Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Unleaded Additives Series 2A 2.6 Litre

  1. #1
    Lionelgee is offline YarnMaster Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    3,814
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Unleaded Additives Series 2A 2.6 Litre

    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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,375
    Total Downloaded
    0

    PinMe Depends

    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

  3. #3
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    28,804
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    in the wild New England, NSW
    Posts
    4,918
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,375
    Total Downloaded
    0

    Never too old to learn

    Quote Originally Posted by S3ute View Post
    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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Westlake ,brisbane
    Posts
    3,922
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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. 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" .
    Attached Images Attached Images

  7. #7
    Homestar's Avatar
    Homestar is offline Super Moderator & CA manager Gold Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sunbury, VIC
    Posts
    20,055
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by S3ute View Post
    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.
    If you need to contact me please email homestarrunnerau@gmail.com - thanks - Gav.

  8. #8
    JDNSW's Avatar
    JDNSW is offline RoverLord Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Central West NSW
    Posts
    28,804
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by bacicat View Post
    .......

    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
    John

    JDNSW
    1986 110 County 3.9 diesel
    1970 2a 109 2.25 petrol

  9. #9
    Homestar's Avatar
    Homestar is offline Super Moderator & CA manager Gold Subscriber
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sunbury, VIC
    Posts
    20,055
    Total Downloaded
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JDNSW View Post
    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...
    If you need to contact me please email homestarrunnerau@gmail.com - thanks - Gav.

  10. #10
    Lionelgee is offline YarnMaster Silver Subscriber
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Queensland
    Posts
    3,814
    Total Downloaded
    0
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search AULRO.com ONLY!
Search All the Web!