190e with 5.0 M113

Your chance to introduce yourself and your vehicle
Post Reply
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

I have an M113 50 that will be finding its way into a 190e eventually there are two projects in my line of fire before this one gets done, but I am looking to get the engine running by itself sooner than later. The engine is from a 2002 S500, which is useful to note as it is a facelift engine. The engine was cheap, and also came with the 722.6 which will be reused on another project. This one will receive the 6spd manual from an m112. The disadvantage of the cheapness is that I never so much as saw the engine running or the car it came from and it is covered in oily grease making inspection of what it does tricky. Apparently it was just too rusty to MOT again, as a W210 owner I can believe this.

Pinning a link to the shared album I'll use to keep tabs on stuff here

I’ve come to rusEFI after doing initial research on Speeduino because:
1) I wasn’t sure how well the waste spark configuration needed on speedy would work with the twin spark coil packs,
2) because rusEFI supports electronic throttle (I like the magnesium intake manifold and the airbox integrated in the vanity cover on the m113 so keeping this is a plus), and
3) because I can see the work being done in the area of getting a standardised 128 pin ECU for the engine

This is my first standalone project, and will be my first tuning project. I’ve got a fair bit of knowledge to catch up on, most is generalist stuff that I am just working on consuming as fast as I can, while there is certain domain specific information I’m chasing.

Ignition
Thanks to the hardware_mercedes Slack channel this morning, we've pretty much confirmed that the factory coil packs are twin dumb coils per cylinder, one per spark plug -> 221 503 035 # bosch

Q1. I’ve removed an ignition pack from the engine, on the reverse it looks like each HT lead has its own coil pack, and the three pins on the input connector suggests that each is individually powered. If this is the case, can these be wired parallel from a single IGBT or would it be better to have two IGBT per pack? One seems better to me, in that I don’t think we want half spark if there is an issue, i think I’d prefer to have the whole cylinder stop firing?

Q2. I'd like to be able to break the processes down into smaller chunks, so for the firing of the ignition coils, I have an idea that I will supply pulse width modulated signals to an ignition coil sat on the bench/kitchen table to simulate this IGBT arrangement using a DC power pack, some method of formulating PWM current (not sure on this one yet) - simulate the ignition output for a pin on proteus, an IGBT (useful for testing sizing, as this is all new to me), leading to the coil pack to observe sparking of plugs. Are there any practicality constraints with doing this?

The ECU
The wiring for a prefacelift m113 43 can be found here
Sharing some links to my own pictures,
Factory ECU pin outs

It has been suggested on the slack channel that I make up a breakout adapter from Proteus to my ECU connectors -> this will leave the factory engine wiring harness, which looks reasonably complete in place with their factory connectors, I think future me will appreciate the use of the factory wiring colours and positions for debugging. Some leads on this have been suggested; firsty that similar adapters have been done in the past for Honda engines (I will get searching), and that the M54 BMW plug is similar to the M120 plug on an S600 at least. I recently attended an automotive wiring seminar online so I feel semi confident I can make one of these up

The workbench
As I sort of alluded to at the start, I am working on some other projects in tandem. The common theme to all is the concept of single board computers. I'm building up a list of tools I think I will need, staring the ones I don't already have - please let me know if you think I am missing anything
* Soldering station with hot air for desoldering* # have an old soldering iron that I will replace for one with variable temp
* DC Power Supply (you know the ones with twiddly knobs in science labs)* # currently been using jump packs and ctek to delivery 12V to test stuff, to varying degrees of disaster
* ratcheting crimp tool
* Oscilloscope, the Rigol DS1054z being well regarded for its value and hackability* (if only some would come up second hand on ebay!)
* maybe some arduinos, bread boards and an array of components I can use for simulating inputs such as CPS, IAT etc -> the idea being that I have some canned data I can play to the rusEFI so that I can test it before putting it on my engine*

Q3. does bench testing work? is it ever representative of what is observed when plugging into engine?
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 12803
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by AndreyB »

That's 134 pin header on your ECU but pinout does not match existing 134 pin BMW adapter board https://github.com/rusefi/proteus-M54-adapter

Do you have KiCAD experience to design an adapter PCB like https://github.com/rusefi/proteus-Honda-K-125-adapter or are you looking to solder wires to a universal breakout board like https://www.ebay.com/itm/333930686976?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

Hi thanks for the reply - I do not have any KiCAD experience. Since I have the factory ECU with its connectors, could I desolder the plugs off the factory ecu and connect this to a universal breakout board?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach below? Will both fit within a single enclosed case with the proteus?
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

Thanks to Mark T for supplying the updated wiring harness specific to the S500
Attachments
S500.pdf
(581.25 KiB) Downloaded 43 times
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 12803
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by AndreyB »

jporter wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 6:48 pm
Hi thanks for the reply - I do not have any KiCAD experience. Since I have the factory ECU with its connectors, could I desolder the plugs off the factory ecu and connect this to a universal breakout board?

What are the strengths and weaknesses of each approach below? Will both fit within a single enclosed case with the proteus?
Connectors are available new https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/wiki/OEM-connectors and https://rusefi.com/ but universal breakout board approach is both labor intense and ugly in the end.

Even adapter board is ugly as an end user application in my opinion.

I assume that complete S500 engine harness is not extremely expensive and you can afford to just cut the plug and solder Proteus connectors? But then goes ignitor drama igniters would have to be somewhere.

It's complicated, I do not know which way I would recommend. Worst case there is https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/wiki/Standalone-on-Demand
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 12803
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by AndreyB »

Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

Okay to summarise the problem:
Proteus standard connections with low current igniters need converting to S500 factory connections and igniter triggers need to be higher current for dumb coils

Thank you for the link the the M73 page. It isn't immediately obvious to me why 2 breakout boards have been used. Is this for space reasons?

Are breakout boards only for mapping Proteus pinouts to application pinouts, or is there an additional reason for their being?

In research I have been doing for another project I have in progress (namely a 722.6 standalone controller) I discovered EasyEDA for designing a PCB for components to be soldered on. Could I use this to add the IGBT for each coil, as well as mapping the proteus pins to the factory pin out? In this system, the wiring harness doesn't see any difference and the breakout board functions as an interface from proteus to OEM. Point taken on cheapness of factory wiring harness, I do think it would be best to keep everything aside from the ECU as factory as I possibly can

Probably worth noting that I am significantly more price conscious than labour conscious with this project, and that working with and designing PCBs is a skill I am looking to unlock through this project.

If I've completely missed a point or it looks like I'm not taking a hint it isn't deliberate, everything is still so new
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 12803
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by AndreyB »

v12 OEM harness uses two of these 134 pin connectors your v8 uses one.

While my https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/wiki/OEM-Docs/Bmw/1998_750_e38/proteus_0.2/20201019_top_grey.jpg has not yet failed I am not a huge fan of this approach, wires to board solder bad. Based on my understanding of your context I would chop OEM connectors off and solder wires to Proteus pigtails.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

Okay thanks I will look to do this - and then have a separately housed igniter step up component that houses the IGBTs?

If I have understood that could we please consider Q1 and Q2 in my first post? I think I can work on this ignition component before buying the ECU, useful as a proof-(to me)-of-concept and puts off any single large expense that little bit longer
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 12803
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by AndreyB »

jporter wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:21 pm
Okay thanks I will look to do this - and then have a separately housed igniter step up component that houses the IGBTs?
Is there a chance that https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/wiki/HOWTO-M73-v12-on-Proteus has something relevant?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

AndreyB wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 8:22 pm
Is there a chance that https://github.com/rusefi/rusefi/wiki/HOWTO-M73-v12-on-Proteus has something relevant?
Andrey I really appreciate the speed, frequency and knowledge in your responses. I am looking to confirm my understanding based on your replies on this thread as well as on that board. Please assume that any resource you have shared I have read thoroughly. If I have misunderstood then please send me back with "no please look again" otherwise explicit confirmation would be helpful; without any feedback the same link will keep me in a circle.

On my side, what I understand from the M73 how-to is that breakout boards were used. In your suggested approach which I am keen to follow, there are no breakout boards as such because the factory ECU connectors will be depinned and each wire will be connected to rusEFI pigtail connectors. This keeps everything neat and reduces point of failure. It still requires that the proteus ignition trigger current be converted into an coil pack charging current. The M73 how-to has used a DH61 igniter from a Lexus gs300, since that is a 2jz I am inferring that Lexus OE application of this is sequential and therefore in V12 application it runs a wasted spark configuration. An equivalent in my application might be to use the amplifier control units for a 20V 1.8T Golf, p/n 4D0905351. One of these would be required in a wasted spark configuration, or two in sequential. Due to the nature of the twin spark design, I think two (or four) in sequential is best. Two vs four depends on answering Q1 from the OP.

If my understanding of everything so far is good, and I am ready to progress on to Q1 and Q2 on my original post, then here there is the design of stepping up the current (Q1) and the testing of the twin spark coil packs to consider (Q2).
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 12803
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by AndreyB »

Too much text :( I am stretched very thin, I am not very available to help. I feel horrible because in the past many many people have helped me and now I feel obligated to return the favor but I am doing four different rusEFI things in parallel as I type this.
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

AndreyB wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:20 pm
Too much text :( I am stretched very thin, I am not very available to help. I feel horrible because in the past many many people have helped me and now I feel obligated to return the favor but I am doing four different rusEFI things in parallel as I type this.
I quite understand, your help to this point has been extremely valuable. Please rest assured that this project of mine will trickle along in the background for some time and is low priority since it is 3rd in my own queue and we can park this for now - enjoy the rest of your weekend! Jacob
User avatar
AndreyB
Site Admin
Posts: 12803
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:28 am
Location: Jersey City
Github Username: rusefillc
Slack: Andrey B

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by AndreyB »

jporter wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:55 pm
another project I have in progress (namely a 722.6 standalone controller)
do you have a URL?
Very limited telepathic abilities - please post logs & tunes where appropriate - http://rusefi.com/s/questions

Always looking for C/C++/Java/PHP developers! Please help us see https://rusefi.com/s/howtocontribute
Simon@FutureProof
contributor
contributor
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:55 pm
Github Username: Orchardperformance
Slack: Orchardperformance

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by Simon@FutureProof »

jporter wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:14 pm
20V 1.8T Golf, p/n 4D0905351. One of these would be required in a wasted spark configuration, or two in sequential. Due to the nature of the twin spark design, I think two (or four) in sequential is best. Two vs four depends on answering Q1 from the OP.
These are proven to work pretty well with the RE hardware, I have driven 5000 miles with them on a RE unit this year and we run them on the drift car.
Now keeping MRE and Proteus in stock in the UK - https://www.FutureProofPerformance.com
augenblick
Posts: 20
Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2021 10:48 pm

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by augenblick »

Q1: The stock m112/3 coilpack is two coils with a common power pin. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what would happen if you ran the coils in parallel off a single ignitor channel, but I don't think it is a good idea. I believe you can still trigger them off a single input from the ECM, but iirc Proteus has enough pins to handle running all 16 ignition channels. As an aside, the stock setup runs the sparks with a slight delay, and alternates leading and trailing each ignition cycle to keep the wear even.

Q2: If I'm misunderstanding correctly, you're trying to sort out a bench testing setup; What I would do is either use a pair of IGBTs if you've got them, or whatever ignitor module you can get your mitts on, and some sort of microcontroller to trigger it. At this point all you'll need is a decent 12V power supply and some way to ground the spark plugs safely. I think a better question is, what information/data are you trying to get out of this?
blundar
contributor
contributor
Posts: 141
Joined: Tue Jan 07, 2014 4:38 am
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Github Username: blundar
Slack: Dave B.
Contact:

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by blundar »

Why not just use coils with builtin ignitor modules, and use 8 of them? They're cheap, plentiful, reliable, strong.
Don't make things harder on yourself than you have to if this is your first adventure.
mck1117
running engine in first post
running engine in first post
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 am
Location: Seattle-ish

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by mck1117 »

blundar wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:52 pm
Why not just use coils with builtin ignitor modules, and use 8 of them? They're cheap, plentiful, reliable, strong.
Don't make things harder on yourself than you have to if this is your first adventure.
It's twin plug so you might need 16, but you could also just use 16 LS coils with paralleled trigger wires.
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

AndreyB wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:37 pm
jporter wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 7:55 pm
another project I have in progress (namely a 722.6 standalone controller)
do you have a URL?
I have no code of my own sorry, as a v1 I am using 7226ctrl

One person I have been following recently with interest has taken this project and used it as a base for their own controller - named the ultimate nag52 but for EGS52 and EGS53 controlled vehicles which are more heavily canbus integrated in the vehicle. If I can get 7226ctrl up and running I will look to combine that with the hardware set up in ultimate_nag52 project for my own egs51 controller. This second project is active and I enjoyed hearing about the iterative design process behind his PCB, especially in this video. His latest test drive made reference to torque converter learning, dynamic pressure calculations, and driving modes. My application will be to pair with an OM606 running an EDC injection pump and 8mm elements.
augenblick wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:45 pm
Q1: The stock m112/3 coilpack is two coils with a common power pin. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure what would happen if you ran the coils in parallel off a single ignitor channel, but I don't think it is a good idea. I believe you can still trigger them off a single input from the ECM, but iirc Proteus has enough pins to handle running all 16 ignition channels. As an aside, the stock setup runs the sparks with a slight delay, and alternates leading and trailing each ignition cycle to keep the wear even.
Okay now this last one is an important point you have made. When I picked up the engine I noticed the twin spark. So I went ahead and googled its application. First; many manufacturers have used it for emissions control, a primary spark on normal ignition advance and then a (weaker?) secondary spark with a marginal timing retard to clean up unburnt fuel. Second; on larger capacity engines igniting all the fuel in the cylinder can be problematic, and so manufacturers can opt for a _simulataneous_ [please correct as necessary] twin spark, which I believed was the case in this instance both from w220 wiki as well as looking at the cylinder head and seeing that both plugs on opposite sides indicated to me at least that they were equally important in creating an even flame front. Is your point here that it is still this second use case, but that there is still a time offset. If so, would you know why? An initial guess from me might be to reduce interference discharging both coils at once?
On your primary point about 16 igniter channels, this seems like a good option then (I was not aware of this as an option) -> I was under the impression that it had "12x 5v ignition (or general purpose) outputs". Would this be the kind of thing you just go ahead and wire up and then configure in tunerstudio incl the switching behind primary and secondary firing? It occurs to me at this point that Matthew on Slack asked me to attach the plugs the engine uses: according to BenzWorld, the Bosch 7422 is "the most effective" for the engine, and according to all sources the plugs are identical

augenblick wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:45 pm
Q2: If I'm misunderstanding correctly, you're trying to sort out a bench testing setup; What I would do is either use a pair of IGBTs if you've got them, or whatever ignitor module you can get your mitts on, and some sort of microcontroller to trigger it. At this point all you'll need is a decent 12V power supply and some way to ground the spark plugs safely. I think a better question is, what information/data are you trying to get out of this?
Good question, I would like to confirm settings for things like dwell times to ensure that I charge the coils for long enough but not too long. It seems to me that if I isolate components for testing it should be better when integrating the whole system. Also if I fry a coil pack bench testing, I only fry one rather than possibly 8 when on the engine. I can also do that testing in the warmth of my kitchen, as opposed to out in my garage. Although it now seems unlikely that I would based on what you have said, if I chose to use a single ignition control module output to trigger both coils on a single pack then I'd need to confirm on the bench that this doesn't stop coils from fully charging. Now it does seem likely that I'd use 16 total outputs across the amplifier control units for a 1:1 mapping with the trigger signals from ECU.
OrchardPerformance wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:39 pm
jporter wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:14 pm
20V 1.8T Golf, p/n 4D0905351. One of these would be required in a wasted spark configuration, or two in sequential. Due to the nature of the twin spark design, I think two (or four) in sequential is best. Two vs four depends on answering Q1 from the OP.
These are proven to work pretty well with the RE hardware, I have driven 5000 miles with them on a RE unit this year and we run them on the drift car.
Sounds like this is looking like a good solution then?
blundar wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:52 pm
Why not just use coils with builtin ignitor modules, and use 8 of them? They're cheap, plentiful, reliable, strong.
Don't make things harder on yourself than you have to if this is your first adventure.
Your suggestion here is that I get rid of the OE dumb coils and replace with 8 smart coils? This seems like a good suggestion in principle, I have seen on the Speeduino wiki the same point that this is the recommended approach. On a practical point, could you recommend smart coils with twin spark outputs? Otherwise not impossible but I would need 16 of these. Finding somewhere to put them all could be impractical for a coil near plug set up. I think the M113 looks quite nice with its factory coils, it is a good looking engine!
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

16 trigger fully sequential
augenblick wrote:
Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:45 pm
Q1: ... iirc Proteus has enough pins to handle running all 16 ignition channels.
From proteus github
  • 16x 4A low-side drivers
    12x 5v ignition (or general purpose) outputs
If I understand correctly, I would need to use the 16x 4A low-side drivers as the ignition impulses. I think I need some more clarification on these, 4 amps seems quite high to me and I don't understand how it is a fixed current and not potential - unless A stands for something else? Is there any documentation on these drivers, I'm looking through the Proteus github but can't see anything referring to them.

When I look through the proteus pinouts; low-side drivers could be borrowed from the 4 unused injector channels, and that would make 16 total pins for 12x5v ignition outputs, and then 4 low-side drivers -> all of which would need to be standardised into a form that could trigger the ignition modules. In addition to this there appears to be a "lowside 14" up for grabs for a generic purpose.

8 trigger wasted spark configuration
I think it might be possible to use 8x5v ignition outputs in a wasted spark configuration; reading on testing the N122 module, we are completing the circuit to ground when we trigger these modules so if each cylinder has an "a" and "b" coil, then for one rotation of the crankshaft and a firing order of 1 5 4 2 6 3 7 8

pin | timestamp | coils
35 | t1 | 1a 6a
34 | t1 + dt | 1b 6b
22 | t2 | 5a 3a
33 | t2 + dt | 5b 3b
32 | t3 | 4a 7a
31 | t3 + dt | 4b 7b
30 | t4 | 2a 8a
29 | t4 + dt | 2b 8b

where dt is the small time offset between firing the a and b coils for each cylinder, while the t{x} are larger time points of ignition timing
I am going to acquire an ignition control amplifier for the 1.8 VW mentioned earlier p/n 4D0905351 and see if I can use it to trigger some LEDs by completing a circuit.

That above pin utilization does neglect the idea of "alternating" the firing of a and b plugs to reduce wear, if it is possible coil pairs (e.g. 35 and 34) would be reversed every 2 rotations of the crankshaft. This should be possible, although I have a feeling not directly in tunerstudio but by fiddling with the code?
mck1117
running engine in first post
running engine in first post
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 am
Location: Seattle-ish

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by mck1117 »

I bet the staggered firing is an emissions thing. I bet you will not be able to detect a power difference between simultaneous firing and staggered firing on a dyno.

...which means you can just wire both coils on each cylinder together, and run it as if it had 8 regular coils.
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

mck1117 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:15 am
I bet the staggered firing is an emissions thing. I bet you will not be able to detect a power difference between simultaneous firing and staggered firing on a dyno.

...which means you can just wire both coils on each cylinder together, and run it as if it had 8 regular coils.
Thanks - this would simplify matters and saves half cost of ignition control modules -> can we assume that the coil pack itself should be unaffected in terms of the charging load would be the same in either case, and when grounded the current flows through the HT leads from the coils, rather than in the pack itself, and so we shouldn't have to worry about components?

Feels like things are starting to click
mk e
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by mk e »

jporter wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 10:14 am
mck1117 wrote:
Wed Jan 19, 2022 9:15 am
I bet the staggered firing is an emissions thing. I bet you will not be able to detect a power difference between simultaneous firing and staggered firing on a dyno.

...which means you can just wire both coils on each cylinder together, and run it as if it had 8 regular coils.
Thanks - this would simplify matters and saves half cost of ignition control modules -> can we assume that the coil pack itself should be unaffected in terms of the charging load would be the same in either case, and when grounded the current flows through the HT leads from the coils, rather than in the pack itself, and so we shouldn't have to worry about components?

Feels like things are starting to click
Probably on the dt offset.....I saw flatheads years ago that were using duel plugs timed slightly different to control detonation but on OHV aircraft, H-D, Porsche the dual plugs fire together and on 2V hemi chamber engines can very measurable increase hp by decreasing the total ignition advance required...a high compression H-D would go from 35+ degrees to 20-22 degrees when you added dual plugs and was good for like 5% on the dyno but added little to nothing on lower compression....the dome needed for higher compression would shroud the 1/2 the cylinder was the theory.

I guess where I'm going is I would be REALLY tempted to make is simpler and go to 1 coil/cylinder firing both plugs and make it direct fire like all the other dual plug setups on the planet rather than waste spark with 2 coils each firing into 2 cylinders. Just a though.
mck1117
running engine in first post
running engine in first post
Posts: 1275
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 2:05 am
Location: Seattle-ish

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by mck1117 »

I'm sure the addition of the second plug adds power - I don't doubt that. I doubt whether staggering the firing does anything useful for power.
mk e
Posts: 474
Joined: Tue Dec 06, 2016 7:32 pm

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by mk e »

mck1117 wrote:
Thu Jan 20, 2022 7:58 pm
I'm sure the addition of the second plug adds power - I don't doubt that. I doubt whether staggering the firing does anything useful for power.
Yes, I was agreeing with you in a long winded way and suggesting a rewire to remove that feature and make it direct fire of both plugs together
jporter
Posts: 11
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2022 9:07 am
Location: Kent, UK

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by jporter »

All good knowledge thanks! Point taken on the sequential firing
Simon@FutureProof
contributor
contributor
Posts: 381
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 8:55 pm
Github Username: Orchardperformance
Slack: Orchardperformance

Re: 190e with 5.0 M113

Post by Simon@FutureProof »

Staggering the firing may help if there is an issue with knock as it can/may slow the burn.

Stagger is more of a choice between lighting lots of mixture and the pressure coming up too quick or delaying one spark and risking hot over pressurised mixture near the end of combustion.

Best thing you can do is try it on the dyno, get the engine to its knock limit with them both at the same time and then retard the spark on one plug to see if it can give a bit more.
Now keeping MRE and Proteus in stock in the UK - https://www.FutureProofPerformance.com
Post Reply