Jump to content

Allch Chcar

Full Member
  • Content Count

    207
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Allch Chcar


  1. Unfortunately the Focus is too "soft" and only has a 5spd with worse FE. Being a FFV would only make my decision harder as I am stuck between a Mazda3 (they offer a 6spd manual, hatchback, with better FE) or the New FRS/BRZ. I did talk to someone knowledgeable about Ethanol but he got a phone call after we had checked all the vehicles. I mentioned they usually have a FFV badge and the #7 Vin would be K. He just checked for the yellow fuel caps.  ;)

     

    I'll try to use that tactic with the local dealers. We have E85 in every major village so there is no excuse. I'm going to do that to the Import dealers too.  ;D

     


  2. Gentlemen, it's the profit incentive. 8) Right now E85 is nothing but a niche, premium grade product and they are selling it at a premium. I don't see any profit in trumpeting the low prices right now with Ethanol prices dropping, even if they are dropping slower than they should. Too low is bad for the industry. If the high price they can sell it for doesn't bring in more E85 pumps, especially blender pumps, than there isn't much hope for E85...  >:( Maybe in a couple months when summer prices are in full effect if E85 doesn't drop accordingly.

     

    If the price spread drops below 85% I'm going to try talking my parents into allowing me to splash blend in the "Personnel Carrier." If I had my own vehicle, I would have bought E85 today instead of regular.  :'(


  3. Not an expert BTW. I don't know of any Rotary specific problems with Ethanol but the early years, '04-'05, had inadequate oiling systems and were prone to oil pump clogging or premature failure from lack of oil. They do not appreciate running without engine oil, it's absolutely necessary for the apex seals. The easiest solution is pre-mix to prevent an issue, but you could just as well check the state of the oil pumps and maintain proper engine oil levels.

     

    IMHO the Rotary lends itself to Ethanol simply because it prefers to run rich. I don't know if it is specifically because the combustion chamber is so wide or what but


  4. Certainly Thumpin. There has been plenty of progress with Ethanol, especially in the last 10 years, and it still has room for improvement!

     

    point taken... at least I prefaced it that "I thought it was truman..."  Twain would have been my second guess...  reguardless of who originated it... it is very true.  If you manipulate the variables, and skew your interpretation... you can find/create stats to proove/disproove about anything!

     

    If you take something merely on it's face value, you're ignoring it's true value.

    Statistics are merely a tool, how they are acquired and how they are used is what corrupts them.


  5. Pimental's work is originally from the 70's and it's not like there was another concrete source for Ethanol efficiency from that time. So like it or not he is most likely where the OP advertisers got their "improved efficiency numbers."

     

    And it wasn't Truman that originally said that quote. Mark Twain started it by "paraphrasing" a British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli, that never reportedly said such a thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics.

     

    “The problem with quotes on the Internet is that you can't always be sure of their authenticity.” ~ Abraham Lincoln


  6. It pisses me off seeing BP advertise "moving forward" or "going green" since it is just green washing. They even changed their logo to the ugly green/yellow star! I know they are an American owned company, but I have very little reason to believe their marketing department compared with their record. I haven't looked it up in awhile but BP is far from a forward thinking company in my mind. Liquid coal anyone?

     

    I do not hold the Gulf Oil spill as a black mark on BP as much as a Government oversight. They shouldn't have drilled that deep.


  7. They should be saying no gasoline-only vehicles next year, and that any new ethanol FFV only needs to certify emissions on gasoline, and that if they simply add ethanol FFV capability to an existing certified gas calibration, no further testing need be done.  We all know ethanol emissions are lowered compared to gas, even with your typical backyard conversion.  Why even test it?

     

    I also don't understand why they're still even mentioning methanol.  All I can think of is that someone must be making money on it.

     

    5 years sounds more reasonable than next year. Although that should have been enacted 10+ years ago IMHO. If we waited for market forces to do it we would be looking at who knows how many years of the same old same old.

     

    There isn't a big corporate push for Methanol if that's what you mean.

     

    quote=James48843 "It is simple.  The legislation that keeps popping up was originally written in the early 1990's, when people didn't know if methanol was going to be a descent fuel or not. The politicians who are introducing the legislation don't know the difference.  They are simply taking legislation words written 20 years ago and recycling them. 

     

    That's all there is to it."

     

    Alternative energy is not a new concept and the big players haven't really changed. If anything they're not excluding any single source with the legislation. The only bad part about recycling the old legislation is that it wasn't accepted in the first place.


  8. I don't get the call for methanol.. adding methanol capability is expensive compared to just Gasoline and Ethanol. Clearly "someone" has a financial interest otherwise the methanol nonsense would have ended a long time ago...otherwise good job ..keep pushing to ensure all vehicles are FFVS

     

    I know from reading that in the early 90's OEMs were using E85 and M85 in FFVs. The price to add Methanol compatibility was said to be around $50 onto the $100 for Ethanol compatibility. Obviously, that campaign fizzled out with the price of Oil dropping.

     

    I'm morally opposed to it coming back since Methanol fumes and exhaust emissions are outright toxic when burned as opposed to being carcinogenic or simply bad for your health. And the cheapest source is Natural Gas/Methane. But it is an alternative to building special natural gas cars, and then the natural gas users wouldn't be dependent on one fuel source or a small sub-market of vehicles.

     

    I would support this bill if only because it is going to get us to a more open fuel market instead of a monopolistic market. I would probably finish reading the bill before actually voting though. The wording could make or break this.


  9. I couldn't find anything that recently referenced this story, perhaps a repost?

     

    Congressmen Promote Open Fuel Standard

     

    ...National Security Advisor Robert McFarlane, outlined their Open Fuel Standard Act (HR 1687) which would set a deadline of 2017 for automakers to stop making cars that run on only gasoline. After than point, all American made cars must be either flex fuel (capable of burning gasoline, ethanol or methanol or any combination of these), or powered by natural gas, hydrogen, biodiesel, plug-in electric, or fuel cell.

     

    Obviously the commentary is eating up the Methanol and Ethanol FFV bit. And I am sure this has been brought up in congress several times already.

     

    Is 5 years enough time for this to happen? Chrysler, Ford, and GM have been adding FFVs for awhile now so is that an unreasonable length of a time line? Or perhaps this is simply too far for government to go and therefore just a show a power?

×
×
  • Create New...