h2o hybrid

[LegGTLT]

She posted on NASIOC and said she had 18-20 before in town and now has about 22-24 I think.

[mwiener2]

And 50 less HP

[JSaladino]

And 50 less HP

 

wasn't the whole idea to increase MPGs? it seems that her numbers for the interstate and around town indicate that she has achieved that goal, regardless of how minuscule they may be.

 

so basically what i'm saying is, you've been dogging on her since the beginning of this project, making comments about how she's wasting her money, and how it won't work. blah blah blah. if everyone had the same outlook on life as you, you wouldn't be running E85 in your OB because there wouldnt BE E85.

 

in other words, if you view this project so critically that you can't contain your sour remarks, please humor the rest of us and not clutter up the thread with your useless, annoying, negative and somewhat insulting posts.

 

thanks

[SneakyFast]

^ZING!

 

Hey, don't stomp on a man's dreams of being right on the internet!

[Jon in CT]

A test result:

http://www.wptv.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=0b228f97-a0da-42f2-9c03-b0dd76f2cebc

[leggtnut]

So they were seeing about the same as AKLGT in traffic then.

[mwiener2]

wasn't the whole idea to increase MPGs?

 

if everyone had the same outlook on life as you, you wouldn't be running E85 in your OB because there wouldnt BE E85.

 

 

A K&N Filter, A CAtback Exhaust, The Turbonator ---- All things that "increase MPG" and they don't cost $$$$ nor do they require constant attention nor do they have the possibility of setting your car on fire

 

 

a 4mpg gain....which is hersay at this point.... is not the 500% increase everyone is getting all excited about. I still havn't seen a dyno sheet proving it's making the same HP as stock either

 

 

 

E85 Actually has Science behind it and it WORKS!!!!!

[AKLGT]

wasn't the whole idea to increase MPGs? it seems that her numbers for the interstate and around town indicate that she has achieved that goal, regardless of how minuscule they may be.

 

so basically what i'm saying is, you've been dogging on her since the beginning of this project, making comments about how she's wasting her money, and how it won't work. blah blah blah. if everyone had the same outlook on life as you, you wouldn't be running E85 in your OB because there wouldnt BE E85.

 

in other words, if you view this project so critically that you can't contain your sour remarks, please humor the rest of us and not clutter up the thread with your useless, annoying, negative and somewhat insulting posts.

 

thanks

wow. and you wonder why I don't post in this now useless thread anymore? I actually spend time discussing this with people who have a little more experience with it than just what they read on the interwebs.

 

Update: The original unit I had was malfunctioning so they replaced it under warranty last Monday. Since then, I have been able to avg about 22-24 mpg CITY (ALL CITY, Stop and Go, not hwy at all). I still had some difficulty getting the sensor light to work and last night had a Hydrogen Society Member (yes, apparently there is a very large worldwide organization for that discusses and builds these things) who is also a master electrician check it out. He was able to chase down the wires and figure out what was wrong. He told me the Hydro 4000 kit was only so-so. I could easily modify it a little and produce much greater HHO gas with minimal power loss. Adding a pulsator on the kit would not only increase the output of power, but also draw less. I'm not losing any more power than having my AMP and subwoofer thumping in the back. In fact, I was told by my audio guys that I'm probably using less power and draw. The system only works when the engine is running, which means the alternator is cranking.

 

And who said anything about a 500% increase? I wouldn't believe for a second! However, I can safely say without hesitation that these systems do work. I believe there are better ones than this particular kit, but hey.... that's why we mod things right? to make it better? So currently, my in town/city driving has netted me 21-24 mpg from 17-19 mpg. Take it or leave it, doesn't matter much to me. Some of you will still argue that I'm lying or altered information, I don't have time to argue over this anymore. I wanted to test this out and see how it works.

 

Would I recommend this particular kit for our LGT's or Subies? Not really. I believe a better one with better results can be had for less. I'm waiting on my tech to finish up his model and most likely that will be going onto the STI now that I feel confident in it working. I'd have liked to see more of an increase, but I do believe these units are better served in commuter cars or people who will be driving longer than 5 or 10 mins at a time. I also believe having the unit in the trunk also decreases my results because of how far the gas has to travel to get to the intake. Jerry also believes that if we tapped it into the vacuum system before the MAF and tuned, we would see even greater increases.

[AKLGT]

Have you made your initial investment back yet? Or did the car explode from built up Hydrogen gasses yet?

funny how you want to be so right in this system failing. Click on my link in the signature. You'll see there are several other people who are doing the same thing and getting much greater results than I. So, IMO, I have to say you are infact WRONG in your initial assessment that this DOESN'T work. It does. I've proved it to myself and to those who actually do care and do not have some sort of agenda. You should move on as I am to the next project.... Stg 2 in the STI.

[AKLGT]

 

a 4mpg gain....which is hersay at this point.... is not the 500% increase everyone is getting all excited about. I still havn't seen a dyno sheet proving it's making the same HP as stock either

 

 

 

E85 Actually has Science behind it and it WORKS!!!!!

 

Hydrogen systems also have science behind them and they also work. get over yourself.

 

As for showing dyno results? I don't know. I'm quite positive I'm not losing any power with this system. If I still have the car, I'll take it to the next Test N Tune and track it. Looks like the next TNT is 8/13. If the weather is good, I'll take the car to the track and prove there's no power loss.

[tmillard]

I actually spend time discussing this with people who have a little more experience with it than just what they read on the interwebs.

 

And who said anything about a 500% increase? I wouldn't believe for a second!

 

So currently, my in town/city driving has netted me 21-24 mpg from 17-19 mpg.

 

Take it or leave it, doesn't matter much to me. Some of you will still argue that I'm lying or altered information

 

First off this is not an attack on you but a response to some of the things I pulled out of your quote above. You made broad sweeping statements that don't help the doubters confidence. We are just looking for an unbiased comparison which I feel I have not seen. I appreciate all you have done on this but in my mind I find the results inconclusive.

 

1. Thank you for the dismissive 'we don't know what we are talking about', and you have a whole group of friend who know so much more then us.

 

2. Sarcasm? Stop taking everything so literally. It is not an attack on you personally. Stop being so insecure.

 

3. You own your own business but you think you 'netted' "21-24 mpg from 17-19 mpg."? In fact you netted 4-5 mpg using the range you gave us. Which is a pretty significant % increase.

 

4. Take it or leave it? All we wanted was a good solid test. You seemed to have run the baselines as 'scientifically' as possible but then once you get the thing installed you don't seem to be running the mpg calculations the same. "I'm seeing 24.9 - 25.2 mpg avg IN TOWN." You can easily achieve these differences by driving differently. It would be nice to have you run the same route you ran without the unit. I think that would be a bit more reliable.

[SneakyFast]

3. You own your own business but you think you 'netted' "21-24 mpg from 17-19 mpg."? In fact you netted 4-5 mpg using the range you gave us. Which is a pretty significant % increase.

 

Can we change the name of this thread to "The Splitting Hairs Thread"

 

[/subscription]

[Guest heightsgtltd]

 

Another name for this thread could be "the most effort for the smallest reward"

 

[mwiener2]

Hydrogen systems also have science behind them and they also work. get over yourself.

 

 

 

Yes, they do... and the science all points to how it CAN'T work.

[DrCloud]

The WPTV test, done by an engineering professor at my university, was a follow-up to a ridiculous result the station had obtained previously, as noted in the story linked above.

 

In this second test, they got about a 10% mileage boost with the Hydro 4000.

 

However, the vehicle was driven during the Hydro's so-called "break-in period" by the Hydro franchise owner and his spouse. It wasn't controlled during this time. Who knows what they did to it. As Prof. Abtahi states, there are simply too many uncontrolled variables to put credence in this single result.

 

My reading of the technical literature suggests that the statement that "Hydrogen systems also have science behind them and they also work" is largely wishful thinking.

 

The bottom line here is that people without technical backgrounds are easy prey for scam artists selling devices such as the Hydro 4000, and their wishful thinking will result in wasting their disposable income. It 's unfortunate that a forum moderator, someone who should represent a relatively high level of technical credibility for the community here, would fall prey to this sort of nonsense. HPH

[mwiener2]

The increase in MPG noted here is from a vacuum leak being created AFTER the MAF. This causes the engine to run lean , thus using less gas.

 

Is running lean gonna get you better MPG, Yes. Is it safe? Should I have to ask a car forum if it's safe to run lean due to a vacuum leak?

[AKLGT]

Yes, they do... and the science all points to how it CAN'T work.

whatever...

 

I love how you are so hell bent that this CAN'T work when you haven't even tried.

 

And btw, the car isn't running lean... the MAF sends the same amount of fuel to the car. This might be true if it was BEFORE the MAF and the car's ECU was compensating for this, however this is after. And it's not unmetered air going into the intake, it's filtered air mixed with Hydrogen, a small amount of it as well, not enough to blow up your car like you seem to believe.

 

Why don't you actually try to prove that it doesn't by making a generator and installing it on a car. If you can't even do that, than please, you've pretty much wasted this thread as it is. Quit wasting my time now.

[AKLGT]

First off this is not an attack on you but a response to some of the things I pulled out of your quote above. You made broad sweeping statements that don't help the doubters confidence. We are just looking for an unbiased comparison which I feel I have not seen. I appreciate all you have done on this but in my mind I find the results inconclusive.

You can draw your own conclusions or inconclusions from the information I posted. Whatever works in YOUR mind and if you think that an avg of 20% increase in fuel economy isn't worth it for you, well, only YOU will know that. I am not YOU, nor did I ever claim this would even work for everyone. The point of this experiment was to see DOES THIS WORK? I have answered that question as YES.

 

1. Thank you for the dismissive 'we don't know what we are talking about', and you have a whole group of friend who know so much more then us.

And now you understand my frustrations with this thread and everyone who seems to believe that it doesn't work. It's the same thing, just opposite viewpoint. Are they smarter? I don't know... some of you guys are pretty damn smart. Are they open minded and understand that there are alternatives to what we are doing and can do it better, that life is a progression? Yes.

2. Sarcasm? Stop taking everything so literally. It is not an attack on you personally. Stop being so insecure.

 

And if you haven't figured it out, I'm a literal person. I say things literally or I let you know if it's a figure of speech. I don't have time to waste by flowering things, so I prefer to just "get it out there, take it or leave it." If I say, I'm going to do XYZ, then most likely, I'm going to do it and probably fairly soon. I'm not a spectator and a dreamer, someone who TALKS a lot about what they MIGHT do. I just go do it and get it done so I can mark it off my list of things to do. This is now on my list marked off as DONE.

 

3. You own your own business but you think you 'netted' "21-24 mpg from 17-19 mpg."? In fact you netted 4-5 mpg using the range you gave us. Which is a pretty significant % increase.

 

I do believe that an increase from 17-19 mpg city vs 21-24 is pretty significant since I drive 30-50 miles per day or more. For someone like my husband who drives 8 miles per day, NO. It'd be a waste of money. Again, do you see my point? I'm sure that with tuning and tweaking, we'd see a much better gain, however, I now have more important projects at this moment that need my time, money, energy, and every attention to detail so this goes on the back burner. I wanted to finish up what I started a month ago, and now I'm pretty much done. Maybe I'll see better economy since it's been almost 21 days running this system, who knows. I don't have much time other than what I've done already. I'll take the car to the track one last time to see if there is any power loss (because I'm quite curious myself). Next Test N Tune is on 8/13 so if the weather holds, I'll be out there with all 3 cars. Remember, this is MY MONEY, MY TIME, MY NOTES, AND MY GAS GOING INTO THIS PROJECT. You don't have to believe any of it, after all it's the interwebs right?

4. Take it or leave it? All we wanted was a good solid test. You seemed to have run the baselines as 'scientifically' as possible but then once you get the thing installed you don't seem to be running the mpg calculations the same. "I'm seeing 24.9 - 25.2 mpg avg IN TOWN." You can easily achieve these differences by driving differently. It would be nice to have you run the same route you ran without the unit. I think that would be a bit more reliable.

 

For the most part, I do drive the same places and locations on a daily or weekly basis. Aside from taking the exact same route, the exact same time, hope that everyone else on the road does the same, there's no way to have an exact measure. Do you know the term, traveling salesman? Well, pretty much what I am, but for my own company and my own business and it's mostly local (within a 50 mile radius). There is no such thing as the same route every day because something may change or I may have a customer appointment or business appointment in between the usual route. All I can do is just tell you what I'm SEEING and what RESULTS I am getting. Someone else may get better or worse.

 

I've tried hypermilling as much as possible, even started driving in manual mode so I could cruise in 5th gear prior to this all. But that's too much of a hassle and frankly, I just don't have the time to do it. So, I'd rather just put my foot on the gas and get there.

 

I have already stated that this system works well for commuters and people who drive longer distances, NOT for those who make short trips around town. The system needs time to heat up the water to create hydrolysis. It's not instantaneous. So, for my quick trips from the mall to the bank across the street, I don't even bother to turn it on. However, if I need to go from my main store to my other location across town, that's a 20-30 minute drive in stop and go streetlights and our wonderful cluttered traffic and construction. It seems to work pretty well for that.

 

I don't really know how much more I can give you information other than handing over this unit to you to test on your own vehicle. I can tell you that this system works so-so. It's more marketing and hype imo than anything because I know I could tweak this a little and have MUCH better results. I don't have time to do this nor do I have the patience. That's why someone like myself buys a kit like this because they too, do not have the time, energy, or patience to build one themselves (which you could do for less than $200 most likely). You have to put some thought into it and use a little more creativity to make a better system, however it's doubtful that most who have know if there is long term reliability for both the unit and your engine.

 

Someone else who wants to take over this project and build their own, please step up. For now, you'll have to go with the information I've gathered and make your own conclusions. I hope one of you takes on the challenge and builds their own system, tune for it, etc. Until my tech gets me one of his own to install on the STI, this one is pretty much complete so I can sell my car and reinvest that money elsewhere.

[Guest heightsgtltd]

Was that AKLGT, ot Iwanna posting, Jebbus, cliff notes please?

[mwiener2]

 

And btw, the car isn't running lean... the MAF sends the same amount of fuel to the car. This might be true if it was BEFORE the MAF and the car's ECU was compensating for this, however this is after. And it's not unmetered air going into the intake, it's filtered air mixed with Hydrogen, a small amount of it as well, not enough to blow up your car like you seem to believe.

 

Why don't you actually try to prove that it doesn't by making a generator and installing it on a car. If you can't even do that, than please, you've pretty much wasted this thread as it is. Quit wasting my time now.

 

 

 

If that is how you think a MAF based system works, then I fully understand how you can think this system (hyro80000000) could possibly work.

 

And it's not unmetered air going into the intake, it's filtered air mixed with Hydrogen, a small amount of it as well, not enough to blow up your car like you seem to believe.

 

If it's such a small amount of hydrogen that you're not worried about it blowing up or anything, how could it be a large enough amount to possibly make a difference in how the engine runs?

 

 

I'm not gonna make one cause I don't have to. The math already proves it doesn't work, I don't need to waste my time and money to prove it doesn't work.

 

Your explanation that the system needs to "warm up" is completely wrong. The hydrolysis process is an electrochemical one, it does not require heat, it creates heat. So by saying this system isn't for short trips cause it needs to heat the water first.... crap. It actually makes more Hydrogen with cooler water. To break the bond with heat, you need ALOT of heat and you have to superheat the water beyond it's boiling point. Which is pretty dangerous in and of itself.

 

 

 

This is why you don't see these kits on the shelves of AutoZone or the like...... THEY DON'T WORK

[erikvcl]

Yes, they do... and the science all points to how it CAN'T work.

 

As DrCloud pointed out, science has shown that hydrogen enrichment can help gasoline burn efficiency, but the enrichment required (~10% hyrdrogen) can't be produced by these poor-quality aftermarket systems.

[erikvcl]

I love how you are so hell bent that this CAN'T work when you haven't even tried.

 

Uh no, that's not how it works. Great claims require great proof. It's the maker of these crazy products who's obligated to show proof, not the other way around!

 

I don't understand why it's so hard to get evidence of this device working. It's got a power switch, right? Set your cruise control for 50mph or so and run the device. Watch the MPG gauge. Then switch it off. Is there a difference?

 

Just because you see increased MPG with this system on doesn't mean the system works. I have a feeling that there are some airflow issues in how the system is installed that's causing your increased MPG. I would suggest logging AFR with the system on and off.

[erikvcl]

If that is how you think a MAF based system works, then I fully understand how you can think this system (hyro80000000) could possibly work.

 

 

 

If it's such a small amount of hydrogen that you're not worried about it blowing up or anything, how could it be a large enough amount to possibly make a difference in how the engine runs?

 

 

I'm not gonna make one cause I don't have to. The math already proves it doesn't work, I don't need to waste my time and money to prove it doesn't work.

 

Your explanation that the system needs to "warm up" is completely wrong. The hydrolysis process is an electrochemical one, it does not require heat, it creates heat. So by saying this system isn't for short trips cause it needs to heat the water first.... crap. It actually makes more Hydrogen with cooler water. To break the bond with heat, you need ALOT of heat and you have to superheat the water beyond it's boiling point. Which is pretty dangerous in and of itself.

 

 

 

This is why you don't see these kits on the shelves of AutoZone or the like...... THEY DON'T WORK

 

Everything you've said is absolutely true.

 

I have a feeling that there's additional manifold airflow and a lean condition here. AFR logging will give us more info.

[SneakyFast]

Just because you see increased MPG with this system on doesn't mean the system works.

 

:lol::lol: out of :lol::lol:

[SneakyFast]

I don't understand why it's so hard to get evidence of this device working.

 

You just did. I don't know why it's so hard for you to understand that.

 

Disclaimer: I understand the evidence isn't conclusive but it is evidence.

I understand it does not work as advertised. (what does?)