| Author |
Message |
Edward G. Salla (350hpmondial)
Junior Member
Username: 350hpmondial
Post Number: 176
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Monday, October 28, 2002 - 9:09 am: | |
Dan,
Nice to chat. No, I didn't do the Norwood Mods, they came with the car. (I wish I could take credit, Norwood does a first class job. And, the price is affordable. You just need to visit his shop to see just how many Ferraris and other cars he is doing.)
The exhaust mods consisted of factory headers chopped at the position just below the front pully. A new 3" pipe is then added and routed to the turbo. All factory heat shields can then be retained. The turbo outlet is very simple too. Just out and down to the "factory" muffler. No cats.
Also, I appreciate your analytical skills. I would love to drive over to your garage and chat HP and efficiency. Bring your pocket protector. (We nerds need to stick together. ha ha)
|
Tom Bakowsky (Tbakowsky)
New member
Username: Tbakowsky
Post Number: 22
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 1:42 pm: | |
I can explain...all this mathimatical lingo comes down to one thing..have any of you ever bothered to change the negative cuplink to the hyperdrive modulator? this will result in massive power increases. For you late model owners..check the dipstick position sensor. Extra power to be had there aswell. :o) ( just having fun guys) |
Bill Sebestyen (Bill308)
Member
Username: Bill308
Post Number: 397
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 12:07 pm: | |
Thanks Steve. I assume it's item 53? |
Steve Magnusson (91tr)
Intermediate Member
Username: 91tr
Post Number: 1151
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 11:54 am: | |
Bill S. -- the windage tray is (floating in space) on TAV 19 in SPC 161/78 |
BretM (Bretm)
Advanced Member
Username: Bretm
Post Number: 2798
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, October 26, 2002 - 11:22 am: | |
Although I took quite a bit of physics in high school and in college also last year (and hence like to read what you guys write about this because it is very interesting stuff), to me this is more simple. I simply put them on because they seem to me to be the best krank vent available and I had oil leakage problems. Equally as important to me as someone who works on my own car is to clear up the engine compartment clutter. There is nothing more annoying/frustrating than a clutter engine compartment, check any Pcar or Bentley to find that out. Getting rid of those stupid hoses and the canister from the old system is welcomed space to me. Plus, they look really trick on top of the heads. You start spending thousands and thousands on the engine, you might as well spend a couple hundred more and put on the best vent system. |
Paul Newman (Newman)
Member
Username: Newman
Post Number: 633
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 8:45 pm: | |
I couldnt find it in my manual either but it is in my engine. |
Bill Sebestyen (Bill308)
Member
Username: Bill308
Post Number: 396
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 8:30 pm: | |
Paul,
I'm sure you're right on the windage tray but I just don't recognize in my parts manual. If anyone could identify it for me I'd appreciate it. |
Dan B. (Dan_the_man)
New member
Username: Dan_the_man
Post Number: 40
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 7:49 pm: | |
oh the agony!!!! I have blatantly misspelled "definitely" (and many more I am sure). Did not do a spell check. But, I am not an English teacher.... seems like I've heard that before. |
Dan B. (Dan_the_man)
New member
Username: Dan_the_man
Post Number: 39
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 7:44 pm: | |
Thank you Bill. I think you have defenently hit the nail on the head when you bring up compressible gases. I started out trying to answer a question in a manner that every one could understand, thus I tried to keep everything to a simple ideal system.
Edward,
how dificult was the Norwood turbo? did he install it or you? do you mind discussing prices, and options? I am curious about the exhaust mods...
Thanks,
Daniel |
Paul Newman (Newman)
Member
Username: Newman
Post Number: 627
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 7:18 pm: | |
Your car should have a windage tray Bill, mine does. Its bolted to the main studs. I imagine all 308's have them, unsure on the drysump ones though. |
Bill Sebestyen (Bill308)
Member
Username: Bill308
Post Number: 390
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 6:18 pm: | |
Kudos to you Dan B on making the attempt on this analysis but I fear it is just too complicated to solve here. I think as a first order approximation, its a pretty good try, but we're really dealing with a compressible gas in the crankcase, meaning that at any given time you are not moving the entire volume of gas but but only some fraction of it. I'll bet there is a doctor's thesis on this somewhere.
Paul, windage losses would be in addition to pumping losses so these losses would be in addition to the subject at hand and would likely benefit somewhat from a reduction in internal air density. But there is also a vapor mist and some droplets present so a windage tray should be a benefit if properly designed and fitted. I just looked at my part manual and noted there is not one shown on my 308.
In any event, I think any benefit associated with a vacuum in the crank case would be very small indeed, probably on the order of 1%. If power is your goal, compression ratio, volumetric efficiency (breathing/flow improvements), cobustion dyamics, and ignition timing are where the actiion is. |
Paul Newman (Newman)
Member
Username: Newman
Post Number: 624
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 1:18 pm: | |
Ill throw in another variable dan, what about windage from the rotating crank at 8000rpm. How does that affect the pressure and vacuum differences caused by the pistons movement? |
Dan B. (Dan_the_man)
New member
Username: Dan_the_man
Post Number: 37
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 12:30 pm: | |
Hey guys,
I MADE A MISTAKE!!!! actual velocity is 29.725 m/sec. Silly me used the diameter of the crank journal circle for the radius when calculating the cercumference. This impacts all of my calcs. theory still stands....
DIS:
I have recently put a DIS system on my 308. It rev's like crazy now!!! The twin system that I had before has had problems from the first day that I got the car, so I don't know wht type of improvements it would be over a good tuned factory system, But I am very happy about it. After I put it on I could not believe how quickly I hit the rev limiter... mine is set at 8000 rpm's. I bought the Electromotive HPV 1 system. I found it used ( a shop used it on their dyno but had upgraded to a full engine management system) and got it for less than $500, which was a lot better than buying caps. My carb's still load up in traffic though. I bought my 308 about 6 months ago and I have put over 16,000 miles on it. Daily driver, very reliable now with the DIS.
Daniel |
Dan B. (Dan_the_man)
New member
Username: Dan_the_man
Post Number: 36
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 12:06 pm: | |
Steve,
..."but on the upstroke the higher pressure differential across the piston is an equal minus"...
In an engine spinning at 8000 rpm's, when the piston is in it's upward motion there will be a vacuum under it. You know as well as I do that nothing can instantly move, thus the air has to start moving and catch up to the piston. Thus even with crank case pressure you will see a vacuum under the piston. Reducing the crank case pressure will aid the downward strokes, and it will have no effect on the upward strokes as far as pressure on the bottom of the piston is concerned. We are talking about a piston that (at 8000 rpm's) goes from zero to 59.4m per second in 0.001875 seconds. Thus on the up stroke there is a major vacuum under the piston. When you reduce the crankcase pressure you are really only impacting the pressure drop across the doward strokes. which does add some power. ( not that that was what I was trying to relay.)
now consider this, F=ma. if you lower the mass of the air in the crank you will reduce the amount of Force needed to move it around the crank case. This force comes from the engine, thus more force for the engine to translate to the crank. More power. be it, not that much.
Daniel |
Edward G. Salla (350hpmondial)
Junior Member
Username: 350hpmondial
Post Number: 174
Registered: 2-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 11:46 am: | |
Dan,
There would be an instantaneous power gain, ,,,,, for the one cylinder only. And, this would be counteracted by the additional pressure force needed by a corresponding balance piston performing work to exhaust.
Also, HP is not an instataneous product. It is an integral over time.
See, "Brayton Cycle". Search on net. |
Steve Magnusson (91tr)
Intermediate Member
Username: 91tr
Post Number: 1150
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 9:11 am: | |
Dan -- Can't agree with your "physics" argument that there is a direct power increase from lowering the internal crankcase pressure. On the downstroke the higher pressure differential across the piston would be a plus, but on the upstroke the higher pressure differential across the piston is an equal minus -- so no net direct gain. IIRC, the higher pressure differential adds power more indirectly by aiding ring-to-piston sealing (on the flat side of the ring). JMO. |
Dan B. (Dan_the_man)
New member
Username: Dan_the_man
Post Number: 35
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Friday, October 25, 2002 - 12:46 am: | |
Paul,
It was not my intention (nor did I) to prove a noticable power gain from the krankvent product (or any other aftermarket Crank venting system). In fact, I have not modified my 308's system todate. I was answering Hans' question about why the air doesn't just "balance" with the movement of the pistons.
For the record, if one lowers the crank pressure there will in fact be a power increase ( a greater delta p, thus less resistance force on the bottm of the piston). It may not be enough to see without a dyno, but it will happen. This is physics, plain and simple. Do I consider the addition of a krankvent or any other aftermarket venting system a power adder, NO. They will aid in reducing oil consumption and leaks in certain cases, but not add enough power to justify them as a power adder. ( I would expect to see maybe 1 to 2 hp gain with a high reving engine over stock, say a 308 at 8000. This is not something that you will notice by just driving the car. BUT it is a gain. oh where does the fine line lay?)
Bill,
Not all 8 pistons are accelerating and decelerating at the same instant in time. Thus you would have to consider where each piston was at any given time to get a good multiplier. Off the cuff, when two pistons on the same bank (308) are at half cylinder, the other two are also at half cylinder, and the other bank of pistons are instantly at zero velocity TDC and BDC (remember, 180 degree crank) thus you will have two pistons pushing air, and two pistons sucking air and four pistons doing nothing. Now, one piston will be coming down from a combustion stroke, one piston will be going up on a combustion stroke, one piston will be coming down on an intake stroke, and one will be going up on an exhaust stroke. (remember that vacuum created underneath by the piston on an upward movement towards TDC on an exhaust stroke can have a similar effect) The other bank of course is less active at this time as far as pushing air is concerned. Thus you do not have 8 simultaneous pressures acting but you rather have 8 small instances acting over a single revolution.
As for combustion pressure,
Combustion pressures will of course well overcome the small forces associated with crank pressures. This is why it is important to maintain this type of system. (again, over pressurizing a crank case via blow by will eventually lead to seal leaks.) There will be very little difference between the delta p during combustion. BUT, only 4 cylinders are combusting per revolution. the other four are acting as pumps, moving air. This delta p will have a greater variance. Thus this is where the crank pressure comes into play (remember in the intake stroke that the piston creates a Vacuum in the cylinder to pull air and fuel in, thus the positive crank case pressure is greater than the internal negative cylinder pressure, Unless you have a vacuumed crank case). I cannot tell you off the top of my head what type of combustion pressures the cylinders see (this is greatly influenced by compression ratio, volume of air and fuel, etc.).
As for my numbers,
Please see my assumptions. First, take the circumference (2*pie*r) of the circle that the crank journal makes, this is the distance that the journal travels per revolution. Divide 60 by the rpm's, 60/8000. this gives time per rev (in this case, 0.0075 sec per rev.). divide the circumference by the time and you get the velocity of the journal tangent to the circle. This will be used as the max speed that the piston reaches at half cylinder (when the piston is at half cylinder, the crank journal's velocity is in the same direction as the pistons movement. Thus at this instant in time they are traveling at the same speed, which is this calculated speed). Now, at TDC, the piston is instantly stopped, we will call this time 0, when the piston is at half cylinder, this time (at 8000 rpm's) is 0.0075/4 ( the division by 4 is due to the quarter turn of the crank to position the piston at Half Cylinder). delta speed divided by delta time gives a linear acceleration. If you wanted to be more percise you can go through the motions to determine the correct equation for the acceleration, (in reality it is not linear) but it requires more calculus than I want to get into here. That is why I made this assumption. now, calculate the volume of air in the cylinder (I just took the full cylinder and did not remove the volume of the piston, shame on me. I should have pointed that out as an assumption too). row of air at 25C is 1.169 kg/m3. I did not have a table handy at the time to get it for engine opperating temps. This multiplied by the volume of the cylinder gives you the mass of the air in kg. this times your acceleration gives the force required to move the air. I hope that I have helped you to see where my numbers are comming from. Again, you will see higher forces than what I calculated due to the addition of blow by, and the fact that you have a lot more air in the crank case to move around than just what is in the cylinders.
Again, I was trying to answer Hans' question about air movement, not promote a product.
Thank you,
Daniel |
Paul Newman (Newman)
Member
Username: Newman
Post Number: 622
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 9:33 pm: | |
Thats nice Dan, but in reality, the Krankvent doesnt make a HP increase in a 308. |
Bill Sebestyen (Bill308)
Member
Username: Bill308
Post Number: 388
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 7:37 pm: | |
Dan,
I'm a little troubled by your analysis. I must admit, I haven't run the numbers myself, but would be interested in how you derived your numbers.
Do you conclude that the net average retarding force acting on all cylinders simultaneously is equal to 8(12.18 lbf)? How does this compare with the net combustion pressure forces? |
Dan B. (Dan_the_man)
New member
Username: Dan_the_man
Post Number: 34
Registered: 9-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 24, 2002 - 1:28 pm: | |
Hans,
To answer your question, air has mass, The force that is required to move a said amount of mass is F=ma (Force equals mass multiplied by acceleration). When the engine is rotating at 8000 rpm's the piston is accelerated and decelerated twice in 0.0075 seconds. (When the piston is at bottom dead cylinder it is accelerated to half cylinder and then decelerated to top dead cylinder, then it is accelerated to half cylinder and then decelerated to bottom dead cylinder. At 8000 rpm's this is one rotation (piston moves up and down) in 0.0075 seconds.)
assumptions:
Piston accelerates linearly (we make this assumption to simplify the equations and keep the calculus to a minimum. The pistons acceleration rate increases and decreases as the crank turns due to the change in forces exerted on the piston rod journal by the crank as it angularly accelerates. for this point it is within reason to make this assumption).
numbers are based on 81mm bore with 71 mm stroke.
air density is taken at 25C (I did not have the chart that I wanted to correct for engine temp. Even though this will have some impact, see the next assumption)
We are only considering the actual cylinder air mass and not the fact that you will have turbulent air with mass in the crank case too.
F=ma
Mass = 1.169 kg/m3 multiplied by 1.4627x10-3m3 (for one cylinder volume. remember the we must move all of the air out of the cylinder)
acceleration (I will spare you the calculus) ~31706 m/sec2
mass ~ 1.71x10-3 kg
F=(1.71x10-3 kg)(31706 m/sec2) = 54.2 Newtons.
This is equivalent to 12.18 lbs force per piston, per rev.
This is a general calculation, it does not include the crank case air which creates resistance to the cylinder air moving, (this increases the pressure) and it does not consider the addition of pressure from blow by. Keep in mind that the pistons actual acceleration will start out slower and end up faster than the linear assumption I have made here, but it is valid to make the point of crank case pressures. this is why seals leak when people do not maintain the crank case ventilation system.
Also, note that the forces that are carried to the crank (hp and torque) are directly effected by the pressure drop across the piston. the pressure on the top of the piston minus the pressure below the piston is the effective pressure on top of the piston. (this is not the same as compression, even though that determines the pressure on top of the piston) Thus if you can lower the crank pressure, or create a vacuum you can increase the pressure drop across the piston and thus increase the effective pressure on top of the piston.
I hope this helps you to understand the importance of venting (actually creating somewhat of a vaccum) of the crank case.
Daniel
|
Matt Morgan (Kermit)
Junior Member
Username: Kermit
Post Number: 61
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 11:27 pm: | |
I would propose the following for the good of the whole. This topic is surely proving to be worthy of a thread of it's own. Rather than focus on only this product, I would rather see other input on modifications. If anyone wishes to start a thread, I would in all fairness ask that the head of ET Performance and Patent Owner Ted Schrode PhD be allowed to post even though he is not a Ferrari owner, driver, or builder. As I am new at this, Others more experienced in how to arrange this as well as obtain administration OK if necessary may freely do so. I would be glad to continue there. I feel that a thread addressing this product would no doubt attract valuable input pro or con from those who are using this product. |
Matt Morgan (Kermit)
Junior Member
Username: Kermit
Post Number: 60
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 8:34 pm: | |
Paul, I honestly could not tell you the reason they work. ET-Performance.com is the site I am sure there is more info you may wish to see to further understand. I simply know they work. You certainly do not have to take my word for it. I would not be offended at all. On the topic of the environment, I cannot help but wonder if the extra vacuum might not cut oil consumption down enough to balance it out. Besides, it is perfectly ok to vent the KV into the air breather if you chose. On a side note, being raised by an ex Marine Drill Sargent, I can assure you I do not have a tender behind! |
Paul Newman (Newman)
Member
Username: Newman
Post Number: 534
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 2:59 pm: | |
Kermit, I still dont see where the power increase would come from? I understand the concept of blowby and crankcase pressure but dont see that such a small amount would reduce power noticably enough to feel it with the Butt-ometer. I would guess that it would take at least a 10HP gain to feel it with your a.s.s (unless you have a very sensitive one) and I doubt the krankvent provides that sort of a gain. Also, venting it to the intake side is for emissions and for no gain in power, why pollute even more for no apparent reason? They look fancy, are expensive and dont do much IMO. |
Edward Gault (Irfgt)
Intermediate Member
Username: Irfgt
Post Number: 2056
Registered: 2-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 10:02 am: | |
The advantage of the Distributorless ignition over the stock electronic ignition is that it produces a higher voltage spark, has adjustable timing, and eliminates the expensive distributor caps and rotors. The ability to adjust the timing is where the additional power comes from. In my opinion an extra crankcase ventilation system would only be an advantage if you have an engine with excess blow by that is overcoming the factory systems capabilities. |
Matt Morgan (Kermit)
Junior Member
Username: Kermit
Post Number: 58
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 9:40 am: | |
John, they are very easy to install. Simply remove the stock breather system, including the fittings from the Valve Covers. Block off the line that the stock system used to drain into the sump. The fitting that replaces the old hose connectiion on the Valve covers swres into it's place on both banks. Gently press in the KV, and tighten the allen head set screws. Route the hoses away from the motor so that they are clear (and of course away from the headers) and you are done. When I designed the fitting that goes into the valve cover, I set it up so that it is an O ring sealed, press in and lock with setscrews so that the cover does not have to be removed. As with most of my designs, there is no altering of the OEM parts. IMO, it is important to be able to return to stock easily without any problems. I feel this is important in that one can later on change back to stock if they wish to retain the original without alterations. |
Steve Magnusson (91tr)
Intermediate Member
Username: 91tr
Post Number: 1098
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 9:32 am: | |
Kermit -- I find it a little baffling that you would disagree with the Krank Vent inventor (see the Prior Art section of the Patent). I didn't say that Krank Vents are ineffective on Ferraris, but only that they are more effective on single-cylinder and V-twin designs. Additionally, I think you've mixed in two things that are independent of using Krank Vents on Ferraris:
1. Whether the crankcase vapors are sent to the airbox or vented to atmosphere does not require using a Krank Vent, and
2. There is no spring-loaded PVC valve on the Fs I've owned.
The advantage to the Krank Vent approach over the stock "open" F system would be if it could function well as a one-way valve (and the pulsations are large enough) such that the average crankcase pressure is lowered (vs the stock set-up) -- frankly, I'm surprised that you and Nick have not made this type of measurement to confirm the effectiveness of your product in the F application. (I'll keep an open mind until you do.)
|
John Delvac (Johndelvac)
Junior Member
Username: Johndelvac
Post Number: 106
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Friday, October 04, 2002 - 8:09 am: | |
Kermit - How easy are the Krank Vents to install? What has to be ripped out? |
Matt Morgan (Kermit)
Junior Member
Username: Kermit
Post Number: 57
Registered: 8-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 10:56 pm: | |
Steve, with all respect, I must emphatically disagree that the are most suited to 1 or 2 piston motors. I am running them on even my old 2.5litre S-10. I know the horror of mentioning such an inferior engine design on the F-chat. While yes, the stock system does a reasonably good job. It is IMO inferior. The logic of feeding blowby gasses which consist of no oxygen or fuel value back into the motor isn't what I consider an advantage to performance or effeciency. In installing them on Ferraris, I have personally noticed an improvement in the way the motor runs, and have personally seen many times the reduction of oil seapage. This tells me that they must work. And no I do not yet have dyno figures yet.But the old seat of the pants tells me there is an improvement. One easy way to tell. For those who have them, place the open end of the hose next to perhaps your cheek or some sensitive part. You will feel pulses as it works.
I included a copy of a post to an owner with oil dipstick problems. Perhaps it will shed a bit of light
"To clear up a point on how things work. The standard PVC consists of a spring loaded steel valve that relies on the "pulses" of pressure to unseat the valve and allow outward flow. It takes to begin with, whatever crankcase pressure to overcome the valve and allow the release of gases. This of course does not take into account the inertia factor, that being how much push does it really take to move a steel valve off the seat. At an RPM of only 6000 this is naturally going to take a bit to actuate. The pressure that is below the approximately 3 lbs of spring are always going to be in the crankcase. Being a curious fellow, I dissected a Krank Vent. The valve isn't spring loaded at all, it is a disc shaped valve that weighed .7 grams. Obviously this takes a minuscule amount of push to open. With the nature of these blowby pulses being very light ( almost as soft as a baby's breath) it is easy to see how well it works. I personally use them on all my vehicles, Harley included. And yes they are a lot more than $3.00 PVC valves, but as I have seen the results, they are worth every cent. Or I sure as Heck would not have more that one."
|
Paul Newman (Newman)
Member
Username: Newman
Post Number: 528
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 4:12 pm: | |
If you want the factory look and electronic ignition, buy the crane conversion kits. This wouldnt really apply on a QV though that comes with electronic ignition. I cant see a big bang for the buck going with direct ignition on a car that is electronic to start with and the krankvent would show no HP gains IMO. Compression and cams will give big gains, the external stuff will yeild little gains and cost lots, like a Tubi for example. Removing the cats will be the cheapest HP modification. |
Hans E. Hansen (4re_gt4)
Junior Member
Username: 4re_gt4
Post Number: 228
Registered: 4-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 3:02 pm: | |
Steve kind of touched on something I have been wondering about. With a multi-cylinder engine, pistons are going up at the same time as others are coming down. Shouldn't the air under a downward going pistion be 'sucked up' by an upward going piston - thus negating the need for the Krank Vent? (This, of course, ignors for the moment blow-by gasses.)
Along those lines, one of the differences between the regular Corvette motor and the Z06 is that the Z06 has "windows" (no, not MicroSoft) in the webbing in the crank area to facilitate air flow between the undersides of the pistons. |
Steve Magnusson (91tr)
Intermediate Member
Username: 91tr
Post Number: 1095
Registered: 1-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 2:12 pm: | |
John D. -- For a description of how the Krank Vent principle works see US Patent 5,967,178:
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=/netahtml/srchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=5967178.WKU.&OS=PN/5967178&RS=PN/5967178
More appropriate for single-cylinder and V-twin engine designs where the internal crankcase volume varies significantly (but there's nothing harmful about them). What we need is some 308/328 data for crankcase pressure vs RPM for both the stock crankcase vent setup and with the Krank Vents installed on the same engine. JMOs. |
John Delvac (Johndelvac)
Junior Member
Username: Johndelvac
Post Number: 104
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 2:00 pm: | |
I've heard of a couple of different sources for ignition stuff. Is there a difference in Direct Coil and regualr electronic ignition? I met someone the other day with a 2-valve carb. who had a much cheaper "electronic ignition" installed ($800). Does one get more with the Direct Coil? I've heard neither really increases HP. Does anyone know how the Krank Vents work? |
Dr Tommy Cosgrove (Vwalfa4re)
Member
Username: Vwalfa4re
Post Number: 311
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 1:03 pm: | |
Direct coil ignition first. I am doing that next. Several guys here have it and speak highly of it. |
John Delvac (Johndelvac)
Junior Member
Username: Johndelvac
Post Number: 103
Registered: 11-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, October 03, 2002 - 11:53 am: | |
I was wondering if anyone had modified their 308QV/328 with the Krank-Vent system or Direct Coil Ignition. Any other modifications folks have done (other than , K&N, Tubi & test pipes)? What gave you the best bang for the buck? |