Stock 29" to 37" tires is actually a 27.8% size difference, which will effect the math on an mpg calculation considerably.

 

Does increasing tire size make miles per gallon more efficient? His display numbers go up, not down. If the point is you suspect his mileage is ever better, great, but I doubt it. I think he's gaining efficiency and we are just uncertain of the amount - he says it's enough that he hasn't used premium fuel in the years since the install and claims a 23mpg average with up to 28 while drafting at highway speeds on sustained overland trips.

For what it's worth, and again I don't think this is all that important if there is any agreement he is gaining any mpg at all, but his original video (the first I post) is 2 years before he puts 37" tires on. I don't know what size he's running at the time, but he hadn't made that upgrade yet on his channel.

 

I didn't comment on what I thought was going on. Just that the math would be off. In this case yes, off on the low side... So if he had stock tires he would be getting like 36 mpg.

Not buying it but you are welcome to give it a try and let us know.

As I live in the land of the third highest gas prices in the USA I can understand your passion for trying to find a cheaper way... However we bought Land Rovers. I didn't buy mine thinking I would get away with anything cheap. It is what it is and always will be. An eclectic undervalued expensive to operate premium luxury vehicle.

 

I find these claims questionable…

Specifically on this Disco video for one, he’s done all sorts of modifications, including headers, cat delete, viscous fan delete, that could potentially increase fuel economy over stock. I’ve viewed his other videos and found some of his claims questionable — specifically the “+20hp increase” from removing the viscous fan and going to electric.

Further on the speedo issue. Bigger tire = lower RPM. That much difference could effect gear changes, potentially making upshifts earlier than they would be normally. Point is that the MPG number is really not that meaningful without more info. Internal calculations could be based on constants that are now variables with some of these changes. Thus, why the calculating the actual driving mileage as I wrote above is a better idea.


Pointing to this technology / method —

As someone with an engineering background, I have my doubts. The power draw on the alternator to get enough electrolysis to actually effect fuel mileage to compensate for the draw ... eh. I don’t think so. Lots of things work in theory, and not in practice.

With tightening fuel economy standards, if this actually worked, every car company would be all over this. I’m not saying it can’t work - but there’s no such thing as a free lunch.

It would be easier to start with a newer, more efficient engine design to get better mileage. Like an LS, modern diesel, etc.

 

This might be illustrative in regards to theory vs practice

There are myriad reasons why car companies make decisions to do things, many of which have nothing to do with customer experience or preference. Why did they include the center locking differential on the 2004 version but not the LEVER to actuate said center locking differential? Why is the 2003 version considered more unreliable than the 1999 version? The answer to both questions is undoubtedly because they made decisions about the cost of repairs vs investment yield on a new 2005 vehicle coming out and decided it wasn't worth the cost/benefit to improve tolerances by retooling the factory, or being on the hook for warranty service for one more thing (CDL). I have no idea if HHO systems make any sense at scale, if they compete with other problems caused by their use in fleets, if it's a legal liability for other reasons, or if it just comes down to they don't want to get into the procurement business of a new supply line. I don't much care, at this point I'm really not looking for anything other than video evidence of installations not working. So far all I can find are demos of hydrogen being produced and claims that it made them use less fuel after installation.

It's not a free lunch if you are decreasing combustion inefficiency with the addition of a new combustible substance that includes an oxidation catalyst. I'm not saying it works, I'm just saying the reason why it wouldn't work isn't that new energy is being claimed from nowhere - it is being claimed from somewhere. As you report, there are many V8s more efficient than ours, at higher horsepower and weight, and every Rover I've ever seen has a black ring around the muffler from running rich. Mine sure does.

For example this guy:

is he lying?

 

[QUOTE=Matthew Markert;767657]Why did they include the center locking differential on the 2004 version but not the LEVER to actuate said center locking differential?

2004 is the year in which they DID include the lever.
If you're going to try to illustrate a point, best to use an accurate argument.

 

This is a scam to get youtube views

 

To me, this falls in line with a lot of those “gas mileage extender” devices that always seem to come up when gas gets expensive. Some have some scientific merit (like this one), others are total hogwash.

Those videos above are just people saying things. No scientific measurements whatsoever. I’d rather see scientific papers / studies. Also, I’d be cautious about contaminants in that system if they are using regular water. Really it should be distilled.

While liability is a better argument than “oh the guy who invented this got killed by the oil companies for this secret”, I’d still find it hard to believe that car companies wouldn’t be all over this now, if improvements have been made over the last few years. If this works so good, then why all the money in new hybrid systems? That’s a lot of dough to spend on R&D for a few more MPG.



Let's see where these “improvements” in efficiency come from:

First, thermodynamically, you are putting more energy into the system than you are pulling out. Takes energy to electrolyze water from alternator. Can’t win here, it’s the first law of thermodynamics. No net gain from complete hydrogen burn in a theoretical scenario. In practice, you won’t get a complete burn and the electrolysis process is not 100% efficient.

Second, now you are down that adding the hydrogen allows a more efficient burn of the gasoline. Sure, theoretically possible perhaps, but you would need to tune said engine to accommodate for that. Just throwing it in the intake manifold without compensating for ECU parameters are going to be all over the place. O2 sensors (a primary way that ECU changes fueling parameters) measure the remaining oxygen in the exhaust. When H2 burns, it reacts with O2 to create water. The O2 readings will be low, and more fuel will be dumped in.

I would think that even a piggyback engine ECU would not be able to compensate for this. You would really need to have an engine ECU designed from the ground up to work with such things, or at a minimum, a tunable ECU, like the LS one. It’s been known for a long time that the Bosch Rover V8 ECU is probably one of the hardest ECUs to tune.

Like I said earlier, I’m not saying it’s not possible, but to be done correctly is more complicated than just plugging it in. Even then, I’d say no more than a slight increase, if any at all, maybe even a decrease.

 

Rather spend the money on having my ecu flashed by the group in england...the rover v8 isn't terrible but it's wildly constricted via the stock cam/heads and the tune. A freer flowing motor with the ability to tune the motor like an LS would put us with economy more inline with that motor with a little more power to boot (not LS output but more than enough to appease most of us). Or just import a TD5 as an ag/tractor motor and register your disco in an area with no emissions and enjoy real mpg gains and for those of us at elevation minimal power loss.

Aaron - as an ME I'm seeing what you are seeing. It's not up there with snake oil but with no actual paperwork or even hand scribbled notes showing distance covered and fuel used it's just hot air..as it's been covered time and time again that the mpg readings from the obd port are not quantifiable in these vehicles.

 

back in the early 2000s when i had my '77 air-cooled VW bus with fuel injection this HHO stuff came up on the VW forums.

oddly enough, no one could ever get it to work despite the grand claims.

it didn't work then and i don't think it will work now.