Advanced timing and knocking

JBT · Postby **JBT** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 7:25 am

Ralphff wrote: The car is bog standard and has only done 128k and running on regular ULP.

You'll have to run on PULP with 14 degrees to prevent pinging/detonation.

RRdstr · Postby **RRdstr** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:49 am

Like JBT said . . . or, what is working for me is using a fuel catalyst, and mine runs detonation free at 16 degrees BTDC, and has an increased and nice straight torque curve down low. I chose that way to go so I could stay with the cheaper regular ULP in the long run . . . the fuel catalyst is a bit expensive, but over a period of time, makes sense for me. A bit more drivebility in mid range, which becomes better consumption when dríven gently.

On the other hand, I would have expected the \"knock\" at lower revs under HARD almost lugging accelleration . . .

Garry · Postby **Garry** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:55 am

My NA8A ran better with 12 degrees than 14. Each car has their own personality. Have a play around to find what works best on your car.

Astroboysoup · Postby **Astroboysoup** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:00 am

RRdstr wrote:Like JBT said . . . or, what is working for me is using a fuel catalyst,

what is this fuel catalyst you speak of???

RRdstr · Postby **RRdstr** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:28 am

adds ionised tin to fuel . . . works for me.

http://www.aapsa.com.au/fuelstar.htm

[I have no commercial interest . . . just impressed]

Astroboysoup · Postby **Astroboysoup** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:53 am

sounds like those magnets to me...

is there a scientific explaination for ionised tin acting as a catalyst.

I understand the reaction in the cat converter but this ??? no idea

*edit

had mor of a read.. sounds interesting
almost sold

Alf · Postby **Alf** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:30 pm

RRdstr wrote:Like JBT said . . . or, what is working for me is using a fuel catalyst, and mine runs detonation free at 16 degrees BTDC, and has an increased and nice straight torque curve down low. I chose that way to go so I could stay with the cheaper regular ULP in the long run . . . the fuel catalyst is a bit expensive, but over a period of time, makes sense for me. A bit more drivebility in mid range, which becomes better consumption when dríven gently.

Are you saying you had knocking and a different torque curve, then put in a this device and the knocking disappeared and the torque curve changed? If so, I wouldn't mind seeing the before/after torque curves.

If something is added to the fuel (the tin that ends up deposited, presuomably as SnO2 on the valves, etc), how often are you supposed to replace the tin cones?

I'm interested but sceptical. Does it still work for the sceptical?

Cheers,
Alf

green_comet · Postby **green_comet** » Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:02 pm

does advancing your timing to 14btdc give you worse fuel consumption??

Techno · Postby **Techno** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 2:46 pm

JBT wrote:
Ralphff wrote: The car is bog standard and has only done 128k and running on regular ULP.

You'll have to run on PULP with 14 degrees to prevent pinging/detonation.

This could well be the case.

But you could try using a colder plug. It could be a much cheaper alternative.

If you are using NGK 5's then try a NGK 6 and you may find that this reduces pinking if the plug insulator is getting too hot and causing pre-ignition.

Careful in the selection of colder plus as some brands increase the heat with increasing numbers. With NGK the higher the number the colder.

RRdstr · Postby **RRdstr** » Thu Jun 29, 2006 5:34 pm

Alf wrote:
I'm interested but sceptical. Does it still work for the sceptical?

Cheers,
Alf

Nothing works for the sceptical . . . :roll:

Alf, this year was the first time I have had my beastie over the dyno . . . OOG464, yellow triangles on Matty's spreadsheet.

comparing traction curves my NA6 starts better than Robbie's slightly modded NA6, and holds above till about 4500 rpm . . . is straighter and almost holds Sab's NA8 till 4000 rpm, and matches Rob D's NB till about 4000 rpm.

That reading, and my generous interpretation, justifies my catalyst expense to me . . . :roll:

The unit is supposed to last about 500,000 km, and then buy another[if satisfied] is the system at the moment.

It definitely has improved my fuel economy, plugs are clean and lighter than battleship grey, and my mother in laws hair has stopped going grey and is regaining its original color. . . :mrgreen:

The Pupat · Postby **The Pupat** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 2:32 pm

RRdstr: You're occupation isn't Motorsport Icon is it??

RRdstr · Postby **RRdstr** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 4:56 pm

The Pupat wrote:RRdstr: You're occupation isn't Motorsport Icon is it??

N a a a h . . . not me . . . I wish . . . JB has put his name to this little gismo . . . :mrgreen:

rodent · Postby **rodent** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 7:58 pm

I have another friend who swears by the catalyst as well - he's shown me his dyno results immediately before and after he fitted the catalyst, but he also had a fresh set of Iridiums put in at the same time (hrmm

). Couple of kW difference on his turbo Chaser.

Still reserving judgement on this one though.

jonno.

The Pupat · Postby **The Pupat** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:22 pm

RRdstr wrote:
The Pupat wrote:RRdstr: You're occupation isn't Motorsport Icon is it??

N a a a h . . . not me . . . I wish . . . JB has put his name to this little gismo . . .

Only care for P B

Matty · Postby **Matty** » Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:56 pm

Rex, yours is a 1.6 right? (I hope so given the power output)

Please note that on the dyno, the Traction readings aren't directly equivalent to torque, they're torque multiplied by the diff ratio (and wheel diameter as well, but that's usually fairly constant. Gearbox is 1:1 in all cases.)

I assume your car has the standard 4.3 diff since it peaked in speed at 168.

Rob's slight variations in torque at low revs are probably due to some incomplete ECU tuning that could be improved. It' not much to write home about, and with more tuning I'm sure he could improve it.

Now Sab's car has a 4.1 diff in it. So you have to factor in that your car will naturally register ~4.9% higher than his in Traction, if you had the same torque at the flywheel. That his traction ~equals yours with the taller diff means that he's got about 5% more torque throughout the revs (though his peak power is pretty average for a 1.8...

)

Rob Downes' 6-speed car has a 3.636 diff in it, so in reality it will be making bucketloads more (~18%) torque at the flywheel (note the top speed that Rob's car runs out to...)

The only way to prove the effectiveness of a mod is to do back to back tests with and without. Still, yours isn't the worst 1.6 I have seen on that dyno (~55kW IIRC).