Gen 3 doing over 64 MPG at close to 70 mph

HHO is oxyhydrogen (see Wikipedia for details). Search HHO and see various web sites for claims as well as the science.

 

isn't his average speed 32 mph?

 

Ho ho ho is a scam, not that it isn't a real substance but how it's marketed.

Usually if hohoho is on a car that actually gets better mileage, the better mpgs have little to do with hydroxy and everything to do with the efie they say you need (run lean) along with behavioral changes

 

no.

maybe he was going downhill.

 

Hho is unnecessary to run an efie.

Documented behavior of all motor vehicles made since the 20's is that lean burn generally improves fuel economy 20% at steady loads.

Our WWII bombers could not make it into Germany and back without running lean during cruise.

Lean burn is nothing novel or new and its unfortunate that it isn't used on all motor vehicles.

Even sadder part is that the increase in pollution (NOx) people quote is from a NOx graph of an engine without pollution controls.

Modern cars with egr and a cat actually have a much smaller increase than quoted when running lean and considering the fuel savings would emit less pollution overall (including refinery emissions)
even before optimizing the emissions controls for lean operations.

 

Gee you have to marvel at the sheer evil of companies like Toyotya that don't make this tech available to the masses.
Either that or the sheer stupidity.

Think about it.
We're talking about a company that spent GIGABUCKS doing weird things like making a carbon fiber rear hatch and fitting it with a glass window that looks like it would be too expensive for an F-22 Raptor......all to save 8 pounds of sprung weight and make the car (the new Prime) a little slicker in the wind.
A company that sacrifices EVERYTHING at the altar of fuel efficiency......comfort, style, power......all to gain 5-10 MPG between generational updates, and yet they're not smart enough to huff a little bang gas????

Am I the only one who thinks that this is a little odd?

 

Exactly, hho is a scam, lean burn puts the car outside the EPA emission levels for NOx, open and shut

 

Actually, they could.
It was lugging the ten pax, machine guns and ammo, fuel, oh......yeah and the 500# bombs that made the round trips so hard and even THEN they generally didn't have a problem. It was the fighters that couldn't make the round trip until they developed drop tanks and, ultimately, more efficient aircraft.
The bombers had trouble making the round trips because they got shot down at above acceptable loss rates from flying in the daytime and without escorts.

Lindbergh's (yeah....HIM) work in the Pacific with the P38 Lightning is more relevant to the point that you're trying to make.

 

I'm betting that your plane doesn't have O2 sensors, at least not the type used in closed loop fuel systems.

Just a guess here since I'm not an FCC certified anything and I'm not rated for anything heavier than a paper airplane BUT.....
I don't see HoHo working for anything except for divesting gullible people from their money and/or decreasing automotive reliability.
I'm betting also that the nice people over at fcc,gov aren't going to allow this groundbreaking technology anywhere near general or commercial aviation.

Somebody show me a video covering tank mileages.
I'll make it easy and call it 10 consecutive 600-mile averages where the fuel efficiency is above 60 and break out the additional cost-per-mile for the HoHo, and I'll give it a crack myself if it makes anything close to financial sense.

Until then?
I'll stick to using Youtube to watch things like cat videos, old movies, and product reviews.

 

Concur.
Back when I was in my hypermiler kick I managed repeatable tank averages in the mid to high 50s, during the summer, hand calculated. (The MDF lies.)
However.........I got over it.
Sweating like a wilderbeast with metopause, driving on tires that are inflated so tight that you can run over a dime and tell whether it's heads or tails, and not being able to use cruise control because hand flying the car is always more efficient all lead me to believe that in the end high 40's at the pump is good enough.
Besides.......I actually LIKE Priuses now.
Contributing to Prius Hate by driving like a rolling road block, drafting off of trucks, and slow rolling through stop signs just isn't where I want to be.
It's a LOT more fun to bolt away from stop lights and leave lumbering quad-cab 4x4's struggling to catch up because they don't want their buddies to laugh at them.

Yeah.
I know.
I'm a planet killer......but it's FUN!
Don't judge me.

Hey!!!!!
I know......
Let's ask him.

Hey @bwilson4web .......
Oxyhydrogen - Wikipedia

Your thoughts?

 

30/ 32, yes.

 

i think i could get 64 mpg at 32 mph average.

 

This video is pretty good talking about the problems.
Gotta be crazy if I am putting this on my car, but looks interesting for making H2/O2 from elecrolysis (eg; from solar panels). What I'd do with it I do not know generate heat for the garage or something

 

Lean burn is capable of more like 7-10% improvement in fuel economy from what I've read. When Honda implemented it, they weren't able to meet emissions standards in California. I found this really interesting, which tells the story of the engineer who was primarily responsible: 55 Miles Per Gallon: How Honda Did It - Bloomberg

Also the air fuel dyno graphs I've seen for the Prius indicate it does take slight advantage of lean burn, with the air/fuel ratio just above 15 at lower rpms, lowering to about 14.5 at full throttle and rpm. See JustDidIt's post about 7/8 of the way down this page: JustDidIt - Modding My 2007....The 2008 Touring died. | Page 19 | PriusChat

I have no doubt that lean burn was at least thought about during the Prius design, but considering the constraints of having one engine platform having to meet emissions standards worldwide, and the cost of more advanced engine management to implement lean burn to meet the standards (esp California which is a huge Prius market), I understand why this wasn't implemented.