firstly the toyota Safe T Cell is a scam,

and now there is only 2 toyota guys, but they make out there is several by using different names???
i need to lie down…….

“BMW has wiped the floor with its competitors in the latest engine awards. With the German marque claiming honours for no less than 5 engines”

that is of course; if they decide to read it or simply choose to ignore it as usual

PS – I know it sounds like a lot of people but its actually juust 3

Andrew……..babe you know I’m “flawless”

you spelt “Floor” wrong by the way BM

You left out the word \”AGAIN\”,hehehehe

Build it, try it & then tell us what you know.

“a cold air kit alters the efficiency of the motor does it not” – at full throttle yes it does. However by definition a throttle is a variable restriction. When you close the throttle you are restricting the pumping efficiency of the engine and hence you cold air intake is not going to help a lot. However with the throttle fully open its provides the least restriction, and as a result other restrictions that occur before it become very important hence we get people fitting cold air intakes.

“fuel still gets fed into the motor at the same rate whether or not the oxygen is there to efficiently burn it.” This statement is incorrect. The fuel air ratio remains nominally constant and is governed by the inlet manifold pressure on engines with a carburettor or electronically on fuel injected engines.

“more oxygen or other beneficial gases into the air box to me sounds logical that there would be less wasted fuel.” Firstly you can “waste” less fuel simply by leaning the mixture. Your engine won’t last very long but feel free to give it a go. Secondly how much of these beneficial gases do you think this joe cell is producing. Electrolysis of water is nothing new and well understood. However the way that is set up and used in this application guarantees that the rate of gas production will insufficient to make one iota of difference.

“sorry but im not going to be one who instantly writes the concept off.
it does hold some merit” That’s your choice and you are most welcome to do that. However the concept has been around for years and has been shown not to work.

also with HHO,
the reaction is claimed from the gases being taken through the airbox.
a cold air kit alters the efficiency of the motor does it not?
the oxygen entering the motor affects the burning efficiency.
blank off half of the air inlet and you will notice it for the worse.
put a bigger air funnel on and you will notice it for the better.
more oxygen = better economy and power.
the fuel still gets fed into the motor at the same rate whether or not the oxygen is there to efficiently burn it.

more oxygen or other beneficial gases into the air box to me sounds logical that there would be less wasted fuel.

sorry but im not going to be one who instantly writes the concept off.
it does hold some merit

Your second point however is very valid, that said adding a very small amount of this “HHO” is going do nothing to alter the reactions occurring in the cylinders. And I can guarantee you that NM would only be producing negligible amounts of “HHO” using electrolysis. A 36% increase in efficiency is not realistic. It would be like someone claiming they got a substantial power increase driving through fog.

also,
the energy per litre of fuel does change if it is not being burnt efficiently. that is if not all of the fuel is being burnt, you wont get the same amount of energy out of each litre that enters the engine

Also, my fathers AUIII XR8. Diff died in the first 3 weeks. He now owns a VE :)

Either way, we could go on like this forever, styling is and will always be subjective, let’s just leave it at that hey?

I have been the auto industry for some time, and the AU is the joke of the recent Australian automotive industry, and it nearly killed Ford, now there us a hard fact. Contemporary? Jeeese… clutching at straws much?

The driveline on the other hand is great, great engine and boxes, near unbreakable. But the rest of the car, don’t try to polish a turd.

UrbanGTB, fair call.

“If what NM suggests actually improves the efficiency of the combustion process then it is not just a case of quoting conservation of energy or momentum or anything else for that matter. Gee and u guys are engineers?”
The inefficiency is not in the combustion process, it is in the energy transfer of the engine itself. Combustion of petrol produces a certain amount of energy (joules) per litre. This figure is well known and does not change. By the way diesel has a higher energy content then petrol and LPG has a lower energy content. NM’s claims of a 36% increase in efficiency are difficult to believe under any circumstance.

Quote:
“Using their impressions from driving the latest cars, judges find powerplants that offer the best driveability, performance, economy, and refinement, and reward manufacturers for the successful application of advanced engine technology.”

I would hardly call a push rod engine an advancement in engine technology. I would say the 4L BMW engine is…

Again, why aren’t any auto manufacturers implementing this product, there are no patent specifications protecting it! It’s just common sense.

I’ve thought of a possible explanation of why NM gets more km’s per tank of fuel (Other than like a placebo). I’m thinking the cell might store some of the fuel in between petrol refueling. In this way it would be analogous to increasing the overall fuel capacity of the car. Off course you’re going to get more total kilometers per “tank” this way, but your km’s / L is going to stay the same.