I checked into it and well according to here that what you have. I think your gas gauge is wrong.

http://consumerguideauto.howstuffwor...-durango-3.htm
and
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/sp...ango&trimid=-1

 

Ok I have been fooling around with HHO for the better part of 8 months on my 5.2L durango. To begin how in the world are you guys getting 20 mpg with your trucks highway the best I have seen with mine is 15mpg and I usially average 11 city. Next with the HHO I can get up to 16 mpg city but here is the catch my computer recalibrates every 3 days and no matter what computer fooling device I use my mileage will always drop to 13.4 on the third day. I have tried the map sensor enhansor, the EFIE I haven't found any thing that actually works. I have even swapped out the gears from 3.92 to 3.55 and installed a hypertech tuner my mileage is very consistant 13.4 mpg. So maybe you all can help.

 

I think we are all in the same boat. the key to this setup is going to be something to keep the comp thinking other than fac specs.
The EFIE didn't work at all? Man, that was going to be my next item to pick up.

 

I think alot of the users with the high over 20+ numbers are problaby the 4x2 small displacement owners such as the 4.7's or 5.2's. I like to see a HHO setup on a 5.9 and come back with some numbers.

I finally got approved from my banker (wifey) to replace all my tires. I will be going with the Long Trail T/A tours. Only tire that has great ratings at the lowest price. With all my tweaks, I am still only getting around 12-14 combined driving. If I just cruise around the local residence and stay below 40mph, man, my mpg is around 9-10. But if I stay consistent on highway, I can hang around near 14 mpg. I would love to see a basic HHO setup to at least give me 50% more mpg to put in in the low 20's highway and in the mid teens city.

With fuel prices eventually coming down, I will definitely start driving my ride more often and get out of that clausterphobic little Jetta!.

 

this setup only helps in certain types of driving around town i did NOT notice any improvement but on the highway it went up to over 25 mpg


btw i have a the 4.7l engine w/ 4x4

 

Did anyone catch question about HHO in the "Last Page - Franz Kafka's Garage" in the Dec 08 issue of Car and Driver?

 

Claus Borgnakke comments are worth paying attention to

this is similar to the 'acetone in gasoline' balderdash
where people don't understand how typical gasoline already has thousands of chemicals in it already ... including acetone ... because refining crude oil leaves behind (and creates with frac'ing) so many chemicals and the distillation temperature is such an inexact cut point

if you study engines and detonation
you will quickly learn the importance of 'end gas'
and how end gas is already rich in hydrogen content

 

OK boys, 14 pages on this is enough. I applaud all your efforts and really like the fact that some of you have the initiative to dive into your engine bay and get to it. That being said:
HHO Does NOT Work!

I know you want it to, I kind of wish it did too. But please don't let the burden of a poor economy overcome your good common sense. Lots of really bad ideas have been the result of that reasoning in the past.

1. You cannot use the overhead trip computer to test MPG gains. It's has roughly a +/- factor of 50 %. I have consistently seen 27 MPG while cruising in my Ram, but when I divide the miles driven (adjusted for tire size) by the gallons of gas that I fill up, I get about 13.313 MPG, consistently. If you choose to believe the overhead computer, you choose to be ignorant.

2. Hydrogen is explosive in an oxygenated environment and the amount needed to assist in combustion would cause predetonation out the wazoo. Your D's would ping until you punched a valve straight thru the piston crown.

3. HHO generators do not produce near the amount of hydrogen needed. Period. Not one cell, not 10 cells.

4. Any manipulating of the MAP sensor, O2 Sensor, IAT sensor, or any PCM "resistors," only lean out the GASOLINE used in the engine. Leaning out the gasoline does improve mpg's, but at the cost of your engine. A lean engine runs hot, VERY HOT. Anybody here think glowing headers is a good idea? Leaning out the fuel increases the A/F ratio and moves you closer to predetonation.

Luckily, the PCM is a smart little bugger and is built with several failsafes. If you manipulate the MAP signal, the PCM will "figure out" that it is running out of specs when it takes readings from the O2 Sensors, IAT and others and will either A) throw a CEL (that's good, you know it's broken) or, B) ignore the MAP input and go off a predetermined value that is often LESS fuel efficient that reading real world data. That's why so many of you are being told "Dude, you gotta have that MAP sensor 'enhancer' to make it work!" Yeah, you gotta have it to make it appear your getting a positive result it'l manipulate the MAP signal to the far extreme of leaness just before it throws a CEL and stay there. But then the PCM will compare data to the other sensors and compensate. Somebody has already posted up that the PCM figured it out after 3 days of driving. Why can't some of the members here figure it out?

And why is it always, "A guy I know, his buddy got this to work!?" while the direct members of this forum struggle so mightily showing any reproduceable gains? And why won't anybody believe the people with degrees in engineering and thermodynamics over the shadetree mechs story of his brother's-sister's-cousin's-friend's success?

I don't even want to get into the argument about "This isn't new technology, it's been around since WWII!" You are correct, it was experimented with in WWII, as were NUMEROUS other ideas to try to save fuel, as fuel consumption was a life and death issue for bomber and fighter crews. A 5% gain in fuel ecomony could mean the difference between coming home, or going home in a pine box. They tried everything to improve fuel economy and the stuff that actually worked is in your vehicle today.

If HHO generators worked the GM plant here in Texas would be slapping them in the SUV engines right now to attempt move these dead vehicles off the dealer's lots instead of laying off workers and closing plants. If you think a simple device like this works, then why wouldn't the Big 3 be trying to save themselves with this? Why are they "throwing money away" R&Ding hybrids, electrics, and fuel cell cars when they could have spent the last 50 years refining this technology?

Chrysler is banking on the 2009 Dodge Ram to save it's hide. They spent millions on R&D to make the new Ram more fuel efficient to appeal to truck consumers who must use a truck to operate their business. Why didn't they slap an HHO generator in there and add 20% fuel economy as everybody claims?

Here's a website full of great ideas

If a slick website makes you believe that something's great and works, why not just buy from them?

Here's a real link to things that you can try to increase MPG's. They aren't sexy or slick, and they don't use electricity or bubble, but they work. Sorry the truth isn't as exciting as a bubbling bottle of goo under your engine.

Bottom line is this:

Anyone claiming this thing works is:
1. Selling them,
2. Not testing them long term or correctly, or
3. Investing so much into it that they've convinced themselves it "has to work" even if it isn't.

 

How do I say this without gettin pissed off!......Hmmmmmmmmm

(Sittin in chair drinkin wiskey and gettin red necked!)

This link real link talks about 5 different things just in the first page. (Stoped reading)

I'll give you credit on the lean burn. Your right but you forget one thing, how much HHO are you burning to get this happening? Obviously to get into a red manifold (Not Headers) is a big problem. Obviously if one is running headers they shouldn't be worrying about fuel mileage because they should have a Supercharger to warrant install of the headers. Not to mention if they are red most likely there is a overall problem with burn (I can see what your looking at) and exhaust.

Really! And so is gasoline! So why can't it be burned? Your engine might not like it as much but in proper amounts should run just fine.

We have already discussed this. The computer is off on this because your tricking it.

If this was the case then it would have been done. We are not trying to replace fuel just, remove some from use.

Second, depending on the engine (because not one is the same) would account the efficiency.

Third pre-detonation would cause strain on the wrist bearing/main and not the valve that would remain closed.

How much do you need to assist in burn and not just take over like you are referring too?

The reason is because of the amount needed for the HUGE motors.

Second is because of the unpredictability concerning altitude, relative humidity, temp, personal and many other issues. As you should know the military doesn’t want to have a un-reliable piece of equipment deciding if the troops come home but rather FACT. We are not on a plane! We can play with it because we have time and testing on our hands. Not to mention corrosiveness.

Then why did you post this in an already controversial thread?

This is why people on this thread have posted some success.
Because it's corrosive and needs weekly attention!

The auto indestry wants to sell cars that are 100K mile warrented. No one wants a car now a days that they have to play with period!


The auto industry wants to sell cars that are 100K mile warranted. No one wants a car now a days that they have to play with period!
In conclusion. The PCM is VERY complicated but if enough effort is givin then it can happen but it's going to take a lot of testing and so forth to get it there.

 

Why do you need a supercharger to warrant headers? That seems like one of the easiest bolt on products that is actually proven to show gains.


I have a feeling that some that are telling about their mpg gains are doing so based on what they are seeing on the overhead computer.

The government had time to develop an atom bomb but you don't think they spent any time working to improve range?



I was just showing yet another article from a respected source saying once again that it doesn't work.

I really haven't seen anything on here success wise that is very impressive and it doesn't seem to be repeatable even by the ones showing the increase.

I still think this is the funniest excuse. There's something out there that can double mileage and people don't want it on their cars because they have to check something under the hood once a week?

Your arguments are weak and old and I haven't seen any repeatable, first hand evidence from ANYONE ANYWHERE that shows that this works. Even on here. A few people getting a little better? Some getting no better than if they were to just have a lighter foot for one tank.

You say you have time to research. You don't think that in the 60 plus years since WWII that government, scientists, and engineers (with degrees in related fields) haven't had time to research this?

I hope you don't get your panties in a wad over this. We're just having a discusion in which my side sites professionals with decades of research saying that it doesn't work and your side says it works but can't prove it.

If it works, then great. Make it work, make it repeatable, document it, get it verified by some recognized professional, and become a millionare.