XDi Ignition kits
11-15-2005, 10:46 AM
#31
Nordschleife Master
Hi Miles, that is the Bosch 6 cylinder waste spark coil pack. For an inductive setup, that is my preferred ignition system on the Porsche. They require a Bosch 3 channel ignitor.
11-16-2005, 05:20 AM
#33
1st Gear
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys
I heard about this discussion on the grape vine and would like to try and clear up a few misconceptions which may help you understand more of what is going on. My comments and opinions are based upon 10 years of designing and building inductive and cdi ignition systems that are used by many of the aftermarket ecu manufacturers around the world.
In an inductive ignition the energy for the spark is stored in the ignition coil during the period of 'dwell'. The equation for power is 1/2 * L * I^2 so you can improve the output by either increasing the current (I) or coil inductance (L), the down side is that which every way you go it will require a longer dwell period. Using a typical 3.5mS dwell coil with a distributor would mean that after 5700rpm (6 cyl) your spark energy is starting to fall off however with waste spark and direct fire systems that have more than one ignition coil the problem is solved to a degree.
In a cdi system the spark energy is stored internally in a large dump capacitor and the igntion coil is simply used as a step-up transformer. The equation for power is now 1/2 * C * V^2 and the capacitor has a charge time typically around 1 mS. I can only speak for our units and their energy output is consistent right up to the rpm limit of the cdi and also independent of the supply voltage (neither of which can be said for inductive igntion).
Incidentally, inductive coils will work ok with cdi systems however their inductance is typically too high for best output. To give you an example - I measured the primary peak current of different coils when 'fired' by a cdi and found the following. Small transformer style coil - 20A, Crane PS92 - 60A, ferrite core cdi coil - 120A.
My opinion about running both plug leads from a dual outlet coil to the same cylinder is - Don't do it! The voltage required to jump a spark plug gap increases considerably with cylinder pressure so if you have both ends of the coil firing into high pressure you stand a much greater chance of an insulation breakdown than if one end was under pressure and the other not.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'fully charge' the coils. If you ever hit saturation on an ignition coil you will know it by the molten smelly mess under your bonnet so coils are normally operated well away from this area. Typically you will see primary currents of around 4A for small COP coils, 6-7A for modern transformer coils and up to 30A for the specialised COP coils used by the F1 guys.
Some people think that a long spark is more likely to ignite a mixture more effectively than a short duration one however keep the following in mind. If you have only X amound of energy available, spreading it over a longer time will significantly reduce the peak power. The flame front is so fast that if reliable ignition is not established in the first few microseconds the game is mostly over. There is another train of though and it is one that actual results are making me belive may be more valid. This theory says that, up to a point, the more peak energy you can pump into the initial spark event the more likely you are to have complete, consistent reliable ignition.
Some of the inductive ignition manufacturers quote energy levels that are up with those of a good cdi system however to achieve these theoretical numbers they have to use fairly high inductance coils. I suspect that it is this high inductance and its inherent effect on the secondary output that then works against them preventing the same results as those from a good cdi.
One question I always ask people to determine the efficiency of their ignition is 'What plug gap are you running?' If you are down around 18-20 thou there is a good chance you have problems. A good ignition will normally allow you to run much larger plug gaps, more fuel and less advance than a lower energy system.
W
I heard about this discussion on the grape vine and would like to try and clear up a few misconceptions which may help you understand more of what is going on. My comments and opinions are based upon 10 years of designing and building inductive and cdi ignition systems that are used by many of the aftermarket ecu manufacturers around the world.
In an inductive ignition the energy for the spark is stored in the ignition coil during the period of 'dwell'. The equation for power is 1/2 * L * I^2 so you can improve the output by either increasing the current (I) or coil inductance (L), the down side is that which every way you go it will require a longer dwell period. Using a typical 3.5mS dwell coil with a distributor would mean that after 5700rpm (6 cyl) your spark energy is starting to fall off however with waste spark and direct fire systems that have more than one ignition coil the problem is solved to a degree.
In a cdi system the spark energy is stored internally in a large dump capacitor and the igntion coil is simply used as a step-up transformer. The equation for power is now 1/2 * C * V^2 and the capacitor has a charge time typically around 1 mS. I can only speak for our units and their energy output is consistent right up to the rpm limit of the cdi and also independent of the supply voltage (neither of which can be said for inductive igntion).
Incidentally, inductive coils will work ok with cdi systems however their inductance is typically too high for best output. To give you an example - I measured the primary peak current of different coils when 'fired' by a cdi and found the following. Small transformer style coil - 20A, Crane PS92 - 60A, ferrite core cdi coil - 120A.
My opinion about running both plug leads from a dual outlet coil to the same cylinder is - Don't do it! The voltage required to jump a spark plug gap increases considerably with cylinder pressure so if you have both ends of the coil firing into high pressure you stand a much greater chance of an insulation breakdown than if one end was under pressure and the other not.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'fully charge' the coils. If you ever hit saturation on an ignition coil you will know it by the molten smelly mess under your bonnet so coils are normally operated well away from this area. Typically you will see primary currents of around 4A for small COP coils, 6-7A for modern transformer coils and up to 30A for the specialised COP coils used by the F1 guys.
Some people think that a long spark is more likely to ignite a mixture more effectively than a short duration one however keep the following in mind. If you have only X amound of energy available, spreading it over a longer time will significantly reduce the peak power. The flame front is so fast that if reliable ignition is not established in the first few microseconds the game is mostly over. There is another train of though and it is one that actual results are making me belive may be more valid. This theory says that, up to a point, the more peak energy you can pump into the initial spark event the more likely you are to have complete, consistent reliable ignition.
Some of the inductive ignition manufacturers quote energy levels that are up with those of a good cdi system however to achieve these theoretical numbers they have to use fairly high inductance coils. I suspect that it is this high inductance and its inherent effect on the secondary output that then works against them preventing the same results as those from a good cdi.
One question I always ask people to determine the efficiency of their ignition is 'What plug gap are you running?' If you are down around 18-20 thou there is a good chance you have problems. A good ignition will normally allow you to run much larger plug gaps, more fuel and less advance than a lower energy system.
W
11-16-2005, 03:23 PM
#34
Cruisin'
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get the facts
It seems as if every forum you go to has a CDI vs. Induction ignition discussion taking place. This thread has is a lot of partial information and misinformation on this complex piece of engine performance. I’m inserting a post from EFI101.com forum by Fred Schuettler. His explanation is easier to read and better than mine. I highly suggest that if you really want to learn about ignition, take a look http://efi101.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=390 forum, there is more. This post is on page 3 or 4.
________________
First off, I would like to commend each and every one of you for taking on this difficult concept. You are all truly on the cutting edge of this business as is obvious from all of your observations.
I must remark, however on Geoffrey’s remarks regarding Electromotive’s ‘80s GM Ignition, that he is correct, only to a point. Electromotive was actually engaged by GM/Delco/Remy during the ‘80s to help develop a new ignition circuit for GM. The coils on a Cavalier, however, are the only part shared by Electromotive’s Ignition. The circuitry behind those coils is much more advanced.
To shed some more light on this topic, let’s examine the fact that the CDI ignition was invented over 60 years ago to address problems that ignitions at the time had difficulty in overcoming. At that time, Ignition systems where dominated by points and condensers, which by design had the uncanny knack of reducing the amount of charge-time to the coils with increasing RPM. Since most high performance engines raise the peak torque RPM to well over what is considered stock, this poses a problem.
As you have already observed, the ignition output needs to be at it’s peak when the cylinder pressure is at it’s highest.
Back to the point : In order to equalize the ignition output through the RPM range (as opposed to reducing it with RPM, as points tend to do) the CD Ignition uses a capacitor to store energy, generated by a DC voltage step up system, and when the time [degrees] is right the system dumps the energy into the ignition coil and the spark is created. For the time, this was a wonderful solution. The CDI ignition, by design uses the ignition coils’ 1 to 100 winding ratio as a transformer, thus the voltage output is fixed and so is the burn time (time duration of spark gap ionization)– typically 0.1ms - at 6000RPM or about 3.6°.
The Inductive Ignition does have one major advantage – as the ignition coil is used as the energy storage device instead of a capacitor, the output per optimum spark is much more effective. The coil’s mass is very important here – basically you are creating an Electromagnetic field, and collapsing it to generate a spark. When the spark is generated, only enough voltage is used to initiate the sparkplug gap ionization and the rest of the energy is dissipated over what is a much longer burn time – typically 1 to 2 ms. The burn-time varies a little depending on the initial voltage required to ionize the gap of the plug. This longer burn time, however allows the ignition to adapt to the dynamic requirements of the engine. Things like swirl, and the fact that the air-fuel charge in the chamber is not always perfectly even [homogenous], are overcome by keeping the plug lit for over 36° at 6,000 rpm.
CD Ignitions have made their mark on racing because of the benefits they provide to distributor based V8 engines so popular here and in other countries. If you have seen the Ignition of a typical pre-DIS Ferrari V8, you will immediately notice that the engine has two distributors. This is a solution to one of an inductive ignition’s problems. On V8 engines, turning high RPM’s there is not enough time to properly charge the coil when using a single coil/distributor and inductive ignition. There is only 2.5ms between TDC’s at 6,000 RPM and ignition coils such as the GM HEI need more time than that to fully charge up. Hence Ferrari’s solution provides twice as much time to do the job. With a typical DIS system such as Electromotive’s, full coil charging can be maintained to over 12,000 RPM.
Now, the really big problem with inductive ignitions is determining the charge time PRIOR to the spark event. The CDI does not need to bother with this, since it has 400+ volts already waiting in the capacitor to create a 40,000+-volt spark.
With the advent of Electronic Ignition circuits and DIS, it has been possible to charge the coils properly at virtually any given RPM, however the calculations required are not as trivial as it might seem. The ignition coil may require as much as 3.5ms to be brought up to minimum charge.
The big question is - when do we electronically begin this process?
Let’s imagine the engine is turning 3000 RPM… that’s 20 ms per revolution, or 10 ms between ignition events of a four-cylinder engine. So let’s see, we spark #1, and wait 6.5 ms to start charging the coil again for cylinder #3… but wait! The engine is now turning 3500RPM – now we’re 1.5 ms late and the coil is undercharged [low on energy].
Do we calculate in an acceleration factor? How much latency is there?
Do we compensate for a sudden change in system voltage when the fan kicks on?
What do we do now? How much overhead can a single processor handle before it just can’t keep up with this?
All of these factors and more come into play when you want to go Inductive – and say what you want, the proof is in the production vehicles of every manufacturer!
When did the last fuel injected engine run off of an assembly plant with a CD Ignition? After all, the emissions requirements of production vehicles put a tremendous demand on assuring complete combustion and absolute accuracy, for any misfire would certainly cause it to flunk the stringent EPA test cycle. And if CDI offered any improvement to combustion, you can bet money on at least some manufacturers using it. You might find some oil burning two-stroke outboards with carburetors that still used a CDI, but that’s about it.
Don’t be fooled by the hype – the reason more people in the business of aftermarket Engine Management don’t use Inductive Ignitions with much success, is very clear. The predictive nature of charging an inductive ignition coil prior to the spark event is a very difficult task, even with today’s processors. Especially if you are multi-tasking i.e. data logging, monitoring track position, EGT’s on 8 cylinders, etc.
To give you an idea of how much processing power is required to run an inductive, multi-coil ignition [properly], just take a close look at an Electromotive TEC³r or one of their XDI’s – they use 4 microcomputers and a programmable logic device just to handle the job of Crank acquisition, coil charging and event timing – after all, they can run 60-2 to over 16,000 RPM.
From what I have seen, virtually none of the aftermarket ECU’s offer even an OEM quality ignition circuit, if they offer one at all.
The amount of engineering time required to do this is very high and the work product of those who have accomplished this is highly guarded intellectual property.
So in summary, a modern, high performance Engine Control Unit with CD Ignition, is an engineering “shortcut” for what is a non-trivial function required to achieve the maximum performance of almost any engine.
________________
First off, I would like to commend each and every one of you for taking on this difficult concept. You are all truly on the cutting edge of this business as is obvious from all of your observations.
I must remark, however on Geoffrey’s remarks regarding Electromotive’s ‘80s GM Ignition, that he is correct, only to a point. Electromotive was actually engaged by GM/Delco/Remy during the ‘80s to help develop a new ignition circuit for GM. The coils on a Cavalier, however, are the only part shared by Electromotive’s Ignition. The circuitry behind those coils is much more advanced.
To shed some more light on this topic, let’s examine the fact that the CDI ignition was invented over 60 years ago to address problems that ignitions at the time had difficulty in overcoming. At that time, Ignition systems where dominated by points and condensers, which by design had the uncanny knack of reducing the amount of charge-time to the coils with increasing RPM. Since most high performance engines raise the peak torque RPM to well over what is considered stock, this poses a problem.
As you have already observed, the ignition output needs to be at it’s peak when the cylinder pressure is at it’s highest.
Back to the point : In order to equalize the ignition output through the RPM range (as opposed to reducing it with RPM, as points tend to do) the CD Ignition uses a capacitor to store energy, generated by a DC voltage step up system, and when the time [degrees] is right the system dumps the energy into the ignition coil and the spark is created. For the time, this was a wonderful solution. The CDI ignition, by design uses the ignition coils’ 1 to 100 winding ratio as a transformer, thus the voltage output is fixed and so is the burn time (time duration of spark gap ionization)– typically 0.1ms - at 6000RPM or about 3.6°.
The Inductive Ignition does have one major advantage – as the ignition coil is used as the energy storage device instead of a capacitor, the output per optimum spark is much more effective. The coil’s mass is very important here – basically you are creating an Electromagnetic field, and collapsing it to generate a spark. When the spark is generated, only enough voltage is used to initiate the sparkplug gap ionization and the rest of the energy is dissipated over what is a much longer burn time – typically 1 to 2 ms. The burn-time varies a little depending on the initial voltage required to ionize the gap of the plug. This longer burn time, however allows the ignition to adapt to the dynamic requirements of the engine. Things like swirl, and the fact that the air-fuel charge in the chamber is not always perfectly even [homogenous], are overcome by keeping the plug lit for over 36° at 6,000 rpm.
CD Ignitions have made their mark on racing because of the benefits they provide to distributor based V8 engines so popular here and in other countries. If you have seen the Ignition of a typical pre-DIS Ferrari V8, you will immediately notice that the engine has two distributors. This is a solution to one of an inductive ignition’s problems. On V8 engines, turning high RPM’s there is not enough time to properly charge the coil when using a single coil/distributor and inductive ignition. There is only 2.5ms between TDC’s at 6,000 RPM and ignition coils such as the GM HEI need more time than that to fully charge up. Hence Ferrari’s solution provides twice as much time to do the job. With a typical DIS system such as Electromotive’s, full coil charging can be maintained to over 12,000 RPM.
Now, the really big problem with inductive ignitions is determining the charge time PRIOR to the spark event. The CDI does not need to bother with this, since it has 400+ volts already waiting in the capacitor to create a 40,000+-volt spark.
With the advent of Electronic Ignition circuits and DIS, it has been possible to charge the coils properly at virtually any given RPM, however the calculations required are not as trivial as it might seem. The ignition coil may require as much as 3.5ms to be brought up to minimum charge.
The big question is - when do we electronically begin this process?
Let’s imagine the engine is turning 3000 RPM… that’s 20 ms per revolution, or 10 ms between ignition events of a four-cylinder engine. So let’s see, we spark #1, and wait 6.5 ms to start charging the coil again for cylinder #3… but wait! The engine is now turning 3500RPM – now we’re 1.5 ms late and the coil is undercharged [low on energy].
Do we calculate in an acceleration factor? How much latency is there?
Do we compensate for a sudden change in system voltage when the fan kicks on?
What do we do now? How much overhead can a single processor handle before it just can’t keep up with this?
All of these factors and more come into play when you want to go Inductive – and say what you want, the proof is in the production vehicles of every manufacturer!
When did the last fuel injected engine run off of an assembly plant with a CD Ignition? After all, the emissions requirements of production vehicles put a tremendous demand on assuring complete combustion and absolute accuracy, for any misfire would certainly cause it to flunk the stringent EPA test cycle. And if CDI offered any improvement to combustion, you can bet money on at least some manufacturers using it. You might find some oil burning two-stroke outboards with carburetors that still used a CDI, but that’s about it.
Don’t be fooled by the hype – the reason more people in the business of aftermarket Engine Management don’t use Inductive Ignitions with much success, is very clear. The predictive nature of charging an inductive ignition coil prior to the spark event is a very difficult task, even with today’s processors. Especially if you are multi-tasking i.e. data logging, monitoring track position, EGT’s on 8 cylinders, etc.
To give you an idea of how much processing power is required to run an inductive, multi-coil ignition [properly], just take a close look at an Electromotive TEC³r or one of their XDI’s – they use 4 microcomputers and a programmable logic device just to handle the job of Crank acquisition, coil charging and event timing – after all, they can run 60-2 to over 16,000 RPM.
From what I have seen, virtually none of the aftermarket ECU’s offer even an OEM quality ignition circuit, if they offer one at all.
The amount of engineering time required to do this is very high and the work product of those who have accomplished this is highly guarded intellectual property.
So in summary, a modern, high performance Engine Control Unit with CD Ignition, is an engineering “shortcut” for what is a non-trivial function required to achieve the maximum performance of almost any engine.
11-16-2005, 04:08 PM
#35
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wisconsin, formerly of Boston
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Richard,
Thank you for the post. I'm still working on my response regarding theories and misconceptions on inductive systems. Your post provides some insight on the subject.
Dave
'85 Factory Slantnose 930
Thank you for the post. I'm still working on my response regarding theories and misconceptions on inductive systems. Your post provides some insight on the subject.
Dave
'85 Factory Slantnose 930
11-16-2005, 09:10 PM
#36
Richard,
Good to hear another opinion here.
I have decided to pass on any further input as now there is an expert posting. See Wayne G. This person designes and manufactures CDI and Inductive systems, used in some very high end racing applications.
I read your comments, but they differ from those who design and make Ignition.
I appreciate everyones opinion here, yours included, as we all can learn something.
His (Wayne G), I have decided is worth listening too. His opinion is based upon fact, experience and someone who makes and sells both types of Ignition. Not hype. Why would he promote one type over the other unless it was better.
I have talked at length to the Electromotive people at SEMA and PRI and they say exactly the same as you do. Its great to like the stuff you sell and to have confidence in it, nothing wrong there. There are few choices out there for someopne who wants just Ignition control. Electromotive is one of them. But there are others, some of which use CDI. Some use Inductive as a choice. This typically makes the system cost less, as the Igniters are alot less money than CDI units.
To say or imply that CDI is old fashion is the company line. I heard the same at the Trade shows. To imply the output per spark is also the company line. You are correct about the use of Inductive in passenger cars. I'd also agree about the misfire issue even. But when did the last Fuel Injected engine come off an assembly line with Electomotive. I disagreed with most of your post but I did accept your opinion and you had my attention up to the shortcut bit. Then you lost me and my respect for your opinion.
I'm sure many will also be wondering where that comes from other than the standard Electromotive line. Also the proofs in the pudding as they say, and I have seen dyno results and felt the difference for myself.
If there's one dyno that doesn't tell lies, its the "butt dyno".
Good to hear another opinion here.
I have decided to pass on any further input as now there is an expert posting. See Wayne G. This person designes and manufactures CDI and Inductive systems, used in some very high end racing applications.
I read your comments, but they differ from those who design and make Ignition.
I appreciate everyones opinion here, yours included, as we all can learn something.
His (Wayne G), I have decided is worth listening too. His opinion is based upon fact, experience and someone who makes and sells both types of Ignition. Not hype. Why would he promote one type over the other unless it was better.
I have talked at length to the Electromotive people at SEMA and PRI and they say exactly the same as you do. Its great to like the stuff you sell and to have confidence in it, nothing wrong there. There are few choices out there for someopne who wants just Ignition control. Electromotive is one of them. But there are others, some of which use CDI. Some use Inductive as a choice. This typically makes the system cost less, as the Igniters are alot less money than CDI units.
To say or imply that CDI is old fashion is the company line. I heard the same at the Trade shows. To imply the output per spark is also the company line. You are correct about the use of Inductive in passenger cars. I'd also agree about the misfire issue even. But when did the last Fuel Injected engine come off an assembly line with Electomotive. I disagreed with most of your post but I did accept your opinion and you had my attention up to the shortcut bit. Then you lost me and my respect for your opinion.
I'm sure many will also be wondering where that comes from other than the standard Electromotive line. Also the proofs in the pudding as they say, and I have seen dyno results and felt the difference for myself.
If there's one dyno that doesn't tell lies, its the "butt dyno".
11-16-2005, 11:23 PM
#37
Burning Brakes
Join Date: May 2005
Location: St Johns, FL
Posts: 794
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by m42racer
[snip]
I disagreed with most of your post but I did accept your opinion and you had my attention up to the shortcut bit. Then you lost me and my respect for your opinion.
[snip]
I disagreed with most of your post but I did accept your opinion and you had my attention up to the shortcut bit. Then you lost me and my respect for your opinion.
[snip]
11-17-2005, 12:11 AM
#38
Pro
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Wisconsin, formerly of Boston
Posts: 571
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
DonE,
"Wow - I bet he's tore up about that...."
Too funny!!
Simon,
I want to thank you and Wayne G., who "heard about this thread through the grapevine", to come in and educate us. I wonder who "the grapevine" was and I also wonder who built Simon's ignition/induction system. Gee, who could that be?
I guess F1, CART, IRL would learn a lot from you two regarding the merits of distributor driven CDI systems. They're all over the place......split between induction and CDI, but you two have seen the light.
You accuse Richard Clewett of towing the company line and yet when Wayne comes on board and states his case, you accept his case as fact.
BTW, anybody who trusts a "butt dyno" over imperical data, gets exactly what they paid for.
Dave
'85 Factory Slant 930
"Wow - I bet he's tore up about that...."
Too funny!!
Simon,
I want to thank you and Wayne G., who "heard about this thread through the grapevine", to come in and educate us. I wonder who "the grapevine" was and I also wonder who built Simon's ignition/induction system. Gee, who could that be?
I guess F1, CART, IRL would learn a lot from you two regarding the merits of distributor driven CDI systems. They're all over the place......split between induction and CDI, but you two have seen the light.
You accuse Richard Clewett of towing the company line and yet when Wayne comes on board and states his case, you accept his case as fact.
BTW, anybody who trusts a "butt dyno" over imperical data, gets exactly what they paid for.
Dave
'85 Factory Slant 930
11-17-2005, 12:28 AM
#39
Cruisin'
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M42racer,
You should really take the time to look at the EFI101 thread. There are at least 3 ignition system designers there with many good points of view. The post above is just a piece of the discussion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I'm sorry that you are sensitive to the word "Shortcut". As for the Shortcut part, I did not write this and I'm not commenting on the authors’ choice of word "Shortcut". I also will not comment on the quantifiable results of your "Butt Dyno".
You should really take the time to look at the EFI101 thread. There are at least 3 ignition system designers there with many good points of view. The post above is just a piece of the discussion. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I'm sorry that you are sensitive to the word "Shortcut". As for the Shortcut part, I did not write this and I'm not commenting on the authors’ choice of word "Shortcut". I also will not comment on the quantifiable results of your "Butt Dyno".
11-17-2005, 12:59 AM
#40
I did read the thread you mention. Are you suggesting Neel V who was a sales Tech at EFI tech is an Ignition designer? Did I understand you correctly?
Am I to believe that the post above is your opinion as well. If so, and you used the "shortcut" word, please don't take offence.
"Simon,
I want to thank you and Wayne G., who "heard about this thread through the grapevine", to come in and educate us. I wonder who "the grapevine" was and I also wonder who built Simon's ignition/induction system. Gee, who could that be?
I guess F1, CART, IRL would learn a lot from you two regarding the merits of distributor driven CDI systems. They're all over the place......split between induction and CDI, but you two have seen the light.
You accuse Richard Clewett of towing the company line and yet when Wayne comes on board and states his case, you accept his case as fact.
BTW, anybody who trusts a "butt dyno" over imperical data, gets exactly what they paid for."
Too funny is right.
I have some of wayne's CDI's on an engine, as do many others around the world. All of the Australian V8 Supercars run it as does many others who run high perfromance engines. Don't see many "EL""" systems on my walk around the pit lane. I suppose they all have it wrong too.
You seem to have the ability to twist things around here. I have never trashed the Electromotive, just made the cooments about their ability to cahrge the Coils enough. This is why the same engine with this Ignition and with CDI make different amounts of Torque. I have suggested other Ignition manufacturers who make Inductive make the same mistake. Yes I have said that some Ignition systems with a Distributor and CDI are better than the Electromotive. I stand behind this as well. I have tried both. Its from experience that I draw this opinion.
Why is the timing all over the place with the Electromotive, if they use all these micro's and a 58 tooth wheel? Why does the same engine make more Torque with a CDI than the Electromotive or some other Inductive Ignitions. I have read here somewhere, where a person lost an engine in his words due to software issues with the Electromotive. I know all EFI systems have issues, some more than others. But to exclude Electromotive from the list is wrong. I know they have problems.
As for accepting Wayne's opinion, yes I do and have probvlems saying so. He makes both types, so he is in my opinion well qualified to state the differences. He doesn't just sell CDI and touts the benefits of CDI over Inductive. He sells both. Somewhat different here, I think.
As for trusting my "butt dyno", yes I have been pretty lucky over the years to learn to trust it. I have spent huge amount of $ over the years to Dyno some of my engines on some very technical engine dyno's. I may have been off a few FT/Lbs but never have I failed to prove the "butt dyno" wrong.
You should try it sometimes.
Am I to believe that the post above is your opinion as well. If so, and you used the "shortcut" word, please don't take offence.
"Simon,
I want to thank you and Wayne G., who "heard about this thread through the grapevine", to come in and educate us. I wonder who "the grapevine" was and I also wonder who built Simon's ignition/induction system. Gee, who could that be?
I guess F1, CART, IRL would learn a lot from you two regarding the merits of distributor driven CDI systems. They're all over the place......split between induction and CDI, but you two have seen the light.
You accuse Richard Clewett of towing the company line and yet when Wayne comes on board and states his case, you accept his case as fact.
BTW, anybody who trusts a "butt dyno" over imperical data, gets exactly what they paid for."
Too funny is right.
I have some of wayne's CDI's on an engine, as do many others around the world. All of the Australian V8 Supercars run it as does many others who run high perfromance engines. Don't see many "EL""" systems on my walk around the pit lane. I suppose they all have it wrong too.
You seem to have the ability to twist things around here. I have never trashed the Electromotive, just made the cooments about their ability to cahrge the Coils enough. This is why the same engine with this Ignition and with CDI make different amounts of Torque. I have suggested other Ignition manufacturers who make Inductive make the same mistake. Yes I have said that some Ignition systems with a Distributor and CDI are better than the Electromotive. I stand behind this as well. I have tried both. Its from experience that I draw this opinion.
Why is the timing all over the place with the Electromotive, if they use all these micro's and a 58 tooth wheel? Why does the same engine make more Torque with a CDI than the Electromotive or some other Inductive Ignitions. I have read here somewhere, where a person lost an engine in his words due to software issues with the Electromotive. I know all EFI systems have issues, some more than others. But to exclude Electromotive from the list is wrong. I know they have problems.
As for accepting Wayne's opinion, yes I do and have probvlems saying so. He makes both types, so he is in my opinion well qualified to state the differences. He doesn't just sell CDI and touts the benefits of CDI over Inductive. He sells both. Somewhat different here, I think.
As for trusting my "butt dyno", yes I have been pretty lucky over the years to learn to trust it. I have spent huge amount of $ over the years to Dyno some of my engines on some very technical engine dyno's. I may have been off a few FT/Lbs but never have I failed to prove the "butt dyno" wrong.
You should try it sometimes.
11-17-2005, 09:36 AM
#42
Nordschleife Master
I actually do have some data from a car that I worked on several years ago where it started out with an Inductive igntion (mfg witheld) with the coils wired to both plugs in the same cylinder. It would misfire at an air fuel ratio of 11.8:1 which is the problem it came to me with. Although the manual specifically stated not to wire it up this way, the shop did it any way. I rewired the coils so they were a proper waste spark configuration and with no other changes, it would fire the plug down to 11.2:1 AFR. This was with a plug gap of .018" I was able to increase the plug gap to .022" and reduce the timing by about 1 degree and picked up about 1.5% in the process. We then converted the car to a high quality digital CDI box (mfg witheld) and were able to open the plug gap to .045" and reduce the timing another 2 degrees and the power went up by about 5%.
11-17-2005, 03:34 PM
#43
Miles,
I think this is that Bosch 6 pin coil you posted. You can see the part number in my photo, which is 0 221 503 002-8SE. It turns out this coil was used on European Saab 2.5L engines, the Australian Holden Calibra, and, get this, the Ferrari F 50!
I think this is that Bosch 6 pin coil you posted. You can see the part number in my photo, which is 0 221 503 002-8SE. It turns out this coil was used on European Saab 2.5L engines, the Australian Holden Calibra, and, get this, the Ferrari F 50!
2002, australian, bmw, cdi, coil, controller, distributor, electromotive, ignition, inductive, installing, pack, stand, tec, xdi
