@db4690: “The only people that want flex fuel vehicles are people directly affiliated with the ethanol industry”
Then there must be a huge ethanol production facility in my area that I don’t know about, because I see dozens of flex fuel vehicles on the road every day. I find it hard to believe these people are buying vehicles they don’t want. Why would they do that?
… and I have no affiliation with the ethanol industry whatsoever, but because I keep vehicles for a long time, and because I think the government will try to force E15 upon us again, I would seriously consider making my next vehicle a flex fuel vehicle. It probably won’t be a deciding factor in my next vehicle, but if it could tip the scales between two comparable vehicles.
There are lots of people who live in corn country who don’t directly grow or process corn, but they support the ethanol industry because they believe it is good for their local economies. My parents grew up in corn country, and I still have lots of family there. You don’t have to be directly affiliated with the ethanol industry to believe supporting big corn can benefit you indirectly.
One more thing. I’m pretty sure profanity is a no no here, so I suggest you edit your post before a @cdaquila deletes it.
If the dealership has flex fuel vehicles they will eventually be sold. If there is no extra cost for flex fuel cars, it doesn’t matter whether someone buys one or not.
I don’t recall seeing any E85 at the gas stations I frequent. If there were E85 pumps in the past, they don’t exist now. Must be that market speaking again.
In my travels throughout Florida, I only routinely see one fuel station that sells E85, and it happens to be in the town where I live. Interestingly, it’s a special Sunoco with solar panels on the roof. I think it’s more of a marketing ploy than an actual fuel station, but it seems to stay in business in spite of the fact that their fuel prices are the highest in the area.
Whitey, you’ve first made the statement that you see flex fuel vehicles everywhere you go, and then made the statement that you know of only one flex fuel station in your and its flex fuel status is more of a marketing ploy. You inferred from the first statement that people want flex fuel vehicles (Why would they do that [buy flex fuel vehicles if they didn’t want them]?).
Your second statement proves your first conclusion false. People buy flex fuel vehicles because they like the vehicle itself. They buy it despite the fact that it’s flex fuel, not because it’s flex fuel. If they wanted to actually use flex fuel, such stations would proliferate in your area and they’d be more than just a “marketing ploy”.
I don’t have any evidence, but there may be some obscure mandate requiring manufacturers to make a certain percentage of their vehicles “flex fuel capable” or pay a penalty. Nobody wants them, and I doubt if the manufacturers want to make them. That would also explain why there are so many vehicles that could be readily tweaked and certified to use flex fuel, but aren’t. They probably satisfy the government’s requirement without the manufacturer having to raise prices beyond what they already are.
I don't have any evidence, but there may be some obscure mandate requiring manufacturers to make a certain percentage of their vehicles "flex fuel capable" or pay a penalty. Nobody wants them, and I doubt if the manufacturers want to make them.
That’s a very distinct possibility. I don’t know of any reason manufacturers would be selling Flex Fuel vehicles to an area that doesn’t have any Flex Fuel stations.
And most flex fuel vehicles that were sold were big gas guzzlers. Why? The makers got a CAFE credit for selling them. Per wiki:
“Some critics have argued that American automakers have been producing E85 flex models motivated by a loophole in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) requirements, that allows for a fuel economy credit for every flex-fuel vehicle sold, whether or not in practice these vehicles are fueled with E85. This loophole might allow the car industry to meet the CAFE targets in fuel economy just by spending between US$100 to US$200 that it cost to turn a conventional vehicle into a flex-fuel, without investing in new technology to improve fuel economy, and saving them the potential fines for not achieving that standard in a given model year. In an example presented by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the agency responsible for establishing the CAFE standards, the special treatment provided for alternative fuel vehicles, “turns a dual fuel vehicle that averages 25 mpg on gasoline or diesel… to attain the 40 mpg value for CAFE purposes.” The current CAFE standards are 27.5 mpg for automobiles and 22.2 mpg for light-duty trucks.”
In late 2007, CAFE standards received their first overhaul in more than 30 years through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), and were set to rise to 35 mpg by the year 2020. However, in May 2009 the Obama Administration announced a new harmonized national policy that will require an average fuel economy standard of 35.5 mpg in 2016. The flex-fuel CAFE credits are scheduled to end in 2016, but because the 2007 EISA made CAFE credits exchangeable between different classes of automobiles and tradable between companies, and also carmakers are allowed to carry over credits for up to five years, the flex-fuel credits accumulated up to 2016 can be carried over and traded until 2020. The CAFE standards proposed in 2011 for the period 2017-2025 will allow flexible-fuel vehicles to receive extra credit but only when the carmakers present data proving how much E85 such vehicles have actually consumed."
Thanks, TSMB. And the crazy thing was that law resulted in MORE sales of gas-guzzlers that NEVER saw a gallon of E85, even though it was supposed to LOWER gasoline consumption. Nuts.
@mountainbike, My point stands. People want flex fuel vehicles if they’re buying them. They might or might not value the fact that they’re flex fuel vehicles, and whether they actually buy E85 is not necessarily a measure of whether they value their cars’ ability to use different fuels. Sometimes people just like having the choice, even if they never exercise it.
If people don’t want flex fuel vehicles, they won’t buy them. I wasn’t debating whether people value that particular feature. I was only stating the obvious, because “flex fuel vehicle” describes the vehicle, not just the feature.
Also, the fact that I only know of one fuel station that sells E85 is not evidence that there are not stations in my area selling E85 of which I am not aware.
Now, if someone had said, “people don’t value flex fuel vehicles’ ability to use different fuels,” I wouldn’t be debating this issue. Instead, I’d be asking for evidence. I think this might be a case of @db4690, not saying what he really means, and I was disputing what he said.
Whitey, I’d bet that the overwhelming majority of the people that buy these vehicles don’t even know they are flex fuel capable. Flex fuel isn’t even a part of their decision process.
I contend that the claim that people must want flex fuel vehicles because you’re seeing them everywhere is analogous to saying “all people who die of cancer have noses, therefore noses must cause cancer”.
Just as the cause of cancer is not noses, the cause of flex fuel vehicles being everywhere is not that people want flex fuel vehicles. Ergo, the statements “People want flex fuel vehicles if they’re buying them” and “If people don’t want flex fuel vehicles, they won’t buy them” are false. The one has nothing to do with the other. There is no causal relationship whatsoever.
I’m not editing my post. I’m not ashamed of anything I said.
In my opinion, the people in corn country are much closer to ethanol than I am. It is understandable that they might want to support their local economy.
That said, the ethanol industry is not my local economy.
You make an interesting point about the flex fuel vehicles in your area, but it doesn’t change the fact that running a vehicle on E85 makes no financial sense. It’s false logic, in my opinion
I personally suspect there are a lot of flex fuel areas in your area because that’s what showed up when the auto transporter brought the new vehicles to the dealers. Perhaps the dealer didn’t specifically request them, but they got them anyways.
If I was in the market for a new car, and all the cars on every lot were flex fuel, I suppose I would buy one. But when it came time to fill the tank, I would NOT fill with E85.
Nobody said you had to actually use your flex fuel vehicle like one. You could just pretend it’s a “regular” vehicle.
Well, back when my city was struggling, I failed to observe an outpouring of support from Iowa and Kansas (granted I was 8 or so). Therefore I don’t see why I should be obligated to return help that was never extended in the first place.
The way I look at it, food stamps are subsidy enough for farmers (think about it). I really wanted ethanol to work, but the numbers just dont add up.
During the dust bowl years there was clearly a need for aid to the agricultural community. That was a true natural disaster, even though it’s true that it was largely man-made. Farmers could not have seen the consequences of their earlier actions.
But that era has long-since passed, and many lessons have been learned and practices changed. I don’t believe there is any longer any justification whatsoever for countless billions of dollars in farm subsidies in today’s world. And especially for subsidies to the ethanol producers.
“Another fine example of our tax dollars at work. /:-(”
Yet there are Americans that do not share your unhappiness. The Corn State Mafia got enough other legislators to go along with their plan to aid their local economies that it became law. A coworker grew up in Nebraska in a farming community. She told me that all the children in her school participated in the Free and Reduced Meals program. As you may know, FARM is for low income families and a sources that their children can eat a nutritious lunch and breakfast. It appears to me that E85 I is another way to help these low income farmers to make ends meet. It also helps corporate farms to rake in truck loads of money, and that is probably what irks you most. I know it bothers me.
Understand that I agree with you that this is a poor use of government funds. But you and I aren’t member of the constituencies that wanted E85. I try to remember that when I think about E85. It isn’t necessarily bad, just not something that helps us.
Off topic here: When we were looking for a new car my wife asked what the Flex Fuel badge on the trunk meant. Before the salesman could answer I said " it will run on frozen corn " the salesman failed to see the humor.
And the crazy thing was that law resulted in MORE sales of gas-guzzlers that NEVER saw a gallon of E85, even though it was supposed to LOWER gasoline consumption. Nuts.
I wouldn’t put ALL that on the law. The manufacturers had the opportunity to make vehicles that got better mpg. Instead they choose the easy way out. Yes it was a loophole. And most manufacturers would do it…but it still doesn’t take away their responsibility.
@Mountainbike, Allow me to repeat myself: I’m not saying people value the fact that their vehicles are “flex fuel vehicles.” I’ve never said that; not once. You’re attempting to read between the lines and you’re missing what I’m actually saying. I’m saying that vehicles that are flex fuel vehicles seem to be selling pretty well, so it seems obvious that these particular models, which happen to be flex fuel vehicles, are in high demand. Why they are in high demand might have nothing to do with the fact that they are flex fuel vehicles, but nobody has proven that one way or the other. Maybe they’re popular for other reasons. I don’t know and neither do you. Neither does @db4690. You guys are just speculating, and I’m just stating the obvious. Please stop trying to interpret what I’m saying and actually pay attention to my words.
Here is all I’m saying: The Ford Fusion is a flex fuel vehicle, and a lot of people seem to drive Ford Fusions. Therefore, the Ford Fusion, which happens to be a flex fuel vehicle, is popular. It might be popular because it is a flex fuel vehicle, and it might be popular for other reasons, but to claim that nobody buys it for that feature is patently false unless you’re able to read people’s minds on a grand scale. You’re assuming facts that haven’t been proven, and aren’t provable, while I’m saying it’s possible, and likely, that this particular blanket statement is wrong. The only blanket statement that I’m making is that there seems to be a lot of demand for vehicles that happen to be flex fuel vehicles.
I sincerely wish you guys would stop pretending we’re arguing about things we agree upon, or things I haven’t said but you seem to think I mean. I know E85 is a financial loser at its current price. Like I’ve said dozens of times in this forum (and at least once in this particular thread), because of reduced fuel economy, E85 has to be 1/3 cheaper than pure gasoline to be a financially sound decision, and I’ve never seen it priced that low.
