PontiacBonnevilleClub.com

Your approach is a bit 'preachy' in much the same manner as many spammers that come here from time to time. I know who you are, and know you're not a spammer, but that's how your approach is being percieved. This is not your typical forum, and you can't EXPECT attacks, but your own method of posting may invite them. Particularly when you have no personal interest in Bonnevilles, and only in E85.

I don't care to post my own research because I don't care to push my opinions of E85 on anyone else. I posted my opinions, and I leave it to others to do the same research I did......on their own.

As I told John, I think you're a bit out of market in a Performance-oriented Forum.


FWIW to the regular membership, this is NOT a spammer. However, that's not a stamp of credibility on the information in this topic either. I invite everyone to do their own unbiased research. IF they care to. E85/Ethanol topics are always touchy subjects here, as there are always a very small percentage of overly-passionate fans of it. And just as many over-passionate opponents.

I'm one of the 'somewhat passionate' opponents. Not to the point of pushing my ideas, though.

radomirthegreat wrote:Are we talking about E-85 cars, cars capable of either fuel, or does it not matter? I may just be totally confused.

I'm talking about any vehicle. Pop the hood on 2 cars that are the same model, one that is FFV and one that is gasoline-only. It's not like you're swapping out a gasoline engine for a diesel. They're the same thing, but there are just a few components changed, if more than just the ECU. As manufacturers see that using the same parts for all of the same model (both FFV and gasoline), they may be putting in the same parts, only changing the ECU for those that are FFV. Indeed, most of the time GM and Ford quotes as little as "$100" for the difference between producing an FFV and a gasoline-only vehicle.

http://www.e2.org/jsp/controller?docId= ... ateofunion

http://www.starenvirotech.com/flexfuel.html

That's why there are a growing number of people in the Midwest that are buying the kit that supplants the ECU and running lower-cost E85. With some modifications (high flow air filter, stronger fuel pump, spark plugs), they are attaining 15% lower, or even almost the same, fuel economy on conventional vehicles converted to E85.

willwren wrote:Particularly when you have no personal interest in Bonnevilles, and only in E85.

I do have a personal interest in Bonnevilles. While growing up I rode around in a Bonneville, later drove 2 additional Bonnevilles, and enjoy them very much. I will be driving the Bonneville I bought in 1998 when I'm in Illinois in a month.

Our next family car may be a replacement of the Bonneville, hopefully FFV from the factory.

I may not be an overly-passionate Bonneville enthusiast, but neither am an overly-passionate E85 enthusiast. I have studied the facts (including while getting my Master's degree) and have been wary of the press while discovering the truth. It is a superior fuel and when the right inexpensive modifications are made to a conventional vehicle will provide superior performance.

Gasoline costs over $10 per gallon to each taxpayer in this nation when you factor in having our military in the Middle East and the cost of financing our national debt, much of it due to importing foreign oil. No matter if E85 provides 15% lower fuel economy, or 30%, it is much cheaper and safer as a nation to drive on E85 than on gasoline from imported oil.

Why continue to question my intentions and "overly-passionate", preachy posts? Let's just let others respond if they are doing a conversion or if they have questions (not negativity with no supporting data). Thank you for acknowledging that I am not spamming. Isn't spamming trying to sell a product or putting gibberish up in hopes of crashing a site? That is far from my intentions.

willwren wrote:SacratomatoE85, please don't insult us by assuming we've been swayed by regurgitated press.

My apologies, no insult intended. Just waiting for the sources of the negative opinions to be posted. Or, to see that anyone is actually researching this for their own knowledge with the links I have posted. So far just opinions.

fuelforthesoul1999 wrote:Usually, it is preferred that one edits his post instead of replying to himself. That'll help us.

Please EDIT your posts and don't reply to yourself. Simple forum rules, follow them.

Sacramento, PLEASE stop replying to your own posts. Edit your previous post if nobody has replied.

We have ample un-tapped oil reserves to overcome a great percentage of foreign oil. Part of the 'untapped' issue is strategic. Personally, my biggest beef if I didn't care about performance is that it takes too much petroleum-based energy to produce Ethanol. In fact, it's something like 35% more energy expended than you even get out of Ethanol in the end (to PRODUCE the fuel), and that doesn't even factor in distribution costs (fuel for the trucks to distribute it).

Ethanol is also KNOWN to be impossible to make in the quantities that would be required to convert even 50% of the cars on the road over the next 10 years. This is why most research is in hybrids or fuel cells. Ethanol isn't a fad, but it's also just an interim step that will be replaced in time with alternate forms of energy for automotive use.

willwren wrote:Sacramento, PLEASE stop replying to your own posts.

How am I replying to my own posts? You all are typing responses, and I am quoting your response and responding to them. If I were replying to my own posts, I would quote my own posts. Then I would be breaking the rules. No, I am replying to your posts, so this argument is nonsensical.

SE85, the idea of using E85 as a racing fuel has been tossed around on 3800Pro for a couple years now, and several members are in the process of experimenting with it. Every single one of them acknowledges the fact that E85 is a lower-energy fuel, thus requiring more to produce the same power. This is a proven fact. The only advantage for them is that it is an extremely high octane rating. That is the only benefit to the individual. Considering the expense of conversion, 110 race gas is cheaper.

Most of the frequent posters on this forum are versed in the pros and cons of E85. You are trying to sell US on E85, YOU post links.


BTW, he means do not make two posts in a row. If you have something new, and no reply has been made, edit your previous post to add whatever it is.

willwren wrote:We have ample un-tapped oil reserves to overcome a great percentage of foreign oil. Part of the 'untapped' issue is strategic. Personally, my biggest beef if I didn't care about performance is that it takes too much petroleum-based energy to produce Ethanol. In fact, it's something like 35% more energy expended than you even get out of Ethanol in the end (to PRODUCE the fuel), and that doesn't even factor in distribution costs (fuel for the trucks to distribute it).

Respectfully, the Big Oil companies have plenty of access to the oil reserves and they are not keeping up on production, nor refining. Ethanol refining is making up for the inadequate gasoline refining. Look at what is happening right now with gasoline prices in the Gulf, where much of our gasoline is refined, due to the hurricane. The prices would be much higher without ethanol refining. You buy gasoline 15% lower (60 cents cheaper) because of ethanol adding to the fuel supply.

http://www.zarco66.com/news.html

In fact, ethanol provides 1.3 units (+30%) of energy per energy unit expended. On the other hand, gasoline provides only 0.8 units (-20%) of energy per energy unit expended.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/AER721/

This links from 2005 states 1.24 units for ethanol, but the newer refineries are more efficient and have upped that to 1.3.

GonneVille wrote:SE85, the idea of using E85 as a racing fuel has been tossed around on 3800Pro for a couple years now, and several members are in the process of experimenting with it.

Eureka! A response regarding the original posted question finally. Thank you.

These racers have found that the E85 is much CHEAPER than using 110 gasoline, and are modifying their pride-and-joy race cars to use E85 more efficiently.

http://www.norcalevo.net/forum/index.ph ... =32501.120

According to the US Department of Energy website, Ethanol has 34% less energy than gasoline. Yet it costs only 16% less. That means total cost per mile is worse for E85.

That's a pretty credible source, I hope.

AGAIN. Please stop replying BACK TO BACK. EDIT your previous post if nobody else has replied rather than posting consecutively.

SacramentoE85 wrote:

GonneVille wrote:SE85, the idea of using E85 as a racing fuel has been tossed around on 3800Pro for a couple years now, and several members are in the process of experimenting with it.

Eureka! A response regarding the original posted question finally. Thank you.

These racers have found that the E85 is much CHEAPER than using 110 gasoline, and are modifying their pride-and-joy race cars to use E85 more efficiently.

http://www.norcalevo.net/forum/index.ph ... =32501.120

You're ignoring the rest of my post. The cost of converting one of our cars to run on E85 is worth about several seasons worth of racing gas for most of us.
The guys that are modifying their cars either have lots of disposable income, or are backed by or employed by aftermarket companies or garages.

Ohh......I have my choice of FOUR stations providing E85 in the State of Oregon. The nearest is an hour away:

City Name Address
Eugene SeQuential Bio Fuels 86714 McVay Hwy
Milwaukie Olson Brothers 14115 SE McLoughlin Blvd
Portland Bob's Automotive & Gas 9694 SE 82nd Ave
Portland State Motor Pool 6400 N Cutter

This is the most current up-to-date list.

willwren wrote:Ethanol is also KNOWN to be impossible to make in the quantities that would be required to convert even 50% of the cars on the road over the next 10 years. This is why most research is in hybrids or fuel cells. Ethanol isn't a fad, but it's also just an interim step that will be replaced in time with alternate forms of energy for automotive use.

Correct, kind of--there is no way we could produce enough corn to replace 50% of our need. However, every month there are cellulosic and waste ethanol plants being constructed. These are supposed to ramp up over the next 5 years and within 10 years produce more than what corn will. In 20 to 40 years we could be using primarily ethanol from many ample sources in our internal combustion engines. So why not keep positive on this fuel now?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 090917.htm

http://www.ncfar.org/Apr11Bioenergy.ppt#440,1,Replacing Imported Petroleum with Renewable Fuel Ethanol

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:Ml ... d=10&gl=us

I am more "both-and" than "either-or." I would like to be driving a flex fuel, active fuel management, hybrid plug-in right now. Bring them all on.

For now, fuel cells and hydrogen are both pipe-dreams. They both emit pollution when originally produced, and are nowhere near economical or available. I'm not against them, it's just that they aren't feasible for now, nor anytime soon.

Actually, there are fuel-cell vehicles on the road right now. Have been for several months. And all major manufacturers plan to release vehicles powered by fuel cells within the next 5 years.

And we know Ethanol can't supply our needs NOW, much less then. So why would I convert my vehicle (either of them) to a fuel that costs more per mile, produces less power per gallon, and I have to drive an hour to fuel from ONE of only FOUR stations in the entire State to refuel? Not to mention the cost of conversion in the first place, knowing Ethanol isn't the permanent solution to alternative fuel sources, and may actually not even stick around in the long-term?

No thanks.

GonneVille wrote:You're ignoring the rest of my post. The cost of converting one of our cars to run on E85 is worth about several seasons worth of racing gas for most of us.
The guys that are modifying their cars either have lots of disposable income, or are backed by or employed by aftermarket companies or garages.

Sorry, I don't try to ignore, just need to explain each point on its own to keep it simple.

Most of the ECU work-around kits are $300 to $500. Additional modifications to the car to capture the higher performance of E85 can be made, and depending on how much one has to spend, one can do more or less. A stronger fuel pump and high-flow air filter can't cost too much, and that seems to be a lot of what's needed.

Soooo, if the vehicles can be manufactured by the OEM's this way in the first place, there would be little or no costs to the end consumer. They're already doing it in Brazil and other countries.

willwren wrote:Actually, there are fuel-cell vehicles on the road right now. Have been for several months. And all major manufacturers plan to release vehicles powered by fuel cells within the next 5 years.

Are you speaking of the Honda FCX? How much more does that cost over a regular vehicle? And how far does it travel, and how does it compare in utility to a sedan (Bonneville) or SUV (Tahoe)?

Your list is highly optimistic.

I'll get LESS power and WORSE mileage if I don't tune the car properly. Burning PCM's cost money. Fuel pumps cost money and are not easy to change.

Factor in labor and all the hidden costs, and it goes well into 4 digits not including the change. Pro-E85 folks have a bad habit of grossly understating the cost of conversion. Sure, you can do all the labor yourself for 300-500 in PARTS, but that only allows you to USE the fuel. Not get the most out of it.

That's like selling a gasoline powered vehicle new off the lot with retarded ignition timing and telling the consumer that they can spend more for a custom tuned PCM to get the most out of the fuel.

Let's be practical. After the SIGNIFICANT cost of conversion, more cost per mile, and the nearest fueling station an hour away, what's the benefit again? I see you're in the same fueling predicament in Sacratomato. I looked it up. (I'm from there, BTW).

So I have:

Spend money on the car.
Spend time installing the conversion crap.
Spend more per mile in fuel costs.
Drive an hour to refuel.
Lose power.

willwren wrote:And we know Ethanol can't supply our needs NOW, much less then. So why would I convert my vehicle (either of them) to a fuel that costs more per mile, produces less power per gallon, and I have to drive an hour to fuel from ONE of only FOUR stations in the entire State to refuel? Not to mention the cost of conversion in the first place, knowing Ethanol isn't the permanent solution to alternative fuel sources, and may actually not even stick around in the long-term?
No thanks.

Conversion to Flex Fuel just means that you can still choose to use either gasoline, or E85, as pricing and availability permits. If you're in the Midwest, you can find several nearby E85 pumps to fill up with (especially Chicago, Twin Cities, etc.).

http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/ethanol ... tions.html

Try clicking on one of those Midwest states! Don't worry, the West Coast will get more and more E85 pumps soon, when CARB finds that there's nothing to be so scared about...

How permanent does this solution have to be? Are you going to drive your vehicle for 5-7 years, or for the next 30 years? If waiting 30 years for hydrogen and fuel cells to compete in cost, distance, and utility, it will cost a whole lot in maintenance and upkeep to keep your conventional gasoline vehicle going that long.

Both of my vehicles will still be on the road in 10 years and they were new in 1993 and 1995. Neither will have significant maintenance costs in that time.

By that time, there will be a better solution than E85 for my daily driver. In the meantime, I get 32mpg highway. And I still have gobs of horsepower and torque when I want it.

You ignored my post above. I'm curious about your response:

So I have:

Spend money on the car.
Spend time installing the conversion crap.
Spend more per mile in fuel costs.
Drive an hour to refuel.
Lose power.

I'm very curious in your reply to that.

so how long in will it take to get our money back on the conversion to a SUBSIDIZED fuel?