EPA-670/2-74-092
December 1974
Environmental Protection Technology Series
CRANKCASE DRAINAGE FROM
IN-SERVICE OUTBOARD MOTORS
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
-------
EPA-670/2-74-092
December 1974
CRANKCASE DRAINAGE FROM
IN-SERVICE OUTBOARD MOTORS
By
Charles T. Hare
Karl J. Springer
Southwest Research Institute
Department of Emissions Research
San Antonio, Texas 78284
Contract No. EHS 70-108
Program Element 1BB038
Project Officer
Thomas J. Padden
Office of Research and Development
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D. C. 20460
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CINCINNATI, OHIO 45268
-------
REVIEW NOTICE
The National Environmental Research Center --
Cincinnati has reviewed this report and approved its
publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U. S.
Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorse-
ment or recommendation for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
Man and his environment must be protected from
the adverse effects of pesticides, radiation, noise and
other forms of pollution, and the unwise management of
solid waste. Efforts to protect the environment require
a focus that recognizes the interplay between the com-
ponents of our physical environment--air, water, and land.
The National Environmental Research Centers provide this
multidisciplinary focus through programs engaged in
• studies on the effects of environmental
contaminants on man and the biosphere, and
• a search for ways to prevent contamination
and to recycle valuable resources.
The research reported here provides data on which
estimates of total outboard motor crankcase drainage could
be based. Data available prior to this study were inadequate
for such estimates. The estimates are needed as back-
ground information for other EPA studies dealing with effects
of outboard motors on the aquatic environment.
A. W. Breidenbach, Ph.D.
Director
National Environmental
Research Center, Cincinnati
111
-------
ABSTRACT
Crankcase drainage from 35 outboard motors was measured during
normal operation on two lakes in the San Antonio area. The motors
included a variety of sizes and brand names, and they were tested
under prolonged constant-speed conditions as well as cyclic speed
conditions designed to simulate user operation in the field. Four
engines of the same group were also tested with a drainage inter-
cepting and recirculating device.
Drainage was measured by both mass and volume, and results were
also computed in mass per unit time (g/hr) and percentage of fuel
consumed by weight and by volume. Analysis of some fuel samples
was conducted by gas chromatograph, including a few in which drainage
was mixed with fuel by the recirculating device mentioned above. Photo-
graphic documentation of the test engines, the drainage systems, and
test/measurement techniques was also obtained.
Based on measurements obtained during this study and estimations on
the current outboard motor population, a range for the national total
crankcase drainage emissions was estimated. It was also found that the
major causes of variation in drainage rates were engine type, engine
operating speed, and differences from one engine to another of the same
type' (or a similar type).
This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of Research Contract
EHS 70-108, under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and Development.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Foreword 11X
Abstract iv
List of Figures vi
List of Tables x
Acknowledgements xii
Sections
I Conclusions and Recommendations 1
II Introduction 4
III Experimental Methods and Equipment 9
IV Acquisition of Drainage Data in the Field 18
V Crankcase Drainage Results 32
VI Results of Tests Using a Drainage Interception/
Recirculation Device 44
VII Estimate of (Quantitative) National Impact of Outboard
Motor Crankcase Drainage Emissions 56
VHI References 65
IX Appendix A - Comprehensive Test Data 68
X Appendix B - Photographs of Test Engines 104
XI Appendix C - Statistical Calculations 113
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Simplified schematic section of a 2-stroke
cycle gasoline engine 5
2 Insulated container for sample bottle and water
17
bath used during tests x '
3 Engine undergoing drainage test, showing drainage
tube, pre-weighed fuel cans, and tachometer (on seat) 17
4 First view of Institute pond used for small motor tests 19
5 Second view of Institute pond used for small motor tests 19
6 Lower end of Medina Lake viewed from private boat-launch
area *9
7a Schematic section of typical drain system 20
7b Schematic section of drain system modified for mea-
surements 20
8 Installation of tachometer leads and special plate for re-
routing of crankcase drainage, engine 1 21
9 (Top to bottom) crankcase relief valve cover plate, gasket,
and reed plate similar to those widely used on OMC engines 21
10 Inside faces of same parts shown in Figure 9 21
11 Modified reed plate used to extract drainage from OMC
15 hp and 18 hp motors (engines 2 and 5) 21
12 Front face of crankcase half, engine 2, showing normal
crankcase drainage channel 23
13 Drainage re-routing system typical of those used on 4- and 23
6-cylinder Mercury motors (engine 14 shown)
14 Schematic of drain system, Mercury 6-cylinder motor 23
VI
-------
FIGURES
NO. Paee
15 Crankcase drain tube for engine 6, plus (trans-
parent) collection tube and gas return tube 23
16 Engine 10 (OMC V-4) partially disassembled,
showing drainage reed valves below ports in reed
block (left) and stock inlet manifold (lower right) 24
17 Modified OMC V-4 inlet manifold, showing blocked
drain channel, two drain holes, and one return hole 24
18 Outside of modified OMC V-4 inlet manifold, showing
drain tubes (left and right), gas return tube (center),
and blocked manifold pressure tap (appears white, left) 24
19 Modified inlet manifold installed on engine 10, showing
routing of drain and return tubes (two drain tubes join
at the tee just inside motor cover) 24
20 Modified and stock crankcase bleed valve plates for
a 1970 Chrysler 5 hp outboard 26
21 Mounting position for crankcase bleed valve plate on a
Chrysler 5 hp outboard 26
22 Modified crankcase bleed valve plate installed on a
Chrysler 5 hp outboard 26
23 Modified inlet manifold moved back on engine 24 to
show check valve and blocked passages 27
24 Modified inlet manifold used for tests on engines 24
and 27 2?
25 Modified inlet manifold installed on engine 24 27
26 Modified inlet manifold used for tests on engine 26,
outside view
27 Modified inlet manifold used for tests on engine 26,
.-, • 28
inside view
vii
-------
FIGURES
No.
28 Front face of inlet reed plate, engine 26 28
29 Bottom surface of powerhead, engine 29, showing
crankcase and check valve 28
30 Connector added to check valve on engine 29 for
acquisition of sample 28
31 Crankcase drainage interception/recirculation
device disassembled 30
32 Crankcase drainage interception/recirculation device
as installed on a small boat 30
33 Crankcase drainage interception/recirculation device
installed (temporarily) on a larger boat 30
34 Average crankcase drainage (mass rates) for six engine
groups, during cycles and as functions of engine speed 39
35 Average crankcase drainage (weight percent of fuel) for
seven engine groups, during cycles and as functions of
engine speed 40
36 Typical sample from engine 9 showing water layer under
drainage 42
37 Drainage samples from motor no. 25 showing water
layers under fuel-based material 42
38 Drainage samples from engine 29 showing water layers
under fuel-based material 42
39 Stationary tank test of Mercury 6 hp motor with inter-
ception/recirculation device 47
40 Drainage interception/recirculation device after about
one hour of operation
41 Device after about 1.5 hours of operation 47
viii
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
42 Drainage interception/ re circulation device after
about five hours of operation on unit 29 48
43 Device after five hours 43 minutes of operation (end
of test) on engine 29 48
44 Fuel samples taken from line downstream of re-
circulation device for engine 29 (sampling times
shown in Table 10) 48
45 Installation of interception/recirculation device for
operation of engine 18 51
46 Valve system used to switch between stock and device-
equipped configurations for engine 18 51
47 Fuel samples taken from line downstream of recircu-
lating device for engine 18 (sampling times shown in
Table 11) 51
48 Chromatogram (tracing) of outboard fuel and fuel mixed
with drainage 54
ix
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Crankcase Drainage Data From Other Investigations 7
2 Outboard Motor Usage Survey Data From OMC*19' 10
3a Outboard Motor Usage Survey Data Averaged Over
Motor Size Ranges, First Part of Survey Only^1^) 11
3b Outboard Motor Usage Survey Data Averaged Over
Motor Size Ranges, Entire Survey^ ' 11
4a Test Conditions Derived From First Part of OMC
Usage Survey Data--Used for Test Engines 2-9 13
4b Test Conditions Derived From Entire OMC Usage
Survey Data- -Used for Test Engines 1, 10-35 13
5 Outboard Motor Specifications and Operating Speeds 15
6 Distribution of Test Engines by Manufacturer and Size 14
7 Summary of Operating Condition of Test Engines 32
8 Crankcase Drainage From Test Engines in g/hr 34
9 Crankcase Drainage From Test Engines in Weight
Percent of Fuel Consumed 36
10 Test Schedule for Engine 29 (With and Without Inter-
ception/Recirculation) Device 46
11 Test Schedule for Engine 18 (With and Without Re-
circulating Device) 50
12 Mass Density and Light Transmittance of Fuel Samples
From Tests Involving a Drainage Recirculation Device 53
13 Boiling Ranges of the Outboard Gasoline and One of the
Oils Used in the Subject Study 55
-------
TABLES
No.
Page
14 Composite Fuel Consumption and Drainage Rates for
Test Engines Assuming Equal Time in Each Steady-
State Mode 57
15 Determination of 95% Confidence Limits on Mean
Drainage for OMC and Non-OMC Populations 59
16 Calculation of Outboard Motor Fuel Consumption
(Based on 1971 Motor Population) 60
17 Summary of Estimated Outboard Motor Population
by Power Category and Age, End of 1971 61
18 Estimates of Total Annual Outboard Motor Crankcase
Drainage Emissions and Percentages of Fuel Consumed 63
xi
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This project was conducted at Southwest Research Institute by
Charles T. Hare, under the management of Karl J. Springer,
Director of the Department of Emissions Research.
Support of the project by the Environmental Protection Agency
and the technical assistance of Dr. Thomas J. Padden, Project
Officer, are greatly appreciated.
The experimental work was conducted on the Institute grounds
and at nearby Medina Lake. Field work was performed by
Nathan Reeh, John T. Jack, Joyce Winfield, Del Ray O'Neill,
and Jimmie Chessher.
xii
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Outboard motors with overboard drains have not been produced since 1971.
The following conclusions are applicable only to drain type outboard motors
produced prior to 1971. All outboard motors manufactured after 1971 are drain-
less so total drainage emitted will decrease slowly as older engines are retired
from service. Outboards are very rugged, however, so it is expected that drained
engines will be operating in significant numbers for many years to come.
2, Crankcase drainage rates varied considerably from one engine type to an-
other, and also between identical or similar engines.
3. Drainage rates generally varied inversely with engine speed, and drainage
as a percentage of fuel used also generally varied inversely with engine speed.
4. Ignition tuning did not appear to affect drainage rate significantly, but
carburetor adjustments seemed to have a measurable effect.
5. As classified by crankcase drainage characteristics, the total engine
population is (statistically) two separate populations, an Outboard Marine
Corporation (OMC) group and a "non-OMC" group.
6. Based on the major assumptions: (1) that the engines tested in this study
are a valid sample of the total outboard population, (2) that outboards operate
50 hours per year, (3) that outboards spend equal time in the five steady-state
sampling conditions employed for this study, (4) that OMC and non-OMC populations
are statistically separate, (5) that 55 percent of engines in operation are of
OMC manufacture, and (6) that fuel density is 0.87 times drainage density; the
following can be deduced for drained engines:
(a) Drained engines consume about 600 million gallons of fuel per year.
(b) The estimated OMC population average crankcase drainage is between
3.19 and 7.51 percent by weight of fuel consumed.
-------
(c) The estimated non-OMC population average crankcase drainage is be-
tween 0 and 2.76 percent of fuel by weight.
(d) The estimated average drainage of the total population of drained
engines is between 1.8 and 5.4 percent of fuel consumption by weight.
(e) The CMC population emits between 9.2 and 22 million gallons of
drainage per year; the non-OMC population emits between 0 and 6.5
million gallons; and total drainage is between 9.2 and 28 million
gallons per year.
(f) At speeds of 1500 rpm and lower, it can be stated with 95 percent
confidence that the OMC population average crankcase drainage is between
11 and 23 percent of fuel consumed by weight. The corresponding limits
for the non-OMC population are 1.4 and 4.6 percent.
(g) At speeds of 1500 rpm and lower, it is estimated that drainage
from the OMC population totals between 6.4 and 13 million gallons;
that drainage from the non-OMC population is between 0.5 and 1.8
million gallons; and that one-half to three-fourths of total annual
drainage occurs at engine speeds of 1500 rpm and lower.
7. For the "non-OMC" engines tested in this study, the range at high speed
was from amounts too small to measure (under 0.1 percent) to over 8 percent,
with a mean of about 0.8 percent. Only one engine had drainage at high speed
which was over 0.2 percent, so the median (0.066 percent) probably character-
izes the central tendency better than the mean. The range of drainage at
idle (in weight percent of fuel consumed) was from under 0.3 percent to almost
20 percent, with an arithmetic mean of about 7 percent.
8. For the OMC engines in this study, the range of drainage at high speed
was from under 0.3 percent to about 6 percent, with a mean of about 2 per-
*
The results of this study are not pertinent to outboard motors produced
since 1971.
-------
cent. The range of drainage at idle (expressed as weight percent of fuel
consumed) was from under 1 percent to over 42 percent. One half the engines
had drainage of 21 percent or greater, with an arithmetic mean of about 20
percent.
9. In assessing potential for environmental impact on a body of water, the
overall percentage based on the assumed usage cycle is not adequate. Some
bodies of water, for instance, may be populated almost exclusively by non-OMC
engines; while others may have the opposite situation. A given body of water
may also be subject to something other than the "average" drainage because
engines are run mostly at low speeds in that area (places such as inlets,
marinas, and troll-fishing locations).
10. At least one device is available commercially which will intercept drain-
age, and a model which recycled the intercepted drainage was given a limited
test. Analysis of fuel mixed with drainage indicates that it contains a higher
percentage of heavier fuel components than fresh gasoline does. The tests were
not extensive enough to determine whether or not the drainage recycling process
causes any change in engine performance.
11. In order to make the best usage of the drainage data, it would be nec-
essary that a boat usage survey be conducted to supplant the usage assumptions
used in this report. Such a survey should be designed to gather time-in-mode
data on a variety of boats (perhaps 1000 or more) distributed all over the
country, as well as total operating time data.
12. Drainage data acquired during this study and similar information from
other research efforts are probably adequate for estimating drainage from
engines in service. No further testing specifically for drainage quantity
is recommended.
13. More extensive evaluations of commercially-available drainage interception/
recirculation devices could be made.
-------
SECTION II
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this research project was to determine the amount of
crankcase drainage emissions from a number of outboard motors and
to estimate the national total of such emissions. Thirty-five motors
were tested. They were drawn from the population in service in the
San Antonio area, and care was taken to obtain data during conditions
as representative of user operation as possible. Motors tested were
all water-cooled and represented all the major manufacturers. Testing
was conducted in or near San Antonio, with the smaller motors being
operated on the contractor's small lake and the larger ones on Medina
Lake (about 30 miles west of San Antonio).
Two-stroke cycle outboard engines (which do not have oil injection
systems) rely on oil pre-mixed with their fuel supplies for lubrication.
Proper lubrication of moving parts requires that some condensation of
gasoline/oil vapors must occur in the crankcase, and the liquids con-
densing tend to accumulate after some period of time unless the en-
trance to one of the transfer passages is in the lowest part of the crank-
case. An accumulation of these liquid materials can cause poor perfor-
mance or a condition called "hydraulic lock", in which the engine would
be inoperative and might be damaged (hydraulic lock prevents the pistons
from moving)., Some new engine designs incorporate the low transfer
passage design, and the remaining new engines use an internal recir-
culating system to collect the accumulated liquids and introduce them
directly into the cylinder to be vaporized and burned. This project,
however, concerns itself primarily with engines manufactured between
the early 1950's and mid-1971 which disposed of liquid drainage by
allowing it to mix with the exhaust stream and be released into the water.
Figure 1 is a simplified schematic diagram of a 2-stroke gasoline engine
(reed-valve type) which shows how the crankcase drainage systems of
the older engines operate. Figure la shows the engine during the com-
pression stroke, and at the same time the crankcase is in its intake
phase, with the inlet reed valve open and the drain check valve closed.
Figure Ib shows the engine during the power stroke, and the crankcase
is in its compression phase, with the inlet reed valve closed and the
drain check valve open. Since both the inlet reed valve and the drainage
check valve are pressure-actuated, flow into and out of the crankcase
depends on crankcase pressure. When crankcase pressure is low (during
compression stroke), mixture is inducted into the crankcase and drainage
can collect over the check valve. When crankcase pressure is high
-------
inlet
reed
valve
cylinder phase: compression
crankcase phase: intake
inlet reed valve: open
drain check valve: closed
Figure la
cylinder phase: power
crankcase phase: compression
inlet reed valve: closed
drain check valve: open
Figure Ib
Figure 1. Simplified schematic section of
a 2-stroke cycle gasoline engine
-------
(power stroke), liquid and some gaseous materials are forced from
the crankcase through the check valve. The inlet reed valve is rela-
tively large with a typical diameter of 1 inch (25mm); and it requires
only a small pressure differential to be opened. The check valve is
smaller, however, with a typical diameter of 0. 1 inch (2. 5mm); and
it requires a rather high pressure differential for opening. These
valve characteristics mean that relatively large gas/vapor flows can
be accomodated by the inlet reed valve but that only smaller(by volume)
flows of liquid (plus some gases and vapors) can pass through the
drainage check valve.
Design of drainage systems and their physical layouts varied consid-
erably over the range of engine types tested. The Mercury and Chyrsler
engines which were tested incorporated small check valves for drainage
control, and the OMC engines used small leaf (or reed) valves. Location
and diameter of the drainage passages also varied from engine to engine.
Most of the OMC systems utilized internal passages with external access
to the check valves themselves for inspection or cleaning. Chrysler and
Mercury systems were generally a mixture of internal passages and ex-
ternal lines. The design of the systems used on the test engines will be
documented in detail in a later section of this report.
This study was not the first work on drainage emissions from outboards,
so it is appropriate to review at this point materials available in the
literatureO-^)* and try to resolve some of the apparent lack of agree-
ment in the previous work (data tabulated in Table 1).
References 1 through 6 contain 48 usable drainage data points on 17
outboard motors, while other reports and articles available (<~1°) con-
tain only restatements of data published elsewhere or information which
does not bear directly on drainage quantity. The usable data from other
sources are shown in Table 1, and it should be noted that three of the
engines were tested by engine manufacturers (total of 18 data points) and
the remainder (14 engines, 30 data points) by other agencies or groups.
Drainage data for Chrysler and Mercury outboards listed in Table 1 agree
very well with the experimental results of this study. Data on drainage
from OMC engines (Johnson, Evinrude, and Gale) shown in Table 1 gen-
erally indicate higher values than the engines tested in this study. No
information is available to assess the reasons for these differences.
The data in Table 1 exhibit very strong variation with engine speed and
*Superscript numbers in parentheses refer to list of References at
end of report.
-------
Table 1. CRANKCASE DRAINAGE DATA FROM OTHER INVESTIGATIONS
Data
ref.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Engine
1965 Chrys. 9.2 hp
1965 - 50 hp
1961 Evin. 60 hp
1963 Johns. 5 hp
1965 Johns. 33 hp
1964 Johns. 64 hp
1959 Evin. 50 hp
1961 Gale 40 hp
1967 Merc. 95 hp
1966 Merc. 50 hp
1959 Merc. 40 hp
1968 Merc. 125 hp
Rpm
800
1000
1250
2000
2500
3000
4000
4800
800
1000
1250
1500
3000
5000
1000
2000
4000
1500
1500
1500
1500
1500
600
600
600
600
Drain
%
20.
19.
21.
18.
14.
9.
5.
3.
14.
25.
15.
14.
0.5
0.5
55.6
53.8
7.7
1.6
31. Z
54.7
53.1
31.2
2.3
1.6
1.6
2.0
Data
ref.
2
3
4
5
6
Engine
Johns. 33 hp
Merc 50 hp
1971 Chrys 35 hp
(avg. 2 runs)
Chrys. 35 hp
(avg. 2 runs)
Evin. 33 hp
(avg. 2 runs)
Rpm
1000
2000
3000
750
1000
2000
3000
4000
750
1000
2000
3000
4000
1000
1500
2000
3000
4000
1000
2000
2500
3000
Drain
%
40.8
39.9
28.3
4.5
4.0
0.6
0.04
0.03
24.0
20.6
3.6
0.4
0.4
11.0
8.2
3.4
0.7
1.0
28.3
6.6
7.4
3.0
-------
from engine to engine, and this variation has previously caused doubts
as to validity of the whole range of data. Although no specific analysis
of the Table 1 data has been made, the existence of variation due to the
same parameters has been documented by this study. This finding lends
more credibility to previously-obtained data, although documentation of
many previous tests is not adequate for assessing the validity of specific
data points. If the data discussed in this section say anything strongly,
it is that simplistic generalizations (such as using one data point to pro-
ject a nationwide total for drainage emissions) about drainage rates
must be regarded with suspicion.
-------
SECTION III
EXPERIMENTAL, METHODS AND EQUIPMENT
Design of the test procedure used in this project required simulation
of user operation of outboards, development of sample acquisition and
handling methods, and attention to calculation methods and presentation
of data. It was decided that the tests would include steady-state motor
operation at idle, maximum or rated speed, and several intermediate
speeds, as well as cyclic motor operation. It was also decided that
tests would be conducted both before and after tuning the engine to de-
termine the effect of tuning on drainage. Data acquired during steady-
state operation proved useful in showing the effect of engine speed on
drainage rate, while those obtained during cyclic operation probably
related more closely to drainage which occurred from engines used to
gather time-in-mode data. Data obtained during various steady-state
conditions can also be weighted according to time-in-mode data to cal-
culate cycle composite drainage.
The only hard data available on outboard motor usage are in the form
of survey data compiled by Outboard Marine Corporation^9, 20)% The
first part of this survey was conducted in 19711*°' and the second part
in 1972(20). The second part of the data was received by SwRI in Sep-
tember of 1972, after some of the outboards had already been tested
under the subject program. When the second part of the data was re-
ceived, the operating schedule for the outboard testing was consequently
revised somewhat. The engines tested using the first operating schedule
included Numbers 2 through 9, and all the others (1, 10 through 35) were
tested using the second operating schedule. Engine Number 1 was re-
tested late in the program (after use of the second operating schedule had
begun) because it was discovered that the crankcase relief valve cover
plate gasket had been defective, causing erroneous results for engine 1
as first operated.
The motor usage survey data as supplied by OMC are given in Table 2,
including both parts mentioned above. To avoid using a number of engine
test conditions corresponding to the intervals used in the OMC data (11
intervals), it was considered advantageous to regroup the percentages on
larger intervals. Table 3 shows averages of the OMC data (both the first
part alone and the whole survey) according to engine size categories, and
five test conditions were finally decided upon. Two of the test conditions
had already been chosen, namely, normal idle and maximum rpm (or
manufacturer's rated rpm, if lower). The other three conditions were to
fall between idle and maximum rpm, and were to be as representative of
-------
Table 2. OUTBOARD MOTOR USAGE SURVEY DATA FROM OMC^19' *
Unit
Aa
Ba
Ca
Da
E
F
G
Ha
I
J
K
Size, hp
125
100
100
55
(Dual)
50
50
(Dual)
40
(Dual)
9.5
9.5
9.5
9.5
Boat
Length, ft
17
17
18
23
16
20
16
16
14
14
14
Type
Runabout
Runabout
Runabout
Cruiser
Runabout
Cruiser
Runabout
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Fishing
Test
hours
16.72
11.56
48.94
24.30
14.24
13.56
14.44
21.56
14.24
10.24
10.16
Total all motors 199.96
Percent operating time in rpm interval (rpm in hundreds)
5-
10
34
32
24
4
13
5
3
6
12
4
9
10-
15
12
20
14
19
19
12
13
13
11
11
11
15-
20
3
7
4
15
5
11
12
10
7
12
9
20-
25
5
3
2
5
10
5
7
6
9
19
4
25-
30
6
1
1
2
5
5
3
6
3
11
4
30-
35
14
7
4
2
10
12
13
9
9
25
9
35-
40
12
13
11
8
7
24
13
8
5
15
22
40-
45
10
11
33
37
10
22
19
19
25
3
19
45-
50
3
4
5
8
5
2
12
18
15
0
12
50-
55
1
2
2
0
11
1
5
5
4
__b
"b
55-
60
Q
IJi
"b
-_b
1^^
1
"b
"b
Q
O
tJ
a Motors included in first part of survey, hours total 123. 08.
b Motor would not attain this rpm due to boat load, propeller, etc.
-------
Table 3a. OUTBOARD MOTOR USAGE SURVEY DATA AVERAGED
OVER MOTOR SIZE RANGES, FIRST PART OF SURVEY ONLY(1
-------
normal operating conditions as possible.
Looking at the data in Table 3a, it was assumed that operation under
1000 rpm represented idle and that operation over 5000 rpm repre-
sented full speed. The remainder of the speed range was divided into
three parts for large engines: 1000-2000 rpm, 2000-3500 rpm, and
3500-5000 rpm. These ranges were characterized by their medians
(1500, 2750, and 4250 rpm, respectively); and the medians were termed
"low speed", "low mid-speed", and "high mid-speed", respectively.
For small engines, the ranges were 1000-2000, 2000-4000, and 4000-
5000 rpm. These ranges were also characterized by their medians
(1500, 3000, and 4500 rpm, respectively), and the terms in which these
speeds were stated were the same as for the larger engines. Low speed
was considered to be typical of trolling and maneuvering in small boats
and typical of maneuvering in larger boats. The mid-speeds were con-
sidered typical of maneuvering and cruising for small boats and typical of
a transition speed (not much used) and cruising or skiing for larger boats.
Table 4a shows the operating conditions and time-based weighting factors
developed from data given in Table 3a. Note that data for the 9. 5 hp engine
were used to derive the conditions for the "Under 20 hp" category and
that the average of data for the 9. 5 hp engines and the "50 hp and over"
group was used for engines in the "20-45 hp" category (in lieu of appli-
cable data).
The data in Table 3b were treated very much like those in Table 3a to
arrive at the second set of operating conditions. Examining the survey
data as a whole, however, indicated that changes should be made as shown
in Table 4b. The major changes from 4a to 4b are in the greater amount
of time at "high speed" and "low mid-speed", and the smaller time at
"high mid-speed". This change in the distribution of operating time came
about as a result of the additional data collected in the second part of the
usage survey. Data for the "100 hp and Over" column of Table 3b were
used to develop data in the corresponding column of Table 4b, and the per-
centages in the last column of Table 3b were used to develop the figures
in the "Under 20 hp" column of Table 4b. Data in the "50-55 hp" column
of Table 3b were used to compute the percentages in the "50-95 hp" column
of Table 4b, and the averages of data in the "50-55 hp" and "9. 5 hp" columns
of Table 3b were used to derive values in the "20-45 hp" column of Table 4b.
Data from the "40 hp" column of Table 3b were not used, but their use
would have tended only to reduce "idle" percentage and increase "high speed"
percentage slightly in the "20-45 hp" category. The time percentages were
used to derive 20-minute test "cycles" having nine modes (modes 1 and 9 at
"idle", 2 and 8 at "low speed", 3 and 7 at "low mid-speed", 4 and 6 at "high
mid-speed", and 5 at "high speed"), with the total length of time at each
12
-------
Table 4a. TEST CONDITIONS DERIVED FROM FIRST PART
OF OMC USAGE SURVEY DATA--USED FOR TEST ENGINES 2-9
Condition
Idle
Low speed
Low mid.
High mid.
High speed
Engines 50 hp and over
Speeds
Idle
1500
2750
4250
a
% of time
22
22
11
44
1
Engines 20-45 hp
Speeds
Idle
1500
3000
4500
a
% of time
14
22
16
44
4
Engines under 20 hp
Speeds
Idle
1500
3000
4500
a
% of time
6
22
21
45
6
aMiddle of rated speed range for engines 20 hp and over, top of rated
speed range for engines under 20 hp.
Table 4b. TEST CONDITIONS DERIVED FROM ENTIRE OMC
USAGE SURVEY DAT A--USED FOR TEST ENGINES 1, 10-35
Condition
Idle
Low speed
Low mid.
High mid.
High speed
Speed
Idle
1500
2750
4000
a
Percent of operating time at condition
for engine category
100 hp and over
30
20
14
30
6
50-95 hp
7
27
19
36
11
20-45 hp
8
24
24
32
12
Under 20 hp
8
22
29
28
13
aMiddle of rated speed range for engines 20 hp and over, top of rated
speed range for engines under 20 hp.
13
-------
condition defined by the percentages given in Table 4 and the 20-minute
cycle length. These cycles did not necessarily represent average motor
operation in the field, but they were based on the limited amount of
usage data currently available.
Some variations in the designated speeds occurred for several engines
due to differences in idle speeds, differences in maximum speeds which
could be obtained, and so forth. In order to document the actual speeds
at which each engine was run, Table 5 includes these data as well as
model year, manufacturer, and rated horsepower for each motor tested.
An explanation is in order on engines designated 15 and 15a. Engine 15
performed well in testing, but after run 12 it appeared to overheat. The
problem was a burned head gasket, which was the first visible sign of
block erosion between the cylinder liners on the right bank. The entire
powerhead was replaced with a new unit.for a 1968 Evinrude 65 hp motor;
and due to this extensive repair, the rebuilt unit was considered as a
separate engine for analysis purposes. Engines 24 and 27 were converted
from drainless, to drained configuration for test purposes, because at
that time, difficulty was being experienced in obtaining small motors
for tests. Engines 30 and 31 were converted from drainless to drained
configuration prior to their receipt by SwRI. The representativeness of
these converted engines in describing drainage from the population of
engines in the field will be discussed in a later section of this report.
One of the goals of this project was to represent the major brands and
models of engines in use as well as possible, and the data presented in
Table 6 give some indication of the degree to which this goal was achieved.
The group of test engines is probably weighted somewhat more heavily
toward OMC motors than is the case with the national motor population,
but this lack of agreement reflects the availability situation in the San
Table 6. DISTRIBUTION OF TEST ENGINES
BY MANUFACTURER AND SIZE
Hp range
0-18
20-44.9
45 & up
Subtotals
Chrysler1
1
1
4
6
Mercury
2
0
5
7
OMC
12
6
5b
23
Subtotals
15
7
14
Total 36
alncludes two similar "Sea King" engines marketed by Montgomery Ward.
"Includes engines 15 and 15a as separate engines.
14
-------
Table 5. OUTBOARD MOTOR SPECIFICATIONS AND OPERATING SPEEDS
Test engine
No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
15AC
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24a
25
26
27a
28
29
30a
3la
32
33
34
35
Description
1965 Johnson 9.5 hp
I960 Evinrude 18 hp
1966 Johnson 33 hp
1965 Mercury 65 hp
1954 Evinrude 15 hp
1965 Sea King 50 hp
1959 Mercury 45 hp
1968 Johnson 40 hp
1961 Johnson 40 hp
1967 Evinrude 80 hp
1971 Chrysler 55 hp
1953 Johnson 10 hp
1967 Johnson 33 hp
1968 Mercury 95 hp
1963 Gale 60 hp
1968 Evinrude 65 hp
1964 Mercury 65 hp
1963 Mercury 85 hp
1968 Evinrude 85 hp
1971 Chrysler 45 hp
1968 Sea King 45 hp
1953 Johnson 25 hp
I960 Johnson 75 hp
1970 Chrysler 5 hp
1972 Evinrude 9.5 hp
1971 Johnson 9.5 hp
1970 Johnson 6 hp
1972 Johnson 9.5 hp
1971 Evinrude 9.5 hp
1967 Mercury 6 hp
1971 Mercury 9.8 hp
1972 Evinrude 1 8 hp
1971 Chrysler 35 hp
1966 Johnson 40 hp
1971 Evinrude 9.5 hp
1964 Evinrude 9. 5 hp
Engine r
1 & 9
(Idle)
1000
800
700
650
1000
900
1000
800
1000
900
900
1000
800
900
1000
1000
1000
900
800
800
900
850
1000
900
1000
900
1100
1000
1000
1000
700
1000
1000
1000
900
900
2 & 8
(Low)
1500
4
1500
m in cycle modes (speeds)
3 & 7
(Low
mid. )
2750
3000
3000
2750
3000
2750
2750
2750
3000
2750
t
•
2750
4 & 5
(High mid. )
4000
4000
4500
4250
4000
4250
4250
4300
4500
4000
f
t
4000
3500/3700b
4000
4000
4000
3900
3800/3900°
4000
,
4000
5
(High)
4700
4500
4800
4250
4500
4750
5000
4300
5000
5000
4600
4500
4500/4800b
5000
5000
5000
4400/5000b
5000
5000
4450
4750
3500/3700b
4200/5000°
4400
4600
3900
3800/3900°
4000
4500
5400
4600/4500°
5000
4750
4500
4250
4350
^Originally drainless engine converted to drained configuration for tests.
b Maximum rpm before/after tuning.
c Rebuilt version of Engine 15 (powerhead).
15
-------
Antonio area. The only survey data on engine population by manufacturer
which seems to be available currently'^"' shows percentages by manu-
facturer for a sample of owners at Lake George, New York. These data
show 56 percent for OMC, 25 percent for Mercury, and 15 percent for
Chrysler, as compared to the sample tested in this program with 17 per-
cent Chrysler, 19 percent Mercury, and 64 percent OMC. With proper
weighting of numbers of engines sampled, representing an assumed pop-
ulation distribution of motors should not be a problem. Another part of
the distribution problem, of course, is that 2-cylinder Mercury engines
(drained type) cannot be sampled without rather extensive engine disas-
sembly and modification. Engine 29 was purchased by SwRI so these
steps could be performed without asking too much of a private owner, and
the modification will be detailed in Section IV.
Aside from engine parts modified to permit collection of drainage samples
(which will be discussed in Section IV), very few major items of equip-
ment were needed for this project. Several of the necessary equipment
items are shown in Figures 2 and 3. Figure 2 shows the insulated con-
tainer used for holding a sample bottle in the water bath while samples
were being taken (the sample bottles used were of 125 ml, 250 ml, or
500 ml capacity depending on the engine and condition being sampled).
Figure 3 shows several pre-weighed fuel cans on the floor of the boat and
the tachometer on the seat between the operator's knees. This tachometer
operated by integrating pulses from one spark plug, which were coupled
to the meter circuitry inductively through a cable flexible enough to pass
between the motor housing and the rubber weatherstrip on the top motor
cover. Other necessary items were stopwatches for timing the runs,
scales for weighing fuel cans before and after runs to determine fuel
usage, and a laboratory scale for weighing sample bottles before and
after sample collection.
The tuning which was performed on the test engines consisted of new
spark plugs in all cases, check and replacement of points where neces-
sary, check and adjustment of timing if necessary, and check and adjust-
ment of carburetor jet settings where necessary. Consequently, a sub-
stantial stock of spark plugs and other small parts was consumed during
the course of the project. The other major items consumed were tubing
used for sample lines, outboard motor oil, and gasoline. The oils were
all "BIA Certified Service TC-W" with brand name corresponding to the
engine under test, and they were mixed with fresh gasoline in concentrations
as recommended by the engine manufacturers (see data sheets, Appendix A).
The gasoline used was a leaded commercial regular grade ("Good Gulf"),
stored in sealed 55-gallon drums, and was as uniform in specifications as
possible to prevent variation in drainage due to fuel composition.
16
-------
Figure 2. Insulated container for sample bottle
and water bath used during tests
Figure 3. Engine undergoing drainage test, showing
drainage tube, pre-weighed fuel cans,
and tachometer (on seat)
17
-------
SECTION IV
ACQUISITION OF DRAINAGE DATA IN THE FIELD
Crankcase drainage data were acquired on the test engines during
operation at one of two possible field locations. Most of the tests on
small motors were conducted on a small pond located within the In-
stitute grounds, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. This pond was too small
to operate craft powered by engines over 10 hp, so the tests of larger
motors were conducted at Medina Lake, about 30 miles west of San
Antonio. The lower end of Medina Lake is shown in Figure 6.
Most of the experimental work performed on this project occurred
between August 1 and December 31, 1972 and between October 15 and
December 15, 1973. The work proceeded rather slowly at first in
1972, while procedures were still being ironed out, but accelerated
to the point at which three to four engines were being tested per week.
Toward the end of both the 1972 and 1973 programs, work slowed again
due to undesirable weather and difficulty in acquiring motors con-
sidered necessary to filling out the test group.
One of the challenges of the project was locating the external access
points of various drainage systems, and modifying motor parts to
permit acquisition of samples without changing the amounts of drainage
the engines normally emitted. A schematic of a typical drain system
is shown in Figure 7a. Some engines used check valves, while others
used small reed valves; but the "one way" operation was essentially
the same. Instead of a cover plate, several engines had an external
line running from the check valve to the passage leading into the motor
leg. Samples were acquired from these engines by disconnecting the
line at one end and extending the line to the sample bottle, while ex-
tending a line from the other sample bottle tube back to the point where
the original drain line had been disconnected. The sample bottle/water
bath and a modified cover plate are shown schematically in Figure 7b.
The vapor return line was employed on as many engines as possible to
keep the pressure against which the drainage flowed as much like the
real (unmodified) situation as possible, but vapors were simply vented
to the atmosphere from the sample bottle for a few engines (24, 26, 27
and 29).
In total, nine distinct types of modifications were used to acquire drain-
age samples, beginning with a modification of the diamond-shaped OMC
cover plate shown in Figures 8 through 10. Figure 8 shows the modi-
fied plate installed on Engine Number 1, Figure 9 shows the outside
18
-------
*
Figure 4. First view of Institute
pond used for small motor tests
Figure 5. Second view of Institute
pond used for small motor tests
Figure 6. Lower end of Medina Lake viewed
fro-n private boat-launch area
19
-------
cover plate
check valve
drainage from
:crankcase
to ^notjor leg
.... .L..U _.|_..
i
modified cover plat
from
crankcase
to rrtotor leg
{exhaust)
:
drainage liquid.
in sample bottle
, i
'• I \
•
•
Figure -^gj- Schematic; section of drain fystem modified for measurerhents
:
i -,—
, •
.
J
-------
Figure 8. Installation of tachometer
leads and special plate for re-routing
of crankcase drainage, engine 1
Figure 9. (Top to bottom) crankcase
relief valve cover plate, gasket, and
reed plate similar to those widely
used on OMC engines
Figure 10.* Inside faces of same parts
shown in Figure 9
Figure 11. Modified reed plate used
to extract drainage from OMC 15 hp
and 18 hp motors (engines 2 and 5)
21
-------
faces of the stock drainage reed plate and cover plate, and Figure 10
shows the inside faces of the same parts. The modified cover plate
had a web added to separate the reed valves from the hole which leads
down into the motor leg, and a modified gasket was made to seal
this partition. In operation, both gaseous and liquid drainage com-
ponents were routed out of the chamber covering the drainage reed
valves to the sample bottle, and gaseous constituents were routed back
to their normal outlet. This modified plate was used to collect drainage
on Engines 1, 3, 8, 9, 12, 13, 21, 25, 28, 33, 34, and 35, which were
OMC twins.
The second type of modification involved the modified reed plate shown
in Figure 11, and it was used on Engines 2 and 5 (OMC 18 hp and 15 hp
twins, respectively). Figure 12 shows the surface on which the modi-
fied plate was mounted, and the drainage channel was blocked between
the tubes shown in Figure 11 to direct the drainage into the collection
system. The tube further to the right in Figure 11 permitted gases to
escape through the normal drain passage.
In modifying 4- and 6-cylinder Mercury engines, the external drainage
line from the upper pair (or pairs, in the case of 6-cylinder engines) of
cylinders was disconnected and extended to the sample collection system.
Another line was attached at the point where the stock line was discon-
nected to serve as a return line for gases, and a typical installation is
shown in Figure 13. The line leading from the fitting mounted on the
engine block at center is the drainage line, and the one joined to the ori-
ginal neoprene tube is the return. This system, or one similar to it,
was used for Engines 4, 7, 14, 16, and 17. The drainage point from the
lower pair of cylinders on all these Mercury engines was inaccessible,
so the measured drainage was multiplied by 2 (for 4-cylinder motors) or
1. 5 (for 6-cylinder motors) to estimate the total drainage. Figure 14
shows a schematic of the Mercury drainage systems (6-cylinder motor
shown).
The system required for the 35 to 55 hp Chrysler and Sea King motors
is shown in Figure 15. In these cases, the neoprene tube shown at
center was disconnected from the fitting directly under the rectifier
stack and then extended as shown with transparent tubing to form the
sample line. The gas return line is shown attached to the downstream
fitting mentioned above. This modification was used on Engines 6, 11,
19, 20, and 32.
The modification made to OMC V-4 engines, shown in Figures 16 through
19, involved changes to the inlet manifold. The stock manifold and the
reed block are shown in Figure 16, while Figures 17 and 18 show two
22
-------
4 I
Figure 12. Front face of crankcase
half, engine 2, showing normal
crankcase drainage channel
Figure 13. Drainage re-routing
system typical of those used on 4-
and 6-cylinder Mercury motors
(engine 14 shown)
3rd cylinder pair ~V
3rd check va.lv &
2nd cylinder pair -
2nd check valve
1st cylinder pair —
sampling point
1st check valve
(in block)
drain to motor
leg (in block)
Figure 14. Schematic of drain
system, Mercury 6-cylinder motor
r
23
Figure 15. Crankcase drain tube
for engine 6, plus (transparent)
collection tube and gas return tube
-------
Figure 16. Engine 10 (OMC V-4) par-
tially disassembled, showing drainage
reed valves below ports in reed block
(left) and stock inlet manifold (lower
right)
Figure 17. Modified OMC V-4
inlet manifold, showing blocked
drain channel, two drain holes,
and one return hole
Figure 18. Outside of modified OMC
V-4 inlet manifold, showing drain tubes
(left and right), gas return tube (center),
and blocked manifold pressure tap
(appears white, left)
Figure 19. Modified inlet manifold
installed on engine 10, showing
routing of drain and return tubes
(two drain tubes join at the tee
just inside motor cover)
24
-------
views of the revised manifold. The principle used here was again the
blocking of normal drain passages, diverting drainage into the sample
collecting system and permitting gases to escape through the return
line and into the motor leg. Figure 19 shows the installation of the
modified part as well as drainage and return lines. The modified V-4
inlet manifold was used for tests on Engines 10, 15, 15a, 18, and 22.
Another type of modification was required for Engine Z3, the only small
{under 20 hp) Chrysler motor tested. This engine used a system of two
check valves (one per cylinder) mounted in the crankcase bleed valve
cover plate as shown in Figure 20. Once again the normal drain chan-
nels were blocked to re-route sample through collection tubes to a tee,
and then on to the sample bottle. The gas return line was installed
downstream of the blocked channels, as usual. Figures 21 and 22 show
mounting position for the plate and the installation of the modified part,
respectively.
In order to test Engines 24 and 27 (1972 models), it was necessary to
convert them to a drained configuration since they were origainlly
drainless. These engines were tested only because no older engines of
the same type could be located at the time (late 1972). As discussed in
Section IV, the validity of converting drainless engines is somewhat in
doubt. The method employed was to block the channels through which
drainage was normally recycled as shown in Figure 23 and to install
the modified inlet manifold shown in Figure 24 to permit acquisition of
samples. Figure 25 shows the modified part installed, and it should be
noted that both the lines are drain lines. The complexity of the mani-
fold did not permit installation of'a gas return line, so gaseous com-
ponents of the drainage were simply vented to the atmosphere. Engines
30 and 31 were also originally drainless, and they had been modified
for acquisition of samples prior to their receipt by SwRI.
The modification required for Engine 25, an OMC 6 hp model, again was
in the inlet manifold as shown in Figures 26 through 28. Figure 26
shows the exterior of the manifold with the single drain tube, and Figure
27 shows the same part from the inside. Due to the proximity of the
drainage reed valves to the internal (downstream) drain passage, it was
impractical to use a gas return line on this engine; and gases (not li-
quid) were vented to the atmosphere from the sample bottle. Figure 28
shows the front face of the inlet reed plate of Engine 25, the surface on
which the inlet manifold was mounted.
The last engine tested in 1972 was Number 29, a Mercury 6 hp unit; and
it required more extensive disassembly before drainage could be mea-
sured than any other test engine. Figure 29 shows the bottom surface of
25
-------
Figure 20. Modified and stock crankcase bleed
valve plates for a 1970 Chrysler 5 hp outboard
Figure 21. Mounting position for
crankcas.e bleed valve plate on a
Chrysler 5 hp outboard
Figure 22. Modified crankcase
bleed valve plate installed on a
Chrysler 5 hp outboard
26
-------
Figure 23. Modified inlet manifold
moved back on engine 24 to show check
valve and blocked passages
Figure 24. Modified inlet manifold
used for tests on engines 24 and 27
Figure 25. Modified inlet manifold
installed on engine 24
Figure 26. Modified inlet manifold
used for tests on engine 26, out-
s ide view
27
-------
Figure 27C Modified inlet manifold
used for tests on engine 26", inside view
Figure 28. Front face of inlet reed
plate, engine 26
Figure 29. Bottom surface of power-
head, engine 29, showing crankshaft
and check valve
Figure 30. Connector added to
check valve on engine 29 for
acquisition of sample
28
-------
the powerhead, with the internally-splined crankshaft at center and the
drain check valve right of center (forward of the crankshaft, as assem-
bled). In normal operation, drainage simple dropped into a conical
recess surrounding the upper end of the driveshaft and was free to mix
with exhaust and cooling water below that point. The modification made
is shown in Figure 30 and consisted of sealing (with epoxy) a small
brass connector into the recess where the check valve was mounted.
The small tube was then attached to the connector and routed out of the
motor leg through a hole drilled for the purpose. No gas return line
was employed on this engine. It should be noted that the modification
described here, or some similar effort, would have been necessary for
measurement of drainage from the lower pair of cylinders on all the
other Mercury engines tested. Engine 29 was purchased by the contrac-
tor so the extensive work could be done, because it was not considered
reasonable to ask private owners for permission to do such work on their
engine s.
In addition to the drainage measurements on the entire group of test
engines, the contract included a cursory assessment of a commercially-
available drainage interception and recirculation device. This assess-
ment included brief studies of effectiveness and ease of installation, and
some tests to determine influence on engine performance. The device
is shown disassembled in Figure 31 and consists of the lower chamber
(upper left in photo), dividing plate with float valves (lower left), and
upper chamber (shown inverted at bottom right of photo). In operation,
drainage entered the upper chamber through the off-center fitting, gases
were vented to the atmosphere through the center fitting, and liquids
accumulated over the dividing plate until one (or both) of the float valves
opened. The lower chamber, which is essentially an expansion of the
stock fuel line, acts as a mixing zone for the drainage and incoming
fresh fuel. A typical permanent installation of this device is shown in
Figure 32 with a 9. 5 hp motor, and the temporary installation used for
a 40 hp motor is shown in Figure 33.
In terms of total effort expended, the crankcase drainage measurements
alone represent some 175 hours of engine operation, and evaluations of
the drainage interception/recirculation device required about another 30
hours of test time. These figures do not include performance checks,
warm-up runs, and other operations which are estimated to total perhaps
100 engine hours. Due to the small size of the pond used for the small
motor tests, boats were constrained to operate in a continuous large
circle. On Medina Lake, however, a standard test course was estab-
lished to prevent variations in engine performance due to wind direction.
This standardization was not necessary on calm days, but it was used
uniformly as a precautionary measure.
29
-------
Figure 31. Crankcase drainage inter-
ception/recirculation device disassembled
Figure 32. Crankcase drainage inter
ception/recirculation device
as installed on a small boat
Figure 33. Crankcase drainage interception/recirculation
device installed (temporarily) on a larger boat
30
-------
As additional documentation of the tests, photographs of most of the
engines were taken. These photos are included as Appendix B of this
report.
31
-------
SECTION V
CRANK CASE DRAINAGE RESULTS
The test data acquired during field work are given in Appendix A of
this report, along with some statistics calculated from the test data.
Supplementary details about the motors and boats tested (such as serial
numbers, dimensions, and names of owners) are a matter of record but
are not considered necessary for this report. Although some indication
of motor condition is provided by notes in Appendix A, a more definite
statement may be helpful. A summary of the conditions of the motors,
judged by how well they operated, is given in Table 7. Note that these
Table 7. SUMMARY OF OPERATING CONDITION OF TEST ENGINES
Condition
Good
Fair
Poor
Engine numbers
1,
20
2,
25
3, 5,
, 23,
4, 6,
, 26
7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15/15A, 17, 18, 19,
24, 27, 28, 30, 33, 34, 35
12, 21, 22, 29, 31, 32
judgements were not made by comparison to a specific set of criteria, so
they should be regarded as somewhat subjective.
In an effort to evaluate the effects of engine tuning on crankcase drainage,
it was planned to run the test motors both before and after tuning. In
fact, 26 of the 35 motors were tested before and after tuning, with the
remainder requiring tuning or repair before they would operate properly.
As a general rule, tuning consisted of a spark plug change, a check of
timing and condition of points, and test operation to determine optimum
carburetor adjustment (if different than the adjustment in "as received"
condition). Looking at the tuning changes individually, it becomes evi-
dent that the only one which should be expected to change the drainage
rate is carburetor (F/A ratio) adjustment. The other tuning operations
could be significant if they resulted in a different throttle position for
the same crankshaft speed and if this different position caused a change
in fuel/air ratio.
32
-------
Although no data are available on crankcase drainage as a function of
ambient conditions, it has been suggested that cooler air temperatures
should produce more drainage. The subject study did not address itself
to this specific point, and thus no data were acquired on any one engine
over a range of ambient conditions. Ambient temperatures during the
tests ranged from 60°F to 90°F (16°C to 32°C). Any effect air tempera-
ture may have had on the results of this study is probably masked by
engine-to-engine variations, so the matter remains undocumented.
The experimental data show that tuning caused little change in drainage,
except that due to major carburetor adjustments. For the 25 motors
tested both "as received" and "after tuning" (not including 15/15A, which
was extensively rebuilt), the drainage during cycles from 17 motors de-
creased and that from 8 motors increased after tuning. Drainage from
15 motors changed by 10 percent or more (of the initial value) during
cycles, with 9 decreases and 6 increases. Drainage during steady-state
conditions exhibited changes due to tuning which were very similar to the
changes in cycle drainage discussed above. As an average for all 25
motors tested before and after tuning, drainage decreased by about 4 per-
cent of the "as received" value when the motors were tuned. Using these
statistics as basis, it appears that engine tuning has at best only a weak
influence on drainage. Consequently, the remaining data analysis will
neglect tuning as a variable and consider all similar runs (all idles, all
cycles, etc.) together for each engine.
Summaries of the drainage data are provided in Tables 8 (in g/hr) and
9 (in weight percent of fuel consumed). Note that in these tables the
motors are listed first by groups of similar engines and then numerically.
Engines which may have been defective (drainage samples contained water
or engine ran poorly) are listed together at the ends of these tables. Note
also that all engines in a. particular group are not necessarily identical
but have at least a basic design in common. The older OMC engines which
form group 6 utilized a pressure tank in lieu of a fuel pump, and the pres-
sure tank feature may have had some influence on the amounts of drainage
emitted due to diversion of part of the gas and vapor components to the
fuel tank. Group 4 is perhaps not obviously homogeneous, but it becomes
more so by noting that the Sea King engines tested in group 4 (manufac-
tured by West Bend) bore an unmistakeable resemblance to Chrysler
engines of similar size. Whatever the reason for this commonality of
design is, it is strong enough to consider the engines as a group.
Although there is generally a great deal of variability in drainage within
engine groups, several particular situations warrant further comment.
In group 1, it appeared reasonable to include drainage from Engines 24
and 27 with the rest of the OMC 9. 5's because their average drainage
33
-------
Table 8 . CRANKCASE DRAINAGE FROM TEST ENGINES IN g/hr
Motor
group
1
2
3
4
Group
description
OMC 9.5 hp
twins
OMC V-4
engines
30 to 40 hp
OMC twins
35 to 55 hp
Chrysler and
Sea King twins
Motor
number
1
24a
27a
28
34
35
Average
10
15
ISA
18
22
Average
3
8
13
33
Average
6
11
19
20
3Z
Average
Drainage in e/hr and fuel usage in kg/hr at condition
Idle
Drain
194.
148.
626.
520.
398.
166.
342.
1140.
2450.
1410.
1430.
1200.
1520.
440.
331.
627.
87.6
371.
275.
219.
7.1
306.
17.8
165.
Fuel
1.70
0.93
1.91
1.41
1.23
1.17
1.39
5.41
5.77
4.01
5.69
3.71
4.92
1.79
2.34
2.97
1.85
2.24
1.45
1.79
2.77
2. 00
2.25
2.05
Low epeed
254.
154.
570.
587.
454.
257.
379.
784.
2210.
1390.
1410.
1320.
1420.
294.
143.
357.
50.1
211.
13.8
11.4
3.0
31.0
8.3
13.5
Fuel
2.08
1.36
2.38
2.00
1.71
1.62
1.86
6.46
5.39
5.29
7.11
4.97
5.84
2.91
3.18
3.95
2. 44
3.12
2.81
4.56
3.44
2.79
3.53
3.43
Low mid.
178.
99.2
144.
186.
285.
192.
181.
76.8
1350.
122.
864.
1070.
696.
95.2
35.2
108.
19.6
64.5
4.4
1.3
0.8
3.2
5.1
3.0
Fuel
3.45
2.66
2.99
2.81
3.11
3.02
3.01
11.4
10.0
8.62
10.3
12.1
10.5
5.15
5.26
5.75
3,75
4.98
7.16
6.99
7.29
6.02
5.95
6.68
High mid.
22. 2
39.6
45.0
52.6
56.0
40.8
42. 7
140.
1220.
150.
831.
882.
645.
55.4
32.9
58.8
17. 4
41. 1
7.0
b
b
1.4
4.6
2.6
Fuel
4.56
3.81
4.17
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.25
15.6
13.3
10.8
19.0
14.6
14, 7
9.22
11,1
8.07
7.24
8.91
12.9
10.8
10.3
8.66
8.47
10.2
High speed
60.3
36.2
78.6
61.4
46.6
56.6
303.
1510.
900,
1360.
480.
910.
68.6
84.8
34.8
62.7
12.0
0.8
5.9
11.4
3.0
6.6
Fuel
5.03
4.08
4. 54
4.48
4. 44
4.51
21.9
19.3
17.6
22.6
19.7
20.2
10.2
9.93
10.4
10.2
18.1
ID. 3
13.9
13.3
10.9
14.5
Cycle
Drain
88.2
89.7
213.
241.
230.
143.
167.
349.
1520.
576.
1070.
1030.
908.
116.
80.9
201.
36.8
109.
56.0
12.8
3.3
38.7
6.4
23.4
Fuel
3.47
2.72
3.06
3.02
3.18
3.13
3.10
12.5
10.8
9.73
13.4
10.5
11.4
6.38
7.23
6.24
5. 19
6. 26
7.61
7.92
7.87
6.87
6.35
7.32
-------
Table 8. (continued). CRANKCASE DRAINAGE FROM TEST ENGINES IN g/hr
Motor
group
5
6
7
Group
desc ription
4- and 6-cyl.
Mercury
engines
OMC twins
using pressure
tank (older)
OMC 18 hp
twins
Miscellaneous
(Chrysler 5 hp)
(Mercury 9.8 hp)
Defective*1
(Johnson 40 hp)
(Johnson 9. 5 hp)
(Johnson 6 hp)
(Mercury 6 hp)
Motor
number
4
7
14
16
1 7
1 (
Average
5
1Z
21
2
3la
Average
23
30a
9
25
26
29
Drainage in g/hr and fuel usage in kg/hr at condition
Idle
Drain
41. 1
18.8
72.4
135.
Q 7 1
01.1
59.1
61.6
302.
31.4
157.
128.
142.
74.0
63.5
334.
12.8
:7.8
44.2
Fuel
2.31
2.34
1.75
3.52
•3 •*£.
J , J\J
2.66
1.46
2.9
3. 70
1.26
1.79
1.52
0. 78
0.49
3.18
1.60
0.64
0.57
Low speed
Drain
66.6
14. 8
174.
38.4
1 A 4
1 O T .
76.3
102.
228.
8.3
186.
56.2
121.
2. 2
65.2
425.
8.1
37.1
35.5
Fuel
6.12
2.95
5.35
5.19
k 1 7
O . 1 f
5.16
1.67
3.1
7. 44
2.31
2.21
2.26
0.75
0.73
4.20
1.94
0.88
0.82
Low mid.
Drain
96. 8
22.4
98.1
28.5
A n n
T U . U
47.6
31.4
184.
10.5
76.9
39. 7
58.3
66.4
68.4
218.
9.0
9.5
130.
Fuel
11.2
6.65
10.3
9.95
9r\A
• Uf
9.43
3.95
4.4
8.98
4.35
3.68
4.02
1.50
1.60
7.77
3.31
1.45
1.00
High mid.
Drain
19.8
10. 4
46.2
11.2
b
14.6
37. 0
50.4
13.4
23.0
35.8
29.4
266.
10.8
72.8
44. 1
3.6
125.
Fuel
14.8
8.16
15.4
11.2
I 7 k
1 C , o
12.4
5.03
6.9
10.3
5.68
5.43
5.56
2.38
2.24
10.6
4.49
2.27
1.22
High Speed
Drain
6.8
30.9
13.6
b
10.3
50.2
41. 1
17.7
33.8
25.8
230.
11.0
28.6
17.0
Fuel
10.9
25. 4
20.1
1 S 1
1 O . 1
18.6
6.06
8.6
6.36
6.83
6.60
2.45
3.22
13.2
1.81
Cyrle
Drain
61.2
12.2
89.6
30.6
tm ^
j _> . j
41.5
54.6
111.
9.6
74. 4
45. 8
60. 1
124.
26.9
186.
25. 5
10.7
69.6
Fuel
11.7
5.92
11.7
11.6
i A n
1 v , U
10.2
3. 71
4. 0
8.35
4.71
4. 17
4.44
1.60
1.73
8.30
3.06
1.54
1. 11
Ui
Originally drainless engine converted to drained configuration for tests.
Too small to measure.
Based on assumed 4-cylinder engine.
Water in samples or very poor operation.
-------
Table 9. CRANK CASE DRAINAGE FROM TEST ENGINES
IN WEIGHT PERCENT OF FUEL CONSUMED
Motor
group
1
2
3
4
Group
description
OMC 9.5 hp
twins
OMC V-4
engines
30 to 40 hp
OMC twins
35 to 55 hp
Chrysler and
Sea King twins
Motor
number
1
24a
27a
28
34
35
Average
10
15
15A
18
22
Average
3
8
13
33
Average
6
11
19
20
32
Average
Drainage in weight percent of fuel consumed
Idle
11.5
16.4
33.0
37.1
32.4
14.1
24.1
21.0
42.4
35.2
25.3
32. 1
31.2
24.8
14.2
21.2
4.64
16.2
19.7
12.3
0.257
15.3
0. 785
9.67
Low speed
12.5
11.4
24.1
29.5
26.7
15.9
20.0
12.0
41.0
26.4
19.7
26.6
26.9
10.1
4.52
9.05
2.08
6.44
0.445
0.375
0.044
1. 11
0. 244
0.444
Low mid.
5.22
3.81
4.81
6.60
9.17
6.29
5.98
0.692
13.4
1.39
8.08
8.86
6.48
1.84
0.665
1.89
0.516
1.23
0.062
0.02
0.010
0.054
0. 084
0.046
High mid.
0.510
1.06
1.08
1.24
1.38
0.943
1.04
0.897
9.23
1.40
4.33
6. 09
4.39
0.601
0.335
0.733
0. 240
0.477
0.054
b
0.016
0.055
0. 025
High speed
1.21
0.894
1.73
1.37
1.06
1.25
1.38
7.80
5.11
6.01
3.88
4.84
0.671
0.854
0.336
0.620
0.066
0.01
0.045
0.087
0.028
0. 047
Cycle
2.54
3.30
6.94
8.04
7.24
4.55
5.44
2.80
14.2
5.92
7.93
9.80
8.13
1.82
1.12
3.22
0.709
1.72
0. 734
0.161
0.042
0.564
0.101
0.320
U)
-------
Table 9. (continued). CRANKCASE DRAINAGE FROM TEST ENGINES
IN WEIGHT PERCENT OF FUEL CONSUMED
Motor
group
5
6
}
j
7
Group
description
4- and 6-cyl.
Mercury
engines
OMC twins
using pressure
tank (older)
OMC 18 hp
twins
Miscellaneous
(Chrysler 5 hp)
(Mercury 9. 8 hp)
Defective0
(Johnson 40 hp)
(Johnson 9. 5 hp)
(Johnson 6 hp)
(Mercury 6 hp)
Motor
number
4
7
14
16
17
Average
5
12
21
Average
2
3ia
Average
23
30a
9
25
26
29
Drainage in weight percent of fuel consumed
Idle
1.76
0.825
1.76
3.85
2.59
2.16
4.21
10.6
0.983
5. 26
11.6
7.12
9.36
9.62
12.9
10.6
0. 781
2.87
7.82
Low speed
1.09
0.508
2.18
0.737
2.91
1.48
6.08
7.27
0.108
4.49
7.79
2.57
5.18
0. 308
8.87
10. 1
0.414
4.19
4. 29
Low mid.
0.864
0.336
0.636
0.285
0.439
0.512
0. 784
4.16
0. 106
1.68
1.76
1.08
1.42
4.44
4. 29
2.81
0.273
0.678
12.9
High mid.
0.134
0.129
0.201
0. 165
b
0. 126
0.734
0. 722
0. 138
0.531
0.400
0.661
0.530
11.2
0.48
0.693
0.988
0.771
10.4
High speed
0.062
0. 081
0.068
b
0.053
0.840
0.480
0.660
0.276
0.515
0.396
8.47
0.35
0.220
0.933
Cycle
0.521
0.205
0.510
0.263
0.560
0.412
1.48
2.76
0.115
1.45
1.56
1.13
1.34
7.84
1.56
2.23
0.833
0.671
6.28
Originally drainless engine converted to drained configuration for tests.
Too small to measure,
c Water in samples or very poor operation.
-------
was much like that of the rest of the group. This inclusion was ques-
tioned on technical grounds earlier due to the differences in carburetion
on the drain-controlled models, but the objection does not appear to be
justified by the data in this case. To be on the safe side, however,
data from converted drainless engines will not be used in estimating
national drainage totals later in the report. In two other situations
(Engines 15 and 9), drainage appeared to be far from the group norm
(higher for Engine 15 and lower for 9), but no defect in the engines could
be found which might have affected drainage. These two engines were
accepted as representing some of the variability to be experienced in
drawing a sample from private ownership. In general, drain percen-
tage from groups 1 and 2 was comparatively high; that from groups 4
and 5 was comparatively low; and drain percentage from groups 3, 6,
and 7 was somewhere in the middle.
In group 4, motors 19 and 32 exhibit much lower drainage at idle than
the other three in the group. Since it is known that Chrysler (and Chrys-
ler-like) motors utilized a partial drainage control system in years prior
to total control, it must be assumed that the characteristics of the partial
control systems changed enough from one model or year to another to
produce different drainage patterns. Engine 31 was included with Engine
2 to form group 7 under essentially the same justification as used to
include Engines 24 and 27 in group 1.
There is no real basis for averaging drainage or fuel mass rates across
group 6, but the average given in Table 9 is of drain percentages for
which a certain common ground can be assumed (engine design features).
The same reasoning shows that there is no justification for averages of
drainage or fuel consumption over the "miscellaneous11 and "defective"
groups. Going a little further into the interpretation of "defective", the
primary criterion for placing a motor in this group was presence of
watejj'in the drainage samples. Water in the drainage indicates leakage
of the bottom crankshaft seal, and it can usually be assumed that drainage
can escape where water can leak in. If drainage escapes through the seal
and is not measured, the reported results would understate drainage from
that engine. Motor No. 26 was placed in the defective category because
it simply did not run very -well and would probably have been repaired be-
fore being used again in the field.
Figures 34 and 35 are presented to show data from Tables 8 and 9 graph-
ically. Figure 34 shows average drainage rates from groups 1-5 and group
7 as recorded in Table 8, including drainage both as a function of crank-
shaft speed and during cycles. In terms of total drainage rates, group 2
(OMC V-4's) stands apart at the high end of the scale. Groups 1 and 3
(OMC 9. 5 hp twins and OMC 30-40 hp twins) occupy the middle of the scale,
38
-------
average
during
see text for
key to groups
5000
Engine speed, rpm
b
Figure 34. Average crankcase drainage (mass rates) for six
engine groups, during cycles and as functions of engine speed
39
-------
average
during
_ cycles
4000
5000
Engine speed, rpm
Figure 35. Average crankcase drainage (weight percent of fuel) for
seven engine groups, during cycles and as functions of engine speed
40
-------
and the other groups (7, 4, 5) are fairly close at the low end. Drainage
during cycles is indicated by the arrows at the right side of the graph.
In Figure 35, group 2 shows the highest percent drainage rates, fol-
lowed closely group 1. The other percentage rates are scattered down
the scale, and the cycle averages are given at the right as in Figure 35.
Both Figures 34 and 35 show a strong variation in drainage with engine
speed and engine type. The percentages are more strongly dependent
on engine speed than the mass rates are, of course, since fuel consumption
increases sharply with engine speed (and power output). In Figure 35,
an extra data point (at 1200 rpm) is shown for group 4 (35 to 55 hp Chrys-
let twins). Several engines were run at this condition after it had been
observed that drainage underwent a very sharp drop between idle and 1500
rpm for this group, in an attempt to define the curve more precisely in
the transition region.
Drainage from cyclic operation of the "miscellaneous" and "defective"
engine groups fell into the same range as that from groups 1 to 7. The
range for these extra groups was from 0. 67 percent to 7. 84 percent of
fuel by weight recovered as drainage, as compared to a range from 0. 10
percent to 14. 2 percent of fuel by weight for individual engines in groups
1 to 7. As mentioned before, however, drainage from some (or all) of
the "defective" engines may be understated by the data; because some
drainage could have escaped into the water without being collected.
Drainage emitted from three of the "defective" engines (Nos. 9, 25, and
29) did contain water, as documented by Figures 36 through 38. The
water appeared to be physically mixed with drainage to some extent, and
further "settling" of the two layers occurred when the samples stood
for several days. Several methods were employed to separate the hydro-
carbon and water phases, including decanting and absorbing the aqueous
phase with a dessicant. The most successful technique was removal of
the aqueous phase through a long hypodermic needle, permitting the
remaining fuel-based material to be measured volumetrically and to be
weighed in the normal manner. The white appearance of the water layer
in Figures 36 through 38 -was apparently due to partial mixing of water
and hydrocarbon materials, causing a certain amount of emulsification.
After an extended period without agitation, some clarity returned, to the
water phase, with more change being evident for those samples which
contained more water than drainage.
After the initial series of tests had been conducted (through Engine No.
29), attempts were made to re-acquire Engines 9 and 25 for further tests
(Engine 29 stayed in the contractor's possession). These attempts failed
to locate the engines, but further tests were run on Engine No. 29 in a
41
-------
Figure 36. Typical sample from
engine 9 showing water layer
under drainage
Figure 37. Drainage samples from
motor no. 25 showing -water
layers under fuel-based material
Figure 38. Drainage samples from engine 29 showing
water layers under fuel-based material
42
-------
stationary tank. The tests showed that water present in the drainage
was leaking into the crankcase from the water in. which the engine was
operated (presumably through a seal or crack). This conclusion was
reached by tracing a compound added to the tank water supply into the
drainage, indicating that at least part of the water consisted of leakage
rather than condensation of atmospheric moisture. No conclusions
were possible, of course, for Engines 9 and 25.
It is considered to be of interest that of the 35 engines tested, three
did have water in the drainage, indicating leakage through crankshaft
seals. This result indicates that the entire population of outboards may
contain a considerable number of engines having crankshaft seals which
leak.
43
-------
SECTION VI
RESULTS OF TESTS USING A DRAINAGE
INTERCEPTION/RECIRCULATION DEVICE
As part of the subject research program, it was requested that the con-
tractor run limited tests intended to gather data on the operability and
effectiveness of a commercially available drainage interception/recir-
culation device. Photographs of the device have been presented in Sec-
tion IV (Figures 31 to 33), along with a discussion of its operation. The
device was tested on four motors in all, specifically those numbered 9,
18, 28, and 29 in the drainage survey (OMC 40 hp twin, OMC 85 hp V-4,
OMC 9. 5 hp twin, and Mercury 6 hp twin, respectively).
If the recirculating device is connected to the engine according to in-
structions, it intercepts all the drainage materials (except possibly from
some Mercury motors) and returns the liquids to the fuel supply. Gases
and vapors are simply vented to the atmosphere. Referring back to
Figure 7 (Section IV), the unit intercepts drainage in the same way as the
bottle shown in Figure 7b, but gases and vapors are released to the atmos-
phere instead of being returned to the motor leg. The exception noted
above for some Mercury motors is based on the construction of the Mer-
cury drain systems, shown schematically in Figure 14. Hardware sup-
plied with the device for use with Mercury 4- and 6-cylinder motors con-
sists of a "tee" and some tubing. The "tee" is inserted in the drainage
line at the place called "sampling point" in Figure 14, which permits
drainage from the upper pair(s) of cylinders to be diverted to the recir-
culating device if pressure in the drainage line is sufficiently higher than
atmospheric. Since both the run and the branch of the tee are open, how-
ever, drainage materials could still escape via their normal route if that
were the path of least resistance. No provision or instruction supplied
with the device indicates that any attempt is made to intercept drainage
from the lowest pair of cylinders, since doing so would require removal
of the powerhead from the motor leg and some modifications. This pro-
blem also means that the device will not work on 2-cylinder Mercury
motors unless they are modified like Engine 29 was modified for this
project.
Noting that the gas and vapor components of the drainage are vented into
a region of atmospheric pressure from the upper chamber of the recir-
culating device, it is possible that the amount of liquid collected from an
engine equipped with a device may exceed the drainage from one which
is unaltered. Referring back to Figure 1, crankcase drainage valves
44
-------
(either check valves or leaf valves) are opened by pressure differen-
tial from the crankcase to the system downstream of the valve. In
unaltered condition, the system downstream of the drainage valve is
usually a passage leading to the motor leg. Due to the flows of ex-
haust and water through the motor leg, its internal pressure must be
somewhat higher than atmospheric. This line of reasoning shows that
the pressure head against which crankcase pressure pushes to open
the drainage valve is lower when the intercepting device is installed,
making it plausible that engines with intercepting systems installed
pass somewhat more drainage through the valve than stock engines do.
The initial testing of the four motors mentioned earlier with the device
installed consisted of short-term cyclic operation. Each engine was run
on several 20-minute and/or 40-minute cycles, with time in each oper-
ating condition apportioned according to Table 4b. Total operating time
in these initial tests was 4 hours 20 minutes each for Motors 9 and 18,
4 hours for Motor 28, and 1 hour for Motor 29. The presence of the
device had no noticeable effect on engine operation during these short
tests.
Longer-term tests were conducted with the interception/recirculation
device connected to Motors 18 and 29. The tests on Unit 29 included
cycles, timed accelerations, and extended idle and low speed operation.
This engine was of particular interest because it had been observed to
emit some water along with fuel-based drainage material, as discussed
in Section V and as shown in Figure 38. It is assumed that water in the
drainage resulted from a defective lower crankshaft seal. The schedule
of tests used for Engine 29 is shown in Table 10, along with data on
acceleration times and points at -which fuel samples were taken. The
operation of the engine did not seem to be affected by the presence of the
recirculating device during these tests, but Figures 39 through 43 pro-
vide some insight into effects which would have resulted from even longer
operation.
Figure 39 shows the test tank and equipment used for the steady-speed
evaluation procedure. Figure 40 shows the interception/recirculation
unit after about one hour of operation at 2750 rpm, and the drainage
level in the top chamber was about 0.7 inch (the view ports were installed
for better visualization of device operation). Figure 41 shows the unit at
about 90 minutes of operation, just before the drainage material began to
enter the lower chamber through the float-controlled valves. Figure 42
was taken about five hours into the test and Figure 43 at the end of the
stationary test (5 hours 43 minutes). Both these figures show the water
layer building up in the top chamber. Engine 29 did not emit a great
deal of drainage or water, so it was considered impractical to continue its
45
-------
Table 10. TEST SCHEDULE FOR ENGINE 29 (WITH AND WITHOUT INTERCEPTION/RECIRCULATION) DEVICE
Run
1
2
3
4
5
« si- •
Device
installed
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Description of
operation
Cycle3"
Idle - 5400 rpm accel.
Idle - 5400 rpm accel.
Idle
Cycle3"
Idle - 5400 rpm accel.
Idle - 5400 rpm accel.
Idle
2750 rpmb
Cyclea
Idle - 5400 rpm accel.
Idle - 5400 rpm accel.
Idle
Cycle3"
Idle - 5400 rpm accel.
Idle - 5400 rpm accel.
Idle
Time at
Start
0
20m
21m
0
20m
21m
0
0
20m
21m
0
20m
21m
End
20m
23m
20m
23m
5h 43m
20m
23m
20m
23m
Acceleration
times, seconds
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.5
3.5
3.0
3.5
3.0
Fuel
Sample
10
11
12
13
14
Boat or
tank test
Boat
Boat
Tank
Boat
Boat
T* -> Kl ** a AK a r-ii-1 ft -frvy oir/~l£» H *a c r- TI r»f 1 nn -
Drainage rate at this condition about 13% of fuel by weight (see Table 9)
-------
m^m
I
Figure 39. Stationary tank test of
Mercury 6 hp motor with inter-
ception/recirculation device
Figure 40. Drainage interception/
recirculation device after about
one hour of operation
Figure 41. Device after about 1. 5
hours of operation
47
-------
Figure 42. Drainage interception/
recirculation device after about five
hours of operation on unit 29
Figure 43. Device after five hours
43 minutes of operation (end of
test) on engine 29
Figure 44. Fuel samples taken from line down-
stream of recirculation device for engine 29
(sampling times shown in Table 10)
48
-------
operation to the point at which sufficient water had built up in the-lower
chamber to stop the engine. Engine stoppage by choking the fuel system
with water would have occurred much more rapidly for an engine which
emitted more water, such as Engine 25 (see Figure 37). This engine
stoppage is not necessarily a disadvantage of the device, because it would
alert the motor owner that a problem existed, and he might be able to
have his engine repaired before serious damage occured (such as from
storage of an engine over the winter with water in the crankcase). It was
also observed that the water fractions of some drainage samples had a
high viscosity, more or less in proportion to their degree of turbidity.
Note in Figure 36, for instance, that the water fraction in the sample did
not form a horizontal interface with the fuel-based material when the
bottle was tilted. This particular property of the aqueous layer could cause
the orifices of the float-controlled valves in the recirculating device to
plug when water reached their level (in the top chamber), which would
cause the top chamber to overflow through its vent tube and render the
device ineffective.
To conclude the discussion on operation of motor No. 29 with the recir-
culating unit installed, Figure 44 shows the five fuel samples referred to
in Table 10. Note that the photo was purposely focused oh the grid behind
the samples to show the turbidity of samples 13 and 14, both of which were
taken after the point at which drainage had begun to mix with fresh fuel.
Samples 10 to 12, which are quite transparent, were taken before the de-
vice was installed.
Engine 18, an OMC 85 hp unit, was also operated extensively with the
interception/recirculation unit installed. The schedule of tests used for
Engine 18 is shown in Table 11, along with other data. The initial tests
(runs 1 to 4) were essentially the same as cyclic tests run on all the test
engines, except for extra length and the acceleration tests added. The
acceleration tests were run against a tachometer rather than a speed-
ometer because the latter was not available for these tests. Installa-
tion and use of the device did not cause any noticeable change in engine
performance during cyclic operation in runs 3 and 4. Control runs
without the device installed were not performed; therefore, no conclu-
sions can be drawn regarding whether engine performance was improved
or degraded due to use of the device in runs 5 through 7.
The (temporary) installation of the device used with Engine 18 is shown
in Figure 45, and the arrangement of valves shown in Figure 46 permit-
ted the engine to be operated with the unit either in or out of the system
without interchanging any parts. Figure 47 shows the nine fuel samples
taken at the times shown in Table 11. Sample color varied from light
yellow-green (fresh fuel) for the first few samples to a dark green-brown
49
-------
Table 11. TEST SCHEDULE FOR ENGINE 18 (WITH AND WITHOUT RECIRCULATING DEVICE)
Run
1
2
3
4
5*
6*
*
7
Re circulating
device
installed
No
No
Yea
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Description of
operation
Cycle*
Idle - 5000 rpm accel.
Idle - 5000 rpm accel.
Idle
(Same as run 1)
(Same as run 1)
(Same as run 1)
Idle
1500 rom
Idle6
1500 rpm
Idle
Idle - 5000 rpm accel.
Idle - 5000 rpm accel.
Idle
(First 40 min. like run 5)d> e
Idlef
Idle - 5000 rpm accel.
Idle - 5000 rpm accel.
Idle
(First 40 min. like run 5)f
Idle8
Idle - 5000 rpm accel.
Idle - 5000 rpm accel.
Idle
Time (minutes:
seconds) at
Start
0
40:00
42:00
0
0
0
0
5:00
20:00
25:00
40:00
49:00
50:00
0
40:00
44:00
45:00
0
40:00
44:00
44:40
End
40:00
43:57
42:55
42:57
42:54
5:00
20:00
25:00
40:00
48:00
50:50
40:00
43:00
45:35
40:00
43:40
45:04
Acceleration
times, seconds
7.0
6.0
8. 0 (1 accel. only)
7.0. 5.5
8.0, 6.0
9.0
10.0
12.0
8.0
9.0
7.0
Fuel [
sample
1
2
3
4, 5
6
7
8
9
Twice through 20 minute cycle described in Tables 4b and 5.
u Engine started missing.
*• Engine died twice and ran roughly.
Engine died three times and ran very roughly.
* Engine died twice and ran very roughly.
Engine died six times and ran very roughly.
* Engine died three times.
*Note: Control runs without device Installed were not performed; therefore, no conclusions can be drawn
regarding whether engine performance was improved or degraded due to use of the device.
50
-------
Figure 45. Installation of interception/
recirculation device for operation of
engine 18
Figure 46. Valve system used to
switch between stock and device-
equipped configurations for engine 18
Figure 47. Fuel samples taken from line down-
stream of recirculating device for engine 18
(sampling times shown in Table 11)
51
-------
for the last few samples. The base gasoline color was a light yellow-
orange, and the OMC oil used was a dark blue-green. This photo is
not a quantitative indicator of the difference between fresh fuel and
fuel mixed with drainage, but it does help visualize the changes which
occured.
Several of the fuel samples taken during tests involving the recircula-
ting device were studied in substantial detail, specifically those num-
bered 1, 4, 5, 9, 10, and 14 (Tables 10 and 11). Samples 1 and 10
contained no drainage, samples 4, 6, and 14 contained at least some
drainage, and sample 9 contained a comparatively large fraction of
drainage. Samples 1 to 9 were yellow-green to green-brown in color,
while samples 10 and 14 were yellow-orange. As shown in Table 12,
sample densities were measured using volumetric flasks at 20C, and
percent light transmittance of each sample was measured at three wave-
lengths (optical path through sample approximately 1 cm). The strong-
est trend was an increase in transmittance (average increase 0. 31 per
100 nm) between 450 nm and 520 nm wavelengths. From 520 nm to
650 nm, the transmittance of samples 1, 4, 6, and 9 stayed nearly the
same (average increase of 0.017 per 100 nm). The transmittance of
samples 10 and 14 increased markedly between 520 nm and 650 nm
(average increase 0. 18 per 100 nm), indicating that they pass more
light toward the red end of the visible spectrum. These transmittance
results confirm expectations based on both the sample colorations and
the apparent "gray" densities shown in Figures 44 and 47.
The density figures given in Table 12 are averages of three trials on
each sample, and they indicate increases in density with the amount of
drainage in, the fuel. These increases are probably not due as much to
increased oil concentration as they are to evaporation of light gasoline-
range hydrocarbons in the engine crankcase. In other words, the "light
ends" of the inducted gasoline tend to remain vaporized and be inducted
into the combustion chamber, while the "heavy ends" tend more to re-
main as liquid (drainage). The density of the oil itself (as it comes from
the can) is nearly the same as the gasoline used. It is probable that the
lower molecular weight "dilution" components of the oils (added to the
high-lubricity stocks to decrease overall viscosity and enhance mixing)
fall mainly within the gasoline range of hydrocarbons shown by the chro-
matograms in Figure 48. A limited amount of chromatographic work
indicates that the light "dilution" components of the oil elute from the
column in 2 to 6 minutes and account for perhaps 20 percent of the oil
by weight. No "hump" appears in the chromatograms shown in Figure
48 to indicate the oil's presence because it is present in rather low
concentrations (2 percent to perhaps 5 percent).
52
-------
Table 12. MASS DENSITY AND LIGHT TRANSMITTANCE OF
FUEL SAMPLES FROM TESTS INVOLVING A
DRAINAGE RECIRCULATION DEVICE
Fuel
sample
1
4
6
9
10
14
Engine
number
18
18
18
18
29
29
Comparative drainage
amount present
None
Small
Small
Large
None
Small
Density,
g/ml at 20C
0.720
0.725
0.750
0.774
0.729
0. 736
Light transmittance at wavelength (nm)
450 (blue)
0.32
0.40
0.22
0. 05
0.34
0.13
520 (green)
0.57
0.62
0.42
0.16
0.60
0.40
650 (red)
0. 59
0.60
0.44
0. 23
0.85
0.71
Ul
U)
anm is abbreviation for nanometer (Inm = 10~"m)
-------
IS% SE-30 on 60-80 Chromosorb P
10 feet x 1/8 inch
oven 190C injector 320C
fl sample 9, outboard
(fuel mixed with drainage
f— 1 M\ sample 10, outboard fuel
8 10
Minutes after injection
!
Figure 48. Chromatogram (tracing) of outboard fuel and fuel mixed with drainage
-------
As another comment on the characteristics of the fuels and oils being
discussed, Table 13 has been prepared to show the boiling ranges of
Table 13. BOILING RANGES OF THE OUTBOARD GASOLINE AND
ONE OF THE OILS USED IN THE SUBJECT STUDY
Distillation
Initial boiling point
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
95%
End point
Temperatures, °F
Gasoline
90
118
--_
206
___
;-.._
320
404
Oil
325
352
440
650
690
708
719
730
739
750
755
758
the materials. Note that the gasoline boiling range overlaps the "dilution
components of the oil, -which come out between 325 and 440 F (data show
relatively rapid evaporation between these temperatures, especially
between 325°and 352 F, then a relatively slow evaporation until the high-
lubricity components start to come over strongly at about 650 F).
The major importance of the chromatographic study is that it shows the
shift toward lower concentrations of light hydrocarbons and higher con-
centrations of heavier fuel components as drainage is mixed with fresh
fuel. Note that the first few peaks (out to a retention time of approxi-
mately 2 minutes) are lower for sample No. 9 (fuel-drainage mixture)
than for sample 10 (fuel only). From 2 minutes retention time on, con-
centrations of heavier materials are higher for sample No. 9. The shift
toward higher molecular weight components for fuel mixed with drainage
means that its physical characteristics change: volatility decreases, vis-
cosity increases, and density increases. The impact of these changes on
engine performance is not within the scope of the subject work, and further
research would have to be done before definite conclusions could be reached.
55
-------
SECTION VII
ESTIMATE OF (QUANTITATIVE) NATIONAL IMPACT OF OUTBOARD
MOTOR CRANKCASE DRAINAGE EMISSIONS
Accuracy of the estimated total drainage emitted from drain-type out-
board motors depends strongly on the operating cycle which is assumed
to apply to these motors. Data presented in Tables 2 through 4 were
used to determine the cyclic operation used during the drainage mea-
surement phase because no other data were available. The sample of
motors from which these data were acquired, however, was not very
extensive; so it is not possible to assume that this sample was repre-
sentative, without statistical bias, of the real motor population's average
usage. A valid statistical sample from which an estimate could be made
of average usage to apply to the world population might require a survey
of as many as 1000 engines or more. The survey would require repre-
sentation based on such things as size of engine, age of engine, size of
boat, type of boat, age of owner, type of waters on which boating occurs,
climatic conditions, geographical area, and so forth.
Rather than rely on the survey data presented in Tables 2 through 4 (and
consequently on the drainage emissions measured during cyclic operation
in the testing phase) to estimate national drainage emissions, it is con-
sidered more appropriate to apply arbitrary time-based weighting factors
to drainage measured during the five steady-state modes. While this
method gives no greater assurance of accuracy in estimating drainage
emissions than the use of measurements obtained during "cycles" does,
it at least provides a convenient way of updating the results of this report
in the future when truly representative boat operating data become avail-
able. It will be assumed, therefore, that the five modes are used equally
(that is, each mode has a time weight of 20 percent).
Applying this assumption to the data on individual modes given in Table
8 results in the drainage and fuel consumption figures shown in Table 14.
These calculated data exhibit variability very similar to those measured
during cycles and reported earlier, but the calculated composite percent-
ages are all somewhat higher than those measured during the cycles
(average difference about 30 percent of percentage measured during cycle).
The calculated composites are adequate for use in the subject analysis, and
the only alternative is use of time-in-mode data that would require a survey
of a large number of engines as indicated above. Such an effort on gathering
time-in-mode data is beyond the scope of this research effort.
Accuracy of the analysis used to estimate drainage emissions from the U. S.
56
-------
Table 14. COMPOSITE FUEL CONSUMPTION AND DRAINAGE RATES
FOR TEST ENGINES ASSUMING EQUAL TIME IN EACH STEADY-STATE MODE
Group no.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Group
OMC 9.5 hp twins
OMC V-4 motors
OMC 30-40 hp
twins
Chrysler and Sea
King 35-55 hp
twins
Mercury 4- and
6 -cylinder
motors
OMC twins using
pressure tank
(older)
OMC 18 hp twins
Mis cellaneous
Motor
No.
1
24 a
27*
28
34
35
10
15
ISA
18
22
3
8
13
33
6
11
19
20
32
4
7
14
16
17
5
12
21
2
3la
23
30a
Drain rate,
g/hr
141.7
95.4
286.0
284.8
250.9
140.5
488.8
1748.0
794.4
1179.0
990.4
190.6
115.0
247.1
41.9
62.4
46.5
3.4
70.6
7.8
48.8
14.6
84.3
45.3
58.2
56.4
161.1
15.4
92.1
58.7
127.7
43.8
Fuel rate,
kg/hr
3.36
2.57
3.12
3.01
2.97
2.92
12.15
10.75
9.26
12.94
11.02
5.85
6.60
6.13
5.14
8.48
8.09
7.54
6.55
6.22
9.85
6.20
11.64
9.99
9.85
3.63
5.18
8.14
3.98
3.99
1.57
1.66
Drainage as
% of fuel
4.21
3.71
9.15
9.45
8.45
4.82
4.02
16.26
8.58
9.11
8.99
3.26
1.74
4.03
0.82
0.74
0.57
0.04
1.08
0.12
0.50
0.24
0.72
0.45
0.59
1.55
3.11
0.19
2.31
1.47
8.12
2.64
aOriginally drainless engine converted to drained configuration for tests.
57
-------
population of outboards depends on certain assumptions about that
population. The simplest situation would result from the assumption
that drain percentages are distributed normally for the population taken
as a whole; but this assumption requires implicitly that mean drain
percentages from Mercury, Chrysler, and OMC engines all be essen-
tially equal. To test the hypothesis that mean drainage rates are equal
for the Chrysler, Mercury, and OMC populations, the "t11 statistic
(Student's distribution) was used. The results showed that the hypothesis
could be accepted for the Chrysler and Mercury populations at the 0,05
level, but that the hypothesis should be rejected at the 0. 05 level for the
OMC population as compared to the other two. Testing of a. hypothesis
at the 0.05 level is a matter of convention, and rejection at the 0.05 level
indicates that the chance of the hypothesis being correct is 5% or less.
Student's "t" test also showed that the hypothesis of equal means could
be accepted for the Chrysler and Mercury populations all the way up to
the 0.4 (or 40 percent probability) level, but that the same hypothesis had
to be rejected for the OMC population as compared to the other two even
at the 0.01 (or 1 percent probability) level. The results at these widely-
dispersed levels indicate that the difference in mean composite drain per-
centage between Mercury and Chrysler engines tested is very insignificant,
and that the difference in mean drainage between the Chrysler-Mercury
group and the OMC group is highly significant. These statistical tests
indicate that outboard motor drainage cannot be analyzed statistically for
the population of motors as a whole, but that the OMC and non-OMC popu-
lations should be considered separately. Calculation of the "t" statistics
discussed above is presented in Appendix C.
Arithmetic means of the composite drain percentages listed in Table 14
are 5. 35 percent for OMC motors and 1. 20 percent for non-OMC motors.
Due to the small samples and the large variations within the samples, it
cannot be assumed that the sample drainage means are equal to population
means. It is possible, however, to determine statistically from such
samples a range within which the population mean drainage can be expected
to occur with, for instance, 95% confidence. The formula for the ex-
tremes of the range is
confidence limits = x ± tQf 975 (S-),
where: x = sample mean drainage;
tQ. 975 = *ne appropriate statistic from Student's
distribution at the 0.05 level of significance; and
S==- = standard error of the sample mean.
3x
Using this formula, the mean drainage from the OMC population is esti-
mated (with 95% confidence) to fall within the range of 3. 19 to 7. 51
58
-------
percent of fuel consumed by weight. Average drainage from the non-
OMC population is likewise estimated to be between 0 and 2.76 per-
cent. A summary of the statistics leading to these confidence limits
is given in Table 15.
Table 15. DETERMINATION OF 95% CONFIDENCE LIMITS ON
MEAN DRAINAGE FOR OMC AND NON-OMC POPULATIONS
Population
OMC
non-OMC
n = sample
size
17
11
drainage (percent)
x = mean
5.35
1.20
8,5. = std. error
X,
1.02
0.70
tQ. 975
2. 12
2.23
95% conf.
limits on
pop. drainage
3.19-7.51%
0-2. 76%
In order to estimate the total amount of drainage emitted per year by
drained engines, it is necessary to establish a figure for the total fuel
they consume. One method would be to simply accept an estimate made
by a boating trade publication^ ' or one of several individuals in the in-
dustry'22-24)^ These estimates are of unknown accuracy and basis, how-
ever, so a fuel consumption figure will be calculated here using available
data and explicit assumptions. "While this calculation is subject to errors,
detailing the method and assumptions will permit its correction if more
complete data become available in the future.
Using data from Table 14, fuel consumed by each engine per hour per
unit rated horsepower can be calculated (based on the assumed composite
cycle). The results of these calculations are grouped in Table 16 by motor
rated horsepower category, along with population data and further calcu-
lated values. The "mean" rated horsepower assumed for the three lower
power categories is the same as that used in an earlier analysis of out-
board motor exhaust (gaseous) emissions^"), and the "mean" value for
the "45 hp and over" category has been adjusted downward slightly to
improve accuracy. The previous estimate of 65 hp for the larger motors
resulted in a calculated population mean of 25. 8 hp, and the 60 hp esti-
mate used here changes that result to 24. 8 hp, nearer the best available
figure (24.6 hp). The population being considered here is for 1971, the
last year in which drained engines were produced,and Table 17 gives a
summary of the estimated motor population for that year by power category
and year of manufacture. The total annual fuel consumption by drained
engines calculated by this analysis is about 600 million gallons per year
(1660 million kg/yr), and this figure will be used to estimate drainage
emissions.
59
-------
Table 16. CALCULATION OF OUTBOARD MOTOR FUEL CONSUMPTION
(BASED ON 1971 MOTOR POPULATION)
Power
category,
hp
0-6. 9
7-19.9
20-44.9
45 & over
Category
population
x 10'3
2303.
1990.
1648.
1377.
Assumed
"mean"
rated hp
5
15
35
60
Fuel consumption
g per
rated hp hr
247
274
194
149
g per
engine hr
1230.
4110.
6790.
8940.
kg per*
engine yr
61.8
206.
340.
447.
gal per0
engine yr
22.3
74.2
123.
161.
TOTAL
category gal
per yr x lO"-*
51,400.
148,000.
202,000.
200, 000. c
601,000.
aAssuming 50 hr operation per year.
bAssuming fuel density of 6.1 lbm/gal (0.73 kg/1).
cAssuming that 10 percent of engines in this category were drainless.
-------
Table 17. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED OUTBOARD MOTOR POPULATION
BY POWER CATEGORY AND AGE, END OF 1971
Year(s)
1919-1930
1931-1941
1946
1947
1948
1949
1950
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
I960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
Total
Surviving Motors
0-6.9
0.793
24.2
68.1
114.
112.
71.9
85.0
55.8
84.7
126.
124.
90.0
91.8
69.5
53.0
61.0
53.1
44.0
48.6
57.4
71.4
67.4
102.
119.
142.
141.
116.
109.
2303.
7.0-19
11
20
35
31
44
61
120
160
133
125
122
89
64
71
72
85
135
123
97
102
95
94.
94.
in Horsepower Category xlO"
.9
.1
.0
.6
.5
.4
.2
.
•
•
•
•
.6
.8
.5
.5
.0
•
•
.5
•
.8
4
0
1990.
20.0-44.9
4.84
14
25
30
66
85
101
132
142
101
109
106
102
67
86
93
102
95
90
94
.8
.3
.0
.3
.3
•
•
•
*
*
*
•
.4
.1
.3
•
.8
.1
.0
1648.
45 & up
10.0
22. 1
28.4
33.5
44.0
47.3
49.2
57.2
66.4
81.6
85.2
98.4
114.
142.
171.
129.
198.
1377.
61
-------
In order to estimate total drainage, making use of the ranges of values
developed earlier for OMC and non-OMC populations, it remains to de-
termine the number of engines falling into each group. The only study
yielding such results for even a small area^°' shows that OMC units
comprised about 55 percent of the population sampled at Lake George,
New York. Using this figure as basis, a range of estimates can be made
as shown in Table 18. To indicate the influence of population composition
on drainage, another set of estimates is also given in Table 18 using a
population containing 70 percent OMC engines. This latter assumption
is arbitrary, and not based on any known population composition. Note
that total annual drainage estimates in gallons were calculated using vol-
ume percentages and that volume percentages are about 87 percent of
weight percentages because drainage is more dense than fuel.
Based on all the assumptions noted during the calculations, the overall
drainage estimate for the "55 percent OMC11 assumption is between 1. 8
and 5.4 percent of fuel consumed on a weight basis for 95 percent con-
fidence. These percentages translate into a range of 9. 2 to 28 million
gallons per year (29 to 89 million kg/yr). For the "70 percent OMC"
assumption, the population drainage estimate is between 2. 2 and 6. 1 per-
cent of fuel consumed on a weight basis for 95 percent confidence. These
figures can be otherwise expressed as a range of 12 to 32 million gallons
per year or 37 to 101 million kg per year.
ENVIRONMENTAL, IMPACT
It was not the purpose of this study to determine the environmental im-
pact of drainage on aquatic systems, but only to estimate the amount of
drainage. Other projects have been funded by the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency to study the environmental effects of drainage. Care should
be exercised in applying the results of this study to specific situations, es-
pecially use of "average" values. As an example, consider inlets, marina
areas, protected harbors, and areas where trolling occurs. These loca-
tions will be subject to more engine operation at low speeds than was as-
sumed to form the composite operating schedule, so drainage emitted
there will be higher on a. percentage basis than indicated by average values.
For idle and low-speed operation (1500 rpm and under), it can be com-
puted from data in Table 9 that average drainage for the OMC's tested
would be 17.2 percent (standard error = 2.84) and that for non-OMC's
would be 3.0 percent (standard error = 0. 73). It can also be calculated
(using the "t" distribution) that the 95 percent confidence interval for
mean drainage from the OMC population is 11. 2 to 23. 3 percent, and that
the similar interval for the non-OMC population is 1. 37 to 4. 63 percent
62
-------
Table 18. ESTIMATES OF TOTAL, ANNUAL OUTBOARD MOTOR CRANKCASE
DRAINAGE EMISSIONS AND PERCENTAGES OF FUEL CONSUMED
Population breakdown, %
aAnnual fuel
Consumption
Drain percentages
(by weight)
Drain percentages
(by volume)
Hie
Total annual &
drainage L(^
[gal x 10-6
[kg x 10-6
[High
1 Low
[High
(LOW
[gal x 10-6
[kg x 10-6
[gal x ID'6
V kg x 10'6
Assumption 1
OMC
55
330.
913.
7,51
3.19
6.54
2.78
21.6
68.6
9.17
29.1
non-OMC
45
270.
747.
2.76
0
2.40
0
6.48
20.6
0
0
Total
100
600.
1660.
5.37
1.75
4.68
1.53
28. 1
89.2
9.17
29.1
Assumption 2
OMC
70
420.
1160.
7.51
3.19
6.54
2.78
27.5
87.3
11.7
37.1
non-OMC
30
180.
498.
2.76
0
2.40
0
4.32
13.7
0
0
Total
100
600.
1660.
6.08
2.23
5.30
1.95
31.8
101.
11.7
37.1
o\
aassuming that fuel consumption is directly proportional to population percentage.
Note: Specific gravity of drainage averaged 0.84 compared to specific of fuel of 0.73; therefore, drain percentage
by volume is 87 percent of drain percentage by weight.
-------
by weight of fuel consumed. Calculation of these intervals is given in
Appendix C.
Using data from Tables 8 and 18, it can be calculated that the amount
of fuel consumed annually by OMC engines at idle and low speeds (1500
rpm and under) is about 20% of their total annual fuel consumptive, or
approximately 66 million gallons. Comparable figures for non-OMC
engines are about 16% of fuel consumed at 1500 rpm or lower speeds,
and a total of approximately 44 million gallons. Using these fuel con-
sumption figures and the ranges for drainage estimated above, OMC
engines are estimated to emit 6.4 to 13.1 million gallons of drainage
annually at speeds of 1500 rpm or lower, and non-OMC engines are
estimated to emit 0. 5 to 1.8 million gallons per year during this type
of operation. Total drainage at speeds of 1500 rpm and lower, con-
sequently, is estimated at 7 to 15 million gallons per year. These
figures indicate that idle and low speed drainage accounts for between
50 and 75 percent of total drainage from outboards.
64
-------
SECTION VIII
REFERENCES
1. Report of Analysis No. 355975. Stillwell and Gladding, Inc. Ap-
pendices A to C, Bibliography, Addendum A and Second Addendum.
October 20, 1969.
2. Report to the Goggi Corporation on Outboard Motor Tests Using
PetroSave and KleenZaust Devices. Foster D. Snell, Inc. Sep-
tember 20, 1965.
3. Mercury 500 Outboard Drainage Test in Accordance with MERC
Engine Drain Test Procedure. Mercury Marine Office Memo.
February 28, 1972.
4. Quick, P. F. , Manager of Engineering for Chrysler Outboard Corp-
oration. Report of an Engine Drain Test Run by Chrysler Outboard
Corporation on a Chrysler 35 hp Outboard Motor. Submitted to Mr.
Matt Kaufman of BIA. February 25, 1972.
5. Analysis of Pollution from Marine Engines and Effects on the
Environment. Progress Report Period July 1, 1972 to January
1, 1973. BIA-EPA Project No. 30843. January 1973.
6. Shuster, W. W. Control of Pollution from Outboard Engine Exhaust:
A Reconnaissance Study (Tentative Draft). Sponsored by the Water
Quality Office, Environmental Protection Agency. Program No.
15020 ENN. April 1971.
7. Ferren, W. P. Outboards' Inefficiency is a Pollution Factor.
National Fisherman. April 1970.
8. Jackivicz, T. P. and Kuzminski, L. N. A Review of Outboard
Motor Effects on the Aquatic Environment. Journal WPCF. Vol-
ume 45, No. 8, August 1973.
9. Jackivicz, T. P. and Kuzminski, L. N. Interaction of Outboard
Motors with the Aquatic Environment - Causative Factors and
Effects. Division of Water Pollution Control, Massachusetts Water
Resources Commission. Contract No. 15-51451. June 1972.
65
-------
10. Bryson, F. E. Ecology versus Recreational Boats. Machine
Design. November 29, 1973.
11. Stewart, R. and Howard, H. H. Water Pollution by Outboard
Motors. The Conservationist, New York. June-July 1968.
12. Muratori, A. How Outboards Contribute to Water Pollution. The
Conservationist, New York. June-July 1968.
13. Pflaum, W. , et al. The Outboard Motor and Water Pollution.
Motortechnische Zeitschrift. ^9(3):85-90, March 1968. Trans-
lated September 23, 1969.
14. English, J. N., et al. Pollutional Effects of Outboard Motor
Exhaust - Laboratory Studies. Journal WPCF. July 1963.
15. English, J. N., et al. Pollutional Effects of Outboard Motor
Exhaust - Field Studies. Journal WPCF. September 1963.
16. Surber, E. W. The Effect of Outboard Motor Exhaust Wastes on
Fish and Their Environment. J. Wash. Acad. Sci. Volume 61,
No. 2, 1971.
17. Aronson, A. L. Biologic Effects of Lead in Fish. J. Wash. Acad.
Sci. Volume 61, No. 2, 1971.
18. Kooyoomjian, K. J. A Partial Examination of Questionnaire Survey
Data with Emphasis on Boating Usage and Water Quality. Fresh
Water Institute at Lake George, R. P. I. Troy, New York, Feb-
ruary 14, 1973.
19. Boat Load Determination and Boat Use Data. Developed by Out-
board Marine Corporation and Transmitted to Charles T. Hare of
SwRI by Michael J. Boerma of OMC in Personal Communication.
20. Outboard Motor Field Usage Survey. Developed by Outboard
Marine Corporation and Transmitted to Charles T. Hare of SwRI
by Michael J. Boerma of OMC in Personal Communication, Sep-
tember 8, 1972.
21. The Boating Business 1971 (pamphlet) published by The Boating
Industry (magazine).
66
-------
22. Letter from Don Reed of BIA to William Rogers Oliver of EPA
Commenting on Part 2 Final Report (Draft) under Contract EHS
70-108 Phase I, November 9, 1972. An excerpt: "We agree with
SWR in the use of Brake specific fuel use data rather than fuel
specific data because we do think the billion gallon often quoted
figure is much too high. "
23. Report on Telecon Between Ted Morgan of Mercury Marine and
William Rogers Oliver of EPA. Mr. Morgan Commenting on Par.t
2 Final Report (Draft) under Contract EHS 70-108 Phase I. Mr.
Morgan's simplified analysis shows annual fuel consumption to be
approximately 500 x 10" gallons per year.
24. Report on Telecon Between Ed Reinelt of Chrysler Corporation
and William Rogers Oliver of EPA. Mr. Reinelt Commenting on
Part 2 Final Report (Draft) under Contract EHS 70-108 Phase I.
Mr. Reinelt gave an estimated fuel consumption of 600 x 10" gal-
lons per year for outboards.
25. Hare, C. T. and Springer, K. J. Exhaust Emissions from Un-
controlled Vehicles and Related Equipment Using Internal Combustion
Engines, Final Report Part 2: Outboard Motors. Contract EHS
70-108 for the Environmental Protection Agency. January 1973,
67
-------
SECTION IX
APPENDIX A
Comprehensive Test Data
68
-------
TEST
No.
TYPE 19 &> 5" JOHNSON 9.5
R.UN
)
2
2>
4
5
O
MS
\.~I5
1.50
U75
1.20
\-50
2. OS
l-BS
\.^5
2.35
2.75
%«^
O.TO-?
o-n&
0.27&
O.Z3&
o.n&
0.^1
0.107
0.32t
0.254
0.2>10
0.374
0.437
T\ME,
min
2.O
2O
\5
\0
*0
20
20
IS
10
\0
2.0
2O
FUEL R^Tt.
lt'/W
3-90
5.25
1.00
9.00
\0.50
3.0,0
3.90
B.20
11.10
\\-70
7. OS
8.2£
^l/K,
O.d>20
O.B35
i. n
1.43
1. (.7
0.572
O.(o20
»-30
Kit
l.%<0
1.12
1.31
SAMPLEltfF)
2r
(b2.4
87. 1
45.7
5.0
12.5
(.1.3
B2.7
A3.5
2.4
7.0>
2.fc.0
32.6
^1
n.o
I0b.2
5fe.O
7-3
l(o.O
6Z.O
101-0
53.0
2.8
10.5
32. 0
39. S
^M-tPLt %
OF FUEL BY
VOL.
9.S3
10.1
5.32
0.&10
».&2
VI.3
12.9
4.23
0.2S2
0.695
2.2fc
2.^9
VV;T.
10. b
It. 0
5.1t
0.735
1.57
12.4
14.0
4.bB
0.28t
0,85?
2.44
2.fc3
SAMPLE
RATE,
*/h*
»ft7.
2(^1.
163.
30.0
7&0
xol.
i^B.
174.
14-4
4S.C,
78.0
9B.4
FUEL. TEMP. AT EAJG-tME S CoO "F
FUEL
AT
DENSITY =
= Q.748 2>/C|
COM M EMTS *TOP Rf>K1> TESTED AFTER. TUN
-------
TEST
Mo.
TV P E
RUM
1
£
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
1 1
»2
13
14
15
16
n
IB
O
10
21
22.
23
24
CONDITION
IDLE.
»soo
3000
4000
4500
IDLE
ISOO
3000
4000
4500
CYCLE
CYCLE
tDUE
1500
3000
4-OOO
4500
IDLE
1500
3000
4000
4500
CYCLE
CYCLE
FUEL OSED
lb~
O.fcO
1.45
2,45
2.20
2.45
O.G.O
1.50
2.10
L75
z.oo
3.2S
3.30
1. 10
1.95
2.45
2.15
2.45
1.20
1.90
2.fcO
2.25
2.4S
3. t»0
3.70
0,0. 1
O.I 30
0.23fo
0.338
0.357
0.35 8
0.0975
0.244
0.341
0.284
0-325
O.S28
0.53fc
O.n>
0.317
0.338
0.34J
0.398
0.195
0.30^
0.422
0.3t5
0.396
0.585
O.tbOl
TUtE,
mir\
20
20
15
10
10
20
20
15
\0
10
20
20
20
20
15
10
\0
2-0
20
IS
>0
10
20
£0
FUEL KATE.
lb'/K.
1.40
4.35
9. BO
13.20
14.70
1.80
4.50
&. 40
10.50
ll.OO
9-75
9.90
3,30
5.85
9.80
12.90
14.70
3.&>0
5-70
10-40
13.50
14.70
10.80
u.\o
*Vx,
0.390
0.707
1.S9
2.14
2.39
0.292
0.73J
1.3J
1.75
1.80
S/VN\PLEb2'0
%
33.6
52.3
28.0
4-7
2.fc
IB. 1
22.3
\3.2.
2.7
2.2
\fc.4
22.G
^5.9
91-7
n.3
3.t
3.5
11. »
62.1
IB.4
4.3
3.5
28.7
*>!.£>
**\
3^.5
G2.0
33.0
5.2
2.9
21.5
2t.5
l(*.0
2-9
2.3
\9.5
27.5
\02.
109.
20.5
4.3
3.S
B4.0
Li&.&
XI. 0
5.1
3.?
34.0
37.0
SAMP
Or FU
VOL.
?S.03
«b.9S
2.\9
0.384-
0.\93
5.83
2.87
».24
0.170
0.187
0.97fc
1.35
1S.1
9.0?
\.3fc
0.325
0.232
VI. 4
e>.?>9
1.31
0.3fe9
0.25^
1.54
J.(»3
LE %
EL BY
*^T.
3.3O
7.95
2.52
0.470
0.234
fc.fc4
3.28
\.3B
0.340
0-242
1.1 \
LSI
H.2
10.4
\.SED
AFTER RUN
70
-------
TEST EK)UK)E. NO. 5 TYPE ^(0(0 QOHUSQfO 33
RON
I
1
3
4
5
G
7
b
9
10
i t
1Z
13
14-
15
10.
>7
•ft
0
10
2-1
IX
13
24
CONATION
IDLE
\500
3000
4500
4800
IDLE.
1500
3000
4500
4800
CYCLE
CYCLE
VDLt
1500
3000
4500
4800
\DLE
1500
3000
4500
4&00
CYCLt.
C.YC.L-E
FUEL, USED
lb«
M5
2. OS
2.80
3.2S
3.(oS
1.35
Z.05
2.10
3. OS
3.fc5
4.G>0
4.35
\.(oO
2.35
3.05
3.15
4,00
I. IS
2.10
2.80
3.50
3.70
4.BS
4.95
$0.1
o.iw>
0.2>31
0.453
0.520)
0.590
0.2\&
0.332
0.437
0.493
0.5>0
0.744-
0.104
0.2S9
0.380
0.4*3
O.fcOl
O.fc41
O.I 8(0
o.MO
0.453
O.Sfofc
0.53&
0.784
0-801
T\ME,
min
2.O
2.0
»5
to
»0
ZO
2.0
IS
\0
10
ZO
2.0
2.0
2.0
»5
10
10
2.0
ZO
15
)0
10
2.0
ZO
FUEL RftTt
lb-A
3.4S
fc.js
11. 20
19.50
2.\OO
4.05
0
n.io
2I.OO
Z2.10
\4.55
14.85
*'/*
0.&56
0.99S
l.Bl
3. IS
3.54-
O.bSS
0.995
\.1S
2.9t
3.S4
2.Z3
2.\l
0.116
1.14
1.97
3.LEto*f)
^
130.3
\%9.9
27.0
9.0
\l.B
15^.^
78.5
ifc.3
B.fc
10.4
40.5
3 (o.5
15% fc
92.7
X7.Z
10.4
12. Z
142.5
80. &
24-7
8-9
II. b
5C..3
41.0
~l
\S9.5
10.Z
IZ.)
4&.0
44.5
\9Z.
\\1.
33.0
\5.0
n.o
172.
«it.5
30.0
13.5
14.0
43.5
4-3.0
S*HPLt %
OF FUEL EY
VOL.
Z2.2
\-3.3
1.87
0.528
O.fe3t
21.3
7.44
l.lft
0.54fe
0.541
1.70
I.fc7
»9.(b
7.78
1.17
O.fc52>
O.fc54
Z4.4
7.51
1-75
O.t>2>0
O.fclB
|.4fc
l.fcZ
i^T.
25. O
\S.O
Z.I3
0.0>\l
0.713
2S.\
8.4-4
1.33
O.folZ
0.6>28
1-94
L87
22.0
8.70
1-97
O.foU
O.fell
27.3
8.4(^
1-94
0-Sfcl
O.(o72,
l.(oS
1.85
SAMPLE
RATE,
V/h*
^9<-
4ZO.
»OB.
54.0
70-8
4-2.4-
122.
\ I I.
419.
2.78.
1O9.
fc2.4
73.2
428.
2.42.
98.8
53.4
(b7.8
109.
IZ3.
FUEL. TEMP. AT EK)CrtNJE = 90 °F DENSITY - fc.183
FUEL DENSITY AT 72.*P->-2-4Z lb^l ^ 0.746 S>Al
COMM EMTS FUEL -OIL- RATIO UJAS SO". > ; 450O UJAS MAX. RPM BEFORE
A:?TER. TONING; CAR.&URETOR AMD TIMIM& o^ AS RECEIVE D;
\DL£ RPH UOAS> 1QQ BEFORE.
,, 800 AFTER ; TONEP AFTER R.VJ^4 12
71
-------
TEST EWCrlWE. NO. 4
HE.R.CURV GS
H-OME DRAIM OWLV
ROM
1
2
3
4
5
0ft
0.7Z3
0-990
0.885
0.24-4-
0.739
1.01
0.817
1,40
1.40
T^t,
mirv
2.0
2.O
IS
>0
zo
20
IS
10
20
ZO
FUEL RftTE.
*-A
5.70
13.4
Z4.4-
32.7
4.SO
I5.G
2S.O
52.4
2.5.8
Zfc.O
^1A,
0.925
2.17
3.96
5.3»
0.72>\
2.12
4>0&
5.2fc
4.\5
4.21
SAMPLE^2'f;)
2r
8.3
« 1.3
12. 0
1.5
S.4
»0»9
12.2.
\.B
IO.G
9.8
~l
10.0
14.0
\4.5
1.5
7.0
13.0
I4.S
2.3
»2.S
12.0
SAMP
OF Fvl
VOL.
QBSfe
0.512
a387
O.O57
O.75B
0.44>5
0.2>79
0.0fc9
0.25fc
0.22G
LE. %
EL BY
»\/T.
0.9fe3
O.SfcO
0.434
O.Ofcl
0.154
0.52.B
0.430
0.073
0.272
0.2SO
SAMPLE
RATE,
* /h**
49.8
63. fe
58.8
FUEL TEMP. AT EN)trlK>E 3 90 "F
FUEL DEKJSHY AT 12.' F-
DENSITY * fe.iS? u"
0.74S »/^|
toMM ENTS *SAMPLE. RATE.
\s DOUBLE THAT COLLEGTED,
OMLV ONE. OP TWO DRAWS UJAS IIQT EK.CE PTED ; FUEL: O>L RATIO S0'.\;
EO&KOE IDLED AT "7 00 RPH ; EMGitOE WJOQLD NOT ROlJ SATi^PACTOR\LV
AS KECEIMED, SO WAS TESTED AFTER. M\MOR TOME ONLY; MAX. RPM 4500
72
-------
TEST
R.UN
1
^
3
4
5
fe
7
^
10
11
11
IS
14
14
\7
18
26
11
2*
24
jMWTWt
IDLE.
\SOO
3OOO
40OQ
45&O
\l>Li.
1590
3000
4%M
4SM
CHI*
CYtLt.
IDLE
15M
3900
4OOO
4560
IDLE.
159 8
3WO
4406
4SOO
CYCLE
CYCLfc
FUEL. OSEO
(fc^
l.\
\ 1
1.8
1.8
a. 5
v.o
1.1
1.0
^•9
1.3
i.fc
1.7
1. 1
1.3
2.5
1-9
2.1
1. 1
\.l
2,4-
l<8
1.0
1.9
2.7
&«.!
o.\&
O.1O
0.2^
0.29
0,41
n.\0,
0.10
a 53
o.s»
e-37
0.41
t.44
d.1%
O-l\
0.41
0.31
034
o.\ &
o.ia
0.39
0.2.9
0-33
0.47
0.44
TIME,
min
20
to
15
to
\0
tO
2JD
15
10
\0
20
2®
20
18
\s
10
\n
2f>
10
\s
10
10
10
10
utut
*7C*
3.3
3.G»
1.2.
10.8
\5.0
3.0
3.C,
6.0
11.4
13. &
1.8
ft.l
3.3
3.9
IO.O
U.4
H.fe
3.3
3.C.
9-fc
10.8
ll.O
«.7
&.I
^Tt
^1A*
0.54
O.fcO
M<0
1.74
2.44
0.4&
O.SO
1.31
\.6fc
2.21
t.tfc
1.31
0.54
0-C.3
I.d4
1.&&
2.04
0.54
O.fcO
l.Sfc
1.14
1.96
1.41
1.31
^WAPL
%
14. t
25.1
fc.4
5,0
1.8
ib.v
21.9
5.5
5.0
l.fc
11.1
i&.d
lfc.3
4S.9
11. 1
9-1
vo.o
23.1
31.0
1.8
S.fc
&.1
15.9
21.1
tte%)
ml
I8.O
30.0
8.5
1.5
10.0
22.O
33.5
1.5
1.0
XO.O
21.0
22,0
3\.0
£3.5
14.0
U.O
12:0
21.5
43.6
1 0.0
fcS
9.4
»9.0
15.0
OF FUFI B.V
VOL.
2.G4
3.9 fc
O.114
O.fcft3
0.&44
5.fc3
4-41
O.fcOO
0.59&
0.114
1.31
1.31
4.SS
fe.13
0.902
0.931
0.932
4.04
5.
0.893
1.11
1.72
S^MPLE
RATE,
V f l\^
43. &
IS.fe
o ^^ ^,
A_^9*19
30.0
4fc.B
54.3
83.7^
22.O
36»®
4£.fe
£1.6
S5.8
18.9
138,
4-fe.B
54. fe
feO.O
fc9.4»
\i t.
il.l
53, OOQ
JETS S6NVEW*\^T AFTE.e TUNING ; USED PRESS ORE. -TY Ft,
73
-------
TEST EN)01K)E. No. 0> TYPE W>S
1*>EST BEIVJP) SO
R.UN
I
2.
3
4-
S
S
5.70
^OL\
0.155^
OS54-
0.fcL7
0.7B1
1.0&
0.23&
0.158
O.fat>0
0.76S
1.08
0.879
0.911
o.n?
0.334
0^51
0.423
0.790
0.122.
O.ifot
O.lSfc
0.412
0.757
0.920
0.928
TIME,
min
2.0
20
15
10
10
20
20
\5
10
»0
20
10
20
10
IS
10
to
20
20
\5
10
\0
2O
20
FUEL RftTt
lk-A
2.8S
G.I5
15.4
26.8
39.9
4.35
fe.60
16.2
18,2.
39. J
»fc.l
ib.B
3.30
(o.lS
fe.10
15. ^
29-1
2.25
C..75
S80
15.9
27,9
»7.0
m
^'A,
0,4t5
LOO
2.51
4~fc)
(o.46
0.70ft
1.08
2..fc4
4,59
6,4ft
2.64
2.74
0.537
1.00
i.OI
2.54
4-74
O.ifcfe
MO
0.944
2.59
4^4
2.74.
2.78
SAMPLEttff)
%
is.fc
7.7
Z.O
1.0
2.1
94.7
S-9
1.2
0.8
1.*
11,0
\9.5
m.t
i?-t
2.7
o.s
t.8
60.4
5fc.4
2.5
0.3
1. I
18.2
2b.O
ml
93.0
9.1
2A
1.1
2.5
H3.
4.4
1.4
1.0
2.4
\3.5
23.5
*M.
95.5
3.4
0.4
2.0
94.S
b7.0
3.1
0.2
1.4
22.0
*>0,S
^MPLE. %
OF FUEL BY
VOL.
15.9
0.720
O.I 01
0.040
O.Ofcl
U.fc
0.324
0.05(o
0.034
0.059
0.40t
o.Ul
19.8
7,55
0.35t
0.025
0.0fcl
20, S
4.84
0.347
O.OI2
0.049
0.fc3Z
0,8(>8
UV/T.
18.1
0.82B
O.US
0.044
0.070
\4.4
0.381
O.OfcS"
0.038
0.0t>3
0.44?
0.76Q
22.C
8.SG
0.384
0.042
0.082.
23, t
5.53
0.380
0.025
0.052
0.710
t.Ol
SM-IPLE
RATE,
»/h*
23t.
23.1
8.0
(o.O
»2X
284.
11.4
4.8
4,8
n,4
33.0
58. S
336,
239.
to. &
3.0
10.8
2AI.
Ibl.
(0.0
1.8
(>.(.
54.C.
7B.O
FUEL. TEMP.
RJEL
AT
AT 72.' F»
2 90 "F
fa. 141
0.743 »/C>
COMMEMTS FUEL'.OIL RATtO SO'. I ', ElOG-iME tDLED AT 9QQ
SOMEWKAT
KT tt>LE AS R.ECEl>)€.b; NO
NECESSARY ; TUNED AFTER. RAJKJ 12,
74
-------
TEST
NO.
TYPE 1959
45
|— ONE DgAIM ONLV
R.UN
1
2.
2>
4
5
^
1
&
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
IS
Ifc
n
18
COMDITIOH
IDLE.
1500
2750
4250
5000
IDLE.
1500
2-750
4.2£0
5000
CYCLE
CYCLE
IDLE
1500
21 SO
4150
5000
CYCLE
FUEL. OSED
Ib^
2.. 05
2. OS
3-fc5
3.05
3.90
l.fcO
2.25
3.75
2-85
4.35
440
4,40
1.50
2.20
3..&&9
0.4J2
Ob29
0.158
0.3b3
O.bOS
0.4tO
0.701
0.709
0.109
0.242
0.355
0.5BO
0.500
o.feos
0.fcfcS
TIME.
mi ft
20
2.0
15
10
10
20
20
15
10
10
20
10
20
20
15
10
10
20
OEL RATE
sc.
O.I7fe
0.100
0.085
0.030
O.I 00
0.125
O.S29
0-130
O.H9
0.03fo
0.014
0.085
RATE,
»&.o
19-8
13.1
12.. 0
&.4
it, 8
10.8
27.1
13.2.
7.2.
12.O
15.0
Zl-G
I3.&
|(o,8
4 WELL. REPQg.E AND AFTER. TUN ING- ; EN&\ N E
IDLED AT 1000 KJ>M x TUNED AFTER RUN 11 ; NO CARBURETOR
ADOOSTMEMT ; FOEL. : OIL. RATIO SO'. I '. * SEE EK)&»JE 4 DATA S.HEE-T
75
-------
TEST EWCrllOE- NO. S TYPE **«*B
40 Hf>
RON
1
2.
3
4
5"
6
7
6
9
to
\\
11
13
14
\5
'
CONDITION
IDL.E
ISOO
3000
4300
\DLE
ISOO
3000
4300
CYCLE
C/C.UE.
IDLE
ISOO
3000
4300
CYCLE
FUEL. OSED
Ikw
MO
2.15
3.05
3.9S
i.7o
2.30
2.90
4. IS
5.35
5.35
1-75
2.4S
2.75
4.10
5.25
**\
o.r?fc
0.365
0-455
0.641
O.Z7fe
0.373
0.471
O.fc74
0.86&
0.8fc8
0.284
o.i>B
0.446
0.665
0.851
TIME,
min
2.O
20
15
10
10
20
IS
10
10
20
10
10
15
10
10
FUEL RATE.
lk-A
5.10
6.75
12.20
23.70
S.VO
6-50
u. to
14-50
Ifc.QS
16.05
5.25
7.35
U.OO
14.60
15.75
^A.
O.B2B
1. 10
t.n
3.85
0.82&
H2
I.B6
4.04
2.CO
2. tO
0.8S1
H9
1-7?
3.9J
2.56
SAMPLE^2'0
^
U9.&
51-7
n.r
fc.2
\»3.7
4ft.2
8.0
fc.Z
2.7.1
17.3
97.9
43.1
7.3
6.1
16.5
~l
I40.S
(oO.O
»5.5
6.0
Ii3.5
57.5
10.0
8.0
32.0
32.5
U4.S
51.0
8.5
8.0
31.5
S*MPLE. %
OF FUEL RY
VOL.
»3.4
4.34
0.720
0.^30
\1.8
4.07
0.561
0.314
0.974
0-989
10.7
3.3?
O.S03
0.318
0.977
vvrr.
i5.5
5.07
O.W>1
0-346
14.7
4-fcl
O.tOB
0.32J
\.ll
Ml
12.3
3.69
0.585
0.328
I.I 1
S/KMPLE
RATE,
*/h*
359.
<55.
44.4
37.2
341.
145,
32.0
37-2.
61-3
&I.9
2.J4.
130-
19.2
Z4.4
79-5
FUEL- TEMP. M- EW^IWE 2_90_«F
FUEL DEIOSrVY AT 12* F- fe.120
COMM EMTS A300 WAS tOP
DEUSITY ^ fe.tfc _iW"/
= 0-745 »/C.|
EIO&>ME. tDLEP AT &QQ g.m > TUNED
AFTER. RUN 10; FUE.U '. OIL. RATIO SO'. I
NO
ADJUSTMENT
76
-------
TEST EWMKJE. MO.
TYPE >9U JOtVMSOM 4O
RUN
1
1
3
4
S
Q>
7
8
9
10
I I
IZ
13
*I4
15
IG
»7
i&
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
3000
4SOO
5000
IDLE
1500
3000
4SOO
5000
CYCLE
CYCLE
JDLE
1500
3000
4SOO
5000
CYtLE
FUEL USED
lk~
2. IS
3.25
4.00
3.fe5
4.7S
1.50
3.10
4-4S
4.10
4-90
5.90
fc.2.0
2.25
2-90
4.40
3.90
4,65
fc.ZO
£0.\
0.34>4
0.5 IS
O.U4C,
0.590
0.? &7
0/404
O.SOI
0.719
O.fefc2
0.191
0-J53
1.00
0-564
0.4«>9
0.1 1)
0-fcJO
0.784
1,00
TIME,
tniA
2.0
2JD
15
10
10
00
20
IS
10
10
20
20
20
10
IS
\0
10
20
FUEL KATE.
V-
fc.75
9.7S
It. 00
2V. 90
za.50
l.SO
930
H.BO
24-fcO
2.9.40
n.7o
iB.fco
fc.75
B.70
n.fco
13.40
2.9.10
iB.loO
*!/W
1.09
I.SB
2.5J
3.54
4.W)
I-H
1.60
1.88
3.97
4.75
i.m>
3.0|
\.0)
l.4»
2.64
3.7B
4.70
3.01
SAMPLEtJ2*F)
%
\l 44
151.5
54.4
\*>.z
9.1
VO&.&
139-9
54.0
11.0
\.l
s'-?
u.9
U3.4
»34.0
54,7
ILL
3.5
SB.fo
^l
IMvO
.lftl.0
(iS.ft
15.5
11.5
\lt.0
U9.5
b£,5
13.0
I.C.
It.S
79.5
»34,0
tlol.S
(.5.0
IS.O
4.1
(o).O
S^MPLE %
OF FUEL BY
VOL.
9.13
9. It.
l.tt,
o.fcH
0.39fc
6,2-4-
8,94
1.41
0.5\9
0.053
1.95
2.\0
9-73
9.\0
2,42
O.bl9
0,138
».B1
«^T.
11.2
10.3
3.00
0.197
0.44t
9-40
9.95
2.t8
o.59|
0.054
2.24-
1.3B
\\.\
16.1
2-74
O.U90
0.155
1.08
SAMPLE
RATE,
»/h*
343.
4S4,
2-18.
19.Z
57. fc
520.
4-20.
2U.
(rb.O
7-2.
1 60.
1.01.
340.
402.
i\9.
73.2
2.).0
176.
FUEL TEMP. AT EN)CrlN)E = 90 *F
FUEL DEWSV-TY AT -71*
DENSITY = 6).189
= 0.749 &/H|
COMM ENTS
PILESEAJT UWDEK. NJORMAL. S>AM PLE j^SOUT |Q»l) —
SEE PA010 IK) TEXT : EM&4IQE IDLED AT \OOQ KPM 'x TUMED AFTER ROM \"L'f
FOEU'.OVL RATIO 2.4'. I > NO CAg.g.OR ETOK. AD JUST HE. MT
77
-------
TEST
10
TYPE
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
G
7
B
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
15
}9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
21
2ft
29
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
2150
4000
5000
IDLE
1500
2150
4OOO
5000
CYCLE
CYCLt
IDLE
1500
2150
AOOO
5000
CYCLE
IDLE
1500
21SO
4000
5000
CYCLE
IDLE
1500
2750
4000
5000
FUEL. USED
lb«,
4.55
5.10
7.10
5.BS
B.1S
3.90
4.45
5.95
5.15
5-2O
9.15
9.30
3.B5
4.15
fc.75
5.85
ft.00
9.10
3.75
4.35
5.55
5,55
5.0O
9-IO
3.fcO
4.50
fc.OO
S.fcO
a oo
aa\
0.739
0.925
1.15
0.950
1.31
0.133
0.722
o.9fefe
0.933
1.33
1.49
1.51
0-6,25
0.771
MO
0.950
1.30
1.4ft
O.fcOj
0.70fe
0.901
0.901
1.30
I-4R
0.584
0.131
0.974
0.909
1.30
TIME,
mift
19
20
,5
10
10
20
20
IS
10
10
20
20
ZO
2O
15
10
10
20
2.0
2.0
IS
10
10
20
20
20
15
IO
IO
FUEL
V-
14.37
11.10
28.40
35.»0
4B.90
11.10
13.35
23. BO
34.50
4B.60
27.45
27.90
11.55
14.25
27.00
35.10
4B.OO
27.30
11.25
13.05
22.20
33.30
4&.00
27.30
10.80
13.50
24.00
33.fcO
48.00
RATt
*Vfc*
2.33
2.78
4.U
5.70
7.94
1.90
2.17
3.B6
S.foO
7.99
4-44,
4.53
l.&B
2.31
4-38
5-10
7.79
4.43
1-83
2.12
3.foO
3.fcO
7.79
4.43
1.75
2.19
3.90
5,45
7.79
SAM PL
fc
442.4
340.4
4.1
24.8
51-1
389.0.
270-9
2.2.G
21. t
41.9
115.5
121.5
3tao
301.5
25.8
27.2
49,fc
114.2
383.8
120.4
\<*.<0
\1.2
49.7
H4.1
i03.3
272.9
27.0
»9.8
53.4
E-112'f)
ml
538.0
411.0
4.8
29.5
(.1.5
44,5.5
320.5
27.0
33.0
57.0
I3fc.0
144,5
428.0
358.5
31.0
32.5
59.0
\34.S
4SG.5
14UO
»9.5
20.0
58.0
\34.5
355.5
321.5
31.0
23.0
(,2.5
OF FU^t R-V
VOL.
19.2
11.7
0.110
o.no
1.23
»9.4
U.7
O.B8
0-934
1.13
2.41
2.53
18.1
12.3
0.745
0.904
1. 2O
2.4O
19.B
5.2B
0.572
0.58k
1.18
1.40
U.I
tl.fr
O.HI
0.ttB
1.27
2.1.4
13.2
0.127
0.935
1.40
22.0
13.4
0.837
l.Ofc
1.29
2.7 B
2.8B
20.fr
14.0
0.843
1.03
1.37
2.71
22.fr
fc.10
O.b59
O.fc83
1.37
2,7fo
1 ft f^
1 w* V
13.4
0.992
0.179
1.47
SAMPLE
RATE,
1397.
1021.
a. 4
149.
310.
llb>9.
*I3.
90.4
ut.
2»7.
344.
3fc4.
1080.
90B.
103.
l&J.
^98.
343.
1151.
3fel.
GO. 4
103.
29 «.
342.
910.
&I9.
108.
119.
320.
FUEL. TEMP. AT EfJCrlKJE =_JO_'F
FUEL OEMSITY AT 12'F- CD.22. tb^/^|
COMMENTS EHGrlNE IDLED AT 900
DENSITY = fe.Kp Vy
= 0.14S &/>|
RPM ; TONE1> AFTER, RON 11 ;
LOU)-SPEED JET SLIGHTLY LEADER AFTER T^NlMG->
K.A.T10 50; \
78
-------
TEST EWMME. ME- \\ TYPE
SS kjp
R.UN1
1
2.
3
4
5
G»
7
8
<)
10
1 \
li
»3
14
15
It
n
i%
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
2-JSO
4000
4(000
IDLE
1500
2150
4000
4-fcOO
CYCLE
CYCLE
>DLE
isoo
•2-7SO
4OOO
4-fcOO
CYCLE.
FUEL, USED
Ik^
1.20
2.25
3.ftS
4.00
fc.05
\.4-0
2.30
3.75
3.90
5.70
5.75
5.90
\.zs
2.15
3.95
4.05
fc.20
5.80
%CL\
0.»9S
0.3tfc
O.fc27
o.fosi
0.985
0.22ft
0.375
O.fe\l
O.U35
0.928
0-936
0.961
0.220
0-350
O.fc43
o.ufco
1. 01
0-9 4S
TIME,
mi*
20
20
IS
\0
10
20
2X)
15
10
(0
20
20
20
20
15
to
10
ZO
FUEL 1
bm/*
3.60
fc.15
»5.40
24.00
3t>.30
4.20
<».90
15.00
23.40
34.20
17.25
17.70
4.05
fe.45
15.80
24.30
31.20
H-40
fcftTt
^1A«-
0.5&C
|.\0
2..51
3.9 \
5.91
0.&B4-
».I2
2.44
3.81
6S7
2.BI
2.8ft
0.&60
1.05
2.57
3.9fc
&.OC,
2.83
SAM PL
%
-7£.7
5.5
0.4
t
0.4
14.4
3.0
0.6
(
(
2.B
4.9
(08.7
2.)
K
K
*
6.1
tb2>;
«»i
90.0
6.4
0.5
0.5
87.5
3.8
0.6
3.G
5.9
61.5
3.4
5.8
S/VMPLE %
OF FUF' Rv
VOL.
1^.2
0.461
0.02
0.0)
10.1
0.118
0.03
0.102.
0.1 UZ
9,79
0.257
0-ltl
VV/T.
13.?
0.53?
O.Oi
0.02
H-7
0.28&
0.04
O.t07
O.t83
u.z
0.297
0.\94
SAMPLE
RATE,
227.
lfo.5
I.&
2.4
X23.
9.0
2.4-
8.4
»4,7
2.0 (p.
0.7
»5.3
FUEL TEMP. AT EN)CrtWE ^ JO_°F
DENSITY =
>• *
FUEL
AT
COM M EMTS * SAMPLE TOO SMALL TO MEASQR.E., OBSERVED AS DROPLETS
ON IMSIDE BOTTLE \AJMU& > EU6^iK>E t&LED AT 9&0 RP^ '. TOM ED
NO
) J\)STM F»JT ; FOEL ; Q\U RATIO
79
-------
TEST ElOCrllOt
US3 JOHUSOK) ID Kfr
RUN
1
£
3
4
fc
7
B
10
II
12,
CONDITION
I&LE,
t500
2150
4000
4500
M5U.
1500
Z7S8
4000
4500
C#CU
CVCLE
FUEL. USED
Ik
2.0
2.Z
?..&
2.5
S.Z
Z.Z
2.4
2.3
l.fc
3 t
SO
2.9
VL\
0.3Z
0.34,
04Z
0.40
0.51
0.3*
0.33
0.2>7
0.4Z
O.SO
0.48
0.47
TIME,
mift
ZO
ao
15
10
10
24)
2J>
15
(«
to
20
Z.O
FOEL KATE
k-X»
(p.O
10.4
1&.0
i9.a
(p.G
7.Z
9-Z
\5.t
\6.G
9.0
ft. 7
**%*
0.97
1.D&
\.loft
2.4Z
3.iO
1.06
\.\t
t.4b
2.5Z
3.W)
IAS
1.40
SAM PL
%
97.0
1Z.I
43.C,
5.7
(o.Z
1043
7l.t
48.3
U.I
7.5
£9.7
34-3
ttn'ti
ml
US.5
.65.0
5».5
6.4
7.1
\zs.e
H-s
57.5
11.7
B.S
47.5
41. Q
SAMPLE %
OF FUFI RV
VOL.
9.45
fe.33
3.25
0.420
0.3U
%3>0
fe.4S
4.6?
&.W
0.44?
2.S9
2.S1
HAT.
10.7
1.15
3.70
0.503
0.417
10.5
7.51
4-t3
-------
TEST EWOrliOE. Mo. 13 TYPE
JOftMSON 33
RJJN
1
2
3
4
5
<0
-;
ft
9
10
11
11
13
14-
15
Ifc
n
1ft
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
2750
4000
4500
IDLE
I50O
2750
4000
4500
3
0.544
0.4t3
O.Sfc?
0.73?
0.764
0.335
0.4*>3
0.504
0.512.
O.felfc
0.731
TIME,
min
ZO
2O
15
10
10
20
20
\5
10
10
20
20
20
20
15
10
10
20
FUEL 1
fc"A
fc.90
9.00
12.10
17.40
21. tO
fc.fcO
8.55
13.40
17.10
21.00
I3.fc5
14.10
fc.15
855
12.40
18.90
23.10
13.50
RATE
^A+
1.12
l.4t
i-H
2.83
3.5)
1.07
I."i>
2.\&
2.78
3.41
2.22
2.25
0.999
1.39
2.01
3.07
3.75
2.19
^AMPL
fc
205.0
US.fe
2fc.5
8.B
O.fcl7
0.587
lb.7
B-09
1.31
0.799
0.933
2.86
2.&7
2»-7
8.2ft
l.'Xo
0.578
0-840
2.53
v^T.
\9-t
B.50
1.91
O.fc54
o.fct7
19-0
9.2fc
1.50
0-928
1.00
3.29
3.27
25.0
9.38
2.25
o.tlfe
0.893
3-U
RATE,
7r /h*
0)5.4
5fc8.
359-
91.1
72.0
95.4
2.04.
2.09.
0)98.
3fc4.
117.
52.8
93.G
190.
FUEL TEMP. AT EMCrlME =J*P_°F DBMStTY = fe-'S4 u-/y.l (
FUEL DEMSHY AT ^'F - W*- *~/^\ = 0-">44 &/^|
EJOG-IIOE »DL£D AT &00 RPH;TU/OED AFTER RU»0 12> H\6-H
JET SL-\e-*VTL.V
A.FTER. TUN \K) G- ' FUEL '.OIL. K.A.TIO
50'.
81
-------
TEST
NO. 14 TV PE
MEE.CUR.V
K|>
RUN
1
Z
3
4
5
J.3)
1.43
O.Mfe
0.170
0.908
0,892-
I.5Z
1.36
0.616
2.34
0.333
2.12.
TWE,
ITUA
20
10
IS
10
10
zo
2.0
15
10
10
10
ZO
10
2.0
IS
10
10
20
20
40
20
40
FUEL R*Tt
'b-A
5.10
9.»5
12.BO
33-90
56.10
S.8S
12.. 00
li.OO
34.80
55.20
i&fcsr
26.40
5.85
I4.2S
12.40
33.00
5b.4Q
15.10
H.40
H.fcO
6.I&
ZS.1Z
^l/K,
0.925
1.48
3.70
5.50
J.20
0.949
1.95
3.13
5.64-
B.9S
4.16
4.28
0,949
2.3»
3.63
5.35
9.»5
4.09
i.»5
3.50
0.998
4-06
— TOP TVJO DRMMS — •-
S/\HPLEb2*f)
?f
IB.4
40.9
ifc.l
4,9
2.7
15.5
39.1
15.3
4.1
2.1
tft.3
\9.8
11. B
35.3
»7.7
6.3
4.9
19.3
?*£
•v^^
^11.1
''^x^^
lA.^^
^£1.0
m\
2».0
47.0
19.0
S.4
3.1
18.5
45,5
18.0
5.Z
3.4
21.5
23.5
»5.|
3>% 9
12.8
-37
O.Cot.3
0.20 1
0.081
0.410
2.11
0.597
».&>
0.559
*\;T.
2.13
l-9fc
0.623
O.\9l
O.OfcS
»«7S
2.15
O.S&1
0.160
0.065
0.4T2
0.4%
1.44
1.64
O.b97
0.253
0.115
0.507
».96
0.531
1.11
0.5«
SAMPLE.
RATE,
ir /h**
82.8
1&4.
9t».(o
44.1
24.3
69.8
life.
91-8
37-8
24,3
81.4
89,1
57. fc
159.
106.
56-7
44.1
B6.&
\16.
&7.8
79.2.
102.
FUEL TEMP. AT EM&lME S 90 "F
FUEL DEWS\TY AT 12." F» 6.2X4
DEKiSITY
O.146 &/.|
6.16S U"/yl C90
COMM ENTS *RATE. SHOvJU IS t.S TIMES, THAT . COLLECTED, SINCE 2 OF 3 DRAIMS
INTERCEPTED; * SEPARATE SAMPLES FROM TOP AMD dEfJTER
RUK) \"L ; 900 RPM l&LC. ; NO CAUgQRETOtl CHAM6-ES: FUEL '.OIL RATIO SO'. I
82
-------
TEST EIO&1UE- NO. 15/l5ft TYPE
/
0
4.10
1.00
-7-80
b.06
2.70
3.2,5
4.5S
3.10
fe.25
7.\S
"?.15
2. feO
3.15
4.55
4.25
Q>.10
£0.1
O.M7
0.3BO
o.tofc
o.fclfc
». Ifc
0.38&
0388
0.5B2-
0.75?
1.13
|.2fo
I.2J
0.^37
0£*Z
0.737
O.S9J
l.0\
l.lt
Mfc
0.421
o.toi
0.&01
O.fcBB
».0b
TWE,
rnlrx
1O
12.
10
10
10
\l.S
»i
10
10
10
20
ZO
Ib
n.s
15
>0
10
10
2X1
18
o
15
10
10
FUEL R*Tt
lb"A
a. 90
11.15
12.50
•iO.30
43.10
U.52.
12.00
•2.1. €>0
2-B.10
42.00
23.40
24.00
<).00
U.49
1B.Z.O
22.20
37.50
21.45
2.1.45
8.fc7
U.84
\9-80
2S.50
40.2.0
*V*
2.06
1-H
3.d>4
4-90
Q>.^8
2.01
\.^4
3.4?
4.5G
fc.l?
3.16
3.ft&
l.4t
l.ftfc
2.95
3.5J
fc.07
3.47
3.47
1.40
1.92
3.21
4.13
6.51
SAMPLED.)
fc
433.3
439.fe
221. G
X01.3
254-9
435.5
443.2
221.1
200.1
247.4
480-7
53V.7
423.4
422.fc
19.3
25.1
14&.fc
V9fc.J
1%7.0
420. fc
4Z3.5
41.5
24,4
151.2
«a
531.0
SSfe.O
276.5
2fcO.S
501.2
539.0
541.5
274.5
240.0
2? 8.5
519.5
0,43.5
514.5
514.0
13.5
2>1.0
111.5
235.0
225.0
511.5
512.5
50.0
2-9.0
iBO.S
SAMPLE %
OF FUEL BY
VOL.
40.4
31.3
12.)
8.t3
1.00
ifc.l
3fc->
\2.5
8.3S
fc-9B
12.2
\3.2
31.1
2S.1
O.fe42
1.3,7
4.fc4
5.35
5.\2
2>2.|
22,3
i.ts
I.IV
4.42
V\;T.
44.4
41-2-
13.0
9.05
!.$0
40.4
40.7
13.?
9.4*
1-79
13. fc
14.7
34.C,
27.8
0.935
1.53
5.24
fc.oi
5.17
55.7
24-9
I.BS
1.27
4-98
SAMPLE
RATE,
*/h/
IfoOO.
^196.
1330.
1244.
1529-
2-2.93.
2.2.16.
»i(pfc.
1204.
14-64.
i44Z.
>595.
14 »\.
H49-
77.2
\54.
&9Z-.
591.
5fcl.
1402,
1339.
l(o AFTER- KU^ 1 2. x HENCE "A
PE&>G-M ATI ON) ; IDLED AT 1000 RPM ', FUEL.'.0
-------
TEST
MO. \
RUN
l
2
3
4-
5
&
7
B
5
10
1 1
12.
13
14
1S
16
>1
IB
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
27so
4-000
4(oOO
IDLE
1500
2750
4000
4-200
CTtlE
WCLE
IDLE
ISOO
2750
4000
5000
CYCLE
|— ONE DRAIN ONLV •-
FUEL USED
lb~
2. SO
3,75
5.25
4.30
7.50
2.80
3.95
5.70
4-30
7.35
&.&0
B.fes
2.45
3.7S
5,50
3.10
7.35
8.35
^o.\
0.405
O.fcOB
0.85G
O.WI
1.12
0.454
O.fc4l
0.^15
O.MI
».\?
1-3?
1.40
O.SJ7
o.fcoft
0.&93
0-fcOO
».»5
1.35
TWE,
miA
20
20
>5
10
10
20
Ub
\S
10
»0
20
20
20
20
15
10
to
20
FUEL RftTE.
lk-A
7.50
11.25
21.00
25.80
45.00
B.40
U.85
22.80
1S.BO
44.\0
2S.80
2S-9S
7.35
li.25
22.00
22.20
44.10
2S.05
*V»
1.21
1.82
3.43
4.\5
1.30
l.3fe
I.J2.
3.70
4.IS
7.15
4.IB
4.21
M9
l.ftl
3.57
3.t>0
7.15
4.0fo
SAN\PLEtl2*F)
^
20.4
5.0
2.fc
1.5
0.8
Z2.8
7.t
4.C,
0.7
».t
3.8
fc.5
24.2
G.fe
3.5
O.fe
1.0
s.o
ml
24.0
. fe-5
4.5
\.B
I.I
XI. 0
9.5
(o.O
t.O
1.8
5.5
8.5
29,0
8.5
4.0
0.9
».'3
fc.S
SM-tP
OF FU
VOL.
1-57
0.282j
O.ll?
0.0•$>
\2>7-
45- €>
ifc. 6
8-4
\9-2.
22-8
39-0
\45.
3>.fc
2.5.0
7.X
\2,0
30.0
FUEL TEMP. AT EMCrlME ^ 90 »F
FUEL DEKJSHY AT 12* F^ fe.224- lb-
COMM EMTS 5EE EM6-I>JE 4 DATA SHEET ; SAMPLES
DENSITY =. 6. It. 5 u-
0.74G &/C.I
DAR1C >N) COUOR.
ISEE ptvrro IN TEX.T); ENG->IOE JDLED AT 1000
NO CARBURETOR.
AD.iOSTMEWT > TUNF-D
R.VJNt
FOEJL: Q\L- RATIO SO '. \
84
-------
TEST EK)OrlK)E- No. H TYPE 19
7
B
3
10
11
»Z
13
14
15
Ifc
»7
\8
CONDITION
IDLE
ISOO
-2-1 £0
4000
sooo
IDLE
1GOO
2.750
4000
5000
CYtLE
CVC.lt
IDLE
\SOO
2.150
4OOO
sooo
e/CLE
FUEL USED
It-
2.40
4.fc5
5.05
4.10
5,60
2.50
4.40
4.C.5
4.10
s.95
fc-90
fe-9S
2,50
4.S5
5.25
S.fcO
7.2S
7.^0
oko.\
0.2,6ft
0.1 Si
o.ft»7
O.fcfc4
0.93.9
0.40S
0.712
0.153
O.fc&O
0,9b3
Ml
1.12,
0.40S
O.ISfc
O.BSO
0.90&
1-17
\M
T\ME,
tnin
iO
TJD
»5
10
\0
ZO
2.0
\5
10
\0
7JQ
Z4>
10
10
\5
10
10
10
FUEL RftTt
lb-A
-7.10
\3.95
10.10
1440
i4-.BO
7.50
\^ZO
I8.&0
25.20
35.70
10.70
10.85
7.50
I3,fc5
ZI.OO
3,i.fcO
4).SO
24.fcO
^'/K.
i.n
2.1G
3.17
3.JB
5.fe3
\.2.l
2.14
3.01
4.08
5-78
3.35
3.37
I.H
2.2.1
3.40
5.44
B.0»
3-9B
-*-TOPTVOO DRAINS ••
SAMPLEt72*f)
%
19.9
40,9
5.0
t
t
24.2
33.€
£.1
t
t
12. g
13.0
13.)
35. \
%3
1
t
U.3
*«\
23.5
44.5
S.S
ZB.O
3B.5
&.3
15.0
15.1
It. 2.
40.)
10.4
^4.8
SAMPLE %
OF FUEL BY
VOL.
l.(oO
\.&3
0.178
\.B3
1.44
0.22.1
O.i54
0.35?
I.OC,
\-+l
0,313
0.344,
*\>T.
1.63
l-H
O.Uft
1.13
I.fc8
O.Z70
0.403
0.412
\.23
».70
0.391
0.334
SAMPLE
RATE,
*/h**
B9.fe
IB4.
30.0
109.
ISTI.
34.2
St. 7
58.5
i.2,fc
158.
55.8
50.8
FUEL TEMP. AT EMCrlNJE ^ 90 BF DtMSITY =
FUEL DERJSnY AT 72.' F° fc.Z37 'bft| = 0-747 */~\
COMM ENTS
DATA SHEET OM
|4 ^SAMPLE TOO SMALL TO
MEASURE; £ios4K)£ IDLED AT 90QgpH> TONED AFTER E.OK) 11.; NO
CAK-BOJiETOR. ACUOSTMtK)T ; FUEL'. OjL- R.ATID SO'. I
85
-------
TEST EWCrllOE, NU. Ife TVPE 19<»8 ExJUQRODE 85
KUM
1
2
3
4
fi-
fe
7
a
9
10
1 1
12
13
14
IS
No
n
IB
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
2750
4000
5000
IDLE
1500
2750
4000
5000
CYCLE
CYtLE
IDLE
1500
2750
4000
5000
CftLE
FUEL USED
lfe~
4.50
2.50
5.45
7.10
6.30
3.85
2.20
5.40
7.35
8.35
10.00
10.00
4.20
4-95
5.00
6.SO
8.50
J.5S
ao.\
0.727
0.404
O.B6I
1.15
1.34
O.fel2
0.35fr
0.873
1.19
1.35
I.b2
I.fc2
0.679
0.800
0.808
\.OS
1.34
1.54
TIME,
tnin
20
9
14
10
10
20
8,5
13
10
10
20
20
20
20
15
10
10
20
FUEL
V-
13,50
16,61
23.3fc
42.60
49. BO
11.55
15.53
24.92
44.10
50.10
50.00
30,00
ll.fcO
14.85
20.00
39.00
49.80
28.65
RATE
*Vv*
2.18
2.fa9
3.7ft
fe.8>
B.05
1.87
2.51
4.03
7.13
8.10
4-85
4.85
2.04
2.40
3.23
fc.3.0
8.05
4.63
SAMPl
2t
t.09.9
25fc.O
2S8.9
170.8
22.3.9
594.7
25fe.B
253.4
157.fc
228. fc
42.4. \
417-3
22-t.C
2.40.3
78.0
8fe.9
21B.S
226.3
-Etn'O
v*l
743.5
314.S
5\?.5
207.0
2o2.0
723.5
320.0
310.5
191-0
273.5
513.S
510.S
420,5
284.0
91.0
104.4
ZfeLS
270.5
OF FUCI nv
VOL.
27.0
20.C,
958
4.7fc
5.5t
30.7
23.7
9.40
4.24
5.35
8.3.7
8.32
lfc.4
9-38
2-98
2.63
5.15
444
v^T.
2-5.9
22. G
10.5
5.30
fc.2.1
34.1
2S.7
10.3
4.13
6.04
9.35
9-20
n.9
10.7
3.44
2.95
S.80
5.22
SAMPLE
RATE,
1610.
1707.
1110.
10ZS.
1403.
1784.
1B.13).
1170.
Hfc.
ii71.
12.7Z.
1252.
680,
711.
312,
£21.
1511.
d>79.
FUEL TEMP. AT EWCrlWE g 90 »F DElOSlTY =^ fe.lBfe
FUEL DEMSItY AT 72' F =^24S_lb«./^ | = 0.746 &/»|
COM M EMTS EMS4ME IDLED AT 8DO g.PN\>TUKED AFTER gUM \Z ^
SO'. \ ; CARBUKETQg. SOMEtAjlAAT UE/VOEK AFTER. "TOM I
86
-------
TtST EWGrlUE. MB. 15 TYPE \9~H CHUYSLER 45
RUN
1
2
3
*
S
*s
4.20
5.&S
S.OS
S.^S
5.8S
i.»O
2.5S
2.SS
4.10
3.BS
e.2£>
S.JfT
a«.\
0.30S
0.405
as5t
0.59 I
0.818
0.340
O.i>7
O-fc&O
0.623
0-615
0.8? >
0,?47
ft.MO
0.413
0.413
0-fcBO
afczi
&&4Z
O.U4
TIME,
miA
2O
2O
l£
10
10
2.0
20
15
10
lO
2O
2O
20
20
ZO
IS
10
10
20
FUEL HftTt
*-A
5,7tt
7rSO
14.60
21. >0
30*30
t.30
7.3S
vt.80
23.10
30,30
It.fcfe
I7.SS
6.30
7-iS
l.fcs
lt,80
23.10
3t.2ft
n.»s
"/»*
0.923
^21
2^^
3.SS
4«9l
1.02
1.19
2.72
3,74
4.91
2.70
2**4
1.02.
1.24
1-24
2.72
3.74
&»S
Z.&J
.
SAHPLEjnTfrJ
%
2^i
i.O
<
<
1.4
1.5
1.1
*
*
o.9
I.S
•.*
3.V
0*7
*
0.6
*
0.&
O.J
^l
2.S
. H
0.6
\.&
1.5
0.7
2.0
l.l
5^
0.7
0.8
-
(X&
i.i
SAMPLE %
OF FUEL BV
VOL.
0.214
O.fc72
0.019
o.vw
0.1 BO
04O3
O.OS)
0.031
0.272
0.04S
0.0 i»
0825
a ait
HTT.
0.290
0.018
0.061
O.I&7
0.105
0.03)
0.060
0.034
0.325
O.Ofcl
0.03\
Ob02^
0.633
SAMPLE
RATE,
*/H*
7.5
3.0
8.4
4-S
3,6
4£
4.S
2.7
*S
2.1
2>4-
4.&
2.7
FUEL TEWP. A»T EWfrlWE ^_^_mF DtUStTy = fa. VIS ^-/
FUEL OEKJSnt AT 12'F- fc^^-^/yt -_O£M7_^I
COMM EMTS *SAMPLE TOO SKALL TO MEASURED BUTT ORSERNJEP DROPLETS OM
WALLS; EK&IME IPUEP K* 7SQ TO ase RPM', IUNE& AFTER.
; HftCAKKUgETOR AiUUST HEMT ; FUEL'.OtU RATIO
87
-------
TES.T
NO. 20 TYPE
SEA
4S
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
.DO
13..40
18.^0
2S.80
15.60
*v*
O.fc5fc
1.01
\J\
3.01
5.60
0.753
Ml
2.3
FUEL TEMP. AT EMCrlME » 90 "F
FUEL DEMSHY AT 11' F°
DEMS1TY ^
O.747 ^/>l
COM M EMTS EMGriME >DLE|> AT 900
NO
AFTER.
12. j
FUEL '. 0»U RAT\0 SO'.
88
-------
TEST ErOGrlWE. NO. 2I
PE
JOttWSOM 25
R.UM
1
2.
$
4
5
&
7
&
9
10
\i
12
13
ll-
IS
«&
17
\&
CONDITION
IOLE
IS&O
1750
3000
*3500
IDLE
1500
2-750
3000
*3700
CYCLE.
CYCLE
IDLE
1500
21 £0
3000
* 3700
CYCLE
FUEL. OSED
lb~
2.25
5-95
S.\5
3.55
2.95
2.95
5-50
£.20
4.35
3.60
5.75
(0-90
2.95
4-95
4-50
3.95
4-15
5.75
Q1OL\
0-3(04
0.90.2
0.833
O.S74
0.477
0.477
0.8B9
0.841
0.703
0.614
0-92>0
\A2.
0.4-17
O.bOO
0.7 Z8
O.fcS?
0.6>7I
0.950
TIME,
min
2-0
10
15
to
10
20
20
IS
10
10
20
20
2A
2£
15
10
10
20
FUEL RftTE.
V-
fc.1S
\7.B£
20. bO
2-1. iO
n.70
8.85
Ifc.SO
10. 80
2d».lO
22.80
H.25
20.70
B.85
14. 8S
18.00
2S.70
24-90
17.25
^l/K.
\.OJ
l.ftj
3.33
3.44
2.&C.
».43
2.&7
3.3t
4.22.
i.&9
2.7J
535
1.43
2.40
2.91
3.83
4.03
2.79
SAMPLED*?)
&
25,7
4.9
3.0
\.i
i.O
3.7
2.0
3-8
i.Z
2.B
4.8
3.S
2..0
\.4
I.C,
1.5
1-9
1-3
~l
31.0
. 5.6
3,fe
1.5
2.&
4.i
2,&
4.3
2..S
2.0
5,7
4.0
2-3
1.8
1-9
1-6
2.Z
l-G
t
S^MPLE %
OF FUEL BY
VOL.
2.25
0.15J
0.114
o.ot>9
0.144
0.233
0.077
0.135
0.105
O.O&fe
O.lt2
0.094
0-U7
0.05)
O.Ofc?
0.074
O.OB7
0.045
VV;T.
2.52.
0.182.
0.128
0,075
0.14?
0.2.T7
0.080
o.ifci
0.111
O.lfel
0.184
0.112-
0.149
O.Ofcl
0.078
0,0 B4
O.I 01
0.050
SA.MPLE.
RATE,
%-/hv-
n.i
14.7
I7_0
7.2
12.0
11.1
G.O
15.1
13.2
I&.8
14,4
10,5
fc.O
4.2
&A
9.0
11.4
3.9
FUEL TEMP. AT E/OCrlME = 90 °F DEK)S»TY = 0>.I84- u-/y|
FUEL DEWSHY AT 12% F = J^i4l.Uu/^l «• Q-748 »/,|
COMM EMTS OSEB PRESSURE-TYPE FUEL TAM^. > EfO&»UE IDLEP AT BSO R.PrV\;
K.AT10 2.4 :\ ', TON£P AFTEE. EoM \2 ; t^p
j BOAT AMD LOAD
OVERSIDE FOR. ElO(S-tK)E TOP
89
-------
TtST
MO. 2Z
RMM
I
2
3
4-
5
6
7
&
5
10
11
IZ.
13
14
15
ifc
17
ti
CfMfefTffM
IDLE.
ISOO
2-75O
3BOQ
4100
iDLt-
isoo
2750
2,500
4^.00
cvttt
CttAE
IDLE
IStt
2750
3soo
50tO
OCLt
FUEL USED
!!>_
2.45
3.10
6.05
S.fcO
7.25
2.25
3.2O
6.25
4-W
7.2S
7^S
7.25
2-9S
4.10
fcfcS
&4S
7J5
035
4*1
OuM^
OSOI
0-^77
0.904
1.17
0.5t3
0.517
t.OI
0.77S
1.17
MD
1.11
0.474
O.M.Z
l.ll
O.fl2
1.17
1.3S
Tmt^
•H*
*.S
17
13.5
10
IO
20
10
14. fc
10
10
20
ZO
230
ZO
IS
IO
10
2-0
FUtL WlTt
lk-A
&9I
ift.M
2&A8
33.60
43.50
fe.TS
9.W
2S-7I
28.10
4i.50
223S
W.TS
8. IS
12.30
27-40
33.9*
43.S»
1S.85
^A*
i.-*4
1.77
4.34
5*3
7.ft2.
1-09
kSS
4.15
445
74»
3.&I
3.51
1.43
l.9f
4A2
5.47
7-W
44»4
SAMPi-Etn^
%
4^4.7
451.3
15S.Q
139.fc
I5^.&
X83.0
33S.I
X57.5
148,0
147.5
3«&3
311.3
374.7
4S6.B
255.2
IS3^
«6A
4094
ml
5«J>
53^5
30^5
>V>7.0
IM.O
335i
3T?.5
nfe.o
V77.5
3bf.t
MA
45OV5
542^
i04.5
I&3.0
95^
45t.O
SAMPLE %
OF R/ELfcV
VOL.
3^.2
21.4
&1)
4^R
4.21
X4.4
2.0^
tJXJ
4.0*
5.11
8.1*
z&O
2t.^
7.25
5.30
2.lt
9-75
«STT.
40.2
3Z4
9Jf
5.50
4.7C
27.7
23.1
9.08
fc-BO
4.49
9.11
9.47
2^2.
24-t
BJU
S.98
2.43
«»^
SAMPLE
RATE,
*Yh*
UZ.O
1590
H30
6i8
925
649
1010
JOfeO
ft IB
685
9*5
934
H30
1370
162-0
920
4ftO
1230
FUEL TEMP. KT
FUEL DEftlSttY Kf 72*F
co>tKEagrs
3O"F
DEUSfTY = fc.193
BUM 12..
ADJUST VtEJUTT ;
HT 4MO
SO tft^H M \O-SPtHD V&EO
3-ftOO
-------
TEST EN)CrlK)E. No. 23 TVPE 1970
RUN
i
i
3
4
s
0
CYCLE
CYCLE
FUEL USED
It.*
O.SO
o-so
0.8S
0-90
0.90
O.foS
0.60
O.BO
0.85
0.9O
HO
l.ZS
^Q.\
0-060
0.0&0
O.lSfc
O-144
0-144
0,104-
0.0?fc
O.I2.B
O.\3fc
O.14A
O.l~7fe
O.2JDO
TJN1E,
mln
2D
ZO
IS
to
10
2.O
2,0
15
\0
10
2O
ZO
FUEL RftTt
>b./
A*
1.50
I. SO
3.40
5-40
5.40
1-95
1-80
3.20
5.»0
5.
3.30
3.7S
*Vh,
0-140
O.Z40
0.54S
0.89.0
50.0
Al.O
SZ.O
41.0
i^MPLE %
OF FUEL BY
VOL.
9.9
0.40
4.1
9.6
9.2.
1,(t>
0.25
3.9
9-7
7.5-
7.8 \
S.42
vj-r.
ll.
0.40
4.5
\l.
10.
6,4
O.2Z
4-4
11.
e».s
&.94
fc.45
S^MPLE
RATE,
V/h*
73.2
2.7
(oB.B
2-74.
XS3.
74.7
».B
(b4. 0
2.59.
Z08-
12,4.
US.
= 80 °F
(8p_°F)
FUEL TENlP. AT
FUEL DEWS\TY AT 72.* F
COM M EMTS *TOP RPV1 ; TEST ED AFTE-g. TX)MIK)& 0\)LY > EK)& I KJ E IDLED
AT 900 RPM ^ FUEL : 0\U- RATIO *fe '. t _
91
-------
TEST ErOCrlWE. NO. 24 TYPE
fc\J>MRUDE 9-S
RUM
1
2
3
4
5
Q>
7
B
9
10
) 1
»1
13
14
15
Ife
17
IB
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
2-750
4000
t4fcOO
IDLE
1500
2.750
4-000
f4-fcOO
CYCLE
C-YtLE
IDLE
1500
2.750
400O
r4600
CYCLE
FUEL. USED
lb~
0.55
I.IO
1.2.5
1.10
»-30
0.8S
0.90
1.50
I.5O
i. fee
I.9S
1.35
o-fcs
1. 00
l.bS
1.50
t.SS
2.10
%«-l
O.OB 9
0.17 B
0.202
0-lH
o.zto
O.J5&
0.144*
0.243
0.243
0.2fc?
0.3»(,
0/Mfe
o.\os
O.lbl
0.2.fc7
0.243
0.251
0-MO
TWE,
miA
zo
•zo
15
10
10
2O
20
15
10
to
20
20
2O
ZO
IS
10
10
ZO
FUEL KftTt
lb-A
l.loS
3.3O
5.00
7.20
7-80
2.55
2.70
fc.OO
9.00
9.^0
5-BS
5. 85
1.55
3.00
fc.GO
9-00
9.30
fc. 3O
^/*
0.2fc7
0.5M
o.aio
».n
1.2C,
0.4\3
0.4X7
0.972
1.4&
l.frO
0.94?
0.947
O.^lfe
0.4Bfc
1.07
1.4fc
LSI
1.01
SftfAPLEtll'f)
&
4k .9
51.0
i7.0
7-1
s-7
49.5
4&.Z
X3.9
5-7
5.7
19.1
Z9.5
52.0
54.5
23.5
7.0
fc.7
51.1
~\
B5.S
(bt.O
il.S
9.0
8.0
5ft. 5
57.5
2-9.0
5.0
7.0
35.0
35.0
Q?\.0
fcS.O
2.8.0
9.0
8.5
V7.0
s^MP
OF Fv
VOL.
Ifc.S
9.05
4.12
M2>
l.0|
11.1
^0. 4
3.15
0.870
O.U93
2-93
2.93
^5.3
vo.t
i.77
0.^75
0.895
2.87
L& %
EL BY
^T.
»».&
10.2.
4-7C,
t-2.0
O.?(p7
12.5
u.a
3.SI
O.&ift
0.7fcl
3.29
3.34
n.l.
tl.l
3.14
V.03
0-953
3-2C,
SAMPLE
RATE,
»/h*
\4l.
153.
108,
42.C,
34.1
\48.
V45.
95. t
54.1.
34.3
67. ^
&B.5
»5G>.
10)4.
94.0
41. 0
40.1
93-3
FUEL TEMP. M" EMfrlNJE ^ 90 °F
FUEL DEWSnY AT 12.' F- g>-2-4 lb"-*'
DENSITY = fe.»8 iv"/y.l (90*0
COMM EWTS *Og^6-l^>^LL.V DR.AlNLES>S EN)Q-I»JE CONVERTED TO
FOR. TES>TS>1TOP RPK\ ', IDLED AT IQQQ
NO
CAR&URETDR
RATIO SO*. \ ; TUNEt>
RON 12.
92
-------
TEST
MO. 2.5 TYPE *V71 .>OHN)S.OM 9.S
BUJDVA)
R.UN
1
2
3
4
5
Q>
•?
6
9
\0
CONDITION
IDLE
1 500
2750
*2>900
IDLE
1500
2750
*5900
CYCLE
CYCLE
.
FUEL.
tbm
1.25
1.55
1-85
1.55
MO
\.2>0
\.fcO
1.75
2. IS
2.35
USED
^al
0.200
0.248
0.29 1>
0.248
O.\7fc
0.208
0.188
0.280
0.344
0,376
TIME,
min
20
20
IS
10
20
20
\S
to
20
2.0
FUEL
.m y
~/\l+
3.75
4.fc5
7.4O
%B>0
3.30
3.90
7.20
\0.50
fe45
7.05
RATE.
OL&| x
* /K*
O.fcOO
0,144
t.ia
».4J
0.5H
0.bZ4
1.15
Ufe8
1.03
H3
SAM PL
2f
6.1
3.2
\.7
1.5
2.4
2.2
2.ft
7.2
&.1
6-5
Ml2*F)
.
***
fc.4
3.2
1,B
B-3
33
2.4
3.2
B.\
B.6
\0.3
SAM Pi
Or rvl
VOL.
0.645
0-341
O.lfcl
O.BM
0.495
0.305
0.294
0.164
O.Ufc
0.124
EL BY
»\rr.
I.Ob
0.^55
0-203
1.07
0.4&|
0-313
0.343
0.907
O.b3l
O.B35
SAMPLE
O ICTfz
IN" 1 Cy
tf / h*
»8.3
9-C,
F- /^| = 0.748 »yC|
COM M EMTS *TOP RPh\ ^ TESTED ONH-Y AFTER TUNING ; SAMPLES VW> AN
EMULStflEb LAYER. (wrtllE) UMDEg. "3AKPLE" SAOIUK) ABO\)£ (SF.F, TEXT );
IDLED AT 900 RPK; FUEL '. 0
-------
TEST
NO. 26 TYPE 1970
R.UW
\
2
2>
4
£
&00
IDLE
1500
2.750
*3800
dYCLE
CYCLE
IDLE
1500
2750
*3900
CYCLE
FUEL USED
lb^
0.55
O.foO
O.&O
0.70
0.30
0.70
0-75
0,95
1.00
1.25
0.55
O.fcS
O.BS
O.BS
1.15
^o.\
0.0ft7
0.095
0.117
o.iu
0.048
o.ni
o.n)
0.150
0.158
O.DB
0.057
0.103
0.134
0.\2A
0.1 82
TIK1E.
mirt
2.O
2.O
\5
10
20
20
IS
10
20
20
2.0
2.0
IS
10
20
FUEL RATE.
vk-A
1.1.5
I-BO
3.20
4.20
0.90
2.10
3.00
5-70
3.00
3.75
I.&5
1.95
3.40
5.10
3.45
*V»
O.ZJol
0.1B5
O.SOfe
O.fcfcS
0.142
0.332
0.457
0.901
0.475
0.593
0.2fcl
0-308
0.536
0.807
0.54£>
SAMPLEt72*f>
2f
8,0
n.o
0,(o
*
4.4
»3.fc
5.3
O.?
1-7
fc.l
5.4
11.5
1.2
0-9
2-3
«l
9.0
I2.G,
0.9
4.9
it.O
fe.Z
1.0
1.4
7.0
5.8
14-7
n
0.9
i.4
S/\MP
OF FU
VOL.
2.73
3.51
0.1&7
2.13-
3.&I
1.3&
o.nfc
0.401
0-9M
l-7t
3.77
0.2\7
0.177
0.494
LE %
EL BY
*VT.
3.21
4-04
o.us
3.X3
4.28
I.SC,
2.0J
O.S7S
1.08
2.1&
4-24
0.311
0.233
0.556
.
SAvMPLE
RATE,
* /h*
Z4.0
33.0
2.4
13.2
40.8
21.2
5.4
5.1
»ft-3
lfc.2
37.5
4-8
S.4
8.7
FUEL TEMP. AT EMCrlME = SO °F DEMSITY =• = Q-748 £/«[
COMMEMTS *TOP Kf>H> "* TOO SKVM-L TO ^^E^SUR^- ; ENfrlME. 1DLEP A
MOO RPNU NO ClAR.e»OR.fcTO^ ADJUSTMENT ; FUEL1. OIL RATIO SO'. I ;
VruNED AFTER RUN lO
94
-------
TEST ElOCrltJE. HO. 27 TYPE *972. JOHNSON 9.S"
RUN
1
2
3
4
5
fe
7
6
9
10
i i
12.
12.
14
15
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
2750
14000
IDLE.
I5OO
275O
f4QOO
CYCLE
CYCLE
IDLE
ISOO
2.750
f40OO
CYCLE.
FUEL. USED
lk~
J.5O
l.t.5
\.(oB
1.50
1.45
l.bS
l.feO
1.55
2.25
2.3O
1.25
1.15
I-7O
1.55
2.2.0
^OL\
0.13*
0.2b2
0.2fc2
0.136
0.12.1
O.ZM
0.154
a244>
0-iSB
0.56G
o-W
0.278
0.170
a244.
0.550
TIME.,
min
ZO
2D
15
10
20
20
IS
10
20
20
20
20
15
IO
2O
FUEL RATE.
lb-A
4. SO
4-}S
fc.feO
9.00
4.35
5.55
6.4O
9.30
fe.75
6.90
3-75
5.25
fc.&O
9.30
fc.foO
*/*
aiis
0.7B7
I.OS
U43
a^92
0.&6Z
1.02
».4&
1.07
MO
0.596
O-B35
l.OB
1.48
1.05
SAMPLEil2'fJ
%
20fc.fe
215.9
38.1
8.6
i!3.9
1&0.9
31.1
7.5
74.9
75.0
2D5.5
H3.2
324
t».4
fcZ.B
m\
154-5
26fe.5
44.5
tO.3
Zfct.O
214.0
44.0
9.5
92.0
92.0
254.0
214-0
39.5
as
77.5
SfkMPLE. %
OF FUEL BY
VOL.
28-2
2fc.9
4.fc9
1.14
19.8
20. \
4.78
1.02
6.79
fc.fc4
33.7
20-3
3.M.
0-913
5.85
HTT-
30.4
28.8
5.10
l.lfc
32. £
21.6
5.13
1.07
7.34
7-19
3t>.2
21.&
4.10
0.910
fe.23
SAMPLE
RATE,
*/h*
fc20.
648.
153.
51. C,
G42.
543.
149.
45.0
225.
125.
&I6.
sza
130.
38.4
188.
DENSITY = fe.19
0-746 »/»|
FUEL TEMP. AT EKJCriNJE g
-------
TEST EMMUE- NO. 28 TYPE 1971
KUN
1
2
3
4-
5
Q.
1
B
9
10
11
\^
tB>
• 4
IS
1G
n
»ft
CONDITION
IDLE
»50O
2750
4000
*4500
IDLE
1500
27SO
44*00
*4SOO
CYCLE
CYCLE
IDLE
ISOO
27SO
4OOO
*4SOO
CYCLE
FUEL. USED
lb~
no
1.55
1. 55
1.55
l.fcS
0.9S
1.30
l.fcO
1.15
1.15
2.15
2.45
l.OS
\.5S
1.50
1,45
t.fcO
2.0S
aa\
o-ns
0-244
0.24&
0.244>
0.2fcZ
O.»5l
0.20?
0.254
0.278
0.218
O.M2
0.5H)
0.10,7
0.244.
^.Ii8
0.231
0.254
0.52fc
T^E,
mlA
20
2.0
IS
>O
10
2O
20
IS
10
10
20
20
2.0
20
IS
)0
10
20
FUEL R*Tt
lb-A
3.3O
4.fc5
G.2O
9.30
9.90
2.B5
3.90
fc.40
10. SO
10.50
fe.4S
l.iS
3.»S
4.fc5
fc.OO
8-10
9.fc>0
6.15
^/l*
0.525
0-72,9
0-98fe
1.46
LSI
0-453
O.fc20
1.01
>.fc7
l.fcl
1.03
1.17
0.501
0.73?
0.954
».iB
1.S3
O.J7B
^AMPLEb2*f)
2r
\72.1
195.9
41.7
fc.l
»3.0
MO-4
1B7-4
52.9
8.5
J4.4
7S-2
8\.2
08. »
203.4
44.7
H -7
a>
84.5
n.1
205.0
237.0
50.0
7.5
!(..£
207.0
230.0
fc4.0
u.o
17.5
90.5
97.5
2\fc.S
240.5
52.5
)5>0
15.0
»02.7
SAMP
OF FVj
VOL.
31. fo
25.5
5.31
0.805
l.feQ,
3fe.2
2-9.4-
(D.fct
1.05
l.fcfc
fe.99
(o.fcO
34.2
25.8
5.8i
».72
I.St
B.32.
LE %
IEL %Y
»^T.
34.5
27.9
6-93
0.8t>&
»-14
39.5
2.1. &
7-29
1.07
(.81
7.71
1.31
37.4
28.9
fc.S7
1.78
1.64-
9.09
SAMPLE
RATE,
*/h*
Slfe.
588.
\M V tDLED AT IQOO RPH> NO CAR6V)RF-TOR
ADJUSTMENT; FUEL '.OIL. RAT\O so*, i ; TONED AT-TER ROM \l
96
-------
TEST EtOklUE. MO. 2.? TYPE \9fel MER.COKY *
I.2>S
z.»o
2.40
2.4-0
3.90
^.05
J.bS
2. OO
3-00
3.90
2.4-0
2.4-0
».35
I.G5
2.ZO
Z.7O
4.ZO
2.55
^l/K,
0.215
0.2.34-
0.iB2
0-382
O.fc20
0-lfc7
0.2fc2
0-Z38
0.138
0-fclO
0.382
0.382
O.Z15
O.Zfo2
0350
0.429
O.fcfcb
0.405
SAMPLED?
2t
\").R
l(o.O
39.5
25-9
2.4
\3.0
9-0
2Q..5
22.1
2.7
23. 0
25.B
11.4-
10-5
31.2.
14-. G
3.4-
zo. a
^1
24-0
19.5
4-7-0
31.0
3.fc
\lo.0
\\.s
32.0
27.0
3.B
27.0^
30.5
15.O
13. 0
37-5
18.0
3.9
2.5.O
SAMP
OF Ft
VOL.
&-BI
4-.(o4-
13.1
12. ft
0.913
7.55
3.4?
10-7
9.03
0.975
5-foZ
fc-34
5-50
3-95
H.4
(b.feO
0.918
4-b9
LE %
>EL BY
»VT.
9.70
5.04-
14. S
»4.3
0.614-
6.\9
3.fol
11. 1
9.74-
0.9l(o
6.34,
7.1 1
5-5B
4-ZJ
11,5
7.15
(.07
5.3?
SAMPLE
RATE,
*/h*
59-4
48. O
156.
155.
14.4
39. 0
27, O
!02.4
FUEL, TEMP. AT EAjOrlfJE 2JbO_°F
FUEL DEIOSHY AT 72" F° 6.25
COM M ENTS SAMPLES HAE> AN EMQLS.1FIED LAYER
DEMSITY - (b-Z9 >v-/y| (/,|
) QMDER FUEL-
BASED MATERIAL. (SEE TEXT ) ', EK)&I»JE \ PLED AT \QQQ R.PM ; EMQr\N)E
TESTED AFTER TUNIN& OK)LV ; FUEL : 0\l_ R_AT<0 50 '. I
97
-------
TE.ST EK3MIOE- Mo. 3O TYPE
i MERCURV
I FUEL USED
RUM (CONDITION
1
1.
3
•4-
s
&
7
B
9
10
11
li
13
14-
«S
It
17
18
IDLE.
ISOO
TAW
4-OOO
*4*0«
1BUE.
tsoo
27SO
4*00
*4*00
tYtUE.
C/tCE
I&L.C.
IBM
2750
4040
*4£00
C*tJLE
!*»-
a st.
OJS3
I.O2.
0.15
M*
0.2>fc
0.£€
O.ftZ
0.54^
I. IS
t.U
1.35
0-il
ft.54-
O.SO
O.B4-
1.2.1
I.2LO
*^»
5-»5>
tt-087
o.itt
O.»30
0.114.
o.»s>
5-tW
0.135"
0.15ft
O.lftJ
0,207
0.121
O.MI
o.eftj
0.15t.
O.lift
O.t»f
0.197
Tmt,
mtA
2.0
20
IS
10
10
20
xo
15
10
10
ZO
20
ZJ>
2O
IS
iO
to
2A
FOtL *HTt
V-
I.OB
».sj
4.68
4.14
7.14-
»0|
LtS
3-U
€.04
t.10
s.78
4Aff
i.K
l.bl
3.14
S-M-
1.U
3-fcO
*VK.
0.17ft
0.t4Z
0.%?!
0.710
i.n
0.171
&T7I
O.SiJ
0.8X?
l.ll
O.UZ
o.fcfcfc
O.l«3
O.Jfct
O.SUC
0.125
»-l9
0.Stt.
SftHpLEtui'f
i
«*
2.1.1
>?-7
!.(.
l.«
>J.|
2.1.1
Ifc.Z
2.0
2.4
7.4-
>.3
•Z.1.1
«-»•>
IS.4
i.a
1.3
10.2,
~l
*?.»
tt.o
2-S.»
2..B
2^
ZE.O
«-7.0
1-I..»
z..a
2.4-
).o
It.S
Z4.S
1-7. t>
2-0.0
1.2
2..I
12.0
SM-IP
OF Ft
VOL.
I3.O
*.%*
3.^5
«-4|
O.SI
11.2
7.13
4.31
0*4
0.34
1.15
1.37
n.s
»^|
4«t
0.4Z
0.2*
14»1
Lt %
>EL BY
«vrr.
13.1
%.7f
*.zt
0.4S
0.33
»2.|
».io
4.3t
O.SI
0.4C
1.29
t^l
I2.t
»-74-
4.t4
0.41
0.24
1.87
SAMPLE
RATE,
*YH*
fc7.8
&S.3
78.8
J.fc
H.8
5».4
tt.t
fc4J
12.. 0
14.4
22.2
««5
U3.3
&S.7
(.I.t
10.%
7.6
30.6
FUEL TEMP. AT EAj&lME S 70 *F DEUSITY » fa.08 lS/y.l
FUEL OEWSnY AT 72.- F« fc.OB *~/yl - O.728 S/Cl
; C*AU&EC> »LOCS A^TE R K.UU t2 ^ EA)6-t*l€
COMMEMTS
f»Q
y MO
AO^USTT HI&IJT ; FUEL"
98
-------
TEST EK)CrlK)E. NO. 31 TYPE \9">2- EVJMR.UEE.
RUM
1
Z
3
4-
5
fo
7
ft
9
10
1 1
12,
13
14
15
a
n
i&
CONDITION
|D(_E.
1500
nsv
4-000
5000
IDLE
1500
2750
•4*00
5000
CYtLE
C-VtUE
IDLE
1500
21GO
4000
5000
GYOJE
FUEL USED
!*>-
1.1.9
1.51
2. .02.
1-57
2.SC.
1.35
I.S3
2.00
2.02
2^
1.94
2.94
1.31
I.B3
2.0t
1.99
2.45
s.o>
£0_\
0.2*2
o.i4&
0.331
0.32.3
0.420
o.zzi
0.2.SI
O.^iB
0.332
0.4^14
0.4&3
0.483
O.ilS
0-iOO
0.^36
0-^T
0.402.
0.&01
T\N\E,
mlA
20
to
\S
to
10
ZO
^o
15
10
10
10
20
10
to
IS
10
10
10
FUEL RATE.
V-
3.&T
4.53
8.08
11.81
iS.2>t>
4.05
4.5?
8.00
12.11
is, »^
6.&Z
8.81
3.-J3
5,4}
8.14-
11. »4
14.70
9.17
^/K,
0.4.3S
0.7^4
1.35
>.54
i.SZ
O.tfcS
0.754-
1.51
I-9J
2.48
I.4S
1.4S
0.b4S
0,^01
I.3E
I,3t
2.41
I.5L
SANlPLEt?2'f)
?r
A(.9
18.3
10.0
fe.(,
7.0
43.1
»9. ft
10. 1
£.5-
fc.)
it.8
IS.O
42.(,
16.1
9.1
S.B
3.8
14.0
^\
53.0
2-4.0
>1.0
B.O
B.5
5S.O
rt.O
13.0
7.0
7.S
Z0.5
IB. 5
57.F
15.0
11.5
7.S
fc.O
17.5
SAMPLE %
OF FUEL BV
VOL.
fc.UO
2.St
0,»S5
0.(,54-
0.535
fc.£4-
2.74-
I.OS
0.5S7
0.479
I.IZ
1.0)
fc.45
i^)l
0.6V9
o.boC,
0.354
fl.m
v^T.
7.K.
Z.fc7
1.05
0.739
O.G>o3
7.04
2,9S
1.17
0.1.00
0.^34
1.21,
1. IX
7.17
2.15
0.9»S
OM1
O.M1
o.»99
SAMPLE
RATE,
*Vh*
Il(».
54,9
40,0
i3.G,
42.0
113.
59,4
42.4
3S.O
3fe.fe
50.4-
4S.O
^8.
54-S
^.4.8
S4. &
22.8
47.. 0
FUEL TEMP. AT EAJtrlME =_T£_CF
FUEL OEWSITY AT 72" F - fe.<>6 lb*/^i
CX>M M ENTS PLU&S CHA»J6.ED AFTLg. ROM
OPEfcAT»OM ;
DEMSITY ^ 0>.Q? Um/^
TO POOR- EAJG-l/OE.
J&T UEAMED
AFTE^
>1- ;
AT 1000
FUEL". DtU RATt 0 SO1,
99
-------
TEST ErOCrllOE. NO. 32. TYPE 1971 CHE-VSLER. 55
RUN
1
2.
*>
4-
5
fe
7
8
5
10
II
\t
13
14
»5
Ifr
»7
•ft
CDNDITIW
IDLE
ISOO
2.750
4ODO
4750
IDLE
1500
27SO
4OOO
4750
CYCLE
CYCLE
IDLE
1500
2.75 0
4000
47SO
CYCLE.
|
FUEL OSEC
1 l»»~
1.73
2. SB
3.19
3.11
3.J4
I.fc3
2.fcl
3.3S
3.02.
3.77
4.C.S
4-fcO
l.fcO
Z.fcO
3.2-9
3.20
4.2-7
4.7fe
%ll
0.2b4
0.4Z*
8.S24
0.&I2
0.fc
2A7
0.7 e a
1.25
X.It
3. IS
4-2J
2.34-
SANIPLE(72'
2r
&3
3.4
0.$
O.I
O.S
S.)
1.4
«.t
\.7
0.7
2-7
t.7
s.t
3.S
0.9
o.s
03
1.0
~\
»o.o
4.1
0.&
*:
0.4
l.-L
1.4-
2.C,
1. 8
0.7
i.5
3.\
4.Z.
4.1
o.fc
0.4
0.3
M
SAMP
OF FV
VOL.
0.9iO
0.255
0.040
O.OIC
0.710
o.out
O.I 25
o.c9t,
8.030
0.114
O.lOg
d.421
O.ZW)
0.039
0.02A
o.ou
0.037
L£ %
)EL E.V
*VT.
l.0(.
0.31L
o.oss
0.007
O.OZ6
0.7JB
O.llft
0.13ft
0.124
0.04|
0.128
0.12)
0.496
0.29?
O.OfcO
0.034-
0-015
0.04fc
S*MPL£
RATE,
*r/h*
24.5
lO.t
3.2
O.t
3.0
17.7
4.1
5.4
i0.2
4.*
B.I
0.1
10. e
10-5
i.t
3.0
1*
3.0
FUEL. TEMP. AT EMG^IME = 70 *F OEiostTy s fe.o?
FUEL OEUSrty AT 72* F- fc-0> lb"/^l « 0-^? &/C.I
COMMENTS EMfi«>JE. tUMED ReFQg.e eu»J 1 DOE. Xt> F>OOR.
IDLED AT IQQQ
', THIEf.QlL, g-ATiO SO '. \
100
-------
TEST EKJkllOE. MO. 33 TV PE \9t(.
RUM
\
z
3
4-
S
fc.
7
f>
>
10
If
»i
CONDITION
IDLE
1500
2.750
40&b
4SOO
(OLE
1500
17SO
4OOO
4SOO
CYCLE.
tvect.
FUEL USED
lt~
I.2.Z.
».&2.
1.94
Z.toZ,
3.64-
1.40
>-7t
Z.IJ
2.70
1.7B
3--7Z
3.?l
^0.1
0.211
0-300
0.3ZO
0.42>Z
0.(.33
o.riv
o.r>»
O-ifcl
0.44S
O.UZ1
O.C.I3
O.fc'M-
TWE,
»niA
zo
Z.Q
\S
«0
«0
26
ZO
iS
\»
to
2»
iO
FUEL KftTt
lk-/,.
3.H
S.-K,
7.->t
>S.7Z
Z5.04-
4-20
5.23
&.71
lk-Z«
Z2.bg
H.IU
H-li
^VW
O.fcSl
o.^»»
1^8
t.6J
^.»0
e.b)z
O.B7»
1.44
2*7
5.74
>.»4
1.53
SAMPLEb2*F)
%
8.0
i.i
5.S
3.0
(..(.
58.4
M.t
fc.l
r.8
s.«
ix. 7
n.a
^i
9.S
4.£
3.6
i-8
7.4
£1.6
35. 0
•>•£
3.3
£.7
15.0
IS.»
^MP
OF FVJ
VOL.
t.lU
o.3H
0.26^
O.IB3
0-275
fc.75
3-0
0.217
oaU
8.2.42
O.U41
O.fclS
LE %
EL BY
v\/T.
1.14
«.4bO
».3?8
o.zti
O.i7)
7.H
3-71
O.WS4
0.12.J
o.^n
0.751)
O.UfcS
SA.MPLE.
RATE,
«r/h*
Z4-0
M.4
14.0
i&.O
3?.t
\SI.2
69. B
zs.z
i&.B
3.0. O
3.6. 1
JS.4
FUEL, TEMP. AT EAJCrlKJE 3? 60 "F
BJEL OEMS\TY AT 72.' F° fe-O?
COM M ENTS £*^&IML. (PLED ftT IQQQ
DEKJSITY - G.07
FUEL". OIL E.ATIQ SO '. \ ;
IM TUWED COWO)TIO(\J OAJ UV
101
-------
TtST
NO. 34 TYPE
EviMCVJDE 3.S
RUN
i
2
3
4^
5
0
*4l£0
CYCLE
tvtte
• QLE
IEOO
2-1 £0
4000
*42£0
erect
FUEL USED
lb~
O.&t
1.23
l.fcG
1.54
l.fct
o.&9
MB
1-1,8
I.SU
i.bjr
2.30
e.37
0.»7
I.ZS
1.61
l.tC
I.fc3
2.34
^^
0,(4(
O.Z02
O.Z72
0.2SZ
0.27a
0.144
0.210
o.ns,
0.2Sfc
0.270
O.*>71
0.369
0.»5)
0.20?
0.297
0.27Z
0.2*7
0.2.84-
Tlt^E
mirv
2.0
zo
IS
10
10
20
20
15
10
10
lt>
iO
io
io
iff
10
10
20
FOE.L RATE.
/*•
2.^8
3.b9
&.(,4
».Z4
?.U
2.fc7
3.B4
fc.71
9.3t
9.90
G.90
7.11
2-91
J.7^
7.21-
9.H
9.78
"7.02,
^M/
0.423
O.fcOS"
1. 09
i.s;
I.I.3
O.^iR
O.b30
I.IO
I.S3
\.fc2
i.r*.
i-n
0-477
O.OIS
I.I?
I.fc3
-to
I. IS
SAKPLEtlZ'F
%
I3S.3
14^.7
ftl.O
6.?
10.5
132.9
157.8
<.4.f
8-9
10.0
55. &
77,9
iso. i
ISO. |
&.&.0
(2.3
.0.2
TI.3
»«1
«8t,.
172.
100.
14.0
l£.o
It8.
200.
BO. 8
14.0
IC.O
(•0.
95.0
!(,£.
IS&.
&4.0
18.0
,ff.O
BVO
SAMP
OF Ft
VOL.
M-8
rz.S
9-71
1-47
J.4C
50.4
^sr.z
7-7).
l-4f
»^7
7.0)
t.tt
2-74
14.2
7.47
I.1S
>.^
fe.12.
LE %
>EL BY
VV;T.
i4.7
i«..3
«o,8
1.2-7
i.ij
S2J
t7.1
«.4r
I.ZL
;.s*
7.74-
7.2S
*9.t
2t.5
8.^8
i.6»
1.38
U.-7*
SAMPLE
RATE,
fc / h*
40(,.
440.
2.24.
53.4-
fcS.O
s>9.
4TS.
iSB.
S3.4-
(00.0
2.42.
2-54.
^90.
450.
27Z.
H5.B
61. 2.
11 4-.
FUEL TEMP. AT
FUEL DENSITY AT 72.' F^
COMMEMTS TUME& AFTER.
">0
DENSITY ^ fe.iQ
0.7^1 &/C|
IT. ^ ^MAXIMUM
AT 900
'. Oil fcfVHO SO1. I
NO CARBURETOR. XUiJuiT
102
-------
TEST EIQErlUE- Mft. 35 TYPE
f.S KJ.
RUN
I
I
3
4
S
G
7
ft
9
10
11
it
13
14
15
Ib
17
IB
Conation
tout
ISW
l?SO
40*0
*43SO
IDLE.
1500
nso
4000
*43S1>
tyti*-
CMtUE
itM-6
IGOO
27CD
4000
*4*SO
erccE
FUEL USED
Ik.
O.14
I.XO
I.US
1.63
1*7
• 90
MJ
1-73
LS7
1*3
2.3Z
*.i,
0.»4
I.1&
l.fci
I.S7
1.SJ
1.30
V^
0.151
».m
0.170
e.**7
0.174
0.14ft
0.195
0.294
0.1S7
0.2U7
0.3 BO
0.37S
O-I38
O.U3
O.ZC6
O.ZS7
0.2bl
0.377
TIME,
miA
2-0
«
*£
to
it
l»
a«
%s
<0
10
ZJD
ZA
ZJb
10
*S
40
10
10
FUEL KATE
*?k
2.^2
3.faO
fc.fcO
9-76
10.01
2.70
3.S7
6.91
9.41
9.78
t.9fc
(..ftl
1.52
J.S4
fc.45
5.41
9-S4
fe.?»
*Vw
0.413
«.s»
l.u
i.we
I.b4
0.4*3
0.58S
1.13
1.54
l.bO
1.14
1.13
04
= 0-73O &/»|
AT 900
RWJ it ; FUEL'.OIL.
SO'. \
103
-------
SECTION X
APPENDIX B
Photographs of Test Engines
104
-------
Engine No. 1. 1965 Johnson 9. 5 hp
Engine No. 2. I960 Evinrude 18 hp
Engine No. 3. 1966 Johnson 33 hp
Engine No. 4. 1965 Mercury 65 hp
105
-------
Engine No. 5. 1954 Evinrude 15 hp
Engine No. 6. 1965 Sea King 50 hp
Engine No. 7. 1959 Mercury 45 hp Engine No. 8. 1968
106
-------
Engine No. 9. 1961 Johnson 40 hp
Engine No. 11. 1971 Chrysler 55 hp
No Photo Available
Similar to Engine 20
Engine No. 10. 1967 Evinrude 80 hp
Engine No. 12. 53 Johnson 10 hp
107
-------
Engine No. 130 1967 Johnson 33 hp
Engine No, 14. 1968 Mercury 95 hp
Engine Nou 16U 1964 Mercury 65 hp
No Photo Available
Similar to Engine 4
Engine No. 15. 1963 Gale 60 hp
108
-------
Engine No. 17. 1968 Mercury 85 hp Engine No. 18. 1968 Evinrude 85 hp
Engine No. 19. 1971 Chrysler 45 hp Engine No, 20, 1968 Sea King 45 hp
109
-------
Engine No. 21. 1953 Johnson 25 hp Engine No. 220 I960 Johnson 75 hp
Engines No. 24, 27, 28 and 34
No Photos Available
Similar to Engines 25 and 35
Engine No. 23. 1970 Chrysler 5 hp
110
-------
Engine No. 25. 1971 Johnson 9.5 hp Engine No. 26. 1970 Johnson 6 hp
Engine No. 29. 1967 Mercury 6 hp Engine No. 30. 1971 Mercury 9.8 hp
111
-------
Engine No. 31. 197Z Evinrude 18 hp Engine No. 32. 1971 Chrysler 35 hp
Engine No. 33. 1966 Johnson 40 hp Engine No. 35. 1964 Evinrude 9.5 hp
112
-------
SECTION XI
APPENDIX C
Statistical Calculations
113
-------
Comparison of population means using Student's "t" distribution ...
Comparison I. Chrysler population vs Mercury population, mean
composite drainage as percent of fuel consumed.
/"J!
• v^
-*V
Chrysler Mercury /S. I njSj +n2S22
S = ^ f = 2. 56
YJ n,-t-n>-2
x= 1.78 x = O.
n = 6 n = 5 *«i
/\ f n ITH^
S = 3.13 S = 0.18 Srt = S-%/ =1.55
=0.83
HQ: i = M 2 from table: t^ 975 = 2. 26 (0. 05 level)
J/= degrees of freedom = 9
*0. 80 = °- 8S CO. 40 level)
Conclusion: accept HQ at 0. 05 level of significance
accept H at 0.40 level of significance
Comparison 2. Chrysler - Mercury population vs OMC population,
mean composite drainage as percent of fuel consumed.
Chrysler-Mercury OMC .^. , x_, fc_fc
= 3. DO
lnlsl
If—T"
I nl"^ ;
3T = 1. 2O x = 5. 35
— 11 - IT ^ I nr*ja2
n — 11 n - 17 Sjj = S-tl = 1.43
S = 2. 21 S = 4. 20
t=—=- = 2,91
l = /^ 2 from table: to. 975 = 2. 06 {0. 05 level)
/ = degrees of freedom = 26
to. 995 = 2-78 (0.01 level)
Conclusion: reject HQ at 0. 05 level of significance
reject HO at 0. Ol level of significance
114
-------
Calculation of 95 percent confidence intervals for mean composite
drainage using Student's "t" distribution.
95 percent confidence interval for mean = x ± Sy (tg. 975)
where: x = sample mean
Sg = standard error of sample mean
tg 975 = the appropriate statistic from Student's dis
tribution at the 0.05 level of significance
non-OMC population: x = 1. 20 percent ]J- degrees of freedom = 10
(overall composite) Sj£ = 0.70 ^0. 975 = 2.23
.*. 95% confidence interval is 0 to 2. 76 percent
OMC population: x = 5.35 percent \J- degrees of freedom = 16
(overall composite) S^ = 1.02 tg^ 975 = 2. 12
.". 95% confidence interval is 3. 19 to 7. 51 percent
non-OMC population: x = 3.00 percent \} - degrees of freedom = 10
(1500 rpm & lower) Ss = 0. 73 t0< 975 = 2. 23
.". 95% confidence interval is 1. 37 to 4.63 percent
OMC population:
(1500 rpm & lower)
x = 17. 2 percent \J - degrees of freedom = 16
S-=2.84 t0. 975 =2-12
.". 95% confidence interval is 11.2 to 23. 3 percent
115
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
. REPORT NO.
EPA-670/2-74-092
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION»NO.
. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
CRANKCASE DRAINAGE FROM IN-SERVICE OUTBOARD MOTORS
5. REPORT DATE
December 1974; Issuing Date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
Charles T. Hare and Karl J. Springer
. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Department of Emissions Research
Southwest Research Institute
8500 Culebra Road
San Antonio, Texas 78284
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1BB038; ROAP 21APO; Task 08
11.CONTRACT/KKXNXNO.
EHS 70-108
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
National Environmental Research Center
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, Ohio 45268
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Crankcase drainage from 35 outboard motors was measured during normal operation on two
Lakes in the San Antonio area. The motors included a variety of sizes and brand names,
and they were tested under prolonged constant-speed conditions as well as cyclic speed
conditions designed to simulate user operation in the field. Four engines of the same
group were also tested with a drainage intercepting and recirculating device. Drain-
age was measured by both mass and volume, and results were also computed in mass per
unit time (g/hr) and percentage of fuel consumed by weight and by volume. Analysis of
some fuel samples was conducted by gas chromatograph, including a few in which drain-
age was mixed with fuel by the recirculating device mentioned above. Photographic
documentation of the test engines, the drainage systems, and test/measurement tech-
niques was also obtained. Based on measurements obtained during this study and
estimations on the current outboard motor population, a range for the national total
crankcase drainage emissions was estimated. It was also found that the major causes
of variation in drainage rates were engine type, engine operating speed, and differ-
ences from one engine to another of the same type (or a similar type).
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COSATI Field/Group
*Boats
Gasoline
*Water pollution
*0utboard engines
Motor boats
*0utboard motors
*Water pollution sources
Oil pollution
*Crankcase drainage
13B
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
128
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
116
U. S. 60«RI«KNT
OFFICE: 1975-657-590/5331* Region No. 5-H
------- |