Old to fuel-saving New to here

[GeorgeWiseman]

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I love that body style and I'm fascinated by this truck.

Me too I only sold it because I got married and couldn't have my 'bachelor' truck reminding me of previous girls. That marriage didn't last and I miss that truck still.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Did you build it in '74?

I acquired it in 1974. It took a couple of years before I could totally rebuild it. At first, with the thrashed 352, it drank oil so bad I just poured used crankcase oil into it by the gallon. It had a knock which turned out to be a piston slapping the head because the crankshaft bearing was gone. You frankly wouldn't believe the piston warpage; I wouldn't if I hadn't seen it. I burned out two sets of clutch disks before I got a chance to rebuild and install the 361, because the engines power was so low I had to rev high and slip the clutch to get it going. By 1977 I had it rebuilt and doing the mileage I claimed. I did things with it no one believes when I tell them now. Yeah, I loved that truck, it never let me down.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

When it surprised the hot cars- going from 50 to 80mph in seconds- did you have to downshift or was it already in the sweet spot and all you had to do was floor it?

I just floored it. It was fun

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

I think you swapped that carb onto it- did that engine come with it? Besides the carb swap(?) and the low rear gears, were there any other mods or was the rest of it stock parts?

The 2150 Motorcraft carb came with the 361 engine, which must have been about a 1975. The engine came out of a commercial sized truck and had a 9 quart oilpan, which was a lot of fun when I went into those oil change shops and they started looking under the truck to see if the oil was leaking out

I made LOTS of mods to this truck, but most of them weren't fuel related. I could shut off the ignition with a switch hidden in the carpeting on the passenger side (in case I didn't like what the driver was doing). I switched the horn and starter portion of the ignition so that when someone tried to start the truck the horn would honk (people were always 'borrowing my truck). Obviously then to start the truck you hit the horn. My actual horn was on the floor, a dimmer switch that honked a wailer that would scare cows (come around a corner on a gravel road at 70 mph, you want those cows off the road NOW!); that way I could keep both hands on the wheel. I put a board under the engine (after my fuel pump went missing) and made a hood lock (after my battery and ignition coil walked away). I rebuilt the suspension system to handle driving on gravel roads at 70 mph (went through a set of heavy duty Monroes every three months). I put in two extra fuel tanks to extend my driving range and I traveled all over the USA (including to Alaska) with that truck. It'd be a book to list all the mods, but as I said, mostly not fuel related; and I'm missing that truck the more I talk about it.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Re: rear axle origin: Was it Ford or something else? I wonder if you were able to use the original wheels or if you had to run different wheels front and rear. 14" or 15"?

I'm really sorry, I simply cannot tell you anything more about the rear end. It was 2:1 ratio and the rear wheels tracked inside the front ones (two sets of tracks). It had ball bearings instead of roller bearings. Otherwise it fit the truck perfectly, (springs, shocks, etc.). I ran the same 15" wheels all the way around, so I'm assuming the axle was from a Ford; but it had to be a car because of the ball bearings.

Originally Posted by Frank Lee

Thanks, I have so many questions about this- I don't want to get hung up on EFIEs or blogs or anything until I can wrap my mind around this truck.

Understandable. Today there're so many more things I'd do to further improve the efficiency of that truck. My Carburetor Enhancer often doubled the mileage of those 2150 carburetors, I'd also add the closed loop upgrade so I could control the fuel ratio of the carb. I'd install the HyCO 2A. I'd put in higher temperature engine cooling fluid, an electric cooling pump and change out the fan for an electric one. I'd put in super lubricants, etc.

Well, off to bed. Thanks guys

[dmodified1]

"It doesn't. But most people don't understand the difference between traditional combustion and efficient combustion. When you increase combustion efficiency, your exhaust oxygen percentage WILL rise and you will NOT lose power or have high exhaust temperatures. I know it sounds hard to believe, but this is exactly what you need to learn to duplicate what I've done for years."

Perfect combustion will result in water and carbon dioxide out of the exhaust pipe which would be 0% oxygen so efficient combustion would be a lower percentage. you cant have more power and less heat


"The EFIE allows people who don't have your equipment to simply and easily 'correct' the oxygen sensor signal so that the CPU doesn't know that there is extra oxygen in the exhaust."

Extra oxygen in the exhaust means there was not enough fuel to burn all of the oxygen, an engine is an air pump that adds fuel. There can only be to much/little fuel



"The EFIE will never cause a mixture so lean that the engine detonates. The worst that will happen is that the CPU goes into limp mode (open loop) if it 'thinks' the fuel mixture is too lean. The EFIE is not intended to lean a mixture (although I understand that people try). The EFIE is designed to correct for a change in the exhaust oxygen that is caused by combustion enhancement technology."

open loop is when your engine has not reached operating temperature or near/at WOT limp mode is activated when multiple sensors don't agree like accelerator pedal sensors and TPMS. the pcm will be fooled but the effect would be hotter running engine which the engine coolant temp sensor would then back off pulse width of the fuel injector (lean out) an already lean a/f

[poomanchu]

Originally Posted by Daox

Here is a graph that represents things well. We know NOx is created at high cylinder temperatures. As you continue to lean things out, the temperature starts to go back down. However, as you continue, hydrocarbons increase as the fuel isn't completely burning anymore.

Thanks for taking me to school! Not much to say except I know very little.

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

Do the math, it's simple for most of you fellas because you have scan gauges. I've showed you mine (my math) now show me yours. Prove me wrong with your own vehicle (show me your math).

This is a simple calculation, doable by anyone who is open minded enough to try it. Most people (especially mechanics) are afraid to try, because if I'm right, their whole world is shaken.

The issue I take with this is I should not have to prove anything to you as I make no claims except my Civic can hit 36mpg. I am open minded about this though.

I am positive if this shakes peoples world to the core, SOMEBODY 3rd party to this would have heard of it by now. Let's be real, there are some pretty outlandish things people do for the sake of economy but these have proven results. I have shown the AeroCivic to numerous people, along with other mods. The point is, people talk. I don't see people pointing me towards your website, and on your website I see no results just theories. Results are available...for the low cost of 21.99 and you donate your vehicle and time.

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

As I explained in a previous blog, the EFIE is not a fuel saver. It cannot lean out the engine more than the CPU will allow (and that isn't much). The EFIE is designed to allow ACTUAL combustion enhancement technology (like my HyCO 2A or HyZor) to work on EFI engines....

I hope to be a real contributor here. I can now see my first challenge is to persuade some of you to actually look into true combustion enhancement technology. I'm seeing it'll involve a paradigm shift. I'd forgotten how far I'd come because I stopped talking to skeptics years ago, I found it to be a waste of my time. I spend my time actually helping people. My customers only care about results, the WHY is of no issue (to them) when it works. Here I hope to talk to peers, about the WHY and then about the HOW and then see the results One step at a time.

Thank you George for taking the time to clear up my misconceptions and posting your rides. I am still skeptical but I think you are contributing. I am not a peer by any means, just someone who should lurk more and talk less lol.

[RustyLugNut]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

Sigh... Here's where there's a fundamental misunderstanding between traditional thinking and the truth; which I try to point out on my blog; and many other places as well.

I understand that you think if the volume of fuel going into the engine is reduced, that the mixture is 'leaner'. I was taught that too. And if you are using 'traditional' liquid fuel technology it IS TRUE!

However, I've since learned it's just another lie we are taught. It seems obvious on the face of it, but it's only because we mechanics aren't taught the truth... And unfortunately it's my experience that most mechanics aren't interested in learning the truth.

That's why I was so excited to find this website, so I could actually share my thoughts with people who already know the truth or are open minded enough to learn it. I'm sorry to see that ecomodders don't seem to already have knowledge of the lies/truth about what actually happens during internal combustion. Maybe that's why I'm here now...

This truth can make a HUGE difference to your fuel economy, and there are quite a few things you can do that are not expensive or difficult.

The truth is that it does NOT matter how much liquid fuel you put into the engine, (except as I explain about quenching the afterburn in the 'LIE' blog).

I once made a mistake, hooking up a HyCO 2A backwards and was sucking fuel directly into the intake manifold of a 350 GM engine. It was a little hard starting, didn't idle well and smoked a bit but I was in a hurry to get to town so I just left. The truck drove pretty normally. But as I drove I saw I wasn't going to make it to town, the fuel gauge was dropping like a rock. I was 'burning' about 5 gallons to the mile. I stopped, checked it out, saw my mistake, corrected it and continued driving (that truck doubled it's mileage with the HyCO 2A once we fixed the leaky rod wells in the Quadrajet).

My point (and the truth is) is that it's the percentage of fuel that turns to vapor, and mixed with air, before the spark plug fires that is the actual (and only) air:fuel ratio that powers your engine.

Anything you can do to increase the percentage of the fuel that turns to vapor before the spark plug fires, will allow you to reduce the total volume of fuel without losing power or performance. In fact, as you go more and more to vapor, performance increases.

We once installed a HyCO 2A into 1950s International pickup that a fellow had put a corvette drivetrain under. The amount of power was scary, my foot hurt from having to hold it so carefully all the time and the owner really enjoyed beating 'muscle cars' away from stoplights.

Yes I know there are exhaust heat issues and I assure you I address them totally. Done correctly, converting to pre-vaporized fuel will reduce your exhaust temperatures (saving your valves and reducing NOx), at the same time as increasing engine life for several different reasons (like no carbon buildup and liquid gasoline NOT washing the oil off the cylinder walls).

As I've stated before, pre-vaporizing the fuel can get extreme mileage gains, with performance increases and pollution drops to almost nothing. You burn your fuel in the engine instead of in the exhaust.

So, getting back to the 'lean burn' comment above. The truth is, if you increase the percentage of fuel that is vapor before the spark plug fires, you can reduce the total volume of fuel without having a 'lean burn'. Your actual air:fuel ratio will still be the same because it is ONLY the vapor fuel that matters. Liquid fuel cannot burn!

Believe me guys, it took me years to understand this. I don't expect you to get it in one day. But if you give me a chance, I CAN help you prove it to yourselves.

BTW, this is KNOWN by the vehicle manufacturers, every so often I acquire 'proof' information; which I hope to post someday. Pre-vaporizing the fuel is how Pogue, Ogle and hundreds of other people did it. It's why updraft carburetors are more efficient than downdraft. It's why engine manufacturers put heat plates under carbs and hot spots in the intake manifolds. It's a recurring theme (suppressed for over 100 years) of most of the 10,000 fuel saving patents in the patent office.

It works, it's been proven thousands of times. I've helped hundreds of my customers do it. You need to stop thinking if it works and start thinking how to apply it to your ecomodder project. Thats what I'd like to help you with.

By your very answer, there is NO NEED for a throttle plate.

Think about it.

[RustyLugNut]

But with little substance.

Your lack of knowledge about throttling, pumping losses and air/fuel ratio calculations show you have a long way to go in understanding combustion.

Are you willing to have someone such as myself check your work? I would be willing to drive up to Washington with a trailer load of test equipment to verify your claims. A trailer load wouldn't be needed - a briefcase would do.

To be exact, I wouldn't need to drive up, there are ecomodder members in your area who would be capable of performing the basic A-B-A testing.

Since you seem unable to speak in terms of science and technology, there is really no need to discuss this. I think we should go straight to testing.

Are you open to this?

[sarguy01]

Originally Posted by GeorgeWiseman

As I explained in a previous blog, the EFIE is not a fuel saver. It cannot lean out the engine more than the CPU will allow (and that isn't much). The EFIE is designed to allow ACTUAL combustion enhancement technology (like my HyCO 2A or HyZor) to work on EFI engines.

The HyCO 2A is $350. Your website doesn't explain what it does. Who in their right mind would spend that much money on a plastic tube with no explanation of what it does? Do I hook it to my fuel line, vacuum lines, shifter cable?? What does it do? You marketing technique is great; you have had all of us sucked to your website to look at your products, but we aren't buying. It didn't work.

The HyZOR is a piece of PVC for $388. This is a Brown's gas electrolyzer? Hasn't it been proven over and over that these sort of kits simply don't work? There are pages of threads on this forum that show this.

1978 Winnebago with Dodge 440. I read this. So you are saying that I need to remove the throttle plate from my car to use the $350 HyCO 2A?? How do I get the engine to rev? Or run at all for that matter?

I checked out your Civic on YouTube. It looks hacked together with its zip ties, open circuit cards, and PVC contraptions under the hood. I could get 50 mpg out of that car without your expensive mods.

George, I'd suggest you stop writing long winded posts with little factual data and start posting some real people with real results.

[elhigh]

George, I'm going to tell it to you as I perceive it:

There have been many, many HHO proponents out there. Lots of them talk a very long-winded game about what their system does and sometimes you can almost start to believe it (if you're skeptical - the more enthusiastic folks might tip over to buy it more readily). I haven't spent much time on your site because it appears to be very dense with information but really when I hear about something like this, I want to see that it is very clear up front. Drowning the core information in reams of other ancillary "information" makes it look like a snow job.

Other entities have examined HHO at some length and decided it isn't worth the hype. There may be some results to be had, but they are either small enough to be negligible or within the margin of error, or attributable to other modifications to the system to make the HHO system function "as intended." These are such entities as Popular Mechanics Magazine's testing staff. It's easy to say that that might not be very impressive, but I give them a lot more credit than I might to someone else. There are people with someone serious alphabet soup after their names on the masthead of that publication and while it may sometimes not seem especially impressive as a scientific publication, the people who make the magazine are pretty vested in making sure they don't print something daft. Printing facts is their stock in trade, getting it wrong reduces their stock pretty quickly.

If it worked as well as its proponents said it did, major manufacturers would be all over HHO. If, for instance, Ford Motor Company could produce a car that delivered all the drivability of an unmodified Fusion, all the power and flexibility, while also providing 60mpg, don't you think they would? Of course they would. Sales of Fusions would leap into the stratosphere, and sales of Chevy Malibus would tank. Don't point to shadowy conspiracy theories and backroom industry agreements, we're talking about major international corporations whose primary goal is to acquire ALL the money. If they can steal a march on the other guys, they will. That's how the free market works. And since none of those companies have introduced these systems, I consider that an extremely strong indicator that the devices are bunk.

In peeking at your blog, I found mention of a vapor carburetor. This exact phrase went through my mind at that moment: "Oh, here we go again." Vapor carburetors do indeed work, with one caveat: power production drops through the floor. I suppose if you had a steady-speed, steady-load operating regime then a vapor carb could be a good choice...but that's not how my car works.

We had another member on here, a guy who absolutely could not shut up about how amazing his old "three main flat four" Subaru was the heart and soul of automotive engineering, the pinnacle of development and everything that had come before or since withered in its shadow. His posts were tiresome. He would not enter into the conversation, just remained on his soapbox. He got banned. In fact, he was banned from several forums, including Subaru forums. It's one thing to be a fan, it's entirely another to be a fanatic. Soapboxes aren't good for conversations, they're pulpits for the janissaries.

This is where I see you, George. You're on a soapbox. I would dearly love to see your information boiled down to something less than a many-pages-long diatribe. Don't obfuscate with parenthetical information, explain very clearly in small words how and why HHO works - if it indeed does. Explain precisely what you have done to make HHO work, and explain why HHO is directly responsible to the improvements in your vehicle's performance and not some other modification you have made. Try leaving all other modifications in place and removing the HHO system and then report back to us what your fuel economy is without the system in place. That would be educational, I think.

Until I see a response along these lines, I'm done. If you find my statements to be offensive, I'm sorry for that as no offense is meant. You may consider me Thomas, poking Jesus in his spear wound. I want to see clear, uncluttered proof.

[Frank Lee]

Originally Posted by George Wiseman

YES! Exactly, I think I was only a little above 700 rpm at 45 mph, if I had a tailwind, (on the prairies) I got as high as 36 mpg (average 32 at 45 mph).

The 361 ci engine had the torque to start out OK with those high gear ratios but I could only spin the tires on gravel, not pavement. Once it got up into the higher rpms (highway speeds) went into its true power curve, which is why I could accelerate so fast at highway speeds. I did pretty well against a lot of hot cars, even with the poor aerodynamics, until I needed to corner... It would also catch air as I'd come over the top of hills at 120+ mph... I was young and lucky...

So, for fuel economy with larger engines, gear them up any way you can to make use of the torque and keep the engine rpm low. Larger diameter tires are one way.

So if I have it all correctly figured out, ALL the extraordinary mpgs this Ford got were due to the extreme gearing, as there are no modded fuel "systems" or really, anything modded that would impact fuel efficiency, other than the gearing. So the truck has pretty much standard weight, standard aerodynamics, maybe a little better than average rolling resistance from the ball bearing axle but standard- not even oversized- tires (not needed because of that extreme axle)... and possibly because you were always in there wrenching on it, it had a high state of stock engine tune, right?

Originally Posted by George Wiseman elsewhere on the web

My prototype took a 1973 GMC 3/4 ton pickup with a 292 ci engine and a 4 speed manual transmission well over 200 mpg. Took my brother and I over a year to build and $16,000 cash out of pocket for components we couldn’t build ourselves (see my book, “Extreme Mileage, 101?.

What are the particulars on this one?

[XYZ]

Originally Posted by elhigh

This is where I see you, George. You're on a soapbox. I would dearly love to see your information boiled down to something less than a many-pages-long diatribe. Don't obfuscate with parenthetical information, explain very clearly in small words how and why HHO works - if it indeed does. Explain precisely what you have done to make HHO work, and explain why HHO is directly responsible to the improvements in your vehicle's performance and not some other modification you have made. Try leaving all other modifications in place and removing the HHO system and then report back to us what your fuel economy is without the system in place. That would be educational, I think.

I agree with what Elhigh said, particularly the above quote.

George has said several times that he is not here to promote anything. Yet that is exactly what he is doing through touting his "enhancer" and books that claim to explain it. He has the ultimate disclaimer in saying that his device does not in itself produce improved FE. But the point is that we are all on this forum primarily for that purpose, rather than to debate someone's pet theories or be induced to disprove someone's claims.

Drowning the core information in reams of other ancillary "information" makes it look like a snow job.

Agreed. I too would like to see him get off the soapbox. Long-winded obfuscation does not exempt the "enhancer" from ending up in the Unicorn Corral...

[chefdave]

Hi
thought all hho systems were unicorn files. they tested a system in uk for 12 months and found no gain. yet to see a proper test that proves it works. drawing 30amps to produce 2% of what is needed to make a difference is going round in circles. heavy load on engine to produce hho but not enough hho produced to off set extra fuel needed to produce 30amps. might as well turn aircon and cool car if you want to burn more fuel at least that makes a benifical side effect.