Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com

Camaro5 Chevy Camaro Forum / Camaro ZL1, SS and V6 Forums - Camaro5.com (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/index.php)
-   General Automotive + Other Cars Discussion (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=6)
-   -   Gas is 3$ a gallon for good. (http://www.camaro5.com/forums/showthread.php?t=10)

28Dennis 04-29-2006 06:56 PM

Gas is 3$ a gallon for good.
 
Ok so gas costs way too much. Every car forum is talking about it, so why not us too. On CNN some gm exec was just talking her head off about E85 and how alot of the cars will be able to drive on both E85 and regular fuel.

So what are the chances that GM uses E85 in a performance car, I think they should do it just to be a first at it. Theres actually already a few E85 gas stations up (one by me!) I think alot of other americans are thinking the way I do, about not just the cars price but how much its going to cost to fuel the thing. As of right now I dont know if I could afford a car like the camaro just because it would get poor mileage. But E85 would be the answer for me.

GM should just do it and make E85 on all there cars. It will help america get off foreign oil, and at the same time make farming an honarble field again.

I say do it, between this car, the pontiac solstice and the new Z06, GM is definitly on the rise, finish it off by making this car E85 ready.

nordjohn 04-29-2006 10:20 PM

are you shure??? :))

--
johntvery@mail.com

wakebord99 05-29-2006 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 28Dennis
Ok so gas costs way too much. Every car forum is talking about it, so why not us too. On CNN some gm exec was just talking her head off about E85 and how alot of the cars will be able to drive on both E85 and regular fuel.

So what are the chances that GM uses E85 in a performance car, I think they should do it just to be a first at it. Theres actually already a few E85 gas stations up (one by me!) I think alot of other americans are thinking the way I do, about not just the cars price but how much its going to cost to fuel the thing. As of right now I dont know if I could afford a car like the camaro just because it would get poor mileage. But E85 would be the answer for me.

GM should just do it and make E85 on all there cars. It will help america get off foreign oil, and at the same time make farming an honarble field again.

I say do it, between this car, the pontiac solstice and the new Z06, GM is definitly on the rise, finish it off by making this car E85 ready.


This should be completely feasable. If you break it down to the science of E85.. it is 105 octane fuel. To put that into perspective.. a car running on 87 octane can achieve a 10.6:1 compression ratio rather safely depending on timing. You increase that to 91 octane, and now you are able to use 11.7:1 compression ratio. That difference in 4 octane points translates to roughly 30 horsepower in most engines (look at Toyota 3.5l engine vs Lexus 3.5l. ).

Now take that same equation and increase the octane to 105.. a differnence of 14 octane points. If all else is equal, that should yeild an increase of 105 horsepower !!!!

All while being less relient on those Arabs or Opec, and increasing jobs and domenstic production. Oh darn.. Bush won't be able to take of another nation for his daddy :(

Humm.. I dunno what do you think E85 ???

-Jay
(this car is more bueatiful than my wife !:D ! )

chevy4824 07-25-2006 12:33 AM

i think if they make the camaro E85 that will be another edge on the Mustang

BlacLac02 07-25-2006 06:32 AM

personally i think that if your buying a sports car like the vette .......your not too concerned with the cost of gas so theres really no point to make it an e85 car. people are still gonna buy them and therestill gonna go through gas. no use in changing something that isnt gonna change the sales

matthewmiller01 07-28-2006 02:44 PM

I doubt I would run an ethanol blend in my sports car. For the same octane fuel, you get lower fuel efficiency and less power than if you use non-ethanol gas. Also, the ethanol blend used to be cheaper. As of ~2 weeks ago, that it no longer true. So I see no benefit to using it. I really don't believe it can make a large dent in our dependancy on middle eastern oil. If it did, I may use it. Just my $.02.

TAG UR IT 07-29-2006 01:12 AM

When I purchased my SS, I was told it was run off of some ethanol blend but performance dropped quite a bit. I've only put in the 93 octane and it runs like a charm. If a cleaner and cheaper method of fueling our performance cars comes along and it takes our reliance off middle easter oil without hindering performance, then I'm all for it. I'll be looking forward to 30+mpg's in the new Camaro. But who knows? By then, GM could even come out with some better form of fuel efficiency. If they can make these cars reliably run off of E85 w/ excellent performace and save a buck, then go for it. Either way, I'm not giving up my high-performance ride for a four banger just cause the higher gas prices. It's not that big of a deal for me. I'll pay it to go fast. But wouldn't it be sweet to say your Camaro gets 40+??? OH YEAH...

Mr. Wyndham 09-29-2007 11:56 PM

Well, I happened to come across this thread by accident, So I figured, "why not bring it back to life?". It could also direct some mildly O/T ethanol chatter out of the Yukon/Tahoe thread ;)

That, and I want to see what members who aren't banned or have more than 6 posts have to say.;)

I'm 100% for it. Fuel economy tends to decrease with E85,though the tradeoff of is more power.

acscamarochick06 09-30-2007 12:00 AM

The more fuel economy I can get, the better!! I'm all for it! GM-- DO something to make our beloved Camaros more fuel efficient!!! Those Mustang suckers with their gas-guzzlers will be grinding their teeth! :D hehe!

Jak 09-30-2007 09:15 AM

I'd like to see it. GM could be the first company to have a sports car run on E85, another thing to kick ford in the :smm7:.

Power Junkie 09-30-2007 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragoneye (Post 25197)

That, and I want to see what members who aren't banned or have more than 6 posts have to say.;)

Ummm... now, now!!!.. a man should not be judged by the size of his........ posts!!! :hitcomputer:

What grades of petrol do you have over there??

We basically have 2 here.... Regular Unleaded 95ron and Super Unleaded at 97-99ron.... recently we've got things like BP Ultimate 102 which is 102ron... but it's £2.42 / $4.93 per litre (about £10.89 / $22.20 per gallon).. not sure how many people use this as it's bloody expensive... it was created more for use on track days.

A bit more on topic:

Lotus have been working on sports car running on E85 with pretty good results...http://car-reviews.automobile.com/ne...supercar/2058/

The_Stache 09-30-2007 01:34 PM

The availability of E85 is its killer.. there are about 1200 e85 stations in the united states... and specifically for me anyway 0 in Arizona. I did a college paper about this topic..

It can be up to $200,000.00 for a regular gas station to retrofit so they can carry and dispense e85 thats part of the reason for the lack of interest by businesses..

The whole problem is.. consumers don't see a reason buy a e85 car unless there are e85 stations.. but businesses wont retrofit until they can return the investment in equipment. The old chicken before the egg scenario...

Mr. Wyndham 09-30-2007 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Power Junkie (Post 25226)
Ummm... now, now!!!.. a man should not be judged by the size of his........ posts!!! :hitcomputer:

What grades of petrol do you have over there??

We basically have 2 here.... Regular Unleaded 95ron and Super Unleaded at 97-99ron.... recently we've got things like BP Ultimate 102 which is 102ron... but it's 2.42 / $4.93 per litre (about 10.89 / $22.20 per gallon).. not sure how many people use this as it's bloody expensive... it was created more for use on track days.

A bit more on topic:

Lotus have been working on sports car running on E85 with pretty good results...http://car-reviews.automobile.com/ne...supercar/2058/

I'll be honest, I'm not sure what 'ron' is in comparison to our Octane ratings...but if you know, then we've got 87, 91, 93 where I'm at.

Quote:

Originally Posted by diarmadhi (Post 25229)
The availability of E85 is its killer.. there are about 1200 e85 stations in the united states... and specifically for me anyway 0 in Arizona. I did a college paper about this topic..

It can be up to $200,000.00 for a regular gas station to retrofit so they can carry and dispense e85 thats part of the reason for the lack of interest by businesses..

The whole problem is.. consumers don't see a reason buy a e85 car unless there are e85 stations.. but businesses wont retrofit until they can return the investment in equipment. The old chicken before the egg scenario...

We're supposed to be getting a massive E85 plant here, I hope. So within 10 years, I can't see why E85 wouldn't be readily available to us. However - you're right. Availability is not good for E85 right now. Being in it's "early" stages, though, I'm hoping that like here - E85 will grow in availability to places that can use it. It's not a universal solution, but untill electric vehicles gain power, and advance more - I see it as the only solution for gas trucks.:iono:

Mindz 09-30-2007 04:46 PM

87, 89 and 91 here. Gas is 3.29 for 87 atm. I just filled up yesterday.

Power Junkie 09-30-2007 05:03 PM

Ron stands for Research Octane Number.... in the US i believe you use a multitude of different units... (PON, AKI, RdON) basically it's just down to the way it's tested to achieve the octane rating. Typically ron (apparently) tends to be 4-5 units higher than the US / Canada equivalent tests.

Mr. Wyndham 09-30-2007 05:55 PM

gotcha! :thumbsup:

Mungo 09-30-2007 07:25 PM

I would like to chime in on this. Wasn't there an article on this forum (or was in Car and driver) about GM doing some current work on a Cadillac CTS engine with DIG Direct Injection Gas engines getting great performance with the E85 gas? This coupled with the Active Fuel Management system would offer great gas milage and performance! The vette has Acitve Fuel Management and gets 27MPG.

JeepinMatt 09-30-2007 08:55 PM

They said they found a way to make biofuel out of algae. They said it won't hamper food production and it yields much more fuel than other crops, such as corn. Plus, you don't need big fields to grow it in. Just a relatively cheap metal "silo" type building to let it sit in.

Mr. Wyndham 09-30-2007 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mungo (Post 25260)
I would like to chime in on this. Wasn't there an article on this forum (or was in Car and driver) about GM doing some current work on a Cadillac CTS engine with DIG Direct Injection Gas engines getting great performance with the E85 gas?

The VVT DI V6 doesn't have E85 capability...not sure why either...:iono: But it does get better mileage and fuel economy. 27hwy which is very good in a massive car like the CTS, especially under the new EPA ratings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mungo (Post 25260)
This coupled with the Active Fuel Management system would offer great gas milage and performance! The vette has Acitve Fuel Management and gets 27MPG.

Not anymore, ;). The new Vette no longer gets AFM, and under the new EPA standards, it has 26mpg, which is an improvement, the old way had it rated at 27 so....

I also think there may have been a slight misconception, here...E85 actually worsens fuel economy, it can provide more performance, but at the price of fuel economy...

i.e. Chevy Impala:

3.9L V6 VVT and AFM: 18/28 mpg
same engine running E85: 13/20 mpg

it's only major selling point at this time is it burns clean.

Power Junkie 10-01-2007 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragoneye (Post 25269)
The VVT DI V6 doesn't have E85 capability...not sure why either...:iono: But it does get better mileage and fuel economy. 27hwy which is very good in a massive car like the CTS, especially under the new EPA ratings.


Not anymore, ;). The new Vette no longer gets AFM, and under the new EPA standards, it has 26mpg, which is an improvement, the old way had it rated at 27 so....

I also think there may have been a slight misconception, here...E85 actually worsens fuel economy, it can provide more performance, but at the price of fuel economy...

i.e. Chevy Impala:

3.9L V6 VVT and AFM: 18/28 mpg
same engine running E85: 13/20 mpg

it's only major selling point at this time is it burns clean.

That coupled (hopefully) with it being a fair bit cheaper then petrol... but this is still early stages for E85.. if the car companies are serious about using it they'll get their R & D fully on the case when it comes to MPG.

The only problem i can see from this then is getting enough fuel in to the cylinders on high power cars... could cause detonation problems.

CamaroSpike23 10-01-2007 03:04 PM

85 ~$2.69, 87 ~$2.79, 91 ~$2.89, 93 ~$2.99, 105 ~$9.05, 110 ~$15.00 down here. I run nothing less than 93 in my Maro. and if I happen to stop at a station that doesnt have 93 (only 91) Ill dump a bottle of racing octane boost in when I fill up. then again, im runnin 12.3:1 compression in my beast, so I have to keep the octane high.

the main thing with switching to E85 is that there is no drastic need to switch. yeah, it might be better for the world, but 90% people dont care enough to go out and switch their beloved gas guzzler to this "ethanol" fuel that they have heard about. (Im using quotes to explain how little people have investigated the long term benefits of ethanol fuel)

Justcallme61 10-01-2007 11:35 PM

thank god i live in south dakota, with corn fields everywhere you look...VERY cheap around here, not sure exactly what it is but i know its almost a dollar cheaper than 87. too bad my honda cant use it :-( lol

DGthe3 10-02-2007 12:48 AM

(be forewarned, this post may contain rambling and/or harsh opinions)

Ethanol is being pressed mainly by people who stand to profit from its use plus enviros who haven't done the research. In case any of you suspect that I don't care for farmers, most of my aunts and uncles still operate farms, some as their primary income. This evening on a science news show on discovery channel they interviewed a professor from Stanford University. A couple of things he mentioned were that the pollution caused by burning ethanol in all cars and trucks on the road now would result in more deaths than are currently linked to 'regular' emmissions. this is expected because of the increased levels of ozone that would result. Now, ozone high up is good, helps protect us from the sun. down low it is toxic, acts as a greenhouse gas, and helps create smog. Also, nobody seems to ask the question of where all the crops to produce biofuel will come from. Seems like cutting down forests to grow crops is a bad idea to reduce global warming. Also, it is not likely that small family farms will particularly benefit from ethanol. A good portion of farming is now done on a massive industrial scale and it is likely that these megafarms will get the supplying contracts,

The bottom line is, nothing is perfect. Everything has its good points and bad. Remeber, using ethanol still creates greenhouse gasses like CO2, it just produces less than gasoline per mile, but not by as much as you would imagine. And that is taking into account the fact that the crops take in CO2 while they grow. It takes a lot of energy to turn sugar into alcohol. and it needs to be 100% pure with no water before it gets added to the gasoline to make E85. Ask someone who makes moonshine about how hard that is to accomplish. For now, gasoline is the best way to currently fuel vehicles until it becomes cheap to use hydrogen or electric cars become popular. Until then, I will take a muscle car that gets 30 mpg on the highway.

Mr. Wyndham 10-02-2007 07:53 AM

I think another of main reasons that it is pushed, yet they don't talk about - is the potential to drastically reduce dependance on Foriegn oil. Whether or not it's cleaner than gas - that point can't be argued...very well...;)

I know it's not perfectly clean and the only clen source of trans. would be hydrogen-electric, or pure electric - but then some could argue, "well it takes too much energy to produce pure hydrogen", or "the electricity is produced by burning coal, which is just as bad as cars"...There's always another side, another critic.:bonk: (this was not directed at you DGthe3)

There is no one solution - but E85 can be a transitional fuel, and a permanent solution in some places...

DGthe3 10-02-2007 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragoneye (Post 25401)
There is no one solution - but E85 can be a transitional fuel, and a permanent solution in some places...

For sure. And those permanent solutions are being researched. With hydrogen, it is expensive and not a source of energy, just a form of storage. It takes energy to get it into a gas, more than when you burn it or put it through a fuel cell. Electrolysis of water (the reverse of what happens in a fuel cell) is very ineffient and works only on a limmited scale. New methods are being developed that are expected to bring the cost down and the scale up. In fact a former professor of mine is working on that right now.
Quote:

For instance, the Faculty is currently cooperating with Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL) to develop a method using heat from nuclear reactors in a thermochemical cycle to decompose water into its basic components of oxygen and hydrogen. Hydrogen burns cleanly, but one of its production challenges is the creation of large quantities in a cost-efficient manner, Dr. Naterer says. He envisions thermochemical plants that sit close to nuclear facilities, using spent heat from the nuclear plant and steam to generate the new hydrogen fuel source
http://engineering.uoit.ca/people/features/naterer.php


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:57 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.