We went through this discussion some time back. I imagine if the claimed benefits had been  applicable outside of some small niches, there would have been a greater demand. Retrofitting cars today is difficult. Designing new cars so it can be added as an option is more doable.

 

Now if the benefits are as good as claimed, why wouldn't car makers do their bit, provide it as an option for say an extra $200 or so, and guarantee a 10% improved car performance. Let's see. A car is driven 10000 miles each year with consumption at 25 miles per gallon. A gallon costs $3.5. So that is 400 gallons. Now let's reduce gallon consumption by 10%, saving 40 gallons. Savings are $140 per year. A great payout even for those switching cars every three years. 

 

Car companies come out as heroes touting and doing their bit for lower gas consumption. The consumer loves them for doing so as she or he saves. Even the GW people might dislike them less. So why wouldn't they?

 

We have been told by the HHO proponents that conversion to an HHO system costs less than $100 and that performance improvement can be as much as 20%. So if all this is true the economics and political climate are just right. So?

 

Cheers

Alex