# Anyone have any advice on diesel fuel additives?



## wkahn1961 (Apr 13, 2010)

Does anyone use Power Service products?

Is it safe for the 335d?

http://www.powerservice.com/dk/

There are two products for cars that may be of interest, the fuel supplement and the diesel kleen. Both advertise to increase the cetane rating and improve mileage and performance. No idea if this is ok to use in our cars or not?


----------



## Flyingman (Sep 13, 2009)

wkahn1961 said:


> Does anyone use Power Service products?
> 
> Is it safe for the 335d?
> 
> ...


I'd recommend don't waste your hard earned money.

Ever wonder why the OEM's don't recommend additives?


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

The additive question is a huge can of worms. On the one hand, many folks don't believe in additives, and can give good reasons for avoiding them. On the other hand, the ULSD spec for U.S. diesel has a minimun lubricity spec that is higher than the spec for the HPFP manufactured for the 335D (ULSD lubricity spec is 520, fuel pump spec is 460). So the folks on the additive side look to improve lubricity. Then you get into issues like emulsifiers/demulsifiers - neither of which is most likely good for our setup (we don't have a water trap to empty). Did I mention this is a can of worms?


----------



## Neutrinolad (Jun 23, 2009)

Several good discussions of additives on the 3-series forum. Here is one:

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=423297&highlight=additives

I was tempted, but decided against it.


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

With recent posts on VW TDI pump failures I am getting inclined towards additives but at same time when BMW themselves dont recommend then why unnecessarily get into it. Still confused


----------



## Penguin (Aug 31, 2003)

Flyingman said:


> Ever wonder why the OEM's don't recommend additives?


Because there are no standards for additives and OEM's have no idea what might be in a bottle someone is selling as "diesel fuel additive." For all BMW knows, someone could be relabeling bottle of Avian water as "Diesel additive."

This leaves OEM's two choices: (a) go with a blanket recommendation against additives, or (b) get in the business of testing and approving fuel additives.

Far simpler to just go with (a) and avoid the entire can of worms.

Some OEM's do sell fuel additives under their own label:

http://www.thedieselstop.com/forums/f27/motorcraft-diesel-fuel-additive-57179/

Some OEM's even sell gasoline additives under their own label:

http://circlebmw.com/service/faq/beyondoctane.htm


----------



## Flyingman (Sep 13, 2009)

I did a major test of a fuel additive on some very large and expensive diesel engines.

These engines (we had 20 of them) were Large Bore Medium Speed burning HFO (Heavy Fuel Oil) which is the residual from the refining process, so much more heavier than any diesel fuel you can imagine. This stuff looks like molasses, only darker and thicker.

I went round and round with the snake oil salesman, reaching an agreement that no benefit, no pay. This stuff was supposed to clean up my fuel tanks, allowing more complete combustion, less deposits, etc... etc... which should equate to real fuel saving by improving efficiency by at least a few %.

We saw absolutely no benefit after 30 days of testing and measuring.

In the end, we discovered a very unusual wear pattern on our small end bearings (wrist pins) that require we repalce all of them. We have 20 engines with 18 cylinders each, so some 360 small end bearing had to be removed and replaced. This was not cheap.

It appears there was some sort of chemical reaction with this fuel additive, our fuel and the lube oil in our crankcase, which created some very hard carbonacous material that was scratching the running surfaces of the small end bearings, where you have the highest load and the tightest clearance.

It was weird, but since then i swore I would not experiment with this crap.

Better you than me!


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

Flyingman said:


> Ever wonder why the OEM's don't recommend additives?


Porsche used to recommend adding Techron to their cars, I think it was once a year and that was back in the 80s. I think Ford recommends an additive for their diesels, seen the literature and bottles for it but never bothered to read it, the bottle has a Ford label on it but doubt they make it. I bet some other OEMs recommend some additives. I am with you on the snake oil comment though and unless wither BMW recommends an additive or some of my wife's old co-workers in the Chevron additives division(they test all sorts of additives/oils/fuels) recommend one then I will not use any.


----------



## Flyingman (Sep 13, 2009)

Snipe656 said:


> Porsche used to recommend adding Techron to their cars, I think it was once a year and that was back in the 80s. I think Ford recommends an additive for their diesels, seen the literature and bottles for it but never bothered to read it, the bottle has a Ford label on it but doubt they make it. I bet some other OEMs recommend some additives. I am with you on the snake oil comment though and unless wither BMW recommends an additive or some of my wife's old co-workers in the Chevron additives division(they test all sorts of additives/oils/fuels) recommend one then I will not use any.


Don't get me wrong, there are additives that serve a useful purpose, such as to remove water from your tank, perhaps do sort of cleanup, even some that help change the combustion products, i.e. chemical reaction that could reduce things like vanadates which can cause high temperature corrosion (for HFO applications), but there is no Panacea that will do it all.

That is just pure BS.:bs:

And this stuff is really expensive vs any benefit you might get. I like it when they say it improves efficincy and power. Have that stuff tested and you will find out it adds very few additional btu's to the fuel. If you're not adding btu's I don't see how you will get much out of it.


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

So is it a go or no go

I get it there are 2 equal weighing sides. From reading all the literature now I feel best solution is to keep a tap on engine behavior every time we refuel and if we sense any difference on negative side then act accordingly


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

What I was taught, by the people who do all the testing of things, is just run a good name brand fuel because they do put additives in their fuels and have been tested on a wide array of engines and conditions. That is why in another thread on here I said I'd not run Murhpey fuel from Walmarts and it also is why I only run name brand fuels in any of my cars.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

Also, I do not think you will notice anything from tank to tank regardless of fuel(unless it is contaminated) or of additive used. It is the long term effects I am worried about and why my discussions with those testers years ago made me stop using no name fuels.


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

IMO, still on my 1st tank of diesel kleen...I have noticed very slight improvement on my mpgs..recently i have been doing lots of city driving (note however, other factors could have caused this)went from high 23's to high 24's. Only thing i truly notice is that there is much less soot on the rear end of the car. I was running highway rest stop sunoco diesel and noticed it was making the rear of the car real dirty, its running cleaner now. A mechanic i know who worked on diesel truck engines his whole life said its good to run the engine real hard once and awhile to clean the piston heads and remove any buildups. I find that pretty easy to do :thumbup:...try diesel kleen once and while, it cant hurt. BMW recommends cetane rating of low 50's for optimal performance regular diesel found in most stations is well below that. The increased cetane rating alone should help in small ways.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

I have had ZERO soot on the back of my D in the 9k or so miles I have driven it.


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

Yeah soot is very less. Once I used Sunaco diesel and observed some soot but shell never resulted in noticeable soot. 

But like Stussy109 suggested once in a while shouldnt hurt. I think I will do that probably once in 15 fillups or may be 10.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

Less? I have none at all, never have had any.


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

Snipe656 said:


> I have had ZERO soot on the back of my D in the 9k or so miles I have driven it.


I have the alpine white, so maybe you just cant see yours? Its a possibility it could be break dust, it used to happen on my acura cl I had. Brake dust would collect in the back by the trunk. Pretty sure its diesel related though. I filled up with lukoil "premium" diesel this time. we'll see if it helps any


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

My Mercedes is a much darker color tan the BMW and the soot on it I'd noticeable. Plus hose it with water and I see it in the water. Maybe I am just lucky.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

62Lincoln said:


> The additive question is a huge can of worms. On the one hand, many folks don't believe in additives, and can give good reasons for avoiding them. *On the other hand, the ULSD spec for U.S. diesel has a minimun lubricity spec that is higher than the spec for the HPFP manufactured for the 335D (ULSD lubricity spec is 520, fuel pump spec is 460).* So the folks on the additive side look to improve lubricity. Then you get into issues like emulsifiers/demulsifiers - neither of which is most likely good for our setup (we don't have a water trap to empty). Did I mention this is a can of worms?


This is the crux of the decision whether to go with additives or not. If the ULSD had a better lubricity spec, I would have passed on the whole additive question. If potential wear is an issue, you have 2 options: 1.) Blend 5% biodiesel or 2.) Blend an additive to get the lubricity lower than 460 wear scar. I chose Powerservice due to its extensive use in automotive diesel applications. A number of tests have been done to prove that Powerservice improves lubricity. Further, Powerservice is well-regarded on the automotive diesel forums.

It is an issue that could have been avoided if the U.S. ULSD had a better lubricity specification.


----------



## railroader (Apr 12, 2010)

Snipe656 said:


> Less? I have none at all, never have had any.


I think Snipe is correct; I also do not have any trace of soot on either of my outlet pipes. One thing also is that I mostly run Calif fuels which I believe are subject to a slightly higher series of performance requirements for their fuels in general? Anyway, it's amazing how clean my car runs, but I still am south of 5K so my miles are low. Another little observation I have about these cars is the lack of odor in the exhaust flow itself. Yeah, I put my nose down there while it was running just to check-- all I could detect was a warm air flow. No acrid emissions, oily or smoky smell at all. Guess it must be the magic of our DEF fluid doing its thing...


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

railroader said:


> I think Snipe is correct; I also do not have any trace of soot on either of my outlet pipes. One thing also is that I mostly run Calif fuels which I believe are subject to a slightly higher series of performance requirements for their fuels in general? Anyway, it's amazing how clean my car runs, but I still am south of 5K so my miles are low. Another little observation I have about these cars is the lack of odor in the exhaust flow itself. Yeah, I put my nose down there while it was running just to check-- all I could detect was a warm air flow. No acrid emissions, oily or smoky smell at all. Guess it must be the magic of our DEF fluid doing its thing...


for me its not on the pipes, its on the rear deck lid, trunk area...it just gets dirtier much faster than the rest of the car with black specks


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

My Mercedes does not even get it up in the trunk area and that car blows some soot even at idle.


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

Stussy109 said:


> for me its not on the pipes, its on the rear deck lid, trunk area...it just gets dirtier much faster than the rest of the car with black specks


I think its break dust not soot.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

lalitkanteti said:


> I think its break dust not soot.


Brake dust on the trunk? That would be a first. What about pollen? Or, just plain dust? That is what I have been experiencing. In my neck of the woods, there have been pollen clouds (literally; you can be driving along and there is this greenish-yellow cloud that you can see as it approaches and deposits pollen on the car).


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

lalitkanteti said:


> I think its break dust not soot.


I'm beginning to think this as well...


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> Brake dust on the trunk? That would be a first. What about pollen? Or, just plain dust? That is what I have been experiencing. In my neck of the woods, there have been pollen clouds (literally; you can be driving along and there is this greenish-yellow cloud that you can see as it approaches and deposits pollen on the car).


I felt same but what justification could you give for black stuff accumulating on rear fenders and rear bumper: its has to be soot or break dust or something coming of road. I say not soot because tail pipes are clean


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

lalitkanteti said:


> I felt same but what justification could you give for black stuff accumulating on rear fenders and rear bumper: its has to be soot or break dust or something coming of road. I say not soot because tail pipes are clean


How fouled are the rear wheels by brake dust? If not very, then it is even harder to argue that what is on the rear bumper is brake dust. The only way to conclusively prove what is on the car is to send a sample off for analysis. My experience with my Jet Black d is pollen and dust from driving. I have very little brake dust on my wheels. BMW has apparently changed the pad formulation around September, 2009 and the result has been a dramatic reduction in brake dust on the wheels compared to other BMWs I have owned in the past.


----------



## lalitkanteti (Nov 15, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> How fouled are the rear wheels by brake dust? If not very, then it is even harder to argue that what is on the rear bumper is brake dust. The only way to conclusively prove what is on the car is to send a sample off for analysis. My experience with my Jet Black d is pollen and dust from driving. I have very little brake dust on my wheels. BMW has apparently changed the pad formulation around September, 2009 and the result has been a dramatic reduction in brake dust on the wheels compared to other BMWs I have owned in the past.


wheels look very bad after 200 miles of drive. Mine is april 09 built and aug 09 delivery so it is very possible that I have older version of break pads. I will check up with my dealer next time I visit him.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

lalitkanteti said:


> wheels look very bad after 200 miles of drive. Mine is april 09 built and aug 09 delivery so it is very possible that I have older version of break pads. I will check up with my dealer next time I visit him.


It might be brake dust then. An April 09 build will not have the new (Sep 09+) pads unless the pads have been replaced as a maintenance item. Odd that my Feb 08 build 335i E93 didn't have dust build up on the rear quarter panels and bumper (the wheels would be black after 200 miles of driving). Maybe different airflow under the chassis and exhaust piping/plumbing?


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

A new additive (i.e. new to me): http://visconusa.com/V2HomePage.html


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

62Lincoln said:


> A new additive (i.e. new to me): http://visconusa.com/V2HomePage.html


Viscon seems to be touting its ability to reduce particulate emissions. The BMW diesel cars already come with particulate traps, so I don't know that this is bringing any benefit to the table. I won't be putting any Viscon in my tank.


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

They tout much more than just emission reduction:

• improve torque
• improve air quality
• improve fuel combustion
• reduce fuel consumption
• reduce harmful emissions
• reduce operating temperatures

Read the technology section, interesting stuff. This is one of the few class of additives mentioned in the voluminous Chevron Diesel Report.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

62Lincoln said:


> They tout much more than just emission reduction:
> 
> • improve torque
> • improve air quality
> ...


Meh. The only attribute of Viscon that CARB is 'validating' is the reduced particulate level when using the fuel. Until there is some independent verification of the rest of the claims, that is all they are - unsubstantiated.


----------



## Stussy109 (May 23, 2010)

anE934fun said:


> It might be brake dust then. An April 09 build will not have the new (Sep 09+) pads unless the pads have been replaced as a maintenance item. Odd that my Feb 08 build 335i E93 didn't have dust build up on the rear quarter panels and bumper (the wheels would be black after 200 miles of driving). Maybe different airflow under the chassis and exhaust piping/plumbing?


I have the 09 as well, and my wheels get dirty real fast, within 100-200 miles after the car wash.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

My wheels get dirty really fast too just like every German car I have owned but can't say dust from the brakes has made it past the wheels.


----------



## compusatman (Apr 14, 2010)

There is alot of talk about lubricity in diesels. Paricular in pre DEF engines. ULSD is not mandated until December 1, 2010. So you could possibly buy fuel that has a much higher sulfur content. Older diesel engines designed to run on 500ppm fuel will potentially see problems with 15ppm fuel therefore those are the engines that need lubricity. With the common consensous being to add one ounce of two stroke oil to each gallon of fuel. New diesel engines are designed to run on USDL fuel and most all additives (especially those added for lubricity) play havoc with the lubricating oil. In that the lubricity additive competes with the crankcase oil for the right to lubricate the internal metal surfaces. This competition reduces the crankcase oils usable lifespan. Usually by cutting it in half. So if you must use a lubricity additive then by all means change your oil around 4K miles. Power Service is one additive that I am not sure falls into this category. I would be very selective of the additives administered to a new DEF diesel engine...if any at all.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

compusatman said:


> There is alot of talk about lubricity in diesels. Paricular in pre DEF engines. USLD is not mandated until December 1, 2010. So you could possibly buy fuel that has a much higher sulfur content. Older diesel engines designed to run on 500ppm fuel will potentially see problems with 5ppm fuel therefore those are the engines that need lubricity. With the common consensous being to add one ounce of two stroke oil to each gallon of fuel. New diesel engines are designed to run on USDL fuel and most all additives (especially those added for lubricity) play havoc with the lubricating oil. In that the lubricity additive competes with the crankcase oil for the right to lubricate the internal metal surfaces. This competition reduces the crankcase oils usable lifespan. Usually by cutting it in half. So if you must use a lubricity additive then by all means change your oil around 4K miles. Power Service is one additive that I am not sure falls into this category. I would be very selective of the additives administered to a new DEF diesel engine...if any at all.


Wow. Where do you get your facts? ULSD for highway use has been mandated with the exception of rural Alaska since December, 2006. Rural Alaska is the only location where ULSD for highway use is allowed to slip to December, 2010. Here is an article you could review to help you understand the ULSD implementation schedule: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-low_sulfur_diesel

As far as your assertion about new diesel engines being designed to run on ULSD, the engines in the BMW 335d and X5d are designed to run on fuel that conforms to a certain specification. The U.S. version of ULSD has minimum requirements that miss the specification in the area of Cetane rating and lubricity. That is the whole reason for the discussion about fuel additives.

Could you provide a link (preferably to a site like ASTM or some other neutral engineering entity) that recommends adding one ounce of two-stroke oil to each gallon of fuel?


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

New Member here chiming in.

IIRC the fuel filter in our vehicles removes water and it is replaced ever 30k or so miles. As for the Powerservice Diesel Kleen product. It's just a cetane booster with a detergent and lubricity package. It does not do anything to/with water. 

If your only concen is with lubricity then B2 would be more than sufficient.


----------



## tlak77 (Aug 5, 2009)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> IIRC the fuel filter in our vehicles removes water.


Can you elaborate, as far as I know there is no drain on the fuel filter in 335d, how is the water removed?
thanks


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

I am curious about that as well.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

bimmerdiesel said:


> Any ideas on how much AT costs. I havent heard of AT failing before 150000


According to realoem.com ( http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts.do?model=PN73&mospid=51054&btnr=24_1016&hg=24&fg=05 ), the parts cost of the A/T is $5,876.67 and the torque converter is $1,819.35. Add in tax and labor and some A/T fluid and you are pushing $10,000 territory.

If the fluid goes south, the transmission can fail before you reach 100K miles. One of the Volvo Shop Foreman I know (who does the service on my XC90 V8) owns a 1995 850 turbo and has replaced the transmission fluid on 30,000 mile intervals and is currently at 220,000 miles on the odometer.


----------



## bimmerdiesel (Jul 9, 2010)

anE934fun said:


> According to realoem.com ( http://www.realoem.com/bmw/showparts.do?model=PN73&mospid=51054&btnr=24_1016&hg=24&fg=05 ), the parts cost of the *A/T is $5,876.67 and the torque converter is $1,819.35.* Add in tax and labor and some A/T fluid and you are pushing $10,000 territory.
> 
> If the fluid goes south, the transmission can fail before you reach 100K miles. One of the Volvo Shop Foreman I know (who does the service on my XC90 V8) owns a 1995 850 turbo and has replaced the transmission fluid on 30,000 mile intervals and is currently at 220,000 miles on the odometer.


That sucks.


----------



## bimmerdiesel (Jul 9, 2010)

anE934fun said:


> My current plan is to replace (as opposed to drain and refill, where the old AT fluid that remains in the torque converter contaminates the new fluid) the A/T fluid at the 30K mile point. I will send a sample of the old A/T fluid off for analysis after the 30K mile replacement. Depending on what comes back from the analysis results, I may extend the next replacement interval. The fluid allegedly has a 50K mile life, but I like to confirm that based on test results, as opposed to taking the claim on faith.


again another dumb question: how different is replacing oil/fluid from 'drain and refill'. I thought thats how replace.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

bimmerdiesel said:


> again another dumb question: how different is replacing oil/fluid from 'drain and refill'. I thought thats how replace.


Drain and refill involves draining the old fluid from the oil pan on the bottom of the transmission and refilling with new fluid. Nothing has been done to remove the old fluid that is in the torque converter or the transmission body or the oil cooler and the lines that run to and from the cooler (which can be as much as what is in the transmission oil pan (possibly more)  ). Replacement involves undoing the lines that run from the transmission to the oil cooler and connecting them to a transmission fluid service unit and replacing old fluid with new fluid. The challenge is to have sufficient new fluid on hand to be able to replace all of the old fluid with new fluid. Since I don't know how much fluid will be used in the replacement, I will have to over-purchase the replacement fluid. But that is small potatoes compared to a $10K replacement cost for a remanufactured transmission.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

anE934fun said:


> The document you cited refers to the Federal emission control warranty for specified components of 8 years/80K miles (see sections A and B). I am still trying to find an 'official' certification requirement. :dunno:


I'm not trying to be an ass but does it matter where, who, or why a 10 yr certification was mentioned? Maybe it's an internal requirement?

Why not just take it at face value and leave it at that?


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

bimmerdiesel said:


> That sucks.


Ayyup....


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> I'm not trying to be an ass but *does it matter where, who, or why a 10 yr certification was mentioned?* Maybe it's an internal requirement?
> 
> *Why not just take it at face value and leave it at that?*


Because it can give the reader a false sense of security. Would you just suck it up and write a check for $1,500 (or whatever the amount is) if your HPFP failed at say, the 90,000 mile point? Or, would you start complaining about how BMW NA should pick up the cost since you read a statement by someone allegedly internal to BMW who said the pumps are 'certified' to 10 years/120,000 miles?

It is the same routine about 'Lifetime' A/T fluid. The only 'lifetime' for BMW NA is the life of the warranty; other than that, you are on your own. Caveat emptor.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

anE934fun said:


> Because it can give the reader a false sense of security. Would you just suck it up and write a check for $1,500 (or whatever the amount is) if your HPFP failed at say, the 90,000 mile point? Or, would you start complaining about how BMW NA should pick up the cost since you read a statement by someone allegedly internal to BMW who said the pumps are 'certified' to 10 years/120,000 miles?
> 
> It is the same routine about 'Lifetime' A/T fluid. The only 'lifetime' for BMW NA is the life of the warranty; other than that, you are on your own. Caveat emptor.


Not if it's out of warranty. In any case search Tier 2 emissions standards. Took me all of 5 minutes to find it.

http://www.meca.org/page.ww?name=U....+Gasoline+Sulfur+Rulemaking&section=Resources


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Not if it's out of warranty. * In any case search Tier 2 emissions standards. Took me all of 5 minutes to find it.*
> 
> http://www.meca.org/page.ww?name=U....+Gasoline+Sulfur+Rulemaking&section=Resources


Meh. Meco.org is expressing their opinion. I have not been able to find any official (as in .gov or BMW NA) statement of a 10 year/120K mile emissions warranty requirement. There can be a requirement to show that the average MTBF of the emission equipment is greater than 10 years/120K miles, but that isn't an express warranty on performance of specific items of emission control equipment. An average is just that - an averaging of all experience; if you are on the short end of the curve (but out of the warranty period), you are SOL.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

anE934fun said:


> Meh. Meco.org is expressing their opinion. I have not been able to find any official (as in .gov or BMW NA) statement of a 10 year/120K mile emissions warranty requirement. There can be a requirement to show that the average MTBF of the emission equipment is greater than 10 years/120K miles, but that isn't an express warranty on performance of specific items of emission control equipment. An average is just that - an averaging of all experience; if you are on the short end of the curve (but out of the warranty period), you are SOL.


Such is life. Search Tier 2 and 120,000. You'll find a ton of the same "opinions"

Here's a 2006 amendment per EPA which states moving the limit from 120,000 miles to 150,000 miles. By definition that mean it's currently 120,000 miles. Are we done now?

http://www.epa.gov/tier2/amendments/420f06027.htm#background


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Such is life. Search Tier 2 and 120,000. You'll find a ton of the same "opinions"
> 
> Here's a 2006 amendment per EPA which states moving the limit from 120,000 miles to 150,000 miles. By definition that mean it's currently 120,000 miles. Are we done now?
> 
> http://www.epa.gov/tier2/amendments/420f06027.htm#background


I am still looking for a warranty requirement for 10 years/120,000 miles along the lines of the federal 8 year/80,000 mile warranty requirement for specified components. If the warranty has been extended to 10 years/120,000 miles, that should have popped up in the search results. It would also have been mentioned in the warranty coverage booklet that was included in the set of Owners Manuals that came with the car. So far, nothing of the sort has come up. All that you have cited to is an 'average' certification. As I mentioned in my last post, an average certification does not carry a requirement for warranty coverage on failed components.

By way of an example, the failure rate of gasser HPFPs is such that it would appear to impact the average calculation for purposes of emission 'certification' for the N54 engine. As a result, BMW NA has extended the emissions warranty on the HPFP for the N54 engine in MY 2007 to MY2009 cars to a duration of 10 years/120,000 miles. But so far, I have not seen a similar warranty extension for the M57 diesel engine.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

anE934fun said:


> I am still looking for a warranty requirement for 10 years/120,000 miles along the lines of the federal 8 year/80,000 mile warranty requirement for specified components. If the warranty has been extended to 10 years/120,000 miles, that should have popped up in the search results. It would also have been mentioned in the warranty coverage booklet that was included in the set of Owners Manuals that came with the car. So far, nothing of the sort has come up. All that you have cited to is an 'average' certification. As I mentioned in my last post, an average certification does not carry a requirement for warranty coverage on failed components.
> 
> By way of an example, the failure rate of gasser HPFPs is such that it would appear to impact the average calculation for purposes of emission 'certification' for the N54 engine. As a result, BMW NA has extended the emissions warranty on the HPFP for the N54 engine in MY 2007 to MY2009 cars to a duration of 10 years/120,000 miles. But so far, I have not seen a similar warranty extension for the M57 diesel engine.


The information you're looking for cannot be found online. Try reading your warranty booklet and report back (assuming they've updated their booklet). :thumbup:

Caveat: I know of one person where BMW bought back a 335d because it could not meet emissions. Apparently the trigger for the buy back was constantly failing the emissions test itself (No SES light was present). There's another story on a board of a guy with an M3 who's cat's went. BMW offerred a discount on the repair instead of warranty full replacement because the car threw the a code and NOT because it failed emissions test w/out the code.

IMO..you're making this into a bigger deal than what it really is and I wish you the best in finding piece of mind. DRIVE MORE WORRY LESS!


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> In addition all car manufacturers in the U.S. must build their vehicles to last 10 yrs or 120k miles. .





BMWTurboDzl said:


> I'm not trying to be an ass but does it matter where, who, or why a 10 yr certification was mentioned? Maybe it's an internal requirement?
> 
> Why not just take it at face value and leave it at that?





BMWTurboDzl said:


> The information you're looking for cannot be found online. Try reading your warranty booklet and report back (assuming they've updated their booklet). :thumbup:
> 
> IMO..you're making this into a bigger deal than what it really is and I wish you the best in finding piece of mind. DRIVE MORE WORRY LESS!


Look, I've been doing this forum thing for a LONG time. One lesson you learn is this: cop to an error and move on quickly.

12 posts ago the comment to make was "my bad, was thinking emissions component certifications" and we'd be done. (Keeping in mind a 'certification' a mfg makes to a regulatory body does not have to match the 'warranty' to the consumer.)

Shall we just say 'lesson learned'?

A


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

ard said:


> Look, I've been doing this forum thing for a LONG time. One lesson you learn is this: cop to an error and move on quickly.
> 
> 12 posts ago the comment to make was "my bad, was thinking emissions component certifications" and we'd be done. (Keeping in mind a 'certification' a mfg makes to a regulatory body does not have to match the 'warranty' to the consumer.)
> 
> ...


The comments in question were given by a BMW rep (link posted a few posts back, and posted again below) not by me. I have nothing to cop to. anE934fun was trying to find out where the "10 yr certification" came from and I've been try to assist him with that since it's apparently very important for him to know where that information came from.

As for the suggestion of saying "Keeping in mind a 'certification' a mfg makes to a regulatory body does not have to match the 'warranty' to the consumer." -- I essentially did say such a thing (post #70)

http://www.bimmerfile.com/2010/01/07/is-us-diesel-fuel-quality-a-concern/


----------



## Penguin (Aug 31, 2003)

ard said:


> look, i've been doing this forum thing for a long time. One lesson you learn is this: Cop to an error and move on quickly.
> 
> A


+1


----------



## Tedj101 (Nov 24, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> This is the crux of the decision whether to go with additives or not. If the ULSD had a better lubricity spec, I would have passed on the whole additive question. If potential wear is an issue, you have 2 options: 1.) Blend 5% biodiesel or 2.) Blend an additive to get the lubricity lower than 460 wear scar. I chose Powerservice due to its extensive use in automotive diesel applications. A number of tests have been done to prove that Powerservice improves lubricity. Further, Powerservice is well-regarded on the automotive diesel forums.
> 
> It is an issue that could have been avoided if the U.S. ULSD had a better lubricity specification.


You're lucky. You come from CA. CA has different standards from the rest of the country for diesel fuel. That includes both a higher required Cetane number and a lower wear scar reading. You can run pump diesel with confidence.

In other parts of the country it is not so clear (no regulations to trap a non-conforming supplier). I have a friend who works in a local refinery and he has checked the cetane number on all recent batches from that refinery. They ran from 45-46 so it would appear that they are trying to reach that figure. However, he warned me that a batch will ship as long as it is over 40.

I use PS.


----------



## Tedj101 (Nov 24, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> Page 191 of the Owners Manual specifies a fuel conforming to ASTM D 975-07a. My recollection is that ASTM D 975-07a specifies a wear scar of 460 microns or less. If fuel is not available that conforms to ASTM D 975-07a, then it becomes something of a chicken-or-the-egg situation. But ultimately BMW is probably off the hook. Afterall, they told you to use fuel with the proper attributes (like lubricity); how is it BMW's responsibility ensure that the required fuel is available?


Well, I went out to the ASTM web site to check and found that that standard has been superceded by ASTM. You probably aren't going to find much fuel that is blended to meet an obsolete standard...

Just a thought!


----------



## Tedj101 (Nov 24, 2009)

bimmerdiesel said:


> In my last conversation with Shell they wrote to me their fuel(ULSD premium diesel) is ASTM D 975 compliant. not sure what does 07a mean. Will search what extra does it add to ASTM D 975


It doesn't add anything to 975. 975 is the main number of the standard. 07 was the current version several years ago. They are now up to 975-10.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

Tedj101 said:


> You're lucky. You come from CA. *CA has different standards from the rest of the country for diesel fuel. That includes both a higher required Cetane number and a lower wear scar reading. You can run pump diesel with confidence.*
> 
> In other parts of the country it is not so clear (no regulations to trap a non-conforming supplier). I have a friend who works in a local refinery and he has checked the cetane number on all recent batches from that refinery. They ran from 45-46 so it would appear that they are trying to reach that figure. However, he warned me that a batch will ship as long as it is over 40.
> 
> I use PS.


Do you have a citation for your statement? I am not challenging your statement, but based on what Chevron publishes, there are un-answered questions regarding the lubricity and cetane rating of the CARB diesel. This is the best that I have been able to find regarding Chevron CARB diesel: http://www.chevron.com/products/prodserv/fuels/diesel_west_region.aspx Notice the absence of any statement regarding lubricity.... And, the cetane rating is listed as a minimum of 40, which seems consistent with your statement that if it exceeds 40, then it ships (for even CARB diesel).


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

Tedj101 said:


> Well, *I went out to the ASTM web site to check and found that that standard has been superceded by ASTM. You probably aren't going to find much fuel that is blended to meet an obsolete standard...*
> 
> Just a thought!


I wonder if BMW NA is going to get tagged with a class action lawsuit for requiring owners of diesel-engined cars to use fuel blended/refined to an obsolete standard?  :dunno:


----------



## sno_duc (Sep 3, 2008)

I posted this back in March.
http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4998269&postcount=44
Includes a link to a very good blind lubricity study.
If you're really worried about cetane.
http://www.syndiesel.com/index.html
http://www.hyperfuels.com/storename/highfuelsn/ViewDept-81049.aspx
Very popular with the diesel drag racing / tractor pulling crowd..........the guys running 1,000+ hp cummins BT5.9's
7 second ¼ mile burning diesel http://www.dieselpowermag.com/news/0807dp_cummins_diesel_dragster/index.html


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

Tedj101 said:


> You're lucky. You come from CA. CA has different standards from the rest of the country for diesel fuel. That includes ...a lower wear scar reading.....


this is incorrect- the lubricity spec in CA is no different than elsewhere in the US- 520 micron


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

d geek said:


> the lubricity spec in CA is no different than elsewhere in the US- 520 micron


Correct.... and California has a MINIMUM cetane rating...which means we can use any diesel and it meets the so called "premium diesel" spec


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

ard said:


> Correct.... and California has a MINIMUM cetane rating...*which means we can use any diesel and it meets the so called "premium diesel" spec*


How is that? I was under the impression that the 'premium' diesel spec called for fuel lubricity that would result in a wear scar of no more than 460 microns and a cetane rating of 48 or higher. Minimum cetane of 40 leaves a bit of a gap to a minimum cetane rating of 48. :dunno:


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

Where are you getting the 460 number from, this is what I have gone off of for Premium diesel:



> On July 16, 2003, the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) created a new definition for Premium Diesel.
> 
> To qualify as a Premium Diesel the following four properties of the fuel had to be met (ASTM is the American Society for Testing and Materials):
> 
> ...


Notice it is at 520, but what that does not mention and I have read elsewhere is they do not have to meet all of those to put the premium label on the fuel. I think they only have to meet like one or two then can call it premium but I do not have that quote handy.

But here is why I run Chevron only:



> Typical Chevron production excluding California and Hawaii is 48 cetane. Chevron guarantees product limits only; typicals are average properties, and higher and lower values are to be expected.
> Typical California Chevron production is 52 because of additional requirements of the California Air Resources Board (CARB) for vehicular diesel fuel.
> Typical Hawaii Chevron refinery production is 61.


Wonder what the "additional requirements" from CARB are that result in a higher cetane rating, if from what I read on the post above is true then the min cetane from CARB is 40. Because wonder if those "additional requirements" just mean no diesel in California has the min cetane level but instead a much higher one.


----------



## sno_duc (Sep 3, 2008)

Snipe656 said:


> Wonder what the "additional requirements" from CARB are that result in a higher cetane rating, if from what I read on the post above is true then the min cetane from CARB is 40. Because wonder if those "additional requirements" just mean no diesel in California has the min cetane level but instead a much higher one.


The CARB is very strict WRT VOC's (volitile organic componds), so I suspect forcing the refiners to limit those results in a higher cetane#. GTL diesel (syndiesel) is also low in VOC's and has a cetane # in the 60's.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

I am not aware of a published required standard on "premium diesel"...in fact the issue with "premium diesel" is that there really are no national specs and each mfg can come up with their own marketing blend. (I thought the standard Snipe posted is 'informative' and not a 'requirement by law for all fuel sold in the USA')

CA sets a minimum cetane. So buying diesel here you know what that will be. 48 or 49 as I recall, and the lower one is only for 'small refiners' and ends this year (as I recall, just from memory)

Concerning lubricity, you should assume you are getting the minimum legal spec. The mfg may have rosy statements about 'ensuring the best lubricity for your fine car' but assume it is whatever their minimum legal requirement is...as defined in a law or regulation.

A


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

ard said:


> I am not aware of a published required standard on "premium diesel"...in fact the issue with "premium diesel" is that there really are no national specs and each mfg can come up with their own marketing blend. (I thought the standard Snipe posted is 'informative' and not a 'requirement by law for all fuel sold in the USA')
> 
> *CA sets a minimum cetane.* So buying diesel here you know what that will be. 48 or 49 as I recall, and the lower one is only for 'small refiners' and ends this year (as I recall, just from memory)
> 
> ...


And how do you know this? I am not trying to make an issue out of your assertion. But I would like to see something published by whomever set the standard. Hopefully, I would be able to learn what the basis is for the minimum (like whether it is because of the requirement for lower VOCs, or some other reason).

In any event, there remains the issue of lubricity.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Just pump B5 and call it a day!!!


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

If I was really worried then I'd probably buy a drum of that syndiesel mentioned earlier since appears to be sold local to me. Then I'd blend that into my tanks.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Snipe656 said:


> If I was really worried then I'd probably buy a drum of that syndiesel mentioned earlier since appears to be sold local to me. Then I'd blend that into my tanks.


Yeah. I have a former customer who runs a trucking business with ~15 owner operators who truck shipping containers all over the southeast and none of his guys have HPFP problems related to fuel.

Regardless of what the FIE say, the fact remains that we have not heard of any "bad news" from the truckers. Their rigs are putting over 500k miles on USLD without additves which is way longer than I'll ever have my car.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

Do those trucks run at the same rail pressures these cars do? I do not even know the pressures on these cars but I know my F250 runs at some pretty high pressures and not heard of pump failures. I have heard of injector failures on engines like my truck though, matter of fact I had two fail last year. Not sure if I ever have read speculation about injector failures on them having anything to do with fuel quality.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Snipe656 said:


> Do those trucks run at the same rail pressures these cars do? I do not even know the pressures on these cars but I know my F250 runs at some pretty high pressures and not heard of pump failures. I have heard of injector failures on engines like my truck though, matter of fact I had two fail last year. Not sure if I ever have read speculation about injector failures on them having anything to do with fuel quality.


I don't know. I'm sure there are a couple of injector repair companies floating around, but I would think injector failure would have more to do with detergency (fouling of the tips) than lubricity.

Diesel injectors are pretty amazing considering they can do 5 injections per stroke.


----------



## ard (Jul 1, 2009)

anE934fun said:


> And how do you know this? .


Sorry, missed this..

Here:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/081404dslregs.pdf

More stuff from out buddies at CARB:

http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/diesel.htm

Between you and I, those people scare me....

A


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

ard said:


> Sorry, missed this..
> 
> Here:
> http://www.arb.ca.gov/fuels/diesel/081404dslregs.pdf
> ...


Thank you for the link. As I mentioned in my earlier post that you responded to, there still remains the issue of lubricity. The document that you linked to specifies a minimum lubricity of a 520 micron wear scar. Therefore, if lubricity is a concern (and it is for me), there is still the requirement for a lubricity additive.

Again, thank you for providing the link to the CARB fuel specification. :thumbup:


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

think of it this way:
these engines were developed in Germany, where the 460 micron max wear scar has been in effect for years. I assume that the fuel distributors target something much lower- say 400 micron. If the distributors here in the US target a "safe" number of 500 microns, then they are still ~10% higher than the MAX number allowed by the designers of these fuel injection systems.

Its for these reasons that I've been using a fuel additive for years in my diesels. I recommend ASTM spec biodiesel at <5%, or a proven additive (Stanadyne, Power Service, OptiLube, Amsoil)

Someone posted earlier that the ULSD spec has been in effect since 2006. This is only true for California and Canada here in N America. the rest of the country does indeed have until Dec 1 of this year to have ULSD exclusively at retail pumps.


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

d geek said:


> I recommend ASTM spec biodiesel at <5%


D Geek, please keep in mind that the manufacturers threw everyone a curveball when they added DPF to our cars. Biodiesel does not burn off completely during the regeneration phase, and accumulates in the oil pan. The bio also is chemically attracted to the the additives in the oil, rendering them less effective. For those that use bio as an additive, it's best to drastically shorten the OCI because of this:

I found the following information on www.SaveBiodiesel.org

1. "The majority of original engine manufacturers (OEMs) are using a "late post injection" process, in which a small amount of fuel is injected directly into the cylinder post-combustion. Because biodiesel has a higher flashpoint than petroleum based diesel, it does not always fully vaporize during this process, and some droplets can remain in the cylinder in liquid form. That unburned fuel adheres to the cylinder walls and makes its way past the piston rings into the crankcase, causing engine oil dilution. A small amount of engine oil dilution does not destroy an engine right away-- especially in the case of biodiesel, which is a much better lubricant than petroleum diesel. However, if too much contamination accumulates in the oil, the crankcase can become overfilled, causing catastrophic engine damage. Mild oil dilution may also lead to long-term engine wear, although this has not been fully tested yet.
2. "There is another concern related to oil dilution from biodiesel. Today's engine oil contains a large percentage of additives, about 25% by volume. The additives are designed to increase performance and reduce wear. The additives generally tend to be polar molecules. Methyl ester (the chemical name for biodiesel) is also a polar molecule and has strong attractions to the oil additives. This can adversely affect the functionality of the additives, leading to increased engine wear."

Another good article, citing a VW study: http://www.biodieselmagazine.com/article.jsp?article_id=2290


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

that may be why BMW has only approved the use of ASTM spec biodiesel up to 5% in the common rail diesels (check the manual ).


----------



## AZ335D (Aug 19, 2010)

I'm a chemical engineer and have worked with fuels and engines as well as refiners, and usually look at car forums and shake my head at the misinformation that is bandied about. I am really impressed at the depth and accurarcy of the information that is being discussed here. 

My only comment about the 460 micron wear scar versus 520 wear scar is that HPFP designers and manufacturers probably design for world markets, and as such probably design for worst case lubricity. For example, would diesels in China have the same HPFP as those in Europe. My guess is that they probably would, and having been in refineries in China, I would bet that the diesel in China (for example) would not be near as clean (particulate free) as that you would get in Europe or the US. Particulates in fuel would increse the wear scar numbers significantly.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

AZ335D said:


> I'm a chemical engineer and have worked with fuels and engines as well as refiners, and usually look at car forums and shake my head at the misinformation that is bandied about. I am really impressed at the depth and accurarcy of the information that is being discussed here.
> 
> My only comment about the 460 micron wear scar versus 520 wear scar is that HPFP designers and manufacturers probably design for world markets, and as such probably design for worst case lubricity. For example, would diesels in China have the same HPFP as those in Europe. My guess is that they probably would, and having been in refineries in China, I would bet that the diesel in China (for example) would not be near as clean (particulate free) as that you would get in Europe or the US. Particulates in fuel would increse the wear scar numbers significantly.


I tend to agree yet the pessimist in me says "Big Oil didn't want USLD to match Euro specs because they want to leave room to sell more expensive "premium" diesel which does AND the additive companies don't want to loose out on their straight-to-consumer market.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

AZ335D said:


> I'm a chemical engineer and have worked with fuels and engines as well as refiners, and usually look at car forums and shake my head at the misinformation that is bandied about. I am really impressed at the depth and accurarcy of the information that is being discussed here.
> 
> My only comment about the 460 micron wear scar versus 520 wear scar is that HPFP designers and manufacturers probably design for world markets, and as such probably design for worst case lubricity. For example, would diesels in China have the same HPFP as those in Europe. My guess is that they probably would, and having been in refineries in China, I would bet that the diesel in China (for example) would not be near as clean (particulate free) as that you would get in Europe or the US. Particulates in fuel would increse the wear scar numbers significantly.


shouldn't the fuel filter take care of particulate contamination?

My understanding is that the issue with ULSD lubricity is because its so "dry" it does not provide an adequate lubrication boundary between the HPFP components. This is where the wear comes from in an HFRR test provided that the fuel samples are consistently filtered before testing begins.


----------



## 62Lincoln (Sep 26, 2004)

The other aspect of this topic is that BMW's interest in the vehicle exists only through the warranty period, _and_ they have a vested interest in extending oil change intervals for both cost and environmental reasons. If the owner plans to trade the vehicle within the warranty period, then there's really no reason to question BMW's OCI or fuel recommendations. OTH, if the owner plans to keep the vehicle well beyond the warranty period, then it's probably fair to state that BMW's interests and the owner's interests diverge at that point, and the owner needs to do what will be in the best interest of their vehicle's longevity, not BMW's bottom line.


----------



## AZ335D (Aug 19, 2010)

d geek said:


> shouldn't the fuel filter take care of particulate contamination?
> 
> My understanding is that the issue with ULSD lubricity is because its so "dry" it does not provide an adequate lubrication boundary between the HPFP components. This is where the wear comes from in an HFRR test provided that the fuel samples are consistently filtered before testing begins.


I would bet that the fuel filter is pretty open - meaning probably has a size cutoff greater than 10 micron - it wouldn't surprise me if the fuel filter were even 100 micron size cutoff - meaning anything less than that would pass through the filter.

I don't know if there is a correlation between particle size and wear - my gut tells me it is a combination of particle size and composition, i.e., 10 micron silica particle is probably harder than a 10 micron aluminum particle


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

AZ335D said:


> I would bet that the fuel filter is pretty open - meaning probably has a size cutoff greater than 10 micron - it wouldn't surprise me if the fuel filter were even 100 micron size cutoff - meaning anything less than that would pass through the filter.
> 
> I don't know if there is a correlation between particle size and wear - my gut tells me it is a combination of particle size and composition, i.e., 10 micron silica particle is probably harder than a 10 micron aluminum particle


The holes in the injector nozzles themselves are probably just under 200 um in size.


----------



## sno_duc (Sep 3, 2008)

AZ335D said:


> I would bet that the fuel filter is pretty open - meaning probably has a size cutoff greater than 10 micron - it wouldn't surprise me if the fuel filter were even 100 micron size cutoff - meaning anything less than that would pass through the filter.
> 
> I don't know if there is a correlation between particle size and wear - my gut tells me it is a combination of particle size and composition, i.e., 10 micron silica particle is probably harder than a 10 micron aluminum particle


One of the popular mods in the VW TDI world is to upgrade to a Caterpillar (2 micron) fuel filter. I wonder how long till someone makes a kit for BMW's.

It's not so much the hole size in the injectors, it's the tight fit between the plunger/needle and the injector body which is fuel lubricated. 200 microns is right in the range I'd expect to see, if I were quessing 205 to 230.


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

sno_duc said:


> *One of the popular mods in the VW TDI world is to upgrade to a Caterpillar (2 micron) fuel filter. I wonder how long till someone makes a kit for BMW's*.
> 
> It's not so much the hole size in the injectors, it's the tight fit between the plunger/needle and the injector body which is fuel lubricated. 200 microns is right in the range I'd expect to see, if I were quessing 205 to 230.


If the Caterpillar filter could be mounted before the BMW filter and was easy to access, it could be a compelling product. The BMW filter is heated if memory serves, so replacing it with another non-BMW filter may cause some error codes to be thrown.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

wear scar size is dependant on fuel lubricity, not particulate. 

seems to me that improved filtering is a solution in search of a problem .


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

d geek said:


> wear scar size is dependant on fuel lubricity, not particulate.
> 
> *seems to me that improved filtering is a solution in search of a problem* .


Could be. Unfortunately, contamination does seem to be more than an isolated instance in some areas. If memory serves, there were a few reports of bad fuel back in 2009.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

a better filter will help, but will not ensure that the system is protected from bad fuel.

is there a water trap in the filter housing?


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

d geek said:


> a better filter will help, but will not ensure that the system is protected from bad fuel.
> 
> *is there a water trap in the filter housing*?


I don't think so.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

d geek said:


> a better filter will help, but will not ensure that the system is protected from bad fuel.
> 
> is there a water trap in the filter housing?


Supposedly the secondary fuel filter traps what little water there is.


----------



## AZ335D (Aug 19, 2010)

d geek said:


> wear scar size is dependant on fuel lubricity, not particulate.
> 
> seems to me that improved filtering is a solution in search of a problem .


If they are using real world fuels for the test protocol, it will contain particulate. The amount and type depnds on the process used, and more often than not - the specific refinery where the fuel was made.

I know more about gasoline than I do diesel, but gasoline does not have a partiuclate spec. It does however, have a clarity specification, which applies to particulate - loosely.


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

BMWTurboDzl said:


> Supposedly the secondary fuel filter traps what little water there is.


I have a water separator on my truck from te factory and I'd never use the word "little" for the amount of water it traps. That is on a vehicle most say to change both fuel filters no later than 15k miles.


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

Snipe656 said:


> I have a water separator on my truck from te factory and I'd never use the word "little" for the amount of water it traps. That is on a vehicle most say to change both fuel filters no later than 15k miles.


No doubt. I spent a considerable amount of time (~1yr) on the researching the diesel (335d has been availabe since ~2006 or so) and never heard of any injector problems related to water. The FF is heated and in the winter months fuel is blended D1+D2 so you shouldn't have to worry about freezing either. I tend to agree with d_geek on this one.

If you are worried about water with the BMW diesel I would not use a emulsifier or demulsifier.

My $.02


----------



## Snipe656 (Oct 22, 2009)

Don't get me wrong, water is far from any of my worries, if it were you'd see a water separator sitting on my old Mercedes. I just know since the truck has one that the amounts of water IMHO are not something I'd categorize as little. I was just in a big discussion about injector failures on trucks like mine. A lot of folks lean towards it being filters going bad and not getting replaced regularly enough. Then a good bit of folks also speculating it has to do with oil break down due to not changing the oil on a regular basis. The filter folks speculate it is because of the high pressures needed and as a filter gets clogged it will not allow for the needed pressures. They might be on to something, I had two injectors fail and always been good about my fuel filter changes but bad about the oil changes. I lean towards it is probably just some design issue with the injectors due to how common the problem seems to be. Perhaps that design issue just becomes more of an issue with poor maintenance habits. 

One thing I do not agree with on these cars is what seems like a 30k interval to change that fuel filter. Time might make me agree with it though but seems thus far a couple of people on here have now had issues with it clogging up to the point of the car performing noticeably different. I'd think the filter should be changed at some point that avoids that ever happening. Could just be bad luck on quality of fuel with those folks though.


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

AZ335D said:


> If they are using real world fuels for the test protocol, it will contain *particulate*. The amount and type depnds on the process used, and more often than not - the specific refinery where the fuel was made.
> 
> I know more about gasoline than I do diesel, but gasoline does not have a partiuclate spec. It does however, have a clarity specification, which applies to particulate - loosely.


don't you think they'd remove this variable for the test?


----------



## F32Fleet (Jul 14, 2010)

d geek said:


> don't you think they'd remove this variable for the test?


Something interesting regarding diesel fuel filters. http://www.lydallfiltration.com/tech/documents/DesignandPerformanceDieselFuelFilters.pdf


----------



## d geek (Nov 26, 2008)

thanks for the link


----------



## x5FanMN (Sep 23, 2010)

I'm new to the forum and looking to purchase a 2011 X5 diesel and posted on the X5 Forum concerning the fuel filter replacement on the X5. Haven't found a "correct" answer on the time interval, where it's located on the X5, what exactly the "heater" portion of the fuel strainer / heater does, etc.

On additives: I hope we can get one, but we all know the BMW stance of additives, and understand why the lawyers worded it that way. IF you are planning on keeping the X5 diesel past the 4 yr / 50k warranty, it's foolish not to use a well respected additive from Amsoil, Bell Performance, Stanadyne, ??? 

We all know that BMW is paying for the BARE MINIMUM of service on their vehicles. Do you really thing a common rail high performance diesel can make a 10k mile oil change ???? NO FREAKING WAY !! These high pressure fuel pumps and injectors will not survive on the interior diesel we have here (except BP Premier Diesel and a few others) unless an additive is added. 

Why would a company like Stanadyne who makes pumps, etc have a product out there to help the pumps survive ? 

I hope I can get an answer on the filter soon and I strongly encourage all of the 3 series and X5 owners out there to research the additives for sale...Yes, some are "snake oil" but others do have the proper ingredients to help the fuel system here in the USA to make it to 150000 or higher. 

Another variable into the fuel equation is BIO-DIESEL.....There are definite benefits in B2 or B5, but also the negatives of not knowing if you bio is from animal fat, etc or soy (being a higher grade). ULSD has allowed these engines to be here in the USA and our lovely govt. has brought BIO and ETHANOL to our tanks.....


----------



## anE934fun (May 10, 2008)

x5FanMN said:


> I'm new to the forum and looking to purchase a 2011 X5 diesel and posted on the X5 Forum concerning the fuel filter replacement on the X5. Haven't found a "correct" answer on the time interval, where it's located on the X5, what exactly the "heater" portion of the fuel strainer / heater does, etc.


Replacement interval is dependent on quality of fuel. One of the members has had the mis-fortune to get a load of contaminated fuel and they are having to replace the filter and possibly other components with less than 10K miles on their car. Given the size of the filter, 'normal' replacement is probably on a par with gasoline engined BMWs (~30,000 miles?). Location is probably near the rear of the engine compartment mounted to the firewall or the sub-frame that the engine is mounted to. Basically it is time for you to open up the hood of an X5 3.5d and do some investigation. You are looking for something that is about the size of a large Red Bull energy drink that is encased in aluminized insulation/heat shield material. Follow the fuel line from the fuel tank and it lead to the filter. The heater portion acts to heat the fuel in cold climates to keep the fuel from turning into a solid.



> On additives: I hope we can get one, but we all know the BMW stance of additives, and understand why the lawyers worded it that way. IF you are planning on keeping the X5 diesel past the 4 yr / 50k warranty, it's foolish not to use a well respected additive from Amsoil, Bell Performance, Stanadyne, ???


If you are concerned about BMW's stance on additives, your best bet to realize the benefits of improved lubricity would be to use a 5% blend of biodiesel (B5). Other additive solutions are available, but BMW is recommending against them.



> We all know that BMW is paying for the BARE MINIMUM of service on their vehicles. Do you really thing a common rail high performance diesel can make a 10k mile oil change ???? NO FREAKING WAY !! These high pressure fuel pumps and injectors will not survive on the interior diesel we have here (except BP Premier Diesel and a few others) unless an additive is added.


You appear to be combining a question on fuel additives with one on engine oil life. See my response above regarding fuel additives. Engine oil life is best evaluated with a used oil analysis at around the 5,000 mile point. A member posted the analysis results for a sample taken at the 6,500 mile point. You are looking for the remaining Total Base Number (TBN), viscosity should be within the range for both hot and cold tests, and the rest of the test values should be within the 'normal' results. Based on the test results, you may be able to extend the use of the oil, but in any event, you will have objective data with which to make your decision. My personal experience with used oil testing on my 335d has resulted in my decision to change the oil and filter every 7,500 miles (I get to a TBN in the 2 range at 7,500 miles).



> Why would a company like Stanadyne who makes pumps, etc have a product out there to help the pumps survive ?


Perhaps you should ask Stanadyne?



> I hope I can get an answer on the filter soon and I strongly encourage all of the 3 series and X5 owners out there to research the additives for sale...Yes, some are "snake oil" but others do have the proper ingredients to help the fuel system here in the USA to make it to 150000 or higher.


You should try reading the entire thread on fuel additives as there is some good information in it (including an objective test that was done to determine the relative lubricity improvement of a number of fuel additives).



> Another variable into the fuel equation is BIO-DIESEL.....There are definite benefits in B2 or B5, but also the negatives of not knowing if you bio is from animal fat, etc or soy (being a higher grade). ULSD has allowed these engines to be here in the USA and our lovely govt. has brought BIO and ETHANOL to our tanks.....


At a B2 or B5 level, I doubt there is a measurable difference in quality of biodiesel, but if you have data to support a measurable difference at B2 or B5 levels, I would certainly appreciate your sharing the data. BMW does not differentiate between soy versus animal fat biodiesel; only that it must conform to ASTM specification and must not be at concentration higher than 5%.


----------

