mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: To lead or not?

To: Denise Thorpe <thorpe@kegs.saic.com>
Subject: Re: To lead or not?
From: "Christopher W. Reichle" <Christopher.W.Reichle@students.Miami.EDU>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 1995 09:55:03 -0400 (EDT)
The difference between the late and early model heads regarding use of 
unleaded gas is hardened seats. The lead in the gas helped lubricate the 
valves. Without it, older heads can suffer from reccession of the valve 
seats over time. I don't know of anyone that has had this problem even 
though they are using unleaded. Personally, I think that gas additives 
are a pain, expensive, and in the long run do more damage than good. I 
second Denise's suggestion.

Chris

On Mon, 2 Oct 1995, Denise Thorpe wrote:

> Tom asked:
> 
> > As a new owner of an old MG, I have been adding lead substitute to my gas 
>(no 
> > real lead in it, cheap Walmart stuff - can't remember the brand name off 
>hand). 
> > Do I really not need to do this?  If not, why does Victoria British sell 
>this 
> > "No lead head"?  What do you other guys do?
> 
> I've heard all of the horror stories about running unleaded gas in an old
> car and I decided to wait for a problem to occur before doing anything
> about it.  You know, if it ain't broke, don't fix it.  I'm still waiting.
> I've been using the same head on my `67 B since `79.  The only work that's 
> been done to it was having the valves ground and the seats cut in '87 which 
> was 70K miles ago.  So I've been running a stock head on my B for the 130K 
> miles that I've put on it (230K total) and I've never burnt a valve or a 
> seat or lost a drop of oil from the top end.  Don't worry, be happy.
> 
> Denise Thorpe
> thorpe@kegs.saic.com
> 

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>