1992 240sx... getting worse MPG after install HHO - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 10-08-2008, 06:26 AM   #11
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
The police package was great in the snow IF you put chains on the rear tires. Those Goodyear Eagle GT+4's were wider than a stock tire, plus the police package came with the limited slip rear end. Just lock the tranny in 2nd because you'll probably break traction when it shifts into third.

I miss driving those cars too.

-Jay
__________________

__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2008, 08:56 AM   #12
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 689
Country: United States
The 02 extender doesn't always work. I tried one on my '88 Escort and it made it run richer. Before putting it on I was having several tanks at 45-48 MPG and while it was on most tanks were 42-45. I just took it off earlier this week and when I took the 02 sensor out it was covered with black soot from running rich. I'll see if the mileage goes back up or not. If the 02 mod doesn't work you'll have to get an EFIE.
__________________

__________________
Hipermiler
#47 on my way to #1
Ford Man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2008, 12:09 PM   #13
Registered Member
 
rgathright's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 189
Country: United States
Maybe the 2 HHO units are consuming to much power and drawing down the alternator?

According to some specs I read for one HHO unit, you can draw as much as 15 amps of power. Two units could hit 30 amps of power.

Alternator's need more torque than HP to run and 2.4L engines do not have much torque to spare. The result is robbing torque while at cruising speeds causing the engine to spin faster to keep the alternator and car at cruise.
rgathright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-08-2008, 12:17 PM   #14
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 152
Country: United States
Not spin faster (that could only happen in a lower gear), but spin HARDER yes.

How much power ARE your HHO units pulling? Easy to calculated power pulled from the shaft from that.

I'd say this is a computer/sensor related issue personally. I'd stick a wideband in it next to the normal O2, remove any silly extension things, and use a O2 sensor fooling device (EFIE?) Then you can tune in your lean using the wideband O2.

Of course, the only REAL solution is a EMS smart enough to run the HHO, and modify the fuel maps accordingly.


On O2 extenders... it sounds to me like they cause the O2 to get too cold, and collect carbon deposits and crap...
Dalez0r is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 06:08 AM   #15
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgathright View Post
Maybe the 2 HHO units are consuming to much power and drawing down the alternator?

According to some specs I read for one HHO unit, you can draw as much as 15 amps of power. Two units could hit 30 amps of power.

Alternator's need more torque than HP to run and 2.4L engines do not have much torque to spare. The result is robbing torque while at cruising speeds causing the engine to spin faster to keep the alternator and car at cruise.
I have 2 cells installed. But I also have a pwm unit installed and it is set at 10amps max for both cells to share. So I don't think I am consuming too much power from the alternator.
tienquang2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 07:26 AM   #16
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 280
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dalez0r View Post

Of course, the only REAL solution is a EMS smart enough to run the HHO, and modify the fuel maps accordingly.
My thought exactly, which is why I haven't done anything yet. I first need an expendant car/downtime so I can convert to a good standalone EMS and get the money for a wideband to properly tune.

Only after that would I try HHO to see how much further I can tune and compare directly. Fooling correctly seems really hard, especially on the cheap. Too bad dyno time is so expensive, they usually have widebands you can use and will install a bung on the exhaust for a pretty good price. You just need someone to install a bung, lend a wideband, and tune your EFIE over a couple hours of driving. But if they did that at dyno time cost you might as well just buy your own wideband.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tienquang2
I have 2 cells installed. But I also have a pwm unit installed and it is set at 10amps max for both cells to share. So I don't think I am consuming too much power from the alternator.
Awesome, PWM is the way to go. Did you ever double check your output and make sure it was still as fast and as much as before? I personally think it's a tuning issue too, just trying to think of little things to check.

Rich is when it reads extra O2, right ? Can add somekind of valve or extra O2 in the stream? Certainly an EFIE sounds easier, just curious.
itjstagame is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 07:31 AM   #17
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 6
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by itjstagame View Post
My thought exactly, which is why I haven't done anything yet. I first need an expendant car/downtime so I can convert to a good standalone EMS and get the money for a wideband to properly tune.

Only after that would I try HHO to see how much further I can tune and compare directly. Fooling correctly seems really hard, especially on the cheap. Too bad dyno time is so expensive, they usually have widebands you can use and will install a bung on the exhaust for a pretty good price. You just need someone to install a bung, lend a wideband, and tune your EFIE over a couple hours of driving. But if they did that at dyno time cost you might as well just buy your own wideband.



Awesome, PWM is the way to go. Did you ever double check your output and make sure it was still as fast and as much as before? I personally think it's a tuning issue too, just trying to think of little things to check.

Rich is when it reads extra O2, right ? Can add somekind of valve or extra O2 in the stream? Certainly an EFIE sounds easier, just curious.
At the moment, I am holding steady the output of the HHO cells (not at max). And the MAF enhancer is set to just a bit. I am trying to get the vehicle ecu to get use to the HHO injection without rejecting it as something real foreign. So far so good. I will put in top off my tank again, reset the ecu, and I will see what mpg I can get out of the system this time.
tienquang2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 01:12 PM   #18
Registered Member
 
VetteOwner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,546
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erik View Post

The rear wheel drive is a real pain in snow...
id rather have rwd in snow than fwd anyday...

u dont know "not purposely sliding out just tryign to get down the road" fun untill you drive a manual s-10 2wd only no weight in the bed on 6" of snow

even with weight it isnt much better...fish tails everywhere but corrects sooo easily
VetteOwner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 01:28 PM   #19
Site Team / Moderator
 
Jay2TheRescue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 4,657
Country: United States
Location: Northern Virginia
I never owned a 4wd truck until I bought the beast, and I've never had a FWD vehicle as a daily driver...

1980 Bonneville wagon
1981 AMC Spirit
1981 Buick Regal
1974 Chevy C-10
1986 Chevy C-10
1998 GMC K1500

I always just put weight in the rear of the vehicle and went on my way. In really deep snow I'd put cable chains on the rear tires. I think the main advantage of FWD in the snow is that you have the weight of the engine on the drive wheels.

-Jay
__________________






Jay2TheRescue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-09-2008, 01:35 PM   #20
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 280
Country: United States
Yup, that's definately the main advantage and the same reason pickup trucks are at a major disadvantage because they have very little weight on the rear wheels. I personally like RWD a bit better because I feel you get more control over where slipping is occurring and how to get back to traction where with FWD you have a lot of traction .. until you don't. That's kind of like when I drive the pickup in 4x4, with lots of snow you really just aim and floor it but when you lose traction there isn't as much you can do to finesse it back to stop sliding.
__________________

itjstagame is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Not very precise mpg calculation larjerr Fuelly Web Support and Community News 4 08-20-2012 02:03 AM
Keeping my distance in traffic khurt General Fuel Topics 8 09-07-2008 04:23 AM
How to Increasing gas mileage on my 1993 Ford Ranger 4.0L automatic JIMTMCDANIELS General Fuel Topics 1 06-29-2008 05:36 PM
YAY! The fit is here! Matt Timion General Discussion (Off-Topic) 45 10-21-2006 02:43 PM
Honda TPS Sensors - $15/ea Matt Timion For Sale 7 06-27-2006 12:05 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.