2H Fuel Mileage

[ken cheers]

You are completely correct. Hiclones are nothing but a scam and cannot possibly work as claimed.

But when I pointed that out I was banned for a week.

Opinion without experience will provide that conclusion. the "scam" and "sham" seem to be easy words. try "test" and and "evaluate". if the manufacturer has such long success and little returns fro the money back guarantee, then this may also need to be considered. I am a licenced mechanic and not a back yard fitter either

 

[Dougal]

Apologies and I don't mean to upset you. I am a light strand auto engineer. I just gave my personal experience. It has been used in military applications also. A combustion chamber is designed to create swirling of the air on entry and this can be enhanced by flowing the ports. It does not allow me to sit inside the intake to personally feel it but anything that can increase airflow delivery IMHO is an advantage. Using vanes within this area creating a vortex would not restrict but enhance the flow. A comparison could be with a rifle which is creating (internal rifling) the projectile to leave with greater accuracy and distance. Swirling actions and particularly with motors is involved in many of our daily operations. Please take a look at how combustion chambers are designed and enhance for air flow before being hard on other contributors. it would be nice to encourage new people in the site and there is a danger we could all learn something.

Unfortunately how you think they work is not possible. I suggest looking up Bernoulli's laws and principles of fluid mechanics. You claim to be an Engineer so you should be familiar with these laws.

The energy to create swirl in flow is not free. It comes from the flow and does this by creating a step in pressure just before the hiclone and a drop in pressure beyond. The energy used to swirl the air is then completely lost in viscous mixing of the air.

If you want to use the rifle analogy, the energy to spin the bullet is not free either and reduces the exit velocity over a barrel that isn't rifled.

The net result is nothing but a restriction in the flow. They cannot and do not save fuel.

I'm certainly not the only long time member here finding it bizarre for a new member to pop up espousing the benefits of products known to not work while providing links to sellers of these products. It is exactly the tactic used by spammers. You may not be an intentional spammer, but you are doing exactly what spammers do.

Please provide references for the military applications which use hiclones.

 

[ken cheers]

Unfortunately how you think they work is not possible. I suggest looking up Bernoulli's laws and principles of fluid mechanics. You claim to be an Engineer so you should be familiar with these laws.

The energy to create swirl in flow is not free. It comes from the flow and does this by creating a step in pressure just before the hiclone and a drop in pressure beyond. The energy used to swirl the air is then completely lost in viscous mixing of the air.

If you want to use the rifle analogy, the energy to spin the bullet is not free either and reduces the exit velocity over a barrel that isn't rifled.

The net result is nothing but a restriction in the flow. They cannot and do not save fuel.

I'm certainly not the only long time member here finding it bizarre for a new member to pop up espousing the benefits of products known to not work while providing links to sellers of these products. It is exactly the tactic used by spammers. You may not be an intentional spammer, but you are doing exactly what spammers do.

Please provide references for the military applications which use hiclones.

Thanks Dougal, I will try and answer your points. The law you refer to is principally one relating to fluid and non compressible. It also refers to hydro. But tests were mainly conducted around fluids. This is not a topic I have studied, nor is it relevant to my training and experience and I guess your comment exposes your knowledge deficiency of a light strand automotive engineer. I accept your next point. but on rifling, you need to note that it will provide the projectile with more kinetic energy or impact energy than if there was no rifling as it will lose this to frictional forces. I accept your next comment on your net result and only say that I personally have found a direct benefit and that many others confirm this on sites. I do also see many like you rejecting it, but on what basis? evaluation without long experience? My cruiser has been driven by my only since 2001.
Im sorry if you interpreted this that i looked to be a spammer. I see the definition meaning something quite different and I do not have the time to waste really to play games. Nor is the a benefit or value to do this. So I take point that you unreasonably evaluate many things and come to the conclusion you seek? By putting up a link to a website is not unreasonable if discussing something, this would be more enlightening for some readers to start any research they may want. really, if i didn't then that would have been an omission for many. You should clearly be able to identify my contribution was not in any way scamming and I don't appreciate this judgement. I came here and other sites searching for issues with my brake booster and master cylinder along with oil entering and seen threads on fuel economy which has always been of interest to me, and certainly with my experience in early chev v8's. So, no, I am not doing exactly what spammers do. Spammers also do not put thought and information or experience in their content either; whether correct or incorrect. Unless you like to bully new members, I would consider to point out you have made some number of mis judgments.
the links you want me to post about military were once on the site, i did not see them there in a brief look just now. But here is another
http://hiclone.is/tests/Truck_Test.pdf
when you look on the various threads on this topic, one thing stands out. Snake oil and various other references. But the people talk positive about them actually give meaningful information. What a contrast of intelligence
quotes below
About as useful as tits on a Bull, Regards Frank.

For the most part, snake oil, no difference. Not worth the money.

I had one on a 92 Navara with a 2.4 petrol on LPG. It made a noticeable difference. I use to travel alot up the hume towards Sydney, and after installing the Hiclone some of the hills I had to shift down to 4th I could easily hold in 5th and the rpms at 110kms also dropped a bit, giving slightly better fuel economy.

Lance, fuel is the cheap part of of running a top vehicle,being an old pensioner i log the fuel used on our petrol 1994 80 series auto, we have just come back from a trip to the southern states towing a statesman 22.6 van.we get 18.5--29.8 per100 km mean av is 25.0 .with out the van and tinny on top is 20.0 as well. fit a hiclone well worth the $$ .

 

[Dougal]

Thanks Dougal, I will try and answer your points. The law you refer to is principally one relating to fluid and non compressible. It also refers to hydro. But tests were mainly conducted around fluids.

Air is a fluid. Bernoulli's law is about the energy along a streamline being conserved. Quite simply if you want to increase velocity in any direction then this requires a pressure change.

That pressure change is lower pressure and density downstream. In the case of your hiclone this is lower air pressure, lower density and lower air flow to the cylinders.

This is not a topic I have studied, nor is it relevant to my training and experience and I guess your comment exposes your knowledge deficiency of a light strand automotive engineer.

You'd better enlighten us all as to what sort of engineer this is and what sort of training you have. It is certainly not recognised as an engineering field under either the Washington or Dublin Accords.

I accept your next point. but on rifling, you need to note that it will provide the projectile with more kinetic energy or impact energy than if there was no rifling as it will lose this to frictional forces.

No. Your bit in bold above is completely wrong. The projectile has less kinetic energy and impact energy as the rifling causes frictional losses.

I accept your next comment on your net result and only say that I personally have found a direct benefit and that many others confirm this on sites. I do also see many like you rejecting it, but on what basis? evaluation without long experience? My cruiser has been driven by my only since 2001

There are no credible test results supporting hiclones or any similar device. Nothing. Zilch. None. You should also be aware there are devices attempting to do the complete opposite (reduce turbulence in intake piping) which make exactly the same fuel consumption claims.

Maat here has even dyno tested them and found a negative result which is exactly in line with the science. You dismiss his results because he didn't use two of them!

If such a device did work, it would be extremely simple to prove it and for only a few thousand dollars. Strap an engine to a dyno cell and perform runs with/without. Yet the manufacturers of "fuel saving devices" never do so. The results will never match their claims.

I can show you websites where people claim staggering MPG increases from a bottle of water with wires attached to their intake. But just like hiclones the claims do not stand scrutiny and the test methods are, intentionally or otherwise, full of holes which slant their backyard downhill test towards the result they want.

You should clearly be able to identify my contribution was not in any way scamming and I don't appreciate this judgement.

It is still doubtful in my mind and surely many other members exactly what your purpose here is. The majority of your posts here are still claiming benefits from, and defending, hiclones. Many spammers are paid to create enough distraction posts to try and show legitimacy to their posts. So yes you are still, inadvertantly or otherwise, doing exactly what spammers do.

So please. Where are these military applications of the hiclone? Where are the true test results?

 

[ken cheers]

Air is a fluid. Bernoulli's law is about the energy along a streamline being conserved. Quite simply if you want to increase velocity in any direction then this requires a pressure change.

That pressure change is lower pressure and density downstream. In the case of your hiclone this is lower air pressure, lower density and lower air flow to the cylinders.



You'd better enlighten us all as to what sort of engineer this is and what sort of training you have. It is certainly not recognised as an engineering field under either the Washington or Dublin Accords.



No. Your bit in bold above is completely wrong. The projectile has less kinetic energy and impact energy as the rifling causes frictional losses.



There are no credible test results supporting hiclones or any similar device. Nothing. Zilch. None. You should also be aware there are devices attempting to do the complete opposite (reduce turbulence in intake piping) which make exactly the same fuel consumption claims.

Maat here has even dyno tested them and found a negative result which is exactly in line with the science. You dismiss his results because he didn't use two of them!

If such a device did work, it would be extremely simple to prove it and for only a few thousand dollars. Strap an engine to a dyno cell and perform runs with/without. Yet the manufacturers of "fuel saving devices" never do so. The results will never match their claims.

I can show you websites where people claim staggering MPG increases from a bottle of water with wires attached to their intake. But just like hiclones the claims do not stand scrutiny and the test methods are, intentionally or otherwise, full of holes which slant their backyard downhill test towards the result they want.



It is still doubtful in my mind and surely many other members exactly what your purpose here is. The majority of your posts here are still claiming benefits from, and defending, hiclones. Many spammers are paid to create enough distraction posts to try and show legitimacy to their posts. So yes you are still, inadvertantly or otherwise, doing exactly what spammers do.

So please. Where are these military applications of the hiclone? Where are the true test results?

lets agree to disagree Dougal. You obviously guess alot of things and don't use google enough and are not a mechanic possibly.
I chose not to read it all as I need to get out of the office. think "light strand" in automotive. then you would conclude its not a truck or tractor although most of my practical was on these) You just dont understand ballistics either. Good night fellow discussion participant
I wont take my hiclone out tho and go back to my old 21 to 22 mpg. Im happy on 23.5 to 24.5/25 mpg. regardless of your research. Its great economy and it makes $'s

 

[Dougal]

lets agree to disagree Dougal. You obviously guess alot of things and don't use google enough and are not a mechanic possibly.

No I'm not a mechanic. I'm a Mechanical Engineer with a solid reputation around diesel engines.

I don't guess and I don't use google enough.

You just dont understand ballistics either. Good night fellow discussion participant
I wont take my hiclone out tho and go back to my old 21 to 22 mpg. Im happy on 23.5 to 24.5/25 mpg. regardless of your research. Its great economy and it makes $'s

You should take your hiclone out. Your mpg will likely go up as your intake loses a restriction. Remember that test and evaluate you mentioned earlier! Try some of it.

Your economy numbers are not impressive for a 2H. Especially driven at 85km/h.

 

[ken cheers]

Without being a cantankerous "young" fellow. you keep thinking spamming and advertising but you cant see truth for your biased thoughts. Go add to the thread i started. But please realise this whom you dont agree with are not necessarily spammers. If, you have read my comments tonight and previously, then you should not be able to conclude that i could be paid or rewarded for spamming. I do not work for nothing and income from these activities I am sure would be low. I pay enough tax each quarter that some may say that its equal to the yearly salary. Please believe, I am not a spammer or care to be. hopefully thats Final explanation needed and i trust you can have reason now and make a solid conclusion instead of continual knowledgeable references/ guesstimates.
https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/br...-pedal-travel-variations.865255/#post-9822032

 

[ken cheers]

No I'm not a mechanic. I'm a Mechanical Engineer with a solid reputation around diesel engines.

I don't guess and I don't use google enough.



You should take your hiclone out. Your mpg will likely go up as your intake loses a restriction. Remember that test and evaluate you mentioned earlier! Try some of it.

Your economy numbers are not impressive for a 2H.

Dougal. I owned prior to fitting it for several years and knew my vehicle well. I feel your comment is illogical. If you have read, then you can note i have tried and found a result. Now you think a 2H will give commonly better economy than the figures i posted. If there not impressive, then give me a means to achieve better apart from extractors. "shakes head" Your the first person Ive met (net or real) that thinks 2h wagon gets much better.. Good luck, i really need to get to ED to see some one precious

 

[Dougal]

Dougal. I owned prior to fitting it for several years and knew my vehicle well. I feel your comment is illogical. If you have read, then you can note i have tried and found a result. Now you think a 2H will give commonly better economy than the figures i posted. If there not impressive, then give me a means to achieve better apart from extractors. "shakes head" Your the first person Ive met (net or real) that thinks 2h wagon gets much better.. Good luck, i really need to get to ED to see some one precious

It is completely logical. You think you have found a solution, but you won't run another test without it to check.

This is the whole basis of scientific tests. Repeatability.

Others with 2H wagons are hitting 28mpg (10km/l) and you are driving slower. 85km/h according to your posts. You should be getting more. Try pumping up your tyres and advancing your timing.

 

[darthvincor]

...

You should take your hiclone out. Your mpg will likely go up as your intake loses a restriction. ...

I'd be very curious about this too. Take it out, drive the same manner en distance, calculate fuel economy again.

Anyway, here's my belief on fuel economy. People who want to improve it, are generally driving in inefficient cars. Old unaerodynamic 4x4s, old gas guzzling full size sedans, etc...
And there's a whole industry catering to these people, with electric turbo's, fuel line magnets, magic fuel economy potions, super duper air filters, these ciclone things. Isn't it possible that people want better fuel economy so badly, that they will try anything and may even inadvertently drive more carefully, and for that reason alone get better fuel economy?
I too was disappointed with my 2H fuel economy for a long time, and tried a few things, including a option (lubetech). And it always stubbornly got around 8kms/ltr, and on good days on the highway around 9. Once I came real close to 10. If I hadn't overtaken an L-plater I may have gotten it.
But those are the exception rather than the rule, in my experience.

Now I have another daily driver (ford with a little 4cyl turboed and intercooled engine) and get 20 kms/ltr. And I never try to improve it, because I am happy with it and it is as it should be, based on factory figures.

 

[maat]

Opinion without experience will provide that conclusion. the "scam" and "sham" seem to be easy words. try "test" and and "evaluate".

For the record; I called it a "sham" after "testing" and "evaluating" the product.

I have seen real world results that show these products are complete bull****.

 

[GTSSportCoupe]

Putting a swirl gadget before a throttle plate and hoping to get in cylinder swirl is way past a stretch. Now designing a swirl mod in the intake runner just before the intake valve will influence in cylinder swirl.... Which is what they did on the hd and Hz heads. Tons of other engines run the same head design in one form or another. They are however, customized to each engine and are not a one size fits all deal. In cylinder swirl is a a super difficult thing to model and you can over do it and actually induce too much spin and chuck the fuel droplets out against the cylinder walls. It is not a simple subect and would involve a lot of trial and error, a dyno, lots of sensors and lots of spare time.
g

Hey Greg, do you by any chance have a picture of the swirl Toyota put into the 1HZ or 1HD heads? Reason I ask, is I just installed a second generation updated OEM 2TLE head (11101-54121 93+) onto my engine (thought the original was cracked, but turned out to be a small head gasket leak). One of the differences in the second gen head (vs. 1st gen) is a strange spiral cut just above the intake valve seat. I just assumed it was messy machining, but now that you mention the above, I'm wondering if it has something to do with this swirl thing. Incidentally I'm getting 1l/100km better economy so far...not sure if it's related. I wish now I'd taken a picture of the swirl cut. The old head has nothing like it.

EDIT: Nevermind, I found a picture of a 1HZ intake port and the swirl design is very obvious. Totally different than what I was looking at. It is a very obvious casting spiral in the 1HZ.

 

[ken cheers]

For the record; I called it a "sham" after "testing" and "evaluating" the product.

I have seen real world results that show these products are complete bull****.

Yes Maat. I have learnt from you that dyno testing on a 2lt petrol only really testing for power and no long term road experience for petrol is a totally conclusive relative test? I am not satisfied that this is extensive. Nor do I see that a before and after test then requires a further after (removal of hiclone) and before test. I can be satisfied with my measurements and much more conclusive than your "extensive " testing. And I see, some now get 28 MPG. Now the BS is coming out. Also I do understand that driving habits etc changes results. Most intelligent people hardly have to be reminded of that.

 

[Dougal]

Yes Maat. I have learnt from you that dyno testing on a 2lt petrol only really testing for power and no long term road experience for petrol is a totally conclusive relative test? I am not satisfied that this is extensive. Nor do I see that a before and after test then requires a further after (removal of hiclone) and before test. I can be satisfied with my measurements and much more conclusive than your "extensive " testing. And I see, some now get 28 MPG. Now the BS is coming out. Also I do understand that driving habits etc changes results. Most intelligent people hardly have to be reminded of that.

You're claiming that your seat of the pants testing is far more comprehensive than a before/after dyno test?

Wow.

 

[maat]

keep grasping mate

 

[ken cheers]

It is completely logical. You think you have found a solution, but you won't run another test without it to check.

This is the whole basis of scientific tests. Repeatability.

Others with 2H wagons are hitting 28mpg (10km/l) and you are driving slower. 85km/h according to your posts. You should be getting more. Try pumping up your tyres and advancing your timing.

Thanks Dougal. If i had a turbo fitted, I do not need to remove n refit. Ill accept the differences achieved. same with the other items. If you insinuate my mention of extractors, Then I am aware this would assist and so dont need further comment. Its just a much more costly outlay when the current system has no faults. It doesnt mean I am unwilling. What other tests did you suggest i run? Ive heard of people getting 25 mpg and thats not at 100km and thats questionable on how people work it out. But without removing the great restriction of the standard waste disposal then i see that as highly impossible. You cant move a few ton down the road a great speed and get 28 mpg. I guess if you are being towed a lot then well done. Credible comments? Im seeing a lot of holes dougal.

 

[Dougal]

You can move a few tons down the road at 100km/h and use around 6 litres/100km. You simply need a more efficient engine than the old 2H and very high gearing. Go buy a new Range Rover and see for yourself.

Even my 4BD1T has done a best ever of 8.6 litres/100km (~33 MPG). It averages 10km/h on the road.

Turbos and extractors vs hiclones? Sorry, not even close to the same thing. Dyno tests show that Turbos and extractors actually work.

 

[ken cheers]

You're claiming that your seat of the pants testing is far more comprehensive than a before/after dyno test?

Wow.

Yes Sir. you obviously dont understand the conversation and prefer to belittle than really contribute. So you used one car in conditions unlike road (dyno) where predominately you are measuring power at the variations wheels. It appears you are on the wrong topic. Road conditions simulate extra items such as wind also. This is futile discussing with you guys and you really have a blockage to evaluate and share but would rather misread and misinterpret. Maybe twisting the point is how you trash everything. I agree there are many things sold that are very questionable, there certainly is history out there. I just know that I never got the fuel economy i get now. Fuels are different now than 15 years ago maybe? I have a brick traveling through air and a cruising speed of 100 or more is like most vehicles, much less economical. The reference to me traveling at 85 was made up by a poster here. I travel at 92 to 98 satellite nav speed or 95 to 101 indicated speed.
Dyno testing is not a manner used for working out economy acurately. I trust you understand. Its for looking at out put results

 

[Dougal]

Yes Sir. you obviously dont understand the conversation and prefer to belittle than really contribute.

No, quite the opposite. I understand fluid flow and engine air consumption better than most. I have contributed with in depth discussion of the physics involved.

Suffice to say none of it backs up the snake spinner.

Don't you think that in the supposed large numbers sold over many years that they would be able to fund and produce some real evidence to show these work? Even just a little bit?

This is futile discussing with you guys and you really have a blockage to evaluate and share but would rather misread and misinterpret.

Correct diagnosis, but attributed to the wrong parties in this debate.

The reference to me traveling at 85 was made up by a poster here.

No it wasn't: https://forum.ih8mud.com/threads/2h-fuel-mileage.586641/page-2#post-9809365

Dyno testing is not a manner used for working out economy acurately.

Yes it is. Find out the power required to push the vehicle at X speed, set dyno to absorb that power and bingo. There is your dyno economy test.

Have you never seen a dyno cell?

 

[ken cheers]

dougal, Your literacy ability concerns me. Thanks for your link. It shows your inability however continues. Now where does it state i drive at 85, rather it states that best economy would be around this if you are patient. I cant seem to get you to understand, but simulated situations are not as accurate as real situations over many Km and tanks of fuel, but have it your way. I am happy to bow out. I have said much more than i needed. I continue to be happy regularly achieving mostly between 24 and 25 mpg with a standard exhaust travelling around town and highway. You best buy one that gets you 28 mpg and just be proud and share how you have done it with much expense. However please communicate and deliver your message and stop twisting or misreading comments.