Any Jeep Owners on here with any MPG success stories??
 

I have a 95 jeep cherokee 2 door XJ auto 4x4 i6 4.0

I have done the following, any ideas for more FE or mpg success stories that would help me.

-Stan Meyer Replica HHO Hydrogen Cell all 316 stainless steel, puts out almost 2.0LPM, running at 10amps 150 degrees, b&m cooler too.
-Map and 02 enhancer to lean the jeep out since adding hho.
-Transmission cooler so Trans runs as cool as possible
-Transmission kick down cable as tight as possible so shifts are as firm as possible no lagging
-PCV enhancer to catch oil blow by from valve cover to intake.
-battery voltage stabilizer, supposively helps keep everything at a stable voltage
-Fuel Magnet supposively helps
-3.0? warm air intake next to header cone air filter best mpg is warm air
-Removed clutch fan for electric fan less moving parts and it is adj and kicks on at 205, and thermostat is 195 highest possible.
-6 new Bosch fuel efficient spray injectors, no more pencil spray old stock junk ones that prob leak too.
-Throttle body spacer with cyclone lines for better combustion and mpg
-Timing advanced as far as possible for better mpg
-Block heater so motor warms up faster to operating temp and into closed loop
-2000 jeep intake manifold that flows better and 15hp increase
-Tire pressures are all at 55PSI
-Run in neutral on hills and turn off if it?s a long enough hill, same thing at long lights it?s turned off.
-Serp belt is as loose as possible so spins as free as possible
-removed a/c and all that weight, and re-routed alternator in a/c's old spot so no more idler, fan or a/c pulley. smaller belt and less things to run around.
-Removed hitch, front driveshaft, spare tire and holder, rear seats, seatbelts, rear carpet, roof rack, and any other odds and ends that add extra weight.
-then rhino lined floors so its like a truck bed on the inside.
-All fluids in the jeep are the lightest weight possible diffs 75w80, tranny, engine oil 0w20, transfer case and all synthetic amsoil best.
-e3 plugs gapped as large as possible
-all high output wires, cap, rotor and coil from accell 8.5 super conductor for best possible spark
-high flow pacesetter header back exhaust 2.5 inch no kinks or sharp bends, high flow magnaflow cat too.
-run acetone, xylene, and 2cycle oil in gas at each fill up
-run z max every 5,000 miles in all fluids.
-all new sensors map, tps, iat, iac, map, 02 sensor so they are all working best as possible.


Did i miss anything or can i do anything else i drive 90% city and 10% highway.

Have you logged the effect of all those things on your fuel economy? Your gaslog here just has two entries from last year.

There are a few other Jeep drivers here who may be able to tell you what works for them.

Some thoughts on your extensive list...

Stuff that probably doesn't help:
Your voltage stabilizer won't help fuel economy, though if your built-in voltage regulator is failing then I suppose it might do the same job. Your ignition stuff will not likely help unless it replaced failing components. HHO, magnet, spacer, and cyclone are almost certainly not helping, although HHO may not entirely be proven ineffective. Exhaust and additives may help in certain conditions but probably not for you.

Stuff that probably does help:
:thumbup: Good job on that stuff, I bet those things have truly helped.

Stuff that's a good idea though it doesn't help with FE:
Good stuff, but it's not saving any gas.

This one is opposite what you should do:
Firm shifts are good but the kickdown cable won't affect shift firmness; that's dependent mainly on line pressure. Anyway, in most vehicles you want to avoid it downshifting quickly; instead, you want to open the throttle more and let it work harder in the current gear.

Damaging ideas:
Your automatic transmission is probably like 90% of other automatic transmissions, in that its oil pump won't run while the engine is not running; if so, engine-off coasting can damage your transmission.

I can't imagine a loose slipping serpentine belt will save any measureable amount of fuel, but I can certainly imagine it wearing out and breaking prematurely.

Thanks for the reply:

I started out at 12mpg city and i am up to 21mpg in the summer city driving.

The HHo i think if i had a newer car that was obd2 it would work better becuase the map enhancer can only lean the one 02 sensor so far. Plus newer cars can work better on hydrogen and see that extra fuel is being added. Hydrogen did bump the mpg up like 3 mpg on city but i need to do more testing to make it more efficent but i've seen where it does work very very well.

i was yanked by the gimmics for the fuel magnets and the voltage stabilizer they may work but you probaly need like millions of them in line. i paid 10.00 for both of them in total so no real loss.

thorttle body spacer is a give and take, some jeep guys on the forums have seen increases with it

e3 plugs where dyno tested on horsepower tv speed channel and they tried 5 sets of plugs and e3 lowered emissions and did give a .0000 something in better efficency. its small but does work

mpg is defintely helped by better spark for a more efficent burn, plus larger the gap plug the better the burn for fe. Plus super conductor wires 8.5 and high output coil is better too your wrong on that one.

high flow header, exhuast and cat helps the jeep breath better and did help my mpg some, plus no more bends or kinks in the pipes. the downpipe on my old header went from 2.5 to 1 inch from factory.

Zmax and engine restore helps a lot on older cars like mine with 190,000 miles on drivetrain. once again proven from years of results. better compression better mpg.

acetone, zylene and 2cycle snythetic mixed to a full tank i've watched a great 2 mpg increase when i use that consistently.

That rhino lining helps becuase my carpet weighed some much it wasnt even funny, so saved weight for FE

The kickdown cable on my jeep if i tighten it up it increases the line pressure and jeep shifts harder. it doesnt downshift more up and down i can tell you that first hand since i play with it all the time.

If your serp belt it too tight it will make the engine work harder to spin it and wear things out more.

Plus the jeep in neutral on hills wont hurt it, its just free wheeling what do cars do when they are being towed? they arent running while they are being towed right? Plus if i do it, its not for long.

Think of all this in a larger scale and larger picture. Its all small but helps becuase how can i go from 12 to 21?

Most vehicles cannot be towed with their drive wheels down. 4x4s are supposed to go on a flatbed, although I'm pretty sure it wouldn't hurt anything if you put the transfer case in neutral. 2wd vehicles get the end with the drive wheels lifted and the other end is on the ground.

Neutral with the engine on is fine, the engine is still running the transmission pump. With the engine off you're risking your transmission, as it doesn't get the lubrication and cooling provided by circulating the transmission oil. There are a few automatics that are ok for engine-off coasting; those have their pump driven by the output shaft.

Edit: With you knowing and willing to take the risk, I'd love to hear from you when you sell/junk the vehicle or the transmission fails, whichever comes first. I prefer real world experience to pre-existing knowledge / theory. I haven't heard from anyone who has done engine-off coasting with an automatic for the long term.

My car is EPA rated 25 and I'm currently getting 40+, without any of those modifications. My pickup is rated 14 and I'm getting 19, again without those mods. The only thing from your list that I've done is increased tire inflation and neutral coasting (and engine-off coasting in my VW which has a manual transmission). I don't even drive very slow. Modifications aren't necessary to get results like yours.

Not sure if your E3 plugs have any platinum in or not, if they do they will fight with any H2 you get in there by preigniting it.

Which 2 stroke oil are you using? Has to be ashless TCW3 spec outboard oil or better, or it's just going to clag up your O2 sensor and catalytic convertor, and piston rings.....

Tubing the HHO in front of your TB isn't very efficient, it will only really suck at it when it's at WOT, and at closed throttle it's making a hydrogen gas bomb out of your intake.

Still waiting for info on an hho that works.

By the way, it looks like you could have things that could conflict with each other...

The objective of combustion timing is to get the highest pressure at TDC, well, just a hair after TDC. This can be achieved by modifying spark timing, or modifying the burn rate/flame front speed of the fuel. A slow burning fuel you can light sooner to get the peak pressure at the right time (Spark advance) a fast burning fuel needs to be lit up later....

However, one is also faced with the emissions tuning of everything since the mid 70s which pulls advance between around 2000 and 3000 RPM to reduce NOx. By delaying the pressure peak until a little after TDC, the burn is cooler and makes less NOx. It's questionable actually whether this is necessary with E10 fuels which burn a little cooler. It's also questionable whether it is required with a fast burning fuel, which will ramp pressure quicker and leave less time for the head to heat soak, putting more energy into pressure than heat, thus overall the peak temperature might be just low enough not to make NOx.

Some additives may slow the burn (in general octane boosters) some may speed it, but it's not necessarily true that what increases the burn speed also promotes compression knock. In theory, hot, well mixed and atomised fuel should increase the flame front speed, therefore less advance is required. In theory, "hot" ignition systems and super spark plugs should light off the mixture more thoroughly allowing a quicker burn to completion, flame front speed is the same, but hopefully it's burning from the middle to the edges rather than kind of lighting it at one side and waiting for it to burn across. Therefore for the same flame front speed, combustion should be complete in less time. This should also require less advance. HHO is also theorised to increase flame front speed.

Acetone is a little odd in that it causes an apparent increase in octane rating due to raising the pre-ignition point of a fuel, thus it prevents knock, but due to being a high polarity solvent decreases the interstitial bonding, or surface tension of fuels into which it is diluted. Ethanol also has this effect. The difference between an ethanol fuel and a non-ethanol fuel in this regard is that ethanol has a lower heating value, and already does what acetone is meant to to do, therefore there is no further improvement from acetone. Whereas in a non-ethanol fuel, the acetone can have that effect without reducing the heating value of the fuel, because acetone has a fairly high heating value itself. The polar properties should allow better atomisation of a non-ethanol fuel, which should allow higher flame front speeds, but conversely the octane boosting properties by increasing pre-ignition temperature can mask and soften knock from detonation.

Anyway, the point of all this is to say that "The most base advance before it audibly misfires" might not necessarily be the most efficient, because combinations of additives and modifications may allow it not to misfire even though peak pressure is before TDC, or may mask and soften misfires. To some extent ECUs may be able to tune the advance dynamically and store an offset, but only if conditions are consistant, if you keep changing things from tank to tank it will never settle to the best it can do. It would be wise though to experiment with base advance under controlled conditions, to determine if you have it set for optimum power and economy, rather than going with the "It doesn't sound like it's misfiring when I push it this far" approach. You might find the optimum is a couple of degrees back from where you though it was.

Oh actually, some motors can be substantially different in where exactly after TDC the peak pressure is most effective. This is dependant on rod to crank angle, stroke length and rod ratio. That is because a short stroke, short rod ratio, the piston can be displaced a relatively large amount relatively quickly, whereas on a long stroke, long rod ratio, the piston kind of hangs at the top of the cylinder for several degrees of rotation before it gets moving, so longer stroke motors may favor later peak BMEP than shorter stroke motors.

I'll look into the engine off coasting if its going to burn up the tranny, i'll post some jeep forums.

Yea my jeep actually wont let you retard or advance the distributor timing. I grinded the clips off the distributor stops so that it can be moved. My computer is too old to automatically retard if timing is too high, i've already found that out.

I realise that there are many aspects go into spart and timing and fuel burn with using additives and certain octane and HHo.

I will have to stick with what i have then start to take things away and see what happens.

ROADWARRIOR Should i put the HHo in the intake manifold port on the manifold itself or somewhere else? No matter what it gets pulled in the motor at WOT right? Or should I find a vacuum line to attach it to?

E3 plugs are diamond fire technology i dont think they are platinum from what i see on their website and google searches.

https://www.e3sparkplugs.com/technology.htm

See if you can find the venturi vacuum port, this should have vacuum at all times, because it's created by the venturi effect in the throttle body. Usually the evap system is connected to it. The evap system may have two points of connection though, one regular vacuum and one venturi vacuum. Regular vacuum will only pull it through at small throttle openings, venturi vacuum will pull it in across the throttle range.

i dont really have that venturi type vacuum port. Mayb i should use and hook into the pcv valve port. that vacuum is only pulled one way from top of valve cover and then to intake manifold. I did a web search and they say hook into pcv line

what do you think about e3 i dont think they are platinum or iridium right

I couldn't find out on their site either whether they were coated or tipped with platinum, iridium or unobtanium.

PCV line will be okay, will just tend to lose flow during large throttle openings, but it won't take much pressure in the cell to push it in (Unless you fit a turbo) and at least it won't build up anywhere if you have to idle.

I'm sure your Jeep will retard timing if it detects knock but there is a point of no return. The computer is only programmed to retard so much and if you force the timing out of specification enough that maximum retard can be well above where timing should be.

How did you gap the e3 plugs? They have a tri-pod electrode configuration that doesn't allow for traditional gaping.

As for the transmission, check out the owners manual for towing. The tracker manual said the automatic could be flat towed with the auto in neutral at 55mph if you started the engine and let it idle in neutral for a minute or so every 150-200 miles. That car EOC on the freeway was no problem.

Good idea. When checking that, make sure it says that the transfer case can remain engaged and you just have to leave the transmission in neutral.

All that farting around and it's still 16% BELOW EPA.

Cars, trucks, whatever... I've always been able to beat EPA handily.

So much for those "mods". Just learn how to drive the thing sensibly.

Or simply show me the same mid 90's jeep cherokee that gets better mpg and i'll shut my mouth.

All my driving is city no highway. EPA was 12 i am 23 -25mpg.

So when i bought the jeep starting at 12 2 years ago i guess its all driving that got me to 25 on my best day i dont think so.

If I want to waste my time I'll stop by... unless you have a cold one handy.

WTH are you doing in a Jeep in the city anyway?

https://www.gassavers.org/garage/view/2136
https://www.gassavers.org/garage/viewgaslog/2136?
25.59 MPG
1998 Jeep Cherokee 4x4 4.0L. Curb weight 3600 pounds. 5 speed, presumably manual; that is certainly an advantage, although its EPA rating is lower.

According to your garage entry, it's 22 not 12.

He went from 16% under EPA yesterday to 2% above after reading my post today... AMAZING!!! :eek: :eek: :eek:

I'm the best fuel economy mod he's got!!! LOL

Anyway, I'd like to tap into Justin's mechanical expertise on working ho ho ho systems, since roadwarrior keeps coming up "short".

So much anger! :eek: Strike a nerve???

I see from your list of intelligent mods that you pretty much have every scam P.O.S. ever marketed on your pile- I hope you are getting airtabs soon to make it complete. Only thing I'll learn from you and your superior mechanical skills is yet another verification that it's all junk that doesn't work. I suppose there might be some value in that. :rolleyes:

Look armchair, Maybe you did not take high school science but most people who did know it is a simple process to make hydrogen with a cup of water and a 9 volt battery. Running 12 volts @ 10 amps thru a simple stack submerged in a mixture of water with a little potassium chloride produces aprox. 1200cc of gas per min. which is 2/3 hydrogen and 1/3 oxygen, a very very explosive mixture, compared to the atmosphere which is 19.5% oxygen (flammable) and 80.5 % nitrogen (non flammable). Now by allowing this gas to flow into the engines air intake stream it increases the power output of the cylinders, which means you are giving the engine less throttle at the same speed. Hydrogen is 2.5 X as explosive as regular fuel/air. This is not rocket science; it has been around allot longer than you have. As far as big news stories I am afraid again you are mistaken, if you ever check the U.S Patten Office has issued patens on hundreds of fuel saving devices that have never received any notoriety but have been proven to work all the same. Former JPL scientist Herman Anderson built a car that ran on water and yet who has heard of him. The state of Tennessee allowed him to drive his car but not to produce or sell it. It is now in the Water Fuel Museum in Lexington KY. No one is making any money off these devices, and up until $4.00 gas, 4 or 5 miles per gallon was not going to get too many people excited. Heck it is really not worth it to me to put them on the rest of my cars, as I can make enough money on a Saturday afternoon to buy a years gas, but I was curious if it worked so I tried it.

Is that the U.S. General Patten Office by any chance? LMAO Just cuz something/someone has a patten doesn't mean it works or they won a war or anything. I'd say what's needed is third party testing and verification by a reputable source i.e. someone that doesn't have a horse in that race i.e. someone that doesn't stand to make a buck on it i.e. a legitimate science and/or test lab and/or reputable mechanic and/or engineering firm and/or state/fed agency charged with evaluating such things. No, the Water Fuel Museum doesn't count. :rolleyes:

Gee, i ne'er herda elektrollisis afore. OK Einstein, let's see if you took math class: How far does 1200cc/minute go in your engine? Then: how much hp did it take to put out that 10 amps? Then: how much benefit was there to the hydrogen component?

Ummm, I think this thread has been derailed... Can we please get back on topic, and keep things civil, or this thread may be closed.

Thank You,

Jay

let me clear up a misconception. Many people think that we are generating HHO so we can burn it, and that burning this HHO adds so much power, that we get better fuel mileage. To take this a step further, there are 3 energy conversions at work here:

Mechanical to electrical (the alternator makes electrical energy)
Electrical to chemical (the cell makes HHO from electrical energy)
Chemical to mechanical (the HHO burns in the engine to make mechanical energy)

The problem is that there are 3 energy conversions occurring here, and each one loses some energy. It is a basic fundamental of physics that in any conversion of energy from one form to another, there is going to be some loss. There is no such thing as 100% efficiency. In some of these conversions there is quite a bit of loss. So if this is all there was to the picture, then the system would actually lose mileage when it was used. I've even seen this mistaken idea expressed in magazines and on television news coverage of the technology.

But this is not how HHO is able to improve fuel economy. In actual fact HHO, when added to the air/fuel mixture going into the engine, causes that petroleum fuel to burn more rapidly. Scientists say that it considerably increases the flame speed of the petroleum mixture. And it is this fact that sums up the primary way that HHO improves fuel mileage.

When the flame speed of the fuel mixture is increased, more of the fuel is burned during the power stroke of the piston. Less fuel is being burned after the power stroke, and during the exhaust stroke, which actually works against the turning of the engine. And less unburned fuel is being expelled from the engine as waste and pollutants. A relatively small amount of HHO will have a dramatic impact on the amount of power a given amount of gasoline will produce. It will also drop dramatically the amount of harmful emissions the engine produces.


Back in the good old days, before there were computers in cars, experimenters were able to add HHO to their engines and get remarkable mileage gains and dramatic decreases in emissions. No other handling was needed to get excellent results. Similarly, diesel engines, even today get excellent results with HHO and need no other handling.

However, with the advent of the computer, fuel injection, oxygen sensors, and other sensors used to control the air/fuel ratio, a problem is introduced into this simple technology. The problem starts like this. When hydrogen is introduced, and the engine is turning more times with less gas, one of the results is that there is more oxygen coming through the exhaust. This is reported to the computer by the oxygen sensor(s) that are installed in the exhaust pipe(s). The computer reads this additional oxygen as a "lean" air/fuel mix. It then promptly adds more gas, until it "sees" the same exhaust conditions it was programmed to expect. However, it is now incorrectly adding gas when it shouldn't.

People with modern, fuel-injected cars, who put in HHO, often report that their vehicle runs smoother, and has a dramatic increase in horsepower. But they also often report no increase in fuel mileage. This is because the computer, that was designed for inefficient combustion, is adding much more gas than is actually needed. What is needed to get all the gains available to this technology is to compensate for this additional oxygen in the exhaust.

A device was created that does just that. It's called an EFIE, which is short for Electronic Fuel Injection Enhancer. You can find out more about this device, and how it works in the article EFIE Described. But basically this device compensates for the additional oxygen appearing in the exhaust, and allows the computer to do it's job correctly when an HHO system is installed.

There is a remarkable simplicity to this technology. If you add HHO to your engine, you will get an increase in combustion efficiency. That is just science, and it works as certainly as turning on a light switch. But to get your gains, you have to compensate for the additional oxygen that will now appear in the exhaust. And that is done by modifying the sensor information going to the computer. If you can do these 2 things, you will get a dramatic increase in fuel mileage and a corresponding decrease in fuel emissions.

We ordinarily expect people to get a minimum of 25% increase in MPG, and 30-35% is our expected average. Some people have gotten 50% or more mileage increases. By proper application of this simple technology, you can get these increases for your vehicle too.

This is wrong. Under normal circumstances anyways. The goal is to burn everything in the cylinder around 10-15 degrees ATDC. If your engine is still burning fuel after that point it's pretty much a waste since the combustion area starts to grow faster than the mixture can burn. Not only that, but the lower the piston is in the cylinder the more of your energy you lose to the block. The ONLY time your mixture is burning when the exhaust stroke is happening is when the cylinder goes excessively lean. It feels like a misfire and the engine is low on power. That is also the condition that kills exhaust valves.

If you can burn the mixture faster you can retard timing, this will give you less of your compression stroke with a burning mixture working against the engine. If you can increase the burn rate so there is only 25 degrees between ignition and peak cylinder pressure as opposed to 35 you've saved yourself 10 degrees of advance. It has no effect whatsoever on the burn ATDC unless you are running lean.

That's your idea of civil? :rolleyes:

Don't you ever get tired of being wrong?

It's a known fact (among those who know I guess :rolleyes: ) that +98% of the mixture is combusted already.

You and all the other ho ho ho proponents are bas tard izing a process that HAS been proven. As in most fuel econo schemes, there IS a kernel of truth at the core of it but then the manipulative or just plain ignorant twist it around to such an extent that it's functionally impossible. If you'd bother to look at the links I generously provided you would see that but noooooo, you're smarter than multi-million dollar consorteums formed to develop this idea, as well as teams of thousands of OEM engineers. :rolleyes: