Anyone know is there a real advantage to this or is it just marketing hype like with the Prius?

No there is no real advantage to it. E85 gets worse fuel economy and is worse for the environment after processing is completed. And the Prius is somthing that actually got good fuel economy(and still does) but then turned into somthing that could be used for marketing hype. This is just GM trying to improve their image in an easy cheap way.

“General Motors has announced that the 2009 Buick Lucerne will be added the Detroit-automaker’s long list of flexible-fuel capable vehicles.”

wait, now i’m finding stuff- but uh, will be added the ?? what’s the missing word

No flex fuel!

It has already been proven that ethanol production is actually worse for the environment than gasoline production.

mayer_ray_nagin – for one, the Prius uses gasoline while these cars can use E85 which is only 15% gasoline. Now, do these cars get better fuel economy than the Prius? No, but we have to remember that they use 85% LESS gas. So unless they get 85% less MPG than the Prius, which I am pretty sure they don’t, they are actually using LESS gasoline overall.

Who cares if they use less gas. The quicker the gas is used up the faster they will have to find a good alternative. Also its not good for the environment and its using up crop space that should be being used for food in developing countries not for an obese 30 year old to take his 7 passenger SUV to McDicks to get fries and feel better about “not hurting the earth”.

When I was a kid, my dad, who knew I was car-obsessed, picked up a magazine for me called “Cars of Tomorrow”. It had all kinds of sketches and models of concept cars, including taking advantage of the clean fuel of tomorrow… Nuclear! Yup, cars with small self contained nuclear reactors on board. I wonder when they will actually go into production…

Hopefully by 2009 ill see an E85 station somewhere.

Buenos, the fartcan-exhaust industry is threatened by nuclear powered cars so they bought all the patents and put them in a shredder like big oil does all the time when a garage inventor turns water into gas.

Ignore scientific research and continue to mislead the public for as long as possible if you can look environmentally-conscious for minor $70 mods to a vehicle.

Uh, folks who say ethanol production is worse for the environment don’t really know what’s going on in the industry.

It’s CORN-BASED ethanol production that isn’t environmentally sustainable. However, Cellulosic ethanol (made from poplar, switchgrass, etc) IS.

What’s more is that GM has pumped a bunch of money into its strategic partnership with Coscata Industries, which is developing ethanol that can be made from old tires, yard debris, etc., and will only take 1 gallon of water to make one gallon of ethanol. It’s coming. The costs just have to be rationalized for mass-scale production and distribution.

Cellulosic ethanol is the best short-term solution for curbing petroleum use, reducing emissions, and reducing our dependence on imported oil. And GM is leading the charge in this area, folks.

I wish they’d put their efforts and money into developing more diesels than E85…

golf4me GM is devoloping a 4.5L diesel for its 1/2 pick ups, and they are looking into the powerplant to go into passenger sedans. I don’t know the ETA on this.

Cellulosic Ethanol still goes by the same principal. You have to have land to harvest plant crops on, which either has to be taken away from existing crops or has to be made by clearing land which isnt good. Although it could just be outsourced to other countries who clear rainforests to grow crops…. cheap labour is always a plus.
Ethanol made from tires and debris on the other hand sounds promising if it comes through.

inline6, why make ethanol from old tires? I read somewhere that you can get gasoline or diesel fuel from tires relatively cheaply. After all synthetic rubber is 80% oil. I also read that effect of ethanol is much worse then burning oil based fuels. Apparently ill affect is compounded by farmers selling corn for ethanol and price of animal feed skyrocketed. Now the steak is doubly expensive: it expensive to get it to the supermarket and expensive to raise.

Flex fuel is ****ing bull****. The extra ethenol they’re putting in regular gas is ****ing up my mileage. This is more gov’t bull**** to see what kind of **** they can make us believe. **** corn, sugar cane, jack and his godamn beanstalk and whatever the **** else they get ethanol from.

Don’t blame rising costs at the supermarket on Ethanol. The cost of fuel contributes most to these rising costs. As transportation costs increase certain retail especially groceries see the blunt end. I hope that isn’t some coastal myth. The agricultural community has seen increasing prices on corn, grain, beans, etc… stirring up this economy accounts for heavy machinery purchases and LD and HD truck purchases. Agreed there is more demand on corn with E85s popularity growing, but these farmers are entitled to it. A little catch 22–imagine what it cost to operate machinery over 200, 500, 1000 acres because of the high prices of diesel. On the same token I’mn paying $4 for a lb. of beef, and I’m in the heartland.

Dude, the more ethenol they put in gas the more it reduces your gas mileage, that’s a fact. And since gas prices are high for NO REASON the ethanol excuse doesn’t add up. It’s just more govmt BS.

Yes, land has to be used to grow the plants that make the cellulosic ethanol. But it’s not like the US has run out of aerable land. If the farmers who are producing corn for ethanol would switch to switchgrass and poplar, this whole point would be moot.

Plus, what’s worse, oil rigs, or poplar groves?

I just filled my truck up with E85 for $2.59 a gallon. $1.10 less than regular 87. Yup this E85 stuff is just terrible!