Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
Author Message
victoreperez Offline
Member
***

Posts: 16
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
I'm new and have installed HHO generator & o2 extender with no MPG gains so far in a '99 Plymouth Voyager. Has anybody ever reported success while using O2 extenders without efie?? Thanks for your answers
11-17-2008 10:11 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thomasbala Offline
Senior Member
****

Posts: 629
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #2
RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
victoreperez Wrote:I'm new and have installed HHO generator & o2 extender with no MPG gains so far in a '99 Plymouth Voyager. Has anybody ever reported success while using O2 extenders without efie?? Thanks for your answers
The O2 extenders don't work, period. The formula is rather simple: Sufficient HHO + EFIE = MPG gain. What's sufficient HHO? I think it's 1 lpm per liter of engine displacement.
11-17-2008 08:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
RDKamikaze Offline
Because Saving Gas Matters
***

Posts: 752
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #3
RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
thomasbala Wrote:
victoreperez Wrote:I'm new and have installed HHO generator & o2 extender with no MPG gains so far in a '99 Plymouth Voyager. Has anybody ever reported success while using O2 extenders without efie?? Thanks for your answers
The O2 extenders don't work, period. The formula is rather simple: Sufficient HHO + EFIE = MPG gain. What's sufficient HHO? I think it's 1 lpm per liter of engine displacement.

I beg to argue that comment you made. I for one have been using an o2 extender for a long time now (about 5 months?) and it alone has done the job. I have played around with other things like MAF adjusters and other mods, but the most results I have been getting were from my o2 extender. THere are also a few other threads where people debate theories and ideas on how they do or do not work. What I've learned from my reading has been that the o2 extender is like HHO; they work on some cars, but other cars aren't fond of them.

It works. Period. Have a great day! Big Grin

My Car:
2006 Toyota Solara 2.4L 4cyl.
-Aftermarket (JPP) header
-DNX exhaust
-Injen Short-Ram Intake (SRI)

Add yourself to the HHO member map!!
11-18-2008 10:00 AM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thomasbala Offline
Senior Member
****

Posts: 629
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #4
RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
RDKamikaze Wrote:
thomasbala Wrote:
victoreperez Wrote:I'm new and have installed HHO generator & o2 extender with no MPG gains so far in a '99 Plymouth Voyager. Has anybody ever reported success while using O2 extenders without efie?? Thanks for your answers
The O2 extenders don't work, period. The formula is rather simple: Sufficient HHO + EFIE = MPG gain. What's sufficient HHO? I think it's 1 lpm per liter of engine displacement.

I beg to argue that comment you made. I for one have been using an o2 extender for a long time now (about 5 months?) and it alone has done the job. I have played around with other things like MAF adjusters and other mods, but the most results I have been getting were from my o2 extender. THere are also a few other threads where people debate theories and ideas on how they do or do not work. What I've learned from my reading has been that the o2 extender is like HHO; they work on some cars, but other cars aren't fond of them.

It works. Period. Have a great day! Big Grin

RD:

Your post is just what I'm looking for. As you know Toyota uses AFR's instead of O2 sensors; thus an EFIE (at least what's out now) doesn't work. Apparently you put an extender on the AFR and it worked. Do you have a thread on this board or another board reflecting your specific application, i.e. type of gen, lpm, etc? I think Toyota may be the best brand out there and would get one if not for the AFRs.
11-18-2008 04:22 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gary Offline
Member
***

Posts: 1,542
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #5
RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
Putting them on my Silverado 5.3L didn't work. Then adding antifoulers on them didn't work. And when I removed them, the inside of the antifouler had CARBON DEPOSITS inside...one of the things that KILLS AN O2 SENSOR.
That was enough for me. If you try them, you should pull them after a bit and check.
11-18-2008 05:19 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
victoreperez Offline
Member
***

Posts: 16
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
Wink RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
thanks for your answers...it seems not everybody gets the same results using the same accesories!!...maybe we can add a Murphy's Law Axiom...."Under the same circunstances, using the same stuff, 10 people will get 10 different results or 1 guy using the same stuff on 10 different days will get 10 different results also"! jajajajaja
I'll keep trying with the extender while i build an EFIE then...
11-19-2008 05:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thomasbala Offline
Senior Member
****

Posts: 629
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #7
RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
"Under the same circunstances, using the same stuff, 10 people will get 10 different results or 1 guy using the same stuff on 10 different days will get 10 different results also"!

It should not be so!!!! There has to be a range of parameters that 90% of 4 cyl ICE vehicles fit, i.e. (+;-)x lpm HHO; (+;-)x Mv EFIE offset, etc. Same for V6, V8. Or, a range of parameters for Ford 4 cyl, GM 4 cyl, Saab 4 cyl., etc. Without a range [probably a tight range] we're just stabbing ghosts in the dark. In other words we're not very scientific at all; we're just charlatans [I know we're not; I know HHO works]. Charlatans make no progress whatever; they just entertain. We're not here for laughs, kicks, HHO pops, etc. We're here to save the American consumer, the EU consumer, the world, from the oil stranglehold. I've been in too many practical scientific pursuits, some fruitful, some not, to NOT FOLLOW scientific basics: data collection, correlation, causation, etc. It works for some but not for others is pure unadulterated BS. It just looks like that because we're not using the tried and proven methodology of science, without which we will surely go the way of magnets on your gas line.
11-19-2008 05:59 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gary Offline
Member
***

Posts: 1,542
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #8
RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
Well, of course we're not using lab equipment or double-blind control and placebo group studies to extrapolate results from...but I'll say this: we can usually tell the noobs from the experimenters in the FE forums and I'll say that most of the guys who put them on were in the experimenter category. Meaning they had a working HHO unit on the vehicle and no electronics to speak of and a few got results and many more did not from what I've read.
So I can't say scientifically it is proven to be junk because some conditions may vary, engine size and so forth. But I can say empirically and anecdotally that they seem to fail more often than succeed from available testimony and experimentation. And that carbon buildup after reading why sensors fail scares me.
That's all I've spoken about.
11-19-2008 06:53 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
thomasbala Offline
Senior Member
****

Posts: 629
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #9
RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
Gary Wrote:Well, of course we're not using lab equipment or double-blind control and placebo group studies to extrapolate results from...but I'll say this: we can usually tell the noobs from the experimenters in the FE forums and I'll say that most of the guys who put them on were in the experimenter category. Meaning they had a working HHO unit on the vehicle and no electronics to speak of and a few got results and many more did not from what I've read.
So I can't say scientifically it is proven to be junk because some conditions may vary, engine size and so forth. But I can say empirically and anecdotally that they seem to fail more often than succeed from available testimony and experimentation. And that carbon buildup after reading why sensors fail scares me.
That's all I've spoken about.
Gary:

I was not addressing your experience with the extenders but VICTORPEREZ'S comment. Unfortunately on message boards the order of appearance is often jumbled. Your experience with extenders is typical; i.e. the 90% experience; the scientific method I was espousing. BTW if you really think about it HHO is emperical, but we can't take the anecdotal and turn it into empirical evidence. I am convinced that with controlled experimentation as you allude to we can, in fact, say: you've got a 1.9 Chevy; xxxo1o1o1o1 ECU; built in Canada, therefore 750 ml HHO/min and 225Mv offset on your EFIE will maximize your mpg gain. Obviously since driving habits differ we can't quantify the mpg gain. We further have the variables of not really knowing our "constants", i.e. 750 ml HHO/min. I've been thinking about a pressurized system so the amount of HHO variable is somewhat controlled but my experience with pops, underhood fires, etc inhibit my thought process. Maybe the H2 only guys have the ultimate answer. I'm not that advanced yet.
11-19-2008 07:29 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Gary Offline
Member
***

Posts: 1,542
Joined: Jun 2008
Reputation: 4
Post: #10
RE: Any positive results w/O2 extenders??
Heheh. Neither am I. It's not getting any mileage yet, but I've just realized that I started using lowtest when we couldn't afford to fill the tank and am still running it: My truck prefers midgrade, so I've come up with the idea that the engine may need to be running near it's best fuelwise for h2 to work. Mine gobbles fuel with lowtest by comparison; I just have tried to see if the lowtest claims were true: that you could switch to lowtest. You can't, evidently.
11-19-2008 07:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)