Chevy flex fuel motor

[peregrine]

The flex fuel motors have special coatings on them because of the ethanol rots them out quicker, could that translate to a good candidate for a marine motor? Ethanol is 105 octane and after my convo with someone at GM corporate he said that fuel is great for blowers, but you can't take advantage of the higher octane in N/A form.

Engine guru's....comments please

[roadtrip se]

with the concerns that seem to be percolating up through the boards over the last couple of days about performance and fuel economy. It has me thinking a little more openly about how I achieve the Donzi performance that I am accustomed to, but maybe with a twist.

Ethanol is the wave of the future for the corn farmers of our country. Not quite sure what it really means for the consumer when it isn't readily available and it takes so much of it to achieve a perfomance level even close to petro. Gimme five or ten years to think about starting to run it through my, sure to be blown by then, Donzi. That should give the perfomance builders in the business plenty of time to figure out how to keep this stuff from eating the engine alive. And think, fuel economy too!

Another piece of technology that I have been thinking about as I worry about all the fuel that runs through the 500EFI is cylinder deactivation. GM and Chrysler seem to have this technology down now and it is hardly noticeable at highway speeds. I hear 10-20% economy savings, especially in the new GM SUV line. I got to think that would rock in a boat when going from 8 to 6 to 4 cylinders while at cruise speeds and saving all of that fuel. In a 55 gallon tank, that would transfer to better economy of 5 gallons per fill-up at a minimum. That would be so huge.

Then of course there is the new darling of the greenies, hybrid power. What the heck, there is all of that wasted space up under the bow for batteries. Of course the additional weight might slow you down a little, but when that gas engine cut out in favor of electrical power, the side benefit would be the elimination of all of that nasty and disturbing exhaust noise. Great fuel economy, less noise, enviromentally correct to please all of your Birkenstock wearing buddies, and the perfomance of a solid Donzi full of batteries. Perfect!

And then of course there is diesel power. With the advances in technology today, I bet a 6.4 Powerstroke would just rock in place of the 500EFI and I am going to see 20-25% better economy! Of course, if I run across an obstruction while out putting around in my oil burning, torque monster Donzi, I could throw a ski rope around it and just yank that sucker out. All the time, getting great fuel economy.

Man it's great to start thinking about how to improve the fuel economy of my Donzi. The leaf has been turned and I am on it!

[gold-n-rod]

The diesel Donzi has aready been done. It was a 16' with a little 4 cylinder diesel. It was for sale on boattrader dot com and someone posted the link here a while back...... hmmm, let's see.....

..... here it is..... but the original ad is no more. http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47000&highlight=diesel

[roadtrip se]

The diesel Donzi has aready been done. It was a 16' with a little 4 cylinder diesel. It was for sale on boatrader dot com and someone posted the link here a while back...... hmmm, let's see.....
..... here it is..... but the original ad is no more. http://www.donzi.net/forums/showthread.php?t=47000&highlight=diesel

But that was a few years ago. If I remember right, it had a single exhaust outlet, which had to be a bit different.

But with the advances in deisel technology today, I would think we could do better. I want my fuel economy and performance too!

[BUIZILLA]

they did a 16 and a 22, I remember Ted telling me the 22 went over 80 at something ridiculous of 5 gph???

[gcarter]

I think the idea of a pair of 1200 HP SeaTeks in a 38ZR is a great idea......
but they probably burn more than 10 GPH of biodiesel per engine:eek!: :eek!:

Maybe more than 100 GPH at WOT.

But it's still a good idea.:wink:

[peregrine]

Reason for asking about Flex Fuel is because I have one in my truck. Last night I met a nice guy at GM corporate and he put some thoughts in my head. I got 320 HP out of my 5.3 and with a MagnaCharger (8lbs or less) I can put 400 to the tires (reliably). The GM guy said with E85 at 105 octane I could really turn the wick up on the charger and it would be way more efficent (sp?). So when I can pick up a 5.3 long block w/puter out of a junk yard w/under 20k on it for around $1500 I start thinking this might be good in a boat.
E85 has less BTU's than Gasoline so less efficent in N/A applications, but at 105 octane it will really outshine the petrol in boosted applications. That is what he had to say about that. So armed with that knowledge and knowing about the E85's corrosive nature they toughened up the lines, intake, etc...on the 5.3 flex fuel model. Change the cam and freeze plugs and this may be real good in a Marine app? Yes, No?

[roadtrip se]

So if I run wide open down Lake Cumberland in my fuel efficeint bio-diesel, Powerstroke powered Donzi, will I make the place smell like one big french fry?

Maybe I could work some sort of endorsement deal with McDonalds, since I would be driving customers to the local Mickey D's with the stench. The Roadtrip French Fry Editon Powered by McDonalds.

Side benefit, I bet they would give me all of the used fryer oil I could burn.
Talk about fuel efficient and cost effective. No cost fuel.

Sorry for derailing your thread Peregrine, but I just can't help myself.

[roadtrip se]

they did a 16 and a 22, I remember Ted telling me the 22 went over 80 at something ridiculous of 5 gph???

The number I remember was 55, not 80, from a Boating magazine write-up.

Problem with diesel is the things are so dang heavy. Now maybe with the new light duty technology coming in the next couple of years, this could become a reality. VW TDIs are already real big with the trawler crowd and such.

I also remember seeing a couple of Yanmars in a 42 Fountain and it ran pretty good, but the price premium pretty much nullified any fuel savings one could realize during the lifetime operation of the boat.

[BUIZILLA]

The number I remember was 55, not 80, from a Boating magazine write-up. pay attention in class kemosabe'

the 16 went 55 with the little 4 cyl Yanmar, but i'm sure Ted told me the 22 went 80.5 with the Yanmar 6 cyl/Bravo combo...

[gcarter]

Problem with diesel is the things are so dang heavy.
The 1200 HP SeaTeks weigh about 1900# w/ a transmission, I think.
That's really not bad. They're a very narrow inline 6....so narrow, you might not need to stagger them.
But they are expensive.....

[RickSE]

There was also a 38ZX with Yanmars built 2000-2001.

[roadtrip se]

pay attention in class kemosabe'
the 16 went 55 with the little 4 cyl Yanmar, but i'm sure Ted told me the 22 went 80.5 with the Yanmar 6 cyl/Bravo combo...

Ted said that his 2000 22 500HP carbed boat with shorty would run 85.
I remember looking at his avatar of the red speedo pegging out for inspiration as I built my version of that boat with a 500EFI. When I showed up at Eufala, with barely one hour of experience on the re-rigged ride, and we ran together, he barely squeaked by me. I run 81 on a great day and could only get 79 that day, due to no wheel time. Grizzley waxed him at 86 in the Criterion the same day. I guess we all exaggerate from time to time.

Okay, sorry for the side note. I did a little googling, yahooing, and searching right here for Yanmar Classics. Mastery built out a Blackhawk boat that would run 68-72 according to his web site. Ted did run a Yanmar boat, as posted here, with an interesting multiple x-dimension adjustment gizmo, but I'll consider the source on that 80 mph top end claim.

Still better than 55, so I stand educated, but I don't think you have to worry about me looking to swap out the 500 for a Yanmar any time soon.

Free french fries would be pretty cool though. Anybody want to take a shot at the ethanol, cylinder de-activation, or hybrid ideas while we are all saving the planet's precious resources by focusing on the fuel efficiency of our performance boats?

[gold-n-rod]

There was also a 38ZX with Yanmars built 2000-2001.

Yikes :eek!: Opening the hatch on a 38ZX and seeing a pair of Yanmars is like opening up a Playboy and seeing your Grandmother! :confused: :confused: :confused:

PS: As far as 55 in a 16 with a 4 cylinder Yanmar, I'd have to see the docs. That 16/Yanmar advertised last year claimed a top end of 46. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just need proof before I'll believe.

Call me old school, but all of this talk about Donzi Diesels is making me queasy.

[zelatore]

VW TDIs are already real big with the trawler crowd and such.

What?? The trawler guys I deal with would still prefer all iron, non-turbo, low RPM diesels. These guys don't care one whit about power - a displacement boat can only go as fast as it's hull - and they actually WANT weight down in the bilge. Most of them still look at HP to weight as a good measurement of longevity. Lugger - now that's a trawler motor.

Don

[BUIZILLA]

www.plantdrive.com wouldn't surprise me if I do jump on this bandwagon business and investment wise... :eek!: :wink:

Lugger >>> mostly Komatsu engines, I work on a LOT of them, wonderful engines.. :cool:

[roadtrip se]

Yikes :eek!: Opening the hatch on a 38ZX and seeing a pair of Yanmars is like opening up a Playboy and seeing your Grandmother! :confused: :confused: :confused:
PS: As far as 55 in a 16 with a 4 cylinder Yanmar, I'd have to see the docs. That 16/Yanmar advertised last year claimed a top end of 46. I'm not saying it didn't happen, I just need proof before I'll believe.
Call me old school, but all of this talk about Donzi Diesels is making me queasy.
I am deliberately posting my responses to this thread during the day with the beer and the booze safely locked upstairs and out of touch. I am very afraid of what might come out here, if I actually had some cocktails powering the keyboard. The absurdity of some of my comments here should tip those off who know me to the fact that I could care less about fuel economy on my Classic. It is immaterial. If I became concerned about the fuel economy of the thing, I would probably just sell it and forget about it.

Like a recovering alcoholic, the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. We have some folks here that seem to think fuel economy is a very important aspect of perfomance boating. I am pointing out that I think this is, in my opinion, absurd. I figure if we get the alternatives out here on this thread, that the obvious answer will soon become, there really isn't an alternative. For those who seem to think this is a very important issue, we can point them back to this thread and they can argue the point for as long as they would like. Heck, I'll even participate, because this kind of stuff is part of the business I work in, but I am tired of hearing about it in my hobby too.

Of course, I totally railroaded peregrine's topic and for that I apologize, but the opportunity was upon us.

[smokediver]

quote"Ted said that his 2000 22 500HP carbed boat with shorty would run 85.
I remember looking at his avatar of the red speedo pegging out for inspiration as I built my version of that boat with a 500EFI. When I showed up at Eufala, with barely one hour of experience on the re-rigged ride, and we ran together, he barely squeaked by me. I run 81 on a great day and could only get 79 that day, due to no wheel time. Grizzley waxed him at 86 in the Criterion the same day. I guess we all exaggerate from time to time."

I think that avatar is after the hp600sc he put in there ... i think anyway .. plus the whole salt water versus fresh water ..fwiw ..

[roadtrip se]

What?? The trawler guys I deal with would still prefer all iron, non-turbo, low RPM diesels. These guys don't care one whit about power - a displacement boat can only go as fast as it's hull - and they actually WANT weight down in the bilge. Most of them still look at HP to weight as a good measurement of longevity. Lugger - now that's a trawler motor.
Don

They claim that they have one heck of a big marine buisness underway and more demand than they have capacity for. Heck, maybe it generators for those trawlers as small as a TDIs are. I'll ask again next time I call on VW.

[roadtrip se]

quote"Ted said that his 2000 22 500HP carbed boat with shorty would run 85.
I remember looking at his avatar of the red speedo pegging out for inspiration as I built my version of that boat with a 500EFI. When I showed up at Eufala, with barely one hour of experience on the re-rigged ride, and we ran together, he barely squeaked by me. I run 81 on a great day and could only get 79 that day, due to no wheel time. Grizzley waxed him at 86 in the Criterion the same day. I guess we all exaggerate from time to time."
I think that avatar is after the hp600sc he put in there ... i think anyway .. plus the whole salt water versus fresh water ..fwiw ..

I tried to buy Ted's boat with the 500 in it and it was during the infamous beginning of the pegged speedo avatar. We were about $5K apart and just couldn't put a deal together, so I just went out and did my own with a lot of coaching and logistics help from people here.

[handfulz28]

What's wrong with trying to get the best fuel economy for a given performance level? 10% improvement in fuel economy might not sound like much but I spend upwards of $10k/year in fuel (at today's prices). Going from 10mpg to 11 IS a big deal; dropping from 30gph to 27gph IS a big deal. Especially if there's no change to performance.

RTSE, as to those new technologies like cylinder deactivation, they can be had right now in a computer controlled engine. I doubt you'd see it activated in a boat at anything more than idle speed which I'm sure most will think "what good is cutting fuel at idle speed?" Well if you spent 75% or more of your time there, it would add up over time.
Also consider the variable valve timing that GM finally added to their engine line up. It may take a while, but this stuff will find it's way to a marine application.

As for diesel, GM's Duramax has been "marinated" (ok, marinized, but I like my word better :D ) and it weighs the same as a BBC. And for biodiesel...McDonald's fries are the best. Smells better than a city bus doesn't it?

Thanks,
Michael
3 BBCs in the house:
SUV w/496
Formula 311 t/454MAGs

[gcarter]

My deal about economy is what I previously stated....getting towed back to the fuel dock......:wink: :wink:
I happen to know of a VERY fast 22C in South Florida that experienced that embarrasment about 15 months ago.:yes:

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[gold-n-rod]

I am deliberately posting my responses to this thread during the day with the beer and the booze safely locked upstairs and out of touch. I am very afraid of what might come out here, if I actually had some cocktails powering the keyboard. The absurdity of some of my comments here should tip those off who know me to the fact that I could care less about fuel economy on my Classic. It is immaterial. If I became concerned about the fuel economy of the thing, I would probably just sell it and forget about it.
Like a recovering alcoholic, the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. We have some folks here that seem to think fuel economy is a very important aspect of perfomance boating. I am pointing out that I think this is, in my opinion, absurd. I figure if we get the alternatives out here on this thread, that the obvious answer will soon become, there really isn't an alternative. For those who seem to think this is a very important issue, we can point them back to this thread and they can argue the point for as long as they would like. Heck, I'll even participate, because this kind of stuff is part of the business I work in, but I am tired of hearing about it in my hobby too.
Of course, I totally railroaded peregrine's topic and for that I apologize, but the opportunity was upon us.

My motivation isn't about fuel economy either. It's about the future of our hobby (sickness). As a country, we seem to be headed down a bio-fuel path to reduce our dependancy upon foreign, fossil fuels. If (or maybe when) our affordable fuel choices become E85 and biodiesel, do we really want to pay $500 for a tank of old-fashioned gasoline for a couple hours of Donzi-style boating?

If the answer is "not really," then what does that do to the value of our Donzis? If only 100 guys in the world will pony up that $500 for a tank of fuel, the law of supply and demand goes to work on our boats..... in a very negative way.

So, I see the discussion about alternative fuels to be critical to our (and future generation's) enjoyment of these boats.

I apologize, too, for hijacking this thread.

[BUIZILLA]

So, I see the discussion about alternative fuels to be critical to our (and future generation's) enjoyment of these boats. The reality is that this is very true, it's upon us right now, and we need to recognize our alternative solutions. Believe me, i'm in the fuel injection business and have been for 26 years as an owner and 36 years as a tinkertoy man, and not an hour in a day goes by now without a customer discussion about this. With the recent Brazil Econnection, it's full speed ahead to a clearer realization of our choices.

So, what do we ask is our procedure?? who the hell knows really, we'll just have to re-engineer as things fail from alchohol/ethanol/E85 intrusions in our current lifestyle.... notice I used the word **intrusion**.

JH

[roadtrip se]

What's wrong with trying to get the best fuel economy for a given performance level? 10% improvement in fuel economy might not sound like much but I spend upwards of $10k/year in fuel (at today's prices). Going from 10mpg to 11 IS a big deal; dropping from 30gph to 27gph IS a big deal. Especially if there's no change to performance.
RTSE, as to those new technologies like cylinder deactivation, they can be had right now in a computer controlled engine. I doubt you'd see it activated in a boat at anything more than idle speed which I'm sure most will think "what good is cutting fuel at idle speed?" Well if you spent 75% or more of your time there, it would add up over time.
Also consider the variable valve timing that GM finally added to their engine line up. It may take a while, but this stuff will find it's way to a marine application.
As for diesel, GM's Duramax has been "marinated" (ok, marinized, but I like my word better :D ) and it weighs the same as a BBC. And for biodiesel...McDonald's fries are the best. Smells better than a city bus doesn't it?
Thanks,
Michael
3 BBCs in the house:
SUV w/496
Formula 311 t/454MAGs

I work in the automotive business. It seems like a lot of decisions are being made with fuel economy and environmental issues in mind. Some of them are half-cocked like a lot of the examples I have brought up on this thread. I own an Excursion with the diesel package and I certainly wouldn't pay the pauper to drive the V10.

I have a 2001 Donzi 22 that has a little over 200 hours on it. In six seasons that is about 33 hours per summer on average. Industry standard says most people run about 50 hours per season. Ten percent improvement, even to a performance boater, isn't going to amount to much. For those of us who worry about it, can I recomend sailing as another form of fuel efficient boating?

[roadtrip se]

My deal about economy is what I previously stated....getting towed back to the fuel dock......:wink: :wink:
I happen to know of a VERY fast 22C in South Florida that experienced that embarrasment about 15 months ago.:yes:
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

is different than poor fuel economy. I know from monitoring the GPS that I burn 25-30 gallons every 75-80 miles. If I get up over a 100 miles, then I start keeping an eye on the fuel level. Simple as that.

I am also looking forward to a ride on that certain 22 at AOTH this year I believe, because burning a lot of fuel at over 90+ is a lot more fun than skimping on it at 45.

[gcarter]

is different than poor fuel economy. I know from monitoring the GPS that I burn 25-30 gallons every 75-80 miles. If I get up over a 100 miles, then I start keeping an eye on the fuel level. Simple as that.
I am also looking forward to a ride on that certain 22 at AOTH this year I believe, because burning a lot of fuel at over 90+ is a lot more fun than skimping on it at 45.
Bring a paddle.:hyper: :wink: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[BigGrizzly]

Just some info. Auto companies are doing the economy thing because trhe Government mandates it!!! Can hybrids go fast, sure the hybrid Accord is faster than the standard version. Drove one on Monday, its a gass-no pun intended. In case you young guys don't know this but the old muscle cares arfe slower than todays fast boys. My Mustang Mach I is slower than my son's 99 cobra. The mach has him by over a full liter. Fuel makes heat. heat makes horsepower. the only way out is better volumetric efficiency. Only way to make horsepower is more bangs or bigger bangs! There is only so much heat that can be generated by a gallon of fuel regardless what fuel it. There is a limit, we just haven't reached it yet. The amount of ethanol is also mandated, as well as oil products. when too much is used the fuel economy suffers, like using high test in a regular fuel engine. We have put high test in some of our cars and get worse millage. The slower burning fuel actually burns in the exhaust, as would too much ethanol. The boowha happened last year when some Midwest suppliers dumped too much in with gas and caused some big problems. Don't worry, they are still trying to find out how much to regulate. BTW the suppliers had been fined, but you didn't heare about it, it wasn't news worthy.

[peregrine]

BigGrizz,
If you tune for the higher octane therefore adding more power to the vehicle at the same rate as a lesser octane than won't you get better fuel economy? Therefore you would have to use less pedal to go, say, 75mph ( I am talking about cars and the such)
I don't know and that is why I am asking.

[Cuda]

Maybe I could work some sort of endorsement deal with McDonalds, since I would be driving customers to the local Mickey D's with the stench. The Roadtrip French Fry Editon Powered by McDonalds.
Side benefit, I bet they would give me all of the used fryer oil I could burn.
.
I doubt that. McDonald's are built with pumps to pump the fry grease out to tanks, and a company comes by and empties them. I'm sure there's a contractual arrangement there.

We just finished a Whataburger, and the very last thing they installed was a giant tank with pumps to empty the fryers. I'm sure all large chains have some kind of arrangement.

[Cuda]

My deal about economy is what I previously stated....getting towed back to the fuel dock......:wink: :wink:
I happen to know of a VERY fast 22C in South Florida that experienced that embarrasment about 15 months ago.:yes:
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.
He ran out right before we reached the boat launch, and by his own admission, he probably wouldn't have run out if he hadn't been driving it like he stole it all day. :)

Also, on a hundred mile trip, you will pass places to fuel up. Heck, they had fuel where we ate lunch, but they may not have had 93 octane.

Too bad someone happened to be on the dock with a camera, or else Red could claim it's all hearsay. :)

[Cuda]

The day I start worrying about fuel economy, is the day I'll sell all my boats and take up Parchesi for a hobby.

Also, all the gas burned on all the boats in the world wouldn't be a drop in the bucket compared to how much is burned by vehicles.

[gcarter]

I read recently that sugar cane is capable of producing four times as much ethanol as corn.......
Why is so much emphasis being placed on corn, when high demand raises the prices of so many other things i.e.; animal and human foods????
Maybe higher sugar production, whether cane or beets, wouldn't have as large an impact on our economy.

[peregrine]

You can also make ethanol from forest waste. It is expensive until you are producing in high quantity. Canada has it down pat and their ethanol is on par with our prices of ethanol except it is made from dead leaves. Tell me that doesn't benefit the enviroment?

[peregrine]

Ok...........who Cares About Fuel Economy???????????
What About A 5.3 That Can RUN ON 105 Octane? With A Blower And Put Out 650hp At The Crank In Your Boat For Less Money Than For The Setup OF A Mercruiser Big Block And Blower!!!!
Would You Want One In Your Boat?????????
Well...............is It Possible. I Mean Once They Put Enough E85 Stations In.
The Thread Was Started To See If It Was More Feasible To Marinize A 5.3 Flex Fuel Motor Because Of It's Ability To Run E85.
Anyone Have Any Info On That?

[peregrine]

I don't care that you guys stole my thread, but I am still waiting to see if anyone can answer my ?....after that, carry on!

Sorry I am a little cranky in the AM and I am really not upset, but that is hard to convey in words on a message board

[gero1]

can i have some wheaties with that sugar cane?? and where is this super fry machine? will it make more fries the faster you drive it? i was thinking about putting a extra fuel tank in the bow, when it's full it will help keep the front of the black hawk down. what about moon shine?? you can dump a little on paper , light it, it burns a very pretty color of blue

[gcarter]

If meeting the demand of ethanol requires that hamburger reaches
$8.00/pound.......what is the point?????
Hamburger or fuel?

[gold-n-rod]

If meeting the demand of ethanol requires that hamburger reaches
$8.00/pound.......what is the point?????
Hamburger or fuel?

Speaking as both a vegan and a boater...... I vote FUEL!!!

Your friendly thread hijacker who likes nothing better than turning gasoline into noise, speed and fun,

[Rootsy]

Reason for asking about Flex Fuel is because I have one in my truck. Last night I met a nice guy at GM corporate and he put some thoughts in my head. I got 320 HP out of my 5.3 and with a MagnaCharger (8lbs or less) I can put 400 to the tires (reliably). The GM guy said with E85 at 105 octane I could really turn the wick up on the charger and it would be way more efficent (sp?). So when I can pick up a 5.3 long block w/puter out of a junk yard w/under 20k on it for around $1500 I start thinking this might be good in a boat.
E85 has less BTU's than Gasoline so less efficent in N/A applications, but at 105 octane it will really outshine the petrol in boosted applications. That is what he had to say about that. So armed with that knowledge and knowing about the E85's corrosive nature they toughened up the lines, intake, etc...on the 5.3 flex fuel model. Change the cam and freeze plugs and this may be real good in a Marine app? Yes, No?

stay tuned for coming attractions....

[gold-n-rod]

I read recently that sugar cane is capable of producing four times as much ethanol as corn.......
Why is so much emphasis being placed on corn, when high demand raises the prices of so many other things i.e.; animal and human foods????
Maybe higher sugar production, whether cane or beets, wouldn't have as large an impact on our economy.

Some answers here.....


With cellulosic ethanol, there is no food vs. fuel debate according to MSU scientist

March 27, 2007

CHICAGO — As more and more corn grain is diverted to make ethanol, there have been public concerns about food shortages. However, ethanol made from cellulosic materials instead of corn grain, renders the food vs. fuel debate moot, according to research by a Michigan State University ethanol expert.

Bruce Dale, an MSU chemical engineering and materials science professor, has used life cycle analysis tools, which include agricultural data and computer modeling, to study the sustainability of producing biofuels – fuels such as ethanol and biodiesel that are made from renewable resources.

Dale will present his findings today at the American Chemical Society annual meeting in Chicago.

"We grow animal feed, not human food in the United States," Dale said. "We could feed the country's population with 25 million acres of cropland, and we currently have 500 million acres. Most of our agricultural land is being used to grow animal feed. It's a lot simpler to integrate animal feed production into cellulosic ethanol production than it is to integrate human food production. With cellulosic ethanol, the 'food vs. fuel' debate goes away."

Cellulosic ethanol is made from the stems, leaves, stalks and trunks of plants, none of which is used for human food production. Having studied ethanol for more than 30 years, Dale said that as the country moves toward large-scale cellulosic ethanol production, the yield of so-called energy crops – grasses and woody materials grown for their energy content – also will increase dramatically.

"This will reduce pressure on our land resources," said Dale, who also is associate director of the MSU Office of Biobased Technologies. "We'll be able to get more raw material out of one acre of land."

Dale said that many of these energy crops will be grown on land that isn't prime agricultural acreage. In other words, they'll be grown on marginal land that isn't growing a commercial crop right now.

"The evidence indicates that large-scale biofuel production will increase, not decrease, world food supplies by making animal feed production much more efficient," Dale said.

This work is funded by the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Department of Energy, the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station and DuPont Biobased Materials Inc.

[Rootsy]

I read recently that sugar cane is capable of producing four times as much ethanol as corn.......
Why is so much emphasis being placed on corn, when high demand raises the prices of so many other things i.e.; animal and human foods????
Maybe higher sugar production, whether cane or beets, wouldn't have as large an impact on our economy.

the growing conditions for corn allow it to be planted from argentina to southern canada... think volume capability...

sugarcane on th eother hand requires warmer environments with longer growing seasons...

sugarbeets are tough on the ground... talk about compaction...

[Pismo]

Can you imagine if mankind learns to cheaply make fuel (ethanol) from grass scraps, trees, stems, roots, etc. Mankind tends to overdo things. The forests and every other piece of organic material will be gone overnight.

[handfulz28]

The Thread Was Started To See If It Was More Feasible To Marinize A 5.3 Flex Fuel Motor Because Of It's Ability To Run E85.
Anyone Have Any Info On That?
Sorry for the hijack...back to your regularly scheduled thread... :)
In my opinion, I wouldn't pay a "premium" for a junkyard flex-fuel motor versus a non-flex motor, if there is one. Someone would need to confirm this, but I'd guess that GM has/will put the "enhanced" fuel system parts on all their LS motors, and there's no guarantee those will be the best in a marine environment anyways.
As for marinizing a 5.3, it shouldn't be too difficult because GM already offers the 6.0 as the Vortec 6000 marine engine; from the documentation I've read there's no difference between the "truck" 6.0 and the "marine" 6000. So far I've only seen it in mostly ski boats, but there's an episode of Ship Shape TV that has a Formula with twin Vortec 6000s including closed loop ECUs and O2 sensors.
The biggest hurdle to the LS engines is finding a marine exhaust but that's changing. "Down under" in Australia they've been making some cool stainless pieces for a few years. I see that Raylar has/will soon offer a 427ci small block LS; essentially the LS-7 offered in the new Z06 Vette.
Oh yeah, your other question: blown 5.3 running on 105 because it's cheaper than BBC Merc? Absolutely.

[peregrine]

From what I have seen there isn't a premium price for the flex fuel motor. I am hoping to keep the intake though. They have larger injectors and so forth than a non flex fuel vehicle to run the E85. I have seen these motors go for less than a grand w/puter.
Really I am just cheap and broke and entertaining ideas. Just wanted to see what the nay-sayer's had to say about marininzing a flex fuel. I assumed it would be way more corosion resistant than the non flex models and therefore I am ahead in the game to marinize it. Plus the GM guy I met might get me some sponsorship to do this. We are already talking about a blower or turbo on the truck with some corporate sponsorship. Just need some E85 stations here first. There is already someone in the NHRA running E85 instead of Nitro methane.
I was also thinking of welding up the headers myself. My mig can weld stainless if I set it up right, but it will be a PITA.

[gcarter]

the growing conditions for corn allow it to be planted from argentina to southern canada... think volume capability...
sugarcane on th eother hand requires warmer environments with longer growing seasons...
sugarbeets are tough on the ground... talk about compaction...
I know that there have been some sugar cane environmental issues in S. Florida for some time....but I don't remember them.
But it could be an interesting proposition for poor Caribean islands whose mojor crop has been cane and the price has been falling steadily for decades.

[BigGrizzly]

Mr falcon, the problem is it takes 1.37 gallons of E fuel to make the energy in one gallon of petrol. So the answer is No. Your mph won't improve however it is possible the dollars per mile may, but it would be close

[peregrine]

Mr falcon, the problem is it takes 1.37 gallons of E fuel to make the energy in one gallon of petrol. So the answer is No. Your mph won't improve however it is possible the dollars per mile may, but it would be close
Yes I understand that, but.........are you talking N/A or boosted or both? Won't the higher octane take advantage of the boosted and offset the BTU deficiency?

What about the marinization of the Flex Fuel motor and running gas. Is it better than say running a non flex? Or is it so much better to get a marine motor to start? I mean if you are replacing an existing tired marine motor.

Thanks
Dave

[BigGrizzly]

Mr Falcon. Funny you should talk about marinized. Two things I checked on today, there is opposition on the marine front to the E85 fuel at the marina and engine manufacturers. On the flex fuel engine the ECU does the work combined with the O2 sensors. So far only after market ecm are available that can be tuned to the wet application. Geeo did his but would remove the sensors. the flex fuel needs them all the time. At this time only one motor successfully uses O2 sensors and that is Honda Marine.So in conclusion if you could make it work. you wouldn't be able to buy E85 at the marina and the engine would get worse mpg on it if filled at a gas station. Don confuse E85 with the alcohol used in race application, that is different, but is still much more volumeto make the same HP.

[peregrine]

Mr Bear, I posted a reply to you in the other fuel thread. No sense in redundancy.

[fasttrucker]

I am deliberately posting my responses to this thread during the day with the beer and the booze safely locked upstairs and out of touch. I am very afraid of what might come out here, if I actually had some cocktails powering the keyboard. The absurdity of some of my comments here should tip those off who know me to the fact that I could care less about fuel economy on my Classic. It is immaterial. If I became concerned about the fuel economy of the thing, I would probably just sell it and forget about it.
Like a recovering alcoholic, the first step to recovery is admitting that you have a problem. We have some folks here that seem to think fuel economy is a very important aspect of perfomance boating. I am pointing out that I think this is, in my opinion, absurd. I figure if we get the alternatives out here on this thread, that the obvious answer will soon become, there really isn't an alternative. For those who seem to think this is a very important issue, we can point them back to this thread and they can argue the point for as long as they would like. Heck, I'll even participate, because this kind of stuff is part of the business I work in, but I am tired of hearing about it in my hobby too.
Of course, I totally railroaded peregrine's topic and for that I apologize, but the opportunity was upon us.
Iam thinking about my fuel bill.I ran 88.5hrs here in md last season.I spent about $175-$200 every weekend.I have good fuel economy when cruising compared to my freinds heavy regal with twin 454,s.With my new motors upgrade (605hp)I can change the prop pitch.Iam thinking about maybe having two props one for top speed the other for fuel mileage crusing.I think that if I was buying a fish or cruiser boat I would go/spec. it for fuel economy or go into sailing.Will gas go to $5 per gal this summer?What if the bad guys blow-up the pipe-lines/refiners/supplyers?

[fasttrucker]

I doubt that. McDonald's are built with pumps to pump the fry grease out to tanks, and a company comes by and empties them. I'm sure there's a contractual arrangement there.
We just finished a Whataburger, and the very last thing they installed was a giant tank with pumps to empty the fryers. I'm sure all large chains have some kind of arrangement.
Oh-man,There was a what-a-burger in gainesville fl in 1977(I was 18)When I went to school :propeller: it was my favorite place.I was driving while eating one and rear-ended another car on the way to a rock concert.:bonk: They closed the what-a-burger turning it into a beer store.I found a what-a-burger in texas or somewhere about 14 years later, but they just didnt taste the same.:(

[Cuda]

Oh-man,There was a what-a-burger in gainesville fl in 1977(I was 18)When I went to school :propeller: it was my favorite place.I was driving while eating one and rear-ended another car on the way to a rock concert.:bonk: They closed the what-a-burger turning it into a beer store.I found a what-a-burger in texas or somewhere about 14 years later, but they just didnt taste the same.:(
Debbie grew up in Old Town, Florida, which is about 55 miles west of Gainesville, which is the nearest city of any size. She said everytime they went to Gville, her daddy had to go to Whataburger. :)