Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
E85 HHO (un)expected failure
Author Message
martinruf Offline
Member
***

Posts: 111
Joined: Feb 2009
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
Sad E85 HHO (un)expected failure
I have closed my attempts with E85 in my car Ford C-Max 1.8i Flexfuel.
It'is no successful history.
An E85-rebuilder said, that after the rebuilding between 5%-15% of additional consumption are possible with a well opposed engine.
There would also be standard vehicles with 30% of additional consumption: My Ford C Max.

The realised savings with 15.9% less consumption on 100 km (MPG 28-> 33) on a well-balanced test cycle (city, country, highway) from 94 km are under my expectations.
With my saving I could change Ford C Max of a prodigal standard carriage on a well opposed rebuilding.

By the end of my attempt time I have gone two cycles without production HHO. Frustration: nearly the same saving.
The corrections in MAF and O2 help{assist} in the saving. I can leave out the HHO.

On the Internet I have read that Ethanol burns even more slowly than petrol. Petrol is already 3 times slower than a HHO. A not rearranged car cannot be started with E85 because the timing must be delayed.

I conclude from the fact that HHO burns too fast for Ethanol and does not fit in timing.

The last installation without HHO:
In a saladsauce shake-mugs is a big aquarium stone in 3 DLs of water. By this the vacuum of the engine draws additional fresh air through the stone and the water.
To the correction of Ford MAF I have a Pot 22kOhm - 67 kOhm in the signal pipe (no resistor to the ground). The O2 are linked up to the VMU2 from Hydroxycorp.net.

I used the Victor zelle (http://www.myonlinead.biz/VICTOR_Assembly.html) as an initial position.
I have a spaghetti tupperware with a +NNNN-NNNN+NNNN-NNNN+NNNN-configuration with 1.6 mms spacing and 1.06 litre/minutes, 15 AMP, air-temperatur 5°C .

With my ELM327 Bluetooth and Digimoto I can see the following values:
E85: ATT, LOAD_PCT, LONGFT1, MAP, O2S11, SHRTFT1, SHRTFT11, SPARKADV, VSS
Petrol: above and ECT, IAT, OS212, RPM, SHRTFT12, TP
Will that mean, that with E85-Fuel the ECU is not interessed on correction IAT und ECT?

Is there somebody with savings by using E85?

Martin


Attached File(s) Thumbnail(s)
           

.pdf  Auto_Verbrauch_e85.pdf (Size: 33.45 KB / Downloads: 21)

Ford C-Max 1.8i flexfuel (petrol)
Victor-Tupperware-Cell
4x 5N at 1-2AMP
20% less Liter/100km
(This post was last modified: 04-28-2009 10:54 AM by martinruf.)
04-28-2009 05:41 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colchiro Offline
Moderator
*****

Posts: 3,265
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 11
Post: #2
RE: E85 HHO (un)expected failure
Hi Martin.

The number of E85 users here could easily be counted on one hand. I know of no-one that is using E85 with hho, but do know a couple that tried it about a year ago. In theory, you could use your efie with E85 without hho, that's the principle used by the "lean cruise" used by the E85 conversion sold by EToM. I'm not sure about using an efie with a vehicle that is Flex-Fuel from the factory tho.

I do know some people converting to E85 also increase the engine timing a little if the vehicle doesn't use a ping sensor to limit the timing.

When using an efie, I recommend setting a MAF or MAP mod to a very low setting, similar to the settings used by the other sensor mods (IAT, CTS, etc). The CTS sensor is notorious for causing cold start problems, which is often a problem attributed to E85. You might also benefit from using Mike's new Digital Efie.

Rick

Links: Documents / Tuning for Mileage | Toyota Sensors | Autoshop Sensor Tutorials
04-28-2009 01:52 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: E85 HHO (un)expected failure
Howdy! If you did a nice little search for E85 and HHO trials, my name would have popped up one too many times. I'm with colchiro on the E85 user wagon (he actually introduced me to this forum from an E85 forum lol!), but I have done tons of trials with nothing but failure, over and over again. Why, I am not sure (maybe I should ask my girlfriend's dad, who is a chemist?), but it just refuses to work as well as we all hoped right now. This does not speak for the future forever and ever, however, as I'm sure someone will come up with something for some way to get HHO to like E85 and give us ridiculous mileage gains and phenomenal horsepower increases.

Until then, we still mix 1/3 tank of E85 with all our non-HHO cars to keep the engine running clean, get some HP increases, and get a few extra miles to the gallon Big Grin . Too bad it's more expensive than traditional gas now though! Sad Sad

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!!
04-28-2009 03:23 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colchiro Offline
Moderator
*****

Posts: 3,265
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 11
Post: #4
RE: E85 HHO (un)expected failure
E85 is 20 to 40 cents cheaper where I fill. At 40 cent's it's definitely worth it. Last year when gas hit $4.00, it was about a $1 cheaper. Got to take the bad with the good I guess.

Rick

Links: Documents / Tuning for Mileage | Toyota Sensors | Autoshop Sensor Tutorials
04-28-2009 04:00 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: #5
RE: E85 HHO (un)expected failure
OH man, I wish E85 was still $1 cheaper here! When gas was at $4 a gallon, E85 was like $1.15 cheaper here! I was so excited lol! But not it's a shade more expensive last I checked (last week). Sad day! Sad Darn the west coast lol!

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!!
04-28-2009 04:55 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
colchiro Offline
Moderator
*****

Posts: 3,265
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation: 11
Post: #6
RE: E85 HHO (un)expected failure
This winter it was priced about as low as they could without losing money, which meant a zero or negative offset in many places. If you believe in ethanol (as opposed to importing foreign oil from people that hate us), you gotta do what you gotta do.

Rick

Links: Documents / Tuning for Mileage | Toyota Sensors | Autoshop Sensor Tutorials
04-28-2009 05:06 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
mattsauto Offline
Member
***

Posts: 112
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #7
RE: E85 HHO (un)expected failure
(04-28-2009 05:41 AM)martinruf Wrote:  I have closed my attempts with E85 in my car Ford C-Max 1.8i Flexfuel.
It'is no successful history.
An E85-rebuilder said, that after the rebuilding between 5%-15% of additional consumption are possible with a well opposed engine.
There would also be standard vehicles with 30% of additional consumption: My Ford C Max.

The realised savings with 15.9% less consumption on 100 km (MPG 28-> 33) on a well-balanced test cycle (city, country, highway) from 94 km are under my expectations.
With my saving I could change Ford C Max of a prodigal standard carriage on a well opposed rebuilding.

By the end of my attempt time I have gone two cycles without production HHO. Frustration: nearly the same saving.
The corrections in MAF and O2 help{assist} in the saving. I can leave out the HHO.

On the Internet I have read that Ethanol burns even more slowly than petrol. Petrol is already 3 times slower than a HHO. A not rearranged car cannot be started with E85 because the timing must be delayed.

I conclude from the fact that HHO burns too fast for Ethanol and does not fit in timing.

The last installation without HHO:
In a saladsauce shake-mugs is a big aquarium stone in 3 DLs of water. By this the vacuum of the engine draws additional fresh air through the stone and the water.
To the correction of Ford MAF I have a Pot 22kOhm - 67 kOhm in the signal pipe (no resistor to the ground). The O2 are linked up to the VMU2 from Hydroxycorp.net.

I used the Victor zelle (http://www.myonlinead.biz/VICTOR_Assembly.html) as an initial position.
I have a spaghetti tupperware with a +NNNN-NNNN+NNNN-NNNN+NNNN-configuration with 1.6 mms spacing and 1.06 litre/minutes, 15 AMP, air-temperatur 5°C .

With my ELM327 Bluetooth and Digimoto I can see the following values:
E85: ATT, LOAD_PCT, LONGFT1, MAP, O2S11, SHRTFT1, SHRTFT11, SPARKADV, VSS
Petrol: above and ECT, IAT, OS212, RPM, SHRTFT12, TP
Will that mean, that with E85-Fuel the ECU is not interessed on correction IAT und ECT?

Is there somebody with savings by using E85?

Martin

Build a "Dry Cell" for better HHO production efficiency and stick with the "Grosser Aqua Stain" in the bubbler , then you will see better results.
04-29-2009 04:39 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


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