Any interest in a 1000 horsepower E85 turbocharged Viper? I thought so
Well, you'd better be interested! The owner of the 1000 hp E85-capable Viper is Karl Jacob, who says, "The E85 Viper project sets out to prove that we don't have to give up high performance cars in order to save the environment. In fact, we discovered during this project renewable fuel performs much better than today's gasoline."
The higher power is to be expected, as cars generally make more power on ethanol. A sophisticated engine computer system allows the vehicle to run on any blend of gas-ethanol, using 93 octane gas on up. Ethanol has a higher octane rating than gasoline.
The first modification was twin-turbos, along with a new fuel system and engine computer. The brakes were also upgraded at that time. While determining the next direction to go, Karl and his tuner, Ron, of SVS Power, decided to go all the way with the car... meaning 1000 HP running on 13 lbs of boost using E85 fuel. This, of course, meant a lot more mods needed to be performed, including to the fuel system, as the Viper was not meant to run on alcohol. Nor was it meant to have that much power, so the whole drivetrain was modified to take the power. You can read the whole story at Karl's site and there's an info chart after the jump.
Stay tuned for more information as it comes, as I'll be following the progress.
Related:
[Source: E85 Viper]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Ken Alexander 9:18PM (3/18/2009)
I have read 75% of the comments and I had to comment on the comments. Most of the comments were negative toward the innovation, because of the horsepower rating was so high. Also Ethanol can be also be made from any green waste, remember this is alcohol. All you need is a still to make Ethanol. You can make the gasoline from waste plastics, which has a very negligible amount of sulphur, less than 5%. Chrysler had a motor a while which they had running on pure gasoline with 0.05 emissions. So these guys using the E85 to produce high horsepower ratings, are also the inventors for future low polluting gasoline engines. If the automakers changed from four cylinders to two cylinders, runs on E85 fuel and turbocharged, would that be more in line of what the comments should say.
Reply
Andrew 9:24AM (1/25/2007)
As cool as the E85 Viper is, I am sick and tired of people doing this kind of stuff and claiming that it's "good for the environment". Allow me to call bullsh*t on that. I will grant that you are using less oil-derived fuel in your supercar (than you otherwise would have if running on gas). However, ethanol doesn't magically appear at the pumps, it still has energy inputs in its manufacture, most of which are still oil-derived. And regardless of fuel type, you're still outputting carbon dioxide and air pollutants, all in the name of having fun. Admit it, your vehicle has no practical purpose, it is a toy.
To TRULY be kind to the environment we have to understand that we can't simply consume for enjoyment anymore, and that when we DO consume, we minimize it. A Viper (or Ford Interceptor, or W9 engine) running on E85 does nothing for the environment. NOTHING. It promotes E85, that's all. So stop waving your green flag from behind the wheel of your one-off supercar that now has probably double the embodied energy a stock vehicle did. You are NOT helping the environment.
Reply
Scatter 9:27AM (1/25/2007)
My sentiments exactly. The environmental benefits of bioethanol are marginal at best and it's this kind of conspicuous consumption that got us into this situation in the first place.
Reply
Jeremy 9:53AM (1/25/2007)
I am not surprised at the comments above, and I actually agree that this car in and of itself is not helping the environment. Consider this, though: does ethanol (of any sort, not necessarily derived from corn) have a place in the list of alternative fuels? I would say definately yes, it does. People like Karl take it upon themselves to take a car like a Viper (which I will also argue has a place in the automotive marketplace) and turn it into something else. How much research and development do you think went into making this vehicle a reality? Is there something anybody can learn from it's creation? If the answer is yes, which I think it is, then this has a positive effect on the market for ethanol. If you are reading this site, you're probably already familiar with ethanol, but how many Viper owners out there care at all? How many Vipers owners, upon seeing this vehicle, will be familiar with ethanol? Does this car help the environment? No. What effect may it's creation have on ethanol, and possibly the environment through association? Plenty. This is not a bad thing, folks.
Reply
Scatter 10:22AM (1/25/2007)
I agree with some of that Jeremy (although I'd argue that the accelerated phase-out of combustion engines is of critical importance) but it's dangerous if we slip into the trap of believing we're saving the environment when in fact we're not. There are far far cleaner cars on the market than a E85 dodge viper so imo it can't be considered green.
I'm seeing this more and more with (especially wealthy) people - maybe buying organic food, having a wind turbine on their roof, using CFLs etc and thinking they're being green; but then without a second thought they're flying off to Zermatt for a two week skiing holiday and popping over to Rio for a long weekend.
I'm not saying this case is the equivalent to that but the fact is that changes need to be made in all aspects of our lifestyle and maybe one of those changes is giving up extreme fuel burning sports cars.
I'm not anti sports cars - the Tesla charged by the UK grid would be the cleanest car on the road (putting out about 90gCO2/km). Plus you have the potential to recharge it from wind power. Now that's green!
Reply
Doug R 11:22AM (1/25/2007)
I was wondering if you really are cutting back on emissions with E85. Does it burn cleaner? I don't know. I know it is more expensive and the increased demand for the source of the product has sharply effected the cost of food around the world. I thought we cared about the little people?
Corn is also hard on the soil. Farmers need to rotate other soil enriching crops for a recommended 2 seasons to replace what corn takes away. If farmers are encouraged to compromise this to supply the demand, then what?
These are things that people don't think about when they place themselves on a pedestal above everyone else. "I'm better than you! I want to save the world! I get to tell you how to live!" Environmentlism has evolved from a religion into a cult. Quit worhsiping Al Gore and his high priests and get some real facts.
Andrew says we shouldn't have fun. Does this include your computer, your Ipod, your TV, even your bicycle since 90% of what you use involves petroleum products or emissions of some kind?
I feel a little elitism of my own coming on. Since I don't drink coffee anyway, I dictate that we ban coffee makers. They require emissions to make them and the coffee farmers should be growing CORN anyway! So how many of you hypocritical, enviro-wacko libs out there just blew a vein?
Reply
Jimmy 10:55AM (1/25/2007)
"[ethanol] has energy inputs in its manufacture, most of which are still oil-derived."
That is incorrect. Petroleum inputs to even corn based ethanol are fairly small and by no means the "majority". Despite what incorrect information you make have read, growing corn requires fairly little petroleum with respect to the ethanol output. A major petroleum factor is if the corn is transported to the bio-refinery by a diesel truck or a diesel train. Even the most anti-ethanol Patzek "study" showed 0.2 MJ of petro for each MJ of ethanol produced. More accurate studies have that value much lower, generally less than 0.1.
Ethanol production does require energy for distillation and drying the distiller's grain show it can be shipped and stored for livestock feed. Innovative bio-refineries are locating near livestock so the distiller's grain can be used wet and saving a great deal of energy.
Reply
Andrew 11:23AM (1/25/2007)
Jeremy, promoting E85 to Viper owners is pointless. That sends a message of "Let's all consume conspicuously in an environmentally conscious way!" WRONG MESSAGE. The message needs to be that we are too dependent on petrochemical products, and we need to cut back. Had Karl Jacob decided to turn his Viper into a chipped biodiesel Viper and cut his fuel consumption in half while still getting 500 hp and boatloads of torque, that would have been REDUCING his energy requirements. But instead he put two turbos on it, DOUBLED the horsepower, and just happened to be using a more Earth-friendly fuel. It's still conspicuous consumption, you're just consuming something that's not quite as bad.
I challenge a Viper owner to swap out your V10 for a diesel (Cummins 5.9L turbodiesel, or maybe a VW V10 TDI?) and run it on biodiesel. Try to double your mileage without any loss in stock power or torque. THEN you can fly your green flag.
Reply
Xoham 11:31AM (1/26/2007)
While it may not take alot of petroleum, it sure takes a pile of coal or nuclear to make your ethanol.
We need to stop all the messing around and get electricity from clean sources into our fully electric vehicles.
http://www.efcf.com/reports/E17.pdf
Reply
Doug R 12:32PM (1/25/2007)
So you're worried about conspicuous consumption are you? Let's examine your beloved windmills shall we?
They are not free (cost of construction, materials, maintenance, etc.)
They consume incredible amounts of real estate. 13,000 acres for 16,000 wind generators.
Their power output is nominal at best. The same 16,000 wind generators produce less than 1/3 of the energy produced by a single clean burning, natural gas power plant occupying 10 acres of land. 10 ACRES!!!! They are currently building 40,000 of these environmental wonders off the Gulf Coast. They're going to provide power for 325,000 homes. WOW! That's a quarter of the size of your average small city. How much will it cost to maintain 40,000 wind generators? Are you beginning to get it?
They are also killing birds at an alarming rate. Many of which are endangered migratory species that fly at night. Naturalists also say the giant whirling contraptions are running off wildlife. When you are talking about thousands of acres of land, where are these refugees supposed to go anyway?
Another shinning example of the negative results of this intellectually inept, reality challenged, "it's man's fault" global warming movement. Or should I say bowel movement. All so you enviro wackos can get your fuzzy warm fix.
"the accelerated phase out of the combustion engine is of critical importance". Brilliant.
Most rich people are rich because they work their butts off Scatter, and they deserve it. Does your disdain for the jet set include your lovable tree hugging, "save the environment" types like Al Gore, Laurie David, and Ariana Huffington? Probably not. They consume more fuel on one world saving trip than I could possibly burn in 2+ yrs. in my V8 SUV.
Reply
Andrew 11:48AM (1/25/2007)
Hey, I'm not against having fun. But why does fun have to equate to liberally releasing GHGs? Take a page from the book of NEDRA and find other ways to go fast that don't necessarily involve carbon emissions. (And yes, I realize electricity is made by burning stuff, but you at least have the OPTION of purchasing carbon-neutral electrical energy.)
Reply
Peter 11:54AM (1/25/2007)
Dodge Viper: $86,000
E85 Modifications: ???
VS
Tesla Roadster: $92,000
This will not be a difficult decision for any wealthy car enthusiast who actually cares about the environment.
Reply
Scatter 12:13PM (1/25/2007)
hah! I love this concept that if you reduce your consumption you have to stop having fun.
Doug of course the vast majority of what we buy is based on petroleum but that doesn't make people hypocritical in encouraging a reduction, it's simple good sense.
It's inescapable to cause some emissions but that doesn't mean we have to go all out and burn everything we can.
Reply
Karl Jacob 1:13PM (1/25/2007)
Lots of great comments! A couple of facts I would like to add.
Combustion engines are not going away and neither are the people who buy them. Performance is important to a lot of people and this project was designed to prove to people who want performance that there is an alternative to gasoline.
One car will not make a difference, but if it convinces people who are running on straight gasoline to switch to e85 then the environment wins. The goal here wasn't to run a car on e85, that has been done. The goal here is to create a streetable car that can beat any gasoline powered car in the standing mile proving to even the most die hard performance fan that e85 is the way to go.
Yes e85 burns cleaner and it is also renewable i.e. the growing of the corn consumes carbon dioxide. However, corn is just the beginning! Ethanol is now being made from the parts of agriculture we currently throw away its called cellulosic ethanol This means *no* impact on the world food supply and cuts green house emissions over reformulated gasoline by 85%
http://www.e85viper.com
Karl
Reply
Doug R 1:20PM (1/25/2007)
Nothing wrong with a reasonable attitude towards consumption and efficiency. I for one hate wasting food. That certainly doesn't describe the current movement though. So who gets to decide who has fun doing what Scatter? Would that be you?
Reply
Doug R 5:06PM (1/25/2007)
Good comments Karl. It doesn't solve the soil depletion problem though, and corn related food products have had a sharp increase in price around the world. Many economists say it is directly related to the E85 intiative.
Cellulosic fibers are definitely the way to go. Although I question the amount available being able to satisfy the demand we're talking about. Still the problem exists that it cost more for the consumer than gasoline. If you don't buy the man-made global warming con (which I don't), then it seems pointless for now.
What about methanol from chicken crap? Very potent fuel and there are alot of chickens.
Reply
TrollHunter 2:47PM (1/25/2007)
The Viper is way cool. Tesla is also way cool. I'd like to see a Viper body on a Tesla that is charged by solar power.
Doug,
Peace, Brother.
You wanna fight? I hear we need people in Iraq.
What is your agenda?
Is it attacking "hypocritical, enviro-wacko libs"?
This name-calling would imply you believe yourself better than they, which sounds like another thing you're against putting oneself "on a pedestal above" others.
Hypocrisy continues....
You are actively participating in a "green" forum, so what are you; an enviro-wacko dick?
Re-read your own hypocrisy, you defend the rich unless they happen to be democrats otherwise you call them cult-leaders.
This thread was fun until it looked like someone made you blow a gasket.
If your intent is to turn people off your way of thinking. Congrats.
Reply
Doug R 5:50PM (1/25/2007)
Sorry I don't conform to your thinking TrollHunter. I guess I'm supposed to goose step when I come in here. Didn't hear you specifically debate anything I said dude! I certainly didn't call anyone a d*ck.
You could always go over to Iraq and settle the whole thing by talking with the suicide bombers and find out what makes them so angry. That is what you people believe isn't it? We just need to open a dialogue?
Reply
Jeremy 7:02PM (1/25/2007)
I agree that the dialog on this thread is very good, with a few exceptions... but hey, who's counting? Anyway, is this the greenest car ever featured here on ABG? No. Is it still relevent? Absolutely. For all the reasons that have people talking - and that includes the good and the bad points brought up. Karl, I appreciate your joining in on the discussion, and I agree with you. Lastly, the Viper has a place in society. Not everyone who wants a sports is forced to buy a Tesla. Karl is a guy who made a choice, then spent his own time and money to make a statement with it, whether you agree with it or not, do you respect that? Just Curious.
Reply
TrollHunter 7:48PM (1/25/2007)
Apology accepted Doug.
"You people"? If you mean Americans, than yes some of us would like to dialogue for peace while some of us would rather just take over any oil producing country.
My Iraq comment was to highlight where and whom we should be fighting instead of the American vs. American name-calling you revel in.
I consider conservatives and liberals as equals in caring about the environment both with good and dumb ideas, but overall on the same team.
I actually agreed with some of what you said, just took offense with how you said it.
I used the "abrasive man" definition from urbandictionary.com for the d word.
You seem ok in calling people wacko who don't agree or vote as you do.
So, abrasive vs. crazy, you decide if either is constructive.
As to arguing your points.
"I was wondering if you really are cutting back on emissions with E85. Does it burn cleaner? I don't know."
Yes it is cleaner.
"I thought we cared about the little people?"
Rhetorical
"Corn is also hard on the soil....If farmers are encouraged to compromise this to supply the demand, then what?"
...cellulosic ethanol...
"Environmentlism has evolved from a religion into a cult. Quit worhshiping Al Gore and his high priests and get some real facts."
Fact: Pres. Bush calls for increased use of corn ethanol in his State of the Union address. (sotu2007.pdf)Bush=wacko-lib?
"Andrew says we shouldn't have fun."
Andrew said:
"To TRULY be kind to the environment we have to understand that we can't simply consume for enjoyment anymore, and that when we DO consume, we minimize it."
"I feel a little elitism of my own coming on. Since I don't drink coffee anyway, I dictate that we ban coffee makers. They require emissions to make them and the coffee farmers should be growing CORN anyway!"
pretty good attempt at satire
"So how many of you hypocritical, enviro-wacko libs out there just blew a vein?"
I must have (jest). As yours was the 1st comment to lump the previous posters with accusations of hypocrisy,and poor fact checking while igniting the blue vs. red culture war by invoking Gore/liberal insults.
"So you're worried about conspicuous consumption are you? Let's examine your beloved windmills shall we?"
Couldn't find previous post re. windmills. Was this a straw-man argument?
"Another shinning example of the negative results of this intellectually inept, reality challenged, "it's man's fault" global warming movement. Or should I say bowel movement. All so you enviro wackos can get your fuzzy warm fix."
Satire?More name calling of growing number of people that now includes Pres. Bush regarding climate change caused by people.(sotu2007.pdf)
"Most rich people are rich because they work their butts off Scatter, and they deserve it. Does your disdain for the jet set include your lovable tree hugging, "save the environment" types like Al Gore, Laurie David, and Ariana Huffington? Probably not. They consume more fuel on one world saving trip than I could possibly burn in 2+ yrs. in my V8 SUV."
This was directed to Scatter but I'll jump in:
It all depends if Gore, David, or Huffington are offsetting their non-tree-hugging ways with green ones.
Your subsequent comments seemed non-provocative to us wacko-liberals.
Your friend in Christ.
Reply