nited States
             Environmental Protection
             Agency

             AiT
             Office of
             Air and Radiation
             Washington DC 20460
                                      October 1988
&EPA
Report to the President and
Congress on the Need for
Leaded Gasoline on the Farm

-------
                               Table of Contents
                                                                          Page
       Executive Stannary                                                  i-v

I.     Introduction                                                         1
II.    Summary of Joint study                                               3
III.   Summary of Comments                                                  9
IV.    USDA Comments                                                       37
V.     Engines at Risk with Unleaded Gasoline                              39
VI.    Availability of Leaded Gasoline or  Bquivalent Additives            43
VII.   Lead Content and Labeling  Issues                                    47
VIII.  Solutions for the Farmer                                            50
IX.    EPA's Specific Plans                                                51
Appendix 1  EPA-USDA Joint Study, NIPER Report
Appendix 2  Public Hearing Gommenters, Written Oommenters
Appendix 3  USDA Comments
Appendix 4  Additive Manufacturers

-------
                      Executive Summary
BACKGROUND
     The Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) phasedown
of lead in gasoline (and previously proposed ban) have caused
concern among owners of vehicles and equipment designed to use
leaded gasoline that their engines might suffer valve recession
if EPA bans lead in gasoline.  Because this concern is most
prevalent for these engines under heavy load, such as in
agricultural service, a provision was placed in the 1985 Food
Security Act (Act) requiring EPA, in conjunction with the
United states Department of Agriculture (USDA), to conduct a
study on the possible valve recession effects of unleaded and
low-lead gasolines, as well as non-lead valve lubricating
additives.  Under the Act, EPA and USDA had to jointly publish
the study.  EPA then was required to hold a public hearing and
accept comments on the study.

     EPA hearings on the study, with USDA participation, were
held in Rosslyn, Virginia; Des Moines, Iowa; and Indianapolis,
Indiana during the first part of June, 1987.  Thirty-nine
persons testified, including staff for Senator Quayle and
Representative Tauke, and the Lt. Governor of Indiana, John Mutz.
Representatives of the American Farm Bureau Federation, the
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives, Women Involved in Farm
Economics (WIFE), the Indiana Farm Bureau, Inc., the Indiana
Corn Growers Association, and the Indiana Beef Cattle Association
were among those from the agricultural sector.  The public
comment period closed on August 10, 1987.

     The Act also required EPA to evaluate the study results
and comments in order to "make findings and recommendations on
the need for lead additives in gasoline to be used on a farm
for farming purposes, including a determination of whether a
modification of the regulations limiting lead content of gasoline
would be appropriate in the case of gasoline used on a farm
for farming purposes."

     EPA was also required to submit a report to the President
and to the Congress, including the study, a summary of comments
and EPA's recommendations.

-------
                              -11-


 REPORT SUMMARY

      The study tested eight engines  designed  to  use  leaded
 gasoline on various fuels  with  and without  lead,  and on  two
 additives.   The study found leaded gasoline at the 0.10  gram
 per leaded  gallon (gplg)  standard was  generally  satisfactory
 for engine  performance.   The study also  found that medium- and
 high-speed  engines  with  soft valve seats  and  some high-speed
 truck engines  with  induction hardened  cast-iron  or soft  steel
 valve seats will experience excessive  valve-seat  wear if operated
 on  unleaded gasoline. Non-lead alternative valve lubricating
 additives demonstrated the ability to  reduce  wear, and,  in one
 case, totally  eliminated  wear with a quadrupling  of  the  manu-
 facturer's  recommended concentration.  However,  their use
 resulted in engine  deposits with unknown  implications.

      A survey  of farm engine use has shown  that  there were
 1.8 million gasoline-powered tractors, 271,000 gasoline-powered
 combines, and  750,000 gasoline-powered trucks larger than
 one-ton capacity in 1985.   Many of these  engines  are 20  years
 of  age or older.  Of  the  1.8 million tractors, 42 percent are
 used exclusively in light-duty  applications and  can  operate
 satisfactorily on unleaded gasoline.   The other  58 percent
 would be vulnerable to excessive valve-seat recession if operated
 on  unleaded gasoline, unless they are  low-speed  engines  or have
 hardened exhaust valve seats.

      A preliminary  analysis of  a survey of  tractor engines
 suggests that  33 percent may have hardened  valve-seat inserts.
 These would not be  vulnerable to valve-seat recession with
 unleaded gasoline.  The remaining 67 percent  are  potentially
 vulnerable  if  operated in  medium- or heavy-duty  applications.

      All combine engines receive hard  use and are likely to
 experience  excessive  valve-seat recession if  they have cast-
 iron (soft)  valve seats and are operated  on unleaded gasoline.

      Trucks receive a range of  light to hard  uses.   Based on
 these  engines  tests,  it appears that a large  number  of farm
 trucks  could be vulnerable to excessive valve-seat recession
 if  operated on unleaded gasoline.

      Comments  were  received from a large  number  of organizations,
 including farm groups, state governments, equipment  manufacturers,
 refiners, farmer  cooperatives,  additive manufacturers and fleet
 operators.   In  addition, over 600 written comments were  received
 from  individuals, some 60  percent of whom were owners of recrea-
 tional  vehicles.  The main comment from all groups was a request
 that  EPA not ban  leaded gasoline.  In some  cases  there were
 requests for an  increase in  the permissible lead  level.  There
 also were requests  that EPA  specify  a minimum level  of lead in
gasoline.   Data were  presented  suggesting that some  leaded
gasoline currently  being marketed contains  less  than 0.10 gplg,

-------
                            -111-


with some instances of no lead at  all.   The American Petroleum
Institute wanted to keep the current 0.10  gplg  quarterly average
limit.  Several commenters asked EPA to do more testing  and
one wanted EPA to develop a rating system  for  exhaust valve
anti-wear additives.

     The USDA, which participated  in the joint  study, also
sent a letter to EPA.  They want EPA to 1) not  ban leaded
gasoline; 2) take steps necessary  to assure that companies
continue to sell leaded gasoline to the farming community;
3) require a range of 0.10-0.15 gram of lead in each gallon
of leaded gasoline; and 4) continue testing non-lead additives
or work with others to establish an acceptable  procedure for
additive manufacturers to demonstrate overall  efficacy of
their products.

     The suggestion by several commenters  for  more testing,
including field testing, was not to suggest that EPA-USDA
testing procedures were inadequate, but rather  to more accurately
pinpoint the possible engines at risk,  or  to test parameters
such as idle mixture, or absence of valve  rotators, as ways to
retard valve recession.  The only commenter objecting to EPA-
USDA's results was Lubrizol, an anti-wear  additive producer.
Lubrizol took issue with the study's result that seemed to
indicate their additive would have to be used at four times
the recommended concentration to stop valve recession.  They
said that their own tests have shown their additive works at
the recommended concentration.

     After a review of the comments, EPA concluded that:

     1)   A significant number of farm engines are gasoline-
          powered.  Many tractors, combines, and trucks would
          be vulnerable to excessive valve-seat recession if
          operated on unleaded gasoline.

     2)   Leaded gasoline at the 0.10 gplg level is adequate
          to avoid valve recession in most of these engines.

     3)   Exclusive use of unleaded gasoline can lead to  valve
          recession in many engines designed for leaded gasoline
          when operated at medium to high engine speeds.

     4)   Some leaded gasoline could have significantly  less
          lead than 0.10 gplg.

     5)   Leaded gasoline demand continues to drop.   Many refiners
          are planning to drop leaded gasoline  in  selected  regions
          of the country and market a mid-octane unleaded product.
          Leaded gasoline  is expected  to  be only about  10 percent
          of total gasoline usage  in the  1990's.   At  this level

-------
                             -iv-
          of usage, leaded gasoline will probably become
          a specialty product and will become difficult to
          find.  However, leaded gasoline will probably be
          found in areas or marketing outlets where the
          demand is greatest (e.g., farm areas).

     6)   Non-lead additives have significant potential as
          substitutes for lead although further product
          development work is warranted.

     The following are recommended actions for users for
reducing or eliminating valve-seat recession in farm equipment

     1)   Where diesel-powered equipment is available,  it
          should be used in heavy-duty operations in
          preference to gasoline-powered equipment that might
          be vulnerable to valve-seat recession.

     2)   Unleaded gasoline of sufficient octane may be
          used if an engine has the following:

               Hard steel valve seats; or

               Soft valve seats, but is used exclusively
               for light-duty, low-speed operations; or

            -  Soft valve seats, but is a low-RPM engine
               (less than 1700 revolutions per minute (RPM)).

     3)   In situations where only unleaded gasoline is
          available, and for engines that will be vulnerable
          to valve-seat recession, take the following steps:

               Reduce heavy loads on an engine by shifting
               down and reducing engine speed (i.e. take
               longer to do tasks that put a heavy strain
               on the engine).

               Enrich the carburetor air-to-fuel  mixture.

               Keep engines in good repair and follow proper
               maintenance requirements, particularly with
               respect to the cooling system,  and keep engines
               free from attachments that can restrict
               air flow and trap heat.

            -   Use  an alternative valve lubricating additive,
               where available,  during  periods of heavy use to
               reduce the risk  or extent of damage.

               Do  a valve job sooner than planned.   Install
               hard steel valve  seats at the next engine
               overhaul.   If  the engine has valve rotators,
               have them removed or disabled.

-------
                             -V-
     At this time, the EPA does not have any final plans to
ban leaded gasoline, but will continue to aggressively evaluate
both the health effects of lead and the potential for engine
damage from such an action.  EPA will continue to monitor the
lead content of leaded gasoline and will hold a workshop to
discuss issues concerning valve protection for agricultural
engines and the appropriateness of EPA's definition of leaded
gasoline.

     In addition to the workshop, EPA will continue to review
data developed by the manufacturers of non-lead alternative
valve lubricating additives and will meet with selected
specialists and other interested persons to review the test
data and identify ways to determine the efficacy of non-lead
additives.

     EPA will emphasize that engines designed for leaded gasoline
will operate satisfactorily on unleaded gasoline at light
loads, and low speeds, and that many (those with hard steel
valve seats) will also operate satisfactorily on unleaded
gasoline at any speed or load.

     EPA will publicize information on engines at risk and
issue recommendations on preventing valve-seat wear should
leaded gasoline be unavailable.  EPA will seek the assistance
of the USDA in disseminating such information.  EPA has
consistently provided guidance to individual inquiries and
will continue to do so.

-------
I.  INTRODUCTION



     On March 1, 1985,  the Environmental  Protection Agency



(EPA) issued a Final Rule promulgating a  low-lead standard



of 0.10 gram of lead per gallon of leaded gasoline (gplg)



effective January 1, 1986, and an interim standard of 0.50



gplg effective on July  1, 1985.  In addition,  a proposal  to



ban leaded gasoline as  early as January 1, 1988 was announced



in a supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.  Throughout



the lead phasedown program, concern has been raised that



low-lead or unleaded gasoline may cause valve-seat recession



in engines designed to  operate on leaded  gasoline.  Since



there are large numbers of older engines  in the farm community



that use leaded gasoline, the effect of the tighter lead



phasedown standard and  the proposal to ban leaded gasoline



raised a great deal of  concern.  Section 1765 of the Food



Security Act of 1985, (Pub. L. No. 99-198, Section 1765,  99



Stat. 1354, 1653 (1985)) (Act) required the EPA to jointly



conduct a study with the U.S. Department  of Agriculture



(USDA) on the use of fuel with and without lead additives,



and with alternative non-lead lubricating additives, in



agricultural engines designed to operate on leaded gasoline.



     In addition, the Act required that EPA, following issuance



of the study, conduct a public hearing, solicit public comments,



and submit a report to  the President and the Congress with



findings and recommendations on the need for lead additives



in gasoline to be used  on the farm for farming  purposes.

-------
                             -2-





     This report summarizes the study and public comments,



identifies agricultural engines that would be at risk if operated



on unleaded gasoline, discusses actions to be taken by the



EPA, and outlines potential solutions to prevent valve-seat



recession when leaded gasoline is no longer generally available



to farmers.

-------
                             -3-





 II.  SUMMARY OF JOINT STUDY



     The Joint EPA-USDA study consisted of three parts:



Engine Dynamometer Testing,  a Farm Engine-use Survey and a



Cylinder Head Survey.  The work for all three parts of the



study was completed mostly in calendar year 1986.  Dynamometer



testing started in June 1986 and was completed in early 1987.



The farm engine-use and cylinder head surveys were performed



in 1986.  The total contracting cost was $830,000.  Considerable



time was spent in the oversight and management of the study



by EPA and USDA officials.



     In addition, technical advice and oversight were provided



by two outside consultants to insure testing was performed



appropriately.  The consultants commented on the original



program design, visited the test facility on several occasions



and consulted on major program decisions throughout the study.



     The farm equipment engines tested in the study were



selected by the USDA and confirmed with industry experts



regarding their acceptability in this type of a program.  EPA



selected a recreational vehicle (RV) type engine for testing



due to the concern expressed by RV owners related to potential



valve-seat recession if operated on unleaded fuel.  Appendix  1,



the joint EPA-USDA study and the contractor's report,  contains



additional information about the engines tested.

-------
                              -4-





      The dynamometer  testing  for  the  tractor  and  combine



 engines was designed  to reflect a full  range  of tractor and



 combine use conditions.  The  duty cycle for  tractors/combines



 was  selected after  consultation with  industry and agricultural



 experts as well as  representatives from universities  and



 USDA.   The farm truck duty cycle  represented  normal conditions



 for  farm trucks larger than one-ton capacity.  The RV duty



 cycle  was developed to represent  typical RV  engine operation.



      The study  analyzed the potential  for  mechanical  problems,



 including valve-seat  wear,  that may result from using various



 gasoline fuels  in farm machinery,  in  summary, engine dynamometer



 testing found that  the engines generally performed satisfactorily



 on low-lead gasoline  at the 0.10  gram  per  leaded  gallon  (gplg)



 standard.



     The study  also found  that medium-  and high-speed engines



 with soft  valve seats and  some high-speed  truck engines with



 induction  hardened  cast-iron  or soft steel valve  seats will



 experience  excessive  valve-seat wear if operated  exclusively



 on unleaded  gasoline.   Non-lead alternative  lubricating



 additives  were  found  to reduce, and in  one instance completely



 eliminate,  valve-seat  recession when used  in  a high enough



 concentration in the  unleaded gasoline.   Appendix 1 has



 additional  information  about  duty cycles used  and test results.



     The Farm Engine-Use Survey conducted  by  the  USDA National



 Agricultural Statistics  Service determined the number and



 use patterns of agricultural machinery  on  farms.   The survey



obtained  information  about  tractors, combines, and trucks.

-------
                             -5-





The survey showed 2.6 million tractors  on farms in 1985 were



powered by diesel engines.   The survey  also showed that in



1985 there were 1.8 million gasoline-powered tractors,  271,000



gasoline-powered combines and 750,000 gasoline-powered  trucks



with greater than 1-ton capacity  being  used on farms.   The



survey also showed that about 42  percent  of the gasoline-powered



tractors are used exclusively in  light-duty tasks and  therefore



have little risk of valve-seat recession.  All combine  engines



receive hard use and trucks receive a range of light to hard



uses.



     The Radian Corporation conducted the Cylinder Head Survey



which showed that 33 percent of all gasoline-powered tractors



may have hard valve seats.   These would not be vulnerable to



valve-seat recession.



     On April 28, 1987 the EPA issued a Federal Register notice



announcing the availability of the Joint EPA-USDA study that



presented data on the testing which had been recently completed



at the National  Institute for Petroleum and Energy Research



(NIPER).  The Federal Register notice also solicited responses



on the following specific questions:



     1.  Suitability of the engine tests:



       (a)  Were the number and types of engines  tested



adequate to assess valve-seat recession on  farm machinery?



       (b)  What is the suitability of the  duty  cycles  used



and application  of the test results  to actual  in-use conditions?



       (c)  What is the adequacy of  0.10 gplg  of  gasoline to



protect farm machinery from valve-seat recession?

-------
                              -6-

        (d)   What is the potential usefulness of non-lead
 additives to protect engines from valve-seat recession or
 other problems which may occur if the engines are operated
 with unleaded fuel?
      2.   The GM 292 engine experienced most of its recession
 during the  unleaded fuel test in cylinders number 5 and 6.
 Is  there  anything in the design of this engine that would
 cause these cylinders to recede more than others?  Does the
 problem relate to the cooling system, carburetion system
 and/or valve train design?  Would these designs be considered
 typical of  other truck engines used for farming purposes?
      3.   The unleaded test results showed little or no recession
 on  tractor  engines which did not have valve rotators,  while
                                                             • .*>
 other  engines tested which used valve rotators showed  substantial
 recession.   If engines were designed to use valve rotators
 and  they  were removed, what effect on engine performance or
 durability  would result?  What is the importance of valve
 rotators  regarding valve-seat recession?
      4.   valve-guide wear  appeared to increase while operating
 on unleaded  fuel.   Were  the increases experienced typical  of
 valve-guide  wear  during  200 hours of use?   Would one expect
 the wear  to  continue if  additional hours were accumulated  or
 was this  wear  due  to initial  break-in of the guides?  What
performance  problems would  be expected  with the level  of
valve-guide  wear  found in  this  study?

-------
                             -7-





    5.  The GM 292-A engine,  when tested  on 0.10  gplg  gasoline,



experienced a head gasket problem and  an  increase in recession.



Can the intake and exhaust valve-seat  recession before and



after the gasket was replaced be attributable to  the head



gasket problem?  In general,  is a head gasket failure  likely



to cause valve-seat recession?



    6.  What other problems may contribute to valve-seat



recession besides fuel type?   Specifically address the role



of air-fuel ratio and the role of other factors that affect



heat in the engine.



    7.  During the additive testing, increases in sodium,



sulfur, and phosphorus content in the  oil were experienced.



Will these elevated levels have an impact on engine components



or performance?



    8.  Additives tested increased deposits in the combustion



chamber and on the valves.  What effect might these deposits



have on engines?



    9.  Two additives demonstrated an ability to  reduce  valve-



seat recession.  Are there any other additives that may  also



reduce recession?



    10.  Other parameters measured, including valve spring



force and height, showed greater changes  from  their original



levels when operated on unleaded gasoline  than when operated



on leaded gasoline.  Were any of these changes outside  acceptable



limits?  What performance problems  would  be  expected  if  any?



What is the normal deterioration of valve spring force  and



height?

-------
                             -8-
     11.  Other factors to be considered:
         (a)  what  is the cost of rebuilding engines to repair
valve assemblies due to valve recession?
         (b)  HOW much wear can a valve seat withstand before
the cylinder head  will need to be replaced or valve-seat
inserts  installed?  Is this amount of wear normally limited
by available material in the valve-seat area or by the amount
of valve lash adjustment available?
         (c)  What  is the future availability and cost of non-lead
additives to protect engines against valve-seat recession?
         (d)  What  is the assessment of future sales and prices
of leaded gasoline?
         (e)  How viable (availability, safety, and cost) are
leaded additives marketed in consumer-sized packages?

-------
                             -9-

III.  SUMMARY OP COMMENTS
     Commenters at the public hearings included local and
national farm groups, individual farmers, state governments,
equipment manufacturers, refiners, farm co-ops, additive
manufacturers and fleet operators.  (See Appendix 2 for a
list of commenters and their affiliations.)
     The majority of the written comments were from individuals
that own trucks, recreational vehicles, farm equipment, boats
or automobiles that were designed to use leaded gasoline.
Written comments were also received from the Lubrizol Corporation
and the International Society for VEHICLE Preservation  (ISVP),
which had also testified at the public hearings.  in addition,
the American Petroleum Institute, Sun Refining and Marketing
Company, local governments, state extension services and other
additive manufacturers submitted written comments.  A  listing
of the commenters is in Appendix 2.
     In addition to the comments from various organizations,
EPA also received comments from nearly  600  individuals.who
also asked EPA not to ban leaded gasoline.  Some commenters
requested an increase in the allowable  lead level  from
0.10 gplg to as high as 0.50 gplg.  Others  felt  that the EPA
should do more testing to both  identify which  engines  are  at
risk, as well as to provide a solution  for  the  farmers in
terms of an alternative valve lubricant to  lead.

-------
                              -10-





      The major reasons given by commenters for not banning



 leaded gasoline were that it costs a great deal to replace



 or repair recreational vehicles and farm equipment, and that



 most older equipment which uses leaded gasoline is located



 in areas that are not heavily populated, and therefore, that



 the health benefits of a lead ban would be limited.



      Table 1 is a breakdown of the types of equipment  owned by



 the individuals which submitted comments.   The percentages



 refer  only to individuals and do not reflect the number of



 organizations which have commented, such as the American



 Farm Bureau Federation.





                           TABLE 1



      Type of Equipment              % of Comments



      Recreational Vehicle               61%



      Farm                               14%



     Car                                  4%



     Truck                                3%



     RV,  Farm and Truck                  16%



     Boat                                 1%



     Miscellaneous                        1%





Response  to  Questions



     The  following  comments  are  responses  to the 11 questions



raised in the Federal  Register  notice announcing availability



of the test  results.

-------
                             -11-

  1.  Suitability of Engine Tests:
Question:  (a)  Were the number and  types of engines tested
adequate to assess valve-seat recession on farm machinery?

Comments:  (1)   American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF)  - the
engines selected for the study are  representative of those
found on farms.
     (2)  ISVP - the number and types of engines tested were
not adequate.
     (3)  Lubrizol Corporation (Lubrizol)  - the selection of
engine types is reasonable, although too few repeat tests on
fuels were run.
     (4)  Polar Molecular Corporation (Polar Molecular) - the
types of engines tested were adequate.
     (5)  Professor Lien (Purdue University) - the number of
engines tested was not sufficient to assure statistical
reliability.     ft
     (6)  Indiana'1 Farm Bureau, Inc. - too few engines were
tested, and the tests were not of sufficient duration.
     (7)  Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association,  Inc. -
the engine selection was not representative of farm machinery
designed for leaded gasoline.

Response:  The Agency agrees that repeat  tests on  engines
would have been desirable, and that if more engines types
were tested, we would have a higher statistical  reliability
of the data.  Unfortunately, we  were  constrained  by time and
cost factors and could not increase the  scope  of  the  testing.

-------
                              -12-
 We believe  the  testing  that  was  performed, while  not  conducted
 on a large  engine sample/  provided  reliable  information on
 the effects of  particular  fuels  on  engines designed for leaded
 gasoline.
 Question:   (b)   What  is the  suitability  of the duty cycles used
 and application of the  test  results to actual in-use  conditions?

 Comments:   (1)   Congressman  Tauke - the  cycle could be an
 underestimate if reports are correct that the test was not
 run at  a high enough  stress  level compared to actual  use.  In
 addition/ the cycle used was an  old test that required engines
 to run  at low engine  speeds,  which  results in low wear rates.
      (2)  AFBF  - the  duty  cycles used during the  study fairly
 represent actual farm use.
      (3)  ISVP  - the  tests were  in  the low and low-medium
 range of the duty cycle/ and thus inconclusive.               *
      (4)  Ethyl  Corporation  (Ethyl)  - the tests are insufficiently
 rigorous to predict that premature  valve failure  will not
 result  from the  use of  gasoline  containing only 0.10  gplg.
 The  test conditions are not  rigorous enough to predict engine
 performance under a variety  of actual operating conditions.
     (5)  Polar  Molecular -  the  high ends of the  duty cycles
were representative of how engines  may be used.   The  low end
and  idle conditions which are prevalent  95 percent of the
time that such engines are operated  is not represented at all.

-------
                             -13-





     (6)  TK-7 Corporation (TK-7) - a little  broader range of



tests should be performed with more hours.  The  tests should



be run at 70-80 percent of maximum power,  not 40-50 percent.





Response:  Tractor and combine engines were run  at the governor



speed, not a low engine speed.  The duty cycle was not intended



to be the harshest cycle one could imagine, rather it was



meant to represent the typical parameters  of  medium and



heavy in-use operations.  The farm truck and  RV  cycles were



developed to be representative of engines  in-use.   The cycles



included light and heavy modes.  Therefore, we believe that the



test results are valid.





Question:  (c)  What is the adequacy of 0.10  gplg of gasoline



to protect farm machinery from valve-seat recession?





Comments:  (1)  Congressman Tauke - if the lead  levels are



less than 0.10 gplg, farmers would have problems.



     (2)  AFBF - wear levels could be reduced to acceptable



levels in all engines with the use of low-lead gasoline.



The 0.10 gram per gallon standard will give the needed margin



of protection for older farm equipment.  The  0.10 gplg is  the



minimum amount needed to protect older engines.



     (3)  ISVP - stated that a number of engines would have



a tendency to fail under hard use even at  concentrations  of



1.1 gplg, and asked the rhetorical question  "can you imagine



what is going to happen when  they have only  .1 gplg  to protect



them?"  ISVP recommended a minimum standard  of 0.10  gplg.

-------
                              -14-

      (4)   Ethyl - disagrees with EPA-USDA report that gasoline
 containing only 0.10 gplg provides adequate protection to
 exhaust valve seats.  The 0.10 gplg level is required in
 engines operating under moderate conditions.  The 0.10 gplg
 level helps,  but does not fully protect engines  operating
 under moderate to severe conditions.   The 0.10 gplg  level
 plus methylcyclopentadienyl manganese  tricarbonyl (MMT) I/
 at  a concentration of 0.10 gram per gallon of manganese will
 protect valve seats under severe operating conditions.
      (5)   Lubrizol - from the data developed only general
 trends  can be drawn.
      (6)   Polar Molecular - 0.10 gplg  is adequate to protect
 farm machinery from valve-seat recession except  in very
 extreme operating conditions.
      (7)   Indiana Farm Bureau,  inc.  -  the EPA-USDA test
 indicates  that 0.10 gplg is adequate for engine  valve protection,
      (8)   National Council of Farmer Cooperatives -  0.10 gplg
 proved  satisfactory for  the engines  tested.
      (9)   E.I.  DuPont  de Nemours and Company (DuPont)  -
 0.10  gplg  has  not been adequately demonstrated to preclude
 valve-seat damage  at normal service conditions.   The minimum
 should  be  0.20  gplg  for  every gallon to avert valve-seat
damage  at moderate  to  severe  conditions.
  I/ MMT is a manganese compound which enhances octane and
appears to reduce valve-seat recession when used  in combination
with lead.

-------
                             -15-
     (10)  Professor Lien (Purdue University)  - the 0.10 gplg
level is marginal; it would take care of most  engines studied
without causing undue wear and damage to the engine.  A level
of 0.20 gplg is probably needed to protect all engines.
     (11)  Navistar international - a significant number of
failures will occur in older engines designed  for leaded
gasoline if lead content is restricted to 0.10 gplg.  Recommend
a minimum lead level of 0.20 gplg.
     (12)  Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association, Inc. -
cannot be sure that 0.10 gplg will be adequate to protect
farm equipment.  We interpret the data to say that it is not
and request that the lead limit on leaded gasoline be set at
0.25 gplg until risk can be minimized.
     (13)  Indiana Beef Cattle Association - 0.10 gplg is
satisfactory.
     (14)  Union Oil Company of California (Unocal) - lead
levels below 0.10 gplg will not adequately protect non-hardened
valve seats in engines run under severe conditions.  Under
more moderate conditions 0.10 gplg is adequate.

Response:  As previously stated, the duty cycles were  chosen
to represent the range of operating conditions normally
encounted in agricultural service.  Certain extremely  severe
conditions may exist for which  0.10 gplg  would not  be  enough
to eliminate valve-seat recession.  However,  for most  engines
and operating conditions the data demonstrate that  0.10 gplg
will be adequate.

-------
                              -16-
 Question:   (d)   What  is  the  potential  usefulness of non-lead
 additives  to protect  engines from  valve-seat  recession or
 other  problems  which  may occur  if  the  engines are operated
 with  unleaded fuel?   (Also see  questions  7 and 8).
 Comments:   (1)   AFBF  - the study failed to produce much good
 news  relating to the  use of  additives  to  replace lead.  The
 AFBF does  not feel that  lead substitute additives are currently
 an  acceptable alternative for farmers  and ranchers.
      (2)   ISVP  - Lubrizol has provided new data showing
 positive results for  their "PowerShield"  additive.
      (3)   Lubrizol -  new data on their additive contradicts
 EPA-USDA results and  shows that it protects engines from
 valve-seat  recession  at  Lubrizol's recommended concentration.
 In  addition,  Lubrizol states that  three U.S. Original Equipment
 Manufacturers (OEM) have confirmed satisfactory performance at
 Lubrizol's  recommended concentration.  (The OEM's were not
 identified  in the comments submitted by Lubrizol.  Follow-up
 checks revealed  that  only one of the OEM's did any testing
 and only two  of  the three OEM's are recommending using the
 additive at this time.)
     (4)  Polar  Molecular -  reported they have an additive
 that proved effective in  tests the company had conducted.
     (5)  Unocal -  DuPont's additive, DMA-4, at the
 recommended concentrations in unocal's anti-wear additive
 known as valve Saver, is  equal to or better than 0.10 gplg
for control of exhaust valve-seat recession.

-------
                             -17-
     (6)  National Council of Farmer Cooperatives - testing of
alternative additives to date does not show conclusively that any
alternative to lead would perform the valve lubricating function.
     (7)  Indiana Farm Bureau, inc. - no additive tested to replace
lead gave an adequate measure of protection.
     (8)  Indiana Beef Cattle Association - none of the additives
tested gave an adequate measure of protection.
     (9)  American Petroleum institute - the study's conclusion,
that some older engines may benefit from the addition of lead or
equivalent additive treatment, appears consistent with other
test results reported in the technical literature.
     (10)  Professor Lien (Purdue university) - the two
additives did not measure up to the performance of the lead
additive in controlling valve-seat recession.
     (11)  Iowa Secretary of Agriculture - research and
testing should be conducted and encouraged for an alternative
acceptable additive.

Response - Although important questions remain unanswered about
the additives, the study found that they reduced valve-seat
recession and thus have significant potential as substitutes
for lead.  EPA will continue to review manufacturers' data
and will meet with interested persons to review the test data
and identify ways to determine the efficacy of non-lead
additives.

-------
                             -18-
 Question:   2.   The  GM  292  engine experienced most of its
 recession  during  the unleaded  fuel test in cylinders number
 5  and  6.   Is  there  anything  in the design of this engine that
 would  cause these cylinders  to recede more than others?  Does
 the problem relate  to  the  cooling system, carburetion system
 and/or  valve  train  design?   Would these designs be considered
 typical of other  truck engines used for farming purposes?
 Comments:   (1)  Professor  Lien (Purdue University) - the
 reason  for the  valve-seat  recession during the unleaded fuel
 test in cylinders 5 and 6  of the GM 292 engine could be
 caused  by many  things.  Some of which may be:
     a.  Restricted coolant  flow for some reason in the head
 and block around  these two cylinders.
     b.  Variable air/fuel (A/F) ratio due to restrictions
 in the  intake manifold serving  these two cylinders.
     c.  Possibly the exhaust  manifold may have restrictions
providing high  exhaust temperatures in those two cylinders.
     d.  This condition cannot be considered typical without
testing additional engines of  the same type.
Response:  The  causes of the valve recession in cylinders
5 and 6 are still unknown, but could possibly be the result of
variations in A/F ratios and temperature, or other factors
unrelated to the usage of unleaded gasoline.

-------
                             -19-
Question:  3.  The unleaded test results showed little or no
recession on tractor engines which did not have valve rotators,
while other engines tested which used valve rotators showed
substantial recession.  If engines were designed to use valve
rotators and they were removed, what effect on engine performance
or durability would result?  What is the importance of valve
rotators regarding valve-seat recession?

Comments:  (1)  ISVP - valve recession will occur quicker on
engines with rotators when run on unleaded gasoline.
     (2)  Professor Lien (Purdue University) - removing the
valve rotators would be beneficial with the use of unleaded
fuel unless an additive with lubricating properties for
unleaded fuel was developed.

Response:  The comments are consistent with EPA's opinion.

Question:  4.  valve-guide wear appeared to increase while
operating on unleaded fuel.  Were the increases experienced
typical of valve-guide wear during 200 hours of use?  Would
one expect the wear to continue if additional hours were
accumulated or was this wear due to initial break-in of the
guides?  What performance problems would be expected with  the
level of valve-guide wear found in this study?

Comment:  (1)  Professor Lien (Purdue university) -  the
increased valve-guide wear while operating  on unleaded fuel
could be caused by the lack of lubricating  properties  of  the
leaded fuel.

-------
                              -20-


 Response:   Insufficient  information  was  submitted  to  reach

 any  conclusions  different  than  what  was  in  the study, namely

 that unleaded  fuel  resulted  in  some  increased valve-guide wear.


 Question:   5.  The  GM  292-A  engine,  when  tested on  0.10 gplg

 gasoline,  experienced  a  head gasket  problem and an  increase

 in recession.  Can  the intake and exhaust valve-seat  recession

 before  and  after  the gasket  was replaced  be attributable to

 the  head gasket  problem?   in general,  is  a  head gasket failure

 likely  to  cause  valve-seat recession?


 Comments:   None


 Response:   It  is  inconclusive whether  the head gasket failure

 caused  the  valve-seat  recession.  Since  the head gasket

 failed  at  about  the time recession occurred on the  GM 292A

 engine, it  may have contributed to the valve-seat  recession.

 Excessive heat may contribute significantly to valve-seat

 recession.  The head gasket  failure  is one  factor  which

 could cause excessive heat.   EPA ran another GM 292 engine

 on 0.10 gplg.  This second engine (with  no  gasket  problems)

 showed  little or no valve-seat  recession  using 0.10 gplg.   -•

                                                           bli
 Question:   6.  What other problems may contribute  to  valve-seat

 recession besides fuel type?  Specifically  address  the role

of air-fuel ratio and the role  of other  factors that  affect

heat in the engine.

-------
                             -21-
Comments:  (1)   Professor  Lien (Purdue  University)  -  other
problems that may contribute  to valve-seat  recession  besides
fuel type may be:
       a.  Engine speed,  i.e., frequency of valve opening and
closing.
       b.  Height and contour of cam  on the camshaft  indicating
how high the valve is lifted  by the cam and how fast  it  closes.
       c.  Strength of valve  spring and ability to  conduct  heat
away from the valve guide.
       d.  Very lean mixture.
       e.  Possibly detonation.
     (2)  ISVP - humidity,  altitude and temperature could affect
valve-seat recession.
     (3)  Lubrizol - other  items which  affect valve-seat
recession besides fuel type are:  preparation/grinding of
valves and seats, hardness/metallurgy of seats, head  casting
uniformity, heat transfer  through  individual valves/seats,
use of valve rotators, exhaust valve  temperature,  air/fuel
ratio, speed/load, ignition timing, exhaust gas recirculation
(EGR) rate and valve spring loading.
     (4)  Winsert, Inc. (a valve-seat-insert manufacturer)  -
recession is not only dependent upon  the hardness of the valve
seat but also the chemistry and metallurgical composition of
the seat area and the hot-hardness (i.e., the hardness measured
when the metal is hot).  High combustion chamber temperature
is a critical factor in determining valve-seat wear.

-------
                              -22-
 Response:   EPA agrees  that  a  number of design and operating
 factors  probably  contribute to  valve-seat  recession.
 Question:   7.   During  the additive testing,  increases in sodium,
 sulfur,  and phosphorus content  in the oil  were experienced.
 Will  these  elevated  levels  have an impact  on engine components
 or performance?
      (1)  ISVP -  the increase in the oil of sodium, sulfur
 and phosphorus will  not have a  negative impact.
      (2)  Lubrizol - there  were no adverse effects with
 respect  to  cleanliness or wear  or oil deterioration due to
 increased sodium  levels.  Sulfur increase  was less than what
 is typically found in gasoline.  Phosphorus is not present
 in the additive and  should  not  increase in the oil.
      (3)  Professor  Lien (Purdue University) - recommendations
 resulting from a  cleaned up, OEM equipped  engine in the
 laboratory  cannot be translated directly to the farm tractor
 in the field with several hundred hours operation since
overhaul.   Extensive tests  above and beyond those reported in
the EPA and EPA-USDA reports should be conducted to determine
the additive effect of elevated levels of  sodium, sulfur and
phosphorus  in  the crankcase oil on engine  components and/or
performance.

-------
                             -23-
     (4)  Polar Molecular - concerned that sodium,  sulfur
and phosphorus in the two additives tested could cause
corrosive wear, especially in engines that are operated at
heavy duty infrequently and have long periods of intermittent
light use or storage.  The presence of sodium would be expected
to enhance water retention in the crankcase oil, which could
increase corrosive wear of cylinders and rings.

Response:  The comments are varied, ranging from no adverse
impact to possible corrosion.  The range of comments precludes
making definitive conclusions.  Additional testing  by the
manufacturers is warranted.

Question:  8.  Additives tested increased deposits  in the
combustion chamber and on the valves.  What effect  might
these deposits have on engines?

Comments:  (1)  Lubrizol - evaluation to the equivalent of
10,000 miles in a variety of engine dynamometer and vehicle
tests did not indicate any concern for secondary effects with
respect to emissions, octane requirement, spark plug fouling,
general engine cleanliness or used oil properties.
     (2)  Professor Lien (Purdue University) - deposits  could
cause the compression ratio to be increased, the valve may  not
close properly and deposits forming in the valve guide could
also cause valve sticking with ultimate valve  failure.

-------
                              -24-
      (3)   Polar  Molecular  -  deposits  would  create  additional
 octane  requirement,  increased hydrocarbon emissions  and may
 cause exhaust-valve  burning.
      (4)   Unocal - tests conducted  by Unocal  on  the  DuPont
 Additive  (DMA-4)  showed  the  additive  did not  increase octane
 requirement.   During Unocal1s testing no problems  associated
 with intake valve deposits were  observed.   According to
 Unocal, data  supplied by DuPont  indicate that the  effect of
 DMA-4 on  intake  valve deposits when tested  in the  Opal Intake
 System  is  to  decrease deposits when the concentration of
 DMA-4 is  increased.

 Response:  Combustion chamber deposits can  cause Octane
 Requirement increase (ORI).   During the testing  at NIPER
 combustion chamber deposits  were observed but it is  not clear
 from the testing  whether the deposits would significantly
 alter octane  requirements.   During  the testing of  the DuPont
 additive one  intake  valve  was unable  to close completely and
 was beginning to  burn.  The  full implications of the deposits,
 including the potential for  eliminating them,  are  not known.

 Question:  9.  Two additives  demonstrated an  ability to reduce
 valve-seat recession.  Are there any  other  additives that may
 also reduce recession?

Comments:  (1)  Ethyl - 0.1  gram of lead plus 0.1  gram of
MMT per  leaded gallon will protect  engines  against valve-seat
recession during  severe duty  cycles.

-------
                             -25-
     (2)  Two other manufacturers of additives (Polar Molecular
and TK-7) asserted that their products, Duralt and TK-7
respectively, would also reduce valve-seat recession.
     (3)  National Council of Farmer Cooperatives - urged
EPA, OSDA and private industry to continue testing alternative
additives.
Response:  EPA will continue to review data submitted by the
manufacturers.  At this time, EPA has data on the two additives
tested in the EPA-USDA study and from Lubrizol, Unocal (Dupont
additive), Ethyl (lead plus MMT), and TK-7-
Question:  10.  Other parameters measured, including valve
spring force and height, showed greater changes from their
original levels when operated on unleaded gasoline than when
operated on leaded gasoline.  Were any of these changes
outside acceptable limits?  What performance problems would be
expected if any?  What is the normal deterioration of valve
spring force and height?

Comments:  (1)  ISVP -  hundreds of thousands of engines
would need to be looked at to determine if the wear  found in
EPA's program is atypical.  Additional research and  funding
is requested from Congress.
     (2)  Professor Lien (Purdue University) - excessive
heat may also affect valve springs.

-------
                              -26-
 Response:   Not  enough  information  was  submitted to reach any
 conclusions.

 Question:   11.   other  factors to be  considered:
      (a)   What  is  the  cost  of rebuilding  engines to repair
 valve assemblies due to  valve recession?
 Comments:   (1)   ISVP - cost of  rebuilding an engine to repair
 valve-seat damage  is from $1200-$1800.
      (2)   Polar  Molecular - cost to  repair valve assemblies
 may be $500.  Although,  cost  of repairing an engine that's
 suffered damage  due to corrosive wear  is more like $1000-$2000,
      (3)   Professor Lien (Purdue University) - costs to
 service valves on  a 4-cylinder  engine  would be $250-$300 for
 the machine shop.  An  additional cost  of $500 or more for
 removing and replacing the  cylinder  head from the engine,
 transportation to  and  from  the machine shop, or other related
 charges is to be expected.

 Response:  EPA concurs that the cost to repair valve-seat
 recession can be as high as $2,000.  If the valve seats were
 replaced at the time of  a scheduled general overhaul, then
 hard steel valve seats could  be installed at an additional
 cost of a few dollars per cylinder.
 Question:  (b)  How much wear can a valve seat withstand
before the cylinder head will need to be replaced or valve-
seat inserts installed?  is this amount of wear normally

-------
                             -27-

limited by available material in the valve-seat area or by
the amount of valve lash adjustment available?
Comment:  (1)  ISVP - there are too many variables to
accurately say how much valve-seat wear an engine can take.
Response:  Not enough information was submitted to reach any
new conclusions.  Information from engine manufacturers presented
in the joint EPA-USDA report indicates that a valve-seat overhaul
likely would be needed after 75 to 200 thousandths of an inch
of valve-seat recession, and some engines require valve
adjustments after every 15 thousandths of an inch of wear.

Question:  (c)  What is the future availability and cost of
non-lead additives to protect engines against valve-seat
recession?

Comments:  (1)  ISVP - non-lead additives are expensive when
they must be added by the consumer.  If they are to be used,
ISVP thinks they should be added to bulk gasoline.
     (2)  Polar Molecular - non-lead additives will be available.

Response:  Additives which are sold in consumer-sized packages
increase the price per gallon of gasoline between 6 cents/gallon
to 39 cents/gallon.  If the additives are introduced into bulk
gasoline, the price increase could range from  1  cent/gallon  to  22
cents/gallon.

Question:  (d)  What is the assessment of future sales  and
prices of leaded gasoline?

-------
                              -28-





 Comments:   (1)   ISVP - the  price of  leaded gasoline will



 slowly creep up.   By January 1,  1989,  the majority of gasoline



 with  an exhaust  valve anti-wear additive will  be off the market.



      (2)   Crown  Central Petroleum  Corporation  (Crown) - will



 continue  to sell  leaded gasoline as  long as  it is economically



 feasible  and customer demand is sufficient.



      (3)   Polar  Molecular - as the volume of leaded sales



 declines  the price will go  up accordingly, but shouldn't be



 prohibitive to the farmer,-  since he  could use  it only when he



 really needs protection.



      (4)   Sun Refining and  Marketing Company - attrition of



 such  engines has  already regionalized  leaded sales.  Lead in



 urban areas will  diminish without  regulation.   The sale of



 leaded gasoline will  continue to fade.



      (5)   National Council  of Farmer Cooperatives - thinks



 the refineries they  are familiar with,  like  the cooperative



 refinery in McPherson,  Kansas, will  continue to supply low-lead



 gasoline as  long  as  the demand is  there.  They think that



Williams Pipeline  will  continue to allow low-lead gasoline



 to flow through its  system.   However,  there's  going to be a



point  in time when the  demand will drop so low that they



 can't  afford  to have  the product in  inventory  or we may not



be willing  to pay  the  price  to either  have that product



refined and/or transported.   Sales of  leaded gasoline depend



on economics.  We don't really know  how long leaded gasoline



will be available.  Availability of  leaded gasoline is heavily



dependent on how  long  it is  carried  by the interstate pipelines.

-------
                             -29-





     (6)   Coastal Refining and Marketing Central Region,



Coastal Mart, inc., Central Region,  Derby Refining Company



Central Region - will continue to sell low lead regular gasoline



to our wholesale distribution network, as well as our retail



stations and stores until consumer demand diminishes sufficiently



to make marketing of leaded gasoline unprofitable.  Coastal



would probably discontinue when leaded sales become 10-15 percent



     (7)   Crown - staying in the leaded business depends on



the demand, pipeline batch requirements, and actions of major



refiners.  It is unlikely that Crown would sell leaded gasoline



if it were not available from the pipelines.  The prices of



leaded and unleaded are coming together on the wholesale level.



     (8)   Southern States Cooperative - it would be very



difficult to supply leaded if market conditions ended the



supply from pipelines.  Would not be against blending lead



themselves, but it is not likely.



     (9)   Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association,  inc. -



the price of leaded and unleaded is starting to stabilize.



If leaded gasoline were no longer available from pipelines



they would make it available if it could be justified from



the standpoint of economics.





Response:  It appears that while leaded gasoline volume  will



be declining there will probably be leaded gasoline  available



for areas where the demand is greatest.  Availability  in



particular regions may depend on the willingness  of  pipelines



to ship the product.  The wholesale price of  regular  leaded

-------
                              -30-
 gasoline is now generally greater  than that  of  regular unleaded
 gasoline, and EPA expects this  to  be  ultimately reflected  in
 the retail prices.

 Question:  (e)   HOW viable (availability,  safety, and cost)
 are leaded additives marketed in consumer-sized packages?

 Comments:  (1)   DuPont  -  DuPont will  not sell tetraethyl
 lead to anyone  planning to blend and  package lead antiknocks
 in  a consumer-sized container or planning  to resell antiknocks
 for this purpose.
      (2)   ISVP  - cost for leaded additives in consumer-sized
 packages should not exceed $2.95 a quart (usually enough to
 treat  20 gallons).   Prom  a health  point of view, lead should
 not  be  on the market as a consumer additive.
      (3)   Ethyl  - for more than 50 years,  Ethyl  Corporation
 has  sold  and  distributed  its  lead anitknocks only to those
 companies properly  trained and  equipped to handle the chemical.
 Due  to  the  potential health risks, Ethyl Corporation will
 continue  to sell its tetraethyl lead  and Ethyl  MMT Antiknock
 Compound  only to refiners  and blenders.  Ethyl  Corporation
 does not  intend to  extend  its metallic antiknock markets to
 include sales for use in  consumer-sized packages,  sales of
 lead in concentrated canned additives are  expensive, inconvenient
and subject to consumer misapplication.
                                                            ••, . :.»
     (4)  Polar Molecular - lead is not the sort of product
you want  to handle  in a consumer package.

-------
                             -31-
Response:  commenters are not favorable to providing lead
in a consumer-sized container.  As long as leaded gasoline is
available, there is very little need for such a product.
Based on the comments from Ethyl and DuPont, its general
availability is questionable.  While such products are presently
not regulated, should problems arise, regulatory action would
be considered.

Additional Issues Raised by Commenters
     In addition to the foregoing, the following are major
comments which are not direct responses to questions raised
in the Federal Register notice announcing the study's
availability:

Comment:  1.  DO not ban lead - nearly every comment received
expressed concern over EPA's proposal to ban leaded gasoline.
The commenters indicated they did not want EPA to ban leaded
gasoline since data showed leaded engines would be harmed if
operated on unleaded fuel.

Response:  At this time EPA has no final plans to ban leaded
gasoline.  EPA will continue to evaluate both the health
effects and potential for engine damage from such an action.

Comment:  2.  Require a minimum amount of lead in leaded
gasoline.  DuPont and the State of Iowa provided data that
showed some leaded gasoline  (5-19 percent)  is being sold  with
a lower level of lead than allowed by  the 0.10 gplg standard.

-------
                              -32-
 In  some instances  no  lead  was found  in gasoline being sold as
 leaded.  Because of these  data,  commenters  including USDA,
 Iowa  Secretary of  Agriculture,  Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative
 Association,  Inc.,  ISVP, Marathon  Oil, DuPont, Ethyl, and
 Barley  Davidson commented  that a minimum  lead level should
 be  required.   They differed  somewhat on the level of the
 minimum.   In  addition,  ISVP  suggested a range (both a minimum
 and a maximum)  for each gallon of  leaded gasoline.

 Response:   EPA will continue  to  monitor the lead content of
 leaded  gasoline and will hold a  workshop  to discuss issues
 concerning  valve protection  for  agricultural engines and the
 appropriateness of EPA's definition of leaded gasoline.

 Comment:   3.   Some commenters wanted to increase the average
 lead content  or maximum allowable  lead level.
     (1)   DuPont supports  a  0.20 gplg minimum and 0.25 gplg
maximum.
     (2)  The  ISVP supports a 0.10 gplg minimum, 0.49 gplg
maximum, and an average of 0.225 gplg*
     (3)  Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association, Inc.
supports a lead limit of no less than 0.25  gplg.
     (4)  Women Involved in Farm Economics  (WIFE) supports
retaining a little more than 0.10 gplg.
     (5)  Navistar International supports 0.2 gplg.

-------
                             -33-

     (6)  Marathon Petroleum Company supports a minimum of
0.1 gplg and a maximum of 0.15 gplg.
     (7)  USDA supports a range of 0.10 gplg to 0.15 gplg.
Response:  The EPA-USDA testing showed that 0.10 gplg (the
current standard) is generally adequate to protect engines
from valve-seat recession; therefore, EPA believes that there
is no reason to increase the maximum allowable limit.

Comment:  4.  ISVP commented:
     (1)  EPA should develop an equivalent rating system for
exhaust valve anti-wear additives other than lead.
     (2)  EPA should promulgate regulations requiring posting
at the pump of the equivalent effective exhaust valve anti-wear
additive range.

Response:  The EPA is willing to meet with anyone wishing to
test non-lead additives to evaluate their efficacy and to
help in the design of a testing program.

Comment:  5.  National Council of Farmer Cooperatives commented:
     (1)  EPA and USDA should work together to test alternative
additives.
     (2)  USDA should continue to inform farmers  about this
problem.
     (3)  EPA should avoid taking regulatory  action  that  would
cause the supply of leaded gasoline  to disappear  prematurely.

-------
                              -34-
 Response:   EPA is  willing  to review and  discuss  all  available
 test data  on additives  with the  USDA and additive manufacturers/
 and to assist in the  development of other test programs.  At
 this time  EPA has  no  final  plans to ban  leaded gasoline, and
 will widely disseminate this report and  other information on
 how to reduce valve recession.
 Comment:   6.   Lt.  Governor  John  M.  Mutz,  State of Indiana/
 asked EPA  to keep  the 0.10  gplg  standard until a substitute
 additive is found/ and  indicated that the State  plans on
 conducting a testing  program.
 Response:   At this time EPA has  no  final plans to ban leaded
 gasoline.
 Comment:   7.   Department of Commerce/  State of Indiana/ believes
 a much  more  comprehensive study  should be taken  to examine the
 economic externalities  of this policy.   Specifically/ the Agency
 should  conduct field  tests,  determine  more accurately which
 engines are  at risk using low-lead  and no-lead gasoline/ perform
 a cost  analysis of recession and related  problems/ test more
 engines under high load conditions/  determine the impact of a
 phaseout on  farming style trends and  sort out the additive puzzle.

Response:  EPA agrees that  the study did  not answer  all questions
 related to the need for leaded gasoline.  However/ the suggestions
 listed go well beyond the scope  of  the study required by the
Act.  Nevertheless/ EPA will continue  to  study the issue and

-------
                             -35-

is willing to meet with others to discuss available data on
valve-seat recession and to advise in the development of
testing programs to evaluate additives.

Comment:  8.  Harley Davidson, Inc. said that motorcycles
designed for leaded gasoline will be harmed if operated on
unleaded fuel.

Response:  At this time EPA has no final plans to ban leaded
gasoline.

Comment:  9.  United Parcel Service (UPS) was very much alarmed
by the EPA-USDA results since they have about 49,000 delivery
vehicles powered by engines designed for leaded gasoline.
About 28,000 delivery vehicles are powered by the GM 292
engine.  These trucks carry heavy loads up to 16,000 pounds
per 100 horsepower, and remain in use for many years.

Response:  Some UPS trucks could be damaged by unleaded
gasoline.  At this time EPA has no final plans to ban sales
of leaded gasoline.  Leaded gasoline is likely to be available
long enough that UPS can retrofit most of its engines with
hardened valve seats during scheduled overhauls.

Comment:  10.  Winsert, Inc. agrees that if all engines
convert to non-lead fuel, many will experience valve-seat
recession problems unless the valve seats are replaced  with
better materials or a substitute additive can be  found.

-------
                             -36-





Response:  At this time EPA has no final plans to ban sales



of leaded gasoline.

-------
                             -37-

IV.  U.S DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE COMMENTS:
     The following are comments provided to the EPA by USDA (a
copy of the letter forwarding these comments is in Appendix 3)
USDA requests that EPA should:  1) not ban sales of leaded
gasoline; 2) take steps necessary to assure that companies
continue to sell leaded gasoline to the farming community; 3)
require a range of 0.10-0.15 gram of lead per gallon of
leaded gasoline; and 4) continue testing non-lead additives
or work with others to establish an acceptable procedure for
additive manufacturers to demonstrate overall efficacy of
their products.
     The following are responses to USDA's specific comments:
     1)  The EPA has no final plans to ban leaded gasoline,
but will continue to evaluate health benefits of a ban and
potential damage to older engines from a ban.
     2)  Testimony at the hearings indicated that gasoline
marketers will supply leaded gasoline to those areas where
a large enough demand exists.  Since the farming community
appears to have a continuing demand, the supply of leaded
gasoline to farming areas should continue in the near future.
     3)  EPA will continue to monitor the lead content of
leaded gasoline and will hold a workshop to discuss issues
concerning valve protection for agricultural engines and  the
appropriateness of EPA's definition of leaded gasoline.

-------
                             -38-
     4)  EPA has made a commitment to USDA to stay involved
in resolving the additive question.  EPA is prepared to meet
with USDA and testing and additive experts to both evaluate
the data available from the EPA-USDA program and other testing
programs, and to assist in the development of procedures
which could be used to evaluate the efficacy of additives.

-------
                             -39-
V.  ENGINES AT RISK WITH UNLEADED GASOLINE
     As part of the Joint EPA-USDA Study,  a survey was conducted
by the National Agricultural Statistics Reporting Service of
the USDA.  The survey was intended to determine how many
gasoline-powered tractors, combines and trucks were operating
on the farm and how they are being used.  The survey showed
that 1.8 million tractors, 271,000 combines and 750,000
trucks operated on farms in 1985 were gasoline-powered.
Depending on the valve-seat material and duty cycle of the
engines, many of these engines will be at  some risk of having
valve-seat recession if operated on unleaded gasoline.  The
USDA and a contractor for the EPA contacted industry
representatives in an attempt to determine what materials
were used when these older engines were originally built.
This would help owners identify whether their engines were
at a risk from valve-seat recession.
     Engines that have hard valve-seat inserts, and especially
those with high-quality hard steel inserts, are not likely
to experience excessive valve-seat wear regardless of the
type of gasoline used, or how the engine is used.  Some
tractors were originally built with hard valve-seat inserts.
Information for many tractors was not available.  Based on
available information, USDA determined that the  following
tractors were originally built with hard valve-seat inserts:
       0  All Ford Motor Company agricultural  engines.

-------
                              -40-


         Farmall/international Harvester  H,  M,  Super  H,

         Super M, W-4,  W-6,  W-9,  300,  350,  400,  450,  454,

         464,  544, 574, and  674 (4-cylinder  engines).

      0   All Farmall/lnternational Harvester 6-cylinder  engines.

      0   Most  Minneapolis Moline  engines.

      0   Many  J.I. Case engines.

 Some  of  the tractors built  with  ordinary cast-iron  ("soft")

 exhaust  valve seats  include:

      0   All John Deere engines except  those having heads  built

         for liquid propane  (LP)  engines.^/

      0   Farmall/lnternational Harvester Cub, A,  B, C, Super A,

         Super C,  100,  130,  140,  200,  230,  240,  330,  340,  404,

         424,  444,  and  504,  (60,  113,  123,  135,  146,  and 153 CID

         4-cylinder engines).

 There were  many  other  combine and truck gasoline engines  for

 which EPA was unable to  determine if  they originally had  soft

 or hard  seats.   EPA  would encourage owners  to check  with

 their dealers for specific  information on their  equipment.

     Over the years many engines  have been  rebuilt due  to

 normal wear.   in  that  process valve seats that were originally

 soft may have  been replaced with  harder material, and vice

 versa.  Therefore, a part of  the  EPA-USDA study  was  to  conduct

 a survey of valve-seat material that  is actually in  use currently
  2/ John Deere used stellite  (hard) inserts  in cylinder heads
built for liquid propane gas engines.  Some of these heads also
were used as replacement heads for gasoline engines.  Unleaded
gasoline does not cause excessive wear in heads having stellite
inserts.

-------
                             -41-





in gasoline-powered tractors.   The survey showed that about



one-third of the tractors have hard valve seats (either



originally or after a rebuild) and should be able to operate



satisfactorily on unleaded gasoline.



     Finally, since engines will not  generally suffer valve-



seat recession in light-duty use regardless of seat material



and/or fuel used, the survey included an analysis of the number



of tractors in light-duty use.  The survey showed that 42 percent



of the tractors are used exclusively  in a light-duty operating



condition, and they should be able to operate satisfactorily on



unleaded gasoline regardless of the type of valve-seat material.



     The survey found that 750,000 trucks greater than one-ton



capacity were used on the farm in 1985.  There were approximately



488,000 trucks which were 1972 or earlier model year.  Since



1973, nearly all trucks have been produced with hardened exhaust



valve seats.  Therefore, approximately 262,000 (35 percent)



were produced with hardened exhaust valve seats.  The testing



at NIPER showed that some automotive-type engines used in



combines, trucks, and RV's also may experience excessive



valve-seat recession, even if they have induction hardened



or soft steel valve seats, when operated exclusively on



unleaded gasoline.  Induction hardened valve seats do not



provide as much protection as high-quality hard steel valve-



seat inserts.

-------
                             -42-





     During the testing program at NIPER, it was concluded



that certain engine characteristics, in addition to the hardness



of the valve seat and severity of operation, may contribute to



recession.  These include a lean air/fuel ratio, the presence



of valve rotators, and increased temperature of the coolant.



The implication is that proper maintenance of the carburetor/



fuel system and cooling system can help reduce the risk of



recession.

-------
                             -43-





VI.  AVAILABILITY OF LEADED GASOLINE OR EQUIVALENT ADDITIVES



     A.  The percentage of total gasoline production which is



leaded has been steadily declining.   In 1983 leaded gasoline



represented about 46 percent of the  total U.S.  gasoline



production, while in 1986 it decreased to about 30 percent.



Estimates are that in 1988 leaded gasoline will represent



less than 20 percent of total gasoline production and will



drop to 10 percent in the 1990's. At this level leaded gaso-



line will become a specialty product and will be difficult



to find.  Although, with high enough demand in the farming



community it may be more available in those areas.



     Ethyl Corporation (Ethyl) has indicated that if pipelines



stop carrying leaded product, it would be possible for Ethyl



to truck in a combination of lead plus MMT to be blended at a



terminal.  This would allow for the  development of an alternative



system for the production of leaded  gasoline.



     In the event that leaded gasoline is difficult to find,



there should be some options available to the consumer.  EPA



expects manufacturers to continue to develop additives to



reduce valve-seat recession.  A current list of available



additives is in Appendix 4.



     B.  Lubrizol - Lubrizol's additive has been shown to



stop valve-seat recession.  Some questions remain unanswered



about the proper concentration of the additive and  the long



term impacts of certain engine deposits.  EPA automotive



engine experts do not believe that the deposits will  have  a

-------
                              -44-





 substantial adverse effect on the durability of  farm  equipment,



 although octane demand may be increased  somewhat.   The  Lubrizol



 additive shows considerable promise  as a substitute for  lead



 that can be used by individual vehicle owners.



      C.   Dupont - The testing of  the DuPont  additive  in  the



 EPA-USDA program showed a reduction  in valve-seat  recession



 but  not  complete elimination.  However,  deposits were found on



 intake valves, in the combustion  chamber and in  the lubricating



 oil.   The deposits on one intake  valve did not allow  the valve



 to close completely.   It was beginning to burn,  which would lead



 to valve or valve-seat damage.



      Unocal tests of  the Dupont additive (DMA-4) did  not reveal



 a deposit problem.  Although we believe  that further  testing



 and  development are warranted,  it appears that the  Dupont



 additive may be useful to vehicle owners.



      DuPont also markets a lead-MMT  additive, but  it  is  not



 available in consumer-sized  packages.  The lead-MMT additive



 is available for  bulk sales.



      D.   Ethyl  -  An additive,  HiTEC  1000, produced  by Ethyl,



 is a  mixture  whose  final concentration is 0.10 gram of  lead



 and 0.10  gram  of  manganese in  the form of MMT per  leaded gallon.



 This  product  was  not  evaluated  in the EPA-USDA test program



 since  it  was  found  that  0.10  gplg was sufficient to prevent



 valve-seat  recession  in  all  the engines.  Data provided  by



 Ethyl  showed  that  for  a  harsher duty cycle than  tested by



EPA-USDA, 0.10 gplg did  not  eliminate valve-seat recession,

-------
                             -45-





but when the same engine on that duty cycle was operated on



a mixture of HiTEC 1000, valve-seat recession was eliminated.



Ethyl does not assert that MMT by itself will deal with the



valve recession problem, but rather that due to a synergistic



effect, lead and MMT have a combined ability to reduce or



eliminate valve recession better than lead alone.  Ethyl



also indicated that 75 percent of leaded gasoline now contains



some amount of MMT.



     We have been informed by Ethyl that HiTEC 1000 will not



be marketed in consumer-sized packages.  It is marketed in



bulk leaded gasoline.



     E.  TK-7 Corporation (TK-7) - Data were provided by TK-7



on their additive claiming a positive effect on valve-seat



recession but not total elimination.  This additive was not



tested in the EPA-USDA program since the manufacturer's data



were provided to EPA for review after all the testing had



been scheduled.



     F.  Polar Molecular - Initially EPA had selected the



Polar Molecular additive to be evaluated in the EPA-USDA test



program.  At Polar Molecular's request EPA did not test their



additive.  The reason cited by Polar Molecular was that the



duty cycle tested did not have enough low-speed and low-load



portions to fairly evaluate potential deposit  formation of



additives on valve surfaces under these conditions.

-------
                             -46-
     G.  Other additives listed in Appendix 4 were not tested
by  EPA-USDA and test results were not provided by any other
manufacturers.  However, many of the companies on the list
actually package the Lubrizol additive.

     Conclusion:  EPA believes that the availability of MMT
improves the prospects that leaded gasoline will remain
available in areas where it is most needed.  It appears that
non-lead additives will provide useful alternatives in areas
where leaded gasoline becomes hard to find.  Although no
additives have been identified that are perfect substitutes
for lead and some questions remain unanswered about engine
deposits, two non-lead additives (by Lubrizol and DuPont)
look very promising for use by individual consumers to reduce
potential valve damage.  EPA will continue to work with these
companies and others to help resolve the remaining questions.

-------
                             -47-
 VII.  LEAD CONTENT AND LABELING ISSUES
     Based on comments at the public hearings, written comments
and a review of EPA gasoline survey data, it has become clear
that some gasoline is being sold as leaded which has a lead
concentration much less than 0.10 gplg.
     According to testimony provided by DuPont, about 19 percent
of leaded gasoline shipped through the Williams pipeline
between October 1986 and April 1987 had lead levels less
than 0.10 gplg, ten percent had lead levels of 0.07 gplg or
less, and three percent had lead levels of 0.05 gplg or
less.  Some had no detectable lead.  In addition, the State
of Iowa conducted a survey which showed four percent of the
leaded retail outlets had lead levels less than 0.01 gplg in
leaded gasoline.  EPA data show that over the past year four
percent had lead levels of 0.06 gplg or less, and 6.5 percent
had lead levels of 0.08 gplg or less.  DuPont testified that
when banked lead usage rights expire after 1987, most leaded
gasoline will contain less than 0.10 gplg.
     Because of these findings, the concern has been raised
that there may be some owners purchasing gasoline labeled as
"leaded" in order to get valve-seat lubrication, yet not getting
the needed protection for their engines.  To address this
concern, EPA will be monitoring the level of lead in leaded

-------
                              -48-
 gasoline and will  hold  a  workshop  to  discuss  issues concerning
 valve protection for  agricultural  engines  and the appropriateness
 of  EPA's definition of  leaded gasoline.
      It  is  EPA's understanding  that refiners  typically will
 try to make their  leaded  gasoline  as  close to 0.10 gplg as
 possible, since it is economically advantageous to use as
 much lead as permissible  in  leaded grades.
      Furthermore,  should  a batch of leaded gasoline be produced
 with significantly less than 0.10  gplg,  it would be put in a
 distribution system with  other  leaded gasoline, presumably at
 or  near  0.10 gplg*  While this  commingling would lower the
 overall  lead concentration,  it  would  raise the concentration
 of  the low  batch to that  overall average.
      If  a farmer fills  an empty storage  tank with gasoline
 having less  than 0.10 gram of lead per gallon, he may lack
 sufficient protection for his equipment  through several
 hundred  hours of operation.
      Some agricultural  engines  can operate on unleaded gasoline
 and,  based on studies by  Doelling  3/  in  the early 1970's, it
appears  that other engines can  operate satisfactorily on
  3/  Ralph P. Doelling, "An Engine's Definition of Unleaded
Gasoline," Society of Automotive Engineers paper No. 710841.

-------
                             -49-
leaded gasoline containing less than 0.10 gplg of lead.
Based on information from Ethyl, it appears that this would
be especially true if the fuel also contained MMT.  Many
other engines however, are likely to need 0.10 gplg of lead
to avoid excessive valve-seat recession.  Since MMT is
expected to be used in most leaded gasoline, and given the
expected incidence of leaded gasoline containing less than
0.10 gplg of lead, EPA does not anticipate that such gasoline
will pose a significant problem for farm engines.  Nevertheless,
EPA will continue monitoring the amount of lead in leaded
gasoline and will hold a workshop to discuss issues concerning
valve protection for agricultural engines and the appropriateness
of EPA's definition of leaded gasoline.
     There is a possibility that some gasoline companies may
attempt to sell unleaded gasoline as leaded,  sales of unleaded
gasoline as leaded would be in violation of EPA labeling
requirements and would be subject to enforcement action.

-------
                             -50-


 VIII.  WAYS THAT FARMERS CAN REDUCE DAMAGE FROM UNLEADED GASOLINE

     Since certain engines designed for leaded gasoline may

have valve-seat recession if operated exclusively on unleaded

gasoline, EPA recommends the following:

     1)   Where diesel-powered equipment is available it
          should be used in heavy-duty operations in
          preference to gasoline-powered equipment that might
          be vulnerable to valve-seat recession.

     2)   Unleaded gasoline of sufficient octane may be used
          if an engine has the following:

               Hard steel valve seats; or

            -  Soft valve seats, but is used exclusively
               for light-duty, low-speed operations; or

            -  Soft valve seats, but is a low-speed engine
               (less than 1700 revolutions per minute (RPM)).

     3)   In situations where only unleaded gasoline is
          available for engines that will be vulnerable to
          valve-seat recession, take the following steps:

            -  Reduce heavy loads on an engine by shifting
               down and reducing engine speed (i.e. take
               longer to do tasks that put a heavy strain
               on an engine).

            -  Enrich the carburetor air-to-fuel mixture.

            -  Keep engines in good repair and follow proper
               maintenance requirements, particularly with
               respect to the coolinq system, and keep
               engines free from attachments that can restrict
               air flow and trap heat.

            -  Use an alternative valve lubricating additive,
               where available, during periods of heavy use
               to reduce the risk or extent of engine damage.

               Do a valve overhaul sooner than planned.
               Install hard steel valve seats at the next
               engine overhaul.  If the engine has valve
               rotators, have them removed or disabled.

-------
                             -51-

IX.   EPA'S SPECIFIC PLANS
     At"this time the Agency does not have any final plans to
ban leaded gasoline, but will continue to aggressively evaluate
the nationwide health effects of lead.  Recent studies 4/
provide consistent evidence of delays in behavioral and
physical development in children, as well as increases in
blood pressure in adult males, as a result of low-level lead
exposure.  These studies are continuing and EPA will continue
to review data as they become available.
     EPA will also continue to aggressively evaluate the
potential for engine damage from a ban on leaded gasoline.
in addition, EPA will continue to monitor the lead content of
leaded gasoline and will hold a workshop to discuss issues
concerning valve protection for agricultural engines and the
appropriateness of EPA's definition of leaded gasoline.
     In addition to the workshop, EPA will continue to review
data developed by the manufacturers of non-lead alternative
valve lubricating additives and will meet with selected
specialists and other interested persons to review the test
data and identify ways to determine the efficacy of non-lead
additives.
  4/ Air Quality Criteria Document for Lead, June 1986,
USEPA, Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office,
EPA-600/8-83/028a-dF.                           1
  "Lead and Child Development", j. M. Davis and D. J. Svendsgaard,
Nature, vol 329, 1987, pg. 297-300.

-------
                             -52-





     EPA will emphasize that engines designed for leaded



gasoline will operate satisfactorily on unleaded gasoline at



light loads and low speeds, and that some  (those with hard



steel valve seats) will also operate satisfactorily on unleaded



gasoline at any speed or load.



     EPA will publicize information on engines at risk and



issue recommendations on preventing valve-seat wear should



leaded gasoline be unavailable.  EPA will seek the assistance



of the USDA in disseminating such information.  EPA has



consistently provided guidance to individual inquiries, and



will continue to do so.

-------
APPENDIX 1

-------
               United States Environmental
               Protection Agency

               Office of Mobile Sources
               Washington, DC 20460
                   United States Department
                   of Agriculture

                   Office of Energy
                   Washington, DC 20250
(&) EPA
    USDA
    A Joint Report
     April 1987
Effects of Using Unleaded
and Low-lead Gasoline, and
Non-lead Additives on
Agricultural Engines
Designed for Leaded Gasoline

-------
                               Table of Contents
                                                                        Page
I.    Background	1

II.    Scope of Study 	   3
      A.   Dynamometer Testing	4
      B.   Farm Engine-Use Survey	5
      C.   Cylinder Head Survey	6

III.  Agricultural Machinery Testing on Engine  Dynamometers	7
      A.   Test Design	7
      B.   Engines Tested	10
      C.   Dynamometer Testing  Limitations	11

IV.    Results of Dynamometer Testing	13
      A.   Tests of Leaded Gasoline	13
      B.   Tests of Unleaded Gasoline	16
      C.   Tests of Low-lead Gasoline	24
      D.   Tests of Non-lead Additives	26

V.    Results of the Farm Use Survey  and Survey of Valve Seats	31
                                 Appendices
      Appendix 1    Exhaust Valve Seat Recession by Cylinder	38
      Appendix 2    Consultants Evaluations of Engine Testing Performed
                      by NIPER	64
      Appendix 3    Duty Cycles Used in Engine Tests 	 72
      Appendix 4    Engines Tested 	 75
      Appendix 5    Farm Engine-Use Survey Form	77
      Appendix 6    How to Obtain Documents Referred to in this Report  .  79

-------
      Effects of Using Unleaded and
Low-lead Gasoline, and Non-Lead Additives
   on Agricultural Engines Designed for
             Leaded Gasoline

                April 1987
   U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency

      U.S. Department of Agriculture

             Washington, D.C.

-------
I.  Background
     Due to health concerns  from  public  exposure  to  lead  in
automotive exhaust,  the Environmental  Protection  Agency  (EPA)
undertook a lead phasedown program  in  the  early 1970's to
remove lead from gasoline.   At  that  time,  refiners used
approximately 2.5 grams per  leaded  gallon  (gplg).  In  1982
the amount of lead permitted in leaded gasoline was  reduced
to 1.10 gplg.  On March 7, 1985,  EPA further  reduced the
allowable level to 0.50 gplg, effective  July  1, 1985 and
0.10 gplg on January 1, 1986.   A  complete  ban on  leaded
gasoline has been considered for  as  early  as  1988.   The
Agency has not proceeded with a total  ban  because of a concern
that older engines designed  for leaded gasoline may  suffer
premature valve seat wear if required  to use  unleaded  gasoline
exclusively, and a major health effect study  of lead exposure
required further review.
     The Agency determined that 0.10 gplg  would be satifactory
to protect those older engines, based  on testing  that  had
                            <,(* -
been done in the early 1970's.  Results  of those  tests are
summarized in Costs and Benefits  of Reducing  Lead in Gasoline--
Final Regulatory Impact Analysis  (EPA-230-05-85-006,
February, 1985).  Generally, these tests showed that certain
engines when operated on unleaded fuel for continuous  high
speeds, experienced valve seat  recession.   However,  at lower
speeds, valve seat recession was  greatly reduced.  One study
showed that between 0.04 and 0.07 gplg would  be satisfactory

-------
                             -  2  -

 to  protect  valve  seats.   Based on this and other studies,
 EPA concluded  that  0.10 gplg would be sufficient to protect
 exhaust  valve  seats from  recession in engines designed for
 leaded gasoline.
     The farming  community  expressed a concern that older
 farm engines designed to  operate on leaded gasoline may
 experience  engine damage  if operated on low-lead or unleaded
 gasoline.   In  response to that concern, Congress required a
 study to be conducted under Section 1765 of the Food Security
 Act of 1985 (P.L. 99-198) (Act).
     The Act required the Administrator of EPA and the
 Secretary of Agriculture  (USDA) to "jointly conduct a study
 of  the use  of  fuels  containing lead additives and alternative
 lubricating additives," on  gasoline-powered agricultural
 machinery.  The study was to analyze the potential for
 mechanical  problems  (including but not limited to valve seat
 recession)  that may  occur with the use of other fuels in farm
machinery.  The Secretary of Agriculture was to specify the
 types and items of  agricultural machinery to be included in
the study and all testing of engines was to reflect actual
agricultural conditions, including revolutions per minute
and loads placed on the engines.

-------
                            - 3 -

II.   Scope of study
     The study's overall  goals are to determine  the risk to
engines if gasoline is limited to either  low-lead  or unleaded
and to evaluate alternative additives to  lead.   The study
has a complex design because the relationship between gasoline
type and engine durability is a function  of both engine
design and usage patterns.  The primary engine component at
risk with a fuel change is the exhaust valve seat.  This
wears by receding into the cylinder head.  If wear is severe
enough, the exhaust valve eventually will not seat properly
and engine failure will follow.  Factors  influencing the
risk of wear include engine speed (rpm),  load, temperature
and cylinder head design.  Information is needed on all of
these factors to assess the risk of engine failure.
     Little information was available about rpm  and load
levels for agricultural equipment under actual use conditions.
Further, concern arose that since most of the equipment is
not new, the valve seats could have been  modified during
overhauls so that original equipment specifications would no
longer accurately reflect the type of valve seats in use.
     The study was divided into three areas:  Agricultural
machinery testing on engine dynamometers; farm use survey  of
gasoline-powered equipment; and field measurement of the type
of valve seat material in exhaust valve  seats in  gasoline-
powered tractors.

-------
                             -  4 -
   A.   Dynamometer Testing
      The design of the testing portion of  this study was
 initiated with a letter from EPA on  December 6, 1985 to 25
 potential commenters  from  EPA, USDA,  the American Farm Bureau
 Federation (AFBF),  tractor manufacturers,  university professors,
 and independent consultants.   The  letter forwarded a statement
 of work suggested for the  study.   Comments were received from
 most  of the recipients of  the  letter  and suggested a wide
 variety of changes.   A meeting was held on January 27, 1986
 with  all commenters who wished to  attend to discuss the
 program and reach a consensus  on engines to test, duty cycles
 and other details of  the test  program.  Twenty-one commenters
 attended the meeting.   Based on discussions at this session,
 EPA revised the statement  of work  and sent it back to the
 commenters for a final  review.  Through this procedure and
 further contacts with engine manufacturers and others, EPA
 and USDA representatives agreed on a  test  procedure for
 tractors,  combines, and farm trucks,  including the selection
 of  engines  and  duty cycles.
       In  addition, EPA decided to  include  a recreational
 vehicle  (RV) engine in  the  study because of a concern expressed
 by  RV  owners related  to potential  engine damage while operating
 these  engines on  low-lead or unleaded gasoline.  EPA developed
 a duty cycle to  be used  on  the RV  engine,  after discussions
with consultants  and original-equipment manufacturers.

-------
                            - 5 -
     Engine testing was performed by the National Institute
for Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER),  an independent
research laboratory located at Bartlesville, Oklahoma.  (See
Appendix 6 for information on how to obtain a copy of their
report.)  Technical advice and oversight were provided by two
consultants, Dr. Louis I. Leviticus of the  Nebraska Tractor
Testing Laboratory, Lincoln, Nebraska and Dr. Ralph Fleming
of Energy, Fuels and Engine Consulting Services, Accokeek,
Maryland.  The consultants commented on the original program
design, visited the test facility on several occasions and
consulted on major program decisions throughout the study.
Their evaluation of the test program is in Appendix 2.
  B.  Farm Engine-Use Survey
     The second area of this study was a survey of the number
and use of selected gasoline-powered farm equipment (tractors,
combines and trucks).  Questions were added to a Farm Labor
Survey conducted in July 1986 by the National Agricultural
Statistics Service, USDA.   (See Appendix 5 for a copy of the
survey form and see Appendix 6 for information on how to obtain
a copy of the manual that accompanied the questionnaire.)
Survey results were related to the results of the dynamometer
tests in order to characterize the degree of risk encountered
by farm equipment.  Highlights of that analysis are included
in this report.  More extensive analysis of the data may
reveal additional information about the use of  these engines.

-------
                            - 6 -
  C.  Cylinder Head Survey
     Valve seat recession is affected by the type and hard-
ness of the material used in valve seats.  A field survey of
cylinder heads was performed to determine what material
(cast iron, soft steel, hard steel or stellite) is in the
exhaust valve seats of tractors.  Due to overhauls, engines
may no longer have valve seats meeting original equipment
specifications.
     The survey, conducted by the Radian Corporation,
Sacramento, California, involved sending an engineer to test
cylinder heads removed by eight tractor dismantling and
salvage firms located throughout the United States.  (See
Appendix 6 for additional information on how to obtain a copy
of the protocol and quality assurance plan for this survey.)

-------
                            - 7 -


III.  Agricultural Machinery Testing on Engine Dynamometers

  A.  Test Design

     Lead combustion products serve as solid lubricants for

some parts of the engine—primarily the exhaust valve seats.

Engines designed for leaded gasoline typically have a valve

seat geometry designed to prevent excessive accumulation of

lead compounds.  They may also use valve rotators for this

purpose.  Valve seat wear appears to be related primarily

to engine speed and load.

     A tractor duty cycle was designed to reflect a full range

of tractor use conditions.  The duty cycle had two parts.

The first part consisted of 144 hours (16 hours/day) at

governed engine speed and loads varying from no load to full

power.  This cycle was adopted from the cycle used by the

Nebraska Tractor Testing Laboratory (SAE J708).V  The

second part consisted of a 56-hour continuous test at governed

engine speed and 75% of maximum available power.  This segment

represents the maximum continuous load that is likely to be

placed on these engines, such as pumping irrigation water.

The combine engine was tested using the same duty cycle.

(See Appendix 3 for a description of the duty cycles.)

      The farm truck engine was operated throughout the  200

hours at varying engine speeds (2000-3600 rpra) and  loads

(25% to 85% of maximum power) representing normal conditions
I/This cycle has a long history of use in testing the perfor-
mance of new tractors.

-------
                             -  8  -





 for  farm  trucks  larger  than  one-ton capacity.  The RV engine



 was  operated  for 144 hours at  varying engine speeds (2000-3600



 rpm)  and  loads  (45% to  85% of  maximum power) followed by a



 56-hour hour  steady state cycle  (100 HP, which is 52% of



 maximum power,  at  3000  rpm).   The farm truck and RV engines



 were operated for  16 hours on  and 8 hours off throughout the



 tests.  (See  Appendix 3 for  a  description of the duty cycles.)



      Before each test,  the cylinder heads were changed and



 broken in on  the next fuel being tested.  Testing was conducted



 on leaded (1.2  gplg), unleaded,  and low-lead (0.1 gplg) gasoline,



 and  gasoline  containing non-lead additives.^/  The principal



 focus of  the  testing was to  record wear of exhaust valve seats.



 Valve clearance  was set to manufacturers' specifications each



 time a measurement was  taken.  In addition, the contractor



 measured  intake  valve seat recession, valve stem length, valve



 guide and stem wear, valve tulip diameter and valve seat angle,



 valve spring  force and  height, and other measures of engine



 wear.  Engine performance was  monitored and emissions tests were



 performed on  the exhaust gases.  After each fuel test, engines



 were carefully examined  for deposits and other conditions that



 may have resulted from  the test.  Elemental analyses of the



 lubricating oils were conducted.  Cylinder heads and valve seat



 inserts were carefully  selected to control the hardness of



 exhaust valve seats.
2/Leaded gasoline in this study contains tetraethyl lead.

-------
                            - 9 -





     Tractor and combine engines usually  have  solid  valve



lifters.  A valve adjustment is needed in the  engines  after



about every 15 thousandths of an inch of  wear  and  new  valve



seats are needed after about 125 to 200 thousandths  of an  inch



of wear.  While repeated valve adjustments theoretically make



it possible to continue operating an engine as valve seat



recession occurs, as a practical matter,  an engine operator



is likely to burn a valve and, thus, require an overhaul of



the valve assembly before all of the potential adjustments



can be made.  This is because valve seat  wear  gives  an operator



few clues to the problem until significant damage  occurs.



There is no increase in engine noise and  misfiring and loss



of power often are not noticed until after valves  or valve



seats have burned.  Automotive-type engines usually  have



hydraulic valve lifters so regular valve  adjustments are not



needed.  New valve seats are needed in these engines after



about 75 thousandths of an inch of valve seat  wear.  New



valve seats may be obtained by replacing the cylinder  head



or by machining out the valve seats and installing valve



seat inserts.



     Proper clearance also must be maintained between  valve



stems and valve guides.  Worn valve stems and guides result



in increased oil usage and may cause excessive valve and valve



seat wear because the valve does not seat properly.   When valve



guide clearance increases by more than 2  thousandths of an  inch,



many manufacturers recommend that the valve guides be replaced



or that the valves be replaced by ones with oversize  stems.

-------
                             -  10  -





      See Appendix 6 for information  on how  to obtain a copy of



 the statement of work used  in  the study  and a detailed descrip-



 tion of the engine tests, including  fuel  and oil specifications,



 engine rebuilding procedures,  recession  measurement guidelines,



 and other test parameters which NIPER was required to follow.





   B.  Engines Tested



      The five farm equipment engines initially selected by



 USDA were:  John Deere "B",  Farmall "H" and  International



 Harvester 240 tractors,  John Deere 303 cubic inch displacement



 (CID)  combine engine,  and a pre-1974 General Motors 292 CID



 (GM 292)  truck engine.   The engines, described in Appendix 4,



 represent  a broad  range  of  engine sizes  and characteristics.



 EPA selected the pre-1984 General Motors  454 CID V-8 engine



 (GM 454)  to represent  engines  used in RVs.



      Plans  called  for  purchase of a duplicate of the engine



 that  experienced  the most valve seat recession on unleaded



 gasoline,  in order to  focus more  attention  on tests of this



 engine.  The GM 292  truck engine  proved most vulnerable and



 a duplicate was  purchased.  At the request  of the USDA and



 the  American  Farm  Bureau Federation, a Ford 8N tractor engine



 also was procured  for  the study after it was learned that



 one of the  other tractor engines  selected did not need to be



 tested on low-lead gasoline and non-lead additives.  Manufac-



 turers' specifications for the John Deere "B",  International



 240, John Deere 303, and GM 292 engines called for ordinary



cast iron cylinder heads without valve seat inserts.  Hardness

-------
                             -11-


of these valve seats typically ranges from 9 to 25 on the

Rockwell C scale.V  The Farmall "H"  was originally equipped

with "gray iron" valve seat inserts (Rockwell C scale values

of 26-36); the Ford 8N was originally equipped with harder

exhaust valve seat inserts (Rockwell  C scale 39-43); and the

General Motors 454 CID engine was originally equipped with

induction-hardened cast iron valve seats (no inserts) with a

Rockwell C scale hardness of about 55 specified by the manu-

facturer. V  The General Motors 454 and 292 engines are

currently being manufactured with induction-hardened cast

iron valve seats.   All engines were tested with valve seats

meeting original equipment specifications except the Farmall

"H" and Ford 8N.  Since the latter engines may have been

rebuilt with different valve seat material, they were tested

with ordinary cast iron valve seat inserts (Rockwell C scale

value of 17) .


  C.  Dynamometer Testing Limitations

     The dynamometer testing portion of this study has a

number of limitations.  First, budget limitations did not

permit testing enough engines to assure statistical  reliabil-

ity.  Only one or at most two engines of any given  type

could be tested.  Second, dynamometer tests  typically show
2/Lower numbers indicate softer materials.

^/Hardness of induction-hardened cast  iron valve  seats  typically
ranges from 40 to 60 on the Rockwell C scale.

-------
                             -12-





raore wear than is found during actual in-use operation of



engines.  Every attempt was made to make the tests represen-



tative of actual in-use conditions, but this was difficult



because data on how the engines are used did not exist.



Third, because of time and cost restrictions, valve design



factors which could affect valve seat wear, such as the



presence of valve rotators, were not examined fully.  Finally,



unforseen engine characteristics such as air/fuel ratios and



mechanical problems, which appear to have an effect on valve



seat wear rates, were not controlled in the study design.

-------
                             -13-

IV.  Results of Dynamometer  Testing
  A.  Tests of Leaded  Gasoline  (1.2 gplg)
     Baseline tests were run on the six  original  engines
using gasoline containing 1.2 grams per  leaded gallon  (gplg)•
The duplicate truck engine (GM  292-B)  and  the additional
tractor engine (Ford 8N) were not  tested on  gasoline containing
1.2 gplg because none  of the original  engines showed appreciable
wear with this fuel.
     Table 1 summarizes the  maximum rates  of valve  seat
recession (in thousandths of an inch per 100 hours) found
while operating the engines  on  leaded,  low-lead,  and unleaded
gasoline.  Except for  the GM 454 engine, essentially no valve
seat recession was found and no unusual  wear occurred  on
other engine components when leaded gasoline was  used.  It
should be noted that the GM 292-A exhaust  valve  guide  diameter
increased by 1.8 thousandths of an inch  and  that  the  International
Harvester 240 intake valve guide diameter  increased by 14.3
thousandths of an inch (probably due  to  an oil  line blockage
that was corrected early in the test)  which are  substantially
more than were observed in the  other  engines.   Exhaust valve
seat recession is not  a problem with  gasoline  containing 1.2
grams per leaded gallon.

-------
                             Table  1—Maximum exhaust valve seat recession rates*
Ehgine


Farmall H 	
International 240, run 1 .
International 240, run 2 .
International 240 	 	
Ford 8N 	

GM 454 CID 	
GM 454 CID 	

GM 292 CID engine B 	
GM 292 CID engine B 	
GM 292 CID, engine B,
licdtiter load 9/ 	
Type of
valve
seat]/
Exhaust
valve
rotators
Leaded2/
1.2
gplg
Thousandths of
CI
a
CI
CI
CI
CI inserts
CI inserts
CI
IHCI
SS inserts
CI
a
IHCI
CI
•
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
0
NA
0
1.5
NA
NT
NT
0.5
3.0
NT
1.0
NT
NT
NT
: 0.1
' gplg
an inch per
NT
NA
NT
0.5
NA
1.0
NT
2.0
2.5
NT
7/20.0
" 5.0
1.0
NT
NT
Intermittent
phase3_/
100 hours
0
5/5.7
0.7
0
16.7
32.6
11.8
16.7
20.8
11.8
2/8/170.4
NT
2/5.5
2/10/106.8

Unleaded
: Steady state
: phasep/
4/19.6
0
0
0
44.6
83.9
50.0
69.6
14.3
5.4
NA
NT
NA
NA
"
rTotal^/
•
V4.5
5/4.7
0
0
23.5
42.5
15.0
i
32.0 f
16.0
8.5
8/170.4
NT
5.5
10/106.8
  NA denotes "not applicable."  NT denotes "no test."
                                                                                                         \:
  *See figures in Appendix 1 for recession data on individual cylinders.

  I/  CI - ordinary cast iron; IHCI - induction-hardened cast iron; SS - soft steel.   2/  Recession based on
measurement of cylinder heads before and after each fuel test.  3/  Recession estimates based on valve lash
measurements recorded at intervals during each fuel test.  This procedure is less accurate than "before and
after" measurements.  See NIPER report for more information on measurement techniques.

-------
                             -15-


     Table 1--Maximum exhaust valve seat recession rates*--continued
4/  Recession may have been influenced by improper alignment
of rocker arm assembly.  5/  Operated 244 hours.   6/  Operated
300 hours.  TJ  Results are for two tests.  During the first
test (the larger recession rate),  the cylinder head gasket
failed and may have generated additional heat which contributed
to the recession.  JJ/  Engine could complete only 71 of the
scheduled 200 hours due to recession,  j?/  Engine was run
without the 3600 rpm part of the duty cycle.  1Q/  Engine was
stopped after 88 hours of operation due to recession.

-------
                             -  16  -
   B.   Tests  of Unleaded  Gasoline
      All  engines  procured  for  this  test program were evaluated
 on unleaded  gasoline.  Recession  data are summarized in
 Table 1  and  Appendix  1,  Figures 1-13.  Principal findings
 are as follows.
      1.   The John Deere  "B"  tractor  engine was tested twice
 on unleaded  gasoline  (Appendix 1, Figures 1 and 2).  The
 first test found  that  one  cylinder had 11 thousandths of an
 inch  of  recession after  200  hours of operation, all of
 which occurred during  the  steady  state portion of the test.
 Examination  of the engine  after the  test showed that the
 rocker arm was not striking  the valve stem tip properly and
 it  was believed that recession was due to this mechanical
 problem  instead of the fuel.   This may have caused valve
 guide diameter wear to increase from 1.0 thousandths of inch
 for the leaded fuel test to  3.2 thousandths of an inch during
 the first unleaded test.   After properly aligning the rocker
 assembly, the  unleaded test  was repeated with a new cylinder
head.  Both  exhaust valve  seats experienced some recession
after 80 hours, but no additional recession through 200
hours.  The  test was continued on the intermittent portion
of  the duty  cycle  for  100 more hours and no additional reces-
sion occurred.  Valve  guide  diameter wear was consistent
with  the rate  observed for leaded gasoline.  Valve stem
wear increased from 0.2 thousandths of an inch for leaded gas-
oline to 0.8  thousands of an inch for unleaded gasoline.  No

-------
                            -  17  -
other unusual wear was observed.  The John Deere  "B"  tractor
engine may experience a small  amount  of  valve seat  recession
but should not have problems operating on  unleaded  gasoline.
     .2.  The Farmall- "H" tractor  engine  did not  experience
valve seat recession or any other unusual  wear while  operating
on unleaded gasoline and was not  tested  any further (Appendix 1,
Figure 3).
     3.  The John Deere 303 CID combine  engine experienced
substantial valve seat recession  while operating on unleaded
gasoline (Appendix 1, Figure 4).   At  144 hours,  all cylinders
showed recession ranging from 10 to 24 thousandths  of an
inch.  After the steady state portion of the test,  total
recession ranged from 41 to 63 thousandths of an inch.
Valve guide wear increased from a maximum  of 0.2 thousandths
of an inch on leaded fuel to 1.5 thousandths of  an  inch on
unleaded fuel.
     4.  The International Harvester 240 tractor engine was
tested three times on unleaded gasoline.  The first test
showed no valve seat recession (Appendix 1, Figure 5).  We
subsequently found that the cylinder head used was among the
hardest of the heads purchased for the tests.  It was decided
to test the engine a second time using a cylinder head  at
the  softer end of  the hardness range of heads available.
Substantial valve  seat  recession (43-49 thousandths of  an
inch) occurred on  two of the valve seats  (Appendix 1,  Figure 6)
About one-half of  the recession  occurred  during  the  56-hour
steady state portion  of the test cycle.

-------
                             - 18 -
      Further investigation of the cylinder heads after the
 tests were completed revealed that  the  hardness of the metal
 in  the seat area was essentially the  same for both heads.
 Differences in wear in the International 240, therefore, were
 not due to differences in hardness  of the valve seats.
 Evaluation of the data revealed  that  the air/fuel ratio was
 much higher during the test that exhibited valve seat recession
 even though the engine was set to the manufacturer's specifica-
 tions (Table 2).  The higher air/fuel ratio may have contributed
 to  the valve seat recession since a leaner mixture would
 cause higher exhaust temperatures.  After the test was completed,
 the carburetor was cleaned and the  air/fuel ratio returned
 to  its original  level.
      A third unleaded test was performed on the engine using
 exhaust valve seat inserts.   The inserts were of about the
 same hardness as the valve seats in the first two unleaded
 tests  on this engine.   Appendix  1,  Figure 7 shows that no reces-
 sion occurred during the  first 80 hours but then occurred very
 rapidly.   After  144 hours  of variable loads, recession ranged
 from 16 to 47 thousandths  of an  inch  and then rose to 63 to 94
 thousandths  of an inch during the final 56 hours of steady
 state  operation.   The air-fuel ratio  did not rise during this
 test.   This  test  suggests  that engines with valve seat inserts
 are  more susceptible to recession than  engines without inserts
when the  valve seats  are of  equal hardness.

-------
                                  -19-
       Table 2—Average emissions and air-fuel ratios by engine
                             and test fuel
   Engine and fuel
GO I/
HC 2/
NOx 3/
Air-
fuel
ratio
                            Percent      ppco          ppcu

John Deere B
  1.2 gplg	       5.3       3,303         679
  Unleaded
    Run 1	       9.3       3,202         202
    Run 2	       6.0       3,605         847

Farmall H
  1.2 gplg	       5.1       3,544       1,008
  Unleaded	       4.2       2,187       1,116

International 240
  1.2 gplg	       5.1       3,133         817
  Unleaded
    Run 1	       5.7       2,358         925
    Run 2	       2.1       1,338       1,380
    Inserts	       4.6       2,022          NA
  0.1 gplg
    No inserts	       6.3       2,606         868
    Inserts	       5.6       2,104          NA

John Deere 303 CID
  1.2 gplg	       4.9       3,610       1,212
  Unleaded                    4.6       1,951       1,305
  0.1 gplg	       6.3       2,612         738
  DuBont additive 4/ .  .       5.2       2,033          NA
  Standard "PowerSKield"
   additiveS/	       7.3       2,482          NA

Ford 8N
  Unleaded	       5.5       2,933          NA

GM 454 CID
  1.2 gplg	       2.0       1,726       1,950
  Unleaded
    No inserts	       2.5          930       1,802
    Steel inserts  ...       3.4          813          NA
  0.1 gplg	       2.5       1,090       1,868
  Standard "PowerShield"
    additive 5/  . . .  .       3.0          891          NA
                                    13.0

                                    10.9
                                    12.2
                                    13.0
                                    13.4
                                    12.7

                                    12.5
                                    14.3
                                    12.9

                                    12.3
                                    12.5
                                    12.7
                                    13.0
                                    12.2
                                    12.7

                                    11.8
                                    12.5
                                    14.0

                                    13.8
                                    13.4
                                    13.9

                                    13.6
                                                            Continued—

-------
                                   -20-
         Table 2—Average emissions and air-fuel ratios by engine
                         and test fuel—continued
 Engine and fuel
GO 1/
HC 2/
NOx 3/
                                                                  fuel
                                                                  ratio
                               Percent      ppro

GM 292 CID, engine A
  1-2 gplg	       3.8       2,356
  Unleaded	       4.3       1,006
  0.1 gplg
    Run 1	       3.0       1,597
    Run 2	       3.9       1,182
  DuPont additive 4/             3.8       1,054
  Standard "PowerSKield"
    additive 5/	       2.7       1,205

GM 292 CID, engine B
  Unleaded
    IHCI 6/	       3.9       1,436
    Lighter load 7/  . . .       3.9       1,222
  0.1 gplg ... T ....       5.2       1,416
  Concentrated "PowerShield"
    additive 8/	       4.9       2,865
                                                     1,339
                                                     1,119

                                                     1,696
                                                        NA
                                                        NA

                                                     1,924
                                                     1,398
                                                        NA
                                                        NA

                                                        NA
                                   13.4
                                   13.1

                                   13.7
                                   13.2
                                   13.3

                                   13.6
                                   13.1
                                   13.2
                                   12.7

                                   12.7
    Carbon monoxide.
    Hydrocarbons.
    Nitrogen oxides.
    200 pounds of additive per 1,000 barrels of gasoline.
    250 pounds of additive per 1,000 barrels of gasoline.
    Induction-hardened cast iron exhaust valve seats.
    Bigine was run without the 3,600 rpm part of the duty cycle.
5/  1,000 pounds of additive per 1,000 barrels of gasoline.
  I

-------
                            -  21  -

     Valve train inspection  data  show  that  exhaust valve
guide wear was up to 2.2 thousandths of  an  inch  without
inserts and up to 8.7 thousandths of an  inch with inserts
compared to a maximum of 0.9 thousandths of an inch with
leaded fuel and no inserts.
     5.  Tested with ordinary  cast  iron  valve seat inserts,
the Ford 8N had up to 17 thousandths of  an  inch  of valve seat
recession after 144 hours, and 17 to 29  thousandths of an  inch
of recession after 200 hours,  a significant amount of wear
(Appendix 1, Figure 8).
     Two cylinders may have  had above-normal valve guide wear
based on comparisons with the  leaded fuel tests  on the other
engines (the Ford 8N does not  have  a leaded-fuel baseline  test
since none of the original engines  tested showed appreciable
wear with this fuel).
     6.  The GM 292-A C1D truck engine,  when  tested  on  unleaded
fuel with ordinary cast iron valve  seats, experienced the
highest rate of recession (Table  1  and Appendix  1,  Figure  9).
In fact, the test had to be  terminated after  71  hours due  to
fear that the engine would be  severely damaged by  excessive
valve seat recession.  Exhaust valve  guide  wear  increased
but not substantially more than found  in the  leaded test.
     A duplicate engine, GM  292-B,  was tested with the  harshest
portion of the duty cycle (3600 rpm)  deleted.  The wear rate
was reduced by 40 percent, but the  test still  had  to be
terminated after 88 hours due to excessive valve seat recession

-------
                             -  22  -
 (Appendix  1,  Figure  10).   Subsequently, the GM 292-B engine
 was  tested with  induction-hardened cast iron exhaust valve
 seats, and experienced  11  thousandths of an inch of recession
 after  200 hours  (Appendix  1, Figure  11).  However, there was
 a greater change  in  exhaust  valve guide diameter (a maximum
 of 4 thousandths  of  an  inch  versus 1.8 thousandths of an
 inch for leaded fuel) during this test.  Valve length was
 reduced by up to  8 thousandths of an inch compared to increases
 of up  to 4 thousandths  of  an inch for leaded fuel.
     7.  The  GM 454  recreational vehicle engine was tested
 with induction-hardened cast iron valve seats.  All cylinders
 showed significant recession,  ranging from 14 to 30 thousandths
 of an  inch after  144 hours.  Total recession increased slightly
 to a maximum  of 34 thousandths of an inch after the steady
 state  portion of  the test  (Appendix  1, Figure 12).  The
 induction hardening  process  for the  GM 454 affects the valve
 seats  to a depth  of  about  50 thousandths of an inch.  Rapid
 wear would be expected  after the induction-hardened portion
 of the valve  seat is worn  away.  Exhaust valve guide wear
 increased from a  maximum of  1 thousandths of an inch using
 leaded fuel to 4.6 thousandths of an inch while operating
 on unleaded fuel.
     A second  test on unleaded fuel  was conducted using soft
 steel  "XB" valve  seat inserts  (Rockwell C scale value of 42)
designed for moderate-duty use.  This test also showed valve
seat recession but it was much less;  17 thousandths of an inch

-------
                            -  23  -
after 144 hours with little recession during the final steady
state portion of the test (Appendix 1, Figure 13).   Maximum
exhaust valve guide wear of 1.7 thousandths of an inch occurred
compared to 1 thousandths of an inch on leaded fuel.
     8.  Summary of Results on Unleaded Gasoline.
     Engines operated at low speeds (e.g.,  John Deere B,
rated at 1250 rpm; and Farmall H, rated at  1650 rpm) should
have little or no problem operating on unleaded gasoline,
regardless of the type of valve seat material.  Engines
which operate at medium rpm (e.g.,  International 240 and
Ford 8N rated at 2000 rpm) are likely to experience significant
valve seat recession unless they are used only for light-duty
tasks or have hard steel valve seat inserts.  Engines operated
under heavy-duty steady state conditions may experience 2-4
times more recession than engines operated  under a wider range
of load conditions.
     Farm equipment engines operating at higher speeds (e.g. ,
John Deere 303 CID, rated at 2500 rpm) which have ordinary
cast iron valve seats probably will experience considerable
valve seat recession.  Based on the tests of the GM 292 and
GM 454 CID engines, we concluded that automotive-type engines
of the type tested, when operated under conditions represented
by the duty cycles used in these tests, are extremely suscept-
ible to valve seat recession when they have ordinary cast
iron valve seats.  Furthermore, the tests on the GM 454
showed that engines could experience considerable recession

-------
                            - 24 -
even if they are equipped with induction-hardened cast iron
valve seats which are still being installed in new vehicles.
Based on tests of the GM 454, soft steel inserts also are
vulnerable with unleaded fuel although wear rates appear to
be lower than for induction-hardened cast iron seats.  Unleaded
gasoline also increases valve guide wear and may increase
valve stem wear.
     Factors other than the lead content of fuel also affect
valve seat recession, probably because of heat differences.
Higher air/fuel ratios appear to increase valve seat recession.
Engines with valve seat inserts appear to be more susceptible
to valve seat recession than engines with equally hard integral
cylinder head seats.  The use of valve rotators also may
increase recession.

  C.  Tests of Low-lead Gasoline (0.1 gplg)
     Four of the original six engines showed significant
recession on unleaded gasoline and, therefore, were tested
on gasoline containing 0.1 gplg.  The John Deere 303, the
International 240 (with and without valve seat inserts) and
the GM 454 engines all operated satisfactorily on 0.1 gplg
(Table 1 and Appendix 1, Figures 14, 15, 16, and 17).
     Other parameters measured showed no changes for the
International 240.  Compared to leaded fuel, maximum valve
guide wear increased from 1.0 thousandths of an inch to 2.0
thousandths of an inch in the GM 454 and from 0.2 thousandths
on an inch to 1.2 thousandths of an inch in the John Deere 303.

-------
                            - 25 -
     The GM 292-A experienced significant  recession  after
91 hours (Appendix 1,  Figure 18).   Since the head gasket failed
at about that time,  and may have contributed to  the  valve
seat recession, it was decided to retest the GM  292-A engine
and the duplicate GM 292-B, engine on this fuel.£/ One of
the engines showed no increase in wear compared  to the leaded
test.  The other engine showed slightly more recession in
one cylinder.  Overall, little recession occurred in these
subsequent tests (Appendix 1, Figures 19 and 20). Under
good operating conditions, most farm engines probably will
experience little or no valve seat wear using 0.1 gplg gasoline.
     However, 0.1 gplg appears to be at or near  the  minimum
level needed by most of these engines when they  are  properly
maintained and operated under conditions similar to  the duty
cycles tested, unless other forms of valve seat  protection
are used (such as non-lead additives or more wear-resistant
seat materials).
     The technical specialists who worked on this study
believe that excessive heat may contribute significantly to
valve seat recession.  The head gasket failure and differences
in air/fuel ratios observed in this study are two of many
     _5/The exact time that the gasket failure started to
occur is not known because it did not cause an abrupt change
in the engine's behavior or in the performance measures being
monitored, such as power, engine temperature and emissions.
One of the consultants on the project (Dr. Ralph Fleming)
examined the test data and engine characteristics to determine
if the gasket failure caused the recession, and reported that
a conclusive determination could not be made.

-------
                             -  26  -
factors  that could cause  excessive heat that may not be
detected by operators  in  everyday engine operations.  An
improperly maintained  engine might experience excessive
valve  seat recession even when high  concentrations of lead
are  in the gasoline, but  good  engine maintenance is especially
important when using gasoline  containing only 0.1 gplg or less
of lead.

  D.   Tests of Non-lead Additives^/
     Two proprietary additives were  evaluated in the test
program.^/  An additive manufactured by Lubrizol Corporation
(Lubrizol) was tested  on  the John Deere 303, GM 454 and GM
292  A  and B engines.   The second  additive, produced by E.I.
duPont de Nemours and  Company  (DuPont), was evaluated on the
GM 292-A and the John  Deere  303 engines.
     Table 3 and Appendix 1, Figures 21-25, summarize the
rates of exhaust valve seat  recession found while operating
the  engines on the Lubrizol  and DuPont additives.
  1.  Test Results Using  the Lubrizol Additive
     Three formulations of the Lubrizol additive were tested.
     6/Products containing tetraethyl lead to be added by the
consumers were not evaluated because we would expect the same
results as with the leaded-fuel tests that were conducted.
     7/Additives were selected for testing in this program if
the manufacturers indicated to EPA a desire to have their pro-
ducts tested and they provided data to EPA which showed that
their products had the potential for reducing valve seat
recession when used with unleaded gasoline.

-------
             Table 3—Maximum exhaust valve seat  recession  rate using non-lead additives*
Item
Additive treat
John Deere 303
Intermittent
Steady state
Total 2/ . .
GM 292 CID
Engine A jj/
Engine B 2/
GM 454 CID
Intermittent
Steady state


CID




phase ^/ . t r r
nhase 3/ ....


Unleaded
gasoline
•
•
•
•
: DuPont
: additive
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lubrizol additive

: Modified : Standard :Concentrated
:"PowerShield" :"PowerShield" :"PowerShield"
• * •
• • •
Pounds per 1,000 barrels of gasoline
1/200 250
Thousandths of an
3/16.7
3/69.5
31.5
170.4
NT
20.8
14.3
16.0
.2/4/4.2
NA
NA
22
NT
NT
NT
NT
2/5/15.0
NA
NA
6/120
NT
NT
NT
NT
250 1
inch per 100 hours
V7.6
.3/60.7
20.0
7/130
NT
3.5
7.1
4.5
,000
NT
NT
NT
NT
0.5
NT
NT
NT
  *See figures  in Appendix  1 for recession data on  individual cylinders.

  NA denotes  "not applicable" because the test was  not completed.
  NT denotes  "no test."

  I/ About double the concentration normally recommended by DuPont.  2/ Recession based on
measurement of  cylinder heads before and after each fuel test.  V Recession estimates based on
valve lash measurements recorded at intervals during each test.  This procedure is less accurate
than "before  and after" measurements.  See NIPER report for more information on measurement
techniques.   4/ Test terminated after 48 hours due  to a problem not related to the fuel.  5/ Test
terminated after 80 hours when NIPER was notified that the additive was not properly manufactured.
6/ Test terminated after 64 hours due to excessive  valve seat recession.  7/ Test terminated after
84 hours due  to excessive valve seat recession.

-------
                            - 28 -
The first, a modified version of a product Lubrizol sells
under the trade name "PowerShi eld" had little effect on valve
seat recession.  Lubrizol, subsequently, notified NIPER that
the product had not been properly formulated and asked that
"PowerShield" be tested.  "PowerShield" was tested at the manu-
facturer's recommended concentration of 250 pounds per 1,000
barrels of gasoline.  For the GM 454, recession was about
comparable to that found using 1.2 gplg and 0.1 gplg.  However,
compared to unleaded gasoline, "PowerShield" slightly reduced
but did not stop wear in the other two engines tested
(John Deere 303 and GM 292-A) (Table 3 and Appendix 1, Figures
21, 22, and 23).  Valve guide wear was above normal with
"Pow<:t shield" (based on the test using 1.2 gplg gasoline) in
the John Deere 303 (3.3 thousandths of an inch compared to
0.2 thousandths of an inch with leaded).
     "PowerShield" was tested in one engine (GM 292-B) at a
concentration of 1,000 pounds of additive per 1,000 barrels
of gasoline (four times the level normally recommended for
the product).  Valve seat recession was stopped (Appendix 1,
Figure 24).  Valve stem wear was slightly greater than was
observed for both leaded and unleaded gasolines.
     The "PowerShield" additive caused deposits to form in
the combustion chamber of the engines.  Engine deposits
increased when the "PowerShield" concentration was quadrupled.
Combustion chamber deposits can increase an engine's octane
requirement, but it is not clear from this testing whether

-------
                            - 29 -
the deposits seen would significantly alter octane requirements
or have any other effects on the engines.
     "PowerShield" at the 250 pounds of additive per 1,000
barrels of gasoline also caused oily black deposits to form
on intake runners, but the implications, if any, are not
known.  This occurred in both the GN 292-A and John Deere 303
engines and to a lesser extent in the GM 454.
     Examination of lubricating oils revealed substantially
higher levels of sodium in the oil after running the engines
on "PowerShield."  Two of the engines also had elevated
levels of phosphorus and the engine that ran on "PowerShield"
at 1,000 pounds of additive per 1,000 barrels of gasoline had
much larger quantities of sulfur in the oil.

  2.  Test Results Using the DuPont Additive
     Two engines (John Deere 303 and GM 292-A) were tested on
the DuPont additive at about twice the concentration normally
recommended by the manufacturer.  The test on the John Deere
303 was terminated after only 48 hours due to a problem with
the engine's cooling system.  At that point, essentially no
valve seat recession was occurring.  However, 48 hours was
not long enough to yield meaningful results.
     The DuPont additive reduced valve seat recession in the
GM 292-A engine, although, at 22 thousandths of an inch per
100 hours, wear was still excessive (Table 3, and Appendix 1,
Figure 25).  The additive caused deposits to form in the
engine.  A large amount of hard, sticky deposits was found on

-------
                             -30-
the intake valves.  One intake valve was unable to close
completely and was beginning to burn.  Inside the combustion
chamber, a glaze deposit had formed on valve surfaces.   The
full implications of these deposits, including the potential
for eliminating them, are not known.
     Examination of the lubricating oils revealed substantially
higher levels of phosphorus after running engines on the
DuPont additive.

  3.  Summary of Additive Testing
     The DuPont additive, at about twice the concentraton
normally recommended by the manufacturer, provided some degree
of protection against valve seat recession.  At the manufac-
turers recommended concentration, Lubrizol's "PowerShield"
reduced recession.  At four times the concentration normally
recommended by the manufacturer, Lubrizol's "PowerShield"
stopped recession in the one engine tested.  Both additives
produced engine deposits which raised unanswered questions.
The DuPont additive increased the amount of phosphorus  in the
lubricating oil.  "PowerShield" also increased the amount
of sodium, sulfur, and phosphorus found in the lubricating
oils.  Nevertheless, although further product development
work is essential, the additives may have potential as  sub-
stitutes for lead.

-------
                             -31-
V.  Results of the Farm Engine-Use Survey and Cylinder Head Survey
     The National Agricultural Statistics Service, USDA
conducted a survey of farmers to learn how many gasoline-
powered tractors, combines, and large trucks are in use on
farms and how much they are used.  The survey was conducted
in July 1986.  The questionnaire is in Appendix 5.  (See
Appendix 6 for information on how to obtain a copy of the
manual that accompanied the questionnaire.)
     At that time, farmers operated a total of 4.4 million
tractors, of which 1.8 million were gasoline powered and 2.6
million were diesel powered.  The gasoline-powered tractors,
which average 26 years of age, were used an average of 250
hours in 1985.  The amount of use varies with the size of
the tractor (Table 4).  Further, tractors with low annual
hours of operation tend to see more light duty use (Table 5}
than tractors that are used more.
     About 42 percent of gasoline-powered farm tractors are
used exclusively in light duty tasks and, therefore, have
little risk of valve seat recession if operated on unleaded
gasoline.  The other 58 percent of tractors see some medium
and heavy uses which potentially make them vulnerable to
excessive valve seat wear if fueled with unleaded gasoline,
unless they are low-rpm engines, have hardened exhaust valve
seats, or are protected by a fuel additive.

-------
                     -32-
Table 4--Distribution of gasoline-powered
 tractors by size and hours of use,  1985
Annual
hours of use
20-49
50-99
100-149
150-249
250-499
500-749
750-1499
1 ,500 or more
All tractors
Number of tractors
213,784
324,146
321,520
350,372
303,857
141,992
84,884
33,160
1.773,715
Average horsepower
31
34
38
43
46
49
49
54
40

-------
                          -33-
Table 5—Annual  use of gasoline-powered  tractors,  1985
Annual
hours
of use
20-49
50-99
100-149
1 50-249
250-499
500-749
750-1.499
1 ,500 or more
All tractors
Percentage distribution of use
Irrigation
pumping
0.35
0.05
0.44
0.42
0.17
0.41
0.27
0.16
0.29
Hard
use
8.61
9.15
9.99
12.26
14.37
16.80
18.72
23.00
12.08
Medium
use
25.48
30.08
33.92
34.29
36.77
40.45
43.22
43.54
33.91
Light
use
65.55
60.71
55.64
53.03
48.68
42.34
37.79
33.31
53.72

-------
                              -34-

     Farmers operate  271,000  gasoline-powered combines that
average  19  years of age.   On  average,  each  combine harvested
220 acres of grain in 1985.   Combines,  like tractors, see a
skewed use  distribution  (Table  6).  All  combine engines
receive  hard use and  are  likely to experience excessive
valve seat  recession  if  they  have cast  iron valve seats and
are operated on unleaded  gasoline.
     About  750,000 gasoline-powered trucks  larger than 1-ton
capacity are used on  farms.   They average 19 years of age
and were driven an average of 3,800 miles in 1985.  Over
half of  the trucks were driven  less than 2,000 miles (Table 7)
Trucks receive a range of  light  to hard uses.  Data are not
available that would  more precisely characterize this use
although, on average,  it  is thought to be represented by
the duty cycle specified  for  the tests conducted by NIPER.
      The Radian Corporation  conducted a survey of tractor
dismantling operations to determine the type of material in
tractors' valve seats.  (See Appendix 6 for information on how
to obtain a copy of the protocol and quality assurance plan
for this survey.)  An eddy-current test was used to identify
stellite valve seats and steel/cast iron seats.  A chemical
test (for the presence of chromium) was then used to distin-
guish between valve seats made of steel and cast iron.  Data
were obtained from eight establishments located throughout
the United States.   This survey is subject to large sampling
and measurement errors and the data have not been fully

-------
                           -35-
   Table 6--Distribution of  number  of  gasoline-powered
       combines by number of acres  harvested,  1985
Number of acres harvested
Number of combines
        1-99
      100-199
      200-299
      300-399
      400-499
      500-999
    1,000 or more
    All combines
     101,641
      69,159
      32,418
      24,446
      13,793
      22,594
       6,294
     270,345

-------
                          -36-
          Table 7--Annual miles of farm trucks
         larger than 1 ton rated capacity, 1985
   Total annual
   miles driven
Number of trucks
     0-1,000
 1 ,001-2,000
 2,001-3,000
 3,001-4,000
 4,001-5,000
 5,001-10,000
10,001-20,000
20,001 or more
All trucks
     254,805
    445,783
      81,896
      42,568
         •v.
      74,053
      96,361
      32,341
       5,955
     733,762

-------
                             -37-
examined at this time.  A preliminary analysis suggests that
33 percent of all gasoline-powered tractors may have hard
valve seat inserts.  These would not be vulnerable to valve
seat recession with unleaded gasoline.  The remaining 67
percent of the tractors have cast iron inserts or have seats
that were machined into the cast iron heads.  These tractors
are potentially vulnerable to valve seat recession with
unleaded fuel if the engines are operated under medium-duty
and/or heavy-duty conditions.
     While hundreds of thousands gasoline-powered engines on
tractors, combines, trucks and other large farm equipment
face no risk of damage if fueled with unleaded gasoline,
hundreds of thousands of others need lead or an effective
substitute if they are to continue in their present uses
without needing an engine overhaul.

-------
                  -38-
               Appendix 1
Exhaust Valve Seat Recession by Cylinder

-------
                                 Figure 1
                       Exhaust Ualve Scat Recession
                   John  Deere B,  unleaded fuel,  run I
                          oast iron valve seats
Recession 
-------
                                 Fisrure 2
                       Exhaust Valve Seat Recession
                    John Deere B, unleaded fuel, pun 2
                          oast iron valve seats
Recess ion < inches >
V. JLW
O.O9O
O.O8O
O.O7O
0.060
O.O5O
0.04O
0.03O
O.O2O
OAfl A
• vxv
O.OOO
-O.O1O
m
-
InterMittent Cycle
-
-
-
~*'r-^*^*~^~



Steady
State
Cycle




, ,


Intermittent
Cycle




i i i i
                                                            Cylinder Ml

                                                            Cylinder M2
                                                                                  O
                                                                                  I
                 4O    8O    12O    16O   2OO
                             Tine  
-------
                                 Fi gui»e  3
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                         Famiall H, unleaded fuel
                           cast i*on valve seats
Recession Cinches)
      0.100
      0.090
      O.080
      O.O7O
      O.06O
      O.050
      0.040
      O.030
      O.O2O
      O.O1O
      O.OOO
    -O.O1O
Intermittent Cycle
Steady State
   Cycle
i
•tk
               2O   4O   60   8O  1OO  12O  14O  16O ISO  2OO
                              Time  
           See text t ox>. desori jpt i on of duty cycle

-------
                                 Figure 4
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                    John Deere  3O3  CID,  unleaded fuel
                          cast  iron valve seats
Recession 
-------
                                 Figure 5
                       Exhaust Valve Seat Recession
                       IH 24O, unleaded fuel, run 1
                          cast iron valve seats
Recession Cinches)
      0.1 OO
      O.O9O
      O.O8O
      O.O7O
      O.O6O
      O.05O
      O.O4O
      O.O3O
      O.O2O
      O.O1O
      O.OOO
    -0.010
     Intermittent Cycle
-•*•=
Steady State
   Cycle
                                                                   u>
                                                                   i
               20   4O   6O   8O  10O  12O  14O 16O  18O  2OO
                             T i me < hours>
           See text for description  of duty cycle

-------
                                 Figure 6
                      Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                      IH  24O, unleaded fuel,  run 2
                          cast iron valve seats
Recession Cinches)
      O.1OO
      O.O9O
      O.O8O
      0.070
      O.O6O
      0.050
      O.O4O
      O.O3O
      O.O2O
      O.O1O
      O.OOO
     -O.010

.
Intermittent Cycle
^



Steady State
Cycle


Cyl
Cyl
Cyl
Cyl

               2O   4O   6O   8O  1OO  12O  14O 16O  JL8O  2 CO
                              T i Me  
           See  text for  description of duty cycle

-------
                                 Fisrure 7
Recession 
-------
                                 Fisrure 8
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                          Ford 8N, unleaded fuel
                       cast iron valve seat inserts
Recession Cinches)
      0.1OO
      O.O90
      O.O8O
      O.070
      O.O6O
      O.O5O
      0.040
      O.O3O
      0.02O
      0.010
      0.000
     -O.O1O
Intermittent Cycle
Steady State
   Cycle
               2O   4O   6O   8O  1OO  12O  14O 16O  ISO  2OO
                             TiMe  
           See text fox* description of duty cycle

-------
                      Fisrure  9

           Exhaust Valve  Seat  Recession
              CM 292-A, unleaded fuel
               cast  iron valve  seats
Recession <
0.1OO
O.O9O
O.O80
O.O7O
O.O6O
O.O50
O.O4O
O.O30
O.O20
O.O1O
0.000
-O.O1O
inches)
/
: / /
/ /
/ /
/ /
/
/ /
/ /
t 1
// *
/<—.--
^ -TL _-*"


    2O   4O  6O   8O  1OO  120  14O  16O  18O 2OO
                  Tine 
-------
                                 Figure 1O
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                         CM  292-B,  unleaded fuel
                          cast iron valve seats
                           lighter duty cycle
Recession  .	..iff'^ .7T..T?. . .*H	
                                                                       CO
                                                                       i
                2O  4O   6O   8O  1OO  12O  14O  16O  18O  2OO
                              TiMe 
            Duty cycle changed to eliminate  the  36OO rpM
              Brtion of the cycle.  Test  terminated at
               hours due to excessive recession.  MaxiMUM
              cession, O.O99 inches.
            See  text for description of duty cycle

-------
                                   Figure  11
                        Exhaust Valve  Seat Recession
                           GM 292-B,  unleaded fuel
                    induction-hardened cast  iron valve  seats
Recession (inches)
      o-100f	
      0.090 f-
      O.O8O
      O.O7O
      O.O60
      O.O5O
      O.O4O
      O.O30
      O.O20
      O.O10
      0.000
     -O.O10
iVr::-^»-s.	„,	;:w«i^*»T.*—	——.	—-—»-^_»j
r_- •»'- -^ *_£ 
-------
                                Figure 12

                      Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                          CM 454, unleaded fuel
                 induction-hardened cast  iron valve  seats
Recession Cinches)
w • * w
O.O90
O.O8O
O.O7O
O.O60

O.O5O
O.O4O
O.O3O
0.020
0.010
O.OO«4
—A At A

•
•
.
Intermittent Cycle

•
-
^/— ^
A, _fi£*3tr*£f
' . -j - •rifi'?;l»T^Sl5E*gS^fcsr ^^ v^/xx
\«« i tfif^ ^E^S-gg7
^k Ah^A




Steady State
Cycle


— A'A^A;
i^:^rSIM"'^


I.I.
Cylinder 111
	
Cylinder #2

Cylinder 113

Cylinder 114
	
Cylinder #5

Cylinder 116

Cylinder «7


i
in
O
1








               2O   4O   6O   8O  1OO 12O  14O  16O  ISO  ZOO
                             Time (hours)                   Cylinder »8

           See text for  description  of  duty  cycle

-------
                                 Fi srure 13
                       Exhaust Valve Seat Recession
                           GM 454*  unleaded fuel
                         steel valve seat inserts
Recession  
-------
                                 Fisrure 14
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                      John  Deere  3O3 CID,  O.1O gplsr
                          cast  iron  valve  seats
Recession (inches)
      O.1OO
      O.090
      0.080
      O.O7O
      O.O6O
      O.O5O
      O.O4O
      O.O3O
      O.O2O
      O.O1O
      O.OOO
     -O.O10
Intermittent Cycle
Steady State
   Cycle
                               — .> _
                               " '^ *
               2O   4O   6O   8O  1OO  12O  14O  16O  18O  ZOO
                              Tine (hours>
U1
to
I
           See  text  for description of duty cycle

-------
                                Fisrure  15
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                             IH  240,  o.io arpisr
                          cast  ifon  valve seats
Recession 
-------
                                 Fisrure 16
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                            IH 240,  0.10 arplsr
                       cast iron valve seat inserts
Recession (inches)
      0.1OO
      0.09O
      O.O8O
      0.070
      0.060
      0.050
      0.040
      O.030
      O.02O
      O.O1O
      O.OOO
     -O.O1O
Intermittent Cycle
Steady State
   Cycle
                                                              in
               2O   40   6O   8O  100  12O  14O  16O 18O  2OO
                              Time  (hours)
           See  text for description of duty cycle

-------
                      Figure  17
            Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                 GH 454, 0.1O 
-------
                                 Figure 18
                       Exhaust  Value Seat Recession
                        GM  292- A,  O.1O srplfir, run  1
                           oast iron valve seats
Recession  
            Cylinder head gasket  replaced at 12O hours
            See text for description of duty cycle

-------
                                 Fisrure 19
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat  Recession
                        GM 292-A, 0.10 srplsr,  run 2
                          oast iron valve  seats
Recession (inches)
      O.1OO
      O.O9O
      O.O80
      0.070
      0.060
      O.050
      O.O4O
      O.O3O
      O.O20
      O.O10
      O.OOO
    -O.O10

Cylinder 111

Cylinder #2

Cylinder #3

Cylinder «4

Cylinder *5

Cylinder #6
               2O   4O   6O   8O  1OO  12O  14O  16O  ISO  2OO
                              Tine  
-------
                                Fisrure 2O
                       Exhaust Value Seat Recession
                           GM 292-B, O.1O  Sfplff
                           oast  iron valve  seats
Recession 
-------
                                Figure 21

                      Exhaust  Ualve  Seat  Recession
               John Deere 3O3  CID, Lufcricol  "Pow*rShi*Id-
                         oast  iron valve seats
Recession 
           "PowerShleld" additive used at 29O pounds per 1,OOO barrels
           of 0-asoline
           See text for description of duty cycle

-------
                                Figrure 22

                      Exhaust  "alve  Seat  Recession
                     GM 454, Lvocisol  HPoMerShiela-
                indue tion-hardened cast iron valve seats
Recession  2O 4O 6O 8O 1OO 12O 140

Steady State
Cycle



* 160 180 2<
Cylinder 111
Cylinder 112
Cylinder #3
Cylinder *4
Cylinder 115
Cylinder #6
Cylinder 117
Cylinder H8

i
o
i





                             Tine (hours)
-A-
           "PowerShield" additive used at 25O pounds per 1,OOO barrels
           of gasoline
           See text for description of duty cycle

-------
                                Figure  23
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
                     GN 292-A, Lubrizol "PowerShield-
                          cast iron valve seats
Recession 
-------
                                 Figure 24
                       Exhaust Ualve Seat Recession
              GM 292-B, Lufcrizol  Concentrated "PoiaerShield1
                          cast  iron  valve seats
Recession (inches)
      0.100
      0.090
      0.080
      O.O7O
      0.060
      O.O5O
      O.O4O
      O.O3O
      O.020
      0.010
      0.000
     -0.010
10
                2O  4O   6O   8O  1OO  12O  14O  16O  ISO  2OO
                              Time (hoUPS>
            -PowevShield" additive used at 1,OOO pounds  per 1,OOO
            barrels of srasoline
            See  text for description of duty cycle

-------
                                Figure 25
Recession (inches)
      0.1 OO
      0.090
      0.080
      O.O7O
      O.O6O
      O.O5O
      O.O4O
      O.O3O
      0.020
      O.O1O
      0.000
    -O.010
                       Exhaust Valve Seat Recession
                        GM 292-ft, DuPont Additive
                          cast iron valve seats
Cylinder HI

Cylinder #2

Cylinder H3

Cylinder *4

Cylinder US

Cylinder H6
               2O   4O   6O   8O  1OO  12O 14O  16O  18O  2OO
                             Tine (hours)
           DuPont additive  used at  2OO pounds per 1,OOO barrels
           of srasoline
           See text for description  of duty  cycle
U)
i

-------
               -64-
            Appendix 2
    Consultants Evaluations of
Engine Testing Performed by NIPER

-------
                                  -65-
                                                                 March 2, 1987
Mr. Richard G.Kozlowski
Director, Field Operations and Support Division
EN-397F
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC 20460

Dear Mr. Kozlowski:

     The purpose of  this letter  is  to  provide comments on the testing program
involving agricultural  engines  that  was  conducted  by the National  Institute for
Petroleum  and Energy Research (NIPER) at Bartlesville, Oklahoma.  The final report
resulting from that study is entitled "Effect of Low Levels of Lead and Alternative
Additives to Lead on Engines Designed to Operate on Leaded Gasoline".  In order to put
my comments into perspective, some background information on the overall study will
be given.

Background
     During the latter part of Calendar Year 1985, a proposed test plan was developed
by  the Environmental  Protection Agency  (EPA) in  cooperation with  the  U. S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA). That test plan was reviewed and commented on in
December  1985 by representatives from various engine manufacturers, universities,
government agencies, organizations  representing the farmers and other  interested
parties.  An EPA/USQA meeting was held in January 1986 with members of the various
reviewing groups to discuss the development of the testing program.  The contractor
was under contract to do the work by early summer of 1986 and actual engine testing
was begun  in June 1986.  The draft  final  report was delivered to EPA for review in
January 1987.
     Because of a variety of different equipment configurations ranging from two to
eight cylinder engines, laboratory modifications were necessary to accommodate the
various engines.  Some  engines required  pressurized cooling systems, while others
operated at atmospheric pressure.  Some older engines used in the study had carburetor
systems that were   inherently  poor in  their ability  to controPair—fuel ratios.
Procedures for determining valve seat hardness and recession during the accumulations
had to be developed by the contractor.

-------
                                    -66-
     Several  factors unrelated to the fuels being tested, resulted in setbacks of the
experimental  schedule.    They  included:    failures  of  dynamometer equipment*
mechanical failures of engines; and an unusual  amount of rainfall in the vicinity of the
contractor site which flooded the laboratory.
Performance of Contractor

     The contractor has done an excellent job in conducting the testing program and
executing the various tasks on a  reasonable time schedule, considering the short lead
time  for  setting up the experiments and the many setbacks that were beyond the
contractor's  control.   The quality of  the data is as good  as  could  be  expected,
considering the limitations on the  budget and the number  of engines  available for
testing.  The methods developed for  determining valve seat  hardness and recession
during the accumulation of hours were adequate for the purposes of the study.  The
valve seat recession measurements taken during the accumulation of hours were
backed-up by bench inspections of the cylinder heads.  The bench measurements were
made before  the start of the accumulation  of hours on the engines and  after the
completion of each test by an  independent certified automotive mechanic. This was an
excellent method for confirming the accuracy of valve seat recession measurements
because the two separate  measurements  were made  totally  independent from  each
other.

     The testing program  was well  conceived with a  representative cross section of
engine types being incorporated into the testing.  The chosen engine duty cycles were
good in that they served to show valve seat recession as a function of fuel type for some
engines, while other engines showed no valve seat recession with any of  the fuels.  In
general, the  contractor performed  well  in executing the experimental testing  in a
timely fashion and produced a technical report that provides useful data on the effect of
gasoline lead levels and alternative additives to lead on valve seat  recession  in engines
that were originally  designed for  leaded gasoline.  However,  at no  fault of  the
contractor, EPA or USDA (because of budget constraints), it would  have been helpful to
have had more engines in the testing program.  This aspect will be  discussed further in
the following section.

Adequacy of the Test  Data
     The data from the program are adequate for the purposes of the study with the
exception of two areas. One area  relates to the question of whether or not lead at  0.10
gram per gallon in gasoline is adequate to prevent valve seat recession in all of the
engines tested.  The Ford  8N engine was not tested on 0.10 gram per gallon leaded
gasoline, therefore, no data are available to determine if 0.10 gram per  gallon leaded
gasoline would prevent valve seat recession in  this engine. The GM 292 engine showed
significant valve seat  recession  in  one cylinder with 0.10  gram per  gallon  leaded
gasoline. Because a head gasket failure occurred mid-way through the accumulation of
hours on this first test, the engine was rebuilt and retested and 10  thousands of an inch
recession was noted for one valve seat.  A duplicate GM 292 engine was tested later in
the program with no  observed valve seat recession.   Although a  head gasket failure
occurred In the first  test, the engine was repaired at 120 hours and the test  was
continued to  200  hours.   Valve seat  recession continued  after  the  head gasket
replacement  at  120 hours.  Although the rate of valve seat recession was lower after

-------
                                    -67-

the head gasket replacement  than that just prior to the head gasket failure, there
appears to be no basis for throwing out this test result. The overall results from the
GM  292 engine tests for 0.10 gram per gallon leaded gasoline are mixed.  Further
engine testing is required to determine whether or not 0.10 gram per gallon  leaded
gasoline will provide adequate  protection against valve seat recession in the GM 292
engine.
     The second area which needs further study is alternative additives.  One additive
(additive "D") tested in the current  program showed good results when blended  at  a
concentration of 1,000 pounds  of additive to 1,000 barrels of gasoline.  However, the
lubricating oil wear metals analyses  for the additive "D"  test  showed  increased
concentrations of iron, chrome, sodium and molybdenum when compared to other fuel
tests with the same GM 292 engine. These results indicate the need for longer term
engine durability  testing with the additive to determine any adverse  effects on the
engine such as deposit formation in the engine or  increased wear.  Since the additive
contains sodium and possibly other metallic elements, an assessment should be made to
determine if the use of the additive might result in potential degradation of air quality.
Recommendations for Future Work
      Should  additional engine testing  be  considered  in the  future,  I  suggest  that
additional  studies be done on alternative additives as a method for preventing valve seat
recession.   In addition to identifying additives that  successfully prevent valve  seat
recession,  once an additive has  been shown to be effective, further work would be
needed to determine any detrimental effects the additives might have on the engine.
      If further testing is done, I recommend that a larger number of engines be tested
to account for engine-to-engine, test-to-test, and day-to-day variability.  In
addition, changes in uncontrolled engine variables such as air-fuel ratio may influence
valve seat recession.   The  experimental tests just completed indicate that a larger
number of engines is required to give conclusive results.
      An example  illustrating  the  need  for a   larger number  of engines  is  the
International Harvester 240 engine used  in the current study.  The first  test  with
unleaded gasoline showed no valve seat recession.  A repeat test with a slightly softer
cylinder head showed exhaust valve seat recession in two cylinders.  At this point one
might  conclude  that  the softer cylinder head was responsible  for the  valve  seat
recession  in  the repeat test.   However, subsequent inspections  to  determine the
hardness of the cylinder head material near the individual valve seats indicated that the
observed valve seat recession in  the repeat test probably was not  due to differences  in
hardness between the two cylinder heads.  It was also noted  that the engine's air-fuel
ratio (uncontrolled variable; was significantly leaner for the repeat test which could
have contributed to increased valve recession. A third test was run on this engine using
unleaded gasoline with cast iron valve seat inserts  which resulted in exhaust valve seat
recession in all of the cylinders.  In the third test, the average daily air-fuel ratio was
similar to the first test. The variation in test results for a given system suggests the
need for replicate testing for each  engine/fuel combination in the testing program.
      It is recognized that  it  is impractical to run every engine type in the  overall
population.  However, once a given set of engines  is selected for testing, replicate
testing of each engine setup and fuel is highly desirable. In many cases, it is impractical
 to run enough engines and tests to provide statistically significant results. However, a

-------
                                   -68-

compromise situation may be  appropriate for providing a basis for good engineering
judgments.  For  a test program such as the one just completed,  three tests is the
minimum number of replicates which would give reasonable confidence in the data.
This could be done in two different ways.  One way would be to repeat the same test
three times on the same engine. The second way would be to run three identical engines
simultaneously.   Should  further testing be  considered  in  the  future,  I  strongly
recommend that replicate testing be done to increase confidence in the resulting data.
     One way to reduce test-to-test and day-to-day variability, and possibly reduce
the number  of engine tests required to provide conclusive results, is to control air-fuel
ratio.  First, one  would have to determine the normal operating air-fuel ratio for each
operating mode and  the variation of air-fuel ratio within each mode for  each given
engine. Then the  air-fuel ratio would be controlled (by means of a special  laboratory
apparatus) at  its  "average* value throughout the accumulation of hours on each test.
The air-fuel ratio would be controlled at a different value for each operating mode
corresponding to the normal air-fuel ratio characteristics of the engine.
     Since most  of the engines tested showed a problem with valve seat recession on
unleaded fuel,  an  assessment should be made to compare the  relative cost and
practicality of   retrofitting  cylinder heads  with hardened  valve  seats  to  using
alternative  additives or using 0.10 gram per gallon gasoline.  This  assessment should
take into account the total number of engines in the field, the number of engines that
have potential for a valve seat recession problem, etc.
Summary
     In  summary,  the contractor  has  done an  excellent  job  in  conducting the
experimental work and completing the project in a reasonable time frame.  The data
from this program are of significant value and should be published in a form such that
anyone in the public domain can obtain a copy of the report. In addition, the contractor
should be encouraged  to  publish the  results  of the study in an engineering  society
technical paper.   Should  any  future testing  be contemplated, I  recommend that
additional work be done on alternative additives to lead. An assessment should be done
to determine the cost and practicality  of retrofitting cylinder heads with hardened
valve seats.  Also, replicate engine  tests should be  considered to better account for
test-to-test variability.
                                                                     i
Should there be any questions about these comments, please do not hesitate to give me
a call.
                                              Sincerely,
                                              Ralph D.Fleming
                                              Consultant
cc:
Jerry Allsup,NIPfcR
John Garbak, EPA
Gerald Grinnel I, USDA

-------
                           -69-

                             REPORT

Assessment of the testing program conducted by. NIPER 9D selected
                       gasol_i.ne engines..

                       Louis I. Leviticus
                Nebraska Tractor Testing Laboratory.


March 25, 1987.

1.  I want to compliment NIPER,  and in particular Mr. Al 1 sup  and
his staff, for a job well done under severe time constraints.  The
work  was  carried out with competence and  integrity.  The  only
criticism  I  have  is  the fact that the oil  analysis  was   not
carried out exactly as in the original plan of work.

2. One of the great limitations of this project has been the fact
that  not enough enqines of each type could be evaluated.   It   IB
quite  clear  from the hardness  measurements  that  considerable
variation exists between heads.  This variation may be the result
of manufacturing processes or may be due to different sources  for
the  heads  or  inserts used.  Hence,  tests of  the  statistical
significance cannot be applied in this study.

3.  Although  the  results  obtained  may  be  debatable  from  a
statistical significance viewpoint,  they nevertheless provide  a
good  insight  into  the problems encountered when  operating   an
engine,  designed for leaded fuel use,  on unleaded fuel and with
addi ti ves.

4.  In  general,  the  results tend to show that  the  combustion
chamber temperature may be a major contributor to the  phenomenon
of  recession  of valve seats below a certain  critical  hardness
value.  Higher combustion chamber temperatures can occur due to a
variety of reasons:
  a.  High loads.
  b.  Inadequate cooling  (dirty radiator, slipping belts, blocked
      passageways in the engine etc.).
  c.  Lean fuel mixtures  
-------
                           -70-

7.   The results tend to show that at <">. 1 gplg none of the engines
suffered  from excess recession.  A definite conclusion cannot be
reached  however  since  one of the engines  did  show  excessive
recession  after  head gasket failure.  Since the  test  did  not
examine  the harshest possible operating conditions,  one  cannot
conclude  that  0.1  gplq  will protect  all  engines  under  all
operating conditions.

8.  The data from the additive tests, limited as they were, do not
warrant their recommendation,at thus stage,  as a replacement for
lead. This conclusion is based on the  following reasons:'
  a.  It  appears that there is,  as yet,  uncertainty about the
      correct cocentration of some of  the  additives.  I may point
      out  that  it  is possible  that  different  engines  might
      reguire different concentrations  of  an additive.
  b.  The recommended concentrations,  for  the additives tes-
      ted, showed that the engines were not completely protected
      against recession.
  c.  An examination of the effect of  the  additives on emissions
      was inconclusive.
  d.  The oil analysis showed that when additives were used, the
      Sodium content usually increased  drastically. The sodium is
      apparently  introduced  to the oil   through  the  additive.
      Since  the formulation of the additives is proprietary  the
      composition of the compound in which sodium occurs is not
      known.
  e.  The  oil and exhaust gas analysis did not include checking
      for  sulphur compounds.  Sulphur  in  the exhaust  gases  can
      cause damage to the engine and exhaust parts since they are
      mixed with Hydrocarbons and water vapor and may form acids;
      the  sulphur  compounds  in  the  oil can  cause  damage  in
      certain engines since they attack certain metal compounds.
      It  is very difficult to determine which engines  would  be
      affected, since this depends upon:
      .. Engine combustion characteristics, which can vary with
        engine design and operating conditions.
      .. Different  oils  contain different additives  which  may
        react differently with sulphur  compounds.
      .. Metal alloys used in the engine. There are examples of
        manufacturers warning the users against certain oils,
        containing  a  molybdenum  compound,   which  releases  a
        sulphur compound in the oil. This  compound then combines
        with  water  to  create an acid,   which  attacks  certain
        alloys used.
  f.  The  nature  of  *he deposits  found and  their  long-term
      influence on the engine were not  determined.
  g.  The only fuel additive combination,  which did not cause re-
      cession was tested on one engine  only.

9.  Recommendations for future testing.
The additives should be tested and evaluated further in order to:
  a.  Determine the correct concentrate on to be used.
  b.  Investigate whether the concentrations should differ for
      different engine makes.
  c.  Determine  the composition of the exhaust gases and  their

-------
                         -71-

    influence, i -f any, on  the  various engine components.
d.  Determine the in-fluence  on the composition o-f engine oils
    and the in-fluerice o-f the compounds on the oil quality and
    on alloys used in various  engines.
                                 Louis I.  Leviticus
                                                  Testing Lab

-------
                             -72-

                          Appendix 3
               Duty Cycles Used in Engine Tests
Duty cycles were developed to represent conditions
normally encountered by farm tractors, combines and large
trucks, and by recreational vehicles.  Each engine was operated
on its specified duty cycle until 200 hours were accumulated
on each test fuel.
                    Tractors and Combines
The duty cycle for tractor and combine engines consisted of
two parts--an intermittent portion covering 144 hours of
operation and a steady-state portion covering 56 hours.  The
Intermittent part is consistent with the duty cycle (SAE J708)
used for many years by the Nebraska Tractor Testing Laboratory
to test the performance of new tractors.  The steady-state
part was selected to represent the maximum continuous load
that is likely to be placed on these engines, such as pumping
irrigation water.
Intermittent Part—Each engine was run through six power
settings with the engine speed controlled by the governor per
manufacturers'  specifications as follows until 144 hours
were accumulated (16 hours on 8 hours off per day):
    a.  85% of dynamometer torque obtained at maximum
        power--40 minutes
    b.  Zero dynamometer torque at rated rpm--40 minutes
    c.  42.5% of dynamometer torque obtained at maximum
        power--40 minutes
    d.  Dynamometer torque at maximum power--40 minutes

-------
                             -73-
    e.  21.25% of dynamometer torque  obtained  at maximum
        power--40 minutes
    £.  63.75% of dynamometer torque  obtained  at maximum
        power--40 minutes
Steady-State Part—Each engine was  run at  governed  speed  and
75 percent  of maximum torque around the clock  until  56  hours
were accumulated.  After 24 hours,  the engines were shut  off
for 2 hours for valve seat  recession  measurements and service
checks.
                         Farm Trucks
The engines were to be operated 16  hours on and 8 hours off
per day on the following duty cycle until  200  hours were
accumulated for each fuel.
    a.  85% of maximum power (available at 3,000 rpm) at
        3,000 rpm--40 minutes
    b.  45% of maximum power (available at 3,000 rpm) at
        3,000 rpm--40 minutes
    c.  45% of maximum power (available at 2,500 rpm) at
        2,500 rpm--40 minutes
    d.  25% of maximum power (available at 2,000 rpm) at
        2,000 rpm--40 minutes
    e.  85% of maximum power (available at 3,600 rpm)  at
        3,600 rpm--40 minutes
                    Recreational Vehicles
The recreational vehicle test called  for the engine to  be on
16 hours and off 8 hours per day until 200 hours were
accumulated for each fuel.   The engine was operated in  both
intermittent and steady-state modes.

-------
                             -74-

Iintermittent Part--The engine was operated in six speed and
power settings as follows until 144 hours were accumulated:
    a.  85% of maximum power (available at 3,000 rpm) at
        3,000 rpm--40 minutes
    b.  45% of maximum power (available at 2,000 rpro) at
        2,000 rpm--40 minutes
    c.  85% of maximum power (available at 3,600 rpm) at
        3,600 rpm--40 minutes
    d.  45% of maximum power (available at 2,500 rpm) at
        2,500 rpm--40 minutes
    e.  45% of maximum power (available at 3,000 rpm) at
        3,000 rpm--40 minutes
    f.  85% of maximum power (available at 2,500 rpm) at
        2,500 rpm--40 minutes
Steady-State Part—During the steady-state part of the cycle,
the engine was run at a setting that produced 100 horsepower
(52 percent of maximum power) at 3,000 rpm until 56 hours
were accumulated.

-------
                             -75-
                          Appendix 4
                        Engines Tested
1.  John Deere "B"  tractor;  2-cylinder  I-head engine; rated
    at 24 horsepower at  1,250 revolutions per minute  (rpm);
    4 11/16" x 5 1/2"  bore and stroke,  190.4 cubic inch
    displacement (CID).   The engine was originally equipped
    with ordinary cast iron  cylinder heads with a hardness of
    9-25 on the Rockwell C scale.  The  tractor was manufactured
    between the 1930s  and 1952.  Similar tractors were manufac-
    tured until about  1960.
2.  Farmall "H" tractor; 4 cylinder I-head engine; rated  at
    24 horsepower at 1,650 rpm; 3  3/8 x 4 1/4" bore and stroke.
    The engine was originally equipped  with "special  gray iron"
    valve seat inserts having a hardness of 26-36 on  the  Rockwell
    C scale.  The tractor was manufactured between the  1930s
    and 1953.  Similar tractors were built until about  1958.
3.  For "8N" tractor;  4-cylinder L-head engine; rated at  23
    horesepower at 2,000 rpm; 3  3/16" x 3 3/4" bore and stroke,
    119.7 CID.  The engine was originally equipped with valve
    seat inserts having a hardness of 39-43 on the Rockwell  C
    scale.  The tractor was manufactured between  1947 and 1952.
4.  International Harvester 240  tractor; 4  cylinders; rated  at
    27 horsepower at 2,000 rpm;  3  1/8"  x 4" bore  and  strokes,
    122.7 CID.  The engine was originally  equipped with an
    ordinary cast iron cylinder  head  with  a hardness  of 12-23
    on the Rockwell C scale.  The  tractor was manufactured

-------
                             -76-



    between 1958 and 1962.  Similar tractors were built  until
  i

    1978.


5.  John Deere 95 303 CID 6-cylinder combine engine;  rated


    at 80 horsepower at 2,500 rpm.  The engine was originally


    equipped with ordinary cast iron cylinder heads with a


    hardness of 9-25 on the Rockwell C scale.  The engine


    was manufactured between about 1960 and 1974.  A 4-cylinder


    version of this engine also was used in combines  and


    tractors, and a 3-cylinder version was used in tractors.


6.  Pre-1974 Chevrolet 292 CID 6-cylinder truck engine;  rated


    at 115 horsepower at 4,000 rpm.  Prior to 1974, the  engine


    was equipped with ordinary cast iron cylinder heads.  The


    engine is still in production but now has induction-hardened


    cast iron exhaust valve seats.  The engine also has  been


    used in combines and other agricultural equipment.


7.  Pre-1984 General Motors 454 CID 8-cylinder recreational


    vehicle engine; rated at 210 horsepower at 4,000  rpm.


    The engine has always been manufactured with induction-


    hardened exhaust valve seats.

-------
            -77-
         Appendix 5
Farm Engine-Use Survey Form

-------
                                                                                                                                     Form
                                                                                                                                     O.M.B. Numtwr ZO6O 0137
                                                                                                                                     Expiritlon Dal*  1/31187
 Additional information about gasoline-powered farm equipment used on your operation is needed by the USDA's Office of Energy to develop fuel policies related
 to lead content in gasoline.
 17a.  Did you use any GASOLINE-POWERED tractors, combines, or trucks (larger than 1 ton capacity) on your operation last year?

      11   YES       I)  NO • Go to Item 18.

 17b. What GASOLINE-POWERED tractors, combines, and trucks did you use on this operation during 1985?
     (DO  NOT INCLUDE D/ESEL POWERED EQUIPMENT.)
                                                                                                                    1700
                                                                                                                          Office UM
Gasoline Tractors Used 20 or More Hours During 1985, Beginning With the One Used Most
Tractor
« 1
* 2
« 3
Others
Manufacturer


,.
Office
UM
701
710
719
Year of
Manufacture
M
702
711
720
PTO
HOfeMpOWW
703
712
721
,„;
Year Engine
La»l
Overhauled
704
713
722
728
Number
Total Hour*
UMdln
1985
705
714
723
729
Percentage of Time Used During 1985 21
Pumping
Irrigation
Water %
706
715
724
730
Other Medium Light
Hard UM* UM* UM*
% % %
707 708 709
716 717 718
725 726 727
731 732 733
Gasoline Combines and Cornplckers Used During 1985, Beginning With the One Used Most
Combine/
Compickor
« 1
« 2
Others
Manufacturer


Office
Us*
734
739
Year of
Manufacture
I/
735
740
Rated
HOTBDpOWW
736
741

Year Engine
Laal
Overhauled
737
742
744
Number
Total Acre*
Harveited
In 1985
738
743
745


Gasoline Trucks Larger than 1 Ton Capacity Used During 1985, Beginning With the One Used Most
Truck
* 1
« 2
* 3
Others
Manufacturer


Office
UM
746
752
758
Year of
Manufacture
If
747
753
759
Engine Stee
(cu. In.)
748
754
760

Year Engine
Last
Overhauled
749
755
761
764
Number
Total Mile*
Driven
In 1985
750
756
762
765
Rated
Capacity
(ton*)
751
• 	
757
* — 	
763
• — —


                                                                                                                                                     100

                                                                                                                                                     100

                                                                                                                                                     100

                                                                                                                                                     100
                                                                                                                                                         oo
                                                                                                                                                          I
l / For rented, leased or borrowed equipment, enter "98" lor year ol manufacture and report only manufacturer name, total hours and percent
ol lime used, and acres harvested or miles driven in 1985
21 Other Hard (lie:         Plowing. Disking, and other high flPM. heavy engine loads
  Medium UM:            Baling with PTO. chopping silage, rotary mowing, and other high RPU. moderate engine loads
  Light UM:              Harrowing, planting, cultivating, raking, hauling, spreading manure, and other low to medium PPM. light engine loads
16.  Do you own any diesel-powered tractors?
     f]  NO
IJ  YES • How many?
                                                                Number
                                                           766

-------
                             -79-

                          Appendix 6
 How to Order Additional Documents Referred to in this Report

The following documents, referred to in this report, are
available in EPA docket Number EN-87-03.  Copies may be
obtained by writing to Control Docket Section (LE-131A),
Environmental Protection Agency Gallery 1, West Tower, 401 M
Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20460.  Telephone (202)
382-7548.  The docket may be inspected between 8 a.m. and
4 p.m. on weekdays.  As provided in 40 CFR Part 2, a reason-
able fee may be charged for photocopying.
1.  Effects of Low Levels of Lead and Alternative Additives
    to Lead on Engines Designed to Operate on Leaded Gasoline,
    Final Report.  Report by the National Institute for
    Petroleum and Energy Research (NIPER) on results of engine
    tests performed for this study (193+ pages).
2.  Statements of work covering work performed by NIPER.
    A.  Effects of Low Levels of Lead and Alternative Additives
        to Lead on Engines Designed to Operate on Leaded Gasoline.
        Covers tests of leaded and unleaded gasoline performed
        during fiscal year 1986 (10 pages).
    B.  Study of the Effects on Leaded Engines of Alternative
        Additives to Lead.  Covers tests of non-lead additives
        performed during fiscal year 1987 (12 pages).
3.   Quality Assurance Project Plan for Engine Testing Work
    Performed by NIPER (23 pages).

-------
                             -80-
4.  Interviewers Manual for Gasoline-Powered Farm Equipment
    Survey.  Survey conducted by the National Agricultural
    Statistics Service, USDA during July 1986 (7 pages).
5.  Survey Protocol and Quality Assurance Plan for Field
    Measurement of Exhaust Valve Seats in Gasoline-Powered
    Tractors.  Survey conducted by the Radian Corporation
    during September 1986 (84 pages).

-------
        United States
        Environmental Protection   Office of Mobile Sources
        Agency         Washington, D.C. 20460        March 1987
*E PA    EFFECT OF LOW LEVELS OF
         LEAD AND ALTERNATIVE
         ADDITIVES TO LEAD ON ENGINES
         DESIGNED TO OPERATE ON
         LEADED GASOLINE

-------
                                                        Report No.  B06725-2
                                                      (Proposal No. 86-86B)
                                                                   March 1987
                            FINAL  REPORT

  EFFECT  OF  LOW LEVELS OF  LEAD AND ALTERNATIVE  ADDITIVES
TO  LEAD ON  ENGINES  DESIGNED TO  OPERATE  ON LEADED GASOLINE

                                  By
                          Jerry  R. All sup
                        Work  Performed for
             U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
                  Under Contract No. 68-02-4355
                             DISCLAIMER

   This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the Unitec
   Slates Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof
   nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes a il-
   legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of an
   information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would
   not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein  to any specific commercial
   product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise.
   does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favor-
   ing by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions
   of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United
   States Government or any agency thereof.

-------
                              EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
    A series of tests was conducted to determine effects of using leaded, low
lead, unleaded fuels, and fuel additives on valve seat recession 1n engine
designed for leaded fuels.
    A total of eight engines:  four tractor engines,  one combine engine, two
light-duty truck/combine engines, and one heavy truck engine were tested with
various combinations of fuels, valve seat hardness,  and duty cycles.
    Results showed none of six engines tested on 1.2 gm/gal leaded fuel to
have problems with valve seat recession.
    Using unleaded fuel, two low-speed tractor engines did not have problems
with valve seat recession.  All  other engines tested with unleaded fuel,
Including Induction-hardened heads, steel  valve seat Inserts, cast Iron heads,
and cast Iron valve seat inserts resulted 1n valve seat recession.  Induction
hardening and use of steel valve seat inserts greatly reduced but did not
necessarily prevent valve seat recession.   Reduction in severity of the engine
duty cycle reduced the rate of valve seat recession slightly.  Engine failure
in as little as 100 hours 1s likely with some engines.
    Tests with 0.10 gm/gal lead 1n fuel essentially eliminated valve seat
recession using the specified duty cycles.
    Tests with alternative fuel  additives showed that valve seat recession was
significantly reduced by the use of moderate amounts of additive, and was
eliminated by larger amounts of additive.  Combustion chamber deposits were
Increased by the use of large amounts of additives.  More work is needed to
evaluate long-term effects.
                                      111

-------
                               TABLE  OF  CONTENTS
                                                                          Page

Executive Summary	1v
Abstract	1
Acknowledgment	1
Introduction	1
Test Parameters and Conditions	2
  Duty Cycle	2
  Measurement of Recession	4
  Other Test Parameters	5
Engines	6
Fuel and Add111 ves	11
  Fuel Add 111 ve "A"	13
  Fuel Additive "B"	13
  Fue 1 Add 111 ve "C"	13
  Fuel Additive "D"	13
  Lube 011 Analysls	14
Exhaust Emissions and Air-Fuel Ratio	14
Valve Seat Recession	15
  John Deere "B"	15
  Farmall "H"	16
  Ford 8N	17
  IH-240	17
  GM-292	17
  John Deere 303	18
  6M-454	19
Valve Train Inspection/Recession Measurement	20
  Valve Seat Angle	20
  Valve Seat Recession	20
  Valve Height	22
  Valve Tul 1p Diameter	22
  Valve Guide Diameter	22
  Valve Stem Diameter	22
  Valve Spring Height	22
  Valve Spring Force—Normal	22
  Valve Spring Force Compressed	22
Results and Discussion	23
Leaded Fuel	23
  John Deere "B" Engine	23
  Farmall "H" Engine	24
  International Harvester 240 Engine	25
  GM-292 "A" Engine	26
  John Deere 303 Engine	28
  GM-454 Eng 1 ne	29
Unleaded Fuel	32
  John Deere "B" Engine	32
  Farmal 1 "H" Engine	35
  Ford 8N	36
  IH-240 Engine	37
  GM-292 "A" Engine	41
  GM-292 "B" Engine	44
  John Deere 303 Engine	47

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS—CONTINUED
                                                                          Page

  GM-454 Engine	47
 Low  Lead Fuel, 0.10 gm/gal	53
  International Harvester  240 Engine	53
  6M-292 "A" Eng 1 ne	55
  GM-292 "B" Engine	59
  John Deere 303 Engine	59
  GM-454 Engine	61
  Fuel Additive "A"	62
  GM-292 "A" Engine	62
  John Deere 303 Engine	64
  Fuel Additive "B"	65
  GM-292 "A"	65
  John Deere 303	65
  GM-454	68
  Fuel Additive "C"	70
  GM-292 "A"	70
  John Deere 303	72
  Fuel Additive "D"	72
  GM-292 "B"	73
  Deposits	75
  Lube 011 Analysis	89
Summary	91
  Leaded Fuel	91
  Unleaded Fuel	91
  Low Lead (0.10 gm/gal)	92
  Fuel Additive "A"	93
  Fuel Additive "B"	93
  Fuel Additive "C"	94
  Fuel Additive "D"	94
  Deposits	94
Glossary	,	95


                           TABLES AND ILLUSTRATIONS

Table                                                                   Page

 1  Summary of speed/load conditions for engine duty cycle	4
 2  Fuel  compositional analysis	12
 3  Fuel  inspection data	12
 4  Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession--
      John Deere  "B"  engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead, average hardness HRB 96.5	23
 5  Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
      Farmall  "H"  engine,  1.2 gm/gal lead, avg. insert hardness HRB 95	25
 6  Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
      IH-240 engine,  1.2 gm/gal  lead,  average hardness HRB 92.7	26
 7  Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
      GM-292 "A"  engine,  1.2 gm/gal  lead, average hardness HRB 91	27
 8  Effect  of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession-
      John Deere-303  engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead, average hardness HRB 100	29
                                      vi

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

Table                                                                    E§3§

 9  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      GM-454 engine,  1.2 gm/gal  lead, induction hardened seats	30
10  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession--
      John Deere "B"  engine,  unleaded fuel, average hardness HRB 92.2	33
11  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession--J.D."B"
      engine, unleaded fuel  repeat  test, hardness HRB 92.7	34
12  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      Farmall "H" engine,  unleaded  fuel, avg.  insert hardness HRB 95.5	36
13  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession--
      Ford 8N engine, unleaded  fuel, HRB 97 valve seat inserts	37
14  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      IH-240 engine,  unleaded fuel, average hardness HRB 97.5	38
15  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      IH-240 engine,  unleaded fuel, repeat test, avg. hardness HRB 92.7	38
16  A1r fuel distribution, IH-240 engine	40
17  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      IH-240 engine,  unleaded fuel, valve seat Insert hardness HRB 96.3	41
18  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      GM-292 "A" engine, unleaded fuel, average hardness HRB 88.8	42
19  Air-fuel ratio of individual  cylinders	43
20  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      6M-292 "B" engine, unleaded fuel, induction hardened engine head	45
21  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—GM-292 "B"
      engine, unleaded fuel,  average hardness  HRB 89, mod. cycle	46
22  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession-
      John Deere-303  engine,  unleaded fuel, average hardness HRB 97.7	48
23  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      GM-454 engine,  unleaded fuel,  induction-hardened head	49
24  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      GM-454 CID engine, unleaded fuel, steel  exhaust valve seat	51
25  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      IH-240 engine,  0.10  gm/gal  lead, average hardness  HRB 92.8	54
26  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      IH-240 engine,  0.10  gm/gal  lead, valve  seat  insert hardness HRB 97....55
27  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—
      GM-292 "A" engine, 0.10 gm/gal  lead, average  hardness HRB 89	56
28  Effect of accumulated  engine  hours on valve seat recession—GM-292  "A"
      engine, 0.10 gm/gal  lead, average hardness  HRB 91  (repeat)	58
29  Effect of accumulated  engine hours on valve seat recession—
      GM-292 "B" engine, 0.10 gm/gal  lead, average  hardness HRB 91.8	60
30  Effect of accumulated  engine hours on valve seat recession--
      John Deere-303  engine, 0.10 gm/gal  lead, average  hardness HRB 96.0	60
31  Ejffect of accumulated  engine hours on valve seat recession—
      GM-454 engine,  0.10  gm/gal  lead,  Induction-hardened  seats	62
32  Effect of accumulated  engine hours on valve  seat recession—
   '   GM-292 "A" engine,  fuel additive  "A",  average hardness  HRB  89	63
33  Effect of accumulated  engine hours on valve  seat recession-
      John Deere-303  engine, fuel additive  "A", average hardness  HRB 95	64
34  Effect of accumulated  engine hours on valve  seat recession—
      GM-292 "A" engine,  fuel additive  "B",  average hardness  HRB  89	66

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)

 Table                                                                     Page

 35  Effect  of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
       John  Deere  303  engine,  fuel additive "B", average hardness HRB 95	67
 36  Effect  of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
       GM-454 engine,  fuel additive "B", induction hardened head	69
 37  Effect  of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
       GM-292 "A"  engine, fuel additive "C", average hardness HRB 89	71
 38  Effect  of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
       John  Deere-303  engine,  fuel additive "C", average hardness
       HRB 95.4	73
 39  Effect  of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
       GM-292 "B"  engine, fuel additive "D", average hardness HRB 96.2	74


 Figure                                                                   Page

  1  Recession  measurement jig, John Deere "B" engine	15
  2  Recession  measurement jig, Farmall "H" engine	16
  3  Recession  measurement jig, International Harvester 240 engine	18
  4  Recession  measurement jig, GM-292 engine	19
  5  Fowler  gauge  used for measurement of valve seat recession	21
  6  GM-454—1.2 gm/gal fuel	76
  7  GM-292A—1.2  gm/gal fuel	77
  8  John Deere 303--1.2 gm/gal fuel	78
  9  GM-454—unleaded  fuel	79
 10  GM-292A—unleaded fuel	80
 11  John Deere 303—unleaded fuel	81
 12  GM-454—fuel  additive "B"	83
 13  GM-292A—fuel additive "B"	84
 14  John Deere 303—fuel additive "B"	85
 15  GM-292A—fuel additive "C"	86
 16  GM-292A—fuel additive "C", showing intake valve leakage	87
 17  GM-292B—fuel additive "D"	88
                                  APPENDIX A

A-l   Exhaust emissions profile—modes, JD "B" engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead	A-l
A-2   Exhaust emissions profile—daily variation, JD "B"  engine,
        1.2 gm/gal lead	A-l
A-3   Exhaust emissions profile—modes, Farmall "H" engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead..2
A-4   Exhaust emissions profile, daily variation, Farmall "H"  engine,
        1.2 gm/gal lead	A-2
A-5   Exhaust emissions profile—modes, IH-240 engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead	A-3
A-6   Exhaust emissions profile—daily variation, IH-240  engine,
        1.2 gm/gal lead	A-3
A-7   Exhaust emissions profile—modes, GM-292 "A" engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead...4
A-8   Exhaust emissions profile—daily variation, GM-292  "A"  engine,
        1.2 gm/gal 1 ead	A-4
A-9   Exhaust emissions profile—modes, JD-303 engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead	A-5
                                     viii

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS  (CONTINUED)
Table
Page
A-10  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, JD-303 engine,
        1.2 gm/gal  lead	A-5
A-ll  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, GM-454 engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead	A-6
A-12  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, GM-454 engine,
        1.2 gm/gal  lead	A-6
A-13  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, JD "B" engine, unleaded  fuel	A-7
A-14  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, JD "B" engine,
        unleaded fuel	A-7
A-15  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, JD "B" engine, unleaded  fuel,
        repeat test	A-8
A-16  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, JD "B" engine,
        unleaded fuel,  repeat test	A-8
A-17  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, Farmall "H" engine, unleaded  fuel..A-9
A-18  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, Farmall "H" engine,
        unleaded fuel,  valve seat inserts	A-9
A-19  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, Ford 8N, unleaded fuel	A-10
A-20  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, Ford 8N, unleaded fuel..A-10
A-21  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, IH-240 engine, unleaded  fuel	A-ll
A-22  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, IH-240 engine,
        unleaded fuel	A-ll
A-23  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, IH-240 engine, unleaded  (repeat)..A-12
A-24  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, IH-240 engine,
        unleaded fuel  (repeat)	A-12
A-25  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, IH-240 engine, unleaded  fuel,
        valve seat  inserts	A-13
A-26  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, IH-240 engine,
        unleaded fuel,  valve seat inserts	A-13
A-27  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, GM-292 "A" engine, unleaded 	A-14
A-28  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, GM-292 "A" engine,
        unleaded fuel	A-14
A-29  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, GM-292 "B" engine, induction-
        hardened head,  unleaded fuel	A-15
A-30  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, GM-292 "B" engine,
        induction-hardened  head, unleaded fuel	A-15
A-31  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, GM-292 "B" engine, unleaded fuel,
        modified cycle	A-16
A-32  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, GM-292 "B" engine,
        unleaded fuel,  modified cycle	A-16
A-33  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, JD-303 engine, linleaded fuel	A-17
A-34  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, JD-303,  unleaded fuel...A-17
A-35  Exhaust emissions  profHe--modes, GM-454 engine, unleaded fuel	A-18
A-36  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, GM-454,  unleaded fuel...A-18
A-37  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, GM-454,  unleaded fuel—inserts....A-19
A-38  Exhaust emissions  profile—daily variation, GM-454 engine,
        unleaded fuel—valve seat inserts	A-19
A-39  Exhaust emissions  profile—modes, IH-240,  0.10  gm/gal  lead	A-20
                                      1x

-------
                         TABLE OF CONTENTS  (CONTINUED)

 Table                                                                    Page

 A-40  Exhaust  emissions profile—dally variation, IH-240 engine,
         0.10 gin/gal  lead	A-20
 A-41  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, IH-240 engine,  0.10  gm/gal  lead-
         valve  seat  inserts	A-21
 A-42  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, IH-240 engine,
         0.10 gm/gal  lead—valve seat inserts	A-21
 A-43  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, GM-292 "A",  0.10 gm/gal  lead	A-22
 A-44  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, GM-292 "A" engine,
         0.10 gm/gal  lead	A-22
 A-45  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, GM-292 "A",  0.10 gm/gal,repeat....A-23
 A-46  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, GM-292 "A" engine,
         0.10 gm/gal  lead—repeat	A-23
 A-47  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, GM-292 "B",  0.10 gm/gal  lead	A-24
 A-48  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, GM-292 "B" engine,
         0.10 gm/gal  lead	A-24
 A-49  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, JD-303, 0.10 gm/gal  lead	A-25
 A-50  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, JD-303 engine,
         0.10 gm/gal  lead	A-25
 A-51  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, GM-454 engine,  0.10  gm/gal  lead...A-26
 A-52  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, GM-454 engine,
         0.10 gm/gal  lead	A-26
 A-53  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, GM-292 "A" engine, additive "A"...A-27
 A-54  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, GM-292 "A" engine,
         fuel additive "A"	A-27
 A-55  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, JD-303, fuel  additive "A"	A-28
 A-56  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, JD-303 engine,
         fuel additive "A"	A-28
 A-57  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, GM-292 "A",  fuel additive "B"	A-29
 A-58  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, GM-292 "A" engine,
         fuel additive "B"	A-29
 A-59  Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, JD-303, fuel  additive "B"	A-30
 A-60  Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, JD-303 engine,
         fuel additive "B"	A-30
 A-61   Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, GM-454, fuel  additive "B"	A-31
 A-62   Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, GM-454 engine,
         fuel additive "B"	A-31
 A-63   Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, GM-292 "A",  fuel additive "C"	A-32
 A-64   Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, GM-292 "A" engine,
         fuel additive "C"	A-32
 A-65   Exhaust  emissions profile—modes, JD-303, fuel  additive "C"	A-33
 A-66   Exhaust  emissions profile—daily variation, JD-303 engine,
         fuel additive "C"	A-33
A-67   Exhaust emissions profile—modes, GM-292 "B",  fuel additive "D"	A-34
A-68   Exhaust emissions profile—daily variation, GM-292 "B" engine,
         fuel additive "D"	A-34

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS  (CONTINUED)

Table                                                                    Page

                                 APPENDIX B

B-l   Valve train  Inspection data—before and after test,  John  Deere  "B"
        1.2 gm/gal  lead	B-l
B-2   Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  Farmall  "H"
        1.2 gm/gal  lead, valve seat inserts	B-2
B-3   Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  IH-240,
        1.2 gm/gal  lead	B-3
B-4   Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292  "A"
        1.2 gm/gal  lead	B-4, B-5
B-5   Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  JD-303,
        1.2 gm/gal  lead	B-6, B-7
B-6   Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  GM-454,
        1.2 gm/gal  lead	B-8, B-9
B-7   Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  JD "B",
        unleaded fuel	B-10
B-8   Valve train  inspection data—before and after test—JD "B",
        unleaded fuel—repeat test	B-ll
B-9   Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  Farmall  "H",
        unleaded fuel, valve seat inserts	B-12
B-10  Valve train  Inspection data—before and after test,  Ford  8N,
        unleaded fuel, valve seat inserts	B-13
B-ll  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  IH-240,
        unleaded fuel	B-14
B-12  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  IH-240,
        unleaded fuel—repeat	B-15
B-13  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  IH-240,
        unleaded fuel—valve seat Inserts	B-16
B-14  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292 "A",
        unleaded fuel	B-17
B-15  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292 "B",
        unleaded fuel,  induction hardened head	B-19
B-16  Valve train  Inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292 "B",
        unleaded fuel—modified cycle	B-21
B-17  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  John Deere-303,
        unleaded fuel	B-23
B-18  Valve train  Inspection data—before and after test,  GM-454,
        unleaded fuel	B-25
B-19  Valve train  Inspection data—before and after test,  GM-454,
        unleaded fuel — inserts	B-27
B-20  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  IH-240,
        0.10 gm/gal  lead	B-29
B-21  Valve train  Inspection data—before and after test,  IH-240,
        0.10 gm/gal  lead—valve  seat inserts	B-30
B-22  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292  "A",
        0.10 gm/gal  lead	B-31
B-23  Valve train  inspection data—before and after test, GM-292  "A",
        0.10 gm/gal  lead—repeat test	B-33
                                      x1

-------
                         TABLE  OF  CONTENTS  (CONTINUED)
Table
Page
B-24  Valve train Inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292  "B",
        0.10 gm/gal lead	B-35
B-25  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,
        John Deere-303, 0.10 gm/gal lead	B-37
B-26  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,  GM-454,
        0.10 gm/gal lead	B-39
B-27  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292  "A",
        fuel additive "A"	B-41
B-28  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,
        John Deere-303, fuel additive "A"	B-43
B-29  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292  "A",
        fuel additive "B"	B-45
B-30  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,
        John Deere-303, fuel additive "B"	B-47
B-31  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,  GM-454,
        fuel additive "B"	B-49
B-32  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292  "A",
        fuel additive "C"	B-51
B-33  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,
        John Deere-303, fuel additive "C"	B-53
B-34  Valve train inspection data—before and after test,  GM-292  "B",
        fuel additive "D"	B-55


                                  APPENDIX C

C-l  Lube oil metals analysis, John Deere "B" engine	C-l
C-2  Lube oil metals analysis, Farmall "H" engine	C-l
C-3  Lube oil metals analysis, Ford 8N engine	C-2
C-4  Lube oil metals analysis, IH-240 engine	C-2
C-5  Lube oil metals analysis, GM-292 "A" engine	C-3
C-6  Lube oil metals analysis, GM-292 "B" engine	C-3
C-7  Lube oil metals analysis, John Deere 303 engine	C-4
C-8  Lube oil metals analysis, GM-454 engine	C-4
                                     xii

-------
        EFFECT OF  LOW  LEVELS OF LEAD AND ALTERNATIVE ADDITIVES TO LEAD
              ON  ENGINES DESIGNED TO OPERATE ON LEADED GASOLINE
                                      By
                               Jerry R. All sup
                                   ABSTRACT
    This report describes testing operations to determine the effect of using
leaded gasoline, low-lead gasoline, unleaded gasoline,  and gasoline with
additives in engines designed for leaded gasoline.   Four tractor engines,  one
combine engine, two light-duty farm truck engines,  and  one heavy-duty truck
engine were tested using leaded fuel (1.2 gm/gal),  unleaded fuel, and low-lead
fuel (0.10 gm/gal).  Results show the medium and higher speed engines experi-
enced valve seat recession using unleaded fuel, while  lower speed engines  did
not show valve seat recession using the unleaded fuel.   No substantial valve
seat recession occurred using the 1.2 or 0.10 gm/gal  leaded fuel.  Fuel
additives were found to have some potential with unleaded fuel in reducing
valve seat recession, although unresolved questions remain.

                                ACKNOWLEDGMENT
    We wish to acknowledge the technical and administrative assistance of
Mr. John Garbak, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,  and to Dr. Gerald
Grinnell, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in providing  technical direction and
assistance to the program.  Further, we wish to acknowledge the technical
assistance provided by consultants Dr. Ralph D. Fleming, EFE Consulting
Services, and Dr. Louis Leviticus, Nebraska Tractor Test Laboratory.

                                 INTRODUCTION
    The testing program was designed to evaluate the effects that various
levels of lead in gasoline will have on engines designed to operate on  leaded
fuel.  In addition, the program was designed to determine  if alternative fuel
additives had potential for reducing valve seat recession.  Specifically,  the
testing measured valve seat recession while operating engines on a  fuel with
varying amounts of lead or other fuel additives.  Eight test engines  were  pro-
cured, and rebuilt 1f necessary, and accumulated about 200 hours on each  of

-------
 the fuels  in  that  engine.   Valve  seat  recession was determined by measuring
 valve  stem height  or valve  lash periodically  during the testing and by an
 internal  inspection of  the  cylinder  head  and  the  valve train assembly before
 and after  each  test fuel.
     The  valve train parameters measured before and after the fuel tests
 included valve  seat angle,  valve  seat  recession,  valve height, valve tulip
 diameter,  valve guide diameter, valve  stem  diameter, valve spring height,
 valve  spring  force—normal,  and valve  spring  force—compressed.
 TEST PARAMETERS AND CONDITIONS
 Duty Cycle
 1.   Tractor and Combine Duty Cycle - The  duty cycle was patterned after the
     SAEJ-708  Agricultural Tractor Test Code and consisted of six power
     settings  with  engine speed controlled by  the  governor per manufacturer's
     specification.   The engine was operated at each mode for a period of 40
     minutes 1n  the  following order (four  hours for a complete cycle):
     a.  Eighty-five percent  of dynamometer  torque obtained at maximum power.
     b.  Zero  dynamometer torque at rated  rpm.
     c.  One-half of 85  percent of dynamometer torque obtained at maximum
        power.
     d.  Dynamometer torque at maximum  power.
     e.  One-quarter of  85 percent of dynamometer  torque obtained at maximum
        power.
     f.  Three-quarters  of 85 percent of dynamometer torque obtained at maximum
        power.
     g.  Repeat  this  cycle until 144 hours has been reached.  (The cycle was
        run 16  hours  on, 8 hours  off.)
     h.  Steady-state  duty cycle for tractors  and  combine engines - At the
        conclusion  of the 144-hour cycle  above, the tractor and combine
        engines were  run at  governed speed  at 75  percent of dynamometer torque
        obtained at maximum  power for  56  hours continuously.
2.  A farm truck speed/load  cycle was  used  to simulate heavy and medium
     hauling at  highway  speeds (85 and  45  percent  maximum power at 3,000 rpm)

-------
    as well  as medium and low speed  (2,500  rpm  at  45 percent  power,  and
    2,000 rpm at 25 percent  power).   Also included is  a  high-speed condition
    of 3,600 rpm at 85 percent power.   This cycle  was  repeated  until  200  hours
    was accumulated at 16 hours per  day on  and  8 hours off.   The  farm truck
    cycle was as follows:
    a.  85%  maximum power (available at 3,000 rpm)  at  3,000 rpm - 40 minutes.
    b.  45%  maximum power (available at 3,000 rpm)  at  3,000 rpm - 40 minutes.
    c.  45%  maximum power (available at 2,500 rpm)  at  2,500 rpm - 40 minutes.
    d.  25%  maximum power (available at 2,000 rpm)  at  2,000 rpm - 40 minutes.
    e.  85%  maximum power (available at 3,600 rpm)  at  3,600 rpm - 40 minutes.
3.  Recreational Vehicle Cycle:  The recreational  vehicle  (RV)  speed/load
    cycle simulates extended time at highway road  load conditions required to
    transport a relatively large RV  at highway  speeds.  The cycle also
    includes lower speed urban-type  driving and near maximum  speed/load
    conditions.  The cycle is repeated until 144 hours is  reached at 16  hours
    per day.  Following 144  hours, a 16-hour per day steady-state mode of
    100 hp at 3,000 rpm is followed  until a total  of 200 hours  was
    accumulated.
    a.  85%  maximum power (available at 3,000 rpm) at  3,000  rpm - 40 minutes.
    b.  45%  maximum power (available at 2,000 rpm) at  2,000  rpm - 40 minutes.
    c.  85%  maximum power (available at 3,600 rpm) at  3,600  rpm - 40 minutes.
    d.  45%  maximum power (available at 2,500 rpm) at  2,500  rpm - 40 minutes.
    e.  45% maximum power (available at 3,000 rpm) at  3,000  rpm - 40 minutes.
    f.  85% maximum power (available at 2,500 rpm) at  2,500  rpm - 40 minutes.
    g.  After 144 hours, 100 hp at 3,000 rpm for 56 hours at 16 hours per day.

    The design of the program was to operate the engines for 16  hours per day,
five days per week.  Occasional engine/dynamometer system problems  affected
the scheduled tests (discussed in the results section of this  report).   During
the 56-hour continuous duty cycle (for tractor and combine engines)  the
engines were shut down for approximately two hours at the 24-hour point  for
recession measurements and service checks.

-------
     The speed/load conditions  for the  various test engines are listed 1n
 table 1.
       TABLE 1. - Summary of speed/load conditions for engine duty cycle

RPM
Torque
RPM
Torque
RPM
Torque
RPM*
Torque
RPM*
Torque

, ft/lb
, ft/lb
, ft/lb
, ft/lb
, ft/lb
RPM
Torque, ft/lb
RPM
Torque, ft/lb

1
1260
86
2050
56
2050
73
1700
85
2600
143
3000
168
3000
285

2
1370
0
2200
0
2200
0
1800
0
2750
0
3000
89
2000
145

3
John Deere
1300
43
Ford 8N
2100
28
IH-240
2100
37
Farmall "
1750
43
John Deere
2700
71
GM 292
2500
92
GM 454
3600
258
Mode
4
"B"
1250
max
2000
max
2000
max
H"
1650
max
303
2500
max
2000
53
2500
149
*RPM listed for the tractor engines 1s nominal except
due to engine governor controlling rpm.
Measurement of
Recession




5
1300
21
2150
14
2150
18
1750
21
2700
36
3600
149
3000
151
for 0


6
1275
64
2100
42
2100
54
1725
64
2650
107
NA
NA
2500
282
load and


56-hour
1275
76
2100
50
2100
64
1725
75
2650
126
NA
NA
3000
175
max load

1.   Measurement of valve seat recession was made at the conclusion of each
    16-hour cycle.  If technical problems occurred, valve seat recession
    measurements were made at earlier Intervals.

-------
2.  Standard measures of engine performance  Including  coolant  temperature,
    exhaust temperature, power, engine rpm,  oil  temperature  and  pressure,  in-
    take air temperature, barometric pressure,  and  air-fuel  (A/F)  ratio were
    continuously monitored and recorded at 4-minute intervals.   Engine
    compression was measured at the start and end of each  fuel test  sequence.
    Undiluted carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide  (C02),  unburned hydrocarbon
    (HC), and oxide of nitrogen (NOX) emissions  were determined  at the  test
    modes specified earlier at 16-hour increments.
3.  Valve lash was readjusted at each measurement interval to  prevent failure
    so that testing could be continued.
4.  Other effects these test fuels may have  on  engines were  observed and
    measured (i.e., intake and exhaust valve deposits, valve train wear, etc.)
    by an automotive machine shop operated by a certified  engine rebuilder
    under contract to NIPER.  The qualifications of the rebuilder were
    examined in detail by two independent consultants:  Dr.  R. D.  Fleming,  EFE
    Consulting Services; and Dr. L. Leviticus,  Nebraska Tractor  Test
    Laboratory.
Other Test Parameters
1.  The cooling system used during the test  program for the  tractor  and
    combine engines is a centralized cooling system capable  of maintaining
    engine temperature of 205° F ± 5°.  A pressurized  cooling  system was used
    for the GM-292 and GM-454 engines to maintain engine coolant temperature
    of 230° F.
2.  Ambient engine intake air temperature was  controlled to 85°  F ± 5°.
3.  Humidity was not controlled, but measurements were taken at the start of
    each accumulation cycle.
4.  Engine oil was changed at 100-hour intervals and after each test (but not
    exceeding manufacturer's specifications) and make-up oil added daily as
    required.  Used engine oil was analyzed for wear metals using a  qualified
    commercial facility.
5.  011 temperature was monitored continuously.
6.  Exhaust back pressure was determined on each engine/mode condition at  the
    start and end of each fuel test  to ensure consistent  back pressure.

-------
 ENGINES
    The test  engines  selected were as follows:
 1.  John Deere  "B" tractor,  190.4-CID, 1,250 rpm, 24 hp, representative of
    many of the 2-cy Under engines built by John Deere before 1960.  The
    engine had  a compression ratio of 4.7:1.  The tractor was built with cast
    iron cylinder heads having a hardness of HRC 9-HRC 25.
    The John  Deere "B" engine was rebuilt prior to testing with a new engine
    block and new original engine manufacturer (OEM) pistons and rings.  The
    crankshaft  and camshaft  were checked by a certified engine rebuilder and
    found to  be in tolerance for OEM specifications.  The "B" engine crank-
    shaft housing is  an intergal part of the tractor frame; therefore, the
    engine could not  be removed from the tractor.  Instead, an adaptor was
    fabricated to accept power output from the flywheel side of the tractor to
    a water brake dynamometer, thus allowing the engine to be tested while
    mounted in the tractor.  Instead of using the OEM radiator and gravity
    flow coolant system, an  external electrically driven water pump with a
    capacity of about 4 gal/min was used to recirculate cooling water through
    the engine and cooling tower reservoir.  The coolant temperature was
    maintained at 205° F.
    The John Deere "B" engine did not use valve rotators for its exhaust or
    intake valves.
    After rebuilding,  the John Deere "B" was "broken in" using 1.2 gm/gal
    leaded test fuel  following OEN recommendations as follows:
        5 minutes  -   no load  -  low idle
        5 minutes  -   no load  -  high idle
        5 minutes  -   1/4-load  -  governed rpm
       10 minutes  -   1/2-load  -  governed rpm
       10 minutes  -   3/4-load  -  governed rpm
       10 minutes  -   full load -  governed rpm
1.   Farmall  "H"  tractor,  4-cylinder, 152-CID, 24 hp engine rated at 1,650 rpm.
    The Farmall  "H"  has a compression ratio of 5.9:1.
    The "H"  engine was rebuilt with new OEM cylinder liners, pistons, and
    rings.   In addition,  the crankshaft was dressed by a certified engine

-------
    rebuilder to meet OEM specifications  due  to  lack of  availability of new
    OEM equipment.   Valve seat inserts  of a cast iron  variety were  used in the
    original head assembly.   Several  cast iron inserts from  three manufac-
    turers were measured for hardness with variations  in the range  of Rockwell
    HRC 14 to HRC 20.  An average value of HRC 17 or HRB 97  was  selected such
    that the inserts used were of average quality and  of similar hardness.
    The "H" did not use valve rotators  for the exhaust and Intake valves.
    The OEM recommended break-in schedule for the Farmall  "H" tractor used
    prior to testing and with the 1.2 gm/gal  leaded fuel 1s  as follows:
        30 minutes    -   1/2 rated power   -      825 rpm
        30 minutes    -   3/4 rated power   -   1,240 rpm
        30 minutes    -   3/4 rated power   -   1,650 rpm
        Retorque head  -  readjust valves
        60 minutes    -   3/4 rated power   -   1,650 rpm
3.  Ford 8N tractor, 4-cyUnder, 120-CID, rated  at 23  hp at  2,000 rpm.
    The Ford 8N is  an "L" head or valve-in-block design  with a compression
    ratio of 6.7:1.  The engine was rebuilt to factory "new" tolerances by a
    major Ford tractor facility.  The engine  was tested  with cast  iron valve
    seat inserts.  The Ford  8N has valve  rotators on the exhaust valves but
    not on the intake valves.
    After rebuilding, the engine was broken  in using OEM recommendations as
    follows:
        30 minutes   -   1/2 rated load   -    1,000  rpm
        30 minutes   -   3/4 rated load   -    1,500  rpm
        30 minutes   -   3/4 rated load   -    2,000  rpm
        Retorque head - adjust valves
        60 minutes   -   3/4 rated load   -    2,000 rpm
    The engine was broken in using unleaded  fuel, which was the only  fuel
    tested in this engine.  The fuel used for break-in on all  engines was the
    fuel to be tested during the next fuel test.
4.  International Harvester Farmall 240 tractor,  123-CID, rated at 27 hp  at
    2,000 rpm, representative of most  IH engines  less than  150-CIO sold until
    1979.  The IH 240 had a compression ratio of  6.8:1.

-------
     The  IH-240 engine was rebuilt prior to testing with new OEM cylinder
     liners, pistons, and rings.  An original crankshaft and camshaft were
     measured and found to be within OEM specifications and Installed.  The
     IH-240 engine used valve rotators for the exhaust valves only.  The engine
     was  broken 1n using the 1.2 gm/gal leaded test fuel prior to testing.  The
     following break-in schedule for the IH-240 was followed as recommended by
     the  manufacturer:
         30 minutes   -   1/2 rated load   -   1,000 rpm
         30 minutes   -   3/4 rated load   -   1,500 rpm
         30 minutes   -   3/4 rated load   -   2,000 rpm
         Retorque head - adjust valves
         60 minutes   -   3/4 rated load   -   2,000 rpm
 5.   John Deere 303, 6-cylinder, 303-CID combine engine rated at 80 hp at
     2,500 rpm, representative of engines used in tractors, combines, and other
     equipment between 1960 to 1974.  The John Deere 303 had a compression
     ratio of 7.6:1.
     The  303 engine was rebuilt with new OEM cylinder liners, pistons, and
     rings.  The crankshaft and camshaft were checked for wear and balance by a
     certified engine rebullder and found to be within OEM tolerance and used
     for  testing.  The 303 engine used valve rotators only on the exhaust
     valves.
     The  John Deere 303 was broken in prior to testing using the 1.2 gm/gal
     leaded test fuel on the following OEM recommended "break-In" schedule:
         5 minutes   -   no load   -     800 rpm
         5 minutes   -   no load   -   2,000 rpm
         5 minutes   -   1/4 load  -   2,200 rpm
       10 minutes   -   3/4 load  -   2,200 rpm
       10 minutes   -   full load -   2,300 rpm
6.  Two GM-292 6-cylinder, 292-CID engines rated at 120 hp at 4,000 rpm
    representative of pre-1974 engines used in light trucks and agricultural
    equipment.   The two engines designated as 6M-292 "A" and GM-292 "B", with
    a compression ratio of 8.0:1, were procured from General Motors (GM).  New
                                       8

-------
carburetor, Intake manifold, exhaust manifold,  and electrical system were

used representative of pre-1974 engine adjustments.   The GM-292 engine

used valve rotators for exhaust valves only.

Induction-hardened engine heads were used on  1974 and later model produc-

tions.  New OEM engine heads without Induction  hardening were obtained
from GM for this test.  The GM-292 engines were Installed on a test stand

using a pressurized closed cooling system with  a water-cooled external

heat exchanger 1n order to operate at 225° to 230° F as required to

simulate actual operation.

The break-1n procedure used for the GM-292 and  recommended by the

manufacturer 1s shown below.

The test fuel used for break-1n contained 1.2 gm/gal lead.

         RPM                  Time                Torque, ft/lb

         1,000                30 minutes              58
                Change oil/filter
         1,600                 2 hrs., 55 m1n.         61
         Idle                  5 minutes
         2,600                 1 hrs., 55 m1n.         80
         Idle                  5 minutes
         3,200                 2 hrs., 55 m1n.         90
         Idle                  5 minutes
         3,600                 2 hrs., 55 m1n.         96
         Idle                  5 minutes              -  ^
         4,000                15 minutes              WOT
         Idle                  5 minutes
         4,000                15 minutes              WOT
         Idle                  5 minutes
         4,000                15 minutes              WOT
         Idle                  5 minutes
         4,200                15 minutes              WOT
         Idle                  5 minutes
         4,200                15 minutes              WOT
         Idle                  5 minutes
         4,200                15 minutes              WOT
         Idle                  5 minutes
                 Change oil/filter

         *W1de Open Throttle

Following engine break-In, the head was removed  and new OEM heads were

Installed for testing.

-------
6.  GM-454 heavy truck engine, 8-cylindert 454-CID rated at 210 hp at 4,000

    rpm.  The GM-454 engine had a compression ratio of 9.1:1.  The GM-454

    engine has Induction-hardened valve seats and represents a 1982 model

    vintage production engine.  The GM-454 was procured as a new OEM "short"

    block.  Other OEM equipment including engine heads, intake and exhaust

    assemblies, and complete valve assemblies were procured and Installed on
    the engine to represent OEM production.  The GM-454 engine used valve

    rotators only on the exhaust valves.

    This engine was installed using a pressurized cooling system with water-

    to-water heat exchanger which operated at 225° to 230° F.

    The break-in procedure for the GM-454 engine recommended by the

    manufacturer 1s shown below.

    The fuel used for break-in contained 1.2 gm/gal lead.

             RPM                  Time                Torque, ft/lb

             1,000                30 minutes              103
                    Change oil/filter
             1,600                 2 hrs., 55 min.        110
             Idle                  5 minutes
             2,600                 2 hrs., 55 min.        144
             Idle                  5 minutes
             3,200                 2 hrs., 55 min.        162
             Idle                  5 minutes
             3,600                 2 hrs., 55 min.        173
             Idle                  5 minutes              -  *
             4,000                15 minutes              WOT
             Idle                  5 minutes
             4,000                15 minutes              WOT
             Idle                  5 minutes
             4,000                15 minutes              WOT
             Idle                  5 minutes
             4,200                15 minutes              WOT
             Idle                  5 minutes
             4,200                15 minutes              WOT
             Idle                  5 minutes
             4,200                15 minutes              WOT
             Idle                  5 minutes
                     Change oil/filter

             *W1de Open Throttle

    Following engine break-In, the engine heads were removed, and new OEM

    heads  were installed for testing.
                                      10

-------
    After each engine completed a test with a fuel  or additive,  the engine
head was removed and another Installed for a new test.   A minor  break-1n was
conducted after a new test head was Installed.   This consisted of 10 minutes
at each test mode of test cycle followed by engine  shutdown,  retorqulng the
heads, and obtaining the first data point (0 hours).
FUEL AND ADDITIVES
    Commercial-grade unleaded-regular fuel was  procured from  the Sun Oil
Refinery 1n Tulsa, Oklahoma, in a single batch  of sufficient  quantity to
operate the entire planned test program.  The test  fuel was tested for lead
tolerance by the NIPER Fuels Chemistry section.  The lead was reported to be
undetectable at .0008 gm/gal detection limit.  This fuel was  used as
"unleaded" fuel and also served as base fuel for all other test  fuels.
    Tetraethyl lead motor mix, composed of 61.49 weight-percent  tetraethyl
lead, 17.86 weight-percent ethylene dibromide,  and  18.81 weight-percent
ethylene dlchlorlde, with the remainder kerosene and dye stabilizers, was
added to unleaded fuel on board a tank truck and delivered to the test site.
Subsequent analyses of the fuel by the NIPER Fuels  Processing Laboratory
showed 1.2 ±.1 gm/gal lead with the target being 1.1 gm/gal.   This fuel was
used and reported as 1.2 gm/gal.
    The tetraethyl lead motor mix was used also to  blend a batch of low lead
fuel 1n a similar procedure with a target of 0.10 gm/gal.  Fuel  analysis by a
commercial laboratory, NIPER, EPA, and Phillips Petroleum Company showed a
range of 0.09 to 0.13 gm/gal lead in the fuel.   This fuel is described as low
lead fuel or 0.10 gm/gal lead.
    Compositional analysis of the unleaded fuel 1s shown in table 2.   Physical
properties test data of the fuel are shown 1n table 3.
    The octane of only the base fuel was measured.
                                       11

-------
                TABLE 2. - Fuel compositional analysis
     Volume Percent Summation by Carbon Number and Compound Class
Carbon             Paraffins
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Total
Normal
0.00
0.00
0.10
4.04
7.50
3.45
1.91
0.83
0.26
0.16
0.18
0.11
18.53
ISO
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.32
8.10
9.46
5.13
5.35
2.95
0.88
0.04
0.00
33.23
Naphthenes
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.21
1.41
1.29
1.25
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.17
Oleflns
0.00
0.00
0.01
2.68
4.64
3.84
2.81
0.33
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
14.31
Aromatlcs
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.48
4.39
10.06
8.80
5.06
0.83
0.12
29.75
Total
0.00
0.00
0.11
8.04
20.46
18.64
15.54
17.82
12.01
6.10
1.05
0.24
100.00
Average Molecular Weight = 91.70
Average Density = .730
Average Carbon Number =6.59
H/C Ratio =1.88
                TABLE 3. - Fuel Inspection data
Distillation, D
% Evaporated
IBP
5
10
15
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
95
EP
86

90° F
114
128
139
149
173
200
230
261
287
310
345
370
411
                   Research Octane No. 91.7
                   Motor Octane No. 81.3
                                  12

-------
Fuel Additive "A*
    Fuel additive "A" was a supplied by The Lubrlzol  Corporation.   The
additive, a variation of the "PowersMeld" product, was blended with unleaded
gasoline at a level  of 250 pounds of additive per 1,000 barrels of fuel (250
PTB).  Fuel samples  were analyzed by the U.S. Environmental  Protection Agency
(EPA) facility at Ann Arbor, Michigan,  and by The Lubrlzol  Corporation prior
to testing to ensure the proper concentration of additive was used.  The fuel
blending procedure consisted of measuring an amount necessary at the NIPER
laboratory for each  Individual fuel  compartment of the fuel  transport truck.
The additive was then introduced to  the transport truck compartment as the
compartment was being filled with base  fuel.  The transport then was driven
approximately 25 miles to the test facility and the fuel was transferred to a
storage tank.  From the storage tank the test fuel was delivered directly to
the test engines.
Fuel Additive "B"
    Fuel additive "B" was a commercial  product supplied by  The Lubrlzol
Corporation with a trade name "Powershield."  The product was blended with
unleaded gasoline at a level of 250 PTB.  Fuel samples were collected and
analyzed at the EPA facility at Ann Arbor, Michigan,  and at The Lubrizol
Corporation confirming the product was  properly mixed prior to testing.
Fuel Additive "C"
    Fuel additive "C" was a product supplied by E. I. du Pont de Nemours and
Company, Inc., of Wilmington, Delaware, labeled as "DM-A4."  The product was
blended at a level of 200 PTB.  Fuel sample analysis from the EPA  and
E. I. du Pont Company prior to testing confirmed the additive was  properly
blended.
Fuel Additive "D"
    Fuel additive "D" was a commercial  product supplied by The  Lubrlzol
Corporation with a trade name of "Powershield."  The product was  blended with
unleaded gasoline at a level of 1,000 PTB.   Fuel  sample analysis  from the  EPA
and The Lubrlzol Corporation prior to testing confirmed the  fuel  product was
properly blended.
                                       13

-------
 Lube 011  Analysis
     Phillips Trop-Artic SAE-30 lube oil  was  used  in  all  the  tractor and
 combine engines,  and Phillips Trop-Artic SAE-10-40 was used  in the GM engines
 during this test  series.
     The oil and filter were changed at 100-hour intervals during the tests
 with the  engine always beginning  the test with new oil.
     The oil wear  metals analysis  was performed by a  major Caterpillar equip-
 ment dealer in the local area.
 EXHAUST EMISSIONS AND AIR-FUEL RATIO
     Exhaust emissions were  measured at regular intervals during the 200-hour
 test.   The  gaseous emissions, CO,  C02, HC, NOX, and  unconverted oxygen in the
 undiluted exhaust were measured.   Air-fuel (A/F)  ratio was calculated from the
 exhaust gas composition. The exhaust emission and air-fuel  ratio data are
 discussed in the  text and presented in tabular form  in appendix A.  Emissions
 were measured at  the midpoint of  the daily 16-hour engine cycle on each mode
 and  for each engine on a daily basis,  thus providing comparative data on the
 status of the engines.
     Considerable  variation  in emissions  and  A/F with engine  type and duty
 cycle  is  inherent in the engine design.   This variation  is normal for proper
 engine operation.
     The exhaust emission data presented  herein are summarized in two ways.
 First,  the  emissions for a  single  mode for all of the test days the engine
 operated  on  a specific  fuel  are averaged  and presented as "mode average."  In
 addition, the standard  deviation  is included as a "variability index" of the
 emissions during  each  specific mode during the complete  fuel test.  Thus, a
 large  standard deviation indicates  the engine did not closely repeat itself
 during day-to-day  operation,  and conversely  a small  standard deviation
 indicates good repeatability  of a mode on a  daily basis.
    Secondly,  in order  to provide  a summary  of emissions on  a day-to-day
basis, the emissions are presented  on  a  "daily average"  basis.  The daily
average simply represents a numerical  average of  all modes for each day.  The
standard deviation  is not useful here  because it  is recognized at the outset
that significant variability  between modes exists due to characteristics of
                                       14

-------
the engine;  however, the variability is adequately demonstrated in the "mode
average."   The "daily average" presented herein is useful only in noting
overall  trends of emissions and A/F.  The "daily average" cannot identify
which mode or modes vary nor which ones remained constant.  If the "daily
average" remains constant,  the probability is that all modes remained
constant.
    Further,  it must be recognized that the majority of these test engines
were built when precise carburetion for emission controls was not required.
Therefore, the emission data should be useful only in examining trends or as
an additional  diagnostic in understanding exhaust valve seat recession.
VALVE SEAT RECESSION
John Deere "B"
    Valve  seat measurement  on the John Deere "B" ti actor engine was made using
a jig made at  NIPER (figure 1).   This measurement required removal  of the
rocker arm assemblies and attaching the jig via the rocker arm stud directly
to the machined head surface.   Two holes drilled in the jig directly over the
intake and exhaust  valves allowed direct measurement from the surface of the
jig (secured  rigidly to the head) to the top of the valves.
                                  JDB
        FIGURE  1.  -  Recession measurement jig—John Deere "B" engine.

                                       15

-------
Farmall "H"
    Valve seat recession measurements were made on the Farmall "H" tractor
engine using a jig made from aluminum which rested on each side of the valve
covers' machined surface area with a flat plate across the top of the head
just over the valve train assembly.  The plate across the top was machined
such that one surface was 6° from horizontal which made the measurement
directly perpendicular to the direction of travel of the intake valve.  This
resulted in measurements directly in the line of travel and eliminated errors
due to the angles included.  The measurement jig is shown in figure 2.  The
angle of the exhaust valve was also 6° in order to accomplish the goal
described above.
    After valve lash had been adjusted and with the feeler gauge inserted
between the rocker and valve stem, the recession measurement was made using a
depth micrometer to measure the distance from the angled surface of the jig
resting on the machined head surface to the top of the rocker assembly in
contact with the valve.
                                 Farmall H
          FIGURE 2. - Recession measurement jig—Farmall  "H" engine.
                                       16

-------
Ford 8N
    Valve seat measurement on the Ford 8N was made measuring the valve lash
using a feeler gauge.  The "valve-1n-block" design required  removing the
intake/exhaust assembly to gain access to the valve inspection ports.   The
procedure was simply to determine the lash using a feeler gauge and compare
the reading to the previous measurement and reset the valve  lash to the proper
setting.
    At the start and end of the test, the engine was disassembled and  the
distance from the flat machined engine block surface to the  face of the valve
installed in the block was measured using a micrometer.  The valve seat
recession was calculated from these measurements.
IH-240
    Valve seat recession measurements on the IH-240 engine were made using a
jig consisting of a stainless steel machined cylinder with a slot along the
length, allowing the cylinder to be placed over the valve and valve spring
with the rocker assembly attached (figure 3).  The jig rests on the machined
head surface near the valve, and measurements are made from  the top of the jig
to the top of the rocker arm resting directly on the valve.   During actual
measurement, valve lash was set to specifications using a feeler gauge
inserted between the rocker and valve and measured from top  of cylinder to top
of rocker arm assembly using a dial depth gauge.  The engine was manually
rotated to get maximum compression of either the exhaust or  intake valve while
measuring the companion valve to accurately repeat the lash  and recession
measurement.

GM-292
    Valve seat recession measurements were accomplished for the GM-292  engine
using a jig consisting of a machined cylinder with a slot along the length
similar to that used on the IH-240 engine  (figure 3).  The  jig was placed  over
the valve and valve spring and allowed to  rest on the machined  head surface
near the valve spring area.  The distance  from the top of the  jig  to  the top
of the rocker arm assembly 1n contact with the valve was measured  using a
depth dial indicator.
                                       17

-------
                                   IHC 240
      FIGURE  3.  -  Recession measurement  jig--International Harvester 240.
    The engine was rotated by hand to top dead center (TDC)  on the compression
stroke (cylinder No. 1), after which intake valves 1, 2, and 4 and exhaust
valves 1, 3, and 5 were measured.  The remaining valves were measured  at after
rotating the engine 360°.
John Deere-303
    Valve seat recession measurements were made for the John Deere 303 engine
using a system similar to the IH-240 and GM-292 by constructing a jig
consisting of a stainless steel cylinder machined with a slot the length of
the cylinder.  The jig was placed over the valve and valve spring and  allowed
to rest on a machined head surface near the valve.  Valve lash was adjusted in
accordance with manufacturer specifications.  With the feeler gauge inserted,
the measurement from the top of the rocker arm resting on the valve to the top
of the jig was made to represent the change in valve height relative to the
engine head.  Intake valves 1, 2, and 4 and exhaust valves 1, 3, and 5 were
measured with the engine at TDC on the compression stroke of cylinder  No. 1.
The engine was rotated exactly 360° and the remaining valves adjusted  and
recession measured.  This was done to ensure accurate measurements without
camshaft imperfections influencing measurements.
                                      18

-------
GM-454
    Valve seat recession measurements on the GM-454 engine were difficult due
to the design of the valves in the head.  From the surface of the head, the
exhaust and intake valves are not vertical with respect to the head but are
offset at an angle measured both lengthwise and crosswise to the head.
Measured in a plane along the engine head (front to rear), the intake and
exhaust valves are offset 5° from horizontal.  Measured in a plane across the
engine head, the intake valves are offset 10° and exhaust valves 15° from
horizontal.  Therefore, in order to get a direct vertical measurement, it was
necessary to design a suitable jig.  The jig consisted of a rotating cylinder
held parallel to the engine head by appropriate braces resting on the marl,,
valve cover surface.  The rotating cylinder had two flat surfaces machined
onto the cylinder such that one of the surfaces was perpendicular to the angle
of the exhaust valve and the other surface perpendicular to the intake valve.
Holes were drilled through the machined surfaces to allow direct measurement
from the surface of the cylinder, through the cylinder, and directly to the
top of the rocker arm assembly.  Alignment of mating marks on the jig and head
surface was used to assure repeatable measurements.  Figure 4 shaws the jig
assembly used to measure valve seat recession on the GM-454.

                                   GM454
             FIGURE  4.  -  Recession measurement jig--GM-454 engine,
                                      L9

-------
    The heads for the GM-454 engine used for these tests were Induction
hardened.   Induction hardening typically consists of heating only the valve
seat  area with electrical colls followed by rapid quenching.  The hardened
area  covers only a small portion around the valve seat area.  The Induction-
hardened valve seat area of the head  1s reported by the OEM manufacturer to be
approximately HRC 55.
VALVE TRAIN INSPECTION/RECESSION MEASUREMENT
    A measure of pertinent valve train components and a measure of valve seat
recession were made off site at an automotive machine shop under the direction
of a  certified engine rebullder Independent of the NIPER facility.
    A brief description of the techniques used follows.
Valve Seat Angle
    Valve seat angle was determined using a valve seat surfacing machine with
a precision grinding stone.
Valve Seat Recession
    A Fowler gauge was used to measure valve seat recession.  A Fowler gauge
1s a  device that slips over the valve, rests on the valve spring surface and
measures the distance from the valve  spring surface to the valve tip.  A
sketch of the device 1s presented 1n  figure 5.  The apparent valve seat
recession 1s the difference between starting and ending measurements.  The
actual valve seat recession 1s the apparent valve seat recession corrected for
any change 1n valve height during the test.  The valve and valve seat are
wiped clean with a cloth prior to measuring, but are not vigorously cleaned.
                                       20

-------
       Engine Head
                                                    Fowler Gauge
               Valve Guide
Valve Spring Seat
                                                           Valve Seat
FIGURE 5.  -  Fowler gauge used  for measurement of valve seat recession.
                                    21

-------
 Valve Height
     Valve  height  1s  the  overall  length of  the valve and 1s measured using a
 height gauge.   Prior to  testing  a  small dimple  1s placed 1n the center of the
 valve face.  The  valve tip  Is  placed  on a  granite block 1n a vertical
 position;  the  height gauge  also  on the granite  block measures the distance
 from the dimple on the valve face  to  the surface of the block.  The dimple
 area on the  valve face 1s cleaned  of  deposits prior to measuring valve height.
 Valve Tulip  Diameter
     The valve  tulip  1s the  widest  part of  the valve, and Its diameter 1s
 measured with  a micrometer.
 Valve Guide  Diameter
     The valve  guide  diameter is  measured with a valve guide dial bore gauge, a
 device specifically  designed for this purpose and commonly used at automotive
 machine shops.
 Valve Stem Diameter
     The valve  stem diameter is measured at the  area of travel of the valve
 stem inside  the valve guide.   The  valve stem 1s measured using a micrometer.
 Valve Spring Height
     The valve  spring height 1s measured, after  the valve spring 1s Installed,
 from the head  surface to the top of the valve spring using a snap gauge.
 Valve Spring Force—Normal
     The valve  spring is removed  from  the engine head and compressed to the
 exact  height value recorded as "Valve Spring Height" and the spring force
 measured.
 Valve  Spring Force Compressed
    After measuring  the valve  spring  force (normal) the valve spring is
compressed to a distance equal to  the camshaft  11ft and the spring force
measured.
                                       22

-------
                            RESULTS AND  DISCUSSION
LEADED FUEL
John Deere "B* Engine
    The engine head was tested for hardness  at  two points and found to be 17.7
HRC and 19.5 HRC (Rockwell hardness on the  "C"  scale),  which 1s roughly equi-
valent to 95.5 HRB and 97.5 HRB  (Rockwell hardness on the "B" scale).
    Exhaust valve seat recession measurements presented 1n table 4 ranged
±.003 Inch from start to finish, thus indicating  no exhaust valve seat reces-
sion using the 1.2 gm/gal fuel.
    Intake valve measurements showed an  apparent  .005 Inch change at the
97-hour test point.  However, data before and after this point suggest no
significant trends.  The valve train Inspection data (table B-l in appendix  B)
show a slight negative recession in all  valves  which can indicate deposit
build-up on the valve seats.  Further, the  inspection data do not confirm the
observed change 1n Intake valve No. 2 at the 97-hour point.
    The A/F for all modes for the John Deere "B"  tractor test using 1.2 gm/gal
leaded fuel ranged from 12.7 to  14.1 over the six test modes (table A-l 1n
appendix A).  Significant dally variation was also noted (table A-2) on day
three when the average A/F leaned from about 12.4 to almost 15.9 and then
dropped to 10.5 on the fourth day.  The  A/F also  leaned on day six to  17.7 and
dropped to a more typical condition of about 11.5 on the next day.  While
significant A/F variations occurred, no  significant exhaust valve seat
recession was noted using the leaded fuel.
        TABLE 4. - Effect of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                 John Deere "B" engine—1.2 gm/gal lead—average hardness HRB 96.5
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accurnu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
Exhaust 1
2

17
0
0
2
-1

33
-1
3
2
-1

49
-1
3
1
-1

65
2
2
-2
-1

81
-1
2
-2
-1

97
1
7
0
2

113
1
8
-1
0

129
3
10
-1
-1

144
4
10
-1
-2

200
3
8
-3
-1

•
-1
-2
0
-1
      •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

                                        23

-------
Far-nail  "H" Engine
    Several Intake and exhaust cast Iron Inserts were tested for hardness,
and Inserts of median values were selected.  The Inserts selected for the
1.2 gm/gal fuel tests are as follows:
    Intake  1 - HRC  16.5               Exhaust 1 - HRC 16.2
            2 - HRC  16.5                       2 - HRC 17.1
            3 - HRC  16.6                       3 - HRC 17.0
            4 - HRC  16.9                       4 - HRC 17.5
The average hardness value of HRC 16.8 1s roughly equivalent to HRB 95.
    Valve seat Inserts for these series of tests were Installed using the
Interference fit method.  With this method, the valve seat Insert 1s .005 Inch
larger 1n diameter than the hole 1n which the Insert 1s to be Installed.  The
Insert (designed with chamfered edges) 1s then pressed Into the engine head
assembly.
    Valve seat recession measurements for the Farmall "H" using fuel with
1.2 gm/gal are presented 1n table 5.
    Data show that, at the 58-hour point, valve seat recession apparently
Increased in cylinder No. 1 exhaust valve but remained constant after that
point, as well as before.  This coincides with a point when a compression
check Indicated somewhat lower compression 1n this cylinder compared to the
other.  It 1s postulated that the valve seat Insert had moved slightly while
1n the head.  The test was continued while closely monitoring the engine
condition.  During the remainder of the test, little change was noted, thus
suggesting that the observed effect was not, 1n fact, valve seat recession but
due to another factor.
                                       24

-------
            TABLE 5, - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                    Farmall "H" engine, 1.2 gin/gal  lead—average Insert
                    hardness HRB 95

Hours
Accunu 1 ated
1 ntake 1
2
3
4
Exhaust 1
2
3
4


15
0
2
1
0
8
2
2
2


30
-3
6
3
-2
8
2
2
2


37
0
2
1
0
8
4
2
2


42
1
-1
2
0
9
5
3
2
Valve

58
1
1
1
-1
37
4
4
3
Seat Recession, Inches/1000

73
1
2
-1
0
39
2
2
2

87
2
2
-1
0
32
4
1
1

104
1
2
0
0
30
4
1
2

120
3
3
-1
0
31
4
3
2

136
2
2
1
-1
30
4
1
2

144
2
3
2
-2
30
4
1
3

168
2
0
2
-2
31
6
2
2

200
2
3
1
-3
30
4
3
2

*
-1
0
-5
-2
0
-5
-5
-3
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and Inspection.
    Comparison of  valve train  Inspection  data (table B-2) before and after
testing suggests no valve  seat recession  within a range of .005 Inch.  The
Inconsistency of exhaust valve No.  1 noted  1n the "running" measurements was
not apparent 1n the valve  train Inspection.   Valve guide wear of about .0006
Inch was consistent for both Intake and exhaust valves.  The valve properties
were essentially unaffected.   The valve spring force was reduced about 10
percent due to the aging of the springs during the 200-hour test.
    The A/F variation between  modes for the Farmall "H" using leaded fuel
ranged from 11.5 to 12.9 (table A-3), while the dally A/F variation ranged
from 10.0 to 14.2  (table A-4).  There appears to be no consistent trend toward
enleanment or enrichment 1n the dally A/F variations noted.
International Harvester 240 Engine
    Table 6 presents valve seat recession measurements for the IH-240 engine
and shows no exhaust valve seat recession using the leaded fuel.  The data
tend to Indicate valve seat recession of  No. 1 Intake valve.  However, 1f a
new baseline were  taken after  only  three  hours of operation, no recession
would be Indicated.  It 1s assumed  that the valve was not seated well on the
Initial reading.   The head was measured for hardness at  three places  and found
to be HRC 17.5, HRC 20.7,  and  HRC  16.5 measured on the Rockwell  "C"  scale.
Subsequent measurements showed HRB  92, HRB  93, and HRB 93 when measured  on the
Rockwell "B" scale.
                                       25

-------
          TABLE 6, - Effect of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                    IH-240 engine—1.2 gm/gal lead—average hardness HRB 92.7
Valve Seat
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
Intake
1
2
3
4
Exhaust
1
2
3
4

3

4
-2
-2
0

-2
0
-1
-1

18

4
-1
-1
-2

-2
0
-1
-2

34

5
-1
-2
0

0
0
0
-2

39

7
0
0
1

3
1
1
0

54

3
0
-1
1

0
1
0
-2

69

3
-1
-2
0

0
0
0
-2
Recession,

84

5
0
-2
-1

-1
1
0
-2

99

5
0
-1
-1

0
1
-1
-2
inches/1000

114

4
-1
-1
0

-1
1
-1
-2

128

6
1
0
0

1
1
0
-2

144

5
0
-1
0

0
1
-1
-3

168

5
0
-1
0

0
0
0
-3

200

5
0
0
-1

-1
0
-1
-3

•

-1
-1
2
2

2
3
2
3
 •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
     Comparison of valve train Inspection data  (table B-3) before  and  after the
 200-hour  test suggests no valve seat recession outside a range  of .004 inch.
 A  .003-Inch  change 1n valve height was noted 1n exhaust valve measurements.
 This could have been due to an early problem with the lack of lubricant
 transferred  to the valve train in the first test cycle due to an  undetected
 restriction  of the oil line.  The restriction was detected and  repaired after
 about  six hours of engine operation.  Valve guide wear appeared to be normal
 except for Intake valve No. 3 which had about  .0143-inch wear.  The valve
 spring force reduction due to the test also appeared to be consistent.
     The A/F  variation between modes was large for the IH-240 engine operating
on the leaded fuel,  with modes 1 and 4 operating at A/F of 13.9 and mode 2
operating at 11.1 (table A-5).  However, daily operation was consistent with
an average A/F ranging from 1,2.2 to 12.9 (table A-6).
GM-292 "A" Engine
     The hardness  of  the head was measured and found to be HRB 91.  The
construction of the  head was such that accurate readings could  only be
obtained  at  one spot near the rear of the engine.  The data presented 1n
table 7 suggest no trend toward valve seat recession during the 200-hour
period using leaded  fuel.  Valve seat recession data show greater variability
than noted in the other engines, with up to .008-Inch recession noted.
                                          26

-------
                                   TABLE 7. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                                              GM-292 "A" engine, 1.2 gm/gal leaded fuel—average hardness HRB 91
ro
Valve Seat
Hours

Accumu 1 ated
1 ntake






Exhaust






1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6

6

-
-
-
-
-
-
-2
-1
-5
-3
7
0

16

2
-
3
1
3
2
0
-2
-3
-2
9
0

32

-1
-
5
0
0
0
0
-2
-3
-1
7
0

48

-2
-
5
2
1
0
-1
-2
-1
-1
6
0

63

0
1
4
2
0
-2
0
0
-1
-1
7
0

79

-2
1
5
1
0
-4
0
0
-1
0
7
3
Recession, Inches/1000

95

1
2
3
2
0
-5
0
-3
3
-1
6
0

111

-1
2
3
4
10
0
-1
1
6
-3
6
2

122

-1
1
5
4
9
-4
-1
1
6
0
6
2

138

-2
2
4
4
8
-4
-1
0
6
-2
7
2

154

0
2
5
3
8
-4
-1
-1
6
-3
6
2

170

2
2
6
3
9
-3
0
-2
6
-3
5
1

186

2
3
4
2
7
-3
-1
-2
6
-2
7
1

200

2
3
5
2
7
—2
0
-1
6
-2
8
1

*

2
2
3
2
3
0
-3
-5
2
-4
2
-5
                       •Measurement based upon engine disassembly  and  Inspection.

-------
 After the engine had accumulated some  16  hours,  variability was reduced to
 only +.003 inch which was  similar to the  range noted  1n  the other tests.
 Intake valve 5 changed by  about .010 inch during one  period at 111  hours, but
 measurements remained stable both before  and  after  that  point.  This  suggested
 that valve seat recession  was not the  cause but  the result of other factors.
     Comparison of the valve  train inspection  data at  the start and  end of
 testing (table B-4)  shows  no valve seat change 1n excess of .003 inch.  The
 variability of the "running" measurements on  valve  seat  recession was on the
 order of .008 inch.   Measurements of valve height of  the exhaust valves
 appeared to indicate that  the valve "stretched"  during the 200-hour test.
 While the valve spring forces on this  engine  are significantly greater than
 the other engines (which would tend to "stretch" the  valve) the mechanism of
 valve elongation is  not understood, but is duly  noted.   Valve guide diameter
 changes in the range of .003 to .0006  inch were  the norm.  Exhaust  valve guide
 No. 6 increased by .0018 inch during the  200-hour test.
     A/F variations between the five test  modes with the  GM-292 engine operat-
 ing on leaded gasoline ranged from 11.9 at the highest speed/power  condition
 to  14.5 at the 45 percent  power conditions (table A-7).   Daily variations in
 the averaged A/F ranged from 12.9 to 14.1 (table A-8).
 John Deere 303 Engine
     The new OEM engine head  was measured  for  hardness and found to  be HRC
 20.7,  HRC 20.2,  and  HRC 19.5 which approximates  HRB 101,  HRB 101, and HRB 100
 if  measured on the Rockwell  "B" scale.
     Measurements presented in table 8  showed  no  valve seat recession  and, with
 the exception of questionable measurements taken at the  101-hour point, the
 variability was  generally  ±.003 inch for  all  valves during the 200-hour cycle.
 Examination of the valve train inspection data before and after testing with
 1.2 gm/gal  leaded fuel  (table B-5)  shows  no valve seat recession outside a
 variation  of  about .003 inch.   Other variables measured  show no unusual
 effects.
     The A/F variation  between the six  modes for  the John Deere 303  engine
using  leaded  fuel  ranged from 11.7 to  13.3 (table A-9).   In addition, the
daily A/F  variation of  the averaged modes ranged only from 12.3 to  13.4 (table
A-10).
                                       28

-------
             TABLE 8. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                      John Oeere-303 engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead—average hardness HRB  100
                                     Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
      Hours
       AccumuIated

       Intake
28
44
58
70
                       85
                      101
116
132
146
                                  200
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
o -;
0
2
0
-1
4
I -1
0
1
-4
1
0
-1
0
6
0
2
3
0
1
7
2
6
8
-1
-1
2
0
-1
3
-1
0
3
0
1
1
-1
0
3
-1
0
1
-2
-1
3
-1
0
1
1
-1
1
-1
0
0
      Exhaust
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
-1
-1
-1
1
0
-1
0
0
1
0
2
4
6
0
1
2
3
0
1
7
5
4
8
5
5
0
-1
0
3
0
1
0
1
-1
3
0
2
-1
1
-1
3
-2
1
-1
1
1
3
0
1
0
-1
I
1
1
0
      •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

GM-454 Engine
    Measurements presented 1n table 9 show significant variability 1n valve
seat recession.  The cause of the variability  is undefined.  Subsequent  tests
using a different measurement technique that showed  better repeatability
suggest two probable factors.  First, the difficulty of jig repositioning and
alignment considering the two angles for the intake  and two other angles for
the exhaust valves  may have been the major factor.   The second factor,
however, may have been the hydraulic valve lifters not releasing all the oil
pressure as the engine was rotated by hand during the measurement process.
Attempts to eliminate these variables were made during subsequent tests.
    Recession measurement variability of ±.019 Inch  was recorded, which  may be
excessive for detecting slight trends.  Closer inspection of the data  showed
no obvious trends toward recession.  In fact,  the negative recession values
indicate the possibility of head warpage or other factors at work  1n addition
to those discussed  above.
                                        29

-------
                                TABLE 9. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—GM-454 engine,
                                           1.2 goi/gal leaded fuel — induction-hardened seats

                                                          Valve Seat Recession. Inches/1000
                     Hours
                      Accumulated     15     32    41     56     73    89     104   120   136   144

                      Intake
CO
O
152   168   184   200
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Exhaust
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
13
16
15
16
19
7
13
40

-1
-5
0
4
3
6
-4
4
2
11
26
-8
19
7
14
16

0
-7
0
1
3
1
-4
4
1
9
18
-7
17
7
10
15

-5
0
-2
6
2
7
-7
7
6
9
5
-5
20
7
8
14

-10
2
-10
3
0
10
-8
4
4
9
9
-8
17
12
10
17

-12
-6
-12
-2
-10
-3
-8
-3
2
5
12
-4
10
6
5
21

-9
-8
-13
-2
-7
1
-10
2
1
1
13
-8
12
5
5
13

-10
-5
-9
0
-3
0
-13
6
2
2
11
-5
14
9
6
19

-13
-10
-16
-7
-12
1
-17
-1
4
5
12
-4
17
12
13
2)

-11
-7
-7
0
-6
0
-14
1
2
5
13
-5
17
9
14
20

-11
-7
-10
-1
-7
-1
-14
3
2
6
10
-4
17
9
13
21

-12
-10
-11
-1
-8
-5
-17
-1
0
6
9
-6
17
8
13
16

-14
-11
-12
-7
-8
-6
-18
-3
3
2
15
-1
18
13
12
22

-16
-16
-16
-8
-11
-2
-18
-4
-1
2
9
-8
16
8
12
14

-19
-15
-18
-10
-12
-6
-19
-5
1
-1
-1
-2
3
-2
2
1

5
2
6
0
2
2
2
2
                     •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and  inspection.

                     NOTE:  See text for discussion of measurement difficulties and  limitations.

-------
    Valve seat Inspection data for the GM-454  engine  using  1.2 gm/gal  lead
(table B-6) show no valve seat recession 1n  excess  of .006  Inch.   Recession
data variability 1s greater than noted on most other  engines.
    Valve guide wear was a nominal .0005 Inch  and relatively consistent for
all valves.  Consistent valve "stretch" was  not noted on this  engine even
though the valve spring pressures were greater than with the other engines
tested.  Possible differences 1n valve construction or composition could
affect this Issue.  Other parameters measured  show  only slight variations due
to normal wear.
    The A/F variations over the six modes for  tests with the GM-454 engine
using leaded fuel showed significant variability between modes ranging from
A/F of 12.9 at 3,600 rpm, 85 percent power to  15.2  at 2,000 rpm at 45 percent
power (table A-ll).  The daily A/F average data showed good A/F repeatability
ranging from 13.6 to 14.3 A/F (table A-12).
                                         31

-------
                                 UNLEADED FUEL
John Deere "B" Engine
    A new head was  installed on the engine with a hardness measured at three
places of HRB 93, HRB 92, HRB 91.5.
    Exhaust valve seat recession measurements, presented in table 10, show a
.011-inch recession  in one cylinder after 200 hours and no recession in the
other intake or exhaust valves.  Detailed examination of the valve train
assembly suggested  possible misalignment problems due to the rocker arm
striking the valve  stem on the side rather than the center of the valve stem.
    The test was repeated after a new head was installed and the rocker arm
assembly realigned  properly to strike the valve in the center of the stem
area.  The hardness  of the head was measured at three places and found to be
HRB 92.5, HRB 92.5,  and HRB 93.  The valve seat recession data for the repeat
test using unleaded  fuel (presented in table 11) showed .006- and .013-inch
recession in exhaust valves after 200 hours of operation.  The engine test was
continued for an additional 100 hours of operation (6-mode cycle) to determine
if the slight amount of recession noted represented a consistent trend.  The
additional 100 hours of operation resulted in a total recession of only .008
and .013 inch in the exhaust valve seats, suggesting that valve seat recession
is minimal with this engine.
    Post inspection  of the valve train assembly for the original test using
unleaded fuel (table B-7) showed a .009-inch recession in one exhaust valve
compared to .013 inch measured during engine operation.  Further examination
of the right-hand exhaust valve guide showed .0035-inch wear at the bottom of
the guide, and the top of guide showed .0005-inch wear.  This wear pattern is
an indication of the rocker arm pulling the valve stem toward the rocker shaft
each time the valve  opens.  This would explain the elongated guide and the
irregular valve seat wear.
    Inspection of the valve stem end showed scuffing on the edges of stem tip,
further indicating  irregular rocker arm tip contact.
    Inspection of the rocker arm shaft and rocker arm tip also suggested
excessive wear.
                                       32

-------
          TABLE 10. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession-
                      John Deere "B" engine—unleaded fuel—average hardness HR8 92.2
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
Exhaust 1
2

'fi 32 48 64 80 96
1 00-1 0-1
-1 0-1 0-11
0 00 0-11
-1-1-1 o oo

112 128 144 168 195 200 •
0101 101
-1 0-1 0000
0 0-1-1 -1 -1 0
1 1-1 4 11 11 9
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
                                               33

-------
                                  TABLE  11. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                                              John Deere  "8" engine—unleaded  fuel repeat test—average hardness HRB 92.7
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accunu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
Exhaust 1
2

16
0
-1
-1
-1

32
0
-1
-1
-1

48
0
-1
-1
0

64
0
-1
0
0

80
0
-2
-1
0

96
0
-2
1
5

112
0
-2
4
8

128
0
-1
6
10

144
0
-1
a
13

168
0
-2
7
13

200
-1
-2
6
13

213
-1
-2
7
11

226
-2
-1
10
11

242
0
-2
8
13

258
-1
-2
8
13

274
-1
-2
8
13

290
-1
-2
8
13

300
-1
-2
8
13

•
0
-2
9
14
             •Measurement based  upon  engine  disassembly  and  inspection.
OJ

-------
    Additional Inspection of the head  used  previously with  leaded  fuel  showed
a similar wear pattern of .001 guide wear at  the  bottom of  the  guide,  and
.0001 was found at the top.   The guide was  elongated at the same place  as the
unleaded test head, only not as severe.  The  valve  seat had a build-up  of lead
deposit which Indicated signs of the same Irregular valve seat, but  wear was
not measurable.
    Post-Inspection of the valve train assembly 1n  the unleaded repeat  test
(300-hour) (table B-8) showed no Irregularities within the  valve guide
assembly as was noted during the original 200-hour  test using unleaded  fuel.
    The A/F during the original unleaded fuel  test  with the John Deere  "B"
engine was somewhat "richer" but much  more  consistent compared  to  the  leaded
fuel test with the A/F varying between modes  from about 10.7 to 11.3 (table
A-13).  Further, dally variations were much more  limited ranging only  between
A/F of 10.2 to 11.2 for the test duration  (table  A-14).  The A/F during the
repeat unleaded fuel test (tables 15 and 16)  showed the average A/F  was 10.1
to 10.4 during the first four days,  then ranged from  12 to  13.3 for  the
remainder of the test.  The 56-hour  mode operated at  13.1 A/F.
Fat-nail "H" Engine
    Data for the unleaded fuel tests,  presented  in  table  12, show no tendency
toward valve seat recession 1n any of  the  cylinders.  The  values  of  the hard-
ness of the valve seat Inserts used  are as  follows:
    Intake 1 - HRB 95.5                Exhaust 1  -  HRB  95.5
           2 - HRB 95.5                        2  -  HRB  95.0
           3 - HRB 95.2                        3  -  HRB  95.5
           4 - HRB 96.4                        4 -  HRB  95.0
    The valve train inspection data (table B-9)  showed  no valve seat
recession.  Further, all valve guide and stem diameters,  as well as valve
height, were unusually repeatable and consistent from start to end of  test.
    Tests with the unleaded fuel 1n the Farmall  "H" showed greater A/F
variations between modes with A/F ranging from 10.5 to 15.9 (table A-17).
However, the dally A/F variations were more consistent ranging from 12.6 to
13.1 (table A-18).
    Again, no valve seat recession was noted during either of  the tests with
the Farmall "H" engine.
                                       35

-------
             TABLE 12. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                       Formal I  "H" - unleaded fuel - average insert hardness HRB 95.5
Valve Seat
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
3
4
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
16 32 48
0 0-1
000
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0 0 1
64
-1
1
0
1
0
-2
0
0
80
0
2
0
1
0
-2
0
0
Recession, inches/1000
96
0
2
0
1
0
-2
0
0
112
0
1
1
0
0
-2
0
1
128
0
1
1
-1
1
-2
0
1
144
0
1
1
-1
0
0
0
1
168
0
1
1
-1
1
0
0
1
200 «
-1 -3
0 -3
0 -4
1 -4
1 -4
1 -3
1 -2
1 -4
       •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and Inspection.

 Ford 8N
     The Ford 8N engine was tested using  cast  Iron  valve seat Inserts with a
 hardness of Rockwell HRB 96.5.  The data (table  13)  showed that valve seat
 recession occurred 1n one exhaust valve  after about  40 hours and continued at
 a  slow rate during the remainder of the  test  to  about .020-Inch seat recession
 total.   The other exhaust valve seats remained generally unchanged until the
 start of the 56-hour steady state mode when they began to recede rapidly.  The
 test resulted in all of the exhaust valve  seats  receding from .017 to .029
 inch.   The intake valve seats were essentially unchanged during the test.
     The valve train inspection data (table B-10) also suggested no change in
 the  intake valve seats but .017 to .030  inch  recession of exhaust valve
 seats.   The other parameters measured showed  only  nominal changes during the
 test.
     Examination of the emission and air-fuel  data  (table A-19) showed varia-
 tions  1n A/F of 11.6 to 13.9 of the various modes, with the 56-hour mode
 operating at 12.7  to 13.1 A/F.  The dally  variations (table A-20) showed a
 relatively consistent A/F average of 11.7  to  12.9  during the days the engine
was operated.   The NOX Instrument was Inoperable during this series of tests;
 therefore,  no data are presented.
                                        36

-------
           TABLE  13. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                    Ford 8N—unleaded fuel—HRB 97 valve seat inserts
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accunu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
3
4
Exhaust 1
2
3
4

7
0
-2
-2
0
1
0
-1
0

23
-1
-4
-3
0
1
4
-2
1

39
0
-4
-3
-1
1
8
-1
2

55
0
-3
-3
-1
1
10
-1
3

71
0
-4
-3
-1
1
11
-1
3

87
0
-4
-3
-1
1
12
0
3

103
0
-4
-3
-1
1
14
0
3

119
0
-4
-3
-1
1
15
0
3

135
0
-4
-3
-1
1
17
0
4

144
0
-4
-3
-1
1
17
1
4

168
0
-4
-3
-1
3
17
14
6

188
0
-4
-3
-1
9
19
21
16

200
0
-4
-3
-1
17
20
29
26

*
0
-1
-1
-2
17
21
30
25
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
IH-240 Engine
    This engine was tested three times on  unleaded  fuel.   Table 14 presents
data for the first test.  The data  showed  no  trend  toward recession with a
range of measurements generally agreeing to ±.001  Inch.   Subsequent exami-
nation of the hardness of the head  used for this test showed the head to be
harder (measured 1n two places - HRB 97, HRB  98) compared to the four other
engine heads acquired for testing  (HRB 92  to  HRB 94).  It was therefore
decided to repeat the test with a  "softer" engine  head.
    The data for the second test with unleaded fuel are  presented in table 15.
The data from this test showed exhaust valve  seat  recession of almost .050
Inch 1n two cylinders and no recession in  the other cylinders.  The hardness
of this head was measured in three  places  and found to be HRB 93, HRB 92, and
HRB 93.  In order to determine if  the hardness of  the two cylinders showing
recession was different than the other cylinders,  the entire engine head was
sectioned, allowing access to the  valve  seats for  individual cylinder hardness
measurements.  The sectioning process allowed determining the material  hard-
ness perpendicular to direction of valve travel on the sectioned  surface of
the head.  This measurement was made approximately 1/16  inch  immediately below
the valve seat surface.  The hardness of the  four  valve  seats of  the head  used
1n the first unleaded test was HRB 97, and no recession  was noted.
                                        37

-------
           TABLE 14. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                     IH-240 engine—unleaded fuel—average hardness HRB 97.5

Hours
Accumu 1 ated 6
Intake
1 1
2 -1
3 -1
4 2
Exhaust
1 0
2 1
3 -1
4 -1
•Measurement based
TABLE


Hours
Accumu 1 ated
Intake
1
2
3
4
Exhaust
1
2
3
4


12

0
0
-2
1

0
2
1
2
upon
15. -



16

-I
-1
0
0

-1
0
-1
0
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000

28 44 60 76 92 108 124 140 144 168 200

100000 00000
0 1 00-1-1 -1-1 0-1 -1
-1 0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
-1 1 1 0-1-1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1

0-10-100 00000
111000 10000
0 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
010100 00000
engine disassembly and inspection.
Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession —
IH-240 engine — unleaded fuel — repeat test — average hardness HRB 92
Valve Seat Recession, Inches/1000

32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 168 200

-1 -1 -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 0
0-1 0 00 -2-1000
00000 00000
00 0 0-1 000-10

-1-1-1-1-1 00000
-1-1 0 00 -11101
-10 4 69 11 16 20 29 43
1 0 1 6 11 16 19 24 36 49


•

-4
-3
-2
-2

-5
-3
-5
-5


.7


»

-2
-4
-4
-4

-2
-1
38
47
     •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
Hardness of the four  valve seats of  the head used  1n  the repeat unleaded test
was HRB  96, HRB 97, HRB 95, and HRB  96.5 for valve seats 1 through  4,  aver-
aging 96.1. Valve seats Nos. 3 and 4 received about .050-inch recession, while
valve seats Nos. 1 and  2 received no recession suggesting factors other than
valve seat hardness were responsible for the recession.

                                         38

-------
    Valve train inspection data for the  two  tests with unleaded  fuels  (tables
B-ll and B-12) confirm no valve seat recession  in the first  test.   In  the
second test, .038-inch recession in cylinder No. 3  and .047-inch recession in
cylinder No. 4 were noted.  Valve spring force  was  consistent  for  both tests.
During the first test, valve guide wear  of  .0022 inch in exhaust valve No.  3
was outside the norm of about .0007 inch; however,  no valve  seat recession was
noted.  During the second test, valve guide  wear of .0019  inch was noted  in
cylinder No. 4, which had the greatest recession.   This suggests that  exces-
sive valve guide wear is not consistently associated with  valve  seat
recession.
    The A/F variation between modes for  the  first test with  unleaded fuel
ranged from 10.7 to 13.4 (table A-21).  Daily operation was  unusually
consistent and ranged from an A/F of 12.0 to 12.8 (table A-22).  Again, no
recession was noted during this test.
    The A/F for the repeat test with unleaded fuel  operated  at leaner  A/F
conditions than in the first test.  The  A/F  variation between  modes ranged
from 13.3 to 15.2 (table A-23), while the daily variation  ranged from  12.8 to
16.1 with the A/F becoming leaner as the testing progressed  (table A-24).
This suggests that A/F enleanment, which can increase combustion temperature,
may be a factor in the valve seat recession  noted during  these tests.
    In an effort to further understand why  some cylinders  showed valve seat
recession and others did not, even though many  variables  were  constant (e.g.,
valve seat hardness, speed, load, engine temperature, etc.), a test was
conducted to measure the A/F in individual  cylinders.   The IH-240  engine was
outfitted with three sampling probes inserted in the exhaust manifold with the
sample probe Intake as close to the exhaust valves  as practical.  The exhausts
for cylinder Nos. 2 and 3 pass through a common port and were sampled as one.
The engine was then operated at the six  test modes  and  the three exhaust ports
sampled Individually during the 6-mode test.  The exhaust was sampled  for
approximately 10 minutes at each test condition.   It is recognized that
considerable exhaust mixing from all cylinders occurs due to  the  exhaust
pulsations and that exact definition of cylinder A/F would require complete
Isolation of all exhaust ports.  However, sampling in the exhaust  ports as
described above will provide an "estimate"  for information on trends  and  serve
as an Indicator of amount of variation from the norm.
                                       39

-------
     The  cylinder-to-cylinder A/F  (estimates) represent data from a single test
 and  are  shown  1n  table  16.  These data  show the A/F 1n cylinder No. 4 1s not
 significantly  different than cylinder No.  1, except for mode 6 which
 represents  only 65  percent  power.   Thus,  in this case, the data do not support
 the  hypothesis that the A/F ratio is generally higher in the cylinders that
 showed the  most valve seat  recession.
     Exhaust valve seat  inserts with hardness of Rockwell HRB 96 to HRB 97
 averaging HRB  96.3  were used for  the third test of unleaded fuel with the
 IH-240.

               TABLE 16.  -  Air-fuel distribution, IH-240
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
Cylinder
1
14.3
11.8
12.8
14.6
12.2
13.5
Cylinder
2/3
13.9
11.7
12.6
13.8
12.1
13.4
Cylinder
4
14.0
11.9
12.9
14.4
12.1
14.0
    The valve seat recession data  (table  17) showed no recession until about
100 hours, after which each exhaust valve seat began receding at a substantial
rate.  At the end of the modal operation  the valve seats had receded about
.040 inch.  During the following steady-state 56-hour mode recession was
approximately doubled.  Valve seat recession was much greater than observed
when the engine was operated without valve seat inserts.
    The valve train inspection (table B-13) also showed valve seat recession
from .058 to .085 inch, and showed no change in valve height or valve stem
diameter.  However, the valve guide diameter from exhaust cylinders 3 and 4
showed significant wear.
                                       40

-------
       TABLE 17, - Effect of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                 IH-240 engine—unleaded fuel—valve seat insert hardness HRB 96.3
Valve Seat Recession
Hours

Accumu 1 ated
Intake



Exhaust



1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4

16
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-2
-1

32
1
0
0
0
-2
-1
-3
-1

48
1
0
0
0
-2
-1
-3
-1

64
1
0
0
-1
-3
-1
-2
-1

80
1
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
1

96
1
-1
-1
-1
2
-1
11
9

112
0
-1
-1
-1
20
-1
26
26
, inches/1000

128
0
-1
0
-1
30
8
36
37

144
0
-1
0
-1
38
16
46
47

166
0
-1
0
-1
52
26
65
60

186
0
-1
-1
-2
63
45
75
79

200
0
-2
-1
-2
68
63
85
94


-3
-3
0
-1
63
58
77
85
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

    The A/F and emission data (tables A-25 and A-26) showed  consistent dally
A/F mixtures during  the  test ranging only from 12.3 to 13.3.   The variation
between modes  ranged from  11.6 to 13.7.  The modes with the  leaner A/F (1, 4,
and 6) also are the  modes  with the highest engine load factor.
6M-292 "A" Engine
    The GM-292 "A" engine  was the first of two GM-292 engines  tested in the
program.  Tests with unleaded fuel using a new head of hardness HRB 88.8
showed a  large amount of valve seat recession that would  probably have led to
catastrophic engine  failure 1f not terminated early.  The data are shown  in
table 18.  Approximately 0.125 inch of valve seat recession  was noted in  one
cylinder  after 71  hours  of engine operation.  It is interesting to note that
even though valve  seats  in cylinders 5 and 6 had receded  substantially,
cylinder  No. 4 showed a  moderate (approximately  .020  inch) recession, and the
remaining cylinders  showed little or no recession.
                                         41

-------
          TABLE  18.  -  Effect  of  accumulated engine hours on valve
                      seat  recession—GM-292  "A" engine—unleaded fuel
                      average hardness  HRB 88.8

Hours


Accumulated
Intake





Exhaust





1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6


16
0
-3
1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
-1
1
10
15


20
3
-3
1
-2
-1
-1
0
-1
0
3
13
20
Valve

23
2
-2
4
-2
-1
-1
1
-1
-1
4
11
24
Seat Recession, Inches/1000

39
1
-2
3
-2
0
-1
-1
1
-2
9
30
67

55
2
-2
2
-2
1
-6
-1
6
-2
10
61
103

71
1
-4
1
-2
0
-3
0
10
-1
21
87
131

*
0
-4
-5
-5
-4
2
-5
1
-4
16
90
121
          *Measurement  based  upon engine disassembly and Inspection.

     In order  to understand the reason for recession In selected cylinders,
 this engine head was sectioned to allow access for hardness measurements of
 Ohe  individual exhaust valve seats.  The sectioning process allowed hardness
 measurements  to be made immediately below the valve seat surface on a cross
 section of the valve seat surface perpendicular to the direction of valve
 travel.   The  hardness  of the individual exhaust valve seats was HRB 93.5,
 HRB 91.0, HRB 89.5, HRB 90.0, HRB 90.5, and HRB 91.0, respectively, for
 cylinders No. 1 through No.  6.  Again, it should be noted that while cylinder
 Nos. 1 and 3  had no recession, cylinders No. 2 and 4 had about .015 inch
 recession, and cylinders No.  5 and 6 showed about .100 inch recession.  The
 data suggest  that effects other than material hardness were responsible for
 valve seat recession for this engine.
    Inspection of the  valve  train data before and after the test with unleaded
fuel (table B-14) confirms the "running" measurements of valve seat recession
 in that three cylinders  had  no recession, one had recession of .016 inch, and
two cylinders had recession  of .090 and .121 inches.  Further examination of
valve guide wear (exhaust) showed .0016- and .0015-inch wear in the two
cylinders with no valve  seat recession and .0022 inch in the cylinder with the
                                       42

-------
most wear.  However, the cylinder with  .090-Inch  recession  showed  essentially
no valve guide wear.  Valve spring force  was  significantly  lower 1n cylinders
5 and 6 after the test, compared to other cylinders.
    A/F variations between modes for the  test (table  A-27)  using unleaded fuel
ranged from 11.9 to 14.1 which are similar to the tests  using  leaded fuel.
Further, the daily A/F variations noted were  12.9 to  13.4  (table A-28)  which
are also similar to the leaded test.  In  spite of the similarities in A/F,  the
unleaded tests resulted 1n high valve seat recession, whereas  the  leaded test
resulted 1n no recession.
    In an effort to further understand  why some cylinders received valve seat
recession and others did not (even though many variables were  consistent;
e.g., valve seat hardness, speed, load, engine temperature, etc.), selected
tests were conducted to measure the A/F in Individual cylinders.  The engine
was outfitted with six sampling probes  Inserted in the exhaust manifold with
the sample probe intake as close to the exhaust valves as  practicable.   The
engine was then operated at the five test modes,  and  the exhaust ports  were
sampled individually.  It 1s recognized that  considerable  exhaust  mixing from
all cylinders occurs due to the exhaust pulsations and that exact  definition
of cylinder A/F would require complete isolation  of all  exhaust ports.   How-
ever, sampling in the exhaust ports as described  above will provide an
"estimate" for information on trends and  serve as an indicator of the amount
of variation from the norm.
    The cylinder-to-cylinder A/F (estimates)  represent data from a single test
and are shown in table 19.

              TABLE 19. - Air-fuel ratio  of individual cylinders
Mode Speed/Load
1 (3,000 RPM/85%)
2 (3,000 RPM/45*)
3 (2,500 RPM/45%)
4 (2,000 RPM/25X)
5 (3,600 RPM/85*)
1
10.6
14.4
14.4
13.6
10.3
2
10.7
14.3
13.9
13.6
10.5
3
12.2
14.7
14.7
13.9
11.7
4
13.3
14.3
14.6
13.6
12.8
5
13.8
14.1
13.6
12.7
13.2
6
14.1
14.2
13.8
13.0
13.4
                                       43

-------
     The  data suggest  that during the  severe  duty  conditions of modes  1 and 5,
 the A/F  distribution  is askewed, in that  cylinders  4,  5, and 6 are much leaner
 than other cylinders;  and cylinders 4,  5, and  6 encountered exhaust valve seat
 recession of .016,  .090, and  .121 inches, repectively.  The leaner A/F
 mixtures would  result  in higher cylinder  temperatures  which could increase
 valve seat recession  at the high speed/load  condition.  It is interesting to
 note that during  the  lighter  duty cycles, in which  valve seat recession is
 expected to be  less severe, the A/F distribution  levels out so that only
 slight differences  are apparent.  It  could be  postulated from this data (and
 the material  hardness  data presented  earlier)  that  valve seat recession may be
 influenced by A/F.  The degree  of A/F influence (if any) is unknown without
 further  testing under  controlled A/F  conditions.
 GM-292 "B" Engine
     A second  GM-292 engine designated as  GM-292 "B" was tested with unleaded
 fuel  and using  an induction-hardened  head.   Induction  hardening only  included
 the valve seat  area and is reported by  the manufacturer to be approximately
 HRC 55 hardness.  The  valve seat recession data (table 20) showed exhaust
 valve seat No.  5  to recede some .014  inch, while  the other valve seats changed
 less  than .005  inch.
     The  valve train inspection  data (table B-15)  showed cylinders 1,  3, 4, 5,
 and 6 to have valve seat recession of about  .010  inches, while cylinder No. 2
 received only .003  inch.   The valve train inspection data also showed valve
 height decreasing by about .005 Inch  on most valves.
    The  A/F and emissions  data  (table A-29 and A-30) showed a range of A/F due
 to  modes  of  11.6  to 14.0 which  is typical  of other  tests with this engine.
 The daily  variation of  averaged A/F ranged only from 12.8 to 13.6 which
 suggests  no unusual perturbation of A/F occurred  during the test.
    The  GM-292  "B"  engine  was also tested using unleaded fuel in a modified
 (reduced  severity)  duty cycle using a noninduction-hardened engine head.  The
mode  No.   5, which is a  high-speed/high-load  condition of 85 percent power at
3,600 rpm, was dropped  from the test  condition leaving only a 4-mode  cycle.
    The test with the GM-292 "B"  engine was  discontinued after 88 hours due to
excessive valve seat recession.   The  valve seat recession data (table 21)
showed .099 inch  recession  in cylinder  6, while cylinder 5 had .014 inch.

                                       44

-------
Cylinders 1, 2,  and  3  had  essentially no recession.  Comparative tests with
the GM-292 "A" engine  using the original duty cycle (discussed  earlier) showed
exhaust valve seat recession of about .125 inch after 71 hours  in cylinder 6.
    The valve train  inspection data (table B-16) also showed  exhaust valve
seat No. 6 was recessed  by .094 inch, with cylinders 1-3 showing essentially
no recession.  The other parameters measured showed only nominal values
indicating normal wear.
    The A/F and  emission data (table A-31 and A-32) are presented in the
appendix, but the averaged data are not directly comparable to  the other tests
due to elimination of  one  of the modes.  The data do show, however, that the
A/F for the remaining  modes is similar to the same modes in other tests.
Further, the daily variation ranges only from A/F of 12.8  to  13.3 indicating
no significant changes in  A/F during the test.
            TABLE 20. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                      GM-292 "B" engine—unleaded fuel — induction hardened engine head
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accumulated
Intake 1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6

16
0
-1
0
-1
-1
0
-3
0
3
-4
8
5

32
-1
-1
-2
-1
0
0
-5
-1
-2
-3
9
3

48
-1
1
0
0
0
0
-5
0
2
-1
10
3

64
-2
1
0
-1
0
0
-4
0
1
-5
10
4

80
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
-3
1
2
-1
11
5

96
-1
-1
0
-1
0
0
-3
0
6
-1
11
4

112
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
-5
0
2
-1
14
5

128
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
-5
0
2
-2
15
5

136
-1
-1
0
0
0
0
-4
-1
2
-2
15
5

152
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
-5
-1
2
-2
15
5

168
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
-4
-2
2
-1
15
5

184
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0
-4
0
2
-1
14
7

200
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
0
-4
1
2
-1
14
5

*
3
6
5
4
4
4
8
3
10
8
11
11
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
                                        45

-------
TABLE 21. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
            GM-292 "B" engine—unleaded fuel—average hardness HRB 89—
            modified cycle
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6
14
-1
0
-1
-3
-3
-1
-1
-1
0
0
1
14
25
-1
-1
-1
-2
-3
-1
-1
-2
0
2
3
29
41
1
-1
-1
-1
-3
0
-1
-1
1
4
10
52
57
-1
-1
-2
-2
-3
-1
-1
-1
0
6
10
70
61
-1
-2
-2
-2
-4
-1
0
-1
0
5
11
73
72
0
-2
-2
-2
-4
-1
-1
-2
2
6
13
81
88*
0
-1
0
-2
-5
1
0
0
3
8
14
99
*•
-1
-1
2
0
-3
1
-1
-1
2
6
10
94
  Test MBS terminated at 88 hours due to recession.
  Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
                                   46

-------
John Deere 303 Engine
    The 200-hour test was conducted  using  unleaded  fuel with  a  new engine head
which measured HRB 98, HRB 99,  and HRB  96  at  three  places.  Valve  seat  reces-
sion data, presented 1n table 22,  showed recession  of  at  least  .050 Inch  in
all exhaust valves and some recession  1n one  Intake valve.  The most recession
occurred during the 56-hour steady-state mode beginning at  144  hours, rather
than during the cyclic operation.
    Valve train inspection data (table  B-17)  confirm exhaust  valve seat reces-
sion of about .050 inch for all cylinders  using  the unleaded  fuel  for 200
hours.  The apparent recession noted on No. 4 intake valve  during  the
"running" measurements was not confirmed by the  valve  train Inspection.  The
reason for this discrepancy is not clear.  Valve height was increased during
the 200-hour test, again the valve spring  force  is  relatively high, but the
mechanism of valve elongation is not understood. Valve guide diameters
increased a consistent .0003 to .0008  inch for all  cylinders  except for
exhaust No. 3 which Increased .0015  inch.  Valve stem  diameters were also
consistent and decreased by .0004 to .0005 inch.
    All parameters measured, except  valve  seat depth,  appeared  to  be normal
and consistent.
    The A/F variations noted for the John  Deere  303 engine  using  unleaded fuel
are very similar to the tests using  leaded fuel  1n  that  the average A/F
between modes ranges from 12.2 to 13.9 (table A-33).  The dally average A/F
ranged from 12.5 to 13.5 (table A-34).
GM-454 Engine
    Two valve seat measurement jigs  (one  for  the exhaust valve, one for the
intake valve) were used for this series of tests to eliminate measurement
variability due to jig realignment and to accommodate both the exhaust and
intake valves.  Exhaust valve seat recession  in the GM-454 engine using
unleaded fuel ranged from about .015 to .035  inch for the 200-hour  test.   The
data are presented in table 23.  The recession  1s consistent among  all exhaust
valves.  It should be noted again that this engine test series used new  OEM
induct ion-hardened heads.
                                       47

-------
                                     TABLE 22,  - Effect of  accumulated  engine  hours  on  valve  seat  recession—
                                                 John  Deere-303  engine—unleaded  fuel—average  hardness  HRB  97.7
oo
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
1 ntake
1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhaust
1
2
3
4
5
6

6

-1
-1
0
-1
0
-1

1
-1
1
-2
1
2

10

0
0
1
1
0
-1

3
1
-1
-2
1
3

26

0
-1
0
1
-1
-1

3
1
5
2
0
7

42

0
-1
0
2
0
0

4
1
6
2
1
14

56

0
-1
0
1
0
-1

7
1
5
5
1
13

74

1
-1
1
1
0
-1

3
2
5
5
0
15

90

0
-1
0
1
0
-1

e
2
7
8
-1
14

106

0
-2
0
0
0
-1

10
6
9
9
5
18

122

0
-2
0
6
0
1

17
8
14
11
6
15

138

6
-1
1
7
0
0

16
11
21
11
10
16

144

0
-1
1
14
0
0

24
12
22
18
10
19

168

0
0
1
15
0
-1

41
28
40
25
24
36

200

-1
0
0
15
0
-1

63
46
61
48
41
50

•

-4
-2
-3
-4
-3
0

56
41
64
41
36
43
                          •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

-------
\o
                                   TABLE 23. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                                               GM-454 engine—unleaded fuel —induction-hardened head

Hours
Accumu 1 ated
1 ntoke 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
B


16
-1
-2
-2
0
0
-1
-4
-1
1
1
0
3
1
2
1
0


32
1
-4
-2
-2
-1
-2
-4
-4
2
5
0
3
2
7
2
2


48
3
-5
0
-3
-1
2
-1
2
4
5
3
7
4
9
7
4


59
1
-6
-2
-5
0
2
-1
1
8
7
6
9
9
11
10
12
Valve

75
1
-3
-2
-1
-1
4
-2
3
7
7
10
12
9
11
10
11
Seat Recession, inches/1000

88
3
-3
0
-1
-1
4
-4
3
11
9
11
12
12
13
11
10

100
4
-4
1
0
0
3
-4
3
13
13
13
17
17
17
15
18

116
1
-2
-1
-1
-1
3
-3
2
12
15
12
18
16
16
13
18

125
2
-2
0
1
2
6
1
3
15
19
14
29
19
13
12
19

133
2
0
0
2
-1
5
-4
1
14
30
15
30
20
16
13
19

140
3
-3
0
1
1
5
-2
3
14
30
15
31
21
17
14
21

144
2
1
0
0
0
6
-3
1
14
30
16
30
22
16
16
19

160
2
-2
0
0
2
6
-2
2
15
32
17
32
22
21
16
23

176
1
-2
-1
1
0
6
-2
1
14
31
14
32
23
21
18
24

192
1
0
0
1
0
6
-1
2
14
32
16
32
25
23
16
23

200
2
0
0
0
1
6
-1
3
14
31
16
34
23
24
20
23

•
0
1
0
-3
0
-2
0
-1
7
26
10
32
20
15
16
22
              •Measurement  based  upon  engine disassembly  and  inspection.

-------
     Examination  of  the  valve  train  Inspection data  (table B-18) confirmed
 relatively consistent exhaust valve seat  recession  ranging from .007 to  .032
 Inch using unleaded fuel.   Valve  guide wear was a nominal .0004 Inch for the
 Intake  valves, which exhibited no valve seat recession; however, exhaust valve
 guide wear ranged from  .0006  to .0046 inches (cylinder No. 5).  In addition,
 there are  no  correlations  of  valve  seat recession with valve guide or valve
 stem wear.
     Tests  with the  unleaded fuel  showed A/F variations between modes to be
 relatively narrow,  compared to the  leaded fuel test, ranging from A/F of 12.8
 to  13.9 (table A-35).   The daily  A/F average of all modes showed cons stent
 A/F of  12.7 to 14.3 (table A-36).   These were slightly richer than the tests
 with leaded fuel.   However, operation during the 56-hour mode averaged 14.6
 for the unleaded test compared to an average of about 14.1 for the leaded
 test.
     The GM-454 engine was  also tested using unleaded fuel with valve seat
 inserts.   The valve seat Inserts  are for  "moderate  duty" based upon SAE-J610b
 recommended practice.   The inserts  (J-LOY, X-B) contained 1.5 percent carbon,
 20  percent chromium, 1.3 percent  nickel,  1.25 percent silicon, and the
 remainder  cast iron.  The  hardness  rf the Inserts used was tested and found to
 be  an average of HRC 42.0.  Standard exhaust valves were used for the test as
 recommended by the  valve seat manufacturer.
     At  approximately 120 hours into the test the engine began to lose power, a
 compression check confirmed low compression on No.  6 cylinder.  The head was
 removed  and inspected and  the problem diagnosed as  collapsed piston rings.
 The  No.  6  piston was removed  and  a  new piston and rings Installed (standard
 size), correcting the problem and the test continued to 200 hours.
    The valve recession data  (table 24) showed maximim recession of .017 inch
during the  200-hour test with  a range of  .005 to .017 inches for the eight
exhaust valves.
                                       50

-------
                TABLE  24.  -  Effect  of  accumulated  engine  hours on  valve  seat  recession—
                            GM-454  CIO engine—unleaded fuel—steel exhaust valve seat
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accufflu 1 ated
1 ntake 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

16
-2
2
-2
0
-2
3
-2
C
3
-2
2
-2
3
0
2
-2

32
-3
3
-2
-1
-2
4
-2
0
3
-1
5
-I
3
-1
4
-4

48
-2
3
-1
-1
2
4
-3
1
3
-1
9
-2
4
5
5
-3

64
-1
5
-1
0
-2
5
0
1
4
-1
12
0
4
8
4
-2

72
0
5
-1
1
-2
5
-3
1
4
0
14
-1
4
9
6
0

88
-1
5
-2
2
1
4
0
1
4
0
16
1
5
12
10
1

99
0
5
-2
0
0
5
-4
1
6
1
18
0
10
12
10
1

115
0
5
-2
0
-1
6
-3
1
7
5
18
3
10
13
11
3

131
0
5
0
-2
1
5
-2
2
6
1
18
1
10
13
11
3

144
-1
3
-2
0
1
7
-5
3
5
0
17
1
9
17
10
5

160
-2
4
-2
3
-1
9
-2
5
6
1
17
1
10
12
12
4

175
-2
5
-1
2
0
7
-2
3
6
1
16
2
10
12
11
5

191
-1
9
-3
2
0
5
-3
5
6
1
19
0
12
12
10
5

200
-1
5
-2
0
-1
4
-7
2
8
1
17
+ 1
12
14
11
6

*
-3
-2
0
-3
-3
0
-4
-4
6
5
17
4
8
15
8
12
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

-------
    The valve train Inspection data (table B-19) also showed a maximum
recession of .017 Inch and slight recession of most other exhaust valves.  In
addition, this test 1s the only test of the entire series to detect any wear
of the exhaust valve Itself.  The ridge noted on the seat surface of the
valves was ground away until the ridge was eliminated and the depth of the
ridge 1n the valve thus measured.  The depth of the ridges was found to be
.004, .004, .001, .002, .001, .002, .003, and .002 Inch for cylinder Nos. 1
through 8.  Other aspects of the parameters measured appear to be nominal.
    The A/F and emission data (tables A-37 and A-38) showed the engine to
operate within a range of A/F from 12.6 to 14.0 depending upon mode, with the
richer A/F associated with the high speed/load conditions.
    The average day-to-day variation of A/F ranged only from 12.9 to 13.5 with
the 56-hour steady state mode operating at 13.4 to 13.8 A/F.
                                       52

-------
                       LOW LEAD FUEL 0.10 GRAMS/GALLON
International Harvester 240 Engine
    After noting wear with unleaded  fuel,  tests were conducted  with  fuel
containing 0.10 gm/gal lead 1n the IH-240  engine.  The  hardness of the head
used for this test was measured at three places and found  to  be HRB  93.5,  HRB
92, and HRB 93.  The data, presented 1n table  25,  showed no valve seat
recession trends in any of the valves using  the 0.10 gm/gal fuel.  The trend
toward negative recession implies  a build-up of deposits under  the valve
seat.  Detailed examination of the engine  head by  a certified engine rebuilder
after the tests were completed confirmed that  negative  numbers  were  due to a
build-up of carbon on the valve and  valve  seat surface.  At 188 hours of  the
planned 200-hour test, the engine  suffered a broken crankshaft, and  the test
was terminated.  Obviously, the failure of the crankshaft  is  not associated
with any fuel additive, and major  engine rebuilding would  require a  repeat
test to confirm the additional 12  hours of operation.   In  all of the data
collected from other tests, recession occurred before  188  hours or  not at all.
    Valve train inspection data (table B-20) of the  IH-240, operating on
0.10 gm/gal leaded fuel, suggested no valve  seat  recession in excess of
.003 inch.  Valve guide diameter measurements  were consistent and showed
essentially no wear.  The only noticeable  differences  observed  between the
start and end of the test were the consistent  relaxation of spring  forces of
about 10 percent during the 200-hour test.  New  springs were  used for all
tests.  It 1s assumed that the springs would age  rather quickly from new and
then the spring force decrease at a much  slower  rate.
    The A/F data for test with the IH-240 engine  using 0.10 gm/gal   lead showed
A/F variations similar to the test with leaded fuel and first  test  with
unleaded fuel.  The A/F using the 0.10 gm/gal  lead ranged from A/F  of  10.6 to
13.6 (table A-39) with a dally variation being extremely consistent ranging
only between A/F of 12.0 and  12.3 (table A-40).   No valve seat recession
occurred in this test nor the other tests with leaded and unleaded  fuel where
the A/F was consistent.
                                        53

-------
           TABLE 25. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                     IH-240 engine—0.10 gm/gal lead—average hardness HRB 92.8
Valve Seat Recession
Hours
Accumulated
Intake 1
2
3
4
Exhaust 1
2
3
4

16
-1
-1
0
-1
-2
-2
1
1

32
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
-3
-1
-3

48
-2
-2
-1
-1
-2
-2
-1
-I

64
-2
-2
-1
-2
-2
-2
-1
-3

80
-1
-2
-1
-2
-2
-2
-1
-2

95
-3
-1
-1
-3
-2
-3
-1
-2
, inches/1000

lit
-3
-1
-1
-4
-2
-3
0
-2

127
-3
-2
-1
-4
-2
-3
0
-2

143
-4
-2
-1
-4
-2
-4
0
-2

168
-4
-2
-1
-4
-2
-3
0
-2

188
-4
-2
-1
-4
-2
-3
-2
-2

*
-4
3
1
3
1
-1
1
0
     •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

     Tests  were  also conducted using the  IH-240 engine with fuel containing
0.10 gp/gal  lead using exhaust valve  inserts  made from cast iron.  The
hardness of  the valve seat inserts was measured and found to range from HRB
96.5 to HRB  97.5 with an average hardness of  HRB 97.
     The valve seat recession data (table 26)  showed no recession of any of the
valve  seats.  The valve train inspection data (table B-21) confirmed that no
recession  occurred on any of the valve seats.  The other parameters measured
show only  nominal wear.
     The A/F  and emission data (table  A-41)  show a A/F variability due to mode
ranging from 11.2 to 13.2, with the leaner  A/F associated with the higher load
conditions.
     The daily variation (table A-42)  of  the average A/F ranged only from 12.1
to 12.5 which is unusually consistent.  The A/F during the 56-hour mode ranged
from 12.9  to 13.1 which 1s consistent with  previous tests with this engine.
                                           54

-------
      TABLE 26. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                IH-240 engine—0.10 gm/gal  lead—valve seat insert hardness HRB 97
Valve Seat Recession
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
1 ntake 1
2
3
4
Exhaust 1
2
3
4

15
1
0
0
-1
0
-1
-1
0

31
2
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
0

47
0
0
-1
0
-2
-2
-1
0

63
0
0
-1
0
-1
-1
-2
-2

73
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1

88
0
0
-1
0
1
0
-1
0

102
1
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0
p inches/1000

118
0
0
-1
-1
0
-1
-1
0

134
0
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0

144
0
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
0

168
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
0
0

200
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-2
0
-1

*
0
0
-1
1
1
-1
2
0
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

6M-292 "A" Engine
    The GM-292  "A"  engine  was tested using 0.10 gm/gal  lead added to the
fuel.  The data are presented 1n table 27.  Recession  occurred In cylinder
No. 6 with .050 Inch noted in the exhaust valve seat and some recession noted
1n the Intake  valve seat of cylinder No. 6.  During the test between the  105-
and 120-hour test  points,  the engine suffered a head gasket failure that
allowed communication of gases between cylinders  Nos.  5 and 6.  Engine coolant
was unaffected. The head  gasket was replaced, and the test was continued.
This time period resulted  1n the significant valve seat recession indicating
that the head  gasket failure could have perturbed the  test results  in cylinder
No. 6.  None of the other  valves had any trend toward  recession.
                                        55

-------
en
en
                                        TABLE 27. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—

                                                    GM-292 "A" engine—0.10 gm/gal  lead—average hardness HRB 89
Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
Hours
Accumulated
Intake 1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6

16
-2 -
-1
-1
0
-1
0
-1
-2
0
-2
0
0

27
-3
-2
-3
0
-1
0
0
-2
0
0
1
0

43
-3
-2
-3
1
-1
0
-1
-2
0
0
1
2

59
-3
-2
-4
0
-1
0
-1
-2
0
-2
1
-1

75
-2
-1
-3
1
-1
0
-1
-2
-1
0
2
0

91
-3
-1
-3
-1
0
0
-1
-2
0
-1
2
1

105
-2
-1
-2
-7
0
6
0
-1
2
-1
2
11

120
0
1
-3
0
1
9
1
-1
2
-1
0
29

136
-1
0
-5
0
2
12
1
-1
2
0
4
39

144
-1
0
-1
1
2
12
0
-1
2
0
1
40

160
-1
0
-1
3
2
15
0
-1
1
0
1
46

176
-1
0
-1
2
2
15
0
-1
2
0
1
46

192
-1
0
-2
1
2
19
1
0
1
-1
2
51

200
-2
1
-2
1
1
19
1
0
1
-1
1
50

•
0
0
-2
-2
-1
14
-2
-2
-4
-4
-3
40
                      •Measurement based upon engine disassembly and  inspection.

-------
    Tests with the 0.10 gm/gal  lead  fuel  showed consistent A/F variations
between modes with a range of A/F  from  12.1  to 14.7  (table A-43).  The  dally
A/F variations were unusually consistent,  ranging from  13.5 to 14.1 over the
11 test days (table A-44).
    The valve train Inspection data  (table B-22) again  confirmed the  "running"
valve seat recession measurements  1n that  recession  was noted 1n only one
exhaust valve.  In addition,  recession  was also confirmed 1n one intake
valve.  Both valves on which  recession  was noted are on cylinder No.  6.
Cylinder No. 6, as well as No.  5,  on this  engine Indicated significant
recession during previous tests with unleaded fuel.
    Valve guide diameter increases of .0003  to  .0005 Inch over the 200-hour
test were typical; however, exhaust  guide  No. 6 increased some  .0015  inch  and
exhaust No. 5 Increased some  .0011 inch.   The valve  spring force in cylinder
No. 6 decreased during testing somewhat more than the other cylinders.
Excessive heat, 1f generated  due to  air-fuel mixture or other mechanism, would
be expected to both decrease  the spring constants and increase  valve  seat
recession.
    The tests were repeated using the GM-292 "A" engine with 0.10  gm/gal  lead
to determine if the head gasket failure reported  in  the previous test was
indeed responsible for the apparent  recession  noted. The  hardness of the  head
used for this test was Rockwell HRB  91.
    The valve seat recession data (table  28) showed  no  recession  in excess of
±.003 Inch.  The valve train Inspection data (table  B-23),  however,  shows
0.10 inch recession in the No. 5 cylinder, but no  recession 1n the other
cylinders.  Other parameters measured show only nominal change except for
slightly higher valve guide wear in cylinder Nos.  5  and 6.
    The A/F and emission data  (tables A-45 and A-46) showed the A/F variation
between the five modes ranged  from  12.7 to 13.5 compared to 12.1 to  14.7 for
the previous test with 0.10 gm/gal  lead.   The dally averaged A/F ranged from
only 12.8 to 13.4 during the 200-hour test.  This compares with a range of
13.5 to 14.1 for the earlier test with 0.10 gm/gal  lead.
                                       57

-------
          TABLE 28.  - Effect of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                      GM-292 "A" englne—0.10 gm/gal  lead—average hardness HRB 91 (repeat)
Valve Seat Recession, Inches/1000
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
intake 1
2
3
4
5
6
en
CO
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6

16 32
0 -1
0 1
1 0
1 0
1 2
0 1

0 0
-1 -1
t 1
1 1
0 4
1 1

48
0
1
-1
-1
0
0

0
-1
1
1
4
3

55
0
1
-1
1
1
0

0
-1
-1
1
3
-1

71
0
1
-I
1
0
-1

0
-1
1
2
4
0

85
0
1
-1
1
0
0

0
-2
1
3
4
1

toi
0
1
0
2
2
0

-1
-1
0
3
4
2

1)7
0
1
0
2
0
1

-1
-1
-1
3
4
1

131
-1
1
-1
1
0
0

0
-1
-1
4
4
1

147
-1
1
0
2
2
1

0
0
-1
4
3
3

158
-1
1
0
1
1
2

1
-1
0
4
4
1

174
-1
2
-1
1
0
1

1
0
0
3
2
1

190
-1
1
-1
1
0
1

0
-1
0
3
3
3

200
0
1
-2
0
0
0

-1
-1
-2
3
3
1

•
1
-1
-1
-2
-1
0

0
0
0
3
9
2
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

-------
GM-292 "B" Engine
    An additional test was conducted using  0.10  gin/gal  lead  in  a  different
GM-292 engine.  The engine is designated  as GM-292  "B".  but  is  an identical
product to the GM-292 "A" engine.
    The head was measured for hardness and  found to be  Rockwell HRB  91.8.
    The valve seat recession data  (table  29) for this test showed no seat
recession in any exhaust valve greater than ±.002 inch.   No.  5  intake valve
seat appeared to change (negative  recession) after  the  first  measurement was
made, but remained constant throughout the  remainder of  the  test.
    The valve train inspection data (table  B-24) also showed  no recession  in
any exhaust valve seat greater than ±.002 inch.   The other parameters measured
1n the Inspection data appeared to be very  consistent with only nominal
changes noted in all measurements.
    The A/F and emission data (tables A-47  and A-48) showed  an  A/F variation
between the five modes of 11.6 to  13.6 compared to a variation  of 12.7 to  13.4
for the last test using the GM-292 "A" engine.  The higher  loads  are
associated with the richer modes.   The daily averaged A/F ranged  only from
12.2 to 13.0.  This is similar to  the last  test using  the GM-292  "A" engine
and operating on the 0.10 gm/gal lead fuel  in which the A/F  ranged from 12.8
to 13.4
John Deere 303 Engine
    Due to the recession noted using the John Deere 303 engine and unleaded
fuel, the test was repeated using fuel with 0.10 gm/gal lead and new engine
heads which measured HRB 97. HRB 99, and HRB 92 at three different places.
Valve seat recession data presented 1n table 30 showed no trend  toward
recession of any of the valves during the 200-hour test.  The data  suggested
recession of  .005 inch 1n one valve.  However,  if the initial point were  taken
at 16 hours, the recession would be zero.   This  suggests that the valves  are
being "re-seated," rather than observing valve  seat recession.
                                       59

-------
    TABLE 29. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                GM-292 "6" engine—0.10 g*/gal  lead—average hardness HRB 91.8

Hours
Accumulated
Intake 1
2


16
0
0
3 -1
4 -1
5
6
Exhaust 1
2
0
0
1
0
3 -1
4 -t
5
6
0
0
Valve Seat Recession, Inches/1000

32 45 61 77 93 108 124 140 156 172 188 200
111112112100
-101012331 100
-10010111-10-1-1
-1-1 00 1 2 1 1-1-1 0-1
-5 -8 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5 -5
-1-1-1 0-1 00 1 -2 -1 -1 0
01101233-1-1-1-1
000113222211
-200001 1 10-1-10
00-1000000-1-1-1
-10000112000-1
011210220-22-1


•
-1
0
2
1
-3
1
1
1
2
-1
0
1
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
TABLE


Hours
30.



Accumu I ated
Intake





Exhaust





t
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
- Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession —
John Deere engine — 0.10 gm/gal lead — average hardness HRB 96.0
Valve Seat Recession, Inches/1000

16 32 48 64 80 96 112 128 144 168 200 •
0 0-1-1 -1 -1 -1 0 -1 -1 -1 0
0 0-1 0 0-1-1-1 -1 -2 -2 0
-1 -1 -t -1 -1 0-1 0 -1 -2 -2 0
-5 -5 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -3 -4 -4 -2
0 1 000000-1-1-1 2
-1 -1-1-1-1 0000 -1 -1 0
455544554454
-1 0-1 00-1-1 0-1 300
1 101021 10-100
000-1 000-1 0000
112222111100
0-1-1-1 0 0 0-3 -1 -1 -1 0

















•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and  Inspection.
                                         60

-------
GM-454 Engine
    Due to the exhaust valve seat recession noted  on the  GM-454  engine using
unleaded fuel, the engine was tested using fuel  with 0.10 gin/gal  lead.
    At approximately 30 hours Into the test, the crankshaft  sheared between
bearings No.  7 and 8.  Rather than repair the engine,  a new  engine  was
procured, Installed, and broken-1n using the method  described  earlier except
that 0.10 gm/gal fuel was used.   The heads from  the  damaged  engine  with
30 hours of use were then Installed on the new engine and the  test  continued.
The data, presented 1n table 31, showed no recession of any  of the  exhaust
valves using the low lead fuel.   One Intake valve  suggested  a  slight trend
toward recession.
    Examination of the valve train Inspection data for the GM-454 engine using
the 0.10 gm/gal fuel (table B-26) showed no appreciable valve  seat  recession
1n excess of ±.005 Inch.  The recession trend noted  during "running" valve
seat measurements 1n Intake valve No. 8 was not  apparent  in  the  valve train
Inspection.  The reason for this 1s not clear.  Valve guide  diameter Increases
remained relatively constant Increasing from .0007 to .0010  Inch except for
cylinder No.  7 which Increased by .0020 Inch.
    Other parameters measured changed by only nominal amounts, thus Indicating
no unusual wear patterns.
    The A/F variations among the six test modes  for  tests with 0.10 gm/gal
fuel showed a range of A/F from 13.2 to 14.2 (table  A-51) which was similar to
tests with unleaded fuel.  The dally A/F average data showed a range of A/F
from 13.3 to 14.6 (table A-52) during tests with the low lead fuel.  These
were similar to A/F during the leaded fuel test.
    The valve train Inspection data for test using 0.10 gm/gal lead  (table
B-25) show no Indications of valve seat recession or abnormal wear of  any
valve train measured.  Valve guide diameters were generally consistent and
Increased from .0002 to  .0005 Inch, except for exhaust guide  No. 2 which
Increased some .0012 Inch.  Likewise, valve stem diameters decreased from 0 to
.0003 Inch during the 200 hours.  Valve height and  valve  tulip diameters  were
unaffected by the test.
                                       61

-------
          TABLE 31. - Effect of  accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                    GM-454 engine—0.10 gm/gal  lead—induction-hardened seats
Valve Seat Recession,
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

16
0
-1
1
-1
-2
1
-2
2
-1
1
0
0
-2
1
-2
2

31
1
-2
1
-1
-1
0
-2
2
1
4
3
3
0
6
-2
6

47
1
-1
1
0
1
2
-3
4
-4
3
0
1
-1
0
0
2

63
0
-1
3
0
1
2
1
4
-4
2
0
1
-3
2
-1
1

73
0
0
2
1
1
4
1
4
-3
2
-1
1
-4
1
-1
0

89
0
0
1
2
-1
5
-1
5
-2
3
-

-3

-


105
0
0
2
4
1
4
1
6
-2
3
-1
1
-2
0
-1
2

121
1
0
2
4
1
4
1
6
-3
2
0
-1
-1
0
-2
1

137
1
0
1
1
1
3
1
6
-4
1
-1
0
-3
0
-2
1
inches/1000

144
1
0
1
1
0
3
1
6
-3
1
-1
0
-2
1
-2
1

160
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
6
-4
3
-2
0
-3
1
-2
1

176
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
6
-2
3
1
0
-2
1
0
3

192
0
0
0
1
0
3
1
6
-2
3
-2
0
-2
1
0
3

200
0
1
1
2
1
4
2
7
-3
-3
-3
0
-4
1
-1
1

•
-5
1
1
1
5
1
6
0
5
1
3
2
0
2
3
1
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and Inspection.
     The  A/F variations between modes for test with the 0.10 gm/gal lead fuel
ranged from 11.7 to 12.6 (table A-49).   The  dally average A/F ranged from 11.9
to  12.6  (table A-50) which Is slightly  richer A/F compared to the tests with
leaded and  unleaded fuels.
Fuel Additive "A"
    Fuel  additive "A" was supplied by  The  Lubrizol  Corporation and represented
a variation  of the Lubrizol "Powershield"  additive.  The additive-to-fuel
level was 250 pounds add.Hive per 1,000  barrels of  fuel.  The additive was
mixed in  a 7,000-gallon batch in a fuel  tank  that had stored unleaded gasoline
for about six months previously.  A  sample of the blended fuel was tested by
the supplier and approved prior to testing.
GM-292 "A" Engine
    Use of the additive "A" 1n the GM-292  "A" engine resulted in significant
valve seat recession such that the test  was terminated after 64 hours with
some .050- to .080-inch recession occurring in cylinder Nos. 5 and 6.  In a
                                        62

-------
subsequent analysis of the additive, the supplier reported  that the additive
package was improperly formulated when manufactured;  therefore, testing of
this additive was discontinued.
    The valve seat recession data (table 32)  showed cylinder Nos.  1, 2, and 3
with little or no valve seat recession, a slight amount of  recession (0.10
inch) in cylinder No. 4, and significant recession in cylinder Nos. 5 and 6.
    The valve train inspection data (table B-27) showed about .005 inch
recession for all intake valve seats and exhaust seats 1 through 3, with the
remaining exhaust seats following the same pattern discussed above.  The valve
height of the intake and exhaust valves decreased about .005 inch.
    The A/F and emissions data (tables A-53 and A-54) showed a range of A/F
due to modes of 12.2 to 13.8.  This is similar to other tests.  The daily
averaged A/F ranged from 12.9 to 13.1 and is similar  to earlier tests with
this engine.  The A/F data suggest that perturbations in A/F ratio are not
responsible for the valve seat recession observed.

      TABLE 32. - Effect of accumulated engine hours  on valve seat
                  recession—GM-292 "A" engine—fuel  additive "A"
                  average hardness HRB 89

                          Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
      Hours
       Accumulated       16        32       48        64        *
Intake





Exhaust





1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0
-1
0
-2
2
0
-1
3
4
8
14
0
1
-1
0
-2
1
1
2
3
10
26
40
0
0
-1
-1
-1
1
1
2
4
10
40
65
0
0
-1
1
-2
1
0
1
3
10
47
86
3
4
5
5
5
3
5
5
6
12
49
77
      *Measurement based upon engine disassembly and  inspection.
                                        63

-------
John Deere 303 Engine
    Fuel additive "A" was tested in the John Deere 303 engine for 80 hours.
The test was discontinued after NIPER was notified that the additive package
was not properly formulated.
    The John Deere engine head was tested for hardness and measured Rockwell
HRB 95.
    Valve seat recession data (table 33) showed little recession; however,  the
valve train inspection data (table B-28) suggested from .006- to .012-inch
recession.  The valve height on exhaust and Intake valves was reduced about
.006 inch during the test according to the inspection data as was noted during
the test with the 292 "A" engine.
    The A/F and emission data (table A-55 and A-56) showed a range of A/F of
11.5 to 12.6 depending upon mode.  The dally variation of average A/F during
the five test days ranged from 11.9 to 12.2, which is somewhat lower than when
the engine was tested with unleaded gasoline.
        TABLE 33. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat
                    recess ion—John Deere-303 engine—fuel additive "A"
                    average hardness HRB 95
      Hours
       Accumulated
                               Valve Seat Recession, inches/1000
16
32
48
64
80
Intake





Exhaust





1
2
3
4
5
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
3
-1
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
-1
5
-1
1
0
4
2
0
0
0
0
-1
-1
5
0
3
0
6
3
2
0
0
0
-1
-1
5
0
2
0
6
2
4
0
6
6
6
7
7
8
7
6
12
7
8
7
      *Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
                                      64

-------
Fuel Additive "B"
    Fuel additive B was a product supplied  by Lubrizol  Corporation  with a
trade name "Powershield."  The additive B was blended with  unleaded gasoline
at a level of 250 pounds of additive per 1,000 barrels  of gasoline.  The fuel
additive B was tested 1n the GM-292 "A", John Deere  303, and  GM-454 engines.
GH-292 "A"
    The test with the fuel additive B in the GM-292  "A" engine  was  conducted
with an engine head of hardness Rockwell HRB 89.
    The valve seat recession data for the GM-292  "A" (table 34) show a signi-
ficant amount of exhaust valve seat recession of  .112 and  .086  Inches in
cylinders 5 and 6 after 84 hours of operation. The  test was  terminated after
84 hours.  Cylinders 2 through 4 received some .011  to  .015 inches  recession
while cylinder No. 1 was virtually unchanged.  The intake valves were not
affected within the range of ±.003 inches.
    The valve train inspection data (table  B-29)  showed similar recession
results to the recession data collected daily. The  other engine parameters
measured only slight or no change at all, which would normally  be expected in
the relatively short test.
    The A/F and emissions data (tables A-57 and A-58)  showed  that the A/F
variations among the five modes ranged from 12.8  to 14.2,  while the daily
variation of the averaged A/F ranged from 13.4 to 14.0.  Comparisons of the
A/F from other tests with this engine showed this A/F to be typical except
that, at the richest A/F mode of 12.8, the  A/F is somewhat leaner than the
other tests in which the A/F ranged from 11.9 to  12.7 for the richest mode.
John Deere 303
    Tests were conducted with the John Deere 303 engine using  fuel additive B.
The engine test used a head of Rockwell hardness HRB 95.
    Valve recession data  (table 35) showed  little recession during the  cyclic
144-hour operation.  However, during the 56-hour steady-state  mode,  signifi-
cant exhaust valve seat recession occurred  1n cylinders 1  and  6.   Cylinders 2
through 5 appeared to have minimal  recession.
                                       65

-------
 TABLE 34. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
             GM-292 "A" engine—fuel additive "B"—average hardness HRB 89

Hours
Accumu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6


16
-1
0
2
1
-2
0
3
4
8
11
16
10
Valve

32
-1
0
1
1
-2
-1
5
4
11
16
49
30
Seat Recession, inches/1000

48
-1
-1
4
0
-3
0
4
9
11
16
72
47

• 64
-1
-1
1
1
-3
1
4
10
11
18
89
66

68
-1
-1
2
1
-3
1
4
12
12
18
92
74

84
1
-1
2
2
-3
0
4
13
11
15
112
86

*
-1
-2
1
0
-2
1
2
13
8
13
109
85
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.
                          66

-------
       TABLE 35. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                 John Deere 303 engine—fuel additive "B"—average hardness HRB 95
Valve Seat
Hours
Accuoiu 1 ated
Intake 1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6
16
-1
0
-1
-1
-1
2
2
2
1
7
0
6
32
-2
0
-2
-1
-1
0
8
2
4
6
3
6
48
-3
1
0
-1
1
0
8
6
2
6
4
7
64
-2
0
1
-1
1
3
9
5
4
6
5
7
80
-2
1
1
0
0
4
10
6
4
5
4
6
Recess i on ,
91
-1
0
1
0
1
4
9
6
4
5
4
6
107
-3
2
0
-1
0
4
10
7
4
5
3
6
inches/1000
121
-3
3
0
-1
0
5
10
7
5
4
2
7
137
-3
2
0
-1
0
4
11
8
6
5
2
7
144
-3
3
0
-1
0
4
11
7
7
5
2
8
168
-3
3
0
-1
0
4
24
7
6
5
1
23
200
-4
4
1
-1
0
3
37
6
5
4
1
42
*
2
4
5
4
5
5
33
5
5
5
6
40
•Measurement based  upon engine disassembly and  inspection.

    The valve train inspection data (table B-30) showed  similar results of
.033 and  .040 inches  recession in cylinders 1 and 6 and  .002 to .005 inches on
all other valves.   The  valve height decreased on most  valves by about .004
inch, indicating some wear on the valve tip.
    The A/F and emissions  data (tables A-59 and A-60)  showed the engine
operated  at a range of  A/F from 10.9 to 12.2 for the  six modes.  A daily
variation of the averaged  A/F ranged from 10.8 to  11.8.   These A/F ratios  are
slightly  richer than the A/F during other tests with  this engine.  For
comparison, the average range A/F of all six tests  conducted with this  engine
for the six modes  1s 11.7  to 12.9, while the range  of average A/F for all  test
days is 11.9 to 12.7.  During the 56-hour mode, the A/F increased to 13 which
coincides with  the Increased valve seat recession.
                                         67

-------
GM-454
    The GM 454 engine was tested using the fuel additive B.  The GM 454 engine
used heads with Induction-hardened valve seats and completed the 200-hour
test.  The valve seat recession data (table 36) show cylinder No. 1 had
recession of only .008 Inch, while the rest of the valve seats received little
or no recession.
    The valve train Inspection data (table B-31) again showed cylinder No. 1
to have the most recession of .009 Inch with cylinder No. 3 at .008 Inch; all
other valve seats (Intake and exhaust) were within a range .004 to .006 Inch.
    The valve height of all valves decreased by .005 to .006 Inches during the
test suggesting valve tip wear.  As noted earlier, the change 1n valve height
is corrected for determining valve seat recession from the valve train
inspection data.
                                       68

-------
                  TABLE  36.  - Effect of  accumulated engine hours on  valve seat  recession—
                            GM-454 engine—fuel  additive "B"—Induction  hardened  head
Valve Seat Recession
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
1 ntake 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
cn 8
vo
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

8
0
0
0
0
-2
1
-5
1
1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
-2
0

20
2
-1
1
0
-2
1
-5
1
4
•»9
4
0
0
0
1
2

36
2
-1
1
1
3
1
-3
0
4
-1
4
0
1
0
1
1

52
3
0
1
1
0
2
-3
0
7
-2
5
1
2
1
2
2

68
3
1
2
2
0
2
-2
0
7
0
4
1
0
1
2
0

77
3
0
1
3
0
2
-2
0
5
-1
4
0
1
1
2
3

83
2
1
3
3
-1
2
-1
1
7
-1
4
0
1
1
3
2
, inches/1000

99
2
~\
4
0
0
1
0
1
6
0
5
0
2
1
2
2

115
2
1
2
3
0
3
-2
2
7
1
5
1
2
1
3
1

131
2
1
2
3
1
2
-3
2
7
-1
4
1
2
2
2
2

144
2
-1
3
2
1
2
-1
2
5
-1
3
1
1
1
3
1

160
2
3
4
4
2
3
-1
5
7
-1
4
1
3
1
2
2

176
5
4
4
4
2
5
-1
7
8
-1
5
1
2
1
2
2

192
5
4
4
5
2
5
0
6
7
0
5
1
2
3
2
1

200
5
4
3
5
2
4
0
6
8
-1
5
1
2
0
1
2

*
6
6
4
5
5
6
5
6
9
5
8
5
5
5
6
6
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

-------
     The A/F and emissions data (tables A-61  and  A-62)  showed the range of A/F
 over the six modes 1s 12.2 to 14.0,  which  1s within  the  range of A/F during
 other comparative tests with this engine.  The dally average A/F ranged from
 12.4 to 13.8.  The 56-hour steady-state mode operated  at an A/F of about 14.0.
 Fuel Additive "C"
     Fuel additive "C" was supplied by E.  I.  du Pont  and  was designated as
 DMA-4.   The manufacturer recommended a concentration of  200 pounds of additive
 per 1,000 barrels of gasoline for this test. The  additive "C" was tested 1n
 two engines:  the GM-292 "A" and  the John  Deere  303.
 GM-292  "A"
     The additive "C" was tested  1n the GM-292 "A"  engine using an engine head
 with hardness of Rockwell  HRB 89  for the entire  200-hour test.  The valve seat
 recession data (table 37)  showed  cylinders 5 and 6 receiving the greatest
 amount  of recession  of .052 and  .039 inch, with  .023 inch for cylinder No. 4,
 and about .010 Inch  for the remaining exhaust valve  seats.  All intake valve
 seats showed either  a negative or no valve seat  recession.
     The valve train  inspection data  (table B-32) showed  similar trends 1n
 valve seat recession,  with cylinders 5 and 6 receiving the greater amount of
 recession.   All  cylinders  showed  some recession, whereas cylinders 1 through 3
 showed  no recession  1n previous tests with unleaded  fuel.  The inspection data
 also showed  no change  in valve height measurements during the test and very
 little  change of valve guide and  valve stem  diameter.  The other parameters
 indicated only nominal  wear patterns.
    The  A/F  and  emissions  data (tables A-63  and  A-64)  Indicated the A/F
variation among  the  five modes ranged from 12.7  to 13.7.  The dally averaged
A/F ranged from  12.9 to 13.9.  These A/F values  from this test are 1n the
midrange  of  all  other  tests  with  this engine; therefore,  any effect due to A/F
1s probably  common to  this  test.
                                       70

-------
                  TABLE 37. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                              GM-292 "A" engine—fuel additive "C"—average hardness HRB 89
Valve Seat Recession, Inches/1000
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
1 ntake 1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6

14
0
2
-2
-1
0
-1
1
0
3
3
2
1

30
-1
2
-2
-1
0
-1
2
4
3
3
7
6

46
-2
2
-2
-2
-1
-1
1
6
5
5
8
7

55
-2
2
-2
-2
-1
0
2
6
5
7
14
9

70
-2
2
-1
-1
-1
-1
5
9
8
11
19
11

86
-2
1
-2
-1
-2
-1
5
10
9
15
25
16

102
-6
-2
-2
-2
-2
0
6
10
9
19
31
21

108
-6
-2
-3
-5
-1
0
6
10
9
17
31
23

115
-7
-2
-2
-2
-1
0
6
10
9
18
34
25

131
-6
-2
-2
-4
-1
0
7
11
13
20
40
28

147
-5
-3
-3
-4
-1
0
7
10
9
24
42
31

163
-6
-2
-3
-4
-1
0
8
11
14
22
45
33

179
-6
-3
-3
-4
-1
0
7
11
9
22
47
33

192
-4
-2
-3
-3
0
0
8
11
9
22
48
38

200
-4
-2
-2
-3
0
0
6
10
11
23
52
39

•
0
-1
0
-1
1
2
6
12
11
21
44
33
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

-------
John Deere 303
    Fuel additive "C" was tested using the John Deere 303 engine.  The head
used for this test measured Rockwell hardness of HRB 95.4.
    The test was discontinued after only 48 hours due to an engine failure
unrelated to the fuel.  The failure was diagnosed as stoppage of coolant
around one cylinder due to a build-up of calcium deposits blocking the coolant
passage.  The coolant consisted of untreated "city water."  The loss of
coolant to the one cylinder resulted in deterioration of the cylinder liner
seal which allowed coolant to be admitted to the lube oil reservoir.  This
test was not repeated due to time constraints of the program.
    Neither the valve seat recession data (table 38) nor the valve train
inspection data (table B-33) showed any recession of any valve seat outside
the range of ±.002 inches.  The valve train inspection data indicated essen-
tially no changes in any of the parameters noted.  This would be expected,
considering the short time the engine operated.
    The A/F and emissions data (tables A-65 and A-66) showed the A/F- over the
six modes and the daily averaged A/F to be typical of other tests with this
engine.
    While the test results are reported, the test duration was probably too
short to produce meaningful results.
Fuel Additive "D"
    Fuel additive "D" was a product supplied by Lubrizol Corporation with a
trade name "Powershield."  Due to the failure of additive "B" to eliminate
valve seat recession, the supplier recommended a concentration of 1,000 pounds
of additive per 1,000 barrels of fuel.
                                       72

-------
 TABLE 38. - Effect of accumulated  engine hours on valve seat recession, John
             Deere 303 engine—fuel  additive  "C", average hardness HRB 95.4
Hours
Accumulated
Intake 1





Exhaust 1





Valve

1
2
3
4
5
6
4
2
3
4
5
6
Seat Recession, inches/1000
16
1
-2
0
-1
-1
0
3
0
1
-2
1
2
32
2
-1
0
-1
0
0
2
1
1
1
0
0
48*
2
-2
0
-1
-1
0
1
1
2
1
-1
0
**

1
2
1
1
0

0
0
0
2
1
          *Test terminated due to engine  failure unrelated to fuel.
         **Measurement based upon engine  disassembly and  inspection.

GM-292 "B"
    The fuel  additive was tested  in the GM-292  "B"  engine using  a  head  with a
hardness of Rockwell  HRB 96.2. The engine  completed the  200-hour  test.
    Valve seat recession data (table 39)  showed no  recession of  any  valve seat
in excess of ±.004 inch.  Most of the valves  indicated  a  negative  recession
suggesting possible buildup of deposits on  the  valve seat surfaces.
    The valve train inspection data (table  B-34)  Indicated  no  valve  seat
recession of any valve seat in excess of  ±.002  inch.  The other  parameters
measured showed only nominal effects indicating no  significant wear occurred
during this test.
    The A/F and emissions data (tables A-67 and A-68) gave  the range of A/F
among the five modes to be 11.5 to 13.7.   Daily averaged  A/F ranged from 12.3
to 13.1.  These A/F values are consistent with  the  A/F  reported  for this
engine 1n other tests, as well as tests with the companion  GM-292 "A" engine.
                                      73

-------
             TABLE 39. - Effect of accumulated engine hours on valve seat recession—
                         GM-292 "8" engine, fuel  additive »D"~average hardness HRB 96.2
Valve Seat
Hours
Accumu 1 ated
1 ntake 1
2
3
4
5
6
Exhaust 1
2
3
4
5
6

16
-1
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
-2
1
-2
-3
-1

32
0
-1
0
-1
-1
-3
0
-2
1
-2
0
0

48
1
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
-2
1
0

64
1
3
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
1
0

80
0
3
0
-1
-1
0
-4
-1
0
-3
0
-1
Recession, inches/1000

96
1
3
0
-1
-1
0
-4
-2
-1
-3
-1
-1

112
1
3
0
-1
-1
-1
-4
-3
-2
-2
-1
-1

127
0
4
0
0
-3
-1
-2
-3
-1
-3
1
-2

143
1
3
1
-1
-1
-1
-3
-2
-2
-2
t
-1

159
-1
4
-1
-3
-2
-4
-2
-2
-3
-2
-3
-2

175
1
3
-1
-3
0
-3
-1
-2
-2
-4
1
-1

191
0
4
-1
-2
-1
-4
-1
-2
-2
-3
1
-1

200
-1
4
-1
-3
-2
-4
-3
-3
-3
-4
0
-1

•
-1
-2
-1
-2
-1
-2
1
1
0
1
0
0
•Measurement based upon engine disassembly and inspection.

-------
Deposits
    Combustion chamber and exhaust  valve deposits are  Influenced  by many
factors, Including fuel quality,  engine duty cycle,  air-fuel ratio, exhaust
gas redrculatlon, engine design, engine condition  (amount of  lube oil  con-
sumption), as well as fuel additives.  Likewise, intake valve  deposits  are
Influenced by fuel quality, engine  duty cycle, engine  design,  and fuel  addi-
tives.  Therefore, accumulation of  combustion chamber  and valve deposits from
virtually any fuel/engine system  is an accepted factor.  Accumulation of
combustion chamber deposits typically  leads to octane  requirement increase
(ORI).  Recent Coordinating Research Council publications show 50 percent of
the vehicles are satisfied with 4.8 ORI, and 90 percent of the vehicles are
satisfied with 5.7 ORI.  Accumulation of intake valve  deposits on top of the
valve can restrict the air-fuel mixture flow Into the  cylinders,  whereas valve
deposits on the combustion chamber  side of the valve can result  in  increased
ORI and Increase the possibility  of "valve burning"  brought  on by irregular
seating and subsequent leakage.  A  study of the impacts of changes  of
combustion chamber and valve deposit effects due to fuel additives  was  outside
the scope of this project; however, some comparative observations which may be
useful are offered.
    Photographs of representative combustion chambers  and valves  for  tests
with the GM-454, 6M-292A, and JD-303 using  1.2 gm/gal  fuel  are shown  in
figures 6, 7, and 8.  Comparative photographs  from  tests using the  unleaded
fuel are shown in figures 9, 10,  and 11.   The  photographs  show the  deposits
from the leaded fuel to be more "crusty" or  "flaky" and light grayish  in
color, compared to the more evenly  coated  dark-colored deposits from the
unleaded fuels.  The GM-454 engine  had the greater  amount  of intake valve
deposits for both the leaded and unleaded  fuels  compared to the other
engines.  The GM-292A and JD-303 had more  deposits  from the leaded fuel
compared to the unleaded fuel, whereas the GM-454 had a similar  amount of
deposits for both fuels.
                                        75

-------
           GM454 1.2gm/galFuel
* t
   FIGURE 6.  - GM-454—1.2 gm/gal fuel
                   76

-------
       GM 292 A 1.2 gm/gal
FIGURE  7.  - GM-292A—1.2 gm/gal
               77

-------
         John Deere 303 1.2 gm/gal Fuel
FIGURE  8.  -  John Deere 303—1.2 gm/gal fuel
                     78

-------
        GM 454 Unleaded Fuel
FIGURE 9.  - GM-454--unleaded  fuel
                79

-------
      GM 292 A Unleaded Fuel
FIGURE 10.  -  GM-292A—unleaded fuel
                 80

-------
       John Deere 303 Unleaded Fuel
FIGURE  11. - John Deere 303—unleaded fuel
                    81

-------
     Photographs of deposits from the GM-454, GM-292A, and JD-303 using
 additive  "B"  are  shown  1n figures  12,  13, and  14.  Combustion chamber deposits
 from tests with additive "B" for the three engines are greater compared to
 unleaded  fuel  and similar 1n amount to deposits from the 1.2 gm/gal leaded
 fuel  tests.   In addition, the  intake runners had a substantial coating of a
 black oily material of  viscosity similar to a  light oil.  The oily material in
 the  Intake runners was  more prevalent  in the 6M-292A and JD-303 compared to
 the  GM-454.
     Photographs of deposits from the GM-292A tests using additive "C" are
 shown in  figures  15 and 16.  The amount of combustion chamber deposits from
 this  test are  significantly more than  those compared to tests with the 1.2
 gm/gal  leaded  or  unleaded fuel tests.  The combustion chamber deposits were a
 hard  crusty material, whereas  the  valve deposits, 1n addition to the hard
 crusty  material,  had developed a "glaze" on the valve seat surfaces.  The
 deposit material  had built up  on the intake valve seat of one cylinder (figure
 16),  such that the valve was not sealing properly.  Continued use of the
 nonsealing valve  would  lead to valve or valve  seat damage.
    Photographs of deposits from the GM-292B test using additive "D" are shown
 in figure 17.  Deposits from this  test are significantly larger in amount
 compared  to similar tests with the 1.2 gm/gal  leaded fuel tests 1n the GM-292A
 engine.   The deposits were light-colored flaky-type deposits.  The intake
 valves  were unusually clean and essentially void of any deposits.  The valve
 stem  itself had a bright clean surface almost  to the valve tulip surface.  The
 exhaust valve deposits  consisted of material similar in composition to the
 combustion chamber deposits.
    It may be assumed fr'om the amount  of deposits from tests with additives
 "C" and "D" that  a potential exists for higher than normal octane number
 increase.  The octane requirement was  not measured during these tests;
however,  no "pinging" or "engine knock" was observed.  Further work would be
required to quantify any possible adverse effects due to deposit accumulation.
                                       82

-------
          GM 454 Fuel Additive B

FIGURE 12.  - GM-454—fuel  additive  "B",

-------
        GM 292 A Fuel Additive B
FIG''         RM '     fuel additive "B",
                    84

-------
        John Deere 303 Fuel Additive B

FIGURE 14.  -  John  Deere 303—fuel additive "B".
                      85

-------
      GM 292 A Fuel Additive C
FIGURE 15.  -  GM-292A—fuel  additive "C".
                    •

-------
FIGURE 16. - GM-292A—fuel additive "C",
             showing intake valve leakage,


-------
        GM 292 B Fuel Additive D
FIGURE 17.  -  GM-292B—fuel  additive  "D"

-------
Lube 011 Analysis
    The lube oil analysis of metals,  shown in appendix  "C",  represent a single
analysis per sample.  The data showed generally  consistent wear  patterns with
a few exceptions.  The copper, Iron,  chrome,  aluminum,  and molybdenum are
generally considered as representative of engine wear.   Silica and  sodium
generally Indicate contaminates from  ingesting airborne dust or  particulates.
In addition, sodium as well  as sulfur and phosphorous are a  product from the
lube oil or fuel additives.   Lube oils typically contain substantial  amounts
of phosphorous as zinc dithiophosphate and sulfur as  sulfonates.   In addition,
the sulfonates commonly use  a sodium, magnesium, or calcium  base.   These
compounds are part of the additive package added to the oil  to enhance the
performance of automobile engines.
    Tests with the 1.2 gm/gal lead fuel showed somewhat higher wear rates in
some of the engines.  This was also the first test with the  new  or  newly
rebuilt engines 1n which wear rates were typically higher than after the
engines had stabilized.
    The lube oil was analyzed for the sulfur and phosphorous content for tests
with the additives "A", "B", "C", and "D".
    Tests with additive "A"  during the brief tests with the  GM-292A and JD-303
showed sodium levels to be slightly greater than 500  ppm,  sulfur levels to be
about 3200 ppm, and phosphorous levels to be about 1500 ppm.  The analysis of
new lube oil showed an average of 3600 ppm sulfur and about  1000 ppm
phosphorous and only trace levels of sodium.  It 1s expected that the higher
sodium level 1n the used lube oil was a product  of the fuel  additive.
    Tests with additive "B"  1n the GM-292A, JD-303, and GM-454 showed average
sodium levels to be about 550 ppm, sulfur levels to be about 2800 ppm,  and the
phosphorous to be about 1800 ppm.  As with additive "A", the high sodium
levels 1n the used lube oil  are expected to be a product of the fuel  additive.
    Tests with additive "C"  in the GM-292A and the brief test with the  JD-303
show an average of about 2400 ppm sulfur, and about 4500 ppm phosphorous.   The
significant Increase in phosphorous  in the lube oil is expected to  be a
product of the fuel additive.
                                        89

-------
    Ttttt with Addltlvi "D"  In tht QM-292B ihowcid an Av«ragt of 610 ppm todlum
«nd 6900 ppm lulfur.   Phoiphoroui  Icveh of 980 ppm wire ttientlally tqunl  to
tht bait oil.   The higher amounti of  todlum and %u1fur from thlt t«it It
•xptcUd to be a product of  tni 1ncr«aitd amount of fuel addUlvt comparod  to
Addltlvf "B".
                                       90

-------
                                   SUMMARY
leaded Fuel
    Six englnei  (John Dura MB", Farm a 11 »H", IH 240,  QM-292 "A",  John Oeere
303, find QM-484)  were operated on leaded fuel containing 1.2 gm/gal  load  for  a
200-hour durability cycle and vnlve itat receulon meaiured.
    Valve leat  rtciii 1on meaiuramenti, bated upon head dliauembly and
Inipictlon,  i ho wad no racanlon  In exceii of ,006 Inch for all  englnei.
iinjjujita: FUJI
    Several  angina* wara taitad  uilng unlaadad fual with tha following
raiulti!
    John Oaara  "B" - A  200-hour  tait wai conducted with ,009 Inch  racanlon
notad 1n ona axhauit valva  laat.  Tha tait wai rapaatad and aftar  200 houri of
operation, .006-  and  .013-lnchai racatilon wai notad 1n tha exhautt  valva
laati.  An additional  100-hour tait raiultad 1n total  racanlon of ,009 and
,014 Inchai  for  tha two cyllndari,
    Farm 11  NHN  - No valva  taat  racanlon wai notad In thtt angina 1n axcait
of .001 Inch during tha 200-hour tait.
    Ford 8N - A 200-hour tait wai completed with all of tha axhauit valva
laati racadlng  from  .017 to .030 Inch.
    International Harvaitar ?40  • Tha  IH-240 wai taitad with unlaadad fual
uilng an angina hand  apparently  hardar  than  tha other haadi purchaiad.
Raiulti ihowad  no valva taat  racanlon  1n thlt angina
    Tha tait wai rapaatad with  a "toftar" head which  raiultad  In  valva taat
racaitlon of .038 to  .049  Inchai In two cyllndari  but no  racaitlon 1n tha
othar valva taati.  However,  tha A/F  ratio wai  lomewhat  leaner during thli
compared to the earlier tut.   Subiequent examination ihowad that while  tha
hardnan of tha two  headi wai different, they had  about  equally hard  valva
teati.
    An additional teit wai  conducted uilng  cait  Iron  valve teat Inaerti
raiultlng 1n .088 to  .086  Inchei recenlon  In all  exhautt valve uatt aftar
200 houri of operation,
                                       91

-------
    GM-292  "A"  - The GM-292  "A"  engine test was discontinued after using
 unleaded fuel for  71 hours due to excessive valve seat recession of .121
 inches  in one cylinder  and .090  inches in another.  Three cylinders were
 essentially unaffected.
    GM-292  'B"  - The GM-292  "B"  was tested using an Induction-hardened head
 for 200 hours.  Exhaust valve seat recession from .003 to .011 Inches for the
 six valve seats was noted.
    The GM-292  "B" engine test using  a modified engine duty cycle (eliminating
 the highest speed/load  condition) with unleaded fuel was discontinued due to
 excessive wear  after 88 hours with .094  inch recession noted in one valve
 seat.  Three of the exhaust  valve seats  were unaffected.
    John Deere  303 - The John Deere 303  engine operated for 200 hours with
 recession in all exhaust valve seats  ranging from .041 to .064 Inches.
    GM-454  - The GM-454 engine was tested using induction-hardened valve seats
 for 200 hours resulting in exhaust valve seat recession from .007 to .032
 inches for  the  eight cylinders.
    The GM-454  was also tested using  steel valve seat inserts designed for
 "moderate"  duty for 200 hours.   Exhaust  valve seat recession ranging from .004
 to .017 inches  was noted for the eight cylinders.
 Low Lead (0.10  gin/gal)
    International Harvester  - The IH-240 engine was tested for 188 hours using
 0.10 gm/gal lead with no exhaust valve seat recession in excess of .001 Inch.
    The IH-240  was also tested using  cast iron valve seat inserts for 200
 hours resulting in no recession  in excess of .002 inch.
    GM-292  'A"  - The GM-292  "A"  engine operated for 200 hours using the
0.10 gm/gal fuel and resulted in .040 inches recession in one cylinder and no
recession in the other exhaust valve  seats.  Intake valve seat No. 6 receded
some .014 inch.   The engine  suffered  a head gasket failure between cylinders 5
and 6; therefore, the test was repeated.
    The GM-292  "A" repeat test showed one exhaust valve seat receding
 .010 inch;  the other valve seats showed  no change in excess of ±.003 inch.
                                       92

-------
    GM-292 "B" - The GM-292 "B"  engine  operated on the 0.10 gm/gal  lead  fuel
for a 200-hour period with no valve seat  recession in excess of  .002  inch.
    John Deere 303 - The John Deere 303 engine operated for 200  hours using
the 0.10 gm/gal lead fuel, and no valve seat  recession in excess of .006 inch
was observed.
    GM-454 - The GM-454 engine operated for 200 hours using 0.10 gm/gal  lead
fuel with no exhaust valve seat recession 1n  excess of ±.005 inch.
Fuel Additive "A"
    Fuel additive "A" was a misformulated product supplied by  The  Lubrizol
Corporation.  However, the product was  operated in two engines.
    GM-292 "A" - Tests were discontinued  after 64 hours of operation during
which the engine received .049 and .077 inches recession  in exhaust valve
seats 5 and 6.
    John Deere 303 - Tests were discontinued  after 80  hours of operation
during which the exhaust valve seats received from  .006 to  .012 inches
recession.
Fuel Additive "B"
    Fuel additive "B" was a correctly manufactured product  known as
"Powershleld" supplied by Lubrizol Corporation.   The  product  was tested in
three engines at a concentration of 250 pounds per  1,000  barrel.
    GM-292 "A" - The tests with fuel additive "B"  were discontinued after 84
hours of operation due to excessive valve seat recession.  Valve seats  in
cylinders 5 and 6 showed  .109 and  .085 Inches recession.
    John Deere 303 - Tests with the John Deere 303 using fuel additive  B for
200 hours resulted in exhaust valve seat recession of .033 and  .044  Inches in
cylinders 1 and 6.  The other valve seats received no recession in excess  of
.006 Inch.
    GM-454 - Tests with the 6M-454 engine for a 200-hour test period  resulted
in exhaust valve seat recession of  .009  and  .008 Inches in cylinders 1  and 3;
otherwise, no recession in excess  of ±.006 Inch was observed.
                                       93

-------
Fuel Additive  "C"
    Fuel additive  "C" was a product known as  "DMA-4" supplied by E. I. du Pont
and blended at a concentration of 200 pounds  per  1,000 barrel.  Additive "C"
was tested in  two  engines.
    GM-292 "A" - The GM-292 "A" engine operated for 200 hours on fuel additive
"C" and resulted in exhaust valve seat recession  ranging from .006 to .044
inches.
    John Deere 303 - The John Deere engine operated for 48 hours when a major
engine failure occurred which was unrelated to the fuel.  During the 48 hours,
no valve seat recession occurred in any valve in  excess of .002 inch.  The
test was probably  too short to produce meaningful results.
Fuel Additive  "D"
    Fuel additive  "D" was a product known as  "Powershield" supplied by The
Lubrizol Corporation and blended at a concentration of 1,000 pounds per
1,000 barrel.  The product was tested in the  GM-292 "B" engine for 200 hours,
resulting in no valve seat recession of any valve in excess of .001 inch.
Deposits
    An increase in combustion chamber deposits was noted with fuel additive
"C" and "D" compared to the tests with 1.2 gm/gal leaded or unleaded fuels.
Intake valve deposits from additive "C" resulted  in one intake valve not
properly seating.  No other engine performance problems were observed which
could be attributed to fuel additives, although further testing would be in
order to determine possible long-term effects.
                                       94

-------
                                   GLOSSARY

Feeler gauge  -  A set of  metal  strip gauges with varied thicknesses used to
    measure valve lash.

Induction hardening - The surface  layer of a work piece 1s heated by  Induction
    to the hardening temperature and then quenched.  The core  1s unaffected  by
    the heat.  Induction hardening of the engine head actually consists of
    hardening only a small  area around the valve seats, with the sole purpose
    being to  enhance the life  of the valve seat.

Rocker arm -  A  supported fulcrum that transmits rotary action  Initiated by  a
    camshaft  lobe Into vertical motion of the  valves.

Rockwell Hardness - A measure  of the resistance of a body to Indentation  of
    another body.

Rockwell Hardness HRB -  Uses a hardened steel  sphere with a diameter  of
    1.5875 mm forced Into the  material under a minor load of 98 N, the  load 1s
    steadily  Increased to the  full major  load  of 980 N.  The permanent
    Indention depth in mm is measured after reducing the load  to minor  load.
    HRB = 130 - permanent indention depth  (mm)/O.002.

Rockwell Hardness HRC -  Uses a spherical-tipped conical diamond  indentor  with
    a 120° point angle and a 0.2-mm tip radius forced  into the material under
    a minor load of 98 N, the  load is steadily Increased to the  full  major
    load of 1471 N.  The permanent indention depth  in  mm  is measured  after
    reducing  the load to minor load.  HRC  =  100 - permanent  Indention depth
    (mm)/O.002.

Top dead center - A specific rotational  position  in which  the  No.  1  piston is
    at Its highest position on the compression stroke  of  an  engine.

Valve guide - An assembly mounted  to the engine  head  in a rigid  fashion 1n
    which the valve is allowed to  travel  back  and  forth in one direction.
    Valve guides are precisely sized to allow proper  valve travel  and valve
    lubrication.

Valve lash -  The distance between the tip of the  valve stem and the mechanism
    that contacts the tip of the valve causing the valve to open.

Valve rotators  - A mechanical device that causes engine valves to rotate 1n
    order to keep the valve seats clean.  Typical  rotation of about  one-
    quarter turn 1s Initiated each  time the valve begins to open.

Valve seat - The sealing surfaces that separate the engine combustion chamber
    from the Intake manifold or from  the exhaust manifold.  One surface  of  the
    valve seat 1s on a moving valve;  the other surface of the valve  seat is on
    the engine head.

Valve seat angle - The angle of the seating surfaces of the valve and  valve
    seat.
                                       95

-------
                              GLOSSARY—continued


Valve seat Inserts - Machined valve seats which are not a part of the original
    engine head casting.  Valve seat Inserts are Installed 1n the engine head
    after machining the engine head to accept the Inserts.

Valve seat recession - The phenomenon of the valve seat on the engine head
    being worn away such that the valve seat on the engine head recedes Into
    the engine head.  Wearing of the seat on the valve Itself 1s not
    considered valve seat recession.

Valve spring - Coll springs that surround the valve which exert pressure to
    close the valve.

Valve stem - The body of the valve between the valve tip and the valve tulip.

Valve train assembly - The entire valve assembly Including valves, valve
    seats,, valve springs, valve guides, rocker arms, and valve rotators.

Valve tulip - The area consisting of the largest diameter of the valve on
    which the sealing surface resides.
                                       96

-------
APPENDIX A

-------
                          APPENDIX A

        TABLE A-l. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
Mode average for all test days, JD "B" engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

Dai
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (56
9 (56
CO, %
4.9 ± 4.5
6.3 ± 3.9
4.5 ± 3.8
4.1 ± 3.9
5.6 ± 4.1
4.0 ± 4.3
TABLE A-2. -
ly average of
CO, %
5.4
5.9
0.6
10.7
2.9
.0
8.9
hr) 7.5
hr) 6.2
HC, ppmC
2531 ± 1444
4942 ± 3498
2600 ± 1473
2580 ± 1364
3795 ± 2751
2410 ± 1201
Exhaust emissions profi
all test modes, JD "B"
HC , ppmC
4053
4107
1753
6420
1913
1000
4608
3125
2750
NOX, ppm
1056 ± 898
214 ± 192
654 ± 400
1195 ± 676
298 ± 191
1086 ± 784
le - daily
engine, 1.
NOX, ppm
648
503
1151
86
1315
1109
153
413
736
A1r Fuel Ratio
13.5 ± 2.4
12.7 ± 2.2
13.6 ± 2.6
13.9 ± 2.5
13.1 ± 2.7
14.1 ± 2.7
variation
2 gm/gal lead
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.6
12.4
15.9
10.5
12.9
17.7
11.5
11.5
12.2
                              A-l

-------
           TABLE A-3. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all test days,  Farmall  "H"  engine,  1.2 gm/gal  lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
5.8 ± 4.4
8.2 ± 2.8
6.8 ± 3.4
8.6 ± 4.9
7.9 ± 2.8
6.3 ± 3.9
HC, ppmC
2948 ± 1040
6000 ± 2050
3954 ± 705
2777 ± 928
4413 ± 984
3568 ± 871
NOX, ppm
1083 ± 1163
110 ± 98
307 ± 258
1225 ± 1214
175 ± 132
748 ± 699
Air Fuel Ratio
12.9 ± 2.5
11.5 ± 1.3
12.1 ± 1.5
11.1 ± 2.7
11.6 ± 1.3
12.3 ± 1.8
      TABLE A-4. - Exhaust emissions profile - daily variation
Daily average of all test modes, Farmall "H" engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (56 hr)
9 (56 hr)
CO, %
10.7
9.2
3.4
5.3
10.8
2.6
3.9
.1
.1
HC, ppmC
3147
3700
2960
3460
5548
3833
3627
2740
2880
NOX, ppm
67
192
765
621
86
1298
1397
2840
1810
Air-Fuel Ratio
10.0
11.3
13.5
12.8
10.3
14.2
13.8
15.8
15.4
                                A-2

-------
        TABLE A-5. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
Mode  average for all test days, IH-240 engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

2
9
5
2
8
3
CO,
.1 ±
.0 ±
.7 ±
.7 ±
.2 ±
.6 ±
%
.9
1.3
1.2
.8
1.3
1.2
HC,
2102
4260
3391
2170
3742
2591
ppmC
±
±
±
±
+
±
176
1876
965
438
577
399
NOX, ppm
1637
78
368
1576
113
1001
±
±
±
+
±
±
262
15
110
329
16
224
A1r Fuel Ratio
13.9
11.1
12.4
13.6
11.5
13.3
± .3
± .5
± .3
± .2
± .4
± .4
   TABLE A-6.  - Exhaust emissions profile - daily variation
Daily average of all test modes, IH-240 engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
3.7
4.1
4.4
4.9
5.1
5.2
6.4
6.3
6.7
4.0
5.2
HC, ppmC
2653
2686
2613
3593
2886
2960
3386
3355
3873
3020
3440
NOX, ppm
879
932
947
830
784
802
561
709
637
1115
792
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.6
12.7
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.9
12.3
12.4
12.2
13.2
12.6
                              A-3

-------
           TABLE A-7. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all test days, GM-292 "A" engine, 1.2 gm/gal  lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
CO, %
5.6 ± 1.5
1.6 ± 0.7
1.6 ± 0.7
2.9 ± 1.1
7.2 ± 1.5
HC, ppmC
2400 ± 1055
1665 ± 515
2047 ± 318
3180 ± 571
2528 ± 298
NOX, ppm
1180 ± 331
2068 ± 313
2126 ± 248
1024 ± 205
648 ± 368
Air Fuel Ratio
12.6 ± .7
14.5 ± .8
14.5 ± .8
13.7 ± .6
11.9 ± .4
      TABLE  A-8.  -  Exhaust  emissions  profile -  daily variation
Daily average of all test modes, GM-292 "A" engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CO, %
3.2
5.0
4.0
3.7
3.4
3.3
3.4
4.2
HC, ppmC
2344
2552
2368
2536
1920
2160
2416
2552
NOX, ppm
958
856
1444
1520
1433
1520
1600
1378
Air-Fuel Ratio
14.1
12.9
13.6
13.5
13.7
13.3
13.5
12.9
                                A-4

-------
         TABLE A-9.  - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for  all test days, JD-303 engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

4
6
5
3
6
4
CO,
.0 ±
.9 ±
.5 ±
.4 ±
.6 ±
.6 ±
%
.9
.8
.9
.9
1.1
1.0
HC,
2126
6528
3484
2173
5960
3617
ppmC
± 815
± 1450
± 723
± 373
± 1743
± 874
NOX, ppm
1627
350
1016
1722
495
1381
±
+
±
±
±
±
223
77
183
335
127
233
A1r Fuel Ratio
13.
11.
12.
13.
11.
12.
1
7
4
3
9
8
± .4
± .6
± .4
± .5
± .6
± .4
   TABLE A-10. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all  test modes, JD-303 engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
5.3
5.1
4.7
5.6
5.9
6.1
6.2
3.7
4.2
3.6
3.3
HC, ppmC
3940
3800
4327
3987
3633
5920
3633
3180
3333
2080
1880
NOX, ppm
1082
1146
1164
1002
1029
876
868
1440
1278
1630
1820
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.3
12.3
12.4
12.3
12.2
12.3
12.3
13.4
13.2
13.4
13.5
                              A-5

-------
        TABLE A-ll. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all  test days,  GM-454 engine,  1.2  gm/gal  lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

3

4

1
2
CO,
.1 ±
.5 ±
.6 ±
.8 ±
.0 t
.3 ±
% HC, ppmC
.7
.2
1.2
.3
.3
.6
1809
1680
1375
1407
1837
1517
i
±
±
±
±
±
388
241
350
310
465
401
NOX, ppm
1806
2244
1717
2270
1883
2005
±
±
±
±
±
±
337
259
452
192
465
303
Air Fuel Ratio
13.5
15.2
12.9
14.7
14.5
13.9
± .3
± .8
± .6
± .4
± .3
± .3
   TABLE A-12. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, GM-454 engine, 1.2 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (56 hr)
9 (56 hr)
10 (56 hr)
CO, *
2.1
1.8
2.1
2.6
2.0
2.5
2.2
1.4
2.0
1.3
HC, ppmC
1713
1540
1887
1407
1637
1375
1852
2320
2358
1170
NOX, ppm
1937
2158
1890
2186
2068
1791
2179
1258
1460
2570
Air-Fuel Ratio
13.6
14.3
14.1
14.2
14.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.8
14.4
                              A-6

-------
       TABLE A-13. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average  for  all  test days, JD  "B" engine,  unleaded fuel
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

9
8
9
9
8
9
CO,
.4 ±
.5 ±
.6 ±
.5 ±
.9 ±
.2 ±
%
.9
.9
.8
.8
1.3
.8
HC,
2457
5851
3445
2640
3150
2935
ppmC
±
±
±
±
±
±
657
2632
2365
1040
1521
865
NOX, ppm
270
64
143
265
129
231
+
±
±
±
±
±
85
54
39
75
46
56
A1r Fuel Ratio
10.8
11.3
10.7
10.8
10.9
10.9
± .4
± .4
± .5
± .4
± .6
± .4
  TABLE A-14. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, JD "B" engine, unleaded fuel
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (56 hr)
CO, %
9.8
10.6
9.6
9.0
9.1
9.2
8.4
7.9
9.9
HC, ppmC
3488
5035
3827
2605
3560
2807
2647
2447
2405
NOX, ppm
160
76
214
173
204
233
212
240
303
Air-Fuel Ratio
10.9
10.2
10.8
11.0
10.9
11.1
11.3
11.2
10.9
                             A-7

-------
             TABLE A-15.  - Exhaust emissions profile  -  modes
Mode average for all test days, John Deere  "B", unleaded fuel repeat test
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

5.
8.
6.
5.
7.
5.
CO,
6 ±
2 ±
2 ±
6 ±
3 ±
3 ±
%
3.5
1.4
3.1
3.4
2.7
3.6
HC,
2731
8266
3025
2631
4271
2645
ppmC
±
+
±
±
±
±
2009
2980
1651
1660
3559
1617
NOX, ppm
1246 ±
92 ±
591 ±
1377 ±
201 ±
1114 ±
2009
51
384
960
117
730
Air Fuel
12.
11.
12.
12.
11.
12.
4 ±
4 ±
1 ±
4 ±
7 ±
5 ±
Ratio
1.6
.6
1.5
1.6
1.2
1.6
        TABLE  A-16.  -  Exhaust  emissions  profile  -  daily  variation
Daily average of all test modes, John Deere "B", unleaded fuel repeat test
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
12
13
14
15
16
CO, *
10.6
10.5
10.6
10.6
4.6
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.6
4.0
4.0
5.2
5.0
4.8
4.6
6.5
HC, ppmC
6867
7240
6280
5953
2953
2513
2320
1813
1653
1600
1560
3040
3150
3420
3820
3500
NOX, ppm
49
62
58
81
1149
1260
1199
1337
1361
1355
1230
1052
909
794
1104
554
Air-Fuel Ratio
10.2
10.1
10.1
10.4
12.9
13.3
13.2
13.2
13.3
13.1
13.2
12.5
12.6
12.8
12.7
12.0
                                  A-8

-------
     TABLE A-17. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes

   Mode average for all test days, Farmall "H" engine,
            unleaded fuel, valve seat Inserts
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %

10
6

9
3
.5 ±
.2 ±
.9 ±
.1 ±
.5 ±
.6 ±
.3
.7
.6
.1
.6
.5
HC , ppmC
1203
4337
2222
789
3337
1520
±
±
±
±
±
±
566
577
224
174
368
162
NOX, ppm
2268
77
369
2158
101
1232
+
+
±
±
±
±
160
19
75
529
11
163
A1r Fuel Ratio
14.9
10.5
11.9
15.9
10.8
13.2
± .3
± .3
± .3
± .6
± .2
± .2
TABLE A-18. - Exhaust emissions profile - daily variation

   Dally average of  all  test modes,  Farmall  "H"  engine,
            unleaded fuel, valve seat Inserts
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (56 hr)
9 (56 hr)
CO, %
5.3
4.9
4.9
5.8
4.9
4.8
5.0
.9
1.1
HC, ppmC
2586
2133
2073
2280
2180
2140
1986
2196
2110
NOX, ppm
1000
994
1074
747
1117
1155
1483
1290
1180
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.9
12.8
12.8
12.6
12.9
13.1
13.1
14.4
14.4
                           A-9

-------
     TABLE A-19. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes

         Mode average for all  test  days,  Ford  8N,
            unleaded fuel, valve seat Inserts
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

7.
8.
2.
7.
7.
4.
CO,
2 ±
2 ±
1 ±
3 ±
3 ±
2 ±
% HC, ppmC
2
1

2
1
1
.1
.6
.6
.5
.5
.2
3053
4155
2110
2735
3600
2455
±
±
±
±
±
±
558
332
122
319
270
234
NOX, ppm A1r Fuel Ratio
12
11
13
12
11
13
.0
.6
.9
.0
.9
.0
±
i
±
±
±
±
.6
.4
.2
.7
.3
.4
TABLE A-20. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation

        Dally average of all test modes, Ford 8N,
            unleaded fuel, valve seat Inserts
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (56 hr)
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
5.4
4.5
7.3
8.8
6.2
6.7
4.9
4.9
3.6
3.9
4.6
HC, ppmC
2860
2713
3287
3140
3047
3193
2793
2993
2680
2240
3320
NOX, ppm Air-Fuel Ratio
12.6
12.9
12.0
11.7
12.4
12.1
12.7
12.7
13.1
13.0
12.7
                          A-10

-------
       TABLE A-21. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
Mode  average for  all test days, IH-240 engine, unleaded fuel
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

3
9
5
3
8
4
CO,
.6 ±
.9 ±
.9 ±
.5 ±
.8 ±
.1 ±
%
.4
.8
.5
.7
1.1
1.2
HC,
1484
5537
2285
1364
3324
1555
ppmC
±
±
±
±
±
±
234
1942
344
242
463
306
NOX, ppm
1181
88
538
1364
143
977
± 425
± 29
± 118
± 242
± 48
± 175
A1r Fuel Ratio
13.
10.
12.
13.
11.
13.
4 ±
7 ±
3 ±
4 ±
3 ±
0 ±
.4
.4
.2
.4
.4
.3
  TABLE A-22. - Exhaust emissions profile - daily variation
Daily average of all test modes, IH-240 engine, unleaded fuel
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
6.3
6.4
6.4
6.6
6.3
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.8
4.1
3.3
HC, ppmC
2900
2453
2653
3387
3006
2060
2087
2120
2633
1292
1345
NOX, ppm
751
614
691
721
682
789
827
847
757
1680
1820
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.3
12.5
12.0
12.2
12.0
12.3
12.5
12.4
12.8
13.0
13.3
                             A-ll

-------
           TABLE A-23. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all test days, IH-240 engine, unleaded fuel (repeat)
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
.7 ± .2
3.5 ± 2.1
1.5 ± 1.5
.9 ± .9
3.1 ± 2.3
1.3 ± .9
HC, ppmC
815 ± 185
2115 ± 795
1150 ± 484
915 ± 287
1750 ± 762
935 ± 282
NOX, ppm
2238 ± 299
290 ± 101
1234 ± 289
1731 ± 571
484 ± 235
1801 ± 275
A1r Fuel Ratio
15.2 ± .9
13.3 ± 1.1
14.7 ± 1.3
15.0 ± 1.0
13.7 ± 1.4
14.9 ± 1.1
      TABLE A-24. - Exhaust emissions profile - daily variation
Dally average of all test modes, IH-240 engine, unleaded fuel (repeat)
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (56 hr)
10 (56 hr)
CO, %
4.6
1.9
2.0
1.9
1.7
1.4
.4
.1
3.8
3.5
HC, ppmC
1960
1480
1400
1420
1286
1200
759
560
1700
1610
NOX, ppm
846
1387
1127
1423
1549
1555
1540
1523
1450
1395
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.7
14.1
14.2
14.2
14.3
14.6
15.9
16.1
13.1
13.3
                                A-12

-------
     TABLE A-25. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes

     Mode average for all test days, IH-240 engine,
            unleaded fuel, valve seat Inserts
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
2
8
5
2
7
3
.5
.4
.6
.5
.8
.6
±
±
±
±
±
±
.7
1.6
1.1
.8
1.5
.9
HC,
1456
3378
2315
1392
3068
1938
ppmC NOX, ppm
±
±
±
±
±
±
745
944
841
779
1407
1306
A1r Fuel Ratio
13
11
12
13
11
13
.7
.6
.5
.7
.8
.3
±
±
±
±
±
±
.3
.5
.4
.3
.5
.3
TABLE A-26. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation

     Dally average of all test modes, IH-240 engine,
            unleaded fuel, valve seat Inserts
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, *
3.3
5.6
5.4
5.3
5.0
4.2
3.8
4.5
6.5
3.5
3.7
HC, ppmC
1391
2093
2020
1886
1060
1541
4673
2552
2207
1420
1400
NOX, ppm Air-Fuel Ratio
13.4
12.3
12.6
12.6
12.8
13.1
12.9
13.0
12.3
13.2
13.1
                           A-13

-------
         TABLE A-27. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all  test days,  GM-292 "A"  engine,  unleaded  fuel
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
CO, %
6.6 ± .8
2.6 ± .9
1.9 ± .3
3.3 ± .6
7.2 ± .8
HC, ppmC
1084 ± 202
890 ± 128
930 ± 136
1320 ± 150
1130 ± 119
NOX, ppm
509 ± 145
1640 ± 386
2195 ± 498
977 ± 205
533 ± 225
A1r Fuel Ratio
12.1 ± .3 '
13.8 ± .5
14.1 ± .3
13.4 ± .3
11.9 ± .3
    TABLE A-28. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, GM-292 "A" engine, unleaded fuel
Day
1
2
3
4
CO, %
4.9
3.8
4.2
4.3
HC, ppmC
992
1040
936
1056
NOX, ppm
1112
1276
1128
960
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.9
13.4
13.1
12.9
                              A-14

-------
     TABLE A-29. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes

    Mode  average for  all  test days,  GM-292  "B" engine,
          Induction-hardened head, unleaded  fuel
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
CO, %
. 5.7 ± .7
1.8 ± .6
1.6 ± .6
3.1 ± .7
7.4 ± .9
HC, ppmC
1460 ± 359
1148 ± 181
1244 ± 134
1640 ± 311
1680 ± 364
NOX, ppm
1084 ± 371
2304 ± 459
2317 ± 338
790 ± 173
518 ± 249
A1r Fuel Ratio
12.3 ± .3
14.0 ± .3
14.0 ± .4
13.4 ± .3
11.6 ± .4
TABLE A-30. - Exhaust emissions profile - daily variation

   Dally average of all test modes, GM-292 "B" engine,
          Induction-hardened  head,  unleaded fuel
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CO, %
2.6
3.4
4.1
3.5
4.4
3.7
3.5
4.5
4.4
4.6
HC, ppmC
1504
1688
1448
1216
1328
1676
1688
1256
1296
1256
NOX, ppm
1860
919
1356
1538
1550
1315
1500
1174
1409
1356
Air-Fuel Ratio
13.7
13.3
13.1
13.1
12.9
13.0
13.2
12.8
12.8
12.8
                           A-15

-------
     TABLE A-31. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes

    Mode average for all test days, GM-292 "B"  engine,
              unleaded  fuel, modified cycle
Mode
1
2
3
4
CO, %
7
2
2
3
.1
.3
.3
.9
±
±
±
±
1.1
.4
.5
.5
HC, ppmC NOX, ppm
1208
1088
1112
1480
±
±
±
±
186
273
270
268
A1r Fuel Ratio
12.
13.
13.
13.
2
8
6
1
±
±
±
±
.3
.1
.3
.2
TABLE A-32. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation

   Dally average of all test modes, GM-292 "B" engine,
              unleaded fuel, modified cycle
                    r ,
Day
1
2
3
4
5
CO, %
3.2
3.9
4.0
3.6
4.9
HC, ppmC
980
1080
1180
1620
1250
NOX, ppm
1204
1373
1342
1545
_
Air-Fuel Ratio
13.4
13.2
13.1
13.3
12.9
                          A-16

-------
       TABLE A-33. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average  for  all  test days, JD-303 engine, unleaded fuel
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
5.0 ± 3.0
6.1 ± .5
4.5 i .6
2.5 ± 1.3
5.6 ± .5
3.9 ± .7
HC, ppmC
1573 ± 294
3868 ± 1128
1924 ± 449
1230 ± 156
2799 ± 257
1622 ± 110
NOX, ppm
1384 ± 693
538 ± 87
1265 ±210
2174 ± 492
743 ± 158
1558 ± 258
Air Fuel Ratio
12.8 ±1.2
12.2 ± .1
12.9 ± .3
13.9 ± .5
12.6 ± .3
13.3 ± .3
  TABLE A-34. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, JD-303 engine, unleaded fuel
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
3.7
4.4
4.3
4.1
4.2
4.2
5.1
5.6
6.1
4.0
4.5
HC, ppmC
2122
1852
2080
2280
1940
2106
2073
1960
2447
1240
1360
NOX, ppm
1623
1242
1305
1396
1415
1358
1248
1109
801
1600
1260
Air-Fuel Ratio
13.5
13.1
12.9
13.2
12.9
12.9
12.8
12.5
12.8
13.1
12.8
                             A-17

-------
       TABLE A-35. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all  test days, GM-454 engine,  unleaded fuel
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, X
4.7 ± .7
2.4 ± 2.4
4.2 ± 1.6
2.7 ± 3.1
2.8 ± 2.1
2.6 t .7
HC, ppmC
1340 ± 990
1130 ± 465
946 ± 140
1270 ± 558
910 ± 301
776 ± 63
NOX, ppm
1150 ± 260
1664 ± 593
1187 ± 335
1637 ± 685
1610 ± 582
1544 ± 762
A1r Fuel Ratio
12.8 ± .3
13.9 ± 1.2
13.1 ± .9
13.8 ± 1.3
13.7 ± 1.1
13.9 ± .3
  TABLE A-36. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, GM-454 engine, unleaded fuel
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (56 hr)
9 (56 hr)
10 (56 hr)
CO, %
2.8
2.8
1.9
4.0
2.4
2.3
4.7
1.0
1.3
1.4
HC , ppmC
801
840
680
963
1126
2196
1147
490
535
520
NOX, ppm
1914
1694
2115
1099
1448
1531
1200
2483
2285
2250
Air-Fuel Ratio
13.7
13.5
14.3
12.7
13.8
13.8
12.8
14.7
14.5
14.6
                            A-18

-------
     TABLE A-37.  - Exhaust  emissions profile - modes

         Mode average for all  test days, GM-454,
            unleaded fuel—valve  seat  Inserts
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
5
2
3
3
3
4
.6
.0
.9
.4
.6
.6
±
±
±
±
±
±
.6
.7
1.9
1.4
.5
1.2
HC, ppmC
891
794
874
826
906
869
±
±
±
±
±
±
127
355
319
222
69
90
NOX, ppm A1r Fuel Ratio
12
14
13
13
13
12
.6
.0
.2
.3
.2
.9
±
±
±
±
±
*
.2
.5
.7
.5
.2
.4
TABLE A-38. - Exhaust emissions profile  -  dally  variation

        Dally average of all test modes, GM-454,
            unleaded fuel—valve seat Inserts
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 (56 hr)
9 (56 hr)
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
3.5
2.9
3.7
3.9
5.1
4.7
3.2
2.1
3.0
2.1
2.7
HC , ppmC
797
703
833
917
870
1097
803
640
920
620
740
NOX, ppm Air-Fuel Ratio
13.4
13.5
13.2
13.2
12.9
12.9
13.4
13.8
13.4
13.8
13.5
                           A-19

-------
         TABLE A-39.  - Exhaust emissions profile -  modes
 Mode average for all test days, IH-240 engine,  0.10 gm/gal  lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
3
10
7
3
9
5
.7 ±
.3 ±
.6 ±
.0 ±
.9 ±
.2 ±
.4
.2
.4
.3
.4
.2
HC,
1610
4689
2816
1498
3608
2004
ppmC
±
±
±
±
±
±
509
1339
743
306
403
468
NOX, ppm
1392
70
285
1899
96
883
±
±
±
±
±
±
225
6
53
232
16
133
A1r Fuel Ratio
13.3 ±
10.6 ±
11.7 ±
13.6 ±
10.9 ±
12.7 ±
.2
.2
.1
.2
.2
.1
    TABLE  A-40.  - Exhaust emissions profile -  dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, IH-240 engine, 0.10 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
6.4
6.7
6.6
6.3
6.5
6.5
6.9
7.1
6.9
4.7
5.0
HC, ppmC
2186
2206
2235
3026
3600
3373
2038
2800
2747
2340
2120
NOX, ppm
699
723
868
912
849
961
706
664
674
1255
1240
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.1
12.0
12.2
12.3
12.0
12.1
12.1
12.0
12.2
12.9
12.9
                              A-20

-------
     TABLE A-41. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes

         Mode average for all test days,  IH-240,
           0.10  gin/gal  lead—valve seat Inserts
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
3
9
6
3
9
4
.7
.7
.8
.7
.0
.7
±
±
±
±
±
±
.5
1.1
.9
.6
1.0
.6
HC, ppmC
1450
2763
2040
1305
2790
1610
±
±
±
±
±
±
380
604
121
306
302
181
NOX, ppm A1r Fuel Ratio
13
11
12
13
11
12
.2
.2
.1
.2
.4
.8
±
±
±
±
±
±
.2
.3
.2
.2
.2
.2
TABLE A-42. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation

        Dally average of all test modes,  IH-240,
           0.10 gin/gal lead—valve seat  Inserts
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (56 hr)
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO. %
6.0
6.5
5.9
6.3
6.7
7.6
5.8
5.5
3.4
3.5
4.3
HC, ppmC
1603
1840
1760
2060
2067
2053
2307
2253
2000
2660
2540
NOX, ppm Air-Fuel Ratio
12.4
12.2
12.5
12.3
12.3
12.1
12.4
12.5
13.1
13.1
12.9
                           A-21

-------
           TABLE A-43.  - Exhaust emissions profile  - modes
 Mode average for all  test days, GM-292 "A" engine, 0.10 gm/gal  lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
CO, %
4.8 ± .5
1.0 ± .3
.9 ± .4
2.0 ± .4
6.5 ± .8
HC, ppmC
1167 ± 241
1880 ± 2440
1112 ± 735
1978 ± 723
1563 ± 516
NOX, ppm
1179 ± 148
2382 ± 569
2442 ± 560
1423 ± 405
1192 ± 169
A1r Fuel Ratio
12.9 ± .2
14.7 ± .4
14.7 ± .3
13.9 ± .2
12.1 ± .3
      TABLE  A-44.  -  Exhaust  emissions  profile  -  dally  variation
Dally average of all test modes, GM-292 "A" engine, 0.10 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
CO. %
2.6
3.3
3.1
2.1
2.8
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.3
3.1
3.2
HC, ppmC
992
1144
920
656
1000
1136
2440
2760
2250
1824
2448
NOX, ppm
1780
1565
1019
1384
2062
1499
1804
1974
1704
1894
1972
Air-Fuel Ratio
13.9
13.5
13.5
14.1
13.8
13.6
13.5
13.8
13.5
13.6
13.6
                                A-22

-------
           TABLE A-45.  -  Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode  average for all test days, GM-292 "A",  0.10 gm/gal  lead—repeat
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
CO, %
4.3 ± .7
2.9 ± .4
2.8 ± .4
4.2 ± .4
5.2 ± 1.1
HC , ppmC
896 ± 132
1112 ± 99
1152 ± 132
1656 ± 141
1092 ± 119
NOX, ppm A1r Fuel Ratio
13.1 ± .2
13.5 ± .1
13.5 ± .1
12.9 ± .1
12.7 ± .3
      TABLE A-46.  -  Exhaust  emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all  test modes, GM-292 "A". 0.10 gm/gal lead—repeat
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CO. %
4.3
3.7
3.8
3.8
5.1
3.7
3.7
3.6
3.2
3.9
HC, ppmC
1104
968
1072
1144
1216
1232
1232
1304
1296
1248
NOX, ppm Air-Fuel Ratio
12.9
13.2
13.2
13.2
12.8
13.2
13.2
13.2
13.4
13.2
                                A-23

-------
       TABLE A-47. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all  test days, GM-292 "B",  0.10 gm/gal  lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
CO. %
7.7 ± 1.3
2.6 ± .6
2.8 ± .8
4.2 ± .6
8.7 4 1.4
HC, ppmC
1357 ± 147
1215 ± 225
1276 ± 204
1649 ± 277
1569 ± 279
NOX, ppm Air Fuel Ratio
11.9 ± .3
13.6 t .2
13.5 ± .2
13.0 ± .2
11.6 ± .6
  TABLE A-48. - Exhaust emissions profile4- dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, GM-292 "B", 0.10 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
CO, %
5.1
5.3
5.3
4.8
4.8
4.4
5.0
4.7
4.5
5.6
4.8
5.9
7.1
HC, ppmC
1248
1208
1208
1232
1184
1312
1440
1301
1432
1680
1648
1768
1744
NOX, ppm Air-Fuel Ratio
12.9
12.8
12.6
12.8
12.8
13.0
12.8
12.8
12.9
12.5
12.8
12.5
12.2
                            A-24

-------
         TABLE  A-49.  -  Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode  average for  all test days, JD-303 engine, 0.10 gm/gal  lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
5
7
6
5
7
5
.8
.6
.5
.3
.2
.9
±
+
±
±
±
±
.6
.9
.7
.7
.7
.4
HC,
1564
3468
2458
1742
3844
1835
ppmC
± 238
± 187
± 328
± 450
± 1605
± 210
NOX, ppm A1r Fuel Ratio
945
242
693
1141
396
913
±
±
±
±
±
±
189
118
221
230 '
186
202
12.4
11.7
12.1
12.6
11.9
12.4
± .2
± .6
± .3
± .3
± .4
± .1
   TABLE A-50. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, JD-303 engine, 0.10 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
5.8
5.9
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.6
7.0
7.0
5.2
6.0
5.9
HC, ppmC
3873
3980
2447
2287
2260
2233
2553
2440
2313
2210
2140
NOX, ppm
989 -
831
567
605
608
499
620
604
990
910
890
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.5
12.6
12.2
12.0
12.1
12.0
11.9
12.0
12.5
12.2
12.3 '
                              A-25

-------
         TABLE A-51. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all test days, GM-454 engine,  0.10 gm/gal  lead
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

4
1
2
1
2
3
CO,
.3 ±
.7 ±
.4 ±
.7 ±
.2 ±
.0 ±
«
1
1
1

1
1

.8
.3
.4
.1
.2
.5
HC, ppmC f
1108 ± 161
1231 ± 331
991 ± 235
1110 ± 402
1348 ± 552
985 ± 243
... N°x.
1238
1665
1842
2101
1843
1787

±
i
±
±
t
±
ppm
604
546
648
476
815
557
A1r
13
14
14
14
14
13
Fuel
.2 ±
.2 ±
.0 ±
.2 ±
.0 ±
.7 ±
Ratio
1.0
.8
.7
.7
.6
.7
    TABLE  A-52.  -  Exhaust  emissions  profile  -  dally  variation
Dally average of all test modes, GM-454 engine, 0.10 gm/gal lead
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (56 hr)
10 (56 hr)
11 (56 hr)
CO, %
3.4
.2
1.3
2.7
3.1
2.7
2.4
3.5
1.8
3.4
2.7
HC, ppmC
923
647
1187
1310
1180
1231
960
1226
820
1345
1160
NOX, ppm
1785
2564
2213
1632
1462
1495
1904
1581
2225
1753
1930
Air-Fuel Ratio
13.3
14.6
14.5
13.8
13.7
13.6
14.1
13.4
14.3
13.4
13.7
                              A-26

-------
           TABLE A-53.  -  Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all test days. GM-292 "A" engine, fuel additive "A"
Mode
1
2
3
4
5

6.
2.
2.
4.
6.
CO
1
8
7
5
7
t
±
±
±
±
±
%
.9
.1
.2
.1
1.2
HC, ppmC
1160 ± 212
1093 ± 61
1213 ± 23
1773 ± 23
1240 ± 317
NOX.
799
2030
2080
888
942
ppm
±
±
+
±
±
72
182
165
14
220
A1r Fuel
12
13
13
12
12
.6
.8
.8
.8
.2
Ratio
± .1
± .1
± .1
± .3
± .4
      TABLE A-54.  -  Exhaust emissions profile  - dally  variation
Dally average of all  test modes, GM-292  "A"  engine,  fuel  additive "A"
Day            CO,  %         HC, ppmC       NOX, ppm     Air-Fuel Ratio
1
2
3
4.3
4.4
5.0
1216
1248
1424
1379
1436
1228
13.0
13.1
12.9
                                 A-27

-------
         TABLE A-5S.  -  Exhaust  emissions  profile  -  modes
Mode average for all test days, JO-303 engine, fuel additive "A"
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, *
6.3 ± .4
8.3 ± .5
6.9 ± .4
5.4 ± .5
7.6 ± .3
6.2 ± .4
HC, ppmC
1928 ± 121
3744 ± 128
2552 ± 131
1656 ± 46
3256 ± 112
2088 ± 111
TABLE A- 56. - Exhaust emissions
Dally
Day
1
2
3
4
5
average of all
CO, %
6.5
6.7
7.2
7.0
6.6
NOX, ppm
663 ± 69
140 ± 11
432 ± 70
985 ± 91
215 ± 28
631 ± 69
profile - dally
test modes, JD-303 engine, fuel
HC , ppmC
2393
2507
2607
2595
2487
NOX, ppm
540
533
429
521
536
A1r Fuel Ratio
12.3 ± .1
11.5 ± .2
12.0 ± .2
12.6 ± .2
11.7 ± .1
12.3 ± .1
variation
additive "A"
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.2
12.0
11.9
12.0
12.1
                             A-28

-------
           TABLE A-57. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all  test  days,  GM-292  "A" engine,  fuel  additive "B"
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
CO. %
2.8 ± .7
1.7 ± .4
1.7 ± .4
3.4 ± .2
3.8 ± .8
HC, ppmC
872 ± 297
1072 ± 299
1184 ± 275
1840 ± 350
1056 ± 182
NOX, ppm
1498 ± 662
2692 ± 350
2658 ± 482
1073 ± 155
1698 ± 561
A1r Fuel Ratio
13.7 ± .5
14.2 ± .3
14.1 ± .3
13.2 ± .2
12.7 ± .5
      TABLE A-58. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, GM-292 "A" engine, fuel additive "B"
Day
1
2
3
4
5
CO, %
2.3
3.1
2.3
2.9
3.0
HC , ppmC
992
1168
984
1448
1432
NOX, ppm
2208
2094
2350
1528
1439
A1r-Fuel Ratio
14.0
13.5
13.8
13.5
13.4
                                 A-29

-------
         TABLE A-59. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all  test days,  JO-303 engine,  fuel  additive "B"
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6

7
9
8
6
9
7
CO,
.5 ±
.8 ±
.1 ±
.1 ±
.4 ±
.8 ±
» HC , ppmC
1.1
.8
.9
1.0
.8
1.1
2140
4010
2820
1875
3495
2420
±
±
±
±
±
±
147
552
296
339
288
199
NOX, ppm
532
98
247
1034
130
332
±
±
±
±
±
±
212
24
94
308
29
121
A1r Fuel Ratio
11.7
10.9
11.4
12.2
; 11.0
11.5
± .4
± .3
± .4
± .4
± .4
± .4
    TABLE A-60. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, JO-303 engine, fuel additive "B"
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 (56 hr.)
10 (56 hr)
CO, %
9.4
7.5
8.8
8.1
6.5
8.3
8.4
7.8
4.1
4.5
HC, ppmC
2927
2527
2927
3167
2787
2600
2400
2200
1610
1680
NOX, ppm
281
996
275
388
510
448
348
292
-
-
Air-Fuel Ratio
10.8
11.6
11.1
11.3
11.8
11.7
11.6
11.8
13.1
13.0
                              A-30

-------
         TABLE A-61. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode  average  for  all  test days, GM-454  engine, fuel additive "B"
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
6
2
2
2
3
4
.5
.2
.2
.9
.3
.6
±
±
±
±
±
±
1.3
2.0
.5
1.9
1.6
1.5
HC, ppmC NOX, ppm
1184
1052
540
1056
1096
1064
±
±
±
±
±
±
265
375
171
271
325
264
A1r Fuel Ratio
12.
13.
14.
13.
13.
12.
2
8
0
5
4
9
±
±
±
±
±
±
.4
.7
.3
.7
.6
.6
    TABLE A-62. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
Dally average of all test modes, 6M-454 engine, fuel additive "B"
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6 (56 hr)
7 (56 hr)
8 (56 hr)
CO, %
2.5
3.1
3.0
3.3
6.1
1.9
1.5
2.4
HC, ppmC
727
721
997
1070
1410
725
600
880
NOX, ppm
1799
1849
1040
766
-
-
-
-
Air-Fuel Ratio
13.8
13.5
13.5
13.4
12.4
14.1
14.3
13.7
                               A-31

-------
           TABLE  A-63.  -  Exhaust  emissions  profile  - modes
Mode average for all test days, 6M-292 "A" engine, fuel additive "C"
, Mode
1
2
3
4
5

Daily
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
CO, %
4.5 ± .9
2.7 ± .6
2.4 ± .4
4.1 ± .4
5.4 ± .7
TABLE A-64. -
average of all
CO, %
3.2
3.4
3.4
3.3
3.3
4.5
3.9
4.9
4.2
3.6
HC, ppmC
763 ± 225
1017 ± 221
1053 ± 207
1547 ± 183
993 ± 257
Exhaust emissions
NOX, ppm Air Fuel
13.0 ±
13.6 ±
13.7 ±
13.1 ±
12.7 ±
profile - daily variation
test modes, GM-292 "A" engine, fuel additive
HC, ppmC
776
832
848
864
944
1136
1336
1368
1248
1192
NOX, ppm Air-Fuel
2210 13.5
1758 13.4
1790 13.4
1541 13.4
1838 13.4
1524 13.0
13.2
12.9
13.2
13.3
Ratio
.4
.2
.2
.1
.2

"C"
Ratio










                                A-32

-------
            TABLE A-65. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
   Mode average  for  all test days, John Deere 303, fuel additive "C"
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
6
CO, %
4.9 ± 1.8
8.0 ± 1.3
4.9 ± 1.9
3.2 ± .5
5.8 ± 1.2
4.5 ± 1.6
HC, ppmC
1413 ± 61
3267 ± 361
1933 ± 305
1160 ± 69
2733 ± 167
1680 ± 183
NOX, ppm Air Fuel Ratio
12.8 ±
11.7 ±
12.8 ±
13.3 ±
12.4 ±
12.9 ±
.6
.3
.7
.1
.4
.5
      TABLE A-66. - Exhaust emissions profile - dally variation
  Dally average of all test modes, John Deere 303, fuel  additive "C"
Day
CO, %
HC, ppmC
NO., ppm
Air-Fuel Ratio
1
2
3
5.1
5.9
4.6
2092
1967
2040
12.7
12.5
12.8
                                 A-33

-------
        TABLE A-67. - Exhaust emissions profile - modes
 Mode average for all test days,  GM-292 "B",  fuel additive  "D1
Mode
1
2
3
4
5
CO, %
7.9 ± 1.0
2.2 ± .3
2.4 ± .4
3.5 ± .6
8.4 ± 1.3
HC, ppmC
2867 ± 880
2257 ± 723
2430 ± 735
3177 ± 860
3180 ± 971
NOX, ppm A1r Fuel Ratio
11.6 ± .3
13.7 ± .2
13.6 ± .2
13.1 ± .2
11.5 ± .4
   TABLE A-68.  -  Exhaust  emissions  profile  - dally  variation
Daily average of all test modes, GM-292 "B", fuel additive "D"
Day
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
CO, *
4.5
5.1
3.7
5.3
4.4
4.8
5.0
4.5
5.2
4.4
5.8
5.6
HC, ppmC
2488
2040
2088
2168
2360
2560
2744
2856
3520
3576
4008
3976
NOX> ppm
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
929
1182
502
958
973
Air-Fuel Ratio
12.9
12.6
13.1
12.6
12.9
12.7
12.7
12.8
12.6
12.8
12.3
12.3
                             A-34

-------
APPENDIX B

-------
TABLE B-l. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after  test
             John Deere Bt 1.2 gin/gal lead
Intake

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
Inches/1000
Valve height, Inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
Inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
Inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1

30
30

-1

6.764
6.763


1.808
1.808


.4398
.4398


.4340
.4338


2.730
2.730


35
35


55
51
2

30
30

-2

6.761
6.760


1.808
1.807


.4396
.4396


.4340
.4331


2.740
2.739


35
35


55
50
Exhaust
1

45
45

0

7.004
7.003


1.599
1.599


.4394
.4394


.4342
.4340


2.707
2.696


39
39


52
48
2

45
45

-1

7.005
7.004


1.598
1.598


.4396
.4406


.4340
.4338


2.695
2.690


39
38


51
46
                               B-l

-------
TABLE B-2. - Valve train  Inspection  data  - before and after test
             Farina 11 "H"  engine  -  1.2 gin/gal  lead, valve seat Inserts
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tu 1 i p d 1 ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake Exhaust
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
-1 0-5-2 0 -5 -5 -3
5.359 5.359 5.359 5.360 5.395 5.383 5.379 5.389
5.359 5.359 5.359 5.360 5.394 5.383 5.379 5.389
1.500 1.500 1.500 1.498 1.375 1.375 1.375 1.372
1.499 1.498 1.499 1.497 1.375 1.375 1.374 1.370
.3433 .3433 .3433 .3433 .3434 .3433 .3433 .3433
.3440 .3442 .3442 .3442 .3441 .3440 .3440 .3441
.3407 .3405 .3404 .3405 .3407 .3409 .3410 .3409
.3406 .3404 .3402 .3406 .3406 .3407 .3409 .3406
1.900 1.909 1.890 1.916 1.912 1.943 1.938 1.948
1.911 1.916 1.895 1.917 1.918 1.946 1.942 1.950
32 32 35 32 32 29 30 32
30 29 32 28 30 27 27 26
64 64 63 63 65 64 62 67
55 55 56 55 57 56 56 55
                              B-2

-------
TABLE B-3. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
             International Harvester-240, 1.2 gin/gal  lead


Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake Exhaust
1234 1234

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

-1-122 2323

5.265 5.266 5.265 5.268 5.293 5.291 5.289 5.294
5.266 5.267 5.266 5.268 5.291 5.288 5.288 5.291


1.499 1.499 1.499 1.499 1.312 1.313 1.314 1.313
1.499 1.499 1.499 1.499 1.312 1.313 1.314 1.313


.3434 .3434 .3435 .3435 .3436 .3433 .3437 .3434
.3435 .3437 .3578 .3436 .3445 .3439 .3438 .3441


.3409 .3408 .3409 .3407 .3408 .3406 .3408 .3409
.3405 .3403 .3403 .3404 .3403 .3403 .3403 .3404


2.000 1.992 2.003 2.019 1.814 1.821 1.852 1.883
2.001 1.996 2.003 2.023 1.817 1.823 1.855 1.885


36 37 37 32 36 34 37 35
32 34 35 30 36 33 30 31


82 82 80 79 84 86 90 94
80 80 80 80 66 70 74 79
                              B-3

-------
TABLE B-4. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
             GM-292 "A". 1.2 gm/gal lead
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
1 nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
223230
4.873 4.882 4.877 4.870 4.869 4.885
4.873 4.882 4.877 4.871 4.871 4.885
1.722 1.720 1.719 1.723 1.717 1.719
1.722 1.720 1.719 1.723 1.717 1.719
.3430 .3428 .3428 .3428 .3430 .3430
.3436 .3438 .3434 .3433 .3436 .3436
.3410 .3410 .3410 .3410 .3410 .3410
.3408 .3407 .3408 .3409 .3408 .3409
1.699 1.681 1.674 1.669 1.681 1.692
1.710 1.686 1.680 1.679 1.689 1.693
85 90 92 93 87 83
83 90 89 88 87 78
199 200 200 200 200 185
198 199 198 198 196 180
                             8-4

-------
          TABLE B-4. - Valve train inspection  data  -  before  and  after  te»t
                       GM-292 "A", 1.2 gin/gat  lead  (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Exhaust
12345
45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45

6
45
45
Valve seat recession,
  Inches/1000               -3        -5         2-4          2         -5

Valve height, Inches
         Start               4.923     4.921      4.923     4.922      4.922     4.920
         End                 4.926     4.925      4.926     4.926      4.925     4.924

Valve tulIp diameter,
  Inches
         Start               1.497     1.498      1.498     1.499      1.498     1.498
         End                 1.497     1.498      1.498     1.499      1.498     1.498

Valve guide diameter,
  Inches
         Start                .3735     .3729     .3733     .3733     .3729     .3733
         End                  .3741     .3733     .3745     .3741     .3734     .3751

Valve stem diameter,
  inches
         Start                .3715     .3713     .3715     .3715     .3716     .3713
         End                  .3715     .3711     .3713     .3713     .3713     .3710

Valve spring height,
  Inches
         Start               1.690     1.675      1.658     1.694      1.689      1.685
         End                 1.695     1.676      1.658     1.694      1.689      1.685

Valve spring force,
  normal Ibs.
         Start              85        88        90        86        85        83
         End                72        66        70        69        70        70

Valve spring force
  compressed, Ibs.
         Start             193       200        186      198        195        195
         End               184       183        182      190        185        186
                                        9-5

-------
           TABLE 8-5. - Valve train Inspection data - before and  after  test
                        John Deere 303, 1.2 gm/gal  lead
Valve seat angle
Start
End
1 ntake
1234
45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45

5 6
45 45
45 45
 Valve seat recession,
   inches/1000
         -1
                   -1
 Valve height, inches
          Start
          End

 VaIve tuIi p d i ameter,
   i nches
          Start
          End

 Valve guide diameter,
   inches
          Start
          End
5.313
5.312
1.773
1.773
.3748
.3749
5.308
5.309
1.771
1.771
.3748
.3750
5.314
5.314
1.770
1.770
.3745
.3746
5.301
5.303
1.771
1.771
.3749
.3749
5.305
5.306
1.762
1.765
.3748
.3748
5.316
5.315
1.773
1.773
.3744
.3744
Valve  stem diameter,
   inches
         Start
         End
 .3714     .3719     .3718     .3715     .3718     .3718
 .3712     .3716     .3716     .3710     .3713     .3711
Valve spring height,
   i nches
         Start
         End
1.792
1.808
1.808
1.814
1.805
1.813
1.819
1.816
1.810
1.818
1.825
1.822
Valve spring force,
  normaI  Ibs.
         Start
         End

Valve spring force
  compressed,  Ibs.
         Start
         End
62
58
145
144
59
56
145
142
59
58
146
144
57
57
146
142
56
55
144
140
55
54
141
139
                                       B-6

-------
          TABLE B-5. - Valve train Inspection  data - before and  after test
                       John Deere 303,  1.2 gm/gal  lead  (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Exhaust
1234
45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45

5 6
45 45
45 45
Valve seat recession,
  Inches/1000                0-1          1          1          10

Valve height, Inches
         Start               5.322     5.320     5.322     5.320     5.322     5.322
         End                 5.323     5.323     5.324     5.321      5.324     5.323

Valve tulip diameter.
  Inches
         Start               1.456     1.457     1.456     1.455     1.455     1.458
         End                 1.456     1.457     1.456     1.455     1.455     1.458

Valve guide diameter,
  inches
         Start                .3742     .3744     .3746     .3748     .3747     .3744
         End                  .3744     .3746     .3747     .3748     .3747     .3744

Valve stem diameter,
  inches
         Start                .3717     .3718     .3719     .3718     .3717     .3719
         End                  .3715     .3717     .3715     .3715     .3714     .3713

Valve spring height,
  i nches
         Start               1.814     1.818     1.811     1.822     1.810      1.842
         End                 1.836     1.841     1.822     1.826     1.826      1.854

Valve spring force,
  normaI  Ibs.
         Start              61         57        60        56        57         52
         End                56        54        57        56        54         50

Valve spring force
  compressed, Ibs.
         Start             150       146       146       145        143        145
         End               149       146       144       143        141        143
                                        B-7

-------
TABLE 8-6. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
             GM-454, 1.2 gn/gal lead
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
! nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed , 1 bs .
Start
End
1 ntake
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ^
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
1-1-1-2 3-2 2 1
5.115 5.110 5.111 5.106 5.105 5.121 5.110 5.112
5.115 5.110 5.112 5.106 5.104 5.122 5.110 5.113
2.066 2.066 2.067 2.066 2.064 2.062 2.067 2.065
2.066 2.066 2.067 2.066 2.064 2.062 2.067 2.065
.3731 .3738 .3733 .3734 .3734 .3733 .3739 .3732
.3736 .3742 .3736 .3738 .3739 .3736 .3742 .3737
.3715 .3715 .3716 .3717 .3717 .3716 .3716 .3714
.3711 .3712 .3714 .3714 .3713 .3712 .3711 .3712
1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800
1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800
95 95 95 95 97 95 95 95
80 84 84 81 82 79 82 83
244 243 240 242 235 240 243 244
228 230 228 227 218 225 222 227
                          B-8

-------
TABLE B-6. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
             GM-454, 1.2 gm/gal  lead (continued)

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tul ip diameter.
1 nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
1 nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
12345678

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

52602222

5.342 5.348 5.345 5.346 5.342 5.344 5.346 5.338
5.342 5.347 5.344 5.345 5.342 5.342 5.345 5.339


1.719 1.718 1.718 1.723 1.719 1.715 1.717 1.719
1.719 1.718 1.718 1.723 1.719 1.715 1.717 1.719


.3731 .3731 .3731 .3730 .3730 .3731 .3731 .3731
.3736 .3737 .3733 .3740 .3738 .3734 .3736 .3738


.3715 .3715 .3712 .3712 .3714 .3710 .3713 .3712
.3712 .3710 .3708 .3710 .3710 .3711 .3709 .3710


1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800
1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800 1.800


95 95 95 95 97 95 95 95
82 81 79 76 80 84 82 82


240 241 243 240 242 240 242 240
219 228 225 214 222 219 226 225
                           B-9

-------
TABLE B-7. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
             John Deere "B", unleaded fuel
Intake

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1

30
30

1

6.788
6.788


1.805
1.805


.4399
.4401


.4334
.4333


2.730
2.728


39
37


53
50
2

30
30

0

6.787
6.787


1.804
1.804


.4400
.4402


.4334
.4333


2.740
2.737


39
38


54
50
Exhaust
1

45
45

0

7.006
7.007


1.597
1.597


.4400
.4401


.4339
.4334


2.700
2.708


41
39


57
51
2

45
45

9

7.003
7.004


1.597
1.597


.4398
.4430


.4337
.4332


2.718
2.698


40
40


57
54
                             B-10

-------
TABLE B-8.  -  Valve train Inspection data - before and  after  test
             John Deere "B"—unleaded fuel—repeat test
Intake

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
Inches/1000
Valve height. Inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
Inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
Inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1

30
30

0

6.791
6.790


1.807
1.807


.4394
.4398


.4338
.4330


2.772
2.767


39
37


52
52
2

30
30

-2

6.793
6.793


1.808
1.808


.4395
.4398


.4336
.4326


2.778
2.770


37
35


55
50
Exhaust
1

45
45

9

7.014
7.013


1.602
1.602


.4394
.4402


.4340
.4335


2.735
2.736


38
34


52
48
2

45
45

14

6.998
6.996


1.597
1.597


.4393
.4400


.4336
.4328


2.727
2.736


38
35


51
49
                             B-ll

-------
TABLE B-9. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
             Farnall "H", unleaded fuel, valve seat Inserts
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tul ip diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
1 nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, IDS.
Start
End
Intake Exhaust
1234 1234
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
-3 -3 -4 -4 -4 -3 -2 -4
5.323 5.333 5.283 5.332 5.366 5.367 5.349 5.350
5.326 5.336 5.287 5.336 5.370 5.370 5.351 5.354
1.498 1.501 1.498 1.497 1.377 1.375 1.376 1.375
1.499 1.502 1.498 1.498 1.377 1.375 1.376 1.375
.3432 .3429 .3429 .3429 .3430 .3428 .3428 .3427
.3434 .3436 .3436 .3434 .3436 .3432 .3432 .3433
.3407 .3407 .3407 .3409 .3408 .3408 .3408 .3406
.3405 .3406 .3405 .3406 .3405 .3406 .3406 .3402
1.925 1.925 1.901 1.909 1.909 1.912 1.934 1.928
1.919 1.926 1.897 1.907 1.911 1.915 1.934 1.921
29 29 30 30 30 30 29 30
28 27 29 29 29 28 28 28
42 42 42 42 42 41 42 42
41 42 43 42 43 42 43 43
                            8-12

-------
TABLE B-10. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              Ford 8N, unleaded fuel, valve seat inserts
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
Inches/1000
Valve height. Inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
Inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
I nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake Exhaust
1234 1234
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
0 -1 -1 -2 17 21 30 25
4.790 4.785 4.786 4.786 4.700 4.701 4.699 4.696
4.790 4.785 4.786 4.786 4.699 4.701 4.699 4.695
1.510 1.510 1.510 1.510 1.282 1.285 1.285 1.283
1.510 1.510 1.510 1.510 1.282 1.285 1.285 1.283
.3435 .3435 .3434 .3434 .3434 .3435 .3436 .3434
.3437 .3439 .3439 .3437 .3438 .3455 .3447 .3437
.3408 .3409 .3409 .3409 .3407 .3405 .3406 .3403
.3408 .3408 .3408 .3408 .3406 .3405 .3406 .3403
1.806 1.827 1.802 1.805 1.825 1.800 1.811 1.820
1.808 1.830 1.805 1.806 1.845 1.823 1.833 1.838
46 45 45 46 46 47 46 46
43 36 41 42 39 40 40 38
84 78 80 81 84 85 87 84
70 69 70 70 74 70 71 71
                          B-<3

-------
TABLE B-11. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              International  Harvester-240, unleaded fuel
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tul ip diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start •
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake Exhaust
1234 1234
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
-4 -3 -2 -2 -5 -3 -5 -5
5.263 5.269 5.262 5.252 5.308 5.310 5.285 5.304
5.267 5.274 5.267 5.254 5.313 5.315 5.290 5.309
1.499 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.311 1.312 1.311 1.309
1.499 1.500 1.500 1.500 1.311 1.312 1.311 1.309
.3447 .3446 .3447 .3443 .3445 .3447 .3446 .3447
.3448 .3449 .3448 .3450 .3446 .3447 .3468 .3449
.3410 .3404 .3407 .3407 .3410 .3407 .3407 .3405
.3406 .3403 .3403 .3406 .3407 .3403 .3406 .3403
2.028 2.036 2.027 2.013 1.863 1.857 1.862 1.858
2.032 2.034 2.020 2.017 1.868 1.863 1.868 1.858
35 36 35 33 36 36 34 34
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30
50 51 50 50 76 75 74 75
50 50 51 50 58 56 57 57
                           B-U

-------
TABLE 8-12. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              International  Harvester-240, unleaded fuel  repeat


Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve he 1 glit, Inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
! nches
Start
End
Val"e guide diameter,
Inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
1 nches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1 ntake Exhaust
1234 1234

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

-2 -4 -4 -4 -2 -1 38 47

5.257 5.261 5.269 5.267 5.302 5.293 5.297 5.281
5.261 5.265 5.273 5.271 5.305 5.296 5.299 5.284


1.497 1.497 1.497 1.499 1.312 1.312 1.311 1.311
1.497 1.497 1.497 1.499 1.312 1.313 1.311 1.311


.3432 .3434 .3446 .3445 .3428 .3427 .3447 .3445
.3432 .3439 .3446 .3445 .3431 .3432 .3454 .3464


.3407 .3407 .3405 .3406 .3407 .3405 .3405 .3406
.3403 .3403 .3404 .3403 .3404 .3403 .3402 .3403


1.976 1.985 1.981 1.986 1.831 1.839 1.839 1.836
1.978 1.983 1.989 1.985 1.838 1.843 1.891 1.888


37 37 38 36 35 35 35 36
36 35 37 35 32 32 28 29


63 61 63 61 75 71 72 75
61 61 62 58 56 55 57 60
                              B-15

-------
TABLE B-13. - Valve train  inspection data - before and after test
              International Harvester-240, unleaded fuel, valve seat inserts
t
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tulip d i ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake Exhaust
1234 1234
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
-3 -3 0 -1 63 58 77 85
5.259 5.257 5.249 5.260 5.291 5.274 5.278 5.307
5.259 5.257 5.249 5.260 5.291 5.274 5.278 5.307
1.497 1.497 1.503 1.496 1.312 1.312 1.311 1.312
1.497 1.497 1.503 1.496 1.312 1.312 1.311 1.312
.3432 .3433 .3445 .3446 .3433 .3433 .3445 .3444
.3433 .3436 .3446 .3448 .3434 .3436 .3464 .3531
.3405 .3406 .3406 .3404 .3404 .3407 .3405 .3402
.3404 .3402 .3404 .3402 .3402 .3403 .3403 .3399
1.985 1.990 1.992 1.999 1.863 1.863 1.883 1.920
1.988 1.987 1.993 1.994 1.868 1.869 1.886 1.920
43 43 42 41 39 38 39 37
37 38 37 35 30 30 30 25
73 69 69 68 64 63 64 64
64 63 64 62 61 59 60 59
                              B-16

-------
TABLE B-14. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", unleaded fuel

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
Inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
I nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
inches
Start
Eng
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force,
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

0 -4 -5 -5 -4 2

4.875 4.870 4.877 4.879 4.879 4.868
4.880 4.874 4.882 4.884 4.883 4.871


1.719 1.723 1.719 1.719 1.720 1.718
J.719 1.723 1.719 1.719 1.720 1.718


.3430 .3429 .3428 .3427 .3430 .3431
.3439 .3434 .3434 .3433 .3438 .3435


.3410 .3411 .3411 .3412 .3412 .3411
.3405 .3406 .3407 .3409 .3409 .3407


1.683 1.693 1.694 1.694 1.695 1.671
1.689 1.699 1.692 1.693 1.702 1.668


90 87 90 88 88 90
66 71 72 68 68 71


196 195 195 195 196 191
172 179 178 171 176 167
                             8-17

-------
TABLE B-14. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", unleaded fuel (continued)

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tu 1 i p d i ameter ,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed , 1 bs .
Start
End
Exhaust
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

-5 1 -4 16 90 121

4.925 4.925 4.925 4.923 4.922 4.919
4.930 4.929 4.929 4.927 4.926 4.923


1.499 1.498 1.499 1.498 1.499 1.499
1.499 1.498 1.499 1.498 1.499 1.498


.3734 .3728 .3732 .3730 .3728 .3732
.3750 .3740 .3747 .3740 .3730 .3754


.3716 .3718 .3719 .3715 .3719 .3718
.3713 .3714 .3714 .3711 .3716 .3714


1.692 1.675 1.642 1.693 1.682 1.678
1.702 1.686 1.648 1.713 1.766 1.797


90 95 95 87 89 90
66 73 74 64 50 44


196 201 187 196 195 196
174 176 164 173 177 173
                             8-18

-------
TABLE B-15. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "B", unleaded fuel, induction-hardened head

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tu 1 i p d i ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed , 1 bs .
Start
End
Intake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

365444

4.874 4.878 4.882 4.881 4.883 4.871
4.868 4.872 4.876 4.876 4.879 4.866


1.720 1.719 1.718 1.719 1.714 1.718
1.720 1.719 1.718 1.719 1.714 1.718


.3428 .3429 .3429 .3430 .3428 .3429
.3430 .3429 .3432 .3432 .3429 .3431


.3405 .3406 .3405 .3405 .3404 .3403
.3405 .3405 .3403 .3405 .3404 .3402


1.680 1.679 1.675 1.704 1.686 1.686
1.682 1.683 1.678 1.705 1.687 1.687


81 81 80 79 82 80
75 74 74 66 72 72


182 179 180 189 182 181
176 174 172 173 174 170
                            8-19

-------
TABLE 8-15. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292-B, unleaded fuel, Induction-hardened head (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
Inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
8 3 10 8 11 11
4.886 4.888 4.882 4.897 4.890 4.898
4.878 4.885 4.875 4.891 4.883 4.892
1.499 1.494 1.499 1.500 1.497 1.499
1.499 1.494 1.500 1.499 1.498 1.499
.3430 .3432 .3430 .3431 .3433 .3431
.3437 .3456 .3455 .3471 .3453 .3447
.3404 .3405 .3403 .3402 .3402 .3403
.3404 .3403 .3403 .3400 .3402 .3402
1.674 1.674 1.655 1.676 1.686 1.682
1.670 1.674 1.660 1.678 1.686 1.686
81 81 80 79 81 79
77 73 70 74 69 72
181 179 175 178 183 176
172 171 170 176 173 173
                                8-20

-------
TABLE B-16. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "B". unleaded fuel—mod if led cycle
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1 ntake
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
-1-1 20-3 1
4.884 4.880 4.879 4.874 4.876 4.877
4.884 4.879 4.879 4.873 4.873 4.877
1.720 1.721 1.719 1.723 1.719 1.720
1.720 1.721 1.719 1.723 1.719 1.720
.3432 .3430 .3428 .3431 .3432 .3432
.3434 .3429 .3428 .3429 .3432 .3431
.3407 .3405 .3406 .3406 .3407 .3408
.3405 .3405 .3406 .3404 .3403 .3405
1.680 1.684 1.679 1.679 1.678 1.680
1.684 1.679 1.683 1.675 1.675 1.681
81 83 84 82 81 80
69 71 74 70 70 69
185 184 180 183 184 180
179 178 170 176 178 176
                              3-21

-------
TABLE B-16. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "B", unleaded fuel—modified cycle (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve stem d i ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
-1-1 26 10 94
4.925 4.923 4.925 4.915 4.923 4.925
4.925 4.923 4.923 4.913 4.921 4.920
1.500 1.500 1.499 1.499 1.500 1.500
1.500 1.500 1.499 1.499 1.500 1.500
.3733 .3734 .3733 .3728 .3729 .3730
.3739 .3739 .3737 .3730 .3732 .3733
.3715 .3714 .3718 .3714 .3716 .3715
.3713 .3714 .3716 .3712 .3713 .3711
1.671 1.669 1.664 1.668 1.665 1.672
1.670 1.673 1.664 1.671 1.669 1.674
82 81 84 83 8u 84
74 73 73 70 68 71
185 189 187 181 186 183
174 176 172 168 172 170
                            B-22

-------
TABLE B-17. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, unleaded fuel

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1 ntake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

-4 -2 -3 -4 -3 0

5.259 5.279 5.283 5.266 5.279 5.266
5.263 5.283 5.287 5.270 5.283 5.270


1.769 1.771 1.771 1.770 1.773 1.771
1.769 1.771 1.771 1.770 1.773 1.771


.3743 .3745 .3745 .3746 .3745 .3743
.3748 .3750 .3748 .3750 .3750 .3748


.3717 .3718 .3718 .3719 .3718 .3719
.3712 .3714 .3714 .3716 .3714 .3715


1.842 1.842 1.839 1.839 1.834 1.831
1.841 1.845 1.843 1.838 1.832 1.835


54 53 58 57 58 56
43 42 46 46 49 49


145 143 144 142 145 142
132 132 132 130 132 135
                             9-23

-------
TABLE B-17. - Valve train  inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, unleaded fuel  (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diaoeter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide dianeter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem df Meter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
nor«a 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
56 41 64 41 36 43
5.288 5.288 5.295 5.291 5.289 5.288
5.292 5.292 5.299 5.295 5.293 5.293
1.459 1.458 1.460 1.458 1.453 1.457
1.458 1.458 1.459 1.458 1.453 1.457
.3743 .3743 .3743 .3745 .3745 .3742
.3746 .3746 .3758 .3750 .3748 .3750
.3716 .3716 .3718 .3716 .3716 .3716
.3714 .3712 .3713 .3712 .3713 .3713
1.831 1.845 1.847 1.831 1.844 1.849
1.900 1.893 1.909 1.881 1.888 1.893
56 58 58 56 58 56
32 38 36 41 38 37
144 146 146 142 147 145
130 132 131 133 133 131
                            3-24

-------
TABLE 8-18. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-454, unleaded fuel

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches /I 000
valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
valve sten diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
valve spring force.
normal Ibs.
Start
End

-------
TABLE B-18. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              GM-454, unleaded fuel (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
i nches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tulip d i ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
12345678
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
7 26 10 32 20 15 16 22
5.353 5.348 5.355 5.355 5.354 5.355 5.354 5.356
5.357 5.351 5.358 5.357 5.356 5.358 5.356 5.358
1.721 1.722 1.718 1.722 1.718 1.717 1.7)9 1.721
1.721 1.721 1.718 1.722 1.718 1.717 1.719 1.721
.3732 .3732 .3732 .3736 .3737 .3732 .3734 .3733
.3740 .3744 .3756 .3742 .3783 .3740 .3741 .3740
.3714 .3714 .3712 .3714 .3711 .3713 .3712 .3714
.3710 .3710 .3708 .3710 .3709 .3-710 .3708 .3712
1.795 1.795 1.800 1.803 1.797 1.800 1.797 1.795
1.801 1.813 1.815 1.818 1.815 1.823 1.810 1.815
96 96 93 97 98 97 97 97
84 73 74 75 80 77 77 76
245 244 246 249 248 247 251 241
229 227 219 228 221 224 220 224
                             8-26

-------
TABLE B-19. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              GM-454, unleaded fuel—steel valve seat Inserts

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, Inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tu 1 1 p d I ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
I nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1 ntake
12345678

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

-3 -2 0-3-3 0 -4 -4

5.108 5.109 5.108 5.114 5.102 5.116 5.119 5.110
5.109 5.109 5.108 5.115 5.102 5.116 5.119 5.111


2.065 2.065 2.067 2.065 2.066 2.067 2.066 2.067
2.065 2.065 2.067 2.065 2.066 2.067 2.066 2.067


.3733 .3734 .3733 .3734 .3732 .3734 .3733 .3734
.3739 .3745 .3736 .3745 .3737 .3740 .3739 .3743


.3715 .3711 .3711 .3710 .3711 .3711 .3712 .3712
.3713 .3710 .3708 .3706 .3706 .3709 .3708 .3711


1.799 1.818 1.810 1.804 1.800 1.795 1.815 1.810
1.812 1.810 1.812 1.810 1.808 1.800 1.808 1.808


96 95 90 96 98 97 95 92
80 83 83 80 83 81 82 81


235 241 235 234 240 239 255 241
227 231 225 227 229 231 232 232
                              B-27

-------
TABLE B-19. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              GM-454, unleaded fuel—steel valve seat Inserts (continued)
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Va 1 ve stem d i ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
1 2345678
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
6 5 17 4 8 15 8 12
5.355 5.355 5.355 5.355 5.355 5.350 5.351 5.351
5.354 5.354 5.354 5.354 5.354 5.350 5.350 5.349
1.718 1.720 1.721 1.721 1.722 1.719 1.720 1.720
1.718 1.720 1.721 1.721 1.722 1.719 1.720 1.720
.3733 .3734 .3733 .3733 .3733 .3733 .3733 .3733
.3745 .3744 .3742 .3741 .3740 .3744 .3744 .3750
.3711 .3707 .3708 .3708 .3707 .3712 .3708 .3712
.3708 .3705 .3706 .3704 .3705 .3708 .3707 .3708
1.784 1.790 1.788 1.791 1.787 1.788 1.786 1.785
1.804 1.804 1.807 1.798 1.800 1.812 1.817 1.802
96 96 96 96 98 95 98 94
80 83 83 80 83 81 82 81
232 238 235 230 236 240 240 235
228 220 225 222 229 228 227 225
                                  B-28

-------
TABLE B-20. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              International  Harvester-240, 0.10 gm/gal lead


Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
Inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tu 1 1 p d i ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake Exhaust
1234 1234

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

-4313 1-110

5.284 5.316 5.285 5.311 5.3)5 5.286 5.315 5.284
5.284 5.316 5.284 5.311 5.314 5.286 5.315 5.284


1.499 1.499 1.499 1.502 1.311 1.311 1.314 1.310
1.499 1.499 1.499 1.502 1.311 1.311 1.314 1.310


.3444 .3448 .3446 .3446 .3444 .3448 .3445 .3448
.3447 .3448 .3446 .3447 .3445 .3448 .3449 .3448


.3406 .3406 .3408 .3406 .3410 .3406 .3405 .3403
.3403 .3403 .3404 .3403 .3407 .3405 .3402 .3402


1.996 1.995 1.995 1.995 1.813 1.823 1.823 1.823
1.990 1.991 1.994 1.994 1.821 1.829 1.826 1.825


42 43 43 45 37 37 37 37
38 37 37 39 35 34 34 34


70 72 72 72 60 60 64 60
64 61 63 64 55 55 55 55
                              3-29

-------
TABLE B-21. - Valve train  inspection data - before and after test
              International Harvester-240, 0.10 ga/gal lead—valve seat  inserts
•a ve seat angle
Start
End
valve seat recession.
inches/1000
valve height, inches
Start
End
/aive ru'ip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stea diameter,
inches
Start
End
/alve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norms 1 1 bs .
Start
End
rfaive spring force
compressed, IDS.
S»art
End
Intake Exhaust
1234 1234
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
00-11 1-120
5.257 5.261 5.267 5.265 5.295 5.280 5.293 5.284
5.258 5.261 5.268 5.266 5.291 5.278 5.290 5.282
1.497 1.499 1.500 1.497 1.311 1.313 1.313 1.312
1.497 1.499 1.500 1.497 1.311 1.313 1.313 1.312
.3435 .3433 .3434 .3435 .3434 .3444 .3445 .3440
.3437 .3436 .3438 .3437 .3438 .3446 .3446 .3443
.34O2 .3406 .3406 .3404 .34O4 .34O7 .34O9 .3402
.3401 .3404 .3402 .3402 .3401 .34O4 .3406 .3400
1.992 1.997 2.003 2.010 1.814 1.823 1.867 1.869
1.999 1.998 2.000 2.012 1.807 1.825 1.868 1.869
40 43 39 37 35 38 40 39
36 38 30 31 27 30 33 33
78 82 80 76 84 86 89 87
74 77 70 65 78 79 80 78
                               B-30

-------
TABLE B-22. - Valve train inspection data - before and after  test
              04-292 "A". O.iO gm/gal  lead
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stea diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
noma 1 Ibs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed , I bs .
Start
End
intake
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
0 0 -2 -2 -1 14
4.875 4.870 4.873 4.865 4.886 4.874
4.875 4.870 4.875 4.867 4.887 4.874
1.725 1.721 1.719 1.726 1.721 1.724
1.725 1.721 1.719 1.726 1.721 1.723
.3430 .3429 .3428 .3428 .3430 .3432
.3433 .3433 .3432 .3432 .3435 .3442
.3410 .3410 .3409 .3412 .34O8 .3407
.3407 .3403 .3405 .3408 .3404 .3401
1.669 1.665 1.680 1.679 1.684 1.670
1.669 1.663 1.685 1.680 1.689 1.691
90 86 80 86 82 85
80 77 72 79 73 67
189 187 179 178 188 188
178 179 173 168 180 176
                              B-31

-------
TABLE B-22. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", 0.10 gm/gal lead (continued)
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va I ve tulip d i ameter ,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Va 1 ve stem d i ameter ,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
-2 2 -4 -4 -3 40
4.922 4.925 4.923 4.925 4.923 4.924
4.924 4.923 4.926 4.924 4.926 4.922
1.499 1.498 1.498 1.498 1.499 1.498
1.499 1.498 1.498 1.498 1.499 1.498
.3736 .3732 .3736 .3736 .3733 .3736
.3740 .3739 .3740 .3741 .3744 .3751
.3716 .3712 .3712 .3713 .3712 .3711
.3713 .3710 .3711 .3711 .3708 .3707
1.649 1.642 1.640 1.652 1.644 1.642
1.649 1.640 1.639 1.655 1.648 1.683
94 94 92 84 86 90
82 83 83 77 77 70
190 188 187 179 174 179
175 176 173 172 169 176
                            8-32

-------
TABLE 8-23. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A". 0.10 gm/gal lead—repeat test

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tulip d i ameter ,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed , I bs .
Start
End
1 ntake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

1 -1 -1 -2 -1 0

4.881 4.894 4.883 4.891 4.888 4.880
4.880 4.894 4.883 4.890 4.888 4.880


1.720 1.721 1.719 1.722 1.718 1.719
1.720 1.721 1.719 1.722 1.718 1.719


.3428 .3428 .3429 .3430 .3429 .3429
.3429 .3428 .3429 .3430 .3429 .3429


.3412 .3412 .3410 .3410 .3412 .3411
.3412 .3412 .3409 .3409 .3411 .3410


1.697 1.692 1.683 1.687 1.682 1.697
1.696 1.691 1.687 1.691 1.682 1.697


86 85 83 82 85 87
79 71 72 70 73 72


198 195 189 185 193 192
189 179 177 173 178 183
                             B-33

-------
TABLE B-23. - Valve train  inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", 0.10 gin/gal  lead—repeat test  (continued)
Valve* angle
Start
End
Va 1 ve* recess i on ,
InaKOOO
Valvelght, inches
Start
End
ValveWp diameter,
in*
Start
End
Valvekle diameter,
inoi
Start
End
Valvean diameter,
ine>
Start
End
Val vexing height,
ines
Start
End
Valveiing force,
non»l bs .
Start
End
Valvevng force
coned, ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
0 0 0 3 10 2
4.924 4.913 4.922 4.924 4.923 4.917
4.923 4.912 4.921 4.923 4.922 4.915
1.500 1.500 1.501 1.498 1.499 1.501
1.500 1.500 1.501 1.498 1.499 1.501
.3729 .3730 .3733 .3733 .3731 .3729
.3737 .3735 .3741 .3741 .3745 .3737
.3713 .3713 .3710 .3713 .3714 .3711
.3713 .3711 .3710 .3713 .3714 .3710
1.648 1.647 1.630 1.654 1.643 1.647
1.647 1.654 1.634 1.656 1.657 1.646
89 87 88 86 88 88
81 78 80 80 78 79
184 175 179 181 178 186
189 179 177 173 178 183

-------
TABLE 8-24. - Valve train Inspection  data  - before and after test
              GM-292 "B", 0.10 gm/gaf lead

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
! nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

-1021-31

4.871 4.870 4.873 4.865 4.874 4.870
4.870 4.870 4.875 4.867 4.872 4.868


1.720 1.719 1.720 1.721 1.724 1.722
1.720 1.719 1.720 1.721 1.724 1.722


.3430 .3428 .3429 .3429 .3429 .3432
.3433 .3432 .3433 .3433 .3432 .3440


.3410 .3408 .3411 .3411 .3409 .3408
.3407 .3404 .3406 .3408 .3405 .3403


1.669 1.663 1.680 1.678 1.683 1.681
1.669 1.664 1.685 1.680 1.681 1.683


90 85 83 87 87 83
80 76 74 79 79 70


179 182 185 186 184 189
170 174 173 174 172 176
                             8-35

-------
TABLE B-24. - Valve train  Inspection data  -  before  and  after  test
              GM-292 "B", 0.10 gin/gal  lead (continued)
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/ 1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tulip d 1 ameter ,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed , I bs .
Start
End
Exhaust
1 23456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
1 12-101
4.925 4.922 4.924 4.923 4.925 4.924
4.924 4.921 4.926 4.920 4.926 4.923
1.500 1.500 1.499 1.498 1.500 1.499
1.500 1.500 1.499 1.498 1.500 1.499
.3735 .3733 .3736 .3736 .3734 .3736
.3740 .3736 .3739 .3740 .3739 .3742
.3712 .3715 .3714 .3714 .3716 .3714
.3701 .3713 .3707 .3710 .3710 .3711
1.649 1.640 1.652 1.644 1.649 1.640
1.649 1.642 1.646 1.642 1.645 1.642
94 94 90 86 90 92
82 82 80 77 74 81
190 189 188 179 180 183
175 176 172 170 176 176
                            B-36

-------
TABLE B-23. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, 0.10 gm/gal lead

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
Inches/1000
Valve height, Inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tu 1 1 p d I ameter ,
Inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
Inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

000-220

5.260 5.290 5.272 5.279 5.281 5.268
5.260 5.290 5.272 5.279 5.281 5.268


1.772 1.768 1.768 1.771 1.770 1.772
1.772 1.768 1.768 1.771 1.770 1.772


.3744 .3742 .3743 .3745 .3743 .3741
.3747 .3748 .3747 .3750 .3748 .3745


.3718 .3718 .3713 .3714 .3717 .3716
.3715 .3712 .3711 .3714 .3716 .3712


1.806 1.822 1.820 1.622 1.819 1.811
1.816 1.824 1.828 1.826 1.821 1.815


57 58 55 56 58 59
52 48 51 50 52 54


138 142 137 138 142 141
133 132 138 133 137 137
                             B-37

-------
TABLE B-25. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, 0.10 gw/gal lead (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tulip d 1 ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
400000
5.314 5.317 5.317 5.317 5.306 5.315
5.314 5.317 5.318 5.317 5.306 5.315
1.459 1.458 1.457 1.454 1.456 1.456
1.459 1.458 1.457 1.454 1.456 1.456
.3742 .3744 .3744 .3743 .3742 .3745
.3745 .3756 .3748 .3745 .3744 .3748
.3714 .3712 .3712 .3712 .3713 .3713
.3712 .3709 .3711 .3712 .3713 .3713
1.828 1.824 1.820 1.819 1.822 1.821
1.836 1.832 1.824 1.824 1.826 1.827
54 55 56 57 57 56
46 47 49 49 51 50
140 140 138 140 141 138
131 132 132 134 136 132
                            3-38

-------
TABLE B-26. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-454, O.tO gm/gal lead

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake
12345678

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

-51115160

5.106 5.111 5.099 5.118 5.108 5.110 5. HI 5.115
5.108 5.109 5.097 5.116 5.103 5.108 5.105 5.113


2.065 2.065 2.064 2.066 2.064 2.066 2.063 2.065
2.065 2.065 2.064 2.066 2.064 2.066 2.063 2.065


.3732 .3734 .3735 .3735 .3735 .3732 .3735 .3733
.3734 .3737 .3737 .3742 .3739 .3736 .3744 .3739


.3716 .3718 .3717 .3718 .3716 .3716 .3716 .3711
.3713 .3713 .3712 .3713 .3712 .3712 .3711 .3713


1.802 1.800 1.794 1.797 1.800 1.790 1.796 1.805
1.814 1.802 1.812 1.806 1.811 1.796 1.806 1.805


96 98 96 96 95 98 95 94
80 80 76 80 73 80 82 78


247 244 241 240 242 237 242 239
228 223 228 223 222 220 224 219
                              B-39

-------
TABLE B-26. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              GM-454, 0.10 gm/gal lead (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tulip d i ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
12345678
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
51320231
5.357 5.355 5.358 5.356 5.353 5.354 5.353 5.355
5.350 5.352 5.354 5.353 5.354 5.351 5.350 5.352
1.722 1.718 1.721 1.721 1.720 1.720 1.719 1.721
1.722 1.718 1.721 1.721 1.720 1.720 1.719 1.721
.3733 .3732 .3733 .3735 .3735 .3735 .3733 .3731
.3740 .3739 .3741 .3745 .3749 .3745 .3753 .3739
.3713 .3714 .3715 .3713 .3713 .3712 .3710 .3717
.3712 .3712 .3711 .3708 .3710 .3708 .3703 .3710
1.799 1.795 1.796 1.804 1.793 1.790 1.803 1.804
1.799 1.795 1.805 1.804 1.800 1.796 1.812 1.805
96 96 95 97 97 98 94 93
82 83 80 80 80 85 73 82
240 239 245 242 239 240 242 236
225 225 227 224 229 230 219 228
                             3-JO

-------
TABLE 8-27. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", fuel  additive "A"

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1 ntake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

3455 53

4.883 4.879 4.890 4.880 4.880 4.891
4.879 4.875 4.885 4.875 4.875 4.887


1.719 1.723 1.719 1.720 1.722 1.720
1.719 1.723 1.719 1.720 1.721 1.720


.3430 .3428 .3428 .3428 .3429 .3429
.3434 .3432 .3432 .3432 .3432 .3434


.3409 .3409 .3400 .3409 .3408 .3407
.3407 .3408 .3400 .3407 .3407 .3404


1.690 1.679 1.683 1.677 1.677 1.678
1.700 1.680 1.687 1.677 1.687 1.686


81 85 81 79 83 84
69 74 74 72 74 73


180 189 180 181 185 188
175 175 173 176 180 178
                             3-41

-------
TABLE B-27. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", fuel additive "A" (continued)
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
1 23456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
5 5 6 12 49 77
4.930 4.930 4.929 4.929 4.926 4.929
4.925 4.926 4.925 4.925 4.922 4.925
1.502 1.503 1.502 1.501 1.502 1.501
1.502 1.502 1.502 1.501 1.502 1.501
.3734 .3729 .3733 .3733 .3729 .3735
.3742 .3737 .3739 .3740 .3740 .3744
.3718 .3712 .3712 .3711 .3715 .3716
.3714 .3710 .3711 .3711 .3713 .3712
1.680 1.686 1.662 1.666 1.684 1.678
1.685 1.687 1.667 1.710 1.732 1.755
83 80 82 87 82 81
74 73 75 63 61 55
185 183 181 186 189 186
176 177 171 173 179 175

-------
TABLE B-28. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, fuel additive "A"

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
I nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1 ntake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

666778

5.286 5.272 5.268 5.282 5.271 5.269
5.280 5.266 5.262 5.276 5.265 5.262


1.773 1.769 1.772 1.772 1.770 1.770
1.773 1.769 1.772 1.772 1.770 1.770


.3744 .3746 .3746 .3746 .3747 .3745
.3747 .3749 .3747 .3749 .3749 .3747


.3716 .3717 .3715 .3713 .3718 .3718
.3715 .3713 .3713 .3711 .3717 .3713


1.806 1.815 1.815 1.810 1.814 1.811
1.810 1.817 1.818 1.812 1.819 1.811


60 59 56 58 58 57
56 52 52 53 52 54


143 140 138 138 141 140
138 135 136 137 136 137
                             B-43

-------
TABLE B-28. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, fuel additive "A" (continued)
t
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
7 6 12 7 8 7
5.305 5.307 5.306 5.306 5.302 5.308
5.300 5.303 5.301 5.301 5.297 5.303
1.454 1.453 1.456 1.452 1.455 1.452
1.454 1.453 1.456 1.452 1.455 1.452
.3744 .3744 .3745 .3748 .3746 .3744
.3747 .3749 .3745 .3749 .3779 .3746
.3717 .3718 .3718 ,3717 .3712 .3715
.3714 .3712 .3714 .3714 .3712 .3712
1.837 1.835 1.834 1.825 1.834 1.839
1.839 1.840 1.841 1.826 1.836 1.841
55 53 54 57 53 54
47 50 47 49 47 50
139 137 139 141 137 139
136 137 133 135 134 136

-------
TABLE B-29. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", fuel additive "B"

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed , 1 bs .
Start
End
Intake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

-1-2 1 0-2 1

4.878 4.879 4.879 4.880 4.878 4.880
4.878 4.879 4.879 4.880 4.878 4.880


1.720 1.719 1.719 1.720 1.721 1.721
1.720 1.719 1.719 1.720 1.721 1.719


.3430 .3429 .3429 .3431 .3430 .3431
.3432 .3430 .3430 .3429 .3428 .3431


.3402 .3402 .3404 .3405 .3406 .3408
.3401 .3400 .3403 .3403 .3404 .3406


1.685 1.697 1.693 1.680 1.675 1.682
1.687 1.698 1.694 1.685 1.680 1.683


81 85 84 83 80 82
73 71 71 70 70 71


186 189 180 185 180 179
175 177 173 176 173 173
                             3-15

-------
TABLE B-29. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", fuel additive "8" (continued)
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tulip d I ameter ,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
2 13 8 13 109 85
4.927 4.928 4.930 4.928 4.930 4.928
4.927 4.928 4.930 4.928 4.930 4.928
1.501 1.500 1.500 1.499 1.500 1.500
1.501 1.500 1.500 1.499 1.500 1.500
.3734 .3729 .3730 .3731 .3730 .3729
.3736 .3734 .3732 .3735 .3739 .3736
.3719 .3712 .3711 .3714 .3712 .3714
.3717 .3710 .3708 .3711 .3708 .3713
1.675 1.680 1.672 1.671 1.669 1.670
1.676 1.683 1.674 1.673 1.669 1.671
84 83 82 84 81 80
74 73 75 72 71 70
184 179 183 185 186 179
174 169 171 173 172 167
                            8-46

-------
TABLE B-30. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, fuel  additive "B"

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1 ntake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

245455

5.261 5.259 5.265 5.266 5.265 5.271
5.259 5.255 5.260 5.262 5.260 5.266


1.770 1.771 1.772 1.772 1.772 1.770
1.770 1.771 1.772 1.772 1.772 1.770


.3744 .3743 .3742 .3744 .3742 .3740
.3748 .3748 .3746 .3749 .3750 .3746


.3718 .3716 .3716 .3716 .3716 .3716
.3717 .3715 .3714 .3713 .3713 .3713


1.813 1.830 1.825 1.826 1.818 1.812
1.822 1.832 1.827 1.830 1.822 1.815


52 55 57 53 53 52
48 48 55 49 51 52


132 141 143 139 137 142
132 133 137 133 138 137
                             B-47

-------
TABLE 30.- Valve train inspection data - before and after test
           John Oeere 303, fuel additive "B"  (continued)
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, Inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
33 5 5 5 6 40
5.318 5.313 5.312 5.324 5.313 5.323
5.313 5.308 5.308 5.320 5.308 5.322
1.455 1.458 1.456 1.457 1.455 1.456
1^455 1.458 1.456 1.457 1.455 1.456
.3745 .3744 .3742 .3742 .3741 .3743
.3748 .3748 .3749 .3746 .3745 .3750
.3715 .3714 .3714 .3713 .3713 .3716
.3711 .3710 .3710 .3710 .3712 .3714
1.836 1.833 1.832 1.836 1.825 1.833
1.866 1.829 1.832 1.832 1.827 1.832
52 54 56 53 55 55
41 48 49 47 49 44
140 140 141 141 140 142
132 134 133 132 132 137
                          8-48

-------
TABLE B-31. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              GM-454, fuel additive "8"

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Intake
12345678

45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45

66455656

5.119 5.116 5.112 5.112 5.119 5.117 5.116 5.120
5.113 5.110 5.107 5.106 5.113 5.111 5.110 5.114


2.068 2.067 2.065 2.065 2.065 2.065 2.063 2.067
2.068 2.067 2.065 2.065 2.065 2.065 2.063 2.067


.3736 .3736 .3733 .3736 .3736 .3736 .3736 .3736
.3740 .3738 .3742 .3742 .3738 .3738 .3738 .3740


.3717 .3717 .3714 .3713 .3714 .3716 .3716 .3715
.3711 .3713 .3708 .3707 .3708 .3712 .3711 .3710


1.801 1.791 1.803 1.807 1.813 1.796 1.798 1.791
1.804 1.797 1.799 1.811 1.819 1.796 1.798 1.815


97 98 98 91 92 94 96 96
79 80 79 78 74 81 81 77


241 232 244 239 245 234 237 235
224 220 219 222 225 223 222 222
                              3-49

-------
TABLE B-31. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-454, fuel additive "8" (continued)
f
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
1 2345678
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45
95855566
5.361 5.363 5.363 5.363 5.364 5.364 5.362 5.364
5.356 5.358 5.358 5.358 5.359 5.359 5.357 5.359
1.720 1.718 1.718 1.719 1.716 1.718 1.720 1.717
1.720 1.718 1.718 1.719 1.716 1.718 1.720 1.717
.3735 .3739 .3740 .3743 .3742 .3739 .3737 .3736
.3740 .3748 .3746 .3750 .3750 .3748 .3750 .3743
.3716 .3711 .3714 .3715 .3713 .3714 .3712 .3711
.3710 .3707 .3707 .3709 .3704 .3709 .3707 .3707
1.798 1.806 1.807 1.808 1.807 1.799 1.806 1.802
1.810 1.812 1.822 1.822 1.814 1.815 1.814 1.815
96 96 92 92 94 97 90 94
78 80 74 77 77 76 75 76
237 245 242 242 244 237 237 238
221 230 223 230 226 226 222 227
                            9-50

-------
TABLE B-32. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "A", fuel additive "C«

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter.
1 nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height.
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force.
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
1 ntake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

0-1 0-1 1 2

4.885 4.880 4.874 4.881 4.879 4.877
4.885 4.880 4.874 4.881 4.879 4.877


1.721 1.720 1.721 1.720 1.718 1.722
1.721 1.720 1.721 1.720 1.718 1.722


.3432 .3430 .3429 .3429 .3430 .3431
.3434 .3430 .3429 .3432 .3432 .3432


.3408 .3410 .3411 .3411 .3410 .3406
.3406 .3405 .3406 .3404 .3407 .3406


1.680 1.694 1.692 1.690 1.671 1.688
1.684 1.697 1.697 1.694 1.673 1.699


81 82 78 81 82 80
73 70 70 71 75 70


186 186 183 185 179 180
178 177 178 178 176 178
                             B-51

-------
TABLE B-32. - Valve train  inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292-A, fuel additive "C" (continued)
1
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
6 12 11 21 44 33
4.925 4.925 4.925 4.924 4.924 4.925
4.925 4.925 4.925 4.924 4.924 4.925
1.500 1.500 1.499 1.498 1.499 1.500
1.500 1.500 1.499 1.498 1.499 1.500
.3733 .3728 .3730 .3731 .3729 .3733
.3744 .3734 .3738 .3756 .3746 .3745
.3714 .3713 .3710 .3713 .3715 .3713
.3712 .3710 .3708 .3712 .3714 .3714
1.664 1.657 1.664 1.668 1.655 1.652
1.665 1.671 1.665 1.699 1.710 1.691
81 80 80 84 80 81
70 70 70 68 56 62
179 173 179 179 175 173
175 169 167 174 168 167
                             •3-52

-------
TABLE B-33. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, fuel additive "C"

Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession.
Inches/1000
Valve height, Inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
1 nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter.
I nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter.
Inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs*
Start
End
1 ntake
123456

45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45

21211 0

5.265 5.270 5.273 5.274 5.270 5.271
5.263 5.269 5.271 5.273 5.269 5.271


1.770 1.769 1.767 1.769 1.774 1.769
1.770 1.769 1.767 1.769 1.774 1.769


.3745 .3747 .3747 .3748 .3748 .3749
.3747 .3749 .3748 .3750 .3751 .3749


.3714 .3715 .3714 .3714 .3716 .3715
.3714 .3713 .3714 .3714 .3715 .3713


1.827 1.819 1.815 1.819 1.822 1.818
1.827 1.823 1.816 1.817 1.824 1.820


56 59 59 59 58 58
52 53 53 54 53 54


151 152 152 153 152 152
145 146 146 147 147 146
                             B-53

-------
TABLE B-33. - Valve train Inspection data - before and after test
              John Deere 303, fuel additive "C" (continued)
!
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
Inches/1000
Valve height. Inches
Start
End
Valve tulip diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
1 nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
i nches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
normal Ibs.
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
100021
5.312 5.319 5.288 5.293 5.290 5.289
5.311 5.319 5.288 5.293 5.288 5.288
1.462 1.457 ^ 1.456 1.456 1.458 1.457
1.462 1.457 1.456 1.456 1.458 1.457
.3745 .3745 .3746 .3749 .3750 .3747
.3747 .3746 .3747 .3750 .3753 .3747
.3714 .3712 .3711 .3712 .3711 .3715
.3713 .3711 .3710 .3712 .3711 .3712
1.835 1.836 1.833 1.828 1.838 1.853
1.841 1.838 1.832 1.831 1.840 1.850
55 55 52 56 56 55
47 49 47 50 49 49
149 153 147 147 152 153
142 145 140 142 143 145
                            B-54

-------
          TABLE B-34. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
                        GH-292 "B", fuel  additive "0"
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Intake
12345
45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45

6
45
45
Valve seat recession,
  inches/1000               -1         -2        -1         -2        -1         -2

Valve height, inches
         Start               4.876     4.880     4.878     4.882     4.883     4.879
         End                 4.876     4.880     4.878     4.882     4.883     4.879

Valve tulip diameter,
  i nches
         Start               1.719     1.719     1.719     1.719     1.719     1.716
         End                 1.719     1.719     1.719     1.719     1.719     1.716

Valve guide diameter,
  i nches
         Start                .3428     .3430     .3428     .3428     .3429     .3429
         End                  .3431     .3435     .3432     .3431     .3435     .3433

Valve stem diameter,
  i nches
         Start
         End

Valve spring height,
  inches
         Start
         End

Valve spring force,
  normaI Ibs.
         Start
         End

Valve spring force
  compressed, Ibs.
         Start
         End
.3409
.3403
1.667
1.673
88
74
190
176
.3411
.3402
1.675
1.678
83
72
188
178
.3414
.3408
1.680
1.686
83
69
190
176
.3413
.3407
1.690
1.694
86
68
198
180
.3412 .3411
.3405 .3404
1 .670 1 .667
1 .676 1 .669
83 88
66 71
185 194
1 70 1 76
                                       B-55

-------
TABLE B-34. - Valve train inspection data - before and after test
              GM-292 "B", fuel additive "0" (continued)
t
Valve seat angle
Start
End
Valve seat recession,
inches/1000
Valve height, inches
Start
End
Va 1 ve tulip d i ameter ,
i nches
Start
End
Valve guide diameter,
i nches
Start
End
Valve stem diameter,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring height,
inches
Start
End
Valve spring force,
norma 1 1 bs .
Start
End
Valve spring force
compressed, Ibs.
Start
End
Exhaust
123456
45 45 45 45 45 45
45 45 45 45 45 45
1 10100
4.922 4.921 4.922 4.922 4.923 4.923
4.921 4.920 4.921 4.921 4.922 4.922
1.501 1.499 1.501 1.499 1.501 1.501
1.501 1.499 1.501 1.499 1.501 1.501
.3731 .3732 .3736 .3735 .3732 .3731
.3745 .3748 .3759 .3757 .3745 .3739
.3711 .3710 .3713 .3710 .3713 .3713
.3710 .3706 .3710 .3705 .3710 .3710
1.655 1.659 1.645 1.656 1.660 1.657
1.664 1.664 1.652 1.661 1.660 1.660
85 89 87 87 88 85
80 74 80 75 73 70
181 187 175 185 185 185
176 178 176 180 170 176
                            8-56

-------
APPENDIX C

-------
                                       APPENDIX C
           TABLE C-1. - Lube oil  metals analysis John Deere "B" engine
Test Hours
Sequence Fuel on 01 1
1 1.2 gm/gal 100 (1)
lead 100 (2)
2 unleaded 100 (1)
100 (2)
3 unleaded 100 (1)
repeat 100 (2)
100 (3)
new oi 1
TABLE C-2. -
Test Hours on
Sequence Fuel Oil
1 1.2 gm/gal 100 (1)
lead 100 (2)
2 unleaded 100 (1 )
100 (2)

Copper
128
128
97
73
68
93
79
83
Lube ol 1

Copper
137
103
102
78

Iron
183
93
81
79
60
86
96
2
metals

Iron
38
38
36
40

Chrome
0
1
1
1
0
1
0
0
analysis

Chrome
3
7
3
6
Metals,
Aluminum
5
2
3
1
4
3
2
1
ppm
Silica
27
13
9
7
11
11
7
6

Sodium
20
14
17
23
14
11
23
2

Molybdenum
0
1
0
0
0
1
0
4
Farmall "H" engine
Metals,
Aluminum
7
11
9
13
ppm
Silica
17
6
12
7

Sodium
34
17
19
33

Molybdenum
1
1
2
1
new 011
83

-------
               TABLE C-3. - Lube oil metals analysis Ford 8N engine
Test
Sequence Fuel
1 unleaded
new ol 1
TABLE C-4.
Test
Sequence Fuel
1 1.2 gn/gal
lead
2 unleaded
3 un 1 eaded
repeat
4 0.10 gin/gal
lead
5 unleaded
Inserts
6 0.10 gm/gal
lead
repeat
Hours on
Oil
100 (1)
100 (2)

- Lube oi 1
Hours on
Oil
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
188 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)

Copper
118
92
83
1 metals

Copper
190
142
93
98
84
74
106
102
101
84
106
100

Iron
69
48
2
analysi

Iron
56
35
34
43
58
39
99
60
28
63
55
43

Chrome
1
1
0
Metals,
Aluminum
15
8
1
ppm
Silica
51
12
6
s International Harvester 240

Chrome
1
3
1
2
1
1
0
0
0
2
1
0
Metals,
Aluminum
12
6
10
4
8
12
9
5
4
4
36
6
ppm .,„.». ..
Silica
34
17
16
8
12
19
14
9
17
19
16
24

Sodium
16
30
2
engine

Sodium
102
68
27
30
42
21
29
20
18
29
22
19

Molybdenum
5
5
4


Molybdenum
2
1
2
2
0
0
3
1
0
3
1
0
new oiI
                            83
                                   C-2

-------
                  TABLE C-5. - Lube oil  metals analysis GM-292  "A"  engine
Metals, ppm
Test
Sequence
1

2
3

4

5
6

7




Test
Sequence
1


2

3

4


Fuel
1.2 gm/gal
lead
unleaded
0.10 gn/gal
lead
fuel additive
"A"
fuel additive
fuel additive
"C»
0.10 gm/gal
repeat
new oi 1



Fuel
unleaded
induction
hardened
unleaded
modified cycle
0.10 gm/gal
lead
fuel additive
llQll
Hours
on Oil
100 (1)
100 (2)
71
100 (1)
100 (2)
64

84
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)

TABLE

Hours
on Oil
100 (1)
100 (2)

88

100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)

Copper
104
111
91
66
60
41

54
107
78
90
89
69
C-6. -


Copper
111
91

83

80
80
89
82

Iron
151
91
78
73
84
59

65
52
36
44
46
1
Lube o i 1


Iron
55
41

41

47
48
110
73

Chrome
6
7
6
2
2
1

3
2
1
1
1
1
metals


Chrome
2
1

0

0
0
5
2
A-lumi-
num
8
6
4
12
11
6

6
6
4
4
5
0
analysis

Alumi-
num
3
4

4

3
3
4
2

Silica
7
4
4
2
4
8

8
8
10
14
10
6
GM-292
Metals,

Silica
10
7

14

13
10
20
9

Sodium
47
27
22
20
19
500 *

500 +
39
29
27
29
1
"8" engine
ppm

Sodium
26
30

20

30
26
382
921
Molyb-
denum
7
7
7
3
3
3

5
3
3
3
4
4


Molyb-
denum
2
4

2

2
2
10
4

Sulfur
NA

NA
NA

3130

2810
2350
2670
NA

4100



Sulfur
NA


NA

NA

3270
5510
Phos-
phorous
NA

NA
NA

1200

1240
4400
4490
NA

1020


Phos-
phorous
NA


NA

NA

910
1050
new oi I
69
                                                                                     41QO
                                                                  1020

-------
                 TABLE C-7. - Lube oil metals analysis John Deere 303 engine
Metals, ppm
Test
Sequence
1

2

3

4

5

6



Fuel
1.2 gm/gal
lead
unleaded

0.10 gm/gal
lead
fuel additive
"A"
fuel additive
••B"
fuel additive
new oi 1

Hours
on Oil
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)
80

100 (1)
100 (2)
48

TABLE

Copper
227
168
101
84
122
118
135

137
77
151
83
C-8. -

Iron
46
61
46
70
32
17
32

32
33
58
2
Lube

Chrome
2
5
2
6
1
3
0

1
2
1
0
oil metals
Alumi-
num
19
18
8
12
3
2
8

7
14
47
1
analysis

Silica
22
11
9
11
9
9
16

20
17
24
6
GM-454

Sodium
46
28
33
27
26
21
588

574
393
320
2
engine
Molyb-
denum
10
10
6
9
3
2
3

4
5
3
4


Sulfur
NA

NA

NA

3260

2790
2770
2310
3190

Phos-
phorous
NA

NA

NA

1960

2170
2210
4480
940

Metals, ppm
Test
Sequence
1

2

3

4

5


Fuel
1.2 gm/gal
lead
un 1 eaded

0.10 gm/gal
lead
fule additive
"8"
unleaded
inserts
Hours
on Oil
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)
100 (1)
100 (2)

Copper
80
96
76
70
53
59
67
67
109
86

Iron
199
79
80
92
51
32
105
'03
81
70

Chrome
13
7
6
7
0
1
5
6
7
5
Alumi-
num
20
3
-
3
6
4
10
10
38
22

Silica
22
12
12
8
16
7
46
45
32
17

Sodium
30
22
25
28
23
33
613
737
37
25
Molyb-
denum
6
7
6
6
3
3
15
15
9
6

Sulfur
NA

NA

NA

3330
2265
NA

Phos-
phorous
NA

NA

NA

2271
1059
NA

new oiI
                             69
                                                                                     4100
1029
                                     C-4

-------
                          APPENDIX 2

Commenters at public Hearing in Washington, D.C., June 1, 1987
Ed Senn, Congressman Tom Tauke's Office
Dennis Stolte, American Farm Bureau Federation
Walter R.  Haessner, International Society for VEHICLE Preservation
Ralph H. Hemphill, Crown Central petroleum Corporation
Jerry H. Gass, Southern States Cooperative
Roger Moser, Ethyl Corporation
Dennis Moran, Ethyl Corporation, Research Department
Robert Tupa, Lubrizol Corporation
Bob Pinder, interject Corporation
Don Young, TK-7 Corporation
Moshe Tal, TK-7 Corporation
Mark Nelson, polar Molecular Corporation
Franklin G. Reick, Floramics, Inc.
James Lewis, United Parcel Service

Commenters at public Hearing in Indianapolis, IN, June 4, 1987

Lt. Governor, John Mutz, State of Indiana
Lane Ralph, Senator Dan Quayle's Office
Joe Russell, President, Indiana Farm Bureau,  Inc.
Thomas Daugherty, Indiana vocational Agricultural Teacher's
Association
John Stern, vice-president, Indiana Farm Bureau  Cooperative
Association, inc.
Dean Eppley, Indiana Corn Growers Association

-------
                     APPENDIX 2 (Continued)
 Indianapolis,  IN,  June 4,  1987 (Continued)
 Ray M.  Lien,  Purdue University
 Alice  Huffman,  Chairman,  Indiana  Women  involve  in  Farm  Economics
 (WIPE)
 Charles Hudson, Navistar  international
 Gary Strong,  Winsert,  inc.
 Charles w.  Fluharty,  Indiana Beef Cattle  Association
 Robert  Tupa,  Lubrizol  corporation
 James  Larson,  polar Molecular Corporation
 Mr.  Young,  TK-7 Corporation
 Robert  Kiger,  Farmer
 Orville Borcherding, President, Jackson County  Farm Bureau,  Inc.
 Dennis  Riggs,  Champaign county Farm  Bureau
 Walter  R. Haessner, International Society for VEHICLE Preservation
 Douglas pond,  Indiana  Department  of  commerce
 Commenters  at  public Hearing in Des  Moines, Iowa,  June  9,  1987

 Stan Nielsen,  National Council of Farmer  Cooperatives
Walter  R. Haessner,  International Society for VEHICLE Preservation
Carl Butter, E.I.  DuPont de  Nemours  and Company
John Mcchesney,  Ethyl Corporation
Robert  Tupa, Lubrizol corporation
Charles Worman,  Coastal Corporation

-------
                    APPENDIX 2 (Continued)

                      Written Cotnmenters
             (other than private vehicle owners)

Lubrizol Corporation
Barley Davidson, Inc.
Marathon Petroleum Company
Polar Molecular Corporation
Walter Haessner, internation Society for vehicle preservation
Sun Refining and Marketing Company
University of Maine Cooperative Extension Service
Polk County, State of Oregon
Idaho Grain producers Association
Women Involved in Farm Economics  (WIFE)
American Petroleum institute
Iowa Department of Agriculture
E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company
Union oil Company of California
Department of the Air Force
Illinois Farm Bureau

-------
APPENDIX 3

-------
 United States        Office of            Washington, D.C.
 Department of       Energy             20250
 Agriculture
                                        June 19. 1987
Mr. Richard D. Wilson
Director
Office of Mobile Sources
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street. S.W.
Washington. D.C.  20460

Dear Dick:

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) appreciated having  the
opportunity to work with the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) on the impacts of using low-lead and unleaded  gasoline  and
non-lead substitute additives in agricultural equipment  designed
to use leaded gasoline.  We especially want to commend Richard
Kozlowski. John Garhak. Hugh Pitcher, and Jim Caldwell for  their
efforts on this project.  They are highly competent  individuals
and it has been a pleasure to work with them.  We  readily
resolved differences of opinion as they arose and  enjoyed  an
excellent working relationship.  We also very much appreciate
your support and leadership on this issue.

We have reviewed the findings of the EPA-USDA study  and  the
testimony received during the three EPA hearings.  A summary  of
our observations of the EPA hearings is enclosed.

It is clear that hundreds of thousands of farm engines would
face the threat of significant damage resulting  in large
economic losses to farmers if leaded gasoline was  no longer
available.  Non-lead additives have not yet proven to be a
satisfactory substitute for lead.  Therefore. USDA urges that
EPA:

1.  Not ban sales of leaded gasoline;

2.  Take steps necessary to assure that companies  continue to
    sell leaded gasoline in the  farming communities;

3.  Limit the minimum  amount of  lead that may be contained in
    every gallon of leaded gasoline sold  at  retail.   We  recom-
    mend a range of 0.1-0.15 grams of tetraethyl lead per
    gallon of gasoline; and

4.  Continue testing non-lead additives or work  with USDA. the
    American Farm Bureau Federation, the  National  Council of
    Farmer Cooperatives and other  interested  parties to
    establish an acceptable procedure for additive manufac-
    turers to demonstrate the overall efficacy  of  their
    products for use in agricultural equipment.

-------
Mr. Richard D. Wilson                                             2


For its part, USDA  also  will  expand  its  efforts  through the
Extension Service and  other means  to inform  farmers  about  this
issue and help  them identify  and minimize  risks  of using
low-lead and unleaded  gasoline  and non-lead  additives.

Our joint efforts to date  have  defined  the problem but  have  not
identified  the  best solutions.  The  Office of  Energy is prepared
to continue working with EPA  toward  this end,  including
assistance  in preparing  EFA's report to  Congress,  further
assessing impacts of unleaded gasoline  on  agriculture and
assessing the efficacy of  non-lead substitute  additives.

Sincerely.
EARLE E.  GAVETT,  Director

1 Enclosure

cc Ewen Wilson

-------
               Observations Based on EPA Hearings
              on Leaded Gasoline for Farm Equipment


1.   General consensus of witnesses was  that  unleaded gasoline
    will result in substantial damage to agricultural engines.
    Tbe findings of tbe EPA-USDA study  are sound.

2.   0.1 gram of lead per gallon of gasoline  is  the absolute
    minimum needed.  Many witnesses believe  that  larger concen-
    trations of lead are needed under certain circumstances.
    0.2 grams or more are needed to protect  all farm engines.

3.   EPA should not ban sales of leaded  gasoline and  should take
    steps to help assure that leaded gasoline will continue to
    be available.

4.   Some gasoline being marketed as leaded actually  contains
    little or no lead. 0.1 grams per gallon  should be the mini-
    mum that can be sold.

5.   Independent oil companies and farmer cooperatives will
    continue to sell leaded gasoline as long as there is a large
    enough market.  If leaded gasoline should cease  to be
    available from pipelines, it probably will disappear from
    the market.

6.   Technically, it would be possible to inject lead into gaso-
    line at terminals but economic considerations will determine
    whether this is done.

7.   Lead additives should not and will not be available in
    consumer sice containers.

8.   The need for leaded gasoline or a non-lead substitute
    extends beyond agriculture and includes recreational
    vehicles and fleet trucks.

9.   USDA should work with farmers to help them identify and
    minimize risks of using low-lead and unleaded gasoline..

10. Cylinder head repairs are expensive; about $500-$!.500 per
    engine.

11. Lubrizol's  "Powershield" may  stop wear at high
    concentrations but questions  remain unanswered  about  the
    concentration actually needed and the implications of  com-
    bustion chamber deposits and  lubricating oil  modifications
    caused by the additive.

12. No other additives have demonstrated  effectiveness and
    engine compatability.

13. Further study is needed to  address  questions  about:
    -Vulnerability of engines not tested.
    -Effects under actual field  conditions.
    -Costs of leaded gasoline if  blended  at  terminals,  and/or  if
     made with  aviation  gasoline.
    -Cost and suitability of non-lead  additives.

-------
                          APPENDIX 4
                      Additive Manufacturers

     The following is a list of Additive  Manufacturers/Distributors
that have developed a product which,  they feel,  will  take  care
of the valve lubrication problem associated with some engines
designed for leaded gasoline if operated  on unleaded  gasoline.
         Manufacturer

1.   Lubrizol Corporation
     29400 Lakeland Blvd.
     Wickliffe, OH  44092
     (216) 943-4200
     Lubrizol 8164

2.   E.I.  duPont de Nemours
      & Co.,  Inc.
     Specialty Chemicals Div.
     Wilmington, DE  19898
     (609) 540-2618
     DMA-4

3.   Polar Molecular Corporation
     Vanguard Building
     Suite 303
     4901 Towne Centre Road
     Saginaw, MI  48604
     (517) 790-4764
     PMFC Fuel Compound

4.   Phillips Petroleum Company
     Bartlesville, OK  74004
     (918) 661-3633
     Phillips EVAA 100

5.   TK-7 Corporation
     1300 N.E., 4th Street
     Oklahoma City, OK  73117
     (405) 239-2212
     "S" Super Octane Booster

6.   Reaction Laboratories, Inc.
     P.O. Box 343
     5335 River Road
     Tonawanda, NY  14150
     (716) 875-4105
     K-100-G

7.   EPHCO, Inc.
     3432 West Juniper Ave.
     Phoenix, AZ  85023
     (602) 942-2442
     Fens 521
8.   Fluoramics,  Inc.
    103-105 Pleasant  Ave.
    Upper Saddle River, NJ
    (201) 825-8110
    TUFOIL

9.   Sta-Safe Mfg., Inc.
    22102 Goldstone
    Katy, TX  77450
    (713) 392-0696
    Lead-Plus
10. Formula IV Corporation
    14415 N. 73rd Street
    Suite 107
    Scottsdale, AZ  85260
    (602) 951-2409
    Magna IV F-34 Gas Fuel
     Blending Agent

11. Mr. Gasket
    8700 Brookpark Road
    Cleveland, OH  44129
    (216) 398-8300
    Performance Lab Octane
     Fuel Lead

12. Lubri-Gas
    P.O. Box 429
    Fraser, MI  48026
    (313) 823-3700
    Lubri-Gas

13. Restoration Products
    P.O. Box 50046
    Tucson, AZ  85703
    (602) 624-8786
    EVA-A,  EVA-L
07458

-------
                     APPENDIX 4 (Continued)
 14.
 15.
 16.
 17
18
19.
20.
 B-T Energy Corporation
 15700 Dixie Highway
 Louisville, KY  40272
 (502) 937-1700
 Power LUB 4001, 4002,
  4003, 4004
 Power LUB 1001, 1002,
  1003, 1004

 GNC Energy corporation
 15700 Dixie Highway
 Louisville, KY  40272
 (502) 937-1700
 Power LUB 2001, 2002,
  2003, 2004, 4006,
  2007, 4008, 4009

 Sta-Lube, me.
 3039 Ana Street
 P.O. Box 5746
 Rancho Dominguez, CA
  90224-5746
 (213) 537-5605
 SIM-U-LEAD

 A.I.M.S. Manufacturing
 P.O. Box 23700
 Ft.  Lauderdale, PL
  33307-3700
 (305) 493-9492
 pro-Lead

 Texas Refinery Corporation
 P.O.  Box 711
 Ft.  Worth,  OX  76101
 (817)  332-1161
 TRC  valve Cushion Fuel
 Stabilizer
primrose oil  Company,
P.O. Box 29665
Dallas, TX  75229
(214) 241-1100
valve card

Gold Eagle Oonpany
4400 South Kildare
Chicago, IL  60632
(312) 376-4400
Quantum lead
Quantum valve saver
 Formula
Inc.
            21.  Marine Development and
                  Research Corp.
                 116 Church Street
                 Freeport, NY  11520
                 (516) 546-1162
                 MDR Relead
 22.  Castle products, inc.
     235  Surrey Run
     Williamsville, NY  14221
     (716) 631-5216
     LS + (Lead substitute Plus)

 23.  Royal Lubricants, Inc.
     1304 Argentine Blvd.
     Kansas City, KS  66105
     (913) 321-9022
     Royal's "No Lead"

 24.  Red  Line synthetic oil
      Corp.
     3450 Pacheco Blvd.
     Martinez, CA  94553
     (415) 228-7576
     SI-2 Fuel Conditioner
     Red  Line Lead Substitute

 25.  Bell Fuels, Inc.
     4116 W. Peterson Ave.
     Chicago, IL  60646
     (312) 286-0200
     VALV-TECH Gasoline
      Additive

 26.  A.R. Industries
     7118 Canby unit D
     Reseda, CA  91335
     (818) 344-1739
     Valvmax

 27.  Cartel Products, Inc.
     3133 Madison, S.E.
     Grand Rapids, Ml  49508
     (616) 243-0457
     Cartel L.E.D.

28.  B.C. Products, inc.
     701 S. Wichita
     Wichita, KS  67213
     (316) 265-2686
     Val Save PN 205

-------
                    APPENDIX 4 (Continued)
29.  Farmers Union Central
      Exchange,  Inc.
     P.O.  Box 64087
     St.  Paul, MN 55164-0089
     (612) 451-5151
     X-10

30.  Archer Petroleum,
     Witco Corporation
     6196 North 16th  Street
     Omaha, NB  68110
     GTA

31.  Gromark, Inc.
     1701 Towanda Avenue
     Bloomington, IL
      61702-2500
     (309) 557-2410
     FS Valve-Save Gasoline
      Additive

32.  Lubrimatic Division of
       Witco Corp.
     P.O. Box 1974
     Olathe, KS  66061
     Valve Care

33.  Kendall/Amalie Division
      of Witco Corp.
     77 North Kendall Avenue
     Bradford, PA  16701
     (814) 368-6111
     SD 854 1070
     SD 854 1080
     SD 854 1090

34.  Moroso Performance Products
     80 Carter Drive
     Guilford, CT  06437
     (203) 453-6571
     Octane Booster II

35.  FPPF Chemical Co., Inc.
     117 w. Tupper Street
     Buffalo, NY  14201
     (716) 856-9607
     BVP
36.   Materials and Process
      Research
     Post Office Box 527
     Canoga Park, CA  91305
     (818) 709-4222
     MPR-5

37.   Sullivan Chemical Co., Inc.
     P.O. Box 20177
     Long Beach, CA  90801
     (213) 435-2332
     Preserve

38.   Wynn Oil Company
     P.O. Box 4370
     Fullerton, CA  92634
     (818) 334-0231
     Wynn's Valve-Guard Anti-
      Valve Recession Additive
     X-Tend Concentrated Lead
       Substitute

39.   Unocal Refining and
      Marketing Division
     Union Oil Company of Calif.
     1201 W.  5th  Street
     Los Angeles, CA  90017
     (213) 977-7831
     Unocal Valve Saver

40.  K & W Products
     P.O. Box  231
     Whittier, CA  90608
     (213) 693-8228
     K & W Equa-Lead

41.  B &  M Specialty, Inc.
     Rt.  13,  Box  1095
     Hattiesburg, MS  39401
     (601) 264-6145
     Octane Booster

42.  Philco  International,  Inc.
     8931 Gulf Freeway
     Houston, TX  77017
     (713) 946-1500
     Engine  Life Extender

-------
                    APPENDIX 4  (Continued)
43.  Octane Boost Corporation
     222 Town East Blvd., South
     Mesquite, TX  75149
     (214) 289-0632
     104 + Real Lead

44.  Berryman Products, Inc.
     3800 E. Randol Mill Road
     Arlington, TX  76011
     (817) 640-2376
     Valve Shield

45.  Nationwide Industries
     501 S. Basinger Road
     Pandora, OH  45877
     (419) 384-3241
     Snap Plus Lead Substitute

46.  Radiator Specialty Company
     P.O. Box 34689
     Charlotte, NC  28234
     (704) 377-6555
     Lead Substitute

47.  Motor Chemical, Inc.
     100 Sixth Ave.
     Paterson, NJ  07524
     (201) 278-0200
     Jetgo Lead Substitute
      "Likelead"

48.  South Bay Oil Company
     7734 Alondra Blvd.
     Paramount, CA  90723
     (213) 633-3224
     Best Octane Plus, PJ
      Octane Booster

49.  Bell Chemical Company
     411 North Wolcott Ave.
     Chicago,  IL  60622
     (312)  733-5960
     Flare Power Shield Gas
     Additive

-------
                    APPENDIX 4 (Continued)
50.   Universal Cooperatives,
      Incorporated
     111 Glamorgan Street
     Alliance, OH  44601
     (619)  854-0800
     Co-op Power Shield Gas
      Additive

51.   USA-1 Products, Inc.
     1410 - 7th Avenue, S.E.
     Decatur, AL  35601
     (205)  350-7724
     USA-1 106 + Marine Booster

52.   McKay Manufacturing
     1920 Randolf Street
     Los Angeles, CA  90001
     (213)  582-7477
     1112 McKay's Lead Substitute
     1112 Mechanics Lead Substitute

53.   Harden, Inc.
     P.O. Box 629, Ford and
      Washington Streets
     Norristown, PA  19404
     (215)  278-2400
     "No. 7" Valve Protector and Lubricant

54.   Atlas Supply Company
     11 Diamond Road
     Springfield, NJ  07081
     (201)  379-6550
     Atlas Power Shield Gas Additive
      Product 264

55.   Intercontinental Lubricants Corp.
     Rt. 7, P.O. Box 208
     Brookfield, CT  06804
     (203)  775-1291
     Valve Guard

56.   Petro Blend
     4334 E. Washington Blvd.
     Los Angeles, CA  90023
     (818)  365-9824
     Petroblend Valve Guard

-------
                    APPENDIX  4  (Continued)
 57.   Chemical  Fuels Corporation
      1954 Airport Road
      Suite  251
      Chamblee, GA  30341
      (404)  451-0411
      Leaded Lyte
      Leaded Lyte 2
      Leaded Lyte 3

 58.   Mac's  Division, Ashland Oil, Inc.
      P.O. Box  391
      Ashland,  Kentucky  41114
      (606)  329-5601
      Mac's  Lead Additive Substitute 15900

 59.   Brooklake Products
      8900 Huff Ave. N.E.
      Brooks, Oregon  97303
      (503)  390-2150
      Plus 2 Lead Substitute

 60.   X-Laboratories, Inc.
      440 Denniston Ct.
      Wheeling, IL  60090
      (312)  459-5020
      Super-X 305 Lead Replacement
      Additive

 61.   Penray Company
      440 Denniston Court
      Wheeling, IL  60090
      (312)  459-5000
      Penray 2512 Super Tech Lead Substitute

 62.   E-Zoil  Products, Inc.
      2355 Bailey Avenue
      Buffalo, NY  14215
      (716)  895-8494
      Safe-T-Valve

63.   Hydrotex, Inc.
      P.O. Box 560707
      Dallas, TX  75356-0707
      (214)  638-7400
      HTX-200 Valve Saver
     Gasoline Lead Substitute

64.  CRC Chemicals
     885 Louis Dr.
     Warminster PA  18974
      (215) 674-4300
     Siloo Valve Protector

-------
                    APPENDIX 4 (Continued)
65.   Midwest Polychem,  Ltd.
     1502 N. 25th Ave.
     Melzrose Park, IL  60160
     (312) 450-0100
     Polyguard No Lead  Substitute

66.   Bagan Enterprises, Inc.
     3500 Gait Ocean Drive
     Suite 2403
     Ft. Lauderdale, FL  33308
     (305) 537-7910
     SECUR - PAS/OB-2

67.   Leadfoot
     North American Oil Company
     1806 Marietta Blvd N.W.
     Atlanta, GA  30318

68.   E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., Inc.
     C&P Department
     1007 Market Street
     Wilmington, DE  19898
     Valve Master

69.   AMREP, Inc.
     945 E. Pleasant Run Road
     Lancaster, Texas 75146
     (214) 227-3304
     RLG - 999-419

70.   Correlated Products, Inc.
     5616 Progress Road
     Indianapolis, Indiana  46241
     Pro-Tec 95

71.   PME, Inc.
     P.O. Box 658
     Cabot, AR  72023
     (501) 843-3573
     Valve Card

72.   Gulf Oil Division of Cumberland
      Farms
     165 Flanders Road
     Westboro, MA   01581-5006
     (617) 366-4445
     Cruisemaster/Gulf D.O.L.

-------
                    APPENDIX  4  (Continued)
 73.   Sun  Products  Company,  Inc.
      6831 N.W.  20th Ave.
      Ft.  Lauderdale, FL   33309
      (305)  977-0468
      Fire Power

 74.   Country Mark, Inc.
      4565 Columbus Pike
      P.O.  Box 1206
      Deleware,  Ohio  43015
      (614)  584-8200
      RAMGUARD

 75.   Pyroil Company, Division of
      Champion  Labs.
      P.O.  Box 40
      Albion, IL  62806
      (618)  445-6011
      Lead  Substitute

 76.   Unifide Universal, Inc.
      70 Hawthorne Ave.
      Newark, NJ  07112
      (201)  824-5615
      Unifide Lead Substitute

 77.   Lilyblad Petroleum,  Inc.
      2244  Port of Tocama  Rd.
      P.O.  Box 1556
      Tocoma, WA  98401
      (206)  572-4402

 78.   The American Lubricants Co.
      1227  Deeds Ave.
      Dayton, OH  45404
      (513) 222-2851
     Valve-eze

79.  GRC Company
     P.O. Box 626
     Memphis, TN  38101
      (501) 735-1442
     GRC Instead of Lead

80.  U.S. Aviex Company
     1800 Terminal Road
     P.O. Box 340
     Niles, MI  49102
      (616) 683-6767
     Aviex Nu Lead

-------
                      APPENDIX 4 (Continued)
  81.  Valvetect Petroleum  Products Corp.
       3400 Dundee Road
       Northbrook, IL  60062
       (312) 272-2278
       VALVTECT Lead Substitute - (concentrate
       VALVTECT Lead Substitute - (d)ilute

  82.  Index Industries
       835 Chicago Dr. S.W.
       Grand Rapids, MI   49509
       (616) 245-6665
       VSP

  83.  Protech Oil and Chemical
       412 W. 700 South
       Orem, Utah  84058
       (801) 225-2214
       Tom NcCanns' Lead  Octane Booster
       Tom McCanns1 Lead

  84.  Mohawk Labs
       2730 Carl Road
       Irving, TX  75062
       (214) 438-0486
       MILE HI LG
•U.S.COVCMMCNT PRINTING Off 1C£|1988-617-003|80253

-------