Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911A145
So... it's a huge conspiracy that all manufactures comply with "some" ethanol in their vehicles to only reap the repair cost down the road? lol...
|
No, youre reading into things in a ridiculous manner.
The manufacturers state that 10% is acceptable. They state to not exceed 10% because of materials compatibility issues.
No different than the fact that diesels now are allowing 2, 5 or 20% biodiesel in their engines. Because of compatibility.
The manufacturers SUED THE GOVERNMENT over E15, because of the issues that would arise from its use.
My point on ULSD is that lubricity because of the removal of sulfur bound heterocycles was reduced. This creates issues for legacy equipment. It also wears it out faster - leading to replacement.
The fundamental difference is that incompatibility will create a massive failure due to something decomposing, as opposed to long-term accelerated wear.
>E10 is incompatible with the materials used in the engines. If you cannot comprehend chemical solvency and compatibility of materials, then you should not be taking a stand in this argument. It is clear that you do not understand these aspects, which are very fundamental in engineering of systems for longevity.
Are there materials that can be used? Sure. There are E85 vehicles on the road. But the materials selected in these and most other engines are not compatible, and it is very clear from many sources to be the case. Deal with it. And dont try to compare something that is in there at 1000:1 (something like 0.2%) with something in there at 10%, 15% or 85% and say that they are the same.
NOTHING in is present as a single component in crude-derivd fuel at a level above a few ppm.
