GalantVR4.org The Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 Forum
Galant VR-4 Forums » Galant VR-4 » Technical Discussions » Re: Coil Packs and Dwell Time
Previous thread Next thread

Re: Coil Packs and Dwell Time


TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1082642 posted 08/25/12 07:04 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Picked up some 14AWG yellow and red wire today with view to possibly upgrading the primary drive from the transistor packs to the coils including the #2 to #3 wire (downside being it blows the OE harness color coding ). Trouble is, I really don't know where I'm at, only that with a single transistor pack I don't pop my 15A fuse -- plus, I've no measured current info for OE! Still, plan is to insert a .02 ohm resistance inline with the relay 12V. I'm thinking a dual trace scope should allow me to see how the 12V primary current is behaving (would also take a look at the 12V itself). 'Course, it's kind of a slow scan at idle, but hopefully good enough to learn something useful !

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.10.81) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1083315 posted 08/30/12 07:36 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Received another J722T, sanded it, and tested it in the car -- it works and I've installed both into a revised heat sink assembly with heat sink compound.



Installed the transistor pack assembly, reconnected the COP and battery, and fired it up -- caught instantly (as in instantly )! Took it for a run and it responded as normal -- engine was super smooth both at idle and moving. Got back, and while idling, popped the hood and measured the transistor pack temps. It was evident that stopping had allowed them to start climbing some, but they stabilized with the front at aprox 106F and the rear at aprox 110F (43C). That doesn't worry me at all, far lower temps than a typical PC processor. (Outside temp was 81F.)

Judging by the way the engine started and ran, I consider the mods to provide greater spark energy than OE and an even greater improvement over single transistor pack COP.

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.187.121) | Report this post to a Moderator

JNR
5 star (English Professor) member Has extensive pop up picture book collection
20/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1083318 posted 08/30/12 07:40 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Thanks for the update and keep us posted on long term reliability and all that...

Did you (or could you) post a wiring diagram earlier in this thread, or maybe there was one up there somewhere for that?

This thread has gotten so long and so much info, I just want to be sure it's the correct way, should I decide to go back COP. Otherwise, I like the dual GM coil idea too, so decisions, decisions


Edited by JNR (08/30/12 07:45 PM)

Posts: 9745 | From: ca | Member Since: 04/23/04 | IP: (71.103.95.19) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1083344 posted 08/30/12 10:52 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Thanks for posting JNR, I've found the level of participation in this thread discouraging. In fact, my continuance of it is entirely out of respect for "CheekyChimp", "Curtis", and yourself. I surely hope you find it helpful.

The only significant wiring change is that associated with COP Vs OE, different variations for different model years. It seems nobody else bothers, but I strongly suggest installing the standard Intrepid ignition capacitor into the coil +12V, this replaces the one provided by the OE coil pack -- it's there for a reason. The only other differences are that the series coil primaries are fed from a dedicated battery line (not the harness) and the Power Transistor Module grounds have a bolted local ground (again, not harness). Make sure the ignition switch "ON" voltage is delivered to the power transistor pack power supply inputs (as in OE) as well as the relay activation coil that controls the dedicated coil battery line (which is new). If you have a '91+, only use one of the two Power Transistor Module tach outputs, stub the other off (not ground). There's really not much to it, but it does take a little time to put together.

My remaining interests are my COP module temps, and measured coil primary currents and durations. I strongly believe it works, but my ability to take measurements is just a tad limited !

Lastly, I recommend against inverting the polarity of any of the COP modules (and hence the spark plugs). Yes, to feed -/+/+/- does to some degree emulate the OE coil pack, but as usual, the devil is in the details. To start with, the coil secondary currents are opposite, but not matched since the primary provides a shunt for the resulting differences. Second, when the lower ionization voltage results in spark in the OE system, the voltage drop is immediately shifted to the other plug helping it fire. This is not the case for inverted COP where the voltage change at spark is electrically isolated from the twinned plug. I strongly recommend maintaining standard plug polarity.


Edited by TrevorS (08/30/12 11:00 PM)

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.182.91) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1083449 posted 08/31/12 04:30 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting JNR:

Thanks for the update and keep us posted on long term reliability and all that...



The main reliability question for me was whether there might be issues associated with doubling up the transistor packs -- either at the packs or COP modules. However, the successful long term usage earlier suggests not. I've moved coil power completely out of the OE harness and with the heavier shorter wiring, there ought to be greater spark energy, so my main concern is operating temps. The heat sink assembly is clearly keeping transistor temps well down, but I still have to verify the COP module temps are also fine. With the aid of the small air gap around the COP plate, I'm not expecting an issue.

That leaves two things that are new -- the COP capacitor and the relay. The capacitor is located under the COP plate adjacent the timing cover. This puts it fairly near the rear cable opening and there's an air gap around the edge of the COP plate. Plus, the mounting tab serves as a heat sink and is bolted to the valve cover. In addition, it's designed for automotive use and as I recall, it's rated for 120C. I don't think it should be a problem.

So, that leaves the relay and it has six things going for it.
*It's rated for 40A and is probably carrying under 15A peak (line fuse is 15A)
*The only load it sees on closing is a .47uF capacitor (safe for the contacts)
*It takes about 14msec to open and coil load should have ceased (safe for the contacts)
*It's located in a fairly cool area of the engine bay -- low behind the plenum
*Its temperature rating is 40-125C, and its cycle rating is 100,000 at 40A
*I sealed its case to protect it from vapors or gases in the engine bay

So, the only downside I currently see is there's a new load on the battery with the ignition ON. The relay coil draws around 140mA at 12V -- well, we're not really supposed to leave the ignition ON without the engine running ! If I can get a scope on the coil battery line I should be able to learn more about load behavior.


Edited by TrevorS (08/31/12 08:23 PM)

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.182.91) | Report this post to a Moderator

broxma
retard monkey strength
379/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1083643 posted 09/02/12 01:44 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I am amazed this topic is still going. I never got around to posting any results using the dual ignitor setup so here you go.

I got rid of/parted out my Galant. Too many frame issues for the power levels it was looking to make led me to the conclusion it wouldn't have been safe at the speeds it was capable of getting up to. That being said, we did dyno the car up to 362 WHP using the dual ignitor setup. The car was boost limited as in it had a massive crack in the intake manifold which prevented the car from seeing more than 18 pounds, but the ignition system performed flawlessly.

Onto my current project. I'm building a 240sx now, using the KA motor, mainly because I ain't no punk who thinks "SR20 yo", when the car came with a perfectly decent closed deck KA motor. The interesting aspect of my build is that it will be running on the exact same Evo 8 AEM EMS that my Galant was running on. Incidentally, the ignition system on the KA, although it normally uses an old style distributor, the was made by non other than Mitsubishi. If you remove the cap, rotor and inner cover, you find an optical cam angle sensor. It happens to be the exact same cam angle sensor as a 1st gen green top CAS. You can simply replace the optical wheel with either a 24 tooth or stock 1G CAS wheel, and any Evo 8 designed ECU will work just like factory, provided you do some wiring. This means the same ignition principles we worked on here, will transfer over directly to the Nissan. That car should be a most excellent test of the ignition as it will be running an S372 turbo at around 35-40 pounds hopefully pushing north of 750 HP at the wheels. The car won't be running for a long time. It is currently in the shop getting the 10 point cage and parachute mount fabricated. However I do not believe the common wisdom that a 1200.00 stand alone ignition is needed for a car at such levels. I believe people simply aren't ingenious enough to figure out how to do the same thing using factory components.

I'm glad to see this thread is still alive. Several of us put a lot of effort into testing and designing this stuff, and I hope in the long run it helps out more than just the few of us who started looking into it. That appears to be the case so I'm glad to have contributed.

Side note, I have whittled down the wiring on the factory ECU. It can run on only 25 wires. I know they are numbered over 100, and you need less than 1/4 of them to get the car running properly.

/brox



I am big into recycling though and if your not into sacrifice or burnt offerings, you may want to stick with 93 octane.

/brox

Posts: 911 | From: San Antonio Tx | Member Since: 11/16/09 | IP: (99.52.72.193) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1083718 posted 09/02/12 07:33 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting TrevorS:

If I can get a scope on the coil battery line I should be able to learn more about load behavior.



Installed my curent sampling resistance at the relay today and idled the engine while trying to take measurements (the mosquietoes loved it ).



I tried two different scopes and ran into anomalies with both, but finally came up with what appear good and reasonably consistent data. From the waveform, it was clearly not reaching coil saturation, though the charge time was aprox 8ms with aprox 96msec between individual coil charge cycles. That translates into 625rpm which roughly agrees with my dash tach. I measured a peak current of about 12.5A using the above .02 ohm sampling resistance, which translates into 3W peak on a wire-wound resistance rated at 25W and operating at a roughly 8% duty cycle -- don't think resistance heating should be a factor. Looking at the battery side of the resistance at same sensitivity (.005V/div) I was seeing only transients, no noticeable level shifts. By the time I completed these measurements, the engine had been idling for quite awhile and I doubt the battery voltage was higher than 12V, 14V would make a difference.

Since the coils didn't reach saturation, I can't be sure what the true peak current would be, but with 14V the current would increase by about 2.5A and judging by the shape of the charge waveform, the true peak is likely on the order of 18A. Perhaps that would achieve saturation, but I doubt 4ms could do it. Thinking of fusing, at 6Krpm individual coil charge cycles occur every 10ms and coil duty cycle could be similar to 60%, but there won't be time for the current to climb (suppose a worst case of perhaps 15A @14V, 60% would be under 10A average) and so I expect my 15A fuse is fine. Regarding COP module heating, looks like they're unlikely to actually saturate and so resistive heating should be minimized, but there's still laminate heating (particularly at higher duty cycles). However, given the Intrepid operates the COP modules independently, they each see battery voltage (with at least .4 ohm less series resistance) whereas ours share it, and so I'm guessing their higher current heating is likely similar to our waste spark double duty-cycle heating -- probably not an issue.

Quoting broxma:

we did dyno the car up to 362 WHP using the dual ignitor setup. The car was boost limited as in it had a massive crack in the intake manifold which prevented the car from seeing more than 18 pounds, but the ignition system performed flawlessly.

<snip>

I'm glad to see this thread is still alive. Several of us put a lot of effort into testing and designing this stuff, and I hope in the long run it helps out more than just the few of us who started looking into it. That appears to be the case so I'm glad to have contributed.

/brox



Thanks for dropping by again Brox and that's too bad about the Galant, but it's pretty clear you have lofty targets ! Very interested in how things go with the Nissan and the dual ignitor COP ignition, keep in touch! Hopefully others will jump in here too.


Edited by TrevorS (09/02/12 07:53 PM)

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.6.12) | Report this post to a Moderator

broxma
retard monkey strength
379/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1083738 posted 09/02/12 09:25 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
To ride along with one of the things you mentioned in the last post, about the way the Intrepid coils each see battery voltage...

One of the changes I am going to do to the setup I run on the Nissan is run the power wire off a relay. Since the positive wire at the harness is always hot, I plan on running it to a 30A relay instead of running the coils off power supplied by the ECU. The ECU is getting all new wires, all new pins, so I'm increasing the wire size on both the positive and negative of the ignition.

I also may not go with intrepid coils.

/brox



I am big into recycling though and if your not into sacrifice or burnt offerings, you may want to stick with 93 octane.

/brox

Posts: 911 | From: San Antonio Tx | Member Since: 11/16/09 | IP: (99.52.72.193) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1083779 posted 09/03/12 12:35 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting Broxma:


To ride along with one of the things you mentioned in the last post, about the way the Intrepid coils each see battery voltage...

One of the changes I am going to do to the setup I run on the Nissan is run the power wire off a relay. Since the positive wire at the harness is always hot, I plan on running it to a 30A relay instead of running the coils off power supplied by the ECU. The ECU is getting all new wires, all new pins, so I'm increasing the wire size on both the positive and negative of the ignition.

I also may not go with intrepid coils.

/brox



In case this info is of any use to you:

1) I ran 10 AWG (starting with a fuse holder) from the battery to the relay following the existing firewall harness.
2) I ran 12 AWG from the relay to the coil connector.
3) I ran 14 AWG from the coil connector to the COP module +12V terminals.
4) I also ran 14 AWG from the #1 to #4 COP modules (a relatively long run).
5) Remaining COP wiring between ignitors and coils are OE 16 AWG and similar total length. (Charge waveform is also similar height.)
6) Ignitor ground is 16 AWG each to a stubby 14 AWG to a nearby ground bolt.

Given the peak primary current might reach 18A, I'm considering changing the 16 AWG dual ignitor to COP coil module wiring to 14 AWG, but that may be going a little over the top for my purposes -- having difficulty deciding ! Would love to know what you come up with, and whatever measurements you make ! (Including the COP modules!)

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.6.12) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1084687 posted 09/09/12 01:01 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting TrevorS:

I've moved coil power completely out of the OE harness and with the heavier shorter wiring, there ought to be greater spark energy, so my main concern is operating temps. The heat sink assembly is clearly keeping transistor temps well down, but I still have to verify the COP module temps are also fine. With the aid of the small air gap around the COP plate, I'm not expecting an issue.




Took the car for a run and then measured the COP module temps. Coil 120F, COP plate 140F, valve cover 170F, outside ambient 85F. Typical COP temp rating seems to be 120C (248F), so I think the COP margin should be fine. However, I notice the battery is discharging faster than normal at idle. Thinking of backing off the primary current a little by returning the transistor pack ground to the harness.

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.12.203) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1084998 posted 09/11/12 08:38 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting TrevorS:

Took the car for a run and then measured the COP module temps. Coil 120F, COP plate 140F, valve cover 170F, outside ambient 85F. Typical COP temp rating seems to be 120C (248F), so I think the COP margin should be fine. However, I notice the battery is discharging faster than normal at idle. Thinking of backing off the primary current a little by returning the transistor pack ground to the harness.



Replaced the cracked rear transistor pack connector and returned the ignition transistor pack ground to the harness. Still draws more current at idle than OE (guess not a huge surprise), but not as bad as before. Got to scope it to see where I'm at!

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.5.223) | Report this post to a Moderator

curtis Galant VR4.org Moderator
Space Blanket from NASA plumbed into the attic
475/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1085027 posted 09/12/12 12:48 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Liking what you've been up to with this



92 GVR4 0475/1000
Greenhouse Effect Green
Exceeds Mechanical Limits
"Put the dawg to work.
Ass, Gas or Milkbones. Nobody rides for free" Jon AKA Toybreaker

Posts: 11891 | From: Clarksville TN | Member Since: 05/04/03 | IP: (8.27.209.16) | Report this post to a Moderator

boostx
On The Wrong Side.
23/2000



Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1085040 posted 09/12/12 07:45 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Well i total missed this discussion. On the cooling problem for the cop you might want to add holes to the plate so that the heat will not get trap between the valve cover and cop. This is the reason why i add the logo and or the words to my cop's.



On the cooling the transistor pack have why not try using old computer processor heat sink. Some are pretty big. I just yank this out of a old pc i have at work.





Love the F Letter
Four wheel steering
Four doors
Four cylinders
Force induced
><((((º>

Posts: 4326 | From: Orlando, FL | Member Since: 04/24/03 | IP: (199.101.174.31) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1085152 posted 09/12/12 11:40 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
[quote=Boostx]Well I totally missed this discussion. On the cooling problem for the cop, you might want to add holes to the plate so that the heat will not get trapped between the valve cover and cop. This is the reason why I add the logo and or the words to my cop's.



Perhaps there are PC heat sinks that would be good (mine are appropriate only for CPUs and graphics cards). Given 110F measured and a since reduction in peak current, I doubt I've a problem, but perhaps there are other possibilities that will help others ! As far as COP module cooling, those cut outs should surely help, though given a 30F difference between my COP plate and valve cover, I think my grommet solution works pretty well !


Edited by TrevorS (09/13/12 07:47 PM)

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.12.11) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1087588 posted 09/29/12 05:22 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting TrevorS:

Replaced the cracked rear transistor pack connector and returned the ignition transistor pack ground to the harness. Still draws more current at idle than OE (guess not a huge surprise), but not as bad as before. Got to scope it to see where I'm at!



My neighbor was kind enough to recharge my A/C today (had to open the system 4-1/2 yrs ago to replace the heater core) and since the engine had to be run, it seemed a good time to hook up the scope. Had the engine running with a low current charger to get the battery up to a more normal road voltage. Measured 10.5A ignition draw with 13.8V at the battery. That's roughly 1/3 less load than with the transistor modules hard grounded -- I'm satisfied.

Separately -- I recently extended the 10 AWG battery wire to the left rear of the car and mounted a relay for the fuel pump. I ran 12 AWG to the fuel pump connector, the original power wire to the relay coil, and re-wrapped the connector wires. Could probably have gotten away fine with a 25A fuse, but it's now 30A, same as the OE circuit. I think that leaves the original ignition circuit with only the instrument cluster.

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.186.70) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1088088 posted 10/03/12 02:27 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Kind of disappointed by the complete lack of response ! To be honest, it's not clear whether it's better to go dual OE transistor module or hot wiring from the battery to the COP primary. (An Intrepid tech with professed plenty of time behind a scope said that 8 Amps should be enough, but this won't be known for sure 'til it's evaluated). I'm not much inclined to fool around further with it, but it would be nice if someone else would take a look and post their findings. Up to you guys at this point ! Any helpful input?


Edited by TrevorS (10/03/12 02:30 AM)

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.185.46) | Report this post to a Moderator

ozyvr4
Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1089231 posted 10/10/12 05:59 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
This is a great thread. So much info. I am interested in this as I have just started a upgrade on my car.

I am fitting an AMS VSR intake manifold and have decided to go COP to keep the engine looking neat.

I was worried about the ignition system and hopefully this will be the solution.

I have built a plate to mount my igniter , injector resistor, map sensor and boost guage sensor. I played with it today and it will also fit my spare igniter.

I am going to wire second igniter in as I am also rewiring the engine harness. I have all the parts I need just sitting in the shed.

Thanks to the guys testing this for real answers .



90 HH VR4 Aspec FP3052 20psi
BC 272/272 cams
DSMLink v3

Posts: 160 | From: Brisbane, Australia | Member Since: 03/05/07 | IP: (141.0.9.238) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1089666 posted 10/12/12 11:28 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Please let us know what you actually implement and how it works out. I think this thread and its readers are best served by the accumulation of trials and results. I've no problem with you achieving better results than I, just let us know -- thanks !

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (108.2.7.156) | Report this post to a Moderator

ozyvr4
Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1093517 posted 11/11/12 03:34 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Here is a pic of the plate that i made to mount everything on.





90 HH VR4 Aspec FP3052 20psi
BC 272/272 cams
DSMLink v3

Posts: 160 | From: Brisbane, Australia | Member Since: 03/05/07 | IP: (101.119.19.140) | Report this post to a Moderator

cupajoe
Member +
1242/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1122412 posted 05/08/13 08:34 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Bringing this back up! So what's th verdict? Did this work for you?



GVR4 1242/2000

Posts: 317 | From: Wasilla, Alaska | Member Since: 03/01/10 | IP: (166.147.120.28) | Report this post to a Moderator

prove_it
my racist jokes aren't actually funny
715/1000
1284/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1122486 posted 05/09/13 09:15 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Bring out your dead!



#1284/2K NB, Totaled
#715/1K KG, Rebuilding
02 Acura TL daily duty unit

12yr+ Vr4 owner.
Honda/Acura master tech.
Family Guy

Posts: 4201 | From: Sioux Falls, SD | Member Since: 07/04/08 | IP: (24.230.93.110) | Report this post to a Moderator

ozyvr4
Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1147751 posted 11/08/13 05:16 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Anyone gone further with this??? I will have my car going again early next year.



90 HH VR4 Aspec FP3052 20psi
BC 272/272 cams
DSMLink v3

Posts: 160 | From: Brisbane, Australia | Member Since: 03/05/07 | IP: (108.162.250.234) | Report this post to a Moderator

Street Surgeon
Professor Street Surgeon
501/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1147781 posted 11/08/13 08:52 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting broxma:

The interesting aspect of my build is that it will be running on the exact same Evo 8 AEM EMS that my Galant was running on. Incidentally, the ignition system on the KA, although it normally uses an old style distributor, the was made by non other than Mitsubishi. If you remove the cap, rotor and inner cover, you find an optical cam angle sensor. It happens to be the exact same cam angle sensor as a 1st gen green top CAS. You can simply replace the optical wheel with either a 24 tooth or stock 1G CAS wheel, and any Evo 8 designed ECU will work just like factory, provided you do some wiring. This means the same ignition principles we worked on here, will transfer over directly to the Nissan.




English Racing was using ECMlink v2.5 to control one of their customers turbo KA 240SX projects back in' 05 or so, pretty cool that the parts cross over like that!



Cory O.
'92 Mitsubishi Galant VR-4 501/1000
Heavily modified, barely driven, some assembly required.

Posts: 941 | From: Omaha, Nebraska | Member Since: 03/03/04 | IP: (173.245.55.157) | Report this post to a Moderator

TrevorS
Junior Member


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1169214 posted 04/27/14 03:04 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Hi guys,

Was hoping some further progress might have been made on honing dual ignitor 4G63 ignition. My Eclipse has been on stands for approaching a year and a half with the intent of upgrading the cat-back exhaust and trying to install a higher flow larger than OE SMIC. Unfortunately, personal issues have impeded progress. My further thought on the dual ignitor scene is that my higher battery current solution translates into higher delivered spark energy relative to OE. Presuming that's the case, how much additional current draw (translates into energy) is really needed to make a worthwhile improvement over OE? Is my +12V wiring to the dual ignitors and COP to some degree overkill?

Would really like to see someone (or several) evaluate this further and draw whatever rational conclusions they can for the case of OE Vs dual ignitor COP. Just how much is needed to make dual ignitor work well starting from an OE car? (Not sure it's a true upgrade if it's necessary to also upgrade the alternator.)

Posts: 49 | From: Newark, DE | Member Since: 07/26/12 | IP: (173.75.245.180) | Report this post to a Moderator

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 1169321 posted 04/28/14 02:10 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post   
My opinion - the dual igniter is an upgrade that should only be affected if you're finding that your COP setup is breaking up. Start with the standard COP package and a single igniter. I recommend the wiring scheme that I previously outlined in this thread, but the standard method seems to work fine too. Then, if you have ignition issues consider moving to dual igniters... As for current draw, I haven't made those kinds of measurements so I can't comment on that.



Roger B. Scott
'91 Belize Green

Posts: 3295 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (174.45.66.50) | Report this post to a Moderator


Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7
Previous thread Next thread

Extra information
0 registered and 38 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Galant VR4.org Moderator:  curtis, steve, atc250r, jcgalntvr4-244, cheekychimp, jepherz, Rausch, toybreaker, iceman69510, pot, FlyingEagle 

Print Thread

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating: *****
Thread views: 45229

Rate this thread


News & Events: News | Events
Galant VR-4: Newbies | General VR4 Discussions | Technical Discussions | How To and Info Archive
Marketplace: Parts For Sale | Cars For Sale | Good Guys | Bad Guys
Community: Members' Showcase

Contact Us | Privacy statement GalantVR-4.org

Generated in 0.352 seconds in which 0.205 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Turbo powered.


Hertz's Galant VR-4 Page