Unleaded Additives Series 2A 2.6 Litre

[Lionelgee]

Hello All,

I have a Series 2A petrol 2.6 litre engine that I have been running periodically before it gets transplanted into a Series 3. With the 2A motor should I be running unleaded additives in the fuel?

Also should I be using Unleaded 85 or running Premium 95?

Oh and I also have a HQ Holden 202 motor in another Series 5. Should it also have additives to the fuel too?

Kind Regards
Lionel

[S3ute]

Lionel,

Hello from Brisbane.

The usual advice on this topic for Series Land Rovers is that it depends on prospective use.

Yes, engines made for leaded fuel can suffer damage from use with unleaded fuel due to the nature of how the valves interact with the metal in the head. However, it tends to be more of a problem when the motors are run at high revs for sustained periods such as highway driving. Lesser use tends not to involve significant damage to the valve seats.

Others will no doubt offer a more technical explanation.

Cheers

[JDNSW]

The 2.6 engine has hardened steel exhaust valve seats, and as such does not require lead in fuel to lubricate the valve seats.

It is also low compression (7:1), and hence can run on any petrol sold today in Australia.

So the answer is, no additives are required.

For completeness, the four cylinder engine has the exhaust valves seated in the cast iron of the head. This means that the engine is possibly susceptible to valve seat recession without lead or a substitute in the fuel, although experience shows that this is not a problem unless the engine is used with sustained high speed and power operation. And even then, regular tappet checks will show if it is happening, and steel inserts can be added to the head when it is overhauled.

The 7:1 four will be happy on any fuel sold here today, but the 8:1 may prefer 95, and if the compression has been raised above that expect to need 95 or higher.

John

[87County]

One major reason that causes worry for users of the six cylinder Rover engine is the supposed propensity to burn exhaust valves (which indeed can happen - grade of fuel irrelevant).

IMHE the prinicipal contributor to this problen is lack of maintenance. Due to the extra difficulty involved in setting the side exhaust valve clearances, they often get left "until next time" or just ignored.

Set them as regularly as you set the overhead inlet valves and FWIW, I used to add a couple of thou, any decreased performance will not be noticed.

[S3ute]

Lionel,

The usual advice on this topic for Series Land Rovers is that it depends on prospective use.

Others will no doubt offer a more technical explanation.

Cheers

Lionel,

Hello again.

Looks like I got the first bit incomplete and the second bit correct.

Depends on both the prospective use and the motor it seems.

Must admit that I wasn't aware that the 6 cylinder engine was essentially unleaded ready. Found that to be genuinely interesting.

We had a 6 cylinder 109" that managed to get offside with my late Dad who (unfortunately) opted to replace the motor with a Holden 202. Largely on advice from mechanics in town who wouldn't have had a clue about Land Rovers but had signed on to all the prejudices. Day of shame that proved to be and what a cow it became to drive, especially in hills.

In all likelihood the original was an excellent motor just never serviced beyond topping up the radiator and occasionally checking the engine oil. But there would have been a lot around the bush that were treated no less casually adding to the poor reputation of an otherwise willing worker.

Cheers

[1950landy]

I use a Moreys Power Booster Lubrication System on my MGBGT & have bought one to fit to my Mini. Works using manifold vacume & drips additive directly into manifold. The amount that it drips can be adjusted.:cool: Kit is around $53 on Ebay. Its been on the MG for 6 years with out any problems. I don't use any additive in my 1595 80" .:D

[Homestar]

Lionel,

Hello again.

Looks like I got the first bit incomplete and the second bit correct.

Depends on both the prospective use and the motor it seems.

Must admit that I wasn't aware that the 6 cylinder engine was essentially unleaded ready. Found that to be genuinely interesting.

We had a 6 cylinder 109" that managed to get offside with my late Dad who (unfortunately) opted to replace the motor with a Holden 202. Largely on advice from mechanics in town who wouldn't have had a clue about Land Rovers but had signed on to all the prejudices. Day of shame that proved to be and what a cow it became to drive, especially in hills.

In all likelihood the original was an excellent motor just never serviced beyond topping up the radiator and occasionally checking the engine oil. But there would have been a lot around the bush that were treated no less casually adding to the poor reputation of an otherwise willing worker.

Cheers

Yes, a healthy and well tuned 2.6 is a joy to drive. They are a very smooth engine both at idle and through the rev range. These engines are ideally suited to the Series vehicle. Whack a set of extractors on them and they are even more free reving and have plenty of torque.

While they are an old design and require good maintenance habits, they are still a much better option than the Holden red motor IMO.

[JDNSW]

.......

While they are an old design and require good maintenance habits, they are still a much better option than the Holden red motor IMO.


And the Holden Red motor was a new design?

The patent for the engine was filed in 1939, but production was not started until after the war, and I think the six did not go into production until the early fifties. It is a far more sophisticated and modern design than the Holden engine, which is little more than an enlarged development of Chevrolet's 1929 design. (Which indeed was little advanced from their 1914 design.)

But the Holden engine had the advantage of readily available parts, much cheaper than Rover parts at the time.

However, the six, being designed for somewhat up-market cars, is not as tolerant of abuse as is the four, which was designed from a clean sheet for the vehicle, and designed to withstand abuse. In the Landrover, the major shortfall of the six, apart from the fact that parts are a bit hard to find, and nobody wants to work on it, is fuel consumption.

Certainly if it is neglected it will burn valves, and failure to check exhaust tappets is a contributor. I have also seen it suggested that another contributor is a lengthways steel tube inside the water jacket that distributes the water flow. If missing or badly corroded, it results in the back couple of valve seats getting poor cooling.

I think the carburettor, unfamiliar to most mechanics in this country, may also be seen as a problem.

But you need to realise that when most of these were replaced with Holden engines, it was a much cheaper option than overhauling the Rover engine. Holden engines were easy and cheap to buy either low mileage used or newly overhauled. Today, the Holden engine may be no cheaper to maintain or overhaul, and fewer mechanics will find it familiar, although still today even fewer will find the Rover engine familiar.

John

[Homestar]

And the Holden Red motor was a new design?

The patent for the engine was filed in 1939, but production was not started until after the war, and I think the six did not go into production until the early fifties. It is a far more sophisticated and modern design than the Holden engine, which is little more than an enlarged development of Chevrolet's 1929 design. (Which indeed was little advanced from their 1914 design.)

But the Holden engine had the advantage of readily available parts, much cheaper than Rover parts at the time.

However, the six, being designed for somewhat up-market cars, is not as tolerant of abuse as is the four, which was designed from a clean sheet for the vehicle, and designed to withstand abuse. In the Landrover, the major shortfall of the six, apart from the fact that parts are a bit hard to find, and nobody wants to work on it, is fuel consumption.

Certainly if it is neglected it will burn valves, and failure to check exhaust tappets is a contributor. I have also seen it suggested that another contributor is a lengthways steel tube inside the water jacket that distributes the water flow. If missing or badly corroded, it results in the back couple of valve seats getting poor cooling.

I think the carburettor, unfamiliar to most mechanics in this country, may also be seen as a problem.

But you need to realise that when most of these were replaced with Holden engines, it was a much cheaper option than overhauling the Rover engine. Holden engines were easy and cheap to buy either low mileage used or newly overhauled. Today, the Holden engine may be no cheaper to maintain or overhaul, and fewer mechanics will find it familiar, although still today even fewer will find the Rover engine familiar.

John

Hmmm, don't recall saying the Holden engine was a better or newer design at all, just said it wasn't as suitable as the 2.6 in a series vehicle in my opinion. I've owned and driven both. I'm not bagging the Holden motor by the way, I'm a big fan of it and I cut my teeth on those engines. Just giving my opinion on the 2.6 is all - I think it's a highly under rated engine. Yes, it has issues, but not insurmountable by any measure, but yes, finding people that understand them and want to work on them can be difficult, and fuel economy - well, I drive a 101 on the weekends so the 2.6 seems like a modern miracle in that department... :D

[Lionelgee]

Hello John, Bacicat and other contributors,

I am not really after information about what is the better motor between the Land Rover 2.6 and the Holden 202. I was after information about keeping what I have got in a well maintained condition and not inadvertently damaging them when one or both need additives because of the unleaded fuel. It is about looking after what I have got.

My work contract finished interstate and I am back home in Bundaberg. This means at 52 years of age, I am back on the employment scrap heap again. Therefore, I have to look after what I have got, with what I have; hopefully without things going backwards.

Cookey's manifold and disc brakes would be great - in the future ... hopefully not too distant future; when I get work again.

Kind Regards
Lionel

[Nobby07836]

Hi guys,

i feel that im quite well qualified to give some input on this discussion as my girlfriend and i are just finishing a lap of australia in a S2a with the 2.6 motor. We are now almost 40,00kms in !!!!!

'Lap of Oz in a series 2a' is the thread.

We had to replace valves once we had driven from Perth to Syd. but these were the originals. Once that was done we experimented with different additives and fuel types. By far the best is no additive but 95 fuel.

Ext valve clearances are a bit wider than normal and really are not that hard to check so there is no excuse not to.

I can recreate the difference as we have dual tanks. By switching between tanks 91 to 95 the difference is amazing. 98 doesn't seem to make much difference to 95, so we stuck with that.

Yesterday we drove from Coral bay to Canarvon at 85kmh and did 19.3 mpg (14.6 L/100km)

I think this is quite good for a archaic engine design and the aerodynamics of a brick.

Having said that the Ign is converted to Lumenition and the carb is rebuilt with all parts made by SU. Not the rubbish we started with from Repco.

I think this engine is pretty much perfect for the car. Bags of torque and a lovely exhaust note :p

[gromit]

I read some years ago that you need to be careful switching between different types of lead replacement additive. Different substances are used in different brands and there is the possibility of corrosion within the engine because of the interaction between different formulations.
Can't remember where I read it but it was a UK magazine that carried out some trials.

Here is some 'fuel' info from the Federation of British Vehicle Clubs, obviously some of the additives listed may not be available here.

Fuel Information (http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/legislation-and-fuels/fuel-information/)


Colin

[1950landy]

The main thing that causes the exhaust valves to burn out is when the small ports that come off the copper tube that runs from the front to the back of the motor & feeds water to cool the valve seats block up.

[Nobby07836]

Where is this copper tube ? didn't see it when i had the head off:confused:

[Nobby07836]

I read some years ago that you need to be careful switching between different types of lead replacement additive. Different substances are used in different brands and there is the possibility of corrosion within the engine because of the interaction between different formulations.
Can't remember where I read it but it was a UK magazine that carried out some trials.

Here is some 'fuel' info from the Federation of British Vehicle Clubs, obviously some of the additives listed may not be available here.

Fuel Information (http://www.fbhvc.co.uk/legislation-and-fuels/fuel-information/)


Colin

Hi Colin,
we have had plenty of time between additives as we have burnt nearly 5000L of fuel :cool: Having dual tanks makes it easy too. None of the additives really made much difference performance wise except the penrite one. Seemed a bit more lively and smoother at idle.

Lots of people in UK now are running their older engines on this stuff now:
Aspen Fuel :: Home (http://www.aspenfuel.co.uk/)

The ethanol that is added to all UK petrol is causing havoc with vehicles that are left unused for a while. Rotting pipes, tanks, etc etc.

My father (he's 80 years old) recently changed to it in his chainsaws as he couldn't start them. Problem solved. They now start first time, every time.

When we are back in Perth soon i will do a "dry" compression test. I fully expect all cylinders to be even at 150psi as they were when we left Sydney.

Will report back soon.

Nobby

[gromit]

Hi Colin,
we have had plenty of time between additives as we have burnt nearly 5000L of fuel :cool: Having dual tanks makes it easy too. None of the additives really made much difference performance wise except the penrite one. Seemed a bit more lively and smoother at idle.

Lots of people in UK now are running their older engines on this stuff now:
Aspen Fuel :: Home (http://www.aspenfuel.co.uk/)

The ethanol that is added to all UK petrol is causing havoc with vehicles that are left unused for a while. Rotting pipes, tanks, etc etc.

My father (he's 80 years old) recently changed to it in his chainsaws as he couldn't start them. Problem solved. They now start first time, every time.

When we are back in Perth soon i will do a "dry" compression test. I fully expect all cylinders to be even at 150psi as they were when we left Sydney.

Will report back soon.

Nobby

Nobby,
Most additives I've seen are meant to stop valve seat recession and not aimed at improving performance.

Ethanol here also causes problems, I found something on a Goverment website a while ago that suggested you shouldn't use ethanol blends in small engines and fire fighting equipment. The ethanol absorbs water then separates out at the bottom of the tank (where the fuel pickup is).

Problem is that some States have legislated that a set percentage of fuel sales must be ethanol. Biofuels legislation - NSW Resources and Energy (http://www.resourcesandenergy.nsw.gov.au/energy-consumers/sustainable-energy/office-of-biofuels/biofuels-legislation)

Colin

[JDNSW]

Where is this copper tube ? didn't see it when i had the head off:confused:

You won't - remember the exhaust valves are in the block. It runs the length of the block inside the water jacket, inserted from the front, and helps distribute the coolant in the block. I have an idea you need to have the water pump off to see the plate bolted to the front of the block that holds it.

Few people seem to know it even exists or what it is for.

John

[Nobby07836]

That explains it. As i pressed the 'post' button i thought i might have asked a stupid question :D
I expect our cooling system is quite clean as the previous owner had almost certainly used WA water and very little coolant additive. We found the evidence when i replaced the valves a while ago. We had to get the small coolant holes in the head welded and re-drilled to stop them leaking by the edge of the head gasket. That kind of corrosion has probably kept the tubes free flowing ;)

I'm planning to strip the motor soon anyway so everything will be checked and new shells etc etc.

The next part of our trip will be shipping the car to Singapore and overland back to UK so i dont want to be stuck in some remote place with a silly problem that could be easily sorted in decent workshop facilities beforehand.

R

[matthamilton]

just so I don’t ruin my rebuilt 2.6l 6-pot by doing something stupid, is it correct that your understanding is that the 2.6l engines already had hardened values and therefore don’t need lead additives?

more context in case it’s relevant: 1981 Series III 109 2.6l 6-cylinder ex-military.

thank you very much!!!!




The 2.6 engine has hardened steel exhaust valve seats, and as such does not require lead in fuel to lubricate the valve seats.

It is also low compression (7:1), and hence can run on any petrol sold today in Australia.

So the answer is, no additives are required.

For completeness, the four cylinder engine has the exhaust valves seated in the cast iron of the head. This means that the engine is possibly susceptible to valve seat recession without lead or a substitute in the fuel, although experience shows that this is not a problem unless the engine is used with sustained high speed and power operation. And even then, regular tappet checks will show if it is happening, and steel inserts can be added to the head when it is overhauled.

The 7:1 four will be happy on any fuel sold here today, but the 8:1 may prefer 95, and if the compression has been raised above that expect to need 95 or higher.

John

[JDNSW]

As far as I know, all 2.6 Landrover engines have hardened valve seats as standard.