Hydrogen - an alternative?
So, as may of you know I drive a G500, 2001 V8. Excellent truck, ‘nuff said…… though if I were to have one niggle, apart from MB Garages not knowing what it is, is the MPG one generally returns. On a good day, coasting behind trucks doing about 60 I can get…wait for it……..15.5-17 MPG (this has fallen due to the mamouth AT tyres I now have), but realistically it comes down to around 14.8MPG, which is not that great and means reducing the times I use the G.
So I have been looking around for all sorts of ways to increase the MPG. Chip fat oil, rapeseed oil, LPG conversions etc etc. Really to get the most out of the V8 it was looking like plumbing in an LPG system, which means I would lose my boot, the extra carrying space (mainly for ferrying around kids) and of course my London Congestion charge exemption and then again is the cost of installation (Circa £1,500). However, through my research, I came across the idea of using Hydrogen on demand systems (or Brown Gas Generators, bubblers, etc etc) and this seemed the best and most cost effective solution.
Simply put; using a catalysis, some water (purified) and electrolysis’ one can put these together and ‘Hey Presto’ you get Hydrogen, no emissions, more power and AN INCREASE IN MPG!
I have found this company in Pagination, Devon that has manufactured these cells/generators and had one installed. The initial gains were not that spectacular (as some of you will know from chatting about it when we were in Dent). Best we managed to get was 42.9MPG, and then it dropped like a stone to 14.4MPG and stayed around that mark for the first few months or so. I posed this problem back to the supplier and he suggested we interface with the ECU, as the ECU and various sensors dotted around the truck would see the hydrogen, but not take it in to account and carry on fuelling as normal.
Well…. I have been down to see them and they have fiddled around with the ECU and I thought I would post the findings here so you can see the initial impact of getting a HOD (Hydrogen On Demand) System and the benefits on MPG. This was done on the journey to and from Paignton. (see Before/After photos)
In this example I have managed about 20%, though when I do a tank-to-tank measurement (i.e. Fill up, reset the trip and then measure the mileage until I fill up again), I am seeing about 30%+. Typically I used to get around 270-300 MPT, now I am getting 360+ MPT
The company is called De Verde technologies, a small company, and they have been very helpful in getting my G to produce such great numbers (I use the word Great as anything over 15MPG on a V8 G is ….GREAT.)
http://www.hydrogenhybrids.uk.com/
Here is their website address so you can have a look around and see what you think, however if you are interested let me know and if we can get enough numbers, I can push them for a discount for the GWOA.
My initial cost was (excluding petrol) £499 + VAT for the unit (Now reduced to around £250) and £240 for the mapping of the ECU. At the rate of MPG I am getting, it will be paid off within a 4-month period. I think it’s a good idea and the benefits are:
➢ It can be used on anything burning fuel (Diesel, Petrol, Chip Fat etc)
➢ It reduces your emissions to virtually zero
➢ At a base minimum it provides around 10% fuel efficiency.
➢ Cleaner burn
➢ More power/torque
➢ Easy to install
Installation:
The unit is installed under bonnet and provides Hydrogen ‘On demand’ (i.e when you put the key in) and then they wire it up to the battery (fuse protected) and plumb in a tube to the air intake. The Hydrogen mixes into the air/fuel mix and goes into the cylinders and burns more efficiently. The results are: Increased MPG, reduced emissions and a slightly better pick up. (see photos for installation)
If you decide to get one, you will need to have one to two days out of your schedules. The first day is to install the unit, then a day to ‘fiddle’ to get the setting right. If you don’t have an ECU then it should be a one-day job, if you have an ECU, to maximise the MPG they will have to re map the ECU to optimise the engine to burn the hydrogen more efficiently. If you have an ECU you will also need to provide your VIN number.
Happy to field any questions you may have, post here please so we can share the information!
Spider1V
Sorry Joe I’m a non believer. A 90 amp alternator (or what ever is in a 500) can’t possibly produce enough hydrogen to do anything more than I could reproduce with a can of Tesco basics 19p a tin beans :-)
If it was this easy we would all be using hydrogen vehicles. We just need to build another 10 nuclear reactors to produce enough energy to convert water in to energy umm, there's a flaw in there somewhere.
Your ECU remap will be responsible for any gains.
Russ
im on russ's fence, weve all been done these roads, fitting catalyst etc, and to claim 42MPG from a 500 V8 in the first instance is just plan daft, it would only do that on a trailer, like is said we would all be doing it including the car MNF to gain more sales for circa £400, I would have LPG'd it, i bet it would be a 70% increase minimum, similar pay back, get a roof rack if you need more space for gear when going on holiday, the litte time you would use it.
http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/709
http://www.eco-scams.com/archives/141
seems theres two opinions
As PP says two opinions... does seem to good to be believed (as in if so good why aren't they more popular?) but as our intrepid innovator and explorer of new (ish) technologies Spider is now on the case, we can all wait with baited breath how this mod proceeds. Either way, sure lessons will be learned...
It's half term, fewer cars on the road, sorry Joe you've been had
I have no doubts that Spider1V has been has been meticulous in his experiment and put forward an impressive argument; I feel the only way to go is seek more information and in the scientific world, they would like to see more evidence of similar results to conclude that research.
One example does not make a study but it is a start.
Whilst this debate has by no means been concluded, I share and accept views from both sides.
I put forward the following argument: If this technology worked, the Motor Industry would have adopted this like a shot, it would give better fuel economy to their customers and who does not want that? It would make it easier for the Industry to meet its emissions targets and this technology would have been used in the railways, shipping etc, etc... It has not, so something to be said for that. See where I am going......
Thank you Spider1V for taking the effort to post your finds, it gives the forum something to chew on and they certainly have done that.
Regards,
I think roly gets that sort of mileage from his 500, plodding along at 60,often passed him on the a1, if it's that much of an issue, get a cheap diesel run around and use the g at weekends, given your circumstances, the amount of juice that consumes! the 2nd car would pay for it self, or let the wife use it for work and u drive the corsa,cut your cloth to suit your suit when times are hard, then when there better blow the dough on squirt !
@ Peter Perfect........ And there is the voice of ' Yes I have tried it and I speak from experience'.
I notice that while you have posted up the ‘scams’ you have not presented a balanced approach and posted up anything that supports it, as in keeping with some of the others who have replied to this post, either on the thread or by PM. I do, however thank you for your kind fiscal advice and how I should run my life and will give it the consideration it deserves.
@ all
What I endeavoured to do is try and help with a cheaper alternative than carrying around extra metal in the form of LPG tanks, a much higher installation cost for not that much gain. I don't want a diesel, if I did I would have got one. Based on the past 8 months live EXPERIENCE ( and not theoretical information gained on the internet) I have found a gain. I have listed the fact I have larger than normal tyres, so comparison with other members G is both incorrect and irrelevant in this case. You will also see that I have gone to the trouble of at least trying to gather the information and presenting in a form that shows my experience/gains and have been both open an honest and not bigoted, biased. As the Thread says an Alternative?.
Joe Askew
aka Spider1V
I don’t believe in all this technical stuff, but what I do know is that Spider is getting a hell of a lot better m/gal than I am. Granted, I have fitted the Myna tuned turbo diesel engine, and we have about the same power available, I only get about 15m/gal.
Because of all the available power you tend to use it, and my driving has become a lot more aggressive, but at this fuel consumption I am willing to try anything.
Spider, you car may use less juice, but come on, admit it, mine sounds better – especially considering it is a diesel.
In about six weeks time I am going to be installing an HH2 or hydrogen generating unit into a friends vehicle, I think.
It would be interesting to note what fuel economy he gains from the installation. It is unlikely that he will fund the cost of re-mapping his ECU but if he can be persuaded, I will certainly ask of him to keep records for before and after the re-mapping. Fuel records before the installations have already been recorded.
The test vehicle is going to be a Volvo 440. I will endeavor to make a photo library of the project.
Ordinarily, I would not have offered my services to my friend but since Spider1V has kindly taken so much time and effort to post his findings on the forum for our interests, I figured I would back up his story and see what this technology results for me and hope to answer a some myths on this subject. I will try to be as scientific about this topic as my resources apply, for I am one who is sitting on the fence on this topic too.
Additional, point to note. Using nitrogen air in the tyres is considered to give better fuel consumption amongst other benefits, so I say to Spider1V, it may be worth your while to change to nitrogen in the tyres, it should cost about £1.50 per tyre.
Cheers,
@Spider I think a corsa would suit you well ... with big tyres of course :-)
i know very little about this technology.
my thoughts are :
1. the only way this will reduce fuel consumption is if the ecu can recognise the hydrogen and hence reduce the amount of petrol it is injecting .
2. the engine displaces 5 litres it will need alot of hydrogen every time it is drawing in its 'charge'
3. if the hydrogen is fed in with the air in the kind of quantities required to make a real difference to fuel consumption it would have to be regulated or the engine could run away with itself.
4.hydrogen is very explosive and burns super clean and if this system works it will help,having your own production plant at home and storing it, or transfering it to a cylinder in the car sounds like a good idea , however having a minor version of the 'hindenburg airship' does not appeal.
i think it is very simple, the only way to get lower fuel consumption is to inject less fuel per mile travelled if that fuel can be replaced in spiders system by a metered supply of hydrogen then it will work, the ecu would have to be more sophisticated to do all this working with egt's and ignition advance to make the most of the petro/air/hydrogen mix
it is also worth noting that subconsciously the driver works at better mpg after fitting equipment like this to fulfil the desire to see a result ,so basically spider get your toe down and lets see what happens when you drive in your 'normal manner' .
this system has potential when fully sorted and it should help because you can produce hydrogen as you drive using the process of 'electrolisis' which in itself uses electrical power, a lead acid battery produces hydrogen as it charges hence the fizzing or bubbling of a charged/charging battery.
good luck spider ,stick with it and make sure your installers follow this path to getting tangible results then you will have something, engineers all over the world are spending fortunes to crack this technology ..
Exactly my thoughts also Mike
Hi Rakesh,
I had a look at the website and read all the testimonials of the happy customers. It looks like a very simplistic approach but I would say that Spider had the courage to try it on his car rather than pholosophise or critise the sceptics. and put his money where his conviction is. Combustion enhancements result through the increase in the net calorific value of the fuel /air mixture have been tried in many forms, are directly related to increase in horsepower and consequently to the power to weight ratio. This translates to the change in mpg . For an engine with fixed parameters and geometry ( bore/ stroke etc) increase in horsepower is achieved through the increase of the brake mean effective pressure, (By whichever means is achieved) So it brings the question on the ability of the standard materials, heat dissipation capabilities, and mechanical safety margins the engines are built and what effect they may have on the reliability in the long term.
It will be very interesting to get an update based on your experience of the installation . Pls let us know when you had teh chance to corelate the data.
Some updates and figures to date. Based on the previous comments made, may I request that members who have already made their minds up and have commented kindly refrain from comenting again until they have done their own research? (though I am happy to discuss through PM) Thanks.
From a personal persepctive, the Hydrogen thing seems to be working well. Again technically I am not sure how or why its doing it, however my tests are as follows and based on well over 7,500 miles of driving each number presented is a average of two fills:
Tank to Tank means - fill up, re set the trip then drive till the orange light comes on,make note of mileage reset the trip and drive between 40-50 miles then fill up (adding together both numbers). Its not scientific, buts its as close as I can get to being as fair across the board as possible.
The reason I went for T2T was because using the MPG on the system got wayyyyyy to complicated for me as every time you stopped and started the MPG went up and down and to be honest I got confused! so went for the Occams Razor approach.
Before:
(S) Steady 60, slow acceleration gentle breaking and using the gears
Regular Unleaded – Circa 310MPT
Ultimate Unleaded - Circa 330MPT
(N) Normal Driving 70-80+, Normal acceleration, usual breaking
Regular Unleaded – Circa 284MPT
Ultimate Unleaded - Circa 309MPT
(M) Nutter – Hammer down, big breaks, traffic lights (i.e how a V8 should be driven)
Regular Unleaded – Circa 235MPT
Ultimate Unleaded - Circa 250MPT
After:
(S) Regular Unleaded – Circa 358MPT
Ultimate Unleaded - Circa 392MPT
(N) Regular Unleaded – Circa 340MPT
Ultimate Unleaded - Circa 363MPT
(M) Regular Unleaded – Circa 310MPT
Ultimate Unleaded - Circa 333MPT
All BP fuels
Between 88-91 ltrs fill up each time
Have about 6/7 of a ltr of Purified water left (£.99)
For me the most amazing number was the careful driving with the BP ultimate - it just kept going and going. The problem is the cost at £1.42 per ltr, I do not see the value in it at all. I think BP would be shifting more of it if they brought it down to say £1.35 per ltr.
+ve
A definite increase in MPG
I would like to think an increase in power as well (noticed a definite faster pick up)
Paid for its self aready
reduced emissions
-ve
A definite 'pinking' in the engine noise - car in for service soon, so will see if any adjustments can be made to stop that.
The general comments from people on hydrogen
Next step is to talk to the DVLA and see if I can get a reduction on my car Tax as my emissions are now down to 0.002 on FAst idle and 0.002 on Natural Idle
Spider1V
Thank You Spider 1V,
I will need time to digest your results. Instantly, they do show an improvement.
I had also reported that t I shall be doing a conversion of this sort but it seems, my friend can not decide which of his vehicles he wants to convert. Given his silence, basically, it seems he has been stringing me along and still wants to favour from my generosity. I am now trying to wriggle out of my promise to him as he is messing me about so folks, my promise to you may not fruition.
Whilst preparing for the conversion, I did read as part of the instructions something I was not in favour of. One must use distilled water, not even tap water will do and some waste water could be corrosive and has to be environmentally disposed of every now and then.
I remain open minded to this technology so the jury is still out for me.
Hi Rakesh,
Thanks for the feed back. There is some 'slurry' that I am aware of, however when I get the cell serviced they deal with that as part of the service. I asked a similar questions to my supplier about the tyoe of water to use and he said even water through a Britta filter will work with his system - so when I have finnished I will use that.
Spider1V
Spider - didn't they fiddle with your ECU mapping too though? i.e. There's no way really to tell what impact that might have had anyway?
On the subject of water:
'Brita' filters do little more than remove taste from the water using activated Charcoal AFAIK. Same is true of 'resin exchange' towers which simply replace one type of ion with another (works for making the water softer when you take a shower, but not great for your engine).
Choices for properly 'demineralised' are, in order of purity:
Reverse Osmosis (capable of producing relatively high volumes - say 100+l per day) for a mid-sized system at low cost (wastes around 50% of the water it processes though).
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/REVERSE-OSMOSIS-unit-NONPUMPED-RO500-Aquasmart...
The one I have will reduce the 300ppm tapwater we have in Farnham to around 30ppm. Downside: Needs cartriges changed yearly (about £75), not fine enough to remove many possible contaminants (virus and bacteria for example)
Distilled - small volume stills like the one below produce about a litre an hour.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Smartstill-4-Litre-Electric-Distiller-Water-St...
The still I have reduces 300ppm tap water to zero - or at least to a level where my TDS meter won't read it. Downside is that it needs to be cleaned regularly. Guaranteed to remove anything that has a boiling point > water.
'Spider - didn't they fiddle with your ECU mapping too though? i.e. There's no way really to tell what impact that might have had anyway?'
fcp - you are correct and I did forget to include in my post - to make it a fair comparison I did the first tests with the unit powered off. (after the ECU was fiddled with). Once finnished I then re powered it on and then continued my tests. Basically I am seeing around a 15%- 18% better off.
Re your water comments - I will not argue! LOL
Spider1V
Very interesting, I see many big engined vehicles with lpg conversions in my workshop , which work to a certain level, until you get burnt valves and faulty o2 sensors and blown inlet manifolds and mixing chambers. The aftermarket systems are simply not good enough or well perfected yet, also not to mention that the engines were never designed to run on thses alternative fuels.
Mercedes engines in general are not well suited to these conversions, the fueling will never be precise enough for the ecu to work its magic, especially with piggy banked actuators and variable camshaft timing. This is because the injection and spark timing is so precise especially with twin the twin plug system, there is no way the lpg will ever work well, too many variables in the system required for the perfect running. Also the o2 sensor adaptations which are based on the fuel air mixture for each bank, monitored and constantly re-adjusting the ecu fueling and ignition to make the perfect lamba. This is just not possible with lpg conversion.
The other problem is the engine and transmission relationship especially on automatics like the 5 speed 722.6 on Spider's G500 and the 7 speed 722.9 on mine. The gear changes rely on the signals sent from the engine ecu to the transmission ecu which then works out the perfect gear selection with minumum torque loss between changes and also the timing when the gears are changed. With lpg conversions the transmitted torque from the engine to transmission is never accurate or regular, this makes the adaptation go all over the place, which eventually results in no adaptation so default values are selected by the trans ecu which actually makes the engine run unefficiently and increased fueling is then required. The active torque converter clutch doesn't help because it also relies on the engine ecu and trans ecu torque shifts/adapation to control the torque control slip and lock up, which often results in dragging gear changes, using more fuel.
I mapped my ecu by increasing just the torque along the lower rev range, from 1200 to around 3k, changing the octane settings for ignition timing in the ecu(base value from factory for all mb ecu's is low octane, this can be changed to base value at 93). Removed my fuel injectors and ran through my injector cleaning system, 5 out of 8 injectors had irregular spray pattern, also varnish deposits at the tip of the injectors, disrupting the fuel spray atomisation, dribbling instead of spraying.
Replaced the spark plugs with NGK irridium and also replaced the ht leads with original mb replacements. On the v6 and v8 petrol engines its essential to check the ht leads for breakdown at idle and high engine speed, they get weak from the constant heat from the exhaust manifolds. This can be checked with MB star diagnose tester, the ht leads normally need to be changed at around 40-50k.
An oil change with mobil 1, plugs replaced, engine ecu mapped, I then cleared all engine ecu carried out boot strapping(factory reset), the cleared the trans ecu adaptations. I updated the software on the trans ecu with the latest and then carried out adaptation which has to be live adapted on the road with star connected and a long drive to see the results, the adaptation is for the torque converter lock up as well as the gear up and down shifts and torque shift learn.
This has resulted in mpg average going from 15.5 mpg to around 23 mpg. No expensive mods, pipes, messing with the factory stuff and some know how. Thats with 305/40/22 tyres.....great comfortable drive.
Note: mpg is generally better on the 7 speed trans then the 5, quicker gear changes on the 7 speed
Hi Spider
Glad to hear that your hydro experiment seems to be working out for you.
I would just like to add a cautionary note if I may. Petrol engines are at their most efficent when running the maximum amount of advance before detonation (pinking) occurs. It would appear that your ecu remap has attempted to reach that point but has over advanced your ignition curve and you now have detonation.
This is something that you want to get sorted asap before you start burning holes in your pistons and other expensive engine internals. I suspect that when the ignition is retarded sufficently to a safer level you will unfortunatly see a drop off in mpg as well.
Keep us posted on any new results you get.
@ Big Block - Thanks for the heads up
@ G SINGH - just out of interest how much would a cleaning of jets, etc cost? To go from 15MPG to 23 would be great - is that a constant figure or best? BTW likeing your flinty grey G :)
Spider1V
Thats an average figure which does improve on a constant speed long run, I do use mine regularly around london and intraffic etc with the a/c always on, I don't think I could squeeze anymore out of it.....I am working on an improved map, will keep updated.
I thought it was quite good compared to my wif'es 2012 slk 55 with cylinder shut off, half the weight of the G, that just about gets 27/28 mpg on a constant run with cylinder shut off active....
I will work out the cost to me for the injector cleanup
I remember reading somewhere how MB limited the torque of the V8 at lower rpms/speed to protect the drivetrain.
Spider,
Any further news/updates on your experiments?
JOIN THE GWOA
This website and forum are provided for the benefit of enthusiasts and owners of all Mercedes Benz off road vehicles, in particular the G Wagen. The costs of development, upkeep and provision of the site are met entirely by the annual subscriptions of club members. If you are using the site and are not a member of the G Wagen Owners Association please consider joining. You will have access to areas on the site that are not open to non members, to club trips and meetings and to technical assistance. In addition your contribution (only £25 annually) will help us maintain and develop our website for future users.
Who's new
- Jaffa_JIM_23
- Wrabstar
- GG
- KTMSCANIA22
- 280ge
@ Russ - LOL be fun plugging you into my 500, can have a Russ Powered G! Though I will disagree with the engine Map, as I did have it mapped about 2 years ago with no real benifit (i think it worked out about 5%)
@ Peter - Fair Comments, though one sided (as usual). The 42MPG was reached acording to my fuel monitor on my G while testing.
@ Stew-Em - thanks for you support.
As indicated in my post, I am trying to give you what I have found. Not saying its perfect, and I am not saying its the answer to all our energy questions, but with the ever increasing cost of fuel and my current circumstances, anything that can give me an edge, that I believe could be of benifit for other G Wagen owners, I am happy to post up. What else can I say? If i did not think it was of ANY value I would not have shared it with other members, however if you think its of no use, I'll take the post down.
P.S This morning run to Northampton 19.7MPG when its usually 15.5. Steady driving at between 60-70 where trafic cones allow and gentle acceleration. Next T2T test will be at 70-80 with hard acceleration (i.e Normal for me)
Spider1V