Thread: Hydro Assist Fuel Cell

That product = click me

They even charge you $15 + S&H for the DVD explaining it...

I'm offended they used a picture of the 3800.

We claim up to 100 miles per gallon from a history of modifying engines. We have not modified all engines. Our experience, on properly modified engines, ranged from 2.5x mileage to 3.5x mileage using gasoline only. 20 mpg becomes 50 mpg to 70 mpg (an average of 3x, or 60 mpg). We also discovered that a 50/50 mixture of gas and water worked great. We got super power at that mix. If you add 50% water, you use half as much gas, thus 50 becomes 100 and 70 becomes 140, etc. We are sure that 3x mileage without even using any water would be worth the conversion costs, especially at the current cost of gas and the fact that we all know that the price will be going up. By the way, one pint of wood alcohol per gallon of water will keep it from freezing. Wood alcohol is readily available and it is cheap.

They can't be serious.

And I love how they completely dodge the question here:

Will Burning Water Rust Out My Engine?

"...air injects oxygen into your intake cycle... " The majority of internal combustion engines on the highway today use the Otto 4 stroke cycle, Intake, Compression, Power, and Exhaust. During the Intake cycle the Intake valve is open allowing the air/fuel mixture to enter the combustion chamber (a down stroke). Near the bottom of the Intake stroke the Intake valve closes. Next is the Compression stroke (an up stroke). Just before top dead center, the spark plug fires. Next is the Power stroke (a down stroke). Near the bottom of the Power stroke the Exhaust valve opens allowing the exhaust gas to escape during the Exhaust stroke (an up stroke). I believe saying air is injected during the Compression cycle (while both valves are closed) is incorrect. With pressures in the combustion chamber during the compression cycle reaching 100 to 130 PSI before ignition, what is being used to create a pressure differential to allow air to inject oxygen?

Well, debating is one thing. Fuel receipts and a fuel mileage log are quite another. Show me a fuel mileage log with matching receipts and odometer and I might bite a little.

I am a fuel economy nut and Ive been studying ways to get better mileage since probably about the mid 90's and I have tried the full spectrum of ideas, theories and products. I have learned a tremendous amount in that time and spent money on things that just plain didnt work and probably borderline fraud, but I tried just to show one way or the other.

The Hydro assist systems I have yet to see one of them that could produce one bit of information that showed they work. I keep immaculate fuel receipts and mileage records. My latest success has been my Isuzu Rodeo which, when I first bought it, barely got 17mpg on a 35/65 combination driving of city and highway. It not solidly gets 22+ mpgs and I frequently can get it into the 23 mpg range depending on how I drive and that combined driving. I have yet been able to take an all highway drive.

So, for me personally, you can tout the Hydro systems as much as possible but until I find someone with one of those systems installed that can show me solid documentation, I dont believe they are worth the effort.

I had every intention on buying one because I chalk that kind of stuff up to just learning and the price of self-education, but as much as I have tried I have yet to find anyone that has the documentation that shows it works. I dont mean Scangauge II displays, Driver Information Center (D.I.C) info, I mean manually calculated mileage.

better fuel economy = more economical car. its just that easy.

i didnt buy a grand prix and mod the crap out of it so i could get good mileage.

Well I dont personally, necessarily agree with that either. Economical does not mean it has to be a 1.0L 3-cyl engine. We've been taught that all our lives, but its not true. And I dont know about you but my GP was getting 33 - 34 on all highway runs which to me is excellent fuel economy for a car like the GP. My ford focus I had had half thepower, have the torques and could just barely do 33 on all highway. Engine size does not dictate fuel economy, at least not yet.

The reason for this is that we are not using all the engergy available in the fuel we are injecting into the cylinders. Fuel economy and power are not inversely proportional, or mutually exclusive. Now, when we start using all the energy in the fuel we put into a cylinder, THEN, then there will be the situation where more power means less fuel economy.

There are frictioional losses of course that will probably always be there in the current engine configurations, but we still have a LONG ways to go before we make use of all the fuel injected. There are examples out there in which GP's are running very high 30's near 40 mpg, very much modified but extremely well tuned. That alone should point out the modifying a car doesn not necessarily have to mean a loss of fuel economy.

im not saying they cant be economical, but the fact is that not everyone tunes their car to that degree and gas mileage suffers becaus of that. i know that i am one in that boat, my car runs like crap. but it's fun to drive.

Originally Posted by badbuick85

im not going to give you a fuel log i know what my car gets i calculate it every tank but im not trying to win you over or prove it to you.

You fail to understand the importance I place on such documentation then. Im not trying to be won over either, I am trying to find information that shows me this is a viable system. If I am going to fork out $1000 on a HAFC system, then I dang well want to know its going to work. I know they can be made cheaper than that but if you buy a kit, that seems to be the going rate for them give or take $100 or so.

However, as I said I want to see some type of evidence that these systems work and for all the hype you can find on the internet about them I have yet to find one soul that has taken the time to document the fuel economy over time. Until then, I'd rater put the money to a Fisk fuel system than a HAFC becaue I have seen the Fisk set up demonstrated and documented.

Im not attacking you or anything like that, but its just old seeing all the hype around such an allegedly fantastic system and no one willing to show the documentation. If I had a Dodge V10 and was getting 30mpg out of it you better dang well believe I would be a pencil pushin' fool on documenting that or any other vehicle that showed such gains from this system.

Originally Posted by FordMan77

For what, reviving a 3 year old thread??

Not Epic ENOUGH!!! Comeon bro... you gotta double it

****...you guys are going to be the death of me.