Ford, GM and the Bush administration are pushing E85 as a viable alternative to gasoline, thereby reducing America's dependence on foreign oil. Sounds grand but does it make sense? My test-drive colleague Colin Hefferon is an acknowledged expert on Alternative fuels. Here's what he had to say:

"Ethanol is not a substitute for gasoline; it's a substitute for MTBE, which is an oxygenate made from methane-based methanol. MTBE makes gasoline burn cleaner but it is carcinogenic to humans and has a very deleterious impact on groundwater when inevitably it leaks from underground storage tanks.

Ethanol is a fuel, yes, but its developing role as a blend stock is far more important. Simply put: in relatively small amounts, it makes gasoline run cleaner and more efficiently without itself creating any pollution. And almost equally important, it can be produced from crops grown right here in North America. It may not have the energy punch that gasoline has but, on the other hand, it doesn't have to be guarded by very expensive Allied troops and doesn't have to be shipped halfway around the world. Finally, growing crops for fuel should also be thought of as a lucrative industry for rural communities. It'll create local wealth and lots of jobs back there on the farm. If folks are willing to pay more for it than gasoline, all I can say is, 'ain't free enterprise grand?'

GM and Ford's E85 efforts should be looked on as more of a long-term, large-scale test on clean fuels rather than a serious attempt to re-invent the way Americans transport themselves. It's also not bad PR in this day and age when everyone in the auto industry is being asked to explain what they're doing to help the war on terror."