How to Use Less Fuel (yet another HHO thread, lacking substantive evidence)

[greenfuelbooster]

I have tested this for more than a yr. I drive 320 miles almost every week since my work location is in Maryland but my house is in Richmond, VA. I logged my OBDII data using CarChip and wrote software to recreate the fuel map. The data showed no change in the AFR. That confirms less air means less fuel. Less fuel meant less engine power ... and I noticed that also. Hydroxy injection got some of that power back up to about 2200 RPM. I have been testing Hydroxy boosters since Aug 2008.

[user removed]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I'm interested in researching this in my TDI a little more. The gearing in 6th is very high and I have experimenting with lugging in a high gear with as little throttle as possible to maintain speed and going into a lower gear and doing the same.

I haven't come up with a complete answer, sometimes the higher gear is better and sometimes the lower one is. I do the same route and try different things but its a toss up as to which one wins.

How does BSFC work for this ?

Since your diesel is unthrottled and suffers no loss of compression that comes with manifold vacuum, the BSFC chart is much more broad and fairly consistent over a larger range of loads than my VX lean burn throttled gasoline engine. The two BSFC charts for those two very different engines would be a real contrast.

It may be your "complete answer" is that you have a much more flexible range of efficient engine power production to work with and your best choice is a lower gear that allows you to climb the grades in less time than a max load gradual slowdown in a higher gear ascending the same grade.

The difference in consumption would probably only become significant if your average speed was significantly lower in the higher gear. Depending on the length of climb on the grade, you might try approaching at a slightly higher speed and bleeding speed very gradually in a higher gear, but I would bet the overall mileage would not change significantly as long as the average speed was similar in your comparisons.

regards
Mech

[Baggage Handler #2]

I think it would reduce efficiency somewhat.
Here's why.
To put a restriction in the intake, it isn't going to matter a whole lot whether it is in front of or behind the MAF sensor. Either way, you have a pipe of diameter X that is getting necked down, then back up - creating a little venturi. In this, the air is getting accelerated across the throat of the venturi then decelerated again, also the pressures and temperatures are being forced to change artificially (albeit by very small amounts). This takes work - if it didn't we'd have a perpetual motion machine. This work comes from the engine.
It should be slightly less efficient than running at a reduced throttle setting because it is an additional obstruction, rather than a single obstruction.

Finally, a well done OBD suite will catch such an obstruction and flag it with a check engine light.

Interesting idea, though.

[mwebb]

Originally Posted by greenfuelbooster

I have tested this for more than a yr. I drive 320 miles almost every week since my work location is in Maryland but my house is in Richmond, VA. I logged my OBDII data using CarChip and wrote software to recreate the fuel map. The data showed no change in the AFR. That confirms less air means less fuel.

it looks like you have learned how to drive your car at peak efficiency , or closer to that than earlier testing .
no small feat in and of itself

but
you have not shown that there was less air flow ,
in fact since you have shown AFR was unchanged (if calculated load or injector pulse width was unchanged)
then you have shown air flow is UNchanged .

and you have completely ignored another variable
suction throttling loss
which is the variable that would benefit systems that really operate at high altitude
your modification does NOT change (for the better) or improve suction throttling loss

Less fuel meant less engine power ... and I noticed that also. Hydroxy injection got some of that power back up to about 2200 RPM. I have been testing Hydroxy boosters since Aug 2008.
HHO is waste of time and energy -
it can not work as claimed do to energy loss when one form of energy is used / converted to make another form .

but please tell me
why do you think it is not ? show your test results .

HHO is waste of time and energy -
it can not work as claimed do to energy loss when one form of energy is used / converted to make another form .

but please tell me
why do you think it is not ? show your test results .

[greenfuelbooster]

I am moderate hypermiler since Aug 2008 .... My max was only 40 MPG even though I tried to push it. Using this configuration I get at least 45 MPG all the time. The restriction after the MAF gets me 44 already but with less power. The hydroxy gas injection adds power and the rest of the MPG. If you are in the northern VA/DC/MD area we can drive the test route (central MD to central VA) so you can see

You might want to check this PhD study. This might probably explain the hydroxy side.
4shared - free file sharing and storage - share folder - My 4shared

[dcb]

before we go there, have a look here pls: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html

[Baggage Handler #2]

While I don't have any reason to doubt that your MPG is up from before, I don't think the reason is that the ECM was fooled.

The Mass Airflow Sensor tracks the air mass passing by it - pressure, temperature, volume, and presumably humidity are already accounted for by it. The location of a restriction upstream or downstream from it should not affect the mass of air passing it by.

In the sense that you no longer have a wide open throttle, it does in a way simulate altitude.

However, Boyle's law will not be denied and the restriction will require extra energy to compress, accelerate, decompress, and decelerate the intake air around it.

[greenfuelbooster]

I do not care what the technical reason is, the reality is that using the described setup I consistently and significantly increased to 45-50 MPG highway is what matters. And proving that hydrogen fuel can be easily generated from distilled water to recover lost power (while many people think it is scam) is enlightening.

[dcb]

You really have not put any effort into describing your methodology, so why should anyone believe it? How have you isolated the variables? How do you know it did anything? Cars get better mpg in the summer, for all we know that is what changed. You will have to be a lot more precise if you want to claim more mpg and expect to be believed.

BTW, distilled water is especially not easy to electrolosize.

[greenfuelbooster]

I thought I posted this link:


I wrote software to recreate the actual drive time fuel map from OBDII log that included speed, rpm, load, map, o2 values. I used CarChip to log OBDII data.