Flex Fuel Jeep Wrangler

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.

 

As of a few months ago, the 4.7 was also flex fuel.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

I suggest you don't bother.
You'll lose 25% of your power, while burning food.
If not subsidized it will cost you more.

 

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!

 

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')

 

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.........

 

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.