Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Good read.

One thing I would like to chuck into the ring is the performance side of things.

I remember when I switched to iridiums in my CBR900. Holy shit. SOP dyno said 5hp right thru the rev range. And it wasn't just the switch from old to new plugs as I had done that 10 times before going iridiums. And throttle response was markedly improved. It help with the throttle hand/rear tyre connection something fierce.

I've been an advocate of iridiums ever since.

Why am I surprised that people don't report better performance with iridiums over copper in their cars?

I picked up some iridiums this week. Will chuck em in with fresh oil next weekend and report back.

  • 3 weeks later...

ok ok very confused after reading all that!

i have brought new coil packs, and i want to change the plugs at the same time and the coils!

my car is r32 with rb25det s2 simple mods fmic, fuel pump, full 3inch exhaust and a hi low boost control 7 and 10psi

i drive mainly on 7psi!

what plugs and what gap?

thanks

ok ok very confused after reading all that!

i have brought new coil packs, and i want to change the plugs at the same time and the coils!

my car is r32 with rb25det s2 simple mods fmic, fuel pump, full 3inch exhaust and a hi low boost control 7 and 10psi

i drive mainly on 7psi!

what plugs and what gap?

thanks

The rule of thump, with those mods you run bcpres6 copper ones and if you boost past 13-14 go 1 colder and get bcpres7

no need for confusion really...

90% of people on here and pretty much every tuner i have spoken to use and reccomned either BCPR7ES gapped @ 0.8 or BCPR6ES gapped @ 0.8

use that and you will be fine

:/

its not that iridiums aren't better also.... its just that in a modified environment they can die just as quickly as coppers and offer no real gains other than the price

Fixed my missfire that i had for 5 months by putting in BCPR6ES at .7 gap, had iridiums in before at at heat range 7 and .7 gap and they were shit, but most likely due to car running really rich for so long.

Put platinum ones in mine about 3 years ago done about 65k still fine checked at each oil change or service

Running light mods and .85 bar boost no problems no miss fire best plugs i've bought so far but a bit expensive

thought id try them after I was surprised they lasted over 160k in my astra 2.2 coupe (holden)

Edited by jjskyline79

I bought a six pack of Bosch Platinums today from Super Cheap. Cost me about $38. They are the FR7DPX ones. Has anyone used these before? They are pre-gapped at 1.1, but keep reading on here folks going for a 0.8 gap. Have read things in this huge thread and will continue to do so. But so far seeing way more references to NGK coppers vs anything Bosch.

yeah, everyone seems to love the nkg's. but when it comes to gapping, if you're pretty stock then 1.1's will prob be ok. it's like oil tho, different for every car, and might take a few changes to get the perfect setup. just listen out for a miss

  • 2 weeks later...

found my cause of misfire, 2 of my coils were missing the spring, and as a result there was some white powder stuff on top of the plug and in the coil at the base.. cleaned out and with new springs and plugs fixed my missfire.

  • 5 weeks later...

was taping up my coilpacks to try to solve a missfire while i save for yellow jackets and had a look at the spark plugs, only to find them very very black. I'm using ngk bkr6es plugs with standard 1.1mm gap and they have about 3500km's on them. do i need a higher heat rating? or is it running rich or something?

car is a stockish r34 gtt with 3.5" catback somehow boosting to 12-13psi (still trying to figure out why that is)

Edited by Galois

If you have dodgy coils try gapping your plugs down to 0.8 til you get new ones. Could possibly explain why they are so black (don't all RBs run rich from stock?) or if you're keen try some NGKBCPR5ES

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



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...