Lets talk tuning, piggy back vs ECU flash.

[TwinSnails]

I think any tune putting out 450 or more to the wheels ‘should’ run a colder plug. I’m gapped at .022, based on crewdawgs testing.

EDIT: and that’s on the Evo’s Denso plugs.

 

[brancky3]

From Denso's website. I highlighted the important part in "red" for you.

Physical damage to ignition tip section

Appearance The electrode is bent and the insulator leg section is broken. Indentations are sometimes seen on the electrode.
Results Misfiring.
Cause The spark plug thread reach is too long for the engine head or there is some kind of foreign matter (a small bolt, nut, or the like) in the combustion chamber.

That's not where they break.

 

[TorkMe]

@DaBears4Lyfe Kudos for posting it all, because that ONE post was misleading.

@TorkMe, Clarifying.... so with your tune one could run stock plugs at .036 and no issues?

EDIT: Or would .028 with your tune on the stock plugs be safe (still seems wide for a tune, on that heat range pushing 450+ whp).

Yes, we have ran our Stage 1 with no issues are .036 plug gap, with the coil dwell times increases. This is the 16 to 17 psi Stage 1 Tune.

I even have a dyno chart somewhere when we were testing, that we managed to run 24 lbs of boost before we started running into issues with the plug gaps.

I recommend gapping them down to .028 because the performance appears to be better at that gap. We have experimented with smaller gaps, and have seen no benefit. I am currently capped at 2.2 miliseconds for dwell time in our Stage 2 Tune. I am going to assume there is another limiter table that is casing this limit, we are looking for it.

If I am doing the math properly, it looks like we can get to 3.6 miliseconds of dwell time before we start extending spark kernal past optimal ignition point at 6800 RPM. The small increase we have added to the Stage 2 Beta tune has made a huge improvement in spark break up during shifts. We have ran as much as .030 plug gap, with zero issues.

I still have to find shift dwell time tables (spark dwell times change at full throttle shifts) and start messing with those. Those should allow me to bring power in more aggressive between shifts. I just have to make sure we don't beat the transmission up to much during shifts

 

[brancky3]

I think any tune putting out 450 or more to the wheels ‘should’ run a colder plug. I’m gapped at .022, based on crewdawgs testing.

EDIT: and that’s on the Evo’s Denso plugs.

Pretty sure on every car I've owned / modified I've gone a step colder in plugs. It's not worth talking chances with stock plugs which aren't designed for the power.

 

[TwinSnails]

Yes, we have ran our Stage 1 with no issues are .036 plug gap, with the coil dwell times increases. This is the 16 to 17 psi Stage 1 Tune.

I even have a dyno chart somewhere when we were testing, that we managed to run 24 lbs of boost before we started running into issues with the plug gaps.

I recommend gapping them down to .028 because the performance appears to be better at that gap. We have experimented with smaller gaps, and have seen no benefit. I am currently capped at 2.2 miliseconds for dwell time in our Stage 2 Tune. I am going to assume there is another limiter table that is casing this limit, we are looking for it.

If I am doing the math properly, it looks like we can get to 3.6 miliseconds of dwell time before we start extending spark kernal past optimal ignition point at 6800 RPM. The small increase we have added to the Stage 2 Beta tune has made a huge improvement in spark break up during shifts. We have ran as much as .030 plug gap, with zero issues.

I still have to find shift dwell time tables (spark dwell times change at full throttle shifts) and start messing with those. Those should allow me to bring power in more aggressive between shifts. I just have to make sure we don't beat the transmission up to much during shifts

Amazing tuning, BUT for those not tune savvy... by increasing dwell time it essentially accomplishing what a step colder plug is doing without the ability to tweak the dwell times .... correct?

 

[TorkMe]

I think any tune putting out 450 or more to the wheels ‘should’ run a colder plug. I’m gapped at .022, based on crewdawgs testing.

EDIT: and that’s on the Evo’s Denso plugs.

Given you are running on the factory dwell time tables inside the ECU, yes... .022 seems to be safe. The closing of the gap to .022 seems a bit silly to me. Reason being, we run much larger gaps in cars with considerably high peak cylinder pressures, on ignition systems that are 2 decades older than the Stinger. The Stinger ECU has the ability to drive much more spark to the plugs, but a piggy back cannot make that change or adjust the coil dwell times, thus... you have to close up the gap when you start increasing the boost levels/cylinder pressure.

 

[TorkMe]

Amazing tuning, BUT for those not tune savvy... by increasing dwell time it essentially accomplishing what a step colder plug is doing without the ability to tweak the dwell times .... correct?

No...

Here is a good link to read up on coil dwell time and why you want to increase it vs closing the gap of the spark plug:

AutoSpeed - Ignition coil dwell time

 

[TwinSnails]

Given you are running on the factory dwell time tables inside the ECU, yes... .022 seems to be safe. The closing of the gap to .022 seems a bit silly to me. Reason being, we run much larger gaps in cars with considerably high peak cylinder pressures, on ignition systems that are 2 decades older than the Stinger. The Stinger ECU has the ability to drive much more spark to the plugs, but a piggy back cannot make that change or adjust the coil dwell times, thus... you have to close up the gap when you start increasing the boost levels/cylinder pressure.

I’m at .022 as a HUGE cushion. Without sitting on a dyno and adjusting the Gaps while checking AFR’s/Load/Timing/Gains/Duty cycles, etc. (you get the point).... I’m choosing to use that .022 as my snuggly blanket.

 

[Blitz]

I don't get it. There is no reason to speculate. You have a dyno and monitoring tools. You believe the system is dangerous.

You can borrow my JB4 anytime you want if it leads to proving the claims you're throwing out. It would benefit everyone immensely if you could actually prove it, and it would hamstring the f*ck out of your biggest competitor?

What reasoning do you have for not simply testing an openly available tuning option and posting results?

 

[Blitz]

Shit do it independently. I will pay you to test my JB4 right now and show me it's unsafe, and I will post the results myself.

 

[KLR STINGER]

Are you really this slow or is this some sort of act? I really hope it's an act. The ceramic breaking on our factory plugs is between the coil and the plug, not the ceramic tip in the combustion chamber. It's breaking because the coil isn't producing enough current to jump the huge gap at higher cylinder pressures, causing it to arc along the plug base to ground, cracking the ceramic and damaging the exterior of the plug in the process.

Plug damage due to detonation or running too high of an EGT is generally a melted electrode inside the combustion chamber. I've not seen any indication of any tuning related issues reading used Stinger plugs which would offer the first indication of any combustion related issues.

Exactly this. Cracked insulators on the coil side with obvious carbon tracking is caused by coil energy arcing between top cap and the outer shell. This happens because electricity take the path of least resistance and has to go somewhere. The pressure conditions inside the cylinder are higher the allows for firing due to gap being too large to arc. Not one person has had issues with electrode or combustion side insulator.

 

[DaBears4Lyfe]

Shit do it independently. I will pay you to test my JB4 right now and show me it's unsafe, and I will post the results myself.

If he showed you the reasons would it really matter? Doesn't seem to be the consensus with what he has explained on the issue with piggy backs and them tricking the ECU to do things they shouldn't be doing safely.

 

[Terry@BMS]

Exactly this. Cracked insulators on the coil side with obvious carbon tracking is caused by coil energy arcing between top cap and the outer shell. This happens because electricity take the path of least resistance and has to go somewhere. The pressure conditions inside the cylinder are higher the allows for firing due to gap being too large to arc. Not one person has had issues with electrode or combustion side insulator.

The only question now is JohnB not smart enough to know the difference? or is he being intentionally dishonest here in hopes people reading will believe his misleading statement? And which is worse? lol

 

[Blitz]

If he showed you the reasons would it really matter? Doesn't seem to be the consensus with what he has explained on the issue with piggy backs and them tricking the ECU to do things they shouldn't be doing safely.

100% it would matter. To me and a shitload of other people here and on facebook.

 

[brancky3]

I’m at .022 as a HUGE cushion. Without sitting on a dyno and adjusting the Gaps while checking AFR’s/Load/Timing/Gains/Duty cycles, etc. (you get the point).... I’m choosing to use that .022 as my snuggly blanket.

I truly don't know why anyone cares that we're gapping the plugs down to .022. We aren't having any issues with the car running rough or having trouble starting (which you'd normally see if the gap is too small) so who cares? There's a chance that the plugs might get fouled sooner if the spark doesn't burn off the entirety of the AF mixture, but who cares? Plugs are cheap and (relatively) easy to change. With a modified car I'd plan to change them more than factory plugs anyway

 

[Blitz]

I truly don't know why anyone cares that we're gapping the plugs down to .022. We aren't having any issues with the car running rough or having trouble starting (which you'd normally see if the gap is too small) so who cares? There's a chance that the plugs might get fouled sooner if the spark doesn't burn off the entirety of the AF mixture, but who cares? Plugs are cheap and (relatively) easy to change. With a modified car I'd plan to change them more than factory plugs anyway

I have been told some people experience poor idle especially at lower temps*, but have not experienced that myself.

 

[DaBears4Lyfe]

I have been told some people experience poor idle especially at smaller gaps, but have not experienced that myself.

Its pretty common.

 

[TorkMe]

.028 Gap with tune on the stock heat range - wouldn’t be my comfortable range. Every 100hp should be one step cooler. If I load Map 3... I’m not liking my Odds with a JB4 or Tork’s at a .028 on stock plugs.

Torks doesn't come with map 3 option... so you will be fine

 

[TorkMe]

I have been told some people experience poor idle especially at lower temps*, but have not experienced that myself.

We ran into that, so we moved the gap up to .028 in my car and I think Tonka is running .026 now or higher.

 

[Tonkabob]

@DaBears4Lyfe Kudos for posting it all, because that ONE post was misleading.

@TorkMe, Clarifying.... so with your tune one could run stock plugs at .036 and no issues?

EDIT: Or would .028 with your tune on the stock plugs be safe (still seems wide for a tune, on that heat range pushing 450+ whp).

.028 does work well with the ECU tune. Thats what i run.
Also Tork 100% didnt have springs as of a week ago as I thought his rear gap looked larger than mine and it was, 3 fingers vs 2.5. Weird sure but i did measure.

Longer story ran .028 hks 40s for a long time. We tried .022 but issue turned out to be high boost on shifts, now fixed. .22 made me bog off idle when cold.
So now on densos at .026. Not sure about the densos yet.