Flex Fuel Jeep Wrangler

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:

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

"Lloyd" a écrit dans le message de news: snipped-for-privacy@34g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

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.