Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cae780.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!pesnta!amdcad!cae780!gordon
From: gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon)
Newsgroups: net.auto
Subject: Re: Leaded vs. Unleaded?
Message-ID: <583@cae780.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 8-Mar-85 18:21:46 EST
Article-I.D.: cae780.583
Posted: Fri Mar  8 18:21:46 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Mar-85 08:11:54 EST
References: <496@hou2e.UUCP>
Reply-To: gordon@cae780.UUCP (Brian Gordon)
Distribution: na
Organization: CAE Systems, Sunnyvale, CA
Lines: 19
Keywords: lead, lubrication, levels
Summary: New lead levels are supposed to be ok for lubrication

In article <496@hou2e.UUCP> pauldan@hou2e.UUCP (P.SAUNDERS) writes:
>
>>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.
>
>Okay, but what about the lubricating properties of leaded gasoline?  Not too
>many older engines are gonna survive the change to unleaded.

Months ago, the articles I read in the papers stated that the amount of lead
needed for proper lubrication was something like 2% of the amount now used.
Supposedly, the eventual new level (assuming it stays > 0 :-) ) will be
sufficient for all cars which need the lead for lubrication purposes.

FROM:   Brian G. Gordon, CAE Systems
UUCP:   {ihnp4, decvax!decwrl}!amd!cae780!gordon 
        {nsc, resonex, qubix, hplabs, leadsv, teklds}!cae780!gordon 
USNAIL: 1333 Bordeaux Drive, Sunnyvale, CA  94089
AT&T:   (408)745-1440