Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

oh, so a random Guy with a low power setup claims such massive differences with no dyno proof, and that means somehow I am losing heaps off power to a non existant coil issue?

cool -__-

oh, so a random Guy with a low power setup claims such massive differences with no dyno proof, and that means somehow I am losing heaps off power to a non existant coil issue?

cool -__-

Whoa guy - why so defensive? If you haven't tried the coilpacks back to back yourself, why are you so strongly convinced there is no difference?

Sorry that came across a bit harsh. Fair point, but when a combo makes the expected power, and comparable to others, I dont believe im losing out on any power. The people that pick up power are doing so because their old coils werent working properly. Actually losing lower by changing coils (unless the new coils are faulty) hasnt been proven. There are back to back tests that show there is no power to be had by replacing functioning coils with another brand.

im not willing to do my own back to back test, but I will have a set of yellow jackets available soon, as I am going to use ls1 coils I got for nothing. If anyone wants them, they can have them so long as they do a back to back test when installing them.

Ben

Thought I'd save some coin by buying the JJR (red) coil packs...

15 months later = FAIL (stock turbo@10psi)

BTW - My tuner said that the popping/misfiring under boost caused by these POS coil packs could be as damaging to the engine as knock!

Replaced with Splitfires...

15 months later = SWEET (3076@19psi) never missed a beat

Not only did I not save money by going cheap... it actually cost me and extra $400!

Edited by Checkbuzz

dude, heaps of people make twice your power with yellow jackets. I am making 274rwkw with them. explain how that can happen if they are so shit?

he didn't say these coils won't make power, he said on HIS setup he made less power with the yellow coils then he did with the stock ones and how do you know 1) he didn't make less power, and 2) your setup won't make more power by putting stock coils on your car, you've said our not will to try it but are willing to take a shot at someone that has

oh, so a random Guy with a low power setup claims such massive differences with no dyno proof, and that means somehow I am losing heaps off power to a non existant coil issue?

cool -__-

why so angry, he is just telling us what he has experienced with his car, what does his power setup have anything it do with this issue if anything the fact his setup is so low power showing that kind of difference would mean it would be worse on a mild setup like yours and even more so on bigger setups

can you prove he didn't and if your not willing to test them how do you know you don't have an existing coil issue or won't make more power by changing them and if you don't have an issue and these coils can make the power why are you changing them ? cause, and please correct me if I'm wrong, free or not the LS1 coils are not a plug and play setup and remove the factory look giving a greater chance of a defect if pulled over

i made 360 rwkw on a neo rb25 with yellowjackets and plugs gapped at 0.8mm running e85.

have heard of others not having such luck with them. same goes for splitfires.. success stories and dramas everywhere.

my motor now runs MSD blaster coils... the spark these babies throw off is nothing short of frightening

Thing in China is. If one business makes money by copying some thing (doesn't mean it works), then every one else follows. They will also try to produce and sell them at a cheaper price. Externally they appears identical, internally they could be very different.

I think you missed his point, he made less power on his setup with them so if you change the yellow jackets to stock and you might pick up x amount of power on your setup

Exactly the point, and to make sure the testing was fair i ran them all on a stock car with minimal mods(not even my car) I did the tests quite a few years ago simply because i was curious to see just how much difference there was from coil to coil, the only new set of coils involved in the tests were's the yellow jackets, the stockers and splitfires were old ones of previous setups of mine and had done easily 20,000km's on the split fires and the stockers around 80,000km's

oh, so a random Guy with a low power setup claims such massive differences with no dyno proof, and that means somehow I am losing heaps off power to a non existant coil issue?

cool -__-

Yes thats exactly it dickhead. why dont you go and pay for dyno time to test some coils and see what results come from it and tell me how much you feel like sharing your results for others to gain from?

I performed the tests over 3 years ago stock car as i thought it was the only fair way to test back to back. I hope the shitty yellow things have improved A LOT since i tested them but i cringe when ever i see them on a car. The sad part of all with the test i performed is that the car idled nicer and felt smoother with those shitty yellow things on it but once the tests had been done both myself and the owner of the car where extremely suprised and shocked.

Spark is not something you should cheap out on but if you are on a tight budget look into retro fitting LS series coils which can be had extremely cheap from the states. If you want the best there is out there.. BPP's CDI setup is the most impressive bolt on solution but comes at a cost and its not a complete bolt on plug and play.. you do need to snip and crim the 7 ignition wires into a new plug(supplied) to suit the new ignition harness.

No need for name calling...

So we could assume the coils have improved, as there are plenty of people making 250+ with yellow jackets.

At the end of the day,i don't care. the coils were on the car when I bought it, and I will be going to ls coils as they are clearly heaps better. But I seriously doubt I would make more power as there is no issue currently.

No need for name calling...

So we could assume the coils have improved, as there are plenty of people making 250+ with yellow jackets.

At the end of the day,i don't care. the coils were on the car when I bought it, and I will be going to ls coils as they are clearly heaps better. But I seriously doubt I would make more power as there is no issue currently.

you would be surprised how much they pick up with a larger gap and decent coils....

If my mate (Sloane) goes for the splitfires and gets rid of his yellow jackets, I'll ask him to put the car on the same dyno and see if it will run more than it's current 370.8RWKW.

Interestingly I definitely felt improved power output going to the yellow-jackets over the stock coils even though I had no issues with the stock coils. But then again I also indexed the new plugs I put in by facing them toward the intake ports.

dont know.. as no other coils would work haha.

best part was the MSD blasters are 70 each (need 3, run wasted) plus a set of custom leads and an ignitor. strongest spark ever

Ergh if they are so cheap why did I blow ~$500 on yellowjackets If I could get these MSD blasters for that price?

Any info/links?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • I'd be installing 2x widebands and using the NB simulation outputs to the ECU.
    • Nah, it's different across different engines and as the years went on. R32 era RB20, and hence also RB26, the TPS SWITCH is the idle command. The variable resistor is only for the TCU, as you say. On R33 era RB25 and onwards (but probably not RB26, as they still used the same basic ECU from the R32 era), the idle command is a voltage output of close to 0.45V from the variable resistor.
    • It's actually one of the worst bits of Nissan nomenclature (also compounded by wiring diagrams when the TCU is incorporated in ECU, or, ECU has a passthru to a standalone TCU).... the gripe ~ they call it the TPS, but with an A/T it's actually a combined unit ...TPS (throttle position switch) + TPS (throttle position sensor).... ..by the looks of it (and considering car is A/T) you have this unit... https://www.amayama.com/en/part/nissan/2262002u11 The connector on the flying lead coming out of the unit, is the TPS (throttle position sensor) ...only the TCU reads this. The connector on the unit body, is the TPS (throttle position switch) ...ECU reads this. It has 3 possible values -- throttle closed (idle control contact), open (both contacts open, ECU controls engine...'run' mode), and WOT (full throttle contact closed, ECU changes mapping). When the throttle is closed (idle control contact), this activates what the patent describes as the 'anti stall system' ~ this has the ECU keep the engine at idling speed, regardless of additional load/variances (alternator load mostly, along with engine temp), and drives the IACV solenoid with PWM signal to adjust the idle air admittance to do this. This is actually a specific ECCS software mode, that only gets utilized when the idle control contact is closed. When you rotate the TPS unit as shown, you're opening the idle control contact, which puts ECCS into 'run' mode (no idle control), which obviously is a non-sequitur without the engine started/running ; if the buzzing is coming from the IACV solenoid, then likely ECCS is freaking out, and trying to raise engine rpm 'any way it can'...so it's likely pulling the valve wide open....this is prolly what's going on there. The signal from the connector on the flying lead coming out of the unit (for the TCU), should be around 0.4volts with the throttle closed (idle position) ~ although this does effect low throttle shift points if set wrong, the primary purpose here is to tell TCU engine is at idle (no throttle demand), and in response lower the A/T line pressure ... this is often described as how much 'creep' you get with shifter in D at idle. The way the TPS unit is setup (physically), ensures the idle control contact closes with a high margin on the TPSensor signal wire, so you can rotate the unit on the adjustment slots, to achieve 0.4v whilst knowing the idle control contact is definitely closed. The IACV solenoid is powered by battery voltage via a fuse, and ground switched (PWM) by the ECU. When I check them, I typically remove the harness plug, feed the solenoid battery voltage and switch it to ground via a 5watt bulb test probe ; thing should click wide open, and idle rpm should increase... ...that said though, if it starts & idles with the TPS unit disconnected, and it still stalls when it gets up to operating temperature, it won't be the IACV because it's unused, which would infer something else is winking out...  
    • In the context of cam 'upgrader' I mean generally people who upgrade headers/cams - not my specific change. I mean it makes sense that if I had a bigger cam, I may get more false lean readings. So if I went smaller, I'd get less false lean readings. To a point where perhaps stock.. I'd have no false lean readings, according to the ECU. But I'm way richer than stock. My bigger than normal cam in the past also was giving false rich leanings. It's rather odd and doesn't add up or pass the pub test. Realistically what I want is the narrowbands to effectively work as closed loop fuel control and keep my AFR around 14.7 on light sections of the map. Which is of course the purpose of narrowband CL fuel control. So if I can change the switch points so the NB's target 14.7 (as read by my WB) then this should be fine. Haven't actually tested to see what the changed switchpoints actually result in - car needs to be in a position it can idle for awhile to do that. I suspect it will be a troublesome 15 min drive home with lots of stalling and way too rich/lean transient nightmare bucking away for that first drive at 2am or whevener it ends up being. Hopefully it's all tune-able. Realistically it should be. This is a very mild cam.
    • Messing with narrowband switchovers is a terrible bandaid. I don't want to think about it. You are a cam "upgrader" only in concept. As you said, your new cam is actually smaller, so it's technically a downgrade. OK, likely a very small downgrade, but nevertheless. But the big thing that will be the most likely suspect is the change of the advance angle. That change could be equivalent to a substantial decrease in cam lobe duration. I haven't gone to the effort of trying to think about what your change would actually cause. But until someone (you, me (unlikely), Matt, someone else) does so and comes to a conclusion about the effect, it remains a possibility that that is the change that is causing what you're seeing.
×
×
  • Create New...