CSF

iTrader: (1)

well I don't think oe's would be all over it. I think they choose platinums since they last a really long time and they can make their claims of no tune ups for 100K miles.

SliderG35

OK, I agree with most of this except the better burning part. I have had a little wiring issue where my #2 signal wire to the coil had an intermittent connection problem. I could tell immediately when this was happening because the A/F on that side would go way down when #2 was not firing. This means to me that, if there is no spark, the exhaust is going to contain more fuel (because it's not getting burned). I think you would agree so far...

So, wouldn't a spark plug that does not completely burn the fuel cause your A/F to go rich because there is more fuel in the exhaust than with a properly functioning plug? If we take that a little further to a plug that works better than the one you originally tuned with, it would have to produce a higher A/F. Now, if you don't agree with this at this point - tell me what would a better plug actually do (if not produce a more efficient fuel burn)?

Shadrackc

Ok, I have some questions.
First, why would funny cars, etc not use these? Well maybe when you get up to the 1000HP+ levels they won't really do anything as the fuel they use is getting such a complete burn anyways.
Secondly, for such a critical group of people, is there any of you who are engineers at all, or work with fuel systems, like anyone of you have some job that would make your claims of BULL$%^$ be more valid than the claims of people who are engineers, or car guys that want to find fault with these plugs?
You all seem to have your theories of why it is crap, but why are those any more valid than Popular Science? Than car magazines? Than independant testing on the internet? Is this all because of advertising and everyone is crooked? Come on. Let's hope the people in the magazines are somewhat professional, because I can guarantee you that I have seen slams on product that were advertised in the magazines.
Would a cleaner burn not increase HP? If all the fuel is being burned faster and more completely would that not make a difference? Isn't it similar to tests done years ago where they showed that a spark plug igniting in the center of a cylinder gave a more consistant burn of all the fuel than one at the end of the cylinder. Again, I don't know, I'm asking so don't jump all over me. My degrees are in computer science, not automotive engineering or internal combustion.

Ziggyrama

iTrader: (15)

Actually, now that you asked, I am an engineer with a computer science degree, like you I did have a benefit of tuning cars in the past, I have IDA pro for ROM disassembly and I have even seen some OEM asembly code that goes on certain ECUs. I have a pretty good idea when it comes to engine operation and where gains can be had if correct modifications are done. When I started to tune years ago, I took the time to understand how cars work and the basic principals of physics that dictate how they will operate. As I went along, I looked at what knowledgeable people have done, what they learned and I tried to wrap my brain around that. Key component in this equation is to understand yourself what is happening and not just nodding your head and assuming things you're told are correct unless they make basic, scientific sense.

I look at these plugs and they do not hold up to my criteria of judgment. Most of the time people look at a small portion of the system, apply a basic rule to it and conclude that certain things should improve efficiency/power/economy/etc. The problem is that the system is more complicated and there's lots of variables that will dictate the outcome. Just because you change one which should make an effect, it doesn't mean that it will because other restrictions will negate the benefit. For example:

these plugs claim they can produce "better" spark. What is "better" spark? Can you quantify that for me? Does it mean it has a lower latency which will effectively ignite the mix sooner? Maybe. Is that a good thing? It depends on other things. So, let's go with that for a sec. So we advance the timing, which should make more power, right? Well, it depends. Most street cars' timing is limited to octane of fuel used, not how much the computer decided to go with today. Depending on how much room you have to move on your octane scale, you may or may not see more power. So, if you're close and actually advance more, you'll see detonation which will actually take power away. So, do you say these plugs take power away? They do on your car, given the conditions. Other factors in combination with that plug yielded negative results. You have to look at the entire system and make an educated decision. In the case of that dyno plot, there isn't enough info to conclude it's solid and everything I know about engines tells me these claims do not hold up. What would you conclude?

BTW, lots of products on the market today had engineers work on them and claim they can do lots of wonderful things for me. I know all about product marketing and development. It's all about money and making max profit, not the quality of the product. Fortunately for us, they often go in hand which leads lots of people to associate them together so closely.

jonnylaw

iTrader: (3)

Spark plugs do not cause a car to run lean!!!! For fawks sake please.

Nuthug pulstars all u want, but don't spread false information.

Shadrackc

Right on. You are the type of person whose opinions I respect. I often look at things in a logical fashion as in most cases, that will provide the solution. I run the sales and marketing for a company that does IT support, managed services, etc, and am one of the few people in sales with degrees.
Obviously there are things that do produce HP, such as fine tuning the ECU. People are stating that NIssan can be bettered by a third party, hence ECU's getting tuned and reflashed.
I don't think from what I have seen of these plugs that it is the latency of the spark, more the completeness and volume of the plume on the spark. There are pictures posted that show 1/65000 of a second shots showing the difference. Marketing? Sure, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is wrong.
My question is that most magazines such as Popular Science try to dispel these type of claims. If they can't, then what needs to be done by someone to show that there is an actual increase.
You would think that dyno'ing a car a few times, same cool down periods, change the plugs, dyno it again would do the trick. If there is a 10HP increase on all tests after the plugs change, then is it not logical to assume that the plugs had something to do with it?

Ziggyrama

iTrader: (15)

You're on the right track but you're forgetting one part. In your case, you had constant amount of air in the chamber along with more fuel that wasn't getting burnt. That produced relative rich reading because you had more fuel than you should have in your exhaust because it wasn't burnt.

Now, take the case where fuel is burnt less/more efficiently. What does burning fuel require? Oxygen. So, you burn more more in the cycle BUT you're also consuming proportionate amount of oxygen with it. So, burn more fuel, use more oxygen. More or less, the ratio should be the same. So, if this plug were to burn more efficiently, it would consume more oxygen with that extra fuel which would still not change the AFR. Hope you see the difference.

Ziggyrama

iTrader: (15)

I think that conclusion could be made if all those parameters were sufficiently controlled. I think the key part is knowing all the things you need to control that have a profound effect on the outcome. Personally, the jury is still out on these plugs for me. Maybe they are that good. They certainly have lots of sound claims. I think we're lacking a good experiment to put the claims to the test. I would like to see a good test that specifies all the controlled variables, how the test was conducted and what the results were. That is valuable to me. Telling me: hey, I went down to a shop, I did a few pulls with new plugs and gained 10hp. That means nothing to me because I can think of 100 ways to poke holes in that claim. I think we all have been conditioned to some degree when it comes to claims of products and what people say they can do. for us. I think we all need to take a deep breath and try to separate the BS from actual, solid claims.

BTW, maybe I am tainted. I write code for QA so my job is to scrutinize and break other people's stuff to make sure it holds up to standards. If there's one thing I know how to do, it's pointing out flaws. I do that every day. Luckily for me, I have no QA dept of my own to tell me my code sucks

G35Luv

iTrader: (1)

When will Mythbusters do a segment on these SparkPlugs? =)

Shadrackc

So Ziggyrama, take a look at the tri phase unit from http://www.nextlevelracing.com who seem very technical and make sense. If you write code you would be a good person to look into their claims as I don't want to go FI but wouldn't mind a little more HP to the wheels. I can supply you the email address of the guy I was asking questions of. Interested in your opinion. I started another thread on here if you search.
Would hate to hijack this one and get jumped on by the 350Z forum police. LOL.

Shadrackc

Here is some more info that I found.

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Nov. 15 /PRNewswire/ -- Enerpulse, Inc. has developed Pulstar(TM) pulse plugs as a new drop-in replacement for all spark plugs, including so-called high performance spark plugs. Pulstar is designed to more efficiently ignite the fuel in an engine's cylinders increasing fuel economy, horsepower and torque. Pulstar pulse plugs look and fit like spark plugs, but incorporate an internal capacitor to deliver a spark 20,000 times more powerful than a spark plug with less cycle-to-cycle variation.

To view the Multimedia News Release, go to:

http://www.prnewswire.com/mnr/lmcomm/30693/

The visibly larger, more powerful spark ignites more of the fuel presented to the cylinder in a shorter period of time. This causes the combustion gases to expand more rapidly and push the cylinder down with more force. That turns the wheels with greater torque allowing your engine to get more work done with less gasoline or simply, more miles per gallon.

The umbrella technology under which capacitors is a subset, and how Pulstar got its name, is called pulsed power. Pulsed power is the term used to describe the science and technology of accumulating energy over a relatively long period of time (millionths of a second) and releasing it very quickly (billionths of a second) generating immense instantaneous power. Sandia National Laboratories is the world-wide epicenter of pulsed power development which explains why Albuquerque, not normally associated with automotive developments, has produced one of the most exciting automotive breakthroughs in decades.

Pulse plugs are safe for use in all vehicles. Even though their peak power is exponentially higher than so-called high performance spark plugs, the spark duration is so brief that no harm can come to engine components. Pulse plugs also improve combustion efficiency in all spark-ignited internal combustion engines, yielding better overall engine performance, with fuel consumption and associated green house gases reduced by as much as 10%.

Pulstar was also developed with retailers in mind. Typical retailers carry over 500 models of spark plugs. Pulstar requires only 5 model numbers with which to service 75% of all vehicles worldwide.

Pulstar holds eight U.S. and foreign patents. Internal tests conducted by Enerpulse using an actual driving cycle demonstrated a nearly 9 percent improvement in fuel efficiency. Results from the industry-recognized dynamometer test to determine torque and horsepower output showed a 4-10 percent improvement in torque and a 3-12 percent improvement in horsepower output over spark plugs.

Actual driving tests conducted under the Enerpulse Performance Evaluation Procedure demonstrate fuel economy benefits between 2.2 and 10.5%, depending mostly on engine displacement. Large bore SUV and light duty truck engines (V8s) respond more dramatically to Pulstar than small bore engines, which benefit from a significant improvement in torque.

Enerpulse, Inc. is a privately held company headquartered in Albuquerque, N.M. and develops environmentally friendly ignition products through the application of pulsed power technology.

SliderG35

I'm thinking there is a flaw in this... You can't possibly be saying that it doesn't matter how much of the fuel is ignited, you're going to get the same power either way or that the A/F will stay the same if your spark only ignites half the available fuel. Logic would dictate that the most power will be achieved when absolutely all the fuel is ignited as quickly as possible. Once that is achieved, a proper tune would be required to bring everything else (in the complicated chain) into line.

I think all of the negative conclusions about these new plugs (and I am not endorsing them in any way) come from people assuming that their current plugs are burning 100% of the fuel. I'm just open to the idea that maybe they're not and the Pulstar plugs are burning a little more. The mere definition of the A/F ratio is the ratio of "unburnt" fuel remaining in the exhaust gases. If more fuel is ignited, less goes out the exhaust - thus A/F goes up.

Shadrackc

Here is the link to the dyno test on the 06 350.
http://www.sailvc.com/news/Modified-...%20Grounds.pdf

What some guys on other sites are saying makes sense as well. Are we that stupid that we think that technology won't improve something as simple as the spark plug? Yes, the turbonator was crap, and proven to be that by many sites shortly after it was released. To date, nobody can disprove their claims. Some sites testing on an EVO found a 2% increase in torque and HP, one person detailed his trip in a 1999 truck that was getting 11 MPG who is not, after 2800 miles of driving on these plugs, consistantly getting 16 MPG. None of these people have anything to gain, they are just stating their results. We can theorize all we want about why it shouldn't work, but if enough facts present themselves with no tests proving otherwise, then who are we to deny the possibility?
That would be vain.
I'm going to keep an open mind because I am starting to think there may be some truth in this. If the dyno test is true, then 150 dollars for 10 HP? That isn't too bad. Price per HP is less than a super charger or turbo setup.

jonnylaw

iTrader: (3)

blah.blah.blah.hype.hype.hype.

I have yet to see an accurate and complete test of these plugs on the VQ similar to the SRT-4 test

Shadrackc

For a guy who "hates hater" you sure seem to.....well hate.
You have one test and are trying to use it to deny many others that are positive. Back in the day you would have been one of the guys denying the fact that the world was round all because you look out and the horizon is flat. This isn't a competition, this is a collection of opinion and information. But I guess all you will hear is blah blah blah.

jonnylaw

iTrader: (3)

The other tests that are "positive" are not conducted propely and have flaws that skew the results (tuning in b/w runs , not using brand new plugs, not using multiple "performance plugs", no "blindfold testing" no sahdy multiple runs between the first and final ones, etc.

I'm not hating. I already stated that I would donate $25 to help do a proper test. But I haven't seen one yet, and everything else I see is manufactuer's puffing and layman's butt dynos

omg, the world's round!, that must mean that pulstar plugs are the next thing since sliced bread!

Sorry, I'm not blindly hopping on the pulstar nut hugging bandwagon like you are.
And you're right, all I hear from you is blah.blah.blah

Shadrackc

Not on the bandwagon. Wanting to hear some facts and see if their claim is true. Just read about them yesterday.
You do know it is guys like you, and not what you say but how you say it, that causes a lot of guys on these forums to either drop out or keep their opinions to themselves because they are afraid of looking stupid for asking legitimate questions?
Sure that makes you proud of yourself. Be part of the solution, not the problem.

Here is from a mazda forum where the guys there are testing them, and believe me, seems like the mazda guys are much more cooperative and willing to help each other find out the facts.

QUOTE(UTnick @ Sep 2 2007, 04:15 PM)
hey matt -- how was SA and Austin?

last you spoke with the Pulstar group did they say there were anymore delays in production? i am trying to guess when i will be getting these plugs.

also, is it just a simple off with the IC and then on with the plugs? i have never take off the IC so a little guidance would be awesome. of course i will report my findings with the plugs.

how did you find the correct gap for the plugs? manual says .31 to .32 no? should i try those instead and tell you what happens?


Austin and SA were great! Had a good time down there. Drove nearly 1000 miles total over the long weekend. It was a good opportunity to see how these plugs behave on a long haul. They seem to work very well. I think throttle response is crisper and there is a reduction in the stutter that I used to get when leaning into the throttle in 5th or 6th gear. One thing that I'm really pleased about as well is the reduction in soot. It really appears to have cleaned up some of the unburned fuel and keep in mind, I deleted the second cat!

The manual has a range for the spark plug gap. .028" to .031" IIRC. I used .030". Getting to the plugs isn't bad at all. There are a couple spark plug threads that discuss removing the IC but it's basically involves disconnecting the hot and cold side rubber hoses, the recirc hose for the BOV, the vacuum line to the BOV and then of course the two bolts that hold the IC cover on and then the 3 bolts that hold the IC to the engine. Each plug has a coil that sits on top and his held down with one bolt. It appears to be a good supporting mod!

jonnylaw

iTrader: (3)

I am being part of the solution. I'm suggesting more legitimate and accurate tests need to be done before recommending someone spends on $150 on a pair or plugs that possibly a set of NGK iridiums could do the same thing for $36.

NOT, someone's butt dyno opinion like what you just quoted.

If you think I am being harsh, drop in on the Forced Induction forum and see some of the comments posted.

I already offered $25 to help a legitimate shop do an accuracte test on these. How is that being part of the "problem" and not the "solution"?

Ziggyrama

iTrader: (15)

Hey, that's not what I was saying. I think you misunderstood. And I think you got your AFR definition mixed up. Definition of AFR is the amount of air in proportion to the amount of fuel in the combustion chamber, not the amount of fuel unburnt in the exhaust. When ECU tries to assess the rich/lean condition with normal narrow band sensor, it reads the amount of oxygen present in the stream. It doesn't know how much fuel is present in the exhaust stream but it knows how much it added based on the injector pulse width. The computer is calibrated for that particular engine and so it knows that if X amount of oxygen is present and it had Y amount of fuel in the chamber, it can guess the effective AFR during combustion. Too much oxygen in the stream? Add more fuel in the next cycle. Too little oxygen? Cut some fuel back. I say guess because it's not a direct calculation but rather an assessment based on rich/lean condition so it can add/remove fuel on the next injector cycle.
Coming back to burning fuel Yes, if you burn more, you make more power. But, you don't ignite all fuel all at once. That's not how it works. When the spark fires, it's a very controlled burn cycle. A flame front starts at the point of ignition, it expands and propagates through the chamber, burning fuel, consuming oxygen, producing pressure and making heat. In real life, you'll never burn it all and you'll always have some fuel and air left over when the exhaust port opens and things get dumped from the chamber. Remember, it takes time to burn the fuel. So, if pulstar ignites sooner, it has more time to burn the fuel in the chamber which is equivalent to advancing timing. More time burning the mix means more pressure in the chamber which means more effective power produced. It also means more heat That may or may not produce more power in the end. If you take it too far, a second flame front can ignite spontaneously some place else in the chamber which leads to uncontrolled burn. Flame fronts collide which produces shock waves in the engine which rattles the piston and makes that ping sound. We all know it as detonation. Does all of this make more sense now?

CSF

iTrader: (1)

so we would see similar gains from advancing the timing if I understand you right.

but does the quality of the spark matter at all? or does it just matter that there is a spark to start the burn? just trying to figure out if there is any benefit to their claimed "better" spark.