Water vapor injection project

[Buzo]

Once again I thank the Honda Engineers that designed the systems of the carbed cars.
Special thanks for the hot air source in the exhaust manifold.
As I have documented here in this forum, not using that hot air source during winter can reduce the fuel economy in 15-20%.

The next project is based in all my reading over internet about ways to improve fuel economy, increase power or both. We'll see.
We all should be more or less familiar with the Water Injection concept. If not, anybody interested can google search and find lots of information.

Did read similar thing but they use already vaporized water and I said "this is something I can implement pretty quick in my car" since:

I have the windshield washer motor and water tank.
I have the hot air source working properly
I have a controller that can automatically trigger the water injection at any given condition.

The plan is to inject the water into the exhaust manifold (near the O2 sensor location), and collect the vapor generated through the hot air hose.
I can add a PWM controller to the little pump of the windshield washer, proportional to the engine RPM or TPS or whatever.
I am already controlling the hot/cold air door in the filter case if I ever need to mix vapor and ambient air.

In summary, its just a matter to connect one hose (and a nozzle) from the windshield washer tank to the air heater and wire a SW to the cabin to trigger the water pump at my convenience and start getting some initial parameters.

[Legend_master]

buzo your projects make us all look lazy lol. Good luck, and hoping for great results!

[Vanilla Sky]

You are running MS, right? MS3 Extra and MS Extra can control water injection, and I believe MS2 Extra can as well.

Keep in mind that the washer fluid pump is a low duty cycle pump. I would look into a real pump and tank setup for WI.

[2oodoor]

buzo your projects make us all look lazy lol. Good luck, and hoping for great results!

This

[Dr_Snooz]

Buzo, you so amazingly rock! This is another project on my someday wish list. I can't wait to see how you make it happen. Is this a replacement for, or an addition to the gas vaporization experiment?

Edit: nvm, I just saw the other thread. So exciting!

[Vanilla Sky]

What are your MPG goals? Where are you now with that?

[Hazwan]

Subscribed (Y)

I love all your crazy projects!

[Buzo]

Thanks for your replies and nice comments!

Today I completed all the material list. I am going to use some medical stuff in my project.
When you get a blood transfusion or something, they put a hose and a needle in your hand and they regulate the flow with a small valve in the hose and by looking at the number of drops falling into a little bucket at the bottom of the blood bag. (Sorry, don't know the English names of this stuff).

I am going to use the same method for my water/vapor/steam injection system. I made a venturi to be inserted in the hot air hose, as close of the exhaust manifold as possible. The medical hose will be connected to the suction port of the venturi. I will fill the plastic bag with water and will be controlling the number of drops per second as the water is suctioned by the hot air pulled by the engine.

Since this air is pretty hot (>100 degrees C), the small drops of water will get vaporized while traveling through the hose to the filter case. But also I still have the heaters in the base of the carb for a complete vaporization.

My fuel economy goal is 50 to 60 MPG. Just the same as the hybrid cars running out there.

I should be able to run the first test today.

[Buzo]

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b624/Buzo3geez/steaminjsys_zpscc56cb7f.jpg

[Buzo]

Ran a test last night.

Tested my venturi design in the bench using my hot air gun as air flow source, and I saw more water flowing due to the gravity alone than the water pulled by the vacuum. So the venturi must be redesigned until I get enough suction force to overcome the gravity force. My water tank must be below the level of the inlet port in the venturi to avoid water to keep flowing when the engine is off.

But I didn't stop. I connected the water hose to a vacuum port in the base of the TBI, - before the electric heaters - and started the car.
Found that I can control the water flow to the engine in a very precise way with this "medical" method.

If I lean the mix out a little bit, just to get my engine speed to oscillate, and then I open the water source, I can stabilize the oscillation. (The other way to stabilize the oscillation is to add fuel! Do you know what I mean?)

If I keep opening the water source I can make the engine to stall.

So its good to know that the hose diameters and everything is in the range to affect the engine performance.

Sorry didn't bring my cell's USB cable, so I owe you some pics of the set up.

[Buzo]

While I finish the new venturi, I used the canister port in the base of the TBI to suck water and then being converted to vapor by the heaters.
The big difference between injecting through this port and injecting though the standard MAP port is that the canister port increases the vacuum as the engine accelerates (due to the venturi of the air passage) and the MAP port decreases the vacuum with the engine speed.

In the picture you can see the medical system I've been talking about, I can measure the qty of water being sucked and I can adjust the flow with the blue valve, everything from the warm inside of the cabin.

http://i1295.photobucket.com/albums/b624/Buzo3geez/wpsetup_zpsd07e67cb.jpg

I need to connect a hose from the graduated glass to the bottle of water for an automatic refill. I ran about 14 miles today, UsedFuel = 2.4 liters and consumed 100 ml of water, so its about 4% of water and 96% gas. I've been conservative, but the plan is to increase the water consumption as much as I can.

[Buzo]

In today's trip both the graduated glass and the .5 liters bottle got consumed over my 10.5 miles distance, for a total of 0.6 l (.15g) of water vs .58g of gas.
In other words I put additional 28% of water into the engine.

Did not see any change in fuel economy yet, I know I need to change the tune, but I'm not sure how. I have always used my O2 as feedback but it is in the mid range already.

Any idea would be welcomed.

I am assuming the water is being turned into vapor by the heaters. But just in case I think I'm going to wrap a couple of turns of copper line around the exhaust, so all the water must pass through the intense heat and get vaporized before entering the engine.

[Legend_master]

Well my understanding is that you want to advance the engine to the point of destruction, and use the water vapors to suppress engine detonation.

[Dr_Snooz]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had knock sensors on these cars?

[obdriver6]

I don't know what this is but it sounds interesting! :D

[Buzo]

Well my understanding is that you want to advance the engine to the point of destruction, and use the water vapors to suppress engine detonation.

Can one of the guys that had tuned a turbo describe the process followed to get the max power out of it?
I assume this would be similar, advance a little bit at the time, until the engine knocks and retard some degrees, and so on for all possible driving conditions?

I ran the car w/o water injection today and I noticed that the car had to downshift when passing (an old problem I have always had).
But it didn't happen yesterday w/ water injection under similar passing conditions!

However, I am looking for fuel economy and not necessarily more power.

My engine knocks when the manifold temperature rises above 65C, during winter I can barely reach 40C, so the test for knocking suppression also needs to wait for the summer.

[Buzo]

Wouldn't it be wonderful if we had knock sensors on these cars?

Oh yes, the knock sensor might be used to trigger the water injection, instead of retarding the timing.
Do you know if there is a "free" threaded hole in the back of the engine where a knock sensor could be installed?
I have hundreds of knock sensors at my work place.

[Buzo]

I don't know what this is but it sounds interesting! :D

I read one guy that said that just by injecting water vapor to the engine, he reached 50% increase in FE. He also changed the compression ratio in the engine, but in a stock engine there must be still a 20% improvement. He doesn't describe his vapor injection method in his write up, so I am testing my own ways to get vapor into the engine in proportion to the load. That's it!

Water and Steam Injection, plus Gasification Systems (http://desakrisson.topcities.com/watinj.html)

[obdriver6]

^ Yeah I was doing a bit of research after I posted and I got the idea of what it was but thanks for the link.

[Legend_master]

I read one guy that said that just by injecting water vapor to the engine, he reached 50% increase in FE. He also changed the compression ratio in the engine, but in a stock engine there must be still a 20% improvement. He doesn't describe his vapor injection method in his write up, so I am testing my own ways to get vapor into the engine in proportion to the load. That's it!

Water and Steam Injection, plus Gasification Systems (http://desakrisson.topcities.com/watinj.html)

what about using a cruise control bracket to control the water vapor valve?

[Buzo]

This is what I'm going to do.

My cruising engine speed is usually between 2000 and 3000 RPM, I am going to make those areas of the fuel table lean so my O2 reading remains flat at zero volts. And then I am going to let the water injection to keep the engine safe for overheating or knocking.

I will leave the high load areas as they are now, so if I need to accelerate it will reach the high MAP or >3000 RPM zone and the mix will catch up to the richer sections.

My goal is to use less than 1/2 gallon of gas to get home (and still have a working engine).

[Dr_Snooz]

Do you know if there is a "free" threaded hole in the back of the engine where a knock sensor could be installed?

That's the $64k question, isn't it?

Here is one possibility on the front. It could also be the block drain though. I can't tell.

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq132/dr_snooz/Front_zpse310d77c.jpg

According to this thread (http://www.3geez.com/forum/carb-tech/78166-carb-idle-issues-caused-carb-temp-sensor-discuss.html), there's a temp sensor on the back of the block of the carb cars that isn't on the FI cars.

This might be it. It's almost the perfect spot for a knock sensor.

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq132/dr_snooz/Back_zps96ca4b23.jpg

BTW, these aren't my pics. I scavenged them off of Google. I think one of them is on the site here somewhere.


I have hundreds of knock sensors at my work place.

You must work for the most wonderful company on earth!

[cygnus x-1]

That front plug is a drain, and the rear one is for a coolant temp sensor used on some engines (not exactly sure which ones). So those won't work. If you remove one of the manifold supports you could use one of those holes. Try to find one as close to the head as possible.

I think you'll find that detecting engine knock is not so easy. And I'm betting you also won't experience any knock at cruising loads no matter how lean you make the mixture. From my experience the engine starts to misfire once you get any leaner than about 15.5:1. There is no knocking, it just doesn't fire the mixture and the engine starts to feel *nervous*. Advancing the timing in those areas may help or it may not. I have no idea what the water injection would do. For lean running heating the fuel would probably help it to atomize better and make combustion more stable.


C|


That's the $64k question, isn't it?

Here is one possibility on the front. It could also be the block drain though. I can't tell.

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq132/dr_snooz/Front_zpse310d77c.jpg

According to this thread (http://www.3geez.com/forum/carb-tech/78166-carb-idle-issues-caused-carb-temp-sensor-discuss.html), there's a temp sensor on the back of the block of the carb cars that isn't on the FI cars.

This might be it. It's almost the perfect spot for a knock sensor.

http://i441.photobucket.com/albums/qq132/dr_snooz/Back_zps96ca4b23.jpg

BTW, these aren't my pics. I scavenged them off of Google. I think one of them is on the site here somewhere.



You must work for the most wonderful company on earth!

[Buzo]

Thanks for the pics and comments. I have never seen our engine from other angle than standing up in front or the sides of the car.
The one screw holding the oil tube looks close enough to the head. But anyway, sometime in the near future I plan to fix an oil leak I have from somewhere in the back of the engine, so I would have to remove the inlet manifold. It would be a good opportunity to look for a place for the sensor.

I have ran two days while slowly decreasing the fuel injected. The O2 sensor reading stays more time at 0 volt and it rises to 1 V when I leave the cruising area, either when I accelerate for passing or when I release the pedal. There has been not noticeable change in fuel economy yet, but I will keep removing fuel every day until the car can't longer keep the speed up, or i see an increase in the temp, or I hear the engine being destroyed :).

I am using almost 1 liter of water per trip, if a lean mix produces heat, I hope the water helps to keep it cool (besides the current cold weather)

[Dr_Snooz]

the rear one is for a coolant temp sensor used on some engines (not exactly sure which ones).

If Lost's thread (above) is correct, that's for the carb cars. Buzo has converted to a GM throttle body FI system and has a completely different ECU, so I'd say that location is fair game for him.


or I hear the engine being destroyed :).

Be careful with that. Speaking from personal experience with these cars, pinging can be very hard to hear. Mine was pinging for weeks before I finally heard it while passing under a narrow bridge.

[Legend_master]

Be careful with that. Speaking from personal experience with these cars, pinging can be very hard to hear. Mine was pinging for weeks before I finally heard it while passing under a narrow bridge.

Is that due to to the cast iron block?

[Vanilla Sky]

Is that due to to the case iron block?

Heavy block, lots of space between the engine and the firewall, and a lot more sound deadening than you'd expect make it hard to hear in these cars. They are pretty good at masking engine sounds.

If I remember correctly, you make the most power when you are using as much water and as little fuel as possible for a complete burn. With a properly tuned WI setup, you can run a fairly good increase in ignition timing, too. Water is one of the best, if not the best, knock inhibitors you can use. It keeps everything super clean, too. Since you're installing the system on an engine that's got some miles on it, you're going to notice it running better in a few months. That's because you're steam cleaning your engine pretty much all of the time. A blown head gasket does the same for chambers. If you've ever taken one apart that had coolant leaking in, you'd see the difference between the cylinders with the leak and without, because the ones with the leak have far less, if any, deposits left.

I wouldn't tune it to kick on WI when you ping, I'd use ignition retard for that, as you can adjust that faster than you can adjust water delivery. You want to make that change as soon as you detect it, not a few seconds like I'd expect your venturi system to take.

Are you injecting vapor at the manifold, or is it still liquid at that point? I can't wrap my head around why it wouldn't be a gas and not a fluid under your conditions.

[Legend_master]

If this really improved gas mileage, I'd say build a rain scoop to collect any extra water you need. Could actually be a positive energy source.

[Vanilla Sky]

You really want water that's cleaner than rain water. Rain is nasty in a city, or anywhere there's a lot of shit floating in the air.

[gfrg88]

Windshield washer fluid :dunno:

[Vanilla Sky]

Distilled water is the best thing to use if staying with h2o injection.

[Buzo]

Time for an update.

I am using straigh drinking water and its being sucked liquid through the canister's port. This port pulls vacuum between 1500 and 3500 RPM only.
The heaters in the base of the TBI should be able to turn it in vapor before it gets to the inlet manifold.

I reduced the fuel table in about 10% until I saw the O2 signal flat at 0 volts. Didn't notice any difference in temp with or without water, but I'm not risking the engine too much. So my runs w/o water aren't too long just in case.

Didn't notice any fuel economy improvement yet. My measured Used Fuel still around .500 and .600 gallons over 10.5 miles, depening mainly in the weather.

I need to do the water injection in the exhaust manifold experiment and also the coil around the exhaust to vaporize the water while being sucked by the engine.

I am looking for extra 10 MPG at least. If I see something promising then I will put all the electronics required for an accurate control. But will not for 3 or 4 MPG.

[Buzo]

I'm going to take my car for a 1000 miles trip this weekend.

I will not turn the WI on, I will be more concerned with a suspension failure than fuel economy.
Right now I am checking everything underneath the car. I recently changed the main front bearings and inspected the ball joints.
After 2 years owning the car, this is the first time I am going to run it for more than 40 MI in the same day. Plan to take some pics of the car during the trip. Hope everything goes well!

[Buzo]

During my research for fuel economy things I found a site where they only talk about ways to improve FE. Its called gassavers. As far as I have read, they are not very technical guys, they talk more like putting magnets in the fuel line, be easy with the car, even turning the car off when in downhill (haha).

To make a long story short, if I want radical fuel savings, I need to do radical things. Keeping the tires inflated to spec will help but in the order of +1 MPG (Which I will loose in a single hard acceleration).
So, I will be more aggressive in this water injection for fuel economy project. I removed 10% of the fuel injected last time with no results. Well, I plan to remove 20, 30 40 % until the car can't longer keep the speed up and then just put a little bit more.

During my 1k trip there was a very long uphill section of the road where my car raised the coolant temperature to 95 C. (the average is 90 C) and the engine didn't get destroyed... so I learned that I can run with little overheat and little knocking for some time and still be safe.

I bought the fuel filter of our FI cars, the one in a metal case, I will use it to heat the fuel up and convert the injected water into injected vapor using the coolant lines.

Weather has been better here so I feel like I can work in the car again.

[Dr_Snooz]

Did you realize any fuel savings?

[Legend_master]

Found something that might interest you. It's a DIY for a radio shack knock light.

DIY Knock light (radio shack parts) - Miata Turbo Forum - Turbo Kitten is watching you test compression. (http://www.miataturbo.net/ecus-tuning-54/diy-knock-light-radio-shack-parts-58392/)

[Buzo]

Thanks for the link of the circuit. Its certainly easy to build. I am going to have knocking problems when the summer comes per sure. I have elevated the temperature of the fuel and air to accomplish 23 MPG during this winter.

But, I would like to drop the water injection project for some time and start calling this as "Hydrocarbon Cracking System" Project, or simply HCS.

I've been reading about this system that is very popular in Indonesia. It heats some fuel vapors up to 300-400 degrees F using the exhaust manifold, so the carbon and hydrogen atoms of the fuel molecule (C14H18) get separated, or cracked. Then mixed with the sprayed fuel of the injector, gives a better burn rate in the combustion chamber

Another long story short, I already implemented the system in my car, and jumped from 23 MPG to 35 MPG.

There are a lot of things in this system to be fine-tuned at this time, my first finding was that the fuel savings are weather-dependent.
If it is raining you might have zero gains, because the system needs heat. And the heat is dissipated away with the water getting in contact with the exhaust tube.
But in the hottest (50 F) and driest days of winter, I got 35 MPG. I can't wait to see the FE gains in summer time.

As usual, I have hundreds of pics and datalogs to probe what I have just said. If you guys allow me I'll be putting sketches, pics of my own setup and results very soon.

[Buzo]

Did you realize any fuel savings?

Not savings with plain water, but if we replace the water with standard fuel, and then heat the vapors coming out of the stored fuel... There are real fuel savings as you will see in my next posts.

[Buzo]

I might start sounding like a scam, but not, I am the same Buzo as always.

Here is a quick pic of the system. It says carburetor but it can be attached to any -venturi vacuum source- preferably.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8369/8495325011_2122a74000_z.jpg

Pics of my install are in that same flickr account, if you are interested.

[Buzo]

This pic is worth to be posted here. Its was from my drive from work to home a few days ago.
The inclined white lines are the used fuel as calculated by the computer.
I compared the first day I used the HCS in my car vs another log from the day before.
By looking at the RPM you can say the speed was similar in both logs. But regardless, not for being easy with the pedal will save you 7 MPG, no way.
I have another chart pretty similar, but I used even less fuel for a gain of +12 MPG (35 MPG total).

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8523/8487940736_1ed8e0b086_z.jpg

[Legend_master]

I might start sounding like a scam, but not, I am the same Buzo as always.

Here is a quick pic of the system. It says carburetor but it can be attached to any -venturi vacuum source- preferably.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8369/8495325011_2122a74000_z.jpg

Pics of my install are in that same flickr account, if you are interested.

Looks very similar to the Evap system in the LXi model. I believe the charchoal canister on the firewall would be the catalyst. I've always wondered about heating the fuel tank, but it seems like building a giant bomb lol.

[Legend_master]

Sorry about the quality of the pic, but you get the idea.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/Legend_Master/11A14933-9B23-4292-812C-B8395E0C1517-98683-00000D80A5F4974F_zpsc445d9ea.jpg

[Dr_Snooz]

Sorry, I'm a little confused. You're saying that you didn't really get the gains you were seeking with vaporization or water injection, but HCS provided big gains immediately? HCS, as you describe it, sounds a little like GEET, but I'll do some more reading before I say for sure.

So how much more difficult would this project be if you didn't have the Megasquirt controller? OMG! I'm starting to think that Megasquirt, EFI and EDIS are simply mandatory on these cars. My car stopped being numbers matching when I did the MT swap, so there isn't a lot of reason for me not to go whole hog with a tuneable controller and crank-fired ignition. I thought that was only for hot-rodders, but I'm starting to see the light.

[Dr_Snooz]

I'm reading now and have some questions. Are you using a venturi vacuum source and if so, which one? Are you tweaking the fuel map at all or is it happening magically on its own? Are you worried about burning up a cat? Are you still piping in hot air? Are you still using any water injection?

I'm very interested in doing this. Are you able to post pics of your setup in this thread? That would be awesome. I don't know how to look up your stuff on Flickr.

Thanks for doing all the research that I'm not able to.

[Legend_master]

I'm reading now and have some questions. Are you using a venturi vacuum source and if so, which one? Are you tweaking the fuel map at all or is it happening magically on its own? Are you worried about burning up a cat? Are you still piping in hot air? Are you still using any water injection?

I'm very interested in doing this. Are you able to post pics of your setup in this thread? That would be awesome. I don't know how to look up your stuff on Flickr.

Thanks for doing all the research that I'm not able to.

If you were able to get the evap system to produce more vapors (generally only produces on a hot summer day). I would think the EFI system would start to lean the liquid fuel mixture from the injectors. Would probably work better with an obd1 setup.

[Buzo]

I'm reading now and have some questions. Are you using a venturi vacuum source and if so, which one? Are you tweaking the fuel map at all or is it happening magically on its own? Are you worried about burning up a cat? Are you still piping in hot air? Are you still using any water injection?

I'm very interested in doing this. Are you able to post pics of your setup in this thread? That would be awesome. I don't know how to look up your stuff on Flickr.

Thanks for doing all the research that I'm not able to.

Thanks to Leyend Master for posting that pic, because the venturi port I am using is the one that merges with the throttle plate. Note that this is not manifold vacuum, it generates vacuum only when the pedal is pressed.

It is happening automatically. I haven't touch the fuel map at all. Indonesian guys are using it in carbed cars and stock EFI, even in diesel engines with similar results.

I don't see any increase in the coolant temp. So no, no worried about my cat converter.

Yes, hot air is still ON, also I am heating the fuel up to coolant temp using a 1/2" copper tube wrapped around the fuel filter. (haven't uploaded pics of that one)

Whater injection is OFF.

[Buzo]

Sorry about the quality of the pic, but you get the idea.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v667/Legend_Master/11A14933-9B23-4292-812C-B8395E0C1517-98683-00000D80A5F4974F_zpsc445d9ea.jpg

More or less... There is one thing missing: the catalyzer. We are also bubbling fresh air to the small tank full of gasoline, so the vapors are generated and immediately "cracked" and used by the engine.

[Buzo]

This is how the setup in one of our FI's car would look like:

We'll talk about the catalyzer later, but don't worry, its something you can get at any hardware store.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8102/8497112668_c86e753378_z.jpg

Any more questions?

[Buzo]

Here is my setup.

1 commercial aluminum can. I think mine is 1/2 liter (1/8 gallon) but there should be other sizes.
Some hoses 1/4" OD, 1/4" ID, clamps, barbbed connectors, some 3 ft of 1/4" copper line.
Not my best pic but you should get the idea

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8512/8493296097_f164d69cac_z.jpg

[Buzo]

And here is the catalyst or catalizer

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8381/8493296373_86eecaf70b_z.jpg

[Buzo]

The fuel in the bubbler tank is used in a rate of .001 gallons every 10 miles. So guess what happen if you don't use the catalyzer, NOTHING!

But if you crack the fuel molecules with heat... My fuel economy jumped from 23 to 35 MPG. Without messing with the fuel maps at all!

As I said, its weather dependant, so in my trip from home to work I get 'only' 27 MPG, but in my trip back in the evening I get 35 MPG.

I am working in isolating the best I can the catalyzer, because its clear that the loose of heat (incoming cold air) affects the number of cracked molecules.

[Vanilla Sky]

The most readily burned fuel is fuel vapor. If you can get more of your fuel fully vaporized and then add water injection for cylinder cooling, I bet you could hit your MPG goals and not have to drive the thing like gramma.

[Buzo]

Please watch these files for more installation examples and some theory behind all this. I am here to share my experiments only. Not really interested in discussions about physics. I would like to find somebody willing to test at his place and help to get rid of these loses and maximize the gain. It works is all I can say.

http://www.masster.ro/test/hcs.rar

[Buzo]

The most readily burned fuel is fuel vapor. If you can get more of your fuel fully vaporized and then add water injection for cylinder cooling, I bet you could hit your MPG goals and not have to drive the thing like gramma.

I bet you, even driving the car like a grandma, you will never, ever get +12 MPG. And the fuel savings I am reporting here were taken out of my standard way to drive. The chart I posted below shows everybody that I am rev'ing the car just as normal, 3500, 4000 RPM, and cruising at 2500 RPM.

Water injection is on hold for now, when I fix all the loses I've been talking about, I will reconsider to mix cracked fuel vapors with water vapor.

[Vanilla Sky]

There have been plenty of reports from members of this community with MPG numbers in the mid 30's. These were economy cars to begin with. 35 is getting you where a lot of our members already report to get. I haven't done a full tank with my car yet, but I still have some running issues to take care of before I can honestly do an MPG run.

[Buzo]

Yep, I saw someone reporting 40+ MPG. but nobody has probed it. I would like to see least an excel chart and a description of the process followed to get their numbers.
Everything else is just BS or a wrong method to get the MPGs.

Now, lets put it from this perspective. A car that consistently gets 23 MPG. Adding a couple of hoses and a tank takes it to 35 MPG, wouldn't you take it just because other guys get 35 with some unknown fix? Even the most modern car with direct injection, barely gets 29 MPG in the city (I have one of those!)

If I had a car that already gets 35 I would put this system and jump to 50!

[Buzo]

Sorry, no ofense intended for those that really track their MPG's I am just saying that the used fuel is very variable with weather, hard accelerations, traffic, road deviations. If someone is in the 30 MPG range, congratulations and please share what you do to be there.

[Vanilla Sky]

I got 32MPG once. Automatic, carbed car. Loaded to the gills. All highway driving at 70+. No babying. You're just setting your goals too low.

[Buzo]

My car gets 30 MPG in highway 80 MPH. If I had drove at 70 MPH, I guess I have matched your 32.

Now I'm saying I'm getting 35 MPG city drive.

All you need to do is to try it. Get excited about it and help in the fine-tuning of the system.

[Buzo]

For instance, the guys at Indonesia prefer to re-fill the tank manually to keep the system as simple as possible, but I don't like to have to manually drop fresh fuel in the tank every other day and impregnate myself with fuel odor, so I already improved the system by adding a valve from the main fuel supply to the tank. So I uncap the tank, open the valve, watch the fuel flowing and close the valve when topped off.

I'm sure you guys will have other even better ideas.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8509/8490234125_3294ff4045_z.jpg

And here it is in action

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8365/8496947609_4d3b2c0379_z.jpg

[cygnus x-1]

Wow, very interesting experiment you have running! Although I have to say I'm a little bit skeptical about what is really going on here from a technical standpoint. This is not to detract at all from what you're doing, or even questioning your results, I'm simply interested in the real science behind what what is actually happening.


First off, just a simple question. When calculating the fuel mileage with the system running are you accounting for the extra fuel used in the bubbler tank? I realize this may be a small amount but for the most accurate results it does need to be accounted for.


Next, I'm unsure whether there is any significant hydrocarbon cracking going on here as opposed to just vaporization. The reason I say this is because I've looked into hydrocarbon cracking and other related processes like thermal depolymerization in the past (for converting waste plastic into oil) and I have not (yet) seen a process that didn't require temperatures of less than around 300C (~600F). And the lower temperature processes tend to use either higher than atmospheric pressures, or some form of catalyst to enable the chemical reaction to take place at lower temperatures. Now I'm in no way claiming that my research is exhaustive (it's not), nor that I'm an expert in the field (I'm not). I'm just saying that I would be hesitant to believe that there is significant hydrocarbon cracking occurring, UNLESS the temperatures involved are much higher than stated. Having said that, exhaust manifold temperatures can easily reach well over 1000F so it is definitely possible that there is some cracking going on.

The other reason I'm more inclined to think that this system is mostly just a vaporizer is because it's been well established that fully vaporized fuel burns much more efficiently in an engine than fuel in liquid or mist form (small droplets). The auto industry has been working on getting fuel to completely vaporize for many years. First they started heating the intake manifolds to evaporate the fuel that puddled up under the carb, then they started injecting the fuel directly onto the hot intake valves (port injection), now they are injecting the fuel directly into the combustion chambers at crazy high pressures to form a super fine mist (direct injection). The new direct injection engines can reach amazing levels of efficiency and power compared to where we have been in the past. For an example, see Ford's new 1.0L EcoBoost engine that produces ~120HP and 125lb-ft torque.

Which brings me to something else I wanted to point out about modern cars and fuel efficiency. You can't directly compare our 3g Accords to modern cars as far as fuel efficiency is concerned because new cars are heavier and taller for various reasons, mostly having to do with additional safety equipment. Being heavier will impact fuel efficiency in the city and being taller will impact efficiency on the highway. I think you will also find that modern cars tend to have a higher power to weight ratio, although I haven't done the research to confirm this.

And one other nitpick is about the copper tube wrapped around the exhaust manifold being called a "catalyzer". Technically this is incorrect unless the tube contains some sort of catalyst that aids a chemical reaction to take place. There are indeed catalytic cracking processes (Cracking (chemistry) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_%28chemistry%29)) that use aluminum oxide and silica, and there are even youtube videos demonstrating the process. In fact it would be interesting to see what would happen if the copper tube were filled with an appropriate catalyst to aid the cracking process.



I feel it is important to point these things out in order to keep these discussions/investigations in the realm of *real* science as opposed to *junk* science. Using the correct terminology IS an important part of this, as is diligent data collection and thorough analysis.

Finally, I want to say that I absolutely LOVE reading your threads Buzo! It's always neat to read about people's experiments with new and different ideas. Keep up the good work! :flash:


C|

[Buzo]

Thanks for your input here Cygnus. Your comments are always welcomed and if we can find a technical explanation together then we can put it here for everyone.

I think I know why we have a gain in FE. Cracking means to break long hydrocarbon chains into smaller ones.
Whatever the formula is of the current fuel: (lets assume C11H24), we are breaking it in everything from methane CH4 to C8H18 (Octane!)
So yes, we might be increasing the octane content of the fuel.

And I just read about the aluminum oxide as catalyst. I recently created some with aluminum, water and my electric welder, but it is a form of a fine dust.

How can I turn it into a solid and be able tu use it inside of my copper coil?

Regarding your question as of if we are really cranking hydrocarbons, I can say YES, because I ran the test of inserting the fuel vapors (creagted by the bubbler) straight to the ventury (bypassing the catalyst) and nothing happen, my measured fuel economy went back to normal. I reconnect the catalyst and the FE went back to a huge gain.

So there is no question. Copper alone is a good catalyst. With Al3O2 should be even better.

The fuel vaporized in the bubbler is very little, it depends of how many bubbles per second you set it. They say there is a sweet spot, so too much bubbling is not good either. I am not taking the fuel consumed from the bubbler in my calculation of FE, because is less than the fuel I use to warm my car up in the mornings.

[Dr_Snooz]

In fact it would be interesting to see what would happen if the copper tube were filled with an appropriate catalyst to aid the cracking process.

According to this guy (Hydrocarbon Cracking System - Gas Savers - Fuel Efficiency Forum (http://www.gassavers.org/f66/hydrocarbon-cracking-system-13689.html)), there is no difference. The system works the same, whether there is an actual catalyst being used or simple heat exchanger like Buzo has.

[cygnus x-1]

I think I know why we have a gain in FE. Cracking means to break long hydrocarbon chains into smaller ones.
Whatever the formula is of the current fuel: (lets assume C11H24), we are breaking it in everything from methane CH4 to C8H18 (Octane!)
So yes, we might be increasing the octane content of the fuel.


You may be changing the octane rating, but that alone will not change fuel efficiency unless other parameters of the engine are adjusted to take advantage of the increased octane rating. The octane rating is essentially a measure of the fuel's resistance to autoignition. This is important so that the air/fuel mixture doesn't ignite on its own (before it's supposed to) due to the temperature increase from compression. In a given engine, the octane rating of the fuel only needs to be high enough that it doesn't auto-ignite. Increasing the octane any further does nothing for power output or efficiency.

You may be on the right track though with the breaking down of longer HC chains into smaller ones. Shorter hydrocarbon chains are going to vaporize easier than longer chains. Vapor burns more efficiently because there is more surface area of the fuel exposed to oxygen molecules. Liquid fuel in the combustion chamber does not burn in time to contribute heat to the combustion gasses, and ends up going out with the exhaust gas.




And I just read about the aluminum oxide as catalyst. I recently created some with aluminum, water and my electric welder, but it is a form of a fine dust.

How can I turn it into a solid and be able tu use it inside of my copper coil?

Probably the easiest source for aluminum oxide would be aluminum oxide blasting media. If you know anyone that does sand blasting they will probably have some. You will want to coarsest grit you can find.




Regarding your question as of if we are really cranking hydrocarbons, I can say YES, because I ran the test of inserting the fuel vapors (creagted by the bubbler) straight to the ventury (bypassing the catalyst) and nothing happen, my measured fuel economy went back to normal. I reconnect the catalyst and the FE went back to a huge gain.

That doesn't prove that there is any cracking though, it only proves that your fuel efficiency went up (for some reason). That reason could be cracking or it could be improved vaporization beyond what the bubbler alone can provide. The only way to prove this for absolute certain would be to do a chemical analysis of what goes into the copper tube and what comes out. But, it may be sufficient to measure the temperature of the copper tubing around the manifold. If the temperature of that tubing gets to maybe 600F or higher, then there probably is some cracking occurring. If it's very much cooler than that there won't be much cracking, and only vaporization.




The fuel vaporized in the bubbler is very little, it depends of how many bubbles per second you set it. They say there is a sweet spot, so too much bubbling is not good either.

This suggests that there is a throughput limit somehow. One possibility is that too much fuel going into the copper tubing cools it off enough that the vaporization (or cracking, whichever it is) is impeded. The obvious thing to try here is to wind more tubing around the manifold to increase the active surface area.




So there is no question. Copper alone is a good catalyst. With Al3O2 should be even better.

Regarding catalysts for cracking, I searched around and appears that copper is not really useful as a cracking catalyst. I found this for example:

Catalytic Effect of Metals on Paraffin Hydrocarbons - Industrial & Engineering Chemistry (ACS Publications) (http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/ie50357a007)

It does say though that iron, nickel, and cobalt are very active catalysts. So if you can figure out a way to incorporate those metals into the reaction tubing (and get the temperature high enough) you should have some actual cracking going on. And then you can properly call it a "catalyzer" as opposed to just a cracking chamber. :)

This reminds me, I remember reading somewhere (I think it was on Endyn's site) about coating the valves with nickel to aid in fuel decomposition. Here's a link to a research paper about it:

Catalysts in Combustion Chamber of an Ic Engine (http://www.scribd.com/doc/11366776/Catalysts-in-Combustion-Chamber-of-an-Ic-Engine)




I am not taking the fuel consumed from the bubbler in my calculation of FE, because is less than the fuel I use to warm my car up in the mornings.

And that's ok as long as it's stated as such. So how many miles can you go before you have to refill the bubbler?


Hey, I just got a crazy idea. Instead of using the bubbler, maybe you can pull the fuel vapor from the vent tube from the fuel tank. You know the one that normally goes to the charcoal can? I don't know if you would get enough fuel this way but it's worth a shot I think.




According to this guy (Hydrocarbon Cracking System - Gas Savers - Fuel Efficiency Forum (http://www.gassavers.org/f66/hydrocarbon-cracking-system-13689.html)), there is no difference. The system works the same, whether there is an actual catalyst being used or simple heat exchanger like Buzo has.

Well, if the temperature is high enough an actual catalyst is probably not required. It may work better with an actual catalyst, or it may work at lower temperatures with a catalyst. That assumes that cracking is actually occurring. If it's simply improved vaporization then of course the presence of a catalyst wouldn't matter.


C|

[Buzo]

Your reply below, Cygnus, is exactly what I am looking for. Thanks for giving ideas, but also I want somebody to try it in his car and compare with me.

I have hours of the day where I get 35 MPG, other hours of the day I get 30 MPH, my average is 27 MPG.
Unfortunately, my longer trip is 13 miles into the same day. But If somebody uses to make longer trips in a day he should try this system, because the FE improves as the car gets hotter (it happens also without HCS) but with HSC the FE gets even better.

I have records of my FE from the past 6 months, its been always in the 22-24 MPG. I made several things (hot air & hot fuel) to improve from 19 MPG to 23 MPG.
I tried to re-tune my car the best I could and was never able to pass my 23 MPG average.

Without changing my latest fuel maps of 23 MPG... I put the silly bubbler tank and jumped to whatever you want to call it, 27, 30, 35 MPG.

When I decided to put this here was because we should be able to find a way to get consistent gains. What is different when I get 35 to when I get 27 (well, 35 has been allays in the evening, 27 has been always in the early morning) But there should be something else we can do, like changing the catsalyst or making a better insulation.

[cygnus x-1]

Do you still have the EGR system connected? I know everybody hates it but it can actually improve engine efficiency when it's operating correctly.

C|

[Legend_master]

Do you still have the EGR system connected? I know everybody hates it but it can actually improve engine efficiency when it's operating correctly.

C|

Now I may be wrong on this, but the EGR would only be valuable if all your fuel going into the cylinders was not burnt. The key would be to make the engine efficient enough that only unusable carbons came out of the exhaust. My biggest beer with the EGR is how filthy it makes the intake system.

[Buzo]

The US 1 cent coin is made out of nickel, right? I remember when I was younger we called them nickels. I may cut some and put the pieces inside the copper coil. The 2 cents catalyst!
My EGR is disabled since two years ago when I fitted the MS. However, there is one HCS system that uses the exhaust gasses pressure to make the bubbles in the tank. I tested it already but is not very accurate since the pressure is not proportional to the engine speed as the venturi vacuum is.

[lostscotiaguy]

Re: EGR, Just my 2 cents:
The egr isn't just there to burn off any unburnt fuel leftover in the exhaust. While it DOES do this it's other main purposes are to aid efficiency, cut down on NOX output and to cool the combustion chamber:
The recirculated exhaust takes up space in the combustion chamber, cutting down on the amount of "Fresh" air/fuel that goes in. The potential power loss through it's use (Through the burning of less fuel/air) is relatively minimal. If you have an engine designed WITH egr, then it's valves and cam profile etc are already tailored to flow a set amount of fresh fuel/air with the recirculated exhaust gases on each combustion cycle anyhow. If you block the EGR port off you might make a miniscule gain in power, but not only will you get poorer fuel mileage but the temperatures in your combustion chamber will increase, creating higher amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (They mostly form above temps of 2500F) the extra heat will also add engine stress and promote pre-ignition. Anyhow, just thought I'd "Pipe in" on this one...har de har har ok I'm done, sorry for that one. XD

[lostscotiaguy]

Re: EGR, Just my 2 cents:
The egr isn't just there to burn off any unburnt fuel leftover in the exhaust. While it DOES do this it's other main purposes are to aid efficiency, cut down on NOX output and to cool the combustion chamber:
The recirculated exhaust takes up space in the combustion chamber, cutting down on the amount of "Fresh" air/fuel that goes in. The potential power loss through it's use (Through the burning of less fuel/air) is relatively minimal. If you have an engine designed WITH egr, then it's valves and cam profile etc are already tailored to flow a set amount of fresh fuel/air with the recirculated exhaust gases on each combustion cycle anyhow. If you block the EGR port off you might make a miniscule gain in power, but not only will you get poorer fuel mileage but the temperatures in your combustion chamber will increase, creating higher amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (They mostly form above temps of 2500F) the extra heat will also add engine stress and promote pre-ignition. Anyhow, just thought I'd "Pipe in" on this one...har de har har ok I'm done, sorry for that one. XD

[Buzo]

Re: EGR, Just my 2 cents:
The egr isn't just there to burn off any unburnt fuel leftover in the exhaust. While it DOES do this it's other main purposes are to aid efficiency, cut down on NOX output and to cool the combustion chamber:
The recirculated exhaust takes up space in the combustion chamber, cutting down on the amount of "Fresh" air/fuel that goes in. The potential power loss through it's use (Through the burning of less fuel/air) is relatively minimal. If you have an engine designed WITH egr, then it's valves and cam profile etc are already tailored to flow a set amount of fresh fuel/air with the recirculated exhaust gases on each combustion cycle anyhow. If you block the EGR port off you might make a miniscule gain in power, but not only will you get poorer fuel mileage but the temperatures in your combustion chamber will increase, creating higher amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (They mostly form above temps of 2500F) the extra heat will also add engine stress and promote pre-ignition. Anyhow, just thought I'd "Pipe in" on this one...har de har har ok I'm done, sorry for that one. XD

Thanks for your comment, in your opinion, what it would be the logic of the ECU to turn the EGR ON/OFF?

Coolant temp > xx
RPM > xxx
etc?

I left all the EGR hardware installed in my car, the valve and the tubbing, I just disconnected the vacuum since this valve is normally off.

[Dr_Snooz]

The obvious thing to try here is to wind more tubing around the manifold to increase the active surface area.

Probably wouldn't hurt to wrap it all in muffler tape either.


I have records of my FE from the past 6 months, its been always in the 22-24 MPG. I made several things (hot air & hot fuel) to improve from 19 MPG to 23 MPG.

You know Buzo, you're getting astonishingly bad mileage with your stock setup. The worst mileage I ever got was 26 MPG and that was with a massive vacuum leak at the intake gasket. My long, long term average (including those few months of 26 MPG) is 29 MPG and recently, it's been closer to 32 MPG. With the gearing in your carb transmission, you should be getting in the 37-40 MPG range with a good tune. Add the wonder tech to a decent base tune and you could easily get to your 60 MPG goal.


Now I may be wrong on this, but the EGR would only be valuable if all your fuel going into the cylinders was not burnt. The key would be to make the engine efficient enough that only unusable carbons came out of the exhaust. My biggest beer with the EGR is how filthy it makes the intake system.

As I understand it, the EGR is used to cool the combustion temps, allowing you to run a leaner fuel mix without producing a lot of NOx (or pinging).

[Buzo]

You know Buzo, you're getting astonishingly bad mileage with your stock setup. The worst mileage I ever got was 26 MPG and that was with a massive vacuum leak at the intake gasket. My long, long term average (including those few months of 26 MPG) is 29 MPG and recently, it's been closer to 32 MPG. With the gearing in your carb transmission, you should be getting in the 37-40 MPG range with a good tune. Add the wonder tech to a decent base tune and you could easily get to your 60 MPG goal.

My freeway FE (@ 80 MPH) is 30 MPG after a two hours drive. If you have a similar record, then we can compare.

But I understand the message. I just didn't want people to think, ah its because Buzo has a MS and he can change sensors. I got a 20% improvement without touching the fuel maps.

EDIT: Also my car PASSED the smog test with this tune, so its hard to believe my tune is that offset.

[cygnus x-1]

The US 1 cent coin is made out of nickel, right? I remember when I was younger we called them nickels. I may cut some and put the pieces inside the copper coil. The 2 cents catalyst!

Your thinking of the 5 cent coin. Modern nickels are 75% copper and 25% nickel. That would probably be enough to work. You can also buy nickel metal from suppliers like McMaster Carr, but it's fairly expensive compared to coins.




My EGR is disabled since two years ago when I fitted the MS. However, there is one HCS system that uses the exhaust gasses pressure to make the bubbles in the tank. I tested it already but is not very accurate since the pressure is not proportional to the engine speed as the venturi vacuum is.

I was thinking of the EGR system as it is stock, but now that you mention it exhaust gas should theoretically work well with the bubbler if you can figure out a way to keep the pressure stable. The advantages with exhaust gas would be that 1) it's already hot so it should help keep the temperature of the system up, 2) it's inert and will keep the vaporized/cracked fuel from oxidizing before it gets to the combustion chambers. Number 2 is important because otherwise you're just 'burning' the fuel before it gets to the cylinders. This is why they say to use PCV gasses, because they should contain less oxygen, being comprised partly of blowby gas from the cylinders.





Now I may be wrong on this, but the EGR would only be valuable if all your fuel going into the cylinders was not burnt. The key would be to make the engine efficient enough that only unusable carbons came out of the exhaust. My biggest beer with the EGR is how filthy it makes the intake system.


Re: EGR, Just my 2 cents:
The egr isn't just there to burn off any unburnt fuel leftover in the exhaust. While it DOES do this it's other main purposes are to aid efficiency, cut down on NOX output and to cool the combustion chamber:
The recirculated exhaust takes up space in the combustion chamber, cutting down on the amount of "Fresh" air/fuel that goes in. The potential power loss through it's use (Through the burning of less fuel/air) is relatively minimal. If you have an engine designed WITH egr, then it's valves and cam profile etc are already tailored to flow a set amount of fresh fuel/air with the recirculated exhaust gases on each combustion cycle anyhow. If you block the EGR port off you might make a miniscule gain in power, but not only will you get poorer fuel mileage but the temperatures in your combustion chamber will increase, creating higher amounts of Nitrogen Oxides (They mostly form above temps of 2500F) the extra heat will also add engine stress and promote pre-ignition. Anyhow, just thought I'd "Pipe in" on this one...har de har har ok I'm done, sorry for that one. XD


Primary function of EGR is to reduce NOx emissions, but it also does increase engine efficiency somewhat. If done correctly it WILL NOT reduce engine power because it's only active during part throttle cruising. It's is disabled at idle and full throttle. It will soot up the intake a bit over a long period of time.




Thanks for your comment, in your opinion, what it would be the logic of the ECU to turn the EGR ON/OFF?

Coolant temp > xx
RPM > xxx
etc?

I left all the EGR hardware installed in my car, the valve and the tubbing, I just disconnected the vacuum since this valve is normally off.


I don't know what the exact logic is but you should be able to reverse engineer it from the factory service manuals.





My freeway FE (@ 80 MPH) is 30 MPG after a two hours drive. If you have a similar record, then we can compare.
But I understand the message. I just didn't want people to think, ah its because Buzo has a MS and he can change sensors. I got a 20% improvement without touching the fuel maps.
EDIT: Also my car PASSED the smog test with this tune, so its hard to believe my tune is that offset.

This is why I asked about the EGR. Comparing an engine with EGR to one without is not making a direct comparison. It's an extra variable that needs to be controlled somehow.
Enabling the EGR system again (even just in stock form) might gain you 1-2MPG, which would get you closer to factory levels (without the extra systems you are experimenting with).


C|

[Dr_Snooz]

My freeway FE (@ 80 MPH) is 30 MPG after a two hours drive. If you have a similar record, then we can compare.

My peak MPGs run from about 32-34 MPG. I think my all time best ever (not recorded in my log, unfortunately) was close to 36 MPG. My highway speeds are usually between 65-75. Bear in mind that your carb trans is geared higher than mine.

[Oldblueaccord]

Sorry, no ofense intended for those that really track their MPG's I am just saying that the used fuel is very variable with weather, hard accelerations, traffic, road deviations. If someone is in the 30 MPG range, congratulations and please share what you do to be there.

Im starting to think the fuel mix is diferent in Mexico vs Usa.

[Dr_Snooz]

BUMP!!! for updates!

[Dr_Snooz]

More bumps!!! Slacker!

[Buzo]

Sorry Dr_Snooz, here is a quick update.

The result of this water injection project is that there is no impact at all in fuel economy. I set my system to very different flows of water, from 1 to 5 lts per 20 miles.
The car feels stronger while passing but that's all. I injected the water as liquid using the canister port, so the water was sucked into the engine only >1200 RPM. Then I passed the water through a copper line wrapped around the exhaust tube before and the result was similar.

From the things I have done to improve fuel economy, the only one that gave me some results was the HCS, but we need to be very consistent to keep the fuel level in the bubbler tank, too much or too little will reduce the performance of HCS.

For now, my car is just a normal car. No more hoses/switches/wires hanging here and there. One of the reasons is the hot weather, I don't like to work in the garage when there is 100+ degrees outside.

[Dr_Snooz]

Bummer dude. I had high hopes for the vaporization. The only other wild goose chase I can think of is HHO. LOL

[lostforawhile]

Sorry Dr_Snooz, here is a quick update.

The result of this water injection project is that there is no impact at all in fuel economy. I set my system to very different flows of water, from 1 to 5 lts per 20 miles.
The car feels stronger while passing but that's all. I injected the water as liquid using the canister port, so the water was sucked into the engine only >1200 RPM. Then I passed the water through a copper line wrapped around the exhaust tube before and the result was similar.

From the things I have done to improve fuel economy, the only one that gave me some results was the HCS, but we need to be very consistent to keep the fuel level in the bubbler tank, too much or too little will reduce the performance of HCS.

For now, my car is just a normal car. No more hoses/switches/wires hanging here and there. One of the reasons is the hot weather, I don't like to work in the garage when there is 100+ degrees outside.

if you really want to make this work, you need the water injected through high pressure nozzles, not just sucked in. look into devils own methonal/water injection systems, best prices and most flexible setups, either water or methonal really needs to be setup with an rpm switch so it only sprays over 4000 rpm, or with a boost switch in turbo cars, it really does work, but you need proper nozzles and the pump which is over 300 psi, to get the proper atomization

[Dr_Snooz]

From what I've heard, which is not much, water vapor is more for HP gains than MPG. Can it be tuned for fuel economy or no?

[lostforawhile]

From what I've heard, which is not much, water vapor is more for HP gains than MPG. Can it be tuned for fuel economy or no?

it's mainly to prevent detonation, normally in turbo cars, but it can also be used in high compression N/A setups, you get some horsepower gains, but the best benefit is when done right it drops the temp of the intake charge a LOT, you spray above about 4000 rpm to prevent it from quenching the charge at lower RPM

[Dr_Snooz]

So... what does that get you? Power or economy?