|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: topside]
#1049719
08/10/11 01:19 AM
08/10/11 01:19 AM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,444
So Cal
Sinitro
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,444
So Cal
|
Quote:
I neglected to mention that 2 of my cars run the MSD Blaster 2 can-style coil, the 3rd car runs the old Accel big yellow coil. One's been running that way since 1988, the other probably late '70s.
Along with the Blaster II, What ignition box?
1. Mopar chrome box, the ballast resistor should be 0.25 Ohms.
2. MSD box, no ballast resistor.
Just my $0.02... 
|
|
|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: 540challenger]
#1049722
08/10/11 11:38 AM
08/10/11 11:38 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,214
Someplace you aren't
SomeCarGuy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,214
Someplace you aren't
|
Haven't seen the MM article, but did see the MA. Running a Blaster 2 w/o a ballast works fine. For a long time. For many many miles. In high heat. I think somebody linked the other recent thread about it. I will say again that this seems to be an engineering theory that was thrown out there. People then ran with it and little actual testing was done. It's unlikely that I happened to have a one off set of parts that happen to work well, despite the dire warnings. 
I want my fair share
|
|
|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: 70duster340]
#1049723
08/10/11 01:44 PM
08/10/11 01:44 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,530
Nunya CA
CR8CRSHR
master
|
master
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,530
Nunya CA
|
Quote:
How about the Pertronix Plug and Play distributor?
According to the directions I have for mine, it clearly states to "by-pass" the Ballest Resistor...
|
|
|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: Cab_Burge]
#1049728
08/12/11 07:45 AM
08/12/11 07:45 AM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
70Cuda383
Too Many Posts
|
Too Many Posts
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 21,345
Marysville, O-H-I-O
|
Quote:
All of Mopar production cars with the ECU from the factory had ballst resitors, do you think maybe they where engineered that way for a good reason   would you take the word of a magazine word geek over a engineer I don't
They also engineered some degree of performance OUT of the engines in the name of "streetability" reliability and to lessen warranty claims.
by your theory, none of us should be changing cams, heads, intake manifolds, etc.
My understanding of the issue, is that the older coils were designed to run on 6-8 volts. this ensured they had enough voltage available to make a hot enough spark while the starter was sucking the battery juice to crank the engine...since your system voltage drops from 12.5 down to 8-ish volts while cranking the engine. but a coil designed to run on 6-8 volts won't last very long when you start feeding it the 14 volts from a running engine with the alternator providing charge.
but on today's newer coils, they've designed them to run on 12-14v allowing you to eliminate the resistor for more volts to the coil, and more volts to your spark plugs.
Following that theory, I bought a new coil, old school orange box, no ballast resistor and proceeded to drive 4,000 street miles in all kinds of weather, over a 5 year period, and not once did I have a problem with the coil or orange box "burning out"
**Photobucket sucks**
|
|
|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: Kern Dog]
#1049729
08/12/11 12:26 PM
08/12/11 12:26 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,214
Someplace you aren't
SomeCarGuy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,214
Someplace you aren't
|
Quote:
It was in a "Quick Tech" segment. The gist of the article was that points style ignitions should continue to use the ballast resistor to keep from damaging or prematurely wearing out the contact points. They also contend that the electronic systems did NOT need the ballast resistor. They suggest to tie the wires together at the ballast and enjoy a hotter spark with NO ill effects.
No, Eberg claimed you will overheat the ECU running no ballast. I don't think he has ever actually tried it, as what he said isn't the reality. I continue to think that overheating was a "possiblity" thrown out there way back when that has since become "fact" since nobody ever tested to see if that was the case.
|
|
|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: SomeCarGuy]
#1049730
08/12/11 03:25 PM
08/12/11 03:25 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,255
IL
furious70
top fuel
|
top fuel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,255
IL
|
I've never read a study on how long an OEM coil and ecu will run on 12v but it's indisputable that they were designed to run on 9v to provide better starting characteristics. Run any electrical device with more volts than it was designed for and it will work, how long would come down to how much of a safety factor was built into the original design.
70 Sport Fury
68 Charger
69 Coronet
72 RR
|
|
|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: can.al]
#1049733
08/12/11 10:58 PM
08/12/11 10:58 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,443
70duster340
OP
pro stock
|
OP
pro stock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,443
|
Quote:
...why do you want to remove it?
It's not that I want to remove it, I just wanted to know if the possibility exists that the car will perform as well if not better without the ballast resistor. 
|
|
|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: furious70]
#1049734
08/13/11 12:08 AM
08/13/11 12:08 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,214
Someplace you aren't
SomeCarGuy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,214
Someplace you aren't
|
Quote:
I've never read a study on how long an OEM coil and ecu will run on 12v but it's indisputable that they were designed to run on 9v to provide better starting characteristics. Run any electrical device with more volts than it was designed for and it will work, how long would come down to how much of a safety factor was built into the original design.
We're aren't and never were talking about running a 9 volt coil on 12 volts. 
|
|
|
Re: Mopar Muscle article
[Re: 70duster340]
#1049735
08/13/11 12:10 AM
08/13/11 12:10 AM
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,214
Someplace you aren't
SomeCarGuy
I Live Here
|
I Live Here
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 10,214
Someplace you aren't
|
Quote:
Quote:
...why do you want to remove it?
It's not that I want to remove it, I just wanted to know if the possibility exists that the car will perform as well if not better without the ballast resistor.
It absolutely will run better, it's questionable if you will notice though IMO. The MA blurb said it will run better. Burning up the ECU is the only consideration. Empirical evidence shows it won't.
|
|
|
|
|
