"Gib Bogle" wrote in message
...
OT, but there are a few petrol-heads here who might have useful
suggestions.

I have an old but good 91 Toyota Camry wagon,
The typical symptom is that I drive somewhere, park, come back to the car
an hour or so later, and it will not start.
The error code (in light flashes) is 43, which according to the manual
is:

Starter signal. No STA signal to ECU when vehicle stopped and engine
running over 800 rpm.
1. Main relay circuit
4. ECU

I discovered that a couple of the metal-case ones are very hot - too hot
to hold. These are labelled Fan no.1 and EFI main. Is it normal for these
relays to get very hot?

if it was mine i would first be looking at wiring connector issues to the
relay board and ECU due to age of car.

-

On 25/01/2012 4:24 a.m., Mark wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
OT, but there are a few petrol-heads here who might have useful
suggestions.

I have an old but good 91 Toyota Camry wagon,
The typical symptom is that I drive somewhere, park, come back to the car
an hour or so later, and it will not start.
The error code (in light flashes) is 43, which according to the manual
is:

Starter signal. No STA signal to ECU when vehicle stopped and engine
running over 800 rpm.
1. Main relay circuit
4. ECU

I discovered that a couple of the metal-case ones are very hot - too hot
to hold. These are labelled Fan no.1 and EFI main. Is it normal for these
relays to get very hot?

if it was mine i would first be looking at wiring connector issues to the
relay board and ECU due to age of car.

I think you win the prize. A number of responders talked about issues
other than the spark, while the error messages made it clear that the
STA line is not high when it should be, causing the ECU to fail to
initiate the spark.

I got my Chilean mechanic/jack-of-all-trades to take a look. He called
it a "fantasma" (phantom) and phoned his Chilean auto-electrician pal,
who according to him "likes fantasmas". He came to my house
immediately. He checked out the connections to the ECU, and found they
were all OK. He then fiddled with the wires going to the IG switch, and
zeroed in on a nearby board with relays and fuses. After establishing
that opening one multi-circuit connector killed the spark, he then
noticed some corrosion on one of the contacts of the connector. He
cleaned this, and is confident that this has fixed the problem.
According to this guy, most electrical problems with Japanese cars are
fixed by taking apart, cleaning, and remaking connectors.

On Jan 24, 8:15*pm, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 25/01/2012 4:24 a.m., Mark wrote:









"Gib *wrote in message
...
OT, but there are a few petrol-heads here who might have useful
suggestions.

I have an old but good 91 Toyota Camry wagon,
The typical symptom is that I drive somewhere, park, come back to the car
an hour or so later, and it will not start.
* The error code (in light flashes) is 43, which according to the manual
is:

Starter signal. *No STA signal to ECU when vehicle stopped and engine
running over 800 rpm.
1. Main relay circuit
4. ECU

I discovered that a couple of the metal-case ones are very hot - too hot
to hold. These are labelled Fan no.1 and EFI main. *Is it normal for these
relays to get very hot?

if it was mine i would first be looking at wiring connector issues to the
relay board and ECU due to age of car.

I think you win the prize. *A number of responders talked about issues
other than the spark, while the error messages made it clear that the
STA line is not high when it should be, causing the ECU to fail to
initiate the spark.

I got my Chilean mechanic/jack-of-all-trades to take a look. *He called
it a "fantasma" (phantom) and phoned his Chilean auto-electrician pal,
who according to him "likes fantasmas". *He came to my house
immediately. *He checked out the connections to the ECU, and found they
were all OK. *He then fiddled with the wires going to the IG switch, and
zeroed in on a nearby board with relays and fuses. *After establishing
that opening one multi-circuit connector killed the spark, he then
noticed some corrosion on one of the contacts of the connector. *He
cleaned this, and is confident that this has fixed the problem.
According to this guy, most electrical problems with Japanese cars are
fixed by taking apart, cleaning, and remaking connectors.

So was this corrosion in the pasenger compartment and not the engine
bay?

Gib Bogle wrote:

On 25/01/2012 4:24 a.m., Mark wrote:
"Gib wrote in message
...
OT, but there are a few petrol-heads here who might have useful
suggestions.

I have an old but good 91 Toyota Camry wagon,
The typical symptom is that I drive somewhere, park, come back to the
car an hour or so later, and it will not start.
The error code (in light flashes) is 43, which according to the manual
is:

Starter signal. No STA signal to ECU when vehicle stopped and engine
running over 800 rpm.
1. Main relay circuit
4. ECU

I discovered that a couple of the metal-case ones are very hot - too hot
to hold. These are labelled Fan no.1 and EFI main. Is it normal for
these relays to get very hot?

if it was mine i would first be looking at wiring connector issues to the
relay board and ECU due to age of car.

I think you win the prize.

According to this guy, most electrical problems with Japanese cars are
fixed by taking apart, cleaning, and remaking connectors.

yes i have a 91 Toyota Hilux in Ireland the only thing that has ever caused
problems, apart from rust, is the wiring connections.


-

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
I think you win the prize. A number of responders talked about issues
other than the spark, while the error messages made it clear that the
STA line is not high when it should be, causing the ECU to fail to
initiate the spark.

It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?

[snip]

According to this guy, most electrical problems with Japanese cars are
fixed by taking apart, cleaning, and remaking connectors.

It's a good place to start with most.

--
*A conscience is what hurts when all your other parts feel so good *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/01/2012 10:50 a.m., thirty-six wrote:

So was this corrosion in the pasenger compartment and not the engine
bay?

Yes.

On 25/01/2012 12:02 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Gib wrote:
I think you win the prize. A number of responders talked about issues
other than the spark, while the error messages made it clear that the
STA line is not high when it should be, causing the ECU to fail to
initiate the spark.

It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?

Yes. The circuit diagram shows that the ECU controls the igniter, which
drives the ignition coil and also has connections to the distributor.
Clearly the ECU sets spark advance.

Gib Bogle wrote:
On 25/01/2012 12:02 p.m., Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In ,
Gib wrote:
I think you win the prize. A number of responders talked about issues
other than the spark, while the error messages made it clear that the
STA line is not high when it should be, causing the ECU to fail to
initiate the spark.

It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?

Yes. The circuit diagram shows that the ECU controls the igniter, which
drives the ignition coil and also has connections to the distributor.
Clearly the ECU sets spark advance.

I think my peugot motorhome works that way..ad earlier Puntos I think
had a stribbie.

On Tue, 24 Jan 2012 23:02:47 +0000, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
I think you win the prize. A number of responders talked about issues
other than the spark, while the error messages made it clear that the
STA line is not high when it should be, causing the ECU to fail to
initiate the spark.

It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?

I know some mid 80s to early 90s Fiats used this system (the more
powerful Regatas, Cromas, and Stradas) The distributor was just that - no
advance/retard mechanism, which was all handled by the ECU, which had a
sensor on the crank.

Prior to that, the more primitive electronic ignitions used a hall-effect
sensor in the distributor which was tripped by one of 4 points on the
shaft. We had a car which would cut out, by the time the owner had got
the AA to it (or us, if we were nearby) it would start. Eventually they
got so fed up they left it with us. After a few days using it, we had it
fail, quickly jumped out, and confirmed there was no spark. After that it
was a case of completely dismantling the ignition system, at which point
we discovered the "maintenance free" sensor's wires had become brittle
and snapped. At rest they contacted, but when the advance/retard worked,
they briefly came apart - hence the stall.

It was indicative of the confidence Fiat had put into the system that it
took 2 weeks to order the part. It was also interesting that a few weeks
after this happened, a local dealership had a workshop memo, instructing
a regular inspect/replace interval for the thing.

[snip]

According to this guy, most electrical problems with Japanese cars are
fixed by taking apart, cleaning, and remaking connectors.

It's a good place to start with most.

You could remove the phrase "with Japanese cars" from that, and it would
be just as correct

In article ,
Jethro wrote:
It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?

I know some mid 80s to early 90s Fiats used this system (the more
powerful Regatas, Cromas, and Stradas) The distributor was just that -
no advance/retard mechanism, which was all handled by the ECU, which
had a sensor on the crank.

Think some of the Maestro/Montego range used the same. Given how many
problems dizzy caps and rotor arms give it seemed strange not to go the
whole hog to twin coils and wasted spark.

--
*If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jethro wrote:
It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?

I know some mid 80s to early 90s Fiats used this system (the more
powerful Regatas, Cromas, and Stradas) The distributor was just that -
no advance/retard mechanism, which was all handled by the ECU, which
had a sensor on the crank.

Think some of the Maestro/Montego range used the same. Given how many
problems dizzy caps and rotor arms give it seemed strange not to go the
whole hog to twin coils and wasted spark.

I have never had a problem with either.

I had a tracking coil once. That is in fact the sum of all my non
contact breaker/capacitor ignition problems on *anything* (except a case
of recessed spark plugs where the recesses got full of water)..

Huge wrote:
On 2012-01-25, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Jethro wrote:
It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?
I know some mid 80s to early 90s Fiats used this system (the more
powerful Regatas, Cromas, and Stradas) The distributor was just that -
no advance/retard mechanism, which was all handled by the ECU, which
had a sensor on the crank.
Think some of the Maestro/Montego range used the same. Given how many
problems dizzy caps and rotor arms give it seemed strange not to go the
whole hog to twin coils and wasted spark.

Probably saved 17p to keep the dizzy.


A fair bit more than that in the early days - power transistors or
triacs were fragile and expensive to do the sorts of 400V needful in
either a CD or 'break the coil primary circuit' apps.

With the advent of mains SMPSs and power MOSFETS that's no longer the case.

On Jan 25, 4:06*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article ,
* *Jethro wrote:

It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?
I know some mid 80s to early 90s Fiats used this system (the more
powerful Regatas, Cromas, and Stradas) The distributor was just that -
no advance/retard mechanism, which was all handled by the ECU, which
had a sensor on the crank.

Think some of the Maestro/Montego range used the same. Given how many
problems dizzy caps and rotor arms give it seemed strange not to go the
whole hog to twin coils and wasted spark.


Dealer supplied distributer caps and arms (Lucas) would run about 4
years or 400000 miles without showing significant corrosion.
Replacements from a motor factors (CI) would have a lifespan less than
half and deterioration in performance would be significant after 2
years. Trying to run them for much longer could lead to a breakdown,
although you will have a thousand miles of rough running before it
finally cops it. The single coil with distributer was continued with
by Rover up to 2000 while other companies struggled with reliability
issues of the split coil systems. During the mid 80's when the
Naestro/Montego line was introduced, BL (or whatever) where looking to
achieve very efficient running cars and the single coil with
distributer has the edge. The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2 I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.

On 26/01/2012 7:34 a.m., thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 25, 4:06 pm, "Dave Plowman
wrote:
In ,
wrote:

It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?
I know some mid 80s to early 90s Fiats used this system (the more
powerful Regatas, Cromas, and Stradas) The distributor was just that -
no advance/retard mechanism, which was all handled by the ECU, which
had a sensor on the crank.

Think some of the Maestro/Montego range used the same. Given how many
problems dizzy caps and rotor arms give it seemed strange not to go the
whole hog to twin coils and wasted spark.


Dealer supplied distributer caps and arms (Lucas) would run about 4
years or 400000 miles without showing significant corrosion.
Replacements from a motor factors (CI) would have a lifespan less than
half and deterioration in performance would be significant after 2
years. Trying to run them for much longer could lead to a breakdown,
although you will have a thousand miles of rough running before it
finally cops it. The single coil with distributer was continued with
by Rover up to 2000 while other companies struggled with reliability
issues of the split coil systems. During the mid 80's when the
Naestro/Montego line was introduced, BL (or whatever) where looking to
achieve very efficient running cars and the single coil with
distributer has the edge. The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2 I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.

This is all very interesting to me - I didn't realize that distributors
had been done away with. I suppose if I look inside the bonnet of our
newest car (Toyota Corolla ca. 2006) I'll see that it doesn't have one.

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.

On Jan 25, 6:34 pm, thirty-six wrote:

snip
The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2

was the 1.6 XR2 sh@gged? ;)

Jim K

On Jan 25, 7:27*pm, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 26/01/2012 7:34 a.m., thirty-six wrote:









On Jan 25, 4:06 pm, "Dave Plowman
wrote:
In ,
* * *wrote:

It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?
I know some mid 80s to early 90s Fiats used this system (the more
powerful Regatas, Cromas, and Stradas) The distributor was just that -
no advance/retard mechanism, which was all handled by the ECU, which
had a sensor on the crank.

Think some of the Maestro/Montego range used the same. Given how many
problems dizzy caps and rotor arms give it seemed strange not to go the
whole hog to twin coils and wasted spark.

Dealer supplied distributer caps and arms (Lucas) would run about 4
years or 400000 miles without showing significant corrosion.
Replacements from a motor factors (CI) would have a lifespan less than
half and deterioration in performance would be significant after 2
years. *Trying to run them for much longer could lead to a breakdown,
although you will have a thousand miles of rough running before it
finally cops it. *The single coil with distributer was continued with
by Rover up to 2000 while other companies struggled with reliability
issues of the split coil systems. *During the mid 80's when the
Naestro/Montego line was introduced, BL (or whatever) where looking to
achieve very efficient running cars and the single coil with
distributer has the edge. *The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. *3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2 * I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.

This is all very interesting to me - I didn't realize that distributors
had been done away with. *I suppose if I look inside the bonnet of our
newest car (Toyota Corolla ca. 2006) I'll see that it doesn't have one.

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.

It's firing the wrong way for half the time.

Half of the cylinders will be firing with reversed polarity. The
spark's ability to ignite the mixture is reduced on the reverse firing
and there is gross erosion of the centre electrode with traditional
spark plugs. To counter this, modern engines use platinum tipped
spark plug electrodes at greater expense and reduced spark energy
capacity. There is also fancy electronic mapping to get the best out
of the engine with these stupid plugs. There is no need to dress the
electrodes every 3000 miles to maximise acceleration, you can't, the
electrodes are already at a poor performing level and the majority of
engine management units won't self modify to compensate for the
improvement even if you do put in the regular electrode plugs.

On Jan 25, 7:40*pm, Jim K wrote:
On Jan 25, 6:34 pm, thirty-six wrote:

snip

The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. *3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2

was the 1.6 XR2 sh@gged? ;)

Jim K

It was a Ford! Ford owners seem easily convinced by go-faster
stripes and a fat tailpi;pe. I doubt that maintenance was perfect,
but the engine sounded solid and there was no hesistation with the
Ford. It seemed quicker in the Ford, but side by side the Maestro was
a length ahead at something over 50mph. It was unfair to take it any
further as I'd already proved that the Maestro was quicker around
town, without collecting tickets.

On Jan 25, 8:52 pm, thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:40 pm, Jim K wrote:

On Jan 25, 6:34 pm, thirty-six wrote:

snip

The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2

was the 1.6 XR2 sh@gged? ;)

Jim K

It was a Ford! Ford owners seem easily convinced by go-faster
stripes and a fat tailpi;pe. I doubt that maintenance was perfect,
but the engine sounded solid and there was no hesistation with the
Ford. It seemed quicker in the Ford, but side by side the Maestro was
a length ahead at something over 50mph. It was unfair to take it any
further as I'd already proved that the Maestro was quicker around
town, without collecting tickets.

mmm bet his stereo weighed more than yours ;)
(and he could hear it ;))

Jim K

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.

No difference whatsoever in performance between 'normal' and wasted spark
with both in good condition. But wasted spark dispenses with the dizzy, so
is more reliable. The Ford version, EDIS, near bomb proof.

--
*Why don't sheep shrink when it rains?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.

It doesn't. It's a very common modification - I'm running EDIS on my old
Rover, so no more distributor.

--
*Verbs HAS to agree with their subjects *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:15:18 +1300, Gib Bogle
wrote:

According to this guy, most electrical problems with Japanese cars are
fixed by taking apart, cleaning, and remaking connectors.

Aha. Make that bikes too.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 12:38:11 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.

It's firing the wrong way for half the time.

Half of the cylinders will be firing with reversed polarity.

**** sake, you don't half spout some utter ********.

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.

It's firing the wrong way for half the time.

Half of the cylinders will be firing with reversed polarity.

Why? Basically each (identical) coil has two outputs which are identical.
They can go to either plug of that pair. So either they're all 'reverse
polarity' or none are. There is no difference in the spark polarity or
whatever intrinsic to wasted spark - indeed plenty motorbike engines used
a conventional points system to achieve this As did the 2CV.

The
spark's ability to ignite the mixture is reduced on the reverse firing
and there is gross erosion of the centre electrode with traditional
spark plugs.

Where on earth did you get that from?

To counter this, modern engines use platinum tipped
spark plug electrodes at greater expense and reduced spark energy
capacity.

Modern engines use fancy plugs for a long life. Near 100,000 miles isn't
uncommon. But the original basic design will work just fine with wasted
spark, although EDIS is designed to use plugs with resistors built in.


There is also fancy electronic mapping to get the best out
of the engine with these stupid plugs. There is no need to dress the
electrodes every 3000 miles to maximise acceleration, you can't, the
electrodes are already at a poor performing level and the majority of
engine management units won't self modify to compensate for the
improvement even if you do put in the regular electrode plugs.

Of course the ignition is mapped by the ECU. You can produce any spark
timing you want using this - unlike a mechanical system which is
constrained by springs and bob weights. Which often don't work well when
new let alone after some miles and a bit of wear.

--
*I speak fluent patriarchy but it's not my mother tongue

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2012-01-25, Gib Bogle wrote:

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.

I don't believe it, never mind don't understand it.

It's one of the weirdest things I've read this week. ;-)

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Gib Bogle wrote:
I think you win the prize. A number of responders talked about issues
other than the spark, while the error messages made it clear that the
STA line is not high when it should be, causing the ECU to fail to
initiate the spark.

It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?

Yes, quite common two decades ago
what car did you have back then?

-

thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 25, 7:27 pm, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 26/01/2012 7:34 a.m., thirty-six wrote:









On Jan 25, 4:06 pm, "Dave Plowman
wrote:
In ,
wrote:
It has a distributor, but the spark controlled by the ECU?
I know some mid 80s to early 90s Fiats used this system (the more
powerful Regatas, Cromas, and Stradas) The distributor was just that -
no advance/retard mechanism, which was all handled by the ECU, which
had a sensor on the crank.
Think some of the Maestro/Montego range used the same. Given how many
problems dizzy caps and rotor arms give it seemed strange not to go the
whole hog to twin coils and wasted spark.
Dealer supplied distributer caps and arms (Lucas) would run about 4
years or 400000 miles without showing significant corrosion.
Replacements from a motor factors (CI) would have a lifespan less than
half and deterioration in performance would be significant after 2
years. Trying to run them for much longer could lead to a breakdown,
although you will have a thousand miles of rough running before it
finally cops it. The single coil with distributer was continued with
by Rover up to 2000 while other companies struggled with reliability
issues of the split coil systems. During the mid 80's when the
Naestro/Montego line was introduced, BL (or whatever) where looking to
achieve very efficient running cars and the single coil with
distributer has the edge. The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2 I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.
This is all very interesting to me - I didn't realize that distributors
had been done away with. I suppose if I look inside the bonnet of our
newest car (Toyota Corolla ca. 2006) I'll see that it doesn't have one.

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.

It's firing the wrong way for half the time.

Half of the cylinders will be firing with reversed polarity.

what?

The
spark's ability to ignite the mixture is reduced on the reverse firing
and there is gross erosion of the centre electrode with traditional
spark plugs.

Are you on?

To counter this, modern engines use platinum tipped
spark plug electrodes at greater expense and reduced spark energy
capacity. There is also fancy electronic mapping to get the best out
of the engine with these stupid plugs. There is no need to dress the
electrodes every 3000 miles to maximise acceleration, you can't, the
electrodes are already at a poor performing level and the majority of
engine management units won't self modify to compensate for the
improvement even if you do put in the regular electrode plugs.

Complete toss from beginning to end.

On 26/01/2012 11:22 a.m., Huge wrote:
On 2012-01-25, Gib wrote:

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.

I don't believe it, never mind don't understand it.


I was being polite (for a change).

On Jan 26, 12:01*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.
It's firing the wrong way for half the time.
Half of the cylinders will be firing with reversed polarity.

Why? Basically each (identical) coil has two outputs which are identical.
They can go to either plug of that pair. So either they're all 'reverse
polarity' or none are.

Are you sure on that, because as I see it under the description you
give, the coil with the lower loading, which would be the cylinder not
under compression would spark and soak off all the flux energy, while
the compressed gas gave a resistance to sparking.

There is no difference in the spark polarity or
whatever intrinsic to wasted spark - indeed plenty motorbike engines used
a conventional points system to achieve this As did the 2CV.

A three cylinder engine, yes that would truly be wasted.

The
spark's ability to ignite the mixture is reduced on the reverse firing
and there is gross erosion of the centre electrode with traditional
spark plugs.

Where on earth did you get that from?

Reversing the polarity of the low tension on an ignition coil and
examining the sparking electrodes, the tip becomes pitted, evident
after a few hundred miles.

*To counter this, modern engines use platinum tipped
spark plug electrodes at greater expense and reduced spark energy
capacity.

Modern engines use fancy plugs for a long life. Near 100,000 miles isn't
uncommon.

That same mileage can be got from standard plugs with greater energy
dispersion and a more efficient and faster combustion giving improved
fuel economy and more torque.

But the original basic design will work just fine with wasted
spark, although EDIS is designed to use plugs with resistors built in.

Wow!

* There is also fancy electronic mapping to get the best out
of the engine with these stupid plugs. *There is no need to dress the
electrodes every 3000 miles to maximise acceleration, you can't, the
electrodes are already at a poor performing level and the majority of
engine management units won't self modify to compensate for the
improvement even if you do put in the regular electrode plugs.

Of course the ignition is mapped by the ECU. You can produce any spark
timing you want using this - unlike a mechanical system which is
constrained by springs and bob weights. Which often don't work well when
new let alone after some miles and a bit of wear.

Erratic behaviour spuriously associated with mechanical advance is ill-
founded. The faults leading to poor engine response may be disguised
by electronic mapping. Electronic mapping may well be used to follow
an imposed torque response to smooth out a poor engine (or other
reasons), rather than let the well-built engine develop full torque
and efficiency at the desired level. This disguises developing engine
faults.

On Jan 25, 11:46*pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.

No difference whatsoever in performance between 'normal' and wasted spark
with both in good condition. But wasted spark dispenses with the dizzy, so
is more reliable. The Ford version, EDIS, near bomb proof.


Unlike a maintained distributer system which both crash-proof and bomb-
proof.

On Jan 26, 8:48*am, thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:01*am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power..
It's firing the wrong way for half the time.
Half of the cylinders will be firing with reversed polarity.

Why? Basically each (identical) coil has two outputs which are identical.
They can go to either plug of that pair. So either they're all 'reverse
polarity' or none are.

Are you sure on that, because as I see it under the description you
give, the coil with the lower loading, which would be the cylinder not
under compression would spark and soak off all the flux energy, while
the compressed gas gave a resistance to sparking.

There is no difference in the spark polarity or
whatever intrinsic to wasted spark - indeed plenty motorbike engines used
a conventional points system to achieve this As did the 2CV.

A three cylinder engine, yes that would truly be wasted.



The
spark's ability to ignite the mixture is reduced on the reverse firing
and there is gross erosion of the centre electrode with traditional
spark plugs.

Where on earth did you get that from?

Reversing the polarity of the low tension on an ignition coil and
examining the sparking electrodes, the tip becomes pitted, evident
after a few hundred miles.

Perhaps you forgot the sea salt and kelp powder.

MBQ

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
Why? Basically each (identical) coil has two outputs which are
identical. They can go to either plug of that pair. So either they're
all 'reverse polarity' or none are.

Are you sure on that, because as I see it under the description you
give, the coil with the lower loading, which would be the cylinder not
under compression would spark and soak off all the flux energy, while
the compressed gas gave a resistance to sparking.

I suspect the design of the coil has in fact two secondary windings. But
in any case what you describe doesn't happen in practice.

There is no difference in the spark polarity or whatever intrinsic to
wasted spark - indeed plenty motorbike engines used a conventional
points system to achieve this As did the 2CV.

A three cylinder engine, yes that would truly be wasted.

What are you on about? The clue is in the 2 of 2CV.

The
spark's ability to ignite the mixture is reduced on the reverse firing
and there is gross erosion of the centre electrode with traditional
spark plugs.

Where on earth did you get that from?

Reversing the polarity of the low tension on an ignition coil and
examining the sparking electrodes, the tip becomes pitted, evident
after a few hundred miles.

But why do you think wasted spark reverses a coil?

To counter this, modern engines use platinum tipped
spark plug electrodes at greater expense and reduced spark energy
capacity.

Modern engines use fancy plugs for a long life. Near 100,000 miles isn't
uncommon.

That same mileage can be got from standard plugs with greater energy
dispersion and a more efficient and faster combustion giving improved
fuel economy and more torque.

Whatever. It's irrelevant with wasted spark. The extra sparking of the
plug doesn't shorten its life as it's not igniting fuel.

But the original basic design will work just fine with wasted
spark, although EDIS is designed to use plugs with resistors built in.

Wow!

Because wasted spark has much shorter plug leads. Hope you are learning
something.



There is also fancy electronic mapping to get the best out
of the engine with these stupid plugs. There is no need to dress the
electrodes every 3000 miles to maximise acceleration, you can't, the
electrodes are already at a poor performing level and the majority of
engine management units won't self modify to compensate for the
improvement even if you do put in the regular electrode plugs.

Of course the ignition is mapped by the ECU. You can produce any spark
timing you want using this - unlike a mechanical system which is
constrained by springs and bob weights. Which often don't work well when
new let alone after some miles and a bit of wear.

Erratic behaviour spuriously associated with mechanical advance is ill-
founded.

********. Tuners in the days when dizzys were the norm spent ages bringing
them up to spec. Even on new cars. And that's before you consider how
they're driven - usually off a camshaft with a chain which stretches. And
jitters.

The faults leading to poor engine response may be disguised
by electronic mapping.

And this is bad in which way?

Electronic mapping may well be used to follow
an imposed torque response to smooth out a poor engine (or other
reasons), rather than let the well-built engine develop full torque
and efficiency at the desired level. This disguises developing engine
faults.

More ********. An electronic map can be whatever you want. It could go
from say 10 to 30 degrees of advance over a 100 rpm change. Such a thing
just isn't practical with mechanical advance. It can also allow completely
different timing for cranking on a cold day than idle when the engine
starts - again impossible with a mechanical system.

As regards disguising design faults - all engines have these. Otherwise
they wouldn't improve year and year on. Much of it down to electronics.

--
*I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article
,
thirty-six wrote:
No difference whatsoever in performance between 'normal' and wasted
spark with both in good condition. But wasted spark dispenses with the
dizzy, so is more reliable. The Ford version, EDIS, near bomb proof.


Unlike a maintained distributer system which both crash-proof and bomb-
proof.

I can only assume you don't drive and never have driven an older car.
Ignition problems were by far the most common reasons for breakdown. Which
were frequent compared to today.

--
*He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 25 Jan 2012 10:34:24 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
wrote:

The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds,

Given that a Lotus Elise Sport 135, a car with a 1.8 K series, with a
combustion chamber and port arrangement not too dissimilar to Keith
Duckworths classic DFV, a car not known to be underpowered or crippled
by poor choice of gear ratios, with a kerb weight of 725kg, takes 10.7
seconds to cover 20-80 in 3rd gear, one has to assume that your
Maestro, weighing 875kg, had somehow entered another dimension, an
entire new field of vehicle performance where basic physics is
forgotten and the impossible happens when a bull defecates in a nearby
field.


References

http://www.hazelnet.org/brochures/ro...2099%20135.jpg

http://www.maestro.org.uk/maestro/maestro_technical.htm


--

thirty-six wrote:
The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2 I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.

Makes you wonder why they bothered with the 2L turbo version then.

20-80 in third gear time 14.6
(http://www.maestroturbo.org.uk/performance.php)

A 1.3 doing it in "under 8 seconds" seems a tad unlikely to me.

Tim

In article ,
The Other Mike wrote:
The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds,

Given that a Lotus Elise Sport 135, a car with a 1.8 K series, with a
combustion chamber and port arrangement not too dissimilar to Keith
Duckworths classic DFV, a car not known to be underpowered or crippled
by poor choice of gear ratios, with a kerb weight of 725kg, takes 10.7
seconds to cover 20-80 in 3rd gear, one has to assume that your
Maestro, weighing 875kg, had somehow entered another dimension, an
entire new field of vehicle performance where basic physics is
forgotten and the impossible happens when a bull defecates in a nearby
field.

Of course the A Series was renown for decent torque, unlike the K Series
which is more of a screamer. But not that good.
It's a 60 mph increase. The zero to 60 through the gears on a 1.3 Maestro
won't be anything close to 8 seconds. More like 12 or so. And no car ever
built will have a better 20-80 mph speed in a single gear.

My guess is there's a 1 missing off the 8. Making 18 seconds. The factory
claimed 50-70 in 4th gear took 11.6 seconds.

--
*Not all men are annoying. Some are dead.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Downie wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
The 1.3 maestro was capable of 55mpg with
outstanding acceleration for its size. 3rd gear acceleration from
20mph to 80mph in under 8 seconds, through 1st and 2nd I was able to
out-accelerate an XR2 I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.

Makes you wonder why they bothered with the 2L turbo version then.

20-80 in third gear time 14.6
(http://www.maestroturbo.org.uk/performance.php)

A 1.3 doing it in "under 8 seconds" seems a tad unlikely to me.

I'm not even sure a 1.3 would do 80 in third.

But I'm guessing it should have read 18 rather than 8. And I can
understand the reluctance to change gear, being a Maestro.

--
*If you must choose between two evils, pick the one you've never tried before

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:01 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
thirty-six wrote:

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.
It's firing the wrong way for half the time.
Half of the cylinders will be firing with reversed polarity.
Why? Basically each (identical) coil has two outputs which are identical.
They can go to either plug of that pair. So either they're all 'reverse
polarity' or none are.

Are you sure on that, because as I see it under the description you
give, the coil with the lower loading, which would be the cylinder not
under compression would spark and soak off all the flux energy, while
the compressed gas gave a resistance to sparking.

There is no difference in the spark polarity or
whatever intrinsic to wasted spark - indeed plenty motorbike engines used
a conventional points system to achieve this As did the 2CV.

A three cylinder engine, yes that would truly be wasted.
The
spark's ability to ignite the mixture is reduced on the reverse firing
and there is gross erosion of the centre electrode with traditional
spark plugs.
Where on earth did you get that from?

Reversing the polarity of the low tension on an ignition coil and
examining the sparking electrodes, the tip becomes pitted, evident
after a few hundred miles.

sure, but why does a wasted spark reverse the polarity on the coils? you
mist have no understanding of electricity to say that.

To counter this, modern engines use platinum tipped
spark plug electrodes at greater expense and reduced spark energy
capacity.
Modern engines use fancy plugs for a long life. Near 100,000 miles isn't
uncommon.

That same mileage can be got from standard plugs with greater energy
dispersion and a more efficient and faster combustion giving improved
fuel economy and more torque.


Mere hand waving. There is no evidence to support anything you say
whatsoever.

Its sounds akin to gold plated 10Gigahertx braided litz wire speaker
cables to me..


But the original basic design will work just fine with wasted
spark, although EDIS is designed to use plugs with resistors built in.

Wow!
There is also fancy electronic mapping to get the best out
of the engine with these stupid plugs. There is no need to dress the
electrodes every 3000 miles to maximise acceleration, you can't, the
electrodes are already at a poor performing level and the majority of
engine management units won't self modify to compensate for the
improvement even if you do put in the regular electrode plugs.
Of course the ignition is mapped by the ECU. You can produce any spark
timing you want using this - unlike a mechanical system which is
constrained by springs and bob weights. Which often don't work well when
new let alone after some miles and a bit of wear.

Erratic behaviour spuriously associated with mechanical advance is ill-
founded. The faults leading to poor engine response may be disguised
by electronic mapping. Electronic mapping may well be used to follow
an imposed torque response to smooth out a poor engine (or other
reasons), rather than let the well-built engine develop full torque
and efficiency at the desired level. This disguises developing engine
faults.


in other words not everybody wants the same thing out of an engine.
Smoothness, economy and power as well as long service life are all to
an extent antithetical.

Golly. even F1 engines have 'fuel save' versus 'overtaking' modes built
it,.

So what on earth are you saying that everyone doesn't know already?

Nothing.

thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 25, 11:46 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
thirty-six wrote:

I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.
No difference whatsoever in performance between 'normal' and wasted spark
with both in good condition. But wasted spark dispenses with the dizzy, so
is more reliable. The Ford version, EDIS, near bomb proof.


Unlike a maintained distributer system which both crash-proof and bomb-
proof.

Like I said the distributor was never the problem but the points and the
capacitor were.

Breakerless ignition and electronic advance and retard were huge
improvements. Getting rid of the distributor is purely cost saving. At
some point the cost of the mechanics of a distributor and the weight
were less than the cost of multi-coil multi-transistor setups.

But its no big deal performance wise.

On Jan 26, 3:01*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 26, 12:01 am, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

I don't understand why wasted spark ignition should give less power.
It's firing the wrong way for half the time.
Half of the cylinders will be firing with reversed polarity.
Why? Basically each (identical) coil has two outputs which are identical.
They can go to either plug of that pair. So either they're all 'reverse
polarity' or none are.

Are you sure on that, because as I see it under the description you
give, the coil with the lower loading, which would be the cylinder not
under compression would spark and soak off all the flux energy, while
the compressed gas gave a resistance to sparking.

There is no difference in the spark polarity or
whatever intrinsic to wasted spark - indeed plenty motorbike engines used
a conventional points system to achieve this As did the 2CV.

A three cylinder engine, yes that would truly be wasted.
The
spark's ability to ignite the mixture is reduced on the reverse firing
and there is gross erosion of the centre electrode with traditional
spark plugs.
Where on earth did you get that from?

Reversing the polarity of the low tension on an ignition coil and
examining the sparking electrodes, the tip becomes pitted, evident
after a few hundred miles.

sure, but why does a wasted spark reverse the polarity on the coils? you
mist have no understanding of electricity to say that.

That was the design of the systems I studied at BTEC level 4. As far
as understand it is inherent in the wasted spark system, of course
there may have mbeen changes in the last 8 years which overcome the
problem, but it seems it's all been hushed up.


*To counter this, modern engines use platinum tipped
spark plug electrodes at greater expense and reduced spark energy
capacity.
Modern engines use fancy plugs for a long life. Near 100,000 miles isn't
uncommon.

That same mileage can be got from standard plugs with greater energy
dispersion and a more efficient and faster combustion giving improved
fuel economy and more torque.

Mere hand waving. There is no evidence to support anything you say
whatsoever.

Its sounds akin to gold plated 10Gigahertx braided litz wire speaker
cables to me..









But the original basic design will work just fine with wasted
spark, although EDIS is designed to use plugs with resistors built in.

Wow!
* There is also fancy electronic mapping to get the best out
of the engine with these stupid plugs. *There is no need to dress the
electrodes every 3000 miles to maximise acceleration, you can't, the
electrodes are already at a poor performing level and the majority of
engine management units won't self modify to compensate for the
improvement even if you do put in the regular electrode plugs.
Of course the ignition is mapped by the ECU. You can produce any spark
timing you want using this - unlike a mechanical system which is
constrained by springs and bob weights. Which often don't work well when
new let alone after some miles and a bit of wear.

Erratic behaviour spuriously associated with mechanical advance is ill-
founded. *The faults leading to poor engine response may be disguised
by electronic mapping. *Electronic mapping may well be used to follow
an imposed torque response to smooth out a poor engine (or other
reasons), rather than let the well-built engine develop full torque
and efficiency at the desired level. *This disguises developing engine
faults.

in other words not everybody wants the same thing out of an engine.
Smoothness, economy and power *as well as long service life are all to
an extent antithetical.

Golly. even F1 engines have 'fuel save' versus 'overtaking' modes built
it,.

Restricting the engines performance due to smoothing of the torque
output by fudging the ignition, reduces the engine's efficiency,
meaning lower gears are held longer. This in no way is a fuel save
mode.

So what on earth are you saying that everyone doesn't know already?

Nothing.

On Jan 26, 3:04*pm, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:
thirty-six wrote:
On Jan 25, 11:46 pm, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:
In article
,
* *thirty-six wrote:

I doubt that would be possible with wasted
spark ignition.
No difference whatsoever in performance between 'normal' and wasted spark
with both in good condition. But wasted spark dispenses with the dizzy, so
is more reliable. The Ford version, EDIS, near bomb proof.

Unlike a maintained distributer system which both crash-proof and bomb-
proof.

Like I said the distributor was never the problem but the points and the
capacitor were.

The Ducellier moving contact points removed any problem inherent in
the system, that of contact point erosion. Filing the points was
redundant, all that was required at service was to run a slip of brown
paper over the contacts, check the dwell angle with a simple meter and
check the ignition timing hadn't drifted from it's previous setting.
Capacitor faults were usually imagined, many ignition circuit problems
were due to badly made connections in the vehicle wiring. Just like
the charging circuit, it needs someone with a bit of nouse about
electrickery, else you'll be changing plugs and points every month of
the year.


Breakerless ignition and electronic advance and retard were huge
improvements. Getting rid of the distributor is purely cost saving. At
some point the cost of the mechanics of a distributor and the weight
were less than the cost of multi-coil multi-transistor setups.

But its no big deal performance wise.

The Rover/Motorola MEMS (forgot which version) was one such device
which did take advantage of gains in engine "tuning" as it did have a
significant range of learning to modify the ingnition mapping. A
larger throttle plate and a higher pressure fuel rail alongside light
modification to the HT cables and plugs and some simple "ratcheting"
at the manifold/port junctions would have the vehichles wheelspinning
all through second gear if one stamped on the pedal in the dry with
standard tyres at any speed. between 8mph and 60mph. Less
modification than this gave the 214Si a 60 to 100mph time of about 4
seconds. These are not the capable speeds of factory new machines,
but the capabilities of slight attention to detail not possible in a
normal production environment. There were reports that the multipoint
injection 1.4 K16 was procucing torque figures at between 40 to 50%
over the factory official release on the standard Engine management
Unit, significantly larger than the 1.6 factory variant.