Senator HARTKE. Does this materially reduce the pollutants now with the use of this device? Or is it primarily for odor and smoke? Mr. BARR. It is primarily for odor and smoke, as I understand it. Senator HARTKE. Do you have anything which will reduce the pollutants or a converter?

Mr. BARR. Actually, smoke and odor are the principal pollutants on a diesel engine. Mr. Steinhagen might want to help me out on this. I think that is correct.

Mr. STEINHAGEN. Senator, the diesel engine, because it operates with large amounts of excess air, produces no carbon monoxide. So it does not have any pollution as far as carbon monoxide goes.

The quantity of unburned hydrocarbons produced by these is extremely small compared with the conventional autocycle engine. So again this is a small amount of pollutant. The diesel bus is primarily a local nuisance problem. When you are behind it, it is very obnoxious. But in the total air pollution picture, it is very small.

The catalytic converter does affect some of the hydrocarbons and does reduce those.

Senator HARTKE. Are you telling me if we converted from gasoline to diesel automobiles that we would reduce a lot of the present problem with pollution?

Mr. STEINHAGEN. You would reduce the unburned hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide percentage, but you would have a smoke and odor nuisance problem.

Senator HARTKE. You would have smoke and odor. Would smoke and odor cause any ill effects on health on a comparable level? Who is the doctor?

Mr. BARR. You should refer that question perhaps to HEW. But so far as we know

Senator HARTKE. After my experience with HEW here the other day, I am not sure they would answer me. [Laughter.]

Mr. BARR. Actually, as far as we feel technically, in the engineering area, the diesel emissions are a nuisance problem only, not a health problem.

Senator HARTKE. Let me come back to another item.

On the converters, you said the economics did not provide a remedy for all automobiles until you run the cycle of 10 years. What about applying some type of converter or system to taxicabs?

Mr. BARR. You are talking now about a converter for exhaust emission

Senator HARTKE. Yes.

Mr. BARR (continuing). On a taxicab, much research is going on in engineering development in our industry and with others in developing catalytic converters. We went through considerable work on this method some years ago. We found, as Mr. Ference indicated, that with the type of fuel that was being used at that time, the life of the converters was unsatisfactory. And this is the basic reason that we went to other methods that would have more reliability, require less service, and have longer life.

So if the standards, nationally, would get tighter as years go on, looking toward 1980, the converter might come back into the picture. Senator HARTKE. What you are saying, as far as you know there is

no research which is indicated now, for an acceptable converter for utilization for taxicabs, is that right?

Mr. BARR. You said taxicabs for gasoline engines.

Senator HARTKE. Yes; you see there is a big difference because taxicabs are on the street running all day long. The ordinary person doesn't run his car in the street that often.

Mr. BARR. Converters could be applied to taxicabs if that particular segment of the population warrants such action.

Senator HARTKE. Let me come back to one basic item.

Although there was a great howl and cry from the automobile industry about establishing Federal standards on safety, I take it from your testimony here today that you really do not object to the general approach to the Federal Government setting standards in the field of pollutants, is that correct?

Mr. BARR. I think this is correct. We have worked on this basis. We have standards that we think are practical and reasonable. And we intend to build our vehicles to comply with those standards. We say that these things are in the public interest and you gentlemen are here to guide the public interest area.

Senator HARTKE. I find this to be a very significant statement because this is an indication that Government and industry evidently in this field at least are capable of working side by side without having too much bad effect on either side, and working for the public interest. That is all that I have, Mr. Chairman.

Senator GRIFFIN. We have four more witnesses, and we are probably going to have a rollcall shortly after 12 o'clock.

Thank you very much, Mr. Barr, for appearing before the committee.

The next witness will be Mr. William Bogan, vice president in charge of engineering, Chrysler Corp.

STATEMENT OF B. W. BOGAN, VICE PRESIDENT IN CHARGE OF ENGINEERING, CHRYSLER CORP., DETROIT, MICH.

Mr. BOGAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Senator Hartke. I might say, to start, that we get along pretty good with the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. If you need any help, we know some pretty good people in there.

I am B. W. Bogan, vice president of engineering for Chrysler Corp. It is a pleasure to appear before this joint Senate committee to discuss two bills, S. 451 and S. 453, which have been introduced in the first session of the 90th Congress.

It appears to me that the purpose of these two bills is to promote activity leading to the reduction of air pollution caused by motor vehicles; specifically, in one case, by the use of an electrically powered vehicle, and, in the other, by the use of any practical power source, except that "particular consideration" shall be given to the use of electric power. In its broader context, the latter approach has the advantage of providing more latitude for creative effort, of course.

I know that the intent of the authors of these bills is to be constructive. As an automotive engineer for 34 years, I can attest to the dedication of my colleagues to the task of designing the best and most

practical motor vehicle that human ingenuity and present technology permits. Therefore, we welcome any effort which will stimulate further advancement in the state of the art.

We are concerned, however, about the proposed legislation from the standpoints of need, results, and implementation.

Questioning the need for the legislation causes us to consider very carefully whether a replacement of the internal-combustion piston engine is really desirable or necessary.

The conventional piston engine is the most practical powerplant for automobiles that is available today. In addition, it is continually being improved in every way which makes its replacement progressively more difficult.

Moreover, great progress is being made in reducing the exhaust emissions of these piston engines. In my opinion, these control systems represent a technological breakthrough. The significance of this breakthrough has been overlooked because inordinate enthusiasm has turned guarded statements about possible future powerplants into a fanciful belief that these new engines are almost ready to market.

An example of the efficiency being obtained with exhaust control systems is the Chrysler cleaner air package. This system has reduced hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emissions by about 70 percent. It does this by a more complete combusion of the air-gasoline mixture within the engine itself. The CAP system now is installed in all 1966 and 1967 Chrysler Corp. passenger cars and light trucks sold in California. It will be standard equipment, nationwide, on our 1968 models, which is in August of this year for production this fall. Other car manufacturers also will equip all of their 1968 cars with crankcase and exhaust control systems.

Assuming it will take about 10 years for a complete turnover of the vehicle population in this country, by 1978, nearly all passenger cars and light trucks being used throughout the Nation will be equipped with exhaust-emission control systems. During this period, there is expected to be a 30-percent increase in the car population. Even with this increase, we can expect a net decrease in auto-caused air pollution of nearly 50 percent in 10 years' time, because there will be at least a 70-percent decrease in pollutants emitted by each properly maintained car. And I would like to stress that last phrase, "properly maintained car."

In addition, the prospects are that the net decrease in contaminants will be greater than 50 percent because of continuing improvements in the exhaust control systems. I testified on this point before the Special Subcommittee on Air and Water Pollution, chaired by Senator Muskie, in a hearing in Detroit on February 20, 1967. I submit this copy of my statement for the record of this joint Senate committee hearing. As you have already pointed out, you have this. If you don't want to put it in, it is the same statement as in the Muskie hearing.

Senator GRIFFIN. Thank you. We will receive it for the files.

Mr. BOGAN. We believe it is entirely possible to reduce potentially harmful emissions by at least 80 percent in the near future by further refinement, and certain modifications of our present system. Later on, if more stringent controls are shown to be necessary, we are hopeful that our experimentation with afterburners, and other devices, will be

79-607 0-67-18

successful so we can add them to the present system for an even greater reduction of contaminants.

We showed Senator Muskie, Senator Murphy, and Senator Spong, some of that hardware when they were up there a week or two ago.

I believe that this record of accomplishment, and the promise of further improvement, is evidence that we will be able to control the exhaust emissions of the piston engine at a level compatible with a realistic national air pollution standard.

Before considering alternate power sources, the point should be made that the main challenge to the piston engine's supremacy has come from the research, design, and development efforts within the automobile industry itself, not without. It is not a case here of an industry trying to suppress a new and better engine.

Each automobile manufacturer has spent millions of dollars in research, designing, and testing every powerplant that showed any reasonable promise. These powerplants include turbines, rotary combustion chamber engines, the Stirling, or "heat," engine, steam engines, the free piston engine, the stratified charge engine, and electric motors energized by batteries and/or fuel cells.

A classic example of this intensive, expensive, and self-generated effort to find a better powerplant than the conventional piston engine, is Chrysler Corp.'s development of the turbine for use in passenger cars. Just recently, we concluded an unprecedented 2-year consumerevaluation program in which 50 specially designed, turbine-powered automobiles were test driven by 203 motorists living in 48 States and the District of Columbia. These 50 experimental turbine-powered cars were driven more than a million one hundred thousand miles. It was a costly but extremely informative program.

Rather than take the committee's time to describe our intensive effort, I submit for the record this package of informational material which details our work with the turbine over a period of more than 20 years. We describe our accomplishments, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of the turbine for automobile propulsion. I have it in this package.

Senator GRIFFIN. The material will be received, and will be in the record by reference.

Mr. BOGAN. Thank you.

One of the advantages, which is of particular interest to members of this joint Senate committee, is the low level of exhaust contaminants emitted by our turbine engine. The turbine exhaust is inherently much cleaner than that of a piston engine. Our analysis of exhaust gases shows the level of carbon monoxide content to be less than 0.4 percent-if you will recall, one and a half is the California and the coming national standard right now-unburned hydrocarbons less than 100 parts per million-and that refers to, or corresponds with, 275 in the present standard-and the oxides

Senator HARTKE. Those standards are to be lowered next year in California?

Mr. BOGAN. No. We don't know that yet.

Senator HARTKE. You anticiapte it?

Mr. BOGAN. Yes, sir; and oxides of nitrogen substantially under that of piston engines. Incidentally, these levels are confirmed by results

obtained in tests conducted by the U.S. Department of Health at its laboratories in Cincinnati.

We are not avoiding the question of oxides of nitrogen. We and others find that there is a lot we don't know about them. That is the truth of the matter. What has been said here before is that you improve the other pollutants and you have a tendency to increase the oxides of nitrogen in piston engines. There are ways, and we have them and are working on them, to reduce the oxides of nitrogen to counteract that effect.

We are continuing our research and development of the turbine because we are convinced the advantages of turbíne power make it well worth pursuing. We now are well along with the development of a fifth-generation turbine engine. As with any new engine, it is impossible to predict how long the development process will take, or to set a time when the turbine will be economically competitive with the piston engine. Senator Muskie's committee was given a demonstration of that when they were in Detroit, too.

As a result, until these problems are solved, we cannot begin to produce turbine engines in volume. Even at a respectable rate of manufacture, it would still take years to have an appreciable number on the road that would have any significant effect on the level of air pollution. So, again, in the search for an immediate answer to the air pollution problem, the turbine car-promising as it is cannot be considered a panacea. The hard facts are that we must rely on further refinements of the piston engine. It is entirely possible these refinements will result in an emission level as low as that obtainable by a turbine engine.

Turning now to electric vehicles, powered by batteries, fuel cells, or some other means, I will state briefly for the record that nothing proposed so far is close to becoming a practical powerplant for automobiles operating under conditions present in this country.

Very briefly, the primary problem is the basic one of obtaining enough portable energy to move a vehicle at different rates of speed for the considerable distances normally traveled in this country before refueling. For example, our chemists and physicists tell us that the energy now being obtained from a pound of gasoline consumed in the present internal combustion piston engine is equivalent to 1,800 watt-hours of electricity.

The most sophisticated batteries now known, which still are in the research stage and are not fully developed for use, deliver about 175 to 200 watt-hours per pound of battery. The best battery now available for widespread use in motor vehicles delivers about 10 watt-hours per pound of battery. Thus, the energy ratio between battery power and the gasoline piston engine is 10 to 1,800.

I am sure you recognize that 10-we are now throwing a lot of figures around here, there were different figures shown by others, and there are different ways of showing this ratio. The 10 refers to the lead acid battery which you have in your car this morning. And the 1,800 watt-hours is the energy you get in a pound of gasoline. So, you can see what the difference is in the energy level.

This means that present electrically powered vehicles must carry 180 times the weight of fuel to obtain the equivalent performance of a piston engine powered vehicle. Under these conditions the weight