Chrysler to Introduce Flex-Fuel Jeeps in 2007
25 April 2006
 |
| The Commander goes Flex-Fuel in 2007. |
Beginning next year, Chrysler will introduce flexible-fuel models of the Jeep Commander and Jeep Grand Cherokee capable of running on ethanol blends of up to 85% (E85)— the first application of E85 flex-fuel engines to the Jeep brand.
All Jeep Commander and Jeep Grand Cherokee retail and fleet buyers who select the 4.7-liter engine option will automatically receive Flexible-Fuel Vehicles capable of running on E85 fuel. Also available in Flexible Fuel Vehicle (FFV) capability for 2007 are:
Chrysler Sebring sedan and convertible with the 2.7-liter engine.
Dodge Dakota and Dodge Ram pickups and Dodge Durango SUV with 4.7-liter engine.
Dodge Caravan and Grand Caravan and Chrysler Town & Country minivans equipped with 3.3-liter engines will also be available with FFV capability for fleet customers.
Overall for 2007, the company plans to sell more than 250,000 Flexible Fuel Vehicles (FFVs) capable of running on E85. That number will increase to nearly 500,000 units beginning in the 2008 model year, or about 25% of the company’s new US vehicles.
Chrysler Group President and CEO Tom LaSorda made the announcement during remarks to the Renewable Fuel Association annual conference in Washington, DC, today.
Chrysler Group says that it has 1.5 million FFV-capable vehicles already on the road, representing about 10% of all vehicles sold by the company since 1998—a greater percentage than any other company.
To maximize the ability to run on ethanol-based fuels, automakers adjust engine computer controls and alter the fuel system (fuel tank, fuel pump and fuel lines) to resist the corrosive effects of ethanol.
Chrysler Group FFVs use a patented sensor system to determine the exact content of the fuel (E85, gasoline or any mixture of the two). The seamless transition of one fuel to another is accomplished by an advanced calibration system that determines the concentration of ethanol in the gasoline and adjusts for greatest operational efficiency.
Unfortunately, too many of these vehicles have been—or will be—running on pure gasoline due to the lack of a fuel infrastructure. But we know that flex-fuels can work, when industry and government get behind them and encourage infrastructure development.
—Tom LaSorda
When burning gasoline, the 2006 Jeep Commander and Grand Cherokee with the 4.7-liter engine have an EPA fuel economy rating of 17 mpg combined. Fuel consumption with E85 will be higher (and fuel economy lower), due to the lower energy content of ethanol, although Chrysler has not yet provided an estimated rating for these vehicles.
Why not they introduce this flex-fuel in smaller vehicles like Caliber, PT Cruiser, etc.
After all in Brazil, smaller vehicles have flex-fuel option.
Posted by: Max Reid | 25 April 2006 at 11:06 AM
Perish the thought that they'd encourage anyone to buy a smaller vehicle!
Posted by: b100 | 25 April 2006 at 11:51 AM
If we're going to kick oil we're going to have to drive more efficient vehicles. Biofuels will never displace gasoline as long as 17 MPG is the norm. Until the average joe understands this we're going nowhere... fast.
Posted by: Tripp Bisop | 25 April 2006 at 12:29 PM
In this manner biofuels are like lower dose nicotine patches to chain smokers, they don't really do much for the cure
Posted by: Charlie | 25 April 2006 at 12:47 PM
14% of our current corn crop is devoted to ethanol, which provides less than 1% of our gas needs. Sorry, but I am still having trouble seeing how ethanol is going to make much of a dent in our oil problems, especially when we seem to be focusing on gas guzzlers to convert to FFV.
But FFVs have very little to do with getting us off oil and have everything to do with helping GM and others meet Cafe standards.
Posted by: t | 25 April 2006 at 02:21 PM
Like "t" said, the reason GM and Chrysler are so hard on FFV's is because it props up their CAFE numbers. Chrysler is already teetering on the brink of missing it's numbers for CAFE and I believe Benz is actually in the negative and pays out fines every year. It's very possible Benz will offer FFV's not long form now to reduce their exposure to CAFE penalties.
As for how we'll increase Ethanol production, obviously it won't come from corn. We might double or triple ethanol from corn production, but beyond that, I can't picture how there is any remaining demand for the non-fuel portions of the corn feedstock product. They'll have to use other feedstock if we hope to reach meaningful (like 20-30%) Ethanol usage as a percentage of all transportation fuels.
Posted by: Sid Hoffman | 25 April 2006 at 04:20 PM
namely cellulose ethanol, which can provide for a lot more of our energy needs than corn ethanol ever can.
Posted by: Tripp | 25 April 2006 at 05:33 PM
I saw one of these Commanders at the Perth motor show 2 days ago. It is due out in Australia next month. Has to be one of the ugliest vehicles I've ever seen. I don't think it's styling would help with fuel consumption some how in terms of aerodynamics.
Posted by: mango | 25 April 2006 at 05:47 PM
Going flex fuel means you have the option to put in biofuel and feel good guzzling the precious biofuel, and therefore creating more demand for the biofuel and thus encouraging more venture into biofuel production. Are we going to question that the ethanol is from corn or sugarcane or grass from your backyard? No! We just fill our car with whatever affordable and go busy our life.
Posted by: rexis | 25 April 2006 at 06:20 PM
Another attempt from Big Three to do nothing useful. America has big troubles to blend 3+% of precious corn ethanol instead of MTBE to summer fuel blends. All vehicles on the road are E10 certified, and it will take 10 years to move from current E3 beyond E10 on corn ethanol. Cellulose ethanol is still a fantasy, not a reality. And WTF they are changing to allow E85?! Finally anodizing fuel line?
Posted by: Andrey | 26 April 2006 at 12:58 AM
Diesel diesel diesel diesel diesel dammit!
Where's the Bluetec diesel?
(Actually, I quite like the new Dodge Caliber.. I want one with a 2.4l CDI engine that can take B100...)
Posted by: otis wildflower | 26 April 2006 at 08:15 AM
I'm with Otis Wildflower. WHERE are the Diesels for these vehicles? It's extremely frustrating. I 've personally contacted DC's Alternative Fuels Director and PR Department begging for these additions. After all, the Liberty CRD has well exceeded sales goals.
Posted by: Lifuel | 27 April 2006 at 08:50 PM
I know darn well that someone can build a car that runs on steam and i know that all those brains that we have in the united states can stop all this demand on oil... but you car dealers and your oil friends refuse to do something about it...
if there were a car that ran on water/steam, you would hit top record selling deals and your pockets would be bulging with profits...
why dont you do it!
Posted by: lois | 28 April 2006 at 05:07 PM
Ummm
For starters.
1) What fuel are you going to use to heat the water to steam?
2) Can you live with long warm up times required to heat xx volume of water to 100+ deg C
3) How much water would you need to carry to cover a given distance?
4) Based on 1 and 2 above what will the resulant polution output of this vehicle be?
5) Do you intend to operate this vehicle in temps below frezing?
Based on 1 above what will be the MPG of the steam car?
How will this reduce oil consumption?
Posted by: rj | 02 May 2006 at 09:00 AM
Referring to the diesel quest.
Honda has a diesel on the road in the UK.
Google search the reviews, they are exciting.
We need it in the US now!
I think Honda is worried about competing with their own hybrids.
Posted by: elrayray | 04 May 2006 at 07:11 AM
When is Chrysler going to sell their ffv such as the Sebring to the individual consumer rather than only to fleet vehicle operators?
Posted by: Gary | 06 May 2006 at 07:57 PM
dear sirs:
can i convert a 2006 PT cruiser to accept 85% ethanol. If so, what is cost?
Francis Lindon
Posted by: francis lindon | 08 May 2006 at 10:20 AM
Lois,
Actually you might want to do some research on Steam powere before jumping to conclusions. To your points:
1) You can literally use any fuel, but obviously liquid would be the preferred choice. Which opens the field to a wide variety of both petro and bio based fuels.
2)With modern (I use that term to define those cars built in the 20s) steam cars, NONE of them used boilers, but rather steam generators (almost identical to the "on demand" water heaters that are becoming so popular). The average steam generator can be hot and ready to move a car in under 45 seconds.
3)Again - to harken back to the 20s, most of the steam cars produced then were closed condensing systems that only required periodic topping off of the water supply
4)Polution is one to explore, but given the nature of the beast - ie. it is external combustion and thus the combustion process can be allowed to complete (unlike most internal combustion engines) it is possible to actually build a fairly clean power plant.
5)Obviously heat transfer is always an issue, but again steam generators can be failrly efficient.
I would suggest that for some background reading you research a car built in the late twenties - the Doble Model E. Truely an amazing machine. Mounds of torque. You also need to consider that a steam engine is considerably simpler device then a gas/diesel with a transmission. A steamer has no need at all of a tranny. In fact, in most steam cars the rear axle was the crankshaft of the engine. So, much like a modern hybrid, when you were stopped, the engine was too.
Now to further fuel things here... you might want to check out some work BMW is doing with a steam turbine as a means to capture and use waste heat.
I personally think that Lifuel has a point. With todays materials and understanding, it might be time to give steam another look. External combustion engines are the ultimate flex fuel power plants....
Paul
Posted by: Paul | 09 May 2006 at 06:00 PM
Okay! Let's talk water. How much do you need to run a car? The proven answer is about a cup of water (though a quater of a cup will do). It recycles in the current hydrogen ion engines so you can run that cup for as long as you like.
So much for the existing and econo-politically unviable hydrogen ion engine now propelling two NASA probes at incrementing speeds into oblivion beyond our solar system. So much for the research hydrogen ion vehicles being tested in universities around the world today.
Think how the people of the middle east would suffer if we suddenly scrapped their big bread winner. What would our President and tens of millions of other people in the world do to earn money without emphasis on boom and burn technologies? Boom and burn is the backbone of our times.
Posted by: Mark Stewart | 19 July 2006 at 09:07 PM
Getting to t's comments about the about the amount of ethanol available.
Consider two things, 1) other material other than corn and 2) US government set asside programs use approximately 15-20% of available land (yes, your government pays for farmers to not use their land!).
Given these two factors, the amount of ethanol could easily be doubled or tripple.
Max was concerned about fuel efficiency. This is a real concern. The question will come down to cost per mile. I anticpate that some cities will offer tax rebates for cleaner burning cars.
My moto is:
E85, midwest farmers
not mideast sheiks.
Posted by: Dennis Pfeifer | 30 July 2006 at 03:12 PM
On the topic of steam...
1. A flash steamer can create steam with minimal time frame. This can limit start times.
2. Air can be compressed during run times such as Saab did on its steam car in 1974. This air can then be used to run the car until pressure builds.
3. Fuel can range from natural gas to wood to anything that combusts. It truly is the flex fuel car.
4. A steam turbine car sounds like a jet engine which will make your manhood rock.
5. Hybrid steam electric can be a way to eliminate start up times.
Posted by: Chris | 17 October 2006 at 08:31 PM
I have two chrysler minivans running e-85 get a few less mpg but it is 30 cents cheaper a gallon so maybe it evens out,and it helps american farmers?
Posted by: scott | 13 December 2006 at 06:49 AM
Posted by: | 02 August 2007 at 12:16 AM
I added a FullFlex Gold E-85 kit to my 98 Wrangler.
On RegUnleaded (85 octane) I get about 16.7mpg hiway at $2.98/gal(I drive about 100mi/day on the hiway, btw) daily cost: $17.88 (about 6 gal).
While running E-85, I get about 13mpg and pay about $2.20/gal. Daily cost: $16.95 (about 7.7gal).
Daily savings with E-85 instead of RegUnleaded: $0.93
Weekly Savings: $4.32
Monthly Savings (20 days/month), as above: $18.60
Yearly savings (as above): $223.20
Currently, as long as E-85 is at least $0.50/gal cheaper than gas, I'm saving money.
Gas prices should increase at a greater rate than ethanol. As gas prices increase, so does my savings.
Posted by: Nevaar | 29 November 2007 at 07:39 AM