Pulsing Spark Plugs

[typhoidmary]

Hi all,

I was reading an add in a car magazine at the doctor's office about a 'new' kind of spark plug that supposedly improves HP and or fuel economy.

A yahoo skim of the internet seems to show mixed opinions.

Green car congress says this:
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/01/pulse_plug_demo.html

They are referring to this:
http://www.pulstarplug.com/

Has anyone tried these?

[beatr911]

If this actually works, the shorter but stronger spark seems like it would be most useful for big inch engines. In the Ford 460 each cylinder is about 950cc and with a single plug the flame takes a long time to complete the burn in such a large area. For a 1.5L Honda, the 375cc/cylinder flame completes in a much shorter time anyway, prolly less benefit.

[SVOboy]

Have any of the large engines started using two plugs? I know honda has started doing it but I don't know about anyone else...

[beatr911]

Have any of the large engines started using two plugs? I know honda has started doing it but I don't know about anyone else...

The only multiple plug engines I know of are Porsche 964 (911) 3.6L - 2 per cyl, Ford 2.3 Lima or Pinto - 2 per cyl, Honda experimental lean burn - 5 per cyl. What large Honda motor are you referring to? Haven't heard of this one yet.
With 2+ plugs per cylinder it apparently helps complete the burn with increased NOx reducing EGR. The added complexity and cost of a redundant ignition system along with the use of faster, more complete burning 4 valve heads along with squishing everything into the head and the extra energy required to run the extra plugs just isn't worth it for most OEMs.
The new cats deal with NOx so maybe a large amounts of EGR is no longer necessary further reducing the requirement, not to mention more refined burning characteristics in the 2 and 3 valve heads of the newer larger engines (Ford, GM).
The Ford 2.3 netted something like 12 hp and a couple of mpg with a less efficeint flowing head (due to the second plug on the intake side). On the Porsche 911, pre 964 dual plug engine, a rule of thumb for converting to dual plug is you can raise compression one point ie 9.5:1 to 10.5:1 with the same fuel requirement. Driveability is also much improved, especially when cold, hp is up from 180 to 205 or so. They have a really disorganized swirl if you could call it that, and a highly domed piston with a large half domed shape combustion chamber, no squish area, so dual plugs are a big help to get everything lit. Modern designs with squish, small flat or sphere-like combustion chambers burn much better with a single plug right in the center of it all, good recipies for a fast burn. Fast burn means less ignition advance and less ignition advance means less pressure on the piston as it comes up during compression before pressure spikes at peak pressure. This all means more power for the fuel used.

Ok I'm done. Sorry for the disorganized ramble. Back to work...

Is Honda yet again improving the burn efficiency of thier engines, this time with dual plugs? If this nets a tangible gain, maybe other mfrs will follow?

[Red]

5% increase doesn't seem like much for $25 bucks a plug

[SVOboy]

I believe honda is using dual plugs in the new HCH and prolly will open it up to more cars in the future. It's not a large engine, but there you have it.

[cfg83]

Hello -

If it claims to generate more PSI in the explosion (more power), would that imply that it is going beyond the engine compression spec?

I just asked them about "waste spark" ignition systems (my bugaboo). Here is one note on their site :

"CAUTION: Pulstar model recommendations are for stock, unmodified engines. If you have added an aftermarket turbocharger, supercharger, nitrous or any other product that increases displacement or compression to your engine you will require a colder heat range pulse plug in order to avoid possible damage to your engine."

It definitely sounds cool. I like the capacitor thingy. I am going to monitor this.

They are also selling this spark plug/wire kit for high compression/turbo systems :

http://www.directhits.com/index.html

CarloSW2

[Mentalic]

Hi all,

I was reading an add in a car magazine at the doctor's office about a 'new' kind of spark plug that supposedly improves HP and or fuel economy.

Has anyone tried these?

Interesting. They do look like they have the very thin electrode like an iridium plug which is supposed to initate a spark at lower voltages. Don't think I'm up for trying them at $25 a plug though.

I did see a noticeable difference when I replaced worn copper plugs with NGK Iridiums though. Yea, I know thats not exactly a fair comparison of old worn plugs against new plugs but thats all the info I have.

[cfg83]

Mentalic -

Interesting. They do look like they have the very thin electrode like an iridium plug which is supposed to initate a spark at lower voltages. Don't think I'm up for trying them at $25 a plug though.

I did see a noticeable difference when I replaced worn copper plugs with NGK Iridiums though. Yea, I know thats not exactly a fair comparison of old worn plugs against new plugs but thats all the info I have.

Hrmmmmmm, now I am confused. They do look smaller, but when I went here :

http://www.pulstarplug.com/howtheywork.html

I saw this image :

604

This leads me to believe that the independent test was comparing the Pulse Plug to a Denso-Iridium style "thin electrode" spark plug, which may not be representative of what the normal public uses in their cars.

Curioser and curioser ...

CarloSW2

[Lug_Nut]

Interesting "test" they've developed for themselves to show their product in the best light. I'd have hoped they'd at least use the standardized EPA city / highway cycles, but no, they drive on closed course roads, with no control on acceleration/deceleration rates. They may or may not have an average speed calculated from a time over the course, but a 1/4 mile in 15 seconds is a fast drag strip time or a nothing more than a steady 60 mph. Which has better fuel economy over the same time on the same distance??
The first test is with factory plugs (and cold engine too?). The second is their product (and a warm engine?). There is no indication that an A-B-A test with factory plugs is re-run.
The propogation test of the flame front has their product at 16000 milliseconds at the same volume as the 'standard' at 32000 milliseconds. Even at 6000 rpm (100 rev/sec) the crankshaft angle difference is .58 degrees. At a more typical 3000 rpm the angle difference is .29 degrees. Since most modern engine have knock sensors that retard timing from a far advanced position anyway, the .3 to .6 degrees effective advance will be moot as the engine's management system merely retards timing that additional amount to offset the quicker ignition.
The fuel still burns at the same rate so the only way to increase cylinder pressure is to advance timing to the knock threshold. Whether the ECU delays the spark an additional .000016 seconds (.575 degrees at 6000 rpm) or not isn't worth $200 to me.
Oh, and the payback period is fudged, too. They claim the major cost of traditional spark plugs is the labor to install them, but that labor is handily ignored for their product. Well, If I can install theirs, why do I need a mechanic to install Champions?

There are enough scams for the diesel users. I am glad I don't have to slog through these intended for the gullible with gasoline engines.

[bobski]

I believe honda is using dual plugs in the new HCH
Right. The current model Civic hybrid does infact use 2 plugs per cylinder... If you pop the trim cover off, you can see the eight ignition coils bolted to the valve cover.

[usedgeo]

Nissan also built a bunch of dual plug engines. That was back when they even did it with a distributor. It was mostly for emissions, I thought. Almost all aircraft engines run dual plugs. They have large open combustion chambers and dual plugs helps pevent detonation and get the fire done sooner. Aircraft engines generally test pretty good for specific fuel consumption too considering the antiquated appearance of the combustion chamber designs.

Years ago Champion sold a plug with an auxiliary gap up in the ceramic insulator that allowed the ignition to build to a higher voltage before it fired. This plug should be compared with the old auxilary gap design and then tell us how much better it is. It just looks like too much for too little to me.

edit: I cannot find a description of the Champion plug on the net. Often times pulling the plug wire back from a fouled plug and having it arc to the plug would get the plug to fire.

Speaking of plugs, here is an Idaho invention that has run in quite a few engines, even airplanes. It appears derived from model air plane glow plug technology.

http://www.smartplugs.com/index.html

This started out so promising and now nothing for several years.

[bzipitidoo]

I saw an ad for those Pulstar plugs in Popular Mechanics (or maybe Popular Science). I'd view it with a healthy amount of skepticism. Like all these sorts of things the ad is carefully worded with highly selective facts. I'd find it more convincing if some truly independent labs had some positive results to report.

This reminds me of another magic spark plug company, back in the '90s. Their pitch was that spark plugs were not much more advanced than matches. And they were going to improve power and economy with precision sparking. They got some press, but then they vanished, and as far as I know without ever having produced a product.

[VetteOwner]

hmm my truck is a picky one. it does not like any other plugs besides the expensive $6 a pop delco plugs...if i use anythign else it runs like crap or has no power

[michaelwoodcock]

at the claimed gains, you might as well start by side gapping and keying your current plugs. That might bring your mileage up enough!

i might go for the on top of the plugs type one, so that i can re use it with cheap spark plugs. My guess is that the spark comes immediately, with 100% rather than with like, 50% for a longer time.

i guess it could be condidered an ignition system change, since it is before the spark producing parts.

Anyways,
i will get the on top of the spark plug ones, some plugs, and see if it is really worth it. The plugs are not worth it to me, but since i only need one of the spark plug toppers, and a new plug, that might be worth it!

[Snax]

Ok, doing a little math for myself on this one:

$25 x 4 cylinders = $100 investment

At 12,000 miles per year and $3.00/gallon, assuming I get a baseline of 30.0 mpg average, that's $1200/year for fuel.

If this device provides just 2% improvement, then my mpg would be 30.6 mpg, costing me $1176/year - a savings of $24 (8 gallons). So it would take just over 4 years to have these payback on the investment.

That seems like a rather long time for something with questionable benefit - which is going to hinge on the efficiency of the existing stock system. Of course if one drives further and will realize a greater FE improvement, they become more practical.

I would not rule out the benefit of these things however, as I have seen the improvement an MSD system can provide just to idle speed and quality. It's also reasonable to assume that auto makers might omit something like this due to the extra cost involved if it didn't bear out on a sales basis.

They probably do help. Anybody who's read more than a couple of threads here knows that every little bit eventually adds up to something significant, and even a 2% improvement adds to the bottom line.

Oh, and the plug-toppers are the smart money. Why would anyone want to throw out $25 plugs??

[kamesama980]

well my post didn't post or got lost in the electrons...so here it is again.

I have Pulstar plugs (friend working there, no I won't tell you who). Going from good plugs to them is like going from old worn out plugs to brand new ones. mild gains in idle quality and torque. I change stuff in my car all the time so it's hard to track FE of any one thing.