MikeS Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 Well, I just got my 29 Chrysler running for the first time yesterday. It has been sitting for a while until I bought it. Runs like new but I am not sure what type of gas to use. It has the original straight 6 in it and about 60,000 miles. Should I use the lead additive?? Any Suggestion??Thanks Guys.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nearchoclatetown Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 They didn't add lead in 1929. It didn't come about until compression went up and valves needed lubed. From what I understand they bearly had what we call gasoline, more like kerosene. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DeSoto Frank Posted September 11, 2003 Share Posted September 11, 2003 If it makes you feel more comfortable, mix a couple ounces of Marvel Mystery Oil in with the gas (follow directions on the can); don't overdo, or carbon will accumulate in the combustion chambers.You really don't need to worry about unleaded shortening valve life (exhaust) unless you're really running the car hard for extended periods of time (like hours of cruising on the interstate @ speeds above 50 mph). For around town driving, straight no-lead should be fine....Chrysler had the hardest exhaust valves and seats of the day....I would be more concerned about the possibility of getting alcohol-blended fuels which may attack rubber parts in your fuel system, if you get such "kick-a-poo joy juice" in your state.Have run no-lead in my '48 Chrysler (over 20,000 miles) and '41 De Soto (10,000 miles) with no serious effects on the valves.Frank McMullen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
56Roadmaster Posted September 12, 2003 Share Posted September 12, 2003 Mike, Desoto Frank is right on, The only major problem you might have is the rubber parts,in the fuel pump, but if it has been sitting why not get a new neoprene diaphram put in any way. (diaphram is probably deteriorated frome age any how) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeS Posted September 12, 2003 Author Share Posted September 12, 2003 Thanks guys for all your help.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 14, 2003 Share Posted September 14, 2003 I've got 477,000 miles on my daily driver (1930 Pontiac) I always used the lowest grade gas I could buy. I have never had any problems with my valves or seats. As an earlier poster said they didn't have leaded gas when our cars were built. A couple of times I have used the gas with alcohol added because it was all that was available. The only thing I noticed was the varnish coating came off my cork carb float. Another foot note. Up here in Canada I get a yellow deposit on my spark plugs after about 5000 miles if I have been using Shell gas.Happy hobbying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 I beg to differ, not on the need for lead addative in a 1929 car, but on the availability of gasoline containing tetraethyl lead in 1929.Tetraethyl lead was developed by Charles Kettering in about 1924 and came into general use, but not too extensively, within a few years. Gasoline containing tetraethyl lead was at that time referred to as anti-knock gasoline. Its purpose was to prevent premature detonation in engines of the time.The octane rating of gasoline in that era was rather low as was the compression ratio of the engines of the time. Today's gasolines are so far superior in octane rating compared to those of the '20s & early '30s that detonation in early engines shouldn't happen today. Hence, no need for the lead.I do understand that some later engines need the lead as a lubricant for the valves, but that was not the case in the era we are discussing. The source of the above information is based on research done by me in 1984. At that time I was AACA VP of Technical Matters and lead was being phased out of gasoline. Somebody had to ask the questions of the EPA and automotive engineers in order to provide the information to the AACA membership. That was back in a simpler time when the VP of Technical Matters and/or the Board had more time to address member's concerns as they were not so involved in other more grandiose projects. Gee, I wish that someone would put that effort into researching and reporting knowledgably on the newly approved fire extinguisher. The only thing we seem to be told is what the manufacturer says and that "race car drivers like it." Oh well. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" /> hvs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R W Burgess Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 Howard, I was hoping someone was going to check into the fire extinguisher controversy. Wayne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 So was I, Wayne. Apparently there isn't much interest on the part of some folks who should be interested. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif" alt="" />Judy just looked over my shoulder at this and said that one good car fire involving this extinguisher should answer the questions. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif" alt="" /> It won't be one of ours. <img src="http://www.aaca.org/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smirk.gif" alt="" />hvs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6219_Rules Posted September 22, 2003 Share Posted September 22, 2003 I was very concerned but the topic seemed to die. What can we do to bring it back to life? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now