HHO For Better Fuel Economy - Ranger-Forums - The Ultimate Ford Ranger Resource


New Ideas Have a new idea for your Ford Ranger? General discussion of new ideas for the Ford Ranger.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
  #1  
Old 05-11-2008
jrpro130's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,057
HHO For Better Fuel Economy

Read up...I thought this was very interesting. Some news companies are already running it.

I'll post some links:

http://www.atvflorida.com/forum/inde...c,32420.0.html

http://www.water4gas.com/2books.htm

This is the expensive one...1200 bux! But they say it works great

http://www.wptv.com/mostpopular/stor...1-939c4bb13a28

http://www.shop.hydrofuelsolutions.com/main.sc

http://www.shop.hydrofuelsolutions.c...=1&productId=2


Anyone running it? I'm highly thinking about it, at a little over 300 bux for the cheapie...I might as well. I would get roughly 26-30mpg based on their calculations!
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 05-12-2008
outdoorsman's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Posts: 1,690
Interesting, I don't know if I trust it but I'll look into it so I can understand it all better.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 05-12-2008
zabeard's Avatar
who?
iTrader: (8)
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: IN
Posts: 26,045
9.4 to 23.6 mpg in that one article???? I just dont see how this is true, and if it was wouldnt the auto makers be using it right now?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 05-12-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Some people need a lesson in thermodynamics and the conservation of energy. There can be nothing but a net loss. You use mechanical energy. You use that electrical energy to brake bonds in the water. You take the newly formed energy potential and feed it into the engine to burn to create more mechanical energy.

Alternators are not 100% efficent, Neither is electrolysis, and neither is the engine. A total net loss of energy.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 05-12-2008
jrpro130's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,057
Well, if you look in a few of the links, POPULAR news stations gave it a shot and saw pretty significant increases in fuel economy...I'd have to say it's definetly NOT BS. Maybe some of the cheapie ones look terrible...but the quadrajet 4000 (or whatever it's called) the one that is 1200, looks pretty good.

The main reason I think they don't have them on cars is because you have to refill it with water/solution every 100-200 miles...the average car buyer will never do it! They just want to turn the key and go.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 05-12-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrpro130 View Post
Well, if you look in a few of the links, POPULAR news stations gave it a shot and saw pretty significant increases in fuel economy...I'd have to say it's definetly NOT BS. Maybe some of the cheapie ones look terrible...but the quadrajet 4000 (or whatever it's called) the one that is 1200, looks pretty good.

The main reason I think they don't have them on cars is because you have to refill it with water/solution every 100-200 miles...the average car buyer will never do it! They just want to turn the key and go.

First law of thermodynamics.

Ask anyone with highschool chemistry and physics and common sense and they will tell you there can not be anything but a net loss running it off of the alternator.

The ONLY way it CAN work to improve power or fuel economy is by running the electrolysis off of a battery independant of the vehicle's electrical system. But you still have to pay for the electricity to charge the battery at your house or w/e and it is still inefficent because battery chargers are not efficent.

There is a loss of energy when you take the engine's mechanical energy and convert it to electrical energy. There is a loss of energy duing electrolysis when the electrical energy is used to brake bonds in the water molecules. Keep in mind that the ammount of energy you put into braking thoes bonds will be exact same ammount as the ammount of energy you get out of forming them. CONSERVATION OF ENERGY. When you brun the fuel in the engine there is a loss of energy (we'd be luckey if our engines were running at 25% efficency and our alternators at 60% efficency).

Now, let me get to how much energy is actually in the chemical bonds of water. The reaction of 2 moles of Hydrogen with 1 mole of oxygen to form 1 mole of water releases 280kj. 18ml of water is about 1 mol. This means that 1l of water broken down by electrolysis will have a net energy content of 15.6 Mj. One litre of gasoline contains ~34mj of energy. So if you use electrolysis to split up one litre of water you are only accounting for the ammount of energy in half a gallon of gas. This means that if you can split a litre of water per gallon of gas and you are getting 20mpg, the MOST mileage you could get is 30mpg. Only a 50% increase. The HHO kits I have seen have nowhere near the capability to split that much water. Not to mention the massive ammount of current that would be needed at 12v to keep up with that demand.

At 60mph you would be flowing around 1000amps to keep up with that demand in a 20mpg vehicle.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 05-12-2008
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Actually, you don't run this stuff as a "pure fuel". Instead, it acts as a modifier to the combustion process to result in better output from your "main fuel". If it can result in more efficient combustion (internal combustion is below like 30% efficiency) then it can make up for the energy consumed.

So all that science above was very good stuff, but there is supposed to be something at work here beyond merely "burning hydrogen".

I have a friend who's trying it. I'll let you know how his experiment goes.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 05-12-2008
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBFranger View Post
Some people need a lesson in thermodynamics and the conservation of energy. There can be nothing but a net loss. You use mechanical energy. You use that electrical energy to brake bonds in the water. You take the newly formed energy potential and feed it into the engine to burn to create more mechanical energy.

Alternators are not 100% efficent, Neither is electrolysis, and neither is the engine. A total net loss of energy.

And you could save yourself some embarrassment by actually reading the links.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 05-12-2008
jrpro130's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,057
CBFranger, please read my links.

I know most (not all) of what you said. The only thing I DO highly disagree with you on, is that the electrical current power will effect actual engine power. The device draws 10-15amps (depending on which setup you chose). My stereo system draws more than that...and my headlights are pretty close to that. I KNOW for a fact that on my truck I will not notice a difference with 15 more amps being pulled.

Also, we are not using it as pure fuel, it's an additive so to speak.

Just please read the links, you'll feel much better.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 05-12-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
It doesnt modify the way the fuel burns in any way. AT BEST the hydrogen has a lower activation energy than gasoline so it begins to burn quicker and its energy helps burn the gasoline. However, this isnt the claim that any of the websites promoting this snake oil are making. They are claiming thatit is free energy. The energy isnt free, it comes right from the alternator. What is even more hilarious is that they rave about how it burns and turns back into water. When gaosline burns completely its only biproducts are water and carbondioxide. However, because the internal combustion engine works under high pressure, other things are formed (NOx's etc.). As long as you are using air with nitrogen in it and you are using an internal combustion engine, this will be a problem.

You do realize that if it is drawing 15a, at 14v that is only 210w. 1/4hp. To make this fuel capeable of releasing 1/4hp you are using 1/2hp from your engine. Thus, any net loss will be hard to see. So if you merely change your driving habits you will see more gains than from this system.

I'm sorry to inform you that it is merely snake oil. If you dont beleive me you can try it yourself. Electrolysis is quite simple. I'll draw you a set of plans. You'll need an old battery, some silicone, zinc flashing, and some tubes and fittings.

I worked on a project like this with my uncle before I sat down and thought about it. It showed no gain. It was just a fun tool to blow bottles up with.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 05-12-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz View Post
And you could save yourself some embarrassment by actually reading the links.
Embarassment? Walk into any decent college and ask a chemistry or physics professor what they think of the system. Physical laws of the universe, even internet products will have to follow them.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 05-12-2008
jrpro130's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,057
So the several people who use and have tried this are lying? I know your obviously a smart guy, but numbers don't lie. If you look on the wptv link (news station) they marked quite a bit of increase off their dodge.

Now I'm not denying some of it is a hoax (albeit the cheaper ones), but the Hydro 4000, seems very legit. They have plenty of testing and such to back them up.

http://www.hydro4000.com/

Now I still don't understand what your talking about...your relating the electronic draw to the mechanical power draw. If it takes 15amps to run it...but it makes your engine 30 percent more effective...it should WAY more than cancel itself out. Your not going to feel 1/4HP difference in power...you will SEE 10 more mpg though

Just before you make another post...please read this:

I'll even post the link and the article

http://www.hydro4000.com/technology.htm


Quote:
How is it possible to turn water into fuel?



Our HYDRO-4000 use a process known as electrolysis to produce Brown’s Gas as described below.


Electrolysis of Water



Electrolysis of water can be achieved in a simple hands-on project, when electricity from a low-voltage DC power supply (e.g. 12 volt battery) is passed through a vessel of water. The reaction that occurs is: 2H2O(aq) = 2H2(g) + O2(g)

In practice, some kind of electrolyte will need to be used. Electrolyte is a dilute mixture of minerals and water used to enhance the flow of electricity. In our HYDRO-4000 we use inexpensive distilled water.




* 20%- 60% reduction in fuel consumption!
* Reduces Global Warming!
* Improves power and performance of your vehicle!
* Zero pollutants!
* Distilled water fill-up is all that's needed to produce hydrogen!
* No Hydrogen stored under pressure, makes for safe systems!
* Increases the life of your engine!
* Cutting edge technology!
* Very affordable!
* Patent Pending!
* American Made!



HYDRO-4000 Process

Our HYDRO-4000 utilizes the electrolysis process, with certain patent-pending modifications built in, to improve its efficiency, durability and ease of operation. Gases are captured by the HYDRO-4000, mixed with a filtered air flow, then directed to the vehicle's air intake where they are combined with the vehicle's ordinary fuel/air mixture. The result is enhanced combustion, improved mileage and reduced greenhouse gas emissions. The reduction in emissions is caused when non-polluting hydrogen adds combustion energy, replacing some of the ordinary fuel needed to power the vehicle.
How Electrolysis Works

Electrolysis works when an electric current is applied, through an electrolytic solution, between a cathode (negative pole) and an anode (positive pole). During electrolysis, hydrogen gas will be seen to bubble up at the cathode, and oxygen will bubble at the anode. The two gases combined in a free state, constitute what is called "Brown's Gas" If, however, the wrong metal is utilized for the anode, oxygen will react with the anode instead of being released as a gas. For example, using iron electrodes in an electrolyte solution will produce iron oxide at the anode, which will react to form iron hydroxide. When producing large quantities of hydrogen, this can significantly contaminate the electrolytic cell reducing its hydrogen output. This is why our HYDRO-4000 is made entirely of stainless steel.
Energy Efficiency

The energy efficiency of water electrolysis varies widely. The efficiency is a measure of what fraction of electrical energy used actually produces hydrogen and oxygen. Some of the electrical energy is converted to heat and some reports quote efficiencies between 50-70%. This efficiency is based on the Lower Heating Value of Hydrogen, thermal energy released when hydrogen is combusted. This does not represent the total amount of energy within the gas since, hydrogen itself, releases a large amount of energy when it combines with oxygen to form water. Water formed during the combustion process will not contaminate or oxidize engine cylinder components since the heat of combustion reduces any water formed to steam that is expelled through the engine's exhaust valves. Likewise, our HYDRO-4000 uses no lye, salt or other chemical substances that could attack engine components.

The theoretical maximum efficiency of electrolysis can be as high as 80-94%. This maximum considers the total amount of energy absorbed by both the hydrogen and oxygen. These values only refer to the efficiency of converting electrical energy into chemical energy (combustible gasses). The energy lost in generating the electricity is not included. If, however, electrolysis is accomplished using an underutilized electrical source that already exists (the excess, unused capacity of an automobile alternator, for instance), high efficiency can be routinely achieved. Moreover our HYDRO-4000 has a unique process that produces much more hydrogen than any other process.

Note 1: The laws of Electrolysis were discovered by Michael Faraday in 1832 when he successfully separated hydrogen and oxygen from water through the use of electricity. The resulting gas was named Brown's Gas after Yull Brown of Australia who devoted his life to developing and promoting this clean, green fuel for the betterment of mankind. This gaseous mixture is actually a better fuel than hydrogen alone. Reason - in many areas of the world, oxygen is in short supply in the air we breathe. Normally, oxygen comprises 21% of our air at sea level. If this percentage falls below 5%, serious consequences, even the death of many people, could occur. For instance, there have been reports of oxygen levels in the 6 to 7% percent range in Tokyo. The widespread use of Brown's gas to power industry and transportation, might actually improve oxygen levels in cities like Tokyo whereas, using hydrogen as a fuel by itself, would tend to leave low oxygen levels unchanged. A low oxygen level in the atmosphere is just another indicator of how serious our environmental problems have become and an excellent reason to convert our civilization to a Brown's gas-fueled future.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 05-12-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
It isnt difficult to make up some BS reviews on how well it works.

How many positive reviews were on the electronic supercharger's website? http://www.electricsupercharger.com/

What about the tornado, that one even got on TV
http://www.tornadoair.com/Results.php

Fact of the matter is, perpetual motion isnt possible, neither is free energy.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 05-12-2008
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Nobody says it was free, and you're just in a snit now. You don't have any better idea than we do if this really works or how it works; but we're going to find out -- whereas you will be safe in your closed mindedness, lol.

FWIW I agree with your objections, but they're not based on any knowledge of how this works chemically or in combustion. I've actually been a combustion engineer here at the steel mill and I can tell you some mighty funny things are possible with flame chemistry. It's just not all of them are practical.

Until I see for myself about this and get some more information I'm not going to get all abusive and worked up like you are. Frankly, you're just beeing an @ss. Lighten up and if it all turns out to be joke THEN you can have fun laughing at everyone and we'll HAVE to "take it", lol.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 05-12-2008
jrpro130's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,057
If it is a joke...I'll take it, and laugh at myself!

But I fear it's not...

John, let me know what happens!
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 05-12-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by n3elz View Post
Nobody says it was free, and you're just in a snit now. You don't have any better idea than we do if this really works or how it works; but we're going to find out -- whereas you will be safe in your closed mindedness, lol.

FWIW I agree with your objections, but they're not based on any knowledge of how this works chemically or in combustion. I've actually been a combustion engineer here at the steel mill and I can tell you some mighty funny things are possible with flame chemistry. It's just not all of them are practical.

Until I see for myself about this and get some more information I'm not going to get all abusive and worked up like you are. Frankly, you're just beeing an @ss. Lighten up and if it all turns out to be joke THEN you can have fun laughing at everyone and we'll HAVE to "take it", lol.

Actually I am trying to end the tin foil hat conspiracies about the government, auto companies, and oil companies profiting off of the situation that our demand for oil has created.

If you want to waste your time and money, have at it. As I said, I can draw you some plans. Free of charge. Sure, I could sell them on eBay too and I'm sure people would buy them. But why would I purposely rip people off when I know that it isnt going to do anything.

You think I know nothing about chemistry, I AM a chemistry major. I know exactly how combustion works and exactly how an engine works. I am looking at it from a scientific stand point.

You want to know a good way to use this HHO gas as a fuel? Hydrogen fuel cells.

Another good way to use it, cutting torch.

As a miniscule addative to a fuel-hungry engine, that it is not.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 05-12-2008
n3elz's Avatar
RF Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Kennett Square, PA
Posts: 10,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBFranger View Post
Actually I am trying to end the tin foil hat conspiracies about the government, auto companies, and oil companies profiting off of the situation that our demand for oil has created.

If you want to waste your time and money, have at it. As I said, I can draw you some plans. Free of charge. Sure, I could sell them on eBay too and I'm sure people would buy them. But why would I purposely rip people off when I know that it isnt going to do anything.

You think I know nothing about chemistry, I AM a chemistry major. I know exactly how combustion works and exactly how an engine works. I am looking at it from a scientific stand point.

You want to know a good way to use this HHO gas as a fuel? Hydrogen fuel cells.

Another good way to use it, cutting torch.

As a miniscule addative to a fuel-hungry engine, that it is not.
If I listened to guys like you we would still be wasting tons of gas (literally) here at the mill.

Some years ago we were being sold low NOx burners. They acheived their efficiency by having lower flame temps while using even higher temp preheated combustion air. It's worth noting that each of the 3 burners in the one zone consume up to 16,000 scfh of natural gas (that's 16K per hour) for a total of up to 48k scfh (or weirdly enough the "M" suffix is used for the metric "k" in much combustion).

Some of the experts years ago said you can't do that: you can't get MORE heat from the burners and yet keep flame temperatures down. Some guys like you told us that in no uncertain terms, with absolute authority, and were even as condescnding as you are about it.

They were wrong.

The burners use a staged mixing scheme where the gas injector is not coaxial with the air system. Instead, injectors are put radially around the air injection port inside the furnace chamber and inject the gas into the boundary layer around the air jet.

The net result of this is that all the gas doesn't burn at once. The air/fuel mixture is below the LEL and above the UEL of natural gas and so it burns slowly instead of igniting quickly.

The result is a longer flame and better combustion efficiency, lower emissions, and good refractory life. It's a win-win.

But unless you understand how NOx is produced it makes no sense to some -- including some of the experts years ago. Never-the-less it works and variations on it are now the industry standard.

Basically, you've changed the chemistry of combustion by changing how the air and fuel interact. That's a possible reason for the success -- if there is any -- of this process.

I'm no more down with the conspiracy part of this than you are -- I HATE that stuff. Still, the truth of the claims needs to be verified by reliable sources because it is POSSIBLE that this works.

Just like spacers and "vortex generators" (like Tornado) worked on downdraft carbuerated engines. They DID enhance mixing and had measurable results.

The fact that long plenum, port injected engines see no benefit is true -- but they did work in some applications. On our engines, they just create more drag on the incoming air stream and give nothing back. From that standpoint, they reduce flow at WOT and could result in some fuel savings, lol.

It's your attitude that's in question here to me -- not your science. Lighten up and separate the politics from the science.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 05-12-2008
Rangerguy's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: California
Posts: 1,120
Amen, John. Yes, let us know what happens I would be most interested as I am sure others would be as well.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 05-12-2008
Marcaronio's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 560
John, just say it:

See, the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin some thinking on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certaintees in life. One, don't do that. And Two, you dropped a hundred and fifty grand on an education you coulda got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 05-12-2008
Downey's Avatar
RF Veteran
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Muncy, PA
Posts: 8,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBFranger View Post
It doesnt modify the way the fuel burns in any way. AT BEST the hydrogen has a lower activation energy than gasoline so it begins to burn quicker and its energy helps burn the gasoline. However, this isnt the claim that any of the websites promoting this snake oil are making. They are claiming thatit is free energy. The energy isnt free, it comes right from the alternator. What is even more hilarious is that they rave about how it burns and turns back into water. When gaosline burns completely its only biproducts are water and carbondioxide. However, because the internal combustion engine works under high pressure, other things are formed (NOx's etc.). As long as you are using air with nitrogen in it and you are using an internal combustion engine, this will be a problem.

You do realize that if it is drawing 15a, at 14v that is only 210w. 1/4hp. To make this fuel capeable of releasing 1/4hp you are using 1/2hp from your engine. Thus, any net loss will be hard to see. So if you merely change your driving habits you will see more gains than from this system.

I'm sorry to inform you that it is merely snake oil. If you dont beleive me you can try it yourself. Electrolysis is quite simple. I'll draw you a set of plans. You'll need an old battery, some silicone, zinc flashing, and some tubes and fittings.

I worked on a project like this with my uncle before I sat down and thought about it. It showed no gain. It was just a fun tool to blow bottles up with.


How can you go an say that it doesnt moddify the way the fuel burns in any way are you just saying that the hydrogen is going into the cyls and then goes right out the exhaust. your dumb i want to try this on my truck but i cant find a place to find a decent kit.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 05-12-2008
Marcaronio's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Spring Hill, FL
Posts: 560
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-12-2008
CBFranger's Avatar
Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Tampa Bay Area
Posts: 1,029
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBFranger View Post
I worked on a project like this with my uncle before I sat down and thought about it. It showed no gain. It was just a fun tool to blow bottles up with.
.

I'd be willing to build another and hook it up to my 3.0 with full doccumentation and post a vid on Youtube amist the tons of BS videos simply to stop the internet frenzy. It'd take me a few hours work. I could easily show that it doesnt improve milage by topping the truck off, driving 20 miles down the road, turning around and topping the truck off agian at the same pump on the same day. Then turn the electrolysis cell on and doing the trip agian on the same road under similar conditions. This would be all highway driving where my truck normally sees 20mpg. I'd put money on an overall net loss. If this somehow gains me 10mpg there would be no way to hide it.

I love to tinker. But I also know when an idea's premise is bassed on fiction that more likely than not the idea isnt goning to work. The ONLY thing that wasnt done on the HHO system I toyed with was the pulse generator. Agian, energy isnt free. It is adding complexity to simplicity to make it sound more viable.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-12-2008
jrpro130's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,057
Do it. I would go at least 100 miles though.

I'd love to see you make it very similar to what's selling ont he market right now. If you don't see gains, I'd be very surprised.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 05-12-2008
jrpro130's Avatar
RF Veteran
Thread Starter
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 5,057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcaronio View Post
That is awesome
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 05-12-2008
outdoorsman's Avatar
Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Phoenix Arizona
Posts: 1,690
I liked that YouTube video too. Was that done in a Ranger or Explorer? I thought the interior looked familiar. Air vents?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
HHO Generator? GeorgiaRangerDanger 2.9L & 3.0L V6 Tech 1 09-05-2013 11:43 PM
HHO Fuel evan.hills General Ford Ranger Discussion 4 10-14-2008 11:18 AM
OK let try this again!! HHO booster! hollisatp New Ideas 1 07-23-2008 07:05 AM
Any thoughts? HHO DaGGer General Technical & Electrical 11 05-03-2008 09:54 AM
better fuel economy? GubNi SOHC - 2.3L & 2.5L Lima Engines 7 01-21-2007 01:26 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:38 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.