All diesel strategy for Cadillac Europe?

[dwightlooi]

Europeans love diesel engines. Diesels are more desirable from both a tax standpoint and from a fuel cost standpoint. Diesels are also viewed as technologically superior to petrol engines. In short, regardless of how it is perceived here, diesels sell in Europe.

This beckons the question... should Cadillac go 100% diesels in Europe to both cater to consumer dispositions there and also to fundamentally differentiate itself?

Global Engine Strategy for Cadillac (Circa 2013)

Europe – 100% Diesel Lineup

1.9 DOHC-16v DI-VVT Twin-Turbodiesel I4

Output: 212 hp @ 4400 rpm / 300 lb-ft @ 1400 rpm

Transmission: Hydramatic 8L50 8-speed automatic

Applications: Cadillac ATS 2.0Td

3.0 DOHC-32v DI-VVT Turbodiesel 60 deg V6

Output: 270 hp @ 4200 rpm / 420 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm

Transmission: Hydramatic 6L80 6-speed automatic

Applications: Cadillac ATS 3.0Td, Cadillac CTS 3.0Td, Cadillac STS 3.0Td, Cadillac SRX 3.0Td

4.5 DOHC-32v DI-VVT Turbodiesel 72 deg V8

Output: 350 hp @ 3600 rpm / 520 lb-ft @ 1800 rpm lb-ft (400 hp @ 4000 rpm / 595 @ 2200 rpm)

Transmission: Hydramatic 6L95 6-speed automatic / Tremec 6060 6-speed manual

Applications: Cadillac ATS-Vd, Cadillac CTS 4.5Td, Cadillac STS 4.5Td, Cadillac Escalade 4.5Td

6.6 liter Pushrod-32v DI-VVT Turbodiesel 90 deg V8

Output: 480 hp @ 3300 rpm / 765 lb-ft @ 1600 rpm

Transmission: Allison 1000 6-speed automatic / Tremec 6060 6-speed manual

Applications: Cadillac CTS-Vd, Cadillac STS-Vd, Cadillac Escalade-Vd

USA – 100% Gasoline Lineup

2.0 liter DOHC-16v DI-VVT Turbo I4

Output: 255 hp @ 5200 rpm / 295 lb-ft @ 2800 rpm)

Transmission: Hydramatic 8L50 8-speed automatic

Applications: Cadillac ATS 2.0T

3.6 liter DOHC-24v DI-VVT 60 deg V6*

Output: 321 hp @ 6600 rpm / 283 lb-ft @ 5600 rpm

Transmission: Hydramatic 8L50 8-speed automatic

Applications: Cadillac ATS 3.6, Cadillac CTS 3.6, Cadillac STS 3.6, Cadillac SRX 3.6

6.2 liter Pushrod-16v DI-VVT 90 deg V8

Output: 460 hp @ 6200 rpm / 440 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm

Transmission: Hydramatic 6L80 8-speed automatic / Tremec 6060 6-speed manual

Applications: Cadillac ATS-V, Cadillac CTS 6.2, Cadillac STS 6.2, Cadillac Escalade 6.2

6.2 liter Pushrod-16v DI-VVT Supercharged 90 deg V8

Output: 600 hp @ 6000 rpm / 600 lb-ft @ 3800 rpm

Transmission: Hydramatic 6L95 6-speed automatic / Tremec 6060 6-speed manual

Applications: Cadillac CTS-V, Cadillac STS-V, Cadillac Escalade-V

* 91 Octane HF 3.6 V6

Other Regions -- some combination selected from the above...

Edited August 7, 2010 by dwightlooi

[Z-06]

Europe gets a new 2.2 diesel, so you might substitute the 1.9 with that engine.

I prefer having diesels in the States too.

Using Big Duramax for cars may not be digestible to some of GM team.

[smk4565]

BMW Europe's diesel sales percentage is around 63%, Cadillac still has to offer gas engines there. Take out the diesel 1-series cars that get 55 mpg since Cadillac isn't in that segment and then factor out the government/fleet sedans that are diesel due to lower operating cost, and I bet the retail sales mix on 3,5,7 series is more like 50% diesel. So Cadillac needs to offer BOTH diesel and gas in Europe and the USA.

Cadillac can't go 100% gas in the USA when there is a 36 mpg 3-series or a 33 mpg E-class or a 40 mpg Lincoln MKZ, Audi TDi's or the Lexus hybrids. If everyone else is on board the green movement and can offer 35-40 mpg luxury cars, and Cadillac is stuck with 16-26 mpg gas burners, they aren't going to look too good.

[ZL-1]

The 6.6 is excessive; the other diesels could fly over here.

[dwightlooi]

BMW Europe's diesel sales percentage is around 63%, Cadillac still has to offer gas engines there. Take out the diesel 1-series cars that get 55 mpg since Cadillac isn't in that segment and then factor out the government/fleet sedans that are diesel due to lower operating cost, and I bet the retail sales mix on 3,5,7 series is more like 50% diesel. So Cadillac needs to offer BOTH diesel and gas in Europe and the USA.

Cadillac can't go 100% gas in the USA when there is a 36 mpg 3-series or a 33 mpg E-class or a 40 mpg Lincoln MKZ, Audi TDi's or the Lexus hybrids. If everyone else is on board the green movement and can offer 35-40 mpg luxury cars, and Cadillac is stuck with 16-26 mpg gas burners, they aren't going to look too good.

Looking good to the "Green" buyer only matters for the purpose of appealing to "green" buyers. This is a pretty small segment of the market. Just look at the numbers... total Hybrid sales are... 30,000/(14,000,000/12) = ~2.57% If you take the non-luxury entries like the Prius out of the equation, and look at "green" luxury cars the numbers simply aren't there. This is not my opinion, this is a fact.

With the volume of cars Cadillac is selling, it does not make economic sense to add a diesel to the US lineup. I have always said that I am not asking GM not to build hybrids or diesel passenger cars or "green" cars. I am not asking GM to comply or not comply with CAFE. What I am saying is that GM should always build to market demands, not political correctness or ideology. Build what consumers want to buy, let there be as many or as few hybrids as the buyers would digest, let CAFE lands where it may and pass on the cost of the fines if any. GM is first and foremost a business, a participant in a competitive market. GM is not, and should not be, an instrument of social change or environmental activism.

Europe is different matter. About 2/3rds of car sales are diesels. In fact, if you go to more expensive cars the ratio skews even further towards the diesel column. With El Cheapo economy boxes, some people buy gasoline vehicles simply because the diesel versions are just a bit too expensive. Luxury buyers are less sensitive to a slightly higher costs of a diesel engine. Cadillac sales in Europe is very small. The established players are very established. A strategy that is applicable to such situations is "differentiation and simplicity". Keep the lineup different for the rest of the pack, but keep it simple. Going all diesel further differentiates Caddy, keeping the model range simple helps with logistics and economies of scale.

[Drew Dowdell]

Can I haz diesel too? :cry:

[balthazar]

This brings up a timely question for me, as I just swapped in new batteries on my 2500HD : do any diesel cars use dual batteries ??

I too think the 6.6 is too large physically. If indeed this is the DuraMax proposed above, also far too heavy.

AFA going all diesel in europe- I also agree that it need to be a mix of gas & diesel.

[Z-06]

With the volume of cars Cadillac is selling, it does not make economic sense to add a diesel to the US lineup. I have always said that I am not asking GM not to build hybrids or diesel passenger cars or "green" cars. I am not asking GM to comply or not comply with CAFE. What I am saying is that GM should always build to market demands, not political correctness or ideology. Build what consumers want to buy, let there be as many or as few hybrids as the buyers would digest, let CAFE lands where it may and pass on the cost of the fines if any. GM is first and foremost a business, a participant in a competitive market. GM is not, and should not be, an instrument of social change or environmental activism.

I think I have a different perspective. Cadillac currently sits fourth in volume behind BMW, Lexus and MB. If diesels are introduced in Cadillac in the US, they should/can be targeted at buyers who know diesel and are open to that technology. Granted they may be few initially, but there has to be a push in "educating" the customers the advantages of diesel and removing the age old notions. Cadillac can aim to sell about 1,500-2,000 diesels per month if done right and the customers will mostly be new to Cadillac. Escalade is prime for diesel, so is the CTS.

[regfootball]

all diesels in europe is not a terrible idea. maybe just one gas powertrain combo on the ATS and CTS.....

[SAmadei]

This brings up a timely question for me, as I just swapped in new batteries on my 2500HD : do any diesel cars use dual batteries ??

I'm going to likely be answering the wrong angle here: Yes. The 1981 Diesel Cutlass Supreme was equipped with two batteries. I always thought that was pretty cool.

As for new cars, I have no idea.

[Lamar]

ATS-Vd, CTS-Vd, Escalade-Vd. Ew.

[smk4565]

Vd sounds like venerial disease, so I wouldn't name a car that.

Dwightlooi is right on the sales volume of hybrids and diesels currently, they are low. But will the market look the same in 5 or 10 years? The economy will eventually recover, and gas prices will rise. China and India will demand more gas, again gas prices will rise. BP might spill some more oil, lessening supply, again prices could rise. So what if in 5 or 10 years gas prices are different, and the market is different. The Germans, Lexus and Lincoln will have had a 5-10 year head start at fuel efficient cars, Cadillac will be struggling to catch up and late to the party once again.

10 years ago there was no market demand for a Prius, and it didn't make economic sense to build a Prius. But Toyota built it anyway, while GM built the Hummer. Toyota got the image of being the fuel efficiency leader, the Prius became a top 10 selling car, while GM got the reputation of only building big gas hogs, and once gas hit $4.25 a gallon in the summer of 08, GM was stuck with nothing to sell, and would soon fold into bankruptcy. Cadillac should plan ahead so when the next "perfect storm" comes, they are ready. I say build diesel, gas, and hybrid in all markets.

[Lamar]

Vd sounds like venerial disease, so I wouldn't name a car that.

Exactly my point.

[dwightlooi]

Vd sounds like venerial disease, so I wouldn't name a car that.

Dwightlooi is right on the sales volume of hybrids and diesels currently, they are low. But will the market look the same in 5 or 10 years? The economy will eventually recover, and gas prices will rise. China and India will demand more gas, again gas prices will rise. BP might spill some more oil, lessening supply, again prices could rise. So what if in 5 or 10 years gas prices are different, and the market is different. The Germans, Lexus and Lincoln will have had a 5-10 year head start at fuel efficient cars, Cadillac will be struggling to catch up and late to the party once again.

10 years ago there was no market demand for a Prius, and it didn't make economic sense to build a Prius. But Toyota built it anyway, while GM built the Hummer. Toyota got the image of being the fuel efficiency leader, the Prius became a top 10 selling car, while GM got the reputation of only building big gas hogs, and once gas hit $4.25 a gallon in the summer of 08, GM was stuck with nothing to sell, and would soon fold into bankruptcy. Cadillac should plan ahead so when the next "perfect storm" comes, they are ready. I say build diesel, gas, and hybrid in all markets.

Let's run the math...

Let's say a Hybrid drive train brings a $5000 premium -- the approximate difference between a Camry or Fusion Hybrid vs their conventional but otherwise comparatively equipped counterparts. Now let's compare the fuel usage numbers at the blue book neutral 12,500 annual miles...

Camry Conventional -- 22 / 33 mpg (27.5 mpg) -- 12500/27.5 = 454 gallons

Camry Hybrid -- 31 / 35 mpg (33 mpg) -- 12500/33 = 378 gallons

Fusion Conventional -- 22 / 31 mpg (26.5 mpg avg) -- 12500/26.5 = 471 gallons

Fusion Hybrid -- 41 / 36 mpg (38.5 mpg avg) -- 12500/38.5 = 324 gallons

Hybrids save an average of (76 + 147)/2 = 111.5 gallons a year.

Now, lets look at what that amounts to in dollars at various gas prices...

$3/gallon = $335

$4/gallon = $446

$6/gallon = $669

$8/gallon = $892

$12/gallon = $1338

$16/gallon = $1784

Years to break even on Hybrid Premium...

$3/gallon = 5000/335 = 14.9 years

$4/gallon = 5000/446 = 11.2 years

$6/gallon = 5000/669 = 7.47 years

$8/gallon = 5000/892 = 5.61 years

$12/gallon = 5000/1338 = 3.73 years

$16/gallon = 5000/1784 = 2.80 years

Now, remember at break even point you haven't saved a dime yet. I'll say that for an upfront payment for later savings to make sense it has to be such that the buyer spends at least about 1/3rd of the ownership period saving money. Based on that, hybrids start to make economic sense at about $12 a gallon given that a typical new car buyer keeps it for 5~6 years.

When gas prices spiked the last time around we did not see people flocking to Hybrids in general. The Prius kinda has its own niche as a green creds car. But Hybrids in general weren't hotcakes. What happened was that more people than usual bought conventional cars that have better mileage. People want fuel economy, but they don't want to pay to have better fuel economy.

What will happen 20 years from now is anyone's guess. The whole Global Warming fraud may completely fizzle out like the 70s impending ice age scare. We may see more gas and oil exploration in the US. We may see a boom or collapse of the world economy. We don't know. But we are pretty darn far from $12 a gallon. And, when we do see $12/gallon, we don't know if it'll be diesel or electric power that presents the best alternative. The smart thing to do at this point is to play on today's market conditions and stay current with the alternatives -- maybe do a halo car or two like the volt. But don't bet heavily on green cars, at least not yet.

[Drew Dowdell]

We may see more gas and oil exploration in the US.

Where the oil comes from factors only minimally and any difference is only in the cost of shipping. Oil that is pumped in Saudi Arabia goes to the same world market as the oil that is pumped in Oil City, PA and then sold to the highest bidder. It's not political. It's not environmental. It's just plan old economic supply and demand.

Two points from this:

1. Most of the U.S. has been tapped out. Any further finds are not likely to be large enough to make a material change in the price of gasoline.

2. The are a whole bunch of people in India and China who are going to land on that demand side of the equation in the next 10 years.

[smk4565]

I'd agree that hybrids don't make a lot of economic sense to buy, and personally, I wouldn't buy one. Diesel to me seems like the better way to go because you get the fuel economy plus loads of torque, and diesel engines run forever.

But luxury cars need image to sell. If 4 or 5 other brands offer a 35-40 mpg car, but Cadillac can't top 27 mpg, it makes Cadillac look like they don't care about the environment (the greenies and politicos go elsewhere), makes it look like they don't innovate or aren't cutting edge, (the techies go elsewhere) and makes it look like they aren't building as good a product (the badge snobs go elsewhere). Car companies over the past 2 years have advertised fuel economy more than anything else.

Let's throw the "may the best car win" Chevy vs Toyota Fuel economy ad back to Cadillac.

Cadillac SRX (awd) 15/22 mpg

Lexus RX450h (awd) 30/28 mpg

Merc ML350 Bluetech 18/25 mpg

Merc ML450 Hybrid 21/24 mpg

Cadillac CTS 18/27 mpg

Lexus GS450h 23/25 mpg

BMW 335d 23/36 mpg

Audi A4 23/30 mpg

Merc E320 Bluetech 23/32 mpg (09 model, no diesel on new E-class yet)

Others:

Lexus HS250h 35/34 mpg

Audi A3 TDi 30/42 mpg

Lincoln MKZ hybrid 41/36 mpg

Edited August 8, 2010 by smk4565

[dwightlooi]

I'd agree that hybrids don't make a lot of economic sense to buy, and personally, I wouldn't buy one. Diesel to me seems like the better way to go because you get the fuel economy plus loads of torque, and diesel engines run forever.

But luxury cars need image to sell. If 4 or 5 other brands offer a 35-40 mpg car, but Cadillac can't top 27 mpg, it makes Cadillac look like they don't care about the environment (the greenies and politicos go elsewhere), makes it look like they don't innovate or aren't cutting edge, (the techies go elsewhere) and makes it look like they aren't building as good a product (the badge snobs go elsewhere). Car companies over the past 2 years have advertised fuel economy more than anything else.

Let's throw the "may the best car win" Chevy vs Toyota Fuel economy ad back to Cadillac.

Cadillac SRX (awd) 15/22 mpg

Lexus RX450h (awd) 30/28 mpg

Merc ML350 Bluetech 18/25 mpg

Merc ML450 Hybrid 21/24 mpg

Cadillac CTS 18/27 mpg

Lexus GS450h 23/25 mpg

BMW 335d 23/36 mpg

Audi A4 23/30 mpg

Merc E320 Bluetech 23/32 mpg (09 model, no diesel on new E-class yet)

Others:

Lexus HS250h 35/34 mpg

Audi A3 TDi 30/42 mpg

Lincoln MKZ hybrid 41/36 mpg

Yes, luxury cars need image to sell. But what constitutes that image? Styling, quality, prestige, performance, etc. for sure. The mpg numbers on the sticker of the model the consumer is looking at? Probably plays into his buying decision too. But, the mpg numbers on a Hybrid or Diesel he is not looking at? Probably doesn't matter one way or the other.

I mean... let's say I am on the lot looking at a CTS or SRX. I will probably compare the mpg numbers to the BMW 535 or RX350 if I am cross shopping those cars. Whether BMW has a 535d or if Lexus RX400h probably doesn't matter to me since I am not interested in those cars. That is unless I am looking for Green Creds to impress my global warming coolaid drinking friends. If so, I'll be buying a Hybrid and I'll be that 2~3% of Green buyers.

[dwightlooi]

Where the oil comes from factors only minimally and any difference is only in the cost of shipping. Oil that is pumped in Saudi Arabia goes to the same world market as the oil that is pumped in Oil City, PA and then sold to the highest bidder. It's not political. It's not environmental. It's just plan old economic supply and demand.

Two points from this:

1. Most of the U.S. has been tapped out. Any further finds are not likely to be large enough to make a material change in the price of gasoline.

2. The are a whole bunch of people in India and China who are going to land on that demand side of the equation in the next 10 years.

The US has 2% of the world wide "proven" oil reserves. However that is a poor indication of actual oil under the ground. In order for something to be a proven reserve, you have to explore and verify its extent by drilling. The US has done everything under the sun to see that we do not explore and we cannot drill on most land, we cannot drill within 40 miles of shore, we cannot drill too far off shore, we cannot drill in most of the places that have oil or have the potential to have oil. Heck we cannot even build ONE new oil refinery in the past 40 years. There are geologic surveys that peg the potential reserves in the US at a level eclipsing the entire middle east. Is it a sure thing? Of course not. Is portion of that shale oil that is hard to extract and refine? Perhaps. But we are not even allowed to try to find it and figure out ways to use it.

The entire US energy policy -- not just with the radical Obama Administration but with a half dozen administrations and congresses in the past several decades -- is ridiculous. China, Russia and India are looking high and for oil wherever they can within their territories and eyeing oil rich terriroties beyond their national boundaries for political control or influence . We are refusing to allow oil exploration, extraction and refining however and whenever we can, and for all the billions and lives we put into liberating Iraq we refuse to even take one drop of oil from them.

Yes, the environmental lobby and anti-energy government-media complex is deeply rooted. But I think it is presumptuous to assume that their reign and excesses will last forever.

[smk4565]

Yes, luxury cars need image to sell. But what constitutes that image? Styling, quality, prestige, performance, etc. for sure. The mpg numbers on the sticker of the model the consumer is looking at? Probably plays into his buying decision too. But, the mpg numbers on a Hybrid or Diesel he is not looking at? Probably doesn't matter one way or the other.

I mean... let's say I am on the lot looking at a CTS or SRX. I will probably compare the mpg numbers to the BMW 535 or RX350 if I am cross shopping those cars. Whether BMW has a 535d or if Lexus RX400h probably doesn't matter to me since I am not interested in those cars. That is unless I am looking for Green Creds to impress my global warming coolaid drinking friends. If so, I'll be buying a Hybrid and I'll be that 2~3% of Green buyers.

I think on the Lexus RX buyers do look at the hybrid, especially if it is a family that does a lot of driving. Consider the RX450h has 295 hp, the SRX turbo has 300 hp, so only 5 hp difference and 0-60 time is close enough that no one could tell without a stop watch. But the Lexus gets 15 mpg more in the city, it is gets exactly double the city gas mileage, that is pretty impressive. In fact, Lexus is foolish for not advertising that more.

Styling is subjective, Lexus builds the most bland stuff around yet it sells well because they have the quality/reliability, BMW has the performance, Mercedes the prestige. What is Cadillac selling on?

[dwightlooi]

I think on the Lexus RX buyers do look at the hybrid, especially if it is a family that does a lot of driving. Consider the RX450h has 295 hp, the SRX turbo has 300 hp, so only 5 hp difference and 0-60 time is close enough that no one could tell without a stop watch. But the Lexus gets 15 mpg more in the city, it is gets exactly double the city gas mileage, that is pretty impressive. In fact, Lexus is foolish for not advertising that more.

Styling is subjective, Lexus builds the most bland stuff around yet it sells well because they have the quality/reliability, BMW has the performance, Mercedes the prestige. What is Cadillac selling on?

Personally, I think Lexus has been doing a good job trying NOT to be bland. The IS isn't exactly a luxury barge. The LFA certainly is an un-bland halo car. They have a core focus on refinement, reliability and comfort though, and that isn't a bad focus. That's what Americans want more than performance or aggressive looks. Lexus beats Mercedes and BMW in sales, and it's widening its lead. I think GM ought to go full tilt with that focus too... with Buick being the dedicated Luxury-Comfort brand. Let Buick deal with Lexus, while Cadillac concentrate on being beating the Teutons. This is why I am completely opposed the the Caddy XTS or the talk of some RWD Buick flagship.

As far as the RX vs SRX issue, the fundamental problem isn't that the Caddy doesn't have a hybrid. RX350 sales outpaces the RX400/450h by an entire magnitude. The fundamental problem is two fold -- the SRX is about 400 lbs overweight and GM powerplant choices are moronic. It is no lighter than the previous body on frame RWD/AWD SRX with a Northstar V8. At the same time GM chose the torque deficient LF1 3.0 V6 engine to power it. When that turns out to be way inadequate, they went and incorporated an old turbo V6 engine that Saab is trying to phase out. In the end the SRX is out performed by Lexus and Infiniti, while drink more gas.

The way to fix it is to make the next SRX about 3800 lbs and outfit with the 3.6 HF V6 as the base engine. Fuel economy will improve significantly as will peppiness off the line. For the performance oriented buyer, a small block V8 will fit where the HF V6 fits. Fuel Economy on the pushrod engines are actually better than with the Northstar. Instead of a Hybrid, a 270hp / 420 lb-ft Turbo diesel from Opel would be a lighter and more economical solution, or perhaps Caddy can go for the Diesel Crown with the 4.5 Duramax V8. Hybrids and diesels, however, are niche products. They are not a fix for fundamental problems with pork on the mainstream car -- fixing the volume driver ought to be the priority.

On the brightside, the SRX is pretty and the interior is pretty up to snuff. It won't beat the RX, but it'll be viable for keeping and increasing the SRX's market share until the next model cycle.

[Drew Dowdell]

The US has 2% of the world wide "proven" oil reserves. However that is a poor indication of actual oil under the ground. In order for something to be a proven reserve, you have to explore and verify its extent by drilling. The US has done everything under the sun to see that we do not explore and we cannot drill on most land, we cannot drill within 40 miles of shore, we cannot drill too far off shore, we cannot drill in most of the places that have oil or have the potential to have oil. Heck we cannot even build ONE new oil refinery in the past 40 years. There are geologic surveys that peg the potential reserves in the US at a level eclipsing the entire middle east. Is it a sure thing? Of course not. Is portion of that shale oil that is hard to extract and refine? Perhaps. But we are not even allowed to try to find it and figure out ways to use it.

The entire US energy policy -- not just with the radical Obama Administration but with a half dozen administrations and congresses in the past several decades -- is ridiculous. China, Russia and India are looking high and for oil wherever they can within their territories and eyeing oil rich terriroties beyond their national boundaries for political control or influence . We are refusing to allow oil exploration, extraction and refining however and whenever we can, and for all the billions and lives we put into liberating Iraq we refuse to even take one drop of oil from them.

Yes, the environmental lobby and anti-energy government-media complex is deeply rooted. But I think it is presumptuous to assume that their reign and excesses will last forever.

My point is that there are more people clamoring for a diminishing resource. The oil field in the Gulf that BP was drilling for was considered a "major" find..... yet it doesn't even rank in the top 20 oil fields in the world in terms of size.

Further, Saudi Arabia has been lying...for YEARS about their "proven" reserves.

My point behind all of this is thus: Why can't we be the leader in alternative fuel production?

1. E85/Ethanol is frequently cited as an energy sink. That is true when corn is used as the base biomass for the E85. Other base biomasses don't share that trait.

2. Algae and Kelp can be farmed with minimal cultivation energy input. In fact, both can be used as CO2 scrubbers for large scale electric generation plants fired by fossil fuels.

3. Algae and kelp can be farmed in tanks, in rivers, in lakes, or out in the open ocean.

4. E85 truly is "FlexFuel" because the fermenting process is basically the same no matter the input biomass. If you've got corn, or algae, or kelp, or grass clippings... fine, just throw it in the pot.

Now to address some of the common arguments against using E85:

1. "It's not as efficient per gallon." - So what? The cost is being made artificially high because we're primarily using labor/fuel intensive corn as the base biomass. Switch to another biomass.

2. "It's not as efficient per gallon." - If you're running it through an engine that was originally designed for gasoline, this is true. But this is also like complaining that your gas engine doesn't run too well when you put diesel fuel in it. A typical E85 engine is something like the 3.5 V6 in the Impala. The Impala 3.5 has a relatively modest (these days) 9.5:1 compression ratio. But E85 has an octane equivalency of 110.. which means it can handle substantially higher compression ratios than normal gas. The Opel Corsa sold in Brazil comes with an alcohol burning 1.4 litre 4 cylinder that has an eye popping 12.4:1 compression ratio. This is a rudimentary engine by today's standards. 8 valves, no VVT, no direct injection. It makes 99hp in that form.

To put that compression ratio into some perspective. Even the Ecotec Turbo and Ford Ecoboost V6 are only at 9.5 - 10:1 compression. The only car I can find that even approaches the little, old school, Corsa's compression ratio is the12:1 in the BMW V10 M5.

Where am I going with this? Everyone here has noticed the trend to downsize displacement lately. Direct Injection and Turbochargers are finally starting to do away with the old "no replacement for displacement" line.

I want everyone to put on their imagination caps now. We're going to do some hypothetical surgery:

Let's take the Malibu with it's 169hp 2.4 litre. It's a 16 valve engine with VVT. Yet if we look at the old rudimentary Corsa's 8valve non-VVT engine, we find it makes 70.71hp/liter. If we sized it up to the same 2.4 litres the Malibu uses... we get 169hp.. and that's without using another 8 valves or any sort of VVT system.

So let's make the goal keeping the Malibu's performance the same, but downsizing the engine.

We know that adding 8 more valves can add about 30hp as shown in the Petrol 8v 1.8vers the Petrol 16v 1.8

We also know that adding direct injection can add about 12 hp as shown in the Malibu 2.4 v. Equinox 2.4

Adding those two technologies to the Corsa engine would make an engine capable of about 140hp.... out of a 1.4 litre... That's 100hp/litre without using a turbo.

So, in order to size it appropriately to fit our car. We'd need a 1.7 litre I4 that ran on just 110 octane E85. Anyone here need help figuring out how a 1.7 litre Malibu with the same horsepower would be equal or more efficient per gallon than a 2.4 litre even with the reduced energy content of the fuel?

And all of this isn't for political or "green" reasons. It simply would switch us away from a diminishing resource to one that we can grow more of when we need it and in doing so greatly stabilize the worlds economies while allowing us to continue driving as we see fit.

[dwightlooi]

My point is that there are more people clamoring for a diminishing resource. The oil field in the Gulf that BP was drilling for was considered a "major" find..... yet it doesn't even rank in the top 20 oil fields in the world in terms of size.

Further, Saudi Arabia has been lying...for YEARS about their "proven" reserves.

My point behind all of this is thus: Why can't we be the leader in alternative fuel production?

My view on Ethanol is that it is not currently a more economical alternative to fossil fuel exploration and extraction. And in the long term is not the most favorable alternative amongst the alternatives. Corn Ethanol is a complete waste of time and is in fact a waste of energy because you are using more energy in its production than you are yielding in total ethanol calorific value. Alternative biomasses are better. Sugarcane for instance is energy positive and only slightly more expensive than imported gasoline in Brazil. However, the US lacks the climate to cultivate it in the required scale. Even if you do the land mass and agricultural opportunity costs associated with alcohol production for the purpose of replacing fossil fuel is staggering. On top of that, even though I do not believe in the validity of the Global Warming hypothesis at all, ethanol will not even satisfy the carbon emission critics because burning ethanol is not carbon neutral.

In a world where there is no longer any non-exorbitant reserves of oil, gas and coal to tap I can see alcohols as an inferior but acceptable substitute "portable" fuel. We'll need that a hundred or two years from now for aircraft or other forms of usage where electrical power is not viable because of its low storage density. However, my bias on the shape of the future energy economy lies with large scale thermo-nuclear power generation combined with distribution via the electrical grid and portability through batteries. It is the only foreseeable means of delivering the energy capacity we need without unacceptable compromises to land use and/or lifestyle modifications. I'll completely end the subsidies on wind and solar because while they may have a small roll to play they are temporal and limited sources with no hope of meeting more than 10~15% of the total energy demand. I'll also forget about Hydrogen. Hydrogen is not an energy source period. You cannot grow or mine hydrogen -- you need to produce it by electrolysis or hydrocracking fossil fuel. Hydrogen is at best an energy storage medium very much like a battery, a flywheel or a spring. The problem is that it is a horrible storage medium because it has horrible density as a gas (even pressurized) and has be kept ridiculously cold (-423 deg F) as a liquid. It also doesn't have any legacy distribution infrastructure at all, so building a hydrogen infrastructure is worse that build a beefed up electric infrastructure.

I am all for energy independence and developing alternative energy sources for the future. However, I don't want to see taxpayer money wasted on more wind, solar, hydrogen and/or ethanol. I want vastly expanded domestic oil/gas/coal exploration and extraction in the near term, combined with a long term strategy to put bring 2000 new nuclear power plants online by 2060.

[loki]

To put that compression ratio into some perspective. Even the Ecotec Turbo and Ford Ecoboost V6 are only at 9.5 - 10:1 compression. The only car I can find that even approaches the little, old school, Corsa's compression ratio is the12:1 in the BMW V10 M5.

Where am I going with this? Everyone here has noticed the trend to downsize displacement lately. Direct Injection and Turbochargers are finally starting to do away with the old "no replacement for displacement" line.

i'm curious why you are comparing a n/a, "no tech", 8v engine to an "ultra modern" engine as the turboed gm and ford products?

from wiki on the DI 3.6L- "The LLT engine has a compression ratio of 11.4:1, and has been certified by the SAE to produce 302 horsepower"...and that's just on regular....

much closer to the m5 than the turboed ones.

nice post Dwight! i agree.

Edited August 8, 2010 by loki

[pow]

Ignoring hybrid technology, which is fundamentally a very simple concept (capturing waste energy and converting it into power), because it currently makes up a small percentage of the market is incredibly shortsighted. Even Porsche, Ferrari, and Mercedes are moving forward with hybrid propulsion, and it'll do the Cadillac brand no favors if it appears they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into making improvements in vehicle technology and efficiency. If GM invests in hybrid car production only after it becomes commonplace, then they will be several steps behind the curve.

Imagine if Cadillac became an all-hybrid brand. Imagine the statement *that* would have on the luxury car market.

[dwightlooi]

Ignoring hybrid technology, which is fundamentally a very simple concept (capturing waste energy and converting it into power), because it currently makes up a small percentage of the market is incredibly shortsighted. Even Porsche, Ferrari, and Mercedes are moving forward with hybrid propulsion, and it'll do the Cadillac brand no favors if it appears they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into making improvements in vehicle technology and efficiency. If GM invests in hybrid car production only after it becomes commonplace, then they will be several steps behind the curve.

Imagine if Cadillac became an all-hybrid brand. Imagine the statement *that* would have on the luxury car market.

(1) That is why you build halo cars like the Volt. No, it is not economically viable. But it is an image car. You lose money on it for image appeal and also to stay current on the alternative propulsion technologies in preparation for the day when they make economic sense.

(2) Global Warming, IMHO, is completely bogus. It doesn't stop half the world from believing in it and the EU from crafting self-hurting legislation on its fraudulent claims. That there are many who believe in something should not ever make it more or less believable to us. We should always consider the facts, the numbers, the science and the logic behind it.

(3) GM didn't get into bankruptcy because it didn't build the best hybrid or the most hybrids. There is no statistical basis for saying that. GM got into bankruptcy because it build bad looking, low quality, underperforming and unreliable products for 20~ years throughout 80s and 90s. It also fragmented its portfolio into too many brands with no focused identity, diluting marketing resources and customer attention. Finally, it got forced under a pile of unsustainable union contracts, labor rates and benefit obligations over the years that weren't in line with the market dynamics but rather because it was demanded by an entrenched UAW racket. GM starting doing many things right under Wagoner, but it was too late.

My advice? Listen to the market. Listen to the engineers. Listen to the designers.

Don't listen to this communist clown (Obama's manufacturing Tsar, Ron Bloom) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27cXXirAIw4

[smk4565]

Personally, I think Lexus has been doing a good job trying NOT to be bland. The IS isn't exactly a luxury barge. The LFA certainly is an un-bland halo car. They have a core focus on refinement, reliability and comfort though, and that isn't a bad focus. That's what Americans want more than performance or aggressive looks. Lexus beats Mercedes and BMW in sales, and it's widening its lead. I think GM ought to go full tilt with that focus too... with Buick being the dedicated Luxury-Comfort brand. Let Buick deal with Lexus, while Cadillac concentrate on being beating the Teutons. This is why I am completely opposed the the Caddy XTS or the talk of some RWD Buick flagship.

As far as the RX vs SRX issue, the fundamental problem isn't that the Caddy doesn't have a hybrid. RX350 sales outpaces the RX400/450h by an entire magnitude. The fundamental problem is two fold -- the SRX is about 400 lbs overweight and GM powerplant choices are moronic. It is no lighter than the previous body on frame RWD/AWD SRX with a Northstar V8. At the same time GM chose the torque deficient LF1 3.0 V6 engine to power it. When that turns out to be way inadequate, they went and incorporated an old turbo V6 engine that Saab is trying to phase out. In the end the SRX is out performed by Lexus and Infiniti, while drink more gas.

The way to fix it is to make the next SRX about 3800 lbs and outfit with the 3.6 HF V6 as the base engine. Fuel economy will improve significantly as will peppiness off the line. For the performance oriented buyer, a small block V8 will fit where the HF V6 fits. Fuel Economy on the pushrod engines are actually better than with the Northstar. Instead of a Hybrid, a 270hp / 420 lb-ft Turbo diesel from Opel would be a lighter and more economical solution, or perhaps Caddy can go for the Diesel Crown with the 4.5 Duramax V8. Hybrids and diesels, however, are niche products. They are not a fix for fundamental problems with pork on the mainstream car -- fixing the volume driver ought to be the priority.

The ES and LS are snooze mobiles, GS is dated, but the RX I'll admit isn't bland, but it isn't very attractive either. But I agree a lot of people buying luxury like a conservative looking car with some chrome touches and soft ride, so Lexus resonates well with the baby-boomer luxury buyer. Although Mercedes is expected to overtake Lexus in sales this year, Mercedes is only about 1,000 cars behind for the year and is selling faster now.

The old SRX wasn't body on frame though, it was a Sigma unibody. But your assessments of the current SRX are correct, too heavy and wrong engines. I too would rather see a diesel option rather than a hybrid, but a hybrid is probably an easier sell to prospective buyers in this class. I don't want to see another pushrod V8 front driver though. Even if the SRX does back to rear drive, I'd still rather not see the engine out of a Silverado in a Cadillac.

[smk4565]

100 hp per liter out of an NA is possible, but they usually don't have a lot of torque, and the power is high in the band, much like an M5. So do to a 1.4 or 1.7 liter 140 hp NA engine, it will most likely not have any torque, and around town drivability will suffer. I like the turbo on smaller displacement engines to add some low end torque. Toyota used to have that 180 hp, 1.8 liter 4-cylinder in the Celica, but I think it had 122 lb-ft of torque or something near that. I'd rather see a turbo 1.8 liter making 160 hp and 160 lb-ft because the power is more useful.

[regfootball]

i stopped in the harley davidson dealer the other day to poke around and look at some new bikes.

there was a guy there parked next to me with a new X5 diesel. i was loading up my kid when he came out and got in his ride. he portrayed the image of being rather loaded and he was not terribly old.

I asked what he was seeing for mileage, and he said a recent trip he saw about 34 mpg. He said he is thrilled with the car.

Even if the mass market is not adopting hybrids quickly, that reason is just about entirely due to cost.

And I do think even though the green set is seen being the only ones to be concerned about fuel economy, i don't think that is true. I do think the average individual appreciates fuel economy too, they just understand more that mpg comes with a cost of technology and equipment that they can't always afford to pay for.

Like many things, technology, the price comes down over time, but the early adopters need to pay a disproportionate share for bragging rights to early use.

I think fuel economy has sort of that bragging rights thing going on with the tech oriented / early adopters set right now, not as much for the green end of it as more so because they like the science and technology aspect of it.

And i think a lot of people just flat out are becoming more and more wanting to buy less and less gas (even though less consumption is going to drive up prices and tax on the gas it will probably be a net zero in the end).

So this cutting edge technology relates to performance on a different level. And luxury autos demands a certain level of 'technology' and 'performance'. MPG has now entered the picture where it is a vital component to technology and performance in some luxury segments.

And then there is fashion. Fashion is a worldly thing and I think this is why German brands and imports in general appeal to the luxury set, its the notion that somewhere else in the world is something superior and more exotic and fashionable. And to share that fashion across the globe is what luxury is about.

Cadillac's version of fashion gets laughed at across the globe because they make no effort to be in tune with what is fashion anywhere besides the US (or Michigan for that matter). In many parts, fashion is diesel.

WHat this all means, in order for Cadillac to be credible as a luxury brand, outside the US (and even inside most of the US for that matter) is that gestures need to be made to demonstrate that the brand represents a cross section of attributes desired by lux car buyers across the globe. A certain level of high cost pandering is needed to make the car desired and credible, not a poseur.

I would probably say that in Europe a diesel is requirement that should be met. I'll even go further to suggest that since Cadillac will need to implement diesels in Europe by necessity, that it can only help their cause to consider selling some diesels here. It would help create the more worldly image that Cadillac needs to maintain. Perhaps the ATS is the car that should usher in Cadillac diesels. One build of CTS diesel would not hurt, either, to test the water.

Cadillac may need to lose money on diesels in the US but I think it would help their image overall as far as getting credibility in the world arena.

Hybrids and diesels for mpg may be something Cadillac should be interested in to promote their position in the technology arena. And Cadillacs with their higher MSRP's can probably absorb more of the development money of the technology as the early adopters will get more of what they pay for with a Caddy vs. a chevy. If or once hybrids take off, then Cadillac has demonstrated its position as a leader. Lincoln has the MKZ hybrid now. Its pretty much a rebadge, but now hybrid as a technology instead of simply a pandering to the green set on a twisted moral ground is an easier and more market friendly sell. And then over time as the cost comes down it can trickle down to the lesser brands.

Perhaps what is most prudent diesel wise is just the 4 and 6 popper diesels in the US ATS in addition to gas engines, and a 6 cyl in the CTS.

Or, an ATS diesel with a 4 and a CTS diesel with a 6. THe hybrid is the XTS, possibly. In Europe then I would probably offer the 2 diesels in the ATS and just the 6 in the CTS. Then I would probably pick the 4 turbo gas and the v6 for the ATS in Europe as well, and just the gas 6 in addition to the diesel for the CTS in Europe.

ATS would really be the fresh start car for Caddy in Europe so it would get a diverse powertrain set. I particularly like the 8 speed automatics, it makes sense to introduce them in cadillac models to amortize the cost.

The XTS would probably get laughed at in Europe but you gotta sell a few, if for no other reason then to just introduce the model and hope its a bridge to a newer and better effort later on.

TOo bad GM was handcuffed with the SRX and 9-4x. Having to build them on the same platform and in the same plant and same powertrains. But GM should be cautious about crossover investment for Cadillac now, I would watch crossover sales and probably be very careful about how the next SRX is designed. I would prefer to see it on rear bias sedan chassis next time...but there may not be enough sales volume to justify a switch to a different platform. That Saab marraige really fuqqed GM over with the SRX and 9-4x. Caddy may have been better off just doing the new SRX with a massively revised body but on the old platform. The mpg is the same anyways seemingly.

The SRX would benefit greatly from diesels i think, more so than the sedans.

Edited August 9, 2010 by regfootball

[Drew Dowdell]

My view on Ethanol is that it is not currently a more economical alternative to fossil fuel exploration and extraction.

Take away the 70-some billion in subsidies that Big Oil and Big Coal get..... and see how economical it is then.

And in the long term is not the most favorable alternative amongst the alternatives. Corn Ethanol is a complete waste of time and is in fact a waste of energy because you are using more energy in its production than you are yielding in total ethanol calorific value. Alternative biomasses are better. Sugarcane for instance is energy positive and only slightly more expensive than imported gasoline in Brazil. However, the US lacks the climate to cultivate it in the required scale. Even if you do the land mass and agricultural opportunity costs associated with alcohol production for the purpose of replacing fossil fuel is staggering.

You ignored the entire part of my post about algae and kelp. Why? It takes very minimal energy to cultivate it and you can even run the exhaust of an electrical plant through the kelp tanks to greatly increase growth (it both keeps them warm and provides LOTs of CO2)

On top of that, even though I do not believe in the validity of the Global Warming hypothesis at all, ethanol will not even satisfy the carbon emission critics because burning ethanol is not carbon neutral.

I wasn't arguing from an environmental perspective at all. Simply an economics supply and demand issue. Demand for petroleum is going up while supply is peaking.

I am all for energy independence and developing alternative energy sources for the future. However, I don't want to see taxpayer money wasted on more wind, solar, hydrogen and/or ethanol. I want vastly expanded domestic oil/gas/coal exploration and extraction in the near term, combined with a long term strategy to put bring 2000 new nuclear power plants online by 2060.

And in 2060... we do what exactly?

Your strategy is roughly similar to Henry Ford saying "that whole automobile thing will NEVER take off.... maybe in 60 years we'll see something. No what we need is more efficient buggie whip production!". Or GM saying "Eh, the Electric car may come out sometime in 2050, in the meantime we'll just build 1985 Cavaliers till then"

Just remember. For every $1 the government "wastes" on renewable energy. It "invests" $12 in fossil fuel development. I want to flip that equation the other way.... but whatever your stance on government spending is, you can at least admit that the renewable energy isn't getting a fair shake on the balance sheet.

[dwightlooi]

Take away the 70-some billion in subsidies that Big Oil and Big Coal get..... and see how economical it is then.

First of all, the reasons subsidies exist wasn't to make oil cheaper to US consumers. In fact, it doesn't make oil cheaper. It is simply to support domestic production as opposed to imports. Some of it is not a subsidy at all but rather a royalty reduction. It costs more money to produce oil domestically, partly because of labor, partly because of all kinds of regulations (some ridiculously unnecessary) and partly because restrictions on exploration has forced expensive production of unproductive in fields. Instead of revising the regulations to make more sense, the US government is content with forcing expensive operations on producers. Producers will prefer to produce where they have the lowest cost and best profits. Other countries are simply offering better terms -- lower royalties, lower taxes and less expensive regulatory environment. The subsidies are mostly tax subsidies. And a lot of it is simply tax credits against royalty taxes for oil produced to bring it more in line with the international market place. It is like saying I am going to take 20% of your profits then giving you a 8% subsidy credit so you are actually paying 12% because other places are asking for 11% and if I don't offer a reduction you are going to go elsewhere. Is that really a subsidy? Or is that simply relinquishing on an arbitrary demand that I made initially that wasn't inline with the global market's going rate?

Ending subsidies will not make oil cheaper to US consumer. What will happen is that the US will import more oil at prices that are already lower than domestic production currently is at to begin with. Domestic production will dwindle even more, and oil dependency will increase. Prices will probably stay about the same, will government expenditures go down.

You ignored the entire part of my post about algae and kelp. Why? It takes very minimal energy to cultivate it and you can even run the exhaust of an electrical plant through the kelp tanks to greatly increase growth (it both keeps them warm and provides LOTs of CO2)

I ignored it because algae and kelp in the vicinity of an electrical plant is an insignificant source of sugar producing biomass in the context of producing enough alcohol to replace gasoline. It is like Biodiesel. Yes, it is practically free and it is great to reuse of fryer fat. But you cannot run an economy on biodiesel because we'll need to make restaurants use 1000 times more vegetable oil and eat 1000 times more french fries -- we can't and don't want to.

I wasn't arguing from an environmental perspective at all. Simply an economics supply and demand issue. Demand for petroleum is going up while supply is peaking.

No doubt. But oil is still cheap. Even at $12 a gallon is it a viable fuel in comparison to the alternatives. The market will tell us when to switch to alternatives. It is when alternatives are naturally more economical.

And in 2060... we do what exactly?

Your strategy is roughly similar to Henry Ford saying "that whole automobile thing will NEVER take off.... maybe in 60 years we'll see something. No what we need is more efficient buggie whip production!". Or GM saying "Eh, the Electric car may come out sometime in 2050, in the meantime we'll just build 1985 Cavaliers till then"

Just remember. For every $1 the government "wastes" on renewable energy. It "invests" $12 in fossil fuel development. I want to flip that equation the other way.... but whatever your stance on government spending is, you can at least admit that the renewable energy isn't getting a fair shake on the balance sheet.

No, we continue to build better cars but refrain from going overboard with alternative energy sources and usage which does not make economic sense until they make economic sense. In the meantime, we spend 50 years building more and more electrical distribution capacity in preparation for the day when most cars are plug in electrics or hybrids. We also spend the next 50 years transitioning from coal, gas and oil powerplants to thermonuclear powerplants. As to when people switch from gasoline engines to hybrids or plug ins, we let the market work it out without subsidies and without tax credits.

In short, we pursue a policy of providing the nation with cheap and plentiful energy. We do not try to force dubiously green and undoubtedly exborbitant energy down the people's throats. We let the invisble hand do its work. We don't do what this clown is proprosing...

[dwightlooi]

We don't do what this clown is proprosing...

[Drew Dowdell]

I ignored it because algae and kelp in the vicinity of an electrical plant is an insignificant source of sugar producing biomass in the context of producing enough alcohol to replace gasoline. It is like Biodiesel. Yes, it is practically free and it is great to reuse of fryer fat. But you cannot run an economy on biodiesel because we'll need to make restaurants use 1000 times more vegetable oil and eat 1000 times more french fries -- we can't and don't want to.

Again, none of these are the only solution. Stop picking out just one basket in my post to put all your eggs in. The great thing about ethanol is that you can use many different biomasses. You can build kelp tanks at electrical plants AND off shore kelp farms AND algae tanks in the great lakes AND sugar cane fields in Alabama AND use waste byproducts of breweries in Virginia AND switch grass from Kansas AND sawdust from North Dakota AND sugar beats from Georgia AND farm waste from Iowa AND.....the list goes on.

No doubt. But oil is still cheap. Even at $12 a gallon is it a viable fuel in comparison to the alternatives. The market will tell us when to switch to alternatives. It is when alternatives are naturally more economical.

It may be a viable fuel, but the economy has already shown it can't handle sustained $4 a gallon gasoline. I want us to end this hostage situation we're in from using so much imported fuel.

[regfootball]

i will say this. creating new energy source is probably our next big low hanging fruit to keeping our economy relevant, much the way that computers / internet / software / Y2k/ IT did from the nineties and the Billy Clinton era on. If we don't get on this, we'll be making clothes to sell at the Aeropostale stores in other countries at this rate.

The sticky wicket we have with energy is that so many people here and abroad have a vested interest in milking the status quo.

There is no competition for electricity and home energy seemingly......public utilities seem to have a monopoly and there is no impetus to create private investment.

For transportation our oil sellers have us by the balls and some of them are politically charged countries we would otherwise not want any association with.

A car like the Volt is a great example of how we can start to make dents in our shift to other means of car transport power. My fear is we will not fund the pot fast enough to work on energy solutions.......and other countries will beat us to it. Or, we will do it and the other countries will steal our technology....or worse yet, retaliate towards us for cutting off their cash flow.

That is one reason I don't mind funding ethanol. I'd much rather fund ethanol development in all forms than say, guarantee the health insurance industry a silly amount of cash flow with mandatory health insurance and raised taxes.

Edited August 9, 2010 by regfootball

[dwightlooi]

Again, none of these are the only solution. Stop picking out just one basket in my post to put all your eggs in. The great thing about ethanol is that you can use many different biomasses. You can build kelp tanks at electrical plants AND off shore kelp farms AND algae tanks in the great lakes AND sugar cane fields in Alabama AND use waste byproducts of breweries in Virginia AND switch grass from Kansas AND sawdust from North Dakota AND sugar beats from Georgia AND farm waste from Iowa AND.....the list goes on.

It may be a viable fuel, but the economy has already shown it can't handle sustained $4 a gallon gasoline. I want us to end this hostage situation we're in from using so much imported fuel.

If the economy cannot support $4 a gallon of gasoline, what makes you think it can support a more expensive alternative?

Without subsidies, the production cost of ethanol is ~1.8x that of gasoline. What it means is that without subsidies, ethanol is about $7.30 gallon when gasoline is $4.00 a gallon. What's more, when the price of oil goes up by 1 monetary unit, the cost of ethanol production goes up by 0.7~0.8 monetary units. This is because the majority of the costs in ethanol production is energy costs and nobody uses ethanol to produce ethanol because fossil fuel is cheaper. To compound that, Ethanol only has about 70% the calorific value of gasoline. Therefore, fuel mileage must necessarily suffer and one gallon of ethanol will only go about 70% the distance as one gallon of gasoline.

The question then becomes, if the economy cannot digest $4/gallon of gasoline, why will it digest $10.29 worth of unsubsidized ethanol to go the same distance? If we subsidize it, the question then becomes if the economy is stuttering due to high energy costs, why will it not stutter even more if you replace expensive gas with a $6.29 subsidy to bring people $4/gallon ethanol, paid for by more than a $6.29 increase taxes and/or public borrowing (due to government wastes in between)?

Again, I am not saying don't produce alternative energy. What I am saying is we should not encourage or discourage alternative energy. We let the market tell the producers if and when it makes sense to produce and market them. We save the money, lower the taxes and stop having the government try to meddle with market economics or impose its flawed visions. Somewhere along the way, alternatives will make economic sense and when they do they will be produced and sold. When that happens we need to make sure that we don't put in regulations to get in the way of its production and distribution. In other words, the less government does the better.

[Drew Dowdell]

Did you even read the entirety of my initial post on this? I address the fuel efficiency concerns AND the cost of energy during production concerns. There is lower caloric content of the fuel but more of the caloric content can be extracted (as a percentage) than can be done with low octane gasoline. All of the numbers you've posted are true for CORN ethanol. Stuff like kelp, algae and brewery waste can be produced at a small fraction of the cost of corn ethanol and at a faster rate as well.

Right now the entire ethanol v. petroleum market is distorted because of the Corn lobby and the Oil lobby.