HHO: Is it alchemy? Or will it improve gas mileage on a ’99 4.0 SOHC Explorer?

[Josh]

So yeah, not to deter from all the enticing mathematics and theoretical talk.... but can anybody back up anything they are talking about? I mean some actual results would be nice to see here?

These things take like 1/2 hr to an hour max to install, so are you guys installing and waiting for these fancy relays and such to start measuring your mpg? Why not start measuring without adding the optional equipment so that yourself and others on here can have something to actually argue about.

By all means, I'm not saying that anybody theories are incorrect and I don't want to go through the headache of figuring that math and whatnot out, but I do believe that if those who have done it would post some actual numbers after using the system, that it would be more beneficial to the community.


-l8r

I don't see anything holding you back. If its so easy, go for it and post your own results.
I am not using the mason jar, I am building a tank from scratch and am still waiting for my stainless steel electrodes to arrive. I have been testing a MAP enhancer on my 02 F250 and it seems to help by itself with only slightly modified signal of 11psi vice the normal 14. It does not set the map sensor at a solid 11 it just moves the curve down to a starting point of 11. Tomorrow I will be buying the parts to build an O2 sensor controller for my Explorer and do the same thing. As soon as jaycar electronics gets in another shipment of digital fuel adjusters, i will be getting one of those. It has a 128 access points for adjustments to control a sensor.

 

[96SportWheelin]

Where are your results/data?

I don't have data or results... can you figure out why yet? All I was stating is that people were bickering (not in a bad way) back and forth and it really isn't proving anything.

You want me to be the first to go, build a kit, install it and run it and then finally come back here with results on whether or the HHO kits do indeed work? I could do that, but then why wouldn't you and josh who have the kits (I know josh's isn't installed yet) go ahead and post results. I mean you are running this kit correct?

All I'm saying it that it would be nice to here one of the testers on here come back and say... "Hey, I gained .... avg mpg on this tank" instead of... "Hey, I'm waiting on ..... controller so I can measure ..... to make sure I'm not getting to many ..... "

If your not going to post results or take others suggestions with a grain of salt then why even post a thread on this very popular but controversial topic?

what the hell do I know though, I'm no chemist or mechanic.... and I won't be posting results for my explorer on here b/c its officially retired as a dd.

oh well, I believe GJarrett said it best earlier in this thread...

Al quit being pissy. This is an unknown/unproven arena by unbiased testing that any of us trust, and by nature should be questionable until proven. Any naysaying I've read has been honest - I also don't know if the HHO output will be enough to have a huge effect - and Joe's questions are not only honest, he wrote he's been wrong before and I am sure he is as curious as the rest of us.

If you find out something of worth in this project and then go pout in your corner and don't report about it, all that will do is confirm the "naysayers" suspicions and deprive others of useful knowledge. What a mature thing to do that would be

I'm sorry I wasted my time participating in this thread.

....

I don't see anything holding you back. If its so easy, go for it and post your own results.
I am not using the mason jar, I am building a tank from scratch and am still waiting for my stainless steel electrodes to arrive. I have been testing a MAP enhancer on my 02 F250 and it seems to help by itself with only slightly modified signal of 11psi vice the normal 14. It does not set the map sensor at a solid 11 it just moves the curve down to a starting point of 11. Tomorrow I will be buying the parts to build an O2 sensor controller for my Explorer and do the same thing. As soon as jaycar electronics gets in another shipment of digital fuel adjusters, i will be getting one of those. It has a 128 access points for adjustments to control a sensor.

and yet, a viable reason to not post results as you don't have one installed... like my rant above (if you could even call it a rant) I wasn't saying that oh I'm better than you and you suck b/c your not posting results. I'm just saying that some people would actually like to see some results instead of the same four people going back on forth on whether it will work or it won't.

 

[Josh]

I don't have data or results... can you figure out why yet? All I was stating is that people were bickering (not in a bad way) back and forth and it really isn't proving anything.

You want me to be the first to go, build a kit, install it and run it and then finally come back here with results on whether or the HHO kits do indeed work? I could do that, but then why wouldn't you and josh who have the kits (I know josh's isn't installed yet) go ahead and post results. I mean you are running this kit correct?

All I'm saying it that it would be nice to here one of the testers on here come back and say... "Hey, I gained .... avg mpg on this tank" instead of... "Hey, I'm waiting on ..... controller so I can measure ..... to make sure I'm not getting to many ..... "

If your not going to post results or take others suggestions with a grain of salt then why even post a thread on this very popular but controversial topic?

what the hell do I know though, I'm no chemist or mechanic.... and I won't be posting results for my explorer on here b/c its officially retired as a dd.

oh well, I believe GJarrett said it best earlier in this thread...



....



and yet, a viable reason to not post results as you don't have one installed... like my rant above (if you could even call it a rant) I wasn't saying that oh I'm better than you and you suck b/c your not posting results. I'm just saying that some people would actually like to see some results instead of the same four people going back on forth on whether it will work or it won't.

OK Thanks for stopping by:

 

[redmiata1]

Here's a place where people post their results (some are pretty impressive):

http://www.fuel-saver.org/Forum/showthread.php?tid=626&pid=5279#pid5279

 

[96SportWheelin]

OK Thanks for stopping by:

ok, thanks for sharing your results .....

like I was saying ... oh wait you don't care to hear what I or others think...

Ok, thanks for listening :

 

[Josh]

Well gee since My system is still not built, Here are my results thus far.

MPG before HHO:11-13 combined city highway
MPG with HHO:11-13 combined city highway

Now earlier I believe I did post results on a MAP sensor adjuster I built for my F250 which may help people with MAP sensors. I guess you didnt read that one:thumbdwn:

My Explorer is a reitred daily driver as well, that is why I am using it. What are you doing with yours????? Oh thats right nothing

My system is not going to be a 45 minute job. I am planning, building, reading and building some more, so my project is still a couple of weeks away from install. Al is making a road trip soon and I am sure he will post his results. At least the guys that are arguing have something to add. And maybe before you go poking Al for his results, maybe you should read his 80 page thread on his quest for 30, accomplishing more with MPG mods than any other Explorer owner on Earth!

 

[rocket 5979]

I don't have data or results... can you figure out why yet? All I was stating is that people were bickering (not in a bad way) back and forth and it really isn't proving anything.

All I'm saying it that it would be nice to here one of the testers on here come back and say... "Hey, I gained .... avg mpg on this tank" instead of... "Hey, I'm waiting on ..... controller so I can measure ..... to make sure I'm not getting to many ..... "

If your not going to post results or take others suggestions with a grain of salt then why even post a thread on this very popular but controversial topic?

Hey look I understand that you are a kid so you still expect that you will get what you want right away. What you have to realize is that there is a methodology to this. I am sure any moron could bolt one of these things on their truck take it for a drive and get some BS inconclusive results. The alternative is that you can invest a little time in being patient and have someone like Aldive test it who will actually bother to take the time to approach this from a practical AND SCIENTIFIC method. Then he will not only be able to come back and tell you his results but also probably be able to tell you the why or why not about it too. I don't know, halfassed inaccurate results now or wait a little while for accurate and thoroughly tested ones??? If I were interested in doing one of these HHO devices in my vehicle I would be patient and wait for real results rather than rushing someone for incomplete ones.

Also, that "bickering" that you saw was not that at all from what I observed. That is regular ol' adult discussion about which method of testing and/or tuning would be best for a system like this. Being that this stuff is newer the methods surrounding how to properly configure, manage, and test the results for it are still under development by the people willing to think about this stuff. I for one, have been discussing how to properly tune the vehicle for this once it is all done. What have you been doing, besides complaining, 96sportwheelin? If you want results more quickly then try to help with the process. If you cannot help then do not whine about the timeliness of the results of a project to which you have put none of your own effort into.

 

[awdrocks]

Hey look I understand that you are a kid so you still expect that you will get what you want right away. What you have to realize is that there is a methodology to this. I am sure any moron could bolt one of these things on their truck take it for a drive and get some BS inconclusive results. The alternative is that you can invest a little time in being patient and have someone like Aldive test it who will actually bother to take the time to approach this from a practical AND SCIENTIFIC method. Then he will not only be able to come back and tell you his results but also probably be able to tell you the why or why not about it too. I don't know, halfassed inaccurate results now or wait a little while for accurate and thoroughly tested ones??? If I were interested in doing one of these HHO devices in my vehicle I would be patient and wait for real results rather than rushing someone for incomplete ones.

Also, that "bickering" that you saw was not that at all from what I observed. That is regular ol' adult discussion about which method of testing and/or tuning would be best for a system like this. Being that this stuff is newer the methods surrounding how to properly configure, manage, and test the results for it are still under development by the people willing to think about this stuff. I for one, have been discussing how to properly tune the vehicle for this once it is all done. What have you been doing, besides complaining, 96sportwheelin? If you want results more quickly then try to help with the process. If you cannot help then do not whine about the timeliness of the results of a project to which you have put none of your own effort into.

10-4.

We all know how long a well thought out project can take.

I just picked up a 90 Talon which will soon become my daily driver due to gas. If I can get it to 60mpg with an HHO system ill be in heaven. Oh and its a turbo awd, mods have begun

 

[96SportWheelin]

Well gee since My system is still not built, Here are my results thus far.

MPG before HHO:11-13 combined city highway
MPG with HHO:11-13 combined city highway

Now earlier I believe I did post results on a MAP sensor adjuster I built for my F250 which may help people with MAP sensors. I guess you didnt read that one:thumbdwn:

My Explorer is a reitred daily driver as well, that is why I am using it. What are you doing with yours????? Oh thats right nothing

My system is not going to be a 45 minute job. I am planning, building, reading and building some more, so my project is still a couple of weeks away from install. Al is making a road trip soon and I am sure he will post his results. At least the guys that are arguing have something to add. And maybe before you go poking Al for his results, maybe you should read his 80 page thread on his quest for 30, accomplishing more with MPG mods than any other Explorer owner on Earth!

for one, my comment was to aldive.... you obviously didn't read my post or I didn't post it clearly. I said that you had a logical reason for not showing results b/c you hadn't built yours yet....so I don't understand why your getting worked up over this.

To Rocket....

Look man, I know I'm young... Hell, I'm 22 and just graduated from school... I know i'm no expert nor did I ever say I was. I wasn't complaining or whining as you put it. I would just like to see some results.

I don't know the math behind how HHO generators work...nor do I want to know. To me its like, "How exactly does the posi-trac rear end on a Plymouth work? ... it just does. Also, I stated that that bickering was (in a good way)......I guess nobody read that earlier.

Oh well, props to Aldive for testing an HHO system on his explorer and to those who follow in his steps

I'm finished with this thread and i'll stay out of everyones HHO builds... I for one will be sticking to cleanmpg for my gas saving techniques and explorerforums for my off road fun

Have fun all

 

[Josh]

10-4.

We all know how long a well thought out project can take.

I just picked up a 90 Talon which will soon become my daily driver due to gas. If I can get it to 60mpg with an HHO system ill be in heaven. Oh and its a turbo awd, mods have begun

Man I always wanted a talon turbo They were snappy little cars, especialy the AWD versions. If I may, I would suggest getting an EGT gauge for it if it doesnt already have one. I don't know anything about your turbo, but they say an F250 turbo should stay under 1000 degrees to avoid shortening the life of the turbo since you will most likely be messing with the fuel mixture. A company called Prosport gauges has an EGT gauge that will turn red and beep when you hit your set threshhold. I am most likely going to install one on my explorer mybe. I do not want to drill into my ceramic BBK headers.

 

[aldive]

Road trip to Naples, FL and back ( ~ 200 miles round trip ).

Parameters:
HHO generator using Baking Soda at ½ teaspoon/quart distilled water
MAF Enhancer set for highway driving
BP 91 fuel
Custom computer tune


First leg – neither HHO nor MAF Enhancement used

Speed GPS monitored 68.4 MPH average
Ambient temperature 92 F
Coolant temperature 211 F
Transmission temperature 142 F
A/F ratio 14.7
Miles driven 104
Gas mileage 30.1 MPG

Second leg – HHO running and MAF Enhancement running


Speed GPS monitored 68.4 MPH average
Ambient temperature 94 F
Coolant temperature 210 F
Transmission temperature 144 F
A/F ratio 14.5
Miles driven 102
Gas mileage 36.2 MPG


MAF Enhancer was tweaked during first 10 miles at constant speed ( 68 MPH ) on the second leg.

Remained in closed loop entire trip as set up in PCM tune. No detonation was heard when using HHO/MAF Enhancement.

A 20% gain in fuel mileage was achieved.

I am confused by the A/F readings. Any comments?

I feel there is more mileage with better tuning of the MAF Enhancer.

 

[wyochimneysweep]

what part of the a/f are you confused about? what are your fuel trims to find out how much the computer is trying to compensate. should put in a egt probe and see if its running hotter with the hho or not. I was going to try to do a tune with a really lean a/f ratio and use water injection to help with detrontation but never got to it and now thinking of tring hho. but i'd like to see some info on exhaust gas temp to see if we are going to be running hotter temps and run a chance of melting things.

 

[Josh]

Al
I have read a lot and talked to a few people that say going over 65 will hurt mileage. have you tried keeping it around 60? I know here in Virginia Beach it is hard to do with all the crazies on the road. Did you turn your adjuster all the way lean or just slight adjustments?

 

[aldive]

Al
I have read a lot and talked to a few people that say going over 65 will hurt mileage. have you tried keeping it around 60?

Not yet; thats the next phase.

Did you turn your adjuster all the way lean or just slight adjustments?

No, I get bogging down and horrible performance with adjustments over "15".

 

[aldive]

what part of the a/f are you confused about? gs.

That after leaning it way out, I get a fatter A/F ( 14.5=6 ) than the normal 14.7.

 

[shortstack]

i've heard that it can take a few months before you u get your top MPG with HHO, has anyone else heard this?

 

[aldive]

i've heard that it can take a few months before you u get your top MPG with HHO, has anyone else heard this?

I havn't.

Why do "some" say that?

 

[Jakee]

Good results.

I personally believe there is a gain, but realistically, the gain is not going to be huge. In fact, if you get more of a gain than you've already showed, I'd be majorly surprised, and would think it's more of a "tuning" gain than what the HHO is doing for you. As for the huge results showed by other sites - I think its BS.

I had a degreed chemist work out a spreadsheet with me to see just what it would take to get major gains. After seeing the results, I serious doubt huge gains from this unless you had a way of building a HUGE version that didn’t weigh anything. I’m not being negative here, I’m just being realistic.

The MAF adjuster - The only thing this is doing is manipulating the voltage, correct?

Here is the spreadsheet results so far (Not done yet)

If you read the text you can see my chemist buddy is not a believe at all. But, then again, he could be wrong.

 

[Josh]

I think 6mpg is a good number. I would image with a little more tweeking, there will be a few more. With 6 more mpg, thats another 114 miles a tank on my truck.

 

[Jakee]

I think 6mpg is a good number. I would image with a little more tweeking, there will be a few more. With 6 more mpg, thats another 114 miles a tank on my truck.

I completely agree with you here. If these results are consistent, it should be good in anyone’s book, and will pay for itself rather quickly.

By the way, engineers and others calculate things all day long. But, until they go out and test the calculations, it's still not 100%. If "calculating" things were so accurate, no one would need to physically test anything. It's merely a way of predicting possible outcomes or an educated guess of what may happen. At times, there are way too many variables that may be overlooked when calculating things.