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