portablevcb
Tijeras, NM
Senior Member
Joined: 05/04/2006
View Profile
 Offline
|
From what mileage to what mileage? (and you mean 454 chevy or 455 olds?)
My older MH (454 chevy) would get 9mpg on good roads and lower speeds (60). If I dropped to 55 it would get close to 10. I usually drove it around 70 where I got 8. Highly dependent on wind and throttle foot. 10mph of headwind was about 1mpg change.
I am also curious about how much water solution it uses. I had a water injection system for an older car at one time. Was interesting stuff.
charlie
2006 Toyota Tundra Crew Cab
2003 Skyline Nomad 24ft Fiver
Me and Wife
Maggie the Old English Sheepdog
|
wgc
Atlanta
New Member
Joined: 07/06/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
Your right. Typo. 454 cu in.
Remember, I was towing a ford explorer and driving 65 to 75 mph.
I have never been able to get more than 8 mpg without towing and typically got between 5 and 6 mpg while towing.
This system does not inject water into anything. It sucks the HHO (hydrogen and oxygen) through vacuum lines to the carburetor and air intake.
From what I have been able to understand, I won't have to add water to the system for several months. Water is very dense. A little water will make a whole lot of HHO.
|
portablevcb
Tijeras, NM
Senior Member
Joined: 05/04/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
I towed a Ford Ranger while getting those numbers. Sounds like your engine was a bit out of tune to start with?
The old 'water injection' did not actually inject water, it was water vapor. Not a lot, just enough to 'cool down' the combustion.
Am still doubtful of what this does. The video evidence from the news station is more what I'd expect.
charlie
|
wgc
Atlanta
New Member
Joined: 07/06/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
My engines are always in perfect tune. Maybe more of a difference in weight (family of five and luggage) and/or terrain (flat vs hilly).
The trip I just made was a duplicate of the same trip last year about the same time, weather, etc. I've been driving my motorhome a long time and know its capabilities. That's why I got so excited!
Another factor I need to mention. Previously, my transmission would downshift a lot while climbing hills. During this trip, the only time it downshifted was when I mashed the gas to pass an 18 wheeler up hill.
|
wgriswold
South Lake Tahoe
New Member
Joined: 11/11/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
If this concept works then we have to believe that energy will flow from cold to hot spontaneously. In other words, ice cubes in water in your house will not melt but get larger. The Laws of Thermodynamics are the sum result of all of human experience and they will not change because of our current energy crisis. The only possible way for this to work is if it increases the efficiency of the engine. Some say that the alternater is producing wasted electricity and this is used to produce the oxygen and hydrogen. The output of the alternater varies with the required amount of electricity. There is no way that the alternater is wasting 10% or more of the energy required to move a car.
These money making schemes will only proliferate as the energy crisis worsens.
1999 K2500 Suburban, 454, 4.10
|
|
|
portablevcb
Tijeras, NM
Senior Member
Joined: 05/04/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
The claim is that it allows more of the fuel to burn, ie, more efficient combustion. Also claims to be 'cleaner'.
Using a chemical balance it does not seem to be so. However, engines do not burn at stochiometric because of temperature issues, detonation and emissions issues. That's why hot rodders can get more out of an engine just by changing airflow and mixtures. But, most cannot pass an emissions test, hence the 'hot' computers can be switched back to factory settings when being re-registered.
On one of these where it is claimed to work I wonder what the cylinder head and exhaust gas temps are like. Also seems like NOx emmisions would be up. Would this cause other problems? Don't know.
charlie
|
wgc
Atlanta
New Member
Joined: 07/06/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
Just about every claim I've read says just that... It improves the efficiency of the engine by promoting a more complete burn during the combustion cycle. Current engine technology allows some unused energy to pass through into the exhaust pipe uncombusted. That's why we have catalytic converters. To convert the unburned hydrocarbons into CO2 & H2O.
The HHO concept is supposed to burn the fuel more completely and efficiently, providing more horsepower and cleaner emissions. As a person gets used to the additional power, less fuel gets dumped into the combustion chamber to do the same amount of work. You are not adding energy as much as you are utilizing more of the energy you were wasting before. Therefore you don't need as much, hence the savings.
That is why my transmission didn't need to downshift. I had plenty of power to get up the hill because my engine was running more efficiently.
Another example of the concept at work are the many claims that cars that couldn't pass emission tests before, easily passed after installing the HHO system. Some even with the catalytic converter removed.
|
wgc
Atlanta
New Member
Joined: 07/06/2008
View Profile
Offline
|
Another claim I've read is that tha HHO actually reduces cylinder head temperature, thereby reducing NOx.
|
wgriswold
South Lake Tahoe
New Member
Joined: 11/11/2005
View Profile
Offline
|
The last three posts are in the realm of the possible, which is to increase efficiency. I have seen claims on the web that suggest that more energy is added to the system by these devices and that is impossible. The question is are there enough unburned hydrocarbons in the exhaust to increase mpg by the claims? I don't know the answer but it could be calculated easily by someone with access to the data.
|
portablevcb
Tijeras, NM
Senior Member
Joined: 05/04/2006
View Profile
Offline
|
Yes, they do claim all of the above, which is why I consider it more BS. Claims are contradictory.
|
|
|
