GM Plant Passes 500,000 Flexible-Fuel Vehicle Mark
21 March 2006
The General Motors Janesville Assembly plant has produced more than 500,000 Chevrolet and GMC full-size sport utility vehicles with E85 FlexFuel-capable engines. In recognition of the milestone, GM held a ceremony, which included Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle, at the plant.
Since 2002, Janesville Assembly plant has produced SUVs with the 5.3L V8 engine capable of running on gasoline, E85 ethanol (a blend of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline), or a combination of both. The plant’s production is part of the fleet of 1.5 million E85 FFVs GM currently has on the road.
We have made a significant investment in E85 Ethanol by using the technology on one of our most popular engines. With the launch of the all-new Chevrolet Tahoe and Suburban, GMC Yukon, Yukon XL, Yukon Denali and Yukon XL Denali, we’re anticipating that the E85-capable 5.3L FlexFuel engine will make up as much as 70 percent of our production volume.
—Gary Malkus, plant manager, GM Janesville Assembly
GM has been aggressively promoting its production of E85 flex fuel vehicles. To aid consumer awareness, in mid-2006 GM’s FFVs will be equipped with a yellow gas cap. (“Live Green Go Yellow” is GM’s flex-fuel campaign.) (Earlier post.) GM will also be contacting owners of pre-2006 flexible-fuel vehicles to remind them of their option to use E85 ethanol fuel or gasoline.
As part of the event, GM donated an E85-capable 2007 Chevy Tahoe to The Nature Conservancy in Wisconsin.
Few of which are in use here in Portland Oregon.
Posted by: Randy | 21 March 2006 at 08:56 PM
This is useless if you can't buy the fuel. There are no E85 stations within 100 miles of Los Angeles. Business opportunity anyone??
Posted by: BlackSun | 21 March 2006 at 11:20 PM
It looks like the RTC off of 8 & 805 might now be open to the public. Not sure, though.
http://www.e85fuel.com/database/locations.php?state=CACalifornia
Posted by: Ziv | 22 March 2006 at 02:33 AM
Sorry about that, obviously I-8 isn't going to do anyone in LA much good.
Posted by: ziv | 22 March 2006 at 02:35 AM
Note that a gallon E85 - where available at all - is more expensive than gasoline and contains a lot less energy. Your fuel cost will double! Ethanol production from corn requires energy inputs equivalent to ~80% of the energy output, so the net GHG savings due to ethanol from this source are too meagre to justify the price differential.
This has not stopped farm states from pushing for a new distribution infrastructure for E85. However, it would make far more sense to update the national gasoline specification to contain up to 10% of ethanol (as several states are advocating). The national energy security effect is immediate and all but the oldest vehicles on the road can tolerate such blends without retrofits. There is zero need for any E85.
If cellulose ethanol could be produced at reasonable cost in industrial quanitites, the ethanol fraction could be upped to E15 or E20. These will require adapted fuel system components and engine controls. However, it is unlikely that this scenario will materialize in the expected lifespan of any flex-fuel vehicles purchased today.
Bottom line: if you really want to "live green", don't "go yellow". Remember, Detroit has been producing flex-fuel vehicles for a while now not for the environment's sake but because of completely inappropriate CAFE credits:
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/2/7/112747/5158
Instead, I suggest you invest in a suitable vehicle with a hybrid or diesel powertrain.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 22 March 2006 at 06:13 AM
Another link on the flex-fuel vehicles (FFVs) receive a CAFE credit:
"A provision in the CAFE regulations allows alternative-fuel vehicles, such as those running on ethanol or natural gas, to earn an artificially high fuel economy credit for automakers' CAFE calculations. While the intent of the CAFE credit is to encourage the production and sale of vehicles that run on alternative fuels, automakers have largely embraced this incentive as a way to improve their fleet-average fuel economy figures and help meet mandated CAFE requirements without making across-the-board improvements on all their engines' efficiency."
more here
Posted by: odograph | 22 March 2006 at 06:46 AM
Who will be the first politician to expose this scam? Well, he/she certainly won't be coming form the midwest.
Great. You can get CAFE credits even if you damn well know that most of these vehicles will never see E85 in their tanks in their lifetimes. The American public bamboozled again.
Elsewhere on this board, it was stated that it is possible to optimize an engine to compensate for the lower btus available. GM, of course, is optimizing these engines. Right?
Go yellow means piss all over the American people.
Posted by: t | 22 March 2006 at 07:09 AM
Looks like GM just entered twilight years anyhow. The agreement they hammered out with the unions may well cost them more than the market cap of GM and Delphi combined. GM bonds have fallen from investment grade to middling junk ratings in the last seven months.
http://money.cnn.com/2006/03/22/news/companies/gm_delphi/index.htm?cnn=yes
Btw, MG Rover's final assets are being auctioned off in the UK this week. Once you lose your domestic automotive industry, it's gone.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 22 March 2006 at 07:48 AM
t -
higher octane fuels permit increases in the geometric
compression ratio of the engine. Above a certain limit, the fuel will start to knock, a combustion phenomenon that can quickly lead to total engine failure if severe enough.
Modern engines all have knock sensors, essentially vibration sensors with fancy disgital signal processors that allow the engine control unit to identify knock events, assess their severity and take corrective action (principally, retarding the ignition at the expense of power and fuel economy). Such engines are able to cope with a range of fuel qualities. However, they can be optimized only for one particular octane grade.
If GM's flex-fuel vehicles were optimized for E85, they would underwhelm when run on gasoline. If they were optimized for gasoline (the more likely scenario), the superior qualities of E85 are not be exploited and range will be disappointing.
Saab (GM's Swedish subsidiary) had developed a engine that could tilt the upper part of the cylinder to vary the compression ratio but it was too complex to risk mass production. FEV of Germany and others have also proposed alternate mechnaisms, all with a view to reducing losses at low load and idling (though their ideas could just as easily be used to adapt to fuel octane rating).
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 22 March 2006 at 01:11 PM
Rafael.
As always, you add incredibly useful, astute, and clear information to the discussion. I think I probably read about the SAAB elsewhere on a post put forth by you. I doubt seriously if GM or its enablers (politicians, agribusiness, etc) really give a damn whether fuel or energy actually gets saved.
Posted by: t | 22 March 2006 at 01:50 PM
In Brazil, they sell all Gasolene with 25% Ethanol and parallelly they are increasing sales of Flex-Fuel vehicles.
The share of Flex-Fuel vehicles in new vehicle sales are
2003 - 6 %
2004 - 17 %
2005 - 50 %
So 10 % mandate and E85 usage can go in parallel.
However what I am surprised with GM is that, they include flex-fuel only in Big SUV's with v8, 5 liter + engines. Whatever they do, sales of Full size SUV's will fall further as CUV's capture that market.
Why not they include flex-fuel in smaller vehicles like Chevy Cobalt, Aveo, etc.
Atleast now, they sell flex-fuel in vehicles with v6 engines.
Posted by: Max Reid | 23 March 2006 at 11:51 AM