1969 Heavy-Duty Engine Baseline Program
and 1983 Emission Standards Development
A U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY

-------
Technical. Report
1969 Heavy-Duty Engine BaseLine Program
and 1983 Emission Standards Development
by
Timothy P. Cox
Glenn W. Passavant
Larry D. Ragsdale
May, 1979
Standards Development and Support Branch
Emission Control Technology Division
Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
Office of Air, Noise and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

-------
Table of Concents
Page
I. Foreword
II. Summary
1
III. Introduction and Background
2
IV. Discussion
4
A. Vehicle/Engine Selection and Procurement
4
1.	1969 Sales Data and Sampling Plan
2.	Selection Criteria
3.	Procurement Actions
4.	Problems Encountered
5.	Results of Selection and Procurement Actions
B.	Engine Testing	18
1.	Test Sites
2.	Test Procedures (Revised Statistical Validation
Criteria)
3.	Control System
4.	Engine Preparation/Instrumentation
5.	Software Support/Data Reduction
6.	Void Rates/Test ReDeatability
7.	Emission Sampling System
C.	Baseline Compilation and Standards Computation	39
1.	Transient Cycle: Emission Test Summaries
and Results
2.	Idle Test: Emission Test Summaries and Results
3.	Standards Computation and Discussion
V. References	101
Appendices (Available Under Separate Cover)
I. Selection and Procurement
1 .	Scopes of WorK
2.	Contract Final Reports
3.	Individual Engine Sheets
4.	Carburetor and Distributor Curves
II. Engine Testing
1.	MSAPC Advisory Circular ">22A
2.	Engine Testing Data

-------
- L-
I. Foreword
Under Che Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1977, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency was tasked to develop revised
hydrocarbon and carbon monoxide emission standards for heavy-duty
engines for the 1983 model year. The Emission Control Technology
Division (ECTD) of EPA's Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution
Control was directed to determine these revised emission standards
based on the criteria outlined in the Clean Air Act Amendments.
Specifically, the Emission Control Technology Division was Co
measure the HC and CO emission levels of uncontrolled heavy-duty
gasoline-fueled engines (model year 1969) and determine the
emission standards based on at least a 90 percent reduction from
the average of these actually measured emissions.
Consequently, ECTD began a baseline program to procure the
engines prescribed by the CAAA (1969 MY) and test the emission
levels of these engines to determine the baseline emission levels.
The primary purpose of che 1969 baseline program was Co
develop the baseline emission levels used to determine the 90
percent reduction. The 90 percent reduction directly represents
che HC and CO emission standards which should then be proposed for
heavy-duty engines beginning in MY 1983.
The purpose of this cechnical report is to present che resulcs
of Che 1969 baseline program and explain the methodology by which
che 1983 heavy-duty HC and CO emission standards were calculated.
It includes:
1.	Engine procurement and preparation information.
2.	Revised cycle statistical validation criteria.
3.	Transient and idle test summaries for each engine tested.
4.	Derivation of the 1983 standards.
While most of the information in this report has previously
been placed in the public docket Ln various forms, this report
provides a complete information base which should facilitate
evaluation and commenc on the baseline program by HD vehicle/engine
manufacturers and other interested parties.

-------
Contributors
The development of this baseline program and the ultimate
determination of the baseline emission levels would not have
been possible without the dedicated work of the personnel listed
be low:
Special recognition is due William B. Clemmens who was di-
rectly responsible for the success of the baseline program and the
development of the transient test procedure. His technical skills
and expertise greatly enhanced EPA's acquisition of transient
testing capability and the ultimate success of this baseline
program was in large part due to his efforts.
Engineering
Computer Specialists
Testing Technicians
John Anderson
Eugene Chaires
Thaddeus Cieslak
Chester France
Jensen Cheng
Vincent Crowell
Robert Maxwell
John Kargul
Timothy Davis
Jack McFadden
Robert Kopacz
John Drake
Timothy Mott

Stephen Halfyard
Richard Nash
Secretarial Support
Leon Jones.
Larry Ragsdale
Lois Gardner
Lawrence Navarre
Kevin Stulp
Nancy Henderson
J. Michael Spates
Tad Wysor
Jennifer Stanley
David Watson

Joan Wirth
Ronald West lake

-------
-i i i-
Glossary of Acronyms
A/C
—
Advisory Circular
BS
-
Brake Specific
BSFC
-
Brake Specific Fuel Consumption
CAAA
-
Clean Air Act Amendments
CFV
-
Constant Flow Venturi
CO
-
Carbon Monoxide
CO 2
-
Carbon Dioxide
CVS
-
Constant Volume Sample
EG&G
-
EG&G Automotive Research, San Antonio, Texas
ECTD
-
Emission Control Technology Division
EPA
-
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FTP
-
Federal Test Procedure
GVWR
-
Gross Vehicle Weight Rating
g/BHP-hr
-
Grams per Brake Horsepower per Hour
HC
-
Hydrocarbons
HD
-
Heavy-Duty
HDV
-
Heavy-Duty Vehicle
LDT
-
Light-Duty Truck
MVEL
-
Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory
MY
-
Model Year
NOx
-
Oxides of Nitrogen
NPRM
-
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
OEM
-
Original Equipment Manufacturer
OMSAPC
-
EPA Office of Mobile Source Air Pollution Control
ppmC
-
Parts per million Carbon

-------
-iv-
SCI	- Systems Control, Incorporated, LLvonia, Michigan
SI	- Spark Ignition
SwRI	- Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Texas

-------
-1-
II. Summarv
The U.S. EPA. was mandated by che 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments
to determine revised HC and CO emission standards for 1983 model
year heavy-duty engines. These revised emission standards were to
be based on a 90 percent reduction from the average of actually
measured emissions from uncontrolled (1969 model year) gasoline-
fueled engines.
To comply with the provisions of the 1977 CAAA, ECTD began
a baseline testing program. Under this program, in-use 1969 model
year heavy-duty gasoline-fueled engines were procured, brought to
manufacturer's specifications, and then were tested for emissions
using the transient test proedure and idle test procedure. Twenty-
three engines were tested on the transient procedure to determine
the baseline emission levels. A total of 64 valid tests were
conducted on the transient procedure.
Nineteen engines were tested
determine baseline. A total of 55
Based on the results of these
the actually measured emissions is:
on the idle test procedure to
valid idle tests were achieved.
emission tests, the average of
12.74 g/BHP-hr	HC
155.18 g/BHP-hr	CO
9706.7 ppmC	HC idle
4.6590 % (by volume) CO idle
The CAAA of 1977 require that the 1983 HD emission	standards
for HC and CO be at least a 90% reduction from these	emission
levels. Based on this requirement, the 1983 HD emission	standards
proposed are:
1.3	g/BHP-hr	HC
15.5	g/BHP-hr	CO
970	ppmC	HC idle
0.4 7	% (by volume)	CO idle
This baseline program also served to gain experience using the
transient test procedure, ana tolerances for the test were revised
from those proposed in Vol. 44, No. 31, Part II of the Federal
Register on February 13, 1979 to allow more flexibility in conduc-
ting the test.

-------
-2-
III. Introduction and Background
The 1977 Amendments to the Clean Air Act, Section 202(a)
(3)(ii) require that beginning in model year 1983, both gasoline-
fueled and diesel heavy-duty engines meet emission standards for
hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide which represent at least a 90%
reduction "from the average of the actually measured emissions from
heavy-duty gasoline-fueled vehicles or engines, [emphasis added] or
any class or category thereof, manufactured during the baseline
model year." Part (v) of the same subsection goes on to define
baseline model year as ". . . the model year immediately preceding
the model in which Federal standards applicable to such vehicle or
engine, or class or category thereof, first applied with respect to
such pollutant." Using this criterion, EPA determined that 1969
was the baseline model year prescribed by law and established a
1969 baseline testing program.
The goal of this program was to measure the actual HC and
CO emission levels for a predetermined sample of 1969 heavy-
duty gasoline-fueled engines and then sales-weight the results
of these tests to determine the average emissions for model
year 1969. This technical report summarizes ECTD's efforts in
procuring and testing the 1969 engines used to establish the
proposed 1983 heavy-duty engine HC and CO emission standards.
Also included in this report is a summary of the method-
ology used to derive the HC and CO emission standards which
are proposed for 1983 and later-model year heavy-duty engines.
On February 13 , 1979, EPA published an NPRM (Federa 1 Reglster
Vol. 44, No. 31, Part II) which included preliminary HC and CO
emission standards of 1.4 g/BHP-hr (lower limit of .76 g/BHP-hr for
HC) and 14.7 g/BHP-hr (lower limit of 11.4 g/BHP-hr for CO).
In addition, preliminary idle standards of 1400 ppmC HC (lower
limit of 530 ppmC) and 0.55% CO (lower limit of 0.30%) were also
published. Preliminary levels and lower limits were proposed
because the baseline testing program used to derive the final
proposed standards was not yet completed. At the time the NPRM was
published, only 12 baseline engines had been tested. The baseline
testing program is now complete and the proposed final emission
standards have been derived. These final emission and idle stan-
dards are not below the lower limits initially proposed and hence
are acceptable in that respect.
Although these finalized standards were made public prior
to the Heavy Duty Hearings of May 14 and 15, 1979, this report
gives the engine manufacturers and all other interested parties the
information necessary to allow them to comment on ECTD's selection,
procurement, and testing tecnniques as well as the method by which
the final proposed standards were derived.
This report is divided into two main parts: the text and the
appendices. The text of the report discusses the vehicle/engine

-------
-3-
selection and procurement efforts of ECTD and its contractors,
Systems Control Inc. and EG & G Automotive Research, as well as the
engine preparation and testing programs at EPA/MVEL, and Southwest
Research Institute. The Last section of the text includes a
presentation and discussion of the L 969 emissions data used in
determining the 90% reduction wnich is used to determine the
proposed emission standards for 1983.
The appendices to this report, available upon request,
contain more detailed information on the procurement contracts
and specific procurement, inspection, and preparation data for
the baseline engines, as well as test by test data on the baseline
engines.

-------
-4-
IV. Discussion
A. Vehicle/Engine Selection and Procurement
L. 1969 Sales Data and Sampling Plan
To establish the HC and CO emission standards for 1983
heavy-duty engines, it was necessary to test the emission levels of
1969 heavy-duty engines.
To determine the average of actually measured emissions,
ECTD first gathered the sales data by engine CID for each manu-
facturer's 1969 model year sales. This sales data, shown in Table
IV-A-1, was supplied by the vehicle/engine manufacturers and MVMA
at the request of ECTD, beginning in October 1977. The market
shares for each of the manufacturer's engine lines were determined
from this data.
Using this sales lnformation, a sampling plan was constructed
to determine which engines, and how many of each engine line, would
be statistically desirable if between twenty and fifty engines were
tested. A preliminary sample size of 25 engines was chosen to
construct this sampling plan. However, the number of engines
ultimately used in the baseline would be based primarily on the
trend of the emission results with cost, time, and engine avail-
ability as other limiting factors. The sampling plan shown in Table
IV-A-2 was constructed by multiplying the market percentage of each
engine by twenty-five and then using the integer range around that
number. For example, (0.059) x (25) 3 1.^75, or a (1-2) range
for the sample. The desired sample was further constrained by
not permitting more engines from any manufacturer than the number
shown for each manufacturer in column 5 of Table IV-A-2.
Once the sampling plan was finalized, the next step was to
determine the means by which the desired engines could be procured
for testing.
In the fall of 1977, ECTD first considered testing manufac-
turer supplied 1969 heavy-duty gaso1ine-fueled engines. These
engines would not have been production engines but would have
been new engines built as near to 1969 specifications as possible.
However, there was no guarantee that these engines would have been
close enough to 1969 specifications to make them acceptable. Due
to the non-availabiIicy of some original eauipment carburetors and
distributors it was very unlikely the 1969 specifications could
have been met, especially by all four manufacturers on all engine
lines. This alternative was rejected by OMSAJPC for the reasons
cited above and for another very important reason. EPA interpreted
the provisions of the 1977 Clean Air Act Amendments to mean actual
1969 production engines and not new engines built to 1969 specifi-
cat ions.

-------
-5-
Table IV-A-1
1969 Sales Data
Manufacturer
Engine
Sales
% of Market
Chrysler
318-3
10
850
3.1
9.3%
318-1
10
150
2.9

361
7
000
2.0

383
2
000
0.6

413
1
500
0.4

225
1
000
0.3
Ford
330
50
200
14.4
33.5%
360
21
300
6. 1

361
17
300
5.0

300
14
200
4.1

391
6
700
1.9

477
2
600
0.7

390
2
300
0.7

534
2
000
0.6
GM
350-2
47
000
13.5
39.3%
366
22
000
6.3

292
18
000
5.2

351C
12
000
3.6

250
10
000
2.9

307
9
000
2.6

305C
6
600
1.9

477
6
300
1.8

350-4
3
000
0.9

396
2
000
0.6
IHC
V345
20
500
5.9
14.7%
V304
17
300
5.0

V392
7
600
2.2

RD450
3
350
1.0

VS478
2
000
0.6
Others*

11
,334
3.2
3.2%




Total

34}
,584
100%
* Others as shown here represents sales of small volume engines
whose individual percentages in tne 1969 market were insignificant.

-------
-6-
Table IV-A-2
Initial Sampling Plan
Manufacturer
Engine
Sales
% of 1
Chrysler
318-3
10,850
3.1
(9.3%)
318-1
10,150
2.9

361
7,000
2.0

383
2,000
0.6

413
1,500
0.4

225
1,000
0.3
SampLing
Target Range
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
Total (2-3)
Ford 330	50,200	14.4	3-4
(33.5%) 360	21,300	6.1	1-2
361	17,300	5.0	1-2
300	14,200	4.1	1-2
391	6,700	1.9	0-1
477	2,600	0.7	0-1
390	2,300	0.7	0-1
534	2,000	0.6	0-1
Total (8-9)
350-2
47,000
13.5
3-4
366
22,000
6.3
1-2
292
18,000
5.2
1-2
351C
12,000
3.6
0-1
250
10,000
2.9
0-1
307
9,000
2.6
0-1
305C
6,600
1.9
0-1
477
6,300
1.8
0-1
350-4
3,000
0.9
0-1
396
2,000
0.6
0-1
Total (9-10)
IHC V345 20,500 5.9	1-2
(14.7%) V304 17,300 5.0	1-2
V392 7,600 2.2	0-1
RD450 3,350 1.0	0-1
VS478 2,000 0.6	0-1
Total	(3-4)

-------
-7-
To compLy with this interpretation of Congressional intent, a
program was undertaken to Drocure actual in-use 1969 heavy-duty
engines. The engines sought for the baseline were selected based
on overall engine operating condition and closeness to OEM config-
uration but not on the vehicle body tvpe, function, or usage
pat tern.
2. Selection Criteria
The following criteria were established to identify potential
baseline engines:
(1)	All engines must be 1969 Model Year and should be
installed in a vehicle registered as a 1969 model year
vehicle with a GVWR greater than 8,500 lb.
(2)	The test engines muse be in good operating condi-
tion, must be in their original configuration (i.e., must
have original carburetor, distributor, and engine block),
must not exhibit evidence of excessive oil consumption,
and should not have been subjected to more than 80,000
miles of operation.
(3)	The engine's original carburation and ignition system
should not have been modified from OEM specifications.
(4)	The engines shall not have received a major overhaul
(i.e., valve grind, valve replacement, or compression rings
replacement).
EPA realized that engine selection was a critical element
in establishing a valid baseline of 1969 model year gasoline-
fueled heavy-duty engines. The engines inspected were evalu-
ated according to the selection "Criteria outlined above, and
then placed into Class A, B, or C, depending upon how closely
the selection criteria were met. Classes A, B, and C were defined
as :
C1ass"A" - Engine is in its original configuration, meaning it
has never been overhauled, rebuilt or modified, it has
the original carburetor, distributor, cylinder head and intake
manifold, and has never had the carburetor modified (i.e.,
rebuilt with different jet sizes, power valve, choke arrange-
ment, governor, etc.). Engine does not currently need an
overhaul or major repair and has not accumulated more than
80 ,000 miles;

-------
-8-
CLass"B" - Engine has been overhauled, but is in good ope-
rating condition, and has its original carburetor, distrib-
utor, heads, and intake manifold. Engine has not accumulated
more than 80,000 miles since being overhauled;
Class"C" - Engine is in its original configuration, as in
Class A, but needs major repairs, or has accumulated greacer
than 80,000 miles.
The engine selection process used by ECTD and its contractor,
SCI, consisted of three main parts: initial screening, physical
inspection, and diagnostic evaluation. Initial screening, usuallv
by telephone, consisted of questioning the vehicle owners as to the
vehicle make and GVWR, mileage, engine displacement, past mainte-
nance history, and general operating condition of the engine. If
maintenance records were available, the owners were requested to
supply copies of these records, or at a minimum, allow inspection
of these records.
Vehicles which passed the initial screening process were
then inspected by a mechanic to verify the initial screening
information and record any pertinent information. The engine
was started and observed for proper operation in an attempt to
eliminate engines with obvious problems. A compression check
was done on many engines at this point. Finally, the distrib-
utor and carburetor found on the engine were verified as original
and proper by using part numbers. This was accomplished either
through direct communication with the manufacturer, or by-,us ing
service manuals. If, at this point, all of the selection criteria
were met, the vehicle was procured by lease, loan, or outright
purchase.
The final step in the selection process was a major diagnostic
evaluation and tune-up of the engine. During this final phase the
engines were cleaned and given a compression check if this had not
been done earlier. Included in the engine diagnosis was an eval-
uation of the ignition system, spark plug checks, fluid level
check, compression check, etc. The engines also received a tune-up
in which the ignition wires, spark plugs, PCV valve, belts, and
hoses were replaced. The rotor, points, condensor and cap were
replaced and the oil, oil filter, gas filter, and air filter were
changed. In addition, any other non-emission-related part con-
sidered defective was replaced.
Manufacturers' service manuals were used to obtain engine
tune-up specifications and in some cases the manufacturers provided
these tune-up specifications. Initially, carburetors and dis-
tributors were removed from the engines to be checked for proper
functioning and to determine if they met original specifications.
The necessary equipment was not available ac SCI or EPA/MVEL, so
the manufacturers were requested to flow the carburetors and test

-------
-9-
the distributors. If a carburetor or distributor was found to be
out of specifications, then the required overhaul, or rebuild was
done by the manufacturer when possible. This distributor and
carburetor checking process was very time consuming due to tLght
scheduling at manufacturer's facilities. As a result of these
delays, the carburetors and distributors of all baseline engines
were not checked at the manufacturer facilities. It should be
emphasized that the operation of all carburetors and distributors
was inspected by EPA/MVEL and corrected if necessary. The carbur-
etor flow curves and distributor curves for several baseline
engines are shown in Appendix I.
3. Procurement Actions
Several procurement actions were instituted to obtain the
initial 25 baseline engines. These consisted of actions by
ECTD and ECTD's authorized contractors, SCI, and EG & G.
To expedite the procurement of baseline vehicles and get
the 1969 baseline program underway, procurement actions were
started by ECTD personnel in October 1977. ECTD contacted State
and Federal agencies and the Armed Forces to determine the avail-
ability of 1969 model year venicles. The first successful procure-
ment action was completed on December 19, 1977, when baseline
engine number one was procured (see Table IV-A-3).
In February 1978, SCI (formerly Olson Labs) was awarded
EPA Contract No. 68-03-2412, Task Order 7, Location and Source
Search for 1969 Model Year Heavy-Duty Vehicles. The purpose
of this contract was to assess the availability of 1969 HD gas-
oline-fueled vehicles having a GVWR between 16,000 and 33,000
pounds. Availability was defined to mean that an arrangement
(i.e., lease, borrow, etc.) could be made to remove the engine for
performance testing on an engine dynamometer. The goal of Task
Order 7 was to identify 100 HD engines which met the selection
criteria outlined above. The scope of work for Contract No.
68-03-2412, Task Order 7, found in Appendix I, more fully outlines
the provisions of this contract. This task order was successfully
completed and the final report was accepted by ECTD on June 15,
1978. Included in Appendix I to this technical report is a
copy of the final report for this contract and a copy of the
contact and inspection sheets for the engines ultimately included
in the baseline.
Also in February 1978, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2411, Task
Order 10, Heavy-Duty Vehicle Engine Emissions 3aseline Testing
Program, was awarded to SCI. The purpose of this task order
was to provide 15 qualified original equipment 1969 HD test
engines, identified by ECTD, in the proper test configuration
to the EPA/MVEL in Ann Arbor. The contractor was responsible
for transporting the vehicle to SCI, removing the engine from

-------
ine
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
-10-
Table IV-A-3
Final 1969 Baseline Engines
Select ion	Hate
Engine
Mileage
Mode 1
Body Type
Category
Source
Procured
Dodge 2 25
16,271
D500
Stake Truck
A
MI National Guard
12-19-77





Cainp Gray 1 i ng , MI

1I1C 392
34,611
Load star
Van
A
GSA Navy Yard
2-17-78


1800


Motor Pool, Wash. D.
C.
Ford 391
62,746
F750
Dump Truck
A
Mr. J.S. Wr i ght
1
1
00





Livonia, MI

IHC 304
30,445
Loadst ar
Van
A
GSA Navy Yard
4-12-78


1600


Motor Pool, Wash. D.
C.
Ford 330
68,000
B700
School Bus
A
Mr. L. Patrias
5-08-78





Wes 11 and, MI

GM 351
53,627
5500
School Bus
A
Mr. L. Patrias
5-24-78





West 1 and , MI

Ford 330
78,849
B700
School Bus
A
Hamilton Com. Schls.
6-27-78





Ham i1 ton, MI

Cliev 350
54,721
C-50
School Bus
A
W. Central Schls.
7-13-78





Anderson, IN

Dodge 318-3
22,224
500
School Bus
A
Fairlane Com. Church
6-20-78





W. Dearborn, MI

IHC 345
45,000
C1800
Tr ac tor
A
US Army
6-5-78





Ft. Campbel1, KY

Chev 350
40,705
C-50
Van
A
GSA, Cleveland, OH
3-21-78
Ford 300
16 >117
B-600
School Bus
A
State of MI
8-21-78





Lansing, MI

IHC 345
88,000
Loadstar
School Bus
C
Martin Schls.
10-6-78


1600


Martin, MI

Chev 366
98,000
C-50
School Bus
C
Plymouth Schls.
CO
r-v
I
m
I
o





Plymouth, MI


-------
i se 1
i ne
I 5
16
1 7
18
19
20
2 1
22
23
-1 1-
Table IV-A-3 (Cont'd)
Final 1969 Baseline Engines
Eng i ne
Mileage
Mode 1
Select ion
Body Type Category
Source
Ford 361	65,537
Ford 360	81,464
Chev 292	46,200
Dodge 318-1	37,526
Ford 361	93,430
Ford 360	87,750
Chev 350	57,000
Dodge 361	85,000
Chev 366	109,000
B700
F250
C-30
D200
B750
F2 50
C-50
C-700
C-50
School Bus
Pick-up
Pick-up
Pick-up
School Bus
Pick-up
School Bus
Dump Truck
School Bus
A
B
A
A
C
C
A
C
c
Taylor Cen. Baptist
Church, Taylor, MI
Mr. D. Woolett
San Antonio, TX
E & M Motor Sales
Detroit, MI
Mr. J. Stanley
San Antonio, TX
Southfield Pub Schls
South fie Id, MI
Mr. R. Pfluger
San Antonio, TX
W. Central Sell 1 s .
Anderson, IN
City of Huntington
Woods, MI
Plymouth Schls.
Plymouth, MI
Date
Procured
10-27-78
10-03-78
12-06-78
8-24-78
12-14-78
11-16-78
11-13-78
1-05-79
10-13-78

-------
-12-
the chassis, supplying che engine to che EPA laboratory in the
proper test configuration, reinstalling the engine into the
chassis, and returning the vehicle to its owner. The scope of
work for Task Order 10, found in Appendix I more fully outlines the
provisions of this contract.
This task order was successfully completed and the final
report accepted by ECTD on November 8, 1978. Included in Appendix
I to this technical report is a copy of the final report on this
contract and a copy of the inspection and tune-up sheets for the
engines ultimately included in the baseline.
A third contract with SCI, EPA Contract No. 68-03-2715,
Procurement of Heavy-Duty Vemcles and Preparation of Engines
for Baseline Emissions Testing, was awarded on September 14,
19 78 for procurement of additional baseline vehicles. The purpose
of this contract, as regards the 1969 baseline, was generally
similar to Task Order 10 outlined above, except that of the re-
quired 15 engines to be procured, prepared, and delivered, 10 would
be delivered to EPA/ MVEL, and 5 to SwRI for testing at these
facilities. The specifics of tms contract are in the Scope of
Work for Contract No. 68-03-2715, found in Appendix I. This
contract is not yet closea out oecause it also includes procurement
of 1973 engines for the HD NOx baseline program. The tune-up and
inspection sheets for the engines procured under this contract and
ultimately included in the baseline are found in Appendix I.
4. Problems Encountered
In the period beginning October 1977 and ending January
1979, ECTD and its contractor made every effort to procure engines
which met all of the selection criteria outlined on page 7.
However, due to time, budget, engine availability, and sampling
plan constraints, all engines included in the baseline did not
satisfy all of the selection criteria necessary to qualify as class
"A" engines.
Specifically, of the twenty-three engines included in the
baseline, seven had accumulated more than 80,000 miles (see
Table IV-A-3). The carburetors and/or distributors on some
engines either were replaced by new original equipment parts
supplied by the manufacturers or rebuilt to bring their performance
characteristics nearer to manufacturer's specifications.
Also, baseline engine 16, a Ford 360, had received a valve job
at 75,000 miles. This vehicle odometer read 81,464 at the time of
procurement. Although this valve job made this a class "B" engine,
ECTD felt tnat it was important to include this engine due to its
high sales. As will be shown later, tnis engine's emissions were
not unrepresentative of this engine line.

-------
-13-
Finally, when engines required by Che sampling plan could
not be procured by the previously described method, ECTD chose
another procurement route. If a particular heavy-duty engine could
not be procured from a heavy-duty vehicle, but the same engine,
identical in all respects, was also sold in light-duty trucks, then
the engine was procured from a light-duty truck under EPA Contract
No. 68-03-2683 with EG & G Automotive Research of San Antonio,
Texas. This method was used to procure three of the baseline
engines which then underwent the normal inspection and tune-up
procedures.
5. Result of Selection and Procurement Actions
The procurement efforts described above resulted in the
twenty-three baseline engines shown in Table IV-A-3. Every
effort was made to bring these engines to as close to original
configuration as possible. Table IV-A-4 outlines the steps which
were taken to prepare each baseline engine for testing. The
condition of these baseline engines is attested to by the fact that
none of the twenty-three engines experienced a mechanical breakdown
or failure during engine testing. All were in good operating
condition and tuned to manufacturer specifications.
In closing this section, it might be constructive to compare
ECTD's procurement efforts to the sampling plan originally estab-
lished to guide this effort. The original sampling plan called for
ECTD to initially consider a sample of twenty-five engines which
were sold in 1969 gasoline-fueled HD vehicles. Of the 25 engines
mitially desired, only 23 were included in this baseline program.
As will be shown in section C, only 23 engines were necessary to
establish dependable baseline results. The mileage criteria, less
than 80,000 miles, was met by 70% of the sample used. Figure
IV-A-1 shows the variation in the total miles accumulated on
the 23 baseline engines. 87% of the engines used were actu-
ally taken from heavy-duty vehicles; 13% were heavy-duty engines
taken from a light-duty truck chassis. Only one engine had under-
gone a major rebuild.
Finally, Table IV-A-5 compares the sampling plan (Table
IV-A-2) to the final baseline (Table IV-A-3). Table IV-A-5 shows
that the guidance of the initial sampling plan was followed close-
ly. Small sales volume, large cubic inch displacement engines were
not available for this baseline program. However, the sales-
weighting used to determine the average emissions would have
minimized the Lmpact of these larger engines on the final baseline
results. ECTD's procurement efforts were highly satisfactory in
light of the goals established. Over 80% of the 1969 market was
represented by the engines procured, and all engines were brought
near to OEM specifications prior to testing.

-------
-14-
Table IV-A-4
Baseline Engine Maintenance Summary
Engines/Model
1.	Dodge 225-1
2.	IHC 392
3. Ford 391
4. IHC 304
5. Ford 330
6. GM 351
7.	Ford 330
8.	GM 350
9.	Chrysler 318-3
10.	IHC 345
11.	GM 350
Pre-Testing Restorative Maintenance
Major tune-up*; replaced intake mani-
fold gasket and 2 broken studs on
intake manifold.
Major tune-up; carburetor flow checked
and adjusted at IHC-Fort Wayne.
Distributor replaced with OEM part
supplied by IHC-Fort Wayne.
Major tune-up; carburetor and dis-
tributor checked and adjusted by Ford.
Major tune-up; carburetor and dis-
tributor checked and adjusted by IHC.
Major tune-up; right cylinder head
gasket and right intake manifold gasket
replaced; carburetor flow checked and
adjusted by Ford.
Major tune-up; all hoses replaced;
distributor replaced with OEM part
supplied and adjusted by GMC; manual
choke installed.
Major tune-up; carburetor and dis-
tributor checked and adjusted by Ford.
Major tune-up; fuel pump replaced.
Major tune-up; distributor and carbur-
etor checked and adjusted at Chrysler;
Chrysler engineer assisted in pre-test
adjustment of governor.
Major tune-up; carburetor and dis-
tributor checked and adjusted at IHC.
Major tune-up; oil pan and gasket
replaced; carburetor replaced with OEM
model supplied by the manufacturer.
12. Ford 300
Major tune-up; accelerator pump re-
placed.

-------
-16-
MILEA6E RkNGE

-------
-17-
Table IV-A-5
Sampling Plan vs. 3aseLine Engines Procured
Manufacturer
Chrysler
Eng
ine
318-3
318-1
361
383
413
225
Total
Sampling
Target Range
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
Tt=JT
Actual
Procurement
1
1
1
0
0
1
4
Ford
330
360
361
300
391
477
390
534
Total
3-4
1-2
1-2
1-2
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
(8-9)
2
2
2
1
1
0
0
_0_
8
General Motors
350-2
366
292
351C
250
307
305C
477
350-4
396
Total
3-4
1-2
1-2
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-i
0-1
(9-10)
3
2
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
_0_
7
IHC
V345
V304
V392
RD450
VS478
Total
1-2
1-2
0-1
0-1
0-1
(3-4)
2
1
1
0
0

-------
-18-
3. Engine Testing
I. Test Sites
The 1969 Heavy Duty 3aseline Testing Program was undertaken
primarily at EPA's Motor Vehicle Emissions Laboratory in Ann Arbor,
Michigan. Twenty-three engines were tested over the course of
fifteen months; twenty-two were tested on one of ECTD's two tran-
sient dynamometers; the remaining engine was tested under contract
by the Southwest Research Institute (SwRI) in San Antonio, Texas.
Baseline testing at EPA began in March 1978 upon the attain-
ment of transient dynamometer testing capability in a single test
cell (Cell 3). The second test cell (Cell 4) was upgraded for
transient control in August, 1978; following correlation testing
work, Cell 4 was brought on line into the program.
ECTD Test Cells 3 and 4 are adjacent, separated only by a
twelve-foot-wide motor generator room. Each test cell utilized its
own double-ended dynamometer, water coolant system, instrumenta-
tion, and ambient air handling/humidity conditioning systems. Both
cells were controlled by a single computer, and emissions were
measured using the same CFV-CVS unit.
Under contract by ECTD, SwRI developed both gasoline and
diesel engine dynamometer test cells capable of transient opera-
tion. The purpose of the contract was two-fold: 1) to establish
the fact that an independent laboratory could achieve transient
capability with a minimum of ECTD guidance in a reasonable length
of time, and 2) to provide a site for future transient baseline
testing. Other engines were tested at SwRI upon achievement of
transient capability; these were primarily current technology
engines used for correlation attempts between EPA and SwRI.
(Correlation testing between EPA and SwRI will be summarized in a
separate technical report. However, correlation for transient and
modal testing for the 1969 gasoline baseline has been satisfactor-
ily established.
2. Test Procedure
Testing in the 1969 baseline program involved three separate
test procedures, the transient test procedure (Reference Federal
Register Vol. 44, No. 31, February 13, 1979), tne 1979 9-mode FTP,
(Reference Federal Register Vol. 42, No. 174, September 8, 1977),
and an idle test procedure (Reference Federal Register Vol. 44, No.
31, February 13, 1979). Time was also taicen during the program for
various emission sensitivity cests, Co assess the impact on transi-
ent emissions of variations in the test cycle. In addition,
several current technology engines were tested for correlation and
technology assessment purposes

-------
The transient procedure was identical to that described in the
February 13, 1979 NPRM with two exceptions:
a)	Four separate bag samples were taken during each hot
and cold cycle (as opposed to the recommended one), this
was done so that emission data could also be collected
for the separate urban and highway segments within the
total cycle._l_/
b)	The regression line tolerances specified as strict criter-
ia for the validation of transient tests were judged too
restrictive based upon the experience acquired in the baseline
program, and were relaxed. (See Table IV B-l.)
The proposed criteria in the NPRM were derived prior to tne
accumulation of substantial transient testing data. Based upon a
comprehensive review of the baseline data, use of the stricter NPRM
criteria led to significantly higher void rates, with no apparent
gain m emission repeatability or test quality.
These higher void rates were due primarily to control system
limitations. The ECTD transient controller represented a first
attempt, prototype system. Statistical reduction of tests per-
formed at SwRI under a control system of different design (see
Section 3), indicated a somewhat better control capability, especi-
ally for engines with a high degree of throttle performance cion-
linearity. There is reason to believe that as future transient
control systems are refined, no real difficulty should be experi-
enced in meeting the statistical requirements of the February 13,
1979 NPRM. However, based upon che observation chat emission
sensitivity to the slightly relaxed criteria appeared to be mini-
mal, it is recommended that the statistical criteria be reLaxed
prior to inclusion in the Final Rulemaking Action. The tolerances
presented in Table IV B-l are adequate to guarantee repeacable and
representative emission results. These tolerances should be
subject to future revision, however, if they prove inadequate due
to the effects of advanced emission control technology on the
repeatability of the test procedure.
_L_/ Brake specific emissions for each bag were combined to produce
a composite brake specific emission number for the entire hot or
cold cycle. This was mathematically and experimentally equivalent
to a single bag result.

-------
-20-
Table IV B-l
NPRM Regression Line Tolerances
Standard Error
of Estimate
(SE) of y on x
Slope of the
Regression Line, m
Coefficient of
Determination, r^
y Intercept of
the Regression
Line, b
Speed
100 rpm
0.970-1.020
0.9700 y
+ 50 rpm
Torque
10% of max.
engine torque
(in ft-lbs)
0.850-1.020
0.8800 I/
+ 10.0 ft-lbs
Brane Horsepower
5% of max. brake
horsepower
0.900-1.020
0.9200 1/
+ 5.0 BHP
Revised Cycle Performance Regression Line Tolerances
Speed	Torque 2/	Brake Horsepower
Standard Error
of Estimate
(SE) of y on x
Slope of the
Regression Line, m
Coefficient of
Determination, r^
y Intercept of
the Regression
Line, b
100 rpm
0.970-1.030
0.9700 U
+ 50 rpm
132 of max.
engine torque
(in Ft-lbs.)
0.83-1.03 (hot)
0.77-1.03 (cold)
0.8800 (hoc) JJ
0.8500 (cold) U
+ 15.0 ft-lbs
7% of max. brake
Horsepower
0.89-1.03 (hot)
0.87-1.03 (cold)
0.9100 U
+ 5.0 BHP
1/ Minlmura
2_/ In addition to the torque points not included in the regression
per the February 13, 1979 NPRM, i.e., 1) all torque points measured
during the initial 24 _+l second idle period of the cold and hot
start cycle, and 2) all torque points where the throttle is wide
open and a negative torque error occurs, an additional exclusion
of torque points is permitted. These additional points are. 3)
all torque points measured wnen negative torque (motoring) is
commanded and tne throttle is completely closed.

-------
-21-
The 9-mode test procedure used was identical. Co Chat specified
in Che Federal Regiscer (Vol. 42, No. 174, September 1977) wich Che
following exceptions:
a)	Only a single 9-mode cycle was run; this was done with a
warm engine (Engine oil cemperaCure over 200°F).
b)	Emission measurements were taken by the CVS-CFV bag
technique, as opposed to raw exhaust analysis. In order to
assure adequate sample volumes in Che bags, sample modes of
five minutes length were performed, as opposed to the one
minute modes of the federal certification procedure .J_/
Idle test data was taken in accordance with the February 13,
19 79 NPRM, employing the CVS-CFV bag sampling technique, with the
ratio of the concentrations of raw CO2 Co diluCe sample CO2 used
for diluCion faccor decermination. In addition Co Che idle mode,
however, chree other modes were cesced for emissions. An overview
of Che cesc procedure is presenced in Table IV 3-2. These addi-
Cional modes were sampled using Che same procedure as Che idle
mode.
Table IV B-2
Idle Test Procedure
Mode	Lengch
Mode RPM	% Max Torque @RPM (minuCes)
1	2,500	0	5
2	Idle	0	5
3	2 ,200	55% (a 2,200	5
4	1,700	43% (a 1,700	5
In addicion Co Che chree primary cesc procedures, various
ocher cesCs were performed, primarily on current technology
engines. These tests usually involved consecutive hot starts
(hot start transient cycles with cwency-minuce soak cime becween
runs.) A single CesC paramecer (e.g., cocal mcegraced brake
horsepower-hour, engine CemperaCure, chroccle aggressiveness,
ambienc humidicy, calibracion seCCings, ecc.) would be varied and
iCs impacC on engine emissions assessed. These Cescs were useful
in assessing emission sensitivity Co variacions in Che cycle
1/ Tesc resulcs from currenc technology engines CesCed under
This modified cesc procedure showed negligible variacion from
Che manufacCurers' CesC results, obcained using the raw exhaust,
certification mechod.

-------
-22-
performance regression scacisci.cs and co variations in ocher cycle
parameCers. Results of these tesc programs will appear in a
separate technical report.
3. Transient Engine Dynamometer Control System
The transient control system used in the baseline program
was a digital/analog hyorid, employing closed-loop analog speed
control and open-loop analog torque control. (See Figure IV-B-1).
A digital cassette recorder served as a source of continual command
signals,, and also recorded speed/load feedback signals from the
engine on a separate cassette cape. The digical command signals
from the cassette keyooard were converted to analog control vol-
tages within a Texas Instruments 960B Computer. The TI 960B was
programmed for several tasks, the mosc important of which were
transient engine control for emission testing (Task D), and manual
steady-state engine control through the keyboard for system
calibration (Task A). The analog control circuitry and the
digital/analog interfacing were designed by LABECO, Inc. of
Mooresville, Indiana.
Test cell hardware included General Electric motoring dynamo-
meters and their associated G.E. control circuitry, which comprised
the major portion of the speed ioop of the control system. The
speed control circuitry, was a simple closed-loop system employing
proportional control (i.e., dynamometer speed was a linear function
of command voltage), with a proportional feedback loop allowing for
the generation of compensatory error voltages.
The torque control loop was somewhat more complex. Torque
control was an open loop system in the sense that parts of the
system were not electricaL, i.e., the engine and its operational
characteristics were integral components of the "circuit." Figure
IV B-2 details the typical load vs. throttle position characteris-
tics of an SI engine. (Throttle position is expressed in terms of
the voltage applied to a throttle actuator servo motor; the clutch-
driven actuator opened and closed the throttle linkage in propor-
tion to the applied voltage.) Actual engine load was measured by a
torquemeter (torsional strain gauge type with slip rings) mounted
in line in the driveshaft becween dynamomeCer and engine.
The ECTD control syscem controlled Corque through three
separate analog input volcages to the servo motor (See Figure
IV B-l): 1) a "pre-position" throttle command voltage proportional
to the commanded torque, 2) a speed correction voltage to allow for
the variations in load vs. throttle position with engine speed
(Figure IV B-2), and 3) a simple torque error (Command minus
Feedback) voltage for fine tuning. In short, this linear "pre-
position" system attempted to follow nonlinear engine load/throtcle
voltage characteristics witn corrections for non-linearity provided
by the limited error voltages and by additional circuitry (See
Footnote 2/, Table IV B-3).

-------
-2 J-
SPEED COMMAND
SPEED FEEDBACK
SPEED
ERROR
speiId COMMAND
SPEED
AMPLIFIER
LSO-i
THROTTLE
.SERVO
MOTOR
Attenuated
SPEED COMMAND
THROTTLE POSITION
VOLTAGE
MS
MS
COMMAND
D/A
TORQUE COMMAND
SHAFT
~TOKQUE
METER
TORQUE ERROR
TORQUE ERROR
AMPLIFIER
DRIVE
SHAFT
TORQUE FEEDBACK
CASSETTE
KEYBOARD
J CALIBRATION
1 POTS
TI 960B
/NALOG CONTROL CIRCUITRY
HARDWARE
MS
,ZT
A/D
A/D
DYNO
ENGINE
i'T/'tinp Tir n I .	iT'i h T17AMCTI7MT rvvkiti./-

-------
-24-
300
250
200 -
ACTUAL
SHAFT
TORQUE
(FT-LBS) !50
100
MSMXT
MSMT
CONTROLLER
CALIBRATION POINTS
MSZT
WIDE OPEN
THROTTLE
2.00
A.00
5.00
THROTTLE POSITION VOLTAGE (VOLTS)
FIGURE IV B-2: TYPICAL THROTTLE VOLTAGE/LOAD CHARACTERISTICS OF AN SI ENGINE

-------
-25-
Calibration of these three throttle input circuits was per-
formed after engine preparation was completed. The calibration
procedure is summarized in Table IV B-3. With the system operating
in Task A mode, i.e., the engine running at chosen speeds and
torques through typed-in commands at Che keyboard, calibration was
performed on the feedback ana then the throttle input circuits.
Specific calibration settings were unique to each engine (reflect-
ing unique throttle/load characteristics and varying impedances
between the test cells.) At any given time during production
testing, one calibrated engine was present in each test cell,
allowing two cold start transient tests per day. (The remaining
space in each cell was reserved for engine buildup and prepara-
tion). Calibration settings for each engine were recorded to
alleviate the need for recalibration when automatic control was
switched from one cell to the other.
Following calibration, the engine was mapped under automatic
control and a transient cycle command tape was generated. (See
Section IV B-5 - Software Support.) This tape controlled the
engine throughout the transient test; feedback data for cycle
performance statistical validation were recorded on a separate tape
and analyzed after the test.
The transient test began by manually cranking the engine with
the starter motor (dynamometer off). Emission sampling began
simultaneously with cranking. Upon ignition, the operator was
permitted to manipulate the throttle as necessary to preclude
stalling. (If stalling did occur, or the engine refused to start,
the contingency procedure of trie NPRM was followed. The few cases
where this did occur are called out in Appendix II as comments on
Individual Test Reports.) 3etween ignition and fifteen seconds
into the test, the dynamometer, preset to run at engine idle speed,
was engaged. Fifteen seconds into the test (referred to as "lag"
time), the computer took control of the engine. The first non-idle
point in the test occured at the twenty-four second mark and the
transient portion of the cycle began. At the conclusion of
the cold cycle the computer automatically returned control to the
operator console, at which point the engine was shut down for the
soak period. The hot cycle procedure was identical to the cold.
(The emissions were sampled according to the schedule presented in
Table IV B-8.)
During the analysis of the transient feedback tape, 9-mode and
idle testing were performed unaer completely manual control.
Following final validation of all test results, the engine was
removed from the test cell.
Throughout the baseline program the engines were run in
"speed control" mode, as described aoove. This was in contrast to
"torque control" mode, in which the dynamometer directly controlled
engine torque, while the throttle control equipment controlled
engine speed. The ECTD system was capable of operating in either

-------
-26-
Table IV B-3
Transient Controller Calibration Procedure
Task A
Step Calibration Potentiometer 1/ (Figure 4 B-l) Purpose (Figure 4 B-2)
A. Torque and Speed Feedback
Feedback (TFB and SFB)
B. Midspeed/Zero Torque
(MSZT)
Midspeed/Mid Torque
(MSMT)
Midspeed/Max Torque
(MSMXT)2/
E. Low-Speed Offset (LSO)
Calibrates load and speed
feedback signals so that the
engine's performance may be
accurately recorded.
Sets zero point for speed
compensating voltage (Throttle
Input 2)
Sets mid-span point for
throttle command voltage
(Throttle Input 1)
Sets maximum span point
for additional Throttle voltage
(Throttle Input 1)
Spans speed compensation
voltage (Throttle Input 2).
_1_/ Named for speed/load at which calibration occurs. In general, midspeed
is defined as ^aCec^ (°r governed) RPM-Idle RPM +¦ Idle RPM, midtorque as
Maximum torque @ Midspeed RPM. These were not rigid parameters, however,
-2.
and the calibrations occured wherever necessary to achieve satisfactory
result s.
2/ In reality, the Midspeed/Max Torque (MSMXT) is not only a potentiometer,

but also additional circuitry located	in Figure IV B 1 . This
circuitry was designed to provide on additional linear voltage boost at
higher loads, so that the analog system could more closely approximate the
load/throttle characteristics m the operating range between half and full
throttle (See Figure IV B-2).

-------
-2 7-
raode, and early in Che baseLine program, controller performance in
each mode was analyzed. Basea upon the high void rates associated
with "torque control" mode due to the lack of cold engine drivea-
bility in Che early moments of a cold start (resulting in scallea
engines and voided tests) the decision was made to operate in
"speed control" for the baseline program. The dynamometer control-
led engine speed during momentary stumbles at the cold start,
precluding stalling of the engine and substantially reducing the
likelihood of a void test.
When compared with tne ECTD control system, the control system
at SwRI differed in support instrumentation, and in the case of the
torque-control loop, in basic design. The torque control input to
the throttle servo motor was entirely error-based, L.e., the torque
command and feedback voltages were fed into a differencing ampli-
fier; the amplifier output drove the servo motor. SwRI also ran in
speed control mode, and in compliance with the revised regression
st atistics.
The ECTD "Pre-position" type system was originally selected to
guarantee sufficiently rapid throttle response to widely varying
torque commands. During che baseline program, however, frequent
calibration difficulties resulted in regularly deficient controller
performance, due Co boch the non-1mearity of the engine's throt-
tle-position function and the insufficient voltage achievable
from the torque error amplifier. (Above a certain amplifier gain,
considerable oscillatory motion of the throttle actuacor was
encountered. The point of excessive oscillation represented the
maximum gain allowable; in some cases this gain was too low to
overcome the non-linear characteristics.) Based upon the perform-
ance of the system at SwRI, a torque controller utilizing torque
error as the major controlling input is equally responsive as a
"pre-pos1tion" system, does not suffer from engine-to-engine
variations in non-linear throttle operational characteristics, and
is significantly easier to calibrate.
In general the ECTD control system produced repeatable results
within the revised cycle performance criteria. Enough difficulty
in calibration was experienced, nowever, to warrant modification
of the controller to one wnose primary torque controlling input is
error-based. An alternative solution is to use a pre-position type
control system with sufficient memory capacity to allow calibration
through a comprehensive matrix -napping of the engine's throttle
voltage characteristics, i.e., record the throttle voltage neces-
sary for any combination of speed and torque. These matrix values
could be stored into memory directly, or used to determine con-
stants of higher-oraer polynomial algorithms (pre-programmed into
the computer) to allow closer following of the non-linear throttle
11/ SwRI operated vichout ambient humidity controls,but this had no
significant effect on HC and CO emission levels.

-------
-28-
volcage curves. A small torque error compensatory voltage would
then be sufficient to account for variation in engine performance
(e.g., a cold engine vs. a hot engine). EPA plans to implement one
of these alternatives in the near future. Furthermore, based upon
testing experience co date, additional capabilities of a transient
dynamometer controller are desirable. These include:
1)	The engine should be capable of being "uncoupled" from the
dynamometer, either electrically or mechanically, during idle
portions of the transient test. This allows for a free idle,
especially important during a cold start if the engine is
equipped with an automatic choke.
2)	The controller's data reduction capability should be
sufficient to allow rapid calculation of a test's cycle
performance statistics. This allows much prompter trouble-
shooting of controller calibration settings, resulting in
higher system reliability and lower void rates.
4. Engine Preparation and Instrumentation
Engines tested at MVEL arrived from two sources: private
contractors and m-house procurements. Engines obtained through
in-house procurements were removed from the vehicles and assembled
upon test stands; those engines originating from contractors
arrived in test-ready configuration. In both cases, the engines
were set up for testing according to MSAPC Advisory Circular 22A
(April 3, 1973).W
The standard engine test configuration consisted of the
engine's flywheel bolted co a torquemeter-equipped rubber-softened
2/ dnveshaft (Dana—Sp icer) coupled to the dynamometer. The engine
was isolated from its mountings by shock-absorbing rubber mounts
(usually OEM vehicle mounts). The throttle actuator stands were
bolted to the dynamometer bea alate and to the engine itself by
means of a rigid cross Dar. (Accurate transient control of the
throttle was difficult unless the actuator motor and the engine
were rigidly fixed to one another.) The throttle servo motors were
clutch driven with internal position feedback potentiometers. The
actuator arms were connected to the throttle linkages by either
ball chain or wire cable such that full travel of the actuator arm
(approximately 60*) resulted in wide-open throttle.
J~7 The only exception to A/C 22A procedure was that engines were
not equipped with clutcn assemDlies, driveshafts were bolted
directly to the flywheel by means of an adapter plate. A/C 22A is
included in Appendix II.
2/ Driveshafts used at EPA were ruober-softened to alleviate the
possibility of resonant torsional vibrations. SwRI used solid
steel shafts with no apparent difficulties.

-------
-29-
Th e engine coolanc water was circulated through a heat-
exchangmg water cooLing system; the system temperature control was
set such that coolant water to the engine was a minimum of 20° F
below engine thermostat temperature. Portable fans were directed
at each side of the engine during the test, but were shut off
during the hot soak.
Exact duplication of the m-vehicle exhaust system involved
practical difficulties arising from the location of the dynamome-
ter. Where necessary, the standard exhaust systems were bent Co
clear the dyno and other obstructions (e.g., the control instru-
mentation boom). Bends were kept to a minimum to eliminate back-
pressure variations. Marmon flanges were welded to the end of the
exhaust system for attacnment of flexible convoluted piping for
transport of the raw exhaust to the CVS inlet, to which the piping
was rigidly attached. Inlet depression at the CVS was kept within
NPRM specifications.
In addition to the tune—ups performed by the procurement
contractor, all engines were tuned and adjusted by ECTD personnel
to manufacturer's recommended specifications prior to mapping and
testing. The tune-up specifications used were those published in
the manufacturer's applicaDle service manuals, obtained directly
from the manufacturers. In the interest of accuracy, a number of
carburetors and distributors were checked and adjusted by the
manufacturers at their own facilities. Every attempt was made to
meet the recommended specifications, and this was accomplished in
the vast majority of cases. In a few cases (called out in Appendix
II) both engineering judgment and manufacturer's advice, were used
when specifications were unacnievable.
The tuneup procedure involved verification of engine perform-
ance. Distributor advance curves and dwell variation were checked
on a Sun Model 500 distributor tester (distributor removed from the
engine). With the engine running on the dynamometer, a Sun Moael
94 7 engine performance tester was used to cneck mechanical and
vacuum advance curves and awe 11 variations. The same instrument
was used in the adjustment of idle HC and CO, along with the
carburetor/cylinder balancing adjustment and the carburetor power
valve check.
After all mechanical specifications were checked, calibration
of the engine/control system was performed, and the engine mapping
procedure began.
A summary of the equipment used is presented in Table IV B-4.

-------
-30-
Table IV B-4
Instrumentation Summary
Instrument
Purpose/Spec 1ficat ions
General Electric Direct
Current Dynamometer
Absorbing,	380 HP, 400 ft. Lb.
Motoring:	3b0 HP, 375 ft. lb.
Base Speed:	5,000 RPM
Frame Size:	TLF 3644-F
Lebow Torquemeter
Model #1228H(5,000 in-lbs,
0 - 5,000 RPM)
Lebow Torque Signal
Conditioner and Indicator
Model #7535
CVS Unit (Philco-Ford)
CFV Type, 1,500 SCFM Capacity
Texas Instrument 960B
Computer with Silent 700
ASR Data Terminal
LABECO Control Console,
Control Equipment

-------
-31-
5. Software Support/Data Reduction
Considerable amounts of sofcware support were utilized in the
baseline program, both in evaluating the engine's performance over
the cycle and in the actual emission calculations.
The vast computational and memory resources of the Michigan
Terminal System's (MTS) AMDAHL V/7 Computer were made available
to the TI Controller through a standard phone communications
link (1200 BAUD). The MTS system served as a central processor
(host computer) which stored the numerous support programs used in
day-to-day baseline operations. These support programs and theLr
functions are summarized below.
Cycle Support System Function List
GENCYC - Generate a norma lized_l_/ cycle or mapping reference2/ file.
EDCYC - Edit opcodes3/ on normalized cycle or engine referenced file.
INPMFB - Input mapping feedback^/ cassette into a file.
MANIPCYC - Manipulate normalized cycles and unnormalize them
MAKECAS - Make a mapping or engine reference cassette (command tape).
Test Processing System Function List
INPEFC	- Input engine feeabacK cassette into a file.
CYCPERF	- Monitor performance of engine feedback file (perform
statistical regression).
STOREDS	- Store HD data sneets in the HD data base (emission data)
STOREEI	- Store HD engine information.
PROCTEST - Process HD tests (perform emission calculations).
REPORT	- Generate HD reports (output emission data).
RETRVDS	- Retrieve HD data sheets to make changes.
_1_/ To normaLize a cycle is to express each cycle parameter (RPM or
ft lbs) as a percentage of the maximum achievable.
1_! A mapping reference fiie is used to control on engine during the
automatic maximum load curve generation. It consists of incremen-
tal step speed commands and wide-open throttle commands.
_3/ Opcodes (Operational Codes) are additional data recorded on the
feedback tape, or present on the reference tape. They allow
monitoring of certain conditions (e.g., closed or wide-open tnrot-
tle), and can be used for additional control capabilities.
4/ Engine reference file is an engine-specific command tape used to
run the engine through the entire transient test.
5J Feedback is the recorded speed and torque performance of an
engine, either during mapping or a transient test.

-------
-32-
Table IV B-5
1969 Baseline Void Races
Total
Void Tests	Void
Engine
Total Testsl/
Statistical/
Experimental3/
Rate
(1) Chrysler 225
8
6

75%
(2) IHC 392
9
3
3
67%
(3) Ford 391
5
2
1
60%
(4) IHC 304
8

3
37%
(5) Ford 330
5


0%
(6) GM 351C
8
4
2
75%
(7) Ford 330
8
1
4
63%
(8) GM 350-2
3
1

33%
(9) Chrysler 318-3
4

1
25%
(10) IHC 345
4
2

50%
(11) GM 350-2
9
4
2
67%
(12) Ford 300
6
3

50%
(13) IHC 345
7
4

57%
(14) GM 366
3


0%
(15) Ford 361
8
6

75%
(16) Ford 360
6
3*

50%
(17) GM 292
11
9

82%
(18) Chrysler318-1
4
1

25%
(19) Ford 361
4

1
25%
(20) Ford 360
4
2*

50%
(21) GM 350-2
5
2

40%
(22) Chrysler 361
3
1

33%
(23) GM 366
4

1
25%
Total
136 (100%)
54 (40%)
18 (13%)
53%
*See Appendix II, Baseline Engines 16 and 20.
1/ Cold start transient tests intended for baseline data (excluding
all correlation and parameter sensitivity tests).
2_/ Statistically Void. exceeding the revised cycle performance
regression tolerances given in this report.
3/ Experimentally VoLd engine or equipment malfunction, operator
error, etc.

-------
-33-
Table IV 3-6
1969 Transient Baseline Repeatability
Coefficients of Variationl/ U)
Engine
VaLid Tests
BSHC
BSCO
(1)
Chrysler
225 2
7.4
3.2
(2)
IHC 392
3
4.9
4.2
(3)
Ford 391
2
0.5
0.2
(4)
IHC 304
5
10.0
14.0
(5)
Ford 330
5
4.4
2.5
(6)
GM 351C
2
13.3
1.6
(7)
Ford 330
3
5.9
9.1
(8)
GM 3 50-2
2
0.2
0.2
(9)
Chrysler
318-3 3
5.5
19.1
(10)
IHC 345
2
1.3
3.6
(11)
GM 350-2
3
18.4
12.0
(12)
Ford 300
3
19.5
3.4
(13)
IHC 345
3
4.8
12.1
(14)
GM 366
3
.3
3.7
(15)
Ford 361
2
5.5
7.8
(16)
Ford 360
3
7.7
8.4
(17)
GM 292
2
9.0
6.3
(18)
ChrysLer
318-1 3
1.1
6.7
(19)
Ford 361
3
.4
3.7
(20)
Ford 360
2
3.2
2.8
(21)
GM 350-2
3
5.3
.7
(22)
Ch ry sler
361 2
6.0
4.4
(23)
GM 366
3
1.8
4.4
Mean
Base 1ine
Coefficient


of Variation:
(C. of V.)
5.9
5.8
\_/ C. of V. = 100% x standard deviation of all valid tests/mean of
all valid tests.

-------
-34-
Following preparation and calibration of an engine, a mapping
reference tape was creaced by cne MAKECAS function. The mapping
reference cape served as cne command Cape during Che automatic
mapping procedure. Ic consisted of wide open Chroctle commands ac
100 RPM speed increments over the entire speed range of engine
operation (i.e., approximately 200 RPM below idle to 300 RPM above
rated or governed RPM). Each increment lasted fifteen seconds,
torque feedback measured over the last five seconds of each incre-
ment were averaged to arrive at a maximum torque value. This
feedback data was stored on a separate cassette tape.
The mapping feedback tape was then loaded into MTS data files
by means of INPMFB, at wnich point GENCYC created a normalized
cycle reference file, wnich was then recorded on a blank cassette
by means of MAKECAS. This cassette became Che command Cape for
controlling the engine during the entire transient cycle.
The feedback data from a transient test was recorded on a
blank cassette during the test. The data from the feedback cas-
sette was stored into MTS by INPEFC, at which time the regression
analysis was performed by CYCPERF. Following the regression
analysis, it was then possible to input the emission data into the
master file (STOREDS), process the tests (PROCTEST), and generate a
complete transient test report (see Appendix II).
During the baseline program, the actual process of loading
data from the cassettes to the MTS files was time consuming;
primarily because a time sharing system (MTS) was being used' which
was not under direct ECTD control. This delayed cycle performance
results and tied up the keyboard terminal. EPA plans to substitute
disc memory for the cassettes in a future transient test cell, in
an effort to substantially reduce turnaround time.
tj
6. Void Races/Test Repeatability
A summary of the baseline program's void rates and the emis-
sion repeatability of valid transient tests is presented below in
Tables IV B-5 and IV B-6. Statistical validation was accom-
plished using the revised statistics within this report.
Void rates during the baseline program were somewhat high.
The voiding of tests due to experimental error (e.g., equipment
malfunction, operator error) was initially high; as more experience
with the test procedure and the equipment was gained, however,
tests voided for this reason were virtually eliminated. Statisti-
cally-void tests were present throughout the program. In most
cases, these high statistical void rates were a result of one
of three causes:
a) the statistical criteria were not available (i.e., had not
been developed) for calibration or validation when the engine was
tested. A later application of the statistical criteria indicated
that additional tests (as in engine No. 1) would not have been
needed.

-------
-35-
b)	communication service with the host computer (MTS) was
interrupted sucn that statistical validation of the test was not
possible prior to the running of the next test. (Normally if the
first test was void, the system would be recalibrated before the
next test, however, many times the interruption was so long that
the normal procedure was precluded.);
c)	calibration difficulties with the EPA/MVEL system control-
ler, which was highly engine dependent.
Once the statistical criteria were developed, the last two
causes were the most prevalent. ECTD plans to improve both the
communication and controlling capabilities of its sytem in the near
future to reduce the incidence of statistically void tests.
Of those tests determined to be valid, however, the emission
repeatability was good. The average coefficient of emission
variation for the entire baseline program was less than 6%. When
compared to the thirteen baseline engines for which data from more
than a single 9-raode FTP is available, model emission variability
over the baseline program was 5.0 percent for BSHC and 4.3 percent
for BSCO. (See Table IV 3-7.) The prototype tCTD Controller
achieved comparable repeataDility. It is anticipated that the
closer future control systems come to achieving the ideal regres-
sion statistics, emission variability as measured over the transi-
ent test will be reduced.

-------
-36-
TabLe IV B-7
Modal BaseLiae Emission Variability _!_/
Coefficients of Variation 2 / (%)
Engine	Valid Tests	3SHC	BSCO
(4)
IHC 304

3
4.0
6.0
(9)
Chrysler
318-3
2
2.0
18.0
(11)
GM 350-2

3
2.0
7.0
(12)
Ford 300

2
1.0
1.0
(13)
IHC 345

2
7.0
.10
(14)
GM 366

2
1.0
2.0
(15)
Ford 361

2
18.0
1.0
(16)
Ford 360

3
5.0
7.0
(17)
GM 292

2
10.0
5.0
(19)
Ford 361

2
6.0
2.0
(20)
Ford 360

»¦»
£.
2.7
1.7
(21)
GM 350-21

2
5.2
2.1
(22)
Chrysler
361
2
.50
3.0
(23)
GM 366

3
1.8
4.4
Mean
Modal C.
of V.(%):

5.0
4
U Based upon the modified 9-mode test procedure.
2/ Modal data for engines 1-8 were voided due to a test procedure
error. Engine #4 was retested. Remaining baseline engines not
included here have only one valid 9-mode test.

-------
-37-
7. Emission Sampling System
Emissions were sampled using Che CFV-CVS bag technique.
Dilution factors for the transient and 9-mode FTP's were deter-
mined using an average air/fuel ratio of 13.4, dilution factor for
the idle test by using a raw CO^ analyzer. (The calculations
were performed according to the appropriate Federal Register) .
Sample bags were analyzed at an analyzer site using the
following equipment:
Gas
Instrument
EPA No.
HC
C0(0-1000 ppm)
CO (0-50,000 ppm)
C02
NOx
CH,
Beckman Model 400 (40% H /60% He Fuel)
3endix Model 8501-5MB
MSA Model 202
MSA Model 202
TEC0 Serial #CT-M-1063-29
Bendix Model 8205
086985
109724
109961
109952
109723 Series 10
038333
for the idle test were taken on an
MSA Model t02 (EPA #109949) analyzer (0-14X, with ice bath).
Raw C0„ measurements
Maintenance and calibration checks of the equipment were
performed regularly. Both propane injections and an Edsttech
Vortex shedding flowmeter were used on a weekly basis to check
calibration on the CFV-CVS flow.
Emissions	collected in the
analyzer train	A009, located 200
delay between	sample collection
minutes.
test cells were analyzed at EPA
feet down the hall. The maximum
and sample analysis was twenty
The sampling timetable used during a transient test is pre-
sented in Table IV B-8.

-------
-38-
Table IV B-8
Transient Emission Sampling Schedule (Cold Cycle) U
Time After
Ignicion
( seconds) 2/	Evenc
-	Cranking of engine/Begin Bag 1 Sampling
0	-	Ignicion (Times Started)
1-14	-	Dynamometer Engaged
15	-	Automatic Control Engaged
25	-	Just Non-Idle Cycle Command
272	-	Bag 1 Ends/Bag 2 Begins
579	-	Bag 2 Ends/Bag 3 Begins
895	-	Bag 3 Ends/Bag 4 Begins
1167	-	Bag 4 Ends
1169 +2	-	Twenty-Minute Soak Begins
\J Hot cycle is identical, following twenty—minute soak.
2J As denoted in the NPRM speed/Torque schedule.

-------
-39-
C. Baseline Compilation and Standards Complication
The results of the testing efforts at EPA/MVEL and SwRI for
all twenty-three of the baseline engines are summarized in the test
results found in this section.
This section is divided into three main sub-sections:
L. Transient Cycle: Emission Test Summaries and Results
2.	Idle Test: Emission Test Summaries and Results
3.	Standards Computation and DiscussLon
1.	Transient Cycle: Emission Test Summaries and Results
The data tabulations in this sub-section give a summary of all
emission data for the 23 baseline engines tested on the transient
test procedure. Data is included for valid and invalid tests.
Appendix II contains more detailed information on each test con-
ducted .
Before presenting the actual data, a discussion of the less
obvious headings and coaes used in the computer printout will aid
in using this information:
a)	Manufacturer Code (MFG)
20 Chrysler
30 Ford
40 General Motors
270 International Harvester
b)	Actual BHP-hr: The integrated brake-horsepower-hour
calculated from the actual speed and torque performance of an
engine run over the transient cycle.
c)	Z Error: The percent deviation of the integrated brake-
horsepower-hour over the actual transient test as compared to the
reference cycle integrated brake-horsepower-hour. (Based on the
sum of BHP from coid and hot cycle. Validation was determined
based on the individual value for each cold cycle and hot cycle.)
d)	Grams/mile: Weignted grams (cold and hot start) of each
pollutant over tne test cycle by miles instead of BHP-hr. The
mileage represented by the cycle is 6.47 miles.
e)	Disposition Code (DISP)
B = Valid baseline test

-------
-40-
M s Marginally valid test
X = Invalid test
The Cest data on pages 49-70, summarize the test results for
each of the 23 baseline engines tested. Using the descriptions
above and basic engineering knowledge, the data should be self-
explanatory.
The four tables following the test data sheets, (Computer
Tables 1-4) summarize the results shown for each of the twenty-
three baseline engines. Although the data in these tables should
be easily understood using the short descriptions below, one
important factor should be discussed.
The Clean Air Act Amendments prescribed that tne 1983 HC and
CO emission standards should be determined from the average of the
actually measured emissions from heavy-duty gasoline-fueled ve-
hicles or engines. ECTD interpreted average to mean the average of
the entire 1969 fleet of tiD gasoline-fueled vehicles and not just a
simple average of the engine lines sold which would give equal
weighting to each engine line sold. Thus, ECTD has sales-weighted
the emission results according to the market share each engine line
actually held corrected to 100 percent. This correction to 100
percent was necessary oecause not ail engine lines are repre-
sented in the baseline. These market shares and their correction
to 100 percent are shown in Computer Table 2. In the final analy-
sis, using a simple average of the engine lines tested yielded only
slightly more stringent emission standards.
For the reader's use, a short description of each table is
provided below:
(1)	Computer Table 1: Sales-Weighted Brake Specific Emis-
sions. This table gives the average brake specific emissions
g/BKP-hr) of HC, CO, and NOx for each baseline engine, sales-
weighting fractions and sales-weighted emissions plus the number of
valid tests on each engine ("Sample Size"). Figures representing a
90 percent reduction are also shown. The NOx data is not needed
for any of the proposed standards and is included solely for
informational purposes.
(2)	Computer Table 2. Sales-Weighted Percentages Data. This
table lists the percent of total 1969 sales represented by each
baseline engine ("percent total"), as well as the percentage
corresponding to the fraction of tocal sales represented by each
engine using the combined sales of only the baseline engines as a
base ("Corrected percent"). The latter figure yields the weighting
fac tors.
(3)	Table 3: 3rake Specific emissions. This table lists the

-------
-41-
average brake specific HC, CO, and NOx emissions for each baseline
engine, along with che sample size.
(4) Table 4: Sales-Weighted Transient Engine Emissions.
This table is the same as Table 1, with the exception that ail
emission results are expressed in terms of grams per mile.
2. Idle Test: Emission Summaries and Results
EPA has also proposed idle emission standards for HC and CO.
Idle test data to determine che 90 percent reduction is shown for
L9 baseline engines which were tested. These 19 engines represent
79 percent of the 1969 sales of gasoline-fueled HD engines.
The results of the idle tests for these 19 engines are shown
on pages 78 to 96. The four test modes listed on these individual
summary sheets are:
Mode
1:
2500
rpm - no load.
Mode
2:
Idle
- no load (this mode used for standard setting)
Mode
3:
2200
rpm - 55 percent of maximum torque.
Mode
4.
1700
rpm - 43 percent of maximum torque.
Computer Tables 5, 6, and 7 summarize the idle emissions data
for the 19 baseline engines. These cables are similar to Tables
1-3 shown earlier and are described briefly as:
(1)	Computer Table 5. Sales-Welghced Idle Emissions. This
table is the same as the Computer Table I listed above, except that
it lists idle test data.
(2)	Computer Table 6: Sales-Weighted Percentages Data. This
table is the same as Computer TaDle 2 listed above, except that it
is for engines having idle test data (19 engines instead of 23).
(3)	Computer Table 7. Iale Emissions. This table is che
same as Computer Table 3 listed above, except that it is for
engines having idle test data.
Grams per mile data for the idle test is not included for
obvious reasons. These tables are found on pages ^8-100.
3. Standards Computation and Discussion
The 1969 heavy-duty Daseline program began in tne fall of 1977
with the firsc procurement actions and is concluded with this
re port.

-------
-42-
Dunng this program, ECTD procured and tested 23 heavy-duty
gaso I ine-fue led engines representing 81.5 percent of the 1969
fleet. Of these 23 engines, 16 were class A, 1 was class B, 6 were
class C (high mileage). One engine included in this baseline had
undergone a major rebuild. No other engine needed one at the time
of procurement.
To determine the emission levels, these engines were tested
using the new transient test procedure. Of the 137 transient
tests, 64 were considered valid and are included. No engine had
less than two valid tests with the maximum per engine being five.
The fact that ECTD ceased baseline testing at 23 engines was
based primarily on the fact that baseline emission levels were
insensitive to further testing. This is shown in Figures IV-C-1
and IV-C-2 wnich demonstrate that as the number of engines tested
approached 25, the effect of including more engines in the baseline
was insignificant. This is true for both HC and CO.
Based on the fact that:
1)	Only 1969 model year heavy-duty gasoline-fueled engines
were tested;
2)	Over 81 percent of the 1969 fleet is represented; and
3)	64 valid emission tests were accomplished on. these
engines;
ECTD concludes that the 1969 baseline shown here is representative
of the HC and CO emission levels of 1969 HD gasoline-fueled en-
gines. The following values are considered as a 90 percent reduc-
tion from the average of actually measured emissions based on the
results of the test program:
HC 1.3 g/BHP-hr
CO 15.5 g/BHP-hr
The above values are the emissions standard which are proposed
for heavy-duty engines beginning in 1983.
In addition, EPA has proposed idle emission standards based
on Mode 2 of the four modes described above,
Mode 2: Idle - no load.
The 19 engines included in the Ldle test baseline give a
representative depiction of the fleet-wide 1969 idle emissions.
Figures IV-C-3 and IV-C-^ snow cne decreasing sensitivity of the nC
and CO idle emissions as the number of baseline engines increased.

-------
-43-
Each of Che 19 engines included in che baseline received ac least
one valid idle test with a maximum of 6.
Based on the fact that:
1)	Only 1969 model year heavy-duty gaso1ine-fueled engines
were tested;
2)	Over 79 percent of the 1969 fleet is represented; and
3)	55 valid idle emission tests were accomplished on these
engines;
ECTD concludes that the 1969 baseline data for the idle emission
standard is representative of the HC and CO emissions levels of
1969 gasoline-fueled HD engines. Tne following values are con-
sidered as a 90 percent reduction from actually measured emissions
of 1969 HD gasoline-fueled engines and are the proposed 1983
heavy-duty idle emission standards:
HC 970 ppraC
CO .47%

-------
SALES-WEIGHTED BASELINE TRANSIENT
EMISSIONS
HC (G/BHP-HR)
a.
13
CD
u
1.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
9.00
11.00
I	13.00
NO. OF ENGINES
15.00
25.00
-44-

-------
SALES-WEIGHTED BASELINE TRANSIENT
EMISSIONS
CO (G/BHP-HR)
en
3".
CD
CD
O
O
1.00
3.00
S.OO
7.00
9.00
11.00
I	13.00
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00

-------
SALES-WEIGHTED BRSELINE IDLE
EMISSIONS
HC (PPM—C)
3.00
5.00
7.00
9JJ0
11.00
I	13.00
NO. OF ENGINES
17.00
19.00
21.00
23.00
2SJ»
-Hi,-

-------
Hfciirt 1V-C-
SALES-WEIGHTED BASELINE IDLE
EMISSIONS CO (PERCENT)

-------
-48-
BASELINE ENGINE TRANSIENT
EMISSION TEST DATA SHEETS
23 ENGINES

-------
HFAVf IMirr CnOInL TKAnSIFMT f. -I ISSI oriu	— (969 flftStLlNL FNL> In( (SI
MAY S<+% |979
Mh (> 1
2 u

C Id:
2?b
EMC. Jlj 1
F* 22ih
2«'i4 032
hated rhps
N/A
1 OMM
n r <¦.:
1 969
MLT «m»I







NUMB
F R
('Hams / one
-Mil
#/nw>-nn
ACIWAL
K
grams ~ MILE
IF SI Ci'D Irjf.
IlL
CO
Nil*
HSFC
lllll'- IIH
f kROR
HC
CO
NOX
7^0rtlo ML
11 1 u 1
to. 1 1
55 .69
'i.W
o.e|9
1 0.767
-15.0
5.U
46.53
8.35
/'V0H4U ilL
1.102
t> • "I'»
4-7.10
9. 75
0.666
10.8 <4
-14.0
5.36
41.52
8.24
7 M'.2<. ilL
11103
f). t'f>
48. 1 1
•i. 19
U .640
1 I .106
-12.3
5.35
41 .47
7.92
IH'.ZI HL 1
<1 |04
6 .He?
51.01
•>.24
0.65|
10.96 f
-1 1.4
5.81
43.4^
7.86
79 I-.S,' IL
•11 05
7.57
53.40
7.68
0.6?7
11•154
"I U9
6.51
45.90
6.60
j IL
111 06
r» .M 7
51.711
9. 16
0.618
11.110
-12.3
5.87
44.28
8.00
I^[u9l HL
0 1 OH
1. 76
46. J5
9.00
0.575
14.488
14.4
4.17
51.35
9.97
7l> 1 SO 1 n| 1
0 107
>.15
50.0 7
1 0
0 .600
13.551
7.0
5.41
52.58
9.56
MM 1 HL
H| 10
4 .,>5
4 9.75
9. 1 H
0.5<<2
14.15 1
1 1 . H
4.64
54.39
10.04
r) 1 ii m 1
0) 09
4 .Ort
45.4*7
H.Sb
0.554
14.011
10.6
4.39
48,98
9.24
7' M'i?'l Ml. 1
"til
4.11
51.21
H. 15
0.57 I
I3.9J4
111.0
4.42
54.99
8.76
Ml AH 1

7 .211
52.20
fl.4b
0.6 19
1 1 .061)
-12.7
6.16
44.66
7.2 1
sin.n^
V . i
11 .S )
1.6')
1.10
0.01 /
0.133
1.0
0.49
1 .75
0.89
RATED RPMI D/a
we I ght ei> grams/lb Fuel
hc
i. 46
9.s<:
9.69
10.48
I2.0U
11.11
6.54
8.5b
7.IB
7.3/
7.13
1 1 .28
1 .1 J
CO
67.9V
73. 73
7b. 17
7a.35
BS. lb
83. 79
60.61
83.44
84 . 04
62.11
68. 75
81 .76
4.81
NO*
12.20
14.64
14.	36
14.19
12.25
lb. 14
15.65
15.	1 /
15. bl
15.4b
14.1 J
13.22
I .37
01SP CODE
H- VALID
M= VALID
X
X
X
U
H
X
X
X
X
X
X
N= 2
-V
-------
HrAVY ni.lTy Fur. |H£ IPANSirNT EMISSIONS ;>l|MMAPY -- |969 MASELINr ENOlMEISI
MAY 24 . )9f9
MF ti !
2/0

( in:
J>2
t Mr. 11J!
V39£ hS'W | I
RAIEU HHP(
N/a
( OMMi N 1 «; J
I'Jftg ML 1 "it?







M II
m n r
P
I.PftMS / HHP-
-MU
f/RMP-HR
AC'tlAL
h
GRAMS / M|Lt






— 			


	-		
			
	
If SI
coin nr.
ML
Cn
t'Ox
nsrr
liHP- MR
f HROR
HC
CO
NOX
79|«,3n
l-L •
"201
|ft.0 ^
202. go
T.63
0. 716
21 .153
3.0
25.21
318.29
5. 71
79|»,3i
"I.
"202
9.n<.
172.59
4.03
0. 758
19.005
- (.5
13. 70
262.42
6.1 1
7tMft3»'
i'L
ii?03
J.'n
78.74
1 .95
0.
19.19)
-h.S
5.H3
116.73
2.89
791ft3 )
"L
"204
M.57
265.44
4 . 19
o.ann
19.4HO
-5. 1
12.93
400.29
6.62
79|r,3f
"1.
n?05
1^.15
192.02
<•.20
0.82ft
18.94|
-7.7
17.87
282.33
6. 18
rwif.3S
ML t
<)206
H.<»4
1 94 .04
<••29
0.818
19. 0*?8
-7.0
12.46
286.43
6.33
79|ft3ft
ML r
it?07
9.00
204. 1 3
4 . 04
0.B20
18.95M
-7.7
13.23
300.10
5.94
791^3/
Ml. •
<>ron
10.31
228.88
3.90
0 . 0ft9
18.50ft
-9.9
14.70
326.21
5.56
TVP10I
ML
"2 10
ft.69
]Bfc
3.71
0.802
18.912
- 7.9
9.82
273.61
5.45
792J0*'
ML >
"211
ft.09
171 .67
<•.78
0.758
18.998
-7.5
B.98
252.81
7.05
792 10 \
ML •
'>212
ft • 28
177.50
'••21
0.771
18.800
-8.4
9.12
257.89
6.12
Mt*. AMI

ft. IS
178.47
4 .
-------
HF'AVV OUT* Hjf.lf.L IMAN^IFNI F MI sS I ON '.>	SUMMAHY
May r-t*,	|-;79
mf'u:	30	C111: J9I	FM'.lOi T'l-J'v
Mr-,;	I4MI ML I «U »
II II M H F f (.W/IHS / IIMM-HH n/flUP-MK ACTUAL	h
IF ST COD I r'O »ai
1 .6
J6. 10
330.63
9.20
29.9J
?flo. 1 1
7.b|
X
7>2'.7» ItL
i» _»« 3
i i.so
I7B,BB
5. /4
0.64 1
24.608
1.3
at. 12
146. ia
11*10
21 .06
279.07
tt.95
H
7^?<.73 rtL '
it 30 ^
12.9B
177.55
5.79
0.633
24.H6H

1 1.S9
179,S0
5.92
0.64^
24.fll5
2.2
25.96
342.92
1 1.32
21.0/
27U.30
9. lb
H
792h37 HL'
• 130?
12.9H
193,0'.
5.55
0.65fl
24.6H5
1 .6
24 . 71
167.75
10.57
19.7J
29J.38
H.4 J
X
Mt AHI

1 t.V.
179. 19
S.tfl
II. 64 1
24.721
1.7
26.04
344.55
11.21
21 ,0b
2 7 H.60
9.0/
N= 2
sin.O'v
. 1
'1.0 7
0 .A*.
0.13
0.001
0.16,?
0.7
0.11
2.33
0.16
0.0
0.66
0.17

-5/ -

-------
Hf-AVY IHlTY F N(, | Hi TPANSIFN1 F_M I S5 I DM ¦> SUMMAPY
1969 HASEllNE FN'jINFISI
hf <>:
?7(l
f. II) t J||6
IOMH Nit,!
U II M M n
I ¦if,') Ill_T #06
1' ST
ronir-o
79JO0? HI. I
79 310 J <•0 J
11606
<.08
6 I 0
609
£.07
Mf AN1
sto.D) v. i
MC
I u. 95
I I .06
1U.70
IK M
I > .9 )
| ii . 3 '
1 it. Is
1 il .,'f-
CO
76. "»l
98.09
136.?'.
167.8?
I?7.6S
i?5.65
l?-1.'.0
l?P.V9
II.?? 12 7.76 6.70
may ?<•. 1«70
ENf. |ljs V.IP6 <*6 H06 ft
¦IIR
tf/PMP-HH
ftdU^L

GRams / mile
MOx
ISf C
HHP- HP
1 PROR
MC
CO
NO*
7 • 0 7
0.731
1 9 . IS 3 7
-6 .0
17.11
I99.B5
1 1.05
7 • Cj6
0.'I9
?0•Ob 1
-j.i
16.67
190.78
12.16
7 .66
0. 7?|
1 9.Q66
-J-6
16.33
196.56
12.05
7.73
o. 7?n
19.n9?
-J.P
16.11
80?.60
12.1J
6. 70
0.6P?
19.6^?
-2.3
17.?'.
196.69
10. 33
0.9H
0 . 060
0.1 94
1 .5
1 .66
27.136
1 .69
"MFD BMP! N/ft PMEl> PPM I N/a
weigmiem (jRams/lb fuel
HC	CO	NO*
16. IH
I 7.06
I 6 . 1 '•
20.27
16.95
16.66
16.37
i6.?s
I I J.
151 .
r Pbi
?2H.
I 76 .
I 7'..
171 .
I 79.
61
13
'i 9
I?
63
6H
lb
15
10.38
10.3?
9.26
8. 30
10. J5
10.66
10.60
10. 7«
16.5J 1B7.70 9.no
DlSf CODE
B- VALIO
M= VALID
X
M
H
B
B
X
X
»
N-
?.lb ?9.7I
I .00
-52-

-------
nf i>:
i.OMHi rj I'
N ll M h f (4
HFaVY l>Ulf i Nil I tit TH»NSIKMI tMlSSIiUJa MIMMAHY
MfiY • l'<79
30	CIIM 3)0	ENfi IliI F 5 10 »ft IbUSj
1969 UAStLINE ENGINF(S)
R A I ELI BUPt N/A »AJfcl> HPMJ N/a
ULl »ns
(MAMS / HHI'-IIK
H/RIIM-UH ACHlAl.
f.RAMS / M/U
WE IGHI£l> (,RAhS/lB F Ul L 01SP COUt
	
	
	

		








8 =
VAL10
ifsi con mi.
lie
CO
Nl)X
rtSFC
RHP- Ml<
f HHOH
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NO*
M =
VALIO
w> i'l 'so l
?'».<) J
163.H9
7.bU
o.7<.s
16.<.02

i Sfa. n
M. lb
(i. 72*1
16. 39fl
-0.0
37.21
198.52
10.36
40.42
21b.65
1 1 .26

11
1H 1? f I HL it503
a f .*•!>
1S5.26
7.77
0. 7^
16. <.22
-7.9
34.93
197.91
9.91
37.«5
214.44
10.73

»
J-> \? l>\ m. tiSO4*
?h.2<>

H. 10
0.715
16. 554
-/.I
33.76
197. 34
10.^0
36. 7H
214.96
11 .33

B
TV},'!'! KL '(SOS
2^.OS
156. n
7.7*1
0. 7?ft
16.511
_7.<,
37. 12
200.2V
9.91
39.91
21 b.34
10.65

B
Ml AM :
2->. \ \
IS/.IS
7.h9
0.1? I
16. <<6 1
200.62
10.07
36.6t»
216.08
10. 86
N =
5
sio.m v. »
I .25
3.SS
0-22
0 . U 1 1
0,06S
ll. 4
1 .51
4.84
0.28
I.«9
2.25
0.43


-53 -

-------
itrftv/r immy n>n inf ii-hn^itm! fmI^sioni sumhmjit -- i9h^ hami imf fni.iNi csi
MAY ft, I'll1)
Mf u:
<•0

( in:
151
ENr, jo:
r.M35l «?h»V>3<«
RA1F0 RHP 1
N/A
HAltl'
Wf»M» N/fl
commi nm:
1 •i'lv
hi. I nth










N M II H
e p
(.HftHS / ntic
-Mrt
I/BHP-MH
«CIU»L
h
C.HAMS / MILt
wfiGi"rn o«ah^/lh tun
If SI Cl>Plf"<>
Mf
CO
t'0«
Rsrc
hhp- hh
f HHOR
MC
CO
MO*
MC
CO
mi*
fjjsnti ml
ilf.O?
1 <• . 10
101.09
6 . 6 7
0.631
16.336
•>.<.
20.69
1<.6.29
9.65
22.66
160.21
10.S7
lii-.ni hl «
nf.O 3

112.71
T.'tZ
0.6S \
1 6 . S »<5
-ft.7
1 1 .ftfl
I fc9.4 7
10.50
1 l.«9
1 7/.ft'.
12.1 J
IV l-.Of' HI
.If.O't
I i. in
10<».2H
?0. 30
0 • t>t>0
ln.ov?
'•. 0
18. IB
1 ISO'. "1
¦'*.06
v.on
7n .56

0-609
I6.6»>5
-<•.1
1 1.60
103.01
12.95
!<•.?»
129.OU
16.22
f-jisos ml
ii f>n 7
l.t.is
02.7H
H.hll
0.6<.T
16.65S
-<•.2
13.55
106.36
1 1 .36
16.1)9
I 28. 7«i
1 ».5U
J'fi. i^S HI <
IK.OH
I ¦».
110.2H
9.<,H
0 • 6S1
15 .n'2
-H.9
13. Ifl
1 36.6. i?
III.SI
B.WO
n.6s?
16.225
-6.8
12.43
l
-------
Mfo:	In
( omh n I«;:
N U M tl t k
HfftU* DIITY ENMNE IllANSItMI EMISSION., SUMHAHY
MAY t"* • I '''9
>30 FMr,11)i r.110 MMbdsS
1969 iiabtL I fit t NO I NE ( 5)
ill):
19*9 ML T "11/
M'AMS / HHP-MM
H AI El) BMP I N/A RATEU HPM: N/a
O/IIMh-HH AtluAI.
grams / MILE
WEIGHIEO GRAMS/Lb FUtL
rtsi
CHOUjG
llC
CO
fJUx
nsrr
HHP- MM
1 WHOM
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
79',*«4 I
'IL l
0 708
1/.77
240.67
5.50
0. 767
18.039
¦ <•.3
52.5*
334.78
7.6S
49,<;4
3I3.7B
7.17

HI
.1705
16.46
239.67
6 . ()4
0.771
1 7.945
-..a
50. SO
331.99
8.37
47.16
310.06
7.81
7'>'.44b
HI
i>70b
3 i. JO
201 .26
h.71
0.716
IB. 1 74
-3.6
46.70
282.27
9.43
46.5(1
281 .09
9.40
7'>4 4 4 6
HL
•>70 f
JS . f'.
2 »2. 1 7
6.00
0. 76?
Ib.OHO
-'..1
45.74
324.35
8.38
42.96
304.69
t .til
MJ
an :

J4 . 1
224.37
6.<>5
0. 7S0
1B.066
-<~.2
47.65
312.07
8.73
45 . S4
298.61
a. 36
S ID.I)1 V
¦ •
2.01
20. 16
n .4 1
0.0 10
n. 11 r
0.6
2.S?
26. 77
0.61
2.26
15.41
0.90
OISP COUE
B= VALIO
M= VALIO
N=
-55 -

-------
Hnvr (lUTY ENMNL 1M ItjS IF M T E'MSSIMN:. SUMMaMY
1969 HftStLlMf. F.Mt.lNF(S)





Mnr 3<«.
1 '> >9






mM>: <7.i3
1 70.61
1 7 0 . ll3
S.06
U .V3
«.7I
0.6<-n
n .6'IB
o .6'>.3
-S.3
1 7.36
16.02
15.91
291.68
391.10
369.5B
0.8?
B . 11
7.98
15.ie
13.6<«
11. S3
361.59
3'. 7 . 98
363.77
7.91
7.16
l.il
Ml AN!
9 . 0
170.77
<• . H3
o
31 .7'«3
-5.3
15.915
390.31
B.19
11.OB
355.8 7
7.31
MD.D'V. !
<1. OP
0.3*"
n. |S
0 .03H
0.0
il. 1
0.06
1 .03
0.30
0.63
11.17
0.07
01SP CODE
B3 VALIO
H= VALIO
X
n
n
N- 3
-56.-

-------
tirnvv tan v »¦ nc. i i ik ihamsiimi emissions suhmaht
1969 HAStLlNL ENoINfIS)





MAY ,><. .
I'i79






mF i>: 20

C lu:
Jltt
En-.IO:
03l« I'M
31
RaUI) BMP!
N/A
RA1LO
nPMi n/a
lomm nm:
1 ^ n 9
ML I










HII H 11 F 1'
("HAMS / HHP
-Hrf
n/HHI'-HH
ACTUAL

GRAMS / MILf
WEIGHIEll GHAHS/LH FUEL
re si cooing
HC
CO
NU»
nsrr
HHP- Hl<
f WROH
HC
CO
140*
HC
CO
NO*
7''S14/ rlL r n90<.
79S[<.9 ML 0902
79S 1 50 ML H901
1 .70
7 . 10
M.ttfl
hb.bh
100.91
91 .tS
»> .23
7 .69
6 . m7
0.S9 3
0.61?
0.591
16.7bil
18.3^1
17.
-U.8
-0 . 1
-<..6
10.13
11.11
1 I .63
90.13
|<.S.S<.
125.60
10.83
1 1 .09
9.tit*
12.99
I2.su
1<..27
1 IS.62
16<. .B9
154 » 22
13.69
12.56
1 1 .59
ni an:
7 .9*
86.97
7.60
0.599
n.^'t
.5
10.96
120. <.2
10. <.5
13.28
1 91
12.66
Silt.Of v. :
tf • '• *|
16.61
0.69
0.011
0.797
<~.3
0.76
2B.07
0.B9
O.Ub
25.92
1.15
OISP COUt
B= VALID
He VALID
H
B
B
7 -

-------
mfavy nurv Enr. mr THAMSirriT emission. mjmmapv
MAY ;><«. | ¦» 79
mF(»: ?7o	cm: 3<«s	f.m iu: vJ'iS jivmu
COMMitjr<;:	|i«.q mlt »|n
M U M n K P	/ RHP-MW M/RMP-HM ACHIM.
1969 HASELIMF F.Nti I Nf ( 5 )
RA t El) BMP' N/A WATEU PPM1 N/A
GRAMS / MILT
WEIGHTED GPAMb/LH fULL OlSP COOE





	








n=
VOL 10
1F T roDlnr.
HC
CO
~ '0*
nsrr
M»U'- HH
r HMOB
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
M =
VALIP
79S->B<> ML •
lnnl
7. i n
70.<.9
6. »7
0-7| 7
17.92?
-11-3
10.00
109.27
8.87
10.0?
10^ • 7
8.89

B
79S,>B6 ML
1002
7 • 0 S
/4.S7
ft.55
0.70S
17.966
-1 1 .1
10.0?
105.91
9.31
10.01
105.78
9.30

B
79S2B7 ML
1003
6.S|
VI . 11>
6.10
0.6SQ
21 . 8 J'»
H.I
11.14
156.10
10.<>6
9.87
138.31
9.26

X
79533<> hl r
l00 .Of v
, :
0.09
2.77
r>. |3
o.oop
0.0J5
<1.8
0.02
2.38
0.31
0.0 1
2.6)
0.«?9


-Sff -

-------
MFCiS	Ml
comm. ni s;
N II M B f ft
hi avt iiuiy fnmmf iHAiisifNi mission, •.ummawy
MAY 2'»« |s
c in:
I '^9 III I «ll
(.K4MS / HHt'-Hrt
HC
CO
NO*
/BHI'-llH ACIUAL
H5FC	hhH- HI' I KHOR
GRAMS / MILt
RAILI/ HPM! N/A
WEIGHIeD ORAMS/Lb FUtL
MC
CO
NO*
HC
CO
NOX
OISP COL>f
B= VALID
M= VALIl>
7"I'i<«H HI 1
1 108
•V .Sr,
107.29
7 .CM
0.6SH
1 7. 174
-lb.4
13.64
153.15
10.11
14.52
163.05
10.7<>
A
Ml AN t

6.21
126.13
5.3b
0.616
19.16J
-6.7
9.25
189.Ott
8.02
10.06
205.90
B.72
N= 3
sio.ot
V. i
I • 14
IS.OB
0 .08
0.029
0. 7 J'<
3.6
1 .32
27.64
0.43
1 .39
33.26
0.44

-5T-

-------
~ IF**/* nuir mr.int	E'M^sioMs sUmm.a«v
'(AY r"« • I
i<*f.v HflStunF. f ni'inr <<>>
"Ft.: jn	( 1 f >: .100
row HC,!	Kimi hi. r a 1?
N II M H F U	1 l»AMS / HHP-HH
ifm njniMt.
CO
HO*
tti'-lD: Fjoo 1
r/PIH'-HH	<•
nsrr HHP- hi< 1 wwtip
PAItl) Hill'I N/A PA 1 El 1 ITHl N/fl
r.PAMS / Hlt.t
HC
co
NO*
WEIGHlen CWAMS/LH fUFL 0«5V COIJF
	 p= VALID
MC
CO
NOK
M= VALIO
7 'SV.j

1 ;n t
/\
fisss^
H '
i;*fi2

f'S'iS 1
"L
I 3
»». 2S
7^SS^'.
¦
ij.fcn 1
?'• .6'"'
?'• ?
0.^
221.0?

o.f>ni
233.JA
'..91
it. At/.
7.97
a . fi '<
0.021
17.1/A
-t>.0
I 1 .03
1 7. /•)'.
-1 .0
1 0 . '< 7
| '1 .
1 .P
p. 76
I fl . '»2«l
- >.<4
11. 27
IB. |H11
-1.3
a.52
I a . ;><•'!
i. .ft
n.M
1 7.?Mi>
-S.?
10.57
0.917
S.2
1.7?,
11?. lf>
7.29
)J6. I 3
7-37
n.9»j
116. 10
6. en
12.01
321.61
6.3J
P. V'.
32?.53
6 .'.3
n.su
116.93
6.fi7
11.2"
5.2*
0.55
2.07
1.1'.9 J	7.H9	H
3<<'>.37	7. 62	*
38 j • i j	y.^>i	*
337.1*9	6.70	e
33	6.6'.	X
133.37	P
13f>.?'>	l.ni n=- .1
2 . S1 «. / 0

-------
llflWY tlUTY tm.llit ItlAllSlfMl tr.issiuu> summaky
hu ?<>' i n*
1969 hAStl InE LNt-lNflSI

2?0
COMMl N I s :
N II M II I
CIO: -Kb
I '/f.q 1IL T # I)
(".KAMI / HMP-MW
I Mr, |u : v J<.b 11
fl/HMI3-MW AClllAl.
HAttO Bhh: N/A HAJtl) RPMI N/A
CHAWS / MILL
atiGHitn ORAWb/tb fuit oisp coot





	








U=
VAL IU
Itsl C.
iciu-r.
¦ it
CO
NO*
hsf r
¦ 1 HP- HU
» ivhoh
MC
CO
NO J
H(
CO
NO*
M =
VAL 10
/9f>o /| hi i
1 30 J
ft . 9S
1 ?<•. 1 J
b. 72
0 .tiH?
10.995
- 1 J • *»
1 «.so
|fl7.2a
8.6 J
13.12
IU2.06
U. 39

*
?VhM* ill
1 10 1

111.6)
6.20
0 • 6HS
20 . 32-.
- /. 3
9.76
179.23
9.9S
8.H9
|62.9i.
9 . 0i>

A
H| ¦
i .102
h. 31
1 IS.^

0 • 66S
?n. I'M
-a.o
10.1'v
1HS.7S
8.91.
9. <»H
173.61
8. J6

X
l>ht,0S HL I
1 10'j
ti. 7S
t< ) . U 1

0 • 6?0
20.60J
-n. 1
11.1J
1 33.<<9
9.OS
10. H9
I30.6S
fl.Ob

n
796<>0 i HI. '
1 TO'.
6.17
10) .69
s.b'i
0.611
81.17?
-J.5
10.17
170.71
9. 39
10.10
1 66.43
9. IS

B
796/>0'. hl
1 10ft
*>.?'<
99. 3S
S-6B

21 . » 19
-J.7
10.60
167. <.3
9.5 7
10.3J
1 6 J. 1 <•
9. J2

B
Ml AN I

t..1
9<. . 0?
S.b9
n.6i i
20 .96*1
-
V. 1
<>. il
1 1 . J "*
II. U'i
o.oos
0.3i<.
1 .<•
0. 39
20.61
0.26
O.'.O
19.7a
0 • 2 J


L> I

-------
Mf O !	<¦ 0
r«HM' mi
N II H H f P
HF flVY PUT* MI'.piE TBAIi'-.IFMf f«|r>SllN. SUMMnHY
MA r ?<< . |'»/9
lht,	f Nr.H)« I.HIM, ftWHurKLF
19*9 MA Sf I. I Wf f N'<. 2<>

II
HOfHO'i HI.
l'*01
n.f> >
19'. .jn
S. il
0 - / V.
20.93'-
-*>.9
1 . 26
120.09
0 • Bfl
11.7'-.
2f>'< .<• 1
'•32

nooio/" ml
1 403
ft .SO
IHO.S?
S.<»6
0. 7 It.
?n .f.2!
-<9.3
13.90
291.H7
n.^o
11.7'J
?£>5.9J
f .'.5
f|
AN !

!* .*-9
1B7 .92
32
0.7 17
20.6»H
-M.0
1. 0 1
lO'. .37
n.fiT
11.6'-
25<«. n<>
'.22
N- 3
c ro.iH
v. :
<>. o
ft .
0 . | t)
0.0 nr.
0.222
I .0
0.2
0.29

-UL-

-------
Htfli/* riuir tr«,lnt IKftrjSIHll fcMlSSI'IfO SUMM t
MAY < | ' /V
1969 liAStl IfjE t~Nl>lNMb)
t'f ii:	JO
(. iimm* m s:
N II m n f l<
rue Jf.i
I'>69 ult »I
GWAMS / MMP-tlH
ctir, iu: F )h| Miof
¦/RHP-HH A CI 11AI
HAlf'O HHP I N/A HAftU lif>nt N/a.
f.RAMS / MILt
weiGHfEn orams/lu ruti.
1)15P C'JUF





	








b =
VAL 10
rt si c
PI rT.
ML
ro
no*
RSI^ r
llHf- KW
1 ItHOK
tic
CO
NO*
HC
CO
NOX
M =
VAL IU
/ IhhO'l "It 1
1 Sli 1
12. v.
221 .oh
S.2 1
o. f«i
1 l.t, 1 1
- 1 / • (1
17.12
30l .67
7.10
16.Uo
2flJ.05
0.67

*
/Vt.f. 0t> rM.
1 so*.
I I .»!«.
220.7H
5.0 I
0 . 766
18.311
- 12.U
1 f .07
318. 2<.
7.31
15. <.6
2BH.2J
6.62

X
ftf.hUt ill
1 SO 3
12.H>
212.6H
S.s".
II. 75 7
J /-"/#> *1
-lb.J
1 7 .« )
296.06
a.27
1 b.'itl
280.95
/.fl5

X
/'if.fiOll 1 'L r
isu2
II .Si
21 1 .95
5.60
0 . / S'.
lt>.9t. ?s
«. .H|
0. /2'»
2?.121
5.«.
2'». 55
3B<..90
B.O
19.22
301 .<•*«
6.60

X
Hill) | n 1 HI I
ISOH
1". ? »
M. 16
<• .Mh
n. 7 Ih
1 / .961
-1*4. <»
20.<.7
350.05
6.99
la. J<<
313.61
6.2;

X

i so r
I. IS 7
2<«0.91
5.^/.
(1 . 79 1
in.7ji
-1'i.U
21.37
150.96
7.6<»
ia.5i)
30 3.02
o.fcl

H
Htlll | II | M|
1 Soft
1 J.S'I
215.MS

0. /66
IH.H99
- Ill .0
20. 10
319.<.8
8. 31
17.72
201.79
7. 33

b
Ml AN I

1*.. 12
22H. »9
5 . <• J
0 . 7 / S*
1 fl . H 1 *
- 1II. '•
20.71
3 IS.22
7.97
IB. 11
292.81
6.9/
N=
2
S ID.Ot
v. :
. /'I
1 7. / t
11.26
0 . (1 1 '»
0 . I 1 9
II .6
0.90
22.26
0 .<.7
0.55
15.50
0.51


-L3 -

-------
nr' vr miiY f no I ml TPftrinirNi fM|<,5iiiN>, summary
rlaV ,'u. | '»7'i
mi i.!	jn
r»)riM' n i ¦; t
M II h H F rj
Oil! T'.O
lihi tiLI » | i~
''.PAHS / HHF'-UH
if«;t
C • H > I HO
HP
CO
MO*
L"f,|u: rv.o lot.i
K/nili'-HH ACTIJAL
nsf r
HHP- im I WROR
1909 unStLINf. INOlWIS)
0A1I0 8Ml>! N/a MAftH PPM! M/A
r.RAMS / MILt
WEIGH I ED ORAMS/LH ruFL
HC
CO
NO*
HC
CO
NOX
OISP COUF
B= VALID
M = VALID
Monin ol i
KOI
1(1. I'«
1 <>9.
0.00
n .09n
? ).7M9
1.?
10.67
269.06
10. A3
1'. .99
210.01
6 . 70
*
mho 11 n "L
1 002
7 . '>
-3.0
13.71
211.2"'
12.3*.
12."U
191.11
11.16
M
flOO|?H HI.
IO0S
H.<.S
1 37. 11
S . I
n .on?
?\ .090
-5.R
l'«. 3<<
233.10
9.in
I2.3H
201 .33
r.*3
X
nooi<>o "LT
IOOO
n.
1 '• 1 . 0<.
0. 7 1
o .6n/t
23.33S
1.3
15. M
25*7.1 2
12.32
12.6<»
207 .08
9.05
M
Ml AH !

r. Of,
1 1?. |9
f. . OJ
o.f>ss

ii.2
1 2
239.57
1 1 .99
12.15
201 .4B
10-13
N= 3
sin.or
V . !
it. l
1 1 .07
n.'.'.
o.o?n
O.oMl
2.9
1.21
25.OB
0.59
0.6S
9.00
0.92


-------
|9b9 HASLLtNf fNUlNI (St
mFO:	Mi
C OHM1 Mis:
N II H H f «
lt',1 C iDInG
C lit: d^'d
1ML T 0 I 7
f.HAMS / Hltl'-MH
nL	CO	NOj
MAY r"t , |v79
tnr.in: gm292 k.ic Li
o/iihp-hn
HSFC
lUIfL) HDP: N/A HAlEl' fcPMl N/A
ftCIUAI.	*
IMII'- III' f KKOX
HOCIMI
HI. 1
I 1701
11|. h 1
d 09.<.6
7.60
0.HS9
is.shh
-1.1
12.96
huo i <• i
I'L '
1 70?
id .•>!
285.06
5.61
1 .0110
13.662
-1 3.3
21. 3b
H001u?
HI i
1 703
9.0?
217.S7
.96
li . 86 I
16.8b1
b. 9
12. 79
MOO 1 <. 1
r»l_ '
170*.
b. 6*5
197.OS
'>.11
0 • 864
14.6 7m
-6.9
9.98
HOOI^S
"I
1 705
M.2|
221 .73
S.S6
0.90S

-b. 8
9.22
HUOlb'i
HI
1 706
b.?<.
IbJ.Jb
3.99
0 . 6SS
1 7.9<.S
1-1. fl
7.27
H00I70
HI '
1 70 7
/. |/.
161.00
1 <• .6 3
0.57H
13.0^5
-1 2.2
7.7'.
00017|
til •
1 70b
V.nn
1rtO.60
-7b
0. 77<.
15.j/S
2. 5
1 0 .81
BOO IHH
'H
1710
rl .60
1 /9.s J
.<.6
0. 7fl<.
15.02'J
. 7
9.95
H00IId
HL ¦
1709
7 .90.95
296.<.5
283.5b
i21.lt
2 <.9. 06
212.97
17<..b3
2i<>.a9
201.52
193.93
2oj.<<<.
Wflf.Hltn OKAMb/LH fUfL
HC
CO
NOX
DISP coot
B= VALID
Ma VALIO
9.1 1
12. b9
?«.3.B<.
8.85
X
S.Hi,
20. 80
263. 9*.
5.20
X
6.<.b
1 1 .<.0
252.70
5. 76
X
6.65
1 0 .02
228.06
6.68
X
6.25
9.0 7
2 5 ~

-------
Mr A V Y DUTY ENGINI" TWArj^IF 'IT f 'I I «¦ S I 'IMS SUMMnMY
MA Y c-'. . I
19f>9 onsti inr. FNt.lw (s»
nFi>:	?n
< i)HM< mi <;:
n 11 m h r k
(.10! J I "
llsl Ml. I *1"
(.WAMS / nilP-f'W
If '-I
C'lp I nr.
>K
CO
nOx
LM'-II): I1JIH
«/nnr-tin /\riii/M
nsrr i'mi-1- mm f whom
If A I to	N/A HAltl- PI'Ml IJ/A
OPAMS / MII.K
wCM»nico i;hahS/i.M f UFL
HC
to
NUX
IIC
CO
NO*
oisp cyoF
B= VAL10
11= VALIO
ouniPf) >
h.9|	i'.s.9o
M.H„'	IS2.9S
M.7|	11].^
*>.09
7 .03
7 .*9
7 .IIS
1.H2	7.V«
0 .f»fiO
o
o.h<.n
0.6*1
n.io 9.6!
n.'»j o. 0? 1
2 1 .21.05
I 2. 9'»	Zh
13.61 209.28
0.09 11.55 0.67
v.S.h
I 0 .*«
1 1 -20
12.29
12.33 201.67 10. 55 13.35. 218.20 I 1 .'.2
O.Jb 7.09 O.BI
N=

-------
MM«t DIM Y t Nl, I Ml
M (•:	jo
i iimmi nl ^:
H U M H t ('
r 111: l.,l
1 41,4 III | it I 4
(.itntlS / HiiP-liU
iuaiisimit Imission'i	'.UMHiwr
may /| 7 4
tM'.lli: (JM 9 UAStLINt tNOlNI Ibl
RAIEO BIH'I N/a HAItu KPM! N//V
CRAMS / MILt
WE I GUI f |i GftAMb/LO fULL OISP COOF





	








B=
VACIO
II si ( niiinr.
nC
Cn
HO*
RSIT
|IHl'- UK
1 HHOH
Hf
CO
NO*
HC
CO
NO*
M=
VALID
HOO | | ti Ml
I 40 1
4 . hi
20 J.SO
4 ,<.t>
0.6(10
?\.urs
- 2.ft
16.20
335.60
7.35
14.44
299.26
6.56

X
M00l?'« '11
1 wo?
4. S4
?<14 .47
.61
0.6H 1
? 0 . S'1 7
-'..0
15.40
3 30.B2
7.45
n.-i/
300.10
6.75

u
fti)0l?4 't|. 1
140 3
4. SIS
140.21
S .52

20.JM4
-b.9
15.10
300.31
8.72
13.B4
275.26
7 .99

B
HOd.-'l'. ''1
1 <>0*.
4 . fi |
|47.«,fi
b. |4
1) . 64h
19.74 r
-U.9
14.83
304.73
7.94
13.81
?A3.74
7. 39

8
hi aii:

I.S7
14 7.SS
.114
O.I.'Jf)
?n.it i
-6.9
15.11
311.95
a.o<<
13.07
266.J7
7.3U
N=
3
S flJ.O"
v. :
tl. 04
7. 3'J
0 «4b
0.00 /
0. 4?0
1.9
0.29
16. <.9
0 .64
©
c
a
12.63
0.62


-Ll~

-------
iifav* nurr fummi' p»i\-i«;|r ni F milium, mimh.\wy	-- l *»r. *» iiasflimf fni.Ini is)
MAY ?<* •
mFh! 30 f.ll)! 161) 11): r Jfl) H>'.3	PAItO RHP! N/A nAIt'1 UF'M! N/A
tOMMiNT<-: |uhi| HLT
N II M R F P r.DAHS / H/UHP-HP Af THAI	OPAMS / MILl WEIlJHfEn OHAMS/LH f UF L
tFsr cnninr, nr cn no* nsrr hhp- hi/ f wwm	hc co nox hc co nox
UI5P coot
flT VaL 10
M- VALIO
«OO^OI hl ' ->on|
S. /n
73. H3
6. W
n.MS
£1 .bZ>>
1 .2
9.H|
125.26
1 1 .fll
<>.1"
11 6.27
10. ""J
M
Hon^i'» ml /no?
(s. i)
76.00
i.. rv
n .61 r
?\.121
-1-2
1 O.OJ
I27.2B
II .26
<>.b0
120.56
10.67
M
MF AMI
s.v;
is.:1?
6.HM
0.636
?\ .372
n. 0
9.r>Z
126.27
1 1 .5'4
9. JU
1 I".'<2
10.'J?
It
z
MO.or v. !
(i . I 'i
2.10
0-13
0-00?
0. 3S6
1 .7
0.16
1 .'.3
0. '»0
0.?H
3.03
0.??


-------
mFo:	Mi
t OHM' NT c. I
N II H H F U
iisi rnoiNO
HFAkC KUly t MO | fit lMAUSITNT [MISSION-. SUHMftHY
MM 2*» t |'*'9
j'.u	cniiId: om tsi> itNni;.
14t.9 tlAStLINIZ t NOlMF(S)
C II):
i 'jho i»l r #2 i
(.RAMS /
I If
C(t
<|U)r
nst c
AC Iijal
ill'
FHHOw
BaIFU 01 IP: N/A RAltl' PPHI h/A
GHaHS / HILL
WL lGHlLll GRAHS/LU f Ul L
Mf
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NO*
OISP CODE
B= VALID
H= VALID
110 0/02 III.
2| 01
'1.70
l<*6.S7
S.I.J
0.6
IH.5U1
-12.0
1A . 0 3
211.91.
B. IS
14. Jl
216.19
e. ji
X
HOG/ 1 11 I'l 1
2 I 02
¦* . SO
1 <• 1 .0 /
S.6S
0.679
i8.294
-I 1.4
13.56
201 .29
a. 06
13.9V
207.76
B. 32
X
M 0 0 r'c'*t Ml 1
?|03
It. 21
149. 34
S.1,0
0.67S
19.021
-9.9
12.17
221.33
8.09
12.17
221.24
H. 09
H
>«UII?2J >'L
2104
rt .S-3
ISO.37
4. 1 f
0.627
20.72H
-I .B
13.02
*4| .93
6.70
13. 7u
239.H2
6.6b
rt
HOO 222 UL
/ 1 Ob
'.11
|M.3«
'••11
0.613
20.90 i
-I .0
14.B9
2<.6.92
6.70
14. 42
239. 11>
6.49
1
H
hi an:

^ • f>4
ISO.36
4 -bb
0 .64S
20.21 '
-4. 3
13.63
236.73
T. 16
1 3 . 4 J
233.40
7.08
N= 3

v. -•

1 .06
0. /6
0.0?#,
1 .04(1
*~.9
1.37
1 3.S7
o.uo
1 . IS
1 0 .54
(J.Hfi

~M -

-------
MFot	2lI
COMM Nf.!
N II M H f P
nrAvr iturv f no i ut twansifnt f
1969 HASELINF ENl,lNf-(S»
C KM
I'J<<9 HLT »??
(.RAMS / HHP-HW
RATEO BHP! N/a HATED PPMl N/a
K/riHP-HH ACTUAL
GRAMS / MILE
WEIGHIEn GPAMS/LH FUEL OlSP COUE
TEST CODING
lit
cr>
t-UK
RSFT
HHP- IIM
r WROR
HP
CO
NOX
HC
1
1
i ©
1 u
1
1
1
1
NOX
B =
H-
VAL It)
VALID
P0022U I'L l 2?0l
B00221 Ml . ?202
noo??_h in.' ^0 3
13.63
1 ». I*.
\<>. 1 0
139.7?
169.OP
160.34
6.63
5.70
6.33
0.6 36
0-6S7
0.711
16.381
16.1"?
16.05H
H. 1
-J. 2
-V.9
17.50
16.64
15. 16
179.4|
213.68
211.04
n.5i
7.21
7."3
21 .4J
20. 0'*
16.V6
219.68
25 7.?/
?36.10
10.42
B. 60
H.87

X
P
n
mean:
12.6 1
160.6ft
6.01
0.6«5
16.12^
-9.5
15.90
2 12. 36
7.57
19.50
246.69
R. 78
N-
2
MP.Of v . «
(). 76
0.50
0 • 44
0.040
0.0V6
0.5
1 .05
1.87
0.51
2. 1 7
14.96
0.13


~7o -

-------
Nt I. !
ClIMM- N I S :
H II H II I P
u<-,l CdO I n(>
IIMVY 'ItJIY fHI'INk IHANSIKNI {M|'jSION. SUMMAKV
mat • 1 •*79
Mi	c 11): -)ht>	tNMil: gm s-H
|969 BASLl iNt fNl.lNMSt
CM)
l'»>>9 HLT "HI
f.WAMS / HHP-M*
Hf
CO
MUX
d/HHP-IIH AC'tJAI
RSf C Milt'- H" fKHOH
RATEO OHPI N/A HAltU RPMt N/A
GRAMS / MILL
W£ I Gil T Ell ORAMS/LH fUEL
HC
CO
NOX

CO
NOX
DISP CODF
B= VALID
M= VALIO
Ml AN I
2301
M . A'.
129.10
<•.23
o .fiUU
?O.S^0
-5.0
1 3.60
205.13
b. 72
13.1 1
200. 6
0.66S
20.63 «
-<..5
1 3.AS
21 I .<•<.
7. 30
12.B J
202.66
7.00
N= 3

0 • 1 s
5.96
0.<.9
0.019
0.422
2.0
0.19
11.07
0.68
0. J<<
4 . 3
-------
BASELINE ENGINE TRANSIENT
EMISSION TEST SUMMARY TABLES
4 TABLES

-------
Ul"1 i: vmi',-ui |(>m[|i> iArvt spf c Ir ic mi ssi<>n-> 
IHl't H 3 IBM
0
0.0 1804
10
V 14 S 11 V80C
0
0.0362(1
1 1
<>M 150 ? LJPN
0
0.05521
12
I 100 I
0
0.05031
1 <
V 145 1 | <456
0
0.0 3620
14
«.M Ji.6 AMiwCmF
0
0.01865
IS
rJ6I HU»
0
0.03067
16
f )6u i
0
0 .03742
1 7
• >'i2''2 I//.TKCI
0
0.06380
1M
0 11 d 1 f.i.?
0
0.03558
19
1 .161 .-I t 19
0
0.03067
20
F If*0 1 Gi".3
1)
0.01/42
21
GM'ISO TtNNlS
0
0.05521
22
1) )6 1 - J M tiG
0
0.02454
23
("•m366 S'lWl
0
0.01865
SAl I S-Wr I'lllTUi GAS MAO 101AI.SI
90*. i'fli|lC1|ON fPOH HA St I I NT :
7.20
0 . opt>
S2.20
6.35
n. 1 71
1 78.47
1 3.54
0. 11 6
179.19
1 1 .22
0.688
127.76
28. 13
2 . 4n5
157.15
9.7 2
0.4 30
111.51
34. 16
3.018
224.37
9.40
0.519
170.77
7 .96
0.303
8b. 9 7
7.12
0.258
76.5J
6.21
0. 3<<3
12b.13
7.81
0.393
233.J8
6.41
0.2 32
94.1)2
8.59
0. 132
187.92
14.12
0.4 1J
228.39
7.9b
0.298
132.19
B.54
0.545
1 72.116
8.82
0.314
144.26
9.57
0.294
197.55
5.92
0.221
75.32
8.64
0.477
150.J6
12. 6J
0.310
168.68
8.53
0. 330
134.87
1?. 74
1.2/
-73 -
fJA(.t NO. |
WElGHIfn
CO
0. 192
4.818
4.178
7.818
1 1.H83
4.926
19.82?
9.429
3.308
?. 770
6.964
11.741
3.403
7.2f>3
7.006
4.947
1 1.029
5. I 33
6.060
2.819
8. 302
4. 1 39
5.213
155.18
15.52
MOA wEIGHILI)
NOX
8.4b 0.031
4.24	0.114
5.8J	0.13b
6.70	0.411
7.89	0.697
8.80	0.389
6.25	0.553
4.82	0.266
7.60	0.289
6.46	0.234
5.J6	0.296
4.91	0.247
5.59	0.202
5.32	0.206
5.43	0.167
6 .6J	0.248
5.14	0.12»
7.54	0.268
5.09	0.156
6.88	0.258
4.58	0.253
6.01	0.148
4.66	0.180
6.08
0.608

-------
TAHI_F ?¦	S/iLtS-wf IC.M1H) I't^LT NT aOF S DMA
I ,h'i hasfli*^ t.Mi»iNt i«;i
may ?'•» i<"g
I NO 111T
PKwrF"!
101 "I
C()lJl'TCIFl'
PFW( F in
n I
0?
0J
0<»
Ob
Ob
0	r
OH
0'»
11)
11
lr»
11
l'«
1^
I*
1	7
in
?o
?A
2?
e»
r w /?^v> ?9o V
v IQ/* • =.H<, | 7
3 V| - J ¦
v l o <»
f nn i^obs
f.M 1M p.nj'.T.
f 13U ISOSS
r.H^so
Itllrt 'M Tl MW
V	1«>'i < l ««*oc
rv« »5n -* LJT'M
f lO'l I
V	J<"b
A"KIICM_F
T (M »">f
f ifiO ^r.-.i
(,m^ >7 w irhT T
()»!•» »¦ »•••?
F IM u > I''
r jf.0
I .«nn
S.ooo
7.?00
3.^no
7 .? 00
t> .soo
1. inn
z. ''SO
6 .c.OO
/..inn
?.T.O
1.	r-o
I ."SO
5.?nn
?.CIOO
2.^00
1. n"-.n
u ,^on
?.ooo
'.ISO
it. Jf-i
2. 331
¦S. 1 lr>
n.fl3'»
,n w.
.5? I
. no*.
.*20
.b2n
3.0*5
j. n (- J
3. T>?.
*..3"o
3.0' 7
J. 7<«2
5.5?1
2.45'.
3-8*5
0.
5.
».
3.
S.
S-
sum tot m 5:
Hi.^00
loo.on
PAOl no.
wc lout |Nr,
F AC I t)W
0.00">n
0.
0.0213!
O.OM 15
0.0OR3''
O.O'.'.I 7
o.opn !«•
0.05'>2I
0.0 1M0 *•
0 .03'<20
0.05521
0.050 )l
0.0 »'>20
0.0 3M*5
0.0)0* 7
0.0 1 ">?.
o .of- ino
o.oT^n
0.030*7
0.037''?
0. 05t;2l
0.01*65
I .000

-------

( h<"> 1 tit

0 1
f« 22sn /99^. o id
0
0?
v 19? r>vmi
n
0 ^
1V |-.1
0
0*.
V W* ¦
0
OS
F 130 >AUS05s
0
06
All I'll
a
n /
( I'll) if iSl)5S
0
OH
I.MI'jO VOS12XI
n
09
(1 1 1 H • M 1 1 0H
0
1 u
V I'.'j (IVHOC
0
11
f.H J5'l '' 1 JHn
o
1/
r too i
0
1J
V T»5 i | 'i.S6
ii
l<.
f.MJ'ib A 'MIlCM F
it
1'¦">
F 161 iMt
0
1 6
F JfoO > r»M
0
1 f

0
IH
|l lib FG'V
u
1^
1 »6l It 19
<1
?0
F 160 t G<. 1
n
21
C.MJbO WNNIS
0
6 s ,d i
0
» SH L F	UN' II
1 II A S t I INf	[ IJI.lNt (SI
MAT 2'..	I ^
h^mC	hSCo
/ .2 U
5?.20
6. 15
1 7)1. <. 7
1 3.S<«
1 '9.19
II
127.76
2»U 1 J
157.1b
J/
111.51
1'.. 16
22<>. Jl
M . i, U
1 JO.77
7.96
B6.97
7. 12
f..S3
6.2 1
l?6.1 J
7.Ml
233.38
f>.<< 1
9', .02
H.S9
107.92
i<.. 12
220.39
7.-6
132.19
H . b1*
1 fP.r.b
H.IKT
\<<*.2h

19/.55
s.92
75. 32

150. 16

l6H.f>8
n. S3
1 3^.. M 7
v(jE
HSNOX	bl/t
«.
-------
fAHl.. u: SHI ES-wF IGHTFl) TPAfiSIFJir ENGINE F" I SS I (ins (t,kAn<,/|J
|0«-" HAStLINE F.NGlHF 1M
may ?U, |9/9
SAI I S
f • 1MF	vFIGHTIMI. sl/f.	MC wtlr.HTFl)
F AC Ttir
r.o
0!
F w 2? "'P 2«>9<. il 12
0
0.00368
2
6.16
I|."2 1
.66
02
V392
0
0 .02699
1
9.31
0.2S1
Sh 1
n )
391-J
0
0.02331
P
2 *>. 0 '•
n.^n7
3'<'< .'>5
0<>
v io<»
II
O.OM IS
S
1 7 . 2*»
1 .('58
|Vh.uo
OS
r 130 >A i505s
0
0.01HK.
5
35.91
3.1/2
200.^2
06
r.njsi 2«.n3t>3&
0
0.0'.M 7
2
1 2 .4 J
II .56 9
1 1. I>5
o /
F 130 oiiNSOSS
0
o .onin'*
1
'< r. 65
'i .209
11 2 . II 7
OH
r.M.iso vos|2xi
0
0.05S2I
2
15.98
0.882
290.3'-
0'»
niii • m "wnn
0
0.0 IM0'.
1
10.96
o.<.t r
1 2 0 . 2
10
v i<>5 M''noc
0
0.0 1620
2
10.01
0. 162
107.59
11
r.M .is" ? i.jpm
0
0.05^21
1
9.25
O.M 1
169.OH
1/
F 10') 1
0
0.05031
1
1 n .57
0 .<¦ 12
316.73
I i
VI'. 5 f | >i,56
0
0.0 3620
3
10. 70
0.3(7
157.21
l'.
r.M.v.r, A'.niiCKi.F
0
0.03H65
3
1 '•. 0 1
0 . 5'. 1
316.3/

r ifii .m ir
0
o.oio'r
2
20 . 7 1
0 Hi
315.22
I')
F 160 1 or-l
0
0.0 176?
3
1'«. '• 2
0
239.57
1/
I.M2 '2 P^TKF. T
0
o. 063"n
2
10.10
0.
2 0 <». 'i 1
IH
n 31 h f r, .?
0
0.0 355"
1
12.33
n .<¦ 19
201.H/
19
F 16 1 -HI |9
0
0.0 1067
3
1^.11
0.'.'> 1
311.95
20
F 1611 <¦ G<-1
0
0.03/*.^
2
9.92
0.3/1
126.27
21
r.n.150 F^iNlS
0
0.0^521
3
1 3.63
0. '52
236.73
?¦>
n i6i-i «-.| uo
0
0.0 2'iS'.
2
15.90
0.390
212. 16
2 1
G'tlf.6
0
0.01H65
3
1 3 .5
ti.S2'i
21 1 .<»'•
SAlfS-Wt K.MIFli r,A5 MAC. T0TAL5I
1
9(1* "F.Ml IC T | ON F POM HA^F I. JNf t
I .H I
PA Of NO. i>
SAi.rs
wf. ir.tM co
CO
0. 16<.
7 .057
n.o 12
12.055
17.723
6.319
2 i • f>'i n
16.0 II
'.9
6.0 7
0-381
10.5*
0.375
0.0"
0 . 2'i 7
1 1 .5*
0. '»32
7.16
0.396
7.57
0. 186
7.30
0.282

8.88

0.888

-------
-77-
BASELINE ENGINE IDLE
TEST DATA SHEETS
19 ENGINES

-------
mF o r
Town ur<;:
N U M .• F H
if ^r c mt
hfav* miiY f.n** I me irn.F TF'vr tM| s<;inN'i siimmaky
MAY Z>> , (9 79
CIO! TJ1	FUr.lD! 191-JH
1^,9 HLT »I)1
MOOf NO. I
"C	CO	NOX
|9f,9 HASH. IMF FMl.lNf < S1
IJATFIi HHP! N/A PATF.O RPM! N/A
MOIlE NO. ?
HC
CO
NO*
HOOF NO. !
HC	CO	NOX
MODE NO. U
Ht
(.0
NUX
I)ISP COKE
B= VAl. Ill
M= V A(_ 111
nno i r
1' n
0 in 1

3|9S| .
I')').
l^one.

69.
|P67.
1*271. 1 OBH •
2.
2156).
IbR) .
H
won in
1 ^
0 10?
?W7.
29M>3.
I nn.
1S59&.
]f 16*.
66.
|f>79.
12897. d1,d>, .
22»6.
1 »7M .
19*2.
H
7900 1 9
1 it.
0303
proi,.
?9f,n3.
l««.
IW'.
|n|f,n,
66 .
1679.
122'>7. 2623.6
inr6H.o
27.7
2132.3
2A6SI.9
30.2
27n.o
3731.01631.3
3 3'< .<•
0ISS.3
30H.9


-------
tn avr nuir fNi.inf
hHj: ,'70
(. OMM' ni :
n u M it H
USI ruf>c
cini 3d*
I''69 ItLT HO'4
MOOE NO.
MM.f. US! L'l|SSIOf(S SUMMARY
M"V r><*. (V/9
LN(»IOS V30* **PO<.>l	MA If t) BUHI
|969 HA5tLINE ENl» INK (SI
N/A
RATED RPrti N/A
MOOf
Hf
CO
110/
HC
NO. 2
( 0
NOx
HOOE NO.
HC
CO
NOX
MOUE NO.  i,3h 7
1: H
0*03
ie*i.
2*H5S.
Id'..
1 A 160•
All:


196ft.
?5?MH.
1 58.
3'. 30 7.
S10. IK
V. i

210.3
1 /|1. 1
1* 195.6
93*32.
iiossh.
til lfcs.
971IM.
30.
20*5.
/U26.
1767.
237*.
17H6S.
asm.
B
72.
1 3b?.
80 J6.
ttl*.
2269.
1 73*9.
vhs «
B
*1 .
1936.
66b8.
2100.
2377.
1* 796.
I 306.
H
*8.
1767.
7507 .
1560.
23*0.
16670.
1U09.
N= 3
21.7
355.8
7*2.5
667.2
61.6
16*3.3
260.2

-71 -

-------

HF A V V ItlMY
pNOIMt
mi r
TF',T F

MIMHu
I'Y -- |9',9 Hi
*>KI. I MF
FNo INI IS)









•i/\r >''». i
•i r»







~'F r,:
in
r lot
"no
f mi. in
: F 3 JO
9Aiisns'>

"A IF.!) R'IP!
N/a
WATtO
PPM! N/A



TOMM' rj|

|OSO M| T
• IIS











N IJ M I h
u
HOOF
NO. 1

HOOF. NO. 2

MODE
NO. 1

MOOt
NO. <•

0I$P CODE
T F S 1 f
•nr

ro
mix
HC
CO
NO X
HC
CO
NO*
H(
CO
NO*
B= VALID
H= VALID
fopn/2 ii'H
Aion^'t pin
/'J()0H
nso i
050?
O50?
j??p.
3o?<».
lO'.n.
ISl'.F,.
1*. IPH.
1 >7.
212.
2SI .
J 77JJ.
29995.
1"102•
hHS«»'. .
«M2 i.
73"M/.
1H.
35.
106.
1517.
21 32.
3055.
3300.
3900.
3 7 V3 •
1719.
2855.
8621.
28?2.
2 7 1 7j.
836'..
Ift W.
Ifljf.
1929.
H
0
B
MF AN :

1100.
1 M 0 7 .
220.
ei9'« j.
7*.
5 1.
1901 .
3
219fl.
251?.
U262.
IBOl .
N- 3
STO.OtV. :

ill.'.
6«^.5
? 7 . r.
*975.3
66M 1 .5
'«f.. II
3J5.1
31S.5
<•53.9
22J.I'.
277.2
I<.9.3

-So-

-------


Mf
iivr nnir
f ng i m.
ll>l 1
If SI f HJSSI.IN'.







MAT t"*>
Mf (j :

<.0
r II):
3SI
tN'» 11)
: r.Mjbl

ClIMM
¦ N l * :
1*169 IILI
0(16



II 11 H
' t
H
Moor
NO. 1

MOlIf NO.



	
	
	
	
	
it si
O

Hf
cn
HO*
HC
ro
/400JO 1'
¦¦II
0601
?S1?.

201 .
H
060 5
3171.
?60?7.7
?6/'>.0
36.fi
635.9
1 IM3.;
-.ummanv
1969 UAStLINl EN<>lNM5l
I •*19
HAIFO UHPJ N/A WATEl) HPH I N/A
NOX
HOOF NO. J
HC	CO	NO*
MODE
ML
NU. 4
CO
NOX
Ul SP CODE
B= VALIU
M= VALID
35.
1053.
2060.
1976.
1670.

1<*.
2546.
1 12.
6619.
1500.
B
37.
120.
19<,9.
22«.fl.
1925.
790 I.
1<»H2.
z
II
2*. 1
190.7
390. i
J62.6
231.9
1155.6
237.5



-------
IIFAv/Y nurv FN<',|Ht 11)1 F_ TFST F.nmslnN, MJMMM'Y
|969 II ft St-IINE FNOlNI (S>
Mtb! 10
COM^H nf<; :
n ii m « n
t f s r cunt
f>nnsJ	l-'H	o'oi
7 >II0^S	I ||	070?
790 0t>6	! "It	0703
79O0r*7	l-'H	O70fc
7900<'9	I>'M	070b
7900 19	l- B	0706
An:
STD.OKV. :
nor ,u> . |9 79
rini *1P	F W' 101 F 3 10 OIJMSli'.S	MAIF.I) Hill"! N/A HAIFO RPMI N/A
IIL T #07
HOOF NO. I	MOHF NO. 2	MOIIt NO.	MOOE NO. '•	Ol^f' COPF
	-								H= VALID
H( C»» IJUX	MC (.<< NO*	HC CO NOX	IK (II	NOX	M= VALIU

19575.
100.
760'» .
<1 '• J 7 r! .
3?.
1517.
?J7S5.
U 6*» .
1 8^6 .
2 1M9.
5n? .
B
1^0 1 .
PO^H.
mi.
7 IZb.
39^fi^.
Jl .
10 7'..
Zlllb.
57?.
1 '"8.
Z<> 1 3?.
5 '• H .
11
7 1.1.

65.
, f'903.
1.
36.
167'..
19317.
9J6.
|B00.
|923't
77?.
B
1 »1R.
11 n 16.
111.
0020.
3'«6 1 6 •
21 .
1562.
230'»0.
1 000.
177|.
I'. <.09.
760 .
H
15I0.
I9'»?l.
II'*.
0956.
1.
21-
1617.
2'.650 .
526.
lHflr.
2<» 36"^.
516.
B
?lon.
?96S5.
120.
SI 18.
l<.0b» .
?o.
?599.
101 5".
965.
2 J 1 1 .
2 7695.
5s r.
M
r-36.
IH1 !<•.
103.
75? 1 .
it t)?j 7.
27.
1010.
?61?6.
705.
1 9 Jft .
2??"J.
609.
N= 6
'• 0 7 .7
7'«00 . J
?0.«,
1 '• 1 1 . 0

6.0
<•0?. 7
6'.9 «. J
2'.V.'",
19c*. J
<.6"2. 7
12 1.1


-------
Mf A V If 1X11 V »Nl>INt I III f 11 SI LMISSI'IU-J SUMM<\HY
i'«r ?'*. i •-> /9
1969 H/iSLLINt ENolNFISI
nt (.•: <.0
r ID:
1M>
t noin«
'.mjso vo5l2*l

RAlf 1) HHP l
N/A
NA1EO
RPMI N/A




lomm nK:
19*9 IIL1
»l)H












n it m ii C w
MOOF
NO. I

MODE
NO. 2

MOOt
NO. J

MODE
NO. <,

OISP CODE
nsi one
nr
ro
mox
HC
I'd
NOX
HC
CO
NO*
HC
C«
NUX
U =
H=
VAL IU
VALID
7')r,0l<. 1-iM OH0|
790015 I"M 080?
/90016 I II OHOj
9?9.
'ill.
1uH.
1 OSM .
10 <72.
9rt|5.
97.
fl*.
76.
S792.
17'.9.
9800 «
<•1719.
39? 7 1 .
<,91'. J.
27.
2S.
1026.
1053.
1019.
9006 .
994 0.
97d0 .
068 .
805.
911.
1319.
1276.
1299.
10^6(1.
17?JO.
1 6 7<<6.
<•92.
<* 7 U .
520.

H
B
B
111 AN 1
Ht> ) .
9.7
1 7
bl.fe 26. <,
21.5
/7 J.I 25.0


-------
HFuvr miTr Fnc.ihE iniF ifsi Emissions summary -- 1969 Basel I ne En<>Inms>
M M pi't l'»70
mf(»! po	run	fni.io: p)in in iImh	Raieo hmi-m n/a haiio rphi n/a
communis: |o#,q ml i
M 1| M 1> f if MODF NO. I MO'lE NO. r> MODE NO. ( MODE NO. '> 01 SP COllE
		 	.	 		 			 			 U= VALID
fft;f C"OE	Hf	CO	NUX	H(.	CO	NOX	HC	CO	NOX	HI	CO	NOX M= VALID
5»
r>00'.h I • i M OT0I	91?. '.'.Oil. JSI. 7B<«4.	I	<>6.	190. 3175. 2f>RU. |927. S?0|. 2570.	H
MP Aril	91?. <»GOO. 151. 7B<«'». I I"'*. <»6. 190. .1175. 260'>. 1927. 5201. 2S 70. N= 1

-------

HI
fiv/v milr
HlMNI
lot f
!| SI fitlsSh)ll^>
SUMMfHY -- 1969 liAStl. INF
I HO 1 Nf 1 5)









IUY r"< . |
tl't








rif u:
<•11
r 1L):
.Ibfl
ENI.IO
: <.M 35(1
? 1

HA It 11 HHP !
N/A
HAltO
RPMI N/A



lomm' n r ^:
19VJ Ml. 1
p 11












fl II M < 1
P
Hllllf
Kin 1
•
MOOt
NO. 2
*
none
NO. 3

MOOE
NO. 4
1
DlSP COOL














o-
VAL 1 II
i Kr i r1
¦HE
lie
CO
MUX
ML
ro
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
Ht
Ll .
54.
1 164.
99H9.
1637.

20498.
U4B.

11
79004 3 I' It
1 102
906.
1 3S*4.
1 56.
S6/4.
51 J1 J .
4 6 .
1 341 .
1 4 1 S 7 .
140b.
1<>I3.
21671.
U4 1 .

B
/90042 1 H
1103
9->4.
1 3(l>iP.
17S.
3*. 12.
<• I n 1 ci.
51.
1 105.
90b7.
169.
14 46.
2001 1 .
9n0.

B
mi* an :

¦j-s?.
1 15M0.
167.
'•106.
44*«l.
50.
1203.
1 IU7«.
1071 .
144) .
20721.
BH3.
N =
3
sic.ntv. i

44. *
520. /
10.0
1361.3
aii)4.3
3.6
122.8
2704,.7
78V. J
2b.9
U53.3
66.9




-------
hfftvy puty fnr.ink ihlc tfsi emission, m»mmam* --	haskline fnginfis)





may S'> . I
•> 19






MFO:
10
CIO:
ion
F MO 11) 1
f 300 I


rated mip
! N/A
HAIEO
RPM: N/A

( OMHt-Mfc!
l"J' 9 HL 1
*12










H II M « I
H
mooe:
NO. 1

MOMF
NO. ?

MODE
NO. 1

mode
NO. U

tf^t rnnE
HC
CO
MOX
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
H(.
to
NOX
''•POM 1 'M
rjoo<<<> 1'ih
TunO'«S If")
1201
1202
120 1
VM .
U ,
*-n\7.
6<« 7n7.
*2'« 1 1 .
127.
107.
1 J1 .
S529.
9577.
'«0^2 •
7266c.
7'> 16".
6 V2u.
20.
29.
39.
2519.
2B<«5.
272f..
5661b.
63333.
60B5^.
B2B.
720.
B2I .
2«<>1.
31^2.
/
59&19.
6J772.
6u"l6.
<•17.
360.
J95.
»1f AN t


6IM2.
121 .
f»383.
71 Jt>4.
29.
2697.
602f,9.
790.
2<>H3.
6I<»0;>.
J9I .
s rf> .Of v . :

<• in.5
1501.1
12.9

B 1 1 'I . 5
9.9
I6<».n
3397.<•
60.2
15B.3
2 J 32 . 7
20. 7
oisp coot
B= VALIO
M= VALId
N=

-------
HI AVY MHT FN(.|NL 11 )l ( IhSI t M | SS I ilHv> SUMMIT
MAY /"* • I 'ifi
MfiSLL IfU tNOlNMbl
HH.I X70
COMMi n r s :
M IJ M '« h U
I FSI OOfc
( ll»t I'.s
i ml t «n
H(inr no. i
tN«.lO: v3<»S 7l"»<.Sh
MODF NO. 2
HAIEl) HHP: N/A HATED M»»n: N/A
nr
CO
iiOa
HC
( I
NOX
Mont NO. 3
HC	CO	NOX
MODE. no. >*
ML
CO
NO*
01SP COOL
B= VALID
H= VALIU
}V I Mil | 11) I	"66.
/'((.StO I mm ] 30,'	UllS.
I'M 110J	911.
AN !	H«ft .
S Ili.Ot V . :	13.7
HlSV.
>y03.
S627 •
?702.
6SH6.
?".6 6.1 2123 .2
ZO'ld>.
2<«2<>2.
2 lSBil.
2?'*ZtL.
17b 3 .2
63.	2313.
75-	2M8.
6|.	2106.
66.	23S2.
7.6	SH.5
1 '*20'* • 1783.
l6.
2 U/9.
2169.
161.9
1U3S^.	1320.
1«.93<,.	16 V 3 .
I0U0.	10f>9.
11H2 3•	1360.
2699.2	313.9
B
B
H
N=
~%1~

-------
IIFAVY DUTY F Nt. (Nt
IIHF TF<".T EMISSIONS SUMMAWY
MAY ?<*. |w79
1969 RftStllNt ENfilMr (SI
MF U ! <.0
r in:
\hf.
FNr. 10!
APHDfKt F_

RA1F0 BHP»
n/a
PA ftD
HPMt N/A



lomM' wr<;i
I'i'-o ML I
«I<.












N ,) 11 h R
MODE
NO. 1

MOItt
NO. /»

modf
NO. J

MODE
NO. <,

01SP COUE
TF S 1 moE
HC
CO
mix
HC
f 0
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NO*
H =
Mr
VAL II)
vALin
nnni i / I'm \t,o?
'•00 1 IS 1 -II 160S
mooi ir- i m
I Phn.
Iom .
1216.
?.l J'"..
mi ?f>.
1 99 1* .
1 12.
IHH.
1
199 1 .
706.
1B06.
3'»'i »n.
Z
3?
-------
HFAYY i«U!Y LlJ«*lNL |Hlf UST tMfSSlorj.* bUMhAtfY -- ] 9<»9 HAStLlNf FnG1nMS>
nr* *?<~. r*/«f
~if if: 31»
flli:
V |
( Ml,) o:
F3M SHdL

RATFO Hup:
: N/a
kailp
KPMl N/A



COMM Nl*-:
I^h9 HL1
WIS












N 1) 1* H t H
MIIDF
Nl). |

MOOt
MO. 2

mode
NO. J

MODE
NO. 4

DISP 1
nsi c-ifE
Mf
CO
MUA
HC
CO
NO*
iir
CO
NO*
HI
CII
NOX
B =
H =
V Al
VAI
/99.
143.
«S6.
Ifa?.
fl4«3.
6111.
P347.
b6731.
4'>77,e.
SH4f>*.
36.
S9.
32.
24.S6.
2610.
252B.
27WI0.
270")i>.
26142.
1470.
14 34.
1S74.
2915.
2rtl9.
27b9.
30466.
30U23.
29tB5.
1137.
109H.
1096.

B
6
H
Ml AMI
1433.
34«f>5.
154 .
764 7 a
539U9.
42.
2*>oa.
27024.
1492.
28J1.
30291.
1110.
N =
3
SKl.OLv. i
4S.n

l>.f.
1332.2
6 :~ n *j . tt
14 .4
7
-------
HfflvY nutr fmmme 11it.it test emissions
MJMMOWY
|969 H«StLIMF F.NOlNflS)
mF<>: in
COMMi Nisi
N O M .1 r M
rpsr C"PF
I"»'	1601
noni I'M	ifto<.
HOOIII If	|60?
H0O|rt<. |m|<	160 3
Mf AN !
srn.OEv.




MfY ?<* - 1
'~79








r id:
i».n
E Ml. 10!
ne>o
f <>r. |

RATF.n OMP
: N/fl
PflfFO
rpm: h/a



I'jr.Q nLT
»|h












hoof
fin. i

MOllF NO. ?

MODE
' z
1 o
•

HOOF.
NU. <•

01 SP CODE

m










H =
VALID
Ml)*
MC
t')
NOX
MC
CO
NOX
H<
to
NOX
M =
vftL IL'
7ssn.
7.
IT'.
'.9'*?.
i ..
ft5.
'•TZ.
7517.
?mi.
3SS5.
1 J'M 7 .
II7'<.

n

2ISV.
?l .
SOS.
sow.
1 .
?7'«.
•>15.

IU0.

1 S 7.

b
fiSou.
?u ?o<..
1 ')<• .
Sl
-------
MF o I (.0
I omm- n l r>;
N II M ' f H
HfrtVY HOIY FNOlUt II,Lt" ItSI tMISSIHHb SUMMAKY --
MAY	r»79
CIU: Zv?	F Nil 11):	UAC^FI	NATEO HHI>:
Hvhvi HL7 » I 7
MODE NO. I
1969 HAbtLINE I N(> 1NF IS)
N/A
I'AIEO RPHI N/A
HOOF Nl).
MOIlE NO. J
MODE NO. U
OISP CUUE
ie si
cu i>e
HC
CO
MUX
MC
ro
UOX
HC
CO
NOX
HI
CO
NOX
B =
M=
VALIO
VALIO
Horns', i
H001H9 I
•f I 701
II 1 70<>
3<.60.
3^71 .
IS^S.
Uh?** .
106.
303.
? BUS.
<.819.
<.9i> i B.
5MM.
66.
55.
<.92.
2/9.

-------
MFAVr nilfr F Mr; I fit Iill t 1FM Em^SI'HIS SUMhuMV -- |9f,9 llAStLIHF	F.Nblt-JF (S>
~Iy S. <>5. 2310. !lb<«0. 6.	H
flouiv? I--II | nup IfiiT. 25e*P. ?'. 77J/. ?), ?M<». 12«.59. I960.	Zl^Z. 1977.	B
'IF AN! »<.93. IB. ?lf». 9Bb.	?1?U. 13*31 . 2072. N= Z
Mll.DtV. : ^PR-7 6.| 7Qf.5.S V<'V>.9 IS.* 59. S 6S.2 133.5
— *( 7 -

-------
HFAvr Oil T Y FNt.int I l)L F f t T EMlSSlmij SUMH#wr -- 1984 IJaStLINE	ENu INE (b)
mc r <"* • i-'79
mFo: 10 ClOS 3M I NO If): F 3b I IILE lJ	WAIED HHP! N/A RATFO RPM : N/A
LOMH, MCI l'<*9 i)ll »|«J
N II h » 1 N HOOF NO. I MOi>£ MO. 2	MODE NO. J	MOOt NO. U DISH CODE
	 	-	 					 B= VALID
IF SI runt HC CO NO* MC l.O NO*	HC CO NO*	HL CO nox M= VALID
H0n?ll ||'H 1901 / /90. f'H'.l'i. ?2B. S32 I . 27S9M. S9.	2603. 22120. 17<«<».	27bo. 2b'«|8. 1261.	B
MOd/'lS !>-h |902 10*^9. ?20. 70b5. ?B.2d. St.	270*«. 22S/9. 16B8.	2BU7. 31 >21. 1140.	B
Mr Aril ?')2<«. ?'»<•»!. ?2<«. (ilHU. 2holJ. i>S.	24>S
-------
MFAVY »)Uiy f Mr» I Nt mtf	SUMMAWr — |9f>9 Hash INf F Nb 1 NJ IS)
irrr-irrrrtirrr-r-rrr^rr-r-rtsr-.-^r^rts-sri-^s	
mat ?a* |w79
Mfi.: to
r I [>:
K.<1
I Mr,to:
rj^o F«.r.j

HAtfO HHP t
N/h
RAU.f)
WPM: N/A



COMM. m<;!
l
NOx
HC
CO
NOX
Mf
CO
NO*
«00?«S 1**H POO 1
Bon l'J4 !¦ » POOP
177.
7^h.
QTf,.
l<.
979.
93*..
1012.
1 05!.
-eH7.
1^9', .
IS<
-------
»?^7 I"h ?I0| 99S. i 16 "*9 . |*,S. l|7tt"t. 63/OV. 32. 1889. 1019.	R
MfANi 99S. IIM9. |<.b. 1178<». 6»/hV. 32. 1 B<. I . 177H2. 1318.	2J/6. 22689. 1019. N= 1
- ^ S ~

-------
HFAVY ruriY FN'.IMF I III. F IF<;| E »• I I' IN., SIMMAHV -- |	HA5MIMF FNGlNI IS)
ma r ?>>, t v 19
mF P












N IJ « • F. I>
H'lOE
MD. 1

MOUE
NCJ. S
,
MnnF
NO. \

mode
Nil. it

UISP i
tfm fiKE
Hf
CO
NOX
HC
CD
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
HC
CO
NOX
n =
M =
v ni
VM
HOO?Of) f Mil ?J?0I
HOO?0 7 1 H ??0?
1 1^9.
'•111.
147^.3.
nil n.
16'..
1 76.
1?6h7.
I?257.
5M*v.
35.
-16.
2n<><..
2062.
1717?.
1 730<«.
1<»I6.
2000.
22i>|.
1 12 JJ.
11173.
If)4-'".
17 17.

R
n
MF AM !
1 '50.
m«7.
17(1.
12462.
553SJ.
35.
2053.
17?3fl.
I9sn.
21 7S.
1 UO t.
I6H I .
N =
2
STO.OtV. 1
r.19.3
5n .ft

?10.7
|l?6.0
0.7
12.7
93.3
59. 3
37.1
<>?.. 3
51 .<*



-------
-97-
BASELINE ENGINE IDLE
EMISSION TEST SUMMARY TABLES
3 TA3LES

-------
IrtHL
sai f S-*F ir.HTtn M'lF	fmI5S|im
hasf i iNt j upinf >
r 130 'A '505S
0
0.0911'.
1
Of»
'•"3M ^'•F»3<»3'.
0
O.OA5S7
s
0 !
F 1 10 >M. :S05S
0
0.0911'.
*
OH
(.» Vin vusi?m
0
0 .0SM is i r> ljf'm
II
0.0S(,9*
3
\?
r ioo i
0
0.0S190
3
I )
Vld'i r|'»/iSh
II
O.O/fcftH
3
1'.
(,M I'.h A 'PMC.KIJ
0
0.0797S
?
IS
F If. 1 h>f
0
O.Oll'iS
1
lh
f iho . r,i.|
0
0.0 TfiM
U
1 /
r.l|?9? r/.iCKtl
0
0 .OlSSFV
?
Ml
(i 111 »¦ r.'.r
0
0.01671
2
1 1
f Itel 'H_l 19
0
0 .0 11 f>S
2
?0
F IMI « f.'.l
0
0.0 1HC.J
?
?l
*•11 _!*"• 0 TENUIS
0
0 .0S*9f,
1

i> im - i si u(-
0
0.025 1?
?
salfs-wi p-mrr* idlf tests ioiais
hay ?u,
Mr wrir,Hrti>
l>F>M-C	M(
p. MI j.	js^.jh
14 107.	21 7| . 10
?!«'•;}.	ig'j'i.nv
son -	^?n. !<•
t',P\.	MIS.'.*,
ft f I 111 .	3F>7.?'«
Jm• <•. 107.mi
<. |0f,.	23J.'l'
61"3.	K1|.?S
'•"/a.	3M.MI
3»98.	3io.ns
1 frk 7 .	2&1.99
37)1.	1'.6 .0<«
jns?.	psj.Sf.
9ns'».	361. t )
I*»3.n2
<•1-79.	I'>2. I I
I 1 7(U».	6 T | .1
I 2'>r.?.	3 I 5. <• ¦>
970
. <•	l.f>2U
<«5.V	l.HOl
SO.3	2.H6I
?V.<»	1.52'<
66.0	<..93?
55.2
"f'.l	1.33?
Ml.5	1.56J
60.5	3.9F1?
3't.l	l.?5«»
55.1	I • 7 g '«
<•'1.5	1.7|B
31.b	l.HOO
35-. 3	0.09<»
*.<..7J
A. t*1

-------
IAHII l.i	SM I S-wl If.llll I) II |/CI ul a(.L S DMA
| /(.9 IIAVl INI Lno|NI (SI
Mtr . 1979



i*u I Nh

Tom
PI Hf FNI
(1»
3-J I - J
II
1 .90(1
2.MIS
0'.
V 10'. mO*. H
n
s. (ion
6.3'" '
OS
» 1 10 -A iSOSS
0
7. ?nn
9. III.
Of.
f.1.15 1 ?<.« I'.K.
0
1. 60(1
. 5b I
0 /
1 330 .H'lSOSs
0
7. Pllll
9.11,
(111
f.n VjO wi m i i iS'. ^ i.j»-N
0
<. .500
5.696
\s
» 100 I
II
<• . 1 0(1
5.190
11
V t<.b / 1 '11,5b
0
5. 90(1
7 . <.6H
l<.
f.M infc A'(puCr\LK
0
h. 100
7.9/S
1 *1
r i6i H.ir
0
2.500
3. I6S
16
f ion ' r>'. i
0
1.050
i.b'.l
1 /

0
S.?0(l
6.5H^
1M
li J in K, .2
II
?.9on
3.67 1
19
f 161 11 19
0
2 • S0(l
3. 1 6\>
20
F 160 1 G<>3
0
3.(ISO
3.8(> 1
?\
1.(11S(| PnNIS
0
'< .son
5.696
2/
|l 16 | - ) c(| llt>
0
2. 1100
2.53
-------
ISMIF 7!
IMIf Mtl^fOMS
JU'.'l H»Sh IW IMC, HIV |-,1
MAY ?<.,

f in, 1

•(
<"()
0 3
1 v) - J
ft
I'tf- *3.
?3?ir
0'»
VJ0'» f.'i 10'iH
0
3U in f -
f»7||"
05
FJ30 'A I505S
0
?1
7<>755
Of>
Oi35| 2'>nj<>j4
0
50 || .

0 7
F HO ¦ MM5055
0
15?1 .
'•1C.56
0
'.<» rp.

1'*
onj(i6 #"piicm_f
0

315 3"
15
f If.l -If If
0
7f>'. 7.
5 |'W

F Hill C.'-1
1
37 11 .

1 1
PICKET
0

5IHV0
14
c»|h
0
9H*V« .
l<.tM
l<*
F H. 1 0 ~ G'-1
n


PA
r. «T>0 ItNNlS
i)
11 7n'».
h3lbf>.03
55.?5
10
^ 0 - T
60.SO
3'«. t 5
55. 10
'»',.r.O
3l.f.O
35. 10
Sl/F
b
J
J
5
6
J
I
J
3
3
Z
3
<*
Z
z
i
?
I
d
I oo-

-------
-101-
V. References
These publications wiL1 aid the reader in obtaining a greater
understanding of the transient cest procedure and the 1983 HD NPRM
which this report supports.
Report Number
and Date
HDV 76-03
Oct. 1976
HDV 76-04
Dec. 1976
HDV 77-01
Nov. 1977
HDV 78-01
May 1978
HDV 78-02
June 1978
HDV 78-03
May 1978
HDV 78-04
July 1978
HDV 78-05
July 1978
HDV 78-06
June 1978
Report Title
and Author
NTIS
Number
EPA 460/3-78-008
July 1978
Federal Register
Vol. 44, No. 31
Part II
February 13, 1979
Engine Horsepower Modeling for Diesel
Engines, C. France
Engine Horsepower Modeling for Gasoline
Engines, L. Higdon
Selection of Transient Cycles for Heavy-
Duty Engines, T. Wysor & C. France
Category Selection for Transient Heavy-
Duty Chassis and Engine Cycles, C. France
Selection of Transient Cycles for Heavy-
Duty Vehicles, T. Wysor & C. France
Truck Driving Patterns and Use Survey,
Phase II, Final Report, Part II
Los Angeles, L. Higdon
Transient Cycle Arrangement for Heavy-
Duty Engine and Chassis Emission Testing,
C. France
Analysis of Hot/Cold Cycle Requirements
for Heavy-Dutv Vehicles, C. France
A Preliminary Examination of che Repeat-
ability of the Heavy-Duty Transient Dyna-
mometer Emission Test, W. Clemmens
Heavy-Duty Vehicle Cycle Development,
Malcolm Smith
Proposed Gaseous Emission Regulations
for 1983 and Later ModeL Year Heavy-Duty
Engines
PB 294 088
PM 294 221
PB 293 843
PB 293 764
PB 293 342
PB 293-830
PB 288 805

-------