72-1
Exhaust Emissions From Controlled-
and Uncontrolled Vehicles Using
the "Pollution Master" Emission Control Device
August 1971
John C. Thorns on
Office of Air Programs
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
Background
The exhaust emission characteristics of the "Pollution Master"
device on both controlled and uncontrolled vehicles have been
requested by Congressional, Federal, and State sources requiring
a repeat of the tests run in 1969 on a Post Office vehicle .
(Appendix A).
Device
The uncontrolled vehicle used for this most recent test was a
Government-owned 1963 Chevrolet V-8 with a manual transmission.
The device used on this vehicle was supplied by Pollution Master
of Kentucky-Tennessee and was installed by Government employees
using the instructions furnished with the kit. The controlled
vehicle used for this test was supplied by the Louisville
Courier-Journal and was a 1968 Ford Falcon. This vehicle used
a 200 cubic-inch six cylinder engine and manual transmission.
The device installation was carried out by an outlet selling
"Pollution Master" in Louisville, Kentucky. It is assumed that
this installation, which was paid for by the newspaper, was a
typical installation and was representative.
The "Pollution Master" is a two part system containing an
"exhaust scavenger" and a "crankcase scavenger". The exhaust
scavenger is a pipe with a one-way valve that is connected to
the exhaust through holes that must be drilled and tapped into
the exhaust manifold. Under any condition of low pressure in
the manifold, air will be drawn through a valve and filter from
the engine compartment into the manifold. The crankcase scavenger
is a large diameter tube containing plates with drilled holes
to allow air passage and a filter. This unit is installed
in the positive crankcase ventilation (PCV) line with the interior
working parts of the PCV removed. This allows an increase in
air flow at idle as there is no idle restriction in the crank-
case scavenger as is normally found in the PCV system. The
total effect of this device is to admit additional air to the
manifold thus providing a leaner fuel-air mixture to the engine.
Some air is also admitted to the exhaust manifold thus diluting
the exhaust.
In the Government installation of the "Pollution Master" the only
portion of the emission control system disconnected was the
PCV valve as required in the instructions. On the vehicle
converted by "Pollution Master" the PCV valve was disconnected
and the heat stove that supplies warm air to the carburetor
was cut into to provide clearance for the device. The effect
of this change in the system is unknown but considered minimal.
One advertised purpose of the system is: "To meet and exceed
existing standards for automotive emission control."
-------
2.
Test Program
For evaluation purposes the Federal emission test procedures
for certification of new cars for 1971 and the procedure for
1972 certification were used. The 1971 test is the open cycle
7-mode test using infrared (NDIR) instruments as specified in
the Federal Register. In addition a continuous NDIR NO analyzer
was used. The Federal standards for new vehicles using the 1971
test procedure are HC=2.2 grams per vehicle mile (gpm) and
C0=23 gpm. There is no Federal standard for N02. The 1972 test
uses the closed, self-weighting constant volume sampling tech-
nique for sample collection and the exhaust is analyzed using
a flame ionization detector for hydrocarbons, NDIR for CO and
C02, and chemiluminscence for oxides of nitrogen. The Federal
standards for new vehicles using the 1972 test procedure 'are
HC=3.4 gpm and C0=39 gpm. A standard for N02=3 gpm has been
set for 1973 vehicles. The vehicle was tested alternately with
"Pollution Master" installed and with the vehicle returned to
original condition. In addition, fuel was weighed on three
of the tests using the 1968 Falcon to determine any fuel
economy effect.
Results
The data shown in Table I compares the 1963 Chevy with the
"Pollution Master" device to the same vehicle without the
device using the 1972 test procedure. In this table the results
are listed in the order that the tests were run. The first
two tests were run with "Pollution Master" installed, the next
four with "Pollution Master" removed, the next four with
"Pollution Master" re-installed and the last four with "Pollution
Master" removed. There appears to be a slight reduction of CO
and HC with the "Pollution Master" although the values vary
considerably.
Table II shows the results from "Pollution Master" and the
baseline tests on the 1968 Falcon using the 1972 test procedure.
As on the Chevrolet there appears to be a slight reduction in
emissions from "Pollution Master" although again the results are
so varied that a percentage reduction cannot be accurately
calculated.
Table III compares the 1968 Falcon with and without "Pollution
Master" using the 1971 test procedure. These results show a
more consistent improvement in emissions with "Pollution Master".
However, it should be remembered that this obsolete test pro-
cedure was dropped as being a less meaningful way of measuring
exhaust emissions.
-------
Conclusions
1. "Pollution Master" emission reductions using the latest
test procedures are minimal.
2. Equivalent results could be obtained by using a. very lean
idle setting as shown in the GM retrofit report #71-2.
3. There was no fuel economy improvement observed with
"Pollution Master" in our limited tests.
-------
Table I
1972 Federal Emission Tests
1963 Chevrolet V-8, Manual Transmission
All Results in Grams Per Mile
N02
CI
HC
FID
7.4
7.5
9.8
8.5
8.2
8.4
6.7
8.5
5.9
7.2
7.0
7.8
13.1
7.6
CO
NDIR
Pollution Master
99
94
Stock Vehicle Basel
103
108
98
96
Pollution Master
81
88
83
. 88
Stock Vehicle Basel
95
99
43
79
C02
NDIK
Tests
451
497
ine Tests
446
454
437
465
Tests
446
394
434
434
ine Tests
403
439
464
448
1.3
1.8
1.2
1.3
1.9
2.3
1.8
-------
Table III
1971 Federal Emission Tests
1968 Falcon 6 Manual Transmission
All Results in Grams Per Mile
HC CO NO
IR IR IR
Pollution Master Tests
2.3 24 3.9
Stock Vehicle Baseline Tests
2.8 29 3.7
3.2 29 4.1
-------
Table II
1972 Federal Emission Tests
1968 Falcon 6,Manual Transmission
All Emission Results in Grams Per Mile
HC
FID
3
2
3
.6
.6
.1
CO
NDIR
Pollut
38
24
25
C02
NDLR
;ion Master Tes1
434
472
509
NO 2 Fuel
CI Used KG
:s
7.2 1.7
5.4
6.6 1.9
Stock Vehicle Baseline Tests
3.6 32 410 5.2 1.6
3.3 37 479 5.7
-------
UNITED-STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CONSUMER PROTECTION AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SERVICE
National Air Pollution Control Administration
Bureau of Abatement and Control
Division of Motor Vehicle Pollution Control
Chief, Emission Control Evaluation Branch DATE: February 27» 1969
THROUGH: Chief, Emission Control Evaluation Section
FROM : Senior Sanitary Engineer, ECES
.TO
SUBJECT : "Pollution Master" Device - Evaluation on a Post Office Vehicle
At the request of NAPCA and the Post Office Department (P.O.D.) the
"Pollution Master System" has been evaluated for control of exhaust
emissions. Pollution Master is manufactured by Automotive Emissions
Control Corp. (ABC) of Louisville, Kentucky. The system consists of
two parts: one, a replacement for the "PCV" valve, which regulates
the flow of crankcase blowby gases by a "Venturi" principle; and the
other is a one-way valve which allows air to enter the exhaust
manifold during moments when the pressure there is below atmospheric.
Mr. Jim Patton, Mr. Tony Leone, and Mr. Ron Daley of AEC were in
attendance throughout the testing except for the rerun of the final
baseline. NAPCA was represented by the author and Mr. H.A. Aahby.
Work at the Ann Arbor Post Office Garage was coordinated by Mr. George
Porter of P.O.D.
On Monday, February 3, 1969, Mr. Ashby and I met with the representatives
of AEC at the Post Office Garage in Ann Arbor to inspect the vehicle and
to obtain some preliminary data. The P.O.D. vehicle was a 1967 Ford
Fairlane station wagon equipped with a 200 CID, 6 cylinder engine and
automatic transmission.
The vehicle had approximately 37,000 miles at the start of our tests.
In regular service, this vehicle is used for special deliveries, so
that the mileage is accumulated under widely varying conditions. Post
Office records showed the following recent maintenance:
At 29,5lU miles - new spark plugs
30,942 miles - tune-up to spec's
Idle Speed: 500 rpm - drive
Dwell: 38°
Basic Timing: 5° BTC
Spark Adv: h2*
A/F (Sun Instr.): lU.0/1
35,lU8 miles (12-31-68) - new ignition points
36,1*88 miles ( 1-23-69) - new spark plug wires
HELP ELIMINATE WASTE
COST REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
The following information was obtained on this initial inspection:
Idle Speed: 5^0 rp» - drive
(Sun Instr) A/F: 13.2/1
Compression Pressure (2) Spark Plug Gap
Cyl. No. 1 173 PS* »035" (3)
Cyl. No. 2 160 " .035
11 " 3 170 " .035
" " h 130 " , check 135 .036
" 5 178 " .035
" "6 130 " , check 150 .036
The original test sequence called for two emission baselines to bracket
the performance with the device installed. The vehicle was at that time
tested in the "as received condition". After the emissions test, the
engine was run for an additional two hours withthe device installed, *
Cylinder compression was then checked, with the following results!
Cyl. No. 1 175 P»i
" 2 165 "
ii 4 1T5 ..
i 5 1?5 ..
" 6 165 "
Note the compression increase on cylinders k and 6 when compared to initial
compression check. AEC personnel felt this was due to the cleaning effect
of their device* There is the possibility, however, that the hydraulic
valve lifters might have been sticking at the cranking speeds. AEC
personnel objected to this test sequence, since they felt it did not allow
time for mileage accumulation with the device Installed. They also felt
this was necessary in order to demonstrate the device's maximum
effectiveness. Two other events, however, cast doubt on the value of the
data obtained in this first sequence. First, the vehicle had a persistent
intermittent misfire which was due to neither the spark plugs nor the
emissions control device. Second, and most important, there was a leak in
the tubing connecting the "Pollution Master" crankcase ventilation system
to the intake manifold which leaned the mixture out significantly. This
leak was not detected until the second installation of the device. The
data from these first three tests are included in Tables I (Data by 1968
Procedure) and II (Data by 1970 Procedure).
Post Office and NAPCA personnel decided that a second series of tests was
necessary with the misfire cured, which included provision for mileage
accumulation with the device installed. This new test series was discussed
with the AEC representatives. Mr. Patton indicated they would be happy if
they could have the,car for one (l) day rather than allow the vehicle to
accumulate the mileage in normal post office usage. A compromise was
reached. AEC personnel would have the vehicle for one (l) day (Saturday)
This spark plug had very heavy deposits
20 psi allowable variation (FOMOCO)
This spark plug had a cracked porcelain and was replaced with a new one
-------
and the following day Che vehicle would go into normal post office service.
ABC personnel also requested that they be allowed to adjust the idle air-
fuel ratio (A/P) to approximately 1*1.0/1 which is where their system was
optimized. This was granted. The new teat sequence was:
1. A new baseline with the misfire cured and the engine operating to
everyone's satisfaction.
2. A test with the device installed and the A/F adjusted to approximately
14.0/1 to AEG1s satisfaction.
3* A second test with device installed affeer mileage accumulation, as
discussed.
k» A final baseline without the device, but with the same A/F as when
the device was Installed.
In order to cure the misfire and put the engine in proper operating condition
the following maintenance was performed:
Installed new: Carbon core spark plug wires
distributor cap
vacuum advance mechanism
air filter
ignition points
The distributor was disassembled, cleaned and set to specifications. Idle
A/F was checked but not adjusted* All this vas performed under the
supervision of Mr. Porter of the Post Office Department. The vehicle was
now in proper operating condition with no misfire. Except for the number
one spark plug, the original spark plugs were left in the engine. With
the vehicle In this condition, the new baseline emissions test was run.
The device was then installed. At this point the leak was detected and
all new hoses were installed to correct it. The idle A/F was set at
approximately 1^.0/1 to the satisfaction of AEG personnel, and tested in
this condition. Mileage was accumulated as discussed earlier, after
which the A/F and idle speed were checked and found to be as set previously.
The number 3 spark plug was examined and the heavy deposit noted earlier
had apparently been removed during operation with the device installed* The
second emissions test with the device was performed. The device was then
removed and the A/F set to approximately 1*1.0/1. During the final baseline
test the engine stalled at idle voiding the test. Since AEG had an
agreement with F.O.D. to install the device after the testing was completed,
AEC insisted that the car be returned to the P.O. Garage for the
reinstallation. As far as they were concerned the testing was completed.
The vehicle was then returned to the P.O. where the spark plugs were changed,
the carburetor float level reset and a new needle valve installed* The oil
and oil filter were also changed* After this the vehicle went back into
service for the rest of the day and evening. The following day NAPCA
personnel picked up the vehicle, removed the device, adjusted the A/F to
that measured with the device installed and reran the final baseline emissions
test. This final test was to represent the kind of emissions level this
engine is capable of at 37,000 miles when carefully tuned and the carburetor
-------
in good working order. This then could be compared to the emissions level
obtainable with the $35 to $1*0 Pollution Master device installed* Unfortunately
this last test is not really representative because on the idle portion
of the last cycle the engine suddenly got rough and the idle hydrocarbon
level increased sharply (s«e Figure 7, cycles 6 and 7), while CO remained
essentially the same. This suggests a misfire or perhaps a stuck valve* In
any case, the resultant Hot Cycle and composite hydrocarbon numbers are
higher than we feel is representative. The Cold Cycle hydrocarbon level if.
representative and indicates that the engine is capable of equalling the
hydrocarbon level and, more assuredly, the CO level obtained with the device
installed.
During this testing neither the author nor Mr* Ashby detected an appreciable
difference in driveabillty of the vehicle with or without the device, although
Mr* Porter of P*0*D* apparently felt it was improved somewhat with the device
installed.
In summary, it appears that the device may have a small beneficial effect
on exhaust emissions on this particular vehicle. However, by tuning the
engine with low emissions in mind (lean carburetion) the reduction due to
the device becomes marginal.
Michael A. Caggiano
Attachments
-------
TABLE II
"Pollution Master" Device Evaluation
on a Post Office Vehicle
Test
No.
Condi tlonn
Device
uf GFIW
Ml lei
C° MU?J
First Series of Tests
1
2
3
As received baseline
As received
Baseline
without
with
without
3.96
U.01
3.60
32.9
8.1
30.2
Second Series of Tests
k
5
6
7
Tuned -up baseline
With A/F adjusted to ll*.0/l
After mileage accumulation
Baseline with A/F to 1*1.0/1
1970 Federal
without
with
with
without
Standards are
U.08
3-51
3.23
3.88
2.2
30.0
21.7
16.6
18.0
23
-------
TABLE I
"Pollution Master" Device Evaluation
on a Post Office Vehicle
Conditions
First Series of Tests
* As received baseline
(2) As received
Baseline
Device
without
with
without
Cold
Cycle
HC
352
363
32^
CO
1.69
0.58
1-55
Hot
Cycle
HC
328
379
297
CO
1.28
0.28
1.17
Composite
HC
337
37l*
307
CO
1.U2
0.38
1.30
1
Second Series of Tests
^' Tuned-up baseline'
With A/F adjusted to lU.0/1
After mileage accumulation
Baseline with A/F at lU.0/1
without
with
with
without
372
33*
293
325
1.50
1.25
1.10
1.17
338
29U
281
353
1.20
0.83
0.57
0.63
350
308
285
3^3
1.31
0.98
0.?6
0.82
(I)
(I?)
(3)
Vehicle had misfire which was not corrected during the first series of tests.
#1 spark plug was changed at the initial inspection of the vehicle. The rest
of the spark plugs remained in throughout both test series.
Subsequent to this test, a leak was found in the PCV Tubing of the Pollution
Master device which allowed air to enter the intake manifold and lean out the
mixture.
Misfire was corrected and the ignition system was put in proper operating
condition. Still using the original spark plugs. A/F was unchanged from
first series of tests.
-------
FIGURE 1
2-1447 02-04-69 FAIRLANE STWGN 720408 37060 MILES
EXPERIMENTAL (BASELINE W/0 DEVICE)
SUM CYCLES 1-4 CYCLES 6-7
354.7851 1.7504 13.1899 328.5572 1.2767 13.
T0TAL WEIGHTED SUM 337.7370 1.4425 13.
HC C0
473.9 9.87
423.4 4.31
325.5 3.98
694.1 9.35
394.1 5.29
305.8 »80
3288.7 6.15
T0TAL CYCLE 1
417.1 5.84
283.2 .99
187.1 .16
443.3 5.95
304.8 2.64
193*0 .31
2629*3 4.97
T0TAL CYCLE 2
442.3 6.56
290.4 .98
193.0 .18
354.5 5.00
291.4 2.65
170*2 .33
2259*5 4.70
T0TAL CYCLE 3
424.4 6.51
274.0 .94
184*1 *19
461.2 4.82
287.3 2.31
188*1 .32
2203.7 4.70
T0TAL CYCLE 4
381*5 6*30
280.2 1.16
176.1 .35
506.7 4.91
275.0 2.46
205.1 .31
2093*3 4.63
T0TAL CYCLE 6
397.2 6.06
285*3 .99
199.0 .23
518*4 4.88
277.1 3.09
208.1 .39
2231.6 4.62
T0TAL CYCLE 7
C92
8.47
11.67
12.20
8.79
1 1 . 60
13.69
7.81
434.9
11.23
11.91
12.37
10«27
13.32
11.93
8.94
343.0
10.77
12.42
12.67
11.07
13.40
12.37
9.28
311.3
10.86
12.50
12*65
1 1 .00
13.47
12.37
9.41
318.9
10.82
12.65
13.19
10.86
13.32
12.55
9. 1 7
323.1
11.00
12.72
13.42
11.02
13.06
12.47
9. 1 3
334.0
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 1-4
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 6-7
WEIGHTED SUM
FACTOR WHC wc0
.82 16.3 .34
.94 96.9 .99
.93 35.6 .44
.81 34*8 .47
.89 17.5 .23
1.04 144.0 .38
.94 "89.8 .17
PPM HC 3.01 C0 11.91 C02
.88 15:4 .22
1.16 80.4 .28
1.20 26.4 .02
.91 25.0 .34
.94 14.3 .12
1.23 107.6 .17
.97 73.9 .14
PPM HC 1.29 C0 13.65 C02
.87 16.1 .24
1.12 79.3 .27
1.17 26.6 .02
.92 20.2 .29
.93 13.6 .12
1.18 91.4. .18
.98 64.1 .13
PPM HC 1.25 C0 13.70 C02
.86 '15.4 .24
1.12 74.6 .26
1.17 25.4 .03
.93 26.7 .28
.95 13.7 .11
1.18 101.1 .17
.97 62.1 .13
PPM HC 1 . 2 1 C0 1 3. 73 C02
.88 14.0 .23
1.09 74.2 .31
1.12 23.2 .03
.93 29.3 .28
.95 13.1 .12
1.17 108.8 .17
1.00 60.5 .13
PPM HC 1.2.7-C9 13.67 C02
.88 14.7 .22
1.09 76.1 .26
1.10 25.8 .03
.93 29.7 .28
93 12.9 .14
l.'l? 110.4 .20
.99 64.3 .13
PPM HC 1.28 C0 13.66 C02
352.0 PPM HC 1.69 C0 13.25
328.5 PPM HC 1.28 C0 13. 67
336.8 PPM HC 1.42 C0 13.52
C02
C02
C02
*ST0P*
-------
FIGURE 2
2-144ft 02-05-69 . F0RD FAIRLANE STWGN 720408
E~XPERIMENTAL'P0LLUTI0tf MASTER EVALUATI0N
SUM . . CYCLES 1-4
359.0629 . .6214 " (4.2848
T0TAL WEIGHTED SUM "
379.2561
372*1885
37083 MILES 35OOf
CYCLES 6-7
.2765 14.6118
3972" 14:4*73"
HC
2Q4* 1
278.1
276*1
277.1
262.9
222.2
2619,7
T0TAL
213.1
186.1
149.5
822.7
247.5
154.4
2381,3
TOTAL'.
279.1
206*1
149.5
1246.3
181.1
144.6
2362,5
T0TAL r
367.0
227.2
156.4
1271.3
198.0
1 64* 2
2268,8
T0TAL'
346.2
2l4» 1
141.6
1163.6
243.6
us; 3
2185,3
TOTAL '
295*6
217.1
157.3
1221.5
186-1
158.3
2185,3
T0TAL
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
C0
93
1*75
2.3?
4.69
1.80
.'34
2.oa
CYCLE 1
48
39
.1.5
.32
.26
.19
1*05
CYCLE 2
.29
.23
.18
.50
.34
21
..77
CYCLE 3
2?
.27
.18
.44
.28
.20
'76
CYCLE 4
.18
as
.16
42
;a7
.17
.68
CYCLE 6
.23
.33
.'17
.41
.34
.18
. .68
CYCLE 7.
C02 .
13. a i
13.06
13.34
1.1, -a 7
i3.ai
13.55
9.17
336.4
12.13
1.2.15
12.03
10.82
13.13
12.30
9.19
337.4
11.93"
12.55
12.06
10.29
13.00
12.55
8.66
377.5
1.1.40
i a. 57
i a. is
ro.32
1.3.00
12.30
8.72
401.2
11.60
12.50
12.20
10*25
12.78
fa.* 30
"8V 7 6
372.3
1 1 .84
12.47
12.30
10.25
12.95
12.30
8.66
386.4
0F CYCLES 1-4
0F CYCLES 6-7
W EIGHTEO SUM
FACT0R
1*06
I. 01
'95
.'93
1*00
I*Q8
1.17
PPM" .HC
1.19
I. 31
1.23
1.24
1.12
1.20
.1.38
PPM HC
1.23
1 * 1 7
1.23
i;3o
1.12
I. IS
1*38
PPM HC
I. 36
1.17
1.22
1*30
1.13
i.ao
1*38
PP.M HC
1.37
I.J8
t.ai
1.32
1*15
i.ao
1.39
PP.M HC
1*24
1*18
i.ao
1.32
1.14
i.ao
(.41
PPM- "HC
363
379
WHC
9.1
68.3
31.1
16.0
1 3* 1
109.1
89 .a
1.34 ca
T0.9
54.7
2 1. '7
63.0
13.9
84.4
88.' 7
..35 C0
14.4
58; 3
21.6
100.4
" iO*'2
77.4
94.8
.32 C0
19.5
64.8
22.4
102.7
i i*'a
89; 7
91.0
.31 C0
18.5 "
61.5
20. '3
95.'2
14.0
74.3
88.' 4
.28"C0
15.4
62.5
22.3
9.9.7
10.6
86*6
89.3
.28 C0
.1PPM
.'3 PPM
WC0
.04
.43
.'27
27
.09
17
;07
1 3. 60
-.02
.08
.02
.06
.'01
.10
.04
14.56
.02
;o8
.03
.04
.02
.11
.03
14.56
"."02
.'08
.'03
.04
.05
.11
.03
1 4. 58
~.oi
.07
:o£
03
.92
.09
.03
14.61
~, 01 ~
V07
.'02
.03
.'01
'10
..'03
14.61
HC" ".
HC
373.6 PPM HC
C02
--
C02
C02
C02
"" ' "*
C02
C02
58
28
.38
C0 14.32 C02
C0 14.61 C02
C0" I4;51 C02
*3T0P*
-------
FIGURE 3
2-1451 02-06-69 F0RD FAIRLANE STWGN 720408
E'XPERIMENTAL'BASELINE TWO WITH 0UT DEVICE
37195 MILES 3500*
SUM
327.2891 .
T0TAL
CYCLES 1-4
1.6105 13.3306
WEIGHTED SUM
297.4538
CYCLES 6-7
1.1721
307.8962
1.3255
13.7738
13.6187
HC C0
30.7 .63
372.2 3.37
306.9 3.81
91 Q.I. 9.0.3
279.1 5.83
258.7 .78
3569*1 5.33
T9TAL CYCLE I
416.0 6.51
277.1 -95
229.2 .'16
403.5 5.67
275.0 2.48
166.2 .27
1957,0 4.79
T0TAL CYCLE 2
367*0 6.05
241.4 .84
172.1 .'1.8
389.9 4.81
261.8. 2.33
156*4 .30
2029*4 4.58
T0TAL CYCLE 3
381.5 6. 16
230.3 .74
169.2 .18
454.9 4.75
261.8 2.47
167.2 .29
2093.3 4.61
T0TAL CYCLE 4
354*5 6.21
229.2 .80
157.3 .17
534.3 4.59
245.5 3.29
170*2 .28
2)02*5 4.39
T0TAL CYCLE 6
371.1 6.15
245.5 .76
167*2 *18
409.7 4.68
238*4 2.81
170.2 .30
2185.3 4.30
T0TAL CYCLE 7.
C02
1.56
12.28
12.30
.8.61
11. 11
13.53
"7.88
413,1
10.69
11.91
12.50
10.55
13.32
11*89
9.69
309.7
11.04
12.32
12.62
1 i.il
13.19
12.30
9.54
281.4
10.98
12.23
12.33
11.00
13.34
12.23.
9.43
291.5
10.71
12.28
12.75
10.89
12,80
13.15
9«26
296*6
10.89
12.32
12.75
11*02
13.03
18.06
9,26
298*4
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 1-4
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 6-7
LIGHTED SUM
FACT0R WHC
6*84 8.8
96 87.1
.93 33.7
.82 46.5
.89 12.4
1.05 123.4
.98 101*1
PPM HC 2.63"C0
.37 15.2
1.17 78.9
1.19 32.1
91 22.8
.95 13.1
1.23 $3.4
.96 54.4
PPM HC 1.25 C0
.88 13.5
1*14 67.1
1.17 23*8
.$3 22.4
.94 12.3
1.19 84.7
.98 57. 6
PPM HC 1. 18 C0
.38 T4.0
1,16 65.0
1.15 23.0
.94 26.4
.95 12.4
1.20 91. a
.98 59.' 5
PPM HC 1.14 C0
.89 13.2
1.15 64.1
1.16 21.6
.95 31.5
.93 1 1. 4
1.21 93.4
I. 01 61.3
PPM HC 1.18 C0
.88 "13.7
1.15 68.6
I.I 6 22.9
.94 23.9
.95 11.3
1.21 94.0
1.0 1 63.9
PPM ~HC 1.16 C0
323.9"PPM
297.5 PPM
306.7 PPM
WC0
.18
.79
.'42
.46
.26
.37
.15
12.28 C02
34
.27
.02
.32
.12
15
.13
13; 70 C02
.22
.23
.02
.'28
.13
.16
.13
13.77 C02
.23
.31
V02
.28
.12
.16
.13
13.81 C02
.23
.'23
.02
.27
.15
.15
.13
13.76 C02
.23
.21
.02
.27
.13
.16
.13
13.~ 79 C02
HC 1.S5 CO 13.39
HC 1.17 C0 1 3.' 77
HC 1.30 C0 13.64
C02
C02
C02
*ST0P*
-------
FIGURE k
2-1455 02-07-69 F0RD FAIRLANE
EXPERIMENTAL WITH 0UT P0LLUTI0N MASTER
720408
37241 MILES 3500*
SUM
373.0747
T0TAL
CYCLES 1-4
1.5348 13.4063
WEIGHTED SUM
CYCLES 6-7
338.2631 1.2036 13.7475
350.4472 I.3195 13.6281
HC C0 .
389.9 5.16
392.0 3.03
326.5 3.68
847.1 8.74
385.7 5.29
294.5 .47
3720,6 5.15
T0TAL CYCLE 1
487.6 6.01
314. .93
209. .19
439. 5.81
31.0.0 3.21
218* .24
2419* 4.74
T0TAL CYCLE 2
488.7 6. 08
316.2 .34
202.1 .16
337.$ 5.11
282.2 3.38
.825.2 .28
1947,9 4.61
T0TAL CYCLE 3
451.7 5*98
316.2 .95
2Q2. 1 .17
397.2 4.98
291.4 3.05
234.3 .30
1885.1 4.60
T0TAL CYCLE 4
398.2 5.72
291.4 1.02
186.1 .17
469.7 4.75
265*8 3.02
229.2 .30
2002,2 4.37
T0TAL CYCLE 6
485.5 5.29
330.6 1*02
205.1 .25
425.b 4.74
265.8 2.98
230.2 .33
1912,0 4.36
T0TAL CYCLE 7
C02 FACTOR WHO WC0
1.1.44 .90 14.8 .20
12.55 .96 92.1 .71
12.50 .93 35.7 .40
9.00 .82 43.2 .45
11.60 .89 17.1 .23
13.63 1.06 142.5 .23
7.75 .99 107.0 .15
452.4 PPM HC 2.37 C0 12.54 C02
11.07 .88 18.0 .22
12.47 1.12 S5.8 .25
13.26 1.12 27.5 .02
10*64 .90 24.4 .32
13.11 .92 14.2 .15
12.20 1.21 119.6 .'13
9.24 .97 '68.2 .13
357.7 PPM HC 1.24 C0 13.71 C02
11.04 .88 18.0 .22
12.70 1.11 85.4 .23
13.11 1.13 26.9 .02
11.20 .91 19.0 .29
13.06 .91 12.9 .15
12.62 1.16 119.1 .15
9.69 .97 "54.8 .13
336.2 PPM HC 1.19 C0 13.76 C02
11.18 .88. "16.7 .22
12.60 1.11 85.4 .26
13.24 1.12 26.7 .02
11.18 .91 22.5 .28
13.16 .93 13.5 .14
12.62 1.16 123.7 .16
9.77 ".97 52.9 .13
341.4 PPM HC 1.21 C0 13." 75 C02
11*09 .89 14.9 .21
12.62 1.10 78.2 .27
13.19 1.12 24.7 .02
11.18 .92 26.9 .27
13.19 .93 12.3 .14
12.70 1.15 120.3 .16
9.65 .99 57.2 .12
334.6 PPM HC 1.21 C0 13.74 C02
11.58 .89 18.1 .20
1.2.83 1.08 87.4 .27
13.74 1.Q7 25.9 .03
11*39 .92 24.1 .27
13.24 .92 12.3 .14
12.83 1.14 119.5 .17
9.75. ".$8 "54.5 .f2
341.9 PPM HC 1.20 C0 13.75 C02
AVERAGE 3F CYCLES 1-4 371.9 PPM HC ' 1 . SO C0 13.44
/VERAGE 0F CYCLES 6-7 338.2 PPM HC 1.20 C0 13.75
WEIGHTED SUM
350.0 PPM HC 1.31 C0 13.64
C02
C02
C02
*ST0P*
-------
FIGURE 5
2-1458 02-08-69 F9RD FAIRLANE
EXPERIMENTAL WITH P0LLUTI0N MASTER
720408
37283 MILES 3SOOf
SUM CYCLES 1-4 CYCLES 6-7
336.9456 1.2980 13.6453 293.7985 .8306 14.1191
T0TAL WEIGHTED SUM 303.9000 .9942 13.9533
HC C0
347.2 4.83
375.3 3.39
333.7 4.48
829.2 7.49
359.7 5.44
305.8 .78
2775,8 3.97
T0TAL CYCLE 1
279-1 2.82
236.3 .49
197.0 .20
256.7 3.51
242.4 1.39
201.0 .23
2213.0 2.35
T0TAL CYCLE 2
249.5 2.44
228.2 .48
185.1 .21
238*4 2*63
239.4 2.10
206.1 .24
2011*3 2.32
T0TAL CYCLE 3
269.9 2.55
254.6 .68
193.0 .17
227.2 2.72
244.4 2.20
223.2 .32
1929.9 2.30
T0TAL CYCLE 4
236.3 2.68
232.3 .73
178*1 .23
306.9 2.47
208.1 2.27
204*1 .31
1947.9 2.16
T0TAL CYCLE 6
246.5 2.59
237.3 .70
195.0 .29
262.8 2.55
221.2 1.96
205.1 .31
2002.2 2.02
T0TAL CYCLE 7
.C92
10.98
12.18
1 1.96
8.57
1 1.09
13.82
8.57
428.9
11.51
12.62
13.45
11.51
13.11
12.67
9.61
307.8
1.79
2.95
3.42
2*01
3. 00
3.13
9.83
294.8
11.69
13. 13
13.63
11.96
12.80
13*26
9.92
305.5
11.39
13.13
13.69
11*91
12.6$
13.32
9.81
291.3
11.62
13.16
13.90
11.98
12.93
13.21
9.75
296*3
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 1-4
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 6-7
WEIGHTED SUM
FACT0R
.95
.96
.91
.91
.91
1.03
1.06
PPM HC
1.05
1.14
1.10
.99
1.00
1.16
1.09
PPM HC
1.05
1.12
1.10
1*02
.99
1.12
1.12
PPM HC
1.05
1.09
1.09
1.01
1.00
1.10
1.12
PPM HC
1.07
1.08
1.08
1.03
1.01
1.10
1.14
PPM HC
1.06
1.08
1.06
1.02
1.01
1.11
1.16
PPM HC
334
293
308
WHC
13.8
88.3
35.9
46.6
16.3
143.0
85.0
2.62 C0
12.3
66.0
25.6
15.7
12.1
106.3
69.8
.81 C0
1 1.0
62.2
24.0
15*0
11.9
105. 1
65.5
.74 C0
11.9
67.5
24.7
14.3
12.2
112.1
62.7
.83 C0
10.6
61.3
22.6
19.6
10.5
102.2
64.5
.84 C0
10.9
62.7
24.3
16.6
11.1
103.5
67. 1
. 82 C0
.3 PPM
.8 PPM
.0 PPM
WC0
. 19
.80
.48
.42
.25
.36
.12
12.30 C02
. 12
.14
.03
.21
.0$
.12
.09
14.14 C02
.11
.13
.03
.17
.10
.12
.'08
14.22 C02
.11
.18
.'02
.17
.11
.16
07
14. 12 C02
.12
.19
.03
.16
. 11
.15
.07
14.11 C02
.11
.18
.04
.16
.10
.16
.07
14. 13 C02
HC 1.25 C0 13.69 C32
HC .83 C0 14.12 C02
HC .98 C0 13.97 C&2
*ST0P*
-------
FIGURE 6
2-1464 02-J1-69 F0RD
EXPERIMENTAL WITH P0LLUTI0<^ MASTER
720408
37532 MILES 3500*
SUM
294.1678
T0TAL
CYCLES 1-4
1.1601 13.7920
WEIGHTED SUM
CYCLES 6-7
280.7896 .5706 14.3755
285.4720 .7769 14.1712
HC C0
293.5 3.10
328.6 2.83
295.6 4.37
277.1 6.66
321.3 4.80
282.2 1.12
1690.2 4.46
TOTAL CYCLE 1
215.1 2.51
205. 1 .56
1 72 . 1 .19
233.3 2.72
189.0 1.22
171.2 .20
2020.3 2.39
T0TAL CYCLE 2
293.5 2.27
220.1 .45
151.4 .13
398.2 1.97
184.1 1.21
181.1 . .19
1920.9 2.15
T0TAL CYCLE 3
251.6 2.17
208.1 .48
151.4 .17
465.4 1.97
135.1 1.08
180.1 .18
1804.8 1.97
T0TAL CYCLE 4
224.2 1.91
199.0 .44
143.6 .13
520.5 1.76
172.1 .92
178.1 .17
1912.0 1.84
T0TAL CYCLE 6
237.3 1.93
216.1 .44
156. A .16
375.3 1.84
167.2 1.37
183.1 .22
1699.0 1 .94
T0TAL CYCLE 7
C02 FACT3R
12.25 .98
12.37 .99
11.98 .92
10.19 .88
1 1 . 60 .91
13.66 1.02
9.98 .97
330.9 PPM HC
12.40 .01
13.13 .10
13.50 .10
11.98 .01
13.42 .02
1 2 . 60 .17
9.96 .11
267.3 PPM HC
12.10 .04
12.70 .14
12.65 .17
11.93 .06
13.42 1.03
12.78 1.16
9.83 1.14
289.6 PPM HC
12.23
12.88
12.72
1 1 .79
13.37
12.78
10.04
284. 1 Pf
12.06
12.78
12.83
1 1.69
13.45
12.78
9.96
287.2 Pf
12.25
13.13
13.06
12.08
13.00
12.88
10.23
.04
.12
.16
.07
.04
.16
.15
>M HC
.07
.13
. 16
09
.04
.16
.1 6
M HC
06
.10
.14
.06
.04
.15
.14
274.6 PPM HC
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 1-4 293
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 6-7 280
WEIGHTED SUM
285
WHC
12.0
79.1
32.6
15. 1
14.7
130.3
47.6
2.51 C0
9. 1
55.6
22.3
14. 6
9. 7
91.3
64.8
.70 C0
12.9
61.3
21.0
26.2
9.4
95.3
63.6
.61 C0
1 1.0
57.0
20.8
30.8
9. 6
94.8
59.9
.60 C0
10. 1
55.1
19. 6
35.2
9.0
93.9
64.3
.54 C0
10.5
58.3
20.9
24.7
8.7
95.4
56.0
.60 C0
.0 PPM
.9 PPM
. 1 PPM
WC8
. 13
. 68
.47
.36
.22
.52
. 13
12.46 C02
. 11
.15
.02
.17
.06
.11
.08
14.26 C02
. 10
. 13
.02
.13
.06
.10
.07
14.34 C02
.09
.13
.02
. 13
.06
. 10
.07
14.35 C02
.09
.12
.02
. 12
.05
.09
.'06
14.40 C02
.09
.12
.02
. 12
.07
.1 1
.06
14.35 C02
HC 1.10 C0 13.85 C02
HC .57 C0 14.38 C02
HC .76 C3 14.19 C02
+ST0P*
-------
FIGURE T
'.-1475 02-14-69 F3HD F;\IriLAME
>v'"<342 14.1161
HC
241.
369.
301.
221.
.-53.
299.
2 ' ?. 8 .
T3TAL
335.
277.
1 :? 3.
2 32 .
? 32 .
200.
2203.
T3T.AL
399.
2 .1 7 .
m.
233.
236.
209.
1934.
TOTAL
3 73.
2 BO .
181.
3 1 3 .
222.
£04.
1769.
T'.TAL
~> H99.
236.
1 63.
349.
:?.OR.
1 9^.
3056.
TOTAL
--> ^'l*;.
- 436.
194.
-^ao.
"232.
219.
1 ~ 4 9 .
TOTAL
0
0
7
3
4
7
5
8
1
0
3
3
0
7
3
3
1
2
3
1
1
3
2
1
1
2
1
3
7
3
2
3
1
0
«?
8
0
0
2
3
1
2
W£ ?
1 .
.
2 .
CYCLE
2.
.
.
2.
1.
.
2 .
CYCLE:
p .
.
.
2 .
1 .
.
2.
CYCLE
2.
.
.
-, -2.
1 .
.
'?. .
CYCLE
3F C
98
81
13
32
32
73
42
1
58
95
1 7
47
73
21
03
2
29
62
15
63
37
22
53
3
94
69
1 5
46
43
22
41
4
37
i 7
'i 3
14
36
1 9
2 2
6
05
53
16
02
21
22
27
7
YCLF.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
C02
2.93
2.75
2.42
0.40
1.77
3.98
9.73
370.9
2.88
-2 . 30
3.38
2.75
3.93
2.30
0.36
309.6
3.08
12.75
1
1
1
1
1
1
3.00
2.93
4. 1 5
2.60
0.73
3.17.0
3.21
12.85
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
AVERAGE 3F CYCLES
'.v ! GH r
£
0 SUM
3.24
3.03
4.29
2.60
1.02
305. 1
3. 1 6
2.60
2.75
2.70
3.85
2.30
0.27
306.0
2.62
2.40
2.35
2.75
3.90
2.35
0.51
400.6
1-4
6-7
F
1
PP
1
1
1
1
4Cf'3!« WHC jJC3
.
.
.
.
.
.
V1
.
.
.
.
.
94
96
91
34
30
02
96
91
09
07
92
96
20
02
PPM
1
t
1
1
*
.
t
.
.
.
92
12
14
95
97
17
03
PPM
1
1
1
1
PP
1
1
1
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
M
,
.
.
.
.
.
.
93
1 1
12
95
95
17
04
97
1 5
16
00
99
20
09
PPM
1
1
1
1
1
1
.
.
.
.
.
02
16
15
00
99
19
08
PPM
13.
86.
32.
16.
15.
13 '-3.
67.
HC 2.3?.
12.
73.
24.
13.
1 1.
109.
65.
HC .90
1 5.
78.
24,
16.
1 1.
111.
59.
HC .73
14.
75.
23.
13.
10.
103.
53.
HC . 72
12.
66.
22.
21.
10.
103.
65.
HC .62
36.
123.
26.
26.
1 1.
119.
57.
HC . 64
5
8
3
7
5
5
7
C3
9
8
3
2
1
2
1
C0
4
6
0
7
4
3
5
C.3
6
7
9
5
6
7
1
C*
2
2
4
6
3
2
2
C.-J
4
4
4
0
5
0
9
CO
325.6 PPM
353.3 PPM
343.6 PPM
. 12
. 66
.44
.35
.23
-3-5
. 12
12. 63 C32
. 14
.25
.02
.20
.03
.11
.09
14. 36 C3S
.13
.17
.02
.16
.07
. 13
.OS
14.22 C32
. 1 I
. 19
.02
. 15
.07
. 12
.07
14.^3 C32
. 10
. 1 )
.0
. 1 i
.07
.1 )
.07
14.33 C32
.09
. 1 5
.0^
. 1 J
.06
. 12
.07
14.31 Ci32
HC 1.17 C3 13.79 C.:)2
HC .63 03 14.32 C32
HC .32 03 14.13 C.J2
-------
2-1447 02-04-69
EXPERIMENTAL
FIGURE 1A
F0RD FAIRLANE
720408
37060 MILES 3500
-------
FIGURE 3A
2-1451 02-06-69 F0RD FAIR LANE
EXPERIMENTAL w/o l)«»- <-
HC
30.7
372.3
306.9
910.1
279.1
258.7
3569*1
T0TAL
416.0
277.1
229.2
403.5
275.0
166.2
1957.0
T0TAL
367.0
241*4
172.J
389.9
261.8
156*4
2029*4
T0TAL
381.5
230.2
1 69.2;
454.9
261.8
167.2
2093,3
T0TAL
354*5
229.2
157.3
534.3
245.5
170.2
2 1 02 , 5
T0TAL
371.1
245.5
167.2
409.7
238.4
170.2
2185,3
T0TAL
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
C0
.63
3.37
3.81
9.03
5.83
.78
5.33
CYCLE I
6.51
.95
.16
5.67
2.48
.27
4.79
CYCLE 2
6. 05
.84
18
4.81
2.83
.30
4.58
CYCLE 3
6.16
74
.18
4.75
2.47
.29
4.61
CYCLE 4
6.21
.80
17
4.59
3.29
.28
4.39
CYCLE 6
6.15
76
.18
4.68
2.81
.30
4*30
CYCLE 7.
C02 FACT0R
1.56 7.
12.28 1.
12.30 I.
8.41 1.
11.11 I.
13.53 1.
7.88 I.
59
01
00
03
01
02
01
434,2 PPM 'HC
10.69 I.
1.1*91
12.50
10.55
13.32
11*89
9*69
313.0 Pf
11.04
12.32
12.62
Ll.lt
13.19
12*30
9.54
284.4 Pf
10.98
12.23
12.83
11.00
13.34
12.23
9,43
294.6 Pf
10.71
12.28
12.75
10.89
12.80
12.15
9.26
300,1 PF
10.89
12.32
12.75
11.02
.
a
.'
'
.
01
14
13
05
98,
19
02
M HC
.
.
.
,'
.'
'
M
.
.
«
.
.
.
.
00
11
12
04
97
15
03
HC
00
13
11
05
98
16
04
M HC
.
»
:
.
.
.
M
.
;
;
;
13.03
12*06 1.
9.26 1.
3Q0.5 PPM
0F CYCLES 1-4
0F CYCLES 6-7
WEIGHTED SUM
02
12
12
05
99
16
06
HC
01
12
11
05
9.9
17
05
HC
331
300
311
WHC
.9.
91.
36*
58.
14.
120.
104.
2.37
17.
77.
30.
26.
13.
89.
58.
1.34
15.
65.
22.
25.
12.
81.
60.
1*25
16.
63.
22.
29.
12.
87.
62.
1.21
IS.
62.
20.
34.
12.
90.
64.
1.25
15.
66.
22.
26.
11.
90.
66.
1.23
8
7
I
0
1
2
2
C0
6
3
6
2
4
9
0
C0
4
7
8
1
7
8
9
C0
1
4
1
5
8
9
9
C0
2
7
7
9
1
0
4
C0
7
9
0
7
8
6
7
C0
.6 PPM
.3 PPM
.2 PPM
720408 37195 MILES
WC0
.20
.83
.45
S3
.'29
.36
.16
12; 60 C02
".28
.27
,02
.37
.'S2
.14
.14
13.49 C02
".25
.23
.02
31
«'l4
.16
.14
13.57 C02
.26
.20
.02
.31
.12
.15
.14
13.' 58 C02
.27
.22
.'02
.30
.16
15
.13
13.' 55 C02
'.26
.21
.'02
.30
.14
.16
.'13
13." 56 C02
HC ' 1.66 C0 13.31
HC 1.24 C0 13.56
HC 1.39 C0 13.47
C02
C02
C02
AUT0MATIC MASS EMISSI0NS
HC 3.60 GRAMS PER MILE C0 30.2 GRAMS PER MILE
*ST0P*
-------
FIGURE 2A
2-1443 02-05-69
EXPERIMENTAL- ^>
F0RD FA1RLANE
720408
37083 MILES 3500*
HC C0 .
204.1 .93
278.1 1.75
276.1 2.39
277.1 4.49
262.8 1*80
222.3 .34
2619,7 2.02
T0TAL CYCLE 1
218.1 .48
1.86.1 .39
149.5 .15
822.7 .82
2.47.5 .36
154.4 .19
2381,3 1*05
T0TAL CYCLE 2
279.1 .29
206.1 .28
149.5 .18
1246.3 .50
181.1 .34
144.6 .31
2362,5 .77
T0TAL CYCLE 3
367.0 .29
227.2 .27
156.4 .18
1271*3 .44
198.0 .28
164*2 .20
2268,8 .76
T0TAL CYCLE 4
346.2 .18
214.1 .35
.141.6 .16
1163.6 .42
2.43.6 .a?
135.8 .17
2185.3 ..68
T0TAL CYCLE 6
295.6 .33
317.1 .23
157.3 .17
1221.5 .41
186.1 .24
158.3 .18
2176,1 .67
T0TAL CYCLE 7.
C02 FACT0R WHC WC0
13.31 1.04 8*9 .04
13.06 1.02 69.1 .43
13.34 .98 31.8 .28
11.37 1.04 17.9 .'30
13.21 I. 01 13.2 .09
13.55 1.04 105.0 .16
9.17 I. 11 84.6 .07
330. 7 PPM~~HC 1.37 C0 13.46 C02
12.13 1.15 MO. 5 .02
12.15 1.16 52.7 .08
12.03 1. 1 8 20.8 .02
10.82 I. 30 61*0 *06
13.13 1.07 13.3 .01
I2.i0 1.15 81.1 .Id
9.19 1.J8 81.S .04
320.9 PPM HC . 34 C0 13.9"9 C02
11.93 1.17 13.7 .01
12.55 1.12 56.5 .08
13.06
10.29
1 3. 00
12.55
8.66
355.3 PF
11.60
12.57
12.15
10.32
13.00
13.30
8.72
377.5 Pf
11.60
12.50
12.20
10.25
12.78
ia. 30
8.76
350.2 Pf
11.84
12.47
12.30
10.35
13.95
12.30
8.61
.18 20.8 .03
.22 94.2 .-04
.08 9.8 .02
.13 74.5 .11
.35 8 5.: 7 .03
M HC .31 C0 13.96 C02
.19 18.4 .01
.12 62.1 .07
.17 21.6 .02
.32 96.0 .03
.09 10.7 .'01
.15 86.2 .10
.26 82.6 .03
M HC .29 C0 13. $5 C02
.20 17.5 .01
13 58.9 .07
.17 19.5 .02
.'34 89.3 .'03
10 13.4 .'01
.16 71.5 .09
.36 80.2 .'02
M HC .36 C0 13.99 C02
.18 14*7 '.01
.13 59.9 .06
.15 21.4 .03
.33 93.2 .03
.'09 10.3 .01
.15 83.3 .09
.'38 81.0 .02
363.5 PPM HC .36 C0 13.98 C02
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 1-4 346. I PPM HC . 58 C0 13.84
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 6-7 356.9 PPM HC .36 C0 13.98
WEIGHTED SUM
353.1 PPM HC .37 C0 13.93
C02
C02
C02
AUT0MATIC MASS EMISSI0MS
HC 4.09 GRAMS PER MILE C0
*ST0P*
8.1 GRAMS PER MILE
-------
FIGURE 5A
2-1458 02-08-69 F0RO FAIRLANE
EXPERIMENTAL WITH P0LLUTI0N MASTER
720408
37283 MILES 3500f
HC C0
347.2 4.83
375.3 3.39
333.7 4.48
829.2 7.49
359.7 5.44
305.8 .78
2775,8 3.97
T0TAL CYCLE 1
279.1 2.82
236» 3 .49
197.0 .20
256.7 3.51
242.4 1.89
201.0 .23
2213.0 2.85
T0TAL CYCLE 2
249*5 2.44
228.2 .48
185.1 .21
238*4 2.63
239.4 2.10
206.1 .24
2011,3 2.32
T0TAL. CYCLE 3
269.9 2.55
25.4*6 .68
193.0 .»7
227.2 2.72
244.4 2.20
223*3 .32
1929.9 2.30
T0TAL CYCLE 4
236.3 2.68
232.3 .73
178*1 .23
306.9 2.47
208*1 2.27
304.1 .31
1947.9 2.16
T0TAL CYCLE 6
246*5 2.59
237.3 .70
195.0 .29
262.8 2.55
221.2 1.96
205.1 .31
2002.2 2.02
T0TAL CYCLE 7
C02 FACT0R WHC WC0
10.98
12.18
11.96
8.57
11.09
13.82
8.57
447.3 Pf
11. 51
12.62
13.45
11.51
13.11
12.67
9.61
301.7 Pf
11.72
12.95
13.42
12.01
13.00
1 3. 13
9.33
287*6 Pf
11.69
13.13
13.63
11.96
12.80
13*26
9.92
298.7 PF
11.39
13.13
13.49
11.91
12*65
13.32
9.81
285.2 PF
11*62
13*16
13.90
11.98
12.93
OS 15.4 .21
.02 93.0 .g4
.00 39.2 .53
.10 56.4 .5!
.02 18.4 .28
.00 138.8 .35
.07 86.1 .12
M HC 2.84 C0 12.60 C02
.10 12.9 .13
.10 63.7 .13
.05 24.5 .02
.07 17.0 .23
.01 12.3 .10
.11 102.0 .12
.08 69.3 .09
M HC .82 C0 13.76 C02
.09 11.4 .11
.08 60.1 .13
.06 23.1 .03
.07 15.3 .17
.01 12.1 .11
.08 100.9 .12
.10 64.2 .07
M HC .74 C0 13.82 C02
.09 12.4 '.12
.05 65.5 .17
.04 23*7 .02
.07 15.1 .IS
.02 12. S .11
.06 107.8 .15
.10 61.7 .07
M HC .83 C0 13.76 C02
.12 11.1 .13
.05 59.6 .19
.04 21.8 .03
.08 20.5 .16
.04 tO. 8 .12
.06 98.3 .15
.12 63.0 .07
M HC .84 C0 13.77 C02
.10 f 1 4 . f 2
05 61.0 .18
.02 23*4 .03
.07 17.4 .17
.03 11.3 .10
13*21 1.07 99.5 .15
9.75 1.12 65.1 .07
289.3 PPM HC .82 C0 13.78 C02
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 1-4 333.8 PPM HC 1.31 C0 13.49
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 6-7 287.2 PPM HC ~.g3 C0 13.77
WEIGHTED SUM
303.5 PPM HC 1.00 C0 13.67
C02
C02
C02
AUT0MATIC MASS EMISSIONS
HC 3.51 GRAMS PER MILE C0
*ST0P*
21.7 GRAMS PER MILE
-------
FIGURE 1«A
2-1455 02-07-69
EXPERIMENTAL M
F0RD FAIRLANE
720408
37241 MILES
HC .
C0
389.9 5.16
392.0 3.03
326.5 3*68
847.1
8.74
385.7 5.29
294.5
3720*6
T0TAL
487.6
314.
209.
439.
310.0
218*
2419.
T0TAL
488*7
316.2
202.1
337.9
282.2
225.2
1947,9
T0TAL
451.7
316.2
202.1
397.2
291 .4
234.3
1885,1
T0TAL
398.2
291.4
186.1
469.7
265.8
229.2
2002.2
T0TAL
485.5
330.6
205.1
425.5
265.8
230.2
1912*0
T0TAL
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
.47
5.15
CYCLE 1
6.01
.93
19
5.81
3.21
24
4.74
CYCLE 2
6.08
.84
.16
5.11
3.38
.28
4.61
CYCLE 3
5.88
.95
J7
4.98
3.05
.30
4.60
CYCLE 4
5.72
1.02
.17
4.75
3.02
.30
4.37
CYCLE 6
5.29
1.02
.25
4.74
2.98
.33
4.36
CYCLE 7
C02 FACT0R
11.44
12.55
18.50
9.00
1 1 . 60
13.63
7.75
1.00
1.00
.99
1.02
.99
1.02
1.01
468.6 PPM "HC
11.07
12.47
13.26
10.64
13.11
12*20
9.24
.99
1.09
1.07
1.03
.96
1.15
1.02
359.6 PPM HC
11.04
12.70
13.11
1 1 .20
13.06
12*62
9.69
.99
1.08
1.08
1.03
.96
I. 11
I .'03
336.7 PPM HC
11.18
12.60
13.24
11.18
13.16
12.62
9.77
342.0 PF
11.09
12.62
13.19
11.18
13.19
12.70
9.65
.99
.08
.07
.03
.97
.11
.03
>M HC
.01
.08
.08
.03
.97
.11
.04
415.7 PPM HC
11.58
1.2.83
13.74
11.39
13.24
12.33
9.75
98
.06
.03
02
.97
.10
.04
342.3 PPM HC
0F CYCLES 1-4
0F CYCLES 6-7
WEIGHTED SUM
376
339
352
1
WHC
16.
95.
38.
S3.
19.
37.
109.
2.57
1
1
1
"
1
1
"
1
1
1
1
"
1
20.
83.
26.
28.
14.
14.
71.
.32
20.
83.
25.'
21.
13.
14.
56.
.26
18.
83.
25.
25.
14.
18.
56.
.27
16.
76.
23.
30.
12.
15.
60.
.27
20.
85.
24.
26.
12.
14.
57.
.25
WC0
4 .
7
0
3
1
0
1
~C0 12
3
7
3
2
9
6
5
22
74
43
55
26
22
15
.71 C02
25"
25
02
37
15
13
14
C0 13.45 C02
4
1 .
8
5
6
2
1
C0 13
8
4
5
3
1
7
2
C0 13
9
7
6
0
9 .
5
1
C0 13
1
4
9
9
8
7
4
C0 13
.7 PPM HC
.0 PPM HC
.'2 PPM HC
25
22
02
33
16
14
14
.50 C02
25
25
02
32
15
15
(4
."49 C02
24
27
02
30
15
15
13
.50 C02
22
26
03
30
14
16
13
.50 C02
1.61 C0 13.29 C32
1.26 C0 13.50 C02
1.38 C0 13. 43 C02
AUT0MATIC MASS EMISSI0NS
HC 4.08 GRAMS PER MILE
*ST0P*
C0 30.0 GRAMS PER MILE
-------
2-1464 02-11-69
EXPERIMENTAL
FIGURE 6 A
F0RD FAIRLANC 720408
flrr 11- c
37532 MILES 3500*
HC C0
293.5 3.10
328.6 2.33
295.6 4.37
277.1 6.66
321.3 4*30
.282.2 1*12
1690,2 4.46
T0TAL CYCLE I
215.1 2.51
208*1 .56
172.1 .19
233.3 2.72
189.0 1.22
171.2 .20
2020,3 2.39
T0TAL CYCLE 2
293.5 2.27
220.1 .45
151.4 .13
398.2 1.97
184.1 1.21
181.1 .19
1920.9 2.15
T0TAL CYCLE 3
251.6 2.17
208.1 .48
151.4 .17
-^465.4 1.97
185.1 1.08
180.1 .18
1804.8 1.97
T0TAL CYCLE. 4
224.2 1.91
199.0 .44
143.6 .13
-?520.5 1.76
1 72 . 1 .92
178.1 .17
1912.0 1.34
T0TAL CYCLE 6
237.3 1.93
216.1 .44
156.4 .16
375.3 1.34
167.2 1.37
183*1 *22
1699.0 1.94
T0TAL CYCLE 7
C02 FACT0R
12.25 1*03
12.37
11.98
10.19
11.60
13.66
9.98
342.8 PF
12.40
13.13
13.50
1 1.98
13.42
12.60
9.96
261.2 Pf
12.10
12.70
12.65
.03
.00
.05
01
.00
.03
1M HC
.04
.06
.05
07
.02
.13
.09
M HC
.07
.10
.13
11.93 1.09
13.42 1.02
12.78 1.11
9. S3 1.12
282.3 PPM HC
12.23
12.88
12.72
11.79
13.37
12.78
10.04
276.9 Pf
12.06
12.78
12.83
11.69
13.45
12.78
9.96
279.1 Pf
12.25
13.13
13.06
12.08
13.00
12.88
10.23
.07
.09
.12
.09
.03
.11
.12
>M HC
.09
.10
.11
.10
.03
.11
.12
M" HC
08
.07
.09
.08
.05
.10
.11
267.4 PPM "HC
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 1-4 290
AVERAGE 0F CYCLES 6-7 273
WEIGHTED SUM
279
WHC WC0
12.7 .13
82.2 ?!
34.9 .52
18.0 .43
1 6.2 .24
128.2 .51
50.6 .13
2.68 C0 12.79 C02
9.4 .11
54. 0 . 1 5
21.4 ,02
15.4 .18
9.6 .06
87.7 .10
63.7 .08
.70 C0 13.87 C02
13.2 . TO
59.2 .12
20.1 .02
26.8 .13
9.4 .06
91.4 .10
62.2 .07
.60 C0 13.89 C02
11.3 .10
55.2 .13
20.0 .02
31.5 .13
9.5 .06
91.0 .09
58.5 .06
.59 C0 13.90 C02
10.3 .09
S3. "3 .12
18.8 .02
35.6 .12
8.9 .05
90.0 .09
62.1 .06
.54 C0 13.93 C02
10.7 .09
56.3 .12
20.1 .02
25.2 .12
8.7 .07
91.6 .11
54.8 .06
.59 C0 13.92 C02
8 PPM HC 1.14 C0 13.61 C02
.2 PPM HC .56 C0 13.92 C02
.4 PPM HC .77 C0 13.82 C02
AUT0MATIC MASS EMISSI0NS
HC 3.23 GRAMS PER MILE C0 16.6 GRAMS PER MILE
*ST0P*
-------
FIGURE 7A
2-1475 02-14-69 F0RD FAIRLANE
EXPERIMENTAL W/0 DEVICE
720408
37638 MILES 3SOOf
HC
34). 0
369.0
30 1 . 7
C0.
2.98
2.81
4.13
321.3 7.32
35.3*4
299-7
2428.5
T0TAL
335-8
277.1
193*0
232.3
232.3
200.0
2203.7
T0TAL
399.3
287.3
178.1
283.2
236.3
209.1
1984,1
T0TAL
373.2
280.2
181.1
313.1
222.2
204.1
1769,3
T0TAL
299.7
236.3
163.2
>349.3
208.1
198.0
2056.8
T0TAL
848.8
436.0
194*0
420.2
232.3
219.1
1849,2
T0TAL
AVERAGE
AVERAGE
5.32
.78
4.42
CYCLE 1
3.58
95
.17
3.47
1.73
.21
3.03
CYCLE 2
3.29
.62
.15
2.63
1.37
.22
2.58
CYCLE. 3
2.94
69
.15
2.46
1.43
.22
2.41
CYCLE 4
2.37
.47
.13
2.14
1.36
19
2.22
CYCLE 6
2.05
.53
.16
2.02
1.27
.22
2.27
CYCLE 7
C02
12.98
12.75
12.42
10.40
11.77
13. 98
9.73
380.5
12 . 88
12.80
13.88
12.75
13.93
12.30
10.36
304.1
13.08
12.75
13.00
12.93
14.15
12.60
10.73
309.4
13.21
12.85
13.24
13.08
14.29
12.60
1 1 .02
298.0
13.16
12.60
12.75
12.70
13.85
12.30
10.27
297.4
FACT0R
.
1.
1.
.
,'
1.
98
00
98
01
98
99
00
PPM HC
..
1..
1.
" .'
.
1.
I.
PPM
,
,'
;
*
.
»
,
PPM
.
1.
i.
',
,'
i.
i.
PPM
.
1.
1.
1.
" .
1.
1.
PPM
96
07
02
98
96
15
02
. HC
96
08
09
00
96
12
02
HC
96
07
07
99
95
12
03
HC
99
1 1
12
02
98
15
07
HC
12*762 1.00
12.40
12.85
12.75
13.90
12.35
10. Si
" 387.0
1.
1.
1.
" ,
1.
10
10
02
98
14
1.06
PPM
0F CYCLES 1-4
0F CYCLES 6-7
V£IGHT£0 SUM
HC
323
342
335
WHC
14.
89.
34.
20.
17.
134.
70.
2.48
13.
72.
23.
14.
11.
104.
65.
.91
16.
76.
23.
17.
11.
106.
'58.
.73
15.
73.
22.
19.
10.
104.
"52.
.72
1'2.
63.
21.
22.
10.
103.
63.
.61
35.
117.
25.
26.
11.
113.
0
7
8
0
3
5
1
~C0
6
a
3
2
2
6
0
C0
0
0
0
5
4
7
9
C0
1
4
9
2
6
1
6
C0
4
9
5
2
2
6
6
C0
5
4
3
6
4
9
57.0
.63
C0
.0 PPM
.2 PPM
.5 PPM
WC0
. 12
*8 H 1 W OFFICIAL
.48
.46
.26
.35
.13
12.85 C02
.15
.25
.02
.21
.'OS
.11
.09
13.72 C02
.13
.17
.'02
.16
.07
.11
.08
13.80 C02
.12
.18
.02
.15
.07
.11
.07
13.82 C02
".10
.13
.02
.14
.0?
.10
.07
13.87 C02
.09
.14
.'02
.13
.06
.12
.07
13.77 C02
HC 1.21 C0 13.55
HC .62 C0 13. 82
HC .83 C0 13.72
- .
'. .' f.
v.(- 1
C02
C02
C02
AUTOMATIC MASS EMISSI0NS
HC 3.88 GRAMS PER MILE C0 18.0 GRAMS PER MILE
*ST0P*
-------
UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT
Memorandum
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
TO
M. Korth
Through: D. Hollabaugh
FROM : p. T. Hillhlte
DATE: H.y 8, 1968
PTW:vm
SUBJECT. Kentucky Vehicle-Air Pollution Test,
A test vehicle was delivered by Mr. David A. Gravely of the Kentucky
Air Pollution Control Commission on April 25, 1968, for testing by
the USPttS laboratories.
Test Vehicle Information:
Year and Make: 1966 Pord
Displacement: 390 cubic Inches
Transmission: Automatic
License: Kentucky K16-661
Odometer Mileage: 53»5& miles
Test Procedure
The test procedure followed was the standard 7-mode exhaust emission
procedure with two exceptions;
1. Since the vehicle was hot when delivered, no cold starts were
obtained.
2. Mass emissions were obtained concurrently with Scott Cart
emissions.
To properly precondition the test vehicle several cycles were run
utilizing Indolene test fuel. After the vehicle had equilibrated,
emission .measurements were obtained. The vehicle was baselined with
the device at the start and end of the test series. When the device
was removed the PCV valve was replaced and the exhaust manifold Inlets
were plugged.
Table I indicates the level of emissions of the test vehicle with and
without the device. Prom this table it is evident that there is an
enleanment occurring when using the device. This enleanment does not
HtlP ELIMINATE WASTE
nranrvr
COST REDUCTION PROGRAM
-------
- 2 -
bring the car within the present level set for emissions but it does reduce
the quantities of hydrocarbon and CO in the exhaust. However, this reduction
in emissions is minor in respect to the initial high level of emissions.
Device in Question
Figures 1 and 2 represent the device in question as Interpreted by the
writer from discussions with Mr* Gravely. No physical examination of the
device was made due to the short testing schedule. The device is believed
to have come from the Automotive Pollution Control Corporation*
Figure 1 represents the attachment made to each exhaust manifold. Figure
2 represents the device Inserted in the line from the crankcase to the
Intake manifold Instead of the PCV valve.
As related to the writer the device functions as follows:
1. Refer to Figure 1 * during various modes of the cycle air is drawn into
the exhaust manifold for further combustion (after burning).
2. Refer to Figure 2 - during all modes of the cycle this device is open for
the passage of crankcase vapors to the Intake manifold. These vapors
pass through the venturles and impact on the offset venturies which
causes a further atomization of the vapors for better combustion.
Writers note - Since this passage is open to the atmosphere
(through the breather cap) during all modes of the cycle, part or all
of the enleanment may be accounted for through the addition of air to
the intake manifold from this line.
The use of the device on the test vehicle did reduce emissions. However,
this reduction was so minor that the device could hardly be deemed successful
as an air pollution control device for this vehicle.
P. T. Willhlte
-------
Table 1
HC(NDIRC6)
ppoC/
Exhaust Emissions
Average Values
CO
gin/mile % gm Anile
C0? NO Air/Fuel
gra Anile gm Anile Ratio
1*38
U.02
Without Device (6 Cycles)
2.9U 6k.6k 12.02
With Device (12 eyelet)
2.32 51.93 12.65 509-99
3.07 13.16
3.32
13.78
Difference-
-27* -O.Hl* -0.62* -12.71* +0.63*
-K).25 -K).62«
6.2
9-3
% Difference
21.1 19.7 5.0 6.7
7.6
U.5
Statistically significant at the 95% level.
-------
Fit
M
p ^
TT%
>
iNLtTS
\
\
DEVICE
EXHAUST MANIFOLD
FIGURE
INTERpRFTFD VIEW
-------
J'l"\ s
rfejQuCW
, -. j i ' i
" h' ':i/,U:
DEVK t:. .
CRANKCASE
INTAKE
MANIFOLD
FIGURE 2
INTERPRETED VIEW
*U5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979- 651-112/0110
------- |