Hello all. With this issue I am able to report on some very positive movements with respect to the Register, with a new committee being formed and some roles changing. The move to have closer ties with the MGM Group 1998 is drawing closer and the joint event, held at the Midland Motor Museum at Bridgnorth, was a resounding success. There is a report with pictures later.

The new Committee consists of: -
Acting Chairman/Regalia
Martin Woods
Safety Fast Scribe
Gary Boxall
12, The Village
Walton on the Hill
Stafford
ST17 0LQ
Registrar
Neil Turner
Technical Rep
Roger Parker
General Committee Members
Steve Barton
David Smith
Laurie Brown
Max Tyler

Clearly this is not a top-heavy line up and there is still room for other keen members to come and join. Also next month will be a new contact telephone number, in the meantime contact me on 01827 287986 or e-mail me at roger.parker@virgin.net

As can be seen I have stood down from the role of Safety Fast! Scribe. This is partly a reflection of a change to my working hours, that has seen the need for committing more hours for work and less for other activities. It also reflects the move to closer ties with the MGM Group, with appropriate streamlining of administrative roles to provide clear co-ordination in respect of organising events and other member benefits. I am very optimistic for the future. I shall continue to provide technical advice and will no doubt be asked to provide features and other bits and pieces for SF.

This will be the last Safety Fast notes that fall under my wing, and Gary will be taking over the responsibility from the next issue. I would just like to take the opportunity to thank all those who have taken the trouble to write or call during my tenure of the last seven years. I have not been able to answer you all, but the positive comments you have provided, does make the effort and commitment required sitting here, for not inconsiderable periods of time, worth the effort. I hope that Gary has the same support.

I have already spent considerable time and effort researching the technical details behind most of the engines fitted to FWD cars (and others) with a view to unravelling some of the misnomers and confusing information surrounding which engines can run unleaded and if not what needs to be done. I have no intention of repeating myself and would refer you to the October 1998 FWD Centrespread, where I detailed considerable information.

No this time I have taken the blinkers off and started to look at a wider issue and tried to anticipate some other factors that will possibly affect the running of our cars. I don't think that such a view has been taken before, at least I can't remember seeing any.

The main issue here is not just whether our engines will work with reliability with unleaded, Lead Replacement Petrol (LRP), and/or unleaded with additives, but how well will they perform. These alternative fuels show changes in the mix of compounds that the fuel is made up with. Many of us will have to go through a trial and error period during the changeover period, and take advantage of trying different brands and types to find which forecourt offers the best option for your particular engine. Obviously just the issue of unleaded, and whether the engine will survive has been paramount in most owners minds, and little or no consideration will have been given to other areas of engine running.

Clearly I think that most owners wishing to keep their cars will adopt the route that enables their engines to run on normal unleaded fuels. This may be by way of engineered changes with valves, guides and seats for some of the older design engines, to just the simple insertion of a different pump nozzle for others. However I know that many owners are still worried about the ability of their engine to run on unleaded, even though there may be clear facts and indications that they will.

What will happen is that petrol forecourts will 'convert' existing 4 star pumps to the alternative LRP fuel, which will possibly be accompanied by a selection of owner added fuel additives. Motor stores will have a wider selection of these additives jumping out at you from their shelves with all sorts of claims, 'suggesting' that you may be damaging your engine without the protection of product X, Y or Z. Then there will be the continuing pressure from suppliers of 'gadgets' and 'devices' that is already in place. Advertising WILL work and owners will buy a wide selection of these products and add or fit them. If all goes well, and I sincerely hope that it will, then no problem, but I don't see that. I expect that owners will worry and be sensitivite to the way their engine runs, then find the smallest hiccup or indication of a running problem as a reason to over react. I then see a wide range of products being mixed and my thoughts are, 'Could this actually create it's own set of running problems?'.

I mention this now before the problems are with us, which may give the opportunity for us to consider this and not rush into hasty action later. Perhaps those with much better product knowledge than me could add their information to the debate. I consider that the simplest approach if possible is usually one of the best options. So, use unleaded if at all possible without any additive or ancillary 'device'.

If you find LRP at your filling station then first take note of any information leaflet that the particular Petrol Company has issued, and which will/should be at the filling station BEFORE you use the fuel. Once you have read any available information then try and reduce the residual fuel level in your tank as much as possible to avoid any unusual problems form a mix of fuel types. Then when using the LRP for the first time, only add about 10 litres (Just over a couple of gallons for imperial onlookers) or so, don't fill up the tank. Then go and drive perfectly normally in a variety of road conditions and see if you notice any difference. If things are not well then try an alternative filling station and follow the same 'toe in the water' approach.

If all is well then allow the fuel level to drop down again before filling. This will quickly reduce the mix ratio of new LRP to old 4 Star and enable you to gain a true representative idea of how the car will run on LRP sooner. Once again don't fill to the brim so you can see if the smooth running continues. If it does then a full fill next time, and use as normal from then on. (Plug removal is always a useful guide to combustion conditions, assuming è è that you are familiar with what to look for.

The same situation applies to additives and I suggest the same basic procedure to ensure that if you do have some odd running problem you don't have to use up a larger quantity of fuel before trying something else. If you do experience some running problems then if you have a M.G. Metro then you have the options of being able to alter fuel and ignition settings. Try this and if possible have the car set up on a rolling road. I think that over time we may well see some feedback on additives and the minor adjustments that have to be applied to specifically ignition settings to achieve the best. Early M.G. Maestro 1600's with the R series engine also have carbs and distributors that can be reset, whereas the later S engined M.G. Maestro 1600 has mapped ignition which can't.

Those with Injected M.G. Maestro and M.G. Montego models are basically 'up the creek without a paddle' as there is next to no adjustment that can be achieved in terms of fuel and ignition alterations, at least not without significant delving into the ECUs. The Turbo models with their carbs do at least give some fuelling control, but have the same restriction with regard to ignition. The saving grace for the O series models is that in terms of power delivery the relatively crude nature of the engine does absorb and mask the effects of poorer quality combustion. Fuel efficiency on the other hand does usually show deficits quite readily, and can be used as a barometer to the effect of changes. I already know, from previous tests I have done, that the O series can see a quite marked reduction in fuel efficiency (between 5% to 10%) by the use of 95RON unleaded, compared to 97 RON leaded.

Anyway my negative stance towards these 'gadgets' was tested when a good friend and colleague had one fitted as a 'freebie trial' by a car dealer friend of his. His Volvo 240 GLT with the Bosch K Jetronic injection saw a marked improvement in fuel consumption (15%) that was sustained. This was more of a surprise since the car's condition and performance was up to scratch before. Several other Volvo owning colleagues also had the device fitted and also saw improvements, although of a more variable nature. Two were using carburettor engines and these had the wider spaced results, in that longer journeys gave improvements but around town there was far less change.

I still retained a negative view, especially in respect of the unleaded fuel conversion claims. It was then that my garage owning friend offered what was coincidentally was the same device to try out as he had several customers who were very pleased with the apparent benefits that they had seen. Being as this was a no cost option and with a high degree of curiosity I took up the offer. The tests that I have done are far from scientific, but as for previous tests I have done the control is sufficient to gain an insight as to the general 'trends' available. This should give an insight into the sort of results others will achieve.

This device is one that the instructions state should be mounted as close to the 'carb or injection pump' as possible. This is also the same sort of position that a fuel pressure regulator has best effect also! The instructions are clearly biased towards carb and mechanical injection engines, with little reference anywhere to electronic fuel injection or full engine management control. As I was fitting the unit to the Maestro, with the T16 and full standard Rover MEMS sequential injection and digital engine management system, I felt that this would be a very good test. In the event I mounted the unit according to the instructions and as close to the fuel rail as was possible.

Being as this engine has had a very well documented history, which includes regular exhaust analysis checks using my friends MOT gas analyser. This provided a quantified historical base line of information to start with. I preceded the fitting by another check, which provided results that were within 2% of previous. (0.8% CO, 105ppm HC) Following fitting the device there was no initial change but the instructions say to allow time for the system to settle down.

After 200 miles and a complete tank of fuel, I checked again and saw a 0.1% reduction of CO to 0.7%, but a rise in HC to 180ppm. The first tank saw a nominal 0.6mpg change, which was too small to prove anything. After four tanks and nearly 1000 miles the checks were repeated when the CO was seen at 0.8% with the HC at 170ppm. At this time the car was being sold to Martin, so I removed the device.

Taking stock at this time showed that with the full engine management system that operates with full closed loop control, there is a very fine control on the engine. Adding any device that may or may not have an effect is going to be difficult to asses since the lambda will constantly alter the fuel/air mix to achieve it's designed parameter, so any change may be hidden. Clearly though it was a complete waste of time on the Maestro. I suspect that MGF owners who want to run without their cat and still pass emission tests will find very similar results.

As the Volvo scenario showed best results on a Jetronic fed engine I then fitted the device to an Orion 1.6i of another friend, which uses the same basic system. In fact his wife's car and she didn't know anything about the fit so as to try and keep the use of the car as similar as possible. The car is actually a very good 1987 version, which in itself is an oddity, and the engine was rebuilt a couple of years ago. On fitting the mixture was a little rich, not excessively, and was adjusted.

The following two months of continued daily driving to work with motorway and urban use covered just short of 1600 miles. Checking the mixture at this time saw a slight weakness, to about the same degree as the original richness, and in fairness well within the expected 'float' range for these models. Subsequent checking of the fuel consumption showed some tanks gave better consumption and some worse. The overall average was 1.5mpg better. (5%). As the fit was 'hidden' from the usual user it was interesting to note there were no comments about any variation about the way in which the car was performing. When asked if the car was still going all right the response was 'the same as usual'. Once again no stunning changes!

This is the current state of play with this device and clearly my experience does not get anywhere near the claims made. I am about to fit the device to my sister’s (my old) 1989 M.G. Metro and see whether this basic carb fed engine shows any different results. I do have my doubts that it will though. I'm sure that Gary will find space in a couple of months to allow me to report on this final test.

The improvements shown in the Volvo's are still present, although have settled back a little, yet this is the opposite of my experiences. Looking at the device I do wonder if there is more effect on fuel flow rather than fuel 'treatment'. There is a considerable weight for such a small unit and clearly this is not an 'empty vessel'. I do wonder if there is a pressure regulating effect or one where fuel pump pulses are 'softened' so reducing conditions where strong pump pulses actually force more fuel into the carb than is needed. In the case of the injection engines where fuel pressure is under quite fine control the pressure regulating effect is less likely to be present, quite what I don't know.

Would I spend £50 to £60 on one of these, certainly not! To me they remain just gadgets designed to line the pockets of the sellers, from the hopes and aspirations of owners who genuinely wish to see their cars performing better and cleaner. I know that I haven't any results from the use of the device on the M.G. Metro yet, but somehow I really don't expect to see any earth shattering differences.

Throughout this feature I have simply referred to the unit as a 'device'. I have no intention of mentioning names for obvious reasons, but my personal feelings before having this device, have not changed, and that unless proven in tests far more scientific than mine I remain the eternal sceptic and encourage others to hold the same view.

Next year’s show will be at the same venue. It will be even bigger and better now that we have a whole year to plan for it. The 160 car turnout at this year's event shows the growing enthusiasm for these very practical and affordable M.G.s. Also present at the show was the newly formed Maestro owners club which caters for all Maestro variants - Austin as well as the M.G. variety.

Finally, special thanks to all the members who turned up for the day. And what a glorious day it was - and not just because of the great weather.