Jump to content

A WORKING hydrogen generator is coming!


Reatta Man
 Share

Recommended Posts

Read the whole thread before you get too excited.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Dave@Moon</div><div class="ubbcode-body">It really doesn't matter how the system works beyond the fact that it uses electricity from the car's electrical system. The only source of electricity to make it work in a conventional car is the alternator. If you assume 100% efficientcy in the hydrogen generator, 100% efficientcy in the H2/O2 gas delivery system, 100% efficientcy in the alternator, 100% efficientcy in the engine itself (in converting the H2/O2 gas into kinetic energy), <span style="text-decoration: underline">and</span> zero electricity demand from all other systems in the car..., then <span style="text-decoration: underline">the most</span> energy boost/generation you can possibly expect would be the energy that the alternator took from the engine to produce the electricity in the first place.

It's a simple conservation of energy problem.

If you want to know what kind of maximum (<span style="font-style: italic">theoretical</span>) mileage boost you'll really get, pull your alternator and run the car off the battery only for a tank. That estimate will probably be a little high, though, because the car isn't using energy to carry the alternator and "hydrogen generator" around.

Frankly I don't expect much. </div></div>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wayne, I learned in my 8th grade Physics class that energy is neither created or destroyed in any process, only transformed. That is what "<span style="font-style: italic">a simple conservation of energy problem</span>" means. There is no way physically possible for any device to make more energy than is added to it's system. These things use electricity from the car's alternator and water (with a bit of an electrolyte tossed in to facilitate current flow). That's it.

It is not "<span style="font-style: italic">running something down</span>" to say that it violates basic scientific principles (or that it claims to).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave,

Your persistence in claiming you know what can't be done has grown very old and tired.

As I said in the other forum, I know of two credible auto repair shops that have installed hydrogen generators and are reporting good results.

You're not doing yourself or the readers of this forum to be so skeptical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without getting into whether this system is possible to work or not (I have no clue), I have been hearing about this for the last month ad nauseum from my ex-business partner who is currently remodeling my house. Let me say this. During the day he listens exclusively to pirate (read: conspiracy) radio. He voted for Ron Paul, he loves Alex Jones, etc. He also told me about the 100 mpg carburetor. He also loaned me "truth about 9/11" dvd's. (read: extreme nutjobs)

I would love it if this worked. I think it would be better for the economy, the environment, the world. But I too will believe it when I see it.

Mike

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You're not doing yourself or the readers of this forum to be so skeptical. </div></div>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I learned in my 8th grade Physics class... </div></div>

Skepticism is occasionally earned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As with any other improvement?/enhancement?/modification; one needs to test.

Would be very interesting to know if the "two credible repair shops" did a baseline on the vehicles prior to the installation of the unit; and then a comparison under the same driving conditions after.

Back when I was in college in the early 1960's, a guy I used to ride with would purchase every gas-saving device that J.C. Whitney sold. After about 3 months, we used to have to stop at the gas station each morning, so he could unload the excess fuel made overnight to the station. LOL

All joking aside, the law of "Conservation of Energy" applies to most of these devices.

Personal belief is that electricity is the answer (this from a carburetor guy), as electricity may be generated from many forms of currently wasted energy.

Jon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While pumping gas during the 70's and the "energy crisis" I saw many devices come and go. They all managed to boost MPG. Reason: People drove different after the installation, then once it became "old hat" guess what happened. MPG returned to what it was before. I think its a good concept, just like the car that would run on half oxygen, half hydrogen--Popular Mechanics, many years ago. I have not seen one of these in actual operation, skeptical yes, but I am open to new concepts. Just not gonna plunk hard earned cash on anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think getting people worked up by saying it is a WORKING hydrogen generator and that it is coming soon is misleading. All other basic physics and chemistry issues notwithstanding, nobody's been able to adequately explain this one simple problem: how is the hydrogen being contained and funneled into the engine? It's the smallest molecule of all. It goes through the smallest cracks. It will go through rubber, plastic, metal castings, and even some glass. It will percolate through virtually any liquid (like, say, the motor oil used to seal piston rings). This really is one of the most undisputed facts in the universe, even among non-science, hope-and-a-prayer, everything-has-two-sides pundits. Seriously, guys, have any of you looked at the intake tract of a car or thought about the reality of this?

*Plastic airbox secured with a hose clamp

*cast aluminum mass-air sensor secured with a hose clamp

*plastic intake hose secured with a hose clamp

*aluminum throttle body secured with cork or phenolic gasket to an aluminum or plastic intake manifold

*another gasket into the cast aluminum lower intake

*another gasket to the intake ports of the heads

*past the rubber O-rings on the injectors

*into the cylinder but not out through the valve stem seals

*compression stroke forces it out through imperfectly sealed valves and rings (show me how a metal-on-metal seal can possibly contain hydrogen, <span style="font-style: italic">especially under pressure)</span>.

By the time the spark plug fires, where's the hydrogen? Sorry, it's long gone.

Physics and chemistry got us to the impossible moon, but it took billions of dollars, the best brains in the world and 8 years. Nevertheless, Steve the corner auto mechanic has solved our energy problems with saltwater? My neighbor really is a rocket scientist at NASA-Glenn and has about the biggest brain I've ever seen. He personally invented a nuclear-powered plasma engine designed to push asteroids around (the small-scale prototype, amusingly, uses a modified MSD igniton system from Summit Racing to light the fires). He is the holder of more than 70 patents. When I asked him about this on Saturday, he asked if I was joking. When I said no, he replied (jokingly), "I guess I grossly overestimated the intelligence of the masses." And this is a guy who believes compressed air is a viable power source for vehicles, so he's a willing participant in this quest for cheap energy.

There are solutions. There may even be a solution that works like this. But this ain't it.

PS: Who among us will be first to put up their own money on this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think getting people worked up by saying it is a WORKING hydrogen generator and that it is coming soon is misleading. All other basic physics and chemistry issues notwithstanding, nobody's been able to adequately explain this one simple problem: how is the hydrogen being contained and funneled into the engine? It's the smallest molecule of all. It goes through the smallest cracks. It will go through rubber, plastic, metal castings, and even some glass. It will percolate through virtually any liquid (like, say, the motor oil used to seal piston rings). This really is one of the most undisputed facts in the universe, even among non-science, hope-and-a-prayer, everything-has-two-sides pundits. Seriously, guys, have any of you looked at the intake tract of a car or thought about the reality of this?

*Plastic airbox secured with a hose clamp

*cast aluminum mass-air sensor secured with a hose clamp

*plastic intake hose secured with a hose clamp

*aluminum throttle body secured with cork or phenolic gasket to an aluminum or plastic intake manifold

*another gasket into the cast aluminum lower intake

*another gasket to the intake ports of the heads

*past the rubber O-rings on the injectors

*into the cylinder but not out through the valve stem seals

*compression stroke forces it out through imperfectly sealed valves and rings (show me how a metal-on-metal seal can possibly contain hydrogen, especially under pressure).

By the time the spark plug fires, where's the hydrogen? Sorry, it's long gone.</div></div>

Matt

All valid arguments if the hydrogen is introduced under pressure, but in these systems it is introduced into the intake air stream, a slight vacuum. Even in the combustion chamber during compression it is mixed with other components, air and gasoline, so even then little would escape. Besides your thesis suggests that the working 100% hydrogen fueled cars cannot work.

Willie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: old-tank</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Besides your thesis suggests that the working 100% hydrogen fueled cars cannot work.

Willie </div></div>

How?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting a hydrogen generator on an existing gas engine probably won't work for the reasons I stated plus the many, many issues with the science behind this particular contraption. But that's a long way from me suggesting that it won't ever work on any car.

Of course containment systems can be built to hold hydrogen. An intake tract can be made so that it doesn't leak. Engine sealing can be improved to keep the gas in the combustion chamber. In fact, BMW has an internal combustion engine in a 7-Series sedan running on hydrogen right now. It certainly can be done, and I don't doubt it may find its way under the hood .

I'm not suggesting that because I don't believe this bolt-on thing for your garden-variety car won't work, internal combustion hydrogen technology never will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a show on PBS about this just last week. They had a production car modified to run on hydrogen. I don't think they were not storing the hydrogen, but using batteries for storage and a fuel cell to generate the hydrogen on demand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All,

I like the input about various theories and information about fuel cell cars, but that isn't what I was talking about when I started this string.

I'm talking about a hydrogen generator for EXISTING cars. From what I have heard from other since I started this post, a hydrogen generator needs to generate about 1 liter per minute or 50-60 liters per hour in order for this to have a significant impact on a car's gas mileage.

Personally, it makes sense if there is a working system to put a $1500-2000 device on an existing car, especially if it is paid for, than to invest $25,000 to $50,000 on a totally new system. (BTW, the Honda fuel cell cars have a true cost of more than $100,000 each; they are being 'leased' for $600 per month as an experiment. These are NOT ready for market cars.)

So, to go back to the beginning, I'm hoping there will be a widely available, affordable, provable hydrogen generator for your current car or truck on the market in the next coupld of months.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was that the sound of a '48 Lincoln hitting the wall? Oh, never mind.... This IS a Buick forum, little sympathy for fords here.

But seriously, the hydrogen isn't STORED....like, say, 20 gallons of highly explosive gasoline?

It is produced and used due to the vacuum on the intake manifold drawing the gas into the engine.

So, if the system is producing 1-2 liters per minute, then in the few seconds during which time the car stops running and the system stops, there is what, 50-100 milliliters of hydrogen gas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> From what I have heard from other since I started this post, a hydrogen generator needs to generate about 1 liter per minute or 50-60 liters per hour in order for this to have a significant impact on a car's gas mileage.

</div></div>

Let's assume that's true (whatever "significant" meant to the author/salesman).

The electrolysis of water requires an energy input of 4.5-5 kWh for every cubic meter of hydrogen produced ( Stoji, Mar etaa, Soviljb and Miljani, University of Belgrade, 2003 ) There are 1000 liters in a cubic meter, and 1000 watts in a kilowatt, therefore a 5 watt current will produce 1 liter of hydrogen in 1 hour. To produce 1 liter of hydrogen in 1 minute it would take 60 times 5 watts (assuming no efficientcy losses in scaling up the unit), or a 300 watt draw on your alternator. In a 12 volt system that's a 25 amp draw.

So far so good, except that this assumes no losses to resistence in the system, and makes no allowances for the car's other system requirements. Assuming minimal resistence in the unit, <span style="text-decoration: underline">the least</span> that would need to be done to the car to make a funcitioning system out of one of these contraptions is to upgrade the alternator/generator by at least 25 amps, which may not be possible for some newer cars with 100-120 amp systems already in place.. Of course a suitable voltage regulator would need to be fitted as well.

To handle that kind of current these "hydrogen generators" would need to be suppied with near battery cable-like supply cables (8 guage <span style="text-decoration: underline">at least</span>, preferably larger since--unlike a starter--they're pulling current continually while the car's running).

Water consumption at this rate would be about 0.9 liters per 1000 minutes of driving. This at least appears reasonable.

And yes, this is assuming 1 liter of hydrogen per minute is enough.

(BTW, guess where all that extra power draw to generate the additional electricity is going to come from!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should also point out that 1 liter of hydrogen per minute sounds like a lot, until you compare it to a typical car's needs. At idle it may be of some significant quantity, as much as 0.2% of the intake stream by volume assuming a 20 cfm draw at idle (less than a 3'x3'x3' box), but it wouldn't be serving any purpose since the car isn't performing any work.

If you applied that rate of hydrogen production to a Holley 650 cfm carburetor under full acceleration, the hydrogen component of the intake stream would be 0.00543%. Hydrogen occurs naturally in the atmosphere at a concentration of 0.00006%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Southwest Research Institute has published a report on May 28, 2008 stating this technology DOES work! Here is the link to the report:

http://www.gasadvancesystem.com/Sothwest%20Research%20Test.pdf

The dealer installing them here in Florida is located here:

www.masterautotech.com

You can click on his link about "Fuel Cell Information Website" which links to the Huffman Foundation, which is the ower of the site that published the SWRI report.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe

Great links and even better great news. Matt Harwood and Dave@Moon had the chemistry and physics dead right, but did not take into account the enhancing effect of the combination. Another well know enhancing agent...Nitrous Oxide (sound familiar).

I wonder if BCA judging will take off points for an installed system? Who cares.

Willie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll paste the same post here that I put on the AACA forum:

========================================================

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Southwest Research Institute has published a report on May 28, 2008 stating this technology DOES work! Here is the link to the report:

http://www.gasadvancesystem.com/Sothwest%20Research%20Test.pdf

</div></div>

O.K. Last line of the report:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All Reports Published For The Huffman Foundation LLC </div></div>

And the shocker, guess who they are and what they sell. (see link)

This is not an independent test. It also is a test of cars leaned out to the max, with multiple additional modifications of zero description beyond name (<span style="font-style: italic">"simple fuel heat exchanger installed", "computer device installed and adjusted to 350 milivolts", "halo plus spark installed", <span style="font-weight: bold">and several more</span></span> {see page 8}), and with tires pumped up to 50 psi (<span style="font-style: italic">including on a Dodge truck! shocked.gif</span>).

The most interesting part of the data tables is that the best mileage increase comes in the last line, when the only difference is listed as "driving", defined as <span style="font-style: italic">"all the driving techniques in operator's manual were implemented"</span>. I'd love to know what kind of instructions in the "operator's manual" they were ignorring to get 15 mpg (city) out of an already thoroughly modified 2004 Dodge Ram that, when followed, brought the mileage all the way up to 22 mpg. I'd also be willing to bet that the "operator's manual" is something that came with the unit and is basically a hypermiler drivers instruction manual (shut it off and coast, draft trucks as close as possible, run stop signs, etc.).

(The link is to an article in <span style="font-style: italic">Mother Jones Magazine</span> on a guy who gets 59 mpg out of a stock Honda Accord. The sales pitch web site for this device lists their Honda Accord as getting 55.9 mpg. An awfully similar result. I wonder..... smirk.gif )

I seriously doubt the cars modified as they were for this test would last more than a few weeks in normal use. I also seriously doubt that the final testing procedure ("driving") is anything like normal use.

There <span style="font-style: italic">may</span> be some benefit in using hydrogen to lean out the fuel mixture and gain some mileage that way. It would be nice if that were true. But if these are the ends that have to be gone to to make <span style="text-decoration: underline">this thing</span> work, I can't imagine wanting any part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, Dave, hello!

That is what SWRI does; test things that developers and manufacturers bring to them. Guess what the inventor or developer is going to do with the resarch results when they are favorable? USE THEM!

And, I like the fact that the report references results going back more than 30 years! And, yes, it was put online by a company selling a product.

I'm amazed that you continue to respond with reasons why you don't think it will work, but people are BUSY out there experimenting and refining their proceedure.

Is there a HUGE potential for worthless products to try to be sold claiming to be a miracle cure? Sure, that has been going on since the first OPEC price manipulation, er, embargo. Is some of the garbage out there worthless? Sure it is, including for example the people that are proposing to do this in glass jars or in plastic pipes mounted under the hood of a car where the operating temperature can be well over 250 degrees in some areas around the engine.

Personally, I'm glad this information is out there, and more seems to be coming every day, for the same reason I'm glad Thomas Edison didn't give up after trying 3,000 filaments before he found one that would work. Because I LIKE benefitting from his endeavors and discovery and I like not having to try to read in the dark by candlelight.

Please remember science means to know or observe. That dictates there must be trial and error, but when the truth is known, it is verifyable and can be repeated.

Let's enjoy the reading, and hopefully, the perfecting of such a device. When someone credible proves it can be done, I will write a check for it with a smile on my face.

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> I like the fact that the report references results going back more than 30 years! And, yes, it was put online by a company selling a product. </div></div>

Not one reference in the entire report is from a disinterested/unbiased party. About 1/2 the report is a cut and pasted "University Report" from a Mr. George Vosper (more on him later). Every citation in it comes from some "Hydrogen Association" that no one knew existed at the time (if it did), or some other equally obscure source..

And it wasn't just put online by the company selling the product. It was put online by the company selling the product, that bought/paid for the study, and <span style="text-decoration: underline">almost certainly</span> designed the study. How could anyone possibly read the procedures and results data of this study and believe for one second there was the slightest hint of an unbiased scientific method employed here?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please remember science means to know or observe. That dictates there must be trial and error, but when the truth is known, it is verifyable and can be repeated. </div></div>

I know what science is.

It goes way beyond that. The Scientific Method employs a number of steps:

Ask a Question

Do Background Research

Construct a Hypothesis

<span style="font-weight: bold">Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment</span>

Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

Communicate Your Results

If you were to test a device to prove a hypothesis it does something, would you test it in absence of other potential interfering factors, or would you try to shove as many different things in the way of the analyses as you possibly could to confuse the results? Supposing you did choose the second alternative, would you at least describe/define what those extraneous things are?

You can repeat results of simlarly designed biased studies all day (just look at all the cars they have on their web site's title page with similar absurd mileage claims). Just because you repeat results doesn't mean your study proves your hypothesis. It proves you can repeat the study.

I can appreciate that you want this thing to work. I want this thing to work. He!!, I'm the conservationist here! If it worked I'd buy a dozen of them tommorrow.

I can't say for sure that it doesn't work, but you <span style="text-decoration: underline">certainly</span> can't say it does with any definitiveness based on this "study" or any other study I've seen. What you have linked here doesn't prove a d@mn thing about the device good or bad, and doesn't countermand any of the valid criticsms I and others have raised (<span style="color: #FF0000">especially on the AACA thread</span>). Meanwhile you've linked <span style="text-decoration: underline">a lot</span> of <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="text-decoration: underline">highly</span> suspect behavior and obfuscation</span> on the part of the people marketing this thing.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> When someone credible proves it can be done, I will write a check for it with a smile on my face. </div></div>

So would I, presuming a positive long term reliability test (which should've existed by now in the first place if these things were really based on studies done in 1995-1998, as the report states--since then <span style="font-style: italic">nothing???</span> confused.gif ). However based on what I've seen so far nobody with any real credibility would go near these things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few other tidbits of interest.

Mr. Vosper, the "former Professor of Dynamics and Canadian inventor" who "wrote" about 1/2 of the body of the study cited here, doesn't appear to exist on upon google searches. It may have been a pseudonym, or the title (Professor) itself may be suspect. The name w/ title only appears with reference to the exact same report, posted word for word on several other "hydrogen generator" marketers' sites. No other references to people by that name could be found which were applicable (the rest were hits on geneology results, phone listings, etc.). I'd post links to the other device sites here, but one of them hit my computer with so much malware I had to reboot and start the previous post over (which is why I typing this at 2:00 AM.

The American Hydrogen Assn. existed from 1990 to 1999, and was recently resusitated (online at least) in 2007. There is no indication of any kind that it had a "test lab", or that it was anything more than a failed, loosely affiliated professional assosciation.

There are no references online to a "HYPOTHESIS Conference at the University of Cassino" except in reference to these devices. Ditto for the "9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference". Much like Mr. Vosper these appear to be creations.

As for the "9th Inter society Energy Conversion Engineering Conference" citation, no explanation is given why the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (presumably NASA's JPL) would even do a study on the "Feasibility Demonstration of a Road Vehicle Fueled with Hydrogen Enriched Gasoline." in 1974, or what the results might have been. However that title does appear in other places so the paper at least does exist.

The other citations in the "report" from places that do exist (Northern Alberta Institute of Technology, Zhejiang University, etc.) are all mentioned in passing with no specifics relating to study design or application. They support none of the rest of the "study".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Converting Lincoln owners into Buick-for-life owners, one vehicle at a time!

Congrats; '48 Lincolns are works of art, but you wouldn't want to drive one everyday in a world full of people with no insurance and poor driving skills. Hope you enjoy your new Buick! Which engine are you getting?

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am getting an 89 Buick Lesabre 2 door. It is my Uncle's and he bought it from the first owner, who was an old lady (seriously!) She came into his Buick dealer and bought a brand new Buick and traded in this old one a couple of years ago. It is immaculate in every sense of the word, if it didnt have 20 year old styling you would think it was new off of the lot. It is a V-6 power everything every option possible, extra gauge package and the leather interior is immaculate, probably if it was entered in a Buick car show, it would take 1st or 2nd in it's class. Are you Buick guys allowing later cars at the shows now? Lincoln people have started doing it. I drove it about 40 miles or so, and it drives like a dream, very comfortable, good pick up and go, and it feels like I am driving my Lincoln Mark V except it is better on gas! I hear that the Lesabres from this era get 25-30 mpg hwy. according to everyone who posted on my question about it on the board.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Airy Cat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How did the Germans in the 1930s keep hydrogen from leaking out of their dirigibles? They crossed the Atlantic Ocean using hydrogen to keep them up. </div></div>

They used an air-tight contiguous coating over a cotton skin:

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Wikipedia</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The Hindenburg had a cotton skin covered with a finish known as "dope". It is a common term for a plasticised lacquer that provides stiffness, protection, and a lightweight, airtight seal to woven fabrics. In its liquid forms, dope is highly flammable, but the flammability of dry dope depends upon its base constituents, with butyrate dope being far less flammable than cellulose nitrate, for example. When the mooring line touched the ground, a resulting spark could have ignited the dope in the skin.</div></div>

There's a big difference between something designed to retain hydrogen and something that isn't, like your car's engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 1948Lincoln</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am getting an 89 Buick Lesabre 2 door. It is my Uncle's and he bought it from the first owner, who was an old lady (seriously!) She came into his Buick dealer and bought a brand new Buick and traded in this old one a couple of years ago. It is immaculate in every sense of the word, if it didnt have 20 year old styling you would think it was new off of the lot. It is a V-6 power everything every option possible, extra gauge package and the leather interior is immaculate, probably if it was entered in a Buick car show, it would take 1st or 2nd in it's class. Are you Buick guys allowing later cars at the shows now? Lincoln people have started doing it. I drove it about 40 miles or so, and it drives like a dream, very comfortable, good pick up and go, and it feels like I am driving my Lincoln Mark V except it is better on gas! I hear that the Lesabres from this era get 25-30 mpg hwy. according to everyone who posted on my question about it on the board. </div></div>

Yes, as long as the car is 12 years old, it is eligble for 400 point judging. If you would like to see what it takes to be judged and win check out the BCA judging manual at http://www.buickclub.org/BCA%20JUDGING%20MANUAL/BCAjudgingrev2.pdf. Our next National judged meet will be in Colorado Springs in July 2009.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, Wes,

We might as well talk about your '89 Lesabre, since the topic of announcing and informing people about a working hydrogen generator has turned into a high school debate over dualling theories and who knows more about hydrogen than everyone else in the forum due to their superior education and/or degrees!

I always thought that body style on the Lesabres and Park Avenues of that time were very clean, attractive designs. The reverse clamshell hood was very interesting, too. I wish Buick would have promoted (and therefore sold) more of the 2-door T-Types; those were pretty good looking cars.

Sounds like you found a real jewel, Wes!

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wayne,

I guess that article and other information that has been passed around in this forum truly indicates what a guessing game the car business has become.

Many foreign brands moved relatively easily into the U.S. with small fuel efficient vehicles because they were using cars already sold or collectively sold in countries with gas prices much, much higher than in the U.S.

Statements by the big 3 indicate they were planning to bring more and more fuel efficient cars to market within the next few years, in anticipation of eventually gas being $3.50 to $4 per gallon. But no one saw gas going over $4 by the middle of 2008!

At this point we can all post messages until our fingers are worn out about where we think gas is going tomorrow, next month, year or decade. But the fact is, it could easily be $3.50 a gallon by this time next year, or it could be $5.50.

As for the discussion on hydrogen generators, that device, if it does work and becomes readily available to everyone, will likely hurt all car companies rather than save them. Why? Because it promises to drastically increase the mileage on the car you already own!

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it is a great car, hopefully I will buy it this week, if I have the time, I am moving but, I need a car for the commute (about 40 miles roundtrip) so, that is why I am buying the Buick. It is the old person's model with alot of chrome trim! I love it! I will post some pics when I get it! JD Power named it one of the top cars of 1989 from what I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wes,

You're going to discover what so many of us have enjoyed for some time; the 3.8 is one of THE best engines of all time.

Unfortunately, many of the 'new' V-6 engines GM has released lately are based upon the Northstar V-8 made by Cadillac. They are pretty much a throwaway motor; it breaks with nearly any kind of a serious problem that we would have often fixed ourselves or had done at a shop and you now throw the engine away. The two-piece block makes it very difficult to do major rebuilds on. And, the engines, even with very good care, are only good for about 150K before they have big problems.

So, enjoy 'Old School' for years to come. You'll be getting 30 MPG on the freeway in an inexpensive, easy to work on comfortable car!

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amen! See, my commute is about 40 roundtrip, so, a tank should last me a week and a half (5 day weeks)! Insurance will be low! registration will be low! And I will be a Buickman! And it is a comfortable car! For a 6'2'' guy like me, that is a blessing! Since the only comfortable car that I have is the MKV and it gets about 7-11 per gallon!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...