You didn't answer a very important question: Why should I buy a vehicle that gets 25 mpg (or less) on E85, which I can't find anywhere, when I could buy a vehicle that gets 45 mpg on gasoline, which is readily available?

To put it another way: Why is GM only putting fuel saving technology into its large vehicles? This not only goes for Flex Fuel vehicles, which are of dubious environmental benefit, but also its hybrids. Why do the only hybrids available from GM barely get more than 30 mpg?

Because 25 mpg on E85 is 167 mpg of gasoline. A 45 mpg hybrid can't come even close to that.

Last time I checked very few compact car buyers were prepared to pay extra for the Civic hybrid. The cost v fuel saving was too great a hurdle. The extra cost of hybrid technology has less of an impact on buyers on larger, more expensive vehicles, and the potential fuel saving is far greater.

GM is putting fuel-saving technology into all of it's vehicles though. The company was the first to offer a Dual-VVT V6 (a few months ahead of Toyota), the first to offer a Dual-VVT 4-cylinder in a non-luxury car (years before Toyota), the first to offer direct-injection in a non-luxury vehicle in North America (now three with more to be announced next week), and the first anywhere to offer a dual-VVT, direct injection 4-cylinder (followed so far only by BMW—Alfa Romeo's two are produced by GM using the standard GM 4-cylinder aluminum engine block).

Because 25 mpg on E85 is 167 mpg of gasoline. A 45 mpg hybrid can't come even close to that.

This is wrong in terms of carbon emissions and costs to the consumer. Ethanol refineries use a lot of energy, mostly from coal, and ethanol costs more per gallon than gasoline and results in lower fuel economy. Again, why should I buy a car that gets 25 mpg on ethanol when it would save me more money buying a car that gets 45 mpg on gasoline.

To put it another way: When is GM going to produce a car that gets 45 mpg on E85?

GM is putting fuel-saving technology into all of it's vehicles though.

And yet their Aveo still only gets 34 miles per gallon, and the Astra only gets 31.

Paul asked: "You didn't answer a very important question: Why should I buy a vehicle that gets 25 mpg (or less) on E85, which I can't find anywhere, when I could buy a vehicle that gets 45 mpg on gasoline, which is readily available?"

Excellent point Paul, she did dodge that question. However, we both already know the answer: It's because of the loophole built into the methodology for computing CAFE.

That loophole gives GM a tremendous incentive to convert heavy trucks and SUVs to flex-fuel. The big jump in rated mileage helps GM avoid paying CAFE penalties, even though the actual mileage those heavy vehicles get is much reduced when burning E85.

On the other hand, there is very little advantage in converting light, already fuel efficient cars to flex-fuel.

If the flex-fuel loophole opportunity didn't exist, I doubt GM would spend any money converting their heavy SUVs and trucks to burn E85, nor would GM be sending Mary Beth and Donna around the country marketing those vehicles.

The truth is converting heavy vehicles to burn E85 helps GM's bottom line, even when their owners never put a drop of E85 into them. (And as I explained to Donna, flex-fuel owners actually use less fossil fuels if they burn only straight gasoline.)

Best,

Gary

The truth is converting heavy vehicles to burn E85 helps GM's bottom line, even when their owners never put a drop of E85 into them.

It also helps the oil company's bottom line. All they have to do is switch from selling gasoline to E85. If I bought a car that gets 45 mpg versus one that gets 25 mpg, the oil companies get less money from me, regardless of the fuel I use.

So GM makes out on selling big cars with E85 because the profit margins are higher, and the oil companies make out because they're selling us more fuel.

Can someone point me to a study as to how much fuel a Toyota Prius saves per year, and then how much does GM's hybrid buses save per year?? It seems to me that these buses are in the optimal environment for hybrid technology!! Thanks

"And yet their Aveo still only gets 34 miles per gallon, and the Astra only gets 31." - Paul

Hi Paul,

31 mpg is about 7.5 liters/100 km, as we calculate in Europe. I can't think of any comparable Japanese sedan sold over here, getting a significantly better mileage. One of the main reasons for Germans to buying an Opel is their fuel-efficiency and that's not only limited to Diesels. Fact: GM's European market-share (especially Opel and Chevrolet) is growing faster than Toyota's. Ask yourself "why". As we used to visit the Canary Islands for vacation, I almost saw more Aveo's there, than Volkswagens in Germany.

In a previous post, Gary Dikkers stated that burning ethanol blends does not reduce the amount of gasoline burned, based on extrapolation of experience with putting E10 in his Sonoma. Gary, according to your logic, a similar vehicle burning E85 would get less than 5 mpg. And based on your Minnesota-vs.-Wisconsin calculations (which ignore all contributing factors other than ethanol), it would get 0 mpg. Clearly this is not the case with flexible fuel vehicles. Although mileage is reduced due to ethanol having lower energy content than gasoline, the ethanol still contributes energy and reduces the amount of gasoline consumed.

In another post, you disagreed with Ms. Stanek’s statement that gasoline has a net energy of .87. You said that the energy return on energy invested of gasoline is 5:1 to 10:1 because of the free energy that Mother Nature put into the crude oil. By this logic, the energy used to pump, refine, and transport the gasoline is also free, as is the energy required to make ethanol. If it’s all free, why are we making such a big deal about it? So let’s not argue about the definitions of net energy, process efficiency, or EROEI. The point is that to burn a gallon of gas in your car, more than a gallon (energy equivalent) has to be taken out of the ground, whereas burning a gallon-equivalent of ethanol requires less than a gallon-equivalent from the ground. And in the long run, if some of that ethanol or other forms of renewable energy are used to make the ethanol, the numbers become even more favorable.

Ms. Stanek,
Impressed by ongoing research within academia and industry regarding identified shortcomings of existing biofuels.
The answer is clear, as only a finite amount of dinosaurs ever inhabited this planet, petroleum reserves are rapidly diminishing. Game over!
Renewable fuels WILL be the global future ...

Fact: GM's European market-share (especially Opel and Chevrolet) is growing faster than Toyota's. Ask yourself "why". - Mr. Langlitz

Because they have engine and transmission combinations that get significantly better fuel economy than anything they release in the US. Also, the Chevrolet cars over there are significantly cheaper than a lot of the other options.

If GM brought the 1.7L CDI Astra 5-door with a six speed transmission to the US, I'd buy one in a heartbeat.

But what they brought over is underwhelming when it comes to comparisons to other cars in terms of engines and transmissions. Even the Nissan Versa, which also gets disappointing fuel economy, offers a CVT transmission.

This is particularly disheartening because the Opel Astra Diesel Hybrid concept is rated at nearly 60 mpg. Would I spend $25,000 on a compact car that gets 60mpg? Absolutely. Would other people? Judging by the success of the Prius, yes. Is GM ever going to produce that car in Europe, let alone the US? I'm not going to hold my breath.

But the profit margins on cars like that are small, and the margins on body-on-frame SUVs and large cars are big, which is why GM is pushing E85 in big cars and not increased fuel economy and smaller cars.

Toyota Prius saves per year, and then how much does GM's hybrid buses save per year?? It seems to me that these buses are in the optimal environment for hybrid technology!! - Tyler

So GM wouldn't mind if I never bought a car again and just took the bus everywhere?

Frank Meinert said: "...whereas burning a gallon-equivalent of ethanol requires less than a gallon-equivalent from the ground."

Mr Meinert,

Steady there big fellow, how do you figure a gallon equivalent of ethanol requires less than a gallon-equivalent out of the ground?

Nothing could be further from the truth. At every step of production from growing hybrid seed corn; to planting the seed; to cultivation; to applying fertilizer and ag chemicals; to harvesting; to transportating corn to ethanol plant; to grinding and milling; to fermentation; to distillation; making corn ethanol consumes unrenewable energy that someone has to pay for.

Making "renewable" corn ethanol consumes expensive unrenewable and irreplaceable energy (fossil fuels) at every step of the process.

On the other hand, with fossil fuels, Mother Nature grew the biomass from which the oil was formed (no hybrid seeds, no cultivation, and no harvesting required), and then Mother Nature turned that ancient biomass into oil over millions of years. (No grinding, no milling, and no fermentation required.)

All we have to do is find it, drill down to reach it, pump it out, and then transport it to a refinery.

For fossil fuels, most of the heavy lifting of growing the biomass and turning it into an energy dense liquid was gratis -- courtesy of Mother Nature.

The problem is, Mother Nature provided it, we found it, and are now quickly using it up. And the unfortunate truth is that using fossil fuels to grow corn and make ethanol just consumes those precious fossil fuels more rapidly.

Regards,

Gary Dikkers

Mary Beth Stanek said: "Several bloggers wrote about the rising costs of food and feed."

Ms Stanek,

Perhaps you may be interested in this report from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC). (The CIBC is roughly equivalent to one of the big American banks such as Chase or Bank of America.)

"America's policy of adding more ethanol to the nation's gas tanks in an effort to increase energy self-sufficiency will do little but drive food prices skywards," finds a new report from CIBC World Markets.

"Converting corn from food to fuel has, at best, dubious net energy benefits, but its impact on food prices, already significant, can only grow over time," says Jeff Rubin, Chief Economist and Chief Strategist at CIBC World Markets.

A digest of the entire report is at: Corn-based ethanol will fuel little more than inflation

Best regards,

Gary Dikkers

i dont whether it is appropriate to post here but you should definitely look into some of issues consumers had with GM products at

http://www.my3cents.com/companyReview.cgi?compid=70&subcat=1

Mrs. Stanek

FYI
The second E-85 fueling site has opened 04-10-2008 in Metro Atlanta.

Safa Express branded BP
725 Grayson Highway
Lawrenceville, Georgia 30048
770-277-1119

Very Nice Looking store somewhat of a flag ship as to what's now happening here in Atlanta.

Give me your e-mail address and photos can be forwarded.

Tanks,

Zane Miller
770-780-2700

I wasn't able to see or hear your show with Glen Beck. There is technology that is much better than the fuel cell. It is literally an onboard hydrogen generator that efficiently breaks down the water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen. This is ready for mass production and has EPA certification pending. Contact me, Paul at 480-252-4420 for more information. Are we waiting for the entire economy to collapse before we really do something?--Paul