aircraft engineer

ah - but what you have with this HHO "process" is basically an attempt to violate the "laws" (and they ARE "laws") of thermodynamics. IF you do an energy balance for the "unmodified engine" you see an amount of energy "input" and an amount of energy "output". The input is pretty simple - it's "fuel". The "output" includes useful "work" (horsepower) plus waste heat (exhaust, exhaust gas speed, coolant, some mechanical losses) OK - so NOW we switch THE IDENTICAL ENGINE over to this "miraculous" additional fuel (remember - partially sourced by power drawn from the "horsepower output" - with no changes to the engine operating system). Remembering that the energy quantity of the disassociated "water" came from the energy produced by that same engine's electrical system PLUS THE "FUEL" IS PHYSICALLY A SMALL QUANTITY ANYWAY, the engine "efficiency" saw no change so the "usable work" available for "output" to the vehicle CANNOT CHANGE EITHER. Remember - IF YOU DON'T KNOW - the 2nd law of thermodynamics is (paraphrased for the non-technically oriented) "You can't WIN (can't get more out than you put in); You can't LOSE (everything that goes IN goes SOMEWHERE - you just have to FIND IT); and you can't even "BREAK EVEN" (there's that little thing that most ignore called "entropy" - a portion of the energy goes into the system that can't be recovered - it makes the system "more random") The "only" way to violate this is to have "perpetual motion" - BUT WAIT... "perpetual motion" is not allowed because YOU CAN'T WIN!! And THAT (in a nutshell) is why it's TOTAL BS (not because they changed the ENGINE to be "more efficient" - which they DIDN'T. IT'S THE SAME ENGINE - A SELF-CONTAINED "SYSTEM" THAT SUPPOSEDLY GETS MORE FUEL EFFICIENCY WITH ESSENTIALLY THE IDENTICAL "POWER" INPUTS (BECAUSE AT THE ROOT, THE HEAT INPUT - THE ENERGY INPUT - IS POWER "IN" AND JUST GETS CHANGED IN FORM.) You probably have a college near you - take this idea and GO ASK A PROFESSOR IN THE MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO HAVE A GRAD STUDENT RUN A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT AS PART OF A MASTER'S THESIS. Naturally, after he either stops laughing (or just smiles knowingly) you might be informed that it's BUNK the same way I just informed you. (or TRIED anyway ) Oh, and by the way - the Wrights' problem wasn't so much "flying" - a glider can fly - the problem was getting the power source (the engine) and conversion into thrust (the propellers) and the control system (even with the pictures, they STILL haven't been able to re-create the actual "first flight" event because of their control system) all together. They didn't propose an unbelievable "energy balance" as part of their machine. There is NO FREE LUNCH!! (oh, and REVEEN - that's fine for demonstrating whether the system "works" given an outside input. Remember, though, the additional input (the H-H-O gas mix) needs to be accounted for in the output as well.)

I followed the links to the SAE and greencar sites. They are talking about introducing a hydrogen input into a fuel system set up for extreme lean burn. As they note, the main issue with extreme lean burn is the production of nitrogen oxides in the output gas and the introduction of the hydrogen reduces that NOX production. I suspect that the burn temperature is lower with hydrogen than with "ordinary" fuel only. Commonly, EGR is used to reduce the peak in cylinder temperatures by diluting the incoming fuel/air charge with exhaust gas. Whether anyone noticed it or not, they are using a 12:1 compression ratio. That tends to increase the NOX output but is more or less "required" for lean burn - the downside is that it also requires higher effective octane rating for the fuel. Now cutting to the chase (as it were) - those lean burn engines are not your garden variety engines. Running right at the lean limit is difficult - variable loads produce what are essentially "pulses" of "less than lean" operation. Depending, the catalyst could probably be reformulated to take the higher peak exhaust temps into account (cats seem to work better at higher temps anyway) but OVERALL the engine DESIGN itself remains essentially unchanged and efficiency will approach 35% as a maximum. 1+1 still = 2.

As an engineer (actually a PE as well - I'm licensed in Washington) I feel it my DUTY to inform people when BS hits the net and I have more than a passing knowledge of the "technology" involved. IF I came across a "perpetual motion" device being advertised, I would lambaste it, too. In THIS case, the numbers don't add up - it isn't even CLOSE, so unless there's more to the bells and whistles than utter MISINFORMATION and FALSE ADVERTISING, it's all snake oil, pure quackery, nothing else. Give me data and I'll change my position. The "data" comment wasn't directed at you per se, but at those touting this SNAKE OIL "solution". In summary - yes, it will make a bit of hydrogen (didn't say it wouldn't) BUT will it make enough to affect the fuel mileage? ROFLMAO - of course not. It's "standard" electrolysis and the output of the disassociated elements based on "experience" (I played with the process in school labs years ago) can hardly make enough for a "pop" let alone run an engine. Scale it up enough to run an engine (even 100hp) and the sheer size of the production plant exceeds a 22 foot semi trailer - plus there's that "little item" of the power input requirement.

Unfortunately, if you want to take the middle part of the belt cover off you have to pull the CRANK PULLEY no matter what. 97 is the same both Phase 1 and Phase 2 BOTH it's a "minor" PITA to get it ON (getting it "off" is a breaker bar against the ground or frame and use the starter to turn the engine - or have the "tool" to hold the crank pulley - which eliminates the "get it on" issue) to put on a timing belt cover, you need to strip the engine front down to bare. Cam gears, the crank pulley and belt have to come off. There are 5 or 6 bolts that secure the rear 1/2 of the cover to the block (which probably aren't there) - all JY stuff. That cover keeps the big pieces out of the teeth - so plan on a "sooner than 80k replacement" if you operate in a sandy or heavy dusty environment

The engine is timed wrong - he used the ARROWS rather than the nicks on the cam gears or missed the crank keyway being "DOWN" in the "in time" position. IF it has interference (which it DOES because it won't turn) IT IS OUT OF TIME and MUST be fixed before rotating the engine with the starter or you are in for a MASSIVE repair bill (I suspect this guy never did a Sub timing belt job before?)

Sorry - ferox - your statement has the same effect as "prove the non-existence of god". You DON'T PROVE A NEGATIVE. Let them SHOW their DATA (other than unverifed testimonials from unknown persons) and then it will be given an audience. Merely saying "This is good, it saves gas and it works..." is akin to "the sky is falling" in reverse. Need I remind you of those quack cures for cancer out there that people (grasping at straws) will try? ANYTHING that offers some "hope"... IF 1+1 supposedly = 3, the NUMBERS REQUIRE VERIFICATION. Or to be blunt - "YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE WITH THAT." The QUANTITY of hydrogen produced doesn't provide a sufficient energy input to add usable power to an SI engine in "factory trim". GIVE ME ANALYTICAL DATA!! Put magnets around your fuel line - that supposedly helps, too.

The "problem" with the electric car is the battery capacity and rate of recharge - little else. It's a matter of "power density" - how much can be put in and taken of a battery how fast and for how long (why lead/acid batteries are "rated" in amp-hours at a 20 hour rate). Hi-power density rechargeable batteries are almost exclusively metal-hydrides. Anyway - electrics are also sort of impractical for longer trips when using "plug in power" only. (average urban usage would be 50 miles/day so it's PRACTICAL there) BUT - It's another of the complaints against the hybrid - can't plug it in and use no gasoline at all. Sub is fielding a bunch of tiny battery electrics for urban use in a NYC "trial" - smaller than a "smart" car. And speaking of hybrids - they get less mileage during the winter in cold climates. Why? Simple - the CABIN HEATING system is engine powered. the issue with gas powered vehicles is to be able to extract more of the heat input into "work" output (work being moving a load thru a distance) Standard Otto cycle (spark ignition) and Diesel cycle (compression ignition) only approach 35% "efficiency" - the rest being put out as "waste heat". Find a way to increase that to 60% and become a BILLIONAIRE (to the chagrin of the oil producers) oh - and the GM EV-1 electric wasn't 300 mile radius it was more like 75 to 130 miles total (300 mile radius would have been 600 mile total - 300 OUT - 300 BACK) 300km is closer, though for a total

Said it BEFORE and I'll say it again ETHOS is PURE BS and essentially SO IS HHO - while a slight increase in fuel mileage can be expected from the increased humidity, aside from a way to directly introduce liquid water into the incoming airstream, WATER WON'T HELP THE ENGINE RUN MORE EFFICIENTLY (as currently designed) Now to you SUCKERS who opt for this BEYOND SNAKE OIL WASTE OF MONEY - I only have this to say: YOU MIGHT AS WELL GIVE THE MONEY TO CHARITY BECAUSE EITHER WAY IT'S GONE!! At least with a charity it MIGHT be doing some good IF they are so good, where are their VERIFIED TESTS (not just mythical testimonials from unknown persons) Where's their proof of concept vehicle for the 10 MILLION DOLLAR prize competition (oh, yes, that one is VERY REAL - 100mpg car)? What's that old engineering statement about "perpetual motion" - "in god we trust, everyone else PROVIDES DATA!!" The promoter is BLOWING SMOKE - nothing more. <<DON'T WASTE YOUR MONEY FOLKS - YES I'M VOCAL ABOUT PSEUDO-ENGINEERING BASED MULTI-LEVEL MARKETING SCAMS>> By the way - The "aircraft engineer" handle is VERY VERY real folks, not just "blowing smoke".

Try it in neutral and then wiggle the shifter while turning the key. IF it turns the starter, it's the neutral safety switch, otherwise it's somewhere else. hi input is usually an "open" circuit not a short but the switch might be bad anyway

What I did was a bit "unorthodox" - I used a tongue depressor and a pair of vise grips to hold the belt to the cam pulley (just clamp it LIGHTLY - enough to hold the belt in position) and then slip the belt over the crank pulley gear. That tongue depressor just prevents damage to the belt - you can clamp it about anywhere on the "belt contact" radius but make sure you can still see the timing marks. A piece of old timing belt would also work but you need to put it upside down (flat side to flat side is best to hold everything in place) Don't take off the clamp just yet - align the side and slip the belt onto the crank pulley there, too and lightly clamp it down. What you just did was to fix the cam positions to the crank position. Now the rest gets a bit easier - route the belt around the water pump, install the cogged idler pulley and THEN install the tensioner and pulley and the cogged pulley - which is a real BEAR to get in - took about 30 minutes of aligning the bolt to the hole in the blind (but don't pull the PIN in the tensioner yet) Check alignment of the crank plus the 2 cam pulley marks to make sure it's still OK, put in the bottom left idler pulley, do a final check (just to be sure) and pull the pin on the tensioner (remember, the belt CAN'T slip because you held it to the pulleys with the vise grips.) If you need to move the cam pulley, I used a crow foot wrench turned 90 degrees to the side and fit it over the cam spoke. It was either 14 or 17mm IIRC. Take off the vise grips and you're done.

auto-rx is one of the orange oil (terpene) cleaners. I forgot the name of the stuff, but the description above is accurate

not OEM Sub? maybe?

you might have trouble with chain clearances in the wells (don't know for sure - I know that going from 195/60-15 to 205/60-15 is a problem on the Imp. they run down the road just fine but cable chains hit the wells)

The instructions (add a can, let it sit and idle 10 minutes) are characteristic of a "butyl cellosolve" cleaner. Used to be more "common" for use in "sludged" engines. Trouble is that it cuts the lubricity down and flows thru the entire oil system. Engines will "die" from bearing failure if you drive it with that stuff in it - won't take the "loads" on the rod bearings mostly because it's a DILUTANT as well as a detergent. The other common flush is a terpene additive (citrus oil - orange oil is the most common and one of them is called "citrus safe") where you would add a few ounces for 2 or 3 oil changes in a row and run it until the next change (but as I remember, the change interval was cut in HALF (3000 miles or so) - supposedly no adverse effects on the engine. Quite effective a de-gunking an engine, too. Terpenes are naturally occurring detergents and intense degreasers - it's why your hands smell "nice" after peeling oranges and are very very "clean" - it took all the oil right out of your skin (water soluble) Too much information?

I'm no good on Sub HGs but I work with a guy who had an engine O/H done at the dealer and they put both HGs on UPSIDE DOWN (Nissan V6) It kept overheating and they couldn't figure out why - HE tore it down (documenting EVERYTHING with pics off his digital camera) and took it to them and gave them the bill - which they PAID - so even dealers can screw things ROYALLY

If you go the spacer route put it under the sensor. The brass ring is where the sensor "grounds" to the block and why the CEL comes on when you pull the sensor "out". I'm pretty sure that a 50k-ohm resistor in the circuit grounded to the engine will run the car without the CEL (but you won't have a knock sensor either)

Out here, Schucks had a special on Bosch filters for $3 each So I got a few. I'll use up the Frams I have, though.

DO NOT! NOT!! NOT!!! USE ATF +3 OR +4 They contain a modifier that will make the plates "slip" more than "Dex-Merc" - it was for the Chrysler electronic trans. Yes, it's the same as the Dex WITH the "slippery additive" but it slips too much for "normal" AT. BTW - "They" claim you can use Merc-Dex II in a Chrysler, too - but you will burn the clutches up RIGHT NOW (as in10k miles or so) if you add more than about 2 quarts.

watch it with the 2 solid axle old Bronc - they aren't stable if loaded. I was in one with another engineer at Ford on the test track MANY years ago and almost rolled it. They suffer from the same ills as old Jeeps and IH Scouts - rear wheel "jacking" in close cornering - the same type of problem as the Corvair

you could always move to western washington ...OOPS - gotta RUN - the natives are chasing me with scythes and pitchforks... there are MANY Subs here - more than Mercedes and less than SUVs

have fun finding a dealer for parts - my sister is there and there seem to be 3 in the area. AJ is a bit east - there's one in Scottsdale and another in Avondale (far west side) - she didn't say where #3 is Her opinion is that there aren't enough to have anyone knowledgeable about the vehicle

For the system to pressurize, yes - but another thing that most people don't realize is that the oil film remains in the bearings so no bearing damage is done to the engine during start unless there is an extremely high load during the start cycle. Similarly, cylinder walls in sliding the rings will scrape off some of the oil but the oil ring itself traps enough to take up the slack during starts. Now if you want to talk about "long life between oil changes" - try a "turbine" (jet engine) - most of them are on oil analysis and only get changed at "C" check (a lot longer than 600 hours) - just keep checking it (uses very little), topping up, and running it - no combustion products in the oil stream whatever. it only rotates, no "slide action" BTW - another way to fill the oil filter before start is to pull the coil plug and crank the engine. Too bad it won't work on a Sub unless you pull the coil pack wire

as much as it sounds stupid - JiffyLube is a reasonable alternative as long as you trust them. About $100 for a full fluid change. Watch out, though, they will try to nickel and dime you on "other stuff" (air filter, wiper blades, etc) - "no" is a good word to use ($39 to change an air filter that cost $12 at Schucks (Checker, Kragen) with maybe 3 minutes of work) I wouldn't go to AAMCO IF THEY PAID ME!!

Just find someone you like and stay with them. I tend to go to "cheap" places for the "ordinary" replacements/fix-em-up but Costco seems OK for new tires (as long as they have your size) Wallyworld didn't impress me either

most people don't understand that oil never "wears out" - it just "gets dirty". True, some of the viscosity modifiers change a bit during "use", but the lubricity remains Particulate contamination and water condensation are the 2 biggest enemies of oil/engine life - the water because it can cause strange things in an emulsion due to acid formation and particulates because of "abrasive wear" Generally, 5000 is a good interval for a well sealed engine with filters every 2500 or so (with oil costing a lot more than filters now - it's not that you can extend the SYNTHETIC oil usage interval - you only sort of can. Do an oil analysis every second change or so and a compression test at the same time and see trends over time) Too bad you don't have a "control" vehicle to use for comparison. I know my sister changed oil every 3000 like clockwork and that 3.5 Chev V6 was still going strong at 350,000 when the dump truck pulled in front of her. (The Vortec engine is not known for especially long life)