Flex-Fuel Ferrari? So What? Makes No Difference At All
More Toyota FT-Bh Concept Teasers Emerge Before Geneva
Toyota's last teaser image of the FT-Bh was, frankly, not that helpful. More a collection of... Read More
- #6LEADERBOARD RANK
- 685ARTICLES CONTRIBUTED
- 4COMMENTS POSTED
Also See
-
2012 Honda Civic Natural Gas: First Drive
-
Kill (Gas) Bills: Daryl Hannah’s Bio Diesel...
-
2012 Toyota Prius V: Hybrid Wagon Ultimate Guide
See more video »
Ferraris aren't typically known for their green credentials.
In fact, they tend to be known for everything but green credentials: High performance, for example. High-revving V-8 and V-12 engines. Being painted very, very red. Not being painted green.
Most methods of extracting greater power from the 2012 Ferrari FF's 6.3-liter, 650-horsepower V-12 probably aren't very green either. Unless, says AutoBlogGreen, it's been converted to run on bio-ethanol.
One Norwegian firm is offering to convert customer FFs to E85 bio-ethanol, raising power to 875-horsepower and dropping carbon emissions by a claimed 80 percent. That the conversion costs a little under $2,000 at today's exchange rates sounds too good to be true.
Except that, for most customers worldwide, it's utterly pointless.
Not the extra performance, you understand, though we're not quite sure who takes a 650-horsepower supercar and thinks "You know... it just feels a bit... sluggish".
No, the real problem is that, save for a few countries in Scandinavia, E85 bio-ethanol is largely unavailable - or at least, very rare. In the United States, it's difficult to find anything above E10 - even E15 is hugely controversial, over worries about what it may do to some components in older engines.
So it all comes back to the same problems we had with the 2012 Bentley Continental Supersports a few years ago, which Bentley designed to run on enthanol. This is great for territories in which ethanol is widely available, like Sweden, but largely irrelevant everywhere else, where it isn't.
What we actually have here then, is an un-warranted, 875-horsepower work of art that you can't use.
Or, you can buy a regular 650-horsepower FF that you can use... but won't be able to convert to run on bio-ethanol.
A bio-ethanol-powered Ferrari FF then: One step forward, two steps back...
+++++++++++
Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.
Related Articles
-
Renewable Fuel Standards Fall Far Short Of Non-Corn Ethanol Goal
-
Congress Actually Ends Taxpayer Funding Of Ethanol Subsidies
-
E85 Now Harder To Find Than Electric Car Charging: Here’s Why
-
U.S. Now Uses More Corn For Ethanol Than Anything Else
-
Follow Us
On Facebook
Most Popular This Week
More »
GE Employees Get Chevy Volt Electric Cars, All-Gas Use OKed... 
2011 Nissan Leaf: One Year On, How Healthy Is The Battery Pack? 
Top 10 Most Economical Small Cars You Can Buy In 2012 
Irate Investor Sues Fisker: A Little Lesson In Venture Capital 
Forbidden Fruit: 60 MPG BMW 1-Series Due At Geneva Show Find Green Cars
Photo Galleries
More from High Gear Media
- Follow Us
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!
Sure you can. I can get E85 in Boston. True it is rare, but is available and affordable.
And if the extra power isn't "pointless" then why would you settle for anything less. They finally realized the stupidity of gasoline and the correctness of ethanol. I think that all Ferraris should be legally required to run on ethanol. Anything less would be a sacrilege.
The big question is what do you have against ethanol? And who/what is this *we* in, "...we're not quite sure who takes a 650-horsepower supercar and thinks "You know... it just feels a bit... sluggish"."? Is this an article by committee?
"What we actually have here then, is an un-warranted, 875-horsepower work of art that you can't use."
What is unwarranted are the statements against ethanol here; none of them are correct--all baseless.
You're welcome to not like the article, but before calling statements "baseless" it's always wise to consider the context.
Do you really want a list?! Your point is the same for EV fast chargers. Although there are more (2-4K), they are concentrated in 5 States in the US. All alt. energies are in their infancy, but to hear you guys tell the story it's "My way (the EV Way in this case) or the highway."
"...always wise to consider the context."
Okay... noted... E10/E15 argument is a separate issue to E85 [E10/E15 is oxygenating gasoline; E85 is specified flex-fuel]. So why are you crossing the issues?
Here is a tip... go to an auto assembly line that produces these flex-fuel cars of ethanol and look for the "special parts" necessary for ethanol use. Afterwards, come back and report... [grin... this is going to be fun!]
Green Advocate/Environmentalist Daryl Hannah has an E85 converted Trans Am. [The actual "Kill Bill" Trans Am] She is not a mechanic, but she is knowledgeable... at least she did her homework.
It shows 3,000 E85 stations, out of about 150,000 total gas stations in the U.S.--or just 2 percent. They are very unevenly distributed, with the bulk in the agricultral Midwest. Look at the map to see.
Out of curiosity, does Daryl Hannah *always* fuel her Trans Am (wow, how retro) on E85? If she does, she's deeply dedicated, 'cause the map shows only *NINE* E85 stations in the whole LA Basin, plus 4 in the greater San Diego area + one at Vandenberg AFB.
Corn-based ethanol has MANY environmental problems. On a wells-to-wheels carbon basis, electric cars don't.
Okay... and what did I say about fast chargers?...the same thing. If you are going to make a point about being "pointless" based on distribution, then all alternatives are in the same boat.
"Out of curiosity, does Daryl Hannah.."
Funny John. Did it ever occur to you that you can purchase gallons of alcohol and store it at your residence?... or that you can make your own alcohol? Some people invest in fast chargers at home; same thing. Some people invest in solar panels and wind generators; same thing. Oh... and yes, Daryl is very dedicated, but you knew that already.
Be it retro or vintage, I do recall at least one of your writers having a love affair with an older vehicle. ;-)
"Corn-based ethanol has MANY environmental problems. On a wells-to-wheels carbon basis, electric cars don't."
The article stated bio-ethanol. However, last I checked ethanol is ethanol regardless of it's source. As I commented to your article, John, revenues shift to smaller producers with no environmental problems. BTW, why are you qualifying ethanol with corn and hiding EV's coal or nuclear in favor of solar and wind?
If you double the car's efficiency to 50 mpg, then its W2W carbon footprint is slightly lower than electric from the dirty grid. On California's grid, though, where more electric cars will be sold than the next 5 states combined, you have to get to almost 100 mpg before the gasoline is as low-emission as the electric.
In other words, even if the electricity comes from coal, the car's overall carbon per mile is lower. That's why.
So to meet the rising ethanol mandates set by Congress in 2007, in the U.S., it's corn or nothing for the next several years.
Re/Daryl Hannah: Are you saying she buys alcohol at the store, and mixes it with gasoline to make E85 ??? Because if she does, I'd love to do that story on GCR. :)
I see. The EPRI-NRDC study compared gasoline to electricity. Last I checked we were discussing E85. Given their 50 mpg stat, E85 1, Electricity 0. Next battle... ;-)
"Ethanol produced from bio-mass... but it doesn't exist at the moment in any kind of industrial volume..."
Correct. The bio-ethanol movement is grassroots; at the present; kindling. However, further installations of E85 stations are slow but steady.
As stated before, all alternatives are in their infancy. I say there is room for all. You guys want the throats slit on all but EV's without "hydrogen". @@
"and likely won't in the next few years... So to meet the rising ethanol mandates set by Congress in 2007, in the U.S., it's corn or nothing for the next several years."
Speculative; maybe... maybe not. We'll see.
Corn production has been in a record setting surplus the past several years. Odd part is prices have not reflected that. Hmmmm... oh yeah, oil companies have been buying up all surpluses; I wonder why??? But getting back to "corn or nothing", Cattails produce 7K gals. per acre. Place them in waterways to clean sewage, & you have 2 for 1. Kelp produces 30K gals. per acre. China uses them to clean their waters. Place the kelp in the Gulf and Joila! You have solved the problem. :D
"Re/Daryl Hannah: Are you saying she buys alcohol at the store..."
No. You buy it from local producers/distillers and then you mix. She was talking about buying a still to produce her own.
As best I can tell it is a Brit thing of which the author is one. Suspect what he really means to say is "I" but for some reason hides this behind the supposedly stronger claim of "we," as in "a bunch of us sat around at HGM and discussed this and "we" concluded thus and such.
While I don't know what discussions Antony had with other people about this subject, I suspect this is simply his opinion that he tried to bolster by using "we" instead of "I."
Reminds me a little of the use of passive voice as well, as in "Mistakes were made" instead of "I made a mistake." You have to own this stuff people.
Sure, I see this in technical journals written by multiple authors where it is clear that "we" is the discussed opinion of the authors.
However, I would add that in this case, "we" actually means "we". And I quite like Ferraris, and have very little against ethanol, per se. But there's little discussion in a sycophantic "WOW, AN 875BHP FERRARI, ISN'T THAT GREAT?" article as you might find elsewhere.
So as above, the point still stands. *We* think that an 875bhp Ferrari is a nice concept, but one that few people will get to enjoy.
That comment made just above, as well as John's comment above, should be enough to clarify.
It's remaining "we" because it means "we".
I would like to thank you for the push back on this article. While I don't have a passion for ethanol, I am also not against it. It would be nice to see it getting a fairer hearing at HGM since it is fueling 10% of the automotive miles in the USA.
But I can relate to your annoyance because there is a constant negative drum beat against hybrids on HGM that annoys me.
These alternatives need to be given their due for what they can accomplish and leave non-visionary "chicken and egg" illogical commentary aside.
The real illogical part in this article is seeing an expensive 875 hp supercar as reasonable, but making any small effort for the environment as unreasonable. Not very GREEN at greencarreports.
I am not slamming for being anti-ethanol. I am criticizing for being dishonest/untruthful. Ethanol happens to be the subject matter.
Please ennumerate the FACTS in the article above that are WRONG. Citations to contravening data help. If your data shows what we wrote is wrong, we will add a note to the article.
I have not seen anything in your complaints that makes the article inaccurate. You may not like its conclusions, but we will happily correct FACTUAL INACCURACIES.
BTW, the missing piece of logic re/your comparison of E85 pumps to fast chargers: Every electric car owner can recharge that car overnight, in the garage or by the side of the house. Can't say that about E85, even if you're correct that a handful of people pour their own alcohol into the tank.
1. GRC states Norwegian company offers to convert Ferrari FF to E85...
2. Company makes NO global marketing campaign. [for local market]
3 GRC states "Except that, for most customers worldwide, it's utterly pointless."
4 GRC creates strawman. [on E85] GRC assumes a market campaign of customers worldwide by said company, when no such campaign was made. If anything, it would be market specific, and thus the strawman.
5 GRC states, "What we actually have here then, is an un-warranted, 875-horsepower work of art that you can't use. Or, you can buy a regular 650-horsepower FF that you can use... but won't be able to convert to run on bio-ethanol." and "That the conversion costs a little under $2,000 at today's exchange rates sounds too good to be true."
6 GRC presumes to know what Ferrari owners can't use, won't be able to convert, and a "too good to be true" cost. However, Ferrari owners can because they race their cars at racetracks. [Promo's for HP/Exotic cars -- "Streetable and ready for the tracks."]
7 Racetracks provide/sell fuel -- Gasoline, Alcohol aka Ethanol, Diesel
8 Shhhh... don't tell GRC the conversion is software. [a piggy-back unit on the computer, chip tuning, or a remapping of the computer]
9 So you will be able to convert, and the price does not sound to good to be true. ;-)
"BTW, the missing piece of logic..."
You must kidding John. The comparison is about distribution, which Antony, uh.. "we" brought up. Comparing chargers to pumps to... is an argument Nikki, uh... "we" brought up. So if you have a problem with the comparison take it up with yourself/"we" or whomever you are. :) "We" had no problem with the data as long as "we" was using it to make "we's" point, but let someone else use it, and "we" gets tiffed. :-O
If only "we" knew... @@
Show me the facts.
Have an opinion?Join the conversation!