When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
There is less energy in ethanol than gasoline. FACT. Not propaganda by the big bad oil companies. ESPECIALLY if tuned to run on such a strong blend as E-85, you will absolutely see a measurable drop in fuel economy. Plain and simple, you do need to burn more ethanol than gasoline for the same power produced or distance traveled. That's a scientific fact.
Will the typical 10-15% blend make a HUGE impact? Maybe not, but there is a difference and there's no denying that. 1 for 1, ethanol burns less efficiently than gasoline.
Ethanol is also a type of alcohol. Alcohol's hold moisture. Especially in climates that get colder and warmer. Especially if there are decent sized temperature differences experienced throughout a single day(like in the winter where it might be 10 overnight, but 50 by the time you get to work). It's going to separate, cause condensation, lower the overall octane rating of the gasoline in the tank, and cause your fuel system to suck in a separated fuel rather than the nicely mixed fuel. Alcohol, ethanol in this case, has a very high octane rating. But your 93 is still just 93. Why? Because the gasoline formula is adjusted in such a way that the major increase in octane induced by the etanol brings the fuel up to it's needed rating(93 in this example). So when you get differences in temperature causing the separation, you are going to get an uneven flow of water-impregnated ethanol and a low octane gasoline.
Does that really sound like the best thing in the world for your engine? Especially an engine that runs in a way that it specifically needs a high octane fuel?
I admit to not being real well read on Ethanol, and perhaps I've bought in to big oil propaganda but I can't help but believe that the whole Ethanol scheme of providing energy for vehicles is a sham perpetrated by the government and the agriculture lobby. I believe that if the ethanol industry were not propped up by government subsidy, it would collapse; it takes more energy to produce it than the energy it produces; that it lowers gas mileage and fuel tank mileage range. What happened to the propaganda regarding the warnings that E85 will rot out legacy fuel systems? Just bogus? I wonder too, if America shouldn't do something better with its arable land than to raise a commodity such as corn to power our poorly nutritioned world. But I sure love the raw get up and go of my MINI even on 10% 93 octane!
When we pulled the intake manifold off to have a look-see, Clint did say that the build up on my engine was not as bad as would be expected on an N14. He also observed that the N18's accumulation did not seem to be as gunky as that on the N14; to me it appears dryer than what I see in the photos posted of N14 engines. In any case, Clint used my car to test-fit the prototype for the Defenders of Speed N18 OCC:
Originally Posted by jhull413
In any direct injection engine, the carbon build up problem is caused by the fuel being injected directly into the combustion chamber, not drawn in through the intake valve. As a result, whatever cleaner is in the fuel, whether put there by the refinery or as an additive used by the car owner, it never gets the chance to wash the back of the intake valve. Because the PCV system directs crankcase oil vapor into the air intake, the oil cokes on the back of the intake valve. This is a potential issue will all direct injection engines, but particularly so with the N14. The question here is whether the design of the N18 has lessened the problem.
I agree that the OCC on the N18 hasn't been proven, but after burning a valve on my N14...I felt it was worth the cost. Here's my install.
There is less energy in ethanol than gasoline. FACT. Not propaganda by the big bad oil companies. ESPECIALLY if tuned to run on such a strong blend as E-85, you will absolutely see a measurable drop in fuel economy. Plain and simple, you do need to burn more ethanol than gasoline for the same power produced or distance traveled. That's a scientific fact. Will the typical 10-15% blend make a HUGE impact? Maybe not, but there is a difference and there's no denying that. 1 for 1, ethanol burns less efficiently than gasoline. Ethanol is also a type of alcohol. Alcohol's hold moisture. Especially in climates that get colder and warmer. Especially if there are decent sized temperature differences experienced throughout a single day(like in the winter where it might be 10 overnight, but 50 by the time you get to work). It's going to separate, cause condensation, lower the overall octane rating of the gasoline in the tank, and cause your fuel system to suck in a separated fuel rather than the nicely mixed fuel. Alcohol, ethanol in this case, has a very high octane rating. But your 93 is still just 93. Why? Because the gasoline formula is adjusted in such a way that the major increase in octane induced by the etanol brings the fuel up to it's needed rating(93 in this example). So when you get differences in temperature causing the separation, you are going to get an uneven flow of water-impregnated ethanol and a low octane gasoline. Does that really sound like the best thing in the world for your engine? Especially an engine that runs in a way that it specifically needs a high octane fuel?
I'm running 30% mix and at cruising speeds I'm getting an increase in fuel economy of 2-3Mpg vs 10% ethanol. I've grown up around ethanol production and have been to ethanol conventions all over the country. You can believe what you want, but after seeing the results of hundreds of millions of dollars In research about ethanol and it's effects on engine performance, etc... There is a lot less to worry about than you think. Ethanol has been studied more than any other fuel and it is here to stay for the foreseeable future.
I admit to not being real well read on Ethanol, and perhaps I've bought in to big oil propaganda but I can't help but believe that the whole Ethanol scheme of providing energy for vehicles is a sham perpetrated by the government and the agriculture lobby. I believe that if the ethanol industry were not propped up by government subsidy, it would collapse; it takes more energy to produce it than the energy it produces; that it lowers gas mileage and fuel tank mileage range. What happened to the propaganda regarding the warnings that E85 will rot out legacy fuel systems? Just bogus? I wonder too, if America shouldn't do something better with its arable land than to raise a commodity such as corn to power our poorly nutritioned world. But I sure love the raw get up and go of my MINI even on 10% 93 octane!
You'd be surprised how little the government helps ethanol producers after they are up and running. Yes, the government will give a guarantee to proposed plants, but after the plant is up and running they aren't just handing them the dough.
first this thread gets hijacked by OCC comments and now ethanol comments....cant we keep this on topic?
they are both related to carbon buildup concerns so pretty sure it's on track. Some people think OCC will solve problem, and some people think ethanol might cause more or less buildup, so not sure how that isn't on track.
That's hardly any carbon build-up, and would not have a noticeable effect on performance or efficiency. Here's a before and after of a badly built-up car.
Unfortunately, a catch can does not significantly help in reducing build-up. We have done several cars with catch cans and there's no significant difference from cars without OCCs.
Reposted - original was mistakenly in 1st Gen Forum
I thought that carbon buildup was a problem on all direct injected MINIs but on other threads I've read that it might not be a problem (or as much of one) with the N18 engine. I know the valve cover design and venting is different but some posts suggested that the N18 has a different head design and valve timing that is supposed to reduce the problem.
Are there any of you out there with the N18 that have actually had a carbon buildup diagnosis at a MINI dealership? How many out there have had no carbon buildup problems? What is the mileage when this occured or what is your current mileage if you've had no problems?
I installed the Non Rock star branded design from https://www.mishimoto.com/automotive...atch-cans.html on my 2015 R61s All4. this is the only company with a baffled OCC that actually does what it advertises. all others i've seen are over priced empty cans.
Just a little bump to the thread.
On topic, I have a 2012 Countryman with the N18, 115,000 miles on the clock. Just had it in the shop yesterday for some routine things, and had them look..... no significant carbon buildup on the intake valves as of yet. Fingers crossed, but I would venture to say that, while not completely resolved (can’t be with GDI) BMW/MINI seems to have made a significant improvement in this area over the N14.
on a side note, the water/meth injection system that some have installed on their N14’s sounds very cool, I am intrigued and will need to learn more about it, just for my own personal knowledge, not to use on my N18
Since my R56 needed the walnut cleaning badly, and the dealer was going to charge me 700 bucks for the works; I just went ahead and bought the kit and the air compressor altogether. Done the job myself and planning to walnut blast the valves on every other oil change. I'm doing this because I also have BMW and VW cars which will also need this service every so often. It makes more sence to get the kit ready, and for any other car, I'll just buy the attachments and all are set. Seriously though, with the right tools, valve cleaning isn't too bad to do, and it really gives me a piece of mind to do it more often. Each blasting job will cost only a 5-lb box of walnut shells, $25-$30 at harbor freight. By doing so, I probably won't need the oil catch can as I've been monitoring my oil level, and I don't seem to lose a single drip between 5000mi oil changes. On the BMW however, I don't get so lucky, I'd lose 1/2 quart in between 5000mi oil changes. For those of you handy enough and have space, it's not a bad idea to invest in a blasting kit and a compressor. I see many newer car models utilizing direct injection, walnut blasting will be a big part of maintenance expenses at the shop.
There are some excellent write-ups here on how to do it too. I was ready to go buy all of the equipment needed and do it myself, but mine is not needing it just yet
2012 N18 ~68k, climate: ~80F, 60% RH year round. Only sampled two valves from two cylinders to get good close up. Manic Stage 2, no OCC, afe dry filter drop in. Oil changes every 5k. Cyl 4 Cyl 2
Thanks, it was our first time looking and we ran out of time to look at everything. That lower 10mm bolt is such a pain to get off and even worse to put on as the hole isn't in alignment after you put the manifold back on the studs. Everything is by feel when you are actually trying to turn the bolt. Saved us $900 having an independent shop do the blasting, $1250 quote from dealer! Looks like I'm good for a while, maybe till 100k, but MrGrumpy said his were still fine at that mileage.
