Flexible Fuel?

Is Honda considering a flexible fuel platform to allow up to 85% Ethanol? If not, what is involved in converting vehicle to burn this fuel?

Is Honda considering a flexible fuel platform to allow up to 85% Ethanol? If not, what is involved in converting vehicle to burn this fuel?
From what I've read on this subject, there is NO conversion to FF from gas engines, nor is it possible at this time.

from what i've heard on an interview that the flex fuel only entails changing a chip and the plastics that are in the fuel delivery system. there's a new book out about the subject, if i find what the title is i will post.

Let's also consider that if a mod is available, the cost for the parts and service, if needed may be such making said conversion obsolete from a savings perspective. Can you imagine what kind of mark up will exist? :eek: I'll drive my Ridgeline the way it is until it's time to replace it. By then, maybe some of these unknowns my be answered and then I'll buy what ever is the standard for the time. :)

I too hope that Honda is developing a Flexible Fuel version of the Ridgline.

There are many more E-85 outlets springing up in the corn belt states now and it's nice to be able to support our local economy by increasing the demand for corn based ethanol.

Chevrolet is really pushing the "Greeness" factor of being able to burn E-85 in their full size SUVs and pickups. Honda may as well gain some good will by doing the same.

Since the market share for Ridgelines is so much smaller than for Silverados, maybe it's not really cost effective for Honda to make the changes required for Flex-Fuel capability?

i've read somewhere that, flex fuel is very corrosive and the engine has to have a minor overhaul every so many mile example: 25000 miles, could be wrong, to change the fuel hoses and some engine parts.:confused:

I saw in the Chicago Sun Times yesterday an ad for Chevy where they are offering a $1,000 gas card good for The E85 gas when you buy one of their new vehicles that can run on E85.

I would gladly pay extra to support our farmers rather than arab oil pumpers. I'm disappointed the RL is not flexfuel compatible.

I don't have my manual with me (at work) but I thought I read the RL would run on 85-15 mix of gas to ethanol. Or are you guys talking about a heavier mix?

I don't have my manual with me (at work) but I thought I read the RL would run on 85-15 mix of gas to ethanol. Or are you guys talking about a heavier mix?


It can use 10% ethanol, but not E85 (85% ethanol). Form what I understand you need all stainless steel fuel system. I think the RL's is mostly plastic.

One MAJOR side effect of E85 is the gelling that occurs during cold weather......Bad, bad things happen....

That's incorrect. You must be thinking of Biodiesel, which will gel in cold weather.

E85 is 85 percent ethanol (ethyl or grain alcohol) and 15 percent gasoline. Pure ethanol has a freezing point of -179 degrees Fahrenheit and is used in thermometers to measure temperatures colder than -40F, at which point mercury thermometers "freeze" (the mercury becomes solid). Therefore you don't have to worry about E85 gelling at cold temperatures.

In fact, other types of alcohol, including methanol (methyl or wood alcohol) and isopropyl alcohol are used as gas line antifreeze in products such as "HEET".

That's incorrect. You must be thinking of Biodiesel, which will gel in cold weather.

You are correct -
I was thinking of Bio-Diesel!

Corrected my post....

It's been a while, but the last reading I did on the subject said that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it gives up fueling a vehicle (?)

It's been a while, but the last reading I did on the subject said that it takes more energy to produce ethanol than it gives up fueling a vehicle (?)

That all depends on how you figure the true costs of production of ethanol vs gasoline.

Here's some interesting reading if you'd like to get a different view on the subject.

http://www.ethanolacrossamerica.net/04CFDC-003_IssueBrief.pdf

Do you remember when we bought additives to clean the h2o out of our gas tanks??? in 74 after the gas crisis we had ethinal stations that were 95% ethinal. I liked that , 20 gals, 1 gal alcohol, extra cost $0.50. The additive cost $0.98 to $1.76. Now, Please Honda: make a Ridgeline to run on e-85 and give use a conversion to also use the new product. If its$1k to $2k, hopefully closer to $1k I would jump top convert.:D

I said energy not cost.

ethanolacrossamerica.net seems like an astroturf org to me

Don't forget you'll take a hit on gas mileage with E85. It only has around 72 or 73% of the energy as the same amount of gasoline, so your mileage may drop up to 20%.

Lot of factors to look into.

Don't forget you'll take a hit on gas mileage with E85. It only has around 72 or 73% of the energy as the same amount of gasoline, so your mileage may drop up to 20%.
I read in Popular Mechanics it was more like 50% more fuel required, so if you get 18 MPG now, you'll get 12 MPG with E85.

I said energy not cost.

ethanolacrossamerica.net seems like an astroturf org to me

Apparently you didn't read the article very closely.

http://www.ethanolacrossamerica.net/04CFDC-003_IssueBrief.pdf

From page 6:

"“The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An
Update,” published by the USDA’s Office of the
Chief Economist and Office of Energy Policy and
New Uses. The report concluded that ethanol
production is energy efficient because it yields
34% more energy than is used. According to
Agricultural Secretary Ann M. Veneman, “This
new research shows that ethanol is a valuable
resource.” The USDA yet again, in June 2004,
looked at this issue and determined that ethanol
continues to be more efficient, and now provides
the aforementioned 1.67 to 1 gain in energy."

It doesn't matter whether EthanolAcrossAmerica is an astroturf organization or not,
the important numbers come from the USDA.

Apparently you didn't read the article very closely.

http://www.ethanolacrossamerica.net/04CFDC-003_IssueBrief.pdf

From page 6:

"“The Energy Balance of Corn Ethanol: An
Update,” published by the USDA’s Office of the
Chief Economist and Office of Energy Policy and
New Uses. The report concluded that ethanol
production is energy efficient because it yields
34% more energy than is used. According to
Agricultural Secretary Ann M. Veneman, “This
new research shows that ethanol is a valuable
resource.” The USDA yet again, in June 2004,
looked at this issue and determined that ethanol
continues to be more efficient, and now provides
the aforementioned 1.67 to 1 gain in energy."

It doesn't matter whether EthanolAcrossAmerica is an astroturf organization or not,
the important numbers come from the USDA.
The energy consumed versus the energy supplied is just that. They are talking about how much energy is required to produce ethanol versus how much energy it can provide...not at all anything to do with your MPG>

The consumption rate for ethanol is higher due to the air-to-fuel ratio requirements. Independent studies have shown E85 generates more horsepower than 87 octane gasoline (like all alcohol based fuels). Why do you think they call it "Top Fuel" in drag racing?

Most any modern "engine" can be easily modified to run on E85 or 100% ethanol by changing the air-to-fuel mixture. Note I said engine which does not include other components such as the gas tank, fuel pump and fuel lines. And most of that should not be a big deal considering how much many people spend on one chrome 20 inch wheel.

What I find interesting is how much of the garage tinkerers are modifying engines to run on bio-diesel and ethanol - which proves this stuff does not require physics degree to understand. If this world were less about me tomorrow and more about a life 50 years from now maybe there would not be such a huge resistance to changes in fuel usage or energy in general. I saw a piezo eletric cooling device demostrated many years ago - which eliminated A/C compressor pumps and refrigerant all together and why don't we see that in use today?

If this world were less about me tomorrow and more about a life 50 years from now maybe there would not be such a huge resistance to changes in fuel usage or energy in general.

I agree. Instead of worrying if we are spending a few extra cents per gallon at the pump, we should be looking at reducing our dependence on middle eastern oil, and keeping all of that money at home were it can so some good, instead of being in debt to foreign countries.

By concentrating on ethanol production and flex-fuel cars, Brazil is set to become energy dependent this year, relying only on energy produced domestically in Brazil.

http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/display.article?id=6817

From the linked article:

"Even though ethanol gets less mileage than gasoline, in Brazil it's still cheaper per mile driven. "

The US has different problems with ethanol production than Brazil but is shows that ethanol is a viable way to reduce our imports of foreign oil.

GM flex fuel type truck in USA

"Northernlights" what's your point again about flex-fuel vehicles being different than what we drive?

2007 Chevy Avalanche

http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com//pictures/VEHICLE/2007/Chevrolet/100536543/20032058-E.jpg

I'm not really sure how I became the point man for ethanol and Flex-fuels here, but you don't have to take my word about their benefits.

Here's was what President George W. Bush said about these topics on April 25, 2006:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/04/20060425.html

"Ethanol is -- has got the largest potential for immediate growth. Most people may not know this, but today, most of ethanol produced in America today is from corn. Most vehicles can use 10 percent ethanol in their automobiles.

What's interesting that Americans don't realize, with a little bit of expenditure, we can convert a -- kind of the standard automobile to what's called a flex-fuel automobile. And that flex-fuel vehicle can use ethanol that is -- or fuel that is 85 percent ethanol. It's amazing, isn't it? Without much cost, your automobile can be converted to be able to burn fuel with 85 percent ethanol, or a product made from corn grown right here in America.

Ethanol is a versatile fuel and the benefits are -- the benefits are easy to recognize when you think about it. One, the use of ethanol in our automobiles is good for the agricultural sector. I'm one of these people who believes when the agricultural sector is strong, America is strong. (Applause.) The way I like to put it, it would be a good thing when a President can sit there and say, gosh, we've got a lot of corn, and it means we're less dependent on foreign sources of oil. (Applause.)

Years back, they'd say, oh, gosh, we've got a lot of corn, worried about the price. Ethanol is good for our rural communities. It's good economic development for rural America. New biorefinery construction creates jobs and local tax revenues. When the farmer -- when the family farmer is doing well, it's good for the local merchants.

Ethanol is good for the environment. I keep emphasizing that we can be good stewards of our environment, and at the same time, continue with our economic expansion. And ethanol will help meet that strategy. You don't have to choose between good environment and good economics. You can have both by the use of technology. And ethanol is an example of what I'm talking about. And ethanol is good for drivers. Ethanol is home-grown. Ethanol will replace gasoline consumption. It's a good -- ethanol is good for the whole country, and we've been -- (applause.) I thought you'd like that. (Laughter.)"

"The ethanol industry is on the move, and America is better off for it."

President George W. Bush April 25, 2006.

Here is some more interesting reading from the White House:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050516-3.html

Hay, our Pres says a lot of things that need to happen, but he never puts his efferts where his mouth is. Case in point, the VA, their budget has been cut below the cost of living requirements to keep pace, AND KNOW, WHEN WE HAVE INCREASED NEEDS FOR OUR RETURNING INJURED SERVICEMENM WHERE IS THE ACTION BY THE WHITEHOUSE:mad: . Another case, NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, Where is the action by the Whitehouse???

I know that this is a Ridgeline forum, but when you bring a politicians slant into it, be prepared to back it up with the politicians plan of action and not reterack (sp.)!!!:eek:

I'm all for reducing our dependence on oil (foreign or domestic) and ethanol is a stop gap method for accomplishing that feat. It's not a long term solution by any means.

What we call "gasoline" is a very complex product. What we call gasoline in Arkansas is not the same as gasoline in California or New Mexico. About 80% of all unleaded regular gasoline is really E10... what we used to call Gasohol.

Real 100% gasoline (rare today) contains approx. 120,000 BTU's per gallon. Typical unleaded regular gasoline (E10) today contains about 111,500 BTU's per gallon.

E85 has only about 81,000 BTU's per gallon.

That means that if everything was equal... such as burning E85 in a non-Flex Fuel vehicle... you would lose about 30% of the energy per gallon of fuel burned. Yes, that much less fuel mileage in a vehicle not equipped to adjust the the differences in E85 (it's much more than just stainless fuel lines).

Gasoline needs to burn at an Air-to-Fuel (AFR) of 14.64:1. In reality our engines vary between approx. 12.5 - 15:1, but 14.7:1 is a good average.

E85 is a different fuel. The stoich AFR for E85 is 9.765:1. So E85 not only has less energy per gallon (BTU's) but it needs to burn richer than gasoline. A Flex Fuel vehicle's ECU is able to adjust the AFR for E85. An ECU such as our Ridgeline's have can't make such an adjustment so you would be burning E85 in an extremely lean condition. Not good for a lot of components.

So you can see how the richer mixture of E85 offers nearly the same drivability as gasoline, but the fuel mileage just doesn't work out.

There's really much more to the issue. For example E85 has a much higher octane rating than regular unleaded gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline normally runs at about 87 octane but E85 varies between 100 - 105 octane. This allows the ECU to advance spark timing quite a bit... this helps offset some, but not all, of the fuel mileage decrease with E85.

Like I said, gasoline is not a constant, but neither is E85. Both products vary greatly in even small geographic areas, and even quite a bit by season in certain areas of the country. There is no standard definition of gasoline. We know the BTU content of gasoline has steadily gone down hill over the years. Even super premium gasoline has far fewer BTU's (energy) today than regular gasoline did 50 years ago. It's really a giant rip-off of the public, but that's a different story I guess.

-Joe

Regular unleaded gasoline normally runs at about 97 octane but E85 varies between 100 - 105 octane.

Did you mean 87 octane?

What is the cost of this fuel? It is not offered around here, as I live in the mountains. Another question...what is the cost to produce this fuel?

Did you mean 87 octane?

Thanks for catching the error. Yes, I meant 87. Will edit my original post.

What sort of got lost in the previous messages it that I wish Honda would make the Ridgeline E-85 compatible so that we would have a choice to use it or not.

Chevrolet has made Flex-Fuel capability a no cost option. I wish Honda would do the same.

I don't expect everyone will want to use E-85, and I don't think that it is the answer to all of our imported oil problems.

However, E-85 is available where I live (Rapid City, SD), and I would like to be able to use it.

I checked the pumps today and E-85 is currently priced at $1.96/gal and regular (85 octane) is $2.87/gal.

>>> I saw a piezo eletric cooling device demostrated many years ago - which eliminated A/C compressor pumps and refrigerant all together and why don't we see that in use today?

I think you may be referring to Peltier junction devices. They're mostly in use as portable coolers/warmers running on DC and available from JC Whitney, Sharper Image, and many other marketers.

The problem I experienced with them was that the Peltier junction requires more current than an equivalent fractional horsepower motor typical of home refrigeration units.

I monkeyed with these for about three years during my "Off the Grid" time in an effort to replace my propane RV-style refrigerator.

In the final analysis, the additional PV panels and battery capacity required to support the little SOB were more than adequate to carry a 2.5 KW (peak) inverter, which ran a conventional under-desk Executive refrigerator quite nicely...and reliably. And had 4 times the capacity.

Ice, fresh produce, cold Diet Vernor's on the Mesa...woo-HOO!!!!

I might still have that old PJ reefer around, but someone else wanted to waste his time with it.

PJ coolers are aboard the Space Shuttle (because of the weight, versus copper-wound motors, and the lack of moving parts, yielding a hi-rel item), as laboratory and medical tools, and as 12 VDC "KEEP COLD FOOD COLD IN YOUR RV, CAR OR BOAT" units.

I calculate that to replace the Freon/compressor/evaporator in my 26 cubic foot refrigerator would take $3,000 worth of Peltier junction devices.

Certainly, economies of scale in the production and marketing would reduce
that cost by 50%. But, they wouldn't NECESSARILY require less energy to run.

In this case, more efficient compressor motors, enhanced refrigerator case insulation and much improved thermostatic controls have made my 2003 vintage much more efficient and less power-hungry than the old Frigidaires with the coils on top that your grandparents had in their kitchen (and which eventually wound up at The Cabin, because you couldn't kill them and they never wore out).

Not EVERY traditional technology is crap. Boy, now that I live on natural gas, what I wouldn't give for my granny's 1940's vintage Servel refrigerator...

I'm not sure if it's a limitation of peltier junction technology, or just the design of current units, but available "thermoelectric coolers" will only cool down 40degF below ambient.

So in 90deg weather your food only stays 50deg.

Has anyone seen E85 offered at a gas station they go to?


I fill up every other day@ BP Amoco only, and I have not seen E85 advertised, or offered at the stations I go to.


Anyone else even seeing it offered? I saw GM is offereing a $1,000 gas card with purchase of an E85 vehicle, but what good is that if it isnt offered anywhere?

E-85 is available where I live (Rapid City, SD), and I would like to be able to use it.

I checked the pumps on Saturday (5/13). E-85 was priced at $1.96/gal and regular (85 octane) was $2.87/gal.

I had an 04 Tahoe that burned E85. Didn't really care cause gas was still somewhat bearable 2 yrs ago, and like mentioned, stations are very limited.. only one in my area. 2 months later, I get a $50.00 E85 card from GM. Ok, now its free, so of course I'm gonna buy it.
Also as mentioned , gas mileage stinks. I averaged 12-13 city mpg normally, and that lovely blend of corn got me 7mpg.
I asked the local Chevy mechanic whats the story with E85.. he said its for the eviromentalist folks... he called em tree huggers. Burns clean and is strictly for people who didn't want to pollute the air.
Sure, I wouldn't mind saving earth, but at 40 to 50% less mileage, the environment I saved burning clean fuel, would been reverse engineered, to cut down the rain forest to create all the paper money needed to pay for the stuff... no thank you...I'll pass
Any others try driving with this stuff? Chime in

It's readily available here in the S.E. corner of Minnesota for $1.50/gal....I would LOVE to be able to run it also!! C'mon Honda, make it happen!!

What we call "gasoline" is a very complex product. What we call gasoline in Arkansas is not the same as gasoline in California or New Mexico. About 80% of all unleaded regular gasoline is really E10... what we used to call Gasohol.

Real 100% gasoline (rare today) contains approx. 120,000 BTU's per gallon. Typical unleaded regular gasoline (E10) today contains about 111,500 BTU's per gallon.

-Joe
Joe, I had been under the impression that E10 (ten percent mix with ethanol) was for winter fuel only, sold Nov 1 thru Mar 30, then reverts to summer fuel....where did I go wrong? If what you say is true, then what are summer fuerl and winter fuel?

Joe, I had been under the impression that E10 (ten percent mix with ethanol) was for winter fuel only, sold Nov 1 thru Mar 30, then reverts to summer fuel....where did I go wrong? If what you say is true, then what are summer fuerl and winter fuel?

It really depends on where you live. For example, my state, Missouri just passed a bill last week (not yet signed by the Governor) that will require all regular gasoline sold in Missouri contain at least 10% ethanol. The bill really doesn't matter since nearly all gasoline in Missouri has had 10% ethanol for several years (year round). In our state ethanol content must be displayed on the pump.

In major metropolitan areas such as St. Louis and Kansas City only oxyginated gasoline is sold. These fuels contain both ethanol and MTBE (terrible stuff).

Many states don't have any requirement that ethanol content be disclosed. You may be using E10 and don't even know it.

"Winter" gasoline (sometimes called RFG or Reformulated Gasoline when used year round) is mandated by the EPA in certain areas of the county. This really means the gasoline is oxyginated. Some places use MTBE, some ethanol, some both. I think a few states have passed laws prohibiting MTBE.

I think California uses only MTBE, but I'm not sure.

As I said, it's a very complicated story. Gasoline varys widely from state to state and even within certain areas by state. What we call gasoline in Miami is not the same as Los Angeles.

The truth is that none of it has near the BTU's of what gasoline used to contain. Any time you burn a fuel with fewer BTU's it takes more of it to get the same amount of work per gallon. If we increase the BTU content we burn less fuel. When we decrease BTU content like we've been doing for decades we have to burn more to get the same work done. Funny how that works isn't it? If you could fill your tank with 1950 era gasoline (we'd have to get the lead out of it first or your catalytic converter would suffer) you'd get an immediate 20% or so increase in fuel mileage. Is our fuel 20% cleaner burning than 1950 era fuel? Probably yes, but if a refinery were to make 1950 style fuel today with modern methods it would probably burn much cleaner too... and have a much higher BTU content than what we call gasoline today.

MTBE, ethanol, and many of the other chemicals used in our gasoline does nothing but decrease the BTU's per gallon. You have to burn more and more of it to get the same amount of power... but I guess the oil companies are fine with that.

MTBE, ethanol, and many of the other chemicals used in our gasoline does nothing but decrease the BTU's per gallon. You have to burn more and more of it to get the same amount of power... but I guess the oil companies are fine with that.

The reality is that the oil companies are fighting against having to include ethanol since it's not a product that they produce. Most of the ethanol plants in the midwest are owned by farmer owned co-ops. Therefore, it is the farmers that sell the ethanol to the oil companies.

The reality is that the oil companies are fighting against having to include ethanol since it's not a product that they produce. Most of the ethanol plants in the midwest are owned by farmer owned co-ops. Therefore, it is the farmers that sell the ethanol to the oil companies.

Ethanol may be produced from products that come from farmers, but actual ethanol production is big business and has little to do with farmers.

The two largest ethanol producers in the USA are Archer Daniels Midland, and VeraSun. There are a couple of very small co-op type producers but they probably amount to only tenths of a percent of production.

Did you know that Brazil is the worlds largest producer of ethanol? Did you know that the USA imports huge amounts of ethanol per year? Nearly all of it from Brazil.

Much of the USA made ethanol comes from corn. Brazil makes their ethanol from sugar cane. Sugar cane is far superior to corn when you're trying to end up with ethanol. Some have made silly statements about making ethanol from wood chips or grass, etc. Yes, you can make tiny amounts from such sources but the expense would be extremely high and I've been told such ideas are not viable. If it was that easy to make ethanol people everywhere would be saving their grass clippings instead of heading to the gas pumps.

The USA has a $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol supposedly to help protect farmers. Since Brazil has a huge capacity for producing ethanol they take the position that the US tariff is to protect the big oil business. Brazil currently has the capacity to export about 4 billion gallons of ethanol per year.... much of that capacity is not being used.

I'm not an economist nor a farmer, but I suspect that a farmer growing corn for ethanol is not the person making much money. Just another hot topic that sounds great until you look at the facts.

I agree we need to limit our dependance on foreign oil, and nobody could argue against a program that would benefit America's hard working farmers. But no one has mentioned emissions......From the articles I have read, vehicles that burn E85 have worse emissions than traditional gasoline vehicles. So what are we doing to ourselves ??? The big push from GM is "Live Green, Go Yellow", or something like that.....So we help our economy (good), but we hurt the environment (not good)........

I agree we need to limit our dependance on foreign oil, and nobody could argue against a program that would benefit America's hard working farmers. But no one has mentioned emissions......From the articles I have read, vehicles that burn E85 have worse emissions than traditional gasoline vehicles. So what are we doing to ourselves ??? The big push from GM is "Live Green, Go Yellow", or something like that.....So we help our economy (good), but we hurt the environment (not good)........

If you burn E85 in a Flex Fuel equipped vehicle the GHG (Green House Gasses) emissions are reduced about 24% per gallon of fuel burned when compared to a gallon of gasoline. Sounds good right? Just another example of how deceptive some of these figures can be. If we calculate the GHG emissions per mile driven we end up not much better than gasoline. You need to burn more E85 per mile than gasoline since E85 contains less energy per gallon.

If you burn E85 in a non-Flex Fuel equipped vehicle you would have very high GHG emissions since you're burning the fuel at the wrong air-to-fuel ratio. I don't know if anyone's tested this configuration but I'm sure it would look very bad per gallon of fuel burned or per mile driven.

An example of what happens when you use a lower BTU fuel such as E85 even in a Flex Fuel Vehicle.

The 2006 Chevy Impala is rated at 21 MPG city and 31 MPG highway when burning gasoline. When you switch to E85 the numbers drop to 16 MPG city and 23 MPG highway.

So let's take a 500 mile trip with combined city / highway driving. On $3.00 per gallon gasoline you would spend $57.69 for the trip. If you were burning E85 you would have to find stations selling it for $2.26 per gallon or less to break even for the trip.

I don't know current E85 prices. The $3.00 per gallon for gasoline is a little high for my area (about $2.69 today), but I know other areas are paying that much or more.

Please note that I'm not against using E85! I would just prefer that all the factors be disclosed. Most people think that it's the same as gasoline just cheaper. The facts don't support popular opinion (like most other things in life).

I'm noticing that the biggest "feature" of E85 is being missed (at least from my viewpoint) - that "feature" being the reduction of dependency on fossil fuel (specifically the Middle East...)

I personally would be willing to pay more for a product that would support American farmers and reduce the dependency on the Middle East. And yes - I do know that the American (and non-American) gas/oil companies are charging lots 'o profits, but that's my point.

We can choose how we want to spend our money, and I'd much rather support farmers than oil companies, even if it means more expense.

To compete Honda needs to come up with a Flex Fuel vehicle -- and from the stuff I have read at work, it's just around the corner.

I agree with everyone -- in that I would rather pay american farmers than arabs overseas. I am glad that everyone wants to support the US in this area -- but it would have been nice to support the north american auto workers by buying a sport-trac, avalanche, f150, durango, ram, silverado, sierra, or something similar.

hey, to each their own...after all this is America...everyone has the right to buy what they want. It just struck me funny that everyone is so concerned about the farmers and no one is concerned about the engineers, UAW, and CAW members here in North America (U.S., Canada, and Mexico).

No offense meant.:D

Given that the Rideline was designed in Ohio and built in Canada out of 70%+ North American made parts, I think I did a pretty good job of supporting those groups when I purchased mine.

The October '06 issue of Consumer Reports has a good article ;) on "The Ethanol Myth" ... and should be required reading for those interested in flex-fuel vehicles ("FFV").

The E85 FFVs are being motivated because the average conversion cost is under $200 to the mfg, and the federal incentive to the mfg is generous.

FFVs using ethanol emit acetaldehyde, a probable carcinogen :(, and standard emission testing is not designed to measure this by-product.

Presently, ethanol in the USA is made from corn ... food stock.
In 2005, 13.6% of the corn crop was used to produce ethanol which drives up the price of corn, corn-fed animals and other foods.

Wow..didn't see this thread til just now. Moderators, you can merge mine with this one since it's a repeat. Sorry. :o