Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

rather than decreasing the gap in your spark, it'd be wiser to increase the power of the spark innit? wire up a set of quick charge capacitors to your sparks and bob's yer uncle...

absolutely, you want the biggest gap you can...check out the big hp turbo cars they all have significantly upgraded ignition system so that the spark doesnt blow out. gapping down is just a stop gap measure

  • 6 months later...

Coppers are fine; the Repco guys just want to make more money off you. Coppers are cheap enough that changing them every 5000kms isn't too much of an issue.

BCPR6ES-11's, gapped to the appropriate space will do fine. Heck, check the NGK website; whilst they recommend the platinum or iridium, you can see that the plug for the copper/(iridium) is a BCPR6ES(IX)-11. Same plug, just won't last as long, but can work out cheaper.

I get the NGK plugs with out the resistor BCP6ES, theses come already gapped to .8mm and fit skylines, and VL commodores. I used to run the NGK-(with resistor) in a VL turbo, any thing over 15 psi and the resistor caused them to break down, swapped them to non-resistor and had no problems runnnning 21psi.

ive put chep bosch plugs in my sr20 and it runs fine, no missfire at all - pre-gapped at 1.1mm. Although i havent checked the gapping on the line yet as the sparkies are a pain to get too. On the top of my head, i can recall that in the service manuals of the line/180sx, it states that 1.1mm is the standard gap.

If you think about it the Iridium plugs may actually be best value for money.

Iridum plugs should at least outlast 5 sets of coppers, and on that basis alone they are around the same total cost.

Then, when you factor in the time taken to change a set of plugs, at least half an hour if your being careful not to strip the threads and remove all the coil packs and wiring harnesses, the irridium plugs make a whole lot of sense. Especially if you value your time at around $50/hr.

As an added bonus irridium plugs give an extra 5 to 10 hp gain on the dyno. This is apparently something to do with being able to run a bigger gap due to the much sharper point of the iridium electrode.

I stuck a set of Iridiums in my RB25DET, left the gap standard (1.1mm). I'm more than impressed - car starts easier, and has not had a misfire, running 10psi and producing 180 Awkw.

If you want to keep pulling the engine apart every 6 months to change plugs, then fit coppers, otherwise fit Platinums or Iridiums.

Friends S1 r33 was missing real bad at the end of 2nd, 3rd and 4th. The only mods he has is a cat back and a bov. I repalaced the plugs which were gapped at 1.1 to .8 He was so happy that the car was finaly running smoothly and said there was more power in every gear.

what proof do you have of this? i find that very hard to believe...

if it wasn't missing on stock boost with 1.1mm then don't change it! i now run 1.1mm gap with 12psi of boost on my rb20 and have no issues at all. maybe its an rb25 thing?

aahh yes.

the proof really is in the pudding! :wassup:

so what is the definete code for the PreGapped 8mm sparkies? and does the code vary with or without the resistor?

cheers

Depends which engine you're fitting them to.

As sky30 showed, the non-resistor plugs don't have the "R" in the code.

And the (pre-)gap(ped) size is tacked on the end eg BCPR6ES-11 = 1.1 mm gap, BCPR6ES-8 = 0.8mm gap

So is there any reason too get the resistor type?

Out of interest, is there somewhere that keeps stock of the BCPR6ES-11 (or minus the resistor) in Sydney. All the local places I have been too only stock bommodore and other common car types.

LW.

Those who said don't reduce gap, are right. Only 2 things make engine go, Fuel and Combustion [ Spark]. If you make fuel side better [no matter how] it is counterproductive to make fire smaller - which reducing gap does - Upgrade ignition to at least keep up with mods to fuel side. Factory recommends 1.1 / 1.2 for just about all models, don't go below that. Just put set in R32 GTSt @110000klm NGKs PFR6A-11, same as those that came out, which still appear perfect,inc gaps. The 11 on the end of the number on NGKs indicates 1.1 - 12 would be 1.2, 9 would be 0.9, etc.

Those who said don't reduce gap, are right. Only 2 things make engine go, Fuel and Combustion [ Spark]. If you make fuel side better [no matter how] it is counterproductive to make fire smaller - which reducing gap does -  Upgrade ignition to at least keep up with mods to fuel side. Factory recommends 1.1 / 1.2 for just about all models, don't go below that. Just put set in R32 GTSt @110000klm   NGKs  PFR6A-11, same as those that came out, which still appear perfect,inc gaps. The 11 on the end of the number on NGKs indicates 1.1 - 12 would be 1.2, 9 would be 0.9, etc.

Man, with logic like that, we'd all have to agree with you!!

But, practicality often rules out there.

After slightly raising boost (whatever way you choose to do it).......

You could go Splitfires $700-$900 (to allow larger gapping of plugs and consistent arc travel.)

Or...10mm socket tool and 30 mins of your time to decrease plug gap so arc doesn't 'blow-out' (like a candle in the wind).

Let me see,,.....when I get more money...I'll go the splits....'til then, I'll re-gap!!

Bet you'll find it hard in a daily driver to tell the difference!!

Anyways.......

Superspit Mark. :D

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...