TPITuned Port Injection discussion and questions. LB9 and L98 tech, porting, tuning, and bolt-on aftermarket products.
Welcome to ThirdGen.org!
Welcome to ThirdGen.org.
You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, join the ThirdGen.org community today!
Is an R42TS plug too cold for my engine? Help please.
This is a 355 TPI with Sanderson headers, around 10:1 compression with flat pistons and Crane HR-276-2S-12 IG cam (PN: 109821). I have a Crane Hi6 ignition with matching coil and MSD wires. I'm using AC R42TS plugs with .045 gap and the ceramic insulator is almost black and they smell like fuel. I think they are too cold a plug for this combination. Please recommend me a good plug for this combo. I like NGKs but not sure which. Thanks
how about the stock plugs for the application?? I don't see anything that really dictates using a different plug... maybe one heat range colder, but not that far... I think the stock is an r45ts...
Originally posted by thirdgen88 how about the stock plugs for the application?? I don't see anything that really dictates using a different plug... maybe one heat range colder, but not that far... I think the stock is an r45ts...
Use a standard plug until you got the heat-range & Air/fuel ratio right, then use an equivalent plug of your choice. You get better performance from the right spark with a shorter life span (yea, they're a PITA to change,) than an expensive plug that last for 100,000 miles.
There's not much difference between the v-power & splitfire.
I modify my plugs by unshrouding the electrode ( side gapping, ) that's basically cutting the width of the electrode off of the end of the ground strap so there wouldn't be any room for a v, or a split. FYI
The FTC alleged that SplitFire did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis to support the claims, that SplitFire’s claims that surveys confirm gas mileage increases were false, and that Splitfire did not have a reasonable basis to claim that the testimonials used in its ads reflect the typical or ordinary experience of consumers who use SplitFire spark plugs.
The consent order to settle the charges would prohibit SplitFire from making fuel economy, emissions, horsepower or cost savings claims without competent and reliable scientific evidence to support them. It would also prohibit misrepresentations about the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions or interpretations of any test or study. Finally, in connection with testimonials, the settlement would require that SplitFire have scientific evidence to substantiate claims in endorsements or testimonials; that Splitfire disclose what the typical or ordinary consumer experience would be; or that the company disclose the limited applicability of the endorser’s experience -- that is, that consumers should not expect to experience similar results.
In conclusion without competent and reliable scientific evidence it's up to the consumer to decide if the product satisfies his requirements, and expectations.
Originally posted by rgarcia63 FYI
The FTC alleged that SplitFire did not possess and rely upon a reasonable basis to support the claims, that SplitFire’s claims that surveys confirm gas mileage increases were false, and that Splitfire did not have a reasonable basis to claim that the testimonials used in its ads reflect the typical or ordinary experience of consumers who use SplitFire spark plugs.
The consent order to settle the charges would prohibit SplitFire from making fuel economy, emissions, horsepower or cost savings claims without competent and reliable scientific evidence to support them. It would also prohibit misrepresentations about the existence, contents, validity, results, conclusions or interpretations of any test or study. Finally, in connection with testimonials, the settlement would require that SplitFire have scientific evidence to substantiate claims in endorsements or testimonials; that Splitfire disclose what the typical or ordinary consumer experience would be; or that the company disclose the limited applicability of the endorser’s experience -- that is, that consumers should not expect to experience similar results.
In conclusion without competent and reliable scientific evidence it's up to the consumer to decide if the product satisfies his requirements, and expectations.
LMAO, you know electricity follows the path of least resistance. If one of those electrodes is just one billionth closer than the other it will always fire to just that one side, till it wears out. When I saw the add I laughed so hard I about wet myself.
