Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
Author Message
retmil46 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 52
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #11
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
Gotta feel for a fellow Subaru owner - I had an '87 GL wagon w/ 2 barrel carb 1.8 L engine and manual 5 speed, bought it brand new and ran it hard for nearly 20 years before I parted with it last year.

On that '87 wagon, in 2003 I started trying some of Eagle Research's other fuel saver ideas - Basic Carb Enhancer, water vapor injection, and my own basic jury-rigged version of a Hyco 2A. The engine had nearly 150K miles on it when I started and had never seen any major maintenance. Playing with it over a couple months, my mileage went from under 300 miles per tank to upwards of 425 to 450 miles per tank - on a fillup of 14 gallons max.

But then I was blessed by the vehicle's simplicity - 2 barrel carb, old fashioned distributor w/ manually adjustable timing, no O2 sensors, no electronics period.

From my own experience, the info in the ER books is spot on, and I'd have to agree with the advice in those books and what others have said so far in this thread - your best bet would be to install at least one EFIE on the upstream sensor, might possibly need one on the downstream sensor as well depending on how the ECM compares the two to control the engine and emissions.

If plunking down the money for a pre-built EFIE is a little hard to swallow right now, ER has a DIY book on EFIE's for about $20 that not only explains their operation, but also has circuit diagrams and parts lists such that you can build your own if so inclined.

I'm not trying to undercut Mike or anyone else selling pre-built EFIE's - Navy turned me into a pretty good mechanic but I'm a klutz with a soldering iron and electronics, so I'd probably buy a pre-built one as well if needed - but the info in the ER DIY book might help you understand how EFIE's work and decide if you want to go that route.

As far as the amount of gas your generator is putting out - I'm starting to get the feeling that perhaps some of these generators are putting out TOO MUCH gas instead of too little for the size of engine, and perhaps particularly when running without an EFIE-type modification, cancelling out any efficiency gains that might have been made - ie, too much gas production makes fuel economy worse, especially if you don't have any of the supporting players such as an EFIE or water injection present.

In particular, I looked at the Hyzor FAQ section on the ER website. Their Basic Hyzor kit is apparently set up to pull only 2 amps across 6 cells, capacity of 7.5 liters/hour or 0.13 liters/minute, and claimed to be adequate for engines from 2 to 5 liters in displacement, with average reported fuel economy gains of 25%. There's a video on their website of a woman who installed one of their basic kits on a vehicle with an engine in the 2 liter displacement range and claimed the same 25% increase in fuel economy.

Advice in the ER Hyzor book is to start out with the lowest amperage and gas production your unit can reasonably do, then adjust up in small increments until you reach the point that any further increases aren't having any measureable effect.

They make this point several times in their Hyzor book - just because a little gas is good doesn't mean more is better - there is an optimum volume for each engine, anything past this will not give you any further gains, and too far past will actually cause a decrease in fuel mileage. They noted that in most cases with a series type generator a 10 amp power supply was more than sufficient to achieve optimum gas production.

I've seen the same basic thing going on in the diesel forums where gents are playing around with water/meth injection for fuel economy. They buy one of the "performance" kits that's designed to dump in upwards of several gallons per hour and create gobs of extra horsepower and cool EGT's on a heavily modified engine making several hundred horsepower - but are complete overkill for a daily driver making 200 hp or less and for continuous use. They install the kit, already dumping in far too much water or water/meth for their engine, see no measureable results, figure they're not dumping in enough, install even bigger nozzles and dump in even more, still see no measureable results, then write off water injection as complete BS - it never occurring to them that perhaps they were dumping in TOO MUCH water instead of too little from the very beginning.

Mitchell Oates
Mooresville NC
'87 MB 300D Turbodiesel
'05 Jeep Liberty CRD (Common Rail Diesel)
05-04-2008 08:38 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
ptours99 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 162
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #12
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
wingspan99 Wrote:
colchiro Wrote:Check out wulfram's setup since he's getting some of the best results.
His results suggest the O2 sensor output needs modification. His results are amazing considering it's only two light switch plates. I have the equivalent of 12 light switch plates worth of SS.
I've had my HHO generator on my car about a week and I know I don't want to wrap my O2 sensor with foil, even if that does indeed work, because I've had several small problems that necessitated turning my HHO unit off, and with my sensor wrapped up it would cause my car to run extremely lean on gasoline alone, which would damage my valves. I think I need an EFIE to modify the sensor output, and an EGT (exhaust gas temperature) sensor in the exhaust manifold and gauge in the cockpit (also known as an Air/Fuel Ratio gauge, which doesn't measure air or fuel, just heat) plus an ammeter readable from the drivers seat. I just started using KOH yesterday, I hope it runs cleaner than baking soda. My bubbler needs a vacuum valve between it and the generator, the bubbler's electrolyte get's sucked into the generator when I shut down, and I don't trust check valves to flow freely enough. Maybe a PCV valve used backwards to allow suction into the line but closed when running pressure might be just the ticket. See the latest video from ZeroFossilFuels video #85 on youtube for a better understanding of his solution. (He is at http://www.youtube.com/user/ZeroFossilFuel) It has zero resistance to flow unlike a checkvalve. There's a big difference in production between a slight vacuum in the generator vs. a slight pressure in the generator. Besides those darn check valves are hard to find. By the way, kudos to Mike for creating this forum.
-Tom
the guage that you refer to as an a/f for exhaust gas temp is not for that.you want a pyrometer for exhaust temp.

selling an enclosure for the rear of cab semi truck 28''X20''X6'' CUSTOM MADE ALUMINUM TO HOUSE HHO GENERATORS AND INCLUDING A RESERVOIR BUBBLER AND REGULAR BUBBLR ptoures@sbcglobal.net usa only
05-04-2008 05:00 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wingspan99 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 16
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #13
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
retmil46 Wrote:As far as the amount of gas your generator is putting out - I'm starting to get the feeling that perhaps some of these generators are putting out TOO MUCH gas instead of too little for the size of engine, and perhaps particularly when running without an EFIE-type modification, cancelling out any efficiency gains that might have been made - ie, too much gas production makes fuel economy worse, especially if you don't have any of the supporting players such as an EFIE or water injection present.
I wish someone would take a very scientific approach to this all, it just seems we're operating blindly, checking mileage with crude methods. Let's get the car on a dyno, with a fuel flow meter in the main fuel line to check our GPH at set RPM/MPH speeds, an EGT sensor near the exhaust valves so we can tell if we're burning the valves, an emissions probe up the exhaust to verify emissions are reduced, and a huge supply of HHO we can crank up till the thing sputters, coughs and says that's enough HHO.
05-04-2008 05:26 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
kumaran Offline
Member
***

Posts: 68
Joined: Mar 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #14
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
retmil46 Wrote:Gotta feel for a fellow Subaru owner - I had an '87 GL wagon w/ 2 barrel carb 1.8 L engine and manual 5 speed, bought it brand new and ran it hard for nearly 20 years before I parted with it last year.

On that '87 wagon, in 2003 I started trying some of Eagle Research's other fuel saver ideas - Basic Carb Enhancer, water vapor injection, and my own basic jury-rigged version of a Hyco 2A. The engine had nearly 150K miles on it when I started and had never seen any major maintenance. Playing with it over a couple months, my mileage went from under 300 miles per tank to upwards of 425 to 450 miles per tank - on a fillup of 14 gallons max.

But then I was blessed by the vehicle's simplicity - 2 barrel carb, old fashioned distributor w/ manually adjustable timing, no O2 sensors, no electronics period.

Looks like I can get some advice from you on how to tune my carburetor to get better mileage. I'm using Honda Accord 1.8L 1981 model with 2 barrel carb. Your car specs are almost same with mine. The engine is still 1.8L but carburetor changed to 1.6L version from previous owner. Now I've changed the injector nozzle and fit in with 1.2L version. I found that first injector nozzle is same for most of the model but second injector nozzle for 1.2L is much smaller than 1.6L version. I think the car seldom uses second injector to pump in fuel as I don't press full throttle during my test run.

retmil46 Wrote:As far as the amount of gas your generator is putting out - I'm starting to get the feeling that perhaps some of these generators are putting out TOO MUCH gas instead of too little for the size of engine, and perhaps particularly when running without an EFIE-type modification, cancelling out any efficiency gains that might have been made - ie, too much gas production makes fuel economy worse, especially if you don't have any of the supporting players such as an EFIE or water injection present.

In particular, I looked at the Hyzor FAQ section on the ER website. Their Basic Hyzor kit is apparently set up to pull only 2 amps across 6 cells, capacity of 7.5 liters/hour or 0.13 liters/minute, and claimed to be adequate for engines from 2 to 5 liters in displacement, with average reported fuel economy gains of 25%. There's a video on their website of a woman who installed one of their basic kits on a vehicle with an engine in the 2 liter displacement range and claimed the same 25% increase in fuel economy.

Advice in the ER Hyzor book is to start out with the lowest amperage and gas production your unit can reasonably do, then adjust up in small increments until you reach the point that any further increases aren't having any measureable effect.

They make this point several times in their Hyzor book - just because a little gas is good doesn't mean more is better - there is an optimum volume for each engine, anything past this will not give you any further gains, and too far past will actually cause a decrease in fuel mileage. They noted that in most cases with a series type generator a 10 amp power supply was more than sufficient to achieve optimum gas production.

Yes, I thinking along this way also. My electrolyser puts out 1.5LPM to 2.5LPM gas at less than 25A. I think its too much gas goes into engine that makes it counter productive result. Also 25A is way too much load on alternator. I was thinking of using not more than 10A in my next series cell design and see if I could get better result.

In my last testing, the mileage becomes worst (loss 2% mileage).

retmil46 Wrote:I've seen the same basic thing going on in the diesel forums where gents are playing around with water/meth injection for fuel economy. They buy one of the "performance" kits that's designed to dump in upwards of several gallons per hour and create gobs of extra horsepower and cool EGT's on a heavily modified engine making several hundred horsepower - but are complete overkill for a daily driver making 200 hp or less and for continuous use. They install the kit, already dumping in far too much water or water/meth for their engine, see no measureable results, figure they're not dumping in enough, install even bigger nozzles and dump in even more, still see no measureable results, then write off water injection as complete BS - it never occurring to them that perhaps they were dumping in TOO MUCH water instead of too little from the very beginning.

My water/methanol mist injection system didn't work in previous test run. I need to fix the problem before next test run.

Regards,
Kumaran
(Knowledge without action is useless, action without knowledge is foolish)
05-05-2008 01:10 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wingspan99 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 16
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #15
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
I ordered an EFIE from Fuel-Saver.org this morning. I'm not going to run my HHO generator until I install it. Even Eagle Research's site says you absoultely MUST have an EFIE for fuel injected vehicles. I'm starting to believe this. On carbureted vehicles no changes are necessary but the computer will add more fuel on EFI systems when burning HHO. Well at least I'm seeing some kind of effect of HHO, poor gas mileage on my EFI system without an EFIE. Maybe all this hype about HHO is true after all, and I can get a real increase in efficiency?
-Tom in Colorado Springs, CO
05-05-2008 08:17 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wingspan99 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 16
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #16
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
Ok I got my EFIE last week from Mike and it looked well-made. I wired it between the O2 sensor and the ECU, and mounted it under my dash near my main on/off switch. I used a small connector, the kind used for R/C equipment, as a means of accessing the voltage output and measuring it with a voltmeter. With it set at .250v I got a CEL after a few minutes of driving. I lowered it to .200 and after a few miles of driving with the whole Hydroxy/EFIE system off the CEL reset itself but it came back on with the Hydroxy and with the EFIE set at .200v also. I still had an O2 sensor extender installed which might have been making very high voltage values in some cases so today I removed that extender. The O2 sensor was very sooty, obviously the engine was running rich during the CEL periods, and mileage checks showed about 19mpg. Previously my O2 sensor was light brown, with a whitish tip, probably from burning some E85 last month in an E40 test. So I will refill the gas tank when the CEL clears and start a new test. I need to get some kind of ECU reader. I would prefer to get a PC based ECU reader with software to record historical values in the form of graphs over the course of a drive. I was originally thinking Scangauge II but then I realized that there is absoultely no fuel flow sensor involved in the MPG calculation and readout it provides. Things like the fuel tank capacity, fuel injector pulse width, odometer, are used to create the MPG readout. I'm sure that it would reflect a relative change in fuel flow accurately, but actual MPG? Then I realized I wanted to be able to save a graph of a test to compare to another test. Then I realized I wanted to be able to access every brand of computer codes including OBD1 and the newer codes since I have a 1990 Talon to test next. I also want something to be able to download, then change and upload the Subaru ECU fuel maps, something possible on the Subaru ECU since it uses flash memory (I've heard).
I read somewhere that one other brand of EFIE limits the output of the O2 sensor/EFIE combo to 1.0v, which would probably eliminate some of the CEL's I'm getting, but then it might hide an overly lean setting and lead to other problems. What I want to do is get the O2 sensor to read normally with the HHO on. Right now my opinion is that the 99 Subaru Forester has a very sensitive ECU because I had CEL's with my E40 experiments where I tried to run on 40% ethanol by mixing half E85 and half regular gas. Those experiments went well but gas mileage went down to 18mpg, and occasionally a CEL would come on when going down a long hill, spoiling a test session.
One thing I would like is for my EFIE to hold a voltage output better over a ride, it seems to change after the car is driven for a half hour. I'm thinking of turning on one of the built-in heaters in Mike's EFIE. I am monitoring my voltage real time while driving and I see it go up to .230v when I have set it at .200v. Hopefully removing that metal O2 extender will alleviate my CEL problems with .200v
-Tom in CS
05-19-2008 03:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AlexR Offline
Senior Member
****

Posts: 187
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #17
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
Wingspan-

Something that you might try is to adjust the EFIE to put out less offset initially then add more over a longer period of time. Try 100mv first or even less. It may be - and this is just a theory - that the sudden change of adding an a EFIE is too much for the computer to adjust for. Introduce the voltage slowly over the course of 2-3 tanks of gas, this will allow the computer to adjust the long term fuel trims over a longer period of time.

This is just a theoy of mine, but may be something to try.

Alex

Alex

Cool Flame, LLC
http://www.cool-flame.com
05-19-2008 05:37 PM
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wingspan99 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 16
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #18
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
Thanks Alex, I will keep that in mind. I really am not sure I'm making enough hydroxy gas. I am making about .7liter/min on 19amps. Not very efficient for sure. I think I need to insulate the very edges of all my plates to eliminate the losses around the edges. I used to get more gas with a 4 cell system but more heat. One thing I noticed last week when me and my friend Jason were screwing around igniting bottles of the gas, when production went up after it warmed up somewhat, the booms got lower and lower until they were just fizzles. I think a lot of water vapor was being produced. The quality of my gas was apparently lower when it warmed up. {Things that make you go hmmmmm}. -Tom
05-19-2008 08:16 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
S10 Hybrid Offline
Member
***

Posts: 80
Joined: May 2008
Reputation: 1
Post: #19
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
wingspan99 Wrote:My Forester has always gotten 20mpg which is miserable for a 2.5ltr engine so I built a HHO booster with a -NNN+ config using five stainless plates about 3"x8", set inside a Smacks-type enclosure of 4" ABS plastic. I get about 1.1ltr/min gas flow on baking soda electrolyte (soon to be KOH) and 24amps. I know it's not the most efficient out there but it produces a lot more gas than many other puny systems out there that probably only put out .1ltr/min, based on the size of the electrodes and spacing in a mason jar.
I have added a 3/4" spacer to the front O2 sensor, which is located in the front CAT. I have a rear cat also with another O2 sensor unmodified. I suspect the computer is still seeing it as a lean mixture and simply adding more gas. I suspect I need an EFIE for the front O2 sensor but I have put so much time and effort and money into this already, I don't want to throw more money into it without knowing I'll have a payoff. The person selling spacers also sells EFIE's maybe I need to revisit them? I like the idea of modifying the oxygen sensor output more than manipulating the MAS or MAT. I've already run into the issue of having to disconnect my HHO booster for maintenance temporarily but not being able to instantly remove the O2 sensor spacer so who knows how it's running with that spacer in there? -Tom in Colorado Springs, CO

Here is a post I made in the forum a few days a go and I hope it helps you..

http://www.fuel-saver.org/showthread.php?tid=195

jksav7, I am here in MN too. Yesterday regular was $3.71 for 9/10 of a gallon around the corner. I hate ethanol. When my truck ran 100% gas, it ran well and gave me almost 15% better MPG. I had a drastic drop. Performance was down about the same too with ethanol.

Anyone I have ever discussed ethanol with was either an investor in that junk or hated it due to these problems. Guys that race for show hate it too.

Just a thought, could you be making too much gas? I had an experience that if I made tons of gas my MPG would go down when I first installed my HHO system with no EFIE but power went way up. This happened to me running 19 to 25 amps. I lowered the amps to 10 amps with a hot cell and my MPG went up 15% to 20% with no EFIE. Thats when I realized after 2 weeks of experimentation that to optimize the HHO system for better MPG not just zero emissions & better engine performance, I needed an EFIE.

Now I run the cell at 10 amps and clear vinegar as electrolyte, this seems to give me the best HHO boost for the buck. Nice low temps. There seemed to be a curb for the gas injected related to power, MPG and O2 detection.

I hear most people do not get gains with HHO alone. Sometimes a drastic drop in MPG. I am thinking, are they just making too much gas for just a boost?


eddie b.
05-20-2008 06:03 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
wingspan99 Offline
Member
***

Posts: 16
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #20
RE: HHO on 99 Subaru Forester
I tested my gas and I have about 6% ethanol by volume. I doubt that would really impact MPG very much since E85 is estimated to give about 12% less mileage. I did talk to two people with flex fuel vehicles, one was a Honda Civic, new model, and he stated he got 31mpg with E85 and 32mpg with gasoline. That's pretty good. Another was a Ford F150 driver who stated he got 16mpg on gas and 15mpg on E85, again not bad. I have a gas station in town here that sells gas without any ethanol, and I confirmed that with the water test method. It's about 6cents more per gallon though, because it's a "premium" fuel. I think the future of ethanol is really up in the air, because ethanol from biomass is about 5 times more expensive to produce than ethanol from corn stock, which many people are realizing competes with their food supplies. There was a newspaper article today about a lady who paid $7300 for a 1996 Geo Metro because it was a lot cheaper than a $21k Prius. You see what $3.61 gas is doing? Wait til it hits $6.
05-20-2008 02:27 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)