Has anyone used the Second Strike by Pertronix with the rev limiter? If so, let me know if it is worth the look in buying a unit. I have the Pertronix Ignitor 2 in my car now with no problems whatsoever for the past 3 years. Just looking to get a hotter spark for a more complete burn. Thanks...

 

I have the ignitor 2, flame thrower 2, ngk plugs, and msd wires. Does the ignitor have any effect on how many joules go to the spark? I though the coil sent whatever it needed up to the rating (which never happens). Would the extra heat make a difference?

 

If your ignition system is in good shape and the engine is not missing, surging, or otherwise behaving badly a "hotter spark" will do nothing for you except empty your wallet. If you are running a normally aspirated engine your current system is most likely more than adequate. You can light gas with a match or a blowtorch and still get the same results.

 

That's completely correct. To test this theory, I did an engine dyno session at Westech Performance about 3 years ago with Matt King, former Editor of Hot Rod Magazine. Back-to-back, we tested a bone stock points-type distributor with a stock coil (modified only with an advance curve that pegged out at 2800 rpm), a PerTronix System, the Crane electronic conversion, and a Unilite conversion. The conversions were all run with the recommended "hot" coils from the various manufacturers. Results: Not a single horsepower difference beween any of the systems. Not one. Nada. Nothing. Zilch. Fact is: If you have a modest compression engine and the stock spark is good enough to light the fire, the electronic conversion will gain you nothing. The only this we were able to document was that the elimination of the points rubbing block would increase the quickness of the advance curve, and this would produce a slight hp gain up to the point of full timing advance. If the distributor is optimized in its advance curve, there is no gain at all from the electronic conversions. That's a fact.
Lars

 

Read this article from Hi Performance Chevy magazine...(3 pages) quote.. Second Strike ignition box helped the Camaro break its 300-rwhp barrier. An extra 12 rear-wheel horsepower and 14 lb-ft of torque at the wheels definitely added some grunt to our ride.

http://chevyhighperformance.automoti...aro/index.html

 

no comments on this subject???

 

Are we turning into ricers? "I read it in a magazine, so it must be true."

30 HP from an air filter, 10 HP from a fuel additive, 15 HP from different spark plugs, etc.

I don't believe magazines always (if ever) tell the whole truth. Dynos can be 'adjusted' to give the results desired. Did you ever see a magazine give a crap review to something their advertisers sell? Completely truthfull tests would probably put them out of business due to loss of ad bucks.

If you don't want to believe an unbiased person, Lars, go buy this stuff and stock up on the HP stickers to put in your windows!

 

Sure....

 

Not doubting the experiences of others, I have changed from points to electronic ignition on every "older" street machine I've had (and there have been several, since the 1970's)....and EVERY one of them had an increase in horsepower because of it. There was a 2/10 to 3/10 faster ET at the drag strip....every time. IMHO, ditch the points. But after installing the electronics, I have never gotten any more advantage by adding an MSD or other boxes.

 

I'm very skeptical. Twelve horsepower just by an ignition modification? It just doesn't happen. The OEM guys (and certainly the Corvette engine group) would sell their grandmothers for twelve horsepower that easily. Sorry, I'm going to need to see an independent unbiased test to convince me.

 

However- it's one less thing you have to adjust and/or replace on the car!!!

It gives me MORE time to fix other things that- break, rust, leak, just quit working, self distruct, fall apart, burn up...........

 

As noted in my post, the additional hp improvement we found from the electronic conversions was due to the quicker advance curve produced by the elimination of the points rubbing block. This quicker curve would produce between 10-20 horsepower. The power improvement was not a result of the electronic conversion - it was a result of the advance curve changing with the rubbing block resistance elimination. By changing the curve on the stock points-type distributor to match the curve that was created with the electronic conversions, there was no difference in horsepower output between the systems. You have to compare apples to apples... the curve needs to be the same for all tests. Any horsepower gains you are seeing are from a slight change to the advance curve. You can get the same improvement by re-curving the stock distributor.

As a note of imterest, the results and data from the testing we did was not published by Hot Rod. The magazines are sponsored by the aftermarket suppliers. They don't get sponsorship by publishing the type of data we obtained during this testing. Rather, they will publish the type of data you referred to: Pull out that defective stock system and replace it with an optimized aftermarket unit for a 12hp increase... Most people who can't tune a stock system will get a 12hp gain as you noted. I happen to take some personal pride in getting the same power out of those lousy GM parts, and being able to prove it (this testing was witnessed and verifed by Matt King, me, and Steve Brule at Westech).

 

I hope lars follows up on that test. Say, every 6 months for 20 years.
I went electronic in 1990 - that's 18 years ago.
I'd expect the same great spark now as day 1.
Points last how long?
EDIT
i see it has been 3 years. how are the points now? that is the test. how are they 20,000 miles later?

 

The point of the post was not how much maintenance is required of the ignition system but will an electronic system result in extra horsepower. I think Lars categorically has shown that an electronic ignition will not increase horsepower over a correctly functioning stock system. Having said that I have a Crane XR1 conversion kit in in 74. I didn't put it there to increase horsepower, I put it there to eliminate the points maintenance and so far ( +4 years ) it's been running fine. The bottom line here is if you want zero maintenance go with the conversion. If you want more horsepower look elsewhere.

 

lars made the point that electronic made more HP. unless u r as smart as lars and compensated for the curve.
who knew that? i sure didn't!
So u r saying old points don't make less hp? they just rattle annoyingly, but make equal hp?
.
even a Yugo ran its best new, but how about 1 year later.
.
here at the beach, in '89 both my cars wouldn't even start after 1 month, due to the salt air on the points.

 

Actually, I have. I bracket race a 71 455 H.O. Pontiac with a recurved stock points distributor. It has had the same set of points in it for 15 years now. I check the dwell once at the beginning of each racing season. The car runs the same times today as it did 15 years ago with the same parts in it. I keep wishing the dwell would change or that the points would need replacing so I'd have something to tinker with on the car, but it never needs anything. I should probably convert to electronic to reduce this horrible maintenance...
(The points I use are the Mallory 102's)

 

how many new cars have u converted to points?
.
but, hey, good for you, you proved it could be done, running 15 yrs.
i proved i could get 19mpg w/4.11 around town, no OD. It is nice to prove the old stuff can do the job.
i just played Bowie on my 33rpm turntable. still works! Amazing, but obsolete. The old stuff did the job in their day.
Few people want to ride around and notice their mpg drop, and have to think, are the points closing up? pitted? Until they realize it, a $100 worth of gas could be wasted.

 

Changing points once a year is a 10 minute job. BFD.
With your logic, the entire C-3 is obsolete.
BTW, 33 1/3 albums are superior to CD's for acoustical reproduction. THAT's a fact. CD's are just more hospitible to Auto's, and cheaper to make.

 

I think that's pretty much true I think only the PCV system remains unchanged.

Not sure I'd agree with that.

Define "modest compression." I would have expected higher compression engines to be less affected by hotter sparks rather than lower. I never really believed the idea of "sparks blowing out."

Lars, I hate it when you correct my "facts." I know little enough without doubting what I think I know

 

Actually, it happens quite often. Not that most people would do it, but if you attach an oscilloscope and high voltage probe to a spark plug or coil terminal you will often see the coil voltage/plug gap voltage making several jumps in magnitude as the plug goes through several instances of hitting the high arc-over voltage, dropping down to the sustaining voltage, and then rising back up to the arc-over voltage as the mixture swirl velocity blows away the ionized (conductive) portion of the air-fuel mixture. This is a reason why high energy (versus high voltage) ignition systems are (theoretically) preferable as they have the "reserve" capacity stored in the coil to keep relighting the mixture if strong swirl currents keep interrupting the arc. (HEI energy systems are also good for long term emissions controlled vehicles, as we know, but that's a different topic for another day.)