speedlink

Please, please, keep it that way! Or take it away entirely. What a waste of oil. To produce a gallon of gas that is, with ethanol in it.

SBC_and_a_stick

Yeah, it makes no sense to me why it's not flex fuel. Fuel economy matters even less in a sports application. Part of me wants to say this is about cost cutting. E85 capability didn't make the cut for 52k asking price. In the truck application it may be that the drivers use E85 often enough to make it a necessity. With the Covette cost of implementation was too high for the given user base.

Jawnathin

I've read some of your other posts and while I generally agree with your opinion and find them to be thoughtful, I think you're completely off on this one.

With all due respect, are you really that naive to believe that E85 wasn't added because they're protecting the Z06? What good reason do they have to protecting a car they don't even make anymore?

There is no protection here. There is no evidence to suggest anything like that. They're going to do everything they can to pitch and motivate buyers to the C7 because that is what they're going to be selling moving forward.

The car's capabilities are simply what they are and to blame it because you think it would be competitive with an older model is for a lack of a better word, fanboy-ism.

Plus, even with E85, a C7 still would be slower than a Z06.

BlueOx

Fanboy-ism right back at ya.

Jawnathin

Um, nope. And despite your shot at me, that wasn't meant to be derogatory towards LS3_E85. As I said, it was used because I couldn't think of a better word.

However, there is actual logic behind my statement, unlike just having faith in a feature or capability that doesn't exist.

That blind faith is what makes the E85 claim fanboy-ish.

BlueOx

Fanboy-ism isn't a shot at you any more than it was a shot at LS3_E85.
Note the bolded text...

Jawnathin

Right

What about the bold text? I know exactly what I said and I know what point you're trying to make.

Once again, the difference is that there is actual logic behind my statement and it does not rely on having faith in a feature or capability that doesn't exist.

Now, do you have anything meaningful to add or are you going to continue to try to debate semantics?