Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > EcoModding Central
Register Now
 Register Now

Reply  Post New Thread
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 09-03-2014, 03:07 AM   #41 (permalink)
herp derp Apprentice
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Lawrence, KS
Posts: 1,049

Saturn-sold - '99 saturn sc1
Team Saturn
90 day: 28.28 mpg (US)

Yukon - '03 GMC Yukon Denali
90 day: 13.74 mpg (US)
Thanks: 43
Thanked 331 Times in 233 Posts
Rusty, might help if you could make a concise statement, then build on that. In your last 3 posts ,that are fairly lengthy, I only picked up on 2 points you were tring to make

First, t vago isn't doing everything nessesary to see a 30% gain. But I think he knows this and is testing the waters in a low cost build.

Second, you don't trust his data.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

Old 09-04-2014, 07:25 AM   #42 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
aardvarcus's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Evensville, TN
Posts: 676

Deep Blue - '94 GMC Suburban K2500 SLE
90 day: 23.75 mpg (US)

Griffin (T4R) - '99 Toyota 4Runner SR5
90 day: 25.43 mpg (US)
Thanks: 237
Thanked 578 Times in 321 Posts
I think everyone needs to calm down….

With regards to the original mod, good work. I especially like how you are only increasing the EGR by a percentage of what the engine commands, not by a set amount. When your engine asks for 0% at WOT, you are still supplying 0%, so maximum power should be largely unaffected.

There appears to be some prior hurt feelings spilling over into this thread on all sides, so I won’t comment on any of the follow on discussion.
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 09:10 AM   #43 (permalink)
Daox's Avatar
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Germantown, WI
Posts: 11,179

CM400E - '81 Honda CM400E
90 day: 51.49 mpg (US)

Daox's Grey Prius - '04 Toyota Prius
Team Toyota
90 day: 49.53 mpg (US)

Daox's Insight - '00 Honda Insight
90 day: 64.33 mpg (US)

Swarthy - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage DE
90 day: 56.69 mpg (US)
Thanks: 2,477
Thanked 2,546 Times in 1,536 Posts
I agree, we should stay calm. There is no reason we can not discuss a very interesting (IMO) topic without getting all bent out of shape.

Of course EGR isn't a magic bullet, and its certainly not the ultimate solution (as if there even is one, haha). But, it is proven to increase fuel efficiency. That is why I posted the SwRI testing because you claimed "increased EGR for economy gain is as much of fable and legend as HHO." This simply isn't true. OEMs are using EGR in production cars today to increase their fuel efficiency and keep emissions in check.

That all said, EGR has its benefits and its downsides. Yes, increasing EGR reduces BSFC and BMEP. But it also reduces pumping losses and allows you to optimize ignition timing under higher engine loads. These are all trade offs. So, you have to find the balance between the two. Its not like you just start pumping it in and bingo bango you got a 25% increase in FE. Just like all things engine related, it must be tuned.
Current project: A better alternator delete
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 12:42 PM   #44 (permalink)
MPGuino Supporter
t vago's Avatar
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,769

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary
Thanks: 802
Thanked 685 Times in 439 Posts
I didn't have a problem until HHOLugNut started posting his nonsense into my thread

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
That in itself has value.

So you have done some work that correlates what people have known for some time. Assuming your data is good. I am not saying it isn't. I am saying it can be suspect. And I have good reason to suspect it.
I suspect that you do not really have good reason to engage in a thoughtful discussion. If you were, you would not have compared apples to steaks, in order to sneer at my results to date.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
I suspect most of the HHO claims. But, I have inspected setups that defy reason. I suspect mileage claims on engines that fool with the modern OBD II systems. Often, the mileage gain is nothing more than the system reaction to changes in the sensor parameters and not so much the actual mod.
And I suspect any engine mod that requires extra generated work in order to gain a small amount of improvement. Same goes with mods that require working with dangerous/flammable/explosive additions.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
Do you have a data log of your EGR flow rate with correlation to intake pressure and throttle position? At what RPM?
Nope, for the simple reason that I did not at the time feel like spending several hundred dollars in gathering the necessary logging equipment to log OBD parameters. Even a smartphone with Torque and that nifty little Bluetooth adapter, you will have to admit, costs several hundred dollars. I simply did not see the need to expend money for said smartphone/Torque/OBD adapter solely for the purpose of logging OBD parameters, when my goal was to SAVE money by saving gas.

I did, however, decide that the best way to measure fuel consumption changes was by installing something that actually and directly measures fuel consumption, which is why the Karen-mobile now has an MPGuino installed. It's very likely the world's only LX car that has such a device installed. However, I can see that you a) would not understand that, and b) would likely just sneer at my fuel logs anyhow.

However, since I am now (reluctantly) part of the smartphone set, and I have in fact bought a Bluetooth adapter for use with Torque Pro (which I have installed), and I have in fact also installed the Track Recorder addon, I will be able to generate log csv files, and generate subtitled drives that will have this information, and will posted online for all the world to see.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
What is your O2 sensor output telling you?
I am curious as to how my O2 sensors are supposed to detect more inert gas being fed into the engine. Especially as they are of the OEM narrowband variety, which will pretty much only tell whether an engine is running too rich or too lean.

Perhaps you meant "long term fuel trim," instead. Who knows?

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
I have seen HHO proponents put a few cents worth of resistors and diodes on the O2 sensor output and run their engines lean of 18:1 AFR with no codes or apparent operating problems. It allows them to claim a 20% or so savings. Of course, with them, they claim it is all due to the HHO from their mason jar electrolyzer. But, why not? It works for you, it works for them. No harm done.
And then you go and smear me further by lumping in my work with that of these other HHO charlatans. Do you even understand how my modification works? No, you don't, do you?

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
Since it looks like you think your 7.7% gain is good, your work is done!
I like how you sneer at a 7.7% increase in fuel economy. That's better than using a grille block, better than using aero wheel covers, better than using a warm air intake, and better than using an underpan. The only thing that does better than 7.7% is an aero bedcap.

However, since you don't think that 7.7% is good, especially for an engine mod (!), I'll leave it to your oh-so-much-smarter self to enlighten us knuckledraggers as to what constitutes a "worthy" mod.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
You have hit the ceiling for this mod. Unless you think there is more. At that point, this needs to go in the Corral.
So sayeth HHOLugNut.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
And you want me to leave? I have provided you with better discussion than what you have posted in the Corral in subject matter you have no understanding in and yet you post empty and derogatory entries. Your posts are there for all to see. Unless you want to go back and delete them. They are numerous. Now you feel uncomfortable because I and others actually understand the subject and we are asking you questions with substance?
Deliberately mischaracterizing my work, and using unattainable goals to sneer at my results, does not equate to "understanding the subject."

Why not drag up some of my posts in which you claim I have no understanding, and show them (or their links) here? Let's go beyond your unsubstantiated smearing.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
Ok, I'll let you be. I'll leave you to your comfortable cocoon.
Still waiting...

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
By the way, I also own a 2005 Dodge Magnum R/T with the 5.7L Hemi and the NAG1 5 speed auto-stick. I take advantage of the 8-6-4 capabilities of the engine and regularly get 26-27 mpg, tank-to-tank on freeway trips at 61 mph or less, depending.
Big deal. I can do the same with my 3.5L Magnum with a 42LE, travelling at an average speed of 75 MPH down the highway. Once I get my 2.87 pumpkin installed, I'll likely see even better. And all that's WITHOUT using HHO or any of that other Unicorn Corral nonsense.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
The engine reverts to more cylinders at speeds over 62 mph. It seems to be torque needs that cause the break-over.
It's Chrysler attempting to make MDS (not the same at all as 8-6-4, BTW) appeal to every possible Magnum buyer.

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
By feeding HHO gas from an industrial electrolyzer into the 4 firing cylinders, I am able to see an increase in torque with a reduction in injector pulse width (fuel trim) along with the ability to stay in 4 cylinder mode up to 65 mph and an increase in fuel economy of . . .
And here we come to the heart of the matter - it's not that I can see a 7.7% increase in fuel economy, using gas pumped from the same pump at the same gas station, under reasonably similar travel conditions and driving similar distances. It's that people here sneer at anything HHO, including your outlandish claims, leading you to attack anyone else who has something that actually works!

Where is your own build thread?

Originally Posted by RustyLugNut View Post
Oh but this is your thread! I will post in another build thread. And I trust you will stay out of it? Right?
Question is - why did you not do this already? Why post your HHO nonsense in my thread?
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 12:43 PM   #45 (permalink)
Ol' Skooler
jcp123's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Tyler, TX
Posts: 1,176

Beater Echo - '00 Toyota Echo
90 day: 42.67 mpg (US)

Hondizzle - '97 Honda Civic DX
Team Honda
90 day: 46.55 mpg (US)
Thanks: 66
Thanked 198 Times in 169 Posts
I honestly don't know why everyone got so nasty on this one. Really very unbecoming of this site and very disappointing.

'97 Honda Civic DX Coupe 5MT
'00 Echo - dead 2/17
'14 Chrysler Town + Country - the better half's car
'67 Mustang Convertible - gone 1/17
  Reply With Quote
Old 09-04-2014, 01:39 PM   #46 (permalink)
Batman Junior
MetroMPG's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: 1000 Islands, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 22,373

Blackfly - '98 Geo Metro
Team Metro
Last 3: 70.09 mpg (US)

MPGiata - '90 Mazda Miata
90 day: 52.07 mpg (US)

Winter beater Metro - '00 Chevrolet Metro
90 day: 61.98 mpg (US)

Fancy Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 58.72 mpg (US)

Even Fancier Metro - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage top spec
90 day: 70.75 mpg (US)

Appliance car - '14 Mitsubishi Mirage ES (base)
90 day: 50.04 mpg (US)
Thanks: 3,916
Thanked 6,768 Times in 3,510 Posts
Agreed. We seem to go through patches here where people get their knickers all knotted up.

The tone of the back-and-forth sucks in this thread. And it takes two to tango.
Project MPGiata! Mods for getting 50+ MPG from a 1990 Miata
Honda mods: Ecomodding my $800 Honda Fit 5-speed beater
Mitsu mods: 70 MPG in my ecomodded, dirt cheap, 3-cylinder Mirage.
Ecodriving test: Manual vs. automatic transmission MPG showdown

has launched a forum for the efficient new Mitsubishi Mirage
www.MetroMPG.com - fuel efficiency info for Geo Metro owners
www.ForkenSwift.com - electric car conversion on a beer budget
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to MetroMPG For This Useful Post:
RustyLugNut (09-04-2014)
Old 09-04-2014, 01:57 PM   #47 (permalink)
Corporate imperialist
oil pan 4's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: NewMexico (USA)
Posts: 10,080

Sub - '84 Chevy Diesel Suburban C10
90 day: 19.5 mpg (US)

camaro - '85 Chevy Camaro Z28

Riot - '03 Kia Rio POS
Team Hyundai
90 day: 30.21 mpg (US)

Bug - '01 VW Beetle GLSturbo
90 day: 26.43 mpg (US)

Sub2500 - '86 GMC Suburban C2500
90 day: 11.95 mpg (US)

Snow flake - '11 Nissan Leaf SL
90 day: 141.63 mpg (US)
Thanks: 242
Thanked 3,259 Times in 2,568 Posts
Some people just really don't like HHO text pollution.
My self included.
HHO and similar super secret magic bullet pseudo science is cancer to the ecomodder community.
Because when you say that you want to, or that you have improved the fuel economy of your vehicle most regular people automatically assume you are one of those crazy HHO or magic black box users.

If you want to do HHO there are plenty of forums out there for the experimentation of HHO and other pseudo science.

This is the forum where the mods have some basis in proven science build upon known laws and well understood phenomena or at the very least taking an automotive industry idea and expanding or improve on it or taking an industrial energy saving concept and trying to apply it to a vehicle.

1984 chevy suburban, custom made 6.5L diesel turbocharged with a Garrett T76 and Holset HE351VE, 22:1 compression 13psi of intercooled boost.
1989 firebird mostly stock. Aside from the 6-speed manual trans, corvette gen 5 front brakes, 1LE drive shaft, 4th Gen disc brake fbody rear end.
2011 leaf SL, white, portable 240v CHAdeMO, trailer hitch, new batt as of 2014.
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to oil pan 4 For This Useful Post:
t vago (09-05-2014)
Reply  Post New Thread

Thread Tools

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com