Here's an idea for the politicians and GM

[Camino LS6]

Instead of cancelling all of these zeta cars, what if GM petitioned for a special CAFE exemption in exchange for building them all as E-100 Ethanol only? The cars could be optimised with high compression engines and sold at a healthy premium. Not only would they be clean and powerful, and running on domestic fuel, but they could be ambassadors for the expansion of Ethanol's popularity. The demand and buzz would help to drive the infrastructure for E-85 and ethanol in general forward at an increased pace. The cars would then be able to be offered in E-85 form as soon as certain levels of E-85 availability are reached. The other OEMs could do the same.

These cars could be the carrot, and the Smarts and Aveos the stick.

And the market could drive the change instead of the government.

[Satty]

Expanding ethanol will cause a bit of a problem because, unlike oil, it cannot be shipped via pipe. Ethanol has to be moved via truck or train, so getting more of it around the country is going to bring a new set of challenges. I really doubt ethanol is going to be the long term alternative. And if thats the way other people (GM, those in D.C.) think, then they aren't going to go any more out of the way for a stopgap technology.

[Camino LS6]

Expanding ethanol will cause a bit of a problem because, unlike oil, it cannot be shipped via pipe. Ethanol has to be moved via truck or train, so getting more of it around the country is going to bring a new set of challenges. I really doubt ethanol is going to be the long term alternative. And if thats the way other people (GM, those in D.C.) think, then they aren't going to go any more out of the way for a stopgap technology.

Ethanol has more potential than anything else to have an immediate and measureable effect.

And, the govt. has just mandated a massive expansion of its production. There are over 1400 stations already selling E-85, a number which is expected to double within a year. Also, GM alone has already put 2.5 million E-85 capable cars on the road, and Ford has been building its FFvs for how long now?

Corn ethanol is certainly a stopgap, but cellulosic ethanol need not be.

[Intrepidation]

As I've said before what's the problem with putting fuel efficient engines in the Zetas? Hybrids, V6's, even turbo 4s?

[Camino LS6]

As I've said before what's the problem with putting fuel efficient engines in the Zetas? Hybrids, V6's, even turbo 4s?

Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs once the infrastructure expanded enough.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

[Drew Dowdell]

Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

I dunno Camino, that E85 Saab Biopower 4-banger sounded mighty fine to me.

[Camino LS6]

I dunno Camino, that E85 Saab Biopower 4-banger sounded mighty fine to me.

Nothing wrong with that either. That's the beauty of this idea, we wouldn't have to give anything up - except the oil we wouldn't use.

[Intrepidation]

Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs once the infrastructure expanded enough.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

Not really, you see the output numbers Ford is claiming for their EconBoost engines, that make plenty of power. If you must have a V8 it should be limited to a very low volume trim level. But it wouldn't matter to you anyone since it's got 4 doors so it's not like it would effect your purchasing decisions.

As Satty pointed out, ethanol isn't easy to just magically make massive quantities of and ship all over the place with the same speed and efficiency of oil. It's not a long term solution, IMO.

Would you rather have a RWD Zeta with powerful and fuel efficient 4's and 6's or just have another FWD car with 4's and 6's? I say leave the V8's for low volume models like the G8, or if they are made available on high volume models, keep the number of V8 equipped ones low.

Edited January 18, 2008 by Dodgefan

[Camino LS6]

Not really, you see the output numbers Ford is claiming for their EconBoost engines, that make plenty of power. If you must have a V8 it should be limited to a very low volume trim level. But it wouldn't matter to you anyone since it's got 4 doors so it's not like it would effect your purchasing decisions.

As Satty pointed out, ethanol isn't easy to just magically make massive quantities of and ship all over the place with the same speed and efficiency of oil. It's not a long term solution, IMO.

Would you rather have a RWD Zeta with powerful and fuel efficient 4's and 6's or just have another FWD car with 4's and 6's? I say leave the V8's for low volume models like the G8, or if they are made available on high volume models, keep the number of V8 equipped ones low.

V8s are going to be low volume in cars whether or not you plan it that way. As for distirbution of ethanol that's not hard to handle. The trucks that deliver it can run on ethanol itself and it will be made more locally than gasoline, because feedstock to produce it is literally everywhere. The same plants will likely be able to use similar processes to produce other biofuels such as hydrogen going forward, so an investment in ethanol infrastructure also serves the cause of these other fuels. Over 100 new ethanol plants are already in the planning stages as we speak. No giant pipelines nor huge refineries and ports and supertankers required. Think differently and it is easy to see the feasibility here.

As for the cars themselves, more choices is always better than less. Why argue for making sacrifices instead of advancements?

Don't forget that this will help put a dent in the obscene amount of money we send to the oil producers which is allowing them to gain influence over our premier financial institutions as we speak! We are financing our own destruction. What's the total for a year? I believe it is something like $450 billion.

Why not go for the positive?

In the end this isn't about the V8s themselves, but about driving this new fuel forward into regular acceptance. They are the lure to sway some opinion, and I'd love to see enthusiasts in the vanguard of the switch to alternative fuels, wouldn't you?

[Camino LS6]

Here are some side benefits:

- garbage can be used to make ethanol (think of the landfill space saved)

- it will spur domestic industry and create jobs

- by -products of the process are also useful and marketable

- widespread acceptance will lower the price of oil itself

And that's just a start.

[Drew Dowdell]

Here are some side benefits:

- garbage can be used to make ethanol (think of the landfill space saved)

- it will spur domestic industry and create jobs

- by -products of the process are also useful and marketable

- widespread acceptance will lower the price of oil itself

And that's just a start.

+ It will decentralize the fuel production in this country.

[Camino LS6]

It would not have to be restricted to V8s and zeta.

Imagine high-compression v6s and 4s that make big power used the same way...

[loki]

Here are some side benefits:

- garbage can be used to make ethanol (think of the landfill space saved)

- it will spur domestic industry and create jobs

- by -products of the process are also useful and marketable

- widespread acceptance will lower the price of oil itself

And that's just a start.

hey, this sounds just like renewable diesel they make in Carthage MO, and it can detoxify garbage too.

but... cellulosic is viable, corn isn't... look at how it's affected beef prices, milk prices and such.

[Z-06]

Just a wierd thought, by putting the news of canceling what actual enthusiast crave for, is GM bringing out best of our ideas and use them for free?

IK mean evern since we have seen our beloved cars get tanked, we have been doing some brainstorming discussion regarding everything for their survival. May be PCS is their messenger and instigator of our thoughts.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs once the infrastructure expanded enough.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

Ethanol is a much better fuel for high performance cars anyway.

I'm really hoping that someday my fleet of cars can run on straight Ethanol, but my fear is that we'll all be stuck driving stupid assed electric cars.

My only other hope is BMW and their Hydrogen program. They were quoted once about NEVER abandoning the ICE because their division is about performance. (Hence the hydrogen ICE program)

Guess I might eventually be a BMW man. (Not entirely a bad thing :AH-HA_wink:)

[Camino LS6]

For me, hydrogen ICEs are the final solution and I am very thankful to BMW for pursuing this.

Ethanol, however, can start happening in a big way right now.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

Wrong for the car, especially at the top of the model range.

With an established ethanol infrastructure, there would be no need for such compromise. In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing all high-performance cars eventually migrate to ethanol. It is a market segment that could be supplied very well without needing to resort to gasoline. The same idea could work for trucks and large SUVs once the infrastructure expanded enough.

Change the fuel, not the cars.

I disagree..

Promote the flagship vehciles as GREEN and INNOVATIVE.

Example: "Want to still drive a nice car AND save the environment? At GM, we have the solution for you!"

But, of course, the V8s will still be optional.

[Z-06]

I disagree..

Promote the flagship vehciles as GREEN and INNOVATIVE.

Example: "Want to still drive a nice car AND save the environment? At GM, we have the solution for you!"

But, of course, the V8s will still be optional.

I agree. The V-8 and Green car should be top of the line. Nothing is more confusing to greenies than ambiguity. Look at Toy. Should they praise for Prius or Bash for the turd.

GM can foray both as an appliance and a performance company.

[Camino LS6]

I disagree..

Promote the flagship vehciles as GREEN and INNOVATIVE.

Example: "Want to still drive a nice car AND save the environment? At GM, we have the solution for you!"

But, of course, the V8s will still be optional.

I don't see where we disagree.

Aren't we saying the same thing?

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I don't see where we disagree.

Aren't we saying the same thing?

You were saying that I4 and V6 should not be in these cars because they are flagships. (At least that's what I thought)

If GM really wanted to GAIN SHARE and establish itself as a leader, it would strive to continue to let people have their cake and eat it too, while the other automakers downsize.

But no, that's too practical of a solution for GM to ever understand, I guess.

[Camino LS6]

You were saying that I4 and V6 should not be in these cars because they are flagships. (At least that's what I thought)

If GM really wanted to GAIN SHARE and establish itself as a leader, it would strive to continue to let people have their cake and eat it too, while the other automakers downsize.

But no, that's too practical of a solution for GM to ever understand, I guess.

Ah, now I see.

I should clarify. I don't think the cars should be without the V8 option, the car would appear lame without it. The V6 is a no-brainer and needs to be available - not so much the I4, zetas are too big for that. The V6 should not be part of the top trim IMHO.

[siegen]

I am hesitant to fully accept Ethanol. I am planning on doing a report on it for my Biology class, and I'm going to focus on the emissions side of Ethanol. As of right now, I have only heard various sources loosely quote that Ethanol burning has close to as harmful emissions as gasoline. I hope I can find solid evidence on it either way.

I don't see internal combustion engines as the future, regardless of if they're burning hydrogen or ethanol. Electric motors seem to be more effective for the size and weight. Think about it, electric motors have only seen real widespread use in cars for less than a decade. Imagine if they had 100 years of development and full market implementation.

[Camino LS6]

I am hesitant to fully accept Ethanol. I am planning on doing a report on it for my Biology class, and I'm going to focus on the emissions side of Ethanol. As of right now, I have only heard various sources loosely quote that Ethanol burning has close to as harmful emissions as gasoline. I hope I can find solid evidence on it either way.

I don't see internal combustion engines as the future, regardless of if they're burning hydrogen or ethanol. Electric motors seem to be more effective for the size and weight. Think about it, electric motors have only seen real widespread use in cars for less than a decade. Imagine if they had 100 years of development and full market implementation.

Don't take this the wrong way, but I hope to be dead before electric motors take over.

[CARBIZ]

I am hesitant to fully accept Ethanol. I am planning on doing a report on it for my Biology class, and I'm going to focus on the emissions side of Ethanol. As of right now, I have only heard various sources loosely quote that Ethanol burning has close to as harmful emissions as gasoline. I hope I can find solid evidence on it either way.

I don't see internal combustion engines as the future, regardless of if they're burning hydrogen or ethanol. Electric motors seem to be more effective for the size and weight. Think about it, electric motors have only seen real widespread use in cars for less than a decade. Imagine if they had 100 years of development and full market implementation.

First of all, electric vehicles have been around for more than 100 years and have been developed (see golf carts!). Secondly, there are two major forces at work at this juncture in time pulling at the auto industry: the impending oil crisis (see China, Terror Threat of the Week, etc.) and/or the greenhouse gas/carbon scandal. This has the potential to be a Perfect Storm for the auto industry, worse than the crises that hit Detroit in the mid-70s.

Ethanol is not about saving the environment. Ethanol is about stretching existing oil reserves with home-grown solutions. One of the challenges facing the Alberta Tar Sands is the fact that they actually require massive amounts of natural gas to extract the oil. This is only going to be a nightmare for the oil industry, if carbon taxes start kicking in. In fact, the Alberta government and the oil industry is actually looking into possible nuclear power as an alternative to power the oil industry there.

Electric cars are not necessarily a solution either; in fact, potentially they create a worse environmental problem if the electricity generated for your vehicle comes from 'dirty coal' or natural gas generators. Electric vehicles run on electricity generated by nuclear power plants would save our atmosphere, but then the matter of disposing of the spent fuel rods creates another entire future nightmare scenario.

Ethanol, is at best, a stop gap measure. Electric cars would seem to be the future, but most jurisdictions (Ontario especially!) simply could not handle an entire switch over of personal vehicles to electric any time in the near future. Although I suspect there will be amazing technologies that will stretch the life of the internal combustion engine, inevitably we will move away from it. Nearer in the future will be the virtual death of the V-8 engine and large vehicles as personal transportation. Like it or not, we lived in a bubble that started in the late '80s and lasted until about 3 years ago. We are back on a track that began in the mid-70s, with respect to the environment and fuel consumption. We will be moving toward smaller vehicles, lighter vehicles, smaller engines and more regulation from all levels. THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT IS GOING TO BE. You can move to an ice flow, but otherwise, we will all have to adapt.

My first car was a '67 Polara. I learned to drive on my uncle's '62 Plymouth. I had my first sexual experience in a '58 Plymouth. You guys don't need to tell me about the thrill of a fire-breathing V-8 or doing 'wheelies' in a parking lot. Been there done that. But times have changed. They are changing. I watch Barrett-Jackson in envy at all the beautiful Detroit metal still out there, but more and more personal vehicles are becoming complex, expensive and dangerous. Drivers are idiots. Governments are greedy. People are selfish. A lot of converging social and technological changes are going to force us in a direction that will not appeal to many on this Board.

In a democracy, rarely is everyone happy.

[enzl]

There's nothing that dictates a different form of propulsion results in a less fun vehicle...

V8's can be highly efficient---whether via cylinder deactivation, hybridization or even diesel power.

Until we figure out how to be less dependent upon our enemies via innovation, we've got to deal with the political BS that is the CAFE standards (as Congress is afraid to tax gas like Europe).

I still don't understand how Zeta somehow gets screwed--4's/6's/diesels & the occasional V8 shouldn't be that big a deal--but I don't get alot of decisions at the tubes.

[thegriffon]

Ethanol is a clean-burning fuel. Unlike gasoline it is a pure substance, not a mixture of different hydrocarbons. It does not contain sulfur and other contaminants or other impurities, nor does it produce particulates (soot).

[Camino LS6]

The bottom line is that Ethanol is the most viable alternative we have, we need to move to it as quickly as possible. No other propulsion technology or alternative fuel can move as many cars away from oil as quickly as ethanol can. Is ethanol the be all and end all? No, of course not, but it can and should be the first definitive step away from oil. When we have several million cars and trucks running on it regularly, the inexorable move from oil will have begun in earnest. Therefore, ethanol must be our initial focus and have our full support.

We no longer use muskets to fight wars, but the "shot heard 'round the world" was fired with one. Think of ethanol in those terms.

[Teh Ricer Civic!]

Unless research on harnessing ethanol from algae is successful, we simply do not have the farmland necessary for E100 vehicles. If we were to pursue Ethanol, many farmers would switch to growing crops used for Ethanol since that would net them the most money, driving edible food production down and price up.

Ethanol is fine for a temporary additive to gasoline, but other fuel routes are necessary.

[FUTURE_OF_GM]

I've said it for years:

Hydrogen is where it's at.

Imagine going to your local gas station and fueling your V8 G8 GXP with the very same hydrogen that your neighbors Chevy Volt runs on.

Both are zero emission vehicles and enthusiasts can still have their fun.

But alas, I'm sure americans are too dumb to live with such a practicle solution.

[haypops]

I've said it for years:

Hydrogen is where it's at.

Imagine going to your local gas station and fueling your V8 G8 GXP with the very same hydrogen that your neighbors Chevy Volt runs on.

Both are zero emission vehicles and enthusiasts can still have their fun.

But alas, I'm sure americans are too dumb to live with such a practicle solution.

The University of Texas at Austin has a hydrogen filling station that converts natural gas to hydrogen which is used to power a local bus.

[Camino LS6]

The tech exists to produce both Ethanol and Hydrogen without negatively impacting food production nor the use of natural gas.

You guys need to check the alternative fuels/propulsion forum and get up to date.

Ethanol is the only alternative that is ready now to a significant enough degree that it can have a measurable impact. It is also the gateway to other alternatives. It is the easiest fuel to convert to and represents the best opportunity to get the most vehicles off of oil today.

[Robert Hall]

I don't know about ethanol, though..don't E85 cars get worse mileage w/ ethanol than they do compared to gasoline? Diesel is a better answer, IMHO.

[Camino LS6]

I don't know about ethanol, though..don't E85 cars get worse mileage w/ ethanol than they do compared to gasoline? Diesel is a better answer, IMHO.

E85 cars are not optimized for ethanol, so mileage and power output are less than E-100 can potentially deliver. Remember also two key points: Ethanol can be produced for as little as $1.00/gal. without subsidy and , it is a domestic fuel.

The implications are enormous.

[haypops]

Ethanol does "contain" less energy than does gasoline. It doesn't matter whether absolute, an azeotrope, or highly diluted (E85). This is a function of the chemistry (more highly oxized than is gasoline). This doesn't mean it doesn't have potential; just that it will deliver lower MPG and that must be considered in the "calculations".

[Camino LS6]

Ethanol does "contain" less energy than does gasoline. It doesn't matter whether absolute, an azeotrope, or highly diluted (E85). This is a function of the chemistry (more highly oxized than is gasoline). This doesn't mean it doesn't have potential; just that it will deliver lower MPG and that must be considered in the "calculations".

True, but at 25-75% of the cost per gallon it is till the better deal even before you factor in the myriad other benefits of adopting it large scale.

[Drew Dowdell]

I am hesitant to fully accept Ethanol. I am planning on doing a report on it for my Biology class, and I'm going to focus on the emissions side of Ethanol. As of right now, I have only heard various sources loosely quote that Ethanol burning has close to as harmful emissions as gasoline. I hope I can find solid evidence on it either way.

I don't see internal combustion engines as the future, regardless of if they're burning hydrogen or ethanol. Electric motors seem to be more effective for the size and weight. Think about it, electric motors have only seen real widespread use in cars for less than a decade. Imagine if they had 100 years of development and full market implementation.

Burning ethanol releases less "new" carbon than burning dino-fuel.

[Drew Dowdell]

Ethanol does "contain" less energy than does gasoline. It doesn't matter whether absolute, an azeotrope, or highly diluted (E85). This is a function of the chemistry (more highly oxized than is gasoline). This doesn't mean it doesn't have potential; just that it will deliver lower MPG and that must be considered in the "calculations".

but it can be made much more efficient than gasoline can. Ethanol burns at lower temperatures, thus the cooling system can be smaller. Ethanol is very high octane and can run at very high compression ratios. This allows for a more complete combustion and makes turbo charging and direct injection even more effective than their gasoline counterparts.

So, while there may be less energy per gallon of ethanol, we already know how to make the engine get more of that energy out of the fuel.

[Drew Dowdell]

Unless research on harnessing ethanol from algae is successful, we simply do not have the farmland necessary for E100 vehicles. If we were to pursue Ethanol, many farmers would switch to growing crops used for Ethanol since that would net them the most money, driving edible food production down and price up.

Ethanol is fine for a temporary additive to gasoline, but other fuel routes are necessary.

Farmers cannot simply "switch" crops. Certain crops only grow successfully in certain areas and climates. Just because we have a lot of corn producing land does not mean we should use it for automotive fuel. Grass clipping, distillery waste, sugar cane <potentially imported from South America>, algae, kelp, corn husks all can be used.

[Camino LS6]

And don't forget GM's new partner in ethanol tech, they have developed a process that uses garbage to produce ethanol.

With all of the new tech, this is becoming a no-brainer.

[haypops]

Ethanol burns at lower temperatures, thus the cooling system can be smaller.

The advantage of the smaller cooling system will be swarmped by the weight disadvantage of a larger fuel system (tank + contents). Again these considerations aren't deal brakers, just needed to be considered.

[Camino LS6]

The advantage of the smaller cooling system will be swarmped by the weight disadvantage of a larger fuel system (tank + contents). Again these considerations aren't deal brakers, just needed to be considered.

Optimization for Ethanol would introduce pros and cons, but the pros would far exceed the cons.

Consider this: it costs GM less than $200 per unit to convert existing models to E-85.

[haypops]

Optimization for Ethanol would introduce pros and cons, but the pros would far exceed the cons.

When the new (35mpg CAFE) energy bill passed, there were some provisions for offsets allowed for ethanol vehicles. Do you know the details?

[Camino LS6]

When the new (35mpg CAFE) energy bill passed, there were some provisions for offsets allowed for ethanol vehicles. Do you know the details?

If I understand it correctly, 1.2 MPG is added to flex-fuel vehicles for CAFE purposes. That provision is set to expire in 2019 IIRC. Congress needs to be pressured to do better than that.

[Camino LS6]

*bump*

because this is a critical topic.