When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Every now and then somebody posts a thread about abnormally long cranking times as they have a problem. I've seen one or two people though make mention of what I thought were insanely long cranking times, especially for stock cars, but they didn't have a problem. They acted like this was perfectly normal.
With a heavily modified car conventional wisdom states that the tune might not be completely perfect and might lead to a longer cranking time as well. I was just thinking about it on my car though and I realize that it always starts in >1 second. I haven't actually measured it but it SOUNDS like the engine just hits the second compression stroke from a dead stop before it fires. For all my modifications the car starts just as well if not better than it did when I bought it, just kinda strikes me as odd.
How long do you have to crank on your car before it starts?
My car had this, didn't have it, had it, and didn't have it.
BONE stock, it took an ETERNITY for it to fire. Then the 383 from Lingenfelter went in, and it was like my mothers honda...two rotations and it fired right up.
Several tuning issues put my patience and sanity out the window...so I had a DFI 7 SEFI box installed. It never fired as easily as the stock ecm done by LPE. Sometimes it'd take ridiculously long cranking time to fire. The shop that installed it blamed it on the super ram being a large "combustion chamber" YEUH....I know of four of five super ram'd big cube engines(stock ecm mind you) that fire quickly.
This will be a tough one to figure out. It could be fuel pressure, the pump, dirty injectors etc, etc. LOL I get the shivers thinking about what COULD be.....as good as these cars are, it is one MO FO of a time figuring the problems out at times.
My Vette starts the same way, hit the starter and bam!! is running. The Jeep... well thats a different story.
Mine seems to take about 2 secs. which I think is great .. gives the oil pump a chance to get up to speed .. also just put in new starter today, way cool .. gear reduced unit from Summit for up to 15:1 compression.. what a great sound, plus 15lbs. lighter than stock!
Mine starts up same as yours 1 sec .. even if its been sitting for 2 weeks.. however its STOCK except for the 1.6RR
Now take Ralphs 406 single plane intake, solid roller cam.. etc.. & its takes a 1 or 2 hits before it gets running..but thats when its dead cold.. after its warm it starts instant..
All three of my motors have started with in 2 sec. The first (Bone stock 120K) had a problem when I first got it (bad FP) but after repalcingit the car started like a champ, same with the 2nd motor (rebuilt 350 ported heads LT4 HC while the 383 was being built), and the Stroker both fire right away.
I'm always surprised at how quick my 87 starts-seems like it doesn't even crank-just fires right up. Some times I think it has something to do with the timing amonst other things.
Mine takes about 2-3 seconds of cranking to start if the car is cold, but this only started once I physically cut out the 9nth injector wiring out of the harness.
When she is warm, it takes under a second. Almost instantly.
Stock 93, 64k miles starts different, haven't noticed any weather or engine temp relation (not saying it's not there).
Sometimes she fires right up, sometimes it takes about 2 seconds to fire.
Since I installed the LTCC, start time has increased a touch, but no more than 2~3 seconds... max.
A good friend of mine was at Dodge School (he works as an A-line tech at a Dodge dealer). They were learning about the new HEMI. However, the instructor said that Ford is working on a motor without a starter and without camshafts.
Using some form of servo to activate the valves, the starting process would be dependant on very sophisticated crank sensors so the engine computer could find which cylinder is nearest to TDC, fire it, and BAM! Engine started.
Using some form of servo to activate the valves, the starting process would be dependant on very sophisticated crank sensors so the engine computer could find which cylinder is nearest to TDC, fire it, and BAM! Engine started.
Although I've heard of the cam less engine, the starter less is new to me. I see a can of worms to work through, there. If a cylinder is poised to fire, how do you get fuel to it? Even with direct injection, there is the matter of compression. I have little doubt they'll do it. It will be interesting. The cam less engine holds all sorts of performance promise. The servos or solenoids will be electronically triggered, by a computer, of course. Picture, a baby smooth idle with a 200* duration @ .050" profile, with the duration increasing with the rpms. I can see it now: "Hey, Ski, can you burn me a chip with another 10* duration from 8000 to 10,000 rpms?" "I need to break into the nines in my commuter car."
My L98 took a couple turns to start, but my LT4 explodes to life the second the key is turned!
The second the key hits ignition the LT4 is running like a champ. Cant even hear the motor rotate once without it turning over. Its instant, I love it.