corresponding to the selected ETW were then used to compute TRLHP and GTRL,
respectively.” In cases where a corresponding VCDT value was not included in the
certification database for a minimum ETW within a specific vehicle category, the VCDT
corresponding to the ETW value closest to the minimum was used. (A similar
methodology was used in the case of missing drive axle weight data.)

Following the IM240 dynamometer settings, similar dynamometer settings for the two
most common ASM test modes (ASM5015 and ASM2525) have been incorporated into
the Lookup Table, using formulas supplied by EPA.”" Fields are then provided for
average drive axle weight, wheelbase, and drive layout code (e.g., front, rear, etc.).
Following that are fields for fuel tank size (to aid in pressure testing) and dynamometer
testability (e.g., four-wheel-drive, traction control, and ABS status).

In keeping with the conservative approach to aggregating test parameters discussed
above, the minimum fuel tank size for a specific vehicle within each vehicle category has
been assumed for that category as well. In cases of yes/no answers that vary across
engine families contained within a single vehicle category, an “M” (for maybe) entry has
been used to indicate the possibility of a particular option. For example, if a single
vehicle category includes both full-time and selectable four-wheel-drive vehicles, an “M”
would be entered in the full-time four-wheel-drive field.

Fields are also included for location codes of the four-wheel-drive selector and manual
traction disablement switch. A simple coding system has been developed for assisting
YM inspectors in finding these items, which is identical to that proposed by EPA for
mapping the location of the OBDII diagnostic link connector (DLC). This issue is
discussed in more detail in Section 5.

A field is provided for entry of an upper fuel economy limit, for use as a quality control
check on the testing results, Following that are fields for the testability status of the
vehicle for the EPA and inlet pressure tests, and the EPA and tracer purge tests.""”
Comment fields are also provided for each pressure and purge test, to allow entry of the
reason (if applicable) for a vehicle being untestable on that test. In addition, fields are
provided for minimum and maximum test pressures for the two pressure tests.

The next-to-the-last field contains the date of the record. In the past, there has been some
confusion regarding the convention used in modifying the date included in each
individual Lookup Table record. Some users believed this date should change with each
new version of the Lookup Table and be consistent for all records contained in that
version. Other users suggested that the record date should only be changed for those
records modified in that version of the table (i.e., there would be no change of date if the
record were not modified). They also pointed out that eacli version of the Lookup Table

* Computational methodologies are described in Section 4.
“* “ASM Horsepower Equations,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1995.

““No acceptable tracer purge test has been approved by EPA at present.

-15-


subject to passenger car standards. The engine family number can typically be found on
the underhood label. Users can contact the manufacturer directly for guidance on
determining the applicable sales class for vehicles on which the underhood label cannot
be read.

Sales Class Corrections - Corrections have been made to the Sales Class field in the
records for Chevrolet El Caminos, GMC Caballeros, and Ford Rancheros to properly
indicate that these vehicles were certified as passenger cars rather than LDTs.

Land Rover Modifications - Corrections to some previously existing records and
additional 1991-92 records have been entered for Land Rover models based on
information provided by the manufacturer.

Additional Fuel Code - A new fuel type code of “2” for natural gas has been added as a
possible entry in Field 11 (Fuel Type).

Canister Location Code - A new canister location of “FT” (for on the fuel tank) has been
added as a possible entry in Field 14 (Location of Canisters). This has been included to
allow information provided by DaimlerChrysler on the canister location for its 1998
models to be properly incorporated into the table. The canister is located on the fuel tank
for some 1998 Plymouth and Dodge models.

Record Date - The date on each record that was either added or modified as a result of the
above changes reflects the release date of Version 1.7.2 of the Lookup Table.


Inlet Pressure Test Status and Comments (fields #60-61) - These data are based on
pressure testability data obtained from the Louisville I/M program and reasons for
untestability received from selected manufacturers. :

Minimum and Maximum Pressures for Inlet Pressure Test (fields #62-63) - These data

are based on data received from selected manufacturers.

Tracer Purge Comments (field #67) - These data are based on reasons for untestability
received from selected manufacturers.

Minimum and Maximum Pressures for Tracer Purge Test (fields #68-69) - These data are

based on data received from selected manufacturers.

Gas Cap Configuration (field #71) - To facilitate gas cap pressure testing, this field
identifies the gas cap adapter type that should be used for testing the vehicle, based on

data received from Stant Manufacturing. A description of the field is as follows:

Field Entry Stant Adapter Descriptor

Blue

Yellow

Red

Green

Black”

Gray

Threaded

Light Blue (new)
Orange (new)
Varies
Untestable
Unknown or no adapter required

ZGNOCTTOAMmMmaAWD

Pre-1979 Model Year Vehicles

The database descriptions, data sources, and computational methodologies presented
above primarily apply to those model years contained in the EPA certification data
provided directly by EPA to Sierra, i.e., 1979 and later. In addition to those data, Sierra
also obtained certification data for the 1979-1993 model years that were published
annually in the Federal Register. These data were similar, but not identical, to the

“According to Stant, an upgraded black adapter has been developed to address problems that users have
experienced in attempting to test certain Honda models because the fuel fillpipes on these vehicles are
slightly different from SAE specifications. The upgraded adapter can be visually distinguished from the
previous unit based on the presence of a white “gripping ring.” Stant intends to continue to use the color
black to describe the upgraded version of this adapter. Since this is how it is coded in the /M Lookup
Table, no change will be made to the table entries in response to the upgrade.

-32-


and a listing” of 1972 models compiled and provided to Sierra by Automotive Testing
Laboratories [ATL]), these data are not included in the Lookup Table.

Default Parameters

Default dynamometer parameters, which can be used in cases where model identification
is impossible, were also developed. For Version 1.1 of the Lookup Table, track road-load
horsepower (TRLHP) and inertia weight default values contained in

Section 85.2221(c)(5) of an earlier version of EPA’s high-tech guidance were used.
(TRLHP settings for inertia weights of 5500 and 6000 Ibs were linearly extrapolated from
the data contained in Section 85.2221(c)(5), which include only up to 5000 Ibs inertia
weight.) For Versions 1.2 through 1.5.1, the IM240 default values were modified based
on a revised list of defaults”’ provided by EPA. In addition, ASM default values
developed by EPA*”” were also incorporated. The revised default values included
TRLHP and generic tire/roll losses (GTRL) on both 8.625” and 20.0” diameter
dynamometer rolls. These values were disaggregated according to both vehicle body
style, and either number of cylinders or vehicle test weight.

As part of the development of Version 1.6.1 of the Lookup Table, EPA directed Sierra to
review and determine if the defaults contained in the table should be updated. An
analysis was therefore conducted of the existing default values. Existing Lookup Table
entries were sorted according to body shape, number of cylinders, and model year
grouping. Five model year groups were selected: 1973-1980, 1981-84, 1985-89,
1990-94, and 1995-97. These groups were chosen on a relatively arbitrary basis to
determine the degree of variance and trends in TRLHP and ETW values among model
years.

Assuming the observations were normally distributed within each analysis category (i.e.,
body shape/#cylinders/model year group combination), lower-limit confidence intervals
were then calculated for TRLHP and ETW in each category using a Student’s-t test as
follows. Using lower-limit intervals of 5% and 20% recommended by EPA (meaning
that 95% and 80% respectively, of all observations occur above the interval), appropriate
t-values were looked up from a standard statistical table as a function of sample size n
(€.8., ts, for large n is 1.645). The lower limit values for TRLHP and ETW were then
calculated using the following equation:

Lower Limit = H- FF

““Vehicle Manual: 1972-1978,” Automotive Testing Laboratories, Inc., undated.
** “Default IM240 Dynamometer Loading, Test Weights, and Tire Losses,” U.S. EPA, June 7, 1995.

** “ASM2 Procedures and Equipment Specifications, Ver 1.5,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
July 6, 1995.

-9-


-6I-

35

36

37

38

39

40
42

43

Table 3 (continued)

Format of EPA I/M Lookup Table

Name

ASM2525 Horsepower

for 8.625” Roll
ASMS5015 Horsepower

for 20.0” Roll
ASM2525 Horsepower

for 20.0” Roll
ASMS015 Tire/Roll

Interface Losses

on 8.625” Roll
ASM2525 Tire/Roll

Interface Losses

on 8.625” Roll
ASMS015 Tire/Roll

Interface Losses

on 20.0” Roll
ASM2525 Tire/Roll

Interface Losses

on 20.0” Roll

Average Drive Axle Wt.

Wheelbase
Drive Layout Code

Full-time 4-Wheel?

* All fields are comma separated, variable length.

Abbrev.
HP25258
HP501520
HP252520

GTRL1508

GTRL2508

GTRL1520

GTRL2520

DAXWT
WHLBS
DRLCD

FWDS

Description

numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)
numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)
numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)

numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)
numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)
numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)
numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)

numeric (Ibs, nnnn)

numeric (inches, includes decimal, nnn.n)

numeric (1=front drive, 2=rear drive, 3=selectable
4-wheel-drive, 4=full-time 4-wheel drive, 5=varies)
alpha (Y,N,M,U)


page
EPA Certification Data... 0.0.6... cece cece cece ete enn eee een 4
Manufacturers Contacted Regarding Vehicle Testability ...................4. 7
Format of EPA I/M Lookup Table .... 0... c ccc eee eee e eee "
Data Sources for EPA I/M Lookup Table .......... 0... c ccc eee e eee eee 23
Light-Duty Truck Definitions ........ 6.6.6.0 c ce cece tee cece ence eee 26


GTRL @ 15 mpnz0 = {[Atzo*(15 mph)] + [Btyo*(15 mph)?}+ [Cty)*(15 mph)*]} *

RL@ 50 mph-20
where: At, = 0.65/50
Bt, = 0.48/2,500
Cty = - 0.13/ 125,000

ASM2525 Horsepower for 20.0” Roll (field #35) - These data are computed from the
following ASM horsepower equations provided by EPA and the Atyo, Bt,) and Cty)
default values provided above:

HP2525,9 = THP2525 - GIRL@ 05 mph-20

GTRLg 25 mph-20 = {LAtgo*(25 mph)] + [Bt,*(25 mph)?] + [Ctyo*(25 mph)’]} *
RL@ 50 mph-20

ASM5S015 Tire/Roll Interface Losses on 8.625” Roll (field #36) - These data are
computed from the following ASM horsepower equation provided by EPA and the At,,

Bt, and Ct, default values provided above:

GTRL@ 15 mpne = {{Atg*(15 mph)] + [Bt,*(15 mph)’] + [Ct,*(15 mph)”]} *
‘@ 50 mph-8

ASM2525 Tire/Roll Interface Losses on 8.625” Roll (field #37) - These data are
computed from the following ASM horsepower equation provided by EPA and the At,,
Bt, and Ct, default values provided above:

GTRL@ 25 mpns = {[Ate*(25 mph)} + [Bt,*(25 mph)’] + [Ct,*(25 mph)*]} *
‘@ 50 mph-8

ASMS015 Tire/Roll Interface Losses on 20.0” Roll (field #38) - These data are
computed from the following ASM horsepower equation provided by EPA and the At),
Bt, and Cty) default values provided above:

GTRL@ 15 mpn-20 = {[Atg*(15 mph)] + [Btyo*(15 mph)’]+ [Ct,9*(15 mph)*]} *
RL@ 50 mph-20

ASM2525 Tire/Roll Interface Losses on 20.0” Roll (field #39) - These data are
computed from the following ASM horsepower equation provided by EPA and the Ato,

Btyy and Cty) default values provided in above:

GTRL@ 25 mpn.20 = {[Atgo*(25 mph)] + [Btyp*(25 mph)’] + [Ctyo*(25 mph)"}} *
@ 50 mph-20

-30-


has its own revision date and it makes little sense to put the same date in all the individual
records as well.

After considering this issue, Sierra recommended and EPA agreed that the date of record
will remain the same in succeeding versions of the table, unless a change is made to the
record. Any record in Version 1.7.2 that contains an updated date is therefore either new
or has been modified in some manner.

The final field is the gas cap adapter that should be used in testing the vehicle using the
Stant testing apparatus.

Database Format

Provided on the following pages as Table 3 is a detailed format listing for the Lookup
Table. The data set is formatted as a series of comma-separated, variable length ASCII
text files. To keep the data set at a manageable size, it has been divided into files of no
more than 1 Mb in length. This has resulted in five data files, covering the following
model year ranges:

. 1973-1978;
. 1979-1984;
. 1985-1990;
. 1991-1996; and
. 1997-1998.

ARWNE

To aid in proper field identification, comma-separated headings for each field have been
added as the first line in the five data files. The abbreviations used for each field heading
are included in Table 3.

Beginning with Version 1.6.1 of the Lookup Table, actual data values have been deleted
from certain of the Lookup Table fields. These include Fields 21, 23-25, 27-29, and 54.
These fields are now marked as “reserved” in Table 3.

Fields 19 and 20 have been respectively redefined as VINPLC and VINCHAR in Version

1.7.2 of the table. Additional details on the contents of these fields are provided in
Section 5.

-16-


4. COMPUTATIONAL METHODOLOGIES

The majority of the vehicle parameter data contained in the I/M Lookup Table were either
imported directly from one of the EPA certification data sets or provided by the
manufacturers. However, it was necessary to compute or otherwise develop the values of
some vehicle parameters. Data sources are summarized in Table 4. More complete
descriptions of a selected number of the vehicle parameters, including the methods and
formulas used for the required computations, are presented below. For ease of reference,
each parameter is referenced by its respective field number in the vehicle parameter
database. The discussion is divided into two separate model year categories (1979 and
newer, and 1973-1978), due to differences in the type of data available for each
category.” Unless otherwise noted, the information presented for 1979 and newer models
also applies to the older models as well.

1979 and Newer Vehicles

The sources of data for these vehicles are the EPA certification and fuel economy
databases that, prior to 1998, were located on the Wayne State computer system. These
data are now being maintained by EPA on an in-house Oracle database, referred to as the
“Initial Operating Version - Certification and Fuel Economy Information System” or
IOV-CFEIS.

Transmission Type (field #9) - The various transmission types contained in the
certification database were aggregated into three categories: manual, automatic, or either.

Vehicle Category Identification Number (field #10) - A unique code was developed and
assigned to each vehicle grouping that had identical entries in fields 1-9. This code

begins with the last two digits of the model year of vehicles included in each category,
followed by additional numbers assigned by Sierra.

Fuel Type (field #11) - Almost all records contained in the Lookup Table are for
gasoline-powered vehicles (fuel type =1). Beginning with the 1997 model year, a limited
number of alternatively fueled vehicle records are included, as follows:

* Data for vehicles produced by small-volume manufacturers are not contained in the EPA certification
database, but are included in the certification data published annually in the Federal Register. As a result,
the information presented below for model years 1973-1978 also applies to all 1973-1993 models
produced by small-volume manufacturers. As noted previously, no 1994 and newer models produced by
small-volume manufacturers are included in the Lookup Table.

-22-


-1-

Table 3 (continued)

Format of EPA I/M Lookup Table

Maximum

Field Length” Name

18 4 Track Road-Load
Horsepower (50 mph)

19 2 VIN Digit

20 8 VIN Character

21 1 (Reserved)

22 4 Tire/Roll Interface
Losses on 8.625”
Roll at 50 mph

23 1 (Reserved)

24 1 (Reserved)

25 1 (Reserved)

26 4 Tire/Roll Interface
Losses on 20.0”
Roll at 50 mph

27 1 (Reserved)

28 1 (Reserved)

29 1 (Reserved)

30 4 Total ASM5015
Horsepower

31 4 Total ASM2525
Horsepower

32 4 ASM5015 Horsepower

: for 8.625” Roll

* All fields are comma separated, variable length.

Abbrev.
TRLHP

VINPLC
VINCHAR

GTRL8

GTRL20

THPS5015
THP2525

HPS50158

Description

numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)

numeric (nn)
alphanumeric

numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)

numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)

numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)
numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)

numeric (hp, includes decimal, nn.n)


Average Drive Axle Weight (field #40) - These data are computed from the full and
empty drive axle weights (VAXF and VAXE) contained in the certification database,
assuming that DAXWT = (VAXF+VAXE)/2. In some cases, when no value of VAXE is
provided in the Certification database, the DAXWT is calculated as 60% of ETW for
front-wheel-drive sedans and station wagons, and 50% of ETW for all other vehicle

types.

Wheelbase (field #41) - These data are available in non-electronic form in the annual
Automotive News Market Data Books for each model year. In addition, the All
Wheel/Traction Control Guide compiled by the Colorado Department of Public Health
and Environment (CDPHE) also contains wheelbase data. Only limited wheelbase data
provided by the manufacturers (e.g., Ford) have been input to the I/M Lookup Table.

Drive Layout Code (field #42) - The various drive code types contained in the
certification database have been aggregated into three categories: front, rear, or four-
wheel. It is impossible to tell from the certification data whether a vehicle has selectable
or full-time four-wheel-drive. Because of this, the manufacturers were asked to identify
which vehicles had full-time four-wheel drive. These data were used to disaggregate
vehicles equipped with four-wheel-drive into selectable or full-time four-wheel-drive
categories.

Full-Time Four-Wheel-Drive (field #43) - As discussed above, data from the
manufacturers were used to identify which vehicles had full-time four-wheel-drive. Data
from the CDPHE All Wheel/Traction Control Guide were also input, where appropriate,
in cases of missing manufacturer data.

Location of Four-Wheel Selector (field #44) - Due to time and resource constraints, these
data have not been input to the Lookup Table.

Auxiliary Fuel Tank (Yes/No) (field #46) - A “yes” answer is assumed for this entry if
the certification database contains a value for the auxiliary fuel tank size; otherwise, this
entry is assumed to be “no.” ~

Location of Traction Control Disablement Switch (field #50) - Only limited data
provided by the manufacturers (e.g., Volkswagen) have been input to the Lookup Table.

As described in more detail in Section 5, the location codes used in this field are identical
to those proposed for use in mapping the location of OBDII diagnostic link connectors.

EPA Pressure Test Status and Comments (fields #56-57) - These data are based on
pressure testability data obtained from the Louisville I/M program and reasons for
untestability received from selected manufacturers.

Minimum and Maximum Pressures for EPA Pressure Test (fields #58-59) - These data

are based on data received from selected manufacturers.

-31-


3. DATABASE FORMAT

A comprehensive vehicle parameter database, disaggregated to the engine family level,
was initially developed from the sources listed in Section 2. This data set was then
collapsed into a more aggregated data set, for distribution to I/M programs as an
electronic Lookup Table. The Lookup Table database is described below, followed by
detailed format specifications for the table.

Lookup Table

The Lookup Table contains fields for data specified by EPA staff, as well as additional
data suggested by the I/M contractors (e.g., canister location). In some cases, data are not
currently available for certain vehicle parameters. Fields for these parameters are
included for future use, but have been left blank in the current version.

The first nine fields in each database record contain vehicle identification entries. These
fields are as follows:

. Model year;

. Manufacturer code;”

. Manufacturer name;

. Manufacturer division;

. Public model name;

. Body style (e.g., sedan, wagon, etc.);
. Number of cylinders;

. Engine displacement; and

. Transmission type.

WONIDMWEWNH

Following the above entries, each record contains a unique vehicle identification code,
which can be used to cross-reference the record with entries for the same vehicle listing in
other versions of the Lookup Table.”*

* The second and third fields both reference the vehicle manufacturer; with the second field being a
two-character code and the third the full name of the manufacturer.

“Vehicle identification codes were changed between Versions 1.1 and 1.2 of the Lookup Table. Versions
1.2 and later releases have consistent vehicle IDs.

-13-


Review of model names in the two certification data sets revealed a significant number of
errors and inconsistencies in model naming convention. Accordingly, a list of common
“publicly known” model names was created and merged with the two data sets to
eliminate inconsistent entries. The resulting model names were used in the Lookup Table
to replace corresponding model names and/or codes.

Manufacturer Identification

A separate list of manufacturers was provided by EPA for use in the database. This list,
which includes both the full name and a two-character “EPA Manufacturer Subcode” for
each listed manufacturer, is contained in the Society of Automotive Engineers’ (SAE’s)
J2008.recommended organization of vehicle service information. These names and
subcodes were merged with the four-character manufacturer abbreviation included in the
EPA certification data to convert the abbreviations to the full names and subcodes
contained in SAE J2008. The resulting subcodes and full names are included in fields 2
and 3, respectively, of the Lookup Table.

For some manufacturers, no match was found between the certification database codes
and entries on the SAE J2008 list. This was particularly true for manufacturers of older
models, some of whom may not be in business at present. For such vehicles, the full
name of the manufacturer (if it could be determined) or (at a minimum) the manufacturer
abbreviation included in the EPA certification database was included in field 3 of the
Lookup Table. Field 2 has been left blank for these vehicles.

Feder: ister D

EPA certification data for each model year are also published annually in the Federal
Register. Based on discussions with EPA’s Freedom of Information Officer at

Ann Arbor, it was learned that these data were available in electronic format for model
years 1979-1993." These data included the following applicable vehicle parameters:

Model year;
Manufacturer;

Model description;
Engine family;

Engine displacement;
Transmission type;
Inertia weight class;"" and

occ eee

“The 1993 model year was the most recent Federal Register data available at the time the first version of
the Lookup Table was developed. Subsequent updates to the table have been based on electronic copies of
the vehicle certification and fuel economy data provided directly to Sierra by EPA technical staff.

“* Equivalent test weight, rather than inertia weight class, was recorded for 1980 and later models.

5.


Track Road-Load Horsepower (field #18) - These data are computed from the ETW and
VCDT values contained in the certification database, using the formula contained in
§85.2226(a)(2)(iv) of the high-tech I/M test procedures.” This formula is as follows:

TRLHP = (0.5*ETW/32.2) * (V,?-V,2)

(S50*ET)
where: ET = vehicle coastdown time (VCDT) from 55 to 45 mph
ETW = equivalent test weight (Ibs)
V; = initial velocity in ft/sec equivalent to 55 mph
V, = final velocity in ft/sec equivalent to 45 mph

As discussed previously, VCDT data were not available for a large portion of the
1979-1980 models contained in the Wayne State databases. For these models, an
alternate method of computing TRLHP values must be used. TRLHP settings for these
models, based on vehicle type, and either inertia weight class or number of cylinders, are
selected using the revised IM240 and ASM default values (dated June 7, 1995, and

July 6, 1995, respectively) provided by EPA. For vehicles with inertia weights heavier
than shown in the revised default table, TRLHP values corresponding to the heaviest test
weight for the appropriate vehicle category were used.

In some cases, data provided directly to Sierra by the manufacturers were used in place of
the certification data or default values.

Generic Tire/Roll Interface Losses on 8.625” Roll (field #22) - These data are computed
from the full and empty drive axle weights (VAXF and VAXE) contained in the Cert

database, using the formula contained in §85.2226(a)(2)(xv) of the high-tech I/M test
procedures and assuming that average drive axle weight (DAXWT) equals
(VAXF+VAXE)/2. The formula is as follows:

GTRL@ 50 mpn-s = (-0.378193) + [(0.0033207) * (DAXWT)]

Generic Tire/Roll Interface Losses on 20.0” Roll (field #26) - These data are computed
from the full and empty drive axle weights (VAXF and VAXE) contained in the

certification database, using the formula contained in §85.2226(a)(2)(xvi) of the high-tech
IM test procedures and assuming that average drive axle weight (DAXWT) equals
(VAXF+VAXE)/2. The formula is as follows:

GTRL@ 50 mpn.20 = (0.241645) + [(0.0020844) * DAXWT)]

“Unless otherwise noted, all references to the high-tech test procedures contained in this section refer to the
June 1996 version of the guidance.

-28-


-$z-

Table 4 (continued)

Data Sources for EPA I/M Lookup Table

Name

Location of Disablement Switch

Anti-lock Braking?

Anti-lock Braking Disablement
Possible?

2-Wheel-Drive Dyno Testing

(Reserved)

(Reserved)

EPA Pressure Test Status

EPA PT Comments

EPA PT Min. Pressure

EPA PT Max. Pressure

Inlet Pressure Test Status

Inlet PT Comments

Inlet PT Min. Pressure

Inlet PT Max. Pressure

EPA Purge Test Status

EPA Purge Test Comments

Tracer Purge Test Status

Tracer Purge Test Comments

Tracer Purge Test Min. Pressure

Tracer Purge Test Max. Pressure

Date of Record

Gas Cap Configuration

Source of Data

Manufacturers (limited data)
Manufacturers, Tier One
Manufacturers

Sierra, from 4-wheel-drive and traction control data

Louisville /M program
Manufacturers
Manufacturers
Manufacturers
Louisville /M program
Manufacturers
Manufacturers
Manufacturers

Not currently entered
Not currently entered
Not currently entered
Manufacturers
Manufacturers
Manufacturers

Sierra

Stant Manufacturing


emission control system purge flow and fuel tank pressure integrity. Under contract to
EPA, Sierra Research developed and released in September 1994 an initial version of the
Lookup Table that contained both dynamometer settings and purge/pressure testability
data. Subsequent versions have also been prepared and released by Sierra for EPA. This
report addresses Sierra’s latest release (Version 1.7.2) of the Lookup Table. Changes
incorporated into Version 1.7.2 of the table include the addition of 1998 model-year
vehicles, GVWR-related VIN information for light duty trucks, traction control
disablement switch mapping information provided by Volkswagen, updated sales class
information regarding certain Subaru station wagons and a limited number of other
vehicles, and other miscellaneous updates.

Section 2 of this report provides background on the sources of data used to construct and
update the electronic Lookup Table. Section 3 describes the format of the database and
Section 4 contains the computational methodologies used to construct it. Section 5
provides additional details on the changes incorporated into Version 1.7.2 of the table.

-2-


1. INTRODUCTION

A number of states have implemented, or are scheduled to implement in the near future,
enhanced vehicle emissions inspection and maintenance (I/M) programs. Vehicles
subject to enhanced I/M will have exhaust emissions measured and evaporative emissions
control systems tested while being driven on a chassis dynamometer. One or a
combination of the possible standardized tests listed below will be used by these states.

1. A 240-second, stop-and-go driving (transient) test called the “IM240.”

2. Shorter transient test cycles such as the IM93, IM147 (which are both subsets of
the IM240), or BAR31 tests.

3. A shorter, steady-state test called the “‘Acceleration Simulation Mode” (ASM)
2525, designed to simulate acceleration during in-use vehicle operation.
Although ASM tests are run at a steady speed, the dynamometer is set to load the
vehicle more than if the vehicle were cruising at a steady speed. “ASM2525” is
run at 25% of the load required to accelerate at 3.3 mph/sec (the maximum
acceleration rate on the FTP) at a speed of 25 mph.

4. Asecond ASM test mode called the “ASM5015.” “ASM5015” is run at 50% of
the load required to accelerate at 3.3 mph/sec (the maximum acceleration rate on
the FTP) at a speed of 15 mph.

To efficiently use one or more of the above tests, an I/M test facility must be able to
quickly and easily adjust the chassis dynamometer power absorption and (in the case of
the IM240 or another transient test cycle) inertia weight settings for each vehicle, so that
the vehicle engine is properly loaded during testing. Under so-called “high-tech” I/M test
guidance issued by EPA,” the dynamometer settings are to be automatically selected for
each vehicle, based on vehicle parameters entered into the test record by the I/M lane
inspector.

According to the high-tech test guidance, EPA is responsible for supplying an electronic
lookup table that can be used to automatically select the proper dynamometer settings for
each particular vehicle. In addition, EPA has also been actively involved in investigating
alternate test procedures and parameters for functional testing of vehicle evaporative

*IM240 & Evap Technical Guidance,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-AA-RPSD-IM-98-1,
August 1998.


Fields are then provided for the type of fuel burned by the vehicle (only gasoline-powered
and a few alternatively-fueled vehicles are currently included in the Lookup Table),
evaporative control system, and the number and location of evaporative canisters. A
simple locational coding system for canister location has been developed, based on the
quadrant codes listed below.

1 = left front
2 =right front
3 =right rear
4 =left rear

M = multiple locations

While much more elaborate (e.g., x/y coordinate systems) locational systems could be
adopted, it is believed that a system that simply identifies general canister locations is
much more likely to be used by I/M inspectors.

A field for the sales class of the vehicle” is then provided. This is followed by fields for
all required IM240 dynamometer settings, e.g., ETW, TRLHP, and 8.625” and 20.0”
GTRL. Because the Lookup Table is disaggregated only to the level described above, a
methodology for aggregating multiple ETW values into the database records contained in
the table has been developed and is explained below. Reasons for excluding certain
vehicle parameters from the Lookup Table are also discussed.

Methodology for Developing Test Parameters by Vehicle Category - In developing this
methodology, a review was conducted of the approach previously employed by EPA to

construct the Lookup Table used by ATL for IM240 testing in Hammond, Indiana, and
Phoenix, Arizona. Under that approach, ETW and TRLHP values were averaged to
obtain a value for each vehicle category. In cases of significant variation within a single
vehicle category, EPA used a somewhat subjective approach that attempted to select
ETW and TRLHP values between the minimum and maximum values for the category so
that (1) the values increased as engine size increased, and (2) there were no
“unreasonable” jumps in values from model year to model year.

An alternative approach to that previously used by EPA has been employed to develop
ETW values for each vehicle category. This methodology follows guidance provided by
EPA’ to use a conservative approach to compute the test parameters for each vehicle
category. EPA’s guidance indicated that (1) an engine should be underloaded, rather than
overloaded, in developing test parameters for the aggregated vehicle categories; and

(2) ETW is more important than TRLHP in setting the dynamometer test parameters. In
accordance with this guidance, the lowest ETW value in each vehicle category was used
for that category. (In cases where a vehicle category contained both EPA and Federal
Register certification data records, the lowest ETW from the EPA certification records
was used.) Vehicle coast down time (VCDT) and drive axle weights (VAXF and VAXE)

“Sales class entries have been simplified in Version 1.4 and subsequent releases of the Lookup Table to
simply identify whether a vehicle was certified as a passenger vehicle or truck.

-14-


Table 1

EPA Certification Data

* Model year (MDYR)

* Manufacturer (MFR)

* Model (MODL)

* Vehicle type (VTYP)

* Sales class (SACL)

+ Altitude code (ALTC)

+ Engine type (ETYP)

+ Fuel type (FTYP)

+ Engine family (ENFM)

+ Evaporative family (EVFM)

* Coastdown time (VCDT)

* Displacement (DISP)

+ Number of cylinders (#CYL)

* Drive axle weight/full (VAXF)

+ Drive axle weight/empty (VAXE)
« Evaporative system type (EVSY)
* Main fuel tank capacity (MTNK)
+ Auxiliary fuel tank capacity (ATNK)
* Model code (MDCD)

* Drive type (DRCD)

+ Axle ratio (AXLR)

+ Transmission configuration (VTRN)
+ EPA test type (TTYP)

+ Equivalent test weight (ETW)

The combined carline/certification data set and the additional certification data set were
merged by model year, manufacturer engine family, and equivalent test weight. This
process gave an excellent match between the certification data set and the model names,
with only 21 engine family/model records not able to be identified. A subsequent attempt
was made to match these outstanding records with engine family/model combinations
identified in additional certification data (described below) published annually in the
Federal Register.

The outstanding records were matched to possible model names. Because a single data
record in the Federal Register data set can represent several different models, multiple
records were generated in the engine-family-specific vehicle parameter database for most
of the outstanding certification records, with a separate record corresponding to each
possible model.

-4-


-0t-

45
47
48
49
50

31
52

53

WWERWWHE

Table 3 (continued)

Format of EPA I/M Lookup Table

Name

Location of Four-Wheel
Selector
Main Fuel Tank Size
Auxiliary Fuel Tank?
Auxiliary Tank Size
Traction Control?
Traction Control
Disablement?
Disablement Switch
Location
Anti-lock Braking?
ABS Disablement
Possible?
2-Wheel-Drive Dyno
Testing Possible?
(Reserved)
(Reserved)
EPA Pressure Test Status
EPA PT Comments
EPA PT Min. Pressure
EPA PT Max. Pressure
Inlet Pressure Test Status
Inlet PT Comments

* All fields are comma separated, variable length.

Abbrev. Description

LFWD alphanumeric (1-8 = vehicle location)
MTNK numeric (gallons, nn.n)

ATNKQ alpha (Y=yes,N=no,M=maybe,U=unknown)
ATNK numeric (gallons, nn.n)

TC alpha (Y,N,M,U)

TCS alpha (Y,N,M,U)

LTC alphanumeric (1-8 = vehicle location)

ABS alpha (Y,N,M,U)

ABSS alpha (Y,N,M,U)

DYNTST2 alpha (N,M)

PRSTAT alpha (NOT, LOW, MED, HIG, ALT, C_A, UNK)
PRSTCOM _ alpha (VLV, CLM, INA, PRT, UNK)

EPAMIN numeric (nn.n in of H20, includes decimal)
EPAMAX numeric (nn.n in of H20, includes decimal)
PRSTAT1 __ alpha (NOT, LOW, MED, HIG, UNK)
PRSTICOM alpha (NYL, INA, BRP, UNK)


A

a
af

FeSseall(

Report No. SR99-10-01

I/M Lookup Table Update

prepared for:

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional and State Programs Division

September 30, 1999

prepared by:

Sierra Research, Inc.

1801 J Street

Sacramento, California 95814
(916) 444-6666


hicle Manufé ers

In addition to the certification data obtained above, additional data related to vehicle
testability were obtained directly from the manufacturers listed in Table 2. These
manufacturers were asked to provide the following information related to the testability
of their models:

Traction control present;

Manual traction control disablement possible;

Anti-lock braking (ABS) present;

Anti-lock braking disablement possible;
Four-wheel-drive present;

Full-time four-wheel-drive; and

Relevant evaporative control system design information.

Table 2

Manufacturers Contacted
Regarding Vehicle Testability

*BMW

¢ Chrysler

¢ Ford

* General Motors
«Honda

¢ Hyundai
Isuzu

* Mazda

* Mitsubishi

+ Nissan.

* Saab

* Subaru

* Toyota

* Volkswagen
* Volvo



* Actual dynamometer horsepower.”

A program was developed to convert these data into standard ASCII text files. (As
provided by EPA, they were formatted in tabular fashion identically to how they appear
in the Federal Register.) This approach is summarized below.

Federal Register Data Retrieval - A FORTRAN program was written to read Federal
Register data files and print out the year, manufacturer, vehicle type, model name, engine
family, emission control system entries, engine displacement, fuel delivery system,
transmission type, equivalent test weight (ETW), and “actual” dynamometer horsepower.
The program results in a listing that includes each model associated with an engine
family, along with the ETWs listed for each certification vehicle used for a particular
group of models.”” If an engine family has two possible displacements, there would also
be separate records created for each displacement. For example, 30 separate data records
would be created for an engine family with 5 possible models, 3 different ETWs, and 2
displacements, each with a different combination of model, ETW, and displacement. If
both a manual and automatic transmission were listed for a certain engine family test, the
transmission-type entry would be listed in the record as “E” (for either). Otherwise, the
transmission type would be labeled as either “M” for manual or “A” for automatic.

The resulting Federal Register data were merged into the vehicle parameter database. In
addition, Federal Register certification data for the 1973-1978 model years, which were
not available electronically, were entered manually and merged into the vehicle parameter
database as well. Records from the two certification data sources (EPA and the Federal
Register) were compared on the basis of model year, manufacturer, model name, and
engine family. Federal Register records that had identical entries to EPA records in these
four fields were deleted from the database, since the ETW data contained in the EPA
database are more accurate than those contained in the Federal Register data. (The ETWs
contained in the EPA data are specific to the vehicle-engine family combination
identified in each record, whereas ETWs in the Federal Register data are based on the
certification vehicles considered to be representative of a group of vehicle-engine family
combinations.)

This methodology resulted in the use of Federal Register certification data for those
vehicle-engine family combinations (i.e., 1973-1978 models plus some later model
vehicles) for which no records were available in the EPA certification database.

* This value was recorded only for 1983 and later models.
“ The Federal Register data are a compilation of the results of certification tests submitted by the vehicle

manufacturers. Test results may be submitted for one or more “certification” vehicles considered
representative of a group of models containing the same engine family.

-6-


The definitions noted in the table for the June 1996 version of EPA’s high-tech guidance
are consistent with those contained in EPA’s MOBILE models, but clearly conflict with
the CFR definitions. EPA’s August 1998 guidance addresses this issue somewhat by
eliminating the 1 and 2 from after the LDT titles in the standards tables.

According to CFR §86.129-94, test weights for model year 1994 and later heavy LDTs
certified to Tier 1 standards are to be based on adjusted loaded vehicle weight (ALVW).
ALVW is defined as the average of curb weight plus gross vehicle weight rating (i-e.,
(curb weight + GVWR] / 2) in CFR section 86.094-2. EPA also inserted ALVW in place
of LVW for the 5,750 Ib breakpoint in the standards in the August 1998 guidance and
indicated this breakpoint is to be used for 1996 and newer vehicles. (The June 1996
version indicated it should be used for 1994+ Tier 1 LDTs.) This is because Tier 1
vehicles were phased in beginning with the 1994 model year, with 1996 being the first
model year with all vehicles certified to Tier 1 standards. EPA’s revision to include the
1996 model year as the first year for the 5,750 lb breakpoint eliminates the need for
inspectors to determine whether a 1994-1995 vehicle was certified to the Tier 1
standards, in order to set the appropriate IM240 cutpoints.

The effect of the above requirement is that the proper IM240 test weight for 1996 and
newer heavy LDTs is the average of curb weight plus GVWR. However, it appears that
the 1996 model year certification data provided to Sierra for inclusion in the Lookup
Table did not include ALVW values. A review of ETW values for the 1996 LDTs
included in the table show few in the 5,500 lbs or greater range. The reason for this
oversight is unclear, but may be related to the transition to the CFEIS system that
occurred at about this same time period. Conversely, a review of 1997 model year and
later data contained in the Lookup Table shows a number of LDTs with heavier ETWs
(up to as much as 8,000 Ibs), which clearly reflect the correct use of ALVW.

The significance of this issue is that to properly test all of the 1997 models included in the
table, IM240 programs will either need to have dynamometers that have the capability of
handling inertia weight settings of up to as much as 8,500 lbs, or simply underload the
vehicles relative to how they were initially certified.

Inertia Weight Class (field #17) - These data are computed from the ETW values
contained in the certification database or provided by the manufacturers, using the
approach incorporated into the conversion table contained in CFR §86.129-94. Under
this method, all ETW values are rounded down to the nearest inertia weight class. Thus,
for example, vehicles with ETWs of 3000 and 3250 lbs would both be considered to have
the same inertia weight class of 3000 Ibs. For the lighter vehicles (i.e., those with ETWs
less than 3000 Ibs), the CFR table includes inertia weight classes in increments of

250 Ibs. For ETWs of greater than 3000 lbs, the CFR inertia weight classes are based on
increments of 500 Ibs. The same approach is used to compute the inertia weight classes
in the Lookup Table, with all ETWs above 3000 Ibs being rounded down to the nearest
500-Ib inertia weight class, and all ETWs below 3000 lbs rounded down to the nearest
250-Ib inertia weight class.

-27-


¢  Flexible-fuel vehicles (FFVs), with fuel type = 1; and
* Dedicated natural gas vehicles, with fuel type = 2.

Equivalent Test Weight (field #16) - For 1994-1996 models, 300 Ibs was added to the
curb weight data provided by EPA, and the resulting value rounded to the nearest 125-Ib
increment, to compute equivalent test weight (ETW). In some cases, data provided
directly to Sierra by the manufacturers were used in place of the certification data.

Beginning with the 1997 model year records contained in the Lookup Table, the ETW
data incorporate changes in certification test weights specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) for heavy light-duty trucks (LDTs). The issue of light-duty truck
definitions is relatively complicated, and confused by the fact that the definitions
contained in the CFR are not the same as those used in previous versions of EPA’s high-
tech test guidance. Table 5 is provided below to illustrate the differences between these
definitions.

Table 5
Light-Duty Truck Definitions
Catego: : Weight Range
Light LDT: _ | 0-6,000 lbs GVWR
LDT1 Light LDT under 3,751 Ibs LVW*
c LDT2 Light LDT of 3,751-5,750 lbs LVW
FR
Heavy LDT: 6,001-8,500 lbs GVWR
LDT3 heavy LDT of 3,751-5,750 TW®
LDT4 heavy LDT greater than 5,750 TW
High-Tech LDT1 0-6,000 lbs GVWR
Guidance
(June 1996) LDT2 6,000-8,500 lbs GVWR.
High-Tech LDT (0-6,000 lbs GVWR)
Guidance
‘August 1998) | LDT (6,001-8,500 lbs GVWR)

*LVW = curb weight + 300 Ibs, which is equivalent to the equivalent test weight (ETW) values
contained in the EPA I/M Lookup Table for most vehicles. The ETW values are basically rounded
versions of the test weight basis (see next footnote) for each vehicle.

°TW = total weight. TW is equivalent to LVW for all vehicles except MY1994 and later Tier 1
heavy LDTs (e.g, those certified to the Tier 1 standards). For MY 1994 and later Tier 1 heavy
LDTs, ALVW is to be used for TW. ALVW is defined as (curb weight + GVWR) / 2.

-26-


2. SOURCES OF DATA

Several sources were accessed to obtain necessary vehicle parameter data. Each of these
sources is discussed below, along with a description of the data obtained from each
source.

EPA Certification Database

The primary source of information used to initially develop the Lookup Table was
certification data obtained from EPA’s certification databases located on the Wayne State
University mainframe computer in Detroit, Michigan. Pertinent data from this source are
described in Table 1. The listed data were provided by EPA for 1981 and later model
year vehicles (data on curb weight, rather than equivalent test weight, were provided for
some models). In addition, incomplete data for model years 1978-1980 were also
provided. For example, vehicle coastdown times were not provided for most of the
1978-1980 models.

Determination of Model Names - The EPA certification data described above contain
certain model names that are listed in a very cryptic fashion. Cryptic model codes for
GM, Toyota, and New United Motor Manufacturers Inc. (NUMMI) models are used
extensively in the database. Manufacturers of other models identified by coded name
include Chrysler, Ford, Fuji, Isuzu, and Suzuki (Ford and Fuji used cryptic names before
1983 only). Because I/M inspectors will use publicly known model names to identify
vehicles brought in for testing, a method was needed to convert the model codes
contained in the certification database into the proper model names. Accordingly,
additional certification data (for 1979 and later models) containing a “carline code” field
and another database containing a carline code decoder were obtained from EPA. This
information was used to decode most of the model codes.

A SAS program was created to read in the additional certification data and the carline
code decoder database. The two data sets were merged by model year and carline code to
create one data set (for model years 1979-1993) containing the following vehicle
parameters: model year, manufacturer, engine family, model name, equivalent test
weight, axle ratio, test vehicle type, and transmission configuration.

The program then read in all the certification data initially provided by EPA, and kept
only the vehicles associated with the manufacturers using the carline codes. It also
determined whether each model’s transmission type was manual, automatic, or either.


-LI-

Table 3

Format of EPA I/M Lookup Table

Maximum

Field Length’ © Name
1 2 Model Year
2 2 Manufacturer Code
3 40 Manufacturer Name
4 7 Manufacturer Division
5 23 Public Model Name
6 1 Body Style
7 2 No. of Cylinders
8 3 Engine Displacement
9 1 Transmission Type
10 8 Vehicle Category ID
11 a1 Fuel Type
12 2 Evaporative System
13 1 No. of Evap Canisters
14 2 Location of Canisters
15 2 Sales Class
16 4 Equivalent Test Weight
17 4 Inertia Weight Class

* All fields are comma separated, variable length.

Abbrev.

SACL
ETW
IWC

Description

alphanumeric (last 2 digits, DF=default records)
alphanumeric (2-digit SAE J2008 abbreviation)
alphanumeric (full name)

alpha (full name)

alpha (commonly known name of model)

numeric (1=sedan, 2=station wagon, 3=pickup,
4=sport/utility, 5=minivan, 6=full-size van)

alphanumeric (R = rotary)

numeric (liters, includes decimal, n.n)

alpha (M=manual, A=automatic, E=either)

numeric, unique code for vehicles with identical entries in
first 8 fields

numeric (1=gasoline, 2=natural gas, others=reserved)
numeric (0=not recorded, 1=crankcase, 2=canister, 3=tank,
4=none, 5=canister+charcoal air cleaner, 98=various types,
99=other)

alphanumeric (V=varies)

alphanumeric (1-4 = vehicle quadrant locations,

FT=on fuel tank, M=multiple locations)

alphanumeric (V=vehicle, T=truck, E=either)

numeric (Ibs, nnnnn)

numeric (Ibs, nnnnn)


5. LOOKUP TABLE UPDATES

Additional modifications, based on comments received on the previous version of the
Lookup Table, were incorporated into Version 1.7.2 of the table. These changes are
listed below.

1998 Models

1998 model year vehicles, based on manufacturer fuel economy and vehicle certification
data, data submitted by the vehicle manufacturers, and other sources, have been added to
the table. A limited number of models (particularly those manufactured by small-volume
manufacturers) may be missing. Users are encouraged to contact Sierra or EPA directly
if they identify missing models.

Data Parameters - For the 1998 models included in the table, complete dynamometer
loadings and testability parameters have been included. Stant gas cap adapter
information was also added based on a review of the listings contained in the Stant
manual. Limited data provided by certain manufacturers regarding the enhanced
evaporative test parameters were also added.

Default Values - 1998 model year-specific default values have been included at the
beginning of the records for this model year.

GVWR-Related VIN Information

The respective EPA guidance documents for IM240 and ASM testing contain separate
sets of recommended cutpoints for light trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating
(GVWR) of (1) 0-6000 pounds; and (2) 6001-8500 pounds. Asa result, GVWR
information is needed for these vehicles in order to determine the correct emissions
standards to which they should be tested. Version 1.7.2 of the Lookup Table has
therefore been modified to aid I/M programs in determining the GVWR for a particular
vehicle.

To accomplish this, Fields 19 and 20 have been respectively redefined as VINPLC and
VINCHAR. (These fields were reserved in the previous version of the Lookup Table.)
These fields are populated for 1981 and later makes of light-duty trucks (LDTs) that
include models both under and over 6000 lbs GVWR. Certain pre-1981 records are also

-34-


populated, if available VIN decoding information indicates that 1981+ VIN
standardization rules also apply to these vehicles. Data included in the two fields are as
follows:

1. VINPLC indicates the location of the VIN digit that identifies the GVWR range
of the vehicle; and

2. VINCHAR includes all VIN characters that represent LDTs with GVWRs of
less than or equal to 6000 pounds.

As an example of the available information, GVWR range is indicated by the fourth VIN
digit on 1994-95 Ford LDTs, based on the following codes:

* A= Under 3000 Ibs * G= 8001-8500 Ibs
* B= 3001-4000 Ibs * H= 8501-9000 lbs
* C= 4001-5000 Ibs * J =9001-10000 Ibs
*D=5001-6000 Ibs *3 = 10001-14000 Ibs
* E= 6001-7000 lbs * 4= 14001-16000 lbs

+ F = 7001-8000 Ibs

In this example, VINPLC would be populated with a “4” and VINCHAR would contain
the following entry: “ABCD.” The combination of these entries indicates that a 1994-95
Ford LDT that has an A, B, C, or D in the fourth VIN digit will have a GVWR of less
than or equal to 6000 pounds. Users can thus use this information and the VIN entry to
determine whether a particular 1994-95 Ford LDT should be subject to 0-6000 or
6001-8500 pound tailpipe standards.

Other Modifications
Traction Control Disablement Switch Mapping - Version 1.7.2 of the Lookup Table is the

first release to include information provided by the manufacturers (i.¢., Volkswagen) on
the location of the traction control disablement switch. It was therefore necessary to
develop a standard nomenclature for mapping the location of the switch. In consultation
with Volkswagen, it was decided to use the same mapping scheme as recently proposed
for mapping the location of the OBDII diagnostic link connector (DLC). This
standardization on a single mapping approach for identifying both items will help avoid
inspector confusion in finding the disablement switch and DLC on individual vehicles.

Subaru Sales Class Information - Some 1983-89 Subaru station wagons equipped with a
1.8L engine were certified as LDTs while others were certified as passenger cars. To
identify these models to Lookup Table users, an entry of E (for either) was input to

Field 15 (Sales Class) for these models. According to the manufacturer, if the 7th digit of
the engine family number (i.e., not the VIN) for one of these vehicles is a “T”, the vehicle
is subject to 0-6000 pound LDT tailpipe standards. If the 7th digit is a “V”, the vehicle is

-35-


-€2-

ket
io,
i

COIDRUAWN—

Table 4

Data Sources for EPA I/M Lookup Table

Name

Model Year
Manufacturer Code
Manufacturer Name
Manufacturer Division
Public Model Name
Body Style

No. of Cylinders
Engine Displacement
Transmission Type
Vehicle Category ID
Fuel Type

Evaporative System Type
No. of Evap Canisters
Location of Canisters
Sales Class

Equivalent Test Weight
Inertia Weight Class

Track Road-Load hp at 50 mph (TRLHP)

VIN Digit
VIN Characters
(Reserved)

Tire/Roll Interface Losses on
8.625” Roll at 50 mph (GTRL,)

(Reserved)
(Reserved)

(Reserved)

Tire/Roll Interface Losses on
20.0” Roll at 50 mph (GTRLy)

Source of Data

Cert database (MDYR)

Code in SAE J2008, based on Cert database (MFR)
Name in SAE J2008, based on Cert database (MFR)
Developed by Sierra, based on Cert database
Developed by Sierra, based on Cert database (MODL)
Unique code developed by Sierra

Cert database (#CYL), manufacturers

Cert database (DISP), manufacturers

Cert database (developed from VTRN)

Unique code developed by Sierra

Cert database (developed from FTYP), manufacturers
Cert database (EVSY), manufacturers

All-Data on-line database, manufacturers

All-Data on-line database, manufacturers

Cert database (SACL)

Cert database (ETW), manufacturers, other independent sources

Computed from ETW

Computed from ETW and VCDT, manufacturers
VIN decoding handbooks

VIN decoding handbooks

Computed from DAXWT

Computed from DAXWT


I/M LOOKUP TABLE UPDATE

Table of Contents

page
Introduction 2.0.6.0... ccc cece cece cee eee eee nen ence ent n tees 1
Sources of Data... 20... ccc cece cece cent een e eee e nent n sees 3
EPA Certification Database ....... 20. e eee cece eee e ees 3
Manufacturer Identification ; 15
Federal Register Data ..... 5
Vehicle Manufacturers .... 7
Small-Volume Manufacturers 8
1968-1972 Model Year Data . -.8
Default Parameters .............. 29
Manufacturer Fuel Economy Data . . ..1t
Miscellaneous Additional Sources ........ 00.0. c ese e cece cece eee ences il
Database Format ..... 00... cece cece cee eee tenet eee e nee enee 13
Lookup Table ........... 0c eee eect e eee ee eens Nace c eee eee rece eens 13
Database Format ........ 0.0 c ccc e cence eee eee enn n ene eee een eees 16

Computational Methodologies

1979 and Newer Vehicles ....... 0: c ccc cece cece e teen cence nee eeee
Pre-1979 Model Year Vehicles ..

Lookup Table Updates ...... 60... cc eee ec ee eee ete erect e teen een eteeee 34

1997 Models ... 2.0... ccc cece cece cece eee eee eens
GVWR-Related VIN Information .. os
Other Modifications 0.00... 0... cece cee cece cece nee eee eee



where yz and @are the sample mean and standard deviation, respectively, and ¢ and n are
defined as above.

TRLHP and ETW values resulting from these lower-limit metrics are thus considered
conservative, since they represent underloading of most vehicles in each range.

Several observations were drawn from the results of the above analysis:

+ Some shape/cylinder categories exhibited a significant spread in TRLHP and
ETW values across the model year ranges, while others did not.

+ There did not appear to be any predominant trend in TRLHP values over time
(i.e., they do not all decline or increase with increasing model year).

* With few exceptions, ETW values appeared to generally increase with model year
(i.e., newer models are heavier on average for a given shape and number of
cylinders).

* There were significant differences in the existing defaults contained in the Lookup
Table, and the 5% and 20% lower-limit intervals.

+ A limited number of other year/shape/cylinder categories contained no applicable
data records.

* In almost all cases, there was little difference in the 5% and 20% lower-limit
intervals for either TRLHP or ETW. :

It was also noted that no defaults currently exist in the Lookup Table for rotary engines.
TRLHP values associated with rotary engine-equipped vehicles appear roughly
comparable to those of 4-cylinder vehicles. However, ETW values for the rotary vehicles
are heavier than the 4-cylinder vehicles.

Based on the above results, a decision was made to develop and incorporate updated
default values into Version 1.6.1 of the Lookup Table. The approach chosen to create the
updated defaults included the following elements:

1. New TRLHP and ETW defaults would be developed based on the 20% lower-
limit intervals. Revised ETW defaults would be rounded to the nearest 250
pounds.

2. Model-year-specific defaults would be developed to replace the previous single
set of defaults contained at the beginning of the first (1973-1978 model year)
Lookup Table file. Defaults for year/shape/cylinder containing no data records
would be developed from neighboring model years. Model-year-specific defaults
would not be included for year/shape/cylinder combinations not manufactured in
those years.

-10-


to Sierra. In addition, data contained in an all-wheel-drive/traction control guide”
produced by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment were reviewed
and incorporated, where appropriate, into the Lookup Table.

Data on pressure testability status and canister location, obtained from the Louisville IM
program, selected vehicle manufacturers (e.g., Chrysler), and All Data on-line automotive
service manuals, were also incorporated into Version 1.1 of the Lookup Table.
Additional purge and pressure testability data (e.g., the appropriate level of pressurization
to be used) obtained from the vehicle manufacturers were included in subsequent
releases. In addition, gas cap adapter data (i.e., which adapters to use with which
vehicles) provided by Stant Manufacturing were incorporated into Version 1.4 and
subsequent releases of the table.

Several independent sources of information regarding vehicle models and test weights
were also accessed during development of Version 1.4 and subsequent releases of the
Lookup Table. These sources include the Kelly Blue Book, the Automotive News
Market Data Book, the Standard Catalog of Imported Cars, and the Standard Catalog of
American Light-Duty Trucks.

* “All Wheel Drive/Traction Control Guide,” Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment,
June 1995.

-12-


DISCLAIMER NO. 1

The accuracy of the information contained in this database has not been
verified by some of the manufacturers of the vehicles. Inaccuracies
regarding drivetrain configuration (e.g., two-wheel versus four-wheel
drive) and other parameters could affect the safety of dynamometer testing.
In addition, the failure to properly identify vehicles with “traction control”
systems could lead to excessive stress on vehicle components during
dynamometer testing. To minimize the risks associated with such
inaccuracies, it is recommended that vehicles be adequately restrained
during dynamometer testing until the validity of the information in the
database has been confirmed by the I/M program contractor. To minimize
the risk of damage to vehicles, it is recommended that drivers be trained by
the I/M program contractor to detect the drive configuration of all vehicles
and to recognize when a traction control system is present.

DISCLAIMER NO. 2

Although the information described in this report has been funded wholly
or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under
Contract No. 68-C5-0076, it has not been subjected to the Agency’s peer
and administrative review and is being released for information purposes
only. It therefore may not necessarily reflect the views of the Agency and
no official endorsement should be inferred.


certification data provided by EPA. (The Federal Register data included some models
that were not included in the EPA databases.) Federal Register data for model years
1973-1978 were also entered manually. As described previously, fewer data are
available for these earlier model years. Accordingly, the following methodologies were
used to develop the necessary vehicle test parameters (dynamometer settings) for those
models for which only Federal Register certification data are available (i.e., 1972-1978
models plus some later model vehicles).

Number of Cylinders (field #5) - These values are not included in the Federal Register
database; therefore, this field has been left blank for pre-1979 vehicles for which no data
have been provided by the manufacturers.

Equivalent Test Weight (field #18) - These values are included in the Federal Register
database only for 1980 and later models; therefore, this field has been left blank for pre-
1980 vehicles for which no data have been obtained from independent sources (e.g., the
Automotive News Market Data Book) or provided by the manufacturers.

Inertia Weight Class (field #19) - Inertia weight class (IWC) data were included in the
Federal Register data set for 1979 and earlier models. These values, rounded down to the
nearest 500-lb weight class for IWC values above 3000 lbs and down to the nearest
250-Ib weight class for IWC values below 3000 lbs, were used unless better data (e.g.,
from the manufacturers) were available. For 1980'and later models, inertia weight classes
were computed by rounding ETW values in the same manner.

Track Road-Load Horsepower (field #20) - TRLHP settings for IM240 testing were based
on the model year-specific default values developed by Sierra using the approach
described in Section 2. In some cases, data provided directly to Sierra by the
manufacturers were used in place of the default values.

Average Drive Axle Weight (field #32) - As described above, DAXWT data are needed
to compute GTRL values. Because these data were not published in the Federal Register,
the GTRL values in EPA’s revised default table were assumed. The DAXWT values for
pre-1979 vehicles were calculated as 60% of ETW for front-wheel-drive sedans and
station wagons, and 50% of ETW for all remaining vehicle types.

-33-


“1%

68
69

70
71

Total

BBWAA

Table 3 (continued)

Format of EPA I/M Lookup Table

Name

Inlet PT Min. Pressure

Inlet PT Max. Pressure

EPA Purge Test Status

EPA Purge Test
Comments

Tracer Purge Test Status

Tracer Purge Test
Comments

Tracer Purge Test
Minimum Pressure

Tracer Purge Test
Maximum Pressure

Date of Record

Gas Cap Configuration

In (not including commas)

* All fields are comma separated, variable length.

Abbrev. © Description

INLPRMIN numeric (nn.n in of H20, includes decimal)
INLPRMAX numeric (nn.n in of H20, includes decimal)

PUSTAT alpha (NOT, LOW, MED, HIG, UNK)
PUSTCOM alpha (as needed)
PUSTAT1 alpha (NOT, LOW, MED, HIG, UNK)

PUSTICOM alpha (BRP, UNK)
TRCPUMIN numeric (nn.n in of H20, includes decimal)
TRCPUMAX numeric (nn.n in of H20, includes decimal)

RDATE
GASCAP

alphanumeric (dd/MMM/yy)
alphanumeric (A,B,C,E,F,G,H,L,O,Z,U,N)

-21-


EPA-420-B-99-101

I/M Lookup Table Update

prepared for:

USS. Environmental Protection Agency
Regional and State Programs Division

Under Contract No. 68-C7-0051
Work Assignment No. 1-05

September 30, 1999

prepared by:

Thomas C. Austin
Richard W. Joy
John M. Lee
Joshua S.N. Willter

Sierra Research, Inc.
1801 J Street
Sacramento, CA 95814
(916) 444-6666


Total ASM5015 Horsepower (field #30) - These data are computed from the following
ASM horsepower equations provided by EPA and the At,, Bt, and Ct, default values
provided in §85.2226(a)(2)(xiii):

THPS015 = HP5015, + GIRL 15 mph.s
HPS5015, = ETW/250"

GTRL@ 1s mpn = (LAte*(15 mph)] + [Btg*(15 mph)?] + (Ct,*(15 mph)'}} *

‘@ 50 mph-8
where: Ats = 0.76/50
Btz = 0.33/2,500
Ct, = - 0.09/ 125,000

Total ASM2525 Horsepower (field #31) - These data are computed from the following
ASM horsepower equations provided by EPA and the At, Bt, and Ct, default values
provided above:

THP2525 = HP2525, + GIRL g 25 mph.s
HP2525, = ETW/300"
GTRLg 25 mpns = {[Atg*(25 mph)] + [Bt,*(25 mph)’] + [Ct,*(25 mph)"]} *

RL@ 50 mph-8

ASMS015 Horsepower for 8.625” Roll (field #32) - These data are based on the
following equation, which is presented in SAE Paper No. 891120:

HPS015, = ETW/250
ASM2525 Horsepower for 8.625” Roll (field #33) - These data are based on the
following equation, which is presented in SAE Paper No. 891120:

HP2525, = ETW/300
ASMS015 Horsepower for 20.0” Roll (field #34) - These data are computed from the
following ASM horsepower equations provided by EPA and the At), Btyy and Ctyy
default values provided in §85.2226(a)(2)(xiii):

HP5015, = THPSO1S - GTRL@ 15 mph-20
* This equation is contained in SAE Paper No. 891120.

-29-


-p2-

Table 4 (continued)

Data Sources for EPA I/M Lookup Table

Name

(Reserved)

(Reserved)

(Reserved)

Total ASM5015 Horsepower

Total ASM2525 Horsepower

ASMS015 Horsepower for 8.625” Roll

ASM2525 Horsepower for 8.625” Roll

ASMS015 Horsepower for 20.0” Roll

ASM2525 Horsepower for 20.0” Roll

ASM5S015 Tire/Roll Interface Losses
on 8.625” Roll

ASM23525 Tire/Roll Interface Losses
on 8.625” Roll

ASM5015 Tire/Roll Interface Losses
on 20.0” Roll

ASM23525 Tire/Roll Interface Losses
on 20.0” Roll

Average Drive Axle Wt. (DAXWT)

Wheelbase

Drive Layout Code

Full-time Four-Wheel-Drive?

Location of Four-Wheel Selector

Main Fuel Tank Size

Auxiliary Fuel Tank?

Auxiliary Fuel Tank Size

Traction Control?

Manual Traction Control Disablement
Possible?

Source of Data

EPA ASM horsepower equations
EPA ASM horsepower equations
EPA ASM horsepower equations
EPA ASM horsepower equations
EPA ASM horsepower equations
EPA ASM horsepower equations
EPA ASM horsepower equations

EPA ASM horsepower equations
EPA ASM horsepower equations

EPA ASM horsepower equations

Average of VAXF and VAXE in Cert database

Manufacturers (limited data)

Cert database (developed from DRCD), manufacturers

Manufacturers, Colorado DPHE
Not currently entered
Cert database (MTNK), manufacturers

Assumed=Y, if Cert database contains value for ATNK.

Cert database (ATNK)

Manufacturers, Tier One, Colorado DPHE

Manufacturers, Colorado DPHE


Vehicle testability data received from the manufacturers were incorporated into the
vehicle parameter database and the consolidated Lookup Table.” Possible entries are
“y”, “N”, “M”, and “U”, for yes, no, maybe and unknown, respectively. “U” was entered
for those models for which no data were received. “M” entries were entered into the
vehicle testability fields for those models that may or may not be equipped with the
various systems described above.

The “M” category is.particularly applicable to the Lookup Table, since the aggregated
vehicle records included in that database may contain a combination of vehicles, some of
which are equipped with these systems, and some of which are not. An “M” would also
be entered for those models on which one of the above systems (e.g., ABS) was offered
as an option by the manufacturer. As noted during the September 13, 1994 meeting of
the IM240 Test Parameter Subcommittee meeting, ABS and/or traction control systems
may be offered as options on a wide range of models and model years, depending on the
manufacturer. For such vehicles, a determination will need to be made at the time of
inspection as to whether a particular vehicle is equipped with traction control.

Manufacturer Review of Lookup Table - Several manufacturers have reviewed the
various releases of the Lookup Table, and provided corrections and additions to the data.
This includes the three domestic manufacturers (i.e., General Motors, Ford, and Chrysler)
as well as some of the foreign manufacturers. These modifications are included in
subsequent versions of the table.

Small-Volume Manufacturers

Data from small-volume manufacturers (those producing fewer than 5,000 vehicles per
year) are not included in the certification database provided by EPA. They are, however,
included in the Federal Register data set. Available Federal Register data for 1973-1993
models produced by small-volume manufacturers were therefore included in the initial
version of the Lookup Table. Since subsequent updates to the table have been based
primarily on certification data provided directly to Sierra by EPA, 1994 and later models
produced by small-volume manufacturers are not included.

1968-1972 Model Year Data

No certification data, from either the EPA databases or the Federal Register data, were
available for 1968-1972 model year vehicles. Because of the extremely limited nature of
available data from other sources (e.g., annual Automotive News Marketing Data Books

* The approach used to consolidate the full vehicle parameter data set into the Lookup Table data set is
described in Section 3.

-8-


3. Default values for rotary engines would be added to the Lookup Table.

Model-year-specific defaults are now included at the beginning of each model year
grouping in the table. To avoid confusion with the previous default values, new Lookup
Table vehicle identification codes (or “index numbers”) have been developed for all
defaults. The convention used for the index numbers contained in the default records is
MY99XX. For example, the first default value for the 1973 model year would have an
index number of 739901, the second 739902, and so on.

Manufacturer Fuel Economy Data

As noted in Sierra’s 1997 report” to EPA on the Lookup Table, a comparison of EPA
certification data with other sources of vehicle model and test weight information shows
that use of the certification data as the principal source of information has introduced
some errors into the table. This finding is also supported by comments received from
some of the manufacturers. It is primarily because the certification data do not include a
full listing of all models actually sold by the manufacturers in a particular model year. In
addition, it is apparent that some models that were certified were never actually sold.

As aresult of this finding, Sierra recommended to EPA in 1997 that future efforts to
update the Lookup Table be based on fuel economy data that the manufacturers must
submit to EPA. Unlike the certification data, the fuel economy data contain a complete
listing of dynamometer parameters for all models sold by each manufacturer. Based on
subsequent EPA concurrence with this recommendation, manufacturer fuel economy data
provided by EPA to Sierra have been used as the primary source of data on new model
year vehicles (i.e., for 1997 and later models) in Version 1.6.1 and subsequent releases of
the Lookup Table.

Miscellaneous Additional Sources

Additional ABS and traction control data were also obtained from Tier One, a market
research firm specializing in automotive electronics. The Tier One data, which included
detailed information disaggregated by make, model, model year, and vehicle platform,
were input to the Lookup Table” for those manufacturers that did not supply data directly

*“WIN-Based Lookup Table,” prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Sierra Research, Inc.,
Report No. SR97-10-01, October 13, 1997.

“* Tier One data for 1988-1995 models produced by domestic manufacturers were included in Version 1.1

of the Lookup Table. These data were expanded in Version 1.2 to include imported vehicles and the older
domestic models.

-ll-