On the these webpages, at least, at least, Mercury Marine and Mercruiser don't seem unduly worried about E10. In fact, they caution against unfairly blaming E10 for problems and actually feel E10 can be advantageous.

http://www.mercurymarine.com/media/m...11-08-25_1.pdf


This one include procedures for long term storage (scroll to the bottom) which actually don't mention what your relative's neighbor mentioned

Ethanol Fuels FAQs | Storage & Maintenance MerCruiser FAQs | Mercury Marine

I didn't watch the video---too long and I'm getting sleepy :-)

But these pages seem to be about two years old so maybe Mercruiser has adopted a different stance?

Or it might be that the Mercruiser *Dealer* is taking a different stance than Mercruiser itself?

There IS a fair bit of concern about E10 in pre-1990 marine engines and/or boats with fiberglass fuel tanks.

Cheers
DD

 

That would be a stretch. I wouldn't presume that anymore than I would presume that a GM service manager would take a different stance than the official GM position. Although, it is reasonable to anticipate that the public position on a website might be rosier than direct communications between the manufacturer and dealer.

He was quite adamant that standing procedure on a fuel pump warranty claim coming out of winter storage was to verify whether the winterising had been performed. If it could not be verified, no warranty coverage. Completely black and white.

 

Not so much as you might think. Speaking from my car dealer experience.....

It's up to dealers to act as warranty administrations and warranty policies are often subject to some degree of interpretation. It's usually no accident that that are written that way. Some service managers take a harder stance on issues than others. Some take particular delight in doing so as it turns a warranty repair into a much more lucrative "customer pay" repair.

Even at the corporate level there is often variation. I suspect that Mercruiser, like car companies, have numerous sales and service districts. In the car biz, at least, application of warranty policy can vary from district-to-district depending on regional conditions.

I can cite, oh, a few dozen examples if you'd like

One was GM's legal/official/public directive that additives of any kind never find their way into the cars. Meanwhile, the zone service reps and field service engineers were telling service managers to go ahead and use "BG" products to quiet down noisy power steering systems and cleaning fuel injectors.

Years ago there was a battle about "off highway" (that is, non-taxed) diesel fuel. An edict came down from on high saying fuel system repairs were not warrantable if such fuel was used. Some zone reps and service engineers agreed with the policy, others didn't.....and this had a direct impact on how the policy was enforced in their respective zones.





I took that into consideration.

However, if the actual policy "on the ground" is as absolutley carved-in-granite as you say your relative's neighbor says it is, I really have to think that Mercruiser wouldn't leave themselves so widely exposed on thier own websites. Wouldn't you?






I have have no doubt that the words of this man were completely black-and-white. I'm saying that the blackness-and-whiteness of his words perhaps aren't the "proof positive" that you say it is.

Shoot, being black-and-white is an extraordinarily easy, convenient, and even luxurious thing for a person to do. I've known many service managers who use the technique regularly and to great advantage. Decision making is so much easier that way :-)

Cheers
DD

 

How strange. I happen to have in hand the owner's handbook for the Mercury Marine four stroke EFI outboard I purchased in May of this year.

It makes absolutely no mention of any of the above. In fact it clearly mentions that the use of E10 gasoline is acceptable. I would not have bought the motor had this capability not been present.

The storage requirements do not differentiate between E10 and pure gasoline. Irrespective of fuel type used, they recommend a stabilizer product for storage periods of two months or longer.

No mention is made of TC-W3 or any other particular brand.

The instructions make clear mention of ensuring that no water is trapped anywhere in the engine if freezing conditions will be encountered, the fuel systems is just one area of concern.

It is no secret that fuel systems on boats in general are more at risk than cars. They tend to have traditional 'open' vent systems which are a perfect opportunity for moisture to enter, plus the fact that being a toy, they can sit for weeks or months without being used. It's not difficult to imagine how or why they can end up with contaminated fuel tanks.

Cars have not have open fuel systems since the early '70s, nor do our daily driver cars typically sit for months with the same gas in them.

Apples and oranges.

 

Speaking broadly.....and if we roughly equate car dealerships and boat dealerships....

By far the most typical attitude on this forum is to DISbelieve what dealership staff members say. They're generally regarded as incompetent, unreliable, dishonest, blah blah. Generally "not to be trusted".

UNTIL, that is, a single dealership staffer comes along and says something that we like hearing and supports what we prefer to believe.....at which point the dealer statements are held in very high regard indeed!

It's a little amusing, really.




Cheers
DD

 

How true and maybe a little tragic too. During the purchase process of this motor (and boat) mentioned above, I got into an extended conversation with the dealer on the Ethanol subject, primarily to see if he could come up with hard, first handed examples to go with any horror stories.

The upshot was that boat owners are much like us- the fastidious types that clean and polish and do anything for our babies including spending unlimited money on the latest boutique oils, plugs, additives etc etc, the regular owners that follow the books, the know-it-alls that can out-engineer the factory single handedly and the negligent type but noisy type that ignore the boat till it breaks then blame everybody else.

The latter two categories seem to have the most corrosion induced issues but cannot understand that it's primarily self induced.

 

And where did I write that E10 was prohibited or not acceptable?

I did not write that. I said that there was proof positive that the effects of ethanol blended gasoline was well known in the pleasure craft industry.

It is not apples and oranges.

The specific Mercruisers he mentioned as being very similar the the car parked in the next driveway were the big automotive derived inboard/outboard EFI units.

Plenty of Jaguars are stored over the winter for several months at a time, and suffer from the same problems:

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...07/#post763614

Come to think of it, when you differentiate between the modality of use or deployment as the prime mitigating difference, then you have implicitly conceded the existence of the effect. You are then simply arguing the severity of the end result.

... as you said, "... more at risk than cars" as opposed to the risk does not exist in cars for the exact same chemical composition and system components.

 

And where would you find a post by yours truly where that attitude is displayed?

The assertions that I made about ethanol being a highly visible problem in the boating world were made several months ago. The followup information posted above is simply one further piece of the puzzle.

The counterpoint is the refusal of some posters to consider "the weight of the evidence" as being sufficient. Instead, they seek the holy grail of "beyond reasonable doubt". Well, in civil matters, "the weight of the evidence" wins the day. It is not until it is a criminal matter, that the standard of evidence is "beyond a reasonable doubt". There is also the matter simply applying base knowledge of chemistry and physics to a hypothesis.

A JF member who experienced a ethanol related manufacturer recall:

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...08/#post492814

More details about the Lexus and Hyundai ethanol related recalls with links to the NHTSA summaries:

https://www.jaguarforums.com/forum/x...19/#post753584

Notice that those are for 2007 and 2008 model years. So, saying anything manufactured after 1990, 2000 or pick some other similar year to designate the beginning of the "designed for E10" era is somewhat of an over simplification.

I'm sure that it was "beyond reasonable doubt" to the affected bean counters that there was a real cost to the recalls.

 

Looking back at the posting I can see that I was careless what I said and how I said it. I was painting with a too wide brush and, as we know, when taht happens you end up splattering yourself with paint.

My apologies.







For me there's enough evidence to conclude that some owners have some problems at some times with E10. That's about as excited as I can muster. Considering the vast numbers of owners not experiencing any problems I consider it my high moral duty to balance the ballyhooing with a dose of nonchalance






I reckon some heads ended up on the platter over those recalls. After all, use of E10 has being steadily increasing since about 1990. It's no secret; car builders have been aware of it all along. Whoever designed/approved the Lexus fuel rails (or whatever it was) that were damaged by E10 really dropped the ball. Assuming (perhaps incorrectly?) that Lexus does not make their own fuel rails I would suspect they would've tried to recoup the expense from the supplier.

This is somewhat similar to the BMW/Jaguar Nikisil screw-up. Seems to me that somebody didn't do their home work.

Cheers
DD

 

Wellllll....no, not exactly. You said.....


"As proof positive that they consider ethanol harmful,...."


Not quite the same thing, is it?



Cheers
DD

 

Yes, the engines are similar- but the fuel storage and supply systems are not. That's what draws the line in the sand.

The point was

1) the Mercury Marine warranty policy makes no mention of E10

2) the standardized storage instructions are to be followed irrespective of what type of fuel is to be used.

3) fuel system corrosion issues are not covered under their warranty and never have been, ethanol or not

In further discussions with the dealer- he pointed out that fuel system contamination issues with boats were nothing new. The boat yard in question has been in the same family since just after the war- and they've been selling lots of Seafoam since it first came out. Nothing new under the sun.

 

They are probably not allowed by law to rubbish E10 as the government is making it mandatory

I use it if there is nothing else but I do add my TC-W3 religiously now and the old girl is going great

I cant say if I am getting better mileage because I don't care with the Jag and my car has quite a few modifications as well so it would be irrelevant to standard XJR or XJ owners but I have just clicked over 250,000k,s and she has never run better

as for dealerships there are good guys working in them and bad same with any business

I had a pleasant experience at the local Jeep dealership yesterday which made me feel very warm and fuzzy not to mention trusting of them but same dealership a year ago made me sceptical if I would ever use them again

 

"They are probably not allowed by law to rubbish E10 as the government is making it mandatory "
Come now doc. Even in OZ, truth can be published even if it is counter to government mandates, can it not?

 

1) I live in Canada, not the US. E10 is not mandatory here.

2) E10 is not mandatory for watercraft in the US or Canada. Most marinas sell 'pure' gas due to the potential fuel tank/delivery system problems discussed above.

 

Sorry guys

I meant to say they are planning to make it mandatory aren't they?

That's what I heard obama talking about couple years ago

We now have a new prime minister here in Aus but the old red headed one was talking about making it mandatory for all fuel to contain ethanol at some ratio to be formulated through government mandate

I choose not to use it if I can help it BP here in Australia have 5 % ethanol in its regular unleaded that's why I don't use BP

Had a problem with it few years ago in my old 450SL Benz ended costing me a bit of money to get sorted also had problems with it in the transit van I had at the same time

I have used it in my XJR when there has been nothing else but never get the same distance out of a tank so cant see the benefit XJR is thirsty enough LOL

 

Don't they put you in Guantanmo bay for telling the truth (LOL)

 

Back to the the TC-W3 what are your ideas on it guys

The ones that are using it anyway

I have since gone back to 1.5 ML per litre

Would love to hear some more on who is using it and what are there experiences as its something so simple and readily accessible

I have used 10 tanks now including a 4,000K trip in the XJR

just ordered another 20 litre drum

 

My 2005 XJ8 was idling rather roughly when hot (OK when cold). I'd pull off the highway and the engine idled rough enough so even non-enthusiast passengers would notice. Indy thought it was probably a sticking valve. I ran a few tanks with TC-W3 at an eye-ball 500:1. The rough idle when hot went away. I stopped using the TC-W3. The rough idle when hot came back. I resumed the TC-W3. after a few tanks the rough idle when hot went away.

1. I do not KNOW what caused the rough idle when hot.
2. I cannot state the TC-W3 fixed the rough idle; only that it stopped the rough idle after a few tanks, came back when I stopped, then went away again when I resumed the TC-W3.
3. I am not going to continue the use / don't use cycle; I'll just stick with adding the TC-W3 when it is convenient and I remember.

 

Curious, why would one even think add 2-cycle oil? Is there some precedent in adding 2-cycle oil to a 4-cycle engine to treat "bad gas"?

.

 

Q: " Is there some precedent in adding 2-cycle oil to a 4-cycle engine to treat "bad gas"?"

Years ago adding lubricating additives to gas was more common than it is now. Probably better metallurgy in the engines, emission systems, better formulations for both the gas and oils, and just all around better engineering made it less common and less necessary.

Personally, I would not add lubricants to treat "bad gas". I have used alcohol based additives to bind water in the gas tanks in gas cars, and in airplanes with Lycoming engines (Lycoming approves use of certain additives in winter conditions). Many diesel applications allow or recommend additives to prevent sludging.

My dad always used Marvels Mystery Oil to the gas and oil in his Packards (but not his Buick. go figure). He said it was for 'upper cylinder lubrication'. Since he ALWAYS used it I don't know that he knew if it was really doing any good. If you always do something, how do you know what would happen if you weren't? After no lead gas came along he also used an additive which was supposed to prevent premature valve burning. Precedence? Absolutely. Proven? I don't know.

I do know that when started using the additive the engine ran smoother. When I stopped, the hot when rough idle recurred. When I started using the additive again the engine ran OK again. I feel better using the 2cyl additive than another lubricating additive - such as my Dad's MMO, as this 2w cycle oil is formulated to blend and burn with the gas.

I know a gentleman in Florida who has spent decades and hundreds of thousands of dollars (in testing and industry certifications) developing an additive for gasoline engines. My understanding is that the testing is mostly to confirm 'does not harm' rather than 'works as stated'.

I used to pay $24 per quart for Camguard additive for my aircraft oil after Continental Engines started recommending it under certain conditions. Why didn't Exxon put it or equivalent additives in the expensive Elite oil I was using? It cost more. You'd think $100 a case would be enough to formulate the best, not just really good.

The gas and oil we buy is formulated to work under "all" conditions in "all" manufacturers engines and systems with cost constraints on manufacturing. If my (or your) engine runs a little better with a custom formulated (read 'additive') gas or oil and does no known harm to the sensors, mechanicals, and emission systems then I'll make the decision whether to use the additive.

As long as there is no history of harming or degrading systems, and appears to have a benefit, I may decide to use the additive.

This is why forums such as this are so valuable; we get information on what has and has not worked for others.