Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Results with 2.3 Mustang under vacuum
Author Message
Delray Dude Offline
Member
***

Posts: 105
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #1
Results with 2.3 Mustang under vacuum
I tried the vacuum side on my 93 Mustang last week - went through one tank of gas - ran 328 miles of my normal driving (actually not even as the weather was a pleasant 70's so I wasn't running the a/c).

I switched my smack booster output hose from the non vacuum side (was injected behind MAF and just ahead of the throttle plate.

Switched to definite vacuum side on same port for the power brake booster. Vacuum guage feeds into this same line and a constant monitor of it indicated no vacuum loss through the booster.

The result over 328 miles was no gain what so ever over how I have run the booster before (stayed at 26 MPG). In fact, i lost about 1/10th of MPG according to my spreadsheet records.

I was disappointed in the results - but am now trying something a bit different. I needed to dimple my plates anyways, so I pulled the plate arrangement outta my booster and resealed the to electrode bolts, filled the housing with distilled water only and I'm gonna see if a pure water tank under vacuum has any effect this tankful. I'm keeping my EFIE at the same adjustment for this tank, and will turn the efie off for the next one. In the mean time, I'm gonna dimple my plates and prepare it for re-installation.

1993 Mustang LX
2.3 Liter engine
5 speed manual
8.8 GT axle with 2.71 gears
Smack Design Booster
EFIE currently set at .25
Without HHO was getting 24-25 MPG
Best result with HHO : 29.5 MPG
11-03-2008 06:26 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
howiemandel Offline
Member
***

Posts: 421
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #2
RE: Results with 2.3 Mustang under vacuum
I know some people use an efie, with vacuum, but its not required. Did you use efie on this test?
Bubbler?
Does your unit put 1 liter or more out, under bench? I only ask because it seems that smacks, water4gas, and etc. are the ones you hear about being garbage. Its like, yah, it works, but........... I know the plan i followed resulted in something that paled in comparison to my 9 dollar generator.
Leak? I swear to you, i almost quit HHO and Vacuum testing and said to hell with it, after 2 tankfuls. Then I saw it. An EXTREMELY small leak. While fixing it, i told myself, NO WAY, NO HOW, this small, barely visible leak gave me NO results, surely woulda got something. Nope. After fixing it, i shot up to 8 mpg, gains. And stayed there.
You sound like you got your "act" together, so im doubting the leak theory, but... man, its possible.
How big is your smack booster? Is the vacuum sufficient? I know you have it full time, you say, but .....
I hope you can tweak this and make it work, and become a "vacuum" is better guy. Hate to lose you on this.
Smile
See ya.
11-03-2008 06:59 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Delray Dude Offline
Member
***

Posts: 105
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #3
RE: Results with 2.3 Mustang under vacuum
howiemandel Wrote:I know some people use an efie, with vacuum, but its not required. Did you use efie on this test?

Yes - EFIE was set to .25. I have an Air/Fuel guage hooked to the altered signal side. When running with EFIE off, you can definitely see the guage reporting lean conditions more than rich.


howiemandel Wrote:Bubbler?
Does your unit put 1 liter or more out, under bench? I only ask because it seems that smacks, water4gas, and etc. are the ones you hear about being garbage. Its like, yah, it works, but........... I know the plan i followed resulted in something that paled in comparison to my 9 dollar generator.

Yep - bubbler on the side of the unit (1 inch clear tube).
My smack design is the original 16 plate unit design in a tube that's 26" tall. Plates are 7" tall and submerged deep (bottom of plates are approximately 1" from bottom of the unit), Measured output was fairly consistent to just over .75 LPM - plates are 316 SS and cross hatched sanded (no dimpling yet). I'm runing KOH with distilled water and over 3-4 months very little mud - just a little patch of it in the bottom (only cleaned twice- second being this weekend - 1st was 1 week after initial - more mud the 1st time but still very small). Plates are a nice bronze tint to it right now.


howiemandel Wrote:Leak? I swear to you, i almost quit HHO and Vacuum testing and said to hell with it, after 2 tankfuls. Then I saw it. An EXTREMELY small leak. While fixing it, i told myself, NO WAY, NO HOW, this small, barely visible leak gave me NO results, surely woulda got something. Nope. After fixing it, i shot up to 8 mpg, gains. And stayed there.
You sound like you got your "act" together, so im doubting the leak theory, but... man, its possible.

I'm fairly confident the system was decently sealed it did have a vacuum on the fill tube cap a few minutes after shutting engine. I used a fair amount of teflon tape on the threads - but vacuum leaks are possible. I have enough PVC laying around to build another unit and seal it with end caps to eliminate the 4" thread plug - if it was leaking anywhere, I'd suspect that would be it.


howiemandel Wrote:How big is your smack booster? Is the vacuum sufficient? I know you have it full time, you say, but .....

See above for the size....I am toying with the idea of running my vacuum guage to the booster itself so i can monitor what goes on inside there.

howiemandel Wrote:I hope you can tweak this and make it work, and become a "vacuum" is better guy. Hate to lose you on this.

Still haven't given up on this vacuum side stuff yet - just bouncing my results in hopes we might hit on somthing - atleast by the end of this week - I'll have some idea if pure water under vacuum helps or not.

1993 Mustang LX
2.3 Liter engine
5 speed manual
8.8 GT axle with 2.71 gears
Smack Design Booster
EFIE currently set at .25
Without HHO was getting 24-25 MPG
Best result with HHO : 29.5 MPG
11-03-2008 07:24 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
cjpeaceful Offline
Member
***

Posts: 214
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #4
RE: Results with 2.3 Mustang under vacuum
Delray Dude,

It sounds like you are going to try water vapor injection? Do you plan on completely sealing the canister from outside air? I did this and this week marks the second week with this setup on my Mustang. So far, no noticeable gains in mileage BUT a nice gain in torque. Wink

Check out tomasbala's explanation of my situation under "Negative vacuum water vapor injection". With the fairly long stroke of the 2.3L and the right amount of vapor you could get a nice boost in torque as well.
11-06-2008 12:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Delray Dude Offline
Member
***

Posts: 105
Joined: Aug 2008
Reputation: 0
Post: #5
RE: Results with 2.3 Mustang under vacuum
cjpeaceful Wrote:Delray Dude,

It sounds like you are going to try water vapor injection? Do you plan on completely sealing the canister from outside air? I did this and this week marks the second week with this setup on my Mustang. So far, no noticeable gains in mileage BUT a nice gain in torque. Wink

Check out tomasbala's explanation of my situation under "Negative vacuum water vapor injection". With the fairly long stroke of the 2.3L and the right amount of vapor you could get a nice boost in torque as well.


Yeah....I will check it out when work settles down later today...
but a quick note. I just finished my 1st tank full of "vacuum water vapor" and I picked up 1 MPG over my HHO setup. I ran it with the EFIE still at .25. I filled up again last night and am running this tank with EFIE off.

I have noticed that the car does have more torque - wheich really helps with the tall gears I have.

1993 Mustang LX
2.3 Liter engine
5 speed manual
8.8 GT axle with 2.71 gears
Smack Design Booster
EFIE currently set at .25
Without HHO was getting 24-25 MPG
Best result with HHO : 29.5 MPG
11-07-2008 04:21 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)