BMW 1 Series Coupe Forum / 1 Series Convertible Forum (1M / tii / 135i / 128i / Coupe / Cabrio / Hatchback) (BMW E82 E88 128i 130i 135i)
 





 

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      02-15-2013, 05:08 PM   #45
mryakanisachoad
Lieutenant
 
mryakanisachoad's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 550xi + '09 M5 + '10 135i
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Posts: 527
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911A145 View Post
Ethanol over 10% is not going to "kill" your warranty. The manufacture states that you can use up to 10% ethanol in a newer vehicle. They are merely stating that if you chose to use more than that, then they can not be held liable for their workmanship on a part they set at handling up to 10%.

Same thing can be said about modifying the car in any other way as well. If I tune the car for more HP, the manufacture wont honor a warranty on parts they made to only handle a certain limit they designed.

By no way does that mean ethanol is not safe. It just means the ones who chose to use more of it should also take into consideration of what they are getting into. Almost every single gas station has up to 10% ethanol in the gas now. If lubrication was such a big deal, as you state, then you would see every news station in the country promoting 2 stroke oil mixtures... lol

Warranty Information:

Components damage/malfunctions, or any drivability problems caused by use of fuels containing more then 10% ethanol (or other oxygenates with more then 2.8% oxygen by weight) will not be covered under BMW warranties with respect to defects in materials or workmanship.

I think BMW's language is pretty clear. Perhaps you don't think it's clear. That's OK.

I'm not sure how you built a bridge in your head connecting reasonable people wondering if there's a way to protect their vehicles from a fuel not designed to be used in their vehicles to ETHANOL SUCKS! But, it's your head and you build anything you like in it!

Last edited by mryakanisachoad; 02-15-2013 at 05:44 PM.
mryakanisachoad is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 05:11 PM   #46
1911A145
Captain
 
1911A145's Avatar
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Port Saint Lucie, FL

Posts: 773
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHZR2 View Post
No. Alcohols are known for their solvent behaviors and their incompatability with certain materials. Also, they are present in major quantity (10, 15, 30, 85%). An additive is in the tank at a minute trace amount, with a ratio of 800:1 or less in some cases.

Apples and oranges.

Not scholarly, but here is a read:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...-damage-engine

And another:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/study-...rticle/2520078

So ethanol gums up injectors, creates higher carbon amounts, and holds water when left to sit too long.

regular gas does the same thing...

Maintenance. Some of us chose to follow a schedule to maintain our vehicles, others just put gas in the car and drive. preventative maintenance in either situation will leave you with a reliable car. There are already increased additives in top tier gasoline's to fight off build up, among other things.

For the average car, I prefer straight gas without ethanol for only one reason, the increased mileage. ethanol will lower that some. other than that, it's all the same to me. Some people are too butt hurt over ethanol...
1911A145 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 05:13 PM   #47
JHZR2
Captain
 
Drives: 91 E30, 11 135i cv
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 900
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911A145 View Post
Almost every single gas station has up to 10% ethanol in the gas now. If lubrication was such a big deal, as you state, then you would see every news station in the country promoting 2 stroke oil mixtures... lol

IO suppose youre going to deny the change in lubricity when changing to ULSD, despite knowing nothing of the chemical basis of what occurs. That is well documented by standard ASTM tests as well.

Do manufacturers "recommend" anything? No.

Of course they like the repair work and they dont want the liability of any joe schmoe running some add that does more harm than good.
JHZR2 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 05:21 PM   #48
1911A145
Captain
 
1911A145's Avatar
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Port Saint Lucie, FL

Posts: 773
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHZR2 View Post
IO suppose youre going to deny the change in lubricity when changing to ULSD, despite knowing nothing of the chemical basis of what occurs. That is well documented by standard ASTM tests as well.

Do manufacturers "recommend" anything? No.

Of course they like the repair work and they dont want the liability of any joe schmoe running some add that does more harm than good.
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...
1911A145 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 05:21 PM   #49
SteveAZ
Lieutenant
 
Drives: 135i Cab
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Phoenix, AZ

Posts: 553
iTrader: (5)

This is way more of a political subject than it should be and thus good info is hard to come by and must be critically viewed. For that reason, I applaud some of your guys' approach to presenting your side in this debate.

But, and this is my last post on this because I don't like the political malarchy...have you truely looked at the components and materials used in your oners fuel system....I have...and that's all I'm going to say..

Do your homework boys and draw your own conclusions...I've already stated some of the draw backs and JHZR2 seems like a knowledgable poster that backs up his claims with data. I'm not disputing them, but do all of them apply...that's what you need to determine for yourselves.

Cheers
__________________
2008 AW E88 Auto running on 100% E85
Current--AA FMIC--BMS CP, DCIs, & OCC--ER OC--E85 CP injection, and Fuel-It! Stage 3 LPFP--RB PCV--M3 FSB, RCAs, & FCAs--Whiteline RSFBs, and DBs--Rogue TA's--ER SS brakelines--Stoptech slotted rotors w/Ferodo pads--Apex Arc 8s w/Nitto NT05's--Wavetrac LSD & Ohlins R & T Waiting on install: Nothing...give it a few
SteveAZ is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 05:23 PM   #50
1911A145
Captain
 
1911A145's Avatar
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Port Saint Lucie, FL

Posts: 773
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by mryakanisachoad View Post
Warranty Information:

Components damage/malfunctions, or any drivability problems caused by use of fuels containing more then 10% ethanol (or other oxygenates with more then 2.8% oxygen by weight) will not be covered under BMW warranties with respect to defects in materials or workmanship.

I think BMW's language is pretty clear. Perhaps you don't think it's clear. That's OK.

I'm not sure how you built a bridge in your head connecting reasonable people wondering if there's a way to protect their vehicles from a fuel not designed to used in their vehicles to ETHANOL SUCKS! But, it's your head and you build anything you like in it!
I tend to do so. Thanks. Clearly, we all have our own opinion... You stick to adding oil to your gas, and I will stick to adding extra ethanol in mine.
1911A145 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 05:37 PM   #51
JHZR2
Captain
 
Drives: 91 E30, 11 135i cv
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 900
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911A145 View Post
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.


Last edited by JHZR2; 02-15-2013 at 05:43 PM.
JHZR2 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 08:58 PM   #52
1911A145
Captain
 
1911A145's Avatar
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Port Saint Lucie, FL

Posts: 773
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHZR2 View Post
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.

You don't have a clue as to what I do know, and do not know. Nor do you know of my background, previous experience, or education. These forums are designed to state your experience, and learn from others. Even the forums rules state to disagree, but not attack another for their view or opinion. I said nothing to the fact that added ethanol above 10% was not good on the fuel system components, and even agreed to the cause that manufactures have a stated workmanship guarantee to a certain degree. I am merely stating that added ethanol is not going to cause engine damage on the fuel alone, so long as the person properly takes steps that insures their engine is tuned for such fuels and components withstanding.

All vehicles, no matter with straight E-85, or 0% ethanol, will still need preventative maintenance. Fuel system components will degrade over time no matter what. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people use, and have used, >10% ethanol in their vehicles for many years is proof that it is a safe additive / alternative to standard fuel. Are there some problems with added ethanol? Sure. There are problems with every type of fuel. If adding oil to the gas tank for some lubricity is your way of fighting off some of the effects, then good for you. Is it needed? No.
1911A145 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 09:11 PM   #53
JHZR2
Captain
 
Drives: 91 E30, 11 135i cv
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 900
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1911A145 View Post
I am merely stating that added ethanol is not going to cause engine damage on the fuel alone, so long as the person properly takes steps that insures their engine is tuned for such fuels and components withstanding.

All vehicles, no matter with straight E-85, or 0% ethanol, will still need preventative maintenance. Fuel system components will degrade over time no matter what. The fact that hundreds of thousands of people use, and have used, >10% ethanol in their vehicles for many years is proof that it is a safe additive / alternative to standard fuel. Are there some problems with added ethanol? Sure. There are problems with every type of fuel. If adding oil to the gas tank for some lubricity is your way of fighting off some of the effects, then good for you. Is it needed? No.
Yet you are implying that it will have zero effect on "components" in native state, and so is acceptable for use in the second paragraph. The aspect that it is "tuned for such fuels and components" would be a valid point,if that were the point you were making.

Yet one of the parties in the lawsuit against the EPA to prevent just lowly E15 from hitting the market was representing BMW group amongst many other auto makers.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...e15-fuel-blend

So youre also implying that you know better than the manufacturers who are spending money and effort to prevent E15 from coming to fruition.

Im not denying that EVERYTHING needs PM. But re-read my posts. Im not using additives to compensate for Ethanol, rather as an UCL, lubricity enhancer for the moving parts (irrelevant to the presence of ethanol in any concentration), fuel stabilizer and selecting adds that survive combustion so that they can cycle around and help clean valve deposits that dont get washed down given DI.

None of this means that there is inherent compatibility of fuel system components for ethanol content higher than 10%. That is the case, and it is verified time and time again. If you think otherwise, well fine. But it doesnt make it the case... Im not attacking you, I am disagreeing and stating from a chemical and a manufacturer standpoint why it is not acceptable to be used, and why the use of additives is an apples and oranges comparison.
JHZR2 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 09:31 PM   #54
1911A145
Captain
 
1911A145's Avatar
 
Drives: 135i
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Port Saint Lucie, FL

Posts: 773
iTrader: (3)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHZR2 View Post
Yet you are implying that it will have zero effect on "components" in native state, and so is acceptable for use in the second paragraph. The aspect that it is "tuned for such fuels and components" would be a valid point.

Yet one of the parties in the lawsuit against the EPA to prevent just lowly E15 from hitting the market was representing BMW group amongst many other auto makers.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/e...e15-fuel-blend

So youre also implying that you know better than the manufacturers who are spending money and effort to prevent E15 from coming to fruition.

Im not denying that EVERYTHING needs PM. But re-read my posts. Im not using additives to compensate for Ethanol, rather as an UCL, lubricity enhancer for the moving parts (irrelevant to the presence of ethanol in any concentration), fuel stabilizer and selecting adds that survive combustion so that they can cycle around and help clean valve deposits that dont get washed down given DI.

None of this means that there is inherent compatibility of fuel system components for ethanol content higher than 10%. That is the case, and it is verified time and time again. If you think otherwise, well fine. But it doesnt make it the case...
Well the lawyers can spin it any way they want... but if the govt really wanted higher ethanol, or anything else, they would do so. Regardless of auto industries threats of damage. They all said the same thing when E-10 was first introduced, how older cars couldn't survive and how everyone panicked that they would be forced to buy newer cars. Didn't happen. everything was fine (for the most part). The automakers just don't want to spend millions more changing some components.
1911A145 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-15-2013, 09:45 PM   #55
JHZR2
Captain
 
Drives: 91 E30, 11 135i cv
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 900
iTrader: (0)

...yet more and more cars are E85 compliant. Ford diesels are B20 compliant. VW can take B5, IIRC. This stuff is coming.

Equipment even 20 years ago had warnings of 10%. I remember when I had a little lawn and snow business in high school, the equipment warned of ethanol. That wasa while ago, before 10% ethanol was the norm.

IMO there is a bit more to it. Agree they dont want to change components. But that is why >10% is an issue.
JHZR2 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-16-2013, 02:09 PM   #56
aerobod
Car Geek
 
aerobod's Avatar
 
Drives: Caterham R400, E82 135i
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary

Posts: 769
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by JHZR2 View Post
...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...
Tetra Ethyl Lead was added to gasoline in less than 1:1000 ratios for leaded gas. It will destroy a catalyst very quickly in a modern car. Even trace amounts of the wrong RTV silicone used to seal engine components will destroy an oxygen sensor: http://cds.activant.com/C2C/C01/68/541/824663110.pdf
aerobod is offline   Canada
0
Reply With Quote
      02-16-2013, 02:43 PM   #57
JHZR2
Captain
 
Drives: 91 E30, 11 135i cv
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 900
iTrader: (0)

No kidding, note I stated that if 2-stroke oil is to be used, it must be tcw-3 oil that is ashless. I choose my words for a reason. I wouldn't recommend something with lead, zinc, phosphorous or other inorganics for a reason. But we're talking about amines and other petroleum based compounds that are designed to go through the combustion cycle and be compliant with the CAA, CARB, etc. again big difference.
JHZR2 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-16-2013, 03:14 PM   #58
mryakanisachoad
Lieutenant
 
mryakanisachoad's Avatar
 
Drives: '13 550xi + '09 M5 + '10 135i
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NY

Posts: 527
iTrader: (0)

Yes , it's well known that the only thing guaranteed to harm a cat are metals, like zinc and phosphorous.

The problem with ethanol is that it's highly reactive with the phosphorous contained in most high performance synthetic motor oils, like Castrol or Mobil One.
mryakanisachoad is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
      02-16-2013, 03:33 PM   #59
JHZR2
Captain
 
Drives: 91 E30, 11 135i cv
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: New Jersey

Posts: 900
iTrader: (0)

Reactive to form what? This could be an issue with direct injection engine given the high level of fuel dilution that often occurs. However the latest API specifications substantially reduce the zunc and phosphorus content, perhaps to some extent for this reason. I'd still like to know the reactive pathway and what the implications of the byproduct are.
JHZR2 is offline  
0
Reply With Quote
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:56 AM.




1addicts
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST