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