Originally Posted by
timetowinarace
In the beginning of the 'hho revolution' people were building ineffeciant booster and tossing them on their cars. Many had some interesting MPG gains. More people got involved and hho output became the norm with people designing, building and testing units for higher output. THEN they put them on their cars. Many were disapointed with MPG losses. A few of these people reduced hho output and recieved a surprizing MPG gain. Others started messing with sensors and computers.
The trend on this forum is to design and build the highest output booster. Then put it on a vehicle and fight the sensors/ECU. This is a curiosity for me because most people seem to want modest gains in fuel economy. No one wants to try and run mostly on hho.
The reason for this story?
My opinion, witch means squat really, is that most booster builders may be better off building a decent booster, reducing amps by reducing catylist, thus reducing production, install the unit on the vehicle of choice, and see what the results are with the low hho output. If there is a gain or even if MPG,s stay the same, increase the output slightly. If more gain, increase output again. Do this untill MPG's drop, then go back to previous output levels. Only then does the builder have a baseline to go by for that particular vehicle to decide if sensor/ECU modifacations are neccissary. If modifications are neccissary, try one at a time, such as O2 sencor with the baseline of how much hho can be used with out the mod and go from there. Rather, I see the oppisite happening where the builder will throw as much hho into the intake and then try to make the vehicle run on it. Just doesn't make sence to me. Not all vehicles need sencor/ECU mods and if they do, how do you know, if you haven't established a baseline for that vehicle?
The experiments by Smith are very usefull and extremely important. I don't see that they should pertain to every hho boosted vehicle.
Reply With Quote
