Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
You have of course converted a diesel or other vehicle to using water??????????????? The conversion "kits" seem plasible. They are inexpensive so who out there has actually done the conversion and what are the results????????????????
If they really did work as claimed, then they would be available from the vehicle/engine manufacturers, at least as an option. The purveyors of these devices are not bound by an ethics policy to conduct accurate and unbiased studies showing that they really do work. They cite unreliable anecdotal accounts as evidence that these devices work.
For example, one company is currently selling their brand of hydrogen enrichment device for installation on large diesel trucks (over-the-road tractor-trailers, I assume) and diesel school buses. The unit is an electrolysis unit which sells for $7800 plus installation charge of $200, so $8000 installed! The company reports that the unit consumes two liters (2 L) of water per 10,000 to 12,000 miles! 2L of water weighs 2000 g, water is 11.1% hydrogen so this 2L would yield 222 g of molecular hydrogen (H2) over that 10,000 miles!
What is the mpg of a large diesel tractor-trailer? 8 mpg? 4 mpg?
Let's say 6 mpg. At that rate over 10,000 mi it consumes 10,000mi / 6 mpg = 1667 gal of diesel fuel. 1667 galUS is 6309 L times the density of diesel fuel, 850 g/L = 5,360,000 g of diesel fuel over 10,000 miles.
So the added molecular hydrogen as a percent by weight of the diesel fuel = 100% x 222 g / 5,360,000 g = 0.0041 %.
Such a low level of hydrogen enrichment has not been shown in properly controlled trials to have any beneficial effect. This is 1/100th to 1/1000th of the minimum amount of hydrogen that has been studied in hydrogen enrichment experiments. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Hydrogen_fuel_enhancement
I think it is money not well spent for some struggling shipping company or independent operator to be paying this much money for something which has not been tested in well controlled trials. The FTC should investigate these claims.
I still had the stock tires and at 70 mph I was turning 1800 RPM. I drove from Billings,Mt to Bismarck, ND at about 67mph (1700 RPM) and got 20.3 mpg. I definitely improved my mileage. Since then I have installed a Lorenz 2 inch levelling kit in front and went with 35 inch tires. Also a Ranchhand bumper. Now at 70 I am at 1600 RPM and my mileage is about 15 mpg. I have installed lockouts and only noticed marginal improvement. Between the lift and the heavy non-aerodynamic bumper and, most of all, the larger tires, I think my mileage has taken the hit. Bottom line is that you will improve your mileage with the Gear Vendors unit but stay with the stock tires or only a wee bit larger. The other option would be for me to run in 5th gear overdrive at about 60 (1700 RPM). In that case the torque multiplication is signifigantly larger than in 6th overdrive and my mileage would likely improve. I just don't have the patience.
Lastly, I drove over the road for 10 years. Cats, Cummins, Detroits. You will notice that the peak torque on the Dodge Cummins is generally around 1600 RPM. That is where you will get the best mileage. The idea would be to run a slower speed at that RPM which is entirely possible with the overdrive unit. I wouldn't agree that one needs to "keep the revs up" to run one of these engines.
I came to your site looking for better fuel economy ideas, and see a lot of you ragging on the hydroxy approach. I personally have two 30 liters/hr units installed because I do lot of heavy pulling w my '97 7.3 liter F 350. The truck is not even broken in yet [only 38 k miles] but the cost of the fuel is threatening my retirement plans.
Since I am buying to equip a farm and develop property a hundred miles north, I do nothing consistently enough to develop a good set of comparative stats. But I do know many of you are not very well informed about what hydroxy purports to do. Let me make some points.
I have read that it would take 3000 lit/hr to idle a small engine, so adding only two percent to the air intake is not a significant power source.
1. Nevertheless, the addition of the hydroxy gas significantly increases octane, i.e., the number of the 8-carbon (chain) molecules in the fuel mixture. [FYI, methane is a molecule with everything attached to a single carbon atom, propane has three, butane four, and they all boil off the crude at different temperatures in the cracking/refining process. Any fuel is a blend of different percents of the different chains and related components, all of the pieces that make organic chemistry both highly complex and difficult. Thus adding pure (and purity is critical) acetone or zxylene to fuel in small quantities can really increase performance, or do nothing at all, depending on the mix in the initial blend.] Higher octane levels increase fuel combustibility.
2. Regarding the energy used in its production, the hydroxy gas is electrolyzed with the extra alternator capacity for winch use, cold weather, et cetera, but otherwise dumped via grounding circuitry to prevent over charging and damaging system batteries at other times.
3. Running the hydroxy gas through small water tanks has a double purpose. The water tank prevents random back charge explosions of the volatile gas in the generators themselves, but the various ions created in the [electrolysis] process also charge the water, letting its various vapors both aid in combustion and damp slow or late combustion, a task engine designers typically accomplish by feeding the engine an unnecessarily rich fuel mixture. Carbon fuels have become too expensive to be used partially as fire extinguishers, however much such mixtures simplify design for engineers and auto mechanics. Rich mixtures are necessary for starting and cold weather operation, but not leaning the mixture as much as possible the rest of the time is a waste of resources, especially in light Congressional calls for better CAFE [car average fleet economy] standards.
4. But the ecu [the on board computer system controlling combustion, braking, et cetera] can void all the above by detecting the leaner combustion [increased oxygen, or manifold pressure, in the exhaust system] and upping its fuel mixture imperatives to the carburetion/fuel injection system. And federal law makes disabling on board diagnostic components illegal. Whether capturing sensor signals and attenuating them back to the levels the system expects, to sustain better system performance, is a grey area. Apparently the trucking industry has explicit permission from the federal DOT for such experimental modifications. But for obvious reasons, the ordinary citizen in his domestic vehicle does not. Nevertheless, the driver who does not monitor his systems and limit its unnecessary negative responses is just spinning his own wheels.
5. So why have auto manufactures not installed such systems in new vehicles, or at least made them available as options?
1) they are complicated.
2) they require more maintenance than advertised.
3) they expose sloppy users to significant dangers, i.e. explosions, chemical burns from catalysts, economic losses from faulty information about installation and use, et cetera.
Best practices during break-in:
- downshift on hills, both up and sown, this keeps the rpm up.
- shift the trans manually when possible, keeping the upshifts as late as possible (whether you have a stick or automatic)
- if you're on an open stretch of highway, downshift and stomp on the go pedal... this keeps your speed safe, but gives the engine more work to do
Once you've broken in, then you can drive conservatively.
kcram - Pickups Host
I realize low numeric rear ends mean tougher towing with that big load. This would be at 55-60, so is there an automatic that will downshift to the right gear, or should I be looking at a manual? I'd go with an underdrive or overdrive if that give the most versatility. Again, I am willing to have an imperfect towing rig to get the high mpg unloaded.
I then traded for an '08, because I wanted 4 WD, and that was a big mistake! I had to replace the catastrophic converter and particulate filter at 17,000 miles, and have never gotten better than mpg.
3rd largest consumer is heavy trucks and equipment
The small fry boaters - passenger cars and light duty trucks aren't even a blip on the consumption scale.
Running the off road diesel in more current on road engines is a very risky bet not to mention the fines if your caught are not cheap. Nor is a fuel system failure.
The crap that old farm tractors will run on will stop up your normal diesel pick up pretty quick not to mention foul up your fuel filters. Diesel engines have one major weakness - they need clean fuel and the high tech one's need sparkling clean fuel or your looking at some major issues.
Thanks for any advice
Ryan