Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
Author Message
HANK1948 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 42
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
Iam collecting parts to install in my 97 Montana with a 3.4. I was wondering if anyone has had success with a 3.1 or a 3.4 (same engine family). I havent got a cell yet planning on a drycell.

1983 CC Chevy 1ton running on WVO and HHO
Always trying to stick it to the man!
02-12-2009 06:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
saltmine Offline
Member
***

Posts: 89
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
I've managed to pull 36mpg out of my '01 Impala with a 3.4L. I'm using a dry cell and an EFIE..
02-15-2009 08:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HANK1948 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 42
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
(02-15-2009 08:59 AM)saltmine Wrote:  I've managed to pull 36mpg out of my '01 Impala with a 3.4L. I'm using a dry cell and an EFIE..

So what drycell are you using? Iam debating from a Sidcell or Smacks drycell

1983 CC Chevy 1ton running on WVO and HHO
Always trying to stick it to the man!
02-15-2009 06:18 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
saltmine Offline
Member
***

Posts: 89
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
I'm running a modified Smacks dry cell of my own design. I'm too lazy to punch out all of those holes in the Sid cell design.
Plates? 6"X6"
6 plates, isolated cells (no equalizing ports)
external fill.
2.5LPM @ 18.6 amps
02-16-2009 07:37 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
jericoriver Offline
Member
***

Posts: 5
Joined: Nov 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
(02-16-2009 07:37 AM)saltmine Wrote:  I'm running a modified Smacks dry cell of my own design. I'm too lazy to punch out all of those holes in the Sid cell design.
Plates? 6"X6"
6 plates, isolated cells (no equalizing ports)
external fill.
2.5LPM @ 18.6 amps

What is your voltage running?
How did you measure your LPM?
2.5 LPM at 18.6 amps seems to be way better than the norm.
Did you check the temp. when testing? Thanks
02-16-2009 08:15 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
saltmine Offline
Member
***

Posts: 89
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #6
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
Ah, don't get me started....

Voltage? 14 V-14.6 V.
I measure my LPM like most of the guys on the forum do, I have a two-litre bottle in a bucket with a hose plumbed into the bottom, and an accurate stopwatch. It started out just under 2LPM but after the plates conditioned a bit, it climbed to 2.5LPM
The cell temperature is holding at 116 degrees F. when the car isn't moving. BTW, the cell is mounted in front of my radiator, so it gets plenty of air. It's a "tuning" process, adjusting the NaOH mix, the size and number of plates, and hours of road testing.
02-16-2009 03:25 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HANK1948 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 42
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #7
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
Saltmine,
are you getting 36 consistantly or was that your high? Iam hoping to get at least 30 out of my montana on a regular basis. I should be able to do that, Iam getting 25-26 regularly(in warmer months not running now) in my 6500 lbs 1 ton crew cab diesel truck with two smacks in series

1983 CC Chevy 1ton running on WVO and HHO
Always trying to stick it to the man!
02-16-2009 05:03 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
saltmine Offline
Member
***

Posts: 89
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #8
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
A lot of fuel economy depends on where and how a car is driven. My Impala averages around 34mpg. Around town, with a lot of stop-and-go traffic and running the A/C, the figure drops to 26mpg. Out on the highway, on long runs, the mileage has consistently hit 36mpg. The best I ever got with it was 39.5mpg, but I actually drove very conservatively, no A/C and no high speed.
A Scanguage is probably one of the most significant tools you can get to help you get good mileage. Don't trust the "real time" fuel economy readout, but use it to adjust your driving style for better gas mileage. It also helps to have an efficient engine/drivetrain combination. If you're running a gas hog, you can't expect good mileage....too many mechanical losses.

The 6.2L Diesel was an underrated diesel, but with mechanical injection, it runs happily on clear vegetable oils and bio blends. They also respond well to HHO conversions, so you're "stickin' it to the man" in two ways with your diesel.
02-17-2009 06:56 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
HANK1948 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 42
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #9
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
(02-17-2009 06:56 AM)saltmine Wrote:  A lot of fuel economy depends on where and how a car is driven. My Impala averages around 34mpg. Around town, with a lot of stop-and-go traffic and running the A/C, the figure drops to 26mpg. Out on the highway, on long runs, the mileage has consistently hit 36mpg. The best I ever got with it was 39.5mpg, but I actually drove very conservatively, no A/C and no high speed.
A Scanguage is probably one of the most significant tools you can get to help you get good mileage. Don't trust the "real time" fuel economy readout, but use it to adjust your driving style for better gas mileage. It also helps to have an efficient engine/drivetrain combination. If you're running a gas hog, you can't expect good mileage....too many mechanical losses.

The 6.2L Diesel was an underrated diesel, but with mechanical injection, it runs happily on clear vegetable oils and bio blends. They also respond well to HHO conversions, so you're "stickin' it to the man" in two ways with your diesel.


So you are getting consistently 36 MPG, whats the improvement over 28-30? dont Impalas get about 30 on the freeway. 6-8 mpg improvement is pretty good. Youre system is fairly reliable and not much maintenance?

1983 CC Chevy 1ton running on WVO and HHO
Always trying to stick it to the man!
02-17-2009 04:21 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
saltmine Offline
Member
***

Posts: 89
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #10
RE: Anyone have results with GM 3.1 or 3.4L
The EPA fuel economy rating for my car is 22mpg city and 28mpg highway (2001 Chevy Impala)
The system is fairly reliable. When first installed, I had some leaks, and I had to get a balance of NaOH to distilled water. But it's pretty much "plug & play"... Because of the gas production and the slightly higher temperatures I have to keep an eye on the reservoir fluid level, but yeah, "plug & play".

I've thought about going to 316L stainless, but the 304 (18ga) seems to work just fine once they get conditioned. I also have a friend who is running a similar cell on his '93 Chevy S-10, 4.3 V-6, and he's seeing 25-26mpg...but he don't care, he likes the additional power the HHO setup gives.
02-18-2009 08:32 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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