Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
HomeAnnouncements
Discussion Groups
By Brand
BMWChevroletDodgeFordGMHondaLexusMercedes-BenzNissanPeugeotToyotaVolkswagenOther Brands
By Topic
4x4 CarsRVsDrivingMaintenance & RepairCar AudioCollectible Cars
Country Specific
Australian ForumsUK Forums
ArticlesAuto InsuranceBuyingCars & TechnologyMaintenanceMiscellaneousSafety
DMV Resources
Related Topics
MotorcyclesBoatsMore Topics ...

Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / July 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Flex Fuel Jeep Wrangler

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
pmcc@iname.com - 01 Jul 2008 21:29 GMT
Anybody know if there's any plans afoot to build a flex fuel
Wrangler?  I'd love to own one for use during the coming Buffalo
winter, but the idea of giving OPEC more business is unappealing.
Lloyd - 02 Jul 2008 19:47 GMT
On Jul 1, 4:29 pm, p...@iname.com wrote:
> Anybody know if there's any plans afoot to build a flex fuel
> Wrangler?  I'd love to own one for use during the coming Buffalo
> winter, but the idea of giving OPEC more business is unappealing.

AFAIK, Chrysler's only flex fuel engine is the 3.3 V6, and it's only
in the minivans.  Given all their financial and product problems, I
doubt that's going to change anytime soon.
Joe Pfeiffer - 03 Jul 2008 03:08 GMT
> On Jul 1, 4:29 pm, p...@iname.com wrote:
>> Anybody know if there's any plans afoot to build a flex fuel
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> in the minivans.  Given all their financial and product problems, I
> doubt that's going to change anytime soon.

As of a few months ago, the 4.7 was also flex fuel.
Steve - 03 Jul 2008 16:40 GMT
> On Jul 1, 4:29 pm, p...@iname.com wrote:
>> Anybody know if there's any plans afoot to build a flex fuel
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> AFAIK, Chrysler's only flex fuel engine is the 3.3 V6, and it's only
> in the minivans.  

Oh heck no... For one thing, the 4.7 in the Aspen/Durango (and probably
the pick-em-ups) is flex fuel. I think there's a flex-fuel 2.7 out there
too, probably others.
Lloyd - 03 Jul 2008 19:18 GMT
> > On Jul 1, 4:29 pm, p...@iname.com wrote:
> >> Anybody know if there's any plans afoot to build a flex fuel
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> the pick-em-ups) is flex fuel. I think there's a flex-fuel 2.7 out there
> too, probably others.

You're right!

Chrysler also says the flex fuel engines are not available in the CA
emissions states, including NY, where the original poster lived.

Found a good site:

http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/flexfuelvehicles.php
Archet - 04 Jul 2008 15:54 GMT
Hello
not only 3.3 l V6 but the 3.0 V6 too.
     Chrysler Town & Country Model Year 2006 and prior: E, G or 3
     Model Year 2007: E
     Model Year 2008: H

I've a one and the 8th digit of VIN is 3

Stéphane Thuillier
France

>> > On Jul 1, 4:29 pm, p...@iname.com wrote:
>> >> Anybody know if there's any plans afoot to build a flex fuel
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> http://www.e85fuel.com/e85101/flexfuelvehicles.php
Josh S - 06 Jul 2008 06:39 GMT
In article
<863dacaa-a746-4c8c-9bf9-989e71f38b60@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,

> Anybody know if there's any plans afoot to build a flex fuel
> Wrangler?  I'd love to own one for use during the coming Buffalo
> winter, but the idea of giving OPEC more business is unappealing.
I suggest you don't bother.
You'll lose 25% of your power, while burning food.
If not subsidized it will cost you more.
pmcc@iname.com - 07 Jul 2008 16:06 GMT
That kind of talk is going around quite a bit.  I wonder how much of
it is planted by oil interests, at least initially.  The fact is that
it IS subsidized,so it won't cost me more - at least not in New York,
where the gasoline taxes are hideous.  As to burning food, the fact is
that there's an ethanol plant near here, just outside of Medina, &
what they use is field corn, not sweet corn.  The byproducts are sold
back to Orleans County farmers for cattle feed.

Further, I might add that unless there's an existing market for
ethanol, cellulosic ethanol won't be saleable once the technology is
good enough to make it lower priced than ethanol made from corn
starch.  So the time to get your flex fuel car is now!

> In article
> <863dacaa-a746-4c8c-9bf9-989e71f38...@2g2000hsn.googlegroups.com>,
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> You'll lose 25% of your power, while burning food.
> If not subsidized it will cost you more.
Bill Putney - 07 Jul 2008 22:49 GMT
> ...As to burning food, the fact is
> that there's an ethanol plant near here, just outside of Medina, &
> what they use is field corn, not sweet corn...

Do you not see that a farmer has a choice of what to grow on a given
acreage, and that if he chooses to grow field corn due to the false
economy of subsidies and not grow sweet corn that he otherwise likely
would be growing, that that is less acreage being used for sweet corn,
the supply of sweet corn is thereby made scarcer, and it's price goes up
accordingly?

Is it such a huge leap of logic for you to see that obvious result that
you have to have that pointed out to you?

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')
rob - 08 Jul 2008 00:45 GMT
there's less acreage period, due to the fact farmers couldn't make a damn
living at farming for years, so they sold their land for
subdivisions.........

>> ...As to burning food, the fact is
>> that there's an ethanol plant near here, just outside of Medina, &
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')
pmcc@iname.com - 08 Jul 2008 18:40 GMT
Your logic is good, Bill, but the reality of it is that land is much
underutilized.  There is more forest in New York than there was a
century ago, & if you hike through the woods in most parts of New York
& Pennsylvania you can see much evidence of old farms among the
trees.  What's grown on a given acreage is either brush or fallow land
treasury checks.  It's much better to grow field corn for ethanol,
subsidized or not.  For all I know, your argument may be correct
elsewhere, but the "we're burning food" stuff doesn't seem to dovetail
with the visible facts, at least around these parts.

> p...@iname.com wrote:
> > ...As to burning food, the fact is
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
> address with the letter 'x')
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.