Originally Posted By: turtlevette
Real car guys want to burn alcohol to go faster. We don't care about politics of it.
But you do care about the politics, the various hate names that you have used with people of opposing POV over the last couple years.
As to "go faster", look at the links I posted previously...
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html
E85 flex fuel tahoe was slower on E85.
http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/ethan...0205-1ahgx.html
Quote:
Still, the E85-fuelled car proved 0.3 seconds quicker in the sprint to 100km/h compared with the E10 Commodore. As expected, the car running premium unleaded was quicker again (by 0.3 seconds), suggesting it's the fuel of choice if performance is your goal.
Both the US and the Oz case, the cost of travelling was considerably more using E85 in $ per mile, not just MPG.
Like I said, you need to go and talk to the guys at GM, how you get more power and the same mileage...they need help...
Not just CAFE saying a flex fuel tahoe gets 90MPG.
Real car guys want to burn alcohol to go faster. We don't care about politics of it.
But you do care about the politics, the various hate names that you have used with people of opposing POV over the last couple years.
As to "go faster", look at the links I posted previously...
http://www.edmunds.com/fuel-economy/e85-vs-gasoline-comparison-test.html
E85 flex fuel tahoe was slower on E85.
http://www.drive.com.au/motor-news/ethan...0205-1ahgx.html
Quote:
Still, the E85-fuelled car proved 0.3 seconds quicker in the sprint to 100km/h compared with the E10 Commodore. As expected, the car running premium unleaded was quicker again (by 0.3 seconds), suggesting it's the fuel of choice if performance is your goal.
Both the US and the Oz case, the cost of travelling was considerably more using E85 in $ per mile, not just MPG.
Like I said, you need to go and talk to the guys at GM, how you get more power and the same mileage...they need help...
Not just CAFE saying a flex fuel tahoe gets 90MPG.