Unleaded petrol mixed with Diesel in a Chrysler 2.5CRD

About half and half. Franchise parts are all genuine while other makes are mostly, but not all, pattern.

Shorts conveniently say water ingress which we know is not correct. We will not argue with that diagnosis for reasons which should be obvious. Our own fitters' opinion is that the valves stuck due to the high volume of EGR in these engines and the gunk that builds up on the inlet valves as a result. Many of those Mercedes CDi engines meet the same fate by all accounts. Shorts have three failures in now including ours. The air filter was absolutely dry with crisp leaves in the housing, yet they say water ingress LOL.

Huw

Probably is their wording - of course, since everyone else out there is doing the same thing, these bozos don't realize the intimidation factor is gone in a puff of smoke.

Ted

Hmm.. are you really sure of this?

In the US "premium" gasoline costs quite a bit more than "regular" I cannot recall a single time in the last 20 years (have I really been driving that long, Jesus I'm old!) that I have mistakenly fueled with Premuim than Regular, and thus had to pay the extra money for gasoline that is pretty much worthless. And keep in mind also that I live in a No-Self_service state so not only do I have to pay close attention to the minimum-wager who is doing the fueling, the minimum-wager has a vested interest in selecting the more expensive grade of fuel! (during this time I also have owned a motorcycle and ridden it as a daily commuting vehicle, and the attendants don't even try fueling bikes - that I do myself)

And that's just making a mistake between 2 different grades of gasoline, that come out of the same hose. The thought of doing it with Diesel, which comes out of a completely different hose althgether, one that's painted green not black, is even more farfetched.

Ted

tank capacities are often different for diesel and petrol models - so I assume the tank is different also

The message from "Ted Mittelstaedt" contains these words:

What's that all about then?

Oh... I was about to set off for Wales...

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling

We'll meet before the Status Quo concert in Cardiff this afternoon.

Huw who is going to rock all over the world tonight.

(and "...harmful over a long period.") That's what I was getting at. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

I was well aware it was your wife. However, if you keep referring to it as a petrol tank, you're likely to make the same mistake. :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

I know you're being facestious, but ironically, that's the sad part of it. If the automakers were to try it, they would in fact use cheap plastic or pot metal like they did on certain engine gears and sprockets back in the 60's (on the Vega I believe it was) - basically a materials experiment run at the consumer's expense. That is the whole problem. Precisely *because* it would be a system that should last a lifetime with absolutely no problem, they would think they could make it as cheaply as possible - ala the GM gasoline V-8 converted to diesel.

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

That wouldn't work - it relies on human attention. You'd have to poke-a-yoke it (Japanese term - not sure how to spell it).

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

Bingo! :)

Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x')

In message , Ted Mittelstaedt writes

I agree it's hard to believe but have a look at these two reports, dated February 2004 and August 2005 respectively. The February one refers to both petrol into diesel and diesel into petrol mis-fuelling

Extract: 'The AA Motoring Trust says the confusion affects an estimated

120,000 drivers a year who then face a clean-up and repair bill of up to £3,000 - collectively that means millions of pounds'

Extract: 'The problem is seriously disabling about 155,000 diesel cars a year. The RAC attended 50,000 cases last year, the Automobile Association 44,000 and Green Flag more than 6,000; UK plc suffered

54,000 company diesel car misfuelling incidents''

It's more to do with the return from the pump filling the tank with swarf. Although by the time you've replaced pump, lines, injectors, tank & filters the cost of starting the engine & not starting the engine are beginning to look similar. & why you can't filter the swarf is a good question, if the filter lets through particles big enough to wreck the engine then filling up on a dusty day or near a steelworks will destroy the vehicle.

The message from Peter contains these words:

I wonder how many of them are repeat offenders?

IF running 3 miles on a 5:1 dilution of diesel to gasoline can ruin an engine, then the engine was designed by MORONS and isn't worthy to be on the road anyway.

If it were mine, I'd drain and flush the tank and hope for the best. And if damage occured, I'd never buy another common-rail diesel again in my lifetime.

"Land of the free", huh?

No.

And I'm sure the owner doesn't give a rat's ass about you peoples' pointless opinions on the value or aesthetics of his car either. Got anything useful to contribute?

Well, it doesn't look good for HONDA diesels if the above is true, but in my mind "Honda" and "diesel" should never be in the same sentence anyway. In general, common-rail diesels may be a bit more delicate than a proper diesel should be, but I imagine that will be rectified as the technology advances. I can't imagine Cat, Detroit Diesel, and Cummins (all of whom are now selling common-rail engines) letting their reputations get to sullied by sensitive engines regardless of what other manufacturers will tolerate.

What looks worse is fuel prices right now- in my area diesel is about $.50/gallon MORE expensive than mid-grade unleaded :-/