HHO Results ONLY... good or bad- this is not a thread for debate!

[crewcabwannabe]

....the amount of hydrogen/oxygen being put out amounts to less than 1% of the total air moving into the engine. Such a small amount does not require sensor changes to trick the computer to put in less fuel. That's where the scam comes in. You can trick the computer to put in less fuel with or without the hydrogen/oxygen gas input and the results are exactly the same..... Ok, well explained and I get it.. but it is in his 1st tank he says he got 20 mpg... and unless his computer adjusted itself (and maybe it did right away), he had not yet tried to manually trick the computer.. His ONLY change at that point was in fact adding the +1% hydrogen/oxygen (via his new HHO) to the mix, which seemingly upped the mileage.. It's not adding up. was his computer fighting itself by his 3rd tank? I wish someone running a carb would report.. whatever those results are, I think will be easier to understand what's happening.

[christcorp]

I have intention of trying HHO in my 66 mustang with a carb. I've been driving this car for years and I know exactly what the mileage is. It will take me a couple of weeks to get the HHO generator together; (I will build my own); but I definitely plan on trying it. Should be interesting.

[18vtx00]

Originally Posted by gryphon101

I am running a system that I made in my '92 F150 4x4 supercab. I feel I was getting terrible milage at 10.5. After putting a 2 liter system on it, and only that by itself, the truck's milage jumped to 20.5mpg with the first tank of gas. BUT... at the end of the next fillup, the milage dropped to just under my original. The O2 sensor was sending the signal to compensate for the added oxygen by adding more fuel... hmm... Now, after putting a MAP adjuster on it, to lower the voltage from the O2 sensor, thus leaning the fuel, I now get just under 20mpg! Having made my own generator, and buying the MAP sensor adjuster and a little O2 sensor extender (to pull the sensor out of the direct stream of exhaust) I have spent around $118. This is first hand experience. I know lots of guys will laugh, but while they're laughing, I'm getting better performance and milage... meaning money in my pocket! These are the results of learning from others on the net.

Sweet sounds like there may be hope yet. W/out all the bashing..I agree that fooling the MAP and O2's will lean the mixture and may cause slight pinging, but it would not run correctly and let alone run fine and then melt a piston. No way could you get 100% increase and a melted piston from altering the MAP..What do you have in you F150 that only gets 10.5MPG a 460?

[18vtx00]

Originally Posted by crewcabwannabe

from post 7 above...

.......I am running a system that I made in my '92 F150 4x4 supercab. I feel I was getting terrible milage at 10.5. After putting a 2 liter system on it, and only that by itself, the truck's milage jumped to 20.5mpg with the first tank of gas. BUT... at the end of the next fillup, the milage dropped to just under my original. The O2 sensor was sending...........

This is what mystifies me, and has me wondering about non-computer controlled engines (carbed motors like my '79). Why did gryphon realize a 9.5 mpg increase before his computer seemingly had a chance to adjust? -even the placebo effect shouldn't have given him THAT much?!? In that 1st tank, he shouldn't have been leaned out at the injectors, yet he saw a gain.... Admittedly, I just don't understand..

Thanks for sharing, and look forward to more results..

I will tell anyone that anytime you alter your fuel system or add and after market performance part you should reset the KAM(keep alive memory) It may have taken a bit of time for his PCM realize the changes. That is an older truck EEC-IV and as far as PCM controlled it is a dinosouar, sorry to say. The 96' and newer OBDII vehicles are much smarter and are MAF controlled so they have a "hot" wire to the PCM from the intake to measure the incoming air volume and upstream and downstream O2 sensors..it is hard to believe that w/ any system you could get almost a 100% increase, but that is is specs so we will accept them.

[18vtx00]

Originally Posted by FTE Ken

You don't run an engine leaner or richer depending on altitute. The stoichiometric ratio of gas always stays the same regardless of altitude. What does happen is less or more air is used in the combustion and the fuel used must be increased at the same time in order to maintain the same air/fuel ratio. Richer than 14.7 to 1 is considered to be a rich mixture, leaner than 14.7 to 1 is a lean mixture. 14.7 is the stoichiometric ratio for gasolene (approx., it varies by octane).

Stoichiometric ratio only changes in relation to the fuel used.

Now, back to the topi.... the amount of hydrogen/oxygen being put out amounts to less than 1% of the total air moving into the engine. Such a small amount does not require sensor changes to trick the computer to put in less fuel. That's where the scam comes in. You can trick the computer to put in less fuel with or without the hydrogen/oxygen gas input and the results are exactly the same.

So Ken, you are saying the HHO is the scam and the EFIE or MAP fooler is the way to go. They just get you to buy the kits and then you also need this to make it work? Makes sense, but I still have a hard time believing that a MAP fooler or relocating the O2's will give you great economy results.I guess I should try it on the 5.0l explorer??

[gryphon101]

Ok, I will have to agree that there may be something wrong with my engine, by the way is a 351 Win. It only gets 10.5 (tops). Buddy has same model truck with 300. He gets around 20mpg. As far as 'the scam'... I have already made my HHO system, have downloaded the schematics for a MAP (adjuster).... haven't given anybody any money yet. I can build the adjuster myself. The scammers aren't getting any of my money. Unbelievable as it sounds, even to me, my truck's milage JUMPED, and I mean off the scale, just by adding the HHO alone. And by the time my PCM picked up the signal, it got 20.5 mpg. Now, I don't want to burn a hole in a piston, but I am going to try to get that milage back. Since this thread is not a debate, I will continue to post my findings.

[18vtx00]

Originally Posted by gryphon101

Ok, I will have to agree that there may be something wrong with my engine, by the way is a 351 Win. It only gets 10.5 (tops). Buddy has same model truck with 300. He gets around 20mpg. As far as 'the scam'... I have already made my HHO system, have downloaded the schematics for a MAP (adjuster).... haven't given anybody any money yet. I can build the adjuster myself. The scammers aren't getting any of my money. Unbelievable as it sounds, even to me, my truck's milage JUMPED, and I mean off the scale, just by adding the HHO alone. And by the time my PCM picked up the signal, it got 20.5 mpg. Now, I don't want to burn a hole in a piston, but I am going to try to get that milage back. Since this thread is not a debate, I will continue to post my findings.

I had a 351W In my 89 F250 and that damn truck never got over 12MPG and no power either. If you can get that kind of mileage out of it, I hope it has more power than mine. I even put a reman long block in her and still no difference. I should just got a 460ci, than at least I would have had the power to go w/ the poor economy.Good for the HHO!!

[gryphon101]

Oh, I also got another idea from a buddy in MO about something he thought of doing. Sounded great to me. You see, there is alot of atomization going on inside the generator itself, in the electrolyte. My atomization fills the entire amount of electrolyte. Many are saying that the top half of their electrolyte is atomization. So, this buddy suggested a theory of getting more volume to the intake of my engine by adding a tube, preferably stainless, maybe plastic, drown through the top of my generator to the bottom of my electrolyte, suspending it just a bit from the bottom of the unit, and sticking out the top of the lid. Then run one of the vacuum lines (through) the unit and back up to the vacuum tree. Instead of pumping the hydrogen/oxygen to the intake once the generator got to enough pressure, the gases would basically be pulled right in, right at startup, not around 7 minutes down the road. Might try that and let you know any improvement or not. Haven't seen that on youtube, yet....

[gryphon101]

Originally Posted by 18vtx00

I had a 351W In my 89 F250 and that damn truck never got over 12MPG and no power either. If you can get that kind of mileage out of it, I hope it has more power than mine. I even put a reman long block in her and still no difference. I should just got a 460ci, than at least I would have had the power to go w/ the poor economy.Good for the HHO!!

That's what I don't like about this truck, also. Doesn't seem to have enough power to get it moving, not like what I'd think it should have, anyway. My buddy's truck (same model) with the 300 just gets up and goes, peels it's tires.... also pulls anything we put behind it, with amazing power for what I'd expect from a smaller motor than mine. For me, it's good to know that someone else gets 'terrible' milage with their 351W, too.

[18vtx00]

Originally Posted by gryphon101

Oh, I also got another idea from a buddy in MO about something he thought of doing. Sounded great to me. You see, there is alot of atomization going on inside the generator itself, in the electrolyte. My atomization fills the entire amount of electrolyte. Many are saying that the top half of their electrolyte is atomization. So, this buddy suggested a theory of getting more volume to the intake of my engine by adding a tube, preferably stainless, maybe plastic, drown through the top of my generator to the bottom of my electrolyte, suspending it just a bit from the bottom of the unit, and sticking out the top of the lid. Then run one of the vacuum lines (through) the unit and back up to the vacuum tree. Instead of pumping the hydrogen/oxygen to the intake once the generator got to enough pressure, the gases would basically be pulled right in, right at startup, not around 7 minutes down the road. Might try that and let you know any improvement or not. Haven't seen that on youtube, yet....

I tried it w/ and w/out vacuum and will not work. try it for yourself so you can see, that is how I am convinced on certain ideas like this. Look at it for a while then try something new until it works or it doesn't work.You need pressure in the jar to make the gas push upwards towards the gas output hose.I do recommend a drier jar though.

[18vtx00]

Originally Posted by gryphon101

That's what I don't like about this truck, also. Doesn't seem to have enough power to get it moving, not like what I'd think it should have, anyway. My buddy's truck (same model) with the 300 just gets up and goes, peels it's tires.... also pulls anything we put behind it, with amazing power for what I'd expect from a smaller motor than mine. For me, it's good to know that someone else gets 'terrible' milage with their 351W, too.

I would get another 300?I-6 but not a 351CI in a truck..they have no balls or economy..The 300 has more low end and can get 16MPG so what's the point of the 351ci?? I did everything to that, timing, new engine,exhaust, intake..no balls..same engine no matter what in that yr truck.

[gryphon101]

You may be right about the idea of adding the tube to the canister. The hydrogen dissipates VERY quickly once it hits air. In my test setup in the garage, hose from canister ran into a bucket of water, creating bubbles, and trying to ignite them was hard to do, if only a little bit. BUT add a little dishsoap to the bucket, and spark an igniter to the bubbles, WATCH OUT! I thought the sheetrock from the ceiling of my garage was gonna fall off. Very loud, boom. Not a crack sound, but a VERY loud BOOM! I'd be afraid if I came up with a way to fill a vacuum container with the resulting gas from my generator.

[18vtx00]

Originally Posted by gryphon101

You may be right about the idea of adding the tube to the canister. The hydrogen dissipates VERY quickly once it hits air. In my test setup in the garage, hose from canister ran into a bucket of water, creating bubbles, and trying to ignite them was hard to do, if only a little bit. BUT add a little dishsoap to the bucket, and spark an igniter to the bubbles, WATCH OUT! I thought the sheetrock from the ceiling of my garage was gonna fall off. Very loud, boom. Not a crack sound, but a VERY loud BOOM! I'd be afraid if I came up with a way to fill a vacuum container with the resulting gas from my generator.

I have been bench testing and you will definetly need a drier. I run the gas hos to a "T" and then directly to the bottom of the drier, then just the gas hose only protrudes into the drier about a1/4". let me know how it goes-PM if you like.

[FTE Ken]

Originally Posted by 18vtx00

So Ken, you are saying the HHO is the scam and the EFIE or MAP fooler is the way to go. They just get you to buy the kits and then you also need this to make it work? Makes sense, but I still have a hard time believing that a MAP fooler or relocating the O2's will give you great economy results.I guess I should try it on the 5.0l explorer??

I am saying HHO is a scam and a fooler is not the way to go. Tricking the engine to run leaner will eventually burn the valves and risk damaging the piston crowns, or worse, holing the piston complete. Short term gain for long term damage... bad idea.

I can simulate through tuning the same thing by leaning out fuel and increase economy significantly but that's not a good idea. Changing EGR, timing, tip-in bobble, and minor changes to fuel ratio is the safe way to go.

Have any of you folks looked at the back-ground of the water4gas guy? He's a scam-artist.

[doug02]

We run cargo vans about 50,000 miles per year each, so we are interested in any fuel saving device that comes out. Rather than making one i decided to try a kit. First kit consisted of quart jar, plastic tower with stainless wire wraped around it cost $100.00 we installed on van #19.
pulled miles and fuel Before hho 5337 miles------452 gallon gas= 11.8 mpg.
after installing hho 3362 miles-----304 gallon gas= 11.0 mpg
At this point the plastic towers that hold the wire had broke and unit quit working.
We decided to try another unit that was larger, so i ordered one from performance alley, 3 cell unit cost of kit $776.97, we installed on van #11.
This kit was to large to fit in engine compartment, so i made a case for it and installed it on back side of devider. There was no instructions with this kit and the tec support number just goes to recording, it does no good to leave message as they don't return calls. First time engine was started it broke 2 of the cells and run 2 gallon of water on van floor. Tried to call performance alley every day for a week but no answer and thay would not call back. They finaly answered email and said manufurer said it sounded like it had been hooked to vacuum, and their kits can't use vacuum.
At this point i decided the kits were scams, but i wanted to see if a larger hho system would work, so i made one with a gallon jar ond installed it in van #11. before hho 4975 miles------442 gallon =11.2mpg
after hho test run 67.6 miles ------4.7 gallon =14.3mpg
first trip 387.2 miles------11.9 gallon = 11.9mpg
can clear memory on pcm and get 20% increase on fuel millage, !st trip but pcm will just relearn and it's back to normal mpg.

I installed a o2 extender but this is a heated o2 so i don't think moving it out would do any good. i'm going to try to get between the o2 and pcm with a enhancer. From my experence the kits are a scam, but there may be something to the hho theroy if pcm can be tricked without damaging engine, but i would not be suprised if we have valve or piston problems if we get pcm tricked. Sorry for the long winded report.