Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I have a rb26/30 with all the goodies in it, I am wanting to run 35+psi on E85 and i have been told that the ignition has to be changed to do so. Can you big hp guys recommend a setup to run as i am chasing 750rwhp through my glide. cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/410235-rb2630-ignition-setup-help/
Share on other sites

http://www.aemelectronics.com/high-output-igbt-inductive-smart-coil-1240

This is what I would use - best inductive ignition system I've seen.

I tend to prefer running inductive ignition system compared to cdi on almost all applications - especially on street cars.

http://www.aemelectronics.com/high-output-igbt-inductive-smart-coil-1240

This is what I would use - best inductive ignition system I've seen.

I tend to prefer running inductive ignition system compared to cdi on almost all applications - especially on street cars.

They look like awesome coils. No CDI or igniter unit required. Less to go wrong?

How have they performed for you rob?

Why do you not like CDI systems? Because of the electrical interferance and low dwell time?

They look like awesome coils. No CDI or igniter unit required. Less to go wrong?

How have they performed for you rob?

Why do you not like CDI systems? Because of the electrical interferance and low dwell time?

I'm about to turn up the wick on a certain engine that will be in the vacinity of 2000hp with these coils - currently at 1260hp and no issues with 1.1mm at 18psi. Have seen them not misfire with 1.1mm gap at this boost with mixtures as rich as lambda 0.67.

CDI is good if you want high peak secondary current and minimal dwell time - issues I have with CDI is eletrcial interference and low spark duration coupled with extra cost. Only thing with these coils and LS2 series coils is the dwell time can be as large as 5ms at 14V for full spark energy which can be a bit much on non sequential setups with rapid accelleration rates and flat shifting. Doubt most people would run into this issue though.

Edited by rob82

I'm about to turn up the wick on a certain engine that will be in the vacinity of 2000hp with these coils - currently at 1260hp and no issues with 1.1mm at 18psi. Have seen them not misfire with 1.1mm gap at this boost with mixtures as rich as lambda 0.67.

CDI is good if you want high peak secondary current and minimal dwell time - issues I have with CDI is eletrcial interference and low spark duration coupled with extra cost. Only thing with these coils and LS2 series coils is the dwell time can be as large as 5ms at 14V for full spark energy which can be a bit much on non sequential setups with rapid accelleration rates and flat shifting. Doubt most people would run into this issue though.

Isn't it easier to ignite the air/fuel on an engine that has a much larger bore like that one?

http://www.aemelectr...smart-coil-1240

This is what I would use - best inductive ignition system I've seen.

I tend to prefer running inductive ignition system compared to cdi on almost all applications - especially on street cars.

Certainly look like great value for money - any potential downside?

Isn't it easier to ignite the air/fuel on an engine that has a much larger bore like that one?

Yep - generally the higher the torque the greater the cylinder pressures so the higher harder it is on the ignition system...

I haven't try these coils on an xr6t, because they wouldn't fit very well but the are probably one car that really pushes a coils ability and I know just the car to test on. If I get to test them on that car I will let you guys know how they hold up?

Also the only other downside is that they aren't cop...

Edited by rob82

We have run these coils on a 140mph 1jz running nos for the last 12 months.

Very good coil charge time with amp saturation. Would I run them on 50+psi probably not.

That's not to say that they wouldn't do it, I would not like to commit and say they will and then have to fit CDI any way.

I have found that inductive just seems to run nicer with back to back tests. Engines just sound that little bit happier.

We have run these coils on a 140mph 1jz running nos for the last 12 months.

Very good coil charge time with amp saturation. Would I run them on 50+psi probably not.

That's not to say that they wouldn't do it, I would not like to commit and say they will and then have to fit CDI any way.

I have found that inductive just seems to run nicer with back to back tests. Engines just sound that little bit happier.

Everyone likes a happy engine don't they

Well at the end of the day, after cylinder pressure and temp, Egts, MBT, BSFC, gudgeon pin size, exhaust wheel temp, oil pressure and temperature all we are doing in pleasuring the engine just how it likes it.

Golden rule, give the engine what it wants. If it wants CDI it gets CDI. If it want 28 degrees of ignition timing at 30psi of boost and a 175 shot of gas then give it 28 degrees.

Its kinda like an extremely high maintenance gf. You work and work for months just to be able to take it out and show it off to your friends then it craps in your face just to keep you keen (Or on the highway at the top of 4th gear) when it doesn't get its way.

The only downfall i can see with these is they are a damn big coil. Mounting 6 of these may not be the easiest to do so.

But i do like, and these have risen to the No 1 on my most likely coil to buy for my setup.

I'm about to turn up the wick on a certain engine that will be in the vacinity of 2000hp with these coils - currently at 1260hp and no issues with 1.1mm at 18psi. Have seen them not misfire with 1.1mm gap at this boost with mixtures as rich as lambda 0.67.

CDI is good if you want high peak secondary current and minimal dwell time - issues I have with CDI is eletrcial interference and low spark duration coupled with extra cost. Only thing with these coils and LS2 series coils is the dwell time can be as large as 5ms at 14V for full spark energy which can be a bit much on non sequential setups with rapid accelleration rates and flat shifting. Doubt most people would run into this issue though.

So these would be worth a try on my RB30/25 aiming at 330 - 350 awkw with a rev limit of 6800 and no flat shifting or would I need to change my Link G4 with 4 ignition channels for a Link Extreme to allow sequential firing?

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

    • 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.
    • 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...