Talk:Flexible-fuel vehicle

Flexible-fuel vehicle was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 31, 2008	Good article nominee	Listed
September 3, 2021	Good article reassessment	Delisted

Current status: Delisted good article

Automobiles Mid‑importance

	Cars portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Environment: Green vehicle High‑importance

	Environment portal This environment-related article is part of the WikiProject Environment to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the environment. The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on environment-related topics, as well as to ensure that environment articles are properly categorized. Read Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ and leave any messages at the project talk page.EnvironmentWikipedia:WikiProject EnvironmentTemplate:WikiProject EnvironmentEnvironment articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Green vehicle task force.

Climate change High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Summaries of this article appear in Ethanol fuel in Brazil, Ethanol fuel in the United States, and History of ethanol fuel in Brazil.

Suggested merge

I suggest that Flexible Fuel Vehicle be merged into this article. It appears to be a stub covering the same subject. I plan to complete this merge by 2006-09-08 if there is no objection and/or a consensus is reached. -- Ratarsed 11:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Ratarsed 18:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Inefficiency in flexible-fuel vehicles

Removed a section of text that made fairly strong claims with no sources to support them (the existing reference simply establishes Brazilian law on the amount of alcohol in Brazilian gasoline.

Also, the controversy on whether gasoline mixed with ethanol increases pollution is covered in its own section, and probably shouldn't be repeated elsewhere.

Feel free to revert this edit if you can come up with sources. Obonicus 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GM Vehicles?

Where are all the E85 General Motors vehicles? I see nothing buy Chrysler and Ford products and I'm sure they're not the only ones. Please add more manufacturers. -Shintsu —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.128.137.184 (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request: Could someone do a page about this book?

Just heard an interview with the guy who wrote it... Energy Victory: Winning the War on Terror by Breaking Free of Oil and just put in a reference to his website but it would be super if someone could read the book and summarize the arguments. Thanks! Dnklu (talk) 03:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Worldwide section is US-centric. US section contains international vehicles

This article needs some expert editing. The list of international cars is highly biased towards the North-American market. The US section contains cars such as the Mercedes-Benz C-Class which is available world-wide. Perhaps this should instead be categorised by brand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.160.2.254 (talk) 06:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fleet stats

How many flexible fuel vehicles are on the road in various countries? -- Beland (talk) 17:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since added, thanks! -- Beland (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Nice edit you did re-organizing the lead and terminology section. It really improved a lot the article flow.--Mariordo (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about M85?

M85 is another fuel that FFVs can run on. This article is too focused on E85 as the only alternative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Treq (talk • contribs) 15:33, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a ref (web site) here and I will work on it. The article talks a lot about the E85 because they are the most common in the US and Sweden. Any tip is welcome.--Mariordo (talk) 15:44, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FFVs definition and article content

As I have been trying to addressed most of the issues raised above and detailing the current situation in the leading countries (not finished yet) it is clear that this article deals only with vehicles mixing ethanol fuel and gasoline only. There are already specific Wiki articles for vehicles using bi-fuel engines running on GNC, LPG, hydrogen vehicles, or methanol fuel in combination with standard gasoline engines. Furthermore, after a Google search there is no doubt that the modern common use of FFVs in English (at least for the last 5 to 8 years) refers almost always to ethanol-gasoline capable vehicles, including the press, NGOs, government agencies, and automakers, with several models even sold with some kind of variant of the prefix "flex", such as Volvo Flexifuel, Ford Flexifuel (in Europe), Ford Flex (in Brazil), VW Total Flex, Chevrolet FlexPower, etc. However, in the existing definition of the article and some technical literature there is a broader definition of FFVs that includes vehicles with dual-fuel, bi-fuel and tri-fuel engines. According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions the most easily recognized name should be used, as the names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors, and for a general audience over specialists. Therefore, regarding the organization and content of this article I will do the following changes to avoid confusion and to make clear the different type of existing alternative fuel vehicles, but mainly, that this article refers to gasoline-ethanol flexible-fuel vehicles only:

The leading paragraph will clarify that FFVs in the article refer to ethanol FFVs or any other fuels developed in the future that are store in one tank and injected together in the combustion chamber (dual-fuel system), with a brief mention of the broader more technical definition at the end of the lead.
The section "Terminology" will be expanded a bit to explain the differences between dual-fuel, bi-fuel, and tri-fuel, and to consolidate here information from elsewhere in the article regarding vehicles that are not FFVs by the common use English definition. Wiki links to the other alternative fuel vehicles will be made in this section also.
There is also some confusion and apparent contradiction between which engines are dual-fuel and bi-fuel on some sources (just Google). I will leave the concept/definitions as they are in this article. This is, bi-fuel vehicles have separate tanks for gasoline and the other fuel, usually natural gas, and they are alternated manually or automatically, and dual-fuel systems supply both fuels into the combustion chamber at the same time in various calibrated proportions, such as ethanol FFVs. Any help on this apparent confusion/contradiction is welcome, but please, provide WP:RS.

Please feel free to give your opinion here and all suggestions and corrections are welcome, but please, discussed here any significant changes regarding these concepts here before editing the article. --Mariordo (talk) 23:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The definition of dual-fuel should be changed as some dual-fuel vehicles have two storage tanks for two different fuels (such as diesel and CNG) and then supply them both to the combustion chamber at the same time. The point being that how the fuels are stored is not relevant to the distinction between dual-fuel and bi-fuel. However how the fuel is stored is relevant when we consider FFVs as a subgroup of duel-fuel vehicals. FFVs only have one fuel system however there engines can utilise a number of different fuels or a blended fuels.
Also as this article has a redirect form dual-fuel it must also cover that topic else the redirect should be removed. I suggest that a separate article be written to cover dual-fuel engines as this pages scope is very clear and adding a dual-fuel topic would be confusing to the reader.

--Manu poletti (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with most of the points you raised, and I would like to fix it, though, as you said, most of the work is required in the other articles, not here. Can you help me pointing me to some reliable sources/citations that I can use for the definition, and also for the diesel/CNG case.--Mariordo (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that the UNECE may standardise the definition of dual-fuel soon as they are in the process of including it an there UNECE-R49 emission standard see http://globalautoregs.com/rules/143. Here are general links for info:

A glossary with dual-fuel defined - http://www.dieselnet.com/gl-a.html#d10
An industry news service with dual-fuel tag (establishes common use) - http://www.ngvglobal.com/tag/dual-fuel
This has a good overview of natural gas vehicles including dual-fuel - http://www.cleanfuelsconsulting.org/Portals/0/docs/Decision%20Makers%20Guide%20to%20NGVs.pdf

I would be interested in writing a page for Dual-Fuel, Can we collaborate on this? I think that I should not do it alone as I am involved in the (dual-fuel) industry and would like an impartial reviewer.

--Manu poletti (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is a good idea, and it seems there are plenty of RSs, why don't you create and start working on the article, and will keep an eye and help you (just let me know when you created it). Once the new article is finished (the concepts clarified), then we can adjust this article to make it compatible.--Mariordo (talk) 03:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:E85 logo.png

The image Image:E85 logo.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --07:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Delete

Citation #73 refers to gasoline-equivalent gallons (g-e-g's) per U.S. D.O.E.'s statistics and not actual fuel economy. I suggest removing "As fuel economy is directly proportional to the fuel's energy content,[73]"

Pablokoh (talk) 13:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and do the edit.--Mariordo (talk) 17:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a separate list for Ford FFVs

This article is getting too long. So I suggest to move the list of Ford flex-vehicles to an annex or to an article List, separate from this article. I think the article should have only list by country or region, and any lists by other automakers might be created later, all linking to this article. Please give you opinion and be so kind to express your vote below as keep or move.--Mariordo (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move to a separate article (List).--Mariordo (talk) 03:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As per Wiki rules, and because in five days there were no other opinions, the article is too long now, so I will move the list of Ford FFVs to a separate article, called List of flexible-fuel vehicles by car manufacturer, so to allow from other manufactures to be included. To begin with I will add the Volvo models so the list has some other than just Ford models. The list of models by country/regional markets will stay here. I will deleted some pictures to adjust the layout.--Mariordo (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LPG and CNG

I do not believe this article adequately covers information on CNG and LPG duel-fuel vehicles. While ethanol is very well covered, LPG and CNG are not. In Australia and South Korea, and to a lesser degree in New Zealand, China, and Japan, LPG is widely used, either as a stand-alone fuel or as a dual fuel with petrol (up to E10). I do not know a real lot about CNG so I will not make any comment, but I feel that both fuels are underrepresented. Considering this is a good article, this should not be the case. Good job on an otherwise great article. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:50, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, however, as already explained in the lead and also in the Terminology section, CNG and LPG are dual-fuel or bi-fuel vehicles, and they are not considered flexible-fuel vehicles because the second fuel is store in a separate tank. Only engines capable of mixing gasoline with methanol or ethanol in the same tank are considered flex fuels. Wiki already has an article on vehicles using natural gas fuels in Natural gas vehicle, and see also Alternative fuel vehicle and Compressed natural gas.--Mariordo (talk) 11:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explaination. I must admit I originally skipped over the lead section, jumping straight to the body. To make it clearer I have made these edits to the article. OSX (talk • contributions) 04:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

% doubt

Isn't this number wrong? : Share of flex-fuel vehicles as % of total registered **15.7%** 4.1% 3.3% Brazil's fleet is 56 mi (May 2009)

to me the calc is 10.6 mi divided by 56 mi, that would be smth around 20% instead of 15.7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.21.7.178 (talk) 19:22, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not ~20%, because you took the flex fleet for mid 2010 (10.6) and divided by total fleet by 2009 (56). Throughout the article note that some stats are for 2009 while others are for 2010, but I will update the figures this weekend to make them as consistent as the available info allows.-Mariordo (talk) 23:14, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done! -Mariordo (talk) 23:32, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is too long

Hi Mariordo, I guess you are aware that this article is far too long. I would have thought that some trimming and use of WP:Summary style could help. regards, Johnfos (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed. One option would be to split it in several articles by country, in particular Flexible-fuel vehicles in Brazil andFlexible-fuel vehicles in the United States, which are the two main countries with flex-fuels, and just leave a short summary for these two countries. Also, the list in the end could actually be deleted since there is already an article List of flexible-fuel vehicles by car manufacturer which has almost the same content, only organized differently. What do you think? (I could do the splitting).-Mariordo (talk) 00:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good! I think it would be great if you could split and trim the article in this way. Johnfos (talk) 00:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I will try do it during the weekend. Keep the good work, the portal is awesome.-Mariordo (talk) 00:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This GA should be clear but isn't yet quite (as of this writing)

Whatever the relationship is between the definitions of multifuel vehicles, flexible-fuel vehicles (this article's topic), and bi-fuel vehicles, it should be possible to summarize it in one paragraph—even if the terms are not always used consistently. This is because either (1) you can group the latter two as subsets of the first, or (2) you can state clearly that natural language doesn't use the terms with consistent delineation, but careful usage could consistently delineate them as [XYZ].

When I read the 3 articles as they are currently written, after absorbing many sentences in various spots, I come to the logical conclusion that a paragraph can feasibly be constructed in the latter form. ("Natural language doesn't use the terms with consistent delineation, but careful usage would consistently delineate them as [XYZ].")

If that is correct, then it can be said that simply in these articles. It seems to me that right now the reader is forced to come to that conclusion implicitly, whereas it could be confirmed simply and explicitly near the top of the terminology section, with details following.

The problem for lay readers is that right now they can read these articles and come away *still not knowing* what "the difference is" between a "flex-fuel vehicle" and a "multifuel vehicle" (or in other words, what the relationship is between the definitions (synonyms? superset-subset?), even if the answer to that is only "it depends on who's talking, but here are the permutations").

To all those who worked on this article to bring it to GA status (I am new to the party), please read the above and comment on it here. If you disagree, I'm open to explanation of why the existing version is clear enough. On the other hand, if no one has any counterargument, then some change to address this topic should be accepted. I retract my earlier impression that the lede itself can address this. What I now believe is that the terminology section's first paragraph should be critically examined with an eye toward addressing it explicitly. Lastly, I want to say that this is not a huge deal (not looking to make a big drama about it), but at the same time, if no one else is willing to analyze it and work on clarifying, then I will probably continue trying to do that myself. I'm open to any logically explained modification of my efforts; as long as it's not just "we're not changing it at all irrespective of any newly arising questions." It's possible to improve even GAs. Thanks. — ¾-10 17:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your point, but I believe the article that needs quite an improvement and the right place to clarify this relationship is the multifuel article, not the flex-fuel article, though any further explanation in the section terminology is welcome. I can think of the following reasons for not doing that explanation in the lead here:

Style:".. dual-fuel vehicle (colloquially called a flex-fuel vehicle) is a multifuel vehicle" reads awful, it is a cacophony (dual-fuel .... multifuel), and if it is already defined as "dual" what is the purpose of saying it is "multifuel"
The lead already explains the main confusion of terms, a flex-fuel car is a dual-fuel not a bi-fuel (both fuels are stored in the same tank unlike bi-fuels that burn one fuel at a time). This is supported by reliable sources.
Mutifuel is already defined in the terminology section together with the other terms.

Anyway I would also like to hear other opinions, and of course, a GA can always be improved, but I do not think adding the multifuel in the lead is an improvement.--Mariordo (talk) 03:39, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not think adding the multifuel in the lead is an improvement. We need to avoid too much terminology clutter in the lead, especially when the very next section on Terminology covers this issue so well. Johnfos (talk) 04:26, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Lead is good as-is. I may try to tweak the terminology section to summarize the variability in usage succinctly in its top paragraph. Then let the bullets give the details. Thanks for discussing, everyone. TTYL. — ¾-10 22:33, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed move to Flex-fuel vehicle

I propose that this article be moved to Flex-fuel vehicle, as that is the term most often used. "Flexible-fuel vehicle" gets about 1.68M hits on Google, whereas "Flex-fuel vehicle" gets 1.70M hits. Thoughts? – voidxor ^{(talk | contrib)} 06:19, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I do not think the small difference between 1.68 m and 1.70 m hits is significant enough to justify the change. The article already explains in the lead that the terms flexible-fuel vehicle and flex-fuel vehicle are the same. Also I prefer the long name to avoid any confusion with the Ford Flex. In this case I go for "if it is not broken don't fix it." Cheers.--Mariordo.

When RSs are wrong, or miscited

The good-faith reversion at [1] restored a factual error to the article. Unfortunately, from what the edit summary says, it sounds like the WP:RSs themselves contain the factual error. I don't have time to thoroughly investigate and straighten out this problem anytime soon. What I do suggest in the meantime is to not include the factual error at all in this article, rather than include it with a citation of where it comes from. — ¾-10 16:25, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, because it was bugging me, I just spent some time checking into it. The "first commercial flex-fuel vehicle" claim did not have a ref citation on it in either of the places where it appears in this article. In the History section, of the 3 sources cited in the following sentence after that claim, none of the 3 says anything about that claim. Under standard Wikipedia guidelines, statements challenged for their factual accuracy that do not have citations may be removed pending a supporting citation. Furthermore, the aforementioned edit summary said something about original research, but the general history of multifuel machinery that my edit referred to has nothing to do with original research; it's not research at all, it's well-known background info among people who follow the history of boilers and internal combustion engines of the 19th through mid-20th centuries. I'm going to edit further, per these points. — ¾-10 16:35, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even if you are right, using google the way you did it is blatant original investigation, it is based on your research, and here, you have to support your edits with reliable sources. Check WP:OR. This is a GA, and that part should go until you find a RS to support your claim. The edit about the "first" I will not argue, I am fine the way you edited it. So please, just follow the policies, you look like an experience user, so find a source.--Mariordo (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Flexible-fuel vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 12 external links on Flexible-fuel vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Flexible-fuel vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flexible-fuel vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080911063751/http://www.e85.biz/media/archive1/ethanol-tankstellen-d.pdf to http://www.e85.biz/media/archive1/ethanol-tankstellen-d.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Flexible-fuel vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Flexible-fuel vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 29 external links on Flexible-fuel vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723024113/http://motorpoint.com.au/ffv-alternative.asp to http://www.motorpoint.com.au/ffv-alternative.asp
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.iangv.org/tools-resources/statistics.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bigas.com.br/sistema/?modulo=gnvnews&acao=abrir&id=22
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webmotors.com.br/wmpublicador/Noticias_Conteudo.vxlpub?hnid=36391
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hybridcarblog.com/2007/06/ford-delivers-e85-hybrid-vehicles.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.greencar.com/articles/hybrids-running-e85-ethanol-fuel-5-things.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100103041302/http://www.greencar.com/articles/gm-chevrolet-volt-plug-hybrid-electric-vehicle.php to http://www.greencar.com/articles/gm-chevrolet-volt-plug-hybrid-electric-vehicle.php
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726053628/http://www.methanol.org/Energy/Resources/Alternative-Fuel/Ford-s-Roberta-Nichols-The-Methanol-Story.aspx to http://www.methanol.org/Energy/Resources/Alternative-Fuel/Ford-s-Roberta-Nichols-The-Methanol-Story.aspx
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081006165850/http://veja.abril.com.br/idade/exclusivo/petroleo/130679.html to http://veja.abril.com.br/idade/exclusivo/petroleo/130679.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080822000011/http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2006/mtbe2006/mtbe2006.pdf to http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/feature_articles/2006/mtbe2006/mtbe2006.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://portal.rpc.com.br/gazetadopovo/economia/conteudo.phtml?tl=1&id=774927&tit=
Corrected formatting/usage for http://quatrorodas.abril.com.br/carros/lancamentos/volkswagen-polo-e-flex-425390.shtml
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/faq.html
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eere.energy.gov/afdc/progs/ddown.cgi?afdc%2FFAQ%2F5%2F0%2F0
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/alt_trans_fuel/attf.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.igf.com.br/aprende/dicas/dicasResp.aspx?dica_Id=1435
Corrected formatting/usage for http://br.invertia.com/noticias/noticia.aspx?idNoticia=200807152306_ABR_77211977
Added {{dead link}} tag to http://automoveis.dgabc.com.br/default.asp?pt=secao&pg=detalhe&c=11&id=5769540&titulo=Etanol+e+usado+em+65%25+da+frota+flexivel
Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160516175953/http://info.abril.com.br/noticias/tecnologias-verdes/2013/11/etanol-e-usado-hoje-em-apenas-23-dos-carros.shtml to http://info.abril.com.br/noticias/tecnologias-verdes/2013/11/etanol-e-usado-hoje-em-apenas-23-dos-carros.shtml
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090313232957/http://world.honda.com/news/2009/c090311CG150-TITAN-MIX-in-Brazil/ to http://world.honda.com/news/2009/c090311CG150-TITAN-MIX-in-Brazil/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baff.info/english/vehicles_FFV_cars.cfm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ethanol-producer.com/article.jsp?article_id=3935
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.zimbio.com/Koenigsegg+CCX/articles/4/Geneva+Preview+Koenigsegg+CCX+CCXR+Edition
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107053056/http://www.schweizerbauer.ch/htmls/artikel_17114.html to http://www.schweizerbauer.ch/htmls/artikel_17114.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081204173626/http://www.galwayindependent.com/motoring/motoring/saab-brings-flexi%11fuel-and-style-to-new-9%113-models/ to http://www.galwayindependent.com/motoring/motoring/saab-brings-flexi%11fuel-and-style-to-new-9%113-models/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.e85refueling.com/
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dancewithshadows.com/motor/gm-to-launch-18-flexible-fuel-vehicles-including-hummer-chevrolet-and-caddy-models/
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090804193005/http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=45fc61c1-56ba-4b5d-8ef0-405d3acf5b3e to http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=45fc61c1-56ba-4b5d-8ef0-405d3acf5b3e
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927061023/http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20100427_EU_Motor_Vehicles_in_Use_2008.pdf to http://www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20100427_EU_Motor_Vehicles_in_Use_2008.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817085105/http://www.ethanolretailer.com/latest-retailer-news/ to http://www.ethanolretailer.com/latest-retailer-news/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Flexible-fuel vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Flexible-fuel vehicle/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Needs to be drastically condensed and Brazil and USA updated

Specifically it no longer meets good article criteria 3:

"Broad in its coverage: it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)."

So it needs a lot deleting and to be rewritten in summary style and Brazil and USA updated.

Would anyone like to take this on? Chidgk1 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support removal of GA status.

The article has major issues, and I believe that it even fails the B criteria. It fails to clearly describe what its topic is (and what it is not), it fails to describe how its topic works, and it attempts to describe all sectors to which its topic applies (it lists countries with FFV availability in great detail instead of summarising them briefly). Furthermore, it assumes that the reader already knows what the topic is.

First of all, the article mainly describes cars as flexible-fuel vehicles, whilst not explicitly stating that a flexible-fuel vehicle has to be a car. This problem is possibly the cause of all other major issues this article has. The terminology section describes a bunch of different things and gives a bunch of different examples but lacks a brief, easily comprehensible and yet precise defintion of the topic. Why is it so complicated to define a flexible-fuel vehicle as "a single-tank vehicle, mostly a car, powered by an Otto internal combustion engine designed to run on alcohol fuels, typically ethanol or methanol, mixed with any amount of conventional petrol"? If all the specific examples (=where technologies apply and who applies them) were removed from the section, only a fraction of the current text would remain. I find it very important to differentiate between an Otto-powered FFV car and an Otto-powered "normal" car running on bog-standard E10 95 RON petrol (standard petrol in many European countries containing 10 per cent ethanol); the article fails to do that. There is also no section that at least briefly describes how a flexible-fuel vehicle works (the Otto engine relies on compression of a premixed mixture, thus alcohols are good fuels, etc.). This includes that, there is no description of why FFVs have greater specific engine power (because of a greater mixture lower heating value), ethanol gradually embrittling rubber hoses (=one reason why not all cars are suited for ethanol fuels), or no coverage of additional concepts that could be applied to the subject (exempli gratia Diesel engines running on ethanol are uncommon, but this concept works and it could be mentioned).

The list of countries ("flexible-fuel vehicles by country") is a typical Wikipedia article problem and this article is a good example – instead of describing a subject briefly, the article describes the subject in unnecessary detail for each individual country. In this case, this has resulted in a bunch of different sections and subjections, all based on arbitrarily collected exmaples presented to the reader. There are history sections, lists of available cars, and different projects certain car makers have started. I reckon though that, it would be best to limit these sections to quantifiable things (id est number of cars with FFV technology in these countries) – this approach would effectively reduce all these sections down to a single section or maybe two or so; this means that there is so much unnecessary content in this article that I believe is not good content: This is a good article, so the GA criteria have to be applied fairly strictly – I suppose that it is not pure invention if I argue that the article fails WP:WWIN's WP:NOTGUIDE: The article describes to the reader which flexible-fuel vehicles he/she can currently buy in certain markets, including number of available vehicles, brands, and even actual models, despite that it should not do that!

Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:14, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post scriptum: Most of the pictures in the article depict actual car models in a way that implies that you can buy these cars. The article should instead depict only a few cars to illustrate that FFV cars look like normal cars; including pictures of all available FFV cars is not useful. And could somebody please explain why all these pictures have these photoshopped "flex" badges? I find that very bizarre, and it only adds to the theory that the article trys to be a guide of some sort. --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:20, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any volunteer to update? E10 now also standard UK - so UK readers could be interested in this article https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57585105 Johannes Maximilian or anyone - do you want to have a go at updating the article? If nobody comes forward I will delist. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:18, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I could do it, but it would take a while. Delisting the article is a reasonable thing to do. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 18:33, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Maximilian Yes you are right it looks a fair amount of work. I guess it depends if you think this type of vehicle has a future - maybe as a bridge towards electric cars? Or maybe they are already obsolete and not worth your time? Will Americans convert their beloved classics to electric or flex fuel? Or maybe only Jair Bolsonaro knows - will he support this industry? If you are willing to make a start I can abandon this review if you like so you are not under pressure. Or I can delist it and you can submit it as a "good article nomination" if and when you get it back into shape. Either way even if you don't get it as far as "good" any small improvements you have time to do will benefit others I am sure, as from your comments above I see you know the subject very well. Some editors like to do small additions so if you only had time to do a big big ruthless prune that might give them confidence. DELETE DELETE DELETE! Which do you prefer? Should I abandon the review or delist? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and delist the article. I can still work on it and rewrite it in the future, it doesn't have to be done now. I personally don't mind whether or not my articles on the English language Wikipedia are GAs, but maybe I could try it with this one. I suppose this technology is not obsolete yet. There is research going on and converting all vehicles to electric certainly isn't a good idea – just think of lorries or even combine harvesters. These vehicles would at least double in price if they were electric, and that would render them uneconomical. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 09:55, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delisted. You are right the article does not seem to mention lorries only light trucks. Chidgk1 (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested merge

Inefficiency in flexible-fuel vehicles

GM Vehicles?

Request: Could someone do a page about this book?

Worldwide section is US-centric. US section contains international vehicles

Fleet stats

What about M85?

FFVs definition and article content

Image copyright problem with Image:E85 logo.png

Suggested Delete

Creating a separate list for Ford FFVs

LPG and CNG

% doubt

Article is too long

This GA should be clear but isn't yet quite (as of this writing)

Proposed move to Flex-fuel vehicle

When RSs are wrong, or miscited

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

External links modified

GA Reassessment

Needs to be drastically condensed and Brazil and USA updated

related discussion -- link