Evidently you have a bone to pick with car manufacturers' and dealers' positions on recommended materials and practices to have a car running right. This is all well and good.
However, to use pop documentation and a flourish pro lingo to make a point is not my cup of tea. In the case of fuels, lubricating fluids, and petroleum and lab derivatives used by the automotive industry and ancillary trades, there are two definite facing positions that, except for abstract technical papers exchanged by peers or considered peer professionals, either favor the particular oil company, or the car manufacturer/prep/mechanic/part vendor.
Nevertheless you make good points with assertions that perhaps have no statistical reach, but are endorsements to specific aftermarket developments. The weakness is in the isolated cases that are offered as proof and the interest in defending a boxed point of view.
Call me old fashioned, but in such cases I prefer the Saint Thomas method.
The AIAM is pop documentation? That's news to me. Bosch and Aston Martin are members.
I have no gripes with dealers as long as they don't screw me. So far, I haven't found one. And I have no gripes with car manufacturers, except when they offer unusual recommendations, such as maintaining less than 2000 RPM in a knock-sensor equipped engine when using lower octane.
When the knock sensor data causes ignition timing to retard to its limit, a knock sensor related code should be thrown. But, having ran 87 octane on WOT several occasions in the past, I have not seen a single code. It does not take a genius to figure out that pre-ignition with the volatile ethanol is the real issue. And, it does not take a NASCAR engine tuner to figure out that we have many choices in spark plug design, such as colder heat range, or even non-projected noses. After all, the basis engine is designed first, and then the appropriate spark plug is found through trial and error by the same engineers.
I have no bone to pick, except when people like lkchris starts his harassment, so I hit back. The information I'm posting here should be useful to everyone, as the risk of pre-ignition using E10 is real. The risk becomes even more real as E10 gas (which is actually 110 octane ethanol mixed with 89 octane gasoline) deteriorates, leaving your 91 octane gas to become lower octane as the weeks go by.
So, rather than constantly interrupting discussion, people like lkchris should read more. Btw, here's where lkchris first got offended by me, and has since made it his hobby to occasionally harass me. At the time, I had no idea that he was a stealer. But that's what happens when you a sheep in wolf's clothing. He's even tried followed me to another site to harass me.
As for the "boxed point of view," it seems to be to be the complete opposite. I'm thinking outside the box, to address something that the big giants haven't yet. That's understandable; they can't move without thinking about liabilities, hurting international politics about ethanol, pacts and disagreements with trade groups and associations, etc.... But I have the freedom to explore and share my findings and experiences with others, with the hope of receiving constructive feedback.
So, all you hoity toity defenders of some ridiculous truth from the bible of mercedes, why not let us tinkers do our tinkering in peace?