VW No Longer Approves Biodiesel for New Models

Status
Not open for further replies.

Fubar

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
[ QUOTE ]

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act has absolutly NOTHING to do with the type of fuel used in a vehicle.
The M-M Act only applies to replacement parts for the vehicle. Fuel has nothing to do with it.


[/ QUOTE ]

I won't copy-n-paste interpretations of the entire law here, but it clearly applies to things like lubricating oil and fuel additives. Biodiesel is considered a fuel additive. The scope of the law isn't limited to hardware or even vehicles, for that matter, it applies to almost every consumer product sold that carries a warranty from the manufacturer.

[ QUOTE ]

You can use it if you want to and they can't do anything about it.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's right.

Some common sense needs to prevail here.
I could post a list of items why gasoline would be an inappropriate fuel for motor vehicles:

Oxidation Stability -> Turns to gum -> Plugs fuel injectors
Solvent properties -> removes lubricating oil -> Premature cylinder wear
Contamination -> Stored in underground tanks -> Entry of dirt particles
Chemical Attack -> Degrades synthetic materials -> Failure of gaskets and rubber parts
Vapor Pressure -> Evaporates readily -> Causes vapor lock and bubbles in liquid fuel, engine stalling.
Requires the use of additives to increase octane rating -> Additives cause injector and spark plug fouling.

Yet none of these issues has proven insurmountable to resolve. I previously brought up the gasohol issue. There's known problems with the use of alcohol as a motor fuel. Yet there's no vehicle manufacturer that would void a warranty for the consumer's choice to use gasohol. If they used cruddy, old, substandard or contaminated gasohol, that would be a different thing. In that case, it would be wrong to issue an indictment against the use of gasohol, like the list being posted here.

The same should be true for the use of biodiesel meeting accepted industry standards and specifications. If it doesn't, then the vehicle owner can and should be held responsible, not the manufacturer. I'm not arguing against that. But there is also a responsibility on the part of the manufacturer not to design engine components that won't function properly in the presence of accepted fuels or fuel additives. Bosch can't possibly plead ignorance to the growing use and popularity of biodiesel fuel. IMO, they screwed up.
 

alex wetmore

Veteran Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2002
Location
seattle, wa
TDI
2006 Jetta TDI
[ QUOTE ]
What you're asking...Well, it all depends on the engine technology. Many of the latest vehicles have the sensors and electronics to do a lot of what you want. You can jack a laptop computer into a diagnostic port and read parameters like fuel flow, injection pressures, manifold pressure, speed, engine RPMs, air density, cylinder balance, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

All VW TDIs have similiar diagnostics available and you can access them using a PC, the appropriate cable, and the VAG-COM software. With the free version of VAG-COM you can easily get the data necessary to compute MPG. The paid version ($100) is required to make any changes to most of the parameters in the ECU.

I wish that the protocol was open and well documented though. VAG-COM is nice, but I'd like to make a small application for the Palm or a PocketPC that could be plugged in at all times and report trip, instantaneous, and weighted MPG while driving. With the VAG-COM I have to save l/h and km/h to a spreadsheet and then do the computations to convert this back to MPG.

alex
 

bean boy

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Location
Saco, Maine
TDI
03 Wagon
Skypup keeps posting this same thing so I thought a look behind it might shed some light. Here is who the Diesel Technology Forum is [quote DIESEL TECHNOLOGY FORUM -- MEMBER COMPANIES

Among the companies participating in the Forum are: Caterpillar, Cummins, Delco Remy, Detroit Diesel, Donaldson, Eaton, ExxonMobil , General Motors, Honeywell International, and Komatsu. The organization is actively recruiting additional participants to reflect all responsible voices in the public debate.


Associates Commercial Corp., The
Association of Diesel Specialists
Boley Tool & Machine Works, Inc.
BP
Caterpillar Inc.
Cummins Engine Company, Inc.
DaimlerChrysler AG
Delco Remy America
Delphi Automotive
Detroit Diesel Corporation
Donaldson Company, Inc.
Eaton Corporation
ExxonMobil Refining & Supply
Federal-Mogul Corporation
Ford Motor Company
G.W. Lisk Company
General Motors Corporation
GM Electro-Motive
GM Locomotive Group/Electro-Motive
Honeywell International
Isuzu Motors America, Inc.
John Deere
Johnson Matthey
Komatsu America Corp.
Komatsu Ltd.
Krupp Gerlach Company
L.E. Jones Company
Robert Bosch Corporation
Robert Bosch GmbH
Stahl Specialty Company, Inc.
Twin Disc, Incorporated


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see any biodiesel producers listed but at least 2 large petro companies. One of their new technology goals is [ QUOTE ]
Ultra-Low Sulfur Fuel
Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel is highly refined for clean, complete combustion and low emissions enabling the use of emissions treatment systems.


[/ QUOTE ]

The issue with ulsf is how to replace the sulfer as a lubricant. They have 2 choices, a synthetic or biodiesel. 5% biodiesel will probably do it without hurting the petro companies business to badly. Coincidence? /images/graemlins/shocked.gif
 

ybiofuels

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Location
Ukiah, CA
TDI
2003 silver Jetta wagon
Well-said, Bean Boy. I might add that, being very familiar with ASTM standards for biodiesel, I can assure people that commercial biodiesel meeting ASTM specs will do nothing unexpected. True, it will degrade rubber quicker than petro diesel (the nature of any solvent), but that is to be expected, and should be part of the pool of information a person draws upon to make an informed decision to use biodiesel. The other claims that Skypup and Autodiesel make are unsupportable, which is why their "evidence" always comes from the most biased of all possible sources. Simply put, and this is backed up by the highest possible testing agencies, as well as an absolutely enormous amount of road-testing, properly-made biodiesel fuel is as good a fuel as petro in some ways and much better in most ways. Period.
 

MITBeta

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Feb 24, 2001
Location
Boston's Metro South-West
TDI
2001 Jetta TDI, 2004 Sprinter CDI Passenger (Mid/High), former: 1996 Passat TDI Variant
[ QUOTE ]
I have one question for you, well anyone. Were is there a good point in the engine electronics
where I can get a good relative measure as to how hard the engine is working?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do a search for "trip computer" or "MFA"... you can install a trip computer in the dash for MPG calcs on the fly...
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
I won't copy-n-paste interpretations of the entire law here, but it clearly applies to things like lubricating oil and fuel additives. Biodiesel is considered a fuel additive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like everyone has been posting and like everone of the engine manufactures say, they do not warrant fuel related issues.

You are mixing up a maintenance item like oil with fuel.
The manufacture cannot make you use their own brand or recommended brand of oil. As for fuel or fuel additives.
They don't provide warranties of any kind for fuel or fuel additives.
But......
If they can prove whatever fuel or additives cause a failure then they can deny your warranty for whatever part that was effected.

The fuel used must meet the minimum specs specified by the manufacture or you are not following the written terms of the warranty also. And U.S. soy biodiesel does not meet the minimum specs set forth by the OEM manufacture, VWAG.
ie. DIN 51606 or DIN EN14214.
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
Light said:
Actually, Cummins' official statement is B5 or less is safe, including 03 HO's. Thats straight from the powermaster@cummins.com ..

[/ QUOTE ]

Guess they need to change their owners manuals then.
The owners manual is the "written contract" that defines what you can and can't do. Any word of mouth even from the original source doesn't count.
Remember, it says they recommend agains't it.
It doesn't say you can't.

I'm sure 5% or less is fine for anyone. /images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Steve York UK

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Location
York, UK
TDI
SEAT Ibiza Sport 130hp TDI Black
[ QUOTE ]

I'm sure 5% or less is fine for anyone. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm sure it is. All diesel fuel sold in France is 5% BD. I don't notice VW withdrawing diesels from their biggest export market.

I think what they are doing is withdrawing from the claim in the owners manual that 100% BD is OK, after problems they had last year with dodgy BD sold in Germany that was way off meeting DIN standards.
 

Fubar

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
[ QUOTE ]
SkyPup said:
None of them authorize the use of BD above 5%....


[/ QUOTE ]

Detroit Diesel's specific approval of B-20:
(see section 5.1.4)
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/Detro...0biodiesel).pdf

International-Navistar (Ford) stating, "The use of products such as biodiesel is at the discretion of the end-user", and "The International engine warranty...is not affected simply by the use of biodiesel regardless of the product's origin."
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/International%20Letter.pdf

Finally, Caterpillar stating, "Caterpillar neither approves nor prohibits the use of biodiesel fuels." And, "The use of biodiesel fuels does not affect Caterpillar's warranty." And Cat's RECOMMENDATIONS: A list of the vast majority of their engines by model number along with their statement that, "ASTM-certified biodiesel fuel may be used in *any* percentage" in them.
http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/CAT42001.PDF

There it is in writing, approval of B-20 and up, signed by the manufacturer's representatives. Now, please tell everyone once again that "None of them authorize the use of biodiesel greater than 5%."

I'm not going to argue with a straight-faced liar, friend. This is not an unwarranted flame; that's precisely what you're doing.
 

testy_SOB

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2002
Location
Wisconsin
TDI
Beetle, 1998, Red
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to argue with a bald-faced liar, friend. This is not an unwarranted flame; that's precisely what you're doing.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't look at ignorance and huberus as lying. Skypup and others forget that the vast majority of diesel technology and operating units are neither innovated by or produced by VAG. Therefore I suspect that they may be prone to a bit of Hyperbole /images/graemlins/blush.gif
 

Light

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
Bean boy you were doing well until you lost all credibility by saying sulfur was a lubricant, lol. Looks like you still have some homework to do! I'm surprised people didn't jump on you sooner. Hint: sulfur is NOT a lubricant /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif
 

Fubar

Member
Joined
Sep 13, 2003
[ QUOTE ]
Light said:
Bean boy you were doing well until you lost all credibility by saying sulfur was a lubricant, lol. Looks like you still have some homework to do! I'm surprised people didn't jump on you sooner. Hint: sulfur is NOT a lubricant /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Light, you're technically right but low-sulfur diesel fuel does need lubricants added, the old high-sulfur fuel did not. The process of refining a low sulfur fuel removes a lot of diesel's lubricity and it needs to be replaced by some sort of additive. Small percentages of biodiesel as low as 2% added to low-sulfur fuel can provide the necessary lubrication.

Here's a good explanation of it-
http://lists.samurai.com/pipermail/trawler-world-list/2002-April/046176.html
 

bean boy

Veteran Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2002
Location
Saco, Maine
TDI
03 Wagon
Thanks for saving my credibility Fubar. I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a troll. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Sorry I mis-spoke. So Light, hows your homework going? /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif
 

ybiofuels

Veteran Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2003
Location
Ukiah, CA
TDI
2003 silver Jetta wagon
[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
The fuel used must meet the minimum specs specified by the manufacture or you are not following the written terms of the warranty also. And U.S. soy biodiesel does not meet the minimum specs set forth by the OEM manufacture, VWAG.
ie. DIN 51606 or DIN EN14214.


[/ QUOTE ]

Autodiesel, what is your source for specs information? Mine is the official commercial standard, ASTM D 6751, which, when compared to diesel ASTM D 975, goes like this:

Diesel Biodiesel

Flashpoint: 52 C 130 C
Water and Sed.: .05% max .05% max
Kin. Viscosity: 1.9-4.1 1.9-6.0
Sulfated Ash: .01% max .02% max
Sulfur: .5% max .05% max
Copper Strip...: No. 3 max No. 3 Max
Cetane #: 40 min 47 min
Carbon Residue: .35% max .05% max

As you can see, the specs for biodiesel are AS GOOD OR BETTER than the specs for petro, and here's a fact autodiesel seems to be stubbornly unclear on: US commercial biodiesel is held to those ASTM specs. Another fact: the ASTM spec was designed with biodiesel use at any % in mind, despite the blend purpose that the petroleum industry desires. One more fact: the problem with VW is that American diesel fuel doesn't even meet their official standard. They are extremely arrogant in their pronouncements of what they expect to fuel their vehicles. Oh well, doesn't stop me and countless others from putting commercial grade biodiesel, in my case RECYCLED, into my tdi. Autodiesel, skypup, and anyone I'm missing, why don't you just let us have our discussions about biodiesel without all your bullsh*t whining. There is nothing righteous about uninformed trash-talkers.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
ybiofuels said:
[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
The fuel used must meet the minimum specs specified by the manufacture or you are not following the written terms of the warranty also. And U.S. soy biodiesel does not meet the minimum specs set forth by the OEM manufacture, VWAG.
ie. DIN 51606 or DIN EN14214.


[/ QUOTE ]

Autodiesel, what is your source for specs information? Mine is the official commercial standard, ASTM D 6751, which, when compared to diesel ASTM D 975, goes like this:

Diesel Biodiesel

Flashpoint: 52 C 130 C
Water and Sed.: .05% max .05% max
Kin. Viscosity: 1.9-4.1 1.9-6.0
Sulfated Ash: .01% max .02% max
Sulfur: .5% max .05% max
Copper Strip...: No. 3 max No. 3 Max
Cetane #: 40 min 47 min
Carbon Residue: .35% max .05% max

As you can see, the specs for biodiesel are AS GOOD OR BETTER than the specs for petro,

[/ QUOTE ]
Excellent point. The standard in the US for biodiesel is more strict than the standard for petro diesel (whose standard is FAR below what VW says their engines should get). So, if a person is worried that using biodiesel will void their warranty because one or two parameters are not regulated by the US spec (i.e. oxidation), they should be even MORE concerned that using US petro diesel will void their warranty, as its specifications and quality is even further below VW's specs.

[ QUOTE ]
One more fact: the problem with VW is that American diesel fuel doesn't even meet their official standard. They are extremely arrogant in their pronouncements of what they expect to fuel their vehicles.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's simply a COA (Cover Our Asses) policy. By setting very high standards, that our fuel, and even the fuel sold in Germany doesn't meet, they have the option of declaring that for almost any problem, it's the fuel's fault. Fortunately, they don't actually seem to use that option - the recent cases of VW fixing injection pumps that have died due to poor quality fuel (both biodiesel and petro diesel, mostly water and glycerin contamination, or improper use).
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
As you can see, the specs for biodiesel are AS GOOD OR BETTER than the specs for petro

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the issue. Compared to regular crappy U.S. diesel it is very good.
Don't twist the facts.
It is the difference between U.S. biodiesel and European biodiesel that is the problem.

Read again........

[ QUOTE ]
And U.S. soy biodiesel does not meet the minimum specs set forth by the OEM manufacture, VWAG.
ie. DIN 51606 or DIN EN14214.

[/ QUOTE ]

The ASTM standard does NOT test for exidation and the test procedures for water (by centrifuge) are lacking.
If you want to know the procedure used by the ASTM can miss up to 1000ppm of water! Don't believe me? Just go check and see how the check for water with the lastest DIN/EN standard and then check how they check with the ASTM standard. The European test is a true test, "by centrifuge", is NOT!

[ QUOTE ]
why don't you just let us have our discussions about biodiesel without all your bullsh*t whining. There is nothing righteous about uninformed trash-talkers.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, let you all have your pie-in-sky uninformed talks about biodiesel?

I have B20 in my tank right now.
At least I know every aspect about it and I am not clouded by the typical environmental nonsense "let's save the planet" crap that is being touted around here.

Have your talks about it but don't think there might not be a critical aspect to it.

I'm not suggesting to anyone not to use biodiesel.
Do what you want. But anytime someone suggests that you should be left alone just because you don't believe the same as others, then that only shows how closed minded you are.

I use biodiesel for reducing specific pollutants and displacing petroleum comsumption and support a home grown fuel. But I'm not closed minded enough to know that there just might some sort of limitation to it.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
As you can see, the specs for biodiesel are AS GOOD OR BETTER than the specs for petro

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the issue. Compared to regular crappy U.S. diesel it is very good.
Don't twist the facts.

[/ QUOTE ]
He's not twisting the facts, his point is perfectly valid and correct. You go on-and-on about the ASTM biodiesel specs not being as stringent as the specs VW has set for fuel to be used in their engines, but completely ignore the FACT that the ASTM standard for petro diesel is even LESS stringent. So you advise people not to use biodiesel because it doesn't meet VW's specs - why then do you try to ignore the issue of petro diesel in the US being even WORSE?

You're essentially saying "people are taking a big risk using biodiesel in their VW's, since the ASTM standard doesn't meet the standard VW requires. What? The ASTM Diesel standard is even worse? So? Stop twisting the facts!". What SHOULD people in the US run their VWs on, in your opinion?

[ QUOTE ]
And U.S. soy biodiesel does not meet the minimum specs set forth by the OEM manufacture, VWAG.
ie. DIN 51606 or DIN EN14214.

[/ QUOTE ]
That is incorrect. The ASTM standard is not as strict as the DIN standard. Most US Soy biodiesel though DOES meet the EN14214 standard though - beyond the ASTM standard. The DIN 51606 standard is being replaced, as the Iodine value spec was found to be somewhat silly - it essentially restricted the standard to be only applicable for rapeseed biodiesels.

[ QUOTE ]
The ASTM standard does NOT test for exidation

[/ QUOTE ]
See http://www.distributiondrive.com/ASTMBioDiesel.html
Oxidation tests are being added to the ASTM standard.

[ QUOTE ]
and the test procedures for water (by centrifuge) are lacking.
If you want to know the procedure used by the ASTM can miss up to 1000ppm of water! Don't believe me? Just go check and see how the check for water with the lastest DIN/EN standard and then check how they check with the ASTM standard. The European test is a true test, "by centrifuge", is NOT!

[/ QUOTE ]
LMFAO. Show me ANYTHING that cites this 1,000 ppm margin of error for the ASTM D 1796 or 2709 test for water (by centrifuge) used in the ASTM standard. ANYTHING. To claim that it has a margin of error of 1,000 ppm, and the "proof" is that the DIN standard doesn't use that test is laughable. Why not just claim it has a margin of error of 10,000 ppm, and use the same "proof"?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why don't you just let us have our discussions about biodiesel without all your bullsh*t whining. There is nothing righteous about uninformed trash-talkers.


[/ QUOTE ]

You mean, let you all have your pie-in-sky uninformed talks about biodiesel?

[/ QUOTE ]
Bwaaaaaaaaaaahhahahahaahaa!!

[ QUOTE ]
At least I know every aspect about it and I am not clouded by the typical environmental nonsense "let's save the planet" crap that is being touted around here.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who is saying that? As I've said repeatedly, and most others have as well - the main reasons I use biodiesel are for the economic and strategic security of the US. The environmental issue comes in third for me. Nowhere have I claimed to be "saving the world" by using it, although you seem to think driving a Prius would accomplish that.
 

testy_SOB

Veteran Member
Joined
Nov 20, 2002
Location
Wisconsin
TDI
Beetle, 1998, Red
Autodiesel sayz [ QUOTE ]
The ASTM standard does NOT test for exidation and the test procedures for water (by centrifuge) are lacking.
If you want to know the procedure used by the ASTM can miss up to 1000ppm of water! Don't believe me? Just go check and see how the check for water with the lastest DIN/EN standard and then check how they check with the ASTM standard. The European test is a true test, "by centrifuge", is NOT!


[/ QUOTE ]

ANYTIME you do an analytical test it should be done in a way that is specific to the test matrix and the purpose (reason) that you want to control that analyte. In diesel fuels it is primarily to determine the amount of FREE water (water that is typically suspended/emulsified) in the fuel. The differant methyl esthers are way hygroscopic and you will get a significant amount of variation just based on environmental conditions of storage and the test area. Want is bad for transport, storage, and your car is the free H20 which is what most readily drops out, stratifies, and causes problems. Centrifuge is a quick, cheap, consistant way to determine free H20. Just because you can measure an analyte to some hyper precise value doesn't mean you have better control over your product, just a more expensive test. The spec appears to be 0.05% so you only need a test that can measure to 0.01% or at the worst 0.001% H20. For a sample where you aren't sample size limited that is well within the capabilities of a centrifuge type test. If a typical centrifuge won't spin out the dissolved H2O then your fuel filter and pump aren't going to seperate it either.

As to your 1000 ppm variation statement. Your arithmetic seems to suggest that the measurement variation is at least an order of magnitude greater then the spec. itself. Even ASTM isn't that sloppy. That's equivalent to saying my ideal weight is 200 pounds plus or minus a 1000 pounds. Meaningless!!
 

rwolff

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 10, 2002
Location
Lesser continental mass, Tosev 3
TDI
None yet
[ QUOTE ]


[ QUOTE ]

nh mike said:
But it's simply changing the urea canister every 10-20k miles, depending on the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. Urea is cheap, a canister can't be all that expensive, and they should easily be able to design it so it takes them all of two minutes to complete. Whoopty-do. Change oil, change canister.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, but unfortunately from the automaker's point of view that makes a difference. They would have to pay dealers labor plus parts... so for a car with a 80k emissions warranty we're looking at, let's say, 6 recharges. Assume 1/2 hr labor (warranty rate) and wholesale cost of $5 for the canister... $35 maybe? So $200+ per car in extra cost to be eaten by the manufacturer. That doesn't sound like much, but Detroit is WAY into the business of penny-pinching. Something that seems so small can make or break a marketing/launch decision.


[/ QUOTE ]

Let's not underestimate the ingenuity of the design engineers. What is a urea cannister? It's a container with pipes in and out of it. What is an oil filter? It's a container with pipes in and out of it. Would it be possible to design a unit with 2 functionally-independent compartments (one is the oil filter and the other is the urea cannister) where the whole thing has to be replaced at once? Quite possibly.

If the emissions side holds enough urea to last beyond the oil filter change interval, and it's not possible to change the oil filter without simultaneously installing a new urea cannister, it's no longer in the realm of mandatory free replacement. After all, oil filters are a standard (customer-paid) maintenance item. Anyone who doesn't change (and pay for) their urea cannister will get their engine lubrication-related failures denied under warranty because they didn't change their oil filter.

Combining functions is nothing new. Remember the Polaroid SX-70? The battery was part of the film pack.
 

Steve York UK

Veteran Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Location
York, UK
TDI
SEAT Ibiza Sport 130hp TDI Black
I am a bit confused by this thread. There are two diffeent issues being discussed:

1) Does biodiesel harm your car. Well, my knowledge of that would fit on a postage stamp. You guys seem to know a lot more about biodiesel than VW do.

2) VW won't let you use Soy Biodiesel in their cars and make warranty claims if the engine fails. Now this is a legal contract you have with VW. If they say you CAN use poor quality US petro diesel and they will pick up the tab but if you use top quality biodiesel they won't, then you have to live with that.

You need to convince VW, not each other about engine warranty issues. Non-warranty issues are personal preference and everyone will have their differences.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
Steve York UK said:
I am a bit confused by this thread. There are two diffeent issues being discussed:

1) Does biodiesel harm your car. Well, my knowledge of that would fit on a postage stamp. You guys seem to know a lot more about biodiesel than VW do.

2) VW won't let you use Soy Biodiesel in their cars and make warranty claims if the engine fails. Now this is a legal contract you have with VW. If they say you CAN use poor quality US petro diesel and they will pick up the tab but if you use top quality biodiesel they won't, then you have to live with that.

You need to convince VW, not each other about engine warranty issues. Non-warranty issues are personal preference and everyone will have their differences.

[/ QUOTE ]
True. In general, if you have a problem that is attributable to the fuel, whether it's petro diesel, or biodiesel made from rapeseed/soy/WVO/lard/whatever, the vehicle manufacturer will NOT cover it. In essence, vehicle manufacturers don't warrant any kind of fuel - they warrant their vehicles to be free of defect.

For most, the main question should be regarding #1 - will biodiesel pose any risk to my vehicle. Regardless of whether VW or any other company says it's fine to use biodiesel, if it works fine, there's nothing to worry about. It's only if it can cause problems that there's an issue.

All of the problems that have occurred related to biodiesel use (in the US AND Europe) are due to poorly made biodiesel - below both European and US specs. Very high water content and glycerin content are the main culprits. There's also the additional issue of improper use - people using a type of biodiesel with a high cloud point even though the temperatures are way below that cloud point, and taking no precautions. If you use straight #2 diesel in your TDI and the temps drop to 0F, you're going to have problems. Fortunately, most "gas" stations blend kerosene and various additives into diesel fuel in the winter, to prevent that from happening. Some biodiesel retailers do not take any precautions, selling the same biodiesel in the winter with a high cloud point, and the users don't know enough to blend or use additives themselves.

If you use biodiesel that meets ASTM or DIN specs, and use it properly (taking appropriate precautions in the winter), there's nothing to worry about. ALL of the problems I've seen are due to bad quality biodiesel, and improper use. If you avoid those, there's no reason to even think about the warranty issue.

If you buy biodiesel that doesn't meet ASTM specs, and have a problem - who is responsible? Not VW. The biodiesel seller/maker is.

Thus, I feel comfortable in using biodiesel. I'm very confident that biodiesel that meets ASTM specs is perfectly fine. If I have a problem, it's either due to my own negligence (which is in some cases intentional, since I'm still testing my winterizing methods to let me use B100 in the winter with additives), or poorly made biodiesel. If it's the latter, the maker of the fuel (or distributor) is the one I should talk to - not VW.

Look at it this way - if you put some petro diesel in your car, it dies, and the mechanic discovers that the petro diesel was loaded with dirt and water - would you expect VW to fix your car for you? No, the fuel retailer/producer should, not the carmaker.
 

Light

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 14, 2003
[ QUOTE ]
bean boy said:
Thanks for saving my credibility Fubar. I wouldn't want to be mistaken for a troll. /images/graemlins/cool.gif

Sorry I mis-spoke. So Light, hows your homework going? /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

beanboy nobody said you're a troll, however you were incorrect in your statements... Your credibility was not saved by fubar's post, dunno what dream world you're living in... /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif My homework was done well before you registered on the TDICLUB sonnyboy /images/graemlins/wink.gif Looks like you still have more to do... /images/graemlins/rolleyes.gif Sulfur is not a lubricant..period.
 

goat21

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Location
USA
Elemental sulphur (S) is not a lubricant. However, SH or thiols in hydrocarbon molecules provide lubrication. Thienyl ring chemistries are the key lubrication component of old diesel fuel. With the reduction of this chemistry in diesel, there is a need to replace the -SH compounds lost to severe hydroprocessing. Methyl esters can provide that lubrication. Sulphur is critical for human lubrication and garlic is the main source. Some essential amino acids have S. This element has bad press.
 

Ricdude

Veteran Member
Joined
Mar 5, 2003
TDI
NB, '03, Pt Grey, GLS
[ QUOTE ]
goat21 said:
Sulphur is critical for human lubrication and garlic is the main source. Some essential amino acids have S. This element has bad press.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sulfur has bad press because it smells stinky something fierce. /images/graemlins/wink.gif
 

AutoDiesel

Veteran Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2000
Location
Pacific Northwest
[ QUOTE ]
If a typical centrifuge won't spin out the dissolved H2O then your fuel filter and pump aren't going to seperate it either.

As to your 1000 ppm variation statement. Your arithmetic seems to suggest that the measurement variation is at least an order of magnitude greater then the spec. itself. Even ASTM isn't that sloppy. That's equivalent to saying my ideal weight is 200 pounds plus or minus a 1000 pounds. Meaningless!!

[/ QUOTE ]

ASTM is checking for only free water. Up to 500ppm.
Since soy biodiesel can have water soluability up to 1500 ppm. theoritically you could still have up to 1500ppm soluable water even after checking for and/or removing free water. The de-emulsifiing agent used while doing the centrifuge test will take some of that out so that is why I was generous and subtracted the 500 ppm from the 1500ppm limit and came up with 1000ppm difference. But in fact test by centrifuge are very inconsistent and inaccurate and rarely will show anything over 200 - 300 ppm water. Remember, even if you have removed 300ppm from a 1500ppm sample you still have 1200ppm left soluable.

http://www.ec.gc.ca/transport/publications/biodiesel/biodiesel4.htm
The ASTM standard D-975 allows up to 500 ppm water in D-2. As the solubility of water in D-2 is only about 50 to 60 ppm, any water above this limit will separate out at the bottom of the tank or stay suspended as an emulsion. The solubility of water in SME is approximately 1500 ppm, while in B20 blend of SME in D-2 it is about 40 to. 60 ppm. Thus blending a water saturated biodiesel with D-2 can result in the separation of water phase providing a potential site for microbial growth (Van Gerpen et al., 1997).
------------------------------------------------------------


As for you statement that a injection pump won't separate water, not true. With the temperature of the fuel and the pressures generated by the pump, and the injectors for that matter, it can.
 

nh mike

Top Post Dawg
Joined
Apr 28, 2002
Location
NH
TDI
2003 Jetta GLS wagon, 2004 Passat GLS wagon
[ QUOTE ]
AutoDiesel said:
[ QUOTE ]
If a typical centrifuge won't spin out the dissolved H2O then your fuel filter and pump aren't going to seperate it either.

As to your 1000 ppm variation statement. Your arithmetic seems to suggest that the measurement variation is at least an order of magnitude greater then the spec. itself. Even ASTM isn't that sloppy. That's equivalent to saying my ideal weight is 200 pounds plus or minus a 1000 pounds. Meaningless!!

[/ QUOTE ]

ASTM is checking for only free water. Up to 500ppm.
Since soy biodiesel can have water soluability up to 1500 ppm. theoritically you could still have up to 1500ppm soluable water even after checking for and/or removing free water. The de-emulsifiing agent used while doing the centrifuge test will take some of that out so that is why I was generous and subtracted the 500 ppm from the 1500ppm limit and came up with 1000ppm difference.

[/ QUOTE ]
The centrifuge test is for measuring free water. If it gives you a reading of 300 ppm of free water, and your total water level is 1800 ppm, THAT IS NOT AN ERROR. It is a completely correct reading, as it is measuring free water. The problem is if somebody thinks it's measuring total water - it isn't. There is a reason ASTM regulates free water, rather than total water. Wanna guess what that reason is? I've already said it a couple times (once recently, many times in old threads).

Free water is what causes corrosion, and increased engine wear - not dissolved water.

Measuring free water does not mean you have a large margin of error - it just means you're measuring free water, rather than total water. That's not an "error" - that's a choice in what you're measuring. Free water is measured because it is what poses a problem - not dissolved water (incidentally, emulsified water is technically "free" water, as it is not dissolved. Centrifuge tests include emulsified water in the measurement, since it separates in a centrifuge).

[ QUOTE ]
But in fact test by centrifuge are very inconsistent and inaccurate and rarely will show anything over 200 - 300 ppm water. Remember, even if you have removed 300ppm from a 1500ppm sample you still have 1200ppm left soluable.

[/ QUOTE ]
It rarely shows anything over 200-300 ppm because it requires very bad water contamination to get anything over 200-300 ppm. As for your last statement - so?

Most labs actually do a Karl-Fischer titration to measure the amount of total water (of course, some then incorrectly compare that to the ASTM standard, comparing total water to free water spec). The highest I've ever seen on a biodiesel test by Karl-Fischer titration was around 700 ppm of total water - around half of the saturation level (so even with that high of a water level, it would still need another 800 ppm before water would separate).

Incidentally, are you aware that the new European standard (EN 14214) has the same water specification as ASTM D 6751 - 500 ppm of FREE water?

[ QUOTE ]
http://www.ec.gc.ca/transport/publications/biodiesel/biodiesel4.htm
The ASTM standard D-975 allows up to 500 ppm water in D-2. As the solubility of water in D-2 is only about 50 to 60 ppm, any water above this limit will separate out at the bottom of the tank or stay suspended as an emulsion. The solubility of water in SME is approximately 1500 ppm, while in B20 blend of SME in D-2 it is about 40 to. 60 ppm. Thus blending a water saturated biodiesel with D-2 can result in the separation of water phase providing a potential site for microbial growth (Van Gerpen et al., 1997).

[/ QUOTE ]
The saturation level in a B20 blend is NOT 40 to 60 ppm. THe saturation level would be between the saturation levels of the individual components, although not based on a linear combination. So, there is an increased risk of water separation with blending (but not nearly as great as that paper claims) - that's one reason I advocate using B100. /images/graemlins/laugh.gif

[ QUOTE ]
As for you statement that a injection pump won't separate water, not true. With the temperature of the fuel and the pressures generated by the pump, and the injectors for that matter, it can.

[/ QUOTE ]
The pump heats up the fuel. What does the saturation level due when temperature increases? It goes up. If there is no free water in the pump in the fuel lines, the added temperature from the injection pump is going to RAISE the saturation levels, so no water would separate.

Why is it that all the people here who have had their injection pumps dismantled and inspected after a long time of using biodiesel had incredibly clean pumps? (I think it was Wally, who had either his own pump or the pump of a friend (who was using the fuel Wally makes) disassembled for inspection by a pump rebuilder, and the pump rebuilder said it was the shiniest pump he's ever seen)
 
S

SkyPup

Guest
Sorry to inform you, water is real bad, any water in any form at any temp in any diesel.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top