Showcasing E85?
The Consigliere
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 22,993
Likes: 6,042
From: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
Confused by your header of "ridiculous". I was just curious as whether there has been any more info confirming one way or the other on the flex fuel issue from GM.
As to the blend wall being reached on E10, that is fact. There is only a small sliver left of E0 gasoline into which to blend ethanol for an E10 blend. i.e. the blend wall is being reached for E10, yet the regulations to date still require increasing ethanol production for blending. It's the whole reason the E15/E20 scrabble originated.
Given that, and given indications the Gen V engine may be flex fuel in other applications, it seems odd GM wouldn't make the LT1 in the C7 flex fuel capable.
But, like I said, it doesn't appear there has been any more info on the LT1 in this respect since the Bash.
Racer
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 420
Likes: 31
From: Greenville SC
E 85 in ls3
My 2 cents worth on using E85 in a 2008 c6a6. I used a variety of measured percentages of etoh for over 2 years in my car as on octane booster for drag racing with IAT timing retard zeroed out for consistent race times. I had no service problems during this time. I did adjust the afr for the calculated percentage of etoh and also adjusted the PE table to reflect the increased percentage of etoh. I agree with a decline of fuel mileage and increased part throttle torque doing this with percentages up to 40%. I used HP tuners to data log my runs and observed duty cycles for the fuel injectors approximate 100% on some days when the weather was really dry and dense. This limited me to 40% and since I am stock I did not need to push it as my octane requirements where met (no knock retard on logged runs). As to the politics of grain based etoh it is morally wrong as it has inflated the cost of feed grain and food production world wide with no savings for the environment. Cellulosic etoh however should be pursued but must win a place in the energy market based on honest science in an unfettered marketplace.
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,788
Likes: 164
From: Beaverton OR
Did you see this!?
Confused by your header of "ridiculous". I was just curious as whether there has been any more info confirming one way or the other on the flex fuel issue from GM.
As to the blend wall being reached on E10, that is fact. There is only a small sliver left of E0 gasoline into which to blend ethanol for an E10 blend. i.e. the blend wall is being reached for E10, yet the regulations to date still require increasing ethanol production for blending. It's the whole reason the E15/E20 scrabble originated.
Given that, and given indications the Gen V engine may be flex fuel in other applications, it seems odd GM wouldn't make the LT1 in the C7 flex fuel capable.
But, like I said, it doesn't appear there has been any more info on the LT1 in this respect since the Bash.
As to the blend wall being reached on E10, that is fact. There is only a small sliver left of E0 gasoline into which to blend ethanol for an E10 blend. i.e. the blend wall is being reached for E10, yet the regulations to date still require increasing ethanol production for blending. It's the whole reason the E15/E20 scrabble originated.
Given that, and given indications the Gen V engine may be flex fuel in other applications, it seems odd GM wouldn't make the LT1 in the C7 flex fuel capable.
But, like I said, it doesn't appear there has been any more info on the LT1 in this respect since the Bash.
But, maybe the bigger V8 is too dirty on cold starts for the EPA?
And the Title "Ridiculous" was out of frustration and no reflection on your point as I have been waiting for someone to comment from the Bash, and I kind of recall skimming that.
Safety Car
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,547
Likes: 609
From: Southeast, WI
OK... First off, that "global warming crowd" is not just a crowd, it's > 99.9% of scientists in the world covering ALL forms of sciences and it's the VAST majority of people on this planet. Less than 30% of the United States doesn't accept that "climate change" is real. Just wanted to bring that to light. And it's ONLY the U.S.A. that has people that don't accept it. All other 1st world countries know better.
Secondly, in no case has ANY vehicle made since 1990 been damaged by E10. There's not a single documented case of this anywhere. The mere thought that you're buying into that is somewhat amusing (and scary). Think about it... I live in California where we've had E-blends for nearly 30 years. And nobody in California with vehicles made during or after 1990 is having E-blend troubles. Nobody.
And finally, ALL E-blends we have here are either made from imported Ethanol (which means it doesn't affect our food crops) or made from corn product that was going to live-stock feed and the bi-product of making Ethanol from that corn was in-fact live stock feed still. It doesn't affect our food source.
Keep in mind that corn is subsidized by the government.
Fair enough, about the octane.
However, we have additives in our E-blends here too. Meaning that our fuel actually DOES clean the engine better. But more importantly, it keeps debris out of the fuel lines better. Fuel injection cleaners are actually alcohol based. (Did you know that?)
One of the reasons why every E85-run engine has looked cleaner during a tear down vs. it's E0 counterparts. This is an undeniable fact.
And for both of you, I want to you to realize something BIG... Los Angeles, the city I live in, used to have a thick brown layer of nasty smog you could see over the skyline about 25 years ago. I remember seeing it all the time as a kid. Even 20 years ago it wasn't that great. But today, even though there is still some smog that is visible, it's NOTHING like it used to be. The air isn't as hard to breath. But keep in mind we have more cars and less public transportation than any other metropolis.
So when you say the government is "forcing" you to use cleaner burning fuels, it's for a reason that matters. Even if you don't accept that climate change is real (though, I'm not sure how you can argue with that many scientists), you can at least accept the visual confirmation that you're breathing in less cancer-causing pollutants. Then again, you might be 70 years old and not have kids or grandkids you want to survive longer than you.
Secondly, in no case has ANY vehicle made since 1990 been damaged by E10. There's not a single documented case of this anywhere. The mere thought that you're buying into that is somewhat amusing (and scary). Think about it... I live in California where we've had E-blends for nearly 30 years. And nobody in California with vehicles made during or after 1990 is having E-blend troubles. Nobody.
And finally, ALL E-blends we have here are either made from imported Ethanol (which means it doesn't affect our food crops) or made from corn product that was going to live-stock feed and the bi-product of making Ethanol from that corn was in-fact live stock feed still. It doesn't affect our food source.
Keep in mind that corn is subsidized by the government.
Fair enough, about the octane.
However, we have additives in our E-blends here too. Meaning that our fuel actually DOES clean the engine better. But more importantly, it keeps debris out of the fuel lines better. Fuel injection cleaners are actually alcohol based. (Did you know that?)
One of the reasons why every E85-run engine has looked cleaner during a tear down vs. it's E0 counterparts. This is an undeniable fact.
And for both of you, I want to you to realize something BIG... Los Angeles, the city I live in, used to have a thick brown layer of nasty smog you could see over the skyline about 25 years ago. I remember seeing it all the time as a kid. Even 20 years ago it wasn't that great. But today, even though there is still some smog that is visible, it's NOTHING like it used to be. The air isn't as hard to breath. But keep in mind we have more cars and less public transportation than any other metropolis.
So when you say the government is "forcing" you to use cleaner burning fuels, it's for a reason that matters. Even if you don't accept that climate change is real (though, I'm not sure how you can argue with that many scientists), you can at least accept the visual confirmation that you're breathing in less cancer-causing pollutants. Then again, you might be 70 years old and not have kids or grandkids you want to survive longer than you.
Last edited by speedlink; May 15, 2013 at 04:47 PM.
The Consigliere
Joined: May 2006
Posts: 22,993
Likes: 6,042
From: 2023 Z06 & 2010 ZR1
That's cool.
Maybe we'll know when they finally release the performance specs for the LT1. Perhaps "final" info on whether it will be flex fuel or not, will be a part of that.
Le Mans Master
Joined: May 2010
Posts: 7,756
Likes: 173
From: Ventura CA
Corvette Stories
The Best of Corvette for Corvette Enthusiasts
Top 10 Most Explosive Corvettes Ever Made: Power-to-Weight Ratio Ranked!
Joe Kucinski
150 hp to 1,250 hp: Every Corvette Generation Compared by the Specs That Matter
Joe Kucinski
8 Coolest Corvette Pace Cars (and Replicas) of All Time
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvette Engines RANKED by Peak Torque (70+ Years of Muscle!)
Joe Kucinski
Corvette ZR1X Will Be Pacing the Indy 500, And Could Probably Race, Too!
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Corvettes Coming to Mecum Indy 2026!
Brett Foote
Top 10 C9 Corvette MUST-HAVES to Fix These C8 Generation Flaws!
Michael S. Palmer
10 Revolutionary 'Corvette Firsts' Most People Don't Know
Joe Kucinski
5 Reasons to Upgrade to an LS6-Powered Corvette; 5 Reasons to Stay LT2
Michael S. Palmer
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 12
From: Los Angeles California
I love it when supporters of something quote #'s. NO 99.9% of scientists do not support global warming. It's baseless. Emails were obtained from European scientists that said they were not using the true facts of the research. Again a huge hoax. Politically driven. We don't need to use more oil to produce less mileage. Just insane! Cleaner burning fuels had nothing to do with E85 or E10. That had to do with catalytic converters and and lead free fuel. E10 hasn't been around long enough to help clean up LA air.
Racer
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: Espoo, Finland
Faster you guys adapt to biofuels, less painful it will be when oil is +200$/ barrel.
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,788
Likes: 164
From: Beaverton OR
I still like the Timing!
But, checking out the local competitions setups in this regard has me wondering?:
http://www.ford.com/trucks/f150/specifications/engine/
3.7 FFV
3.5 Ecoboost DI Not a FFV
5.0 FFV
6.2 Not a FFV
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,788
Likes: 164
From: Beaverton OR
Oh!
Maybe the Fords fuel systems aren't up to the extra demand, like the Corvette now is(still or cheapened now?)!
And why didn't the Bash questions in regard to there not being E85 not have a WHY answered? Did they really not want to know like some around here?
And why didn't the Bash questions in regard to there not being E85 not have a WHY answered? Did they really not want to know like some around here?
Last edited by johnglenntwo; May 16, 2013 at 05:11 PM.
Team Owner
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 23,480
Likes: 9
From: East Meadow NY
St. Jude Donor '12
Myself and many other people disagree that humans are the main cause of this warming. We may be contributing but the temperature of the earth has been increasing for the past 11,000 years. We are leaving an ice age and as such, the temperature should be increasing.
The most recent study showed we are near a 5million year "high" in C02 levels, however based on their estimates the earth was actually hotter and sea levels were higher back then compared to now. This would lead to a logical conclusion that the doom and gloom models are missing something.
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,788
Likes: 164
From: Beaverton OR
Really!?
Most people agree the temperature of the earth is increasing. The main point of disagreement is what is causing this increase in temperature. Many people would have you believe that humans are the main cause of this behavior.
Myself and many other people disagree that humans are the main cause of this warming. We may be contributing but the temperature of the earth has been increasing for the past 11,000 years. We are leaving an ice age and as such, the temperature should be increasing.
The most recent study showed we are near a 5million year "high" in C02 levels, however based on their estimates the earth was actually hotter and sea levels were higher back then compared to now. This would lead to a logical conclusion that the doom and gloom models are missing something.
Myself and many other people disagree that humans are the main cause of this warming. We may be contributing but the temperature of the earth has been increasing for the past 11,000 years. We are leaving an ice age and as such, the temperature should be increasing.
The most recent study showed we are near a 5million year "high" in C02 levels, however based on their estimates the earth was actually hotter and sea levels were higher back then compared to now. This would lead to a logical conclusion that the doom and gloom models are missing something.
Safety Car
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 4,547
Likes: 609
From: Southeast, WI
Most people agree the temperature of the earth is increasing. The main point of disagreement is what is causing this increase in temperature. Many people would have you believe that humans are the main cause of this behavior.
Myself and many other people disagree that humans are the main cause of this warming. We may be contributing but the temperature of the earth has been increasing for the past 11,000 years. We are leaving an ice age and as such, the temperature should be increasing.
The most recent study showed we are near a 5million year "high" in C02 levels, however based on their estimates the earth was actually hotter and sea levels were higher back then compared to now. This would lead to a logical conclusion that the doom and gloom models are missing something.
Myself and many other people disagree that humans are the main cause of this warming. We may be contributing but the temperature of the earth has been increasing for the past 11,000 years. We are leaving an ice age and as such, the temperature should be increasing.
The most recent study showed we are near a 5million year "high" in C02 levels, however based on their estimates the earth was actually hotter and sea levels were higher back then compared to now. This would lead to a logical conclusion that the doom and gloom models are missing something.
couldn't agree more. In some measurements temps are starting to decline slightly. Man does not have an effect on temps. Mother nature rules. Remember when Exxon dumped oil in Valdez AK? A lot of fringe environmentalists were saying the plant life and coral were destroyed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yet, only 10 years after the spill, plant life, coral and fish populations, were more plentiful than before. Also, new fish were found that hadn't been there before. Nature will trump Man every time. Al Gore will not agree.
Thread Starter
Le Mans Master
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 8,788
Likes: 164
From: Beaverton OR
Nothing!?
couldn't agree more. In some measurements temps are starting to decline slightly. Man does not have an effect on temps. Mother nature rules. Remember when Exxon dumped oil in Valdez AK? A lot of fringe environmentalists were saying the plant life and coral were destroyed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yet, only 10 years after the spill, plant life, coral and fish populations, were more plentiful than before. Also, new fish were found that hadn't been there before. Nature will trump Man every time. Al Gore will not agree.
Race Director
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 10,355
Likes: 12
couldn't agree more. In some measurements temps are starting to decline slightly. Man does not have an effect on temps. Mother nature rules. Remember when Exxon dumped oil in Valdez AK? A lot of fringe environmentalists were saying the plant life and coral were destroyed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yet, only 10 years after the spill, plant life, coral and fish populations, were more plentiful than before. Also, new fish were found that hadn't been there before. Nature will trump Man every time. Al Gore will not agree.
Race Director
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 10,776
Likes: 11
LT1 is NOT E85 capable!
@ 48:50 - Jordan Lee, Chief Engineer of Small Block Engines talking about the LT1.
http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?m=201305&cat=790
Reasons...E85 usage not high, cost to develop to large, fuel economy is worse. Actually that part starts at 47:39 with a phone call...
http://www.autoline.tv/journal/?m=201305&cat=790
Reasons...E85 usage not high, cost to develop to large, fuel economy is worse. Actually that part starts at 47:39 with a phone call...
Last edited by BlueOx; May 16, 2013 at 09:34 PM.
Le Mans Master
Joined: Jul 2009
Posts: 9,526
Likes: 12
From: Los Angeles California
There is measurement data for over 150 years. I do not know you your media manipulated this news but problem was that their own model does not work accurately in prediction of future temperatures. But real history of real measurements is solid. (we just do not know how freaking hot or cold it was in history beyond thousands of years)
Faster you guys adapt to biofuels, less painful it will be when oil is +200$/ barrel.
Faster you guys adapt to biofuels, less painful it will be when oil is +200$/ barrel.
However, we do have a real history of temperatures on Earth going back 800,000 years thanks to ice core samples. Sorry, but the media has NOTHING to do with this kind of research. That's what scientists do. Not journalists. Fox, NBC and CNN aren't traveling to the ice shelves and pulling core samples. Scientists are. Why do you think they're doing this? Because they think they're going to find a milk chocolate center of the Earth?
Most people agree the temperature of the earth is increasing. The main point of disagreement is what is causing this increase in temperature. Many people would have you believe that humans are the main cause of this behavior.
Myself and many other people disagree that humans are the main cause of this warming. We may be contributing but the temperature of the earth has been increasing for the past 11,000 years. We are leaving an ice age and as such, the temperature should be increasing.
The most recent study showed we are near a 5million year "high" in C02 levels, however based on their estimates the earth was actually hotter and sea levels were higher back then compared to now. This would lead to a logical conclusion that the doom and gloom models are missing something.
Myself and many other people disagree that humans are the main cause of this warming. We may be contributing but the temperature of the earth has been increasing for the past 11,000 years. We are leaving an ice age and as such, the temperature should be increasing.
The most recent study showed we are near a 5million year "high" in C02 levels, however based on their estimates the earth was actually hotter and sea levels were higher back then compared to now. This would lead to a logical conclusion that the doom and gloom models are missing something.
There are simply physics involved in this. Here's what I just don't understand: We dump more C02 into the atmosphere and we know from scientific study that C02 is a greenhouse gas. And nobody at all is denying this part of scientific fact. We're dumping millions of tons of C02 into the atmosphere at a rate greater than the rate that C02 that can be absorbed by plant-life and other C02 breathing life (green algae) but some people don't want to admit that we have something to do with the warming of the planet at a rate beyond what it usually warms at.
Now, sure, there's plenty of data that supports this. But data is boring and hard to understand. So if you take it down to goo goo gaa gaa dribble, you only have to point out events like when the Gulf Loop current stalled. These things are actually happening.
The fact remains that there is a TON of money being sunk into coming up with "science" to back that man-caused climate change is a hoax and that money is primarily coming from big oil. There's also no denying that.
Again, we're the only country in the world that has a relatively large population of people that ignore scientific fact.
Since I'm not a scientist and I'm not as knowledgeable as any of these scientists, I'm willing to take the word of 97% of scientists in the WORLD over a few people on a forum that very much obviously are getting their news from a media outlet that is oil backed.
couldn't agree more. In some measurements temps are starting to decline slightly. Man does not have an effect on temps. Mother nature rules. Remember when Exxon dumped oil in Valdez AK? A lot of fringe environmentalists were saying the plant life and coral were destroyed for hundreds if not thousands of years. Yet, only 10 years after the spill, plant life, coral and fish populations, were more plentiful than before. Also, new fish were found that hadn't been there before. Nature will trump Man every time. Al Gore will not agree.
)I'm not sure where you guys get your info, but there's so much misinformation, you guys really should do some fact checking. SOMEONE is definitely lying to you about the Valdez spill. Fish population more plentiful than ever? Noooooo....
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill)
Both the long-term and short-term effects of the oil spill have been studied.[26] Immediate effects included the deaths of, at the best estimates[citation needed], 100,000 to as many as 250,000 seabirds, at least 2,800 sea otters, approximately 12 river otters, 300 harbor seals, 247 Bald Eagles, and 22 orcas, and an unknown number of salmon and herring.[8][27] The effects of the spill continued to be felt for many years[quantify] afterwards. Overall reductions in population were seen in various ocean animals, including stunted growth in pink salmon populations.[28] The effect on salmon and other prey populations in turn adversely affected killer whales in Prince William Sound and Alaska's Kenai Fjords region. Eleven members (about half) of one resident pod disappeared in the following year. By 2009, scientists[who?] estimated the AT1 transient population (considered part of a larger population of 346 transients), numbered only 7 individuals and had not reproduced since the spill, this population is expected to die out.[citation needed] Sea otters and ducks also showed higher[quantify] death rates in following years,[quantify] partially because they ingested prey from contaminated soil and from ingestion of oil residues on hair due to grooming.[29]
Some twenty years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the effects were lasting far longer than expected.[28] The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to thirty years to recover. The spill occurred on March 24, 1989.[clarification needed][8] Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.[29] However, a NOAA study concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.[24]
As of 2010 there were an estimated 23,000 US gallons (87 m3) of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil, breaking down at a rate estimated at less than 4% per year.[30]
Some twenty years after the spill, a team from the University of North Carolina found that the effects were lasting far longer than expected.[28] The team estimates some shoreline Arctic habitats may take up to thirty years to recover. The spill occurred on March 24, 1989.[clarification needed][8] Exxon Mobil denies any concerns over this, stating that they anticipated a remaining fraction that they assert will not cause any long-term ecological impacts, according to the conclusions of 350 peer-reviewed studies.[29] However, a NOAA study concluded that this contamination can produce chronic low-level exposure, discourage subsistence where the contamination is heavy, and decrease the "wilderness character" of the area.[24]
As of 2010 there were an estimated 23,000 US gallons (87 m3) of Valdez crude oil still in Alaska's sand and soil, breaking down at a rate estimated at less than 4% per year.[30]
And if you honestly believe that ANY fish population is coming back more plentiful, you're VERY much wrong. We're actually fishing out our sea-based food supply.
http://overfishing.org/pages/why_is_..._a_problem.php