P.1 

OAR Box 1830 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

21) IV-B-17 

Docket Number: 

A-87-11 

Printed 11/13/2008 7:20:52 AM Sheet 21 of 232 
P.2 

UISOSB,^ 

\ PHO& 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

ANN ARBOR. MICHIGAN 48105 

FEB 161989 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: 

FROM; 

TO: 

& OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

Evaporative and Tailpip^ ^E.ips^sion 

1987 Oldsmobile Cutlass Ci^r'a^- Sto 

1987 MY Procedure an§v 

Supplemental NPRM 

Systems 

s Measurements, 

ock Vehicle Using 

Modified Vehicle Using 

Procedure for Non-integrated 

Peter Hutchins, Mechanical Engineer 

Standards Development and Support Branch 

Docket A 87-11 

Background 

The test vehicle was a privately owned vehicle previously 

tested at ATL under an EPA funded running loss test program. 

The test results obtained at ATL indicated that running losses 

from this vehicle were low. These results suggested that the 

vehicle design may have employed a relatively high rate of 

canister purge. EPA was, therefore, desirous of determining 

the evaporative and tailpipe emissions of the subject vehicle 

when equipped with a larger canister and tested by the 

procedure for non-integrated systems as contained in the 

supplemental NPRM. 

Vehicle. 

The description of the test vehicle, both stock and 

modified, is shown in Table 1. Installation of the 3.7 liter 

canister was accomplished by disconnecting the purge control 

solenoid from the stock canister and connecting to the large 

canister. 

Testing 

All testing was performed using 9 RVP fuel as employed in 

certification testing. 
P.3 

r~ 

-2-

a. Stock vehicle. One test sequence for diurnal, 

tailpipe and hot soak emissions following 1987 model 

year procedures. Prior to performance of the test 

sequence, the vehicle fuel system, and evap. system 

up to the canister, was leak checked. 

b. Modified vehicle. Three test sequences for diurnal, 

tailpipe and hot soak emissions following the 

supplemental NPRM procedure for non-integrated 

systems. Briefly, the supplemental NPRM test 

procedure steps are as follows; (a) Tank drain and 

j vehicle temperature stabilize at 68° to 86°F, (b) 

Load canister to breakthrough using 60° to 84°F heat 

builds, (c) Fuel and perform prep LA-4, (d) Soak at 

68° to 86°F, (e) Fuel and perform 60° to 84°F heat 

build, (f) Measure tailpipe emissions, (g) Measure 

hot soak emissions, including gas cap removal, (h) 

Fuel, perform first 72° to 96°F heat build, drain 

! tank, (i) Soak at 68°" to 86°F, (j) Measure diurnal 

emissions during second 72° to 96°F heat build. 

Fuel tank cap removal at the start of the hot soaks 

was omitted because of lack of an access port in the 

SHED. For these tests a 3.7 liter canister (see 

Table 1 for description) was substituted for the 

stock canister. 

During testing, a problem was encountered in the canister 

load-to-breakthrough step of the revised procedure. The rate 

at which HC vapor was generated in the fuel tank during heat 

builds was too low to allow usage of the breakthrough 

definition of three times rise in SHED concentration in one 

minute [or less. Breakthrough loading was terminated once it 

was determined that HC entering the SHED gave a clear indiction 

that the canister was loaded at least to breakthrough as is 

required by the procedure. 

Test Results 

The measured diurnal, tailpipe and hot soak emissions are 

shown in Table 2. Tables 3 and 4 contain canister weight data. 

In the baseline test (stock vehicle), the vehicle complied 

with the evaporative and tailpipe emission standards. The 

measure emissions were 0.25 g/mile HC, 3.07 g/mile CO, 0.56 

g/mile !NOx and 0.48 g evaporative HC. The measured fuel 

economy was 18.8 mpg. 

In the modified configuration (3.7 liter canister 

replacing the stock canister) the vehicle also complied with 

tailpipe emission standards. The averages of the measured 

tailpipe emissions were 0.22 g/mile HC, 2.08 g/mile CO and 0.51 

g/mile NOx. The vehicle did not comply with the evaporative 

standard using either current or revised test procedures. The 
P.4 

-3-

averages of the diurnal emissions were 10.64g and 7.82g as 

would be measured under current and revised procedures 

respectively. The high emission rates show that insufficient 

canister purge occurred during the drives to allow for HC 

collection during the subsequent heat builds. As configured, 

the vehicle purge system did not provide sufficient purge for 

the large canister. The average measured fuel economy was 19.1 

mpg. 

Attachments 

6527W 
P.5 

Table 1 

Test Vehicle Description 

Year, Make, Model: 

VIN: 

Engine: 

Transmission: 

Mileage: 

Engine Family: 

; Evap. Family: 

Fuel Tank Capacity: 

Production Canister Part No.: 

Production Canister Size: 

Modified Canister: 

Construction: 

Size: 

Activated Carbon: 

Purge System: 

1987, Oldsmobile, Cutlass 

Ciera 

1G3AJ1131H036617 

3.8 liter 

Automatic 

Approximately 25,000 miles 

H2G3.8V8XEB7 

7BO-2D 

15.8 gal. 

17085935 

-1.4 liter 

Made from stock GM canister 

(part no. 17085935) by 

sectioning and elongating 

body of canister. Stock 

fuel tank connection, purge 

control and purge air entry 

retained. 

-3.7 liter 

GM type 

Stock vehicle purge system. 
Baseline 

Test Event Test Procedure 

Fuel 

Emissions* Economy 

HC CO NOx MPG 

Heat Buil d 

(Baseline Diurnal) 0.23 

Jag 1 1.06 13.68 0.97 18.6 

Jag 2 0.02 0.03 0.41 17.6 

Jag 3 0.07 0.84 0.54 22.2 

lomposite Tailpip e 0.25 3.07 0.56 18.84 

lot Soak 0.25 

leat Buil d 

High Temperature) — — — — 

leat Buil d 

High Temperature. — — — 

iupplemental NPRM 

liurnal) 

Grams fo r evaporativ e emissions ; g/mil e fo r 

* Cap removal sequence not performed. 

labi e 2 

Emissions and Fuel 

1987 Oldsmobile Cutlas s Ciera 

Emission (qrams fo r evaporativ e 

HC 

Test i Test2 

15.51 6.06 

1.16 0.76 

0.02 0.02 

0.06 0.08 

0.27 0.19 

0.39** 1.05** 

9.30 5.20 

8.61 6.45 

... . 

Test3 Test 1 

8.34 

0.80 10.61 

0.02 0.01 

0.10 0.81 

0.20 2.43 

0.57** 

6.22 

6.40 

tailpip e emissions . 

Economy. 

(1G3AJ1131H036617) 

Supplemental NPRM Test Procedure 

(3. 7 1 Caniste r replacin q stoc k canister ) 

emissions : a/mil e fo r tailpip e emissions ) 

CO NOx 

Test 2 Test 3 Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

— 

8.14 7.31 1.03 1.05 0.84 

0.02 0.15 0.42 0.39 0.23 

0.91 1.03 0.55 0.50 0.34 

1.95 1.87 0.58 0.55 0.39 

__ 

— 

— 

Test i 

— 

18.9 

17.7 

22.0 

18.96 

— 

— 

— 

• t 

Fuel Economy 

MPG 

Test 2 Test 3 

— 

19.1 19.3 

18.1 17.6 

22. 7 22. 2 

19.38 19.05 

— 

— — 

— 

• 

-
Table 3 

Canister Loading Using Heat Builds (3.7 liter Canister) Canister Weight and 

Weight Change, HC From Canister to SHED, Total HC Generated in Fuel Tank 

First test; First heat build" 

Second heat build 

Third heat build 

(3/4 hour) 

Second test; First heat build 

Second heat build 

Third test; First heat build 

Second heat build 

Third heat build 

(1/2 hour) 

Initial Canister 

Weight (g) 

2131.9"" 

2179.4 

2221.2 

2233.6 

2260.6 

2263.2 

2289.4 

2305.0 

Final Canister 

Weight (g) 

2179.4 

2221.2 

2244.4 

2260.6 

2285.5 

2289.4 

2305.0 

2300.1 

HC 

by 

Collected HC Collected 

Canister (g) in SHED (g) 

47.5" 0.10 

41.8 0.24 

23.3 0.21 

27.0 7.13 

24.9 8.41 

26.2 5.00 

15.6 9.67 

-4.9 2.82 

Total HC 

generated (g) 

47.60 

42.04 

23.41 

34.13 

33.31 

31.20 

25.27 

-2.08 
____, 

Table 4 

Canister Weights During Test Sequence 

(3.7 L Canister) 

Canister Weight (g) 

Weighing Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 

After Breakthrough Loading 2244.4 2285.5 2300.1 

After Prep. LA-4 2186.5 

After Cold Soak — -- 2236.9 

After'heat build (60°-84°F) 2205.0 

After tailpipe test 

and;1 hour hot soak — 2201.9 2215.4 

After #1 high temp. 

heat build (72°-96°F) .2202.8 2237.1 2250.4 

After #2 high temp. 

heat build (72°-96°F) 2233.6 2263.2 2269.9* 

* Canister weight following overnight soak prior to #2 high 

temperature heat build of third test was 2237.2 g.