Heresy - Interceptors and HHO

[vlad01]

I recall looking into this years ago and there was good reasons and having the uni aligned on the 2 piece shaft was bad for reasons I can't recall now.

Since the front half is virtually dead straight and only the rear uni changes angle somewhat (because the diff link geometry ensures the pinion keeps the uni straight in all but the most extreme positions), the alignment is not relevant in the same way a one piece shaft with both uni joints moving at the same angles do. The specific angle they use was to tune for something else but I can't recall what. I've never had any issues with vibration when I've had my tail shafts properly rebuilt and balanced by a reputable shaft specialist. The only time I had constant issues was with my vacationer but seemed more of an auto thing as it only did it in 1st and a 2nd under hard acceleration, worst uphill. I've had all manuals ever since.

I did have a resonance in the tail shaft at 98-99 Km/h in the vacationer when I converted it, but I rebuilt the tail shaft myself and never had it balanced. Either side of that speed there was no vibration whatsoever. But that tail shaft was rebuilt professionally when it was moved over to the shitbox I am driving now and it's perfect an has been for over 200k so far.

But the VT doesn't have uni joints does it? They are a rubber doughnut at the front and a CV at the diff?.

Even my nephew's VS wagon has a douhnut up front.

[Charlescrown]

From memory the VT has uni joints. Not sure when the rubber disc got introduced. I thought it was in a later model. I do remember the special tool we used to check the alignment and the VT had a tiny tollerance when the VP was a long way out and had to be that way. Perhaps I should have aligned one and put it on the dyno as a test to see the outcome. Oh well that's manufacturers.

[immortality]

Hey Vlad that reminds me about the Morris Marina. A friend of mine was a development engineer at the time and they found the 1.6L produced more power than the 1.8 so they put a restrictor under the carbie to reduce power. Easy upgrade for more power. Yea the VN V6 was a lively beast but they shound have done something about the driveline vibration. Boy was it bad. I think it got fixed with the VP but not sure on that. I can't believe the misalignment of the uni joints and that was how you had to assemble the shaft. I have no idea why they did it.

My VN wasn't to bad. Had some interesting engine vibrations. Took out the balance shaft and fitted a powerbond race balancer with new engine and trans mounts and it was the smoothest it ever ran.

[immortality]

I recall looking into this years ago and there was good reasons and having the uni aligned on the 2 piece shaft was bad for reasons I can't recall now.

Since the front half is virtually dead straight and only the rear uni changes angle somewhat (because the diff link geometry ensures the pinion keeps the uni straight in all but the most extreme positions), the alignment is not relevant in the same way a one piece shaft with both uni joints moving at the same angles do. The specific angle they use was to tune for something else but I can't recall what. I've never had any issues with vibration when I've had my tail shafts properly rebuilt and balanced by a reputable shaft specialist. The only time I had constant issues was with my vacationer but seemed more of an auto thing as it only did it in 1st and a 2nd under hard acceleration, worst uphill. I've had all manuals ever since.

I did have a resonance in the tail shaft at 98-99 Km/h in the vacationer when I converted it, but I rebuilt the tail shaft myself and never had it balanced. Either side of that speed there was no vibration whatsoever. But that tail shaft was rebuilt professionally when it was moved over to the shitbox I am driving now and it's perfect an has been for over 200k so far.

But the VT doesn't have uni joints does it? They are a rubber doughnut at the front and a CV at the diff?.

Even my nephew's VS wagon has a douhnut up front.

I believe cars with the Getrag manual trans had the doughnut up front, auto still had the uni's. VT the same and then VX is where the new style with rubber dougnuts at each end became standard.

[Charlescrown]

I was thinking that was the case. I don't think the auto's didn't use the donut till the VE.

[Gareth]

To my knowledge that solenoid on the Ford is for a variable length intake manfold to get a wider torque curve. I agree Vlad that their primary design is to reduce NVH and they wouldnt put them on if they could make a saving but I havent noticed any difference with or without them. NVH can be a very difficult thing to determine and without very expensive sound equipment probably impossible to resolve. I do remember the VN rough idle kit that involved a plastic insert behind the throttle body which was added after a customer complained but I'm not sure just what it did.

The dual length runners certainly do make a huge difference to torque on the Fords as I have proven time and time again to owners of speedway cars that have come in for dyno work. Most owners simply don't understand it and think that it is an emissions device and simply remove all the vacume hoses!...

[BennVenn]

I double checked yesterday on a spare intake I have, and yeah pretty nifty bit of engineering! I guess my next mod in the old pulsar will be to build a new intake manifold without the foot long runners. What kind of high RPM gains did the AU make with short runners enabled vs long?

[Gareth]

I don't recall numbers and almost all the cars tested had modified engines/camshafts.

The clear thing I always see is a huge dip in torque when the short runners don't activate when required, the dip goes away when they work. 30nm sounds familiar? don't quote me.

[Charlescrown]

We put the gain (only small) down to the fact that it altered the burn rate of petrol. All manufacturers aim to burn the fuel as fast as possible without detonating to get the maximum power from the fuel. I agree with the statement about not creating energy seeing the alternator running at around 40 amps at idle to convert the water so expecting it to increase power by adding fuel = the loss to generate it. By the way does anyone know the air fuel ratio of Hydrogen? Supposed to be 34:1 so a lot more air would also be needed to reach stoich. Best left to produce electricity than burn in the combustion chamber.

[BennVenn]

The biggest issue with the HHO thing is the concentration that the engine actually sees. Using their recommendations, the engine will see 1 part HHO in 18,000 parts air at 5000rpm. That is both H2 and O2, so if the magic is coming from the H2, then its even less of a concentration. I just can't see (or measure) any change to burn rate at that kind of concentration. And if we're talking the difference between 1 or 2 degree's of timing, in a NA motor that is pretty much no change to torque anyway.

I've done tests between 91, 98, e10, and without touching the tune, there is zero change in torque. AFR does change with e10. When adjusting timing, 98 gave the biggest power gain - and this is NOT a knock limited engine so I'd expect the 91 to burn faster than 98.