Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Other fuel saving ideas?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    370
    I see you need to do two treatments, to do it properly!
    Found this info on the Canadian site.
    Roland hurry up and do it! So the rest of us scaredy cats can hear about the results
    Mother Nature educates all of us that are teachable. She's hardest on the ones who refuse to learn. Punishment is automatic, immediate, and without pity.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,079
    Quote Originally Posted by Mika View Post
    Are you sure that it's the same stuff?
    After some more research it seems that the RVS and Fusion do vary a bit more than i originally thought. They use the same technology, but the Fusion tech seems a bit more user friendly and possibly slower acting. Also fusion tech emphasize the fact that the oil breakdown rate and contamination rate is reduced, so much so that some have gone 45,000 miles w/o oil a change. They recommend that i have my oil tested like they do on big diesels engines to detrermine when to change oil. It seems that there product continues to improve performance of engine for the entire time it is in the engine. It seems the RVS takes 2 months to reach it's max potential and 1 year for Fusion tech to reach it max potential.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mika View Post
    If you are, then go ahead and please make the compression tests.
    I spent hours yesterday doing compression test on both vans, changing oil, and test driving for MPG. Adding the Fusion treatment and more driving.

    I realized this morning that i did the compression test wrong (i did not remove all the plugs when testing ) I removed one plug then started it of 3 seconds and turned the engine off. I'm not retesting the GMC to much of a PIA, but i am going to retest the villager with all plugs removed today. I have already treated both vans last night so...

    I will retest compression in 1 weak, 1 month, and 2 months. If i notice a MPG gain at any of those point i will test that also.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    1,079
    Since this testing will take 90 days to get a good idea weather this helps, I’ll just keep the data here.

    Fusion-Tech Nanomaxx engine treatment. Treated10-3-09

    Test 1 GMC 3500 Savanna Van, 2001, Box-van GVWR 9500lbs, 222410 miles.

    The GMC test will be more about weather it will reduces oil consumption and stop the fouling plug.
    #4 cylinder fouled out in 130 miles, (that last plug I used was a Double tip platinum Bosch. I’m not sure whether the double tip just fouls out quicker, or the engine condition has gotten that much worst. Before the Bosch i used Autolite & NGK plugs they where lasting 300 miles before fouling. )

    This van also has a FS2 Volo chip (I don’t think its going to work until the the engine can run without fouling plugs)

    Oil useage Uses 1 quarts of oil of every 200 miles ( this has progressively getting worst over the last year)

    Oil pressure; engine warm 19 psi @ idle, 39 psi cruising, 42 accelerating load

    Average MPG 9.5

    Test run MPG 10.38 MPG. 30.5 miles : 2.938 gallons = . 10-03-09. Test MPG after first treatment 30 mile round trip non stop (except McDonalds drive through), same gas QT, same pump, auto shutoff mode.

    Engine compression cylinders
    (compression test not done by the book, Only removed one plug and ran engine. Taking the highest reading )
    1. 100
    2. 100
    3. 95
    4. 90
    5. 100
    6. 100
    7. 100
    8. 85
    __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ________________________________

    Test 1 Mercury Villager 1994, 192,023 miles, very good cond, burns no oil, maybe a little week on power. This test is mainly for MPG monitoring

    Average MPG, 20.0 MPG when I'm driving, 17.6 MPG when the wife drive. ( per Digital dashboard cluster readout)

    Test run MPG 26.514, Digital dashboard cluster readout 22.5MPG
    35.9.miles, 90 % hwy 10% city 1.354 gallons. Same gas Kroger, same pump, auto shut off

    Oil useage not noticable under 3000 miles

    Cylinder Compression.
    Red are before treatment only removing 1 plug at a time and starting engine
    The other black numbers are 70 miles after treatment, all plugs removed & throttle wide open. Low number is 4 revolutions, the second number is 10 seconds of cranking the engine.

    http://www.aa1car.com/library/ford_firing_orders.htm
    1. 150-175------105
    2. 150-175------105
    3. 155-175------105
    4. 150-175------105
    5. 155-175------70 ******
    6. 160-180------90

    ****** Note i tested that cylinder 4 times before treatment because it had the lowest numbers. the test were 65,65,70,65. i took the highest number. I did also a "one plug removal test" on this cylinder at the 70 miles after treatment and got 75psi at least a 5 psi improvement.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Spicer MN
    Posts
    58

    windshield washer fluoid

    Hey Slade
    I built a water injection system for my 350 Chev engine. I started at 1 oz per min. My initial result was 2.8 mpg increase. but I haven't been steady with it. I got side tracked with HHO & the VOLO FS2. My pump gave me trouble when it got cold. so I needed to redesign.

    I just pulled my camper home (200 miles) It would have been a perfect test, but I couldn't.

    The washer fluid has Methyl alcohol in it. You can also us Methyl-hydrate (denatured alcohol) The alcohol becomes a secondary fuel source. I'm working on a system that will put it in (water/washerfluid & HHO) under vacuum, as steam.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by spicerman View Post
    Hey Slade
    I built a water injection system for my 350 Chev engine. I started at 1 oz per min. My initial result was 2.8 mpg increase. but I haven't been steady with it. I got side tracked with HHO & the VOLO FS2. My pump gave me trouble when it got cold. so I needed to redesign.

    I just pulled my camper home (200 miles) It would have been a perfect test, but I couldn't.

    The washer fluid has Methyl alcohol in it. You can also us Methyl-hydrate (denatured alcohol) The alcohol becomes a secondary fuel source. I'm working on a system that will put it in (water/washerfluid & HHO) under vacuum, as steam.
    Hi Spicerman!
    What was the PSI of your pump?
    Which nozzle were you using.
    Did the system run all the time while the engine is running?
    Or just at certain throttle settings?

    Glen
    Mother Nature educates all of us that are teachable. She's hardest on the ones who refuse to learn. Punishment is automatic, immediate, and without pity.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Spicer MN
    Posts
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by biggy boy View Post
    Hi Spicerman!
    What was the PSI of your pump?
    Which nozzle were you using.
    Did the system run all the time while the engine is running?
    Or just at certain throttle settings?

    Glen
    Hi Glen
    My pump is a small "HI-FLO" 1 GPM@30 psi. It pumps up a pressure tank and the nozzle is fed through a flow valve via 1/4 plastic tubing. I'm only running at 10 psi. (that press gave me 1 oz pm flow) Im a build-it-yourself kind of guy so when I couldn't find a nozzle that would work at such low press. I took the one off my pump type nasal spray bottle. It atomized pretty good. So I drilled a hole in the air ducting right above the throttle plate, put in a rubber grommet and inserted just the tip. I run the water inj. and HHO with a throttle switch. I set it to come on at 'mild' acceleration. I control it all via a control box I have in the cab.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    370
    Thanks Spicerman! good to know!
    That is pretty low pressure huh!
    Some are running at 60 -100 psi.
    Mcmaster Carr sells the nozzles.

    http://www.mcmaster.com/#spray-nozzles/=40sbco
    Mother Nature educates all of us that are teachable. She's hardest on the ones who refuse to learn. Punishment is automatic, immediate, and without pity.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Spicer MN
    Posts
    58
    More pressure = More energy input = Less overall gain
    Thanks for the link!!!
    Jesse

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ontario Canada
    Posts
    370
    Quote Originally Posted by spicerman View Post
    More pressure = More energy input = Less overall gain
    Thanks for the link!!!
    Jesse
    Sounds good Jesse!

    If you can atomize the water at 30 PSI, why would you want to do it at 100 PSI? Makes sense to me what you are saying.


    Glen
    Mother Nature educates all of us that are teachable. She's hardest on the ones who refuse to learn. Punishment is automatic, immediate, and without pity.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Spicer MN
    Posts
    58

    Wink

    Glen

    The more pressure, the better atomization of the water droplets. Thus additional energy input is required. But the ultimate atomization is steam.
    So here is my Idea... Draw water/washer fluid (under manifold vacuum pressure) through a metering valve, to a metal chamber (boiler, IE: 2"x2"x6" thin wall tubing) that sits directly on top of the exhaust manifold. The water would evaporate better under vacuum. The resulting steam would then be drawn into a tube at the top of the boiler that has been inserted into the intake manifold and would deliver the steam directly below the throttle plate.
    You could also run your HHO through the boiler and it would mix and be heated by the steam.
    My one concern is that the MAP sensor would see it as a vacuum leak. It depends on how much HHO you plan to introduce into the mix.
    If it were seen as a vacuum leak a MAP sensor enhancer could be used to "add back" and compensate for the extra gas going in.

    SIDE NOTE: Remember I was using a Thermal couple to monitor my exhaust temps?? Its been working consistently I encountered something interesting when I pulled my camper home last Monday. I was pulling against a S.W. headwind. It sounded like the truck was working hard, I thought the temps. would be high, but the temps (according to the Ohms of the thermal couple) were no higher then an average, clear,mornings drive to work. (about 315-325Ohms) But when its raining on the drive to work, the readings run about 400-425 Ohms. That extra moisture in the air makes a big difference!!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •