|
I've experimented with "HHO" in the past and got improved fuel economy figures … but,
My early improvements were (I now believe) due to the cleaning properties of the "HHO" and water vapour, removing carbon deposits and freeing the piston rings.
I saw a drop from about 10 l/100k to about 9 l/100k after a few weeks, but the gain remained when the "HHO" was turned off.
To cut a long story short, I could eventually average around 7.4 l/100k.
That's a 35% improvement … but only 15% above EPA.
Some of that improvement came from mechanical servicing, replacing the CV's gave a noticeable boost, running increased ignition advance helped, most of the rest probably came from driving technique changes ( before I started on this site).
As much as I wanted "HHO" to work, it bothered me not knowing for sure what was giving me those figures. To that end, I started using "hypermiling" techniques to get the best figures I could without "HHO" use, to serve as a base figure for further testing.
The bottom line was, "HHO" couldn't improve my averaged fuel economy figures.
I'm not saying feeding an ICE with "HHO" can't give improvements. There were particular circumstances where I could plainly feel the difference between "HHO" on or off, but those circumstances were only a tiny percentage of my normal commute.
Please note, I've only tested on carburettor engines that have no sensors that need to be adjusted (and no longer have those vehicles). Adjusting sensors gives a whole new set of variables to be accounted for when deciding where any improvements have come from.
__________________
|