increase gas milage

[Licenseplate]

currently getting about 13 mpg
85 2.8, carb. i have a k&n filter, headers with a 2.25" exhaust
i plan on doing an e-fan install, what else could i do to increase mpg? would removing the smog pump stuff help?

(i already searched, didnt find what i was looking for.)

[neo71665]

congrats, I thought my 15 mpg was bad.

The smog pump has no drag on the motor other than maybe the 1 or 2 lbs it weighs.

[Licenseplate]

around 13mpg
i get 450kms per tank

[xltorocksx]

Hydrogen injection.

[ap72]

just do a good tune up and put RESTORE in your oil next time you change it. I'm getting around 22 MPG, but its in a fairly fresh engine. I got a little over 25 when I had the 2.5L. A carb rebuild works wonders, but it takes a while to do it right, its more time than money but its worth it, especially if its been a few years.

[98SS]

Quote: Originally Posted by xltorocksx

Hydrogen injection.

MAYBE, if you don't blow yourself up first.

PM.com has something about that. Tested it and it failed. I think you're just driving with a lighter foot.


But the best solution is a different vehicle. This weekend, my civic just took me 682.7 miles on 18.52 gallons. Let's see your "hydrogen injection" get 36.9 mpg.
And before you say, "But it's a civic" ... It may be, but it's nicer than the SS was.

[SH-60B]

Quote: Originally Posted by 98SS

MAYBE, if you don't blow yourself up first.

PM.com has something about that. Tested it and it failed. I think you're just driving with a lighter foot.


But the best solution is a different vehicle. This weekend, my civic just took me 682.7 miles on 18.52 gallons. Let's see your "hydrogen injection" get 36.9 mpg.
And before you say, "But it's a civic" ... It may be, but it's nicer than the SS was.

I have to agree with this. My DD gets 45 mpg. I drive the S10 as a 2nd vehicle.

[Licenseplate]

i would get a different DD
but funds dont allow it, plus going back to school = even tighter funds
it does need a good tune up though. would some seafoam help at all?

[98SS]

Quote: Originally Posted by Licenseplate

would some seafoam help at all?

Can't recall if it helped mileage for me, but it helped it run a bit smoother and it isn't a bad idea for cleaning out the engine a little. You would think those would help mileage, but I just can't recall. Even if it did, it probably isn't enough to offset the price of the can of seafoam, unfortunately.

[Licenseplate]

engine doesnt really run rough at all, so i dont think ill need seafoam then
im hoping to get around 17mpg. if i get somehow get 20mpg ill be really happy, but i dont think a 5mpg increase should be too hard hoefully

[Planert_nci]

buy my turck, 2.8 TBI, 20 with my lead foot, I have nursed 25 out of it when Im low on funds for gas.

[neo71665]

dad get 25ish out of his 93 2.8 tbi

[slikniks10]

i get 25 on my 93 2.8 s10 also

[Licenseplate]

would it be jsut because mines carbd that it gets bad milage? seems like its only the efi guys that get in the 20's

[93v6banger]

93 2.8 i also get upwards of 24-25

[98SS]

Quote: Originally Posted by Licenseplate

would it be jsut because mines carbd that it gets bad milage?

That certainly doesn't help you.

Some guys swear by carbs for building N/A engines, and in a lot of cases they're right. But for efficiency, they just can't hold up to FI.

[ap72]

I used to swear by carbs, and in a few limited cases they are better, but more and more FI is the way to go. About the only reason not to is in restricted racing classes where they require carbs.

Still, clean your carb up to as good as new and then tune it with a A/F meter. Its going to cost you for the sensor and the gauge and the carb parts, but its the best way to tune for milage.

[BarryB]

Is yours 4 wheel drive. I have a 2wd and get 25-26 MPG 91 2.8 5 spd. if yours is 4wd or auto then don't spend the money trying to get it better, find a newr truck or blazer and swap over your go fast parts.

[Licenseplate]

auto 2wd

[BarryB]

Not sure how apt you are about swapping a throttle body over to your truck. You would have to find a wiring harness and computer, and of course a TBI intake and setup. BUT it can be done. I have seen alot of things done with fuel injection.

[Licenseplate]

sounds like too much work for me
i do plan on swapping a 3.4 into it, maybe when i do that ill change it to tbi

[SickSpeedMonte]

Quote: Originally Posted by 98SS

PM.com has something about that. Tested it and it failed. I think you're just driving with a lighter foot.


But the best solution is a different vehicle. This weekend, my civic just took me 682.7 miles on 18.52 gallons. Let's see your "hydrogen injection" get 36.9 mpg.
And before you say, "But it's a civic" ... It may be, but it's nicer than the SS was.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...html?series=19

Everyone loves to cite this article... but they made a pretty big mistake which clearly explains why they didnt get any results. It's pretty well known that the OBDII cars will adjust the fuel mixture based on the O2's output voltage, and therefore you must alter that signal (or otherwise "trick" the computer) to run leaner and take advantage of the hydrogen. From what I can gather, the HHO isnt really used as a fuel, persay... but rather an additive that allows you to run very lean while still achieving a complete burn. Anyways, PM didnt do that... at all. So they didnt see any change in mileage when they looked at the injector pulses. We wouldnt expect them to with that setup.

But there is a thread by AndVen if you want to check it out and continue the discussion there. He went from 27 to 36 mpg. Just as good as your civic actually.

[98SS]

They adressed the OBDII factor - from your link...

Quote:

These mods come under the category of tampering with a federally-mandated emissions control system, making it impossible to pass the underhood visual inspection component of many state smog inspections. To pass this underhood check, no part of the emissions control system can appear to have been modified or disabled. Add in the OBD II pass-fail to the smog check, and odds are these modifications will keep you from getting a smog sticker. That means you might have to disable—and perhaps remove—the system to pass the annual test.

And

Quote:

There's too much noise in the data collection, statistically speaking, and quite a bit of room for experimenter bias. From considerable experience with other gas savers, I know even the subtlest change in driving habits can influence the results.

Which is what I've been saying for a while now.



Some ask why the auto makers have not caught on and started implementing this on their vehicles. If you recall, Honda had advertisements about cars that would use hydrogen several years ago. Heard anything since? Nope.

Car makers would not want to put something so dangerous on the vehicle until they get it safe enough to do it in a practical manner.

But that's becoming irrelevant now, anyway, because electric drive system cars like the anticipated Chevy Volt will make hydrogen injection pretty much useless. Why bother with that dangerous of a gas for such little improvement? It just doesn't hold it's own to those people with a little sense.

[neo71665]

Damn near every car maker has played with some kind of hydrogen set up and when it comes down to it it just doesn't work when added to a gas burner. From all the studies and attempts the only way to make it work is for it to be a totally new motor designed to run off of hydrogen and then the explosion factor is so high it doesn't warrant passing the risk off.

The HHO setups is basically a scam, looks good on paper but in the real world the most you will get is a lil more power due to the extra power boost from the gas injection but better fuel economy from it is a joke.

You will always find people that have spent the money on the crap then try hard to justify the expense and claim they are getting better mileage but I have yet to see any hard facts to prove it. All the unbiased studies prove them wrong.

[ap72]

I still cant understand how these things are supposed to work, can someone please explain it to me?

[neo71665]

Basically:

you shoot a small shot of hydrogen into the cylinder and your supposed to be able to lean the fuel out resulting in requiring less fuel to complete combustion.

Like I said it looks and sounds good on paper but aint worth a crap in real life. Major computer re-tunes have to be done, most cheap kits skip around this and relay on the o2 sensor to fix the fuel curve. You must have some sort of hydrogen generator or tank on board and simple high school science says how dangerous this can be.

About the only way to make this work is to make and sell the kits to suckers and use the proceeds to buy gasoline.

[SickSpeedMonte]

Quote: Originally Posted by 98SS

They adressed the OBDII factor - from your link...


And

Which is what I've been saying for a while now.



Some ask why the auto makers have not caught on and started implementing this on their vehicles. If you recall, Honda had advertisements about cars that would use hydrogen several years ago. Heard anything since? Nope.

Car makers would not want to put something so dangerous on the vehicle until they get it safe enough to do it in a practical manner.

But that's becoming irrelevant now, anyway, because electric drive system cars like the anticipated Chevy Volt will make hydrogen injection pretty much useless. Why bother with that dangerous of a gas for such little improvement? It just doesn't hold it's own to those people with a little sense.

Yeah... that proves what I was saying... that they didn't touch any of the computer inputs or programming because it would be illegal. Well what mod isn't anymore?? Just because its illegal doesnt mean it wont get better mileage. And its not illegal (or monitored) in every county of every state... there are many counties that dont even have emisssions inspecitons period.

Look, I'm not saying that I've tried it, and I'm not even saying that it will work. I just freaking hate it when people hinge their opinion of an entire concept on a single source which didnt even conduct the testing properly, and then try to spread it to others. You havent tried it either, and if the PM article is the best info that you have, then you dont have that great of a background on it. I'm not trying to bust your balls or insult you or anything... I'm just saying to look into it a little further so that, even if it doest work, you can give people a much more credible argument.

Quote: Originally Posted by neo71665

Damn near every car maker has played with some kind of hydrogen set up and when it comes down to it it just doesn't work when added to a gas burner. From all the studies and attempts the only way to make it work is for it to be a totally new motor designed to run off of hydrogen and then the explosion factor is so high it doesn't warrant passing the risk off.

The HHO setups is basically a scam, looks good on paper but in the real world the most you will get is a lil more power due to the extra power boost from the gas injection but better fuel economy from it is a joke.

You will always find people that have spent the money on the crap then try hard to justify the expense and claim they are getting better mileage but I have yet to see any hard facts to prove it. All the unbiased studies prove them wrong.

What facts do you want? Do you want people to drive around with a video camera for an entire tank so that you can believe them when they say they improved 9 mpg? And if you think a light foot will get you 36 mpg in a stock or conventional bolt-on S10... I'd love for you to teach me how to drive and do the same.

[98SS]

Quote: Originally Posted by SickSpeedMonte

I just freaking hate it when people hinge their opinion of an entire concept on a single source which didnt even conduct the testing properly,

I just mentioned it. I don't mean to sound like the article is my basis for not thinking it works. My opinion was the same before I learned of the PM article.

Whether it works or not, like I said, it's useless to pursue it, because of better alternatives that don't run you the risk of blowing up.

[SickSpeedMonte]

Quote: Originally Posted by 98SS

I just mentioned it. I don't mean to sound like the article is my basis for not thinking it works. My opinion was the same before I learned of the PM article.

Whether it works or not, like I said, it's useless to pursue it, because of better alternatives that don't run you the risk of blowing up.

Fair enough

For what its worth, there was a 4 part "Future Car" show on discovery channel where they went into hydrogen power for a little bit. They said it was actually less dangerous than gasoline in many respects, because a leak will not accumulate, but rather float off into the atmosphere. But yes, I agree that I would want much more protection than a plastic or nylon hose carrying that gas into my motor like many people run.

[ap72]

So, you run electrodes into the water to split it into hydrogen and oxygen gases, the power comes from your alternator. Then you inject the hydrogen gas into your cylinder where it recombines with oxygen to produce water, in an attempt to gain back the energy you used to split it in the first place? Only because these engines are about 23% efficent (on a GREAT day) you end up creating nothing but heat and rust?

Granted I'm not a chemical engineer, but the REDOX and enthalpy equations keep turning up with nothing more than wasted energy transformed into heat and noise (which turns into heat).

[neo71665]

Quote: Originally Posted by SickSpeedMonte

What facts do you want? Do you want people to drive around with a video camera for an entire tank so that you can believe them when they say they improved 9 mpg? And if you think a light foot will get you 36 mpg in a stock or conventional bolt-on S10... I'd love for you to teach me how to drive and do the same.

Somebody has a hard time understanding the concept of unbiased opinion, not the research of companies that have their fingers in the development of the product.

Once again there is a good reason most car companies are not pushing this market like they were at one time.