PB80-120678
SDSB 79-20
Technical Report
1969 Heavy-Duty Engine Baseline Program
and 1983 Emission standards Development
by
Timothy P. Cox
Glenn W. Passavant
Larry D. Ragsdale
May 1979
Notice
Technical Reports do not necessarily represent final EPA decisions
or positions. They are intended to present technical analysis of
issues using data which are currently available. The purpose in
the release of such reports is to facilitate the exchange of tech-
nical information and to inform the public of technical develop-
ments which may form the basis for a final EPA decision, position
or regulatory action.
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emissions Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-1-
II. Summary
The U.S. EPA was mandated by the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
to determine revised HC and CO emission standards for 1983 model
year heavy-duty engines. These revised emission standards were to
be based on a 90 percent reduction from the average of actually
measured emissions from uncontrolled (1969 model year) gasoline-
fueled engines.
To comply with the provisions of the 1977 CAAA, ECTD began
a baseline testing program. Under this program, in-use 1969 model
year heavy-duty gasoline-fueled engines were procured, brought to
manufacturer's specifications, and then were tested for emissions
using the transient test proedure and idle test procedure. Twenty-
three engines were tested on the transient procedure to determine
the baseline emission levels. A total of 64 valid tests were
conducted on the transient procedure.
Nineteen engines were tested on the idle test procedure to
determine baseline. A total of 55 valid idle tests were achieved.
Based on the results of these emission tests, the average of
the actually measured emissions is:
12.74 g/BHP-hr HC
155.18 g/BHP-hr CO
9706.7 ppmC HC idle
4.6590 % (by volume) CO idle
The CAAA of 1977 require that the 1983 HD emission standards
for HC and CO be at least a 90% reduction from these emission
levels. Based on this requirement, the 1983 HD emission standards
proposed are:
1.3 g/BHP-hr HC
15.5 g/BHP-hr CO
970 ppmC HC idle
0.47 % (by volume) CO idle
This baseline program also served to gain experience using the
transient test procedure, and tolerances for the test were revised
from those proposed in Vol. 44, No. 31, Part II of the Federal
Register on February 13, 1979 to allow more flexibility in conduc-
ting the test.
-------
-2-
III. Introduction and Background
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Section 202(a)
(3)(ii) require that beginning in model year 1983, both gasoline-
fueled and diesel heavy-duty engines meet emission standards for
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide which represent at least a 90%
reduction "from the average of the actually measured emissions from
heavy-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles or engines, [emphasis added] or
any class or category thereof, manufactured during the baseline
model year." Part (v) of the same subsection goes on to define
baseline model year as ". . . the model year immediately preceding
the model in which Federal standards applicable to such vehicle or
engine, or class or category thereof, first applied with respect to
such pollutant." Using this criterion, EPA determined that 1969
was the baseline model year prescribed by law and established a
1969 baseline testing program.
The goal of this program was to measure the actual HC and
CO emission levels for a predetermined sample of 1969 heavy-
duty gasoline-fueled engines and then sales-weight the results
of these tests to determine the average emissions for model
year 1969. This technical report summarizes ECTD's efforts in
procuring and testing the 1969 engines used to establish the
proposed 1983 heavy-duty engine HC and CO emission standards.
Also included in this report is a summary of the method-
ology used to derive the HC and)CO emission standards which
are proposed for 1983 and later-mlpdel year heavy-duty engines.
On February 13, 1979, EPA published an NPRM (Federal Register
Vol. 44, No. 31, Part II) which included preliminary HC and CO
emission standards of 1.4 g/BHP-hr (lower limit of .76 g/BHP-hr for
HC) and 14.7 g/BHP-hr (lower limit of 11.4 g/BHP-hr for CO).
In addition, preliminary idle standards of 1400 ppmC HC (lower
limit of 530 ppmC) and 0.55% CO (lower limit of 0.30%) were also
published. Preliminary levels and lower limits were proposed
because the baseline testing program used to derive the final
proposed standards was not yet completed. At the time the NPRM was
published, only 12 baseline engines had been tested. The baseline
testing program is now complete and the proposed final emission
standards have been derived. These final emission and idle stan-
dards are not below the lower limits initially proposed and hence
are acceptable in that respect.
Although these finalized standards were made public prior
to the Heavy Duty Hearings of May 14 and 15, 1979, this report
gives the engine manufacturers and all other interested parties the
information necessary to allow them to comment on ECTD's selection,
procurement, and testing techniques as well as the method by which
the final proposed standards were derived.
This report is divided into two main parts: the text and the
appendices. The text of the report discusses the vehicle/engine
-------
-3-
selection and procurement efforts of ECTD and its contractors,
Systems Control Inc. and EG & G Automotive Research, as well as the
engine preparation and testing programs at EPA/MVEL, and Southwest
Research Institute. The last section of the text includes a
presentation and discussion of the 1969 emissions data used in
determining the 90% reduction which is used to determine the
proposed emission standards for 1983.
The appendices to this report, available upon request,
contain more detailed information on the procurement contracts
and specific procurement, inspection, and preparation data for
the baseline engines, as well as test by test data on the baseline
engines.
-------
-4-
IV. Discussion
A. Vehicle/Engine Selection and Procurement
1. 1969 Sales Data and Sampling Plan
To establish the HC and CO emission standards for 1983
heavy-duty engines, it was necessary to test the emission levels of
1969 heavy-duty engines.
To determine the average of actually measured emissions,
ECTD first gathered the sales data by engine CID for each manu-
facturer's 1969 model year sales. This sales data, shown in Table
IV-A-1, was supplied by the vehicle/engine manufacturers and MVMA
at the request of ECTD, beginning in October 1977. The market
shares for each of the manufacturer's engine lines were determined
from this data.
Using this sales information, a sampling plan was constructed
to determine which engines, and how many of each engine line, would
be statistically desirable if between twenty and fifty engines were
tested. A preliminary sample size of 25 engines was chosen to
construct this sampling plan. However, the number of engines
ultimately used in the baseline would be based primarily on the
trend of the emission results with cost, time, and engine avail-
ability as other limiting factors. The sampling plan shown in Table
IV-A-2 was constructed by multiplying the market percentage of each
engine by twenty-five, and then using the integer range around that
number. For example, (0.059) x (25) = 1.475, or a (1-2) range
for the sample. The desired sample was further constrained by
not permitting, more engines from any manufacturer than the number
shown for each manufacturer in column 5 of Table IV-A-2.
Once the sampling plan was finalized, the next step was to
determine the means by which the desired engines could be procured
for testing.
In the fall of 1977, ECTD first considered testing manufac-
turer supplied 1969 heavy-duty gasoline-fueled engines. These
engines would not have been production engines but would have
been new engines built as near to 1969 specifications as possible.
However, there was no guarantee that these engines would have been
close enough to 1969 specifications to make them acceptable. Due
to the non-availability of some original equipment carburetors and
distributors it was very unlikely the 1969 specifications could
have been met, especially by all four manufacturers on all engine
lines. This alternative was rejected by OMSAPC for the reasons
cited above and for another very important reason. EPA interpreted
the provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments to mean actual
1969 production engines and not new engines built to 1969 specifi-
cations.
-------
-5-
Table IV-A-1
1969 Sales Data
Manufacturer
Chrysler
9.3%
Engine
Ford
33.5%
GM
39.3%
IHC
14.7%
Others*
3.2%
Sales
11,334
% of Market
318-3
318-1
361
383
413
225
330
360
361
300
391
477
390
534
350-2
366
292
351C
250
307
305C
477
350-4
396
V345
V304
V392
RD450
VS478
10,850
10,150
7,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
50,200
21,300
17,300
14,200
6,700
2,600
2,300
2,000
47,000
22,000
18,000
12,000
10,000
9,000
6,600
6,300
3,000
2,000
20,500
17,300
7,600
3,350
2,000
3.1
2.9
2.0
0.6
0.4
0.3
14.4
6.1
5.0
4.1
1.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
13.5
6.3
5.2
3.6
2.9
2.6
1.9
1.8
0.9
0.6
5.9
5.0
2.2
1.0
0.6
3.2
Total
347,584
100%
* Others as shown here represents sales of small volume engines
whose individual percentages in the 1969 market were insignificant,
-------
-6-
Table IV-A-2
Initial Sampling Plan
Manufacturer Engine
Sales
of Market
Sampling
Target Range
Chrysler
(9.3%)
318-3
318-1
361
383
413
225
10,850
10,150
7,000
2,000
1,500
1,000
3.1
2.9
2.0
0.6
0.4
0.3
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
Total (2-3)
Ford
(33.5%)
330
360
361
300
391
477
390
534
50,200
21,300
17,300
14,200
6,700
2,600
2,300
2,000
14.4
6.1
5.0
4.1
1.9
0.7
0.7
0.6
Total
3-4
1-2
1-2
1-2
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
(8-9)
GM
(39.3%)
350-2
366
292
351C
250
307
305C
477
350-4
396
47,000
22,000
18,000
12,000
10,000
9,000
6,600
6,300'
3,000
2,000
13.5
6.3
5.2
3.6
2.9
2.6
1.9
1.8
0.9
0.6
Total
3-4
1-2
1-2
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
(9-10)
IHC
(14.7%)
V345
V304
V392
RD450
VS478
20,500
17,300
7,600
3,350
2,000
5.9
5.0
2.2
1.0
0.6
Total
1-2
1-2
0-1
0-1
0-1
(3-4)
-------
-7-
To comply with this interpretation of Congressional intent, a
program was undertaken to procure actual in-use 1969 heavy-duty
engines. The engines sought for the baseline were selected based
on overall engine operating condition and closeness to OEM config-
uration but not on the vehicle body type, function, or usage
pattern.
2. Selection Criteria
The following criteria were established to identify potential
baseline engines:
(1) All engines must be 1969 Model Year and should be
installed in a vehicle registered as a 1969 model year
vehicle with a GVWR greater than 8,500 Ib.
(2) The test engines must be in good operating condi-
tion, must be in their original configuration (i.e., must
have original carburetor, distributor, and engine block),
must not exhibit evidence of excessive oil consumption,
and should not have been subjected to more than 80,000
miles of operation.
(3) The engine's original carburation and ignition system
should not have been modified from OEM specifications.
(4) The engines shall not have received a major overhaul
(i.e., valve grind, valve replacement, or compression rings
replacement).
EPA realized that engine selection was a critical element
in establishing a valid baseline of 1969 model year gasoline-
fueled heavy-duty engines. The engines inspected were evalu-
ated according to the selection criteria outlined above, and
then placed into Class A, B, or C, depending upon how closely
the selection criteria were met. Classes A, B, and C were defined
as :
Class"A" - Engine is in its original configuration, meaning it
has never been overhauled, rebuilt or modified, it has
the original carburetor, distributor, cylinder head and intake
manifold, and has never had the carburetor modified (i.e.,
rebuilt with different jet sizes, power valve, choke arrange-
ment, governor, etc.). Engine does not currently need an
overhaul or major repair and has not accumulated more than
80,000 miles;
-------
-8-
Class"B" - Engine has been overhauled, but is in good ope-
rating condition, and has its original carburetor, distrib-
utor, heads, and intake manifold. Engine has not accumulated
more than 80,000 miles since being overhauled;
Class"C" - Engine is in its original configuration, as in
Class A, but needs major repairs, or has accumulated greater
than 80,000 miles.
The engine selection process used by ECTD and its contractor,
SCI, consisted of three main parts: initial screening, physical
inspection, and diagnostic evaluation. Initial screening, usually
by telephone, consisted of questioning the vehicle owners as to the
vehicle make and GVWR, mileage, engine displacement, past mainte-
nance history, and general operating condition of the engine. If
maintenance records were available, the owners were requested to
supply copies of these records, or at a minimum, allow inspection
of these records.
Vehicles which passed the initial screening process were
then inspected by a mechanic to verify the initial screening
information and record any pertinent information. The engine
was started and observed for proper operation in an attempt to
eliminate engines with obvious problems. A compression check
was done on many engines at this point. Finally, the distrib-
utor and carburetor found on the engine were verified as original
and proper by using part numbers. This was accomplished either
through direct communication with the manufacturer, or by using
service manuals. If, at this point, all of the selection criteria
were met, the vehicle was procured by lease, loan, or outright
purchase.
The final step in the selection process was a major diagnostic
evaluation and tune-up of the engine. During this final phase the
engines were cleaned and given a compression check if this had not
been done earlier. Included in the engine diagnosis was an eval-
uation of the ignition system, spark plug checks, fluid level
check, compression check, etc. The engines also received a tune-up
in which the ignition wires, spark plugs, PCV valve, belts, and
hoses were replaced. The rotor, points, condenser and cap were
replaced and the oil, oil filter, gas filter, and air filter were
changed. In addition, any other non-emission-related part con-
sidered defective was replaced.
Manufacturers' service manuals were used to obtain engine
tune-up specifications and in some cases the manufacturers provided
these tune-up specifications. Initially, carburetors and dis-
tributors were removed from the engines to be checked for proper
functioning and to determine if they met original specifications.
The necessary equipment was not available at SCI or EPA/MVEL, so
the manufacturers were requested to flow the carburetors and test
-------
-9-
the distributors. If a carburetor or distributor was found to be
out of specifications, then the required overhaul or rebuild was
done by the manufacturer when possible. This distributor and
carburetor checking process was very time consuming due to tight
scheduling at manufacturer's facilities. As a result of these
delays, the carburetors and distributors of all baseline engines
were not checked at the manufacturer facilities. It should be
emphasized that the operation of all carburetors and distributors
was inspected by EPA/MVEL and corrected if necessary. The carbur-
etor flow curves and distributor curves for several baseline
engines are shown in Appendix I.
3. Procurement Actions
Several procurement actions were instituted to obtain the
initial 25 baseline engines. These consisted of actions by
ECTD and ECTD's authorized contractors, SCI, and EG & G.
To expedite the procurement of baseline vehicles and get
the 1969 baseline program underway, procurement actions were
started by ECTD personnel in October 1977. ECTD contacted State
and Federal agencies and the Armed Forces to determine the avail-
ability of 1969 model year vehicles. The first successful procure-
ment action was completed on December 19, 1977, when baseline
engine number one was procured (see Table IV-A-3).
In February 1978, SCI (formerly Olson Labs) was awarded
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2412, Task Order 7, Location and Source
Search for 1969 Model Year Heavy-Duty Vehicles. The purpose
of this contract was to assess the availability of 1969 HD gas-
oline-fueled vehicles having a GVWR between 16,000 and 33,000
pounds. Availability was defined to mean that an arrangement
(i.e., lease, borrow, etc.) could be made to remove the engine for
performance testing on an engine dynamometer. The goal of Task
Order 7 was to identify 100 HD engines which met the selection
criteria outlined above. The scope of work for Contract No.
68-03-2412, Task Order 7, found in Appendix I, more fully outlines
the provisions of this contract. This task order was successfully
completed and the final report was accepted by ECTD on June 15,
1978. Included in Appendix I to this technical report is a
copy of the- final report for this contract and a copy of the
contact and inspection sheets for the engines ultimately included
in the baseline.
Also in February 1978, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2411, Task
Order 10, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Engine Emissions Baseline Testing
Program, was awarded to SCI. The purpose of this task order
was to provide 15 qualified original equipment 1969 HD test
engines, identified by ECTD, in the proper test configuration
to the EPA/MVEL in Ann Arbor. The contractor was responsible
for transporting the vehicle to SCI, removing the engine from
-------
-10-
Table IV-A-3
Final 1969 Baseline Engines
Baseline
Engine No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Engine
Dodge 225
IHC 392
Ford 391
IHC 304
Ford 330
GM 351
Ford 330
Chev 350
Dodge 318-3
IHC 345
Chev 350
Ford 300
IHC 345
Chev 366
Mileage
16,271
34,611
62,746
30,445
68,000
53,627
78,849
54,721
22,224
45,000
40,705
16.117
88,000
98,000
Model
D500
Loadstar
1800
F750
Loadstar
1600
B700
5500
B700
C-50
500
C1800
C-50
B-600
Loadstar
1600
C-50
Body Type
.Stake Truck
Van
Dump Truck
Van
School Bus
School Bus
School Bus
School Bus
School Bus
Tractor
Van
School Bus
School Bus
School Bus
Selection
Category
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
C
C
Source
MI National Guard
Camp Grayling, MI
GSA Navy Yard
Motor Pool, Wash. D.
Mr. J.S. Wright
Livonia, MI
GSA Navy Yard
Motor Pool, Wash. D.
Mr. L. Patrias
Westland, MI
Mr. L. Patrias
Westland, MI
Hamilton Com. Schls.
Hamilton, MI
W. Central Schls.
Anderson, IN
Fair lane Com. Church
W. Dearborn, MI
US Army
Ft. Campbell, KY
GSA, Cleveland, OH
State of MI
Lansing, MI
Martin Schls.
Martin, MI
Plymouth Schls.
Plymouth, MI
Date
Procured
12-19-77
2-17-78
C.
4-14-78
4-12-78
C.
5-08-78
5-24-78
6-27-78
7-13-78
6-20-78
6-5-78
3-21-78
8-21-78
10-6-78
10-13-78
Procurement
Method
Loan to EPA
Loan, Task 10
Lease, Task 10
Loan, Task 10
Lease, Task 10
Lease, Task 10
Loan, Task 10
Loan, Task 10
Lease, Task 10
Loan, Task 10
Loan, Task 10
Loan., Task 10
Purchase, SCI
C# 68-03-2715
Purchase, SCI
C# 68-03-2715
-------
-11-
Table IV-A-3 (Cont'd)
Final 1969 Baseline Engines
Baseline
Engine No.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
Engine
Ford 361
Ford 360
Chev 292
Dodge 318-1
Ford 361
Ford 360
Chev 350
Dodge 361
Chev 366
Mileage
65,537
81,464
46,200
37,526
93,430
87,750
57,000
85,000
109,000
Model
B700
F250
C-30
D200
B750
F250
C-50
C-700
C-50
Body Type
School Bus
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
School Bus
Pick-up
School Bus
Dump Truck
School Bus
Selection
Category
A
B
A
A
C
C
A
C
C
Source
Taylor Cen. Baptist
Church, Taylor, MI
Mr. D. Woolett
San Antonio, TX
E & M Motor Sales
Detroit, MI
Mr. J. Stanley
San Antonio, TX
Southfield Pub Schls
Southfield, MI
Mr. R. Pfluger
San Antonio, TX
W. Central Schls.
Anderson, IN
City of Huntington
Woods, MI
Plymouth Schls.
Plymouth, MI
Date
Procured
10-27-78
10-03-78
12-06-78
8-24-78
12-14-78
11-16-78
11-13-78
1-05-79
10-13-78
Procurement
Method
Lease, SCI
C# 68-03-2715
Lease, EG&G
C# 68-03-2683
Purchase, SCI
C# 68-03-2683
Lease, EG&G
C# 68-03-2683
Purchase, SCI
C# 68-03-2715
Lease, EG&G
C# 68-03-2683
Purchase, SCI
C# 68-03-2715
Purchase, SCI
C# 68-03-2715
Purchase, SCI
C# 68-03-2715
-------
-12-
the chassis, supplying the engine to the EPA laboratory in the
proper test configuration, reinstalling the engine into the
chassis, and returning the vehicle to its owner. The scope of
work for Task Order 10, found in Appendix I more fully outlines the
provisions of this contract.
This task order was successfully completed and the final
report accepted by ECTD on November 8, 1978. Included in Appendix
I to this technical report is a copy of the final report on this
contract and a copy of the inspection and tune-up sheets for the
engines ultimately included in the baseline.
A third contract with SCI, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2715,
Procurement of Heavy-Duty Vehicles and Preparation of Engines
for Baseline Emissions Testing, was awarded on September 14,
1978 for procurement of additional baseline vehicles. The purpose
of this contract, as regards the 1969 baseline, was generally
similar to Task Order 10 outlined above, except that of the re-
quired 15 engines to be procured, prepared, and delivered, 10 would
be delivered to EPA/ MVEL, and 5 to SwRI for testing at these
facilities. The specifics of this contract are in the Scope of
Work for Contract No. 68-03-2715, found in Appendix I. This
contract is not yet closed out because it also includes procurement
of 1973 engines for the HD NOx baseline program. The tune-up and
inspection sheets for the engines procured under this contract and
ultimately included in the baseline are found in Appendix I.
4. Problems Encountered
In the period beginning October 1977 and ending January
1979, ECTD and its contractor made every effort to procure engines
which met all of the selection criteria outlined on page 7.
However, due to time, budget, engine availability, and sampling
plan constraints, all engines included in the baseline did not
satisfy all of the selection criteria necessary to qualify as class
"A" engines.
Specifically, of the twenty-three engines included in the
baseline, seven had accumulated more than 80,000 miles (see
Table IV-A-3). The carburetors and/or distributors on some
engines either were replaced by new original equipment parts
supplied by the manufacturers or rebuilt to bring their performance
characteristics nearer to manufacturer's specifications.
Also, baseline engine 16, a Ford 360, had received a valve job
at 75,000 miles. This vehicle odometer read 81,464 at the time of
procurement. Although this valve job made this a class "B" engine,
ECTD felt that it was important to include this engine due to its
high sales. As will be shown later, this engine's emissions were
not unrepresentative of this engine line.
-------
-13-
Finally, when engines required by the sampling plan could
not be procured by the previously described method, ECTD chose
another procurement route. If a particular heavy-duty engine could
not be procured from a heavy-duty vehicle, but the same engine,
identical in all respects, was also sold in light-duty trucks, then
the engine was procured from a light-duty truck under EPA Contract
No. 68-03-2683 with EG & G Automotive Research of San Antonio,
Texas. This method was used to procure three of the baseline
engines which then underwent the normal inspection and tune-up
procedures.
5. Result of Selection and Procurement Actions
The procurement efforts described above resulted in the
twenty-three baseline engines shown in Table IV-A-3. Every
effort was made to bring these engines to as close to original
configuration as possible. Table IV-A-4 outlines the steps which
were taken to prepare each baseline engine for testing. The
condition of these baseline engines is attested to by the fact that
none of the twenty-three engines experienced a mechanical breakdown
or failure during engine testing. All were in good operating
condition and tuned to manufacturer specifications.
In closing this section, it might be constructive to compare
ECTD's procurement efforts to the sampling plan originally estab-
lished to guide this effort. The original sampling plan called for
ECTD to initially consider a sample of twenty-five engines which
were sold in 1969 gasoline-fueled HD vehicles. Of the 25 engines
initially desired, only 23 were included in this baseline program.
As will be shown in section C, only 23 engines were necessary to
establish dependable baseline results. The mileage criteria, less
than 80,000 miles, was met by 70% of the sample used. Figure
IV-A-1 shows the variation in the total miles accumulated on
the 23 baseline engines. 87% of the engines used were actu-
ally taken from heavy-duty vehicles; 13% were heavy-duty engines
taken from a light-duty truck chassis. Only one engine had under-
gone a major rebuild.
Finally, Table IV-A-5 compares the sampling plan (Table
IV-A-2) to the final baseline (Table IV-A-3). Table IV-A-5 shows
that the guidance of the initial sampling plan was followed close-
ly. Small sales volume, large cubic inch displacement engines were
not available for this baseline program. However, the sales-
weighting used to determine the average emissions would have
minimized the impact of these larger engines on the final baseline
results. ECTD's procurement efforts were highly satisfactory in
light of the goals established. Over 80% of the 1969 market was
represented by the engines procured, and all engines were brought
near to OEM specifications prior to testing.
-------
-14-
Table IV-A-4
Baseline Engine Maintenance Summary
Engine#/Model
1. Dodge 225-1
2. IHC 392
3. Ford 391
4. IHC 304
5. Ford 330
6. GM 351
7. Ford 330
8. GM 350
9. Chrysler 318-3
10. IHC 345
11. GM 350
12. Ford 300
Pre-Testing Restorative Maintenance
Major tune-up*; replaced intake mani-
fold gasket and 2 broken studs on
intake manifold.
Major tune-up; carburetor flow checked
and adjusted at IHC-Fort Wayne.
Distributor replaced with OEM part
supplied by IHC-Fort Wayne.
Major tune-up; carburetor and dis-
tributor checked and adjusted by Ford.
Major tune-up; carburetor and dis-
tributor checked and adjusted by IHC.
Major tune-up; right cylinder head
gasket and right intake manifold gasket
replaced; carburetor flow checked and
adjusted by Ford.
Major tune-up; all hoses replaced;
distributor replaced with OEM part
supplied and adjusted by CMC; manual
choke installed.
Major tune-up; carburetor and dis-
tributor checked and adjusted by Ford.
Major tune-up; fuel pump replaced.
Major tune-up; distributor and carbur-
etor checked and adjusted at Chrysler;
Chrysler engineer assisted in pre-test
adjustment of governor.
Major tune-up; carburetor and dis-
tributor checked and adjusted at IHC.
Major tune-up; oil pan and gasket
replaced; carburetor replaced with OEM
model supplied by the manufacturer.
Major tune-up; accelerator pump re-
placed.
-------
-15-
Table IV-A-4 (Cont'd)
Baseline Engine Maintenance Summary
Engines/Model
13. IHC 345
14. GM 366
15. Ford 361
16. Ford 360
17. GM 292
18. Chrysler 318-1
19. Ford 361
20. Ford 360
21. GM 350
22. Chrysler 361-3
23. GM 366
Pre-Testing Restorative Maintenance
Major tune-up; all belts and hoses
replaced; carburetor checked and
adjusted at IHC.
Major tune-up; all belts and hoses
replaced; carburetor rebuilt at EPA/
MVEL using a locally procured Delco kit.
Major tune-up.
Major tune-up; left exhaust manifold
replaced.
Major tune-up; replaced fuel pump,
belts, starter, vacuum advance, fast
idle linkage, and exhaust manifold/
gasket.
Major tune-up; right exhaust manifold
and gasket replaced.
Major tune-up.
Major tune-up; replaced timing chain,
cam gear, oil pump, oil pan gasket,
timing chain gasket, front crankshaft
seal, water pump, oil filter, and
flywheel (replaced automatic with
manual).
Major tune-up; all belts and an exhaust
manifold replaced.
Major tune-up; intake manifold gasket
replaced.
Major tune-up; distributor replaced
with OEM part supplied and adjusted by
GM.
* A major tune-up is defined as replacement and/or adjustment of
spark plugs, ignition wires, thermostat, distributor cap, points,
rotor, condenser, PCV valve, air filter, fuel filter, oil filter
and oil change. Other adjustments included timing, carburetor
idle, valve clearances, cylinder power balancing, and mechanical
and vacuum advance curves to OEM specifications.
-------
-16-
5
u
IT
UI
I-
Ul
5
::
5-
X
o
O
2.6,000
£ 6,000
, 6 66
-------
-17-
Table IV-A-5
Sampling Plan vs. Baseline Engines Procured
Manufacturer
Chrysler
Engine
318-3
318-1
361
383
413
225
Sampling
Target Range
Total
Actual
Procurement
1
1
1
0
0
1
Ford
330
360
361
300
391
477
390
534
Total
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
General Motors
350-2
366
292
351C
250
307
305C
477
350-4
396
Total
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
IHC
V345
V304
V392
RD450
VS478
Total
2
1
1
0
-------
-18-
B. Engine Testing
1. Test Sites
The 1969 Heavy Duty Baseline Testing Program was undertaken
primarily at EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Twenty-three engines were tested over the course of
fifteen months; twenty-two were tested on one of ECTD's two tran-
sient dynamometers; the remaining engine was tested under contract
by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRl) in San Antonio, Texas.
Baseline testing at EPA began in March 1978 upon the attain-
ment of transient dynamometer testing capability in a single test
cell (Cell 3). The second test cell (Cell 4) was upgraded for
transient control in August, 1978; following correlation testing
work, Cell 4 was brought on line into the program.
ECTD Test Cells 3 and 4 are adjacent, separated only by a
twelve-foot-wide motor generator room. Each test cell utilized its
own double-ended dynamometer, water coolant system, instrumenta-
tion, and ambient air handling/humidity conditioning systems. Both
cells were controlled by a single computer, and emissions were
measured using the same CFV-CVS unit.
Under contract by ECTD, SwRI developed both gasoline and
diesel engine dynamometer test cells capable of transient opera-
tion. The purpose of the contract was two-fold: 1) to establish
the fact that an independent laboratory could achieve transient
capability with a minimum of ECTD guidance in a reasonable length
of time, and 2) to provide a site for future transient baseline
testing. Other engines were tested at SwRI upon achievment of
transient capability; these were primarily current technology
engines used for correlation attempts between EPA and SwRI.
(Correlation testing between EPA and SwRI will be summarized in a
separate technical report. However, correlation for transient and
modal testing for the 1969 gasoline baseline has been satisfactor-
ily established.
2. Test Procedure
Testing in the 1969 baseline program involved three separate
test procedures; the transient test procedure (Reference Federal
Register Vol. 44, No. 31, February 13, 1979), the 1979 9-mode FTP
(Reference Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 174, September 8, 1977),
and an idle test procedure (Reference Federal Register Vol. 44, No.
31, February 13, 1979). Time was also taken during the program for
various emission sensitivity tests, to assess the impact on transi-
ent emissions of variations in the test cycle. In addition,
several current technology engines were tested for correlation and
technology assessment purposes.
-------
-19-
Th e transient procedure was identical to that described in the
February 13, 1979 NPRM with two exceptions:
a) Four separate bag samples were taken during each hot
and cold cycle (as opposed to the recommended one); this
was done so that emission data could also be collected
for the separate urban and highway segments within the
total cycle._iy
b) The regression line tolerances specified as strict criter-
ia for the validation of transient tests were judged too
restrictive based upon the experience acquired in the baseline
program, and were relaxed. (See Table IV B-l.)
The proposed criteria in the NPRM were derived prior to the
accumulation of substantial transient testing data. Based upon a
comprehensive review of the baseline data, use of the stricter NPRM
criteria led to significantly higher void rates, with no apparent
gain in emission repeatability or test quality.
These higher void rates were due primarily to control system
limitations. The ECTD transient controller represented a first
attempt, prototype system. Statistical reduction of tests per-
formed at SwRI under a control system of different design (see
Section 3), indicated a somewhat better control capability, especi-
ally for engines with a high degree of throttle performance non-
linearity. There is reason to believe that as future transient
control systems are refined, no real difficulty should be experi-
enced in meeting the statistical requirements of the February 13,
1979 NPRM. However, based upon the observation that emission
sensitivity to the slightly relaxed criteria appeared to be mini-
mal, it is recommended that the statistical criteria be relaxed
prior to inclusion in the Final Rulemaking Action. The tolerances
presented in Table IV B-l are adequate to guarantee repeatable and
representative emission results. These tolerances should be
subject to future revision, however, if they prove inadequate due
to the effects of advanced emission control technology on the
repeatability of the test procedure.
\J Brake specific emissions for each bag were combined to produce
a composite brake specific emission number for the entire hot or
cold cycle. This was mathematically and experimentally equivalent
to a single bag result.
-------
-20-
Standard Error
of Estimate
(SE) of y on x
Slope of the
Regression Line, m
Coefficient of
Determination, r^
y Intercept of
the Regression
Line, b
Table IV B-l
NPRM Regression Line Tolerances
Torque
10% of max.
engine torque
(in ft-lbs)
0.850-1.020
0.8800 JY
+ 10.0 ft-lbs
0.970-1.020
0.9700 JY
+ 50 rpm
Brake Horsepower
5% of max. brake
horsepower
0.900-1.020
0.9200 I/
+5.0 BHP
Revised Cycle Performance Regression Line Tolerances
Standard Error
of Estimate
(SE) of y on x
Slope of the
Regression Line, m
Coefficient of
. . o
Determination, r^
y Intercept of
the Regression
Line, b
0.970-1.030
0.9700 JY
+ 50 rpm
Torque 2/
13% of max.
engine torque
(in Ft-lbs.)
0.83-1.03 (hot)
0.77-1.03 (cold)
0.8800 (hot) JY
0.8500 (cold) JY
+ 15.0 ft-lbs
Brake Horsepower
7% of max. brake
horsepower
0.89-1.03 (hot)
0.87-1.03 (cold)
0.9100 If
+ 5.0 BHP
J_/ Minimum
2/ In addition to the torque points not included in the regression
per the February 13, 1979 NPRM; i.e., 1) all torque points measured
during the initial 24 _+_! second idle period of the cold and hot
start cycle, and 2) all torque points where the throttle is wide
open and a negative torque error occurs, an additional exclusion
of torque points is -permitted. These additional points are: 3)
all torque points measured when negative torque (motoring) is
commanded and the throttle is completely closed.
-------
-21-
The 9-mode test procedure used was identical to that specified
in the Federal Register (Vol. 42, No. 174, September 1977) with the
following exceptions:
a) Only a single 9-mode cycle was run; this was done with a
warm engine (Engine oil temperature over 200°F).
b) Emission measurements were taken by the CVS-CFV bag
technique, as opposed to raw exhaust analysis. In order to
assure adequate sample volumes in the bags, sample modes of
five minutes length were performed, as opposed to the one
minute modes of the federal certification procedure.^/
Idle test data was taken in accordance with the February 13,
1979 NPRM, employing the CVS-CFV bag sampling technique, with the
ratio of the concentrations of raw CC-2 to dilute sample C02 used
for dilution factor determination. In addition to the idle mode,
however, three other modes were tested for emissions. An overview
of the test procedure is presented in Table IV B-2. These addi-
tional modes were sampled using the same procedure as the idle
mode.
Table IV B-2
Idle Test Procedure
Mode Length
Mode RPM % Max Torque @RPM (minutes)
1 2,500 0 5
2 Idle 0 5
3 2,200 55% @ 2,200 5
4 1,700 43% @ 1,700 5
In addition to the three primary test procedures, various
other tests were performed, primarily on current technology
engines. These tests usually involved consecutive hot starts
(hot start transient cycles with twenty-minute soak time between
runs.) A single test parameter (e.g., total integrated brake
horsepower-hour, engine temperature, throttle aggressiveness,
ambient humidity, calibration settings, etc.) would be varied and
its impact on engine emissions assessed. These tests were useful
in assessing emission sensitivity to variations in the cycle
I/ Test results from current technology engines tested under
This modified test procedure showed negligible variation from
the manufacturers' test results, obtained using the raw exhaust,
certification method.
-------
-22-
perfonnance regression statistics and to variations in other cycle
parameters. Results of these test programs will appear in a
separate technical report.
3. Transient Engine Dynamometer Control System
The transient control system used in the baseline program
was a digital/analog hybrid, employing closed-loop analog speed
contr,ol and open-loop analog torque control. (See Figure IV-B-1).
A digital cassette recorder served as a source of continual command
signals,, and also recorded speed/load feedback signals from the
engine on a separate cassette tape. The digital command signals
from the cassette keyboard were converted to analog control vol-
tages within a Texas Instruments 960B Computer. The TI 960B was
programmed for several tasks, the most important of which were
transient engine control for emission testing (Task D), and manual
steady-state engine control through the keyboard for system
calibration (Task A). The analog control circuitry and the
digital/analog interfacing were designed by LABECO, Inc. of
Mooresville, Indiana.
Test cell hardware included General Electric motoring dynamo-
meters and their associated G.E. control circuitry, which comprised
the major portion of the speed loop of the control system. The
speed control circuitry, was a simple closed-loop system employing
proportional control (i.e., dynamometer speed was a linear function
of command voltage), with a proportional feedback loop allowing for
the generation of compensatory error voltages.
The torque control loop was somewhat more complex. Torque
control was an open loop system in the sense that parts of the
system were not electrical, i.e., the engine and its operational
characteristics were integral components of the "circuit." Figure
IV B-2 details the typical load vs. throttle position characteris-
tics of an SI engine. (Throttle position is expressed in terms of
the voltage applied to a throttle actuator servo motor; the clutch-
driven actuator opened and closed the throttle linkage in propor-
tion to the applied voltage.) Actual engine load was measured by a
torquemeter (torsional strain gauge type with slip rings) mounted
in line in the driveshaft between dynamometer and engine.
The ECTD control system controlled torque through three
separate analog input voltages to the servo motor (See Figure
IV B-l): 1) a "pre-position" throttle command voltage proportional
to the commanded torque, 2) a speed correction voltage to allow for
the variations in load vs. throttle position with engine speed
(Figure IV B-2), and 3) a simple torque error (Command minus
Feedback) voltage for fine tuning. In short, this linear "pre-
position" system attempted to follow nonlinear engine load/throttle
voltage characteristics with corrections for non-linearity provided
by the limited error voltages and by additional circuitry (See
Footnote 2/, Table IV B-3).
-------
-23-
SPEED COMMAND
SPEED FEEDBACK
SPEED
AMPLIFIER
ATTENUATED
SPEED COMMAND
THROTTLE POSITION
IEFEREN( E
^COMMAND)
TAPE
FEED-
BACK
TAPE
THROTTLE
AMPLIFIER
TORQUE COMMAND
s^ TORQUE ERROR
TORQUE ERROR
AMPLIFIER
TORQUE FEEDBACK
CASSETTE
KEYBOARD
THROTTLE
kSERVO
MOTOR
SHAFT
.XTORQUE'
METER
-.DRIVE
SHAFT
I TI 960B { CALIBRATION ' ANALOG CONTROL CIRCUITRY
1 POTS
FIGURE IV B-l: ECTD TRANSIENT DYNAMOMETER CONTROLLER
HARDWARE
-------
-24-
'
300
WIDE OPEN
THROTTLE
250
200
ACTUAL
SHAFT
TORQUE
(FT-LBS) 150
100
50
LSO
MSMT
MSMXT
CONTROLLER
CALIBRATION POINTS .
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
THROTTLE POSITION VOLTAGE (VOLTS)
FIGURE IV B-2: TYPICAL THROTTLE VOLTAGE/LOAD CHARACTERISTICS OF AN SI ENGINE
-------
-25-
Calibration of these three throttle input circuits was per-
formed after engine preparation was completed. The calibration
procedure is summarized in Table IV B-3. With the system operating
in Task A mode, i.e., the engine running at chosen speeds and
torques through typed-in commands at the keyboard, calibration was
performed on the feedback and then the throttle input circuits.
Specific calibration settings were unique to each engine (reflect-
ing unique throttle/load characteristics and varying impedances
between the test cells.) At any given time during production
testing, one calibrated engine was present in each test cell,
allowing two cold start transient tests per day. (The remaining
space in each cell was reserved for engine buildup and prepara-
tion). Calibration settings for each engine were recorded to
alleviate the need for recalibration when automatic control was
switched from one cell to the other.
Following calibration, the engine was mapped under automatic
control and a transient cycle command tape was generated. (See
Section IV B-5 - Software Support.) This tape controlled the
engine throughout the transient test; feedback data for cycle
performance statistical validation were recorded on a separate tape
and analyzed after the test.
The transient test began by manually cranking the engine with
the starter motor (dynamometer off). Emission sampling began
simultaneously with cranking. Upon ignition, the operator was
permitted to manipulate the throttle as necessary to preclude
stalling. (If stalling did occur, or the engine refused to start,
the contingency procedure of the NPRM was followed. The few cases
where this did occur are called out in Appendix II as comments on
Individual Test Reports.) Between ignition and fifteen seconds
into the test, the dynamometer, preset to run at engine idle speed,
was engaged. Fifteen seconds into the test (referred to as "lag"
time), the computer took control of the engine. The first non-idle
point in the test occured at the twenty-four second mark and the
transient portion of the cycle began. At the conclusion of
the cold cycle the computer automatically returned control to the
operator console, at which point the engine was shut down for the
soak period. The hot cycle procedure was identical to the cold.
(The emissions were sampled according to the schedule presented in
Table IV B-8.)
During the analysis of the transient feedback tape, 9-mode and
idle testing were performed under completely manual control.
Following final validation of all test results, the engine was
removed from the test cell.
Throughout the baseline program the engines were run in
"speed control" mode, as described above. This was in contrast to
"torque control" mode, in which the dynamometer directly controlled
engine torque, while the throttle control equipment controlled
engine speed. The ECTD system was capable of operating in either
-------
-26-
Table IV B-3
Transient Controller Calibration Procedure
Task A
Step Calibration Potentiometer I/ (Figure 4 B-l) Purpose (Figure 4 B-2)
A. Torque and Speed Feedback Calibrates load and speed
Feedback (TFB and SFB) feedback signals so that the
engine's performance may be
accurately recorded.
B. Midspeed/Zero Torque Sets zero point for speed
(MSZT) compensating voltage (Throttle
Input 2)
C. Midspeed/Mid Torque Sets mid-span point for
(MSMT) throttle command voltage
(Throttle Input 1)
D. Midspeed/Max Torque Sets maximum span point
(MSMXT)2/ for additional Throttle voltage
(Throttle Input 1)
E. Low-Speed Offset (LSO) Spans speed compensation
voltage (Throttle Input 2).
I/ Named for speed/load at which calibration occurs. In general, midspeed
.... , Rated (or governed) RPM-Idle RPM + Idle RPM, midtorque as
is defined as =
Maximum torque @ Midspeed RPM. These were not rigid parameters, however,
and the calibrations occured wherever necessary to achieve satisfactory
results.
2j In reality, the Midspeed/Max Torque (MSMXT) is not only a potentiometer,
in Figure IV B 1. This
circuitry was designed to provide on additional linear voltage boost at
higher loads, so that the analog system could more closely approximate the
load/throttle characteristics in the operating range between half and full
throttle (See Figure IV B-2).
-------
-27-
mode, and early in the baseline program, controller performance in
each mode was analyzed. Based upon the high void rates associated
with "torque control" mode due to the lack of cold engine drivea-
bility in the early moments of a cold start (resulting in stalled
engines and voided tests) the decision was made to operate in
"speed control" for the baseline program. The dynamometer control-
led engine speed during momentary stumbles at the cold start,
precluding stalling of the engine and substantially reducing the
likelihood of a void test.
When compared with the ECTD control system, the control system
at SwRI differed in support instrumentation, and in the case of the
torque-control loop, in basic design. The torque control input to
the throttle servo motor was entirely error-based, i.e., the torque
command and feedback voltages were fed into a differencing ampli-
fier; the amplifier output drove the servo motor. SwRI also ran in
speed control mode, and in compliance with the revised regression
statistics.
The ECTD "Pre-position" type system was originally selected to
guarantee sufficiently rapid throttle response to widely varying
torque commands. During the baseline program, however, frequent
calibration difficulties resulted in regularly deficient controller
performance, due to both the non-linearity of the engine's throt-
tle-position function and the insufficient voltage achievable
from the torque error amplifier. (Above a certain amplifier gain,
considerable oscillatory motion of the throttle actuator was
encountered. The point of excessive oscillation represented the
maximum gain allowable; in some cases this gain was too low to
overcome the non-linear characteristics.) Based upon the perform-
ance of the system at SwRI, a torque controller utilizing torque
error as the major controlling input is equally responsive as a
"pre-position" system, does not suffer from engine-to-engine
variations in non-linear throttle operational characteristics, and
is significantly easier to calibrate.
In general the ECTD control system produced repeatable results
within the revised cycle performance criteria. Enough difficulty
in calibration was experienced, however, to warrant modification
of the controller to one whose primary torque controlling input is
error-based. An alternative solution is to use a pre-position type
control system with sufficient memory capacity to allow calibration
through a comprehensive matrix mapping of the engine's throttle
voltage characteristics, i.e., record the throttle voltage neces-
sary for any combination of speed and torque. These matrix values
could be stored into memory directly, or used to determine con-
stants of higher-order polynomial algorithms (pre-programmed into
the computer) to allow closer following of the non-linear throttle
ll/ SwRI operated without ambient humidity controls,but this had no
significant effect on HC and CO emission levels.
-------
-28-
voltage curves. A small torque error compensatory voltage would
then be sufficient to account for variation in engine performance
(e.g., a cold engine vs. a hot engine). EPA plans to implement one
of these alternatives in the near future. Furthermore, based upon
testing experience to date, additional capabilities of a transient
dynamometer controller are desirable. These include:
1) The engine should be capable of being "uncoupled" from the
dynamometer, either electrically or mechanically, during idle
portions of the transient test. This allows for a free idle,
especially important during a cold start if the engine is
equipped with an automatic choke.
2) The controller's data reduction capability should be
sufficient to allow rapid calculation of a test's cycle
performance statistics. This allows much prompter trouble-
shooting of controller calibration settings, resulting in
higher system reliability and lower void rates.
4. Engine Preparation and Instrumentation
Engines tested at MVEL arrived from two sources: private
contractors and in-house procurements. Engines obtained through
in-house procurements were removed from the vehicles and assembled
upon test stands; those engines originating from contractors
arrived in test-ready configuration. In both cases, the engines
were- set up for testing according to MSAPC Advisory Circular 22A
(April 3, 1973).W
The standard engine test configuration consisted of the
engine's flywheel bolted to a torquemeter-equipped rubber-softened
2j driveshaft (Dana-Spicer) coupled to the dynamometer. The engine
was isolated from its mountings by shock-absorbing rubber mounts
(usually OEM vehicle mounts). The throttle actuator stands were
bolted to the dynamometer bed plate and to the engine itself by
means of a rigid cross bar. (Accurate transient control of the
throttle was difficult unless the actuator motor and the engine
were rigidly fixed to one another.) The throttle servo motors were
clutch driven with internal position feedback potentiometers. The
actuator arms were connected to the throttle linkages by either
ball chain or wire cable such that full travel of the actuator arm
(approximately 60°) resulted in wide-open throttle.
I/ The only exception to A/C 22A procedure was that engines were
not equipped with clutch assemblies; driveshafts were bolted
directly to the flywheel by means of an adapter plate. A/C 22A is
included in Appendix II.
2j Driveshafts used at EPA were rubber-softened to alleviate the
possibility of resonant torsional vibrations. SwRI used solid
steel shafts with no apparent difficulties.
-------
-29-
The engine coolant water was circulated through a heat-
exchanging water cooling system; the system temperature control was
set such that coolant water to the engine was a minimum of 20°F
below engine thermostat temperature. Portable fans were directed
at each side of the engine during the test, but were shut off
during the hot soak.
Exact duplication of the in-vehicle exhaust system involved
practical difficulties arising from the location of the dynamome-
ter. Where necessary, the standard exhaust systems were bent to
clear the dyno and other obstructions (e.g., the control instru-
mentation boom). Bends were kept to a minimum to eliminate back-
pressure variations. Marmon flanges were welded to the end of the
exhaust system for attachment of flexible convoluted piping for
transport of the raw exhaust to the CVS inlet, to which the piping
was rigidly attached. Inlet depression at the CVS was kept within
NPRM specifications.
In addition to the tune-ups performed by the procurement
contractor, all engines were tuned and adjusted by ECTD personnel
to manufacturer's recommended specifications prior to mapping and
testing. The tune-up specifications used were those published in
the manufacturer's applicable service manuals, obtained directly
from the manufacturers. In the interest of accuracy, w number of
carburetors and distributors were checked and adjusted by the
manufacturers at their own facilities. Every attempt was made to
meet the recommended specifications, and this was accomplished in
the vast majority of cases. In a few cases (called out in Appendix
II) both engineering judgment and manufacturer's advice, were used
when specifications were unachievable.
The tuneup procedure involved verification of engine perform-
ance. Distributor advance curves and dwell variation were checked
on a Sun Model 500 distributor tester (distributor removed from the
engine). With the engine running on the dynamometer, a Sun Model
947 engine performance tester was used to check mechanical and
vacuum advance curves and dwell variations. The same instrument
was used in the adjustment of idle HC and CO, along with the
carburetor/cylinder balancing adjustment and the carburetor power
valve check.
After all mechanical specifications were checked, calibration
of the engine/control system was performed, and the engine mapping
procedure began.
A summary of the equipment used is presented in Table IV B-4.
-------
-30-
Table IV B-4
Instrumentation Summary
Instrument
Purpose/Specifications
General Electric Direct
Current Dynamometer
Absorbing, 380 HP, 400 ft. Ib.
Motoring: 360 HP, 375 ft. Ib.
Base Speed: 5,000 RPM
Frame Size: TLF 3644-F
Lebow Torquemeter
Model #1228H(5,000 in-lbs,
0 - 5,000 RPM)
Lebow Torque Signal
Conditioner and Indicator
Model #7535
CVS Unit (Philco-Ford)
CFV Type, 1,500'SCFM Capacity
Texas Instrument 960B
Computer with Silent 700
ASR Data Terminal
LABECO Control Console,
Control Equipment
-------
-31-
5. Software Support/Data Reduction
Considerable amounts of software support were utilized in the
baseline program, both in evaluating the engine's performance over
the cycle and in the actual emission calculations.
The vast computational and memory resources of the Michigan
Terminal System's (MTS) AMDAHL V/7 Computer were made available
to the TI Controller through a standard phone communications
link (1200 BAUD). The MTS system served as a central processor
(host computer) which stored the numerous support programs used in
day-to-day baseline operations. These support programs and their
functions are summarized below:
Cycle Support System Function List
GENCYC - Generate a normalized!^/ cycle or mapping reference^/ file.
EDCYC - Edit opcodes3_/ on normalized cycle or engine reference^/ file,
INPMFB - Input mapping feedback^/ cassette into a file.
MANIPCYC - Manipulate normalized cycles and unnormalize them
MAKECAS - Make a mapping or engine reference cassette (command tape).
Test Processing System Function List
INPEFC - Input engine feedback cassette into a file.
CYCPERF - Monitor performance of engine feedback file (perform
statistical regression).
STOREDS - Store HD data sheets in the HD data base (emission data).
STOREEI - Store HD engine information.
PROCTEST - Process HD tests (perform emission calculations).
REPORT - Generate HD reports (output emission data).
RETRVDS - Retrieve HD data sheets to make changes.
\J To normalize a cycle is to express each cycle parameter (RPM or
ft Ibs) as a percentage of the maximum achievable.
2/ A mapping reference file is used to control on engine during the
automatic maximum load curve generation. It consists of incremen-
tal step speed commands and wide-open throttle commands.
3_/ Opcodes (Operational Codes) are additional data recorded on the
feedback tape, or present on the reference tape. They allow
monitoring of certain conditions (e.g., closed or wide-open throt-
tle), and can be used for additional control capabilities.
4/ Engine reference file is an engine-specific command tape used to
run the engine through the entire transient test.
5/ Feedback is the recorded speed and torque performance of an
engine, either during mapping or a transient test.
-------
-32-
Table IV B-5
Engine
(1) Chrysler 225 8
(2) IHC 392 9
(3) Ford 391 5
(4) IHC 304 8
(5) Ford 330 5
(6) GM 351C 8
(7) Ford 330 8
(8) GM 350-2 3
(9) Chrysler 318-3 4
(10) IHC 345 4
(11) GM 350-2 9
(12) Ford 300 6
(13) IHC 345 7
(14) GM 366 3
(15) Ford 361 8
(16) Ford 360 6
(17) GM 292 11
(18) Chrysler318-l 4
(19) Ford 361 4
(20) Ford 360 4
(21) GM 350-2 5
(22) Chrysler 361 3
(23) GM 366 4
1969 Baseline Void Rates
Void Tests
Total Testsl/ Statistical/ Experimenta!3/
6
3
2
4
1
1
2
4
3
4
6
3*
9
1
2*
2
1
3
1
3
2
4
1
2
Total
Void
Rate
75%
67%
60%
37%
0%
75%
63%
33%
25%
50%
67%
50%
57%
0%
75%
50%
82%
25%
25%
50%
40%
33%
25%
Total
136 (100%)
54 (40%)
18 (13%)
53%
*See Appendix II, Baseline Engines 16 and 20.
I/ Cold start transient tests intended for baseline data (excluding
all correlation and parameter sensitivity tests).
2] Statistically Void: exceeding the revised cycle performance
regression tolerances given in this report.
3/ Experimentally Void: engine or equipment malfunction, operator
error, etc.
-------
-33-
Table IV B-6
1969 Transient Baseline Repeatability
Coefficients of Variationl/ (%)
Engine
(1) Chrysler 225
(2) IHC 392
(3) Ford 391
(4) IHC 304
(5) Ford 330
(6) GM 351C
(7) Ford 330
(8) GM 350-2
(9) Chrysler 318-3
(10) IHC 345
(11) GM 350-2
(12) Ford 300
(13) IHC 345
(14) GM 366
(15) Ford 361
(16) Ford 360
(17) GM 292
(18) Chrysler 318-1
(19) Ford 361
(20) Ford 360
(21) GM 350-2
(22) Chrysler 361
(23) GM 366
Valid Tests
2
3
2
5
5
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
BSHC
7.4
4.9
0.5
10.0
4.4
13.3
5.9
0.2
5.5
1.3
18.4
19.5
4.8
.3
5.5
7.7
9.0
1.1
.4
3.2
5.3
6.0
1.8
BSCO
3.2
4.2
0.2
14.0
2.5
1.6
9.1
0.2
19.1
3.6
12.0
3.4
12.1
3.7
7.8
8.4
6.3
6.7
3.7
2.8
.7
4.4
4.4
Mean Baseline Coefficient
of Variation: (C. of V.)
5.9
5.8
I/ C. of V. = 100% x standard deviation of all valid tests/mean of
~all valid tests.
-------
-34-
Following preparation and calibration of an engine, a mapping
reference tape was created by the MAKECAS function. The mapping
reference tape served as the command tape during the automatic
mapping procedure. It consisted of wide open throttle commands at
100 RPM speed increments over the entire speed range of engine
operation (i.e., approximately 200 RPM below idle to 300 RPM above
rated or governed RPM). Each increment lasted fifteen seconds;
torque feedback measured over the last five seconds of each incre-
ment were averaged to arrive at a maximum torque value. This
feedback data was stored on a separate cassette tape.
The mapping feedback tape was then loaded into MTS data files
by means of INPMFB, at which point GENCYC created a normalized
cycle reference file, which was then recorded on a blank cassette
by means of MAKECAS. This cassette became the command tape for
controlling the engine during the entire transient cycle.
The feedback data from a transient test was recorded on a
blank cassette during the test. The data from the feedback cas-
sette was stored into MTS by INPEFC, at which time the regression
analysis was performed by CYCPERF. Following the regression
analysis, it was then possible to input the emission data into the
master file (STOREDS), process the tests (PROCTEST), and generate a
complete transient test report (see Appendix II).
During the baseline program, the actual process of loading
data from the cassettes to the MTS files was time consuming;
primarily because a time sharing system (MTS) was being used which
was not under direct ECTD control. This delayed cycle performance
results and tied up the keyboard terminal. EPA plans to substitute
disc memory for the cassettes in a future transient test cell, in
an effort to substantially reduce turnaround time.
6. Void Rates/Test Repeatability
A summary of the baseline program's void rates and the emis-
sion repeatability of valid transient tests is presented below in
Tables IV B-5 and IV B-6. Statistical validation was accom-
plished using the revised statistics within this report.
Void rates during the baseline program were somewhat high.
The voiding of tests due to experimental error (e.g., equipment
malfunction, operator error) was initially high; as more experience
with the test procedure and the equipment was gained, however,
tests voided for this reason were virtually eliminated. Statisti-
cally-void tests were present throughout the program. In most
cases, these high statistical void rates were a result of one
of three causes:
a) the statistical criteria were not available (i.e., had not
been developed) for calibration or validation when the engine was
tested. A later application of the statistical criteria indicated
that additional tests (as in engine No. 1) would not have been
needed.
-------
-35-
b) communication service with the host computer (MTS) was
interrupted such that statistical validation of the test was not
possible prior to the running of the next test. (Normally if the
first test was void, the system would be recalibrated before the
next test, however, many times the interruption was so long that
the normal procedure was precluded.);
c) calibration difficulties with the EPA/MVEL system control-
ler, which was highly engine dependent.
Once the statistical criteria were developed, the last two
causes were the most prevalent. ECTD plans to improve both the
communication and controlling capabilities of its sytem in the near
future to reduce the incidence of statistically void tests.
Of those tests determined to be valid, however, the emission
repeatability was good. The average coefficient of emission
variation for the entire baseline program was less than 6%. When
compared to the thirteen baseline engines for which data from more
than a single 9-mode FTP is available, model emission variability
over the baseline program was 5.0 percent for BSHC and 4.3 percent
for BSCO. (See Table IV B-7.) The prototype ECTD Controller
achieved comparable repeatability. It is anticipated that the
closer future control systems come to achieving the ideal regres-
sion statistics, emission variability as measured over the transi-
ent test will be reduced.
-------
-36-
Table IV B-7
Modal Baseline Emission Variability _!/
Coefficients of Variation
Engine Valid Tests BSHC BSCO
(4) IHC 304 3 4.0 6.0
(9) Chrysler 318-3 2 2.0 18.0
(11) GM 350-2 3 2.0 7.0
(12) Ford 300 2 1.0 1.0
(13) IHC 345 2 7.0 .10
(14) GM 366 2 1.0 2.0
(15) Ford 361 2 18.0 1.0
(16) Ford 360 3 5.0 7.0
(17) GM 292 2 10.0 5.0
(19) Ford 361 2 6.0 2.0
(20) Ford 360 2 2.7 1.7
(21) GM 350-2 2 5.2 2.1
(22) Chrysler 361 2 .50 3.0
(23) GM 366 3 1.8 4.4
Mean Modal C. of V.(%): 5.0 4.3
\J Based upon the modified 9-mode test procedure.
2J Modal data for engines 1-8 were voided due to a test procedure
error. Engine #4 was retested. Remaining baseline engines not
included here have only one valid 9-mode test.
-------
-37-
7. Emission Sampling System
Emissions were sampled using the CFV-CVS bag technique.
Dilution factors for the transient and 9-mode FTP's were deter-
mined using an average air/fuel ratio of 13.4, dilution factor for
the idle test by using a raw CO analyzer. (The calculations
were performed according to the appropriate Federal Register).
Sample bags were analyzed at an analyzer site using the
following equipment:
Gas Instrument EPA No.
HC Beckman Model 400 (40% H /60% He Fuel) 086985
C0(0-1000 ppm) Bendix Model 8501-5MB 109724
CO (0-50,000 ppm) MSA Model 202 109961
CO MSA Model 202 109952
NOx TECO Serial #CT-M-1063-29 109723 Series 10
CH4 Bendix Model 8205 038333
Raw C0_ measurements for the idle test were taken on an
MSA Model 2T02 (EPA #109949) analyzer (0-14%, with ice bath).
Maintenance and calibration checks of the equipment were
performed regularly. Both propane injections and an Easttech
Vortex shedding flowmeter were used on a weekly basis to check
calibration on the CFV-CVS flow.
Emissions collected in the test cells were analyzed at EPA
analyzer train A009, located 200 feet down the hall. The maximum
delay between sample collection and sample analysis was twenty
minutes.
The sampling timetable used during a transient test is pre-
sented in Table IV B-8.
-------
-38-
Table IV B-8
Transient Emission Sampling Schedule (Cold Cycle) _!_/
Time After
Ignition
(seconds) 2J Event
- Cranking of engine/Begin Bag 1 Sampling
0 - Ignition (Times Started)
1-14 - Dynamometer Engaged
15 - Automatic Control Engaged
25 - Just Non-Idle Cycle Command
272 - Bag 1 Ends/Bag 2 Begins
579 - Bag 2 Ends/Bag 3 Begins
895 - Bag 3 Ends/Bag 4 Begins
1167 - Bag 4 Ends
1169 +2 - Twenty-Minute Soak Begins
I/ Hot cycle is identical, following twenty-minute soak.
2/ As denoted in the NPRM speed/Torque schedule.
-------
-39-
C. Baseline Compilation and Standards Computation
The results of the testing efforts at EPA/MVEL and SwRI for
all twenty-three of the baseline engines are summarized in the test
results found in this section.
This section is divided into three main sub-sections:
1. Transient Cycle: Emission Test Summaries and Results
2. Idle Test: Emission Test Summaries and Results
3. Standards Computation and Discussion
1. Transient Cycle: Emission Test Summaries and Results
The data tabulations in this sub-section give a summary of all
emission data for the 23 baseline engines tested on the transient
test procedure. Data is included for valid and invalid tests.
Appendix II contains more detailed information on each test con-
ducted.
Before presenting the actual data, a discussion of the less
obvious headings and codes used in the computer printout will aid
in using this information:
a) Manufacturer Code (MFC)
20 Chrysler
30 Ford
40 General Motors
270 International Harvester
b) Actual BHP-hr: The integrated brake-horsepower-hour
calculated from the actual speed and torque performance of an
engine run over the transient cycle.
c) % Error: The percent deviation of the integrated brake-
horsepower-hour over the actual transient test as compared to the
reference cycle integrated brake-horsepower-hour. (Based on the
sum of BHP from cold and hot cycle. Validation was determined
based on the individual value for each cold cycle and hot cycle.)
d) Grams/mile: Weighted grams (cold and hot start) of each
pollutant over the test cycle by miles instead of BHP-hr. The
mileage represented by the cycle is 6.47 miles.
e) Disposition Code (DISP)
B = Valid baseline test
-------
-40-.
M = Marginally valid test
X = Invalid test
The test data on pages 49-70, summarize the test results for
each of the 23 baseline engines tested. Using the descriptions
above and basic engineering knowledge, the data should be self-
explanatory.
The four tables following the test data sheets, (Computer
Tables 1-4) summarize the results shown for each of the twenty-
three baseline engines. Although the data in these tables should
be easily understood using the short descriptions below, one
important factor should be discussed.
The Clean Air Act Amendments prescribed that the 1983 HC and
CO emission standards should be determined from the average of the
actually measured emissions from heavy-duty gasoline-fueled ve-
hicles or engines. ECTD interpreted average to mean the average of
the entire 1969 fleet of HD gasoline-fueled vehicles and not just a
simple average of the engine lines sold which would give equal
weighting to each engine line sold. Thus, ECTD has sales-weighted
the emission results according to the market share each engine line
actually held corrected to 100 percent. This correction to 100
percent was necessary because not all engine lines are repre-
sented in the baseline. These market shares and their correction
to 100 percent are shown in Computer Table 2. In the final analy-
sis, using a simple average of the engine lines tested yielded only
slightly more stringent emission standards.
For the reader's use, a short description of each table is
provided below:
(1) Computer Table 1: Sales-Weighted Brake Specific Emis-
sions. This table gives the average brake specific emissions
g/BHP-hr) of HC, CO, and NOx for each baseline engine, sales-
weighting fractions and sales-weighted emissions plus the number of
valid tests on each engine ("Sample Size"). Figures representing a
90 percent reduction are also shown. The NOx data is not needed
for any of the proposed standards and is included solely for
informational purposes.
(2) Computer Table 2: Sales-Weighted Percentages Data. This
table lists the percent of total 1969 sales represented by each
baseline engine ("percent total"), as well as the percentage
corresponding to the fraction of total sales represented by each
engine using the combined sales of only the baseline engines as a
base ("Corrected percent"). The latter figure yields the weighting
factors.
(3) Table 3: Brake Specific Emissions. This table lists the
-------
-41-
average brake specific HC, CO, and NOx emissions for each baseline
engine, along with the sample size.
(4) Table 4: Sales-Weighted Transient Engine Emissions.
This table is the same as Table 1, with the exception that all
emission results are expressed in terms of grams per mile.
2. Idle Test: Emission Summaries and Results
EPA has also proposed idle emission standards for HC and CO.
Idle test data to determine the 90 percent reduction is shown for
19 baseline engines which were tested. These 19 engines represent
79 percent of the 1969 sales of gasoline-fueled HD engines.
The results of the idle tests for these 19 engines are shown
on pages 78 to 96. The four test modes listed on these individual
summary sheets are:
Mode 1: 2500 rpm - no load.
Mode 2: Idle - no load (this mode used for standard setting).
Mode 3: 2200 rpm - 55 percent of maximum torque.
Mode 4: 1700 rpm - 43 percent of maximum torque.
Computer Tables 5, 6, and 7 summarize the idle emissions data
for the 19 baseline engines. These tables are similar to Tables
1-3 shown earlier and are described briefly as:
(1) Computer Table 5: Sales-Weighted Idle Emissions. This
table is the same as the Computer Table 1 listed above, except that
it lists idle test data.
(2) Computer Table 6: Sales-Weighted Percentages Data. This
table is the same as Computer Table 2 listed above, except that it
is for engines having idle test data (19 engines instead of 23).
(3) Computer Table 7: Idle Emissions. This table is the
same as Computer Table 3 listed above, except that it is for
engines having idle test data.
Grams per mile data for the idle test is not included for
obvious reasons. These tables are found on pages y8-100.
3. Standards Computation and Discussion
The 1969 heavy-duty baseline program began in the fall of 1977
with the first procurement actions and is concluded with this
report.
-------
-42-
During this program, ECTD procured and tested 23 heavy-duty
gasoline-fueled engines representing 81.5 percent of the 1969
fleet. Of these 23 engines, 16 were class A, 1 was class B, 6 were
class C (high mileage). One engine included in this baseline had
undergone a major rebuild. No other engine needed one at the time
of procurement.
To determine the emission levels, these engines were tested
using the new transient test procedure. Of the 137 transient
tests, 64 were considered valid and are included. No engine had
less than two valid tests with the maximum per engine being five.
The fact that ECTD ceased baseline testing at 23 engines was
based primarily on the fact that baseline emission levels were
insensitive to further testing. This is shown in Figures IV-C-1
and IV-C-2 which demonstrate that as the number of engines tested
approached 25, the effect of including more engines in the baseline
was insignificant. This is true for both HC and CO.
Based on the fact that:
1) Only 1969 model year heavy-duty gasoline-fueled engines
were tested;
2) Over 81 percent of the 1969 fleet is represented; and
3) 64 valid emission tests were accomplished on these
engines;
ECTD concludes that the 1969 baseline shown here is representative
of the HC and CO emission levels of 1969 HD gasoline-fueled en-
gines. The following values are considered as a 90 percent reduc-
tion from the average of actually measured emissions based on the
results of the test program:
HC 1.3 g/BHP-hr
CO 15.5 g/BHP-hr
The above values are the emissions standard which are proposed
for heavy-duty engines beginning in 1983.
In addition, EPA has proposed idle emission standards based
on Mode 2 of the four modes described above;
Mode 2: Idle - no load.
The 19 engines included in the idle test baseline give a
representative depiction of the fleet-wide 1969 idle emissions.
Figures IV-C-3 and IV-C-4 show the decreasing sensitivity of the HC
and CO idle emissions as the number of baseline engines increased.
-------
-43-
Each of the 19 engines included in the baseline received at least
one valid idle test with a maximum of 6.
Based on the fact that:
1) Only 1969 model year heavy-duty gasoline-fueled engines
were tested;
2) Over 79 percent of the 1969 fleet is represented; and
3) 55 valid idle emission tests were accomplished on these
engines;
ECTD concludes that the 1969 baseline data for the idle emission
standard is representative of the HC and CO emissions levels of
1969 gasoline-fueled HD engines. The following values are con-
sidered as a 90 percent reduction from actually measured emissions
of 1969 HD gasoline-fueled engines and are the proposed 1983
heavy-duty idle emission standards:
HC 970 ppmC
CO .47%
-------
-44-
SPILES-WEIGHTED BflSELINE TRRNSIENT
EMISSIONS HC(G/BHP-HR)
Figure IV-C-1
cc
a.
I!
o
o
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00 13.00 15.00
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
\BJOO
2U»
23JW
25.00
-------
-45-
Figure IV-C-2
SflLES-NEIGHTED BflSELINE TRflNSIENT
EMISSIONS CO(G/BHP-HR)
-*-
3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 H.OO 13.00 1SJKJ
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00
25.00
-------
-46-
SflLES-HEIGHTED BflSELINE IDLE
EMISSIONS HC(PPM-C)
Figure IV-C-3
3.00
5.00
7.00
1UO \3JQO 15.00
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00
25JW
-------
-47-
Figure IV-C-4
SOLES-WEIGHTED BflSELINE IDLE
EMISSIONS CO (PERCENT)
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00 13.00 tS.OO
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00
25.00
-------
-49-
MFG: 20
COMM^ NTS:
NUMBER
DUTY ENGINt TKANSIFNT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BAStLINE ENGlNF. K 29^4 032 RATED BHP: N/A RATED RPM:
1969 BLT «ni
GRAMS / BHP-HK #/BHP-HK ACTUAL * GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
TEST CODING
790H36 HLi
790H40 HL
791426 BL
791427 HLl
791452 4L
791455 9Li
791497 BL
791509 BLT
791517 riL:
791520 HLr
79152H BLr
MEAN:
STD.OPV
oioi
0102
0103
H104
0105
0106
0108
0107
0110
0109
'Mil
HC
6.11
6.34
6.20
6.82
7.57
6.87
3.76
5.15
4.25
4.08 i
4.11
7.20
0.53
CO
55
49
48
51
53
51
46
50
49
45
51
52
1
.69
.10
.11
.01
.40
.78
.35
.07
.75
.49
.21
.20
.69
. NO*
9
9
9
4
7
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
1
.99
.75
.19
.24
.68
.36
.00
.10
18
.58
.15
.46
.10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
BSFC
.819
.666
.640
.651
.627
.618
.575
.600
.592
.554
.577
.639
.017
RHP- MR ERROI
10
10
11
10
11
11
14
13
14
14
13
11
0
.767
.fll'4
.106
.967
.154
.110
.488
.551
.153
.011
.934
.060
.133
-15.0
-14.0
-12.3
-13.4
-11.9
-12.3
14.4
7.0
11. fl
10.6
10.0
-12.7
1.0
HC
5.11
5.36
5.35
5.81
6.51
5.87
4.17
5.41
4.64
4.39
4.42
6.16
0.49
CO
46.53
41.52
41.47
43.42
45.90
44.28
51.35
52.58
54.39
48.98
54.99
44.66
1.75
NOX
8.35
8.24
7.92
7.86
6.60
8.00
9.97
9.56
10.04
9.24
8.76
7.23
0.89
HC
7.46
9.52
9.69
10.48
12.08
11.11
6.54
8.58.
7.18
7.37
7.13
11.28
1.13
CO
67.99
73.73
75.17
78.35
85.16
83.79
80.61'
83.44
84.04
82.11
88.75
81.76
4.81
NOX
12.20
14.64
14.36
14.19
12.25
15.14
15.65
15.17
15.51
15.48
14.13
13.22
1.37 '
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
X
X
B
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
N= 2
-------
-50-
HF.ftVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT
MFli: 270
COMMENTS*
N U M B E
p
TFST coo IMG
791630 bL '
791631 «L>
791632 HL
791633 HL'
791634 HL
791635 HLl
791636 HLT
791637 HL.
792301 UL<
792302 BLr
792303 HL'
MEAN:
STD.OEV
(1201
0202
D203
i>204
0205
0206
0207
0208
0210
0211
0212
*
cm: J92
1969 HLT «02
GRAMS / BHP-HK
HC
16.01
9.06
3.93
8.57
12.15
8.44
9.00
10.31
6.69
b.09
6.28
6.35
0.31
CO
202.40
172.59
78.74
265.44
192.02
194.04
204.13
228.88
186.44
171.47
177.50
178.47
7.54
MOx
3.63
4*03
1.95
4.39
4.20
4.29
4.04
3.90
3.71
4.78
4.21
4.24
0.54
ENGID
tf/BHP-HR
RSFC
0.796
0.75R
0.353
0.88R
0.826
0.818
0.820
0.869
0.802
0.75B
0.773
0.778
0.022
EMISSIONS
SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGlNE(S)
MAY 24, 1979
: V392 65«4i/
ACTUAL
ftHP- HR
21.153
19.805
19.193
19.480
18.941
19.098
18.956
18.506
18.912
18.998
18.800
18.903
0.099
fr
FUROR
3.0
-.}.5
-6.5
-5.1
-7.7
-7.0
-7.7
-9.9
-7.9
-7.5
-8.4
-7.9
0.5
RATED BHp:
! N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC CO
25.21 318.29
13.78 262.42
5.83 116.73
12.93 400.29
17.87 282.33
\2??t*6 286.43
13.23 300.10
14.70 326.21
9.82 273.61
8.98 252.81
9.12 257.89
9.31 261.44
0.45 10.85
NOX
5.71
6.13
2.89
6.62
6.18
6.33
5.94
5.56
5.45
7.05
6.12
6.21
0.80
RATED
RPM: N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
20.14
11.96
11.14
9.66
14.71
10.32
10.97
11.87
8.34
8.04
8.12
8.17
0.16
CO
254.28
227.69
223.05
298.92
232.47
237.22
248.94
263.38
232.47
226.21
229.62
229.44
3.14
NOX
4.56
5.32
5.51
4.94
5.09
5.24
4.93
4.49
4.63
6.31
5.45
5.46
0.84
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
B
B
B
-------
-51-
HF4VY OUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFCi: 30
COMMHNTs:
NUMBER
TEST CODING
792304 bLr 0301
792471 BLv 0303
792473 HLr 0304
792474 BL. 0305
792037 HLr 0302
MEAN:
STD.OEV. :
CII>: 391
19^9 HLT #03
OWAMS / BHP-HK
HC
19.11
13.50
12.98
13.59
12.98
13.54
0.07
CO
178.99
178.88
177.55
179.50
193.04
179.19
0.44
MOx
4.86
5.74
5.79
5.92
5.55
5.83
0.13
ENGIU
tf/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.639
0.641
0.633
0.645
0.658
0.643
0.003
MAY ^4,
: 391-J*
ACTUAL
HHP- HP.
24.681
24.608
24.868
24.835
24.685
24.721
0.162
1979
RATED BHP: N/A
* GRAMS / MILE
FWROR
1.6
1.3
2.3
2.2
1.6
1.7
. 0.7
HC
36.18
26.12
24.85
25.96
24.73
26.04
0.11
CO
338.63
346.18
339.94
342.92
367.75
344.55
2.33
NOX
9.20
11.10
11.03
11.32
10.57
11.21
0.16
RATED
RPMJ N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
29.93
21.06
20.51
21.07
19.73
21.06
0.0
CO
280.11
279.07
280.49
278.30
293.38
278.68
0.66
NOX
7.61
8.95
9.14
9.18
8.43
9.07
0.17
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
B
. X
B
X
N= 2
-------
-52-
HF.AVY nuTY ENGINE. TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 24, 1979
1969 BASELINE ENIilNE(S)
MFG: 270
COMM-NTs:
CID: 304
HLT
v304 648048
RATED BHPS N/A RATEU RPM: N/A
NUMB
F R
TEST CODIMG
793002 HLT
793003 HL
793004 HL 1
793129 BL
796236 HLT
79006b «L -
796?3b HL,
796234 HL r
M(r.AN8
STD.OK
0401
0402
0403
1)404
408
410
409
407
V. :
GRAMS / BHP-HR
HC
10.95
1 1 .06
10.70
13.13
l:.l.93
10 .3f)
lli. 3*
10. 2^
11.22
1.11
CO
76.91
98.09
136.24
147.82
127.65
125.45
123.40
128.99
127.76
18.42
NOX
7.02
6.70
6.14
5. 3d
7.57
7.66
7.64
7.73
6.70
0.98
S/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.677
0.649
0.663
0.64H
0.731
0.719
0.721
0.720
0.682
0.040
ACTUAL
HHP- .HR
19.488
19.523
19.606
19.4S4
19.837
20. Obi
19.946
19.892
19.662
0.194
>,
FRROR
-1.4
-1.2
-0.8
-1.5
-4.0
-3.1
-J.6
-3.8
-2.3
1.5
GRAMS / MILE
HC
16.64
16.82
16.40
19.75
17.11
16.47
16.33
16.11
17.24
1.46
CO
116.85
149.18
208.79
222.25
199.85
198.78
194.54
202.40
196.49
27.84
NOX
10.67
10.19
9.41
8.09
11.85
12.14
12.05
12.13
10.33
1.69
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
16.18
17.04
16.14
20.27
14.95
14.46
14.37
14.25
16. 5J
2.35
CO
113.61
151.13
205.49
228.12
174.63
174.48
171.15
179.15
187.70
29.71
NOX
10.38
10.32
9.26
8.30
10.35
10.66
10.60
10.74
9.80
1.00
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
B
8
B
B
X
X
B
N= 5
-------
-53-
HFAVY DUTY ENGINt TRANSIENT EMISSION:. SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MEG: 30
COMMKNTS!
NUMB
F R
TEST COOING
79327S HL
793276 HLT
793277 HL'
793278 HL
793279 BL'
MEAN:
STD.DK
0501
.OS02
D503
0504
0505
V. :
CK): 330
1'169 HLT «OS
GHAMS / BHP-HR
HC
28.63
29.26
27. 4(1
26.29
29. OS
20.13
1.25
CO
163.89
156.13
155.26
153.69
156.77
157.15
3.95
NOx
7.68
a. is
7.77
8.10
7.75
7.89
0.22
MAY 24.
ENGIO: F330 '-*A
-------
-54-
HFAVY DUTY FNGFNE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 24 t 1979
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 40
COMMENTS:
NUMBER
CIDI 351 ENGID: GM351 2483434
1969 hLT «06
GRAMS / RHP-HR fc/BHP-HR ACTUAL *
RATED BHPJ N/A RATED RPMJ N/A
TEST CODING
793500 HL '
793501 BLi
793502 HL
793503 HL'
79350'. HL
793505 HL
794345 BLr
MEAN:
STD.DF
0602
0603
0604
1)605
0606
0607
0608
v. :
HC
14.30
b.81
13.30
tf.19
9.00
10.35
10.64
9.72
1.29
CO
101.09
112.73
104.28
113.77
78.56
82.78
110.28
111.51
1.73
MOx
6.67
7.92
?0.30
9.45
9.88
8.68
9.68
8.80
1.2b
BSFC
0.631
0.653
0.450
0.650
0.609
0.643
0.651
0.652
0.001
RHP- HR
18.336
16.579
18.092
16.721
16.685
16.655
15.872
16.225
0.500
FRROR
5.4
-4.7
4.0
-3.9
-4.1
-4.2
-8.9
-6.8
3.0
HC
20.69
11.68
18.18
10.68
11.80
13.55
13.18
12.43
1.06
CO
146.29
149.47
142.51
148.42
103.01
108.36
136.64
143.05
9.07
NOX
9.65
10.50
27.75
12.34
12.95
11.36
11.99
11.24
1.05
HC
22.66
13.49
29.55
12.60
14.78
16.09
16.34
14.92
2.01
CO
160.21
172.64
231.73
175.03
129.00 '
128.74
169.41
171.02
2.30
NOX
10.57
12.13
45.12
14.55
16.22
13.50
14.87
13.50
1.94
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
B
X
X
X
X
B
N= 2
-------
-55-
HRAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGlNE(S)
MFGs 30
COMM. NTs:
N U M
TEST
794445
794446
fl E R
CODING
BLf 0708
BL= 0705
HL ; (1706
HLr 0707
MEAN:
STD
.D.^v. :
C I (.) 1
1969 flLT «0i
: 330
r
(.HAMS / BHP-HK
HC
37.77
36.46
33.30
3^.74
34.16
2.01
CO
240.67
239.67
201.26
232.17
224.37
20.36
NOX
5.50
6.04
6.73
6.00
6.25
0.41
MAY ?4. r)79
ENr,ID: F330 9bN50SS
*/flHP-HR
RSFC
0.767
0.773
0.716
0.76?
0.750
0.030
ACTUAL
BHP- HH
18.039
17.945
18.174
18.080
18.066
0.117
*
KWROR
.4.3
-'» . 8
-3.6
-4.2
0.6
RATED BHP: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC
52.54
50.50
46.70
45.74
47.65
2.52
CO
334.78
331.99
282.27,
324.35
312.87
26.77
NOX
7.65
8.37
9.43
8.38
8.73
0.61
RATED
RPM: N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
49.24
47.16
46.50
42.96
45.54
2.26
CO
313.78
310.06
281.09
304.69
298.61
15.41
NOX
7.17
7.81
9.40
7.87
a. 36
0.90
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
-56-
HF.AVY nuiY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 40
COMMENTS:
N LI M B E
R
TEST CODING
794603 HLT
794604 HL.
794605 BLr
MEANI
STD.DFV
0803
0802
0801
. :
CIO: JSO
1969 HLT »08
GUAMS / BHP-HR
. HC
9.9Q
9.39
9.41
9.40
0.0?
CO
167.42
170.61
170.92
170.77
0.35
MOX
5.06
4.93
4.71
4.82
0.15
ENGIU
B/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.640
0.688
0.648
0.668
0.028
MAY 24 »
: GM350 VO
ACTUAL
HHP- MR
22.405
21.753
21.731
21.742
0.0
19V9
RATED BHP: N/A
'*. . GRAMS / MILL
rHROH
-2.4
-5.2
-5.3
-5.3
0.1
HC
17.26
16.02
15.94
15.98
0.06
CO
291.68
291.10
289.58
290.34
1.03
NOX
8. 82
8.41
7.98
8.19
0.30
RATED
RPM: N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
15.48
13.64
14.52
14.08
0.62
CO
261.59
247.98
263.77
255.87
11.17
NOX
7.91
7.16
7.27
7.21
0.07
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
R
B
, N= 2
-------
-57-
hUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MEG:
COMM,-
N U M B
20
NT?:
E R
TEST CODING
795147 HLT
795149 HL:
795150 8L-
MEAN:
STD.OF;
0904
0902
0901
V. !
CIL>: 318
1969 HLT 009
GWAMS / BHP-HR
HC
7.70
7.70
B.46
7.96
i).44
CO
68.56
100.91
91.45
86.97
16.63
NOX
N.23
7.69
6.87
7.60
0.69
MAY 24, l'J79
ENf,IO: 0318 PM 3lriR
tf/BHP-HR ACTUAL *
RSFC
0.593
0.61?
0.593
0.599
0.011
HHP- HR
16.7S8
. 18.351
17.524
17.544
0.797
ERROR
-8.8
-0.1
-4.6
-4.5
4.3
RATED BMP: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC
10.13
11.11
11.63
10.96
0.76
CO
90.13
145.54
125.60
120.42
28.07
NOX
10.83
11.09
9.44
10.45
0.89
RATED RPMI N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
12.99
12,58
14.27
13.28
0.88
CO
115.62
164.89
154.22
144.91
25.92
NOX
13.89
12.56
11.59
12.68
1.15
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
-58-
HFflVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSION'S SUMM>\KY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE IS)
MFG:
COMMhN
N U M B E
270
R
TEST CODING
79528^ HLi
795286 8L
795287 HL'
795332 HLT
1001
1002
1003
1004
1^9
CTDi
HLT <*H
: 3*5
}
GRAMS / RHP-HW
HC
7.18
7. OS
6.51
CO
78.49
74.57
91. .14
79.77
MOX
6.37
6.55
6.10
6.57
EMr-IO:
W/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.717
0.705
0.659
0.656
MAY 2<*
V345 31S
ACTUAL
HHP- HR
17.922
17.966
21.834
21.266
}<>79
)&ni:
RATED BHP
: N/A
b GRAMS / MILE
FKKOR
-11.3
-11.1
H.I
5.3
HC
10.00
10.02
11.14
9.68
CO
109.27
105.91
156.10
132.29
NOX
8.87
9.31
10.46
10.90
RATED RPM« N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO
10.02 109.47
10.01 105.78
9.87 138.31
8.90 121.59
NOX
8.89
9.30
9.26
10.02
MEAN: 7.12 76.53 6.46 0.711
STD.DEV. : 0.09 2.77 0.13 0.008
17.944 -11.2
0.035 0.2
10.01 107.59 9.09 10.01 107.62 9.09
0.02 2.38 0.31 0.01 2.6l 0.29
8= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
X
X
-------
-58-
HF/WY OUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSION'S SUMMAKY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
-------
-59-
OUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MAY 24, 1979
MEG: 40
COMMt-NTs:
NUMBER
TEST COOING
795441 BLi
795442 HL ?
795443 HL
795544 HL
795545 BLi
795546 HLi
795547 BLI
795S4H HL!
MEAN!
STO.DFV
1103
1102
1101
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
. :
CII): 3b>0
19f>9 HLT #11
GKAMS / RHP-Hrt
HC
/.47
y.55
4.47
S.?2
7.1'J
5.26
5.91
9.55
6.21
1.14
CO
109.22
109.22
121.30
93. 6R
114.75
131.01
138.16
107.29
126.13
15.08
NOx
5.34
5.85
4.93
6.93
5.97
5.45
5.29
7.08
5.36
0.08
ENGIO: r,M 350
#/RHP-HR ACTUAL
OSFC
0.649
0.626
0.621
0.616
0.627
0.601
0.597
0.65R
0.616
0.029
RHP- HR
18.39.9
17.276
20.222
19.431
17.121
19.874
19.216
17.374
19.163
0.739
-------
-60-
HF4VY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 2<»» l'-»79
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 30
COMMfNTs:
NUMBER
CIO: JOO
HLT #\?.
GRAMS / BHP-HR
ENr,ID: F30Q 1
TEST COD IMG
795551 HL
795552 HLl
795553 HL
795554 HL
795555 HL'
795S5/ HLl
Mt: AN:
STD.OF.V
1?01
1202
1203
1204
1205
1206
HC
H.75
7.5!
t>.25
hi 64
5.9A
6.06
7.81
1.5?
CO
230.81
244.91
225.55
242.32
224.43
227.02
233.38
7.97
MOx
5.39
5.50
5.
-------
-61-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 24. 1979
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG5 270
COMMF NTS 5
NUMBER
CID: 345 ENGIO: V345 71".
HLT «13
GRAMS / BHP-HR fl/RHP-HR ACTUAL
RATED BHP: N/A RATEU RPMJ N/A
TEST CODING
790071 HLi
796519 BLr
796520 HL'
796602 HLi
796603 BL;-
796604 BL-
MEAN:
STD.OFV
1303
1301
1302
1305
1304
1306
. S
rlC
H.9S
6.09
6.31
6.75
6.17
6.?Q
6.41
(1.31
CO
124.17
111.61
115.45
81. 01
101.69
99.35
94.02
11.33
NOX
5.72
6.20
5.56
5.49
5.59
5.68
5.59
0.09
RSFC
0.682
0.685
0.665
0.620
0-611
0.609
0.613
0.006
tl HP- HW
18.995
20.32S
20.191
20.603
21.172
21.119
20.965
0.314
ERROR
-13.4
-7.3
-8.0
-6.1
-3.5
-3.7
-4.4
1.4
HC
13.50
9.78
10.14
11.13
10.37
10.60
10.70
0.39
CO
187.28
179.23
185.75
133.49
170.71
167.43
157.21
20.61
NOX
8.63
9.95
8.94
9.05
9.39
9.57
9.34
0.26
HC
13.12
8.89
9.48
10.89
10.10
10.33
10.44
0.40
CO
182.06
162.94
173.61
130.65
166.43
163.14
153.41
19.78
NOX
8.39
9. OS
8.36
8.86
9.15
9.32
9.11
0.23
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
X
X
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
-62-
HEAVY OUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG:
COMM^
NUMB
40
NTS:
E R
TEST COD IMG
B00106 RLr
800105 BL:
800107 HL
MEAN:
STD.Df
1402
1401
1403
v. :
CIU: 3b6 EN^IO
1«*69 HLT #14
GRAMS / HHP-HR
HC
8.57
a. 6 i
H.5P
8.^9
(1 . 0 '
CO
189.15
194.08
180.52
187.92
6.86
NOX
5.12
5.37
5.46
5.32
0.18
tf/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.744
0.734
0.734
0.737
0.006
MAY 24,, 1979
: GM366 AKBUCKLE
ACTUAL
HHP- HH
20.507
20.936
20.621
20.688
0.222
t,
fRROR
-8.8
-6.9 '
-8.3
-8.0
1.0
RATED BHP: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC
13.79
14.26
13.98
14.01
0.24
CO
304.35
320.88
293.87
306.37
13.62
NOX
8.24
8.88
8.90
8.67
0.38
RATED
RPM: N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
11.52
11. 7b
11.70
11.66
0.12
CO
254.24
264.41
245.93
254.86
'9.26
NOX
6.89
7.32
7.45
7.22.
0.29
DISP CODE
8= VALID
,M= VALID
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
-63-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BAStLlNE ENGINE
-------
-ot-
DUTY ENGINE. TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 HAStLINE ENGlNE(S)
MFG: 30
COMM' NTS!
NUMBER
TEST CODING
800111 HLT
800110 BL
800137 tff
800138 bL'
800140 HLT
MEANt
STD.DFV
1601
1602
1694
1605
1606
. :
CIL>:. 360
1969 HLT #16
GHAMS / HHP-HH
HC
10.34
7.46
7.74
8.45
8.64
7.96
0.61
CO
149.05
134.89
120.03
137.31
141.64
132.19
11.07
MOX
6.00
6.J4
7.01
5.41
6.73
6.63
0.44
ENGIU
tf/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.690
0.654
0.62fl
0.682
0.684
0.655
0.028
MAY ?4. ]'V79
: F360 EG(il
ACTUAL '*>
HHP- H« F HROR
23.7«9
23.588
22.344
21.696
23.335
23.089
0.658
3.2
2.4
-3.0
-5.8
1.3
0.2
2.9
RATED BMP: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC
18.67
13173
13.71
14.34
15.81
14.42
1.21
CO
269.06
248.29
211.29
233.10
259.12
239.57
25.08
NOX
10.83
11*30
12.34
9.18
12.32
11.99
0.59
RATED RPM: N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO
14.99 216.01
11.41 206.26
12.40 191.11
12.38 201.33
12.64 207.08
12.15 201.48
0.65 9.00
NOX
8.70
9.39
11.16
7.93
9.85
10.13
0.92
DISP CODE
B- VALID
M= VALID
X
M
M
X
M
N= 3
-------
-OD-
HfAVY DUTY F.NGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY Z4» 1S>79
1969 BAStLINE ENGlNE(S)
MFG: 40
COMMENTS:
NUMBER
cms
BUT #17
GRAMS / BHP-HR
RATED BMP: N/A RATED RPM: N/A
a/RHP-HR ACTUAL
TEST CODING
800148 BLr
800141 HL'
800142 BLr
80014J BLT
800145 HL
80016^ BL
800170 BLr
800171 bLr
800188 BL '
800172 BL'
800195 BL
MEAN:
STD.DLV
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1710
1709
1711
. :
HC
10.81
22.47
9.82
8.65
H.21
5.24
7.14
9. Ofl
8.60
7.99
7.03
d.54
0.77
CO
209.46
285.06
217.57
197.05
221.73
153.35
161.00
180.60
179.43
165.12
162.73
172.86
10.95
NOX.
7.60
5.61
4.96
5.77
5.56
3.99
14.63
4.75
4.46
5.54
4.64
5.14
0.56
BSFC
0.859
1.080
0.861
0.864
0.905
0.655
0.57H
0.774
0.784
0.750
0.732
0.76?
0.017
PHP- HR
15.588
13.662
16.flSl
14.678
14.853
17.945
13.845
15.375
15.029
15.12H
16.284
15.251
0.175
ERROR
-1.1
-13.3
b.9
-6.9
-5.8
13.8
-12.2
2.5
-4.7
-4.0
3.3
-3.3
1.1
HC
12.96
23.36
12.79
9.98
9.22
7.27
7.74
10.81
9.95
9.39
8.79
10.10
1.00
CO
250.95
296.45
283.56
227.19
249.06
212.97
174.53
214.89
207.52
193.93
203.44
204.41
14.82
NOX
9.11
5.84
6.46
6.65
6.25
5.54
15.86
5.65
5.16
6.50
5.80
6.07
0.60
HC
12.59
20.80
11.40
10.02
9.07
7.99
12.35
11.73
10.97
10.66
9.61
11.20
0.76
CO
243.84
263.94
252.70
228.06
245.00
234.13
278.54
233.33
228.87
220.15
222.31
226.74
9.32
NOX
8.85
5.20
5.76
6.68
6.14
6.10
25.31
6.14
5.69
7.38
6.33
6.76
0.88
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M3 VALID
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
B
X
B
X
N= 2
-------
-66-
HFAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 2n
COMMITS:
N U M B E R
TEST CODING
800186 HL
80018? t)LT
800190 BL
80019.3 8L'
MEAN:
STD.DK V
1801
1802
1P03
1004
CIO! 31H
19S9 HLT *lfl
GRAMS / flHP-HK
HC
7.87
H.9)
U.8?
M.71
H.82
0 . 1 0
CO
164.66
145.90
152.95
133.94
144.26
9.61
NOx
6.09
7.05
7.69
7.86
7.54
0.43
ENGIO
W/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.658
0.660
0.68?
0.640
0.661
0.021
MAY 24 ,
: 0318 EG(
ACTUAL
PHP- HR
21.920
17.854
18.356
18.122
18.111
0.251
, 1479
'ft
ERROR
19.3
2.9
-i.i.l
-1.5
1.4
RATED BHPJ N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC
13.36
12.36
12.41
12.23
12.33
0.09
CO
279.47
202.34
215.17
188.09
201.87
13.55
NOX
10.34
9.78
10.82
11.04
10.55
0.67
RATED RPMI N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
11.96
13.51
12.94
13.61
13.35
0.36
CO
250.25
221.05
224.26
209.28
218.20
7.89
NOX
9.26
10*68
11.28
12.29
11.42
0.81
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
8
B
B
N= 3
-------
-67-
HFAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIF.MT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MAY
-------
-68-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE THAfJSIFNT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 30
COMMENT?!
NUMBER
TEST CODING
800201 6L' ?.OQ\
800219 BL'. 2002
MEAN:
STD.DEV. :
:=: = = = = = = = =: = = = = =:=: = = = = =
CID: 360
1Q(S9 fcILT #?.Q
GRAMS / BHP-HR
HC
5.78
6.0''
S.9?
0.19
CO
73.83
76.80
75.32
2.10
MOx
6.97
(>. 79
6.88
0-13
ENfiK)
tf/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.63S
0.637
0.636
0.00?
MAY 24.
: F360 Fliii
ACTUAL
HHP- HR
21.62<»
21.121
21.372
0.3i>6
1^79
RATED BHp: N/A
A GRAMS / MILE
f KROR
1.2
-1.2
(l.O
1.7
HC
9.81
10.03
9.92
0.16
CO
125.26
127.28
126.27
1.43
NOX
11.83
11.26
11.54
0.40
RATEO
RPM: N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC
9.10
9.50
9.30
0.28
CO
116.27
120.56
118.42
3.03
NOX
10.98
10.67
10.82
0.22
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
M
M
N= 2
-------
-69-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
NOX
8.15
8.06
8.09
6.70
6.70
7.16
0.80
RATED RPMI N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO
14.31 216.19
13.99 207.76
12.17 221.24
13.70 239.82
14.42 239.15
13.43 233.40
1.15 10.54
NOX
8.31
8.32
8.09
6.65
6.49
1
7.08
0.88
D1SP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
X
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
-70-
HEAVr DUTY ENOINt TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MEG:
COMM.'
NUMB
20
NTS! '
E R
TEST CODING
800220 HLT
800221 HLr
B0022H HLr
MEAN:
STD.DF:
2201
2202
2203
V. !
CIUS 3bl ENr,l()
1969 HLT #22
GRAMS / BHP-HR
HC
13.63
13.16
12.10
12. 6T
0.76
CO
139.72
169.02
168.34
168.68
0.50
MOX
6.63
5.70
6.32
6.01
0.44
*/BHP-HR
BSFC
0.636
0.657
0.713
0.68S
0.040
MAY 24, 1979
! 0361-3 SLUT.
ACTUAL
HHP- HK
16.383
16.192
16.058
16.125
0.096
RATED BHP: N/A
* GRAMS /MILE
FRROR
.8.1
-9.2
-9.9
-9.5
0.5
HC
17.50
16.64
15.16
15.90
1.05
CO
179.41
213.68
211.04
212.36
1.87
NOX
8.51
7.21
7.93
7.57
0.51
RATED RPMJ N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO
21.43 219.68
20.04 257.27
16.96 236.10
18.50 246.69
2.17 14.96
NOX
10.42
8.68
8.87
8.78
0.13
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
B
B
N= 2
-------
-71-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSION^ SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(s>
MEG:
COMMi-
N I) M B
40
NTs:
E R
TEST CODING
80023h BLT
800237 HL
80023H HL'
800239 iILT
MEAN:
STD.OI-:
2301
2302
2303
2304
V. :
CID:
1«69 BLT #23
366
GRAMS / BHP-HR
HC CO
B.4'» 129.10
H.71 138.80
b.4S 141.00
rt.71 134.50
H.53 134.87
0.15 5.96
NOx
4.23
4.S6
5.19
4.66
0.49
ENGID:
fl/BHP-HH
RSEC
0.644
0.668
0.679
0.671
0.665
0.019
MAY 24t
GM366 S*
ACTUAL
RHP- HW
20.520
19.790
20.2BO
21.100
20.633
0.422
1979
======
RI RATED BHP:
N/A
GRAMS / MILE
ERROR
-5.0
-8.4
-6.1
-2.3
-4.5
2.0
HC
13.60
0.0
13.24
13.51
13.45
0.19
CO
205.13
0.0
220.53
208.66
211.44
8.07
NOX
6.72
0.0
7.13
8.05
7.30
0.68
RATED RPM: N/A
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO NOX
13.11 200.47 6.57
13.04 207.78 6.05
12.44 207.66 6.72
12.94 199.85 7.71
12.83 202.66 7.00
0.34 4.34 0.62
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
8
X
B
B
N= 3
-------
-73-
TAHLK i: SALES-WEIGHTEO I3RAKE SPECIFIC EMI SSlONb (G/BHP-HR)
19-S9 BASELINE ENGINE(Si
ENGINE WEIGHTING
FACTORS
PAGE NO.
01 Fw 22SR 3994 032
02 VI392 -S5M417
03 391-J
04 V304 648046
OS F330 9AN505S
06 GM351 2483434
07 F330 9HN505S
OH GM350 V0512XI
09 031H M 318R
10 V345 :U9flOC
11 GM 350 ? LJPN
12 F300 1
13 V345 71^456
14 GM366 ARRUCKLE
15 F361 -,HOF
16 F360 tGGl
17 GM292 RACKET
IB 0318 EGfi2
19 F361 rtLt 19
20 F360 FGG3
21 GM350 TFNNIS
22 0361-3 SLUG
23 GM366 SWRI
0 0.0036H
0 0.02699
0 0.02331
0 0.0613S
0 0.08B34
0 0.04417
0 0.08834
0 0.05521
0 0.03804
0 0.03620
0 0.05521
0 0.05031
0 0.03620
0 0.03865
0 0.03067
0 0.03742
0 0.06380
0 0.03558
03067
03742
05521
0 0.02454
0 0.03865
0 0.
0 0.
0 0,
SALES-WfIGHTEO GAS BAG TOTALS:
90* REDUCTION FROM BASEL INF!
IZE
2
3
2
5
5
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
MAY 24,
HC
7.20
6.35
13.54
11.22
28.13
9.72
34.16
9.40
7.96
7.12
6.21
7.81
6.41
8.59
14.12
7.96
8.54
8.82
9.57
5.92
8.64
12.63
8.53
>
1979
WEIGHTED
HC
0.026
0.171
0.316
0.688
2.4>t5
0.430
3.018
0.519
0.303
0.258
0.343
0.393
0.232
0.332
0.433
0.298
0.545
0.314
0.294
0.221
0.477
0.310
0.330
12.74
1.27
CO
52.20
178.47
179.19
127.76
157.15
111.51
224.37
170.77
86.97
76.53
126.13
233.38
94.02
187.92
228.39
132.19
172.86
144.26
197.55
75.32
150.36
168.68
134.87
WEIGHTED
CO
0.192
4.818
4.178
7.838
13.883
4.926
19.822
.9.429
3.308
2.770
6.964
11.741
3.403
7.263
7.006
4.947
11.029
5.133
6.060
2.819
8.302
4.139
5.213
155.18
, 15.52
NOX
8.46
4.24
5.83
6.70
7.89
8.80
6.25
4.82
7.60
6.46
5.36
4.91
5.59
5.32
5.43
6.63
5.14
7.54
5.09
6.88
4.58
6.01
4.66
WEIGHTED
NOX
0.031
0.114
0.136
0.411
0.697
0.389
0.553
0.266
0.289
0.234
0.296
0.247
0.202
0.206
0.167
0.248
0.32B
0.268
0.156
0.258
0.253
0.148
o.iao
6.08
0.608
-------
TABLE ?.:
SALES-WEIGHTED PERCENTAGES
iv69 BASELINE ENGINE (S)
DATA
MAY 24, 1979
-74-
PAGE NO.
ENGINE
PERCENT
TOT«L
CORRECTED
PERCENT
WEIGHTING
FACTOR
01 FW 225R 2994 032 0
02 V392 ',58417
03 391-J*
04 V304 64H048
Ob F330 9AN505S
06 GM351 2<+83434
07 F330 9BM505S
08 GM350 VD512XI
09 0318 -'M 318R
10 V345 JlOftOC
11 GM 350 a LJPN
12 F300 I
13 V345 719456
14 GM366 AI(RI)CKLE
15 F361 .HOF
16 F360 ^GGl
17 GM292 RACKET
18 D31H EG'7?
19 F361 fU.K 19
20 F360 KGG3
21 GM350 TrNNIS
22 D361-3 SLUG
23 GM366 S'-RI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0.300
2.200
1.900
5.000
7.200
3.600
7.200
4.500
3.100
2.950
4.500
4.101)
2.950
3.150
2.500
3.050
5.200
2.900
2.500
3.0SO
4.500
2.000
3.150
2.699
2.331
6.135
8.834
4.417
8.834
5.521
3.804
3.620
5.521
5.031
3.621)
3.865
3.0f-7
3.742
6.380
3.55*
3.0': 7
3.742
5.521
2.454
3.865
0.00368
0.02699
0.02331
0.06135
0.08834
0.04417
0.08834
0.05521
0.03804
0.03620
0.05521
0.05031
0.03620
0.03865
0.03067
0.03742
0.06380
0.03558
0.03067
0.03742
0.05521
0.02454
0.03865
SUM TOTALS:
81.500
100.00
1.000
-------
-75-
TAHLF.
ENGINt
BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS(G/bHP-HP)
19^,9 BASELINE ENGINE
HSHC
MAY 24, 1979
HSCO
PAGE NO.
BSNOX
SIZE
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
1 1
13
13
14
15
Ib
17
18
19
30
31
22
33
FW 22SR 2994 032 0
V392 *5«417
391-J
V304 '-4fl048
F 330 WJ505S
GM351 24R3434
FJ30 '1R-J505S
GM350 V0512XI
031B '..M 316R
V345 319ftOC
CM 350 2 L JPN
F300 I
GM366 A-JRUCKLE
F361 ,HUK
F360 i GG]
GM2'>a RACKET
t.)31b EGO?
F3M BLt 19
F360 FGG3
GM350 THNN1S
D361-1 S| UG
GM366 SWPI
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7.20
ft. 35
13.54
11. 2t
20.13
9,72
34 . 1 6
9.40
7.96
7.12
6.21
7.81
6.41
8.59
14.12
7.si6
8.54
8.8<;
9.57
5.92
fl.64
12.63
8.53
52.20
178.47
179.19
127.76
157.15
111.51
224.37
170.77
86.97
76.53
126.13
233.38
94.02
187.92
22«.39
132.19
172.B6
144.26
197.55
75.32
150.36
168.68
134.87
8.46
4.24
5.83
6.70
7.89
8.80
6.25
4.82
7.60
6.46
5.36
4.91
5.59
5.32
5.43
6.63
5.14
7.54
5.09
6.88
4.58
6.01
4.66
2
3
2
5
5
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
-------
-76-
SALES-WEIGHTED TRANSIENT ENGINE EMISSIONS(GkAMb/MI)
19<^ BASELINE ENGINE(S)
/
MAY 24t 1979
PAGE NO.
ENGINE
01 FW 22SP 2994 O.J2 0
02 V392 65H417
03 391-Jfi
04 V304 *4»048
05 F330 9AN505S
06 GM351 24R3434
07 F330 9RN505S
08 GM350 V0512XI
09 031H OH 318R
10 V345 319ROC
11 GM 35(1 2 LJPN
12 F300 I
13 V345 71^56
14 GM366 A4RUCKLE
15 F361 ,Hof
16 F360 FGG1
17 GM292 RACKET
18 0318 EGl>2
19 F361 HL> 19
20 F360 F.GG3
21 GM350 TKMNIS
22 0361-3 SLUG
23 GM366 S'i'Pl
SALES-WFIGHTED GAS RAG TOTALS:
90% REDUCTION FROM BASELINE:
WEIGHT I MO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
FACTORS
.00368
.02699
.02331
.06135
.08834
.04417
.08834
.05521
.03804
.03620
.05521
.05031
.03620
.03865
.03067
.03742
.063HO
.03558
.03067
.03742
.05521
.02454
.03865
ZE
2
3
?
5
5
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
HC
6.16
9.31
26.04
17.24
35.91
12.43
47.65
15.98
10.96
10.01
9.25
10.57
10.70
14.01
20.73
14.42
10.10
12.33
15.11
9.92
13.63
15.90
13.45
SALES
WEIGHTED
HC
(J.023
0.251
0.607
1.058
3.172
O.b49
4.209
0.882
0.417
0.362
0.511
O.S32
0.3R7
0.541
0.636
0.540
0.^4^
0.439
0.463
0.371
0./52
0.390
0.520'
16. 2*
1.H3
CO
44.66
^61.44
344.55
196.49
200.62
143.05
312.87
290.34
120.42
107.59
189.08
316.93
157.21
306.37
335.22
239.57
204.41
201.87
311.95
126.27
236.73
212.36
211.44
SALES
WEIGHTED
CO
0.164
7.057
8.032
12.055
17.723
6.319
27.640
16.031
4.581
3.894
10.440
15.944
5.690
11.841
10.283
8.965
13.042
7.183
9.569
4.725
13.071
5.211
8.172
227.63
22.76
NOX
7.23
6.21
11.21
10.33
10.0?
11.24
8.73
8.19
10.45
9.09
8.02
6.67
9.34
8.67
7.97
11.99
6.07
10. 5S
8.04
11.54
7.16
7.57
7.30
SALES
WEIGHTED
NOX
0.027
0.168
0.261
0.634
0.890
0.497
0.771
0.452
0.398
0.329
0.443
0.335
0.338
0.33S
0.245
0.449
0.388
0.375
0.247
0.432
0.396
0.186
0.282
8.88
0.888
-------
-78-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAKY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG
' 30
COMMKNTS:
N U M
TEST
790017
790018
790019
790020
790021
MEANS
K E H
CODE
I MR 0301
I'-'B 0302
1MB 0303
MB 0304
MB 0305
STD.DEV. s
CIDS
1969 HLT
MODE
HC
2S48.
2687.
2704.
2992.
3776.
294 1.
4Q3.6
39)
#03
NO. 1
CO
319S1.
29603.
29603.
335^3.
54968.
35944.
1076B.O
ENGin
NOX
IBS]
188.
171.
120.
167.
27.7
MAY 24, 1979
: 191-Ju RATED RHP: N/A
MOllE
HC
isooa.
15594.
15594.
16302.
10968.
14693.
2132.3
NO. 2
CO
158H4.
10168.
1299J.
67172.
23277.
24651.9
'
NOX
69.
66.
66.
71.
1.
54.
30.2
MODE
HC
1867.
1679.
1679.
1548.
2260.
1807.
27,8.0
NO.
CO
14271
12297
12297
11546
20654
14213
3739.
RATED
3
NOX
. 1088.
. 2624.
. 2624.
. 5100.
. 1136.
. 2514.
81631.3
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
2484.
2286.
2286.
2156.
3003.
2443.
334.4
NO. 4
CO
21563.
17741.
17741.
17204.
36375.
22125.
8155.3
NOX
1681.
1962.
1962.
1888.
1232.
1745.
308.9
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
8
B
B
B
B
' N= 5
-------
-79-
HEAVY PUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
MFG
: *70
COMMt-NTs:
N U M
TEST
790001
790003
7963H7
MEAN:
STO.DE
M E R
CODE
I MB 0401
I-iB 0402
If.B 0403
V. !
CIO:
1^69 BLT
MODE
HC
3209.
1«46.
1843.
1966.
310.3
304
#04
NO. 1
CO
27182.
23826.
24855.
25288.
1719.6
M«Y 24, (979
ENGIO: V304 64R048 HATEO BHPS
MOX
146.
143.
184.
158.
23.3
MODE
HC
39935.
44825.
18160.
34307.
14195.6
NO. 2
CO
93432.
11055*5.
87365.
9711U.
12028.2
NOX
30.
72.
41.
48.
21.7
MODE
HC
2045.
1382.
1936.
1787.
355.8
N/A
NO. 3
CO
7826.
8036.
6658.
7507.
742.5
RATED
NOX
1767.
814.
2100.
1560.
667.2
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
2374.
2269.
2377.
2340.
61.6
NO. 4
CO
17865.
17349.
14796.
16670.
1643.3
NOX
898.
985.
1386.
1089.
260.2
DISP CODE
8= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
HF/WY DUTY ENGINt IDLE TFST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENC31NF(S>
MFG: 30
COMMENTS:
N U M ) t R
TFST C'.iDE
790022 1MB 0501
790024 IMF) 0503
790028 I'-»H 0502
MEAN!
STD.DEV. !
CID:
1969 HLT
MODE
HC
322P.
3n24.
3048.
3100.
111.4
330
#OS
NO. 1
CO
1S366.
166?6.
16328.
16107.
65S.5
ENGIO
NOX
197.
212.
251.
220.
27.6
MAY 24, 1
: F330 9AM50SS
MODE
HC
177J3.
29995.
1H102.
21943.
6975.3
NO. 2
CO
6B54<4.
73M97.
74755.
6681.5
<)79
RATED BHP:
NOX
18.
35.
106.
53.
46.8
MODE
HC
1517.
2132.
2055.
1901.
335.3
N/A
NO. 3
CO
3308.
3900.
3793.
3667.
315.5
RATED
NOX
1719.
2255.
2621.
2198.
453.9
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
2272.
2714.
2512.
223.6
NO. 4
CO
7948.
8473.
8364.
8262.
277.2
NOX
1637.
1837.
1929.
1801.
149.3
OI5P CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
8
N= 3
-------
-81-
HFflVY DUTY ENfilNE IPLt TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAKY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 40
COMMt-NTS!
N U M
TEST
790030
790031
790032
790033
790034
MEAN:
-< e: R
CODE
1^8 0601
1MB 0602
MR 0603
I.--.R 0604 :
IMH 0605
STD.DEV. :
CIU:
1969 HLT
MODE
HC
2S32.
1690.
2171.
1S57.
2569.
2104.
467.7
351
«06
NO. 1
CO
1959H.
23334.
26020.
200?9.
209P7.
21994.
2675.0
MAY 24. 1979'
ENOIO: RM351 2483434 RATEO BHP!
NOX
201 .
168.
,236.
258.
246.
222.
36.8
MOOE
HC
4556.
4261.
4920.
56B5.
5632.
5011.
635.9
NO. 2
CO
31751.
36716.
23504.
4850b.
50653.
38226.
11413.1
NOX
35.
34.
62.
0.
55.
37.
24.1
MODE
HC
1053.
1055.
1249.
1376.
1480.
1243.
190.7
N/A
NO. 3
CO
2060.
1457.
1679.
2493.
2054.
1949.
398.2
RATED
NOX
1976.
1747.
2487.
2483.
2546.
2248.
362.6
RPM! N/A
MODE
HC
167o.
1744.
2061.
2239.
1912.
1925.
231.9
NO. 4
CO
7444.
7316.
8610.
9527.
6619.
7903.
1155.6
NOX
1420.
1117.
U30.
1645.
1500.
1482.
237.5
DISP CODE
a= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
B
B
N= 5
>
-------
-82-
HFAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MAY 24. J979
MK13: 30 CID: 330 ENGID: F330 9BN50SS RATED BHp: N/A RATED RPM« N/A
COMMENTS: 19*9 HLT urn
N U M ri 'E R MODE NO. 1 MODE NO. 2 MODE NO. 3 MODE NO. 4
TEST CODE HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX HC CO NOX
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
790023 1MB 0701
790025 I^'H 0702
790026 IMR 0703
790027 IrtB 0704
790029 IMR 0705
790039 InR 0706
MEAN:
STD.DEV. :
1901.
713.
ma.
1514.
2108.
19575. 100. 7604. 44372. 32. 1537. 23755. 464. 1866. 23619. 502. B
20*31. 103. 7726. 39262. 31. 1874. 27775. 572. 1942. 24132. 548. B
9204. 65. 6902. 4244J. 36. 1674. 19317. 936. 1840. 19235. 772. B
11016. 113. 8820. 34616. 21. 1562. 23098. 1008. 1771. 14409. 760. B
19921. 114. R956. 46801. 21. 1637. 24650. 526. 1887. 24365. 516. 8
29655. 124. 5118. 34050. 20. 2599. 38158. 965. 2311. 27695. 557. B
1S36. 18334. 103. 7521. 40?57. 27. 1814. 26126. 745. 1936. 22243. 609. N=
487.7 7^08'.3 20;& 1411.0 5212.8 6.8 402.7 6493.3 249.5 192.3 4692.7 123.3
-------
-83-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFGJ
COMM
N U M
TEST
790014 I
790015 I
790016 I
MEAN!
STO.DEV
40
r'NT?:
HER
COPE
MB 0801
MB 0802
MR 0803
. 8
CIO:
1969 HLT
MODE
HC .
929.
911.
748.
863.
99.6
3SO
woe
NO. 1
CO
10561.
10372.
9fUS.
9983.
843.4
MAY ?4, 1979
ENGID: GMSSO vosiaxi RATED BHP:
NOX
97.
84.
76.
85.
10.6
MODE
HC
5792.
3749.
9800.
6447.
3078.5
NO. 2
CO
41719.
39271.
49143.
4337«.
5141.0
NOX
34.
27.
25.
28.
4.7
MODE
HC
1028.
1053.
1019.
1033.
17.4
N/A
NO. 3
CO
9886.
9940.
9780.
9869.,
81.6
RATED
NOX
858.
885.
911.
685.
26.4
RPMl N/A
MODE
HC
1319.
1276.
1299.
1298.
21.5
NO. 4
CO
18260.
17230.
16746.
17412.
773.1
NOX
492.
470.
520.
494.
25.0
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
8
B
B
N= 3
-------
-84-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAKY 1969 BASELINE
MAY 24. 1979
MFO: 20 CIO! 31« ENGio: n318 PM 31HH RATED BHPI N/A RATED RRMJ N/A
COMMENTS: 19*>9 HLT #09
N U M
TEST
790046
MFAN:
« F R
COPE
IMH 0901
MODE
HC
912.
912.
NO. 1
CO
4400.
4400.
NOX
351.
351.
MODE
HC
7844.
7844.
NO. 2
CO
1304.
1304.
NOX
46.
46.
MODE
HC
190.
190.
NO. 3
CO
3175.
3175.
NOX
"y
2684.
2684.
MODE
HC
1927.
1927.
NO. 4
CO NOX
5201. 2578.
5201, 2578;,
DISP CODE
B. WAI f n
V AL 1 U
M= VALID
B
N= 1
-------
-85-
HFfAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TFST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE (S)
HFG:
40
COMM' NTS:
N U M H f.
R
TEST CODE
790040 1MB
790043 1KB
790043 I"R
MFAN:
STD.DKV. :
1101
1102
1103
cio:
19iS9 HLT
MODF.
HC
995.
906.
954.
953.
44.3
350
«11
NO. 1
CO
14109.
13564.
1306R.
'13580.
520.7
M*Y 24, 1
ENGIO: r,M 350 ?. LJPN
f-JOX
170.
156.
175.
167.
10.0
MODE
HC
3231.
5674.
3412.
4106.
1361.3
NO. 2
CO
3b9bl.
5379
KATEO BMP:
(
NOX
54.
46.
51.
50.
3.6
MODE
HC
1164.
1341.
1105.
1203.
122.6
! N/A
NO. 3
CO
9989.
1M57.
9087.
1107B.
2704.7
RATED
NOX
1637.
1406.
169.
107.1.
789.7
RPM! N/A
MODE
HC
1464.
1413.
14<»6.
1^1.
2S.9
NO. 4
CO
20498.
21671.
20011.
20727.
853.3
i
NOX i
848.
841.
960.
883.
66.9
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
8
B
B
N= 3
-------
-86-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IULE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(s>
MEG
s 30
COMMKNTS:
N U M
TEST
790041
790044
790045
MEAN:
* E R
CODE
IMH 1201
1MB 1202
1MB 1203
STO.DEV. 8
CID:
19^9 HLT
MODE
HC
5391.
5486.
4*84.
5187.
438.5 ,
300
«12
NO. 1
CO
57717.
64707.
62411.
61612.
3563.1
MAY 24. 1979
ENGIO: F300 1 . RATED BHPt N/A
NOX
127.
107.
131.
121.
12.9
MODE
HC
5529.
9577.
4042.
6383.
2864.4
NO. 2
CO
7266H.
79364.
63220.
7174d.
8110.5
NOX
20..
29.
39.
29.
9.9
MODE
HC
2519.
2845.
2726.
2697.
164.6
NO. 3
CO
56615.
63333.
60859.
60269.
3397.4
RATED
NOX
828.
720.
821.
790.
60.2
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
2861.
316?.
2928.
2983.
158.3
NO. 4
CO
59419.
63972.
60816.
61402.
2332.7
NOX
417.
360.
395.
391.
28.7
01SP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
-87-
HFAVY DUTY ENGINt
TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGlNF(S)
MFG: ?70
COMMENT?:
N U M H F.
R
TEST CORE
796539 1MB
796540 Inn
796584 I MB
MEAN:
STO.DEV. :
1301
1302
1303
CID:
1969 HLT
MODE
HC
H66.
885.
911.
fl94.
33.7
345
"13
NO. 1
CO
8359.
9474.
9423.
90R5.
629.6
MAY 24. 1979
ENIJIQ: V345 7l94b6 RATED BMP!
NOX
200.
191.
203.
198.
6.1
MODE
HC
5627.
2702.
6586.
4972.
2023.2
NO. 2
CO
2092b.
24262.
235BO.
22922.
1763.2
NOX
63.
75.
61.
66.
7.6
MODE
HC
2333.
2418.
2306.
2352.
58.5
i N/A
NO. 3
CO
14204.
14956.
14467.
14542.
381.7
RATED
NOX
1783.
1696.
1587.
1689.
98.3
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
2073.
23b6.
2079.
2169.
161.9
NO. 4
CO
10392.
14936.
10140.
11B23.
2699.2
NOX
1320.
1693.
1069.
1360.
313.9
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
-88-
HEAVY DUTY ENC,lNt IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAHY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE (S)
MF(j: 40
COMMITS 1
N u M ii e: R
TEST CODE
HOOH7 1MB 1402
800115 IMH 140S
8001 16 I
-------
-89-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IOLE TEST EMISSION^ SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MEG:
30
COMMENTS:
N U M I)
TEST C
7966J8 1MB
796639 IMB
796635 I "H
MEANS
STD.DEV.
t R
ODE
1501
1502
1503
:
CILi:
1969 HLT
MODE
HC
33H2.
3462.
3457.
3433.
45.0
361
«1S
NO. 1
CO
35920.
33065.
3-5699.
34895.
1588.8
ENfiin
MOX
143.
156.
162.
154.
9.6
MAY 24. 1
: F361 SHOE
MOOE
HC
8483.
6111.
8347.
7647.
1332.2
NO. 2
CO
56731.
46772.
53989.
6309.8
y/9
RATED BHPS N/A
NOX
36.
59.
32.
42.
14.4
MODE
HC
2686.
2610.
2528;
2608.
79.2
NO. .3
CO
27890.
27039.
26142.
27024.
874.5
RATED
NOX
1470.
1434.
1574.
1492.
73.1
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
2915.
2819.
2759.
2831.
78.6
NO. 4
. CO
30466.
30823.
29585.
30291.
638.0
NOX
1137.
1098.
1096.
mo.
23.3
D1SP CODE
8= VALIO
M= VALID
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
-yu-
HEAVY DUTY FN6INE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 10
COMMFNT?:
N U N
TEST
800112
800139
800113
800184
MEAN:
» * t R
CODE
IMH 1601
MR 1604
I'«B 1602
IMH 1603
STD.DEV. :
CIO:
1969 RLT
MODE
HC
7558.
442.
6504.
2957.
4365.
3273.3
160
«lft
NO. 1
CO
29247.
2159.
24204.
16290.
17975.
11815.9
MAY 24. l
ENG10J F360 EGG1
MOX
194.
21.
184.
195.
146.
85.4
MODE
HC
4942.
505.
5127.
4350.
1731.
2175.8
NO. 2
CO
5047.
4S692.
46262.
35659.
20410.1
979
NOX
65.
1.
51.
45.
40.
27.6
RATED BMP!
MOOE
HC
492.
274.
2434.
2358.
1389.
1165.9
: N/A
NO. 3
CO
7517.
915.
7982.
7995.
6102.
3465.3
RATED
NOX
2101.
234.
2062.
2164.
1640.
938.4
RPM: N/A
MODE
HO
25b5.
300.
2681.
2482.
2005.
1139.3
NO. 4
CO
13917.
1489.
14208.
13767.
10845.
6240.2
NOX
1174.
157.
1353.
1380.
1016.
579.7
DISP CODE
B= VALIU
M= VALID
B
B
B
B
N= 4
-------
-91-
HEAVY DUTY ENfiINt IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MAY 24, 1979
MFG:
COMM
N U M
TEST
800144 I
8001H9 I
Mt'ANJ
STD.DEV
40
>-. N t s :
rf F. R
CODE
HP 1701
B 1702
. :
CID:
1969 *LT
MODE
HC
3^60.
3971.
3716.
361.5
292
17
NO. 1
CO
1525.
4624.
3075.
2191.3
ENfijo:
r,M292
RACKET
MODE NO. 2
NOX
306.
303.
304.
1.8
HC
2885.
4819.
3852.
1367.1
CO
54161.
51890.
3212.1
NOX
66.
55.
60.
7.4
RATED HHP:
MODE
HC
492.
279.
385.
150.5
N/A
NO. 3
CO
4838.
2169.
3504.
1887.3
RATED
NOX
1179.
982.
1080.
139.7
RPMI N/A
MODE
HC
167.
416.
292.
176.3
NO. 4
CO NOX
1042. 444.
1196. 832.
1119. 638.
108.9 274.4
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
N= 2
-------
-92-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
-------
-93-
HfAVY (H)TY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
MAY 24, i
MFCi: 30
COMMrNTSS
N U M H E R
TEST CODE
800213 1MB 1901
800215 IMR 1902
MKAN:
STO.DEV. :
CID:
1
-------
-94-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 30
COMMrNTS:
N U M M E H
TEST CODE
800205 1MB 2001
800194 1MB 2002
MEAN:
STD.DEV. :
CIO:
I9f>9 HLT
MODE
HC
49.
177.
113.
91.0
360
#20
NO. 1
CO
7?6.
936.
831.
14H.5
MAY 24, 1979
ENGID: F360 EGGS RATED BMP
NOX
148.
153.
150.
3.4
MOOE NO. 2
HC CO NOX
4027. 4l72f. 48.
4372. 3832t. 41.
4199. 40026. 44.
244.4 2406.3 4.8
MODE
HC
164.
166.
165.
1.9
: N/A
NO. 3
CO
979.
934.
957.
31.8
RATED
NOX
1012.
1054.
1033.
29.9
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
251.
287.
269.
25.2
NO. 4
CO
1494.
1548.
1521.
38.2
NOX
665.
678.
671.
8.7
DISP CODE
8= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
N= 2
-------
-95-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINL IULE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE .
MAY 24, 1979
MFG: <,o CID: 350 ENGJOS r,M35o TENNIS RATED BMP: N/A RATED RPM: N/A
COMMENTS: 1^69 HLT «2i
NUMBER MODE NO. 1 MODE NO. 2 MODE NO. J MODE NO. 4
TEST CODE HC CO NOX HC CO NOX^ "^1C CO NOX HC CO NOX
DISP CODE
8= VALID
M= VALID
B00227 I"B ?101 995. 11619. 145. 11784. 63769. 32. 1841. 17782. 1318. 2376. 22689. 1019. B
MEAN: 995. 11639. IAS. 11784. 637,69. 32. 1841. 17782. 1318. 2376. 22689. 1019. N= 1
-------
-96-
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IOLE TEST EMISSION^ SUMMARY 19&9 BASELINE ENGINE
-------
-98-
03
04
OS
06
07
08
09
11
12
13
14
IS
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
TABL' f:
391-J
V304 048048
F330 ^>A'i505s
GM3S1 24P3434
F330 'HiJ505S
GM3BO VU512XI
D31H ..M 318R
GM 35 1) ?. LJPN
F300 1
V345 /l'>456
GM366 A«RUCKLE
F361 ':H')F
F360 i GG1
GM292 RACKET
D31rt KG^2
F361 MLK 19
F360 FGG3
GM3SO TtNNIS
D361-3 SLUG
SALES-dEIGHTEi.) JOLE EMISSIONS
19*9 BASELINE ENGINE is)
MAY 24t 1979
WEIGHTING SI7E HC WEIGHTED CO
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SALES-WEIGHTED IDLE
90* REDUCTION
FACTORS
0.02405
O.OA329
0.0911<*
0.04557
0.09114
0.05696
0.03924
0.05696
0.05190
0.07468
0.07975
0.03165
0.03861
0.06582
0.03671
0.0316S
0.03861
0.05696
0.02532
TESTS TOTAL:
5
3
3
5
6
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
1
2
PPM-C
14693.
34307.
21943.
5011.
7521.
6447.
7844.
4106.
63R3.
4972.
3898.
7647.
3731.
3852.
9854.
6188.
4199.
117H4.
12462.
FROM BASELINE:
HC
353.38
2171.30
1999.89
228.34
685.45
367.24
307.80
233. «7
331.25
371.30
310.86
241.99
144.04
253.56
361. n
195.82
162.13
671.23
315.49
9706.7
970.7
(PPM)
23277.
97118.
747-55.
38226.
40257.
43378.
1304.
44631.
71748.
22922.
33538.
53989.
35659.
51890.
14141.
28013.
40026.
63769.
55353.
PAGE NO. 1
WEIGHTED NOA WEIGHTED
CO
559
6146
6813
1741
3669
2470
51
2542
3723
1711
2674
1708
1376
3415
519
886
1545
3632
1401
46590
4659
.83
.73
.08
.94
.03
.88
.17
.26
.63
.92
.55
.51
.72
.51
.08
.49
.29
.41
.33
.3
.0
(PPM)
54.3
47.6
53.2
37.3
26. 1
2H.4
45.9
50.3
29.4
66.0
55.2
42.1
40.5
60.5
34.1
55.1
44.5
31.6
35.3
NOX
1.307
3.011
4.846
1.700
2.436
1.620
1.801
2.863
1.524
4.932
4.406
1.332
1.563
3.982
1.254
1.744
1.718
1.800
0.894
44.73
4.47
-------
-99-
TAHLE ft: SALES-WEIGHTED PERCENTAGES
i->69 BASELINE ENGINE is)
DATA
PAGE NO.
MAY 24, 1979
PEHCFNT
TOT/M
CORRECTED
PERCENT
WEIGHTING
FACTOR
03
04
05
06
07
OU
09
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
391-J"
V304 h4M048
F330 VAN505S
GM351 2483434
FJ30 4RN505S
GM350 VO512XI
D31B .'M 318R
G.M J5n ? LJPN
F300 1
VJ4S 71'M56
GM366 ARPUCKLE
FJ61 HOP
F360 i-GOl
GM292 RACKET
0318 EG'32
F361 ,-iLf. 19
F360 FGG3
GM350 TKNNIS
D361-J SLUG
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 .90(1
5.000
7.200
3.600
7.?00
4.500
3.100
4.500
4.100
5.900
6.300
2.500
3.050
5.200
2.900
2.500
3.050
4.500
2.000
2.405
6.3?9
9.114
4.557
9 . 1 1 '\
.696
.924
5
3
5.696
5
7
190
.468
7.975
3.165
3.861
6.582
3.671
3.165
3.861
5.696
2.532
0.02405
0.06329
0.09114
0.04557
0.09114
0.05696
0.03924
0.05696
0.05190
0.07468
0.07975
0.03165
0.03861
0.06582
0.03671
0.03165
0.03861
0.05696
0.02532
SUM TOTALS:
79.no
100.00
l.ooo
-------
-100-
TAHLF 7!
IDLF.
19*9
HC
EMISSIONS
HASEl.INE ENGINE (S)
MAY 24. 1979
CO
PAGt. NO.
NOX
SIZE
03 341-J
04 V304 64H048
05 F330 9AM505S
06 GM351 2483434
07 F330 'iBNSOSS
08 GM3SO VOB12XI
09 0318 .'M 318R
11 GM 350 2 LJMN
12 F300 1
13 V345 M9456
14 GM366-AKRUCKLE
15 F361 -HOF.
16 F360 G01
17 GM292 RACKET
1« 0318 EGG?
19 F361 HLK 19
20 F360 £003
21 GM350 TF.NNIS
22 DJ61-3 SLUG
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14^3
34307
21943
5011
7521
6447
7H44
4106
63P3
4972
3898
7647
3731
3ftS2
9R54
6188
4199
11784
124*2
23277.
97118.
74755.
3822^.
40257.
43378.
1304.
44631.
71748.
22922.
3353H.
53989.
35659.
51890.
14141.
28013.
40026.
63769.
55353.
54.34
47.57
53.17
37.30
26.73
28.43
45.90
50.27
29.37
66.03
55.25
42.10
40.47
60.50
34.15
55.10
44.50
31.60
35.30
5
3
3
5
6
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
4
Z
Z
2
2
1
2
------- |