Conference terri::cars_uk

This may already have been mentioned, but I can't be bothered to read all the
replies to check...

Something I discovered yesterday is that "unleaded" and "lead-free" petrol are
not the same thing, viz:

"Leaded" petrol has 0.15 g/litre of lead added during production

"Unleaded" petrol has no lead added during production, but still contains the
    "natural" lead present in the crude oil.

"Lead-free" petrol, not readily available in the UK at present, has the
    "natural" lead removed in production, adn contains no lead at all.

As the two latter terms tend to be used interchangeably, I thought noters might
like to be aware of the difference...

I have also heard that producing "unleaded" petrol to a high enough grade
consumes more energy and casues more pollution in production than all the cars
burning leaded petrol.  Also, removing all the lead is even worse.
Is this true?

Finally, although I suppose this belongs in a different note, I saw it being
discussed in earlier replies to this one: what is "magneto ignition"?
(Pointers to an existing reply welcome!)

Scott

       There is a note in here somewhere pointing out that "Lead Free" is
       not the same as "Unleaded", but it's worth mentioning again.

       As you've taken the trouble to reply here, would you like to
       extract your note and mail it to
       William Woolard, C/o Top Gear, BBC TV.

       Ian.

       If I had 10 pence for everytime William Woollard has said "lead
       free petrol" on Top Gear when he meant "unleaded" ...

       

       ... I'd have �3.40p by now.

       Ian.

What is the difference?

Simon

    Re: .222
    
    AAaaarrrrgghhhhh

    re .222
    
    Unleaded = not leaded = no(t) lead added    (but trace lead still
    present)
    
    
    Lead Free = No lead      (trace lead removed)
    
    Chris

Hi,

	I've just read througth all 225 replies in the hope that someone will
have already mentioned a gadget one of my friends is trying to sell me but 
no-one seems to have mentioned it yet. Apparently on top gear and 
tomorrows world earlier this year. (Did anyone see it). It is called 
black-cat or power-plus and supposed to allow any car to run on unleaded or
whatever without any valve seat mods or timing adjustment !!
	I don't know much about the technicalities yet, but this thing is 
supposed to go just before the carb and preconditions the fuel. It cons the
engine into thinking the petrol is higher octane than it  really is and also
adds a bit of tin to the fuel (this is supposed to lubricate the valves in the
same way that lead did).
	Does anyone else know about this or is it just a figment of my mates 
brain? 

	Dave (CSC Basingstoke)

	I've read test reports about a number of devices that claim to
	do this.  Some get inserted in the fuel feed and some get dumped
	in the petrol tank.  None of the reports that I have read said that
	they were any good ie an engine not designed to run unleaded got
	mangled just as thoroughly with one of these devices as without.
	Although, I can't remember particular brand names.

The only things I've seen are additives you bung in the petrol tank every time
you fill it.  Costs an awful lot and not really worthwhile.  If you *really*
want to run unleaded, get a suitably modified cylinder head (< �150) fitted.
Although a larger initial outlay, it will be cheaper in the long run, as you'd
spend that much each year on the additives.

Scott

    When I got my car serviced at SERVICEMAN in Winchester (at the BR
    carpark) the guy showed me one of these in-line gadgets. It would
    cost about 80 pounds to have fitted, and adds tin to the fuel to
    give the necessary lubrication. It lasts for 150,000 miles. 
    The guy also said that he'd fitted one to his AUDI and that it gave
    better consumption figures...
    
    Paul.

    
    Lotus owners club issued a statement saying not to attempt to use any 
    sort of gadget or additive to allow old engines to run on unleaded, and
    to be wary of all products of this type i.e friction reducers paint
    restorers etc.
    
    
    Alan.
    

.RE 229 sounds like the same gadget I heard about. I was told 150k miles and it
would give better fuel economy also. 

.RE 230 I rang the company, they say that the Petrol companies would  find it 
very expensive to change their manufacturing processes. They have been using
lead for yonks and it probably took loads of time and hassle to get them to 
do unleaded. Maybe they will change oneday. This sound about right to me as
often the big companies often take years to get round to changing things.

.RE 232 I will try and find Classics weekly, do you know why they said it and
did they mention this product (Powerplus) or was it just a general warning?
Btw what other products are there that do the same thing?

Thanks for all the info. BTW one of my friends it going to try it out anyway 
to see what happens (as mines a diesel car anyway).

    
    Actually, Tin is just as bad for you as lead, so there's no
    incentive to change...
    
    Bill.
    
    

    	Almost 20 years ago, we had a competition in the states called the
    "Clean Air Car Race" where vehicles modified by college students were
    driven from Boston to California somewhere. I did the noise measurements
    on the cars at a local airport (Hanscom) with another guy. The winning
    entry was an original style Capri with the South African V8 conversion.
    They said they were running on "lead sterile" gasoline. I've wondered
    about that ever since. Thanks for mentioning the difference between
    lead-free and unleaded. - Chris

    
    I need an opinion, folks (or even better, lots!).
    
    There seems to be some doubt as to whether the Ford Essex V6 2998cc
    engine can be run without suffering a major pain in the wallet on
    unleaded fuel.
    
    The engine has done 51,000 miles, is in good shape mechanically and has
    Lumenition electronic ignition fitted.
    
    My own gut feel is that it can't be done as the valve seats are likely
    to suffer damage from the lack of lead.
    
    Anybody got any alternative ideas?

    
    I asked Ford.
    
    They said that I could run my Essex on Super-Unleaded as long as
    I put a tank of leaded in every third tank. I've run the Marcos
    on this fuel occasionally (it used to be dearer than 4-star) with
    no ill effects.
    
    Mark

	In my house, somewhere, I have the Marlin Owner's Club's 
	information on running Ford engines lead free.  It details it by
	type, year etc.  Mostly, it says if in doubt don't, meanwhile
	one in three or four put leaded in.

    As Unleaded has now become the fashionable fuel to use, anyone any
    thoughts on the relative merits of Unleaded vs Diesel??

    
    Isn't it true that the only real advantage of Unleaded is that it
    is taxed a lot less? Ok, it doesn't contain lead, but beyond that
    it is as bad as leaded petrol (certainly it doesn't reduce the 
    'Greenhouse' gases your car emits, unless you have a Cat, but that
    isn't the question here is it).
    
    Mark

    Re .240
�    'Greenhouse' gases your car emits, unless you have a Cat, but that
                                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Afraid that isn't true either...
    
    The 'cat' converts certain of the emissions from the engine, but it
    does not reduce 'greenhouse' gases (of which CO2 is one of the worst).
    
    It appears that there is no *real* evidence that lead in petrol does
    actually cause any problems (re brain development), so unleaded petrol
    does not help the environment in any useful way.
    What it does do, is allow cars to use cat. convertors, which do help
    the environment a bit - but still not as much as the general public
    are <lead> to believe.
    
    Advertising has a lot to answer for.
    
    J.R.

    � It appears that there is no *real* evidence that lead in petrol does
    � actually cause any problems (re brain development), so unleaded petrol
    
    You'll be in trouble for saying that! I almost got hung, drawn and
    quartered once for suggesting that. :^)
    
    Which emissions does a catalytic convertor reduce? I always assume
    Carbon Monoxide was one of the main ones. Is this not a 'Greenhouse
    Gas'? What IS a 'Greenhouse Gas'?
    
    Mark 

	Ok. so lead doesn't cause brain damage in babies or adversely
	affect flora or fauna living near to roads, there's no such
	thing as a greenhouse gas and the hole in the ozone layer is
	no more then a myth and wouldn't matter anyway, global warming
	isn't happening and even if it did it would mean we wouldn't
	have to go abroad to get a suntan, and in fact the internal
	combustion engine and every other device of the industrial
	revolution that pours fumes and waste into the air and water
	is actually helping the environment. The world is also flat,
	and Goldilocks and the three bears lived happily ever after.

	Jonathan.

    

    
    Those that saw the Channel 4 expos� on global warming, might 
    well doubt wether the emission of greenhouse gases matters 
    at all!
    
    
    Big article in one of yesterdays papers about Lucas. They're
    going to be investing a lot of money into diesel injection
    systems over the next five years, because they believe it's
    possible to make diesel engines significantly more environment
    friendly than petrol engines.
        
    I believe the VW "Umwelt" diesel is supposed to be a lot cleaner.
    than its petrol or diesel equivalents? I think its a 'cat' diesel?
    
    Richard.

    The greenhouse effect is that effect which causes buildup in the
    overall heat level in the atmosphere. It is caused by increasing levels
    of certain gases which "Trap" infra red radiation from the sun so it
    isn'r re-radiated back out from the earth. Venus is the ultimate
    example of the greenhouse effect with a totally opaque atmosphere of
    lots of different gases, mainly water and carbon dioxide. All the IR
    that hits Venus gets absorbed by the atmosphere and "kept in" thus
    raising the overall energy level of the planetary atmosphere. The same
    thing is happening on earth but things are a bit behind schedule.
    The biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect is Carbon dioxide
    hence all the talk about reducing its emission by cars, trucks and
    power stations. Other gases such as CFC's also contribute to the
    greenhouse effect, but not in such a direct way as levels of CO2.
    
    A catalytic converter takes the pretty noxious output of an infernal
    combustion engine and reduces the lethality somewhat. It does not
    reduce CO2 levels. What it does do is take out some of the Nitrogen
    oxides and lower hydrocarbons (the things that cause the photochemical
    smog in LA). Thw CAT used rare metals usually on a Zeolite substrate to
    effect the chemical changes: the lead in leaded petrol Poisons the
    catalytic agent and destroys it's ability to achieve the desired
    effect, that's why we have unleaded petrol.
    
    And there is well accepted proof that the level of mental
    capacity/development in children is linked to the levels of lead in the
    atmosphere..........

    
    Re .244
    
    Told you John!
    
    Mark

    Getting back to the question in .239, which nobody has addressed:
    
    The relative merits of Unleaded vs. Diesel are:
    
    	1. Diesel is cheaper than Unleaded
    	2. You get more mpg from Diesel than from petrol
    
    So diesel is better squared.
    
    End of topic.
    
    Jeff.

    
    a properly adjusted diesel engine emits about one thirteeth of the
    carbon dioxide emited by a cat-equipped petrol engine. It also emits
    less sulphur and nitrogen compounds.
    
    Unfortunately unless well maintained they tend to emit more particulate
    matter.
    
    /. Ian .\

    The relative benefits of unleaded fuel and catalytic converters can be
    very unclear:
    
    1. Most of the current generation of engines have been de-tuned to run
    on "ordinary" unleaded, and therefor are less efficient than they could
    be - i.e. they waste a valuable resource, and emit more (non-lead)
    pollutant/mile.
    
    2. A car with a cat is less efficient, again wasting fuel and
    increasing carbon emmission/mile. 
    
    3. A car with a cat emits more carbon dioxide, and less carbon
    monoxide. Is this a mixed blessing? - CO is poisonous, but CO2 is a
    greenhouse gas.
    
    4. The naturally occuring sulphur compounds in petrol can reach a
    concentration where cat-equiped cars emit measurable levels of hydrogen
    sulphide. H2S is poisonous (and smells of bad eggs!)
    
    None of this is to say that unleaded fuel or cats are necessarily bad,
    but to point out that this is a very grey area...

    Re .247
    	Well, you did warn me...
    
    	I made my comment re. lead/brain damage as I have heard
    	several conflicting statements about this - the general
    	opinion appeared to be that lead *from petrol* was not a
    	particular culprit.
    
    	Of course, I am but a mis-informed layman - as is 'Joe Public'.
    
    Re. all 'green' comments
    
    I do not dispute that we are polluting our environment.
    
    Cars do have an affect on this situation, but there are
    other more important issues that could be addressed on
    a national (global) level to more effect.
    
    I object to the use of 'green' issues being used in
    advertising hype in order to sell more of a product,
    especially when that product may still be 'far from green'
    in overall terms (eg all motor vehicles/combustion fuels).
    
    
    Re .249 (diesels)
    
�    Unfortunately unless well maintained they tend to emit more particulate
�    matter.
    
    Back to the recently-raised note - I think that it is this
    particulate matter that the 'clean' VW diesel engine has been
    designed to avoid, as well as using a cat. on this type of engine.

>     	I made my comment re. lead/brain damage as I have heard
>    	several conflicting statements about this 

    And I have now read several conflicting statements in this notesfile.
    Can anyone back up their statements that lead does cause brain
    damage, by providing a reference.
    
    TP

    
    As far as I know there is/was only 1 test which has reported brain
    damage in children living near to a major road (actually UNDER it!)
    in Birmingham. The report did state (as I recall) that the road was
    the most likely cause, it didn't state that it WAS the cause.
    
    The whole thing was very wooly and quite widely discredited by
    scientists. Only the media gave it massive credence (see? The power
    of the media again!).
    
    I've never heard any other documented cases. Has anyone else?
    
    Mark

    There have been several studies, both here and in the US done by The
    US National Institutes of Health, Food & Drug Agency, University of
    Colorado, University of Texas to name a few and upon whose data the US
    Legislation about Lead-free fuel was passed.
    
    Following that there were several studies dy the DoH and University of
    London done in the UK. I think a couple of studies were also sponsored
    by MENCAP or MIND which also lent supporting evidence that Lead does
    damage brain cells.   

    
    It almost amuses me that everybody gets very worked up about lead
    in petrol, but not about lead water pipes or Aluminium saucepans...
    
    As far as I know, there are few independent studies indicating any
    negative effect caused by lead from combusted petrol, and no proof
    at all.
    
    Bill.

Diesel particulate is thought to be a carcenogen. As is benzene
which is added to petrol and is what you smell when filling up.
It also costs a lot of money to clean old buildings blackened by 
diesel particulate.

Regarding price - there is no guarantee that Diesel will always
be cheaper than petrol. Their prices are not linked. I agree that in 
general diesel is cheaper than petrol.

If you want to talk green, then keep the motor car (petrol, diesel, 
electric, whatever) out of it. It is impossible to have a green car.



Ian

>    in petrol, but not about lead water pipes or Aluminium saucepans...
 
I recently read a magazine article which stated that the only way you
can get brain damage from an Aluminium saucepan, is to hit yourself
on the head with it.

    
� If you want to talk green, then keep the motor car (petrol, diesel, 
� electric, whatever) out of it. It is impossible to have a green car.
    
    Funny. The old registration documents for the Marcos state quite
    clearly that it was just that!!!!
    
    Mark.
    

That wasn't predictable now was it?




Ian

Re: .246

>    The biggest contributor to the greenhouse effect is Carbon dioxide
>    hence all the talk about reducing its emission by cars, trucks and
>    power stations. Other gases such as CFC's also contribute to the
>    greenhouse effect, but not in such a direct way as levels of CO2.
    
CFCs are at least 10 times more effective as a "green house gas" as CO2. 
Methane (CH4, natural gas) is 4 times stronger then CO2.  CO2 is more 
significant because there is much more of it than CFC.

>    A catalytic converter takes the pretty noxious output of an infernal
>    combustion engine and reduces the lethality somewhat. It does not
>    reduce CO2 levels. What it does do is take out some of the Nitrogen
>    oxides and lower hydrocarbons (the things that cause the photochemical
>    smog in LA).

It actually removes most of the NOx and HC and also oxidizes most of the 
carbon monoxide (CO) to CO2.

>    		  Thw CAT used rare metals usually on a Zeolite substrate to
>    effect the chemical changes: the lead in leaded petrol Poisons the
>    catalytic agent and destroys it's ability to achieve the desired
>    effect, that's why we have unleaded petrol.

Catalytic converters do not use zeolites.  They use a honeycomb ceramic 
support for the catalyst which is composed of platinum group metals.  The 
biggest part of the cost is the manufacturing of the catalyst element.  
Less than 10% of the cost is attributable to the raw materials.

Re: .249

>    a properly adjusted diesel engine emits about one thirteeth of the
>    carbon dioxide emited by a cat-equipped petrol engine. It also emits
>    less sulphur and nitrogen compounds.
    
Garbage.  The amount of CO2 emitted is directly proportional to the amount 
of fuel used.  Assuming that a catalyst equipped petrol engine emits little 
CO, as most of it is oxidised to CO2, it is very unlikely that a diesel
engine will emit less than 50% of the CO2 of a similar power petrol engine.
I believe that the one thirteenth figure most likely refers to carbon 
monoxide (CO).

>    Unfortunately unless well maintained they tend to emit more particulate
>    matter.
    
Re: .250

>    The relative benefits of unleaded fuel and catalytic converters can be
>    very unclear:
>    
>    1. Most of the current generation of engines have been de-tuned to run
>    on "ordinary" unleaded, and therefor are less efficient than they could
>    be - i.e. they waste a valuable resource, and emit more (non-lead)
>    pollutant/mile.
    
This may or may not be true.  Like many people I noticed no change in fuel 
efficiency when I changed to using unleaded fuel.  It is most noticable in 
very high performance vehicles, which are likely less fuel efficient to 
start with.  However, the yield of higher octane fuel (needed for unleaded)
is also lower than of the base used for leaded fuel.  In other words you
get less petrol out of each barrel of crude oil. 

>    2. A car with a cat is less efficient, again wasting fuel and
>    increasing carbon emmission/mile. 
    
With modern electronic engine management systems this is not necessarily 
true.

>    3. A car with a cat emits more carbon dioxide, and less carbon
>    monoxide. Is this a mixed blessing? - CO is poisonous, but CO2 is a
>    greenhouse gas.
    
CO can be oxidised to CO2 in the atmosphere.  I do not know the actual 
relative effect (compared woth CO2), but I would expect that CO has a
certain potential as a "greenhouse gas". 

>    4. The naturally occuring sulphur compounds in petrol can reach a
>    concentration where cat-equiped cars emit measurable levels of hydrogen
>    sulphide. H2S is poisonous (and smells of bad eggs!)
    
This is extremely unusual.  In any case, sulphur can also be oxidised to 
SO2 which is a major contributor to acid rain.

Re: .255
    
>    It almost amuses me that everybody gets very worked up about lead
>    in petrol, but not about lead water pipes or Aluminium saucepans...
    
Actually people do get extremely worked up about lead pipes in areas where
the water is soft (and acidic).  Acid water can leach lead (and aluminium)
as can other acid things - you should never cook rhubarb in an aluminium
pan.  In hard water areas, as well as often depositing a thin layer of
carbonate material (scale) on the inside of lead pipes, the water is
slightly alkaline and is chemically incapable of dissolving lead. 

>    As far as I know, there are few independent studies indicating any
>    negative effect caused by lead from combusted petrol, and no proof
>    at all.
    
It is true to say that there is no _direct_ proof.  However, it can be 
demonstrated that:

	Environmental lead levels are significantly increased close to 
	reads where the traffic mainly uses leaded fuel.

	There is a link between lead levels in the environment and the
	level of lead in the blood.

	There is a clear link between levels of lead in the blood and 
	retardation of mental development of young children.

I think the best way to look at the lead in petrol is to say that it:

	Is not absolutely necessary

	Can get into the environment

	Is known to be toxic

Toxic substances should only be used if there is an overriding benefit. 
This is not the case for lead in petrol.

Re: .257

> Diesel particulate is thought to be a carcenogen. As is benzene
> which is added to petrol and is what you smell when filling up.

Benzene is not the only thing that gives petrol its smell.  Almost any 
liquid unsaturated hydrocarbon has a significant odour.  Pentene smells 
very strongly like petrol in my recollection.

> If you want to talk green, then keep the motor car (petrol, diesel, 
> electric, whatever) out of it. It is impossible to have a green car.

The best thing written in the last several notes, however you probably 
should say "green" rather then green.

Re: .258

>>    in petrol, but not about lead water pipes or Aluminium saucepans...
> 
> I recently read a magazine article which stated that the only way you
> can get brain damage from an Aluminium saucepan, is to hit yourself
> on the head with it.

It is undoubtedly the most effective way.  There is some evidence that 
aluminium may be linked to Alzheimers disease.  To prove it would be very 
difficult, as the disease takes many years to develop.  That said, I would 
agree that there is no significant toxic risk from aluminium cooking 
utensils.  I bought stainless steel pans because they are easier to clean 
and look better.

jb

    
    
    
    Re -1
    
    Thanks for correcting me on the substrate used in catalytic converters,
    Jeremy. Like I said, my chemistry is a bit rough these days and I can
    well understand that the manufacturing process would make the use of
    Zeolites impossible. My recollections of the insides of a convertere go
    back to the very early days of their development when a zeolite was
    used as the development vehicle for the mix (Palladium + Platinum?) and
    rheology within the canister.
    
    CFC's are a greenhouse gas for a different reason than CO2: they
    destroy the ozone layer (They are very attractive for electron rich
    ozone molecules which are pretty unstable anyway. The lack of an ozone
    layer caused more radiation to get through the upper atmosphere so
    increasing the energy levels absorbed by the surface.........a well as
    DNA mutations (cancers).

I read recently that engines using unleaded petrol are de-tuned relative to
their lead-petrol counterparts, hence use more fuel.

Seems like a load of swings and roundabouts for environmentalists to play on...

Scott

Re: .262

>    CFC's are a greenhouse gas for a different reason than CO2: they
>    destroy the ozone layer (They are very attractive for electron rich
>    ozone molecules which are pretty unstable anyway. The lack of an ozone
>    layer caused more radiation to get through the upper atmosphere so
>    increasing the energy levels absorbed by the surface.........a well as
>    DNA mutations (cancers).

I think you are misinformed here.  Ozone layer damage is in no way
connected with the Greenhouse Effect, save that CFCs contribute to _both_
these phenomena.  As a "greenhouse gas" CFCs have much more effect than 
CO2, on an effect per kilogram basis.  This is _additional_ to the damage 
that CFCs cause to the ozone layer.

jb

Re .264: I was going to say that! Liked your .261 also.


Rod