Why the C7 Z51 can't use E85
 

Because it would be faster than the C6Z06 :D

The 6.2 liter in the pickup truck also is not designed for E85.

They have the technology to “tune on-the-fly” between different fuels and whenever direct injection is used the physical limitations have already been overcome.

The cost of software is moot and if they wanted the C7 to have the additional power associated with a motor tuned to run on E85, it would be on this year's model.

Last fall I started a thread saying how the C7 on E 85 would be faster than a C6Z06 that really ruffled some feathers. The statement is true and those who tune their Z51 equipped C7 Corvettes will have a faster car than what the C6Z06 is.

You sir are 100% correct, and believe it or not, if they didn't tune it for fuel efficiency, it might be faster than Z06 on premium fuel only :thumbs:

I get my C7 this year, and by next summer (once i'm more comfortable with the car) I will put my E85 tuning skills on the C7. I bet it traps near 125mph on a E85 tune as the only mod :cheers:

The current 6.2 in the Silverado/Sierra is designed for E85, and runs quite well on it!

I'm not sure about the new Ecotec 6.2 truck engine which is slated to come out for 2014, although I would hope that GM keeps it flexfuel as well.


.

:lurk:

Maybe they don't want the warranty issues associated with the extra power on the base car.

Maybe they just don't want the car's press to be muddled with confusion over a fuel that costs more, gets worse fuel economy, and most people can't get anyway. Especially if ethanol is falling out of favor, as the political discussion over the ethanol mandate suggests.

Or maybe they just want to sell you a much more expensive car in another year.

I can see some of these points Jinx, but they most definitely are not scared of the fuel given that nearly all motors in their car line up use it, other than mr. corvette & Camaro. I have a feeling it has to do with warranty issues with the new found power, so I agree on that level.

I don't think they're scared of the fuel, but it seems like a distraction to marketing.

This is a obvious drawback, and it hasn't stopped GM or Ford from making Flex fuel cars. On the upside I paid $2.33 per gallon for E85 today. Nearly a dollar cheaper than pump. So I'm actually coming out ahead financially given the fuel efficiency loss.

Again!
 

1) Narrow tires can't handle any more torque?

2) Fuel system headroom$ too expensive on the larger displacement, and keeping costs down to keep the price down on this breakout car? They probably don't think it would up the cars value significantly enough?

(And obviously they aren't really going after all the MAX performance loyalists now, since, they didn't go to The Ring at the end of June like before (its cooler in June!)).

:troll

Good read, thanks for sharing :thumbs:

.......and as noted in the thread, wait until they tune it having picked up that much power just by switching to E85 but not yet calibrating for the different fuel.

Somebody call 911 because JoeC5 is about to have a heart attack! :rofl:


J/k Joe....deep breaths buddy.

Efficiency!
 

LT1 makes reliable HP on gas!:thumbs:

LT4? ~= LS9 + DI + VVT + E85 makes 700HP reliably easily:thumbs:, without E85 not reliably!:D

:troll

The company that comes up with a software program to download to the C7 that will allow it to “tune to the fuel being burned” on-the-fly, is going to do very well.

The only way they won't laugh all the way the bank is if GM makes the program available cheaper and with a warranty. (Actually just the warranty part will give them a major advantage over any aftermarket company).

I'll be a little surprised if we don't see it appear in the next few years on the vette. IIRC GM still gets CAFE credits for making E85 vehicles, which is the reason they even exist, and with CAFE continuing to ramp up, plus the performance benefit (not mileage; just power), I could see this showing up down the road. I'm a little surprised it didn't debut with it.

I'm glad the C7 doesn't use E85

Ethanol has less energy in it per volume than gasoline. Nothing will ever change that.

You can be more efficient by upping compression or advancing timing to take advantage of the octane, but it will never overcome the difference in energy content between petroleum fuel and ethanol. It's not even close.

Ethanol /E85 a fedgov boondoggle that wastes tax dollars, food crops, water resources, and costs more in petroleum fuel to produce than it replaces.

The amount of land it would take to create enough corn to fuel America's cars is larger than the surface area of the Unites States. So start tilling your yard and driving about a quarter as much as you do now and maybe we won't need oil anymore.

Brazil uses sugar cane, and that is a fool's argument also, because Brazil has been clear cutting rain forest to get the land for the sugar cane. Between the rain forest burn/cut, the poor quality of the rain forest soil, and the fertilizers/diesel needed to farm, it is a net loss for the environment.

Switchgrass = I'll believe it when I see it happening without government subsidies. Ethanol has been around for a while and it has not turned out to be any kind of boon except to the farmers and those who own the facilities (also the farmers).

NO E85 for the C7, and dump the E85 Eco-Fool... uh, fuel subsidies. :smash:

Suggest you read the link provided in post 12 :yesnod:

Good info, so 19 rwhp and 23 rwtq in a ~300+ rwhp L83.
When there were rumors that the LT1 was going to be an E85 capable engine, people were talking about 10-12%/40-50rwhp gains just by switching to E85. I don't think that's going to happen comparing apples-to-apples tunes for gas and E85 from the OEM.
For me, ~20-25 rwhp isn't worth it. There is one E85 station in Orlando and the service stations on the Florida Turnpike have E85. There is nothing closer than ~30-40 minutes away. Add to that the pretty big drop in fuel economy and I personally would stick with gas except in the rare instances that E85 was handy.
S.