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
------- |