TOPIC: Hi Everyone!!!!! Love the forum-Want to start grooving!!!!!!

Hi Greg.

Disappointingly not yet. Unfortunately very busy at work. I have a lot of ideas but want to add it on to the groove. I expect the groove can be the biggest gain I will get. Then I want to add the HCS fuel cracking. I don't think the fuel remedy will help very much as it looks like our fuel is already of good quality and very high octane. Or what do you think?

Must say I have changed to 95 octane Sasol and it seems like I mite be getting better fuel economy.

Will keep you posted as soon as I have some results.

Martin

well, that sucks...but so does international postal shipping, duties/customs...I feel your pain, Martin. Hopefully it's just a matter of the package being on a VERY slow boat to Capetown.

I think the MPG Remedy does much more than simply reducing/negating the effects of ethanol on the oxidation, since Dan Merrick was using it in his cars before the powers that be mandated it be added to gasoline. He's referred to the concoction as "the acid", and my interpretation of that is that it is more of a catalyst in the oxidization of the fuel, perhaps allowing it to be more easily vapourized/atomized.

IF I'm right (notice the BIG if), it works with all grades/blends of fuel; it might just work best with more pure gasoline/iso-octane (like what you seem to have there)...and if that (vapourization of fuel) is the point of an HCS rig, then I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it. However, also notice that Dan has invented a Cold vapour system; with reduced engine operating temps from more efficient use of fuel, you may have a problem getting your HCS rig to the appropriate temp for it to work optimally using (reduced, cooler) exhaust temps. I'll also bet there's some physics involved in the chemical reaction, relating to the change of energy between the cold fuel and hot combustion...increased/higher rate of energy transfer or some such...possibly has something to do with energy density (which goes along with my theory that the Groove's waveform better integrates fuel in the air/fuel mix that happens on the intake stroke). Add a bigger/better spark (a plasma spark would be wickedly effective) to that improved air/fuel combo under compression, and...

It's all speculation and supposition until somebody tests it out and reports back with their data log and personal observations (Fuel usage/Mileage and "butt dyno"), right?

Well that is exactly what I intend to do.

Set it up and test it.......

I will have a crack at the "Acid" soon.

Will keep you informed.

I am also looking at water and gas vapor mix. That looks interesting. It seems like the expansion of steam improves the power stroke or something like that. They mix water and gas and vaporize the mix with some kind of vaporizing gadget.....

I toyed with that idea as well, but I came to the conclusion that I'm blessed to be living in a naturally humid part of the world (on the shore of one of the Great Lakes and ~50 km from a second) PLUS I'm close enough to sea level that it doesn't have to be factored into any equation.

Anyway, my idea was to use a loop of hot engine coolant to cook the water vapour etc caught by an air-oil separator/catch can and re-introduce it into the input air stream without compromising intake manifold vacuum. There are websites for people who have integrated a supplemental hydrogen system on their cars, or HHO, but you can go down that rabbit hole when you get to it...Check the EGR and DPFE threads...(Exhaust Gas Recirculation and Differential Pressure Feedback something...the DPFE is sort of an actuator and check system for the EGR valve, which allows hot exhaust into the manifold, a factory programmed and calibrated vacuum leak. It's supposed to warm the input airstream so that the compression stroke actually compresses, and probably has something to do with aiding in gas vapourization, but my thinking is that while cool air won't compress to the same extent, it's more dense and when combined with fuel and spark in the correct amounts at the proper times, the reaction will be more explosive. I never got around to bypassing the EGR system by fooling the DPFE sensor on my now deceased truck, but by removing the intake manifold connection to the "cooling" system, the intake air was closer to ambient and I saw a gain in economy. I commented on those threads with how effective it was; I seem to recall it got me a gain of around 2-3 MPG, probably from the faster warm-up to closed loop fuel delivery). 1-2 MPG gains in enough places will have a significant effect, right?

How has your fuel economy improved thus far with the change in fuel grade, spark plug gap increase, PCV re-route and tire pressure increase? are you seeing a 3-4 MPG improvement?

I toyed with that idea as well, but I came to the conclusion that I'm blessed to be living in a naturally humid part of the world (on the shore of one of the Great Lakes and ~50 km from a second) PLUS I'm close enough to sea level that it doesn't have to be factored into any equation.

Anyway, my idea was to use a loop of hot engine coolant to cook the water vapour etc caught by an air-oil separator/catch can and re-introduce it into the input air stream without compromising intake manifold vacuum. There are websites for people who have integrated a supplemental hydrogen system on their cars, or HHO, but you can go down that rabbit hole when you get to it...Check the EGR and DPFE threads I've commented on - mine are ford specific; your Mitsu may or may not be similar...(Exhaust Gas Recirculation and Differential Pressure Feedback something...the DPFE is sort of an actuator and check system for the EGR valve, which allows hot exhaust into the intake manifold, a factory programmed and calibrated vacuum leak. It's supposed to warm the input airstream so that the compression stroke actually compresses, and probably has something to do with aiding in gas vapourization, but my thinking is that while cool air won't compress to the same extent, it's more dense and when combined with fuel and spark in the correct amounts at the proper times, the reaction will be more explosive. I never got around to bypassing the EGR system by fooling the DPFE sensor on my now deceased truck, but by removing the intake manifold connection to the "cooling" system, the intake air was closer to ambient and I saw a gain in economy. I commented on those threads with how effective it was; I seem to recall it got me a gain of around 2-3 MPG, probably from the faster warm-up to closed loop fuel delivery). 1-2 MPG gains in enough places will have a significant effect, right?

How has your fuel economy improved thus far with the change in fuel grade, spark plug gap increase, PCV re-route and tire pressure increase? are you seeing a 3-4 MPG improvement?

Greg.

Your Idea sounds great but very technical. My plan is to "KISS" keep it short and simple...
Well that's the plan anyway.

I want to integrate water with the HCS Fuel cracking system. So I want to build the HCS System as per plan. Then I want to test that system on its own and see what it does. after that I want to introduce water to the mix with maybe an high pressure nozzle right in the place where the HCS pipe work meets the exhaust in order to create instant steam. The idea is to inject just enough to create extra steam. And if I see results to find a way to increase the water added without cooling down the HCS system.

I do see some results on the mods that I made. But I am still under or at factory spec regarding fuel economy. Which is disappointing. I do see a significant difference on this last tank of fuel, but I think it might be because of the outside driving conditions that changed. And maybe my driving style. But I will monitor it and keep you informed.

Martin

Greg What happened to your deceased truck? Did you get involved in an accident?

Actually, it would've been a simple mod on that vehicle (the oil pump failed -> engine seized; I got >400k km out of it over the 15 years of trouble free and reliable operation):

where the PCV mod came together, the engine coolant lines (supply and return) that I removed from the water jacket of the intake manifold were right there and plumbed at the factory. All I would've had to do was fabricate a loop for the catchcan for the hot engine coolant to pass though to cook the condensate inside the can back into the intake. The potential benefit to that would be I wouldn't have needed to undo the PCV mod in winter to account for the added condensate. The only problem I could forsee would be that the resultant remains of blowby in the can would be more sludge than liquid, since the heat would also cook whatever oil vapours down in addition to re-vapourizing the condensate. It may have even largely negated the significant drop in fuel economy in winter by keeping the 2nd part of the groove mod intact year round, even though that drop in mileage is directly related to the fuel additives in winter formulation, PLUS, I'd wager on that extra water vapour in the intake stream would help to remove/eliminate/reduce carbon deposits in the engine, as well as to spread the fuel molecules out on the surface of the water.

I've not studied the HCS mod you're planning, and I don't know your engine, but in terms of consistency, I'd think engine coolant heat might work better than recovered exhaust heat for making water vapour.

Greg,

Read about you trying to heat the stuff that comes out of the PCV into the catch can with coolant but I guess that would involve some rigging.
What I did to heat the stuff was place the catch can(aluminum water bottle) right on the exhaust manifold where it gets to over 600 degrees. Whatever falls into the can lands on the bottom where it sits right on the manifold. Have tried this with different liquids to see if there would be a difference in performance since it fed into the intake manifold from the can.
Noticed liquid boiling when I would check it after driving. Just a thought.

Plus I know Mike Holler has a company where they attach some kind of cylinder between the 6 inch line from the valve cover port and TB and that device does something to the junk flowing out of the port. Its a 10 minute job to do and I guess that device catalysis the vapors before sending back into the TB.
Contacted them via email with no response. Maybe the company is out of business.

Considering there would be flammable petrochemical-type stuff in a heated catch can, I'm sure 190-ish degrees F is plenty warm enough to get water steaming, and in a safer way than on a 600 degree manifold, Karl. Improving efficiency is one thing; adding to the dangers inherent in driving is quite another as far as I'm concerned.

Greg.

I actually don't think it would be that dangerous. If the system is a closed loop there will not be enough oxygen for a fire to ignite or burn.

The vapor will only become combustible once mixed with oxygen in the intake manifold...

I wasn't pondering a fireball-type explosion, but flying shrapnel (if the vessel should explode from pressure) would definitely be unpleasant. I was looking at it from a physics (Universal gas law) point of view:
If that vessel was under pressure, ~600 degrees might be the right temp to keep it working. I'd bet on it being closer to unpressurized, or possibly even under a small amount of vacuum, lowering the vapourization point of the liquids inside, making 190ish degrees about right to keep everything just simmering nicely.

I Understand but we can use a pressure safety valve somewhere on the system?