HHO Results ONLY... good or bad- this is not a thread for debate!
For those few brave enough to have installed these Hydrogen Generators, please speak up and post your results on this thread- good, bad, or break even. Where did you buy your kit? How much $$? Make it yourself- how? Was it hard to install? Is your truck's computer a problem? Would you do it again? To another vehicle? Do you have your friends and family doing it/not doing it? Please just give your results and impressions...
IF YOU HAVE NOT INSTALLED AN HHO AND JUST WANT TO HATE AND SHOW US HOW SMART YOU ARE, GO AWAY!
The diesel guys are solving their problem with used cooking oil (who knew? go ask them about making $1.25/gal fuel), Many, Many of us are here to seek a cost effective solution for running our gassers, and all some of you want to do is poo poo the effort.. I know nothing, you know everything; I'm PERFECTLY WILLING to waste my money on what you're too smart to try, again, confirming how brilliant you truly are...
If you're not running an HHO, leave this thread alone, PLEASE! No debates, just results.
Trust me, there are MANY members that are migrating to this 'alternative fuels' forum on FTE to save our passion, a truck that is becoming too expensive to own and operate. My 53 F100 street rod got 12mpg, and my current 79 crew 460 gets 10mpg.. I'm fed up, desperate, and don't want to downsize out of my very rare and special Ford- remember, although I'm quite stupid, I don't want to sell my truck!... We've been waiting for months to get these HHO guys to post up and share results- please let them inform us without suffering a group-mob mentality
Hydrogen pioneers- as a Ford Truck Enthusiast and new HHO engineer , share what you know in the hopes that we can learn from you, whatever the results may be.
sorry to post this since I run a diesel and not HHO...
all I can say is after doing a lot of research on it is there are a lot of fleets making this conversion. Most pro installers seem to be backlogged with fleet work. Service companies (AC, plumbing, etc) seem to be jumping on this with decent results. I agree with you that unless you have done it you should not comment but I thought it might be OK since I had a little knowledge of who was doing it. The company I looked at charged $6000 I believe and his car went from 28 to 53 MPG (verified by a media organization). He was backlogged six months with fleet trucks.
2005 F-250 King Ranch 4x4 6.0 Diesel
2000 Eddie Bauer Expedition
my other Ford is my true baby
Mastercraft ProStar 190
Indmar Ford 351
A fine post stuartmcnair- thanks for sharing.. constructive and insightful.. good stuff so long as this quest for real-world experiences doesn't spiral into one of those "I know everything" threads that helps no one.
The company I looked at charged $6000 I believe and his car went from 28 to 53 MPG (verified by a media organization)...
Verified by a "media organization"? Lets hear first hand results from the drivers themselves, with the method for determining mileage. The problem is that anyone who has paid money for something that does not work is not likely to admit to it.
Not open for debate... Jimandmandy, please subscribe to this thread and wait for results from THOSE WHO HAVE THE UNIT ON THEIR TRUCK. It is not their job to measure with your yardstick, or anyone elses... I (we) just want to know what OWNERS of the device think about it and it's performance (or lack thereof). I hope this is where they can come and say "I have it, I've used it, it's a scam, it doesn't work, don't buy it, and here's why...."
Just maybe they will have a good experience, and they can share what might simply be "I don't know why, but my 12mpg has become 16mpg, and I'm happy with the product..."
Either way, I (we) came to alternative fuels for solutions, not a fight... I don't want to sort through 7 pages of one upsmanship and puffery to dig out the occassional nugget of what I (we) are trying to get, and that is, does this device work FOR THOSE WHO ARE USING IT.
This is a GREAT, timely link Ken! I wish he would have run a few tanks of gas on the road, or at least on the dyno, but it's the direction I was hoping this thread would go.... I wonder if the test results will vary much for us old school carburetor guys that don't have to 'fool' a computer?...
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.
Making MAP adjustments is going to lean out the air/fuel ratio with or without HHO. Lean out the fuel that much and you're asking to burn a valve, or under the right circumstances, hole a piston.
This is what I'm learning from others, also. A BIG consideration. The ScanGauge II is handy for on the road diagnostics. I do believe there is area of a few degrees toward lean that the engine can afford, thus not helping out the ones who regulate the air/fuel ratio, like oil companies, but you don't want to hurt your engine either.
.......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..
Running "Lean" is only in perspective to the capability of burning gasoline in proportion to burning the oxygen in the air. If you change the burn capability of the oxygen; e.g. moving your car from Miami Florida (Sea Level) to Laramie Wyoming (7200 ft), then you need to change the adjustment of your fuel to air mixture. Whether this is done via mechanical adjustments on a carb, or via a computer/O2/etc... on a newer fuel injection vehicle; the concept is still the same. If you run the fuel "LEANER" or "Richer" because the air is more or less flammable, then there's no problem with burning the valves. Unless of course the heat temperature of the burn raises too high. But that's a different subject. It's only when you run the fuel Lean in PROPORTION to the air combustion capabilities.
In other words; saying a vehicle is running "TOO LEAN" is only in relationship to the air input. If that changes; because of Hydrogen, sea level/altitude/etc... then "Too Lean" or "Too Rich" will also change.
The Ford Family:
2000 Ford Focus - 143,000 miles
1994 Ford Explorer (4.0l V6) - 114.000 miles
1994 Ford F250 (460 V8) - 65,100 miles
1966 Ford Mustang (289 V8) - 141,200 miles
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.
This forum is owned and operated by Internet Brands, Inc., a Delaware corporation. It is not authorized or endorsed by the Ford Motor Company and is not affiliated with the Ford Motor Company or its related companies in any way. Ford® is a registered trademark of the Ford Motor Company.