|
|
|
02-15-2013, 04:08 PM | #45 | |
Lieutenant
33
Rep 527
Posts |
Quote:
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 04:44 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 04:11 PM | #46 | |
Captain
36
Rep 770
Posts |
Quote:
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... |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 04:13 PM | #47 | |
Major
77
Rep 1,001
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 04:21 PM | #48 | |
Captain
36
Rep 770
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 04:21 PM | #49 |
Captain
62
Rep 654
Posts |
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 E88--Fuel-It! Stage 4 LPFP & PI--PS2 turbos--JB4/MHD--FBO--662whp/604wtq
2011 E90--Fuel-It! S2BL LPFP and PI--PS2 Turbo--JB4/MHD--FBO--546whp/589wtq 2013 Mini JCW--Tune--DP--FMIC--a couple Fuel-It! goodies--265whp/320wtq 2013 F10--JB4/BM3 2015 F82--Fuel-It! Stage 3 LPFP & PI--PS2 Turbos-- JB4/BM3-FBO |
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 04:23 PM | #50 | |
Captain
36
Rep 770
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 04:37 PM | #51 | |
Major
77
Rep 1,001
Posts |
Quote:
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 04:43 PM.. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 07:58 PM | #52 | |
Captain
36
Rep 770
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 08:11 PM | #53 | |
Major
77
Rep 1,001
Posts |
Quote:
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. |
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 08:31 PM | #54 | |
Captain
36
Rep 770
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-15-2013, 08:45 PM | #55 |
Major
77
Rep 1,001
Posts |
...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. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-16-2013, 01:09 PM | #56 | |
Car Geek
4132
Rep 3,829
Posts |
Quote:
|
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-16-2013, 01:43 PM | #57 |
Major
77
Rep 1,001
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
02-16-2013, 02:14 PM | #58 |
Lieutenant
33
Rep 527
Posts |
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. |
Appreciate
0
|
02-16-2013, 02:33 PM | #59 |
Major
77
Rep 1,001
Posts |
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.
|
Appreciate
0
|
Post Reply |
Bookmarks |
|
|