Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 103.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • GTS-t VSPEC

    20904

  • Nizmo

    13582

  • SHUTO-BOY

    6636

  • skyzerr33

    5353

Originally posted by Micko

How does it work then - i was told to gap them to 0.7 which quite small.

Does this mean i will get a hotter, more intense spark?

What is the normal school of thought when you increase boost?

Gap to .7 or .8 mm cos most of the modern plugs gap to 1.1mm hence the 11 on the end of the plug number.

The large gap is what gives a bigger stronger spark because it makes the coil build up a larger voltage to fire the spark across the gap.

The trouble is with turbo engines running larger than stock boost will blow the spark out while it jumps the gap ( simplistic terminology ) hence the need for a smaller gap , which then gives a weaker spark and is the reason why splitfire or cdi type ignitors are reqd on BIG boost engines.

Got it ?

Cheers

Ken

Originally posted by Micko

I think he was annoyed with how you addressed his indescretions...a little more tact would have been appropriate

Nah stuff it, just walk over and deck him. Hehehe

Tell us first so we can set up seats and get the beer and chips out.:P

Cheers

Ken

Originally posted by gtrken

Gap to .7 or .8 mm cos most of the modern plugs gap to 1.1mm hence the 11 on the end of the plug number.

The large gap is what gives a bigger stronger spark because it makes the coil build up a larger voltage to fire the spark across the gap.

The trouble is with turbo engines running larger than stock boost will blow the spark out while it jumps the gap ( simplistic terminology ) hence the need for a smaller gap , which then gives a weaker spark and is the reason why splitfire or cdi type ignitors are reqd on BIG boost engines.

Got it ?

Cheers

Ken

Cylinder heat causes injector fuel to ignite before the spark flashes over :P

Originally posted by Micko

Thanks Ken - I had heard about the spark being 'blown' out.

Good work macka - blamed the wrong bloke...you are a tool (7/16 combination ring spanner if I recall):bahaha:

Maybe u should read more carefully,

I asked if he was the guy who hoons around my street picking up some girl he said yes

Im not going to change my driving habits because thats the way i drive and thats not going to change...

I accused no one

Originally posted by Micko

This plug talk is doing my head in...

So if I reduce the gap I should use a hotter plug to keep the actual spark the same?

Why do people go colder in most higher boost applications?

Colder plug means it will take heat , boost and thrashing better without melting or dropping the electrode off.

A hotter plug is used in colder conditions to aid starting or is used on a worn , oil consuming engine which would foul a colder plug.

Phucked with your head enough ??

Cheers

Ken

Originally posted by Micko

Anyway - who cares...

ZACHARY !!

I sure as shit don't sherlock.

Though if that spanker next door with the new loud exhaust on his rex goes belting down the street one more time....

Cheers

Ken

Originally posted by Micko

Right - almost done...

What this is telling me is that I should have gone to an NGK 8 (or stayed with a 7).

Micko , what plug exactly did Steve recommend.

I have checked my reference and Hendo told me to use

BCPR7ES -11 and gap them to .8mm

Cheers

Ken

PS I have and they work fine.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.



  • 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...