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


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


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921134 posted 08/07/10 07:58 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
mmmmmuuuaahhahahahahahahhaha

Insert more evil laugh while rubbing hands together here

THIS is why this forum kicks tooners butts, we actually have educated people here!!!



#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: (96.2.94.201) | Report this post to a Moderator

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921149 posted 08/07/10 09:35 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
BALLLLSSSS

I was out test driving... got the boost up to about 20 psi on my 14b on 91 octane with no knock (which is why I love my new IC) and all of the sudden... NOTHING. Car went COMPLETELY dead.

Turns out that my COP wiring had got pinned between the head and that little noise reduction box and rubbed through to the valve cover where it shorted the ignition straight to ground and fried the 30A ignition fuse. Of course the simple answer is to throw the OEM coil back on to get home but wouldn't you know it I loaned my plug wires to Ryan for the weekend and he's out of town. I hitched a ride home and wrapped some tape around the short and moved the noise box to the top side of the plate to avoid recurrence. Now I've got to get a ride back to my car so I can bring her home before dark and go autocross in the morning...

BUT... until the wire shorted through she was running SWEET.

Anyway... not to detract from the academic flavor of the thread... but I HAD to vent.



Roger B. Scott
'91 Belize Green


Edited by belize1334 (08/07/10 09:36 PM)

Posts: 3312 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (174.45.93.14) | Report this post to a Moderator

524of1000
Crossed Member
524/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921160 posted 08/07/10 10:50 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Yeah, something similar happened to Larry earlier this week...or was it last week... Anywho, I didn't get to ride with him today as I was visiting the in laws out of town. Since my spouse is my primary income, I do what I can to keep her pleased(Larry is quite adept with this concept as well). I'M assuming all went to plan in the new trial run today? A whole new beast?



America was raised on speed. Hot, Nasty, Bad ass speed. - Eleanore Roosevelt, 1936

Posts: 574 | From: San Antonio, Tx | Member Since: 10/15/08 | IP: (66.69.108.46) | Report this post to a Moderator

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


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921164 posted 08/07/10 10:55 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
haha, that's funny.

So I'm a bit foggy as to the wiring on this project. Did you guys ultimately wire the transistors in parallel to the coils wired in series then?
I think I'm following correctly. If you could draw up a crude picture on MSpaint that would be awesome, as I am a visual person more than a word kinda guy. I think I have a spare 91+ transistor laying around. Would it be possible to use dual 91+ transistors, or will a 90 and a 91+ transistor be needed?

Also what would happen if one transistor was used to control two companion cylinder coils, and another transistor to control the other companion coils? Is it possible?



#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: (96.2.94.201) | Report this post to a Moderator

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921166 posted 08/07/10 11:15 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Basically each Power Transistor just has two "relays" which operate very quickly since they're solid-state design. Each relay is caplable of being triggered and providing a "high-current" ground path for the coils. The factory design uses one channel for 1-4 and the other for 2-3.

Wiring two in parallel just has each relay behave exactly as one alone but they share the current load. As for '90 vs. '91, there's no reason to prefer one to the other. I just figured a '90 and a '91 would be nice since the '90 doesn't have the extra pins for the tacho so the wiring would be cleaner. Brox used two '91 units since that's what he had and he just didn't connect the tacho signal from the second unit. The physical wiring would be painfully simple. You just connect all the pins from you second unit directly to those same pins on the original (unless using a '90 in which case you have to map their function...). Ideally you'd do this with a spare wiring harness so that each unit could be unplugged. One nice thing about doing it this way is that if you unplugged on of them then it's harness would just sit empty but the other unit would still be connected so it'd behave exactly as stock.

Now you COULD rewire the whole thing and have each igniter fire both channels simultaneously, in parallel to each other, for a single coil pair. Then instead of each igniter firing 1-4 and then 2-3, you'd have one igniter fire 1-4 on both channels at once and then the other fire 2-3 on both channels at once. I'd think that this would work just as well except that the igniter might heat up and then cool down since it's doing all it's work and then resting vs. the stock setup where it works half as hard twice as often. Also, in this setup if one igniter failed or were unplugged you'd lose a coil pair. I recommend not doing it this way and wiring them in parallel in the stock configuration.

The coils themselves are being wired just like normal unless you read my post about reversing the polarity of 1 and 2... but that's a separate issue and, at this point, purely speculative.

I'll add a final word of caution. The idea of dual igniters is to allow the coils to pull more current. But, unlike an ARC-2 box or equivalent after-market ignition, they're pulling the current through the factory system. That means there's the potential for burning fuses. Know this going in and don't tell me I didn't warn you.



Roger B. Scott
'91 Belize Green

Posts: 3312 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (174.45.93.14) | Report this post to a Moderator

broxma
retard monkey strength
379/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921178 posted 08/08/10 12:40 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I am almost certain the coils are not directional. They work regardless of which wire is connected to pos/neg.

I followed everything you said about the resistance and the internal resistance of the ignitor.
I had originally considered running the 1-4 set off a single ignitor but again considered the notion that if one ignitor failed you'd be running on two. In the current configuration, as long as one ignitor is working you will have spark. I see no reason to change this setup for now unless some new information comes up which I doubt.

I did the exact same thing with my COP plate a few weeks ago. I threw dozens of codes and am still dealing with the after effects of it.

Here is the report from today.

I turned up the boost to about 23 PSI. Conditions today were actually hotter than yesterday. I was confident that the temps and increase in boost would place the stress on the system to the degree I was looking for. WOT runs in 3rd gear from 4500 to 8500 showed no stutter or hiccup in spark. Power delivery was smooth. Power had noticeably increased even with just a few extra PSI. I brought a navigator with me again who tips the scales around 250 or so, about 100 pounds more than Steve and I didn't notice him. His comment to me was that my car at 23 PSI had more balls than my Evo which ran 27 PSI and 300 WHP . This is considering the fact that my break in on 379 didn't go as planned and my car is only putting out compression numbers of 130/110/125/110 at 9-1 compression. Numbers should be closer to 175.

The car is obnoxiously fast at this point, not just quick. I have been logging my boost/rpm and noticed a drop in RPM to achieve initial boost. The car feels more responsive at low, getting out of the subdivision speeds, even with the very low compression numbers. Jason had noticed that it appeared/sounded as if my tires were spinning at high rpm, 6500+ on throttle, not initial. This is with 235/17's, a locked center and LSD rear.

Tomorrow I am doing the timing belt on my wife's Beetle and turning the boost up to its final setting which I tentatively figured at 28 PSI for the street. Today's test was a huge success. From a near failure point at 17 PSI to cooking tires at speed at 23 with a goal tomorrow of 28. All in a few days.

A side note. Three days ago, I was looking into buying a new ignition system because of the problems I was having at 17 PSI. I had already picked out the 600.00 system I was going to get. Seems I may have solved the problem with a part I had laying on my bench.

/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


Edited by broxma (08/08/10 12:40 AM)

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

Justin
Unregistered


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921179 posted 08/08/10 12:44 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Assuming this is the magic bullet for running COP (and its sounding pretty good so far), with two power transistors in parallel, how would you ever know if one of them failed? It seems as though a "smoothness" may be lost, i.e; spark blow out at high boost/high rpms, but it seems reasonable that one may look to other causes as the issue, and not look at one of the two PT's.

| | | IP: (68.171.231.18) | Report this post to a Moderator

broxma
retard monkey strength
379/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921183 posted 08/08/10 01:51 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Well, consider that the system as we have laid out, with a standard ignitor/COP setup is barely working at even modest levels, it is safe to assume that at an extreme level of performance a loss of one of the ignitors would be pronounced. If I had a navigator I would take some video and show you the difference between two runs, one with a single ignitor and one with dual. Realistically, the devices are fairly robust. I have actually never had one fail on me spanning 15 years and probably a dozen cars. I would estimate the likelihood of failure as very low however probably increased due to the new configuration. More importantly, if one did fail, you'd still be moving. It does equate to a redundancy but one with an added benefit.

/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

broxma
retard monkey strength
379/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921186 posted 08/08/10 03:12 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I wanted to point out a few things since I think this post sort of testifies to the way DSM modding has been done for the last 20 years. To my knowledge, this use of the dual ignitor to increase spark potential in the COP setup has not been done before. This is a fairly amazing piece of information considering the sheer volume of DSM sites and tuners out there. Some of the guys over at EvoM are pretty sharp cookies and we didn't conceive of anything like this in that entire post. Credit needs to go out to Belize1334 here provided that the future testing does back up what appears to be a better system. This same ignition system has been in use for decades now and while the bits and parts have changed, the main system has remained the same. Not a lot of data has been gathered on the actual workings of the system as it has mostly been discussion about functionality, i.e., will system "X" work on Car "Y". Another site will eventually pick up on this and claim it as their own I am sure. GVR4.org is small potatoes in the overall 4G63 community and tends to be focused a lot on restoration due to the age of our cars. It is nice to see a serious, albeit small, tech effort come out of the community and I'm glad to be a part of it.

Now onto updated results.

It is late as George Burns but I got a few hours sleep earlier and have found myself not tired in the least. It is also, unfortunately, 2:00 a.m. here, which means drunks and cops. Regardless of the risks, I set out on the highway to push this testing phase to another level. I have a small issue which is that my boost gauge reads in k/pa, roughly bar, and only goes up to 1.5. I have another few gauges I will install in the near future to get an accurate reading and will probably install the 3 bar map sensor so I can read boost directly from my EvoScan logs. Ignoring this issue, I turned up the boost again.

At what reads out at about 1.9 bar I let off the gas as it is 2:00 a.m. and I don't have anyone to call should something go a foul. The turbo was not at full boost at this point and I expect it would have went well over 2 bar. The real increase in butt dyno power was again noticeable. Power delivery was outstanding. My car has a bit of a rake to the stance which is a good thing because the front lifts up past horizontal during acceleration. Had I dropped the rear more, I may have lost sight of the road. There was no spark break up at an estimated 27-29 PSI high RPM in third gear. I was limiting boost by throttle so was only about 1/2 to 3/4 throttle during the runs. I also did several quick launches in 2nd gear almost to redline, again, throttle limited for boost reasons, again not a single hiccup or stutter.

Now compare.

The car 2 days ago had spark stutter at 17 PSI, gap set at .022. Tonight, 28(ish) PSI, same gap, perfect.

I have changed only one thing between then and now. I may actually pull the plugs and increase the gap to see if I can find a breaking point.

P1 - Adding an additional ignitor in parallel to the factory ignitor should increase available spark at the plug due to electrical magic.
P2 - Brox added an extra ignitor in parallel to his car and his ignition problems have disappeared.
-------
C - Adding an additional ignitor in parallel to the factory ignitor benefited Brox's car.

That is as much of an argument as I can lay out right now. If we can add a few more premises for the argument we can solidify the conclusion. For people who are interested, I have ignitors I can get on the very very cheap. If you consider this modification to the ignition, in order to add valid premise to our argument, I will gladly help make that a reality. I am not looking to make any money off this. I just want others to validate the argument.

I dare not post a schematic of this because it is so simple a solution as to be easier said in words.

If you have two identical ignitors as I did, you simply cut back the wrap on the factory harness going to the ignitor about 7 inches or so. You will be cutting and soldering the three outside wires from each side. The white wire is the tach wire and does not need to be cut. Cut the wire, strip both exposed ends, strip the corresponding wire on the harness of the new ignitor, and slide some heatshrink down the factory harness side wire, Tie the new ignitor connector wire to the side opposite the one you slid the heatshrink on, tie the combined wires with the other, solder, heatshrink, done. Repeat for all six wires. Take the white tach wire from the new connector, fold it over and heatshrink it. Done.

As far as mounting, again, I used the bolt holes for the factory intake manifold brace. I drilled out the hole on the ignitor backplate to fit the 10mm bolt(14mm head), and bolted them in facing up and center.

If anyone would like to add data to this set, shoot me a PM. I can run down and grab several ignitors and harnesses and will probably do so anyway.

/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

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


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921198 posted 08/08/10 08:10 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
It's sunday morning here and haven't checked yet but I think I have some spares laying around. I should be able to check around to it today. I have a mild setup and I am curious if I can see any difference.

Quick question: are NA and turbo transistors the same?



#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: (96.2.94.201) | Report this post to a Moderator

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921209 posted 08/08/10 09:11 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
'90 Transistor reads J122 and '91+ reads J722T. From the FSM it appears that the n/t of the same years used the same ignition design but I can't confirm that they have the same part numbers.



Roger B. Scott
'91 Belize Green

Posts: 3312 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (174.45.93.14) | Report this post to a Moderator

broxma
retard monkey strength
379/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921220 posted 08/08/10 11:00 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
They are the same part. I have pulled a few from the yard in the past.

/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

Justin
Unregistered


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921225 posted 08/08/10 11:29 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I know that this thread has focused primarily on COP. However, do you believe one would also be justified in doing this on a stock coiled car?
P.S. Thanks to Roger B. Scott and Broxma.

| | | IP: (68.171.231.20) | Report this post to a Moderator

toybreaker Galant VR4.org Moderator
it's peace of mind at 100 mph plus
1990/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921226 posted 08/08/10 11:36 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
This is some nice work, gentlemen!

Quoting broxma:



I mounted both ignitors on the back of the manifold in the two bolt holes left from removing the intake brace. This allowed me to sort of face them together and up. I needed this close proximity because I did not extend any of the wires so I only had a short length to work with.




The ignitors make some pretty substantial amounts of heat during operation, so while this might work ok for testing, I would try and mount the ignitors individually in the factory configuration with each of their backs against their own heat sink.

Some heat transfer/dilectric grease applied between them and their respective heat sink surfaces would also increase their ability to transfer their operating heat out of the units.

It will increase their lives exponentially

(if you have friends in the car stereo biz, see if you can score an old audio amplifier heatsink. They make bad ass mounting plates for projects like this)


Quoting Broxma:

The main power wire is a bit of a bear to solder since it is much larger than the others. I am going to leave it in this condition for a few days and see if I have any problems. If not, I will go back and do a more professional job with the soldering a wiring.

I left the coils alone, still wired parallel.




Quoting Belize1334:

I'll add a final word of caution. The idea of dual igniters is to allow the coils to pull more current. But, unlike an ARC-2 box or equivalent after-market ignition, they're pulling the current through the factory system. That means there's the potential for burning fuses. Know this going in and don't tell me I didn't warn you.




I was thinking the same thing...


Please note the coils are fed directly from the ignition switch down the same wire that feeds the fuel pump leg of the mpi relay.

Increasing the current carried by the ignition switch may result in a significant shortening of it's service life.

At the very least, it will result in some voltage drop out to the coils as well as the fuel pump.

A seperate dedicated relay used to feed your new coil circuit, located out in the engine compartment would probably be the mostest bestest way to work the supply side.

If your fuel pump is already re-wired, you have some breathing room, so you *might* be okay, but I would re-wire things as follows;

Coil Power
Install a dedicated coil power supply relay out in the engine compartment.
Feed it fused power from the battery down a quality ten gauge (or eight awg if youre feeling froggy)
Switch the relay on using the original black/white wire that used to power the coils.
(an interupt could be put on the ground leg of the relay as a hidden security feature...)
power supply side done

For the connections out to the coils, I would make a jumper harness that plugged into the original harness and then into the twin ignitor multiple coil harness, (leaving the option to go back to stock if the whiz bang shitarree lost it's desire to throw a spark)



It "appears" to my untrained eye that the ecu is just tickling one leg of a switching transistor in the igniter case when it wants to fire a coil.

It's this transistor located in the ignitor that will switch and carry the current that energises the coils. This means the ecu will only see the load that it takes to switch a transistor. The actual coil ground will run thru the legs of the ignitor transistor and out to ground on pin 3 (black wire) from the ignitor unit, not back thru the ecu.

I must say I don't completely understand how much loading the ecu "sees" when it triggers the transistor in the ignitor to fire the coils, but I do know it looks like we're preparing to double that load. To an uneducated mook like me it seems like we should be sure the ground traces from the ignitor triggers are up to the extra loading, and the actuall switching components are up to the task... long term ...



Hopefully, Steve P or Keydiver will chime in and educate us on the subject. They know these ecu's from the board up.

It would suck to pop the ecu


At any rate, I would probably optimise/upgrade the ground path out of the ignitors, as they will see higher loadings.





Roger, I'll get you a 90 ignitor pigtail out on Monday. If you need anything else, please don't hesitate to ask.

Good luck with the project, gentlemen, and please keep this thread updated.

I like to see people try new things!

Posts: 3540 | From: Never Summer Ranch, Colorado | Member Since: 04/30/06 | IP: (208.54.5.66) | Report this post to a Moderator

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


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921231 posted 08/08/10 12:07 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Toybreaker:

You mention build a jumper harness. I was also thinking the same thing too. Question is does anyone know of a male connector similar the transistor side that could be used? This would allow a much easier and quicker install and provide simple plug and play for those who do not wish to hack their harnesses. That's what made the COP systems more appealing too.

Also I think you bring up a good point about the ignition switch currents and fuel pump issues.



#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: (96.2.94.201) | Report this post to a Moderator

toybreaker Galant VR4.org Moderator
it's peace of mind at 100 mph plus
1990/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921236 posted 08/08/10 12:30 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Ryan,

I haven't really looked into the connectors yet. There may be something that uses the same connector as the ignitor, but I don't know of it offhand.

It sounds like Roger has a really good handle on things, and It'll be interesting to see what he comes up with.

If you need anything, just shoot me a pm.

I love to see people try new things, so if I can contribute anything to the cause, let me know.

You guys just might be on to something here.



the bitterness of low quality remains long after the temporary joy of a low price has faded

Posts: 3540 | From: Never Summer Ranch, Colorado | Member Since: 04/30/06 | IP: (208.54.5.50) | Report this post to a Moderator

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


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921267 posted 08/08/10 04:02 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting galant1517:

I know that this thread has focused primarily on COP. However, do you believe one would also be justified in doing this on a stock coiled car?
P.S. Thanks to Roger B. Scott and Broxma.




I got beat to the punch on asking this question too. I don't enough electrical theory to support my opinion and would love to hear Brox and Roger go into detail on this, but I feel like it would be too much for either the coil pack or the transistors. I'm not sure though. I do know that the stock coils can handle 500+hp without issues so in my opinion it would be adding a potential problem to a system that isn't broke.



#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: (96.2.94.201) | Report this post to a Moderator

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921280 posted 08/08/10 05:38 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Increasing the peak current will benefit OEM coils just the same as COP. Now, is it necessary? Probably not. Remember that the COP setups are inferior to OEM in terms of energy for a given current so increasing the current is meant to give them a boost and bring them back into spec.

Building a plug-n-play harness that allowed for the installation of dual igniters would be a huge boon. The great thing about this would be that you could also incorporate a main power relay as per Toybreaker's suggestion or just wire it straight to the old power supply, without in anyway modifying the existing harness. Unfortunately I can't think of anything that shows promise as far as mimicking the igniter plug. What may work, though, would be to find a spare igniter (or a burnt out igniter) and then cut it in half, hollow it out, and solder to the interior leads.

I may be out of town next weekend but if I'm not I'll head to the junkyard and see if I can scrounge any more bits. In the mean time, if anybody comes across a dead '91+ igniter and want's to play "what's inside" you might try cracking it open and seeing if it would be possible to solder leads to the terminals and convert it into a secondary harness.


Edited by belize1334 (08/08/10 08:27 PM)

Posts: 3312 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (174.45.93.14) | Report this post to a Moderator

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


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921341 posted 08/08/10 09:14 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I haven't been able to find anything else as of yet. I know AC delco makes a huge load of replacement connectors. Hopefully I can dig into a catalog and do some digging. I'm planning on playing out at the salvage yard on Saturday and can grab several connectors. If anyone is interested, PM me and I'll see about getting some in the mail.

I've decided against hacking and trying this out as of right now. I want to wait and try to wire it up pro style rather have hacking it and getting to busy to finish it properly. I want to improve the ground and power circuits, as toybreaker made some very valid points regarding that. I have full faith in the research done here and I'm pretty much sold that this mod will correct the COP issues that have plagued us.

Has anyone grabbed any logs or videos yet?



#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: (96.2.94.201) | Report this post to a Moderator

broxma
retard monkey strength
379/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921367 posted 08/08/10 10:55 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I still have the ignitors mounted to their backplates. I just drilled out a hole to 10mm on the backplate to mount them. They are still in the same stock configuration essentially, just mounted differently on the car.

Steve and I went out and monitored boost and spark. I ran into a spark issue at around 20-21 PSI at max load (Around 6500) in second gear. It only happened one time and I haven't checked out the root cause. I cannot categorically verify boost level because the hose running to the gauge was loose and may have lost several pounds at the connection. A project for later this week is to build the gauge plate for under the radio with a -30/30 peak hold electric gauge.

Tomorrow I am hopefully getting the timing belt done on the wife's car and then putting more time in on the ignitor wiring to make it a bit more sound. Can we confirm what the proper resistance should be through the 300m coil at the connector pins? I have a box of the things and would like to make sure I am not using one that is less than able.

For the harness, I had an idea. I believe that some of the MAS sensors had the male side screwed onto the MAS itself. Fundamentally, you might be able to use that male side and just solder the ignitor harness onto it. If none are screwed on, you could certainly cannibalize one for the purpose. I have a few laying around and can take a look.

/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

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 921470 posted 08/09/10 11:59 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
My coils read 0.8 Ohm for two in series and each reads 0.4 Ohm individually. I cannot guarantee that this is the proper value or that my multimeter is properly calibrated. If I were you I'd measure them all and pick four that are the most closely matched.



Roger B. Scott
'91 Belize Green

Posts: 3312 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (174.45.93.14) | Report this post to a Moderator

alansupra94
Excuse the retarded question.
4/1000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 922142 posted 08/11/10 10:34 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
I think my head exploded.

Carry on as I will read more in-depth when I get my AEM EMS (although I am not sure if it applies to me anymore if I have it)



1992 Galant VR4
1996 Toyota Supra TT

Posts: 1909 | From: Wayne,NJ | Member Since: 03/03/10 | IP: (173.3.24.20) | Report this post to a Moderator

belize1334
well bread and nobly conceived
1334/2000


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 922249 posted 08/12/10 12:17 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
It should still be applicable. While AEM allows you to adjust dwell time, the point of the dual igniters is to increase the maximum theoretical current value which is not something that you can do by just increasing the dwell time.

I should also point out that it could be some time before I end up performing this mod on my own vehicle. I haven't had ANY symptoms yet that the plug-n-play COP that I built is limiting my power. At ~20psi on my 14b I don't get any breakup. The real proof is gonna be from brox and others with bigger turbos who are pushing the limits of the ignition system. I'm staying tuned for the final word but so far it seems like we're getting thumbs up from that corner.



Roger B. Scott
'91 Belize Green


Edited by belize1334 (08/12/10 12:19 PM)

Posts: 3312 | From: Dundee, Scotland, UK | Member Since: 11/18/03 | IP: (174.45.93.14) | Report this post to a Moderator

cheekychimp Galant VR4.org Moderator
Director of Housing and Urban Development, and carbon/kevlar balls


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 922255 posted 08/12/10 12:47 PM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post      
Quoting broxma:



If I could verify a coil with a higher natural voltage and better dwell time I would make a plate for them to test them out but information on such things is often not available. I do have some Toyota coils from a V6 Camry or something that appear beefy but who knows how they perform in reality.

/brox




Brox,

I cannot verify this because I never tried it, but I was told Mercury Marine Coils are the best you can get for this application, just bulky.



Getting old sucks ... but it sure beats the alternative !!!

Posts: 7333 | From: East Sussex, U.K. | Member Since: 04/19/04 | IP: (116.48.6.104) | Report this post to a Moderator

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


Galant VR-4 org Post #: 922694 posted 08/14/10 11:54 AM     Remind Me!  Send Private Message   Edit Post   
Quoting broxma:


For the harness, I had an idea. I believe that some of the MAS sensors had the male side screwed onto the MAS itself. Fundamentally, you might be able to use that male side and just solder the ignitor harness onto it. If none are screwed on, you could certainly cannibalize one for the purpose. I have a few laying around and can take a look.

/brox




Bam, you nailed the harness source dead on. I headed out to the yard today and found one MAS and checked the plugs. It had a removable connector once I pulled the back cover off and cut the leads coming off the board. There is still plenty of lead to solder a harness to. Looks like a plug and play is an option at this point. However I could not find anything else that would work, so in order to build a plug and play you'll need a MAS laying around to hack up.

Has anyone figured out Toybreaker concerns about frying the ECU from increased loads?



#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: (96.2.94.201) | Report this post to a Moderator


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

Extra information
0 registered and 18 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: 49628

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 0.158 seconds in which 0.047 seconds were spent on a total of 14 queries. Turbo powered.


Hertz's Galant VR-4 Page