Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site rduxb.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!rduxb!williams From: williams@rduxb.UUCP (WILLIAMS) Newsgroups: net.auto Subject: UNLEADED GAS - THE STRAIGHT SCOOP Message-ID: <293@rduxb.UUCP> Date: Thu, 7-Mar-85 21:51:27 EST Article-I.D.: rduxb.293 Posted: Thu Mar 7 21:51:27 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 9-Mar-85 06:30:34 EST Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Reading, PA Lines: 28 So far the talk about unleaded vs leaded gas has been either "your engine is doomed," or "no effect at all" when using unleaded. Well, it's really like this: Yes, tetraethyl lead does have lubricating properties that benefit the valve seat. But newer cars have different (harder) valve seat material, so unleaded gas doesn't matter. As far as unleaded gas and OLDER cars, the lack of lead in the gas causes long- term wear (I've read 50K+ miles to see an effect). The way I figure it, if it's some classic car you're worried about, it probably doesn't get driven enough to matter. Otherwise, who cares what happens to some old beater with a couple of hundred thousand miles in it :-) If you really do want to put a lot of miles on a leaded gas era car, you can have the machine shop put in a harder material for the valve seats. Big bucks though! Personally, I'd rather run the high-test unleaded in my fresh '69 Camaro 350 4-bbl. to prevent the destructive detonation from occurring, than a lower-octane leaded. That way my $2000 worth of machine shop work and new parts won't self destruct before I dump another couple of $K into the body :-) Doug Williams AT&T Bell Labs Reading, PA rduxb!williams