[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by -Eidos

Y'all need some peer review in your papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...0communication.

I mean, my point is moot anymore, since he edited the very thing I was questioning him about.

[F87source]

The fear of ethanol has been blown out of proportion imo, BMW fuel systems use teflon lines so no issues with ethanol degrading lines or tanks. The low and high pressure fuel pump will need to be upgraded to run full e85, but once that is done then there is no issues with corrosion on those either. The injectors should be fine with full e85. Take a look at the bmw 320i active flex available in brazil, it utilizes the n20 engine and is built for full e85 or gas use. A quick browse on real oem specifying the brazilian 320i did not show any variations in engine, fuel injector, pistons from a regular n20 so the whole fear of corrosion is overblown imo. I will try to find an active flex car's vin to really get accurate information.

To make it a fool proof solution use:
1) Top cylinder lube: https://www.powerpluslubricants.com/...ERTOPLUBE.html
This will eliminate all lubricity issues present with E85

2) Ethanol stabilizer: https://www.goldeagle.com/product/st...60-protection/
This will eliminate any corrosion concerns due to moisture.

This pretty much solves the two large issues with running e85. The only cons now is the reduced fuel economy which shouldn't matter too much if you live in the US and the government subsidizes e85 costs. You also get higher octane fuel and the evaporative cooling effect which is great if you like to track you car.

[DKX4///M]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

I think you need to take a few courses in the scientific method... Your credibility has just went down the drain for me.

Please No...

Aspartame: Decades of Scientific Studies Point to Serious Health Risks

Excerpt from Article:

"Aspartame is a synthetic chemical composed of the amino acids phenylalanine and aspartic acid, with a methyl ester. When consumed, the methyl ester breaks down into methanol, which may be converted into formaldehyde."

"Harvard researchers in 2012 reported a positive association between aspartame intake and increased risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma and multiple myeloma in men, and for leukemia in men and women. The findings “preserve the possibility of a detrimental effect … on select cancers” but “do not permit the ruling out of chance as an explanation,” the researchers wrote in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition."

"In a 2014 commentary in American Journal of Industrial Medicine, the Maltoni Center researchers wrote that the studies submitted by G. D. Searle for market approval “do not provide adequate scientific support for [aspartame’s] safety. In contrast, recent results of life-span carcinogenicity bioassays on rats and mice published in peer-reviewed journals, and a prospective epidemiological study, provide consistent evidence of [aspartame’s] carcinogenic potential. On the basis of the evidence of the potential carcinogenic effects … a re-evaluation of the current position of international regulatory agencies must be considered an urgent matter of public health.”5


The article posted contains links to dozens of academic and scholarly research including "peer reviewed studies" in well known and credible medical journals.

Who was the CEO of GD Searle? From Wikipedia on the Company GD SEARL (But I can supply whatever supporting evidence you need, but I assure you, this is true.)

"Donald Rumsfeld served as CEO, and then as president, of Searle between 1977 and 1985. During his tenure at Searle, Rumsfeld reduced the number of employees in the company by 60%. In 1985, he engineered the acquisition of Searle by Monsanto Corporation. In April 2000, Pharmacia Corporation was created by merging Pharmacia & Upjohn (which had come about as the result of an earlier merger of the companies Pharmacia and Upjohn) with Monsanto and its Searle unit.[2] The merged company was based in Peapack, New Jersey. Pfizer acquired Pharmacia in 2003 and retired the Searle name."

Members of the Reagan Transition Team article by the Washington Post

"Donald Rumsfeld has accumulated more than a reputation for toughness. At 47, he has accumulated what for others would be a lifetime's worth of accomplishment in GOP circles. A three-term congressman from Illinois, he became U.S. ambassador to NATO under President Nixon, White House chief of staff and then secretary of defense under President Ford, and since 1977, the president of the big pharmaceutical firm of G.D. Searle."

Harvard Research Paper on How Aspartame was Approved by the FDA

Actual FDA Approval Dated June 1987

2016 Letter from the Office of Environmental Health Hazzard Assessment demanding the immediate banning of aspartame, and outlining how it was approved in the first place...

"The FDA first tried to get G. D. Searle indicted for fraud but both
US Prosecutors Sam Skinner and William Conlon went to work for the company's defense team and the statute of limitations expired. So the FDA set up a Board of Inquiry who said that aspartame could not be proven to be safe and revoked the petition for approval. That's when Rumsfeld stepped in. President Reagan owed him a favor and after taking office wrote an executive order making the FDA Commissioner powerless to sign the revoked petition into law, and someone from the transition team called at 3 :00AM and fired him. "

Guardian Article also supporting this Conclusion...

"On the day of his inauguration as president in 1981, with Mr Rumsfeld on his transition team, Ronald Reagan personally wrote an executive order suspending the head of the US Food and Drug Administration's powers on aspartame, Mr Williams further claimed. One month later Mr Reagan appointed a new head of the regulatory authority, Arthur Hayes, who granted a license for the sweetener.

"The history of aspartame's approval is littered with examples showing that if key decision makers found against aspartame's safety, they were discredited or replaced by industry sympathizers, who were recompensed with lucrative jobs."

"The MP said he was using his parliamentary privilege to highlight "the strong scientific evidence" that the components of aspartame and their metabolites can cause very serious toxic effects on humans, and that long-term aspartame use can cause cancer."

Enough evidence for the British Parliament to ban aspartame completely.

EU Bans Aspartame

It is also banned in China, Japan, In process of being banned in Canada, and possibly the US...And a number of other countries...

Please note, there are literally thousands of letters from Dr.s, State legislators, Medical Review Boards, and Peer reviewed studies backing these conclusions...Im already wasting enough time, having to even spell this out for you...

Would you please go bother someone else...This post was about the FACT that ethanol is corrosive to metals...

And please don't lecture me on science, I actually have a degree in Chemistry Education and am literally the only one in my family to not hold a Phd in one of the physical sciences; physics, chemistry, computer science...

Not because I couldn't but because I found success as a Financial Consultant...

Just Please, I beg you go troll someone else....

[DKX4///M]

Originally Posted by F87source

The fear of ethanol has been blown out of proportion imo, BMW fuel systems use teflon lines so no issues with ethanol degrading lines or tanks. The low and high pressure fuel pump will need to be upgraded to run full e85, but once that is done then there is no issues with corrosion on those either. The injectors should be fine with full e85. Take a look at the bmw 320i active flex available in brazil, it utilizes the n20 engine and is built for full e85 or gas use. A quick browse on real oem specifying the brazilian 320i did not show any variations in engine, fuel injector, pistons from a regular n20 so the whole fear of corrosion is overblown imo. I will try to find an active flex car's vin to really get accurate information.

To make it a fool proof solution use:
1) Top cylinder lube: https://www.powerpluslubricants.com/...ERTOPLUBE.html
This will eliminate all lubricity issues present with E85

2) Ethanol stabilizer: https://www.goldeagle.com/product/st...60-protection/
This will eliminate any corrosion concerns due to moisture.

This pretty much solves the two large issues with running e85. The only cons now is the reduced fuel economy which shouldn't matter too much if you live in the US and the government subsidizes e85 costs. You also get higher octane fuel and the evaporative cooling effect which is great if you like to track you car.

I agree some of the risks are overblown...However, in return style systems in which the fuel is heated the corrosive effect is multiplied, and it is not the rubber or neoprene or teflon..As I said in the first post, it is the pumps that mainly need to be upgraded for problems with cavitation at high %'s and for obvious reasons of volume....

And Yes, I 100% agree ethanol has great effects for cooling, and other knock resistant properties...

The only thing i will disagree on is the use of most "stabilizers" as shown in the first video, most advertised stabilizers actually made the problem worse, although there was one that was effective....However, these stabilizers are mostly designed to separate the water out of the ethanol, and one out and some of the fuel evaporated, it ends up causing build ups of gunk, and all kinds of stuff we don't want in our engines...

And yes bc US gasoline has up to 10% ethanol by volume, most of the fuel system components can handle e30....However according to the ASE study I posted above E60 will cause premature wear of some fuel system components that are not treated for specific use with it...

I never made the claim that ethanol was bad for engine internals.

I don't understand why this is a topic of debate, it was an educational post, and everyone that seems to be disagreeing with me is simply repeating exactly what I said in the first place...Maybe something in how I write pisses ppl off or something...

I was simply elaborating on things Terry Berger said 15 years ago?

[F87source]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

I agree some of the risks are overblown...However, in return style systems in which the fuel is heated the corrosive effect is multiplied, and it is not the rubber or neoprene or teflon..As I said in the first post, it is the pumps that mainly need to be upgraded for problems with cavitation at high %'s and for obvious reasons of volume....

And Yes, I 100% agree ethanol has great effects for cooling, and other knock resistant properties...

The only thing i will disagree on is the use of most "stabilizers" as shown in the first video, most advertised stabilizers actually made the problem worse, although there was one that was effective....However, these stabilizers are mostly designed to separate the water out of the ethanol, and one out and some of the fuel evaporated, it ends up causing build ups of gunk, and all kinds of stuff we don't want in our engines...

And yes bc US gasoline has up to 10% ethanol by volume, most of the fuel system components can handle e30....However according to the ASE study I posted above E60 will cause premature wear of some fuel system components that are not treated for specific use with it...

I never made the claim that ethanol was bad for engine internals.

I don't understand why this is a topic of debate, it was an educational post, and everyone that seems to be disagreeing with me is simply repeating exactly what I said in the first place...Maybe something in how I write pisses ppl off or something...

I was simply elaborating on things Terry Berger said 15 years ago?

Yeah the pumps will be changed out as default anyways for anything above E30 due to inability to flow enough fuel so it really isn't a concern.

In terms of water in the fuel creating gunk that is a concern, which is why fuel filters and fuel system cleaners should be in use. I also recommend once a year running through a tank or two of straight gasoline to help clean out any gunk or residual water in the fuel tank. This is what I did when I used to mix barrels of E85 (before pump fuels were available) and use it on my sti. I never really ran into any issues with it.

Although the issue of gunk and water build up is not a huge issue in the 320i active flex despite the humid conditions in brazil. I would suspect they have something in their fuel system to compensate for that, similar to flex fuel US made cars.

[DKX4///M]

Originally Posted by -Eidos

Y'all need some peer review in your papers:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/art...0communication.

Yea, I thought this was a BMW forum, I didn't know I needed citations and peer reviewed studies to back up every claim, especially not things that are well know and excepted among chemists, and even talented automotive Techs like Terry Berger who said these same things years ago...(The study I said was peer reviewed, I placed the wrong link, Its the article in the following post that is a peer reviewed research paper with citations)

And I hold a Bachelors degree in chemistry education, my father was a PhD. Physicist and led a research team of over 200 scientists at Sperry Gyroscopes in the 70's, mother is a PhD. chemist and still teaches basic chemistry courses at John Jay and Suffolk Community college and worked for a major chemical company in the 70's that is also no longer around, my late Uncle Paul Michelman was one of the original programmers and inventors (with Dr. Oz believe it or not) of the LVAD or Left Ventricle Asist Device, one of the most complex sub-systems of many modern artificial hearts still used today...And my Grandfather Samuel Michelman held a PhD. in Civil Engineering, and Michelman Ironworks held patents with Con-Ed for tamper proof locking devices used on electric meter in all 5 boroughs and even detailed the Tapanzee Bridge and did some Ironwork on the WTCs in the 70's...

From the time I was 10 years old I was surrounded by and raised by respected scientists, and had a love for all sciences...And had I not, followed by brothers footsteps in finance, likely would have followed my parents path and gotten my doctorate...In fact, I wish I had at this point...

So sorry, I don't need a wikipedia explanation of scientific method...Sorry if something I said pissed you off enough to have the need to add that...

[DKX4///M]

How do I close this thread before it gets anymore ridiculous, and delete all irrelevant posts?

[F87source]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

How do I close this thread before it gets anymore ridiculous, and delete all irrelevant posts?

You can't do it yourself, mods will have to do it. I have not personally experienced that happen so I don't know how to even initiate that.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

How do I close this thread before it gets anymore ridiculous, and delete all irrelevant posts?

Delete irrelevant posts? You are literally going on about aspartame studies in a conversation about methanol. You need to learn how to debate and convince people with real evidence. How to make actual arguments based on reason and evidence. Which should be part of the scientific method used to convince people of the truth. Debating with irrelevant arguments and saying "you can't trust that study because the publishing source is bias" is not an argument. It's a lazy attempt at discrediting something because you don't like the data, so you won't argue the actual science and studies themselves.

It's the same thing I hear from black people when I recommend them to stop attacking police, or an acquaintance with health problems I was recommending a diet to. "we're not taking your advice because you're white". It's not a counter argument and is certainly not helpful.

[DKX4///M]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

Delete irrelevant posts? You are literally going on about aspartame studies in a conversation about methanol. You need to learn how to debate and convince people with real evidence. How to make actual arguments based on reason and evidence. Which should be part of the scientific method used to convince people of the truth. Debating with irrelevant arguments and saying "you can't trust that study because the publishing source is bias" is not an argument. It's a lazy attempt at discrediting something because you don't like the data, so you won't argue the actual science and studies themselves.

It's the same thing I hear from black people when I recommend them to stop attacking police, or an acquaintance with health problems I was recommending a diet to. "we're not taking your advice because you're white". It's not a counter argument and is certainly not helpful.

OK You argued the source of funding for an experiment of research group has no bearing on the outcome, and a study done on pollutants, done by a team funded by the fossil fuel industry should be considered as valid as a study done by independent scientists who have no "skin in the game", so to speak...

My counter argument was that we additives scientifically proven to cause a tremendous about of harm because the studies done proving it's safety were funded by the major benefactor of the approval of the additive were later found to be nothing less than junk science.

I chose an artificial sweetener as a clever example (At least I thought), because it happens to metabolize into METHANOL...And while were talking about the dangers of alcohol fuels on metal engine components, I thought it was ironic to show bad science and studies done by biased sources can help get a product that breaks down into methanol, and then even more toxic substances, can be pushed through because of exactly what you claimed was "no reason to invalidate a study, or question it's validity", or at least not take it as gospel when the general consensus of independent scientists show over and over, a different result...




And I don't "NEED TO DO ANYTHING" bc you don't like it...I'm not trying to convince the world of anything...I was trying to help my fellow M2 owners at the time of writing this (mid 2016) that putting too much ethanol in their cars was bad for performance and could do lasting damage...At that time, many people were using too much ethanol, and even my "legendary tuner" Enzo @ Enzo Tuning didn't know about the fuel pumps weakness...

I think I did a fine job, making my point on what kind of ethanol use is ok, what type is not, and which platforms can take what amount safely...

Yes I did take the lazy way out by stating knowledge off the top of my head as supporting evidence to support my argument...Which was studies funded by the same peoples whos financial future requires these things be proven safe and effective should be weighed against other scientific data appropriately.

You said "I lost credibility" with you 1st I never had any obviously, 2nd I don't really care, 3rd to show the other members I don't just make crap up and post is as fact, I posted a detailed post which took me over 20 mins, with links to medical journals, newspapers, and lawsuits, outlining how everything I stated earlier was supported by fact...

I could've spent 5 hrs, adding 40 other supporting pieces of evidence, but I feel I made my point, and I doubt you even opened one of them or will concede that what I said in my first post about NutraSweet actually was true..

In the face of overwhelming evidence that what I said was in fact true? Even with Journals of medicine, backing the MAJOR dangers of this substance, and the crooked method in which it was forced through the FDA with an executive order?

Of course you won't...Nothing I say will or post no matter how reputable will change your mind...(Or maybe you will surprise me and say, OK" Now you proved your point. and laid out a decent argument for a 12pm post?) Whatever...

But you made your points, I made mine...Now let's end this...B4 it gets more ridiculous and I say that speaking about BOTH OF OUR childish behavior, not just criticizing you...I ate the bait and played as pivotal a role as you in taking this topic off topic...

People reading this, ( if any), and who read both of our arguments can decide for themselves who should be deemed more credible...If I am horrible at " being persuasive" and "backing by opinions" then hey, I'll just look like an asshole, and you will have proved your point...So I don't see what the issue is...

But bottom line, many more have agreed with the premise of this post than have disagreed...No one that had disagreed has posted even a shred of evidence to support their claim...Literally not 1 thing credible or not, just words of people that seem mad, bc of how I write, or something I said and just call names, or tell me I'm wrong, stupid or whatever...

Last thing I'll say is I've also gotten private messages by members who read this post and determined "I seem like I know what I am talking about", and have asked me to help them with diagnosis, or thanked me for explaining this, which had been causing them problems...

I also have other educational posts, explaining how to calculate fuel requirements for desired HP targets, on different types of gasoline...My tuning methods, years ago when tuning 500-900hp imports (Hondas, Nissans, Evolutions etc), which don't really change over time...And I offer help with diagnosis and attempt to ask question read peoples logs and attempt to help people find issues without spending money at the dealer (which btw, Ive gotten a decent rep for) And I try, above all else to just be a constructive member of the board.

I could be wrong but you seem to want to turn this into a debate on current issues or politics with your statement about police , and "what you tell black people to think about police"...I'm not going there, not now...But I will say, who do you think you are to tell a whole race of people what to think about police....That is as insane as telling millions of cops what to think about black people...IDK if you are black or white...But If white, and not a police officer, why would anyone take your advice...Why does this matter, bc it GETS BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT, WHICH IS:

CREDENTIALS MATTER.

In Studies, experiments, in court, in crime scene investigation or anyplace else, that would be considered "important" If you believe they are irrelevant, than OK...You made your point, now lets move on...

Now I would like to get back on topic...

[Commanderwiggin]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

Firstly you would have problems running 80% Ethanol on your stock fuel system, both short term tuning, drivability, and fuel starvation issues...

But you follow your statement with you would need fuel upgrades with a link to an 800whp e46 with a completely redone fuel system top to bottom, and if you actually read it all the way through the Twin 62mm Walbro 400's he has "do not react well to e85, and will likely need to be replaced"

Also he's pushing off the top of my head between t the 4 pumps and multi regulator system (all of which is low pressure btw) enough fuel to power a 1600whp car running on gasoline, 93, ms 100, whatever...

So I don't get your post, sorry if I misunderstood...Please post a vid of you filling up on e85 from an empty tank and a few 2nd-4th WOT runs...Id like to see how the car protects itself...Maybe an ejection seat lmao

Running great on my stock fuel system...also the Bosch HDEV5.2 Injectors, HPFP, LPFP and fuel lines were designed for E85.

The amount of trash you spew in this forum is ridiculous lol.

[DKX4///M]

Originally Posted by Commanderwiggin

Running great on my stock fuel system...also the Bosch HDEV5.2 Injectors, HPFP, LPFP and fuel lines were designed for E85.

The amount of trash you spew in this forum is ridiculous lol.

HOLY SHIT DUDE... ARE YOU LEARNING DISABLED? THATS AN S55 LMAO...AS I SAID S55, B58, and S58 have the capability to run e85 or even full ethanol in some cases...

POST WAS ABOUT 0G N55 M2's (The S55 equipped M2 CS wasn't even news yet at that point, Idk what part of you is just unable to grasp such a simple fucking concept...

Just go away, you obviously have issues...Seriously...You are the most stubborn and most ridiculous troll I have ever dealt with on these forums...

I wish you were in NY, I'd love to see u face to face and run your M2 Competition against my X4M Comp for some loot..Maybe I'll take a road trup to California next spring....

I promise you you would not have such a loud mouth if you were standing in front of me...God as my witness.

[-Eidos]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

HOLY SHIT DUDE... ARE YOU LEARNING DISABLED? THATS AN S55 LMAO...AS I SAID S55, B58, and S58 have the capability to run e85 or even full ethanol in some cases...

POST WAS ABOUT 0G N55 M2's (The S55 equipped M2 CS wasn't even news yet at that point, Idk what part of you is just unable to grasp such a simple fucking concept...

Just go away, you obviously have issues...Seriously...You are the most stubborn and most ridiculous troll I have ever dealt with on these forums...

I wish you were in NY, I'd love to see u face to face and run your M2 Competition against my X4M Comp for some loot..Maybe I'll take a road trup to California next spring....

I promise you you would not have such a loud mouth if you were standing in front of me...God as my witness.

My god... You're schizophrenic. You need help. I'm prescribing a treatment plan of no bimmerpost posts for three months.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

OK You argued the source of funding for an experiment of research group has no bearing on the outcome, and a study done on pollutants, done by a team funded by the fossil fuel industry should be considered as valid as a study done by independent scientists who have no "skin in the game", so to speak...

.

Umm, no. I never argued that. Sure, sometimes sources can put on fake research studies. Though you haven't proved that that happened in this instance, and it's certainly no reason to discredit ALL studies because of one bad apple.

My point was that you claiming the study I linked was fake simply because it's posted on a methanol site is not an argument to discredit it. An argument to discredit the study would be actually discrediting the study itself and find out what is incorrect in it.

The sources of funding for a study demonstrating what temperature water boils at has no bearing on the studies outcome. Who gave money to fund a study does not change the outcome.

My sister giving me $100 to see how many jumping jacks I can do vs Bill Clinton giving me $100 to do the same study... makes no difference who funds the study, it does not change how many jumping jacks I can do.

If you are truly a scientist, the world is going to absolute crap if you believe the source of funding changes the outcome of a study.

[-Eidos]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

Umm, no. I never argued that. Sure, sometimes sources can put on fake research studies. Though you haven't proved that that happened in this instance, and it's certainly no reason to discredit ALL studies because of one bad apple.

My point was that you claiming the study I linked was fake simply because it's posted on a methanol site is not an argument to discredit it. An argument to discredit the study would be actually discrediting the study itself and find out what is incorrect in it.

The sources of funding for a study demonstrating what temperature water boils at has no bearing on the studies outcome. Who gave money to fund a study does not change the outcome.

My sister giving me $100 to see how many jumping jacks I can do vs Bill Clinton giving me $100 to do the same study... makes no difference who funds the study, it does not change how many jumping jacks I can do.

If you are truly a scientist, the world is going to absolute crap if you believe the source of funding changes the outcome of a study.

He followed his brother's path and went the finance route . I know because he posted his entire life story because it was relevant to the pros and cons of E85.

[DKX4///M]

Originally Posted by Anthony1s

Umm, no. I never argued that. Sure, sometimes sources can put on fake research studies. Though you haven't proved that that happened in this instance, and it's certainly no reason to discredit ALL studies because of one bad apple.

My point was that you claiming the study I linked was fake simply because it's posted on a methanol site is not an argument to discredit it. An argument to discredit the study would be actually discrediting the study itself and find out what is incorrect in it.

The sources of funding for a study demonstrating what temperature water boils at has no bearing on the studies outcome. Who gave money to fund a study does not change the outcome.

My sister giving me $100 to see how many jumping jacks I can do vs Bill Clinton giving me $100 to do the same study... makes no difference who funds the study, it does not change how many jumping jacks I can do.

If you are truly a scientist, the world is going to absolute crap if you believe the source of funding changes the outcome of a study.

I said, very simply, "In a situation when a study that is funded by a group with a monetary motive to get a specific result goes against a scientific consensus, in which many independent scientists find the opposite result, you should take the results with a grain of salt"

It doesn't automatically make it invalid, but if you wanted to post evidence supporting your argument, which I never even said was untrue, if you want critically thinking people to give it merit, than you would be wise to link a study done by anyone else, other than a self proclaimed proponent of using methanol as fuel...I'm guessing plenty exist...That was my only point.

If I was in a debate about smoking and its health effects, and I was arguing to the safety of smoking and said, "In a 1995 study by Marlboro Corporations, or in a study done, funded by "Citizens for Tobacco Truth" a special interest group 100% funded by big tobacco, and referenced that studies claim that that a 10 year study showed smoking has absolutely no adverse health benefits, I would literally be laughed off stage. That may be an extreme example, but that was simply the point i was making.

And I hope you would at least agree with that.

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

I said, very simply, "In a situation when a study that is funded by a group with a monetary motive to get a specific result goes against a scientific consensus, in which many independent scientists find the opposite result, you should take the results with a grain of salt"

It doesn't automatically make it invalid, but if you wanted to post evidence supporting your argument, which I never even said was untrue, if you want critically thinking people to give it merit, than you would be wise to link a study done by anyone else, other than a self proclaimed proponent of using methanol as fuel...I'm guessing plenty exist...That was my only point.

But there is absolutely nothing wrong with the study I linked. The outcomes and results and everything from it are correct. Nor have you pointed out anything from it you believe to be incorrect.

And none of this even matters because all I asked you was to explain why you were claiming methanol was dangerously corrosive to our cars. And I went on to explain exactly why I think it isn't. (that it's diluted and not mixed in the fuel system) Then you attacked the source of the study I showed saying it's not corrosive to our cars.

If you want to explain why methanol is corrosive to our cars, please do, because that is what I was curious about. That's all I was asking... for you to explain a claim you made. Not get into some completely nonsense fight with you.

[Commanderwiggin]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

HOLY SHIT DUDE... ARE YOU LEARNING DISABLED? THATS AN S55 LMAO...AS I SAID S55, B58, and S58 have the capability to run e85 or even full ethanol in some cases...

POST WAS ABOUT 0G N55 M2's (The S55 equipped M2 CS wasn't even news yet at that point, Idk what part of you is just unable to grasp such a simple fucking concept...

Just go away, you obviously have issues...Seriously...You are the most stubborn and most ridiculous troll I have ever dealt with on these forums...

I wish you were in NY, I'd love to see u face to face and run your M2 Competition against my X4M Comp for some loot..Maybe I'll take a road trup to California next spring....

I promise you you would not have such a loud mouth if you were standing in front of me...God as my witness.

N55 has the same injectors and same standard Bosch style fuel system. Same fuel lines, etc... Single HPFP is the main difference and it's E85 compatible.


Get with program and stop being dumb.

Also the road trip is welcome but we won't be racing, I'd rather have a go with you in the parking lot.

[ZM2]

Alright, who’s managing the betting pool?

[DKX4///M]

Originally Posted by Commanderwiggin

N55 has the same injectors and same standard Bosch style fuel system. Same fuel lines, etc... Single HPFP is the main difference and it's E85 compatible.


Get with program and stop being dumb.

Also the road trip is welcome but we won't be racing, I'd rather have a go with you in the parking lot.

Sounds good to me buddy, I think you'll have a change of heart when you see me but, ok....You're call....

And yeaaa, NO. Both the LPFP and HPFP are different part numbers...I owned an N55 M2, and I've actually tuned and built my own cars, unlike you who must pay people to do your work according to your you tube video...

I watched my HPFP fail at anything over e30 with a few psi over stock...

You have no idea what you are talking about...Here's a log with e30 on JB4 map 2 , just 2-3 psi over stock...And the resulting fuel pump failure...

Even the XDI-35 upgraded HPFP can't push full ethanol at 18-19psi on the N55, nor can the Fuel It stage 1, according to the companies themselves...

You need at least stage 2 LPFP , and XDI-60 HPFP and recommended upgraded fuel lines, according to them, and a high flow filter to support e85 even on a stock turbo...

Obviously you don't know the factory fuel pump specifications or the mathematic formula to calculate the fuel required for a desired HP level...And the dramatically higher requirement to meet that power level on E which increases the required volume by 30% over gasoline...

Seriously just fuck off, for now...And I have family in California and I am dead ass considering a cross country trip next summer...The funny thing is your little red M2 wont be able to even get away from my SUV when you see what youve gottn yourself into...

[Anthony1s]

Originally Posted by DKX4///M

Sounds good to me buddy, I think you'll have a change of heart when you see me but, ok....You're call....

And yeaaa, NO. Both the LPFP and HPFP are different part numbers...I owned an N55 M2, and I've actually tuned and built my own cars, unlike you who must pay people to do your work according to your you tube video...

I watched my HPFP fail at anything over e30 with a few psi over stock...

You have no idea what you are talking about...Here's a log with e30 on JB4 map 2 , just 2-3 psi over stock...And the resulting fuel pump failure...

Even the XDI-35 upgraded HPFP can't push full ethanol at 18-19psi on the N55, nor can the Fuel It stage 1, according to the companies themselves...

You need at least stage 2 LPFP , and XDI-60 HPFP and recommended upgraded fuel lines, according to them, and a high flow filter to support e85 even on a stock turbo...

Obviously you don't know the factory fuel pump specifications or the mathematic formula to calculate the fuel required for a desired HP level...And the dramatically higher requirement to meet that power level on E which increases the required volume by 30% over gasoline...

Seriously just fuck off, for now...And I have family in California and I am dead ass considering a cross country trip next summer...The funny thing is your little red M2 wont be able to even get away from my SUV when you see what youve gottn yourself into...

Luckily an entire thread popped up recently which actually proves you wrong. You are very out-dated.

https://f87.bimmerpost.com/forums/sh....php?t=1766028

[ZM2]

Funnily enough, I think this thread is similar to my ethanol drinking habit.

One person shouts, "Don't drink! You'll get fat, hurt your kidneys, have a higher risk of cancer, make bad decisions, and die!" While other people say, "Actually, a little in moderation and with good discretion can be good for you, and fun, and give you more POWER!"

Well, I think that last bit when I drink my ethanol, but at least it's true when my car drinks it!