Lead substitute

[Stephen Richins]

I have a 68 Imperial that has the original unmolested 440 that is bone stock & as far as I can tell has never opened up. That I am putting a Holley sniper 2 on. What's the deal with lead substitute is it needed for this motor or is there something else that I should run in it or just filler up with 91 & go?

 

[Big_John]

IMHO, that stuff is snake oil. I've never used it and see no need for it.

 

[CBODY67]

From what I have seen, ANY of the "lead substitutes" will take a huge amount of them to even get close to even the late 1970s "low-lead" lead level.

TetraEthylLead is not the only thing to help prevent valve seat recession. Just the least expensive thing they could use and get the MAIN benefit of octane enhancement.

I'd be MORE concerned about putting a new timing chain in that motor than valve seat recession!! Especially if the motor is still "as-produced".

IF you get concerned about valve seat recession later on, that would be a good reason for some aftermarket aluminum heads!

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[edbods]

I do recall a few older threads where some people just put mid-grade or even regular and never seemed to have any problems.

 

[Davea Lux]

You can also run about a pint of 2 cycle engine oil in the tank per fill up. Modern 2 cycle oils are loaded with Teflon which is a good valve train lubricant. Might not be a good idea if the factory catalyst is still installed.

Dave

 

[413]

Most of it just turns the plugs orange, one time a test f them, one brand lowered the octane!

If you want lead go buy some 100low lead AV Gas. You only need to run it a little bit, not every tank.

 

[Gerald Morris]

I have a 68 Imperial that has the original unmolested 440 that is bone stock & as far as I can tell has never opened up. That I am putting a Holley sniper 2 on. What's the deal with lead substitute is it needed for this motor or is there something else that I should run in it or just filler up with 91 & go?

If you're going to put that Holley Sniper EFI system on, you really will need modern heads. Would your current heads be 915s per chance? Don't waste money on the bogus "lead substitutes" and I wouldn't recommend running leaded fuel with that EFI anyway. I strongly suspect it was designed strictly for UNLEADED petrol. Why not leave that 440 with a nice AVS carburetor, which you CAN run leaded fuel through sans worry, as well as the heads, valves et al? You really aren't enhancing the value of the engine with that modern **** you know, though I concede it will make cleaner, more efficient power.

 

[detmatt]

You can also run about a pint of 2 cycle engine oil in the tank per fill up. Modern 2 cycle oils are loaded with Teflon which is a good valve train lubricant. Might not be a good idea if the factory catalyst is still installed.

Dave

I’ve been using marine 2 cycle specifically for over 10 years in my classics. The stuff with TC-W3.

 

[CBODY67]

I strongly concur with @Gerald Morris on running anything but modern unleaded fuels in an aftermarket EFI system. In some respects, the components can have a more-robust design of the "soft parts"/seals to deal with ethanol'd fuels, BUT probably not leaded fuels. Even most race gas is low-lead or unleaded rather than not. Reason? Most of those race engines will have aluminum heads (as many OEMs have had for a long time), which have and are designed for hard inserts on the valve seats.

When I was in college, the Library was close to my dorm, so that was "cheap entertainment" on some weekend nights or weekends. Exploring it as I now use the Internet. I found a copy of a Chilton magazine which recounted a durability test that Chrysler did with a Town & Country trailer package wagon, 440 engine, and an Airstream that was the max-weight for the factory trailer recommendations. On the Chrysler Proving Grounds, as I recall. It got oil changes at the factory recommendations and the engine was pulled every so often to check for wear and such. The orientation was to run it as long as it would run in this "heavy-duty" use. One area of concern was running on purely unleaded gasoline. At that time, Chrysler was recommending one tank in three be a tank of low-lead or full-leaded fuel. As the heads did not have induction-hardeded valve seats (which started in 1974 model year). The article had pictures and charts of the valve seat "wear".

In that continued high-heat, high-load use, valve seats degraded. By 12K miles of that, the cyl heads were only good for things requiring "dead weight" to do.

When the initial "What are we going to do?" (related to unleaded fuel only being normally-available) concerns started, the "perceived to be best" route was to get hard seats installed in the cyl heads (abt.$200.00 at the time for a pair of V-8 heads). OEMs went to induction hardening of seats, with some using hard seat inserts from the factory. As many others just kept on driving their cars on unleaded fuels of sufficient octane to keep the combustion processes quiet.

I did not really hear of any BIG issues with unleaded fuel, other than the initial concerns. No "bad mouthing" of it for "burnt valves" as most people just dealt with those things as they always had. OR it might have been an opportune time to upgrade to some aftermarket aluminum heads anyway!

Now, in the manner that most of us use our older cars for these days, unleaded fuel does not seem to have really affected things too much. More on "octane" of such, I suspect.

IF you might want to hedge things a bit, I think I have a NOS pair of 452 heads in the archives somewhere.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

 

[Stephen Richins]

If you're going to put that Holley Sniper EFI system on, you really will need modern heads. Would your current heads be 915s per chance? Don't waste money on the bogus "lead substitutes" and I wouldn't recommend running leaded fuel with that EFI anyway. I strongly suspect it was designed strictly for UNLEADED petrol. Why not leave that 440 with a nice AVS carburetor, which you CAN run leaded fuel through sans worry, as well as the heads, valves et al? You really aren't enhancing the value of the engine with that modern **** you know, though I concede it will make cleaner, more efficient power.

a as far as which heads it has couldn't tell you nor have I looked. It would have whichever heads a standard K code 350 horse 440 that a 68 Imperial would have. As far as putting the EFI on instead of leaving a carb on it. It needed a new carb anyway, I looked into getting a replacement holley that the car would have came with & was halfway to the price of an EFI conversion. So I decided it was worth it. This way I can make tuning changes without popping the hood or smelling like fuel. I'm not looking to increase the value of this car to anyone but myself. I'm just gonna run 91 in it. And if the heads need to be fixed in the future I'll either fix the factory heads or put a set of 440 source stealth aluminum heads on it

 

[CBODY67]

It dismays me that Holley 4160s, the new ones they sell, have taken the turn they have . . . as to getting something somewhat OEM-oriented, new. One of their "best deals" to me was the 1971 383 Super Bee carb. As seemed to be their practice, they took it, added the race bowls, an electric choke, and something else external to make it a more universal item. BUT still with the Chrysler jetting in it. The unique thing about THIS carb is that it was rated at 750cfm, but with 1.56" primary throttle plates and 1.75" secondary throttle plates. As their 3310 780cfm carb was all 1.69" throttle plates. But now Holley discontinued that one.

As much as I like the AVS2 and its Annular Discharge Venturis, it is hard to resist the look of a Street Demon carb with the phenolic float bowl!

CBODY67

 

[Gerald Morris]

a as far as which heads it has couldn't tell you nor have I looked. It would have whichever heads a standard K code 350 horse 440 that a 68 Imperial would have. As far as putting the EFI on instead of leaving a carb on it. It needed a new carb anyway, I looked into getting a replacement holley that the car would have came with & was halfway to the price of an EFI conversion. So I decided it was worth it. This way I can make tuning changes without popping the hood or smelling like fuel. I'm not looking to increase the value of this car to anyone but myself. I'm just gonna run 91 in it. And if the heads need to be fixed in the future I'll either fix the factory heads or put a set of 440 source stealth aluminum heads on it

Very good then. Yes, a replacement Holley carb for that engine WOULD run a significant fraction of their EFI system, enticing consumers to purchase the latter, by design. Well since you've committed to it, you certainly will do best to run 91 octane with perhaps a splash of good 2-cycle oil to supplement. According to my 1968 Parts Catalog:

The furthest right column corresponds to ALL 440 engines listed for 1968, and shows the head #2843904. I don't entirely trust this source, despite it's copyright date and such, as I've seen 440s with both 906 and 915 heads on fairly virginal 1968 B/RB engines. I suggest removing a valve cover and looking at what the factory bolted onto your block when they built it. Empiric FACT always outweighs epistolary references in my Book.

Regardless of what you find, there's an excellent probability that the valve seats will be in pretty decent condition, based on what you've related about the car so far. The Happy News for you comes now: provided you don't ABUSE this excellent find, your valve seats should be good for many tens of thousands of miles yet with that EFI system, even sans hardening or hardened inserts! I type this based on what I purchased for my own family ride, which now has been in daily use for 4 years. The valve seats on the pair of 915s I obtained were in decent condition, but I ordered hardened inserts for them just to insure that they would serve well for a long time to come. We don't have lucre to waste on whimsical head and valve jobs in our household; once should do for these for a good long time!

 

[Gerald Morris]

....
IF you might want to hedge things a bit, I think I have a NOS pair of 452 heads in the archives somewhere.

Enjoy!
CBODY67

Hmmm, I might get happy over a pair of NOS 452 heads, but can't just this month. If you get an itch to dig for them, let us know here! We have that 400, which came w those

 

[413]

Gerald 915 heads came on 1967's only, they were done with closed chambers for 1968 model year vehicles.

Other than the 440HP's I've seen them on many BB engines from 383 2 bbls and also Imperials with 350 horse standard 440's

 

[Gerald Morris]

Gerald 915 heads came on 1967's only, they were done with closed chambers for 1968 model year vehicles.

I've seen them on all BB engines 383 2 bbls and also Imperials with 350 horse standard 440's

OK. I like closed quench heads. I can easily see how a 67 engine might have been bolted into an EARLY 68 body, rather like the Nov 1965 383 I'm still running got plopped into the '66 Newport it came in. The 904 listing I see in the catalog would have been open, like the 906 then? I have 906 heads from both the '68 383 which gave me so much **** 4 yrs ago, and that '69 engine I've started poking into this past spring.

 

[Big_John]

a as far as which heads it has couldn't tell you nor have I looked. It would have whichever heads a standard K code 350 horse 440 that a 68 Imperial would have. As far as putting the EFI on instead of leaving a carb on it. It needed a new carb anyway, I looked into getting a replacement holley that the car would have came with & was halfway to the price of an EFI conversion. So I decided it was worth it. This way I can make tuning changes without popping the hood or smelling like fuel. I'm not looking to increase the value of this car to anyone but myself. I'm just gonna run 91 in it. And if the heads need to be fixed in the future I'll either fix the factory heads or put a set of 440 source stealth aluminum heads on it

Your car very likely has 906 castings. They work just fine in general and IMHO, for a limited usage hobby car, they will work just dandy without any heroics like hardened valve seats. People ran lead free Amoco gas for many years before the catalyst convertors required all the gas to be lead free.

I've read a bit about adding the 2 cycle oil, and it sounds like it has some promise. At absolute worst, it's not gonna hurt and it's sure not going to be some toxic additive that you don't want to splash on your skin.

 

[Big_John]

When I was in college, the Library was close to my dorm, so that was "cheap entertainment" on some weekend nights or weekends. Exploring it as I now use the Internet. I found a copy of a Chilton magazine which recounted a durability test that Chrysler did with a Town & Country trailer package wagon, 440 engine, and an Airstream that was the max-weight for the factory trailer recommendations. On the Chrysler Proving Grounds, as I recall. It got oil changes at the factory recommendations and the engine was pulled every so often to check for wear and such. The orientation was to run it as long as it would run in this "heavy-duty" use. One area of concern was running on purely unleaded gasoline. At that time, Chrysler was recommending one tank in three be a tank of low-lead or full-leaded fuel. As the heads did not have induction-hardeded valve seats (which started in 1974 model year). The article had pictures and charts of the valve seat "wear".

In that continued high-heat, high-load use, valve seats degraded. By 12K miles of that, the cyl heads were only good for things requiring "dead weight" to do.

I can't help but wonder if that was all "lead free" damage or if there was damage from the leaned out mixtures and other things they did to limit emissions they started to run a few years before.

That type of testing goes way beyond the typical usage you see with our cars now. Nobody uses them to tow anything heavy anymore (I used to) and 12K miles may take 5-10 years to accumulate. Still interesting though...

 

[413]

OK. I like closed quench heads. I can easily see how a 67 engine might have been bolted into an EARLY 68 body, rather like the Nov 1965 383 I'm still running got plopped into the '66 Newport it came in. The 904 listing I see in the catalog would have been open, like the 906 then? I have 906 heads from both the '68 383 which gave me so much **** 4 yrs ago, and that '69 engine I've started poking into this past spring.

They started build 1968 model year cars in early August 1967. So every 1968 car built until mid January 1968 had a 1967 casting date engine. But the pad will say D440 or D383 and the VIN will be on the dash and have an 8 in the 6th digit because they are 1968 vehicles.

 

[CBODY67]

That type of testing goes way beyond the typical usage you see with our cars now. Nobody uses them to tow anything heavy anymore (I used to) and 12K miles may take 5-10 years to accumulate. Still interesting though...

Yes, "Proving Ground Miles" are much harder miles than "consumer miles". When we toured the Buick V-6 plant in Flint in 2003, there was a bar chart showing main bearing life in "Proving Ground Miles for both the non-balance shaft and balance shaft Buick 3800 V-6. Non-balance shaft main bearing life was 40K miles. With the balance shaft added, it was 90K miles. BTAIM

Our Service Manager had a saying . . . "Some people can tear up an anvil in a sandpile". I saw that concept in real life a few times, back then. Knowing that what the customer said happened HAD to have had some of their actions which "helped it along".

His little brother said, about a mechanic they knew, "He was such a good mechanic he could pick up a rock and get it to crank".

FWIW,
CBODY67

 

[detmatt]

Very good then. Yes, a replacement Holley carb for that engine WOULD run a significant fraction of their EFI system, enticing consumers to purchase the latter, by design. Well since you've committed to it, you certainly will do best to run 91 octane with perhaps a splash of good 2-cycle oil to supplement. According to my 1968 Parts Catalog:

View attachment 735109
The furthest right column corresponds to ALL 440 engines listed for 1968, and shows the head #2843904. I don't entirely trust this source, despite it's copyright date and such, as I've seen 440s with both 906 and 915 heads on fairly virginal 1968 B/RB engines. I suggest removing a valve cover and looking at what the factory bolted onto your block when they built it. Empiric FACT always outweighs epistolary references in my Book.

Regardless of what you find, there's an excellent probability that the valve seats will be in pretty decent condition, based on what you've related about the car so far. The Happy News for you comes now: provided you don't ABUSE this excellent find, your valve seats should be good for many tens of thousands of miles yet with that EFI system, even sans hardening or hardened inserts! I type this based on what I purchased for my own family ride, which now has been in daily use for 4 years. The valve seats on the pair of 915s I obtained were in decent condition, but I ordered hardened inserts for them just to insure that they would serve well for a long time to come. We don't have lucre to waste on whimsical head and valve jobs in our household; once should do for these for a good long time!

The numbers in those columns are part numbers, not casting numbers. 2843 904 all have casting numbers of 2843 906.