HKS ignition
05-04-2007, 05:18 PM
#21
Originally Posted by sentry65
the way I understood it, you might gain some slight power because the flame is bigger and more intense so you absolutely burn all the air/gas mix while it's in piston chamber instead of 90-95% or whatever of it, then the rest burning as it's exiting through the headers and finally burned for sure by the cats - if cats are installed
so I'd think for cars with test pipes and FI, the HKS will reduce the chances of shooting flames out the back of the exhaust since it'll burn more in the cylinder chamber
a bigger and more efficient explosion in the cylinder chamber means more power is being made to turn the crankshaft
so I'd think for cars with test pipes and FI, the HKS will reduce the chances of shooting flames out the back of the exhaust since it'll burn more in the cylinder chamber
a bigger and more efficient explosion in the cylinder chamber means more power is being made to turn the crankshaft
The amount of uncombusted material in your combustion chamber will depend on things like the efficiency of the combustion chamber, air/fuel ratio, and so on.
If a bigger spark causes more efficient combustion to occur then I'd be very surprised.
05-04-2007, 05:31 PM
#22
well, I don't know what to say. Don't buy it.
Alberto, me, and other members have noticed a difference in smoother idle, stronger start up, and the car somehow feels more OEM in how smooth it runs with the HKS. I'd buy it again.
there's less chance of spark blowout and it's a stronger spark. Air, gas and spark = power. So if you add more air and more gas, why not more spark?
otherwise you'd have to wonder why the extreme hp cars run crazy strong ignitions and not the same ignition off of a geo metro and save some cost and weight
Alberto, me, and other members have noticed a difference in smoother idle, stronger start up, and the car somehow feels more OEM in how smooth it runs with the HKS. I'd buy it again.
there's less chance of spark blowout and it's a stronger spark. Air, gas and spark = power. So if you add more air and more gas, why not more spark?
otherwise you'd have to wonder why the extreme hp cars run crazy strong ignitions and not the same ignition off of a geo metro and save some cost and weight
Last edited by sentry65; 05-04-2007 at 05:37 PM.
05-04-2007, 07:54 PM
#24
the grounding kit is a completely different thing
the HKS plugs directly into the ignition coils
the grounding kit is just a bunch of copper wires you attach from the chasis to the engine
I wouldn't say the HKS is a big deal item, but it is noticeable. They say you get better gas mileage since the gas burns more efficiently inside the engine, but I don't think it was a big deal on my car. I mean, it probably made some difference - like a 1% difference in MPG or whatever. Nothing I've actually noticed though. The engine does seem to run in a more confident way though.
Even nissan's new HR engine supposivly has bigger coil packs because it revs higher. That might be a possible other option if those coil packs fit in the older VQ's.
the HKS plugs directly into the ignition coils
the grounding kit is just a bunch of copper wires you attach from the chasis to the engine
I wouldn't say the HKS is a big deal item, but it is noticeable. They say you get better gas mileage since the gas burns more efficiently inside the engine, but I don't think it was a big deal on my car. I mean, it probably made some difference - like a 1% difference in MPG or whatever. Nothing I've actually noticed though. The engine does seem to run in a more confident way though.
Even nissan's new HR engine supposivly has bigger coil packs because it revs higher. That might be a possible other option if those coil packs fit in the older VQ's.
Last edited by sentry65; 05-04-2007 at 07:59 PM.
05-05-2007, 06:22 AM
#25
I'm with Wired on this one...
I cannot comprehend how these can make a difference for anything but FI at high loads/flow rate. Or with methanol or nitromethane based systems or any other system that utilizes very high flow rates. Of course, I could be wrong on this but the way I see it is ignition is either achieved or it isn't.
Changing the intensity of the spark won't change the intensity or efficency of the combustion reaction that follows. You could increase spark energy by a factor of 10 or even 100, but the F/A mix will still deflagrate at the same velocity and efficency.
The only way I can see it possibly making a difference is if the spark was so close to the low side of the ignition threshold that it was almost at the point of not achieving ignition (resulting in occasional misfire) or if it was so weak that it created a slight variability in the onset of ignition (resulting in a slight variability of "effective" timing).
But for either of these hypothetical situations to happen it would require the stock system to be marginal in design. And I know the engineers at Nissan wouldn't do that. They can easily design in a 10X margin factor like a piece of cake. Spark systems aren't hard to overdesign at all once you know the method. It won't tangibly change the cost either.
Nissan would also be very careful to avoid misfires or variability in the ignition time because it would quickly affect emissions. And you know the engineers have to be paranoid of anything that could possibly increase emissions.
So I just don't think they would cut corners on something so simple and leave it right at the ignition margin.
Its not a plausible scenario.
I cannot comprehend how these can make a difference for anything but FI at high loads/flow rate. Or with methanol or nitromethane based systems or any other system that utilizes very high flow rates. Of course, I could be wrong on this but the way I see it is ignition is either achieved or it isn't.
Changing the intensity of the spark won't change the intensity or efficency of the combustion reaction that follows. You could increase spark energy by a factor of 10 or even 100, but the F/A mix will still deflagrate at the same velocity and efficency.
The only way I can see it possibly making a difference is if the spark was so close to the low side of the ignition threshold that it was almost at the point of not achieving ignition (resulting in occasional misfire) or if it was so weak that it created a slight variability in the onset of ignition (resulting in a slight variability of "effective" timing).
But for either of these hypothetical situations to happen it would require the stock system to be marginal in design. And I know the engineers at Nissan wouldn't do that. They can easily design in a 10X margin factor like a piece of cake. Spark systems aren't hard to overdesign at all once you know the method. It won't tangibly change the cost either.
Nissan would also be very careful to avoid misfires or variability in the ignition time because it would quickly affect emissions. And you know the engineers have to be paranoid of anything that could possibly increase emissions.
So I just don't think they would cut corners on something so simple and leave it right at the ignition margin.
Its not a plausible scenario.
Last edited by Hydrazine; 05-05-2007 at 08:16 AM.
05-05-2007, 12:02 PM
#26
Definately two sides of this fence, and personally...we are kinda in the middle. On high boost cars, where the chances of spark blow out, or an otherwise less than ideal ignition event is more likely....ignition amplifers can work very well. But on an NA car, or moderate boosted engine, the factory ignition system should be sufficient.
The challenge with before and after dyno testing, when trying to discern a 3-5whp gain, is the margin of error between runs. We all know, that engines will produce slightly different power from run to run...on the same dyno. It's like trying to determine if an engine oil adds power....its almost too close to call.
It would make for interesting before and after dyno...however, to see if the curve is "smoother" than OEM.
The challenge with before and after dyno testing, when trying to discern a 3-5whp gain, is the margin of error between runs. We all know, that engines will produce slightly different power from run to run...on the same dyno. It's like trying to determine if an engine oil adds power....its almost too close to call.
It would make for interesting before and after dyno...however, to see if the curve is "smoother" than OEM.
05-05-2007, 12:04 PM
#27
Not scientific by any means but--->my experience
I trapped 114mph with a high of 115 in 45 degree weather with the TN kit
In 95 degree heat with no changes to the tune and the DLI I did 115mph all day long and hit a few 116mph traps. It confirmed for me what I had felt which was better top end pull. Believe what you want....
I trapped 114mph with a high of 115 in 45 degree weather with the TN kit
In 95 degree heat with no changes to the tune and the DLI I did 115mph all day long and hit a few 116mph traps. It confirmed for me what I had felt which was better top end pull. Believe what you want....
05-05-2007, 06:58 PM
#29
I've scoured the Internet for hours looking for some data to support its use (actually had it in my upcoming build sales order). In the end I could not find one fragment of data to support it's cost. So it's been nixed.
My theory is that for plugs that are slowly fouling (which will happen more quickly with colder heat range plugs), the ignition amp may prevent misfires. However, if the spark plugs are kept in good shape, I wouldn't think it would be much of an issue. I would be interested to know if you could tune more aggressively with 2 step colder plugs compensated for by using an ignition amp to help prevent misfires due to fouling (if it can actually do that).
Who knows???
My theory is that for plugs that are slowly fouling (which will happen more quickly with colder heat range plugs), the ignition amp may prevent misfires. However, if the spark plugs are kept in good shape, I wouldn't think it would be much of an issue. I would be interested to know if you could tune more aggressively with 2 step colder plugs compensated for by using an ignition amp to help prevent misfires due to fouling (if it can actually do that).
Who knows???
05-07-2007, 10:58 AM
#33
Originally Posted by Alberto
Not scientific by any means but--->my experience
I trapped 114mph with a high of 115 in 45 degree weather with the TN kit
In 95 degree heat with no changes to the tune and the DLI I did 115mph all day long and hit a few 116mph traps. It confirmed for me what I had felt which was better top end pull. Believe what you want....
I trapped 114mph with a high of 115 in 45 degree weather with the TN kit
In 95 degree heat with no changes to the tune and the DLI I did 115mph all day long and hit a few 116mph traps. It confirmed for me what I had felt which was better top end pull. Believe what you want....
I don't doubt your experience, but that is a little too close to call IMO. Your experience could go either way if you ask me.
You could've been shifting slightly better, had a more optimal psi in your tires, less heat soak in your engine bay, or something else to explain the improved performance.
05-07-2007, 03:32 PM
#36
Originally Posted by Wired 24/7
I don't doubt your experience, but that is a little too close to call IMO. Your experience could go either way if you ask me.
You could've been shifting slightly better, had a more optimal psi in your tires, less heat soak in your engine bay, or something else to explain the improved performance.
You could've been shifting slightly better, had a more optimal psi in your tires, less heat soak in your engine bay, or something else to explain the improved performance.
05-07-2007, 03:43 PM
#37
Originally Posted by Alberto
I always shift slow you know that. The weather was against me and I still trapped 1 and 2mph higher ALL day long. Pushing a car like I do, that is a noticable improvement. The track day only confirmed what I had felt immediately. Too bad I never got to retune with a larger plug gap
I trust your opinion, and I'd love to try the HKS unit for myself, but for the price I cannot forsee doing that. Because even if you say so, the theory still doesn't work out for me in my mind, at least not enough for me to go out and buy the unit. But your endorsement seriously means a lot IMO with a product like this.
05-07-2007, 03:54 PM
#38
Originally Posted by Wired 24/7
I trust your opinion, and I'd love to try the HKS unit for myself, but for the price I cannot forsee doing that. Because even if you say so, the theory still doesn't work out for me in my mind, at least not enough for me to go out and buy the unit. But your endorsement seriously means a lot IMO with a product like this.
05-07-2007, 03:56 PM
#39
Originally Posted by Alberto
Thanks. I would not recommend this to anybody but FI guys. If I remember to do so, maybe next time I have the chance I'll take a few minutes and disconnect the unit and see if it dyno's lower.
That makes sense too. Again, thanks for your input and if you could see the difference on the dyno, that would be great as well.
05-07-2007, 04:33 PM
#40
Registered User
iTrader: (14)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Posts: 1,453
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wired 24/7
I don't see how bigger spark = more combustion. The spark just starts the combustion, after it begins, it's a chain reaction which keeps going automatically.
The amount of uncombusted material in your combustion chamber will depend on things like the efficiency of the combustion chamber, air/fuel ratio, and so on.
If a bigger spark causes more efficient combustion to occur then I'd be very surprised.
The amount of uncombusted material in your combustion chamber will depend on things like the efficiency of the combustion chamber, air/fuel ratio, and so on.
If a bigger spark causes more efficient combustion to occur then I'd be very surprised.
that said, i had mine installed today for a different reason... i'm continually getting the P0300 (random cylinder misfire) and i figured i'd try 2 step colder plugs and the HKS DLI II... SES light has yet to come back on...but, only time will tell... i'll keep you guys updated...
Last edited by stormcrow; 05-07-2007 at 05:10 PM.