BMW M5 Forum and M6 Forums banner

Experiences with Pulstar Pulse aftermarket spark plugs?

76K views 48 replies 16 participants last post by  Lscman 
#1 ·
Was flippin through the July 07 issue of PopSci and found a 2 page ad for Pulstar Pulse Plugs in it. Seems like there is a lot of talk about this on the net, but no empirical data on the benefit or lack thereof of these spark plugs. Their site has what other non-bmw forums have called hype, has alot of neat pictures, animation and big numbers, but i should mention that i found a 97 740 on their test result section. I took college physics and didnt understand the 1 million watt output. Anyhow i figured i would feed it to the board and see what happens. I know that our cars are pretty finicky about spark plugs and i have had issues myself with those bosch +4 plugs in my 540. Anyone here is a link for you guys to chew on, spit out...what have you:blink:, have a good rest of the night,


http://www.pulstarplug.com/index.html
 
#2 · (Edited)
I think the pulstar strategy is seriously flawed. Their commercial hype that claims great benefit assumes the ignition is driven by a 1950 coil with points and condensor or basic electronic switching distributor with primitive "as-is" waveform output.

Waveform shaping occurs in the ignition module these days and it can be tailored or shaped as desired. High speed, high amplitude pulse output is totally feasible and modern coilpacks can easily multiply this waveform without distortion.

Special in-plug circuitry to alter waveform is not helpful or beneficial, IMO. It's just something else to fail.

The mixture either ignites or it doesn't (misfire that can be felt). Combustion energy is not a function of spark energy, so greater horsepower does not result from stronger spark. Once adequate ignition performance is achieved, greater spark energy or magnitude will not provide significant benefit. This is especially true if the car is normally aspirated because the spark is not subject to pressure blowout.
 
#5 ·
I think the pulstar strategy is seriously flawed. Their commercial hype that claims great benefit assumes the ignition is driven by a 1950 coil with points and condensor or basic electronic switching distributor with primitive "as-is" waveform output.

Waveform shaping occurs in the ignition module these days and it can be tailored or shaped as desired. High speed, high amplitude pulse output is totally feasible and modern coilpacks can easily multiply this waveform without distortion.

Special in-plug circuitry to alter waveform is not helpful or beneficial, IMO. It's just something else to fail.

The mixture either ignites or it doesn't (misfire that can be felt). Combustion energy is not a function of spark energy, so greater horsepower does not result from stronger spark. Once adequate ignition performance is achieved, greater spark energy or magnitude will not provide significant benefit. This is especially true if the car is normally aspirated because the spark is not subject to pressure blowout.
Well here's a dumb question then: If all that matters is whether the plug either fires or misfires, what good does it do to change the plugs before they're misfiring?
 
#3 ·
Best answer i have seen on the net yet! Figures that it should come from our own M5board! Many thanks,
 
#4 · (Edited)
I have one more concern........

This pulse plug will definitely retard timing to some degree, pun intended.

The strategy they use to increase spark magnitude will introduce a delay in the initiation of spark. Since ignition timing is not mechanically adjustable on the M5, this spark forming strategy would seem to have a serious shortcoming. The active knock systems may be able to compensate under most use, but light throttle cruise may see some default delay that could impact efficiency.
 
#6 ·
huh? this might be OT, but I think its funny when people in 1982 chevy's and the like come to my place asking to put in the super iridium diamond quadruple platinum mega tip uranium spark plugs when all they need is a standard copper plug. come on, in 1982 what technology were they working with? what makes one think something like what I stated above is gonna make the car run any better? lol lots of money and hype, minimal performance. just get a set of NGK's and be on your way!
 
#10 ·
Hi Gentlemen. I am the CEO of Enerpulse, the maker of Pulstar pulse plugs. I noticed your comments concerning Pulstar and thought I might add some food for thought.

Pulstar works differently than spark plugs becuase it has a pulsed power device sometimes referred to as a bi-polar high power capacitor. The capacitor intensifies the spark much like a camera flash intensifies light. This generates a larger spark aperture than spark plugs transferring more energy to the fuel charge yielding greater ignition precision and efficiency. It does not retard timing as some might think. If anything it will advance it slightly due to the high peak power during the brief streamer (2 nanoseconds) phase of the spark.

I would welcome any questions or comments you might have for this new technology in hopes of clarifying misconceptions about it.

We have performed tests on stardard BMWs with very promising results. At the present time, however, we do not have a 12 MM version so M class owners can't test it yet. But, we expect to have 12 MM early in 2009. We would be interested in finding a few M3, M5 owners willing to test Pulstar so that they can experience it and share your experience with others.

Cheers
 
#12 ·
Maybe I'll volunteer to do before/after dyno runs. I have new OE plugs (7k miles), so I might do the runs on consecutive days, not a perfect way to do it but perhaps close enough. I'm not wild about throwing away an extra $70 but in the name of science...?
 
#14 ·
We do 3 tests: fuel economy, torque pull at WOT and acceleration from 40-80 mph. We tap into the fuel line to get accurate fuel flow through a digital flow meter and perform a standard a EPA US06 test where the driver follows a speed line on a computer screen (takes some skill). The test ranges in speeds from 0 to 80 mph with some fairly steep acceleration ramps (not for you guys). It takes about 10 minutes per test. We precondition the vehicle with new OE spark plugs and run all the tests. We then change to Pulstar pulse plugs and run them again. Then we compare the results.
 
#16 ·
Unfortunatley I do not think this well represent the gains or losses acuratley. The E39 M5 is not a good platform to conducts a test with.

For instance,if you were to run the test with you car the way it sits three different times, you would get three grossly different results. Look at all the guys who are expeirience great power sometimes and a loss of power other times.

I think it you tested it you will see a large difference in each run that will have nothign to do with the plugs... But who knows..

Ryan

We do 3 tests: fuel economy, torque pull at WOT and acceleration from 40-80 mph. We tap into the fuel line to get accurate fuel flow through a digital flow meter and perform a standard a EPA US06 test where the driver follows a speed line on a computer screen (takes some skill). The test ranges in speeds from 0 to 80 mph with some fairly steep acceleration ramps (not for you guys). It takes about 10 minutes per test. We precondition the vehicle with new OE spark plugs and run all the tests. We then change to Pulstar pulse plugs and run them again. Then we compare the results.
 
#15 ·
I'm up for it

I do not know where in the US you would be doing the testing, but I would be happy to participate if it is in the greater Houston area.

Mark
 
#17 ·
Just out of curiosity, why would you say the M5 is not a good platform to conduct tests with? I would think just the opposite because of its higher engineering standards. Certainly the tests we do are standard industry tests used by the automakers and performance engine builders. I agree if we saw large differences among multiple runs there would either have to be something wrong with the dyno or the car. But, the testing methodology is well documented and accurate.
 
#23 ·
Not exactley... The BMW's are very sensitive to certain enviormentals and ofcourse coolant tempature and with a very tiny amount of air passing through the radiator about half way through a pull coolant tems climb, timing is pulled and fuel is added. I made 400whp with my air fuels at 10.9-11.0's...

I have dynoed my car probaly more than anyone on this board. I have atleast 50 pulls on my car. I do not have two dyno pulls that are identical. Most are around 1-4whp/wtq different. There is nothing wrong with the dyno or with the car, both are working the way it is designed. A dyno is not a realistic day on the street for a bmw..

Now the reason why it isn't worth your time to test this is becuase the dyno results from each pull are going to vary and any power output gained is going to be so small and I doubt you will see any gains on a dyno. Even if you did see a gain the next pull will most likey show a loss.

What is the most a plug will give you 1-2hp... lets say for conversation purposes they will yeild 5hp.

So 5hp X.15% drivetrain loss would be 4.25whp gain... I do not think you will be able to acuratly measure 2-5bhp on a chassis dyno. I think an engine dyno would be better for this type of testing but still not going to giv you muchaccurate info.

I just do not think you will be able to acuratley say if the plugs did anything either way...


Ryan

Just out of curiosity, why would you say the M5 is not a good platform to conduct tests with? I would think just the opposite because of its higher engineering standards. Certainly the tests we do are standard industry tests used by the automakers and performance engine builders. I agree if we saw large differences among multiple runs there would either have to be something wrong with the dyno or the car. But, the testing methodology is well documented and accurate.
 
#19 ·
I don't know how you can claim spark advance.

If the ignition pulse- that would go the the stock spark plug is FIRST routed to your capacitor, the capacitor charges, and THEN generates the pulse, it will be delayed.

Unless somehow the pulsars bend the laws of physics.

It appears you are taking a half truth (the energy rise with a pulster is so rapid that it generates a faster pulse) and failing to account for the performance IN THE EXISTING SYSTEM. (Whereby the 'faster pulse' is of no benefit as the car cannot utilize it since it must use the existing discharge to trigger the pulster.)

Please explain.
 
#25 ·
I have no issues with these plugs (I don't use them) per se. From reading their site there is a definite possibility of a surefire maybe that they are an improvement over normal spark plugs...power/mpg/or other...regardless of whether I can lab test it or even understand it.

The real issue for me is the price. For $25 a plug I'd have to have...I dunno...a 30-day money back no questions asked policy or something. That way if I saw at least my fuel economy rise...I could say "OK I'll keep them!" And if I saw more power...great.
Bottom line is I know if I get OEM plugs for my car I'm in great shape. With these plugs (at $25 vs. ~$8 each) I'd have to pay ~$136 extra just to test them out. If I saw no benefit...then what? I just bought some snake oil is what!
Give me return policy or give me death! :United_States: lol
 
#27 ·
As far as timing goes, we must remember that the electrical system is magnitudes faster than the mechanical system. So, even a slow ignition system beats a fast mechanical system hands down. But, the speed of a spark plugs and a pulse plugs are identical.

The spark from both spark plugs and pulse plugs have 3 phases: the ionization phase when the voltage is trying to overcome the air resistance in the spark gap (5 microseconds), the streamer phase when the spark is actually formed and the resident phase when all the power from the coil is dissipated. During the ionization phase spark plugs store energy as heat while pulse plugs use it to charge the capacitor. Then during the streamer phase the pulse plug dumps all the accumulated power in the capacitor to the spark in only 2 nanoseconds. This is a lot of compressed power…roughly 20,000 times the power of a spark plug.
<O:p> </O:p>
The technology was developed with the assistance of Sandia National Laboratories in their Pulsed Power labs (hence the name Pulstar). See http://www.sandia.gov/media/z290.htm. BTW their Z Accelerator is amazing!<O:p></O:p>
 
#29 ·
From our website:

Guarantee

We offer a 4-point guarantee on Pulstar™ Pulse Plugs. This means:
1) You can return the Pulstar™ pulse plugs for any reason within 30 days, no questions asked.
2) Pulstar™ pulse plugs will not harm your engine.
3) Pulstar™ pulse plugs will last 50,000 miles.
4) Pulstar™ pulse plugs will not void your warranty.
 
#30 · (Edited)
Dyno test done by sparkplugs.com.
Here are their results:

After testing, the Pulstar plug had a horsepower advantage, having both the highest peak horsepower (205.95hp) and the
highest average horsepower (204.04hp).

The NGK Iridium IX showed the second highest average horsepower (203.78hp),
and highest average torque (230.27 lb-ft.), however, the NGK Iridium IX also displayed the most reliable and consistent
horsepower figures.

The Denso iridium showed the highest peak torque (235.96 lb-ft.), third highest average horsepower
(203.67hp), and second highest peak horsepower (205.51hp) and average torque (229.74 lb-ft.).
 
#32 · (Edited)
Well this is a commical test... what were the enviormentals, same day? Same time? same temp? what dyno? correction factor? same car? This test post does not confirm anything... but it is a good selling tool.

One more thing, spark plugs make a much larger difference in a turbo car than in a N/A car... Do the same test with a E39 and post results. I am sure the SRT4 was picked for specific reasons (turbo being one)

Ryan
 
#42 ·
The problem with chassis dynos are that you have slip, the surfaces between the wheel and the rolls breaks loose and gives you all the different readings.(ever notice the rubber on the rollers?)

I have a few questions about these plugs
What kind of material are the center and ground electrode made of?
Is the "Capacitor" made of a thin layers of wrapped foil or a coil of wire?
Can you make me a surface gap plug that equals a NGK heat range of 9 or 10?
 
#47 ·
The real world

I have also had many runs on the dyno. The results can be all over the place. We have seen many times where there is a fairly large variation in output from the factory on these cars(10%).

With these new plugs running $25/plug, which I believe is twice the cost of the regular plugs, I would want to "feel" the difference. In fact, with any alteration, I want to feel the difference with out damaging the car or causing undue wear.

Unless there is some kind of decrease in operating cost, ie. better fuel mileage, I will be sticking with the less expensive plugs. We can talk about dyno results all day long, but I want to feel it when I pay for it.

Mark
 
  • Like
Reactions: rneedham1979
#48 · (Edited)
MAK, I agree with you about the cost of the plugs. Paying $200 for a set of plugs that offer the same performance as a much cheaper plug is a no brainer. I had always heard good things about NGK, but they did not make the iridiums for my car, so I went with the Denso iridiums.

Per Denso's site:
"Designed for durability under the most extreme conditions, DENSO's patented Iridium alloy is 6x harder and 8x stronger than conventional platinum and can handle temperatures in excess of 4,000° F."

I know some are questioning the results of the sparkplugs.com results, but I did research before I bought my plugs. The little bit of information that was out there did sway me to buy the iridiums. If you go on the notion that the iridiums are even slightly better than the cooper in hp/tq, more durable and last longer between changes, I think difference in cost is well worth it.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it!
 
  • Like
Reactions: MAH
#49 ·
The difference in peak horsepower between runs is actually greater than the difference between plug models. This tells me that we're looking at mostly testing error due to uncontrollable variables such as humidity, temp etc and therefore the tiny delta can not be measured or trusted. The plug that produced lowest average HP actually produced more power than pulstar for one test.

This average horsepower calculation is little more than cumulative skew error that would be thrown out by any good scientist.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top