Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey ail just wondering if anyone else has has spark related issues when running a haltech. Yesterday we tried tuning my car which has new plugs and brand new spitfires and it didn't matter how we gapped the plugs or set the dwell we had a major miss at anything over 12 psi and 4000 rpm

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/396398-spark-issues-and-haltech/
Share on other sites

You have a neo engine? A lot of aftermarket ecus have problems at the upper end apparently caused by the R34 CAS. Is yours still stock in this area? There are a number of solutions - Ross make one I don't know if Unigroup has another - in NZ a few tuners have developed their own triggering systems for the R34.

Try turning of all acceleration enrichment as well. Have you check that you have proper timing control throughout the entire rev range. Set the timing at 20deg check it all the way to 7000 on a static rev and make sure it's rock solid then do the same with 40degrees.

Ps isn't the r34 signal a 360deg signal and a 654321 narrowing signal? I'm not aware of any differences between r32 to r34 in terms of signals it's just the wiring at the cas is reversed.

  • 2 weeks later...

cant believe no one has concrete info on this.. haltech dont want to acknowledge a fault.. thing is im wondering if spitfires just cant handle running in wasted spark.

got a new MSD set up now.. spark is huge at idle.. should be interesting to see how it goes now

cant believe no one has concrete info on this.. haltech dont want to acknowledge a fault.. thing is im wondering if spitfires just cant handle running in wasted spark.

got a new MSD set up now.. spark is huge at idle.. should be interesting to see how it goes now

I can't recall running those coils in wasted spark configuration. But Holden seem to run a single coil v8 to 6200rpm no problem with a coil that takes simulate dwell =2.5 ms.

At 4000 rpm in wasted spark with 2.5ms dwell time your only at 16% duty as in on time of 2.5 off time off time 12.5ms - hardly working a coil IMO.

My bet is still the haltech.

Edited by rob82

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

    • Hi all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...