3 - 17. 1350 71. 501 0.041B512.5060 

13B 76 CMPG FENOX 4 7 0.8853 21. 101 0.09473 3.2B96 

139 77 CMPG FENOX 572 966 -0.3B69 20.360 0.00242 6.5667 

140 7B CMPG FENOX 90B 1347 0.7642 19.345 0.00792 6.0504 

14 I 79 CMPG FENOX 1298 1690 1 . 98 13 18.421 0.05550 5.0980 

142 BO CMPG FENOX 1304 1567 0. 7800 22.278 0.00857 5. 4370 

14 3 81 CMPG FENOX 972 4290 3.0217 24. 197 0.02082 6.7089 

144 82 CMPG FENOX 1 1 555 6.9892 28. 178 0.11781 2. !9'.<5 
highway fuel economy for model year 1978, and composite fuel economy for 

197 8. These values of r-squared are: considered to represent very weak, if 

any, correlation. The six cases between 1966 and 1971 are consistent and 

could be further investigated; however, they are for vehicles that are so 

old that they are no longer of much importance. 

R-squared was over 0.100 (.175 was the actual value, see case number 8) once 

;or the 93 cases in the CERT/MFR data base. This case was urban fuel 

economy as the dependent variable and HC emissions from the FTP as the 

~ndependent variable for the 1982 model year. This can be found on table 

IV. B-3 line 8. TAYR corresponds to model year. 

Slopes of the Regression Lines 

The slopes of the regression lines for all ten cases for which r-squared 

exceeded 0.100 were all negative. 

Even though there was little or no correlation for the regression lines, the 

slopes of the other regression lines were investigated. The purpose of 

looking at the slopes was to see if there was any consistency in the signs 

of the slopes between the 3 data bases. The results are shown in table IV. 

B-4. There are two things of interest in this table. First, the in-use 

data base almost always shows negative slopes for the emissions/fuel economy 

relationships. Malfunctions and maladjustments could possibly explain the 

negative slopes for HC and CO. This speculation is not based on the results 

of an analysis, however. An explanation for a negative NOx slope could be 

the impact of vehicle weight on NOx and fuel economy. This was not 

confirmed and is also speculative. 

Second, there was some consistency between the CERT/EPA and CERT/MFR data 

bases in terms of the numbers of cases with positive slopes. 

IV·-21 
Slopes of the Regression Lines for 1981 and 1982 Model Year Vehicles 

The 1981 and 1982 model years are of particular interest in this study 

becaus~ 3-way catalyst technology is extensively used in these model years 

and because 3-way catalyst technology at this point in time appears to be 

the technology most vehicle manufacturers will use to meet emission 

requirements in the near future. 

It is sufficiently important to repeat that the correlation for the 

regression lines was very weak or non-existent; however, as can be seen from 

Table IV. B-5, the slopes of the regression lines for the 1981. model year 

are surprisingly consistent between the CERT/EPA and CERT/MFR data· bases. 

The slopes for the regressions of 1982 model year data are provided for the 

few cases for which slopes are available. 

Summary 

Stratification of the data bases by model year did not provide any real 

improvements in correlation between emissions and fuel economy. Consistent 

directional trends for the slopes of the regression lines between the 1981 

EPA and manufacturer data bases are evident. 

IV-22 
Table IV. B-4 

Direction of the Regression Lines for the Three Data Bases 

Stratified by Model Year 

Dependent Independent ----Data Base---- Number of Total Number 

Variable Variable CERT/ CERT/ Cases with of Cases 

EPA EF MFR + Slope 

UMPG FTPHC x 5 7 

x 0 15 

x 3 6 

UMPG FTP CO x 3 7 

x 0 15 

x 2 6 

UMPG FTPNOx x 2 7 

x 1 15 V' 4 6 

H 

<: UMPG FEHC x 5 7 

I 

N x 1 6 w x 4 5 

UMPG FECO x 5 7 

x 0 6 

x 3 5 

UMPG l!ENOx x 4 7 

x 1 6 

x 4 5 

HMPG FTPHC x 6 7 

x 0 6 

x 3 5 

HMPG FTP CO x 3 7 

x 0 6 

x 2 5 
Table IV. B-4 (con't) 

Direction of the Regression Lines for the Three Data Bases 

Stratified by Model Year 

Dependent Independent ----Data Base---- Number of Total Number 

Variable Variable CERT/ CERT/ Cases with of Cases 

EPA EF MFR + Slope 

HMPG FTPNOx x 1 7 

x 0 6 

x 3 5 

HMPG FEHC x 6 7 

x 1 6 

x 4 5 

HMPG FECO x 4 7 

x 0 6 H x 2 5 <: 

I 

N 

~ HMPG FEN Ox x 4 7 

x 0 6 

x 4 5 

CMPG · FTPHC x 5 7 

x 0 6 

x 3 5 

CMPG FTP CO x 3 7 

x 0 6 

x 2 5 

CMPG FTPNOx x 1 7 

x 0 6 

x 3 5 

CMPG FEHC x 5 7 

x 1 6 

x 4 5 
tj 

-I 

N 

Vl 

Dependent 

Variable 

CMPG 

CMPG 

Table IV. B-4 (con't) 

Direction of the Regression Lines for the Three Data Bases 

Stratified by Model Year 

Independent ----Data Base---- Number of 

Variable CERT/ CERT/ Cases with 

EPA EF MFR + Slope 

FECO x 5 

x 0 

x 3 

FEN Ox x 4 

x 1 

x 4 

Total Number 

of Cases 

7 

6 

5 

7 

6 

5 
Table IV. B-5 

Slopes of the Regression Lines for the 1981 & 1982 Model Year 

Dependent Independent ----Data Base----- ----Slope----

Variable Variable CERT/ CERT/ for '81 MY for '82 MY 

EPA EF MFR 

UMPG FTPHC x . - 9. 43 

x 

x -13.45 -23.25 

UMPG FTP CO x - 1.06 

x 

x - 0.45 - 0.33 

UMPG FTPNOx x 2.30 

x 

x o. 30 5.72 -l 

-::: 

I 

v UMPG FEHC x - 8.39 

J\ 

x 

x - 0.59 

UMPG FECO x - 0.86 

x 

x - 0.52 

UMPG FENOx x 1.89 

x 

x 2.84 

HMPG FTPHC x -16.18 

x 

x -19.26 
Table IV. B-5 (can't) 

Slopes of the Regression Lines for the 1981 & 1982 Model Year 

Dependent Independent ----Data Base----- ----Slope----

Variable Variable CERT/ CERT/ for '81 MY for '82 MY 

EPA EF MFR 

HMPG FTP CO x - 1.16 

x 

x - 1.30 

HMPG FTPNOx x 1. 31 

x 

x 1. 32 

HMPG FEHC x - 9.36 

x H 0.59 f x 

N 

-....J . HMPG FECO x - 1.03 

x 

x - o. 81 

HMPG FENOx x 2.19 

x 

x 3.40 

CMPG FTPHC x -18.05 

x 

x -19.61 
Table IV. B-5 (con' t) 

Slopes of the Regression Lines for the 1981 & 1982 Model Year 

Dependent Independent ----Data Base----- ----Slope----

Variable Variable CERT/ CERT/ for '81 MY for '82 MY 

EPA EF MFR 

CMPG FTP CO x - 1.17 

x 

x - 1.18 

CMPG FTPNOx x 1.50 

x 

x 1.39 

CMPG FEHC x -10.57 

H x 

<: x - 0.31 I 

N 

00 

CMPG FECO x - 1.02 

x 

x - 0.63 

CMPG FEN Ox x 1.96 

x 

x 3.02 
IV. c. Stepwise Backward Regression Analysis 

Stepwise backward regression analysis was investigated as another approach to 

see if there was any fuel economy/emissions relationship and if so, what its 

nature might be. 

The process basically involves starting out with a multiple linear regression 

of MPG as a function of several variables. Then the least important variable 

as determined by the partial correlation coefficient is dropped and the 

analysis repeated and the next least important variable dropped, and so on 

until all of the coefficients are at least Q.l. The process can be started 

with a large number of variables, the relatively more important variables can 

be identified and the less important ones discarded for further analysis. 

The independent variables that were chosen to start out the process were: 

N/V ratio, road load horsepower, displacement, weight, rated horsepower, and 

the six emission values. The dependent variables were the three fuel economy 

values. 

The 1981 CERT/EPA data base was analyzed as a unit, then stratified by manufacturer and transmission type. In contrast to the low values of the 

correlation coefficient found in cases using the single independent variables 

discussed earlier, the R-squared values obtained with this approach were 

substantially higher, typically in the 0.7 to 0.9 range. 

We must be aware that this procedure can indicate that a variable is 

statistically insignificant for any of several reasons which include: 

1. The variable may actually be virtually unrelated to fuel economy. 

2. The effects of the variable may be partially masked by one or 

more other variables. For instance, the effects of differences 

in rated horsepower may be obscured by related changes in comIV-29 
I 

pression ratio or displacement •. 

ratio could be hidden by axle 

Similarly, variations in N/V 

ratio differences. Appendix 8 

includes a discussion of.collinearity (i.e., to determine whether 

the variables are truly independent of one another). Emissions 

did not appear to be collinear to any other variable. 

3. The variable may strongly influence fuel economy; however, that 

influence may be hidden if the range (i.e. variations) of that 

variable is very small. For example, the following summary 

indicates that the least significant variable in determining the 

urban fuel economy for the 1981 Ford vehicles with manual transmissions was the reciprocal of the test weight (i.e. ETWMl). 

However, an examination of those test vehicles indicated that 

there were only two weight ranges. The 3000 to 3125 pound 

vehicles were offered with 140 and 200 c.r.D. engines, while the 

2375 to 2500 pound cars were offered only with a 98 c.r.D. 

engine. Similarly, ETWMl is also the least significant variable 

for Nissan's urban fuel economy, and, again, the maximum 

variation of the test weight is only 125 pounds within each basic 

engine. Thus, in both of those cases, a variable (i.e. ETWMl) 

was indicated to be the least significant when, in actuality, 

ETWMl is one of the most important variables in determining urban 

fuel economy. 

In reviewing the results of this analysis, it was determined that the HC and 

CO highway emissions (FEHC and FECO 

statistically insignificant variables, and 

respectively) 

thus could 

were consistently, 

be omitted when we 

perform a multiple linear regression of each of MPG , MPGh, and MPG as 

u c 

a function of the remaining variables. Results of those regressions (except 

those which were stratified by manufacturer) are in appendix 5. Compression 

ratio and axle ratio do not appear in these results because they were 

eliminated on the basis of partial correlation in earlier results. 

Summary tables that describe the results of the process are shown below. 

IV-30 
Table IV. C-1 

SUMNARY OF STEPWISE BACKWARD ANALYSIS 

FOR URBAN MPG FOR MODEL YEAR 1981 

Level of Order in which the variables 

Stratification: were dropped: 

All Data FEHC FECO DISP FTPHC FEN OX 

Conventional Automatic FEHC FTP CO FTPHC FTPNOX VDHP FECO FEN OX 

Trans. (CA) 

Conventional Manual FEHC FECO FENOX DISP VDHP 

Trans (CM) 

Lockup Auto. FEHC FTP CO FECO RTHP VDHP NSVR 

Trans. (LA) 

H 

<l All Chrysler FEN OX DISP FTPHC FTPNOX FEHC VDHP FECO 

I 

w 

I-' 

All For<l FTP CO FTPHC RTHP FEHC FECO 

All GM FTP CO FTPHC FECO FENOX VDHP FTPNOX NSVR 

All Honda FEHC DISP FTPHC FTPNOX ETHMl VDHP FECO FTP CO 

All Nissan ETWMl FECO FTPNOX DISP FEHC FTPHC VDHP 

All Toyota FEllC FTPNOX DISP RTHP VDHP FTP CO FTPHC FEN OX 

Ford/CA FEllC RTHP FTP CO VDllP NSVR 

GM/CA VDHP FECO FEHC NSVR 

Ford/CM ETH Ml FEHC 

GM/LA FEIIC RTHP VDHP FEN OX FECO FTP CO FTPHC 
Table IV. C-2 

SUMMARY OF STEPWISE BACKWARD ANALYSIS 

FOR HIGHWAY MPG FOR MODEL YEAR 1981 

Level of Order in which the variables 

Stratification: were dropped: 

All Data FECO FEHC FEN OX 

Coventional Automatic FEN OX FEHC FECO FTPHC FTPNOX FTP CO 

Trans. (CA) 

Conventionan Manual FEN OX FECO FEHC 

Trans (CM) 

Lockup Auto. RTHP FEHC FTP CO FECO FTPHC 

H 

<: Trans. (LA) I 

w 

N All Chrysler FTP CO DISP FEN OX FTPNOX FEHC VDHP FTPHC 

All Ford VDHP FEHC FTPHC FTP CO FECO 

All GM FECO FEN OX FTP CO FEHC FTPHC 

All Honda FEHC ETWMl FTPNOX FTPHC VDHP FECO FTP CO DISP 

All Nissan FEHC ETWMl FTPNOX FTPHC FECO DISP VDHP 

All Toyota FTPNOX FEHC ETWMl FTPHC 

Ford/CA FTPHC FTP CO FEHC FECO FEN OX 

GM/CA NSVR FTPNOX FEN OX DISP FEHC FECO FTP CO 

Ford/CM FEHC NSVR DISP FTP CO FECO FEN OX 

GM/LA FEHC RTHP FTP CO FECO FTPHC 
Table IV. C-3 

SUMMARY OF STEPWISE BACKWARD ANALYSIS 

FOR COHBINED MPG FOR MODEL YEAR 1981 

Level .of Order in which the variables 

Stratification: were dropped: 

All Data FECO VDHP FEHC FEN OX 

Conventional Automatic FEHC FEN OX FTPHC FTP CO FECO FTPNOX VDHP 

Trans. (CA) 

Conventional Manual FECO FEHC DISP VDHP FEN OX 

Trans. (CH) 

Lockup Auto. FEHC FECO FTP CO RTHP VDHP 

H Trans. (LA) <: 

I All u.; 

w Chrysler FTPNOX FENOX DISP FTP CO FEHC VDHP FTPHC 

All Ford FTPHC FTP CO RTHP FEHC FECO 

All GM FTP CO FECO VDHP FTPHC FENOX FTPNOX 

All Honda FEHC DISP ETWMl FTPNOX VDHP FTPHC 

All Nissan FTPNOX ETWMI FECO DISP FEHC FTPHC VDHP 

All Toyota RTHP FEHC FTPNOX DISP FTP CO 

Ford/CA FEHC FTPHC VDHP FTP CO FECO 

GM/CA FECO NSVR DISP FEN OX FEHC FTPNOX·- -

Ford/CM FEHC ETWMl DISP 

GM/LA RTHP FEHC FECO FTP CO FTPHC FEN OX 
IV. D. Residual Analysis 

Another analytical approach that was used was a residual analysis based on 

multiple independent variable regression equations. Briefly, the approach is 

as follows. Get a regression equation for MPG as a function of several 

different variables, but not emissions. Compute the residuals by using the 

equation to predict the actual data. The residuals are the differences 

between, or the. r::itios of, the predicted and actual MPG data. Plot and 

regress these residuals versus emissions to see if any relationships can be 

seen. In this way most of the fuel economy important variables can be 

"accounted for" and what is left can be explored to see if there is a residual 

fuel _economy/emissions relationship. The data base utilized here was the 

CERT/EPA base for the 1981 model year (less Diesels). 

The form of the basic multiple regression equation to use was considered 

next. Rather than specify just one form it was decided to use 3 forms since 

it was not known if the form of the basic MPG equation would influence the 

result. We looked for equations that were published and that had reasonable 

R2 values (R2 values of about 0.9 were considered desirable). Three 

equation forms were selected; they are called the Murrell 1975, Bascunana 

1979, and Cheng 1981 equations. 

The Murrell 1975 equation came from SAE paper 750958, entitled "Factors 

Affecting Fuel Economy" by J. 

variables: (CID x N/v-· 8 ), 

-1)/(C~R0. ). 

Dillard Murrell. 

ETW, (RTHP/ETW), 

The equation contains 5 

(RTHP/CID), and (CMPRo. 4 

The Bascunana 1979 equation came from SAE paper 790654 by Jose L. Bascunana, 

entitled "Derivation and Discussion of a Regression Model for Estimating the 

Fuel Economy of Automobiles". The 1979 Bascunana equation contains as 

independent variables: ETW, displacement, and N/V ratio. In contrast to many 

other equations, the 1979 Bascunana equation inv.olves a product of variables 

instead of a sum. 

IV-34 
The 1981 Cheng equation was developed in this study as· an adjunct to the 

stepwise backward regression analysis ::;tudy discussed in section IV. C of this 

report. 

The general functional forms of the equations are shown below. 

Equation 

1975 Murrell* 

1979 Bascunana* 

1981 Cheng 

Functional Forms of the MPG Equations 

Form 

MPG = A(CID x N/V)-0 •

8 . + B(ETW)-0 •

67 

+ C(RTHP/ETW) + D(RTHP/CID) 

+ E(CMPR0. 4 -l)/CMPR0. 4 + F 

MPG = A(EIW-l) + B(VDHP) + C(DISP) + D(RTHP) 

+ E(N/V) + F 

For the data bases that they were der·ived from with the specific constants 

listed in the references an estimate of the "goodness of fit" is shown below: 

R2 as an Indication of "Goodness of Fit" 

Equation (Type of MPG) R2 (original ref) 

1975 Murrell (urban) 0.89 

1975 Murrell (highway) 0.87 

1979 Bascunana (composite) 0.95 

1981 Cheng (urban) 0.90 

1981 Cheng (highway) 0.86 

1981 Cheng (composite) 0.90 

* Equivalent test weight (ETW) was substituted for inertia weight which was 

the original variable in the Murrell and Bascunana equations. 

IV-·35 
For the 1975 Murrell and the .1979 Bascunana equations it was thought 

inappropriate to use them with their originally determined coefficient 

values. Instead, the functional forms were kept the same and new 

coefficients were derived using the MY 1981 data base used in this report. 

The results are shown in the table below. 

Updated Coefficients Using MY 1981 Data Base 

1975 Murrell Eguation 

Coefficients 

Original Updated 

Coe ff. urban highway composite urban highway composite 

A 7,909 19,930 N.A. 7,501 29,878 14,989 

B 2,824 2,876 N .A. 5J64 3,956 5,602 

c -66.82 5.839 N.A. -47.36 227.2 36.28 

D 0.1224 -2.259 N.A. -5.025 -16.80 -10 .09 

E 34.76 39.37 N.A. 16.20 -1.843 -1. 700 

F -19.74 -25.24 N.A. -17.03 -10.69 -8.915 

R2 = 0.90 0.88 0.91 

1979 Bascunana Equation 

Coefficients 

Original Updated 

Coeff. urban highway composite urban highway composite 

A N.A. N.A. 37,246 141,482 959,401 436,918 

a N.A. N.A. -0.4653 -0.8659 -0.7840 -0.8831 

b N.A. N.A. -0 .4031 . -0.1889 -0.3301 -0.2323 

c N.A. N.A. -0.4150 -0.2403 -0.6450 -0.4086 

R2 = 0.90 0.88 o. 90 

IV-36 
1981 Cheng Equation 

Coefficients 

urban highway composite 

A. 70,077 80,599 77 ,444 

B. 0.2908 -0.4058 0.0458 

c. -0.0044 -0.0301 -0.0084 

D. -0.0291 -0.0271 -0.0366 

E. -0.1047· -0.4356 -0.2187 

F. 4.0439 34.546 13.560 

2 R = 0.90 0.86 o.9o 

Using the updated coefficients, and the original functional forms for all 3 

equations, a residual analysis was carried out. Two forms of residuals were 

studied, actual MPG minus predicted MPG, (called the delta-residual), and 

actual MPG divided by predicted MPG, (called the ratio-residual). The 

residuals were scatter plotted against the six emission variables. The 

initial stratification was based on all the 1981 data implying 108 scatter 

plots (3 fuel economy dependent variables x 3 equations x 2 residuals per 

dependent variable x 6 variables). The plots did not suggest any linear or 

other relationship between the residuals of fuel economy and emissions. 

Upon examining the results of the 108 plots, linear regressions were performed 

for all the plots, and all the r

2 terms were so small as to be 

insignificant. The regression results are presented in appendix 6. The 

largest of the r

2 values, 0.042, was for the ratio-residual of combined fuel 

economy (MPG ) regressed against urban NOx (FTPNOX). This result implies c 

that only 4 .2% of the variability ·in the percentage by which the actual MPG 

c 

differs from the MPG predicted by the 1979 Bascunana equation could be 

c 

explained as a linear function of the urban NOx; the remaining 95 .8% was not 

2 related to FTPNOX. Since most (58 out of 108) of the r values were less 

2 than 1% (the average r was only 1.1%), only a small proportion of the total 

variation of any of the 18 residuals can be explained by a linear function of 

the 6 emission variables. 

IV·-37 
Another way to consider this type of information is to forget residual 

2 analysis and use improvement in R and standard error as an indicators that 

' emissions do or do not relate to fuel economy. The following data illustrate 

multiple regressions using the Cheng equation with and without the six 

emissions as independent variables. 

Dependent. --Without Emissions-- --With Emissions-- -Change in:--

Standard Standard 

Variable R2 Error(SE) R2 Error(SE) R2 SE 

UMPG .898 1.760 .903 1.819 +.oos +.059 

HMPG .864 2.776 .867 2.879 +.003 +.103 

CMPG .897 2.064 .902 2.026 +.oos -.038 

These data indicate that inclusion or exclusion of the urban and highway 

emissions in the Cheng equation makes virtually no difference. It can be 

concluded that for the 1981 EPA certification data base, exhaust emissions 

have essentially no identifiable relationship to fuel economy after accounting 

for variability in fuel economy due to vehicle design parameters. This 

conclusion is restricted to the 1981 EPA certification data base due to 

somewhat limited ranges for emissions (these are expanded in section IV. H) 

and collinearity of variables in the Cheng equation (see appendix 8). 

IV-38 
Section IV. E. Subconfiguration - Matched Data Analysis 

Another analysis method was to restrict the study to the 1981 CERT/EPA c.'ata 

base and then stratify by the following ten (10) parameters: 

1. Manufacturer 

2. Engine Family 

3. Displacement 

4. Vehicle I.D. 

5. Transmission 

6. ETW 

7. Dynamometer Horsepower 

8. Axle Ratio 

9. N/V 

10. Compression Ratio 

The purpose of such a stratification was to identify, as closely as 

possible, the effect of engine calibration on emissions and fuel economy for 

each vehicle that was tested at the EPA laboratory in more than one 

configuration. Also this tended to eliminate test variability which was due 

to either differences among the test vehicles or to differences ·among the 

vehicle testing laboratories. The disadvantage of such a stratification was 

that only 27 such vehicles were identified, each of which was tested at EPA 

in at least two (2) versions. 

In examining the results the following relationships between the urban fuel 

economy (MPG ) and the regulated emissions were seen. 

u 

1. For FTPHC: 

a. MPG increased as FTPHC decreased, in 18 of the 27 cases, u 

IV-39 
b. MPG decreased as FTPHC decreased, in 8 of the 27 cases, and 

u 

c. MPG remained unchanged in one (1) of the 27 cases. 

u 

2. For FTPCO: 

a. MPG increased as FTPCO decreased, in 23 of the 27 cases, and 

u 

b. MPG decreased as FTPCO decreased, in four (4) of the 27 

u 

cases. 

3. For FTPNOX: 

a. MPG increased as FTPNOX decreased, in nine (9) if the 27 

u 

cases, and 

b. MPG decreased as FTPNOX decreased, in 18 of the 27 cases. 

u 

The following chart illustrates the seven (7) combinations of outcomes that 

we found in examining those 27 groups of data. 

As MPG 

u increases, the level of the corresponding emissions were 

observed to: 

Number of 

Occurrences FTPHC FTP CO FTPNOX 

Outcome 1 10 Decreases Decreases Increases 

Outcome 2 7 Decreases Decreases Decreases 

Outcome 3 5 Increases Decreases Increases 

Outcome 4 2 Increases Increases Increases 

Outcome 5 1 Increases Increases Decreases 

Outcome 6 1 Decreases Increases Increases 

Outcome 7 1 Unchanged Decreases Decreases 

IV-40 
Thus, from this rather limited set of data (shown in table IV. E-1), we can 

infer that decreasing the level of the FTPHC or FTPCO emissio:. 1.s is not 

usually detrimental to MPG • 

u 

But decreasing the level of FTPNOX emissions 

usually accompanies a decrease in MPG •· 

u 

IV-41 
&Ii 

fORO 

fORO 

fORO 

fORO 

FORD 

fORO 

fORO 

fORO 

fOl!O 

fORO 

fORO 

FORD 

fORO 

FORD 

ruRO 

fORO 

fORO 

FORD 

fORO 

FORD 

FORD 

GH 

GH 

GH 

GM 

GH 

GH 

GH 

JRT 

JRT 

JRT 

JRT 

JRT 

JRT 

lll"'------

IE2-l.6-f-441 

IE2-l.6-f-441 

lt<2-2.3-C-285 

IK2-2.3-C-285 

IK2-2.3-C-285 

1K2-2.3-C-285 

1K2-2.3-C-285 

IK2-2.3-G-286 

JK2-2.3-G-286 

IK2-2.3-G-286 

IK2-2.3-G-286 

IK2-2;3-G-286 

IZ2-2.3-C-290 

IZ2-2.3-C-290 

IZ2-2.3-C-290 

ISJ-4.2-F-345 

ISl-4.2-F-345 

IAl-s.8w-G-259 

IAl-5.8>1-G-259 

IAl-s.8w-G-259 

IAl-s.8w-G-259 

P02flB 

P0288 

C09023 

COB023 

COB023 

CA7403-A 

CA7403-A 

XJ52/l6 

XJ52/l6 

XJ52/15 

XJ52/ 15 

XJ52/l5 

XJ52/15 

SAAB 6M 

SAAB 668 

TOYOTA 81-FE-4 

TOYOTA 81-FE-4 

TOYOTA Bl-FE-17 

TOYOTA 81-fE-l 7 

TOYOTA Al-FE-13 

TOYOTA 81-fE-13 

v 

E 

B 

1 

3 

3 

3 

4 

5 

5 

0 

0 

1 

I 

I 

0 

1 

1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

1 

2 

I 

I 

2 

0 

2 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

I 

1 

2 

0 

1 

2 

3 

0 

1 

C C B f 

Y R 8 I COHP. 

lllltif CU.Se L a L 1 B!llQ 

6.4 98.0 4 

6.4 98,0 4 

10.4 140,0 4 

10.4 140.0 4 

10.4 140.0 4 

10.4 140.0 4 

10.4 140,0 4 

10.4 140.0 4 

10.4 140,0 4 

10.4 140,0 4 

I0.4 140,0 4 

10.4 140,0 4 

tl.9 140,0 4 

8.9 140,0 4 

8.9 140,0 4 

2 N 8.8 

2 N 8,8 

2 N 9,0 2 N 9,0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N 9.0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N. 9,0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N 9,0 

11.0 255.0 8 2 N 8.2 

11.0 2S5,0 8 2 N 8,2 

12.6 3Sl.O 8 2 N 

12.6 3Sl.O 8 2 N 

12.6 3Sl.O 8 2 N 

12.6 JSl,O 8 2 N 

18:~ ~~1:8 ~ I ~ ~ 

I~:~ ~~§:8 8 l ~ ~ 

B.J 

8.3 

8.3 

8.3 

B:~ 

8.3 

8.3 

10.J 268.S 8 

10.J 268,5 8 

I0.3 268,S 8 

2 N 8.3 

2 N 8,3 

2 N 8,3 

14.S 367.0 8 0 0 y 8.2 

14.S 367,0 8 0 O Y 8.2 

11.3 2SB.O 6 0 0 y 8.1 

lJ.3 2se.o 6 0 0 y 8.1 

11.3 2SB.O 6 0 0 y 8.1 

11.3 2S8.0 6 0 0 y 8.1 

11.3 2Stl,O 6 0 O Y 8.1 

11.J 2s0.o 6 o o y e.1 

9.2 121.1 4 0 0 y 9.2 121.1 4 0 0 y 7.2 

7,2 

7,8 88,6 4 2 N 

7.8 88.6 4 2 N 

9,0 

9,0 

10.2 108.0 4 

10.2 108,0 4 

11.s 144,4 4 

11.s 144,4 4 

2 N 9.0 2 N 9.0 

2 N 9,0 

2 N 9.0 

Table IV. E-1 

T EMISSION 

AXLE R CONTROL 

B.Allil tU..'l tL SXSIEtL---

~.S9 43.0 H4 EGR;PHP,OX01REO 

3.S9 4),0 H4 EGR1PMP,OX01REO 

3.08 43.0 H4 EGR1PHP10XQ,JCL J.08 43.0 H4 EGR1PMP10XO•JCL 

3.08 43.0 H4 EGR.PHP.oxo.JCL 

J,08 43.0 H4 EGR,PHP1DX013CL 

3.08 43,0 H4 EGR1PHP.oxo.JCL 

J.08 44.0 H4 EGR.PHP.oxo.JCL 

J.08 44.0 H4 EGR.PMP,OX01JCL 

J.08 44.0 H4 EGR1PHP,OX013CL 

J.OB 44.0 H4 EGR1PHP.oxO.JCL 

3.08 44.0 H4 EGR.PHP.oxo.3CL 

J.4S 37.0 HS EGR1PMP.oxn 

J,4S 37,0 HS EGR1PHP10XO 

J.4S 37.0 HS EGR1PHP10XO 

J.08 28.0 L4 EGR1PHP.oxo.REO 

J.08 28.0 L4 EGR.PHP,oxo.REO 

2.73 23.0 L4 EGR,PHPoOX01JCL 

2.73 23.0 L4 EGR1PHP,QX00JCL 

2.73 23.0 L4 EGR.PHP.oxo.JCL 

2.73 23,0 L4 EGR1PHPoOX003CL 

2 •• 441 32 •• 8 LL) fGR.PHP,oxo.JCL 2 Jc 8 3 EGRoPHPoOXOo3CL 

2.41 30.2 LJ EGR0PHP10X0.3CL 

2.41 30.2 L3 EGR.PHP.oxo.3CL 

2.41 30.2 L3 EGR1PHP.oxo.3CL 

3.08 38.2 A3 EGR•PHP10XO,JCL 

3.08 38.2 Al EGR,PHP10XO,JCL 

3.07 40.6 Al JCL 

3.07 40.6 AJ 3Cl 

3.07 40.6 A) PHP13CL 

J,07 40,6 A3 PHP,3CL 

3.07 40,6 Al PHP,JCL 

3,07 40,6 A3 PHP1JCL 

J,89 43.7 HS EGR13CL 

3,99 43,7 MS EGR,JCL 

3.31 Sl.7 H4 EGR.PLS.oxo 

J,Jl 51,7 H4 EGR,PLSoOXO 

3.73 SS.6 Al EGR1PHP03CL•OTR 

3.73 S5,6 AJ EGR,PMP,JCLoOTR 

3.S8 34.S A4 EGR,PHPo)WY•OTR 

3.S8 34.5 A4 EGR,PHPoJWY,OTR 

80SJ48 2J7S 21,9 0.260 2.220 o.s20 

806864 237S 27.3 0.294 2.750 0.570 

806678 312S 21.J 

806574 312S 21.4 

807680 3125 21,4 

807366 312S 2~.1 

8074SJ 312S 22.2 

o.j~1 l.220 o.s10 

0.426 3.970 O.S50 

0.206 2.620 o.470 

o.Jsl 2.s10 o.760 

0.269 1.750 0.650 

805808 31"5 22.9 o.28t1 3.600 o.eso 805901 312S 23.0 0.372 3.930 0,900 

806116 3125 23,3 0.326 2.180 1.seo 

806183 3125 23.2"':0.362 2.570 1.110 

806375 3125 23.0. 0.365 2.850 0,900 

805831 3125 21.2 

806191 3125 20.0 

80630S 312S 20.6 

0.321 2.190 0.110 

O.J76 2.510 0.550 

0.352 2.310 0.600 

805884 3750 10.1 0.248 1.040 0.790 

806720 3750 17.0 0.294 1,400 0.020 

805919 4500 13.8 

806204 4500 13.9 

806299 4500 13.6 

806572 4500 13.7 

U82?il ~888 ll:l 

803482 4000 17.6 

803569 4000 17.) 

80Stl6S 4000 17.6 

0.201 1.obo 1.oso 

0.212 1.740 0.750 

0.29) J.260 0.660 

o.2s1 1.540 0.020 

8:~~3 1:~88 8:~~8 

8 •• 222

1 l·040 o.790 2 0 .690 C.530 

0.156 1.350 0.680 

0.233 2.340 0.100 

0.111 l.6SO 0.610 

806869 S250 11.2 0.169 1.020 0.760 

807294 5250 10.4 0.211 1.940 0.010 

806388 4250 15.4 0.221 .2.320 0.260 

806429 4250 15.6 0.221 2.620 o.530 

806478 4250 14.5 0.23S 2.880 0.230 

806524 4250 14,6 0-225 2.690 0,190 

806664 4250 14.7· 0.068 0.500 0.150 

806719 4250 15.4 0.084 0.750 1.000 

80bl58 3125 10.2 

806322 3125 18.8 

803519 2250 36.5 

806816 2250 34.9 

0.303 2.260 0.110 

0.208 2.160 0.230 

o,147 0,050 0.140 

0.160 1.030 0.680 

806817 2625 25.S 0.069 0,680 0.460 

806820 2625 26.8 0.072 O.b70 0,470 

803645 3000 23.0 0.100 I.JOO 0,640 

805786 3000 22.9 0.100 1.370 0.660 
Section IV. F. Special Engine Over T:ime Trends 

In an attempt to examine the question of fuel economy versus emission standards, a review of five major engine displacement groupings was undertaken 

to see the effects on fuel economy with increasingly stringent Federal 

emission standards. The model years selected ( 1979, 1980, and 1981) were 

chosen because these three years have three different sets of emission 

standards and represent the most recent automotive aric~. emission control 

technology. The engine groupings chosen represented high production volume 

designs that in turn represent the trend for future automotive applications. 

The objective was to match up, within the limits of the test data which were 

used to ge.nerate the EPA fuel economy label values,* similar vehicles of 

differing model year, and see how fuel economy varied with differing 

emission levels. The matching was to incorporate as many possible vehicle 

and powerplant design parameters as the data base was capable of providing, 

in order to eliminate to the maximum extent possible the influence of 

vehicle and power plant design differences. This was not always possible, 

due to the variability of product offerings from model year to model year. 

In every case, however, the closei;t possible matching was arrived at 

utilizing the EPA Test Car List data base. The power plant and vehicle 

design parameters considered for matching are noted below: 

Powerplant Design Parameters 

* 

Swept Volume (displacement) 

Induction System (carburetor design i.e., 2 barrel, 4 barrel, etc.) 

Compression Ratio 

Manufacturer's Rated Power Output 

Emission Control System 

EPA Test Car List, Second Edition 1979, Second Edition 1980, and Second 

Edition 1981. 

IV--43 
Vehicle Design Parameters 

Weight 

Transmission Type 

Axle-Ratio 

N/V Ratio 

Road Load Horsepower (RLHP) 

By "walking through" the noted model years and matching the above noted 

parameters to the maximum extent possible within a given engine displacement 

grouping, data were compiled to address the fuel economy versus emissions 

question. The following five tables are the results of this "walk through" 

procedure. After carefully reviewing the tables and their associated 

graphs, it becomes apparent that no readily discernible trend is evident 

with respect to fuel economy versus emissions since there are instances when 

fuel economy increases accompany both increases and decreases in emissions. 

These data are all plotted and included in this document as appendix 7. 

Looking at the data for various engine families, some tentative conclusions 

can be arrived at. 

Ford 2.3 L Powerplant (Table IV. F-1) 

For automatic transmission equipped vehicles, the slight increase in fuel 

economy is of the magnitude expected with a decrease in RLHP with 

progressing model years. For manual transmission vehicles, an increase in 

fuel economy was noted with decreasing emissions, which coincided with a 

major change in emission control technology. 

Chrysler 1~7 L Powerplant (Table IV. F~2) 

For automatic transmission equipped vehicles, there was no consistent change 

in fuel economy, either city or highway, as emissions decreased. As the 

emissions decreased each year from 1979 to 1981, the fuel economy dropped in 

1980 and then increased in 1981. 

+v-44 
~ MY Wt 

i 

.p.. 79 3000 

lJ1 80 3000 

81 3000 

79 jooo 

80 3125 

tH 3li5 

Callf 

80 3000 

so 1125 

Trans 

A3-l 

A3-i ' AJ-1 . 

~14-l 

M4-l 

M4-i 

Ax!c/N/V 

3.qlj/43.0 

J.Q8/43.0 

3.08/H.O 

J.08/43.0 

~.Q8/'d.O 

3.QB/43.0 

~.o&i43.o 

~.08/:.3,0 

RLlll' 

10.2 

9. 7' 

8.5 

10.2 

10.2 

10.4 

8.0 

10.2 

Table IV. F-1 

Ford 2.3 Liter Powerplant 

MY 79 - 140 c.1.0. 2 bbl carb., 

· 9.0 C.R. 92 BHP Hanf. Rating 

Automatic Transmission Vehicles - EGR/OXD 

Manual Transmission Vehicles - EGR/PMP/OXD 

MY 80 ~ 140 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 9.0 C.R. 

92 BHP Hanf. Rating 

EGR/PMP/OXD 

MY 80 (Calif) - 140 c.1.0. 2 bbl carb., 

9.0 C.R. 92 BHP Hanf. Rating, 

EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL 

MY 81 - 140 c.I.o., 2 bbl carb., 9.0 C.R. 

llC 

.41 

.178 

.101 

.91 

.22 

.267 

.282 

.21/6 

92 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL 

City 

co 

7.80 

3.09 

1.96 

4.70 

1. 76 

1. 75 

3.58 

3.96 

Emissions 

NOx 

1.48 

1.33 

.41 

1.46 

1.40 

.46 

.44 

.63 

HC co 

.05 .50 

.033 .10 

.()14 .01 

.16 .20 

.065 .02 

.045 .14 

.034 .04 

.026 .27 

Highway 

NOx 

2.18 

2.26 

.18 

2.15 

2.45 

.18 

.40 

.49 

City 

20.5 

20.9 

21.5 

20.8 

21.3 

22.6 

21.1 

20.0 

F.E. 

Hwy 

29.J 

29 .1 

30.5 

32 .3 

33.2 

31.7 

31.5 

31.1 

Comb 

23.7 

23.9 

24.8 

24.8 

25.:. 

26.0 

24.8 

23.8 
Table IV. F-2 

Chrysler 1.7 Liter Powerplant 

MY 79 - 105 c.r.o., 2 bbl carb., 

8.2 C.R., 7_5 BllP Manf. Rating, 

EGR/PLS/OXD 

MY 80 - 105 C. I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.2 C.R., 

65 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD 

MY 80 (Calif) - 105 C.I.D., 2 bbl, 8.2 C.R., 

65 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/PHP / OXD/3CL 

MY 81 - 105 c.r.o., 2 bbl. carb., 8.2 C.R., 

65 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD/3CL 

Emissions F.E. 

H 

< City Highway 

I MY Wt Trans Axle/N/V RLHP HC Co NOx !IC -co NOx City Hwy Comb -PO' 

79 2500 A3-l 3.48/53.4 6.6 .26 7.2 1.36 .04 .90 2.84 24 .o 32.7 27.3 

80 2500 A3-l 3.48/53.4 7.1 .178 3.32 1.21 .011 .11 1.89 23.8 31.2 26.6 

81 2500 A3-l 3.48/53.3 6.9 .147 2.07 .79 .015 .07 .69 24.5 34 .2 28.1 

80 2625 M4-l 3.37/50.2 7.4 .180 2.39 1.00 .014 .12 1.13 23.3 33.3 26.9 

81 2625 M4-l 3.37/50.4 6.9 .125 1.28 .63 .018 .01 .54 26.4 39.4 31.0 

79 2500 M4-2 3.37/49.3 7.4 .36 11. 70 1.60 .04 .70 4.41 26.4 3 7 .8 30.6 

81 2500 M4-2 3.13/47.9 7.4 .144 1.65 .67 .015 .04 .49 26.9 41.2 31.9 

Calif 

80 2500 A3-l 3.48/53.4 7.1 .168 1.86 .86 .010 .06 .68 23.0 31. 9 26.3 

80 2500 M4-l 3. 37 I 50 .2 6.7 .204 3.38 .61 .020 .10 .70 24.4 38.0 29.1 
For manual transmission vehicles, fuel economy increased as emissions 

decreased. Thus both the automat:ic a.id manual transmission equipped 

vehicles exhibited fuel economy :Lncreases which coincided with the 

incorporation of more advanced emission control technology. 

General Motors 1.6 L Powerplant (Table IV. F-3) 

There were two versions of the GM 1.6 L engine reviewed, the base or standard engine and an optional H.O. (high output) version. Fuel economy 

results with respect to emissions differed markedly between these two versions of the engine. For the standard engine with automatic transmission, 

there was a significant increase in fuel economy with decreasing emissions. 

For the manual transmission equipped version of the standard engine there 

was a decrease in fuel economy between 1979 and 1980, only partly 

attributable to increased road load horsepower. Again, there was an 

increase in fuel economy coinciding with the utilization of an advanced 

emission control system. For the H. o. version of the engine, a different 

set of results emerged. Both the: automatic transmission and manual 

transmission versions of this engine exhibited noticeable declines in fuel 

economy with decreasing emission levels. It is not obvious from the data 

available why the fuel economy versus emissions relation is so different for 

the standard and high output versions c>f this powerplant. 

General Motors 2.5 L Powerplant (Table IV. F-4) 

For both vehicles equipped with eithE~r automatic or manual transmissions, 

the significant drops in fuel econoniy appear to be associated with the 

engine being used to power front-wheel drive (FWD) vehicles instead of 

rear-wheel drive (RWD) vehicles. This drop in tested fuel economy might not 

be indicative of a real difference in the in-use fuel economies. (There is 

evidence to the effect that rear-dr.ive vehicles have larger offsets of 

actual in-use fuel economy versus dynamometer fuel economy test results than 

do front-drive vehicles.*) The slight drop in fuel economy for the RWD 

* - Neil South, "1978 to 1980 Ford On-Road Fuel Economy," SAE Paper 810383, 

February 1981. 

Schneider, et al., "In-Use Fuel Economy of 1980 Passenger Cars," SAE 

Paper 810384, February 1981. 

Section III. D of this report. 

IV-·47 
Table JV. F-3 

General Motors I. 6 Liter Powerplant 

MY 79 - 98 C. l.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.6 C.R., 

70 BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/OXD 

74 BHP 11.0. Manf. Rating, EGR/OXD 

MY 80 - 98 C.l .D., 2 bbl carb., 8.6 C.R., 

70 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/PLS/OXD 

74 BllP 11.0. Hanf. Rating, EGR/PLS/OXD 

HY 80 (Calif) - 98 c.1.n., 2 bbl carb., 8.6 C.R., 

70 BHP Hanf. Ra ting, EGR/PLS/3CL 

MY 81 - 98 C.I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.6 C.R., 

70 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/ PLS/ )CL 

Emissions F.E. 

H 

< 

I City Highway ~ HY Wt Trans Axle/N/V RLllP llC co NOx HC co NOx Clty Hwy Comb co 

79 Std 2500 AJ-1 J. 70/56.5 9.2 .4J 9.00 1.4 7 .OJ I. 57 • 78 23.J 25.8 24.3 

80 Std 2500 AJ-1 J. 70/ 56. 5 9.8 .188 J.01 I. 39 .026 .38 1.25 26.1 31.0 28.1 

81 Std 2500 AJ-1 ). 70/56.5 9.8 .178 J.68 .28 .106 J .24 .04 25.8 32.J 28.4 

79 110 2500 AJ-1 J.70/56.5 9.2 .89 11.80 1.ll .07 .90 1. 76 26.4 34. 7 29.8 

80 HO 2500 AJ-1 3.70/56.5 9.8 .206 2.96 1.41 .041 .OJ 1.4 7 2J.O 28.3 25.1 

79 Std 2500 M4-1 J.70/56.5 9.2 .55 8.25 1. 46 .05 .55 I. 85 28.) J9.l 32 .J 

80 Std 2500 M4-1 3.70/56.5 9.8 .163 4.47 1.05 .026 .46 1.41 24.7 )J.2 27 .9 

81 Std 2500 M4-l J.70/56.5 9.8 .176 J.06 .47 .021 .67 .• 15 27.4 36.3 30.8 

79 110 2250 H4-l 3.70/56.5 9.2 .67 8.30 .71 .06 .70 1.28 28.4 38.8 J2.J 

80 110 2375 M4-1 3.70/56.7 8.9 .234 ). 70 1.31 .041 .23 1.66 26.3 36.4 30.1 

Calif 

80 2500 AJ-1 3.70/56,7 8.9 .123 1.99 .40 .020 .55 .OJ 24.7 J0.6 27.0 

80 2375 M4-l 3.70/56.5 8.9 .171 5.00 • .L2 .040 .63 .04 26.0 37.2 30.l 
Table IV. F-4 

GM Core. 2.5 Liter L-4 Powerplant 

HY 79 - 151 c. i.n., 2 bbl carb., 8.1 C.R., 

90 BllP Manf. Rating, EGR/OXD 

MY 80 - 151 C. I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.2 C.R., 

90 BllP Hanf. Rating, EGR/OXD/PLS 

MY 80 (Calif)-151 c.r.n., 2 bbl carb., 8.1 C.R.• 

90 BllP Hanf. Rating, EGR/3CL 

MY 81 - 151 C. I.D., 2 bbl carb., 8.1 C.R., 

90 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/PMP /OXD/ 3CL 

Emissions F.E. 

H 

~ City Highway 

I MY Wt Trans Axle/N/V RLllP !IC co NOx !IC co NOx City Hwy Comb .i:-

\0 

79 3000 A3-l/RWD 2.73/39.9 8.3 .39 7.20 1. 54 .06 .60 1.63 24. 3 32. 5 27.4 

80 3125 AJ-1/RWD 2.73/39.9 8.2 .163 2.96 1.37 .027 .34 1. 23 24.2 31.6 27.1 

80 3000 A3-l/FWD 2.84/ 35. 7 7.3 .223 2.17 1.21 .040 .40 1.16 21.1 31.9 24.9 

81 3000 A3-1/FWD 2.53/35.7 7.3 .113 1.15 .66 .035 .46 .31 22.1 32.5 25.8 

81 3000 AJ-1/FWD 2.53/35.7 7.3 .135 1.77 .52 .035 .80 .29 21.8 31.5 25.3 

79 3000 M4-l/RWD 2.73/39.9 8.3 .46 6.50 .99 .05 1.10 1.08 23.7 37.4 28.4 

80 3000 M4-2/FWD 3.34/38.6 7.3 .192 2.84 1.55 .023 .19 1.45 22.9 34.l 26.9 

80 3000 M4-2/FWD J.34/38.6 7.3 .254 3.89 1.42 .027 .19 1.35 22.1 34.6 26.4 

81 3000 H4-2/FWD 3 .32/38 .o 7.3 .175 1.01 .68 .027 .18 .15 21.6 35.0 26.1 

Calif 

80 3000 AJ-1/FWD 2.84/35.7 7.3 .JOO 4.49 .33 .025 .32 .33 22.3 33.8 26.3 

80 3000 M4-2/FWD 3.34/38.2 7.3 .328 3.33 .94 .019 .12 • 7 5 23.8 35.9 28.1 
vehicles equipped with automatic transmissi.ons (from 1979 to 1980) is of the 

magnitude expected with a 125 pound increase in test weight. There is a 

slight drop in fuel economy for the FWD vehicles equipped with manual 

transmissions from 1980 to 1981. For the automatic transmission equipped 

FWD vehicles, the increase (from 1980 to 1981) coincides with the use of 

more advanced emission control technology on the 1981 models. However, 

since the cylinder heads also underwent substantial design changes during 

those three years, it is known that other factors are probably influencing 

the fuel economy, too. 

General Motors 3.8 L Powerplant (Table IV. F-5) 

For automatic transmission equipped vehicles, the increase in fuel economy 

appears to be attributable primarily to 

converter on MY 81 vehicles. For manual 

the usage of a lock-up torque 

transmission vehicles the slight 

decrease in fuel economy between 1979 and 1980 appears to be partly 

attributable to an increase in test weight and rear axle ratio. Again, an 

increase in fuel economy coinciding with the adoption of an advanced control 

system can be seen. 

Summary 

After reviewing the comparisons, the only apparent trend (with the exception 

of a 2.1% drop in fuel economy associated with the 2~5 L vehicles equipped 

with manual transmissions) is an increase in fuel economy from the 1980 to 

the 1981 model year, which coincides with the replacement of oxidizing 

catalyst systems with more sophisticated 3-way catalyst systems. The 

average increase in combined fuel economy (MPG ) that accompanied c 

replacing an open-loop oxidation catalyst system with a closed-loop 3-way 

catalyst system was 5.3%. However, since this "trend" includes increases in 

fuel economy as small as 1.1%, we tested this trend by comparing 1980 

Federal test vehicles with similar 1980 California vehicles. The 1980 

Federal vehicles were all equipped with oxidation catalyst systems while the 

California vehicles were all equipped with 3-way catalyst systems. 

IV-50 
Table IV. F-5 

GH Cor~. 3.8 Liter V-6 Powerelant 

MY 79 - 231 c.1.n., 2 bbl carb., 8.0 C.R. 1 

115 BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/OXD/OTR 

M'i 80 - 231 c.r.n., 2 bbl carb., 8.0 C.R., 

115 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/PMP/OXD 

MY 80 (Calif) - 231 c.1.0. 2 bbl carb., 8.0 C.R., 

115 BHP Manf. Rating, EGR/PMP/3CL 

MY 81 - 231 c.1.n., 2 bbl carb., 8.0 C.R., 

110 BHP Hanf. Rating, EGR/PMP/3CL 

Emissions F .E. 

Clty Highway 

MY Wt: Trans Axle/N/V RLllP UC Cc> NOx UC co NOx City Hwy Comb 

79 3500 AJ-1 2.4UJ2.7 12 .2 .62 5.20 1.19 ,07. .60 1.56 19.5 25.0 21.6 

80 3500 A)-i 2.4p32.7 10.5 .295 4.20 1.32 ,056 .18 1.17 19.6 26.8 22.3 

81 3750 L3-l 2.41/32.8 10.9 .221 2.70 ·.so .029 .31 .17 20.7 30.1 24. 1 

79 3500 MJ-1 i.93/39.8 12.2 .62 7 .40 1.44 .04 .20 1.54 ' 17 .5 26.0 20.5 

H BO 3625 MJ-l J,08/4L8 l.L3 .31.2 2 .96 • 79 .039 .17 .so 16.2 .,., ., 10 11 £. J., J..U • .J <l 81 3625 r-o-i 3.08/42.9 11.3 .229 3 .23 .74 .017 .03 .64 16.8 26.8 20.2 ., 

lJ1 

...... Calif. 

80 3625 A3-l 2.41/32.7 11.2 .205 2.62 .SS .050 .43 .08 19.7 26.8 22.4 

80 3375 H4-l 2.93/~3.3 9.0 • 241• 4.97 .so .029 .38 .59 lS.8 26.3 19.3 .. ' 

Federal 

80 3375 M4-l 2.93/42.8 9.0 .3'44 4.63 1.23 .040 .so 1.26 14 .9 24.9 18.2 
The ten (10) comparisons between similar 1980 MY Federal vehicles and 1980 

MY California vehicles (detailed in the previous 5 t~bles) indicate an 

increase in fuel economy with the addition of a 3-way, closed-loop system 

occurred in 7 out of the 10 cases. The average increase in fuel economy, 

for the 10 cases, which accompanied the utilization of a closed-loop 3-way 

catalyst system was 2.6%. 

Thus, there appears to be a trend indicating a slight increase in fuel 

economy when an open-loop oxidizing catalyst system is replaced with a 

closed-loop 3-way catalyst system. However, since the amount of data is 

limited and the absolute value of the fuel economy improvement is not large 

relative to test variability, all that can be said is that, based on this 

engines over time study, there appears to be no identifiable fuel economy 

penalty which can be attributed to changes in the Federal emission standard 

between 1979 and 1981. 

IV-52 
IV. G. Sensitivity Coefficient Study 

In yet another way to investigate fuel economy/emissions relationships a 

sensitivity analysis was undertaken. A sensitivity coefficient can be thought 

of .as sort of a normalized derivative, and is usually expressed as percent 

change in the dependent variable per pe:rcent change in independent variable. 

Suppose there are two points a and b, with FEa, FEb, and if for this 

example the pollutant is HC, then we havE~ HC a and HCb. 

and ~FE = FE - FE , .6 HC == HC - HC • b a b a 

Then the sensitivity, call it SFEHC, is equal to 4FE/FE+4HC/HC. 

Besides 5iving an indication. of the magnitude of the effect, the algebraic 

sign of the sensitivity coefficient can contain useful information. Since the 

quantities J!'E and emissions are positive, the sign . of the sensitivity 

coefficient is determined by the signs of the deltas. 

possible, and they are shown below: 

b.Emissions 

!.I.FE !.I.Emissions > 0 !.I.Emissions < 0 

!.I.FE > 0 s > 0 s < 0 

!.I.FE < 0 s < 0 s > 0 

!!our cases are 

Two cases are possible for the sensitivity coefficient. Either it is positive 

or negative. If it is positive then whenever fuel economy goes up, so do 

emissions, and vice versa. If the sensitivity coefficient is negative, then 

then when fuel economy goes up, emissions go down, and vice versa. 

What was done was to search the CERT/El?A data base (for 1975 to 1982 model 

years) for multiple tests of the same Yehicle. From the multiple tests the 

maximum number of sensitivity coefficien1:s were determined. 

IV-53 
The results are shown below: 

Variables No. of Tests Sensitivity Coefficient 

for N Mean Max Min Sigma 

MPG Pollutant 

MPG Urban HC Urban 1026 +o.001 31.8 -12.8 1.62 

MPG Urban CO Urban 1027 -0.079 6.5 - 8.7 0.75 

MPG Urban NOx Urban 1027 -0.132 10.5 -16.6 1.38 

MPG Hwy HC Hwy 432 -0.035 3.9 -19.3 1.09 

MPG Hwy CO Hwy 432 -0.060 0.9 - 3.5 0.35 

MPG Hwy NOx Hwy 432 -0.071 8.7 -15.2 1.48 

The average sensitivity coefficients are small and the standard deviations are 

large. This means that for all practical purposes, the average sensitivity 

coefficient is neither positive nor negative, it is ~' meaning that as 

often as fuel economy goes up when emissions go up, the opposite case 

happens. If anything, the fact that 5 out of the 6 average sensitivity 

coefficients were negative would lead one to suspect that the relationship 

hinted at was one of "emissions down-fuel economy up". However, what is 

concluded is that the sensitivity coefficient study did not discover any 

relationship between fuel economy and emissions. If anything, given the data 

in the above table, it. almost appears as if the results might be from 

independent parameters, i.e. two independent parameters randomly varying. 

IV-54 
Section IV. H. Data Stratification By Emission Control System 

As a first step in the analysis, each of the three fuel economies (UMPG, 

HMPG ~ and CMPG) were plotted against 1each of the three regulated ·emissions 

(FTPHC, FTPCO, and FTPNOX) as well as against the three emissions from the 

highway test cycle (FEHC, FECO~ and FENOX). The data examined were 

restricted to: 

1. Tei:lt data generated at EPA' s laboratory (the CERT/EPA data base) to 

eli~inate any possible variation due to differences in laboratories, 

2. Spark-ignition vehicles (i.e.; no Diesels), 

3. 1979 through 1981 model year vehicles~ in order to make the 

analysis more relevant to present and future vehicles, and 

4. Non-durability vehicles, sinc.e durability vehicles with test data 

up to 50,000 miles and without any matching highway test data were 

of limited usefulness in this analysis. 

However~ this first set of 18 graphs (see appendix 4 for similar graphs) did 

not indicate any relationship between fuel economy and exhaust emissions. 

This result was expected since regre!ssions of fuel economy against each 

emission produced very small values of r-squared. (See section IV. A.) 

Since the highway fuel economy (HMPG) had a weaker relationship to the 

regulated emissions (FTPHC, FTPCO, FTPNOX) than did either the urban fuel 

economy (UMPG) or the combined fuel economy (CMPG), subsequent analyses were 

restricted to trying to relate UMPG or CMPG to FTPHC, FTPCO, or FTPNOX. 

The next step was to stratify the data by the emission control technology 

employed. The following eight ( 8) emission control systems were identified 

which are representative of a majority of the systems that are currently in 

use as well as the ones which will be used in the near future: 

IV·-55 
Emission Control Technologies 

Fuel Ox 3 Way Air Pulsating 

Injected EGR? Cat? Cat? 3CL? Pump? Air Sys? 

System 1 No Yes Yes No No No Yes 

System 2- No Yes Yes No No No No 

System 3 No Yes Yes No No Yes No 

System 4 No Yes Yes Yes Yes Y/N* Y/N 

System 5 No Yes No Yes Yes Y/N Y/N 

System 6 No Yes Y/N Yes No Yes No 

System 7 Yes No Y/N Yes Yes Y/N Y/N 

System 8 Yes Yes Y/N Yes Yes Y/N Y/N 

* Y/N means either Yes or No. 

(Note: While the above eight systems are non-overlapping; they do not 

represent all technologies.) 

Stratifying the data by emission control technologies increased the number 

of graphs by a factor of 8 and accordingly decreased the amount of 

variation. These graphs showed a -slight tendency for an increase in fuel 

economy with a decrease in emission levels; however; since that tendency 

might have been a result of -· ETW or transmission differences, further 

analysis was carried out. Since it was possible that much of this variation 

was due to differences in the test weight (ETW) of the vehicles, fuel 

economy results were plotted against the emissions and stratified by both 

ETW and emission control technologies. However, this approach produced too 

many graphs, most of which lacked a sufficient number of points upon which 

to make a statistically sound analysis. 

In order to incorporate both ETW and the emission control technology but 

still have enough da,ta per graph to analyze, the data were stratified by 

only the technology and then a new variable was plotted. The new variable 

was fuel economy multiplied by ETW and divided by 2000 (i.e. ton-miles per 

gallon). This new variable was plotted against each of the three urban 

emission results. This ton miles per gallon variable is essentially a 

measure of efficiency for the vehicle. By using 

IV-56 
this variable, we were able to reduce much of the variation in fuel economy 

caus1d only by differences in ETW. Stratifying by control system produced a 

set of 48 graphs. The graphs for UMPG vs FTPNOX are presented in figures 

IV. H-1 through IV. H-8. The remaining 40 graphs are in appendix 9. An 

additional set of 48 graphs was created by plotting gallons per ton-mile 

(i.e., the reciprocal of ton-miles per gallon) against each of the regulated 

emissions. These graphs suggested that these variables, which are a measure 

of efficiency, are independent of the emission results. If we assume that 

each of these data points represents vehicles having acceptable 

drivaability, then there is little difference among the groups in the 

minimal levels of FTPHC and FTPCO atta:inable. However, for FTPNOX, the fuel 

injected, 3-way, closed-loop vehicles attain 1/3 to 1/2 the emissions of the 

carbureted, 3-way vehicles, which attain about 1/2 to 2/3 of the emissions 

of the carbureted vehicles without a 3-way catalyst. 

A fifth set of 138 graphs related fuel consumption per ton (i.e. gallons per 

ton-mile) for the urban and combined test cycles to each of the three 

regulated emissions and stratified by transmission class (CA, CM, and LA) as 

well as by control system. A similar set of 132 graphs (see appendix 10 for 

the graphs which contain at least 12 points), relating ton-miles per gallon 

to each of the three regulated emissio111s and also stratified by transmission 

class, was generated. This sixth analysis had six fewer graphs than the 

fifth analysis because the sixth analysis did not include any test data 

prior to the 1980 model year while the fifth analysis additionally used 1979 

data. These two analyses confirmed th1~ conclusions drawn from the third and 

fourth sets of graphs; that is, the e:Eficiency of the vehicle (as measured 

in ton-miles per gallon) appears to be independent of the emission results. 

To assist in analyzing the graphs of ton-miles per gallons versus the urban 

emissions, the upper and lower ranges on each graph were sketched in. (see 

appendix 10). These curves were drawn by visual inspection and are not 

IV--57 
~ I 

\Jl 

00 

SCATTER PLOT <l> SYSlTO~:l 

N= l 84 OllT OF 245 

UTE.S.2K 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000- • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000. • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

0 

• 

0 

CASES=TAYRZl79-81) 

4l.UTE.S.2K VS. 3.FTPNOX 

• • 0 

0 

• 0 • 0 

• • • • 0 • oo 

• 0 

•2 ••• 

•• 

• 2 • • 

• 2 0 

0 0 • • 

• • 0 • • 

• •• 

•• 0 

0 

• 

•• • 

• 

• 0 0 0 

0 CHt 0 

0 • ct ct ct 

Oct ct ct 3 *2 

~ • ctct 0 ct23 

0 

• ctO ct 

* 0 j?O 

Oct 

0 

• • 

• 

• 0 

00 

0 2 

2 

• 2 cto 

ct ct 

ctoo 

•2 2 

ctctOctOO 

ct Ott 

•oo 

ct2 

0 

0 ct 

0 

Figure IV. H-1 

Urban Ton-Mllee per Gallon ·vereu11 

FTP NOx Emissions 

Emission Control System 1 

• 

0 0 

0 • • 

2 0 ••2 0 

00 •• 

•• 0000 2• 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----··-~--·----·----·----· .soooo 1.0000 

·?.~ _.75.11.11..11.. 

1.sooo 

.-.1so.. 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

) 
H 

...::: 

I 

V1 

\Cl 

~ER~ ~vsr'Tmr12 ~s=f"nft's C7r-'ln'> 

N= 162 OUT OF 22~ 4l.UTE.S.2K VS. J.FTPNOX 

UTE.S.2K 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.coo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 + 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

JO.coo • 

• 

25.000 • 

+ 

20.000 + 

+ 

is.ooo • 

.. 10.000 • 

• 

• 

• 

• • • 

• • • 

• 

• • • 

• • • 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• • • 

• 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • • 

• • 

• • • 

• 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 2 

• • 

• 2 

• OJ 

••• 

• 

• 

2• 

2 

Urban Ton-Hile• per Gallon·vetsu• 

FTP NOx Emissions 

Emission Control System 2 

• • • • 

• 

• • • 

• • • • • • ••2 2 • • • •• 

2• 2 2 •• 2 • • 

2• • • • • 

2• •2• •••2 •• • • 

•2 • • 

• • • • • • 

• • 

• • 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .50000 1.0000 

.25000 .75000 

1.5000 

1.2500 1.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2soo 
H 

<: 

I 

(J\ 

0 

SCATTER PLOT <J> SVSlTOHIJ 

N= 501 OUT UF 661 

UTE.S.2K 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

1s.ooo • 

• 

10.000 • 

CASES=TAVR1(79-Bll 

4l.UTE.S.2K VS. J.FTPNO~ 

• 

• •• 

2* 2• *2 

• • •• • 0 0 0 

0 • 0 00 

0 00 

2• 00 

0 02 

0 0 

0 • 

• • 

• 

• 

•• • • • 

Figure IV. H-3 

Urban Ton Miles per Gallon veraus FTP NOx Emissions 

Emission Control System 3 

• • • • •• 2 • • • • • 

• •• •• • • •2 ••••2•• 2• • • •• • • • 

2 0 2 • •2•3 • 2 3 *23 • 2 • • • 

• 2°0 22°2•• 0 00 23 0 2 0 J• 3000 • 

• • ••• 2 ••e • • 3°• ••• 22•3 ••2••• • • •• J• 3 •••• 03 3 22 2 *34 22*22*4 • • • 

••2•2••0400 ° 3*2342 03•3 • 02°2 

220° 0 2° •23°23242•0J233°••J2 • 

•2• 22222 •222s 0••o• • o 

• • 03oo 2* 2• 0 • 0••• 02 2 • 

2 

... 

•2•• 

• 

2 • 00 0 2•3 00 •• J20 

22° 0 • • • 0 • 0000 • 

2 0 00 • 0 

200 •• • • 0 • • 

2 • 2* 

• • • 

• 

... • 

•• • • • 

• • • 

• 0 

• 

o. ·----·----·---~·----·~---·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 

.-io l. l. 71 

.soooo 

... 

1.0000 2.0000 FTPNOX 

I -.2s1.5000 
H 

<l 

I 

C)\ 

I-" 

~Tl~OT ~ 5~1:1:4...iesE~RS~l> 

UTE.S.21< 

55.000 + 

+ 

50.000 + 

+ 

45.000 + 

+ 

40.000 • 

+ 

35.000 + 

+ 

30.000 + 

+ 

25.000 + 

+ 

20.000 + 

+ 

15.000 + 

+ 

10.000 + 

N= 176 OUT UF 243 41.UTE.S.2K VS. 3.FTPNOX 

• 0 0 

2 

2 000 

0 0 00000 0 

2 0 030••2 0 * 0 * 2 •• 40•0• 

22242¥6 4 3 J v •• 

0 0 1!2* 00 * 00 2 3 0 • 2° *3 2 ° 

0 

0 

2 

00 

0 

2• 20 22 0 002 •2 0 0 0 

0 00 2*4 ••• 0 0 0 

0 0 

• 0 0 

00 0 

0 

0 

Figure IV. 11-4 

Urban Ton Milestller Gallon versue fIP NOx lsslons 

Emission Control System 4 

0 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .50000 1.0000 1.5000 2.0000 FTl->NOX 

.?.5000 .75000 1.2500 1.7500 ::> ::>c:nn 
SCATTER PLOT <5> SY51T08:5 

N= 129 OllT Of 164 

CASES=TAYH:C79•Bll 

4l.UTE.S.2K VS. 3.fTP~OX' 

UTE.S.2K 

ss.ooo • 

• 

•• 

2 

2• • ...... .. 20 ••) . .. 2 0 •• 

000 ••• 

• 

* 

•• 

• 

• 

• 

• 0 • • 

2 0 

• 2 

• 0 

2• 

• • 0 J •2•••J •2 

2 • 

• • • 0 • 

tto • o 

• 

0 

.... 

•• 

• 

• 

• 

• 0 0 

ooo 

2 

• 

• • 0 

00 • 

... 0 • 

2 

• • 0 

• 

• .. 

0 

• 

0 

Figure IV. H-S 

Urban Ton-Miles per Gallon versus 

FTP NOx Emissions 

Emission Control System S 

.. 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----··----·----· ~000 __ --

.1~ 

~00 l~O 75 ... 2

.., 
H 

< I 

O"I 

w 

~TT~OT....,.. s~e:~sE~H:~l) 

UTE.5.2K 

so;;.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo + 

• 

45.000 + 

+ 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 + 

+ 

30.000 • 

• 

25.ooo + 

• 

20.000 • 

+ 

15.000 + 

+ 

10.000 + 

o. 

N= 65 OUT Of 88 4J.UTE.S.2K VS. 3.FTPNOX 

0 

.. 

• • • • 0 • • 

00 

00 0 3 0 

.... .... .. 0 *2* • oo 

0 0 .... .. .. 0 04 .. • 

2** .. .. .. 0 0 0 

2 

.. 

2 

• 

0 

Figure IV; H-6 

Urban Ton-Miles per Gallon versus 

FTP NOx Emissions 

Emission Control System 6 

·----·--~-·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .soooo 1.0000 

.25000 .75000 1.2500 

1.5000 

l.7500 

2.0000 fTPNOX 

2.2500 
~ I 

"' ~ 

SCATTER PLOT <7> SYS1T08 =7 

N= 145 OUT (Jf 203 

UTE.S.2K 

ss.ooo • 

• 

c:.o.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 0 

0 0 0 

35.000 • * 0 * J?.o 0 0 0 2 02 * OC 

• ••2 •?3222 0 

?. 030 .. 0 3440 OcOO 

30.000 • 0 0 52 20002 0 

0 o~ 0 .. .. .. ?. 

• 0 00 00 

00 

0 0 

25.000 • 0 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

1s.ooo + 

+ 

10.000 • 

CASE"S=TAYRI 179-81> 

4l.UTE.S.2K vs. 3.fTPNOX 

0 

0 

* ... .. .. .. 2 •02 

0 .. • .. .. 0 

0 0 0 

0 .. • • 0 ... 2 

• 

0 

zoo 

0 

Figure IV. H-7 

Urban Ton-Miles per Gallon versus 

FTP NOx Emissions 

Emission Control System 7 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 1 ... 
H 

~ 

I 

(j\ 

V1 

scrrn: R PLUT < 8">"S"v s l TUifTB 

N= 55 OUT OF HJ 

UTE.S.2K 

~s.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

+ 

45.000 + 

• 

40.000 • 

+ 

35.000 + 

• 

30.000 + 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

+ 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

·Oo 

2 

0 • .. • • 

• • oo 0 

.... .. • 

• .. • • 

• 

• 2 * 

• 

.75000 

• 

CASES=T AYR'"'f C 79~ 4l.UTf.S.2K VS. 3.FTPNOX 

• • .. • 

2• • 

•• • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • 

• 

.soooo 1.0000 

.75000 

O· 

.. 

0 

0 • 

• 

1.5000 

1.2500 

Figure IV. H-8 

Urban Ton-Miles per Gallon versus 

FTP NOx Emissions 

1.7500 

Emission Control System 8 

·----·----·---·· 2.0000 f"TPNOX 

2.2500 
meant to represent a specific functional: relationship between fuel economy 

and emissions; they are meant only to indicate upper and lower bounds for 

any such functional relationship that may exist. The plots were then 

compared to determine whether a given system yielded superior performance 

(i.e. higher ton-miles per gallon at every level of a given emission). (See 

figure Toyota -1 in section V. D. for an idealized relationship between 

systems.) The only such instance we detected was that system number 1 

produced higher ton-mile per gallon results at given emission levels than 

did system number 3. It may be possible that relationship resulted from the 

smaller parasitic horsepower loss of the pulsating air system compared to an 

air pump system. 

There is an obvious problem, however, in using ton-miles per gallon to 

analyze the data; that is, the weight of the vehicle is not the only 

variable which is changing. To compensate for the diversity in engines, 

tires, axles, et cetera, the test data were examined in each of the 24 

groupings obtained by stratifying by the 8 emission control technology 

systems and by the 3 transmission classes. Within each of the 24 groups, 

the mean (average) of each of the following: l/ETW, dynamometer horsepower 

(VDHP), engine displacement (DISP), rated horsepower (RTHP), and N/V ratio 

(NSVR) were calculated. We then used the 1981 Cheng Equation (see section 

IV. D.) to obtain an "adjusted" fuel economy described by the following 

equation: 

Adjusted MPG -1 -1 Actual MPG + A [ mean (ETW ) - actual (ETW ) ] 

+ B [ mean (VDHP) - actual (VDHP)] 

+ C [ mean (DISP) - actual (DISP)] 

+ D [ mean (RTHP) - actual (RTHP)] 

+ E [mean (NSVR) - actual (NSVR)] 
These "adjusted MPG" values are actually the measured fuel economy results 

plus (or minus) a correction factor, predicted by the 1981 Cheng Equation, 

which approximate the expected results if all the tests within each of those 

24 groups had been performed on vehicles of the same test weight, the same 

VDHP, the same engine size and power~ and the same N/V ratio. We then 

plotted these adjusted MPG values against the corresponding regulated 

emissions. (See appendix 11.) Care~ should be taken in evaluating the 

results of this procedure. (See the discussion on collinearity in appendix 

8.) 

In examining the plots of adjusted UMPG versus FTPNOX, it was found that 20 

graphs each contained at least 12 points. A (two variable) linear 

regression analysis was performed for each of those 20 Rets of data. The 

analyses indicated that 10 sets of data displayed a tendency for the 

adjusted UMPG to decrease as the NOx emissions decreased. The other 10 sets 

displayed the opposite (i.e., the tend,ency for the adjusted UMPG to increase 

as the NOx emissions decreased). A similar analysis was performed with 

graphs of adjusted CMPG versus FTPNOX.. In 19 cases, with at least 12 data 

points, 11 exhibited a tendency for decreases in adjusted CMPG as the FTPNOX 

decreased, while the remaining 8 exhibited the opposite tendency. Thus, the 

results from this approach tend to imply that decreasing the level of FTPNOX 

emissions has no consistent effect on fuel economy. 

A visual inspection of the 48 graphs of adjusted fuel economy versus FTPNOX 

exhibited some patterns which corresponded to figure Toyota-1 (section 

V.D.). Specifically, it was found that carbureted vehicles equipped with 

3-way catalysts (system numbers 4, 5, and 6) produced higher adjusted fuel 

economy (both urban and combined) results than did carbureted vehicles 

equipped with air pumps but without 3-·way catalysts, for every transmission 

grouping. This visual analysis also supported the conclusion made earlier 

in this section that, among carbureted vehicles without 3-way catalysts, 

those vehicles equipped with pulsating air systems (system number 1) produce 

higher fuel economies than similar vehicles equipped with air pumps (system 

number 3). 

IV--67 
Another stratification used was to divide the data based on the FTPHC 

values. Using only the FTPHC test values not exceeding 0.60 grams per mile 

we grouped the data as follows: 

1. HC up to (i.e. less than) 0.20 g/mi 

2. HC at least 0.20, but less than 0.30 g/mi 

3. RC at least 0.30, but less than 0.40 g/mi 

4. HC at least 0.40, but less than 0.50 g/mi, and 

5. HC at least 0.50, but less than 0.60 g/mi. 

In this last stratification, the attempt was to stratify by both the 8 

emission control technology systems and the 5 FTPHC ranges, and then, for 

each of those 40 groups, plot urban ton-miles per gallon versus FTPNOX. 

Linear regression analysis was performed on each of those 40 groups of 

data. Of the 26 sets of data containing at least 12 points, the analysis 

indicated that 10 sets of data displayed a tendency for decreasing vehicle 

efficiency with decreasing FTPNOX, and the remaining 16 displayed a tendency 

for increasing vehicle efficiency with decreasing FTPNOX. 

IV-68 
Section IV. I. Is There a "Knee" in the Relationship between Tailpipe 

Emissions and Fuel Economy? 

We will refer to a graph as possessing a "knee" (or "tolerance point") if: 

1. To the right of the knee, the graph is almost horizontal, and 

2. To the left of the knee, the graph is angled downward sharp)~. 

An idealized sketch of such a graph is: 

Since many manufacturers have alluded to the existence of such a curve in 

relating fuel economy to emissions (usu~lly FTPNOX), the graphical analyses 

in Section IV. H. were investigatE~d for the existence of such a 

relationship. While such a "knee" curve might exist, its existence was 

hidden by the variation among the test vehicles (i.e., differences in ETW, 

VDHP, DISP, RTHP, and NSVR). However,. since the graphs of "Adjusted" fuel 

economy versus FTPNOX were designed specifically to compensate for those 

vehicle differences, those 48 graphs wex·e re-examined. 

IV-69 
There were several graphs for which could be inferred, from a visual 

inspection, that decreasing the FTPNOX emissions had a significant effect on 

the fuel economy. These particular graphs each seemed to possess a 

"tolerance point" with the following property: for FTPNOX emissions higher 

than that point, the adjusted fuel economy was unaffected by variations in 

the FTPNOX level; however, for FTPNOX emission below that tolerance point, 

the adjusted fuel economy exhibited a significant deterioration with 

decreasing FTPNOX levels. The groups for which these tolerance points were 

found are: 

1. Carbureted vehicles with lockup automatic transmissions (LA) and 

oxidizing catalyst systems exhibited a tolerance point at 1.0 NOx 

for the adjusted UMPG graphs. However, this pattern did not appear 

on the adjusted CMPG graphs for these groups. 

2. For carbureted vehicles equipped with an oxidation catalyst, a 

3-way, closed-loop system (i.e., system numbe:..: 4), and with a 

manual transmission (CM), a tolerance point of 0.8 g/mi NOx 

appeared for both the adjusted UMPG and adjusted CMPG. 

3. For fuel injected vehicles with EGR and 3-way catalysts (i.e., 

system number 8), equipped with other than a lockup transmission 

(i.e., either CA or CM), the adjusted UMPG exhibited a tolerance 

point at 0.4 g/mi NOx. This same tolerance point (i.e. 0.4 g/mi 

NOx) also appeared for the adjusted CMPG for only the manual transmission. 

These groups represent a very small proportion of the total number of 

emission control/transmission combinations. Tolerance points were not found 

for the majority of the combinations. It is interesting to note that the 

above three tolerance values approximately coincided with actual NOx 

emission standards (l.O, 0.7, and 0.4 g/mi). However, in order for a test 

to pass the applicable emission standard, its FTPNOX level multiplied by the 

appropriate deterioration factor (DF) must not exceed the standard. Since 

the data used in this section represented low mileage data only, directly 

relating these data to existing or future standards is not straightforward. 

IV-70 
SECTION V. 

v. Individual Manufacturer Discussions 

v. A. General Motors 

1. GM Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions and Fuel 

Economy 

In a paper titled "Automotive Fuel Economy Review,"* GM said that emission 

standards penalized fuel economy in the following manner. 

* 

While we are meeting the 1980 Fue:l Economy Standards, which is 

20 miles per gallon, we also have to overcome a penalty 

estimated at up to 5 percent imposed by the increased stringency 

of the 1980 emission standards. In 1981, when the corporate 

average fuel economy must be 22 MPG, another increase in 

emission controls severity imposes an estimated 3 percent 

penalty on fuel economy as compared with 1979. Introduction of 

the new GM C-4 Emissions Control System in 1981 will prevent 

this loss from being larger. 

In the preceeding years, compromises in spark and carburetor 

settings for emission control had reduced GM's new car average 

fuel economy to 12.0 miles per gallons (mpg) in 1974. Adoption 

of a new emission control system made possible engine operating 

improvements that brought average fuel economy up to 15.3 mpg in 

1975. The reason was that the use of the. oxidizing catalyst to 

remove most of the hydrocarbons (HC) and carbon monoxide (CO) 

after the exhaust gases have left the engine enabled us to 

recalibrate the ignition and carburetion nearer to their optimum 

settings. Each year thereafter has seen further increase in our 

fuel economy, so the GM sales-weighted average for 1980 is 

estimated at 21.4 mpg, an improvement of more than 78% since 

1974. 

Improved basic engine efficiency also is constantly being sought 

in .research programs. Engine efficiency will be further 

improved· by increasing use of electronic engine controls, to 

decrease emissions and offset much of the fuel economy penalty 

resulting from emission control. 

It has been a well established fact that the Diesel engine is 

superior to the gasoline engine in fuel economy, and GM 

introduced the Diesel engine as an option for its full size 

Oldsmobile in 1978. For a comparable performance, the Diesel 

Earl K. Werner, General Motors, "Automotive Fuel 

Review", Society of Plastics Engineers National 

Conferences, November 7, 1979, pages 2, 5, 6 & 8. 

V-1 

Economy 

Technical 
gives upwards of 25 percent better fuel economy than the 

gasoline engine, and if we can overcome the negative effect of 

tightening emission standards, we expect to apply the Diesel to 

a greater number of our vehicles, further improving our CAFE. 

In a September 22 ~ 1980 letter* to the Administrator of the Environmental 

Protection Agency, General Motors included a chart which among other things 

provided information on the effects of emission standards on fuel economy. 

This information can be found in tables GM-1 and GM-2. 

Six CO waiver applications from GM were decided between September 5, 1979 and 

March 3, 1981. Fuel economy was one of the criteria for granting a CO waiver, 

yet GM did not make an issue of fuel economy in their first four CO waiver 

applications. However, in their fifth and sixth CO waiver requests (1.8/2.0 L 

and l.6L engines), GM claimed the following: 

Compliance with the 3.4 gpm CO standard as compared to a 7.0 gpm 

CO standard has the potential of adversely affecting fuel 

economy in the range of 2 to 5 percent, citing engine 

calibration changes ("retuning") as one of the principal causes. 

To further substantiate its position, General Motors embarked on 

an engineering development and test program in which a "J" car 

l.8L engine was calibrated to meet the 3 .4 gpm CO standard and 

then recalibrated to meet a 7.0 gpm CO standard. Exhaust 

emissions and fuel economy were measured under both conditions 

and driveabilty was compared. The results of these tests have 

been presented to EPA for the public record. These results show 

that a fuel economy penalty of 1 mpg would exist in the EPA 

label value if the waiver were denied. 

To further substantiate the fuel economy penalty, we have now 

completed an investigation involving a matched pairs study of 

federal gasoline passenger cars co~paring the fuel consumption 

improvement from 1980 to 1981 of those passenger cars granted 

the CO waiver to the fuel consumption improvement from 1980 to 

1981 of those [Federal gasoline] passenger cars not ;ranted the 

CO waiver. This study was based on the premise that any 

improvement in fuel consumption between the CO and non-CO waiver 

groups could be attributed to the CO waiver. The following 

parameters were matched: engine displacement, test weight, 

transmission, axle ratio and dynamometer horsepower setting. 

The results are shown in [table GM-3] :** 

* Letter and enclosures to the Honorable Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from Dr. Betsy Ancker-Johnson, 

General Motors, dated September 22, 1980. 

** Letter and attachment to Mr. D.M. Costle (Administrator, EPA), from T. M. 

Fisher (GM), dated December 8, 1980. 

V-2 
<: 

I 

w 

Table GH-1 

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION LIGHT DUTY (PASSENGER CAR) GASOLINE ENGINES Issued: October l, 1980 

EFFECTS OF EXHAUST AND EVAPORATIVE EMISSION STANDARDS ON HARDWARE, FUEL ECONOMY, FUEL CONSUHPTION, AND ADDITIONAL-FIRST-COST TO CONSUMER 

NOTE: The dnta ln thla table are baaed on teats of current CH hardware dealgned to comply with light duty (passenger car) gasoline emlaalon and fuel 

economy standards. Hardware utilized in thla effort has an effect on performance in both areas, although installed primarily for its contribution to elther emission control or fuel economy. Since the "state of the art" in this effort has changed rapidly, it shuuld be noted that the hardware 

and cost estimates represent current technology adjusted to rP.flect 1981 economic levels and new 1981 average dealer discounts. As a result, it 

ehould be expected that future versions of this table may not be the same as shown here. Thia table will be updated periodically. 

Standards Applicable/ 

HC/CO/NOx/Evap. Host Probable Hardwarel 

Fuel 

Economy 

Loss, 

Percent2 

1.5/15/2.0/6.0 

1919 federal 

Oxld. Conv., EGR or BPEGR, Baseline 

• 41/7.0/2.0/6.0 Oxld. Conv., AIR or PAIR, 

1980 federal BPEGR 

.41/9.0/l.0/2.0 

1980 cal Uornia 

.41/l.4/ l.0/2.0 

1981 and Later 

Federal 

.41/l.4/ .41/2.0 

Research 

Objective 

CCC Sys. (Single Bed), 

AlR, BPEGR 

CCC Sys. (Dual-Bed), AIR, 

BPEGR, EST, ISC 

CCC Sys. (Dual-Bed), AIR, 

BPEGR, EST, ISC, and 7 

3 

2-3 

Hlnlmu11 

of 1 

Gasoline 

Vehicle 

Increased Fuel 

Consumed lo 

-Vehicle Life 

Billions ·First Coste, $4 

Add 1 of Gallona3 1 Total 

Baseline 

l.o 

Included 

Above 

2.1 

Baaellne 185 

60 245 

5406 

For each set of future standards, the tabulated results sre 

baaed on comparisons between vehicles meeting the 1.5/lS/2.0/ 

6.0 standards and comparable vehicles equipped with hardware 

designed to meet the future standards • 

Dual-bed CCC systems and EST ·received ltmlted use in 

California in 1980 to gain field experience with these advanced 

technologies. Additional vapor storage capacity and improved 

fuel system seals were required to meet the 1980 California 

evaporative standard (same as the 1981 Federal standard). 

In general, a dual bed CCC system ts necessary to provide the 

improved CO control necessary to meet a 3.4 g/mile standard. 

A limited number of engine families have been granted a waiver to a i.U gimiie CO et.andarcl iu1 1931-62. 

Heantngful assessments of fuel economy and additional first 

cost cannot be made since control systems have not been demonstrated to meet these standards through the complete EPA 

50,000""1Dile certiftcatlon durability requirements, selective 

enforcement audlt and tn-uae surveillance requirements. 

1Hnrdware Deflnttona: (a) EGR • Exhaust Gas Recirculation, (b) BPEGR • Back Pressure .EGR, (c) AIR• Air Injection Reactor, (d) PAIR • Pulse Air 

Injection Reactor, (e) CCC System• Computer Command Control System, (f) Single-Bed • 3-Way Catalyst, (g) Dual-BeJ • 3-Way Catalyst plus Oxidation 

Catalyst, (h) EST• Electronic Spark Timing, and (1) ISC • Idle Speed Control. Other electronic engine controls may be included i\ emission control 

or fuel economy benefits are demonstrated. 

2Fud Economf The use of a diesel engine of comparable performance in place of a gasoltne-fueled engine, may increase the fuel economy of· that vehlcle 

by about 2$- 0%. Refer to other side for diesel information; 

3Fuel Consumption: Baaed on emtaaton certification end fuel economy teats, a fuel economy penalty of l% has been determined for 1980 vehicles and u; 

estimated for 1981-1985 vehicles to project the Increase in total fuel consumed durln8 the life of 1980 through 1985 vehicles, in compnrtson to vehicles meet Ing the future fuel economy standard a. Total fuel consumed was calculated ualng the General Ho tors fuel consumption model. These fuel economy 

pennlttea result In an increase in total fuel consumed of 3.1 billion gallons of fuel during the life of 1980-1985 vehicles. 

4HnrJware Costs: On-going production coata of 1979 gaaoltne vehicle exhaust emtsaton control systems was $165, tn compartaon to uncontrolled vehicle 

costs; evaporative emission controls cost an additional $20 for a total gasoline vehicle baseline coat of $185. Additional f trat costs of future 

systems are estimated on the bssls of system definitions aa of August, 1980. For vehicles equipped with a CCC system, the oxygen sensor may have to be 

changed during the useful life of the vehicle, at an additional maintenance cost. 

Scnllfornla ' 1980 Hardware Cost: The coat data shown are calculated on the basts of high volume production and therefore are conservative estimates. 

Compared to 1981 and Lat~r Federal, 1980 California coats Include compliance testing. 

6Future Coat Trends: Based on projectlona of potential reductions of electronic component coats, first coat to the consumer ts expected to decrease 

in la,er yeara from the value given In the table. 

AEC18S 

9/lS/80 
<: 

I 

~ 

Table GH-2 

GENERAL HOTORS CORPORATION LIGHT DUTY (PASSENGER CAR) DIESEL EtlGINES ~~dued: October 1, 1980 

ESTIMATED EFFECTS OP EXHAUST AND EVAPORATIVE EHISSION STANDARDS ON POTENTIAL HARDWARE, AND ADDITIONAL-FIRST-COST TO CONSUMER 

NOTE: the projections ln thla table are based on tests of current CH ex~erlmental hardware and advanced research on control concepts which may have 

potential for compliance with future emlaalon and fuel economy standards • NO ADVANCED HARDWARE BEYOND 1982 FEDERAL HAS DEHONSTRATED AN ABILITY TO 

ACHIEVE FUTURE STANDARDS. the control hardware listed below represents GH'a best ESTIMATE of the TYPE and EXTENT of the hardware that will be necessary 

to approach future standards, and should not be interpreted to mean that the needed technology ~e available. Thie table will be updated perlodlcally to 

reflect changes ln the •state of the art.• 

Event 

1979 

federal 

1980 

federal 

1981 

federal 

1982 

federal 

1982 

California 

1984 

federal 

Standards5 PART-

~H~C~-C~O:;_~~N~O~X::..___;l~C~U~LA~T~E~S Applicable/Host Probable Hardware2 

1.5 15 2.0 

o.41 3.4 2.0 

lsicJ 

0.41 3.4 1.0* 

"Valved to 1,5 

0.41 3.4 l.O• 

"Valved to 1.5 

0.54 7 .o 1.2 

0.41 3.4 1.0* 

0.41 3.4 1.0 

0.6 

0.6 

0.6 

o.z 

Baseline Uncontrolled Engine 

• F. I. Timing, EGR 

F.l. Timing, HOD-EGR 

F.l. Timing, KOD-EGR 

r.1. Timing, analog 

electronic control of 

EGR and TCC engagement 

Digital electronic control 

of EGR, F.I. Tlmln8, rich 

fuel limiter and TCC engage- ment. Hodlfled F.l. Pump. 

Dlgltal electronic control 

of EGR, F.l. Timing, rich 

fuel limiter and TCC engagement. New electronic controlled F.I. Pump. Some form 

of regenerative particulate 

trap ts required. 

Diesel Vehicle 

Flrst Cost t 1 

Add'! Toto I 

Base- Baseline line 

50 50 

50 50 

50 50 

Undetermined] 

Unde.termlned3 

Undetermlned3 

Same engine marketable nationwide ln 1979. 

1980 California diesel engine certified to 1.5 NOx 

standard with 100,000 mile durability requirement 

(See footnote 1). 

*Waived to 1.5 NOx la available for 1981-84 with EPA 

approval. CH 5.7 L diesel granted waiver to 1.5 NOx 

for 1981-82. 

Redesign of EGR system offsets potential hardware coat 

Increase of more stringent NOx standard. 

First application of particulate requirement. No 

specific additional hardware deemed necessary for 

compliance. 

NOx standard for turbocharged engines • 1.5 gpm NOx at 

100,000 miles. NOx standards were set by CARD emer- gency action and are subject to confirmation at public 

hearing. Q,57 H~ ~tandard reflects ad.justment for low 

evap. allowance. • This system would be required to 

meet 1983 federal Standards w/o NOx waiver. 

Compliance required 1984 and beyond at all altitudes. 

TECHNOLOGY IS NOT AVAILABLE TO CONTROL EHISSIONS TO 

TllESE STANDARDS: the hardware described represent• one form of research control fOncept under study. lt 

le Impossible to def lne the eltent of development time 

and effort needed to develop practical and reliable 

production hardware. 

lc.itfornta Standards1 Beslnii"lng in HY 1.980, the Cellfornla Standards provide a variety of options and adjustments which result ln different 

stanJnrds for ench consecutive year. Available options Include total or non-methnne UC atondards, 100,000 mile durobillty standards, UC standard 

adjustment for low evap. emission systems, and various combinations of these provisions. the difficulty of controlling NOx results in selection of least 

strln11ent NOx requirement. 

2narJware Definitions: (a) EGR • Exhaust Gas Recirculation, ( b) HOD-EGR • Modulated Exhaust Gas Recirculation (c) TCC • torque Converter Clutch 

(transmission), (d) F.I. • Fuel Injection, (e) Rich Fuel Limiter • a control that holds air/fuel ratio below some level of enrichment. Emission Control 

hardwa:e Is not yet defined beyond 1981, although speculation as to the general concepts necessary to fulfill minimum need ta possible as shown. 

1Hardware Coats: Since control hardware la undefined beyond 1982 Federal Standards, projection of first coets,of future systems la not possible at thle time. Coet1 shown are expressed in 1981 dollars. 

4 Fue I Economy: 

abllut 25-10%. 

The use of a dleael engine of comparable performance in place of a gasoline-fueled engine, may increase fuel economy of that vehicle by 

Refer to other aide for gasoline tnformatlon. 

5

Evaporatlve Elll•slone: Diesel-fueled vehicles typically do not emit significant amounts of hydrocarbons through evaporetlve or refueling mechanlema. 

Consequently, compliance with the z.o g per teat evap requirement le posalble vtthout additional hardware. 

AF.Cl99 
Table GM-3 

Percent Improvement in Fuel 

Consumption of 1981 Federal Passenger Cars 

Compared to 1980 Federal Passenger Cars** 

Classification 

Average Adjusted 

GPM Improvement 

Between 1980 and 1981 

% Improvement 

From 1980 

to 1981 

Number of 

Combination 

Groups Matched 

All Federal 

Passenger Car 

Engines 

CO WaiverEngines 

Non-CO Waiver 

Engines 

Difference 

Between the CO 

Waiver Engines 

and the Non-CO 

Waiver Engines 

.0012 2.6% 

.0022 4.7% 

.0007 1.4% 

.0015 3.2%* 

* A 95% confidence interval was calculated for the difference of 

two means with common unknown. variances. The confidence 

interval ranges from -1.5% to 7.9%. 

These data clearly indicate that those vehicles granted the CO 

waiver exhibit a 3.2% increase in fuel economy over those 

·vehicles without the CO waiver. This finding compared favorably 

with both the National Research Council's estimate of 2 to 5 

percent and with our experience on the "J" car test program as 

well. 

** Retyped for clarity. 

28 

10 

18 
Coincidentally, as part of a new application being submitted 

today for a 1982 CO waiver on the 1.61 Chevrolet Chevette 

engine, we have conducted a test program similar to that 

conducted on the "J" car as described above. The data from the 

Chevette testing also confirms a fuel economy penalty on the 

order of 1 mpg for a car complying with a 3.4 gpm CO standard as 

compared to a car complying with a 7.0 gpm standard. These data 

are enclosed in the attachment [table GM-4]. 

All of these data consistently show that, without a waiver, the 

"J" car 1.8/2 .O liter engine family will achieve lower fuel 

economy levels than it could have achieved were a relaxed CO 

standard in effect. Based upon our best estimates, we believe a 

fuel economy penalty of the magnitude of 1 mpg on the EPA label 

will cause a significant number of potential buyers to either 

purchase a competing model of vehicle, or to withdraw from the 

new car market place until better fuel economy is achieved to 

help offset the cost of the new car. In either case, the effect 

is one of lost sales to General Motors. 

In a report to EPA, GM said "a 0.4 g/mi NOx standard would worsen fuel economy 

and driveability of gasoline engines, and, at present levels of technology, it 

would eliminate the fuel-efficient Diesel. •• "* 

Automotive News said "GM also stressed that averaging and lowering emission 

standards may improve fuel economy."** 

* General Motors, "1979-1980 Report of General Motors On Advanced Emission 

Control System Development Progress," February, 1981, Vol. 1, page 9. 

** Automotive News, April 6, 1981, page 49. 

V-6 
Table GM-4 

ATTACE?:ff..TI 

COMPARISON OF EMISSION Ai.'ID FUEL ECONOMY RESULTS FOR 

DEVilOPML'fT DATA CARS EQUIPPED WITI:I 1. 6 LIF-R E.'fGINES AND 

CALIBRATED TO 3.4 AND 7.0 G/MI CO STANDARDS 

Car Calibrated to 

3.4 g/mi Standard* 

Test 1 Test 2 Avg. 

Car Calibrated to 

7.0 g/rni Standard** 

Test 1 Test 2. Avg. 

· Automatic:. !ransmissio~ Equipped: C:a.rs; (IT03SA and: II03SR) 

Emissions (FTP) g/mi 

HC. 

co 

NOx 

Fuel Economy mpg 

City 

Highway 

Composite 

.087 

.90 

• 32. 

22. 9 

27.3 

.077 

1.21 

.29 

."082 

1.06 

.30 

23 .·2 23. OS 

2T.9 27.60 

24.. 90 

.154-

3. 06-

.. 28 

24-. 0 

30.0 

.195 

4.01 

.33 

. 174-

3. 54-

. 30 

23. 7 23. 85 

30.2. 30.10 

26.3!. 

Car Calibrat:ed t.o 

3.4 g/mi Standard* 

Car Calibrated to 

7.0 ~/mi Standard** 

Test 1 Test 2. Tes't. 3 Test 4- Avg. Test 1 Te3t 2. Tes't. 3 Avg. 

Four-Speed !fanua.l Transmission Equipped Cars. (IT033A. and IT033B} 

Emissions (FTP) g/mi 

Fuel 

RC 

co 

NOx. 

Economv mpg 

City 

Highway 

Composite 

Notes: 

.075 

.99 

.31 

24..9 

33. • .S 

. 084-

1.12. 

.33 

25 .2. 

33.8 

.077 

.42. 

.24-

25.l 

33 .. 6. 

.084-

. 84-

.26 

25 .3 

.080 

.84. 

.28 

25.13 

33. 63. 

28:.35 

.137 

2.26 

.52. 

26. 4.. 

34..9 

* Calibrated using deterioration factors (HC - 1.419, co 

1. 285) developed on certification durability car 1110. 

** Calibrated using deterioration factors (HC - 1. 679' co 

l .'248) developed on certification durability car 1104. 

V-7 

-

-

.115 

1. 94-

. 36 

26.0 

·34.5 

.118 

1. 86 

.35 

26.l 

34.6: 

.123 

2.02 

. 4.1 

26·.16. 

34-66 

29 .40. 

1.590· and NOx -

1.490 and NOx -
2. New Technology or Developments which Could Provide a Change in the 

Relationship Between Emissions and Fuel Economy as Compared to 1981 Vehicles 

or GM's Estimates 

A. The first device discussed is GM' s detonation sensor system, which was 

described in Society of Automotive Engineers Paper 11790173, titled "Energy 

Conservation with Increased Compression Ratio and Electronic Knock Control". 

The following GM discussion provides; a) insight into the circumstances which 

led to the development of this system, b) how it operates, and c) test data 

for two vehicles calibrated to meet 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO and 1.0 NOx, one with the 

detonation sensor system~ and· the other, without. 

Spark Knock Control has been the focus of extensive research 

over the years by both oil companies and engine manufacturers. 

Efforts to improve the fuel . economy and performance of spark 

ignited gasoline engines have been hindered by the occurence of 

knock which can be affected by such variables as engine 

tolerances, fuels, and vehicle operating conditions. In the 

past, spark knock control has been achieved by the use of fuel 

additives, fuel blends, or engine design modifications such as 

combustion chamber design, cooling system design, or retard of 

ignition timing. Currently, spark retard is utilized in many 

production engines to reduce the tendency for knock under 

adverse driving conditions such as heavy load, hiJh ambient 

temperature, or low humidity. Accordingly, the engine may 

operate with reduced efficiency under less adverse conditions 

when retard is not required to control knock. With the advent 

of catalytic converters necessitating the use of unleaded fuels, 

the engine designer has limited the compression ratio so that 

the engine octane requirement is satisfied by the current 

available unleaded fuels. 

Historically, raising the compression ratio of an engine has 

improved efficiency. However, there has been some concern, in 

addition to the concern for higher octane requirement that 

efficiency might not be improved when higher compression ratio 

engines were recalibrated to meet emission constraints. As a 

result, a study (l)* was recently completed at General Motors 

which indicated that with catalytic converter emission control 

systems, the traditional efficiency gains were possible at the 

current Federal Exhaust Emission Standards, (1.5 g/mi HC, 15 

g/mi CO, 2.0 g/mi NOx) when raising compression ratio from 8.3:1 

to 9. 2: 1. 

* References are listed by the number in parentheses at the end of 

the excerpts. 
This gain was accompanied by an increase in octane requirement, 

however, which could not be satiBfied with 91 Research Octane 

Number (RON) unleaded fuel. Published information from the 

petroleum industry indicated that substantial energy losses 

occurred in the refinery when producing higher octane unleaded 

fuel. As a result, the energy losses in the refinery for making 

the higher octane fuels offset the efficiency gains in the 

vehicle. Consequently, the conclusion of this study was that 

there did not appear to be an incentive for increasing unleaded 

fuel octane levels to allow for the use of higher compression 

ratio engines with a catalytic converter emission control system. 

This paper will describe an electronic closed loop knock control 

system that may satisfy the octane requirements of more 

efficient higher compression ratio engines, at current 

(1.5/15.0/2.0) and 1981 exhaust emissions levels (.41/3.4/1.0), 

with 91 octane fuel. 

A knock control system ( 2) is currently being offered by the 

Buick Motor Division of General Motors on the Turbocharged V-6 

engine. The scope of the paper will, therefore, be limited to 

the application of the knock control system to higher 

compression ratio engines. 

CLOSED LOOP KNOCK CONTROL (CLKC) SYSTEl1 DESCRIPTION 

The knock control system was designed for use on engines with 

electronic ignition. It includes a detonation sensor or 

accelerometer, electronic controller and modified distributor. 

The detonation sensor, is mounted on the intake manifold of the 

engine. The location of the sensor is carefully selected to 

insure that the knock vibration will be transmitted as equally 

as possible from all cylinders. 

If no knock is present~ the normal ignition timing, determined 

by the basic timing, centrifugal advance, and vacuum advance is 

passed directly to the distributor. When knock occurs, the 

detonation signal is larger than the background noise level and 

a retard command is generated that is proportional to the 

intensity of knock encountered. 

The retard command is used to produce a delayed or retarded 

ignition pulse to the distributor. The distributor ignition 

module has been modified to accept the retarded ignition pulse. 

When knock is reduced to desired levels, the controller restores 

the spark advance at a predetermined rate until the normal spark 

values are re-established. It is important to note that the 

system only retards and does not advance timing to seek out 

knock. 
It can be noted that the spark is retarded rapidly to control 

knock and then readvanced slowly. This is a feature used to 

maintain smooth vehicle operation during knock control. More 

rapid changes in spark timing can cause uneven engine power 

resulting in surge which is observed by the driver as a jerky 

forward motion in the vehicle. Throughout the acceleration, the 

spark advance is retarded and readvanced while the system seeks 

to maintain a commercial knock level. In this example, the 

maximum retard for this condition was 11° during the test. 

The operation of the knock control system is dependent on the 

occurrence of knock. That is, a knocking cycle must occur to 

trigger the control system and generate retard. These "knock 

control" cycles, which occur just prior to control, may be heard 

as random trace to light knock in the engine during the control 

mode. It should, therefore, be emphasized that the system does 

not eliminate detonation, but controls the knock to commercial 

levels. More sensitive control of detonation below these levels 

can produce a "false retard" condition when retard occurs 

without knock in the engine. False retard should be avoided as 

it can result in a loss of vehicle performance and fuel economy. 

The maximum spark retard available using the knock 

system is determined by the physical characteristics 

distributor and vehicle driveability. For example, the 

retard is physically limited by arcing or crossfire 

distributor cap which can result in a spark occurring 

wrong cylinder. 

control 

of the 

maximum 

in the 

in the 

Likewise, large changes in spark retard could also contribute to 

the surge problem described earlier. The final vehicle spark 

calibration with a knock control system must, therefore, be 

evaluated under the most severe knocking conditions expected, to 

insure that the system has sufficient retard capacity to control 

knock while maintaining driveability. 

FUEL ECONOMY POTENTIAL AT .41/3.4/1.0 EMISSION ST.Ai~DARDS - Two 

vehicles ( 4000 lb. inertia weight) with 305 CID engines and 

3-way catalyst emission control systems were built to determine 

the fuel economy advantage of a higher compression ratio and a 

closed loop knock control at the 1981 Federal emission standards 

of .41/3.4/1.0. The engines were built with 8.4:1 and 9.2:1 

compression ratios, respectively, and calibrated within the same 

percent loss (approximately 1%) from best fuel economy spark 

timing. Both vehicles were equipped with closed loop knock 

control systems allowing the vehicles to be calibrated without a 

knock constraint. Fuel economy gains were therefore determined 

for the effect of compression ratio at equivalent emission 

levels. Rear axle ratios were selected to equalize the 

performance of the cars. 

V-:-10 
Emission Results Emission targets of • 25 I 2. 5/. 60 were 

established co allow for emission control system deterioration, 

vehicle variability, and test variability. These targets would 

not necessarily assure that these vehicles would meet the 

Federal Standards at 50,000 miles, however, . since durability 

testing was not run as part of this program. Figure 13 

illustrates that the exhaust emission goals for hydrocarbons, 

carbon monoxide, and oxides of nitrogen were met with each 

vehicle. In general, the higher compression ratio engine 

required more EGR for NOx control and more spark retard during 

cold start operation for HC control. 

FUEL ECONOMY RESULTS - Figure 14 shows the comparison of fuel 

economy on the EPA city (5) and highway (6) schedules for the 

8.4 CR and 9.2 CR vehicles. The 9.2 CR vehicle exhibited a 3.7% 

advantage in fuel economy on the EPA city test and 5.3% gain on 

the EPA highway test. The overal1 fuel economy improvement for 

the composite 55/45 test was 4.3%.. These results were obtained 

from the average of four tests on each vehicle and were all run 

with 91 RON fuel. 

The fuel economy tests on the 9.2 CR vehicle were then run with 

clear Indolene test fuel (RON 98). This resulted in a small 

gain in fuel economy on both the 1:::ity and highway tests (Figure 

24) and the overall gain for the change in compression ratio was 

5. 9%. The reason for this differ,cnce appears to be due to the 

reduction in spark retard requiri~d to control knock with the 

higher octane fuel on the 9.2 CR vehicles. 

Figure 15 illustrates the spark 1::-etard generated by the 9.2:1 

compression ratio engine on 91 aIJLd 98 RON fuels during one of 

the more severe portions of the EPA city test. The f~equency of 

occurrence of knock and amount of retard required to control 

knock was greater with 91 RON fuel. The increased retard had a 

minimal effect on the EPA fuel economy results as the spark was 

not retarded over the majority of operating conditions. The 8.4 

CR vehicle did not have significant spark retard during the EPA 

test; therefore, no change in fuel economy would be expected due 

to increasing fuel octane over 91 RON. 

Vdl 
305-4 4000# l.W., 10.8 HP 

CLOSED LOOP CARBURETOR 

1975 FEDERAL TEST PROC. 

3·WAY CONVERTER - EGR 

91 RON FUEL 

AVG. 4 TESTS 

TAILPIPE (GMS/Mll 

C.R. ~ ~ co ~ 

8.4: 1 2.41: 1 .25 2.5 .52 

9.2: 1 2.28:1 .22 2.4 .63 

TARGET .25 2.5 .60 

STANDARD .41 3.4 1.0 

Fig. 13 - The exhaust emissions of the 8.4 CR 

and 9.2 CR vehicles met the target levels for 

the 1981 Federal standards 

JCS-' .000• l.W .. 10.8 H.P. 

CLOSED LOOP CARBURETOR J WAY CONVERTER-EGA 

AVERAGING OF 4 TESTS 

COMPRESSION RATIO 8.4:1 9.2:1 

REAR AXLE RATIO 2.4:1 2.28: 1 

FUEL I EPA FUEL ECONOMY 'lo GAIN 

91 RON CITY 16.1 16.7 J.7 

HIGHWAY 22.7 2J.9 5.J I CHEVRON 91 I COMPOSITE 55/45 18.5 19.J 4.J 

98 RON CITY - 16.9 5.0 

(INOOLENE HIGHWAY - 24.4 7.5 

CLEAR) COMPOSITE - 19.6 5.9 

Fig. 14 - The 9.2 CR vehicle exhibited a 4.3% 

gain in fuel economy on the EPA composite 55/45 

test 

&Or 

~20f-

.. "" Jot ~";!!;~------\_ . VEHICLE SP. EED~ 10f- ------0--------..... ----"'----------~ 

"'''''~~l-----~-W-D-O-L-£H-E-C-LE-A•O~~· 

Fig. 15 - The amount of retard encountered by 

the 9.2 CR vehicle on the EPA City test was 

reduced when fuel octane was increased from 91 

RON to 98 RON 

V-12 
The following references are for the preceding quo tat ions from SAE paper 

number 790173. 

REFERENCES* 

1. · J.J. Gumbleton, G.W. Niepoth, and J.H. Currie, "Effect of Energy and 

Emission Constraints on Compression Ratio", Paper 760826 presented at 

SAE, October 1976. 

2. T .F. Wallace, "Buick's Turbocharged V-6 Powertrain for 1978", Paper 

780413 presented at SAE, March 1978. 

5. R.E. Kruse and T .A. Huls, "Development of the federal Urban Driving 

Schedule", Paper 730553 presented at SAE, Hay 1973. 

6. T.C. Austin, K.H. Hellman and C.D. Paulsell, "Passenger Car Fuel Economy 

During Non-Urban Driving", Paper 7~·0592 presented at SAE, August 1974. 

* Only those references which were cited in the previous excerpts were 

included in this listing. The orl.ginal reference numbers were used for 

this document. 
B. Another area, which affects the relationship between fuel economy and 

emissions, is combustion chamber design. GM described development work 

concerning combustion chambers in the Society of Automotive Engineers Paper 

11800920, titled "The Attributes of Fast Burning Rates in Engines." The 

following excerpts from this paper provide insights into combustion chamber 

design and its effect on the relationship between emissions and fuel 

economy. The references cited by GM are listed at the end of the excerpts. 

THE CONCEPT OF BURNING THE MIXTURE in a spark ignition engine 

relatively fast is increasingly making its way into engine 

designs throughout the world. Fast burning is certainly not 

new, with the higher efficiency or output and fuel octane 

advantages being known for decades. In fact, some of the 

engines of the 1920's (1) incorporated combustion-chamber design 

features promoting fast burning. 

In the past, fast burning was curtailed, due to adverse noise 

and mechanical failures caused by too great a rate of pressure 

development, particularly as compression ratios were increased. 

With the introduction of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) for 

oxides of nitrogen control in the early 70's and the lowering of 

compression ratios in the mid 70's, the pendulum swung the other 

way, and burning rates decreased sharply.· The current movement 

toward fast burning represents an effort to reestablish, at 

least to some degree, the rates of combustion that once existed 

in engines. 

ENGINE EFFICIENCY AND EMISSIONS -

Tuttle and Toepel (10) diagnosed and compared combustion in the 

two different combustion chambers shown in Fig. 8. The wedge 

chamber, with its off-set spark plug and resulting long flame 

travel distance, promotes relatively long burning times. In 

contrast, the compact open chamber, with a more central spark 

plug, would be expected to produce faster burning. Each 

combustion chamber was instrumented extensively, including the 

incorporation of cylinder pressure instrumentation (14-16) to 

diagnose heat release and flame motion (17). Testing followed a 

statistical experimental design involving selected combinations 

of engine speed, fuel input, air-fuel ratio, EGR rate and spark 

timing. 

V-14 
> 

() 

z 

UJ 

() 

LI.. 

.LI.. 

w 

...J 

< 

:? 

a: 

w 

:c 

.... 

.... 

w 

z 

WEDGE CHAMBER 

OPEN CHAMBER 

Fig. 8 - Experimental study combustion 

chambers (10) 

35 

31 

30 

29 

0 

SPEED - 1900 r I min 

AIFRATI0-16:1 

FUEL INPUT-23.0 mq I cycle 

8 

EGA.% 

16 

EINO - g I kg x 

OPEN---

WEDGE-----

24 

Fig. 9 - Efficienc:y - NOx t:radeoff (10) 

TT "1 t:' 
Experimental results showed that the open chamber did indeed 

have faster burning, as made evident by shorter combustion times 

and reduced spark-advance values at MBT. Net thermal efficiency 

of both chambers is shown in Fig. 9 for various amounts of EGR, 

with engine speed, air-fuel ratio, and fuel input constant. 

Concentrating first on the curves denoted MBT, which represents 

optimum timing data, the open, or faster burning chamber, is 

seen to exhibit higher efficiencies. Starting with no EGR, the 

efficiency at first increases with the addition of EGR. This 

behavior is due to both the higher specific-heat ratio and the 

reduced throttling of the more dilute mixture. 

Another important advantage of the faster burning chamber is its 

greater tolerance to dilution. As shown, EGR rates as high as 

28% can be accommodated with the open chamber, versus 22% for 

the wedge chamber, before the efficiency drops off 

significantly. This capability of going to greater dilution 

with fast burning has also been found (18) to occur when the 

dilution gas is air rather than EGR. 

Also shown in Fig. 9 are lines of constant NO emissions. 

Movement vertically downward from the MBT line represents 

increasing spark retard from optimum timing. Evident is the 

familiar reduction in NO with either spark retard or higher EGR 

rate• A comparison of the condition at points A and B shows the 

same trend uncovered earlier using the engine simulation 

namely, that faster burning produces higher NO emissions. Note, 

however, that by adding a slight amount of EGR to the open 

chamber (point C), its efficiency advantage can be maintained 

while matching the lower NO value of the slower burning wedge 

chamber. This behavior is very significant since it shows that 

the judicious selection of spark timing and EGR rate can lead to 

both higher efficiency and lower NO emissions in the fast-burn 

chamber. 

Kuroda et al. (11), in going· from single ignition to dual 

ignition in the same combustion chamber and introducing varying 

amounts of EGR for oxides of nitrogen (NOx) control, also found 

that fast burning could achieve both higher efficiency and lower 

NOx. Likewise, Thring (13), going from one up to four spark 

plugs to increase burning rate in a given combustion chamber, 

found the dual improvement with faster burning. As an 

additional part of his studies, Thring used alternate design 

approaches to achieve the same burning rate, as indicated by the 

time in crank-angle degrees to go from · burning 10% of the 

mixture to burning 90% of the mixture. Included among these 

approaches were different combinations of four spark plugs, the 

use of ordinary or extended electrode spark plugs, and the use 

of a shrouded intake valve to create fluid motions conductive to 

faster flame speeds and therefore faster burning rates. 
An important finding was that engine efficiency and NOx 

emissions were not unique functions of the burning rate. While 

both of these parameters increased as the burning time was 

reduced, their magnitudes at a given burning time depended upon 

the approach taken to achieve that particular burning time. To 

modify. slightly a former advertising slogan, "It's not how 

short you make it, but how you make~ it short that is important." 

With regard to hydrocarbons, the data of Tuttle and Toepel (10) 

shown in Fig. 10 indicate no significant influence of burning 

rate on the hydrocarbon emissions index (grams of the HC per 

kilogram of fuel).. The data do show, however, that operation at 

low EGR rates and retarded spark timing is an effective means to 

lower HC emissions, primarily d!ue to the resulting higher 

exhaust temperatures demonstrated earlier with the engine 

simulation. 

There are two factors associated with the formation of hydrocarbons. First, as thermal efficiency increases with faster 

burning, the exhaust temperature generally decreases. This 

leads to lower HC oxidation rates and therefore higher HC 

concentrations in the exhaust port. In fact, Mayo ( 12) has 

found an almost linear variation of HC concentration with 

burning time. For a given engine load, however, the higher 

efficiency for the faster burning means that less total mass 

flow is required through the engine, which may more than 

compensate for the higher HC concentration and lead to lower HC 

emissions expressed on a mass per unit time, or per vehicle mile 

traveled basis. These conflicting trends make it difficult to 

establish a general rule regarding the effect of burning rate on 

HC emissions. For example, Kuroda et al. (11) have found the HC 

emissions on a mass per unit tim•~ basis to be lower for fast 

burning at a given EGR rate, whil·e Thring (13) has reported no 

change in HC emissions at low loads and higher HC emissions with 

increased burning at high loads. 

As a sidelight, the data of Figs. 9 and 10 illustrate a 

dichotomy regarding engine calibration factors. That is, high 

efficiency considerations dictate that optimum timing be 

established with moderate EGR rates. Low HC emissions, on the 

other hand, favor low EGR rates and retarded timing, while low 

NO emissions favor high EGR rates and retarded timing. Managing 

these conflicting goals represents a formidable challenge in 

engine calibration. Adding to the difficulty of engine calibration is the need to provide good vehicle dri veability by 

minimizing the cyclic variability of engine power. 

SIMULATION STUDIES OF BURNING ENHANCEMENT APPROACHES - Lienesch 

(3) has used the engine simulation discussed earlier to examine 

the two approaches to faster burning rates. Starting with 

measurements of turbulence in the wedge-shaped chamber shown in 

Fig. 16 as a baseline condition, the turbulence level was 
35 

* 34 

> 

u 

z 33 w 

u 

LI.. 32 LI.. 

w 

..J 

< 31 

:::: 

a: 

UJ 

J: 30 

IIUJ 29 z 

0 

OPEN 

WEDGE------

SPUD - 1900 r/ min 

Afl- RAT 10 • 16: l 

FUEL INPUT • 23. 0 mg/ cycle 

' ' ' \ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

I 

I 

I 

1

10 

EIHC - g/kg 

8 16 24 

EGA.% 

Fig. 10 - Efficiency - hydrocarbons 

tradeoff (10) 

32 
IGNITIC\\J POINT 

~I 

____ _.__i ___ J 

WEDGE CHAMBER 

IGNITION POINT 

EXTREME OPEN CHAMBER 

rig. 16 - Combustion chambers of 

analytical study (3) 
increased analytically by 50%, as might be accomplished 

experimentally (35) with ·a shrouded valve. Use of a 

correlation of burning velocity with turbulence developed 

experimentally by Groff and Matekunas (35) allowed the 

resulting engine performance to be predicted. 

As an alternative to this fluid-motions approach, a second 

chamber was envisioned in which the cylinder head and piston 

crown both have concave spherical shapes and the ignition 

point is located in the center of the chamber. While such a 

shape is not practical to manufacture, its extreme openness 

represents an upper limit to the geometric approaches for 

increasing fuel burning rates. 

The performance of the standard wedge, increased turbulence 

wedge, and extreme open chamber was analyzed for a light 

acceleration condition involving a stoichiometric air-fuel 

ratio, 10% nominal EGR and MBT timing. Results are given in 

Table 1 for near-equal NO exhaust concentrations, achieved by 

adding 1 to 3% of additional EGR to the fast-burn cases. 

Starting with the standard wedge chamber and increasing the 

turbulence level resulted in a reduction of the combustion 

duration from 43 to 32 crank-angle degrees. However, in the 

case of the extreme open chamber, the duration was even 

shorter, namely 27 degrees. These variations resulted in a 

slight improvement in efficiency for the increased turbulence 

case and an even greater improvement in efficiency in going 

to the extreme open combustion chamber. 

The reason for this higher efficiency is linked to the heat 

transfer. Because the high-temperature burned gases in the 

extreme open chamber do not contact the chamber wall during 

most of the combustion process, the heat losses in this 

chamber are significantly lower. In contrast, the wall 

contact of the flame in the wedge chamber plus the higher 

film coefficient (due to the higher pressure term in the 

Woschni (6) correlation) for the faster burn case caused 

greater heat-transfer losses. Had an additional increase in 

the film coefficient been made to account for the higher 

turbulence of this case, these heat losses would have been 

even greater. These heat-loss considerations account for the 

slightly higher exhaust . gas temperature of the extreme open 

chamber in spite of its higher efficiency and more complete 

expansion. 
Parameter 

Combustion Duration 

Peak Burning Rate 

Peak Heat-Transfer Rate 

Indicated Thermal Eff. 

Exhaust Nitric Oxide 

Exhaust Temperature 

* Retypea for clarity 

Table 1 - Simulation Results* 

Standard 

Wedge 

\.Case l) 

43 

13. 2 

3.8 

34.6 

1530 

1130 

V.-21 

Increased 

Turbulence 

(Case 2) 

32 

18.0 

4.3 

35.l 

1530 

1115 

Extreme 

Open 

1.Case 3) 

27 

25.3 

3.3 

37.0 

1520 

1135 

Units 

°CA 

mg/°CA 

J/°CA 

% 

ppm 

K 
While these results show the technique of increasing frontal 

areas to be more effective than that of increasing the turbulence level, generalizations should not be drawn. First of 

all, the heat-transfer model in the engine simulation is not 

sophisticated enough to account for details of chamber 

geometry and fluid motions. Furthermore, the heat-transfer 

correlation (6) may not be applicable for engine designs far 

removed from conventional practice. In addition, the 

ignition delay computation procedure in the engine simulation 

does not account for swirl effects, thereby underestimating 

the influence of swirl on the overall time of the combustion 

event. Finally, as mentioned before, the extreme open 

chamber design represents an upper-limit . case which is 

impractical to manufacture for many reasons. Within these 

constraints, the study does indicate that there may be a 

limit to the optimum amount of turbulence, after which 

excessive heat losses cause a drop in efficiency. 

Some evidence of this situation is indicated by the experimental data of Thring (13) discussed earlier. To review, the 

NOx and indicated specific fuel consumption were not a unique 

function of combustion duration. When the same combustion 

duration was obtained, in one case with increased swirl and 

in the other case with multiple spark plugs, the increased 

swirl led to greater heat losses, which produced lower NOx 

but lower indicated efficiency as well. 

CONTEMPORARY ENGINE DESIGNS 

The fast-burn approach to engine combustion is rapidly being 

adopted in new engine designs throughout the world. A small 

sample of some of these new designs is illustrated in Fig. 18 

[and 19]. 

In figure 18, a cross-section of the General Motors 2.8 L V-6 

engine designed by Chevrolet . (39), shows .the chamber to be 

somewhat open with a near-central spark plug location. 

Another geometric approach to fast burn is shown in Fig. 19, 

where the original shallow cavity of a flat-topped piston in 

a wedge-shaped chamber was redistributed to provide an offset 

cavity. The original compression ratio was maintained. This 

offset cavity provides a large frontal area to the 

propagating flame while improving the fuel octane requirement 

by providing more effective cooling of the end gas. In 

experimental studies (17) with this piston, the attributes of 

fast burning were realized. This piston-cavity approach has 

been employed in the turbocharged versions of the Pontiac 4.9 

L V-8 engine (40, 41). 
Fig. 18 - General Motors 2.8 L V-6 

combustion chamber (39) 

SPARK PLUG 

ELECTRODES 

, 

Fig. 19 - Experimental modified wedge 

chamber ( 17) 

v~23 
SUMMARY 

Fast burning in engines has been shown to have a number of 

attractive attributes. Among these advantages is an improved 

tradeoff between efficiency and NOx emissions and a greater 

tolerance to dilution, either with EGR or with excess air. 

Resulting from the combined effect of these two traits is the 

potential for simultaneously achieving higher efficiency and 

lower NOx emissions. 

Fast burning also reduces the cyclic variation of engine 

power, which can improve vehicle driveability. Furthermore, 

the greater resistance to knock with faster burning can allow 

the fuel economy advantages associated with higher compression ratios to be realized. 

A number of different combustion chamber design techniques 

exist for accomplishing fast burning. These techniques fall 

into the two categories of altering the combustion-chamber 

shape and affecting the fluid motions in the chamber. Combining these different techniques into an "optimum" combustion chamber design, while still recognizing all of the 

important constraints, offers a challenge as well as an 

opportunity for the engine designer. 

Finally, the growing 

world incorporating 

this concept. 

number of new engines 

fast burning attescs to 

throughout 

the merits 

the 

of 
References* 

1. J. c. G. Hempson, "The Automobile Engine, 1920-1950," Paper 760605, presented at SAE West Coast Meeting, San Francisco, August 1976. 

3. J. H. Lienesch, "Engine Simulation Identifies Optimal Combustion Chamber 

Design." Presented at Seventeenth FISITA International Congress, Hamburg, 

West Germany, May 1980. 

6. G. Woschni, "A Universally Applicable Equation for the Instantaneous Heat 

Transfer Coefficient in the Internal Combustion Engine." SAE Transactions, Vol. 76, 1967, pp. 3065-3083. 

10. J. H. Tuttle and R. R. Toepel, "Increased Burning Rates Offer Improved 

Fuel Economy-NOx Emissions Trade-Offs in Spark Ignition Engines." Paper 

790388, presented at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, 

February 1979. 

11. H. Kuroda, J. Nakajima, K. Sugihara, Y. Takagi and S. Muranaka, "The Fast 

Burn with Heavy EGR, New Approach for Low NOx and Improved Fuel Economy." 

SAE Transactions, Vol. 87, 1978, pp. 1-15. 

12. J. Mayo, "The Effect of Engine D4:sign Parameters on Combustion Rate in 

Spark-Ignited Engines." SAE Transactions, Vol. 84, 1975, pp. 869-888. 

13. R. H. Thring, "The Effect of Varying Combustion Rate in Spark Ignited 

Engines." Paper 70-387 [sic], presented at SAE Automotive Engineering 

Congress, Detroit, February 1979. 

14. D. R. Lancaster, R. B. Krieger and J. H. LienesC.h, "Measurement and 

Analysis of Pressure Data." SAE Transactions, Vol. 84, 1975, pp. 155-172. 

15. R. V. Fisher and J. p, Macey, "Digital Data Acquistion with Emphasis on 

Measuring Pressure Synchronously with Crank Angle." Paper 750028, 

presented at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, February 1975. 

16. M. B. Young and J. H. LienE~sch, "An Engine Diagnostic Package 

(EDPAC)-Software for Analyzing Cylinder Pressure-Time Data." Paper 

780967' presented at SAE International Fuels and Lubricants Meeting, 

Toronto, November 1978. 

17. J. N. Mattavi, E.G. Groff, J, H. Lienesch, F. A. Matekunas and R. N. 

Noyes, "Engine Improvements Through Combustion Modeling." Proceedings of 

Symposium at General Motors Research Laboratories on Combustion Modeling 

in Reciprocating Engines, J. N. Ma.ttavi and c. A. Amann, Edi"tors, Plenum 

Press, New York-London, 1980, pp. 537-587. 

18. A. A. Quader, "Effects of Spark Location and Combustion Duration on Nitric 

Oxide and Hydrocarbon Emissions." SAE Transactions, Vol. 82, 1973, pp. 

617-627. 

* Only those references which were cited in the previous excerpts were 

included in this listing. The original reference numbers were used for 

this document. 

v~2s 
34. D. R. Lancaster, 

Ignition Engine." 

"Effects of Engine Variables on Turbulence in a Spark 

SAE Transactions, Vol. 85, 1976, pp. 671-688. 

35. E. G. Groff and F. A. Matekunas, "The Nature of Turbulent Flame 

Propagation in a Homogeneous Spark-Ignited Engine," Paper 800133, 

presented at SAE Automotive Engineering Congress, Detroit, February 1980. 

39. D. A. Martens, "The General Motors 2 .8 Liter 60 ° V-6 Engine Designed by 

Chevrolet." Paper 7 90697, presented at SAE Passenger Car Mee ting, 

Dearborn, June 1979. 

40. "Automotive Industries." October 1979, p. 87. 

41. "Automotive Design and Development." May 1980, pp. 16-17. 

·V726 
C. In a SAE Paper (11800794) titled "Controlling Engine Load by Means of Late 

Intake-Valve Closing", General Motors described a technique of reducing an 

engine's pumping losses in order to improve thermal efficiency, with the 

accompanying benefit of considerably reduced NOx emissions. Pumping losses 

are defined as the power required to pump the fuel-air mixture into and out.of 

the cylinder during the intake· and exhaust strokes. Pumping losses were 

reduced by "delaying intake-valve closing (with respect to a conventional 

intake-valve closing) as a method of controlling the engine load without 

incurring the usual part-load throttU.ng losses." The following excerpts more 

fully describe the concepts and the results. 

CONCEPT 

The late intake-valve-closing (LIVC) engine is an engine with 

the power output regulated by controlling the crankangle at 

which the intake valve closes. An LIVC engine operating at part 

load is depicted in Fig. 2. As in the case of a conventional 

engine, the intake valve opens just prior to and remains open 

throughout the intake stroke of the engine.· However, the intake 

valve also remains open over a portion of the compression 

stroke while the piston pushes part of the cylinder charge back 

into the intake manifold. After the intake valve closes, the 

remainder of the compression stroke, as well as the expansion 

and exhaust strokes, are similar to those of a conventional 

engine. 

An idealized pressure-volume diagram for an LIVC engine is shown 

in Fig. 3. For comparison, an idealized pressure-volume diagram 

for a conventional engine is also shown. The pumping losses of 

the conventional engine operating at part load are substantial, 

as depicted by the shaded area in Fig. 3. In contrast, since 

the LIVC engine inducts fresh charge at near atmospheric 

pressure (unthrottled), the throttling l~sses are nearly 

eliminated for all load conditions. The trapped cylinder 

charge, and therefore power output, is determin~d by the 

effective cylinder volume at the time of the i~take-valve 

closing Vive of Fig. 3. A mechanism that would vary the time 

the intake valve closes as a function of speed and desired load 

would allow the LIVC engine to achieve the same maximum power as 

that of an equal-displacement conventional engine, while 

providing lower part-load pumping losses. 

V..-:27 
/ \ 

t 

'-..._../ 

I 

\ \ 

/ 

a) Intake Stroke b) Start of 

Compression Stroke 

\ 

/ 

c) Compression 

Stroke (before 

Intake Valve 

Closes) 

v -.... 

\ \ 

.....___/ 

· d) Compression 

Stroke (after 

Intake Valve 

Closes) 

Fig. 2 - Depiction of LIVC operation 

PRESSURE 

LATE INTAKE -

VALVE CLOSING 

VTDC Vive Vsoc 

VOLUME 

CONVENTIONAL 

THROTTLING 

VTDC Vsoc 

VOLUME 

Fig. 3 - Pressure-volume diagrams 

V-28 
EXPERIMENTAL EQUIPMENT 

Because of the exploratory nature of this investigation, a 

variable valve-timing mechanism was not necessary. Rather, 

modification of the test engine to LIVC operation was 

accomplished by replacing the production camshaft with a splined 

shaft. The splined camshaft allowed cams of different dwells at 

maximum lift to be installed such that the intake-valve closing 

could be incrementally varied. The timings of exhaust-valve 

opening and closing and of intake-valve opening were the same as 

those of the conventional engine. The intake-and exhaust-valve 

opening and closing crankangles for the various intake-valve 

dwells investigated are listed in Table 2. Valve lifts are 

shown in Fig. 5 for both the conventional engine and an engine 

with the intake-valve closing delayed 80 degrees of crankshaft 

rotation. An intake-valve dwell of o0 cA corresponds ~o the 

conventional engine. 

RESULTS 

Table 2-Valve Timing 

Intake-Valve 

Dwell ( 6CA) 

0 (conventional) 

60 

80 

96 

Exhaust Valve 

Open 

88°BBDC 

88°BBDC 

88°BBDC 

88°BBDC 

Close 

52°ATDC 

52°ATDC 

52°ATDC 

52°ATDC 

Intake Valve 

Open Close 

38°BTDC 

38°BTDC 

38°BTDC 

38°BTDC 

82°ABDC 

142 ° ABDC 

162 ° ABDC 

178°ABDC 

All specific test data reported herein are based on 

integrated pressure cards. "Indicated" values represent 

power developed within the cylinder during the 

compression-expansion portion of the engine cycle, and 

"pumping" values represent the negative power required for 

the exhaust and intake strokes. The difference between 

these two powers is termed thE~ "net" power. 

ENGINE LOAD CONTROL - The power output of the LIVC engine 

is controlled by the effective cylinder volume* at the time 

of the intake-valve closing. Increasing the dwell of the 

intake valve at its maximum lift decreases the cylinder 

volume at the intake-valve closing, thus decreasing the 

amount of fresh charge trapped in the cylinder. 

FUEL CONSUMPTION - The fuel-consumption characteristics of 

the LIVC engine relative to those of the conventional 

engine were analyzed as the additive result of changes in 

both the indicated and pumping portions of the engine 

* The term "effective cylinder volume" is used to denote the 

cylinder volume at which the intake valve is effectively closed. 

V-:-29 
12 

9 

VALVE 

LIFT 6 

(mm) 

3 

EXHAUST INTAKE 

----\ 80 °CA 

1/oELAYED 

I 

I CONVENTIONAL 

\ (0 °CA DELAYED) 

OL-_..ic::. _ _.__ _ _.__..L.J._,.__.._ _ _.__,.___._.....:.-_. 

0 90 180 270 360 450 540 630 720 

PMEP 

(kPa) 

TDC TDC 

CRANKSHAFT POSITION (°CA) 

Fig. 5 - Valve-I ift diagram 

70 

\-CONVENTIONAL 

60 

50 . ENGINE 

40 \ 

\ 

30 

=-7-c-:\ 20 

10 LIVC 

ENGINE· 

O'::-~~--'-~~~-'-~~--l~~~....J 

0 10 20 30 40 

FUELING LEVEL (mg/cycle) 

Fig. 9 - PMEP versus fueling level 

ESTIMATED VALUE 

(NON-KNOCKING) 

CONVENTIONAL 1 

ENGINE - --,, 

INDICATED 34 LIVC 

THERMAL ENGINE---,-

EFFICIENCY 

(%) 33 

32 

0 10 

MBT VALUES : VALUES AT 

20 

I BORDERLINE KNOCK 

I 

30 40 

FUELING LEVEL (mg/cycle) 

Fig. JO - Indicated thermal efficiency versus 

fueling level 

V-30 
cycle. The change in the pumping portion of the cycle is 

presented first. Because the LIVC engine inducts fresh charge 

at near atmospheric pressure, thE! pumping losses of the engine 

are expected to be much lower than those of the conventional 

engine. Values of pumping mean effective pressure (PMEP) for 

both the LIVC and conventional engines are plotted against 

fueling level in Fig. 9. As the fueling level of the 

conventional engine is decreased from the maximum value, the 

PMEP of the engine continually increases. The values of . PMEP 

shown in Fig. 9 for the LIVC engine are essentially the same as 

those of the conventional engine: operating at WOT. Thus the 

LIVC concept of load control can limit engine "breathing" 

without incurring the large throttling losses associated with a 

conventional engine operating at part load. 

Indicated the~al efficiency is plotted versus fueling level in 

Fig. 10 _for both the LIVC and the conventional engines. With 

the exception of the highest values of fueling level in Fig. 

10, the values of indicated thermal efficiency are not MBT 

spark timing. At the highest values of fueling level, MBT 

timing could not be attained due to knocking of the engine on 

the 97 RON fuel. Under knocking conditions, the indicated 

thermal efficiency in Fig. 10 is that corresponding to 

borderline knock. Estimated values of indicated thermal 

efficiency for non-knocking operation are represented by the 

dashed line. For non-knocking operation, the rate of decrease 

in indicated thermal efficiency with decreasing fueling level 

(load) is significantly greater for the LIVC engine. The cause 

of the larger decrease in indicated thermal efficiency for the 

LIVC engine will be addressed later. 

Even though the LIVC engine is at a disadvantage when indicated 

thermal efficiencies are compared, the lower pumping losses of 

this engine result in its having an advantage when net thermal 

efficiencies are compared. Net thermal efficiency is based on 

the indicated output power less the pumping losses and, 

consequently, gives credit for the lower PMEP of the LIVC 

engine. Fig. 11 is a plot of net thermal efficiency versus 

fueling level and shows the improvement in net thermal 

efficiency of the LIVC engine over the conventional engine to 

increase with decreasing fueling level. 

The data of Fig. 11 are replotte!d in Fig. 12 as net specific 

fuel consumption (NSFC) versus net mean effective pressure 

(NMEP). Use of net output (indicated less pumping work) allows 

the fuel economy of the LIVC and the conventional engines to ·be 

compared at equal engine load, where equal engine load refers 

to equal NMEP. If the engine friction were unchanged between a 

conventional engine and one modified for ·LIVC operation, then 
ESTIMATED VALUE 

(NON-KNOCKING) 

36 ///J 

34 LIVC 

ENGINE 

32 

NET 

THERMAL 

EFFICIENCY 3o 

I (%) 

28 CONVENTIONAL 

ENGINE 

26 

MST VALUES VALUES AT 

BOROEP.LINE 

KNOCK 

0 10 20 30 40 

FUELING LEVEL (mg/cycle) 

Fig. 11 - Net thermal efficiency versus fueling 

level 

NET 

330[ 

320L 

310. 

JOO~ SPECIFIC 290 

FUEL 

CONSUMPTION 280 

(g/kW-hl 

270 

260 

250 

240 

SYMBOL 

• CONVENTIONAL 

A LIVC \ c. LIVC •THROTTLING 

~~ '"~ \'~, MBT I ( : ) VALUES AT 

96 _.........,,~:~ VALUES : BORDERLINE KNOCK 

~·~ : so~'\"--• ~ : I ', I 

60 °CA 

VALVE DWELL 

200 400 600 800 , coo 

NET MEAN EFFECTIVE PRESSURE (kPal 

Fig. 12 - Specific fuel consumption 

30.0 

NET 

SPECIFIC 

25.0 

20.0 

NOx 15.0 

(g/kW-hl 

10.0 

SPARK TIMING FOR 1 % 

LOSS FROM MBT TORQUE 

CONVENTIONAL 

ENGINE 

"-llVC ENGINE 

·+ o.o ~~ L.1 -~--4-'6'-o _ _._ __ 6...._6_0 _ _.__-=-scio 

NMEP (kPa) 

Fig. 15 - Specific NOx emissions 

'\"_,--J2 
the comparison would also be valid at equal brake load. As 

mentioned earlier, because delayed intake-valve closing is 

limited to about 96°CA and because this amount of delay does 

not provide a range of load control sufficient for vehicle 

operation, LIVC must be combined with conventional throttling. 

Consequently, also included in lig. 12 are data for which 

combinations of delayed intake-valve closing and conventional 

throttling were used to regulate engine load. These data are 

indicated by the dashed lines in Fig. 12, which connect data 

having a common value of intake-valve dwell The data indicate 

the fuel consumption when throttling is used to decrease the 

load further from that achieved by unthrottled LIVC operation. 

In comparison to the conventional ;angine, both the throttled and 

the unthrottled LIVC engines exhibit improved fuel-consumption 

characteristics at part load. Comparing data for engine 

operation with combined LIVC and throttlihg to data for 

unthrottled LIVC operation shows the LIVC-plus-throttling method 

of load control has a higher NSFC than the unthrottled LIVC 

method. These results indicate that unthrottled LIVC should be 

used to control engine load for loads which can be reguiated by 

intake-valve dwells of up to about 96°CA. For lighter engine 

loads, which cannot be achieved by unthrottled LIVC operation, a 

combination of 96°CA of intake-valve dwell plus conventional 

throttling exhibits the lowest fuel consumption. 

EXHAUST EMISSIONS - Specific emissions of NOx are shown in Fig. 

15 for both the conventional and the LIVC engines. These 

emissions are based on net output power. Because NOx emissions 

are extremely sensitive to spark timing near the MBT timing and 

because MBT spark timing itself is not always well defined, 

emissions are not compared at MBT power. Rather, emissions are 

compared at a spark timing which resulted in a 1% loss in engine 

torque from the MBT output. Emtssions are not shown at the 

zero-dwell power (WOT power for the conventional engine) because 

knocking prevented the estimation of the MBT value of the engine 

torque. 

At equal NMEP, the NOx emissions of the conventional engine can 

be seen in Fig. 15 to be considerably higher than those of the 

LIVC engine. At mid-load, the NOx emissions of the the LIVC 

engine are about 24% lower than those of the conventional 

engine. The higher. NOx emissions of the conventional engine are 

attributable to its higher peak cylinder pressures and, as 

calculations showed, its higher p1aak cylinder-gas temperatures. 

The lower pumping losses of the LIVC engine allow the engine to 

have a substantially lower peak pressure while producing the 

same part-load NMEP as the conventional engine. The measured 

v .... 33 
cylinder-gas pressures were input to a heat-release analysis 

[10 l which computes the associated peak cylinder-gas 

temperature. At mid-load, the peak cylinder-gas temperature of 

the conventional engine is higher th.an that of the LIVC engine 

by 70 K. 

Specific emissions of unburned hydrocarbons (RC) are plotted in 

Fig. 18. Again, the emissions measurements correspond to a 

spark timing which resulted in a 1% loss in torque from the MBT 

output. The HC emissions from the conventional engine and from 

the LIVC engine are not too different, particularly at the lower 

engine loading. Because exhaust-gas temperature will affect RC 

cleanup in a vehicular exhaust system, the measured exhaust 

temperatures are compared Since the temperatures are 

similar for the two engines, post-cylinder HC clean-up should be 

no more difficult for the LIVC engine than it is for the 

conventional engine. 

CONCLUSIONS 

1. Load Control Delayed closing of the intake valve is 

limited to about 96 degrees of crankshaft rotation because 

greater delays cause large deterioration in indicated thermal 

efficiency. This amount of delay does not provide a sufficient 

range of load control for vehicular application. Consequently, 

the LIVC concept would have to be combined with a 

variable-density throttle control. 

2. Fuel Economy -

a. The LIVC concept of load control can limit engine 

power output without incurring the large throttling losses 

associated with a conventional engine operating at part 

load. 

b. In comparison to the efficiency of the conventional 

engine with its fixed compression ratio, the indicated 

thermal efficiency of the LIVC engine at part load is 

lower, and it decreases more rapidly with decreasing load. 

The lower indicated thermal efficiency of the LIVC engine 

at part load results from a lower effective compression 

ratio and a longer combustion duration. 

c. Although the indicated thermal efficiency of the LIVC 

engine is lower, the lower pumping losses result in the 

LIVC engine's having up to a 6.5% lower net specific fuel 

consumption than the conventional engine at the same 

light-load operation. 

10. R.B. Krieger and G.L. Borman, "The Computation of Apparent Heat 

Release for Internal Combustion Engines," ASME Paper 66-WA/DGP4, 

1966. 

V-:34 

I 

'I 
d. Conversion of a conventional engine to LIVC operation requires 

the addition of a control mechanism. Consequently, the fuel s,:.vings 

offered by the LIVC concept must. be diminished by the losses innerent 

in any such control device. 

e. The current trend toward lower vehicular power/ weight ratios 

diminishes the 'fuel-economy benefit of the LIVC concept. 

3. Exhaust Emissions -

a. At spark timings yielding a 1% 

values, the NOx emissions of the LIVC 

than those of the conventional emgi ne. 

about 24%. 

loss in torque from tl-e MBT 

engine are considerabl!' lower 

At mid-load, the reduct_on is 

b. HC emissions 0£ the LIVC engine are similar to those of che convencional e~gine. 

NET 

SPECIFIC 

HC 

(g/kW-h) 

6.0 

5.0 

4.0 

3.0-

\ 

\ 

SPAFIK TIMING FOR 1 "lo 

LOSS FROM MBT TORQUE 

CONVENTIONAL 

ENGINE 

~\__._I~~~'..__~~'--~-'-~--'~~-' . 'J 200 300 400 500 600 700 

NMEP (kPal 

Fig. 18 - Specific hydrocarbon emissions 

V-3.3 
V. B. Ford 

1. Ford Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions and Fuel 

Economy 

A. High Altitude Emission Standards 

Ford states that they believe that the implementation of the 1984 high 

altitude requirements will reduce their fleet average fuel economy by 2% 

to 7%. Ford states that this loss would result from their replacing 

fuel efficient configurations by less efficient ones. Ford claims, "The 

1984 and Subsequent Model Years High Altitude Control Requirements could 

regulate out of existence some of the most fuel-efficient vehicle 

configurations because of their inability to simultaneously meet 

stringent high altitude standards and yield acceptable performance."* 

However, Ford did not provide any data to back up this claim. 

B. Effects of Reducing the NOx Standard to 0.4 g/mi 

Ford states, "Further reducing NOx emission levels below 1.0 g/mi could, 

in some cases, without further design and development of high EGR tolerance engines, 

surging. These 

cause power reduction, tip-in stumbles, lean sags and 

conditions can usually be minimized by reducing EGR 

rates and richer air-fuel mixtures. However, rich air-fuel operation is 

inconsistent with high fuel economy and low HC and CO objectives."* 

Ford further stated that their "California cars will suffer an 

additional 8% loss in fuel economy in 1983 [relative to their 1981 model 

year counterparts] when the 0.4 NOx emission standard goes into effect 

(assuming this NOx standard can be met at all); that will lower CAFE by 

0.2 MPG. These losses will occur in spite of the fact that we will be 

using sophisticated and very expensive emission control systems 

* "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Sections IIA6 and IIJ. 

V-36 
* 

** 

*** 

including three-way catalysts and complex electronics to control fuel 

metering, spark t·i.ming, and other important parameters of the engine 

to minimize what otherwise would be much larger fuel economy losses."* 

While Ford provided no data to substantiate the above claims, they did 

submit a summary of computer engine mapping results comparing the fuel 

economy of vehicles which meet the research target (0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 

0.41 NOx) versus vehicles whose emissions are totally uncontrolled. The 

comparisons used engine maps of vehicles equipped with 2.3 liter and 5.0 

liter engines. ~ord's results indicated that the unconstrained 2.3 

liter vehicles obtained between 11:% and 21% better fuel economy than the 

controlled versions, and the unconstrained 5.0 liter version produced 

between 9% and 12% higher fuel economy than their controlled counterparts. Ford obtained between 25.9 mpg and 26.0 mpg combined fuel 

economy with their uncontrolled 2.3 liter vehicles, and 17 .8 mpg with 

their uncontrolled 5.0 liter vehicles.** Unfortunately Ford did not 

provide any emissions data or specifics on those vehicles (e.g., type of 

transmission, test weight, axle ratio, whether turbocharged, whether 

closed-loop, and whether fuel injected or carbureted). Since the Ford 

report was submitted in September 1979, the EPA technical staff examined 

1980 model year Ford vehicles which were used to generate the fuel 

economy label values used by Ford for their 1980 model year vehicles 

equipped with either 2.3 or 5.0 liter engines. We found that the 2.3 

liter, 2 barrel, manual (both 4- and 5-speed) transmission, open-loop 

vehicles produced 28 MPG and thus exceeded the "best fuel economy .. c' 

version in Ford's study. Similarly, the s.o liter, 2 barrel or fuel 

injected, automatic (3- and 4-spei~d) transmissions, open or closed-loop 

vehicles (with the exception of the LTD, LTD Wagon, Marquis, and Marquis 

Wagon) all achieved at least 18 MPG • *** We, therefore, have doubts 

c 

concerning the accuracy of Ford's computer engine mapping technique as 

an indicator of EPA test results. 

Hearings before the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on 

Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of Representatives, March 

13 and 14, 1979. 

"Ford 0.4 NOx Research Objective Program," September 1979, pages 1-2. 

EPA/DOE 1980 Gas Mileage Guide. 

v--37 
C. Effects of Alternate "Standards" on Fuel Economy 

Ford has studied the effects on fuel economy of a proposed (by Ford) 

emission standard of 0.39 g/mi non-methane HC, 9.0 g/mi CO, and 1.5 g/mi 

NOx compared to the current standard of 0.41 g/mi HC, 3.4 g/mi CO, and 

1.0 g/mi NOx. Ford states, "Based on a preliminary analysis, such a 

change starting in the 1983 model year could, conservatively, provide an 

average benefit of 0.5-0.7 mpg to the fuel economy of the Ford fleet."* 

Since the 1983 CAFE standard is 26.0 mpg, Ford apparently believes that 

their proposed emission standard will result in a fuel economy improvement of approximately 2% to 3%. Ford provided neither the test data nor 

the analysis method used to predict that fuel economy improvement. 

D. General Comments By Ford 

Ford, in the same report states, "It has not been possible for Ford to 

separate the fuel economy penalty attributable to emission controls from 

the overall improvement in fuel economy, but the penalty is believed to 

be significant."** Ford's statements contradict the computer simulations of Heywood, Higgins, Watts, and Tabaczynski which indicate that 

fuel economy can be improved while controlling emissions. For example 

simultaneously increasing the amount of EGR and advancing the spark 

timing could increase fuel economy without causing the NOx to significantly increase.*** The resulting increase in HC could probably be 

handled by the catalyst. See figures Ford-1 and Ford-2. 

E. General Comments by EPA's Technical Staff 

It is quite time consuming to generate test data to analyze since it is 

difficult to run more than one city (FTP) test per day on a given 

vehicle. Ford eliminates this problem by running either steady-state 

* "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIF. 

** Ibid., Section III B. 

*** Heywood, et. al, "Development and Use of a Cycle Simulation to Predict 

SI Engine Efficiency and NOx Emissions," SAE Paper 790291, page 18. 

V-38 
* 

... 

• I 

3': 

.JI, 

.... 

0 

. 

u 

.t:I "' 

360 

340 

68b=40° 

• 20° Rel o Io• Rel 

o 5° Ret 

o MBT 

• 5• Adv 

- 300 

0 2 4 6 6 10 12 14 

bsNO, gNO/kW-hr 

Figure Ford - 1* - Lfnes of constant percent exhaust gas 

recycle, and constant timing relative to MBT, on 

a plot of brake specific fuel consumption versus 

brake specific nitric oxide emissions. Combustion duration 40°, equivalence ratio 1.0, 1400 

rev/min, bmep 325 k.Pa 

.. 

• I 

360 

3': 340 

• I 

\ 

I 

\ 

\ .JI, •20o/J \ \ 

• 20° Rel 

o 10° Rel 

o 5° Rel 

o MBT 

• 5° Adv 

~~:\ . ' ' \ ... ~ .... .... __ ~ 320 ~' - - ____:;;:.=. .1:1 

"' . I 

I ' - --~-

a 

300 

-· 

16 

0 2 4 6 8 '10 12 14 

tis NO. gNO/ kW -hr 

Figure Ford - 2 

- Lines of constant percent exhaust gas 

recycle, and constant timing relative to MBT, on 

a plot of brake specific fuel consumption versus 

brake specific nitric oxide emissions. Combustion duration 60°, equivalence ratio 1.0, 1400 

rev/min, bmep 325 kPa 

Ibid. , page 18. 

V-·39 
tests or by running what Ford calls a hot-CVS (which is a city test with 

the vehicle already warmed-up). Unfortunately, it is very difficult, if 

not impossible, to accurately predict both emissions and fuel economy 

results for the FTP cycle based only on steady-state or hot-CVS test 

results (as shown in appendix 1 of this report). Therefore, Ford's 

approach might not be correct for actual FTP results. Also, Ford makes 

a number of claims but without providing any data to document those 

claims. 

2. New Technology or Developments which Could Provide a Change in the Relationship between Emissions and Fuel Economy as Compared to 1981 Vehicles or Ford's Estimates. 

A. New Engines 

1. PROCO (PROgrammed COmbustion) 

The PROCO engine is a direct injection, open chamber stratified 

charge engine. Fuel is injected into the combustion chamber during 

the compression stroke and ignited by dual spark plugs. Stratification is achieved by relatively late injection timing and the 

swirl of incoming air, resulting in a rich mixture in the vicinity 

of the spark plugs and a very lean mixture around the periphery of 

the combustion chamber. 

Ford has tested PROCO engines with displacements of 7.5, 6.6, 5.8, 

5.0, 3.3, and 2.5 liters.* Ford has found that, "Because the PROCO 

engine runs at overall lean air/fuel ratios and the fuel charge is 

concentrated in the center of the combustion chamber, thus reducing 

fuel contact with the cylinder head and walls, both HC and CO 

* "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Sections IIG & IIH, 

V-40 
emissions are minimized. However, oxidation catalysts will still 

be required to meet the 0.41 g/mi hydrocarbons and 3.4 g/mi carbon 

monoxide emission standards. The NOx standard of 1.0 g/mi is also 

achievable due to this engi:ne' s ability to use large amounts of 

EGR."* Fortunately, the use of EGR should not lower fuel economy, 

as Ford explains, "The errc•neous notion that EGR is inherently 

detrimental to fuel economy comes from the fact that EGR reduces 

the combustion speed. If the engine had the optimum combustion 

speed without EGR and measures are not taken to counteract the combustion speed reduction effect of EGR, then the fuel economy will 

indeed suffer from EGR. The combustion speed of the PROCO engine, 

however, is optimized for the 100% charge dilution condition with 

the aid of inlet swirl, squish, and dual ignition in order to take . 

full advantage of the fuel economy potential inherent in charge 

dilution."** 

Ford estimates that the PROCO engine, when calibrated to meet the 

1981 statutory emissions standards, will produce a 20-25% fuel 

economy improvement over a carbureted, conventional gasoline engine 

of the same displacement which was also calibrated to the 1981 

standards.** 

According to Ford, the major problem in mass producing the PROCO 

engine "revolves around mass manufacturing of its precision fuel 

injection system which re:quires extremely tight tolerances. 

. I Pending continued successful development and resolution of manufacturing open issues, the PROCO may be available for production 

use by the mid-1980's."** 

Ford states that, "As engine power-to-vehicle weight ratios are reduced, it may be necessary to turbocharge the smaller engine to 

restore the required performance level. In addition to meeting the 

* Nickol, "Automotive Powertrains - Now and into the 1990' s," SAE Paper 

801340, October 1980, page 6. 

** Scussel, et al, "The Ford PROCO Engine Update," SAE Paper 780699, August 

1978, page 4. 

v--41 
required performance level, it may be necessary to turbocharge in 

order to meet the NOx emission control requirements •••• resting to 

date indicates that turbocharging PROCO, with its inherently fast 

combustion, will require modifications to the current technology 

PROCO combustion system."* In fact Ford says, "The advanced [i.e. 

turbocharged] PROCO is not expected to be available prior to 

1990."** 

In a recent interview with "Ward's Engine Update," Ford Chairman, 

Philip Caldwell indicated that the PROCO engine will not be going 

into production. Ford will, however, try to incorporate some of 

the technological know-how they developed while working on the 

PROCO on some other projects that will go into production.*** 

2. Stirling 

The Stirling engine that Ford is investigating is a reciprocating; 

closed cycle, continuous external combustion engine with multi-fuel 

capabilities. Ford states that, "Using gasoline, the Stirling has 

been projected to be capable of achieving up to 40% better economy 

than conventional gasoline engines, although experimental vehicles 

have fallen far short of this goal."**** These projections, however, are not based on actual test data. 

Ford's work on the Stirling engine had been done under Department 

I 

of Energy Contract No. EC-77-C-02-439'6. At the conclusion of Task 

* "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIH. 

** Nickol, "Automotive Powertrains - Now and into the 1990's", SAE Paper 

801340, October 1980, page 10. 

***Ward's Engine Update," Volume 6, Number 24, December 15, 1980, pages 5 

& 7. 

****Nickol, "Automotive Powertrains - Now and into the 1990's," SAE Paper 

801340, October 1980, pages 11-12. 

V-42 

11 

!! 
I in September 1978, Ford officially notified the Federal government agencies and private fiicms that it intended to withdraw from 

active participation in the development of the Stirling engine as 

an automotive power plant.* 

3. Gas Turbine 

Ford is a subcontractor to AiResearch Manufacturing Company of 

Arizona on the current NASA/DOE Advanced Gas Turbine Powertrain 

System (Contract No. DEN 3-37). "Ford believes that the ceramic 

single shaft turbine has the best potential of any turbine for 

attaining low emissions, excellent fuel economy and reasonable 

manufacturing cost. The potential of meeting a 0.4 [g/mi] NOx 

standard is yet to be determined."* 

Ford and AiResearch believe that a 3000 pound car powered by such a 

turbine could achieve a fuel economy of 42 .8 MPG ; however, a 

c 

vehicle is not planned to be available for testing until July 1981 

and no test data is currently available.** There was no 

speculation as to when this engine might be available in 

automobiles. 

4. Diesel 

Ford is currently developing Diesel engines; however, there is no 

indication of when they will be available for production. Until 

Ford's Diesel is ready for production, Ford will purchase Diesel 

engines from companies such a:s Bayerische Motoren Werk AG (BMW)*** 

and Toyo Kogyo (TK).**** 

* "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIH. 

** Rackley, "Advanced Gas Turbine Powertrain System Development Project," 

presented at Automotive Technology Development Contractors Coordination 

Meeting - Dearborn, Michigan, November 1980. 

***"Ward's Engine Update," Volume 6, Number 24, December 15, 1980, page 5. 

****"Ward's Engine Update," Volume 6, Number 20, October 15, 1980, page 6. 

V·-43 
Ford's Diesel research has not reached a point at which they can 

predict fuel economy and emission results. They are currently investigating turbocharging and both direct and indirect injection 

combustion chamber configurations.* 

As part of a correlation program with· Ford, EPA tested a frontwheel drive Escort equipped with a manual transmission and a TK 

Diesel engine. A total of two tests were performed at EPA and 

eight tests at Ford;. the average results of those tests are shown 

below: 

FTP (~/mi) 

II of 

Lab Tests HC co NOx Part. MP Gu MPGh MP Ge 

EPA 2 .241 • 70 .74 .184 37.1 51.4 42.4 

Ford 8 .213 .69 .74 .145 36.4 so.a 41. 7 

It should be pointed out that, at both test facilities, the NOx 

levels are below 1.0 g/mi and the total particulate levels are 

below 0.20 g/mi.** There has been some interest in the fuel 

economy of a Diesel at these emission levels. This vehicle was 

tested at an ETW of 2750 pounds with a dynamometer horsepower 

(VDHP) set ting of 6. 7 horsepower. Two similar 1981 model year 

Diesel vehicles with manual transmissions were identified. The 

following table allows a rough comparison of these three vehicles: 

Vehicle ETW VDHP MP Gu MPGh MPGc 

Ford Correlation Diesel 2750 6.7 37.1 51.4 42.4 

Chevette Diesel 2500 8.3 40.1 55.1 45.7 

VW Dasher Diesel Wagon 2625 6.9 36.0 48.0 40.6 

* Nichol, "Automotive Powertrains - Now and Into the 1990' s," SAE 

Paper 801230, October 1980, pages 8-9. 

** Watson, "Ford - EPA 1981 Light Duty Vehicle Diesel Correlation", 

EPA Technical Report No. EPA-AA-EOD-81-3, May 1981. 

V-44 
B. Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT) 

A truly continuously variable transmission is one which permits ratio 

variations completely independent of vehicle speed or engine output. 

Its major advantage is that it provides the flexibility to run an infinite number of drive ratios betweEm fixed upper and lower limits. Ford 

says that the advantages of the CV'r are: 

1. Smooth vehicle acceleration without shift impulses. 

2. Acceleration with the engine operating very close to its 

optimum power output, thiereby improving performance. 

3. Road load engine operation at peak efficiency consistent with 

acceptable driveability, thereby improving economy, due to 

CVT' s ability to optimize its performance within this narrow 

range.* 

Ford states that, "To date, however, some of the apparent benefits have 

been offset by high internal frictional losses. Much work remains, 

making the CVT an unlikely prospect for the mid-1980's."** 

3. The Effect of Known Technology which Helps Quantify Single or Multiple 

Calibrations or Vehicle Description Changes. 

A. Automatic Overdrive Transmission (AOD) 

The AOD, which Ford began using in the 1980 model year, incorporates 

three fuel savings features. Fi1rst, the overdrive gear (fourth gear) 

has a gear ratio of 0.67 to 1.0, thus allowing the engine to operate at 

* Nichol, "Automotive Powertrains -· Now and Into the 1990's", SAE Paper 

801230, October 1980, page 13. 

** "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIF. 

V-·45 
a lower speed than it would with a similar automatic transmission which 

had a final gear ratio of only 1.0-to-l.O. Secondly, the torque converter clutch directs the flow of engine power to completely bypass the 

torque converter and to follow a direct mechanical path to the driveshaft, thus eliminating torque converter losses while the transmission 

is in fourth gear. Finally, the transmission uses a split torque path 

which all·ows a portion of the engine power to bypass the torque converter and follow a mechanical path to the drive shaft, thus eliminating 

some of the torque converter losses. While none of those three features 

is unique in the automotive industry, Ford claims that the combination 

of all three "is an industry 'first.' Only Ford Motor Company offers 

this feature."* 

Ford claims, without providing substantiating data, that the overdrive 

gear can increase 

torque converter 

highway fuel economy (MPGh) by up to 6%, that the 

clutch can increase combined fuel economy (MPG ) c 

approximately 4%, and that the split torque principle can improve MPG 

c 

approximately 7%.** 

Ford pointed out that this system could be improved by incorporating an 

electronic control system such that a single microprocessor would 

control both engine and transmission functions. Ford states that, 

"Potential benefits from such a system could include improved fuel 

economy through implementation of a neutral idle control strategy and 

increased transmission shift scheduling flexibility permitting the best 

compromise of shift timing to attain optimum fuel economy, emissions and 

driveability. "*** However, Ford did not indicate if they are studying 

this possible improvement. 

* Dabich, "Ford Motor Company Automatic Overdrive Transmission," SAE Paper 

800004, February 1980. 

** Nickol, "Automotive Powertrains - Now and into the 1990 's," SAE Paper 

801230, October 1980, pages 12-13. 

*** Ibid. 

V-46 
B. Weight Reductions 

Ford's Metallurgy Department has been investigating the potential for 

using high strength steels (HSS) in place of mild steel. Ford states 

that "the use of higher strength steels allows for reduced weight in 

components that are primarily used in energy absorbing applications. An 

example of this is· the widespread use of HSS in sidedoor beams with 

large weight reduction over original mild steel versions. • •• Although 

the total weight of steel in future vehicles is somewhat uncertain, it 

is possible to project that sheet:_ steel stampings will make up about 

. forty percent of future vehicle weights. The overall penetration of 

high strength steel among the sheet steels is now about 20% in Ford 

vehicles; the authors speculate that this penetration will reach 30 to 

50% of the total automotive sheet steel by the end of the decade ••• We 

speculatively project the application of high strength sheet steels per 

vehicle to approach the 300 to 600 pound range by the end of the 

decade."* Ford believes that the use of high strength steels will be a 

key feature in "achieving very s:lgnif icant worldwide fuel savings."** 

Ford anticipates that the use of high strength steels to replace average 

strength steels will result in th«i! savings of 100 pounds per vehicle by 

1985 (See figure Ford-3). ** See figure Ford-4 for overall weight reduction. 

C. Reduction of Internal Friction within the Engine 

Foi:d' s Fuel and Lubricants Department analyzed motored engine friction 

data from a Ford 1.6 liter and a Datsun 2.0 liter engine. Ford found 

the frictional losses ·in the Ford 1. 6 liter engine were significantly 

higher than in the Datsun 2. 0 liteir engine. Ford determined that this 

* Magee, et.al., "Automotive Sheet Steels for the 1980's," May 1980. 

** Magee, et.al., "Factors Influencing Automotive Applications of High 

Strength Steels," August· 1979. 

V-47 
1-1. 

ti) 

~ 

z 

1-1 

-

E=< 

0 

:z; 

i:=l r:i:::· 

~ 

ti) 

t:J 

..J 

H 

ti). 

z 

i:=l 

~ 

i:=:: 

0 

e 

~ ti) 

·. 

ti) 

~ 

...:I 

150 -

100 -

50 

AVERAGE 

STRENGTH 

19]5 1980 

WEIGHT 

SAVE 

I 

I 

01 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

Figure Ford - 3* 

* Ibid. 

Trends in strength level of HSS used in automobiles and the 

increased weight reduction 

V-48 

1985 
1-

::::i: 

~ 

..... 

4500 

~ 4000 

1-

Vl 

1...1..J 

let: 

I-

~ 3500 z: 

..... -[o 

• l...LJ 

Ott.!) 

1...1..J 

3 

Vl 

L.LJ 

....J 

< V') 

3000 

2500 

~igure Ford - 4* 

SALES '.JE lGHTED AVERAGE INERTIA TEST HEIGHT FOR 1"QRD BY MODEL YEAR 

PASSENGER CARS 

Tentative Programs Under Consideration 

1974 1976 1978 

"'-------

1980 1982 

MODEL YEAR 

* "Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIP. 

... .... - -.... __ -- --

l9as 

' " ~--

l 0 
friction could be reduced by redesigning the piston/cylinder interface 

and by the use of low friction oils.* 

Ford states that their "studies show that reduced friction engines incorporating fast burn/lean burn combustion technology offer potential 

for about a 12% fuel economy improvement over . the original engine. 

Although some technological, cost and lead time issues remain to be 

resolved, increased usage of this technology is expected throughout the 

mid-1980's.** 

D. Reducing Parasitic Losses 

Ford found that, by replacing the conventional V-belt, arrangement on a 

1978, 5.0 liter Mustang with a serpentine drive arrangement, "increased 

belt flexibility and improved traction resulted in a more efficient 

drive system with potential increase of 0.04 mpg."*** An increase of 

0.04 mpg on that model amounts to an increase of 0.2%.  

"Fans which deactivate when satisfactory engine cooling exists offer I 

potential.for improved on-road fuel economy which may, to some degree, 

be reflected on the EPA test. Electro-mechanically clutched fans have 

been used on Ford vehicles such as the Fiesta and Escort/Lynx and are 

expected to see more wide spread applications in the future."** *** 

Variable speed and two-speed accessory drives ·are being studied for use 

on vehicles with low power-to-weight ratios and relatively heavy accessory loads. These systems will drive air pumps, alternators, power 

steering pumps, and air conditioners. For the variable speed system, 

*Willermet, "Lubrication Modes and Engine Friction - A Comparison of Motored 

Engine Friction Data for the l.6L Ford and 2.0L Datsun Engines," January 

1981, attachment to "Ford Status Report," February 1981. 

**"Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section !IF. 

***Cassidy, et .al., "Serpentine - Extended Life Accessory Drive," SAE Paper 

790699, June 1979. 

 EPA/DOE 1978 Gas Mileage Guide. 

** ***"Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIF. 

V-50 
"[k]ey problem areas relate to durability, packaging and optimization of. 

accessory· performance." For the two-speed system, "ultimate usage is 

questionable on a cost/benefit basis."* 

E. Supercharging 

Ford claims that supercharging by way of a turbocharger can allow that 

engine to equal the performance of a naturally aspirated engine which is 

50% larger than the turbocharged engine. Also, the turbocharged engine 

according to Ford, can provide approximately 9% better fuel economy than 

. the larger naturally aspirated engine and with no significant impact on 

emissions.** 

F. Decel/Idle Fuel Shut-Off System 

This system ·shuts off the fuel, and hence the engine, when the engine is 

warm and would normally be idling.. Ford claims, without submitting any 

supporting data~ that this system provides a fuel economy improvement of 

1% to 2% on vehicles equipped with either manual or automatic overdrive 

transmissions when tested on the FTP cycle excluding the cold start 

(Ford's HOT-CVS test cycle). Vehi.cles equipped with conventional automatic transmissions have fuel ec.onomy. gains of less than 1% • Ford 

states these produce higher HC ~:eedgas levels; however, there is no 

change in HC tailpipe levels. The problems with this system, according 

to Ford, are: 

1. Without a speed signal, the system gives poor driveability and 

potential stalls • 

. 2. The system incurs substantial cost penalties for additional 

hardware (e.g., sensors, solenoids, etc.).*** However, some 

*"Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIF. 

**Nickol, "Automotive Powe rt rains - Now and into the 1990' s," SAE Paper 

801340, October 1980, page 5. 

***"Ford Status Report," February 1981, Section IIA3f. 

V-51 
of that hardware would already be present if the vehicles were equipped 

with a closed-loop system. 

Ford states that, "These problems are expected to be resolvable and pro,.. 

duction incorporation is being studied or actively pursued for several 

engines."* 

G. Multipoint Electronic Fuel Injection 

Ford currently (1981 model year) uses ·central fuel injection (CF!) on 

its fuel injected models. Ford is working to develop a multipoint 

electronic fuel injection (EFI) system for use on 4-cylinder engines. 

The multipoint EFI system with its four injectors has the potential for 

greater control of the fuel metering than does the CF! with only its two 

injectors.** If this potential is realized, the multipoint EFI could 

result in an improvement in both emissions and fuel economy. 

*Ibid., Section !IF. 

**Ibid., Section IIA3. 

V-52 
v. c. Chrysler 

1. Chrysler's Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions 

and Fuel Economy 

In CO waiver hearings, Chrysler said that fuel economy, on average, is 

degraded by about 2% for vehicles complying with the 3 .4 g/mi CO standard, as 

compa+,ed to.a 7.0 g/mi CO standard. According to Chrysler, the 7.0 standard 

would allow the use of richer A/F ratios during acceleration, to enhance the 

catalyst's NOx reduction capability. This allows the use of EGR and spark 

timing calibrations that are more optimum for fuel economy. The fuel economy 

benefit varies from one engine family to another depending on the degree to 

which EGR and spark timing calibrations have been compromised in order to meet 

the NOx standard. Chrysler indica t:ed that, on average, fuel economy is 

expected to improve by 2%, but this was based on their judgment. They had not 

run back-to-back tests between vehicles calibrated for 3 .4 and 1 .O g/mi CO 

standards.* 

In a historical review on emission co:citrols, Chrysler commented that with the 

introduction of catalysts, 

it became necessary to remove lead from gasoline. The 

antiknock level of unleaded fuel that could be accomplished 

with existing refining technology was and is substantially 

below that which existed with the lead antiknock compound 

present. As a result, lower coDlpression ratio had to be 

used with resulting loss in fuel E!conomy. ** 

* Transcript of Proceedings, United States Environmental Protection Agency, 

In the Matter of: Public Hearing on Applications for Waiver of Carbon 

Monoxide Emission Standards for Certain Model Automobiles, Washington, 

D.C., October 24, 1980. ** Charles M. Heinen, Chrysler Corp., "We've Done the Job - What's It Worth," 

SAE Paper 801357, October 20-23, 1980, pages 9 & 11. 

V-53 
This paper made the case that lighter vehicles with electronic engine controls and changes in 

mixture preparation and distribution should result in exhaust 

emissions before any catalyst of 1.5 HC, 10 CO and 1.5 NOx based 

on vehicles already in existence. These systems will be on 

vehicles regardless of the emissions requirements because of 

their fuel economy benefits. Without a catalyst a moderate 

amount of lead would be permissible. The results, of course, 

would be a gain of not only fuel economy, but a reduction in the 

cost of fuel with all their attendant benefits. 

The author admitted that the fuel economy loss is a highly controversial subject, but referred to a Detroit News Editorial, June 9, 1980, for order of 

magnitude figures that indicated that leaded regular fuel would cost 6-7% less 

than unleaded fuel and improve fuel economy 5-10%.** 

Table Chrysler-! below was included in the SAE Paper cited above. This information was taken by Chrysler from the Annual Report of the Administrator of 

the Environmental Protection Agency to the Congress of the United States, "The 

Cost of Clean Air and Clean Water," 96th Congress, First Session, Document No. 

96-38, December, 1979. 

Table Chrysler-1** 

Fuel Fuel 

Consumption Consumption 

Year PenaltX:* Year Penalty* 

1968 343.64 1978 1587.17 

1969 599.19 1979 1349·. 58 

1970 1033.89 1980 1049.19 

1971 1556.84 1981 849.61 

1972 2346.72 1982 524.89 

1973 3304.32 1983 366.24 

1974 2954.63 1984 255.02 

1975 2540. 78 1985 151.95 

1976 2077 .18 1986 85 .• 44 

1977 1851.86 

* millions of 1977 dollars 

** Charles M. Heinen, Chrysler Corp., "We've Done the Job - What's It 

Worth," SAE Paper 801357, October 20-23, 1980, pages 9 & 11. 

V-54 

.. 
In their "Oxides of Nitrogen Research Plan. for Model Year 1979," Chrysler 

stated the following: 

Chrysler's fuel economy improv1ement plans are based on 

increasingly more stringent emission standards which eventually 

reached the level of .41/3.4/1.0. If the 0.4 NOx level should 

ever be achievable, and a standard promulgated at that level our 

efforts to improve fuel economy would suffer a severe setback.** 

Chrysler did not provide test data tc• support their comments regarding the 

relationship between fuel economy and e:missions. 

2. New Technology or Developments which Could Provide a Change in the 

Relationship between Emissions and Fui~l Economy as Compared to 1981 Vehicles 

or Chrysler's Estimate 

The "Progress Report on Chrysler's Efforts to Meet the Federal Emission 

Standards for HC, CO, and NOx in 1981 and Subsequent Model Years," dated 

February 1981, discussed seven development programs whose objectives were to 

improve vehicle fuel economy. These include: 

1. Vehicle weight reduction. 

2. Power-to-weight reduction. 

3. Drive·trains. 

4. Accessory drives. 

s. Engine efficiency. 

6. Tires. 

7. Lubricants. 

** Chrysier Corporation, "Chrysler's Oxides of Nitrogen Research 

Plan, for Model Year 1979," March 14, 1979, page 7. 

V-·55 
·. 

This section will discuss only the new technology being developed by Chrysler 

in the above projects. 

Chrysler began development efforts on lock-up torque converters in January of 

1973 and entered production for rear wheel drive vehicles in the 1978 model 

year. They began development of lock-up torque converters for front wheel 

drive vehicles in June 'of 1976. Chrysler stated, "at the present time, however, the use of lock-up on front wheel drive cars has been deferred due to 

unacceptable driveability at the current state of development."* Chrysler did 

not discuss the impact on emissions nor quantify the effect on fuel economy 

for this technology. 

In their engine efficiency program, Chrysler's "engine mapping and controls 

optimization" project seems to be their most significant program to improve 

fuel economy and emissions. 

This project's objective is "to develop both the hardware and software for 

electronic control of spark timing, fuel/air ratio, exhaust gas recirculation, 

etc., so that fuel economy is maximized while emissions constraints are met."** 

The project includes chassis dynamometer measurement and 

computer simulation of engine speed/load requirements during 

EPA : Urban and Highway driving cycles. Key speed/load 

conditions are selected by analyzing resulting histograms. The 

engine configuration is then "mapped" (steady-state) on an 

engine dynamometer at the "key" conditions for emissions and 

fuel consumption. From these data, for any reasonable 

emissions constraint, key point operating conditions can be 

found which predict minimum fuel usage on a hot '74 EPA cycle. 

These opera ting conditions are then incorporated in a vehicle 

and evaluated on a chassis dynamometer. 

* Chrysler Corp., "Progress Report on Chryslers Efforts to Meet the Federal 

Emissions Standards for HC, CO, and NOx in 1981 and Subsequent Model 

Years," February 1981, page F-3. 

** Chrysler Corporation, "Oxides of Nitrogen Annual Report for Model Year 

1980," December 23, 1980, page I-9. 

V-56 
Engine maps have been obtained, .under a contract with the 

Department of Transportation (DOT), for several versions of 

both the· 318 CID VS and 225 CID slant 6 engines, as well as 

turbocharged 1. 7 liter 4-cylinder engine. Strategies have been 

obtained for the base 318 CID and 225 CID engines. Vehicle 

tests of these strategies are reported in the section on 

Integrated Engine Controls. A strategy for the turbocharged 

1.7 liter engine has also been prepared. 

Preliminary tests on Car 198 (360 CID) have been made that 

demonstrate the potential capabilities of the system and 

optimization strategies. Tests with "optimized" strategies for 

spark advance and EGR were compared against the standard spark 

advance and EGR control system. The "optimum" strategies were 

tested by programming schedules into a microprocessor capable 

of controlling spark advance and EGR. The fuel/air ratio was 

maintained around stoichiometric by an oxygen sensor feedback 

Holley 2 bbl. carburetor with Holley electronics. A summary of 

these tests follows [table Chrysler-2]*. 

Engine Out 

Table Chrysler-2* 

Car 198, 360 CID Engine 

HOT '74 EPA TEST 

Fuel 

Emissions (gm/mi) Economy 

Tests HC co NOx MPG Comments 

15 2.84 26.9 1.71 12.3 Baseline-Mech. spark 

adv. and prod. EGR 

20C 3.94 21.2 2. 71 14 .5 Schedule to improve 

fuel economy 

Avg. of 2.48 18.6 2.26 14 .2 Schedule to improve 

4 tests 

Avg. of 2.42 19.9 1.66 13.9 Schedule to improve 

2 tests 

Control strategies have also been run on 318 and 225 CID engines 

(Cars 373 and 535, respectively). These cars were modified to 

include three-way catalysts and feedback carburetor systems. 

Typical results for hot '74 EPA tests are as follows: 

HC 

NOx 

* Chrysler Corporation, "Application For Waiver of the 1981-1982 Model Year 

Carbon Monoxide (CO) Standard of 3.4 Grams Per Vehicle Mile For Passenger 

Cars," July 3, 1979 at Vol. II, pages B5-54, BS-55, & B5-57. 

v--57 
Strategy 

As received 

Minimum Fuel 

Emissions 

Constrained 

Strategy 

As received 

Minimum Fuel 

Emissions 

Constrained 

Table Chrysler-2 (con't) 

Engine-Out 

HC co 

2.7 22.6 

3.0 12.5 

2.6 10 .9 

Car 373, 318 CID Engine 

Hot '74 EPA Test 

Tail2i2e 

NOx RC co 

1.5 .3 4.6 

3.5 .2 2.3 

2.1 .2 1. 7 

Car 535, 225 CID Engine 

Hot '74 EPA test 

Engine-Out Taileiee 

RC co NOx RC co 

Not Available .4 7.9 

3.3 13 .4 4.0 .4 3.1 

3.3 13 .3 3.0 .3 3.2 

V-58 

NOx Fuel Economy 

1.4 15.5 

2.0 18.4 

1.3 17 .1 

NOx Fuel Economy 

1.4 19.4 

2.2 21.3 

.7 20.8 
These data have been processed to identify optimum control 

strategies for specific vehicles with 318, 225, and 1.7 liter 

engines. · The strategies are currently being evaluated. The 

results were presented in Volume II of Reference 22 Sec. B-5, 

pp. 54-57 [see table Chrysler-2]. Since that time, initial 

cold start and warm-up tests haVE! been conducted on car 535. 

Preliminary results are: 

Urban 

Strategy 

Emissions 

Table Chrysler-3 

Car 535, 225 CID Engine 

Cold '75 EPA Test 

Engine Out Tailpipe 

HC CO NOx HC co 

4.00 20.6 2.13 .34 3.29 

Corrected 

NOx Fuel Economy 

.37 17.9 

This car was .built up with experi:mental induction and emission 

control systems and does not diriectly compare to the 0 .4 NOx 

program cars. The significance O·f the results, then, is that 

we have established that the program cars are achieving fuel 

economy comparable to the optimum values predicted from 

analytic evaluation of comprehensive engine data. 

It should be noted that, informally, the systematic 

methodology discussed here has already had an evolutionary 

effect on our test philosophies and is expected to have 

increasingly greater impact. Therefore, all of these 

activities will continue except :for the DOT project which is 

limited by contract.* 

* Chrysler Corporation, "Oxides of Nitrogen Annuai Research Report for Model 

Year 1979," October 25, 1979 pages 23-24. 

V-59 
In addition to emission control systems optimization in engine mapping, 

Chrysler's engine efficiency program also includes projects to study the fuel 

economy benefits of: 

a) Deceleration fuel shut-off 

b) Reduced engine friction 

c) Combustion chamber designs 

d) I.ntake manifold designs 

e) Turbocharged engines 

The deceleration fuel shut-off project will restrict fuel flow during closed 

throttle deceleration in an attempt to improve fuel economy. Chrysler is now 

evaluating the fuel economy and driveability implications of this feature, but 

did not discuss or provide data on emissions or fuel economy and did not 

indicate when this technology would be used in production.* 

For the 1981 model year, Chrysler has introduced lower tension oil rings in 

order to reduce engine friction. Chrysler is also evaluating other friction 

reducing items for their 2.2 L engine but has not indicated which components 

will be evaluated. No emissions or fuel economy data were provided. 

Fast·· burn combustion chambers are being evaluated to develop a design "which 

combines the best possible part load efficiencies and dilution tolerance with 

high specific power output and reasonable fuel octane requirement."* Swirl 

ports and squish-type chambers with reduced flame travel distance are among 

those being evaluated. Chrysler did not indicate when the results of this 

development would be used in production, but said that the work is primarily 

based on a 1981 2.2 L engine. Chrysler said that the 2.2 L engine's combustion chamber "has proven to be a very good one with the exception that W.O.T. 

output is. limited by valve shrouding in the deep, compact chamber. design."* 

Emissions and fuel economy data were not provided. 

* Chrysler Corp., "Progress Report on Chrysler's Efforts to Meet the 

Federal Emissions Standards for HC, CO, and NOx in 1981 and Subsequent 

Model Years", February, 1981, pages F-7 & F-8. 

V-60 
In order to improve the power output of the 2 .2 L engine, Chrysler has redesigned the intake manifold by reducing branch lengths and providing less 

restrictive flow paths. "The result wa.s a large gain in mid-range to top-end 

power. This was transformed into a low-to-mid-speed torque benefit through 

advancing the camshaft timing."* Chrysler plans to introduce the new intake 

manifold in the 1982 model year. 

Chrysler evaluated the use of turbocharged engines of smaller displacement 

than the naturally aspirated engines which they would replace, to increase 

fuel economy without a loss in performance. Chrysler concluded that 

turbocharged small displacement engines would not be a cost effective method 

for improving fuel economy for high volume production. No data were provided.* 

Chrysler's tire test program includes rolling resistance tests in an effort 

to improve fuel economy. Chrysler stated: 

The rolling resistance charac~teristics of our current 

production tires are evaluated through head-to-head coast-down 

tests against tires on competitive domestic and foreign 

vehicles. 

The rolling resistance characteristics of the tires to be 

released for production are optimized by selecting only the 

best for production. This has resulted in a five percent 

reduction in vehicle force req\J.ired as reported to the EPA 

between the 1980 and 1981 model years. Through competition 

between tire suppliers, all eventually had tires that were of 

about equal rolling resistance and were acceptable from other 

release standards.* 

Chrysler said that although tire rolling resistance has improved greatly from 

1979 to the 1981 model years, they do not feel that there will be any rolling 

resistance improvement for the near future until major improvements are made 

in design or compounding. Chrysler did not discuss the emissions impact of 

their tire test program. 

* Chrysler Corp., "Progress Report on Chrysler's Efforts to Meet the 

Federal Emissions Standards for HC, CO, and NOx in 1981 and Subsequent 

Model Years," February, 1981, pages F-7 to F-10. 

V-61 
A "fuel efficient" lubricant test program inclu·ded evaluations of engine lubricants and axle lubricants. Four engine oils were tested for fuel economy 

improvements. Of these four, "only one, Sun Code X892, showed significant 

(1.6-3.2%) fuel economy improvement potential in the 22S CID engine."* The 

Sun Code X892 oil is now available commercially as Sunoco "MPG PLUS" oil. 

Chrysler said that since this oil includes a friction modifier containing 

phosphorus, durability ·tests would be required to determine the effect on 

catalysts and oxygen sensors. Chrysler did not indicate when this oil or 

other fuel efficient oils might be used in production. No emissions data were 

provided from this testing. 

Table Chrysler-4 lists fuel economy improvements associated with the use of 

an experimental 7 SW axle lubricant as compared to an 80W-90 rear axle lubricant. According to Chrysler "additional economy testing of other candidate 

oils will be limited due to the future decrease of sales volume of rear wheel 

drive vehicles. · It is estimated that no fuel economy improvement potential 

exists in this area for the corporate front wheel drive vehicles; therefore, 

similar tests were not planned. " Although a fuel economy improvement was 

shown on all four vehicles "the 7 SW oil was considered unacceptable due to 

differential bearing wear and ring and pinion gear scoring." The effect on 

emissions was not discussed. 

Table Chrysler-4 

Axle Lubricant Test Results 

REFERENCE OIL: MS-5644, SAE SOW-90 FACTORY FILL 

TEST OIL: O.S. 38623, SAE 75W . 

CONTAINS SOLUBLE FRICTION MODIFIER 

Vehicle Type EPA Composite Economy Effect* 

1978 .. F" Body (225) 2.0% Improvement 

1978 "F" Body (318) 0.6% Improvement 

1979 .. F'' Body {318) 1.2% Improvement 

1979 .. D .. Body 100 1.1% Improvement 

*Compared to factory-fill baseline. 

* Chrysler Corp., "Progress Report on Chryslers Efforts to Meet the Federal 

Emissions Standards for HC, CO, and NOx in 1981 and Subsequent Model 

Years," February, 1981, pages F-10 & F-11. 

V-62 
Chrysler evaluated the feasibility of utilizing an oxidation catalyst system 

to meet emission standards of 0.41 RC, 3.4 CO, 1.0 NOx on a vehicle with a 2.2 

liter engine. Chrysler's data~ listed in table Chrysler-5, shows a 2 mpg 

fuel economy loss for the oxidation catalyst system on the FTP. 

82 Dual Bed (DB) 

Ox Cat (OC) 

100 (OC-DB), % 

DB 

Difference (OC-DB) 

Table Chtysler-5 

RC 

Tailpipe 

co NOx 

-----g/mi----

.25 

.19 

2.1 

1.9 

.58 

.83 

-24% -9.5% +43% 

-.06 -.2 +.25 

Engine-Out 

HC co NOx 

-----g/mi-.;.. __ 

2.0 

2.2 

11 

30 

1.80 

0.80 

Fuel Economy 

Urban 

-----MPG----

26.0 

24.0 

-7.7% 

-2.0 

34.4 

33.6 

-2.3% 

-0.8 

In order to comply with the 1.0 g/mi.. NOx standard, Chrysler used high EGR 

rates and rich .A/F ratios •. Chrysler S•iid that this type of calibration "leads 

to unstable or inconsistant combustio11 which can produce undesirable vehicle 

surge and unsatisfactory performance under certain operating conditions."* 

The 30 g/mi. engine-out CO level for the oxidation catalyst system as compared 

to the 11 g/mi. CO level for the dual bed system indicates that it is likely 

that the oxidation catalyst equipped vehicle was operating with richer A/F 

ratios than the dual bed equipped vehicle. This may explain the 2 mpg loss in 

fuel economy. Chrysler also implied that the spark timing and EGR calibrations also had an adverse impact on fuel economy, but did not provide their 

specifications. 

* Chrysler Corp., "Progress Report c:m Chrysler's Efforts to Meet the Federal 

Emissions Standards for HC, CO, and NOx in 1981 and Subsequent Model 

Years," February, 1981, pages A-1 & A-2. 

V-63 
Chrysler's open chamber Diesel project is intended to determine the feasibility of using the open chamber Diesel engine in passenger cars. 

Early tests indicated significant potential for improvement 

of the fuel economy/NOx relationship over that of a prechamber engine if fuel injection timing and rate profile 

could be precisely controlled. Electromechanical actuators 

were developed to provide this control. 

Single and multicylinder tests confirmed indications of a 

superior fuel economy/NOx relationship. Fuel economy 

benefits of 10 to 15% over an equivalent pre-chamber Diesel 

were observed, along with some evidence that NOx levels 

below 1 gm/mi might be achieved. 

However, two major problem areas were identified: 

- HC emissions are excessively high in those areas where 

NOx control is best. 

- Fuel control system reliability is not sufficient to 

maintain a productive test program. 

· An intensive series of tests involving combustion chamber 

parameters as well as a variety of fuel system components 

has indicated some promise for solving these problems. It 

is not yet possible to say, however, that this concept will 

achieve the anticipated lower emission levels while retaining a substantial fuel economy advantage. Current development efforts are directed to the near term solution of 

these.problems.* 

* Chrysler Corp., "Progress Report on Chrysler's Efforts to 

Meet the Federal Emissions Standards for HC, CO, and NOx in 

1981 and Subsequent Model Years", February, 1981, page H-2. 

V-64 
V .D. Toyota 

1. Toyota's Statements Concerning the Relationship Between Emissions and 

Fuel Economy 

A. Toyota states that "strengthened emission standards affect not only fuel 

economy but also all of other factors such as driveability, performance, 

durability, cost, etc." Toyota has been complying with the increasingly 

stringent emission standards by trading off the above factors except 

fuel economy. Toyota states, "Fuel economy cannot be sacrificed because 

it shares a large factor in mark.et competition." Accordingly, Toyota is 

"optimizing and upgrading emisston control systems in order to maintain 

or improve economy, which results in increased cost of system."* 

Toyota included graphs (which appear on the next page, figures Toyota-1 

and Toyota-2) which indicate th1~ effects of various NOx standards (from 

2.0 to 0.4 g/mi) on both fuel e~conomy and on costs. These graphs show 

that to go from a NOx standard of 1.5 g/mile to one of 0~4 g/mile would 

increase cost due to the need te> employ a more sophisticated technology; 

however, . the new technology would increase fuel economy by as much as 10 

to 15%.** A 15% increase in fu·el economy for a vehicle rated at 25 MPG 

would result in a savings of 260 gallons of fuel during the first 50,000 

miles. (At a fuel cost of $1.55/gallon~ the savings would be $403.) On 

the graph, the system designated "P-2" indicates carbureted vehicles 

equipped with oxidation catalyst systems; "P~8-2" and "P-8-3" indicate 

carbureted vehicles equipped with closed loop 3-way catalyst systems; 

and "P-7" and "P-11" indicate fuel injected vehicles with closed-loop, 

3-way catalyst systems.*** 

*"Toyota Status Report - Efforts to M1~et the 1981 and Subsequent Model 

Year Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards and Other Statutory Requirements," 

page 70. 

** IBID., page 71. 

*** IBID., page ii. 

V-·65 
% 

+ 20 

+10 

P-7 or P-11 

>. 

e 

0 

i:: 

0 

u 0 

QJ 

~ 

QJ 

=' t&4 P-8-2 ... or P-S-3 

·-10 

P-2 

-20 

2.0 1.0 0.7 0.4 g/mile 

Nox. emis.si9A.! 

F.i~ure Toyota - l* NOx Emission VS. Fuel Economy 

$ 

P-7 or P-11 

P-8-2 or P-8-3 

2.0 1. 0 0.7 0. 4 11/mi le 

Nox emission 

Figure •1·oyota - 2x NOx Emission VS. System Cost 

* Ibid., page. 71. V-66 
2. New Technology or Developments whic:h Could Provide a Change· in the 

Relationship between Emissions and Fuel Economy Compared to 1981 Vehicles 

or Toyota's Estimates. 

A. Combustion Chamber Redesign 

Toyota confirmed the general tendency for fuel economy to improve with 

increased EGR rate and advanced spark timing. When Toyota retarded the 

spark timing to decrease NOx, they found the fuel economy penalty was reduced by using a high turbulence type ·combustion chamber in place of a 

non-squish type chamber. The high turbulence type chamber, which used a 

"twist type piston", also reduced the HC emissions.* 

Since the accompanying data were generated by using non-FTP test cycles, 

we cannot directly translate their results to probable changes in fuel 

economy on either EPA's urban or highway test cycles. 

A similar calibration (high turbulence combustion chamber, higher compression ratio, extension of EGR tolerance) is being used for compliance 

"'7ith the Japanese emission standards. Toyota plans to investigate the 

feasibility of using a similar calibration to comply with the U. s. emission .standards. The current problems are insufficient acceleration performance, higher NOx emissions, and insufficient fuel economy improvement.** 

* Matsumoto. et al, "The Effects of Combustion Chamber Design and Compression Ratio on Emissions, Fuel Economy and Octane Number Requirement," 

SAE Paper 770193, page 13. 

** "Toyota Status Report - Efforts to Meet the 1981 and Subsequent Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards and Other Statutory Requirements," 

page 38. 

V-·67 
·. 

Toyota provided emissions and fuel economy data generated with such a 

combustion chamber design change. Unfortunately, Toyota did not detail 

the changes. The following data were generated on a 3,000 lb. IW vehicle 

equipped with a five-speed manual transmission and a 2.4 liter, 4 

cylinder engine* (the description of this vehicle is similar to that of 

the Toyota Celica): 

Before Modification 

After Modification 

Compression 

Ratio 

8.4 

9.0 

B. :Digitally Controlled EFI 

HC (gpm) 

0.100 

0.104 

Fuel Economy 

CO (gpm) NOx (gpm) Gain (%) 

1.65 0.55 (Baseline) 

1.65 0.56 5.5 

Toyota introduced the digitally controlled EFI system into the Japanese 

market in August 1980. Use of this system, Toyota states, "results in 

the improvements in performance, driveability, fuel economy, and reliability" by controlling the "amount of fuel, ignition timing, and idle 

speed." Toyota did not submit any data to substantiate the claims. 

Toyota plans to phase this system into the U.S. market beginning in the 

1983 model year.** 

* IBID., pages 64-65. 

** IBID., page 37. 

V-68 
C. Single Point Injection (SP!) 

Toyota says that they have been investigating the basic characteristics 

and "potentialities of performan<:e and emission reduction of the SP! 

system for several years." Toyota says that they hope to improve the fuel 

metering accuracy over the current conventional carburetors or EFI systems 

by using a SP! system. 

Toyota stated that, with the SP! system, they are currently experiencing 

the following problems: 

1. "Unbalanced distribution of A/F mixture among the cylinders, 

2. Large fluctuation of transient A/F ratio, and 

3. Insufficient startability." 

"After making a comparison among SP! systems and current carburetors or 

EFI systems," Toyota says they, will decide the policy of how to adopt the 

SPI systems to their engines.* SPI is, according to Toyota, more expensive and more fuel efficient than convential carburetors, but SPI is 

less expensive and less fuel efficient than EFI. ** 

* IBID, pages 34-36. 

** "Toyota NOx Research Program - 1979 Annual Report Period Plan," 

September 1979, page 15. 

v--69 
3. The Effect of Known Technology which Helps Quantify Single or Multiple 

Calibrations or Vehicle Description Changes 

A. Vehicle Weight Reduction Programs 

Toyota plans to reduce vehicle weight by "rational design, miniaturization, and material substitution." Some models will be lightened, 

and others will be replaced by new and lighter car lines during the 1980 

through 1985 model years.* 

The lightening of vehicles will improve fuel economy with no adverse 

effect on emissions. 

B. Transmissions 

* 

1. Manual Transmission 

To lower engine speed, Toyota adopted wide ratio transmissions and its 

fuel economy gain was about 2% for the 1981 models. Toyota plans to 

·review the current gear ratios to gain additional fuel economy 

improvements for the 1983 models. 

anticipate any effects on emissions. 

2. Automatic Transmission 

Toyota did not state whether they 

To lower engine ·speed and eliminate slippage losses, Toyota plans, for the 

1982 model year, to equip its Corolla and pickup truck with a four-speed 

automatic transmission with overdrive and its Celica Supra with an automatic transmission with a lockup torque converter. Toyota expects a fuel 

economy improvement of 2% to 4% with the automatic four-speed and an improvement of 1% to 2% with the lockup. 

"Toyota Status Report - Efforts to Meet the 1981 and Subsequent Model Year 

Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards and Other Statutory Requirements,'.' 

pages 57-58. V-70 
Toyota plans to improve the lockup torque converter by allowing the lockup 

function to operate in both second and third gears. They anticipate an 

additional 1% increase in fuel economy due to this improvement. Toyota 

plans to introduce this improved transmission on its 1983 model year 

cars.* Toyota did not state wheth1er they anticipate any effects on emissions. 

C. Toyota currently (1981 model year) has a 6 cylinder, 168 CID (gasoline) 

engine equipped with feedback EFI and 3-way catalyst (eI16ine family number 

BTY2.8V5HB4). Of the 15 valid (non-void) FTP tests performed on the seven 

certification data vehicles in that family: 

!. No HC emission level excee~ded O. 226 g/mi (without DE'), 

2. No CO emission level exceeded 1.42 g/mi (without DF), and 

3. No NOx emission level excE~eded 0.32 g/mi (without DF). 

Applying the applicable deteriorat:lon factors (HC = 1.385, CO= 1.385, and 

N'Ox = 1.275), we note that every FTP would meet the 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 0.41 

NOx research target level. However, the durability vehicle line-crossed 

by generating a 50, 000 mile calculated NOx value of O. 425 g/mi, which 

exceeds 0.41 g/mi.** Considering how close the durability vehicle came to 

being acceptable for use at the NOx research target, it is reasonable to 

assume that Toyota could achieve l:he research target usiI16 the technology 

which they currently employ on their 1981 model year Celica Supra, 

Cressida, and Cressida station wagon. Those models have EPA fuel economy 

*Ibid, page 60. 

**EPA/MFR test data base as of February 10, 1981 

V-·71 
values of:* 

Car Line Transmission MPG 

--u 

Celica Supra MS 21 

Celica Supra A4 22 

Cressida A4 22 

Cressida Wagon A4 22 

If we compare these models' MPGc with those 

cars, we see the fleet average MPGc for all 

MPGh MPG 

--e 

29 24 

29 25 

29 25 

29 25 

of other 1981 model year 

3,000 lb IW cars is 24.85 

mpg.** Thus, we conclude that Toyota is not suffering a fuel economy 

penalty on these models compared to the competition as a result of the low 

emission levels. 

* EPA/DOE 1981 Gas Mileage Guide 

** Foster, Murrell, Loos, "Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy ••• Trends 

Through 1981,", SAE Paper 810386, February, 1981, page 16. 

V-72 
Section v. E. Nissan (Datsun) 

1. Nissan Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions and Fuel 

Economy 

This section summarizes Nissan's statements regarding the relationship 

between fuel economy and emissions. 

In CO waiver hearing testimony*, Nis:san said that they expected the fuel 

economy of their 1981 model year vehicles to improve about 15% to 25% over 

that of their 1979 model year Federal vehicles. Nissan also said that an 

air pump may be necessary to meet the 3.4 CO standard, ·but might not be 

necessary to meet a 7.0 CO standard. They felt that the increased parasitic 

horsepower due to the use of an air pump, could cause a one to two percent 

decrease in fuel economy. 

In a status report,** dated, March 1981, Nissan said the following with 

respect to the relationship between emission standards and fuel economy. 

We have been proceeding with our research work on an oxidation 

catalyst system and on a 3-way catalyst system in an effort to 

develop a system that will meet the 0 .4 g/mile NOx standard. 

The results that we have obtained with these two systems to date 

are shown in [table Nissan-1] and [table Nissan-2] and in 

[figure Nissan-!]. The specifications of the systems that 

produced these results are shown in [table Nissan-3] through 

[table Nissan-6]. 

In order for the oxidation cata.lyst system to clear the 0.4 

g/mile NOx standard, heavy EGR is required, but this has an 

adverse effect on combustion stability. Using a richer air-fuel 

ratio to improve combustion stability lowers fuel economy by 

more than 10%, in comparision with the fuel economy that can be 

obtained in clearing the 1.0 g/mile NOx standard. 

* Transcript of Proceedings, Environmental Protection Agency, "In 

the matter of; Public Hearing on Applications for Waiver of the 

1981 and 1982 CO Emission Standard for Light Duty Vehicles," 

Washington, D.C., September 12, 1979, pages 91 and 92. 

** "Research and Development Progra:m Status Report for 1981 and 

Subsequent Emission Standards"; Nissan Motor Co., Ltd; March, 

1981, pages 260 and 261. 

V--73 
Table Nissan - 1 

Exhaust Emission and Fuel Economy 

(Ox. Cat) 

Veh. IW F/E CVS-CH upm System Eng. C/R HC co NOx llcmarks I. 0. lbs mp~J 

Oxi·~Cat. 80-968 2,750 Z20S 8.5 25.6 0.45 5.68 0.61 IV j th catalyst 

25.4 0.39 J.03 0.65 

25.9 0. '• 3 3 . 8 '• 0.68 

2 s . '• 0.40 ). 91 0.70 

25.6 0.40 3.86 0.71 

l6.3 0.42 3. 54 0.74 

2S.B 0.48 2.62 0.81 

YD-001 2 '750. Z20S 8.5 23.9 0.31 IJ. 67 0:35 . . 23.6 3. 79 28.8 0. '• 2 \v Io catdlyst 

23.9 ). 62 31. 0 0.39 

2 3. 7· 3.57 3 '• . 7 0.35 

23.8 3.48 35.6 0. 39 

80-972 2,750 Z20~ 8;5 27.9 0. '• l '•. 66 1.43 with catalyst 

27.5 0.32 4.00 l :: 5 7 

27.5 0.34 3.49 l. 67 
<: 

I 

....... 

V1 

System 

3 Way Cat 

Veh. IW 

I • D. lbs 

YD-;020 2,750 

Table Nissan - 2 

Exhaust Emission and Fuel Economy 

(3-Way Cat.) 

f /E CVS-CM gpm Eng. Hcmilrks C/fl 

m P CJ llC co NOx 

Z20S 6.5 25.8 0. 19 2.26 (}. 2) with catc1lysl 

ECC 26.7 0. 20 2.08 0. 31 

26.4 0.20 2.87 0.31 

26.4 0.19 2.44 0.37 

26.6 0.21 3 . 1 5 0.37 

26.l 2.62 10.9 l. s 1 w Io cat.Jlyst 

26.9 2.04 10.S l.60 

26.4 2.04 11. 5 l. 62 

26.6. 2.03 10.7 1. 53 

'26.6 2.15 11.) l. 65 
Figure Nissan - 1 

RELATIONSHIP BE1VVEEN NOx AND FUEL. ECONOMY IN 

OXIDATION CAT. SYSTEM AND THREE WAY CAT. SYSTEM 

ENGINE OUT NOx 

CATALYST our·Nox 

IIW =2750Lbs I 30 

. o; 28 

c. 

E: 

-

>- 26 ~ 

0 

z 

0 

hj 2.4 

....J 

w 

:J 

ll.. 22 

0 OS 

• 

0 A 

~ 0 

__ ~ , 

Oxidation Catalyst System· 

10. 15 . 2.0 

'75 FTP NOx . ( g/mile) 

Y-76 
T&ble· Nissan - 3 

Vehicle Soecifications . .. . . 

1. Vehicle ID. No. 

z . Vehicle model 

3 • Model year 

4. !ner'tia weight 

s . Engine 

6 • Transmission 

7 . Ax. le ratio 

8. N/V ratio 

9. Fuel metering system 

10. Exh. emission control syste:m 

11. Catalyst 

(1) Ty-pe 

(2) Substrate construction 

(3) Size (inches) 

(4) Location 

12. EGR 

(1) Type 

(2) EGR Rate 

Y-77 

SD-968 

Datsun 510 

Experimental Vehicle 

·2., 750 lbs 

14, 191CID 

M4 

3.545 

53.3 

Carburetter 

2 plug+EGR+EAI OX.CAT. 

Oxidation Catalyst 

-~.fon0li th 

Oval Width 6.68 in Height 3.18 in 

lenath 5.65 l.n 

Under floor 

VVT 

30% (2600 rpm x· -300mmHg.)· 
Table l~issan - 4 

Vehicle Specifications 

1. Vehicle ID. No. 80-972 

Z. Vehicle model 

3. Model year 

4. Inertia weight 

5 • Engine 

6. Transmission 

7 . Ax le ratio 

8. NiY ratio 

9. Fuel me:tering system 

10. Exh. ·emission control system 

11. Catalyst 

(1) Type 

(2) Substrate construction 

(3) Size (L"lches) 

(4) Location 

12. EGR 

C.lJ Type 

(2) EGR Rate 

V-78 

Datsun 510 

Experimental Vehicle 

·2;750 lbs 

L4, 191 CID 

M4 

3.545 

53.3 

Carburetter 

2 plug+EGR+EAI+OX.CAT. 

Oxdation Cata.lyst 

_Monolith 

Oval Width 6.68 in Height 3.18•n1 

Length 5. 65 in· 

Under floor 

·WT 

2·ot· ci·6oO rpm x :30·0 mmHg) 
Table Nissan ...: 5 

Vehicle Specifications 

1. Vehicle ID. No. 

·2. Vehicle model 

3 • Model year 

4. Inertia weight 

5 • Engine 

6. Transmission 

7 . Axle ratio 

8. N/V ratio 

9.· Fuel metering system 

10. Exh~ emission control system 

11. Catalyst 

(1) Type 

(2) Sub st rate construction 

(3) Size (inches) 

(4) Location 

12. EGR 

(1) Type 

(2) EGR Rate 

V-7'9 

YD-020 

Datsun 510 

Experimental Vehicle 

·2,750 lbs 

14, 191 CID 

M4 

3.545 

53.3 

ECC 

ECC+EGR+TWC+CL 

3 Way Catalyst 

_Monolith 

Oval Width 6.68 i~ Height 3.18 in 

Leno-th 5.65 in 

Under floor 

VVT 

20% (2600rpm x· -300mmHg) 
Table Nissan - 6 

Vehicle Spe~ifications 

1. Vehicle ID. No. 

2. Vehicle model 

,) . Mode 1 year 

4. Inertia weight 

5. Engine 

6. Transmission 

7. Ax le ratio 

8. N/V ratio 

9 .. Fuel metering system 

10. Exh. emission control system 

11. Catalyst 

( 1) Type 

c 2) Substrat.e construction 

(3) Size (inches). 

I' 4) Location 

12. EGR 

(1) Type 

YD-001 

Datsun 510 

Experimental Vehicle 

2 ,-7 SO 1 bs 

L4, 191 CID 

M4 

3.545 

53.3 

Carburetter 

2 plug+EGR+EAI+OX.CAT. 

Oxdation Cata~yst 

Monolith 

Oval Wid%h 6.68 in 

Lenvth 5,65 in 

Under floor 

VVT 

Height 3.1!' 

·(2) EGR Rate 25% (26o"Orpm x -300mmHg) 

V-80 
On the other hand, the 3-way catalyst .system divides the work of 

reducing NOx emissions between EGR and the catalyst. In this 

system the NOx level that should be cleared by EGR is 1-1.5 

g/mile, and thus the necessary EGR rate is not as heavy as in 

the oxidation catalyst system whic:h uses only EGR to reduce NOx 

emissions. Consequently, the EGR rate in the 3-way catalyst 

system has no adverse effect on fuel economy. 

As [figure Nissan-I] shows, however, the fuel economy of the 

3-way catalyst system in clearing the 1.5 g/mile NOx standard is 

4% worse than that afforded by the oxidation catalyst system. 

The reason is that since the air-fuel ratio in the 3-way 

catalyst system is controlled to the stoichiometric air-fuel 

ratio, a reduction in fuel consumption cannot be obtained by 

making the mixture leaner. 

Irrespective of the durability, driveability and cost of each 

system, the fuel economy afforded by the 3-way catalyst system 

in clearing the HC 0.41, CO 3.4 and NOx 0.4 g/mile standards is 

roughly equal to that of the oxidation catalyst in meeting the 

standards of HC 0.41, CO 3.4 and NOx LO g/mile. Even if the 

compression ratio is increased or if improvements are made in 

combustion performance, with the c1xidation catalyst system there 

is no way to avoid a decrease in fuel economy of at least 5%. 

2. New Technology or Developments which Could Provide a Change in the 

Relationship between Emissions and Fuel Economy as Compared to 1981 

Vehicles or Nissan's Estimates 

In their. status report* on emission control systems, Nissan discussed four 

areas in which they were doing res4~arch and development work in order to 

improve fuel economy. These included: 

1. Accessory drive program; 

2. Engine efficiency improvement program; 

3. Tire test program; and. 

4. Lubricant test program. 

The following are excerpts from Nissan's discussion of the accessory drive and 

engine efficiency programs. Nissan did not discuss the impact on emissions as 

a result of their tire and lubricant test programs. 

II.F.3 Accessory Drive Programs 

* Ibid., pages 251 to 253. 

V-81 
The air-conditioner compressor, the. power steering pump, the 

alternator and the water pump are included in the category of 

engine assisted equipment. For the 280ZX model, we studied what 

effect the air-conditioner compressor and the power steering 

pump have on catalyst inlet emissions and fuel economy. 

In contrast to engines without compressors, engines equipped 

with them showed an overall worsening of 10 to 12% for HC and CO 

emissions, 30% for NOx and 11% for fuel economy. 

II.F.4 Engine Efficiency Improvement Program 

Improving engine efficiency is important not only in achieving 

better fuel economy but also in reducing emissions. As a basic 

step toward attaining these goals, the research to upgrade 

engine efficiency is a vital part of our overall research and 

development activities. 

In our efforts to improve engine efficiency, we have carried out 

basic research on raising the engine compression ratio and on 

lowering the pumping loss. We have also been proceeding with 

applied research of the engine efficiency improvement program to 

other projects such as "0.4 gpm .. NOx Research Program." The 

following is our status of this research work. 

In addition we are presently making every effort to develop a 

new engine which will achieve a reduction in mechanical friction 

loss. 

(1) High Compression Ratio Engine 

As we explained in our 0 .4 g/mile NOx Research Program report 

(September 1979 to January 1981), we found that improved 

combustion by the high compression ratio made it possible to 

expand the region of stable combustion under heavy EGR 

conditions and to lessen partial-load fuel consumption at the 

equivalent NOx level. At the low engine speed WOT condition, 

however, it is necessary to retard the ignition timing to 

prevent engine knocking, and this results in lowering the engine 

torque by approximately 10%. 

To solve this problem we have been making a concerted effort to 

develop the technology needed for raising the engine mechanical 

octane number. These findings indicate that when engine torque 

and fuel economy are taken into account, a combustion pattern 

having a short heat generation period and slow initial 

combustion is effective in suppressing knocking. 

The fuel economy level of an experimental vehicle mounted with 

10:1 compression ratio engine is about 5% better than that with 

8.5:1 compression ratio engine. However, it is estimated that 

this improvement in fuel economy will be lowered somewhat, when 

the engine is actually used on production vehicles and 

countermeasures are implemented to reduce the increased RC 

V-82 
emissions and to compensate for the deterioration in 

dri veabili ty due to the decreased torque in low engine speed 

ranges. 

Nissan has shown a significant improvelllent in fuel economy, 27% over the last 

three years, while achieving the required emissions performance, for their 119 

CID engine. Most of this improvement is attributable to the introduction of 

new cylinder heads which speed-up the burning rate within the combustion 

chamber*. The engine which utilizes the new cylinder head is referred to as 

the NAPS-Z engine. 

features: 

The new cylinder head incorporates the following 

1. Compact hemispherical combustion chamber; 

2. Dual spark plugs; and 

3. Redesigned intake porting to induce swirl and turbulence. 

The net result of ·these changes is to improve the burning rate of the fuel by 

about 50% if there is no exhaust gas recirculation, and about 65% with the 

intake charge diluted 20% with recirculated exhaust gas, as shown in figure 

Nissan-2. Major improvements in combustion stability, with heavy EGR, were 

made; permitting dramatic improvement:s in both economy and emissions*, (see 

figure Nissan-3). 

An equal contribution, to improved c~conomy and emissions, was obtained by 

optimizing the control of ignition tim:Lng, fuel-air ratio and EGR. 

Basically, this was accomplished by mapping the steady-state response of 

the engine, in terms of economy and emissions, as functions of fuel-air ratio, 

ignition timing, and EGR rate, at selected speed-load points representing the 

EPA Urban Cycle. 

Detailed refinements to the engine, to improve mixture distribution, and 

to enhance performance during cold-start and warm-up, account for the rest of 

the progress made by Nissan. 

* The Fast Burn with Heavy EGR, New Approach for Low NOx and Improved Fuel 

Economy; SAE paper no. 780006. Figures 11, and 15, and pages 8 and 10 

respectively 

V-83 
Figure Nissan ~ 2 

225 270 

1400rpm 

3kgm 

MBT 

A/F 14.5:1 

180 

(TDC) CRANK ANGLE deg. 

Effect of fast bum on· combustion duration 

Figure Nissan ~ 3 

is.--~~~~~~~~~~~~------. 

I 

I-· ti-'-A'' CO\ ~,o~~ 

~I 0 1-

co 

~·~c.O~~ . ~14_0_0-rp_m_ 

r 3kgm 

A/F 14.5:1 

rn 

x 

0 

z 

~ 

5 

o'--~~~.L..-~~-.,,.-....,....,,~~-=--±-:o----~~ 

260 300 340 380 420 

BSFC g/PSh 

Improved fuel economy combined with 

low NO emission achieved.by fast bum engine x 

V-84 

315 
In the case of the 2.8 liter (168 CID) engine used in the Datsun 280 series 

cars, the same progress with respect ti.) emission control has taken p~.ace, 

however, the improvement in fuel economy is small. 

Nissan employs a microprocessor to cc>ntrol, electronically, the following 

parameters: 

1. Fuel/air ratio; 

2. Spark timing; 

3. Exhaust gas recirculation; 

4. Air intake at idle. 

In addition to emissions standards, heavy emphasis was ·placed on driveability.* The system is described schematically in figure Nissan-4. It will 

be noted that this engine uses a "three-way" catalyst for exhaust after 

treatment, rather than the simple ox:idation catalyst used on the smaller 

engines. 

In the case of the· smaller Nissan engines of 1.2, 1.4, and 1.5 liter capacity 

( 7 5. 5, 85. 0, and 90. 8 CID) , the pie tu re is quali ta ti vely similar to that of 

the 2-.8 liter engine, i.e., the emisEdons standards have been met with no 

noteworthy effect on fuel economy. Nj~ssan has recently announced that this 

family of. smaller engines will be modified to incorporate the fast-burn 

features, found on the 119 CID engine, for the Japanese market in 1982. 

* "Nissan ECCS (Microprocessor Contr<>l System) Boosts Fuel Economy " F · r t 

International Automotive Fuel Economy Research Conference; Oct. 31' to ~o~. 2, 1979, pages 212 to 219. 

V-85 
CRANKSHAFT 

T.'M 

CRANK PULLEY 

Figure Nissan - 4 

' '-EXHAUST 

TEMP SENSOR 

0 

L-O~--

VEHICLE SPEED SENSOR 

CANISTcn 

••• .. vh. •••ao •UO&AC:a 

C::C-T•OL _,_,09 ~ 

·CONTROL UNIT 

EXHAUST TEMP 

MONITOR LJGHT 

Schematic of Electronic Concentra~ed Engine Control System 

V-86 
V. F. Honda 

1. Honda's Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions and 

Fuel Economy 

Honda stated that a basic characteristic of their CVCC engine is low specific fuel consumption (i.e., high fuel economy) and low NOx emissions when 

bench tested.* Honda also reported thal: the use of EGR on their CVCC engine 

could:** 

1. Decrease NOx emissions but increase HC emissions. 

2. Increase fuel economy, and 

3. Improve driveability. 

Honda controls the increase in HC emissions by using a catalyst·** Thus, 

with the use of EGR and a catalyst, Honda says that they are able to control 

emissions without adversely affecting their fuel economy. 

2. New Technology or Developments which Could Provide a Change in the 

Relationship between Emissions and Fuel Economy as Compared to 1981 

Vehicles or Honda's Estimates. 

A. New Engines 

1. While Honda has not supplied EPA with any development data on a 

three-cylinder engine, "Automotive News" reports that Honda is 

planning to introduce in Japan, during autumn of 1981, a small car 

powered by such an engine. That report speculates that the 

*"Honda's NOx Research Program - 1979 Annual Research Period Plan," March 

25, 1979, page 10. 

**"Honda's Effort and Pro5ress in Meeting the 1981 and Subsequent Model Year 

Emission Standards," March 20, 1981, page 7. 

V-87 

11 

/' 

11 

II 

ll 

" 
new car will be based upon the.Civic but will be smaller.* Honda 

has neither confirmed nor denied these reports. 

2. Diesel Engine 

Honda is continuing to conduct basic research and to analyze available information on Diesel engines.** Honda has been bench testing 

a 4 cylinder, 4 cycle, 2.2 liter Diesel engine.*** They have not, 

however, provided EPA with any of their conclusions or test results. 

B. Three-Way Catalysts 

Honda's primary candidate for a system to meet the 1983 California emissions standards is their stratified charge engine (CVCC) equipped with 

EGR, a closed-loop carburetor, and a three-way catalyst (system D). 

Honda has experimented with two other systems, one is similar to their 

1981 models (i.e., CVCC with EGR, an open-loop carburetor, and oxidation 

catalyst); the second system uses a conventional etl6ine with EGR, a 

closed-loop carburetor, and three-way catalyst. However, Ronda found 

that their .primary system was superior to the other two in driveability, 

fuel economy, and emissions. This system has been tested in a 2125 

pound car equipped with a manual five-speed transmission and a 1.5 liter 

engine. Honda reports that this vehicle met the research target levels 

(0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 0.41 NOx); however, no emission or fuel economy data 

was provided. 

*"Automotive News," March 23, 1981, page 30. 

**"Honda's Effort and Progress in Meeting the 1981 and Subsequent Model Year 

Emission Standards," March 20, 1981, page 19. 

***"Honda's Emission Control Status Report," January 13, 1978, page 0.4-15. 

V-88 
"However," Honda states, "in view of the urgent need for complying with 

the 1983. California standard, de!velopment and refinement work for a 

modified system (system Dl) has been initiated based upon 1981 model 

production hardware."* Honda has not provided EPA with a description of 

this modified system; although, the typical emission results that Ronda 

provided on these two systems** lE!ads the EPA technical staff to believe 

that their primary system is supt:!rior to the modified (Dl) system for 

emissions. (See table Honda-1.) 

Honda states that they are contin.uing to refine their primary system.* 

While Honda claims to have confirmed the durability of their new threeway catalyst up to 50,000 miles, they are still experiencing problems 

with cars equipped with the automatic transmissions. Honda reports, 

"Automatic transmission models equipped with the system D currently fail 

the applicable CO standard because their high gear ratio causes the 

carburetor secondary passages to frequently operate. A change of the 

gear ratio results in a reduction of fuel economy."*** 

Honda's current work on three-way ca.talysts centers on the following 

four projects:**** 

1. · Development of the three-way catalyst for both systems D and Dl, 

2. Evaluation of Pt/Rh ratio, 

3. Study of substituting Pd for Pt, and 

4. Study of improving catalyst durability at elevated temperature. 

* "Honda's Effort and Progress in Meeting the 1981 Standards," March 20, 

1981, pages 37-38. 

** Ibid., Table 14. 

***Ibid., pages 44-46. 

****Ibid., page 55. 

V-89 
·.System D System D1 

MODEL CIVIC CIVIC CIVIC CIVIC CIVIC 

ENGINE (1) l.S 1.3 1.3 Ls Ls 

TRANS. SMT SMT 3AT SMT 3AT 

TEST WT. 212S 2000 212S 212S 212S 

(lbs) 

N/V 41.0 S0.7 60.3 43.3 S8.7 

LA-4 co 1.84 2.72 2.S4 2.Sl 3.04 

Emiss. HC 0.2S4 0.29 0.32 0.32 0.32 

(g/mi) NOx 0.312 0.29 0.31 0.28 0.28 

Table Honda - l* 

TYPICAL EMISSION TEST RESULTS OBTAINED BY 

USING AGED CATALYSTS 

* Ibid., Table 14. 

V-90 

ACCORD ACCORD 

1.8 1.8 

SMT 3AT 

262S 262S 

48.7 S6.0 

3.81 4.28 

0.28 0.24 

0.21 0.23 
3. The Effects of Known Technology whkh Helps Quantify Single or Multiple 

Calibrations or Vehicle Description Changes 

A. Engine Improvements 

Honda is continuing to study variations of their stratified charge 

combustion chamber. Honda reports that they have evaluated several 

such systems. One type, called a "branched conduit" system, is 

similar to Honda's CVCC system. except that the auxiliary combustion 

chamber is connected to the ma.in combust;.ion chamber by a relatively 

long torch passage oriented toward the approximate center of the 

chamber. Honda states that this system "is able to further reduce 

exhaust emissions, HC and NOx, in particular, with no adverse 

effect on fuel consumption under the wide range of engine operating 

conditions.·~* Honda also reported test results from other auxiliary stratified charge combusti.on chamber engines identified simply 

as Type 1, Type 2, and Type 3. Honda did not describe these 

systems in detail; however, their test results indicate that these 

systems can yield emissions and fuel economy results superior 

(during some operating conditions) to Honda's standard CVCC 

engine.** Some of these features have already been incorporated 

into Honda's 1981 models. 

B. EGR 

Incorporation of EGR on the CVCC system, according to Honda, 

enables them to increase the compression ratio and advance the 

spark timing, thus resulting in improved fuel economy and driveability. *** For the 1981 model year, Honda modified the 

* S.Yagi, et al., "A New Combustion System in the Three-Valve Statified 

Charged Engine, "SAE Paper 790439, February, 1979, page 1. 

** "Honda's Emission Control Status Report," January, 1978, pages 80-26 to 

80-28. 

*** "Honda's Effort and Progress in Meeting the 1981 and Subsequent Model 

Year Emission Standards," March 20, 1981, pages 29-32. 

V-91 
back-pressure EGR, that they us.ed on their 1980 California models, 

to allow for more recirculation of exhaust gas; this increased 

capacity of the EGR valve was combined with an improved stratified 

charge combustion chamber design. Honda states that, "This EGR 

system [combined with the aforementioned improved CVCC engine] contributed to improved fuel economy and driveability by: 

1. The combination of a high EGR rate and near stoichiometric 

engine operation at high loads, in order to improve driveability while reducing NOx emissions, and 

2. The combination of CVCC's lean combustion characteristics and 

a low EGR rate at low loads, in order to improve fuel economy 

and driveability."* 

c. Oxidation Catalyst 

Honda reports that, "The increase in fuel economy and reduction in 

NOx emissions, achieved through the use of the improved combustion . ' 

chamber design, are accompanied by an increase in HC emissions, the 

control of which is done by an improvement in oxidation catalyst. 

Specifically, HC conversion efficiency was improved by 2% through 

an increase in the specific surface area of substrates, that is, by 

the use of 400 cell substrates as compared with 300 cell for 1980 

system."** 

D. Engine Friction Reduction 

For 1982, Honda reports, "An additional fuel economy gain is sought 

by reducing mechanical friction due to piston rings or oil seals, 

and also by controlling idle speed by engine loads."*** 

* Ibid., page 7. 

** Ibid., pages 7-8. 

*** Ibid., pages 30-32. 

V-92 
E. Carburetor 

Honda hopes to minimize the fuel penalty during decelerations by 

replacing the throttle opener with a deceleration control device.* 

F. Reduction of Aerodynamic Drag and Vehicle Weight 

"For some [1982] models, "Honda states, "minor modifications of 

body are made in order to reduce aerodynamic drag as well as 

vehicle weight, such as adopting high strength steel and plastics."* 

G. General Comments 

The EPA technical staff attempted to evaluate the effects on 

emissions and fuel economy of adding EGR and an oxidation catalyst 

to Honda's CVCC engine. The most dramatic change was with the 

non-California version of the 81 c.1.D. (1.3 liter) Civic. The 

results of all tests performed at EPA' s laboratory and Honda's 

laboratory, are shown on the following chart:** 

* Ibid., pages 30-32. 

** EPA/MFR Test Data Base as of February 10, 1981. 

V-93 
HC 

co 

NOx 

Manual 5-Speed 

1980 

0.256 

3.84 

1.20 

27.75 

38.40 

31.71 

1981 

0.182 

1.18 

0.75 

33.56 

44.65 

37.78 

Percent 

Change 

'.""28. 9% 

-69.3% 

-37.5% 

+20.9% 

+16.3% 

+19.1% 

Manual 4-Speed 

1980 

0.220 

3.08 

1.21 

27.30 

35.65 

30.52 

1981 

0.189 

1.35 

0.80 

33.33 

41.93 

36.72 

Percent 

Change 

-14.1% 

-56.2% 

-33.9% 

+22.1% 

+17.6% 

+20.3% 

Thus, Honda was able to substantially reduce emissions while at the same 

time substantially increasing fuel economy. Honda was also able to 

increase the rated horsepower (from 55 to 60 HP) by raising the compression ratio from 7.9 to 8.8. 

The changes in fuel economy from 1980 to 1981 with Honda's other engines 

were less dramatic and less consistent. Honda's Accord equipped with a 

1.8 liter engine and manual 5-speed transmission actually lost about 3% 

in MPG from 1980 to 1981.* 

c 

Using approximations for Honda's sales-weighted fuel economy (CAFE) (the 

official values are not yet available), we found that Honda was able to 

increase its CAFE from 1980 to 1981 by 3% (from. 30. 0 to 30. 9 mpg), even 

though the aver..age weight increased by 2%. ** However, compared to 

similar 1981 model year vehicles of all other manufacturers, Honda's 

vehicles had an average poorer fuel economy (by 3 to 4%) in each inertia 

weight class, as shown on the following table: 

* Ibid. 

** Foster, Murrell, Loos, "Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy... Trends 

through 1981, "SAE Paper number 810386, February 1981, pages 14-16. 

V-94 
Inertia 

Weight 

2000 

2250 

2500 

* Ibid. 

Table H<mda-2* 

Comparison of Honda's 1981 Fuel Economy 

Versus the Entire 1981 Fleet By Weight 

Honda's Avg. o:E All Percent Dif f. 

Av~. ·'MPG Car's MPG (Relative to Fleet) c ---;: 

35.81 36.96 -3.1% 

33.13 34.47 -3.9% 

' 

28.11 29. 37 -4.3% 

V-95 
V. G. Volkswagen 

I. Volkswagen's Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions 

and Fuel Economy 

A. VW Study 

Volkswagenwerk AG (VW) investigated the impact of emission 

standards on fuel economy. This program was conducted under a 

contract between VW and the U.S. Department of Transportation -

Transportation Systems Center. The fallowing results of that study 

were reported by VW in SAE Paper number 790230, titled "Impact of 

Emission Standards on Fuel Economy and Consumer Attributes." 

In addition to testing uncontrolled vehicles, VW also tested 

vehicles targeted to meet the following four standards: 

Emissions (g/mi) 

Standard HC co NOx 

Federal 1976 1.5 15. 3.1 

California 1976 0.9 9.0 2.0 

Federal 1981 0.41 3.4 1.0 

Research Goal 0.41 3.4 0.4 

Each of th<: five C 5) groups included a 22 50 pound inertia weight 

Rabbit equipped with a 1.3 liter engine '.never sold in the U.S.), a 

2250 and a 2500 pound Rabbit each equipped with a 1. 6 liter engine, 

and a 3000 pound Audi. The Audis used in the uncontrolled case and 

with the 1976 standards were equipped with 1. 6 liter, · 4-cylinder 

engines; the ones used with the 1981 standard and the research goal 

were equipped with 2.2 liter, 5-cylinder engines. 

The technologies that the VW engineers chose to use were: 

V-96 
Standard 

Uncontrolled 

1976 Federal 

1976 California 

1981 Federal 

Research Goal 

Technology 

Carburetor 

Carburetor~ Oxidation Catalyst 

Carburetor, Oxidation Catalyst 

Fuel Injection, 3-Way, Closed-loop 

Fuel Injection, 3-Way, Closed-loop 

VW then tested the uncontrolled vehicles as well as those equipped 

with oxidation catalysts a.nd carburetors. VW found that no 

additional modifications were required of the catalyst equipped 

cars in order to meet the 1976 standards. 

Before testing the fuel injec:ted vehicles, VW set engineering goals 

for the emissions that wer1~ more stringent than the standards. 

Those more stringent goals were "formulated to ensure that once 

they had been attained at the end of the development period, all 

the mass production vehiclei; made along the same lines will meet 

the exhaust emission standards, no matter when or where they are 

tested within the initial 50,000 miles of their service life."* VW 

chose as goals for HC and CO values that were one-half the 

respective standards; and fo·r NOx, one-fourth of the applicable NOx 

standard. 

The fuel injected vehicles then were modified and tested until the 

emissions, driveability, and fuel economy were considered 

satisfactory. As a cri t:erton for satisfactory fuel economy, VW 

used the fuel economy of th1~ uncontrolled version as the goal. In 

addition to changes in ignit:ion timing, the modifications included 

in some cases· adding a propc>rtional EGR system and a secondary air 

pump. 

* H. Oetting, "Impact of Emission Standards on Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Attributes," SAE Paper No. 790230, February, 1979, page 2. 

V-97 
The results of the testing indicates that the Audi vehicles 

suffered a substantial loss in fuel economy in meeting either the 

1981 standards or the research goal. The loss was more than 20% 

relative to those meeting the 1976 standards. VW believes that the 

loss in fuel economy is primarily "due to the fact that friction in 

these engines is higher because of the fifth cylinder."* 

The three types of Rabbits (1.6 liter at 2250 and 2500 pounds and 

1. 3 · liter at 2250 pounds) exhibited two consistent fuel econony 

trends: 

1. All the Rabbits which were targeted to meet the research 

standard suffered a loss in fuel economy of between 4. 2% to 

10.9% relative to the corresponding Rabbits which were 

targeted to meet the 1981 Federal standards. 

2. All the Rabbits which were targeted to meet the 1981 Federal 

standards displayed a fuel economy improvement of between 2.1% 

to 7. 5% relative to the corresponding Rabbits which were 

targeted to meet either of the 1976 emission standards. 

VW speculated that the reason the vehicles targeted to meet the 

1981 standards exceeded the fuel economy performance of similar 

vehicles which met far less stringent standards was due to "the 

introduction of new technological features, . such as lambda control 

and K-Jetronic fuel injection."* 

VW then studied these vehicles with respect to unregulated 

emissions, noise, startability, and performance. VW concluded that: 

1. "[T]he emission control concepts featuring K-Jetronic 

~uel injection and 3-way catalysts are capable of meeting 

the advanced standards, furnishing good fuel economy, low 

HCN emissions, and a stable so4 emission rate."** 

* Ibid., pages 5-6. 

** Ibid, page 7. 

V-98 
2. "[T]he noise emissions c1f modifications 13 through 16 [i.e., 

those vehicles which welC'e designed to meet the 1981 Federal 

emission standards] are lower than those of other vehicles 

meeting less stringent eJ~haust emission standards."* 

3. The "sophisticated con.cepts introduced to meet advanced 

emission standards are superior to conventional concepts 

regarding their startability and driveability."* 

4. "[L] eaving aside the 5-cylinder engine, the performance of the 

vehicles which meet the advanced standards is slightly 

inferior to that of the others. This is because gradeability 

is related to maximum torque in a practically linear function, 

and by some sort of accident it was the carburetor-type 

vehicles which always had the highest torque. There is no way 

of explaining this by the emission control concept."** 

Finally, VW analyzed the effects on the cost of the engine of those 

vehicles which met the more~ stringent emission standards. They 

determined, that in order to meet either the 1981 Federal standards 

or the research goal (the components are the same for both 

standards), the cost of the engine (not the entire vehicle) would 

be increased by between 64% and 89% over the corresponding 

uncontrolled vehicles, and by between 38% and 56% over the 

corresponding vehicles meetin6 the 1976 Federal standards.*** 

B. EPA Comments on the VW Study 

VW assumed that a closed-looop, three-way catalyst, fuel injected 

system was necessary to meet the 1981 Federal standards; however, a 

number of open-loop, carbureted vehicles have been certified as 

meeting those standards. 

* Ibid., page 8. 

** Ibid., page 9. 

***Ibid., page 11. 

V-99 
The engineering goals (of 1/2 the applicable HC and CO standards 

and .of 1/ 4 the applicable NOx standard) were conservative. The 

deterioration factors associated with the 1981 model year, 

closed-loop, 3-way catalyst, fuel injected~ gasoline powered 

Federal vehicles equipped with either 1. 7 liter~ 4-cylinder VW 

engines or 2.2 liter, 5-cylinder Audi engines are all 1.000. 

Thus, VW' s selection of the required technology and engineering 

(emission) goals was possibly more conservative than necessary. 

However, VW did show, that, for an increase in cost, the fuel 

economy, noise, and driveability could all be improved while at the 

same time substantially reducing the emissions. 

2. New Technology or Developments which Could Provide a Change in the 

Relationship between Emissions and Fuel Economy as Compared to 1981 

Vehicles or VW's Estimates. 

A. Formula E 

VW will be introducing a package of several features that will be 

called "Formula E" (for Economy). This package will consist of one 

or more (depending on the model) of: 

1. Signal to Shift 

VW is deveioping an electronic device that will signal the driver 

when to shift for optimal fuel economy at various speeds and 

loads. This option has been available on VWs in Europe since 

December, 1980. It is anticipated that this option will soon be 

available on some U.S. Rabbits.* 

EPA is currently testing such vehicles, but not enough data has 

been generated to assess the effect of this option. However, VW 

* "Wards Engine Update," March 15, 1981, page 6. 

V-100 
reported to EPA that, "-Experimental results show that 

.observing the electronic:ally given shifting signals can lead 

to fuel savings of 6 to 10% in the urban cycle, depending on 

engine and gearbox adjustment. This is due simply to correct 

'engine management' and does not entail any diminuation of 

performance. 

findings.''* 

Practical 

2. Automatic Engine Shut-Off 

driving results confirm these 

VW is testing a system that will switch off the engine during 

idling and deceleration.. VW claims this system will increase 

urban fuel economy. VW states, "This [system] would mean a 

25% increase in spark ignition engine efficiency and an 18% 

increase in Diesel engine efficiency."** 

The engine is restartedl from kinetic energy which was stored 

in a spinning flywheel that turns the crank. A second clutch 

disconnects the flywhc~el when the car stops or coasts. 

Simultaneously, the com.puter shuts off the ignition and fuel 

flow. When the driver steps on the gas, the second clutch 

recouples the flywheel to the crankshaft, fuel is injected, 

and the spark plugs fire~. 

VW engineer Paulus Heid.emeyer was quoted as saying, "Shutting 

off the engine when its power isn't needed can cut fuel 

consumption by 20-25% in city and suburban driving, when 

frequent stops and starts are made."* A test vehicle was 

reported to have yieldE!d higher fuel economy on the FTP cycle 

and produced lower emlssions than a similar vehicle with a 

conventional power train.* 

* "Status Report of Volkswagenwerk AG and Audi NSU," May 1981, page 191. 

** Ibid., page 186. 

*** Norbye, "VW' s Stop/Start 21st-Century Car," Popular Science, July 1980, 

pages 76-77. 

V-101 
A drawback of this system is that there is no provision for 

. :running accessories while the engine is stopped. Thus~ it 

might not be suitable for cars equipped with air conditioning, 

power steering~ or power brakes.* 

3. Overdrive Top Gear 

VW has redesigned and renamed their gearboxes. The 4-speed 

manuals will be called "3 + E" (i.e., 3-speed plus an economy 

gear), and the 5-speed manuals will be called "4 + E." The 

gear ratios within the transmission will ·.be changed so that 

the maximum speed is reached in the next to last gear, with 

the top gear becoming an economy overdrive gear. VW claims, 

"In normal operation, the savings amount to 10 to 13% on 3 + E 

gearboxes and 5 to 6% on 4 + E gearboxes."** VW made no 

predictions for fuel savings on either EPA's urban or highway 

test cycles. 

4. Aerodynamic Aids and Weight Reduction 

While reducing neither aerodynamic drag nor weight is new, 

these concepts will be incorporated in the Formula E 

package.*** 

B. Combustion Chamber Redesign and Knock Sensipg 

VW is developing a combustion chamber which provides a higher 

compression ratio, an increase of 2 to 3 units.  VW is working 

on a knock limit sensing system in conjunction with the development 

of high compression concepts. By using a computer to closely match 

the spark advance to the knock limit, VW hopes to improve 

efficiency.** *** 

*Norbye, "VW' s Stop/Start 21st-Century Car," Popular Science, July 1980, 

pages 7 6-77. 

**"Status Report of Volkswagenwerk AG and Audi NSU," May 1981, page.189. 

***Ibid., page 186. 

 Ibid., page 168. 

** ***Ibid., page 161. V-102 
c. Three-Cylinder Diesel 

VW has built and is testing a 1.2 liter, direct injection, Diesel 

engine with supercharger. VW believes that direct injection 

could possibly provide a '"10-15% increase in fuel economy over 

what is already a miser, the swirl chamber Diesel."* Even though 

VW has a 1.3 liter, 4-c.ylinder engine already available in 

Europe, they decided to make this engine a 3-cylinder instead of 

4, in order to reduce frictional losses.* 

yw is investigating the advantages of a turbocharger versus a 

mechanically driven supercharger versus natural aspiration.* 

*Ibid., page 31. 

V-103 
V. H. Toyo Kogyo (Mazda) 

1. Toyo Kogyo's Statements Concerning the Relationship between Emissions 

and Fuel Economy 

Toyo Kogyo (TK) did not state that there was a well defined relationship 

between emissions and fuel economy. However, TK did state that meeting the 

1983 California standards (0.41 HC, 7.0 CO, 0.4 NOx) will result in a fuel 

economy penalty even though the emission control system they are developing 

to meet those standards has a "potential to .reduce the fuel consumption and 

exhaust emission."* TK did not quantify the amount of the expected loss in 

fuel economy, nor did they provide EPA with data to substantiate their claim 

of a loss in fuel economy. 

2. New Technology or Developments which Could Provide a Change in the 

Relationship between Emissions and Fuel Economy as Compared to 1981 

Vehicles or TK's Estimates. 

A. New Engines 

1. Rotary Engine 

TK is the only manufacturer of automotive rotary (Wankel) engines 

sold in the U.S. TK began using a 3-way catalyst with an open-loop 

carburetor and an air pump on their rota.ry models for the . 1981 

model year.. They intend to use this same system for 1982. For 

1983, TK plans to use a closed-loop carburetor with a 3-way 

catalyst, an air pump, and EGR.** TK provided no estimates or test 

data on this new system. 

TK reported that they are studying a supercharged version of their 

rotary.*** Industry sources speculate that the supercharged 

version of the twin-rotor Wankel engine will offer more horsepower, 

greater low-end torque, and improved fuel economy.*** The 

* "Mazda Status Report," February 1981, pages 64-65. 

** "Mazda Status Report," February 1981, page 3. 

*** "Ward's Engine Update," Volume 6, Number 12, June 25, 1980, page 6. 

V-104 
speculation is that this vehicle would not be available prior to 

the 1983 model year.* 

2. Diesel Engine 

With the 1981 model year, 1'K introduced its first passenger car 

Diesel engine in TK' s Japanese Luce series. This 4 cylinder, 2. 2 

liter engine is available only in TK's Japanese market; however, 

industry sources believe that: it is similar to the engines that TK 

has agreed to sell to Ford in the next year or so for the U.S. 

market.** TK claims that thi.s Diesel vehicle has a fuel economy of 

51.7 mpg when tested at a steady 37.5 mph**(not an EPA test cycle). 

TK reported that work on a direct-injection combustion system for 

their Diesel engines is a project, second in importance only to 

TK's work in turbocharging sm.all engines.*** 

TK has not provided EPA with any emissions or fuel economy data on 

their Diesel powered vehicles. Some emission and fuel economy 

results from a TK engine itL a Ford vehicle are shown in section 

V.B, Ford. 

3. Small (2- and 3-Cylinder) Engines 

TK reports that they are :Lnvestigating the use of 4-, 3-~ and 

2-cylinder ~ngines for use in 4-passenger, 2-passenger, and 2 + 2 

small cars. The engine displacements range to below l liter ( 61 

CID).  "Automotive News" reports that TK will begin producing 

small cars, powered by a 3-·cylinder engine, for sale in the U.S. 

beginning with the 1985 model year. These cars would be· sold under 

the Mazda, Ford, and Mercury nameplates. The report predicts an 

urban fuel economy for these cars of between 40 to 50 mpg.**  

* "Automotive News," November 17, 1980, pages 2 and 44. 

**" "Ward's Engine Update," Volume 6, Number 20, October 15, 1980, page 6. 

***"Ward's Engine Update," Volume 6, Number 17, September 1, 1980, page 6. 

****"Ward's Engine Update," Volume 6, Number 17, September 1, 1980, page 6. 

V-105 
Another report indicates that this car will be front-wheel drive, 

and that the engine displacement will be between 1 and 1.2 liters 

(61 to 74 CID).* TK did not submit any data on this vehicle to EPA. 

B. Closed-Loop Carburetor 

TK plans to employ a closed-loop carburetor,· an air pump, EGR, and a dual 

3-way catalyst on all of their passenger cars beginning with the 1983 model 

year.** This system has been tested by TK in a vehicle with 2250 pound test 

weight and equipped with a 1. 5 liter engine and manual transmission. TK 

states that neither the fuel economy results nor the driveability obtained 

thus far with this system (see table TK-1) met their goal.*** 

Table TK-1 

Comparison of Fuel Economy and Emissions of the 

Closed-Loop Test Vehicle to the Fuel Economy and 

Emissions of a Comparable 1981 Model Year Open-Loop Vehicle. 

Closed-Loop 

Test Vehicle*** 

1981 TK Data 

Vehicle**** 

HC 

0.22 

0.224 

co 

4.0 

1.03 

NOx 

0.31 

0.49 

MPG 

u 

33.4 

34.5 41.6 37.4 

* "Ward's Engine Update," Volume 7, Number 2, January 15, 1981, pages 1 

and 4. 

** "Mazda Status Report," February, 1981, page 3. 

*** Ibid, pages 66-67. 

****"EPA Test Car List, 1981 Second Edition." 

V-106 

·. 
Even though this one test 

economy of 3.2% (relative 

vehicle experienced a drop in urban fuel 

to its 1981 model year counterpart}, the 

effect of this system on overall fuel economy cannot be determined since 

TK did not submit highway test data (MPGh}. 

TK believes that the loss in fuel economy and driveability is, "due to 

the insufficient controlling performance for the air/fuel ratio and EGR, 

the insufficient catalytic efficiency, the choking-up of the EGR passage 

by the carbon and so forth. And thus, the refinement of the control 

system of the mixture and EGR, the combustion improvement, the catalyst 

screening and so forth are consid1~red important."* TK says they plan to 

· improve those components during the 1982 model year based on the results 

of the analysis done during 1981.** 

C. Combustion Chamber Improvements 

TK reports: 

"We have taken an approach 1:0 mainly accelerate combustion in the 

engine with the help of i.ncreased swirl and squish, and have 

achieved the excellent results through the MSH (Masked Seat Head} 

method." 

"We intend to continue pursuing the improvement of fuel economy 

still further by means of modifying the combustion chamber conf iguration in the future."*** 

"In addition, the following Hems will be considered, too: 

To make the combustion c.hamber more compact. 

To make the compression ratio higher. 

Development of [a]DIS (:Dual Induction System}. 

The selection of spark plug location."**** 

* "Mazda Status Report," February, 1981, page 67. 

** Ibid., page 33. 

***Ibid., page 70. 

****Ibid., page 69 

V-107 
D. Electronic-Controlled EGR 

Backpressure type EGR provides increased control over the type not using 

backpressure to simultaneously reduce NOx and to stabilize driveability. TK plans to develop an electronic-controlled EGR system which 

will provide greater control accuracy of EGR than the backpressure type 

provides.* 

3. The Effect of Known Technology Which Helps Quantify Single or Multiple 

Calibrations or Vehicle Description Changes. 

TK plans to gradually replace the main moving parts of their engines (such 

as rotors for rotary engines and connecting rods for conventional engines) 

with lighter weight parts. TK says that this will decrease frictional 

losses and thus increase engine efficiency.** 

. TK also plans on studying four other systems that can affect fuel economy:** 

1. Using pulse air instead of an air pump, 

2. Fuel injection, 

3. Electronic ignition, and 

4. Knock controller. 

For the 1981 model year, TK increased the fuel economy of their GLC and RX-7 

models over the corresponding 1980 models. (See table TK-2.) 

*Ibid., page 69. 

**Ibid., page 33. 

V-108 
Table TK-2* 

Fuel Economy of 1980 and 1981 Mazda Vehicles 

-------1980-------- --------1981--------

GLC 

RX-7 

A3-Trans 

M4-Trans 

MS-Trans 

A3-Trans 

MS-Trans 

MPG · --u 

27 

30 

29 

16 

17 

34 

42 

39 

24 

28 

30 

34 

33 

19 

20 

MPG 

--u 

30 

35 

35 

19 

21 

37 

43 

45 

24 

30 

MPG 

---c 

32 

38 

39 

21 

24 

TK claims that they improved the fuel economy of their conventional engine 

(used in the GLC) by:** 

1. Change in emission control system 

Although we had been using a single catalyst + air 

injection + EGR up to the 1980 year models, we adopted on 

the 1981 year models a dual catalyst + air injection + 

EGR so as to improve the fuel economy and meet the more 

stringent NOx standard. 

2. Vehicle weight reduction 

By changing the GLC to a front wheel drive model, we were 

able to reduce the weight from 2,250 lbs to 2,125 lbs. 

* EPA/DOE Gas Mileage Guide. 

** "Mazda Status Report" February, 1981, page 32. 

V-109 
3. Power-to weight reduction and drivetrain programs 

The GLC engine was increased in ~iston displacement from 

86.4 CID to 90.9 CID, thus having adequate power/weight 

ratio. So, N/V ratio was changed from 57.0 to 54.1 in 

top gear and from 47.1 to 43.1 in overtop~ thus making 

this engine a high speed type, thereby improving the fuel 

economy. 

4. Accessory drive program 

The cooling fan was changed to a motor driven type~ hence 

reducing the propulsion loss of the fan. 

TK says that the improved fuel economy of their rotary engine (used in the 

RX-7) resulted from:* 

1. Engine efficiency 

We improved fuel economy and reduced emissions by 

improving the gas sealing, modifying the engine (the 

ignition system and intake system in particular), 

operating the engine at a leaner mixture, making the 

combustion more stable and optimizing the catalyst 

system. In order to optimize all three systems, we made 

studies on reduction in raw BC, improvement in thermal 

efficiency, best design of the catalytic converter, 

selection of a catalyst best suited to the rotary engine, 

reduction in the temperature of the exhaust gas entering 

the catalyst, and adjustment of the air/fuel mixture. 

2. Reduction in vehicle air resistance 

The shape of the front grille of the car was redesigned 

so as to reduce the air resistance of the car body, and 

the load to be applied to a chassis-dynamometer was 

lowered from 8.0 hp/50 MPH for 1980 to 7.1 hp/50 MPH for 

1981. 

3. Vehicle w~ight reduction 

We reduce~ the weight of the car body, engine and their 

related parts, thereby lowering the test weight from 

2,750 lbs to 2,625 lbs. 

* Ibid., page 34. 

V-110 
The EPA technical staff has gen.erated approximations of TK' s salesweighted fuel economy value (the official values are not yet available), 

and we found that TK' s fleet ave1cage fuel economy increased from 26 .3 

mpg in 1980 to 31.1 for their 1981 models (an increase of 18%).* Comparing, by weight, TK's 1981 vehicles with conventional (not rotary) 

engines to the average of all 1981 model year vehicles, yields the following table: 

Inertia 

Weight 

2000 

2250 

2750 

Table TK-3** 

Comparison of Toyo Kogyo's 1981 Fuel_ 

Economy Versus the Entire 1981 Fleet 

By Weight (Excluding Rotary Engines) 

TK' s Avg. of All Percent Diff. 

Avg. MP Ge Car's MPGc (Relative to Fleet) 

38.59 36.96 +4.4% 

34.52 34, .4 7 +o.1% 

30.75 2i' .17 +13.2% 

Thus TK was able to increase the fuel economy of its conventional vehicles so that they were more ·fuel efficient than most other similar 

vehicles. TK' s rotary engine v1?hicles average 24 .27 MPG compared to 

c 

29.37 MPG for all 2500 pound :Lnertia weight cars.** These data are . c 

somewhat biased against the Mazda vehicles since their equivalent test 

weight is 2625 pounds and they are being compared to a group of vehicles which includes lighter vehkles. 

* Foster, Murrell, Loos, "Light Duty Automotive Fuel Economy ••• Trends 

through 1981," SAE Paper number 810386, February 1981, pages 14-16. 

** Ibid. 

V-111 
v. I. American Motors 

1. American Motors' Statements Concerning the Relationship between 

Emissions and Fuel Economy 

Quoting their latest status report,* "American Motors is vendor dependent 

with regard to emission control systems. These include catalytic 

converters, air injection pumps, ignition systems, carburetors~ EGR systems, 

and electronic control modules." Because of this dependency, and the 

necessity of prior financial commitment to the vendors, AMC's development 

program has been limited in scope to evaluation of emissions control 

components, evaporative emissions control, driveability, and fuel economy. 

Their emissions control program is one of evaluation of prototype, vendorsupplied, control hardware installed on suitably modified production cars. 

"Once a particular emission control strategy, and associated components have 

been selected, there is an inherent relationship between the achieveable 

fuel economy and the emissions standards as a result of the control system 

constraints. Consequently, there has been no separate reportable effort or 

data ·in the area of fuel economy improvement." 

With respect to a 0.41 HC, 3.4 CO, 0.4 NOx standard, they stated "AM has 

been unable to demonstrate, even on a research vehicle that these standards 

can be met with any control system planned for 1981 through 1983." Work is 

planned to investigate different fuel systems, catalyst configurations, and 

refinement of control strategies. Confidential treatment was requested for 

the details of ANC's production vehicle development program. 

* American Motors Corporation Efforts and Progress to Meet 1981 and 

Subsequent Model Year Light-Duty Vehicle Emission Standards; March, 1981. 

V-112 
General Comments 

A substantial body of test data was provided in the status report; however, 

the vehicle descriptions and the detai.ls of the test configurations were so 

sketchy that the EPA technical staff could not draw conclusions from the AMC 

efforts. It is possible to consider the recent (1979-1981) history of AMC 

cars with the 258-2V engine (table AMC-1), as tested by EPA. This is the 

only passenger car engine common to model years 1979, 1980, and 1981. Since 

1979, control of HC and CO emissions has been improved significantly (up to 

66% and 60% respectively), and urban fuel. economy has improved 5 to 10%. 

Some improvement in NOx control was observed for the manual transmission 

cars, but not for those with automatic transmissions. N:o major change in 

weight occurred, other than that attributable to the finer test weight increments used since 1980. There is not a demonstratable adverse effect on 

fuel economy attributable to the improvements in emission control. 

In the case of the 151-2V engine, which entered production in 1980, there 

have been no changes in emissions control requirements for 1981, because of 

waivers. Consequently, as shown in table AMC-2, there have been no major 

changes in the. emissions and fuel eco:nomy performance •. 

Y-113 
Table AHC-1 

Emissions and Fuel Economy of MIC Cars 

258-2V Engine 

HC EMISSIONS CO EMISSIONS NOx EMISSIONS URBAN ECONOMY 

(g/ml) (g/1111} (&/mi) (ltrCu) 

Hodel Avg Test 

Year Trana. Hean Hax Hl.n ~ Max Hin Hean Hax Min Mean Max Hin ___.!!'..d;;l1L 

1979 Al .565 .61 .50 8.7 9.5 7.9 1.125 1.29 0.96 16.5 17 16 3375 

H4 .468 .52 .40 4.8 4.9 4.7 1.645 1. 73 1.56 17.5 18 17 

1980 LJ .27 .33 .25 4.55 6.65 J.O 1.30 1.38 1.16 17.67 18 17 3396 

H4 .2165 .27 .183 2.36 4.0 1.38 1.347 1.38 1. 29 18.0 18 

<1981 LJ .193 .280 .132 3.450 4. 71 0.79 1.11 1.24 0.92 18.6 19 18 3264 I 

,_. 

,_. M4 .186 .204 • l 71 2.653 5.27 2 .12 .865 1.21 0.81 18.75 . 20 18 

.i:--

Table AHC-2 

Em is a ions and Fuel Economy of AMC Cars 

1H-2V Engine 

llC EMISSIONS CO EMISSIONS NOx EMISSIONS URBAN ECONOMY 

Hodel (g/ml) (g/m1) (g/m1) (tlPC11 ) 

~Ii Tl!::!. 

Ye or Tran9 Mean Hax Hin Heon Max Hin Mean Max Hin Hean Hu. Hin ~!JL!.!.L 

l 9tl0 •. Al .201 .232 .170 2.335 2.65 2.02 1.505 1.69 1.32 20.5 21 20 3125 

H4 .255 .260 .250 3.80 4.7 2.8 1.18 1.21 1.15 22 22 ·22 2938 

..r 

1981 Al .097 1.13 1.59 20 3250 sampli; 

H4 .1593 .189 .124 2.637 3.86 1.31 1.787 1.90 1. 70 22.67 2958 
Appendix 1 

Prediction of Federal Test Procedure 

Results from Hot Emissions Data 
Appendix 1 

Prediction of Federal Test Procedure 

Data from Hot Emissions Data 

The test procedures used to measure exhaust emissions from new motor 

vehicles are described in Part 86 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The 

Federal Test Procedure is commonly referred to as the FTP. The FTP 

specifies the test fuel, driving schedule, vehicle preparation, test site 

ambient conditions and other details which are intended to give the test 

results a high degree of scientific accuracy. 

- A brief discussion of the exhaust-emission measurement portion of the FTP is 

required at this point. The exhaust emissions of a light-duty vehicle are 

measured while the vehicle is operated on a chassis dynamometer. 

The vehicle exhaust gas is collected while the vehicle is being operated on 

the dynamometer. The exhaust gas stream is diluted with ambient air and a 

sample of this dilute mixture is collected during each phase for analysis. 

The dynamometer run is~divided into three phases. A composite gas sample is 

collected in a separate bag for each phase. Bag one contains the sample 

collected during the "transient" phase of the cold start test which is the 

first 505 seconds of the driving schedule. The second bag sample is 

collected from the 505th second of the driving schedule until its end at 

13 72 seconds. This is the "stabilized" phase of the test. Bag three is 

collected from the time the vehicle is restarted following the ten minute 

hot soak until the 505th second of the driving schedule. The three bags are 

sometimes referred to as the cold transient (ct) bag, the stabilized ( s) 

bag, and the hot transient (ht) bag. 

The bag samples are analyzed and calculations are performed to determine the 

grams of emissions per test phase. The final reported test results are then 

computed using the grams per test phase data from the bag samples and the 

following equation:* 

* Code of Federal Regulations, Part 86.144-78 As of July 1, 1979. 

1-1 
Where: y = Weighted mass emissions of each pollutant, i.e., HC, CO, NOx 

wm 

or co2 , in grams per vehicle mile. 

yet = Mass emissions as calculated from Bag 1, 

in grams per test phase. 

yht Mass e1J1issions as calculated from Bag 3, 

in grams per. test phase. 

y = Mass emissions as calculated from Bag 2, s 

in grams per test phase. 

D ct The measured driving distance during Bag 1, 

in miles. 

Dht = The measured driving diutance during Bag 3, 

in miles. 

D The measured driving dii;tance during Bag 2, s 

in miles. 

The final value of the measured emiBsions is obviously a function of the 

design of the test procedure. Emissions values determined using another test 

procedure or a modified version of the FTP, may or may not be related to the 

FTP emissions. 

Automotive research and development programs will often utilize an 

abbreviated form of the FTP. For example, if a r~searcher was only 

interested in a vehicle's exhaust emissions, the portion of the FTP which 

measures evaporative emissions may be omitted. Another common abbreviated 

form of the FTP is called a "hot" FTP. The implied meaning of a "hot" FTP is 

that the 12 to 36 hour soak period before the dynamometer run was deleted. 

Instead the dynamometer run is started with the vehicle in a "warmed up" or 

1-2 
"hot" condition. Elimination of the many hours long soak period prior to the 

start of the dynamometer run allows many "hot" FTP' s to be run in an eight 

hour working day compared to only a part of a single emission test in 

accordance with the FTP. 

The cold transient and stabilized phases of the dynamometer run are performed 

with a warmed-up vehicle. The driving schedule will be identical for both 

the "hot" FTP and Bags 1 and 2 of the official FTP. However, because of the 

difference in thermal preconditioning between these two test procedures, the 

final emission values may be vastly different. 

FTP equivalent emissions and fuel economy results are sometimes calculated 

from steady-state engine data. These calculated projections are often (or 

should be) qualified by a statement like the following: 

It should be noted that these calculations do not account 

for the warm-up portion of the FTP drive cycle, the engine 

transients, or ••• * 

This statement above should alert users of such data that the possibility 

exists that the calculated emissions and fuel economy may be different from 

actual FTP results. SAE paper number 800396, "The Exhaust Emission and Fuel 

Consumption Characteristics of an Engine During Warmup - A Vehicle Study", 

said the following in reference to gasoline fueled vehicles: 

The relative contribution of pollutants emitted during 

vehicle warmup has been magnified because the outstanding 

performance of contemporary catalytic converters has nearly 

eliminated the pollutants emitted from fully warm vehicles. 

* Trella, Thomas J., "Fuel Economy Potential of Diesel and 

Spark Ignition - Powered Vehicles in the 1980s" SAE 810514. 

1-3 
Many vehicle components influence the exhaust emissions as a function of the 

vehicle's thermal state. For example, all, or nearly all, model year 1981 

gasoline fueled light-duty vehicles utilize a catalytic converter in their 

emission control system. The conversion efficiency of a catalyst increases 

with higher temperature. Exhaust emissions are reduced with greater 

conversion efficiency. Diesel engine!S .in production now do not have any 

catalytic devices to treat the exhaust. 

Another design feature of gasoline fueled vehicles which effects exhaust 

emissions as a function of thermal pre-conditioning is the start-up enrichment 

system. This cold start enrichment and the initial inactivity of the catalyst 

during Bag 1 of the FTP contribute a large percentage of the total CO and HC 

measured in a FTP. 

Emission test data from certification testing were analyzed to determine what, 

if any, relationships exist between llag 1 and Bag 3 emissions. Figure 1-1 

presents a summary of the selection criteria for the main data base which was 

analyzed. Additionally, this figure shows how the main data base was divided 

into ten subgroups. 

Correlation matrices were generated for the ten data sets shown in figure 

1-1. These matrices are presented in table 1-3 to table 1-12. Some 

correlation coefficients (r values) have been compiled from these matrices and 

listed in tables 1-1 and 1-2 for easier reference in the f:>llowing discussion. 

These correlation coefficients could provide some guidance in developing an 

emission test procedure which is based on an abbreviated form of the FTP. 

Conversely, these data may provide some insight into the relationship between 

a so-called "hot FTP" and an actual FTP. 

The data of table 1-1 seem to substantiate the following observations: 

1. Bag 3 NOx correlates to some extent (r > .85) to the FTP NOx for all 

cases. The r is greater when NOx is not catalytically controlled. 

) 1-4 
Figure 1-1 

Data Base Description 

Test Active Years = 79, 80 and 81 

Sales Classes = 49 States, 50 States and California 

Vehicle Type = Certification Data and Fuel Economy Data 

Test Type = Certification Data Test Emissions and Fuel Economy 

Test Procedure = Three Bag 1975 FTP 

Certification Test Disposition = Passed Used for Certification 

Fuel Economy Disposition = Used for Fuel Economy 

Active Year 79 ctive Year = 81 tive Year = 80 

Fuel Type Gasoline Fuel Type = Diesel 

Fuel Injection = Yes 

Fuel Injection N~ 

Converter Type = Oxidation 

i--~~converter Type = Three-way 

Converter Type = Three-way + Oxidation 

1-5 
Variable 

B1HC vs. FIPHC 

B1CO vs. FTPCO 

B1NOX vs. FTPNOx 

B3HC vs. FTPHC 

B3CO vs. FTPCO 

B3NOx vs. FTPNOx 

B1HC vs. FTPHC 

B1CO vs. FTPCO 

B1NOx vs. FTPNOx 

B3HC vs. FTPHC. 

B3CO vs. FTPCO 

B3NOx vs. FTPNOx 

Variable 

B3HC vs. B1HC 

B3CO vs. B1CO 

B3NOx vs. B1NOx 

B3HC vs. B1HC 

B3CO vs. B1CO 

B3NOx vs. B1NOx 

Gasoline 

• 7238 

.8700 

.8035 

.6744 

.5965 

.9286 

~ 

.3519 

.9430 

.9121 

.5228 

.9043 

.9105 

Active Year 1979, All 

Gasoline 

.0985 

.1927 

• 7401 

.6527 

.8015 

• 7644 

.8578 

• 7789 

.9011 

Diesel 

-:6457 

.8656 

.9365 

Active Year 1979, All 

.4826 

.4342 

.7465 

Correlation Coefficients (r) 

1981 Active Year 

Oxidation Cat. 

• 7357 

3-Way Cat. 

.9162 

3-w +o.c. 

.6705 

.8309 

.6890 

.8719 

.8746 

.7662 

.6115 

,9757 

• 9120 

.7546 

.5433 

.6260 

.8859 

Active Year 1980, All 

.3346 

.8623 

.8661 

.3764 

.6614 

,9353 

.6426 

.6067 

.8593 

Table 1-2 

Correlation Coefficients (r) 

1981 Active Year 

Fuel Injected (Non-Diesel) 

.9129 

.9339 

.8517 

.5322 

.3788 

.9217 

Active Year 1981, All 

.3512 

.8767 

.7800 

,5439 

.5957 

.9333 

Not Fuel Injected 

.6937 

.8518 

• 7766 

• 7133 

.6132 

.9130 

Oxidation Cat. 

.1929 

.2047 

.8669 

3-Way Cat. 

.2916 

.3029 

.6986 

3-W + O.C. 

.0152 

.1305 

.5192 

Fuel Injected (Non Diesel) 

.2817 

Not Fuel Injected 

.1140 

Active Year 1980, All 

.0852 

.2616 

.8485 

.1081 

.7654 

.1739 

.6816 

Active Year 1981, All 

.1927 

.2181 

.7687 
Table 1.-3 

Active Year 1979 

All 

<CORRELATION BY5T VAR=23.24.1-3.11-19.51.53.54.101-103 5TRAT=V50> 

CORRELATION MATRIX <79> TAYR:79 

N= 600 OF= 598 R~ .0500• .0801 R~ .0100• .1051 

VARIABLE 

23.DISP 

24.RTHP 

1. FTPHC 

2. FTPCO 

3.FTPNDX 

11.B1HC 

12.81CO 

13.81NX 

14.82HC 

15.82CO 

16.82NX 

17 .83HC 

18.83CD 

19.83NX 

51. ETW 

53. ETWSD I SP 

54. ETWSRTHP 

101.81583.HC 

102.81583.CO 

103.81583.NX 

18.83CO 

19.83NX 

51. ETW 

53. ETWSD15P 

54. ETW5RTHP 

101.81583.HC 

102 81583.CO 

103 81583.NX 

1.0000 

.8133 1.0000 

.0083 - .0773 

. 1287 .0617 

. 1895 .0546 

.2298 . 1994 

.3816 .2882 

.0226 - .0276 

- . 1551 - . 1875 

-.2731 -.2492 

.2868 . 1029 

-. 1010 - . 1393 

.0087 - .0598 

.0883. . 0245 

.9217 . 7802 

-.8954 -.6837 

-.3304 -.7123 

.0504 .2012 

.0313 . 1041 

-.0924 -.0545 

23. 

DISP 

.0000 

.2366 

.0244 

.0127 

.0788 

-.3558 

- .1433 

- .0690 

18. 

83CO 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.0373 

- . 0573 

- .0190 

- . 1788 

.0013 

-.3915 

19. 

B3NX 

1.0000 

.5429 

.4584 

.6527 

.2902 

.2644 

.8555 

.5160 

.4357 

.8578 

.5066 

.4253 

- .0127 

-.0412 

. 1050 

-.3001 

1. 

FTPHC 

1.0000 

-.7454 

- . 1956 

.OR74 

.0606 

- .0664 

51. 

ETW 

1.0000 

.3075 

.6520 

.8015 

.2566 

.3858 

.6516 

.2013 

.5207 

. 7789 

.3555 

.1101 

-.1198 

-.0342 

- . 1287 

- .0706 

- . 1225 

2. 

FTPCO 

1.0000 

.3250 

- .0402 

- .0321 

.0546 

1.0000 

.3764 

.. 2494 

.7644 

.3654 

.1818 

.8617 

.3965 

.2642 

.9011 

.1367 

- . 1806 

.0502 

-.2125 

- .0057 

-.3074 

3. 

FTPNOX 

1.0000 

-.2375 

- . 0943 

- .0068 

1.0000 

.6996 

.3179 

.3162 

.2302 

.2677 

.4826 

.3959 

.3988 

.1862 

-.2489 

- . 1771 

.1398 

- .0118 

- .0951 

11. 

81HC 

1.0000 

.1920 

.1338 

1.0000 

.1801 

.0301 

.1097 

.1925 

.2073 

.4342 

.2680 

.3515 

-.3691 

- . 1453 

.1219 

.0181 

- . 1156 

12. 

81CO 

1.0000 

.0171 

1.0000 

.2244 

.2054 

.3826 

.2547 

.1969 

.7465 

- .0125 

- .0339 

.0097 

- .0731 

.0388 

.0193 

13. 

81NX 

1.0000 

53. 54 . 101 . 102. 103. 

ETWSOl5P ETW5RTHP 81583.llC 81583.CO 81583 NX 

1.0000 

.5960 

.3241 

.8281 

.4083 

.3629 

- . 2006 

.0958 

.0741 

-.3808 

- .0766 

- .1161 

14. 

B2HC 

1.0000 

.0430 1.0000 

.5132 .3413 

.5564 .2303 

.2803 .6232 

-.2805 .2404 

.2619 -.2837 

.0912 .1008 

- . 2631 - . 2423 

- . 1033 - .0328 

- . 0710 - . 3378 

15. 

B2CO 

16. 

B2NX 

1.0000 

.6336 

.3997 

- . 1345 

.0541 

.0287 

-.4637 

- . 1087 

-. 1391 

17. 

B3HC 
I-' 

I 

00 

CORRE~ATION.~~!~!X <BO> TAYR:BO 

Table 1-4 

Active Year 1980 

All 

N• 450 OF• 448 R• .0500• .0925 R• .0100• .1213 

VARIABLE 

23.DISP 

24.RTHP 

1.FTPHC 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

11.BIHC 

12.BICO 

13.BINX 

14.B2HC 

15.B2CO 

16.B2NX 

17.B3HC 

I .0000 

. 7658 ·1.0000 

.2401 

- .0982 

.3081 

-.0535 

-.0308 

.2130 

.3243 

-. 1595 

.3643 

. 1327 

-.0298 

.0343 

.2118 

.0915 

.0210 

. 1178 

- .1906 

.0575 

. 0806 - . 0254 

1.0000 

.1789 1.0000 

.1733 - . 1929 

.3346 .4645 

.1135 .8623 

.0663 - . 1674 

.4709 -.0832 

.1845 .3812 

.2440 -.2310 

.3764 .3875 

1.0000 

-.2603 

- . 1527 

.8661 

.3393 

1.0000 

.6481 

-.0985 

-.1855 

- .0765 - . 1914 

1.0000 

- .0948 

- .1723 

I .0000 

.2741 

- .0646 - . 1523 

.9305 -.3540. -.2142 .6570 

.0179 .0852 . 1856 .0446 

1.0000 

.1729 1.0000 

.3407 -.0339 1.0000 

.3262 .1777 -.0361 1.0000 

18.B3CO -.0972 -.1626 .1196 .6614 -.1596 -.0003 .2616 -.1589 .0214 .5065 -.1621 .6060 

19.B3NX .2056 -.0025 .0949 -.0962 .9353 -.1671 -.0565 .8485 .2938 -.0611 .7739 .0794 

51.ETW ,.9tt5 .7441 .2618 -.0977 .2717 -.0821 -.0375 .1678 .2640 -.1067 .3511 .0122 

53.ETWSDISP -.9137 -.6830 -.2069 .0867 -.2698 -.0329 -.0315 -.2103 -.3294 .2724 -.3108 -.0897 

54.ET.SRTHP -.2838 -.7149 .1490 -.0674 .2163 -.4135 -.2228 .1193 .0975 .2315 .2683 .0579 

\ 

IOl.81SB3.HC -.1815 .0798 -.1566 .0388 -.3364 .4893 .2220 -.2351 -.4692 -.1872 -.3505 -.4840 

102.81583.CO .0901 .0949 .0657 .0340 .1109 .2493 .2200 .1334 -.0320 -.2285 .0719 -.1061 

103.81583.NX -.0797 -.0116 -.0936 -.0655 -.3538 .1548 -.0161 -.0927 -.1921 -.1469 -.3625 -.1015 

1B.B3CO 

19.B3NX 

51 .ETW 

53.ETWSDISP 

54.ETWSRTHP 

101.81583.HC 

102.81583.CO 

23. 

DI5P 

1.0000 

- . 1094 

- .0930 

. 1199 

. 1501 

-.2767 

-.2514 

103.81583.NX -.0387 

18. 

B3CO 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.1493 

I. 

FTPHC 

1.0000 

-. 1739 -.7504 

. 1493 - . 1526 

- . 3004 - . 1136 

2. 

FTP CO 

1.0000 

.3345 

.1491 

3. ". FTPNOX BIHC 

1.0000 

-.2433 

12. 

B1CO 

13. 

BINX 

. 1235 .0749 -.1149 -.0914 

I .0000 

. 1491 1.0000 

-.4509 -.0572 

19. 

B3NX St. 

ETW 

.0382 - .0633 .2257 - .0370 I .0000 

53. 54. 101. 102. 103. 

ETW5015P ETW5RTHP 81583.HC 81583.CO 81583.NX 

14. 

B2HC 

15. 

B2CO 

16. 

B2NX 

17. 

B3HC 
'.r:able h-5 

Active Year 1931 

All 

CORR.ELATION MATRIX <81> TAVR:81 

N• 378 D· • j,~ R~ .0500• .1009 R• .0100• .1323 

VARIABLE 

23.Dl5P 

24.RTHP 

1.FTPHC 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

11.81HC 

12.BICO 

13.81NX 

14.82HC 

15.82CD 

16.82NX 

17 .83HC 

18.83CO 

19.83NX 

51. ETW 

53.ETW5015P 

54.ETW5RTHP 

101.81583.HC 

102.81583.CO 

103.81583.NX 

18.B3CO 

19.B3NX 

51.ETW 

53.ETW5015P 

54.ETW5RTHP 

101.81583.HC 

102.81583.CO 

103.81583.NX 

I .0000 

.7536 

.3455 

.0356 

.2638 

.1006 

.0213 

.3072 

. 1791 

.0011 

1.0000 

.2078 

. 1400 

- .1010 

. 3661 

.1764 

.0636 

.1031 

- .0444 

.2055 -.1784 

.1887 .1765 

.0577 .0401 

1 .0000 

.3119 1.0000 

.3082 - . 1230 1.0000 

.3512 . 4890 - . 3897 1.0000 

.1539 .8767 -.2005 .6033 

.1780 -.0910 . 7800 - . 1951 

.6983 .2640 .2696 .0343 

.4169 .4618 .1217 - .0419 

.3180 -. 1317 .9457 - . 454 I 

.5439 .3301 .0100 .1927 

.2527 .5957 .0126 .0664 

1 .0000 

- .0965 1.0000 

.0790 . 1985 1.0000 

.0586 -.0519 .3816 1.0000 

-.2483 .5655 .2379 . 1899 1.0000 

.1701 .0728 .6407 .1732 - .0219 1.0000 

.2181 .0022 .3269 .4736 .0397 .5031 

.2580 -.0360 .2855 -.0876 .9333 -.2752 -.1169 .7687 .2971 .0587 .8038 .0256 

.9189 .7543 .3271 .0207 .2563 .0854 -.0117 .3147 .1498 .0636 .1984 .1210 

-.9240 -.7003 -.2954 -.0672 -.2033 -.1417 -.0819 -.2630 -.1512 .0533 -.1401 -.2439 

-.1942 -.6895 .0743 -.2621 .4951 -.5124 -.3468 .2594 .0151 .1390 .5573 -.1900 

-.1420 .0707 -.2228 .0064 -.3469 .4206 .1855 -.2407 -.4307 -.2196 -.3494 -.4779 

.0683 . 1431 -. 1210 .0447 -.0599 .2472• .3221 .0759 -.1751 -.3492 -. 1318 -.2533 

-.0744 .0618 -.1130 .0116 -.3891 .1342 .0168 -.1933 -.2001 .0174 -.3594 -.0316 

23. 

Dl5P 

1.0000 

- .0351 

.0427 

24. 

RTHP 

1 .0000 

.2401 

-.0583 -.2155 

- .0824 .3808 

-.2785 - . 3065 

-.3979 -.0025 

-.0224 

18. 

83CO 

-.4689 

19. 

83NX 

I. 

FTPHC 

1.0000 

-.7738 

- .1087 

- .071 I 

.0748 

.0079 

51. 

ETW 

2. 

FTPCO 

1.0000 

.2738 

. 1591 

- .0975 

.1027 

3. 11. 

FTPNOX B1HC 

t.0000 

-.2134 1.0000 

- .1545 .3897 

12. 

BICO 

1.0000 

- . 1241 . 1849 - .0047 

13. 

BINX 

1 .0000 

53. 54. 101. 102. 103. 

ETW5015P ETW5RTHP 81583.HC 81583.CD 81583.NX 

14. 

B2HC 1!1. B2CO 

16. 

82NX 

17. 

83HC 
~ 

I 

-~ 

0 

Tab;I.e 1-6 

Active Yea~:-1981 

Ga,soUne: 

<CORRELATION BY5T VAR=23,24,l-3,ll-19,51,53,54,101-103 5TRAT•V50:B1•V36:(1,2,6,7,17),(8,9)> 

CORRELATION MATRIX <1> TAYR:81•FTYP:(l,2,6,7,17) 

N= 335 OF• 333 R• .0500• .1072 R• .0100• .1406 

VARIABLE 

23.015P 1.0000 

24.RTHP -.8148 1.0000 

1. FTPHC .2851 .2977 

2.FTPCO .0691 .0658 

3.FTPNOX .2344 .0277 

11.BIHC .2234 .3077 

12.B1CO .0939 .0819 

13.B1NX .2807 .1207 

14. B2HC . 1750 . 1344 

15.B2CO - .0654 .0104 

16.B2NX . 1540 - .0535 

17.B3HC .2074 . 1316 

18.B3CO .0575 .0072 

19.B3NX .2290 .0621 

1.0000 

. 4820 f . 0000 

.1627 .1336 1.0000 

.7238 . 3899 - . 0276 1.0000 

.3896 .8700 .4555 

.1061 .0102 

.7342 .3213 

.3555 .6291 

. 1413 . 1963 

.6744 .2873 

. 3111 .5965 

.1848 .0955 

.1758 

.8035 -.0303 

.2753 

- . 1075 

.1186 

.1803 

.9095 -.0455 

.1860 .0985 

. 1092 .0093 

.9286 .0137 

1.0000 

.0576 1.0000 

.1562 . 1840 1.0000 

. 2558 - . 1560 .3632 1.0000 

.2062 .5307 .2480 -.0482 

.0899 . 1411 .6802 .2497 

.1927 .0346 .3447 .5370 

.1636 .7401 .2930 -.1123 

1.0000 

. 1932 1.0000 

.1978 .4958 

.7578 .1459 

51.ETW .9304 .8295 .2698 .0751 .1525 .2529 .0919 .2617 .1346 -.0285 .0552 .1549 

53.ETWSDISP -.9237 -.7247 -.2688 -.0711 -.2453 -.1953 -.1068 -.2652 -.1542 .0846 -.1760 -.2433 

54. ETW5RTHP. - . 3462 - . 7563 - . 2039 - .0579 . 1453 - . 2210 - .0352 . 1103 - .0883 - . 1022 . 1533 - .0732 

101.81583.HC -.1205 .0101 -.1548 -.0962 -.2299 .3271 .0570 -.1736 -.4229 -.1443 -.2239 -.5698 

102.81583.CO .1061 .1050 -.0627 -.0263 .1076 .1571> .2572 .1519 -.1567 -.3089 .0430 -.3085 

103.81583.NX -.0645 .0280 -.0718 -.0445 -.3930 .0506 -.0714 -.1585 -.1968 .0755 -.3930 -.0658 

18 .83CO 

19.83NX 

51.ETW 

53. ETWSOI SP 

23. 

OISP 

1.0000 

.0179 

.0480 

- .0503 

54.ETWSRTHP -.0119 

101.81583.HC 

102.81583.CO 

103.81583.NX 

-.3232 

-.4324 

- .0399 

18. 

83CO 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.1487 

-.2415 

I. 

FTPHC 

1.0000 

-.7942 

. 1070 - . 3049 

-.2034 

.1228 

-.4643 

19. 

83NX 

-.0190 

.1286 

.0419 

51. 

ETW 

2. 

FTPCO 

1.0000 

.3584 

3. 11. 

FTPNOX 81HC 

1.0000 

12. 

81CO 

. 1685 - .0338 1.0000 

-.1112 - .0188 .3517 1.0000 

.1116 - .0219 . 1466 - .0405 

13. 

81NX 

1.0000 

53. 54. IOI. 102. 103. 

ETWSDISP ETWSRTHP 81583.HC 81583.CO 81583.NX 

14. 

82HC 

15. 

B2CO 

16. 

82NX 

17. 

B3HC 
Table l.,-7 

Active Year 1981 

Fuel Injected (non-Diesel) 

<CORRELATION BYST VAR•23,24,1-3,11-19,51,53,54,101-I03 STRAT•V50:81•V36:(1,2,6,7,17)•V26:Y,N> 

CORRELATION MATRIX <I> TAYR:81•fTYP:(l,2,6,7,17)•flN:Y 

N= 88 Of• 86 R• .0500• .2096 R• .0100• .2732 

VARIABLE 

23.0ISP 1.0000 

24.RTHP .7055 

I. FTPHC .2916 

2.FTPCO .0085 

3.FTPNOX .5712 

11.BIHC .1622 

12.BICO .0496 

1.0000 

.4620 

.2146 

.3415 

.3958 

.2339 

1.0000 

.6980 1.0000 

.0409 -.0770 1.0000 

.9129 .6589 .0067 

.6548 .9339 .0831 

1.0000 

.6720 1.0000 

13.BINX .4862 .2993 -.0607 -.1818 .8517 -.0710 -.0368 1.0000 

14 .82HC .2419 .3149 .6647 .4936 .0783 .3575 . 3838 - .Ot25 

15.82CO - .1383 .0592 .4165 .6569 -.3546 .2983 .3624 -.3558 

16.82NX .4775 . 1624 .0084 - . 1811 .7530 -.0474 -.0598 .3629 

17.83HC .4623 .3371 .5322 .2410 .o5oi .2817 .1561 -.0210 

18.83CO .0704 .0607 .3405 .3788 -.3292 .1931 .1081 -.3792 

1.0000 

.4972 

.0495 

.3661 

.2869 

1.0000 

-.3816 1.0000 

. 1664 . 1329 

. 5631 - . 1737 

1.0000 

.5130 

19.83NX .4807 .4012 .1638 .1783 .9217 .1409 .3168 . 7654 .1659 -.1574 .5648 .0266 

51.ETW .9122· .7787 .3309 .0324 .5113 .2203 .0470 .4590 .2639 -.0508 .3857 .4101 

53.ETWSOISP -.9002 -.6758 -.2881 -.0348 -.4736 -.1932 -.0834 -.3964 -.1720 .1416 -.4002 -.4440 

54.ETWSRTHP -.1968 -.7724 -.3986 -.2856 -.0029 -.3931 -.2896 .0449 -.2549 -.1493 .0831 -.1294 

101.81583.HC -.2082 -.0605 -.0068 -.0186 -.0609 .2249 .0811 -.0558 -.1927 -.1231 -.0648 -.5328 

102.81583.CO -.0236 .1801 -.0065 .0075 .3071 .1133 .1979 ' .3592 -.0858 -.2616 .0882 -.3068 

103.81583.NX -.1130 -.1214 .0045 -.0042 -.3936 -.0119 -.0883 -.1526 -.0448 .1672 -.4113 .1393 

18.83CO 

19.83NX 

51. ETW 

53.ETW501SP 

!14 . ETW5RTHP 

101.81583.HC 

102.81583.CO 

103.81583.NX 

23. 

Dl5P 

1.0000 

-.2688 

.0743 

-.0709 

- .0564 

-.3818 

-.6123 

. 1611 

18. 

83CO 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.4461 

-.4021 

1. 

FTPHC 

1.0000· 

-.7059 

- . 1389 - . 2250 

- .0392 

.3188 

-.4452 

19. 

83NX 

- .0899 

.0169 

- .0293 

51. 

ETW 

2. 

FTP CO 

1.0000 

.3585 

.2625 

3. 11. 

FTPNOX BIHC 

1.0000 

.0187 1.0000 

12. 

81CO 

.0216 -.2328 .4090 1.0000 

. 1418 .1656 .0053 -.1301 

13. 

B1NX 

1.0000 

53. 54. 101. 102. 103. 

ETW5DISP ETWSRTHP 81583.HC 81583.CO 81583.NX 

14. 

82HC 

15. 

B2CO 

16. 

B2NX 

17. 

83HC 
I-' 

I 

I-' 

N 

'l'able 1-8 

Active Year 1931 

Not Fuel Injected 

CORRELATION MATRIX <2> TAYR:8t•FTYP:(l,2,6,7,17)•FIN:N 

N= 247 OF• 245 R• .0500• .1249 R• .0100• .1636 

VARIABLE 

23.DISP 

24.RTHP 

I .FTPHC 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

11.BIHC 

12.BICO 

13.BINX 

14.B2HC 

15.B2CD 

16.B2NX 

17.B3HC 

18.B3CO 

19.B3NX 

51. ETW 

53.ETWSDISP 

54.ETWSRTHP 

101.BISB3.HC 

102.BISB3.CO 

103.B1SB3.NX 

18.B3CO 

19.B3NX 

51.ETW 

53.ETWSOISP 

54.ETWSRTHP 

101.BISB3.HC 

1.0000 

.9000 

.2789 

.0765 

.1337 

.2692 

.1005 

.1835 

.1524 

- .0469 

.0753 

.1427 

1.0000 

.3058 

.0871 

.0925 

.2346 

.0814 

. 1539 

.2218 

.0071 

.0468 

.1918 

1.0000 

.3952 

.1043 

.6937 

.2779 

.1202 

.7623 

.3387 

.0731 

.7133 

1.0000 

.0738 

.3592 

.8518 

- .0071 

.2210 

1.0000 

.0608 

. 1311 

. 7766 

.1235 

. 6298 - .0861 

.1689 .9191 

.2400 .0332 

1.0000 

.4199 

.0696 

.1249 

.1498 

.0523 

.1140 

1.0000 

.0355 

.0422 

.2253 

.2006 

.0211 

1.0000 

.1178 

-. 1093 

.5236 

.0751 

1.0000 

.3491 1.0000 

.0752 -.0172 

.6919 .2686 

1.0000 

.0206 

.0484 .0779 .2968 .6132 .0062 .0311 .1739 -.0090 .2824 .5683 .0829 

.1343 .0798 .1018 -.0414 .9130 .0437 .0415 .6816 .1589 -.1389 .7502 

.9478 .8556 .2766 .1126 .1265 .2604 .1247 .2329 .1594 -.0181 .0507 

-.9364 -.8197 -.2386 -.0481 -.1251 -.2334 -.0902 -.1709 -.0978 .0772 -.0651 

-.4440 -.7296 -.2270 -.0831 -.0037 -.0915 -.0199 .0044 -.2253 -.1115 - .. 0235 

-.0531 -.0.984 -.1941 -.0385 -.0892 .4101 .1691 -.0963 -.5017 -.1817. -.0628 

.1468 .0769 -.0769 -.0281 .0897 .1782 .2819 .0926 -.1754 -.3197 _.,lilS 

.0099 .0075 -.0268 .1257 -.2808 .0346 .0770 .1921 -.1273 .0969 -.3232 

23. 

OISP 

1.0000 

-.1002 

.0793 

- .0104 

-.1150 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.1103 

- . 1347 

1. 

FTPHC 

1.0000 

-.8523 

.0215 -.3185 

-.3412 -.0917 - .0324 

2. 

FTPCO 

1.0000 

.4457 

.0559 

3. 11. 

FTPNOX 81HC 

1.0000 

.1511 1.0000 

12. 

91co 

13. 

BINX 

14. 

82HC 

15. 

82CO 16. 82NX 

102.81583.CO -.4456 .0918 . 1598 - . 1538 .0583 .4126 1.0000 

103.81583.NX . 1268 - . 4972 

18. 

83CO 

19. 

83NX 

.0923 

St. 

ETW 

.0093 .0793 .0679 .0042 f .0000 

53. 54. tot. 102. 103. 

ETW5015P ETW5RTHP 81583.HC 81583.CO 81583.NX 

1.0000 

.4560 

.0076 

.1422 

-. 1618 

-.2081 

-.6411 

-.3196 

.0343 

17. 

83HC 
I-' 

I 

'I-'' 

w 

Table 1-9 

Active Year- 1981 

Oxidation Catalyst 

<CORRELATION BVST VAR•23,24,1~3,ll-19,51,53,54,IOl-103 STRAT•V50:81•V36:(1,2,6,7,17)•V35> 

CORRELATION MATRIX <2> TAYR:81•FTYP:(l,2,6,7,17)•ESC5:0XIO 

N• 58 OF• 56 R• .0500• .2586 R• .0100• .3357 

VARIABLE 

23.DISP 

24.RTHP 

I .FTPHC 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

I I .BIHC 

12.BICO 

13.BINX 

14.B2HC 

15.B2CO 

16.B2NX 

17 .B3HC 

18.B3CO 

1.0000 

.8489 1.0000 

.0787 - .0157 1.0000 

. 1642 .0712 .3148 1.0000 

.2161 . 0435 - . 1096 . 1097 1.0000 

- . 1726 - . 1404 .7357 .2934 - . 1019 1.0000 

.1233 . 1727 .8719 .0572 .2920 1.0000 

.2335 

.1256 

.1011 - .0622 - .0120 .8746 -.1269 -.0842 

.2674 . 1151 

- . 1408 - . 1792 

.1788 

.2745 

.2743 

.0075 

.0980 

.0498 

.6550 

.3078 

- . 1169 

.7662 

.3099 

. 1632 - .0284 

.5552 .0126 

.0052 

.2950 

.0200 

.2668 

.1545 .9603 - .0851 ,1068 

. 1685 - .0872 . 1929 - . 0959 

.6115 . 1661 .0359 .2047 

1.0000 

.0523 I .0000 

- . 1264 . 1231 

.7213 - .0577 

.0156 .7950 

.2028 .3118 

1.0000 

.0729 1.0000 

.1929 -. f115 1.0000 

.3427 .1518 .5090 

19.B3NX .2097 .0373 -.1082 .1186 .9757 -.0854 .0836 .8669 -.0351 .0218 .9016 -.1075 

51.ETW .9588 .8714 .1533 .2090 .2036 -.1507 .1721 .2415 .3614 -.1114 .1619 .3444 

53.ETWSDISP -.9261 -.7966 .0145 -.1599 -.2479 .1797 -.0957 -.2445 -.1235 .0862 -.2211 -.1767 

54.ETWSRTHP -.1603 -.5923 .2485 .2033 .2150 .0285 .0903 .1220 .3473 .1655 .2377 .2910 

IOl.BISB3.HC -.1789 .0814 -.0027 .1177 -.0764 .5886 .3356 -.1670 -.5649 .0073 -.0314 -.5459 

t02.BISB3.CO .1569 .4559 -.0675 -.0024 -.0898 .1741 .3489 -.0881 -.2118 -.3619 -.0990 -.3215 

103.BISB3.NX .0366 .1608 .0588 -.0897 -.3116 -.0595 -.1677 .0432 .1092 -.0649 -.3858 .t7t6 

18.B3CO 

19.B3NX 

51. ETW 

53.ETWSDISP 

!14.ETW5RTHP 

tOl.B 1583 .HC 

I02.BtSB3.CD 

103.81583.NX 

23. 

Dl5P 

1.0000 

. 1345 

.2796 

- 2831 

.2590 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.1923 

1. 

FTPHC 

1.0000 

-.2326 -.8481 

.2160 -.1422 

- . 3380 - . 0655 -. 1470 

-.4582 -.0610 

.1233 -.4076 

18. 

• 83CO 

19 . B3NX 

.2114 

.0723 

5·1. 

ETW 

2. 

FTP CO 

t .0000 

.2783 

. 1407 

3. t t. FTPNOX B1HC 

I .0000 

-.3536 t.0000 

- .0860 - .4717 .5981 

t2. 

BICO 

1.0000 

- .0504 -.2808 -.1218 -.0383 

t3. 

BINX 

1.0000 

53. 54. 101. 102. 103. 

ETWSDl5P ETWSRTHP 81583.HC 81583.CD BISBJ.NX 

14. 

B2HC 

ts. 

B2CO 

16. 

B2NX t7. 

B3HC 
Table 1-le'-

Active Year 1981 

Three-way Catalyst 

CORRELATION MATRIX <3> TAYR:81•FTYP:(l,2,6,7,17)•E5C5:THREEW 

N• 119 OF• 117 R• .0500• .1801 R• .0100• .2353 

VARIABLE 

23.015P 1.0000 

24.RTHP .7212 

1. FTPHC .3287 

2.FTPCO .3270 

3.FTPNOX .4438 

11.BIHC .2625 

12.BICO . 3114 

13.BINX .3544 

14.B2HC . 1111 

15.B2CO .1524 

1.0000 

.4229 

. 1514 

.1063 

.3894 

. 1545 

1.0000 

.5600 

-.0023 

.9162 

.4902 

. 1779 - . 1097 

.2243 .6276 

. 1221 .4581 

1.0000 

.2850 

.5096 

.9120 

.0996 

.3542 

.6241 

1.0000 

.0111 

.3881 

.7546 

-.0306 

- . 1031 

1.0000 

.4959. 1.0000 

-.0713 . 1714 1.0000 

.3152 .2359 -.1278 

.3251 .2744 - . 1126 

1.0000 

.4902 1.0000 

16.B2NX .3955 - .0270 

.2855 

.0279 .3027 .8616 .0225 

.2916 

.3735 .3734 -.0093 -.0696 

17.B3HC .4721 

18.B3CO .2251 - .0124 

.5433 

.2790 

.3124 -.0076 

.6260 .0568 

. 1998 - . 0822 .3890 .2906 

.1790 . 3029 - .0185 .1999 .7306 

1.0000 

·<>Ei82 

.1628 

1.0000 

.4047 

19.B3NX .3560 .1958 .0576 .2713 .8859 .0688 .3974 .6986 .0480 -.0894 .6141 -.0480 

51.ETW .8931 .8040 .3670 .2826 .2890 .3027 .2238 .3178 .1682 .2320 .2076 .4208 

53.ETW5015P -.8932 -.5833 -.2686 -.3150 -.4743 -.2350 -.3245 -.3130 -.0438 -.0866 -.4619 -.3825 

54.ETW5RTHP ~~92 -.8657 -.3276 .0176 .0862 -.3252 -.0208 .0439 -.1954 -.0154 .1761 -.0986 

101.81583.HC -.1354 .0419 .1281 -.0257 -.0292 .4042 .0990 .0057 -.2058 -.1660 -.0462 -.5727 

102.81583.CO .1954 .1590 -.0326 .0793 .3853 .0493 ,3001 .3673 -.0744 -.2924 .2526 -.2359 

103.81583.NX -.0039 .0393 .0647 -.0192 -.3599 .0425 -.0776 -.1025 -.0048 .1210 -.3274 .1680 

18.83CO 

19.83NX 

23. 

015P 

1.0000 

-.073!1 

.23!13 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.2313 

I. 

FTPHC 

!11. ETW 1 .0000 

!13.ETW5015P - . 2040 - . 3796 -.6490 

54.ETW5RTHP .1985 

101.81583.HC -.3056 

102.81583.CO 

103.81583.NX 

-.3942 

.0482 

18. 

83CO 

-.0705 -.4342 

-.0226 

.3936 

-.4579 

19. 

83NX 

- .0870 

.0985 

.1253 

51. 

ETW 

2. 

FTPCO 

1.0000 

.3749 

3. 11. 

FTPNOX 81HC 

1 .0000 

12. 

81CO 

.0888 - . 1336 1.0000 

-.2155 -.1300 .3136 1.0000 

.1119 .0183 . 0686 - . 0995 

13. 

81NX 

1:0000 

53. 54. 101. 102. 103. 

ETW5Dl5P ETW5RTHP 81583.HC 81583.CO 81583.NX 

14. 

82HC 

15. 

82CO 

16. 

82NX 

t7. 

B3HC 
...... 

I 

...... 

Vl 

Table 1-11 

Active Year 1981 

Three~way + Oxidation Catalyst 

CORRELATION MATRIX <4> TAYR:81•FTYP:(1,2,6,7,17)•ESC5:TW.O.C 

N= 158 DF• 156 R• .0500= .1562 R• .0100• .2044 

VARIABLE 

23.DISP I .0000 

24.RTHP .8565 1.0000 

I .FTPHC . 1276 .1891 

2 .FTPCO - . 1859 - .0942 

3.FTPNOX .1509 .1103 

I 1.81HC .3716 .3618 

12.81CD - . 1023 - .0564 

13.81NX .2291 . 1519 

14.82HC -.0816 .0065 

15.82CO - . 2329 - . 1289 

16.82NX - . 0300 . 0082 

17.83HC - .1556 - .0825 

18.83CO -.1253 -.0434 

1.0000 

.4354 1.0000 

. 1478 - . 0645 

.6705 .3146 

.3390 .8309 

1.0000 

.1527 

.0094 

1.0000 

.4798 1.0000 

.0880 - . 1724 .6890 . 1865 - .0742 1.0000 

.7813 .3218 . 1111 .1467 . 1025 - .0138 

.3458 .6545 -. 119!5 -.0011 .2371 -. 1958 

.0954 .1069 .7961 .0264 .0963 .2132 

.6426 .2678 .0094 .0152 .0117 - .0443 

.2598 .6067 -.1013 -.0802 .1305 - . 1753 

1.0000 

.4854 

. 1112 

.5979 

.3028 

1.0000 

.0149 1.0000 

.3189 .0748 1.0000 

.5470 .0968 .4691 

19.83NX .2070 .1263 .1656 -.1405 .8593 .1737 -.0384 .5192 .1505 -.1329 .5362 -.0326 

51.ETW .9340 .7903 .1012 -.1815 .1681 .3842 -.0846 .3036 -.1087 -.2468 -.0548 -.2150 

53.ETWSDISP -.9027 -.7426 -.1389 .1956 -.0912 -.3275 .0987 -.1850 .0813 .2488 .0919 .0473 

54.ETWSRTHP -.2887 -.6675 -.2206 -.1386 .0536 -.1507 -.0395 .1130 -.1675 -.1681 -.0605 -.1451 

101.81583.HC .0432 .0457 -.2179 -.1247 -.1521 .1826 .0338 -.0533 -.3268 -.1876 -.1881 -.4868 

102.81583.CO .0594 -.0213 -.0968 -.1227 .0325 .2708 .1995 .0981 -.2308 -.3308 -.0494 -.4271 

103.81583.NX -.0350 -.0437 -.1065 -.0330 -.2001 -.0360 -.0258 .4294 -.1751 -.0800 -.3273 .0041 

18.83CO 

19.83NX 

23. 

OJSP 

1.0000 

-.2083 

- . 1373 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.2096 

1. 

FTPHC 

51. ETW 1.0000 

53.ETWSOJSP .1476 -.1790 -.7736 

54.ETWSRTHP - . 1754 

101.81583.HC -.2661 

102.81583.CO -.4796 

103.81583.NX 

<FINISH> 

.0241 

18. 

83CO 

.1060 -.1195 

-.0954 

.0480 

-.5053 

19. 

83NX 

.1651 

.1258 

.0293 

51. 

ETW 

2. 

FTPCO 

1.0000 

.3004 

.0765 

- .0618 

.0443 

3. 11. 

FTPNOX B1HC 

1.0000 

.1239 1.0000 

.2170 .3636 

.0547 .0373 

12. 

81CO 

1.0000 

.0575 

13. 

81NX 

1.0000 

53. 54. 101. 102. 103. 

ETWSDISP ETWSRTHP 81583.HC 81583.CO 81583.NX 

14. 

82HC 

15. 

82CO 

16. 

82NX 

17. 

83HC 
CORRELATION MATRIX <2> TAYR:8t•FTYP:(8,9) 

TmITe 1-~ 

Active Year 1981 

Diesel 

N= 43 DF• 41 R• .0500• .3008 R• .0100• .3887 

VARIABLE 

23.Dl5P 

24.RTHP 

l.FTPHC 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

I t.81HC 

12.BICO 

13.81NX 

14 .B2HC 

15.82CO 

16.82NX 

17 .83HC 

18.83CO 

1.0000 

.8323 

.5772 

.4681 

.3706 

.1621 

.3874 

.4225 

.1670 

.3766 

.3413 

.5979 

.6676 

1.0000 

.3246 1.0000 

.5247 .4030 

.4133 -.0112 

.2391 

.5326 

.3519 

.2564 

1.0000 

-.2542 

.4388 

1.0000 

- .1383 

.9430 -.2068 

.4396 - . 0408 - . 2172 .9121 

.1046 

.4080 

.3300 

.4691 

.6824 

.4320 

.4022 

.0605 

.5228 

.4690 

.3857 - .1276 

.9706 -.3333 

-.2576 .9501 

.4080 .0668 

.9043 -.0529 

1.0000 

.3826 

-.1937 

.7894 

.4670 

1.0000 

- . 1634 1.0000 

.1968 -.1612 

.8620 -.3156 

-.1015 -.2362 .7551 

.6457 .2459 .0591 

.3269 .8656 .0199 

1.0000 

.4787 1.0000 

-.0853 -.3098 1.0000 

.6931 

.2726 

.3945 .0950 

. 7956 - .0982 

1.0000 

.5104 

19.83NX .3030 .4641 -.1286 -.2080 .9105 -.1513 -.1254 .9365 -.1583 -.3097 .7468 -.0067 

51.ETW .8651 .9066 .4055 .5968 .4279 .2588 .6067 .4893 .1389 .4705 .3412 .4559 

53.ETW5Dl5P -.9667 -.7425 -.5603 -.3355 -.3422 -.0908 -.2213 -.3786 -.1587 -.2612 -.3355 -.6135 

54.ETW5RTHP -.5171 -.7642 -.1292 -.2573 -.2252 -.1627 -.2240 -.1839 -.0847 -.2224 -.2028 -.3675 

101.81583.HC -.3820 -.1276 -.1903 .0972 -.1702 .5095 .2147 -.1991 .1749 .1467 -.1697 -.2726 

102.81583.CO -.3793 -.1231 -.2879 .1642 -.2279 .1460 .3502 -.2588 -.1361 .1992 -.2082 -.4341 

103.81583.NX .3886 .0350 .2078 -.0595 .0902 -.1646 -.1310 .2755 -.0582 -.0697 .0846 .1983 

18.83CO 

19.83N" 

!II. ETW 

!13. ETW5015P 

54.ETW5RTHP 

101.81583.HC 

102.81583.CO 

103.81583.NX 

23. 

Dl5P 

1.0000 

. 0<'77 

.7620 

-.5542 

-.3152 

24. 

RTHP 

1.0000 

.4578 

-.2457 

-.2425 

-.1633 - .1254 

- . 1456 -.2027 

.0455 - .0128 

18. 

83CO 

19. 

83NX 

I. 

FTPHC 

1.0000 

- . 7265 

-.4359 

- .1061 

- • 1252 

2. 

FTPCO 

1.0000 

.5435 

.5006 

.5134 

3. 11. 

FTPNOX 81HC 

1.0000 

.0914 t.0000 

.0711 . 751 t 

12. 

81CO 

1.0000 

13. 

BINX 

.1439 -.4326 .0359 -.2610 -.2031 1.0000 

51. 

ETW 

53. 54. IOI. 102. 103. 

ETWSDI5P ETW5RTHP 81583.HC 81583.CO 81583.NX 

14. 

B2HC 

15. 

82CO 

16. 

82NX 

t7. 

83HC 
2. Bag 1 CO correlates to the FTP CO better than Bag 3 CO for all 

cases. The Bag 1 CO correlation coefficients exceed .80 for all 

cases compared to a minimum Bag 3 CO r of • 38. Bag 3 CO appears 

useful for prediction of FTP emissions for Diesels only. 

3. Model year 1981 Diesel vehicles have very good correlation (r ':> .90) 

of Bag 1 and Bag 3 to the FTP for both CO and NOx emissions. Bag 1 

CO and NOx correlation coefficients are slightly greater than the 

corresponding Bag 3 values. 

4. The correlation coefficients for Bag 1 HC vs. FTP HC and Bag 3 HC vs. 

FTP HC range from .33 to greater than .91. Active year 1981 vehicles 

equipped with three-way catalysts and/or non-Diesel fuel injected 

engines appear unique from the other subgroups, having Bag 1 HC vs. 

FTP HC r values which indicate reasonably good correlation (r ~ .91). 

In summary, the correlation coefficients analyzed indicate that accurate 

prediction of FTP equivalent emissions from test data which don't reflect 

operation over the cold transient phase is doubtful. However, FTP equivalent 

emissions can be predicted with reasonable confidence for some individual 

pollutants and certain specific subgroups of vehicles. 

Based on the lack of correlation between Bag 1 emissions and Bag 3 emissions 

shown in table 1-2 it can be concluded that there is effectively no way to 

predict Bag 1 emissions, even assuming that one could computer-model-calculate 

Bag 3 emissions accurately. Even if one further assumes that 

computer-model-calculated MPG values are accurate, any relationship between 

predicted emission levels (or emission standards) and MPG based on the use of 

hot data only is probably worthless. 

1-17 
Appendix 2 

Calculation Methodology for Fuel 

Economy Change Allocation 
Appendix 2 

Calculation Methodology for 

Fuel Economy Change Allocation 

The procedure for -computing fleet fuel economy changes due to specific 

factors~ such as system optimization and weight mix shifts, involves the 

construction of matched sets of data from a base fleet (e.g. 1978) and a new 

fleet (e.g. 1979)~ and calculation of intermediate sales-weighted fleet fuel 

economy values for the matched sets. Depending on the degree of matching, 

the data sets being compared include only certain known changes between the 

sets, and hence the calculated intermediate flee't MPG values reflect the 

fuel economy effects of only those specific changes in fleet makeup. 

CALCULATION OF DIFFERENCES DUE TO SYSTEM OPTIMIZATION: To determine the 

differences in. fuel economy between the 1978 and 1979 cars due to system 

optimization~ it was necessary to limit the comparison to nominally identical vehicles. For each manufacturer it was established which 1978 and 1979 

models were identical in terms of weight~ displacement, and transmission 

type,., When this was:· established a new~ set· of·· saJ.es' fractions was: 

calculated, based on 1978 sales estimates~ using only those combinations 

which were carried over from 1978 to 1979. Two sales-weighted fuel economy 

values (SWMPG) were calculated.- using. the: equation. below. One. calculation. 

using 1978 model MPG values and 1978 -carryover sales fractions~ and one 

using the 1979 model. MPG values~ also with 1978 carryover sales fractions •. 

SWMPG = 1 

:Sf i ( l/MPGi) 

where fi = sales fraction for stratum ig whose MPG is MPGi 

The difference between the two values reflects the change in fuel economy 

due to what we have called system optimization. Since the weights, displacements, transmissions - and their sales distributions - are matched, any 

difference in fuel economy is due to other factors. The main factors which 

could be contributing to such a system optimization change in fuel economy 

are: 

2-1 
o Emission control system design changes; 

o Engine design and/or calibration changes; 

o Changes in transmission efficiency~ shift scheduling, or gear ratios; 

o Axle ratio changes; 

o Changes in test procedure which influence fuel economy. 

DIFFERENCES DUE TO TRANSMISSION MIX SHIFTS: In the analysis of fuel economy 

changes due to ·system optimization, any IW/ CID/ transmission combination not 

common to both years was eliminated from consideration, and the sales 

distribution of those combinations that were carried over was held at the 

1978 mix. If the calculation is repeated using only weight/displacement 

combinations as the determinants for model year carryover, those 

IW/CID/transmission combinations that are not common to both sets of data 

are not .. sifted out .. , but remain in their respective data bases; also, each 

of· the' data• bases· ret·a.fnsc fts' own· sales split' between automatics and manuals 

within the carryover IW/CID combinations. 

Again; two· SWMPG values: are= calculated using the same equation~ wherein the 

first MPGi is the har:nonic mean sales-weighted fuel economy of each manufacturer's 1978 models in IW/CID class i, and the second MPG1 is the fuel 

economy of his 1979 models in IW/CID class i. Both of these SWMPG values 

are based on the same mix of the IW/CID classes (the 1978 mix), so the difference between the two is due to system optimization plus all changes in 

transmission mix •. 

DIFFERENCES DUE TO ENGINE MIX SHIFTS: Similarly, by sifting for carryover 

at only the weight class level, all differences in the IW/CID structures of 

the fleets are. allowed to remain. The difference between the two SWMPG 
values calculated on this basis is thus due to system optimization, transmission mix shifts~ and shifts in the mix of engine displacements*. 

DIFFERENCES DUE TO WEIGHT MIX SHIFTS: The bottom-line SWMPG values calculated from the full~ unperturbed data bases, each with its own sales mix, 

includes all of the above effects plus the effect, of non-carryover weight 

classes and the 1979 redistribution of sales among carryover weight 

classes. 

Table 2-1 summarizes the above calculation methodology~ and figure 2-1 shows 

a diagram of. the relationship between the various calculated SWMPG values. 

Since the methodology is suitable for a comparison between any two vehicle. 

sets (49-States vs. California~ cars vs. trucks~ manufacturer X vs. Y, 

etc.)~- table 2-1 and figure 2-1 are notated for the general case rather than 

the year-to-year case. 

Table 2-2 illustrates the equations for separation of individual factors 

from the combined effects discussed above. 

*This also includes shifts in the mix of engine standards/systeins; Federal 

vs. California. and Spark vs. Diesel. 

2.""'3 
Configuration 

Determinants 

IW/Clll/Trana .. 

mission Type 

IW/Clll 

IW 

Open 

MPG 

Table 2 - 1 

l1ethod for Constructing Fuel Economy 

Comparisons between Two Vehicle Groups 

Vehicle Gro!!l! "A" Vehicle Gro!!l! "B" 

Sales Fleet MPG Sales neet 

Base(mpgi) !!!!!,(fi) ~ !!!!. (mp st) !!!!,(fi) ~ A-to-B S\IMPG Change Attributed' To: 

A. 

A 

A 

A 

A,. PEA&ICT B 

A FEAAIC B 

A FEMI B 

A FEAA B 

Figure 2-1 

A FEBAICT System optimization in carryover 

I/C/T combinations 

A* FEBAIC Above plus new/discontinued I/C/T 

combinations plus shifts in transmission mix within carryover I/C 

combinations 

A ** FE BAI Above plus new/discontinued I/C 

combinations plus shifts in engine 

mix within carryover IW classes 

B •- FEBB Above plus new/discontinued IW 

classes plus shifts in IW mix 

among carryover IW classes 

* Includes B mix of transmissions 

within c/o IC classes. 

** Includes B mix of CT combinations 

within c/o weight classes. 

·*** Includes B mix of all lC'I combinations 

in group B. 

Relationships between SWMPG Values 

from Table 2-1 

~ system optimization ~FE ICT 

~--.;,,_----------~ 

Discontinued ; · ICT combinations 

Nev ICT combinations 

and T mix shifts within 

c/o IC combinations 

\ New IC combinations 

and C mix shifts within 

c/o vt. classes 

FEMI ---------------------- system 011dmization ~ FEBAI plus net T changes 

Discontinued . New weights and we. mix shifts I plus net C changes \ 

vt. classes among c/o wt. classes 

~ A.J.l changes combined ~ ~ 

2.,..4 
Percent Change in 

Fuel Economy Oue To : · 

Systems Optilllization 

Transmission Mix Shifts 

Engine Hix Shifts 

Weight Mix Shifts 

AJ.l Changes Combined· 

Table 2 -· 2 

Calculated By: 

[ ( :~:~~~ ) - l] x 100 

[( 

FEsAIC + FEsAICT) - l] 

FEAAIC ·FEAAICT x 100 

x 100 

[( 

FEss. + FEBAI ) - i] x 100 

FEM FEMI 

2-5 
Appendix 3 

Variability Estimates for Emissions 

and Economy over the FTP 
To Karl Hellman 25 Haren, 1981 

From·John Foster 

&e Test to test variability 

Using. similar procedure and the same data as my sensitivity sturiy 

(see my memo to you of 12 Harch), I have looked into the differences 

between raultiple tests on the sar.~e vehicles. 

For each multiply-tested car I calculated the mean fuel economy, 

iiC, CO, and ;;ox, for ~oth city and hif,h>;a:/ test cycles. I dlso found 

the standard deviations of these 8 i;it:ans, -;.;hie;:; are :.ieasures or tiit::.ir 

test-to-test variaoility. :i:he 1027 ·"ehicles \,;ere tnen avera_.:.eu to 

find their wean standard deviation. ~ere are the results; 

DIFFERENCE (AVERAGE) . . .. 

VARIAl3Li:: u (iL'JLJ.i~~ .1,:,,;~L1U.- .. i..~l£ih~ STD JLV 

l.FECITY 1027 i.). J . .5360 .46217 • 4 fo 4o 

2 •• ~CCITY 1027 o. l. 740(.J .C6c06J • l.G26.5 

3.COCITY 1027 o. 54 .!,, 7i 1.0577 2.0976 

4.NOXCITY 1027 o. 1.2800 .12346 .13782 

5 • .:?EHi~Y 432 o. 7.5660 1.0039 LC633 

6 .HChwY 430 o. .43500 .015156 .029851 

7. COii\JY 361. o. 11. 709 -33817 .88500 

8 .~WXHiiY 431 o. 1.6720 .lb613 .22276 

Data base is· CERT/EPA for model years 1975 to 1982. 

3-1 
Appendix 4 

Two Variable Linear Regression Plots 

of Emissions versus Economy 

(Data from all Model Years Available 

and No Stratification of the Data) 
<SCATTIR YAR•tl;t CAlll•ALL INTlaYAL•C4.,40l;C0,2.71>•1CATTIR 'LDT UIOG 

•o.ooo • 

+ 

n.ooo + 

• 

u.ooo + 

• 

2a.ooo • 

• 

24.000 • 

• 

20.000 + 

• 

ti. 000 + 

• 

12. 000 • 

1.0000 

• 

4.0000 

..... .. •• 2 • 2 

•• . 2 •• 2 ... • 2 • • 2 • 2 . .. •2•• •2 • 2 • 2·::t• • 2••• •2:t~:t •• ••• • • • ••• 

••• •• 2 • •• • • •:I 

••22••22 •• 

•211 •33 •23 • ••••2••· 32232•• • 2 •••• •2•••••••2• 2• • • • • • • •• 23•31232&22•22 • ••2••2 2• • • • • •• ·•••••••24293 3 •••2 • 3• 2 2 ••••222344•3• • • ••• • •• 2• ••• 2•••2 •••••••1:12 •••••••• 3• ••2• •3• 2· 3 •412XIBll73323•33 2222 42•• 2 • 2• 34 •2 4XX7X4133442••••3•222• 2 •2 2 3 * 2 2 2•• llXXXIX3723 331 22•223 • 2 2 2•• ••224 •2•• •• •:t•••••••••l2 •2••332•3 ••• 22•••• 22•••• •• 411711742912 2322••2 ••22 2 2 •2• • :t• •2• 

•••177151433133 •2• 3••22••• 22• • • •• ········••321374•2•22•3• •• •••2• •2 ••2 •31717XXl81373221322••22•32•:t2•2 22• ** * * •• •IXfXXX77B21S327TI• 82322 23 3222••2 • 2 • • llX>lllllBTIBB78323Blll2•12 23•• 3•33• 2 •34~t~X7114Bl297S2731424314••:t4•2• 2 • •• **2 • • •14•XXXBX3XIBXSXIXllSBIBB3 22• 333• •2••2 2 •• • •7H•llXX8XXIXl7X7X78113234233•••43••32 3••••3• 

··~······•••8781••••3&•244 3•422 ••23 237XllllXXXl71X78XX8183 13•2•3••322 2• • 2 

•211XIXIXIXIX8XXllXl3882•32•2 2••2 * • ••2 •2 •2 

••22~81XXSXIXXllXX8S47 12222• 2 • 

SllXXITXXXXXX81B911322B• 12 2 1881XXXXXIXX747X7191· •24 3• 3 4 

•37811XXX8XXaa&l3233••3• 3 •3• •2 • 

224111XXXXXlll82772&•2• ••2 •• 2 

24178XXXISl717Sl23•• 2•42 •3 •28X8881SS483222132432•• ••••• 2 

2811773422 1423•4. •2• 2 • 

• 28•2• 2•23• 3 31•••••••• 2•2• •2 • 32 2• • •223 •• 

N• 411 I DUT D, 1713 I I . UIO•G VI. ·I . ,T,NC 

DATA BASE IS CERT/EPA 

2 

2 

··--···---·----·----·----·--·-·--··•-···•··--·----····-·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 0. .80000 t.2000 

.. 30000 . 10000 

1 .eooo 1 .9000 2. 1000 2.1000 l"Tl'MC 

2.'7000 

<SCATT8R VA••11i2 JNT8RVAL•41.,40); (0,27)>•SCATT8R ltLDT 

UMPG 

N• 1811 DUT DF STS3 11.UMPG YS. 2.l"T,CO 

10. 000 ••• 

.• 2• .. 31.000 ••2• 

32.000 

21.000 

21.000 

20.000 

18.000 

12.0DO 

a.oooo 

4.0000 

2 2 

• • • ••2 • • •32 

•2 • •2 •2 

2•23• • • •• 5 3•• •• 323 

•2•2•2 • • ••2• 3 

2• 2• •2 2 

••123•3• 23•2•2•• 

3132•2 •3 2••2••• 22 •• 

12212 •S22• ••• • •2 2• 2 • 2 88•8332•2•2• • 2•• 2 • •22•• • •391253148•3 3223• 2 • 2•• •••• 

•2598•5 223•3• 33•2 •• 1••••2 • 33• • 

• 757321•43•1•222•2• 3• 3 •• 4 • •••2 

•44X88163213•123•23•••32 • •22• •2 ••3•2 • 

1891878•435333•3 • 2•2•3 2 22 ••••2 

• 91711118783242 •3•32•2••33•23•••2•3 •2• 2 • 

41817374642344•312•1 •2 2231• •••2&•• 2 2• 

11173333888&29•3• 2• 2 2•••3••22 2•2• 899•1•893375530322132 •2222•• 2• 23 ••• 

891813379715151052• •••13 212 •3•• ••••• 2 

59'7Xll49ST'7 '733 53•3•113824•3 22222 2• 2• 3• •9XXX8X8777SC512•3•4&2•3•C82S423• •3• •••4 

OB78XOXXX82Sl778•152331•334 oa•2 4 2• ••233• •2 •2 

•28&BIKX111&8S5&1233&484•1142••1•25•2•2• • • 2 288873X8X8X24712739SX8S879X0888•0232• 232•• 3• •• 

2479XXX7XX8898X7X2814&8808570&371•34••53•02 3 2•••• * 44718XXXXS882•887460268371B2312•22•2• 2•3••2••2•2 

4BS83XXIXXX478877XX5891373281 ••3•32322 2••3• 2 

45??8Xl74XXXS&38813758334583282• 722 •32•3••2 •• 

•033977198579154757513•42232323132•••&2••• •3•2 •• • • 2 

221979X887891BXXBX2X7982S21•3•712• ••& ••2332• 2 2238881XX99928X898X81BB3292332243• 2223••• 

•••38837S37399XSS382S•S8•72332 23 223•• 2• 2• 2 

•• 498818798781815853822••11535 ••223 3 3 2• 

• •22372X887X913828647S232•1•2••• 2• 2 2• 

329557431324586 5283•22232•• ••••• •2 

•2•&•23•32343433342 533•32• 2•• 

• 2 222 2•23•4•• 1••••2• 2 4 2• 

• 2 2•22••• 2 • 3• •• 

+• ......... - ...... - ...... - ..... - - -·- - - -+- ................ - - ......... -+· - .. •+• .... ·+- - .. -·· .... •+• ............ -·- - ...... - - .. . 

o. 6.0000 12.000 te.ooo 24.000 f'TPCO 3. 0000 9 . 0000 15. 000 21 . 000 27. 000 

4-1 
<SCATTIA YAA•1t;3 INTIAYAL•t•. ,•Dl;I0,3.ll>•SCATT!A PLDT 

UMP a 

N• ••12 DUT DP ST•3 tt.UMPa YS. 3.PTP~DX 

•o.ooo + •2 

• 

31.000 • 

• 

32:000 • 

• 

28.000 • 

• 

24.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

18.000 • 

• 

12.000 • 

a.oooo • 

• 

. . .. 2• •• • •3 

2• 2 22• . ..... 

. .. 

• 2 .. •• 2•• 2 2• 

•2• 2 ••2• • ••2 • •2 

•• •• 

2 2• • 

• • • 

•••• 

.. .. 

. . ... ••• 2~ 

••2 2•~2 

.. . . . .. .. •••23• 3 33 •••••••• •• ••••• 2 • ••22• 2•2•• ••••• • • 

•3 ••• • ••• •2• 2 • •23 3•• •• 

• 32• 3 • •••3••33322•••••••23 • •2 • 2•33•2•• 2• 2••3 •2232•3• 3 ••3•3• •2 •••2 2• •2 3• •••••2•2•2•2 2 • 42••2• ••• • •• ••2 •• •• 2 42•• • 222332• 3224322•8•4242•• 2 • • ••• 

•232••2 24•2• 33•2•2•22 T233••3 14•3•4233• 2• 2• 

DATA BASE IS CERT/EPA 

•33••• 22 13 ••22 22•3 ••••232373•22123 22• 2• 2 • •2 • 2 • 2 3 4•3••4 22• 222•4•3434S02121•132•233•123* ** 22•• 322•••2 * 2 • ••2 •• •2•2323••312413432433222•731•2222•2•22• •• •• 3 • • • 2•3 •• 2••3423•14412341••1•34222•••3• 2•3•3 0 •• 

•3•••2• •2 2 •• 3 ••24114T33T4••123•9•322•••22•• • • •2•3•• ••3•1••322•1•2•3•38993••••2••••2••• 23 •2• •••• •••2•• 223392••• 322•• 37•171731•33933•&2•22••• 

•22 2!13 2 38182• !1432111•13 814•279SS3•11•3. 2•2•2 • 2 • • 2 •• • 2•• 3 3••372• •224• a•S&31SS••4X2Xl•••2•2s•2343•2 •2 22 •3•323•2 ••3•2•332121••3•••2•2117••••••33~3•3713••2 ••2•• •• • •• 

••• * 22•2893S•S38•13•8171117SX•2Xl7•1•371•3a•332•2••2•3• • 2• • • • •3 • 3 2 •3223•1321••X732278B87XBXIX78XISll2•••2•233222• 2 •22 * •• * *2***82••32 •I 2••1822Bl33XIBX83BBBBX3•BB3•8383•• 2 2 2 • ** 28 •••2322 •ZB7B27•71X3Xaaa•IB371eBX7•BB27•2232• • • • 2 * 2••223•••B3312•8•3323•286X17XXlllXlll7182133223S• •3 ** 22• 2• *** •• 2• * 2 •1••2111231387388X&•ISll73•3•132 •B2•2• • •3 2•3 * • 2 • * •3•21123• ••32X38882XIX2XXXll•77112••13322•8•2 2 •••2 2 ••3111188718•X711X8X881713•18•2338•2 • 3 2• 2 2•••1 BBX38Bel881133•1•33331••28•21•2 • 2•• 

• •21••13•117889B31818833••231•3 23•• •2 ••2 •2• •• *** * ••232212238 8•7188&••3•••••312••••232•3•233 2•••• 2•••• •32 •. •••2•1213•3232323 2•22••••••2•23•2 4••• • 2 ••• 

• 4• I 32•••3 3•••23•4212•222 22 2•• •2 •• •3 3333•3 •2•••• 2• •• • ••. •2 • 2 

• •3 •••2• 

•.0000 + ·----·----·----·----·-···•···-·----·-·-··---······•··-···---·--···--·-··-··+----·---··-···· 0. .10000 t .1000 1.2000 

<SCATT!A YAA•l2;• INTIRYAL•Cto,•ll;CO,O.ll>•SCATTIA PLDT 

HMPG 

•e.ooo •2• 

38.000 

34.000 

30.000 

21.000 

22.000 

...... 

•2442 

• 3 224 3 2 

22••2 

+ •2•3&•22•• 

•B& 21• • •2• •33•362• • • 512512• 2 • 218434• •• • 

32413•4• ••2 • 4327534 2•• 

•28574•22•2•2 78184 •222 

••31•&•22 •2••3• 5878724432•22• 

74811333223 24 2•• 

+•IX788834•33• 52 •3 •8XX442••2•• •••••2•2 2•• •• XIX87•312 •7 ••2•• 222 • • + 18XX88838••223•••• • 2 ••2•••• 37XXX•BB83•2•42 22••• • 

2X8X9~3234•2•• 3 •••2 2 +3XX&l887513•22 ••2 • 32 4X4XXl•B72712• •3 •• 3 • 2 23••• 

•IXXl8582 3•32• 33• 22 * 3 22 +2xxx114141••4 4 ••4 222• 3•• 48111X7413 73• ••I •• •3 2 •IXXXXXX717 2 •• 32• • 2 • 

+lxxxx114a1•2••••• •2• • •IXXXXX7373323 2*222 • 

2x181xx11212• 21•3 • • • +2XXXIXX7884182•11•23• 

2 

•2 

3 

•2 

2 . . 

2X&XXXXX8433&2 •213•3 2 •2 2• 2**** 

3738XXXl7X553 2243••2 • • 2 

+3X3XXXl49127•3&22 * 2•• ** 22 

271XXXXXB•&4•3• • 22••2 **** • 4XXXX3188923323••• +•478XXXX7XBBX27• 2• •2•2 *2* 

•2 

.. 

22 

2f8XXXXXX3X811123••2 

2•XX788XS48523• • 2 2• 

1a.ooo 

14.000 

10.000 

+•34XXX8X968&•2•2•22•• 

•199XXXIX82424 23 S91X4XB35••3 2•••• +•2BXXXXISB23• •2 

•4X8X42548•1• * • 37877322•2 ••• 

• 54•8532 3 

3• • 

+ 2 

2 .. 

2 • 

2• • 

2.0000 2.8000 3.2000 PTPNDX 

3.8000 

N• 4012 DUT D, ST93 12.HMPG VS. •.P!HC 

•2 . 04 

. 2 

2 

2 

·-··-·---···---·----·--·-•·---·-·--···--·----····-··-··+·--·+--··+····+--···-·--•··-··-·--· 0. .20000 .40000 . 80000 .80000 FEHC 

. 10000 .30000 . 50000 .70000 .90000 

4-2 
<ICATTIK YAK•l2;1 INTIKYAL•(I0,•11:(0,1. l>•ICATTIK PLOT HMPG 

aa.ooo +J ••2 •• J 2 ··-- •• 3• •2• • •••••• 2 • 

21•3•2 ••••• 2• •3 •• •• • 

•2.000 +31• 32•• • •• • 1132•322 •• ••••2• 2 3 • • +311•22••• • • 

2x12••2 • • • • • • •••••2• ••• 2a.ooo +•1a:1 3422 •• •• • • ••2••:12:1••22 ••. • •:I • •2 ···••33 2 2• •••• ••••••3•32 •••• •• 111123333•••••• •• 

111:12•12222 ••• 3•• •• :1•.000 •111171113•2•• 2• •3 •• . . ••••••3112• •2 •2 3• • 2 2 •3 • • ·····••••3••2 •223 • • •••••• ••• , •• , ••••••• 2 ••2•• •2 ••• • • 2 11711853413 2• 2 •• •• • • • • . ••••:1•••1:12•20 2• • 3 •••••• • 30.000 •••••••• , ••• 2•3• 222 •• •• • • •• • ••••••• , ••• ••122• •2 ••2 • •• •• • . •••••7113•422• • • •• •• • • ••• , •••• 1371 ••24• •• ••• • • • 2••• 2• . XllXSll28214 aa • •2 2 a a .. ·······•••3 3 33 • 2 2 • . 21.000 +111171139 44•33 2* aa * •••2• 2 aa ••••••7•21•43 ··~ •• •••• 2 • ••••••&3332223•2•• •• •2 • 2 •••• ••••••• , •••• 32•~•2•·; 3 • •2 ••3••• ••••••• ,.3 •3&•2 2: 32 •3 • • •2• 2 

•••••&&7822••2• • • 2• • • ••• 22.000 ······••31 332~ 3• ~ •2•2• •••• 2 XXXX3878•32233• •2 2 * • 2 •••••• , ••• 3 ••• 2••3 •••2 • • • •• •• 

·······••••21•2 22•3• 31 • 2•• •• XXXX8371&3•&• 223 2 •2•2 ** •••••••233•3•2• 3• • 

1a.ooo +xx1x7e3••2• • ••2 2 • • • 2 XXXXXX232•2•3•• 

••••••3•3 •• •••••••3•••2• •• 2 • • 2 ••• 

1118131& * 2 8817122 3 32• 

14.000 ·•••2222 

83 • •2 

. 10.000 + 

4 • 

.. 

• 

2 

. 

2 

.... 

• • 

• • 

2 

2 

. 

. .... 

•• 

. 

• 

. .. . " . 

DATA BASE IS CERT/EPA 

.. 

. .. 

·----·----··---·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----··---·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 2.0000 &.0000 

1 .0000 3.0000 

<SCATTBR YAR•t2:1 INTIRYAL•C t0,•11:(0, tll>·SCATTIR PLDT HMPG 

aa.ooo +3 •32 

42.000 

31.000 

30.000 

26.000 

22.000 

18.000 

14.000 

J0.000 

23 2 203 32 •212•• • 

••• •2•• 

+1&33•• 2 • 

JC.1•12 

983 2 3• +IX232•• 

••••• • •• •••• •2 

••• '7& •• 

XHTCIS 

XXll23 

+XXl41522 • XX2843•2 2 

xx2••• •2•• +XXIXXIU 223 

. . .. 2 

2 

2 • 

XXBXl32223••2 * 2 3••• 3• 

XX'7XX23 13 • ••••••2 • ·••••••& 3•4 3 ••••••••• 

X18Xl83•2• *** ** * • 2 XX881&3 2• • 3•2•••• 

+XX8Xl43334 ••2• • ••••• IX7XXl•IS•222 ***** ** •••• XX4XX73 2 ** 2 ** •••••••••• ••2•••• 322•• • XXIXIX2• ** •3 2• * • ••••••3•5••• •22 +XXIX78433** 223 22 2 

XX7X6X3 4 5••2 • 2* • •• XXXl8'71222•3• 3• •••2• 

+XXXXS9&•7•3 • 3•232 XXXXX262344••3•• 

···········2 •2•• 2• . ·•••••&&•3233•••••2 2• 2 XX5XXB8•3 2• • • 2 

XXXX94••3232•3 2 

······~· XXX9X7•252 8428 3•3• •3••• 

XXX5&84•4 •••2• 

+XX9X38• 4 2• ••2 

•••••••• XX713•• 2 

•••• ,,. •3• • •2 •2 

XX7X2•2 

XXB•3•S 

+x12• •• 9 ••2 2• 

32 

.. 2 •• 

1.0000 1.0000 l'ICD s.oooo 1.0000 1.0000 

N• •o•CI DUT DI' ITCl3 12.HMPG VI. Cl.l'ICD 

+- -- -+- - - -·- - - ·+-- - -+- - --+- - - -·- - - -+- - - -+- - • ·+- -- -·· -- -·--. -+- - • -+--. ··-. - -·- ... -·- - • -·- - • •+ O. 4 . 0000 8 . 0000 1 2 . 000 1 6 . 000 FE CD 

2.0000 6.0000 10.000 14.000 18.000 

4-3 
<ICATT!R YAA•t2;1 INTIRYAL•(to,•11; (O,•.ll>•ICATTIA PLDT N• •o31 DUT D, 1713 12.HMPG YI .•. ,INDX HMPG 

u.ooo • • 22 DATA BASE IS CERT/EPA 2• -=--=----~ 2. • :____ •2-. •• • •• • 2• • ••• • • •• 

• ••2 • 2••• 2• •2 • • • •• ••2• • •• • 42.000 ••2 • 2 2• •••••• 2 • •2 ••2 •• •• • 2• • 2 2 • 2•2•• 2•• • 2• • 

••• • • 3• • • • •• 32 * ••• • * ••2• • •••• •• • ••2 •3 • •2 2• • • •2•2 2• • • • •32•2 •22 2 • 22 • • 2 •• • 2 • 2 •• • • •••••• 22 • •2 •• 

36.000 ••• • • •2 • 2 2 3 2••2•3 2 2 • • • •• 

•2 ••• 2 •• 2 2• 2 •• 2•2• 2••• •2• • 2• 2 2• 2• • • • 2 32 2 •• , •••••••• 2• •• • 2•••• • •• •••••• ••• 2• •3 •••• 3 3• 2 •2 ••2 • • 23 ••• • • • 

32••3 3•2 ••2••• 342 ••22•••• 2•••• 2 2•• • • • • • 3 •3 •• 2••3 • 2222••2222• •2 • • •• 

34.000 ••2••••2• 222 •••23•331 2•3•••3 • 2 32•• •• 22 •3 • •• 2 233 22••• 2•27••2483332•3322•22232 22••2•• •• • • 

3•• 232 22• •32•222&•43• •••27 ••12 33 3 •••• 4 • • •2•• •• 2•22 • ••2•3•2•• 211•212••22122•• 22 • • • 2• •• • , ••• , •• •2 • 2•2•3283232&•43•23312• •• •2 •• • • 

•• • ••3•• • ••222• 22•••2••32•2322 3 3•2 3• •••• 30.000 +32••2•• ••2 •323•422212133438131 2 3 2 • 32 3• ••• • •• 212 ••4 2 3 •• 2 2•222212•~••32•3•2•••3••••2 •• 3••• 2 2 • •••2 •3 2 2 2•22 2•3•23•82••222•3•3•3• •2•2•••22 •• 3• • 2• • ••• , 22322•••• •3 2•3• •22•222••••2122•• 222 •• •2• 2 •2 • 

28• 3•• • •2 2•3321 323•132•333333222•2322 •2 • • 2 • 122•2•2••2•3•22232••••?•••13243822•• 33•••• 2 ···•3. 2 ••• 21.000 +213 •3•3 ••3•248• 2•2•2••2•••22224333328• • 2••• •• 32• •••• •323•11 2 • •33?23133 21•4443122333 •3••222•••••23 • • •• 

232•2•• 22 I •3 •32•• • ••13•?3422144422343•• • 2•• •2 •• •2 32 3322••••32•3391?•44??12•4•4284331•22322•2 ••• 

2•••3•2 1•3232•5 32•133••••3231331121••22•••2 12 3 3• 2 3• •24322••232•23••833414••••?1•·3453233• 2 ••••• •2 2 

22:000 ·2::: 2::2~::;.:;::.::~~;:::::~:~::::::;:::::::;~,:;. ;;·::; 3 

•2•••3• • 234 28•2•3•• 422143B3•3•14S3482••2•2 2 2• • •• • 2 ••23322•2•432824•••••••••314 •84344•34 •2• 2•• •• 3 222•22•3•82322X33331112,31233••223 •223 •2•••• 2• ••222 •• 22 42322,1482348233••32••2••3 •••••••• 

18.000 •2•3222• 244•3244•21423?22•4 2•••3••••33•••3 4 •2 2112 23143•324423844483••2222 •3••2•4 ••2 •• 2 243• 23424232•22224 2•2242•3•2 • 2 • • 2• •I• 3•2•• 3 3323•2 ••8338•• 1•32•• •2• •2• 

• 2 22•3 ··••432283 2 2•2 42 3 3 3 • •3 22 •••2 22•3••• •2 2••••• 22• 2 • 14.000 • 22 2••• 2 22• ••2 •••• ••• •• •• 2 .. 10.000 

. 

... 

2• 2 

•3• 

.. 

•2 

2 

·-• 

. . 

• . 

. . • • 2 

• •• 

• 

2 .. 

2 . 2 

2 

2 22• 

·----·----·----·--·······•··--·-····----·····•····•····•····•·····----·----·----··--···---· o. 1 .0000 2.0000 .10000 1 .1000 

3.0000 2.5000 3.1000 4.0000 F!NDX 

4.aooo 

<SCATT~R YAR•l3; I INTIRYAL•(IO,•ll;C0,2.71>•SCATTBR PLDT CMPG 

N• 2115 DUT D, 8712 13.CMPG YS. l.,TPHC 

•1.000 

42.000 

21.000 

34.000 

30.000 

26.000 

22.000 

18.000 

14.000 

10.000 

0. 

•• 2•• 

3 • 

•• 2•. • • 2• 3 2 

•222•2•2 

22•2••2 •••• 2•2 

2 • • 

2 23•22 •233•3•3• 2•2 • 

24• •3••••2• 8433•• 2•3 • 2 •3878 232 23• • ••3• 347137••92 • •23 

2 

• • 2 

• 2 • • 2• 2 • 

2 •• 

..... • 31112• 4•4•• 2• 3 •• 

•3448174 1•2 2 2•••• •2• 2 •328•435482 2322• • 4 ••• 

.. .. 2•••· 

22 • 2• • 

•2884142•83••••• ••2 ••• 

318115?412233232•••2•2 •3 2 •• ••2 2• •2883114 532••4•• 22••4•• •••• 2• 

27 5148 842332•• ••• •2•• •••• 

31117?11• 422••••• • 2 2• ••••• 2•1311,87432•33338••• •• •• • • •2• • 

•82188435•214••• • •52222 2• 3 

•3SXX874•22B22322• 2 24• 3• 23• *2 

••22XX818842•4843 3 •32•25 •23•32 2•389&4?5242443703821•3•4••• 3** •••• ••SXXXX284448535183383B44 2 2 • 32 •2•2•• 48X45BX28848IS7&88224 2•••3 •44 • 2 

••887311413588443512352 •2••• 

318X879792333,388532 •222 22 •• • 3341XX757738485453132••2••2• •3 

•318X4•6TXS83853346 42 •• •2389X787X78XT2434522•• •2 

218274XX848883683422•• * ••38254644891•3333242 •2 2• 2 

•235888XX8XSB43•2322 2 

23539788•4245354•3 2••2•2 33321882573422•2••22 •• 

•25445•23•342•2•4 •2• 4• 3 22• ••2•22•• ••••• 

•3• • 2 3•22 2• 

2 + ...... ·+- ........................ +• ............ + .............................. + .............. + ...................... + ....... + ................. + 

. 80000 1. 2000 -- .30000 . 90000 t. 5000 

4-4 

I. 8000 2. 1000 2.4000 FTPHC 

2.7000 
(SCATTIR YAR•l3;2 INTIRYAL•(10,&1);(0,lll>•SCATTIR PLOT 

CMl'D 

•1.000 • • • 

• 

•2.000 • 

• 

31.000 • 

• 

34.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

21.000 • 

• 

22.000 • 

• 

1&. 000 

14. 000 

10.000 

o. 

. 

•• . . 

. •• * 2•• . ... •• •• 2 

• 2• • .... . .. 2 

. 

• 

•• ••2 •• •3•• • • •• 12 • •• 2 3 ••• • • •• 

2 

• 2 • 2 • • • •• • •• 

• 2•2•• • • 3 • • •• • ••• ••3• 2•• •• * • • • • ••• 2•2• ••• •2 ••3 •22• • • •3 3 2•3332 2 • •• 33 • • • • 22 • 

2•112•••2•••• •• •3 •. 2 • •2•2 2 • •••• 232&2 212• •••• ••• 2 • • 2 •• •••123•2&•2• 2 22 2 •3 2 •• •2 •2 •2••2 •• 2•••221•2••••2••3•222•3 ••2 •• •••2 •• 2 2 •• • 2 ••12•&23&2••• •2••••2 • 2• •2 •• • 2• 2• 2• ••2• 22•••3•3•••······ 3• •• •3 • • • • • •••2 • •• •13&922232•27•2322• 220••42 2• 3•• ••• ••2 • 2• 2 •373•42•23•3• ••22 ••• ,.. 2 •• •233• 3 •• • •• • • 2 33••3• 4221••31 33 • 2~ • • • 2•2 ••••• ••22 

••• 3942•••·· 3323•222• ·~ • 2 ••2•2• 2•• • •• •• •2 •3143 27•8214311••2••••2 •: • ••2• • 2• 2 • •• 2 • ••3382333•32 232 •23283 •2·2••••3•2. 2 •••••• 2• 

••••21•3•~•3• •••2223• ••2 •2 2••••222• 22•3 • 2• • 2223122•••7•222•3323••2223 • • ••• 23•21• 3 2• •2• • 2 •2•• 3281•343• 2•2•• 32~3•241•38•2• • 3 2• 3• 2 2 •• • 2 

DATA BASE IS CERT/EPA 

•3 1472AS382Sll3322•24232122S•4•5•3•2•422••2 3•23•• 22 ** * *2 2•• 34428114743 3433•4141•3232 224 324•••• 3•2•2•• •2• ••22 ••2322341•2•32123•23349• 122•3 43 3•222•322 •2• •• ·•2 •2 •2 . . •22 2428•&43S211 22•4•4181 •2•23 • 3••2 3• •••• 2•2 • 2• . . . 2•3•8el833 1133ee&3222 •33 2 I 22 • 32 •42 2•2• *2 22• •2 

•32 S3•2SB23 3&12 32•2428•322••4• 32•32 2 •• *** 2• 

4 28•2•43224•2•••335133242424228• ••••2 •••2••2 • ••32 . 2 

•••337352•332&4•2335332232••••7•• 33 •••2•• •3• • •2• . • •••4• 33•21 242344~31• 432• •45 •22 ••2 2•••5431333••23733•4323 3132••4•2• 2••2• 2 •• • 22 

•• •2233•134122541 432•2 222• 32•• •• I 2• • 2• •••32•• 3••142 1•242 3• •22 22 • • •• • 2 

•••43• 4• • 22•2 3332• • 2 • 2•• •• •• • • 2•2222 2• •• • 2 

•• 2•• •• 2 2 2• • 

·-···•·-···---······•-···•····•···-·-····----·--·-·····•····•·········•····•····•····•····+ 4.0000 8.0000 

2.0000 1.0000 10.000 

12 .ooo 1e.ooo II. 000 l"TPCD 

11.000 

<SCATTBR Y&R•l3;3 INTBRYAL•CI0,41);(0,3.ll>•SCATTIR PLQT 

CMl'G 

N• 2111 auT DI" .,.3 13.CMPG vs. 3.l"TPNDX 

41.000 

31.000 

30.000 

28.000 

22.000 

ta. 000 

14,000 

10.000 

2 

• • 2 

2 

.. . 

. .. . 2 

2 

. . 

. 

. ... 

• 2 

• 2• • 2 •• 

2•• • 2• •• • 2 •2 •• 2•2 •• 

•2 2 . • •2••22 2•2 • 2• • • ••••• 2•• 3 2•• • 42 •• 

2 2 •••• ••3 2•• 3•• 2 3•• 3 

• •322 •• ••22 4••422 • 2• 222••• 2 • 

•• •2• ••3••2 •• 242 •2••323••• ••2 • •3 • •2 •• 4••• 2 2• 22••3 • •22•2224•2• 2 2 2•2 • • 33•• •••4••133•••2 281 ••53••• •• • ••2 2 •3 22 22••3•2422 •2223•2•••22 ••2 • •••• • 2 • 42• 23•251322 •2223••32 

••2 2 22•5•3•2428242•2•43333344 3• • • ••• 2 • 2 ••3•• ••• 2 23122 355••22222•8•• 3•32 •• 

2 •••3•••2 •2•& 3•4••••••428•2•3• • • 3 

• 22• •••3•234 2 • 22•2• 42222•233 •••2222422••• 2 2 2• 2 2• 2•2 •••2322•••3•••2322657423•2425 • 2 

2 • 2 2223•3 32 322••4•2 234•5332444•222222 4•2•• • • 4• •42• • 5•54 543 7252225•••4•22 •••• 

•3•• 2••2•2• 2•3542•3•22322427•4424&443• •34 •2 2•• • 2•3• •2••23•33 353354344722•232443•3•• •22• ••22 

3 2 32 •225 •4•484••4S•a859K44754S4•3434•3• 22••2• • •• 2 • 32••23 • 35222434•284338475449•27345• 22• • • 2 •• 

24•• 3 2•3••2344 322• 45334644 •34182234 4••22 • •• 3 2••3 •6 3•242•.•43844933•338847332• 332 2 2•2 2 5•224•5•3•• 64 337358383544324 2•• 33 ••••• 2 

••••3 2324 24 22432834229K32e&4322 3• ••2 2•3 2312244•97K287574241•23 24• • 3 • 22 244245433 84348412833242432 •2•2 3• 2 

• 3 322••43•3•54244•5223332••42• 3222 2 2 2 • 2 3342474451833425232133 42 2 3 2• • • • 

•2• 5 4 4•815325523522 3•3423•34 2 •• ••2• 33•2•524•5•3••23•••• 2 3•2 22•• •2 • 3 25•• ••2 3 ••2••3•22** 3 2•••3 2 3 2 •3 •2• •2•2• ••• •2 • • 2 

2 

+----·-·--·----·----+--·-·-·--·----+··--+··--·----+····•··--·--·-+····+·---+··-···--··---·+ o. .aoooo I .8000 2.4000 3.2000 FTPNOX 

.40000 I .2000 2.0000 2.8000 3.8000 

4-5 
<SCATTIR YAR•tt;t CAlll•ALL INT!RYAL•(I0,211;(D,ll>•ICATTIR PLDT N• 1233 DUT D' 111, t I . UNPG ¥1. 1 , ,TPHC 

UNPC 

21.000 

21.000 

22.000 

20.000 

11.000 

11.000 

14.000 

12.000 

10.000 

o. 

+ 2• • • . 2223 •• 32 •• 

••232 • 2• •2432••23• ••• 

2• 2 DATA BASE IS E'F + 

+ 

···••••22•2••3• •2• 2 • • ••322423•••••32 •••2 •2• 2 •323 2•2 32242••• 2•22 2 • 32•134• •31222• •••••• 3 • 

2314•222•22 2•43 22•• •2 2 •• 332 •2223•••2••2 •2 2•2 •132•3• •3••3•1• • 2• • 22 

.. 

• 

•• 1&22 • 3 •3 2•2••2•• • •• 3 2• • 

• •2&2281 3••3232• 322•• •••• • 2• 

••2&22•31•22&& 3•2•• • •2•• 

. 2 •• 

•2•3 •32•4•••233 2•2•• 2 3 •• •• 

•2 

• 232••••22 •&23•••2222 2• •• 2 •• • •• •13 4•2•2•4 4 •3•2•3••• •• 2•2 ••2 • 2 

1&2•2•••• 2323 2•242 3••••• •• • •• ••2 • •4121•23244•2• •••••• 3 ••• • •• 2 

31•437241 32322•4•24 322• • •3•• ••2 31123•232••333 ••• •2•2 •223•1•• •• • 41242•33•••22••33• •3222•2• • • • • • • • 221712832•2~• ••••••• •22•222 •2 2 ••• 

31414421••3 22 1• 2 •• 4••22 • • • 

+ 1&3114•232••433• 22 222*** 32•** ao 

1131XX22•321•••3••2 •••••••2 *2 ••• ** •XIXlll222•1&24• ••2•2•2••• • • •• 2 • •?Xllll1411193&34• ••333 •3 •• •2• 17711431114433•&•23•23 • •2 3•3 •3• 2 

.... 

22 2 

••• 

• 2 

2• ••••• , ••••••• 342• ••• , •• ••2322• • 3•• 2 ••••• 

• ········••4••• 3522 322••2• •••222222•• •• • • ··········••451321•21 32•••••• •2•22 2•2 2 •••• ·······••41131313143••2•5223222•14• ••2• ••• 

.. 

.. 

... 

. 

•2 

. 

• 

.. •2 • 

18Xl1X71X71Xl48344133•24242•12••••2•• 2• ****** * • •• 8XXl7XXXll313133442422••4244412 3•23• 2 22•• ••3 •2 2 2• 

a43XXIXX813X348112131•12 3413••24 38 • 2•••• •3 2 •• • 511xxxxx2x912247448228 ••• • 2 2222•23•2•3•33•••••• ••2 • •2 • • 

·••••••••8Xl311417122233•382913• &333323•31233•• ••2•••• 22 ••••••••••• ,.,,332• ••3182 4 34 81&2333 22•3•43 •• 3 • •2•• 

•38XXXXX8XIX&7•38&133 •31•42112312323 2 * •&2••3 2•• • 2••• ~xxxxxx111xa1aaaa34341221•••21•73•433332•2 13•• 4 • • ••I 2 

• 2 

•3•XXXXXXXl7X2738•111•4•817B•2••49.24 412•21•5•3•22 2•2 32• 2 2• ** 

+ •IXXXXXXXXXXll8718138238•2X•32•41•43••2211•3•1332221• 2 I 3••2••2 3XXXXXXXXXXXXX783•732317388&74798S33378&9•21 2•822222•223 &•• 3•32••2 

..... 

•• •3 3 

2 

•2••2• • 

7XIXXX8XX7X3X8318Sl733&S8838•3S73•21131232228&23&233••223 22••••4••4 

22••••••••••••27413188389•&23224354452731422423•14•84• 22 2 2••••2 3•XXXXXXXXXX41,llX383X3,,3,12323331411a& 41,3212232223• 2 23•2•2••322• 2SXXXXX7XXXl1111221444&1Sl34114971713 •S33•1324••23•••2•• 43 43 ** 2•• * 2•• •IXXXXXIX7Xl4319131124&42944•144•13724•8423S2••2•3•3 31••232 •••2•2• 3•• 2 2 • 3 ** ** 

• 2• •22 ••• 2 •••• 

24XXXXXX•lll7111&41711•7481241131S718314442S ••1••••3 322* 2 2••• •• 322 2 • 2• • 2 •IXXX18Xll731111&313433833223131322423& 243•8723•23•124 2•••2 32•• •• • • • 2• 2&X31XX8•13•3323433•131334•3&4 34a&7382•42243••2• 833 23•23 2 • ••2••• •2 2 8X7XSB21221•332•••2&41 ••334•27232•4328•3 •42242•4•33122 2 • * * • 3 

•23X82423412 24221324 723•••2•2•234•••3•2•••2•• 23 •2 2 • 2 ** 21131 ···2222 2•• 332 24• 2• •2 2•• • • 2 22. 

.. 

·----·----·----·----·----·----···--·----·----·----·----······----·----·----·----·----·----· 2.0000 4.0000 

1 .0000 3.0000 1.0000 8.0000 7.0000 

1.0000 FTPHC 

8.0000 

CSCATTIR ¥AR•t1;2 INTIRYAL•(I0,281;(0,IOl>•SCATTIR PLDT UMPC 

N• ,IOI OUT D, 1181 11.UMPG YS. 2.,TPCD 

21.000 •2 

28.000 

22.000 

20.000 

ta. 000 

16. 000 

14.000 

12.000 

10.000 

0. 

••2•4•••3 

332•••• • •3 22•52•••• • 

•2•33••42•2•3•3•2 •2 • •• 32 s •9 •2322• 2•2•• • 

• 3•4433•3 • 2•2• • • 2 ••• 

22•3••52212•• ••• 3 2 •• • ••21•32••2 24 21• 2 • • •3 

•4•3• •2•22•••• 23 • • •2• 233523••2• • 3•2••2 ••• ••22 • 

2234 •2 •B 2••23••••3• 222• 

2 •12?2•••32222• 22• • 22•••2 3•2• • 3•2•3224342•2 2•3••2•• 2•22 22•3•• 2 42••32••2•• • •• 

•• •2• • . 

.. • •2 • • 

2 2 ••2 • •2•242• •2232• 2•• •3 2• 2 •• •••2 2 ••• 

2532 • 2 •2 3 •3 322 ••2 •3•• 2• •44423 •• 3•8 •22•• 2 2 ••••• • • 3•••• • 

+ •8248 24 2 •2 • •4• 2 •• • • 3• • 2 8137233 • 42•2••2•2••2 3 2 42• •••• 2•3 ••• • • 

433•32322222 2•• •••2 ••• 32 •2• 2 •2 2 982•7•&•2•2• ••32• •2••• • •2•71424 •22& 3•• 333•2•2 2 • •••2 3 ••• ••2••• • 2• • 2 • 422243733•2•3 22 •••• 22•2 • • • 43442332• 43•4•233•22•• •• • •• • ••2 2 2 3 2• 

&8387332422••2••2••24•• •• •2• 2• •• • •• 2 • 

2 

2SXl848233 47••••• •••••2••3 • ••• 2 2 • * 2 2• 7XXX73&44&313•2 •8•• •22 • •2223 • • • ••2• *2* 218X88563313332•••32 2 3 2•25 •••••2 • 4 *2 2 • 2 ·••••77452224 67545323 ••222 ••2• 332 2 •22•••••2 2 • 2 • 

+ 27XXX&X477522•1•2S&4• S 23 43 2••••• 3••• ••2•52 • 2 •Blll97X4387437434232••3 •3••2••••• •22•• * •4 2 * 2•• • •22 •3XXXX78•852B5343B2 •4• 2 •242•2•3••62••• •• •3 22 4 3•• 2 2• 2 + 33318X3SBX435624344B622322&43••2 232 32•3•23••• • • ••2 2 • 2• * 2•• •29888185767274 •22421324••••3•••2•&••••32 22•3•4•32 • •2••2 •22• •2 • • 2• 

3548Xl93874825B313•4 2•323 •2332 3 3 51••••442•3•32• *** • 3 •2 2 2 2• + 481XXX879413253885232•3•••3 ••2•233344 22••3• 223••• * 2 2 2 ••2 • 3 * BXXIX8XXl454421SS2&53444424253834••233222 •3•••34•2 •3•• ••23•3•2• * 2 2 •• • 22 * 2• 

4X8XXXIBSX35554443•6 •3•423454212•3•3 34343••3••24••323 2 ••2• 323• * • * 2• 2 

+ 3111XIXXBXIX9X913•S36333222422•322•2• 2 32•22 •322•2•••4 ** ** 2 • • •2• * •7XXIXX88X58663738•65•3332SS•22 24•425•4•2•7 •5••&••28 2 •3•22•2•&2•••• •2••2• 2• •• 4 * 891917XXX9XS9898•43 44427324 7•32 •2342223•32 •35 5222 •3243 2••2 •4• •2•2•• +•BXX9XXXXXXX7378427•56243673322•8443532233•• 322• 2•4 3522 2•* • 22242232 •3• 2 ** 

SXXXIXXX7X91545275846745631573$43•452B2• 2•32344•2 33335125447352423 •22 ••232 3••• 22• 

•711XXIXXXSX8X38837B382•B83•223342S222S323 •3 2•273•4485 3 ••212•4222 442•• 3•3 5••3 •2 + 27XX7XIX8XSX79S2593&3•532325•SS 343•24•234•254345•4•4333335•3 2 ••72•2•• 2 2•••3 222• 22• 

•ISIXXXX889XX778134B287384•762•149•2335333312122 3•••32 44 6234•3• *2*2 2222•3 •222 •222 

•71XX79186789B4BB&•43338352522S6B325•243S34323••244 4•2 •3•28234 •2•2 3• •43• 3 • 222 •4 + •XlllXSXSS56475&4523 3312525• 4322313••35 2•22•43332 •433• 2*333•3•• 3•222••42• 2•2••• 22 •8•9XXSXX72378338923264442435532248•43• 443242553•243 8442•2332• 4 3•223•• •2222 2 2•3• 

•&XX59119294445 726462••4••32•3•38 343•24•3•2273 2 223•23•332 2••22•32•2•2••23223•2 •• ••• 

• 44149854455824 7262•33•2 •2 2••2••••2••222••2 433• •22•• 3 3 2•33•3•2 3•6223• ••2••••2 3• 3541567234•332253 3•••3••24 4•4•2• • •3 ••32 52 • •2 2 2• • • 2 ••• 22• 32•••22 3• •2 

•5524325•3 34••23•4••3 3••2•2 ••2222•2•2 •233 • 2• 2• •••2 •2•2• 3 ••23 2 • + • 223332••222 2•• 2• ••2 • ••• •• • •• • •3 2••• 

+----·----·----·----·----·----+ .. ·--·----+----·----·----·----·----·--·-·----·----·--·-·----· 20.000 40.000 

10.000 30.000 50.000 

4-6 

60.000 

70.000 

ao.ooo FTPCD 

90.000 
<ICATTIR VAR•t1;3 INTIRVAL•C1D,211;CO,l.•>>•ICATTIR PLDT UMPG 

N• 1a•J DUT DP a1a1 11.UM'G VS. 3.~T,NDX 

21. 000 ·+ -··2 • DATA BASE IS EF 

• 

21.000 • 

• 

2•.000 

• 

22.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

11.000 • 

ta.ooo 

U.000 • 

12.000 

10.000 

o. 

•• 

•• 

. . 

• • 2 •222• • • •• • • •• 2 

2• •32 2 • • • ••• ••3•••2 •• • 2 2 

• •2 •23•••3• ••2• 2• 2 3 1322 •2•22223•••3• • • • • 

• 2•••••2 3•2••• 2 2 222• • • • 2 • 

** 2 I •33 3• 22 •••3222***** • * ** ••3 2423•42•2 • • • ···~· 2 • •• • ••• ••• 2•••22•21•• 2 22• 2 ••••• 

2 

2 

•23•2• •• 222•••·· •• 2 2• ••• ••••3•• 341• •2 •• ••2 •. 2• •2• 2 • • 2 -. •2•22•222•2•222 32 22••2 3••22••2• • 2 ••••• 23222•33• 3••3• 2• 2 • 2 • 2•• • 2 3• • 3 112•32 2 •22• •• • ••2 •• •• 

• • •31•1••••2 •3••12 •• 22 ••2 •• * •• •222••3••••• 2•••22 • 2 2 • •2 •• •3 •3 2 2 2 ••2~ 

•• 2•••2 • •3•• 2••• 3223•13 ••• 2•• • •2• ••• •3 •2• •• 23022 •32122123•22•• 2 ••••• 2 • • •• 3 • 2•3•213•?•43••••12 •2 •••13 •• • ••• ••• • • 2 •2• ••33•2322••••22 • 2 23 22•2 • • • •• •• • •• 

2 :t•• 2• 2••••2 •3•4 322• •332 •••23• 2 2• • • • • 3 2•2•3•2143133•••2 ••2 2 ••22• •3 • • • ••• 

3••2 3 2••••••2• 4 ·••23•2•• •2 •• 2 2 • 

. . 

••• 222322 2421 2222•222232•• •24 • ••2 •• 2 •• •• • • 

• •••322 42••4213432222• ••2• 2 ••2 2 •••2• 3 •••2 2 • 

. . 

. 

• 

. 

•••• 

• •23•••••2•4•93•1223243 •.2 •4 22 3 422•• •3 32• • •2 •••••••• 

• 3 ••••• 34•••2•44&4412•4442•2 22• 3• 4242• ••:t• 3••2 • •3 •• 3332••331434 14 223,•21294••4443312•2•222 • 2•23 2 •• • • • • •2 

... 

2•• 222•2122•2•221:1222•• 2s1a••22••••c:t••• •2•• 2•22• •••3 ••3••• •2 2•&434124 •••2•••432•4•4133332•1&•,~• •1••23 2• 23• •2•3 2• • ••2 

* 2 •2228327 ••13X3132&423813 131•44~~·1 ••22* * ••2 2•• 3 •2 * ••• 

• 2•• 32 

• • 

•2• •• •2233•213491331531133•841333•3.~•4132 3242•• 3 •••• •2 •42 • •2•2 • 

•21••28234S3182443a4488412 44433~3432•& 3 422****** 32 **2 ••2   **  • 22 3•32 •23284232491323334214112•321232212 ••2•3• 2332 222••2 3••• •2 • •••23 

22•• • 3•33 3281•3S1tl•l38,433824•3s~~•243•24• 323 233••43 • •2*** •2 • 

• • 

. 

• 

. .. 

• 

~ . 

2•2 •2••24 3314324X29Xl7317173231233~2244 94 •2••••32*** 22 * *** 2*2•• * 2• 

• •••2••2•233773843a7181178818&3Xl333321aaa:tl:t••33• •3•23 2*3* • 3•32 *** 2•• 2 2 ** ** 3 32•243721•433Sl71XISXl48•14 2422&52 7323 3&•31322•••222222•3 •••••22 • ••• 3• •2 • •2••5 ••31484•181987X8X7,15228123•1233332 2•••22232 3• ••2•2 3••2 2 • •4• •22232•&2aaSl87787788XXl&SS41474123& 2334 2•24•••33 42•3•21'* 2•3 32 32 2• 

•• 2• •9&21373&8717X4Xa7XX9XIX811XS3S•343•322SS4• a33aaa•2••32•22 3 •2• 2•• *** •2• 2•••2S4S4XX87XXXXX21Bl77184718433112S31X3814*322 3124•39•• 22•34 2•3•2 ••2•3 

·~ •3223J1••••••1a7xx11aa1x11xa1ss1••11131•311232•33 3••3J2 322•22 •••2•3•222 •• 2 ••3S• 3211111XXl4971•4X97111141191115S4S21332S4332332413342•••3• 4• 3423 • • 32 

•••2•1•BXllX•XX717778X8,43X7312X248•2824832•334S••2184S•••2•22••3•3•12•S •* 4 

• •3••2••8844al887XX98978X89XX3aaa•S7314SB 8•3 335••3•2 32•28121232•••• 3 •22•3• 232•3• 279348X374SIXS&88XSXB•ISXl7S•347241212•aS& 232•5421•2221••2 •32 2123 2 3 ** 

24•••231331•277•11174X7X818181Xl•31431•32•2•2•4343•1•••••3332 222•2• 22224• 43 

2 

• •232••231••1381128&•2&7827371X1111•1•3•123822SS•3•SS2•8 &••2 32 2• 2•33• 2•2223• • 2•• 22 2•22•13•73& 7481•111185 271317•••••42222•3••424•1324•3222342•4222 •2•2 •22 2 

2•• •2 •• 3•••21312•1Sl37234B•B42Sll2•242•42124••323 3333*2**3 32 •42 22•2•3•2 •• 222 23••1•3542371735834341•237•3•223234• 83 2••2 3 3•• 4•2•3••233 •2•• •• 2 •3•••2•7143333• 38 •32 1•323243•23 2 32•1 3 2••22• • 2 2• • 2••• 22•• •2• 

2 •• 2•2•3••••342•• 3 22 2 •• • 2••2 ••3 ••• •2•2• 2• 

+·--·+···-··---·--···----··-·-·---·····-·----·--··•··-·•-···•····•····+·····--··•·········· 1.2000 . 10000 t.aooo 3.0000 

3. 1000 •.2DOO 

•.1000 ~TPNDX 

1.4000 

<SCATTl!R VAR• t 2; • I NTl!RVAL• Ct I, •2 I; C 0, 3. I I> •SCATTl!R PLDT HMPC 

N• 1214 DUT D~ 1111 12.HMPG VS. 4.Pl!HC 

42.000 ••3 

39.000 

38.000 

33.000 

30.000 

27.000 

24.000 

21 .000 

la. 000 

tS.000 

• •2 •• 2•2 3• 

22• 2 

•• &••• •35• 2•• •2 •2 

3 

+ 24232•••2 • • •• •3• 24•34•2• ••• •2• •2 •••• 

45•3••• .•2 •• 2 • 2 

+ 234322222 •3•• •3•2 •• 

•435••• 2 * • 2 ••• 

•33 32• 3 2• • • 2 3• 

+ 3814•• • 2 • 2 25223 ••2 •3 2 2•3 2•• • •882 3••3 2 4 • 4 2• 22 •••••2 + 447•2 2 22• 22•• • • •• •2 2•• 

2&4•• •2• 3 •2 3• •2 • 2 • 2 •454243••2 • • •• • •• •2 • 2 

+3188232222•••232 2••2 •• 3 • 2 * 

.XXll5•4••3 *2 2• •2 

3XXl3* •••2•2 •4• * 2 + xe3&44• 3 

•••• 732322 22 

X7S333•• 2 2 • * ··•••••3•3• • 3• •2 2• 3X7462 42 ••3 22• 

•l&X742* 3 2 ** • ••2• + X9953483343 •2•• •••2 •98X37234•••2 •• 2 2• • 

X974S93••4• ** ••2• * +•XX893B3 432 .2 3•• 

2XXXS314S 3• 32 • 2 

3XX8X842252•44 **** * • * +SXXX757482S 3* •. 2XXXX7883433324• ***32 3XXX79X8834725 •2 22 2 + XX98X81418248••••4••2 

2• 

XXXXIXX31923533 2• 2 ••3•2• 

.. 3 

. 

•2 

2• 

2 . 

2 4 

2 

. 

2 

23 

•2• 

2 . 

. . 

2 .. . 

aa2 

2 . 3 

2XXXXK8X745XS422424 *** 3 •• • 2•• • 2 + XXXXXX943X2342•754•23 2* ••2•22•3 2 3 2• •2 •2 * XXXXXXX557737•33 •32 2• 2 * 3••2••2 ** 

XXXXXXXX48726•42 2• * • ** * ** • 2 ***2 * * 3 3 

+3XXXXXX8X893543 2 2 2 • ** 3••• 2••• •XXXXXXX7XXXS8&2•4 24222 •• 3• •4 * •4 2 •3• 2 • 2 •• 2 * '• 

XXXXXXXXXX91535•323• 5• 2 2•• 352 2 •2••22• 2*** **3 •2 22** * + XXXXXXXXXX878483443223• S• 2 •••4 •2 4•••4• • •2•• • •2* 2••• 2 XXXXXXXX77885344•3BSX2•2342•3332***2 * 432**2 •2 2 

XXXXXXX88&841644316 5•4•32•2••2 22••232 * * 3 2 * * *2* • 2 

+ XXXXXXXXXX232•4543•3S••4••2423 •2•• 22 * 3 * 2 9XXXXX95695444• 232••4 2 3•22• 4•2 2• 2 •2•• •2 2 •XXXXXXX72SX373•43623332223• •22••3*2** 2 2* *** • 

+ XXXXXXXBB9334•432** 2•• 2 2• **2• 2• 3 2•2 • 3 4• • 2 • XXXXX71B77S253222*3 2•2 • 3 • •• 22 2 * 2 • ** 

•XXSl823526 52 533• 2 3 2 ** 2• *** • • • 

+ 2251243 24 2 • +• ......... -·· ..... •+· ... •+• ..... •+·. - ·•- .......... ·•· .... •+· ......... •+• ............ •+• .. --·- ......... -+· ............ - ... . 

o. . aoooo 1. 1000 2. 4000 3. 2000 FEHC 

. 40000 t . 2000 2. 0000' 2. 8000 3. 6000 

4-7 
<SCATTIR VAR•l2:1 INTIRVAL•f ll,421:10,IOl>•SCATT!R PLOT 

HMPG 

N• 5110 OUT DP 1117 12.HMPG VS, I.PICO 

42.000 •2 •2 ••2• • DATA BASE IS EF 

•• • •• +2332•• •• 35•••2 ••• 

II 32 • •• 

31.000 •"r••:t••• 2. 3111 ••• 3 2 

•112• • ••2• •2•• •••••32• •••2• "7&21••3 ** • • • . ,.,., ....... . 31.000 • .,.... • 2•22 ••• -

41122233 •2 • • • 2 812874• 2 •••2 2 +414233•3• •••• • • • • •• 

2•823233•3 ••••••• 

l"rS3•32S * * 2 2 ** * ** 33.000 •••••2•i•• •2••• 2 •23 2 1114334•4 •••••• • 3 • 

••• ••• ,... 2••2 • +1123242322 2 ••• 

11943•4•2 2* 3 3 * * * 714344 3 2• • 2• • •2 

30.000. +IXX*3 22 ••22•22 ** 2 ** 11123432• 2 • •• •• 

1112123••••• •2 2 • ••• • 

+XXll2423 22****** *** ••2• 2 * * * XX35•43 ******2 2 * 2 * * * •••••123 •• 2 ••• 27.000 +XX717• 322 *****2 *** 2 XXl711•43 *2* XXXX'79•24•4••• 

+XXXll32• *** • •••••• , 2•• 2 2• 22 

•••••••32••2 • • 2•2 • •2 2 24.000 •••••••••••••••••••• 2 • ••••• 2 

•••••••21•222 • 3 3•3• 

••••••311322•23•2• •••• 2•••2 

+IXXl811•33233S•3 • • •32 • ••2•2 •• • • 

xxxx11•1212•• 2•222 ••• •2 •••••3 • •• • ••••••23•3233 •• 2 • •2• 2 ••• • •2 

21.000 ·••••••1•2•2••22• 2 2 2 2 • 2 2 • 

XXXlllS•l212232 •333& • * •••• * • 22 

······••3133&12 •232 •••2 2 •2 2•22• •2 • 2•• +IXXXIXll? 32&•133• ••• 2 2• 222 • 2• 3 • 222 

XXXXIXXS131 2• 3••4•2 33• ••• 2• 2 * * ** 2 2 ••••••••31222••232• •••••. 2 •••• 2 22 ••• •2• 2 

tl.000 +XXXllXX13S••3 4 3•••2 2 I 4•2 •• • • 3 ** • •3 

XXXllll?Saa2• •32A•2 22 • • 2 * •22 2••• •2• 2 

IXXXIXl1••3••23••32••3• ••3• •2** 2 +XXXXll832•S 33•3•22 • •2••2 * •4 

2 

3 2 

••••••12922• •2 • • •• •••2 ••• • •• • • 2 

•••••••• 3 22•222 2• 3 ••2• 

. 

. 11.000 •••• 138••• 2 •• 

•····•·········•····•···-·····•····•····•····•····•··--·--·-·--····--······•··--•-···•····· 0. 20.000 40.000 10.000 10.000 l"l!CD 

10.000 30.000 l!0.000 70.000 10.000 

<SCATT!R YAR•l2;1 INTIRVAL•f IS,421:f0,7.2l>•SCATTIR PLOT . HMP'G 

N• 801? OUT O~ 8111 12.HMP'G YS. a.~INOX 

42.000 

38.000 

:11. ODO 

33.000 

30.000 

27.000 

24.000 

21. 000 

11.000 

15.000 

0. 

.. . . • 2 3 •• • • 

••2 •• 2 • 

•• • •••• 2 2• •2 

• 3•2 •22 • 2• • 

•22 3• • •• • 2••• •2 

•2 2 ••• •3 222 2 2 • 2 

. 

... 

2 

•2•2 •• 

22 • 

•• 2• •2•3 2•2•2•• • •2 •2 •2 • 

• ••••2 3•4 21• 3•2 3• •• 2••3•4 2 2• 

• • 22 ••3 • 223•22• 3• ••• 2••3 •••• •222 •2 •2 • • 2• 2 33 •• 322 . •2 22 

2• •3222 ••4• 

•2••· •341 

2• 242••22 

•• ••••••••• 22•• 2 

• ••2• 

• 2• 

••••2••22 •2223•2•32 •••• *•2••• 

233•2•22•2•312•2 3•22•••••2 32 

•22 

3• 

222 

. 

2 

• 2•••2•••3 2•43••• 22•32322 ••3 3• • 

••••• 2 ••2222•• 1•22 •32 

. . 2• 

••• •3•••••22•3••22•22 32242 •3 * •••2 • 2 •2•2 23• 5 3 ••22232 

+ 2• 2••••3•••••2••• • 3••• • 23•• 

. . ••2• 

2 22•3 

•2 • 344 4•313 32• 232•• 

•2• •2•• 3•2•3243342• 42••5• 22 2 ••• •2 2•3•42••2•33341 5344• •31 2•3 

•23 •2 3•44•2•••• •32522332222 ••• 

•••• 3••322•32 32715234•23•23 ••2•• 

2 2 • 

• 2 2••2 

+ 2•3224•133 ••2225217243232•2•322 •• 2•• •• 

522 •832•3•2•••253•334•13 222••52• 2•23• 2 •2• 2 

••2 413 2 2•3•••37••2255 53••2 22•4 3 •22•• 2 ••2 

+ 22 •• , 2 2•3233&25332133• 333• 222 2 ••• 2 2• 

34•2 33•42222•357•19125815 248 2•2• •3 ••4•41•• 

2 

. . 2 . 2 

2 

•2 . 2 . • •2 

•2 

. .. 

•232••24*324853S581231SSl445352C3••2•24 •2••• •• • • •• 2 2 

• 2 

2 

2 • 

• 2 

+•2•3 • 243• 24•6•3245?883524143 2343• •2 •23 2 3 ••3 3 •2 2•• • 

•• 2•32 5235445819X8X8243B82741•2 532••24 •22 33 •2• • • 

•• • • * • * •2•• •••• 3•3132375547565872323445424•••5533••••63 4•••• • 4••• .. 22•2•22 63581XXX8391793•1&2•3&41353•22223•323 ••2 •3• 2•• * 2••• • 2 

22••3 3222335821439115?8?423•3223542•8•••3 2•2 • 2••••2 • 2 2• • 

2•2•2• 2833448578B7SIX765738S•&35441242343••3 •32 2*22•• ••2 2 * * •• 3 

+ •4•23•• 2•3165697622X5558583X4S15485 *62•2 •42•22 32*5***** ** 2 • * • • •• 2 2•23BS845949XIXXB71XX1XXX37a3&46•4•232323••22322•2 2•2 2•• •• •22 • • • • 

•582333B21698XSXIXX9X555347958682387352 2•334•2 ••323 2• '•3 • •2•3 • • *2 ** 

••••25614BB819XX5377188XS••&XX75687S313823554326 ••332•2 412• •• 3• • • • *** 

2•23222•458XX48Xl76X15X4417?1XSS755588588368•2542332**333 22•• 2 

22 5••43•242 59967X78544189X446183537145423•652422233•3•4••322•• 

2•333•227454463655Xl3?9X96394178?854613•353233•36222242•2232•32 2 

• •• 2 • 2 

22 • 2••••2 •• 

2 2 3• •442713456B3B?5435XX3? 445743417643•3352 •36 ••2 3 2•5• 

2•33333X48424281441931254143463•4&35•33•22224 ••342•• •2• 3232 

•••6•2•343•865244356455?856944434 4 44433•••43 322 •42•224 2••3 • 

• 2 2•2 • 

2 2••33352441442443236384•72•233•3•255 52 22•244• •232• 2••3••••22 

2•• 2233••••342322•72 53•2••241•222• 2 ••232 2•2••·••4 3• ••2• • s s•s s• 22 23 2 2 ••• •2 2• 

• 3 • • 2• 

2 • 2 •• 2 ••• 

·----·----·---··--·-·--·-·----·-··-+·--·+··--+-·--•-··-·-·--+----·----····-•-···•··--·----· 1. 6000 3.2000 

.80000 2.4000 4.0000 

4-8 

4.8000 

S.6000 

6.4000 FENOX 

7.2000 
~:~:TTIA VAA•13;1 INTIAVAL•Ct~•.ll;CO,ll>•ICATTIA PLDT 

3•.IOO + 

N• 1322 DUT D, 111~ 13.CMPC YI. 1.FTPHC 

DA'.(A BASE IS EF 

32.000 

21.1100 

27.000 

22.000 

11.1100 

17.000 

14.100 

12.000 

o. 

••• •2 •• • • 

• + • • •• 2• • 

2• •••2 3• 

• 32•2•• 3•2 •• • 11233 • 22 

• ••2•3 •••3•1• 2••2•322••22 • • 

. . • 2• 

+ ••2 1•21 3 • •222••2•2 ••3•2••27322•2• •22• • 23 22 2 ••• 22• • 2 

• •2•2222•2•2•3•2•• ••2••2 2 

• 

••1•2•2••3•2233•222• 3 • 2a2:12•a2•222 22•• .... •3322 •• •221 • 2 •• 23&3233 •• 3424 3 ••• 2•• 

•222•323 232• 2232 22••• •2 • 2 

• ., •••242•33•32 •2•2••2 2• 31•43 •3•33•1•32 3• 2 ••• 431•2• 2• 2••2•2••• 2• + 4337•4337T•2 • •22•• 4 

2AS344434 32*** 2•2• *** • 

2 

•• •••322432232•2••32•23 •2••2 •• • ••1242332•••42 •223•2 •32 

. . . . • 

• 

• 

•• 

311123222•2334 •••3 • • •• . .. . . •2•a21a 3 •32••3 • • • •2 ••2 • ••• , •• ,332 ••••3• 2 •••• •• 17417122•13124 43 2•• •2•3 ••••• 

71121134&••31232 •3•22•· 2 

2 

+ 28XXXX72•••1&41 4 • 2•• 2 ••• • XT9XX&&2333&23•2 2•233 •• • xaa11x1•1111•a112 3•3 • 3 3• + •XX8XXTTXX7382282••3324 •2 ••2• •2• xxaxxaxa2x7X•l•24 9•3••2•4 •2•• 2 

•878XXXXX188717333•4&••332•4 223•• ••• + 7XX8&XTXX48TIS3&817233•••22&2•4 • •2 • 

.. 

. 

• 

27XXXKTXl8117B83331322•3&33••• •• 2 2 2 

11x1x1x1aaaT2a2122•a22• 32•&• • 222•• •••22••• eaTXXXXX1171&TIT3312321&& 232 •••22 • ••3• 

• 2sxxx1a1axxaaa111a2a 222•2&••3 ••• 3•222•2•22• ••2 ••XXXXXXIXXXlllTB38&3231328 &23*22•9•• 2• •&• 

3•••••••••••71871•2•• 33246 •• 222•2•2•224 •22• •••••xxxxaxxaxa11a13•••••9&4•4••3• •2•2 ••2 • • 

.. . .. • 2 

2 

17xxxxxxxxxa11aa111•34&743••222••22 •22 333• 2•• •• •• •• + 3XXXXXX88XXXSl2X81Tl89273•8&2 244424234•11 * ** *** • 2 *** 8Xxxxxxxxxx9xa1a1axa8aaa•8242334 · 2 93••222•24•• •• 

3 XXXXXXXXXXIXl3714473258312 3•342•222•2• 42•• •3• 22 ••• ••3 •3XXXXXXXl&XXl113122•X32331433 22343 •32•• 3 2• *** •• 

. 

. 

. 

3 

2 . 

•2 

2 

21XXXXXIX71S812811Tl4•8831&&••31 33232•3•• • ••• •• • ••2• •• ~-· 

234XXXXXXIX8XTIT31813•4433222222 ••3•2•3• •94 2••• 2• 2 * 

• ······•••••28712 33 •31322•1 •42••••3 • 2• •2••2 2 • 33T8Xl717872424323•223232•3••••2•222 ** • •3• 3 • 4 2 • 

4XIX7213B34•123 • ••232•• 3 ••••23 2 2•2 ~· •• • 324••2········· ••• • 2 ••2 2 2 

. 

2 . 

. . . . 

•···-········--·---·+····+----·--··+·-··+···-·---·+-···•····+·····----·----······-·--·----+ 2.0000 •.oooo 1 .0000 3.0000 1.0000 

1.0000 7.0000 

8.0000 ,.TPHC 

1.0000 

<SCATTWA YAA•13;2 INTIAYAL•C12,3•.St;10,90l>·SCATTIA PLDT CMPG 

H• ltll OUT OP 88&7 13.CM~G YS. 2.~T~CD 

34.800 

32.000 

21.500 

27.000 

24.800 

. 

••3 + • ••••2 • 2 • •22 22 •2 3•242•2 • 2423•3• ••• 2132433 ••• 

•••232 •23•2•2• + •234•3331•••32• •2• • 24•13 1••3 2•222 • •152•2•2 • 2 2• 2•• • 

+ • 2 1524• •2• 2222 •••• ,. 

15•23124 •••2 • •32• • 4 •••334 ••427 ••• 2•34 2••3••2• 23 ••• ••3••23 2••3•33• • 3 ••• 23• • 22 

2 32••4 3••2232•2 24 23 • 2• + 2•3441 2 223••••• 3•3•• • • •• 

•••123•2••2 3• 3 •• 3•2•• ••• 2 3153•1•••2 24 •2 •• 2• 22 5447•44 42•2 3224•• 

87•81•42 3 ••2••• 2• 2•• • 

2213833•• •23••• ••2•22• • •••2 2333•41•1•2• • 2 2•• •2 •2• 

371823 • 43•3• 2 • 2 5•2 ••• 

32•1224 2••2332•2 2 22• • +•22346624••34 •••••2•2• ••• 

• 2 

• 2 

2 • • 

2 

48881862•32•543• 23 •2 •2 •• 3• 2 • 2 2 2&861832226334 •222•2• 2•• •4••2• • 

22.000 XXXXISB423•2•222•3• •• •2 • 2••2 2• 2 ** 

21XB972••S324622•2••2 •• •• 2 • * •2• **2 * •8988888547•••22•232•· 33 22 2 • 2 * 2 2• XXXX7X3642432164432•4••••2 *3 32 ••4• ••2 • • • 2 • • 28K8XT8825133•&424323• 4 ••2•352 •2 •• 2 •• 2•• 2 ••2• • •• •21XIX7X87S8731•124732• 2 •2 2 •2• •• •2•23• ••2 • ••2•2• 

19.500 + 23BXXXX38159252~•2 6243222••25 •32 * 23 •23•322 2 3 • 3 187X7XXX54•933Sl3222222•232•33•••32 242 •3•• • • 3 2 

•8•1XIX8284315•215•5•3•2222••4•• •13•2 •2 ••••• 2••• •• • •3 3 • + SIXXX8X8397535&&23S2 33•2 32543•• •223• 3 23•22••2• •2• &XX9XBX7774843537•2824 •B43 3423 2•• ••3 2 •2 ••3 2••• 2• 2• •2• • • 

SXXXXX999851879388253•8•3232•3•32 2•3•32* • 2•23•3 2•2 2 • • 4 2 17.000 + 4XKXXSXX8XlllllX•2•48•23222433•343•••••2•2 •2 22• * •23 32 •2 3•• 

SX7XXXX8X8X97X4S236342227346•2233•22•2 424•2 •332 4 • 4 • ••2 • 

•4XX7XXXXXXX9988449 5862455•224•2•3 324•• 3•2 • •222••2 •••2 4• •• ••• • •• 2 + 8X7XXXXXlllX36•8B433444•443452373222243 •• 3•332•2• 2423•232424• 2 • 4••• •SXXXXXXXXX77X7•88675•41275332323 •33832•2••232••• 2•334•22 3 2••32 • 2 •79XXXXX7X9XXSBl88•14482B• 34•••54•• 23•36•2•4•••23 332• 22 3 4••32••2•2•2•• 2 • 3•• 

14.500 + •7XXXXX79SXX8533947•358•3•24•22224•32 2•223••22422• 332• 3•2• 2•• 2*2 2 2 3• * 281XXXBX778S8S728S28•3*73 23•2••2•3422•35••3•3 ••5•*3 •322 43••2 3•2 •2 2••2• 2 • •• 

•SIX8X9X8727562825•43*332S•22235353•2•22S3•23 6 •2 24•3 • • •2 2 •2 2 •• 

+ •S76XXXS62S•S743623••3•62 4222*22•2 S2 2 •• •S••• 2 •3• 2• 2 2 •2•3 2 •• • 2 43S24SSS9214223•46322• •2•3 •2••2•22* ••• 22242• 2• • ••• 2 • 2 • • 2 

3426644153234•2 ••2••••4222• 2•• ·~ •2 ••••• 2• 

12.000 •2••••••2 2• •22 3• 2• 2 • 2 • 2• 2• 

+----+----·----·----·--·-+----+----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----+----+----+ o. _ 20.000 40.000 so.ooo eo.ooo FTPCD 

to.ooo 30.000 so.ooo 70.000 90.000 

4-9 
<ICATTIR YAR•t3;3 INTIRYAL•Cl2,34.ll;CO,l.4l>•ICATTIR PLDT CMPG N• 1013 DUT DP all~ 13.CMPD YI. 3.PTPNDX 

3•. 100 + • 

32.000 

21. 100 

22.000 

It. BOO 

17. 000 

u.soo 

12.000 

o. 

• 2 

• * •• . + .. 2• • • 2 

•2 222• •• • • 

• • ••2 •22•• • 2 • + 2•3•2•22 •• 2 

•2••23-2••2 2•2• • 

••••22• 3 2 2••3 •• 

•• •2••32• 22 32 2 3•2 3•2• •• 3•••32•2232•22 • 23 • •• •42••••3•• • • •••• + 2• • 232••3 3 3 • •2•• • 2 2 

••••2•22 3222•322 • 232•• •••• • 2•2• 2••••23•••2• 2 3•3•••• •2 ••• • 2• .,., •• 2 •2• • • 2•• 3 

•••2• •• 242 33• 2 4•2 22•2 •2• ••• ••33242•22232 •• •32• • • ••• + • 2•••2•2 422••&2•• 33• •• 32 •3 ••• •2 • •2 ••• •2•3 224••2•• • •2• •• 2•• • •• 

22 2222••• 232••3 •••2 2 •• • • 22 2•• + 2• 2• 23•332••3•1••2•2• 23 • •2• 

2• •• 3• •2•2•••~22•• •32• • 2 3 2•2 2 ••2• •21322432223 • 22 ••2•24 •3•• 2 • • ••22••2•••3333•••2 2 3•223 •• 22 • •• • • 

• 22•• ·····••222••34 •222 2 3 •••• •• •2•22• ••22331333 •1•3 22 •• • • •• 

• 2• 22• 22• 123•3••13 •3 3• • •• 2•• • • ••3••32313•23•2113•3•31•242•2 232 • • •• 2 2 • 

• • 2• •• 12•224 3•••2323••3223•2 3 22 •• •2 • •• • •• • • • 

• • •2322•2•31 •1•323312 2332242• 3 •222••22• 2••• • 2• 

•• 2••2323333•4•941•33 2••32••3 •2 2•••22• •2 •2• 2 322• 222394•332•••3•••71422•43•233• 2•42• • • • 2• • 2 • 2 

3 ••43221•41221231BX•2B5•313•222•8• •4822• 23•••• •23 • • 2•• 2 

••2• ••312•34,213•12•223•933232•84•323•••232 •23 •3• • • 2 2 ••2 •4245•3212 213124453•3184293422221242222•2 .- 2•3 •2•• 3• 2 •3 •2 

• 3 •23 33233 221,17413•4••·••·•••342••••322•332•• •2•2 2•• •2• ••2••232131331112411~41832•123•5313 23••4 3 • 4•• 22 •23 • 2• • 3• ••32434437•34414X2,343822284 3122•1 243 3• •2•2•••3• 4 ••2••8•3•42252132344XIS217141413233441••1 52 ••3 a • • •2• 3 • 2 • • •2 ••3•2•24174443&,••••••••1•••124382211•6•4 2 •33•22 ••2 • 2 2•• • 3 • 

•• •• *** 14125212111177911X8Xl4783132•41*22S3•2•3•24422•• • 2 • 4 3••• • • • 3• 3423147393911&•••••11131 2814•11••2•24223 •3 22• 2 2 • •2 •• • •3•22128213315119711·•••••91811411•393 31 •2•4 2•22•2 2••2 •35 2 ••13•211449111Xll9,Xl4Xl713X733711•434•3•11•43S2•2• 2225• 22• •2• 2•• •23 23481X91718118139711114411413271S31428433214• • •4•• •••2 3•• 4 •2 

•• 2124•32XSXXXXSIXXX141XXXll88178158123233•2 32• 2223•232 ••• ••2• ••2• a •2 2••••••3• 889471141Xl'l89XX4141113131327845•3322224•2223•3222•23•2 ••••• •22 •2 94474814748184818413413812•1341311••· •••2224 •2•4 3•••3 22••• 2 

•42•••3114412•1•81114~7177188478134328•42 I 2 31• • ••3•2•22• ••• •2 •3 224•••3232441541391•4•8•13434811413331•43••2•22222•2223••••• • • •• 2• 2 •• •22• 2 ••223233844•241723•8114•23112181423•42•3• •222 322• 22•• 3 •2• • 22 222 •2 •22 ••4232233123332443113725 I•• 2•3332 34 • 2• 2•• •• 2• 5 2 • •2 

•2••• 3• •32433•423~433•3•2332••32 3 233• • •3 22 • 3 •2•• 2 2• 3•3•• ••• •4 • 2• •• 2• • '*. 

•····•···-··--···--·•-··-·····•····•····•···-·····•··--·····•-···•····•·····-·-······•····· 1. 2000 2.4000 . 10000 1 .1000 3.0000 

4-10 

3. 1000 

• . 2000~ 

( 

4.1000 l'TPNO• 

S.4000 
CSCATTIR YAR•11:1 CASIS•ALL INTIRYAL•(4. ,40);(0,1.ll>•SCATTIA 'LDT 

UMPll 

40,000 • 2 • . 

• 22• -•-•·· 2•32•2 DATA BASE IS CERT/HFR + 

31.000 • 

• 

32.000 

• 

21.000 • 

• 

24.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

18. 000 • 

• 

12. 000 • 

1.0000 

• 

4.0000 • 

• 2 4 3• 3 

• •••2 2• •••3 •••• 200343 2 

•••23•• •3 33232 2 • 

2324322324•• 2• •• 

.. 42111' •22:112• •• •48332 3 •• 2 ., •• , • • • 2 • 

•• •3'732842•22• 3 2 3•• • * 8BX7431** ** 2 2 •11417133323 •• 23•• • 

•3B211"1X81B22a3•• * * IC! 2• ** 13'71Xl41443342 2• 2 * •• 2• * *2*** 24'711X&XX8281•4•3 • 2• 2 * * ** * :12••••••••••••2• •• •3· • •2 2 2 2 • • • • 231X7XXXXX•3•4••3 23• 2000000 2 aao 20002 ** a 

211XXXXXXX'7234* 2 3** 2 2 2 ** * * ······••731422273 • •• 0 •••••• •32 ••• • 2 3 •• ········••311•1"14•••433 2 22 ••• • 2• •• •••2• ., ••••••••••• ,11.12:111124 2 • :12•2 • 22 •:11•22 2• • 3• ••• 

2•••••••••••••,•2•31 ••• •2••2 • • • 2 2 3 • 2 ••••••••••••• ., •• 3 32 3•••• • 22•2•• 0 • • •••• • ••• 

38XXXXXXXXXXX7XXl•44••30 • * •2• * I ** 2*3* *2 o * ao , ••••••••••••••• 4311311313•3 •4•2•3•433•2 ••• 3• 3• • • 2 •2••••••••••••••37224•24•34•12•1• •••• •3 ••2•322 •• 3 

2••••••••••••••••311,, 21 3•••2•••222•••• 2 •• •• • •• •• ••••••••••••••• ,211•214343314244• •2•1• 31 332• 3• ~~~· 

., ••••••••••••••••• 133121'*•'32• 32•••••3• 2•• • ••2 •2••·············••1•••,•••••••13 22• 13• •••3• •••• 

•22axxxxxxxxxx••••••••••,,••324319112113 •••3•2•334 •4•• • 2 a 3S8XXXXXXXXXXXXXlk814X'l'3384•12313• •2•32•2 * •22•• **· •2•-

S,XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX84XXl&X211113•14332 •33 • 32• 2• 2••••2~ 

•3XIXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX4X34XS,XB3122S * 32 22• oo ooi 2 2. saxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx1,1•1a3,aae12342•12•••2 ••2 • • • •SBXXXXXXXXXXXX4XX372X79X3143292 14 • • ••2s21xxxxxxxxxxxxxx1x4xxex1•111213•••2•2 

328,XXXXXXXXIBXXXl131S•l•341•B• ••• •• 2 •• 2•1,axxxxxxxx7Xll4•2273424 2229•3••••2 

••8X4XXll&l873432 343 ·• ••38 •••3•332 •2121 22•3 •• 22•?••'72•1232 32•22 2 •2 23 22 2 •• 22881'72 2• 2 3 ••••• 3 2• 43 • • • • 

•2 • • 

• 

+•·····---+--·-··-·-·----·----+····•····+···-··-·-··--··---···-··•····•··--·---···---·-·-·+ o. .10000 1 .2000 t. 1000 

.20000 .aoooo 1 .0000 

CSCATTBA YAR•11;2 INTBRYAL•(4.,40);(0,181>•8CATTBA ~LOT 

UMPG 

40.000 2• 

31.000 

32.000 

21.000 

24.000 

20.000 

18.000 

12.000 

8.0000 

4.0000 

••42•• 

•2•2 2••• 22 ••3•2• 

••222 

3 2• ••322• 24••3• 3 •• •••2 • ••2 2 •• 224 23 223322 •2 '74•••22 2823 •2 5422•• 3 2 ••• 

2•23•3••3283• 2 •933•42•34•2•• 2• 

. ... 

4'713385•5• • • •• 

• •582353•3342•2•32 • •2 •••• 3 

••• 88642475 3•4 •2•2 •3•• ••• 23•8117&•••4453•23• ••• • • •• 22 •• 2 

+ • 3SXX35•13X9142 52•3• • 2 • * ***** 2• aaa•3SIBX3X7XXXIX3S8 S• 3•2••• * * • 3•2 

• ·••••&34•94&&•24&••335•3 •2••3 • 2 s • •3••• •• xxxaxaeexasxa3•&•B•2•4 3 3 • 2• 2 • •••IX4988'78XX'78S72S•&•3• •••2 • 22 • 2 32• •32••2 2•• • 

237XXXXX9X79932BS79332233••32 * •2• * ••2222• •••••• ••••• SIXXXXXXXXXXXl•7178138S3 3 • 2*2 32 •2S• • 42•2•• 2•22 ••• •• 2 

218XXXXXXXXXXXX8XS7•1•133 21 2••• •••2••••2 ** 2•• 2• 21axxxxxxxxxxx1saxeae•• 3 •••2• •3 2222•••2• 2 • •2 2• 2 

218XXXXXXXX8X982X5823254•3233&2•&42 •22• 33 3••32• 2• ** • ••2 48XXXXXXXXXX7'7'7XX•B3414328•44 3223•1•5•••22•• 5222•2•••• 4 

···················••&153•8•32••8• •••22223•••• •• 3BXXXXXllXXXXIXX8127XX8•9 493 ••433•42•• 2•2•3 •22• •••2 • 

• 5SXIXXXXXXXXXXIXXl&41XBB•3B4221243 2232 •23• 32•2 2 ** •3•   2• • • •XXXXXXXXXXXXX9XX,734X,8438X4 4333•3324• •5••2332 •• •23•33 •2 

+ 38XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX9988'XX•IXS828825•'2X23299•2S 38 2••• 2224•• 2 • 43XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX98XXIX38&XXSX817B•34528'744 5554•3•22 2•33 22324•2• 

• sxaxxxxxxxxxxx•xxaxs7x•sa2x212s41424ss• 44345 3242•••4 223 •2•23 •• • • 2 S28XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX728XXX881&82&81'34SB8•2143 2••33•5•4 2243 22•••2 2**  58XXXXXXXXXXXIXXXXBX797448X7S•4443238823••5•43•423••••33 2 ** 2•22• •• 

•XXXXXXXXXXXXXX7XXX7488882X554 21322555324•8522•32 •22• 2••• •• 3 

53XXXXXXXXX89XIXXXB7X7,8•&79S339B5•B31234284•3••S•S•• 2 2 22 2 ** * •5BXXXXXXXXXXXX8XX9988X64444&823284•34S4•514 242•3 2•22•2 • • • • • •37XSBXXXX&X91787563297•8S4S32•3253•••?2•3• 2••2•23•• *2* •4 2•• •• ••33 8773591Xl5?95145732348352•4&3 222 3•42•23 3 •• ••2••3 ••2•••2 ••• 3•533335?2768354442 •832 2233•••3• 3• •• • 2 

4233••23342482 ••2 •••2 2 222333• 2 22 3 22 2 •2•2223•256 •3• 2 522 2 • 

44224342 ••222••3 • • • 2 •• 

FTPHC 

1 .1000 

+ ... - - + ......... + ... - .. + ...... - + .. - ... + .............. +. - - .. + ...... - + ...... - + .. - .... + ........ - ...... •·· ••• + ........ + .... - .. + ......... - ...... + 

o. •.oooo a.oooo 12.000 11.000 FTPCD 

2.0000 6. 0000 10.000 14.000 11.000 

4-11 
<ICATTlll YAll•tl ;3 INT!RYAL•IO. ,401; 10,3.ll>·ICATTIR PLOT N• 1112 OUT 0, 10421 11.UM,c YI. 3.,T,NOX 

UM,c 

•o.ooo 

n.ooo 

32.000 

21.000 

20.000 

18. 000 

12.000 

+ .. 3• . • . 2• 3 . 2• •• + 3• 32 •2• . •2•3• •2 • • 2 2• • •• 3• •• 2 2 ••••• • . • 2 • 2 2 • •••3• .. •2 . 2 23• • 2 •2 2 

+ • •24• 2•27•• • • •• U2 

• •22••••••2••2 ••3•• 3 ••••• •• • • 2•• 42 ••2 •• • • 2 

• 1232• 223• • ••2• • ••2••• • 

••2••43* •344S• • •I • * 2 2232 • 23•2•1•232•2••• • • 3• 23 2 ••2 • ••21 3437333 •• 22•2 ••1•22 •2•• • ••• 3•21732712•22•3 •••22232 • 2222433••• 

•3 3 22332•1341243•4•2•1 212 144 4••212• 

+ 232••21132Xl1324•12•2• 1•3•1•3 22 •3 222 2 • 22••••41•1x111xx222•x2 2••311 •22423134123•• 

2 •2 13432142141142••34 •331141•14•••1321142• + ••3•133123XXX2 X4•1341234••422111•22241321••2 •• 

•4•3 3323111Xl311412•••4 2211141•211443•1312 * 2 34221111Xl11XX11•3X3114431111291433• 32•24 2 + * •3213134XXXXXXX1Xl1X24XlllXIXl43144129443•223 •2 ••• 4•21 lllXXXXXXllXX3Xl434111XIX411X•2111323 34 •••• 213111 llXXXXXXXXlll43311XXlll31142X233 4• 2 

+• •24224341311XXXXIXXXllXXl3111X21Xll1111412•113 • 2 

3•23319XllXXIXXXIXIXIX1XX11311Xll11XXl114121•2 ** ••3242323211XXXXXIXX1XllXl1XXXX4111111XXX21141132•3 •• +• • 43134211XllXIXXX2X21118XXIXl111Xl211Xl14131434 * * •4113111XXXXXXXXXXll414313111XXXXIX1111Xl1415 3232 

••24• •••••••• , •••••••• 134111XXXllXXl1XX1118413212 • 2 

+2 39173713991XXXXXXXXXXaa87XXXXXX7XXX•XXl9X7X•7233••• ** ••• 3 •1241441•XXXXXXXXXXXXXX4XXXXXXXXXXIXXIXXX18X141•33 3 2• 

• •2••••1s3xxxxxxxxxx••••7••••••••••••••••7eaa•• •2•••2 +• ••3•2SSXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX8TTXXXXXXIXXXXXIXX98•32•223•• 3 2••2Sl3•aaXXXXXXXXaXXIXXIXX781XX7XXIXX•Xl81•7B••• ••2• 4 • • 232~11XXXXXXXXXIXXlllXSSIX1XXXSXX118183432 ••• • 

•• 2•••1XXXXXXXXXXXXXX77XIXXXX98XX•XX•l7431•••••• 3• 

3 ···············••1••••1••••••3•••••3••2 2 2 2 2 •lllllXXIXXBXl1514B214181S34131311433222 • •• +• 232348•3118SX8XX4111114134813123 •2•3• 2 

3•2431112•1111SX•••3•32•323 ••2• •••3••3317243••233 4123 4 222•2•••• 2 3 •2 34•23222•3 41•3•12••• 3 • 

27743 • •22 22• ••3 •• •2 • 

2 3 23 

1.0000 + 

+ 

•. 0000 + 

DATA BASE-IS CERT/MfR 

··-···----·-···•·····-··-·----·----·----·----·--··•-··-·----··---······----·--·-··---······ o. .80000 I. 1000 

.40000 1.2000 

<SCATTlll YAll•l2;• INT!llYAL•(I0,•11;(0,0.ll>•SCATTIR PLOT 

HMPC 

•e.ooo + • 22 

42.000 

31.000 

31.000 

30.000 

26.000 

22.000 

11.000 

14.000 

10.000 

2328•22 •2 • 

3•••2•22 + •3•••3 :s • 22829• 

•22•9• + 2aaX732 22• 

2111a•as4 • 3•&1413 •••3•••• + 2SX48322 33• •X91U333 

1999•132 I * + aa1xse•2•2• •• •577XXS3 2•• * 21349283••• 2 • 

··•••••842• • • •• 2 28XXXX5•S7S42•• 22•••• ••••••• , 82• 4•3• ••2• +2XXXXX288352 2525• ••2 

•XXXX97XS•47 34333 • 2•• • XXXXSS7824a 32•••3 •2 

+2XXX99X858334221322 ••2• 2• 2xxxxxxxaas12•2•322 2 • 

·····••73•2832•••32•• 

+3XXXXXXX9432 332•4 • •2 

········••4334223•• 3 •3• • 3XXXX87543442 •• •2• •2•• • • +3XXXXXl8848434 2•• 442 • • •2 

SXXXXXX2XXXl5•••3••3 3 ••22 2XXXXXXXIX823•33•4•3 

·········•••38253•23 •222• 2•• 7XXXXXXX2X74622•2 ••2 •2 

4&XXXXXXX8142S43•2226••• 2 •• • 

·········•••7&171623243• • 

··········•••3••••4•• 3 2• &IXXXXXX7889Bl3•3 ••• ••• 2• +21XXXXX7XX8778222532••• • 

7XXXXXXXXl&Xl4•31•43322•• 

2XXXXXXXXXl716222 22 • • + 37XXXXXXX8XXl4••32•2 •2 

7XXXXX884534 73••• 3• 

4XIXXl87X••s 24• 2 +•4XXXXIXX2X3•24 42 2 

231XIXXX3813 •••••• 391'933464•3 •2 

+ •15XIXSBS82• 

•341XIS3S2 •2• • •41545332 

• •22342 

22 

• •2 

2 • 

. .. 

• 2 

2 

2.4000 2.0000 2.8000 3.2000 FTPNDX 

3. 1000 

N• 1108 OUT 0, 10421 12.HMPC VS. 4.P!HC 

.. 2 

...................................................................................................................... o. .20000 .40000 .aoooo .aoooo FEHC 

. 10000 . 30000 . 50000 . 70000 . 90000 

4-12 
CSCATTIR YAR•12;1 INTIRYAL•CIO,•ll;CO,I. l>•SCATTIR PLDT N• 117• DUT D, to•21 12.HMPa ¥1. l.,ICD 

HMPC 

•1.000 

•2.000 

:111.000 

:11•.000 

:110.000 

21.000 

22.000 

U.000 

to.ooo 

0. 

•• •2•• .,, ··- 22 3•B 22 ••••2• • •1213 2 

BX• 2• +•XTB7:11• 

4XX3• 2•2 • 31X•B3 .. 2 +IX'74•34 3••3 

•• 

• 

• ••• .. •••• ... 31X411•••22 •• · 

111•11 2!2•22 

. . . . 

• +IXIX3•433•2• * ••• * 211131 •3••• 2 • •• 11132•• 24•3• • 2 +IXXXX33X3 2 •2 XXXX•l•T:S2•:112••2 2 • 

• 2 

2 ••••••2711• • • • +XXX3'7'71X434•322 •22 a * 2** • 

XXXXlllXIT 113:11•222 :II•• 2 • 

• 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1113713113•3•22 •2 • 2 2 

·•••••'711313 3•• 3 2• •2 • • 

••••••1112•2 3:11•32••22•• :II• ••• XX'7X7XX'7111224•3••4••• 2• • * •2 •••••••••• ,. 22• •2• •• 2• • 

• •• 2 

J J2J 

········•••2122• 2 •••• •••• , ••••• ,2•3 2 2• •• •• +XXXXTl33Xll'722••2•••2••o •2 *** 2 ••••••••712•2 22122•22 •• • •• 2• XXXIXX7X43•132•• •2•3 *2 22 * ** • ••••• , •• , •••• 334 322 •32 22••·•···· 

XXXXX'71111122•222•4 2•23• ** * ••2 

. .. 

.. 2 

•• 

• 2 

• • ... 

.. . 

•• 2••2 

• • 2• •2 .. . ••••• ,, 1413•222 ••2•2 2•3 22• ••••••••• ,.,234 2•22 222 •22••••2 ••• 

2 

•• 

• . .. 

• •2• 

. • 

•••••••••• 3224•2 212••22 •• 2•••• • • 2 2 

······••'7•2222234 2•2 2 ••• 2• •• 3•••2 ••• 2• ··············•••2•• •22•2 ••• 2 32 ••2•• • XXXXIX"Pl"PBBl"PI •23 22 2 II 3• •• •••••••• ,32•2932 • •••2•2 •••2• •••••••••• ,....... • ••••3 ••••••2333823•32• • 2 • •••• ,.3•• 3•1 ••2 • 

········••23••3 2• •••••••32••32 •• XX313•3 • ·••••••25• •2•• • XX3X21 •••• 1•33• • ••3 •221• ... 

.. + • 

. . . • 2 

2 

2 

. 

• 

. 

. 

• 

•2• 

.. 

2 

•• 

.. 

. 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

. . .. 

• 

. 

. 2 

DATA BASE IS CERT/11FR 

•• .. 

. .. . . 

•····•·······-··-····----···--·--··+······---+----·---··----·--·-··-···----·----·----·---·· 2.0000 •.oooo 1 .oooo 3.0000 S.0000 

1.0000 

"J.0000 

1.0000 FICO 

8.0000 

CICATTIR YAR•12;1 INTIRYAL•CI0,•81; 10, 181>•SCATTIR PLDT HMPC 

•e.ooo 

•2.000 

31.000 

3•.ooo 

:io.ooo 

28.000 

22.000 

18.000 

14.000 

10.000 

•••22 

. ., .... ••22• 

••••• 87112 

X"P2• 

+XXX2 

XX223• 

2 

"PX833 ••2 •3 •••• ,233 • •••2 ., •• ,232 ••••• 

XX82"PI • ••• ., ••• •2•• ••2 • XXl243••• 2 • • 2 •2 XX323"P• 3 2 

+XXXXl2•2 • 2• 2 

••••••2222• 2 • 2 • XXIXX3 

·•••••"Pl223••22 • •• ., ••••• 24•2 3 

XXIXl1••3• 22 •S•2 •• ••••• ,13233 3•• 313 2• 3 • 

••••••••1123•4 ••• 2• XXXXXX72•1•• 3• • 3••2 2• 

••••••••• 3•2 3• •••••••• • 2•••• 222••2 • XXlllX••2 3 2 2 ·•••••••222•2 3•2 2•• •3 2 XXXXX822834 2• ••2•3•2•• 3•• ••••••••233232••• ••••••• +XXXXXXllS2 421•123 •• XXXXIX33&•3•22••3 2 • • 2 

XXXXIX3322423• 4• •2 2 ••••• , • ., 232 8•42•3 •2 2 • 2 

•••••••&2842322•3 ••22 ••••••337322 32•2 44•••2• ·····•••2•• 122••24•23••• 2 • XXXIXXX2B•32SS4•• 2 •••• 2• XXXXX8T42 2:1•:123 +XXXXXX28S• 34 • 2 • 3 2 

XX978"JB33•2• • 2 

XX8'7845•3••• •• +IXXSBl4 3 ••• 2 

XXIXS52••• 2 ••• XX34• •2• • +XJIB38•3•• 

XX3"P 3• 2 

855• S• • ........ 

2•• 

.. 

2 

• 2 

• 2 

·----·----·---:+----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----+ o. 4. 0000 a. 0000 t 2. 000 16. 000 FECD 

2.0000 6.0000 10.000 14.000 18.000 

4-13 
CSCATTIR YAR•12;1 INTIRYAL•(l0,411;(0,l.31>•1CATTIR PLOT 

HNl'Q 

48.000 

42.000 

31.000 

34.000 

• • •• • • ••2• • •2 2••22 2 •2 ••••2 •• • ••• 

•• •• ••23 • • 3• •3 •22 2 •2 • •• • 3 • 2 ~22 23 3 • • • 2 

+2 22•••1•3 • • •22332• ••• •••• 32244 3 • •••222 34 • 

•••• 

••• ... 

• • •• 32 

.. 

• 22• •• •2222•• ••• 2•224•1 ••2 • ~ •• 2 23••• •2 •• 23• 2•34433 •22 •• •• • •• 

1423•2 22•2 23••• 22 2•33 2 •2•• •• •••2 23 42•• •2•424• •4•3 22••• +2••2222 •1412332 343422•2132• 2 •3•2 •• 

322324••• 42•3 21 •3•2 • 3••2 2 3• 2• •2 •2••• 2••••••••2•2••2• • •••••• •• +42333•3•233323•2•••3•243•4422••233••2 2•• 

•••••34341•1311323•2213••434&4324•2••2•3 2 • 22 43•3181•333•?2321424 •13423 2• • 2 • 

+313431•••1••214127334433•4424232•23• ••• 2•• 3114•11444•4?4 84441•314•4?142 44••3• 2 

•13•12231•3•3•212423221111•332•22 2•• ••2 •• +31111 52121234211X341334133•143 22•224 IX3T4122 3223oloTlllX441324131•1 •12 • 2• 5X241233332•245••14BIT3T4 131•232••33••23 

+31282324 24331o4113T34•234Tl•T31143 ••32 2 

..... 30.000 

28.000 

22.000 

18. 000 

14. 000 

10.000 

453214423•XXllXITXllT4T3411•1•442• ••2• 

32 3433 2 •• 212•••••••••••12224•••3• ••2 

. 

• +IX2•184•28531144243TXl33TlllTTI 4333 • ••2 • 2 

IXllXXX4485141TllXTITll411T3233T33•2 ••2 ••• • • 2Xl4XIXllTIX43451111Tl•l31433•4123 3 • • oooa +2Xl21815T81T5Tll41XllllTll1325231 •• • •3 •• • 3Tlll5113XT3144XXll311Xll5314332•2•• 3 • 

45•511KT5Xl••51XlllXXXllllT523 •• a .... +34 245TXll58XXIXTXXXKXX4KllT53142 2 •2 •3•181711414X73X7XIXXXX8X2177433•• •• * •••221811187Sl7Xl8X9817718421•2342•2• I •2 

+3K32431512X5185XKITll51115XllB322424•• • • 453•T5423TKl8434Xl12TIXK3Tl411582T32 2• •• 2•23322331 35151515X445XTl3813412•2•422 2• •••••323•22317181114778191&187842344••••2 •2 

22••2 43418331481143817132•4••• 3 •• 

• 2• ••3 •3118121•8821732•32132 • +2• •••2 •2331117868883314311•31•••2• 

+ 

+ 2 

• ••3222?21441412243232423222•3 • 23 ••2 2832133423• • 2•42•• 

2 • •1421234441•2•3 2 •3• ••2 2•334223327334 •• 2 ••2• • • ••• •2 ••2 3 ••• 2••• 21 •• .. 2 • 

•2 2 

2 

2 

12.HM,G YI. l,,INDK 

DATA BASE IS CERT/MFR 

•• • 2• 

•·····----·-···•····•····•····•···-·····•····•····•····•····•····•·········•····•····•····· 0. 1 .4000 2.1000 .10000 2. 1000 

4.2000 

3.5000 4.1000 ,5. 1000 PINOK 

B.3000 

<SCATTIR YAR•l3;1 INTIRYAL•(I0,411;10, 1.ll>·SCATTIR PLDT CMPG 

N• 5071 DUT DP 10425 12, CMl'G YS. I. PTl'HC 

41.000 

12.000 

31.000 

30.000 + 

28.000 

22.000 + 

11. 000 

14.000 

10.000 

0. 

22 2 

2• 

• • 2 

2 2• 3•. 2• 23•2 ••2 ••• •••2• •• 2•••5 

342•• • • 532 

•232•23 • 3•442222 

2S2T!l32 

2 

. 

•• 2 

2•4765•2 3• •3 •• 

.• 

22434122••••• • 3 2 • • 2 22 

3341155 •••• 

•&828888•••3•• •2 •2 • 2 2• 

2124881352• 3• •• 3 • 2 • • 

•2378428•22• • 22 •2•• •33TXXXl!l5433 

444Xl7X818•34• 22 3413811117•32 232 ••• 2 2• •• • • 

211877XX7X•42 342•23 •• 2•2•3 ** •4••• 3 •• 

S4XXIX78B87XB4432••••2 •• 2•• •2 ••••••• 2• • •24418XBIX484 32 •22• ••••2 2 •• • •2 

23SX9X8X87BB53343 •3• 4 • • ••• 2 2• • ••••3• 

•31X878XIXXX4&B73223 ** •• 2••2• 2 •• 3 2 

23449BIXB758243822• 2•4• • •• •2• 2•• 2 2•• 4 2•••• • 2 • 

•42XXXXXIXX876• 222•3 •3•22•3 •2 •2•••2 ** 

2•4XXXXBX8XBXll3•4323•22 I• 6••42 •242 2• • •2 2 

•452XIXXBBll•2B33••2• •42••273 •• 3• 22 23• • 

379XIXXXXXB7383 3744•22 •2•37382• 33 2 2•••22• 

•48XXXXIXl81B&4BBB3&33•2B4237••2 4 2 3• * ••••2 

•22XXXXXXXXX87557•532544X43BB•3* 223 2•• 3 

S4BBXXXXXXBB68B81X9BXBIX33483234•42 3 2 2•• 22 •2 •291XXXXXXXXX48344832XB2X32B&•B22•22 32 •32•••••••• • * 3 

343XIXXXXXXX7X5B43SB3X7235224 7• 553••• 43 2 2•• *** 

••B54XXXX9XXIXIBB7183•8&•15•74333•5• 2 •3 

2347XXXXXXXXXB34257B3XB XX 7341 20• ••• 2•• 3 •228758874XS23X437314452454353 5322 

* • 2XX7XX78171B4848 X321•224 •2 35 

• 43881583211247267•23294•74 B••B•• 2• 2 

2•&32&8•6•3432822272 5•2 •223 3 

• 32552XX3711144334224•522•2 • •2•3 • 2• 

•B33S7BB32BS23• 3•• • • •• • •••28•88332332 4 3 2•••• 

•22 53•7• 3 3 22 •332 •• 3 

• 2•2•• 2•• •2 

••* •• • • 2 

.20000 

2 • 

.•oooo . 80000 .aoooo 1. 0000 

4-14 

1. 2000 

1 .4000 

1 .6000 FTPHC 

1.1000 
<ICATTIR VAR•13;2 INTIRVAL•(IO,•ll;(0,111>•1CATTIR PLDT CMPC: 

•1.000 • 2 

'*' DATA BASE IS CERT/M~R--

•2.000 

31.000 

3•.ooo 

30.000 

21.000 

22.000 

18 .ooo 

14.000 

10.000 

0. 

+ 3• •• 2 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

* 

* * * 2• * * •• • • •2 ••• 

• •2•• •2•• •• • •••• • 2 

.... .. -. * 2S • • *** ____ _,.~-

2• 322 • 2•_ -· ·--·- • 2•• 22• • • 

•• •22••2 2 • 2• • 

•222 32•4• ·••2 

• •243•24 • •• •3• 

• 33•221 •• 2 •32 ••2 •• • • • •233423 22 2• •••• 2 •• •••2 •• • •••• 

•• 2'743•••2•32•2 2• 2 2 • • •• 2133821134••23••••••• •• 3 • • 2 2•2••2 •••• ••3 4314124• •42 4•3• • • • • •• ••• • 

*239 2 14 •I •• ••2 4 ** o a •• ** • 2 1•3•••••3•212•••2•233• * Sl'721'72211••••7•43 4 • ** 2 a 2 ***2 2 ** 121144•21311 ••••42•• •23 •••• • •••• • • ·••2•2•••••••••:1••••3•• •• • 2• •••• •22•2•· •• 3 •••• 2 •• 33••••••••7••·••2333••••232•2 •22 ••••22 •2 2•• ••• ••2 •• 2Sl3•4Xl211132•21 4•3•23•• ** 3*** • 2•23• • ** 2 ** ** * XX4X9171139133433•234 * 2 •2~ 22*~ 2 * ••• • • • • •21elXX713214••X7243 12 •I 224•4• 2322 2•• *** 2 • ••••• •2&3949181111434233 3•32••23 •42 222& •22 2* S2 2 ** 2 •XllX4771188414& 314228•33•2••42 242 2 ••2 •• 2 •31XIX37841833171•234824•2•22•3222 2442••34 •2•2•• ** •2X24XSll 17SS32&2S 173422& • • 34 2 a •2• a • • • 

28741XXIXXXXll78&3177242414 2222• •3•3 •• •4• ••••2• *** 2 • 231S318XXXX8117434 414832474 3••3 432•2 31 232 •· •I•• • 2• • 3aa•••••••••••2a22•2s73••7•~ 332•3227222242 ••28 2 3 3 2· • 27811811421XXlllXl72111121Sll28X24SS443•34•3•4* S• ****3 ** 222• * 22XSXXXXIXX3X77X71221733•Sl724214•2242 3•222243322••• • 2 3•33 * •• 2•38XX87X7X8X711X3224X2342S31•3423 44••32444 •2•• • I •22• 3••••3• • 22484X8X87Xl8111182211•8•48422•&4223273 •3 33• 2•2•3 •••2 *· 2• , ••••••••• , ••••••••• 3183 ••• , 4•43••4344221221•••2 23• 2 3••• •• 2• 

•314 3433488•84 233•3542••1543••133•3•73•3 8 •• 24 3 2•• • 23•• 

2 2444973•18142814439221•314•3•432•244••••4•232 ••2••••• ••3 23214373848338481•3122•2341 2•22••234 14 ••22••·· 2•• •2 

••3 •2•••12SS 4223 2•332•2 •• •S2 • 2 •• •2•2 *2*• •• 2 2 •• 4• ·····••3133413423 12 73 ••4• ••2• 3••• ••2••• ••3•••• • 3 222•228•8822•24 22 3••23 2•2 4212••3432233 •• •3• 2 •••••2• •2 •2 2 2 •2 2•••222•38 2• 222 2 2 ••• • •• • 23 •2 • • 

••2• • 2 2• 

2 

·----·----·----·--·-·----·---··----·----·----·----·----·-····----·-··-·····•·····----·----· 4.0000 a.oooo 2.0000 a.oooo 10.000 

12.000. 14.000 II. 000 'TPCD 

18.000 

<SCATTeR VAR•l3;3 INTeRVAL•Clo,••>;C0,2.71>-ICATTeR PLDT CMPC N• 1013 DUT D' 10•2& 13.CMPC: VS. 3.FTPNDX 

48.000 • 

42.000 + 

+ 

31.000 

+ 

34.000 

30.000 

2• 

3 • 

• 2 

•• 2••• 3 2 22 •• 2 

• • 23• • 3• 2• 2•. • •• 

22 • 2222•••• •2 • • ••• 2 •22• 

2 •2•283••22•3232 • •• •24 33483• 

•2••3•• 3222•232• • 

•2• 

2• 

3 

••2 • • • 2 • • • • • • 2• 2• • 

2 2 2 

2• ••• 222•2• • • • • • •• •• 3 •2 2•2 •242• 

2 32• • •2• 2 ••• 

2••• 32 23 3•2•• •2232•2••• • 2•3 3• 2• • 432•2•23 • • •• 2••••32•22•• 2 • 2 •2 • 2•• •••••• 32 

2 • 2 232• 2•••3•42 21 2• •2••••••2343•32 33•2• • 2•••• 2 • 3 242 •2•••482813 31••• • 2 2•• 241••3•4 ••2•••2 22••2• • • 3 ••3 3•22•41 •• • 2•3•8•323•223•242 2332 + •• •3•3253 •22•••332• 4•2 2• •831128732••23 3 6 532 3 • 2 

21.000 

22.000 

ta.ooo 

14.000 

t0.000 

• •2 3•6 •4237334••2343252 4 ••31•2444128833•43212•22 ••23•2 • 

32 •32•4•• 3•2322•3••2•2222284346 25•324422 24 3•2 •• 2 

• • •• 22••22•2•3423•22435222•22 225228K62243 •8325 43222• 33 • •3 •••3 •4 •22344•22••13•422•3•322246436394•34473323•42••32•2• 

• ••2 222 ••3•23•33 ··••3•2•433•2 32•42375•33523822225•344• • 23423 •4•253252••22493383322•52424444•2•323388•834254122442 • 2• • 

3 2•3•• •333233•42322532•42••32348241338431233452221•33244233•233• 2• 4•4•3432 • 422525334 24224 2••3 482 233•433•55233•344•2••• • • 3• •332 5•2•645116951 4223 3•3•27SBS875848322BS712•S5•352 222 * * • 34••222238233422219•8•532•432•2422854•81325138825864338•3 ••2 ••42•2 3 25324135•43625•6333 354753771421451318443724•2244•• 2• 2• 

• 22 • • 3 23224277344&•2•4482 3473488197778XB71&48S88943232 82• • 3 

•3 •••23••22545392987884••532•32347784186794SX93245115832S43•3•2• 

2• 3 2•82333247544352243632343523573498X4313181X7514333532• ••• •2 • 2 ••32222SS•24345•743••24846864418X2S89415&32834434S••3 • •• •••• 2•24585446347433823&415•663459571648884114678343• 44•••• 2••• • 

•3 •233324•2••5 2•222324928•364447382381543•&433232 • •2 

3 •22•23 4•3•42432314387&19XB88*24S3•3B4•232•• 2• 

•2• •2 •• •2• 88365•2272•498348943 84743•443323 

• • •4 3 •••344 4•23•435143 •62 322•••3• •• 2 2• 3••• 626754838534431242••35•252232 •••• 

•·•• 3322• •••6•242552 ••2*22• •3 •• * 2 • •• 3 •3• 322 24 3333 4 32• •4• •••• 2 2 22• 22•22 2 2 •4 32 2 •2• 22 

2• 2 • 2 •••22 2• 

3 • 3• • • 2 

+-·-·+·---+·---·····+----+----·----·----·---·+··--+·····----··-··+····•·--·+----·----··-··~ 0. . 60000 1 . 2000 1 . aooo 2. 4000 FTPNOI 

. 30000 . 90000 1. 5000 2. 1000 2. 7000 

4-15 
Appendix 5 

Results from Stepwise Backward Regression 

of Vehicle Parameters and 

Emissions versus Fuel Economy 
\Jl 

I 

t-' 

<SELECT BYST OPTIONS=STEPWISE.BACKWARO VAR=11;22-24,27,40,1-6 MAXIM=10 STRAT=V50:81*V36:(1-7,10-17)> 

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 11.UMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE 

REGRESSION 

ERROR 

TOTAL 

OF 

11 

255 

266 

SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE 

7883.6 716.69 

843.52 3.3079 

8727.1 

MULTIPLE R= .95044 R-SQR= .90334 SE= 1.8188 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR 

CONSTANT 4.2086 2.4755 

22.VOHP . 19080 .26604 .85715 -1 

23.0ISP -.05934 -.35044 -2 .36914 -2 

24.RTHP -.27595 -.32739 -1 .71410 -2 

27.NSVR -.33923 -.11813 .20514 -1 

40.ETWM1 . 73422 71940 . 4165.7 

1. FTPHC .07124 2.0918 1 . 8341 

2.FTPCO - . 16276 -.31116 . 11813 

3.FTPNOX .15501 1. 7071 .68127 

4.FEHC -.01475 -.90655 3.8490 

5.FECO -.03028 -.85001 -1 . 17571 

6.FENOX -.09025 -.68149 . 47095 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 11. UMPG · N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE 

REGRESSION 10 7883.4 788.34 

ERROR 256 843.71 3.2957 

TOTAL 266 8727.1 

MULTIPLE R= .95043 R-SQR= .90332 SE= 1 . 8154 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR 

CONSTANT 4.2264 2.4698 

22.VOHP . 19048 .26553 .85529 -1 

23.0ISP - .05969 -.35241 -2 .36836 -2 

24.RTHP -.27800 -.32884 -1 .71015 -2 

27.NSVR -.33895 -.11796 .20463 -1 

40.ETWM1 . 73450 71883 . 4150.8 

1.FTPHC .07001 1. 9644 1.7493 

2.FTPCO - . 16234 -.30718 . 11669 

3.FTPNOX . 15745 1. 7245 .67600 

5.FECO -.05094 - . 11109 . 13614 

6.FENOX -.09135 -.68857 .46913 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

F-STAT SIGNIF 

216.66 o. 

T-STAT SIGNIF 

1. 7001 .0903 

3. 1038 .0021 

-.94933 .3434 

-4.5846 .0000 

-5.7585 .0000 

17.270 .0000 

1. 1405 .2552 

-2.6342 .0090 

2.5057 .0128 

-.23553 .8140 

-.48375 .6290 

-1.4471 .1491 

F-STAT SIGNIF 

239.20 o. 

T-STAT SIGNIF 

1.7112 .0882 

3. 1045 .0021 

-.95670 .3396 

-4.6306 .0000 

-5.7644 .0000 

17.318 .0000 

1.1229 .2625 

-2.6324 .0090 

2.5510 .0113 

-.81606 .4152 

-1 .4678 . 1434 
4.FEHC -.01475 .8140 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 11 .UMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9 7881. 2 875.69 266.05 0. 

ERROR 257 845.90 3.2915 

TOTAL 266 8727.1 

MULTIPLE R= .95030 R-SQR= .90307 SE= 1. 8142 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 4. 3017 2.4665 1.7440 .0823 

22.VDHP .18581 .25731 .84879 -1 3.0315 .0027 

23.DISP -.05848 -.34561 -2 .36803 -2 -.93909 .3486 

24.RTHP -.28043 -.33192 -1 .70868 -2 -4.6836 .0000 

27.NSVR -.34134 -.11887 .20419 -1 -5.8217 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 73406 71883 . 4148. 1 17.329 .0000 

1.FTPHC .07525 2. 1048 1.7397 1.2098 .2275 

2.FTPCO - . 18570 -.33634 . 11101 -3.0297 .0027 

3.FTPNOX . 16065 1. 7592 .67422 2.6093 .0096 

6. FENOX -.08529 ·-.63765 .46466 -1. 3723 . 1712 Vl 

I 

N 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGN IF 

4. FEHC -.04355 .4862 

5. FECO -.05094 .4152 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 11 .UMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 7878.3 984.79 299.33 0. 

ERROR 258 848.81 3.2899 

TOTAL 266 8727.1 

MULTIPLE R= .95013 R-SQR= .90274 SE= 1 . 8138 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 3.3302 2.2385 1. 4877 . 1381 

22.VDHP . 17959 .24655 .84083 -1 2.9323 .0037 

24.RTHP -.33737 -.36244 -1 .62962 -2 -5.7564 .0000 

27.NSVR -.34910 - . 11080 . 18516 -1 -5.9839 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 76411 73322 . 3853.8 19.026 .0000 

1. FTPHC .07912 2.2126 1. 7355 1. 2749 .2035 
2. FTPCO -.18366 -.33290 . 11093 -3.0010 .0030 

3.FTPNOX . 15453 1. 6802 .66880 2.5123 .0126 

6.FENOX -.09243 -.68800 .46145 -1.4910 . 1372 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

23.0ISP -.05848 .3486 

4.FEHC -.04367 .4841 

5.FECO -.04951 .4275 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 11.UMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 7873.0 1124. 1 341 .04 o. 

ERROR 259 854. 15 3.2979 

TOTAL 266 8727.1 

MULTIPLE R= .94980 R-SQR= .90213 SE= 1. 8160 .. -------· / 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR _ T-"STAT SIGNIF I 

CONSTANT 3.6224 2.2295 1. 6248 . 1054 

22.VOHP . 17778 .24472 .84172 -1 2.9074 .0040 

Vl 24.RTHP -.33019 - . 35170 -1 .62471 -2 -5.6297 .0000 

I 

w 27.NSVR -.35656 - . 11325 . 18438 -1 -6.1419 .0000 

40.ETWM1 .76323 73350. 3858.4 19.011 .0000 

2.FTPCO -.16714 -.26127 .95762 -1 -2.7283 .0068 

3.FTPNOX . 14868 1. 6156 .66768 2.4197 .0162 

6. FENOX -.07982 -.58646 .45507 -1.2897 . 1986 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

23.DISP -.06339 .3086 

1.FTPHC .07912 .2035 

4.FEHC - .02895 .6422 

5. FECO -.05681 .3616 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 11.UMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 7867.5 1311.3 396.60 o. 

ERROR 260 859.63 3.3063 

TOTAL 266 8727.1 

MULTIPLE R= .94947 R-SQR= .90150 SE= 1.8183 
VARIABLE 

CONSTANT 

22.VDHP 

24.RTHP 

27.NSVR 

40.ETWM1 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

REMAINING 

23.DISP 

1. FTPHC 

4. FEHC 

5. FECO 

6.FENOX 

REGRESSION OF 

STEP R-SQR 

0 .90334 

1 .90332 

2 .90307 

3 .90274 

4 .90213 

5 .90150 l.J1 

·1 

+:-

PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT 

4.0430 2.2082 1.8309 

. 16886 .23093 .83595 -1 2.7625 

-.33227 -.35501 -1 .62498 -2 -5.6804 

-.35161 -.11151 . 18412 -1 -6.0562 

. 76303 72529 . 3810.3 19.035 

- . 15946 -.24837 .95358 -1 -2.6046 

. 13291 .98681 .45638 2. 1623 

PARTIAL SIGNIF 

-.07126 .2513 

.06391 .3037 

-.02857 .6459 

-.04363 .4828 

-.07982 . 1986 

11.UMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STD ERROR # VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL 

1. 8188 11 

1 . 8154 10 

1 . 8142 9 

1 . 8138 8 

1 . 8160 7 

1 . 8183 6 

4. FEHC 

5.FECO 

23.DISP 

1. FTPHC 

6. FENOX 

IN 

OUT 

OUT 

OUT 

OUT 

OUT 

/ .----·--. 

- .01475 

-.05094 

-.05848 

.07912 

-.07982 

SIGNIF 

.0683· 

.0061 

.0000 

.0000 

.0000 

.0097 

.0315 

SIGN IF 

.8140 

.4152 

.3486 

.2035 

. 1986 
<SELECT BYST OPTIONS=STEPWISE,BACKWARO VAR=11;22-24,27,40,1-6 MAXIM=10 STRAT=V50:81*V36:(1-7,10-17)*V28:(1,6,8)> 

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(CA,CA,CA) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 11. UMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 1 1675.5 152.32 76. 138 .0000 

ERROR 85 170.04 2.0005 

TOTAL 96 1845.5 

MULTIPLE R= .95282 R-SQR= .90786 SE= 1 . 4144 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 9.9789 3.5123 2.8411 .0056 

22.VOHP . 12906 . 14232 . 11861 1.1999 .2335 

23.0ISP -.21762 -.94206 -2 .45829 -2 -2.0556 .0429 

24.RTHP -.28686 -.23881 -1 .86502 -2 -2.7607 .0071 

27.NSVR -.21535 -.57307 - 1 .28186 -1 -2.0332 .0452 

40.ETWM1 .62636 51554. 6959.2 7.4080 .0000 

1. FTPHC -.05356 -1. 3776 2.7860 -.49446 .6223 

2.FTPCO .04779 .64247 -1 . 14565 .44111 .6603 

3.FTPNOX -.05756 -.54008 1.0161 -.53152 .5964 

4.FEHC .02906 .96623 3.6053 .26800 .7893 

5.FECO - . 13759 -.20991 . 16390 -1.2807 .2038 

6.FENOX -.06930 -.43213 .67474 -.64044 .5236 

Vl 

I 

Vl 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 11.UMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGf'41F 

REGRESSION 10 1675.3 167.53 84.'658 .0000 

ERROR 86 170. 19 1. 9789 

TOTAL 96 1845.5 

MULTIPLE R= .95278 R-SQR= . 90778 SE= 1. 4067 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 10.033 3.4875 2.8769 .0051 

22.VOHP .12702 . 13957 . 11753 1.1875 .2383 

23.0ISP -.21673 -.93786 -2 .45555 -2 -2.0588 .0425 

24.RTHP -.28613 -.23815 -1 .86000 -2 -2.7693 .0069 

27.NSVR -.21714 -.57736 -1 .27988 -1 -2.0629 .0421 

40.ETWM1 .62643 51580. 6920.9 7.4527 .0000 

1 .FTPHC -.04783 -1. 1918 2.6839 -.44408 .6581 

2.FTPCO .04441 .59214 -1 . 14365 .41221 .6812 

3.FTPNOX -.06234 -.57931 1 .0001 -.57926 .5639 

5.FECO - . 14360 - . 18692 . 13891 -1. 3456 . 1820 

6.FENOX -.07067 -.44042 .67039 -.65696 .5130 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
4. FEHC .02906 .7893 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 11. UMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9 1675.0 186 . 11 94.952 .0000 

ERROR 87 170. 52 1 .9600 

TOTAL 96 1845.5 

MULTIPLE R= .95268 R-SQR= .90760 SE= 1.4000 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 10.075 3.4693 2.9042 .0047 

22.VDHP . 12087 . 13050 .11490 1 . 1358 .2592 

23.DISP -.22191 -.95725 -2 .45095 -2 -2. 1227 .0366 

24.RTHP -.28715 -.23921 -1 .85550 -2 -2.7962 .0064 

27.NSVR -.21693 -.57734 -1 .27855 .-1 -2.0727 .0412 

40.ETWM1 . 62696 51674 . 6884.1 7.5063 .0000 

1. FTPHC -.02547 - . 49117 2.0670 -.23762 .8127 

3.FTPNOX -.05164 -.45923 .95214 -.48231 .6308 

5. FECO -. 13749 - . 17522 . 13533 -1. 2947 . 1988 

6. FENOX -.08255 -.50236 .65021 - . 77262 .4418 Vl 

I 

°' REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

2. FTPCO .04441 .6812 

4. FEHC .02306 . 8311 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 11. UMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 1674.9 209.36 107.97 .0000 

ERROR 88 170.63 1. 9390 

TOTAL 96 1845.5 

MULTIPLE R= .95265 R-SQR= .90754 SE= 1. 3925 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 10.019 3.4426 2.9103 .0046 

22.VDHP . 12290 . 13243 .11399 1.1617 .2485 

23.DISP -.22127 -.95431 -2 .44835 -2 -2. 1285 .0361 

24.RTHP -.30408 -.24484 -1 .81768 -2 -2.9943 .0036 

27.NSVR -.21912 -.58214 -1 .27632 -1 -2. 1067 .0380 

40.ETWM1 . 62862 51789 . 6830. 1 7.5824 .0000 
3.FTPNOX -.05174 -.46027 .94701 -.48603 .6282 

5.FECO -.14141 - . 17908 . 13364 -1. 3400 .1837 

6.FENOX -.09570 -.55214 .61222 -.90187 .3696 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

1.FTPHC -.02547 .8127 

2.FTPCO .01822 .8654 

4.FEHC .01694 .8748 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 11 .UMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 7 1674.4 239.20 124.43 .0000 

ERROR 89 171. 09 1. 9224 

TOTAL 96 1845.5 

MULTIPLE R= .95252 R-SQR= . 90729 SE= 1.3865 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-SfAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 9.8343 3.4068 2.8867 .0049 

22.VOHP . 13294 .14163 . 11193 1. 2654 .2090 

Vl 23.0ISP -.22466 -.96883 -2 .44543 -2 -2 .1750 .0323 

I 24.RTHP -.30662 -.24704 -1 .81291 -2 -3.0390 .0031 -....J 

27.NSVR -.21673 -.57556 -1 .27480 -1 -2.0944 .0391 

40.ETWM1 .62742 51650. 6794.8 7.6014 .0000 

5.FECO - . 14049 -.17811 . 13305 -1. 3387 .1841 

6~FENOX -.15172 -.72290 .49922 -1. 4481 .1511 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGN IF 

1.FTPHC -.02567 .8102 

2. FTPCO .00570 .9575 

3.FTPNOX -.05174 .6282 

4. FEHC .02603 .8076 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 11. UMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 1671. 3 278.56 143.94 .0000 

ERROR 90 174. 17 1. 9352 

TOTAL 96 1845.5 

MULTIPLE R= .95164 R-SQR= .90562 SE= 1 . 3911 
VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 12.312 2.7970 4.4020 .0000 

23.DISP -.20866 -.89726 -2 .44330 -2 -2.0240 .0459 

24.RTHP -.34521 -.27437 - 1 .78630 -2 -3.4894 .0008 

27.NSVR - . 17959 -.43938 -1 .25370 -1 -1.7319 .0867 

40. ETWM1 .65366 47003. 5736.3 8. 1941 .0000 

5. FECO - . 14746 - . 18846 . 13324 - 1 . 4144 . 1607 

6. FENOX - . 17085 -.81514 .49552 -1. 6450 . 1035 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP . 13294 .2090 

1.FTPHC -.03501 .7418 

2. FTPCO -.02421 .8198 

3.FTPNOX -.07265 .4937 

4.FEHC .01960 .8537 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 6 FOR 11. UMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 5 1667.5 333.50 170. 45 .0000 

ERROR 91 178.04 1. 9565 

TOTAL 96 1845.5 Vt 

I 

CXl MULTIPLE R= .95054 R-SQR= .90353 SE= 1. 3988 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 12. 124 2.8091 4.3160 .0000 

23.DISP -.20477 -.88948 -2 .44570 -2 -1. 9957 .0490 

24.RTHP -.34552 -.27758 -1 .79029 -2 -3.5124 .0007 

27.NSVR - . 19037 -.47013 -1 .25415 -1 -1.8498 .0676 

40. ETWM1 . 65307 47393 . 5761 . 1 8.2265 .0000 

6.FENOX - . 13091 -.59618 .47329 -1. 2596 . 2110 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP . 14030 .1822 

1.FTPHC -.05265 .6182 

2.FTPCO -.05737 .5870 

3.FTPNOX -.07120 .5000 

4. FEHC -.05997 .5701 

5.FECO - . 14746 . 1607 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 7 FOR 11.UMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 
REGRESSION 4 1664.4 416.09 211 . 32 .0000 

ERROR 92 181.15 1. 9690 

TOTAL 96 1845.5 

MULTIPLE R= .94966 R-SQR= .90185 SE= 1. 4032 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 12.271 2.8156 4.3583 .0000 

23.DISP -.26152 - . 10874 -1 .41841 -2 -2.5989 .0109 

24.RTHP -.32732 -.25856 -1 .77820 -2 -3.3225 .0013 

27.NSVR -.17113 -.41940 - 1 .25174 -1 -1 .6660 .0991 

40.ETWM1 . 64577 45957 . 5665.0 8.1124 .0000 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP . 15534 . 1371 

1.FTPHC -.09808 .3496 

2.FTPCO -.07625 .4676 

3.FTPNOX - .13551 . 1953 

4. FEHC -.03018 . 7740 

5. FECO -.09798 .3501 

6.FENOX - . 13091 . 2110 

REGRESSION OF 11.UMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STEP R-SQR STD ERROR H VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

V1 

I 0 .90786 1 . 4144 11 IN l.D 1 .90778 1. 4067 10 4.FEHC OUT .02906 .7893 

2 .90760 1.4000 9 2. FTPCO OUT .04441 .6812 

3 .90754 1. 3925 8 1. FTPHC OUT -.02547 .8127 

4 .90729 1. 3865 7 3.FTPNOX OUT -.05174 .6282 

5 .90562 1 . 3911 6 22.VOHP OUT . 13294 .2090 

6 .90353 1. 3988 5 5.FECO OUT - . 14746 . 1607 

7 .90185 1. 4032 4 6.FENOX OUT - . 13091 . 2110 
SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(CM,CM,CM) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 11. UMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 11 3210.6 291. 87 79.718 .0000 

ERROR 95 347.83 3.6613 

TOTAL 106 3558.4 

MULTIPLE R= .94987 R-SQR= .90225 SE= 1 . 9135 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 7. 1304 4.3368 1. 6442 . 1034 

22.VDHP . 16015 .25523 . 16140 1. 5814 . 1171 

23.DISP . 10123 .83965 -2 .84662 -2 .99177 .3238 

24.RTHP -.42421 -.73042 -1 . 15997 -1 -4.5659 .0000 

27.NSVR -.28486 -.11174 .38578 -1 -2.8965 .0047 

40.ETWM1 . 74209 71856 . 6659.0 10.791 .0000 

1.FTPHC .21225 6.8089 3.2163 2. 1170 .0369 

2.FTPCO -.36298 -1.2555 .33067 -3.7969 .0003 

3.FTPNOX .06603 .74025 1. 1477 .64498 .5205 

4. FEHC -.00005 -.50066 -2 10.631 -.47096 -3 .9996 

5. FECO -.01161 -.95846 -1 .84708 -.11315 .9102 

6. FENDX .04386 .32678 .76371 .42789 .6697 

Vl 

I 

I-' 

0 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 11. UMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 10 3210.6 321. 06 88.613 .0000 

ERROR 96 347.83 3.6232 

TOTAL 106 3558.4 

MULTIPLE R= .94987 R-SQR= .90225 SE= 1. 9035 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 7. 1308 4.2337 1. 6843 .0954 

22.VDHP . 16206 .25522 .15861 1. 6091 .1109 

23.DISP .10226 .83959 -2 .83359 -2 1.0072 .3164 

24.RTHP -.42729 -.73043 -1 . 15774 -1 -4.6306 .0000 

27.NSVR -.28894 -.11174 .37786 -1 -2.9571 .0039 

40.ETWM1 .75341 71855. 6400.6 11.226 .0000 

1. FTPHC .24016 6.8081 2.8086 2.4240 .0172 

2.FTPCO -.37663 -1. 2555 .31516 -3.9835 .0001 

3.FTPNOX .06605 .74026 1.1413 .64859 .5182 

5. FECO - .01592 - . 96118 -1 .61622 -.15598 .8764 

6. FENOX .04420 .32674 .75367 .43353 .6656 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
4. FEHC -.00005 .9996 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 11. UMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 9 3210.5 356.73 99.456 .0000 

ERROR 97 347.91 3.5867 

TOTAL 106 3558.4 

MULTIPLE R= .94986 R-SQR= .90223 SE= 1. 8939 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 7.2003 4. 1891 1.7188 .0888 

22.VOHP . 16143 .25180 . 15629 1.6111 .1104 

23.0ISP . 10440 .85295 -2 .82499 -2 1. 0339 .3038 

24.RTHP -.44424 -.73717 -1 . 15095 -1 -4.8837 .0000 

27.NSVR -.28881 -.11170 .37595 -1 -2.9710 .0037 

40.ETWM1 . 75442 71760 . 6339.4 11.320 .0000 

1. FTPHC .24508 6.8752 2.7615 2.4897 .0145 

2.FTPCO -.39308 -1. 2690 .30141 -4.2103 .0001 

3.FTPNOX .07126 .77943 1. 1078 .70362 .4834 

6.FENOX .04404 .32557 Vl .74983 .43419 .6651 

I 

f-' 

f-' REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

4. FEHC -.01089 .9152 

5. FEGO -.01592 .8764 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 11.UMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 8 3209.9 401. 23 112.80 .0000 

ERROR 98 348.59 3.5571 

TOTAL 106 3558.4 

MULTIPLE R= .94976 R-SQR= .90204 SE= 1. 8860 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 6.7380 4.0347 1.6700 .0981 

22.VOHP . 17665 .26826 . 15099 1. 7766 .0787 

23.0ISP .10418 .85195 -2 .82157 -2 1. 0370 .3023 

24.RTHP -.44271 -.72905 -1 . 14916 -1 -4.8876 .0000 

27.NSVR -.29018 -.11231 .37413 -1 -3.0018 .0034 

40.ETWM1 .76663 72423. 6127. 4 11. 819 .0000 
1. FTPHC .24343 6.8272 2.7478 2.4846 .0147 

2.FTPCO -.39462 -1.2749 .29986 -4.2516 .0000 

3.FTPNOX . 17271 1. 1618 .66930 1.7358 .0857 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

4. FEHC -.00646 .9494 

5. FECO - .01546 .8793 

6.FENOX .04404 .6651 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 11. UMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 7 3206.0 458.00 128.66 .0000 

ERROR 99 352.42 3.5598 

TOTAL 106 3558.4 

MULTIPLE R= .94919 R-SQR= .90096 SE= 1. 8867 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 8.2543 3.7618 2. 1942 .0306 

22.VOHP . 16297 .24566 . 14947 1. 6435 . 1034 Vl 24.RTHP -.46100 -.64389 -1 .12457 - 1 -5. 1690 .0000 I 

t-' 27.NSVR -.31861 - . 12156 .36347 -1 -3.3444 .0012 N 40.ETWM1 . 77008 70630 . 5880.6 12 .011 .0000 

1.FTPHC .23559 6.6113 2.7410 2.4120 .0177 

2.FTPCO -.39087 -1.2670 .29988 -4.2252 .0001 

3.FTPNOX .21354 1.3814 .63516 2.1748 .0320 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

23.0ISP . 10418 .3023 

4:FEHC -.00277 .9781 

5.FECO -.02601 .7973 

6.FENOX .04351 .6673 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 11. UMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 3196.4 532.74 147. 15 .0000 

ERROR 100 362.03 3.6203 

TOTAL 106 3558.4 

MULTIPLE R= .94777 R-SQR= .89826 SE= 1. 9027 
; I 

VARIABLE PARTIAL· COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF : 

I 

CONSTANT 11.346 3.2852 3.4537 .0008 

24.RTHP -.47041 -.66582 -1 . 12490 -1 -5.3308 .0000 

27.NSVR -.28375 - . 10324 .34888 -1 -2.9591 .0039 

40.ETWM1 11 . 77699 66628 . 5398.2 12.343 .0000 

1. FTPHC .23016 6.5367 2.7638 2.3651 .0200 I: 

2. FTPCO -.39295 -1. 2908 .30206 -4.2733 .0000 , I 

3.FTPNOX .20405 1. 3337 .63988 2.0844 .0397 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGN IF 

22.VDHP . 16297 . 1034 

23.DISP .07818 .4371 

4. FEHC .03518 .7269 

5. FECO .00074 .9942 

6. FENOX .08161 .4172 

REGRESSION OF 11.UMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STEP R-SQR STD ERROR # VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGN IF 

0 .90225 1 . 9135 11 IN 

1 . 90225 1.9035 10 4.FEHC OUT -.00005 .9996 

2 .90223 1 . 8939 9 5.FECO OUT -.01592 .8764 

3 .90204 1. 8860 8 6.FENOX OUT .04404 .6651 

4 .90096 1. 8867 7 23.DISP OUT . 10418 .3023 

5 .89826 1 . 9027 6 22.VDHP OUT . 16297 . 1034 

U1 

I 

I-' 

VJ 
SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(LA,LA) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 11.UMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 11 312.30 28.391 55.376 .0000 

ERROR 51 26. 148 .51270 

TOTAL 62 338.45 

MULTIPLE R= .96059 R-SQR= .92274 SE= .71603 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 20.401 2.4956 8. 1747 .0000 

22.VDHP -.18428 -.12310 .91935 -1 -1.3390 . 1865 

23.0ISP -.61733 -.25572 -1 .45633 -2 -5.6039 .0000 

24.RTHP -.15213 -.74497 -2 . 67774 -2 -1.0992 .2768 

27.NSVR -.19583 -.42972 -1 .30132 -1 -1.4261 . 1599 

40.ETWM1 . 52819 27964 . 6295.0 4.4423 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.25446 -4.2266 2.2493 -1.8791 .0660 

2.FTPCO . 10770 '.91243 -1 .11794 .77363 .4427 

3.FTPNOX .45293 2.3989 .66122 3.6281 .0007 

4. FEHC .08627 3.9081 6.3194 .61843 .5390 

5. FECO -.11779 - . 18839 .22239 -.84711 .4009 

6,FENOX -.34244 -1. 2723 .48881 -2.6029 .0121 

V1 

I 

I-' 

.i:--

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 11. UMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 10 312.11 31.211 61.607 .0000 

ERROR 52 26.344 .50662 

TOTAL 62 338.45 

MULTIPLE R= .96029 R-SQR= .92216 SE= . 71177 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 20.047 2.4149 8.3015 .0000 

22.VOHP - . 17041 -.11162 .89506 -1 -1.2471 .2180 

23.0ISP -.61391 -.25380 -1 .45256 -2 -5.6081 .0000 

24.RTHP - . 15655 -.76878 -2 .67262 -2 -1. 1430 .2583 

27.NSVR - . 18382 -.39802 -1 .29516 -1 -1. 3485 . 1833 

40.ETWM1 . 53469 28385 . 6220.9 4.5627 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.25480 -3.3868 1.7825 -1.9001 .0630 

2. FTPCO .07840 .60137 -1 . 10604 .56710 .5731 

3.FTPNOX .45351 2.4108 .65700 3.6693 .0006 

5.FECO -.08973 -.66472 -1 .10231 -.64969 .5187 

6. FENOX -.33628 -1. 2466 .48414 -2.5749 .0129 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
4.FEHC .08627 .5390 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 11.UMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9 311. 95 34.661 69.303 .0000 

ERROR 53 26.507 .50013 

TOTAL 62 338.45 

MULTIPLE R= .96004 R-SQR= .92168 SE= .70720 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 20.072 2.3990 8.3665 .0000 I 

I 22.VDHP -.15451 -.96890 -1 .85104 -1 -1.1385 .2600 I! 23.DISP -.61533 -.25517 -1 .44902 -2 -5.6829 .0000 I 24.RTHP - . 16833 -.82255 -2 .66163 -2 -1. 2432 .2193 

27.NSVR - . 17040 -.35907 -1 .28521 -1 -1.2590 .2136 

40.ETWM1 . 53064 27868 . 6114.4 4.5578 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.24869 -2.8986 1. 5507 -1.8692 .0671 

3.FTPNOX .44861 2.3734 .64950 3.6542 .0006 

5. FECO -.06350 -.43104 - 1 .93046 - 1 -.46325 .. 6451 

6. FENOX -.34716 -1.2842 .47650 -2.6950 .0094 

Vl 

,, 

p 

Vl REMAINING PARTIAL SIGN IF 

2. FTPCO .07840 .5731 

4. FEHC .04436 .7501 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 11.UMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 311 . 84 38.980 79.089 .0000 

ERROR 54 26.614 .49286 

TOTAL 62 338.4'6 

MULTIPLE R= .95988 R-SQR= .92136 SE= .70204 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 20. 151 2.3755 8.4828 .0000 

22.VDHP - . 17057 -.10511 .82628 -1 -1.2720 .2088 

23.DISP -.61580 -.25586 -1 .44549 -2 -5.7433 .0000 

24.RTHP - . 16492 -.80582 -2 .65582 -2 -1. 2287 .2245 

27.NSVR - . 16917 -.35708 -1 . 28310 -1 -1.2613 .2126 

40.ETWM1 . 52917 27811 . 6068.5 4.5828 .0000 
1.FTPHC -.25953 -3.0059 1 . 5221 -1. 9749 .0534 

3.FTPNOX .44742 2.3702 .64472 3.6764 .0005 

6.FENOX -.34227 -1. 2370 .46212 -2.6769 .0098 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

2.FTPCO .04604 .7386 

4. FEHC -.03238 .8144 

5. FECO -.06350 .6451 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 11 .UMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 7 311. 09 44.442 89.344 .0000 

ERROR 55 27.358 .49743 

TOTAL 62 338.45 

MULTIPLE R= .95873 R-SQR= . 91917 SE= .70528 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 19.979 2.3824 8.3864 .0000 

22.VOHP -.13387 -.80730 -1 .80582 -1 -1.0018 .3208 

V1 23.0ISP -.78279 -.29464 -1 .31583 -2 -9.3291 .0000 

I 27.NSVR - . 21140 -.44230 -1 .27574 -1 -1. 6041 . 1144 I-' 

0\ 40.ETWM1 .53510 28512. 6069.6 4.6975 .0000 

1. FTPHC -.27289 -3. 1995 1. 5209 -2. 1036 .0400 

3.FTPNOX .45115 2.4229 .64627 3.7490 .0004 

6.FENOX -.33582 -1.2274 .46419 -2.6441 .0107 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

24.RTHP - . 16492 .2245 

2.FTPCO .06975 .6095 

4. FEHC -.02487 .8556 

5.FECO -.05354 .6951 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 11. UMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 310.60 51. 766 104 .06 .0000 

ERROR 56 27.858 .49746 

TOTAL 62 338.45 

MULTIPLE R= .95796 R-SQR= .91769 SE= .70531 
VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 18.660 1.9853 9.3992 .0000 

23.DISP -.77842 -.29027 -1 . 31281 -2 -9.2794 .0000 

27.NSVR - . 17474 -.34039 -1 .25629 - 1 -1. 3281 . 1895 

40.ETWM1 . 53217 28551 . 6069.7 4.7038 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.28179 -3 .·3304 1 . 5154 -2. 1977 .0321 

3.FTPNOX .45288 2.4539 .64555 3 .8012 .0004 

6.FENOX -.34509 -1.2715 . 46211 -2.7515 .0080 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP -.13387 .3208 

24.RTHP - .12651 .3484 

2.FTPCO .01270 .9253 

4.FEHC -.05457 .6868 

5.FECO -.08202 .5442 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 6 FOR 11. UMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 5 309.72 61. 944 122.87 .0000 

ERROR 57 28.735 .50412 

TOTAL 62 338.45 

\Jl 

I MULTIPLE R= .95661 R-SQR= .91510 SE= .71002 I-' 

-..J 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 18.563 1. 9972 9.2945 .0000 

23.DISP -.77173 -.28812 -1 .31448 -2 -9.1618 .0000 

40.ETWM1 .55091 23388. 4692.9 4.9838 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.24360 -2.7841 1.4682 -1.8963 .0630 

3.FTPNOX .47170 2.5909 .64151 4.0388 .0002 

6.FENOX -.32324 -1.1887 .46095 -2.5789 .0125 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP -.05804 .6652 

24.RTHP -.17631 . 1855 

27.NSVR - . 17474 . 1895 

2.FTPCO .00791 .9530 

4.FEHC -.03891 . 7718 

5.FECO -.05924 .6587 

REGRESSION OF 11.UMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STEP R-SQR STD ERROR N VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

0 .92274 .71603 11 IN 

1 .92216 .71177 10 4.FEHC --......OUT .08627 .5390 , 
2 .92168 .70720 9 2.FTPCO OUT .07840 .5731 

3 .92136 . 70204 8 5.FECO OUT -.06350 .6451 

4 .91917 .70528 7 24.RTHP OUT - . 16492 .2245 

5 .91769 .70531 6 22.VDHP OUT - . 13387 .3208 

6 .91510 .71002 5 27.NSVR OUT - . 17474 . 1895 

.. --......... , 

.. .-- ,. , 
<SELECT BYST OPTIONS=STEPWISE,BACKWARD VAR=12;22-24,27,40,1-6 MAXIM=10 STRAT=V50:81*V36:(1-7,10-17)> 

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP: ( 1-7, 10-17) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 12.HMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF ! , I , REGRESSION 1 1 13779. 1252.7 151.14 o. 

ERROR 255 2113.5 8.2883 

TOTAL 266 15893. 

MULTIPLE R= . 93114 R-SQR= .86701 SE= 2.8789 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF . 

CONSTANT 32.215 3.9185 8.2213 .0000 

22.VDHP - . 19500 -.43076 . 13568 -3. 1748 .0017 

23.DISP -.28485 -.27727 -1 .58431 -2 -4.7452 .0000 

24.RTHP - . 16999 -.31137 -1 . 11304 -1 -2.7547 .0063 

27.NSVR -.62413 -.41422 .32472 -1 -12.756 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 61618 82379 .. 6593.9 12.493 .0000 

1. FTPHC . 16478 7.7455 2.9032 2.6679 .0081 

2.FTPCO - . 17405 -.52776 . 18698 -2.8225 .0051 

3.FTPNOX . 10556 1. 8279 1. 0784 1. 6951 .0913 

4.FEHC -.02990 -2.9099 6.0926 -.47761 .6333 

5.FECO .00697 .30963 -1 .27814 .11132 . 9114 

6.FENOX -.04408 -.52522 .74547 -.70455 .4817 

U1 

I 

f--' 

'° ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 12.HMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 10 13779. 1377.9 166.89 o. 

ERROR 256 2113.6 8.2563 

TOTAL 266 15893. 

MULTIPLE R= .93113 R-SQR= .86701 SE= 2.8734 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 32.211 3.9108 8.2365 .0000 

22.VDHP - . 19503 -.42962 . 13503 -3.1816 .0016 

23.DISP -.28517 -.27748 -1 .58289 -2 -4.7604 .0000 

24.RTHP - . 17009 -.31154 -1 .11281 -1 ·-2.7617 .0062 

27.NSVR -.62472 -.41398 .32340 -1 -12. 801 .0000 

40.ETWM1 .61631 82352. 6576.6 12.522 .0000 

1 .FTPHC . 16864 7.6618 2.7989 2.7375 .0066 

2.FTPCO -.18147 -.52098 . 17645 -2.9525 .0034 

3.FTPNOX . 10571 1. 8303 1 . 0761 1.7009 .0902 

4. FEHC -.03285 -2.4822 4.7199 -.52591 .5994 

6. FENOX -.04554 - . 53711 .73636 -.72941 .4664 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
5. FECO .00697 . 9114 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 12.HMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 9 13777. 1530.8 185.93 o. 

ERROR 257 2115.9 8.2331 

TOTAL 266 15893. 

MULTIPLE R= .93106 R-SQR= .86686 SE= 2.8693 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 32.308 3.9009 8.2823 .0000 

22.VDHP - . 19870 -.43631 . 13424 -3.2501 .0013 

23.DISP -.28513 -.27758 -1 .58206 -2 -4.7689 .0000 

24.RTHP -.17399 -.31748 -1 .11208 -1 -2.8326 .0050 

27.NSVR -.62462 -.41409 .32294 -1 -12.823 .0000 1 J 40.ETWM1 .61577 82194. 6560.5 12.529 .0000 

1. FTPHC . 16552 7.4033 2.7515 2.6906 .0076 I 2.FTPCO - . 18465 -.52882 . 17558 -3.0119 .0029 

3.FTPNOX .11049 1. 9004 1. 0663 1.7822 .0759 

6.FENOX -.04441 -.52373 .73488 -.71267 .4767 Vl 

I 

I! N 

0 REMAINING PARTIAL SIGN IF 

4.FEHC -.03285 .5994 

5.FECO -.01531 .8067 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 12.HMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT ·· SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 13773. 1721 . 6 209.51 o. 

ERROR 258 2120. 1 8.2174 

TOTAL 266 15893. 

MULTIPLE R= .93091 R-SQR= .86660 SE= 2.8666 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 32.847 3.8234 8.5910 .0000 

22.VOHP -.20432 -.44688 . 13329 -3.3527 .0009 

23.0ISP -.29115 -.28237 -1 .57762 -2 -4.8884 .0000 

24.RTHP -.17234 -.31446 -1 . 11190 - 1 -2.8103 .0053 

27.NSVR -.62425 -.41409 .32263 -1 -12.835 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 61836 81297 . 6432.6 12.6:18 .0000 
Vl 

I 

N 

I-' 

1.FTPHC 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

REMAINING 

4.FEHC 

5.FECO 

6.FENOX 

REGRESSION OF 

STEP R-SQR 

0 .86701 

1 .86701 

2 .86686 

3 .86660 

. 16025 7.0529 

- . 1798 1 -.50741 

. 11182 1.3640 

PARTIAL SIGNIF 

-.03127 .6165 

-.00925 .8823 

-.04441 .4767 

12.HMPG USING BACKWARD 

STD ERROR H VAR 

2.8789 11 

2.8734 10 

2.8693 9 

2.8666 8 

2.7046 2.6077 .0096 

. 17282 -2.9360 .0036 

.75464 1. 8075 .0719 

SELECTION 

VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

IN 

5. FECO OUT .00697 . 9114 

4. FEHC OUT -.03285 .5994 

6. FENOX OUT -.04441 .4767 
V1 

I 

N 

N 

i SE l~ Y S r..i1ii1ii I ONiliiF PW Jlili.iACK~ VA~ 2-46.ii , 40 ..... MAYlllilliiiiiO S iiillif V5CJailiWiiV36 .... , 1o.mw.* V2~ 6 , 8 ... 

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(CA,CA,CA) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 12.HMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE 

REGRESSION 

ERROR 

TOTAL 

OF 

11 

85 

96 

SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE 

2323.3 211.21 

443.10 5.2129 

2766.4 

MULTIPLE R= .91642 R-SQR= .83983 SE= 2.2832 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR 

CONSTANT 38.402 5.6697 

22.VDHP -.39941 -.76909 .19147 

23.DISP - . 19307 -.13421 -1 .73980 -2 

24.RTHP -.35372 -.48685 -1 . 13964 -1 

27.NSVR -.36055 -.16215 .45499 -1 

40.ETWM1 . 32891 36073 . 11234. 

1.FTPHC -.04053 -1.6818 4.4974 

2. FTPCO .11524 .25148 .23511 

3.FTPNOX -.08355 -1.2678 1. 6403 

4.FEHC .02485 1.3336 5.8198 

5.FECO -.02737 -.66781 -1 .26457 

6.FENOX .01979 . 19878 1 .0892 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 12.HMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE 

REGRESSION 10 2323.2 232.32 

ERROR 86 443.27 5. 1543 

TOTAL 96 2766.4 

MULTIPLE R= .91639 R-SQR= .83977 SE= 2.2703 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR 

CONSTANT 38.379 5.6363 

22.VDHP -.40035 - . 77064 .19021 

23.DISP - . 19323 -.13139 - 1 .71940 -2 

24.RTHP -.36969 -.49366 -1 . 13379 -1 

27.NSVR -.36141 - . 16249 .45205 -1 

40. ETWM1 .33027 36189~ 11153. 

1.FTPHC -.03567 -1. 3667 4. 1294 

2. FTPCO . 11375 .24170 .22763 

3.FTPNOX -.08733 -1.1010 1.3543 

4. FEHC .02396 1. 2849 5.7809 

5. FECO -.03093 -.74519 -1 .25968 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

F-STAT SIGNIF 

40.517 .0000 

T-STAT SIGNIF 

6.7733 .0000 

-4.0167 .0001 

-1.8141 .0732 

-3.4866 .0008 

-3.5639 .0006 

3.2111 .0019 

-.37395 .7094 

1.0696 .2878 

-.77295 .4417 

.22915 .8193 

-.25241 .8013 

. 18250 .8556 

F-STAT SIGNIF 

45.072 .0000 

T-STAT SIGN IF 

6.8093 .0000 

-4.0516 .0001 

-1. 8264 .0713 

-3.6897 .0004 

-3.5945 .0005 

3.2449 .0017 

-.33098 .7415 

1 .0618 .2913 

-.81299 .4185 

.22227 .8246 

-.28697 .7748 
6.FENOX .01979 .8556 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 12.HMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9 2322.9 258. 10 50.627 .0000 

ERROR 87 443.53 5.0980 

TOTAL 96 2766.4 

MULTIPLE R= .91634 R-SQR= .83967 SE= 2.2579 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 38.453 5.5958 6.8717 .0000 

22.VDHP -.40303 -.77422 . 18848 -4. 1076 .0001 

23.0ISP -.19267 - . 13099 -1 .71523 -2 -1.8314 .0705 

24.RTHP -.36907 -.49241 -1 . 13294 -1 -3.7039 .0004 

27.NSVR -.36286 - . 16304 .44890 -1 -3.6321 .0005 

40.ETWM1 . 33043 36217 . 11091. 3.2655 .0016 

1.FTPHC -.03064 -1.1367 3.9757 -.28591 .7756 

2. FTPCO . 11168 .23554 .22470 1 .0482 .2974 

3.FTPNOX -.09412 -1.1626 1. 3185 -.88178 .3803 

5.FECO -.02140 -.43461 -1 .21768 -.19966 .8422 

Vl 

I 

N 

w REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

4.FEHC .02396 .8246 

6.FENDX .01867 .8630 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 12.HMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 2322.7 290.34 57.579 .0000 

ERROR 88 443.73 5.0424 

TOTAL 96 2766.4 

MULTIPLE R= .91630 R-SQR= .83960 SE= 2.2455 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 38.379 5.5530 6.9113 .0000 

22.VDHP -.40288 -.77403 . 18745 -4. 1292 .0001 

23.DISP -.19217 -.13063 -1 . 71109 -2 -1. 8370 .0696 

24.RTHP -.37012 -.49363 -1 . 13208 -1 -3.7375 .0003 

27.NSVR -.36616 -.16395 .44416 -1 -3.6912 .0004 

40.ETWM1 .33290 36402. 10992. 3.3118 .0013 
1. FTPHC -.02800 -1 .0293 3.9176 -.26273 .7934 

2.FTPCO . 10998 .22361 .21543 1.0380 .3021 

3.FTPNOX -.09169 -1 .0978 1. 2709 -.86379 .3901 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

4.FEHC .00868 .9357 

5. FECO -.02140 .8422 

6. FENOX .02285 .8317 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 12.HMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 7 2322.4 331. 76 66.490 .0000 

ERROR 89 444.08 4.9897 

TOTAL 96 2766.4 

MULTIPLE R= .91623 R-SQR= .83948 SE= 2.2338 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 38.353 5.5230 6.9442 .0000 

22.VOHP -.40442 -.77672 .18619 -4.1716 .0001 V1 23.0ISP - . 19780 - . 13329 -1 .70015 -2 -1. 9037 .0602 I 

N 24.RTHP -.37637 -.49852 -1 . 13008 -1 -3.8325 .0002 +:- 27.NSVR -.36690 - . 16432 .44161 -1 -3.7208 .0003 

40.ETWM1 . 33423 36539 . 10922. 3.3456 .0012 

2.FTPCO . 11640 .18971 . 17159 1. 1056 .2719 

3.FTPNOX -.09444 -1.1271 1. 2594 -.89491 .3732 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

1.FTPHC -.02800 .7934 

4.FEHC .00452 .9663 

5.FECO -.01741 .8707 

6.FENOX .00962 .9283 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 12.HMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 2318.4 386.39 77.610 .0000 

ERROR 90 448.08 4.9786 

TOTAL 96 2766.4 

MULTIPLE R= .91544 R-SQR= .83803 SE= 2.2313 
VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 37.916 5.4953 6.8997 .0000 

22.VDHP -.39573 -.75162 . 18386 -4.0879 .0001 

23.DISP -.23287 - . 15179 - 1 .66818 -2 -2.2717 .0255 

24.RTHP -.36796 -.48396 - 1 . 12891 -1 -3.7542 .0003 

27.NSVR -.35894 - . 15995 .43842 -1 -3.6483 .0004 

40.ETWM1 . 32658 35593 . 10858. 3.2780 .0015 

2. FTPCO .09553 . 15101 . 16587 .91042 .3650 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

1. FTPHC -.03603 .7345 

3.FTPNOX -.09444 .3732 

4. FEHC .03171 .7654 

5.FECO .00739 .9446 

6.FENOX -.04787 .6523 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 6 FOR 12.HMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN.SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 5 2314.2 462.85 93. 142 .0000 

ERROR 91 452.20 4.9693 

TOTAL 96 2766.4 V1 

I 

N MULTIPLE R= .91463 R-SQR= .83654 SE= 2.2292 V1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 38.462 5.4573 7.0478 .0000 

22.VDHP -.42312 -.79295 . 17800 -4.4547 .0000 

23.DISP -.23508 -.15392 -1 .66714 -2 -2.3072 .0233 

24.RTHP -.35878 -.46765 - 1 . 12754 -1 -3.6667 .0004 

27.NSVR -.35437 - . 15819 .43758 -1 -3.6151 .0005 

40.ETWM1 .32421 35464. 10847. 3.2694 .0015 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

1. FTPHC .03125 .7674 

2.FTPCO .09553 .3650 

3.FTPNOX -.06690 .5263 

4. FEHC .03926 .7102 

5.FECO .02353 .8238 

6.FENOX -.03533 .7381 

REGRESSION OF 12.HMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STEP R-SQR STD ERROR # VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

0 .83983 2.2832 11 IN 

1 .83977 2.2703 10 6.FENOX OUT .01979 .8556 
Vt ,, 

N 

0\ 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

.83967 

.83960 

.83948 

.83803 

.83654 

2.2579 9 

2.2455 8 

2.2338 7 

2.2313 6 

2.2292 5 

4. FEHC OUT .02396 .8246 

5. FECO OUT -.02140 .8422 

1. FTPHC OUT -.02800 .7934 

3.FTPNOX OUT -.09444 .3732 

2.FTPCO OUT .09553 .3650 
<SELECT BYST OPTIONS=STEPWISE,BACKWARD VAR=12;22-24,27,40,1-6 MAXIM=10 STRAT=V50:81*V36:(1-7,10-17)*V28:(2,3,4)> 

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(CM,CM,CM) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 12.HMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 11 4351. 9 395.63 71. 276 .0000 

ERROR 95 527.31 5.5506 

TOTAL 106 4879.2 

MULTIPLE R= .94442 R-SQR= .89193 SE= 2.3560 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 45.357 5.3397 8.4942 .0000 

22.VDHP -.41494 -.88332 . 19872 -4.4450 .0000 

23.DISP -.29967 -.31913 -1 . 10424 -1 -3.0615 .0029 

24.RTHP -.29259 -.58742 -1 . 19697 -1 -2.9823 .0036 

27.NSVR -.58100 -.33049 .47500 -1 -6.9577 .0000 

40.ETWM1 .61891 62969. 8199.0 7.6801 .oooo 

1.FTPHC . 15397 6.0146 3.9601 1.5188 . 1321 

2.FTPCO -.31942 -1 . 3376 .40714 -3.2854 .0014 

3.FTPNOX . 13156 1. 8279 1.4131 1. 2935 .1990 

4.FEHC . 11390 14.626 13.089 1.1174 .2666 

5.FECO -.04838 -.49236 1. 0430 -.47207 .6380 

6.FENOX -.01944 - . 17824 .94033 - . 18955 .8501 

VI 

I 

N 

-..J 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 12.HMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 10 4351. 7 435. 17 79. 195 .0000 

ERROR 96 527.51 5.4949 

TOTAL 106 4879.2 

MULTIPLE R= .94440 R-SQR= .89189 SE= 2.3441 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 45.580 5.1817 8.7965 .0000 

22.VDHP -.42618 -.89140 . 19312 -4.6159 .0000 

23.DISP -.29934 -.31874 -1 . 10370 -1 -3.0738 .0028 

24.RTHP -'. 29549 -.59107 -1 . 19504 -1 -3.0306 .0031 

27.NSVR -.58082 -.33036 .47256 -1 -6.9909 .0000 

40.ETWM1 .62449 62664. 7998.9 7.8341 .0000 

1. FTPHC . 15636 6.0848 3.9229 1. 5511 . 1242 

2.FTPCO -.31925 -1 . 3371 .40508 -3.3007 .0014 

3.FTPNOX . 18277 1. 6205 .88966 1.8214 .0717 

4.FEHC .11236 14.313 12.919 1. 1079 .2707 

5. FECO -.04699 -.47679 1. 0345 -.46089 .6459 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
6. FENOX -.01944 .8501 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 12.HMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9 4350.5 483.39 88.691 .0000 

ERROR 97 528.67 5.4503 

TOTAL 106 4879.2 

MULTIPLE R= .94427 R-SQR= .89165 SE= 2.3346 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 45.401 5. 1460 8.8225 .0000 

22.VOHP -.42507 -.88930 . 19228 -4.6251 .0000 

23.0ISP -.29601 -.31059 -1 . 10176 -1 -3.0522 .0029 

24.RTHP -.30076 -.60019 -1 . 19324 -1 -3. 1059 .0025 

27.NSVR -.58590 -.33288 .46748 -1 -7. 1207 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 62998 63132 . 7902.1 7.9893 .0000 

1.FTPHC . 19245 6.8456 3.5442 1. 9315 .0563 

2.FTPCO -.35965 -1. 4099 .37142 -3.7961 .0003 

3.FTPNOX . 20775 1.7534 .83822 2.0918 .0391 

4.FEHC . 10978 10.267 9.4380 1. 0878 .2794 

lJl 

I 

N REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 00 

5.FECO -.04699 .6459 

6. FENOX -.01566 .8783 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 12.HMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 4344.1 543.01 99.444 .0000 

ERROR 98 535. 12 5.4604 

TOTAL 106 4879.2 

MULTIPLE R= .94357 R-SQR= .89033 SE= 2.3368 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 44.052 4.9989 8.8122 .0000 

22.VOHP -.41315 -.84021 .18708 -4.4912 .0000 

23.0ISP -.29118 -.30671 -1 . 10179 -1 -3.0131 .0033 

24.RTHP -.28220 -.53817 -1 . 18481 -1 -2.9120 .0044 

27.NSVR -.59512 -.33982 .46354 -1 -7.3309 .0000 

40.ETWM1 .65727 65543. 7591. 8 8.6334 .0000 
U1 

I 

N 

\.0 

1.FTPHC 

2. FTPCO 

3.FTPNO?< 

REMAINING 

4. FEHC 

5.FECO 

6. FENOX 

REGRESSION OF 

STEP R-SQR 

0 .89193 

1 .89189 

·2 .89165 

3 .89033 

.22901 7.9291 

- . 36117 -1. 4245 

. 19301 1. 6148 

PARTIAL SIGNIF 

. 10978 .2794 

.04036 .6917 

-.00460 .9639 

12.HMPG USING BACKWARD 

STD ERROR H VAR 

2.3560 11 

2.3441 10 

2.3346 9 

2.3368 8 

3.4045 2.3290 .0219 

.37152 -3.8342 .0002 

.82926 1. 9473 .0544 

SELECTION 

VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

-----.... IN 

6. FENOX / OUT -.01944 .8501 

5.FECO _ OUT - . .04699 .6459 

4.FEHC D~T_,--< 10978 .2794 

I 
Vl 

I 

VJ 

0 

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(LA,LA) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 12.HMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE 

REGRESSION 

ERROR 

TOTAL 

OF 

11 

51 

62 

SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT 

356.91 32.446 19.638 

84.263 1.6522 

441 . 17 

MULTIPLE R= .89945 R-SQR= .80900 SE= 1.2854 

VARIABLE 

CONSTANT 

22.VDHP 

23.DISP 

24.RTHP 

27.NSVR 

40.ETWM1 

1 .FTPHC 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

4.FEHC 

5.FECO 

6. FENOX 

PARTIAL 

- . 17840 

-.53207 

.01744 

-.64928 

. 58755 

-.08297 

-.04978 

.42458 

-.02540 

.05296 

-.30684 

COEFFICIENT 

31. 939 

-.21369 

-.36762 -1 

.15158 -2 

- . 32977 

58597 . 

-2.4008 

-.75358 -1 

3.9751 

-2.0584 

.15119 

-2.0202 

STD ERROR 

4.4799 

. 16504 

.81917 -2 

. 12166 -1 

.54091 -1 

11300. 

4.0378 

.21172 

1. 1870 

11.344 

.39922 

.87748 

T-STAT 

7. 1294 

-1. 2948 

-4. 4877 

. 12459 

-6.0967 

5. 1853 

-.59458 

-.35593 

3.3490 

- . 18144 

.37872 

-2.3023 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 12.HMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE 

REGRESSION 

ERROR 

TOTAL 

OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE 

10 356.89 35.689 

52 84. 288 1 . 6209 

62 441.17 

F-STAT 

22 .017 

MULTIPLE R= .89941 R-SQR= .80895 SE= 1.2732 

VARIABLE 

CONSTANT 

22.VDHP 

23.DISP 

27.NSVR 

40.ETWM1 

. 1.FTPHC 

2.FTPCO 

3.FTPNOX 

4. FEHC 

5. FECO 

6. FENOX 

REMAINING 

PARTIAL 

- .18310 

-.65045 

-.66160 

.58863 

-.08122 

-.05301 

.42457 

-.02643 

.05396 

-.30767 

PARTIAL 

COEFFICIENT 

31. 963 

-.21688 

-.36053 -1 

-.32794 

58450 . 

-2.3180 

-.79355 -1 

3.9637 

-2.1387. 

. 15387 

-2.0248 

SIGNIF 

STD ERROR T-STAT 

4.4334 7.2095 

.16149 -1.3430 

.58383 -2 -6.1753 

.51543 -1 -6.3623 

11132 :-·---- 5. 2507 

3. 9448 - . 587E?.0- . 20729 -.~8282 

1.1722 3.3815 

11.218 -.19064 

.39486 .38968 

.86837 -2.3317 

SIGNIF 

.0000 

SIGNIF 

.0000 

.2012 

.0000 

.9013 

.0000 

.0000 

.5548 

.7234 

.0015 

.8567 

.7065 

.0254 

SIGNIF 

.0000 

SIGNIF 

.0000 

. 1851 

.0000 

.0000 

.0000 

.5593 

.7034 

.0014 

.8495 

.6984 

.0236 
24.RTHP .01744 .9013 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 12.HMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 9 356.83 39.647 24.913 .0000 

ERROR 53 84.347 1.5915 

TOTAL 62 44 1 . 17 

MULTIPLE R= .89934 R-SQR= .80881 SE= 1 . 2615 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 32. 159 4.2733 7.5254 .0000 

22.VOHP - . 19268 -.22346 . 15632 -1. 4295 . 1587 

23.DISP -.65107 -.36098 -1 .57804 -2 -6.2448 .0000 

27.NSVR -.66812 -.32952 .50407 -1 -6.5372 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 58944 58206. 10957 . 5.3121 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.12127 -2.7719 3. 1166 -.88939 .3778 

2. FTPCO -.04618 -.62622 - 1 . 18607 -.33654 .7378 

3. FTPNOX .42398 3.9563 1. 1608 3.4081 .0013 

5.FECO .06588 .87164 -1 . 18133 .48069 .6327 

6.FENOX - . 31065 -2.0393 .85712 -2.3793 .0210 

V1 

I 

w REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF f-' 

24.RTHP . 01891 .8920 

4.FEHC -.02643 .8495 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 12.HMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 356.65 44.581 28.480 .0000 

ERROR 54 84.528 1. 5653 

TOTAL 62 441 . 17 

MULTIPLE R= . 89911 R-SQR= .80840 SE= 1. 2511 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 32. 145 4.2379 7.5850 .0000 

22.VDHP -.21757 -.24040 . 14677 -1. 6380 . 1072 

23.DISP -.65496 -.35686 -1 .56029 -2 -6.3692 .0000 

27.NSVR -.67943 -.33299 .48935 -1 -6.8046 .0000 

40. ETWM1 .59567 58696. 10771 . 5.4496 .0000 

1. FTPHC - . 16087 -3.2658 2.7267 -1. 1977 .2362 
3.FTPNOX .42813 3.9915 1 . 1466 3.4813 .0010 

5.FECO .05159 .62401 -1 . 16437 .37965 .7057 

6.FENOX -.30754 -2.0013 .84266 -2.3750 .0211 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

24.RTHP .02521 .8550 

2. FTPCO -.04618 .7378 

4.FEHC -.00436 .9748 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 12.HMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 7 356.42 50.917 33.042 .0000 

ERROR 55 84.753 1. 5410 

TOTAL 62 441 . 17 

MULTIPLE R= .89883 R-SQR= .80789 SE= 1.2414 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 32.025 4. 1931 7.6374 .0000 

22.VOHP - . 21164 -.22778 .14183 -1. 6060 .1140 V1 23.DISP -.65465 -.35703 -1 .55589 -2 -6.4226 .0000 I 

w 27.NSVR -.67970 -.33353 .48532 -1 -6.8723 .0000 N 40.ETWM1 . 59597 58800 . 10683. 5.5041 .0000 

1.FTPHC - . 15507 -3.1162 2.6770 -1.1641 .2494 

3.FTPNOX .42824 3.9977 1 . 1375 3.5145 .0009 

6.FENOX -.32318 -2.0693 .81702 -2.5327 .0142 

REMAINING PARTIAL SI GNfF 

24.RTHP .02232 .8703 

2. FTPCO -.02121 .8767 

4. FEHC .04232 .7568 

5. FECO .05159 .7057 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 12.HMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 354.33 59.055 38.082 .0000 

ERROR 56 86.841 1. 5507 

TOTAL 62 441. 17 

MULTIPLE R= .89619 R-SQR= .80316 SE= 1. 2453 
VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 31. 518 4. 1837 7.5336 .0000 

22.VDHP -.22238 -.24196 . 14175 -1. 7069 .0934 

23.DISP -.65776 -.36291 -1 .55534 -2 -6.5348 .0000 

27.NSVR -.67038 -.32112 .47497 -1 -6.7609 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 58331 56954 . 10598. 5.3740 .0000 

3.FTPNOX .45547 4.2732 1.1161 3.8287 .0003 

6. FENOX -.31133 -2.0047 .81771 -2.4516 .0174 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

24.RTHP .00589 .9653 

1.FTPHC - . 15507 .2494 

2.FTPCO -.09332 .4899 

4.FEHC -.01982 .8836 

5.FECO .02803 .8361 

REGRESSION OF 12.HMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STEP R-SQR STD ERROR # VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGN IF 

0 .80900 1. 2854 1 1 IN 

1 .80895 1. 2732 10 24.RTHP OUT .01744 .9013 

2 .80881 1 . 2615 9 4. FEHC OUT -.02643 .8495 

3 .80840 1 . 2511 8 2.FTPCO OUT :... .04618 .7378 

4 .80789 1 . 2414 7 5. FEGO OUT .05159 .7057 

5 .80316 1. 2453 6 1.FTPHC OUT - . 15507 .2494 

\Jl 

I 

w 

w 
....miiELE~VST ... ONS~WI~CKWiliiiiij/AR.....a2-2~40, ........ AXWIM6) STilllimi/50 :lilMW36: ~ 10........._ 

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAVR:81*FTVP:(1-7,10-17) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 13.CMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 1 9737.7 885.24 215.73 0. 

ERROR 255 1046.4 4. 1034 

TOTAL 266 10784. 

MULTIPLE R= .95025 R-SQR= .90297 SE= 2.0257 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 12.846 2.7572 4.6590 .0000 

22.VDHP .04181 .63800 -1 .95466 -1 .66830 .5045 

23.DISP - . 16464 - . 10959 -1 .41113 -2 -2.6655 .0082 

24.RTHP -.25403 -.33358 - 1 .79534 -2 -4. 1942 .0000 

27.NSVR -.50098 -.21120 .22848 -1 -9.2436 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 71945 76745 . 4639.6 16.541 .0000 

1. FTPHC .11483 3. 7707 2.0428 1. 8458 .0661 

2.FTPCO - . 17649 -.37671 .13157 -2.8633 .0045 

3.FTPNOX . 14693 1. 7999 .75878 2.3721 .0184 

4. FEHC -.02068 -1. 4159 4.2869 -.33029 .7414 

5.FECO -.01949 -.60926 -1 . 19570 -.31132 .7558 

6. FENOX -.07647 -.64243 .52453 -1. 2248 .2218 

V1 

I 

w 

"'"" ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 13.CMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 10 9737.3 973.73 238. 14 o. 

ERROR 256 1046.8 4.0889 

TOTAL 266 10784. 

MULTIPLE R= .95023 R-SQR= .90293 SE= 2.0221 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 12.854 2.7522 4.6705 .0000 

22.VDHP .04046 .61561 -1 .95027 -1 .64783 .5177 

23.DISP -.16410 - . 10918 -1 .41020 -2 -2.6616 .0083 

24.RTHP -.25378 -.33326 -1 .79387 -2 -4. 1979 .0000 

27.NSVR -.50254 -.21167 .22759 -1 -9.3004 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 71986 76798 . 4628.2 16.593 .0000 

1. FTPHC . 12391 3.9353 1. 9697 1. 9979 .0468 

2. FTPCO - . 19264 -.39005 . 12418 -3.1410 .0019 

3.FTPNOX .14656 1. 7952 .75729 2.3705 .0185 

4.FEHC -.04244 -2.2574 3.3216 -.67962 .4974 

6 .FENOX -.07445 -.61904 .51820 -1. 1946 .2334 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
5.FECO -.01949 .7558 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 13.CMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9' 9735.5 1081. 7 265. 15 o. 

ERROR 257 1048.5 4.0797 

TOTAL 266 10784. 

MULTIPLE R= .95014 R-SQR= .90277 SE= 2.0198 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 13.846 2.2845 6.0606 .0000 

23.DISP - . 16016 - . 10562 -1 .40604 -2 -2.6012 .0098 

24.RTHP -.26667 -.34399 - 1 .77552 -2 -4.4356 .0000 

27.NSVR -.50314 -.20921 .22415 -1 -9.3335 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 74987 75482 . 4154.1 18.171 .0000 

1.FTPHC . 12288 3.9042 1.9669 1. 9850 .0482 

2.FTPCO -.19536 -.39526 . 12378 -3. 1934 .0016 

3.FTPNOX . 14268 1. 7349 .75069 2. 3110 .0216 

4. FEHC -.03878 -2.0548 3.3031 -.62208 .5344 

6.FENOX -.07030 -.58102 .51429 -1 . 1298 .2596 \JI 

I 

w 

\JI REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP .04046 .5177 

5. FECO -.01637 .7935 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 13.CMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 9734.0 1216.7 298.96 o. 

ERROR 258 1050. 1 4.0700 

TOTAL 266 10784. 

MULTIPLE R= .95007 R-SQR= .90263 SE= 2.0174 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 13.837 2.2818 6.0641 .0000 

23.DISP -.16067 - . 10603 -1 .40550 -2 -2.6147 .0095 

24.RTHP -.27020 -.34798 - 1 .77195 -2 -4.5078 .0000 

27.NSVR -.50351 -.20952 .22382 -1 -9.3608 .0000 

40.ETWM1 .74958 75470. 4149. 1 18. 189 .0000 

1.FTPHC .11796 3. 6911 1. 9345 1. 90A 1 .0575 
2.FTPCO - . 19870 -.40134 . 12324 -3.2565 .0013 

3.FTPMOX .14910 1. 7988 .74273 2.4219 .0161 

6. FENOX -.06934 -.57330 .51353 -1.1164 .2653 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP .03659 .5577 

4. FEHC -.03878 .5344 

5. FECO -.03725 .5507 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 13.CMPG N= 267 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 7 9728.9 1389.8 341. 16 o. 

ERROR 259 1055. 1 4.0739 

TOTAL 266 10784. 

MULTIPLE R= .94982 R-SQR= .90216 SE= 2.0184 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 14.245 2.2534 6.3213 .0000 

23.DISP - . 17055 - . 11202 -1 .40213 -2 -2.7856 .0057 Vl 24.RTHP -.26625 -.34266 -1 .77084 -2 -4.4453 .0000 I 

w 27.NSVR -.50353 -.20999 .22389 -1 -9.3794 .0000 

0\ 40.ETWM1 . 74982 74727 . 4097.3 18.238 .0000 

1. FTPHC . 10722 3.3048 1. 9042 1.7355 .0838 

2.FTPCO - . 18947 -.37673 .12131 -3. 1054 .0021 

3.FTPNOX .14139 1.2171 .52952 2.2985 .0223 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGN IF 

22.VDHP .02862 .6460 

4.FEHC -.03700 .5526 

5.FECO -.02856 .6467 

6. FENOX -.06934 .2653 

REGRESSION OF 13.CMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STEP R-SQR STD ERROR H VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

0 .90297 2.0257 11 IN 

1 .90293 2.0221 10 5.FECO OUT -.01949 .7558 

2 . 90277 2.0198 9 22.VDHP OUT .04046 .5177 

3 .90263 2.0174 8 4. FEHC OUT -.03878 .5344 

4 .90216 2.0184 7 6.FENOX OUT -.06934 .2653 
<SELECT BYST OPtibNS=StEPWlSE,BACKWARO VAR=13;22-24,21,40,1-G MAXIM=10 STRAT=V50:81*V36:(1-7,10-17)*V28:(1,6,8)> 

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(CA,CA,CA) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 13.CMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 11 1877.7 170.70 70.4~2 .0000 

ERROR 85 205.98 2.4233 

TOTAL 96 2083.7 

MULTIPLE R= .94929 R-SQR= . 90115 SE= 1. 5567 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 19.672 3.8656 5.0889 .0000 

22.VOHP - . 12 158 - . 14743 . 13055 -1.1293 .2619 

23.DISP -.24191 - . 11594 -1 .50440 -2 -2.2986 .0240 

24.RTHP -.34440 -.32199 -1 .95204 -2 -3.31321 .0011 

27.NSVR -.30931 -.93025 -1 .31022 -1 -2.9987 .0036 

40.ETWM1 . 55216 46767 . 7659.3 6. 1059 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.05445 - 1 . 5416 3.0663 -.50275 .6164 

2. FTPCO .08697 . 12902 . 16030 .80490 .4231 

3.FTPNOX -.07065 -.73025 1. 1183 -.65298 .5155 

4.FEHC . 03777 1.3828 3.9680 .34849 .7283 

5.FECO - . 10772 - . 18020 . 18039 -.99897 .3206 

6.FENOX - .04163 -.28529 .74262 -.38417 .7018 

V1 

I 

w 

........ 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 13.CMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 10 1877.4 187.74 78.274 .0000 

ERROR 86 206.27 2.3985 

TOTAL 96 2083.7 

MULTIPLE R= .94921 R-SQR= . 90101 SE= 1. 5487 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 19.749 3.8395 5. 1438 .0000 

22.VOHP -.12516 -.15137 . 12939 -1. 1698 .2453 

23.0ISP -.24070 -.11534 -1 .50152 -2 -2.2998 .0239 

24.RTHP -.34342 -.32105 -1 .94679 -2 -3.3909 .0011 

27.NSVR -.31140 -.93639 -1 .30813 -1 -3.0389 .0031 

40.ETWM1 . 55223 46804 . 7619.4 6. 1427 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.04651 -1. 2757 2.9547 -.43177 .6670 

2.FTPCO .08278 . 12182 .15815 .77030 .4432 

3. FTPNOX -.07679 -.78639 1 . 1010 -.71425 .4770 

5.FECO - . 10331 -.14731 . 15293 -.96320 .3381 

6.FENOX -.04338 -.29715 .73804 -.40262 .6882 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
4.FEHC .03777 .7283 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 13.CMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9 1877.0 208.56 87.799 .0000 

ERROR 87 206.66 2.3754 

TOTAL 96 2083.7 

MULTIPLE R= .94912 R-SQR= .90082 SE= 1 . 5412 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 19.788 3.8197 5. 1806 .0000 

22.VOHP -.12342 - . 14925 . 12866 -1 . 1601 .2492 

23.0ISP -.25389 - . 11953 -1 .48822 -2 -2.4484 .0164 

24.RTHP -.34468 -.31080 -1 .90748 -2 -3.4248 .0009 

27.NSVR -.30992 -.93165 -1 .30642 - 1 -3.0404 .0031 

40.ETWM1 . 55106 46632 . 7570.6 6. 1595 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.06833 -1.7337 2.7138 -.63884 .5246 

2.FTPCO .09470 . 13609 . 15338 .88730 .3774 

3.FTPNOX -.12286 -1 .0392 .89998 -1.1547 .2514 

5.FECO -.09622 - . 13398 . 14859 -.90168 .3697 Ul 

I 

(....) 

CX> REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

4. FEHC .03969 .7135 

6. FENOX -.04338 .6882 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 13.CMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 1876. 1 234.51 99.391 .0000 

ERROR 88 207.63 2.3594 

TOTAL 96 2083.7 

MULTIPLE R= .94887 R-SQR= .90035 SE= 1. 5360 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 19.724 3.8055 5. 1829 .0000 

22.VDHP - . 12688 - . 15364 . 12804 -1.1999 .2334 

23.DISP -.26416 - . 12383 -1 .48194 -2 -2.5693 .0119 

24.RTHP -.35548 -.31923 -1 .89479 -2 -3.5677 .0006 

27.NSVR -.31217 -.94040 -1 .30508 -1 -3.0825 .0027 

40.ETWM1 . 55312 46913 . 7532.3 6.2282 .0000 
2.FTPCO .06705 .76497 -1 . 12134 .63045 .5300 

3.FTPNOX - . 12613 -1 .0684 . 89579. -1.1927 .2362 

5.FECO -.08766 -.12113 . 14672 -.82555 . 4113 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

1. FTPHC - .06833 .5246 

4.FEHC .02120 .8436 

6.FENOX -.06624 .5374 

ANALYSIS H STEP 4 FOR 13.CMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 7 1875. 1 267.87 114.31 .0000 

ERROR 89 208.57 2.3435 

TOTAL 96 2083.7 

MULTIPLE R= .94863 R-SQR= .89990 SE= 1. 5308 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 19.882 3.7844 5.2536 .0000 

lJl 22.VDHP -.14152 - . 16897 . 12529 -1. 3486 . 1809 

I 23.DISP -.27031 - . 12666 -1 .47821 -2 -2.6487 .0096 (....) 24.RTHP -.34996 -.31054 -1 . 88111 -2 -3.5244 .0007 \0 27.NSVR -.30920 -.93164 -1 .30373 -1 -3.0673 .0029 

40.ETWM1 . 55162 46827 . 7505.6 6.2390 .0000 

3.FTPNOX -.11132 -.90099 .85260 -1.0567 .2935 

5.FECO - .07401 -.99558 - 1 . 14220 -.70015 .4857 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

1. FTPHC -.01333 .9007 

2. FTPCO .06705 .5300 

4. FEHC .02397 .8225 

6.FENOX -.06422 .5476 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 13.CMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 1874.0 312.33 134.04 .0000 

ERROR 90 209.72 2.3302 

TOTAL 96 2083.7 

MULTIPLE R= .94834 R-SQR= .89935 SE= 1.5265 
VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 19.667 3.7613 5.2289 ,0000 

22.VOHP -.13711 - . 16377 . 124 71 -1.3131 . 1925 

23.DISP -.26566 - . 12437 -1 .47573 -2 -2.6142 .0105 

24.RTHP -.35376 -.31458 - 1 .87674 -2 -3.5880 .0005 

27.NSVR -.31712 -.95496 -1 .30104 -1 -3.1722 .0021 

40.ETWM1 .55544 47263. 7458.5 6.3367 .0000 

3.FTPNOX -.09838 -.78113 .83287 -.93788 .3508 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

1.FTPHC - .01583 .8816 

2.FTPCO .04777 .6530 

4. FEHC - .01845 .8622 

5.FECO -.07401 .4857 

6. FENOX -.04338 .6831 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 6 FOR 13.CMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 5 1871.9 374.38 160.88 .0000 

ERROR 91 211 . 77 2.3271 

TOTAL 96 2083.7 V1 

I 

.i:- MULTIPLE R= .94782 R-SQR= .89837 SE= 1. 5255 

0 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 19.267 3.7346 5. 1592 .0000 

22.VOHP - . 11880 - . 13903 .12181 -1.1414 .2567 

23.DISP -.29970 -.13681 -1 .45654 -2 -2.9967 .0035 

24.RTHP -.34633 -.30738 -1 .87279 -2 -3.5218 .0007 

27.NSVR -.30891 -.92781 -1 .29945 -1 -3.0984 .0026 

40.ETWM1 .54998 46630. 7423.1 6.2818 .0000 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNI F 

1. FTPHC -.03729 .7241 

2.FTPCO .02121 .8409 

3.FTPNOX -.09838 .3508 

4.FEHC .00778 .9413 

5. FECO -.05240 .6198 

6.FENOX -.09336 .3761 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 7 FOR 13.CMPG N= 97 OUT OF 198 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 
REGRESSION 4 1868.9 467. 22 200. 11 .0000 

ERROR 92 214.80 2.3348 

TOTAL 96 2083.7 

MULTIPLE R= .94706 R-SQR= .89691 SE= 1. 5280 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 16.825 3.0660 5.4877 .0000 

23.DISP -.30758 -.14127 -1 .45562 -2 -3. 1006 .0026 

24.RTHP -.32870 -.28289 -1 .84740 -2 -3.3383 .0012 

27.NSVR -.37588 - . 10665 .27412 -1 -3.8907 .0002 

40.ETWM1 . 65551 51360 . 6168.8 8.3257 .0000 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP -.11880 .2567 

1.FTPHC - .02205 .8338 

2. FTPCO .04974 .6359 

3.FTPNOX -.07035 .5028 

4.FEHC .01256 .9049 

5. FECO - .05011 .6334 

6.FENOX -.07598 .4691 

REGRESSION OF 13.CMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

\..i1 STEP R-SQR STD ERROR H VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

I 

~ 0 . 90115 1. 5567 11 IN ~ 1 .90101 1. 5487 10 4.FEHC OUT .03777 .7283 

2 .90082 1 . 5412 9 6.FENOX OUT -.04338 .6882 

3 .90035 1.5360 8 1. FTPHC ·OUT -.06833 .5246 

4 .89990 1. 5308 7 2. FTPCO OUT .06705 .5300 

5 .89935 1. 5265 6 5.FECO OUT -.07401 .4857 

6 .89837 1. 5255 5 3.FTPNOX OUT -.09838 .3508 

7 .89691 1. 5280 4 22.VDHP OUT -.11880 .2567 
-ELE-ST ~NS-WIS~KW~AR=--2--40, ~AXI- ST~50:~6: ~10-_,28:-,4)-

SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(CM,CM,CM) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 13.CMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 11 3653.6 332. 14 82.251 .0000 

ERROR 95 383.63 4.0382 

TOTAL 106 4037.2 

MULTIPLE R= .95130 R-SQR= .90498 SE= 2.0095 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 18.457 4.5545 4.0526 .0001 

22.VDHP - .03677 -.60782 -1 . 16950 -.35860 .7207 

23.DISP -.03389 -.29388 -2 .88912 -2 -.33053 . 7417 

24.RTHP -.40202 -.71897 -1 . 16800 -1 -4.2795 .0000 

27.NSVR -.41240 - . 17876 .40515 -1 -4.4122 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 72318 71372 . 6993.3 10.206 .0000 

1. FTPHC .20501 6.8956 3.3777 2.0415 .0440 

2.FTPCO -.36316 -1.3193 .34727 -3.7990 .0003 

3.FTPNOX .08948 1 .0554 1. 2053 .87561 .3835 

4. FEHC .03225 3. 5110 11 . 164 .31449 .7538 

5.FECO -.02194 - . 19029 .88960 -.21390 . 8311 

6.FENOX .02807 .21949 .80205 .27366 .7849 

Ul 

I 

.I:'-

N 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 13.CMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 10 3653.4 365.34 91. 380 .0000 

ERROR 96 "383.81 3.9980 

TOTAL 106 4037.2 

MULTIPLE R= .95128 R-SQR= .90493 SE= 1. 9995 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 18.403 4.5248 4.0672 .0001 

22.VDHP -.03663 -.60561 -1 . 16865 -.35909 .7203 

23.DISP - .03058 - . 26124 -2 .87156 -2 -.29974 .7650 

24.RTHP -.40576 -.72287 -1 .16618 -1 -4.3498 .0000 

27.NSVR -.41646 - . 17975 .40050 - 1 -4.4881 .0000 

40. ETWM1 . 72592 71534 . 6917.4 10.341 .0000 

1.FTPHC .23488 7.2027 3.0422 2.3676 .0199 

2. FTPCO -.39671 -1. 3482 .31838 -4.2344 .0001 

3.FTPNOX .09352 1 .0924 1.1869 .92036 .3597 

4. FEHC .02364 1. 8822 8. 1235 .23170 .8173 

6.FENOX .02988 .23300 .79558 .29286 .7703 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
5. FECO -.02194 . 8311 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 13.CMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9 3653.2 405.91 102.53 .0000 

ERROR 97 384.03 3.9590 

TOTAL 106 4037.2 

MULTIPLE R= .95125 R-SQR= .90488 SE= 1. 9897 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 18. 182 4. 4011 4. 1312 .0001 

22.VOHP -.03244 -.52487 -1 . 16420 -.31964 .7499 

23.0ISP -.02975 -.25408 -2 .86675 -2 -.29314 .7700 

24. RTHP -.41477 -.71195 -1 . 15859 -1 -4.4894 .0000 

27.NSVR -.42183 - . 18099 .39498 -1 -4.5822 .0000 

40. ETWM1 .73893 71939. 6660.3 10.801 .0000 

1.FTPHC .25083 7.4040 2.9012 2.5520 .0123 

2.FTPCO -.39736 -1. 3505 .31666 -4.2647 .0000 

3.FTPNOX .09084 1. 0455 1 . 1638 .89834 .3712 

6.FENOX .03237 .25128 . 78779 .31897 .7504 Vl 

I 

~ 

\.;.) REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

4. FEHC .02364 .8173 

5.FECO .00008 .9993 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 13.CMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 3652.8 456.60 116.42 .0000 

ERROR 98 384.37 3.9221 

TOTAL 106 4037.2 

MULTIPLE R= .95121 R-SQR= .90479 SE= 1. 9804 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

----- CONSTANT 17.731 4. 1038 4. 32<?~ .. .0000 

22.VOHP -.02856 -.45777 - 1 . 16184 -.;18285 .. 7779 

24.RTHP -.49095 -.73737 -1 . 13217 -1 -'5.5787 .0000 

27.NSVR -.42651 - . 17823 .38179 -1 -4.6681 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 75404 72472 . 6376.9 11 . 365 .0000 

1. FTPHC .25346 7.4686 2.8794 2.5938 .0109 
2. FTPCO -.39790 -1. 3528 .31509 -4.2935 .0000 

3.FTPNOX .08672 .97927 1 . 1363 .86178 .3909 

6.FENOX .03244 .25192 .78410 .32129 .7487 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

23.0ISP -.02975 .7700 

4.FEHC .02256 .8246 

5.FECO .00314 .9754 

.. ·- --------· / 

ANA·LYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 13.CMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233_ ,/ 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT / SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 7 3652.5 521. 79 134.29 .0000 

ERROR 99 384.68 3.8857 

TOTAL 106 4037.2 

MULTIPLE R= . 95117 R-SQR= .90472 SE= 1 . 9712 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 17.111 3.4553 4.9523 .0000 

24.RTHP -.49178 -.73219 -1 . 13029 -1 -5.6197 .0000 

V1 27.NSVR -.45033 -.18153 .36174 -1 -5.0184 .0000 

I 40.ETWM1 . 79251 73284 . 5667.8 12.930 .0000 .i::-

.i::- 1. FTPHC .25353 7.4736 2.8659 2.6078 .0105 

2.FTPCO -.39719 -1. 3496 .31342 -4.3062 .0000 

3.FTPNOX .09545 1. 0515 1 . 1021 .95404 .3424 

6.FENOX .02623 . 19750 .75659 .26104 .7946 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VOHP -.02856 .7779 

I I 23.0ISP -.02547 .8014 4.FEHC .01626 .8724 

5.FECO - .00126 .9901 I 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 13.CMPG N= 107 OUT OF 233 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 3652.3 608.71 158. 13 .0000 

ERROR 100 384.94 3.8494 I 

TOTAL 106 4037.2 , I 

MULTIPLE R= . 95113 R-SQR= .90465 SE= 1. 9620 
; I 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 16.956 3.3876 5.0053 .0000 

24.RTHP -.49219 -.72821 -1 . 12879 -1 -5.6541 .0000 

27.NSVR -.44974 -.18115 .35976 -1 -5.0354 .0000 

40.ETWM1 . 79728 73525 . 5566.4 13.209 .0000 

1.FTPHC .25265 7.4416 2.8499 2.6112 .0104 

2.FTPCO -.39871 -1. 3542 . 31148 -4.3476 .0000 

3.FTPNOX . 19063 1 . 2813 .65981 1. 9419 .0550 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGN IF 

22.VOHP -.02124 .8330 

23.0ISP -.02644 .7930 

4. FEHC .02001 .8426 

5.FECO .00003 .9998 

6.FENOX .02623 .7946 

REGRESSION OF 13.CMPG USING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STEP R-SOR STO ERROR II VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

0 .90498 2.0095 11 IN 

1 .90493 1. 9995 10 5. FECO OUT -.02194 . 8311 

2 .90488 1. 9897 9 4.FEHC OUT .02364 .8173 

3 .90479 1. 9804 8 23.DISP OUT - . .02975 . 7700 

4 .90472 1. 9712 7 22.VDHP OUT -.02856 .7779 

5 .90465 1. 9620 6 6.FENOX OUT .02623 .7946 Vl 

I 

.i::-

Vl 
SELECTION OF REGRESSION <1> TAYR:81*FTYP:(1-7,10-17)*VTRN:(LA,LA) 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 0 FOR 13.CMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 11 327.39 29.763 43.378 .0000 

ERROR 51 34.993 .68613 

TOTAL 62 362.38 

MULTIPLE R= .95049 R-SQR= .90344 SE= .82833 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 24.839 2.8870 8.6037 .0000 

22.VDHP -.21717 - . 16898 . 10635 -1. 5889 .1183 

23.DISP -.61911 -.29721 -1 .52789 -2 -5.6301 .0000 

24.RTHP -.09230 -.51900 -2 .78403 -2 -.66196 . 5110 

27.NSVR -.46373 - . 13029 .34857 -1 -3.7379 .0005 

40.ETWM1 . 58291 37309 . 7282.3 5. 1232 .0000 

1.FTPHC -.21616 -4.1140 2.6020 -1 . 5811 .1200 

2.FTPCO .06556 .64020 - 1 . 13644 . 46922 .6409 

3.FTPNOX .46436 2.8641 .76492 3.7443 .0005 

4. FEHC .05379 2.8121 7.3105 .38466 .7021 

5.FECO -.06678 - . 12296 .25727 -.47794 .6347 

6. FENOX -.35605 -1. 5387 .56547 -2.7211 .0089 

\Jl 

I 

~ 

°' ANALYSIS AT STEP 1 FOR 13.CMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 10 327.29 32.729 48.496 .0000 

ERROR 52 35.094 .67489 

TOTAL 62 362.38 

MULTIPLE R= .95035 R-SQR= .90316 SE= .82151 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 24.585 2.7872 8.8204 .0000 

22.VDHP -.21089 - . 16072 . 10331 -1. 5558 . 1258 

23.DISP -.61767 -.29583 -1 .52234 -2 -5.6636 .0000 

24.RTHP -.09533 -.53614 -2 .77633 -2 -.69061 .4929 

27.NSVR - . 46212 - . 12801 .34067 -1 -3.7577 .. 0004 

40.ETWM1 . 58772 37611 . 7180. 1 5.2382 .0000 

1. FTPHC -.23022 -3.5097 2.0573 -1. 7060 .0940 

2. FTPCO .04712 .41637 -1 . 12239 .34019 .7351 

3.FTPNOX .46506 2.8726 .75831 3.7882 .0004 

5. FECO -.04134 -.35235 -1 .11809 -.29838 .7666 

6. FENOX -.35298 -1. 5202 .55878 -2.7205 .0088 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 
4. FEHC .05379 .7021 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 2 FOR 13.CMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE DF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 9 327.23 36.359 54.816 .0000 

ERROR 53 35. 154 .66329 

TOTAL 62 362.38 

MULTIPLE R= .95026 R-SQR= .90299 SE= .81442 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 24.645 2.7560 8.9423 .0000 

22.VDHP -.21369 - . 16274 .10219 -1.5925 .1172 

23.DISP -.61889 -.29664 -1 .51714 -2 -5.7362 .0000 

24.RTHP - .09555 -.53783 -2 .76961 -2 -.69884 .4877 

27.NSVR -.46080 - . 12692 .33578 -1 -3.7799 .0004 

40.ETWM1 . 58684 37445 . 7096.8 5.2764 .0000 

1. FTPHC -.22779 -3.4638 2.0338 -1.7031 .0944 

2. FTPCO .03329 .26929 -1 . 11106 .24247 .8094 

3.FTPNOX .46377 2.8613 .75082 3.8109 .0004 

6.FENOX -.35098 - 1 . 4971 .54863 -2.7288 .0086 Vl 

I 

~ 

-.._J REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

4.FEHC -.01178 .9326 

5.FECO -.04134 .7666 

I: 

i 

I 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 3 FOR 13.CMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 I 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 8 327. 19 40.899 62.755 .0000 

ERROR 54 35. 193 .65172 

TOTAL 62 362.38 

MULTIPLE R= .95020 R-SQR= .90288 SE= .80729 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 24.636 2.7316 9.0189 .0000 

22.VDHP -.21559 - . 15415 .95016 -1 -1 .6224 . 1105 

23.DISP -.61950 -.29708 -1 .51229 -2 -5.7992 .0000 

24.RTHP - . 10160 -.56597 -~ .75415 -2 -.75047 .4562 

27.NSVR -.46377 - . 12523 .32554 -1 -3.8467 .0003 

40.ETWM1 .58748 37228. 6978.4 5.3348 .0000 
1.FTPHC -.24279 -3.2191 1. 7503 -1. 8392 .0714 

3.FTPNOX .46294 2.8454 .74138 3.8379 .0003 

6.FENOX -.36384 -1. 5253 .53141 -2.8704 .0058 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

2.FTPCO .03329 .8094 

4.FEHC -.00665 .9616 

5.FECO -.02441 .8596 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 4 FOR 13.CMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 7 326.82 46:689 72.213 .0000 

ERROR 55 35.560 .64655 

TOTAL 62 362.38 

MULTIPLE R= .94967 R-SQR= .90187 SE= .80408 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 24.516 2.7161 9.0262 .0000 

22.VDHP -.19718 - . 13703 .91870 - 1 -1. 4916 . 1415 Vl 23.DISP -.77199 -.32432 -1 .36008 -2 -9.0070 .0000 I 

~ 27.NSVR -.49046 -.13121 .31437 - 1 -4. 1739 .0001 

co 40.ETWM1 . 59225 37721 . 6919.8 5.4511 .0000 

1. FTPHC -.25245 -3.3551 1. 7340 -1. 9349 .0582 

3.FTPNOX .46656 2.8823 .73680 3.9119 .0003 

6. FENOX -.36084 -1.5185 .52922 -2.8694 .0058 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

24.RTHP -.10160 .4562 

2.FTPCO .04805 .7251 

4.FEHC -.00227 .9868 

5. FECO -.01871 . 8911 

ANALYSIS AT STEP 5 FOR 13.CMPG N= 63 OUT OF 140 

SOURCE OF SUM OF SQRS MEAN SQUARE F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 6 325.38 54.231 82.082 .0000 

ERROR 56 36.999 .66069 

TOTAL 62 362.38 

MULTIPLE R= .94758 R-SQR= .89790 SE= .81283 
VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFFICIENT STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 22.276 2.2879 9.7365 .0000 

23.DISP -.76145 -.31690 -1 .36050 -2 -8.7906 .0000 

27.NSVR -.45810 - . 11391 .29537 -1 -3.8566 .0003 

40.ETWM1 . 58530 37787 . 6995.0 5.4020 .0000 

1. FTPHC -.26402 -3.5773 1.7464 -2.0484 .0452 

3.FTPNOX .46634 2.9349 .74396 3.9450 .0002 

6.FENOX -.37125 -1. 5934 .53256 -2.9921 .0041 

REMAINING PARTIAL SIGNIF 

22.VDHP -.19718 .1415 

24.RTHP -.04935 .7154 

2.FTPCO -.03185 .8141 

4. FEHC -.04720 .7274 

5. FECO -.06255 .6439 

REGRESSION OF 13 . CMPG US ING BACKWARD SELECTION 

STEP R-SQR STD ERROR # VAR VARIABLE PARTIAL SIGNIF 

0 .90344 .82833 11 IN 

1 .90316 .82151 10 4. FEHC OUT .05379 .7021 

2 .90299 .81442 9 5. FECO OUT -.04134 .7666 

3 .90288 .80729 8 2. FTPCO OUT .03329 .8094 

4 .90187 .80408 7 24.RTHP OUT - . 10160 .4562 

5 .89790 .81283 6 22.VDHP OUT -.19718 . 1415 Ln 

I 

+:--

\0 <FINISH> 
Appendix 6 

Residual and Ratio Regressions 
61. U.D. Jose is the urban fuel economy "delta-residual" using the Bascunana 

equation. 

62. u.D. Dill is the urban fuel economy "delta-residual" using the Murrell 

equation. 

63. u.D. J.P. is the urban fuel economy "delta-residual" using the Cheng 

equation. 

64. u.R. Jose is the urban fuel economy "ratio-residual" using the Bascunana 

equation. 

65. U .R. Dill is the urban fuel economy "ratio-residual" using the Murrell 

equation. 

66. U .R. J.P. is the urban fuel economy "ratio-residual" using the Cheng 

equation. 

When U is replaced by H, urban fuel economy becomes highway fuel economy. 

When U is replaced by C, urban fuel economy becomes composite fuel 

economy. 

6-1 
<REGRESS VAR=61-66,71-76,81-86;1> 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 61.UO.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 8.8443 8.8443 2.3135 . 1295 

ERROR 263 1005.4 3.8230 

TOTAL 264 1014.3 

MULT R= .09338 R-SQR= .00872 SE= 1 . 9552 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .63058 .33410 1.8874 .0602 

1.FTPHC -.09338 -2.2958 1. 5094 -1.5210 . 1295 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.UO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 .55990 .55990 . 17837 .6731 

ERROR 263 825.55 3. 1390 

TOTAL 264 826. 11 

0\ 

I 

N MULT R= .02603. R-SQR= .00068 SE= 1 . 7717 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .21263 .30274. .70235 .4831 

1. FTPHC -.02603 - . 57764 1.3677 -.42234 .6731 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 63.UO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .31441 .31441 . 91198 - 1 .7629 

ERROR 263 906.71 3.4476 

TOTAL 264 907.03 

MULT R= .01862 R-SQR= .00035 SE= 1. 8568 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT . 16228 .31728 . 51147 .6095 

1. FTPHC -.01862 - . 43287 1 . 4334 -.30199 .7629 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 64.UR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 16764 -1 . 16764 -1 2.2956 . 1309 

ERROR 263 1 .9207 .73029 -2 

TOTAL 264 1.9374 

MULT R= .09302 R-SQR= .00865 SE= .85457 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR' T-ST.AT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0262 .14603 -1 70.279 0. 

1.FTPHC -.09302 -.99954 -1 .65971 -1 -1.5151 . 1309 ,.- .-·----.. '· 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION / 

/ 

/ 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE. OF 65.UR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .43762 -3 .43762 -3 .68481 -1 .7938 

ERROR 263 1.6806 .63903 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6811 

0\ 

I 

w MULT R= .01613 R-SQR= .00026 SE= .79939 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 1 .0078 . 13660 -1 73.779 o. 

1.FTPHC -.01613 - . 16149 -1 .61711 -1 -.26169 .7938 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 66.UR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 53910 -3 .53910 -3 .77083 -1 .7815 

ERROR 263 1. 8394 .69938 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 .8399 

MULT R= .01712 R-SQR= .00029 SE= .83629 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0077 . 14290 -1 70.518 o. 

1.FTPHC -.01712 - . 17924 -1 .64559 -1 -.27764 .7815 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 71.HO.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 6.4400 6.4400 .76549 .3824 

ERROR 263 2212. 6 8.4130 

TOTAL 264 2219. 1 

MULT R= .05387 R-SQR= .00290 SE= 2.9005 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT - . 16283 .49563 -.32854 .7428 

1.FTPHC .05387 1 . 9591 2.2391 .87492 .3824 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 72.HD.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 15.056 15.056 1. 9509 . 1637 

ERROR 263 2029.8 7.7177 

(j'\ TOTAL 264 2044.8 

I 

~ MULT R= .08581 R-SQR= .00736 SE= 2.7781 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.61347 .47471 -1. 2923 . 1974 

1.FTPHC .08581 2.9955 2. 1446 1. 3967 . 1637 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 73.HD.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 12.890 12 .890 1 . 5237 .2182 

ERROR 263 2224.9 8.4595 

TOTAL 264 2237.7 

MULT R= .07590 R-SQR= .00576 SE= 2.9085 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.52557 .49700 -1.0575 .2913 

1 .FTPHC .07590 2.7716 2.2453 1 . 2344 .2182 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 74.HR.uOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM'SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .47380 -2 .47380 -2 .57969 .4471 

ERROR 263 2. 1496 .81734 -2 

TOTAL 264 2. 1543 

MULT R= .04690 R-SQR= .00220 SE= .90407 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99616 . 15448 -1 64.483 0 . 

1. FTPHC .04690 .53138 -1 .69792 -1 .76137 .4471 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 75.HR.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 12233 -1 . 12233 -1 1.5624 .2124 

ERROR 263 2.0592 .78297 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.0715 O'\ 

I 

\JI MULT R= .07685 R-SQR= .00591 SE= .88486 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .98270 . 15120 -1 64.993 0. 

1.FTPHC .07685 .85383 -1 .68309 -1 1.2500 .2124 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 76.HR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .11410 -1 .11410 -1 1.3160 .2524 

ERROR 263 2.2803 .86703 -2 

TOTAL 264 2. 2917 

MULT R= .07056 R-SQR= .00498 SE= . 93114 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .98630 . 15911 -1 61. 988 o . 

1.FTPHC . 07056 .82461 -1 .71882 -1 1. 1472 .2524 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 81.CO.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .97346 .97346 .22704 .6341 

ERROR 263 1127.6 . 4.2876 

TOTAL 264 1128. 6 

MULT R= .02937 R-SQR= .00086 SE= 2.0707 

.. - ---..... . 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T--STAT SIGNIF 

/ 

CONSTANT .24461 .35383 .69132 .4~00 

1. FTPHC -.02937 -.76166 1.5985 -.47649 .6341 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 82.CO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 1. 4807 1. 4807 .41217 .5214 

ERROR 263 944.80 3.5924 

°' TOTAL 264 946.28 

I 

°' MULT R= .03956 R-SQR= .00156 SE= 1. 8954 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT - . 18803 .32387 -.58056 .5620 

1. FTPHC .03956 .93937 1. 4632 .64201 .5214 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 83.CO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 1 .0476 1 .0476 .24816 .6188 

ERROR 263 1110.3 4.2216 

TOTAL 264 1111.3 

MULT R= .03070 R-SQR= .00094 SE= 2.0547 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT - . 15913 .35109 -.45324 .6507 

1. FTPHC .03070 .79015 1. 5861 .49816 .6188 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 84.CR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 17618 -2 . 17618 -2 .28235 .5956 

ERROR 263 1 . 6411 .62397 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 6428 

MULT R= .03275 R-SQR= .00107 SE= .78992 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 .0099 . 13498 -1 74.816 o. 

1.FTPHC -.03275 -.32403 -1 .60980 -1 -.53137 .5956 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 85.CR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION .27560 -2 .27560 -2 .48586 .4864 

ERROR 263 1 . 4919 .56725 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 4946 

°' I MULT R= .04294 R-SQR= .00184 SE= .75316 -1 -...J 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99302 . 12870 -1 77. 160 0. 

1. FTPHC .04294 .40527 -1 .58142 -1 .69703 .4864 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 86.CR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 14246 -2 . 14246 -2 .22573 .6351 

ERROR 263 1. 6598 . 63112 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 6613 

MULT R= .02928 R-SQR= .00086 SE= .79443 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99579 .13575 -1 73.355 o . 

1. FTPHC .02928 .29137 -1 .61328 -1 . 47511 .6351 
<REGRESS VAR=61-66,71-76,81-86;2> 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 61.UD.uOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 33.425 33.425 8.9623 .0030 

ERROR 263 980.86 3.7295 

TOTAL 264 1014.3 

MULT R= . 18153 R-SQR= .03295 SE= 1 . 9312 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .79283 .24345 3.2566 .0013 

2.FTPCO -.18153 -.29846 .99697 -1 -2.9937 .0030 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.UD.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 18.097 18.097 5.8904 .0159 

ERROR 263 808.02 3.0723 

TOTAL 264 826.11 

0\ 

I MULT R= . 14801 R-SQR= .02191 SE= 1.7528 co 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .56163 .22097 2.5417 .0116 

2.FTPCO -.14801 -.21961 .90487 -1 -2.4270 .0159 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 63.UD.u.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 20.022 20.022 5.9366 .0155 

ERROR 263 887.00 3.3726 

TOTAL 264 907.03 

MULT R= . 14857 R-SQR= .02207 SE= 1 . 8365 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT .56545 .23151 2.4424 .0152 

2.FTPCO - . 14857 -.23100 .94807 - 1 -2.4365 .0155 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 64.UR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .37122 -1 .37122 -1 5. 1377 .0242 

ERROR 263 1. 9003 .72255 -2 

TOTAL 264 1.9374 

MULT R= . 13842 R-SQR= .01916 SE= .85003 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 .0268 .10716 -1 95.822 o. 

2.FTPCO -.13842 -.99466 -2 .43882 -2 -2.2666 .0242 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 65.UR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 . 18843 -1 . 18843 -1 2.9814 .0854 

ERROR 263 1 .6622 .63203 -2 

°' 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6811 

I 

\0 MULT R= . 10587 R-SQR= .01121 SE= .79500 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0196 .10022 -1 101. 73 o. 

2.FTPCO - . 10587 -.70865 -2 .41042 -2 -1. 7267 .0854 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 66.UR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .25773 -1 .25773 -1 3.7364 .0543 

ERROR 263 1.8141 .68978 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 .8399 

MULT R= .11835 R-SQR= .01401 SE= .83053 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 . 0217 . 10470 -1 97.582 0. 

2.FTPCO -.11835 -.82878 -2 .42876 -2 -1. 9330 .0543 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 71 .HO. JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 14.171 14.171 1. 6903 . 1947 

ERROR 263 2204.9 8.3836 

TOTAL 264 2219. 1 

MULT R= .07991 R-SQR= .00639 SE= 2.8954 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .65622 .36501 1.7978 .0734 

2.FTPCO -.07991 - . 19434 . 14948 -1.3001 . 1947 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 72.HD.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 3.9110 3.9110 .50399 .4784 

ERROR 263 2040.9 7.7601 

TOTAL 264 2044.8 

°' I 

I-' MULT R= .04373 R-SQR= .00191 SE= 2.7857 0 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .22295 .35118 .63487 .5261 

2.FTPCO -.04373 - . 10209 .14381 -.70992 .4784 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 73.HD.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 26.006 26.006 3.0924 .0798 

ERROR 263 2211 . 7 8.4097 

TOTAL 264 2237.7 

MULT R= . 10780 R-SQR= .01162 SE= 2.8999 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .60830 .36558 1. 6639 .0973 

2. FTPCO - . 10780 -.26327 . 14971 -1. 7585 .0798 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 74.HR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .75769 -2 .75769 -2 .92825 .3362 

ERROR 263 2. 1468 .81626 -2 

TOTAL 264 2. 1543 

MULT R= .05930 R-SQR= .00352 SE= .90347 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0167 .11390 -1 89.267 o. 

2.FTPCO -.05930 -.44937 -2 .46641 -2 -.96346 .3362 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 75.HR.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 14062 -2 . 14062 -2 . 17866 .6729 

ERROR 263 2.0700 .78709 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.0715 O"I 

I 

I-' MULT R= .02605 R-SQR= .00068 SE= .88718 -1 I-' 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0045 . 11184 -1 89. 811 o. 

2.FTPCO -.02605 - . 19359 -2 .45800 -2 -.42268 .6729 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 76.HR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 19343 -1 . 19343 -1 2.2387 . 1358 

ERROR 263 2.2724 .86401 -2 

TOTAL 264 2. 2917 I' 

1. 

I 

MULT R= .09187 R-SQR= .00844 SE= .92952 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1. 0186 .11718 -1 86.929 o. 

2.FTPCO -.09187 -.71799 -2 .47986 -2 -1. 4962 . 1358 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 81.CO.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 24.568 24.568 5.8523 .0162 

ERROR 263 1104. 1 4. 1979 

TOTAL 264 1128. 6 

MULT R= . 14754 R-SQR= .02177 SE= 2.0489 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .63293 .25829 2.4504 .0149 

2.FTPCO -.14754 -.25588 . 10577 -2.4192 .0162 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 82.CO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 9.6420 9.6420 2.7074 . 1011 

ERROR 263 936.64 3.5614 

TOTAL 264 946.28 aI 

I-"' MULT R= . 10094 R-SQR= .01019 SE= 1. 8872 N 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .34783 .23790 1.4621 . 1449 

2.FTPCO - . 10094 - . 16030 .97424 -1 -1. 6454 . 1011 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 83.CO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 19.922 19.922 4.8007 .0293 

ERROR 263 1091 . 4 4. 1498 

TOTAL 264 1111.3 

MULT R= . 13389 R-SQR= .01793 SE= 2.0371 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .49543 .25681 1. 9292 .0548 

2.FTPCO - . 13389 -.23042 .10517 -2.1910 .0293 
·~. 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 84.CR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 19776 -1 . 19776 -1 3.2045 .0746 

ERROR 263 1. 6230 .61713 -2 

TOTAL 264 1.6428 

MULT R= . 10972 R-SQR= .01204 SE= .78557 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 .0186 .99033 -2 102.86 o. 

2.FTPCO - . 10972 -.72597 -2 .40555 -2 -1. 7901 .0746 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 85.CR.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 .62646 -2 .62646 -2 1 . 1070 .2937 

ERROR 263 1. 4883 .56591 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 4946 

0\ 

I 

I-' MULT R= .06474 R-SQR= .00419 SE= .75227 -1 w 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 1 . 0101 .94835 -2 106. 51 . o. 

2. FTPCO -.06474 -.40860 -2 .38836 -2 -1 . 0521 .2937 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 86.CR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 19604 -1 . 19604 -1 3. 1407 .0775 

ERROR 263 1. 6417 .62421 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6613 

MULT R= . 10863 R-SQR= . 01180 SE= .79007 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 1.0172 .99599 -2 102. 13 o. 

2. FTPCO - . 10863 -.72282 -2 .40787 -2 -1. 7722 .0775 
<REGRESS VAR=61-66,71-76,81-86;3> 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 61.UO.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 34.716 34.716 9.3206 .0025 

ERROR 263 979.57 3.7246 

TOTAL 264 1014.3 

MULT R= . 18500 R-SQR= .03423 SE= 1. 9299 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.62211 .28121 -2.2123 .0278 

3.FTPNOX . 18500 1 . 4213 .46554 3.0530 .0025 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.UO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 10. 159 10. 159 3.2744 .0715 

ERROR 263 815.95 3. 1025 

0\ 

TOTAL 264 826. 11 

I 

f-' MULT R= . 11089 R-SQR= .01230 SE= 1 . 7614 +=" 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.32780 .25665 -1. 2772 .2026 

3. FTPNOX .11089 .76884 .42489 1. 8095 .0715 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 63.UD.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 20. 186 20. 186 5.9862 .0151 

ERROR 263 886.84 3.3720 

TOTAL 264 907.03 

MULT R= . 14918 R-SQR= .02225 SE= 1. 8363 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.52076 .26757 -1. 9463 .0527 

3.FTPNOX .14918 1 .0838 .44296 2.4467 .0151 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 64.UR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .74805 -1 .74805 -1 10.562 .0013 

ERROR 263 1. 8626 .70822 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 9374 

MULT R= . 19650 R-SQR= .03861 SE= .84156 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .96947 .12262-1 79.061 0. 

3.FTPNOX . 19650 .65976 -1 .20300 -1 3.2500 .0013 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 65.UR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 17617 -1 . 17617 -1 2.7853 .0963 

ERROR 263 1 .6635 .63250 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6811 

O"\ 

I 

I-' MULT R= . 10237 R-SQR= .01048 SE= .79530 -1 V1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT .98693 .11588 -1 85. 167 o . 

3.FTPNOX . 10237 .32017 -1 .19184 -1 1.6689 .0963 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 66.UR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .41685 -1 .41685 -1 6.0967 .0142 

ERROR 263 1. 7982 .68373 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 8399 

MULT R= . 15052 R-SQR= .02266 SE= .82688 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT .97704 . 12048 -1 81. 093 o . 

3. FTPNOX . 15052 .49250 -1 . 19946 -1 2.4692 .0142 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 71.HD.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 53.998 53.998 6.5594 .0110 

ERROR 263 2165. 1 8.2322 

TOTAL 264 2219. 1 

MULT R= . 15599 R-SQR= .02433 SE= 2.8692 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.72910 .41806 -1.7440 .0823 

3.FTPNOX . 15599 1 . 7726 . 69211 2. 5611 .0110 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 72.HD.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 25.480 25.480 3.3185 .0696 

ERROR 263 2019.3 7.6781 

TOTAL 264 2044.8 

°' I 

r-' MULT R= .11163 R-SQR= .01246 SE= 2.7709 

°' 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.66170 .40375 -1.6389 . 1024 

3.FTPNOX . 11163 1 . 2176 .66841 1. 8217 .0696 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 73.HD.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 30. 767 30.767 3.6665 .0566 

ERROR 263 2207.0 8.3916 

TOTAL 264 2237.7 

MULT R= . 11726 R-SQR= .01375 SE= 2.8968 

VARIABLE PART! AL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT -.68598 .42209 -1 . 6252 . 1053 

3.FTPNOX .11726 1. 3380 .69878 1. 9148 .0566 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 74.HR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .58894 -1 .58894 -1 7.3918 .0070 

ERROR 263 2.0954 .79674 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.1543 

MULT R= . 16534 R-SQR= .02734 SE= .89261 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .97507 . 13006 -1 74.970 o. 

3.FTPNOX . 16534 .58540 -1 .21532 -1 2.7188 .0070 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 75.HR.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .21948 -1 .21948 -1 2.8165 .0945 

ERROR 263 2.0495 .77928 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.0715 

O'\ 

·( 

p MULT R= . 10294 R-SQR= .01060 SE= .88277 -1 ...... 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF 'STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .98076 .12863 -1 76.248 o . 

3.FTPNOX . 10294 . 35737 -1 .21294 -1 1 .6782 .0945 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 76.HR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .28946 -1 .28946 -1 3.3644 .0678 

ERROR 263 2.2628 .86036 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.2~17 

MULT R= . 11239 R-SQR= .01263 SE= .92756 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .98085 .13515 -1 72.573 o . 

3. FTPNOX .11239 . 41040 -1 .22375 -1 1. 8342 .0678 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 81.CD.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 42.470 42.470 10.284 .0015 

ERROR 263 1086. 1 4. 1298 

TOTAL 264 1128.6 

MULT R= . 19399 R-SQR= .03763 SE= 2.0322 

VARIABLE PARTIAL CDEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.77378 . 29611 -2.6131 .0095 

3.FTPNOX . 19399 1. 5720 .49022 3.2068 .0015 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 82.CD.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 10.797 10.797 3.0354 .0826 

ERROR 263 935.48 3.5570 

TOTAL 264 946.28 

"' I MULT R= . 10682 R-SQR= .01141 SE= 1. 8860 ..... 

00 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT -.42815 .27481 -1. 5580 . 1204 

3.FTPNOX . 10682 .79262 .45495 1. 7422 .0826 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 83.CD.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 16.489 16.489 3.9610 .0476 

ERROR 263 1094. 8 4. 1629 

TOTAL 264 1111.3 

MULT R= .12181 R-SQR= .01484 SE= 2.0403 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.53245 .29729 -1.7910 .0744 

3. FTPNOX .12181 .97954 .49217 1 .9902 .0476 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 84.CR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .69217 -1 .69217 -1 11.568 .0008 

ERROR 263 1 . 5736 .59833 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 6428 

MULT R= .20526 R-SQR= .04213 SE= . 77352 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .96840 . 11271 - 1 85.921 o . 

3.FTPNOX .20526 .63464 -1 . 18659 -1 3.4012 .0008 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 85.CR.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 12375 -1 . 12375 -1 2. 1958 . 1396 

ERROR 263 1 . 4822 .56359 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 4946 

O'\ 

I 

f--' MULT R= .09099 R-SQR= .00828 SE= .75073 -1 

'° 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .98669 .10939 -1 90.202 0. 

3.FTPNOX .09099 .26835 -1 . 18109 -1 1 . 4818 . 1396 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 86.CR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .21965 -1 .21965 -1 3.5239 .0616 

ERROR 263 1 .6393 .62331 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 6613 

MULT R= .11499 R-SQR= .01322 SE= .78950 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .98222 .11504 -1 85.383 o . 

3. FTPNOX . 11499 .35751 -1 .19045 -1 1 . 8772 .0616 
<REGRESS VAR=61-66,71-76,81-86;4> 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 61 .UO. JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 16.233 16.233 4.2776 .0396 

ERROR 263 998.05 3.7949 

TOTAL 264 1014. 3 

MULT R= . 12651 R-SQR= .01600 SE= 1. 9480 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .43330 . 17958 2.4129 .0165 

4.FEHC -.12651 -6.1138 2.9561 -2.0682 .0396 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.UO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 4.0773 4.0773 1.3045 .2544 

ERROR 263 822.03 3. 1256 

TOTAL 264 826. 11 

°' I 

N MULT R= .07025 R-SQR= .00494 SE= 1. 7679 

0 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .23211 . 16297 1.4242 . 1556 

4.FEHC -.07025 -3.0641 2.6828 -1.1421 .2544 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 63.UO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 8.7314 8.7314 2.5563 . 1111 

ERROR 263 898.29 3.4156 

TOTAL 264 907.03 

MULT R= . 09811 R-SQR= .00963 SE= 1 . 8481 - -......__ '· 

/.·· 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT S 1

1

GNI F 

CONSTANT ' .27596 . 17037 1 . 6198 . 1065 

4.FEHC - . 09811 -4.4839 2.8045 -1.5989 . 1111 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 64.UR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM·SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION .27433 -1 .27433 -1 3.7774 .0530 

ERROR 263 1.9100 .72623 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 9374 

MULT R= .11899 R-SQR= .01416 SE= .85219 - 1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT 1.0170 .78558 -2 129.46 o. 

4.FEHC -.11899 -.25134 . 12932 -1.9436 .0530 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 65.UR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .31472 -2 .31472 -2 .49329 .4831 

ERROR 263 1 .6779 .63800 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6811 

0\ 

I 

N MULT R= .04327 R-SQR= .00187 SE= .79875 -1 I-' 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 .0083 .73631 -2 136.94 0. 

4. FEHC -.04327 -.85130 -1 .12121 -.70235 .4831 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 66.UR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .97938 -2 .97938 -2 1. 4074 .2366 

ERROR 263 1. 8301 .69586 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 8399 

MULT R= .07296 R-SQR= .00532 SE= .83418 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 .0108 .76898 -2 131. 45 o . 

4.FEHC -.07296 - . 15017 . 12658 -1. 1864 .2366 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 71. HD. JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 12.415 12.415 ' 1. 4797 .2249 

ERROR 263 2206.6 8.3903 

TOTAL 264 2219. 1 

MULT R= .07480 R-SQR= .00559 SE= 2.8966 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .48399 .26702 1. 8126 .0710 

4.FEHC -.07480 -5.3468 4.3955 -1. 2164 .2249 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 72.HD.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 6.7280 6.7280 .86819 .3523 

ERROR 263 2038. 1 7.7494 

TOTAL 264 2044.8 

"' I MULT R= .05736 R-SQR= .00329 SE= 2.7838 N 

N 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT . 18353 .25662 .71517 .4751 

4. FEHC -.05736 -3.9360 4.2243 -.93177 .3523 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 73.HD.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 7.4205 7.4205 .87503 .3504 

ERROR 263 2230.3 8.4803 

TOTAL 264 2237.7 

MULT R= .05759 R-SQR= .00332 SE= 2.9121 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .23414 .26845 .87219 .3839 

4. FEHC -.05759 -4. 1337 4.4190 -.93543 .3504 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 74.HR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 11086 -1 .11086 -1 1. 3604 .2445 

ERROR 263 2. 1432 .81492 -2 

TOTAL 264 2. 1543 

MULT R= .07173 R-SQR= .00515 SE= .90273 -1 · 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 . 0144 .83217 -2 121. 89 0. 

4.FEHC -.07173 - . 15977 . 13699 -1.1663 .2445 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 75.HR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 .55034 -2 .55034 -2 .70059 .4033 

ERROR 263 2.0659 .78553 -2 

"' 

TOTAL. 264 2.0715 

I 

N MULT R= w .05154 R-SQR= .00266 SE= .88630 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 .0054 . 81702 -2 123.06 o . 

4. FEHC -.05154 - . 11257 . 13449 -.83701 .4033 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 76.HR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .42297 -2 .42297 -2 .48631 .4862 

ERROR 263 2.2875 .86976 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.2917 

MULT R= .04296 R-SQR= .00185 SE= .93261 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1. 0078 .85971 -2 117.23 0. 

4.FEHC -.04296 -.98690 -1 .14152 -.69736 .4862 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 81 . CO. JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 13.009 13.009 3.0669 . 0811 

ERROR 263 1115.6 4.2419 

TOTAL 264 1128.6 

MULT R= . 10736 R-SQR= .01153 SE= 2.0596 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT .33519 . 18986 1. 7655 .0786 

4.FEHC - . 10736 -5.4733 3. 1253 -1.7513 .0811 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 82.CO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 3.0180 3.0180 .84147 .3598 

ERROR 263 943.26 3.5866 

TOTAL 264 946.28 

O'\ 

I 

N MULT R= .05647 

+"' R-SQR= .00319 SE= 1 . 8938 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT . 12540 .17458 .71833 .4732 

4.FEHC -.05647 -2.6362 2.8738 -.91732 .3598 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 83.CO.v.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 5.2814 5.2814 1. 2558 .2635 

ERROR 263 1106. 0 4.2055 

TOTAL 264 1111.3 

MULT R= .06894 R-SQR= .00475 SE= 2.0507 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT . 16203 . 18904 .85712 .3922 

4.FEHC -.06894 -3.4873 3.1119 -1.1206 .2635 
. LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 84.CR . .JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 16863 -1 . 16863 -1 2.7277 .0998 

ERROR 263 1. 6260 .61823 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 6428 

MULT R= . 10132 R-SQR= .01026 SE= .78628 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0121 .72482 -2 139.63 0. 

4.FEHC -.10132 - . 19706 . 11931 -1.6516 .0998 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 85.CR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 15659 -2 . 15659 -2 .27583 .5999 

ERROR 263 1. 4930 .56770 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 4946 

0\ 

I 

N MULT R= .03237 R-SQR= .00105 SE= .75346 -1 

\Jl 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0041 . 69456 -2 144.57 o . 

4. FEHC -.03237 -.60048 -1 .11433 -.52520 .5999 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 86.CR . .J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .23426 -2 .23426 -2 .37139 .5428 

ERROR 263 1. 6589 .63077 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6613 

MULT R= .03755 R-SQR= .00141 SE= .79421 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1. 0051 .73213 -2 137.29 0. 

4.FEHC -.03755 -.73446 -1 . 12052 -.60942 .5428 
<REGRESS VAR=61-66,71-76,81-86;5> 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 61 .UO. JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 25.244 25.244 6.7129 .0101 

ERROR 26.3 989.04 3.7606 

TOTAL 264 1014.3 

MULT R= . 15776 R-SQR= .02489 SE= 1. 9392 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .31744 . 13437 2.3624 .0189 

5.FECO - . 15776 -.34475 . 13306 -2.5909 .0101 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.UO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 10.485 10.485 3.3809 .0671 

ERROR 263 815.63 3. 1012 

TOTAL 264 826. 11 

0\ 

I MULT R= . 11266 R-SQR= .01269 SE= 1. 7610 N 

0\ 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT . 19712 . 12202 1 . 6154 . 1074 

5.FECO - . 11266 -.22218 . 12084 -1.8387 .0671 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 63.UO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 16. 608 16.608 4.9056 .0276 

ERROR 263 890.42 3.3856 

TOTAL 264 907.03 

MULT R= . 13532 R-SQR= .01831 SE= 1. 8400 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .20350 .12749 1 . 5962 . 1116 

5.FECO -. 13532 -.27963 . 12625 -2.2149 .0276 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 64.UR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 .44267 -1 .44267 -1 6. 1497 .0138 

ERROR 263 1. 8932 .71983 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 9374 

MULT R= . 15116 R-SQR= .02285 SE= .84843 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T~sTAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0123 .58788 -2 172. 20 o. 

5.FECO -.15116 -.14437 - 1 .58216 -2 -2.4799 .0138 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 65.UR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 16692 -1 . 16692 -1 2.6377 . 1056 

ERROR 263 1. 6644 .63285 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 6811 

°' I MULT R= .09965 R-SQR= .00993 SE= .79552 -1 N 

--..! 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0086 .55122 -2 182.98 o . 

5.FECO -.09965 -.88652 -2 . 54586 -2 -1.6241 . 1056 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 66.UR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .30796 -1 .30796 -1 4.4770 .0353 

ERROR 263 1. 8091 .68787 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 8399 

MULT R= . 12937 R-SQR= .01674 SE= .82938 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0096 .57468 -2 175.69 0. 

5.FECO -.12937 - . 12041 -1 .56909 -2 -2.1159 .0353 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 71.HO.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 43.878 43.878 5.3053 .0220 

ERROR 263 2175.2 8.2706 

TOTAL 264 2219.1 

MULT R= . 14062 R-SQR= .01977 SE= 2.8759 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT .45415 . 19927 2.2791 .0235 

5.FECO - . 14062 -.45452 . 19733 -2.3033 .0220 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 72.HD.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 23.446 23.446 3.0506 .0819 

ERROR 263 2021. 4 7.6858 

TOTAL 264 2044.8 (j\ 

I MULT R= . 10708 R-SQR= .01147 SE= 2.7723 N 

00 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT . 16046 .19210 .83532 .4043 

5.FECO - . 10708 -.33225 . 19023 -1.7466 .0819 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 73.HD.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 20.647 20.647 2.4492 . 1188 

ERROR 263 2217. 1 8.4300 

TOTAL 264 2237.7 

MULT R= .09605 R-SQR= .00923 SE= 2.9035 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT . 19256 . 20118 .95715 .3394 

5.FECO -.09605 -.31178 . 19922 -1. 5650 .1188 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 74.HR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .36739 -1 .36739 -1 4.5629 .0336 

ERROR 263 2.1176 .80517 -2 

TOTAL 264 2. 1543 

MULT R= . 13059 R-SQR= .01705 SE= .89731 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 . 0133 .62175 -2 162.97 0. 

5. FECO -.13059 -.13152 -1 .61570 -2 -2.1361 .0336 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 75.HR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR-"---f-,STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .18341 - 1 .18341 -1 - 2. 34~4--- .1265 

ERROR 263 2.0531 .78065 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.0715 (j\ 

I 

N MULT R= .09410 R-SQR= .00885 SE= .88354 -1 

\.0 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0047 .61221 -2 164. 11 0. 

5. FECO -.09410 -.92926 -2 .60626 -2 -1. 5328 . 1265 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 76.HR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 11194 -1 . 11194 - 1 1 . 2910 .2569 

ERROR 263 2.2805 . 86711 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.2917 

MULT R= .06989 R-SQR= .00488 SE= . 93119 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1. 0067 .64522 -2 156.03 o. 

5.FECO - .06989 -.72599 -2 .63895 -2 -1.1362 .2569 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 81.CD.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 28. 200 28.200 6.7398 .0100 

ERROR 263 1100.4 4. 1841 

TOTAL 264 1128.6 

MULT R= . 15807 R-SQR= .02499 SE= 2.0455 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .25751 . 14173 1 . 8168 .0704 

5.FECO - . 15807 -.36438 . 14036 -2.5961 .0100 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 82.CD.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGN IF 

' REGRESSION 1 10.559 10.559 2.9677 .0861 

ERROR 263 935.72 3.5579 

TOTAL 264 946.28 

,, ~ 

MULT R= . 10563 R-SQR= .01116 SE= 1. 8862 w 

0 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT . 11016 . 13070 .84287 .4001 

5.FECO - . 10563 -.22296 . 12943 -1. 7227 .0861 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 83.CO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 13.310 13.310 3. 1880 .0753 

ERROR 263 1098.0 4. 1750 

TOTAL 264 1111.3 

MULT R= . 10944 R-SQR= .01198 SE= 2.0433 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT .12102 . 14158 .85480 .3934 

5.FECO - . 10944 -.25033 . 14020 -1. 7855 .0753 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 84.CR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .36751 -1 .36751 -1 6.0182 .0148 

ERROR 263 1. 6061 .61067 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 .6428 

MULT R= . 14957 R-SQR= .02237 SE= .78145 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1. 0093 .54147 -2 186.40 o. 

5.FECO -.14957 - . 13154 - 1 .53620 -2 -2.4532 .0148 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 85.CR.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 11913 - 1 .11913 -1 2.1131 . 1472 

ERROR 263 1 . 4827 .56376 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 4946 

°' I 

(;.) MULT R= .08928 R-SQR= .00797 SE= .75084 -1 I-' 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 .0049 .52026 -2 193. 15 o .. 5.FECO -.08928 -.74891 -2 .51520 -2 -1. 4536 . 1472 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 86.CR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 . 13848 -1 . 13848 -1 2.2107 . 1383 

ERROR 263 1. 6474 .62639 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6613 

MULT R= .09130 R-SQR= .00834 SE= .79145 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1.0056 .54840 -2 183.37 o. 

5.FECO -.09130 -.80745 -2 .54306 -2 -1 .4868 . 1383 
<REGRESS VAR=61-66,71-76,81-86;6> 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 61.UO.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

.. -··---. / 

REGRESSION 1 21 . 292 21. 292 5.6394 .0183 

ERROR 263 992.99 3.7756 / 

TOTAL 264 1014.3 / 

MULT R= . 14489 R-SQR= .02099 SE= 1 . 9431 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT - . 19055 . 18865 -1.0100 .3134 

6. FENOX . 14489 . 77445 .32612 2.3747 .0183 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 62.UO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 4.4607 4.4607 1 . 4278 .2332 

ERROR 263 821 . 65 3. 1242 

TOTAL 264 826.11 

°' I 

w MULT R= .07348 R-SQR= .00540 SE= 1 . 7675 N 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.65472 -1 . 17161 -.38152 .7031 

6.FENOX .07348 .35448 .29666 1 . 1949 .2332 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 63.UO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 5.6669 5.6669 1 .6535 . 1996 

ERROR 263 9Q1. 36 3.4272 

TOTAL 264 907.03 

MULT R= .07904 R-SQR= .00625 SE= 1 . 8513 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT -.10611 .17974 -.59036 .5555 

6.FENOX .07904 .39954 .31071 1. 2859 . 1996 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 64.UR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .28712 -1 .28712 -1 3.9562 .0477 

ERROR 263 1. 9087 .72575 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 9374 

MULT R= . 12174 R-SQR= .01482 SE= .85191 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT .99286 .82711 -2 120.04 o. 

6. FENOX . 12174 .28439 -1 .14298 -1 1.9890 .0477 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 65.UR.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 .15571 -2 .15571 -2 .24383 .6219 

ERROR 263 1. 6795 .63860 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6811 0--

I 

w MULT R= .03043 R-SQR= .00093 SE= .79913 -1 w 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT 1 .0015 .77586 -2 129.08 0. 

6.FENOX .03043 .66229 -2 .13412 -1 .49379 .6219 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE·OF 66.UR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .36590 -2 .36590 -2 .52407 .4698 

ERROR 263 1 .8362 .69819 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 .8399 

MULT R= .04459 R-SQR= .00199 SE= .83558 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STO ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99947 .81126 -2 123.20 o . 

6. FENOX .04459 . 10152 -1 . 14024 -1 .72393 .4698 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 71.HD.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 22.388 22.388 2.6805 . 1028 

ERROR 263 2196.7 8.3524 

TOTAL 264 2219. 1 

MULT R= . 10044 R-SQR= .01009 SE= 2.8900 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.11393 .28059 -.40604 .6850 

6.FENOX . 10044 .79414 .48505 1 . 6372 . 1028 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 72.HD.DILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE DF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 8.2792 8.2792 1 .0692 .3021 

ERROR 263 2036.5 7.7435 

TOTAL 264 2044.8 

°' I 

w MULT R= .06363 R-SQR= .00405 SE= 2.7827 ~ 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.21109 .27017 -.78131 .4353 

6.FENOX .06363 .48293 .46704 1 .0340 .3021 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 73.HO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 17.296 17.296 2.0487 . 1535 

ERROR 263 2220.4 8.4428 

TOTAL 264 2237.7 

MULT R= .08792 R-SQR= .00773 SE= 2.9056 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.26578 .28211 -.94212 .3470 

6. FENOX .08792 .69801 .48767 1. 4313 .1535 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 74.HR.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .21243 -1 .21243 -1 2.6192 . 1068 

ERROR 263 2. 1331 . 81106 -2 

TOTAL 264 2. 1543 

MULT R= .09930 R-SQR= .00986 SE= .90059 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGN IF 

CONSTANT .99617 .87437 -2 113. 93 o . 

6. FENOX .09930 .24462 -1 . 15115-1 1. 6184 . 1068 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 75.HR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .59035 -2 .59035 -2 .75167 .3867 

ERROR 263 2.0655 .78538 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.0715 O' 

I 

\.;.) MULT R= .05338 R-SQR= .00285 SE= .88622 -1 

\J1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99456 .86042 -2 115. 59 o . 

6. FENOX .05338 . 12896 -1 .14874 -1 . 86699 .3867 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 76.HR.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 . 12505 -1 . 12505 -1 1. 4430 .2307 

ERROR 263 2.2792 .86661 -2 

TOTAL 264 2.2917 

MULT R= .07387 R-SQR= .00546 SE= .93092 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99492 .90382 -2 110.08 o . 

6. FENOX . 07387 . 18769 -1 .15624 -1 1 . 2013 .2307 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 81.CO.JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 20. 133 20. 133 4.7768 .0297 

ERROR 263 1108. 5 4.2148 

TOTAL 264 1128.6 

MULT R= . 13356 R-SQR= .01784 SE= 2.0530 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.25007 . 19932 -1.2546 .2107 

6. FENOX . 13356 .75308 .34457 2. 1856 .0297 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 82.CO.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 2.8629 2.8629 . 79811 .3725 

ERROR 263 943.42 3.5871 

TOTAL 264 946.28 

°' I 

w MULT R= .05500 R-SQR= .00303 SE= 1. 8940 

°' 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COE FF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT -.12121 . 18388 -.65918 .5104 

6.FENOX .05500 .28398 .31788 .89337 .3725 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 83.CO.J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SQR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 4.2221 4.2221 1 .0030 .3175 

ERROR 263 1107. 1 4.2095 

TOTAL 264 1111.3 

MULT R= .06164 R-SQR= .00380 SE= 2.0517 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT - . 15041 . 19920 -.75508 .4509 

6.FENOX .06164 .34487 .34435 1 .0015 .3175 
LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 84.CR . .JOSE N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .22586 -1 .22586 -1 3.6662 .0566 

ERROR 263 1. 6202 .61606 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 6428 

MULT R= . 11725 R-SQR= .01375 SE= .78489 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99186 .76205 -2 130. 16 o. 

6.FENOX . 11725 .25223 -1 .13173 -1 1.9147 .0566 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 85.CR.OILL N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGNIF 

REGRESSION 1 .46362 -3 .46362 -3 .81606 -1 .7754 

ERROR 263 1 . 4941 .56812 -2 

TOTAL 264 1. 4946 

0\ 

I 

w MULT R= .01761 R-SQR= .00031 SE= .75374 -1 '._.... 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99977 . 73179 -2 136.62 o . 

6.FENOX .01761 .36138 -2 .12650 -1 . 28567 .7754 

LEAST SQUARES REGRESSION 

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF 86.CR . .J.P. N= 265 OUT OF 571 

SOURCE OF SUM SQRS MEAN SOR F-STAT SIGN IF 

REGRESSION 1 .11715 -2 .11715 -2 . 18560 .6670 

ERROR 263 1. 6601 .63121 -2 

TOTAL 264 1 . 6613 

MULT R= .02656 R-SQR= .00071 SE= .79449 -1 

VARIABLE PARTIAL COEFF STD ERROR T-STAT SIGNIF 

CONSTANT .99923 .77136 -2 129.54 0 . 

6.FENOX . 02656 .57446 -2 .13334 -1 .43081 .6670 
Appendix 7 

Plots of Emissions and Fuel Economy 

from Special Engines over Time 
Two variable plots of the ratio of the. Combined Fuel Economy of 

each year divided by the Combined Fuel Economy of the 

corresponding base year (usually 1979) versus each of FTPHC, 

FTPCO, FTPNOX, and FENOX. 

Details of the data used may be found in Tables IV. F-1 through 

IV. F-5 in Section IV. F. 

7-1 
....... 

I 

N 

FORD'S 2.3 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

m 

I' 

l.!:I 

0... 

l.2B 

J. IB 

L I .BB 

' l.!:I 

0... 

L: B.SB 

B.BB 

A URBAN MP6 CRUTD TRANS> 

G HIGHWAY MPG CRUTD TRANS) 

• COMBINED MPG CRUTD TARNS) 

Bl.B 
........ 

I . w 

FORD'S 2.3 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

m 

I' 

lIJ 

D... 

I. 2EI 

I. IB 

L I. EIEI 

' L!:I 

D... 

L: B.98 

B.BEI 

A URBAN MPG CMAN TRANS> 

m HIGHWAY MPG CMAN TRANS> 

• COMBINED MPG CMRN TRANS) 

Bl.El 
-.J 

I 

~ 

CDM~INED· MPG VS. UR~RN HC FORD'S 2.3 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

1. IB 

m 

I' 

l!l 

a.. 

l: I.BB 

" L!1 

a.. 

I: 

e.se 

A 

[!] 

B.BB 

NDN DETERIDRRTEP CRUTD TRANi 

DETERIORATED CAUTD TRANl 

B. LIB e.se 
........ 

I 

V1 

COMBINED MP5 VS. URBAN HC FORD'S 2.3 LITER ENGINE ·OVER .TIME 

m 

I' 

L!l 

(]_ 

2: 

' l!I 

Il. 

2: 

I. IB 

I.BB 

A 

[!) 

NDN DETERIORATED CMRN TRRNJ DETE~JDRATED CMRN TRRNJ 

B.98 . ____ _.__ __________ _..... __ _......__ __ 

e.ee I.BB 1.2B 
...... 

I 

°' 

CDMBINE.D MP5 VS. URBAN CD FORD'S 2.3 LITER ENGINE DVER.·TIME 

I • I B 

m 

(' 

l!J 

a.. 

L 1 .ee 

'-

l!J 

n.. 

I: 

B.9B 

A 

E 

NON DETERIORATED CAUTD TRANl 

DETERIORATED CAUTD TRANl 

9.B f B.B 
-..J 

I 

-..J 

COMBINED -MP5 VS. URBAN CD FORD'S 2.3 LITER E"NGINE OVER TIME 

J. ID 

m 

f' 

l.!J 

Il.. 

I .BB I: 

'\ 

l.!J 

Il.. 

·L: 

D. !:lB 

A 

El 

B.DB 

NDN PETERIDRATEP CMAN TRANl 

DETERIORATED CMAN TRANl 

'i. EID !\.BB 
....... 

I 

co 

COMBINED MP5 vs~ URBRN NDX FDRDtS 2.3 LITER ·ENGINE OVER TIME 

I. ID 

m 

[' 

I!] 

a.. 

L I.BB 

' I!] 

[L 

z: 

B.!lB 

A 

m 

NON DETERIORATED CAUTO TRANJ 

DETERIORATED CAUTO TRANl 

1.LfB I .&B 
-....J 

I 

\0 

.. 

COMBINED MP5 VS. URBAN NDX FORD'S 2.3 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

m 

I' 

L!1 

a.. 

I. IB r 

I: I .BB 

" L!1 

a.. 

I: 

B.9B 

B.BB B.2B 

A NDN OETERIDRATEO CMAN TRANl 

8 0£TERIDRATED CMAN TRANl 

I • 'iB I • 6B 
CDMBINED··MP5 VS. Hl5HWRY NDX 

FDRD 1 5 2.3 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

m 

f' 

L!1 

I. IB 

~ Il.. 

6 L I .BB 

' L!1 

Il.. 

I: 

B.SB 

B.ee 

. A RUTCMRTIC TRRNSMISSIDN . E MANUAL TRANSMISSION 

. I.SB I.BB I.SB 2.BB 

NDX < G/M I ) 

2.SB 
CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

w 

Ul 

1.28 

ll: 1. lB 

ta 

I 

L!J 

n. 

:L 

'\. I .SB 

L!J 

n. 

:L 

B.9B 

A URBAN MPS <AUTO TRAN) m HISHWAY MPS <AUTO TRAN) + COMBINED MP& (AUTO TRAN) 

Bl .ii 
CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

I .2B 

w I • IS: 

lfl 

a: 

ta I • 18 

-...J I 

I 

I-' . L!J N 

[l 

L: I.BS: 

' l.!J 

a.. 

I: I .88 A URBAN MPG <MAN. TRAN> 

m Hl&HWAY MPG <MAN • TRAN> 

• CDMBINEP MPG <MAN. TRFIN) 

8.SS: 

Mr3i1EL YEFf~8 Bl .8 
....... 

I 

I-' 

w 

CHYRSLER 1 5 I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

I. IS: 

w Ul I. 111 

[[ 

ta 

I 

L!J I .BS 

a... 

I: 

' L!1 

Il.. I .BB 

I: 

B.SS 

A URBAN MPG C MAN • <DI>} TRAN 3 

m HlmHWAY MPS CMAN.CDI>> TRAN3 

• CDMBINEI> MPG CMAN.CDI>) TRAN~ 

Bl .B 
COMBINED MP6 VS. URBRN HC CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

Ill 

(' 

I.!] 

I. I B 

Il.. L I .BB 

I.!] ' 

a.. 

L: 

B .SB 

B.BB B. ID HC 

A NCN DETERIORATED CAUTC TRAN~ l::J. DETER I DRRTEI> C RUTD TRAN l 

B.2B 8.31 B.'IB (G/MI) 
--.... 

I 

...... 

V'I 

COMB NED MP5 VS. URBRN HC CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

I. IS: 

w U1 f.IB 

a: 

til 

I 

L!J t. BS: 

ll 

i: 

' L!I 

(l I.BB 

I: 

a.as: 

B.BB 

A NDN DETERIORATED CHAN. TRAN~ m DETERIORATED CHAN. TRANl 

+ NDN DET. C MAN. COD) TRAN l 

X DET. C MAN. COD) TRAN l 

B.'tB B.S:B 
COMBINED MPG VS. URBRN CD CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

m 

(' 

l!J 

CL 

I. 18 

I: 1 .ea 

' l!l 

n.. 

I: 

8.91!1 

8.BB 

A NON DETERIORATED CAUTD TRAN~ ID DETERIORATED CAUTD ~RANl 

B.BB 
COMBINED MP5 VS. UR6RN CD CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

w 

Ul 

I • 21iJ 

D: I. IB 

ta 

I 

L!] 

a.. 

I: 

' l!J 

Cl 

I: 

I .BB 

l/J .SB 

B.B 2 •. e 

A NDN J>ETERIDRRTEJ> CMRN. TARN~ E-J>ETERIDRRTEJ> CMRN. TRRNl 

+ NDN J>ET. C MAN. CDJ>) TRAN l 

X J>ET. C MAN. CDJ>) TARN l 

12.D l'i. II. 
COMBINED MP5 VS. URBRN NDX CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

I. I B 

D1 

I' 

l!l 

n.. I: I .BB 

' l!J 

CL 

I: 

I.SB 

a.ea a.2a 

A NDN DETERIDRATED CAUTD TRAN2 

B: DETERIORATED CAUTD TRANl 
CDMBlNED MP6 VS. URBAN NDX CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

l.2B 

w 

U1 I. Ill 

a: 

ti] 

I 

l!I 

a.. 

L I .BB 

l!I ' 

a.. 

l: 

8.91 

a.ea 

A NON DETERIORATED CHAN. TRAN3 

8 DETERIORATED CHAN. TRANl 

+ NON DET. CHAN • (DD) TRAN l 

X DET. CHAN. <DD) TRAN l 

B. 2S B. EB a. 7E I • BB I • 2S: I • EB 1. 7E 2.aa 

NOX ( G/M I ) 
....... 

I 

N 

0 

COMBINED MP5 VS. CHRYSLER'S I .7 LITER 

w 

U1 

I .21 

a: I.II 

ti] 

I 

l!l 

a.. 

I: 

' L!l 

a.. 

I: 

I.BB 

B.98 

I.BB 

HIGHWAY NDX ENGINE OVER TIME 

A AUTDHATIC TRANSMISSION 

m MANUAL TRANSMISSION 

+ HANUAL<D~> TRANSMISSION 

'f .Bl E.IB 
-..J 

I 

N 

I-' 

GM'S I .6 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

Ill 

I' 

1.38 

1.28 

L!1 I. 18 

n.. 

I: 

L!J ' 

n.. 

I: 

I .BB 

8.91 

B.BB 

A URBAN MP& CAUTD TRAN> 

El H J SHWAY MPS C AUTD TRAN> 

+ CDMBINED MP& CAUTD TRAN> 

Bl .B 
...... 

I 

N 

N 

GM'S I .6 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

m 

I' 

l!J 

[L 

I: 

' l!J 

[L 

I: 

I. IB 

I .BB 

8.98 

a.ea 

A URBAN HP& <MANUAL TRAN> 

El HI &HHAY HP& C MANUAL TRAN) + COMBINE~ HP& <MANUAL TRAN) 

Bl .B 
...... 

I 

N 

w 

COMBINED MP5 VS. URBRN HC GM'S I .6 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

ll1 

(' 

l.!.1 

a.. 

r .2a 

I. I a 

L: I .BB 

' l!1 

n.. 

I: a.SB 

II.BB 

11. ee 

A NDN OET. CAUTD TAAN15TO EN&~ E OET. CAUTD TAAN1&TO ENGl 

+ NDN l>ET. C FIUTD TAFIN1 HD EN& :I X OET. CFIUTD TAFIN1 HD ENGl 

a.ea I .11111 
-....J 

I 

N 

~ 

COMBINED MP5 VS. URBRN HC GM 1 5 I .6 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

I. 18 

m I.BB [' 

L!l 

a_ 

I: 

' l!l 

a_ 8.91 

I: 

8.BB 

B.BB ·~c 

A NDN D£T. CHAN TRAN1STD £N5l 

8 D£T. CHAN TRAN1STD £NSl 

+ NDN D£T. CHAN TRANI HD £N&l 

X D£T. CHAN TRANI HD EN&l 

( ~~M I ) a.&a a.aa 
-.J 

I 

N 

V1 

COMBINED MPG VS. URBRN CD GM 1 5 I .6 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

m 

I' 

L!l 

a. 

t .28 

I. IB 

L 1.llB 

' l!I 

a. 

I: II.SB 

B.BB 

B.11 2.B &.~ G )'~ I ) IB.B 

A NON DET. CAUTD TRANIBTD EN&~ a DET. CAUTD TRAN1BTD EN&l 

+ NON DET. CAUTD TRANI HD EN&~ X DET. CAUTD TRANI HD EN&l 

12.B J'f.B 
....... 

. , 

N 

~ 

COMBINED MPG VS. URBAN CD GM'S I .6 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

r. 18 

m I .8a (' 

l!l 

a_ 

I: 

' l!l 

a. 8.Sa 

I: 

a.ea 

a.a 2 .a CD Lt.a< G/i@t~ ) 

A NDN OET. CHAN TAAN1STD EN&l E 0£T. CHAN TAAN1&TD ENGl 

e.a . ra.8 
"-..J 

I 

N 

"-..J 

COMBINED MP6 VS. URBAN.CD GM 1 5 I .6 LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

Dl 

[" 

l!l 

a.. 

I. IS 

L I .BB 

l!l ' 

a.. 

I: 

B.BS 

B.B 

A NDN OET. CHAN TRANI HD EN&l 

m OET. CHAN TRANI HD EN&l 

B.B IB.B 
-....) 

I 

N 

co 

CDM61NED MP5·V5. LJR6RN NDX 

GM' S I . 6 LITER ENG I NE OVER TI ME 

I • 3121 

I . IS 

I • 0121 

a.as 

0.70 

.e.ze z.s:e 

NDX 

A NON t>ET. C AUTO TRAN; STt> ENG) G t>ET. CAUTO TRANJSTt> ENG) 

+ NON t>ET. (AUTO TRANJ HO ENG) X t>ET. CAUTO TRANJ HO ENG> 

I • Bia I . SZ i.!. ze 

CG/Ml) 
COMBINED MP5 5M 1 5 1.5 LITER 

I . I S: 

01 1 • ea f' 

L!J 

" I []_ N 

'° L: 

" L!J 

[]_ 0.BS: 

L: 

0.70 

0.121121 e.s:e NDX 

VS. URf3RN NDX ENGINE OVER TIME 

A NON DET. CMAN TRAN1STD ENGJ 

8 .DET. CMAN TRAN1STD ENGJ 

+ NON DET. CMAN TRANI HD ENGJ 

X DET. CMAN TRANI HD ENGJ 

I rl!B I • S:121 2.ee 

< L.:J/M I ) 
......, 

l 

.0 

COMBINED MP5 5M I 5 I . 5 LITER 

m 

I' 

l!J 

[]_ 

:L 

" l!J 

[]_ 

:L 

I .2121. 

I . 10 

1.00 

0.9.0 

0.80 

e.e0 0.S0 NDX 

VS. Hl5HWRY NDX ENGINE OVER TIME 

AUTO TRANS. (STD ENG.) 

AUTO TRANS. <HC ENG.) 

I • 00 I • S'.121 (5/MI) 2.0121 
CDM61NED MP5 

5M'5 I .5 LITER 

I. 2£1 

I • I £1 

£1.8£1 

B.BB £1.SB 

NDX 

V5. Hl5HWRY NDX 

ENGINE OVER TIME 

A MANUAL TRANS. (STD E:NG. ) 8 .MANUAL TRANS. CHC E:NG.) 

I . BB I . SB 2.BB (5/MI) 
1.28 

I. rs: 

I. IB 

I.BS 

I.BB 

B.SS: 

B.SB 

GM'S 2.S L FWD ENGINE OVER TIME 

ea.a 

MODEL YERR 

A URBAN MPm CAUTD. TRAN> 

[!] HISHWAY MPS CAUTD. TRAN) 

~ ~DMBIN£D MPS CAUTD. TRAN) 

et.a 
1.1£ 

I. 18 

I.BS 

I.BB 

B.9£ 

B.98 

a.as 

·GM'S 2.S L FWD ENGINE OVER TIME 

Bl.I 

MODEL YEAR 

~ URBAN MP& CHAN. TRAN) 

[!] Hl&HWAY HP& <HAN. TRAN) 

<!» COMBINED HPS <HAN.TRAN) 

Bl.I 
CDM61NED MPG VS. UR~RN HC GM'S 2.S L FWD ENGINE OVER TIME 

I.IS: 

I .II 

lSl 

m 

L!l 

1 a.. w B.!S: .i:-- I: 

L!l ' 

a.. 

!: 

B.911 

A NDN-OETER. <AUTO TRAN) 

t::J DETERIORATED CAUTD TRAN) 

a.as: 

a.ms B.BS: B. 18 B. IS: B.28 D.2S: B.3B B.3S: B.'fB 

HC (G/MI) 
COMBINED MP5 VS. UR~AN HC GM 1 5 2.S L FWD ENGINE OVER TIME 

I.BS 

1.88 

TSI 

CD 

L!l 

~a.. 8.$ Vl I: 

" L!l 

a.. 

I: 

8.98 

A. NON-DETER. <HAN TRAN> 

EJ DETERIORATED CHAN TRAN> 

8.E 

I.BB 8.DS 8. 18 8. IS 8.28 8.2S 8.38 8.3S 8.'18 

HC ( G/M I ) 
ISJ 

CD 

l.!1 

I.SS: 

I.BB 

. 8 .!IS: 

8.98 

a.es: 

COMBINED MP5 VS. URBRN CD GM 1 5 2.S L FWD ENGINE OVER TIME 

A, NON-DETER. CAUTD TRAN) 

[!] DETERIORATED CAUTD TRAN> 

8.88 a.so 1.88 1.m 2.88 2.SB 3.88 3.!UI 't.88 

CD < G/M 1 ) 
I.BS: 

I.BB 

LSI 

[IJ 

l!1 

1ll.. 

~L a. !IS: 

' l!J 

ll.. 

L: a.SB 

a.as: 

CDM6INED MP5 VS. URBRN CD GM 1 5 2.S L FWD ENGINE OVER TIME 

A_ NDN-DETER. CHAN TRAN) 

[!] DETERIDRATED CHAN TRAN> 

B.aB a.EB I.BB I.EB 2.81 2.s:B 3.BB 3.S:B ~.88 ~.S:B S:.88 

CD CG/MI ) 
I.IS: 

1.18 

lS1 

rn 

L!1 

1Il. 

~I: B.9S: 

' L!1 

a... 

I: 

11.98 

a.es: 

COMBINED MPG VS. URBAN NDX GM'S 2.S L FWD ENGINE OVER TIME 

I.II B.2D 1.'ilf B.68 a.BB I .DD 

NDX CG/Ml) 

A, AUTDMRTIC TRRNSMISSIDN 

t=J MANUAL TRANSMISSION 

• (ALL ~F'S RR£ l.B> 

1.28 l.'il l.&B 
I.IS: 

I.Bl 

I.SS: 

I.BB 

. I.BS: 

COMBINED MPG VS. HIGHWAY NDX GM 1 5 2.S L FWD ENGINE OVER TIME 

I.BB B.31 II.SB I.DB 

NDX CG/Ml) 

El 

A AUTOMATIC. TRANSMISSION 

(!] MANUAL TRANSMISSION 

I .28 I .E8 
-....J 

., 

.i::-

0 

GM 1 5 3.8 LfTER ENGINE OVER TIME 

l.2B 

m I. IB 

f' 

L!1 

[L 

L 

' L!1 

[L 1.111111 

I: 

111. 98 

A URBAN MPG <AUTD TRANS) ra HIGHWAY MPG (AUTD TRANS) 

+ <DMBINED MPG <AUTD TRANS) 

79.8 &8.111 Bl.8 MODEL YEAR 
m 

I' 

L!1 

0... --.,J 2: I 

-""' " I-' 

L!1 

0... 

2: 

5M 1 5 3.B LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

I. I B 

I. BB 

B • SB 

B • BB 

A URBAN MPG CMANUAL TRANSl 

8 HIGHWAY MPG CHAN TRANSl ~ COMBINED MPG CHAN TRRNEl 

79.B BB.B BI. B 

MDr>EL YEAR 
-...J 

I 

.i::-

N 

• 

COMBINED MPG VS~ U~~HN Ht 

5M 1 S 3.B Ll·TER ENGINE OVER TIME 

l.2B 

rn f' l.IB 

~ 

ll.. 

L 

" I!] 

ll.. 

L 

I.BB 

B.SB 

B.HB 

~ NDN DETERIDRRTED CAUTD TRAN5J ~ DETERIDRRTED CRUTD TRRNSl 

B.28 B.YB B.6111 B.BB 1.ee HC [ 5/M I J 
CDM~INED MP5 VS. UR~RN HC 

5M 1 5 3.B LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

1. ID 

rn (' I .BB 

L!1 

[L 

L 

' L!1 

[L B.9B 

L 

B.BB 

B.BB · B.2B B.~B B.6B 

~ NDN DETERIORATED CHAN TRANl ~ DETERIORATED CHAN TRANl 

B.BB I.BB 

HC [ G/M I J 
...... 

I 

""" """ 

COMBINED MP5 VS. UR~RN CD GM 1 5 3.B LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

l.2B 

m I. IB (' 

L!1 

[L 

L 

" L!1 

[L I.BB 

L 

B.9B 

B.BB 

A NON DETERIORATED CRUTD TRRNJ 

8 DETERIORATED CRUTD TRRNl 

S:.BB &.BB 
-..J 

I 

.I:' 

\.Jl 

CDM61NED MP5 VS. UR~RN CD 5M 1 5 3.B LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

I. 18 

m 1.88 I' 

l.!l 

[l.. 

2: 

'\.. 

l.!l 

[l.. 8.98 

2: 

8.ee 

8.88 1.88 

~ NDN DETERIORATED CHAN TRANl ~ DETERIDRRTED CHAN TRANl 

6.88 7.88 B.88 
-....J 

I 

~ 

O" 

COMBINED ·MP5 VS. UR6RN NDX 

GM'S 3.8 .LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

l.2B 

rn I. IB 

(' 

l.!1 

n.. 

L: 

" l.!l 

n.. I.BB 

L 

B.9B 

B.BB B.SB I.RIB 

NDX ( G/M I ) 

NDN OETERIDRRTEO CRUTD TRR~ 

DETERIORATED CAUTD TRANJ 

NDN DETERIORATED CMRN TRNA'. 

DETERIORATED CMRN TRRNJ 

I.SB 
CDM61NED·MP5 VS. Hl5HWRY NDX 

GM 1 5 3.B LITER ENGINE OVER TIME 

rn 

(' 

L!1 

[J... 

1.28 

I. 18 

2: I .88 

" L!1 

[J... 

L: 8.98 

ii.BB 

A AUTOMATIC TRANSMISSION . m MANUAL TRANSMISSION 
Appendix 8 

Multicollinearity Discussion 
Appendix 8 - Multicollinearity Discussion 

A. Introduction 

This appendix discusses the regression equations presented in Section IV and 

the impact that multicollinearity had on these equations. 

Interpretation of the multiple regression equation depends 

implicitly on the assumption that the explanatory variables are 

not strongly interrelated. It is usual to interpret a 

regression coefficient as measuring the change in the response 

variable when the corresponding explanatory variable is 

increased by one unit and all other explanatory variables are 

held constant. This interpretation may not be valid if there 

are strong linear relationships among the explanatory 

variables. It is always conceptually possible to increase the 

value of one variable in an estimated regression equation while 

holding the others constant. However, there may be no 

information about the result of such a manipulation in the 

estimation data. Moreover, it may be impossible to change one 

variable while holding all others constant in the process being 

studied. When these conditions exist, simple interpretation of 

the regression coefficient as a marginal effect is lost. 

When there is a complete absence of linear relationship among 

the explanatory variables, they are said to be orthogonal. In 

most regression applications the explanatory variables are not 

orthogonal. Usually the lack of orthogonality is not serious 

enough to affect the analysis. However, in some situations the 

explanatory variables are so strongly interrelated that the 

regression results are ambiguous. 

The condition of severe nonorthogonality is also referred to as 

the problem of collinear data, or multicollinearity. It is 

recommended that one should be extremely cautious about any and 

all substantive conclusions based on a regression analysis in 

the presence of multicollinearity.* 

In order to address the concerns discussed above, the three ·regression 

equations, Cheng, Murrell and Bascunana, (see Section IV. D) were investigated 

for the presence of multicollinearity. 

Multicollinearity is a question of degree and not of kind. The 

meaningful distinction is not between the presence and the 

absence of multicollinearity, but between its various degrees.** 

* Chatterjee and Price, Regression Analysis By Example, John Wiley & Sons, 

1977, pages 143 and 144. 

** Jan Kmenta, Elements of Econometrics, Macmillan Publishing Co.~ 1971, p. 

380. 

8-1 
Given that some multicollinearity almost always exists, the 

question is, At what point does the degree of 

multicollinearity cease to be "normal" and become 

"harmful"? This question has not been satisfactorily 

resolved. According . to one criterion sometimes used in 

practice, multicollinearity is regarded as harmful if at, 

say, the 5% level of significance, the value of the F 

statistic is significantly different from zero but none of 

the t statistics for the regression coefficients (other 

than the regression constant) is. In this case we would 

reject the hypothesis that there is no relationship between 

Yi on one side and X12, X13, ••• ,XiK on the other 

side, but we would not reject the hypothesis that any one 

of the explanatory variables is irrelevant in influencing 

Yi• Such a situation indicates that the separate 

influence of each of the explanatory variables is weak 

relative to their joint influence on Yi. This is 

symptomatic of a high degree of multicollinearity, which 

prevents us from disentangling the separate influences of 

the explanatory variables*. · 

The objectivity of this test makes it a desirable method for the detection of 

multicollinearity, but as Kmenta alluded to in his following statement, there 

are other harmful effects caused by multicollinearity which may be present, 

but not brought to light by the use of .this method. 

The disadvantage of this criterion is that it is too strong 

in the sense that multicollinearity is considered as 

harmful only when all of the influences of the explanatory 

variables on Y cannot be disentangled.* 

With respect to the detection of multicollinearity, Chatterjee and Price 

stated** the following: 

Multicollinearity is associated with unstable estimated 

regression coefficients. This situation results from the 

presence of strong linear relationships among the 

explanatory variables. It is not a problem of 

misspecification. Therefore, the empirical investigation 

of problems that result from a collinear data set should 

begin only after the model has been satisfactorily 

specified. However, there may be some indications of 

multicollinearity that are encountered during the process 

of adding, deleting, and transforming variables or data 

points in search of the good model. Indications of 

multicollinearity that appear as instability in the 

estimated coefficients are as follows: 

* Kmenta, op. cit., p 390. 

** Chatterjee and Price, op. cit., p. 155-156. 

8-2 
1. large changes in the estimated coefficients when a variable is 

added or deleted, 

2. large changes in the coefficients when a data point is altered or 

droppped. 

Once the residual plots indicate that the model has been satisfactorily 

specified, multicollinearity may be present if 

3. the algebraic signs of the estimated coefficients do not conform 

to prior expectations or 

4. coefficients of variables that are expected t;o be important have 

large standard errors. 

The presence of multicollinearity is also indicated by the size of the 

correlation coefficients that exist among the explanatory variables. A 

large correlation between a pair of explanatory variables indicates a 

strong linear relationship between those two variables. [A table of 

correlation coefficients (r) . will be referred to as a correlation 

matrix.] 

The source of multicollinearity may be more subtle than a simple 

relationship between two variables. A linear relation can involve many 

of the explanatory variables. It may not be possible to detect such a 

relationship with a simple correlation coefficient. 

B. Discussion 

I. Cheng Equation 

MPG = A ( ETW - l) + B ( VDHP ) + C ( DI SP ) + 

+ E(N/V) + F 

urban highway composite 

A = 70, 077 80,599 77 ,444 

B 0.2908 -0.4058 0.0458 

c -0.0044 -0.0301 -0.0084 

D -0.0291 -0 .0271 -0.0366 

E -0.1047 -0.4356 -0.2187 

F 4.0439 34.546 13.560 

D(RTHP) 

The following observations, with respect to urban fuel economy, suggest 

that multicollinearity is present: 

8-3 
a. The positive sign for coefficient B for urban and composite fuel 

economy is co~nter-intuitive. It means that for this equation, urban 

and composite fuel economy increase as dynamometer horsepower increases. 

b. Displacement (DISP) was expected to be an important variable for its 

effect on fuel economy~ yet for this equation it was not statistically 

significant for predicting urban fuel economy at a 90% confidence 

level. Its partial correlation (r) was only -0.077 (r2 .006); in 

other words, :;,.t only explained 0.6% of the variation in fuel economy 

(see tables 8-1 to 8-3). The t-statistic for displacement was -1.5562 

with an attained significance of 0.1204. When a variable which was 

expected to be important is found to not be statistically significant, 

the cause of the paradox could be multicollinearity. 

c. The correlation coefficients (r) for the variables (see table 8-1) are 

as high as 0.89. This indicates that there is a high degree of ; 

correlation between some of the explan~tory variables. 

\ 

d. The standard error for displacemen~" ( .0'028), relative to the magnitude 

I I 

of the coefficient, is large. . 

\ 

2. Conclusion: Multicollinearity is present in the Cheng equation used to 

predict urban fuel economy. There is probably multicollinearity in the other 

two versions also. This would tend to imply caution in the use the equation, 

but since the equation was (1) used for a residual analysis and (2) used on 

the same data from which it was generated, the appropriate caution in the use 

of the equation has been employed. 

8-4 
Table 8-1 

Correlation Matrix for the Cheng Variables - FTP Data 

Variable 

UMPG 1.00 

l/ETW .93 1.00 

VDHP -.57 -.66 1.00 

DISP -.82 -.89 .59 1.00 

RTHP -.85 -.84 .49 .84 1.00 

~ CMPR .45 .47 -.21 -.50 -.47 1.00 u: 

AXLR .49 .62 -.25 -.69 -.47 .38 1.00 

N/V .59 .73 -.42 -.78 -.61 .38 .71 LOO 

FTPHC -.27 -.29 .13 .27 .30 -.06 -.25 -.28 LOO 

FTP CO -.17 -.13 .01 .09 .u -.07 -.15 -.09 .51 1.00 

FTPNOX -.04 -.12 .04 .23 .04 -.10 -.32 -.22 .15 .12 1.00 

FEHC -.21 -.18 .16 .15 .23 -.05 -.10 -.10 .26 .18 -.17 1.00 

FECO -.13 -.08 .11 .01 .09 .02 .05 .04 .04 .28 -.22 .63 1.00 

FEN OX .07 .02 .02 .11 -.06 -.01 -.19 -.11 .14 -.01 .73 -.16 -.28 LOO 

UMPG l/ETW VDHP DISP RTHP CMPR AXLR N/V FTPHC FTP CO FTPNOX FEHC FECO FEN OX 
Table 8-2 

Correlation Matrix for the Cheng Variables - HFET Data 

HMPG 1.00 

l/ETW .86 1.00 

VDHP -.65 -.66 1.00 

DISP -.77 -.89 .59 1.00 

RTHP -.78 -.84 .49 .84 . 1.00 

CMPR .42 .47 -.21 -.50 -.47 1.00 

AXLR .42 .62 -.25 -.69 -.47 .38 1.00 

();) 

J.. N/V .42 .73 -.42 -.78 ,-.61 .38 .• 71 1.00 

FTPHC -.18 -.29 .13 .27 .30 -.06 -.25 -.28 1.00 

FTP CO -.13 -.13 .01 .09 .u -.07 -.15 -.09 .51 1.00 . FTPNOX -.02 -.12 .04 .23 • 04 -.10 -.32 -.22 .15 .12 1.00 

FEHC -.20 -.18 .16 .15 .23 -.05 -.10 -.10 .26 .18 -.17 1.00 

FECO -.14 -.08 .u .01 .09 .02 .05 .04 .04 .28 -.22 .63 1.00 

FENOX .08 .02 .02 .11 -.06 -.01 -.19 -.u .14 . -.01 .73 -.16 -.28 1.00 

HMPG l/ETW VDHP DISP RTHP CMPR AXLR N/V FTPHC FTP CO FTPNOX FEHC FECO FEN OX 
Table 8-3 

Correlation Matrix for the Cheng Variables - Compos! te Data 

CMPG 1.00 

1/ETW .92 1.00 

VDHP -.61 -.66 LOO 

'DISP -.82 -.89 .59 1.00 

RTHP -.84 -.84 .49 .84 1.00 

CMPR .45 .47 -.21 -.so -.47 1.00 

AXLR .47 .62 -.25 -.69 -.47 .38 1.00 

N/V .54 .73 -.42 -.78 -.61 .38 .71 1.00 I Cl 

~ FTPHC -.24 -.29 .13 .21 .30 -.06 -.25 -.28 1.00 

FTPCO -.16 -.13 .01 .09 .11 -.07 -.15 -.09 .51 1.00 

FTPNOX -.03 -.12 .04 .23 .04 -.10 -.32 -.22 .15 .12 1 .• 00 

FEHC -.21 -.18 .16 .15 .23 -.05 -.10 -.10 .26 .18 -.17 1.00 

FECO -.14 -.08 .u .01 .09 .02 .05 .04 .04 .28 -.22 .63 1.00 

FENOX .07 .02 .02 .11 -.06 -.01 -.19 -.11 .14 -.01 .73 -.16 -.28 1.00 I 

I 

CMPG l/ETW VDHP DISP RTHP CMPR AXLR N/V FTPHC FTP CO FTPNOX FEHC FECO FENOX 1 
II. Murrell Equation 

Coeff. 

A 

B = 

c = 

D 

E = 

F = 

MPG = A(CID x N/V)-0•

8 + B (ETW)-0 •67 

+ C(RTHP/ETW) + D(RTHP/CID) 

+ E[(CMPRo. 4 -l)/CMPR0° 4 ] + F 

urban highway composite 

7501 29,878 14,989 

5764 3,956 5602 

-47.36 227.2 36.28 

-5.025 -16.80 -10.09 

16.20 -1.843 -1. 700 

-17.03 -10.69 -8.915 

Tables 8-4, 8-5, and 8-6 show the correlation matrices for this equation. 

Multicollinearity probably exists. 

III. Bascunana Equation 

MPG = A[ (ETW)a (DISP)b (N/V)c ] 

Coe ff. urban highway composite 

A= 141,482 959,401 436,918 

a = -0.8659 -0.7840 -0.8831 

b -0.1889 -0.3301 -0.2323 

c = -0.2403 -0.6450 -0.4086 

Tables 8-7, 8-8, and 8-9 show the correlation matrices. 

Multicollinearity is present. 

8-8 
Table 8-4 

Correlation Hatrix for the Hurrell Variables - FTP Data 

Variable 

UHPG 1.00 

-0.67 

ETU .93 1.00 

RTHP 

-.41 -.28 1.00 

00 ETU I 

\0 

RTHP 

.45 .58 .32 1.00 

CID 

.4 

CR - ------- .47 .46 -.23 .28 1.00 

.4 

CR 

-.8 

t~~~~ .87 .87 -.33 .62 .45 1.00 

N/V 

.4 -.8 

-.67 RTHP RTHP CR -1 

UHPG ETll ------- (-~~~-) ETU CID .4 HIV 

CR 
Table 8.-5 

Correlation Hatrix for the Hurrell Variables - HFET Uata 

Varicible 

HHP6 1.00 

-0.67 

ETU .86 1.00 

RTHP 

CX> -.37 -.JO 1.00 I 

I-' 

0 ETU 

RTHP 

.42 .57 .29 1.00 

Cl[I 

.4 

CR - ------- .42 .48 -.28 .26 1.00 

.4 

CR 

-.0 

(-;;~-) .90 .87 -.38 .60 .45 1.00 

.4 -.8 

-.67 RTHP RTHP CR -1 

HHP6 ETU 

ETM CID -------.4 (-;;~-) CR 
Table 8-6 

Correlation Hatrix for the Hurrell Ve:1riaoles - Conlposite Data 

CHF'G 1. 00 

-0.67 

EHi I 91 1.00 

RTHP 

-.46 -.33 1.00 

00 EHi ·1 

I-' 

I-' 

RTHP 

.40 .55 .28 1.00 

cm 

.4 

CR - ------- .44 .47 -.26 .JO 1 .oo 

. 4 

CR 

-.8 

CID 

.89 .86 -.41 .58 .46 1.00 

N/V 

,4 -.a 

-.67 RTHP RTHP CR -1 

CliPG ETU 

EHi CID -------.4 (-~;~-) CR 
Table 8-7 

Correlation Hatrix for the Bascunana Variables - FTP Data 

Variable 

UHPG 1.00 

00 a I 

I-' 

N ETU -.94 1.00 

b 

DISP -.90 .96 1.00 

c 

CN/V) .65 -,75 -.82 1.00 

a b c 

UHPO EHi DISP CN/V) 
Table 8-8 

Correlation Hatrix for the Bascunana Variables - . HFET Data 

--------------------------------------------------------·-

co 

I Variable I-' 

w -------. , ~ 

/ 

I 

HHPG 1.00 

a 

ETll -.87 1.00 

b 

DISP -.83 .94 1.00 

c 

<HIV> .47 -.75 -.82 1.00 

a b c 

HHPG ETU DISP <N/V) 
Table 8-9 

Correlation Hatrix for the Bascunana Variables - Composite Data 

Variable 

Cl1P6 1.00 

a 

ETll -.92 1.00 

b 

DISP -.88 .95 1.00 

c 

<N/V) .58 -.76 -.81 1.00 

a b c 

CHPG ETU DISP <N/V) 
c. Summary 

The multicollinearity present in the three equations implies that caution 

should be used in their application. Especially sensitive applications would 

be those involving predictions of the effect of indiviqual variables or their 

use to to predict MPG from vehicles whose design parameters were not related 

in the same way as those design parameters are in the MY81 data base. 

However, such applications were not made for this report. The use of the 

equations, "played back" on the same data set from which their coefficients 

were based, is appropriate for the residual analysis that was done in section 

IV. For the use of the Cheng equation to generate "adjusted MPG" in section 

IV, it is assumed that the equation's coefficients developed from MY81 data 

are adequate for use on the MY79 and MY80 data bases also. 

8-15 
Appendix 9 

Plots of Ton-Miles per Gallon versus 

Emissions by Emission Control System 

0 
Two variable linear regression plots of Ton-Miles per Gallon 

for Urban Fuel Economy (UMPGETW) and Combined Fuel Economy 

(CMPGETW), each plotted agains FTPHC, FTPCO, and FTPNOX. 

Data from EPA/CERT Data Base, restricted to non-durability, 

non-Diesel vehicles of test active years 1979, 1980, and 1981 

were used. 

Stratification by emission control system. (See Section IV. H.) 
<BCATTU IYIT YAR•41;1 CAS!S•vso,(79•811 STRAT•YI02 <I> SYSITDl:I CASllS•TAU:l'71•111 N• Ill DUT D, 2•1 •t.UT!.l.21C YI. '-'TPHC 

UT!. s. 2K 

11.000 • 

10.000: • 

+ 

U.000 + 

+ 

•o.ooo + 

• 

31.000 • 

• 

30.000 :+ 

+ 

2B .000 

20.000 

1&.000 + 

10.000 + 

0. 

... 3 • • • • • 

22 2 • . . 

.. .. . .. ••2• •• 3 • •24 •• 

••22 2 •2 •2 • • •• 3•• 2• • • 2• 2 • • • • 3• 

• • •2••• •• • •• . • • •• 2 2 •• 2 ••• 

•2 2 • 

+----·----·----·----·-··-•··--•-··-···--···-··----·····•·---·--·-··--···---·---··----·----· .30000 .10000 

. ISOOO .49000 .TSOOO 

. 10000 

1 .0900 

I .2000 'TPHC 

t. 3100 

SCATTER PLOT <2> SYSIT08:2 CASllS•TAYR:!'71•111 N• 111 OUT OP' 229 41 .UTl.S.2K VS. 1.P'TPHC 

UTE.S.2K 

SS.000 

.. SO.ODO 

•l.000 

•o.ooo 

31.000 + . 

•3 

2 . •2 . 2 . 22 . • . 2 2 . 2 •• 2 322 

•2• 2 2• ••2 . 2 2• 

30.000 . 2• . 

215.000 

20.000 

IS.000 

10.000 

·- - • -·- - - -+- - --+- - - ·+- - - -+- - - -·- ---+- -.. -·- ---·- -- .... ---·--···- -..... --··-- --·-- --·- .............. . 0. .30000 .60000 

. 15000 .45000 

.90000 

.75000 

9-2 

I .2000 

1. osoo FTPHC 

I. 3500 
SCATTIR l'LDT <:I> SYS ITDS: 3 CASIS•TAY.RIJ_,_1_,,11 I N• •11 DUT DI' 111_~. L UT!. I. ZK VS. I. l'Tl'HC 

UTl!.S.2K 

91.DDO + 

• 

110.000 

• 

•11.000 

• 

•o.ooo 2 

... 39.000 • • 2 . 2•••2• •3•32•• •2 •• ••2•2233232• .. . • . .. • 2332•2U3 •••2•2•• •• •• ••S•32•1 22 ••32•••• •2 • 2• . 222• 3:11•:12 •2 3 •2••2• 2 23 2• 30.000 • . . 3•833• 3 2•••2••2•• •••3 2 . . 2 . ••2 •3 11:1•2•433 ••••2•2 2 . .. . •2• • . 2 . 223•1•3 •2•32 3 •2 ... 2 .. + 3•2• •32•22 •2• .. 22••3322 

3•3 22 22• . . 21.000 + .. ••2 .. 

20.000 + 

15.000 

10.000 

+----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· O. . 30000 . 10000 . 90000 1, 2000 P'TPHC 

, tSOOO .711000 1. 0800 I. 3900 

SCATTIA PLOT (4) SYSITD8:4 CASSS•TAYR:C,t•All Na t 71 OUT D' 2•3 • 1 • UTE. S. 2K YS. 1 . P'TPHC 

UTl!.S.2k 

55.000 

10.000 

•&.000 

35.000 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

.. . 2 

••42 3•••• 

2• 

2 225•312•2 22••• • •22 22 • 

•2• 4 33 22 

•2•3223••2 2 • 2 • •• 22• 

2 

·----·----·-·--·----·----·----·-·--·----·----···--··---·----·----··--·•··--·----·----·--··· o. .30000 .60000 .90000 t.2000 FTPHC 

. 15000 .45000 . 75000 I .0500 1. 3500 

9-3 
SCATT!R PLDT <S> SYSITDa:a CASIS•TAYR:(Tl•ll) UTE.S.2k 

11.000 + 

+ 

S0.000 + 

+ 

•a.aoo + 

+ 

40.000 + . 

•2 + 2• .. •2 .. 38.000 + . . 

. 2 2 . • • 32 

32 3 ••• •2 + . • •••••2•• 3 • . • . ... .. 22• • 1•••2•• 2 3f!' ,!)00 • 2 2 . •2 

. 2 

+ •2 

25.000 • 

+ 

20.000 + 

15. 000 + 

10.000 

N• 12& DUT D, 11• • I. UTI .•. 2ll n. I. ''""c 

•···-·····•······-··•····•····•····•····•·--··----··---···-·•··--·----·······---·----·----· 0. .30000 

. 111000 

SCATTIA PLDT <I> SYSITDl:I CASIS•TAYA:(Tl•81) UTE.S.2K 

SG.000 

SO.GOO 

45.000 

40.000 

311.000 

• •2 30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

115 .000 

10.000 

. 2•• • • 3 

• 2• 

•2 

. 10000 . 10000 1.2000 

.711000 1 .0100 

N• 811 OUT D, II 41.UT!.S.2k YS. 1.FTPHC 

'TPHC 

I .31100 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--·-·----·----·----·--··•-···+·---·----·----·----+ 0. .30000 . 80000 

. 15000 .48000 

. 90000 

.·75000 

9-4 

1. 2000 

1 .0500 

FTPHC 

1. 3500 
ICATT•R 'LDT <7> IYllTDl:7 CAlll•TAYR:C71•11l UTl.S.211 

11.000 • 

.. 

10.000 • 

• 

•1.000 + 

• 

•o.ooo • 

• 

:11.000 • • ••• . 2••2• • 

••• 

• !12!1•223 ••• •3•• 2 2 .. •2•332 22 •23 :S0.000 • 2 43• •3• .. 2• ... •2 2 2 

• •2 2 

25.000 + .. + 

20.000 • 

1&.000 • 

10.000 

N• 141 DUT D, 20!1 41.UTl.S.211 YI. t.,T,HC 

···--·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .30000 

. 11000 .•5000 

SCATTIR PLOT <I> SYSITDl:I CAllS•TAYR:C71•11) UTE.S.2K 

56.000 

SO.GOO 

•S.000 

35.000 

•2 

2 ••2 

2 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

.10000 .90000 1.2000 .75000 I .01500 

N• &I OUT D' 71 41.UTl.S.2K VS. l.,TPHC 

'TPHC 

1.3800 

·----·----·----+----·----+----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----+----·----· 0. .30000 . 60000 

. 15000 .45000 

. 90000 

.75000 

9-5 

1. 2000 

I. 0500 

FTPHC 

1. 3500 
<ICATTU IYIT ¥All••2: I CAlll•YIO: (71•1t I ITll-AT•YI02 n> IYllTD8: I CAlll•TAYll: (71•8( I N• 127 DUT Dr -2-•S 42.CTl!.S.2k VS. I .rTl'HC 

CTE.S.2K 

11.000 + 

+ 

10.000 + 

+ 

•1.000 + 

•o.ooo + 

+ . 

. :111.000 + 

+ 

30.000 • 

25.000 

20.000 

• 

II. 000 

t0.000 

. . ... 2 •2 • 

•• • . 2 . 2 .. 

•• • . .. 2 . 2 2• 

• 2 .. • 2• .. ••• • . 

• 2 

2 

• . 

. . 

. 

• 

• . 

2 • ... ... . .. 2 ••• 

. . . 

··--······•···-·---····--·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--···-·--·----·----·----· o. .!10000 .10000 . 10000 , .2000 

. 11000 .•aooo .711000 1 .osoo 

SCATTl!R l'LOT <2> SYS1TD8:2 CASl!S•TAYR:(71•811 CTl!.S.2k N• 120 OUT or 229 42.CTE.S.2k YS. 1 .rTPHC 

S&.000 

90.000 

•&.000 

40.000 

315.000 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

16.000 

10.000 

0. 

+ 

. . 

. . 

. . 

. 

. 

. 

. 15000 

.30000 

. 

• • 2• 

.45000 

2 .. 

•2• • • 3 • 

. 60000 .90000 1 .2000 

.75000 1. 0500 

9-6 

rTPHC 

1. :noo 

FTPHC 

1. 3500 
SCATT!ll PLDT c:I> SYllTDA:3 CHH•TAYlt: C"•AI) _'!_~ __ JU DUT:_!I_'.. 111 U.CT!.l.21'Y_S,_t.P'TPHC CT!.S.2k 

11.000 + 

+ 

10.000 +· 

+ 

•l.000 + . . • . + . . 

. .. . •o.ooo + 2 . . 2 2• • 2•2 •2 •3•• . .. •• . •••••332 • .. .. .. • + 3••••2 . .. •2 . •••• ... 2•• • • • **3 •2 23 . • . 2 . 2 31.000 + • I 2223 2 •2 .. •3•• • . 3•2••• . 2 •3•2 . . . 2• .. •2 . 3 .. •3 . 2• •2 • + 2 3•3•• **3 2 . • . .. •••2 . 3• .. ••3•2•••3• . • 30.000 2 322 2 . • .. . 2 . . . 

. . 2 . 

. 25 .000 + 

20.000 

+ 

II. 000 

10.000 

0. ·----+·-·-·----·----·----·----··---·----·----·----·----·----·-~--·----·----·----~----·----· .30000 .10000 .10000 1. 2000 P'TPHC 

. 1&000 ."f&OOO I .0100 1 .3500 

SCATT!R PLOT CO> SYSITDl:4 CAl!S•TAYR:C"fl•811 CT!.S.2k 

ss.ooo 

50.000 

•&.000 

40.000 

:JS.ODO 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

fS .ODO 

10.000 

o. 

.. • 2 • 3 

•2 2 • 

• • 22 • 

• ••2 •••32•2• 2 

2 •2 

2 22 • 2 • 

2 2 • 

•• •2 

·-·--·----·----··---·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·---··----·---·•··--·----··-·-· . 30000 . 60000 . 90000 1 . 2000 FTPHC 

. 15000 . 45000 9-..,,000 1. 0500 1. 3500 
ICATTIR PLDT <I> IYllTDl:I CAlll•TAYR:CTl•lll CTl.S.2K 

II.ODO + 

+ 

10.000 + 

+ 

41.000 + 

• 

•2 2 

+ 

40.000 + .... . • • 3 • + . • . •3• . .. •2 ..... 222 •• 31.000 + . . • •2• . . + •• 2 .. 30.000 

2S .ooo 

+ 

20.000 

+ 

u.ooo 

to.ooo 

0. ·---··-·--·----·----·----·----·~---·---~·----··---·---··----·----·---··----·----·----·----· .30000 

. 11000 

SCATTIA PLDT <I> SYl1TOl:I CAllS•TAYR:CTl•111 CTE.5.2K 

as.ooo 

ao.ooo 

+ 

40.000 

36.000 

30.000 

2!5.000 

20.000 

IS.000 

10.000 

.10000 .80000 1.2000 

.TBOOO 1.0100 

N• 42 DUT DI' 18 42.CTl.S.2K VS. 1.l'Tl'HC 

FTPHC 

1. 3100 

·---··----·---··----··-···--·-·----··---·----·----·····•····•··-·•·····--... -·----·---···---· O. . 30000 . 60000 . 90000 I . 2000 FTPHC 

. 15000 .415000 .75000 1. 0500 1. 3500 

9-8 
SCATT!R 'LDT <T> IYllTD&:T CASIS•TAYR:(Tl·&ll CTE.S.2K 

Bl .ooo 

10.000 + 

•B.000 

21.000 + 

20.000 + 

11.000 

to.ooo 

II• &2 DUT Df' 203 •2. CTI!. S. 2K YS. I . ,T,HC 

·----·----·----·---···--··----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 0. .30000 .10000 . 11000 • TSOOO 

.10000 

1 .osoo 1. 2000 FTPHC 1. 3SOO 

SCATTER PLDT <a> SYllTDa:a CAl!S•TAYR:(Tl-811 CTE.S.2K N• 33 DUT Of' Ta •2.CT!.S.2K VS. I .f'TPHC 

S&.000 

50.000 

415.000 

•o.ooo + 

35.000 

30.000 

21. 000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·---::-•······---·----·----··---·----·--·-· o. .~0000 .60000 .90000 t·.2000 FTPHC 

. 15000 . 45000 9.:..'9000 1. osoo 1. 3500 
<SCATT!R IYIT VAR••1;2 CAll1•¥10:(?1•&11 ITRAT•¥102 <1> SYS1TD&:1 CAlll•TAYR:(?l-81) N• 1ag OUT OF 2•8 41 .UTl.S.2K VS. 2.~TPCO 

UT!.l.2K 

11.000 + 

+ 

10.000 + 

• 

&l.000 • 

+ . 

• • •o.ooo • 

•• . . . • ·22 2 . . + •22 . . • .. 2 .. . 2 

:Sl.000 • • •2 

2 •2• .. 2 • 2•2 •2 . • . . 2••• 

.... 2• 2 .. 

:S0.000 • . 2 .. 22• 

• 

21.000 

20.000 

IS. 000 

10.000 

• 

. . .. • 2 . 2 . 2 

.. 

. . 

• • 

••• 2 ••••• 

. 

. 

2 

. 

•2 

• 

2• . . . 

···~··----·-···•······-··•····•····•···-·····•····•····•····•····•····+····•····•····•····+ 

o. •.oooo 8.0000 12.000 18. 000 2.0000 8.0000 t0.000 14.000 

SCATT!R PLOT <2> SYS1T08:2 CAllS•TAYR:(?l•lll UT!.S.2K N• 195 OUT O~ 221 •1.UT!.S.2K VS. 2.~TPCO 

11.000 

90.000 

41.000 

•o.ooo 

31.000 ... 2 • ••2 • 2•• • • 2•.. • •• 2 • 3 • • 2 

2 22•••• •2 30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

~TPCD 

ta. 000 

+--·-·--··+····+·····----·----·----+----+----·----·----·----+----·----·----+··--1'····+····+ 0. 4. 0000 8.0000 

2.0000 6.0000 

12.000 

10.000 

9-10 

16.000 

14.000 

FTP CO 18.000 
SCATTIR HDT 

UT!.S.2K 

1111.000 . ' ' 

• 

10.DOO + 

• 

•1.000 

• 

•o.ooo • 

• 

:11.000 • 

• 

30.00D • 

21.000 + 

20.000 +· 

II.DOD 

10.000 

<:II> llYSITD1:3 CAses~TAYR: (711•&1, Na 1102 DUT D, 111 

. . • . • . . 

• ••••24• 

• ••••• 2 ••• •• . 2 .. I •23322•2 3 2 2 .. •2 .. ••••432 • 2 3 . 2332•233•• 2 •2• • .. 3 . . .. .. 3•342 43•4 4 3 . • • . .. . 3 • 

3 •2•2••231••22 3*3 •2 22• .. .. . ... 22•••5•12 32•2•32• 222• 2• 2322• 22•••2322• 2•2*23 . •23• .. •••3•223 3• 2 

2 2 •3• 2• .. . .. ..... 2 . . •2• 2• . . •2 . • .. . 2 

.. 

··---·----··--···---·-·--·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--·--·----· 0. •.oooo 2.0000 1.0000\ 

SCATTeR PLOT <4> SYS1T08:4 CAS8S•TAYR:(79•81, 

UTE.S.2K 

n.ooo 

B0.000 

41.000 

+ 

40.000 

+ 

36.000 

30.000 

25.000 + 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

•2 ••• 

3• 

223232 2 •• •• •2 23 •• 

•2••4S 4 224 32 

2 2• 2• •2• 

225•32•• •• 322 • 3 ••••• 2• 

••• 3• • 22• 

a.oooo 12.000 11.000 

10.000 U.000 

N• 1~8 OUT OF 243 41.UTl.S.2K VS. 2.FTPCD 

,TPCD 

18.000 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----+----+----+----+----+----· o. 4 . 0000 a . 0000 11 . 000 1 6 . 000 FTP C 0 

2.0000 6.0000 10.000 14.000 18.000 

9-11 
SCATTIA PLDT <I> SYSITDl:I CAlll•TAYR:C11•111 

UT!.S.21< 

II.ODO 

+ 

ID.ODO + 

+ 

•1.000 

•o.ooo 

+ . • .. •2 . • .. :H.000 + . 3 • •• . 2 . . ... 2••••2•• . 2 + 2 22• .. 2 .. • • • . •22 . 2• •22•2 2• 30.000 2 . . .. 2 .. 2S.OOO 

20.000 + 

11.000 

10.000 + 

N• 121 DUT D, 114 •t .UTl.1.2k YI. 2.,Tl•CD 

··---·----·----···--·----·----······----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·---·· 0. •.oooo 2.0000 8.0000 

SCATTllA PLDT <8 >" STS 1TDI: I CASl!S•TATA :I.,. •8 ll 

UT!.S.21< 

11.000 +· 

10.000 

•S.000 

•o.ooo 

35.000 

30.000 

25.000 

+ 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

•2 • 2 

2 •• 

1.0000 12.000 18.000 

10.000 1&.000 

M• IS OUT DP 18 &1.UTE.S.2K VS. 2.PTPCO 

,TPCD 

18. 000 

............................................................................................................................................ o. 4.0000 8.0000 12.000 16.000 FTPCO 

2.0000 6.0000 10.000 14.000 11.000 

9-12 
ICATTIR 'LDT <7> ITllTD8:' CAlll•TATR:C71•111 UTl!.S.21C 

sa.ooo 

+ 

10.000 + 

11.000 

10,000 + 

+ 

2 31.000 + 2 

•2 2• 2 2••22• . + 2 •2•2••2•2•2 

•82 . . .... ••232••3 2• 30.000 2 31•2 •3 ... . ... 2 3 . + .. 2 . .. •2 . 21. DOO + 

20.000 

16. 000 

10.000 

N• Ill DUT D' 203 ll.UTl!.l.21C YS. 2.,T,CD 

·----·----··---·----·----·--·-··---·----·----·----·-·--·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 4.0000 

2.0000 8.0000 

SCATTl!R PLOT <I> STSITDa:e CASES•TAYR:(71•111 UTE.S.2k 

18.000 

10.000 

:IB.000 

30.000 

25.000 + 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

2 

2 

• 22 2•• 

2 

a.oooo 12.000 18 .00,0 

10.000 11.000 

N• II DUT DF 71 41.UTE.S.2k VS. 2.FTPCD 

FTP CD 18.000 

+- - - -·- .. - -·- - - ....... - -·- ... - -·- .... -·- .. - -·- .. - ..... - - ...... - - ......... -·· .... -·- - - -·- ........... - -·- - ... -·- .... -·- ..... •+ o. 4.0000 8.0000 12.000 16.000 FTPCO 

2.0000 6.0000 10.000 14.000 18.000 

9-13 
<SCATTIR IYIT YAR•42;2 CAlll•YIO:C71•111 ITRAT•YI02 <I> SYllTDl:I CASll•TAYR:(7l•Oll N• 127 DUT DP 241 42.CTl.S.2k YS~2.,TPCD 

CTl.S.2k 

11.000 + 

+ 

ID.000 

&II.ODO 

40.000 • 

31. 000 

• 

30.000 

• 

21.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

0. 

•• .. . 2• . 2• 

•• 2• . .. • •2 

. 2 •• 

• .. • . . 2 

2 . • 2 •• 2 

... 2 . 2 

• • . •• .. . .. • • 2 

• • 

• . 

·----·--·-·----··--···---·----·----·----·----·----··---·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 4.0000 1.0000 

2.0000 1.0000 10.000 12.000 

14.000 

1a.ooo PTPCD 

18.000 

SCATTIA PLDT (2> SYSITD&:2 CASll•TAYR: (71•&11 CTl.5.2K N• 120 DUT DP 221 42>CTE.S.2K YS. 2.PTPCD 

15.000 

50.000 

45.000 

.. 2 

35.000 

3 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

·----·----·--·-·--·-··---·----·----·----·----·----·----··-·-·----·----·----·----·----·----· 0. 4. 0000 8. 0000 1 2. 000 16. 000 FTP CD 

2.0000 6.0000 10.000 14.000 11.000 

9-14 
SCATTIA-PLDT <:1>·-1nalTDl:ll CA••••TAYA: 1'71•111 CTl!.S.2K 

II.ODO + 

+ 

10.000 

+ 

41.000 + 

40.000 2 •2 • •3 2• 2• 2 •2 222:1 ••2•2•• + . 2 . ... :112 •2 •2 . . . • .. 2••• . 2** • • • •2•2 2•2• •2 • 2 :t 

2 

:111.000 + 2• .... 322•• 22:11 2 . ... . 2••1•3 ll ll •2 . . . •2 :t 2 2 . 2 . •22 + 2 •••• 2 . 2 2•2 .. • ..... 22 

• . • •23••2 .. . . . :t0.000 + . .. 3 ••2• .. 2• 2 . . . + . • 

21.000 + 

20.000 

1&.000 

+ 

t0.000 

No lllll DUT D, Ill 42.CTl.1.2K VS. 2.,TPCD 

ll 2 . . 

. 

·----·----·----··---·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 0. 4.0000 2.0000 I .0000 

SCATTl!R PLDT <4> SYSITDl:4 CAIBS•TAYR:C'71•111 CTl!.S.2K 

151.000 • 

150.000 

•o.ooo 

35.000 

30.000 

25.DOO 

20.000 

16.000 

10.000 

•2 

•2 • 2 ••• 

•22 •••• •3 • 

3• • 2 

•2222• •2 

• 2 2 •• • • 

••2 

2 • 

a.oooo 12.000 18.000 

10.000 14 .000 

N• 119 OUT 0, 243 42.CT!.S.2k YS. 2.FT,co 

'TPCD 

18.000 

·----·----·----·----·----·----· ... --···---·----·--·-·----·----·---··----·-··-·----·----·----· O. •.0000 8.0000 12.000 11.000 FTPCO 

2.0000 6.0000 10.000 14.000 18.000 

9-15 
SCATTI• 'LDT <I> IYl1TDl:I CAlll•TAY•:f,l•lll CTl.S.2K 

II.ODO 

10.000 

II.ODO + 

... + • 

2 

10.000 + • 

2 . . . . • • . + .. •• . . • ••• . •2• •J•• :11.000 + .. •:I 

+ 

:10.000 

21.000 

20.000 

11.000 

10.000 

o. ··---·----·----·-·--·----·----·----·----·----·----··-···----·--~-·----·----·----·----·----· •.oooo 2.0000 1.0000 

SCATTIR PLOT <I> SVS1TOl:B CAllS•TAYR:fTl•Bll CTl.S.2K 

11. 000 

10.000 

40.000 

31.000 

30.000 

21.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

1.0000 f2.000 ra.ooo 10.000 11.000 

\ 

N• 12 OUT DI' II 12.CTl.S.2K YS. 2.l'TPCO 

( 

l'TPCD 

1a.ooo 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·---·+ 0. 4.0000 8.0000 

2.0000 6.0000 

12.000 

10.000 

9-16 

16.000 

14.000 

FTPCO 

18.000 
ICATTIR 'LDT <'> ITllTDI:' CASll•TATR:(,1•111 CTl.S.2K 

11.000 + 

10.000 

41.000 • 

+ 

40.000 + . . 2•••2 • •• •2•• 

• . • ... • •• . • 2aa . ••• •2•• . •2• 21.000 • 2 . . 22 .. • . . . + 2 2•2 . • 2 20.000 • 

2a.ooo + 

• 

20.000 + 

1&.000 

10.000 

N• 12 DUT D' 2D2 •2.CTE.l.2K ¥1. 2.,T,CD 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. •.oooo 2.0000 • .oooo 

SCATTIR PLOT ca> SYSITDB:I CASIS•TAYR:f79•81) CTE.S.2K 

BS.ODO 

ao.ooo 

•o.ooo 

2 35.000 

30.000 

25.000 + 

20.000 

16.000 

10.000 

a.oooo 12.000 11.000 

10.000 14.000 

N• 23 OUT 0' 78 42.CTl.S.2K VS. 2.,TPCO 

'TPCO 

11.000 

+ - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - • - - - - + - .. - - + - - - - + - - - - + - • - - + - • - - + - - - - ·-- • - - + - - - - + .... - - • - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + - - - - + o . 4 . 0000 B . 0000 1 2 • 000 1 6 . 000 F' T PC 0 

2.0000 6.0000 10.000 14.000 18.000 

9-17 
<SCATTIR ITIT TRR••Z;J CRllS•TIO:l11•11) ITRAT•¥102 <1> ITl1TD8: 1 CRSBl•TATR:l11•11) N• 121 DUT D, 211 12.CTl.8.ZK YI. 3.,TPNDI 

CTl.S.2K 

II.ODO + 

10.000 

+ 

II.DOD 

+ 

10.000 + 

+ 

:11.000 + 

+ 

30.000 + 

21.000 + 

20.000 + 

16.000 

10.000 + 

.. 2 • • 

•• 

.... . . 

2 

2 

• • .. . .. 

• ... .. . •• • .. 2 • .. •• . ••22• • • • •• 

• 2 ... 

• . • . 

•····•····•···-·······-···----·----·----·----·----··---·----·----·--···----·----·----·----· 0. .soooo .215000 .11000 

SCATTIR PLDT <2> STl1TDl:2 CRll8•TATR:l19•111 CTl!.S .. 2K 15&.ooo 

&0.000 

31.000 + 

30.000 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

1 .0000 1 .1000 2.0000 

I .21500 '. 7900 

N• 111 OUT O' 221 12.CTl.S.2K YS. 3.,TPNOX 

2 • 

2 

,TPNOX 

2.21500 

+-·--·----+··--+----·----·----·----+----·-··-··---·----+ .......................................................... . 0. . 50000 1 ,0000 

.25000 .75000 

1·. 5000 

t. 2500 

9-18 

2.0000 

1. '7500 

PTPNO>C 

2.2500 
SCATTIR 'LDT <3> IY11TDl:3 CAlll•TAYR:l?l•111 cn.s .. 21t.' 11.000 + 

+ 

I0.000 

41.000 + 

+ 

40.000 + 

+ 

31.000 + 

+ 

30.000 + 

+ 

21.000 

20.000 

115.000 

+ 

10.000 

- --·-- --

2 

. . 2•• 

2 

. . . 

N• 331 GUT DY 111 42.CTl.S.21t YS. 3.YT,NDI 

• • • 2 • 3 

. . ., ..... . 2 •3•2 2 2 • 2 2 • • • • • • • ••• • 2 

2• • • ••• • •• 2 

• 2 • • •2 • • • • • •••2 • 2••• 2 •22• 2• • •••• • • •• 2• •2 • ••• •• •• • • •3 

•• •2 ••22. •3•• • • •• 2 ••••••• 22 •• :s •• •••• • 2•• • • •2• •• .... 2 

3 • 3 

•• 2 

. . 

... . . 2 

.. 

2• • 

·----·----+----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 0. .10000 

.21000 .711000 

SCATTIR PLOT <4> SYS1TD8:0 CASIS•TAYR:f~l·811 

CTE.S.2K 

915.000 

&0.000 

•s.ooo 

•o.ooo 

39.000 

30.000 

25.000 

+ 

20.000 

16.000 

10.000 • 

• •2 3 

• 2 

3 • 

2• 22•• 3 • 

2 3 2 

3 2 • 3 • 

2 

I .0000 '. sooo 2.0000 

I. 2100 1. 7800 

N• 111 GUT D, 243 42.CTl.S.2K YS. 3.,TPNDX 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .50000 1.0000 1 .5000 2.0000 FTPNOX 

. 25000 . 75000 1 . 2500 1 . 7500 2. 2500 

9-19 
- - ·8CATTllt 'LDT <I> 8Y81TDl:I CAl.ll•TAYlt: CTl•l1 I N• 12 DUT D, 114 42.CTl.l.IK YI. 3.,T,NDI ---CT!.S.2K 11.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• - --- 41.000 • . 2 

• . . 

• . •· 40.000 • •2 2 . . . . . • • .. • 2 • • 

• • • .. •2 •• . • 311.000 • • . . 

• . . . • 

• . • ... 30.000 • 

• 

26.000 

20.000 

+ 

IS. ODO 

10.000 + 

··---··-··•··--·----·---··----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .10000 

.21000 .'71000 

SCATTIR PLDT <I> SYStTDl:B CASIS•TAYR:(Tl•Bll CTE.S.2K 

ss.ooo + 

ID.ODO 

•B.000 

•o.ooo 

• 3 

31.000 2 2 

30.000 

215.000 

20.000 

1&.000 

10.000 

I .0000 I .1000 2.0000 

1. 2500 I. TBOD 

N• 42 OUT DP II 42.CTl.S.2K VS. 3.PTPNDI 

PTPNDI 

2.2500 

·-··-·----·----·--·-·---·•···-·----·---··--·-·--·-·----·······-· .. ·----·-····----·----·--·-· O. . 50000 1. 0000 I. 5000 2. 0000 FTPNOX 

. 25000 , 75000 I. 2500 I. 7500 2. 2500 

9-20 
SCATTaa l'LDT <T> SYSITDl:1 CAllS•TAYA:C11•811 en:. s. 211 

Bl.000 + 

+ 

10.000 + 

+ 

41.000 + 

+ 

•o.ooo .. • 

2 2 .. •2 2 .. ... • • 2• . .. . • 2 .. •2 2 • . :I .. :11.000 • • . . 2• 2 . . • . • . • • .. :10.000 • 

• 

21.000 • 

+ 

20.000 + 

11S.OOO 

10.000 + 

11• 82 ·out DP' 2D:I 42. CTI .•. 2K VI:· :I. l'Tl'llDI 

·-·--·----·--·-··---·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·---··----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .90000 

.21000 .78000 

SCATTeR PLOT <8> SYS1T08:1 CASeS•TAYR: (79•81) 

CTE.S.2K 

BIS.ODO + 

SO.ODO 

46.000 

40.000 + 

35 .000 

30.000 

2 • 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

1.0000 1. 5000 2.0000 1. 2900 1 ... 100 

N• 33 OUT O~ 78 •2.CT!.S.2k ¥5. 3.~T~NO• 

P'TPND~ 

2.21500 

•···-·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·-·--·--·-· O. • 50000 1. 0000 1. 5000 2. 0000 FTPNOX 

.2sooo .7sooo , .2soo 1.7soo 2.2100 

9-21 
Appendix 10 

Plots of Ton-Miles per Gallon versus 

Emissions by Emission Control System and 

Transmission Type 
Two variable linear regression plots of Ton-Miles per Gallon for 

Urban Fuel Economy (UMPGETW) and Combined Fuel Economy 

( CMPGETW) , each plotted against _FTPHC,--FTPCO ,, and FTPNOX. -·-·-- ---

Data from EPA/CERT Data Base, restricted to non-durability, 

non-Diesel vehicles of test active years 1980 and 1981 was used. 

Stratification by emission control system and by transmission 

type (CA, CM, and LA). (See Section IV. H.) 

Only graphs containing at least 12 points are included. 

10-2 
I-' 

0 

I 

w 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo 

so.ooo 

45.000 

40.000 

35.000 

30.000 

25.ooo 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

o. 

• 

• • 

• • • ··~ 2 

• 

•2 

• 

• 

• ••• 0 

• 

• 

• 

• 

.20000 

.10000 

• • 

• 

_,_,/ __ JV~ 

.30000 

* ,// 

.40000 

1NtERVAL=<10 •• ss.11co •• o.91> 

060000 .aoooo 

.soooo .10000 

FTPHC 

.90000 
• 

~ 

• 

• 

• 

~ 

> 

~ 

& 

.t-' 

0 

i) I 

-!'.'-

• 

J) 

& 

D 

~ 

i) 

p 

~ 

*> 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

0 

---·-------·- .--.-·- --· ···----------00--·---------------

• • • 0 

• 0 0 03 0 0 • 

0 ••• 2 • • 0 22 0•2 • 0 •• • 0 • 0 •• 3 •• 0 

2* 0 0 3 32 • •• 2 0 0 • 0 000 0 • 0 0 

• 0 

0 0 

__________ .___.___. ----------------

0 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--~-·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 .50000 

.60000 

.10000 

.80000 fTl'HC 

.90000 
SCA TTEH PLOT 

N" 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

!I 

• 

:i 

so.ooo • ~ 

• 

') 

45.000 • 

;) 

• 

; 

400000 • 

• 

1 

JSoOOO • 

) 

I-' 

c • ~ I 

V1 

JOoOOO • 

) 

• 

') 

2soooo • . ., 

• 

•) 

200000 • ;~ 

• ~ 

150000 • ~} 

• . , 

lOoOOO • 

) 

Oo 

) 

<4> jSYSl TOtH4jDVjTt<NI CCAeCAeCA>j 42 00f()f 6r 67";1JMl'GT£T~-vs~ l.~TPHC 

• 

• 

• ···--· ......... -··-----· ·---··---- -- . . ·• • • 

•• • • ••• • 3 2• •• . ~ . • 2 • 0 2 

·-·--·---- • -----

• 

020000 

•2 ·- __ , __ ---···--------

olOOOO 030000 

040000 

/ 

I 

e60000 

050000 

osoooo 

070000 

f'TPHC 

090000 
D 

D 

• 

~ 

I} 

~ 

i> 

r. 

~ 

f) 

D I-' 

0 

I 

~ Cj\ 

Ji) 

ti) 

I> 

& 

9 

D 

9 

9 

i) 

SCATTER PLOT 

N= 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

<5> SYS1T081S•VTRNI CCA.CA,CAI 

65 OUT Of n 67.UMPGTETW VS. lofTPHC 

• 

• • • • ..• 

• • ""-·---. . 

• • • • · ..... 

• 3 

2• 2 • • •• 

• • • • • • • 

• • • • • • •2 • • •2• • • • • 

• • • • 

• ------... ... __ 

• 

• 2 -~----------------- • • • 

• 

• 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--·--·----·----·----·-~--·----· .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

.60000 

.soooo .10000 

.aoooo F'TPHC 

.90000 
l 

,, 

~ 

) 

l 

1 

'> 

} 

...... 

0 

;) I '-I 

) 

} 

J 

~ 

j 

D 

) 

~ 

1) 

) 

SCATTE~OT ""SY~H6~1 cft,clPll 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo 

so.ooo 

45.000 

40.000 

35.000 

30.000 

2s.ooo 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

o. 

N= 34 OUT Of 41 67.UMPGTETW VS. l~fTPHC 

• 

• 

----.. ---~.-----------~---· . \ 

\ • • • 

\ • • 2 • • • • 

• • • • •• • 

•• • 

• • __ ... __ _,,,.. 

··- • ------ . ----···----

•----•----•----•----•----•----•----•----•----•----•---~•----•----•----•----•----•----o----• .20000 .40000 

.10000 . .30000 .soooo 

060000 

.10000 

.soooo f"TPHC 

.90000 
~) 

SCATTER PLOT 

ti 

UMPGTETW 

N:s 

55.000 • 

!> 

• 

ti 

so.ooo • 

!J 

• ~ 

45.000 • 

t\l 

• 

it 

40.000 • 

p 

• 

II 

35.000 • 

(J 

...... 

0 • 

Iii I 

co 

30.000 • 

fJ 

• 

iJ 

2s.ooo • 

) 

• ~ 

20.000 • ~ 

• 

D 

15.000 • 

9 

• ~ 

io.ooo • 

i) 

o. 

<7> SYSlTOdi7°VT~N:CCAtCA,CA> 

65 OUT OF 89 67.UMPGTETW VS. l oFTPHC 

• -··-------· -2····-·--··-·-··· -_._ _________ ·- -·-·----·-·--·----

• • • 

2 * * • • • • • * • 

•• ••• • • • •2 

•• • • • • 

• ••• • • ** * • • * * 

•• • 2 • 

* •• * 

* • • • ----·----- --·- ---·--- - ·--------·-----------· ·- -·- ----- ---

* • 

.20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

.60000 

.50000 .10000 

.60000 fTPHC 

.90000 
:I 

8 

l) 

!:l 

~ 

b 

~ 

;) 

:• 

, 

-i 

;, 

J 

) 

l 

SCATTER PLOT <8> SYSIT081B•VTRNICCAtCA,CA> 

N= 31 OUT OF 42 67 .UMPGTETw 115. lef"TPHC 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• -·-·-----···-. 

35.000 • • • --... _ 

...... • • · ..... 

0 • I 

\0 

• 2 • 2 • • 

• • • 

• 

J0.000 • • 

• • 

• 

• • • -~ ...... 

• 

• * 25.000 • • !• 

• 

. 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

060000 

.• soooo ~70000 

.aoooo FTPHC 

.90000 
• 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

i> 

p 

I> 

ll 

~ 

~ 

D 

;.') 

SCATTER PLOT <9> SYSlT081l*VTkNl(CM,CH,CMJ 

N• 61 OUT Of 85 67.UMPGTETW VS. l.FTPHC 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

"45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

...... 

0 • I 

...... 

0 

30.000 • 

• 

25.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

. ... -·--··-··-·--·--· 

• • 

• • • 

• 

• • • * 2 

2 • * • • • 

2 • • 

• 

• • 3 • • 

2• • • • 

•• • 23 

• • * 

• • • . . 

2 • 

• • -----·-------- . . . --------•---------~--

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

.60000 

.50000 .10000 

.aoooo FTPHC 

.90000 
I-' 

0 

I 

I-' 

I-' 

' 

SCATTER PLOT <11> SY~813~NICCMtCMtCM> 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45,000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

zs.ooo • 

• 

zo.ooo • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N• SJ OUT Of 1Z 67.UMPGTETW vs. 1.fTPHC 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • • • 

•• • • • • 

• • • • • 2 . -.. 

• • • • 

• • • • • 

••• 3 • • • 

• • • • • 

• • • 

• 

• _ .... ------- ----·-- ----

• • 

, 

+----•----•----•----•----•----•----•----•----•----•----o----•----•----•----•----•----••-••• .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 .soooo 

060000 

.10000 

.aoooo FTPHC 

,90000 
~ 

• 

!I> 

!) 

) 

~ 

[) 

~ 

D 

~J 

I-' 

0 

~) I I-' 

N 

" 

~ 

L:) 

a 

fl) 

~ 

~ 

~ 

:i;} 

SCATTER PLOT 

N= 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15~000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

<12> SYSlTU814*VTRNl(CHtCMtCM> 

41 OUT Of 57 

• 

• 0 

• 

0 

o7.UHPGTETW VS. 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 2 

• 

• • 

•o 

• • 

0 00 

• 

0 •o . . .. 

0 

l of"TPHC 

• 

• ·~ 0 . 

• 

.-- .. 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

.60000 

.soooo .70000 

.BOOOO FTPHC 

.'10000 
:I-' 

0 

I 

...... 

w 

SCATTER PLOT <13> SYSlTOB:S•VTkN:CCM1CM1CM> 

lJMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

JS.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

Nm 33 OUT OF 4b 67.UMPGTETW VS. lofTPHC 

• 

• • • • 0 

•• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

0 

• • 0 

2 

• • 

• 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 o40QOO 

.10000 .3uooo .soooo 

e60000 

.10000 

.aoooo FTPHC 

090000 
I 

.. 

!':-

SCATTEH PLOT <14> SYSlTOblo•vTRNl(CMtCMtCH) N• 24 OUT OF 36 67.UHPGTETW VS. leFTPHC 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 .. 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

is.ooo • 

• 

io.ooo • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• ,., 

• 0 

2 • ... 

••• 0 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·---~·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.JOUOO .soooo 

060000 

.1uooo 

.eoooo f"TPHC 

.9UOOO 
t-' 

0 

I 

t-' 

V1 

SCATTER PLOT <15> SYSlT08z7•VTRNllCMtCHtCMI 

N• 58 OUT Of 82 67.UMPGTET~ VS. lofTPHC 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

JO.ODO • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

io.ooo • 

* 

0 

----·--- -.- .. -. -· .. -- . ·- - . - ---·-·- .. --- -·-----

3 • 

•••• ·~ 0 • 

•2 • • •• 

•• ·~· 0 • 0 2°3 • •2 • • • 

• ·-- • 

• • ·--··-... • • •.. ., - • --, '·- • -.... , 

" ~ 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~ .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

.60000 

.~oooo .10000 

.soooo fTt"HC 

.90000 
SCATTER PLOT <16> SYSlT08s8•VTRNSCCMtCMtCM) 

N= 12 OUT OF 19 67.UMPGTETW VS. leFTPHC 

UMPGTETlit, 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

I-' 

0 • I 

I-' 

°' 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• 

• 

0 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .20000 .40000 

.30000 .soooo 

.60000 

.10000 

.aoooo FTPHC 

.90000 
t-' 

0 

I 

t-' 

-...J 

SCATTER PLOT <19> SY~l3~1(LAtlA> 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

'+5.000 • 

• 

'+0.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

·• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.ooo • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 71 OUT OF 87 67.UMPGTETW VSo lofTPHC 

* 0 

·----- ----. . - .... . ·-····--··-·· .---·------·- . 

• • •• • • • • • 

••• *** *** 2 2• • 

• •• * • 0 **2 

2 •• •• O· 

• ** 

• 0 0 

2 00 2 00 0 

• • 0 

.. - ··---·----.. 0 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----··----·--~-·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 .~oooo 

.60001) 

.10000 

.aoooo F'TPHC 

090000 
SCATTER PLOT <20> SYSlTOB14•VTRNl(LA1LA) 

Ul'IPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

N• 86 OUT OF 114 67.UMPGTETW VS. l.fTPHC 

• 

• 

--·-·· ·----------.. ! ____ :----~-----

2 •• 0 

35.000 • • 

. .. --~ 

•• 2J•• 2 • ....._ 

..... 

0 

I • ..... 

co 

J0.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• 3 J •• •• 

•••J *342• •2 00 •• • 

•• • 0 • 

.. • • • 0 •• 2 •• 

00 2 

• 

0 

• 

0 

-·· ·---

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .20000 .40000 .60000 .30'111 .-iooom .eoooo fTPHC 

.'lOOOO 
SCATTER PLOT 

N:s 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

!'-' 

·O • I 

I-' 

\.0 

30.000 • 

' .. 

• 

} 

25.000 • 

.. 20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

I 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

<21> SYS1T08&~ VTRN:CLA•LA) 

22 OUT OF 30 67.UMPGTETW vs. l of'TPHC 

~ ·-., 

• 

• -- • • • 0 

-'-

-..... ........... . , • -.... •, 

·,, 

'i:! • • • • 

• ·-., 

' 0, 

........... •• . 0 .:~ ' 

~ ' '''-., 

.20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

.60000 

.50000 .10000 

.aoooo F'TPHC 

.90000 
I-' 

0 

I 

N 

0 

<SCATTER BYST VAR=6712 sf~Af~Vib2•V2ijl(1.6.al.c2.3.4)i(1.~) tNt~R~AL~c10 •• ss.>1(0 •• 1J.S)> 

SCATTER PLOT <l> SYSlT0~11•VTkNICCAtCAtCA> 

N= 50 OUT OF 63 67.UMPGTETW VS. 2ofTPCO 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

io.ooo • 

o. 

. ...• ·-· ·-- .. 

• • 

• • 

• 

0 

• • 2 •• 

• 

2 

• 

2 

•• 

•• 

• 

• 

• 

• •• 

• 

0 

2 

0 

3.0000 

1 ... 

0 

• • 

2 

• 

• 

• 

• 

----------

• 

• 

--- .... _____ __ 

----

• 

• • 

·-· 

-.---------------·--

6.0000 9.0000 12.000 

lllilsoo 

fTPCO illioo 
t-' 

0 

I 

N 

t-' 

SCATTER PLOT <3> SYS1T0813•VT~N:CCA,CA,CA> 

NZ 89 OUT OF 125 67.UMPGTETW vs. 2.fTPCO 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

• ---·-·--·- ·-~ 

• • • • 

35.000 + • • • • 

• • 2 • 3 • • -··--·-. • • • • • • 

-·--- + • • • • 2•• 2••• • • 

• 2•••2 •• • * •• • 0 2 22 • ••• • •• • 

30.000 • •• • 

* • • •• •• 0 

• • 

• • • ---~---···· 

• • 

25.000 • 

• 

• 

• 

20.000 + 

• 

15.000 + 

+ 

10.000 • 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 3.0000 6.0000 

1.5000 4.!lOOO 

900000 

7.5000 10.500 

12.000 fTPCO 

13.500 
D 

SCATTER PLOT 

~ N"' 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • ~ 

• 

, 

so.ooo • ~ 

• ~ 

45.000 • 

a 

• 

ii 

40.000 • ~ 

• 

:i 

35.000 • 

D 

:I-' 

.0 • ,, 

'~ 30.000 • 

3 

• 

I;) 

25.000 • ~ 

• 

D 

20.000 • 

&l 

• 

D 

15.000 • 

D 

• 

D 

10.000 • ~ o. 

D 

<4> SYSlT0814*VTkN:(CAtCAtCA> 

42 OUT Of 61 67.UMPGTETW VS. 2.f'TPCO 

~ ' . ' 

• 

. ·., 

..... 2 • .• 

• • •4••2• • 

•• • 

............ ...._.. 

•z,__ • • z• .. -----·----- .,"·t • 

• 

J.oooo 6.0000 llii'o 4 •• 

9.0000 

1.5000 10.500 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
.i) 

f> 

n 

Ir» 

I~ 

'~ 

i> 

SCATTER PLOT 

N= 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

·45.000 • 

• 

<5> SY""'8IS~:CCAtCA1CAI 65 OUT Of 79 67.UMPGTETW VS. 

.. ~ .·· 

00 0 

* ** • 0 • 

• • • • 

• • •• ••• • • 

2 

• • 

•• * •• 0 

2 • 2•• • 

* 

* 

•• 

2.f'TPCO 

* 

• •· 0 

• * * 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 3,0000 6.0000 

i.souo 4.5000 7.5000 

9,0000 

10.soo 

12.000 FTPCO 

13.500 
~ 

) 

• 

~ 

~ 

t 

~ 

'JI 

I'; 

i> 

l} 

........ 

0 

,N 1g>' .I:' 

lti,i; 

I;> 

J 

10 

10 

I~ 

I~ 

10 

3 

g) 

SCATTER PLOT <6> SYS1T0816*VTRN: CCA,CAtCA> 

N"' 34 OUT OF 41 67.UMPGTETW VS. 2.FTPCO 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

• 

·- 35.000 • • 

• 2 

• -·--·-- - ----·----------------

• • • 

• • ... • 2 • • • • • 

J0.000 • • • 2 • • 

• ! * . •• 

• . .. 

----· 

25.000 ·• 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--·--·----·----· J.0000 6.0000 

4.5000 7.5000 

9.0000 

10.500 

12.000 fTPCO 

13.500 
...... 

0 

I 

N 

V1 

~ 

~ 

SCATTER PLOT <7> SYSlT08J7°VT~NJCCA,CA,CA> 

N~ 65 OUT OF 89 67.UMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

• 

2 -·-····-- -----·-- ·-

• • • 

2 

•••• • 

•• • • 2•• 

• • •••• 

• • 

• 

•• 

•• • •• . ~· 

• 

• 

••• 2 

• • 

•• 

2 

... !! • 

3.oooo 

i.souo 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

, 

6.0000 

4.5000 

9.oooo 

705000 10.500 

12.000 fTPCO 

13.500 
SCATTER PLOT <8> SYSlT08lB*VTHN:(CAtCA,CA> 

N= 31 OUT OF 4~ 67.UMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo + 

+ 

45.000 + 

+ 

40.000 • 

+ 

35.000 • 

f-' 

0 

I • N 

(j\ 

30.000 + 

• 

25.000 + 

+ 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 + 

• 

10.000 • 

''-It 

2 

•••2 

• 

• 

"--.. 

. ... ' '· '· •• 

2• •. ''· • 

* '· ' •·. 

• ·-. 

.. 

--~~ • 

• • 

• •.. • 

• ····--. ....... ~ ...... 

°'·~,, 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 3.0000 6.0000 

4.5000 7.5000 

9.0000 

10.500 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

;, 

t) 

> 

~ 

~ 

) 

; 

I-' 

0 

)~ -...J 

) 

9 

) 

& 

3 

i) 

9 

;) 

Q) 

~ 

SCATTE~OT <9> SY~ll~l(CMtCHtCH> Na 61 OUT OF ij!;i 67.UMPGTETW vs. 2.f"TPCO 

UHPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

·• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

--·· • 

• • • ·-~ 

40.000 -~ 

• • -......... , 

•• • • • . ·----. 

22 •• • '·'-.. ,.._ 

• 2 • • ..... ...,, 0 

~ 2 •• • 0 0 

35.000 • • 0 0 2 

o• 00 0 2 0 

0 0 0 

• • 0 •• 

•• • 

• 0 

30.000 • 0 • ·--··-·-··· .. ··-···-·_!_ _________ ~.---·------

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----6'-.---·----·----·----6·1> ... --+ o. 3.0000 6.0000 i.souo 4.5000 

9.0000 

7.5000 lo.sou 

12.000 r-· i'PCO 

13.500 
...... 

c 

I 

N 

~ 

SCATTER PLOT <11> SYSlTOS:J•VTRNICCM,CHtCMI 

N• 53 OUT Of 72 o7.UMPGTETW VS. 2efTPCO 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

is.ooo • 

• 

10.000 • 

• -·--~------ ·---. 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

2 

• • 

• ·----------- • • • • ----.. _ 

• • • -------· ...... ••• • • • 

•• • 

•• •2 

• •• •• • 2 • 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• • 

.# __ __ 

___ 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~ J,0000 6,0000 

4.soiill "'1J.5ouo 

9.0000 

10.soo 

12.000 fTPCO 

13.500 
SCATTER PLOT <lZ> SYSlT08a4•VTRN:(CHtCMtCM> 

N= 41 OUT OF 57 b7.UMPGTETW VS. 2oFTPCO 

Uf'IPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

t-' 

0 

I • N 

l.O 

JO.COO • 

+ 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

is.coo • 

• 

10.000 • 

• 

• 

• 0 

• 

• 

3 

• • • 

• • • • 

• • • • • 

• • 

• • /.~ 

! ...... -·· 

, 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·~---~----·----·----·----·----·----·----· J.oooo 6.0000 

l.sooo 4.5000 

9.0000 

1.sooo 10,soo 12.000 FTP CO 

13,500 
) 

;\) 

~ 

~ 

,:) 

,, 

l 

• 

.:, 

) 

0 

j 

) 

~ 

) 

) 

~ 

i}o 

) 

~ 

i 

SCATTER PLOT <13> SYS!T06t5•VTRNr(CHtCMtCMJ 

N"' 33 OUT Of 4o 67.UMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

• • • • • 

35.000 • • •• 

• • • • 

I-' 

0 

I • 

2 • • • 

• w • • 0 • • 0 

30.000 • • 

• 

• • • --··--.--- . ---· ... . .. - -·····-·--·----·-----·-

• 2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 3.oooo 6.0000 

l •• 7.5000 

9.oooo 

10.SOO 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
I-' 

0 

I 

l;.J 

I-' 

SCATTER PLOT <14> SYSlT08t6•VTHNt(CMtCHtCM> 

N= 24 OUT Of J6 67.UMPGTETW vs. 2.FTPCO 

UMt>GTETW 

s~.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• ·.._, 

40.000 • • · ... 

• • '"-..• •• ~· • 

35.000 • • 0 

··~ * * ' 

' ** • .... '·, " .. • * • ·~ • ,, 

• ··. '- • '-., 

30.000 • ' "·· ·-... ·· ....... 

• ·,~ 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

+----+----•----•---•+----•----•----+----+----•---~·--~-+--••+·---+----+----•----•----+--o-+ o. 3.oooo 6.0000 

1.5000 4.5000 

9.0000 

7.5000 10.500 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
I-' 

0 

I 

l;.) 

N 

3 

j) 

.. 

} 

l 

j 

SCATTER PLOT <15> SYSlTO~l7°VTRN:CCMtCMtCMl 

Na 58 OUT Of 8l 67.UMPGTETW VS. 2.FTPCO 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

.. ........ 

• 

• 

• 

••2 

3 • 

2•32 •.. 

• • • 

••••••• 

• 042• • 

• 

• •• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 3.oooo 6.0000 

1 •• 4.5000 

9.0000 

1.5000 10.500 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
I-' 

0 

I 

w 

w 

SCATTER PLOT 

N" 

UMPGTETW 

s~.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

<16> SYSlTOdld0 VTRNl(CMtCMtCMI 

12 OUT Of 19 

·\ \. 

\ 

67.UMPGTETw VS. 2.FTPCO 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 3.0000 6.0000 

1.5000 4.5000 

9.oooo 

1.5000 10.500 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
ti> 

a> 

'.> 

J 

!.) 

~ 

& 

~ 

D 

i> 

~ ...... 

0 

I 

D VJ 

-!:' 

~ 

... 

C) 

f) 

I:) 

@ 

8 

0 

0 

9 

SCATTER PLOT 

N• 

UMPGTET\11 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 .. 

• 

·25.ooo • 

• / 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

<19> SYSlTO~IJ*VTRNICLAtLA> 

71 OUT Of 87 67.UMPGTET~ VS. 

""' - ---·····-· .. -.... "'-·· 0 •••• • •• .. '·, .. \ 

'tt 

·,"'- z• • 32••• • ., 0 0 23• 2''··~ • 0 • 

·•. . 0 • • 0 

z.f'TPCO 

000 • 0 • 

\'\ • • 0 

~~ . . 

0 

*'\ 0 ·-····------··-·-····-----•-- ·-·-----'\"-

0 "°'\, 

+----+----•----+----+----+----+----•----+----•----•----+----+-•--+---•+••••+-~--+-••••~-o-+ o. 3.0000 6.0000 9.0000 12.000 fTPCO 

Wj>O l0.5'ii. ..... soo 
.. f-' 

0 

I 

" w 

V1 

:! 

-j 

ii.I 

" 

.l 

~ 

!I 

~ 

j 

SCATTER PLOT <20> SYSlTO~t4*VTRNt(LAtLA) 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 8b OUT Of 114 67.UMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

\ 

"'-.. • ' """ ............. 

2 • •'·" • • • • . "' ·• ••••z•• z .. ·-"-..... 

------- •2• •2 • • • 

•• •S• *2 •2 •2 **2 -----• ···--·-..... _ .... , .• --

2* *2* 

• •• ~. 00. • 0 • 0 

-• __ z _______ .2 • 

• 

3.0000 6.0000 

1.5000 4.5000 

9.0000 

7.5000 10.500 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
0 

I 

w 

0\ 

SCATTER PLOT <21> SYS1T08:~•VTRNllLA,LA> 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

N= 22 OUT Of 30 67.UMPGTETw VS. 2.fTPCO 

-····-- ··------··- • 

• 

• • • 

• 

• •• • • 

• 

• 

30.000 • .. ·•---·---·--· -·---------------! __ • 

------· • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 3.0000 6.0000 1.sooo 4.5000 

9.0000 

7.5000 lo.soo 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
I 

• 

~ 

....... 

0 

I 

:;w 

-...J 

<SCATTER BYST VAR=67•l STRAT•Vl02•V28l!ltb•b'tl2tle~)tlre~I lN1~"vAL=oo~,~~.1~~Votcoc~I> 

.TE~T "'SY~"'H1-"1: ,8,cA .. UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 50 OUT OF 63 67.uM?GTET~ VSo J.FTPNOX 

• 

• --.- - -------- -----. --- --- ----.----------- .... ---- ·---- .. ____ _ ----- • • 

• • • 

• • 

• • • • • • 

• ·• • • • • • • • 

• • • • • •• • 

• • • 

• • -·· • 

• • • 

• •• --·----- . ·--------~ - ·-·-- ---

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~----·----·----·~---·----··---· .soooo 1.0000 .2sooo .75000 1.2500 

l.5000 

l.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2500 
SCATTER PLOT <3> SYS1T08Z3°VTRNZCCA1CA1CA> 

l N• 89 OUT Of llS 67.UMPGTETW VS. J.FTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

• . ----·----, .. ,.,.----,-----,----

35.000 • ·• ·- ·• • • •2 2 • 2 

• •• • • 

• •• • 2 • • 

30.000 • • 2 

• • 

• 

------·-----·-----

.• soooo 1.0000 

.75000 

• 

2 

• • 

• 

•· 

• 2 2 

• • 

• 

•••• 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

• 

2 

•· • 

·• • • 

2 • 

• • • 

• •• • 

•• 2 

_____ ____Jt__ ____________ _ 

• 

• 

1.5000 2.0000 

1.2soo 1.7500 

•· 

HPNOX 

2.2soo 
I-' 

0 

I •W 

'° 

~ 

~ 

f4 

,) 

~ 

=-

J 

':!) 

) 

~ 

sCA.rTER~T '<4,.J SYS""'14*""' (CA,c-",CA1 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 

50.000 

45.000· 

40.000 

JS.000 

JO.ODO 

25.ooo 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

N• 42 OUT Of 61 67.U~PGTETW VS. J.FTPNOX 

• 

• 

• 

•· 

·•· 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

o. 

• 

• 

• 

• • 2 0 0 • 

• 2 2 • 2 2 • • 

•• 2* • • 

··--------• 

• 

... .. . . . ---------- -·-·-··----·-·•·--··---· ------·------------ ... ----~ - • 

.50000 1.0000 1.5000 

.2sooo .75000 1.2500 

2.0000 

1.7500 

f'TPNOX 

2.2500 
I-' 

0 

I 

+:-

0 

SCATTER PLOT <5> SYSlT08l5•VTRN:CCAtCA.CAl 

N• 65 OUT Of 79 67.UMPGTETW VS. J.fTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

. 55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

25.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

---···--- ··---··--- --···- . 

• 

• 

•• • 

2 

•• 

•• 

• • •• 

• • • 

• 

• 

• 

.. ---·- .. ,, __ .. - ...• -·-. - -,,_, ___ _ • 

• 

• 

• • • •· .. • 

• • • 

• • 2 •2 •• •• •• 

2 •• 

• 

• • • --.... ------··- -- -· -......... -·-·-···---- -----------------·---------

• 

.soooo 1.0000 

.25000 o.75000 1.2500 

• 

1.5000 

1.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2500 
~ 

0 

I . ~ 

:t--J1 

~ 

j 

l 

SCAl'TER PLOT <6> SVSIT<HU6*VTRNI CCAtC~tCAl 

N• 34 OUT OF 41 67.UMPGTETW VS. lefTPNOX 

UHPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• 

• 

• 2 

• 

·• • • 0 

• •4 • • 

Z•• • • • 

---._ ----- • • • 

2 ·--------

. --~-----

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~----·----·----·----·---~·----·----·----· .soooo 1.0000 .2sooo .75000 

1.sooo 

1.2500 1.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.zsoo 
:) 

SCATTER PLOT 

) N= 

UHPGTETW 

55.000 • ~ 

• 

) 

so.coo • 

j 

• .. 45.000 • 

j 

• ~ 

40.000 • 

• 

• 

" 

35.000 • ~ ...... 

0 

I • 1 +:-

N 

30.000 • 

l 

• 

) 

2s.ooo • ~ 

• 

) 

20.000 • 

' • 

-,; 

15.000 • ~ 

• 

l 

10.000 • ) 

o. 

' 

<7> SYSlT0817*VTRNICCA,CAtCA> 

65 OUT OF 89 

• • 

3• 

67.UMPGTETW VS. 3efTPNOX 

• 2 • 2 • ·-·-··- _ ....... . -·-·---·-·-----· 

• •••••• • • •2• •• 

• •22 •• 

2 • • 

• • 

• •• .... ............ __ 0 

--------

•2 

• 

• 

• 

• 

- ·--·----~-~- - -

•• 

• 

.soooo 

• 

• 

• • 

____ ..... 

i.oooo 1.5000 2.0000 FTPNOX 

ilioo 
~ 

~ 

' 

'!} 

-:, 

.0 

J 

l 

) 

) 

!~ 

f) 

) 

} 

}) 

) 

-TTE~OT """SY~lB~t c~.c~ N• 31 OUT Ot 42 67.UMPGTETW VS. 3.FTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

• ' 35.000 • • .. '~ ..... 

~ 

0 • I 

~ 

• 

• •• • ------ -----·-2·- . --------- • 

• •• l;.l • • 

30.000 • 

• • 

• • • • 

• 

•· • 

25.000 • 2 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. .soooo 1.0000 .2sooo .75000 

• 

• 

leSOOO 

n.2soo 2.0000 

1.7500 

tTPNOX 

2.2500 
:=:i 

I 

~ 

~ 

SCATTER PLOT <9> SYS1T081l*VTRNl(CM,CM,CMI 

N= 61 OUT Of 85 67.UMPGTETW VS. 3.fTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• • -··------·----·- .. - -.--------· . . . - ·--· --···--·---·-·---. -· ·-· ·----·--··---------

40.000 • 0 

• • . ·• 0 0 

• • ·O 0 •• •· 

• 0 00 

0 

2 •• • • • 

35.000 • • ·• • • 

• • 2 • • 0 

~ .it 0 0 • 0 0 • 

• 0 

30.000 • • ! 

• ·-··--·---

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. .50000 1.0000 

250.lilO .75000 t.2500 

• 

• 

0 • 

•· • 

• 

• 

A.5000 

• 

l.7500 

2.0000 fTPNOX 

2.2500 
I-' 

0 

I 

~ 

V1 

SC~TTER PLOT <11~ SYSlTOijlJ~VTRNICCM1CM1CMI 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

N• 53 OUT OF 72 67.UMPGTETW VS. J.FTPNOX 

35.000 • ~--·---------:--------------------- • 

• 

• • 0 • 

• •• • 

---. .-------

2 •• • • • 0 • • 0 ·---- • • 0 0 0 

30.000 • • •• •• 2 •• 

• • • • 0 

• • • 

• 0 • 

2s.ooo • • 

• 0 

• 

20.000 • ,. • 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. .soooo 1.0000 1.sooo z.oooo .2sooo .75000 1.2500 1.7500 

FTPNOX 

2.2500 
t-' 

0 

I 

.i::--

°' 

SCATTER PLOT <12> SYSlT08:4•VTRN:ICMtCMoCMl 

N• 41 OUT Of 57 67.UMPGTETW VS. 3.FTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40,000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30,000 • 

• 

25.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

is.ooo .. 

•· 

10,000 • 

./-

. - ....• 

/ 

•/ / 

. 2 

• 

• • • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

••• 

• 

• • 

,. 

I 

I 

/ 

I 

•• * 

• • 

• 2 __ ! ... -----

_,-,,- . ---- • 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .soooo 1.0000 1.5000 2.0000 Mioo fTPNOX 

2.2soo 
. t-' 

0 

I 

;; ~. 

_. 

~ 

' 

:t 

" 

') 

~ 

~ 

:ll 

ii 

1 

SCATTE~T ":TT> S~8z~N: c'!!Jr.tM.~ 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 

50.000 

45.000 

40.000 

35.000 

JO.ODO 

25.000 

20.000 

15.000 

10.000 

o. 

N= 34 OUT Of 4b b7.UMPGTET~ VS. J.fTPNOX 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

·•. 

2• 

• • 

2 

• 2 

• • • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• • 

• 

• 

·····----

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·-~--·-~--·----·----·----·----·-~--·----· .50000 1.0000 

.25000 .75000 1.2500 

n.sooo 

1.7500 

2.0000 fTPNOX 

2.2soo 
I 

f-' 

0 

I 

.~ 00 

~ 

) 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

SCATTER PLOT <14> SY51T08:6°VTHNICCHtCMtCHl 

N2 24 OUT Of 36 67.UMPGTETW VS. 3.fTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 + 

+ 

50.000 + 

+ 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 + 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 + 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

·---.. ___ _ 

0 --·-----~- .. - • • • 

•• • • 02 

• • 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .soooo 1.0000 

.25000 .75000 

1.5000 

l.2500 1.7500 

2.0000 fTPNOX 

2.zsoo 
' 

ll 

j 

) 

ll 

; 

• 

~ 

~ 

3) 

., ...... 

0 

I 

' .i:--

\0 

) 

~ 

~I 

) 

:, 

1' 

) 

~ 

~ 

) 

SCATTER PLOT <15> SYSlTOdl~Nl(CM•CM.CM> 

UMPGTETW 

55.000 

50.000 

45.000 

40.000 

JS.000 

30.000 

2s.ooo 

zo.ooo 

15.000 

10.000 

N= 58 OUT OF 82 67.UMPGTETW VS. 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

. - ------ - - . -- - - -----•- -. 

• 

•• • • 

•• • • 

• • • •••• 

2 

---

• 

• ••2 

*2 • • • • • 

·-~--... -....... 

• • • 4 2• •• • • • 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 0 

• . . ·------------- . - --

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

3.FTPNOX 

,. 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~ .soooo 1.0000 .2sooo .75000 

l.5000 

1.2500 1.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2soo 
J 

:) . 

~ 

~ 

~ 

~ 

> 

~ 

~ 

l) 

~ 

...... 

0 

~ 0. 

0 

~ 

$ 

~) 

ca 

~ 

0 

@ 

@ 

~ 

0 

SCATTER PLOT <16> SYSlTO~zd•VTRNl(CM,CH,CMl 

N• 12 OUT Of 19 67.UMPGTETW VS. 3.fTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo + 

+ 

50.000 + 

+ 

45.000 + 

+ 

40.000 + 

• 

• 

35.000 + 

• 

• • .. • 

• 

J0.000 + 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

25.000 • • 

• 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·-~--· .50000 1.0000 

•iii 

l.5000 2.0000 fTPNOX 

2~2500 
...... 

0 

I . Vl 

...... 

SCATTER PLOT <19> SYSlTO~l3*VTRNICLAtLA> 

N• 71 OUT Of 87 67.UMPGTETW VS. J.FTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 .. 

• 

----··--"'. 

• • 

• 

•• 

0 

• 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

•· • 

• 

• • • • 

•• • •• 

3 • • 2 • 3 

*2 • •• 

• • • 

2 0 

• • 

2 • • 0 • 

• • ----·--·--·--------·--··----·-------······--··----··· 25.000 • 

• 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. .soooo 1.0000 l.5000 .2sooo .75000 1.2500 1.7500 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

2.0000 fTPNOX 

2.2500 
t-' 

0 

I 

U1 

N 

SCATTER PLOT <20> SYS1T0814*VTRNl(LAtLAl 

N= 86 OUT Of 114 67.UMPGTETW VS. 3.fTPNOX 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

• 

2 

• 

* • 

• 

22•4**4 

2 • 

• 

• 

• * 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

• ••• •J• •2 • • 

• ** 3 ** • 

• J 3 * * 

• • 

• • 

• • • • • 

3 • 

• 

• 

------.--.... ____ _ 

-···------;----------·-·-

25.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

ls.ooo • 

• 

10.000 • 

-··-----------.. _ 

• ------- • ~---- . * • 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .soooo i.oooo •• .75000 

1.5000 

l.2~00 1.7500 

2.0000 f'TPNOX 

2.2500 
I-' 

0 

I ~ \J1 

VJ 

l 

~ 

,, 

.. 

,. 

'} 

l) 

~ 

SCATTER PLOT <21> SYSlT08r5•VTRNr<LA•LA) 

UMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

'35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 + 

o. 

N= 22 OUT OF 30 67.U~PGTETW VS. 3.FTPNOX 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

2 • • .. \ 

' • .. · .. 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--··-·----··---· .soooo 1.0000 .2sooo .75000 1.2500 

105000 

l.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2500 
I-' 

0 

I 

Vl 

.p-

<SCATTER SYSt VAR•69Jl $fRAT=V102*V281 (lt6t8)1C2t3t41tC7t9) INTERVAL=ClOetSS.llC0.,0.9)> 

SCATTER PLOT <l> SYS1T0811°VT~NICCAtCAtCA) 

N= 34 OUT OF 63 69.CMPGTETW VS. l.FTPHC 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

,,_ 

• 

-•----- -------·~.• 

2 . . -----------•.. __ • * • • 2 2 0 0 

• 0 • 

•• • 00 • • 0 

•2 

* 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .20000 .40000 

·liij -50000 

.60000 

.10000 

.soooo f"TPHC 

.90000 
f-' 

0 

I 

Vl 

Vl 

SCATTEr"l!lror <3> SY~813~t(~A.crl 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 + 

+ 

50.000 + 

+ 

45.000 + 

+ 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 61 OUT Of 125 69.CMPGTETW VS. lefTPHC 

• • 

• • • • 

• • • • • • • 

•• •• • 

• •• •• • • 

• • • 

•• • • •J • •• 

• • 2* • • 

• • • • 

• * • • 

• • • 

--------------

* • 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~----·----·--~-·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.10000 030000 .soooo .10000 

.aoooo fTPHC 

.90000 
I-' 

0 

I 

\JI 

"' 

SCATTER PLOT <4> SVSlT08&4*VT~N&<CAeCAeCA) 

N= 30 OUT Of 61 69.C~PGTETW VS. lefTPHC 

CHPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• 

• • 

------..!. . ..___ 

• • • 

•• 2• •• 

• • * • • 

• • • • • 

•• * • 

• 

• 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·~-~-·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.30000 .50000 

.60000 

.10000 

.soooo fTPHC 

.90000 
f-' 

0 

I 

Vl 

-...J 

SCATTER PLOT <5> s-1m't>ar~NI fm:A.t'lr 

N• 51 OUT Of 79 69.CMPGTET~ VS. lefTPHC 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

JO.GOO • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

·-·---....... 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • •• • 

• 

2 

• 

• 2 

. -~~ '-,~ 

• 

• 

• J 

• • • 

*2 • 

• 

• 

• • 

-- ! . 

• 

• 

• 

• ----- . 

• 

"~, 

• 

+----•----+----+----+----•----+----+-~--+----+----+----+----+-•--+----+----+----•----+~--oo o. .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

060000 

.soooo .10000 

.aoooo FTPHC 

.90000 
...... 

0 

I 

V1 

00 

SCATTER PLOT <6> SYSlTOd:6•VTRNl(CAtCAtCAI 

N= 27 OUT Of 41 69.CMPGTETW VS. l.FTPHC 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• • 

• 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·-----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .20000 .40000 060000 _.roo'Mm. .soooo 

lflliOOO 

FTPHC 

.90000 
I-' 

0 

I 

Vl 

\0 

} 

It 

'm'r'TE~T ""9sv~11~1 c~.cA"r 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 39 OUT Of SY 69.CMPGTETW VS. l.FTPHC 

• 

. -· -- _.------

• • 

2 • 

• • 

• • 

• •• • 

? 

• 

• 

• 

• 

. . ··-----------;--

• • • • 

••• 

• • 

• 

• 

••• • 

• 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30·000 .soooo 

060000 

.10000 

.soooo FTPHC 

090000 
1-' 

0 

I 

°' 0 

SCATTER PLOT <8> SYSlTOa:a•VTRNf(CAtCA,CA) 

N= 17 OUT OF 42 69.CMPGTET~ VS. lofTPHC 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 •· 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

* 

• ** 

* * 

• •• 

• 

. -------

• •• 

________ .. -

------

• 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

.60000 

.soooo .10000 

.eoooo FTPHC 

.90000 
SCATTE~OT <9> sv!TT!!8Zl""'N:(~M.cl!n .N• 40 OUT OF 85 69.CMPGlETW VS. l.FTPHC 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

...... 

0 • 

I 

°' ...... 30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• • 

• • 

• •• 

• 

• 

·>\ 

• 

... ... 

... 2 

\ 

\ 

\ 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

060000 

.soooo .10000 

.soooo FTPHC 

.90000 
:::> 

I 

" -..) 

SCATTER PLOT <11> SY51T08:J•VTRNllCMtCMtCMl 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo + 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

+ 

30.000 • 

+ 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 + 

o. 

N= 35 OUT Of 72 69.CMPGTETW VS. lorTPHC 

. ... . . .. -.. -----· -- -· . . -- .. 

• ----------

• •2 • 

• 2 • 

• • • 

• • • !...--

• --~------

• • 

• . ___ . .-------- . .----· 

----- . • 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.30000 .soooo 

.00000 

.10000 

.80000 FTPHC 

.90000 
I-' 

0 

I 

(j\ 

w 

SCATTER PLOT <12> SYSlT0814*VTRNICCH•CH.CHl 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N~ 29 OUT Of 57 69.CMPGTETW VS. lefTPHC 

* 

• 

• •• . . ... • • • 

• 

• • • 

* • 

• 

• 

·~- ...... "·.., ___ .... · ....... , 

• ',,"'-.. 

.20000 .40000 

.10000 .JOOOO 

• 

060000 

.50000 

.aoooo 

.10000 

fTPHC 

.90000 
t-' 

0 

I 

°' ~ 

SCATTER PLOT <13> SYSlT0815•VTRNl(CMtCMtCM> 

N• 22 OUT OF 46 69.CMPGTETW VS. loFTPHC 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

+ 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 + 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 + 

o. 

*. -----------------

• • 

' 0 

• 0 • 

•• •• • 

• • 

• 0 

• ~---- .. --

/ 

' • // 

-

. . ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--·-·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 040000 .60000 

.JO~ llllio o °11111 

.aoooo FTPHC 

.00 
...... 

0 

I 

°' Vl 

SCATTER PLOT <14> SYSlT08:6•VTRNZICMoCMoCMI 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

JS.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N• 12 OUT Of Jb 69.CMPGTETW VS. lefTPHC 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 .soooo 

.60000 

.10000 

.aoooo F'TPHC 

e90000 
t-' 

0 

I 

0\ 

0\ 

SCATTER PLOT -<15> SYSlT0817•VTRNllCMtCMtCM> 

Na 34 OUT Of 82 69.CMPGTETW VS. lefTPHC 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.coo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40,000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

• • 2* 

• ' .. ,2 • "-,, .,_2 

,_. 

" 

• 

··-

0 

• • 

• 

• • 0 • • 

• 

• 00 

• 

• ' • 

• • • 

.20000 .40000 .60000 

.JO~ ~oo'Mm 

.aoooo 

.Miooo 

FTf'HC 

~00 
f-' 

0 

I '()"\ -...J 

SCATTER PLOT <19> SY51T08rJ•VTRN:CLA•LAJ 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N• 57 OUT Of 87 69.CMPGTETW VS. l.FTPHC 

• • 

* * • 

2 * ** 

• * • * * 2 * 

•• 2 • 2* * 

• ••• * * ** • 

* 2 * • 

• / 

/ 

•• • • , / 

* • • // 

2 / 

/ / / 

* .,,.,,,.,, .... 

2 _ ..... · 

, ... • 

.20000 .40000 

.10000 .30000 

.60000 

.soooo .10000 

.aoooo fTPHC 

.90000 
I-' 

0 

I 

°' CXl 

SCATTER PLOT <20> SYSlTOdJ4•VTRN:<LA•LA) 

N= 57 OUT OF 114 6~.CMPGTETW VS. l.FTPHC 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo •· 

• 

zo.ooo • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• 

0 

• 

• 

•• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 0 20 

0 00 

•• 

0 •2 

22•• 0 2 

. 0 

0 

0 

• 

• 

• 

•• 

• • 

0 

0 00 

• 0 

0 

0 • 

• 0 

0 0 

0 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·~---·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· .20000 

•iiii 

.40000 .60000 

11111 sooilml ~oooo 

.eoooo FTl'HC 

.. 000 
I-' 

0 

I 

(j'\ 

\0 

SCATTER PLOT <21> SYS1T08S5°VTRN:<LA•LAI 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N• 12 OUT Of JO 69.CMPGTETW VS. lefTPHC 

.10000 

' " 

• 

• 

• 

.20000 

''-..... ... ~ 

'· ', 

. ''"-.. • • 

+30000 

'• 

---, -

• 

.40000 ..60000 

.soooo .10000 

,80000 FTPHC 

.90000 
::::> 

I 

-..J 

::::> 

<SCATTER BYST VAR•691Z STRATeV102°V281 (1;6;81tl2•3t41ii7;9i iNTERVAL=ll0••55elf IOeil3.51> 

SCATTER PLOT <l> SYSlTOBll*VTRN:CCAtCAoCAI 

NZ 34 OUT Of 63 69.CMPGTETW vs. 2.FTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

-

• 

* 

• 

• 

··-··------··--·· -· • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• * • • • • * 

2 

* * * • • • 

* • • • 

• • 

• 

• 

------------

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 3.0000 

1 •• 

6.0000 9.0000 

.... so illll lliir 50 0 

12.000 FTPCO liioo 
I-' 

0 

I 

....... 

I-' 

SCATTER PLOT <3> SYSlTOSIJ•VTRN:ccA.CA.CA> 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.0CIO • 

• 

10.000 • 

N• 61 OUT Of 125 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

• • 

•· • • • 

• •• • 2 • 

• • • • • 

• •• • 2 • 

• • • 

•• •• •2 • • 

• 2 • •• 

•· • • • 

• • 

• •• 

• * .!----·-·--·-

• 

• • 

----·-·---------. 

• •• 

• 

--··--------

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·-~--·----·----·----·----·--~-·----·----· J.0000 6.0000 

1.5000 4.5000 

9_.0000 

7.5000 10.500 

12.000 FTPCO 

13.500 
I-' 

0 

I 

-...J 

N 

SCATTER PLOT <4> SVSlT08C4•VTRNr<CAtCAtCAJ 

N= 30 OUT Of 61 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2efTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 + 

o. 

• 

•· 

• 

• 

* 

• • 

• 

• • ·• --..... ~----

• ~ 2 • 

• • • • 

• •2 

• • • _..~ .... ~---- -~--

• 

3.0000 6.0000 9.0000 12.000 

lliiiasoo 

fTPCO Wilioo 
...... 

0 

I 

-....J 

w 

SCATTE~OT ""sv""'a:s~s(~A.C,,.. 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N2 51 OUT OF 79 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

• 

.-- • • 0 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• • • • • • 

• • •• • 

• • 

• • 2• • 2 • • 

• • • 

• 3 • 

• 

• • 

• • • • • 

! 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 3.0000 6.0000 

l.sooo 4.5000 1.soco 

9.0000 

10.soo 

12.000 fTPCO 

13.500 
SCATTER PLOT 

NS 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

I-' 

0 

I • -...J 

~ 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 ·• 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

<6> SYS1T0816*VTRNI ICAtCA.CA> 

27 OUT OF 41 69.CMPGTETW vs. 2.f'TPCO 

• 

2• • 

2 • 

2 • 

·• • • • • 

• • 

• 

• • • 

• .. - ··- - .. 

J.oooo 6.0000 

1.5000 4.5000 

·- ·-----····-- • 

• 

• 

. ------·--------

9.0000 

1.5000 

12.000 

10.500 

FTP CO 

13.500 
f-' 

0 

I 

-...J 

Ln 

SCATTER PLOT <7> SYSlT08l7*VTRNllCAtCAtCA> 

N= 39 OUT Of 89 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

•• 

• • 

• 0 

2 

•• 

• 

• 2 • 

2 ••• 

•• / 

1.5000 

• 

• 0 

•• • • ./ 

_,// 

• • ,/·· 

• ,/ 

• / 

, 

• 

• 

• 

0 

• 

3.oooo 6.0000 

4.5000 

9,0000 

1.sooo 10.soo 

12.000 F'TPCO 

13.500 
t-' 

0 

I 

....... 

Cj'\ 

SCATTER PLOT <8> SYSlT0818°VTRN:<CAtCA,CA> 

N• 17 OUT Of 42 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2efTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

~ 

10.000 • 

.. • 

• • • 

• • 

• • •• 

• 

• 

• ! ! ...•.... ---·- . .-·-

.-··-- .. -----· -·-

• 

_ ... --------------

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 3.0000 6.0000 

1.5000 4.5000 

9,0000 

7.5000 10.500 

12.000 FTP CO 

13.500 
SCATTER PLOT <9> SYS1T08Sl•VTHN:ccHtCH.CM) 

N=· 40 OUT OF 85 69.CMPGTETW VS. ZoFTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 • 

\ 

\ 

\ 

\ 

• \• 

\ • \ 

• • \ 

\ 45.000 • • • \ 

·, \. • • • •', '. z• • ' \ •• ''\ 

• •• 

~ \ • • • • • • 

40.000 • • • • 2 

• • 

2 

• ~ • 

35.000 • •• 

I-' 

0 

I • -...J 

-...J 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. J.oooo 6.0000 

1.sooo 4.5000 

9.,0000 

7.5000 10.500 

12.000 fTPCO 

13.500 
SCATTER PLOT <11> SYS1T08&3•VTRN:<CM•CH•CM) 

N:s ·35 OUT Of 72 69.Cf.tPGTETW VS. 2.F'TPCO 

CHPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

·• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

• • • 

• 

40.000 • • 

• • • 

• 2 •• 

• • 

• ·• • •· 

••• 

JS.000 • 2• ·• ·• 

• 

f-' • • 

0 .. I • --.! • ()0 ~ 

30.000 • • 

• 

• 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. 3.0000 6.0000 9.oooo 12.000 
I-' 

0 

I 

--.J 

l.O 

SCATTER PLOT <12> SYSlT08t4•VTRNllCH,cH,cHJ 

N• 29 OUT Of 57 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

J0.000 • 

• 

25.000 .. 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

. 15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

'·· • 

• * 

• 

* • • 

* 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~----·----·----·----· 3.0000 6.0000 

l.5ouo 4.5000 

9.0000 

1.5000 10.soo 

12.000 fTPCO 

13.500 
t-' 

0 

I 

I 00 

0 

SCATTER PLOT <13> SY51T0815*VTRNI ICMtCMtCMl 

N= 22 OUT Of 4b 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2efTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

+ 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

+ 

10.000 • 

o. 

--... _ 

····• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• • 

•• 2 • 

• • 

•· • 

• --·· • ..--

* • 

3.0000 6.0000 9.0000 

1 •• 4.5000 ... so .. 12.000 io.soo fTPCO .w.100 
SCATTER PLOT 

N= 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

• 

45.000 • 

. ·. 

40.000 • 

• 

JS.000 • 

t-' 

0 • I 

OJ 

t-' 

J0.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

·1s.ooo • 

+ 

10.000 • 

o. 

<14> SYSlT08:o•VTRN:CCM•CM1CM> 

12 OUT OF 36 69.CMPGTETW VS. 

• '""-

""-

' '· •'·· '· 0 .......................... _ 

~· " o'· " ·,, ,, •• .. , ' •, ..... "--,, 

""'"' 

3.0000 

l .!:>000 4.5000 

2.FTPCO 

6.0000 9.0000 

7.5000 

12.000 

10.500 

FTPCO 

13.500 
0 

I 

00 

N 

SCATTER PLOt <15> SYSIT0~:7°VTRN:CCHtCMtCMJ 

N= 34 OUT Of 82 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2.fTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

. " "·,, •,, . • •• 2 ···, 2• '·"· .. '·· . ~ . . . • • • 

. .. 

• 

• 

• 

•. . . 

•----•----•----•----•----•r---•----•----•----•----•----•·---•----•----•----•----•----•----• o. 3.0000 6.0000 

4.5uoo 7.5000 

9.0000 

10.500 

12.000 fTPCO 

lJ.500 
f--' 

0 

I 

CXl 

VJ 

SCATTER PLOT <19> sv'!T'Pbsa~Nl(LAtLAl 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 57 OUT Of 87 69.CMPGTETW VS. 2.FTPCO 

• • 

• •• 

• • • •• 

z • •• • • • 

• 2•2• • • 

•• • 2•• • • 

4! • • • • 

• ~ • • • 

• • • 

! • 

• 

• • 

• • 

• 

3.oooo 6.0000 

1,5000 4,5000 

9.0000 

1.sooo 10.SOO 

12.000 f'TPCO 

u.soo 
t-' 

0 

I 

CXl 

""" 

SCATTER PLOT <ZO> SYSlT08:4•VT~Nl(LArLA) 

N= 57 OUT Of 114 69.CMPGTETW VS. Z.fTPCO 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

l0.000 • 

o. 

• 

• 

•• • 

• • 2 • 

• • •••• 

·• . 2•• •• 

•2••J•• 

•• 

• 2 

1 •• 

• 

• • 

·• 

•••• 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

3.0000 

•• 

• 

6.0000 9.0000 

.... so'i. 12.000 

..500 

FTPCO iilioo 
...... 

0 

I 

ex; 

V1 

SCATTE~T ~ s~~:~m: MA> 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 ·• 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 12 OUT Of 30 b9.CMPGTETW VS. 2.FTPCO 

0 

0 

0 

00 

0 0 

0 

0 

• 0 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 3.0000 6.0000 

1.5000 4.5000 7.5000 

900000 

10.500 

12.000 fTPCO 

13.500 
I-' 

0 

1 

00 

"' 

<SCATTER evsf YAR~69iJ STRAt=vio2•V2aici;&,8itC2;3•4iil1•91 iNfERVALc(lO•tSS.li(0 •• 2.2s1> 

SCATTER PLOT <1> SVSlT081l•YTHN:tCAtCA,CAI 

N= 34 OUT OF 63 69.CMPGTETW VS. 3.FTPNOX 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 + 

• 

so.ooo • 

+· 

45.000 + 

• 

40.000 + 

+ 

35.000 • 

+ 

30.000 + 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

is.ooo • 

• 

10.000 • 

--------------------------------··-----------------· 

• • • 

• 

·• 0 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* * 

•• 0 

• 

• 

* •••• 

0 

0 * 

• 0 

0 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .soooo 1.0000 

.75000 

1.5000 

1.2500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2500 
I-' 

0 

I 

CX> 

....... 

SCATTER PLOT <3> SYSlT08&J•VTRN:CCAtCA,CA> 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

N= 61 OUT OF 125 69.CMPGTETW VS. 3.FTPNOX 

40.000 • -···-·------·-·---·---·--------------.-. 

• 

JS.000 • • • 

• * -·--·------•---

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 + 

+ 

20.000 + 

+ 

15.000 + 

+ 

10.000 + 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 2 

• • 

• 

• 

* 

•• 

• 

* 

* * 

.---.---· 

* • • ••• 

* • • • 

* 2 * 

• ** • 

• * • * * • * 

• 

• • 

•----•----•----•----+•·--•••-•+••--•--•-+••--+----+-o-•+----+-•••+----+-•••~•-••+•--•+••-•+ 

o. .soooo i.oooo .2sooo .75000 l.2500 1.7500 2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2soo 
...... 

0 

I I ()). 

()) 

SCATTER PLOT <4> SVS1T08J4*VT~NJCCA,CA•CA> 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 ·• 

·• 

35.000 • 

N= 30 OUT OF bl 69.CMPGTETW VS. 3.FTPNOX 

•· . 

-----·-· -·--·-·-z------------·-

~- 3 2 •· 

·••· ·2 .• , .... 

·•··•· • 2 

--____..,..-

. . . . --------

• -------· ------·~------------- • 

30.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. ·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·-~--·----· .soooo l.0000 

.75000 1.2500 

l.!:>000 

1.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2soo 
~ 

0 

I 

CXl 

'° 

SCATTE~T "IP SYS~us-"1: ,ft,cAJ 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo 

50.000 

45.000 

40.000 

35.000 

30.000 

25.000 

20.uoo 

15.~yo 

l,.~g~ 

o. 

Nm 51 OUT Of 79 69.CMPGTETW VS. 3.FTPNOX 

+ 

+ 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• • 

• 

• ·• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

.2sooo 

• 

• 

• 2 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

. ·-· 

.soooo 

• 

• 

•2 • 

• • 

...... ........ 

1.0000 • 75000 . 

• 

------ . 

noSOOO 

1.2500 

2.0000 

l.7500 

FTPNOX 

2.2500 
I-' 

0 

I 

~ 

0 

SCATTER PLOT <6> SYSlTOtU6*VTRN: <CA1CA1CA> 

N= 27 OUT Of 41 b9.CMPGTETW VS. J.fTPNOX 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

zs.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

* 

* 

• 

* 0 

• 

0 * ** 

•• • 

2 2 

• 

.~oooo 

3 • 

•• 

• • 

• 

• 

- --....... 

1.0000 

• 7iiaa 

i.sooo 

-J.. 7500 

2.0000 f'TPNOX 

-6.iSOO 
SCATTER PLOT <7> SYSlTOdl7~:ccA.cA,CAJ N= 39 OUT Of 89 69.CMPGTETW vs. 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

50.000 • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

•• • 

2 • • 

• ·• . • • • • • • • • .-.,_ 

• • • ""' 35.000 • •• 

2• 2 ·, p· \ • 

0 • • • • • • • I 

'° ~ • • 

30.000 • • ---·---

• • 

2Se000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o .• .50000 .2sooo .75000 

J.F'TPNOX 

1.0000 l.5000 2.0000 

1.7500 

fTPNOX 

2.2500 
I-' 

0 

I 

'° N 

. SCATTER PLOT <8> SYSlT08S8°VT~N:CCAtCAtCA> 

N= 17 OUT OF 4c 69.CMPGTETW VS. 3.FTPNOX 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

50.000 ·• 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

0 

.• • 00 

• 0 

• 

2 • • 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .50000 1.0000 

.75000 1.2500 

l.5000 

1.7500 

2.0000 fTPNOX 

2.2500 
I-' 

0 

I 

'° VJ 

SCATTER PLOT <9> SYSlTOdll*VT~NICCMtCM,CM) 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

NZ 40 OUT Of es b9.CMPGTETw vs. J.FTPNOX 

• ---------· -·----·- * 

45.000 • --------· 

• • • -- ------------· . 

•••• • • 

• • 

• • 

•• • 

40.000 • • • • * 

• 

• • 

• • ! --- -------- • 

JS.000 • -------------

--· ----- • • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. .soooo 1.0000 A.sooo 

.2!:i000 • 7!:i000 1.2500 

2.0000 

1.7500 

f'TPNOX 

2.2soo 
I-' 

0 

I 

\0 

.i:-

SCATTER PLOT <11> SYSlTO~:J•VTRN:CCMtCMtCM> 

N= 35 OUT OF 72 69.CMPGTETW VS. J.fTPNOX 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so. ooo· • 

• 

45.000 • 

• ----·-------.---·-·--·--------··---------·-----

40.000 • 

• 

• 

35.000 • • 

• 

·• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• 

* 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

··-··· ! 

• 

• 

• 

• 

* • 

• • 

* * 

* 

* 

• 

* • 

* 

• 

• 

* 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .soooo 1.0000 

.2~ ___, 7!:>q,g,g_ 

1.5000 2.0000 f"TPNOX 

~00 
t-' 

0 

I 

\0 

V1 

SCATTER PLOT <12> SYSlT08:4•VTRN:ICM.CM.CMl 

Na 29 OUT OF 57 69.CMPGTETW VS. J.FTPNOX 

CMPGTETW 

559000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

'I' 

·25000 

• 

• / ____ .. !-··· 

• • 

• 

• • • / 

0 ./ 2 • 

• 0 

0 I 0 

• I 

• , 

.soooo 1.0000 

.1sooo 1.2500 

. ··-

105000 

1.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2soo 
I-' 

0 

I 

. '° "' 

SCATTER PLOT <13> SY51TOd:5°VTRNICCM,CMtCMl 

N= 22 OUT OF 46 69.CMPGTETW VS. 3.fTPNOX 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

• • 

• • 

• 

•2 

0 0 

·---........... 0 

• ~---... . ............. "-...._,__ 

0 

0 

• 

0 

.. ___ ___ 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .soooo 1.0000 

-~ .75000 

1.5000 

1.2500 1.7500 

2.0000 fTPNOX 

2.2soo 
1-' 

0 

I 

'° -...J

SCATTER PLOT <14> SYSlT08:6°VTRN:CCMtCMtCMI 

CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

+ 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

. + 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 12 OUT Of 3b 69.CMPGTETW VS. 3.fTPNOX 

.soooo 1.0000 

.2sooo .75000 

1.5000 

1.2500 1.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2soo 
SCATTER PLOT <15> SYSlTO&t7•VTRN:CCMtCM,CMl 

N= 34 OUT Of 82 69.CMPGTETW VS. J.FTPNOX 

Cr-IPGTETW 

s~.ooo • 

+ 

so.ooo • 

+ 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

+ 

35.000 + 

f-' 

0 + I 

\.0 

00 

30.000 • 

+ 

25.000 + 

+ 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

+ 

10.000 • 

o. 

\ • 0 ~ ' 2 • ••• ., • 0 

•• 0 

• • 

• 

• 

-....... 

··-------... 

.soooo l.0000 

-~ +75& 

1.5000 2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2500 
.TTE~OT ""> S""OtH~N:fllPt.A> CMPGTETW 

ss.ooo • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

JS.000 • 

I-" 

0 • I 

'° '° J0.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

o. 

N= 57 OUT Of 87 69.CMPGTETw VS. J.fTPNOX 

0 • 

------- ---------· • 0 

----.--- 2 2 

• 0 

0 

• 0 

2 2 0 • 

• •• 

0 0 

2 

0 

0 0 

0 0 2 0 0 0 0 

0 

• 

0 

0 

0 0 

0 0 ---~-------­ . --·-~----------

0 

• 0 

• 0 

0 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----~----·----·----·----·----· .soooo l.0000 .2sooo .7!>000 Ao2501l 

1.sooo 

1.7500 

2.0000 f'TPNOX 

2.2!>00 
...... 

0 

I 

...... 

0 

0 

SCATTER PLOT <20> SYSlTOb:4•VTRNllLA•LAI 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

N= 57 OUT Of 114 69.CMPGTETW VS. J.FTPNOX 

• 

• 

• 

• ···---·---·--···- ..... -···--·-·-:--··--··-·--··-··---- ·--· ....• ··-. ··-

• 2 • 

• 2 • • 

40.000 • • • 3 

• • • •• • 

•• 22• 3 • •• • 

• • • 

• 0 

• 0 0 

35.000 • • • • 

• • • 

• 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

···--· • 

• 

• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .soooo l.0000 

.75000 1.2soo 

1.5000 

1.7500 

2.0000 FTPNOX 

2.2500 
...... 

0 

I 

...... 

0 

...... 

SCATTER PLOT <21> SYS1T08:S0 VTRN: (LA.LA) N= 12 OUT OF JO 69.CMPGTETW VS. J.fTPNOX 

CMPGTETW 

55.000 • 

• 

so.ooo • 

• 

45.000 • 

• 

40.000 • 

• 

35.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

15.000 • 

• 

10.000 • 

', 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .soooo 1.0000 

.25000 .75000 

1.5000 

1.2500 1.7500 

2.0000 fTPNOX 

2.2500 
Appendix 11 

Adjusted Fuel Economy versus Emissions 

by Emission Control System and Transmission Type 
Two variable linear regression plots of "Adjusted Urban Fuel 

Economy" - (UMPGMINU) and "Adjusted Combined Fuel Economy" 

(CMPGMINU), each plotted against FTPNOX. 

Data from EPA/CERT Data Base, restricted to non-durability, 

non-Diesel vehicles of test active year 1979 to 1981 was used. 

Stratification by emission control SYE!tem and by transmission 

type (CA, CM, and LA). (See Section IV. H.) 

11-1 
CSCATTIA aYaT YAA•l4;J STAAT•Y21•YI02 UM, GM I NU 3,.000 • 

• 

:u.ooo • 

• 

,, .ooo 

• 

21.000 • 

• 

• • 21.000 • 

.. 22.000 • 

ti .ooo 

tl.000 

+ 

13. 000 

10.000 

aCATTIR ,LDT Cl> YTAN:CA•SYSITDl:I 

. . 

. .... . . 

• 2 • 

•2 

. . 

··--···---·----·--·-··-···----·----··---·--·-·-····----·----··---·----·--·-···--·----·---·· o. ,50000 

.21000 

SCATT!R 'LOT C2> YTRN:CM•SYl1TOI: 1 UMPGMJNU 

3T. ooo· 

34.000 

31 .000 

21.000 

25.000 

22.000 + 

11. ooo 

11. 000 + 

13. 000 

10.000 

1 .0000 1 .1000 

.TIOOO , . 2100 1. TIOO 

N• 12 OUT O' a4 14.UMPGMINU YS. 3.,TPNOX 

2 

.... . .. . 

2.0000 ,T,NOX 

2.2100 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· 0. .50000 

.21000 .'71000 

1. 0000 

11-21.2100 

1. sooo 

1. 4JIOO 

2.0000 P'TPNOJI( 

2.2500 
SCATT!R 'LDT <3> YTRN:LA•STSITDl:I 

UM,DMlllU 

:n .ooo + 

+ 

34.000 + 

+ 

31 .000 

+ 

21.000 

JS.000 + 

+ 

22.000 

'' .ooo 

11.000 

13. 000 

10.000 

. . .. 2 •. 

·----·----·----·----·----··---·----·----·--·-··---·----·----·----·----·----·----·---··-··-· o. .10000 

.21000 

SCATT!R PLOT <•> YTRN:CA•SYS1TDl:2 UMPGMJNU 

37.000 

31 .000 

21.000 

25.000 

22.000 

11.000 

u .000 2 

13.000 

10.000 

1 ,0000 1. aooo .'TIOOO I. 2100 '. '7100 

N• IOI OUT D' IOI 14.UMPCMINU YS. 3.,TPNDI 

2 • 

• •2 • 

•2 • 222 

2.0000 

2 

............................................................................................................................................ o. .50000 ' 1 .0000 1 .5000 2.0000 'TPNO• 

. 25000 . .'75000 1. 2500 1. '7500 2.2500 

11-3 
SCATT!R PLOT <I> YTRN:CM•IYSITDl:2 UMP;MINU 

,,,000 • 

• 

24.00D • 

• 

21 .ooo • 

• 

:n.ooo • 

• 

21.00D • 

• 

22.0DO • . 

11.000 • 

• 

11.000 

• 

13.000 

ID.DOD 

. • • . . • . .. 2 . . • 

+··--·----·----·-·--·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----· D. .10000 

. HOOD 

SCATT!R PLOT (I) YTRN:LA•SYS1TDl:2 UMP;MINU 

2'7 .ooo· 

:u .OOD 

31 .000 

21.000 

2&.000 

22.000 

II. ooo 

11.000 

13.000 

10.000 

0. .soooo .25000 

1 .0000 1. !1000 

,,1000 I. 21DD 

N• 1 OUT D' 1 1•.UMPGMJNU YS. 3.~TPNOX 

1. 0000 1. 5000 

.75000 1. 2500 

11-4 

2.0000 

I. ,100 

2.0000 

1. '7500 

~TPNDi 

2.210D 

,TPNOX 

2.2100 
SCATTIR 'lDT <T> ~TRN:CA•SfS1TGl:2 

UN, GM I NU 

:n .ooo + 

+ 

:14. 000 • 

• 

31 .ooo + 

+ 

21.000 • 

• 

2&.000 • 

• 

22.000 • 

+ 

1•.000 

". 000 

+ 

13.000 

10.000 

.... . . 2•222 2 2 •••••• ••2 • 

•••• ••2• 3 •• •2 •2•• 2• •••• 2 •2•2 ••2• • .•• 2• •• •3•2 ••••3• . . 

. •22 . 

• 2 

• • •• •2 •• 

2 ••• 2 •2 

. . . 2• •• 

•3 

2 • . ... . 

o. •···-·-·-··----·----·-····---··----·----·----·----·----·-·--·----·----·-·--·----·---·~----· . 80000 

.21000 

SCATTeR PLOT <a> YTRN:CM•STS1TDl:3 

UMP GM I NU 

3'7.000 

+ 

34.000 

+ 

31 .000 

21. 000 

25.000 

22.000 

11. 000 

fl. 000 

13.000 

10.000 

o. . 50000 . 

. 21000. 

1.0000 1.1000 

.'715000 1. 2&00 1. ,,00 

N• 131 OUT OP' 131 14. UMP GM J NU VI. 3. P'TPNOX 

• 2 • 

.7SOOO 

. • •2• 

1. 0000 

11-5 

2• 2 • 

1. 5000 

1. 2500 1. 7500 

2.0000 

2.0000 

P'Tf'NOX 

2.2100 

P'TPNOX 

2.2500 
8CATTaR ,LOT <8> YTaN:LA•8,SITOl:3 UM~GMlllU 

31.000 • 

• 

3•.ooo • 

• 

31 .ooo • 

• 

2a.ooo • 

• 

21.000 • 

22.000 • 

• 

11.000 • 

11.000 

13. 000 

10.000 

• 2 • 

• ••2 2 •• 

• 2•2•2 •• 2 • 2 • 2•. • 

............ -·•· .... -·-. -·•· -................................................................................................................ -· 0. .soooo .21000 

SCATT!R ltLOT (10> YTRN:CA•SYS1TOI:• 

UMPCMtNU 

J'J.OOo· + 

U.000 

21 .ooo 

21.000 

26.000 

22.000 .. 

• 2 

2 

1 .0000 1. aooo .11000 1. 21100 1 .1100 

N• •I OUT D~ •1 1•.UMPGMlllU VS. 3.~TPNDK 

•••• 2• 2 11.000 

11. 000 

13. 000 

10.000 

2.0000 P'TltNOX 

2.2100 

..................................................................................................................................... o. . 50000 1 .0000 

.25000 .'75000 

11-6 

1. 5000 

1 . 2500 1. '1500 

2.0000 F' TP NC X 

2.2500 
ICATTIR PLDT Ctt> YTaN:CM•ITl1TDI:• UMPGMINU 

JT.000 + 

J•.ooo • 

• 

:tt .000 + 

• 

21.000 • 

• 

21.000 • 

+ 

2 22.0DO • . . 

. . ti.ODO 

11.000 

• 

13.000 

10.000 + 

. 2 

. • 2 

• • .. 

·····•····•··-·•······-··•····•····•····•····•····•·····----·····•····•····•····•····•····· 0. .10000 1 .0000 

.2&000 .75000 

1. 5000 

I. 21100 1. '7SOO 

2.0000 P'TPNOJ 

2.2900 

SCATT!R PLOT <12> YTRN:LA•SYS1TO&:• UMP GM I NU N• 81 OUT OP al 1•.UMPCMINU YS. 3.~TPNOX 

. JT. 000 

31 .000 

21.000 

25.000 

22.000 

ti. 000 

11.000 

13.000 

10.000 

• 

3•3 2••• ••••• • ••2 • • 3 • :I 

• 2 2. • 

3 

........ .: ...................................................................................................................... . 0. . 50000 ' 1. 0000 1. 5000 2. 0000 FTPNOX 

. 26000. . '75000 1. 2500 1. "7500 2. 2500 

11-7 
• 

SCATT!R 'LDT <13> YTRN1CA•SYSITD&:S UM,GMUU 

3T.OOO 

• 

u .000 • 

". 000 • 

21.000 

• 

2&.000 • 

• 

22 .000 

.... tl.000 2 

2 • 

11 .000 

13.000 

10.000 

. . 

. 

.. 

·----·-···•··--·----·---··-····----·---··-·-····--······----·-··-·-·--·----··-··•··--·--·-· o. .aoooo .211000 

SCATT!R ~LOT <1•> YT~N:CM•IYS1f01:1 

UM,GMINU 

3T.OOO 

Jl.000 • 

31 .000 

21.000 

25.000 

22.000 

II. 000 

1&. 000 

13.000 

10.000 

1 .oooo 1 .11000 2.0000 

.711000 1.2100 1. '71100 

N• 2, OUT 0' 27 11.UM~GMINU VS. 3.~TPNOX 

2 

2 

•····+···-···--·-·-··----·---··----·----··---·----·----···-·•····•·····----·--·-·----······ 0. .50000 1. 0000 

.25000 .75000 

11-8 

1. sooo 

f. 2500 '. 7500 

2.0000 ,.TPNDlC 

2.2500 
ICATTIR 'LDT Cll> VTRN:LA•IYllTD8:1 UM,CMJNU 

:n .ooo + 

• 

:u.ooo • 

• 

".000 • 

• 

21.000 • 

• 

21.000 • 

22.000 • 

11.000 

11.000 • 

13.000 

10.000 + 

.. 

+······---··---·----·----·----·-···•····•·········•····•··--·----·----·----·----·----·-···· o. .10000 

.21000 

SCATTER PLOT <11) YTRN:CA•SYS1TDl:I 

UMPGMJNU 

31.000 

3it.ooo + 

• 

31. 000 

21.000 

25.000 

22.000 

•2 • 

11.000 • 

II. 000 

13.000 

t0.000 

I ,0000 1 .aooo 2.0000 

.'75000 I .2100 I. '500 

N• 31 DUT or 31 14.UMPGMINU vs. 3.rTPND• 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·--·-···-··----·----·----·----·----·----·--··· 0. .SOOOO 1 .0000 1 .5000 2.0000 ~T,NO• 

. 25000 . . 75000 

11_

9

I.2500 I. 7500 2. 2500 

• 
SCATTIR PLDT <I'> YTRN:CM•SYllTD&:I UMPGMlllU 

31.000 • 

• 

• 

3 I. 000 + 

• 

21.000 • 

• • 

.. 2 . . 21.000 • 

• 2 22.000 • 

II. 000 

11.000 

• 

13.000 • 

10.000 

·---····--·----·----·----·-·--·---·····-···-·•·---··-···----·····•····•···-·----·····•····· o. .10000 

.21000 

SCATTIA PLDT <II> YTAN:LA•SYS1TDl:I UIOGMINU 

31.000 

• 

3•.ooo 

J 1 .000 

21.000 

25.000 

22.000 

". 000 

11. 000 

13.000 

10.000 

0. .50000 

.21000 

.11000 

.'75000 

1 .0000 1. 1000 

, . 2100 

1. 0000 1. 5000 

ll-lb2soo 

2.0000 

1. 7100 

2.0000 

1. ,500 

,T~NDX 

2. 2100 

FTPNDX 

2.2500 
SCATTIR PLOT <II> YTRN:CA•SYllTOl:1 UIOGM I NU 

n.ooo • 

• 

:14.000 • 

• 

:II .000 + 

• 

21.000 • 

21.000 • 

• 

22.000 • • . .. .. .. 2 3 •2 . 2 . . 2 

•2 . . 11 .ooo • .. ,. . . 2 .. + 

11. 000 

.. 13.000 

10.000 • 

N• 14 OUT 0' 14 14.UMPGMINU YI. 3.,TPNDK 

•·····----····-·····•····•····•·····----·----·····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•··--· 0. .soooo .2&000 

SCATTER PLOT <20> YTRN:CM•SYS1TD8:1 UMPGMINU 

3,,000 

U.000 

31 .000 

21.000 

25.000 

22.000 

11 .000 

16 .000 

13.000 

10.000 

+ 

•• 2 • 2• 

• 3 

1 .0000 1. 5000 

.'7SOOO 1. 2500 

N• '71 OUT DF '71 14.UMPGMIMU VS. 3.FTPNOX 

2.0000 "T"NDX 

2.2100 

•····•····•-···•····•··--·----·----·----······----·----·----·----·----·----·----···--·----· 0. .50000 1 .0000 1 .SOOO 2.0000 FTPNDX 

. 25000. .isooo ll-li.2100 1.isoo 2.2soo 
SCATTIR PLDT (22> YTRN:CA•SYSITDl:I UMPCMINU 

2'J.OOO + 

• 

:u .ooo • 

• 

3 t. 000 • 

• 

21.000 • 

• 

2s.ooo • 

+ 

22.000 • 

ti. 000 

+ 

11 .ooo 

13. 000 

10.000 

3a • 

·--·-•····•·····----·---···-·-··---·----··-····---·--·-·--·-··-····--······•·········•-···· 0. .aoooo .21000 

SCATT!R PLDT <23> YTRN:tM•SYSITDl:I UMPGMINU 

3.,,000 

+ 

34.000 

3,. 000 • 

21.000 

25.000 

22.000 

• 

ti. 000 

ti. 000 

13.000 

10.000 

t .oooo t .1000 .71000 t. 2100 t. 'JSOO 

N• 13 DUT D, 13 14. UMP GM I NU VS. 3. l'TPNDX 

2.0000 P'TlltNDX 

2.2500 

•····•···-•····•····•····•·····----·----·----·----·----······----·----·----·----·----·----· o. .50000 1 .0000 

.25000 .71000 I. 2600 

11-12 

1. 5000 

1. '7500 

2.0000 P'TPNDX 

2.2500 
SCATTIR PLDT <2•> YTRN:LA•SYl1TDl:I UMPDMINU 

3T.DDO + 

• 

:U .DOD + 

• 

21 .ooo • 

• 

21.DDD + 

• 

25.000 • 

• 

22.000 • 

• 

11. DOO 

11.000 

• 

13.000 

10.000 

·----·-·-·•···-··-··•·····----·----······----·····•·····-···•····•·---·----·····•····•····· 0. .soooo 1 .0000 

.21000 . '71000 I .2100 

i"l-13 

1.aooo I. 7100 2.0000 l'TPllDX 

2.2100 
<ICATT!A BYIT 

C"4f'G"41NU 

u.ooo • 

• 

12.000 • 

• 

, •. 000 • 

• 

31.000 • 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

21.000 • 

• 

22.000 • 

tl.000 • 

1t.ooo 

10.000 

VAll•ll;3 ITllAT•Y2IOT 102 

. .. . . 

ICATTlll f'LDT <I> YTRN:CA•IYllTDl:I 

. .. 

··---·--···-····----·----·----·-·--·-···•····•···-·····•·--·······----·----·----·----·----· o. .aoooo .25000 

SCATT!A 'LOT <2> VTAH:CM•SVS1TDl:1 C"4f'G"4 INU 

••. ooo· + 

12.000 • 

.. u.ooo • 

31.000 

30.000 

• 

21.000 

22.000 

ti. 000 

t•. 000 

10.000 

1 .0000 

.?1000 t. 2100 

2 2 

1. sooo , . ?100 

2•2 

2.0000 P'Tl'NDX 

2.2100 

........................................................................................................................... o. .50000 1. 0000 

.25000 .'75000 

1 \.2500 11- 4 

1. 5000 

1. '7SOO 

2·. 0000 P'TPNOX 

2.2500 
SCATTER PLDT <3> YTRN:LA•IYllTDl:I CMPllMINU 

•1.000 • 

• 

12.000 • 

• 

:111. 000 • 

• 

31.000 

• 

20.000 • 

• 

21.000 

22.000 

1a.ooo 

••.ooo 

10.000 

o. .10000 

.25000 

SCATTE~ PLOT <•> ¥T-N:CA•SYS1TDl:2 CMPCMINU 

U.000 

•2.000 

31.000 

3C .000 

30.000 

21.000 

22.000 

1&.000 

1•.ooo 

10.000 

3 

1. 0000 

.71000 I. 2100 

1. 5000 

. 

. 

I. 1100 

N• 11 OUT DP 101 11.CMPCMINU YS. 3.PTPNDX 

. . .,. 

•2••• 2 ..... 

. 

•2 

2.0000 PTPNDX 

2.2100 

......................................................................................................................................................... 0. . 50000 1 .0000 1.1000 2.0000 ,TPNOX 

.25000 .15000 ll-1'52500 1.7500 2.2100 
SC&TT!A PLDT Cl> YTRN:CM•IYl1TDl:2 CMPliMINU 

•1.000 + 

• 

42.DDO • 

• 

:11.000 • 

• 

:11•.000 

• 

:110.00D • 

• 

21.000 + 

22.000 

11.000 

1•.000 

to.ooo + 

N• •1 DUT DPS• 11.CMPGMINU YI. :11.PTPNDl 

. • . • • . • . 2 

•····•····•···-·····•····•····•····•·-··•··--·-·-·•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····· 0. .10000 

.21000 

SCATT!A PLOT Cl> YTRN:LA•SYS1T01:2 CMP'GMINU 

•1.000 • 

31.000 

30.000 

21.000 

22.000 

11.000 

1•.000 

10.000 

1 .0000 1. aooo .75000 , . 2100 

H• 1 OUT OP 1 11.CMP'GMINU YS. ll.PTPNDX 

2.0000 

, '7100 PTPNDl 2.2500 

.................................................................................................................................................. 0. .soooo 1. 0000 

.25000 .15000 1. 2500 

11-16 

1. 5000 

1 '7500 

2.0000 'TPND)I; 

2.2500 
SCATTIR PLDT <1> YTRN:CA•&YSITDl:J CMPGMlllU 

0.000 

12.000 • 

,1.000 • 

• 

,1.000 • 

• 

,0.000 • 

• 

11.000 

22 .000 

11.000 

11.000 

10.000 

2• . 2 

. . &e 

2 

2 . 2 

• • • 2•• • 2• 2 ••z.. 2••2 • • •• 2• • 2 

• 2•. 2• ••• •2• •2 ••• 

•• 2 • 

. . 

·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·-·--·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----·---·· 0. .10000 

.25000 

SCATTIR PLOT <8> YTRN:CM•SYS1TOl:J CMPGMlfllU 

11.000 

12.000 

31.000 

31.000 

30.000 

21.000 

22.000 

11.000 

,, . 000 

10.000 

1 .oooo 1. sooo .'75000 1 .2100 1. 'TSOO 

N• ., DUT 0' 131 11.CMPGMJNU VI. 3.,TPNOX 

. . . 

. 

2 

2 

2 

2.0000 PTPND~ 

2.2100 

·----·----·----·----·---.. ·----·-····----·-··-•······---·--·-·····•·---·--··•·····----·----· 0. .50000 1. 0000 

.25000. ,,5000 '. 2500 

11-17 

1. 5000 

1. '7500 

2.0000 FTPNDX 

2.2500 
ICATTIR PLOT <I> YTRN:LA•SYSITOl:3 CMP'!:NINU 

... ooo • 

• 

•2.000 • 

• 

31.000 

3•.ooo • 

30.000 • 

21.000 

22. 000 

,. .000 

14.000 

10.000 

. . 

. . • 2 

• • .• 2 

... 2 2 

•2 

·---··-····--·-·----·----·----·----·--·-·----··---···-··----·----·-····----·----····-·----· 0. .10000 

.21000 

SCATTIR PLOT (10) VTRN:tA•SYSIToa:• CNPCN I NU •1.000 

•2.000 

38.000 

3&.000 

30.000 

21. 000 ·, 

2 

2• 22.000 2 2 

tl.000 

t•. 000 

10.000 

, .0000 t. 5000 

.TIOOO I. 2100 I. TSOO 

N• 33 OUT OP 41 11.CMPCNINU VS. 3.PTPNDX 

2.0000 PTPNOX 

2.2100 

··-·-·----·----·····•·---·----·----·----·----·----·--··•···-·--···----·····•··--·----·---·· 0. .10000 '. 0000 

.25000 .'7SOOO I. 2500 

11-18 

I. 5000 

1. '7500 

2.0000 ,.TPNOX 

2. 2500 
SCATTIR ,LDT <11> YTRN:CM•SYS1TDI:• CM,CMINU 

•1.000 • 

• 

•2.000 • 

• 

38. 000 .+ 

• 

• 

J0.000 

2 

21.000 

2 • 

22.000 • 

1&.000 

t•.ooo 

to.ooo 

.. 

·----·---··----·----·----·----·----··-··•·····----·----·----·----·----·----·----·----···-·· 0. .10000 

.25000 

SCATTIR PLOT <12> YTRN:LA•SYS1TDI:• CMPGMINU 

41.000 

42.000 

38.000 

u .000 

30.000 

• 

28.000 

22.000 

,. .000 

• 2 • 

, •. 000 

10.000 

1 .0000 1. BOOO 

.'JIOOO 1 .2SOO 1. '7500 

N• I~ DUT D' II 11.CMPCMINU Y$. 3.,TPNDl 

2 

2.0000 ,TPNDl 

2.2500 

···--·----·····•··--·----·----·····•······---·----·----·----·----·----·----·----······----· 0. . soooo. '.0000 

. 26000. .75000 t. 2500 

11-19 

1. 5000 

I. '7500 

2.0000 P'TPND)( 

2.2500 
SCATTIA 'LDT <IJ> YTAN:CA•STllTDl:a CM,aMINU 

•1.000 • 

42.000 • 

JI.ODO 

11.000 

10.000 

·----·----·----·----·---··-·-·•····•·····----·----·----·----·----·-···•····•····•····•····· 0. .10000 

. 21000 

SCATTIR PLDT <14> YTAN:CM•SYSITDl:S CMPGM I NU •1.000· 

12.000 • 

• 

31.000 

• 

:aa.ooo 

30.000 

21.000 

22.000 

ta. 000 

11.000 

10.000 

1 .0000 1. 1000 

·'1000 1.2100 ,.,soo 

N• 25 DUT Dr 3' 11.CMPGMINU YS. 3.~T,NDX 

2.0000 ~T,NDX 

2.21100 

·--·-·····•···-·----·····•····•····•·····----·----•····•····•···-•····•·····----·----·----· 0. . 50000 1. 0000 1. 5000 2. 0000 'TPNO)I 

. 25000 . '75000 1. 2500 1. '7500 2. 2500 

11-20 
SCATT!R P'LDT Cll> YTRN:LR•IYSITD8:1 

c .. ,a .. INU 

•1.000 + 

• 

42.000 • 

• 

3&.000 • 

• 

• 

30.000 • 

• 

25.000 

22.000 • 

+ 

11.000 

11.000 

10.000 

0. .10000 

.2SOOO 

SCATTER PLOT <ti) YTRN:CA•SYS1TDl:I 

C"'PG .. INU •1.000 

21.000 

31.000 

30.000 

21.000 

• 2• 

•2 2 

2 

22!000 

11.000 

14.000 

10.000 

N• I 2 DUT D' 22 ti. CM'D"' I NU. YI. 3. 'TP'ND• 

I .0000 1 .aooo .11000 I. 2100 1. '7100 

N• 21 OUT 0, 21 11.CMPGMINU YS. 3.~TPNOX 

2.0000 l"TP'NOI 

2.2100 

........................................................................................................................................... o. . 10000 ' 1. 0000 1. 1000 2. 0000 P'TPNDJ: 

.2sooo . 11000 ~. 2100 1. 1100 2. 2100 11- .l 
ICATT!R PLOT <IT> YTRN:CM•ITllTOl:I CMPGMINU 

•1.000 • 

42.000 • 

U.000 

t0.000 

N• 12 OUT 0, 21 11.CMPGMINU YI. J.PTPNOI 

·-·-·····-•····•-···•····•····•·-··•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····· 0. .10000 1.0000 

.21000 .TIOOO 1.5000 I. 2100 I. 1100 

2.0000 PTPNOI 

2.2100 

SCATT!R PLDT <la> YTRN:LA•SVllTDl:l CMPGMI NU N• I OUT D~ • 11.CM~GMJNU YS. 3.YTPNOX 

41.000 

42.000 

Jl.000 

34.000 

30.000 

21.000 

22.000 

11.000 

10.000 

······----·-···•····•··--·----·----·----·-···•·····----·····•····•····•····•····•······----· 0. .10000 1. 0000 1 .1000 2. 0000 FTPNOX 

.25000 .75000 1.2500 1 .7600 2.2500 

11-22 
SCATTER l'LDT <II> 'TRN:CA•SfSITDI:? CMl'GMINU 

•1.000 • 

• 

•2.000 • 

• 

Jl.000 • 

• 

34.000 • 

20.000 • 

• 

21.000 

22 .000 

,. .000 

u .000 

• 

10.000 

3• •• 

• • 2 

• ••2 

. 

. 

N• •2 OUT DI' 7• f.I. CMl'GMINU. U. J. l'Tl'NDX 

•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•·-··•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•·--·· 0. .soooo .2aooo 

SCATTER PLOT <20> 'TRN:CM•SYS1TDl:7 CMPGMINU 

41.000 

:u. 000 

34.000 

30. 000 

21.000 

22.000 

II. 000 

14.000 

t0.000 

• 

• 

.. 

. ... • • 2• •• 

1 .0000 '.sooo .'71000 1. 2SOO 1. "7&00 

N• 40 OUT Df '71 11.CMPCMJNU YS. 3.fT~NDJ 

2.0000 l'TPNDX 

2.2aoo 

+··--+··-··-·--·----·----·-·--·----·---··-·--·----·----·----·---··----······----······----· 0. .50000 I .0000 

.25000 .'75000 11-232500 

1. 5000 

1. '7500 

2.0000 P'TPNOJC 

2.2500 
ICATT!R PLDT <22> VTRR:CA•IYltTDl:I CMPCMIRU 

•t.000 • 

•1.000 • 

• 

JI.ODO • 

• 

J•.ooo 

• 

J0.000 • 

21. 000 • 

22.000 

• 

\I.ODO 

• 2 .. 14.000 

10.000 

•·········•···-·····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····•····· 0. .&0000 

.2SOOO 

SCATTIR PLDT <23> VTRN:CM•SYStTOa:a CMPCM INU 

ac. ooo· 

U.000 

• 

3A.OOO 

30.000 

21.000 

22.000 • 

ti.ODO 

14.000 

10.000 

0. .5-0000 

.25000 

1.0000 1. aooo .11000 I .2100 t .·noo 

R• I OUT DP' 13 18.CMPGMIRU VS. 3.P'TPRDX 

1. 0000 1. 5000 

."75000 1. 2500 1. "7500 

11-24 

2.0000 

2.0000 

P'TPRDI 

2.2100 

FTPND>c 

2.2500 
SCATT!R 'LDT <2•> YTRN:LA•SYSITDl:I 

CM,CMINU 

•• . 000 . • 

• 

•2.000 • 

• 

:11.000 • 

• 

~•.ooo • 

• 

J0.000 • 

21.000 • 

22.000 

sa.ooo 

t•.ooo 

10.000 

•····•·---·---······•····•····•····•····•··-·•····•····•····•·········•····•····•····•····· o. .10000 , .0000 

.25000 .75000 1. 2100 

11-25 

1 .1000 

1.·noo 2.0000 ,.T,NOk 2.2100