Deanh Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Not a waste of money at all. All R & D at Ford is done pushing the limits of the design. It's just basic stuff that's been done with all OEM's throughout the years. If I were to explain it one more time would you see the logic? Otherwise I won't. I get it, as long as it is of some use I'm all for it, just hate seeing Ford put $ into items of questionable merit...ie Nascar..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Here in CA, for many, many years, we only had one E85 pump down in San Diego. Now there are 4 that are available to the public. I can't see E85 catching on in CA due to the price, $2.97. That's only 10% less than gasoline. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue II Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I get it, as long as it is of some use I'm all for it, just hate seeing Ford put $ into items of questionable merit...ie Nascar..... Toyota is paying each of it's teams $22M and soon NASCAR will write a script allowing them to win a Cup championship. It's marketing and Ford only pays it's teams around $11M, GM slightly more, Chrysler less. Ford cannot pull out and allow any manufacturer to get ahead, that's why Edsel Ford sits on the NASCAR board of directors. NASCAR is a marketing battlefield. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 (edited) Toyota is paying each of it's teams $22M and soon NASCAR will write a script allowing them to win a Cup championship. It's marketing and Ford only pays it's teams around $11M, GM slightly more, Chrysler less. Ford cannot pull out and allow any manufacturer to get ahead, that's why Edsel Ford sits on the NASCAR board of directors. NASCAR is a marketing battlefield. unfortunately i know....sad thing is i wonder how beneficial to sales Nascar actually is....must be if Toyota got into it....imagine RWD Camry's!!!!!!!!! JOKE! same with the fusions.... Edited January 16, 2008 by Deanh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marauder2299of7839 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 there are several E85 locations in Davis and Sacramento. have been for years. I tinkered with modifiying older carburated cars before E85 carbs were readily available. the state of california was the chief buyer, but the pumps do exist, and have for quite a few years. I have been gone for three years. but they were there several years prior to then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 E85 is made from corn. That's why it's largest availability is in the midwest.....where the greatest number of corn growers are. A good primer on E85: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2006-...1-ethanol_x.htm "Ethanol fuel — in the form of E85, a mix of 85% grain alcohol and 15% gasoline — is the only one of those immediately available. E85, using ethanol made in the USA from corn, isn't a science experiment or pipe dream. It's real fuel, sold now, and 5 million vehicles already are on the road with the systems needed to burn it. Yet, like so many magic bullets aimed at America's energy dragon, E85 is in danger of inflicting a flesh wound on the beast it's meant to kill. The drawbacks: It's almost impossible to find outside the Midwest. It contains less energy than gasoline, so you'd have to fill your tank more often. And you'd almost certainly have to buy a new car or truck to use it." It's BIG in Brazil! It's slow to take off here for several reasons. http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/americas...e.ap/index.html Corn ethanol not only has less energy than gasoline, it takes more energy than gasoline to produce and it's life-cycle energy consumption is poor, consuming more energy per gallon produced than is extractable from it in IC engines (about 1.3 units of energy are required to produce 1 unit of ethanol energy in an IC engine). It's also driven the price of corn through the roof, an expense that trickles down to the myriad products that use corn-related ingredients (in literally thousands of products using corn starches, corn-sugars, etc.). I've already seen severl articles on this vein as it gets more attention. Feb'08 Popular Mechanics (page 54) has an article on the "Ethanol Fallacy" -- a good summary why it's a bad solution ...even tho Congress just passed legislation forcing corn ethanol production up by some six (I beleive) fold. If celulosic ethanol (from switch-grass and other 'weeds' not requiring food-growing lnds) proves scale-feasible, the energy equation will switch positive and it then makes sense to use it to offset whatever gas consumption it can, imo. But, I think bio diesel will be a big winner -- especially since it can be processed from so many plant and waste sources. I think E85 is only a short term bandaid since to offset our present oil consumption we'd have to divert virtually all of our nations food-growing land to it today and it gets worse every year -- nd where is food then being grown? Brazil's arable-acres/capita is FAR greater than ours, so makes more sense there, imo. One thing's for sure: while multiple parallel strategies will sort things out over time, the expense to the consumer willb be much higher than engineering a national solution and all working toward it -- competing to do it better/best. Even hydrogen is finacially a disaster (today) since it also requires more energy to produce than it provides -- and most of the energy to produce it is from dirty western coal-buning powerplants. Nuclear could take over the base load (as in France) so hydrogen can be made without greenhouse gas emissions, but that's a tough sell since most people still think of it as a scary and dangerous tech (which it really isn't anymore but I'm still a bit concerned with it). This is why biodiesel has such potential, imo. Very easy and stable to store (like fossil diesel and unlike many other fuels), good life-cycle energy equation, many plant/waste sources for the fuel. A full-scale engineered bacterial process breakthrough would make it ideal, imo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 ...As for the energy issue with it....isn't that why EcoBoost is so important...it can use E85 and still get good power/MPG out of it? The turbocharged EcoBoost engines will get you a lot of power on E85. This why Ford ca say, "The power of a V8 in a V6 !" Your mileage will stink on E85 ! Expect 20-30% less ! As 68Fastback explained there is less "energy" (BTUs) in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of regular gasoline. The whole ethanol for fuel was thought of as a "magic bullet" by Congress. There are many things wrong with ethanol as a fuel and we are learning them quickly (like ethanol can not be piped through normal petroleum pipelines so it has to be trucked into refineries where it is blended. How much do you think it costs to haul 1000 gallons of ethanol from Iowa to CA ?) The sad thing is the only people getting rich on ethanol are the hybrid seed companies, the fertilizer companies, the farm implement companies, the well and irrigation companies and the distillers. The poor farmers are borrowing huge amounts of money and only getting back a relatively small increase in their profits. Millions of words and man-hours have been spent on this topic (alternative fuels). Check Wikipedia for a good discussion on ethanol fuel IMHO bio-butanol or bio-diesel are much better "short term" alternative fuels. Long term, hydrogen is the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 The turbocharged EcoBoost engines will get you a lot of power on E85. This why Ford ca say, "The power of a V8 in a V6 !" Your mileage will stink on E85 ! Expect 20-30% less ! As 68Fastback explained there is less "energy" (BTUs) in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of regular gasoline. The whole ethanol for fuel was thought of as a "magic bullet" by Congress. There are many things wrong with ethanol as a fuel and we are learning them quickly (like ethanol can not be piped through normal petroleum pipelines so it has to be trucked into refineries where it is blended. How much do you think it costs to haul 1000 gallons of ethanol from Iowa to CA ?) The sad thing is the only people getting rich on ethanol are the hybrid seed companies, the fertilizer companies, the farm implement companies, the well and irrigation companies and the distillers. The poor farmers are borrowing huge amounts of money and only getting back a relatively small increase in their profits. Millions of words and man-hours have been spent on this topic (alternative fuels). Check Wikipedia for a good discussion on ethanol fuel IMHO bio-butanol or bio-diesel are much better "short term" alternative fuels. Long term, hydrogen is the answer. You're absolutely right! And when the scale gets big enough, big agribusiness will drive those same small farmers right out of the ethanol business with the net effect of aggregating those private farm lands anyway. Hydrogen has the potential to be the energy 'battery' and will always be a negative energy game (more in than out) unless a bacteria can be created to uncork it directly from seawater with no chance of that bacteria reproducing outside the process. There are genertic engineering techniques that are being used for supergerms to fight certain diseases (.e.g the propagate a self-destruct 'code' along with the augmented 'code' so if they escape they rapidly die -- still scary! But a nuclear-based hydrogen process would be largely greenhouse-gas free -- a major benefit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) I love the smell of malarkey in the morning.... Smells like Blue Oval Forums... First of all, ethanol was not 'pushed' by Congress as a 'magic bullet', ethanol has been pushed by farmer's lobbying groups as the primary bio-fuel over bio-diesel for one huge reason: It is more profitable for farmers. Fuel yield per acre for farmers is =dramatically= higher with ethanol, as compared with bio-diesel. Bear in mind that farmers can grow, and DO grow corn and oilseeds on the same land, the reason why THEY pushed ethanol was because corn yields per acre are astonishing and it depresses corn prices. Ethanol was/is pushed in order to boost demand for corn, hence corn prices. --- Anyone that tells you otherwise is getting bad information second hand. --- Oh, and one more thing. ADM will be displaced as the largest ethanol producer, if it hasn't been already, by both Poet and VeraSun Energy, two companies that own their own facilities in addition to managing co-op facilities. In other words, the opposite of what you postulate has taken place. Finally, the ethanol boom has so inflated the price of land that I can't see any business being foolish enough to pay prices that will never be recouped unless you have the 'family farmer' tax writeoffs. Edited January 17, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Another thing, there can be no 'six fold' increase in corn-based ethanol production, as ethanol approaches 20-30% of all corn produced in the U.S. And while we're dispelling misinformation about ethanol, let's attack the "only beneficiaries" and "higher food prices" myths. Firstly, farmers have stayed in business (such that it is) for years almost exclusively due to subsidies called LDPs (loan deficiency payments). These LDPs are payments by the government that ensure a minimum price per bushel for row crops. Thanks to the ethanol boom, there will be -no- LDPs for corn this year in nearly every county in the country. In fact, for the first time (with very few exceptions) in about three decades, farmers harvesting corn will receive all of their payments from the private sector. So let's not pretend that 'agri-business' is the only beneficiary. Then let's talk about 'higher food prices'. Did you know that about as much money gets spent on packaging as on grain in bread, RTE cereal, etc.? OTOH, have you noticed that fuel prices have been quite high everywhere, these days? How far do you think a kernel of corn has to TRAVEL before it ends up HFCS in your Twinkie? You want to know why food prices are going up? Here's a few hints: It's black, it's gooey, and it comes out of the ground. I mean I'm not saying that corn prices are having -no- impact on food prices, but frankly, transportation costs multiply through the economy more than food costs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SVT_MAN Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 unfortunately i know....sad thing is i wonder how beneficial to sales Nascar actually is....must be if Toyota got into it....imagine RWD Camry's!!!!!!!!! JOKE! same with the fusions.... Honestly, if NASCAR doesn't benefit sales at all, why did Toyota join it? You could say Toyota is just stupid maybe, but I doubt that. If Toyota knows how to do one thing well it's market. As it's been said, NASCAR is a huge marketing machine. It's a good way to get gearheads to watch your car every week. The problem is, NASCAR plays favors. As Toyota gains more and more power, you're going to see the balances tip in their favor. It should be interesting to see the backlash of fans. NASCAR has a lot of traditional fans who like Chevy. NASCAR was basically Chevy during the 1990s and that conitnues to the day. Jeff Gordon and Dale Earnhardt pretty much defined the sport. Now Jeff Gordon, Jimmie Johnson, and Dale Jr are the biggest names. Ford's only guy who seems to do well is Matt Kenseth (whom I follow since his childhood house is literally a few miles from mine). The rest of the Ford guys I like for the most part (although Carl Edwards is a crazy, steroid pumping two-faced lying sack of crap in my opinion). Ford really need to get some more drivers who are Matt Kenseth caliber in their stable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray101988 Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 The turbocharged EcoBoost engines will get you a lot of power on E85. This why Ford ca say, "The power of a V8 in a V6 !" Your mileage will stink on E85 ! Expect 20-30% less ! As 68Fastback explained there is less "energy" (BTUs) in a gallon of ethanol than in a gallon of regular gasoline. The whole ethanol for fuel was thought of as a "magic bullet" by Congress. There are many things wrong with ethanol as a fuel and we are learning them quickly (like ethanol can not be piped through normal petroleum pipelines so it has to be trucked into refineries where it is blended. How much do you think it costs to haul 1000 gallons of ethanol from Iowa to CA ?) The sad thing is the only people getting rich on ethanol are the hybrid seed companies, the fertilizer companies, the farm implement companies, the well and irrigation companies and the distillers. The poor farmers are borrowing huge amounts of money and only getting back a relatively small increase in their profits. Millions of words and man-hours have been spent on this topic (alternative fuels). Check Wikipedia for a good discussion on ethanol fuel IMHO bio-butanol or bio-diesel are much better "short term" alternative fuels. Long term, hydrogen is the answer. Your mileage with E85 with the Ecoboost setup will be better than with a regular flex fuel engine because of the increased amount of air. Biodiesel is intrigueing. I read somewhere that the new 150 diesel will come off the line being able to run on biodiesel. But the problem with biodiesel is that when its cold it turns into a solid doesnt it? And doesnt it have a percentage of water in it? Thats bad bc it could then get in ur engine. But anyway, I think Ford has something about the problems of biodiesel on thier greener miles section. They say that they are working to overcome the problems with using it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) This is why biodiesel has such potential, imo. Very easy and stable to store (like fossil diesel and unlike many other fuels), good life-cycle energy equation, many plant/waste sources for the fuel. A full-scale engineered bacterial process breakthrough would make it ideal, imo. 1) Bacteria aren't involved in Bio-diesel production, it's a series of chemical reactions. Actually, it's much simpler than bio-ethanol to produce (and less energy intensive). 2) Bio-diesel yields per acre are substantially less than ethanol yields per acre. In fact, even if you take into account the significantly worse energy input/output ratio on ethanol, the amount of net -energy- yielded per acre with biodiesel is still less than ethanol. Only if you double-crop does bio-diesel exceed ethanol. So biodiesel will not be a major solution, at least from virgin sources. 3) Bio-diesel from waste requires two major investments: a collection infrastructure (already somewhat in place with Darling Int'l), and people willing to put up with the immense stinkage that will inevitably be associated with a place that runs off rancid grease, and the smell of rendering fat from other sources. Trust me, if you ever drive through Sioux City, Iowa, on I-29, with the windows down, about half-way through town you will smell the Purina dog food plant. It is an odor you will not soon forget, and it is likely to be part and parcel of any bio-diesel from waste plant. I'm not saying 'don't do it', I'm saying, that it will be expensive, stinky, and you will have NIMBY issues like there is no tomorrow. You think you can just put it in the middle of some farm land? Not a chance. Farmers (well, except pig farmers) don't like stink anymore than you or me. Edited January 17, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 1) Bacteria aren't involved in Bio-diesel production, it's a series of chemical reactions. Actually, it's much simpler than bio-ethanol to produce (and less energy intensive). 2) Bio-diesel yields per acre are substantially less than ethanol yields per acre. In fact, even if you take into account the significantly worse energy input/output ratio on ethanol, the amount of net -energy- yielded per acre with biodiesel is still less than ethanol. Only if you double-crop does bio-diesel exceed ethanol. So biodiesel will not be a major solution, at least from virgin sources. 3) Bio-diesel from waste requires two major investments: a collection infrastructure (already somewhat in place with Darling Int'l), and people willing to put up with the immense stinkage that will inevitably be associated with a place that runs off rancid grease, and the smell of rendering fat from other sources. Trust me, if you ever drive through Sioux City, Iowa, on I-29, with the windows down, about half-way through town you will smell the Purina dog food plant. It is an odor you will not soon forget, and it is likely to be part and parcel of any bio-diesel from waste plant. I'm not saying 'don't do it', I'm saying, that it will be expensive, stinky, and you will have NIMBY issues like there is no tomorrow. You think you can just put it in the middle of some farm land? Not a chance. Farmers (well, except pig farmers) don't like stink anymore than you or me. 1) Yes, I realize that but a bacterial method would be even less energy intensive. 2) Yes, but ethanol is using corn today. If celulosic ethanol becomes scale-feasible, it will take pressure off using corn and both ethanol prices and corn prices stand to come down. 3) Still, it offers real energy potential. It's not clear waste bio diesel processing would have to stink outside the plant if engineered not to do so, but, yes, that is a potential drawback and that waste still exists today. Yeah, NIMBY could kill it before it before it even has a chance. However, I do believe ethanol is largely a farm-belt vote strategy. I'm fairly certain this last energy bull mandated a 6-fold increase (by 20??, I forget). I think ethanol has merit as a fuel for sure. It just has a bad energy equation (energy in vs energy out) today. Still it can be a usefull mid-term fuel and does take some pressure off fossil fuel production. I'd like to see and E85 NASCAR series, if for no other reason than good racing PR. Longer term, I suspect nuclear-powered hydrogen-generation may be the only large-scale non-greenhouse process that can cope with the nations energy demands. Seafloor hydride mining might also prove usefull (vast resource!) but is not even in it's infancy yet and will likely have opponents too. It's not an easy problem. And China growing at it's astronomical rate (projected in 2005 to surpass the US in polution by 2012 but they surpassed us in 2007!) will keep putting pressure on oil prices. Presently (2007) China is bringing approx 12 new coal-fired plants on line each month. In 2005 the rate was projected at one per week. They're the new 800# gorilla. Another reason I think hydrogen will garner support is that it would also make a great home-energy 'fuel.' One strategy is to use clean-coal tech (shorter term) and nucs for expanded electric generation so that hydrogen can be manufactured on-site in a residential context. Fuel for the home (with waste heat for hot water) and fuel for cars. Kohler has been running trials (in Canada, I believe) and I've heard on the news (but not read) that Honda has now developed a hydriogen home energy plant. This tech hold much promise, I think, but it will take time. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 1) I just don't think that you can make bio diesel with bacteria. Have you seen other information? It's something like a two step process that leaves you with a lot of glycerin; I think you'd have energy and cost tied up in maintaining your bacteria colonies when all you're basically doing, IIRC, is heating up oil in the presence of some other chemical (I forget), and bam--diesel fuel. You can practically make the stuff on your stove. 2) OTOH, farmers will be able to sell stubble as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol; most farmers are keen on cellulosic ethanol, as production can be moved to switchgrass. 3) ethanol is now being used as a vote getting strategy, but that was not how it all started. Thanks to the senate's equal representation for semi-sovereign political units, ag states do get a voice in policy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
one2gamble Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Honestly, if NASCAR doesn't benefit sales at all, why did Toyota join it? Because Toyota has a hard on for making Americans believe its an American company. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Because Toyota has a hard on for making Americans believe its an American company. y'know....thats a very valid point i never thought of...MORE subliminal brainwashing for the masses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossed Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 How long before Ford starts talking publicly about the Boss/Hurricane engine? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 1) I just don't think that you can make bio diesel with bacteria. Have you seen other information? It's something like a two step process that leaves you with a lot of glycerin; I think you'd have energy and cost tied up in maintaining your bacteria colonies when all you're basically doing, IIRC, is heating up oil in the presence of some other chemical (I forget), and bam--diesel fuel. You can practically make the stuff on your stove. 2) OTOH, farmers will be able to sell stubble as feedstock for cellulosic ethanol; most farmers are keen on cellulosic ethanol, as production can be moved to switchgrass. 3) ethanol is now being used as a vote getting strategy, but that was not how it all started. Thanks to the senate's equal representation for semi-sovereign political units, ag states do get a voice in policy. Richard, I had read some time ago about research on engineered bacterial processes for both ethanol and bio-diesel. The reason for bacteria (for bio-diesel) was so that it could be produced from a broader range of materials (not just oil-rich seeds, etc). I just did a search but can't find a usefull reference. If I find it, I'll post. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bossed Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 :shades: How long before Ford starts talking publicly about the Boss/Hurricane engine? Well?, Anybody? :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I'm looking for my crystal ball Dunno, but I think Ford will keep the BOSS quiet as long as possible because once a formal announce is made there's not as much wiggle room. I think they'll wait till the Bullitt and KR have had their spotlight and then maybe we'll hear something more formal 4Q of this year or very early next -- that's a total guess. I suspect there are (or will be very soon) BOSS engines in mules already on the street but without my crystal ball, who knows? ;-) I suspect we'll see actual availability in 1H'09 ...all just guesses. Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray101988 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 I'm looking for my crystal ball Dunno, but I think Ford will keep the BOSS quiet as long as possible because once a formal announce is made there's not as much wiggle room. I think they'll wait till the Bullitt and KR have had their spotlight and then maybe we'll hear something more formal 4Q of this year or very early next -- that's a total guess. I suspect there are (or will be very soon) BOSS engines in mules already on the street but without my crystal ball, who knows? ;-) I suspect we'll see actual availability in 1H'09 ...all just guesses. Dan Last i heard was 6mos after the F150's initial launch. With the diesel and the ecoboost following 12 mos after initial launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 My error, I thought bossed was asking about BOSS, the car Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray101988 Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 My error, I thought bossed was asking about BOSS, the car Dan Boss as in Boss Mustang? Are they doing one? That would be sweet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68fastback Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Boss as in Boss Mustang? Are they doing one? That would be sweet. I beleive so. Initially some variation on the modular (no specifics) as a '10MY in 1H'09. I've heard April job-1, but I've also heard January/June. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.