Exclusive: BMW Says “NO” To E15 Gas Blend
This story originally appeared on our sister site BimmerFile.com.
The use of ethanol in gasoline has been a hot topic of debate in “Green” circles for years and it once again will be at the forefront of the mainstream media. The enthusiast’s arch nemesis, the agency that is reportedly in charge of protecting the environment and the notorious effects of global warming, the EPA, last week approved E15 for use in 2007 and newer passenger vehicles.
While we are all for being Green (we love Clean Diesel and Efficient Dynamics), and saving natural resources we believe there is something inherently wrong with using a food-stock to produce fuel. The main bio source for creating ethanol in the US is currently corn- the same corn that feeds the livestock and we eat at our tables. We are not going to explain how the supply used to make ethanol will impact the prices of food or how the net energy to produce the fuel is less than what it yields (you can research that elsewhere and form your own opinions).
What concerns us is how this will impact our cars, our warranties and of course for all those with direct injection; the high pressure fuel pump.
It really is quite simple, an unnamed source at BMWNA has told us that the maximum allowed for use in a BMW is 10% (E10 the current blend), and that is that. After internal testing, BMW is not condoning the use of E15 at this time on any new or old BMW.
This is not surprising to us as many auto manufacturers and even gas station owners were against the move to E15. There is more than saving the planet behind this decision, as there usually is in Washington. While this move is said to have the new fuel at a station near you by late spring we doubt it will be less than a year from now. The current UL listed fuel pumps at over 95% of fueling stations are only approved to safely handle up to 15% ethanol leaving no room for error in the mixing process, which could be hazardous. There are currently two pumps on the market that have been approved for a 25% blend and cost in excess of $20,000 each, so station owners are not going to be in a rush to upgrade and when they are there may not be enough supply to meet the demand.
The EPA is said to rule on older cars by December at which time we will have more info on the availability of the fuel, how it will be dispensed and what happens if you accidently put the wrong blend in your BMW.
<p>There have already been many bmw/mini owners very unhappy when they were told their car woes were caused by cars having greater than 10% ethanol gas – and had to fork out big bucks for a fix.</p>
<p>Write/call your representatives to stop this. They are trying to not just void your warranty – but cause your engine problems that will not be covered by your now voided warranty.</p>
<p>I agree with Robert. The government is trying to control things that they don’t understand, and trying to pry into your life even further. Write or email your congressperson.</p>
<p>of course this is the way of big government, we know what needs fixing, you the general public do not know whats right for you, therefore we the favorite uncle will fix it for you even if the process includes more red tape, new taxes, and less reliability. and sometimes there was no problem, just some beaurcrat changing a process to show his job matters.</p>
<p>Oh Kev… they understand it just fine… farm subsidies bring them a lot of cash and votes.</p>
<p>Audi tried to claim it was ethanol that was giving me engine issues with my 2.0T direct injection. Claiming I wasn’t using Top Tier and that it was over 10% ethanol. Only E10 was on the market then, and the Shell I gas up at only used E10. In the end the engine issue became part of a recall due to engine fires. But the point is, car manufacturers are going go to use E15 as a scapegoat. Be very weary of what the dealer tells you when they claim “it’s the gas you use causing the problem”</p>
<p>To previous commenters –
Why in the hell would “they” (Washington? Our elected officials?) care about the warranty on <em>our</em> cars? I highly doubt some of them are sitting there going, “Let’s ruin all BMW warranties and make them pay.” . I mean, jeesus. The one that would <em>void</em> it would be BMW. They’re the ones that MADE the ‘warranty’.</p>
<p>That aside, I’m glad for the change. Why? Because then maybe companies against it – like BMW – will bring over Diesel MINIs, or look into other forms. Hydrogen, Solar, whatever.</p>
<p>+1, Rocketboy. Anyone that knows anything about the topic understands how this is less about the environment and more about politics (of the worst kind).</p>
<p>And of course, you’ll have to ask the question: How many Joules of fossil-fuel energy are consumed to produce a Joule of energy in the form of ethanol?</p>
<p>My guess is that the ratio is greater than 1:1.</p>
<p>And that’s the power of the US Senate — it provides disproportional political representation to low-population agricultural states.</p>
<p>I hope this reminds some of you out there who the party of intrusion, control and regulation is!</p>
<p>While all in Washington seem to want control of an aspect of our lives, others are vying to control every single aspect of our lives</p>
<p>@rocketboy’s on it, imho: Follow the <em>money</em>.</p>
<p>Amusing to think “they” have our warranties on their radar, though. Thanks for that chuckle. ;-)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, this is the way things work in the US. It certainly isn’t party related unless you include all parties. People are elected by other people and organizations and corporations. Those politicians will then return the favor to their constituants or those that helped them get elected. If you want to change that, make more money and get yourself elected. By then, you will be part of the problem.</p>
<p>This is for coyttl. The reason that BMW and other companies haven’t brought over their diesels doesn’t have anything to do with their desire. In point of fact, BMW would LOVE to bring theirs over. But the American government and the EPA won’t let them. I, personally, would like to have the BMW 118d available to me because it gets 63 MPG. BMW, Mercedes, and others have lobbied to get their diesels into the States for many years, but they can’t get approved to do it except in limited numbers. Perhaps Big Oil has something to do with it, or Detroit (although I doubt it because the Ford diesels in Europe are great).</p>
<p>I use Shell 91 Octane, 100% gasoline, and add “Marvel Mystery Oil” (Which I purchase at Blain’s Farm & Fleet, and my ’08 R52 supercharged MINI engine is as smooth as a Singer Sewing Machine. I got a tank of BP premium (with 10% alcohol) a couple of days ago, and the car was rough. Best gas for me is 91 octane pure gas Shell with Marvel Mystery Oil added to the fuel mixture.
I’d be happy to know if anyone else uses this combination.</p>
<p>The joke used to be that New Hampshire produced Presidents while Iowa produced corn (w/r/t Presidential primaries/caucuses).</p>
<p>But the sad truth is that any politician with presidential aspirations is going to bend over for the corn industry or they’ll get creamed in the Iowa caucus.</p>
<p>you guys get the ethanol ‘stutters’ in the morning?</p>
<p>i park on a hill and then immediately drive up another when i leave in the morning. stutter, stutter, even if i let the car warm up. since ethanol isn’t perfectly miscible in gas, i’m guessing the fuel pickup is grabbing more ethanol than gas, until some driving mixes it up.</p>
<p>also could be higher fuel sensitivity for jcw motors?</p>
<p>Maybe it is the oil companies who are lobbying against the development? Ever thought of that? Sorry, had to say something.</p>
<p>The more ethanol the worse the fuel mileage. The more ethanol the more problems with seals in the fuel systems.</p>
<p>The problem with bringing in diesels is that the American market is just too small to justify it. As much as some of us like diesel it is not universally so in the good ol’ US of A.</p>
<p>I loved my 1975 VW diesel Rabbit, 50mpg, 400+ mile range on a 9 gallon tank.</p>
<p>This has more to do with catering to big business than creating big government. Sorry folks, this is a rule that has red state written all over it. You want more E15 forced in your tank, then vote for your red friends next week.</p>
<p>I find the whole concept of ethanol a little corny.</p>
<p>@Heidi – that’s a good point. Then again, anything that keeps people buying internal combustion engines is good for the oil companies.</p>
<p>From what I’ve read, by the time you factor in all the fertilizing, watering, mechanized harvesting, etc. corn based ethanol is at best neutral in terms of “energy returned on energy invested”.</p>
<p>Given that, and what it does to food prices, it doesn’t seem like sound policy to subsidize corn based ethanol.</p>
<p>Michael, Correct me if I am wrong but I think you meant to say:
“…or how the net energy to produce the fuel is MORE than what it yields….”</p>
<p>I think the world population is now big enough such that in many cases the environment affects the economy. For instance medical problems and environmental disaster cleanup are often not priced into the cost of the fuel. The EPA forces it to be priced in by requiring emissions controls for instance. We pay more for gas or we pay more for health insurance etc. Why this is a partisan issue is beyond me.</p>
<p>Good call Rocketboy, I agree completely. Let’s not dismantle the EPA over this one bad decision, let’s just complain loudly enough that politicians realize there are more votes to lose that would be gained by going to E15.</p>
<p>This is a disaster waiting to happen, thanks to agribusiness. Corn is in everything from our soda to gas, to packaging now.</p>
<p>@dr: I hope you remember the 1st administration to ram Ethanol down our throats (hint: it’s not the one who’s in power now).</p>
<p>I refuse to be a member of either party, but let’s just keep it fair.</p>
<p>I like burning 100% dead dinosaur diesel fuel in my car.</p>
<p>@Melis
I have the advantage of living in Oklahoma, one of the few remaining states with optional 100% gas. I’ve always filled up with top tier (Shell except for three tanks) non-ethanol gas and have all the receipts to prove it, each documenting a progression of lower and lower MPG with each tank (29 MPG average compared to 38 when new). Of course I’ve had my MINI (’07 Cooper S 56,000mi) in several times for fuel pump issues and they always blame it on bad gas. I know U.S. gasoline isn’t great quality, but of all cars that should be running smoothly, mine really should be. I don’t buy it. They are using ethanol as a scapegoat.</p>
<p>@Michael
I run a bottle of AMSOIL P.I. in the tank about every 5000 miles and still have fuel pump issues (completely replaced twice so far). I love the P.I. additive and recommend it to everyone for a much smoother idle and revs, but it doesn’t seem right that I’m expected to spend all this extra effort just to make the car run like it is supposed to, especially every few thousand miles.</p>
<p>I found it interesting that when I went to a local Shell station last week, in Ontario Canada, the label on the pump was clear that regular grade fuel had 10% ethanol, but premium had none! Mid grade, which is just a mix of the regular and premium, was listed as having 5% ethanol. I wonder if that is a local thing. In any case, I was pleased about that, since I always use premium anyway. I have never felt that ethanol was a good thing to have in our fuel, in any amount.</p>
<p>Here in Connecticut we switched to ethanol to replace Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) as an oxygenate. As far as I’m concerned both are worse than the problem they were trying to solve. MTBE very easily pollutes large quantities of ground water due to leaking storage tanks. Ethanol is corrosive, expensive and politically charged. If unadulterated gasoline was available to me at an increased cost I would be okay with that. It would save me money due to reduced need for fuel treatment to prevent carbon deposits and replace lubricating properties.</p>
<p>@coyttl & mahoram: Actually, the reason why BMW, et. al won’t bring over their diesels is not much due to marketing, but more to the stringent U.S. emissions control and the very expensive cost of developing and certifying exhaust treatment(s) required to meet those stringent emissions controls that made it impractical for the relatively smaller/undeveloped market for diesel passenger cars.</p>
<p>I understand BMW’s resistance to using E15. Moving to E15 when previously, all they’ve expected was up to E10 would require retesting to make sure all of their cars can safely and reliably operate using E15. That’s a <em>HUGE</em> undertaking, considering EPA ruled it safe for vehicles going back to 2007. That would mean every car, every engine variation and exhaust treatment combination, etc. would need to be tested.</p>
<p>Due to the large number of materials and components involved, it’s hard to predict what might happen in the long run — since the engines were not <em>DESIGNED</em> for E15. Suppose BMW engines start to show random, long term problems using E15, it might result in BMW gaining a reputation for unreliability that will have <em>HUGE</em> financial consequences.</p>
<p>E10 has cost me two fuel pumps and a heck of a lot of frustration on my 2010 JCW Clubman. Only use 101 octane – pure gas now. M</p>
<p>We have the 10% here in Phoenix already for half a year each year for pollution control… Our GP runs like horrably and pings like a SOB on it…</p>
<p>I haven’t read all the negative responses on the E-15, or the E-10 fuels, what we here in the Midwest use to call Gas a Hol. I’ve been using this fuel, the E-10 that is, for over 25 years. The first couple of years, before the gas stations got the metal fuel storeage tanks out and replaced them with a plastic type of tank, no problems. READ….NO PROBLEMS, period. To back this up, I use to drive over 50k miles a year in sales, so if I didn’t have problems, then hardly anyone would. The down affects: Gas mileage will be about 5% down. The benefit, higher octane, less expensive. No damages, whatsoever. No pinging, no sluggishness, actually, just the opposit.</p>
<p>As for the guy with the GP…read your owners manual, it says 91 octane or better, preferably 93 octane. E-10 is 89 octane. So, your GP SHOULD ping and be sluggish. I’ve used E-10 in my 2008 Miata for three years now. Engine damage: None….Pinging: None…Sluggishness: None.</p>
<p>These are and were my results, others may vary, but I think that any time that we can use less gasoline from the Mid-East, the better. As for the E-15, well maybe the manufacturers should start to take a look at how the build their ignition system and get with the 21st Century in fuels. Sorry for the inflamatoriness of this, but this is a subject that I am very familiar with. The corn based ethynol works, if you can just get past the mindset against it. And, take a look at Brazil, they use over 95% ethynol blend gasoline, with a sugar based ethynol. Something to think about.</p>