I would have like to have seen all FFVs years ago. It costs so little for the car makers to make their cars FFV that there really should be very little debate. The last figure I heard was about $200 extra per car.

We have covered this subject on this site covering such issues as poor efficiency from certain flex fuel vehicles and seen options and solutions that would see even improved fuel and emission efficiency from variable compression, dual injectors and supplementary fuel systems and other advanced sensor or engine management systems.
There would seem to be a consensus in favour or "blender" pumps that can deliver 0 -100% Ethanol.

Some high efficiency European(Citroen)diesels have been available (not in USA?) for years with "variable biodiesel rating, good performance but some questions re: servicing and the higher "clean room" standards requirement.

Many modern engine designs push the envelope for high tech servicing including electronic and emission diagnosis.

The reality being that the skills and equipment required is uncommon.
While all is new (?) or running well but it is another matter to correctly and efficiently diagnose.
A truly competent tech may find the wage does not reflect the skill level and those that aren't (like financial consultants - doctors bury their mistakes) can often exploit the average customers 'ignorance'.

Some industry reports describe an average of three diagnosable faults on near new cars.

On top of that many owners are reluctant to spend the money. This is not helped by experiences with recall or incompetent trades persons fobbing customers off.

I think that GM should not hurry products to market unless they can do that product better than the competition.

This gives the appearance of taking risk out of the petroleum production decline, but alcohol has proven to be a dead end solution. If they had mentioned biodiesel, then it wouldn't have been as bad (as much higher EROEI is possible).

Bartlett is right about unrealistic expectations in ethanol, and that conservation and energy efficiency are extremely important. He is the head of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus, btw.

This legislation is assinine insanity.

How is the customer supposed to decide which blending fraction to use. Ethanol having a much lower heating value than regular gas will obviously not provide the same miles per gallon for all blends. Maybe we'll all have to become fuel experts to figure out the optimum blend for our particular vehicles.

Give me a break!

Yeah. Let's just keep gasoline as the only liquid fuel source. That way I can remain a bitter, unhappy "green" doing bizness as usual.

Heaven forbid sovereign nations become self-reliant.

It is probably a good idea to mandate FlexFuel cars, since it is an inexpensive change that will allow for a great variety of fuel sources. It isn't like there haven't been hugely expensive initiatives passed in the past.
There is one thing that I would like to see more study of and that is how a blend of fuels can maximize mileage while minimizing cost. Obviously, ethanol has fewer btu's per gallon, but it does have a higher octane which, if the car is tuned correctly, will influence the miles driveable per gallon of E20. What about a mix of E10M10, or E20Butanol20? Can we get a synergy by blending different fuels, some inexpensive, some high btu, some high octane? Until we get a much better battery system, we will need a substantial amount of fuel and the less we buy overseas the safer we will be.

Why is it that legislators must waste their time on nullities? Why must they specify in legislation requirements that actually work at cross purposes to what they seek?

The present regulations in place are already forcing this FFV usage. And will do so for all engines that can do so,long before this is implemented. As long as the CAFE rules exist, this is already happening.

Already most manufacturers have near 50% or more of their gasoline vehicles able to achieve this; and each year another engine drive-train is certified for FFV.

It would help this dim-bulb if there were national standards defined, for what diesel blends for various levels of bio-diesel mixtures, would be standardized for fuel-makers and auto-makers to create, and certify; but this dim-bulb wouldn't know that those definitions don't exist yet for bio-diesel and likely won't exsit for a few more years.

As a a complication, I would think that the most efficient ICE engines theoretically possible, will have HCCI capability emerging at about this time.

Presumably something that this Demo dim-bulb Greenie would want. Then Otto cycle (ie spark ignition, or gasoline engines) would be as efficient as diesels, without the weight and complicated,heavy and expensive emissions equipment, that prevents many diesels from US roads.

Vehicles with ICE gen-sets, like the EREV designs for the Volt, Converj, Ampera and the Chrysler REEV Mini-Vans, would be more easily adapted for operating almost exclusively in this most efficient HCCI combustion region, with their near constant RPM operations, would probably be the first vehicles to utilize this technology.

But this dim-bulb wants to toss a monkey wrench into these desired possibilities.

But Go ahead and inadvertently complicate and delay the coming of this fine technology. This legislation would do so, by forcing the hard enough to create HCCI combustion conditions, for this engine technology by requiring all manner of fuels to be used simultaneously, by this stupid legislation. The last vehicles to be able to use flex fuels will probably most certainly be the HCCI equipped ones, most likely.

But go ahead and rule them off the roads until they have multiple combustion engine maps that handle all manner of fuels, some of which might actually be impossible to achieve.

Hey, lets move this thing on. All it does is give the average person more of a choice when buying a car. If you hate ethanol, keep using gas. Making the cars more flexible will still allow you to do that. They won't stop burning the foul terrorist funding crap you love. I will always support plant based fuels, the get their energy from the sun and soil, and they burn cleaner. Then the market can decide when both fuel sources compete on an even playing field.

Steve-O
Lets have broad range fuel capabilities - different designs will assist the evolutionary DNA that's good. Different (novel) fuel and dual fuel will assist local transport fuel shortages and promote flexible engine designs.
The optimums blends or choices, as Stan manages to communicate through his muddle of insults, will be found most appropriate on a regional basis.

Afar reaching legislation that forces both engine and fuel design would be a handicap.
Blender fuel pumps allow many options. As the logistical issues are more likely to increase (Already we have more choices) driveway service and the appropriate advice to eliminate confusion (a decal the same as "diesel or L.P.G." now Biodiesel 50 or E< 70)shoudn't be that hard to come up with. The owner gets maximum power and economys or if its "too hard" - expensive repair bills
I thought every licensed driver would have the required literacy. But obviously some people stll put lube oil in the radiator or deisel in the petrol tank.

This is what we dont want, It sounds like a sympathy clause for underresourced R&D:

"The legislation would allow exemptions for manufacturers under certain conditions, including if the application of the fuel-choice enabling technology to plug-in hybrid electric vehicles (PHEVs) caused such vehicles to fail to meet state air quality requirements."

Those HEVS should be the most able to meet emmsion or air quality issues owing to the inherrant benefts of the tecnology.

The exemptions would negate the advantage of HEVS and dual fuel advantages.

My Chevy Impala 3.5L FFV gets the same mileage with E20, and E30 as it does with E10.

Bring on the Blender Pumps.

Blend at the pump made sense to me years ago and it still does. No worries about E10 or E20, you know your car, you select how much you want.

FWIW I used to own one of those 3.5L Impalas, it was great. Now my family does not own a FFV, but I have been running our 2.0L and 2.4L Hyundais on alternating fill E20 all the time now. I mean they arent technically FFVs, and I am not adventurous enough to go beyond that ratio.

Point is, after 2.5 years and a 1 year respectively, no problems. In fact, the dealer has commented on the 2006 how great the engine runs. Have always run that blend in both cars since they were new. Would not be trying this, but I had an old 1995 Grand Am that I successfully ran on E30 just under 4 years without any problems. Since that was successful, I am trying it in my newer cars with the E20.

I am not an really advocate of running ethanol in higher amounts than E30 in non FFVs, but fortuantely I have blender pumps right down the street. I would like to see more FFVs mandated is I like OPTIONS, so that no matter what car I like, I can do E85 in it.

We already effectively have blender pumps. My car gets around 10% better mileage on >91 octane than on "regular gas". I make a choice every time I fill up. I always go for premium, since it gives me better mileage and performance, but I'm sure a lot of people choose the cheapest pump cost, even if it costs them more in the long run. Overall, I don't think that it's too confusing for the average driver.

Stan,

There was an article here last year about how HCCI is more fuel-agnostic than spark ignition. If anything, HCCI engines will be E85 compliant from the start.

Unfortunately the bill is far too timid.

Even a mandate that all new cars from the next model year on be fully flex fueled is a slow phase-in already because only about 10% of the cars on the road at any time were sold new that year (and that was pre crash). So it would take least 5 years for even half the auto fleet to be alcohol compatible. And the availability of alcohol pumps may well lag behind alcohol compatibility's market share, further delaying the impact.

So for years to come under my more "radical" mandate we'd still be polluting; and enriching our enemies by hundreds of billions each year, financing war against ourselves.

And this bill proposes to drag that out still longer? For what, to save money? It costs automakers only $100 per car to add alcohol compatibility to a model, basically a rounding error and what we spent on foreign oil in 5 hours in 2008. Instead extending the risk to our economy of terror, war, and oil price hikes is smarter financially?

I guess in the absence of a bill properly reflecting the urgency of the situation this will have to be tolerated.

I was thinking of a camel designed by comittee, as
reduced performance is not a "political issue but efficiency driven.
I guess for the purpose of the bill flex fueled vehicles at 85%E,M or BIO Deisel could leave open other low offset transport fuels when reduced carbon footprint can be demonstrated.