F-134 Lead Substitute?

does anyone have any info on adding lead substiute to the fuel of a F-134 do ya or not? I ve heared both ways what do you fellas think?

 

best solution,yp grade the valve terrain,with parts that can handle the excess heat generated by todays unleaded gas,JMHO

 

I am wondering the same thing, but I don't quite understand your post. I do not yet understand the Internet lingo. Did you say basically replace the valves or did you say this stuff will work. I have been told just to take it easy and don't have the engine running at high RPMs for very long
Doug/Tucson

 

You would just need hardened valve seats. The rest of the valve train remains the same. I don't know if it is worth the hassle unless you are rebuilding the engine though.

 

FWIW, I've run heads on my rigs with standard (old) exhaust seats with unleaded for a long time without any problems. If you're rebuilding an engine, it's probably a good insurance policy, but from my experience it's not that big of a deal. When I first started college I had a '63 Galaxie (352 big block)...this was right when leaded gas was being phased out. For a while I was buying "real lead" additive, but when the EPA decided selling tetraethyl lead in a can was a bad idea I didn't bother using anything else. I racked up an awful lot of miles on that, and my truck (with '69 GMC heads), without any problems. YMMV of course .

 

FWIW & YMMV of corse? I don't understand these letters. in my last post I stated I don't understand These letters, they might be important, but I would not know.
Doug/Tucson

 

for what its worth
your mileage may vary
and...I wouldn't worry about the valves

 

FWIW= For what it's worth
YMMV= Your milage may vary

 

i use it because it is not that expensive and i only use my jeep 3 mo. out of the year, which is about two 20 gallons and one bottle of lead substitute, but if you will be running it alot more than it could get a little more expensive so i dont know,

 

I have never used the lead additive in any of several vehicles. And have never had a problem. After years and years of driving them. So, to me, it must be unnecessary.

 

in my last post yp was a typo,up grade,been running old engines for years myself without additive and without up grading the valve terrain,depends on how hard you work the engine i guess? last engine i rebuilt was a 1970 chevy 350,only had 40000,orignal miles when i got it,@ 77000 i started getting problems in the valve terrain,rest of the motor was good as new,replaced the guides with bronze ones,stainless steel valves and seats,labor and parts ran $400 for a v-8

 

FWIW / YMMV Thanks will make a note of those abbreviations
Doug

 

It's really not necessary with modern fuels. There were problems when unleaded came out with certain older engines primarily because of the higher engine combustion pressures and temperatures and would cause valve seat recession. Nowadays unleaded fuels have other additives to help alleviate this problem. There were studies by the EPA and AERA (American Engine Rebuilder's Association) that have proven there are actually fewer problems with the vast majority of engines running straight unleaded than putting an additive in the fuel. I'd qualify this by stating if you are running a '70's era muscle car performance engine with high compression then I'd put in an additive, otherwise unnecessary IMHO (in my honest/humble opinion). If you were rebuilding the engine then I'd upgrade to better valve seats and valves but I wouldn't go out of my way. Nickmil

 

Obviously a 1955 and a 1963 F-Head motors are definitely not late 60s early 70s. High performance high compression engines, but what category do they fall into. I remember when I was working for honda. The only way to keep the engines from knocking and pinging was to add an additional head gasket to reduce the compression and allow them to run on the brand-new unleaded fuel's,
Doug/Tucson

 

F-heads fall under the category of low compression engines so should not be an issue with them. When I ran an F-head I ran straight unleaded with no additives and no valve recession issues. The knocking an pinging of the Honda engines was not because of no lead but because of the lower octane of the fuel caused by the lack of lead. A simple change to higher octane unleaded fuel eliminated the issue of knocking and pinging. Modern fuels have many additives to help with this also. For example, some modern engines run over 10-1 compression and will run with no issues and no lead as long as the proper octane rated fuel is used. Nickmil

 

It was my understanding that part of that was due to the computer actually playing with the timing to keep it running happy in modern cars. For example, you can take a brand new corvette off the lot and put in the lowest octane stuff you can get at the pump. It's tuned for higher stuff but it will mess with the timing to be able to handle the lower stuff. You'll lose horsepower but your engine won't beat itself up by pinging and knocking.

 

That's true, to a point. Computers can compensate for a lot with ignition timing, but again that is talking about octane and piston issues primarily, not valve recession. Lots of computer controlled cars will still beat themselves up when the computer can't compensate far enough or fast enough to keep damage from happening. This primarily effects pistons though not valve and seat recession which is the issue that some people had in the past with early unleaded fuel in higher performance or heavier used vehicles. Not so much an issue with an F-head pushing a 2500-3000# Jeep around. Nickmil