P.1 

OAR Box 1818 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

77) IV-A-6 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/6/2008 3:12:46 PM Sheet 77 of 79 
EL2. 

A if 

IF-A 6 

EPA-AA-SDSB-91-0 6 

Technical Report 

Application of Onboard Refueling Emission Control System 

to a 1988 Ford Taurus Vehicle 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Emission Control Technology Division 

Office of Mobile Sources 

Office of Air and Radiation 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 

NOTICE 

Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions 

or positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of 

issues using data which are currently available. The purpose in 

the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of 

technical information and to inform the public of technical 

developments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, 

position or regulatory action. 
P.3 

Table of Contents 

Section Page 

I. Introduction 1 

II. Test Vehicle Selection 2 

III. System Construction and Installation on the Vehicle 6 

A. Fill Pipe and Check Valve 6 

B. Fuel Tank 10 

C. Vent Valve 10 

D. Charcoal Canister 12 

E. Purge Line 14 

IV. Emissions Testing 16 

V. On-road Vehicle Evaluation 16 

A. Slosh Testing 20 

B. Fueling at Commercial Stations 20 

C. Comparative Fueling with Production Vehicles 31 

VI. Hot Ambient Temperature Tests 46 

VII. NHTSA On-road Evaluation 48 

VIII. Conclusions 52 

References 53 

Appendix A - Detailed Compilation of Emission Test Results 54 

Appendix B - Memorandum - Hot Ambient Test Summaries 80 
P.4 

List of Figures 

Figure Page 

1. Enhanced Evap. Test Sequence 3 

2. Simplified Onboard System Schematic 7 

3. Stock Taurus Filler Neck and Fuel Tank 

Assembly - Schematic 8 

4. Chrysler Check Valve 9 

5. Overflow Tube 11 

6. Refueling Vapor Vent Valve 13 

7. Canister (3.5 liter) 15 

8. Filler Neck, Canister, Fuel Tank, Vent Valve 

Assembly Schematic 17 

9. Refueling Test Procedure; Fully-Integrated Systems 18 

10. Deflector 21 

11 Pressure and Temperature Traces during Fueling 

- Onboard System (Original Configuration) 

(Amoco Station @ Jackson and Stadium Roads; 

January 27, 1989; Fueling Rate: 11.7 gpm) 23 

12. "Pingpong Ball" Check Valve 29 

13. Pressure and Temperature Traces during Fueling 

- Onboard System (Second System Modification) 

(Shell Station on Plymouth Road; February 8, 1989; 

Fueling Rate: 11.3 gpm) 30 

n 
P.5 

List of Tables 

Table Page 

1. Baseline and Enhanced Evap Test Sequence. 

1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera - Evaporative 

and Tailpipe Data Summary 4 

2. Baseline and Enhanced Evap Test Sequence. 

1988 Taurus - Evaporative and Tailpipe Emissions 

Data Summary 5 

3. Refueling Emissions Test Procedure. Evaporative, 

Tailpipe and Refueling Emissions Data Summary 

- Onboard System on 1988 Taurus 19 

4. Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard 

System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original 

. Configuration) 25 

5. Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard 

System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Final System 

Configuration) 32 

6. Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard 

Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles (Refueling at 

Commercial Fuel Stations) 36 

7. Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard 

Equipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles (Refueling in 

EPA Fuel Bay) 43 

8. Fueling Test Summary - Relative Performance of 

Onboard System and Production Vehicles 47 

9. Running Loss Test Data 49 

10. Test Results from NHTSA Evaluation of Onboard 

Equipped Vehicle 51 

m 
P.6 

Introduction 

This report describes the construction and installation of a 

simplified onboard refueling emission control system on a 

production Ford Taurus vehicle. Results from tests performed on the 

vehicle following installation of the system together with 

subsequent system enhancements to improve performance are 

presented. 

The system installed on the vehicle was an improved version of 

an earlier EPA design. Development of the earlier onboard refueling 

emission control system and resulting refueling emission test 

results were presented in "Draft, Summary and Analysis of Comments 

Regarding the Potential Safety Implications of Onboard Vapor 

Recovery Systems" (August 1988) and are not included here. That 

development was performed using bench mounted fuel tank and filler 

neck systems from a GM Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and from a Ford 

Taurus. 

The major components of the onboard system as originally 

configured were a modified filler pipe, modified vent-rollover 

valve, larger diameter tubing to the canister, an enlarged canister 

and canister purge tubing connecting to the purge control valve. 

Both of the bench mounted systems demonstrated good control of 

refueling emissions coupled with good fueling characteristics. 

However, problems were reported by both GM and Ford for similar 

systems' when installed in vehicles and had been experienced in 

tests performed by EPA on onboard equipped vehicles furnished by 

API. Therefore, the objective of the work reported herein was to 

demonstrate successful operation of a vehicle mounted simplified 

system. 

The design goals for the project covered by this report were: 

1) to adapt the original simplified system to a production vehicle 

with little if any modification to the vehicle using existing 

vehicle components, 2) to meet the proposed refueling emission 

standard (0.10 g/gal) over the proposed test procedure range of 

fueling rates (4 to 10 gpm), 3) to meet or exceed the fueling 

performance of the production vehicle under a wide range of adverse 

fueling conditions (high fueling rates, high fuel volatility and 

high fuel temperatures), and 4) to avoid vehicle driveability 

and/or performance impacts of the system. All of these goals were 

fully met by the onboard equipped vehicle described in this report. 

Construction and evaluation of the vehicle system is presented 

in the report which follows. The body of the report is subdivided 

into seven sections which address the following subjects: test 

vehicle selection; system construction; emissions testing; on-road 

vehicle evaluation; hot ambient temperature testing; on-road 

evaluation by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 

(NHTSA); and finally conclusions. 
P.7 

II. Test Vehicle Selection 

Since one of the goals of the project was to avoid 

driveability or other vehicle operational problems and because 

reprogramming canister purge strategy was beyond the scope of the 

project, selection of a production vehicle with good canister purge 

was necessary. As an indicator of good purge performance, EPA used 

data which was being collected on running losses. Because the 

running loss data was being collected under test conditions which 

would lead to the rapid generation of vapor in the fuel tank; i.e. 

high tank temperature combined with high volatility fuel, it was 

reasoned that low running loss emissions would be associated with 

relatively high canister purge rates. Data from the ongoing running 

loss program identified two likely candidate vehicles: an 

Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera and a Mercury Sable (Ford Taurus). To 

further narrow the selection, two candidate vehicles were then 

procured for further evaluation of their purge characteristics. 

In evaluating the relative applicability of the Oldsmobile and 

the Ford to the onboard project, EPA employed what was known as the 

enhanced evaporative test sequence (Figure 1). Briefly, the 

enhanced evaporative test sequence is initiated with a loaded 

canister and, with the exception of a gas cap removal step at the 

start of the hot soak, parallels the present certification test 

procedure through the hot soak which follows the tailpipe emissions 

test. Two high temperature heat builds are then performed after the 

hot soak. Diurnal emissions are measured during the second high 

temperature heat build instead of during the low temperature heat 

build which is performed earlier in the test sequence. The multiple 

heat builds provided the opportunity to evaluate the vehicle's 

ability to purge vapor amounts roughly equivalent to expected 

refueling emissions. 

In order to separate purge effects from the question of basic 

canister capacity, tests were performed with the vehicles in the 

following configurations: 1) stock and 2) stock canister replaced 

with a larger canister. In the case of the Oldsmobile, a single 3.7 

liter canister configuration was tested. In the case of the Ford 

two enlarged canister configurations were tested. These enlarged 

canister configurations were a 3.0 liter canister and then two 

stock canisters in series (1.8 liter total). The results from the 

tests on the Oldsmobile are shown in Table 1, while those from the 

Ford are shown in Table 2. 

As can be seen in Tables 1 and 2, tailpipe emissions remained 

well within applicable standards and did not exhibit major 

differences among canister configurations. In the case of the 

Oldsmobile, when tested by the enhanced evaporative test procedure, 

evaporative emissions increased significantly to as much as 4.5 

times the evaporative emissions standards. This indicated that, 

even with an enlarged canister, the stock vehicle purge was 

inadequate for refueling control. 
P.8 

Drain Fuel Tank 

6 hours MIN a 

i 

Vehicle Temperature Stabilization 

( as required ) 

I 

1 hour MAX 

Load Canister to Breakthrough 

T 1 

1 hour MAX I 

Fuel Drain and Fill 

I 

Dyno Preconditioning 

5 min. MAX rz1 

| Cold Soak Park| 

Fueling 

12 - 36 hours 

0 - 1 hour I 

* Drain 

*40 % Fill 

First Diurnal Heat Build 

Heat Fuel - 1 hour 

( 60 - 84 ° F ) 

10 min I 

Evap. Test Not Reqd. 

1 

Cold Start Exhaust Test 

Evap. Test 

Not 

Performed 

I 

HC Running 

Losses 

as Required 

I 

Hot Start Exhaust Test 

I 

E 

r--

o 

I 

« 

55 

•c 

« 

55 

o 

C Ul 

Hot Soak 

Enclosure 

Test ri 15 min MAX 

Fueling 

* Drain 

40% Fill ( 60 - 72 ° F fuel ) 

I 

Second Diurnal Heat Build 

* Heat Fuel - 1 hour 

(72-96 ° F ) 

I 5 min 

MAX 

10 min MAX 

I 

Drain Fuel Tank 

I 24 hours 

r_f 

Fueling 

* 40 % Fill 

( 60 -72 ° F fuel ) 

Diurnal Enclosure Test 

* Heat Fuel - 1 hour 

(72-96 ° F ) 

I 5 min MAX 

ENHANCED EVAP TEST SEQUENCE 

Figure 1 
Table 1 

Baseline and Enhanced Evap Test Sequences. 1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ciera - Evaporative and Tailpipe Emissions Data Summary 

Vehicle 

Configuration 

Tailpipe Emissions* 

Test HC CO NOx 

Procedure (g/mile) (g/mile) (g/mile) 

Evaporative Emissions 

Heat Bid. Heat Bid. Heat Bid. 

60°-84°F Hot Soak #1,72°-96°F #2,72°-96°F Total** 

ial ial iai lal iai 

Fuel Economy 

(MPG) 

Stock Certification 0.25 3.07 0.56 0.23 0.25 0.48 18.8 

With 3.7L Enhanced evap. 0.27 2.43 

canister 

With 3.7L Enhanced evap. 

canister 

0.19 1.95 

With3.7L Enhanced evap. 0.20 1.87 

canister 

0.58 

0.55 

0.39 

15.51 0.39* 

6.06 1.05"* 

8.34 0.57* 

9.30 

5.20 

6.22 

8.61 9.00 

6.45 7.50 

6.40 6.97 

19.0 

19.4 

19.1 

* 1987 model year emission standards: HC - 0.41 g/mile, CO - 3.4 g/mile, NOx -1.0 g/mile, Evap. - 2.0 g/test. 

** Sum of 60°- 84°F heat build and hot soak in case of stock vehicle certification test procedure, or sum of hot soak 

and #2 72°- 96°F heat build in case of enlarged canister and enhanced evaporative test procedure. 

Gas cap removal step of enhanced evaporative test procedure not performed because of lack of access port in SHED. 
Table 2 

Baseline and Enhanced Evap Test Seguences. 1988 Taurus - Evaporative and Tailpipe Emissions Data Summary 

Vehicle Test 

Configuration Procedure 

Stock Certification 

Tailpipe Emissions* 

HC 

(g/mile) 

CO 

(g/mile) 

NOx 

(g/mile) 

Heat Bid. 

60°-84°F 

iai 

0.19 1.88 0.71 0.12 

Evaporative Emissions 

Heat Bid. Heat Bid. 

Hot Soak #1,72°-96°F #2,72°-96°F Total" 

Ial ial Iai iai 

0.22 0.34 

Fuel Economy 

(MPG) 

21.47 

Stock Enhanced evap. 0.20 2.11 0.76 

(No gas cap 

removal) 

0.18 0.18 0.16 2.68 2.86 20.77 

Stock Enhanced evap. 0.23 2.64 0.74 0.14 0.40 

(0.25)*** 

0.17 8.27 8.67 20.92 

With3.0L Enhanced evap. 0.20 2.28 0.76 0.48 

canister 

Wrth3.0L Enhanced evap. 0.20 2.16 0.70 0.39 

canister 

0.96 

(0.69)*** 

0.72 

(0.40)*" 

0.43 

0.38 

0.49 1.45 

0.36 1.08 

21.05 

21.01 

With two 

prod. cans. 

in series 

Enhanced evap. 0.23 2.30 0.71 0.29 0.87 

(0.70)*' 

0.39 0.21 1.08 21.20 

1988 model year emission standards: HC - 0.41 g/mile, CO - 3.4 g/mile, NOx - 1.0 g/mile, Evap. - 2.0 g/test. 

* Sum of Hot Soak and #2, 72°- 96°F heat build. 

" Values in parenthesis are approximate cap removed contribution to total. 
P.11 

In the case of the Ford in the stock configuration, 

evaporative emissions also exceeded the standard of 2.0 gram per 

test when measured on the enhanced evaporative test procedure. 

However, increased canister capacity resulted in a return to 

compliance with the 2.0 gram per test evaporative standard. 

Furthermore, comparisons between the tailpipe emissions values for 

the vehicle when tested by the 1988 model year test procedure 

(Table 2 - stock vehicle, certification test procedure) and the 

results from the revised test procedure (Table 2 - modified 

vehicle, enhanced evap. test procedure) showed insignificant 

differences among tests performed with the different size 

canisters. 

The similarity in the results suggested that the test 

vehicle's canister purge system would provide adequate purge of 

larger than stock canisters and that the vehicle's fuel management 

system could accommodate changes caused by the larger canisters 

without loss in control of tailpipe emissions. 

Based upon this evaluation, the Ford Taurus was selected for 

development of the refueling control system. More specifically, the 

test vehicle was a 1988 model year Ford Taurus equipped with a 3.0 

liter engine, automatic transmission and air conditioning. When 

received, the vehicle had accumulated approximately 6,500 miles in 

general rental fleet operation. 

Ill. System Construction and Installation on the Vehicle 

Construction and installation of the onboard refueling 

emission control system (integrated system) on the test vehicle is 

described in this section. This section of the report is subdivided 

by primary system components which are the filler pipe and check 

valve, the fuel tank modifications to incorporate the liquid seal 

and vent/rollover valve, the carbon canister, and associated 

plumbing. The system is shown schematically in Figure 2. 

A. Fill Pipe and Check Valve 

Typical production vehicle design provides for fuel from the 

dispensing nozzle to flow through a relatively large diameter 

filler pipe (Figure 3) to the fuel tank and for the vapors 

displaced from the tank by the dispensed fuel to be routed through 

a relatively small diameter vent tube to the inlet end of the 

filler pipe and thence to the atmosphere. A production Ford Taurus 

filler pipe and vapor vent tube assembly was modified by removal of 

the external vapor vent tube to eliminate the direct route for 

atmospheric venting of the vapors, and by plugging of the hole at 

the inlet end of the filler pipe left by removal of the vent tube. 

A caged-ball check valve, derived from a production check valve 

used by Chrysler to control fuel spit-back during fueling (Figure 

4), was installed at the exit of the filler pipe to assist in the 
Vent/Rollover Valve 

(Vent Valve) 

Modified Filler 

Pipe Assembly 

Hose - Valve to Canister 

Hose to Purge 

Control Valve 

Enlarged 

Canister 

Fuel Tank 

SIMPLIFIED ONBOARD SYSTEM SCHEMATIC 

Figure 2 

V 

i\J 
P.13 

Vapor Vent Valve 

Fuel Tank 

Tank Mounted 

Segment of 

Vent Tube 

External Vapor Vent Tube 

Filler Pipe 

Vapor Tubing to Canister 

and Engine 

Front of Vehicle 

n-tank Support 

Tank Mounted Segment of Filler Pipe 

Connecting Hoses 

STOCK TAURUS FILLER NECK, VENT TUBE AND FUEL TANK ASSEMBLY - SCHEMATIC 

Figure 3 
1 1/4 in. dia. ball 

<o 

T 

1 1/16 in. 

dia. 

i 

CHRYSLER CHECK VALVE 

Figure 4 

V 
P.15 

control of fuel spit-back. The production Chrysler check valve was 

modified to enhance fuel flow through the valve by enlarging the 

throat diameter of the valve slightly to 1 5/64 inch. The 

connection between the filler pipe and the fuel tank was 

accomplished by use of a short length of flexible production hose 

(Taurus) designed for this purpose. 

B. Fuel Tank 

Three modifications were made to the production fuel tank in 

the conversion to a fuel tank for use with the onboard refueling 

system. These modifications were: 1) removal of the segment of the 

vent line which was part of the production tank (the hole resulting 

from removal of the vent line was plugged), 2) removal of the 

segment of the filler pipe which formed part of the fuel tank 

assembly and installation of the liquid seal overflow tube in place 

of the filler pipe segment, and 3) provision of a hole in the top 

of the tank for installation of a production sealing grommet and 

mounting of the vent valve. 

The system as originally developed and described in Draft, 

"Summary and Analysis of Comments Regarding the Potential Safety 

Implications of Onboard Vapor Recovery Systems" employed a flow 

area restrictor at the end of the fill pipe. While this design 

provided good control of refueling vapors, it imposed a greater 

than necessary restriction on the flow of fuel entering the tank, 

and as a result limited the fuel dispensing rate. The design was 

changed, therefore, to an "overflow tube" liquid seal which 

facilitated the use of high fuel dispensing rates while providing 

an effective vapor seal. Schematically, the overflow tube liquid 

seal used in the vehicle is shown in Figure 5. Support for the 

overflow tube was provided on the inside of the tank by the 

production bracket, in its production location, designed to support 

the segment of the production filler neck which had been removed. 

The final modification to the production fuel tank was the 

provision of a mounting hole on the top of the tank for mounting of 

the vent valve. Adequate clearance between the body of the vehicle 

and the top of the tank for mounting of the vent valve and vapor 

tube was identified above the tank's rear vapor space. The point on 

the top of-, the tank selected for mounting of the vent valve was 

just to the right of the tank centerline and as far forward in the 

rear vapor space as possible while retaining clearance to the body. 

C. Vent Valve 

The design of the vent valve used in the vehicle installation 

was similar to that used in earlier work, and was similar in design 

and concept to a production valve used by Ford on some light-duty 

trucks. The performance requirements of the valve were also similar 

10 
T 

1.35 " dia 

1 

T 

1.35 " dia 

i 

IN-TANK SEGMENT OF PRODUCTION FILLER PIPE 

Length Of Overflow Tube Matching Discharge Point 

Of Production In-tank Pipe 

OVERFLOW TUBE 

1/8 " dia Drain 

OVERFLOW TUBE AND IN-TANK SEGMENT OF PRODUCTION FILLER PIPE 

Figure 5 

V 
P.17 

to those previously applied in the development project, i.e., 

closure at full-tank dispensed volume, low pressure drop through 

the valve during fueling and sealing of the valve during rollover. 

The vent valve which was fabricated for use in the vehicle 

installation differed slightly from that used previously. The 

changes included a longer valve housing to achieve valve closure at 

correct full-tank fuel volume, and an increase in the diameter of 

the vent orifice from 0.35 inch to 0.40 inch to achieve lower back 

pressure. The outer diameter of the valve was the same as that of 

previously used vent valves, so that a production grommet could be 

used to seal between the tank and the valve. The valve is shown 

schematically in Figure 6. In the vehicle installation, the 

existing fuel tank to canister evaporative vent valve was retained 

and provided for venting of the tank when full. The design of the 

refueling vapor vent did not, therefore, include this operational 

characteristic. 

Prior to use on the vehicle, bench testing was performed to 

validate the performance of the valve under simulated vehicle 

rollover conditions. Briefly, tests performed by EPA followed the 

NHTSA rollover procedures as specified in FMVSS 301 for 

determination of fuel leakage from a vehicle fuel tank during 

vehicle rollover. Since EPA was not equipped to perform the 

rollover test on the complete vehicle, the test sequence was 

performed on the fuel tank-vent valve system. The tests on the 

modified fuel tank and the vent valve system were performed for 

both clockwise and counter clockwise rollovers about the axis of 

the tank. There was no leakage from the fuel tank-vent valve system 

during these tests. The system was as a result considered to meet 

NHTSA requirements for the control of fuel spillage during a 

vehicle rollover. Following demonstration of system performance on 

the bench, the components were installed in the vehicle. 

Charcoal Canister 

Inspection of the underside of the vehicle showed a cavity 

suitable for mounting of the canister immediately behind the under 

floor mounted fuel tank and in front of the points on the chassis 

to which the rear suspension lateral control arms are attached. 

This mounting location for the canister would provide protection 

for the canister in the event of an accident and because of the 

proximity to the vent valve would limit pressure drop in the tube 

connecting the vent valve and the canister. It was decided to 

provide an upward sloping loop in the tube from the vent valve to 

the canister to allow gravity return to the tank of any condensed 

fuel vapor. The tube connecting the vent valve and the canister was 

made from 5/8 inch interior diameter nylon tubing. The nylon tubing 

material was the same as used for production fuel lines on the Ford 

Taurus. 

Canister sizing calculations indicated that a canister of 

about 3.0 to 3.5 liter charcoal capacity would be suitable for use 

on the test vehicle. Since, as noted earlier, EPA was not in a 

12 
P.18 

FloatSpring 

"Tuuuuuuuuuuif 

-•t 

O 

1 E 

A 

T 

5/8 " dia 

Length As Required 

To Achieve Closure 

At Full-tank Fuel 

Level 

To Fit 

Production' 

Gromet 

REFUELING VAPOR VENT VALVE 

Figure 6 

13 
P.19 

position to make modifications to the production vehicle canister 

purge strategy it was decided to use the 3.5 liter size to insure 

adequate capacity. The shape of the space available for the 

canister was such that a 3.5 liter canister could be designed to 

have a desirable long length relative to its cross sectional flow 

area while still achieving an acceptably low pressure drop through 

the canister. The shape of the space was, however, such that the 

canister had to have a non-symmetric cross section. 

One other design characteristic of the test vehicle which 

influenced the design of the canister was the location of the 

vehicle exhaust system. In the general region of the vehicle 

selected for canister mounting, the exhaust pipe is on the left 

side of the vehicle and approximately 12 inches from the center of 

the vehicle. Because of the location of the exhaust pipe, the 

decision was made to locate all of the lines to and from the 

canister as well as the purge air pick-up/vapor vent for the 

canister on the right side of the vehicle. The canister was filled 

with charcoal similar to that used in production Ford canisters. 

A schematic of the canister is shown in Figure 7. 

E. Purge Line 

Since the onboard canister would be mounted toward the rear of 

the vehicle, instead of in the front as is the case in the 

production vehicle, the canister purge line would be much longer 

than that used in the production vehicle. With an expected purge 

line length of approximately 12 feet, it was necessary that any 

excessive pressure drop in the purge line be avoided to insure 

adequate canister purge. Based upon preliminary testing of several 

system components, it appeared that acceptable purging of the 

canister would probably be achieved with a 1/4 inch ID purge line. 

However, as was the case in the canister size selection, a decision 

was made to use a larger diameter (3/8 inch) purge line to provide 

full confidence in the operation of the system. 

In the vehicle installation, the 3/8 inch interior diameter 

canister purge line was made from fuel grade nylon tubing and was 

routed along the inner side of the vehicle's right rocker panel. 

This routing was the same as that used on the production vehicle 

for the fuel supply and return lines and the tank vent line to the 

canister. In the general area of the vehicle firewall, the routing 

of the fuel lines and tank vent line, which utilize formed tubing, 

turns upward into the engine compartment. For simplicity of 

installation (pre-formed tubing was not employed) the routing of 

the purge line deviated from that of the production fuel lines and 

tank vent line and was continued forward along the side of the 

vehicle's front sub-frame. Care was taken during installation to 

ensure that there would be no interference between the purge line 

and vehicle suspension, driveline or steering components due to 

steering and road surface induced movement of these components. 

The use of nylon tubing was terminated at the front of the 

sub-frame because of the need for several bends in the remainder of 

14 
Purge to Engine 

\ 

Ul 

Wire Mesh Charcoal Support 

Vapor from 

Fuel Tank 

CANISTER (3.5 liter) 

Figure 7 

*• 

ho 
P.21 

the purge line. Flexible fuel line of 3/8 inch diameter was 

substituted for the nylon tubing. This flexible fuel line was 

routed from the right side to the left side of the vehicle along 

the sub-frame and then to the vehicle's purge control valve. The 

production location of the purge control valve on the left side of 

the vehicle was retained. In a production application of the 

onboard system to a Taurus, pre-formed canister purge tubing could 

be employed and the purge control valve could be relocated on the 

right side of the vehicle. The routing of the purge line could, 

therefore, be equivalent to that of the present vapor line and the 

total length of the purge line could be reduced from that used on 

the test vehicle. 

Installation on the vehicle of the fuel tank and vent valve 

assembly, the canister, tubing between the canister and the vent 

valve and the filler pipe were bolt-in operations. A schematic of 

the onboard system, except for some of the purge tubing, as it was 

configured for installation on the production vehicle is shown in 

Figure 8. 

IV. Emissions Testing 

Following installation of the onboard system components, 

testing was initiated to evaluate the performance of the onboard 

system when mounted on the test vehicle. Testing to establish the 

emissions performance of the onboard equipped vehicle followed the 

procedure for fully integrated systems, Figure 9. Briefly, the test 

sequence is initiated with a loaded canister and, with the 

exception of the addition of a gas cap removal step at the start of 

the hot soak, parallels the present certification test procedure 

through the hot soak which follows the tailpipe emissions test. 

Following completion of the hot soak, the vehicle is driven for 7.5 

miles in accordance with the urban dynamometer driving schedule, 

and undergoes a 10 percent fueling and temperature stabilization 

step prior to measurement of refueling emissions, as detailed in 

Figure 9. The results obtained from this set of- tests are 

summarized in Table 3 (Detailed test results including canister 

weight data, are shown in the Appendix) . The test results presented 

in Table 3 show that the vehicle complied with the existing exhaust 

and evaporative standards and could comply with a refueling 

standard of 0.10 g/gal. Refueling emissions under 0.10 g/gal were 

achieved at both the lowest (4 gpm) and highest (10 gpm) fuel 

dispensing rates which had been proposed for onboard systems. 

V. On-road Vehicle Evaluation 

Upon completion of emissions testing, the on-road performance 

of the vehicle was evaluated. On-road performance evaluations 

included slosh testing for potential carryover of fuel to the 

canister and fueling performance evaluations at commercial 

stations. 

16 
Fuel Tank 

Refueling Vapor 

Vent Valve 

Production Vent Valve 

Vapor Tubing 

to Canister 

Purge Tubing to 

Engine (3/8" ID) 

Canister 

Front of Vehicle 

Refueling Vapor 

Tubing to Canister 

(5/8" ID) 

Filler Pipe 

FILLER NECK, CANISTER, FUEL TANK, VENT VALVE ASSEMBLY SCHEMATIC 

Figure 8 

17 
P.23 

Exhaust / Evaporative 

Emissions of 

Subparts B or M 

Emissions Measurements 

Not Required 

I 

EPA Urban Dynamometer 

Driving Schedule 

I 

I 15 min MAX 

* Disconnect Refueling Canister 

* Remove Fuel Tank Cap 

* Drain Tank 

I 

17 min MAX 

* 10 % Fueling (81 - 84 0 F fuel) 

* Replace Fuel Tank Cap 

I 

1 hour MAX 

Vehicle Temperature Stabilization 

I 6 to 24 hours 

* Remove Fuel Tank Cap 

* Conned Refueling Canister 

I 

Place Vehicle in SHED 

I 

I 5 min MAX 

Measure Refueling Emissions 

REFUEUNG TEST PROCEDURE 

FULLY-INTEGRATED SYSTEMS 

Figure 9 

18 
Table 3 

Refueling Emissions Test Procedure. Evaporative, Tailpipe and Refueling 

Emissions Data Summary - Onboard System on 1988 Taurus 

HC 

(o/mile) 

0.19 

0.17 

0.20 

0.18 

Tailpipe. EfflfMfW 

CO 

(a/mile) 

1.80 

1.66 

2.10 

1.72 

* 

NOx 

(60°-84°F) 

(a/mile) 

0.72 

0.65 

0.71 

0.76 

Diurnal 

ifll 

0.27** 

(ND)*** 

0.30 

(ND)*** 

0.36 

(ND)*** 

0.34 

(ND)*** 

Evaporative Emissions* 

Hot Soak 

ifll 

0.34 

0.35 

0.25 

0.38 

Total 

0.61 

0.65 

0.61 

0.72 

Refueling 

Emissions 

(fl/fla-*) 

0.04 

0.02 

0.07**** 

0.07 

Fuel 

Economy 

(MPG) 

20.70 

20.91 

21.17 

21.25 

* Applicable emission standards: HC - 0.41 g/mile, CO - 3.4 g/mile, NOx -1.0 g/mile, Evap. - 2.0 g/test. 

** Canister not disconnected before fueling for heat build. 

*** ND: No detectable emissions associated with removal of gas cap. 

**** Fuel dispensing rate of 4 gpm. 

19 
P.25 

A. Slosh Testing 

In addition to controlling the flow of refueling vapors, the 

vent valve must also prevent the escape of liquid fuel from the 

fuel tank. The rollover performance of the vent valve was evaluated 

prior to installation on the vehicle, as described earlier. On-road 

tests were performed to insure that no fuel escaped due to fuel 

sloshing in the fuel tank. Fuel sloshing in the tank was evaluated 

at four fuel levels in the tank: 1/4, 1/2, 3/4 and full tank. 

Prior to fuel slosh testing a section of transparent tube was 

attached to the vapor tube connecting the vent valve and the 

canister by way of a tee immediately upstream of the canister. The 

tee was mounted with the branching segment of the tee pointing down 

and, as a result, any liquid fuel passing the vent valve would be 

diverted and enter the transparent tube. 

Fore and aft sloshing of the fuel in the tank was induced by 

repetitions of maximum accelerations and heavy braking between 

approximately 5 mph and 30 mph. Side-to-side fuel sloshing was 

induced by driving the vehicle in a figure eight pattern at 20 to 

30 mph and employing high lateral accelerations. Fore and aft and 

side-to-side sloshing maneuvers were intermixed. The severity of 

the side-to-side sloshing maneuvers was high and represented 

vehicle operation which greatly exceeded normal driving patterns. 

Following completion of each fuel sloshing sequence, the 

transparent section of tube was inspected for the presence of 

liquid fuel. Following the tests at 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 tank volumes, 

no fuel was seen in the transparent tube. A small amount of fuel 

(approximately 2 cc) was found in the tube following slosh testing 

with the tank full. Given the severity of the test conditions, the 

amount of fuel (2 cc) was small enough as not to constitute either 

a safety concern or a threat to the performance of the charcoal in 

the canister. 

While only a small amount of fuel would have reached the 

canister even under the severe test conditions employed, it is 

preferable to prevent all liquid fuel from reaching the canister. 

A deflector surrounding the vent valve was, therefore, added to the 

inside of the tank. The deflector was approximately 1 3/4 inch in 

diameter and 1 inch long (Figure 10) and was intended to block 

direct splashing of liquid against the vent valve without affecting 

the free flow of vapor. Since the slosh performance of the valve 

was already excellent, no specific tests were performed with the 

deflector installed. 

B. Fueling at Commercial Stations 

The second area of vehicle on-road performance evaluated was 

refueling performance at commercial stations. The vehicle was 

instrumented with fittings to allow monitoring of the pressure in 

the filler neck, the tank and the vapor line to the canister. 

Equipment to record these pressures and to measure ambient 

20 
Refueling Vapor Vent Valve 

Gromet 

N> 

Top of Tank 

DEFLECTOR 

Figure 10 

*• 
P.27 

temperature, dispensed fuel temperature and in-tank fuel 

temperature was installed in the vehicle. 

Procedures employed in the evaluation of the fueling 

performance of the onboard system at commercial fuel stations were 

as follows. The vehicle fuel tank was drained at EPA and in most 

cases only sufficient fuel to safely reach the commercial filling 

station was added to the tank. The vehicle was then driven to the 

commercial fuel station and fueled. Following full insertion of the 

fuel nozzle into the vehicle filler pipe, fuel was dispensed at the 

maximum rate achievable from that pump (efforts were made to avoid 

fueling of the test vehicle while other vehicles were being fueled 

at the station). Fueling was continued until automatic nozzle 

shutoff, and any fuel expulsions or premature nozzle shut-offs were 

noted. Following the first full-tank nozzle shut-off, tank 

topping-off fuelings were performed using maximum fuel dispensing 

rates at each activation of the fuel nozzle. Any fuel spillage was 

noted. The maximum dispensing rate was selected for topping-off 

events because that procedure could be repeatably performed and 

because it severely stressed the system. For most of the early 

fuelings at commercial stations, fuel topping-off events were 

repeated four to seven times. A fuel sample was collected, in most 

cases, following completion of the fueling event so that the Reid 

Vapor Pressure (RVP) of the fuel could be determined. 

During fuelings, continuous traces of the pressures in the 

filler pipe, the tank and the entrance to the canister were 

recorded. An example of pressure trace data is shown in Figure 11. 

The figure shows, reading from right to left, the start of fueling 

through four topping off events and reading from top to bottom, the 

pressure in the filler pipe, the pressure in the fuel tank and the 

temperature of the fuel in the fuel tank (pressure at the canister 

was not recorded during this fueling) . Immediately after fueling is 

initiated, the pressure traces show a sharp rise in the pressures 

to the levels corresponding to fuel dispensing at that delivery 

rate with the vent valve open. When the fuel in the tank reaches 

the full level, the vent valve closes which results in (1) a rapid 

rise in fuel tank pressure, (2) backing up of fuel in the filler 

pipe with an associated sharp rise in pressure in the filler pipe 

and finally, 3) the fuel in the filler pipe reaching the nozzle 

shutoff port causing automatic shutoff of the nozzle. Following 

nozzle shutoff the pressure in the filler pipe decays rapidly. In 

the example shown, automatic nozzle shutoff occurred initially when 

11.2 gallons of fuel had been dispensed. Fuel tank topping-offs are 

shown on the figure by the almost vertical rises and falls in 

filler pipe pressure and the somewhat smaller pressure spikes in 

the fuel tank. For the fueling event shown, a total of four 

topping-offs were performed which resulted in an additional 0.3 

gallons of fuel being dispensed. 

As part of the initial evaluation, a stock Taurus was fueled 

at two of the stations immediately after fueling of the onboard 

vehicle was completed. Fuelings of the stock vehicle were performed 

using the same pump and nozzle as were used with the onboard 

vehicle and the same number of topping-off repetitions were 

22 
Pressure and Temperature Traces during Fueling - Onboard System (Original Configuration) 

(Amoco Station @ Jackson and Stadium Rds; January 27, 1989; Fueling Rate; 11.7 gpm) 

u 

u 

<0 3* 

u 

c 

u 

s 

a 

m 

ty 

u 

P-

— 100 

Top-off 

A Events 

Nozzle Automatic 

Shut-off 

23 

Start of 

Fueling 

ca 
performed. During these tests neither vehicle exhibited any fueling 

problems. 

The results of tests performed at commercial filling stations 

on the onboard vehicle as originally configured, together with the 

two back-to-back fuelings of a stock Taurus, are shown in Table 4. 

Approximately two-thirds of the fuelings to the full tank level 

were completed without either premature shutoff or fuel spillage. 

Fuel spills or premature nozzle shutoff occurred, however, in 

approximately one-third of the fuelings either at the first or 

second nozzle shutoff. The existence of a fuel spill at the third 

or subsequent topping-off event was considered to be a lesser 

problem because of the severity of the full flow test procedure 

which was used. Inspection of Table 4 shows that there was no 

readily discernible pattern in the spill/spit control performance 

of the onboard system with respect to station, nozzle type, 

dispensing rate or temperature. In addition, a meaningful 

comparison between the performance of a stock Taurus and the 

onboard equipped Taurus was not possible because both vehicles 

fueled without incident during the two back-to-back fuelings which 

were performed. 

Based on these initial tests, it was decided that changes were 

desirable to reduce fuel spillage. The changes were directed at 

enhancing fuel flow into the tank and reducing the in-tank pressure 

peak at closure of the vent valve. To enhance fuel flow, the 

Chrysler check valve was replaced by a check valve with a larger 

diameter ball (1.5" dia.) and enlarged throat (1.4" dia.). These 

changes reduced the resistance to the flow of fuel through the 

check valve because of the increased flow area. Since a standard 

pingpong ball was used in this valve it was referred to by that 

name, Figure 12. Reducing the magnitude of the pressure peaks at 

nozzle shutoff required improved venting of the tank following 

closure of the vapor vent valve. To accomplish this, the stock 

Taurus vapor vent valve (white) was replaced with a larger Ford 

vent valve (blue) used on some light trucks. Because of the 

increased vapor flow capacity of the orifice in the "blue" valve, 

the pressure peak at closure of the refueling vent- valve was 

reduced. An example of typical pressure trace during fueling with 

this system revision is shown in Figure 13. In addition to the 

filler pipe and tank pressures shown in Figure 11, Figure 13 

includes the pressure trace for canister inlet pressure. For this 

fueling, automatic nozzle shutoff occurred when 11.6 gallons of 

fuel had been dispensed. Four topping-offs resulted in an 

additional 0.7 gallons of fuel being dispensed. Relative to the 

pressure traces shown in Figure 11, Figure 13 shows that filler 

pipe pressure is reduced, both during fueling and at nozzle shutoffs. 

When this modified hardware was placed on the vehicle, it was 

also found that a metal sleeve was needed to protect the enlarged 

check valve from interference with the flexible rubber hose joining 

the filter neck to the fuel tank. After initial evaluation, a two 

inch diameter sleeve was selected for this purpose. 

24 
Table 4 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original Configuration) 

ONBOARD SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, 'Chrysler" spitback valve, 'white' stock vapor vent valve. 

Date 

1/10/89 

Station 

Amoco 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel RVP' 

(gom) Temp.CF) (psi) 

Initial Initial/ Volume 

Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Nozzle Temp(°F) Tank(gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

1.0 4.0 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

Vehicle used for fuel 

tank slosh testing. 

1/10/89 Unocal 76 

(Washtenaw & 

Carpenter Rd.) 

5.0 3.0 No fueling problems. 

Vehicle used for fuel 

tank slosh testing. 

1/10/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter Rd 

& Mich. Ave.) 

8.0 3.6 No fueling problems. 

Vehicle used for fuel 

tank slosh testing. 

1/10/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter Rd 

& Mich. Ave.) 

11.5 3.0 Approximately 1 pint 

spill @ second nozzle 

shut-off. Vehicle used 

for fuel tank slosh test. 

1/10/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter Rd 

& Mich. Ave.) 

1/11/89 Amoco 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

6.1 

14.5/14.4 

14.2/14.0 Emco — 

Wheaton 

A2000 

1.0 

1.0 54.3/41.7 

12.9 

15.35 

Approximately 1 cup spill 

at first nozzle shut-off. 

No fueling problems. 

* Two measurements of RVP performed per fuel sample. 

25 
Table 4 (cont) 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original Configuration) 

ONBOARD SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, "Chrysler' spitback valve, "white' stock vapor vent valve. 

Date Station 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel RVP 

(gpm) Temp.fF) (psi) 

1/11/89 Shell 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

dispensed. 

12.0 

Initial Initial/ Volume 

Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

14.8/14.2 OPW 

11A 

1.0 54.3/38.5 13.8 

Observations 

Multiple premature nozzle 

shut-offs; at 1.8, 3.5, 4.3 

5.1, 7.8, 9.3 gallons 

Spit-back at second (13.4 gal) 

and third (13.7 gal) shut-offs. 

1/11/89 Shell 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

following.) 

12.0 36.6 Sample OPW 

not 11A 

taken 

32.7 1.0 43.2/40.5 14.2 No fueling problems. 

(Stock Taurus fueled without 

problem immediately 

1/13/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter Rd) 

& Michigan Ave.) 

following.) 

10.8 39.8 14.9/14.8 OPW 

11B 

31.8 1.0 -/40.2 12.5 No fueling problems. 

(Stock Taurus fueled without 

problem immediately 

1/13/89 Shell 11.7 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

— 14.8/14.8 OPW 

11B 

1.0 40.5/37.5 13.6 No fueling problems. 

1/17/89 Unocal 76 

(Washtenaw & 

Carpenter Rd) 

8.4 43.2 14.7/14.7 No I.D. 47.8 2.0 48.8/41.5 12.2 Small spit (10-15 drops) 

at first nozzle shut-off. 

1/18/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw & 

Owendale Rd) 

12.8 41.5 14.3/14.2 Emco 38.0 

Wheaton 

A2001 

2.0 52.0/41.0 12.0 Spill, 2 to 3 tablespoons at 

5th nozzle shut-off. 

26 
Table 4 (cont) 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original Configuration) 

ONBOARD SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, "Chrysler" spitback valve, "white" stock vapor vent valve. 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Date Station (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank(gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

1/18/89 Shell 6.0 

(Stadium & 

Maple Rds.) 

43.5 14.8/14.7 49.0 2.0 57.0/44.5 12.0 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

1/19/89 Shell 11.0 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

40.5 14.8/14.8 OPW 36.5 2.0 41.0/39.5 12.5 No fueling problems. 

1/20/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw & 

Owendale Rds.) 

12.0 38.8 14.3/14.2 Emco 33.6 

Wheaton 

A200 

11.0 49/48 2.5 

(readings 

fluctuating) 

No fueling problems. 

1/23/89 Amoco 

(Jackson and 

Stadium) 

11.8 14.3/14.3 OPW 6.0 58/49 7.7 2- 3 teaspoon spill at 

second nozzle shut-off. 

1/24/89 Mobil 

(Washtenaw 

& Carpenter) 

10.4 43.5 14.9/15.0 OPW 43.9 4.0 42/41 11.2 1/2 cup spill at first 

nozzle shut-off. 

1/27/89 Mobil 

(Washtenaw 

& Carpenter) 

10.3 40.8 15.1/15.2 OPW 32.5 2.0 34.5/37.0 10.8 No fueling problems. 

27 
Table 4 (cont) 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Original Configuration) 

ONBOARD SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, "Chrysler" spitback valve, "white" stock vapor vent valve. 

Date Station 

1/27/89 Amoco 

(Jackson & 

Stadium) 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP* Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

(gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

11.7 43.0 14.2/— OPW 

11-B 

34.5 3.0 44.5/41.5 11.5 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

1/30/89 Mobil 

(Washtenaw 

& Carpenter) 

9.0 42.0 14.9/15.0 OPW 

11-B 

40.3 3.0 41.5/41 11.6 No fueling problems. 

1/30/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

12.4 Emco 

Wheaton 

41.9 3.0 51/47 10.2 A few drops at 5th shut-off, 

2-3 teaspoons at 7th nozzle 

shut-off. 

28 
P.34 

CB CQ S3 

b 

E 

u-> 

LU 

> _ l 

< 

> 

o UJ 

X 

o 

< m 

o 

z 

O Q. 

o 

CM 

29 
Pressure: and Temperature Traces during Fueling - Onboard System (Second System Modification) 

(Shell Station on Plymouth Rd; February 8, 1989; Fueling Rate: 11.3 gpm) 

Top-off 

4 Events 

Nozzle Automatic 

Shut-off 

at 

u 9 

« 

0) 

30 
P.36 

The vehicle installation also incorporated another small 

improvement designed to reduce occasional spitback of small fuel 

droplets. This improvement consisted of a small deflector on the 

inside of the unleaded fuel nozzle restrictor support plate to 

eliminate any straight line path for droplet expulsion through the 

main vent hole in the restrictor plate. 

The results of fuelings at commercial stations following 

incorporation of the above modifications to the onboard system are 

shown in Table 5. As can be seen in Table 5, the vast majority of 

the fuelings occurred without incident and the overall performance 

of the system was considered to be excellent. Because similar 

fueling incidents; e.g. premature nozzle shutoff and fuel spillage, 

occur with production vehicle designs it was unclear how the 

modified vehicle was performing compared to stock fuel systems. The 

next step in the evaluation of the performance of the onboard 

system was, therefore, the collection of data on back-to-back 

fuelings with stock production vehicles. 

C. Comparative Fueling with Production Vehicles 

Following establishment of the final system configuration, 

comparative testing was performed with production vehicles. The 

purpose of this testing was to compare the fueling performance of 

the onboard system and production systems under identical fueling 

conditions at commercial stations. 

The production vehicles employed in these comparative fuelings 

were a 1988 Ford Taurus, a 1989 Buick Century, a 1988 Dodge minivan, a 1989 Pontiac 6000, a 1987 Ford Crown Victoria, and a 1987 

Plymouth Reliant. Comparative fuelings were performed at commercial 

fuel stations and in the EPA refueling bay where fuel dispensing 

rates higher than those at commercial stations could be employed. 

The detailed results of the comparative fuelings performed at 

commercial fuel stations are shown in Table 6. Comparative fuelings 

performed in the EPA fueling bay are shown in Table 7. 

With respect to the number and severity of spills, inspection 

of Tables 6 and 7 shows that very few spills occurred with the 

onboard system or the production Taurus and that the few spills 

which did occur were very small. In the case of some of the other 

productionvehicles, fuel spillage occurred frequently and usually 

involved a significant volume of fuel. Thus, relative to the other 

stock vehicles which were evaluated, it appears that the Taurus 

fuel tank system is very well designed with respect to the control 

of fuel spit-back and premature nozzle shut-off. Further inspection 

of Tables 6 and 7 shows that there were a few instances where 

premature nozzle shut-off occurred with the onboard system as was 

also the case with some production vehicles. While occasional 

premature nozzle shut-off is a nuisance, it is not a significant 

problem compared to actual fuel spillage. 

31 
Table 5 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Rnal System Configuration! 

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, 'Pingpong ball" spit back valve with 2" dia. sleeve, "blue" stock vapor vent valve, deflector at fill neck vent. 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Date Station (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

2/21/89 Mobil 10.1 

(Washtenaw 

& Carpenter) 

40.4 15.4/15.2 OPW 38.7 

11B 

3.0 48/43.5 13.6 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

2/22/89 Shell 

(Washtenaw 

& Goltview) 

2/22/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter 

& Michigan Ave.) 

2/22/89 

2/23/89 

2/23/89 

2/23/89 

2/27/89 

Shell 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

Amoco 

(Zeeb & I94) 

Standard 

(Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

Amoco 

(Zeeb & 194) 

Standard 

Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

11.1 

10.4 

11.0 

10.5 

12.0 

10.5 

11.9 

39.8 

38.4 

38.2 

34.4 

36.5 

38.5 

39.2 

14.8/14.7 

14.4/14.3 

14.8/14.7 

13.8/13.9 

13.8/13.7 

13.9/14.0 

13.4/13.3 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

Husky 

1XS 

Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

Husky 

1XS 

Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

28.6 

29.0 

30.6 

10.4 

18.4 

21.8 

25.7 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

42.5/41 

45.5/40.5 

35.5/37.5 

30/35.5 

38/37.5 

40/37.5 

61/50 

11.1 

10.7 

11.9 

12.6 

10.5 

13.2 

11.0 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

No fuel spill seen, 

(deflector on nozzle damp, 

may have prevented spill). 

No fueling problems. 

Premature shut-off 

at 0.96 gal. 

No fueling problems. 

32 
Table 5 (cont) 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Rnal System Configuration! 

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, 'Pingpong ball' spit back valve with 2" dia sleeve, "blue" stock vapor vent valve, deflector at fill neck vent. 

Date Station 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Rnal Tank Dispensed 

fqpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

2/27/89 Amoco 

(Zeeb & 194) 

10.4 39.6 14.0/13.9 Husky 28.4 

1XS 

3.0 45.5/40.5 12.9 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

2/27/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter 

& Michigan Ave.) 

2/28/89 Mobil 

(Zeeb & I94) 

3/1/89 Mobil 

(Zeeb & I94) 

10.8 

10.4 

10.4 

39.7 

42.5 

35.3 

14.5/14.4 

14.7/14.5 

OPW 

No Manf. 

Name 

(IA?) 

No Manf. 

Name 

(1A?) 

32.3 

36.1 

32.7 

3.0 

7.0 

3.0 

49/41.5 

46/42.5 

35/32 

11.0 

10.0 

11.8 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

3/2/89 Standard Could not 36.6 

(Washtenaw be determined 

& Owendale) (premature 

shut-offs) 

12.5/12.6 Emco 26.9 

Wheaton 

A2001 

3.0 37/34 12.0 Multiple premature nozzle 

shut-offs at 3.1, 5.0, 5.9 

6.6, 7.8 gals, dispensed. 

3/2/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw 

immediately 

& Owendale 

12.2 12.6/12.6 Emco 32.1 

Wheaton 

A2001 

3.0 40/37 12.25 1/4 pint spill at 6th shut-off. 

Stock vehicle fueled 

after without problems through 

7 nozzle shut-offs. 

3/10/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter & 

Michigan Ave.) 

10.6 43.8 14.4/14.6 OPW 

11A 

46.4 3.0 59.5/43 10.96 No fueling problems 

33 
Table 5 (cont) 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Rnal System Configuration) 

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, "Pingpong ball" spit back valve with 2" dia sleeve, "blue" stock vapor vent valve, deflector at fill neck vent 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Date Station (o^rp) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

3/10/89 Mobil 9.7 

(Carpenter 

& Washtenaw) 

41.5 15.0/14.9 Emco 45.6 

Wheaton 

A2000 

3.0 58/44.5 11.6 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

3/11/89 Shell 

(Plymouth Rd) 

3/11/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter & 

Michigan Ave.) 

12.2 

10.8 

38 

41.5 

13.9/14.0 

14.6/14.6 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

11A 

43 

48 

3.0 

3.0 

32.5/35 

54.4/42.5 

11.53 

11.51 

One drop spill at 6th 

nozzle shut-off. 

1/4 cup spill at 1st 

nozzle shut-off. 

3/11/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter & 

Michigan Ave.) 

10.8 42 14.6/14.5 OPW 49.6 

11A 

3.0 63.5/44 11.6 

3/14/89 Shell 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

11.5 45.6 14.2/14.3 OPW 54.5 3.0 67.5/45 

One tablespoon spill at 6th 

nozzle shut-off and two 

tablespoons spill at 

8th nozzle shut-off. 

3/11/89 Unocal 76 

(Washtenaw 

& Carpenter) 

3/11/89 Shell 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

8.6 

12.2 

41 

38 

14.7/14.6 

* 

13.9/13.8 

Not 

determinable 

OPW 

11A 

49.9 

52.1 

3.0 

1.0 

47/31 

Thermocouple 

problem. 

12.0 . 

15.8 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

12.6 4 tablespoon spill at 

4th nozzle shut-off. 

1/2 teaspoon spill 

at 7th shut-off. 

3/21/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter & 

Michigan Ave.) 

10.5 46.0 13.8/13.8 OPW 33.2 

11B 

3.0 58.5/47 10.14 No fueling problems. 

34 
Table 5 (cont) 

Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations - Onboard System Installed on 1988 Taurus (Rnal System Configuration) 

SYSTEM CONFIGURATION: 3.5L Canister, 'Pingpong ball' spit back valve with 2* dia sleeve, 'blue* stock vapor vent valve, deflector at fill neck vent. 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Date Station (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

3/23/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

11.6 41.8 12.1/12.0 Emco 45.6 

Wheaton 

A2001 

4.0 63/49 10.58 

Observations 

1 teaspoon spill at 

1st nozzle shut-off. 

3/23/89 Amoco 12.2 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

11.9/11.9 Emco 

Wheaton 

A2000 

3.0 58.5/47 10.4 Premature nozzle shutoffs at 3.3, 5.15, 6.0. 

7.0,7.58,8.34,9.13 

and 9.68 gallons. 

3/27/89 Amoco 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

3/27/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

3/27/89 Sunoco 

(Carpenter & 

Michigan Ave.) 

11.4 

12.0 

10.7 

55.5 

52.0 

55.0 

11.8/--

11.8/11.9 

13.3/13.2 

* 

Emco 

Wheaton 

Emco 

Wheaton 

OPW 

11B 

66 

77.3 

77.1 

3.0 

3.0 

3.0 

70.5/58 

84.5/60 

88/64.5 

9.0 

11.5 

9.55 • 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

35 
Table 6 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehicle and Stock Vehicles 

Comparative Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Date Station Vehicle (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

3/28/89 Amoco Onboard 11.2 52.5 12.0/— Emco 63.4 3.0 64/54.4 10.75 

(Plymouth Rd.) Wheaton 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Taurus 

11.9 52.5 12.0/— Emco 63.4 

Wheaton 

3.0 64/54.4 10.75 Two drop spit from stock 

vehicle at 2nd nozzle shut-off. 

3/28/89 Shell Onboard 11.0 50.4 13.1/13.0 OPW 69.6 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

3.0 68/53.5 12.0 No fueling problems. 

3/28/89 Shell 

(Stadium & 

Maple) 

Onboard 7.2 50.2 12.6/- 66.1 3.0 74/56 13.0 No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Taurus 

9.1 50.2 12.6/- 66.1 3.0 74/56 13.0 No fueling problems. 

3/30/89 Amoco Onboard 11.4 54 

(Plymouth Rd.) 

Emco 

Wheaton 

39.7 3.0 53/48 1176 3 drop spill at 3rd nozzle 

shut-off. 

Stock 

Taurus 

11.2 54 Emco 

Wheaton 

39.7 4.0 10.33 No fueling problems through 

3 nozzle shut-offs. 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

11.3 54 Emco 

Wheaton 

39.7 3.0 14.00 4 to 5 teaspoon spill at 

1st nozzle shut-off. 1/4 pint 

spill at 2nd nozzle shut-off. 

3rd. shut-off not performed. 

36 

TJ 

ts. 
Table 6 (cont) 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehide and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel 

Date Station Vehide (gpm) Temp.CF) 

3/30/89 Sunoco Onboard 11.6 47 

(Carpenter & 

Michigan Ave.) 

3/31/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

Stock 

Taurus 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

Onboard 

Stock 

Taurus 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

11.6 

— 

11.9 

11.9 

11.9 

47 

47 

43.3 

43.3 

43.3 

RVP 

(PSi) 

13.1 

13.1 

13.1 

12.0 

12.0 

12.0 

Nozzle 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

11A 

Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

Initial 

Ambient 

Temp.CF) 

48.2 

48.2 

48.2 

35.5 

35.5 

35.5 

Initial/ 

Fuel in 

Tank (gal) 

3.0 

4.0 

3.0 

3.0 

4.0 

3.0 

Volume 

Final Tank 

Temp.CF) 

59.5/50.5 

— 

— 

43/49 

— 

— 

Dispensed 

(gal) Observations 

11.76 No fueling problems 

through 3 nozzle 

shut-offs. 

12.82 

11.92 

10.68 

12.53 

12.43 

3 drop spill at 2nd nozzle 

shut-off. 2 teaspoon spill 

at 3rd nozzle shut-off. 

Would not fuel at highest 

and middle nozzle flow 

rate settings. 2nd and 3rd 

nozzle shut-offs not performed. 

Premature nozzle shut-off 

at 6.9 gallons. 

No fueling problems. 

1/2 pint spill @ first 

nozzle shut-off. 2nd & 

3rd shut-offs not performed. 

37 
Table 6 (cont) 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehicle and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling at Commerdai Fuel Stations 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Date Station Vehicle (oom) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (oal) Temp.CF) (gal) Observations 

4/6/89 Amoco Onboard 10.7 49.4 11.8/11.8 Husky 45 

(Zeeb & 194)

 1+ x 

4.0 —/— 10.35 Premature nozzle shut-off 

at 1.26 gal. 

Stock 

Dodge 

mini-van 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

10.3 

10.6 

49.4 

49.4 

11.8/11.8 

11.8/11.8 

Husky 

1+X 

Husky 

1+X 

45 

45 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

—/— 

10.95 

12.58 

No fueling problems. 

1/4 cup spill at second 

nozzle shut-off. 

4/6/89 Mobil Onboard 10.4 48.2 

(Zeeb & 194) 

13.1 No Name 52.6 4.0 63/53.5 10.0 No fueling problems. 

Stock 10.4 48.2 

Dodge 

mini-van 

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 in. 

Stock 10.4 48.2 

Buick 

Century 

13.1 No Name 52.6 1/8 to 1/4 —/-

tank 

11.2 1/2 cup spill at 1st 

nozzle shut-off. 2nd and 

3rd shut-offs not performed. 

38 

\t 
Table 6 (cont) 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehide and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling at Commerdai Fuel Stations 

Date 

4/7/89 

Station 

Amoco 

(Zeeb 

&I94) 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel RVP 

Vehicle (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

10.1 

Initial Initial/ Volume 

Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

Husky 

1+X 

41 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

./-

Observations 

11.6 5 to 6 teaspoon spill at 1 st 

nozzle shut-off. 2nd and 3rd 

shut-offs were not performed. 

Onboard 9.8 48.9 Husky 

1+X 

48.2 66.5/52.5 10.25 No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Dodge 

mini-van 

9.6 48.9 Husky 48.2 1/8 to 1/4 —/-

1+X tank 

11.95 5 to 10 drop spit back 

at 1st nozzle shut-off. 

2nd and 3rd shut-offs 

not performed. 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

9.6 48.9 Husky 48.2 1/8 to 1/4 --/-

1+X tank 

10.7 Two immediate premature nozzle 

shut-offs with nozzle fully 

inserted. No fueling problems, 

with nozzle retracted 1/4 

inch, through three shut-offs. 

4/10/89 Standard 

(Washtenaw 

& Owendale) 

Onboard 11.6 41.3 12.0 Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

30.8 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

53/- 11.2 Premature nozzle shut-offs 

at 2.4 and 3.6 gallons. 

20 drop spill @ 1 st nozzle shut-off. 

Stock 

Dodge 

mini-van 

11.6 41.3 12.0 Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

30.8 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

13.26 Premature nozzle shut-off 

at 4.4 gal. 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

11.6 41.3 12.0 Emco 

Wheaton 

A2001 

39 

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. 
Table 6 (cont) 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehide and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling at Commercial Fuel Stations 

Date 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Rnal Tank Dispensed 

Station Vehide (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (oal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

4/10/89 Sunoco Onboard 

(Carpenter & 

Mich. Ave) 

10.8 46.5 12.8 OPW 40.5 1/8 to 1/4 44.5/44.5 

11A tank 

12.0 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Pontiac 

6000 

10.8 46.5 12.8 OPW 40.5 1/8 to 1/4 —/-

11A tank 

12.7 Two immediate premature 

shut-offs with nozzle 

fully inserted. Premature 

shut-off at 4.1 gal with 

nozzle withdrawn 1/4 inch. 

1/8 cup spill at 3rd nozzle 

shut-off. 

Stock 10.8 

Buick 

Century 

4135 12.8 OPW 40.5 1/8 to 1/4 —/— 10.9 One immediate nozzle shut-oft. 

11A tank Nozzle withdrawn 1/4 inch. 

10 drop spill at 1 st nozzle shutoff. 1/4 cup spill at 2nd 

nozzle shut-off. 3rd shut-off 

not performed. 

4/11/89 Amoco 

(Jackson 

& Stadium) 

Onboard 11.9 45.5 11.5 OPW 36.2 1/8.to 1/4 

tank 

51/41.5 12.44 No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Pontiac 

6000 

11.9 45.5 11.5 OPW 36.2 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

11.72 Two immediate premature 

nozzle shut-offs. 1/2 cup 

spill at 3rd nozzle shut-off. 

40 
Table 6 (cont) 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehide and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling at Commerdai Fuel Stations 

Date Station 

4/11/89 Amoco 

(Zeeb & 194) 

Ve 

Onboard 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel 

(oom) Temp.CF) 

RVP 

isi) 

Initial Initial/ Volume 

Ambient Fuel in Rnal Tank Dispensed 

Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) Observations 

10.4 47.8 11.8 Hushy 45.1 1/8 to 1/4 53.5/43.5 11.62 Premature nozzle shut1+X tank off at 7.8 gal. 

Stock 

Ford 

Crown 

Victoria 

10.4 47.8 11.8 Husky 45.1 1/4 to 3/8 —/-

1+X tank 

11.68 One immediate shut-off with 

nozzle fully inserted. No 

fueling problems with nozzle 

withdrawn 1/4 inch, through 

3 nozzle shut-offs. 

4/12/89 Amoco 

(Zeeb & 194) 

Onboard 10.2 46.6 11.9 Husky 40.5 Under 1/8 -/ -

1+X tank 

13.54 No fueling problems. 

Stock 10.1 46.6 11.9 Husky 40.5 Under 1/8 —/-

Taurus 1+X tank 

12.33 No fueling problems. 

Stock 10.2 46.6 11.9 Husky 40.5 Under 1/8 —/— 14.07 1/8 cup spill at 2nd 

Buick 1+X tank nozzle shut-off. 3rd 

Century shut-off not performed. 

Stock 10.2 46.6 11.9 Husky 40.5 Under 1/8 —/— 9.87 10 drop spit at 2nd 

Reliant K 1+X tank nozzle shut-off. 

41 
Table 6 (cont) 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehide and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling at Commerdai Fuel Stations 

Date Station 

Dispensing Dispensed Initial Initial/ Volume 

Rate Fuel RVP Ambient Fuel in Final Tank Dispensed 

Vehicle (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

4/13/89 Amoco Onboard 

(Zeeb & I94) 

10.3 45.8 11.4 Husky 46.9 1/8 to 1/4 

1+X tank 

-/- 11.66 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Taurus 

10.2 45.8 11.4 Husky 

1+X 

46.9 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

../. 10.43 No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

10.3 45.8 11.4 Husky 

1+X 

46.9 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

—/- 13.25 2 drop spit at 1st nozzle 

shut-off. 1/8 cup spill at 

2nd nozzle shut-off. 3rd 

nozzle shut-off, clean. 

Stock 

Plymouth 

Reliant K 

10.2 45.8 11.4 Husky 

1+X 

46.9 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

.../... 10.22 3 to 4 teaspoon spill at 

2nd nozzle shut-off. 15 

drop spit at 3rd nozzle 

shut-off. 

42 
Table 7 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehide and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling in EPA Fuel Bay 

3/22/89 EPA fuel 

bay 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel RVP 

Initial Initial/ Volume 

Ambient Fuel in Rnal Tank Dispensed 

Date Station Vehiffi (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

Onbosrd 15 76 13.8 OPW 

11A 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Taurus 

Stock 

Taurus 

15 

10 

76 

76 

13.8 OPW 

11A 

_./-

13.8 OPW 

11A 

Few drops discharged 

during fueling. 1 

teaspoon spit at 1st 

shut-off. 

Onboard 

Stock 

Taurus 

Onboard 

12 

12 

10 

76 

76 

76 

13.8 

13.8 

13.8 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

11A 

- -

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

_-/-_ 

—/— 

— / ~ 

~ 

— 

~ 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

No fueling problems. 

4/13/89 EPA fuel 

bay 

Onboard 15.4 81 11.2 OPW 

11A 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

12.15 No fueling problems. 

Stock 

Taurus 

15.4 84.6 11.2 OPW 

11A 

1/8 to 1/4 —/— 10.85 1/8 cup spill at 2nd 

tank nozzle shut-off. 

43 
Table 7 (cont) 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehicle and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling in EPA Fuel Bay 

Date 

4/13/89 

Station 

EPA fuel 

bay 

Stock 

Taurus 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel 

(gpm) Temp.CF) 

RVP 

asi) 

Initial Initial/ Volume 

Ambient Fuel in Rnal Tank Dispensed 

Nozzle Temp.CF) Tank (gal) Temp.CF) (gal) 

15.3 89.2 11.2 OPW 

11A 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

../-- 12.25 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

15.1 89.1 11.2 OPW 

11A 

1/8 to 1 /4 —/-- 11.5 12 drop spill at 2nd 

tank nozzle shut-off. 

Stock Not 

Buick measurable. 

Century Fuel-cart 

at 15 gpm 

89.7 11.2 OPW 

11A 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

_./- 12.35 Premature nozzle shut-offs 

at 2.6, 2.85, 2.95 and 3.1 

gallons. 2 drop spill at 

1st full tank nozzle 

shut-off. 2nd and 3rd 

nozzle shut-offs clean. 

Stock 

Reliant K 

15.0 89.5 11.2 OPW 

11A 

1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

Fuel cart out of fuel at 

9.8 gal. dispensed. 

Stock Not 

Buick measurable. 

Century Fuel-cart 

at 15 gpm 

11.2 OPW 

11A 

1/8 to 1/4 —/— 13.05 Three immediate nozzle 

tank shut-offs. Nozzle 

retracted 1/4 inch - eight 

premature nozzle shut-offs 

though 4.75 gal. dispensed. 

1/8 cup spill at 1st full 

tank nozzle shut-off. 

1/2 cup spill at 2nd and 

3rd nozzle shut-offs. 

Stock 

Reliant K 

14.6 11.2 OPW 

11A 

- 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

—/— 10.15 10 drop spit at 2nd nozzie 

shut-off. 1/8 cup spill at 

3rd nozzle shut-off. 

44 
Table 7 (cont) 

Test Results from Comparative Fuelings of Onboard Eguipped Vehide and Stock Vehides 

Comparative Refueling in EPA Fuel Bay 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Date 

4/14/89 

Station 

EPA fuel 

bay 

Vehicle 

Stock 

Reliant K 

Onboard 

Stock 

Taurus 

Rate 

(gpm) 

15.6 

15.0 

15.0 

Fuel 

Temp.CF) 

92.9 

98.4 

98.4 

RVP 

(psi) 

10.8 

10.8 

10.8 

Nozzle 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

11A 

OPW 

11A 

Ambient Fuel in Rnal Tank 

Temp.CF) Tank (oal) Temp.CF) 

— 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

— 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

— 1/8 to 1/4 

tank 

_./— 

—/— 

— / _ 

Dispensed 

(gal) 

11.2 

12.9 

11.4 

Observations 

3 to 4 teaspoon spill 

at 2nd nozzle shut-off. 

1/8 cup spill at 3rd 

nozzle shut-off. 

Premature nozzle shutoff at 1.75 gal. No 

spills through three full 

tank nozzle shut-offs. 

2 drop spit at 2nd nozzle 

shut-off. 

45 
P.51 

The relative performance of the onboard system and the 

production systems are summarized in Table 8. The summary results 

indicate that the onboard system performed substantially better 

than the production systems with respect to fuel spitback both at 

commercial stations and in tests performed in the EPA fueling bay. 

With respect to premature nozzle shut-off during fueling, the 

onboard system performed better than most of the stock vehicles. 

The stock Taurus appears to have performed better than the onboard 

system in this area, but this conclusion is uncertain given the 

relatively small number of tests on that vehicle. Also because of 

the small number of tests, no conclusion can be drawn about the 

shut-off performance of the Plymouth Reliant. 

VI. Hot Ambient Temperature Tests 

During vehicle operation, fuel in the fuel tank undergoes 

heating and fuel evaporation increase. In many vehicle designs, 

including that of the production Taurus, an orifice is incorporated 

into the fuel tank vent valve leading to the canister. At times 

this orifice limits the rate at which vapor generated in the tank, 

as a result of the heating of the fuel, moves to the canister and 

ultimately to the engine. Since the onboard system provides 

essentially unrestricted venting of vapors from the fuel tank to 

the canister and ultimately to the engine when the vehicle is in 

operation, the potential exists for an increase in the quantity of 

fuel vapor reaching the engine. The National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (NHTSA) and manufacturers have expressed concerns 

with respect to the effects on vehicle operation, and possibly on 

running losses (fuel vapor which escapes from a vehicle and enters 

the atmosphere during vehicle operation), of any increase in the 

flow rate of vapors from the fuel tank to the engine when the 

onboard equipped Taurus is operated at high ambient temperatures. 

These concerns were evaluated using two procedures. One 

evaluation procedure entailed operation of the vehicle on roads in 

the Ann Arbor area under summer conditions. The other evaluation 

procedure was performed in the EPA laboratory at simulated ambient 

conditions of approximately 95°F. In the on-road segment of the 

evaluation performed in the Ann Arbor area, ambient temperatures 

were approximately 80°F. This segment of the evaluating was 

initiated with a full tank of fuel (Amoco, commercial) and was 

continued over three days until most of the fuel had been consumed. 

The vehicle was operated on Ann Arbor city streets, on two lane 

country roads around Ann Arbor and on the Interstate highways 

adjacent to Ann Arbor. This driveability evaluation is presented in 

a memo dated September 22, 1989 (Appendix B). During the 

evaluation, the vehicle drove well, i.e. no driveability problems 

were observed. 

The second segment of the high temperature evaluation of the 

onboard equipped vehicle was performed to evaluate the running loss 

control characteristics of the vehicle. Running loss tests are 

normally conducted in a dynamometer test cell which is sealed 

46 
P.52 

Table 8 

Fueling Test Summary - Relative Performance of Onboard System and Production Vehicles 

Refuelings at Commerdai Stations 

Vehide 

Onboard System 

Production Ford Taurus 

Production Buick Century 

Production Dodge Mini-van 

Production Pontiac 6000 

Production Ford Crown Victoria 

Production Plymouth Reliant K 

Onboard System 

Production Ford Taurus 

Production Buick Century 

Production Plymouth Reliant K 

Number 

of Tests 

43 

8 

11 

4 

2 

1 

2 

Number 

of SDltbacks* 

4 (9%)" 

2 (25%) 

9 (82%) 

1 (25%) 

2 (100%) 

0 (0%) 

2 (100%) 

Refuelings at EPA Fueling Bay 

6 

6 

2 

2 

0 (0%) 

4 (67%) 

2 (100%) 

2 (100%) 

Number of 

Premature Shutoffs 

7 (16%) 

0 (0%) 

3 (27%) 

2 (50%) 

2 (100%) 

1 (100%) 

0 (0%) 

1 (17%) 

0 (0%) 

2 (100%) 

0 (0%) 

In first three shutoff events. 

Failure rate shown in ( ) as percent. 

47 
P.53 

except for ducts routed directly to and from the vehicle to supply 

engine combustion air and to remove exhaust gases. Since none of 

the dynamometer test cells in the EPA laboratory are sealed to 

allow direct measurement of running loss emissions, changes in 

canister weight during testing were employed as a measure of the 

presence or absence of running losses; i.e. a reduction in canister 

weight during vehicle operation would indicate that the rate of 

purge by the engine exceeded the vapor generation rate in the fuel 

tank and that running losses were being controlled. Any canister 

weight increase would indicate the opposite. The testing was 

performed at approximately 95°F. The details of the testing 

performed and the test data collected are presented in a memo dated 

November 15, 1989 (Appendix B) . 

The test sequence employed at EPA was essentially the same as 

that which is employed to measure running losses. Differences 

between the test procedure used to measure running losses and the 

test performed on the onboard vehicle were: (1) that following 

loading to breakthrough, the onboard canister was bench purged 

until 135+5 grams of stored HC had been removed from the canister 

(this purging was performed to simulate initial stabilized 

operating canister conditions) and (2) the canister was removed 

from the vehicle and weighed after each LA-4. Heating of the fuel 

in the fuel tank followed running loss test procedure practice. 

The total increase in fuel temperature achieved during the period 

of the test was approximately 30°F, i.e. the same temperature rise 

as was measured under test track conditions for a similar vehicle. 

Data collected during four running loss tests on the onboard 

equipped Taurus, from one test performed in the EPA laboratory on 

a stock Taurus, and from a test on a stock Sable performed at a 

contractor's laboratory are presented in Table 9. The test results 

from the onboard equipped Taurus showed that canister weight 

decreased continuously throughout the test sequence, indicating 

that vehicle purge was adequate to control vapors generated and 

that running loss had not occurred from the onboard system. The 

data also show that vehicle exhaust emissions were not adversely 

affected by the onboard system. Finally, a vehicle refueling test 

was performed following the last running lost test, demonstrating 

that the vehicle maintained refueling control capability after 

these high temperature operating conditions. 

VII. NHTSA On-road Evaluation 

Because of its concerns pertaining to the effect of fuel tank 

generated vapors on vehicle driveability, especially under extended 

highway driving conditions, NHTSA requested an opportunity to 

evaluate the onboard equipped vehicle on the road. Following 

finalization of the onboard system configuration, an on-road 

evaluation of the vehicle was performed by a NHTSA employee and an 

A.D. Little employee. Two EPA employees participated in this 

evaluation. The on-road evaluation was initiated at EPA's 

laboratory and went first to Detroit's Metropolitan Airport for 

48 
Table 9 

Canister Wt. after breakthrough (g) 

Canister Wt. after bench purge (g) 

Canister Wt. after fuel heating (g) 

Initial tank temperature (°F) 

Tank temp. @ 1st 505 sec. (°F) 

Tank temp. @ end of #1 LA-4 (°F) 

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, #2 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) 

Relueling emissions (g/gal) 

4089.4 

3964.2 

— 

96 

99 

110 

0.44 

4.92 

1.01 

413.2 

3963.4 

117 

122 

0.09 

4.39 

1.12 

393.5 

3956.4 

123 

125 

0.18 

1.91 

1.17 

398.1 

3951.1 

— 

— 

Running Loss Test Data 

Onboard Eguipped Taurus 

4112.4 

3974.6 

4005.1 

93 

98 

109 

0.47 

5.63 

1.08 

412.2 

3969.3 

116 

121 

0.10 

4.31 

1.17 

396.2 

• 

3958.4 

123 

125 

0.07 

2.80 

1.23 

392.8 

3950.1 

— 

— 

4092.1 

3948.5 

3989.9 

94 

99 

110 

0.41 

5.93 

1.03 

416.4 

3955.5 

117 

121 

0.10 

4.46 

1.11 

395.2 

3948.4 

124 

125 

0.08 

3.19 

1.24 

391.8 

3940.6 

— 

— 

4100.9 

3964.9 

3995.5 

95 

99 

109 

0.55 

6.12 

1.00 

413.2 

3959.3 

115 

122 

0.10 

4.05 

1.09 

391.7 

3950.4 

123 

125 

0.09 

3.37 

1.16 

395.7 

3941.9 

4053.2 

0.04 

Stock Taurus Stock Sable 

95 

99 

108 

0.36 

5.18 

1.00 

407.3 

114 

121 

0.12 

5.30 

0.79 

381.3 

124 

126 

0.15 

6.41 

0.79 

375.7 

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 recorded. 

49 
pick-up of the A.D. Little employee [1] . The vehicle was then 

driven to the Chicago/Joliet area where that day's driving was 

terminated. The vehicle was driven back to the MVEL on the second 

day of the evaluation trip. During this evaluation, the vehicle was 

driven for approximately 650 miles, most of which occurred during 

extended high speed expressway conditions. During the evaluation 

trip, the vehicle was fueled three times. The first fueling was 

performed in the neighborhood of Detroit's Metropolitan Airport 

shortly after leaving EPA's laboratory. The other fuelings were 

performed in the Chicago/Joliet area. The final fueling in 

Chicago/Joliet area was with gasohol (fuel containing up to 10 

percent ethanol). As can be seen in Table 10, these three fuelings 

were performed without incident. With respect to the operational 

characteristics of the vehicle during the evaluation, the 

participants reported that no driveability problems were 

experienced. 

50 
Table 10 

Test Results from NHTSA Evaluations of Onboard Eguipped Vehide 

Date 

4/24/89 

Station 

Dispensing Dispensed 

Rate Fuel RVP 

Vehide (gpm) Temp.CF) (psi) 

Vidnity Onboard 

Detroit 

Metro 

Airport 

Stock 

Buick 

Century 

Ambient 

Nozzle Temp.CF) 

Initial 

Fuel in 

Tank (gal) 

Initial/ Volume 

Rnal TankDispensed 

Temp.CF) (gal) 

12 10.7 ./- 11.3 

Observations 

No fueling problems. 

12 10.7 Would not fuel at 

full dispensing rate. 

Significant spit back 

at end of fueling. 

4/24/89 Chicago Onboard 

area 

11.2 —/— 11.4 No fueling problems. 

(partial fill) 

4/25/89 Joliet Onboard 

area 

9.2 14.0 -/-- 9.8 No fueling problems. 

(10% ethanol blend) 

51 
P.57 

VIII. Conclusions 

This program has demonstrated that the simplified onboard 

design used by EPA can be successfully adapted for vehicle use on 

a Ford Taurus. The test vehicle exceeded the proposed refueling 

emissions standard under all proposed test conditions and exhibited 

no adverse effects on exhaust emissions or vehicle driveability 

under a broad range of conditions. It had equal or better fill 

performance than the stock vehicle configuration and several other 

production vehicles with which it was compared. Test results also 

showed that the onboard system successfully controlled running loss 

emissions, and provided full rollover protection and excellent fuel 

tank slosh protection. Overall, the test vehicle met all the 

design goals established for the program. 

52 
P.58 

References 

1. EPA Memorandum. "NHTSA Evaluation of Onboard Equipped 

Taurus," John F. Anderson, Standards Development and 

Support Branch, to Docket A-87-11, May 5, 1989. 

53 
APPENDIX A 

Detailed Compilation of Emission Test Results 

54 
Evaporative, Tailpipe and Refueling Data Summary - 1988 Taurus Test Vehide 

Vehicle Test 

Configuration Procedure 

Tailpipe Emissions Evaporative Emissions Refueling 

HC CO NOx 60°-84°F Hot Soak #1,72°-96°F #2,72°-96°F Total Emissions 

(g/m) (g/m) (g/m) M ifll ifll ifll ifll (g/gal) 

Stock 1988 MY Cert. 0.19 1.88 0.71 0.12(Diumal) 0.22 0.34 

Fuel 

Economy 

(mpg) 

21.47 

Stock Enhanced Evap. 

(No cap removal) 

0.20 2.11 0.76 0.18 0.18 0.16 2.68 

(Diurnal) 

2.45 20.77 

Stock Enhanced Evap. 0.23 2.64 0.74 0.14 0.40 

(0.25)* 

0.17 8.27 

(Diurnal) 

8.67 20.92 

With 3.01 

canister 

With 3.01 

canister 

Enhanced 

Evap. 

Enhanced 

Evap. 

0.20 2.28 0.76 

0.20 2.16 0.70 

0.48 

0.39 

0.96 

(0.69)* 

0.72 

(0.40)* 

0.43 

0.38 

0.49 

(Diurnal) 

0.36 

(Diurnal) 

1.45 

1.08 

21.05 

21.01 

With two prod. 

canisters in 

series 

Enhanced 

Evap. 

0.23 2.30 0.71 0.29 0.87 

(0.70)" 

0.39 0.21 

(Diurnal) 

1.08 21.20 

3.0L canister 

1/8* pl.** 

(simulated 

procedure) 

Refueling 0.20 2.08 0.57 0.25 0.62 

Procedure (Diurnal) (0.33)* 

0.87 0.22 21.32 

3.5L canister 

1/4* pl." 

(simulated 

procedure) 

Refueling 

Procedure 

0.18 1.65 0.77 0.49 0.81 

(Diurnal) (0.33)* 

1.30 0.03 21.21 

3.5L canister Refueling 

1/4" pl.** Procedure 

(simulated 

procedure) 

0.18 1.56 0.78 0.62 

(Diurnal) 

0.74 

(0.33)* 

1.36 0.10 21.32 

Values in () are approximate contribution from cap removal. 

Purge line interior diameter. 

55 
Evaporative. Tailpipe and Refueling Data Summary (cont) -1988 Taurus Test Vehicle 

Vehide 

Configuration 

3.5L canister 

3/8 pl.** 

(simulated 

procedure) 

Test 

Procedure 

Refueling 

Procedure 

Tailpipe Emissions 

HC CO NOx 

(g/m) (g/m) (g/m) 

0.19 1.74 0.72 

Evaporative Emissions 

60°-84°F Hot Soak #1,72°-96°F #2,72°-96°F Total 

ifll ifll ifll ifll ifll 

0.34 

(Diurnal) 

1.29 

(0.98) 

1.63 

Refueling 

Emissions 

(g/gal) 

0.07 

Fuel 

Economy 

(mpg) 

20.90 

Integrated 

System 

(3.5L Can.) 

Refueling 

Procedure 

0.19 1.80 0.72 0.27 0.34 

(ND)**' 

0.61 0.04 20.70 

Integrated 

System 

(3.5L Can.) 

Refueling 

Procedure 

0.17 1.66 0.65 0.30 0.35 

(ND)**' 

0.65 0.02 20.91 

Integrated 

System 

(3.5L Can.) 

Refueling 

Procedure 

0.20 2.10 0.71 0.36 0.25 

(0.04)* 

0.61 0.07* 21.17 

Integrated 

System 

(3.5L Can.) 

Refueling 

Procedure 

0.18 1.72 0.76 0.34 0.38 

(0.02)* 

0.72 0.07 21.25 

* Values in () are approximate contribution from cap removal. 

** Purge line interior diameter. 

*** ND - Not detected. 

**** 4 gpm refueling rate. 

56 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

10/17 

10/17 

10/17 

10/17 

10/17 

10/17 

1988 Taurus 

Stock 

1988 Cert 

10/16- 10/17/88 

Test 

Seqment 

Diurnal 

Bag1 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe 

Composite 

Hot Soak 

Total Evap. 

HC 

0.12 (g) 

0.612 (g/mile) 

0.044 (g/mile) 

0.153 (g/mile) 

0.192 (g/mile) 

0.22 (g) 

0.34 (g) 

Emissions 

CO 

— 

5.027 (g/mile) 

0.897 (g/mile) 

1.368 (g/mile) 

1.883 (g/mile) 

— 

57 

NOx 

— 

1.115 (g/mile) 

0.319 (g/mile) 

1.150 (g/mile) 

0.713 (g/mile) 

— 

MPG 

— 

21.5 

20.0 

24.9 

21.47 

— 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Stock 

Supplemental NPRM - #1 Test, Partially and Non-integrated 

System Evap.and Tailpipe (no gas cap removal in hot soak) 

10/18-10/21/88 

Date 

10/18 

10/18 

10/18 

10/19 

10/19 

10/19 

10/20 

10/20 

10/20 

10/20 

10/21 

Test Canister 

Segment Weight Change (g) 

Load to Breakthrough 

#1 Heat Build 

#2 Heat Build 

#3 Heat Build 

#4 Heat Build 

#5 Heat Build 

Prep. LA-4 

Bag 1 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bag1 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (no gas cap removal) 

#1:72°-96°F Heat Build 

#2: 72°-96°F Heat Build 

Total Evap. 

+ 8.3 

+ 15.2 

+ 24.3 

+ 13.4 

+ 8.9 

— 

-46.2 

+ 5.0 

+ 17.9 

— 

— 

— 

— 

-38.1 

+ 23.1 

+ 35.5 

HC 

0.61 (g) 

0.12 (g) 

0.15 (g) 

3.36 (g) 

12.09 (g) 

0.743 (g/mile) 

0.037 (g/mile) 

— 

0.18 (g) 

0.633 (g/mile) 

0.030 (g/mile) 

0.196 (g/mile) 

0.201 (g/mile) 

0.18 (g) 

0.16 (g) 

2.68 (g) 

2.86 (g) 

Emissions 

CO 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

8.785 (g/mile) 

0.923 (g/mile) 

— 

- -

6.859 (g/mile) 

0.416 (g/mile) 

1.698 (g/mile) 

2.108 (g/mile) 

— 

_ 

— 

NOx 

— 

— 

— 

— 

— 

0.905 (g/mile) 

0.470 (g/mile) 

— 

— 

0.935 (g/mile) 

0.646 (g/mile) 

0.839 (g/mile) 

0.759 (g/mile) 

— 

— 

— 

MPG 

— 

— 

— 

— 

20.9 

19.5 

— 

' — 

21.0 

19.5 

23.5 

20.77 

~ 

— 

— 

58 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Stock 

Supplemental NPRM - #1 Test, Partially and Non-integrated 

System Evap. and Tailpipe (no gas cap removal in hot soak) 

10/18-10/21/88 

Canister Loading 

Date 

10/18 

10/18 

10/18 

10/18 

10/19 

10/19 

Weighing 

Initial 

After #1 Heat Build 

After #2 Heat Build 

After #3 Heat Build 

After #4 Heat Build 

After #5 Heat Build 

Canister 

Weight (g) 

644.6 

652.9 

668.1 

692.4 

705.8 

714.7 

HCto 

SHED (g) 

— 

0.61 

0.12 

0.15 

3.36 

12.09 

Total HC 

From Tank (g) 

— 

8.91 

15.32 

24.45 

16.76 

20.99 

AW-70.1 Total = 16.33 

Canister Weight During Testing 

Date 

10/19 

10/20 

10/20 

10/20 

10/20 

10/21 

Weighing 

After LA-4 Prep. 

After Cold Soak 

After #1 Heat Build 

After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 

After #1 High Temp Heat Build 

After #2 High Temp Heat Build 

Canister Weight (g) 

668.5 

673.5 

691.4 

653.3 

676.4 

711.9 

59 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

10/25 

10/25 

10/26 

10/26 

10/26 

10/27 

10/27 

10/27 

10/27 

10/28 

1988 Taurus 

3.0 L canister, stock evap system. (#2 test sequence (#1 sequence void)) 

Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-integrated System Evap and Tailpipe 

10/25- 10/28/88 

Test 

Segment 

Canister 

Weight Change (g) 

Load to Breakthrough 

#1 Heat Build +12.0 

#2 Heat Build + 23.0 

#3 Heat Build + 2.5 

#4 Heat Build + 18.8 

Prep. LA-4 

Bag1 -

Bag 2 - 55.9 

Cold Soak -4.1 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bag1 — 

Bag2 -

Bag 3 — 

Tailpipe Composite — 

Hot-Soak (with gas 

cap removal) - 22.5 

#1: 72°-96°F Heat Build +36.1 

#2: 72°-96°F Heat Build +31.7 

Total Evap. — 

HC 

0.29 (g) 

0.43 (g) 

0.54 (g) 

0.79 (g) 

Emissions 

CO NOx 

0.911 (g/mile) 9.417 (g/mile) 0.981 (g/mile) 

0.039 (g/mile) 1.166 (g/mile) 0.477 (g/mile) 

0.48 

0.653 (g/nmle) 7.140 (g/mile) 0.978 (g/mile) 

0.028 (g/mile) 0.524 (g/mile) 0.564 (g/mile) 

0.191 (g/mile) 1.920 (g/mile) 0.949 (g/mile) 

0.203 (g/mile) 2.283 (g/mile) 0.756 (g/mile) 

0.96 (g) 

0.43 (g) -

0.49 (g) - -

1.45(g) -

MPG 

20.8 

19.7 

21.3 

19.7 

23.9 

21.05 

60 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

3.0 L canister, stock evap system (#2 test sequence) 

Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-integrated System Evap. and Tailpipe 

10/25 - 10/28/88 

Canister Loading 

Date 

10/25 

10/25 

10/25 

10/26 

10/26 

Weighing 

Initial 

After #1 Heat Build 

After #2 Heat Build 

After #3 Heat Build 

After #4 Heat Build 

Canister 

Weight (g) 

2207.1 

2219.1 

2242.1 

2244.6 

2263.4 

AW» 56.3 

HCto 

SHED (g) 

— 

0.29 

0.43 

0.54 

0.79 

Total = 2.05 

Total HC 

from Tank (g) 

— 

12.29 

23.43 

3.04 

19.59 

Date 

10/26 

10/27 

10/27 

10/27 

10/27 

10/28 

Canister Weight During Test 

Weighing Canister Weight (g) 

After LA-4 Prep 

After Cold Soak 

After #1 Heat Build 

After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 

After #1 High Temp Heat Build 

After #2 High Temp Heat Build 

2207.5 

2203.4 

2180.9 

2217.0 

2248.7 

61 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

10/29 

10/29 

10/29 

10/30 

10/30 

10/30 

10/30 

10/30 

10/31 

1988 Taurus 

Stock 

Supplemental NPRM - #2 Test, Partially and Non-integrated System Evap. and Tailpipe 

10/29- 10/31/88 

Test 

Segment 

Load to Breakthrough 

#1 Heat BuM 

#2 Heat Build 

Prep. LA-4 

Bagl 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60o-84°F heat build 

Tailpipe 

Bag 1 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

#1:72°-96°F Heat Build 

#2: 72°-96°F Heat Build 

Total Evap. 

Canister 

Weight Change(g) 

+ 17.5 

+ 6.4 

-39.7 

+ 1.0 

+ 13.9 

-32.3 

+ 31.8 

+ 30.2 

HC 

2-39 (g) 

7-42 (g) 

Emissions 

CO NOx 

0.920 (g/mile) 10.402 (g/mile) 1.182 (g/mile) 

0.032 (g/mite) 0.666 (g/mile) 0.639 (g/mile) 

0-14 (g) 

0.758 (g/mile) 8.364 (g/mile) 1.056 (g/mile) 

0.031 (g/mile) 0.500 (g/mile) 0.534 (g/mile) 

0.212 (g/mile) 2.353 (g/mile) 0.890 (g/mile) 

0.232 (g/mile) 2.642 (g/mile) 0.740 (g/mile) 

0.40 (g) 

0.17(g) 

8.27 (g) 

8-67 (g) 

MPG 

20.6 

19.8 

21.0 

19.7 

23.7 

20.92 

62 

TJ 

CD 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Supplemental NPRM 

1988 Taurus 

Stock 

#2 Test, Partially and Non-Integrated System Evap. and Tailpipe 

10/29- 10/31/88 

Date 

10/29 

10/29 

10/29 

WefoMfMi 

Initial 

After #1 Heat Build 

After #2 Heat Build 

Canister Loading 

Canister 

Weight (g) 

693.7 

711.2 

717.6 

AW =. 23.9 

HCto 

SHED (g) 

2.39 

7.42 

Total = 9.81 

Total HC 

from Tank (g) 

19.89 

13.82 

Canister Weight During Testing 

Date 

10/29 

10/30 

10/30 

10/30 

10/30 

10/31 

Weighing 

After Prep LA-4 

After Cold Soak 

After Heat Build 

After Tailpipe & Hot Soak 

After #1 High Temp Heat Build 

After #2 High Temp Heal Build 

Canister Weight (g) 

677.9 

678.9 

692.8 

660.5 

692.3 

722.5 

63 

oo 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

3.0 L Canister, Stock Evap System (#3 Test Sequence) 

Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-Integrated System Evap and Tailpipe 

10/31 - 11/3/88 

Date 

10/31 

11/01 

11/01 

11/01 

11/01 

11/02 

11/02 

11/02 

11/02 

11/03 

Test 

Seaqent 

Load to Breakthrough 

#1 Heat Build 

#2 Heat Build 

#3 Heat Build 

#4 Heat Build 

(25 minutes) 

Canister 

Weight Change (g) 

+ 22.6 

+ 9.3 

+ 21.8 

+ 4.2 

HC 

0.70 (g) 

0.55 (g) 

0.62 (g) 

0.37 (g) 

Emissions 

CO 

— 

— 

-— 

— 

NOx MPG 

Prep. LA-4 

Bag 1 — 

Bag 2 - 52.4 

Cold Soak -3.7 

60°-84°F Heat Build +23.0 

Tailpipe 

Bag 1 — 

Bag 2 — 

Bag 3 — 

Tailpipe Composite — 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal -41.7 

#1: 72°-96°F Heat Build +33.8 

#2: 72°-96°F Heat Build +22.5 

0.679 (g/mile) 5.486 (g/mile) 

0.032 (g/mile) 0.707 (g/mile) 

0.39 (g) 

0.671 (g/mile) 6.180 (g/mile) 

0.033 (g/mile) 0.783 (g/mile) 

0.174 (g/mile) 1.716 (g/mile) 

1.023 (g/mile) 

0.479 (g/mile) 

1.046 (g/mile) 

0.471 (g/mile) 

0.884 (g/mile) 

0.204 (g/mile) 2.158 (g/mile) 0.704 (g/mile) 

0.72 (g) -

0.38 (g) -

0.36 (g) — -

20.4 

19.6 

21.1 

19.7 

23.8 

21.01 

Total Evap. 1.08(g) 

64 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

3.0 L Canister, Stock Evap System (#3 test sequence) 

Supplemental NPRM - Partially Integrated and Non-Integrated System Evap. and Tailpipe 

10/31 -11/03/88 

Canister Loading 

Date 

10/31 

10/31 

11/01 

11/01 

11/01 

Canister 

Weighing 

Initial 

After #1 Heat Build 

After #2 Heat Build 

After #3 Heat Build 

After #4 Heat Build 

(25 minutes) 

Weight (c 

2212.1 

2234.7 

2244.0 

2265.8 

2270.0 

AW - 57.9 

HCto 

SHED (o) 

0.70 

0.55 

0.62 

0.37 

Total = 2.24 

Total HC 

From Tank (g) 

23.30 

9.85 

22.42 

4.57 

Date 

11/01 

11/02 

11/02 

11/02 

11/02 

11/03 

After Prep LA-4 

After Cold Soak 

After #1 Heat Build 

After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 

After #1 High Temp Heat Build 

After #2 High Temp Heat Build 

Canister Weight During Testing 

Weighing Canister Weight (g) 

2217.6 

2213.9 

2236.9 

2195.2 

2229.0 

2251.5 

65 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

11/08 

11/08 

11/08 

11/09 

11/10 

11/10 

11/14 

11/15 

11/15 

11/15 

11/15 

11/16 

1988 Taurus 

Two Produdion Canisters in series; stock evap. system 

Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-integrated system Evap. and Tailpipe 

11/08-11/16/88 

Test 

Segment 1 

Load to Breakthrough 

#1 HeatBuM 

#2 HeatBuM 

#3 Heat Build 

#4 Heat Build 

#5 Heat Build 

#6 Heat Build 

Prep. LA-4 

Bag 1 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bag1 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

#1: 72°-96°F Heat Build 

#2: 72°-96°F Heat Build 

Total Evap. 

Canister 

A/eight Change (g) 

+ 22.3 

+ 24.9 

+ 22.5 

+ 14.7 

+ 12.6 

+ 23.5 

-62.0 

0.0 

+ 21.2 

— 

— 

-44.3 

+ 28.2 

+ 38.7 

— 

HC 

0.18(g) 

0.22 (g) 

0.32 (g) 

0.24 (g) 

0.35 (g) 

0*72 (g) 

0.830 (g/mile) 

0.049 (g/mile) 

— 

0-29 (g) 

0.666 (g/mile) 

0.029 (g/mile) 

0.274 (g/mile) 

0.227 (g/mile) 

0.87 (g) 

0.39 (g) 

0*21 (g) 

1.08(g) 

Emissions 

CO 

— 

9.725 (g/mile) 

1.454 (g/mile) 

— 

— 

7.704 (g/mile) 

0.585 (g/mile) 

1.486 (g/mile) 

2.297 (g/mile) 

— 

— 

— 

— 

NOx 

... 

0.964 (g/mile) 

0.695 (g/mile) 

_ 

--

0.917 (g/mile) 

0.552 (g/mile) 

0.840 (g/mile) 

0.706 (g/mile) 

— 

— 

— 

— 

MPG 

21.1 

19.7 

21.1 

20.0 

24.1 

21.20 

66 

*• 

-J 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Two Production Canisters in Series; stock evap. system 

Supplemental NPRM - Partially and Non-integrated system Evap. and Tailpipe 

11/08- 11/16/88 

Date 

11/08 

11/08 

11/08 

11/08 

11/09 

11/10 

11/10 

w^ahina 

Initial 

After *1 Heat Build 

After #2 Heat BuM 

After #3 Heat BuM 

After #4 Heat Build 

After #5 Heat Build 

After #6 Heat Build 

Canister Loading 

Canister 

Weight (a) 

1529.8 

1552.1 

1577.0 

1599.5 

1614.2 

1626.8 

1650.3 

AW » 120.5 

HCto 

SHED (o) 

— 

0.18 

0.22 

0.32 

0.24 

0.35 

0.72 

Total = 2.03 

Total HC 

From Tank (o) 

— 

22.48 

25.12 

22.82 

14.94 

12.95 

24.22 

Date 

11/14 

11/15 

11/15 

11/15 

11/15 

11/16 

Canister Weight During Testing 

Weighing Canister Weight (g) 

After LA-4 Prep. 

After Cold Soak 

After #1 Heat Build 

After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 

After #1 High Temp Heat Build 

After #2 High Temp Heat Build 

1588.3 

1588.3 

1609.5 

1565.2 

1593.5 

1632.2 

67 

- J 

S3 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

11/16 

11/16 

11/17 

11/17 

11/17 

11/17 

11/18 

Simulated refueling*; 3.0 L c 

Supplements 

Test 

Segment 

Load to Breakthrough 

Vapor from 

36 gallons fuel 

Prep. LA-4 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal 

Total Evap. 

LA-4 

Bagi 

Bag 2** 

Temp.Stabilization 

Refueling (16.0 gal. 

manual shut-off) 

Canister 

Weight Change (g) 

+ 140.0 

-40.7 

-7.6 

+ 20.8 

— 

-29.7 

« 

-11.4 

+ 6.2 

+ 87.2 

1988 Taurus 

lister- 1/8" I.D. pi 

NPRM - Fully inte 

11/16- 11/18/88 

HC 

Emissions 

CO NOx 

0.563 (g/mile) 5.424 (g/mile) 0.932 (g/mile) 

0.035 (g/mile) 0.718 (g/mile) 0.480 (g/mile) 

0.25 (gram) — 

0.651 (g/mile) 6.643 (g/mile) 1.055 (g/mile) 

0.024 (g/mile) 0.318 (g/mile) 0.244 (g/mile) 

0.198 (g/mile) 1.965 (g/mile) 0.808 (g/mile) 

0.202 (g/mile) 2.079 (g/mile) 0.566 (g/mile) 

0.62 (gram) — — 

0.87 (gram) — — 

0.370 (g/mile) 2.523 (g/mile) 0.790 (g/mile) 

0.031 (g/mile) 0.512 (g/mile) 0.610 (g/mile) 

0.22 (g/gal) 

MPG 

21.8 

20.0 

21.3 

20.1 

24.3 

21.32 

24.0 

18.9 

* Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emission measurement performed with a non-vehide mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vettfe^ 

tank vent line in place. 

** Deviation from drivers trace - dyno problem. 

68 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Simulated refueling*; 3.0 L canister - purge line: 1/8' I.D. X 12 ft long, 

0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully-integrated system 

11/16-11/18/88 

Date 

11/16 

11/16 

Date 

11/16 

11/17 

11/17 

11/17 

11/17 

11/18 

11/18 

Canister Loading 

W^ghinq 

Initial 

After loading using 

36 gals. fuel. 

Canister 

Weight (g) 

2126.8 

2266.8 

AW = 140.0 

Canister Weight During Testing 

Weighing 

After LA-4 Prep. 

After Cold Soak 

After Heat Build (Diurnal) 

After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 

After LA-4 Drive 

After Temperature stabilization 

After Refueling emissions 

measurement 

Canister Weight (g) 

2226.1 

2218.5 

2239.3 

2209.6 

2198.2 

2204.4 

2291.6 

Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emissions measurement performed with a non-vehide mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehide, 

tank vent line in place. 

69 

- j *-. 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister -1/4' I.D. purge line, 12 ft. long; 

0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system 

12/2 - 12/5/88 

Date 

12/2 

12/2 

12/2 

12/3 

12/3 

12/3 

12/3 

12/5 

Test 

Segment 

Load to Breakthrough 

#1 Fueling 

#2 Fueling (7.0 ga!) 

Prep. LA-4 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bag 1 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

Total Evap. 

LA-4 Drive 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Temperature 

Stabilization 

Refueling 

Canister 

Weight Change (g) 

+ 162.8 

+ 60.2 

- 104.3 

+ 0.1 

+ 20.5 lii ! 

-39.6 

— 

-21.4 

+ 7.2 

+ 89.6 

HC 

Emissions 

CO 

1.298 (g/mile) 22.722 (g/mile) 

0.082 (g/mile) 3.607 (g/mile) 

0.49 (g) 

0.564 (g/mile) 4.839 (g/mile) 

0.030 (g/mile) 0.453 (g/mile) 

0.160 (g/mile) 1.492 (g/mile) 

0.177 (g/mile) 1.651 (g/mile) 

NOx 

0.755 (g/mile) 

0.467 (g/mile) 

MPG 

20.3 

19.7 

1.167 (g/mile) 

0.566 (g/mile) 

0.833 (g/mile) 

0.765 (g/mile) 

21.0 

20.0 

24.1 

21.21 

0.81 (g) -

130(g) -

0.346 (g/mile) 2.016 (g/mile) 

0.025 (g/mile) 0.179 (g/mile) 

— 

— 

1.145 (g/mile) 

0.444 (g/mile) 

— 

— 

23.8 

20.3 

0.03 (g/gal) 

* Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emission measurement performed with a non-vehide mounted tank, on vehide canister purge, tank vent line in place. 

70 

- j 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister -1/4' I.D. purge line, 12 ft long; 

0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated System 

12/2- 12/5/88 

Date 

12/2 

12/2 

12/2 

Weighing 

Initial 

After #1 Fueling 

After #2 Fueling 

(7.0 gal) 

Canister Loading 

Canister 

Weight (q) 

3756.8 

3919.6 

3979.8 

AW = 223.0 

Canister Weight During Testing 

Date 

12/2 

12/3 

12/3 

12/3 

12/3 

12/5 

12/5 

Weighing 

After LA-4 Prep. 

After Cold Soak 

After Heat BuM (Diurnal) 

After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 

After LA-4 Drive 

After Temperature Stabilization 

After Refueling emissions 

measurement (14.1 gal, 

manual shutoff) 

Canister Weight (g) 

3875.5 

3875.6 

3896.1 

3856.5 

3835.1 

3842.3 

3931.9 

Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emissions measurement performed with non-vehide mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehide, 

tank vent line in place. 

71 

v 

- j 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister -1/4' I.D. purge line, 12 ft. long; 

0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system 

12/5- 12/6/88 

Date 

12/5 

12/5 

12/5 

12/6 

12/6 

12/6 

12/6 

12/6 

Test 

Segment 

Load to Breakthrough 

#1 Fusing 

#2 Fueling (14.6 gal) 

Prep. LA-4 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

LA-4 Drive 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Total Evap. 

Temperature 

Stabilization 

Refueling 

Canister 

Weight Change (g) 

+ 68.1 

+ 69.6 

-81.7 

+0.8 

+ 20.0 iii i 

-47.5 

-19.3 

'— 

+ 7.9 

+ 102.5 

HC 

Emissions 

CO 

0.934 (g/mile) 11.890 (g/mile) 

0.045 (g/mile) 1.523 (g/mile) 

0-62 (g) 

0.576 (g/mile) 5.272 (g/mile) 

0.026 (g/mile) 0.389 (g/mile) 

0.160 (g/mile) 0.976 (g/mile) 

0.177 (g/mile) 1.562 (g/mile) 

0.74 (g) 

0.486 (g/mile) 

0.024 (g/mile) 

1.36(g) 

0.10 (g/gal) 

2.763 (g/mile) 

0.167 (g/mile) 

NOx 

0.756 (g/mile) 

0.549 (g/mile) 

1.093 (g/mile) 

0.619 (g/mile) 

MPG 

20.5 

19.8 

1.035 (g/mile) 

0.584 (g/mile) 

0.971 (g/mile) 

0.784 (g/mile) 

21.1 

20.1 

24.3 

21.32 

23.7 

20.0 

Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emission measurement performed with non-vehide mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehicle, 

tank vent line in place. 

72 

- j 

- j 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister -1/4" I.D. purge line, 12 ft long; 

0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated System 

12/5 - 12/6/88 

Date 

12/5 

12/5 

12/5 

Canister 

WfijgJ&a 

Initial 

After *1 Fueling 

After #2 Fueling 

(14.6 gal) 

Canister Loading 

Weight (g) 

3854.5 

3922.6 

3992.2 

AW • 137.7 

Canister Weight During Testing 

Date Weighing Canister Weight (g) 

12/5 After LA-4 Prep. 

12/6 After Cold Soak 

12/6 After Heat Build (Diurnal) 

12/6 After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 

12/6 After LA-4 Drive 

12/6 After Temperature Stabilization 

12/6 After Refueling emissions 

measurement (16.95 gal, 

automatic shutoff) 

3910.5 

3911.3 

3931.3 

3883.8 

3864.5 

3872.4 

3974.9 

Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emissions measurement performed with non-vehicle mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehide, 

tank vent line in place. 

73 

- J 

oo 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

12/7 

12/7 

12/8 

12/8 

12/8 

12/8 

1988 Taurus 

Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister - 3/8* I.D. purge line, 12 ft. long; 

0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system 

12/7- 12/8/88 

12/8 

Test 

Segment 

Load to Breakthrough 

#1 Fuelng 

Prep. LA-4 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bag 1 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

Total Evap. 

LA-4 Drive 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Temperature 

Stabilization 

Refueling 

Canister 

Weight Change (g) 

+ 168.9 

-106.1 

+ 0.8 

+ 16.6 

— 

~-

-42.2 

— 

-17.2 

+ 12.6 

+ 94.0 

HC 

Emissions 

CO NOx 

0.951 (g/mile) 21.124 (g/mile) 

0.071 (g/mile) 2.839 (g/mile) 

0.801 (g/mile) 

0.518 (g/mile) 

0.34 (g) 

0.625 (g/mile) 

0.023 (g/mile) 

0.184 (g/mile) 

6.224 (g/mile) 

0.214 (g/mile) 

1.227 (g/mile) 

1.191 (g/mile) 

0.496 (g/mile) 

0.779 (g/mile) 

0.192 (g/mile) 1.739 (g/mile) 0.718 (g/mile) 

1.29(g) -

1.63(g) -

0.307 (g/mile) 

0.012 (g/mile) 

0.07 (g/gal) 

2.197 (g/mile) 

0.249 (g/mile) 

1.138 (g/mile) 

0.542 (g/mile) 

MPG 

20.7 

19.7 

20.8 

19.7 

23.8 

20.90 

24.0 

20.3 

Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emission measurement performed with non-vehide mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehide, 

tank vent line in place. 

74 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Simulated Refueling*; 3.5 L Canister - 3/8" I.D. purge tine, 12 ft long; 

0.030 orifice removed from tank vapor line. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated System 

12/7- 12/8/88 

Date 

12/7 

12/7 

Date 

12/7 

12/8 

12/8 

12/8 

12/8 

12/8 

12/8 

Canister Loading 

Initio 

After #1 Fueling 

(11.5 RVP @95oF) 

Canister 

Weight (o) 

3838.3 

4007.2 

AW = 168.9 

Canister Weight During Testing 

Weighing 

After LA-4 Prep. 

After Cold Soak 

After Heat Build (Diurnal) 

After Exhaust Test & Hot Soak 

After LA-4 Drive 

After Temperature Stabilization 

After Refueling emissions 

measurement (14.4 gal, 

automatic shutoff) 

Canister Weight (g) 

3901.1 

3901.9 

3918.5 

3876.3 

3859.1 

3871.7 

3965.7 

Canister loading to breakthrough and refueling emissions measurement performed with non-vehide mounted tank, canister purging with canister on vehicle, 

tank vent line in place. 

75 

oo 

o 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

12/29 

12/29 

12/30 

12730 

12/30 

12/30 

1/3/89 

Test 

Segment 

Load tePffUflfrough 

PrWrtrM 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bag 1 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

Total Evap. 

LA-4 Drive 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Refueling (12.85 gal) 

1988 Taurus 

Refueling System with 3.5 L Canister. 

Supplemental NPRM' - Fully integrated system 

12/29-1/3/89 

HC 

1.110 (g/m) 

0.076 (g/m) 

0.27 (g) 

0.545 (g/m) 

0.036 (g/m) 

0.195 (g/m) 

0.61 (g) 

0.390 (g/m) 

0.036 (g/m) 

0.04 (g/gal) 

Emissions' 

CO 

16.072 (g/m) 

3.044 (g/m) 

4.885 (g/m) 

0.836 (g/m) 

1.284 (g/m) 

3.090 (g/m) 

1.209 (g/m) 

NOx 

0.736 (g/m) 

0.603 (g/m) 

1.064 (g/m) 

0.534 (g/m) 

0.794 (g/m) 

0.185 (g/m) 1.798 (g/m) 0.715 (g/m) 

0.34 (g) 

1.033 (g/m) 

0.512 (g/m) 

MPG 

20.0 

19.1 

20.9 

19.3 

23.7 

20.70 

23.3 

19.7 

* Canister not disconnected before fueling for heat build. 

76 

P 

loo 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

1988 Taurus 

Refueling System with 3.5 L Canister. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system 

1/3/89 -1/5/89 

Date 

1/3/89 

1/3 

1/4 

1/4 

1/4 

1/4 

1/5 

Test 

Segment 

Load jo fry^OMflh 

PJSBO&i 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60o-84°F Heat Buyd 

Tailpipe 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

Total Evap. 

LA-4 Drive 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Refueling (13.63 gal) 

HC 

0.30 (g) 

Emissions 

CO NOx MPG 

0.774 (g/m) 

0.060 (g/m) 

11.692 (g/m) 

2.216 (g/m) 

0.858 (g/m) 

0.656 (g/m) 

20.3 

19.4 

0.593 (g/m) 

0.028 (g/m) 

0.113 (g/m) 

0.168 (g/m) 

0.35 (g) 

0.65 (g) 

0.354 (g/m) 

0.032 (g/m) 

0.02 (g/gal) 

4.590 (g/m) 

0.706 (g/m) 

1.239 (g/m) 

1.655 (g/m) 

— 

— 

2.565 (g/m) 

1.072 (g/m) 

— 

1.049 (g/m) 

0.474 (g/m) 

0.686 (g/m) 

0.651 (g/m) 

— 

— 

1.040 (g/m) 

0.489 (g/m) 

— 

20.7 

19.6 

24.1 

20.91 

--

_ 

23.6 

20.1 

— 

77 

loo 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

1/5 

1/5 

1/6 

1/6 

1/6 

1/6 

1/7 

Supf 

Test 

Segment 

Load to Breakthrough 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

Total Evap. 

LA-4 Drive 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Refueling (14.81 gal) 

(4 gpm) 

1988 Taurus 

Refueling System with 3.5 L Canister. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system (Refueling emissions measured at fueling rate of 4 gpm) 

1/5 - 1/7/89 

HC 

Emissions 

CO NOx 

0.783 (g/mile) 8.329 (g/mile) 

0.043 (g/mile) 1.637 (g/mile) 

0.36 (g) 

0.876 (g/mile) 

0.567 (g/mile) 

0.61 (g) 

0.346 (g/mile) 2.310 (g/mile) 1.067 (g/mile) 

0.035 (g/mile) 1.283 (g/mile) 0.579 (g/mile) 

0.07 (g/gal) 

MPG 

20.8 

19.6 

0.652 (g/mile) 

0.031 (g/mile) 

0.181 (g/mile) 

0.200 (g/mile) 

0.25 (g) 

5.633 (g/mile) 

0.677 (g/mile) 

2.136 (g/mile) 

2.100 (g/mile) 

— 

1.013 (g/mile) 

0.541 (g/mile) 

0.793 (g/mile) 

0.708 (g/mile) 

... 

21.1 

19.8 

24.3 

21.17 

— 

23.9 

20.3 

78 
VEHICLE: 

CONFIGURATION: 

TEST PROCEDURE: 

TEST DATE: 

Date 

1/7 

1/7 

1988 Taurus 

Refueling System with 3.5 L Canister. 

Supplemental NPRM - Fully integrated system 

1/7 - 1/9/89 

Test 

Segment 

1/8 

1/8 

1/8 

1/8 

1/9 

Load to 

P»BP I M 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Cold Soak 

60°-84°F Heat Build 

Tailpipe 

Bag 1 

Bag 2 

Bag 3 

Tailpipe Composite 

Hot Soak (with gas 

cap removal) 

Total Evap. 

LA-4 Drive 

Bagi 

Bag 2 

Refueling (13.3 gal) 

HC 

Emissions 

CO NOx MPG 

0.680 (g/mile) 8.422 (g/mile) 

0.047 (g/mile) 1.720 (g/mile) 

0.34 (g) 

0.602 (g/mile) 4.813 (g/mile) 

0.029 (g/mile) 0.712 (g/mile) 

0.157 (g/mile) 1.304 (g/mile) 

0.755 (g/mile) 

0.617 (g/mile) 

20.7 

19.8 

1.043 (g/mile) 

0.596 (g/mile) 

0.859 (g/mile) 

0.183 (g/mile) 1.724 (g/mile) 0.761 (g/mile) 

0.38 (g) -

0.72 (g) -

0.350 (g/mile) 2.006 (g/mile) 0.932 (g/mile) 

0.036 (g/mile) 1.284 (g/mile) 0.693 (g/mile) 

0.07 (g/gal) — -

21.0 

20.0 

24.3 

21.25 

24.2 

20.4 

79 
P.85 

APPENDIX B 

Memorandum - Hot Ambient Test Summaries 

80 
P.86 

J(OS V 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

SEP 2 21989 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM: 

Evaluation of Hot Ambient Testing for the Onboard 

Taurus 

Jo 

S 

oseph P. Hurley, Technician ^/Y1^^- "?

 vM**J^-s 

tandards Development and Suppor^JBranch * 

?0: John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

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

Standards Development and Support Branch y^b ^ 

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. 3oth the cold and hot starts were good with normal 

cranking periods. 

Attachments. 

81 
P.87 

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. 

82 
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) 

83 
P.89 

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) 

84 
P.90 

TUES -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). 

85 
P.91 

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 

WFD 8/30/89 

THUR 8/31/89 

FRI 9/1/89 

SAT 9/2/89 

SUN 9/3/89 

MON 9/4/89 

TUE 9/5/39 

81 

77 

76 

76 

79 

83 

79 

80 

77 

83 

76 

73 

73 

73 

?.("! 

61 

60 

53 

51 

53 

• 

62 

63 

58 

55 

55 

60 

53 

52 

52 

6? 

86 
P.92 

DRIVEABILITY TEST 

ONBOARD TAURUS 

DATE: ^ ' Aa/'V ^ DRIVER'S NAME: -3 OS £.PH ?• HUIILS Y 

'r^\&H ~OU J 

AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: 8> W f (o I -*•> F 

TIME OUT: TIME IN: 

GAS TANK GAUGE READING START: END: 

MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: S 7 •-2. END; 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: 

COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE: 

VI OCUAQ A -Ht< -fu«i \n +h« Tauxus -»o ^ Tang 

ffi ~V\J,<L«<A th« cart^-ren-> -fa*. | i^j^ 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN: 

-VfrtLD riQ \Jft\-J\a-; 

ROAD CONDITIONS; 

87 

WEATHER CONDITIONS: fy/F.gCftS \ "PftCTW / S OPIIMS* \ \-\-J""'D 
vO\^D 

DATE: 

AMBIENT 

%l*3m 

TEMP COLD START 

DRIVEABILITY TEST 

ONBOARD TAURUS 

DRIVER'S NAME: 

STniTT ^ in\5h 

: 7<? V O 

-^a<-* •LPH T 

• 

\^o^Lc.r 

0^\C^v . Tr.<^ 9 

" 7 7 

UOMJ 

P.93 

'IME OUT: \- 3.0 TIME IN: 3 • 3 O 

GAS TANK GAUGE READING START: IQ.^ Qer-. END: ^rou 

MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: S 7 \ 3> END: ^iV k 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: "2 H 

COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE: 

t."^«.conr\t.«.4r«d 

<3* Ke^\«tr i -VW 

2 • COU !<_•*-«£ a 

-?U<.l -^OU J -<* 

-ih< 

T<Xv 

OyOrni 

\-f * 

taaL-V"-c€rv 

rOS 

x , i 

i -

*.•*- -

r^ TSl« 

OW "+V\ 

-twe 

•^J t 

? o x<><: fe. 

e ~Ta.o< 

rSfnaca 

'•OS 

^THT»o-a 

I +e.-~-*9«^vi-V-o»'-e 

0 

o a 

T V 

UDi-?f K-Y-eoavo 

t 

a. to. «3 

•-»• io - a-i 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN; 

VKOQVK »O«M\ *\O "^--o^ pac-V »-><xcl SQJ W -VO mn->\ -*A.\*« . ujc^t- -yp ^t^e-ou i 

Uy\A "\Ap-r. V gt--.ct*geX Vaocfc A6 I - ^A ujeo-t t o 3 * nai-r*-, -Ho Kf..^K*vor> -n\.«*o 

I -Vw/x^A a»*uft*j a-cvA Vica-ltA ^e k ;£2 Aon (\>ha r • 

ROAD CONDITIONS: C^RV 

WEATHER CONDITIONS: QtiEBCftST "PftRTuK SONIM ? / VAQOM D j . l-ORftrv? 

88 
P.94 

2ATE : S^ | iTA'l yS 

DRIVEABILITY TEST 

ONBOARD TAURUS 

DRIVER'S NAME 

AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: 73 7 S 

TIME CUT: I-2-.0 0 

GAS TANK GAUGE READING START 

TIME IN; 

: ^ 0 W 

MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: °\~\ B7 

4-Mg 

END: R^wee n /^ £ ^ 

END: S^S l 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: » (o^ 

COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE: 

Goo d MO -^r-ob\-?/-N-5. 

\ d'xW-V ftau-e. an*} •pt-oT-m-ni Ovtv-. ^V>*? Oavd, S,f<->>-T r ' t -Syncd ••»•••& \ 

fifao.iv a. stco-Ads 

~TVl<. CO'-l STO.'-'T-S UJ«r-«t -*Qp.«i SQ-Ag -**. 0 "p-a -tAg»--*i 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN: 

"T^ "Too* US - -a-3 So^t h ~*rO >mic.Uvc,c*.n ctm uJ-t-*-*' -\o ^>-oo>t.>p ro\cV% 

- j - -\Vvor\ --maVl \J*>- S 3 N>0VY*\ -VQ l»-\-iK^O n C\.-Q.J€. g^ao>^4 -Ja-^*-- o-.--.a 

*<->.. 

ROAD CONDITIONS: fiooT) T)fc.V 

WEATHER CONDITIONS: .Sm^t- W ^o \ 

89 
P.95 

DRIVEABILITY TEST 

ONBOARD TAURUS 

'•LmOi'V* 

DATE: g | 5°l[%*] DRIVER'S NAME: ^Qs£?H "? H^^ V 

. fl^ioft1- "T^w\? 

7^.i 7<*.o S 0 5 S AMBIENT TEMP COLD START: 

TIME OUT: VQ. "• 4S TIME IN: 3.: \S 

GAS TANK GAUGE READING START: QOf.ft* X END: 1SgTu)g.gn /-, % /, 

MILEAGE ON VEHICLE START: ^HS l END: S S S 7 

TOTAL MILEAGE ACCUMULATED: 4(g 

COMMENTS ON DRIVEABILITY OF VEHICLE: 

•g*C«llg«T.t <l"qoi4 ^o'v^c -Vxr^-g. a.. 5<C covc^ 

CoOP •y>LO-V0^''VA^Cg 

GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF ROUTE TAKEN: 

U~ Tfroy. -^U|mftt--VU >-&•*<& -Vn --rOnA v-oa-j, CAS-¥ - ^ -p-ospftcfr r» 4 

•SOvjrK t o ^>ttCH O-w-g -to edA^S.* Toa-fl »aJf , utlg-iT ^30t K 6-. ^tmom e 

ROAD CONDITIONS: "~D\7V 

WEATHER CONDITIONS: Cl^QCftST f V4\j-yn< <i ""v^-XiruV S-JN»\i^, 

90 
P.96 

August RBR 

G-T^ICI** - ~Te^?*>*v\\Jr-*. 

SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SflT 

6 

13 

20 

27 

LCi .U 

( , » 

rt*4H 

1-4 

7 

14 

21 

28 

UOwl 

«-3 

HI4 H 

7 1 

1 

8 

15 

22 

U.0 wU 

fc\ 

Y-WA 

Sl 

2 9 us<< 

L OO 

5

* 

H«CH 

* 0 

2 

9 

16 

23 °^4 

UOuJ 

IgO 

H»GH 

n 

30 

UOfcO 

SS 

iH»fcH 

7 7 

3 

10 

17 

24 * M 

U o w 

S"i 

MiC- M 

"7(* 

31 

UOUS 

-

\-N»6K 

• -' J 

4 

11 

18 

25 

LOoJ 

S I 

V4i&H 

1(o 

5 

12 

19 

26 

L o *-o 

5*i 

V-U6.M 

" ^ 

91 
P.97 

•^nriinrnhnr 

UCpiCIIIUGI 

SUN MON TUE WED THU FRI SAT 

3 

UOuJ 

SZ. 

H\<brt 

73 

10 

17 

24 

4 

5* 

11 

11 

18 

25 

5 

UO u j 

ro 

12 

19 

26 

6 

ttOu* 

HlfclA 

13 

20 

27 

7 

U.OU* 

14 

21 

28 

1 

UOuJ 

9 

U O O 

M'CH 

15 

22 

29 

2 

53 

73 

9 

16 

23 

30 

92 
A \ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

M--v f 5 ig 

OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Onboard Taurus 

Temperature 

Testing With 

FROM: 

TO: 

THRU: 

Peter Hutchins, Mechanical Engineer 

Standards Development and Support Brffrch 

at High 

Charles L. Gray, Jr., Director 

Emission Control Technology Division 

John F. Anderson, Senior Project Manager 

Standards Development and Support ^B-ranch \QUJLChester 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 

93 
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. 

94 
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. 

95 
-m-li-9-mm 

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 1 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 

96 
r P.3 

Table 1 

Test Results - Onboard Taurus 

Test Number (Date) 

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

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) 

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, #2 LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

CO2 (g/mile) 

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

Tank temp £§ 3rd 505 sec. (°F) 

Tank temp 8 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 emission* (g/gal) 

4089.4 

3964.2 

96 

99 

110 

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 

4112.4 

3974.6 

4005.1 

93 

98 

109 

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 

4092.1 

3948.5 

3989.9 

94 

99 

110 

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 

4100.9 

3964.9 

3995.5 

95 

99 

109 

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 

97 
P.4 

Table 2 

Test Results - Stock Vehicles 

Initial tank temp (°F) 

Tank temp <§ 1st 505 sec. (°F) 

Tank temp 0 end of #1 LA-4 (°F) 

Tailpipe emissions, #1 LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

CO2 (g/mile) 

Tank temp 0 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 0 end of #3 LA-4 (°F) 

Tailpipe emissions, #3 LA-4 

HC (g/mile) 

CO (g/mile) 

NOx (g/mile) 

CO2 (g/mile) 

NR •= Not reported. 

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 

98