Trust me. There was a .120" spec on one of them. It didn't last long. IMO, the wide gap argument is useless. I think indexing is far more beneficial IF you want to go that far. I don't. LOL
FBO's black HEI ignition box
- Thread starter moparlee
- Start date
-
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Let me take a few of these and the rest I’ll skip because you are a huge time waster. You are the same clown who STILL thinks a bigger main air bleed delays the start of the mains. So you can’t learn.
Here we go…
1. Who cares? You could have 500 different weights and 200 different footballs and its STILL a poor design. But they produced BILLIONS of them and MSD wasn’t competent to develop their own. Or maybe they were just too cheap. Either way, it’s just not that good of an advance mechanism. But you say it’s the god of advance mechanisms so it must be true because you have never been wrong.
2. Double bullshit on YOU. The MSD 7, regardless of coil is rated at 160 millijoules. That’s .16 joule. That’s nowhere near an AMP. Not even lose. Do you enjoy being wrong? You must because you are wrong. A lot.
3. MSD can recommend you rub your junk with peanut butter before sex and who would care? That’s like telling GM said something. It’s a RECOMMENDATION not a law. Again, no one who has real world tested plug gaps runs gaps that wide. Unless of course you live in Australia. It’s the only thing I can figure because there is no other answer.
4. Don’t be a jackass and argue just to think you are winning. You KNOW damned good and well a MAG does NOT require a battery. EVER. MSD says to use a 16v battery to get the cranking speed fast enough to generate a spark. Real engines use 24 volts but I have personally started 44 amp mags on fully charged 12v batteries. Again, that’s MSD’s recommendation. It’s not gospel. And it’s damned disingenuous of you to claim the 44 NEEDS a battery other than to start. Very slimy of you because I expect you know that and you are trying to bullshit your way around here. Bad call.
5. I have provided results that say big plug gaps don’t work. Even the idiot at DUI who claimed his sorry HEI units produced more “power” than a mag because his junk could run a .100 gap or some nonsense and a mag only used a .025 gap has now brought his number down to .065 or some silly number.
6. What manufacturer is running wide gaps? Or better yet, what PERFORMANCE manufacturer is using stupid wide gaps?
Damn you are tiring. And wrong. Again.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
You’re correct and he’s wrong. He’s not man enough to admit it.
Dave999
Well-Known Member
Plug gaps: engine that runs perfectly from 850 rpm upto red line with plug gap x , the gap is probably correct
making the gap larger will not make more power, it just reduces the life of cap and leads and puts the coil under more stress.
you need just enough plug gap to suit cam, CR, chamber shape etc and of course the right heat range of plugs,
if you are still running what the book said was good for leaded 1960s petrol....is the heat range right for modern oxygenated ethanol blend in your ambient temperture, fuel blends differ with the seasons and temperature and you want your car to work in winter and summer, OR now that you have stuck in a wild cam and upped the CR you need different plugs.
engine that doesn't run cleanly from 850 to redline with plug gap x might benfit from a wider plug gap y, IF and only if the coil and leads will support it
if you do try plug gap y, and the engine runs cleanly all the way to red line there has to be somwhere in the torque and BHP curve where both are higher than they were previoulsy becasue the motor now runs properly, and therfore you make more power.
indexing the plugs to face the hot exhaust valve Might make more power becasue you are sparking into the hottest part of the mixture in the chamber. The heat has probably turned the mixture into a plasma under the exhaust valve, electrons already ripped off atoms and molecules, ready to carry current, so the spark travels much easier. as such the initial burn will be more of a homogenous thing, meaning it probably spreads across the piston crown more evenly. that has to produce a tiny increase in torque and hence more power somewhere in the rpm range.
indexing may make a plug fire that previously did not becasue the stuff between the electrodes is easier to spark across, thats the gist of it. face the cool inlet....no spark at a specific rpm, face the hot exhust valve....spark at that rpm and that RPM will be when cylinder filling is best...i.e on cam or worst on cruise.
the main point of much of the talk about igntion systems isn't about making more power its about getting the power you are owed, from your motor you built, becasue the igntion system you currently have could be marginal given the changes you made.
None of us have chrylser's engineerng department to design an ideal curve for our hotted up motor runnning modern petrol, so its always going to be best efforts or pay someone else.
and paying someon else is often fraught with danger, as igntion system components are advertised with scant regard for the truth or indeed the science.
don't be paying big $$$ for a coil which is red, and has a lightning bolt sticker on it, but is not really any better than an OEM piece. its an 80KV coil.. no its not... thats a lie, its a coil that has insulation in it that will not break down at 80KV. that 80KV sales headline, has noting to do with its real world performance.
that flat spot or hesitation you have been chaseing for years is just as likley to be timing and an inability to light off the mixture at a specific rpm and throttle opening level.... than it is jetting.
sort igntion first then mess with the carb.
its more likley to be a lack of inital timing and an advance curve which was designed for 1968 petrol not 2022 petrol.
Olds or pontiac told HEI equipped customers to set plug gaps at 80 or 90 thou that lasted for only a short period due to the warrnty issues, plugs, leads, caps. This would be on a low CR car motor of the 70s with a massively restrictive exhaust, they went back to the 45 thou specified orginally pretty quickly.
perfect for the coil cap and leads specified for the original hei spec. a perfect example of if more was good even more will be better and it was quickly proved not to be the case by real world customers.
but it does show how robust the coil was if it could manage a 90 thou gap and still spark enough of the time to keep the customer happy on the way home from the dealer.
Dave
making the gap larger will not make more power, it just reduces the life of cap and leads and puts the coil under more stress.
you need just enough plug gap to suit cam, CR, chamber shape etc and of course the right heat range of plugs,
if you are still running what the book said was good for leaded 1960s petrol....is the heat range right for modern oxygenated ethanol blend in your ambient temperture, fuel blends differ with the seasons and temperature and you want your car to work in winter and summer, OR now that you have stuck in a wild cam and upped the CR you need different plugs.
engine that doesn't run cleanly from 850 to redline with plug gap x might benfit from a wider plug gap y, IF and only if the coil and leads will support it
if you do try plug gap y, and the engine runs cleanly all the way to red line there has to be somwhere in the torque and BHP curve where both are higher than they were previoulsy becasue the motor now runs properly, and therfore you make more power.
indexing the plugs to face the hot exhaust valve Might make more power becasue you are sparking into the hottest part of the mixture in the chamber. The heat has probably turned the mixture into a plasma under the exhaust valve, electrons already ripped off atoms and molecules, ready to carry current, so the spark travels much easier. as such the initial burn will be more of a homogenous thing, meaning it probably spreads across the piston crown more evenly. that has to produce a tiny increase in torque and hence more power somewhere in the rpm range.
indexing may make a plug fire that previously did not becasue the stuff between the electrodes is easier to spark across, thats the gist of it. face the cool inlet....no spark at a specific rpm, face the hot exhust valve....spark at that rpm and that RPM will be when cylinder filling is best...i.e on cam or worst on cruise.
the main point of much of the talk about igntion systems isn't about making more power its about getting the power you are owed, from your motor you built, becasue the igntion system you currently have could be marginal given the changes you made.
None of us have chrylser's engineerng department to design an ideal curve for our hotted up motor runnning modern petrol, so its always going to be best efforts or pay someone else.
and paying someon else is often fraught with danger, as igntion system components are advertised with scant regard for the truth or indeed the science.
don't be paying big $$$ for a coil which is red, and has a lightning bolt sticker on it, but is not really any better than an OEM piece. its an 80KV coil.. no its not... thats a lie, its a coil that has insulation in it that will not break down at 80KV. that 80KV sales headline, has noting to do with its real world performance.
that flat spot or hesitation you have been chaseing for years is just as likley to be timing and an inability to light off the mixture at a specific rpm and throttle opening level.... than it is jetting.
sort igntion first then mess with the carb.
its more likley to be a lack of inital timing and an advance curve which was designed for 1968 petrol not 2022 petrol.
Olds or pontiac told HEI equipped customers to set plug gaps at 80 or 90 thou that lasted for only a short period due to the warrnty issues, plugs, leads, caps. This would be on a low CR car motor of the 70s with a massively restrictive exhaust, they went back to the 45 thou specified orginally pretty quickly.
perfect for the coil cap and leads specified for the original hei spec. a perfect example of if more was good even more will be better and it was quickly proved not to be the case by real world customers.
but it does show how robust the coil was if it could manage a 90 thou gap and still spark enough of the time to keep the customer happy on the way home from the dealer.
Dave
Dave,
Original plug gaps for HEI were reduced by GM from 060 to 040-045 because it was so reliable, didn't need tune ups. Cars were running for 000s of miles with the plug tips eroding & increasing the gap. The cheap carbon leads etc were also the cause of the problem.
If you read this forum, it is 'powered' by enthusiasts.....people who buy the best parts they can afford for their 'baby'. That would include good quality ign parts, such as spiral wound HT leads.
You seem to have missed the same point that that idiot Rat Bastid missed: power means everywhere from idle on up, not necessarily peak power. If you read my earlier threads, I have given examples of power increases in the mid range from 060 plug gaps.
Original plug gaps for HEI were reduced by GM from 060 to 040-045 because it was so reliable, didn't need tune ups. Cars were running for 000s of miles with the plug tips eroding & increasing the gap. The cheap carbon leads etc were also the cause of the problem.
If you read this forum, it is 'powered' by enthusiasts.....people who buy the best parts they can afford for their 'baby'. That would include good quality ign parts, such as spiral wound HT leads.
You seem to have missed the same point that that idiot Rat Bastid missed: power means everywhere from idle on up, not necessarily peak power. If you read my earlier threads, I have given examples of power increases in the mid range from 060 plug gaps.
RB,
You are getting dumber as you get older....& try some glasses so you can read properly.
[1] You keep telling us the HEI advance system is bad. Why? Your opinion doesn't make it bad, facts might of which we have had NONE.
[2] Try reading MSDs technical specifications on their coils & you will see the figures I quoted are correct.
[3] The reason you are using terms such as slimy is because I am one of the few people on this website that calls out your bullshit. You don't like it so you respond with venom & any insult your can think of. I can take as much as you can dish out & will not be deterred by it. So keep it coming pal! I win with reason, facts, not vitriol.
[3] Yes you are correct. I am well aware that a mag does not need a battery. But it needs something to rotate the armature & for the 44 that is in an engine it requires a 16 v batteryto crank the engine & spin the armature, according to the people that make it. [ They would know wouldn't they? ]. Right on Bewy!
[4] You have provided results that big plug gaps don't work? Where? What gap sizes were tested? Where are the figures? We are all waiting.......
[5] Air bleeds. Try working out what makes the fuel flow & you might eventually get it right....
You are getting dumber as you get older....& try some glasses so you can read properly.
[1] You keep telling us the HEI advance system is bad. Why? Your opinion doesn't make it bad, facts might of which we have had NONE.
[2] Try reading MSDs technical specifications on their coils & you will see the figures I quoted are correct.
[3] The reason you are using terms such as slimy is because I am one of the few people on this website that calls out your bullshit. You don't like it so you respond with venom & any insult your can think of. I can take as much as you can dish out & will not be deterred by it. So keep it coming pal! I win with reason, facts, not vitriol.
[3] Yes you are correct. I am well aware that a mag does not need a battery. But it needs something to rotate the armature & for the 44 that is in an engine it requires a 16 v batteryto crank the engine & spin the armature, according to the people that make it. [ They would know wouldn't they? ]. Right on Bewy!
[4] You have provided results that big plug gaps don't work? Where? What gap sizes were tested? Where are the figures? We are all waiting.......
[5] Air bleeds. Try working out what makes the fuel flow & you might eventually get it right....
RRR,
Post #51. I do trust you. I just provided info from my 1972-78 MM that listed 060 & 080 plug gaps for Buicks, no mention of 120 gaps.
Do you have any info, tech bulletins, would be interested to know the history on the 120 gap?
Post #51. I do trust you. I just provided info from my 1972-78 MM that listed 060 & 080 plug gaps for Buicks, no mention of 120 gaps.
Do you have any info, tech bulletins, would be interested to know the history on the 120 gap?
The forthcoming info is from the Bosch Automotive Handbook 9th Edition, 1500+ pages.
Note: this is not the same Bosch Handbook I provided earlier in this thread, this is a later edition but the message on plug gaps is the same.....
'The electrode gap should be, on the one hand as large as possible so that the ign spark activates a largge volume content & thus results in reliable ign of the A/F mixture by developing a stable flame core.. On the other hand, the ign voltage to produce a spark is decreased with a smaller electrode gap. If the gap is too small, however, only a small flame core will be created around the electrode......As electrode gaps increase [ eg due to electrode wear ], the conditions for ignition are improved, but the ign voltage requirement rises.'
Note: this is not the same Bosch Handbook I provided earlier in this thread, this is a later edition but the message on plug gaps is the same.....
'The electrode gap should be, on the one hand as large as possible so that the ign spark activates a largge volume content & thus results in reliable ign of the A/F mixture by developing a stable flame core.. On the other hand, the ign voltage to produce a spark is decreased with a smaller electrode gap. If the gap is too small, however, only a small flame core will be created around the electrode......As electrode gaps increase [ eg due to electrode wear ], the conditions for ignition are improved, but the ign voltage requirement rises.'
Does FBO still make the black box?
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Didn’t miss anything. What I said was (and my testing is FAR better than your crap method) I HAVE tested plug gaps way too many times.
And not once, NEVER did plug gap make a pinch of **** difference ANYWHERE IN THE POWER CURVE.
EVER.
Simple as that. You can ballyhoo all you want up the super secret squirrel plug gap nonsense but no one else makes the stupid claim you do.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Ok dude, post a link to where MSD makes the claim that their battery fired ignition makes more than ONE AMP.
I’ve been through this for DECADES with dumb asses like you who make the claim that battery fired ignitions develop more power than a mag and that a mag takes a bunch of power to drive. And the results are the exact same.
1. A batter fired ignition never makes more than 1 amp. That’s a FACT.
2. A mag takes LESS than 1 HP to drive. This has been verified many times by Don Zig and many others and now myself. I have tested two mag’s on my test bench that has a 1 hp motor on it and it will turn a mag to 10k plus. And the machine didn’t struggle to do it.
You don’t know what you don’t know and you are talking out of your ***. Again.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Define “large” gaps. Maybe .040 is a “large” gap.
Once again you read something into something that isn’t there.
Next time I fire up the dyno I’m going set the plugs at .100 gap and watch the power go to the moon.
[1] The coil currents I quoted are MSD spec sheets I printed out a few years ago. They are correct, look it up for yourself. Your level of ignorance is just astounding!
[2] I never mentioned or compared the power it took to drive a mag. Another hallucination.
[3] Just because YOU didn't get power increases with larger gaps doesn't mean it cannot be done or hasn't been done.
[4] I would say a plug gap above 0.045" is 'larger', but it is subjective.
[5] It is not just me claiming plug gaps should be as large as possible. It is people like Bosch engineers, who make spark plugs & might know a thing or two about plug gaps; they are much smarter than you will ever be....
[6] Keep the BS coming, at least good for a laugh....
[2] I never mentioned or compared the power it took to drive a mag. Another hallucination.
[3] Just because YOU didn't get power increases with larger gaps doesn't mean it cannot be done or hasn't been done.
[4] I would say a plug gap above 0.045" is 'larger', but it is subjective.
[5] It is not just me claiming plug gaps should be as large as possible. It is people like Bosch engineers, who make spark plugs & might know a thing or two about plug gaps; they are much smarter than you will ever be....
[6] Keep the BS coming, at least good for a laugh....
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
The coil says it puts out 1.1 amps. And I know, for a FACT that everything MSD rates is high.
So we can say a battery fired ignition can put out 1.1 amps. That’s still 66% LESS than a low end magneto.
And we all know that your testing is all that matters. Except no one I know ever gets the same results as you.
Bet your *** if we took a poll 90% of the people would say they tested plug gap and got nothing.
But we are ALL stupid and you are god.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
That coils says TWO amps. Still weak AND how long (duration) is the spark??
Whoopsie…another knock on battery fired ignition loser.
MidnightSwinger
Well-Known Member
.040 is a large gap in the forced induction world at higher boost levels. I was getting blow out at .032-.036 on a 2.4 DOHC at anything above 20 psi after a 60mm turbo was swapped on. Gapped down to .028 and holy **** was that one nasty 4 banger.
RB,
Post #67, Yeah right, 2 amps, just what I said.....
You really ARE losing it. Now changing the goal posts...I gave the current ratings for both MSD coils waaaaaaaaaay back earlier in this thread, 1.1 & 2 amps.
If I am a battery fired ign loser, then I am joined by hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, across the world.
You lost the coil current argument, so now it's about spark duration of those coils; it hasn't suddenly changed to suit your BS.
Post #67, Yeah right, 2 amps, just what I said.....
You really ARE losing it. Now changing the goal posts...I gave the current ratings for both MSD coils waaaaaaaaaay back earlier in this thread, 1.1 & 2 amps.
If I am a battery fired ign loser, then I am joined by hundreds of millions, maybe a billion, across the world.
You lost the coil current argument, so now it's about spark duration of those coils; it hasn't suddenly changed to suit your BS.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Pay attention. MSD says 2 amps. Do I believe it? Not hardly. Why you ask? Because I’m not a gullible fool like you.
Do you know how many amps an MSD 20 mag makes? Do you? Do you REALLY a KNOW, for a FACT how many amps an MSD 20 amp mag makes?
When you can answer that, you’ll have the answer to your 2 amp bullshit.
Go do some research.
Well genius, I do do research. You should try it sometime & you might get something right for a change.....
You believe MSD numbers like 44 amps for the mag, but not other MSD numbers when it doesn't suit you.
And I suppose you are going to tell us the Mag 20 'makes' [ your word ] 20 amps. And as per usual you would be 10000000000% wrong. It doesn't 'make' 20 amps, it consumes 20 amps of primary current.
It's secondary current, which is what the plug tip might might not see due to losses etc in the cable is 300 mA, faaaaaaaaaaar less than the coils I quoted & the same as the cheap/popular MSD 8207 coil.
The spark duration is rpm dependent & gets less as rpm increases. It is about 71milli sec @
6000 rpm.
You believe MSD numbers like 44 amps for the mag, but not other MSD numbers when it doesn't suit you.
And I suppose you are going to tell us the Mag 20 'makes' [ your word ] 20 amps. And as per usual you would be 10000000000% wrong. It doesn't 'make' 20 amps, it consumes 20 amps of primary current.
It's secondary current, which is what the plug tip might might not see due to losses etc in the cable is 300 mA, faaaaaaaaaaar less than the coils I quoted & the same as the cheap/popular MSD 8207 coil.
The spark duration is rpm dependent & gets less as rpm increases. It is about 71milli sec @
6000 rpm.
How much spark (gap) does it take to light the fire?
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
If you believe Bewy anything under .065 is a power loser.
For those of us who actually TEST **** like this, .040 is about as wide as you need to go. And that’s on 9.5:1 and lower compression.
Go up in compression (and RPM) and you’ll be closing it up.
Rat Bastid
Dunamis Metron
Hey clown, can you answer ONE question? Then I’ll address the rest of your BS in this post.
Read it slow so you grasp the question. Here we go…baby steps…
HOW MANY AMPS DOES THE MSD 20 MAG MAKE?
When you get that answer then maybe you will understand why I don’t believe a DAMNED thing MSD says about anything.
Thats a pretty simple question so you should be able to handle it, but to clarify once again, the MSD 44 mag makes how many amps????
Your reply should consist of two numbers. Nothing else.
TM mike, I will answer your question first & then the idiot in a separate post.
Bosch claims:
- 0.2mj when the A/F ratio is correct
- Over 3mj are reqd for rich/lean mixtures.
- approx 2mS elapses between initial ign & complete combustion.
But it is not that simple.....
From Bosch:
' This energy [ above ] represents only a fraction of the total energy in the ign spark, the actual ign energy. If sufficient ign energy is not available, there will be no ign.....for this reason a high enough level of ign energy must be provide to ensure that the A/F mixture will always ignite, even under unfavourable conditions.'
One of the best ign books is Phil Jacobs, 'Performance Ign Systems', HP Books-1306
Bosch claims:
- 0.2mj when the A/F ratio is correct
- Over 3mj are reqd for rich/lean mixtures.
- approx 2mS elapses between initial ign & complete combustion.
But it is not that simple.....
From Bosch:
' This energy [ above ] represents only a fraction of the total energy in the ign spark, the actual ign energy. If sufficient ign energy is not available, there will be no ign.....for this reason a high enough level of ign energy must be provide to ensure that the A/F mixture will always ignite, even under unfavourable conditions.'
One of the best ign books is Phil Jacobs, 'Performance Ign Systems', HP Books-1306
-
