Jeff Strickland proclaimed:

> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?

Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.

For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.

 

I guess you would see a bunch more LPG kits on the market then eh?

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to
> meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but
> eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the
> legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers
> have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would
> defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place.
>
> So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of
> vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only
> fuel available?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
>> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

I guess you would see a bunch more LPG kits on the market then eh?

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to
> meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but
> eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the
> legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers
> have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would
> defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place.
>
> So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of
> vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only
> fuel available?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
>> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

I guess you would see a bunch more LPG kits on the market then eh?

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to
> meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but
> eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the
> legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers
> have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would
> defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place.
>
> So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of
> vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only
> fuel available?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
>> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

I guess you would see a bunch more LPG kits on the market then eh?

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's - Gone to the rust pile...
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Jeff Strickland wrote:
> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
> I remember gas stations having to stock leaded and unleaded gasoline to
> meet the demand of the legacy that was already on the road, but
> eventually there was a clean switch to all unleaded fuels, and the
> legacy engines had to have stuff changed, or I suppose those drivers
> have to buy leaded additives to use in their cars -- but this would
> defeat the rules that caused the changes in the first place.
>
> So, what is going to happen to all of the millions upon millions of
> vehicles with engines that do not tolerate E85, and E85 becomes the only
> fuel available?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "tyq" <Hypnotyk@webtv.net> wrote in message
> news:16124-468BB340-6@storefull-3138.bay.webtv.net...
>> On a jeep cherokee xj (1990)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.
>
>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.


The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Biobutanol is the one to
watch out for in future as it has about 90% of BTU's of gas and will
run in any car made in last 30 years or so with basically no mods.
The reason it is nt in usage today is that while it is made off same
stock of eyth is, they have not found a cost effective process (right
enzyme yet) to p[roduce it. Eyth is but a political pipe dream as a
long term solution. If you converter the entire US grain crop to eyth,
it would only meet about 1/3 of daily demand and with nothing less to
eat and when you start using food to power your car it is time to
consider other optiuons. We use over 800 million gallons of gas a day
and you are not going to make any big dent in that long term with any
eyth produce as it is a bandaid at best..
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.
>
>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.


The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Biobutanol is the one to
watch out for in future as it has about 90% of BTU's of gas and will
run in any car made in last 30 years or so with basically no mods.
The reason it is nt in usage today is that while it is made off same
stock of eyth is, they have not found a cost effective process (right
enzyme yet) to p[roduce it. Eyth is but a political pipe dream as a
long term solution. If you converter the entire US grain crop to eyth,
it would only meet about 1/3 of daily demand and with nothing less to
eat and when you start using food to power your car it is time to
consider other optiuons. We use over 800 million gallons of gas a day
and you are not going to make any big dent in that long term with any
eyth produce as it is a bandaid at best..
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.
>
>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.


The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Biobutanol is the one to
watch out for in future as it has about 90% of BTU's of gas and will
run in any car made in last 30 years or so with basically no mods.
The reason it is nt in usage today is that while it is made off same
stock of eyth is, they have not found a cost effective process (right
enzyme yet) to p[roduce it. Eyth is but a political pipe dream as a
long term solution. If you converter the entire US grain crop to eyth,
it would only meet about 1/3 of daily demand and with nothing less to
eat and when you start using food to power your car it is time to
consider other optiuons. We use over 800 million gallons of gas a day
and you are not going to make any big dent in that long term with any
eyth produce as it is a bandaid at best..
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
wrote:

>Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>
>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>
>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.
>
>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.


The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
the amount of BTU you can get out of it) Biobutanol is the one to
watch out for in future as it has about 90% of BTU's of gas and will
run in any car made in last 30 years or so with basically no mods.
The reason it is nt in usage today is that while it is made off same
stock of eyth is, they have not found a cost effective process (right
enzyme yet) to p[roduce it. Eyth is but a political pipe dream as a
long term solution. If you converter the entire US grain crop to eyth,
it would only meet about 1/3 of daily demand and with nothing less to
eat and when you start using food to power your car it is time to
consider other optiuons. We use over 800 million gallons of gas a day
and you are not going to make any big dent in that long term with any
eyth produce as it is a bandaid at best..
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com

 

"SnoMan" <admin@snoman.com> wrote in message
news:flqn83t7ffq6qdmfpnm6nspharnqi3o3md@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 Jul 2007 11:21:39 -0600, Lon <lon.stowell@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Jeff Strickland proclaimed:
>>
>>> If it is not permissible to use E85 fuels, what is going to happen to
>>> all of the legacy engines on the road today if E85 becomes mandated?
>>
>>Pretty much what happens soon when our loyal gov't servants have decreed
>>a cutover to high def TV coming soon to every TV set near you. In
>>technical terms, you are screwed, and worse you voted for them to do it.
>>OK, for TV there is expected to be some modest market in conversion boxes.
>>
>>For autos, the makers are somewhat in conflict. They would be expected
>>to bear the brunt of much automobilic wrath as folks realize what their
>>gov't has done to them, but on the other hand, the bump in sales as
>>folks end up having to buy all new power plants, conversions, vehicles,
>>would be difficult for a capitalist to ignore.
>
>
> The problem with E85 is several fold. First it requires different fuel
> lines (SS steel and different rubber), next it requires a different
> carb or bigger injector because it takes a LOT more of it. ALso, it
> has about 60% the energy contant of gas for you have to burn more of
> it to do same work. And lastly it is not as environmental freindly as
> they would lead you to believe. It is increases CO2 emissions about
> 50% over gas (politicains never tell you that) because it is
> considered a preburnt fuel (it has a high carbon content in fuel for
> the amount of BTU you can get out of it)

Assuming the assertion that it increases CO2 is accurate -- and I'm not
suggesting it isn't, or even arguing the point -- then isn't that a bad
thing at a time when Global Warming is such a problem?

If E85 has less energy in it, then we have to burn more to get the same
amount of production. This alone should increase the CO2! Now add the fact
that the pre-burnt fuel makes more CO2 all by itself, and it seems to me
that we are headed for an environmental train wreck IF global warming is 1.)
an actual crisis, and 2.) caused or exaserbated by CO2 emissions.

Add in the notion that we need all of the corn we can get our hands on to
flow into the food supply, and that E85 takes corn out of the food supply,
we are looking at some serious issues here.