So does this apply to the L head 8 in my 49 Imperial or only to the V8's that came after? -------------- Original message ---------------------- From: PAUL WENTINK <randalpark@xxxxxxx> > It sounds like what I was told was correct. That means that 1955 models > and earlier can be run on unleaded gas without ill effects, unless the > heads have been reconditioned or replaced at some point with those from > a '56 model. > > As far as the "who done it?" I guess we will never know, as he/she is > probably in accounting heaven by now. > > Paul W. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Burt Bouwkamp <northburt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 7:41 pm > Subject: Re: IML: Lead additive > > > > Paul, > > You reminded me of "the rest of the story". > > I started at Chrysler in 1949. After two years of on-the-job training I > started a regular job as an engineer in the Engine Development > Laboratory. > My specific job was as a project engineer on the development of the > Dodge > Red Ram V-8 hemi engine. At that time (1950-51) it was standard > practice to > put hardened exhaust valve seat inserts in all our engines. Then > somebody - > I don't know who - discovered that with leaded gasoline the hardened > valve > seats were not required.'' So - we took the hardened valve seats out to > save > the money. Then - along came unleaded gasoline and we were in valve seat > wear trouble so we induction hardened (cheaper than a hardened insert) > the > valve seat area. > > The mystery in all this is - who was smart enough to know/learn that > valve > seat inserts were not needed with leaded gas? > > Burt Bouwkamp > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "PAUL WENTINK" <randalpark@xxxxxxx> > To: <mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 3:46 PM > Subject: Re: IML: Lead additive > > > This post from Burt corresponds exactly with my understanding of the > situation regarding unleaded gas and our cars. > > I will also add that I have been told that through 1955, Chrysler > automobiles were able to withstand unleaded gas. This wasn't > deliberate, but rather it was after that the engineers realized that > since lead prevented valve and valve seat wear, hardened valves and > seats were not necessary. Beginning in 1956, the cylinder heads were > changed slightly as a cost saving measure. The engines built from then > on required leaded fuel to prevent wear for extended high speed > driving. I would like to know if anyone has also heard this or knows it > to be true. Remember, lead wasn't added to prevent valve and valve seat > wear. It was added to eliminate pre-ignition and increase the octane > levels. The fact that it also allowed for a cost reduction in producing > engines was a bonus for the bean counters. > > I drove various Imperials as everyday cars in the '70s & '80s, mostly > my '56 & '65 models. It was in the late 1980's that leaded gas vanished > from our area. I began using Bardahl Instead-o-Lead with each fill up. > At the time, it was rated as a quality product. Also, the speed limits > were Federally regulated at 55, so whether this additive actually > worked or not, the engines were not working hard enough to cause much > damage due to unleaded gas. I discovered that I was using too much of > the product and eventually it caused the cars not to run well. I had > the tanks drained and discontinued using it. There are probably two or > three unused cases somewhere in my garage. > > These days, there are 75 mph speed limits, which means some folks are > going to drive 80. I think driving our cars using unleaded gas for > extended periods at these speeds will cause accelerated valve and valve > seat wear. Rather than relying on an extra cost additive, I plan to > take it easy on the road. When the cars require valve work, I'll have > the cylinder heads reconditioned with hardened valves and valve seats. > > I believe that this is the only truly correct approach for me to take, > particularly since most of my cars are around the point where they > would be needing valve work as part of the regular maintenance of the > engine anyway. > > Paul W. > > Paul W. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Burt Bouwkamp <northburt@xxxxxxxxxxx> > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Sent: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 12:42 pm > Subject: Re: IML: Lead additive > > > > Michael, > > > > When we developed and tested the Chrysler engines in the 1950's and > 1960's we did it with a tetra ethyl lead additive (3 cc's per gallon I > think) in the gasoline. It worked - in fact the engine relied on the > lead deposits to avoid valve seat wear at high engine HP outputs. (Wide > open throttle at high engine speeds results in high valve temperature > and high speed valve action.) > > > > Young engineers - such as myself - did not know that lead was providing > this benefit until we started testing engines with "no lead" gasoline. > Valve seat recession during testing due to wear required us to > harden valve seats or add hardened inserts to production engines to use > unleaded gasoline. You probably remember that the auto and petroleum > industry used a lead additive - until it was banned - because it was > the cheapest way to produce gasoline with the octane rating that we > wanted. > > > > I don't know what happens to valve seat wear when you add Marvel > Mystery Oil or ATF to the gasoline. I use am STP Lead Additive in the > gas tank of my old cars but they are driven so few miles - and usually > below 60 MPH - that I doubt that it makes any difference. I only do it > because I have personally inspected durability test engines (with > around 1,000 hours operation) with more than 1/4" of valve seat wear > due to testing with unleaded fuel. If I ever have the engine rebuilt in > my 1968 Dodge Charger I will have hardened valve seat inserts added. > > > > Burt Bouwkamp > > > > ---- Original Message ----- > > > From: Michael Alexander > > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Sent: Monday, October 29, 2007 1:01 PM > > Subject: RE: IML: Lead additive > > > > > > I just bought a bottle of Lead Additive at Advance Auto, which says on > the bottle â??for older cars which need leaded gasâ??. Anyone have any > experience with this product? > > I guess my choices for the 1952 Imperial are: Marvel Mystery Oil, ATF, > or this stuff. Online voting begin!!! > > Seriously though, thanks, > > Michael Alexander > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > From: mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > [mailto:mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gary Wilson > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 10:01 PM > To: mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IML: Recession Unleaded Gas: MMO vs. ATF > > > > > > I don't know about running a qt of oil thu the tank but ATF works real > well because it is a high detergent and helps coat the valves seat like > leaded gas use to do. > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > From: YBSHORE@xxxxxxx > > > > To: mailing-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2007 6:17 AM > > > > Subject: IML: Recession Unleaded Gas: MMO vs. ATF > > > > > > > > > Fellow Imperialists: > > > > > > > > On my 1956 Imperial w/354 Hemi/Torqueflite 3 speed combo, I run a > Marvel Mystery Oil blend through the fuel tank at every fill-up > according to the specs on the bottle and have had great luck with it [I > use it as well in the motor oil] and change the oil quite often, every > 1500 miles. I wonder, though, if it is providing the same degree of > 'engine maintenance' that the ATF does/would do with a periodic run > through. Any thoughts? > > > > > > > > Jack > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > In a message dated 10/25/2007 9:03:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, > randalpark@xxxxxxx writes: > > > > like the idea of running a quart of oil through the gas once in a > while. I have found that it does improve performance. > > Paul W. > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage. > > > > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - > http://mail.aol.com > > ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com ----------------- > This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please > reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be > shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the > Administrators should be sent to iml.webmonster@xxxxxxxxx > To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm > > > > ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com ----------------- > This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please > reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be > shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the > Administrators should be sent to iml.webmonster@xxxxxxxxx > To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm > > > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Email and AIM finally together. You've gotta check out free AOL Mail! - > http://mail.aol.com > > ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com ----------------- > This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please > reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be > shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the > Administrators should be sent to iml.webmonster@xxxxxxxxx > To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm > ----------------- http://www.imperialclub.com ----------------- This message was sent to you by the Imperial Mailing List. Please reply to mailing-list@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and your response will be shared with everyone. Private messages (and attachments) for the Administrators should be sent to iml.webmonster@xxxxxxxxx To UN-SUBSCRIBE, go to http://imperialclub.com/unsubscribe.htm