Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

topic posted Thu, February 23, 2006 - 9:56 AM by  andy
Share/Save/Bookmark
im curious to hear any stories about warranty issues using biodiesel. some companines specific that using over a certain percentage (like B20 or B5) will void a warranty, other say using any biodiesel will. all this is in violation of the law, which states that warrantys can not be voided for this reason.

"Use of biodiesel does not void a vehicles warranty; this is prohibited by the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Manufacturers recommendations for certain percentage blends of biodiesel are just that, recommendations.
Diesel engine companies warranty the product they make. They warranty their engines for “materials and workmanship.” If there is a problem with an engine part or with engine operation due to an error in manufacturing or assembly within the warranty period, the problem should be covered by the engine company. Typically, an engine company will define what fuel the engine was designed for and will recommend the use of that fuel to their customers in their owner's manuals. Engine companies do not warranty fuel - whether that fuel is biodiesel or petrodiesel fuel.
If there are engine problems caused by a fuel, these problems are not related to the materials or workmanship of the engine, but are the responsibility of the fuel supplier and not the engine manufacturer. Concerned biodiesel users should consult their warranty statement. "

so, that said, i would love to hear more from anyone who has seen this play out in reality. has anyone had warranty problems using biodiesel? any cases on this gone to court?

and, further, since the whole point of fuel (bio or petrol) is for it to burn away, how could anyone ever prove that you had been using biodiesel or not?
posted by:
andy
Boston
  • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

    Fri, February 24, 2006 - 11:31 AM
    Well, as for proving I use BioD, there is always the fact my car is plastered with a bunch of "Powered by Biodiesel" and the like stickers ;-)
    • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

      Fri, February 24, 2006 - 4:20 PM
      <my car is plastered with a bunch of "Powered by Biodiesel">

      sure, but if you wanted to make a warranty claim, you could remove them, no? even if you didnt, i doubt the stickers would stand up in a court of law as proof that you had used biodiesel.
      • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

        Fri, February 24, 2006 - 9:27 PM
        They don't have to prove that you used any form of biodiesel because the type of fuel used has nothing to do with the warranty of the car. The car companies may recommend fuel blends, but they cannot control what you decide to use. Doesn't matter how many bumper stickers you have proclaiming your love of biodiesel.

        www.planetbiodiesel.com/vehlss.asp#wi

        "Diesel engine companies warranty the product they make. They warranty their engines for “materials and workmanship.” ... Engine companies do not warranty fuel - whether that fuel is biodiesel or petrodiesel fuel."

        "If there are engine problems caused by a fuel, these problems are not related to the materials or workmanship of the engine, but are the responsibility of the fuel supplier and not the engine manufacturer."
        • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

          Fri, February 24, 2006 - 9:32 PM
          In other words, it is a waste of time for them to even attempt to prove that you used biodiesel because it doesn't mean diddly for the terms of the warranty being valid or void.
          • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

            Fri, February 24, 2006 - 11:29 PM
            yep, i know all that. i think you used the same link from my post.

            but im wondering about how this has played out on the ground and in the courts. i did a little searching but couldnt find any records of magnuson-moss cases related to biodiesel (the law covers all sorts of warranty issues). so im wondering if anyone here knows of any legal precedent or has had any personal experience with warranty issues.

            the thing about whether anyone could determine a fuel used is more out of simple curiousity - i cant make sense of how anyone could tell if biodiesel was used, as long as it was not in the gas tank or fuel lines at the time the car goes in. but maybe someone knows more than me about this.?
  • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

    Sat, February 25, 2006 - 2:18 AM
    Alright heres the deal, if you have an engine problem, the manufacturer is going to do everything in their power to proove that the problem was related to something other than manufacture defect. Anyone who has ever had to argue a warrantty issue with a dealership will understand this.

    To do this they will first need to figure out what caused the engine failure, this means lab test. All the fluids to included engine fuel are drawn off and tested. Newer computerized diesels will have the engine performance logs downloaded from the ECU.

    Heres the deal if your engine dies with biodiesel in it, it will be in the fuel lines, fuel filters, injector pump all the way up to the injector nozzles. It would be a task to bleed all of the biodiesel out of the system. Trust me I've lost prime in my vintage Mercedes before, nothing says love for diesels like spending time pumping on a little knob in a cramped space while bleeding the air out of the injector in the cold.

    The way the warranties are written currently. So long as the fuel in the engine meets the manufacturers specifications, the cause of the failure cannot be blamed on fuel (you). The achilles heel here is that out of spec fuel has never been a liability for manufactures. Now exact warranty law is different state to state, but essentially if the fuel in the engine is within ASTM spec (the manufacturer cannot write a specification higher than the current fuel standard) you should not suffer collateral engine damage.

    AFAIK there has been no warranty litigation with any engine manufacturer over the use of biodiesel. The major concern for spec. bio-diesel is not the fuel itself, its fuel contamination. Biodiesel without preservatives or biocides has a shelf life of 6 months in ideal conditions. In a B20 mix save for preexsisting tank contamination or petrol contamination the shelf life is slightly higher.

    Another concern is the hygroscopic nature of the fuel. Meaning that it absorbs moisture in the air. Also it can attack certain metals, like cast iron, zinc, maganese, copper based alloys, cobalt, lead and tin.

    And of course we all know about the viscosity problems of B100 in cold climates.

    Currently Daimler Chrysler will be shipping all american made diesels with a factory mix of B5 and currently the warranty covers that. Commercial grade spec fuel upto B5. Daimler Chrylser is warrantying all Dodge Ram/Utility, Military and specified fuel fleets for B20.


    By 2010 ULSD will be mandatory for non-road diesels. Emissions profiles will vary by engine and displacement, but full compliance of grandfathered vehicles is expected by 2030. This is particularly important for non-road diesels as they have long lifetimes


    I have been pretty upset about this warranty issue for a few years now. But it seems I am upset over a theoretical situation. The big thing in the biodiesel industry is quality assurance. The National Biodiesel Accreditation Commission (NBAC) was formed to perform spot checks on suppliers and marketers. Passing means your are an accredited supplier.


    So it looks like the popular sentiment right now is B20. Hopefully this will be raised, what this means is that engine manufacturers have never warrantied problems related to fuel or fuel system components, it also goes on to mean that any engine performance problems encountered by use of the fuel will not be considered.

    Cummins does not approve or dissaprove the use of bio-diesel. Instead they refer to a statement from Bosch "Bosch states in their Diesel Fuel Quality -- Common Position Paper (03/05/99) that no guarantee on FIE is given so far to any alternative fuel except for Diesel + 5% FAME. There is a major difference between operating on pure (100% concentration) biodiesel fuels and biodiesel/petro
    diesel fuel blends."

    Detroit Diesel recommends a 5% blend maximum, and the resulting mix must meet the ASTM standard for diesel.

    Ford reccomends a 5% blend maximum, it also states that it does not believe that bio-diesel alone will be clean enough to satisfy Tier 2 specs.

    GM reccomends a 5% blend maximum for fleets as long as the fuel meets ASTM standards for biodiesel.

    International reccomends a 5% blend maximum, they do not void the warranty, but will not repair problems under warranty for blends higher than 5%.

    Currently John Deere is shipping all of its tractors with a factory blend of B5. Strongly advises against SVO specifically. Use of biodiesel does not void warranty, only repairs due to specific damage.

    VW reccomends a 5% blend maximum, they do not void the warranty, but will not repair problems under warranty for blends higher than 5%. They also stipulate that they will not cover damage for substandard diesel fuel.

    Volvo reccomends a 5% blend maximum, warranty good only for blends upto B5. Reccomends halving oil change schedule due to "dilution". Has no intention of testing engine for higher blends, stating that the ASTM standard is not enough. Volvo also cites "potential" injector pump damage for blends higher than B5.


    Alright looking at this further, these engine manufactures have aligned themselves with the Engine Manufacturers Association (EMA). The EMA has aligned themselves with the Fuel Injection Equipment (FIE) manufacturers. FIE feels that the following problems are attributed to high concentrations of renewable fuels and thus are the reason to not use them above B5:
    Fuel system seal failures
    Particulate filter clogging prior to injector pump
    Fuel injector blockage, resulting in poor atomization.
    Dilution and polymerization of engine oil
    Injector pump failures due to poor viscosity oil in cold climates.
    Increased injection pressure.
    Corrosion of fuel system components.
    Poor long term storage ability of biofuel.

    FIE is not willing to reccomend a higher than B5 concentration without the inclusion of the following specifications in an international standard:

    Exclusion of SVO
    High concentrations of methanol in fuel.
    NaOH or KOH particles in the fuel.
    Water content
    Glycerine content
    Free fatty acids
    High viscosity at low tempartures
    Maximum fuel shelf life (Orgainic Acids, Oxidation)
    Iodine Value
    Total Acid Numer

    After reading this I can understand the logic to the concerns, however I am slightly appalled. According to the National Biodiesel Board in 1998, 50% of the diesel fuel tested did not meet minimum lubricity standards.

    I agree that standards need to be established, and for fuel that is going to store for a few months I could even agree that additive packages for fuel stability and anti-microbials be added. But I dont understand how they could hold this fuel to standards when there is so much substandard petrol diesel on the market. These component failures where happening at an accelerated rate for years and years and nobody said anything because if your a manufacturer whats the best way to stay in business.

    I strongly suspect that FIE has some alliances with the petrol oil industry. In any case although their have been 43 million miles driven by folks with B20 blends or higher, there is a engineering change to comply with the new ULSD standards. There is now no empirical data to support this new equipment and how concentrations higher than B5 will react with the cataylytic converters and particulate traps.

    Of all the manufacturers only VW is committed to raising the bar to B20 after some more extensive testing. Ultimatly this will lead to changes in the injection system that are directly suited for biodiesel.





    • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

      Sat, February 25, 2006 - 8:20 AM
      wow, thanks doctor. great info.

      the one question is still have is regarding biodiesel use that doesnt cause an engine problem. like, say you burn b50 or even b100 for a while, have no problems, than switch back to petrol for a few tanks. is there any way either fuel lines or computerized engine performance logs would show signs that biodiesel had been used?
      • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

        Sun, February 26, 2006 - 2:27 AM
        In the world of forensic science where there is a will there is a way. Now with that said, i have to say that I am not aware of any cases of litigation (the either include or exclude the scenario you cited).

        I do know the newer fancy computer controlled diesel engines are more sensitive to fuel that is not within spec.

        I dont want to start spouting conspiracy theories, but if Spec biodiesel can break your computer engine, then it is a girly man engine, designed by girly men. Chances are the fact the you run the engine will lead to its demise. History has already proven that manufacturing something with tolerances set very high only leads to premature equipment malfunction.

        The most correct answer is the data sample isnt big enough to make any conclusions yet. I believe FIE is biased against the use of vegetable oils. Fuel system components could certainly be made of equivalent non-corrosive materials.

        I only know a couple people running bio-d in *BRAND NEW* engines and so far they havent had any problems.
        • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

          Sun, February 26, 2006 - 9:12 AM
          I know of one person who claims B100 doesn't run in a 2005 Jetta Wagon, nearly new. I don't know the reason and neither did she, but I will pester her for more recent data.
          Going totally off-topic, I must add: I appreciate your detailed earlier post, but am totallly put off by the pejorative use here of "girly man" - what's with that? Some awesome wrenches are women and I happen to dig men with the guts to show off their feminine natures.
          Okay - back on topic - I'll have to post the site later, but I read in some countries you can buy a Biodiesel-specific car from the factory. I think they are so precisely designed in order to meet very strict emissions specifications. Not what I'd call "girly" but highly sensitive to be sure.
          • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

            Sun, February 26, 2006 - 7:34 PM
            << I know of one person who claims B100 doesn't run in a 2005 Jetta Wagon >>

            For what it's worth, it runs in our 2005 Passat.

            - grey
            • Re: Magnuson-Moss Act & Warrantys

              Sun, February 26, 2006 - 7:38 PM
              Should have added:

              We've got about 10,000 miles since buyng the Passat new (on Christmas afternoon of 2005, good time to buy a car!) . Virtually all of that 10,000 miles is B100. The only exception is the occasional 1/2 tank of petrol-deisel when it gets near freezing.

              Zero problems.

              Unless you count the fact that using the windshield-washing fluid stinks up the interior with the washer-fluid smell. But I'm pretty sure that's not BD related. :-)

              - grey
          • Hear me now and listen to me later...

            Mon, February 27, 2006 - 1:29 AM
            Hi Sienna,
            Let me start by saying I wasnt trying to offend anyone by using the term "girilie man" I was actually making a reference to an old Saturday Night Live Skitch [w/ Hans and Franz, and "We are going to pump *hand clap* YOU UP!"] These characters addressed people that they had contempt for by calling them girlie men. But you dont know me, I turn wrenches, shop at bath and body works (I like soft skin, especially in the winter) and have been called a "metro-sexual". So I guess I'm a girlie man about certain things, but when it comes to engineering. I'm sorry I dont tolerate bull headed engineering. As far as women who turn wrenches, it's personal turn-on I wish more women where willing to get dirty for a clean cause.

            In my research FIE has given me ever reason why they wont certify for alt. fuels, even though almost half of the petrol diesel on the market is substandard fuel.

            How about their are aftermarket manufacturers like Elsbett who was a pioneer in the field of multi-fuel DI (being veggie oil, bio-d and petrol-d) technology. Oh and that was 30 years ago.

            Understand that FIE folks have been working on this ultra high pressure, rapid succession burst injection systems for over a 5 years now. I heard about this many years ago at my first petroleum conference. While bio-diesel does have a higher viscosity than, petrol diesel it has phenominally better lubricating properties and practically no sulphur content. FIE is really pushing common rail injection as the way of tommorrow, I dont agree.

            VW AG doesnt agree and as I mentioned before then are the ONLY major manufacturer that is researching to certify ALL USERS for higher bio-diesel percentages.

            I know alot of VW owners who are running B100 happily.

            B100 has problems though, but not nearly so risky and uncontrolled as running SVO. And thats not what I am asking the induestry to do. People who burn SVO are on the fringe and it will never be common practice anywhere to run SVO. However biofuels are a fact of life.
            The majority of engineers are conservative by nature and thus ignorant to change. If the industry stopped fighting the transition it wouldnt be nearly so painfull.

            But now that EPACT is online, FIE and EMA have gotten their asses in gear. Nobody wants to a loose a federal contract to a foreign company because they are being slow to react to the market.

            I'm curious to hear what problem this person had with their 2005 Jetta and B100. I am diesel nut and I catalog these complaints in the effort to identify trends. (More often than not I usually find cases of operator error/substandard fuel etc...etc..)

            So "Hear me now and listen to me later", sometimes i throw a little bit of humor in so I dont sound like I'm ranting. It also a memory aid, when I think of girlie man engineering, i think of the list of failures in diesels due to poor engineering. Their is alot of crap rattling around in my head, this is how I keep track of it.


            Anyways I want to see this site that has the Biodiesel specific cars. Did you find the link yet?


            ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------->
            Sienna wrote:
            I know of one person who claims B100 doesn't run in a 2005 Jetta Wagon, nearly new. I don't know the reason and neither did she, but I will pester her for more recent data.
            Going totally off-topic, I must add: I appreciate your detailed earlier post, but am totallly put off by the pejorative use here of "girly man" - what's with that? Some awesome wrenches are women and I happen to dig men with the guts to show off their feminine natures.
            Okay - back on topic - I'll have to post the site later, but I read in some countries you can buy a Biodiesel-specific car from the factory. I think they are so precisely designed in order to meet very strict emissions specifications. Not what I'd call "girly" but highly sensitive to be sure.
            • Re: Hear me now and listen to me later...

              Mon, February 27, 2006 - 5:14 AM
              Hi.i'm new here. I'm a "girlie man" who bought a girlie man diesel! I've always liked diesels and have owned a various assortment of rusted smokey diesels over the years,including a naturally aspirated 1979 vw rabbit where my eyes were about level with the sun roof opening.Then for years i ran a 6.2 & 6.5 GM. I never liked Fords after having one spontaniously combust years ago.Quality job 1, putting out the fire; job 2! Anyway, ran into some money,went on a spending spree & bought the new chev duramax [issuzu engine]. I need a truck for my work,hauling a bobcat etc. I love the performance of this engine and climbing a hill with a big load, it has power to spare & no smoke. I have run some B20 with no adverse effects, but am wondering what the warranty really covers. Most info i have found about using bio diesel relates to old mechanically controlled injection systems-which are on the way out, except for some low rpm industrial engines.[I did consider installing an old 6v53 detroit in my old truck, they'll burn your old socks]. Any info about duramax/BD issues, please pass it on. BTW, the milleage claims for duramax are true, i get 24 mpg on the freeway @ 72 miles an hour, but at 75+ it drops off to about 20mpg. Thats pretty decent for a 3/4 ton. kimbob ps, if anyone is looking at the jeep liberty crd, be sure to see that you're comfortable in those crappy seats.I'm 6'4 and almost died driving that thing 200 miles, no room for your feet! The transfer case extends into drivers side.
            • Re: Hear me now and listen to me later...

              Mon, February 27, 2006 - 1:10 PM
              www.biodieselfillingstations.co.uk/approvals.htm
              This is the link I was thinking of.
              I remember with some fondness the skit you are referencing, but at this point the Terminator's rhetoric has taken over that part of my mind and I just can't relate any more to the humor intended. I don't mean to be overly sensitive, but it is hard to get some jokes in text and I can understand you better if I'm not offended by things you didn't mean but that I read in your post. I probably would have laughed if I'd seen and heard you in person.
              The fuel used by my aquaintance with the problem worked fine in my 2000 beetle and was sold at the Oasis. Hers was the only undiagnosed problem I've heard of and all I know is that fuel quality was not considered the problem. I regret spreading this rumor because that's all it is at this point.
              • Re: Hear me now and listen to me later...

                Tue, February 28, 2006 - 2:12 PM
                Well thanks for sending the link. With the exception of the Mercedes and possibly the Honda are the only vehicles on that list to meet US DOT standards for import.

                Still nice to see a neat list like that. But bio-d has been a fact of life in Europe for a while now. Unfortuantly while these engines would probably be easiest to add emissions equipment to, it would take a mountain of money to get them into US DOT compliance, unless you where to put a new engine in an old DOT exempt car body and import it.

                Briefly looking over it the EN14214 standard is closest to what FIE wants the ASTM standard to look like.


                As far as the other thing is concerned. I'm done apologizing for your misunderstanding. I have found that no matter what path I choose in life people will be offended no matter what I say or they will take the things I say and bend them out of the intended context to suit their own needs.

                If I had an ego to defend, then perhaps I would, but you know nothing about me. Further I would appreciate it in the future if have any personal problems with me to send me a PM so that we can keep the discussion on-topic.

                The statement in quesion was: "I dont want to start spouting conspiracy theories, but if Spec biodiesel can break your computer engine, then it is a girly man engine, designed by girly men. Chances are the fact the you run the engine will lead to its demise. History has already proven that manufacturing something with tolerances set very high only leads to premature equipment malfunction"

                Which is true if your engine breaks by design of fuel that is within a specification, then its crap engineering. Just like if your write code that crashes when its priority gets lowered or make a machine gun that has such close tolerances that it jams in the heat of battle. Sorry I'm unapologetic its crap, who cares if whatever you design works under perfect circumstances. LIFE HAPPENS and thats why the UL was formed.

                I dont know if you read the spec, but biodiesel within spec will actually make the injection equipment last longer, if the equipment is engineered properly. Biodiesel already EXCEEDS in all the areas that count when compared to diesel. And since petrol diesel is already below FIE specifications 50% of the time, then a fuel that already exceeds the spec for petrol should not in theory break the injection equipment. Viscosity and Lubricity ratios go hand in hand, I dont understand what kind of super engineering trouble FIE is going to have to do to get their collective rears in gear.

                Now if you'll notice in my statement I didnt mention ANYTHING about women who wrench or men who have feminine natures on or off diesel engines. Per fact I dont really give two damns about anyones sexuality. Well that is unless you work for FIE and it takes that kind of statement to put your mechanical womanality or male femininity in question to get you to certify for higher concentrations, instead of putting all this weight on ULSD (Ultra Low Sulphur Diesel), which has even less lubricity than current diesel.

                See thats whats going on in the industry right now. Everyone is putting weight on ULSD solely for emissions reductions, well ULSD by itself is ONLY a 10-15% reduction in emissions by itself. The rest of the reduction in emissions happens by the 3 way Catalytic Converter and Particulate Traps. You see by refusing to certify engines for higher than B5, they are excluding biodiesel from officially being tested for compliance within the Catalyst/Particulate traps. The problem has been with putting Catalyst on diesels has been the high concentrations of sulphur in US diesel. It clogs catalyst very quickly rendering them useless. However most types of bio-diesel have almost undetectable amounts of sulphur in the oil and wouldnt present this problem at all. Bio-diesel by itself can have upto a 84% reduction in emissions, but needs the catalyst to deal with the eleveated NOx emissions.

                This is what leads me to believe that FIE and the oil industry are in bed together. FIE will not engineer or certify for blends higher than spec diesel, although 50% of diesel is not within spec. Now with ULSD they are removing the already pitiful lubricity from diesel to some new unknown level. Well it means quicker wear on this new computer controlled, higher close tolerance equipment that could really use all the lubricity it can get.

                Thats what I mean by girlie man engineering. If its not a conspiracy, then its sheer stupidity. The injection equipments role in emssions reduction can be reduced. IF it means fortfying the injection equipment to handling higher viscosity fuel (the current major claim) and reducing the tolerances by putting cleaner fuel into the engine to start with.

                Simply put GIGO (Garbage In Garbage Out), ULSD is only 10% reduction by iteself, B100 is upto 84% reduction by iteself. Why not create an engine that has the option of being "upgraded" to higher fuel blends of biodiesel?

                I dont have the answer. Only FIE, EMA and the emissions Catalyst people do. I have written them and asked for comment on the questions I've raised in this thread. I havent gotten an answer yet. I have only been able to get in touch with two representatives of the organization that represents all three and all I have gotten so far is the stonewall.

                So it looks like the only folks who are going to certify for higher on their own is going to be VW AG.

Recent topics in "Biodiesel"

Topic Author Replies Last Post
FREE JET FUEL! Runs Great in diesel cars. Mike 21 April 14, 2009
Pickens Plan Action Alert Rocky 3 March 21, 2009
Sheik Says Biofuels Are Prohibited by Islam Rocky 1 February 27, 2009
traveling to Mexico? Bosque 0 February 20, 2009