aaronk25 Posted May 20, 2015 Report Posted May 20, 2015 (edited) Ya were splicing hairs s bit but it's worth around .5mpg difference. The problem lies with our fixed ignition timing. If we could get a variable timing system that isn't a joke like the Stc systems that is available (whole different topic).... Then we could get more fuel efficiency by running leaner even 50lop. The problem is now that the leaner we run the longer it takes for the fuel/air charge to burn and without the aid of being able to advance the timing more, say 28degrees btdc the piston is already well on its way down by the time the peak of the explosion reaches it. On my J I've tested this at about every power setting imaginable. Edited May 20, 2015 by aaronk25 1 Quote
cujet Posted May 23, 2015 Report Posted May 23, 2015 I have significant experience with electronic ignitions. They do seem to be the proper answer. Smoother running, more efficient, easier starts.... However, they really don't result in massive fuel savings. The claims of 10% are off the mark. More like 5%. There is no gain during climb, or during low altitude, higher power cruise. But, when over 10,000 feet or with throttle pulled back, and leaned significantly, there can be savings. Just don't expect it to pay for itself. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.