Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Gap them to 0.8 and you should feel a little extra in performance as well even on stock boost.

what proof do you have of this? i find that very hard to believe...

if it wasn't missing on stock boost with 1.1mm then don't change it! i now run 1.1mm gap with 12psi of boost on my rb20 and have no issues at all. maybe its an rb25 thing?

The closer the gap the stronger the spark, simple really, but there is a point of where you go backwards. I saw a Zoom article of some dyno testing of spark plug gaps too and 0.8 came up with the best.

Well your lucky of getting no missing issues with 1.1 gap.

So a RB20det running 20psi with 1.1 or 1.2mm gap miss-fire?

in most cases, yes.

depends on a few factors, but as mentioned the increased pressure would decrease the ability of the spark to arc across the gap.

might have no such problems with aftermarket coils, but it doesnt take much work to close the gap a little.

hang on. unless it is missfiring you want the biggest gap you can, it provides a more ven burn.

ppl have to move to lower gaps because their spark is not strong enough, not because it is better

Got to agree with Duncan.

The bigger the gap , the better the spark. The coil has to build up a stronger spark to jump the larger gap which makes for a fatter , hotter spark.

Downside is that too much compression/boost will blow the spark out or not allow it to jump the gap.

Whoever said that the closer the gap , the better the spark has not done 1st year apprentice mechanics :P

Which is why with CDI type systems you can run a much greater spark gap as they pack a mean punch. Grab an Autronics CDI equipped spark plug as opposed to a normal coil and see what I mean.My hand was numb for about 1/2 hr. One of our race engines lost an electrode hook on the dyno and it was still firing with a CDI system.

Cheers

Ken

  • Like 1
Got to agree with Duncan.

The bigger the gap , the better the spark. The coil has to build up a stronger spark to jump the larger gap which makes for a fatter , hotter spark.

Downside is that too much compression/boost will blow the spark out or not allow it to jump the gap.

Whoever said that the closer the gap , the better the spark has not done 1st year apprentice mechanics :P  

Which is why with CDI type systems you can run a much greater spark gap as they pack a mean punch. Grab an Autronics CDI equipped spark plug  as opposed to a normal coil and see what I mean.My hand was numb for about 1/2 hr. One of our race engines lost an electrode hook on the dyno and it was still firing with a CDI system.

Cheers

Ken

about time someone with sense jumped in here!

it seems that too many people read something on these forums and then become armchair tuners...

if you're not missing on a 1.1mm gap then don't re-gap to 0.8mm. If 0.8mm were better then i'm sure all plugs would be gapped to 0.8mm. if smaller gaps were better then wouldn't all plugs be running gaps in micrometres? its logical really...

rather than decreasing the gap in your spark, it'd be wiser to increase the power of the spark innit? wire up a set of quick charge capacitors to your sparks and bob's yer uncle...

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

    • Means something is not set up right, tune/calibration related.  
    • Finally replaced the previous temporary mesh indicator surrounds (temporary was the last 10+ years 😂) with a 3D printed GTR style version for the front indicators. I think it looks a lot nicer than the old setup and at least the indicators now point in the correct direction rather than angled off. Needed a little bit of tweaking to deal with the intercooler piping but got there in the end. Old and new photos below. 
    • It's weird to me that you say this because I'm pretty sure locals with relatively standard standalone tunes (boost/barometric compensated alpha-N) still have driveability issues when they pop intercooler hoses. Maybe with enough data I can just train some kind of model that spits out an expected grams/cyl given every sensor input except MAF like what FCA did with their Pentastar 3.6 ECU logic. Basically stock everything. The main motivation honestly is to have a sensor that can be a decent baseline source of truth. In scenarios you're describing obviously it won't work every time but it seems to me the number of corner cases that exist in MAF load is maybe not as severe and difficult to manage vs ITB alpha-N with some MAP/barometric compensation.
    • What are your plans for your blow off valves? Purely plumb back? How soft will the spring in them be? AFM can be tricky to get super smooth and nice, especially depending on the rest of the system, and then can be very easily upset if something slightly changes. IE, even if you run recirc blow off valves, you could still see issues getting it to behave at certain load points as turbos might start to spool, but you release the throttle but it's not enough pressure to crack the bov open to recirc, and you can end up with reversion which can cause double metering, and hence dumping of fuel into the system, and stalling the engine.   If you're going to run a map sensor for closed loop boost control from the ECU, what makes you want to keep the AFM?    
    • It's not bad, it's just not flexible. And say if you have any leaks between the MAF and plenum, well then your load axis goes out the window. Here's a real world scenario, I blew off an intercooler hose last track day, as the clamp decided to Bluetooth itself somewhere. Still continued to do 2 laps and drive it to the pub for a couple of beers then home. Good luck doing that with a MAF setup 
×
×
  • Create New...