Reproduction Parts for 1916-1964 Chevrolet Passenger Cars & 1918-1987 Chevrolet & GMC Trucks


Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Rate Thread
#470917 06/15/22 05:04 AM
Joined: Jun 2022
Posts: 2
Grease Monkey
OP Offline
Grease Monkey
Joined: Jun 2022
Posts: 2
[i]
Martin deVos <mdevos3831@gmail.com>
Wed, Jun 8, 12:29 AM (7 days ago)
to memberservices

G'day
I'm just an old guy from a country town on the outskirts of Melbourne Victoria Australia., my name is Martin.

I have a question about my first car I bought when I was only fourteen.
I used it for a paddock bomb and to learn how everything worked .

The interesting bit about this car was that it had a water injection system fitted to the intake manifold at the hot box, it was clearly badged that it was a genuine GM manufactured part.

I'm seventy five now and I'm still using this method on my modern cars and Isuzu diesel although I made copies using the needle valve parts from model airplane motors.and fish tank accessories.

My question is : Why can't I find any record of General Motors ever producing these units.

There is a minimum increase in fuel consumption 10 to 15% and lowers the exhaust emission approximately by the same amount. I have run this system on all of my cars including fuel injected and computer controlled systems, even on dual fuel LPG .In all my driving history Ive saved I don't know how many Dollars in cost.

My first road car was a 1949 Chevrolet, Then a 1955 from Canada, then a 1962 Belair , a 1967 Belair then I went to a VN Holden and sorry but what is a rare car here 97 Ford Taurus..I've had another holden 2010 and now a Isuzu D Max Diesel every one of those cars I have fitted the primitive water injection .

It not only gives better fuel economy and better performance but it cleans out the carbon in the heads of the motors. I've found the ratio 13 fuel to 1 water is the sweet spot. (for Petrol) it's a little less for the diesel around 11.5 to 1 water

When I did a Test on my 55 Belair six cylinder Blue flame motor It returned 29 to 32 miles per gallon. depending on cruising speed around 80 mile per hour .

Back in those days we had an open speed limit outside city limits. After the motor had done 300,000 miles, I decided to check the motor ,when I removed the head, it was as clean as a whistle, no carbon at all anywhere.

The reason I like to know the answer is, that I've got a lot of HHO guys asking me why they have not heard of this.and can't find any trace of this method

Kind regards to you all

Martin


UBBT77
Become a Member!

JOIN THE VCCA and get access to the member-only features of the forum, including the ability to upload photos. You'll also receive our monthly magazine "Generator & Distributor". Yearly membership as low as $25!

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 107
Hall Monitor
ChatMaster - 7,000
Offline
Hall Monitor
ChatMaster - 7,000
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 107
Someone with more knowledge than me will chime in but my understanding of water injection is that it's used in high performance engines for cooling. Water adds nothing to power since water doesn't burn. I don't see where it would be advantageous to a stock engine at all. I know nothing of the GM unit you mention but if they stopped making it it's probably because it didn't show any benefit. Hopefully you'll get some answers. Welcome to VCCA Chat.


VCCA Member 43216
Save a life, adopt a senior shelter pet.
1938 HB Business Coupe
1953 210 Sedan
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 75
ChatMaster - 1,000
Offline
ChatMaster - 1,000
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 75
My understanding is that water DOES add to power.
There a couple of reasons for this.

First, as the water evaporates during induction, it cools the air and fuel making it more dense, so more gets packed into the cylinder on intake.
More fuel and air, more power.
This would be especially relevant when the ambient air is hot and dry.

Second, a cooler initial charge means you can either compress to a higher ratio/pressure, or advance ignition timing further without encountering pre-ignition.
Again, more power.
And better fuel economy.
On modern engines that electronically sense pre-ignition and advance the spark to just that point, adding water should make a difference.

PS
This system has been around for a long time.
Old 2 cylinder John Deeres used it when burning kerosene and distillate as early as the 1920's.
Probably it's main drawback is,
what happens to the system in freezing weather?
or when it freezes over night?

Last edited by Stovblt; 06/15/22 01:50 PM.

Ole S Olson
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 107
Hall Monitor
ChatMaster - 7,000
Offline
Hall Monitor
ChatMaster - 7,000
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 107
Reread what I wrote. If it made a big difference on a stock engine GM would have kept making it and it would be used by everyone today. Yes, it makes a cooler air charge. I said that only in different words. The only people widely doing it today are racers, mixing it with methanol, usually in a turbocharged environment. A recent Engine Masters episode on their dyno showed water/meth injection actually provided less power than simply using an intercooler. It would be interesting to see a 1 to 1 comparison on a dyno of a stock vintage Chevy engine, straight water injection vs no water.

Last edited by Tiny; 06/15/22 03:28 PM.

VCCA Member 43216
Save a life, adopt a senior shelter pet.
1938 HB Business Coupe
1953 210 Sedan
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 75
ChatMaster - 1,000
Offline
ChatMaster - 1,000
Joined: Dec 2019
Posts: 1,135
Likes: 75
Yes, I think we are in complete agreement here. :-)
I don't think it would be a "huge" difference, but significant in the racing world.
No doubt the advantage wasn't worth the added complexity and the freezing problem for production cars.
And most drivers won't even check their coolant level, let alone add water to an additional system.

I'd like to see dyno results too.
I wouldn't doubt it has already been done... if we just knew where to look.

PS
Actually, I think I vaguely remember reading about this in some car magazine or popular mechanics type magazine many years ago.

Last edited by Stovblt; 06/15/22 03:47 PM.

Ole S Olson
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,149
Likes: 41
ChatMaster - 6,000
Offline
ChatMaster - 6,000
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,149
Likes: 41
My father in law tried a similar system but I doubt it made that much difference as he took it off after 12 months.
Tony


1938 1/2 ton Hope to drive it before I retire
Joined: Jun 2022
Posts: 2
Grease Monkey
OP Offline
Grease Monkey
Joined: Jun 2022
Posts: 2
Hello to you all and thanks for taking time to have a say,
Tiny,& Stolvblt and Tonyw.
It appears that I have been using the wrong terminology
As I’ve found out that I should be calling this device a Fuel Enhancer.
Not a water injector.
There was a French man who patented something very similar to what was on my 37chev
around 1920,
There may be a connection between him and the Chevy brothers

I can tell you that it definitely works well when set up properly.
Initially I had several problems when first setting it up on my 49 ner
I found that the difference in water levels, in the water tank would either flood or starve the system
So, I ended up using a fuel bowl from an old motor bike carburetor and gravity fed the
main water tank into that and that gave me constant pressure for the vacuum to lift the water to the manifold.
For everything to work properly, the vacuum in the manifold needs to be relatively steady.
that’s why it works best on long trips. Driving habits change when you’re aiming for economy,
even in inner suburbs flooring it to accelerate defeats the purpose because you lose all the vacuum in the manifold.
I’ve found that it does not make much difference between old Carburetor systems or throttle body in new cars.
After all this system is placed just in between the valves and just after the butterfly of the intake manifold

The principle behind this and how it works,

Small droplets of water are fed into the intake manifold through a 1/64th ID capillary line into a site glass and then into the hot box under the carburettor or the intake air tube, it has a needle valve controlling the number of droplets allowed to be entered into the motor.

This then enters the hot manifold and turns into steam and mixes with the intake fuel, once in the combustion chamber, and the detonation happens it changes from moist steam to Oxygen & Hydrogen and gives the fuel a longer burn rate,
which in turn means more power on the down stroke. Just like turbo charging puts more air into the chamber.
On the dash I added a vacuum gauge for a visual to maintain better control of the manifold vacuum.
But you soon get used to driving to maintain economy. You don’t have to drive like grannie. But your driving habit will smooth out to maintain steady manifold vacuum.

It still does not answer my question though, as it seems that it has only been heard of by very few, and no one else is using it.

I guess I’ll just go back to the drawing board and not worry about what happened to this device.

On my Isuzu diesel it is fitted just after the EGE valve and throttle body on the turbo suction line, and I have had to fit a shut off valve for when the turbo lags. The intake pipe gets to much water and we don’t want that to happen because water does not compress in its raw or liquid state and will do damage to the piston & conrods

Anyway, I’ve tried to help some of these guys that are toiling with the HH O, Brown gas which I find a waste of time.

I have no Idea how much this device has saved me but if you work out that approximately every third or fourth tank that you fill is what you have saved. at 12 gallons a tank that is a substantial amount of savings.
It works out roughly 2 gallons less fuel per hundred miles

I have been developing a system that is based on the Pogue carburetor from 1932 who ran a V8 100 miles to the gal
So far, I have only managed around 70% increase in fuel economy with that project. On a stationary motor. But the emission is decrease by that much as well.

Thanks guys I’ll let you know when I make a breakthrough with my fuel Mizer I am aiming for ½ gall per 100 miles

You have all heard the saying “running on the smell of a oily rag”
Well maybe I will have to change my fuel to oil instead of Gasoline.

I'll keep an eye out for comments for a couple of weeks and maybe see if I can work this computer so that I can help someone out as I have restored several cars in my time. and some wonderful inventive temporary fixes on the side of the road.

bey for now
Martin
The old guy


UBBT77
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,689
Likes: 21
ChatMaster - 6,000
Offline
ChatMaster - 6,000
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 6,689
Likes: 21
I went to Wikipedia and looked up Water Injection Engine. It came up as "Water Injection (engine).

Anyway, it was interesting. after reading the article, it seems to me that for use on an internal combustion engine water would mostly serves as a cooling factor and deterrent to pre-ignition and thus, while not adding power, it can help prevent the loss of power. Most effective use seemed to be in WW2 fighter engines.

I invite you to read the Wikipedia article yourself. dance

Best,

Charlie computer

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,149
Likes: 41
ChatMaster - 6,000
Offline
ChatMaster - 6,000
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 6,149
Likes: 41
Water is only a mix of hydrogen and oxygen both of which burn quite readily therefore in the correct quantity could well provide fuel enhancement and god forbid a reduction in pollution emmissions. In havent studied the system apart from what my father in law told me and what OldAusy1947 has posted above, I still have no intention of installing it on any of my vehicles.
Tony


1938 1/2 ton Hope to drive it before I retire
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 408
Likes: 10
Backyard Mechanic
Online Content
Backyard Mechanic
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 408
Likes: 10
The 1963 turbocharged Oldsmobile Jetfire, based on the F85 platform, had a water alcohol injection system. It might be what the OP is remembering.
Mike

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 107
Hall Monitor
ChatMaster - 7,000
Offline
Hall Monitor
ChatMaster - 7,000
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 7,033
Likes: 107
It takes more than simple atomization to break H2O into hydrogen and oxygen. You can mist it as fine as you like but it's still water and water doesn't burn. The only advantage is cooling the intake charge. A process akin to electrolysis is required to break water into H & O. If water injection actually decreased pollution and increased fuel mileage every manufacturer would be using it, especially in today's environment. P.T. Barnum is still alive it seems.


VCCA Member 43216
Save a life, adopt a senior shelter pet.
1938 HB Business Coupe
1953 210 Sedan
1 member likes this: Clement
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 89
Likes: 1
Shade Tree Mechanic
Offline
Shade Tree Mechanic
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 89
Likes: 1
I know less about automobile combustion than I do about the physics of heat, steam, and water vapor. If I was to add my two cents into this topic, I would need to mention that at atmospheric pressure water expands at a ratio of sixteen hundred to one when subjected to an adequate amount of heat (960 Btu per pound of water). Injecting water droplets into the intake manifold of your car, which are then sucked into the cylinders prior to vaporizing, could indeed give a significant boost of cylinder pressure within the engine. One with more brains than I have would need to account for the elevated pressures within an operating engine, but perhaps this could have a bearing on improved performance or increased fuel efficiency? Just saying...


Link Copied to Clipboard
Support The VCCA!

Enjoy the forum? Become a VCCA member! The World's Best Chevrolet and GMC Club!


Member Photos
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
1964 Chevrolet Impala SS
by DreamChevy, February 17
My 1933 Chevy 2 Dr. Sedan
My 1933 Chevy 2 Dr. Sedan
by 1939Chevy1, November 24
Back on the road 79 years later
2 1927 Chevrolet Trucks
2 1927 Chevrolet Trucks
by 1927TRUCKS, June 7
Who's Online Now
6 members (WildernessTruck, J Franklin, Hawkeye, minetto, conv48, 1 invisible), 69 guests, and 22 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
NeilA, Jayhicks, Tomvanhouten, Dads29Chevy, Tractorman
18,308 Registered Users
Today's Birthdays
aristech, RalphL, tonysk
Forum Statistics
Forums58
Topics59,071
Posts429,057
Members18,308
Most Online1,133
Jan 22nd, 2020
 

Notice: Any comments posted herein do not necessarily reflect the official position of the VCCA.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5