BrandonsZ

If you take the equation of E85: Water+Hunger+Energy+Pollution+Global Warming+Land Useage+Distribution+Political Agenda = X (I may have forgotten some) IMO It is clear that by judging the relative magnitudes of these parts of the discrete linear equation, [Political Agenda] is >> Water scarcity, Pollution, Hunger, Global Warming, Land Usage, and Distribution combined. The only terms on the list that come close to the magnitude of the [Political Agenda] is the [Energy] + [Pollution]. Knowing it's a [sticky] clear way to get this thread into the tool shed if we even mention Politics, I will have to defend or objurgate [Political Agenda] on another forum. (look it up). Being somewhat of a pragmatist, who understands that many of the aforementioned items matter little to many of our particular day to day existences on this rock: The following statements apply to the ENTIRETY of the creation of E85 on a PER MILE usage basis in MY car as a DIRECT comparison the ENTIRETY of the creation of 87 gasoline PER MILE USAGE in MY car:: (ashes to ashes, dust to dust) -IF- E85 creates less pollution then Petrol. -AND- More importantly IF in the entire process of EVERYTHING that makes E85 cause my car to go (from planting the seed to pealing the tires out), IF it uses less energy per mile. -THEN- I support it. -ELSE- Screw it! I'm not geeked-out just for the ideal of hugging trees. Am I clear?

If you got the Huevos dude, just do it!

You just predicted the big war, over resources, the question is when. Right now it's mostly economic, wait till it gets serious. 30 years? Who knows. Sorry, E85 is great if it can be made with less pollution to our environmnt than Oil; that's my main point.

I totally agree. Putting pollution aside, as long as you don't use grid power to distill that corn, or oil to till that field, combine, reap, ship, or otherwise process, than it's solar power. I'd like to know what the impact really is per gallon on the environment. Saying it's all sunshine is not a complete statement. Here's how you could win with ethanol. 1. Greenhouse grown hydroponics organic Corn without pesticides, herbicides, or top soil erosion. 2. Solar energy to run recirculation pumps. 3. Solar energy for greenhouse and hydroponics controls. 4. Solar powered tractors, etc. for intra-plant shipments. 5. Solar powered equipment for harvest. 1-5 replace mining in conventional oil which, remember, causes almost zero pollution to pump out of the ground and into waiting trucks/ships. 6. Compare distillery costs and shipping per finished gallon to mined oil Can you make a profit? If yes, then oil companies beware. However, Expect HUGE initial investment over a LONG period of time. If you can produce Ethanol at $2.99/gal or less to the customer and make a profit. If you succeed on a large scale expect oil prices to go down as demand for oil goes down. Therefore your prices need to come down to compete. Then expect usage tax, state tax, energy tax, and local tax to add to your price. Then expect legal battles, political battles, etc. I'd buy it.

I'm pretty sure in a modern fuel injected engine, there is two ranges for the computer program, one which relies on O2 sensor and MAF sensor to regulate fuel injectors (idle to ~2k) then another range of table values which were specifically designed to run based on calculations of the current engine configuration. No way around it if you run E85 50% you are running lean after 2K even if you have injectors big enough to keep up. Your engine light is coming on would probably be because you are either exceeding the closed loop system's ability to compensate or it is noticing the lean condition thru the O2 sensor(s). If that's true then the only reason you're not destroying your engine is because the E85 will run cooler ('cause it has less energy) and the program is usually slightly on the rich side to account for errors (tolerance) in the whole sensor assembly anyway. I would like to hear that your SUV makes it through the next 50k without any trouble. In "flex fuel" vehicles they add that $600 sensor which measures the % ethanol and adjusts the table values in the ECU to account for the leaner running vehicle. Gas mileage only down 2% sounds to me like there is something else going on here which is not evident because unless your engine got significantly more efficient, this is impossible. I'm not doubting that what you've said is correct, just wondering what is really going on in that engine. Typically a lean condition in a modern engine can cause overheating, detonation, melted Catalytic converters, elevated under hood temperatures, and decreased life. ------------------------ That aside, regardless if E85 takes more energy to produce than conventional fuel, with our current technology of large scale farming and distillation, it will cause more pollution to produce. It sounds counter intuitive, but other than the solar energy needed to grow the corn or sugar cane, the fuel needed to run the tractors and combines, the fertilizer pollution from runoff, the top soil loss, pesticides, herbicides, resulting resistant bugs, resulting resistant weeds, and as in Brazil the burning of the solids of the sugar cane (which are much more polluting than natural gas or gasoline (particulates, CO NOX) all add to global pollution. The tradeoff studies are inconclusive at this time because fuzzy math is involved to determine the actual amount of damage caused by some of the above mentioned pollutants (such as resistant strains of weed or bugs which then take over our home gardens). ------------------------- Environmentalists are on both sides of this issue right now.

I didn't know they grew rice in the desert.

I am using "Performer EPS" Manifold. I used 12" X 3" X 1/4" thick. Had no issues or signs of warping. But most of the torque is taken up by the engine mounts, the tranny is basically on a stock rubber mount and since there is no moment arm to transmit the torque thru the trany mount, it has to be taken up by the engine mounts or the mount would rip off. I get no movement of the stick shift when under load. The whole car twists though. The plastic creeks behind the rear windows when I dip into the secondaries in 1st. I have no other frame stiffeners anywhere, but with stock tires, I am not too worried. When I upgrade to 235's I am adding a subframe from 1/4" thick 1.5X1.5" angle that will span from the front frame crossmember all the way to the diff mount. (also seconds as a skid plate.) Definately would recommend against those spacers.

I used the 1/2" (actually 3/8" spacers + 1/8" spacers) between the crossmember and the frame for a year now frokm the JTR kit. I used them because I thought they were necessary to clear my air cleaner. Turns out I had 3/4" at the closest points between my air cleaner and the hood using plumber's puddy as a gage (like modeling clay). (Could have sworn it was almost touching, it was an illusion) so I checked the bell housing for clearance and removed these spacers. I never really drove the car much with the 6, (only about 100 miles) and after driving ~8k with the v8 I was pondering these spacers and the kickback issue. After removing them I have the following observations. 1. Less bumpy when turning, feels a little more stable (may have changed the camber slightly though) 2. Much less (50% less) kickback when hitting speed bumps or gutters. 3. Easier steering (slightly less resistance, maybe 25%.) 4. Less jerky on the freeway (I have the wandering problem, I'll be replacing the bushigs soon and will tow in 1/2 deg.) Just my observations. If you don't need them for clearance, I say don't use them.

No more back and fourth, sorry. Looks like a fun movie.

Oh man! Everyone is a comedian! Awsome! thanks for the link! HOLY FREEKING HECK I haven't laughed that good for a long time.

I think instead of seeing that movie "Snakes on a plane" I'm going to wait for the sequel, "Shampoo, Gatorade Bottle and PDA on a Plane" Now that's freeky!

Do you ever wonder if movie companies may perhapse hire a few shills to spread the merits of a really really sad crappy movie on a few well traveled forums? Just a question, I haven't seen the movie, probably won't, didn't like Screem, nor Speed, or any other supposed blockbusters that turned out to be "B" movies with really high tech special effects, bad acting and stupid premises, not that either of these movies above mentioned did. I'm just asking. Now if the supposed shil would perhapse "flame" said nay sayer, would that only stand to reinforce the question? And after saying that, if the supposed shil were to make a non-critical comment of the nay-sayer, would that only implicate him/her from hiding from the issue? And if no comment is made after those two statements, then would that not cause someone to wonder if it isn't trut that said nay sayer was correct? Just a question. From the makers of snakes on a plane comes this thriller!

the power density of that thing is pretty bad, but the torque per lb is right on. If they could get that thing into the 4-5k RPM range maybe we'd be talking some reasonable ratings. for a 4,600,000lb engine only producing 108,920 hp, that's awfully wasteful. If you stacked SBC's you could build maybe 100-200 of them to equal the HP, but the weight would only be maybe 90,000 That's quite a weight savings! Add a few tonnes for gearing and you got yourself the same thing, no doubt less reliable but still. And those end cap bolts don't look nearly big enough IMO. Let's hook it up to the dyno and *proove* it's even getting that much torque.

You might want to go back to at least 40-50% AF or you may get rust especially if you have alum heads and iron block. Also the iron impellor on the waterpump will turn to dust, that'll cause a slight change to the performance of your cooling system.

I get my Z on the road and not more than 2 hours after I start it for the first time someone SLAMS my driver door so severely that 1" of paint is chipped off and the dent is about 1/4" in. Luckily for my nerves it was one of about 5 chips on the driver door since the paintjob is 5 years old. But really if I had bought a new car I'd have been so p-o'd. I kinda like the scratch and ding car because then you don't care about fixing it when you get another. If I got hit with a shopping cart I'd probably just go home.

Probably isn't even one day a year that I couldn't go in the garage and work on the car. It's cool, but on the other hand there is NO BREAK!!! Probably why I got it done in only 9 months.

It'd suck if you bent the shaft then tried to turn it over and bad things happened. Probably unlikely though. I can attest for the MSD dist, the car idles solid and never misses.

forget Bees, UI think you could suck a pigeon into that intake!

I don't have any pans, and no sealing between rad and core. My fan fuse blew a couple months ago, it was a hot day 80's and my gage never got above 1/2 on the freeway (stock gage) and in neighborhoods it only climbed to about 5/8 at slow speeds. Over 25 it went down again. I normally drive to work 19 miles or so without the fan turning on in the morning.

I may be misunderstanding, you don't want to drill all the way thru the mount correct? I used a "D" washer to give myself more movement. I had to bring the engine as far forward as it would go and it's still a finger's width to the firewall from the NON-HEI dist. AND I slotted the holes in the frame mounts forward as well.

There's still hope for some of my unanswered posts!

If you do that your mount will be "hard mounted". Won't it?