undrgnd

iTrader: (2)

You can't be serious! Do you really think a magazine editor has no agenda or any incentive to bias a particular product's findings? If you so easily believe what their dynos purport to show, how do you explain the other independent report on the SRT4 where the Pulstars made no more gains than a Denso iridium?

Ziggyrama

iTrader: (15)

Undrgnd, I agree. Magazines promote products because it leads to more revenue from advertising if the product does well. I am always skeptical of anybody that pushes a product and "just so happens" to gain some money from it if for any reason the product would do well. Come on now, it's like asking a car sales guy if the car he's selling is good. What do you think he'll tell you?

Not sure how to explain the perceived dyno gains reported on the roadster. There's so many things that could have been effected by changing the plugs that I'd be blindly guessing, none of which may be related to this particular plug brand. 1 car showing gains on a dyno is not proof. If 100 cars show the same results, then I may be convinced.

Undrgnd, can you give us some more info on the SRT4 trials? What happened in those tests?

Hraesvelg

iTrader: (1)

Modified Dave

You guys are right, I should have introduced myself before posting on this thread. It's perfectly reasonable for people to be skeptical about some random dude coming on a forum posting wild claims about spark plugs and claiming to be a magazine editor. It's been a while since I've joined a new forum, so I kind of got ahead of myself here. I'm used to just jumping on the forums I frequent and posting stuff without any drama. But I'm new here, so please accept my apologies and don't think I'm on here trying to impress anyone with my job title or anything like that -- my only objective is to help Modified's readers and my friends in the racing and tuner communities make educated choices when it comes to modifying their cars. I'm fortunate enough to get to test a lot of products, and I guess my enthusiasm for our results on this particular test got the better of me.

I appreciate Sasha jumping on here to lend a hand, but I don't think either of us are asking you guys to rush out and buy these plugs...we're just trying to share the rather surprising results we saw on one particular RevUp VQ on one type of dyno on one day of testing. We're not saying your results will be the same, but based on what we saw it sure seems like there's something different going on with these plugs, but to confirm this we will be testing these plugs on a bunch of different platforms and we will report back here with the results. And of course as other people test these plugs I'm sure a database of results will build and we'll all be able to see the big picture a bit more clearly. These are early times in the testing of this new products, so it's fair for you and me to remain skeptical until we see some more results backing up our first test.

As for suggesting I have something to gain by giving you a sales pitch about these plugs, you're 100% wrong about that. We have very strong separation between our editorial content and our sales staff at Modified Mag, as do most of the other mags on the market. When we choose to test a product, it's because we want to learn more about it. To be honest we chose to test these plugs because we were very skeptical about their claims and since Pulstar has bought a few ads in our mag we wanted to see for ourselves if this was legit or not, because what we don't want or need is advertisers posting false claims in our magazine and attempting to use our good reputation to their advantage. We'd rather lose advertisers who make crap products and instead focus our energy on building relationships with companies that make the good stuff. This is better for us as a magazine and better for our readers. If we promote crap products, we lose readers, which loses us our good advertisers, and in the end we have nothing left. So believe me, I have NOTHING to gain from reporting falsely positive results and EVERYTHING to lose by doing so.

Anyway, as I pointed out earlier, this is just one test on one car on one dyno on one day. It shows that these plugs are a potentially promising new technology, but it by no means proves that they'll make 10whp on all cars and in all engines, as the SRT4 test shows. If you check out Pulstar's own test data, results vary from gains in the 1-2% range for some engines and as high as 11-12% for others. The combustion process is a complicated one and the reason why these plugs make good power on some engines and not others will have a lot to do with how optimized that particular engine is for the ignition system and plugs they come equipped with from the factory. It would certainly appear that on the VQ the engine has some power potential to be extracted from improved spark delivery, but it remains to be seen if this holds true on a large sample size of VQ's. Time will tell.

Some people like to try new products and to be "early adopters" to new technologies, but when you're an early adopter you do tend to end up with a closet full of products that didn't quite live up to expectation. I've ordered a whole wack load of Pulstar plugs so I can test them out on a ton of different platforms. It remains to be seen if these stay in our engines or end up in the closet, but either way I do plan to contribute to learning process about these and other new products for our cars.

Enjoy and hope a few of you will pick up the April issue of Modified where our Pulstar test results will appear in print. That's the only sales pitch you'll ever get from me

Hraesvelg

iTrader: (1)

Thank you Dave.

Dave 90TT

iTrader: (4)

Two questions/comments:

I wonder how they perform if used in conjunction with another ignition enhancing device (HKS DLI II, for example)

For those of us F/I'ed, do they make a one step colder plug?

Modified Dave

Good questions, Dave 90TT. To be honest I think the Pulstar plugs are acting in a very similar way to the HKS DLI II, but rather than being wired in thru a single box they're built into each plug separately. This may give more consistent results since each plug is acting as its own spark "amplifier", whereas the HKS unit is doing so for all the plugs, so there could be some degradation of signal and resultant spark with this approach. This is purely a theory of mine though, so take it for what it's worth.

I also like Sasha's theory on ignition timing and how with the Pulstars perhaps a stronger spark is happening earlier in the combustion process, though there may be some relation to signal/spark strength from the coil-on-plug setup our VQ's have as well. I'm curious to see how these plugs work on a distributor setup like on the Honda B-series motors for example, and see if the gains are still there. I'll definitely be doing a lot more research on these things to try to make sense of the gains we saw, especially if we continue to see solid gains on other engines over time.

According to Pulstar the plugs we tested in Sasha's Roadster are a 7 on the temp scale, so should be good for stock to aggressive NA setups, but for a turbo setup going colder is obviously the way to go and from what I'm told they are being offered in at least 1 step colder than stock initially and as time passes perhaps they'll add more temp options, assuming results and sales justify expanding their product line. I think this is such a new product that a lot remains to be seen, both in terms of power gains on a larger sample size of motors and in terms of product durability in extreme conditions like those found in a big boost setup or a continuous high RPM setting like in Sasha's Grand Am KONI Challenge 350Z race car. I think Sasha is going to try these in his race car, so we'll see how they stand up to 3 hours of brutal punishment on the race track pretty soon.

undrgnd

iTrader: (2)

Dave,

This is the basic problem I have with your post. To say that a particular product makes XX horsepower, but that it may not perform the same way on any other car, is the same as saying a certain mutual fund has made 25%/yr over the past 10 years, but that is no guarantee of future performance. On the surface, it appears that you're providing an objective, impartial review. However, none of us know you personally to be able to vouch for your agenda. We live in the digital age, and hoaxes, cons, and come-ons are everywhere. So please, don't take our hesitation and suspicions personally. If and when we see collaborating results, I will be the first to say you told us so first.

In addition, just because we waste our time on this board, doesn't mean we're all goobers, a lot of us are professionals, scientists, and engineers. As such, we question everything that has not been proven, and defend older principles which passed the test of science and time. And an ignition system, much less a spark plug, that adds that kind of power to a modern engine, does not make sense. Compound that with these results we saw HERE, and maybe you can understand where we're coming from.

So, welcome to my350z.com, and hopefully we'll get some independent results on these plugs soon.

Modified Dave

I hear you, undrgnd, and please understand that at no time did I intimate that anyone on this forum is a "goober". I know from experience that there's plenty of smart people researching their cars on forums like this, though sadly the most vocal posters aren't always the most constructive or well-informed. For example, there's been some Pulstar bashing in this thread that is not based on any real testing or any real knowledge of the product, and that's unfortunate because it doesn't contribute anything to this forum or the general VQ knowledge base.

Keep in mind, that with a mutual fund that has a long history, there's reason to expect a certain return on investment over the long-term, but the mutual fund company is always going to cover it's *** with "no guarantee" clauses because investing is an inherently risky prospect, as I'm sure you've seen if you follow the stock market lately.

On the other hand, my cautionary remark about "not guaranteeing you'll see the same result" has everything to do with the statistics of probability and sample size requirements before any kind of scientific conclusions can be draw, a concept I'm sure many members here are familiar with. As a scientist (I have a M.Sc. and a incomplete Ph.D) and an editor it's my responsibility to point out that a sample size of 1 isn't sufficient to conclude anything about these plugs. That's why I say our single test result doesn't guarantee you'll see the same results. That's why I'm saying don't go rushing out to buy these plugs just yet, unless you want to be an early adopter and help us build a statistically relevant sample size so that we can draw some meaningful conclusions about the performance benefits of these plugs.

Thank you for the warm welcome.

undrgnd

iTrader: (2)

I'm getting to warm up to this guy. I also have to say that the response I received from someone at Pulstar was as complete and professional a response, not to mention timely, as any I have ever seen.

jonnylaw

iTrader: (3)

dave,

Interesting results and offered explanations. Might I suggest dynoing additional brands of spark plugs (ngk iridiums, denso iridiums, ect.) along with the pulstars for more effective testing (like the srt4 test).

Also, what happened to the modified issue with all reader's rides that was mentioned to be coming out a few months ago? Did that get scrapped? I submitted pics and specs of my g a few times.

Modified Dave

Hey jonny, our Readers Ride issue should be on newsstands early next week, and subscribers should be getting their copy this week. Not sure if your car made it into the issue, but thanks for submitting your car! Love the sig, btw

Regarding our test, adding in some other plugs is a great idea. We did test against the stock NGK's used for the baseline, but testing the Pulstars against some other "high performance" plugs like iridiums could be a good way to look at the big picture. We'll definitely take a close look at doing something like this for our next round of testing.

And hey, if any of you guys have cars you think are feature material or have ideas for products we should be looking to test, feel free to shoot me an e-mail at dpratte@modified.com

Ziggyrama

iTrader: (15)

Dave, thanks for taking the time to introduce yourself and provide an explanation on what you'll be doing with these plugs. I am also a scientist/engineer and I can appreciate thorough testing and scientific approach to modding. I spoke up and criticized the plugs because my initial thoughts on the matter led me to conclusion that initial claims of X horsepower were really exaggerated. Did I have all the facts? No. Those were just my initial thoughts. I am very curious to see what additional tests will produce as results. I'll keep checking this thread and hopefully you'll post more results as they become available. Thanks for coming on here and introducing yourself.

Modified Dave

Thanks Ziggy, I appreciate it. I've been doing a lot of e-mailing with Nathan from Pulstar (who used to be at TurboXS), and he's helped me understand a lot more about these plugs and how they achieve the gains we saw at the dyno. When I asked him if the Pulstars have the effect of advancing ignition timing by virtue of creating a much earlier and stronger spark, here's his response:

David,
You bring up an interesting point. The Pulstar is making power through 3 different methods.

1. By burning more hydrocarbons inside the cylinder chamber. For instance I have an engine dyno graph from a 351 Windsor race motor. This dyno graph shows BSFC and shows how much more efficient from a fuel to HP ratio that the motor is when the Pulstars are installed. The result of burning more of the hydrocarbons before they pass out the exhaust valve (and ultimately out of the tail pipe) is increased cylinder pressure.

2. The second method that Pulstar increases the motor’s power output is by burning these hydrocarbons faster than they would otherwise burn (see the SWRI test data and video on our website). This changes the cylinder pressure curve of the motor relative to crank angle by putting more of the pressure closer to TDC and less of the pressure after the piston has fallen a long way away from TDC. In explanation this sounds like advanced ignition timing, and in practice it should be treated as such.

3. Pulstar also decreases the typical cycle to cycle variance that is common in internal combustion engines. Every engine experiences misfires (even modern ones) on a pretty regular basis. While they are not typically a full out misfire where combustion fails to take place in the cylinder, there are a high number of cycles that experience a weak initial flame front and the resulting loss of combustible material out the tailpipe. Our work with the Mechanical Engineering Department of King’s College in London found that we can reduce this cycle to cycle variance by as much as 50%.


Anytime you make a real difference in cylinder pressure you typically have to remap the ignition timing curve. The first two factors typically require the reduction of ignition timing as you start to push a motor to its octane imposed limits. The last one essentially makes the whole process more consistent so that you can creep up on those octane imposed limits a bit closer than would otherwise be required.

The other side of the coin is that Pulstar burns so much of the available combustible material so quickly that it doesn’t leave a whole lot left for detonation to consume, so you may find that even with the increased cylinder pressures you can get away with your standard ignition timing maps.

You may know, or remember, that I worked for TurboXS for about 5 years. I was involved in their 350z related projects, and if I were tuning a UTEC with a set of Pulstars installed, I’d drop 3 degrees from the basemap before adding it back in a degree at a time with caution. The rule of thumb here is that you want to proceed with caution anytime you are tuning a motor that has radically different combustion characteristics than you’re used to tuning. If we’d had this discussion 2 weeks ago, you’d never have believed that a “spark plug” could make such a difference, but your experience on the dyno shows you just how much we change things on the inside of the motor when you run our plugs.

I’ll go over the list of vehicles that you gave me and put together a care package of plugs for your testing.

-Nathan

SniperHunter

iTrader: (9)

Dave: I had my timing advanced to 17 degrees with a Consult II tool. If I were to install these plugs, should I still time it back to 15, even though I'm N/A?

Modified Dave

Arnold, that'll depend on a lot of factors, so it's tough for me to give you an meaningful answer. Things like the octane you're using, what sort of mods you've done, and even what elevation you live at and how hard you drive the car would affect how much ignition timing I'd setup on your car if I was your tuner.

Given that you access to an ignition management system, I would likely put the car on a dyno for an hour with a wideband 02 sensor (normally available at the dyno shop, as a tailpipe sniffer setup) and follow Nathan's advice of dialing back 3 degrees and then adding the timing back in 1 degree at a time to see where the sweet spot is, both in terms of power and a/f ratio. If you don't have the time or energy for that kind of process, I'd probably set the timing back to stock, given that we saw such solid gains on Sasha's 350Z with the Pulstars on stock timing. But I'll try playing around with timing on my G and on Sasha's Z to see if we can get you some more info on timing as it relates to these new plugs.

go-fast

so according to nathan's description these plugs behave the same as one range hotter.seems we have come full circle to the original assesment.the only reason the windsor motor was replaced by ford was they could not keep up with emission requirements,so if you install a hotter plug you will certainly see an improvement in fuel consumption and power,it's a no brainer dirty heads/hot plug=improvement.if you have to chop timing to be "safe" the heat range is not stock and these plugs are a gimmick.show me a top fuel team using anything but copper and i will reconsider,until then.... gimmick

Ziggyrama

iTrader: (15)

Nathan,
thanks for all that info. I thought about the explanation you have provided. Although the reasons you said will certainly have a good chance of producing more power, the problem I see with the 3 points you mentioned is the likelihood of these conditions occurring in a street engine. I am going to limit this to street engines since majority of people on this forum run on them. It seems more relevant to this discussion. Here's what I came up with after soaking in the points mentioned:

1. Burning more hydrocarbons is good per cycle. It means you are running more energetically efficient. But how can you burn more hydrocarbons? The most likely answer is by having more time in the cycle to burn it. Great, that seems to fall in like with what you're saying. But wait a minute, on pump gas, you cannot advance timing infinitely. Why? Octane will always be your limiting factor and you will never exceed max efficiency point on pump gas by advancing it too far. Detonation is your threshold. So if you burn sooner, you'll reach the point of detonation sooner which will always be dependent on temps, pressure and how much your gas can take. So you burned more hydrocarbons earlier, so you produced more pressure and temp in the cylinder sooner thus shifting your detonation threshold further away from TDC. That won't make more power. In the case of your race motor, what fuel were you using during that test? If it was alcohol or some form of it, you made more power because you advanced timing which your fuel allowed you to do anyways. Since most of us don't drive on alcohol or other high octane fuel, I remain skeptical. And if I need EM to run these plugs, that makes me question the necessity of purchasing such an expensive product. I can just advance the timing without them thus extracting the same power since my fuel is always the determining factor here. You won't make power on top of what you already are making if you're tuned to the limit of your octane.

2. Basically the same idea. Shifting pressure and temp closer to TDC may or may not induce early detonation. Again, IMHO, results will be GREATLY dependent on the fuel being used. If you're in California, I doubt you'll see any gains with this plug.

3. This makes sense. This will vary from engine to engine. Depending on the frequency of 'normal' misfires, there could be something gained from this.

Overall, it doesn't seem like a bad product. I also think there are some carefully worded things in the descriptions that most people take at face value and don't look deeper to understand if the claims actually make sense. Not all the things explained do make sense to me. I always question results that were done on built, race motors (the sited 351 motor) because the street applications vary greatly and what works on the race track will not on the street.

The VQ motor test is certainly an interesting one. What gas was used during the test? Did it include E10? Going along the notion that plugs can make a significant difference, what spark plugs were used in the baseline runs? I'd be curious to base dyno the same engine using quality, properly gapped coppers to compare. Copper is the best plug for performance and given the fact that the VQ engine does not come with them stock makes me wonder.
Finally, going with the provided explanations and considering that most people don't bother to even look at their EGTs while tuning (makes me wonder), I'd be curious to see if there is a noticeable difference when running these plugs. High EGTs feel great until you crack a valve.

Modified Dave

In our test the fuel was 91 octane from Cali (car was recently purchased from Cali and shipped up here, so it's still running on the gas it came with). Plugs were the original OE NGK's

Ziggy, I agree with you that there's a problem if the expectation is that the ignition timing needs to be adjusted when you use these plugs. In fact, many of the points you've raised here I've asked Nathan about, so I'll let you know how he responds.

Ziggyrama

iTrader: (15)

Awesome. I know you're just a messenger and I am trying not to shoot you Just kidding. If you get some answers, please forward them back to us. I love this stuff and if there is something new to learn here, I want that opportunity. Thanks for taking the time to give us all of this info.