Hi Everyone,
I wanted to let you know that about 2 weeks ago I converted my 2000 Expedition to run on assisted Hydrogen. It increased my mileage by 4 MPG in the city which converts to about 18 MPG. On the highway it improved to about 17 MPG. It runs on a 12 volt system.
Here's how it works...You add distilled water and baking soda then charge w/12 volts. The voltage charges the water and produces hydrogen gases which then gets routed to the engine via the vacum line.
If anyone is interested in doing this, there is a guy in Goshen, IN. that is setting them up. Call ask for Julian and tell em Paul sent ya! I'm not getting any money, credit , etc.. for this but I did tell him that if it worked, I'd get the word out. He is runniing a Silverado and he's getting around 20 MPG. There was also a story done on it by 28 WSJV news
Here's the link
http://fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=37803
Here are some pics. The one picture that shows it foamy is with the engine running.
If anyone wants to ask questions here, I'll try and answer them.
Full Version: off topic ---Hydrogen Hybrid
How much does it cost?
sorry...won't let me upload the picture...I'll try with my phone camera...
QUOTE(F7 Possum @ Jun 11 2008, 11:42 AM) 
How much does it cost?
I paid 740.00 because I needed a new air filter but for trucks he charges 600 to 650.00 Cars are 400 to 450.00
QUOTE(shempsledder @ Jun 11 2008, 09:45 AM)
I paid 740.00 because I needed a new air filter but for trucks he charges 600 to 650.00 Cars are 400 to 450.00
Looks interesting, and any gas savings should help subsidize the system cost over time.
I would do it, but have a question for you...
Winter... Is there a means of preventing the water from freezing, or does it require a drain event at the end of a drive and refill at the beginning of the drive?
QUOTE(A G @ Jun 11 2008, 03:07 PM)
Looks interesting, and any gas savings should help subsidize the system cost over time.
I would do it, but have a question for you...
Winter... Is there a means of preventing the water from freezing, or does it require a drain event at the end of a drive and refill at the beginning of the drive?
I would do it, but have a question for you...
Winter... Is there a means of preventing the water from freezing, or does it require a drain event at the end of a drive and refill at the beginning of the drive?
He told me the formula was 50/50 distilled water/-20F washer solvant before adding the Baking soda...
QUOTE(shempsledder @ Jun 11 2008, 01:11 PM)
He told me the formula was 50/50 distilled water/-20F washer solvant before adding the Baking soda...
Interesting... So there is a method to prevent the freezing after all.
So if -20F fluid is diluted 50/50, probably safe to say the mix is good down to -10F.
Where I live, I've seen temps lower than -40 C/F, but not in recent years though. -30C or so is about the coldest we've had in the past decade.
I wonder if it can be mixed with straight methyl hydrate or Isopropanol instead of regular retail windshield washer juice. Guess I'd have to dive right into that project and experiment to find out.
Thanks for posting the info!
QUOTE(A G @ Jun 11 2008, 03:52 PM)
Interesting... So there is a method to prevent the freezing after all.
So if -20F fluid is diluted 50/50, probably safe to say the mix is good down to -10F.
Where I live, I've seen temps lower than -40 C/F, but not in recent years though. -30C or so is about the coldest we've had in the past decade.
I wonder if it can be mixed with straight methyl hydrate or Isopropanol instead of regular retail windshield washer juice. Guess I'd have to dive right into that project and experiment to find out.
Thanks for posting the info!
So if -20F fluid is diluted 50/50, probably safe to say the mix is good down to -10F.
Where I live, I've seen temps lower than -40 C/F, but not in recent years though. -30C or so is about the coldest we've had in the past decade.
I wonder if it can be mixed with straight methyl hydrate or Isopropanol instead of regular retail windshield washer juice. Guess I'd have to dive right into that project and experiment to find out.
Thanks for posting the info!
I'm not sure on that...Your right, research is needed I suppose. Another option is you just disconnect the system when it gets below your tolerence....
How long do the jars last? Is it a tank of gas then fill your mixture?
QUOTE(BigX @ Jun 11 2008, 04:05 PM)
How long do the jars last? Is it a tank of gas then fill your mixture?
Donno...I usually top it off every hundred miles and it doesn't take much.. I've driven it over 700 miles so far and used just over a 1/2 gallon of the mix...
So you "t" into your brake boost vacum line, and I would assume lean it out for the gas that is now "helping" the air mixture. Any power affects? Good or bad.
QUOTE(BigX @ Jun 11 2008, 04:38 PM)
So you "t" into your brake boost vacum line, and I would assume lean it out for the gas that is now "helping" the air mixture. Any power affects? Good or bad.
Haven't dyno'ed it or anything but it seems to be running smoother and peppier...
Guys - there are no free rides in physics or specifically - BTU's of energy for fuels. What you're doing here is creating a chemical reaction between the water and baking soda - giving off hydrogen. However, it takes much more electricity (energy) to break the bond of the H2O than exists in the smallest molecule in existance (H - which is 1 on the periodic chart).
I didn't write this, but read on:
More than a century ago, Michael Faraday discovered many of the basic facts of electricity. One of them is that it is possible to use electricity to chemically separate the elements of some compounds. He discovered (in what is now called one of Faraday's Laws) that it took 96,501 international Coulombs (or one Faraday) of electricity to pass through an electrolyte to chemically alter one gram equivalent weight. Since Hydrogen has atomic mass 1, this means that 96,501 Coulombs of electricity must be passed through an electrolyte (in this case, usually water) to release ONE gram of Hydrogen from the water! One ampere is defined as one Coulomb per second. This means that we need to use ONE AMPERE of for 96,501 seconds (over 26 continuous hours) to generate ONE GRAM of Hydrogen gas! To generate ONE POUND of hydrogen, we are talking around 44 million ampere-seconds of electricity! At ten amperes passing through the electrolyte (more is not really desirable because the electrical resistance causes heating in the electrolyte liquid and therefore evaporation and secondary problems.), we would then need 4,400,000 seconds of the process to generate one pound of hydrogen. This is around FIFTY DAYS of using up a constant ten amps of electrical power, just to generate one pound of hydrogen gas. (And this calculation is counting on perfect equipment and not the REAL devices discussed above!) See one of the big problems that everyone seems to try to ignore? Why can't people actually be HONEST with the public about such things? (You might also guess that you would have to pay actual money for all that electricity you needed!)
There is a more technical name for this relationship. It is called the Electrochemical Equivalent. For hydrogen, one can look up that value in many reference books, as being 12,062.183 ampere-hours per pound. One can easily see that at a rate of ten amps, the 1206 hours is slightly over 50 days, as noted just above. With actual existing equipment, around 250 days of continuous use and consumption of a lot of electricity, just to produce that one pound of Hydrogen.
People who promote hydrogen seem to imply that by simply snapping one's fingers, all sorts of hydrogen can be obtained! Note these comments and calculations just above had assumed that all equipment was perfectly efficient, which is never even close to being true in real life. YES, they are technically correct that you could take a glass of water from your kitchen tap and generate hydrogen gas from it by electrolysis, which might then be used as fuel in a vehicle. But see that they have sort of left a LOT of important details out?
I didn't write this, but read on:
More than a century ago, Michael Faraday discovered many of the basic facts of electricity. One of them is that it is possible to use electricity to chemically separate the elements of some compounds. He discovered (in what is now called one of Faraday's Laws) that it took 96,501 international Coulombs (or one Faraday) of electricity to pass through an electrolyte to chemically alter one gram equivalent weight. Since Hydrogen has atomic mass 1, this means that 96,501 Coulombs of electricity must be passed through an electrolyte (in this case, usually water) to release ONE gram of Hydrogen from the water! One ampere is defined as one Coulomb per second. This means that we need to use ONE AMPERE of for 96,501 seconds (over 26 continuous hours) to generate ONE GRAM of Hydrogen gas! To generate ONE POUND of hydrogen, we are talking around 44 million ampere-seconds of electricity! At ten amperes passing through the electrolyte (more is not really desirable because the electrical resistance causes heating in the electrolyte liquid and therefore evaporation and secondary problems.), we would then need 4,400,000 seconds of the process to generate one pound of hydrogen. This is around FIFTY DAYS of using up a constant ten amps of electrical power, just to generate one pound of hydrogen gas. (And this calculation is counting on perfect equipment and not the REAL devices discussed above!) See one of the big problems that everyone seems to try to ignore? Why can't people actually be HONEST with the public about such things? (You might also guess that you would have to pay actual money for all that electricity you needed!)
There is a more technical name for this relationship. It is called the Electrochemical Equivalent. For hydrogen, one can look up that value in many reference books, as being 12,062.183 ampere-hours per pound. One can easily see that at a rate of ten amps, the 1206 hours is slightly over 50 days, as noted just above. With actual existing equipment, around 250 days of continuous use and consumption of a lot of electricity, just to produce that one pound of Hydrogen.
People who promote hydrogen seem to imply that by simply snapping one's fingers, all sorts of hydrogen can be obtained! Note these comments and calculations just above had assumed that all equipment was perfectly efficient, which is never even close to being true in real life. YES, they are technically correct that you could take a glass of water from your kitchen tap and generate hydrogen gas from it by electrolysis, which might then be used as fuel in a vehicle. But see that they have sort of left a LOT of important details out?
That same type of system was done in the mid 70's, neighbor had one on his car and truck, he had some issues with the octane, but i can't recall what damage if any it caused.
Don
Don
QUOTE(JumpJunky @ Jun 11 2008, 05:08 PM)
Guys - there are no free rides in physics or specifically - BTU's of energy for fuels. What you're doing here is creating a chemical reaction between the water and baking soda - giving off hydrogen. However, it takes much more electricity (energy) to break the bond of the H2O than exists in the smallest molecule in existance (H - which is 1 on the periodic chart).
I didn't write this, but read on:
More than a century ago, Michael Faraday discovered many of the basic facts of electricity. One of them is that it is possible to use electricity to chemically separate the elements of some compounds. He discovered (in what is now called one of Faraday's Laws) that it took 96,501 international Coulombs (or one Faraday) of electricity to pass through an electrolyte to chemically alter one gram equivalent weight. Since Hydrogen has atomic mass 1, this means that 96,501 Coulombs of electricity must be passed through an electrolyte (in this case, usually water) to release ONE gram of Hydrogen from the water! One ampere is defined as one Coulomb per second. This means that we need to use ONE AMPERE of for 96,501 seconds (over 26 continuous hours) to generate ONE GRAM of Hydrogen gas! To generate ONE POUND of hydrogen, we are talking around 44 million ampere-seconds of electricity! At ten amperes passing through the electrolyte (more is not really desirable because the electrical resistance causes heating in the electrolyte liquid and therefore evaporation and secondary problems.), we would then need 4,400,000 seconds of the process to generate one pound of hydrogen. This is around FIFTY DAYS of using up a constant ten amps of electrical power, just to generate one pound of hydrogen gas. (And this calculation is counting on perfect equipment and not the REAL devices discussed above!) See one of the big problems that everyone seems to try to ignore? Why can't people actually be HONEST with the public about such things? (You might also guess that you would have to pay actual money for all that electricity you needed!)
There is a more technical name for this relationship. It is called the Electrochemical Equivalent. For hydrogen, one can look up that value in many reference books, as being 12,062.183 ampere-hours per pound. One can easily see that at a rate of ten amps, the 1206 hours is slightly over 50 days, as noted just above. With actual existing equipment, around 250 days of continuous use and consumption of a lot of electricity, just to produce that one pound of Hydrogen.
People who promote hydrogen seem to imply that by simply snapping one's fingers, all sorts of hydrogen can be obtained! Note these comments and calculations just above had assumed that all equipment was perfectly efficient, which is never even close to being true in real life. YES, they are technically correct that you could take a glass of water from your kitchen tap and generate hydrogen gas from it by electrolysis, which might then be used as fuel in a vehicle. But see that they have sort of left a LOT of important details out?
I didn't write this, but read on:
More than a century ago, Michael Faraday discovered many of the basic facts of electricity. One of them is that it is possible to use electricity to chemically separate the elements of some compounds. He discovered (in what is now called one of Faraday's Laws) that it took 96,501 international Coulombs (or one Faraday) of electricity to pass through an electrolyte to chemically alter one gram equivalent weight. Since Hydrogen has atomic mass 1, this means that 96,501 Coulombs of electricity must be passed through an electrolyte (in this case, usually water) to release ONE gram of Hydrogen from the water! One ampere is defined as one Coulomb per second. This means that we need to use ONE AMPERE of for 96,501 seconds (over 26 continuous hours) to generate ONE GRAM of Hydrogen gas! To generate ONE POUND of hydrogen, we are talking around 44 million ampere-seconds of electricity! At ten amperes passing through the electrolyte (more is not really desirable because the electrical resistance causes heating in the electrolyte liquid and therefore evaporation and secondary problems.), we would then need 4,400,000 seconds of the process to generate one pound of hydrogen. This is around FIFTY DAYS of using up a constant ten amps of electrical power, just to generate one pound of hydrogen gas. (And this calculation is counting on perfect equipment and not the REAL devices discussed above!) See one of the big problems that everyone seems to try to ignore? Why can't people actually be HONEST with the public about such things? (You might also guess that you would have to pay actual money for all that electricity you needed!)
There is a more technical name for this relationship. It is called the Electrochemical Equivalent. For hydrogen, one can look up that value in many reference books, as being 12,062.183 ampere-hours per pound. One can easily see that at a rate of ten amps, the 1206 hours is slightly over 50 days, as noted just above. With actual existing equipment, around 250 days of continuous use and consumption of a lot of electricity, just to produce that one pound of Hydrogen.
People who promote hydrogen seem to imply that by simply snapping one's fingers, all sorts of hydrogen can be obtained! Note these comments and calculations just above had assumed that all equipment was perfectly efficient, which is never even close to being true in real life. YES, they are technically correct that you could take a glass of water from your kitchen tap and generate hydrogen gas from it by electrolysis, which might then be used as fuel in a vehicle. But see that they have sort of left a LOT of important details out?
That is the textbook answer and in-fact, the Professor from Notre Dame's Engineering dept. was skeptical on it as well. It still doesn't account for the increase in MPG that I have.
QUOTE(XCR1250 @ Jun 11 2008, 05:17 PM)
That same type of system was done in the mid 70's, neighbor had one on his car and truck, he had some issues with the octane, but i can't recall what damage if any it caused.
Don
Don
Damage can occur it the engine is running too lean.
QUOTE(BigX @ Jun 11 2008, 04:05 PM)
How long do the jars last? Is it a tank of gas then fill your mixture?
qt sized jars are going approx 8 driving hrs in buds S-10 with V-6,, this with approx 7/8 capacity so as not to allow overflowage (spillage) of foam, but not letting it go lower than 3/4"-1" from bottom of jar either (hope this helps), not really mpq, but hpq (hours per quart)
QUOTE(shempsledder @ Jun 11 2008, 05:26 PM)
That is the textbook answer and in-fact, the Professor from Notre Dame's Engineering dept. was skeptical on it as well. It still doesn't account for the increase in MPG that I have.
You're leaned the engine out! ECU's are programmed for every conceivable driving condition. Unfortunately, this doesn't always translate to the leanest, most optimum condition for typical driving.
If it were as easy to add a bottle of water and baking soda - it would have been done LONG ago. Why would the manufacturers be working on fuel cell, hybrids, electric, etc?
QUOTE(JumpJunky @ Jun 11 2008, 05:43 PM)
You're leaned the engine out! ECU's are programmed for every conceivable driving condition. Unfortunately, this doesn't always translate to the leanest, most optimum condition for typical driving.
If it were as easy to add a bottle of water and baking soda - it would have been done LONG ago. Why would the manufacturers be working on fuel cell, hybrids, electric, etc?
If it were as easy to add a bottle of water and baking soda - it would have been done LONG ago. Why would the manufacturers be working on fuel cell, hybrids, electric, etc?
because most folks have a hard enough time filling their cars with gas at the pumps,, can you imagine a less than qualified individual trying to run something as "fragile" (for lack of better term) as this set up? what with the knowledge and attn to detail and regularity it requires? IMHO, it would quickly turn into a clusterf**k for many
QUOTE(C-notesnopro @ Jun 11 2008, 05:48 PM)
because most folks have a hard enough time filling their cars with gas at the pumps,, can you imagine a less than qualified individual trying to run something as "fragile" (for lack of better term) as this set up? what with the knowledge and attn to detail and regularity it requires? IMHO, it would quickly turn into a clusterf**k for many
Well, similar type of maintenance is required in Europe and is coming here VERY soon. I happen to be working on an SCR (Selective Catalyst Reduction) program with 2 of the Detroit 3. It's called BlueTec in Europe.
There's a tank of Urea and Ammonia mixture (about 5 gallons) in the vehicle. This mixture is injected into the exhaust before the Cat and helps complete the burn - reducing emissions.
Like your 'fragile' system - it cannot freeze and requires the user to add this mixture (predicted to be about every oil-change interval).
So, your theory of the OEM's wanting to 'idiot proof' these systems is not valid.
Read more here:
http://www4.mercedes-benz.com/specials/scr...ex_nocom_en.htm
QUOTE(shempsledder @ Jun 11 2008, 04:28 PM)
Damage can occur it the engine is running too lean.
I just remember the guy and one of his sons were mechanical engineers, it was a long time ago, but I remember his car started on fire from something which didn't function right, shortly after he removed the system from his truck. I do recall he said he got slightly better mileage when he used it.
Don
QUOTE(XCR1250 @ Jun 11 2008, 06:57 PM)
I just remember the guy and one of his sons were mechanical engineers, it was a long time ago, but I remember his car started on fire from something which didn't function right, shortly after he removed the system from his truck. I do recall he said he got slightly better mileage when he used it.
Don
Don
Yeah - flammable hydrogen gas underhood? No surprise there! lol
QUOTE(JumpJunky @ Jun 11 2008, 05:54 PM)
Well, similar type of maintenance is required in Europe and is coming here VERY soon. I happen to be working on an SCR (Selective Catalyst Reduction) program with 2 of the Detroit 3. It's called BlueTec in Europe.
There's a tank of Urea and Ammonia mixture (about 5 gallons) in the vehicle. This mixture is injected into the exhaust before the Cat and helps complete the burn - reducing emissions.
Like your 'fragile' system - it cannot freeze and requires the user to add this mixture (predicted to be about every oil-change interval).
So, your theory of the OEM's wanting to 'idiot proof' these systems is not valid.
Read more here:
http://www4.mercedes-benz.com/specials/scr...ex_nocom_en.htm
There's a tank of Urea and Ammonia mixture (about 5 gallons) in the vehicle. This mixture is injected into the exhaust before the Cat and helps complete the burn - reducing emissions.
Like your 'fragile' system - it cannot freeze and requires the user to add this mixture (predicted to be about every oil-change interval).
So, your theory of the OEM's wanting to 'idiot proof' these systems is not valid.
Read more here:
http://www4.mercedes-benz.com/specials/scr...ex_nocom_en.htm
You seem to have a knowledge of the automotive industury and without getting into a debate I have a question for you. Do you remember back in the 70's when there were guys out there making 80 MPG carbs? What ever happen to them? Did they get bought out by the oil companies or car companies? And a follow up question, why are the car manufactures draging their feet on more fuel efficient systems if they were conceved so many years ago? It may seem to the lehman that there all in co-hoots together.
QUOTE(shempsledder @ Jun 11 2008, 07:12 PM)
You seem to have a knowledge of the automotive industury and without getting into a debate I have a question for you. Do you remember back in the 70's when there were guys out there making 80 MPG carbs? What ever happen to them? Did they get bought out by the oil companies or car companies? And a follow up question, why are the car manufactures draging their feet on more fuel efficient systems if they were conceved so many years ago? It may seem to the lehman that there all in co-hoots together.
I work in the auto industry with all of the OEM's. (I also work with a few sled makers as well) We work our butts off trying to make cars lighter, more efficient, safer, and last longer (although, that's a whole other discussion). I happen to work on both powertrain and interior products.
While working on my Mechanical Engineering degree, I took several undergrad classes in Internal Combustion Engines.
Right now, there is EXTREME pressure on the OEM's to get better mileage (CAFE standards are going up again). The conspiracy theories otherwise are just bunk. OEM's are spending BILLIONS (With a B) trying to improve mileage to meet these standards. (we also see this in the sled industry). This spending is putting a hurting on profits. The OEM's would LOVE a 'magic bullet' and put the R & D money either in the bank or toward other things.
The 80mpg carb? No such thing. Wonder why you don't see carbs in sleds or cars anymore? They're not NEARLY as efficient as fuel injection. With electronic fuel inspection, one can meter fuel pulse precisely and give the engine what it needs to run. Whereas a carb is basically a venturi mixing bowl.
Like everyone, I wish there were an easy answer. In my mind, hybrids are gimmicks. The cost to replace batteries far outweighs the $ saved in fuel. Diesels are getting better and quieter every day. Electric cars could also be viable for short-range driving - as long as we have more nuclear powered electric plants. Otherwise, all we're doing is shifting our fossil fuel burn.
QUOTE(JumpJunky @ Jun 11 2008, 07:18 PM)
Like everyone, I wish there were an easy answer. In my mind, hybrids are gimmicks. The cost to replace batteries far outweighs the $ saved in fuel. Diesels are getting better and quieter every day. Electric cars could also be viable for short-range driving - as long as we have more nuclear powered electric plants. Otherwise, all we're doing is shifting our fossil fuel burn.
I agree on the hybrids, VW has been making 50+MPG TDI's over 10 years now, the best gasser is in the mid 30'sMPG even the hybrids are only low to mid 40's. Problem with everyone shifting to hybrids and electric almost $1 gallon is Fed/State and State sales tax, if too many switch to hybrids and electrics the taxes will increase driving the cost of fuel up even more or there will need to be another tax?
It is illegal to burn Bio-diesel in some states and others have a limit with out paying road tax, seems they need to also tap the hybrids and electrics for more road tax making them even more unattractive.
QUOTE(jjlrrw @ Jun 11 2008, 10:14 PM)
I agree on the hybrids, VW has been making 50+MPG TDI's over 10 years now, the best gasser is in the mid 30'sMPG even the hybrids are only low to mid 40's. Problem with everyone shifting to hybrids and electric almost $1 gallon is Fed/State and State sales tax, if too many switch to hybrids and electrics the taxes will increase driving the cost of fuel up even more or there will need to be another tax?
It is illegal to burn Bio-diesel in some states and others have a limit with out paying road tax, seems they need to also tap the hybrids and electrics for more road tax making them even more unattractive.
It is illegal to burn Bio-diesel in some states and others have a limit with out paying road tax, seems they need to also tap the hybrids and electrics for more road tax making them even more unattractive.
AGREED on all of your points.
Lots of good comments in this thread. I too work in this field.
One of the things to remember in making these mods to an existing design, is that they can result in improvements, but, those who do it may not be complying with all federal/state laws for emissions.
Another thing to remember is that it often happens that those who are the closest to the science, often miss innovations that are stumbled on by those who "didn't know it couldn't be done". This is not intended to insult those in the science, but is intended to open everyone's eyes to POSSIBILITIES that might otherwise be overlooked. AS SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE THINGS THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE BY OTHERS, INCLUDING ENGINEERS, I COULD WRITE AN ENCYLOPEDIA ON THIS SUBJECT.
The internal combustion engine is a very complex piece of machinery in which a lot of the efforts in the OEMs is aimed at emissions reductions. Great strides have been made here. But, complexity has increased. Unfortunately, with today's fuel prices, MPG is now the BIGGEST concern for OEMS.
A 17 year GM fuel systems engineer once told me that in those 17 years, he had never been able to increase fuel efficiency, hp, and reduce emissions simultaneously. I've done all three! He was astonished and amazed.
The secret is partially in accomplishing a better, FASTER, more complete burn in the combustion process. Keep in mind, that about 75% of the heat energy available in fuel is lost into the exhaust and coolant systems.
Hydrogen has a burn rate that's very fast. And a heat value that's among the highest of all fuels. And, the product from combustion is H2O. Those are clues! Hydrogen is actually "liberated" during the extreme heat of the combustion process of HC fuels. How about using that wasted heat and accoustic energy normally untapped/lost for liberating Hydrogen just prior to entering the combustion chamber. Stand by for major improvements centered around the use of HYDROGEN. IMO, all other forms of energy, except nuclear, are a waste of time and energy to explore.
Phil
One of the things to remember in making these mods to an existing design, is that they can result in improvements, but, those who do it may not be complying with all federal/state laws for emissions.
Another thing to remember is that it often happens that those who are the closest to the science, often miss innovations that are stumbled on by those who "didn't know it couldn't be done". This is not intended to insult those in the science, but is intended to open everyone's eyes to POSSIBILITIES that might otherwise be overlooked. AS SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE THINGS THOUGHT IMPOSSIBLE BY OTHERS, INCLUDING ENGINEERS, I COULD WRITE AN ENCYLOPEDIA ON THIS SUBJECT.
The internal combustion engine is a very complex piece of machinery in which a lot of the efforts in the OEMs is aimed at emissions reductions. Great strides have been made here. But, complexity has increased. Unfortunately, with today's fuel prices, MPG is now the BIGGEST concern for OEMS.
A 17 year GM fuel systems engineer once told me that in those 17 years, he had never been able to increase fuel efficiency, hp, and reduce emissions simultaneously. I've done all three! He was astonished and amazed.
The secret is partially in accomplishing a better, FASTER, more complete burn in the combustion process. Keep in mind, that about 75% of the heat energy available in fuel is lost into the exhaust and coolant systems.
Hydrogen has a burn rate that's very fast. And a heat value that's among the highest of all fuels. And, the product from combustion is H2O. Those are clues! Hydrogen is actually "liberated" during the extreme heat of the combustion process of HC fuels. How about using that wasted heat and accoustic energy normally untapped/lost for liberating Hydrogen just prior to entering the combustion chamber. Stand by for major improvements centered around the use of HYDROGEN. IMO, all other forms of energy, except nuclear, are a waste of time and energy to explore.
Phil
QUOTE(shempsledder @ Jun 11 2008, 10:45 AM)
I paid 740.00 because I needed a new air filter but for trucks he charges 600 to 650.00 Cars are 400 to 450.00
Was there another air filter option? Ditch the K&N.....
QUOTE(stillsledless @ Jun 18 2008, 08:53 PM)
Was there another air filter option? Ditch the K&N.....
Not without butchering the OEM...
Why ditch it?
QUOTE(shempsledder @ Jun 21 2008, 12:49 AM)
Not without butchering the OEM...
Why ditch it?
Why ditch it?
There is potential that oil from the filter can get on your Mass Airflow Sensor (Ford calls it something different), and mess with any data sent from that sensor to the PCM. When I worked at a local Ford Store, we threw them in the trash if a used vehicle came in with one.
QUOTE(stillsledless @ Jun 23 2008, 06:53 PM)
There is potential that oil from the filter can get on your Mass Airflow Sensor (Ford calls it something different), and mess with any data sent from that sensor to the PCM. When I worked at a local Ford Store, we threw them in the trash if a used vehicle came in with one.
Are you referring to the cleaner spray bottle that came with it? You're supposed to use this spray on the filter...Is that right?
This system was on the net and reported on our local news as a scam man. Beware!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! There us also a site to download the directions for $59.95 and they are also on the scam list. Everytime fuel gets pricey, this shit comes out of the woodwork.
Don't say I didn't warn you. Good luck
Don't say I didn't warn you. Good luck
QUOTE(shempsledder @ Jun 24 2008, 02:06 PM)
Are you referring to the cleaner spray bottle that came with it? You're supposed to use this spray on the filter...Is that right?
It's a fiber filter that works only if it has oil in it. The problem I saw most was when people cleaned them they usually applied too too much new oil.
QUOTE(stillsledless @ Jun 26 2008, 09:39 PM)
It's a fiber filter that works only if it has oil in it. The problem I saw most was when people cleaned them they usually applied too too much new oil.
Yep, saw that, you gotta add it sparingly. Thanks Bud!
I spoke with someone that made their own system similar to this. His 1st report showed gains of about 4 mpg also. I need to call him and see how it's doing. How is your system doing Shempsledder? I see we live near each other. I wouldn't mind checking out that system sometime as I have been thinking of trying one on my Sonoma 4x4.
QUOTE(JumpJunky @ Jun 11 2008, 05:43 PM)
You're leaned the engine out! ECU's are programmed for every conceivable driving condition. Unfortunately, this doesn't always translate to the leanest, most optimum condition for typical driving.
If it were as easy to add a bottle of water and baking soda - it would have been done LONG ago. Why would the manufacturers be working on fuel cell, hybrids, electric, etc?
If it were as easy to add a bottle of water and baking soda - it would have been done LONG ago. Why would the manufacturers be working on fuel cell, hybrids, electric, etc?
I realize I do not possess the engineering degree as you do but I know a fair amount about cars and engines. First of all I doubt you can "lean out" an engine enough to get a 4 mpg increase in city driving. For instance, last year my girlfriends' 99 Jeep GC 4.0 had a what finally turned out to be a bad 02 sensor. It was not throwing a code so it went to three differant shops and nobody could fix it. The Jeep was SO lean that in engine warm-up it would act like it was running out of gas. It became drivable when it fully came up to temperature but it literally burned the tips off the plugs in about 4000 miles. (It took us that long to figure out what was wrong with it). When I finally figured out it was the O2 sensor (unplugged it one day and the Jeep ran normal, fixed it myself) and replaced it the Jeep now gets on the average of 1.5 mpg worse. I submit that you cannot lean out a gas engine enough to have a 4 mpg increase in CITY driving! It probably will not run!
Next example: Why don't you kindly explain to the nice folks in America what the "Lean Cruise" feature on many European GM ECU's.
http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showthread.php?p=84948
http://www.hptuners.com/forum/showthread.php?p=84948
I have spoke to people that have used it and they received about 2 mpg per gallon increase with STEADY HIGHWAY CRUISING ONLY!
So I submit that you cannot lean out a normal gas engine like Shemp's Ford and get a 4 MPG increase in CITY driving. Prove me wrong.
Wow. No response. 
QUOTE(QWK800 @ Jul 15 2008, 08:26 PM)
Wow. No response.
Sorry for not getting back with you sooner, it's been a busy summer. Please give me a call. A private message follows..
Take care.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.