EPA-AA-EOD-80-2
Chrysler - EPA Correlation Program To Assess
1980 Model Ttear Fuel Economy Offsets
By
William Watson
April, 1980
Correlation Group
Testing programs Branch
Engineering Operations Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105
-------
-2-
I. Introduction
On October 19, 1979, Chrysler submitted a letter to EPA proposing a
correlation program to resolve an apparent fuel economy offset be-
tween the two facilities. Chrysler stated that paired test results
from May through September, 1979 showed Chrysler's test results were
3.3% lower on FTP fuel economy and 2.0% lower on highway Fuel
Economy. They also indicated that this offset increased to 4.8% for
FTP and 4.0% for HWFET on their smaller 1.7 Litre "L" body front
wheel drive vehicles. Chrysler indicated that correlation of CVS
flow calibrations was confirmed in April, 1979. This program was
requested to study dynamometer performance and possible differences
in C02 readings.
II. Summary
1. Specific vehicle emission tests showed an offset of 2% on the
average, but due to vehicle variability the offset is not signi-
ficant.
2. Dynamometer coastdowns and torque measurements indicate that
Chrysler has more internal dynamometer friction. The impact on
FE would be only partially affected.
3. X-Y plots of PAU torque vs. front roll speed show that the PAli's
at Chrysler display an increase in hysteresis over a given time
period similar to EPA.
4. Monitoring of vehicle temperatures revealed no unusual tempera-
ture fluctuations or differences in cooling.
5. Tailpipe backpressure measurements were made and Chrysler ex-
ceeded -1.0" h20 on four occasions. The affect on fuel economy
by these minor fluctuations is not known.
6. CFO Comparisons indicated a 1.8% discrepancy existed between
Chrysler and EPA propane kits. After recalibration of the
Chrysler kit, using EPA Draft Procedure #210, the discrepancy
was alleviated. Since Chrysler's original CFO calibration
agreed with their LFE CVS calibration, the LFE may be out of
calibration. Chrysler's LFE recently returned from recalibra-
tion at CEESI and results will follow this report as an addendum.
7. Analysis of Chrysler C02 bottles indicated that Chrysler C02
names are 0 to .7% lower than the names determined at EPA. This
would produce an affect on fuel economy opposite to what was
originally hypothesized.
Finally, a reduction of the Chrysler vehicle emission variabi-
lity needs to be achieved before an offset can be determined.
The exact affects of a given dynamometer friction on FE might
need to be examined. Chrysler should examine turbulance affects
-------
-3-
due to the location of the static backpressure tap. Discrepan-
cies of CFO and LFE calibrations should be resolved as soon as
possible. Even though there were differences in naming the
CC>2 bottles, no further investigation is warranted.
III. Test Program Description
The program was designed so as to focus on test parameters that can
effect fuel economy results. The following is a description of the
program design.
A. Vehicles Used and Tests Performed
1. Vehicle #C121 (4500 #IW, 12.3 AHP), was equipped with fuel
and body temperature recording equipment. This vehicle was
used to confirm the overall fuel economy offset and to re-
cord any difference in temperatures between the labs. The
tests performed each day consisted of one FTP, two hot
505"s, two highway tests, and quick check coastdowns.
2. Vehicle #197 (2500 #IW, 7.3 AHP), front wheel drive "L"
body. This is a repeatable emission vehicle equipped with
wheel torque meters and a microprocessor data acquisition
system. This enabled us to integrate vehicle PAD torque and
speed to assess dyno loading. The tests performed each day
consisted of three hot 505's, two highway tests, and three
steady states. The steady states were two minutes each and
were at 50, 40, 20, and 10 mph. During the steady states no
exhaust samples were taken, but torque at the various speeds
was recorded.
3. Vehicle #883 (2500 #Ik, 7.3 AHP), was another "L" body, but
with cold start capabilities. Since the previously men-
tioned "L" body could only perform hot start tests, this
vehicle enabled us to look at bag by bag variability from
FTP cold start results. One cold start FTP test was per-
formed each day.
B. Test Sequences
All vehicle tests were performed on four consecutive days at
Chrysler, four consecutive days at EPA, and a final four conse-
cutive days at Chrysler. These sequences were chosen to quantify
any shift in test vehicle emissions between "Chrysler Before"
and "Chrysler After" data. Also, to reduce variability, the same
drivers were used on all vehicles tested.
C. Checks Performed
1. CVS back pressure checks during vehicle emissions testing.
-------
-4-
2. X-Y plots of PAU torque vs. front roll speed.
3. Propane injections using Chrysler CFO kits and propane vs.
EPA CFO kits and propane.
4. Wet and dry bulb temperatures recorded with Chrysler's
hygrometer.
5. Analysis of six Chrysler C02 working standards. (2.1%,
1.77%, 1.31%, .935%, .644%, .2966%, and a 1.5% C0/C02
interference bottle.)
6. Dynamometer coastdown checks from 55 to 15 mph, 55 to 45
mph, 40 to 30 mph, and 25 to 15 mph, while monitoring speed
vs. time. These were performed using diagnostic coastdown
vehicles.
7. Torque wheel measurements on Vehicle 197.
IV. Discussion of Results
Vehicle C121 FTP test results (refer to Appendix) indicated a per-
cent difference of the means of 2% in C02 and FE, resulting in
Chrysler measuring 2% higher C02 (2% lower mpg) when compared with
EPA. The percent Coefficient of Variation indicated the FTP C02
and FE results varied 1 to 1.5%. Although a 2% offset exists, how
large can it actually be when vehicle FTP emissions vary 1 to 1.5%,
almost the same magnitude as the offsets.
Vehicle C121 hot 505's and Highway Fuel Economy test results (refer
to Appendix) shifted by 2 to 3% when comparing "Chrysler Before" to
"Chrysler After". This shift virtually eliminated any significant
offset that occurred between Chrysler and EPA. Again, there existed
a 1 to 2% variation in the mean data, indicating the vehicle varia-
tion is almost as large as the offset.
Vehicle 197 hot 505's and Highway Fuel Economy test results (refer
to Appendix) were similar to those generated from vehicle C121. The
data shifted 1 to 2% in C02 and FE when comparing "Chrysler
Before" to Chrysler After", resulting in an insignificant offset
between Chrysler and EPA. Also, there appears to be a .5 to 1.5%
variation in these tests performed at EPA and Chrysler.
Vehicle 883 FTP test results (refer to Appendix) indicated a consis-
tent 3% offset, where Chrysler read higher C02 resulting in lower
FE, as compared with EPA. The Coefficient of Variation again indi-
cated the data varied, but in this case it varied .5 to 3% when
comparing EPA and Chrysler test results.
Dynamometer coastdowns (refer to Appendix) indicated that Chrysler
has more internal dyno friction than that at EPA. This was evi-
denced by the 3% longer coastdown times obtained at EPA, as compared
with Chrysler.
-------
-5-
Steady state torque wheel data (refer to Appendix) indicated that
Chrysler has about a 3% higher total wheel torque. This would indi-
cate that a vehicle works harder at Chrysler because of more inter-
nal dynamometer friction than that found at EPA. Ihis can be caused
from the split roll dynamometer at Chrysler, which has four more
bearings than EPA's one piece roll dynamometer.
X-Y plots of torque vs. front roll speed, taken at Chrysler, indi-
cated a smooth transition between high rate and low rate loading. At
EPA, dynamometer 2 displayed a slight hysteresis, while dynamometer
1 appeared to be normal. At the end of the program on December 12,
1979, post torque traces were made at Chrysler. There appeared to
be a slight hysteresis forming as seen earlier at EPA. The cause
for hysteresis is suspected to be from mineral deposit buildup in
the power absorption unit load ports.
Recorded vehicle temperatures (refer to Appendix) indicate no signi-
ficant temperature influences at Chrysler and EPA, on Vehicles 197
and C121.
Tail pipe backpressure measurements (refer to Appendix) at EPA
appeared to have normal backpressure fluctuations, while Chrysler
during high accels on 505" s and HWFET's Cell 6, slightly exceeded a
-1.0" H20 backpressure.
The Critical Flow Orifice Comparisons (refer to Appendix) revealed
discrepancies which were in the direction of the offset between
Chrysler and EPA. The Chrysler CFO kits indicated percent errors,
generated from the difference between calculated injection concen-
tration and actual concentration, that were 1 to 2% lower than EPA.
These discrepancies fluctuated at the beginning of the program, but
in the last comparison at Chrysler they remained stable. These last
comparisons helped determine what caused the offset in CFO's. As
indicated, after comparing and ruling out differences in EPA and
Chrysler propane bottles, a consistent 1.8% offset was established
between the kits. The differences would likely be linked to cali-
brations of the CFO kits.
Recalibrations were performed using the draft EPA Procedure #210,
"Critical Flow Orifice Calibration". The results of this recalibra-
tion shifted the SCFM calculated from the EPA kit .04%, while
Chrysler's kit shifted 1.8%. These results led us to believe that
the calibration on the Chrysler kit #34 was incorrect. This change
in SCFM in the Chrysler kit brought up another issue of CVS calibra-
tions at the Chrysler Proving Grounds. Chrysler stated that the CFO
kit #34 SCFM agreed with the SCFM generated by the LFE calibrations
on their CVS systems. Chrysler's LFE calibration was therefore also
suspect and would have to be checked.
Analysis of six Chrysler C02 bottles and a CO/C02 interference
bottle (refer to Appendix) gave indications of some minor differ-
ences. Comparing Chrysler "Master Concentration" to "EPA Average
-------
-6-
Concentration" indicated EPA named all bottles higher than
Chrysler's master name. This was opposite of the supposed CC^-FE
offsets between EPA and Chrysler. When comparing Chrysler analysis
on all of their analyzers, there is a greater percent of difference
in the critical concentrations of .2966% to 1.77% than exists be-
tween EPA and Chrysler. EPA also indicated a larger percent of
difference between Site A001 and A003 than what existed between
Chrysler and EPA.
V. Conclusions and Areas for Follow-up
The following conclusions were derived from the program:
Shifts in vehicle emissions from "Chrysler Before" to Chrysler
After" results erases any clear and definable offsets. But a reduc-
tion of Chrysler vehicle emission shifts and variability within each
facility can lead to a more exact estimate of the magnitude of the
offset.
Torque wheel and coastdown measurements indicate Chrysler has more
internal dyno friction than EPA, but there is no proven effects on
relating given amounts of dyno friction to an actual mpg effect on
fuel economy.
PAU hysteresis indicates that measures may need to be taken to
reduce mineral content of water used in dynamometer PAU's.
Chrysler should examine the placement of the static backpressure
tap. The location used appears to be in an area where turbulances
occur, possibly causing false measurements.
Critical Flow Orifice comparisons indicate a large discrepancy in
calibration of CFO's and LFE's between Chrysler and EPA. Correcting
these discrepancies can lead to closer correlation between Chrysler
and EPA and must be resolved as soon as possible.
Analysis of CC^ bottles indicates a small opposite effect of 0 to
.7% in measuring C02 than what was originally hypothesized. This
difference appears too small to warrant any further investigation at
this time.
Finally, at the writing of this report, Chrysler had received a
recalibration of their LFE from the Colorado Engineering Experiment
Station, Inc. The effects of this recalibration will be forthcoming
in an addendum to this report.
-------
-7-
APPENDIX
Vehicle C121 FTP Plot
Vehicle C121 FTP Table
Vehicle C121 Hot 505 Plot
Vehicle C121 Hot 505 Table
Vehicle C121 HWFET Plot
Vehicle C121 HWFET Table
Vehicle 197 Hot 505 Plot
Vehicle 197 Hot 505 Table
Vehicle 197 HWFET Plot
Vehicle 197 HWFET Table
Vehicle 883 FTP Plot
Vehicle 883 FTP Table
All Coastdowns Summary
Quick Check Coastdown Summary
Steady State Torque Summary
Vehicle 197 Temperature Data
Vehicle C121 Temperature Data
Vehicle 197 Tailpipe Backpressure Summary
CFO Comparisons
C(>2 Bottle Comparison
Page
1
2
3
4
5
b
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15,
17
18
19
20
21
16
-------
-------
(
A-, ..<',• tin'icifiNf'.Y LII
-------
-^
_i.
3&44C
I
iS&fe:
«
rn
+
i iVi !
fc f i/
4
f.p
;rii:
M
•-t-rr-i-r-
iJ
:r:
:b
H:t"i±
-H4
u:H;±
59
fr-
_J_J
"r
il:
TT
T
-y^ftf
i4t::h:
J_LJ_1_!.4-
±taiL
&t>±
mpf®-
SJ?Or
Wfe
^5^-f
0Eff^f
_ILL
-r
4-
_L_
4
T
Hz
.ij.
--1-
T
,._L.
tl±bt
L4-f-
^S5:
:H
"T"
J:_
i!.i
-t-J-4
SL^HSEt
_. _]_.[_.
+r
rii
:t
^.L
11
:i±
-L
\-LL
rt:
4
i L.
o
ra
x_
ILL:"'
4r
W
-U
4-
t~-
±±
I T I 'IT'!'
T-jr
_L
-(-t
T-
h.
Mffir
- L i IJ_L LLI L
_LT_LLLL!ILL
•MiniM
*
is
te
y±tt
±i±tr
__' _
-4:
:.j
_L
.1
_L^-.
±h
4H
4..
±t
I-!
SE
i;
.-L
J_
JJT.l.L. .U.!
^-4-|!4
4+
-L.
_
i i
Jliiii
xLtr^-
•H-p
i -i_i_!
• i
r
_rpzL . ...
_!_rn.j:. a; i
J4JlL|-L.-!-!. i
i n i!! 11,.
"fa
'Vr
-------
«'-.,r.v-:- EFFICIENCY LINE i ', . ' M <.:f '
//-/f -7?*
//-/s- v
_// -yst__'
~'//-/6""«
_//-2^ -1
//-2C? "
_//-27-7?
JI.-21-
-I I'M
.-.11-30.-!
12-7 »
DF
"75
||X
II
o
o
5
Ul
u.
s
M?
TO
.35-
rt>
-I.LS
To
TO
1.16
-------
-------
LINI: MO.
CO ? /F.E.
-------
-------
-15-
T?' EFFICIENCY LINE NO. 63265
(/£//.
EPA.
MTE !
Jn-/t3
"-/Ms"7*
n-is
\\-is
\\ ^ \Q
\\~tf
11-21
it-it
~ 11-21
11-27-11
;~//-2?-7?
II-2&
1 1-2?
~'H-21
tl-21
11-30
11-30
II -So
7_/?-.¥-7?
/2-V-??
~ /z-s-
/z-r
" /Z-S-
12-f
12-6
/2-6
12-7
/2-7
X
2«
25
28
37
38
29
30
31
—
- _
-._
.
—
TXinrY
DlFf.
\)TZKl/AL
MDwe
—
_.
&i (W
346
3SO
3SO
3V?
3*jr
3f?
3s"/
352.
-
. . _.
. . -
" 2fl
el
.61.
loo
v.^
5.6
. .
C C» (vJt D/*
I « *• * v ^**
^ ^ A
•* */ ^
?^.3
y ti tt
2V. 3
2V. 7
2V. *
2V.S-
2V.1/
—
—
- -
-
2V. r
.z
. --.1 ;
loo
-3.fi
•w
--
._..
•-- —
— • • •
.
— -
. — . ._
__.
;E:
-- •
-----
—
£«« (%i)
333
341
33t
33^
'" 333
33Z
333
335
3¥o
3¥(>
.. .. —
— - - — -
'" Y.3
-
- - ---
— . . ...
- - --
fTe. W
— -
2S".<£
2S.&
2S-.I
2S.f
2S.4
VS.?
2S.&>
2S.1
25".?
ZS.i
2S.2
2V. 7
.
25.5"
.3
'J.£
-
- -
>
-
_.
— -
- —
..
—
**tt
Ct>i (%])
—
—
— • -
_.
III
31-0
338
3^f
311
33?
3fZ
Z
::&
100
*-VT*
- ''6
— —
tl/>= 1
ri fct L^^iJ
--
__.
.__. . ..
7*£ A
7tf ft
2V. 7
lf.l
2^.0
JO
l-z-t
loo
-2.1
TO
-2.6
— -•
:,
-
.
---
- -
:
- ---
._
Coi
-------
-------
LINi.-: MO.
F>£.
D4TE
H^l4-79l
//-*l
2.t>?-
2 SB
258
25^,
Z5"
2.
3
...78...
5.2
75
2.4
F.e. (mp<)
33.o
33.0
£3t &
^ J ^/
33.7
33,*
33,6
33.1
. 3 ~
too
'Z.8
TO
4
...
X*A. /5/ • J
v^«^ ^ /^tlly
2S5,
2^1
2^f
2S-0
25"^
ZS"/
ZSI
2 S3
:.?&___
:^:
F.£.(WJ^)
-. '$4:4
34.4
34.7
34. 1
34. 6>
34.?
34.S
34.1
.__34f..
• 2.
z.,ey
7
-
..
-
C^(%j)
2r:£ (w/>6)
35. a
.r
•-2
-2.4-
13
;
•
- ._ 1
I-1
"^r*
x* — v^
^
tn X
> rn
X
o
O
-------
-------
r.rnciE'NCY LINE ND. RGOB
KG,
FTPS
I/EM #883
J-K*
IJ-/T!
u_/.-/a_
1-22-80
I-2B-86
1-31
OP
//
3
.377
22.
-3
.2.7
— TO
--.9fl-
^7
37^>
3£?
>?/
25^
23.3
23.5"
23.3
,
-------
P6»/£Pfl SlMftlM -- ftiL
!£t&2£
LrtfM
SITE
142
C.T .
55-A5.
U.R CALC-l-'-JWeARITY
. V\P.
5S-4S
7. 1 3
12,34
_1L
tO-TO
,42
3V73
-3.30
MO.ES
flit. V\P.
.1.;;
£.T.
A5S. HP.
IS 'IS
-/I
,61
Ib.31
£t)
E,7.
SS-l'S
(8S.80
203-69
-a.a?
0
f\ O
-------
2 SOOtf
HP. 'QUICK
5*5*
5UlAMAfcy CH.T,).
NEW
STD D£V.
9U C,V.
wan*) Roik
WEAW ROi
wcn«i £p
MERM E
Pti- MEA
&PA-ME/
% fop /fy
VK
nous -*
DATE-*
r*
4*
[i» ^^
\-l *
'A'7,*
•o
N
crA V i
'/if/
Pf, t*
11- 1*1
/J.Z
11.0
ILd
jl.^j
(j.cl
(I.2S
./T|
1.5^
f/.^
"KJ!^
_J/.77
••''•59
^az
P&5
11-15
j i «j
| J.^j
//.(j
/J>
11.55
.1
.£7
Rfek
n-n
JI.O
_/I-4
((•72
Ml
il-t)^
II.T7
,110
.93
V-- \ ?&1
SSUfJE
*
PCi-5
1T-M
11-8
ll-fc
]).{,
j/.^
'
if.GS
• 1
,6^>
*' •*•
i>^if
w
P6-C?
1Z.-S
-ttk-
n.e
K.&
!(•&
If.iS"
.1
,6S"
P$l.
*
'
f£»-S
IVfo
ff.k
/f./5,
(2..G
(Z-6
1 2.0
KM
.ni
[»S"|
•
•
Pfcv-b
U--7
/J'4)
/H
//.jT,
//•£
/2.Ci
12.0
I (.70
,27&
£.3b
.
—
lll).705n r'RIMTCn IN U.S.A..
-------
SUIVDY
50 flP/l
tffli
i
CN
CM
"CHMSltK ?-U v
MAN -
£ H iwie n r.u. — ?ut-
CilfWUR FU TOTAL iMN
FU Ytt-tfft
CttRYJUR
TbTni mim;
EPPiTOlAl
H
3^.55
.9 /
PAH
12.
.aim mi\inM cu a
8.34
UPI.OT
L fMUT
rfflffl
3L2&-
6i-j;r.vTar;.T.;.—
33.S3
TORiiOf
.0 Z
5^.67 .
51.55"
it
COJfJTi
30/2
CHE/SUE ft* T01AI
,9 /
20.
^7.02
Pd
£FA
JMOL
M-73.
tO.ll
EPR
T.PIF
fcFA T01M
JO
.17
; "/O.ZL
• ••••.-•!•• *tl^l.
FU —
Sib EPR-DfWU 1
42.
COUW1S,— //fa, WO CM
P<-IIO-70!)8 fniMTITO IN U.S.A. '
J'/fB
-------
nr?«o
20 AW
CHRTS16R pu
R
f?.
I1.1Z
f/m
TWflJE :
T6K8V&
WllttLTWO
23./0
wave
39
COI/JVT5
CHRYUfcR PU
n.//
LHWIER PU roSTEPA
UFA
3^.32
37.7^
% DI?
.or
-,15.
-Z.U67
-101
.32.
10 wii
CHRY«R PU
MAN
20.S&
CURHSUR TV»
1.0!
2I./7
TUTAL
.ML_
20.32
Y. Off H« TblAl- EFA TOTAL * VX).
.20
7.9 /
EPA
2,1*7
fl/>.IIB.7r.OB riHHTPIJ IN V.S.A, '
-------
i
.#/??
E P/? '
(tit*. Ey/^* / 5
/ft/is
'&
r
>min
.9s _
Q o
O y
3m
H.
I
A
.9.
/(
u
SOT s ntitf 6
S?
83
8?
80
BZ.
97
9,5
95-
Fftortr of
103
~~9&
/OB
13
HI
/o&
/?.
/2S-
WtWLE.
JJP.-
/38
/39
ll
lOZ,
IZO
IZO
10
10 +
izz
tufl-x
JSZ
/S'O
127
/¥?
OF
130
/S8
t?0
/S8
wz
Zoo
/9B
182,
Hor
IS 20
-"II
14 I
fti/6,
lot,
lotf
/^7E«
29
30
702..
IOZ
102.
/OS
lor.
loo
n 1
I/O
fig
107
ion
no
38
9s-
93
loo
lo/
/o?
103
//a
726
US'
116,
/3I
./&
13?
Zoo
JIB
I2Z
III,
us"
./zi.
tio
I
-------
VEHICLE: C121 (318 CID, M-body)
INERTIA: 4250.0 (§ 12,3 HP
Thermocouple Location
VEHICLE TEMPERATURE SUMMARY
H.
//I - -Underneath vehicle by 'differential ' '••.'.
02. - .Underneath vehicle by catalyst.. •
#3 . - . .Underneath vehicle by Y-exhaust pipe,
• ' 04 '-. '20% level of fuel tank . • '•, / .
.05 • - •;. Front grille center of vehicle • 'i'' ...
TYPE . 0 OF ' '01 02
TEST FACILITY TESTS .
75 CCVS Chrysler . .'. 8 mean
: . std. dev.
'EPA . 4 mean
std, dev.
. % diff, • -.
. - ' i ' ' . '
HWFE Chrysler' 7 mean
std, dev, .
EPA 7 mean
• .-' • : ' .• .". ' std,. dev,' •
Min.
71.1
1.5
72,0
. 0.8
; --1.3 •
" -94.0
6.7
: 98,1
:. . 3.8
Max. ."'
105.3
4,8
112,5
12.0
-6.4
102.1
4.6
111.6
4.6
Min.
•71.1
U2'9
72.3
' 1.3
. -1.7
80.7
7.4
79.1
1.7
Max.
117.4
11.9
126.5
10.3
. -7.2
88.3
12.9
87.0
5.7
! 03
• -
04.
Min. Max. Min.
72.1
1.6
71.0
1.2
+1.5
96.3
16.3 '
87.0
3.5
138,8
7.3.
131.8 -
19,1
+5,3
109 ..7 .
24.0
95.4
4.6 '
74.6
.3.5
75.8
3,3
.-1.6
90.7
4.9
91.4
2,7 .
05
Max. 'Min,
••81.5
' 2.9
84.3
2.2
•-3.3 .
93.0
4.3
94.3
. 2.6
70.4
•1,3
69.5
1.7
. +1.3
"72.1
1.6
70.4
1-7
Max. ^
' 89.0
9.4
76.5
5.3
+16.?
74.9
'1.5
73.3
. 1.7
i
Ul
1
% Diff.
Chrysler-EPA
EPA
% diff.
x 100 '
-4.2 -8.5 +2.0 +1.5 +10,7 +15.0 -0.8 --1,4 +2.4 +2.2
NOTES: .1) The first two 75 CCVS's at EPA had diurnal heat builds' done which could have a alight affect on
. thermocouple #4 data. ' ••.-..•. •
2) The Pre-EPA data on the HWFE tests were'not representative of the rest of the testing because •
a cooling fan was not used by the rear tires; therefore, the data summarized includes only the Post-EPA
-------
29,
TAM.i''m.>. I'.iU'SJHwu HUHMAUY (tw:iii?.s w ILO)
i . 'J'l1
DATS TEST CB1.I. (VKHTCI.B OI'l')
*n-i/i w-ft -0.75
: *|I-15. I'fi-S -0.45
4*44-27 Ki'A-n-2 -0.65
**ll-29 Kl'A-D-l -O.UO
**!2-5 l'«-6 ' -0,75
**!2-6 'Vfi-5 -0.50'
**12-U- I'U-'J -0.40
**12-ll J'ft-10 -0,40
t
.
* 43-14/11-15
KXHAUST CONNECTION.
•
•
** Jl-27 to 12-14'
KXMAIIiJT CONNECTION
i
\ :
SS iJU SS . SS 88
. 50 Ml'U 40 Ml'J! .30 HP1I, > ' 20 Hl'tl 10 HIM!
-Q.5S -0.60 -.-0.65 l: -0.65 .-0.70
-0.35 ' -0.35 -0.45 -0.45 -0.45
-0.15 -0.35 -0.50 ^i-0.65- -0.75
-0.10 -0.35 -0.5U -0.70 -0.110
-0.40 -0.55 -0.65 . -0.67 . -0.70
-0..10 -0.30 -0.35 -0.40 '-0.40
••'.-' . - • - ' - '
— _ ' — .. _
. ,
, : 9 .
, ' ; ^
vk „• ' •*-& ~^~
c ) CL,-^-^
t ; +r ^
; a.r"' • ; ••-.--». A . t/L
TA/I. PIP1L TRES S(HU
i , A
v ' •• *r *****^^
__ ,..,^ , n
1 • ' ' 1 f
a.^v • ... a. -5"' n.
505 n
MAX. HI
-1.15 -0.
-o.uo n.
-0.90 "o.
-1..Q o.
rl.05 -0.
-0.75 Q.
V • '
-0.5 Q.
-0.5 0.
*
sPRE
Y
i ) L J
' •;'•
^/{o/jes /
__4._... ,, ^^^
/
vi-:i: n UI.OWEU
r». MAX. WN. Sl'BI'J)
35 -1. I -0.45 2
05 -0.75 -O.I 2
50 -O.JIO 0.40 Cl-'V
65 '-O.'ttO 0.45 ' CJ-V
15 -1.05 -0.10 2
10 -0.75 0.0 2
0? -0.5 0.0 (H'V
5 -0.5 0.05 CKV ,
NJ
. ' . 1
S SURE .PROQE
\/
.
II^HAi/S T / l-l H ING •
1--'
,wii MuVroft
•• , . . '
>J\X -A***"^
"O o iixii^wi'n//ui
— , , \j ****
^V1 ^***~: ~ . . -. - ~ ••
1 ' t
I'.S* • . '// v
-------
-27-
r rn. . , ^
f-l W | 1 • — •
PT r PA
LLL £J-Q , N
CV5 /
p/ire ~,: ?.„;• .
/i-c/-?? ;
/'-'V •". ;
// ~ '^ ' ' 1
//-/r • ?
//-* '.
//-'* •
11-21 • „
^ #ttA<
i t
(
'
i
t
! -
,
11-21-11 •_ 2/c ; ^zoo . "2.5.3
ll-?1> ••• 2Zc
//-Z9 " 2/c ffa
//-""* •••• 2?c *• Pa
II -^ '•: 2/c '"!
I/-29 •' ZZc.
n-s ••'_' 2/c . f M
/2-S" :* ??c. EP/
/2-V-7f "I ;
/2-V " ;
/2-S" =»i! ;
/2-S" -•-•" \
/i-£ :>"n I
l2~& :;
/Z-7 --=•
IZ-7 •••
-.71
?z -.3?
7 ? ~ £"?
?57» "5.3
-3.7/
ZZ \ -I. 36
Z2 '/.71/
1
i
j
78 CUKP* , "^
|y t IW £(DCft
t
; '
[ »
f '
i i -
' C
1
• i
i
i
i
i
i
: i
IZ-/I-V?--- ; 2 /c "^7S ; SW !
/z-// .-.;, 2/c
/z-// ;'il 2Zc
/?-// - ZZc.
" -.(.(•
" ; -2.V2
' •"/. 16
I7.-IZ =-': 2/c EPft ZZ. -2.55~\ •
ll-IZ. «' 22C. £prt 22 -/.2£"
/Z-/7 -.' 2>/c //•/.
/2-/7 • 2?/c wfi
/2-/7 ''• 2/c :
77 -y*7 * 2/e_
/?-/? s;i 22c
/2-/7 ' 22 C
/2-/? ! ,1 2/C. ,EW
3W•• 22C. " -f.68 i
/-? »•• 22c i " , -3.8¥
1-1 "! 22c '
' -f.//
i
/-/5-fo -, Z/c .£/^g0 *-,??? . i
/_/<• .. 97- ;
1 / J _ * ^c t
;-/7
i-/7 ».:
/-/7 .. .
/-/? "';
/-/7 ";
/-/? "j
/-/7 »'
/-/? -'!
/-Z3-80 ' 2/C e,?(
t "•'*
* ,•
- ::; t
J i
* .'
10 il"
"ii
I)
S3 ']
"it
- "!j •
'.' !;
"ii
I — L%£
I
;3M +/.Z&
" +.ZO
1
j
t
i
i
i
+1.31 .0^-
+ .231 .O'r
ft
i •'
•
.
-
• ^^ —
• — - •
[
i
1
Eft»" /
rf:fM; /
?rllHtl£
'twiPtf ft t SortS ^
dr CHZYSLER
' 1
!
1
t
i
[
1
,
S~ '. ^"t'c '• +.28
r ; •' ; *-.zd
6 " \ r.ot, \
6 i " ' ro.O ' \
5* i " y-./o
i
J " +.°Z
6 \ " \i-.lA
6 ! " i +-. e>3
\
j
|
j
t
1
1
;
!
1 i
7 s?j«
7 'Efh '«*Wo
7
7 '"»%»
7 "
7
7 £ft) foJiJ,
PtfANE [ \ ?
n
+.B.6 \+2.t,3 I.S
*2,S't- +z, 5"8 • ^
*2« /? '^'L.T-I ,0^-
•-Z.T3 1+-Z.77 .0*1
+-.W tr.Zl I.S
*/./? 'rz.w • }.*
+.82 :*-2.62 ' I.&
+ Z.S5 -f-2.5? .O1/-
+ 2,30 .+ 1.3+ .oi-
t
£
^"~ 7~//rfT~ 6UTU*J£D /A> &£•£> /ft
-f7{c>.$E f(ir$ LtJfJ/CJJ MrtD /Vet
Efa BRooKS
(•)£*>££'
PZoA
41~£[> :
?S.
By
i
-------
CO, B
OTTLE
C
£*5w $** 8JS
•' BOTTLE. *
cc- i^f-fz,"
- 5
£ 8
.
' ^° *
^! 10
tl
12
13
14
; »
16
i
:.. •
t
' "~ » \ " ~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"26
27
28
29
I 3O
.—
1 7 .
i . .
'W
2.1
1.77
1.31
.tit
l.f
- «
- - -
3 /V\
Z.lol
.130
.Zff
-----
.....
-
"W«TBj
,23
.*Jt.
1.2/28
- -
_
,21
-zi
ri,33'
• 2$.-.
-
MASK*
2H
..!>?-'
— . — —
: *
".**
TK/E TT
efo AMI
u7» ^M3
f 0 £)
"" W •?
* #2
*. #
*_~.7?
%7
OF eta. Cri«y.'
(koi4fa>3^ f -10
1.77
1.3/3
32+
y? O / 5
7 tftyR
\,f9?
VFfi Ft
DlFF.
>IFF. 8e\
2,10
\.3II
\
.Z-%1
L &>.
-- —
>«!*. f L
orn 1^/7
Ffom i
SjTES
>/ rt>
VOEEA) C
-CHKV.
-,?8-
.ZQ
W&eR
'PA MIR
IK/ toil
Loid j
&J.L*
3
8
3
1
7
3
1-3
f *-7
- fCH
- (*
(
"C?A)C.
.9177
l.so
KV- £Pf
BPA
*
' S/7E -
&
L /K/<
**"*/6# J
" fta*.
6
3
8
7
-) X to
era
" MflSTE
»
STBK,
1oo$ \
ftot>3> / '
fL^
- (
"tefllt.
•Z.,'0!
I.7V(-
.9371
.2977
- --- -
O
' 1 x/
/ ""
- HtGtf
WKYfyW
BemieBrt
Mt> Hl&
-^
"*» fV3
— O^
— * V ^7
— ,
— . —
\ — ^
i
i
::"
—
— —
-------
|