O2 extendors = better fuel economy?
Ive been looking into the possibility of getting better fuel economy by leaning out my AFR. i plan on doing this using a passive method, ie- by pushing the O2 sensors out of the exhaust stream using extendors.
Im basically looking for any info/ opinions from you guys.
Have any of you guys had any experiance with this? or know of someone who has messed around with this? all the info i have is based on the Net.
there is one guy on youtube who is doing the some with some comparative analysis using a Dodge Ram with a 4.7 check hi other vids out too.
The more i look into it, the more i feel this is a mod has merit.
Re: O2 extendors = better fuel economy?
That seems like it would work. experiment with different heights and hole sizes to get it fine tuned
Re: O2 extendors = better fuel economy?
You know what assuming does!?
There was so much fail in that video I don't even know where to start!
Ill just jump into it I guess... If your going to trust a guy using his EVIC and 45 measly minutes of driving to determine if something is legit or not, I would like to be the first to congratulate you on inheriting 200 million dollars from a long lost (now deceased, RIP) relative in Nigeria, if you could paypal a small processing fee of 5000 USD to stang_COBRA_R@juno.com I can get the ball rolling on getting your money to you.
Anyone that thinks a water/hydrogen contraption like that is going to given you any better fuel economy is CRAZY. I think I had a neighbor asking me about a local shop offering to install a kit on his work truck pedaling "UP TO 50% increase in fuel economy", they are not promising ANYTHING beyond the fact it wont increase more than 50%, beyond that, you can loose MPG and they didn't lie to you. I think they quoted him like 800 or 1500 dollars to install the kit... If there was ANY increase in the slightest, it would take the life of the car to make up that money.
Lastly, how do you think taking away the computers ability to properly keep the vehicle running at stoichiometric air/fuel ratio is going to help with fuel economy beyond causing the vehicle to run lean... 4.7's and 3.7's already pop a headgasket if you look at them funny, I can only imagine the damage that would be inflicted on an engine forced lean (hot). Exhaust manifold bolts already break under normal unmolested heat loads. If he is using the extenders in the upstream O2's he WILL get slow response codes. O2 monitors don't run unless your doing 55ish +/- so his highly scientific testing didn't even allow the monitor to run. If he is doing them in the downstream it just further shows the idiocy as downstream O2's are used for catalyst monitoring not fuel control. Furthermore, he said his average was not reset, that it included mileage prior to the repair, I could drive 2 hours to and from the beach and its slowly creeping up the entire trip, there is no instant gratification with an averaging fuel economy number. Having said that, keep in mind he never said where he started, just where he was at.
You know how you save fuel? Lift your foot off the skinny pedal, keep your vehicle properly maintained, air in the tires, perform periodic alignments to ensure the wheels are tracking straight, fresh oil in the motor and drivetrain, brakes in good operation and perform repairs when they come up not after they have been let go so long the problem has to be fixed before you can drive any further. OR sell your man Jeep and buy a Honda.
In conclusion, a 45 minute testdrive is enough to gather just enough information for a placebo outcome. There is SO much to a scientific test, wind, temperature, barometric pressure, humidity, specific test course, identical traffic loads, identical stop and go times... just to name a few of the considerations, joe schmoe out test driving his car to prove his point means NOTHING.
|All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:59 PM.|
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2012 - JeepGarage.Org
The Jeep Grand Cherokee Owners Community