-------
34
pleasure boat service. In addition to the five runs using the 2. 5 order
power curve, however, two runs were made using a 3. 0 order curve,
which reduced the power output somewhat in Modes 2, 3, 4, and 5.
Mode 1 (maximum power) would have remained the same, so it was not
run; and Mode 6 (idle) would likewise not have changed, so it was not
run. The crankshaft and propeller shaft power points were given in
Tables 1 and 2, so they will not be repeated here.
Table 8 gives mass emissions data on a 3.0 order power curve
analogous to those found in Table 3 for the four engines operated on
power curves considered "normal". The data in Table 8 have already
been plotted (curves labeled x = 3 for the Chrysler in Figures 15 through
18), and they compare quite closely with those generated using higher
loads. Differences in NOX and CC>2 were so small as to be almost negli-
gible, but CO was higher and hydrocarbons were lower at the higher
speeds when power output (and consequently mass flow) were reduced.
TABLE 8. TOTAL MASS EMISSIONS .AND MASS EMISSIONS RETAINED IN
WATER PHASE (EXPERIMENTALLY) FOR A CHRYSLER 35 HP OUTBOARD
MOTOR OPERATED ON A 3. 0 ORDER POWER CURVE
x
Gas
HC
CO
CO2
NO
°2
H2O
Gas
HC
CO
C02
NOX
H20
Raw Mass Emission Rate, g/hi
Mode 2
Mode 3
Mode 4
Mode 5
1640
6340
9720
6.32
3140
8430
Loss in
Mode 2
613
299
3910
2.78
- 21.5
6740
1340
4350
6580
3.60
2510
5770
1080
2580
3870
1.44
2240.
3230.
880
1140
1840
0.64
1700
1580
Water (Experimental), g/hr
Mode 3
496
239
2690
1.99
- 148
4570
Mode 4
426
205
1640
0.94
32.0
2490
Mode 5
328
74.5
796
0.54
38.6
1180
The trend reversed itself at lower speeds for hydrocarbons, but
remained the same for CO. If emissions were to be studied as a function
of load at fixed speeds, a wider range of loads would be necessary to get
meaningful variation. For the purposes of the present study, however,
the limited amount of work performed with the one engine indicates that
mass emissions probably do not vary strongly over the range of power
outputs to be expected at one crankshaft speed.
-------
35
V. ESTIMATION OF EMISSION FACTORS AND NATIONAL IMPACT
The quantities essential to determining emission factors for out-
boards are mass-based emissions data and information on duty cycles
(fractions of operating time spent in various speed bands). Estimation of
national impact further requires data on annual usage, number of motors
in service, and composition of the population of motors according to size.
It is also relatively simple to calculate emission factors on a fuel basis,
but use of these factors in determining impact requires the assumption
of national fuel usage, not a readily documented quantity. It any case,
fuel-based factors will be calculated and the corresponding impact
analysis will be attempted, based on available information
As discussed in the section on results, outboards actually dis-
charge their exhaust underwater, so measurements were taken both before
and after the exhaust was bubbled through water in a simulator in an
attempt to take the water scrubbing process into account. In this context,
outboard "atmospheric" emissions means the portion of total outboard
emissions which made its way through the bubbling process without
being retained in the water. No assertion is made that the laboratory
process takes into account the time factor which exists in the real situa-
tion, that is, the subject work has involved no attempt to determine the
ultimate fate of exhaust products. This assumption of a static situation
is undesirable, but nevertheless necessary in lieu of experimental data.
A. Development of Emission Factors
The emissions data on which the factors will be based are given
in section IV. A. It would be more desirable, of course, to be able to base
emission factors on a greater number of engines, but additional data are
simply not available. The other major items of information required are
duty cycles for outboards, expressed in fractions of time spent in each
attainable speed band. Data developed by Outboard Marine Corporation
in a rather extensive outboard motor usage survey' ' are shown in Table
9, representing about 200 hours of data acquisition. The "100 hp and up"
engine category included three engines, the 50-55 hp category included
three engines, the 40 hp data are from a single engine, and the 9. 5 hp
data represent four engines. To make the best use of these data, they
have been regrouped on larger rpm intervals corresponding to the engine
speeds used for testing, and are presented as Table 10. The OMC data
developed on the 9. 5 hp engines was used to determine mode weights for
both the 4 hp and 9. 5 hp test engines, an average of OMC data developed
for 50-55 hp engines and 9. 5 hp engines was used to determine mode
weights for the Chrysler 35 hp engine, and the OMC data on 50-55 hp
engines was used alone to determine mode weights for the Mercury 65
-------
36
TABLE 9. OMC OUTBOARD MOTOR OPERATING TIME DATA
Rpm Range
500-
1000-
1500-
2000-
2500-
3000-
3500-
4000-
4500-
5000-
5500-
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
5000
5500
6000
Percent of Operating Time in rpm Range by Engine Size
100 hp & up
30
15
5
3
3
8
12
18
4
2
_
50-55 hp
7
17
10
7
4
8
13
23
5
4
2
40 hp
3
13
12
7
3
13
13
19
12
5
_
9. 5 hp
8
12
10
10
6
13
12
16
11
2
_
TABLE 10. TIME-BASED WEIGHTING FACTORS FOR TEST MODES
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
Fraction of Operating Time in Modes by Engine (Wj)
OMC 4 hp
0. 21
0. 20
0. 19
0. 20
0. 10
0. 10
OMC 9. 5 hp
0.21
0.20
0. 19
0.20
0. 10
0. 10
Chrysler 35 hp
0. 12
0. 32
0. 15
0. 18
0. 12
0. 11
Mercury 65
0. 06
0. 05
0. 36
0. 12
0. 17
0. 12
0. 12
hp
hp engine. To make the arithmetic of the emission factor calculations
more compact, a few terms should be defined.
let: Wj = individual time-based mode weighting factors;
MI = individual mode mass emission rates (g/hr);
hpi = crankshaft horsepower developed in individual modes;
n = number of modes (6 or 7)
Using these terms to compute emission factors, we have
n
composite (cycle) mass emissions (g/hr) = y W^^ ;
•i = l
i = 1
n
average crankshaft power developed during cycle (hp) = ) Wj
i = 1
-------
37
n
composite brake specific emissions / g
~
n
i = 1
composite load factor - average power used (hp) _
maximum power available (hp)
n
E
i - 1
Maximum rated power (hp)
If it were desirable to compute fuel specific emissions for some reason,
assuming that
Fj = individual mode fuel rate (gal/hr),
n
then v~~v w K/I-
.E ''
composite fuel specific emissions (g/gal fuel) =
n
E w'Fi
i = 1
and n
r—\ W-F.
composite brake specific /—>
fuel consumption (gal fuel/hp hr) = x =
n
Individual mode brake specific emissions and fuel specific emissions
would be given by M^/hpi and Mi/ F^, respectively.
Table 11 shows the procedure for calculation of composite (cycle
average) power outputs and load factors, and Table 12 gives the procedure
for calculation of composite fuel consumption and composite brake
specific fuel consumption. These calculated quantities can be used in
conjunction with the sums of the weighted mass emissions for each
engine to determine the composite brake specific and fuel specific
-------
38
TABLE 11. COMPOSITE POWER OUTPUT
AND LOAD FACTOR CALCULATIONS
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Composite Power Output (hp)
Weighted Crankshaft Power Output
by Engine
OMC
4 hp
0.84
0.56
0.23
0.07
0.01
0.00
OMC
9.5 hp
2.00
1.42
0.66
0.25
0. 02
0.00
-
Chrysler
35 hp
4.20
6.40
1.47
0.63
0. 07
0.00
-
Mercury
65 hp
3.90
2.66
12. 13
1.79
1. 02
0. 13
0. 00
n
E
= i
1.71
4. 34
12.77
21. 62
Composite Load Factor
n
i = 1
maximum power
0.427 0.457
0.365
0. 333
emissions. The steps leading to these specific emissions results are
outlined in Table 13, and the composite specific emissions listed are
those which will be used in estimating national impact. It has been noted
previously that the regular tests on the four outboards were performed
using a variety of combinations of water:exhaust gas ratio and induced
turbulence. In order to avoid the confusion this variation might cause,
the combination will be "standardized" for the purposes of the emission
factor calculations as: (1) perforated bubbler; (2) water:exhaust gas ratio
4.45:1; and (3) propeller "on". This combination was used for tests on
the Chrysler 35 hp and Johnson 9. 5 hp motors, but not for the other two,
so consideration has been given to modification of the measured losses
in the water phase for the Johnson 4 hp and Mercury 65 hp engines. This
consideration has lead to the arbitrary decision that the measured CO2
and HC losses for the Johnson 4 hp motor should be multiplied by 1.18
-------
39
TABLE 12, COMPOSITE FUEL CONSUMPTION
AND BSFC CALCULATIONS
Weighted Fuel Consumption by
Engine (WjFi) gal/hr
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Composite Fuel Consumption
n
(gal/hr) =
£
i. i
0. 139
0.090
0. 059
0.040
0.016
0.016
OMC
9.5 hp
0. 277
0.239
0. 188
0. 128
0.033
0.028
0.360 0.893
Chrysler
35 hp
0. 503
0.890
0.300
0. 224
0. 080
0.081
2.077
Mercury
65 hp
0.451
0. 302
1.444
0. 332
0. 331
0.206
0. 148
3.215
Composite BSFC (gal/hp hr)
n
£ WiFi
i = 1
n
0.211 0.206
0. 163
0. 149
and those for the Mercury 65 hp motor by 1. 05. The decision is based
on differences in CO2 losses for the four engines, and will be assumed to
apply only to CO2 and HC since for NOX and CO losses in water, no strong
dependence on turbulence has been established.
It is conceded that the choices made in determination of factors
have been arbitrary, but consider the following rationale:
(1) It has been established in the special tests of the Mercury 650
that losses of condensable and/or soluble exhaust constituents
in the water phase exhibit a positive dependence on some
combination of water:exhaust ratio and turbulence.
(2) It has been established that losses of exhaust products in the
water phase can be significantly greater than those assumed
-------
40
for calculation purposes (if turbulence, etc. , are varied).
(3) The real situation very probably entails a combined index of
water:exhaust ratio and turbulence at least as high as that
assumed for calculation purposes.
(4) Other variables which may have some effect on removal of
exhaust constituents during water scrubbing, such as water
temperature, bubble residence time (as a function of depth),
and water pH, were documented in the subject studies as
being within reasonable ranges which might be encountered
in the field.
Thus the choices made constitute a "middle of the road" approach which
is justified by the overall limits of the study, and indeed some choices
had to be made before any results could be determined at all. No
TABLE 13. INDIVIDUAL AIR AND WATER BRAKE SPECIFIC AND
FUEL SPECIFIC EMISSION FACTORS FOR FOUR OUTBOARD MOTORS
Composite Factors,Atmospheric Composite Factor, Water Phase
Fuel Fuel
Brake Specific, Brake Specific,
Consti- Mass, Specific, g/gal Mass, Specific, g/gal
Engine tuent g/hr g/hp hr fuel g/hr g/hp hr fuel
OMC
4 hp *••
*HC
CO
*C02
NOV
195.
413.
871.
1.24
114.
241.
509.
0. 72
OMC
9.5 hp
HC
CO
C02
NOX
393.
1280.
2140.
2. 34
Chrysler HC
35 hp CO
C02
991 =
4010.
4240.
2.97
Merc.
65 hp
**HC
CO
*#CO2
NOX
1780.
4090.
7740.
14.2
542.
1150.
2420.
3.4
90.6 440.
295. 1430.
493. 2400.
0.53 2.6
77.6 477.
314. 1930.
332. 2040.
0.23 1.4
82.5 555.
189. 1270.
358. 2410.
0.65 4.4
102. 59.9 284.
53.7 31.4 149.
574. 336. 1590.
0.34 0.20 0.95
302. 69. 6 338.
68.2 15.7 76.4
1460. 336. 1630.
0.26 0.060 0.29
627. 49.1 302.
208. 16.3 100.
2640. 207. 1270.
1.37 0.11 0.66
889. 41.1 277.
139. 6.45 43.4
5680. 262. 1770.
2.44 0.11 0.76
Calculated loss in water multiplied by 1. 18 to achieve these results
**calculated loss in water multiplied by 1. 05 to achieve these results
-------
41
assertion is made that the chosen results actually represent the real
situation, but they do constitute a reasonable estimate.
The most notable feature of the data given in Table 13 is the
extremely good consistency of the brake specific and fuel specific emis-
sions from engine to engine, considering the variations in size and
general physical configuration. The consistency is even better if
variations in the effects of water scrubbing are removed by combining
the atmospheric and water factors to yield the total emission factors,
as has been done in Table 14. The only major variations in these data
occur in NOX (which was present in very small amounts and exhibited
large concentration variability), and in CO-COz balance for the Chrysler
(which was weighted much more heavily toward CO production than was
the case for the other 3 engines).
TABLE 14. TOTAL EMISSION FACTORS FOR FOUR OUTBOARD MOTORS
(Combined Atmospheric and Water Phase Factors)
Engine
OMC 4 hp
Constituent Mass, g/hr
OMC 9. 5 hp
Chrysler
35 hp
Mercury
65 hp
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NOX
HC
CO
C02
NO
x
HC
CO
NO
x
297.
467,
1440.
1. 58
695.
1350.
3600.
2, 60
1620.
4220.
6880.
4. 34
2670.
4230.
13400.
16.6
Brake Specific,
g/hp hr
174.
273.
845.
0.92
160.
311.
829.
0.60
127.
330.
539.
0.34
123.
196.
620.
0. 77
Fuel Specific,
g/galfuel
825.
1300.
4010.
4. 39
778.
1510.
4030.
2.91
779.
2030.
3310.
2.09
830.
1320.
4170.
5. 18
These emission factors do not include crankcase drainage, which
is a mixture of fuel-based (liquid and gaseous) hydrocarbons and air
emitted from the crankcases of some outboard motors. For the test
engines in particular, two (Mercury 65 hp and OMC 9. 5 hp) had drain
recirculation, one did not (Chrysler 35 hp), and the last (OMC 4 hp)
could not be verified one way or the other. Exhaust emissions from the
-------
42
engines with recirculation correctly characterize their total emissions,
whereas crankcase drainage would be considered separately for engines
without recirculation. There are several possible effects on total
emissions due to un-recirculated crankcase drainage.
(1) Fuel which drains from the crankcase may be incorrectly
included as part of the total fuel used to calculate mass
emissions, making the calculated mass emissions higher
than actual.
(2) It might be possible in some engines to measure exhaust
emissions at a point far enough downstream such that
the inducted mixture and the drainage would have already
mixed. This type of sampling would give accurate
results if all the drainage had vaporized, but would
probably not be accurate if part of the drainage were
still liquid.
(3) One technically correct way of dealing with the drainage
would be to measure it on a mass basis (including con-
densable hydrocarbon vapors), and subtract it from the
externally-measured fuel consumption before calculating
mass emissions. The drainage measured could then
simply be added to the total hydrocarbon emissions
without affecting the other constituents.
The possible ramifications of the crankcase drainage situation
simply had not been considered before the subject tests were run, so the
results given here will be for raw exhaust not mixed with drainage, and
the fuel rates used for mass emissions will be the externally-measured
fuel rates. Based on the results of the companion study on crankcase
drainage currently being conducted, the probable errors inherent in the
less-than-rigorous procedures used here are a fraction of a percent for
the Chrysler 35 hp engine and a few percent (perhaps 2 or 3 percent) for
the OMC 4 hp engine (if it does emit drainage at all). These percentages
are for cycle composite emissions, with the larger probable errors
occurring at low speeds and the smaller ones at high speeds,
B. Estimation of National Impact
The primary source of outboard motor population and utilization
data at the present time is the Boating Industry Associations (BIA)(4).
Other industry sources^5'^ help to fill in the short-term historical
picture, but most of the statistics given are oriented toward industry
economics rather than population and usage. A summary of the major
usable population and sales statistics(4' 5) is given in Table 15, including
an assumption(^) of average motor horsepower for the years before 1949.
The report just referenced contains some very useful calculations on
-------
43
TABLE 15. SUMMARY OF OUTBOARD MOTOR POPULATION AND SALES DATA
Percentage
Year(s)
1919-1930
1931 1941
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Sales
x 10-3
357.4
775
398
584
499
329
367
284
337
463
479
515
642
550
504
540
468
343
360
362
390
393
440
444
500
510
430
495
0-
6.9
7. 0-
19.9
-1942-1945
36
27
22
17
17
16
17
17
19
21
19
25
28
29
28
27
22
48
47
42
40
34
27
25
25
24
25
38
30
23
21
19
22
19
of Sales by hp Class
20.0- 20.0 45.0
44. 9 & up & up
No Production
— ••
16
26
36
43
49
57
39
38
35
30
19
21
22
21
19
21
19
19
20
22
24
24
24
27
29
34
30
40
Avg.
hp Sold
i
t
5.0
(Assumed)
4
6.4
6.9
8.9
8.4
9.0
10. 3
12.9
14. 2
16.3
20. 7
23.7
27.4
29.9
30.3
30.5
30. 3
28.2
29.9
30. 1
31. 5
33. 1
31. 0
35.6
Outboard
Motors
in Use x 10
_
2643
2811
3010
3219
3419
3740
4210
4700
5040
5385
5650
5800
6100
6244
6390
6564
6645
6784
6904
6988
7101
7215
7300
an outboard motor population model, and the one which seems to fit the
available data fairly well is
2
fraction of motors of age "A" still in use _ e"kA = Fj ,
where k = 20 83xlO"3 yr~^ and A = motor age in years. Using this ex-
pression and designating individual motor ages as Aj, the current motor
population is
sum of motors still in use =
J =
-------
44
where n = number of years backward over which the analysis extends and
Nj = number of motors sold in each individual year. The reportC7) verified
that the above model gave reasonable approximations of the actual I960
and 1965 motor populations when applied over the time spans prior to those
years. In addition, the 1949 motor population was calculated using the
model for additional verification and the prediction was within 5% of the
value for 1949 listed in Table 15,
The application of the population model which is of most interest
in this study is in calculation of the average power of engines in the field.
The calculations leading to the desired result are summarized in Table 16
(where hpj = average power of motors sold during each individual year),
and the average power computed is
n
E
average power = J = 1 = 24, 6 hp
n
I «!
J =1
If all engines produced prior to 1946 are neglected, the average power is
slightly higher but still rounds to 24. 6 hp. Just to make sure the above
estimate was reasonable, a much less accurate approximation was cal-
culated by assuming that the 7. 3 million newest motors were those still in
use at the end of 1971. This approximation yielded an average power of
27. 0 hp, indicating not only that the more soundly-based estimate is
reasonable, but also that the older motors play only a minimum role in
determining average power of engines in the field.
Another important use of the data in Table 15 is in formulating an
estimate of the percentage of motors which fall into each of the four (more
modern) power categories. The process here will be to calculate the sur-
viving population in each power category by weighting each year's total
surviving population (S;) by fraction produced in each power category. From
I960 back to 1955, it will be assumed that the "20 hp & up" category is
composed 75% of "20. 0-44. 9 hp" motors and 25% of "45 hp & up" motors.
Prior to 1955, the "20 hp & up" category will be extrapolated linearly to
zero over a period of four years, assuming an average of 25 hp. Again
prior to 1955, it will be assumed that engines in the "0-6. 9 hp" category
averaged 5 hp, and that those in the "7.0-19. 9 hp" category averaged 15 hp.
These assumptions permit the calculations to be extended back to the earliest
available data, as shown in Table 17 along with the results of the calculations.
Having arrived at the population breakdown shown at the bottom of
Table 17, most of the information required for the impact calculations
has been developed, with one of the exceptions being average annual
-------
45
TABLE 16. SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS LEADING TO AVERAGE
POWER OF OUTBOARD MOTORS IN USE AT THE END OF 1971
Year(s)
Age -
Sales=N
(xlO-3)
J
Surviving Motors
FjNjtxlO-3)
Power of
Surviving Motors
= Sihpi(xlO-3), hp
1919-1930
1931-1941
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
*46. 5
*35
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
13
12
11
10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
*0. 00222
*0.0312
0. 171
0. 196
0. 224
0. 254
0.287
0. 322
0. 360
0.400
0.441
0.485
0. 529
0. 574
0.620
0.665
0. 710
0. 754
0. 795
0. 834
0. 871
0.903
0.932
0.956
0. 975
0. 989
0.997
1.000
357.4
775
398
584
499
329
367
284
337
463
479
515
642
550
504
540
468
343
360
362
390
393
440
444
500
510
430
495
0. 793
24. 2
68. 1
114.
112.
83.6
105.
91.4
121.
185.
211.
250-_18. 5%ile
340.
316.
312.
359.
332.
259.
^;-48.7%Ue
340.
355- 62. 3%ile
410.
424- 73. 8%ile
488.
504-_87. 3%ile
429.
495.
3.97
121.
340.
570.
560.
535.
724.
813.
1020.
1660.
2170.
3220.
4830.
5150.
6460.
8510.
9100.
7740.
8670.
9210
10300.
10000.
12300.
12800.
15400.
16700.
13300.
17600.
E-
7317.
179700.
Neglecting 1919-1941
E
7292.
179600.
*Median value for the range of years assumed.
-------
46
TABLE 17. SUMMARY OF CALCULATIONS LEADING TO FRACTIONS
OF OUTBOARD MOTORS IN SERVICE IN FOUR POWER CATEGORIES
Surviving Motors in Horsepower Category xlO"3
Year(s)
1919-1930
1931-1941
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
0-6. 9
0.793
24. 2
68. 1
114.
112.
71.9
85.0
55.8
84.7
126.
124.
90.0
91.8
69.5
53.0
61.0
53. 1
44.0
48.6
57.4
71.4
67.4
102.
119.
142.
141.
116.
109.
7.0-19.9
11.7
20.0
35.6
31.5
44.4
61.2
120.
160.
133.
125.
122.
89.6
64.8
71.5
72.5
85.0
135.
123.
97.5
102.
95.8
94.4
94,0
20.0-44.9
4.84
14.8
25.3
30.0
66.3
85.3
101.
132.
142.
101.
109.
106.
102.
67.4
86. 1
93.3
102.
95.8
90. 1
94.0
45 & up
10.0
22. 1
28.4
33.5
44.0
47.3
49.2
57.2
66.4
81.6
85.2
98.4
114.
142.
171.
129.
198.
Total
2303.
1990.
1648.
1377.
Fraction of Total 0.315
0.272
0.225
0. 188
-------
47
usage. No credible usage data are currently available, so estimates of
50 hours per year for an outboard motor' ' and 75 hours per year for an
outboard boat(^) will be considered. Assuming that there were 7. 3
million outboard motors in use at the end of 1971, the above estimate
of motor usage yields 365 million motor hours per year. The latter
estimate of 75 boat hours per year combined with an industry figure for
outboard boats in use (5. 315 million)(4) yields 399 million boat hours
per year. Assuming that an outboard boat always has a motor pushing it
(sometimes 2 motors), the boat usage method results in a higher motor
usage estimate than the motor usage method does. Since so many ap-
proximations and assumptions are necessary for this report, it is
deemed appropriate to choose the estimate which will result in the more
conservative impact estimate for outboards, namely that each motor is
used 50 hours per year.
To be really rigorous in calculating impact, average power output
for engines in each of the four power categories is needed. These values
could be multiplied by the population fractions at the bottom of Table 17
to determine a "power-weighted" population breakdown, but they cannot
be extracted from the available data. The only alternative is to assume
a value for average horsepower in each power category, and check the
resulting average power output for all motors against the known average
value of 24. 6 hp. Assuming values of 5 hp, 15 hp, 35 hp, and 65 hp
for the four categories, the resulting average power output is 25. 8 hp
(close enough to the known value) and the weighting factors for the
categories become (in order of increasing power) 0. 0612, 0. 158, 0. 306,
and 0.475. These factors are "full power" weighting factors, so to
derive a representation of the breakdown of power generated in the
field, they must be multiplied by their respective load factors given at
the bottom of Table 11. This process yields the factors 0.0261, 0.0722,
0. 112, and 0. 158 (designated Wk = (hp generated by engines in category/
(total hp available) ) for the power categories in order of increasing
power, and their sum (0. 368) is the overall composite load factor for
the entire motor population.
The power-based impact calculations now take the form
^ = (engine population) (avg. hp) (usage, ^11) ( * ^ - ) ( £ WkBk)
yr Yr V. U£ fxiu-'g k _ i
where the Bk are brake specific emission factors for the four engines in
g/hp hr.
Filling in the constants, this formula becomes
4
= 9.90x103 ( }_y wkBk).
-------
48
Note that the "full power" weighting factors are used only to determine
how much weight is given to brake specific emission factors for each
engine, not to calculate impact directly, which makes calculated impact
relatively insensitive to the accuracy of the assumed averages.
To calculate impact on a fuel basis, it is first necessary to com-
pute the fractions of total fuel used by engines in each category. These
fractions can be calculated by
Qk = (fraction of fuel)k = (fraction hp generated)k (BSFC)k
(fraction hp generated)k(BSFC)k
k = 1 4
WkBSFCk/ V Wk
k = 1
4 4
(W BSFCk/ y Wk)
/ /
k = 1 k - 1
where BSFCk brake specific fuel consumption (gal/hp hr) for each
category. The fuel-based impact calculations now assume the form
4
1 ton ( / k k )
I2E - (total fuel usage, gal/yr) (9>072xi05g) ^
where the Fk are the fuel specific emission factors for the four engines in
g/gal. The four values for Qk (for the categories in order of increasing
power) are 0. 0888, 0.239. 0.293, and 0. 378. The latest widely-quoted
figure for fuel consumption by pleasure boats is 1. 1 billion (1. 1x109)
gallons for the year 197l(5). This figure is intended to include fuel
used by inboard/outdrive units (255, 000) and gasoline-powered inboards
(730, 000 total inboards, no separate estimates for diesel and gasoline)'15).
If it is assumed that the total inboards included the inboard/outdrives,
and that 75% of inboards used gasoline rather than diesel fuel, it could
be estimated that about 550, 000 gasoline inboards were in use at the
end of 1971. If it is further assumed: that the inboard engines averaged
100 hp; that they were used 75 hours per year; that their average fuel
consumption was 0. 08 gal/hp hr; and that their average composite load
factor was 0. 333; then it can be estimated that gasoline inboards used
about 0. 11 billion gallons of fuel in 1971. This amount is 10% of the
total gasoline figure given above, making the estimated total for out-
boards 0. 99x10^ gallons. Although this estimate has been derived from
the only industry figure available, it is considered to be unrealistically
high because the industry fuel consumption figure is likewise considered
-------
49
high. Calculations will be carried out on both annual usage and fuel bases
for comparison, but impact calculated on the fuel basis will not be as-
sumed reliable.
Using the equations and statistics given above, the national impact
of outboard motor emissions for 1971 has been computed on both brake
specific and fuel specific bases. The impact data are given in Table 18
for total emissions as well as those calculated to end up in the atmos-
phere and in the water using assumptions stated earlier. As noted in
the title of Table 18, the impact numbers are for 2-stroke water-cooled
engines only. All inboard, inboard/outdrive, air-cooled outboard, and
4-stroke outboard motors are excluded from the impact estimate, the
latter two categories being assumed to have negligible impact and the
former two being omitted because they are outside the intended scope
of this project.
TABLE 18. NATIONAL IMPACT ESTIMATES FOR TWO-STROKE
WATER-COOLED OUTBOARD MOTOR EMISSIONS, 1971
Contaminant
HC
CO
C02
NOX as NO2
SOX as SO2
Contaminant
HC
CO
CO2
NOX as NO2
SOX as SO2
Contaminant
HC
CO
C02
NOX as NO2
SOX as SO2
Total Estimated Emissions, 10& tons per year
Brake Specific Basis
0.494
0.965
2. 38
0.0022
0.00106
*Estimated Atmospheric
Brake Specific Basis
0. 310
0. 917
1.41
0.0018
0. 00100
*Estimated Water Phase
Brake Specific Basis
0. 184
0. 0475
0.966
0.00039
0.000058
Fuel Specific Basis
0. 826
1.62
3.98
0. 00377
0. 00188
Emissions, 10 tons per year
Fuel Specific Basis
0. 520
1. 54
2.37
0.0031
0. 00178
Emissions, 10° tons per year
Fuel Specific Basis
0. 308
0.0796
1.62
0.00066
0.000102
*subject to qualifications given earlier.
-------
50
In the case of outboard motors, evaporative losses of fuel have not
been included in the impact estimates for several reasons. Spillage and
evaporation losses during fueling and fuel/oil mixing may be significant,
but no data on these losses are available. Evaporation from the car-
buretor during running is probably of less significance, but in any case
no data are available on this point either. It stands to reason that "hot
soak" losses such as those from automobile probably do not occur,
since outboard carburetors do not sit directly on top of the engines and
are not subjected to strong heat input following engine shutdown.
Evaporation from the fuel tank can occur if the tank vent does not
incorporate a one-way valve (preventing flow out of the tank) and if the
vent is left open. The fraction of tanks fulfilling these requirements for
evaporation is not known, however, so tank losses cannot be estimated.
In summary, it is highly probable that some evaporation losses occur,
but information necessary to a quantitative assessment of these losses
is not available.
The estimates of sulfur oxides (SOX) impact are based on a fuel
sulfur content of 0. 043% by weighti1'*) and the assumption that all the
sulfur which is oxidized at all is oxidized fully to SC>2° It is also assumed
that the fraction of sulfur being oxidized to SC>2 is the same as the frac-
tion of fuel being burned, a necessary assumption for 2-stroke engines,
and that the remainder is emitted as elemental sulfur (and not included
in the impact estimate).
The determination of which set of impact numbers (brake specific
or fuel specific) is more accurate hinges on the accuracy of the major
assumptions made about yearly usage and fuel consumption. The
problem with fuel consumption data is that the data-gathering process
is prohibitively complicated, so it must be assumed that published
numbers are no more than educated guesses. The estimate used for
annual usage is probably a guess also, but it seems reasonable (it
can be dealt with in terms of personal experience, whereas national fuel
consumption cannot) and it could be checked by a statistical survey much
more easily than fuel consumption could be. At this point, then, the
emissions impact calculated on a brake specific basis is considered
more reliable, and will be used to compare to EPA Inventory Data.
Another note on the applicability of the impact figures given in
Table 18 concerns the inclusion of older motors in a population charac-
terized by tests on new motors. If the design of outboards had been highly
evolutionary (at least in those sub-systems which might influence emis-
sions drastically), the age disparity would be a subject of concern. Such
drastic changes have not occurred, however, so it is doubtful that emis-
sions from older engines are greatly different than those from newer
engines.
-------
51
It should also be noted that this study forms no basis for deter-
mining the fate of exhaust products which are estimated to be retained in
either the water phase or the atmosphere. The organic constituents
scrubbed out by the water may stay there (soluble organics, for instance),
or they may rise to the surface and evaporate. Inorganic materials (CC>2
and NC>2) are probably dissolved and retained in the water, although no
sub-study was performed to prove it. Likewise, some constituents
which make their way to the atmosphere may remain there, but others
could remain close to the surface of the water and dissolve or condense
later; the time factors which may be involved in these processes are
simply not known.
A comparison of the impact estimates given in Table 18 to the most
recent EPA National Inventory Data^) is shown in Table 19. The in-
ventory data, of course, are for air pollutants only, so the percentages
in the columns at right are for atmospheric outboard emissions only.
Emissions of aldehydes were not calculated on a mass basis because
their overall impact would have been very low, probably about the same
order of magnitude as NOX. The concentration data on aldehydes should
be sufficient for characterization purposes.
TABLE 19. COMPARISON OF OUTBOARD NATIONAL IMPACT ESTIMATES
WITH EPA NATIONWIDE AIR POLLUTANT INVENTORY DATA
EPA Inventory Data Outboard Atmospheric
1970 106 tons/yr(9) Estimates as % of
Contaminant All Sources Mobile Sources All Sources Mobile Sources
HC 34.7 19.5 0.893 1.59
CO 147. 111. 0.624 0.826
NOX 22. 7 11.7 0.0079 0.015
33.9 1.0 0.0029 0.10
Although not necessary to the requirements of the present contract,
it may be desirable at some point to estimate impact for outboards in
some area other than the whole U. S. To this end, Table 20 has been
prepared to facilitate calculations. It should be noted that factors ex-
pressed in each unit are rather heavily qualified, and that they are con-
sidered to progress from most accurate to least accurate in approxi-
mately the order shown. In other words, more facts instead of assump-
tions should lead to more accurate impact calculations.
In assessing impact, importance is attached not only to the mass
emissions data, but also to the locales where and the times when the
emissions are released. For outboards, a large majority of emissions
undoubtedly occur in rural (rather than urban or suburban) areas, and
during non-working hours (probably weighted heavily toward weekends).
-------
TABLE 20. COMPOSITE EMISSION FACTORS
FOR USE IN SMALL-SCALE OUTBOARD MOTOR
IMPACT ESTIMATES (SUBJECT TO QUALIFICATIONS)
52
Emission Qualifi- Medium
Unit cations Affected
g/hp hr 1,2,3 Atmos.
Water
Exhaust Constituent
Total
g/gal fuel 1,2 Atmos.
Water
Total
g/motor hr 1,2,4 Atmos.
Water
Total
kg/motor yr 1,2,4,5 Atmos.
Water
Total
HC
84.9
50.5
135.
503.
299.
802.
769.
457.
1,230.
38.4
22.9
61.3
CO
252.
13.0
265.
1,490.
76.9
1,570.
2,280.
118.
2,400.
114.
5. 88
120.
CO?
388.
265.
653.
2,300.
1,570.
3, 870.
3,510.
2,400.
5,910.
176.
120.
296.
NO*
0.50
0.092
0. 59
3.0
0. 54
3.5
4. 5
0. 83
5.3
0.230
0.042
0. 270
so*
0.49
0.027
0. 52
2.9
0. 16
3. 1
4.4
0. 25
4.6
0. 220
0.012
0.230
List of Qualifications: 1. Based on Dec. 31, 1971 distribution of outboard
motors in the U.S. by size
2. Based on experimental data generated under the
subject program only.
3. Engine rated hp should be multiplied by applicable
load factor before using this unit.
4. Based on 24. 6 rated hp per motor and average
load factor of 0. 368
5. Based on 50 hr usage per year
The emissions are also undoubtedly seasonal, and the amounts
emitted in each area will depend on the length of the boating season there
as well as the concentration of boats. To make a seasonal/regional
analysis possible, the U. S. will be divided into northern, central, and
southern regions. The northern region is roughly between 49° and 43° N.
latitude, the central region between 43° and 37°, and the southern region
between 37° and 31°. States straddling the dividing lines will be placed
-------
53
in the region containing the majority of their populations. In addition,
the boating season will be assumed as 6 months in the northern region,
7 months in the central region, and 8 months in the southern region.
An estimated distribution of outboard motors by state' ' is included as
Appendix E, and it has been used in conjunction with the assumptions
above to arrive at the breakdowns given in Table 21. According to this
analysis, some 84% of all outboard emissions occur in the mid-summer
months and 16% in the fall. About 15% appear to occur in the northern
region, 47% in the central region, and 38% in the southern region.
These results can be combined with the overall impact data to obtain
mass emissions by season and region if such an analysis is desired.
TABLE 21. SUMMARY OF REGIONAL AND SEASONAL
VARIATION OF OUTBOARD MOTOR EMISSIONS
Percentage of Annual Emissions by Season Regional
Region Dec. -Feb. Mar. -May Jun. -Aug. Sep. -Nov. Subtotals
Northern 0.00 7.28 7.28 0.00 14.6
Central 0.00 20.2 20.2 6.76 47.2
Southern 0.00 14.4 14.4 9. 58 38. 3
Seasonal
Subtotals 0.00 41. 9 41.9 16.3
Total 100. 1
A simplified analysis such as that just described has obvious
inaccuracies, but it is still useful in determining overall usage and emission
patterns. It is also interesting to note that well over half the outboards
in use (3, 902, 000) are concentrated in the ten states having the largest
motor populations. Motor concentrations seem to be highest in coastal
states and those bordering the Great Lakes, which is quite logical. The
three west coast states account for 10.4% of all outboards, three Gulf
coast states (not including Mississippi and Alabama, which have only little
coastline) account for 15. 3%, and the eight states bordering the Great Lakes
account for 37. 6%. Taking into account the 17. 1% of outboards in the.Atlaniic
coast states (other than Florida and New York, already accounted for), only
about 20% of outboards are in inland states. This is not to say that boats in
states bordering large bodies of water are always operated offshore, because
these same states also have numerous inland lakes, but the pattern of con-
centration around the country's borders is interesting.
-------
54
VI. SUMMARY
This report covers a study of exhaust emissions from outboard
motors, and it is Part 2 of a planned seven-part final report on "Exhaust
Emissions from Uncontrolled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using
Internal Combustion Engines, " Contract No. EHS 70-108. It includes
documentation and discussion on characterization of exhaust emissions
from four water-cooled 2-stroke outboard motors (sections III and IV),
and estimation of emission factors and national impact (section V). The
testing was restricted to water-cooled 2-stroke engines because they
dominate the field (estimates of the number of motors not in the category
are 5% or less). As a part of the final report on the characterization phase
of EHS 70-108, this report does not include information on aircraft turbine
emissions, outboard motor crankcase drainage (except for qualitative
mention), or locomotive emissions control technology. As required by
the contract, these three latter areas have been or will be reported on
separately.
Emissions tests on the four outboard motors; an OMC (Johnson) 4 hp,
an OMC (Johnson) 9. 5 hp, a Chrysler 35 hp, and a Mercury 65 hp; were
conducted in the Emissions Research Laboratory on stationary test stands,
with power absorption by eddy-current dynamometers connected to the
propeller shafts. Emission concentrations were measured both before and
after the exhaust gases were bubbled through water to determine amounts
of exhaust constituents which remained in the water phase and which
bubbled through into the atmosphere (subject to restrictions of the laboratory
situation). Special tests were conducted with one engine to evaluate the
effects of turbulence, bubble size, and waterrexhaust gas ratio on the
scrubbing of exhaust gases by the water.
Exhaust constituents measured were total hydrocarbons by FIA;
NOX and NO by chemiluminescence; hydrocarbons, CO, CO2, and NO by
NDIR; 02 by electrochemical analyzer; aldehydes by wet chemistry; and
light hydrocarbons by gas chromatograph. National impact was calculated
for hydrocarbons, CO, CO2, and NOX for both the air and water phases.
Expressing the atmospheric emissions from outboards as percentages of
1970 national totals from all sources^ , outboard hydrocarbons amounted
to 0. 893%, outboard CO was 0. 624%, NOX was 0.0079% and SOX was 0.0029%.
As percentages of mobile source emissions, outboard hydrocarbons were
1. 59%, outboard CO was 0. 826%, NOX 0.015%, and outboard SOX was 0. 10%.
Emissions of CO2, while not relatable to available source inventories, may
be of more interest from a water pollution standpoint than from an air
pollution standpoint. Regarding the regional aspects of pollution from out-
boards, it is estimated that about 15% occurs in the northern third of the
country, 47% in the central third, and 38% in the southern third. Estimates
of motor populations by state also show that about 80% of outboards are con-
centrated in states bordering the oceans or the Great Lakes, but the fraction
of operating time spent offshore as compared to that spent on inland waters
is not known.
-------
55
To make a more accurate assessment of outboard emissions,
additional testing including some newer types of engines would be re-
quired. It would also be of interest to include a rotary outboard such
as those manufactured by Yanmar of Japan, because it is likely that
Wankels will soon find application in outboards. Another refinement
could be added by conducting some sort of usage survey, perhaps with
simple hour meters connected to engines running in various places
around the country, to make the utilization numbers more accurate for
various size classes of motors.
Although it was not an objective of this project, work should be
done to define the mixing of exhaust gases and water in the real situation
more precisely. This work might initially involve underwater photography
of a number of engine/propeller/hull/speed combinations to determine a
range of bubble sizes and residence times and some kind of a turbulence
index. That information could then serve as basis for design of a fluid
dynamic simulator which could be used for further studies. An additional
study to determine characteristics of a number of lakes and rivers (tem-
perature, pH, etc. ) would serve to shed more light on the chemistry of
the mass transfer process.
-------
LIST OF REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Personal communication from M. Boerma of OMC to C. T. Hare
dated January 17, 1972, regarding boat load and boat usage surveys
conducted by OMC.
2. Federal Register, Volume 35, No. 219, November 10, 1970, Part II,
p. 17294.
3. Personal communication from M. Boerma of OMC to C. T. Hare
dated September 8, 1972, regarding updating of boat usage survey
information gathered by OMC.
4. Boating 1971 - A Statistical Report on America's Top Family Sport.
Boating Industry Associations, 401 North Michigan Avenue, Chicago,
Illinois 60611.
5. The Boating Business 1971. The Boating Industry.
6. Recreational Boating Registration Statistics from USCG Report
CG-357, distributed by National Association of Engine and Boat
Manufacturers, May 1970.
7. R. A. Walter, et al, USCG Pollution Abatement Program: A
Preliminary Study of Vessel and Boat Exhaust Emissions, Report
No. DOT-TSC-USCG-72-3, November 1971.
8, Oral presentation given to South Texas Section of the Society of
Automotive Engineers by Don Reed of the Boating Industry Associa-
tions, February 23, 1972.
9. 1970 EPA Air Pollution Inventory Estimates, Annual Report of
the Council on Environmental Quality.
10. Proceedings, Fifth National Conference on Access to Recreational
Waters, September 17.-20, 1967, Boston, Massachusetts.
11. Outboard Marine Corporation Examines Air and Water Pollution,
S. L. Metcalf, Chief Engineer, Presented to EXHAUST EMISSION
INSTITUTE, University of Wisconsin, October 19 and 20, 1967.
12. Effect of Power Boat Fuel Exhaust on Florida Lakes, distributed
by Marine Exhaust Research Council, prepared by Environmental
Engineering, Inc. , 2324 S. W. 34th Street, Gainesville, Florida
32601.
-------
57
LIST OF REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY (Cont'd)
13. Personal communication from Don Reed of the Boating Industry
Associations to William Rogers Oliver of the Environmental
Protection Agency, August 8, 1972.
14. Petroleum Products Survey No. 73, U. S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Mines, January 1972.
-------
APPENDIX A
EMISSIONS DATA ON A JOHNSON 4R71 ENGINE
-------
A-2
JEST DATA ON ^OWNSOM 4*71 OUTfcOARD
- 1/27/72 \\-2Bfc9-01
MODE
1
1 A
Z
2 A
3
3 A
4
4- A.
£
£A
6
6 A
F1A HYDROCARBONS , )=lpm C * 10'* C^JE-T)
RUN NUMBER
5
4,92
4.2.0
4.2.O
3.1(o
3.fc4
3.3G>
5.32
3. 12.
6
S.14
2>.9fc
4. SB
3.72.
4.76
4-OO
5.
2..G3
2.84
3.04
6.32
4. 0&
8.SG>
6.24
\ I
5.2.4
5. 12.
4.24
3.12.
3.9&
2.8O
5.1ft
3-12
8.10
fc.Ko
/WER^&E-
OR TYPICAL
VAUOE.
5-2O
4.2O
4,2>0
MODt
1
1 A
2
2 A
3
3 A
4
4 A
£
S A
6
6A
ND1R HYDRO CAR E>ONS> , )p lr>~ C ^VO"* (tUE-T>
RUN NUM6ER.
S
6
2.. 15
2..&S
2.4O
Z.G»5
2..G3
2.. &(b
•7
3-4-0
4-02.
2.2^
2-7O
2. 41
2, 1 1
3, \9
i. 23
4. IB
5.42
5. 93
6.44-
8
2,. 80
3. M
2.48
U<)7
2. 1 2.
2.75
2.U
\.97
3.51
5.43
6. &4
-7,30
9
3.01
3.24
2. \2
2.3X
2,00
2.04
2.58
2.87
4. 5G
4-55
5-50
5.75
10
2.97
3.53
2.61
2.Gfe
2.£Z
2.7\
3. 1 1
5.1&
4.G>7
3.12
(b.SB
(b.4(b
\\
3. e>9
3.53
2.48
2.99
2.40
2.55
3.02.
3.24
5.57
5,75
7.2 |
8.09
WERA&E.
OH TYPICAL
VALOE
3.2\
3.49
2. 3G
2.55
2.31
2.47
2.8(0
2.&<)
4.50
4.85
6.4-2.
(b.&i
-------
A-3
JEST DATA
I/4/T2-
ON JOHNSON
I /27/72
4R71 OUTBOARD MOTOR
\\-26fc9-Ot
MODE
1
1 A
I
2 A
3
3 A
4
4A
£
SA
9
fc.tC,
7
3.11
3,4&
3.2.4
3.1 1
3.(o7
4,13
4.93
£.46
5.3(p
5.88
5.52
6.02.
&
4.7&
4.99
5-95
6.4C,
5.13
5.3C.
3
2.20
2.43
a. 42.
3.30
3.9fe
4-. 21
5,10
5,2.4
5.61
5,70
5.34
5.31
to
4.33
4. OS
4.CAL
VAUUE.
2>. »2.
3- » 9
3. 91
3. 69
4-32
4.38
4.^.5
4-89
6-33
S.54-
5,19
5.4-0
MODE
1
1 A
2
2 A
3
3 A
4
4 A
£
S A
6
6A
ND1R CO,. > VOLUMt % (U)ET)
RUN NUM&ER
S
8.0)5
5-6)6
$.75
5,\8
&.G2
8
-7.19
5. It
Co. 2-5
3.83
1. \1.
4.48
£.23
4.59
4.H
4.3£
•7
S.&(o
(b.07
9,31
7.43
7,73
G.8G
7.G3
5-83
5,75
S.03
S.SG
4,41
8
a.B3
(b.OO
8.42
6.54
7,67
fe.OO
fo, G>G
4.90
5.42
L4-23
4.89
4.35
9
8.06
6,40
7.97
(b,72
l.(a&
G.48
^,12
S.G4
S.38
4-S7
4-(o^
3.28
10
G,18
G. 17
7.84
5-20
7.5 1
6.09
7.S4-
S.5C,
5.89
5-(o4
5.\\
4.»0
\1
-7.49
(b. iC=
8-57
7.20
8-9(o
7-35
7,39
4.43
5, SI
4.SC,
5-23
4.30,
AVERA&E
01^ TYP1C.AL
VALUE
7,55
5.84
8.38
(0.2.9
7. &0
G. 17
7. i&
5.1 4
5-10
•4-82.
5.07
4- 14
-------
A-4
TEST DATA ON
1/4/71- 1/27/72
4R.H OUTE-OARD MOTOR
\\-28fc9-OI
MODE
1
1 A
I
2 A
3
3 A
4
4A.
£
5A
6
6 A
Ch EM \LUMIIVJESCEKJT NO* , Y>*>™ (WET)
RUN NUMBER
5
34-
37
,
6
1 19
7fe
37
41
\4
20
2-fc
2-8
7.1
6.8
S 4
3.9
7
134
1 1 (,
59
55
2-9
33
15
14
5.3
2.9
5.3
3.9
e>
38
41
18
24
7.1
7-8
4.5
2.9
S
2.4-4
10 I
74
7C,
43
£ \
19
15
8-9
3.9
9.9
3.9
to
88
I 24
50
43
43
41
11
Z2
6
£.3
3.9
&.2
3.9
AVERAGE.
OR TYP^CAL
VALUE-
ISO
12-7
51
54-
33
3G
2.0
zo
(o.G
£.0
fe.l
S.G,
MODt
1
1 A
2
2 A
3
3 A
4
4 A
£
£ A
6
fcA
CHEMlLUMiM ESCEMT NO/ |p)f>~ (>UET)
RUN NUM&ER.
5
50
51
6
I XX
u
31
35
12.
1C,
21
Z3
G.I
8,6
4.S
3.9
7
U3
! 15
35
49
32.
33
1 I
11
3.0,
Z.9
-
5,5
5.9
8
35
39
14
19
5.5
1.8
3.G
r 3.9
9
197
I(o7
(c7
71
39
41
14
15
3.C,
2,9
3.Q,
2.9
10
70
90
42.
41
11
39
19
10
2.7
2.0
2,7
2,0
n
117
\21
4G
51
19
2.9
a
1C,
3,0
2.9
3.C,
2.9
WERA&t
OR TYPICAL
VALUE
124
1 1 1
44
49
2s 1
34
1C,
IB
4.1
4-0,
3.9
3.2
-------
A-5
JEST DATA ON
1/4/11- 1/27/72
4R~M OUTBOARD MOTOR.
\\-Z6fc9-OI
MODE
1
1 A
^
2 A
3
3 A
4
4A
£
£A
6
6 A
NDI R NO , ^m (WET)
RUM NUMBER
5
1 2.3
1 1 1
83
S4
7Z
59
91
7t>
13
G&
€>
1 s?
I 00
76
&4-
69
~l(o
65
66
55
G>1
"7O
68
7
174
119
93
\ 31
")\
<52
(b5
Gl
59
G8
77
7G
e>
64
92.
55
)
SI
84
81
64
12_
Q>9
56
(ol
80
Q>9
\ t
» SB
» &3
» » 5
\ 0&
I 15
1 OS
12
<°9
"73
G>l
\ 1 (e
\ \ (o
A.VERA&E
OR TYPVCAL
VALUE-
ISO
145
<>&
\ 05
&1
89
(o7
(o4
4-.Q,
5.G
4.9
£.2
4.9
5.4
8
6.8
8.1
5.G
6,7
4.8
5.1
5.2.
6.0
G.G
7,3
7-2
B.I
9
4.9
6-4
4.1
(o.l
4-9
6.7
10
4.4
5.4
3.S
6.2.
3.7
4-7
3.g>
s. \
4,S
6.4 J
5.3
6.7
il
4.9
(o.4
4-2.
5.5
4.0
£.4
4.2
£.7
5,4
6.9
5.9
7.4
AVERA&E
OR TYP1C.AL
VALUE.
•r,.\
7.3
5.9
-------
A-6
JEST DATA ON -iOWNSON 4R7.1 OUTBOARD MOTOR
I/4-/12.- 1/27/72 \\-28fc9-OI
MODEL
1
1 A
2
2 A
3
3 A
4
4/\
£
5A
6
6 A
FOEL COMSOMPTtO/V) , 'b~/Vxv (.MORTAL AMD "A" MODES)
RUN NUMBER
5
£
7
e>
4.1 I
2.7(.
4.") 4
I.ZS
v.OO
0.^0
9
4. 04
i.80
1-87
». \?
I- 01
0.97
* \o
3.34-
2.t>^
\- BZ
1. I (o
0.93
0-9&
* \l
5.4Z
2.5&
2.0^-
\. 29
1.05
0.9&
AVERAGE.
OR TYPICAL
VALUE.
4-08/*3.3,6
2'^/2.(oO
1,92
I. 2.2.
1. 0)
0.9G
* NEiAj FULL PUMP INSTALLED PR.\OR- TO E.OKJ >0
MODE
1
1 A
2
2 A
3
3 A
4
4 A
£
S A
6
*A* MODES)
RUN NUM&EK
s
6
7
8
IBID
12,50
88O
5(b7
4-S4
4-08
9
IB 30
12.70
848
539
4-BS
440
* 10
15ZO
M60
&2.S
52- G
422.
445
* n
isso
mo
92S
585
47fe
445
AVERAC-E
OR TYP1C.AL
VALUE.
IB50As30
lifc°An«)
B70
553
458
4S5
-------
APPENDIX B
EMISSIONS DATA ON A JOHNSON 9R72 ENGINE.
-------
TEST DATA ON JOHNS.ON
B-2
K\> OUTBOARD MOTOR.
MODE
I
IA
I
2.A
3
3A
4
4- A
5
5A
*>•* c. x\0"4 (uoET)
1
3.3)0
2,fcfc
2.84
1,52
3.4ft
1,91
fc.Bl
3.49
9.78
5.33
10.22
5.42
RUN NOMBER
2.
3.42
2.0ft
4-04
2.12
S.S(o
2.8&
-?.I2
3.44
8.4
4.48
9.3k
4M
3
3.4k
2.1fc
4.04
2.2.8
4-90
2.&0
5.1Z
3.20
6.0ft
3.44
l.Gfc
4.lfc
4-
3.30
2.08
3, (08
2.20
4.fc4
2.86
5.12
2.92
S.lt.
2.80
fc.Sfc
3.-7G
5
3.54
2.4ft
4.04
2.52
£.\2
3>3fc
5.H
3.^C x iQ'4 (IJOET)"
RON NOMBER
I
Z.3G>
3-01
2-. 81
3.21
3.00
4.03
4-
1.30
1-12
1-90
\.8S
2.
-------
B-3
TEST DATA ON JOHNSON <}.£ H\> OUTBOARD MOTOR.
MODE
1
1 A
2
1A
3
3A
4
4- A
5
5A
fc
fcA
ND\R CO, VOLUME- % CUJET)
1
4.iG
4.83
3.G
4.50
3-4 \
7
5.25
(b.2.7
4-99
4-(b4
3.24
4.04
3.0&
7
7.72
5-71
7-94
5.4J
7.18
5-Ofe
G.77
5.0
-------
B-4
TEST DAT/\ ON JOHNSON 9.5 Kip OUTBOARD MOTOR.
MODE
1
I A
2
1A
3
3 A
4-
4-A
5
5A
l»w (WET)
RUN NOMBER.
I
8l
4-0
39
13
10
14
12.
2.
IS
IG
55
5G
32
3^
19
15
5-9
3.G
fc,2
4.3
3
7B
85
52
5G
3.0
30
\1
It
5.)
4.6
5.3
4.B
4-
95
104
58
55
39
34-
»9
»9
G.4
(c.7
(b.(o
5,3
5
80
91
57
5d
34
33
»9
n
3.5
»-9
3.5
2.9
MLVJE
80
&(o
53
5G
33
31
11
O
6,7
5-0
6.9
5,4-
MODE
1
1 A
1
2A
3
3A
4-
4A
5
SA
fc
bA
CHEM\LUM»N)ESCENJT M'o, y>^^ (IU^T)
RUN NUMBER
»
80
73
4B
5£
2.7
3»
£8
31
7.0
5.8
9.0
fc-7
2
75
78
42
4ft
24
24
l?>
12.
3.9
24
3,1
2-9
3
G>9
61
41
53
X7
2G
\5
15
35
z.9
4.2
1.5
4-
61
99
49
53
28
31
1G
IG
4.8
4.8
4,4
3.8
5
12
B2
52.
53
2.&
31
15
IG
2.0
!•>
2.G
»•>
7G
48
52
Z7
2J
14
»S
4,2
z.9
s.l
S.B
A\JER./\^E
OK. TYPICAL
VALUE
13
80
47
53
27
29
1&
n
4.2
3.4
4.9
3.G
-------
B-5
TEST DATA ON JOt\NS,ON OUTBOARD MOTOR.
MODE
I
IA
2.
2.A
3
3A
4-
4-A
5
5A
fc
fcA
ND1R NO, »A* OJOET)
RUN NUMBER
1
lit
94
110
101
95
94
8G
&o
4Z
S3
7)
fcO
2.
90
\01
-75
60
"19
80
19
80
Ifc
OO
\0fc
87
87
11
15
Q>5
ET)
RUN NUMBER
\
3.t
4..S
G.&
">.l
7.S
8.3
2.
3.B
4,4
4.3
4-9
£.5
(o.l
5.S
5.0
7.0
1.&
8.0
9.3
3
3.&
4.Z
3-1
4-9
4-6
5.8
5.2.
5-4
(o.O
G.9
fc.7
1.8
4-
3.5
4-3
4-3
5.3
5.3
&.3
5.5
Q-8
(o.O
Q>. 8
fc-8
7.8
5
3.t
4.G
4.0
5.1
5.0
fe.O
5.S
G.4
7.4
8.4
8.4
9.5
4,3
5.3
5.3
5.8
5.S
.3
Q>.7
7-t
7-7
6.7
-------
B-6
TEST DATA ON JOKNS.ON OUTBOARD MOTOR
MODE
1
I A
i
2LA
3
3A
4-
4-A
5
5A
6
7
3.94
4,07
1-99
1.93
1,59
l.fci
4-
&.09
6,\4
7.09
7.05
5.9 1
6.90
3.&0
3.73
I. GO
\,55
I.S(p
1.52.
5
7.&I
-7.BG
7.2.Z
7.2.Z
5.B8
5.&G
3.74
3.t4
2,2.1
2..3Z
1. 70)
1-7 \
(b
8.08
B,»7
7.35
7-^0
G..1&
&. 19
4.09
4.07
Z.2.S
2.2.0
\.7S
».77
7
7,95
8.00
7.3G
7.2.B
(b.2.7
G.30
4.\&
4-J3
2.00
2.01
l.fts
\-B4-
8
8.37
ft.37
7.3»
7.38
s.%
5.97
3.74
3.73
2.1 1
2.|0
I.&B
I.BG
A>JERAe-E
OR TOPICAL
VALOE.
8,n
8,14
7.35
1.35
6.05
3A
4-
4A
5
SA
ft
feA
FUEL CONSUMPTION) , V**
RUN NOM BER.
1
3710
3GGO
3370
3370
2&00
2810
^850
i860
990
990
700
3G30
3340
3350
ZB50
2-860
1900
1870
9 )0
9)4
82,9
834
8
3800
3800
3320
3350
2.100
2110
noo
1&90
9G.O
95S
8SS
84S
AMERAG-E
OR. TYPICAL
VALUE
3&&0
3700
3330
333.O
^770
2180
1800
1790
925
924
790
193
-------
APPENDIX C
EMISSIONS DATA ON A CHRYSLER 356HA ENGINE
-------
C-2
TEST DATA, ON CHRYSLER 35
OUTBOARD MOTOR.
MODE
1
IA
2
2A
3
3A
4
4A
5
5A
fc
fcA
FIA HYDROCAR&OiOS, |>|>m C x. \0~* (.WET)
1
4. OB
2.40
3.B8
2.5(b
4-fcZ
3.04
5.2&
3.1 (b
7.12.
4.9Q>
10.12
7.»2
RUN NOMBEP.
£
4.00
3.04
3.7G,
2-72.
3.(b4
2.48
3.12.
2.40
5.\1
3.44
7.44
4-4&
3
3.44
2.40
3.40
2.. l&
4.4^
2,9fc
5.2.Z
3. 48
1.9fc
5.4>0
»0. 9G
6.9Z
4-
4..fcZ
2.52
4.0ft
3.04
s.fco
3.74-
6. Q>4
5.92.
7
5.K C. x \0"4 ^WET)
RUN NUM&ER
»
1.85
».49
\.94
2.14
1.48
2.02
1-82
2.0
1.80
1.88
t.93
2.23
1.92.
1.88
2.4-1
2.fcO
4.8 \
5.(o7
fc.22
7.2>\
4-
2.0fc
2.50
1.88
Z.23
2.35
2.94
2.55
3.20
4.89
5-0)7
5.
-------
TEST DATA* ON CHRYSLER. 2£
C-3
OUTBOARD MOTOR
MODE
!
IA
2.
2A
3
3A
4
4A
5
5A
fe
&A
ND1R. CO, NJOLOME- % (.WET)
1
.3.OQ>
7.XO
5,08
5.16
5.16
S.fct
4- 1C.
5.2.1
RUN NOM&ER
£
1.38
&«34
5.B9
(b.feft
S.3&
5.05
5.47
4-
7.16
8.33
fc.91
7.15
fe.57
7.4t
(b.2L4
(b.84-
S.fot
fc.2.0
4-94
S.Z7
S
fe.7\
7.5S
(».17
l.bS
((,.&,&
1-41
.92
1.83
(b.2.0
l.OZ
Q>.\7
1.04
5,74
fo.35
S.Sfc
5.84
4.90
5-2,0
.17
4.\7
(b.£2
4-70
.48
4.54
5.<)9
4,20
5.43
3,.
-------
TEST DATA, ON CHRYSLER 35 KJ> OUTBOARD
C-4
MODE
1
IA
2.
1A
3
3A
4-
4A
5
5A
€>
feA
CHEM»LUMlNtSCENT NO*, ^~ O>ET)
1
52.
50
SO
48
3
4,8
3
4Q,
41
46
43
3fc
2.7
^7
17
18
S.3,
»3
5.8
4
35
2fc
39
2.9
32
2.0
i2
Vi
l(b
2.5
\5
1-9
5
48
40
43
35
33
»9
1G
\B
O
10
id
3.0
ANERAG-E
OR TYPICAL
VALUE
1-5
44
59
40.
4-0
33
11
2
|7
41
18
34
19
2.2
9
l&
3.4
J^ODE
1
IA
1
1A
3
3A
4
4A
5
5A
e>
&A
CHEMILOMI NESC EAJT NO, |p|»^ C^OtT)'
RUN NUMBER
\
43
4G
40
43
2.Z
<9
19
18
5,0,
4.8
»7
\5
n
2.C,
M
3.5
\.2.
5
2>t
37
30
33
>8
O
15
15
5,3
3.9
fc.l
4-3
G
2-4
2-1
Ib
l&
10
8.G
5.3
3.9
1
17
18
18
\7
10
9.0
5.0
3-0
WER.AG-E
OR TYPICAL
V/VLOE.
I-S
35
35
35
3fc
10
19
»7
17
4.8
3-9
5,2.
3.G
6H
—
it
2.4
17
l&
10
8.8
5.)
3,5
-------
TEST DATA, ON CHRYSLER
C-5
\>\> OUTBOARD MOTOR
MODE
1
IA
^
2A
3
3A
4
4A
5
5A
fc
feA
ND1R NO, »>»>•* UOET)
1
50
4C,
4-7
53
51
40
3
G>7
70
Col
98
BO
3
53
foO
61
-73
90
BO
72
13
73
67
60
73
4-
B
(b7
71
73
GO
GO
70
73
80
BO
6
89
94
80
&0
92
BO
102.
80
7
71
0.7
&3
73
77
73
8G
G>7
ANERftG-t
OR TVPICAL
VALUE
1-5
65
0.8
73
73
78
75
W
64-
Cb7
G>1
80
72
.G
3.5
4,4
4-B
5-8
G.9
7-B
7
a.9
3.7
3.4
4.2.
4.B
S.Q>
fc.9
fe.O
/VMER.AG-&
OR TYPICAL
VALOE
1-5
-bA
4.3
3.1
4.0
3.8
4.6
4.1
5.0
5.1
5-7
G.O
(0.8
GO
3.0
3.G
3-4
4.3
4,8>
5,7
Q..9
7.9
-------
C-6
TEST DATA, ON CHRYSLER
OUTBOARD MOTOR
MODE
1
IA.
2
2A
3
3A
4
4A
5
5A
€>
6A
FUEL CONSUMPTION), V^~/W
\
ZG.O
2S.8
IG>.9
n.o
U.4
U.3
1.2G
7.44
3.1J
3.B9
4,17
4.14
RUN NOMBEP.
2.
27.0
2C,B
l(D.B
n.o
12.3
11.2.
1.18
1.32.
3.71
3.\i
11.2
11.4
11.3
11-3
l.Bt
I.b8
4.44
4.5!
*IODE
1
U
1
1A
3
3A
4
4A
5
5A
6
GA
FUEL. eONSUMPT\ON, %/Vw^
RUN NUMBER.
\
H,800
\ 1,100
7G(oO
1100
5G4O
5S80
32-90
3360
112.0
1770
IB90
»920
Z
1 2,ZOO
12,200
It 10
1100
5510
5S10
3300
3320
I(b80
lG>40
I7»0
1&2.0
3
\\,600
11,500
1590
1G>40
53GO
5410
3570
3590
I9b0
1970
2Z40
Z13O
4-
n,ioo
UX700
&\10
8 HO
5750
5790
2>felO
350
5
U,400
l\,300
TblO
1930
500
3590
1930
1890
2080
2080
G
1820
1900
5520
54&0
3510
3590
2060
2050
1
1800
l&SO
SfclO
5
-------
APPENDIX D
EMISSIONS DATA ON A MERCURY 650 ENGINE
-------
D-2
TEST DATA ON MERCURY .52
5.O4
7.22
5. 52
4-
4--GB
3.04
4.00
2.56
3,53
2.28
5.16
3.^1
6.00
4.64
7. 22
5.84
8.04
7. 2O
5
4.8G
3. 12
4.44
4.44
3.74
2.5(6
4.8G
3.80
5.88
4.64
6.96
s.66
7.9G
G.&O
6
4-68
3.40
4.00
2.80
3.74
2.56
4-4G,
2.32
5,ft&
4.G4
6.94
5. 6O
ft. 08
KCMO"4 (lAJET)
RUN NUMBER
2
2.64
2.8 I
2. SO
2.45
2. 14
2. 15
3.15
2.50
- - --
3
3.2. 1
3,77
3.04
3.24-
2,41
2,G£"
3.01
3.17
4.B9
s7\5
4
. _ . .. _
s
G
3.35
2.(bO
3.14
3. 17
1-68
1.89
3. 14
3.45
4.41
4,77
5.63
5,91
AOJERA&E
OR TVPtCAL
VALUE
3.07
3.0G
2.81)
Z.9S
Z.I4-
2.23
3. 1O
3.24
4-65
4.9G
5.63
5.3 1
-------
D-3
TEST DATA ON MERCURV
Z/2-1/T2. -
OUTBOARD MOTOR
MODE
I
1 A
2
I A
3
5 A
4-
4A
£"
5 A
3.58
2.78
G
3.IO
3.4-8
2.12
3.0G
3.34
3. &3
4.
7. 14
4.17
7.82
G.32.
7.92
5.04
6.44
4.90
5.&4
4-78
4- l
-------
D-4
TEST DATA ON MERCURY fc£0 OUTBOARD MOTOR
- 2/2.8 7-72. H
MODE.
1
I A
1
1A
3
5 A
4
4-A
5"
S A
A
7
1 A
CHEHIUUM INESCLEIOT NO, . \>P~ (WET1}
2
186
186
113
12O
11
88
12
il
0>
4
7
3
(o
4
RUN NIUHBER.
3
156
»55
320
21
\ ai
\l(o
10
G>9
IG
10
G
5
G
4-
e>
5
&
4
7
4
AVERAGE
OR TYPltAL
VALUE
113
I&G
222
2.10
19
8(0
n
1(0
7A
5,0
1,4
i-8
6.C,
4.4-
MODE
1
1 A
2
Z A
3
3 A
4-
4 ^
5
5 A
G
6 A
7
7 A
C HEMILU MlfOtSCEMT NO, Up"" CujET)
RUN NVJMS&R
2
170
181
zoi
215
6&
1&
8
8
2
2
4
2
3
2
3
138
138
231
2 £5
98
101
\
17
4
2.
4
3
5
3
G
»7G
142
I 98
Z25
-------
TEST DATA ON MERCURY orr> ~.
D-5
MODE.
1
\ A
2
1A
3
3 A
4
4A
S
5 A
G
6 A
7
1 A
NIMK NO, H"« (.UJET)
RUN NUMBER.
2
14-2
\55
1&3
H9
75
76
41
23
28
IS
4-G,
38
51
53
3
130
12)1
174
139
80
16
38
4
-------
MODE.
1
1 A
1
Z A
3
3 A
4
4 A
£
5 A
6
G A
7
1 A
FUEL CONSUMPT\OM , lb«A*
RUN NUMBER.
2
4O
47-4
3fc.9
3fc.£
24.7
24-9
a. 4
lt.4
12.0
12.0
10.4
\0,G
7.14
7.0<)
3
46,9
47,1
37.5
2>7.2
24.4
24.4
\7.3
17.5
12.2
12.5
10.3
\o-4
fc.89
7.0(o
4-
4-5.7
4\»ERAGE
OR TYPICAL
VA.LUE
44,1
4-(o.8
2>1,3
37.2
2.4.7
24-7
11.0
n.2
*2.0
\2.0
\0.t
lO.fc
l.fcl
7.51
MODE
1
1 A
2
Z A
3
3 A
4-
4 A
5
5 A
G
6 A
7
7 A
FUEL. CONSUMPTION , V>\*
RUN NUMBER
2
Z\,300
2^1,500
lib/700
Kb/ 70
472,0
31 2,0
5200
4
2.0,700
iO/900
n,ioo
n/300
n, too
n, 100
76>ZO
7fo2-0
53SO
S490
4720
4710
3\90
3090
5
2.1,000
2.\, 100
Kb/BOO
Ko,«)00
l\,300
\\.300
&070
&<2.0
54^0
5350
4-85O
4&5O
4030
3880
G
210,300
2.\,2.0O
I (o,9 00
\(o,BOO
\l,2,00
\\,300
~7fo70
7BSO
5350
52>\0
4^90
5030
3G70
3Q>40
ANERA&E
OR TYP\CAL
VAtOE
20,900
Z\,260
l
-------
D-7
SPECIAL TtS»T DATA ON MERCORy fcSO OUTBOARD MOTOR
MODE
1
I *
1 6
i
3 A
3 &
5
5 A
5 B>
2
1 *
1 &
FIA HYDROCARE>OK)SX H>m C K icf4" (UJET)
1
5,19
4-20
4.00
3,83
2,fc5
2.48
(b.20
5.04
4.62.
9.53
8.20
8.00
2
5,27
3.92
3,70
3.75
2,45
2,4-1
5,20
4.80
10-00
8-40
8.40
3
5.2.9
2), 14
3.12.
3-91
2-4fc
2.37
6,83
5.00,
4.fc&
9,17
7,30
7.25
TESTT NUMBER
4-
5.0&
3.30
3,20
3.GG
2,52
2,28
4-
S.Sfc
3>73
2,52.
2.43
6,59
4.90
4,76
8,90
fo.95
fc,90
MODE
1
J_ A_
1 &
3
3 A
3 &
5
5 A
5 &
7
1 A
7 B
NDIR HV DROCARBON3SX |>HC x^0~4 (UJET)
TEST NUMBER
1
2.
2,
2.55
2.48
4.48
5.02
4,90
7. 18
7. 5fc
^7,55
5
3,23
3.SG
3.73
2.25
2.7G
2.65
4-0,3
5,52
5.(b7
8.44
a 85
9.H
<0
3,21
3.69
3.49
2.Z8
2. 0,8
2.(b5
4.72
4- 97
5.09
7-7 1
8,09
8.23
7
4-90
5.31
5,13
3.52
2>.H
3,99
&
3,43
3,&\
3.77
2.45
2.9fc
1.84
3.98
4.42
4.54
7.9 \
8,41
8.69
9
2.9G
3,39
3,25
2.12
2.50
2,45
3.4G
3.80
4,3ft
5-4S
5,91
G.07
-------
SPECIAL TtST DATA ON MtRCURy fcSO OUTBOARD
D-8
MODE.
1
1 *
1 6
3
3 A
3 B
5
S *
5 B
1
1 A
1 B
NblR CO , VOLUME. % (WET)
1
21.99
3.34
3.32.
3,4-3
3.10
3.9G
4.33
4,&e>
4,82
3.1Q>
3,91
5.89
2.
3.01
3.3.4-
3. 52,
3.11
3.50
3.40
4.22.
4.10
4-10
3,14
3.83
3.82
TEVT NUMBER.
3
3.\5
3.54
3.58
3,42.
3.98
3.1G
4-30,
4-13
4. 10
3.78
3.92.
3.8^
4-
2,99
3.25
3.34
3.28
3.5G
3.6)8
4.21
4.G4
4-G4
3,64
3,81
3.13
5
3.18
3.50
3.51
3.51
3.<)3
3.4,8
4.33
4.-J&
4,84-
3.91
4.04
4. 12.
G
3.23
5,41
3,4&
3.09
3.25
3.58
4-15
4.53
4-56
3.T7
3.98
3.9(b
1
3. »5
3,5)
3,5G
3,2.9
3,(o&
3.85
4.34
4.1C,
4.&\
3,11
3,50
3,01
B
3.19
3,29
3.St
3.24
3.foO
3. GO
4.38
4-81
4. 81
3,59
3.18
3.82.
9
3.25
3,
(b.SG
5,12
S,59
G,ft3
fe.04
5,93
4,10
4.13
5.30
2.81
2.5|
2.
1. G&
S.40
4.90
8,57
5.8G
5-32.
6.00
4.Q>9
3.11
3.33
2.G5
2.34
3
7,41
3.G8
3^0
8.04
5.04
4,\3
5-88
3,84
3,06
3.4\
2.07
1,86
4-
1.21
3.94
3.90
1.B9
3.97
3.71
5,30
3,2,2.
2.89
2,97
US9
n|-71
S
7.35
5.G4
4,fe4
ft,04
G.\7
5,14
5.G7
4-90
3.8G
3.31
2.1^,
2.52.
6
1.38
6.15
(b.OO
8.22
7.31
6, S|
5.11
5,12
4.13
3.31
3.09
2.14
7
7,72
1,4G
6.G>3
&.S9
8.33
7,31
-------
D-9
SPECIAL TtST DATA ON MERCURy fcSO OUTBOARD MOTOR
MODE
1
1 /\
1 6
1
3 A
2> &
5
5 A
6 £>
7
7 A
7 B
CHEMtLUMl DESCENT NO*, *>*>»* (WET)
1
254
248
2.4-0
91
99
92
1
3
4
6
2
2
TES.T MUnBEfc
2
2.|
6
2
2
(3
1
1
3
204
194
194
10
68
10
£
4
2
6
2
2
4-
2.2- 1
2-35
2»8
8G>
86
19
6
2
2
G
2
2.
S
m
208
1\8
12
82
80
1
3
4
2.
-?
I4G
151
I5G
12
80
13>
1
150
147
65
12
-------
D-10
SPECIAL TEST DATA ON MERCURY fcSO OUTBOARD MOTOR
MODE
1
1 *
1 6
3
3 A
2> B
5
S A
.5 B
7
7 A
1 B
NDIR
1
ICbl
118
183
18
84
1G,
35
26
26
10
61
61
NO, t>t>"
2
139
l(b 2.
154
62
65
64
30
26
26
G>0
4G
46
" (.UJET)
3
l
4-
168
179
158
76
80
12
47
34
38
68
53
£3
T Nune
5
150
170
»55
64
64
57
30
2Q,
26
59
46
50
Efc
6
\45
141
141
71
16
G4
33
2.6
26
64
53
54
-)
134
140
ISO
80
84
84
50
46
46
12
12
16
e>
1 1 9
121
\2_8
80
88
84
42
34
38
11
12
12
9
126
120
I 16
81
84
80
39
2>4
2,8
6X
SO
53
'MODE
1
1 A
1 &
3
3 A
3 &
S
5 A
5 &
7
7 A
7 B
POLARO&R APH\C Oix VOLUME °/0 CWET)
TEST NUMBER
1
5.0
5.8
5.8
3,8
4,4
4,5
6.2
7.0
7.0
9,7
10.4
10-4
2.
£.3
6-2
6.1
3.8
4-8
4-7
6,2
1,1
7,1
9.9
10,4
10.4
3
5.4
6.4
<&.4
4. \
4.9
5.0
6.1
7.7
7.8
10.5
P. 2>
M.4
4-
5.2
6.2
6.0
4.0
4,9
4-9
G.3
1.2
7.2
9-7
\0. 3
10.3
S
5.4
6,3
6.2
4.0
4.8
4.8
6.5
7.4
7.4
\0,0
11. 0
M.4
6
5.3
5,8
6.2
4.2
i 4.9
^4.9
6.7
7-4
7.4
\0,1
10.8
10.8
7
5.3
£,4
5-4
3.G
4.0
4,0
5,4
6,2
6.2
8.5
9-2
9-2
B
5.2
6. 1
6.0
4.2
4-9
4-8
6.3
7.3
7.2
^.6
l\-3
|l\.4
9
5.3
6.4
6.2
4.2
5.2
5.2
6.5
7.4
7.6
9.8
\o.&
r\o,7
-------
APPENDIX E
ESTIMATED STATE AND REGIONAL,
DISTRIBUTION OF OUTBOARD MOTORS, 1971
-------
E-2
ESTIMATED STATE AND REGIONAL,
DISTRIBUTION OF OUTBOARD MOTORS, 1971(4)
Estimated Motors in Use as of
31 1971
Northern Region
State
Idaho
Maine
Minnesota
Montana
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Oregon
South Dakota
Vermont
Washington
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Motors
38,000
86,000
333,000
25,000
44, 000
25,000
122,000
26,000
23,000
209,000
322,000
8,000
Central Region
State
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Dist. of Columbia
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Missouri
Nebraska
Nevada
New Jersey
New York
Ohio
P ennsylvania
Rhode Island
Utah
Virginia
West Virginia
Motors
35,000
102,000
20,000
31,000
322, 000
186,000
102,000
72,000
85,000
130,000
192,000
478,000
201,000
42,000
15, 000
200,000
593,000
310,000
200,000
34,000
32, 000
124,000
26,000
Southern Region
State
Alabama
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Florida
Georgia
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
North Carolina
Oklahoma
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
Motors
132,000
40,000
101,000
430,000
440, 000
133,000
226,000
61,000
18,000
118,000
108,000
108,000
144,000
448,000
Sub-total
1,261,000 Sub-total
3,532,000 Sub-total
2,507,000
All-Region Total - 7,300,000
-------