Tetraethyl lead banned in Europe in 1920s

Having read about the impacts of leaded fuel on car design when it was introduced in the 1920s, along with efforts in France to ban lead-based paints at the same time, I have wondered what would have happened if European nations had banned leaded fuel before it was introduced there in the late 1920s and 1930s.

There was already divergence between American and European car design at that time, and today I have been thinking about how much greater this divergence would have become if Europe had not allowed the increases in gasoline octane rating permitted by tetraethyl lead.

Would the larger-volume European makes have gradually turned to exclusive use of diesel engines?

Would gas turbine engines have become used in upper crust European makes with fuel octane limited to (say) 75 RON?

How much would banning tetraethyl lead from its invention have affected the growth of European automotive industries for export after the war?
 
Last edited:
Having read about the impacts of leaded fuel on car design when it was introduced in the 1920s, along with efforts in France to ban lead-based paints at the same time, I have wondered what would have happened if European nations had banned leaded fuel before it was introduced there in the late 1920s and 1930s.

There was already divergence between American and European car design at that time, and today I have been thinking about how much greater this divergence would have become if Europe had not allowed the increases in gasoline octane rating permitted by tetraethyl lead.

Would the larger-volume European makes have gradually turned to exclusive use of diesel engines?

Would gas turbine engines have become used in upper crust European makes with fuel octane limited to (say) 75 RON?

How much would banning tetraethyl lead from its invention have affected the growth of European automotive industries for export after the war?
How about during the war valves on us manufacturer engines would not take it without lead. When the u.s. switch to LED I had a 72 Buick Skylark 350 cubic inch and it would run low lead which was only around for 5 to 10 years at the most if you filled it up with unleaded gasoline the noise from the valves ticking what is deafening. For a while I'm guessing until most farm implements would have been replaced they used to sell led to the farmers that you could add into the tanks with unleaded gas to keep them from destroying themselves. I don't if the technology to to harden the valves even existed
 

Does Lead Exposure Cause Violent Crime? The Science is Still Out

Discover magazine, Guest Blogger Scott Firestone, Jan. 8, 2013

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/c...-crime-the-science-is-still-out/#.WuuAheSM2cw

' . . . was a cohort study done by researchers at the University of Cincinnati. Between 1979 and 1984, 376 infants were recruited. Their parents consented to have lead levels in their blood tested over time; this was matched with records over subsequent decades of the individuals’ arrest records, and specifically arrest for violent crime. . . '

' . . . For 6-year-olds, it’s a much more significant 1.48 (confidence interval 1.15-1.89). . . '
And please notice the variance of the correlation coefficient from 1.15 to 1.89. By "confidence interval," I think that's where we're 95% confident it really is. So, quite a variance.
 
Cobalt alloy valve seats and sodium cooled valves cost money.

But the real problem with burning valves was with solid lifters. The slightest wear, carbon buildup or misadjustment, and the exhaust valves would not seat fully, and overheat/warp/erode.

Valves would get hot enough they would try to microweld to the seat, eroding the valve and making the problem worse and worse.

Lead acted as a barrier to prevent that welding, but only to a degree, and also caused plug fouling, besides the whole deadly poison thing

But the main benefit was TEL was the cheapest way to increase octane. Better base fuel or different additives cost far more.
 
There isn't enough crude that is naturally "high octane" then (and now) without TEL or something else. When TEL was being phased out, research in better catalysts/techniques for catalytic reforming became a big deal. In the 20s, chemical engineering/chemistry was not up for the sort of cat reforming processes used in the late 20th century.
 
Cobalt alloy valve seats and sodium cooled valves cost money.

But the real problem with burning valves was with solid lifters. The slightest wear, carbon buildup or misadjustment, and the exhaust valves would not seat fully, and overheat/warp/erode.

Valves would get hot enough they would try to microweld to the seat, eroding the valve and making the problem worse and worse.

Lead acted as a barrier to prevent that welding, but only to a degree, and also caused plug fouling, besides the whole deadly poison thing

But the main benefit was TEL was the cheapest way to increase octane. Better base fuel or different additives cost far more.
Maybe sleeve valves would be more of a thing?
 
I suspect an earlier PoD might enable this. For example back in the 1890s ethanol/methanol fuelled engines were in use in farm machinery in Europe, something that made countries almost fuel independent. There was extensive German and French research into alcohol fuels. Again, when the first automobiles were developed those in Europe often operated on alcohol fuels. Then in 1899 the German government taxed petroleum imports and subsidized domestic ethanol to promote domestic fuel sources over imported (i.e. Oil Trust) hydrocarbons; Wilhelm II sponsored research into the use of alcohol as a fuel.
This spread to France within a couple of years; in fact Paris had an exposition dedicated entirely to the uses of alcohol as a fuel in 1902!
Under Teddy Roosevelt, in 1906, the US eliminated most alcohol taxes and exempted far stills from government oversight, specifically to undermine Standard Oil.
By 1918-25 there was much interest in alcohol blending with hydrocarbons; this would boost octane rating without TEL. Even Standard Oil dabbled in this.

Perhaps there is more resistance to the introduction of TEL, around 1923? There was historically quite a bit of resistance to the idea, especially after a spate of refinery deaths. GM and Standard nearly abandoned the project and it wasn't until 1933 and the campaign by the API against ethanol that blends were marginalised in the USA.
 
Henry Ford developed the Model T engine to run on alcohol specifically so farmers and rural people could make their own fuel. The grade of gasoline that was available back then was considered inferior to alcohol in some sum cases as a fuel.
 
Maybe sleeve valves would be more of a thing?

Introduces more problems than it solves, with far higher added costs added on top.

The big problem with using alcohol for increasing octane is all from OTL. more than 10% and you need to change carburetor jetting and find gasket and fuelline that
can withstand exposed to both types of solvents

Alcohol put thru natural rubber tubing and leather used in the pumps just do not get along for long periods of time, and given the unsealed fuel systems of the era,
would have an even worse problem with the hygroscopic properties of alcohol causing actual rust in tanks.

Model T could run on almost anything, from Kerosene to Producer gas, due to low compression and a huge range of spark advance or retard available to the driver to
match to the fuel, plus with an air/fuel mixture adjustment on the dash.

Model T didn't use a fuel pump, it was a gravity system.

Most vehicles after 1915 did not have these
 
Lots depends on the octane rating of the hydrocarbon mix at any particular time. The main objective is to propel a vehicle at least total cost- by this I mean vehicle as well as fuel. Ignoring the lead and iron based anti knock additives to gasoline, which came into use in the twenties, the engine design features which promoted detonation were beginning to be understood at the same time, both for automobiles and aircraft. The easy availability of TEL and iron carbonyl rendered the costly combustion chamber research then going on, much less a high priority activity.

It was becoming understood, particularly in the aircraft world, that the location of hot spots in the combustion chamber (exhaust valve(s) and spark plug electrodes) could permit relatively high compression (up to 10:1 in a version of the Napier Lion intended for long range flight). High turbulence combustion chamber shape with maximum quench areas and multiple small (low temperature) exhaust valves would perform quite well on straight run low octane (60 or so) gasoline in the few research engines of the time. Some of the approaches suggested by Sir Harry Ricardo for non Diesel engines were those mentioned above, as well as Burt-McCollum sleeve valves, Aspin and similar rotating elements all of which eliminated the hot spots promoting engine knock, but not all of which would necessarily have increased cost.

My approach would have been to simply increase engine displacement (it comes cheap) and combine relatively low mechanical compression and sensitive spark advance (retard) to eliminate low octane knock. After all, unspiked gas was cheap.

Keep in mind that, other than at full throttle, even with a high mechanical compression ratio, actual cylinder pressure is equivalent to a considerably lower compression ratio due to the obstructing effect of the throttle.

Not being a sociologist or statistician, I'll leave the lead and violence discussion very much alone.

Dynasoar
 
It was becoming understood, particularly in the aircraft world, that the location of hot spots in the combustion chamber (exhaust valve(s) and spark plug electrodes) could permit relatively high compression (up to 10:1 in a version of the Napier Lion intended for long range flight). High turbulence combustion chamber shape with maximum quench areas and multiple small (low temperature) exhaust valves would perform quite well on straight run low octane (60 or so) gasoline in the few research engines of the time. Some of the approaches suggested by Sir Harry Ricardo for non Diesel engines were those mentioned above, as well as Burt-McCollum sleeve valves, Aspin and similar rotating elements all of which eliminated the hot spots promoting engine knock, but not all of which would necessarily have increased cost.

Cost was the big thing. Flatheads, aka Valve in Block were popular due to low cost and high reliability, but you couldn't do fancy head design and there was really no way to get above 8:1 C/R

Now with the crap fuels thru WWII for civilian ground use, this wasn't really a problem. That why aircraft drove technology, always needed to be lighter and more power, so that drove getting OVH, SOHC and DOHC with Sodium filled valves or sleeve valves. But Cost still came into the picture, and TEL was cheap.

That made P&W very competitive with aircraft engines, despite just using a high reliability, low cost pushrod twin valve OHV than going the path of Bristol with sleeve valves or three or four valve OHC designs

KISS.
 
marathag,

Track and salt-flat racing activity, centering largely around flat-head Ford V-8 engines till the availability of the 1955 Chevrolet engine, saw the introduction of a radical flat-head combustion chamber shape at the end of the Ford era. The piston was flat topped, with ring grooves located relatively low. The valve chamber formed all of the combustion chamber and was "relieved" substantially more than usual in racing conversions. Plug was cartridge fire (like Meyer Drake etc) located over the exhaust valve. The piston, referred to as a "pop-up", virtually touched the flat bottom of the head over the full bore and formed a powerful quench and turbulence generator, as well as permitting mechanical compression ratio (particularly with large displacement engines) exceeding 10:1. The Ford V-8 now had the sufficient power to quickly and expensively destroy itself (three main bearing crankshaft and all-) and Chevys were cheap and available.

I believe that a full quench high turbulence flat head engine could have done well on the fuels available from the thirties on, possibly at higher compression ratios with less knock than the OHV engines of the time. Ultimately, unburned residual hydrocarbon, beyond federal standards (a result of high quench) would eliminate this approach, but a modern (say 1953) design could have been less costly to build and with smoother combustion and higher efficiency (higher usable C.R.) than contemporary OHV engines, competitive in all but maximum power.

Dynasoar
 
Last edited:
Sorry to see this interesting thread winding down. To answer mianfei's original question as best I can, Europe might have followed two separate paths, the first assumes government regulations requiring a substantial minimum alcohol content for agricultural reasons. In this case, automobile engines would develop along historic lines, possibly with more attention to exhaust valve heat rejection, or materials.

Assuming that European regulations simply banned lead compounds, I'm sure some Midgely would come up with a TEL equivalent (Iron carbonyl worked but was highly corrosive). In the interim, combustion chamber research would be accelerated, refining methods configured to increase octane, low compression engines made larger.

I wouldn't expect large scale Diesel use (cost of injection related components). Possibly two cycle engines which are less sensitive to octane, would have a larger presence (DKW, SAAB, Wartburg etc). Possible resurgence of steam?

Dynasoar
 
Assuming that European regulations simply banned lead compounds, I'm sure some Midgely would come up with a TEL equivalent (Iron carbonyl worked but was highly corrosive). In the interim, combustion chamber research would be accelerated, refining methods configured to increase octane, low compression engines made larger.

Early on, BTEX would probably be the way of choice. That's a mix of hydrocarbons Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl-benzene and Xylene: known as gasoline aromatics.
They exist in the mix sold as Gasoline anyway, just more of the 'quality' stuff to get Octane ratings up.
Downside- expensive, and boils out in summer weather, and you need alkylation plants for high volume, and that starts in the '30s. otherwise, you are limited in what the base crude oil has, you will need 'sweet' light crude as your base stocks.

Then you have Esters, they don't boil out, are temp stable and non corrosive to existing fuel systems. MTBE was historically used after TEL for octane booster and oxygenate to reduce tailpipe pollution. Downside: health concerns, and no big lobby like Big Ag pushing corn ethanol.

Then Alcohol. hygroscopic and a different sort of solvent that is worse on organic systems(natural rubber)Breaks down quickly. plus less BTU per volume than MTBE or BTEX, so less energy
 
Top