klein@ucbcad.UUCP (03/05/85)
Well, now that the EPA is actually cracking down on leaded gas, let's be realistic and assume that soon (too soon) there will be no leaded gas available at all. What do I do with my wonderful old '68 VW Ghia that is so cheap, reliable, fun to drive (it's not quite stock!), etc? Replace the valves and run on unleaded? Find gas additives? Sell it quick? -- -Mike Klein ...!ucbvax!ucbmerlin:klein (UUCP) klein%ucbmerlin@berkeley (ARPA)
lat@druxx.UUCP (TepperL) (03/06/85)
A friend of mine with a couple 10-15 year old motorcycles buys high octane leaded gas at the county airport. If I remember correctly, he said he was able to get 100 (!) octane. He then mixes it with unleaded. Since the cycles are not his primary mode of transportation, this is not such a big deal. If your Ghia is your commuting vehicle, driving to the county airport for gas on a regular basis can be a hassle. -- I'm not afraid of heights, I'm afraid of widths. Larry Tepper 30J69, x1759
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (03/06/85)
> Well, now that the EPA is actually cracking down on leaded gas, let's be > realistic and assume that soon (too soon) there will be no leaded gas > available at all. What do I do with my wonderful old '68 VW Ghia that is > so cheap, reliable, fun to drive (it's not quite stock!), etc? Replace > the valves and run on unleaded? Find gas additives? Sell it quick? RELAX! As I understand it, the only purpose of putting lead into gas is to raise the octane rating--and one can do that without using lead. I think EPA is to be commended for taking this step. If you fill your car with unleaded gas having an octane rating at least as high as the leaded gas it normally takes, I believe it will run without any problems whatsoever. If you use gas of a lower octane rating than what you currently use, you might get some pinging--but if you don't get pinging, then go ahead and use the lower-octane gas. -- Dana S. Nau ARPA: dsn@maryland Computer Science Dept. CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs University of Maryland UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn College Park, MD 20742 Phone: (301) 454-7932
lee@unmvax.UUCP (03/07/85)
> > RELAX! As I understand it, the only purpose of putting lead into gas is to > raise the octane rating--and one can do that without using lead. I think > EPA is to be commended for taking this step. Here, thus far, the petroleum companies have been using ethanol. I have heard that this can damage certain kinds of metals. Notably, zinc. Guess what my carbs are made of? Anybody know if I am ready to buy a bridge or is this true? I am using unleaded premium now. It is not boosted, just good gas. It is still rated too low... Though, I haven't heard any pinging on it I cannot be sure. --Lee (Ward) {ucbvax,gatech}!unmvax!lee
chim@ncsu.UUCP (Bill Chimiak) (03/07/85)
Old cars used the lead to lubricate their valves. The octane boost wasn't the only purpose.
dwl@hou4b.UUCP (D Levenson) (03/07/85)
Your friend who buys 100 octane leaded gasoline at the airport will find that leaded aviation fuel is also being phased out. Most airports now only carry what is called 100-LL or Low-Lead. It has about 10% of the lead contained in standard 100-grade Av-gas. This is causing problems with older airplane engines. I guess Low Lead is better than no-lead if you need it, however. Incidentally, 100-LL costs about $2.00 per gallon in the Northeast. -Dave Levenson (RV) -ATT-IS
phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos) (03/07/85)
> > Well, now that the EPA is actually cracking down on leaded gas, let's be > > realistic and assume that soon (too soon) there will be no leaded gas > > available at all. What do I do with my wonderful old '68 VW Ghia that is > > so cheap, reliable, fun to drive (it's not quite stock!), etc? Replace > > the valves and run on unleaded? Find gas additives? Sell it quick? > > RELAX! As I understand it, the only purpose of putting lead into gas is to > raise the octane rating--and one can do that without using lead. I think > EPA is to be commended for taking this step. I have heard people who "should know" argue both sides of this subject. Basically what it comes down to is this: 1. The octane of gasoline can be raised in two ways. An additive can be put in (like tetraethyl lead), or it can be refined more. Lead was the solution of choice way back when because it was cheaper than extra refining - less time, less equipment, greater yield from a given quantity of crude = greater profits. In those days, the EPA wasn't even a twinkle in anyone's eye. 2. Unleaded gasoline has been around longer than a lot of people think. Supposedly, Standard Premium (Amoco for you modern types) was unleaded as early as the 1960's. This was a _real_ high- octane premium gasoline, not the 91 or 92 octane "super" gas we're stuck with today, unless we happen to be lucky enough to have Super 76 in our area. (The last real premium gas I saw was at Mars stations in St. Louis in 1981.) 3. Tetraethyl lead is _not_ the only additive used to increase the octane of gasoline. Many of the "premium" unleaded gasolines you see today use methanol or ethanol (alcohol, that is) for a couple of extra points. There are other additives too, which are generally "invisible" to the buyer because they aren't consi- dered to be health hazards (like lead) with EPA regulations requiring the pumps to ring a bell and cry out "Leaded! Outcast! Unclean!". 4. One of the main arguments for keeping leaded gasoline around is that the lead helps lubricate the valves. I don't believe that the people who ran unleaded through their high-compression, high-rpm MGA Twincam engines in 1961 had any trouble with valves from not having any lead in their gas. An argument could possi- bly be made that a box-stock 1943 Chrysler inline 6 will last longer if it burns leaded regular, but how many box-stock 1943 Chrysler inline 6's have you driven today? Well over 99% of the engines still running today will run just fine on unleaded gas. 5. Today's unleaded regular does tend to have a lower octane rating than (yesterday's?) leaded regular. This is because of the economic considerations (see point 1). It is quite possible to make unleaded gas with an octane rating equivalent to regular leaded, or even higher - see most gasoline stations for examples of this. This "unleaded premium", however, is _not_ the equal of the old-fashioned leaded premium, which is a point that a lot of people have been trying to make. Unleaded gas of a sufficiently high octane just is not commercially available at this time. This leaves many people with older high-compression engines out in the cold, as it were. This is also why people have been mixing gas for some few years now. 6. Ah, on to the great mixing debate. By mixing the higher-octane unleaded with a smaller quantity of leaded gasoline, you are effectively using that small quantity of lead to boost the octane of a stock with slightly higher quality than that used for the leaded gas (note difference in price). Note that this does you very little good if the premium unleaded is gasohol. It has to be the real thing - super-refined gasoline with little or no octane-boosting additives already in it. This stuff seems to be getting harder to find all the time. 7. There are octane boosters which do not use tet. lead for their kick. These, I believe, mostly use some mixture of methanol and xylene, with maybe some other stuff thrown in - I'm not an organic chemist, so don't quote me on the exact recipes. It is also poss- ible to get straight tet. lead to put in your gas, but handle VERY carefully as this stuff is quite hazardous. That's why the EPA is cracking down. (You couldn't pay me enough money to make me want to handle a jug of tet. lead octane booster.) It seems that the EPA crackdown on lead is going to do two things besides improving air quality very slightly. It will put a lot of older cars off the street because they will no longer have gas of a high enough octane to run on. It will also give the oil companies a chance to make a bit more money - older cars which previously ran on regular will now be running on unleaded (if they can), which, I believe, will improve their profit margin. If the EPA ultimately gets _all_ lead out of gasoline and makes it illegal to put lead back in then any engine built before 1975 with a compression ratio over 9.5:1 had better be converted to either straight alcohol or propane, or shelved. Philip Kos Johns Hopkins Hospital Of course, I may be wrong. :-)
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (03/08/85)
>From: dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) >Newsgroups: net.auto,net.consumers >Subject: Re: No Leaded Gas -- Now What? >Message-ID: <147@tove.UUCP> > >RELAX! As I understand it, the only purpose of putting lead into gas is to >raise the octane rating--and one can do that without using lead. I think >EPA is to be commended for taking this step. > >If you fill your car with unleaded gas having an octane rating at least as >high as the leaded gas it normally takes, I believe it will run without any >problems whatsoever. WRONG!! (Now that I have your attention ...) Sorry, but this is not entirely correct. Engines designed to run on leaded gas generally depend on the presence of lead to provide a cushioning effect between the valves and valve-seats. Engines designed for unleaded gas have case-hardened valve seats instead. Running an engine designed for leaded gas on unleaded can seriously damage its valves (i.e.: you'll have to replace them -- not a trivial expense). I expect there's shortly going to be a market for gasoline additives to substitute for the missing lead in cars that require it. -- ============================================================================== The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI If thy CRT offend thee, pluck 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. it out and cast it from thee. Santa Monica, California 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
ron@brl-tgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (03/08/85)
> 1. The octane of gasoline can be raised in two ways. An additive > can be put in (like tetraethyl lead), or it can be refined more. Ahem? Am I missing something here. Are you talking some kind of "effective" octane, or the number that they stick on the gas pump and in the owners manual. If you mean the latter, I don't think adding all the lead in the world is going to change it. > 2. Unleaded gasoline has been around longer than a lot of people > think. Supposedly, Standard Premium (Amoco for you modern types) > was unleaded as early as the 1960's. This was a _real_ high- > octane premium gasoline, not the 91 or 92 octane "super" gas > we're stuck with today, unless we happen to be lucky enough to > have Super 76 in our area. (The last real premium gas I saw was > at Mars stations in St. Louis in 1981.) Again, my car would run poorly on the pre-catalytic converter AMERICAN lead-free gas while doing fine on cheapo leaded regular. > > 5. Today's unleaded regular does tend to have a lower octane > rating than (yesterday's?) leaded regular. This is because of > the economic considerations (see point 1). Eh? Todays unleaded regular at several stations I checked has an octane rating about two points higher than their leaded regular. At the point when you could still get leaded premimum, it was about 4 points above leaded regular. > 7. There are octane boosters which do not use tet. lead for their > kick. These, I believe, mostly use some mixture of methanol and > xylene, with maybe some other stuff thrown in - I'm not an organic > chemist, so don't quote me on the exact recipes. It is also poss- > ible to get straight tet. lead to put in your gas, but handle > VERY carefully as this stuff is quite hazardous. That's why the > EPA is cracking down. (You couldn't pay me enough money to make > me want to handle a jug of tet. lead octane booster.) The EPA never enforced the use of leaded gasolines (and still doesn't) unless your car is equipped with a catalytic converter, which would be rendered useless after a short time using gasolines using phosphorus or lead additives. > Of course, I may be wrong. :-)
sra@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Scott Anderson) (03/08/85)
>> Well, now that the EPA is actually cracking down on leaded gas, let's be >> realistic and assume that soon (too soon) there will be no leaded gas >> available at all. What do I do with my wonderful old '68 VW Ghia that is >> so cheap, reliable, fun to drive (it's not quite stock!), etc? Replace >> the valves and run on unleaded? Find gas additives? Sell it quick? > >RELAX! As I understand it, the only purpose of putting lead into gas is to >raise the octane rating--and one can do that without using lead. I think >EPA is to be commended for taking this step. That is the current purpose of putting the lead in, but people with air-cooled engines (which run at higher temperatures than water-cooled engines) also rely on the lead to provide lubrication for the engine valves, which is what the first quote refers to. I am in the same boat with my '65 Corvair; if the lead isn't there, the engine will deteriorate much more rapidly than otherwise. I have heard, however, that lead is not going to be removed completely, but that there will still be small quantities in gasoline that will be sufficient for lubrication, while being significantly less than the current amount (a few percent, I believe). Some years hence lead *will* be phased out, but by then my Corvair, and his Ghia, should be in their graves. Scott Anderson ihnp4!oddjob!kaos A 20-year old Corvair? That's almost as old as *I* am!
rrh@hocsd.UUCP (r.r.hartoin) (03/08/85)
Reference: <132@ucbcad.UUCP> On this no leaded stuff. I'm in the process of rebuilding the engine in my 69 Buick GS. One of my main objectives is to be able to run on premium unleaded. I understand that new cars have special values which are hollow and filled with sodium? Does this help decrease combustion chamber temps? If so, does this aid running on unleaded. I would also like a combustion ratio of 10:1, currently the engine has 10.25:1. Any help on how I can rebuild this engine to burn unleaded gas would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance.
niemi@astroatc.UUCP (03/08/85)
> > > Well, now that the EPA is actually cracking down on leaded gas... > > ...... Well over 99% of the engines still running today > will run just fine on unleaded gas. I think so too. I beleive the valve lubrication argument is a red herring unless you are driving a racing car under racing conditions. > > .....This leaves many people with older high-compression > engines out in the cold, as it were. Yup! Both of them. My ONLY worry over the proposed demise of leaded gas is a feul source for outboard motors. Both my outboards (1966 Johnson 100 hp, and 1974 Johnson 15 hp) must run regular LEADED gasoline according to the instruction book. I don't know why (but I would like to find out.) What are the alternatives to leaded gas in outboards? Bob Niemi, Astronautics, Madison WI ...!uwvax!astroatc!niemi
wanttaja@ssc-vax.UUCP (Ronald J Wanttaja) (03/08/85)
> Your friend who buys 100 octane leaded gasoline at the airport will > find that leaded aviation fuel is also being phased out. Most > airports now only carry what is called 100-LL or Low-Lead. It has > about 10% of the lead contained in standard 100-grade Av-gas. This > is causing problems with older airplane engines. I guess Low Lead > is better than no-lead if you need it, however. Incidentally, > 100-LL costs about $2.00 per gallon in the Northeast. > The 100 octane low-lead (100LL) was originally designed to be used in airplanes which required 80 octane leaded fuel... which was being phased out by major fuel refiners. I don't believe it was intended to be used in those A/C engines which require 100 oct. leaded fuel. In itself, 100LL is NOTORIOUS for causing lead problems in the older (80 octane burning) engines. It's not as bad as the leaded variety, but even engines designed to operate on the 100LL have problems (the Cessna 152, for instance). There has been a reverse in the decline of 80 octane, it's readily available at most airports. However, I would agree that auto engines designed to run on premium leaded could probably take 100LL with no lead problems. Ron Wanttaja (ssc-vax!wanttaja) Don't tell me not to burn the candle at both ends; tell me where to find more wax!
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/09/85)
In article <168@osiris.UUCP> phil@osiris.UUCP (Philip Kos) writes: >>> Well, now that the EPA is actually cracking down on leaded gas, let's be >>> realistic and assume that soon (too soon) there will be no leaded gas >>> available at all. What do I do with my wonderful old '68 VW Ghia that is >>> so cheap, reliable, fun to drive (it's not quite stock!), etc? Replace >>> the valves and run on unleaded? Find gas additives? Sell it quick? I wish I had an answer. I'm selling mine, not due to the lead reduction, but it does happen to be an opportune time. Still, I'll miss it... >>RELAX! As I understand it, the only purpose of putting lead into gas is to >>raise the octane rating--and one can do that without using lead. I think >>EPA is to be commended for taking this step. EPA is not to be commended for anything. I think they need a head on their shoulders but they haven't found one with small enough brains yet. Cars are not the largest contributor to air pollution today, but they *are* an easy target for EPA and that's why we get hit. However, they could have just clamped down on new cars and allowed those of us running older cars to keep running them on leaded gas. > 4. One of the main arguments for keeping leaded gasoline around > is that the lead helps lubricate the valves. I don't believe > that the people who ran unleaded through their high-compression, > high-rpm MGA Twincam engines in 1961 had any trouble with valves > from not having any lead in their gas. An argument could possi- > bly be made that a box-stock 1943 Chrysler inline 6 will last > longer if it burns leaded regular, but how many box-stock 1943 > Chrysler inline 6's have you driven today? Well over 99% of > the engines still running today will run just fine on unleaded > gas. I don't buy the 99% figure. There are a *lot* of first-generation Volkswagens still around, as well as Corvairs and older Porsches. Even the VW Vanagons of only a few years back had the air-cooled engines (the new ones come with the Wasserboxer engines). All of these cars have engines that run much hotter than a modern water-cooled engine and thus require the added lubrication of the lead additives. In addition to these cars, many of the older water-cooleds still need the lead as well. I believe that the number of cars requiring lead is probably around 5%. > 5. Today's unleaded regular does tend to have a lower octane > rating than (yesterday's?) leaded regular. This is because of > the economic considerations (see point 1). It is quite possible > to make unleaded gas with an octane rating equivalent to regular > leaded, or even higher - see most gasoline stations for examples > of this. This "unleaded premium", however, is _not_ the equal of > the old-fashioned leaded premium, which is a point that a lot of > people have been trying to make. Unleaded gas of a sufficiently > high octane just is not commercially available at this time. > This leaves many people with older high-compression engines out > in the cold, as it were. This is also why people have been mixing > gas for some few years now. So I will be able to take a, say, 1980 Rabbit, which now uses leaded gas, to a gas station and buy premium unleaded and get the same octane rating as from leaded regular. This is truly wonderful (thanks EPA!) as it'll only cost mne 10% more than the leaded gas would have. Not to mention those high-compression engines (with ratios around 10.0) who will not likely be able to run anything except aviation gas without engine mods to reduce compression. > 7. There are octane boosters which do not use tet. lead for their > kick. These, I believe, mostly use some mixture of methanol and > xylene, with maybe some other stuff thrown in - I'm not an organic > chemist, so don't quote me on the exact recipes. It is also poss- > ible to get straight tet. lead to put in your gas, but handle > VERY carefully as this stuff is quite hazardous. That's why the > EPA is cracking down. (You couldn't pay me enough money to make > me want to handle a jug of tet. lead octane booster.) This may yet become a big business, with gas stations getting yet another chance to rip off the consumer by selling gas additives which boost the octane rating and/or lubrication. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (03/11/85)
AAARGGHHHH! Let me set the record straight on aviation fuel --
The standard aviation fuel these days is called 100LL. It is rated
on a different octane scale than automotive fuel, but is still higher
octane than your everyday automotive stuff. The octane is boosted
both by lead and by aromatics.
Here's why you probably don't want to use it (most important first):
1) it costs about $2.10 per gallon;
2) you can only get it at an airport;
3) the airport people probably won't sell it to you anyway, because
a) it might be illegal in your state, road fuel taxes not having been
collected from aviation fuel;
b) they have shortages and consider filling planes as top
priority (not a big problem right now)
4) It is not made with different blends for different seasons in
different locales, as automotive is -- the Reid Vapor Pressure
is constant all the time, to prevent vapor lock when flying at
20,000 feet or whatever. That means it won't vaporize very well
in your carburetor at 5 below zero, and starting will be a b**ch.
5) The fuel uses ethylene di-bromide instead of ethylene di-chloride, or
is it the other way around? I don't know why you'd care.
You can tune out unless you want to hear about the historical aspects
of aviation fuel...
Over the decades there have been a half-dozen different grades of
aviation fuel, but for the last quarter century only 80/87 and 100/130
were significant. Even so, refiners & distributors disliked having
to deal with two different grades of fuel, both in (relatively) small
quantities. So 100LL was developed, a one-size-fits-all aviation
fuel. Over the last 15 years, virtually all aviation fuel refiners
have switched to 100LL. The only major refiner that hasn't is
Standard of California (Chevron).
100LL doesn't work very well in engines intended for 80/87 grade fuel,
because it still contains 4 times as much lead as 80/87. The result
is heavy lead fouling of spark plugs. This is not nice, because these
engines are typically found only on single-engine planes, and are
4-bangers. The loss of firing in one cylinder means a 25% power loss.
That means it's time for the pilot to find an airport nearby.
Most of those engine designs are long out of production. The one that
wasn't, the Lycoming O-235, started being produced with new valves
which were supposed to permit using 100LL. It didn't work.
Three years ago the FAA started approving, after model-by-model reviews,
using automotive fuel in airplanes whose engines were designed for
80/87. This process is almost complete, with only a few models which
prefer 80/87 and cannot legally use auto gas left. The big losers:
the O-235-L owners who get lead fouling from 100LL and can't use
either 80/87 or auto gas!
--
Doug Pardee -- Terak Corp. -- !{hao,ihnp4,decvax}!noao!terak!dougrick@cadtec.UUCP (Rick Auricchio) (03/11/85)
gned for
80-octane leaded gas are now experiencing stuck exhaust valves, presumably
due to the limited availability of 80-avgas. Most airports now have only
100/130 leaded or 100-Lowlead gas. The 100/130 is slightly higher octane,
but has twice as much lead as 100-LL.
The old 80 had something like 0.5cc metallic lead/gallon, while 100LL has
2cc/gal, and 100/130 has 4cc/gal! (I think these are the figures; I'm
more sure of the proportions rather than the actual number of cc's.)
Basically, the problem with older planes has been lead deposits on the
valves. This is probably caused by the larger quantity of lead in the
newer gasolines, and by the lower combustion temp (or delayed burn) of
the air/fuel mixture.
My aircraft was designed to use either 100LL or 100/130; since the lead
is lower in 100LL (and that's all my home airport has), I use it.
When I fill up with 64 gallons of 100LL, I figure I'm carrying about
3.3 POUNDS of metallic lead! Some of that is bound to end up in my
already looney brain. I'll go for lower lead all the time, thanks.
=======================================================================
Opinions expressed above are my own; nobody else is foolish enough.
Rick Auricchio Cadtec Corp. 2355 Old Oakland Rd, San Jose CA 95131
{decwrl!nsc,csi,onyx,teklds}!cadtec!rick N1150G (408) 942-1535
"This space available"jeff@rtech.ARPA (Jeff Lichtman) (03/11/85)
> I understand that new cars have special values which are hollow > and filled with sodium? Does this help decrease combustion chamber > temps? The sodium inside such valves melts when it gets hot, and convects inside the valve. This convection helps cool the valve by carrying heat up the stem where the valve can be cooled better. This can help prevent knocking (hot valves can cause the fuel to ignite prematurely). It can also help keep the valves from burning. I don't think it would do much to solve the lack of cushioning and lubrication in the valve seat caused by the lack of lead. -- Jeff Lichtman at rtech (Relational Technology, Inc.) aka Swazoo Koolak
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/12/85)
In article <136@astroatc.UUCP> niemi@astroatc.UUCP writes: >My ONLY worry over the proposed demise of leaded gas is a feul >source for outboard motors. Both my outboards (1966 Johnson >100 hp, and 1974 Johnson 15 hp) must run regular LEADED gasoline >according to the instruction book. I don't know why (but I would >like to find out.) What are the alternatives to leaded gas in >outboards? I know why. Because they're air-cooled motors, run at high temperatures and hence need lead for lubrication. Did you know that there are also air-cooled engines in cars, too? If you don't believe me, ask someone who owns a VW Bug/Type 2/Type 3/411/412, a Corvair or a Porsche 356/911/912/914. It's true! They *do* need leaded gas! \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (03/12/85)
> EPA is not to be commended for anything. I think they need a head on > their shoulders but they haven't found one with small enough brains > yet. Cars are not the largest contributor to air pollution today, but > they *are* an easy target for EPA and that's why we get hit. However, > they could have just clamped down on new cars and allowed those of us > running older cars to keep running them on leaded gas. According to a recent article in the Washington Post, lead from car exhausts is responsible for symptoms of low-level lead poisoning (hypertension, for example) in people who live in metropolitan areas. To me, that sounds rather serious, and I'm glad EPA is doing something about it. -- Dana S. Nau ARPA: dsn@maryland Computer Science Dept. CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs University of Maryland UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn College Park, MD 20742 Phone: (301) 454-7932
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) (03/12/85)
>From: rrh@hocsd.UUCP (r.r.hartoin) >Newsgroups: net.auto,net.consumers >Subject: Re: No Leaded Gas -- Now What? >Message-ID: <252@hocsd.UUCP> > >On this no leaded stuff. I'm in the process of rebuilding the engine >in my 69 Buick GS. One of my main objectives is to be able to run on premium >unleaded. I understand that new cars have special values which are hollow >and filled with sodium? Does this help decrease combustion chamber >temps? If so, does this aid running on unleaded. I would also like >a combustion ratio of 10:1, currently the engine has 10.25:1. >Any help on how I can rebuild this engine to burn unleaded gas >would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance. Sodium filled exhaust valves have been used in engines on cars and airplanes for decades and have nothing to do with gas lead content. The sodium is there to provide convective cooling of the valve head and doesn't affect combustion chamber temperature significantly. To run unleaded gas, replace your old valves and valve seats with the case- hardened type designed for unleaded. Changing the compression ratio of your cylinders means changing their physical geometry. This can be done by using a crankshaft with a different throw and/or by using different pistons. (Milling the cylinder heads will raise the compression ratio -- not what you want.) -- ============================================================================== The Polymath (Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI If thy CRT offend thee, pluck 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. it out and cast it from thee. Santa Monica, California 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {vortex,philabs}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/14/85)
In article <263@ttidcc.UUCP> hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (Jerry Hollombe) writes: >To run unleaded gas, replace your old valves and valve seats with the case- >hardened type designed for unleaded. These are not always available. I have not seen any unleaded-type valves for VW Bugs (which would really need them due to high cylinder head temperatures). And I've seen a LOT of different typese of valves available, in many sizes and materials. All for leaded gas. Maybe there will be some for unleaded too Real Soon Now since EPA has decided what we're allowed to drive. >Changing the compression ratio of your cylinders means changing their >physical geometry. This can be done by using a crankshaft with a different >throw and/or by using different pistons. (Milling the cylinder heads will >raise the compression ratio -- not what you want.) The compression ratio can sometimes also be changed by adding head spacers. At least for (air-cooled) Porsches and VWs you can purchase spacers to lower your compression. This is necessary if you have a way oversize engine (such as a 2180 or 2331 cc) with an inherently higher compression ratio and want to use regular gas. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (03/15/85)
[]
"EPA is not to be commended for anything. I think they need a
head on their shoulders but they haven't found one with small
enough brains yet. Cars are not the largest contributor to air
pollution today, but they *are* an easy target for EPA and
that's why we get hit. However, they could have just clamped
down on new cars and allowed those of us running older cars to
keep running them on leaded gas."
I for one applaud the EPA move.
Cars *are* the largest contributor to air pollution in many parts of
the US, including Southern California where they account for 60% of
smog.
The EPA *did* try clamping down on new cars only. The result was the
some 20% of new car owners ignored the law and put leaded gasoline into
their "unleaded only" cars, risking a $2000 fine if caught.
But the bottom line for me is that kids in urban areas are showing
the effects of lead poisoning. Even if we had to junk every car on the
road, I'd say it's worth it to clean up their air.
(By the way, why is someone in Ontario complaining about gas
availability in the US?)
-- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!orca!andrew) [UUCP]
(orca!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]marke@sun.uucp (Marke Clinger) (03/15/85)
I think part of the reason for putting lead in gas is for lubrication. I accidently filled my tank with 92octane unleaded one morning(it was about four and I was on my way home from work). My 1967 Ford Mustang with a 289 v8, which has 175,000 miles on the original engine, never ran better. My car had been smoking a little when I first start it and due to a long over due tune up was pinging. With the unleaded gas the pinging went away and so did the smoking. I had better acceleration and the gas milage went down. Marke Clinger sun!mclinger
dca@edison.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) (03/15/85)
> > EPA is not to be commended for anything. I think they need a head on > > their shoulders but they haven't found one with small enough brains > > yet. Cars are not the largest contributor to air pollution today, but > > they *are* an easy target for EPA and that's why we get hit. However, > > they could have just clamped down on new cars and allowed those of us > > running older cars to keep running them on leaded gas. > > According to a recent article in the Washington Post, lead from car exhausts > is responsible for symptoms of low-level lead poisoning (hypertension, for > example) in people who live in metropolitan areas. To me, that sounds > rather serious, and I'm glad EPA is doing something about it. > -- I too am glad they are doing something. Attacking some of the problem is certainly better than doing nothing at all. Maybe I missed something but it was my impression that the EPA is not eliminating leaded gas but rather that the economic factors due to the fact that all the new cars use unleaded gas is making it uneconomical to produce because of lowered demand. I had heard rumors, however, of the EPA possibly getting gasoline producers to lower the amount of lead to the minimum amount required for lubrication of the valves (which is apparently a small amount). David Albrecht
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (03/17/85)
I think the EPA decision stinks. They used the wrong solution for a
problem which may be real. What's the problem? People using leaded
gas in cars designed for unleaded. Why? Because it's cheaper. How
can we stop them? It's already illegal. We can ban leaded gas. Or,
we can tax leaded gas til it's more expensive than unleaded.
That way, people who really think they need leaded will be able to
get it. But people who only use it because it's cheaper will switch
to unleaded. And the government gets more money and (ha ha) can reduce
taxes on other goods.
I think the problem of lead in the environment will be greatly reduced
when leaded gas costs more than unleaded. EPA sucks.
--
A man without a woman is still a man. But a woman without a man is nothing.
Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720
UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil
ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPAjackh@zehntel.UUCP (jack hagerty) (03/19/85)
> Even if we had to junk every car on the > road, I'd say it's worth it to clean up their air. > > (By the way, why is someone in Ontario complaining about gas > availability in the US?) > Why is someone with your opinion of cars wasting time reading net.auto? -- Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Automation Systems ...!ihnp4!zehntel!jackh
paul@dual.UUCP (Baker) (03/19/85)
> I think the EPA decision stinks. They used the wrong solution for a > problem which may be real. What's the problem? The problem is smelly, stinking, murderous automobiles spewing lead all over everything. The EPA made a good start at least. > A man without a woman is still a man. But a woman without a man is nothing. Whatever is this supposed to mean? Paul Wilcox-Baker.
smk@axiom.UUCP (Steven M. Kramer) (03/19/85)
> From: andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) > Subject: Re: No Leaded Gas -- Now What? > Date: Fri, 15-Mar-85 00:25:09 EST > > Cars *are* the largest contributor to air pollution in many parts of > the US, including Southern California where they account for 60% of > smog. In what part of the country do trees cause the most pollution (besides the White House of course). :-) -- --steve kramer {allegra,genrad,ihnp4,utzoo,philabs,uw-beaver}!linus!axiom!smk (UUCP) linus!axiom!smk@mitre-bedford (MIL)
dsn@tove.UUCP (Dana S. Nau) (03/20/85)
> > Even if we had to junk every car on the > > road, I'd say it's worth it to clean up their air. > > > > (By the way, why is someone in Ontario complaining about gas > > availability in the US?) > > > > Why is someone with your opinion of cars wasting time reading net.auto? > > -- > Jack Hagerty, Zehntel Automation Systems > ...!ihnp4!zehntel!jackh I would imagine he was responding to the posting on net.consumers, not net.auto. By the way: remember all those newspaper stories about children getting lead poisoning from old lead paint? My girlfriend -- who is an epidemiologist -- says that the cause was not lead paint. It seems that car exhausts put lead in the air and on the ground, and then the kids go out and play in the streets and get their hands dirty, and whenever they put their hands in their mouths they get a dose of lead. -- Dana S. Nau ARPA: dsn@maryland Computer Science Dept. CSNet: dsn@umcp-cs University of Maryland UUCP: {seismo,allegra,brl-bmd}!umcp-cs!dsn College Park, MD 20742 Phone: (301) 454-7932
haapanen@watdcsu.UUCP (Tom Haapanen [DCS]) (03/20/85)
In article <1400@orca.UUCP> andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) writes: >(By the way, why is someone in Ontario complaining about gas >availability in the US?) Because Environment Canada will follow slavishly in the footsteps of the EPA. \tom haapanen watmath!watdcsu!haapanen Don't cry, don't do anything No lies, back in the government No tears, party time is here again President Gas is up for president (c) Psychedelic Furs, 1982
seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) (03/20/85)
Most engines have had hardened valves for years and years. no
problem there for most cars less than 20-30 years old. (antiques
are another story) That doesn't means that no-lead is ok for them,
however. For several years, many engines rotated the valves,
which reduced various problems. Engines that rotate their valves
HAVE TO HAVE LEADED GAS. period.
When no-lead became popular/necessary, the engine designers had to
take out the valve rotators. It's interesting to look at how various
companies accomplished valve rotation. Detroit used rather complicated
Rube Goldberg type things, that appear to be a failure waiting to happen.
Turn the page and learn how Volkwagon did it. They just put the
rocker arm slightly off-center. Simplicity itself. No additional parts
to fail, cost more, complicate assembly, etc.
So, before you feed your classic a steady diet of no-lead, check to see
if the valves are rotated.
As far as keeping bozos from putting leaded gas into cars with
cat-verters, they don't need to ban lead totally, just make unleaded
cheaper.
_____
|___| the Bavarian Beagle
_|___|_ Snoopy
\_____/ tektronix!mako!seifert
\___/
If God had intended Man to Smoke, He would have set him on Fire.
-the fortune AI projectklein@ucbcad.UUCP (03/22/85)
> Engines that rotate their valves > HAVE TO HAVE LEADED GAS. period. Can you give a specific reason why this is true? I know the books I read say the valve rotation is good because it keeps the valve heads and seats wearing evenly (like grinding a lens). What does this have to do with lead? -- -Mike Klein ...!ucbvax!ucbmerlin:klein (UUCP) klein%ucbmerlin@berkeley (ARPA)
hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP (The Polymath) (03/23/85)
>From: seifert@mako.UUCP (Snoopy) >Newsgroups: net.auto,net.consumers >Subject: Re: No Leaded Gas -- Now What? >Message-ID: <655@mako.UUCP> >As far as keeping bozos from putting leaded gas into cars with >cat-verters, they don't need to ban lead totally, just make unleaded >cheaper. I drive a '67 Chevy II station wagon these days. A few years ago, the original engine gave up (after 200K miles) and I decided to bite the bullet and put in a new one. $1500 later I had a new '78 engine in my '67 heap. Creature of habit that I am (and starving student that I was), I continued to use leaded regular, not realizing that the '78 engine was designed for unleaded. After a year or two of rough running, hard starting, missing, and general aggravation, I tried a tank of unleaded regular (I was no longer a starving student, so what the hell?). That's when I made this (embarassing) discovery: An engine designed for unleaded gas runs best on unleaded gas. THE DIFFERENCE IN MILEAGE MORE THAN MAKES UP FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN PRICE. Not to mention the reduced maintenance due to lead fouling of plugs, valves, etc. I hope some of the above mentioned bozos read this. One more time: IT IS CHEAPER TO RUN AN ENGINE MEANT FOR UNLEADED ON UNLEADED THAN ON LEADED. Got that? -- -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- The Polymath (aka: Jerry Hollombe) Citicorp TTI 3100 Ocean Park Blvd. Santa Monica, CA 90405 (213) 450-9111, ext. 2483 {philabs,randvax,trwrb,vortex}!ttidca!ttidcc!hollombe
jer@peora.UUCP (J. Eric Roskos) (03/27/85)
> The EPA never enforced the use of leaded gasolines (and still doesn't) > unless your car is equipped with a catalytic converter ... I don't think this is true. I have a 1980 Honda Accord. The 1980 Accord (and earlier models) don't have a catalytic converter, because they have a stratified charge engine which passed the emissions requirements without it. Up till the 1980 model, they were allowed to use leaded gasoline; but the 1980 requires unleaded gasoline eventhough there is no catalytic converter present. (This does not apply to the California model, which did have one even in 1980). -- Full-Name: J. Eric Roskos UUCP: ..!{decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4}!vax135!petsd!peora!jer US Mail: MS 795; Perkin-Elmer SDC; 2486 Sand Lake Road, Orlando, FL 32809-7642