Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

hey pple i have searched and i could not find what i was looking for :P

at moment im running (splitfire coils )0.8mm gap in my r33 heat range 7 and i was thinking of going to 1.1 mm gap....

would these improve my millage and make the car run better ?

or should i stick to what i have now?

i have read of some people running 1.1 gap successfully with upgraded coil packs?

mods are basic filter,zorst,10psi,coller,splitfires

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/252709-splitfires-and-11mm-gap/
Share on other sites

i know lines drink a lot but if it was able to run on 1.1 plug i tough would make the car run better and in gain receive extra mileage and power .

just reading thru some spark plug threads people seemed to run a 1.1 gap and got a much better burn of fuel making the car run better.

that's why i asked about the bigger gap

You can run a 1.1mm gap, quite easily.

Even on 10PSi...

I run a 1.1mm gap, and was at one point pushing 18PSi off a big huffer turbo, into a 3.0L block, without an issue of misfire.

I was also running 12PSi on the RB25 setup with a 1.1mm gap, without an issue in the world.

The stock plug gap is set at 1.1mm, and the FRESH coils from the factory, will run this, even with a few PSi more being thrown at it, so why wouldn't a set of coils that generate from memory a 50% stronger spark?

You can run a 1.1mm gap, quite easily.

Even on 10PSi...

I run a 1.1mm gap, and was at one point pushing 18PSi off a big huffer turbo, into a 3.0L block, without an issue of misfire.

I was also running 12PSi on the RB25 setup with a 1.1mm gap, without an issue in the world.

The stock plug gap is set at 1.1mm, and the FRESH coils from the factory, will run this, even with a few PSi more being thrown at it, so why wouldn't a set of coils that generate from memory a 50% stronger spark?

thanx for that , i was researching if it would be ok to run a 1.1 plug as per specs as i have new coils and only minor bolt on bits.

the reason for post was to see if anyone else has done it, i did not say i will do it,or will not but, why not ask and save on time and changing sparkies over when you can get a answer from pepole that actually have this setup and running it like MBS206

I agree. Iridiums are a waste of money. What gap you will be able to run with out the car missfiring will depend mainly on the condition of the coilpacks. If they are old and overheated and cracked then the car will missfire. If they are in good condition then it show easily be able to run 1.1 gap.

And i thought splitfires werent any stronger than new stock coilpacks... has this 50% stronger spark been proven?

And i thought splitfires werent any stronger than new stock coilpacks... has this 50% stronger spark been proven?

they must be stronger. i havent heard of anyone running new nissan coilpacks in heavily modified cars. splitfires are a common choice for racing applications.

on my splitfire box it has a graph showing a dyno comparison, an RB making 323ps with regular coilpacks, and 330 with splitfires. theres also another graph which i assume is something to do with spark or volts or something (its in japanese) but the splitfires easily outperform the comparative product.

Ah k just because lots of people say that they arent actually any better. They are just more popular because the are less than half the price of new nissan coilpacks from the dealers. Although i know there are many 400kw gtr's running stock coilpacks without any problems.

With the graph, were the nissan coilpacks old or new. Cos obviously new splitfires are going to outperform 20year old nissan ones..

Ah k just because lots of people say that they arent actually any better. They are just more popular because the are less than half the price of new nissan coilpacks from the dealers. Although i know there are many 400kw gtr's running stock coilpacks without any problems.

With the graph, were the nissan coilpacks old or new. Cos obviously new splitfires are going to outperform 20year old nissan ones..

well thats a very good point. everyone rubbished kkr turbos a while back, many people still do, but they seem to go alright for people who actually tried them, inc. myself.

the graph says splitfire vs "normal", engine is an rb26dett. so if theyre new factory coilpacks, 7ps is a pretty big gain.

i didnt even consider the cost, i though splitfires were fkn expensive. but then again, genuine nissan is a total rip off for just about everything.

LOL yeah apparently genuine new nissan ones cost near $1000 so splitfires are half that price which is why they are a good choice even if they arent any better.

But i guess if they are better than new stock ones thats an added bonus

hey must be stronger. i havent heard of anyone running new nissan coilpacks in heavily modified cars. splitfires are a common choice for racing applications.

on my splitfire box it has a graph showing a dyno comparison, an RB making 323ps with regular coilpacks, and 330 with splitfires. theres also another graph which i assume is something to do with spark or volts or something (its in japanese) but the splitfires easily outperform the comparative product.

the hks drag gtr runs stock coil packs, the only reason ppl go spitfires is cause nissan

want something like $1000 for them brand new

they must be stronger. i havent heard of anyone running new nissan coilpacks in heavily modified cars. splitfires are a common choice for racing applications.

on my splitfire box it has a graph showing a dyno comparison, an RB making 323ps with regular coilpacks, and 330 with splitfires. theres also another graph which i assume is something to do with spark or volts or something (its in japanese) but the splitfires easily outperform the comparative product.

Stronger based on what?

They are not stronger at all.

You are comparing 10-15yr old worn Nissan coils, vs a new coil out of the box, which is wrong. Unless you had brand new coils in your car, your results/testing is incorrect.

If you purchased a NEW set of Nissan coils, put them against Splitfires - you wouldnt know the difference other than one lightens your wallet substancially more than the other.

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...