Technical Report
1969 Heavy-Duty PJngirie Baseline Program
and 1983 Emission Standards Development
by
Timothy P. Cox
Glenn W. Passavant
Larry D. Ragsdale
May, 1979
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
-------
Table of Contents
I. Foreword i
II. Summary 1
III. Introduction and Background 2
IV. Discussion 4
A. Vehicle/Engine Selection and Procurement 4
1. 1969 Sales Data and Sampling Plan
2. Selection Criteria
3. Procurement Actions
4. Problems Encountered
5. Results of Selection and Procurement Actions
B. Engine Testing 18
1. Test Sites
2. Test Procedures (Revised Statistical Validation
Criteria)
3. Control System
4. Engine Preparation/Instrumentation
5. Software Support/Data Reduction
6. Void Rates/Test Repeatability
7. Emission Sampling System
C. Baseline Compilation and Standards Computation 39
1. Transient Cycle: Emission Test Summaries
and Results
2. Idle Test: Emission Test Summaries and Results
3. Standards Computation and Discussion
V. References 101
Appendices (Available Under Separate Cover)
I. Selection and Procurement
1. Scopes of Work
2. Contract Final Reports
3. Individual Engine Sheets
4. Carburetor and Distributor Curves
II. Engine Testing
1. MSAPC Advisory Circular #22A
2. Engine Testing Data
-------
I. Foreword
Under the Clean Air Act Amendments (CAM) of 1977, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency was tasked to develop revised
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission standards for heavy-duty
engines for the 1983 model year. The Emission Control Technology
Division (ECTD) of EPA's Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control was directed to determine these revised emission standards
based on the criteria outlined in the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Specifically, the Emission Control Technology Division was to
measure the HC and CO emission levels of uncontrolled heavy-duty
gasoline-fueled engines (model year 1969) and determine the
emission standards based on at least a 90 percent reduction from
the average of these actually measured emissions.
Consequently, ECTD began a baseline program to procure the
engines prescribed by the CAAA (1969 MY) and test the emission
levels of these engines to.determine the baseline emission levels.
The primary purpose of the 1969 baseline program was to
develop the baseline emission levels used to determine the 90
percent reduction. The 90 percent reduction directly represents
the HC and CO emission standards which should then be proposed for
heavy-duty engines beginning in MY 1983.
The purpose of this technical report is to present the results
of the 1969 baseline program and explain the methodology by which
the 1983 heavy-duty HC and CO emission standards were calculated.
It includes:
1. Engine procurement and preparation information.
2. Revised cycle statistical validation criteria.
3. Transient and idle test summaries for. each engine tested.
4. Derivation of the 1983 standards.
While most of the information in this report has previously
been placed in the public docket in various forms, this report
provides a complete information base which should facilitate
evaluation and comment on the baseline program by HD vehicle/engine
manufacturers and other interested parties.
-------
-11-
Contributors
The development of this baseline program and the ultimate
determination of the baseline emission levels would not have
been possible without the dedicated work of the personnel listed
below:
Special recognition is due William B. Clemmens who was di-
rectly responsible for the success of the baseline program and the
development of the transient test procedure. His technical skills
and expertise greatly enhanced EPA's acquisition of transient
testing capability and the ultimate success of this baseline
program was in large part due to his efforts.
Engineering
John Anderson
Chester France
Robert Maxwell
Jack McFadden
Timothy Mott
Richard Nash
Larry Ragsdale
Kevin Stulp
Tad Wysor
Computer Specialists
Eugene Chaires
Jensen Cheng
John Kargul
Robert Kopacz
Secretarial Support
Lois Gardner
Nancy Henderson
Jennifer Stanley
Joan Wirth
Testing Technicians
Thaddeus Cieslak
Vincent Crowell
Timothy Davis
John Drake
Stephen Halfyard
Leon Jones
Lawrence Navarre
J. Michael Spates
David Watson
Ronald Westlake
-------
-ill-
Glossary of Acronyms
A/C - Advisory Circular
BS - Brake Specific
BSFC - Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
CAAA - Clean Air Act Amendments
CFV - Constant Flow Venturi
CO - Carbon Monoxide
CC>2 - Carbon Dioxide
CVS - Constant Volume Sample
EG&G - EG&G Automotive Research, San Antonio, Texas
ECTD - Emission Control Technology Division
EPA - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FTP - Federal Test Procedure
GVWR - Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
g/BHP-hr - Grams per Brake Horsepower per Hour
.HC - Hydrocarbons
HD - Heavy-Duty
HDV - Heavy-Duty Vehicle
LDT - Light-Duty Truck
MVEL - Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory
MY - Model Year
NOx - Oxides of Nitrogen
NPRM - Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OEM - Original Equipment Manufacturer
OMSAPC - EPA Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
ppmC - Parts per million Carbon
-------
-iv-
SCI - Systems Control, Incorporated, Livonia, Michigan
SI - Spark Ignition
SwRI . - Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas
-------
-I'-
ll. 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 CAM, 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-model 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-
Manufacturer
Chrysler
9.3%
Ford
33.5%
GM
39.3%
IHC
14.7%
Others*
3.2%
Table IV-A-1
1969 Sales Data
Engine
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
Sales
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
11,334
% of Market
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.
(A) 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
-------
Q
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-
XI-
i
°Z
-------
-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-
The 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. \J
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.
-------
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)
0.970-1.020 0.850-1.020
0.9700 \J 0.8800 \J
+ 50 rpm + 10.0 ft-lbs
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
Determination, r^
y Intercept of
the Regression
Line, b
0.970-1.030
0.9700 _!_/
+ 50 rpm
Torque _2 /
13% of max.
engine torque
(in Pt-lbs.)
0.83-1.03 (hot)
0.77-1.03 (cold)
0.8800 (hot) \J
0.8500 (cold) \J
+ 15.0 ft-lbs
Brake Horsepower
7% of max. brake
horsepower
0.89-1.03 (hot)
0.87-1.03 (cold)
0.9100 JY
+5.0 BHP
I/ Minimum
2j 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 j+1 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.
-20
-------
-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.I/
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 (jjRPM (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
\_l 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-
performance 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
control 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
THROTTLE POSITION
PEED-
BACK
TAPE
THROTTLE
AMPLIFIER
:COMMANI
TAPE
TORQUE COMMAND
TORQUE ERROR
TORQUE ERROR
AMPLIFIER
TORQUE FEEDBACK
i CALIBRATION
ANALOG CONTROL CIRCUITRY
j CASSETTE
KEYBOARD
THROTTLE
kSERVO
MOTOR
SHAFT
XTORQUE
METER
..DRIVE
SHAFT
HARDWARE
-------
3001
-24-
WIDE OPEN
THROTTLE
250|
200 i
ACTUAL
SHAFT
TORQUE
(FT-LBS) 15°
100
50
LSO
MSMT
.MSZT
CONTROLLER
CALIBRATION POINTS
1.00
2.00
3.00
MSMXT
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-3J 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).
\J Named for speed/load at which calibration occurs. In general, midspeed
, ,. , Rated (or governed) RPM-Idle RPM + Idle RPM, midtorque as
is defined as - - - r - - ' M
Maximum torque (jj 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,
but also additional circuitry located arf 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)._!/
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.
\J 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-
Th e 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. Harmon 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, a 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 cas.es (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/Spec!fieat ions
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 opcodes^/ on normalized cycle or engine reference^/ file.
INPMFB - Input mapping feedbacks/ 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.
2J 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.
5J Feedback is the recorded speed and torque performance of an
engine, either during mapping or a transient test.
-------
-32-
Table IV B-5
1969 Baseline Void Rates
Void Tests
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) THC 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
Total Test si/ Statistical/ Experimental/
6
3
2
4
1
1
2
4
3
4
6
3*
9
1
2*
2
1
3
1
3
2
4
1
2
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%)
537.
*See Appendix II, Baseline Engines 16 and 20.
I/ Cold start transient tests intended for baseline data (excluding
all correlation and parameter sensitivity tests).
2J 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 Variation!/ (%)
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 I/
Coefficients of Variation 2/(%)
Engine
Valid Tests
(4) IHC 304
(9) Chrysler 318-3
(11) GM 350-2
(12) Ford 300
(13) IHC 345
(14) GM 366
(15) Ford 361
(16) Ford 360
(17) GM 292
(19) Ford 361
(20) Ford 360
(21) GM 350-2
(22) Chrysler 361
(23) GM 366
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
3
BSHC
4.0
2.0
2.0
1.0
7.0
1.0
18.0
5.0
10.0
6.0
2.7
5.2
.50
1.8
BSCO
6.0
18.0
7.0
1.0
.10
2.0
.0
.0
.0
2.0
1.7
2.1
3.0
4.4
1.
7,
5.
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-inode 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
00(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
CH. Bendix Model 8205 038333
4
Raw CO- 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) I/
Time After
Ignition
(seconds) "i_l 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
\j 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 basi'c 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 98-100.
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%
-------
SflLES-WEIGHTED BflSELINE TRflNSIENT
EMISSIONS HC(GXBHP-HR)
Figure IV-C-1
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00 13.00 15.00
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
190)0
2WO
23JOO
2S.DO
-------
Figure IV-C-2
CM
SflLES-HEIGHTED BflSELINE TRANSIENT
EMISSIONS COCG/BHP-HR)
o
3.00 5.00 7.00 9.00 11.00 13.00 15010
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00
25.00
-------
SflLES-HEIGHTED BflSELINE IDLE
EMISSIONS HC(PPM-C)
Figure IV-C-3
340
5.00
740
940
1100 13.00
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
1340
21.00
2340
2540
-------
Figure IV-C-A
SPILES-WEIGHTED BflSELINE IDLE
EMISSIONS CO (PERCENT)
1.00 3.00 5.00 7.00 8.00 11X0 13.00 15.00 17.00
NO. OF ENGINES -V7-
19.00
21.00
23.00
25^0
-------
-48-
BASELINE ENGINE TRANSIENT
EMISSION TEST DATA SHEETS
23 ENGINES
-------
HFflVY DUTY ENGINt TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MAY ?_<*> 1979
MFG: 20 CIO! 225 ENr,IL): Ftf 225K 29^A 032 RATED BMP: N/A RATED PPM: N/A
COMMENTS: 1969 BLT «oi
NUMBER GRAMS / BHP-HR «/RHP-HR ACTUAL * GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
TEST COOING
790«36 HLi
790840 HL
791426 BL
791427 8LI
791^52 ML
791455 ML'
791497 HL
791509 rfLT
791517 HL-
791520 -HLr
791528 BLr
MEAN:
STD.DF.V
0101
0102
0103
D104
filOS
0106
0108
0107
(HIO
0109
0111
HC
6.11
6.34
' 6.20
6.82
7.57
6.87
3.76
5.15
4.25
4.08 .
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
NOX
9
')
9
t
7
9
9
9
9
8
8
8
1
.99
.75
.19
.24
.6«
.36
.00
.10
18
.58
.15
.46
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
fisrc
.819
.666
.640
.651
.627
.618
.575
.600
.59?
.554
.577
.639
.017
HHP- HR ERROI
10
10
11
10
11
11
.767
.8"4
.106
.967
.154
.110.
14.488
13
14
14
13
11
0
.551
.153
.011
.934
.060
.133
-15.0
-14.0
-12.3
-13.4
-11.9
-12.3
14.4
7.0
11.8
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
8.5b
7.18
7.37
7.13
11.28
l.U
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. 4B
14.13
13.22
1.37
DISP CODE
8= VALID
M= VALID
X
X
X
B
B
X
X
X
X
X
X
N= Z
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MF: 392
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
f'Ox
3.63
4*03
1.95
4.39
4.20
4.29
4.Q4
3.90
3.71
4.78
4.21
4.24
0.54
MAY 24.
ENGID: v392 65<;
«/9HP-HR ACTUAL
RSFC
0.796
0.75R
0.353
0.88R
0.826
0.818
0.820
0.869
0.802
0.758
0.773
0.778
0.022
FiHP- HR
21.153
19.805
19.193
19.480
18.941
19.098
18.958.
18.506
18.912
18.998
18.ROO
18.903
0.099
:=====-=
. 1979
*4\7
*
FWROR
3.0
-J.5
-6.5
-5.1
-7.7
-7.0
-7.7
-9.9
-7.9
-T.S
-8.4
-7.9
0.5
RATED BHp; N/A
GRAMS /MILE
HC
25.21
. 13.78
5.83
12.93
17.87
12.46'
13.23
14.70
9.82
8.98
9.12
9.31
0.45
CO
318.29
262.42
116.73
400.29
282.33
286.43
300.10
326.21
273.61
252.81 .
257.89
261i44
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
DISP CODE
8= VALID
M= VALID
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
B
B
8
-SO-'
-------
HFAVY DUTY ENGUJE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
4, 1979
MFGt 30
COMMENTS:
NUMBER
TEST CODING
391
HC
CIDs
E1LT #03
/ RHP-HR
CO f)0x
*VBHP-HR ACTUAL %
BSFC HHP- HR ERROR
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
RATED BHp: N/A RATED RPM! N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC CO NOX
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL DISP CODE
B= VALID
HC CO NOX M= VALID
792304 bLr 0301
792471 BL.' 0303
792473 HLT 0304
792474 BL i 0305
792b37 BLr 0302
19.13 178.99
13.50 178.88
12.98 177.55
13.59 179.50
12.98 193.04
4.86
5.74
5.79
5.92
5.55
0.639
0.641
0.633
0.645
0.65B
MEAN: 13.54 179.19 5.83 0.643
STD.DEV. : 0.07 0.44 0.13 0-003
24.681
24.608
24.868
24.835
24.685
24.721
0.162
1.6
1.3
2.3
2.2
1.6
1.7
0.7
36.18 338.63 9.20
26.12 346.18 11.10
24.85 339.94 11.08
25.96 342.92 11.32
24.73 367.75 10.57
29.93
21.06 279.07
20.51 280.49
21.07 278.30
19.73 293.38
7.61
8.95
9.14
9.18
8.43
26.04 344.55 11.21 21.06 278.68 9.07
0.11 2.33 0.16 0.0 0.66 0.17
X
B
X
B
X
-si-
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
24. 1979
1969 BASELINE EN(31NE(S)
MFG: 270
COMMENTS:
NUMBER
TEST CODING
304
CID:
1969 NLT »04
GRAMS / BHP-HR
HC CO MOx
V304 648048
fl/BHP-HR ACTUAL *
BSFC BHP- .HH TRROR
RATED BMP: N/A RATEU RPM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC co NOX
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO NOX
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
793002
793003
79300*.
793129
796236
79006M
7^6?3S
796234
HLT
HL
BL'
BL;
HLT
«L-
HL,
HLr
0/.01
0^02
0^.03
ll'tO'4
^.08
MO
409
407
10.95
11.06
10.70
13.13
l;i.93
10.3'J
10.3S
10. 2*
76.91
98.09
136.24
147.82
127.65
125.45
123.40
128.99
MtAN!
STD.DF.V. J
7.02 0.677 19.4B8 -1.4
6.70 0.649 19.523 -1.2
6.J4 0.663 19.606 -0.8
5.3« 0.64S 19.454 -1.5
7.57 0.731 19.837 -4.0
7.66 0.719 20.Obi -3.1
7.64 0.721 19.9^6 -3.6
7.73 0.720 19.892 -3.8
11.22 127.76 6.70 0.682 19.662 -2.3
1.11 18.42 0.98 0.040 0.194 1.5
16
16
16
19
17
16
16
16
.64
.82
.40
.75
.11
.47
.33
.11
116
149
208
222
199
198
194
202
.85
.18
.79
.25
.85
.78
.54
.40
10.
10.
9.
8.
11.
12.
12.
12.
67
19
41
09
85
14
05
13
16
17
16
20
14
14
14
14
.18
.04
.14
.27
.95
.46
.37
.25
113
151
205
228
174
174
171
179
.61
.13
.49
.12
.63
.48
.15
.15
10.
10.
9.
8.
10.
10.
10.
10.
38
32
26
30
35
66
60
74
17.24 196.49 10.33
1.46 27.84 1.69
16. 5J 187.70 9.80
X
H
B
B
B
X
X
B
2.35 29.71
1.00
-52.-
-------
HFAVY PUTY F.NGTNL TRANSIENT EMISSION^ SUMMARY
MAY 24« 1979
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
NFG: 30
COMMKNTs:
N U M B F. R
«*__«_».,»
TEST CODING
330
CIO:
HLT #05
OHAMS / 8HP-HH
HC CO NOx
F330 4AN505S
tf/RHP-HR ACTUAL ' -I,
BSFC RHP- HR F.KROR
RATED BHP: N/A RATED RPM! N/A
GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/Ltt FUEL
HC CO NOX HC CO
793275 HL1 0501
793276 HLT 0^02
793277 HL' 0503
793278 HL- 050^
793279 HLi 0505
MEAN:
STD.DF.V. :
23.13 157.15 7.89 0.727 16.466 -7.6
1.25 3.95 0.22 0.011 0.065 0.*
35.91 200.62 10.07 38<6U 216.08 10.86
1.51 4.8* 0.28 1.49 2.25 0.43
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
28.63
29.26
27. *n
26.29
29. OS
163.89
156.13
155.26
153.69
156.77
7.68
8.15
7.77
8.10 .
7.75
0.7*5
0.72*
0.72*
0.715
0.72fl
16.**3
16.398
16.*22
16.55*
16.513
-7.8
-8.0
-7.9
-7.1
-7.*
36.52
37.21
34.93
33.76
37.12
209.03
198.52
197.91
197.34
200.29
9.79
10.36
9.91
10.40
9.91
38.4* 219.99
40.42 215.65
37.85 214.44
36.78 214.96
39.91 215.34
10.31
11.26
10.73
11.33
10.65
B
H
B
B
B
N=»
-------
HF.AVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(SJ
MAY 24, 1979
MF13S 40 CIDS 351 ENG1D: GM351 2<+83434 RATED BMP: N/A RATED RPM: N/A
COMMENTS: 1969 HLT «OiS
NUMBER GRAMS / RHP-Hrt fc/BHP-HR ACTUAL . * GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
TEST CODING HC CO MOx BSFC RHP- HR FRROR HC CO NOX HC CO NOX
793500 ML- 0602 14.30 101.09 6.67 0.631
793501
793502
79350J
793504
793505
HL1
HL
HL'
BL
HL-
0603
0604
H605
"606
0607
b.
13.
W.
9.
10.
.81
.30
.19
.00
.35
112.
104.
113.
78.
82.
73
28
77
56
78
7
?0
9
9
8
.92
.30
.45
.88
.68
0
0
0
0
0
.653
.450
.650
.609
.64?
794345 BLT 0608 10.64 110.28 9.68
0.651
MEAN: 9.72 111.si s.eo o.65?
STD.DEV. : 1.29 1.73 L2S 0.001
18.336 5.4 20.69 146.29 9.65
16.579 -4.7 11.68 149.47 10.50
18.092 4.0 18.18 142.51 '27.75
16.721 -3.9 10.68 148.42 12.34
16.685 -4.1 11.80 103.01 12.95
16.655 -4.2 13.55 108.36 11.36
15.872 -8.9 13.18 136.64 11.99
16.225 -6.8 12.43 143.05 11.24
0.500 3.0 1.06 9.07 1.05
22.66 160.21 10.57
13.49 172.64 12.13
29.55 231.73 45.12
12.60 175.03 14.55
14.78 129.00 ' 16.22
16.09 128.74 13.50
16.34 169.41 14.87
14.92 171.02 13.50
2.01 2.30 1.94
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
B
X
X
X
X
B
N= 2
-sy-
-------
HFAVY DUTY ENOIME TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY £4. l'>79
1969 BASELINE ENGINE (S)
MFG: 30
COMMENTS:
NUMBER
TEST CODING
330
CIO:
1969 FJLT «07
GRAMS / BHP-HR
HC CO riOx
F330
X/flHP-HR ACTUAL *
BSFC BMP- HH KRROR
RATED BHPI N/A RATED RPM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC CO NOX
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO NOX
DISP CODE
8= VALID
M= VALID
794441 HLr 0708
794444 BL= 0705
HL; 0706
BLr 0707
37.77 340.67
36.46 339.67
33.30 201.26
3^.74 232.17
5.50 0.767
6.04 0.773
6.73 0.716
6.00 0.76?
MEAN: 34.16 224.37 6.25 0.750
STD.D.«;V. : 2.01 20.36 0.4l 0.030
18.039
17.945
18.174
18.080
18.066
0.117
-4.3
-4.8
-3.6
-4.1
-4.2
0.6
52.54 33^.78 7.65
50.50 331.99 8.37
46.70 282.27, 9.43
45.74 324.35 8.38
49.24 313.78 7.17
47.16 310.06 7.61
46.50 281.09 9.40
42.96 304.69 7.87
47.65 312.87 8.73 45.54 298.61 8,36
2.52 26.77 0.61 2.26 15.41 0.90
X
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
HF.aVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 24, 1979
1969 BASELINE ENGINE
MFG:
40
NUMBER
TEST CODING
794603 HLT 0803
794604 HL> 0802
794605 PL.- 0801
MEAN:
STD.D=:V. :
CIO: JS
1969 HLT *08
GRAMS / BH^-HR
HC CO HO*
ENGIO: GM350 VU512XI
9.90 167.42
9.39 170.61
-J.41 170.92
9.40 170.77
0.0? 0.35
4.82
0.15
*/BHP-HR ACTUAL V.
BSFC BHP- HR rRROtt
5.06 Q.640
4.93 0-688
4.71 0.648
0.668
0.028
22.405
21.753
21.731
21.742
0.0
-2.4
-5.2
-5.3
-5.3
0.1
RATED BHP: N/A RATED RPM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
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
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
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
X
R
B
N= 2
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY -- 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MAY 24, 1<*79
MFG: 20 CIl>: 318 ENMO: 0318 PM 31HR RATED BHP: N/A
COMMENTS: i
-------
HFAVY PUTY ENMNE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGlNE(S)
MAY 24t JV»79
MFG! 270 CIO: 345 " EHf-ID! V345 !319Sm; RATED BHP! N/A
COMMt-NTS! 19*9 BUT «)n
N U M B F P GRAMS / RHP-HR «/F)HP-HR ACTUAL .* GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
RATED RPM: N/A
OISP CODE
B= VALID
TEST CODING HC CO MOX BSFC BHP- HR FKROR HC CO NOX HC CO NOX M= VALID
HL'
795?86 BL
795287 HL-
795332 HLT
1001
1002
1003
MEAN:
STD.DEV. :
7.18 78.^*9 6.37 Q.717
7.OS 74.57 6.55 0.705
6.51 91..14 6.10 0.65Q
S.84 79.77 6.57 0.656
7.12 76.53 6.46 0.711
0.09 2.77 0.13 0.008
17.922 -11.3
17.966' -11.1
21.834 H.I
21.268 5.3
17.944 -11.3
0.035 0.2
10.00 109.27 8.87 10.02 109.47 8.89
10.02 105.91 9.31 10.01 105.78 9.30
11.14 156.10 10.46 9.87 138.31 9.26
9.68 132.29 10.90 8.90 121.59 10.02
10.01 107.59 9.09 10.01 107.62 9.09
0.02 2.38 0.31 0.01 2.61 Oi29
B
: B
X
X
N= 2
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 foASELINE ENGINE(S)
MAY 24» J979
MFG: 40 CIl): 3b>0 ENGID: GM 350 Z I.JPN RATED BHP: N/A RATEU RPM: N/A
COMMENTS: 19*9 HLT «i)
NUMBER GRAMS / BHP-Hhi */BHP-HR ACTUAL GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/Lb FUEL
TEST CODING
795441 BLi 1
795442 HL' 1
79544.3 BL ' 1
795544 BL: 1
795545 HLi 1
795546 MLr 1
795547 BLT 1
795548 HL! 1
MEAN:
STO.DEV.
103
102
101
104
105
106
107
108-
:
HC
7.47
y.S5
4.47
S.?Z
7.19
5.?ft
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
RSFC
0.649
0.626
0.621
0.616
0.627
0.601
0.597
0.65B
0.616
0.029
RHP- HR
18.399
17.276
20.222
19.431
17.121
19.874
19.216
17.374
19.163
0.739
ERROR
1 0 . 4
-15.9
-1.5
-b.4
-16.6
.3.2
-6.4
-16.4
-6.7
3.6
HC
10.74
11.50
6.98
7.90
9.61
8.21
8.81
13.64
9.25
1.32
CO
156.95
146.83
189.51
141.88
153.36
204.43
205.86
153.15
189.08
27.84
NOX
7.68
7.87
7.71
10.49
7.98
8.50
7.88
10.11
, 8.02
0.43
HC
11.51
13.67
7.19
8.47
11.47
8.75
9.90
14.52
10.06
1.39
CO
168.29
174.48
195.33
152.07
183.01
217.99
231.43
163.05
205.90
33.26
NOX
8.23
9.35
7.95
11.24
9.53
9.07
8.86
10.76
8.72
0.44
OISP CODE
8= VALID
M= VALID
B
X
X
X
X
B
8
X
= 3
-51-
-------
HF4VY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG! 30
COMMfNTs:
NUMBER
TEST CODING
CIO: JOO
1969 HLT »i?.
GRAMS / 9HP-HK
HC CO NO/
F300 1
tf/BHP-HH ACTUAL *
BSFC BMP- HR F.RROR
RATED BMP: N/A RATEU RPM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO NOX HC CO NOX
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
795551 BL
795552 HL!
795553 HL
795554 ML
795555 BL'
795S5/ BLl
1?02
1203
1204
1205
1206
MF.AN!
STD.DFV. :
H.75 230.81
7.51 244.91
h.25 225.55
*.*4 242.32
5.39
5.50
5.26
6.06 227.02 4.52
0.6R3
0.703
0.698
0.718
0.6*5
0.681
7.81 233.38 4.91 0.694
1.5? 7.97 0.44 0.021
17.17*
17.7^*
13.4^9
16.420
18.180
17.280
0.917
-6.8
-1.8
1.8
-9.4
-1.3
0.6
-5.2
5.2
11.83 312.16
10.47 341.12
8.76 316.13
11.27 316.10
8.52 321.61
7.29
7.66
7.37
6.28
6.33
8.61 322.53 6.43
12.81 337.93
10.69 348.37
8.96 323-13
12.03 337.49
8.94 337.49
7.89
7.82
7.53
6.70
6.64
8.90 333.37 6.64
10.57 316.93 6.67 11.24 336.26 -7.08
1.72 5.24 0.55 2.07 2.51 0.70
B
X
X
8
X
8
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 24. 1979
1969 BASELINE ENGlNFMS)
270
COMMENTS'
N U M 8 K R
TEST CODING
CIO: 345
1969 BLT «13
GRAMS / BHP-HR
rlC CO NOX
V345
tt/BHP-HR ACTUAL %
PSFC BMP- HH ERROR
RATED BHPt N/A RATED RPM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC CO NOX
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
- HC CO NOX
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
790071 HLi 1303
796519 BLr 1301
796520 WL' 1302
796602 BLT 1305
796603 BLT- 1304
796604 BL- 1306
MEAN:
STD.DKV. :
H.95 124.17
6.09 111.61
6.31 115.45
6.75 fll.Ol
6.17 101.69
6.29 99.35
5.72
6.20
S.56
5.49
5.59
5.68
0.685
0.665
0.620
0.611
0.609
6.41 94.02 5.59 o.6n
0.31 11.33 0.09 0.006
18.995
20.32S
20.191
20.603
21.172
21.119
-13.4
-7.3
-8.0
-6.1
-3.5
-3.7
20.965 -4.4
0.314 1.4
13.50 187.28
9.78 179.23
10.14 165.75
11.13 133.49
10.37 170.71
10.60 167.43
8.63
9.95
8.94
9.05
9.39
9.57
10.70 157.21 9.34
0.39 20.61 0.26
13.12 182.06
8.89 162.94
9.48 173.61
10.89 130.65
10.10 166.43
10.33 163.14
8.39
9.05
8.36
8.86
9.15
9.32
10.44 153.41 9.11
0.40 19.78 0.23
X
X
X
B
B
B
-------
HEAVY PUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY ?.<* 1979
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG! 40
COMMENTS:
N U M B F R
3b6
1969 8LT «14
GRAMS / RHP-HR
AKBUCKLE
TEST
CODING
HC
CO
hOx
tf/BHP-HR ACTUAL
RSFC HHP- HR
RATED BHP: N/A RATEO RPM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO NOX HC CO NOX
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
800106 BLT 1<.02
8001 OS flL 1401
80010? HL U03
MEAN:
STD.DFV. :
8.57 189.15
*.fn 194.08
M.5'9 180.53
8.59 187.93
0.0- 6.86
5.13
5.37
5.46 0.7.14
5.32
0.1B
0.737
0.006
20.SO?
20.936
20.621
20.688
0.222
-8.8
-6.9
-8.3
-8.0
1.0
13.79 304.35 8.24
14.26 320.88 8.88
13.98 293.87 8.90
14.01 306.37
0.24 13.62
8.67
0.38
11.52 254.24 6.89
11.7b 264.41 7.32
11.70 245.93 7.45
11.66 254.86
0.13 9.26
7.22
0.29
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
HF.AVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 24, 1979
1969 BAStLlNE ENGlNE(S)
MFG: 30
COMMENTS!
NUMBER
TEST C'.'im.'G
cm: 361 ENGID: F361 SHOE
1969 BLT «]?
GRAMS / BHP-HK tt/RHP-HR ACTUAL
HC
CO
BSFC
RHP- HR F.HROR
RATED BHP: N/A RATEU RPM! N/A
GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/L8 FUEL
HC CO NOX HC CO NOX
DlSP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
796609
796606
796607
796608
796605
800103
800102
800101
BLT
BLr
BL
HLT
^L
BLT
HL-
HL
1501
1504
1503
1502
1505
1508
1507
1506
12
11
12
11
1*»
14
14
13
.
S4
fl<»
flf)
51
01
23
67
51
221
220
212
211
219
243
240
215
.06
.78
,6fl
.95
.75
.36
.93
.85
5
5
5
5
4
4
b
5
.21
.07
.94
.60
.81
.86
.24
.61
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.781
.766
.757
.754
.729
.776
.793
.766
MEAN:
STD.DFV. :
14.12 228.39
0.78 17.73
5.43 0.779
0.26 0.019
17.413
18.311
17.760
16.9HS
22.121
17.961
18.733
18.899
-17.0
-12.8
-15.1
-19.1
5.4
-14.4
-10.8
-10.0
18.816 -10.4
17.12 301.67 7.10
17.07 318.24 7.31
17.83 296.06 8.27
15.23 280.36 7.41
24.55 384.90 8.43
20.47 350.05 6.99
21.37 350.96 7.64
20.10 319.48. 8.31
16.06 283.05
15.46 288.23
16.92 280.95
15.27 281.11
19.22 301.44
18.34 313.61
18.50 303.82
17.72 281.79
6.67
6.62
7.85
7.43
6.60
6.27
6.61
7.33
20.73 335.22 7.97 18.11 292.81 6.97
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
B
0.119
0.6
0.90 22.26 0.47
0.55 15.58 0.51
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
24. J979
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MFG: 30
COMMENTS:
NUMBER
CIO:. 360 ENOIU: F360 EGlU
1969 RLT *i6
GWAMS / HHP-HK */BHP-HR ACTUAL
TEST
CODING
HC
CO
NOX
BSFC
HHP- HR FKROR
RATED BMP: N/A RATED RPM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO ' NOX HC CO NOX
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
800111 HLr
800110 HL
800137 tfL-
800138 bL'
800140
1601
1603
1604
1605
1606
MEAN:
STD.OFV.
10.34 149.05
7.46 134.89
7.7
-------
MFG: 40
COMMfNTs:
NUMBER
DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BAStLINE ENGINE (S)
MAY 24, 1979
Cir>: 292 ENGID: GM292 RrtC-tl RATED BMP: N/A RATED RPM:
19^9 BLT «17
GRAMS / BHP-HR «/RHP-HR ACTUAL * GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
TEST CODING
800148 BLf
800141 HL'
8001^2 BLr
80014J BLT
800145 HL
800169 HL:
800170 BLr
800171 bLt
800188 HL '
800172 HLr
800195 8L-
MEAN:
STD.DEV
1701
1702
1703
1704
1705
1706
1707
1708
1710
1709
1711
. :
HC
lo.fil
22.47
9.82
8.65
H.21
5.24
7.14
9. OH
8.60
7.99
7.03
tf.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
1.000
0.861
0.864
0.905
0.655
0.57«
0.774
0.784
0.750
0.732
0.762
0.017
PHP- HR
15.588
13.662
16.851
14.67H
14.853
17.945
13.845
15.375
15.029
15.12H
16.284
15.251
0.175
ERROR
-1.1
-13.3
6.9
-6.9
-5.8
13.8
-12.2
-2.5
-0.7
-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. S9
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. Ib
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
OISP CODE
8= VALID
M3 VALID
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
8
X
8
X
N= 2
-6.5 -
-------
HFAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
MAY 24. 1979 ,
MFG: 20
COMMENTS?
NUMBER
ClOi 31H ENniD: 0318 E<'
-------
HFAvY DUTY ENGTNE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 34. 1979
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
HFG: 30
COMMENTS!
N U M B E P
TEST CODIMG
CIO: 361
1969 6LT «]9
GRAMS / BHP-hR
HC CO NOX
: F3M
W/8HP-HR ACTUAL *
PSFC HHP- HR F.RROR
RATED BHp: N/A RATEU RRM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC CO NOX
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO NOX
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
800118 BL- 1901
8001?H flL: 1903
800139 HLT 1903
80021^. HL 1904
MEAN:
STD.DF.V. «
9.83 203.50
9.54 204.97
9.56 190.31
9.61 197.48
4.46 0.680
4.61 0.681
5.52 0.691
5.14 0.696
9.57 197.55 5.09 0.690
0.04 7.39 0-46 0.007
21.073
20.5f<7
20-104
19.747
-2.8
-b.O
-to.9
-8.9
20.173 -6.9
0.420
1.9
16.20 335.60 7.35 14.44 299.26 6.56
15.40 330.82 7.45 13.97 300.10 6.75
15.10 300.31 8.72 13.84 275.26 7.99
14.83 304.73 7.94 13.81 283.74 7.39
15.11 311.95 8.04 13.87 286.37 7.38
0.29 16.49. 0.64 0.08 12.63 0.62
X
B
B
B
N= 3
-67-
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MftY 24. 1V79
1969 BASELINE ENGlNEtS)
MFG: 30
COMMENT?!
NUMBER
CIO: 360
1969 BLT «?.Q
GRAMS / BHP-HK
TEST COD IMG
800201 BL' ?.00\
800219 Bf 2002
MEAN:
STD.DEV. :
HC
5.7B
6.0"
5.9?
o.n
CO
73.83
76.80
75.32
2.10
NOX
6.97
6.79
6.88
0-13
BSFC
0.635
0.637
0.636
0.002
F360 F.Gti3
«/BHP-HR ACTUAL '*
HHP- HK FUROR
21.624
31.121
21.372
0.356
1.2
-1.2
0.0
1.7
RATED BHp: N/A RATED RPM! N/A
GRAMS / MILE
HC CO NOX
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO NOX
9.81 125.26
10.03 127.28
11.83
11.26
9.92 126.27 11.54
0.16 1.43 0.40
9.11) 116.27 10.98
9.50 120.56 10.67
9.30 118.42 10.B2
0.28 3.03 0.22
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
M
M
N= 2
-6>Sr
-------
1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
RATEU RPM: N/A
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 24, 1^79
MFG: 40 CIO: 350 ENGin: GM350 TENNIS RATED BHp: N/A
COMMENTS: 1969 HLT #21
NUMBER GRAMS / HHP-HW #/RHp-HR ACTUAL *> GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
. --__ >-
TEST CODING HC CO MOx BSFC HHP- HR ERKOR HC CO NOX HC, CO NOX
OISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
800302 BLr 2101
800218 BLr 2102
800224 HLT 2103
800223 HLr 2104
800222 8LT 2105
MEAN:
STO.OKV. :
9.70 146.57
9.50 141.07
8.21 149.34
8.59 150.37
9.13 151.3«
5.63
5.65
5.46
4.17
4.11
0.67*
0.679
0.675
0.627
0.633
ft.64 150.36 4.58 0.645
0.4f, 1.06 0.76 0.026
18.581
18.294
19.021
20.728
20.903
-12.0
-13.4
-9.9
-1.8
-1.0
20.217 -4.3
1.040 4.9
14.03 211.94
13.56 201.29
12.17 221.33
13.82 241.93
14.B9 246.92
8.15
8.06
8.09
6.70
6.70
14.31 216.19
13.9V 207.76
12.17 221.24
13.70 239.82
14.42 239.15
8.31
8.32
8.09
6.65
6.49
13.63 236.73 7.16 13.43 233.40 7.08
1.37 13.57 0.80 1.15 10.54 0.88
X
X
B
8
B
-------
HEAVY OUTY ENGINE. TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY
MAY 24, ll^79
1969 BASELINE ENGINE
MFG: HO
COMMENTS! '
NUMBER
TEST CODING
ClUi 3&1 ENr,K>: 0361-3 SLUM
1969 BUT 02?
GRAMS / BHP-HR #/BHP-HR ACTUAL *
HC CO (>.'OX BSFC HHP- HK FUROR
RATED BMP: N/A RATED RPM: N/A
GRAMS / MILE WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL
HC CO NOX HC CO NOX
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
800220 HLr 2201
800221 HL' 2202
80022H HLT 2203
13.63 139.7?
13.16 169.02
12.10 168.3'+
6.63 0.636
5.70 0.6*37
6.32 0.713
MEAN: 12.63 168.68 6.ol O.&RS
STD.DFV. S 0.76 0.50 0.44 0.040
16.383
16.19?
16.0SB
16.125
0.096
..8.1
-9.2
-9.9
-9.5
0.5
17.50 179.41
16.64 ?13.68
15.16 211.04
15.90 212.36
1.05 1.87
8.51
7.21
7.93
7.57
0.51
21.43 219.66 10.42
20.04 257.27 8.68
16.96 236.10 8.87
18.50 246.69
2.17 14.96
8.78
0.13
X
B
B
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE TRANSIENT EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BAStLINE ENGINE(S)
MAY 24. 1979
MFG: 40 CIO: 366 ENGIL): GM366 S*RI RATED BHPt N/A RATED RPM: N/A
COMMENTS: 1^69 BLT #23
NUMBER GRAMS / BHP-HW H/BHP-HR ACTUAL ?. GRAMS / MILE
WEIGHTED GRAMS/LB FUEL DlSP CODE
^ B= VALID
TEST CODING HC co NOX RSFC RHP- HH FRROR HC co NOX HC co NOX M= VALID
80023h BLT 2301
BOOP37 BL- 2302
80023H HL- 2303
800239 ()L
8.44 129.10
8.71 138.80
3.4S 141.00
8.71 134.50
W.53 134.87
0.15 5.96
4.23
4.04
s!l9
4.66
0.49
0.644
0.668
0.679
0.673
0.665
0.019
20.520
19.790
20.280
21.100
20.633
0.422
-5.0
-8.4
-6.1
-2.3
-4.5
2.0
13.60 205.13 6.72
0.0 0.0 0.0
13.24 220.53 7.13
13.51 208.66 8.05
13.11 200.47 6.57
13.04 207.78 6.05
12.44 207.66 6.72
12.94 199.85 7.71
13.45 211.44 7.30 12.83 202.66 7.00
0.19 8.07 0.68 0.34 4.34 0.62
B
X
B
B
N= 3
-------
-72-
BASELINE ENGINE TRANSIENT
EMISSION TEST SUMMARY TABLES
4 TABLES
-------
TABLK 1!
ENGINE
01 Fw 22SR 2994 032 0
02 V392 *5><417
03 391-J.
04 V304 648048
OS F330 9AN505S
06 GM351 2483434
07 F330 9RN505S
OH GM350 V0512XI
09 0314 'M 31BR
10 V345 ;U9POC
11 GM 350 2 LJPN
12 F300 1
13 V345 71^456
14 GM366 ARRUCKLF.
15 F361 -HOP
16 F360 tGG]
17 GM292 RACKET
18 0318 F.GG2
19 F361 rn.F 19
20 F360 F.GG3 .
21 GM350 TFNNIS
22 D361-3 SI UG
23 GM366 SURI
SALES-WEIGHTED BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS (G/BHP-HR)
19*. 9 BASELINE ENGINE
PAGE NO.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
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
BAG
:cu
4
WEIGHTING
FACTORS
.00368
.02699
.02331
.06135
.08834
.04417
.OB334
.05S21
.03804
.03620
.05521
.05031
.03620
.03865-
.03067
.03742
.06380
.03558
.03067
.03742
.05521
.02454
.03865
TOTALS:
BASELINE:
SIZE
MAY
24,
HC
19/9
WEIGHTED
CO
WEIGHTED
HC
2
3
2
5
5
2
3
2
3
2
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
2
3
2
3
7
6
13
11
28
9
34
9
7
7
6
7
6
8
14
7
8
8
9
5
8
12
8
.20
.35
.54
.22
.13
.72
.16
.40
.96
.12
.21
.81
.41
.59
.12
.96
.54
.82
.57
.92
.64
.63
.53
0.
n.
0.
0.
2.
0.
3.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
12.
1.
0?b
171
316
688
4ft5
430
018
519
303
250
343
393
232
332
433
298
545
314
294
221
477
310
330
74
27
52
178
1 79
127
157
111
224
170
86
76
126
233
94
187
228
132
172
144
197
75
150
168
134
.20
.47
.19
.76
.15
.51
.37
.77
.97
.53
.13
.38
.02
.92
.39
.19
.06
.26
.55
.32
.36
.68
.87
0
4
4
7
13
4
19
9
3
2
6
11
3
7
7
4
11
5
6
2
8
4
5
155
15
CO
.192
.818
.178
.838
.883
.926
.822
.429
.308
.770
.964
.741
.403
.263
.006
.947
.029
.133
.060
.819
.302
.139
.213
.18
.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
0.328
0.268
0.156
0.258
0.253
0.148
0.180
6.08
0.608
-73-
-------
TABLE ?.:
SrtLES-WEIGHTEU PERCENTAGES
r/69 BASELINE ENGINE (S)
DATA
MAY 24. 1979
PAGE NO.
ENGINE
TOTftl.
CORRECTED
PERCENT
WEIGHTING
FACTOR
01 Fw 225R 2994 032 0 0.300
02 V392 fi58417 0 2.200
03 391-J.M 0 1.900
04 V304 f,4H048 0 5.000
05 F330 90-J505S 0 7.200
06 GM351 2<+«3434 0 3.600
07 F330 9BN505S 0 7.200
08 GM350 V0512XT 0 4.500
09 D318 .'M 318R 0 3.100
10 V345 31t"*OC 0 2.'*50
11 GM 35!) d LJPN 0 4.500
12 F300 | 0 4.100
13 V345 714^56 0 2.950
14 GM366 AKRUCKLE 0 3.150
15 F3M .HOP 0 2.500
16 F360 ^G(il 0 3.050
17 GM292 RACKET 0 5.200
18 D31H EG'.2 0 2.900
19 F361 -U.K 19 0 2.500
20 F360 KGG3 0 3.050
21 GM350 TrNNlS 0 4.500
22 0361-3 SLUG 0 P.OOO
23 GM366 S^Pl 0 3.150
SUM TOTALS: 8i.5oo
0.36*
2.699
2.331
6.135
8.834
4.417
8.834
5.521
3.804
3.620
5.521
5.031
3.620
3.865
3.067
3.742
6.380
3.55H
3.0^7
3.742
5.521
2.454
3.865
100.00
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
0.03365
1.000
-------
TABLF
F.NGINt
BRAKE SPECIFIC EMISSIONS(G/BHH-HR)'
19*9 BASELINE ENGINFISJ
MAY 24, 1979
BSCO
PAGE NO.
BSNOX
SIZE
FW 225R 2994 032 0 7.20
0 6.35
0 13.54
0 11.22
0 20.13
0 9.72
0 34.16
0 9.40
0 7.96
0 7.U
0 6.21
0 7.81
0 6.41
0 14.12
0 7.^6
0 8.54
0 8.8^
0 9.57
0 5.92
0 8.64
0 12.63
0 8.53
01
02 V392
03 391-J
04 V304 /-4«048
05 F.330 9AN505S
06 GM351 24R3434
O/ F330 'ip'JSOSS
08 GM350 V0512XT
09 D31B f'M 31SR
10 V.345 -)19ftOC
11 GM 350 2 LJPN
12 F300 1
13 V345 7l-)456
14 GM366 A-JRUCKLE
15 F3M .HDF
lb F360 i-GGl
17 GM292 RACKET
18 D318 EG02
19 F3M HfLE 19
20 F360 FG
-------
4: SALES-WEIGHTED TPANSIENT ENGINE EMISSIONS(GRAMS/MI)
19^9 BASELINE ENGINE
PAGE NO.
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
ENGINE
FW 22=;p 2994 032
V392 658417
V304
F330 9AM505S
GM351 24R3434
F330 90N505S
GM350 V0512XI
0311 OM 318H
V345 31980C
GM 35n 2 LJPN
F300 I
V345 71^.456
GM366 A4RIJCKLE
F361 ,HnF
F360 FGG1
GM292 RACKET
0318 EGC,2
F361 HLF 19
F360 FGG3
GM350 TKMNIS
0361-3 St.UG
GM366 S'VPI
WEIGHTING
FACTORS
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.
.00368
.02699
.02331
.06135
.08834
.04417
.08834
.05521
.03804
.03620
.05521
.05031
.03620
.03865
.03067
.03742
.063HO
.03554
.03067
.03742
.05521
.02454
.03865
MAY
1979
SALES-WFIGHTEO GAS RAG TOTALS:
90% KEOUCTinN FROM BASELINE!
ZE
2
3
2
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
0.023
0.251
0.607
1.058
3.172
O.b49
4.209
0.882
0.41 7
0.362
0.511
0.^32
0.3a7
0.541
0.636
0.540
O.'i44
0.439
0.463
0.371
0.752
0.390
0.520'
18.2*
1.H3
CO
44.66
261.44
344.55
196.49
200. b2
143. 1)5
312.87
290.34
120.42
107.59
169. OH
316. V3
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
10.55
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
0.335
0.245
0.449
0.388
0.375
0.247
0.432
0.396
0.186
0.282
8.88
0.888
-76-
-------
-77-
BASELINE ENGINE IDLE
TEST DATA SHEETS
19 ENGINES
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENMNE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BAStLINE ENGINE(S)
MFG:
30
COMMENT?:
N U M Hi
TEST C
790017 I KB
790018 I 'H
790019 If'fi
790020 I"R
790021 It'B
MFAN:
STD.DEV.
E R
:>OE
0301
0302
0303
0304
0305
:
CIDJ
1969 BLT
MODE
HC
2S48.
2687.
2704.
2992.
3776.
2041.
4Q3.6
39)
#03
NO. 1
CO
319S1.
29603.
29603.
335"3.
54968.
35944.
10768.0
ENGID
NOX
168.
188.
188.
171.
120.
167.
27.7
MAY 24, 1979
: 391-JW RATED BMP!
MOOE
HC
15008.
15594.
15594.
16302.
10968.
14693.
2132.3
NO. 2
CO
15884.
1299J.
67172.
23277.
24651.9
NOX
69.
66.
66.
71.
1.
54.
30.2
MOOE
HC
1867.
1679.
1679.
1548.
2260.
1807.
27,8.0
i N/A
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
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
B
B
N= 5
-------
HEAVY nUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENG1NE
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINt IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
MAY 24, 1979
30 CIDt 330 EN&IOt F330 9AN505S RATED BMP: N/A RATED RPMi N/A
COMMENTS! 1969 HLT »05
N U M } t R MODE NO. 1 MODE NO. 2 MODE NO. 3 MODE NO. 4
TFST
790024
790028
MEANS
C'.>DE
IMB 0501
IMF) 0503
!'» 0502
HC
3228.
3048.
3100.
STD.DEV. : 111.4
CO
15366.
163?8.
16107.
65^.5
NOX
197.
212.
251.
220.
?7.6
HC
17733.
29995.
1R102.
21943.
6975.3
CO
68544.
8182J.
73«97.
74755.
6681.5
NOX
18.
35.
106.
53.
46.8
HC
1517.
2132.
2055.
1901.
335.3
CO
3308.
3900.
3793.
3667.
315.5
NOX
1719.
2255.
2621.
2198.
453.9
HC
2272.
2714.
2512.
223.6
CO
7948.
8473.
8364.
8262.
277.2
NOX
1637.
1837.
1929.
1801.
149.3
DISP CODE
B= VALIU
M= VALID
B
8
B
N= 3
-go-
-------
HFAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
-------
HFAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAHY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE'B 070^i 1514.
790039 IMR 0706 2108.
MF.AN: 1S36.
STD.DE.V. l 487.7
19575. 100. 7604. 44372. 32. 1537. 23755. 464. 1866. 23619. 5()2. B
20*31. 103. 7726. 39262. 31. 1874. 27775. 572. 1^42. 24132. 548. B
9204. 65. ft902. 4244J. 36. 1674. 19317. 936. 184Q. 19235. 772. B
1101ft. 113. R820. 34M6. 21. 1562. 23098. 1008. 1771. 14409. 760. B
19921. 114. A956. 46801. 21. 1637. 24650. 526. 1887. 24365. 516. B
29*55. 124. 5118. 3405U. 20. . 2599. 38158. 965. 2311. 27695. 557. . B
18334. 103. 7521. 40257. 27. 1814. 26126. 745. 1936. 22243. 609. N= 6
740ft'.3 20.6 1411.0 5212.8 6.8 402.7 6493.3 249.5 192.3 4692.7 123.3
-------
HF.AVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGlNF.
-------
HEAVY OUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMM^HY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
MAY a4. 1979
MFG! ?0
COMMENT";:
N u M w F. n
TEST COPE
7900<«6 IMH 0901
MFANi
CIO! 31 R ENfijo: r>318 PM
IQ'HO HLT *09
MODE
HC
912.
912.
NO. 1 MODE
CO K'OX HC
4400. 351. 7844.
4400. 351. 7844.
31 HH RATED BHP» N/A
NOi. 2
CO NOX
1304. 46.
1304. 46.
MODE
HC
190.
190.
NO. 3
CO
3175.
3175.
RATED RP.MJ N/A
NOX
a
2684.
2684.
MODE
HC
1927.
1927.
NO. 4
CO
5201.
5201,
NOX
2578.
2578i
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
N= 1
-------
HEAVY nuTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 HASE.LINE ENGINE is)
MFtit
=====================
40 CID! 350
COMM'-NTs:
N U M * f.
R
TEST COPE
790040 1MB
790043 l^B
790042 I"R
MEAN!
STP.DKV. I
1101
1102
1103
1969 WLT «11
MODE NO. 1
HC CO
395. 14109.
906. 13564.
952. '135flO.
44.3 520.7
=======================
MAY i>4, ]
ENOID: r,M 350 2 LJHN
NOX
170.
156.
175.
167.
10.0
MODE
HC
3231.
5674.
3412.
4106.
1361.3
. -
NO. 2
r.o
3B961.
4101H.
44f>31.
8104.3
===========
HATEO BHP! N/A
*
NOX
54.
46.
51.
50.
3.6
MODE
HC
1164.
1341.
1105.
1203.
122.8
NO. 3
CO
9989.
1A1S7.
9087.
11078.
2704.7
MATED
NOX
1637.
1406.
169.
1-07.1.
789.7
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
1464.
1413.
1446.
1*M.
25.9
NO. 4
CO
20498.
21671.
20011.
20727.
053. 3
i
NOX
848.
8414
960.
883.
66.9
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALIU
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
HEAVY OUTY F.NGINE \\jLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINF(S)
MFG: 30
COMMENT*; 8
N U M
TEST
790041
790044
790045
MEAN:
M t: R
CODE
I".B 1201
1MB 1202
IMH 1203
STD.DE.V. :
CID: 300
19^9 HLT H12
MODE NO. 1
HC CO
5391. 57717.
5486. 64707.
4ftB4. 62411.
S187. 61612.
430.5 . 3563.1
MAY 24. 1979
ENGID: F300 1 . RATED BHP8 N/A
NOX
127.
107.
131.
121.
12.9
MODE
HC
S529.
9577.
4042.
6383.
2864.4
NO. 2
CO
7266U.
79364.
6322u.
7174d.
8110.5
NOX
.20..
29.
39.
29.
9.9
MODE
HC
2519.
2845.
2726.
2697.
164. R
NO. 3
CO
56615.
63333.
60859.
60269.
3397.4
RATED
NOX
828.
720.
821.
790.
60.2
RPMJ N/A
MODE NO. 4
HC CO
2861. 59419.
31t>2. 63972.
2928. 60816.
2983. 61402.
158.3 2332.7
NOX
417.
360.
395.
391.
28.7
D1SP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINt IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAKY 1969 BASELINE ENGINF(S)
24. 1<>79
MFGI 270
COMMENTS :
N U M
TEST
796539
796540
796584
MEAN:
M F. R
CODE
1MB 1301
IMH 1302
1MB 1303
STD.DtV. «
CIOJ
1969 HLT
MODE
HC
P66.
885.
931.
894.
33.7
345
"13
NO. 1
CO
8359.
9474.
9423.
9005.
629.6
ENG1PI V345 7194^6
NOX
200.
191.
. 203.
198.
6.1
MODE
HC
5627.
2702.
6586.
4972.
2023.2
NO. 2
CO
2092b.
242^2.
23580.
22922.
1763.2
RATED BHPJ N/A
NOX
63.
75.
61.
66.
7.6
MODE
HC
2333.
2418.
2306.
2352.
58.5
NO. 3
CO
1420*.
14956.
14467.
14542.
381.7
RATED
NOX
1783.
1696.
1587.
1689.
98.3
RPMJ N/A
MODE
HC
2073.
23b6.
2079.
2169.
161.9
NO. 4
CO
10392.
1493*.
10140.
11H23.
2699.2
NOX
1320.
1693.
1069.
1360.
313.9
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
N= 3
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENMNt IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAKY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE (S)
MFti! 40
COMMENTS:
N U M H e. R
TEST CUDE
H00117 MH 1402
H00115 l-.H J40S
eoni if, i «
Mr AN:
STD.DtV. :
cin:
1<)*9 HLT
MODE
HC
1268.
1061.
1216.
1242.
36.6
366
«1*
NO. 1
CO
21394.
19916.
206*5.
1031.0
FNRIO:
MOX
172.
1HH.
174.
173.
1.0
MAY 24, 1
! RM366 AP8UCKLE
MOI1E
HC
3991.
706.
3806.
3898.
131.0
NO. 2
CO
32240.
33536.
1827.1
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S)
===========================
MFG: 30 CID: 3M tNGin
COMMFNTSJ
N U I'
TEST
796638
796639
796635
MFANJ
' H t" R
COPE
I"R 1501
IKB 1502
r-'l< 1503
STD.DEV. t
1969 HLT
MODE
MC
33»2.
3'«62.
3457.
3433.
45.0
15
NO. 1
CO
359?0.
33065.
35699.
34895.
15KH.8
MOX
143.
156.
162.
154.
9.6
MAY 24 1
: F361 SHOE
MODE
HC
8483.
6111.
8347.
7647.
1332.2
NO. 2
CO
56731.
46772.
53989.
6309.8
===========
RATED BMP: 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
HATED
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.
1110.
23.3
DISP CODE
B= VALID
Mr VALID
8
8
B
N= 3
-------
nim ENGINE IOLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(s>
MF(i:
TO
COMMENT?:
N U M H t
R
TEST CODE
80011? I"H
8001J9 IMH
800113 I'57.
'365.
3273.3 1
MAY 24. 1
T*n ENGIOt F360 EGG1
«lh -
NO. 1
CO
29247.
2159.
16290.
17SI75.
181S.9
MOX
2l!
184.
195.
148.
85.4
MOOE
HC
4942.
505.
5127.
4350.
1731.
2175.8
NO. 2
CO
504/.
45692.
3565V.
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
RRM: N/A
MODE
HC
2555.
300.
2681.
2482.
20U5.
1139.3
NO. 4
CO
13917.
1489.
14208.
13767.
10845.
6240.2
NOX
1174.
157.
1353.
1380.
1016.
579.7
D1SP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
B
B
N= 4
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENfiTNt IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAHY 1969 BASELINE ENOlNE(S)
MAY 24, 1979
MFGJ 40 CID: 29? ENOIO: OM292 RACKET HATED HHPI N/A RATED RPMJ N/A
COMMENTS! 1969 HLT «17
N U M H
TEST
800144 IM
HOOJH9 I
MEANJ
STD.DEV.
F: R
CODE
P 1701
H 1702
:
MODE
HC
3u60.
3971.
3716.
361.5
NO. 1
CO
IS:
3075.
2191.3
NO*
306.
303.
304.
1.8
MOPE
HC
2885.
3852.
1367.1
NO. 2
CO
Uti!:
51890.
3212.1
NOX
66.
55.
60.
7.4
MODE
HC
493.
279.
385.
150.5
NO. 3
CO
4838.
2169.
3504.
1887.3
NOX
1179.
982.
1080.
139.7
MODE
HC
167.
416.
292.
176.3
NO. 4
CO
1042.
1196.
1119.
108.9
NOX
444.
832.
638.
274.4
DISP CODE
B WAI t ft
" V HU i \J
M= VALID
H
B
N= 2
-If-
-------
HF/WY DUTY F.NGINE. IDLE TF.ST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE (S)
WFli! 20
N U M E R
TEST CODE
flOOl91 I«R 1801
800192 MB 1802
MEAN:
STD.DtV. :
CID:
1969 HL'
MOOI
HC
3038.
3049.
3493.
628.7
31R
r »IH
: NO. i
CO
24373.
25262.
24H18.
62H.5
EfJGjD
NOX
231.
240.
236.
6.1
h
: 0318 El
MOPE
HC
15486.
4222.
9854.
7965.5
1/-.Y 24, 1979
iG2 »
: NO. 2
CO NOX
20b44. 45.
773/< 23.
14141. 34.
905b.9 15.6
t N/A
: NO. 3
CO
11540.
12459.
12000.
649.7
RATED
NOX
2]08.
1940.
2024.
118.7
RPM: N/
MODE
HC
2666.
2762.
2724.
54.0 '
A
NO. 4
CO
13528.
14299.
13914.
545.2
NOX
2166.
1977.
2072..
133.5
DISP CODE
B- VAL1U
Ms VALID
8
B
N* 2
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
MFG! 30
COMMENTS*
N U M H E R
TEST COflE
800213 IMP 1901
800215 IMR 1902
MKANt
STD.DEV. t
CIDI
1^69 HLT
MODE
HC
2790.
3059.
2924.
190.3
Jn I
ff 1 o
NO. 1
CO
28419.
3Q442.
29431 .
1430.5
ENGlDt
NOX
228.
220.
224.
5.9
MA
F361 HLE
.MOI1E
HC
5321.
7055.
6188.
1226.5
Y 24. 1
19
NO. 2
CO
27598.
2«OU.
5«6.8
<*79
NOX
59.
52.
55.
5.1
RATED BHPt
MODE
HC
2603.
2704.
2654.
71.6
N/A
NO. 3
CO
22120.
22579.
22350.
324.8
RATED
NOX
1744.
1688.
1716.
39.7
RPM: N/A
MODE
HC
2750.
2887.
2818.
96.9
NO. 4
CO
28418.
31321.
29870.
2052.7
NOX
1261.
1140.
1200.
85.6
DISP CODE
B- v AI T n
V **L. 1 *J
M= VALID
B
B
N= 2
-------
HEAVY DUTY ENGINE IOLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMARY 1969 BAStLINE ENGINE(S)
MFC: .TO
COMMENTS:
N U M >J E H
TEST CODE
«00?05 HB 2001
«001^4 I»'.R 2002
MFANI
STD.DEV. t
CIDt 160 ENGIO
19(S9 HLT «20
MODE NO. 1
HC CO NOX
49. 7?6. 148.
177. 93fr. 153.
113. 831. 150.
91.0 148.5 3.4
MAY 24, )r)79
: F360 EOR3 RATED BHP:
MOOE
HC
4027.
43/2.
4199.
244.4
NO. 2
CO NOX
4172/. 48.
3832<«o 41.
40026. 44.
2406.3 4.8
MODE
HC
164.
166.
165.
1.9
N/A
NO. J
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
Ns 2
-------
HEAVY OUTY ENGINt IDLE TEST EMISSIONS SUMMAKY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE(S) .
N
MFG:
COMMI;
U M !
TEST
?27 I-
MEAN!
=========r==z=
40 CID:
NTst if»69 HLT
i K R MODE
CODE -ic
4,
TF.NNIS
r=====
1979
MOOE NO. 2
NOX
145.
1^5.
HC
11784.
11784.
CO
63769.
637,6V.
NOX
32.
32.
RATED RHP:
MOOE
HC
1841.
1841.
N/A
NO. J
CO
17782.
17782.
RATED RPMJ N/A
MODE NO. 4
NOX HC CO NOX
1318. 2376. 22bB9. 1019.
1318. 2376. 22689. 1019.
DISP CODE
B= VALID
M= VALID
B
1
-IS-
-------
HEAVY nuTY ENGINE IOLE TEST EMISSION^ SUMMARY 1969 BASELINE ENGINE
MFii: 20
COMMENTS:
N U M .< £ H
TF.ST CODE
800206 IMR ?201
800207 I.-.R 2202
MFAN:
STD.DEV. :
}<)f,Q ULT W<>?
MOUE MO. 1
HC CO
4131. 19011.
3?50. 19387.
519.2 531.6
ENC.ID
NOX
164.
176.
170.
8. f,
MAY 24, ]V79
: 0361-3 SLUii RATED BHPI N/A
MODE
HC
1?667.
12257.
12462.
290.7
NO. 2
CO
54556.
5614V.
55353.
1126.8
i
NOX
35.
36.
35.
0.7
MODE
HC
2044.
2062.
2053.
12.7
NO. 3
CO
17172.
17304.
1723B.
93.3
RATED
NOX
1916.
2000.
1958.
59.3
RPMI' N/A
MODE
HC
22U1.
2149.
2175.
37.1
NO. 4
CO
11233.
11173.
1120.1.
42.3
NOX
1644.
1717.
1681.
51. 4
DISP CODE
8= VALID
M= VALID
B
B
N= 2
-------
-97-
BASELINE ENGINE IDLE
EMISSION TEST SUMMARY TABLES
3 TABLES
-------
TABf
03 391-J
04 VJ04 ,4H048
OS F330 ^A'i50SS
06 OM351 24P3434
07 FJ30 JHU505S
08 GM3BO VU512XI
09 IXUrt -'M 318^
11 GM 350 2 LJPN
12 F300 1
13 V345 /l'M56
14 GM3&6 A'.
40257.
43378.
1304.
44631.
71748.
22922.
33538.
53989.
35659.
51890.
14141.
28013.
40026.
63769.
55353.
PAGE NO. 1
WEIGHTED NOX WEIGHTED
CO
559
6146
6813
1741
3669
2470
51
2542
3723
1711
Z674
1708
1376
3415
519
886
1545
3632
1401
46590
4659
.B3
.73
.08
.94
.03
.88
.17
.26
.63
.92
.55
.51
.72
.51
.08
.49
.39
.41
.33
.3
.0
(PPM»
54.3
47.6
53.2
37.3
20. /
2B.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
4.646
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
-------
TABU 6: SALES-WEIGHTED PEHCENTAGES DATA
1969 BASELINE ENGINE (S)
MAY 24, 1979
PAGE NO,
FNGINE
TOTM.
CORHtCTKD
PERCENT
WEIGHTING
FACTOR
03
Ob
05
06
07
08
09
1 1
12
13
14
IB
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
V304 h4M048
F330 9A'J505S
GK351 2483434
F330 3BN505S
GM350 V0512XI
0316 >>M 318R
GM 350 ?. L JPN
F300 1
GM366 AUPUCKLF.
F361 H.)F
F360 -GGl
GM292 RACKET
0318 fG'32
F361 HLF- 19
F360 FGG3
GM350 TKNNIS
D361-) SLUG
SUM TOTALS!
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
l.«0(l
5.000
7. .200
3.600
7.?00
4.500
3.100
4.500
4.100
5.900
-------
TAOUF
IDLF.
HC
FMISS10NS
HASF.I iNt ENGINE
PAGt. NO.
HAY 24, 1979
CO
NOX
SIZE
03 3i>l-J
04 V304 64H048
05 F330 4A-I505S
06 GH351 24P3434
07 F330 >;8NS05S
08 5M350 V"512XI
09 0318 .'M 318R
11 GM 350 ? LJPN
12 F300 1
13 V345 71^456
!< GM366 AWPIJCKUE
15 F361 =.HOF;
16 F3bU G(il
17 GM292 RACKET
18 0318 tGO?
19 F361 MUK 19
20 F360 F_GC.3
21 fiM350 TENNIS
22 D361-3 SLUG
(1
0
0
0
0
0
0
n
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
14*-O.
34307.
21943.
5011.
7521 .
6447.
7H44.
4106.
63M3.
4972.
3H96.
7647.
3731.
3flS2.
9H54.
618R.
4199.
11784.
124*2.
23277.
97118.
74755.
3822t-.
43378.
1304.
44*31.
71748.
22922.
3353".
53989.
35659.
51890.
14141.
281)13.
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.
55.
15
10
44.50
31.60
35.30
5
3
3
5
6
3
1
3
3
3
2
3
4
2
2
2
2
1
2
-100-
-------
-101-
V.
References
These publications will aid the reader in obtaining a greater
understanding of the transient test procedure and the 1983 HD NPRM
which this report supports.
Report Number
and Date
HDV 76-03
Oct. 1976
HDV 76-04
Dec. 1976
HDV 77-01
Nov. 1977
HDV 78-01
May 1978
HDV 78-02
June 1978
HDV 78-03
May 1978
HDV 78-04
July 1978
HDV 78-05
July 1978
HDV 78-06
June 1978
EPA 460/3-78-008
July 1978
Federal Register
Vol. 44, No. 31
Part II
February 13, 1979
Report Title
and Author
NTIS
Number
Engine Horsepower Modeling for Diesel
Engines, C. France
Engine Horsepower Modeling for Gasoline
Engines, L. Higdon
Selection of Transient Cycles for Heavy-
Duty Engines, T. Wysor & C. France
Category Selection for Transient Heavy- PB 294 088
Duty Chassis and Engine Cycles, C. France
Selection of Transient Cycles for Heavy- PM 294 221
Duty Vehicles, T. Wysor & C. France
Truck Driving Patterns and Use Survey, PB 293 843
Phase II, Final Report, Part II
Los Angeles, L. Higdon
Transient Cycle Arrangement for Heavy- PB 293 764
Duty Engine and Chassis Emission Testing,
C. France
Analysis of Hot/Cold Cycle Requirements PB 293 842
for Heavy-Duty Vehicles, C. France
A Preliminary Examination of the Repeat- PB 293-830
ability of the Heavy-Duty Transient Dyna-
mometer Emission Test, W. Clemmens
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Cycle Development, PB 288 805
Malcolm Smith
Proposed Gaseous Emission Regulations
for 1983 and Later Model Year Heavy-Duty
Engines
------- |