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

    • 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...