Any harm to vintage engines running unleaded fuels. Options

[914043]

Back in the day when they took lead out of gas there was a lot of concern that without the cushioning effect the lead had on the valve face there would be bent and broken valves. Since my car fits those criteria and will be driving soon what if any concerns should I be aware of?? Fairly technical but Thanks for any help that might save me a damaged engine. Best to Ya

[second wind]

So this is a very interesting topic....would putting lead additive into a '73 2.0 gas tank help with anything? Improve anything? Add some extra cushion of comfort for anything?
Thank you all very much!
gg

[wonkipop]

So this is a very interesting topic....would putting lead additive into a '73 2.0 gas tank help with anything? Improve anything? Add some extra cushion of comfort for anything?
Thank you all very much!
gg

the 2.0 L engines all have/had the lower compression ratio in stock form suitable for unleaded - what was really of consequence was that initially unleaded had significantly lower octane level than leaded premium fuels in that era.

the 2.0 had a 7.6:1 compression ration.

the EA 1.7 for california in 73 had a 7.3:1 c r.
the EC 1.8s all had 7.3:1 c r.

all of these engines were 100% designed to run on unleaded fuel.

i am sure the earlier 1.7s despite a higher c r of 8.2:1 run just nice on today's higher octane fuels. but back then it might have been an issue. but as suggested above by folks who know what they are talking about, its not an issue of valve "lubrication" for VW and porsche engnies. it would have just been octane and higher compression issues.

i've never run anything but straight from the pump unleaded in my 1.8 for 30+ years.

[bbrock]

So this is a very interesting topic....would putting lead additive into a '73 2.0 gas tank help with anything? Improve anything? Add some extra cushion of comfort for anything?
Thank you all very much!
gg

the 2.0 L engines all have/had the lower compression ratio in stock form suitable for unleaded - what was really of consequence was that initially unleaded had significantly lower octane level than leaded premium fuels in that era.

the 2.0 had a 7.6:1 compression ration.

the EA 1.7 for california in 73 had a 7.3:1 c r.
the EC 1.8s all had 7.3:1 c r.

all of these engines were 100% designed to run on unleaded fuel.

i am sure the earlier 1.7s despite a higher c r of 8.2:1 run just nice on today's higher octane fuels. but back then it might have been an issue. but as suggested above by folks who know what they are talking about, its not an issue of valve "lubrication" for VW and porsche engnies. it would have just been octane and higher compression issues.

i've never run anything but straight from the pump unleaded in my 1.8 for 30+ years.

And don't forget GB engines (euro 2.0) had 8.0:1

[wonkipop]

So this is a very interesting topic....would putting lead additive into a '73 2.0 gas tank help with anything? Improve anything? Add some extra cushion of comfort for anything?
Thank you all very much!
gg

the 2.0 L engines all have/had the lower compression ratio in stock form suitable for unleaded - what was really of consequence was that initially unleaded had significantly lower octane level than leaded premium fuels in that era.

the 2.0 had a 7.6:1 compression ration.

the EA 1.7 for california in 73 had a 7.3:1 c r.
the EC 1.8s all had 7.3:1 c r.

all of these engines were 100% designed to run on unleaded fuel.

i am sure the earlier 1.7s despite a higher c r of 8.2:1 run just nice on today's higher octane fuels. but back then it might have been an issue. but as suggested above by folks who know what they are talking about, its not an issue of valve "lubrication" for VW and porsche engnies. it would have just been octane and higher compression issues.

i've never run anything but straight from the pump unleaded in my 1.8 for 30+ years.

And don't forget GB engines (euro 2.0) had 8.0:1

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

AN engine (euro 1.8) more highly strung (if you can call a VW engine that) - 8.6:1 - 98RON top shelf drinking habit. the dean martin of VW engines.

no surprise it was almost as powerful as last of the USA 2.0L. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/beer.gif)

no low octane unleaded for those babies.

@Van B wants some of those AN pistons. i know what he is up to.
a sleeper 1.8 disguised in L jet clothing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

there is a bit of a mystery in relation to those AN engines that we have been trying to get to the bottom of.

there is not much difference between the parts for the 1.8 EC (usa) and the 1.8 AN (ROW).
just the pistons.
and the heads.
the heads have a different part #.
the valves and the valve guides are listed as same part for both.
camshaft = same part.
this is using the PET manual euro version and also comparing to PET usa version.

so.......i dunno what is in the heads of the 1.8 that makes them list it as a separate part #? but there must have been something???? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/confused24.gif)