P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

223) IV-C-190 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:21:03 AM Sheet 223 of 232 
P.2 

I !! IS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGA N 48105 

D£C i 7 1391 

A-f7~if 

OFF!C= O" 

AIR AND RADIAT1CN 

Jerry Edwards 

GM Proving Grounds 31W-VEL 

Mi'lford, MI 48380 

Dear Mr. Edwards: 

Here is the complete index for all the onboard related 

material requested under FOIA RIN:6479-91. I've also enclosed 

copies of two releasable documents which we photocopied ifnternally. 

As we discussed, please note that any materials we have related to 

onboard safety concerns were recently released in an FOIA request 

from API and are now available in the public docket for this rule. 

We will be in contact with you concerning evaporative emission 

controls materials which were also requested by General Motors. We 

will provide a bill for charges for search and review time once all 

actions on the request have been completed. 

Please phone me at (313) 668-8408 if you have any questions. 

Sincerely yours, 

Glenn W. Passavant, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Support and Development Branch 

Enclosures 

E % I 

M I 6 892 

IPA ASR DOCK 
0 

-

SERIAL # 

B001 

C004 

C005 

C006 

C008 

C009 

C010 

D005 

F001 

F002 

F003 

F004 

SUBJECT DATE 

Memo: Measurement of 10/4/90 

fuel spitback as a 

function of fuel flow rate 

Summary of Test Procedure Discussion 

Briefing-Test Procedure 

Note—Test Procedure 

Briefing-Test Procedure 

Draft-Emptying Losses 

Misc. Hand Written Notes 

Notes on Test Procedure 

Test Packet. Test # 

89-4423 

Test Packet. Test # 

389-4505 

3/6/91 

1/17/91 

1/10/91 

12/17/90 

N/A 

N/A 

3/19/91 

7/26/89 

7/27/89 

Test Packet. Test # 7/28/89 

89-4533 (Stock Veh. @95F) 

Test Packet. Test # 8/02/89 

TO 

Greaves 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

FROM 

Platte 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Freeman 

Freeman 

Bryson 

E&D 

E&D 

E&D 

E&D 

TOPIC # 

5 

8 

8 

8 

8 

7 

7 

8 

3 

3 

3 

3 

DISPOSITION 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

n*=>l -iv*^r-at- i V P 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Del iberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

rv_>1 -il-*_vra1--ivpa 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 
89-4506 (OB Taurus @95F) 

F005 Test Packet. Test # 7/25/89 

89-4422 (OB Taurus @95F) 

E&D Releasable 

F006 Test Packet. Test # 7/21/89 

89-4421 (OB Taurus @95F) 

E&D Releasable 

F007 Pressure Traces from OB 2/5/91, 2/6/91, 

Taurus Fuelings @ EPA, 2/7/91 

Commercial Station. 

Heavy Duty Releasable 

F008 

F012 

Packet of Press. Traces 

from OB Taurus Fuelings 

EPA plus notes on fuel 

tank "rust". 

1 trace 10/25/90, 

4 traces 10/31/90, 

5 traces 10/29/90, 

2 traces 10/30/90. 

E&D 

Peer Review draft of 9/10/91 Hutchins 

technical report "Application of Onboard 

Refueling Emission Control System to a 

1988 Ford Taurus Vehicle" 

Wysor 

Releasable 

F009 

F010 

F011 

Note 

Note 

Note 

10/17/90 

10/18/90 

10/31/90 

Hutchins 

Anderson 

Anderson 

Anderson 

Hutchins 

Hutichins 

1 

1 

1 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Deliberative 

Material 

F013 Peer Review draft of 9/12/91 Hutchins 

technical report "Application of Onboard 

Refueling Emission Control System to a 

1988 Ford Taurus Vehicle" 

Passavant Deliberative 

Material 

F014 Peer Review draft of 9/12/91 Hutchins 

technical report "Application of Onboard 

Refueling Emission Control System to a 

1988 Ford Taurus Vehicle" 

Kopinski Deliberative 

Material 
F015 

F022 

Memo. Ford Taurus with 

Onboard System; High 

Temperature Data Collection 

6/26/89 Platte Hutchins 

Memo. Evaluation of the 12/12/90 Anderson Hurley 

performance of the Onboard Taurus using 1 

full tank of commercial regular unleaded fuel 

(with attachments) 

1,3 Releasable 

F016 

F017 

F018 

F019 

F020 

F021 

1988 Light Duty Vehicle 

Analysis, Test # 894505 

198 8 Light Duty Vehicle 

Analysis, Test # 894423 

198 8 Light Duty Vehicle 

Analysis, Test # 894422 

198 8 Light Duty Vehicle 

Analysis, Test # 894421 

198 8 Light Duty Vehicle 

Analysis, Test # 894533 

7/27/89 

7/27/89 

7/26/89 

7/24/89 

7/28/89 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Hand written notes on 7/19-21/89 N/A 

canister weight, high temp, cell tests. 

E&D 

E&D 

E&D 

E&D 

E&D 

Hutchins 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

1 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

F023 Memo. Evaluation of the 12/27/90 Anderson Hurley 

performance of the Onboard Taurus using 1 

full tank of commercial premium unleaded fuel 

(93 octane) (with attachments) 

Releasable 

F024 Memo. To evaluate the 11/28/90 Anderson Hurley 

performance of the Onboard Taurus using 1 

full tank of gas (Indolene test fuel) (with 

attachments and "post-it notes") 

Releasable 

F025 Memo. NHTSA Evaluation- 10/31/90 Wilson Gray Deliberative 

TJ 
F026 

G009 

EPA Onboard Car 

Memo. Onboard Taurus - 11/15/89 Gray 

Testing With Fuel at High Temperature 

Hutchins 

Letter: On—Board 

Implementation 

9/4/91 Spratt Wilson 

Material 

Releasable 

F027 

F028 

F029 

G001 

G002 

G003 

G004 

G005 

G007 

G008 

Memo. Evaluation of Hot 

Ambient Testing for the 

9/22/89 Anderson 

Onboard Taurus 

Memo. Gasoline, Diesel 8/24/89 

and Methanol Refueling Emissions 

Note. Onboard Vehicle 

Evaluation Update 

2/8/91 

Memo: Litigation N/A 

Scenerios for Onboard Refueling 

Action Memo 

Note: On—Board Rule 

Letter: Availabitily 

of On-Board systems 

Received with Mark outs 

N/A 

N/A 

4/8/91 

Briefing: On-Board 5/23/91 

control of refueling emissions 

Letter: On-Board 

Implementation 

Letter: On—Board 

Imp1ement at ion 

9/4/91 

9/4/91 

Hurley 

Gray Hutchins 

— Data Collection 

Anderson 

France 

Wilson 

Kopinski 

N/A 

N/A 

Derrick 

Gregg 

Hutchins 

Goldhand 

Rosenburg 

Silverman 

Brownlee 

N/A 

Wilson 

Riley 

2 

6 

2,4 

1 

1 

1 

2,3,6 

8 

1 

1 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Deliberative 

Material 

D<_>1 i h^vrat- i v*» 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

r H 1 iVva-rat-i-wpa 

Material 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 
G010 

G022 

Letter: Fuel tanks 

Bladder Meeting 

9/23/91 Passavant Oconner Releasable 

On-Board TP issues 

w/marginal notes 

1/10/91 N/A N/A 8 

G011 

G012 

G013 

G014 

G015 

G016 

G017 

G018 

G019 

G020 

Letter: On-Board 

Implementation 

Letter: On-Board 

Implementation 

Letter: On-Board 

Implementation 

Briefing: On-Board 

test procedures 

Newsletter: System for 

controlling Evap & 

refueling emission 

Draft Memo: Refueling 

emissions test proc. 

7/17/91 

7/2/91 

6/12/91 

3/19/91 

8/90 

N/A 

Memo: Procedural & N/A 

substantive requirements 

for On-Board refueling rulemaking 

Note: Summary of 

On-Board test procedure discussion 

Briefing: TP discussion 

Hand Written Notes 

Cap—off vapor release 

2/27/91 

2/27/91 

1/17/91 

Martin 

Reilly 

Reilly 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Wilson 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Wilson 

Gregg 

Martin 

N/A 

Blucher 

MOD 

Goldhand 

Kopinski 

N/A 

Kopinski 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

8 

1 

8 

8 

1 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

T*__-l -i T~*_vr»h i v<= 

Material 

Releasable 

Without 

Notes 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Materail 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Releasable 

Deliberative 

Material 
• 

* 

G024 

G026 

G027 

G028 

G029 

G031 

H001 

H002 

H004 

LOOl 

L004 

LOIO 

M002 

List of GAO questions 

for 3/20/91 meeting 

Outline for SNPRM Draft 

Note: Vehicle refueling 

and gasoline 

reformulations w/notes 

On-Board TP issues 

w/notes 

Outline SNPRM w/notes 

N/A 

12/6/90 

1/18/91 

1-8-91 

1/89 

Draft: Notice of 1/2/91 

Workshop and Reopening of Comment 

Memo: Review of 5/23/91 

4/10/91 Refueling NPRM Changes 

Memo: Proposed Emission 

Refueling Test Procedure 

Memo: On—Board Test 

Procedures 

Draft: Notice—Reopening 

of Comment period 

Draft portion of O/B 

Workshop Notice 

HWN-Conf call w/OAQPS 

Notification of suit for 

Failure to Promulgate On4/4/91 

1/25/91 

5/30/91 

N/A 

2/4/91 

9/25/91 

-Board 

SDSB 

N/A 

Passavant 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Period 

Greaves 

France 

France 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Reilly 

GAO 

N/A 

Shedd 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Ryan 

Tesoriero 

Kopinski 

N/A 

Johnson 

Johnson 

East Coast Corp. 

1 

1 

1 

8 

1 

1 

8 

8 

8 

rH 

1,6 

1 

1 

rw=-l i harat i ire* 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Releasable 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberat ive 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Releasable 

Releasable 
M004 Notice of Public Hearing 8/27/91 N/A 

and RPT Availability 

N/A Releasable , . r>nJ( 

M005 

M006 

M009 

M010 

M014 

N001 

N002 

N005 

N006 

N009 

N013 

POOl 

Draft of notice & rpt 8/91 

summary of chnged circumstances 

Draft notice w/action 

memo 

Notice of reopening 

of comment period 

Notice of reopening 

of comment period 

7/29/91 

7/91 

6/6/91 

Evap canister vapor N/A 

fires following NHTSA impact crash 

Misc. Hand Written notes 

Fax-Test Procedure 

Letter-Test Procedure 

Notes Related to Refueling Emissions Testing 

Briefing-Test Procedure 

Draft Refueling Test 

Test Procedures 

Memo-CAAA Provisions 

re Onboard & Evap 

3/91-5/91 

3/26/91 

4/24/91 

4/30/91 

undated 

3/91 

10/12/90 

N/A 

Wilson 

N/A 

N/A 

test 

N/A 

Ryan 

Tesoriero 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

France 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

Breton 

Breton 

Moore 

Breton 

Greaves 

Goethert 

Barba 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

7 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

1 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Deliberative 

Material 

Releasable 

P002 Memo-TRC Report on API 10/23/90 Passavant Barba Releasable 
P003 

S004 

Test Vehicle 

Breakthru Analysis Chart 4/4/01 N/A N/A 

Memo-Report by Multi- 5/2/91 France 

national Legal Services et.al. 

Goldhand 

Releasable 

P004 

P005 

Q001 

R002 

S001 

S002 

S003 

Info Request-API Veh. 

Note-API/Exxon Vehicles 

Note—Average Fill Level 

Letter to NHTSA 

Misc Hand written notes 

Memo—Onboard Refueling 

Legal Issues-Cap off 

Provisions 

9/3/91 

9/12/91 

6/24/91 

6/20/89 

11/27/90 

undated 

undated 

France 

Wilson 

Platte 

Liu 

N/A 

France 

N/A 

Zinger 

Barba 

Lindhjem 

Anderson 

N/A 

Goldhand 

N/A 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

Releasable 

n*_»l -iV*_vr»HT7»_> 

Material 

Deliberative 

Material 

r*_>i •iv-*a-|~_tt--j-wi 

Material 

Deliberative 

Materia l 
root 

REQUESTOR ID: 17221 

NAME: R. BRANHAM 

REPORT TIME: 11:15:40 

DATE: JUL 20, 1989 

TEST # 894423 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) DATE OF ENTRY 10/14/88 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD A193XEX-0915 0 SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR . LEFT EPA 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. 

VEHICLE —YEAR — FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD 

ETW 

C D . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

EF 1FABP52V3JG259517 88 88 3500 3625 NO ENTRY 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER 

ODOMETER 

CORRECTION TIRE 8, RIM 

INITIAL FACTOR SIZES 

6.6 

TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

SWL BLT PSI TD 

MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

P205/75R14 

DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE 

O.OE 0.0 E 0.0 E 

#\ #2 

RATED 

HP 

ENGINE 

TYPE 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

ENGINE 

CONFIGURATION 

NO. 

CVL. 

NO. TOTAL 

CARBS BBLS 

FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

MFR/MOOEL INJ CHARGER,COOLING RATIO DN TM 

OTTO SPARK YES 

IGNITION TIMING 

DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT 

- IDLE % CO 

RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM 

-- IDLE 

RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY 

NONE 

ENGINE 

SYSTEM 

0.0 

CODE 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE 

CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION — SHIFT INDIC. EVAPORATION 

SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM 

0.0 0.0 YES A-3 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED 

SHIFT SCH. ID 

CITY HWY 

-NO ENTRY 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

FAMILY CODE 

FUEL TYPE 

UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

SALES CLASS 

18 .6G 7.4G B FTA 

$ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 
s^1 3 ° l, o 

U l D

 ', O > u 1 

a i- -i Mi u- ' 

1 I • , u i 1 >- 1 u - ' "2 

1 

p.12 

a 

j i 

1 • * 

2 J

. \ 

J a 1 1 U1 * (D > O <° r- U1 . m 25 » 

o 

z

 1 al 

, ui > ^ > 

J O 

0 1-

, 1/1 ' 1

 S i 1 o 

11 z z 

2 > 0-

\X \ a- i c_ 

z

i: > *-

1

 ^ ' 

1 ^ 

z "J ' 

!s\ 

./)U £ • 

2 a

l , al ; 

1/1 

-7 ui 

2 2 

o 

a al ui 

i/i 

> 

o 

z 

I 

1 ui ' 

\ a \ 

o 

1 

1 

\ 

j ' i 1 _. 1 

3'i 5 1 ul 

1

 £ 

1 o-

, ul 1 

, ui ' 

I z 1

 IK '1 Z 

 , 1 al 

1

z

 "* 1 

1

 S' 

\ O \ 

j so 1 

, ai « 

1 a-

 l 

> ^ ' Z <-> . 1 ^ 1 s o (/) 

tf» 

\-

1 u-C0 

1 

J 

o 

, tt 

z 

o 

o 

o 

1

 * 1 * ~ Cl 

i l l 

ui 1 

ui > 

0. > £\ ai ' Si Si 

1 

_1 1 o ' 

tt 

ui 1 £\ ul 1 

1

2 " ?, 

1 o 

1 

f ^ ' 

:\ tt^ ' : 1 <-> 

1 

0

 \ ai 1 ui ' 0. ' ui 1 

z 

o 

o 

<1 1 

0

 \ 

I l-< 1 

1 "J \ 

1

 ^ ai I 

o 

1 

' ! \ 

1 a. ui 1 »- ! 

J 

a. 

tt 

a 

\ 

* . 1 ai '

, v- 1 c 

ul 1 > < 

8 t\ •* ' 

tt 

1

 ^ \ 

1 

1 

al 1 

tt ' O ' 

3 -> co 5-in 

a a. 

1 <-

1 u-

1 • " 

1 1 

1 

J > ID I 

tt 2

-

al ' ^ - ° ui ' 1 ui 

_1 

O 1 

tt 

o 0

 \ Ul 1 ui 1 <t 1 

z * 1 ° 

-t. I C J I a. ' ui » 

O S 1 

2 ^ \ Z *

" 1 ui 

O 

1 

1 

1 

ui ' a. 1 

y ui 1 5\ U i ' 

I 

I 

o al 

J 

z 

^ \ 

1

 ^ 

I ui 1 > 

ui 1 

_?1 

n 

•*" 1 a- 1 

rf. 1 o 1 

a 1 * 1 

2 

o 

a 

o o » «. 

-- ° 

z <-

 l 

u.2 \ o 

i*« ° 

< - ' 

13 

1 

al 2

* ' 

a. 1 u 1 

to 

CO UO CD 

\ S 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST # 894423 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 11:07:32 JUL 27, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR . 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H. P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-25-89 EMPTY 

tt\ 

IGNITION 

#2 

TIMING / 

RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

' AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29. 25 

/ 

45. 3 96.7 D 17.4 45.82 0.8794 

DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) 

07-26-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9646.4 

27C 

SYSTEM 

MILES 

N/A 

BAG 1 7.423 MILES 11.946 KM 17307. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

METER 

4 2. 8-' 

45.4-'' 

37. 1 ir 

40.0 ^ 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

CONC. 

31 .72 

22.52 

0.822 

168.98 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.7^ 

0.3/ 

1.8 ^ 

0.0 ^ 

CONC. 

3.42 

0.15 

0.037 

0.0 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

28.52 PPM 

22.38 PPM 

0.788 % 

168.98 PPM 

VMIX= 7496 0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

3.49 

7.99 

3059.62 

41 .76 

GMS/MI 

0.470 

1 .076 

41 2. 188 

5.626 

GMS/KM 

0.292 

0.669 

256.122 

3.496 

FACTOR = 15.904 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

21.0 8.92 11.2 

BAG 2 7.481 MILES 12.039 KM 17442. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

SECS. VMIX= 7447.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.441 

CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX . 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 3 7.508 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

COMMENTS: ON 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

MILES 

METER 

12. 2 -^ 

5 0. 1-/ 

36.2-^ 

31 .7 ^ 

12.083 KM 

CONC. 

8.91 

24.87 

0.801 

131.28 

17505. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

BOARD 

METER y~ 

10.3 ^ 

52.9 

36.2y , 

21.2 

CONC. 

7.51 

26. 27 

0.801 

85.79 

VEH 3 LA4S BACK 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.3 

0.3^ 

1 .7 ^ 

0 .0 -^ 

ROLL REVS. 

CONC. 

3.13 

0.15 

0.035 

0.0 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

TO BACK 

METER 

4.3-1 

0.3-' 

0.0 / 

CONC. 

3.13 

0.15 

0.037 

0.0 

RED TAURUS 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.98 PPM 

24.73 PPM 

0.768 % 

131.28 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

4.58 PPM 

26.13 PPM 

0.766 % 

85.79 PPM 

GMS. 

0.73 

8.77 

2963.94 

32.23 

VMIX= 7429 

GMS/MI 

0.097 

1.172 

396.207 

4.309 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.060 

0. 729 

246.192 

2.677 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.56 

9.24 

2949.27 

21.01 

GMS/MI 

0.074 

1.231 

392.827 

2.799 

GMS/KM 

0.046 

0.765 

244.091 

1 .739 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.0 9.35 10.7 

FACTOR = 16.536 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.3 9.49 10.5 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-442 3 
| 1988 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT 

DYNO SITE: D209 TEST tt 89-4423 

PROCESSED: 11:07:32 JUL 27, 1989 

TEST CONDITIONS: TEST PACKET STATUS: DISPOSITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YY TIME HR:MN NOT VALIDATED VEHICLE DISP: 

TEST: 07-26-89 KEY-START: 13:30 CERT TEST DISP: 

PREP: 07-25-89 KEY-OFF: 15:30 F.E. TEST DISP: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 22.0 

I.D. TITLE NAME DEPT. NUMBER 

VOID CODES: 

REQUESTOR R. BRANHAM ECTD 17221 

INSPECTOR INVALID I.D. LAB: 

AMA PREP INVALID I.D. 

LA4 PREP INVALID I.D. CERT: 

DIURNAL INVALID I.D. 

DRIVER INVALID I.D. 54768 Q.C.: 

SITE OPER. INVALID I.D. 54721 

DATA VAL. INVALID I.D. 

HOT-SOAK INVALID I.D. INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DYNO: 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO.: TEST DYNO: 

PREP DYNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING, NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

QC/QA CHECKS: 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2, 6, 47, 48, 

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #3 

18537 0 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 89-4423 

TJ 

i> 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894423 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 11:07:32 JUL 27. 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-25-89 EMPTY 

/ IGNITION TIMING / 

#1 02 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.25 45.3 96.7 D 17.4 45.82 0.B794 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-26-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9646.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.423 MILES 11.946 KM 17307. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

42.8 

45.4 

37. 1 

40.0 

CONC. 

31 .72 

22.52 

0.822 

168.98 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.7 

0.3 

1 .8 

0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7496.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 15.904 

CONC. 

3.42 

0. 15 

0.037 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

28.52 PPM 3.49 

22.38 PPM 7.99 

0.788 % 3059.62 

168.98 PPM 41.76 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.470 

1 .076 

412. 188 

5.626 

GMS/KM 

0.29 2 

0.669 

256.122 

3.496 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

21.0 

KPL 

8.92 

L/100KM 

11.2 

BAG 2 7.481 MILES 12.039 KM 17442. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

12.2 

50. 1 

36.2 

31.7 

CONC. 

8.91 

24.87 

0.801 

131.28 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

SECS. VMIX= 7447.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.441 

CORRECTED 

RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

14 4.3 3.13 5.98 PPM 

15 0.3 0.15 24.73 PPM 

23 1.7 0.035 0.768 % 

18 0.0 0.0 131.28 PPM 

GMS. 

0.73 

8.77 

2963.94 

32.23 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.097 

1.172 

396.207 

4.309 

GMS/KM 

0.060 

0.729 

246.192 

2.677 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.0 

KPL 

9.35 

L/ 100KM 

10.7 

BAG 3 7.508 MILES 12.083 KM 17505. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7429.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.536 

SITE 0A2O3 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

10.3 

52.9 

36.2 

21 .2 

CONC. 

7.51 

26.27 

0.801 

85.79 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.3 

0.3 

1 .8 

0.0 

CONC. 

3.13 

0. 15 

0.037 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

4.58 PPM 

26.13 PPM 

0.766 % 

85.79 PPM 

GMS. 

0.56 

9.24 

2949.27 

21.01 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.074 

1 .231 

392.827 

2.799 

GMS/KM 

0.046 

0.765 

244.091 

1 .739 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.3 

KPL 

9.49 

L/100KM 

10.5 

COMMENTS: ON BOARD VEH 3 LA4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #3 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4423 

ui 
OYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894423 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 11:07:41 JUL 27, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR . 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT . 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE - -

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-25-89 EMPTY 

tt\ 

IGNITION TIMING / 

*2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.25 45.3 96.7 D 17.4 45.82 0.8794 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-26-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9646.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.423 

E **A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

MILES 1 1 .946 KM 17307. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER CONC. 

42.8 31.72 

45.4 22.52 

37.1 0.822 

40.0 168.98 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.7 

0.3 

1 .8 

0.0 

SECS. 

*PLE CORRECTED 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.42 28.52 PPM 

0.15 22.38 PPM 

0.037 0.788 % 

0.0 168.98 PPM 

MIX= 7496 0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

3.49 

7.99 

3059.62 

41.76 

GMS/MI 

0.470 

1 . J76 

412.188 

5. 626 

GMS/KM 

0.292 

0.669 

256.122 

3.496 

FACTOR = 15.904 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

21.0 8.92 11.2 

BAG 2 7.481 MILES 12.039 KM 17442. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

12.2 

50. 1 

36.2 

31.7 

CONC. 

8.91 

24.87 

0.801 

131.28 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.3 

0.3 

1 .7 

0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7447.0 CU.FT. 

CORRECTED 

DILUTION FACTOR = 16.441 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.13 5.98 PPM 

0.15 24.73 PPM 

0.035 0.768 % 

0.0 131.28 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX. 

GMS. 

0.73 

8.77 

963.94 

32. 23 

GMS/MI 

0.097 

1.172 

396.207 

4.309 

GMS/KM 

0 .060 

0 . 729 

246.192 

2.677 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.0 9.35 10.7 

BAG 3 7.508 MILES 12.083 KM 17505. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7429.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.536 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

10.3 

52.9 

36.2 

21.2 

CONC. 

7.51 

26.27 

0.801 

85.79 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.3 

0.3 

1 .8 

0.0 

CONC. 

3.13 

0.15 

0.037 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

4.58 PPM 

26.13 PPM 

0.766 % 

85.79 PPM 

GMS. 

0.56 

9.24 

2949.27 

21.01 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.074 

1 . 231 

392.827 

2 .799 

GMS/KM 

0.046 

0.765 

244.091 

1 .739 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

AUX. AUX . 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.3 

KPL 

9.49 

L/ 100KM 

10.5 

COMMENTS: ON BOARD VEH 3 LA4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #3 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SIT£:D209 TEST 89-4423 
DYNO SITE: D209 TEST tt 89-4423 

TEST CONDITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YY TIME 

TEST: 07-26-89 KEY-START: 

PREP: 07-25-89 KEY-OFF: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 

HR :MN 

13:30 

15:30 

22.0 

I.D. TITLE NAME 

REQUESTOR 

INSPECTOR 

AMA PREP 

LA4 PREP 

DIURNAL 

DRIVER 

SITE OPER. 

DATA VAL. 

HOT-SOAK 

R. BRANHAM 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO.: 

DEPT . 

ECTD 

1988 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT 

TEST PACKET STATUS: 

NOT VALIDATED 

NUMBER 

1722 1 

54768 

54721 

PROCESSED: 11:07:41 JUL 21, 1989 

DISPOS1TIONS: 

VEHICLE DISP: 

CERT TEST DISP: 

F.E. TEST DISP: 

VOID CODES: 

LAB: 

CERT: 

Q.C. : 

INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DYNO: 

TEST DYNO: 

PREP DYNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING. NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

QC/QA CHECKS: 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2, 6, 47, 48, 

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #3 

18537 0 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST It 89-4423 
F"coz 

•* REQUESTOR ID : 1233 6 TEST tt 89450 5 

NAME: C. FULLER 

REPORT TIME: 15:10:20 

DATE: JUL 25, 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRY : 10/14/88 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD A193XEX-0915 0 SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT EPA 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. ETW 

VEHICLE —YEAR-- FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST CD . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

EF 1FABP52V3JG259517 88 88 3500 3625 NO ENTRY 6.6 

ODOMETER TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

CORRECTION TIRE & RIM SWL BLT PSI TD 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZE P205/75R1 S MF 4 R CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER.COOLING RATIO DN TM 

O.OE O.OE O.OE OTTO SPARK YES NONE 0.0 

IGNITION TIMING IDLE % CO IDLE ENGINE 

#1 #2 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY SYSTEM CODE 

^ DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION — SHIFT INDIC. EVAPORATION 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM FUEL TYPE 

0.0 0.0 YES A-3 -NO ENTRY UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK SHIFT SCH. ID EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED CITY HWY FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS 

18.6G 7.4G B FTA NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

$ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 0 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894505 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS PROCESSED: 15:50:56 JUL 27, 1989 

MFR . 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-26-89 EMPTY 

/ IGNITION TIMING / 

#1 #2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UN.IT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.09 46.7 96.2 D 18.6 48.61 0.8896 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-27-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9668.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.405 MILES 11.917 KM 17265. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

37.6 

42.9 

37.5 

4 2. 1 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

SECS. VMIX= 7446.0 CU.FT. 

CORRECTED 

CONC. 

27 .81 

21 . 27 

0.832 

178.78 

RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

14 4.4 3.20 24.82 PPM 

15 0. 2 0.1 0 21.1 8 PPM 

23 1. 7 0.03 5 0.79 9 % 

18 0. 0 0. 0 178.7 8 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS 

DILUTIO N FACTOR 

AUX. 

15.715 

AUX. AUX . 

GMS . 

3.02 

7.60 

3083.69 

43.89 

GMS/MI 

0 .407 

1 .026 

416.441 

5.927 

GMS/KM 

0. 253 

0.638 

258.764 

3.683 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

20.8 8.83 11.3 

BAG 2 7.422 MILES 11.944 KM 17304. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. 

14 11.9 8.69 14 4.2 3.05 

15 46.9 23.27 15 0.2 0.10 

23 36.0 0.796 23 1.6 0.033 

18 32.7 135.73 18 0.0 0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7396.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.529 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.82 PPM 

23.18 PPM 

0.765 % 

135.73 PPM 

GMS. 

0. 70 

8. 26 

2932.77 

33. 10 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.095 

1.113 

395.167 

4 .4 60 

GMS/KM 

0.059 

0.69 1 

245.546 

2.771 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

AUX. AUX . 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.0 

KPL 

9.37 

L/1OOKM 

10.7 

BAG 3 7.492 MILES 12.057 KM 17468. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER 

14 10.4 

15 52.8 

23 36.2 

18 24.1 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

CONC. 

7.59 

26.22 

0.801 

98. 13 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.0 

0.2 

1 .7 

0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7375.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.511 

CORRECTED 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

2.91 4.86 PPM 

0.10 26.13 PPM 

0.035 0.76B % 

0.0 98.13 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX . AUX. AUX. 

GMS. 

0.58 

9.28 

2935.25 

23.86 

GMS/MI 

0.0 78 

1 . 239 

39 1.18B 

3.18? 

GMS/KM 

0.049 

0.770 

243.446 

1 .979 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.3 9.50 10.5 

COMMENTS: ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #4 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-450 5 

TI 

co 
D\'NO SITE:D20 9 TEST # 894505 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS PROCESSED: 15:50:58 JUL 27, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN . 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BV BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITION TIMING / / % CO 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 #2 RPM GEAR IDLE HIGH SPEED 

07-26-89 EMPTY 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.09 46.7 96.2 D 18.6 48.61 0.8896 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-27-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9668.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.405 MILES 11.917 KM 17265. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

37.6 

42.9 

37.5 

4 2. 1 

CONC. 

27 .81 

21.27 

0.832 

178.78 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.4 

0.2 

1 .7 

0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7446.0 CU.FT. 

CORRECTED MASS EMISSIONS 

DILUTION FACTOR 

AUX. 

15.715 

AUX. AUX. 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

3.20 24.82 PPM 3.02 

0.10 21.18 PPM 7.60 

0.035 0.799 % 3083.69 

0.0 178.78 PPM 43.89 

GMS/MI 

0 .40"' 

1 .026 

416.441 

5.927 

GMS/KM 

0. 253 

0.638 

258.764 

3.683 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

20.8 8.83 11.3 

BAG 2 7.422 MILES 11.944 KM 17304. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

1 1 .9 

46.9 

36.0 

32.7 

CONC. 

8.69 

23. 27 

0.796 

135.73 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.2 

0.2 

1 .6 

0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7396.0 CU.FT DILUTION FACTOR = 16.529 

CORRECTED 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.05 5.B2 PPM 

0.10 23.18 PPM 

0.033 0.765 % 

0.0 135.73 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX. 

GMS. 

0.70 

8.26 

2932.77 

33. 10 

GMS/MI 

0.095 

1.113 

395.167 

4. 460 

GMS/KM 

0.059 

0.691 

245.546 

2.771 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.0 9.37 10.7 

BAG 3 7.492 MILES 12.057 KM 17468. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7375.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.511 

E #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

10.4 

52.8 

36.2 

24. 1 

CONC. 

7.59 

26.22 

0.801 

9 8. 13 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.0 

0.2 

1 .7 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

2.91 

0.10 

0.035 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

4.86 PPM 

26.13 PPM 

0.768 % 

98.13 PPM 

MASS 

GMS. 

0.58 

9.28 

2935.25 

23.86 

EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.078 

1 . 23S 

39 1 .788 

3. 185 

GMS/KM 

0.049 

0.770 

243.446 

1 .979 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.3 9.50 10.5 

COMMENTS: ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #4 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-19B8 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4505 

o 
REQUESTOR ID: 12336 

NAME: C. FULLER 

REPORT TIME: 15:10:20 

DATE: JUL 25, 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRY : 10/14/88 

TEST tt 894505 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID 

A193XEX-0915 

/ VER 

0 

REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE 

SEDAN 

EQUIV. 

CURB INERTIA TEST 

WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT 

DRIVE CODE 

FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT 

SOURCE 

FORD EPA 

DRIVE AXL WT 

VEHICLE —YEAR — FULL EMPTY 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK 

EF 1FABP52V3JG259517 88 88 3500 3625 

H.P. METHOD 

NO ENTRY 

ETW 

C D . 

VEH 

SIDE 

FAN 

OD 

CD 

ACT AC 

DN HP HP 

6.6 

RUNNING CHG 

NUMBER 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER 

ODOMETER 

CORRECTION TIRE 8. RIM 

INITIAL FACTOR SIZES 

TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

SWL BLT PSI TD 

MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

P205/75R14 

DISPLACEMENT 

O.OE 

BORE 

0.0 E 

STROKE 

0.0 E 

#1 

RATED 

HP 

ENGINE 

TYPE 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

ENGINE 

CONFIGURATION 

NO. 

CYL. 

NO. TOTAL 

CARBS BBLS 

FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER,COOLING RATIO DN TM 

OTTO SPARK YES 

IGNITION TIMING 

#2 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT 

IDLE % CO 

RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM 

IDLE 

RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY 

NONE 

ENGINE 

SYSTEM 

0.0 

CODE 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE 

CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION — 

SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE 

SHIFT INDIC. EVAPORATION 

LIGHT SYSTEM 

0.0 0.0 YES A-3 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED 

SHIFT SCH. ID 

CITY HWY 

-NO ENTRY 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

FAMILY CODE 

FUEL TYPE 

UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

SALES CLASS 

18.6G 7.4G B FTA 

$ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 

TI 

ho 
P.22 

/ 

#3 -LQ-q. 

7-27- ?f 

//e^? ^ j&t^ctJ^ 

^Wn^mlgut 

I 

I i 

i I 
P.23 

7-27-P9 

7*/ Q_y«*«-<L <TV. C) 

f^c^X. '^CL^^ 

<r7> (> • 

(<tic. 
DYNO .SITE:D209 TEST tt 894505 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS PROCESSED: 15:51:05 J UL 27 , 198 9 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D . 

0 3 0 A193XEX-091 5 

VERSION 

0 

EVAP 

N 

MFR . 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTIC - REASON FOR 

ULATES CONFIRMATION 

N 

/ TEST TYPE - -

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD ) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-26-89 EMPTY 

t>\ 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR 

% CO / IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

IDLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.09 46.7 96.2 D 18.6 48.61 0.8896 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-27-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9668.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.405 MILES 11.917 KM 17265. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX- 7446.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

CONC. RANGE 

27.81 14 

21.27 15 

0.832 23 

178.78 18 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

24.82 PPM 

21.18 PPM 

0.799 % 

178.78 PPM 

GMS. 

3.02 

7.60 

3083.69 

43.89 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.407 

1 .026 

416.441 

5.927 

GMS/KM 

0.253 

0.638 

258.764 

3.683 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

15.715 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

20.8 

KPL 

8.83 

L/100KM 

11.3 

BAG 2 7.422 MILES 11.944 KM 17304. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER .X' CONC. 

14 11.9 ^ 8.69 

15 

23 

18 

23. 27 

/<- 0 . 796 

135.73 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE METER 

14 

15 

23 

18 

SAMPLE 

y/ CONC. 

SECS. VMIX= 7396.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 16.529 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.82 PPM 

23.18 PPM 

0.765 % 

135.73 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX. 

GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

0.70 0.095 0.059 

8.26 1.113 0.691 MPG KPL L/100KM 

2932.77 395.167 245.546 22.0 9.37 10.7 

33. 10 4.460 2.771 

BAG 3 7.492 MILES 12.057 KM 17468. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7375.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

METER S 

4.0 / 

0.2 ^ -

1 .7 

0.0 

CONC. 

2.91 

0. 10 

0.035 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

4.8 6 PPM 

26.13 PPM 

0.768 % 

9fi.13 PPM 

GMS. 

0.58 

9. 28 

2935.25 

23.86 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.078 

1 .239 

391.788 

3.185 

GMS/KM 

0.049 

0.770 

243.446 

1 .979 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

16.511 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22 .3 

KPL 

9.50 

L/100KM 

10.5 

COMMENTS: ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #4 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPCFMiri. ! POM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4505 

ro 
•DYNO SITE: D209 TEST # 89-4505 

TEST CONDITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YY TIME 

TEST: 07-27-89 KEY-START: 

PREP: 07-26-89 KEY-OFF: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 

HR:MN 

13:40 

14:30 

23.2 

I.D. TITLE NAME 

REQUESTOR 

INSPECTOR 

AMA PREP 

LA4 PREP 

DIURNAL 

DRIVER 

SITE OPER. 

DATA VAL. 

HOT-SOAK 

C FULLER 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

D 

D 

D 

D 

.0 

D 

D 

D 

DEPT. 

ECTD 

| 1988 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT | 

TEST PACKET STATUS: 

NOT VALIDATED 

NUMBER 

12336 

54768 

54721 

PROCESSED: 15:51:05 JUL 27, 1989 

DISPOSITIONS: 

VEHICLE DISP: 

CERT TEST DISP: 

F.E. TEST DISP: 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO. 

VOID CODES: 

LAB: 

CERT: 

Q.C. : 

INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DYNO: 

TEST DYNO: 

PREP DYNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING, NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

,<»ciya 

QC/QA CHECKS: 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2, 6, 47, 

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #4 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST # 89-4505 
.REQUESTOR ID: 5472 1 

NAME: 

\~ 003 

TEST tt 894533 

REPORT TIME: 10:56:56 

DATE: JUL 27, 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT (TESTNO GEN) DATE OF ENTRY : 04/03/8 9 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION S 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE I D / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE 

1FABP52UXJG1108 9 0 SEDAN 

DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD HERTZ DETROIT 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. 

VEHICLE —YEAR — FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD 

ETW 

C D . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

NON-CER TAURUS 88 88 3325P 3500P 3625P NO ENTRY 6.6 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER 

ODOMETER TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

CORRECTION TIRE 8. RIM SWL BLT PSI TD 

INITIAL FACTOR SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

20570-14 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

DISPLACEMENT 

O.OE 

BORE 

0.0 E 

STROKE 

0.0 E 

RATED ENGINE 

HP TYPE 

ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL P-JS.L SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

CONFIGURATION CVL. CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER,COOL ING RATIO DN TM 

OTTO SPARK FORD NONE 0.0 

IGNITION TIMING 

#1 #2 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR 

IDLE % CO 

LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. 

IDL E 

RPM RPM TOL. GEAR 

ENGINE 

FAMILY SYSTEM 

JFM3.0V5FEGX 1 

CODE 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE 

CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION — SHIFT INDIC EVAPORATION 

SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM 

0.0 0.0 YES -NO ENTRY CANISTER 

FUEL TYPE 

INDOLENE 30 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED 

SHIFT SCH. ID 

CITY HWY 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS 

16.0G 6.4G DO NOT SHIFT MANUALLY 

$ $ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

3.0L-8HM NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

ADD #3 TO VIN RED TAURUS 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

19118 
.REOUESTOR ID: 54721 TEST It 894533 

NAME: 

REPORT TIME: 10:56:56 

DATE: JUL 27, 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRY : 04/03/89 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD 1FABP52UXJG11089 0 SEDAN HERTZ DETROIT 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. ETW 

VEHICLE --YEAR-- FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST CD . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

NON-CER TAURUS 88 88 P P 3325P 3500P 3625P NO ENTRY 4 6.6 

ODOMETER TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

CORRECTION TIRE 8, RIM SWL BLT PSI TD 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 20570- 14 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL F'.'FL. SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP . COAST 

DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS WFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER,COOLING RATIO DN TM 

O.OE 0.0 E 0.0 E OTTO SPARK FORD NONE 0.0 

IGNITION TIMING IDLE % CO IDLE ENGINE 

#1 #2 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY SYSTEM CODE 

JFM3.0V5FEGX 1 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION — SHIFT INDIC. EVAPORATION 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM FUEL TYPE 

0.0 0.0 YES -NO ENTRY CANISTER INDOLENE 30 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK SHIFT SCH. ID EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED CITY HWY FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS 

16.OG 6.4G DO NOT SHIFT MANUALLY 3.0L-8HM NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

$ $ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

ADD #3 TO VIN RED TAURUS 

19118 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894533 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 14:58:00 JUL 28, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION 

030 1FABP52UXJG11089 0 

EVAP 

N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTIC- REASON FOR 

ULATES CONFIRMATION 

N 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTO) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-27-89 EMPTY 

#1 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.18 51.6 96.6 D 22.0 58.32 0.9273 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-28-89 11 D209 36250 4.0 45.00 30508.8 N/A 

BAG 1 7.437 MILES 11.969 KM 17340. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7467.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

SITE 0A2O3 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

34.8 

4 0. O 

36.9 

7 . 3"^ 1 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

CONC. RANGE METER 

25.71 14 5.3 

19.83 15 0.2 

0.818 23 1.8 

56.53 18 0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

22.10 PPM 

19.73 PPM 

0.783 % 

156.53 PPM 

GMS. 

2.69 

7.40 

3029.23 

38.54 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.362 

0.995 

40 7.316 

5. 182 

GMS/KM 

0.225 

0.618 

253.095 

3. 220 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

16.030 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

21.3 

KPL 

9.05 

L/100KM 

11.0 

BAG 2 7.464 MILES 12.012 KM 17402. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7422.0 CU.FT. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

METER 

4. 7' 

0.1 "Vl.fl y 0.037 

0.0' 0.0 

DILUTION FACTOR 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

7.17 PPM 

15.90 PPM 

0.740 % 

161.58 PPM 

GMS. 

0.87 

5.93 

2845.76 

39.54 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.116 

0. 794 

381 .284 

5. 298 

GMS/KM 

0.072 

0.493 

236.919 

3. 292 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

16.918 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22. 7 9.67 

L/100KM 

'0.3 

BAG 3 7.485 MILES 12.045 KM 17451. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7406.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.992 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

14 

15 

23 

18 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER //CON C 

16.8 " 12.30 

32. 2 *X, 15.94 

34. 8 / / 0.768 

45. 8 ^ 196.34 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE METER 

14 

15 

23 

18 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

9.15 PPM 

15.80 PPM 

0.733 % 

196.34 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX. 

GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

1.11 0.148 0.092 

5.88 0.785 0.488 MPG KPL L/100KM 

2812.31 375.744 233.476 23.0 9.76 10.2 

47.94 6.405 3.980 

COMMENTS: ADD tt3 TO VIN TAURUS RED 

3-LA-4S BACK TO BACK STOCK VEH AT 95 DEGREES F tt] 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGl' -AT IONS. 

19 118 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4533 
•DYNO SITE: D209 TEST tt 89-4533 

TEST CONDITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YV TIME 

TEST: 07-28-89 KEY-START: 

PREP: 07-27-89 KEY-OFF: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 

HR:MN 

11:21 

15:20 

20.0 

I.D. TITLE NAME DEPT. 

REQUESTOR 

INSPECTOR 

AMA PREP 

LA4 PREP 

DIURNAL 

DRIVER 

SITE OPER. 

DATA VAL. 

HOT-SOAK 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

| 1988 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT | 

TEST PACKET STATUS: 

NOT VALIDATED 

NUMBER 

54721 

54768 

54721 

PROCESSED: 14:58:00 JUL 28, 1989 

DISPOSITIONS: 

VEHICLE DISP: 

CERT TEST DISP: 

F.E. TEST DISP: 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO. 

VOID CODES: 

LAB: 

CERT: 

Q . C : 

INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DYNO: 

TEST DYNO: 

PREP DYNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING, NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

, ./.ot ft" QC/QA CHECKS: 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2. 6, 

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

ADD #3 TO VIN TAURUS RED 

3-LA-4S BACK TO BACK STOCK VEH AT 95 DEGREES F tt 1 

19118 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 89-4533 

ro 

co 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894533 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 14:58:06 JUL 28, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 1FABP52UXJG11089 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE - -

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD ) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITION TIMING / / % CO / 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 #2 RPM GEAR IDLE HIGH SPEED 

07-27-89 EMPTY 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.18 51.6 96.6 D 22.0 58.32 0.9273 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-28-89 11 D209 36250 4.0 45.00 30508.8 N/A 

BAG 1 7.437 MILES 11.969 KM 17340. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 

14 34.8 25.71 14 5.3 

15 40.0 19.83 15 0.2 

23 36.9 0.818 23 1.8 

18 37.3 156.53 18 0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7467.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.030 

CORRECTED 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.85 22.10 PPM 

0.10 19.73 PPM 

0.037 0.783 % 

0.0 156.53 PPM 

GMS. 

2.69 

7.40 

3029.23 

38.54 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.362 

:-.995 

407 .316 

5 '82 

GMS/KM 

0.225 

0.618 

253.095 

3.220 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

21.3 

KPL 

9.05 

L/100KM 

1 1 .0 

BAG 2 7.464 MILES 12.012 KM 17402. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7422.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.918 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

14.2 

32.2 

35. 1 

38.4 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

CONC. 

10.38 

15.94 

0.775 

161.58 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.7 

0. 1 

1 .8 

0.0 

CONC. 

3.42 

0.05 

0.037 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

7.17 PPM 

15.90 PPM 

0.740 % 

161.58 PPM 

GMS. 

0.87 

5.93 

2845.76 

39.54 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.116 

0.794 

3ei.284 

5.298 

GMS/KM 

0.072 

0.493 

236.919 

3.292 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.7 

KPL 

9.67 

L/1OOKM 

10.3 

BAG 3 7.485 MILES 12.045 KM 17451. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7406.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

16.8 

32.2 

34.8 

45.8 

CONC. 

12.30 

15.94 

0.768 

196.34 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.6 

0.3 

1 .8 

0.0 

CONC. 

3.34 

0. 15 

0.037 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

9.15 PPM 

15.80 PPM 

0.733 % 

196.34 PPM 

GMS. 

1.1 1 

5.8 8 

2812.3 1 

47.9 4 

MASS EMISSION S 

GMS/MI 

0 . 148 

0 . 785 

375.744 

6.405 

GMS/KM 

0.092 

0.488 

233.476 

3.980 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

16.992 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

23.0 

KPL 

9.76 

L/100KM 

10.2 

COMMENTS: ADD #3 TO VIN TAURUS RED 

3-LA-4S BACK TO BACK STOCK VEH AT 95 DEGREES F #1 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

19118 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-453 3 

TI 

co 
.DYNO SITE:D20 9 TEST tt 89453 3 198 8 LIGH T DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 14:58:0 6 JUL 28 , 198 9 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D . VERSION EVAP 

0 3 0 1FABP52UXJG11089 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIA L 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P . 

METH 

PARTIC -

ULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-27-89 EMPTY 

#1 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

2 9 . 18 

/ 

51. 6 96. 6 D 22. 0 58.3 2 0.927 3 

DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITION S / 

27C 

TEST DATE HR 

07-28-89 11 

BAG 1 7.437 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 2 7.464 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 3 7.485 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER 

SITE IW SET TWHP 

D209 36250 4.0 45 

MILES 11.969 KM 17340. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 34.8 25.71 

15 40.0 19.83 

23 36.9 0.818 

18 37.3 156.53 

MILES 12.012 KM 17402. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 14.2 10.38 

15 32.2 15.94 

23 35.1 0.775 

18 38.4 161.58 

MILES 12.045 KM 17451. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 16.8 12.30 

15 32.2 15.94 

23 34.8 0.768 

18 45.8 196.34 

COMMENTS: ADD #3 TO VIN TAURUS RED 

3SI (MI) 

.00 30508.8 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER 

5.3 

0.2 

1 .8 

0.0 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER 

4.7 

0. 1 

1 .8 

0.0 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.6 

0.3 

1 .8 

0.0 

SYSTEM 

MILES 

N/A 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.85 

0. 10 

0.037 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.42 

0.05 

0.037 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.34 

0. 15 

0.037 

0.0 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

22.10 PPM 

19.73 PPM 

0.783 % 

156.53 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

7.17 PPM 

15.90 PPM 

0.740 % 

161.58 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

9.15 PPM 

15.80 PPM 

0.733 % 

196.34 PPM 

VMIX= 7467 0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

2.69 

7.40 

3029.23 

38.54 

VMIX= 7422 

GMS/MI 

0.362 

0.995 

407 .316 

5. 182 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.225 

0.618 

253.095 

3.220 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.87 

5.93 

2845.76 

39.54 

VMIX= 7406 

GMS/MI 

0.116 

0.794 

3ei.284 

5.298 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.072 

0.493 

236.919 

3.292 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

1.11 

5.88 

2812.31 

47 .94 

GMS/MI 

0. 148 

0.785 

375.744 

6.405 

GMS/KM 

0.092 

0.4BS 

233.476 

3.980 

FACTOR = 16.030 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

21.3 9.05 11.0 

FACTOR = 16.918 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.7 9.67 10.3 

FACTOR = 16.992 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

23.0 9.76 10.2 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

191 18 DYNO SITE:D20 9 TEST 89-453 3 

TI 

co 
D

vNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894533 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS PROCESSED: 14:58:07 JUL 28, 1989 

MFR . 

CODE 

030 

VEHICLE I.D. 

1FABP52UXJG11089 

VERSION 

0 

EVAP 

N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT . 

H. P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITION TIMING / / % CO 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 #2 RPM GEAR IDLE HIGH SPEED 

07-27-89 EMPTY 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.18 51.6 96.6 D 22.0 58.32 0.9273 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

U7-28-89 11 D209 36250 4.0 45.00 30508.8 N/A 

BAG 7.437 MILES 11.969 KM 17340. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7467.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.030 

1ITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

34 .8 

40.0 

36.9 

37 . 3 

CON C 

25.71 

19.83 

0.818 

156.53 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

5 . 3 

0. 2 

1 . H 

0 . 0 

CORRECTED 

BAG 2 7.464 MILES 12.012 KM 17402. ROLL REVS. SECS . 

SITE HA203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

14.2 

32 . 2 

3 5. 1 

38. 4 

CONC. 

10.38 

15.94 

0. 775 

161.58 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX. 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.85 22.10 PPM 

0.10 19.73 PPM 

0.037 0.783 % 

0.0 156.53 PPM 

RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

14 4.7 3.42 7.17 PPM 

15 0.1 0.05 15.90 PPM 

23 1.8 0.037 0.740 % 

18 0.0 0.0 161.58 PPM 

GMS. 

2 . 69 

7 .40 

3029.23 

38.54 

MIX= 7422 

GMS/MI 

0.362 

0.995 

407.3 16 

5 i H2 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0 . 225 

0.618 

253 .095 

3 . 220 

DlLUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.87 

5.93 

2845.76 

39 . 54 

GMS/MI 

3.116 

0. 794 

38' .284 

5 . 2ya 

GMS/KM 

0.072 

0.493 

236.919 

3 . 292 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

21.3 9.05 11.0 

FACTOR = 16.918 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.7 9.67 10.3 

BAG 3 7.485 MILES 12.045 KM 17451. ROLL REVS. 

,ITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C07 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER 

14 

15 

23 

18 

16. 

32. 

34. 

45. 

CONC. 

12.30 

15 .94 

0.768 

196.34 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

SECS. VMIX= 7406.0 CU.FT. 

CORRECTED 

DILUTION FACTOR = 16.992 

RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

14 4.6 3.34 9.15 PPM 

15 0.3 0.15 15.80 PPM 

23 1.8 0.037 0.733 % 

1B 0.0 0.0 196.34 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX. 

GMS. 

1.11 

5.88 

2812.31 

47 .94 

GMS/MI 

0 . 148 

0. 785 

375.744 

6. 405 

GMS/KM 

0.092 

0.488 

233.476 

3.980 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

23.0 9.76 10.2 

COMMENTS: ADD #3 TO VIN TAURUS RED 

3-LA-4S BACK TO BACK STOCK VEH AT 95 DEGREES F #1 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

19 118 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4533 
poo-/ 

,DYN0 SITE:D209 TEST # 894506 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS PROCESSED: 09:27:4 0 AUG 3 , 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D . 

030 A193XEX-0915 

VERSION 

0 

EVAP 

N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITION TIMING / / % CO 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE tt\ #2 RPM GEAR IDLE HIGH SPEED 

08-01-89 EMPTY 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

BARO Q£W / 

"HG ,POI{*T 

29.24 ^ 43.6 

AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM 

TEMe/UNIT HUM GR/LB 

95.6 D 16.8 42.93 

NOX CVS 

FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

0.8690 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

TEST DATE HR 

08-02-8.9-10 

BAG 1 7.443 

SITE #A203 y 

V .'' 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 2 7.471 

SITE «*A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 3 7.447 

SITE #A203 

.../ 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

SITE IW SET TWHP 

D209 3625 4.0 45 

/MILES 11.979 KM 17355. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER , CON C 

14-^ 49.3/ / 36.62 

15/ 42.9 / 21.27 

23 '-' 37.3*V>-' 0.827 

18 - 43.3 / 184.43 

MILES 12.024 KM 17420. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14"" 12.4.y 9.06 

15/" 47.3 ' 23.47 

23. 36.0 y 0.796 

18 .-" 30. 0 / 123.76 

MILES 11.985 KM 17364. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER / CONC. 

1 4 V 11.5 y 8.40 

15 " V 50.2 • / 24.92 

2 3 / 36.3*/ 0.803 

1 8 ' 25.2«/ 102.85 

PSI (MI) MILES 

.00 9690.4 N/A 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER ^ CONC. 

1 4 ^ 4 .8 "y. 3.49 

1 5 / 0.4 r 0.20 

23 t-X 1.8 / / 0.037 

18 "" 0.0 _^/0. 0 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 -"" 4.4- 3. 20 

15./' 0.2. / 0.10 

23- 1.8c / 0.037 

1 8 ^ 0.0 ^ ^ 0.0 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 ~ 4.3'". 3.13 

15-/ 0.3/' 0.15 

23^" 1.8 / 0.037 

IB/" " 0.0 / 0.0 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

33.35 PPM 

21.09 PPM 

0.793 % 

1.84.43 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

6.05 PPM 

23.38 PPM 

0.761 % 

123.76 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.46 PPM 

24.78 PPM 

0.769 % 

102.85 PPM 

VMIX= 7489 0 CU.JFT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

4i08 

7.43 

3075.40 

45.54 

VMIX= 7417 

GMS/MI 

0.548 

0.999 

413.167 

6.118 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.341 

0.620 

256.730 

3 .802 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.73 

8.16 

2926.20 

30.26 

VMIX= 7399 

GMS/MI 

0.098 

1 .092 

391.656 

.4.051 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.061 

0.679 

243.364 

2.517 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.66 

8.63 

2946.54 

25.09 

GMS/MI 

0.089 

1 . 159 

395.650 

3. 369 

GMS/KM 

0.055 

0. 720 

245.846 

2.093 

FACTOR = 15.776 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

20.9 8.88 11.3 

FACT0R = 16.553 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.3 9.47 10.6 

FACTOR = 16.452 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22. 1 9.40 10.6 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK TAURUS RED 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #5 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-450 6 

co 

co 
DYNO SITE: D209 TEST tt 89-4506 

I 19B8 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT | 

PROCESSED: 09:27:40 AUG 1989 

TEST CONDITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YY TIME 

TEST: 08-02-89 KEY-START: 

PREP: 08-01-89 KEY-OFF: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 

HR:MN 

10:30 

13:40 

20. 8 

TEST PACKET STATUS: 

NOT VALIDATED 

DISPOSITIONS: 

VEHICLE DISP: 

CERT TEST DISP: 

F.E. TEST DISP: 

I.D. TITLE NAME DEPT. NUMBER 

REQUESTOR 

INSPECTOR 

AMA PREP 

LA4 PREP 

DIURNAL 

DRIVER 

SITE OPER. 

DATA VAL. 

HOT-SOAK 

C. FULLER 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

ECTD 12336 

54768 

54721 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO. 

VOID CODES: 

LAB: 

CERT: 

Q . C : 

INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DYNO: 

TEST DYNO: 

PREP DYNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING, NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

QC/QA CHECKS: \ yJ • '• . / 

V r •• i -y 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2, 6, 47, 48,. j '-

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK TAURUS RED 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #5 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST It 89-4506 
,DYNO SITE:D209 TEST # 894506 19B8 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS PROCESSED: 09:27:40 AUG 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 

08-01-89 EMPTY 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.24 43.6 95.6 D 16.8 42.93 0.8690 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

08-02-89 10 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9690.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.443 MILES 11.979 KM 17355. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

SECS. VMIX= 7489.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 15.776 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. 

14 49.3 36.62 14 4.8 3.49 

15 42.9 21.27 15 0.4 0.20 

23 37.3 0.827 23 1.8 0.037 

18 43.3 184.43 18 0.0 0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

33.35 PPM 

21.09 PPM 

0.793 % 

184.43 PPM 

GMS. 

4.08 

7.43 

3075.40 

45.54 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.548 

0.999 

413.167 

6.118 

GMS/KM 

0.341 

0.620 

256.730 

3.802 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

20.9 

KPL 

8.88 

L/100KM 

11.3 

BAG 2 7.471 MILES 12.024 KM 17420. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 

14 12.4 9.06 14 4.4 

15 47.3 23.47 15 0.2 

23 36.0 0.796 23 1.8 

18 30.0 123.76 18 0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7417.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

CORRECTED 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

3.20 6.05 PPM 0.73 

0.10 23.38 PPM 8.16 

0.037 0.761 % 2926.20 

0.0 123.76 PPM 30.26 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.098 

1 .092 

391.656 

4.051 

GMS/KM 

0.061 

0.679 

243.364 

2.517 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

16.553 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.3 

KPL 

9.47 

L/100KM 

10.6 

BAG 3 7.447 MILES 11.985 KM 17364. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

SECS. VMIX= 7399.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.452 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. 

14 11.5 8.40 14 4.3 3.13 

15 50.2 24.92 15 0.3 0.15 

23 36.3 0.803 23 1.8 0.037 

18 25.2 102.85 18 0.0 0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.46 PPM 

24.78 PPM 

0.769 % 

102.85 PPM 

GMS. 

0.66 

8.63 

2946.54 

25.09 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.089 

1 . 159 

395.650 

3.369 

GMS/KM 

0.055 

0.720 

245.846 

2.093 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22. 1 

KPL 

9.40 

L/100KM 

10.6 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK TAURUS RED 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #5 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4506 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST # 894506 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 09:27:44 AUG 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

08-01-89 EMPTY 

tt\ 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.24 43.6 95.6 D 16.8 42.93 0.8690 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS — / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

08-02-89 10 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9690.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.443 MILES 11.979 KM 17355. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7489.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

49.3 

42.9 

37.3 

43.3 

CONC. 

36.62 

21 .27 

0.827 

184.43 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.8 

0.4 

1 .8 

0.0 

CONC. 

3.49 

0.20 

0.037 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

33.35 PPM 

21.09 PPM 

0.793 % 

184.43 PPM 

GMS. 

4.08 

7.43 

3075.40 

45.54 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.548 

0.999 

413.167 

6.118 

GMS/KM 

0.341 

0.620 

256.730 

3.802 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

15.776 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

20.9 

KPL 

8.88 

L/ 100KM 

11.3 

BAG 2 7.471 MILES 12.024 KM 17420. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 

14 12.4 9.06 14 4.4 

15 47.3 23.47 15 0.2 

23 36.0 0.796 23 1.8 

18 30.0 123.76 18 0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7417.0 CU.FT. 

CORRECTED 

DILUTION FACTOR 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

3.20 6.05 PPM 0.73 

0.10 23.38 PPM 8.16 

0.037 0.761 % 2926.20 

0.0 123.76 PPM 30.26 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.098 

1 .092 

39 1.656 

4.051 

GMS/KM 

0.061 

0.679 

243.364 

2.517 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

16.553 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22. 3 

KPL 

9.47 

L/100KM 

10.6 

BAG 3 7.447 MILES 11.985 KM 17364. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER CONC. 

14 11.5 8.40 14 4.3 3.13 

15 50.2 24.92 15 0.3 0.15 

23 36.3 0.803 23 1.8 0.037 

18 25.2 102.85 18 0.0 0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7399.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.46 PPM 

24.78 PPM 

0.769 % 

102.85 PPM 

GMS. 

0.66 

8.63 

2946.54 

25.09 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.089 

1 . 159 

395.650 

3.369 

GMS/KM 

0.055 

0.720 

245.846 

2.093 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

16.452 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22. 1 

KPL 

9.40 

L/100KM 

10.6 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK TAURUS RED 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #5 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4506 

CO 

O) 
DYNO SITE: D209 TEST * 89-4506 

I 1988 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT | 

TEST CONDITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YY TIME 

TEST: 08-02-89 KEY-START: 

PREP: 08-01-89 KEY-OFF: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 

HR:MN 

10:30 

13:40 

20.8 

TEST PACKET STATUS: 

NOT VALIDATED 

I.D. TITLE NAME 

REQUESTOR 

INSPECTOR 

AMA PREP 

LA4 PREP 

DIURNAL 

DRIVER 

SITE OPER. 

DATA VAL. 

HOT-SOAK 

C FULLER 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

DEPT. NUMBER 

ECTD 12336 

54768 

54721 

PROCESSED: 09:27:44 AUG 1989 

DISPOSITIONS: 

VEHICLE DISP: 

CERT TEST DISP: 

F.E. TEST DISP: 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO. 

VOID CODES: 

LAB: 

CERT: 

Q.C. : 

INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DYNO: 

TEST DYNO: 

PREP DYNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING, NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

6, 47, 48, 

QC/QA CHECKS: 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2, 

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK TAURUS RED 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #5 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST It 89-4506 

3 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894506 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS I PROCESSED: 09:27:4 4 AUG 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D . 

030 A193XEX-0915 

VERSION 

0 

EVAP 

N 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TES T PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

08-01-89 EMPTY 

/ IGNITION TIMING / 

#1 #2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

I AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.24 

/ 

43.6 95.6 D 16.8 42.93 0.8690 

DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

27C 

TEST DATE HR 

08-02-89 10 

BAG 1 7.443 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

CO 2 

CO 

BAG 2 7.471 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 3 7.447 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER 

SITE IW SET TWHP 

D209 3625 4.0 45 

MILES 11.979 KM 17355. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 49.3 36.62 

15 42.9 21.27 

23 37.3 0.827 

18 43.3 184.43 

MILES 12.024 KM 17420. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 12.4 9.06 

15 47.3 23.47 

23 36.0 0.796 

18 30.0 123.76 

MILES 11.985 KM 17364. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 11.5 8.40 

15 50.2 24.92 

23 36.3 0.803 

18 25.2 102.85 

3SI 

.00 

ROLL 

(MI) 

9690.4 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER 

4.8 

0.4 

1 .8 

0.0 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER 

4.4 

0.2 

1 .8 

0.0 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.3 

0.3 

1 .8 

0.0 

SYSTEM 

MILES 

N/A 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.49 

0.20 

0.037 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.20 

0. 10 

0.037 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.13 

0. 15 

0.037 

0.0 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

33.35 PPM 

21 .09 PPM 

0.793 % 

184.43 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

6.05 PPM 

23.38 PPM 

0.761 % 

123.76 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.46 PPM 

24.78 PPM 

0.769 X 

102.85 PPM 

VMIX= 7489 0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

4.08 

7.43 

3075.40 

45.54 

VMIX= 7417 

GMS/MI 

0.548 

0.999 

413.167 

6.118 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.341 

0.620 

256.730 

3.802 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.73 

8.16 

2926.20 

30.26 

VMIX= 7399 

GMS/MI 

0.098 

1 .092 

391.656 

4.051 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.061 

0.679 

243.364 

2.517 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.66 

8.63 

2946.54 

25.09 

GMS/MI 

0.089 

1 . 159 

395.650 

3.369 

GMS/KM 

0.055 

0.720 

245.846 

2.093 

FACTOR = 15.776 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

20.9 8.88 11.3 

FACTOR = 16.553 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.3 9.47 10.6 

FACTOR = 16.452 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.1 9.40 10.6 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK TAURUS RED 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #5 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4506 
DYNO SITE: D209 TEST tt 89-4506 

TEST CONDITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YY TIME 

TEST: 08-02-89 KEY-START: 

PREP: 08-01-89 KEY-OFF: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 

HR:MN 

10:30 

13:40 

20.8 

I.D. TITLE NAME 

REQUESTOR 

INSPECTOR 

AMA PREP 

LA4 PREP 

DIURNAL 

DRIVER 

SITE OPER. 

DATA VAL. 

HOT-SOAK 

C FULLER 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

D 

D 

D 

D 

.D 

D 

.0 

.D 

DEPT. 

ECTD 

I 1988 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT | 

TEST PACKET STATUS: 

NOT VALIDATED 

NUMBER 

12336 

54768 

54721 

PROCESSED: 09:27:44 AUG 3, 1989 

DISPOSITIONS: 

VEHICLE DISP: 

CERT TEST DISP: 

F.E. TEST DISP: 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO. 

VOID CODES: 

LAB: 

CERT: 

Q . C : 

INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DYNO: 

TEST DYNO: 

PREP DYNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING, NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

QC/QA CHECKS: 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2, 6, 47, 48, 

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK TAURUS RED 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #5 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST *• 89-4506 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894506 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 09:27:44 AUG 3, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. 

030 A193XEX-0915 

VERSION 

0 

EVAP 

N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTIC- REASON FOR 

ULATES CONFIRMATION 

N 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

08-01-89 EMPTY 

#1 

IGNITION TIMING / 

'#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

I AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.24 43.6 95.6 D 16.8 42.93 0.8690 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) 

08-02-89 10 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9690.4 

BAG 1 7.443 MILES 11.979 KM 17355. ROLL REVS. 

CONC. RANGE METER 

36.62 14 4.8 

21.27 15 0.4 

0.827 23 1.8 

184.43 18 0.0 

BAG 2 7.471 MILES 12.024 KM 17420. ROLL REVS. 

27C 

ITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST S 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

49.3 

42.9 

37.3 

43.3 

SYSTEM 

MILES 

N/A 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.49 

0.20 

0.037 

0.0 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

33.35 PPM 

21.09 PPM 

0.793 % 

184.43 PPM 

SECS. 

VMIX= 7489.0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. GMS/MI 

4.08 0.548 

7.43 0.999 

3075.40 413.167 

45.54 6.118 

VMIX= 7417.0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.341 

0.620 

256.730 

3.802 

DILUTION 

FACTOR = 15.776 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

20.9 8.88 11.3 

FACTOR = 16.553 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 

14 12.4 9.06 14 4.4 

15 47.3 23.47 15 0.2 

23 36.0 0.796 23 1.8 

18 30.0 123.76 18 0.0 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.20 6.05 PPM 

0.10 23.38 PPM 

0.037 0.761 % 

0.0 123.76 PPM 

GMS. 

0.73 

8.16 

2926.20 

30.26 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.098 

1 .092 

391.656 

4.051 

GMS/KM 

0.061 

0.679 

243.364 

2.517 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.3 

KPL 

9.47 

L/100KM 

10.6 

BAG 3 7.447 MILES 11.985 KM 17364. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 

14 11.5 8.40 14 4.3 

15 50.2 24.92 15 0.3 

23 36.3 0.803 23 1.8 

18 25.2 102.85 18 0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7399.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

CORRECTED 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.13 5.46 PPM 

0.15 24.78 PPM 

0.037 0.769 % 

0.0 102.85 PPM 

GMS. 

0.66 

8.63 

2946.54 

25.09 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.089 

1 . 159 

395.650 

3.369 

GMS/KM 

0.055 

0.720 

245.846 

2.093 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

16.452 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22. 1 

KPL 

9.40 

L/100KM 

10.6 

COMMENTS: 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK TAURUS RED 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #5 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-450 6 

TI 

J> 
BAG 3 

NOX CO. CO I I 

wl i m \\m\ i raaM 

06| ' 10 1 19 | 

BAC^Gpourjp Affl SAMPLE PAW. E it VEHICLE EXHAUST SAMPLE RANGE # 

HC I NOX | CO- ,| CO | | HC | NOX I CO- | CO I 

fti I NJil I \m\ I IdolliNlik-UbllM 

^05 | 1 0 | 15 | 2 0 | 2 5 | 

HC 1 HC | NOX I C02 

\\\i\\ 

i sl 

5P3 5 0 

CO 

/ *1 U

SITE 

5n 

DISTANCE 

mrnm 

eo 

£ 

VM3X OS 

COUNTS 

n: 

661 

2121 

SECS 

7 0 

STEADY (2 

STATE 

SPEED 

75 • P 

BAG # 1 BAG # 2 

BAG DATA 

AUX 

HELD 1 

2 ifl 

a a 

AUX 

HELD 2 

DISP A EVAP 

. 0 5 

LAB 

AUX 

CODE 

BACKGROUND 

HFID 

1 0 

VOID CODES 

CERT I Q. C. 

METHANE BAG DATA 

0 5 

BAG ffi 

-LOIS 

VOID 

MAN 

HOURS 

RG 

EXHAUST 

B U D 

2 0 

RG 

25 P 

AUX 

FIELD 1 

3 0 

AUX 

HELD . 

3 5 

AUX 

CODE 

BACKGROUND 

HFID | RG 

| 

»8J~ 

1 1 

4 5 

EXJ-AUST 

HFID RG 

so) 

AUX 

HELD 1 

SSJ 

BAG 

AUX 

HELD 2 

6 0 

# 3 

AUX 

:ODE 

6 5 

BACKGROUND 

HFID | RG 

I 

70 1 

EXHAUST 

HFID | RG 

J 

75 | 

• c 

6 0 

15 

BACKGROUND 

METHANE RG 

05 

EXHAUST 

METHANE 

1 0 

RG 

DATA 

VALIDATOR 

ID 

BAflil . 

2 0 

BACKGROUND 

METHANE 

1 5 

RG 

EVAP 

LOSS 

GMS 

HOT-SOAK 

EVAP 

ID 

2 5 

EXHAUST 

METHANE 

2 0 

RG 

ALDEHYDES 

30 

-BX81 

BACKGROUND 

METHANE I RG 

2 5 I 3 0 

TT as 

EXHAUST 

METHANE I RG 

3 5 

7 0 

PREP TEST 

KEY KEY START  OFF 

HR I MIN 

N 6 

7 5 

HR 

1.0 

MIN? 

m C » 0 

6 5 7 0 7 5 | 

I 

• ° 

run COMMENTS 

0 

r

l 

p 

/ 1 

fc 

1\ 

~\ 

(1 

1 0,5 

CARD II 

_FJU E L 

( 

P 

5 

A ii 

1 

D 

^ 

» 

A R • 

-

T 

• , 

1 0 

CALC F 

s 

s 

LAO 

M 

k 

i\ 

0 

1" 

1 

i S 

CONTAINER 

IS 

)__ 

1 

A 

_-

ID 

• 

ri 

'/ 

~7\ 

2 0 

VIFUEL 

ICOD8 

If 

1 

20 J 

L a. . K 

2 5 

ifBASURKD BO 

CWt FRAC1 

• 

1 5 

UNI 

roN 

r 

ED 

0 '') 

3 0 

SPBCD 

GRAVI 

• 

3 0 

-I i. 

IC 

TY j 

k 

• 

r U • 1 

1 1 

K 

3 5 | 

*OT HEATIN0 VAIXI 

J5 

. 

40 

I 

(1[ 

4 5 

CONSTANT UNBOUNDED 

CWT FRACTION 

• 

I S 

C( 

• 

15 0 1 1 INSTANT BOUNDS 

CWT FRACTION 5 3 0 | 

D 

i 

ss ( 

DiNsmr 

LBS/OAL 

8 1 6 

10 

u H AFTBRCOMB 

• , 

6 5 

6 5 

70 

GMC/GAL 

__r .1 

ro| 

J 1 

1 

7 6 | 

BC EMISSION 

DBNSITY 

• 

7 5 

> K 

L 

TI 

J> 
> 

REFUELING EMISSIONS TEST SUMMARY SHED S101 ANALYZER FID 224 

DATE TEST VEHICLE VEHICLE FUEL H/C or RVP NOMINAL GALLONS SHED INITIAL/FINAL I III IN. 

NUMBER VOLUME METH eqv GPM OISP TEMP F BARO PANGE DEFLECT 

890009.00 RRNGE 16 RED ON 50.00 IND 2.33 6.80 10.00 13.25 77.90 29.14 IF..00 9 

AUG-2-89 TEST BOARD FORD final BIT 1 29 14 IF. 00 17 

TAURUS 

ro 
INftL 

PPMC 

27.66 

51-77 

NET 

gms 

0.57 

DISP 

TEMP F 

83. 10 

TANK 

TEMP F 

81.70 

FID ESTIMATED CANISTER 

GMS/'GAL GMS/GRL VENTING 

0.04 4.91 OUT RED TAURUS ON BOARD W/CANISTER EFFECTS ON EMISSION 

END LA-4 <3> BACK7BRCK 0 95 DEG. CELL TEMP 

W/9.0 RVP.FUEL & 3.0 LITER CANISTER 
REQUESTOR ID: 12336 TEST # 894506 

NAME: C. FULLER 

REPORT TIME: 15:10:27 

DATE: JUL 25. 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRY : 10/14/88 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD A193XEX-0915 0 SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT EPA 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIVi ETW 

VEHICLE —YEAR — FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST CD . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

EF 1FABP52V3JG259517 88 88 3500 3625 NO ENTRY 6.6 

ODOMETER TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

CORRECTION TIRE & RIM SWL BLT PSI TD 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZE P205/75R1 S MF 4 R CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL FUEL SYSTEN' FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER.COOLING RATIO DN TM 

O.OE 0.0 E 0.0 E OTTO SPARK YES NONE 0.0 

IGNITION TIMING IDLE % CO IDLE ENGINE 

»\ #2 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY SYSTEM CODE 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION — SHIFT INDIC. EVAPORATION 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SVSTEM FUEL TYPE 

0.0 0.0 YES A-3 -NO ENTRY UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK SHIFT SCH. ID EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED CITY HWY FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS 

18.6G 7.4G B FTA NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

$ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 0 
RECUESTOR ID: 12336 

NAME: C. FULLER 

REPORT TIME: 15:10:27 

DATE: JUL 25, 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRY : 10/14/88 

TEST tt 894506 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD A193XEX-0915 0 SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT EPA 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. 

VEHICLE —YEAR — FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD 

ETW 

C D . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

EF 1 FABP52V3JG259517 88 88 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID 

3500 3625 NO ENTRY 

ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER 

ODOMETER 

CORRECTION TIRE 8. RIM 

INITIAL FACTOR SIZES 

6.6 

TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

SWL BLT PSI TD 

MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

P205/75R14 

DISPLACEMENT 

O.OE 

BORE 

0.0 E 

STROKE 

0.0 E 

til 

IGNITION TIMING 

02 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. 

RATED 

HP 

ENGINE 

TYPE 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

ENGINE 

CONFIGURATION 

NO. 

CYL. 

NO. TOTAL FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER.COOL ING RATIO DN TM 

OTTO SPARK YES 

GEAR 

IDL E % c o 

LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM 

-- IDLE 

RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY 

NONE 

ENGINE 

SVSTEM 

0.0 

CODE 

AXLE 

RATIO 

N/V A/C 

RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

EXHAUST TYPE 

CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION -- SHIFT INDI C EVAPORATION 

SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SVSTEM 

0.0 0.0 

MAIN-TANK 

CAPACITY VOLUME 

YES 

AUX.-TANK 

CAPACITY VOLUME 

A-3 

SHIFT SPEED 

SHIFT SCH. ID 

CITY HWY 

-NO ENTRY 

EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

FAMILY CODE 

FUEL TYPE 

UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

SALES CLASS 

18.6G 7.4G B FTA 

CONTROL SVSTEM TYPES 

NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 

*• REQUFSTOR ID: 17221 

NAME: R. BRANHAM 

REPORT TIME: 11:15:39 

DATE: JUL 20 , 19B9 

fOOS 

TEST it 894422 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) DATE OF ENTRY : 10/14/S 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER 

FORD 

VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE 

A193XEX-0915 0 SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT EPA 

ETW 

SOURCE 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. 

VEHICLE —YEAR-- FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST CD . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

EF 1FABP52V3JG259517 88 88 3500 3625 NO ENTRY 

ODOMETER 

CORRECTION TIRE 8. RIM 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZES MFR 

6 . 6 

TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

SWL BLT PSI TD 

CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

P205/75R14 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

DISPLACEMENT 

O.OE 

BORE 

0.0 E 

RATED ENGINE 

STROKE HP TYPE 

ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER,COOL ING RATIO DN TM 

O.O E OTTO SPARK YES NONE 0.0 

IGNITION TIMING 

tt\ # 2 DEG TOL . RPM RPM TOL . GEAR 

IDL E % c o 

LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. 

IDLE 

RPM RPM TOL. GEAR 

ENGINE 

FAMILY SYSTEM CODE 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C CRANKCASE -- TRANSMISSION -- SHIFT INDIC EVAPORATION 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM 

0.0 0.0 YES 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK. 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME 

18.6G 7.4G 

A-3 

SHIFT SPEED 

-NO ENTRY 

SHIFT SCH. ID EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

CITY HWY FAMILY CODE 

B FTA 

$ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

FULL TYPE 

UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

SALES CLASS 

NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 0 
REQUESTOR ID: 17221 TES"1 tt 894422 

NAME: R. BRANHAM 

REPORT TIME: 11:15:39 

DATE: JUL 20, 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRY : 10/14/88 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD A193XEX-0915 0 SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT EPA 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. ETW 

VEHICLE --YEAR-- FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST CD . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

EF 1FABP52V3JG259517 88 88 3500 3625 NO ENTRY 6.6 

ODOMETER TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

CORRECTION TIRE 8, RIM SWL BLT PSI TD 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

P205/75R14 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL Fu'cL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP . COAST 

DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER,COOL ING RATIO DN TM 

O.OE 0.0 E 0.0 E OTTO SPARK YES HONE 0.0 

IGNITION TIMING IDLE % CO IDLE ENGINE 

It) #2 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY SYSTEM CODE 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C CRANKCASE -- TRANSMISSION -- SHIFT INDI C EVAPORATION 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM FUEL TYPE 

0.0 0.0 YES A-3 -NO ENTRY UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK SHIFT SCH. ID EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED CITY HWY FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS 

18.6G 7.4G B FTA NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

$ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 0 
• - / 

| 1988 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT | 

DYN • SITE: D209 TEST tt 89-4422 

TEST CONDITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YY TIME 

TEST: 07-25-89 KEY-START: 

PREP: 07-24-89 KEY-OFF: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 

HR:MN 

13:00 

10:15 

26.8 

TEST PACKET STATUS: 

NOT VALIDATED 

I.D. TITLE NAME 

REQUESTOR 

INSPECTOR 

AMA PREP 

LA4 PREP 

DIURNAL 

DRIVER 

SITE OPER. 

DATA VAL. 

HOT-SOAK 

R. BRANHAM 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

INVALID I.D. 

DEPT. NUMBER 

ECTD 17221 

54768 

54721 

PROCESSED: 11:46:18 JUL 26. 1989 

DISPOSITIONS: 

VEHICLE DISP: 

CERT TEST DISP: 

F.E. TEST DISP: 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO. 

VOID CODES: 

LAB: 

CERT: 

Q.C.: 

INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DVNO: 

TEST DVNO: 

PREP DYNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING, NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

QC/QA CHECKS: A 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2, 6, 47, 48, 

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

TAURUS RED 3/1 BG LA4S 95 DEGREES F #2 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 89-4422 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST # 89442 2 I 198 8 LIGH T DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 11:46:1 8 JUL 26 , 198 9 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D . VERSION EVAP 

0 3 0 A193XEX-091 5 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIA L 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P . 

METH 

PARTIC -

ULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE - -

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD ) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BV BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / — • 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE *1 

07-24-89 EMPTY 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.3 0 

/ 

46. 7 96. 4 D 18. 5 48.2 6 0.888 3 

- - - DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITION S / 

27C 

TEST DATE HR 

07-25-89 13 

BAG 1 7.415 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 2 7.493 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 3 7.455 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

DYNO 

SITE 

D209 

MILES 

ACTUAL DYNO T 

IW SET TWHP 

3625 4.0 45 

11.934 KM 17289. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

MILES 

METER CONC. 

40.6-^T 30.07 

42.0</ 20.82 

36.9- ^ 0.818 

35.2 / 146.98 

12.058 KM 17470. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

MILES 

METER CONC. 

12.2 ^ 8.91 

47.2 ^ 23.42 

35.9/ " 0.794 

32.2 / 133.50 

1 1 .998 KM 17383. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER CONC. 

19.9 ^ 14.60 

49.4-^y 24.52 

36.2 / 0.801 

14.5 / 57.89 

COMMENTS: TAURUS RED 3/1 BG LA4S 

IRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

PSI 

.00 

ROLL 

(MI) MILES 

9620.8 N/A 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER CONC. 

5.2 ^ 3.78 

0.3^ , 0. 15 

1.7 ^ 0.035 

0.0 ^ 0.0 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER CONC. 

4.8 ^ 3.49 

0.2 / 0.10 

1.7./ 0.035 

0.0/ 0.0 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER CONC. 

4.9 ^ 3.56 

0.3-" 0.15 

1 .7 ./ 0.035 

0.0 / 0.0 

95 DEGREES F #2 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

26.52 PPM 

20.68 PPM 

0.785 % 

146.98 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.63 PPM 

23.33 PPM 

0.761 % 

133.50 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

11.25 PPM 

24.38 PPM 

0.768 % 

57.89 PPM 

VMIX= 7533 0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

3.26 

7.50 

3063.54 

36.50 

VMIX= 7477 

GMS/MI 

0.440 

1.011 

413. 146 

4.923 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.273 

0.628 

256.717 

3.059 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.69 

8.39 

2948. 14 

32.91 

VMIX= 7457 

GMS/MI 

0.092 

1 . 120 

393.464 

4.392 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.057 

0.696 

244.487 

2.729 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

1 .37 

8.75 

2967.85 

14.23 

GMS/MI 

0. 184 

1 . 173 

398.076 

1 .909 

GMS/KM 

0. 1 14 

0.729 

247.353 

1 . 186 

FACTOR = 16.040 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

21.0 8.93 11.2 

FACTOR = 16.582 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.1 9.41 10.6 

FACTOR = 16.579 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.1 9.39 10.7 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-198 8 REGULATIONS. 

I 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4422 

v 
K 

I 

N 

V ^-

^ 

\ 

"ft 

W P.51 

i 

N 

(V 

V 

6Qv 

^ a 

iy>^-
rtJEi TYPE , UNLEADED. 

IND. 30 

.IND. IS 

.DIESEL 

VEHICLE TEST DATA SHEET SCHEDULED TEST DATE 

HWFET YES • NO • 

X 

o 

X. rf 

TO 

MFR 

REP 

INITIAL 

-

--

'.. ' 

TEST NO. 

f 

/"" 

75 

'•' / 

> 

A 

90 

DRIVE 

1 AXLE 

1 WEIGHT 

r j 

Ul 'i < O 

7 0 

MEASUREDI 

COASTDOWN 

TIME tSEC) 

I 

DVL 

HP 

TS 

• 

B 

80 

CVS PRESS 

IN OUT 

BAG 1 

BACKGROUND 

HC 

f • I 

NOX 

9 Si 

'1 

AIR SAMPLE 

C02 

1 0 

• y 

CO | 

1 

a 

s 

1 

| HC 

| f 

RANGE # 

NOX 

i 

2 0 

*) 

CO! | CO 

"1 i 

2 5 

OT^ ICLE EXHAUST SAMPLE RANGE # 

J>^" 1 -

3 0 

NOX 

3 3 

C02 | CO | 

4 0 

£ L % 

| IIC 1 

4 5 

. , 

NOX 

. 

C 0 2 

-

5 0 

CO 

1 

'-V 

BAC 2 

BACKGROUND AIR SAMPLE RANGE # VEHICLE EXHAUST SAMPI VNGEJL 

HC 

t

c

6 

NOX 

OS 

C02 

1 

-Ck. 1 0 

o 

CO 

i » T 

J HC NOX 

2 01 

C 0 2 CO 

Ml 

2 3 w 

HC NOX 

3 0 

CQ2 

BAC 3 

BACKGROUND AIR SAMPLE PANT. F it 

3 5 

VEHICLE EXHAUST 

Z3.3 

I IIC 

fl 

4 5 

NO>fc 

f • "i 

C02 

1— 

f 

-' 

50 

CO 

rj 

u 

5 

y 

75 8 0 

1 • U 

S S 

SITE 

NO 

'} ..('. "2 

1 —7/1 ,-» 

DISTANCE") 

."J^? 

6 0 I 

_5 « 

'O- Z 

/ = 

a 

VMIX OR 

COUNTS 

$75 

J51 / 5" 

>3 

3 

3, 

- » « ro 

SECS 

STEADY 

STATE 

SPEED 

TS 

UNITS 

D 

B0 

SITE 

NO 

A- in 

9 5 | 

J 

DISTANCE

 _ 

'*. 

6 0 

^U 7 

UNITS 

VMDC OR 

COUNT S 

A 74 

I S 

'-I 

1 

—-; 

SECS 

l 

7 0 | 

STEADY 

STATE 

SPEED 

Ti 

UNITS 

E 

B0 

JGE 

HC 

•A H 

NOX 

I. 

C02 

*—L 

CO 

BAG DATA 

AUX 

FIELD I 

DISP A EVAP 

5 £ 8 

BAG # 1 

y 

15 

M HC NOX 

2 0 1 

C02 CO 

2T P HC 

3 0 

NOX 

3 5 

C02 

1 " 

CO 

• J ' «o| 

1 

M HC 

-•] 4 5 1 

NOX C 0 2 

• I : 

5 0 

CO 

i X y 1 1 

5 5 

SITE 

NO 

1 / i • J 

DISTANCE 

\ 

• 6 0 

"' '? % "J 

UNITS 

IS 

'A 

6 5 

VMIX OK 1 

COUNTS | 

11 hl\ 

7 0 

SECS 

| 

STEADY 

STATE 

SPEED 

7 - | 

UNITS 

F 

8 0 

BAG # 2 

AUX 

HELD 2 

0 5 

LAB 

1 0 

VOID CODES 

AUX 

CODE 

BACKGROUND 

HFID I RG 

METHANE BAG DATA 

CERT Q C . 

ism 

BACKGROUND 

METHANE I RO 

0 5 

-LOIS 

VOID 

MAN 

HOURS 

EXHAUST 

HFID 

2 0 

RG 

2 5 ¥ 

A U X 

HEL D I 

) 0 | 

A U X 

FIELD 2 

3 5 

A U X 

CODE 

BACKGROUN D 

HFI D RG 

*"iT 4 5 

1

 EXlUtJsf 

HFID RG 

1 

5 0 

AUX 

HELD I 

5 5 

BAG 

AUX 

HELD 2 

6 0 

# 3 

AUX 

-ODE 

6 5 

BACKGROUND 

HFID | RG 

1 

7 0 

EXHAUST 

HFID RG 

| ^ J 

7 5 

G 

8 0 

DATA 

EXHAUST 

METHANE 

1 0 

RG 

1 5 

VALIDATOR 

ID 

JSSI BACKGROUND 

METHANE 

15 

RG 

2 0 

EVAP 

LOSS 

GMS 

HOT - SOAK 

EVAP 

I D 

2 5 

ALDEHYDES 

EXHAUST 

METHANE 

2 0 

RC 

3 0 | 

BAG * 3 JLL 

BACKGROUND 

METHANE I RG 

2 5 3 0 

EXHAUST 

METHANE I RG 

3 5 

7 0 

» M 

tPREP 

KEY OFF 

HR | MIN 

J. /-' 

,6 

7 5 

TEST 

KEY START 

HR 

1 

MIN 

3£ c H 

8 0 

7 0 7 5 8 0 

COMMENTS ! :i 'J '! 

0 5 

CARD II 

F U E L 

< 

P 

) 5 

| 

) 

A R * 

1 0 

CALC n LAO 

•# 

1 5 

CONTAINER 

15 

ID 

2 0 

VIFUEL 

1 CODE 

1 

2 0 | 

2 5 

MEASURED RO 

CWT FRAC1 

• 

2 5 

UNI 

•ON 

• 

3 0 1 

SPECIFIC 

GRAVITY 

• 

3 0 

3 5 

SET III 

3 5 

SATING VALUE 

. 

46 

i 

4 5 

CONSTANT UNROI 

CWT FRACT 

n 

• 

t IS 

INDED 

ION 

C< 

• 

5 0 

INSTANT ROUNDE 

CWT FRACTION r 

• 

so| s 

5 8 

5 

6 0 

DENSITY 

LBS/GAL I 

• 

6 0 

* C 

AFTERCOMB 

r 

• 

es 

U M 

7 0 

GMC/GAL 

r 

1 . 

7 0 

J H 

7 j 

HC EMISSION 

DENSITY 

y" • 

7 5 

K 

L 

8 0 

BBQ 

8 0 

3/»* (NOTE ) SEE SEPARATE INSTRUCTIONS FOR " Q " CARD NOTE: RIGHT JUSTIFY ALL NUMERIC FIELDS, LEFT JUSTIFY ALL ALPHA • NUMERIC FIELDS 
roo^ 

DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894421 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 10:45:40 JUL 31 1989 

MFR . 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN . 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-20-89 EMPTY 

tt\ 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.13 50.2 94.6 D 22.2 55.43 0.9158 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-21-89 14 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9093.3 N/A 

BAG 1 7.436 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 2 7.47 1 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

MILES 11.967 KM 17337. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

MILES 

METER 

30.0 

48 . 7 

36. 2 

41.6 

12.023 

CONC. 

22.12 

24. 17 

0.801 

176.44 

KM 17419. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

12.7 

51 .2 

35.9 

34.2 

CONC. 

9. 28 

25.42 

0.794 

142.46 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER 

4.6 

0.8 

1 .8 

0.0 

REVS . 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.6 

0.4 

1 .7 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.34 

0.39 

0.037 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.34 

0.20 

0.035 

0.0 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

18.98 PPM 

23.80 PPM 

0.766 % 

176.44 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

6.14 PPM 

25.23 PPM 

0.761 % 

142.46 PPM 

VMIX= 7468 0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS . 

2.3 1 

8.81 

2964.86 

43.44 

VMIX= 7415 

GMS/MI 

0.311 

1 . 185 

398.731 

5.842 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0. 193 

0. 737 

247.760 

3.630 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS . 

0. 74 

9. 28 

2923.71 

34.83 

GMS/MI 

0.099 

1 . 242 

39 1.345 

4.662 

GMS/KM 

0.062 

0.772 

243 . 170 

2.897 

FACTOR = 16.324 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

21.7 9.22 10.8 

FACTOR = 16.563 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.2 9.45 10.6 

COMMENTS: 3/1 BG LA-4S TAURUS AT 95 DEGREES F tt\ ON BOARD RUNNING LOSE 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4421 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894421 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 10:45:24 JUL 31, 1989 

MFR . 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR . 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H. P. 

METH 

PARTIC- REASON FOR 

ULATES CONFIRMATION 

N 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-20-89 EMPTY 

tt\ 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.13 50.2 94.6 D 22.2 55.43 0.9158 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-21-89 14 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9093.3 N/A 

BAG 1 7.436 MILES 11.967 KM 17337. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

30.0 

48.7 

36.2 

41.6 

CONC. 

22. 12 

24. 17 

0.801 

176.44 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.6 

0.8 

1 .8 

0.0 

CONC. 

3.34 

0.39 

0.037 

0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7468.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.324 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

18.98 PPM 

23.80 PPM 

0.766 % 

176.44 PPM 

GMS. 

2.31 

8.81 

2964.86 

43.44 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.311 

1 . 185 

398.731 

5.842 

GMS/KM 

0. 193 

0.737 

247.760 

3.630 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

21.7 

KPL 

9.22 

L/100KM 

10.8 

BAG 2 7.471 MILES 12.023 KM 17419. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

12.7 

51.2 

35.9 

34.2 

CONC. 

9.28 

25.42 

0.794 

142.46 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.6 

0.4 

1 .7 

0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7415.0 CU.FT. 

CORRECTED 

DILUTION FACTOR = 16.563 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX. AUX. AUX. 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

3.34 6.14 PPM 0.74 

0.20 25.23 PPM 9.28 

0.035 0.761 % 2923.71 

0.0 142.46 PPM 34.83 

GMS/MI 

0.099 

1 . 242 

391 .345 

4.662 

GMS/KM 

0.062 

0.772 

243.170 

2.897 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.2 9.45 10.6 

COMMENTS: 3/1 BG LA-4S TAURUS AT 95 DEGREES F #1 ON BOARD RUNNING LOSE 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4421 
DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 894421 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS PROCESSED: 10:45:24 JUL 31 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H. P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE /---

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 

07-20-89 EMPTY 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.13 50.2 94.6 D 22.2 55.43 0.9158 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-21-89 14 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9093.3 N/A 

BAG 1 7.436 MILES 11.967 KM 17337. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7468.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.324 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 2 7.471 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

MILES 

METER 

30.0 

48.7 

36.2 

41.6 

12.023 

CONC. 

22. 12 

24. 17 

0.801 

176.44 

KM 174 19. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

12.7 

51.2 

35.9 

34.2 

CONC. 

9.28 

25.42 

0.794 

142.46 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER 

4.6 

0.8 

1 .8 

0.0 

3EVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.6 

0.4 

1 .7 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.34 

0.39 

0.037 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.34 

0.20 

0.035 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

18.98 PPM 

23.80 PPM 

0.766 % 

176.44 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

6.14 PPM 

25.23 PPM 

0.761 % 

142.46 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

2.31 

8.81 

2964.86 

43.44 

VMIX= 7415 

GMS/MI 

0.311 

1 . 185 

398.731 

5.842 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0. 193 

0.737 

247.760 

3.630 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0. 74 

9. 28 

2923.71 

34.83 

GMS/MI 

0.099 

1 . 242 

39 1.345 

4 . 662 

GMS/KM 

0.062 

0. 772 

243.170 

2.897 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

21.7 9.22 10.8 

FACTOR = 16.563 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.2 9.45 10.6 

COMMENTS: 3/1 BG LA-4S TAURUS AT 95 DEGREES F #1 ON BOARD RUNNING LOSE 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4421 
1988 DATA INPUT -QC/QA- AND ERRORS REPORT | 

DYNO SITE: D209 TEST tt 89-4421 

PROCESSED: 10:45:24 JUL 31; 1989 

TEST CONDITIONS: 

DATE MM-DD-YY TIME 

TEST: 07-21-89 KEY-START: 

PREP: 07-20-89 KEY-OFF: 

CALCULATED SOAK PERIOD = 

HR:MN 

14:3 0 

13:0 5 

25. 4 

TEST PACKET STATUS: 

NOT VALIDATED 

DISPOSITIONS: 

VEHICLE DISP: 

CERT TEST DISP: 

F.E. TEST DISP: 

I.D. TITLE NAME DEPT. NUMBER 

REQUESTOR 

INSPECTOR 

AMA PREP 

LA4 PREP 

DIURNAL 

DRIVER 

SITE OPER. 

DATA VAL. 

HOT-SOAK 

R. BRANHAM 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

INVALID 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

I 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

D 

ECTD 17221 

54768 

54721 

ALTERNATE HFID SITE NO.: 

VOID CODES: 

LAB: 

CERT: 

Q.C. : 

INSTRUMENT USAGES: 

PREP DYNO: 

TEST DYNO: 

PREP DVNO SITE: 

PRETEST ADJUSTMENTS: WARNING, NO INPUT INDICATORS FOR ADJUSTMENTS 

, 

?E^_^EE?f: J99^> *£$ ^Qlk £JK 

OUT OF TOLERANCE CHECKS: 2, 6, 47, k^*"» 

INPUT DATA CHECKS: 

NO DATA INPUT ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

CALCULATION ERRORS: 

NO CALCULATION ERRORS FLAGGED FOR THIS TEST 

COMMENTS: 

3/1 BG LA-4S TAURUS AT 95 DEGREES F #1 ON BOARD RUNNING LOSE 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST tt 89-4421 
P.57 

SWc'X INC. 

PROBLEM REPORT 

^s 

Pulled by jCk^yws, — Date *7" 311 0 1 

IDENTITY 

HtetttCte Number ^ j - ^ ^f 2- [ 

Test Type i ^/^ ^ 

C W C^ "To (~<?7l&?JtV CytrQ^ " AJCT Jpg/^/A/c^'. 

PROBLEM 

RESOLUTION 

Resolved by Date 

Approved by 

DESCRIPTION 
* . 

"1 ^*QUESTOR ID: 17221 TEST tt 894421 

NAME: R. BRANHAM 

REPORT TIME: 11:15:35 

DATE: JUL 20, 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRY : 10/14/88 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD A193XEX-0915 0 SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT EPA 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. ETW 

VEHICLE —YEAR — FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST CD . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

EF 1FABP52V3JG2595 17 88 88 3500 3625 NO ENTRY 6.6 

ODOMETER TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

CORRECTION TIRE & RIM SWL BLT PSI TD 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZE P205/75R1 S MF 4 R CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER,COOLING RATIO DN TM 

O.OE 0.0 E 0.0 E OTTO SPARK YES NONE 0.0 

IGNITION TIMING IDLE % CO IDLE ENGINE 

tn #2 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY SYSTEM CODE 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION — SHIFT INDIC. EVAPORATION 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SYSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM FUEL TYPE 

0.0 0.0 YES A-3 -NO ENTRY UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK SHIFT SCH. ID EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED CITY HWY FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS 

18.6G 7.4G B FTA NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

S 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 0 
+ '. £"*t)UESTOR ID: 17221 TEST tt 894421 

..-f*" • NAME: R. BRANHAM 

I 

REPORT TIME: 11:15:35 

DATE: JUL 20, 1989 VEHICLE SPECIFICATION REPORT - (TESTNO GEN) - DATE OF ENTRY : 10/14/88 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATIONS 

MANUFACTURER VEHICLE ID / VER REPRESENTED CARLINE MODEL CODE DRIVE CODE SOURCE 

FORD A193XEX-0915 0 SEDAN FRONT DRIVE STR. LEFT EPA 

DRIVE AXL WT EQUIV. ETW 

VEHICLE —YEAR — FULL EMPTY CURB INERTIA TEST CD . SIDE OD ACT AC RUNNING CHG 

TYPE ACTUAL VEHICLE MODEL MDL ACT TANK TANK WEIGHT CLASS WEIGHT H.P. METHOD VEH FAN CD DN HP HP NUMBER 

EF 1FABP52V3JG259517 88 88 3500 3625 NO ENTRY 6.6 

ODOMETER TIRE SPECIFICATIONS 

CORRECTION TIRE & RIM SWL BLT PSI TD 

ASSIGNED DF OR DURABILITY VEHICLE ID ALTERNATE MANUFACTURER INITIAL FACTOR SIZES MFR CONSTR N M N M FT RR DP P205/75R14 

ENGINE SPECIFICATIONS 

RATED ENGINE ENGINE NO. NO. TOTAL FUEL SYSTEM FUEL TURBO/SUPER COMP. COAST 

DISPLACEMENT BORE STROKE HP TYPE CONFIGURATION CYL. CARBS BBLS MFR/MODEL INJ CHARGER,COOLING RATIO DN TM 

O.OE 0.0 E 0.0 E OTTO SPARK YES NONE 0.0 

IGNITION TIMING IDLE % CO IDLE ENGINE 

tn #2 DEG TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR LEFT RIGHT COMB TOL. RPM RPM TOL. GEAR FAMILY SYSTEM CODE 

DRIVE TRAIN AND CONTROL SYSTEM SPECIFICATIONS 

AXLE N/V A/C CRANKCASE — TRANSMISSION -- SHIFT INDIC. EVAPORATION 

RATIO RATIO ODOMETER INSTALLED EXHAUST TYPE SVSTEM CONFIG MODIF CODE LIGHT SYSTEM FUEL TYPE 

0.0 0.0 YES A-3 -NO ENTRY UNLEADED (AT EPA-IND HO) 

MAIN-TANK AUX.-TANK SHIFT SCH. ID EVAPORATIVE EMISSION 

CAPACITY VOLUME CAPACITY VOLUME SHIFT SPEED CITY HWY FAMILY CODE SALES CLASS 

18.6G 7.4G B FTA NO SALES CLASS SPECIFIED 

$ 

CONTROL SYSTEM TYPES 

VEHICLE SPECIFICATION COMMENTS * SEE COMMENTS 

18537 
P.60 

/ 

t00f 

life - Id / »/fd 

nb~u/-

. 

-

c-nnjl us*--

__ . _ 

yVO^<2y{£A^vf . 

sM crvtMnJ 

• • -

tU 

TUtf-t- , 

-

CTyJ(rTr>^Jl-

-

-^t^fc, 7 

— 

--

^ 
P.61 

ftlO 

Onboard Taurus - "Rust" in fuel tank and filler neck. 

Some small amount of rust has formed on the "overflow" tube and on the 

surfaces of the tank where the overflow tube and the vent valve modifications 

were made. Some small amount of rust has formed at the end of the filler 

neck where it was modified to accept the check ball. While not visible 

some rusting may exist in the filler neck where the original vent tube was 

removed and where pressure taps were added. 

Overall, the rusting is minor and will probably not pose any problem. 

The simplest "solution" would, therefore, be to leave the system as is 

for purposes of high temperature testing. 

Possible solutions to the rust problem. 

Most radical. Build a complete new tank/filler neck system out of stainless 

steel. This system would have to employ non-stamped parts for the tank 

and would not represent a stock production system. It would be very 

costly and would require complete retest and redevelopment^ the 

system.This approach is not recommended. 

Less radical. Make overflow tube.vent valve mount and splash baffle and 

check ball holder out of stainless steel with ail soldering performed 

awaw from the tank. Mount new components on the tank by bolting and sealing 

with fuel tank leak seal ( used in some areas of the existing system). With 

application of lefk seal to edges of tank where base mild steel of tank is 

exposed by cutting, corrosion could be controlled. Leakage at bolted 

joints may be a problem as the tank flexes. System would require retesting 

to ensure correct operation. 

Least radical change. Employ process used commercially in repair of 

existing fuel tanks. Involves sandblasting of inside of the tank followed 

by application of a liquid coating and finally baking of the coating (baking 

is required to solidify the coating). Baking temperature is about 300F. 

User of process is checking with manufacturer of the product to determine 

whether it can be used with newer tank which contain plastic "buckets" 

as pick-up chambers for the fuel pump. If all sand is not removed from tank 

or trapped by coating, fuel pump damage may occur. Cost estimate is 

$75 for inside of tank and filler neck. 

(Source for galvanizing has not been identified. Concerns exist with 

respect to temperature of application (plastic bucket) and with respect 

to adhesion of plating to solder joints at overflow tube and vent valve 

mount). 
P.62 

fr>U 

Onboard Taurus - "Rust" in fuel tank and filler neck. 

10/18/90 Some small amount of rust has formed on the "overflow" tube and on the 

surfaces of the tank where the overflow tube and the vent valve modifications 

were made. A small amount of rust has also formed at the end of the filler 

neck where it was modified to accept the check ball. In all cases, the presence 

of rust was exhibited by a very light discoloration of the surfaces. While not 

visible, some rusting may exist in the filler neck where the original vent tube 

was removed and where pressure taps were added. 

Overall, the rusting is minor and will probably not pose any problem. 

The simplest "solution" would, therefore, be to leave the system as is 

for purposes of high temperature testing. 

Other possible solutions to the "rust problem". 

Most radical. Build a complete new tank/filler neck system out of stainless 

steel. This system would have to employ non-stamped parts for the tank 

and would not represent a stock production system. It would be very 

costly and would require complete retest and redevelopment of the 

system.This approach should not be employed. 

Less radical. Make overflow tube, vent valve mount and splash baffle and 

check ball holder out of stainless steel with all soldering performed off of 

the tank. Mount new components on the tank by bolting and sealing 

with fuel tank leak seal ( used in some areas of the existing system). With 

application of leak seal to edges of tank where base steel of tank is 

exposed by cutting, corrosion could be controlled. Leakage at bolted 

joints may be a problem as the tank flexes. System would require retesting 

to ensure correct operation. 

Least radical change. Employ process used commercially in repair of 

existing fuel tanks. Involves sandblasting of inside of the tank followed 

by application of a liquid coating and finally baking of the coating (baking 

is required to harden the coating). Baking temperature is about 300F. 

User of process is checking with manufacturer of the product to determine 

whether it can be used with newer tanks which contain plastic "buckets" 

as pick-up chambers for the fuel pump. If all sand is not removed from tank 

or trapped by coating, fuel pump damage may occur. Cost estimate is 

$75 for inside of tank and filler neck. 

10/19/9 0 Product manufacturer indicates no experience with Ford Taurus 

tanks. Experience with GM tanks with plastic buckets has been that some go 

through baking process without damage to plastic bucket while buckets in other 

tanks melt. EPA has some extra Taurus tanks, try one and see. Because of variability 

in effects of baking GM tanks, one test on a Taurus tank may only provide a 50/50 

chance of success if problem is not experienced with first tank. 

(Source for galvanizing has not been identified. Concerns exist with 

respect to temperature of application (plastic bucket) and with respect 

to adhesion of plating to solder joints at overflow tube and vent valve 

mount). 

10/2 3/9 0 France decided to leave the tank and filler neck as is; i.e. no surface treatment. 
P.63 

Onboard Taurus - Fueling following tank removal for inspection ( Oct. 1990) 

10/23/90. Tank and dispensed fuel (Indolene) at approximately 75 F. 1.0 to 1.5 

gallons in tank prior to fueling. Fueling rate of 15 gpm. 13.5 gal dispensed 

through three shut-offs. No fueling problems. Fuel gage indicated just under 

full following fueling. 

10/24/90. First Fueling. Tank and dispensed fuel (Indolene) at approximately 75 F. 

Tank empty (fuel drain level) prior to fueling. Fueling rate of 

15 gpm. 14.5 gallons dispensed through four shut-offs.Premature 

nozzle shut offs at 0.9,1.3 and 3.3 gals. Fuel gage indicated 

just over 3/4 full following fueling. 

Second fueling. Same conditions as first fueling. 14.7 gallons dispensed through 

four shut-offs. Premature nozzle shut-offs at 1.2,1.8, 2.5 and 

3.4 gallons. Fuel gage indicated just over 3/4 full following fueling. 

Third Fueling. Same conditions as first fueling.15.5 gallons dispensed through 

four shut-offs (min nozzle flow setting used for top-off). Premature 

nozzle shut offs at 1.1, 2.4,10.6 and 11.7 gallons. Fuel gage 

indicated just under full following fueling. 

10/25/90. Tank at approximately 65F, dispensed fuel at approximately 75F.Tank empty at 

start of fueling. Fueling rate of 15 gpm. 14.8 gallons dispensed through three 

shut-offs. Premature shut-off at 1.3 gal. Fuel gage mid way between 3/4 and full 

following fueling. Conditions at premature shut-off: pressure at canister inlet 

(max.) approachd 3.5" H20, tank pressure approx. 9" H20, fill neck pressure 

' approx 12" H20.. 

10/29/90. Tank and fuel at approximately 75F. Tank empty. Fueling rate 15 gpm. 14.6 gal. 

through four shut-offs. Premature shut-off at 0.5, 0.6, 1.5 gal. Planned canister 

disconnect actually occurred at purge line. Pressure in line to canister from vent 

valve 2.75 to 3.0 inch water. 

Retest #1. Canister disconnected from vent valve. Tank empty. Pressure in line 

to canister, 0.3 inch water. Premature shut-off at 1.5 gal. Tank and 

fuel 75F. 

Retest #2. Pressure in line to canister 0.5 inch water. 14.7 gal dispensed. 

Retest#3. Pressure in line to canister 0.4 inch water. 14.9 gal dispensed. 

10/30/90. Canister purged for three hours (on vehicle). 70F fuel and tank. 15 gpm. Canister 

connected. Premature shut-off at 1.0, 2.5 gal. 14.7 gal dispensed. Pressure in 

line to canister 3.5 inch water. 

Retest #1. Conditions as above except fuel dispensed at 10 gpm. 15.4 gal dispensed. 

2 inch water pressure in line to canister. 

Canister removed from vehicle. No obvious cause for higher than expected back 

pressure seen. Canister opened. Again no obvious cause for backpressure seen. 

Canister emptied of charcoal, interior inspected. No defect seen. Using charcoal 

removed, canister refilled using same jarring procedure (plastic mallet) as 

originally used to compact charcoal in canister. All of the charcoal could not be 

reinstalled (handfull left over. Does the charcoal expand slightly when HC or 
P.64 

H20 is adsorbed). Canister placed on purge. 

10/31/90. Canister purged 4 hours off of vehicle. Reinstalled on vehicle. Fueling at 15 gpm, 

tank and fuel at approximately 70F. Tank empty at start of fueling. Premature 

shut-off at 1.0 gal. Pressure at canister inlet approximately 3.5" H20. 14.6 gal. 

dispensed. 

Retest #1. Tank drained, 1.5 gal added. Fuel gage below red at empty. 15 gpm. 70F 

both tank and fuel. No fueling problems. 13.2 gal. dispensed through 

three nozzle shut-offs. Fuel gage did not reach full mark. 

Retest #2. Fueling starting with 1.5 gal. from empty drain . Same results as 

previous fueling. 

Retest#3. Starting with 2.0 gal. in tank and temperatures at approximately 75F. 

Fuel gage at bottom of red segment before fueling. 12.6 gal dispensed 

through three shut-offs. 

Conclusion. Fuel dispensing occurs without problems when the tank is 

not drained below level that could occur on the street. 

Useful fuel tank capacity in on order of 13 to 14 gallons. 
1. --* < 

P.65 

fdtf 

? A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGA N 48105 

JUN 2 61989 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SU3JECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Ford Taurus with Onboard System; High Temperature 

Data Collection A 

f 

F. Peter Hutchins, Mechanical Engineer A 

Standards Development and Support Branch •"" 

Lois Platte, Acting Chief 

Test and Evaluation Branch /-. 

John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager yr^Jh.Jh - _ 

Standards Development and Support Branch ww^i 

Chester J. France, Chief Q/^LM^ ^- . ^ 

Standards Development and Support Bramzn ^ ' 

Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director ~ y 

Emission Control Technology Division 

SDSB wishes to evaluate canister capacity changes as the 

onboard equipped vehicle is operated over three consecutively 

performed LA-4s when the fuel in the tank is at high 

temperatures, and the refueling emission control capabilities 

following this type of operation. Please perform the testing 

detailed below and collect the necessary test data. 

0 Load the canister to breakthrough in the SHED using 9RVP 

fuel and employing the procedures for loading a refueling 

emissions canister. Weigh the canister (record weight) 

following the loading. Purge 135+;5 grams from the 

canister. Record purged weight. 

° With the canister disconnected, drain the fuel tank and 

fuel with 6.0 gals, 9RVP fuel. Collect fuel sample and 

measure RVP and distillation curve (may be omitted if Carl 

Scarbro can provide for the batch of fuel being used). 

Heat the fuel tank until the fuel reaches a temperature of 

94°+2°F. 
P.66 

\s~** 

0 Connect the canister. 

° Perform three consecutive LA-4s. Measure tailpipe 

emissions for each bag of each LA-4. Weigh canister after 

each LA-4 (idle engine while canister weight is 

measured). To weigh canister, clamp purge line and line 

from tank to canister, remove canister, plug canister 

inlet and purge ports, weigh canister, connect canister, 

open purge line and line to canister from the tank. The 

rate at which the temperature of the fuel in the tank 

increases during the LA-4s is intended to simulate 

temperature rises seen during running loss tests of a 

stock . Mercury Sable at ATL. Nominal temperatures at the 

end of each bag are as follows: 

Initial Temperature of fuel in tank after 

Fuel First First Second Second Third Third 

Temperature 505secs. LA-4 505secs. LA-4 505secs. LA-4 

94°+2°F 100°+2°F 112°+2°F 116°+2°F 121°+2°F 122°+2°F 124°F+2°F 

During the LA-4s, heating of the tank (use magnetically 

attached heat blanket) will be employed to achieve the 

necessary temperatures. 

° Following performance of the three LA-4s, measure 

refueling emissions using 9RVP fuel. The steps to be 

performed here are: remove cap, drain fuel tank, add 10% 

(1.5 gal.) fuel, heat to 80+_ 3°F, and perform refueling 

emissions measurement. Monitor the FID trace carefully 

and terminate fueling if breakthrough occurs. Weigh 

canister after refueling emissions measurement. 

The preceeding test sequence should be performed three 

times. _ 

Approval: / ^faxD* ^Tjfa^ fl//^ Date: h "/6 

Priority: LfA^ t 

7161W 
;D209 

folk. 

1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 15:51:05 JUL 27, 1989 \ 

X>Z 

030 

VEHICLE I.D . 

A193XEX-091 5 

VERSION 

0 

EVAP 

N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT . 

H.P . 

METH 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITIO N TIMIN G / 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 0 1 # 2 RPM GEAR 

07-26-8 9 EMPTY 

PARTIC -

ULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS -r / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.09 46.7 96.2 D 18.6 48.61 0.8896 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SVSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-27-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9668.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.405 MILES 11.917 KM 17265. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7446.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 15.715 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 2 7.422 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 3 7.492 

SITE *A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

MILES 

METER 

37.6 

42.9 

37.5 

4 2. 1 

11.944 

CONC. 

27.81 

21 .27 

0.832 

178.78 

KM 17304. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

MILES 

METER 

1 1 .9 

46.9 

36.0 

32.7 

12.057 

CONC. 

8.69 

23.27 

0.796 

135.73 

KM 17468. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

10.4 

52.8 

36.2 

24. 1 

CONC. 

7.59 

26.22 

0.801 

98. 13 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER 

4.4 

0.2 

1 .7 

0.0 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

ROLL 

METER 

4.2 

0.2 

1 .6 

0.0 

REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.0 

0.2 

1 .7 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.20 

0. 10 

0.035 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.05 

0. 10 

0.033 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

2.91 

0. 10 

0.035 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

24.82 PPM 

21.18 PPM 

0.799 % 

178.78 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

5.82 PPM 

23.18 PPM 

0.765 % 

135.73 PPM 

' SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

4.86 PPM 

26.13 PPM 

0.768 % 

98.13 PPM 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

3.02 

7.60 

3083.69 

43.89 

VMIX= 7396 

GMS/MI 

0.407 

1 .026 

416.441 

5.927 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.253 

0.638 

258.764 

3.683 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.70 

8.26 

2932.77 

33. 10 

VMIX= 7375 

GMS/MI 

0.095 

1.113 

395.167 

4.460 

0 CU.FT. 

GMS/KM 

0.059 

0.691 

245.546 

2.771 

DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. 

0.58 

9.28 

2935.25 

23.86 

GMS/MI 

0.078 

1 .239 

391.788 

3. 185 

GMS/KM 

0.049 

0.770 

243.446 

1 .979 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

20.8 8.83 11.3 

FACTOR = 16.529 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.0 9.37 10.7 

FACTOR = 16.511 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/100KM 

22.3 9.50 10.5 

COMMENTS: ON BOARD VEH 3 LA-4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #4 

THE FUEL ECONOMV VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

1853 7 DYNO SITE:D20 9 TEST 89-450 5 
1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS PROCESSED: 11:07:41 JUL 27, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. 

030 A193XEX-0915 

CURB 

PREP DATE WEIGHT 

07-25-89 

VERSION 

0 

MFR. ALT. 

REP. RUN. RETEST H.P. 

EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE ACHP METH 

N Y 

DRV AXLE AXLE / IGNITION TIMING / / 

WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 #2 RPM GEAR 

EMPTY 

PARTIC- REASON FOR 

ULATES CONFIRMATION 

N 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

IDLE 

- % CO / 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.25 45.3 96.7 D 17.4 45.82 0.8794 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-26-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9646.4 N/A 

BAG 1 7.423 MILES 11.946 KM 17307. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED 

SECS. VMIX= 7496.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 15.904 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 

14 4Z+A 31 .7 2 14 4. 7 

15 l45.4 y 22.5 2 15 0. 3 

23 3TT1 0.82 2 23 1.8 

18 40. 0 168.9 8 18 0. 0 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.42 28.52 PPM 

0.15 22.38 PPM 

0.037 0.788 * 

0.0 168.98 PPM 

GMS. 

3.49 

7.99 

3059.62 

41 .76 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.470 

1 .076 

412. 188 

5.626 

GMS/KM 

0.292 

0.669 

256.122 

3.496 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

21 .0 

KPL 

8.92 

L/100KM 

11.2 

BAG 2 7.481 MILES 12.039 KM 17442. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7447.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.441 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

12.2 

50. 1 

36.2 

31 .7 

CONC. 

8.91 

24.87 

0.801 

131.28 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

4.3 

0.3 

1 .7 

0.0 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.13 5.98 PPM 

0.15 24.73 PPM 

0.035 0.768 % 

0.0 131.28 PPM 

GMS. 

0.73 

8.77 

2963.94 

32.2 3 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.097 

1 . 172 

396.207 

4.309 

GMS/KM 

0.060 

0.729 

246.192 

2.677 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.0 

KPL 

9.35 

L/100KM 

10.7 

BAG 3 7.508 MILES 12.083 KM 17505. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7429.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.536 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

10.3 

52.9 

36.2 

21.2 

CONC. 

7.51 

26.27 

0.801 

85.79 

RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

14 4.3 3.13 4.58 PPM 0.56 

15 0.3 0.15 26.13 PPM 9.24 

23 1.8 0.037 0.766% 2949.27 

18 0.0 0.0 85.79 PPM 21.01 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.074 

1 .231 

392.82 7 

2.799 

GMS/KM 

0.046 

0.765 

244.091 

1 .739 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.3 

KPL 

9.49 

L/100KM 

10.5 

COMMENTS: 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

ON BOARD VEH 3 LA4S BACK TO BACK RED TAURUS 

3/1BG LA-4S AT 95 DEGREES F #3 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4423 
r&'f 

DYNO SITE:D209 TEST*-.* 894422 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 11 :46 : 1 3 JUL 26, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. 

030 A193XEX-0915 

VERSION EVAP 

0 N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTIC- REASON FOR 

ULATES CONFIRMATION 

N 

/ TEST TYPE — 

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TES T PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE / 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE #1 

07-24-89 EMPTY 

IGNITION TIMING / 

#2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

I AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.30 

/ 

46.7 96.4 D 18.5 48.26 0.8883 

— DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) 

07-25-89 13 D209 3625 4.0 45.00 9620.8 

BAG 1 7.415 MILES 11.934 KM 17289. ROLL REVS. 

27C 

SYSTEM 

MILES 

N/A 

SECS. VMIX= 7533.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED 

J+K M 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

RANGE METER 

14 40.6 

15 42.0 

23 36.9 

18 35.2 

CONC. RANGE METER 

30.07 14 5.2 

20.82 15 0.3 

0.818 23 1.7 

146.98 18 0.0 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

3.78 26.52 PPM 3.26 

0.15 20.68 PPM 7.50 

0.035 0.785 % 3063.54 

0.0 146.98 PPM 36.50 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.440 

1.011 

413.146 

4.923 

GMS/KM 

0.273 

0.628 

256.717 

3.059 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

16.040 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

21 .0 

KPL 

8.93 

L/IOOKM 

11.2 

BAG 2 7.493 MILES 12.058 KM 17470. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7477.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 16.582 

SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE CORRECTED 

HC-FID 

^ d. NOX-CHEM 

..tf t l* C02 

CO 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 

14 12.2 8.91 14 4.8 

15 47.2 23.42 15 0.2 

23 35.9 0.794 23 1.7 

18 32.2 133.50 18 0.0 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

3.49 5.63 PPM 0.69 

0.10 23.33 PPM 8.39 

0.035 0.761 % 2948. 14 

0.0 133.50 PPM 32.91 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.092 

1 . 120 

393.464 

4.392 

GMS/KM 

0.057 

0.696 

244.487 

2.729 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22. 1 

KPL 

9.41 

L/IOOKM 

10.6 

BAG 3 7.455 MILES 11.998 KM 17383. ROLL REVS. SECS. VMIX= 7457.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.579 

SITE #A203 EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER 

* ^ 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

14 

15 

23 

18 

19. 

49. 

36. 

14. 

CONC. 

14.60 

24.52 

0.801 

57.89 

RANGE METER 

14 

15 

23 

18 

CONC. 

3.56 

0. 15 

0.035 

0.0 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

1 1.25 PPM 1.37 

24.38 PPM 8.75 

0.768 % 2967.85 

57.89 PPM 14.23 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM 

0. 164 0.114 

1.173 0.729 

398.076 247.353 

1.909 1.186 

AUX. 

FIELD1 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22. 1 

KPL 

9.39 

L/IOOKM 

10.7 

COMMENTS: TAURUS RED 3/1 BG LA4S 95 DEGREES F #2 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

18537 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4422 
r&'f) 

if-' 

\F 

$V LfiDYNO SITE:D2 

MFR. 

39 TEST /~89442,1 1 

MFR. 

1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE 

ALT. 

REP. RUN. RETEST H.P. 

CODE VEHICLE I.D. VERSION EVAP INITIAL CHG. CODE 

030 A193XEX-0915 0 N 

PREP DATE 

07-20-89 

/ AMI 

BARO DEW 

CURB DRV AXLE 

WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE 

EMPTY 

JT CU T T E CT" munTT T AU C 

31CNI ICD1 LUNU111UN d 

AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB 

29.13 50.2 94.6 D 22.2 55.43 

AXLE / 

MEASURE #1 

NOX 

- IGNITION 

#2 

CVS 

FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

0.9158 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

TEST DATE HR 

07-21-89 14 

BAG 1 7.436 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

"A NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

BAG 2 7.471 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

^ NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

COMMENTS: 3/ 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER 

SITE IW SET TWHP 

D209 3625 4.0 45 

MILES 11.967 KM 17337. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 30.0 22.12 

15 48.7 24.17 

23 36.2 0.801 

18 41.6 176.44 

MILES 12.023 KM 17419. 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 13.7 10.01 

15 51.2 25.42 

23 35.9 0.794 

18 34.2 142.46 

BG LA-4S TAURUS AT 95 

PSI (MI) 

.00 9093.3 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE METER 

14 4.6 

15 0.8 

23 1 .8 

18 0.0 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND 

RANGE METER 

14 4.6 

15 0.4 

23 1.7 

IB 0.0 

DEGREES F #1 

27C 

SYSTEM 

MILES 

N/A 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.34 

0.39 

0.037 

0.0 

SAMPLE 

CONC. 

3.34 

0.20 

0.035 

0.0 

ACHP METH 

Y 

TIMING / / 

RPM GEAR 

' SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

18.98 PPM 

23.80 PPM 

0.766 % 

176.44 PPM 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

6.87 PPM 

25.23 PPM 

0.761 % 

142.46 PPM 

ON BOARD RUNNING LOSE 

ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 12:33 

/ 

:23 JUL 24, 1989 

PARTIC- REASON FOR EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

ULAltd LUNrlKMA11U N / 

N BAG BV 

X CO / IDLE 

IDLE HIGH SPEED RPM GEAR 

VMIX= 7468.0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM 

2.31 0.311 0.193 

8.81 1.185 0.737 

2964.86 398.731 247.760 

43.44 5.842 3.630 

VMIX= 7415.0 CU.FT. DILUTION 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM 

0.83 0.111 0.069 

9.28 1.242 0.772 

2923.71 391.345 243.170 

34.83 4.662 2.897 

BAG 

SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

FACTOR = 16.324 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELDl FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/IOOKM 

21.7 9.22 10.8 

FACTOR = 16.561 

AUX. AUX. AUX. 

FIELD1 FIELD2 CODE 

MPG KPL L/IOOKM 

22.2 9.45 10.6 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

QyJUjikJl uM 2. .«top* - ,^jJlL u-& CfSOF t&t?' 

•V 

1853 7 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4421 
/-o3& 

DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 1988 LIGHT DUTY VEHICLE ANALYSIS | PROCESSED: 14:58:00 JUL 28, 1989 

MFR. 

CODE 

030 

VEHICLE I.D. 

1FABP52UXJG11089 

VERSION 

0 

EVAP 

N 

MFR. 

REP. 

INITIAL 

RUN. 

CHG. 

RETEST 

CODE ACHP 

Y 

ALT. 

H.P. 

METH 

PARTICULATES 

N 

REASON FOR 

CONFIRMATION 

/ TEST TYPE --

EXPERIMENTAL (ECTD) 

/ TEST PROCEDURE 

BAG BY BAG 

CURB DRV AXLE AXLE 

PREP DATE WEIGHT WEIGHT GAUGE MEASURE 

07-27-89 EMPTY 

#1 

IGNITION TIMING / 

U2 RPM GEAR IDLE 

- % CO 

HIGH SPEED 

IDLE SOAK COASTDOWN TIME 

RPM GEAR PERIOD ACTUAL ADJUSTED 

0 0.0 

/ AMBIENT TEST CONDITIONS / 

BARO DEW AMB TEMP % REL S.HUM NOX CVS 

"HG POINT TEMP UNIT HUM GR/LB FACTOR ALDEHYDES RGE 

29.18 51.6 96.6 D 22.0 58.32 0.9273 27C 

/ DYNAMOMETER TEST CONDITIONS / 

DYNO ACTUAL DYNO TIRE ODOMETER SYSTEM 

TEST DATE HR SITE IW SET TWHP PSI (MI) MILES 

07-28-89 11 D209 36250 4.0 45.00 30508.8 N/A 

BAG 1 7.437 MILES 11.969 KM 17340. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. RANGE METER 

14 34.8 25.71 14 5.3 

15 40.0 19.83 15 0.2 

23 36.9 0.818 23 1.8 

18 37.3 156.53 18 0.0 

SECS. VMIX= 7467.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.030 

CORRECTED 

CONC. CONCENTRATIONS 

3.85 22.10 PPM 

0.10 19.73 PPM 

0.037 0.783 % 

0.0 156.53 PPM 

GMS. 

2.69 

7.40 

3029.23 

38.54 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.362 

0.995 

407.316 

5. 182 

GMS/KM 

0.225 

0.618 

253.095 

3.220 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

21 .3 

KPL 

9.05 

L/IOOKM 

1 1.0 

BAG 2 7.464 MILES 12.012 KM 17402. ROLL REVS. 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE 

14 

15 

23 

18 

METER 

14.2 

32.2 

35. 1 

38.4 

CONC. 

10.38 

15.94 

0.775 

161.58 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

SECS. VMIX= 7422.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR = 16.918 

CORRECTED 

RANGE METER CONC. CONCENTRATIONS GMS. 

14 4.7 3.42 7.17 PPM 0.87 

15 0.1 0.05 15.90 PPM 5.93 

23 1.8 0.037 0.740 % 2845.76 

18 0.0 0.0 161.58 PPM 39.54 

MASS EMISSIONS 

GMS/MI 

0.116 

0.794 

381.284 

5.298 

GMS/KM 

0.072 

0.493 

236.919 

3. 292 

AUX. 

FIELDl 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

MPG 

22.7 

KPL 

9.67 

L/IOOKM 

10.3 

BAG 3 7.485 MILES 12.045 KM 17451 

SITE #A203 

HC-FID 

NOX-CHEM 

C02 

CO 

EXHAUST SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 16.8 12.30 

15 32.2 15.94 

23 34.8 0.768 

18 45.8 196.34 

ROLL REVS. 

BACKGROUND SAMPLE 

RANGE METER CONC. 

14 4.6 3.34 

15 0.3 0.15 

23 1.8 0.037 

18 0.0 0.0 

SECS. 

CORRECTED 

CONCENTRATIONS 

9.15 PPM 

15.80 PPM 

0.733 % 

196.34 PPM 

VMIX= 7406.0 CU.FT. DILUTION FACTOR 

MASS EMISSIONS AUX. 

GMS. GMS/MI GMS/KM FIELDl 

1.11 0.148 0.092 

5.88 0.785 0.488 MPG 

2812.31 375.744 233.476 23.0 

47.94 6.405 3.980 

16.992 

AUX. AUX. 

FIELD2 CODE 

KPL 

9.76 

L/IOOKM 

10.2 

COMMENTS: ADD #3 TO VIN TAURUS RED 

3-LA-4S BACK TO BACK STOCK VEH AT 95 DEGREES F #1 

THE FUEL ECONOMY VALUE WAS CALCULATED USING CONSTANT FUEL PROPERTIES FROM PRE-1988 REGULATIONS. 

191 18 DYNO SITE:D209 TEST 89-4533 
s 

^SirsfaiuJ ^yfi^cc_cf^> — J hs^u ?£w*&asJ?L^ t-n (-j A 

J\ 

P.72 

^%a^gkjL. : 

/ft 2^(? flwu/. 

fl£ j^^d jjary^ &u~C*£i JA/D-R4^L~. 

Uiwifci u^&fktallk, /9/~ ^-rt -^ 5 4o${'ipo«>* A -- ^ 

f""j**f 

l^iw Ipwyin ^ - ^ W^&M? £&&*$*• xAMa?~+&/-

/ ' 

^O ^^jA^L^d^^,^^^ £ &^k/t&y <_ 

IL \JiJfltrzj 
P.73 

/-3/-g f 

LJy^z&A uy^JJjp IAZ«MMA*+JL *a 4/3Q- <-f Q ^ ~ 

jd^lU lATCW^~A^gI A^6 € ¥£Q ^7X^_ _ 

(%JZ i^t dfc. t±\ Lf\-t< 'a 3^00^. *P/-

_LA_ # 2 , *-*-« / 3f^- g ^t^v. _^_ii_|)_ 

^ 5 L/4--4 ; 

/^/zfc^ ^ <ffiF 

£j%tArUd*fi 

£> 
P.74 

December 12,1990 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Evaluation of the performance of the Onboard 

Taurus using 1 full tank of commercial regular 

unleaded fuel 

FROM: Joseph P. Hurley 

Technician, HDT 

TO: John A. Anderson 

Senior Project Mgr., SDSB 

The following is my evaluation of the performance of 

the Onboard Taurus. This appraisal is based on the 

drivability test performed on 12-11-90 and 12-12-90 with 

the ambient temperatures ranging from 45 deg. F on the 

11th to a low of 40.8 deg. F on the 12th. Enclosed you will 

find records of the daily performance logs, along with the 

mileage and weather conditions used for this evaluation. 

It is my conclusion that the overall performance of the 

Onboard Taurus was excellent, there was only one 

noticeable starting problem on the 11th prior to the 

refueling of the vehicle at the Amoco station on Plymouth 

Rd. At this point the car was still running on Indolene test 

fuel. The one acceleration problem that I had noticed while 

merging with expressway traffic was so slight that you 

could hardly notice it. There was a total of 308 accumulated 

miles driven for this performance appraisal. I found a 

remarkable difference in the performance between the first 

evaluation which was performed on Nov 27th & Nov 28th 

using (1 tank full of Indolene test fuel) verses using (1 full 

tank of regular unleaded commercial fuel ) which was 

performed on Dec 11th & Dec 12th. I found The overall 

performance was the best using commercial regular 

unleaded fuel. 

If you have any further questions regarding the 

enclosed material I can be reached at ext. 536. 
P.75 

AMBIENT TEMP. 43.2 DEG F. TUESDAY DEC 11,1990 

THE WEATHER (SUNNY CLEAR ) 

ROADS DRY 

MILEAGE 

START 10342 

END 10517 

EVALUATION 

DAY1 

Prior to this evaluation the Taurus had been stored in 

the small soak area where the fuel tank was essentially 

empty. Previous to my driving the vehicle Carl fuller had 

moved the Onboard Taurus from the small soak area to the 

refueling bay. Carl reported that the Taurus had started on 

the first crank but required 5 seconds of cranking to start. I 

started the car in the fueling bay where it wouldn't start 

after cranking for 4 seconds on the first try , but started ok 

on the second crank within 2 seconds. From the E.P.A. I drove 

to the Amoco station on Plymouth Rd to refuel the Taurus 

using regular unleaded with had an octane rating of 87. 

During refueling the car I didn't experience any refueling 

problems or spit backs, however The fuel fill nozzle 

clicked off at 10 gal and I had to nurse it the rest of the 

way until it reached a total of 11.165 GAL. I found this 

strange because the gas tank was essentialy empty with the 

gauge on the dash reading below the red mark from empty 

before I started to refuel it. 

After paying for the fuel I then started the vehicle 

which started with in 2 seconds on the first crank. I then 

took a route from Plymouth Rd. to US 23 north. Getting onto 

the expressway I didn't experience any difficulties with 

the acceleration the performance was good. I took US 23 

north and got off at M 59 exit. I circled around and got back 

onto US 23 south. About 20 minutes into the drive While 

trying to merge with the expressway traffic there was a 

slight stumble upon acceleration, if I hadn't been looking for 

it I wouldn't have noticed it. 
P.76 

After getting onto the expressway I then took US 23 

south to the Lee Rd. exit, where I got off and made another 

circle around where I could essentially reenact the same 

set of conditions when the stumble was encountered. This 

time I couldn't find any acceleration problems merging 

with the expressway traffic. While on the expressway I 

couldn't find any problems to mention. Driving my route I 

then got off at M 36 exit and headed west where I could 

drive the country side and make as many kinds of stops and 

starts that I felt necessary for a good evaluation. 

Proceeding along M 36 through Pinckney and then to 

North Territorial Rd where I then travel west through the 

country side to Manchester. Along this route I was able to 

make many stop and start doing a combination both city and 

expressway driving. After accumulating around 140 miles I 

then took I 94 to US 23 and returned to Ann Arbor. I didn't 

have any difficulties or problems other than the one that I 

had experienced at the beginning of the day. Upon arrival at 

the E.P.A. I parked the Taurus outside on the west side of 

the building with the gas gauge reading about the 1/2 mark. 

TOTAL ACCUMULATED MILES 175 
P.77 

AMBIENT TEMP. 40. DEG F. WEDNESDAY DEC. 12,1990 

THE WEATHER (SUNNY CLEAR) 

ROADS WERE DRY 

MILEAGE 

START 10517 

END 10650 

EVALUATION 

DAY 2 

I arrived at the Onboard Taurus which was parked 

outside along the fence on the west side of the building at 

8:30 am, from there I checked the weather and the 

temperature and wrote it in my daily log. After I had 

compiled this information I, then started the vehicle which 

started on the first crank in 2 seconds. 

From the E.P.A. I took Plymouth road to US 23 north to 

the Brighton exit where I got off and drove around town. I 

didn't notice any acceleration problem while getting onto 

and off from the expressway, I did a lot of stopping and 

starting while driving around the town with no problems. 

Returning to US 23 I then headed south to the Hamburg exit 

where I then drove around the town and surrounding area at 

various speed and accelerations with no difficulties. After 

leaving Hamburg I continued my route to North Territorial 

Rd where I repeated my trip along the country ending up in 

Manchester. I then drove through the town and proceeded to 

US 12 east where I started my trip back to US 23 north 

towards Ann Arbor. After returning at the E.P.A. I then 

parked the Taurus outside along the west fence , the fuel 

gauge was reading empty on the lower end of the red mark. 

The performance of the Onboard Taurus was excellent with 

no problems encountered 

MILEAGE ACCUMULATED WAS (133) 

THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED MILEAGE WAS (308) 
P.78 

% .. December 27,1990 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Evaluation of the performance of the Onboard 

Taurus using 1 full tank of commercial 

premium unleaded fuel (93 octane) 

FROM: Joseph P. Hurley 

Technician, HDT 

TO: John A. Anderson 

Senior Project Mgr., SDSB 

The following is my evaluation of the performance of 

the Onboard Taurus. This appraisal is based on the 

drivability test performed on 12-20-90 and 12-21-90 with 

the ambient temperatures ranging from 46 deg. F on the 

20th and 50 deg. F on the 21st. 

Enclosed you will find records of the daily performance 

logs, along with the mileage and weather conditions used 

for this evaluation. 

It is my conclusion that the overall performance of the 

Onboard Taurus was superior during this evaluation using 

Amoco premium unleaded 93 octane fuel compared to the 

two other evaluations one done on 12-11-90 and 12-12-90 

using Amoco regular unleaded fuel, and the first evaluation 

performed on 11-27-90 and 11-28-90 using indolene test 

fuel. During this evaluation I didn't have any problems on the 

cold starts or the drivability on road testing, the 

accelerations were smooth with excellent response time on 

the gas peddle. While refueling the vehicle I didn't notice 

any spit backs or premature shut off. 

If you have any further questions regarding the 

enclosed material I can be reached at ext. 536. 
P.79 

WEDNESDAY DEC. 19,1990 

PRECONDITIONING OF THE ONBOARD TAURUS FOR THE 

DRIVABILITY EVALUATION USING 

(AMOCO 93 OCTANE UNLEADED FUEL). 

The Onboard Taurus was parked outside on the west side of 

the building by the refueling bay. I then drove the vehicle 

into the large soak area, where I could hookup the validynes 

and chart recorder to be used while I was refueling the 

Taurus. The vehicle started on the first crank but it had 

about 4 seconds lag time. Before I drove the Taurus to the 

Amoco station on Plymouth rd to be filled with 93 octane 

unleaded fuel, I drained as much of the fuel out of the tank 

as possible. I called Pete Hutchins and reported that we 

were ready to check out the instruments to be used while 

refueling the vehicle. While Pete was walking over to the 

soak area Vince Crowell and myself used a crab to move the 

Taurus into the fueling bay in the large soak area. After 

Pete arrived in the fueling bay he inspected the instruments 

and confirmed that the instruments were working properly, 

we then proceeded to add 2.5 gal of commercial unleaded 

fuel into the empty fuel tank on the Taurus. The instruments 

work and Pete seen a good pressure trace while fueling. 

After adding 2.5 gal of fuel we decided to push the Taurus 

into the large soak area overnight, It was too late in the 

day to drive so I decided to fuel at the Amoco station in the 

morning. The temperature would be dropping outside 

overnight so it would be in the best interest to leave the 

vehicle inside and keep the instrument warm., by doing this 

I thought that it would help to keep everything in 

calibration. 
P.80 

» 

AMBIENT TEMP. 46 DEG F. THURSDAY DEC 20,1990 

THE WEATHER (SUNNY COOL) 

ROADS DRY. 

MILEAGE 

START 10652 

END 10877 

EVALUATION 

DAY1 

The Taurus had been left inside overnight in the large 

soak area, from there I started the vehicle and drove to the 

Amoco station on Plymouth rd to refuel. I didn't experience 

and problems with the cold start inside the building. Upon 

my arrival at the Amoco station on Plymouth rd, I then 

started hooking up the instruments used to record the 

pressures and supply a trace while refueling the vehicle. 

Vince crowell had come along with me to assist in the 

refueling, we were going to time the fuel fill rate and take 

2 fuel nozzle click offs. The first click off happened at 

11.232 gallons, no spit backs, the second click off at 11.651 

no spit backs. Fuel fill taken 2.7 gal at the 15 second mark. 

After the second click off at 11.651 gal I tried to put as 

much gasoline as possible into the tank but it would only 

take 12.191 gallons.The fuel gauge on the dash was only 

reading in the white which was just below the full mark. 

After leaving the Amoco station I returned to the E.P.A. and 

dropped off Vince, I then took a route to US 23 south where 

I drove through Toledo Ohio and the country side, again 

trying to do a combination of highway and city driving. From 

Toledo I drove along the shore line to port of Toledo and 

then took 75 north to I 94 west towards Ann Arbor. The 

drivability is good so far with no problems to mention, its 

12:30 now and I will take lunch at the Mcdonalds restaurant 

in Belleville. After lunch I proceeded along my route which 

led through Ypsilanti I then took I94 west to US 23 north 

and then proceeded on US 23 and got off at North Territorial 

rd. From there I drove west along the country side until I 

reached M52 south and then drove through the town of 

Chelsea where I got back on I 94 east to US 23 north and 

then back to Ann Arbor. 
P.81 

After arriving back at the E.P.A. I parked the Taurus 

outside on the west side of the building. The fuel gauge is 

reading between 1/2 and 1/4 and the temperature is 49 

deg.f. I have driven 225 miles so far today and tried to make 

as many stops and starts as possible to evaluate the 

performance of the Taurus.it has been a good day with no 

drivability or performance problems to mention. 

TOTAL MILES ACCUMULATED TODAY WAS (225) 
P.82 

• \ AMBIENT TEMP. 50 DEG F. FRIDAY DEC. 21,1990 

WEATHER (FOGGY) 

ROADS (WET WITH DEW) 

MILEAGE 

START 10877 

FINISH 10963 

EVALUATION 

DAY 2 

With the Taurus parked outside overnight this would 

give me a good cold start evaluation. After I started my log 

I then proceeded to crank the vehicle, it started on the first 

crank within 2 seconds. Its 8:08 and I will start the days 

evaluation, my route today will consist of mainly in town 

driving because the weather is bad and the visibility is 

poor. I left the E.P.A. and proceeded on my route from 

Plymouth rd to US 23 south, after merging onto the 

expressway with no problems I got off at the Geddes road 

exit where I headed east on Geddes rd and then proceeded 

north on prospect rd through Ypsilanti. My route then 

proceeded to US 12 east where I drove through the town of 

wayne and then made a turn around which put me back onto 

the west bound lane of US12 where I drove along the country 

side through Saline and then I made another turn around on 

US 12 to US 23 where I returned to Ann Arbor. Today Is the 

end of this part of the drivability evaluation and I haven't 

noticed any problems with the performance of the vehicle. 

After I arrived at the E.P.A. I parked the Onboard 

Taurus inside in the large soak area. The gas gauge was 

reading on the lowest end of empty below the red. 

THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED MILEAGE WAS (86) 
P.83 

NOVEMBER 28,1990 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: To Evaluate the performance of the Onboard 

Taurus using 1 full tank of gas (Indolene test fuel) 

FROM: Joseph p. Hurley J ^ _ 

Technician, HDT ^ 

TO: John A. Anderson _ £ , , v3 

Senior Project Mgr., SDSB ^ a^

k

^ 

The following is my evaluation of the performance of 

the Onboard Taurus. The drivability test performed on 

11-27-90 and 11-28-90 with the ambient temperatures 

ranging from 68 deg f on the 27th to a low of 45 deg f on 

the 28th, resulted in the following appraisal of the Ford's 

Onboard system. Enclosed you will find records of the daily 

performance logs, and the mileage before and after each of 

the days the Onboard Taurus was driven. 

It is my conclusion that the overall performance of the 

Onboard Taurus was good except for the cranking period 

problems that I had experienced, and the two acceleration 

problems that I had noticed on the takeoffs. I couldn't find 

any set pattern for the acceleration problems, one had 

happened at rapid acceleration and the other at moderate 

acceleration. 

If you have any further questions regarding the 

enclosed material I can be reached at ext.536. 
P.84 

fi 

AMBIENT TEMP. 68 DEG F. TUESDAY NOV 27,1990 

THE WEATHER WAS RAINY 

MILEAGE 

START 10059 

END 10264 

EVALUATION 

DAY1 

I started from the soak area at the E.P.A., the initial 

cranking of the Taurus was long with no firing on the first 

try. The second firing was hesitant, but it fired at about the 

four second mark. Acceleration was good on takeoff with no 

stumbles^the gas peq^le)was very responsive. 

I drove a route to Detroit in heavy traffic with no 

problems. I then turned around and headed back to Ann Arbor 

trying to vfe^y the speeds at between 60 and 65 MPH. After 

lunch I drove US12 through Irish hills to Napoffan Mich and 

then through Jackson, I figured that this would give me a 

better feel of how the Taurus would perform under various 

speeds and routes both highway and city traffic. After 

driving 197 miles with the gas gauge reading between 1/2 

and 1/4 I got off the Expressway at the Huron st exit, I then 

started back to Ann Arbor. This is where I experienced the 

first acceleration problem, trying to merge with 

Expressway traffic I had to accelerate at a rapid rate of 

speed, the Taurus didn't respond at all when I pressed it to 

the floor.in fact the car stumbled badly, I had to try three 

times to get it to accelerate the way it should, after 

finally merging with traffic I returned to the E.P.A. 

MILEAGE ACCUMULATED WAS 205 
P.85 

AMBIENT TEMP. 58 DEG F. 

DROPPING TO 45.DEGF. 

THE WEATHER WAS RAINY 

WEDNESDAY NOV 28,1990 

MILEAGE 

START 10264 

END 10342 

EVALUATION 

DAY 2 

I started from the E.P.A., the initial cranking of the 

Taurus was long with no firing on the first try. The second 

firing was normal in about two seconds, Acceleration was 

good on takeoff. 

Driving the rural route at about 20 minutes into my 

trip and 16 accumulated miles for the day, I noticed upon 

taking off from a stop at a moderate rate of acceleration a 

stumble. On the second try it performed properly with good 

response. The remainder of Driving was around the Ann 

Arbor area, both on the freeway, and the city streets. The 

gas gauge was reading about 1/8 of a tank of fuel so I 

returned to the E.P.A. Other than the one stumble there were 

no other problems to mention 

MILEAGE ACCUMULATED WAS (78) 

THE TOTAL ACCUMULATED MILEAGE WAS (283) 
P.86 

, *<i*°

 Sr«&. 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

F'2-fc 

W f 5 !989 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Onboard Taurus at High 

Temperature 

FROM: Peter Hutchins, Mechanical Engineer 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

TO: Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

THRU: John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support^J^anch 

Chester J. France, Chief 

Standards Development an 

Introduction 

The testing reported herein was performed because of 

concerns with respect to the running loss control capability of 

the onboard system. In current production fuel tank venting 

systems, the flow rate of fuel vapor generated in the tank to 

the canister and engine is limited by means of flow restricting 

orifices. The fuel tank acts, therefore, as a storage vessel 

for fuel vapor which could become running losses if the vapor 

generation rate exceeds the capacity of the engine and canister 

to utilize or store the vapor. In the onboard system there is 

no comparable restriction in the flow of these vapors. The 

concern was, therefore, that the vapor generation rate in the 

unpressurized tank could exceed the capacity of the canister 

and engine to store and/or utilize the vapor, thereby leading 

to running losses. 

Testing was performed by TEB as requested in a memo dated 

June 26, 1989. Since the lab is not configured to directly 

measure running losses, monitoring of changes in canister 

weight during the tests was used to indicate the potential 

absence or presence of running losses. It was reasoned that 

reductions in canister weight during testing would indicate an 

absence of running loses. It was also reasoned that any gain 
P.87 

in canister weight, provided breakthrough weight was not 

exceeded, would also indicate an absence of running losses. 

The test sequence employed; i.e., three consecutive LA-4s with 

high in-tank fuel temperature, was the same as that employed in 

evaluations of running losses performed for EPA by ATL. 

Exhaust emissions during the triplicate LA-4 test sequence and 

refueling emissions following the triplicate LA-4 operation 

were to be determined. Since RVP controls are expected to be 

fully implemented before any onboard program, only 9 RVP fuel 

was used in these tests. 

The temperature profile of the fuel in the tank was to be 

similar to that measured on a Mercury Sable during track tests 

in high ambient temperatures and during running loss testing at 

ATL patterned on the track data. Utilizing a tolerance band of 

+ 2°F, the required fuel temperatures during testing were to be 

as follows: 

Temperature of Fuel in Tank (°F) 

After After After After After After 

First First Second Second Third Third 

Initial 505 sec. LA-4 505 sec. LA-4 505 sec. LA-4 

94 100 112 116 121 122 124 

Prior to initiation of testing, the canister* was 

temporarily located on the outside of the vehicle at rocker 

level, just in front of the right rear wheel. This location 

facilitated weighing of the canister during testing. The fuel 

tank was equipped with a heating blanket. 

In addition to the testing performed on the onboard 

equipped Taurus, one test sequence was performed on a stock 

Taurus (canister weights were not measured). Testing of the 

stock Taurus was performed for purposes of comparison with data 

from the onboard vehicle and similarly collected data from ATL. 

Test Sequence 

The sequence of events employed in the testing of the 

vehicle was as follows. The canister was loaded to 

breakthrough by dispensing 9 RVP fuel (Indolene) into the 

vehicle's fuel tank. Following loading, the canister was 

weighed and then bench purged until 135+5 grams of stored HC 

had been removed from the canister. This purging was performed 

to simulate stabilized operating canister conditions. The 

vehicle was fueled to 40 percent tank volume (6 gallons) with 

Indolene at approximately 55°F, the canister connected, and the 

vehicle placed in the test cell. Heating of the fuel was 

3.5 L filled with Westvaco charcoal similar to that used 

by Ford in production canisters. 
P.88 

performed until the temperature of the fuel in the tank reached 

the required 94+2°F starting temperature. The canister was 

again weighed and reconnected. Vehicle operation on the three 

consecutive LA-4 drives was initiated and heating of the fuel 

tank was performed as required. Following the completion of 

each LA-4, the canister was removed from the vehicle and 

weighed. During the weighing operation, the vehicle plumbing 

to and from the canister and the canister inlet and purge 

connections were capped. The vehicle engine was allowed to 

idle during the weighings which required approximately 1 1/2 

minutes each. 

Exhaust emissions were measured for each LA-4 sequence. 

Because of facility limitations in the number of bag samples 

which could be collected and analyzed on an ongoing basis, 

exhaust emissions were sampled and analyzed for each LA-4. 

This procedure gave three samples and resulting data sets per 

test rather than the six samples (two per LA-4) which would 

have been collected had the equipment been available. 

Following completion of the third LA-4, refueling emissions 

were to be measured as specified in the refueling NPRM. 

During the first performance of the test sequence, the 

temperature of the test cell was maintained at the normal 

setting for that cell of approximately 70 to 75°F. It was 

observed during this testing that vehicle engine temperature 

was running higher than normal and that the vehicle cooling fan 

was operating continuously. In subsequent tests (those from 

which test data are reported) one additional Hartzel fan was 

employed to achieve engine operating temperatures similar to 

those seen on the road and to avoid continuous operation of the 

vehicle fan. In addition, during the first performance of the 

test sequence liquid fuel was found in the vapor line leading 

to the canister. The amount of liquid present was greater at 

the end of the second LA-4 than at the end of the first LA-4. 

This observation lead to the conclusion that vapor condensation 

was occurring in the line as vapors from the heated fuel tank 

encountered the cooler line to the canister. Therefore, in 

subsequent tests, the temperature of the test cell was raised 

to approximately 95°F. One additional test sequence, from 

which data are not reported, was performed to establish the 

tank heating rates required at the elevated cell temperature 

and to confirm that vapor condensation did not occur in the 

line to the canister and the adequacy of engine cooling. The 

results obtained from four tests* using the triplicate LA-4 

test sequence are shown in Table 1. 

Two other tests were initiated but not completed because 

of vehicle failures during these tests. Vehicle failures 

were exhibited as stalling of the engine. Engine restart 

was achieved almost immediately on the first of these 

sequences but was delayed significantly on the second 

sequence. The cause of the failures was traced to damage 

to the in-tank fuel pump due to significant contamination 

in the tank. Fuel pump replacement corrected the problem. 
P.89 

Results from the stock Taurus tested at MVEL and those 

obtained from a stock Sable tested at ATL on a triplicate LA-4 

test sequence at approximately 95°F are shown in Table 2. 

Conclusions 

The key conclusions drawn from this testing were: (1) that 

canister weight decreased continuously throughout the test 

sequence, indicating that vehicle purge was adequate to control 

generated vapors and running losses had not occurred from the 

onboard system (see Table l for canister weights), (2) that 

vehicle exhaust emissions were not adversely affected by the 

onboard system (comparison of Tables 1 and 2), and (3) that the 

vehicle maintained refueling control capability after these 

high temperature operating conditions. 

Attachments 

7447W 
Table 1 

Test Results - Onboard Taurus 

P.90 

Test Number (Date) 

Canister Wt.: 

- after breakthrough (g) 

- after bench purge (g) 

- after fuel heating (g) 

Initial tank temp (°F) 

Tank temp @ 1st 505 sec. (°F) 

Tank temp @ end of #1 LA-4 (°F) 

1 (7-25-89) 2 (7-26-89) 3 (7-27-89) 4 (8-2-89) 

4089.4 

3964.2 

96 

99 

110 

4112.4 

3974.6 

4005.1 

93 

98 

109 

4092.1 

3948.5 

3989.9 

94 

99 

110 

4100.9 

3964.9 

3995.5 

95 

99 

109 

Tailpipe emissions, #1 LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

C02 (g/mile) 

Canister Wt. after #1 LA-4 (g) 

Tank temp @ 2nd 505 sec. (F°) 

Tank temp @ end of #2 LA-4 (F°) 

Tailpipe emissions, 12 LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

C02 (g/mile) 

Canister Wt. after #2 LA-4 (g) 

Tank temp @ 3rd 505 sec. (°F) 

Tank temp @ end of #3 LA-4 (°F) 

Tailpipe emissions, #3 LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

C02 (g/mile) 

Canister Wt. after #3 LA-4 (g) 

Canister Wt. after refueling (g) 

Refueling emissions (g/gal) 

0.44 

4.92 

1.01 

413.15 

3963.4 

117 

122 

0.09 

4.39 

1.12 

393.46 

3956.4 

123 

125 

0.18 

1.91 

1.17 

398.08 

3951.1 

0.47 

5.63 

1.08 

412.19 

3969.3 

116 

121 

0.10 

4.31 

1.17 

396.21 

3958.4 

123 

125 

0.07 

2.80 

1.23 

392.83 

3950.1 

0.41 

5.93 

1.03 

416.44 

3955.5 

117 

121 

0.10 

4.46 

1.11 

395.17 

3948.4 

124 

125 

0.08 

3.19 

1.24 

391.79 

3940.6 

0.55 

6.12 

1.00 

413.17 

3959.3 

115 

122 

0.10 

4.05 

1.09 

391.66 

3950.4 

123 

125 

0.09 

3.37 

1.16 

395.65 

3941.9 

4053.2 

0.04 
P.91 

Table 2 

Test Results - Stock Vehicles 

Initial tank temp (°F) 

Tank temp @ 1st 505 sec. (°F) 

Tank temp @ end of #1 LA-4 (°F) 

Tailpipe emissions, ttl LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

CO2 (g/mile) 

Tank temp @ 2nd 505 sec. (F°) 

Tank temp @ end of #2 LA-4 (F°) 

Tailpipe emissions, #2 LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

CO2 (g/mile) 

Tank temp @ 3rd 505 sec. (°F) 

Tank temp @ end of #3 LA-4 (°F) 

Tailpipe emissions, #3 LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

CO2 (g/mile) 

Taurus 

(@EPA) 

95 

99 

108 

0.36 

5.18 

1.00 

407.32 

114 

121 

0.12 

5.30 

0.79 

381.28 

124 

126 

0.15 

6.41 

0.79 

375.74 

Sable 

(@ ATL) 

95 

NR* 

NR 

0.40 

6.81 

1.08 

482.1 

113 

115 

0.10 

4.13 

0.96 

428.0 

NR 

125 

0.12 

4.58 

0.88 

444.9 

NR = Not reported. 
S

i0 sr<v 

yss 

\mfi* / 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

P.92 

r~ €r-£7*T~ 

Fo9.n 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

SEP 2 2 1989 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Evaluation of Hot Ambient Testing for the Onboard 

Taurus 

FROM: Joseph P. Hurley, Technician yS^ ^ ^ i^^^-s . 

Standards Development and Suppor^JBranch * 

TO: John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

THRU: Thomas M. Baines, Heavy-Duty Testing Coordinator 

Standards Development and Support Branch <YvB^ 

The following is my evaluation of the performance of the 

onboard Taurus during the hot ambient testing. Attached you 

will find records of the daily temperature logs, and both the 

official temperatures and the temperatures taken at the EPA 

before and after each of the days that the onboard Taurus was 

driven. I have also enclosed the official temperatures for the 

whole testing period. 

It is my conclusion that the overall performance of the 

onboard Taurus was excellent. After driving several different 

routes at different speeds, I could not find any performance 

faults. Both the cold and hot starts were good with normal 

cranking periods. 

Attachments 
P.93 

8/22/89 

HOT AMBIENT TEST 

Using the onboard Taurus with the canister 

modifications, we are trying to gather information on the 

effects that hot ambient temperatures have on the 

driveability and performance of this vehicle. 

THE TESTING PROCEDURES WERE PERFORMED AS 

FOLLOWS 

(1) The fuel in the vehicle was drained to 1/4 of a tank. 

(2) The modified canister was purged for 1 hour. 

(3) The car was then parked outside of the fueling 

area where the battery cables were disconnected. 

Removing the battery cables and then reconnecting them 

would delete all of the learned driving memory in the 

onboard Taurus computer. This would allow the Taurus to 

be able to learn new information and store it in its 

learning memory. Thus, the vehicle would begin testing in 

a standard baseline condition. 

(4 ) The high and low temperatures were recorded for each 

day during the testing period. This will also included the 

days where the weather wasn't sufficient enough for our 

testing standard. 

(5) We will Drive the onboard Taurus until we have driven 

out one tank of commercial fuel obtained from 

a local gas station. 
P.94 

WED-8/23/89 AMBIENT TEMP. 

Start Finish 

78 80 

EVALUATION HOT AMBIENT TEST 

DAY1 

After reconnecting the battery cables on the Onboard 

Taurus, and checking the ambient temperature, I then 

started the Taurus, which fired off in about 2 seconds. 

Then I proceeded to the Amoco station on Washtenaw 

where I filled the gas tank full of commercial unleaded fuel. 

After leaving the Amoco station with the first full tank of 

fuel, I drove a combination of different speeds. The route 

consisted of both highway and city driving. The overall 

driveability of the Taurus was excellent, with no stumbles 

on takeoffs or during any of the speeds obtained this day. 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED TODAY WAS (74) 
P.95 

THUR -8/24/89 AMBIENT TEMP. 

Start. Finish. 

78 78 

EVALUATION HOT AMBIENT TEST 

DAY 2 

Its 12:00, the sun is shining and the temperature is 

78 degrees; I decided that it was a good day to put a lot 

of mileage on the Taurus. The initial firing of the Taurus 

was excellent within 2 seconds. 

I drove a lot of different routes today, most of which 

included expressway driving. The overall performance of 

the onboard Taurus was excellent, with no problems. 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED TODAY WAS (164) 
P.96 

TIES-8/29/89 AMBIENT TEMP. 

Start. Finish. 

78 79 

EVALUATION HOT AMBIENT TEST 

DAY 3 

This wasn't the best of days to use for our testing, 

but I wanted to use up the remaining fuel in the Taurus 

as soon as possible. At 12:00 I noticed a break in the 

weather so I decided to drive the 50 miles or so to use 

the remainder of fuel up in the onboard Taurus. 

Again I didn't encounter any abnormal problems with 

the cranking periods, neither the cold, nor the hot. Both 

of which fired off within 2 to 3 seconds. 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED TODAY WAS ( 46). 
P.97 

HOT AMBIENT TEST ONBOARD TAURUS 

TEMPERATURE RECORDS 

OFFICIAL AMBIENT TEMPERATURES DURING THE DAYS 

THAT THE ONBOARD TAURUS WAS BEING USED, 

WHICH INCLUDES WEEKENDS AND BAD WEATHER DAYS. 

HIGHEST TEMP. LOWEST TEMP. 

DAY. NIGHT. 

DEG F. DEG F. 

TUE 8/22/89 

WED 8/23/89 

THUR 8/24/89 

FRI 8/25/89 

SAT 8/26/89 

SUN 8/27/89 

MON 8/28/89 

TUE 8/29/89 

WED 8/30/89 

THUR 8/31/89 

FRI 9/1/89 

SAT 9/2/89 

SUN 9/3/89 

MON 9/4/89 

TUE 9/5/89 

81 

77 

76 

76 

79 

83 

79 

80 

77 

83 

76 

73 

73 

73 

80 

61 

60 

53 

51 

53 

62 

63 

58 

55 

55 

60 

53 

52 

52 

62 
P.98 

DRIVEABILITY TEST 

ONBOARD TAURUS 

DATE: ^ ' Aa/ 9*1 DRIVER'S NAME: v)0Sg:PH ?• HmlueV 

AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: 61 ^&>

 f (a I *<* P 

TIME OUT: TIME IN: 

GAS TANK GAUGE READING START: END: 

MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: °\ 7 12. END; 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: 

COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE: 

ij Dfcurygdi. tKt -pup \r> -the Tau>.oS ^o Xf Tang 

(^"PvJ^c. ^ -th*. CO.m.ct-e^ -PfM. I U . 

Dist? H£t?6a 6 ar necked ~*ht. ba-V-y-gf>\/ OU*>n>q,VvY 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN: 

ROAD CONDITIONS 

WEATHER CONDITIONS: (VA-.£CftS \ ""PftCT-W / SO^IIMV \ I' W > D 
P.99 

DRIVEABILITY TEST 

ONBOARD TAURUS 

vOvlD 

DATE: %/33/ff i DRIVER'S NAME: ^O^-PtA ~? l^Ul^ f 

AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: 

-77 bO 

TIME OUT: !'• 2.0 TIME IN: 3'. 3 O 

GAS TANK GAUGE READING START: 10-^ QrX END: W l 

MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: R] ^ END: ^"7% ^ 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: 1 M 

COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE: 

i.~ifecDAn*.<LA~€d ~Vh^ tcu^e ^ On "itAg \au^o s 

~?u<-l -£)0UJ> H H ^lln ?Q JfC fa.Q 

Cuicic o-te t0 . a 7 ^ 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN: 

TW^oOVK fOacX "Vo ~b»o5> ^ec-V VP<MJ So^V^ -Vq mnn ei,yg , uQdt- -Vo SeMe^u.^ 

*0<*A .SOvrHv -VT> X-^v t VjQCi.1-. Gvr\ o-K oA >P^-Ur\ b ^hdC -U^au s V» Vn-jn 

ROAD CONDITIONS: \^RV 

WEATHER CONDITIONS: Q\)£gCftST "PpvRT^ ^ONIMV f frWi D £ IQfiftrv? 
P.1 

DRIVEABILITY TEST 

ONBOARD TAURUS 

TH\)ittP«W 

DATE: <j I PA j gS DRIVER'S NAME: -^QS£?*-\ ? HuttU^ V 

START fu\v\ivi KvGvA v^o^o 

AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: 72 7S -?6> 5 3 

TIME OUT: I-2'.0 0 TIME IN: M'. \S" 

GAS TANK GAUGE READING START: -9o\\ END: RrVujegm k £ )^ 

MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START:' ^"7 37 END: S^Sl 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: > (o^ 

COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE: 

Goo d MO ~£>hObW^S, 

\ dnh- W W(\u-<L dn ^ pv-ObV*<ni VO*TV\ -Vvw do\ d S,Ta*-Yf t-V -gyred O^'IV I 

fibo.i-v a. seconds 

"TVi<. Co\4 S>Ta.^~re uvm i ~VV\g Sg-ng *> o T^^Q ^V.<V^^ 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN: 

"31 ~T"oofc, VJ5 - a.3 Saott ^ ~\-Q vrnclmcyan <*yj* U7^~t* -\0 "B^QQ^/ n rmc ^ 

V-i(S>-VW tH^ao'i.Vi -AatVLiaft mavCK ~Vlr>-erv \PQCVC -\o "X-QK r_AS^ -\Q l^ n tVbCu. 

~TV\^. ^ino^^gx A txtdc TO -VK€. (f • "?*• ^ • 

ROAD CONDITIONS: fiooT) X> ^ 

WEATHER CONDITIONS: Jni^fr W \Ao \ 
P.2 

DRIVEABILITY TEST 

ONBOARD TAURUS 

iu^sOft^ 

DATE: %>| a°t I g6! DRIVER'S NAME: ^Qs£?H T HO^^ V 

\-\v<it\ UOO J 

7<*.l ?^-o so SS AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: 

TIME OUT: ya.'- 4 S TIME IN: £L\ \$ 

GAS TANK GAUGE READING START: CWf-ft. ,X END: ^gtoOg-gn V* %Y* 

MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: 9^.51 END: ^^ 7 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: 1 Cg 

COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE: 

ttX9\Y9.<\\ ^"0 014 4,o'^c -hrv.<. 3- 5<C COVc\ 

Co OP T^p-9o^"-vcy-<AC.Q 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN: 

^ "TfooYv -D\y|mo^-VVy>C><u,(S "Vd -^Qocl v-oac\ gxts-V -^> •p-osy' ^ r e>*<3, 

50Jt- K ~to \THt(LV\ O-ix -t o d'Cdi^S'C Voa(Jii ^Q^t- , ulgn.-*- boi)-VK 6*\ V>eL\<?ome 

ROAD CONDITIONS: T^R^ 

WEATHER CONDITIONS: tl^^S T f Vlp^n^ '"vfrdrLV S^N"^. 
P.3 

August flEH 

SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 

6 

13 

20 

27 

L<i u j 

fe» 

H>4H 

•s-3 

7 

14 

21 

28 

UJOU J 

4>3 

HIGH 

7T 

1 

8 

15 

22 

L o <^» 

fc>\ 

\-W-\ 

Si 

29 use* 

LOu» 

5S 

HiC K 

So 

2 

9 

16 

2 3

 ove<4 

L o ou 

(oO 

\A«^H 

n 

30 

uo«o 

ss 

H»ftU 

7 7 

3 

10 

17 

24 w«i 

Uo uo 

S3 

Mi&U 

T ( » 

31 

t O w 

-

V-M6H 

^ " 

4 

11 

18 

25 

UOoJ 

S I 

HiCH 

•Ma 

5 

12 

19 

26 

Uo w 

5 3 

Hi^w 

"?cl 
P.4 

uc^JiciiikJidi 

jnfln 

SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 

3 

Ulu J 

52. 

Hifcrt 

?3 

10 

17 

24 

4 

UO w* 

a * 

l-U&W 

?3 

11 

18 

25 

5 

VOU J 

t>* 

H'fcW 

ro 

12 

19 

26 

6 

UOu3 

HvfclA 

13 

20 

27 

7 

UOoJ 

\-UG>H 

14 

21 

28 

1 

UOt J 

7fc 

8 

UouJ 

H'SH 

15 

22 

29 

2 

UO CO 

53 

vu»rt 

73 

9 

16 

23 

30 
P.5 

f 

JO\ 

w 

Foig 

\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

3 

rj ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

AUG 2 4 I989 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Gasoline, Diesel and Methanol Refueling Emissions 

Data Collection 

F. Peter Hutchins, Mechanical Engineer \ l 

Standards Development and Support Branch **v 

Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Chester J. France, Chie 

Standards Development Branch 

TEB has collected test data on uncontrolled refueling 

emissions for SDSB comparing gasoline, methanol and diesel. 

Data were collected using vehicles and a stand-alone fuel 

tank. The objective of the testing was the measurement of fuel 

vapor emanating from the filler neck during fueling events. 

Data associated with fuel spills during refueling are, 

therefore, not included. In some cases the data sheets raised 

questions with respect to the accuracy of some of the results. 

These data are also not show. 

This memo summarizes the test data which were collected by 

E & D and provides some comments on the data. Data collected 

by RTP using M85 and MlOO fuels are summarized at the end of 

the memo. Differences in test procedures are noted. 

For gasoline (Table 1), comparisons between the measured 

emission rates and the calculated values shows a general 

agreement between the measured and calculated results. 

Agreement between measured and calculated values appears to be 

somewhat better for the FID data than for the HFID data. 

Differences appear to exist between data collected, from the 
P.6 

vehicle and data collected from the stand-alone fuel tank. 

Measured results from the vehicle tended to be higher than the 

calculated values, while the results from the tank tests tended 

to be lower. 

The average refueling emissions measurement for diesel 

fuel (Table 2) was approximately 0.04 grams/gallon; i.e., about 

40 percent of the refueling emission standard which has been 

proposed for gasoline fueled vehicles. Estimates of diesel 

refueling emissions based on the displacement of equilibrium 

composition vapors from the fuel tank showed a range of from 

0.005 to 0.037 gram/gallon depending on the assumptions used in 

the calculations (Attachment 1-Note from Dave Bartus). Because 

of the similarity between the measured and upper range of the 

estimated values, it appears probable that the measured values 

can be viewed as representative of diesel refueling emissions. 

Inspection of the test results for MlOO (Table 3) shows 

both high test-to-test variability and variability between 

measurement procedure (i.e., FID vs. HFID vs. Bubbler). 

Exclusive of one FID data point and one HFID data point where 

the results were very high (data sheets did not provide 

possible explanation for these high values), the mean results 

of all of the measurements, i.e., vehicle and tank test results 

by FID, HFID, and bubbler combined, is a refueling emission 

rate of 0.57 gram methanol/gallon methanol. Corresponding 

average tank and dispensed fuel temperatures were 80.4° and 

81.5°F respectively. The measured refueling emission rates are 

lower than the rate projected from equilibrium vapor 

displacement calculations at 80°F, i.e., 1.99 gram/gallon 

(Attachment 2-Note from Dave Bartus). There was, however, good 

agreement between the calculated RVP value for MlOO (4.71 psi) 

and the measured value (4.6 psi). 

In the case of the M-85 fuel tests (Table 4) the bubbler 

results (i.e., methanol) show large variability between tests. 

Large variability between test results was also exhibited in 

the FID and HFID (i.e., HC) results. Review, of the test 

records yielded no explanation for the high variability. The 

mean result for the methanol fraction was 0.84 gram 

methanol/gallon M85 dispensed. On the basis of total refueling 

emissions; i.e. HC plus methanol, the average value obtained 

was 2.2 gram/gallon M85. The measured RVP of the test fuel was 

12.3. The measured results were lower than the calculational 

projections (4.28 to 5.23 gram/gallon M85 - Attachment 2) 

developed from equilibrium vapor displacement calculations at 

80°F. The equilibrium vapor displacement calculations were 

based on M85 blends using 9.1 RVP gasoline and 12.0 gasoline. 

The calculated RVP of the resulting M85 simulated fuels were 

8.03 and 9.37 respectively. 

Refueling emissions data collected by RTP and reported in 

an APCA paper (Attachment 3) are summarized in Table 5. 

Differences which could be identified between test procedures 

employed by E & D and those employed by RTP are as follows: 
P.7 

• Tank and dispensed fuel temperatures: E & D 

employed approximately 80 °F for both tank and 

dispensed fuel temperatures. RTP employed 88°F for 

dispensed fuel and 78°, 88° and 98°F tank 

temperatures. 

• Dispensed fuel volumes: E & D fueled from 10% to 

95% tank volume. RTP fueled from 17% to 95% tank 

volume. 

• RTP stabilized fuel tank temperature in the SHED 

with the gas cap in place. Following sealing of the 

SHED and initial measurement of background levels, 

the gas cap was removed (some outgassing with cap 

removed may have occurred and been measured as 

refueling emissions). 

• RTP reported measurement of background HC levels in 

the SHED prior to refueling. RTP does not, however, 

report measuring Methanol background levels prior to 

refueling. 

• Following refuelings, RTP removed the fuel nozzle 

from the filler neck and replaced gas cap. 

• RTP employed a mixing period in the SHED of 

approximately 15 minutes prior to measurement of 

concentrations following refuelings. 

In the report, RTP attributed the cause of the 

hydrocarbons measured during fuelings with MlOO to residual 

hydrocarbons in the fuel cart from prior fuelings with M85. 

Attachments 1, 2, S 3 
P.8 

Table 1 

Refueling Emissions - Gasoline (E & D Data) 

Source 

Vehicle (Olds 

Vehicle ( " 

Vehicle ( " 

Vehicle ( " 

Vehicle ( " 

Tank (From 01< 

Tank ( 

Tank ( 

Tank ( 

Tank ( 

Tank ( 

Tank ( 

Tank ( 

Tank ( 

1 

as) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

RVP 

PSI) 

9.3 

9.3 

9.3 

9.3 

9.3 

9.3 

9.3 

9.3 

9.3 

9.3 

11.5 

11.5 

11.5 

11.5 

Tank 

Temp 

(°F) 

81.0 

81.0 

78.6 

80.1 

79.2 

79.2 

79.7 

80.4 

79.9 

80.1 

81.0 

79.9 

79.2 

79.7 

Disp 

Fuel 

<°F) 

80.2 

81.3 

80.1 

81.7 

81.3 

81.1 

80.1 

81.1 

79.9 

81.3 

81.3 

81.3 

81.9 

81.0 

Refueli 

FID 

Measurement 

4.37 

X 

s 

X 

s 

X 

s 

X 

s 

-

-

6.73 

6.86 

6.80 

0.09 

5.99 

1.40 

5.41 

5.43 

5.56 

5.44 

5.57 

6.81 

7.26 

7.57 

6.95 

5.93 

0.77 

6.22 

0.90 

(2)** 

(3)** 

(7)** 

(9)** 

ng Emissions ( 

HFID 

Measurement 

7.87 

5.50 

6.52 

6.93 

6.73 

0.29 

6.71 

0.98 

5.37 

5.40 

5.50 

5.34 

5.57 

6.65 

7.22 

-

-

5.86 

0.75 

-

(2)** 

(4)** 

(7)** 

g/gal) 

Calculat 

5.62 

5.82 

5.82 

5.98 

5.99 

5.99 

0.01 

5.85 

0.15 

5.95 

5.72 

5.84 

5.66 

5.90 

6.88 

6.99 

7.16 

6.95 

6.13 

0.56 

6.34 

0.63 

ed* 

(2)** 

(5)** 

(7)** 

(9)** 

** 

Calculated from: 

Emissions (grams/gal) = -5.909 - 0.0949(^t) + 

0.0884(TD) + 0.485(RVP). 

Numbers in () denotes number of tests included in mean and standard 

deviation. The smaller sets reflect tests where both FID and HFID data were 

collected. 
P.9 

Table 2 

Refueling Emissions - Diesel #2 (E & D data) 

Tank Disp Refueling Emissions (q/qal) 

Temp Fuel FID HFID 

Source (°F) (°F) Measurement Measurement 

Vehicle (Chevrolet) 81.1 80.0 0.031 0.034 

Vehicle ( " ) 81.0 79.9 0.039 0.040 

Vehicle ( " ) 81.7 81.0 0.034 0.032 

Vehicle ( " ) 82.4 81.3 0.052 0.057 

x 0.039 0.041 

s 0.009 0.011 
P.10 

Table 3 

Refueling Emissions - MlOO (E & D Data) 

Source 

Vehicle (Ford) 

Vehicle ( " ) 

Vehicle ( " ) 

Vehicle ( " ) 

Tank (From Olds) 

Tank ( " ) 

Tank 

Temp 

(°F) 

81.0 

80.4 

79.7 

81.1 

80.2 

80.8 

Disp 

Fuel 

(°F) 

81.0 

81.9 

80.4 

82.0 

81.1 

82.0 

Refueli 

FID 

Measurement* 

X 

s 

X 

s 

X 

s 

2.28 

0.35 

0.58 

0.53 

0.94 

0.90 

0.49 

0.12 

0.56 

0.55 

0.56 

0.01 

(4)** 

(3)** 

nq 

Me 

Emissions 

HFID 

asurement* 

2.20 

0.39 

0.66 

0.62 

0.97 

0.83 

0.56 

0.15 

0.62 

0.63 

0.63 

0.01 

(4)** 

(3)** 

(g/gal) 

Bubbler 

0.78 

0.52 

0.58 

0.54 

0.61 

0.12 

0.55 

0.03 

0.54 

0.88 

0.71 

0.24 

(4)** 

(3)** 

Using FID and HFID response factor to methanol of 0.75. 

Numbers in () denotes number of tests included in mean and standard 

deviation. The smaller sets reflects omission of test where FID and HFID 

results were significantly higher than values from other tests. 
Table 4 

p.11 

Refueling Emissions - M85* (E & D Data) 

Source 

Vehicle (Ford) 

Vehicle (Ford) 

Vehicle (Ford) 

Vehicle (Ford) 

Vehicle (Ford) 

Tank 

Temp 

(°F) 

81.1 

80.1 

80.2 

80.8 

80.2 

Disp 

Fuel 

<°F) 

81.9 

81.1 

81.9 

80.4 

80.4 

Me: 

X 

s 

FID 

isurement*' 

1.12 

2.70 

0.83 

1.72 

1.59*** 

0.83 

Refueling Emissions (g/gal) 

HFID 

• Measurement** 

1.11 

2.68 

0.79 

1.64 

3.29 

1.56*** 

0.83 

Bubbler 

0.45 

1.07 

0.47 

0.57 

1.66 

0.84 

0.52 

Total 

1.56-1.57 

3.75-3.77 

1.26-1.30 

2.21-2.29 

4.95 

2.20-2.23*** 

. 1.11 

* M-85 used in testing came from an on-hand stock of fuel purchased as M-85. 

RVP test of the M-85 stock gave a test result of 12.3 psi. 

** HC only - Response of FID and HFID to methanol removed in calculations. 

*** Includes only tests where both FID and HFID results were obtained. 
P.12 

Table 5 

Refueling Emissions - M85 and MlOO (RTP data) 

Fuel 

M85* 

M85 

M85 

MlOO** 

MlOO 

MlOO 

Tank 

Temp. 

(°F) 

78 

88 

98 

78 

88 

98 

Disp. 

Temp. 

(°F) 

88 

88 

88 

88 

88 

88 

Methanol 

(g/gal) 

0.72 

0.73 

0.73 

0.80 

0.79 

0.66 

Refuelinq 

HC 

(g/gal) 

2.63 

2.52 

2.15 

0.27 

0.11 

0.11 

Emissions 

Total refueling 

emissions 

(q/qal) 

3.35 

3.25 

2.88 

1.06 

0.89 

0.77 

** 

Measured RVP of M85 test fuel was 8.5 psi 

Measured RVP of MlOO test fuel was 4.6 psi 

5648W 
P.13 

To: Peter Hutchins ~ 

From: Dave Bartus 

•Date: December 11, 1987 

Re: Diesel Re-fueling Evaporative Emissions 

CC: Rick Rykowski 

Preliminary calculations of re-fueling evaporative emissions -from 

diesel vehicles have been carried out to provide an independent 

check on experimental re-fueling emissions measurements. Results o-f 

these calculations range -from 0.005 grams HC/gallon o-f refueling 

•fuel to 0.037 g/gal -for re-fueling at 80 F. Both o-f these estimates 

are o-f the same order of magnitude or less than experimental 

refueling loss measurements of 0.05 g/gal, leading to the 

conclusion that current experimental data do not contain gross 

errors. 

Emissions were calculated by assuming the primary source of 

hydrocarbons is the tank vapor displaced by the addition of 

refueling fuel. Knowledge of the displaced vapor volume and the 

concentration of hydrocarbons in the displaced vapor allows 

calculation of total hydrocarbon loss through application of the 

ideal gas law and a mass balance around the fuel tank.CI] 

The concentration of hydrocarbons in the tank vapor space can be 

calculated from the liquid fuel vapor pressure, which in turn was 

estimated using two different methods. The first is based on an 

analytical distillation of a fuel, while the second is based on 

available Reid vapor pressure data. 

For distillation-based vapor pressure calculations, data were 

obtained from a fuel analysis that includes an ASTM D-B6 

atmospheric distillation.C23 Data values were taken as the average 

of the five analyses reported for SwRI Fuel Code EM-678-F, CRC VE-1 

Fuel No. 5. All values used for calculations are within limits 

specified for diesel emissions certification fuel in 40 CFR 

86.113-87 for type 2-D diesel fuel, except for the D-86 initial 

boiling point. For this analysis, a reported value of 336 F was 

used, compared to a specified lower limit of 340 F. Details of 

vapor pressure calculations are attached. A fuel vapor pressure of 

0.131 mm Hg was obtained from these calculations, corresponding to 

refueling losses of 0.005 g/gal. 

The calculated refueling loss of .005 g/gal. and the associated 

vapor pressure 0.13 mm Hg appear to be somewhat lower than 

experimental measurements suggest indicating the need to compare 

calculated vapor pressure results with experimental data. As a 

check on these results, an independent vapor estimate was obtained 

from a diesel fuel Reid vapor pressure test result.C5D. Starting 

from the assumption that the true vapor pressure of a diesel fuel 

at 100 F is equal to the measured Reid vapor pressure, a conversion 

to vapor pressure at 80 F was made using Figure K.J, attached. The 

assumption that true and Reid vapor pressures are equal is 

necessary since available correlations relating these two measures 

of vapor pressure were developed -for gasolines, and do not apply to 

less volatile diesel fuels. This approach gave a vapor pressure 

estimate of 0.91 mm Hg, corresponding to re-fueling losses of 0.037 

9/9*1-

The calculations described above account only for hydrocarbons 
P.14 

emitted through displacement of tank vapor, but do not account for 

any additional vaporization of the refueling fuel as it is 

introduced into the fuel tank. This additional vaporization is a 

complex process involving non-equilibrium heat and mass transfer, 

so that modelling of it is beyond the scope of this preliminary 

study. Although the actual amount of vaporization is most likely 

much less, an upper bound can be estimated by assuming that the 

refueling fuel vaporizes to an extent equal to that experienced by 

the initial tank fuel before refueling. Under this limiting 

assumption, refueling losses would be twice the value calculated 

above, or 0.01 g/gal or 0.074 g/gal, respectively, for the two 

vapor pressure estimates. 

References: 

1) Wade, D.T., "Factors Influencing Vehicle Evaporative 

Emissions," SAE Paper 670126. 

2) Monthly Progress Report No. 19, 1/1/87-1/31/87, on CRC Project 

VE-1, "Investigaion of the Effects of Fuel Composition and 

Injection and Combustion System Type on Heavy-Duty Diesel 

Exhause Emissions," Southwest Research Institute Project No. 

08-8673. (February 10, 1987). 

3) Hougen, O.A., and Watson, K.M., "Chemical Process Principles Charts," 

Chart 3, Wiley (1946). 

4) API Technical Data Book - Petroleum Refining, Fourth Edition. 

American Petroleum Institute, 1983. 

5) Alternative Fuels Committee of the Engine Manufactures 

Association, "A Technical Assessment of Alcohol Fuels," SAE 

Technical Paper 820261 (February 22-26, 1982). 
P.15 

Estimation of Fuel Vapor Pressure 

for Calculation of Refueling Emissions 

The following procedure can be used for estimation of liquid hydrocarbon 

vapor pressure from analyses that include an atmospheric distillation test. 

Data values used.for calculations are attached. 

1) Plot the fuel ASTM D-86 distillation curve, and divide the curve 

into a number of small-volume increments. These were selected 

as 0-5 vol*, 5-10%, 10-20%, etc., as shown in the attached plot. 

2) Determine the volume-average boiling point of each cut. For 

example, the 0-5 vol% cut was found to have a boiling point of 

366 F. The remaining values are shown in the attached 

calculation table. 

3) Using Proceedure 2B1.1 as defined in Ref. 3, calculate the total 

liquid volume-average boiling point of the total liquid, defined 

as: 

vabp = (T10 + T30 f T50 • T70 + T90) / 5 

where the T10, T30, etc. values are the distillation 

temperatures at the corresponding volume percents. Also 

calculate the ASTM D-86 10-90% slope. Values obtained for these 

quantites are 509.2 F and 2.38, respecively. 

4) Calculate the mean average boiling point (MeABP) using 

Proceedure 281.1. The values obtained is 496.7 F. 

5) Calculate the Watson K-factor, defined as 

K = (MeABP)»#(l/3) / Sp Gr 60/60F 

From the reported API gravity of 34.7, a specific gravity of 

.8514 is found, resulting in a K-factor of 11.57. 

6) From the boiling point of each cut found in 2) above and the 

K-factor from 5), find the molecular weight and API gravity of 

each cut using Figure K.4 from Ref. 4 (attached). These values 

are tabulated in the attached calculation table, with the cut 

density reported as specific gravity. In obtaining these 

values, it was assumed that the K-factor of each cut was equal 

to that of the total liquid as calculated in 5). This 

assumption is probably inaccurate, but lack of additional data 

precludes further refinement. 

7) For each cut, calculate the corresponding mass, number of moles 

and mole fraction. For these calculations, the mass basis is 

unimportant, so the mass or' each fraction is calculated from 

(Vol* of each cut) (3p Gr) 

8) Calculate the vapor pressure of each cut found in 2), using 

Proceedure 5A1.13 from Ref. 3. For these calculations, the 

K-factor of each cut was assumed equal to that of the total 

liquid, as calculated in 5). The comment given in 6) regarding 

this assumption also applies here. 
P.16 

9) Calculate the overall liquid vapor pressure by summing the 

product of the vapor pressure and corresponding mole fraction of 

each cut, using values found in 7) and 8) . The resulting value 

is .13078 mm Hg. 

10) Calculate the overall molecular weight by dividing the total 

mass by the total moles, using values from 7). The value 

obtained is 198.67. 
P.17 

Fuel Characterization 

SwRI Fuel Code EM-678-F 

CRC VE-1 Fuel No. 5 

ASTM D-86 Distillation (Average Values), F: 

Vol% Temp, F 

IBP 

5 

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

95 

EP 

API Gravity: 

34.7 

336 

388 

412 

440 

467 

490 

512 

532 

553 

574 

602 

626 

645 
P.18 

tfmaf 12-1M 

M M * in USA 

Millimwr- ' , 3 \S~ V " 

-a. -i "3b '"V" 

\-^ O- . ^ T 
P.19 

IOO 200 300 400 SOO 600 700 800 900 1000 

Boiling point, *F 

Fig. K.4. Properties of petroleum fractions. 
P.20 

. c 

CHARACTERISTIC 

CHEMISTRY 

Aoeroa. Soeefic Gravity 

Boiling Pomt 

•c 

Net Heating Valua (Mass) 

STU/lo 

MJ/ig 

Nat Heating Value (Volume! 

BTU/geJ 

MJ/ I 

Heat of Vaooriation 

u/ig 

Vaoor Rresaure 9 100"f 

oat 

kf»a 

Octane Numoar 

Researdt 

Meter 

Catana Numoer 

Stoieniemetrie A/* ReM 

Vaoor f lammabrtrry Lawns. 

% by volume 

Viscosity <? 40"C 

Cannooiaa 

Centistoies 

Appearance 

Vaoor Toxicity 

Not* 1. Net aooiicaoia. 

Not* 2. May 6e the same aa 

Note X Values not puotiinee 

Source: 

TABLE II . 1 

PROPERTIES OF ALCOHOLS AND OTHER FUELS 

GASOLINE 

MIXTURE 0 " 

HYDROCARBONS 

.72 - .75 

8S-43 7 

30-22 3 

18.700 

413 

117.000 

32 

170 

400 

9 - 13 

62-9 0 

91 - 100 

62-9 2 

Below 15 

146 

6 - 8 

5 

6 

Caienesa to ligm 

amoer color 

M near ate irritant. 

getetma. or add 1.5 

L 

Alternative 

Association, 

SAE Techni 

NO. 1 

DIESEL FUEL 

MIXTURE OF 

MYOROCARBONS 

32 

360-53 0 

190-28 0 

18.500 

43 

126.000 

35.3 

230 

600 

.05 

.34 

Note 1 

40-6 0 

14.6 

6 • 6.5 

1 45 

1.75 

Colorless :Q hgnt 

amoer color 

Extreme concentrano 

NO. 2 

DIESEL PUEL 

MIXTURE OF 

. HYDROCARBONS 

as 

375 - 630 

210 - 325 

18.400 

43 

130.000 

366 

230 

600 

.04 

.27 

Note 1 

40-6 0 

14 6 

.6 - 6.5 

2.41 

2.79 

Lignt amoer eoior 

n causes narcosis. 

y 2 numoers depending on blending gractK 

Fuels Ccmmittee of the 

"A Technical Assessmen 

cal Paper 320261, February 

-9-

ETHANOL 

C,H,0H 

.79 

173 

78.3 

11.600 

27 

76.000 

21.3 

390 

900 

2.3 

17 

111 

92 

Sen** 15 

9 

3.5- IS 

St'c33 

11 

Coioness 

Irritant 

toxic only 

m large 

doses. 

METHANOL 

CH,OH 

.79 , 

149 

63 

a. 600 

20.1 

37.000 

13.9 

SOO 

1.110 

4 6 

32 

112 

91 

Below 15 

6 4 

5.5 - 26 

46 

53 

Colorless 

Irritant 

cumulative 

toxicant. 

Causes 

narcosis. 

e. 

Engine Manufactui 

t of Alcohol Fue 

22-25, 1982. 

\ 

\ 

GASOHOL 

90% UNLEAOEO 

GASOLINE 

10% ETHANOL 

73-7 6 

77 -41 0 

25-21 0 

18.000 

41.9 

112.900 

20.9 

200 

463 

8-1 6 

55-11 0 

•Note 2 

Below 1S 

14 

Note 3 

5 

5 

Coioness to iignt 

amoer eoior 

Moderate irritant. 

Extreme concentration causes 

narcosis. 

• 

•ers 

Is," 

•a 
P.21 

200 300 400 

Temperature, "P 

500 600 800 1000 i200 

Kits. K.2. Vapor pressure of hydrocarbons. 
P.22 

- :o:==~c=roo 7 

; T:r:5ricoN-'i r-

/f -fjirm*r,|..o- C 

r. r-i r rj c* © (n • o m o c* 

-i, i .^j rj — fli — uj V r\j d1 rsj — 

— t\. n% '•i — tp r** 1/7 m r^. m 

^ 2 ^ '- :: s w o IN IT p 

••n £ ft r. ; n - ^ * O IT *J 

- •_d--

a

.

e

?88

0

.8g 

= oooo • •oflc 

~ O O 

a 

rj rg — — — ry rj rg (\l N PJ O 

ooaooaooooo 9 

u. r.BnNiin;ni3at c 

i

 N :9~~9*!

T "**. 1 *! 9 

" \D^*

M**s a 0^ff

t 0?* 00 09 ^ — 

••( !• 'i

 r

l *•! rj-^J fj M f • *• -

rocoaoaaooa c 

.'- O * O T <7* — a 3 •» -J? irt 

~j — T- — <\» * <J? m %c m m <£ 

• •.ul— Kfv.(f. (timfs-ffl — 

•!• 7- s*> O P* ^ *>l O ff» r^ vj? *• m 

^ ••irjin«»*»rn(TirTiffi ^ 

f^<N^^rj\|7i^i

n

a

- . f

g y) 

o — m T » m M? so rs. o (n rs. 

• t ooooooooo \n 

T tn \b r» cK p — N m • \5 

ifttp^^o^tfjQiOO — N 

0 09 O O 0) Q) ^D ^B ^D CD 0J 

ddododdbdob P W tn m (ft W in 

j>on?5 —INM» 

SSSSSSSSo'o' 

iisa«o-<nir«T;« 

rn#»»»B5ioioif>io« 

ninaaeeeoes a 

8 53 

s 

a 

Ch QNintuJ3°8w'"* S in -» 1 1 1 t 1 1 i 1 t 1 1 09600006 b QL o ifl - rj ft t m ^ r» S ? 

Oi il 
P.23 

' * 

%{*/<// da? 

Onboard Vehicle Evaluation Update 

Peter Hutchins 

John Anderson 

Following inspection of the fuel tank and filler neck for any 

signs of deterioration during the time that the vehicle was 

parked in the small soak area, a brief operational evaluation was 

performed. The evaluation included operation of the vehicle on 

public roads (city, rural and expressway), and fueling at 

commercial fuel stations. Vehicle driveability was evaluated 

during the on-road operations. Fueling quality was evaluated at 

the commercial stations. The actions taken during the 

evaluations, existing ambient conditions and results of the 

evaluations are summarized below. 

Driveability evaluation. 

This part of the evaluation included the consumption of three 

tank-fulls of fuel and the drives to and from commercial fuel 

stations for fueling quality evaluations. Each of the full tank 

drivedowns was initiated with a full tank of fuel and was 

continued until the tank was empty. 

Indolene test fuel was used in the first full tank drivedown. 

This drivedown was performed on November 27 and 28 with ambient 

temperatures in the 68 to 45 F range. The vehicle was parked 

indoors prior to each day of operation. On both days, vehicle 

cold start anomalies were experienced; i.e. the engine did not 

start during the initial cranking period of approximately 10 

seconds. Engine start was achieved at about 3 seconds into the 

second crank period. Normal; i.e good, vehicle driveability was 

reported up to 197 miles of operation on day one. At this point, 

severe stumble was experienced when merging onto an expressway at 

full throttle. On day two, following 16 miles of operation (221 

miles from full tank) a stumble was experienced during moderate 

acceleration from a stop. Total mileage accumulated on the 

tankfull was 283 miles. 

The second full tank drivedown was performed on December 11 and 

12. This drivedown was performed with 87 octane commercial 

unleaded purchased from an Amoco station. Fueling performance of 

the onboard system was good; i.e. there were no premature nozzle 

shut-offs or spitbacks during the dispensing of 11.2 gallons. 

Cold start, from room temperature on the Indolene remaining in 

the tank, required two cranking operations. Prevailing ambient 

temperature was in the 45 to 41 F range. On the first day of the 

drivedown, approximately 20 minutes after fueling, a slight 

stumble was reported during entry onto an expressway. During 

this day, multiple vehicle stops and accelerations back to speed 

were performed without driveability incident. The second day of 

this drivedown was initiated with a good cold start following 

overnight soak out-of-doors. No driveability problems were 
P.24 

experienced during day two. 308 miles were accumulated on this 

tank of fuel. 

The third tank full of fuel used in the driveability evaluation 

was 93 octane unleaded purchased from an Amoco station. Fueling 

was performed without incident at a dispensing rate of 10.8 

gallons per minute. The third drivedown was performed on December 

20 and 21 with ambient temperature in the 46 to 50 F range. Cold 

starts, from ambient temperature, and on road driveability were 

good. 311 miles were accumulated on the third tank of fuel. 

Fueling evaluations. 

In addition to the two fuelings performed at commercial stations 

as part of the driveability evaluation, eight other fuelings were 

performed. These fuelings were performed on February 5 through 7 

at stations on the Ann Arbor area. (Throughout the fueling 

evaluation, the driveability of the vehicle was also monitored. 

No driveability defects were observed.) 

The fueling evaluations were initiated with a fuel tank drain and 

the addition of 3.5 to 4 gallons of fuel at EPA. The vehicle was 

then driven to a commercial station and data acquisition 

equipment connected prior to fueling. Fuel dispensing rate was 

measured during fueling. Fueling was performed at the maximum 

rate achievable from the dispensing pump. Following the first 

automatic shut-off of the nozzle at the full tank level, two 

additional automatic nozzle shut-offs were performed at maximum 

flow rate for topping off of the tank. 

The commercial station employer, fuel dispensing rates and 

performance of the vehicle system are as follows: 

Station 

Shell. Carpenter @ US12 

Shell. Carpenter @ US12 

Shell. Plymouth Rd. 

Shell. Carpenter @ US12 

Amoco. Zeeb Rd. 

Mobil. Zeeb Rd. 

Standard. Wash. @ Glen. 

Shell. Carpenter @ US12 

Dispensing 

Rate (gpm) System performance 

10 5 to 10 drop spit 6 first shut-off. 

10 5 to 10 drop spit @ first shut-off. 

11 No problems. 

10 5 to 10 drop spit @ first shut-off. 

10.6 No problems. 

11.7 No problems. 

10.9 No problems 

10 No problems. (Same pump as prior 

tests, nozzle changed). 

Summary. 

The starting and driveability characteristics of the vehicle are 

presently (2-8-91) good. 

Fueling performance of the system is good with most nozzles. Some fuel 

spitting may occur depending on the performance of the nozzle. 
P.25 

OuA 

^ ^ \ 

2 

\ PPO^0 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

SEP 4 - 1991 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

The Honorable Butler Derrick 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dr. Mr. Derrick: 

This is in response to your letter of July 30, 1991 

regarding EPA's compliance to the mandate under the 1990 Clean 

Air ACt Amendments to issue regulations requiring onboard vapor 

recovery controls. The Amendments require EPA to consult with 

the Secretary of Transportation regarding safety before issuing 

regulations requiring onboard controls. This consultation is 

well underway. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), 

recently released an updated study of onboard safety. EPA is 

currently preparing to publish a Federal Register notice 

announcing the availability of the NHTSA study and scheduling a 

public hearing to receive comments. A written comment period 

will also be announced. We will make the final determination 

on how to proceed with the rule based on DOT'S conclusions 

regarding the safety risks of onboard system's and on the record 

developed during the comment period. 

Again, EPA appreciates the opportunity to respond to your 

comments. They will be included in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Please feel free to contact me if you require any 

additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

DONALD E. ZINGER 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
$ ef% \ 

|J252J ' "UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

*\P*&<^ WASHINGTON. D.C. 20450 

SEP 4 1991 

P.26 

THE ADMINISTRATOR 

Governor Judd Gregg 

State of New Hampshire 

Office of the Governor 

Concord, NH 03301-4990 

Dear Governor Gregg: 

This is in response to your letter dated July 2, 1991, 

regarding the implementation of onboard refueling vapor 

controls for motor vehicles. I appreciate your comments. 

As you pointed out in your letter, Congress directed EPA 

to promulgate an onboard rule within one year of enactment of 

the Clean Air Act Amendments, that is, by November 15, 1991. 

It also directed EPA to consult with the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) regarding onboard system safety as part of 

this rulemaking. This consultation is well underway. The 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which 

is part of the DOT, has recently released a study of onboard 

system safety. We are reviewing this study and have placed a 

copy in the public docket for this rulemaking. We also plan to 

publish a notice in the Federal Register to announce a public 

hearing and to solicit comments from the public. We will make 

the final determination on how to proceed with the rule based 

on DOT'S conclusions regarding safety risks of onboard systems 

and on the record developed during the comment period. 

Thank you again for your comments. They will be included 

in the public docket. Please feel free to contact me if you 

require any additional information. 

e» 

Sincerely yours, 

Bill 

William K. Reilly 

SDSB:Kopinski:Harook:2565 Plymouth Rd.:x229:8/12/91:9611W: 

Last reviewed by Charles Gray 08/ /91:Control No. AX-91-2225 

Reviewed by DZinger:BJR:X27647:AR-455:8-14-91:Wang No. 2404T 
P.27 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

SEP' 4 1991 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

The Honorable John M. Spratt, Jr. 

House of Representatives 

Washington, D.C. 20515 

Dr. Mr. Spratt: 

This is in response to your letter of July 29, 1991 

requesting that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

address your comments concerning onboard refueling vapor 

recovery systems. We welcome the opportunity to do so. 

Your letter expressed concern regarding EPA's compliance 

to the mandate under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments to issue 

regulations requiring onboard vapor recovery controls. The 

Amendments require EPA to consult with the Secretary of 

Transportation regarding safety before issuing regulations 

requiring onboard controls. This consultation is well underway. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA), part of the Department of Transportation (DOT), 

recently released an updated study of onboard safety. EPA is 

currently preparing to publish a Federal Register notice 

announcing the availability of the NHTSA study and scheduling a 

public hearing to receive comments. A written comment period 

will also be announced. We will make the final determination 

on how to proceed with the rule based on DOT'S conclusions 

regarding the safety risks of onboard systems and on the record 

developed during the comment period. 

Again, EPA appreciates the opportunity to respond to your 

comments. They will be included in the public docket for this 

rulemaking. Please feel free to contact me if you require any 

additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

DONALD E. ZINGER 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

SDSB:Pugliese:CumTSll:X349:2565PLYMOUTHRD:08/21/91:4747W 

Last reviewed by Charles Gray:08/ /91:Control No. AL913209 

Reviewed by DZinger:BJR:X27447:AR-455:8-21-91:Wang No. 2424T 

Printed on Recycled Paper 
P.28 

Goto 

Grahaa A. O'Connor 

President 

September 23, 1991 

Mr. Glenn W. Passavant 

Senior Project Manager 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Office of Mobile Sources 

2565 Plymouth Road 

Ann Arbor, MI 48105 

Dear Glenn: 

Thank you for the time you and Don Kopinski spent with Jeff Broadhurst 

and me concerning the subject matter of fuel tank bladders on 13 September 1991. 

Jeffrey and I have taken under consideration your comments and recommendations and intend to respond accordingly. 

Yours truly, > 

GAO/ms 

cc: Don Kopinski 

Jeff Broadhurst 

IHHOVAT I ONS & TECHNOLOGIES , IMC . 

**0* Weatdale Court. Fort Worth, Texas 76109 Tel 817 923-0300 Fax 817 346-3164 
P.29 

JUL I 7 1991 

Governor James G. Martin 

State of North Carolina 

Office of the Governor 

Raleigh, NC 27603-8001 

Dear Governor Martin: 

This is in response to your letter to EPA Administrator 

William K. Reilly dated June 12, 1991, regarding the 

implementation of onboard refueling vapor controls for motor 

vehicles. We appreciate your comments. 

As you pointed out in your letter, Congress directed the 

EPA to promulgate an onboard rule within one year of enactment 

of the Clean Air Act Amendments, that is, by November 15, 

1991. It also directed EPA to consult with the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) regarding onboard system safety as part of 

this rulemaking. This consultation is well underway. The 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), which 

is part of the DOT, is planning to release an assessment of 

onboard system safety this month. When we receive this report 

EPA will publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing 

the reopening of the public comment period on the original 

onboard proposal, which was issued in 1987. Because this was 

several years ago, the Federal Register notice will contain an 

assessment of circumstances that have changed since that time. 

We will also conduct a public hearing on the matter later this 

summer. 

Thanks again for your comments. They will be included in 

the public docket for this rulemaking. Please feel free to 

contact me if you require any additional information. 

Sincerely yours, 

ORIGINAL SIGNED BY 

DONALD E. ZINGER 

Richard D. Wilson 

Director, Office of Mobile Sources 

SDSB:H.Puliese:334:2565 Plymouth Rd:DD#4738W 

Last Reviewed by Phil Lorang:7/16/91:Control No. AX911924 

Reviewed by DZINGER:hp:x27647:7/17/91:AR-455:Wang No.2328T 
XJG-08-1991 10:4 6 FROM EPA MOBILE SOURCES TO ^, ^ J*??~ ^ 

STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE Got?*. 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

JUDD GREGG. GOVERNOR 

Jul y 2, 1991 

Mr. William E. Reilly, Administrator 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

4Q1 M Street,-S-.W.. . .. _.. — . — 

Room 1200, Vest Tover 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Reilly: 

One of the important issues facing the Environmental Protection Agency, as 

it carries out the provisions of the 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, is 

the implementation of a gasoline vapor recovery program. Such a program vould 

provide needed reductions in emissions in areas that experience the vorst 

violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. However, 

the implemented program must be economically feasible, easily enforceable, and 

acceptable to the public in terms of costs and convenience. 

Section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act Amendments charge EPA with 

promulgation of an onboard vapor recovery standard vithin one year of enactment 

of the Amendments. I strongly urge you to expeditiously comply with this 

statutory deadline, because of the considerable emission reductions an onboard 

standard vould provide to ozone non-attainment areas. Not only non-attainment 

areas benefit from this program, since vehicle, manufacturers vill likely 

introduce improved onboard vapor recovery systems in all areas of the nation. 

Moreover, improved onboard systems meet the tests of economic feasibility, 

enforceability, and public acceptance. 

Thank you for your consideration of my position on this important issue 

for New Hampshire and the nation.. Please keep me informed on the status of 

EPA's progress on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

0978S/tms 

STATE HOUSE • CONCORD. NEW HAMPSHIRE 03301-4990 • TELEPHONE: 603-271-2121 
P.31 

£CFD P.05 • ' 

6 0/3 

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR 

RALEIGH 27603-8001 

JAMES a MARTIN 

GOVBINOR June 12/ 1991 

Mr. William K. Reilly 

Administrator 

Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Room 1200 West Tower 

...Washington, D.C. 20460 

Dear Mr. Reilly: 

One of the important issues facing the Environmental Protection 

Agency, as it carries out the provisions of the 1990 Amendments 

to the Clean Air Act, is the implementation of a gasoline vapor 

recovery program. Such a program would provide needed reductions 

in emissions in areas that experience the worst violations of the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Ozone. However, the implemented program must be economically feasible, easily enforceable 

and acceptable to the public in terms of costs and convenience. 

Section 202(a){6) of the Clean Air Act Amendments charge EPA with 

promulgation of an onboard vapor recovery standard within one year 

of enactment of the Amendments. I strongly urge you to expeditiously comply with this statutory deadline, because of the considerable emission reductions an onboard standard would provide 

to ozone non-attainment areas. Not only non-attainment areas 

benefit from this program, since vehicle manufacturers will likely 

introduce improved onboard vapor recovery systems in all areas of 

the nation. Moreover, improved onboard systems meet the tests of 

economic feasibility, enforceability and public acceptance. 

Thank you for your consideration of my position on this important 

issue for North Carolina and the nation. Please keep me informed 

on the status of EPA's progress on this matter. 

Sincerely, 

iS.TfUz; 

G. Martin 

JGM/jy 

*:= 
P.32 

&0/S~ 

A SYSTEM FOR THE CONTROL OF 

VEHICLE EVAPORATING AND 

REFUELING EMISSIONS 

August 1990 Number 1/90 

BACKGROUND m^mmm—m*amm^mm*me^mmmmmmtw*m—mmma^ 

The subject of evaporative volatile organic compound emissions from gasoline 

fueled vehicles has recently become a subject of major public and political 

interest in the US and in Europe. 

Carbon canisters containing activated charcoal to adsorb evaporative emissions have been used for many years in the USA, Japan and Australia and more 

recently also in Europe. 

The function of these canisters has only been to adsorb the emissions that 

occur when the car is driven or when the tank breathes as a result of temperature 

variations. The emissions that arise during vehicle refueling, due to the displacement of vapor from the fuel tank by incoming liquid fuel, though, has not yet been 

a subject of uniform corrective measures. 

TWO SYSTEM APPROACHES ARE 

CONSIDERED! ^ewemam^me—mm* 

1. Since 1974 some counties in California have introduced the ..Service 

Station Vapor Recovery System". 

This operates by using a separate 

pipe to send displaced vapor from the 

vehicle fuel tank back to the underground tank. This approach requires 

not only the reequipment of all service 

station pumps but also all vehicles to 

be equipped with a standardized fuel 

filling orifice. 

2. Equipping the vehicles with an enlarged version of the carbon canister 

described above. With this system 

vapor emissions that arise when 

refueling are adsorbed by the canister. 

Subsequently, the canister is desorbed 

by drawing air through it and into the 

engine. This system is referred to as 

the „On-Board Refueling Control 

System". 

COMPARISON BETWEEN THE TWO SYSTEM APPROACHES: >^_ _ 

The Service Station Vapor Recovery System has the disadvantage of being more 

expensive and less efficient than the On-Board Refueling Control System,see 

comparison below: 

Efficiency of 

emission capture 

Cost per retained 

1,000kgofgasollini e 

Service Station 

Vapor Recovery 

5 5 % 

13,290 DM/t 

On-Board 

Refueling Control 

9 8 % 

770 DM/t 

Source: MWV (The German Petroleum Industry Anociitian) 

The on-board system approach primarily has been criticized for: 

1. Being too „bulky" - a minimum size of 51 canister for a 501 tank is required. 

2. The physical form of the system which makes it difficult to adapt and 

integrate into the automobile. 

3. An increased security risk as a consequence of the intc-gration of the 

enlarged canisters and pipes in the vehicle. 

4. The reduced immediate emission retention due to the fact that the system can 

only be implemented in new cars. 

©b/BLOCHE R 

NEWSLETTER: 1/90 
P.33 

THE BLUECHER APPROACH 

O. ur aim has been to develop 

an activated charcoal filter for the 

On-Board Refueling Control System 

that: ^>C : 

4 >* Requires less volume 

Has an improved, more flexible, form design 

Provides a safer system 

THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA 

ARE DECISIVE FOR THE EFFCIENCY OF THE ADSORPTIVE MEDIUM IN THIS APPUCATION: 

1. THE ADSORPTION 

KINETICS OF THE CHOSEN 

ADSORBERS «^^^ _ 

Basically this is a dynamic process 

where smalleradsorbcrs should be used 

in order to increase the outer surface 

area and to shorten the distance between the initial and final adsorption. 

Since this normally leads to poorer 

flow characteristics larger particles 

have traditionally been chosen. 

Bluechcr designed its filter with 

small spherical adsorbers (0 0.4-0.7 

mm) adhered on a foam matrix, thereby 

optimizing adsorption and flow characteristics. The efficiency of the system also depends on the pore structure 

of the adsorber which has been 

optimized for this application during 

manufacture. 

2. THE ADSORPTION 

CAPACITY IMMI ^ 

The utilization capacity (the working 

capacity including the remaining capacity for the next filling) and the 

maximum quantity of gasoline vapor 

to be adsorbed determine the total adsorber capacity needed. Preliminary 

test results have shown that for every 

201 tank content approximately 11 of 

our filter medium is needed. 

3. THE DESORBABIUTY OF 

THE VAPORS MMn^i^i M 

The gasoline vapors are chemically 

not homogenous since they consist of 

chemicals with different molecular 

weights and boiling points. 

In order to adsorb substances with 

low molecular weights like butane, 

smaller sized micropores are needed. 

These, however, are easily choked by 

larger molecules (e.g. octanes) which 

will not easily desorb and therefore 

reduce the efficiency of the filter. 

Bluecher uses a technique (patent 

pending) where different layers are 

used for the adsorption of the different 

substances. Since the desorption flow 

is in the reversed direction of the adsorption flow the risk of cross-contamination is eliminated. 

4. OTHER FEATURES ^^^ M 

The Bluecher product can be cut and 

formed into virtually any shape to fit 

the specific requirements of the car 

designer. We are not restricted to a 

typical canister form which in many 

cases is difficult to locate or install. 

Consequently, a location for the filter 

can be chosen with a higher degree of 

safety and lower costs for the car 

manufacturer. 

The primary safety concern with 

the traditional canister has been its 

assumed propensity to catch fire. 

THE FOLLOWING ADVANTAGES VS. CONVENTIONAL ACTIVATED CARBON CANISTERS CAN BE IDENTIFIED: 

• A reduction in volume. 

Preliminary tests have shown that approximately 

1 I filter medium is required for every 20 I tank content. 

A reduction in weight. 

An infinite flexibility in design and adaptability of the filter 

which will enhance the security. 

An improved safety of the system due to a reduced propensity 

for the filter to become overheated. 

A substantially lower pressure drop. 

The absence of carbon dust which can arise when traditional 

canisters are exposed to vibrations. 

The Bluecher filter reduces the risk of 

the creation of „hot spots", under all 

circumstances, by the predetermined 

and fixed distances between the 

adsorbers. The high air permeability 

of the filter medium also reduces the 

risk of overheating. 

Another advantage of the Bluechcr 

filter is its good airflow characteristic. 

The measured pressure drop is up to 

ten times less than for conventional 

canister filters. Furthermore, the application of adsorbers on a matrix 

guarantee a homogenous utilization of 

the filter volume. 

Finally, the Bluecher filter is a very 

clean filter. The absence of carbon 

dust, even after exposure to vibration, 

should be of considerable interest to 

both the filter and car manufacturers. 
P.34 

l>ki 1/V7/3, **** 

Cap-oVV v"aipcyr r\eU**e- @ 5"WXQ Ta* K Prs^ujs , 

^1 " X 

Am = 

r^w^Ov/ 

= ^ r%- )i 

P,«5ttU*0 

' deivs^OS-U^C 

relcaso.a\ 

\f= vapor space. 

\/= (\<o 6 a \ ) f 90% ) Clssumt, \6 ^ \ fc^, \otf k\l ) 

= (\4.4 s *\)/rj.4©^\/^ ) 

» 2.0 ft? 

\4.-7* ZSH\\& faj.lmV&/vAy\ 

-] 

e

 . OZL4 P i 

(iffiyiiliV m Pimi u£ ^MIIM. ) *f2^ r 

i^SrSame 9. 0 «>*£ RVY PuaA , 90F*. 

fc^tul Cone » 54 £ (volu**) (M*ck«. U \zA3T«AR«T*.)p.»s) 

pai Ui«V f^ « 8 p«iv (^A»*\ pressure) C 

s . OZ2. *.eU/j £ 

nvoltc v*t o? £*soW. * 100$/IA*W . (rV?X., McoUU * stiver*, p. i ) 

•'• /»*

 e 6oo 6 /«•\cX.o^^ K«U/j?j(-^rf^^X-s§r9'. |4 U^/Pt3 
\ 

* 

i OKI I P -Q I i P. •. =. 1 POCWA •tttttnttn* +t

+

nttTTir"nnii 

January 18, 1991 

HOTE: To Glenn Passavant, OMS/Ann Arbor 

Subject: Vehicle Refueling and Gasoline Reforraulat ion 

FMf-ii- MUX 

P.35 

X havo boon calling to cot; up a confcronco call -to dixvuxx oMrs'» 

present and past vehicle refueling studies and gasoline reformulation 

studies. Below are the items we would like to discuss with you and 

others in Ann ArborJ 

vehicle Refueling: 

1) Status and next steps (schedule) on promulgation of onboard 

refueling controls. Also, I would like to be on the working 

rrrmip for "hhis p m jwrrh . 

2) Paul Argyropoulos (OMS/FOSD) and I are working on the Agencies 

_^iSpi.^ent«T.iori Oi scagf*. j t_jfiora;rojs. i nave tne lead on 

developing a technical guidance document for Stage II controls 

(statement of work attached) and Paul ip working on the 

enforoemen t otejra*<s«ry. Cino « th o proposa l o £ unbv«t<l, x hav e 

lost contact on some projects or work you have t*een doing-on 

refuelinrj controls. Below are some of the proiects or work I 

woui.a xuce ro discuss: 

5>t-V-TD t-i-r-ts - Additional work on the refueling emission factor equation. 

LMp-.\stx> :<^b\ ) . . . 

• "f57V9o"\ - Service station size distribution. /=* -

v''-.'" ;:V -w '•- > oHv'-^^j^aa 

memo:»^G,^:NPr : " - - - 0-*"**>*«5>. wa ^ _ / 

dUfcs. - Opillacf e fr-oxa conycntiono l and ota^ e I I noaoloo . 

StW.^w^ . 0? r^JT ffccorfc /o<>s>. 3.AA\ . £ ^* t repor t t o -5. ST. 

Li —=^ r """ "—"~Bar-o»"feHixv3 »*v3 oTnp+-yS r>A amieeinn c frrum nnrfororoiinr i Rfcrvrao'fi 

, tan k vonte . "*r\sur'zr\4SSi ••=*'"^-OM'fc r.zx»<i. /Svc . Str\ dkaUr s K Gj\\C. I rA«.A\0 ? 

br^^l , ^ - - _ M3fl 8 > 

pccP\-i. to sve -*ns; - Trips to Stage II service stations. 

vv^y Wa-'i. bi^v --4VO - Emission loss testing or studies on Stage IT nozzles. 

Gasoline Reformulation and Reduction of Air Toxics In Gasolines: 

We have started the development of a National Emission Standard 

for Hazardous pollutants (NESHAP) for Stage I Gasoline Marketing 

Facilities (see attached start Action Request). I will put you on the 

work group for this project, if you or someone else in Ann Arbor is 

interested. The Stage I NESHAP will be based on control of any 

organic constituents in gasoline vapor that are listed as one of the 

189 hazardous air pollutants (HAP) in the CAAA of 1990. Thus we must 

establish which HAP compounds (and how much) are in present and future 

gasolines. 
P.36 

JP.N 18 '91 15:51 'ROM 88838tt88{t3S«3«SSB ••.; i ' "&'/ PAGE. 303 

'-Y-i-^-trCf/Vc: 

1) We would like to learn the purpose, status, schedule, and contact 

person(s) for any of the projects that OMS has on the 

reformulation and air toxic provisions under Title II of the 1990 

CAAA that will impact the composition of gasoline vapors. 

2) We have very limited data on either the vapor or liquid phase HAP 

compounds in gasolines. Its my understanding someone in OMS in 

Ann Arbor has already been meeting with API,We would like to find 

out what they are doing, so we don't duplicate our efforts. 

Doe s OMS hav e d<j»t-a Oil Lhe MAP uonLeitL i n ycisulin e vctpoi. UJL 

4-4-^^^)^* 4-t-« * « . A n . v -4-W.-. «t/\/» TiAr» -.-

!••.«•• •^X'!-*^** -*f ^.^ ^ X «>.*v w . t-n^^-w -A^-waw -A- -WK- -

• «. .-• I 

Please call (FTS 629-5397), so we can schedule a time to discuss 

the above. ^ ^ 

Steve Shedd 

ts? (jh-W*/. kit. K ?*l • B'" 
P.37 

5>-

;"... :• - A- >.'.u._v:.. -. a-xlfiVi-jr . v ^ - • •< / 

"

r

 ' ; o T " hzr (v jk / r-z. v .XW_, .? 5X-F 

...... J l S r or- S-bTT "v oV> v-.-.l'ce- •• ix> SW e 

~S' 
P.38 

A Pr /Z-p+Xy-^yp. Q4^V- N <^~-vx^O<~<r*^J;

 s^^ri^jZL, S? 5 

pn^^Yfab— J t^yj^c— ^v«^-»<7 -~ 0'6-5 7~y*^-£r 

c> M6 ^^4*. *~? jt~f ^1. ^^^^^f //. i^X /i^tt? - ^----^^Cr ? /i* 

/<WT-f J^*r— (-A^*rf 5 5 — /«^-*~-£> , G./fgJ/Yep -&Z7 ^ ,<£~^^ _ /czy&z^ *>tf^ 

^T\ ^ — c-; / ^ / ^/ £ --&*< ji^ . 7 
P.39 

Documentation for Charles Gray 

JH0Q2. 

Date submitted: K)/a~ 

Charles requested 

Charles requested ASAP 

Should see immediately 

Should see today 

Should see by 

1 

General reading 

FYI 

Submitte d by : \~~V 4 <nu? 

fr V <$' V 
P.40 

GCT-Q1-1991 13:23 FROM EPA MOBILE SOURCES TO ECTD P. 02 

DLLJ.ER SHANNON TEL:' 1-202-338-1871 Oct 1-91 11:49 No.015 P.02 

Robert A. Collier (1917-1084} 

Thomae P. Shannon 

William W, Scow 

David A. Hartquist 

R. Timothy Columbus 

lAuren R. Huwaid 

Paul D. Cullea 

Kathleen R. McDermott 

Michael D. Sheraton 

Mark L. Aaatrlao 

Jeffrey W. King 

John P. William* 

Paul C. RoftcnUml 

James R. Loftls. Ill 

J

ohn L. Wiitenbom 

cfn-ey L Letter 

Michael R. Kerahow 

Jeflrey S. Becktagtoo 

Judith t. Oldham 

Jeanne M. Fetch 

Laurence J. LaaotT 

Christopher J. MeeAroy 

Patrick J. Coyne 

Keren M. Lock-wood 

Dennis J. WhllUeeey 

Douglaa W. Churaaa 

William C. MacLeod* 

Sean F. X. Roland 

Patrick B. raxrone" 

K. Michael O'Cormell 

Htrold W. Purman II • 

•rawer 1* uxnuu 

Collier, Shannon & -Scott 

Attor'ncys-at'Law 

3050 K Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20007 

Telephone: (80S) 343-8400 

telecopier: (202) 338-5534 

"Wlrtter'o Direct Dial Number 

(202) 342-8555 

September 25, 1991 

Kathleen Weaver Cannon 

Daniel J. Hftxroli 

Gary L. Melunpy 

T. Michael Janko\»aki 

Mary T. Stolcy 

Robert, M. Hnber 

R. Randal Black 

Mercy M. Rehbcrgcr 

William A. Henry 

J. Keith Auabrook 

Robin A. Faatenau 

Keith J. Harmon 

Mark IC Logon* 

Robin K. Gflben 

A. Abigail Payne 

Martin A. Wright 

William M. Guexry. Jr. 

Bernard A. Nigro, Jr. 

Dawn M. Sonok* 

Carolyn O. TUlman 

Nicholas D. Giordano 

Kenrie L. Hook 

Alexander H. Pttofeky 

Joanna K. Mcintosh* 

Catherine A. Mlcklitach 

Jeffrey L. Poston 

SeanL. Cothn"' 

Joseph S. Gcrba«t* 

Jaeon M. Bnuvafortc * 

Stephen A. Jones 

Pamela L. Eddy 

Alaa A. B. McDowell • 

*wr«oi«mM»»«. 

CERTIFIED MAtl RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Administrator William K. Reilly 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

401 M Street, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Administrator Reilly: 

y 

.•» 

East Coast Corporation and Sheetz, Inc. arc retail marketers of gasoline and 

therefore, have an interest in requirements under the Clean Air Act ("Act") to control 

gasoline vapors emitted during vehicle refueling. East Coast Corporation, with corporate 

headquarters located at 1420 East Commerce Road, Richmond, Virginia 23224, operates 

44 motor fuel retail outlets throughout Virginia, Sheetz, Inc., with corporate 

headquarters located at 5700 Sixth -Avenue, Altoona, Pennsylvania 16602, owns and 

operates a chain of convenience stores which sell gasoline to consumers through 157 

outlets located in the states of Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia and Virginia. 

• 

There are two generally recognized means to control emissions of gasoline vapors 

during vehicle refueling - "stage IT controls installed on gasoline dispensing equipment, 

and onboard vapor recovery controls installed on motor vehicles. As a means of 

controlling these refueling emissions, section 202(a)(6) of the Act requires that the 

Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA"), by November 15, 1991, 

after consultation with the Department of Transportation regarding safety issues, issue 

regulations requiring molor vehicles be equipped with onboard vapor recovery controls. 

42 U.S.C § 7521. Section 202(a)(6) provides: 
P.41 

OCT-01-1991 13:24 FROM EPfl MOBILE SOURCES TO ECTD P.0 3 

CULL-ltK SHHNNUN . I tl_ : i-^U^-oi»-i» (i uut Xi3i ±i-<t? nu.vu r.u j 

Collier, Shannon & Scott 

^ 

September 25, 1991 

Page 2 

(6) Onboard Vapor Recovery - Within year after the date 

of enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, the 

Administrator shall, after consultation with the Secretary of 

Transportation regarding the safety of vehicle-based 

("onboard") systems for the control of vehicle refueling 

emissions, promulgate standards under this section requiring 

that new light-duty vehicles manufactured beginning in the 

fourth model year after the model year in which the standards 

are promulgated and thereafter shall be equipped with such 

systems. The standards required under this paragraph shall 

apply to a percentage of each manufacturer's fleet of new 

light-duty vehicles beginning with the fourth model year after 

* the model, year in which the standards are promulgated. The 

percentage shall be as specified in the following table: 

Model year commencing after Percentage standards promulgated 

Fourth 40 

Fifth 80 

After Fifth 100 

Percentages in the table refer to a percentage of the manufacturer's sales volume. 

The standards shall require that such systems provide a 

:

 minimum evaporative emission capture efficiency of 95 

• t percent. The requirements of section 182(b)(3) (relating to 

stage II gasoline vapor recovery) for areas classified under 

• . section 181 .as'moderate for ozone shall not apply after 

.promulgation of such standards and the Administrator may, 

by rule, revise or waive the application of the requirements 

of such section-182(b)(3) for areas classified under section 

181 as Serious, Severe, or Extreme for ozone, as appropriate, 

after such time as the Administrator determines that onboard 

emissions control systems required under this paragraph are 

in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle fleet. 

42 U.S.C. § 7521. 

As an interim measure for controlling refueling emissions, section 182(b)(3) of the 

Act requires that "stage II" vapor recovery controls be installed on gasoline dispensing 

equipment located in "moderate," "serious," "severe," and "extreme" ozone nonattainment 

areas. 42 U.S.C. § 75lla(b)(3). 
P.42 

«r*-"?J.... 13,a 5 FR0M .^.T'^Ka n

 T° ue. 1.91 11.49 MO.OTIP.04 

^ 

Collier, Shannon & Scott 

September 25, 1991 

Page 3 

Section 202(a)(6) of the Act mandates that upon promulgation of the regulation 

requiring onooard vapor recovery controls the requirement to use "stage II" in "moderate" 

ozone nonattainment areas must be waived, and that the requirement to use "stage IT 

in the other ozone nonattainment areas may be waived once vehicles equipped with 

onboard vapor recovery controls are in widespread use throughout the motor vehicle 

fleet. 42 U.S.C 5 7521. 

We view the Administrator's duty under section 202(a)(6) to be non-discretionary. 

We have recently become aware, through statements by various EPA officials, that you 

do not intend to issue the onboard vapor recovery control regulation required by the 

Act. Your failure to discharge this non-discretionary duty will cause injury to East Coast 

Corporation and Sheetz, Inc. as well as other persons interested in the full 

implementation of the requirements of the Act. Specifically, failure by EPA to issue the 

regulation requiring onboard vapor recovery controls will result in the "stage i r 

requirement for fuel retail outlets located in ozone nonattainment areas not being waived 

as mandated by the Act, and may eventually result in "stage II" controls being required 

at fuel retail outlets nationwide. 

Section 304(a)(2) of the Act provides that "any person may commence a civil 

action on his own behalf against the Administrator where there is alleged a failure of 

the Administrator to perform any act or duty under this Act which is nor discretionary 

^ with the Administrator." 42 U.S.C $ 7604(a)(2). That section further provides that no 

action may be commenced under section 304(a)(2) "prior to 60 days after the plaintiff 

has given notice of such action to the Administrator." 42 U.S.C. $ 7604(b)(2). 

In accordance with the requirements of section 304 of the Clean Air Act, 42 

U.S.C § 7604, and 40 CF.R. § 54, East Coast Corporation and Sheetz, Inc. hereby 

exercise their right to commence a civil action against EPA for failure to perform its 

nondiscretionary duty as set forth in section 202(a)(6) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 

$ 7521. This letter constitutes East Coast Corporation's and Sheetz, Inc's sixty-day 

notice of their intent to commence such action regarding EPA's failure to issue the 

onboard regulation. 

Respectfully submitted, 

R. Timothy Columbus 

Counsel to East Coast Corporation 

and Sheetz, Inc. 

y 
CALGON 

P.43 

/joo$:~ 

CALGON CARBON CORPORATION P.O. BOX 717 PITTSBURGH, PA 15230-0717 (412)787-6700 

April 24, 1991 TWX: 671 1837 CCC PCH 

FAX. 412-787-6843 

' 412-787-6682 

Mr. Tony Tesoriero 

Mail Code EN-340F 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

401 M Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20460 

Dear Mr. Tesoriero: 

It was a pleasure talking with you recently regarding a request for 

information by your Mr. Leo Breton. 

You indicated Mr. Breton was interested in information on the effect of 

purge air versus activated carbon working capacity as used in automotive 

evaporative loss control canisters. An additional question was the effect of 

gasoline vapor rate to an activated carbon canister on the canister design. 

I am enclosing several papers that were presented to the SAE recently. In 

our SAE Paper 890621, gasoline vapor breakthrough studies were performed. On 

page #6 of this paper, the effect of purge volume on gasoline vapor working 

capacity was studied. Our work indicates the greatest improvement in working 

capacity is achieved in the first 200 bed volumes, after which the improvement 

of working capacity becomes less significant. Earlier work by Calgon Carbon has 

shown that for the volumetric flow rates studied, the rate of gasoline vapor 

desorption is essentially independent of the linear velocity. Instead, the rate 

of desorption is governed primarily by the volume of air that is passed through 

the carbon bed during the purge cycle. I am enclosing a brochure that describes 

this work. See pages 5 & 6. (Rate of Air Flow During Purge.) 

In addition, I did discuss with our R&D people your question regarding the 

effect of gasoline vapor rate to the canister. They indicate we have looked at 

vapor loading rates at approximately 1/3 of the rate typical of current canister 

designs for control of diurnal vapor and at 3 times this rate and have not 

statistically seen any difference in the activated carbon capacity assuming a 

minimum bed is maintained to avoid instantaneous vapor breakthrough. 

I hope the enclosed information will be of help to you and to Mr. Breton. 

Please contact me if I can be of additional assistance. 

Yours truly, 

CALGON CARBON CORPORATION 

htQcruaHal E. Moore 

Manager, National Accounts 

HEM:jsf 

attachments 
P.44 

>> 

oo 

^ 

r 

<Z> iA jk ~zYY\ —/ 

Sir-3 J?//H\ 

l^/A. 

5~ 

^-aYT/^ 

4.) £<&*£ c<A_^^t^ga^^^^f^^ //& ^*yy^ 

n6(^Y*~ ^y/ ^ Y / •//c^' 

cW*^ AJ^S 
P.45 

/<?j / 

'SAG yiocs: 

y\sr^i j)2W~>~ f iy s^c-/;^, /J-. ^ / AT. * 

'/• ' 
P.46 

to/Ca/j"- (^ZL& I /{fee? 

sfy~£c<%y /is**^« y^lX, jd^fc**?*' ^3*nj , 

0 

j^iS^^^cJi ^/£*-*> ^^2«-<>( /?u-*£, ^^o^ . <^y>t^7^v^v^-Ao. 

C<^>^' y^^gf <^^^Y^t ^W/LJLJ}^ ^y£ *K. 

£j*~ffejk (yl^s^^r//YY£76&^-y dY^sz&c^Tu j 

gfcyyyis' 

^1**.^. 

£ -iy n^ / ;£> <l&~*t' CYT^ 'S- ~^> 

£.CTA*K f(Jy c^%^^<^^ Tjfffz/Y^atooi CctJ&f 
P.47 

P< 7~Y;f<~1< '°j'( 

'tJLtrcJl 

cVa^ CoaJf^ (f"yj ^JST^toaJrlUt 

IMC ^i? i^yccc^M^-^- £T4,\. 
P.48 

c>l«Asv-Ay/h ,2*. k&o 4*%4i 

^r«J\ <71/YY4UKA- ^>£Y**-*-z7 « 
P.49 

Tuoo fry <?£*£* 

SCTD' 

isOc/v V- cJ^^-^y- <y^^ & 

^ 

• * * 

• !fccc5rc /A * o f 7^S ^ '~2 1* &*x^s&Ace^jvd J^du^ 

ry^L[U< KjUt(K<k<kt}v[ '/z4?,'/f~-H\ ti ^lyte/iJaLK^ ^JPttP^W-js 

S/X Cstirf <A/4 <* 4>«iJi- ,/4&* fa fcf r*S&() Sj %/<** . 

.tf/Jcyn. ^ iYl 

bfiJljoil^^? kid K')- /t** /-'x^- , /^-^^ y>TM^-yYe//**^ 

w 
-R.50 

CLJ o/dL- Fr*^-

f\yAs<- sy^\ • 

7^-y/y /yM e/c . dfs/ospL T^ <^< *k,'hZfev 

^Cf<.cyu\ 

r^/^Y * c£ry~**^L s&e**? (A 
P.51 

fjOO 

Leo Breton 

4/30/91 

Mfypgfi PCTATTD TO REFUELING EMISSIONS TESTING (4/30/91) 

1) Canister Purge Rate 

Figures 1 and 2 (SAE 690086, 1969) are results of tests 

performed by Calgon. Figure 1 shows the obvious - butane desorbed 

over a given time depends on purge flow rate. Figure 2 shows that 

for a given volume flow rate, the linear velocity of purge has no 

effect on the desorption. This test was performed on canisters of 

different aspect ratios but equal volumes. To obtain equal volume 

flow rates, the tests with higher velocities used taller carbon 

beds. 

Figure 3 is a reproduction of figure 1, i.e. a verification 

of the data of figure 1 as entered into Lotus. Figure 4 presents 

this data as butane desorbed vs. total purge air for the two 

different flow rates. It shows that "the linear velocity of purge 

has no effect on desorption" cannot be interpreted as saying the 

purge rate has no effect. For 200 Bed Volumes of purge air, there 

is approximately a 25% difference in butane desorbed when going 

from 10 BV/min to 100 BV/min. For a factor of 5 difference in 

flow, there may only be a discrepancy of 10% or less. 

2) Canister Load Rate 

Hydrocarbon adsorption by activated carbon is basically a 

condensation phenomenon (Van der Waals bonds). If the evap/refuel 

system were closed and properly sized, there would be no effluent 

from the canister. In actual use, any air which is in the fuel 

tank during refueling will be "purged" through the canister. Since 

the vehicle is hot before refueling, the vapor in the tank should 

be mostly gasoline vapor. 

a) Hal Moore (Calgon) says that Calgon's R&D people have 

looked at vapor loading rates at approximately 1/3 and 3 times the 

loading rate typical of current canister designs for control of 

diurnal vapor and have not statistically seen any difference in the 

activated carbon capacity assuming a minimum bed is maintained to 

avoid instantaneous vapor breakthrough. 

b) Hassler (Activated Carbon. 1974) indicates that vapor 

molecules have no difficulty finding unoccupied sites within the 

carbon material even at high flow rates and thin bed depths (as in 

a gas mask). 

c) One of the SAE papers which demonstrates a prototype Onboard system found much less HC emissions than expected (determined 

by weighing the canister before and after refueling). They 

theorized that this is due to the fact that the temperature of the 

incoming fuel is much lower than the temperature of the fuel/vapor 

in the gas tank, causing a significant portion of the head vapor 

to condense and remain in the tank. 
P.52 

Probably the pressure drop along the carbon bed would become 

an issue as the loading rate increases before breakthrough would 

be a problem (creating a back pressure during refueling). If this 

is true, manufacturers would inadvertently avoid designs which 

could not handle large loading rates. 

3) other Issues 

Since the adsorption of a carbon bed decreases with increasing 

temperature: 

a) Could a high load rate release a large amount of heat of 

vaporization inside the canister over a short period of time, and 

thereby raise the temperature of the canister enough to degrade the 

performance of a canister which works well for evap emissions? 

b) A canister which has a given working capacity for diurnal 

emissions.may have a much lower capacity for refueling emissions 

if it is located within the engine compartment, etc. On the other 

hand, it may have a more efficient purge. 
P.53 

Leo Breto n 

5/1/9 1 

TTT.TgPHQNE CONVERSATION WITH 

is extremely knowledgeable in the area of 

evap/refueling systems. ^|^HH|^^H|H|HHHHHfl A

 fo r detailed 

questions. The followingiiulHfrl^Tererence^^^e^^otes on the 

previous page: 

1) He will review |fl|HHR a n d ge t bacJc to me 5/1/91. His memory 

was that purge rate^^oes not matter, but thinks that the 

interpretation above may be correct. He also said that the purge 

rate for an evap canister is approximately 10 BV/min during an LA4 (total of 200 BV purge). A complete purge is obtained after 200-

300 BV since the desorption rate is very low past this point. 

2) c) Said that this makes sense to him and sounds very 

plausible. 

3) a) Told me that high loading rates characteristic of refueling 

(5g/min as opposed to 0.2g/min for evap) will cause a significant 

temperature rise in a new canister. As a canister "ages" and goes 

through a number of cycles, the "heel" which forms is composed 

mostly of hydrocarbons with a large heat capacity compared with the 

activated carbon. This reduces the working capacity for low 

loading rates but is less significant in high loading rates since 

the heal's high heat capacity keeps the canister cooler than it 

would otherwise be. I asked him for thermal property data to get 

an estimate of the expected temperature rise. 

Stated that breakthrough can be measured with a 

thermocouple (placed at or near outlet). 

b) Will ask about this today. 

'told me that he does not expect any manufacturers 

to use-non-integrated systems. He expects manufacturers to use 4-

6 liter canisters to handle evap and refueling emissions. If they 

only had to worry about the new evap requirements, they could get 

away with 2.5 liter canisters. 
_P_54, 

-I ( 1-

100 

PUKGC MTE (SCO VOLUMES/ MiN.) 

coNoirio**. 

M*.»f.«* Itmi—mtmrm. * ' M 

r» *• 

X _L _L 

10 IS 20 

TIME-MINUTE S 

23 

z 

o 

a « 

SC 

I 

>• 2 

4 

a. < 

u 

o 

z X i -

o 

-

t 

1 1 

/ 

/ 

1 

/ 

/ 

L. 

co«o.'.o«» 

1 

S 

LINEAH VELOCITY 

cm / mm 

• '0 0 

x 6 0 

0 23 

MM>M « hi m 

MM.*I* » TMif*.**^.. *» >S0 

0.1ft.— '«••«.•«.'.. *» >00 

*»'• • ••»• . « M MI.M . ' »••«»• • 0 

1 1 ' 1 

10 IS 20 

TIME - MINUTES 

23 JO 

Fig. \0- Working capacity varies with purge rate 

Fig.£f- Working capacity is independent of linear velocity 

of purge 

•** 

•IA 
o 

o 

u 

8 

TJ 

3 

V 

Q 

V 

C 

0 

•5 

d 

11 

Butane Desorbed vs. Time 

10 -

9 -

fl -

• 7 -

6 -

5 -

4 -

C 

3 -

2 - C 

1 -

/oo fit J ro I./IM /\ 

cK' 

.. - or 

, o /3"i " ' /" ' '' 

a a 

a 

a a 

0 -$——7- ~i r 

8 

-r12 

—r16' 20 24. 28 

Time (min.) 

fiou/C 3 ; tAW/As G^Arc, ^ ^ . /7>, t 

c 

I 

0 

o 

<j 

8 

8 

* 

0 

3 

o 

11 

Butane Desorbed vs. Purge Air Volume 

i H 

0 -$— p —1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1—~T 1 1 1 1 1 r 

0I2 0.4 0.6 0 8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 

(Thousands) 

Purge Air (Bed Volumes) 

/,>/c ¥: /i*w ik^rtJL u%. T*k(&o*Ar 
P.56 

|00O<t 

Note: EOD, MOD, CD Briefing on Onboard Refueling Emission 

Control Test Procedures <j|H ' J 

"/» A

 r" i 

From: James D. Greaves, Mechanical Engineer LDO^^ ^ M 

f

 Standards Development and Support Branch <# * , M ^ r 

1\ V> ^ 

To: Richard"D. Lawrence, Division Director ' I ' i^fiEngineering Operations Division Y* ^ 

Standards Development and Support Branch J?^ \ ,\>* 

ird D. Lawrence, Division Director *\ * 

Charles N. Freed, Division Director 

Manufacturers Operations Division 

Robert Maxwell, Division Director 

Certification Division 

The onboard refueling emission control rulemaking group is planning 

to hold an informational briefing for representatives from the 

Engineering Operations Division, Manufacturers Operations Division, 

and Certification Division. The subject of the briefing is the test 

procedures that will be required during the certification process for 

onboard refueling emissions control systems. The tentative date and 

time for the briefing is Tuesday, March 19th at 1:00-3:00. If a time s*lN\ 

conflict arises please let us know (FTS 374-8574). 

h 

C^cX^ 
r~ . " 

7P" 

P.57 

Tool 

Od iz j 1**10 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Provisions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 Regarding Onboard 

Refueling Vapor Recovery, Stage n, and Evaporative Emissions. 

FROM: Dan Barba, Mechanical Engineer 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

TO: Chester J. France, Chief 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

THRU: Glenn W. Passavant, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

For the past year, the safety issues associated with onboard vapor recovery systems 

have received minimal attention from EPA and other interested parties, due in part to the 

Presidents June 1989 proposal to amend the Clean Air Act, which included provisions to 

require the use of Stage II controls in nonattainment areas. However, recent House and 

Senate versions of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 currently in conference in the 

101st Congress contain provisions requiring the use of onboard vapor recovery systems to 

control refueling emissions. Furthermore, status reports from Washington indicate that 

Title II, containing the mobile source amendments, has just been completed and that it 

closely resembles the House version. For reference, a summary of House and Senate 

provisions regarding onboard refueling vapor recovery systems, Stage II, and evaporative 

emission controls is given on the following pages. 

Although details of the conference agreement regarding onboard are incomplete, 

reports indicate that EPA will again be required to take a leading role in addressing and 

resolving the safety issues associated with onboard vapor recovery systems (see Control of 

Refueling Emissions, House Section 206). Regarding implementation of onboard, 

however, it appears that the conference took a conservative approach. The conference has 

apparendy agreed to: 

1) require the Administrator to promulgate a rule requiring onboard within 18 

months of CAA enactment. 

2) allow manufactures 4 model years after promulgation of the rule to implement 

onboard. 

3) allow onboard to be phased in over three year period (40%, 80%, 100%). 

The conference agreements regarding Stage II and evaporative emissions are 

unknown at this time, but are expected to generally follow the House version, though a 

conservative implementation schedule, similar to that agreed to for onboard, is probable. 
P.58 

Control of Vehicle Refueling Emissions 

House (Section 206) 

* All new LDVs to require onboard. 

* Promulgation due 12 months after CAA enactment 

* Rule to take effect three years after promulgation. 

* Capture efficiency of 95%. 

* Stage II requirement in moderate nonattainment 

areas is waived upon promulgation of onboard rule. 

Stage II requirement in Serious, Severe, or Extreme 

nonattainment areas may be revised or waived 

when Administrator determines that onboard is in 

widespread use. 

* No provision concerning other vehicle classes. 

* Administrator shall determine, in consultation with 

the Secretary of Transportation, that onboard is 

safe within 12 months of CAA enactment 

Senate (Section 203) 

* All LDVs to require onboard. 

* No date set for promulgation. Assume due by 

December 31. 1992. 

* Rule to take effect in model year 1993. 

* Capture efficiency of 95%. 

* Provision under Section 107 gives similar 

power to administrator to phase out Stage II. See 

below. 

Apply to other vehicle classifications as early as 

possible. 

Secretary of Transportation shall complete a 

study by June 30, 1991 to assess onboard safety. 

If the Secretary determines onboard is unsafe, the 

rule goes into effect in MY 1995 instead of MY 

1993. Further legislation may be passed to waive 

onboard requirement within 1 year of submission 

of study. 

Stage II Gasoline Vapor Recovery 

House (Section 103) 

* Requires Stage II controls in moderate and above 

nonattainment areas for facilities dispensing more 

than 10,000 gallons per month. 

* State must submit a revision to the applicable 

implementation plan within 2 years of CAA 

enactment. 

* Rule goes into effect 

i) 6 months after adoption date for facilities 

constructed after CAA enactment, 

ii) 1 year after adoption date for facilities 

dispensing more than 10,000 gallons per 

month, 

iii) 2 yean after adoption date for all other 

facilities. 

* Phase-out plan given in onboard provisions under 

Section 206. 

Senate (Section 107) 

Requires Stage II controls in moderate and above 

nonattainment areas for facilities dispensing 

more than 20,000 gallons per month. 

Within 1 year of classification as a nonattainment 

area, the state shall submit a revision of the 

implementation plan, specifying a date for 

implementation. 

Rule goes into effect: 

Within 1 year after submission of revision of 

implementation plan. 

Administrator may revise or waive Stage II 

requirements when onboard is in widespread use. 
P.59 

Evaporative Emissions 

House (Section 205) Senate (Section 204) 

Administrator shall promulgate, and from time to 

time revise, regulations for evaporative emission 

from gasoline-fueled vehicles providing the 

greatest degree of emission reduction achievable. 

Evaporative emission regulations shall include: 

(1) In-use emissions (running losses). 

(2) After 2 days non-use during ozoneforming summertime conditions. 

Rulemaking must begin within 12 months of CAA 

enactment. 

* Administrator shall promulgate regulations for 

evaporative emission from gasoline-fueled 

vehicles providing the greatest degree of emission 

reduction achievable. 

* Evaporative emission regulations shall include 

running losses. 

* Nji date set for start of rulemaking. 

* Final regulations due within 18 months of CAA 

enactment If 18 month deadline is not met Administrator must explain why and set a date within 15 

months of 18 month deadline. 

* Regulations to take effect as expeditiously as 

possible. 

* Final regulations due within 18 months of CAA 

enactment. 

* Regulations to take effect beginning in MY 1994. 
P.60 

-Foot 

/o/zi/90 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Transportation Research Center (TRC) Report on API Test Vehicle 

Driveability 

FROM: Dan Barba, Mechanical Engineer 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

TO. Glenn W. Passavant, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

In December 1988, the EXXON Research and Engineering Company contracted the 

Transportation Research Center of Ohio to evaluate the driveability of a two pairs of cars 

(two Ford Taurus and two Buick LeSabre vehicles) using four different grades of gasoline 

fuel. EXXON's real objective, unknown to TRC, was to obtain an unbiased evaluation of 

the driveability of onboard vehicles vs. identical model non-onboard vehicles. The 

conclusion of the report was that all test fuels performed acceptably well, implying that no 

driveability problems occurred due to the onboard systems on the Ford or the Buick. Some 

highlights include: 

o The test procedure consisted of subjective evaluation by test drivers immediately 

following a 3/4 fill-up at four area service stations. The drive was approximately 

15 miles in length. The results of these drives is summarized on pages 4 - 7. 

o To return the tank to a 1/4 level for the next fueling test, a mileage accumulation 

procedure was used (Appendix A), consisting of successive drives around a TRC 

test track by other TRC personnel. Comments from mileage accumulation drivers 

were included in the report in Appendix B. 

o There was a problem in the Buick onboard vehicle which caused engine bucking 

and hesitation at WOT. The problem was diagnosed as a defective crankshaft 

trigger sensor, was replaced and no further problems were reported. See page 8 

and Appendix B Pages marked. 

o Vehicle #529 and #531 are the onboard equipped cars. 
•'-//"'/ 

CJ / % BREAKTHROUGH 

Assumptions: 

<?o»3 

100% uninsulated tank 

integrated design 

16 gallon tank 

Design refueling emissions factor = 6.6 g/gal72 - 96°F diurnal temperature rise (24 g/day) 

Design safety factor = 10% 

5^» c- /U_AP/ bo.cL fj±^s^-

General Equation: 

# of Breakthroughs 

Tot. refueling events 

Purge Opportunity 

[% rf occuring close 

to home (no purge)] 

Diurnal Event 

[% of fleet experiencing 

(x) diurnals] 

Refueling Load 

[% fill required 

for breakthrough] 

Calpulation; 

# of Breakthroughs 

Tot. refueling events 

0.30 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

+ 

0 day (.069) 

partial (.431) 

1 day (.341) 

2 day (.078) 

3 day (.037) 

£ 4 day (.046) 

X 

x 

X 

X 

X 

X 

rf > 94% (.03) 

rf > 82% (.15) 

rf > 70% (.42) 

rf > 46% (.73) 

rf > 23% (.95) 

rf > 3% (1.0) 

0.30 0.347 

# of Breakthroughs 

Tot. refueling events 

0.104 

( fjo+rs' Us C«.(cor(oJ-'o^ 
P.62 

Year 

1985 

1986 

1991 

Test Conditions 

Td=88 °F 

AT=+2 °F 

Td=81-84 °F 

Tt=80±3 °F 

Td=81-84 °F 

Tt=80±3 °F 

AT.Td.RVP 

2,88,11.5 

2,88,9 

(-3), 83,11.5 

(-3),83,9 

(-7*),84M1.5 

(-7*),84*,9 

E.F. I 

7.26 

6.05 

7.29 

6.08 

7.76 

6.55 

* Worst case values 

Page 1 
O l 

-TI 

> 

ID 

:> 

_* 

cn 

N l 

• 

CO 5.6 

CO 

en 

CD 

en 

en 

en 

eo 

> 

TJ 

DO 

^ «f> ro - -

zS5co z 

O < m m 

cz <z c cz CO CO CO CO 

ro -»• ro co 

A O) CO Ol 

VJNI O W 

_o. 

tD O CO CD 

CO 4*. CD 4»-

ro '*»• N I en 

-*• o o -* 

A p> co oi 

'-* '-* CD fo 

CO O CD CO 

CO 4*. CD .£. 

ro >>. N I en 

-L o o -•• 

en 

I 

•n 

> 

33 

£ 

CO 

CD 

ro 

i 

4*. 6.2 

CD 

CD 

CO 

00 

CD 

ro 

CD 

K 

> 

TJ 

^ to ro - -

ZW^J Z 

OSm m 

c c c c CO CO CO CO 

4*. ro co 4*. 

4*. CD N | 4*. 

-»• -«• eo co 

i 

-»• en N I oo 

.£. 4*. CD 4^-

^ 00 ^- CO 

4*. co oo NJ 

*>. en to en 

^ N I co io 

AOlOO l 

en 4^ en 4^. 

en co ^ eo 

Ol CA) CO Nl 

T I 

m CD 

en ^ eo M _,. 

TJZ^CO Z 

> O ^ m m 

3* (ZCCC 

^ CO CO CO CO 

•r*. en co co en 

en en en N I ^ 

N I -* N I &• en 

I I I 

co to oo en o 

CD en en CD en 

co co 4*. *>• ro 

A ro co o) en 

co en en co en 

co co -£. 4*. ro 

A ro co o) en 

CD CD CD co en 

ro N I '-*• i». eo 

o eo co CD -p* 

JAN 

S" ** T> ro -•• 

5zWw z 

>C> $ m m 

^ c c c c 

^ CO CO CO CO 

4^. en 4^ 4^ en 

en en en en 4^. 

A O A coco 

• 

1 " —* • DOCOM O 

cn en en CD 4^ 

CO Nl CO Nl CO 

co co N I co ro 

OIOICOCD A 

CO CO O '-* CD 

eo co ro CD ro 

CD en en CD CD 

O NJ CO k l '->• 

CO CO Nl CD M 

O 

m O 

cn *>• <? ro ->• 

TJZfOcoz 

> 0 ^ m m ^ccc c ^ CO CO CO CO 

4*. 4*. CO 4*. cn 

cn cn cn N I 4*. 

oo ro 4^ eo co 

• ii i 

CD CD ro co en 

CD A cn N I cn 

4*. co ro CD ro 

ro -*• 4^. ro co 

CD en en o en 

A k l W O M 

ro oo 4^- o co 

CD 4^. en N I en 

en co co en co 

co -^ co ro -^ 

Z 

o < 

c/i 4*. w ro -«• 

T]Z«0O Z 

> 0 $ m m 3J c c c c ^ CO CO CO CO 

ro eo ro co 4^ 

CD CD CD co en 

N I eo N I eo co 

i 

—*• i i • 

-'UCnoo o 

CD CD CD CO CD 

'->• ro co 4^. '-* 

A c n -» co o 

OOO)- 1 o v • 

^ en co co co 

4^. CO Nl CO o 

CD CD CD CD CD 

bo ro co 4^. '—>• 

CDOl -^ CO o 

o 

o H 

cn 4*. <*> ro - i 

JZ^GO Z 

> O ^ m m 3

 c c czc ^ CO CO co co 

-*• ro -•• ro co 

Nl Nl Nj CD CD 

4^. en CD en CD 

-^ ro co ro co 

en CD en N I en 

co eo co ro co 

N I en CD 4*. en 

CD CO Nl -^ Nl 

CO CO !f^ ro 4^-

Nl CD N | o o 

en CD en N I en 

bo eo co ro co 

N I en co 4*. en 

I0NT <! H 

JJ 

m 

GIO> N RVP 

H 

O 

o 

H 

m FAC 

H 

CAPI 

EMF 

> JS 

O c o 

H 

rn 

S m 

> > 

O 

H 

. ^ 

O 

o r

- WE

O A THER EFUEL

JJ I IG

^ EMIS! t

Oo 

N FA CT0 

TJ 

CO 

< 
CO 

m TJ - i 

cn 4*. eo ^ _,. 

TJ z co co z > 0 $ m m ^czczczcz ^ CO CO CO CO 

• A. —fc. —k _* . 

co -* o -^ ro 

Nl 00 Nl CO Nl 

co co co oo ro 

• 

4*. CD -* Nl ro 

en CD CD CD CD o '-* o en o o> co ro AC O 

_». 

CD CO CD O N J 

Li. CO CO CO CD 

co cn eo NI ro 

Cn CD CD CD CD 

o "-

1

 o en CD 

CD co ro 4*. co 

> 

C GUST 

cn A co M - l 

T|ZW0f) Z > o ^ mm ^czczczcz ^ CO CO co CO _ L _ & —* CO o CO o -* 00 00 00 CO Nl 

cocn A-'O o 

—A. __A. 

CD -»• CD CO CO 

en en cn en en 

ro A b NI '*. 

ro -^ co cn N I 

_ i 

CD CO Nl O 00 

co co ro co io 

co NI co ro oi 

cn en cn en en 

ro 4*. CD Nl A-

to -» eo cn N I 

c_ 

C r~ -< 

cn 4^. co ro _,. 

T ]Z fo co z 

>Q ^m m 

3>CCC C ^ CO CO CO CO 

_*. _x _*. 

COOCO-'- ' 00 00 00 CO Nl CO 00 CO o oo 

— A. — A 

O CD cn CO CD 

Ol Ol Ol Nl A 

NJ ro co Li. co 

co o ro o o 

_* _* 

CD O CD -^ CO 

CD Li CO CO CD 

ro -^ co o N | 

cn tn oi NI A 

NI ro co LA co 

co o ro o o 

c_ 

C 

Z 

m 

cn ^ co ro -^ 

Tjzcoco z > O $ m m ^ccC c ^ CO CO CO CO L i. __!. _f c CO -^ o -»• -»• Nl Nl CO CO Nl Nl 4*. ro Nl 4*. 

-_*. _ i —4. 

A COOO O * . 4^. en CD 4^- co Li ro en 4^. co CD 4*. cn en 

. 

en NJ co o N I 

bo co o en NJ 

-* CD CD en ->• 

A A cn o> A 

bo Li. ro en 4^. 

oo cn A cn cn 

S 

> -< 

cn 4^. eo fo _,. 

Tjzcoco 2 

> o $ m m ^ccc c ^ CO CO CO CO L _ 1 _ L L co -*• o -»• ro Nl CD N | CO CD ro eo co *». CD —k __L _* . IO CO M N | A CO ^ A O A b ro cn L ^ oo A ro co ro Ol Ol CD CO CD CO A CO SC O CD CO O -^ CO CO 4>- 4*. CD 4^ b fo bi ^ A co 4*. ro co ro 

MONTH TJ 

m 

o ION TJ 

< TJ 

H 

o 

o T EMF 

> 

o H m

o 

2 > 

• n j >

 m 

O

c o —1 

m S m > > 

O 

H 

o 

N 

o 2 

m 0EASO

0 N REFU ELI Gz EMISS O— N FACTO TJ CO 

' 
P.65 

9 • 

=3 

Percent of refueling events 

within specified ranges of % fills 

_ i i i i i _ _j i i_ _i i i i i_ 

0-5 10-15 20-19 30-39 «M9 90-99 0045 70-79 KHS 9049 

5-10 15-20 23-30 35-40 43-50 55J50 83-70 75-» 13-90 95-100 

Percent Fill (% of fuel tank cap.) 

UcM ut^ys - '7*1 ' 86 

A f c °7c- r.tf 

F.lf 
cc 

O 

hO 

< 

LL 

O 

CO 

CO 

LU 

REFUELING EMISSION FACTORS 

11 

10 

8 

-40 

EPA vs CAPE-9, TD = 79F 

EPA 13 RVP 

CAPE-9 

-30 -20 -10 0 10 

DELTA-T, DEG F 

20 30 40 

b> 
P.67 

.' SEP-03-1991 15M3 FROM EPA MOBILE SOURCES TO ANN ARBOR P.04 

poo** 

Sept. 3 , 1991 

Note to Chet France: 

Attached is a handout that API gave to NHTSA when they met 

with Curry a couple weeks ago. Dick would like to know if we 

have any additional information on this new API 

onboard-equipped car? Please let me know. Thanks. 

Don Zinger 
P.68 

SEP-03-1991 15:42 FROM EPA MOBILE SOURCES TO ANN ARBOR P.0 1 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

MOBILE SOURCES 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RAOIATION 

TO 

OF 

QMS TBAWSMTTTAL COVER SHEET 

DATE 

FROM: 

MESSAGE/INSTRUCTIONS:. 

TELEPHONE wft» 2r*^7y ~ O^Srf 

V 

NUMBER OF PAflr.fl; f 

(Including this cover sheet) 

TELEPHONE NQ» rO^OO ~ /*> Tb 
SEP-03-1991 15-- 42 FROM 

-e8/29/91 14:13 

EPA MOBILE SOURCES TO ANN ARBOR 

^1L 

P.69 

P.02 

ffljYQTnwftYpgsHai IXATORgS, 

API/Exxon prototype vehicle s can meet stringen t emission 

standards 

ftPVITOH PA*A 

1991 

Standards 

Base Vehicle 

Onboard 

Vehicle 

Regulated Emissions 

C&g/ 

mile 

3.4 

1.4 

1.1 

HC.q/ 

mile 

0.41 

0.18 

0.14 

22£x,g 

/mile 

1.0 

0.4 

0.4 

sva&g 

/test 

2.0 

0.2 

0.8 

Emission 

Unregulated 

g/test 

Running 

Losses 

g/teat 

3.1 

0.09 

Refueling 

Losses. 

g/test 

4.9 

0.05 

T*a'/us 

Vehicle system prototypes have design features that reduce 

complexity/ improve safety risk factors 

Canister removed from engine compartment 

+ within frame Cr^W 

+ within fuel tank *• 

less risk than existing 1971-1991 vehicle controls 

TOHAMCro TVaPORATIVB COHTROI* 

EPA proposing enhanced evaporative control system — final 

rule imminent 

would require enhanced (2-3x) canister, larger-vapor 

return lines, improved vehicle purge system 

similar to what ORVR systems require 

EKisting evaporative systems nave not been shown to present 

safety risk 

- Refueling canister would receive - 2 oz more gasoline 

vapor than evaporative system 

veaW*" «<ty /** 
P.70 

- -SEP-03-199 1 15=4 2 FROM EPA MOBILE SOURCES TO ANN ARBOR P.0 3 

•'\ ;_-e8/2B/» l 14:13 Q003 

m 

DRIVEABILITY/CnSTOHER HAWPLIWG 

9m 

o Two vehicle tests made via independent contractor 

Cool temperature conditions - 4O'F, Harysville, Ohio 

- Warm temperature conditions - 95°F, San Antonio, TX 

o Contractors told that gasoline brand comparisons were being 

made 

- 2 matched pairs of vehicles, with and without refueling 

system 

Test track and urban/suburban routes 

o No differences observed between vehicles 

R8C0MM8WPATI0W 

o Following 9/26 Public Meeting, EPA and DOT/NHTS A go forward 

with proposed ORVR rule 

work with auto manufacturers to resolve safety concerns 

bring ORVR systems into production in 1996 

o Similar to recommendation made in GAO report, and in Reilly -

Skinner communication 
\h*-h* 

P.71 

?c>oy 

NOTE: 

SUBJECT: 

TO: 

FROM: 

THRU: 

API/Exxon Prototype Onboard Vehicles 

Richard D. Wilson, Director 

Office of Mobile Sources 

Dan Barba, Mechanical Engineer Da*\ nn^JU^. 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Chester J. France, Chi 

Standards Development Support Branch 

This responds to your request for additional information on 

the API/Exxon prototype onboard vehicles. The API vehicles 

referred to in the two page handout which API provided to NHTSA 

during their recent meeting are improved versions of the earlier 

API prototype onboard vehicles: a 1987 Buick LeSabre and a 1988 

Ford Taurus. These improved vehicles were the subject of an SAE 

technical paper (SAE # 900155) released in late 1990, and therefore 

cannot be considered "new" vehicles. 

Although information on the improved API prototypes has been 

available to the public for several months, the vehicles were 

not mentioned in the recent NHTSA safety study. Earlier 

versions of the prototypes, which revealed serious finability 

and driveability problems under high ambient temperature 

conditions in road tests conducted by NHTSA, were discussed in 

the A.D. Little report and the recent NHTSA report. 

The principal feature of the improved design is location of 

the canister within the vehicle frame. The Taurus canister is 

located in a similar position to EPA's prototype Taurus, 

within the U-shaped subframe which supports the rear control 

arms. 

The Buick prototype incorporates the canister into the design 

of the fuel tank itself. To our knowledge, the Buick is the 

first prototype to demonstrate placement of the canister 

"within" the fuel tank (see attached). Such a location 

reduces fuel tank capacity (5 liters in this case), but tends 

to reduce concern regarding crash safety of larger canisters. 

It would be hard to argue that a canister holding a few ounces 

(100 or so grams of vapor) of fuel presents any significant 

increase in fire risk next to 20 gallons of fuel in the fuel 

tank. 

As in earlier API versions, emissions are controlled using a 

liquid seal similar to that used on the EPA prototype except 

that production fillpipes were used. 
r 

P.72 

The driveability tests mentioned in the handout were performed 

by Southwest Research Institute (SWRI) and are discussed in 

detail in a report prepared for Exxon entitled, "Driveability 

Test for Differences in Branded Gasolines." The tests were 

designed to help address NHTSA's concerns about driveability 

and finability in high ambient temperature conditions, a key 

issue in NHTSA's assessment of prototype development in their 

safety study. SWRI testing revealed no driveability or 

finability problems. As pointed out in the API handout, SWRI 

was told that gasoline brand comparisons were being made in 

order to help ensure that results were not biased. 

The emissions data provided in the API handout were results 

from tests conducted on the 1988 Taurus prototype (as you 

noted) and are identical to that reported in SAE' Paper No. 

900155. The tests simply demonstrate that the systems can, 

according to their testing, pass current refueling test 

procedure as well as tailpipe and evaporative emission 

standards. Although emissions tests such as these do not 

directly affect safety issues, they do show that the prototype 

operates as intended without adversely effecting other 

emission control systems. 
P.73 

Figure 7 

Buick LeSabre 

Canister and Fuel Tank 

Placing the canister inside the fuel 

tank for the Buick LeSabre was accomplished 

by dissecting one corner of the fuel tank as 

shown in Figure 7. The fuel tank was 

resealed by welding plates to the cut 

sections of the tank. The cut planes were 

determined so that the desired L/0 of 2.5 

was maintained and so that the production 

tank restraining strap passed under the 

canister. The canister was connected to the 

fuel tank with mounting brackets. The Buick 

canister is, of course, for a research 

demonstration vehicle. In production, the 

fuel tank and canister could be formed 

together, like the fuel tank contours which 

allow the exhaust pipe to pass essentially 

through the fuel tank. The G. T. Products 

rollover valve was used for the Buick as 

well. 

PURGE SYSTEM - The canisters are purged 

with air in the direction opposite to the 

adsorption of hydrocarbons (countercurrent). 

The purge control system, including purge 

control valves, purge control orifice, purge 

lines, etc., were standard production 

components for all vehicles. In both the 

Ford and the Buick, the computer controls 

the percent of the time the purge control 

valve is open. 

In the Buick production, the purge 

system introduces the purge vapors to the 

intake manifold through a ported opening at 

the throttle valve. This means that at small 

throttle openings, there is little or no 

purge. There is also a 0.078 inch orifice 

between the purge control valve and the 

ported opening to the manifold. In the production Ford, purge vapors are fed directly 

to the intake manifold well downstream of 

the throttle valve via the PCV system. 

The Buick starts to purge one minute 

after the engine has started and the Ford 

Taurus starts to purge after 3 minutes 25 

seconds. The production vapor line from 

the tank to the production evaporative 

canister for both vehicles was used as the 

purge line to the refueling canister. The 

purge control system for the Dodge is 

described in the previous work (2). 

As can been seen in Table 3, the purge 

rate for the Ford Taurus was 11.0 1pm at all 

constant speeds above 25 mph and averaged 

4.5 1pm over one LA-4 driving cycle. The 

Ford production computer maintains a 

constant purge rate over all modes of operation. This resulted in 35 grams of HC being 

purged from canister saturation over one 

LA-4. 

The Buick production purge control 

system did not maintain a constant purge 

rate over all modes of operation. The 

production Buick LeSabre averaged 1.9 1pm 

and purged only 11 grams HC over one LA-4 

driving cycle. This is adequate for the 

current evaporative test procedure but not 

for Procedures A or B. Therefore, for the 

Onboard Buick, the ported purge opening at 

the throttle plate was moved further downstream directly to the intake manifold. The 

computer then maintained a constant purge 

rate above 40 mph and during accelerations. 

The purge rate increased to 13.4 1pm vs 1.2 

lpm at 50 mph . Over one LA-4, the purge 

averaged 4.2 lpm and removed 34 grams HC. 

As will be seen later, the exhaust emissions 

were not affected. 

RESULTS 

REFUELING EMISSIONS - Better than 98% 

control of refueling emissions was achieved 

with both vehicles. This is the same level 

of control as was measured in the 1986 

study. The data is summarized in Figure 8. 

The baseline and the controlled refueling 

emissions for the Buick LeSabre are given in 

Table A2. The baseline and the controlled 

refueling emissions for the Ford Taurus are 

given in Table A3. On the 9 RVP fuel, both 

the Buick and the Ford averaged 0.05 grams/ 

gallon or 98.9% control. The proposed 

refueling standard is 0.1 grams/gallon. On 

the 10.5 RVP fuel, both vehicles averaged 

0.02 grams HC/gallon or about 99.6% control. 

Since the degree of control on both fuels 

was high, and the variation between runs 

approached the limits of measurement, the 

difference is not significant. (The percent 

control is based on the baseline refueling 

emissions and not on the loading on the 

canister which was higher.) Spitback was 

not noticed upon the automatic nozzle 

shut-off. 
P.74 

<% 00 ) 

TO: Lois Platte 

FROM: C.E. Lindhjem 

DATE: June 24, 1991 

SUBJECT: Average Fill Level 

The average fill level can be based on different criteria. The 

MOBILE4.0 average fill level of approximately 54.5% was based on 

the population. Our analysis indicates that the average fill level 

based upon emissions of pass and fail vehicles is 57.5% and 55.1% 

respectively. Depending upon whether pass or fail vehicles 

dominate overall emissions dictates which average fill level should 

be used. 

cc. R. Rykowski 

C. Shih 
Km. 

*\ -&** ? 

P.75 

"Zoo i 

& 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGA N 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

JUN 2 01989 

Dr. J.J. Liu 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

400 7th Street, SW 

Washington, DC 20590 

Dear Dr. Liu: 

New copies of the tables you requested from EPA's onboard 

refueling briefing in Ann Arbor are enclosed. Please note that 

Table 2 has been updated due to minor errors found in the 

table. After reviewing the data we recorded, we saw minor 

errors in some of the entries in Table 2 and noted that not all 

tests had been included. Due to the short time frame between 

vehicle testing and the briefing, we did not have access to all 

the individual data sheets. In order to tabulate the data for 

the briefing, we used approximations for some of the entries of 

Table 2. As you will note when examining the updated version, 

all the changes were minor. There are no changes in Table 1 or 

Table 3, but new copies are enclosed as you requested. If you 

have any more questions, feel free to call me at (313) 668-4496. 

y~~\ 

Sincerely, 

t j/y^4u^^*—. 

John F/'Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Enclosure 

7212W 
Evaporative. TaiTpipe and Refueling !Bfa! Summary - 1988 Taurus Test, Vehicl< 

Vehicle 

Configuration 

Test 

Procedure 

Tailpipe Emissions Evaporative Emissions 

Total Refuelin g 

Evap. Emissions 

HC CO NOx 60-84°F 

(g/mile) (g/mile) (g/mile) (g) 

Hot Soak 01,72-96°F #2,720-96°F 

(g) (g) (g) (g/gal) MPG 

Stock 1988 Model Year Cert. 0.19 1.88 0.71 0.12(0iurnal) 0.22 0.34 21.47 

Stock 

Stock 

Supplemental NPRM 

(No cap removed) 

Supplemental NPRH 

0.20 

0.23 

2.11 0.76 

2.64 0.74 

0.18 

0.14 

0.18 

0.40 

(0.25)* 

0.16 

0.17 

2.68 2.45 

(Diurnal) 

8.27 8.67 

(Diurnal) 

20.77 

20.92 

With 3.0L Supplemental NPRH 0.20 2.28 0.76 0.48 

With 3.0L Supplemental NPRH 0.20 2.16 0.70 0.39 

0.96 

(0.69)* 

0.72 

(0.40)' 

0.43 

0.38 

0.49 1.45 

(Diurnal) 

0.36 1.08 

(Diurnal) 

21.05 

21.01 

Two prod, 

cansiters 

in series 

Supplemental NPRH 0.23 2.30 0.71 0.29 0.87 

(0.70)" 

0.39 0.21 1.08 

(Diurnal) 

21.20 

3.0L Can 

1/8" PL " 

(Simulated 

Refueling) 

Supplemental NPRM 0.20 2.08 0.57 0.25(Diurnal) 0.62 

(0.33)' 

0.87 0.22 21.32 

3.5t Can. 

1/4" PL " 

(Simulated 

Refueling) 

Supplemental NPRM 0.18 1.65 0.77 0.49(Diurnal) 0.81 

(0.33)' 

).30 0.03 21.21 

3.5L Can. 

1/4" Pf * 

(Simulated 

Refueling) 

Supplemental NPRH 0.18 1.56 0.78 0.62(Diurnal) 0.74 

(0.38)' 

1.36 0.10 21.32 

3.5L Can. 

3/8" PL"" 

(Simulated 

Refueling) 

Supplemental NPRM 0.19 1.74 0.72 0.34(0iurnal) 1.29 

(0.98)' 

1.63 0.07 20.90 

Values in parentheses are approximate cap removal contributio n to total . ND = Not Detectable. 

Purge Line (PL), interio r diameter 
Table 1 

Evaporative. Tailpipe and Refueling Data Summary - 1988 Taurus Test Vehiclt 

Vehicle Test 

Configuration Procedure 

Tailpipe Emissions Evaporative Emissions 

Total Refueling 

Evap. Emissions 

HC CO NOx 60-84 °F 

(g/mile) (g/mile) (g/mile) (g) 

Hot Soak #I,72-96°F #2,720-96"F 

(g) (g) (g) (g/gal) MPG 

Integrated 

System""" 

(3.5 L Can.) 

Supplemental NPRM 0.19 1.80 0.72 0.27 0.34 

(ND)« 

0.61 0.04 20.70 

Integrated 

System 

(3.5 L Can.) 

Supplemental NPRH 0.17 1.66 0.65 0.30 0.35 

(ND)" 

0.65 0.02 20.91 

Integrated 

System 

(3.5 L Can.) 

Supplemental NPRH 0.20 2.10 0.71 0.36 0.25 

(0.04)' 

0.61 0.07"*** 21.17 

Integrated 

System 

(3.5 L Can.) 

Suplemental NPRH 0.18 1.72 0.76 0.34 0.38 

(0.02)' 

0.72 0.07 21.25 

*"* Canister not disconnected prior to fueling for heat build. 

••*" 4gpm refueling rate 
Table 2 

In House Testing of Current Refueling Systems 

Vehicle Date 

Flowrate 

(GPM) 

Fuel Temp. 

tm 

RVP 

Comments 

1988 

Onboard 

Vehicle 

(Ford Taurus) 

4/14/89 

3/22/89 

15 

10 

98.4°F 10.8 -Premature shut off @ 1.75 gal. 

4/13/89 

4/13/89 

3/22/89 

3/17/89 

3/16/89 

3/22/89 

15 

15 

15 

15 

15 

12 

89.2°F 

85°F 

76°F 

60°F 

62°F 

76° 

11.2 

11.5 

13.8 

13.5 

14.3 

13.8 

-Normal 

-Normal 

-Normal 

-Normal 

-Normal 

-Normal 

fill. 

Fill. 

fill. 

fill. 

fill. 

fill. 

76°F 13.8 -Normal fill. 

1988 

Ford 

laurus 

(Stock) 

4/14/89 15 98.4°F 10.8 -2 drop spitback @ 2nd shutoff. 

4/13/89 

4/13/89 

3/22/89 

3/22/89 

3/22/89 

15 

15 

15 

12 

10 

89.1°F 

85°F 

76°F 

76°F 

76°F 

11.2 

11.5 

13.8 

13.8 

13.8 

-2 tablespoon spitback at 2nd shut-off. 

-1/8 cup spitback at 2nd shut-off. 

-Few drops flew out during fueling. 

-1 teaspoon spitback at first shut-off. 

-Normal fill. 

-Normal fill. 

1987 

Plymouth 

Relient 

4/14/89 

4/13/89 

4/13/89 

15 

15 

15 

92.9°F 10.8 -3 to 4 teaspoon spitback @ 2nd shutoff. 

-1/8 cup spitback at 3rd shut-off. 

89-90°F 

85°F 

11.2 

11.5 

-Teaspoon spitback at 2nd shut-off. 

-1/8 cup spitback at 3rd shut-off. 

-3 teaspoon spitback at 2nd shut-otf. 

-1/8 cup spitback at 3rd shut-off. 
Table 2 continued 

In House Testing of Current Refueling Systems 

Vehicle Pate 

Flowrate Fuel Temp. RVP 

(GPM) LffJ (psi) Comments 

1989 

Buick 

Century 

4/13/89 15 89-90°F 11.2 -Premature shut-offs until nozzle pulled 

out about an inch. 

-Slight spraying of fuel during fill. 

-Targe spitbacks at all 3 shut-offs. 

1987 

Buick 

Century 

3/22/89 

3/22/89 

3/22/89 

15 

12 

10 

75°F 13.8 -Premature shut-offs every tenth of a 

gallon for first 6 gallon. Pulled nozzle 

out siightly to fill . 

-1/8 cup spitbacks at last three shut-offs. 

75°F 

75°F 

13.8 

13.8 

-Premature shut-offs every half gallon. 

-No spitback. 

-Normal Fill, 

1987 

Chevrolet 

Nova 

3/22/89 

3/22/89 

3/22/89 

15 

12 

10 

74°F 13.8 -Premature shut-offs at every half gallon. 

-No spitback. 

74°F 13.8 -Premature shut-offs at every half gallon. 

-No spitback. 

73°F 13.8 -Normal f ill. 

1988 

Chevrolet 

1500 Pick up 

3/22/89 

3/22/89 

15 

12 

74°F 

75° 

13.8 -Premature shut-offs every half gallon. 

-No spitback. 

13.8 -Normal fill. 

704/W 
Table 3 

VEHICLE: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

Date Statior 

4/12/89 Amoco 

(Zeeb & 

4/13/89 Amoco 

(Zeeb & 

i 

194) 

194) 

1988 Taurus (Onboa 

Refueling at Connie 

Dispensing Dispe 

Rate Fue 

(gpm) Temp. 

10.2 46.6 

(Onboard) 

10.1 46.6 

(Stock Taurus 

- 1988) 

10.2 46.6 

(Stock Buick 

(Century -

1989) 

10.2 46.6 

(Stock Reliant 

K - 1987) 

10.3 45.8 

(Onboard) 

10.2 45.8 

(Stock Taurus 

- 1988) 

10.3 45.8 

(Stock Buick 

Century -

1989) 

10.2 45.8 

(Stock Plymouth 

R e l idiit K -

I'm/) 

rd) and Stock Vc 

rcial Fuel Stati 

nsed 

1 RVP 

(°F1 losi! 

11.9 

11.9 

11.9 

11.9 

11.4 

11.4 

11.4 

11.4 

chicles as 

ons 

Nozzle 

Husky 

1 • X 

Husky 

1 • X 

Husky 

1 + X 

Husky 

1 + X 

Husky 

1 • X 

Husky 

1 • X 

Husky 

1 • X 

Husky 

1 + X 

Identi fied 

Ambient 

Temp. <°F) 

40.5 

40.5 

40.5 

40.5 

46.9 

46.9 

46.9 

46.9 

Initial 

Fuel in 

Tank (gal) 

Under 1/8 

tank 

Under 1/8 

tank 

Under 1/8 

tank 

Under 1/8 

tank 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

Initial/ 

Final Tank 

Temp. (°F) 

__/__ 

——/ — 

__/— 

__/__ 

— / — 

__/__ 

- / -

Volume 

Dispensed 

(gal) 

13.54 

12.33 

14.07 

9.87 

11.66 

10.43 

13.25 

10.22 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

1/8 cup spill @ 2nd nozzle 

shut-off. 3rd shut-off 

not performed. 

10 drop spit @ 2nd nozzle 

shut-off. 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

2 drop spit @ 1st nozzle 

shut-off. 1/8 cup spill @ 

2nd nozzle shut-off. 3rd 

nozzle shut-off, clean. 

3 to 4 teaspoon spill @ 

2nd nozzle shut-off. 15 

drop spit @ 3rd nozzle 

shut-off. 
VEHICLE: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

1988 Taurus (Onboard) and Stock Vehicles as Identified 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations 

Qa±e_ Station 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel RVP 

' (gpm) Temp, (°F) (psi) Nozzle 

Initial Initial/ Volume 

Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Temp. (°F) Tank, (gal) Temp. (°F) (gal) Observations-. 

4/11/89 Amoco 11.9 

(Jackson (Onboard) 

& Stadium) 

45.5 11.5 OPW 36.2 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

51/41.5 12.44 No fueling problems. 

11.9 45.5 

(Stock Pontiac 

6000 - 1989) 

11.5 OPW 36.2 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

11.72 Two immediate premature 

nozzle shut-offs. 1/2 cup 

spill @ 3rd nozzle 

shut-off. 

4/11/89 Amoco 

(Zeeb i. 194) 

10.4 

(Onboard) 

47.8 11.8 Hushy 

1 + X 

45.1 1/8 to 1/4 53.5/43.5 11.62 Prmature nozzle shut-off 

tank g 7.8 gal. 

10.4 47.8 

(Stock Ford 

Crown Victoria 

-1987) 

11.8 Husky 

1 • X 

45.1 1/4 to 3/8 

tank 

11.68 One immediate shut-off 

with nozzle fully 

inserted. No fueling 

problems with nozzle 

withdrawn 1/4 inch 

through three nozzle 

shut-offs. 
VEHICLE: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

1988 Taurus (Onboard) and Stock Vehicles as Identified 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations 

Qale_ Station 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel RVP 

(9PWI) Temp. (°F) (psi) Nozzle 

Ambient 

Temp. (°F( 

Initial 

Fuel in 

Tank (gal) 

Initial/ 

Final Tank 

Temp. (°F) 

VoTume 

Dispensed 

(gal) Observations 

4/10/89 Sunoco 10.8 

(Carpenter & (Onboard) 

Michigan Ave) 

46.5 

10.8 46.5 

(Stock Pontiac 

6000 - 1989) 

12.8 OPW 

IIA 

40.5 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

44.5/44.5 

12.8 OPW 

H A 

40.5 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

12.0 No fueling problems. 

12.7 Two immediate premature 

shut-offs with nozzle 

fully inserted. 

Premature shut-off @ 4.1 

gal with nozzle withdrawn 

1/4 inch. 1/8 cup spill 

@ 3rd nozzle shut-off. 

10.8 46.5 

(Stuck Buick 

Century - 1989. 

Fuel tank drain 

in place.) 

12.8 OPW 

IIA 

40.5 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

10.9 One immediate nozzle 

shut-off. Nozzle 

withdrawn 1/4 inch. 10 

drop spill @ 1st nozzle 

shut-off. 1/4 cup spill 

@ 2nd nozzle shut-off. 

3rd shut-off not 

performed. 

-3-
VEHICLE: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

1988 Taurus (Onboard) and Stock Vehicles as Identified 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations 

Gdie_ Station 

Dispensing 

Rate 

(gpm) 

Di spensed 

Fuel 

Temp. (°F) 

RVP 

(psi) Nozzle 

Ambient 

Temp. CF ) 

Initial 

Fuel in 

Tank (gal) 

Initial/ 

Final Tank 

Temp. CFI 

Volume 

Dispensed 

(gal) Observations.. 

4/7/89 Amoco 10.1 

(Zeeb & 194) (Stock Buick 

Century - 1989. 

Fuel tank drain 

in place) 

Husky 

1 • X 

4) 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

-/— 11.6 5 to 6 teaspoon spill 9 

1st nozzle shut-off. 2nd 

and 3rd shut-offs not 

performed. 

9.8 

(Onboard) 

48.9 Husky 

I + X 

48.2 66.5/52.5 10.25 No fueling problems. 

9.6 48.9 

(Stock Chrysler 

mini-van - 1988) 

9.6 48.9 

(Stock Buick 

Century - 1989. 

Fuel tank 

drain removed) 

Husky 

1 + X 

Husky 

1 • X 

48.2 

48.2 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

— / — 11.95 5 to 10 drop spit back @ 

1st nozzle shut-off. 2nd 

and 3rd shut-offs not 

performed. 

10.7 Two immediate premature 

nozzle shut-offs with 

nozzle fully insterted. 

No fueling problems with 

nozzle retracted 1/4 

inch, through three 

nozzle shut-offs. 

4/10/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

11.6 

(Onboard) 

41.3 12.0 Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

30.8 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

53/ — 11.2 Premature nozzle shut-offs 

£ 2.4 and 3.6 gallons. 

20 drop spill @ 1st 

nozzle shut-off. 

11.6 41.3 

(Stock Chrysler 

mini-van - 1988) 

11.6 41.3 

(Stock Buick 

Century - 1989. 

fuel tank drain 

in place. 

12.0 

12.0 

Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

30.8 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

13.26 Premature nozzle shut-off 

£ 4.4 gal. 

Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

30.8 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

— / _ 14.26 1/4 cup spill @ 1st nozzle 

shut-off. 2nd and 3rd 

shut-offs not performed. 
VEHICLE: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

Date Station 

4/bWi Amoco 

(Zeeb & 194) 

1988 Taurus 

Refueling at 

Dispensing 

Rate 

(gpm) 

10.7 

(Onboard) 

(Onboard) and 

Commercial F 

Dispensed 

Fuel 

lemp. (°F) 

49.4 

10.3 49.4 

(Stock Chrysler 

mini-van - 1988) 

10.6 49.4 

(Stock Buick 

Century - 1989) 

Stock Vehicles as 

uel Stations 

RVP 

(psi) Nozzle 

11.8/11.8 

11.8/11.8 

11.8/11.8 

Husky 

1 + X 

Husky 

1 + X 

Husky 

1 • X 

Identi fied 

Ambi 

Temp. 

45 

45 

45 

ent 

("F) 

Initial 

Fuel in 

Tank (gal) 

4.0 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

Initial/ 

Final Tank 

Temp. CF) 

__/_. 

__/__ 

Volume 

Dispensed 

(gal) 

10.35 

10.95 

12.58 

Observations 

Premature nozzle shut-off 

@ 1.26 gal. 

No fueling problems. 

1/4 cup spill f? second 

nozzle shut-off. 

4/6/89 Mobil 10.4 

(Zeeb & 194) (Onboard) 

48.2 13. No Name 52.6 4.0 63/53.5 10.0 No fueling problems. 

10.4 48.2 

(Stock Chrysler 

mini-van - 1988) 

10.4 48.2 

(Stock Buick 

Century - 1989) 

13.1 No Name 52.6 

13.1 No Name 52.6 

1/8 to 1/4 — / — 

tank 

10.65 Five immediate premature 

nozzle shut-offs with 

nozzle fully inserted. 

No fueling problems when 

nozzle retracted by 1/4 

inch. 

1/8 to 1/4 —/ — 

tank 

11.2 1/2 cup spill at 1st 

nozzle shut-off. 2nd and 

3rd shut-offs not 

performed. 
VEHICLE: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

1988 Taurus (Onboard) and Stock Vehicles as Identified 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations 

(kie_ Station 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel RVP 

LgpfflJ Temp. l°f\ (psi) Nuzzle 

Ambient 

Temp. CF) 

Initial 

Fuel in 

Tank (gal) 

Initial/ 

Final Tank 

Temp. (°F) 

Volume 

Dispensed 

Leal) Observations 

3/30/89 Sunoco 11.6 

(Carpenter & (Onboard) 

Michigan Ave.) 

47 13.1 OPW 

IIA 

48.2 3.0 59.5/50.5 11.76 No fueling problems 

through 3 nozzle 

shut-offs. 

11.6 47 

(Stock Taurus 

- 1988) 

47 

(Stock Buick 

Century - 1989) 

13.1 

13.1 

OPW 

IIA 

OPW 

IIA 

48.2 4.0 

48.2 3.0 

12.82 3 drop spill £ 2nd nozzle 

shut-off. 2 teaspoon 

spi119 3rd nozzle 

shut-off. 

11.92 Would not fuel at highest 

and middle nozzle flow 

rate settings. 2nd and 

3rd nozzle shut-offs at 

highest nozzle settings 

not performed. 

3/31/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

11.9 43.3 

(Onboard) 

11.9 43.3 

(Stock Taurus 

- 1988) 

12.0 Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

35.5 3.0 43/49 10.68 Premature nozzle shut-off 

(3 6.9 gallons. 

12.0 Emco 

Wheaton 

A200I 

35.5 4.0 12.53 No fueling problems. 

11.9 43.3 

(Stock Buick 

Century - 1989) 

12.0 Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

35.5 3.0 12.43 1/2 pint spill £ first 

nozzle shut-off. 2nd & 

3rd shut-offs not 

performed. 

-b-
VEHICLE: 

IESI PROCEDURE: 

1988 Taurus (Onboard) and Stock Vehicles as Identified 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations 

Date Station 

Dispensing Oispensed Initial Initial/ 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank 

(gpm) Temp. CF ) LPS.U Nozzle Temp. CF ) Tank (gal) Temp. i°n 

Volume 

Dispensed 

(gal) Observations 

3/28/89 Amoco 11.2 52.5 

(Plymouth Rd.)(Onboard) 

(11.9 stock 52.5 

vehicle -

1988 Taurus) 

12.0/- tmco 

Wheaton 

12.0/— Emco 

Wheat on 

63.4 

63.4 

3.0 

3.0 

64/54.4 10.75 No fueling problems. 

64/54.4 10.75 Two drop spit from stock 

vehicle 9 2nd nozzle 

shut-off. 

3/28/89 Shell 11.0 

(Plymouth Rd.XOnboard) 

50.4 

11.0 50.4 

(Stock Taurus) 

13.1/13.0 OPW 

13.1/13.0 OPW 

69.6 

69.6 

3.0 

3.0 

68/53.5 

68/53.5 

12.0 

12.0 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

3/28/89 Shell 

(Stadium & 

Maple) 

7.2 

(Onboard) 

50.2 

(9.1 stock 

vehicle -

1988 Taurus) 

50.2 

12.6/— 66.1 3.0 74/56 13.0 

12.6/— 66.1 3.0 74/56 13.0 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

3/30/89 Amoco 11.4 

(Plymouth Rd.XOnboard) 

54 Emco 

Wheaton 

39.7 3.0 53/48 11.76 3 drop spill 9 3rd nozzle 

shut-off. 

11.2 54 

(Stock Taurus 

- 1988) 

Emco 

Wheaton 

39.7 4.0 10.33 No fueling problems 

through 3 nozzle 

shut-offs. 

11.3 54 

(Stock Buick 

Century - 1989) 

Emco 

Wheaton 

39.7 3.0 14.00 4 to 5 teaspoon spill 9 

1st nozzle shut-off. 1/4 

pint spill 9 2nd nozzle. 

No 3rd shut-off performed. 

-7-
Application of Simplified Refueling 

Controls to a Ford Taurus Vehicle 

April 1989 

U.S. EPA 

Office of Mobile Sources 

Emission Control Technology Division 

P.87 
P.88 

Introduction 

EPA has previously applied simplified refueling controls 

to fuel systems (Figure 1) 

GM Cutlass Ciera, Spring 1988 

Ford Taurus, Fall 1988 

Both systems performed as desired 

Met proposed emission standard 

Eliminated spitback 

Excellent fill quality with fuels meeting RVP and 

dispensing rate limits of EPA proposal 

Simplification of current designs 

Commenters have faulted EPA work, for not being on a car 

GM and Ford claimed system didn't work when put on a 

car 

Similar designs on API cars had several problems 

Commenters pointed to lack of purge development for 

EPA system 

In response, EPA set out to develop a car based system 
Figure 1 

Onboard Plus Euaporatiue System 

Hs Applied to GM and Ford Fuel Tanks 

PRESSURE / URCUUM 

RELIEF CRP 

NO 

EHTERNRL 

DENT LINE 

SHORTER 

URPORLINE 

§= v\ 

MODIFIED 

FLORT / ROLLOUER 

URLUE 

V 

RNTI - SPITBACK 

URLUE 

PURGE URLUE 

¥/= 

TO PURGE 

INDUCTION 

POINT 

FUEL TANK 

ENLRRGED 

CRRBON 

CANISTER 
P.90 

Vehicle Selection 

EPA not able to significantly alter purge system 

Therefore, necessary to find a vehicle which could handle 

onboard purge in stock configuration 

Based upon running loss testing, a Ford and a GM vehicle 

were identified 

Low running losses suggested good purge 

Testing isolated the Ford Taurus as having best purge 
P.91 

System Definition 

Current in-use conditions exceed proposed future standards 

High dispensing rates 

High fuel volatility 

Enhancements were developed to handle these conditions 

Would not be needed for future vehicles 

However, EPA desired vehicle to perform adequately 

under current conditions 

Key areas of improvement 

Reduced flow resistance for liquid seal 

Enlarged anti-spitback valve 

Enlarged rollover/vent valve 
P.92 

i 

Components of Vehicle System 

Liquid seal by overflow tube (Figure 2) 

Less resistance at high dispensing rates 

Liquid seal down to 3 gallon/minute 

Enlarged anti-spitback valve (Figure 3) 

Located in filler pipe to allow use of overflow tube 

Production design would place at fuel tank inlet 

Enlarged rollover/vent valve (Figure 4) 

0.4" orifice 

Secondary orifice eliminated in favor of retaining 

existing tank vent 

Existing tank vent upgraded with production "blue" valve 

having larger vent orifice 

5/8" I.D. vapor vent line 

3.5L canister irmediately adjacent to fuel tank 

System layout show in Figure 5 
FIGURE 2: OVERFLOW TUBE 

CO 
P.94 

1 

1 

1 

1 

% 

3 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

D 

FIGURE 3: SPITBACK VALVE 
P.95 

\ 0.40 I.D. ORIFICE 

FIGURE 4: VAPOR VENT VALVE 
P.96 

4 l> -

FORD FILLER PIPE 

5/8 " I.D. HOSE 

VAPOR VENT VALVE 

SPITBACK 

VALVE 

FORD FUEL TANK 

FIGURE 5 : ONBOARD REFUELING SYSTEM 

AS ON THE FORD VEHICLE 
P.97 

Test Results 

Rollover tests of vent valve on fuel tank 

Zero leakage for left or right rollover 

Refueling emissions using full proposed test procedure 

well below proposed EPA standard (Table 1) 

0,07 at 4 gallons per minute 

- ,02 at 10 gallons per minute 

No effects on exhaust emissions or driveability 

Severe fuel tank slosh/carryover evaluation 

No liquid carryover to canister 

Laboratory fill-ability comparisons (Table 2) 

14-15 RVP fuel, 15 gallon per minute dispensing rate 

* No spitback on onboard car 

* % Droplet spray and some spitback on stock Taurus 

* Other late model cars unable to fill at these 

conditions 
I P.98 

t . 

V 

Test Results (Con't) 

Service station fillability comparisons (Table 3) 

14-15 RVP winter fuels 

Warm spring time temperatures 

Dispensing rates over 12 gallons per minute 

Onboard car comparable to stock Taurus 

Onboard car substantially superior to GM and 

Chrysler products 

V