Good riddance I say!
I tried it in my Triumph 2000 when leaded was withdrawn, and it rotted the carburettor diaphrams within two months and the engine pinked. I have used ordinary unleaded with Millers VSP since with no trouble at all.
It is not only cheaper to use additives, but you can select the particular one you want - Manganese, Potassium etc. By experiment I find that I only need half the dose stated on the bottle.
True, it is a bit fiddly, but not so tiresome as driving around trying to find somewhere that still sells LRP.
|
|
When I was reviving my Capri 2.8i, I did a lot of Web browsing and couldn't find anyone in the classic-car community with anything good to say about LRP. Encouraged by my mechanic, I am using Castrol Valvemaster with Shell Optimax, and everything seems fine.
|
i ran my xr3 on red line lead additive for years never had a problem at all.
|
I've run both my moggies and several other old motors on LRP since it came out with no problems at all. Time for lead free heads at £130 each I think. The 3500S will be fine on unleaded although I think I'll tune it for super unleaded or optimax
|
This might not work for everyone but I have used nothing but straight unleaded petrol in my Triumph 2500 for the past six years or so. Using straight unleaded is normally OK if the engine speed doesn't rise above 3000 rev/min for any length of time, especially with a hot or hard-working engine, and the engine was previously run for a while on leaded petrol to provide a coating on the valves that's commonly called 'lead memory'.
Here's an earlier posting on the subject that gives a bit more detail: www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=13...9
|
I tried that Dizzy first of all. It pinked badly, unless I retarded the ignition so much that it took all the power away.So then I tried LRP. That still caused pinking, apart from the other trouble. Hence my switch to additives.
Anyone at this stage of wondering what to do next should be aware that petrol has to meet two criteria:
1) protecting the valves and seats from erosion
2) being of sufficient octane value to avoid pinking.
If the engine was designed back in the old days when petrol had lots of lead, and especially if it had a fairly high compression ratio, then it may not take kindly to the reduced octane rating of ordinary unleaded or LRP. Even in its last days, 4-star had a lowered octane rating and was not really appropriate for some engines.
The ultimate solution, not available when I made my switch, is to buy bottles of tetra-ethyl lead,the old additive, by mail order and mix your own genuine 4 or even 5-star.
|
Hmm, there's quite a few approaches to take.
Find your nearest Bayford Thrust supplied petrol station which I think Bayford run a website listing all supplied petrol stations. It's getting very rare but 100 Octane 5-star is sometimes available at an eye-watering 94-100p/litre.
Start using dosed 97 Octane Super-Unleaded/Optimax and look at retarding the ignition slightly.
Go for unleaded heads complete with hardened valve seats.
Usually I go for SUL with two dose one of Manganese and another to up the octane and haven't needed to retard the ignition.
|
I'm thinking of getting an unleaded head conversion and running the car on the newer BP ultimate or Shell 99 octane stuff. The question is would these newer fuels with the higher octane work ok with additives only thus avoiding the need for spending several hundred pounds on a new head?
teabelly
|
|
What car is it, Teabelly?
|
It's a Triumph Vitesse mk 1 2 litre.
teabelly
|
Teabelly
From
tinyurl.com/x6vg
I got
2000 Mk1 To MB 13750E 8.5:1 HE
2000 Mk1 From MB 13751E 9:1 or 9.1:1 HE
2000 Mk1 MB 7:1 LE
for Vitesse compression ratios. I guess if yours is in the second line you will need high-RON fuel.
As indicated above, my very savvy mechanic put me off getting a £400+ head conversion on my Capri 2.8i, assuring me that lead additive plus good petrol would be perfectly satisfactory.
|
|
If you can take off and replace the head yourself, any engine reconditioner will fit new valves and guides for around £20-30 per cylinder, or so I'm told.
|
|
Cliff, I wonder why we got such different results?!
As I said in the earlier thread, I was very surprised to get no pinking with unleaded on the standard timing (10 degrees BTDC) - especially as the engine is a PI converted to carburettors and Triumph used to recommend 5-star petrol for the PI.
I did try LRP for the first few weeks of it being available, again with no pinking or noticeable loss of power. Perhaps the PI engine is more tolerant of LRP and unleaded than the 2000, but it ought to be the other way round!
I have two spare heads ready for fitting with valve seat inserts if required, but the way things are going I won't need them. Touch wood.
|
What about those of us further down the food chain not running a cherished classic but relying on an old Sierra or similar that does not have hardened valve seats?
I have read previous postings re recommended additives, stick with chosen additive etc.
In the real world the easiest available additive is Redex which is found in many places. With possibly a relatively limited lifespan left in the old faithful would Redex be a reasonable choice?
It has 130K on the clock, 80K in my hands but no real idea of the true mileage.
To the outside world I double its value when I fill it up but it is warm, dry and it gets me there. Oh and 5K oil changes with old fashioned GTX at £10 a go.
|
Nothing wrong with running what you might call a 'banger', Henry. I suppose my Triumph is what you call a 'cherished classic', and I love the car, however some of my most enjoyable and reliable cars have been nothing more than bangers.
Whether or not you need to use LRP or additives (as I have said, my Triumph manages perfectly without them - but others may not), I'm sure that Redex won't help one iota in respect of protecting valve seats from recession. I imagine that any paraffin-like material such as Redex will have either evaporated or carbonised at the sort of temperature that is involved in valve seat wear.
|
Dizzy
Sorry I intended to say Redex brand lead replacement additive not the old familiar Redex cleaner.
I ran an old Mk 2 Triumph 2000 Auto until it was written off with me in a sandwich shunt. I liked it except for it being underpowered and the worst lights I have experienced on a car.
I would like to think of yours as a cherished classic.
I would not want to loose any HP from the few my 1.8l now manages to muster.
|
Henry k
Castrol Valvemaster and its Millers equivalent are available all over the place -- Halfords, all motor accessories shops, dealer parts shops, and no doubt plenty of the larger garages too. I don't know about Redex, but these products are specifically for putting the lead back in the pencil and protecting valve seats and whatever else needs lead. Note: Valvemaster does the job, Valvemaster does the job and adds an octane boost that you may need. I see at tinyurl.com/xbs7 that the 1989 Sierra 2.0 has a surprisingly high compression ratio at 10.3:1.
(tinyurl.com/xbs7 is an impressively comprehensive database of car specifications)
|
Doh! I've just noticed that the second reference to Valvemaster above should have been Valvemaster Plus.
And a footnote on LRP: from a letter in the Capri Club magazine, received this morning, "As to LRP, I have only used this once and wished I had not. I put a few gallons in for convenience sake and before I had gone 3 or 4 miles the car was misfiring."
|
Henry,
Sorry, I should have picked up that you were referring to the lead-replacement version of Redex. Like Roger, I would go for a Millers product as being the most likely to do the best job.
I also had a Triumph 2000 automatic, mine being a Mk I from 1965. It was definitely underpowered, with the BW35 auto box sapping a lot of power and being designed to hold onto top gear for as long as possible. It would go down to 8mph in top on a light throttle!
The 2500 (ex-2.5PI) that I have now was also an auto for most of its life and was also underpowered, though not nearly as much as the 2000. I converted it to manual+O/D about six years ago, and it is now very lively. I continue to be amazed at the difference!
I agree that the headlights are a bit weak. I should think this is partly due to them being 'sealed beam' with poor control of the light spread, also the old-fashioned 'bullet' cable connectors create a resistance when they get a bit dirty. Having four 5" diameter units the headlights have the potential to be very good and if I did much night driving I would convert them to halogen via relays and modern blade connectors.
|
|
Cliff, I wonder why we got such different results?! >>
Mine\'s an early Mark 1. I\'ve just an idea that they lowered the CR later on, hence ordinary Mark 2\'s being a bit slower - may be wrong on that.
Touch wood. >>
Ha ha !! Yes, you can do that in a Triumph!
|
Cliff,
My weak memory is trying to say that the later 2000s actually had an increased CR and this was even higher for the PIs.
I seem to be very lucky regarding the total lack of 'pinking'. There must be an explanation for it, perhaps something to do with the longer stroke of the 2500 and its effect on the rate of compression?
Until I know for sure what is happening in my engine I will continue to "touch wood". I like your comment about being able to do this in the Triumph -- sometimes we need to!
|
|
|
|
|
