Can't have it both ways
Ive been following the E-85 thing for a little while now...
A flex-fuel vehicle is a compromised solution to begin with. The engine should be optimized to burn one or the other. Anything else, like one built to burn both, is a compromise that yields alot of inefficiency on the E-85 side.
Want to burn E-85 and use alot less of it???
Get the cubic inches down !!!!!!
Chevrolet engineers concluded in 1957 that 283 cubic inches of displacement for its size, weight, and output fulfills almost all US passenger vehicle requirements, except for trucks, of course. Now, consider that this is at a time when the typical passenger car was 17+ feet long and weighed 2-tons.
That was 51 years ago, so what sparked the displacement (horsepower) wars of the 60's???
CHEAP GAS!!!!!!!!! If gasoline was "expensive" for American consumers to buy in 1960. The MK-IV would never have seen the light of day, NEVER!
Those days of abundant and cheap fuel are long, long, gone and are
never coming back, no matter how fondly we like to look back on that time.
And, since we all know that an engine is little more than an efficient air pump, more displacement, means moves more air per revolution, means the more fuel it needs to run.
Still think that over 400 cubes is sexy??? I dont, not anymore. Not when I have listen to it idle along burning through gallons of fuel crawling up and down the freeway everyday.
Get the CR up where where it needs to be, get a carb, intake, head, cam combo optimized to burn alcohol, and change gears.
EGR, catalytic converter, and restrictive exhaust??? Helps with emmisions on an engine burning gasoline, useless for engines burning E-85. Efficient intake, efficient exhaust is the real answer.
You're lucky in as much as you can buy that fuel where you are. Not available to the public where I am.
I would convert my Stingray over to E-85 only in a second , if I could only buy the fuel. Even with a 283, a Mustang wouldn't be able to keep up with it.
Rock :eek: