GM May Pull the Plug on E85 Capability for the Chevy Volt

August 20th, 2007 | Posted in: Electric Motor, Engineering, Fuel

We have some new and unsubstantiated information from anonymous sources that GM has decided to remove E85 capability from the Chevy Volt’s on-board internal combustion engine/generator.

One of the promotional points of this concept vehicle when it was first announced was the E-Flex system. The “E” stands for electricity, we understand the concept of the electric motor running on powerful batteries. The “Flex” stands for the fact that the energy both batteries and motor are supplied with could come from various or “flexible” sources. Of course, the engine could run on regular gasoline.

However, the Shanghai Volt concept showed us that the car could run on a hydrogen fuel cell. Other possibilities for the combustion engine included diesel, biodiesel, or 85% ethanol (E85).

We have already heard from Bob Lutz, due to restrictive standards in the U.S., GM would probably not bother putting diesel capacity into the Volt’s engine, after all, most drivers of the car would be going in electric only mode.

Now our sources tell us that GM will also be nixing the capacity to use E85 as well.

This shouldn’t surprise us too much. An engine requires special engineering to handle the very corrosive ethanol. Also, many experts believe the reason for Flex-Fuel vehicles (FFV) at all is to allow car makers to to reduce their CAFE requirements, because the reality is few of these cars actually use ethanol anyway. Try to find E85 at your local gas station.

Since the Volt gets astronomical gas mileage (approaches infinite mpg for the first 40 miles), the engine is just for generating electricity, and since the batteries are adding so much cost to the car, it seems like cutting E85 for the first generation Volt is probably a good business decision.

Remember, you heard it hear first!

What do you think?

[UPDATE: THIS REPORT WAS LATER FOUND TO BE FALSE - ANONYMOUS SOURCE WAS WRONG]

Popularity: 2% [?]

(No Ratings Yet)

Loading ...

Posted by: Lyle

26 Responses to “GM May Pull the Plug on E85 Capability for the Chevy Volt”

Tim Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 8:03 am

Hopefully this ethanol garbage will be replaced with Butanol anyway. Butanol can be made from the same feed stocks as ethanol and one of its many advantages is that it can be blended with gasoline in any ratio and used without engine modifications. http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Butanol

About H2 Fuel Cells… Call me crazy, but there is MUCH ongoing research into improving the efficiencies of water dissociation via milliamps of pulsed low voltage electricity combined with ultrasound to tap into zero point energy to dissociate water at the molecular level without breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I’m NOT talking about over unity! I’m talking about taping into Zero Point Energy which physicists have known about for almost 100 years. Albert Einstein theroized this in 1910 and it’s NOW almost ready for prime time.
http://www.peswiki.com/index.php/Zero_point_energy

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Water_Disassociation_Using_Zero_Point_Energy

I know how the Wright Brothers felt. If we could only get past the entrenched cartels and scientific community dogma…

[Reply]
Dave Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 8:34 am

I’m sort of sad to see the Ethanol Flex option go away.

My main focus is to set America free from imported oil. Today, I think around 60% of our oil imported, and around 67% of our oil consumption is in the transportation sector. So if we could remove oil from the transportation sector, this alone would stop oil imports, which would take away the funding for terrorism.

The argument “Try to find E85 at your local gas station” makes no sense. The idea is that first you need a critical mass of cars that can use E85, and then gas station owners will have a reason to offer it.

I don’t think E85 alone can solve our transportation energy needs, but E85 together with coal, natural gas, hydro, and nuclear powered electricity would do the job.

I’ve heard the extra cost for an E85 Flex option is only $150. I would gladly pay this. In the end, it might even save me money.

[Reply]
kent beuchert Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 9:48 am

When you think about the range extender engine, you realize that it won’t get used very much - mostly it just sits around doing nothing. To put a very corrosive fuel like ethanol into the system and leave it for long periods may have something to do with the decision. If this makes the VOLT less expensive, then I’m all for it. There is no ethanol available around here, and I
estimated the other night that if I had been driving the VOLT during the past year and a half, I wouldn’t have used more than 10 gallons of gasoline. Honest. To me, the E85 feature was never a selling point anyway.

[Reply]
Brian Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 10:15 am

I think it’s a mistake to take away the E85 option. I beleive the E85 capability only costs a couple hundred dollars more than a regular gasoline engine, which isn’t a big deal on a $30k car. And E85 may be much more widely available by 2010. Even if it isn’t, it would still cause the Volt to be more appealing to people in the midwest where E85 is widely available.

[Reply]
Steven B Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 10:30 am

I support GM’s decision. It seems sensible and I’m sure that in the second or third or fourth model years that the decision can be reversed. Has there been any indication that an HCCI engine would be used in the ragne-extender? From what I’ve read about the technical specs, an HCCI engine would work better in an E-flex car since it is only best capable of constant performance without spark under a narrow operating band instead of in a normal car that has variable output demands. Does anybody know?

[Reply]
George Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 10:38 am

I believe that GM should provide as many options as possible in a “Flex” system. It should be a modular design, which would take whatever is thrown at it. Then if advances take place in storing different fuels, the consumer can retrofit their vehicle to add a tank that will handle it. Instead of limiting the engine, limit the storage capability if it’s not feasible to add the storage of E85 on the vehicle at this time

[Reply]
Matt986 Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 10:50 am

I think Kent has a good point - What are the undesired side effects of leaving ethanol in a fuel system (tank, pump, lines, etc) for a long period of time without using it?

Gasoline does break down, but there are additives that slow that down or stop it.

Just like Kent says, over the last year, I probably wouldn’t have used even 10 gallons of gas if I had a Volt. Save for the drive out the Phoenix and back in April (1000 miles one way from where I live), I would rarely ever have to burn fuel.

And actually, if you think about economics, if vehicles like the Volt, and others that get great gas mileage, penetrate the market, then less gas will be used by our society. Supply and demand will shift a bit, and gas prices will go down, making E85 much less attractive unless the costs of production go way down.

I think diesel would be a better option, if a generator can meet emissions standards. There’s just more energy per gallon in diesel. Plus it’s widely available.

[Reply]
Dave Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 11:42 am

Dave,

I agree completely. Why nix a simple alternative fuel such as E85, even if it isn’t yet widely used?

Second, my understanding for the FFV option was that manufacturers got credits or rebates of some sort because of the FFV status. I don’t recall if it was EPA or what agency.

Besides, GM’s boasting it’s “Go Yellow” campaign, why not?

[Reply]
OptimisticMF Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 11:46 am

I tend to agree with GM on this one also. I’m more interested in seeing this product go to market than quibble about fuel types. The important thing here is viable, electric transportation. We can engineer solutions to provide any number of options for electricity production and distribution, that is the beauty of it.

“Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.”

[Reply]
George K Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 12:39 pm

I’m with OptimisticMF. Yes, I was looking forward to driving an E85 vehicle as well. I even located the one station w/i 15 miles of my house. However, obviously there are some technical challenges here.

Perhaps due to long periods between use, the E85 required special equipment, driving up the price above a standard E85 vehicle which continually flushes itself?

I would rather have the Volt in the show room sooner and at a reasonable price, than risk a delay. So far, the team has been very marketing oriented. I don’t believe that they are eliminating this feature for an inconsequential reason.

[Reply]
Steve F Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

There could be additional reasons in dropping E85. The generator engine with E85 and Gas will perform different. That means that the control electronics would have to program the logic to handle the engine having different power and torque during recharge based if running Gas vs E85. The result is more effort on GM side then just making the engine support E85. Do not if is true or not but maybe another reason for the decision.

Whatever the reason, the most important design in the Volt is to get all the electrical systems working as perfect as possible. E85 can come later.

[Reply]
Bill Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 12:50 pm

Compressed natural gas (CNG) is more available than E85, and burns the cleanest (much cleaner than any liquid fuel)

But alternative fuels were likely nixed in favor of one engine/alternator design, tuned for maxiumum efficiency in making electricity, not mechanical power.

Maybe an air-cooled, gasoline-fueled HCCI ICE? (no radiator or spark ignition - 2 less things to break)

[Reply]
D Vanditmars Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 1:15 pm

With the 40 mile battery only range, whatever fuel is in the vehicle will not be used very often. Thus the life-time of the fuel in the vehicle tank should be considdered. In my case I would never, (well maybe once or twice a year) use the generator engine.

[Reply]
omegaman66 Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 3:07 pm

Not as big a loss as I am sure some will make it out to be. Few people have E85 options. And with the realization that corn based ethanol isn’t really doing anything positive for anyone other than farmers then it will be awhile before E85 actually is available that is made for other sources.

Also think of it this way. This is the FIRST car of its kind (sort of) and as new models come out in the future you can expect them to evolve just like computers and cell phones have. More options, more bells, more whistles.

Expect things like fuel usage tied to onboard GPS which calculates the best use of the generator. Different modes when you know you are going to barely over run the 40 mile distance to get home. Better batteries, loose the generator eventually, etc.

[Reply]
carlivar Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

I don’t understand the big deal about E85 over biodiesel. Isn’t biodiesel simply more energy-efficient to produce?

And don’t tell me it’s an emissions problem with diesel. That’s B.S. VW and Mercedes are going to start selling bulk diesels in California in 2008.

[Reply]
Johnnie S. Paul, Jr Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 3:29 pm

E-Flex? So now our only two choices are gas and Fuel-cell?

Where I live there is only gas, so I will not have any E-Flex options. But that does not matter, it is the 40-all electric that I look forward to.

Will the name E-Flex name change to reference these omitted options?

Johnnie

[Reply]
David Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 8:02 pm

I too am sad to see the E-Flex option go away however I cannot blame GM for this. I have owned an E85 capable car for 7 years now and have yet to put a drop of E85 in the tank. I live in Florida and the closest gas station selling E85 is 200 miles from my house.

[Reply]
LyleL Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 8:05 pm

It seems to me I heard E-Flex explained awhile back as Energy Flexibility, not E for Electric. Wondering if that got redefined somewhere along the line. Makes more sense as Energy Flexibility since electricity can come from many fuel sources along with whatever would fuel the genset.

Glad they will not be using E85. I’ve stopped buying ethanol because it’s using food sources (e.g. corn). It’s driving up food costs everywhere, including third-world countries. Is it wise to be burning food? The wage earner in the USA has a small percentage of their wages going for food costs, not so in other parts of the world. I’ll not support food sourced fuels or items that compete with food production.

Patiently waiting for a Volt or Prius with a genset (turbine, ICE or whatever) that burns straight gasoline and NOT hydrogen gas (fuel cell). With the 40 mile electric range, 95% of my driving will be power grid supplied.

[Reply]
Lyle Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 8:07 pm

Keep in mind my source for this info is not GM itself.

Sam Abuelsamid of Autobloggreen asked GM directly about this and they denied it:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/20/the-chevy-volt-range-extender-will-remain-e85-capable/

I guess only time will tell.

[Reply]
law Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 9:05 pm

It’s a good decision. E85 is corrosive but many people will be puting 10% ethanol gasoline in the car anyway. I also bet almost everyone will be using a little gas during the week. There are always circumstances and although 90% of your driving can be all electric, I think most people will go over sometimes or even not charge enough for the next day. I’d like to see if they add a E85 option in later models

[Reply]
Jim Stack Says:
August 20th, 2007 at 11:53 pm

I don’t believe the statement. Since GM is pushing their go yellow and it only takes about $200 to make an E85 option it is a low cost no brainer.
GM has partnered with A123 for the battery option. That is the biggest expense and challenge that even Tesla, ACPropulsion and Toyota have been stuck on. To make them safer, lighter, more powerful and most of all cost effective is not easy. The cost is the biggest factor at the present time.

[Reply]
H. Hulseman Says:
August 21st, 2007 at 12:48 am

Butanol will replace E85.

The range extender will usually be used for long trips makeing exotic fuels less likely to be available. Gasoline or butanol will be around for sometime because all the existing cars rely on it.

Autobloggreen denies E85 fuel selection will be removed.

[Reply]
R. K. Sparks Says:
August 21st, 2007 at 1:27 am

My answer is very simple. Without FlexFuel capability, this vehicle will not find its way into my garage. In fact, I would like to see it E100 capable.

[Reply]
N Dell Says:
August 21st, 2007 at 6:45 am

I dont understand why people are so against the E85 option. As mentioned it costs GM only an upgraded fuel filter, fuel lines and fuel pump, and for people who live where it is readily available can help reduce emmissions by using it, ethanol is more stable over time than gasoline, and it is about 50 cents cheaper per gallon here in Iowa. Most of the corn going to ethanol would have become animal feed, one byproduct of ethanol is animal feed. http://www.e85.com. I live in Iowa, nowhere near a farm, but have done a bit of research on E85 and have used it. If you dont want it then just dont use it.

[Reply]
Adam Denison Says:
August 21st, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Autoblog Green seems to say something different. I’ll try to find out what the answer is. Meanwhile, here’s the link:

http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/08/20/the-chevy-volt-range-extender-will-remain-e85-capable/

[Reply]
Mike Says:
March 20th, 2008 at 10:20 am

E-85 is a renewable source of energy produced by either corn, wheat, and in the near future corn cobs, and then waste products of the wood industry. Without the E-85 option my interest in the Volt has dropped.

[Reply]

GM May Pull the Plug on E85 Capability for the Chevy Volt

26 Responses to “GM May Pull the Plug on E85 Capability for the Chevy Volt”

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts