How To: Dual Igniton plug mod for 2.3L and 2.5L


crazypj

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2008
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
62
Location
Altamonte Springs Fl./Bridgend South Wales
Vehicle Year
2004
Make / Model
Mazda
Engine Size
2.3L
Transmission
Manual
The only reason anything would change is if it wasn't working previously due to bad contacts (either LT or HT)
Tweaking on leads 'fixed' something wrong
In all probability, you just got it working the way it was supposed to.
BTW, in the mid 80's, BMW motorcycles did some experiments with dual plug heads, they get around 6~8bhp increase in power and better fuel economy, you don't get flame front collision when things are working right as fuel is burning not exploding
 


Rock Auto 5% Discount Code: 173A8B749AB83C Expires: January 1, 2020

nos

New member
Joined
Nov 20, 2013
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Vehicle Year
2000 ranger
Make / Model
1994 ranger
Transmission
Manual
coil mod.

I cant see where you gain anything coil pack fires 1 & 4 at same time so when its running it fires 1 & 4 -2 & 3 -1 & 4 -2 & 3 if it changed your coil is weak on of the 4 holes. in other words it fires left side then right side
 

simpler=better

New member
Joined
Jul 9, 2009
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Vehicle Year
1982
Make / Model
Mercedes
Transmission
Automatic
No kidding, 3.90 is the closest ratio available... and that is in an 8.8...which would likely not be in his truck.

40mpg is literally impossible to pull out of a 2.3, let alone anything higher... my question is why even make up a stupid story like this.

Second thought, I take it back, there IS a way to do it, you just have to let the truck roll down a very long hill and run the engine for a very specific period of time, then shut it off. I can't figure out the mathematical formula required for it though...
If you built an F1 looking body for it, got your drag down into supercar ranges and drove gently you could absolutely hit those numbers with a 2.3 :icon_twisted:
 

99rangerrick

New member
Joined
Feb 5, 2014
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Rocklin, Cal
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
ford
Engine Size
2.5 L
Transmission
Manual
This thread is a trip.

40 to 50 mpg? YIKES
 

turbo2256b

New member
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
46
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
KY, MI, IN, OH
Transmission
Automatic
Each cylinder fires 2 plugs at almost the same time on the intake and exhaust stroke. There was TSB on one bank of plugs would quit working and the engine would be running on 4 plugs instead of 8 plugs. Remember something about a plugin at the fire wall or such causing the issue and most customers never noticed half the plugs quit working. So you might still find a TSB on the issue.

I designed a 5 spark plug head for one of Fords 4 bangers thinking the SPI motor. Just remember it was a 4 cyl hemi. 5 plugs did work the best for complete combustion.
 

AllanD

TRS Technical Staff
TRS Technical Advisor
Joined
Jun 1, 2001
Messages
7,895
Reaction score
102
Points
63
Age
58
Location
East-Central Pennsylvania
Vehicle Year
1987... sorta
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
'93 4.0
Transmission
Manual
I don't recall ever getting below 22mpg in my '94 Ranger. Not sure on combined average, but a typical tank is in the 24mpg range. Best is 27 on the highway.
Dude, you've ridden with me in my truck, you know on an average day I make guys who claim to "drive it like they stole it" look like a narcoleptic grandmother.
 

GigaBig

New member
Joined
May 25, 2014
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Vehicle Year
1996
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Manual
Here the problem with your theory.

That is a 2 channel coil (wasted spark system). It fires #1 + #4 and #2 + #3 at the same time as pairs. That means when the #1 cyl is being fired on its exhaust stroke, #4 is being fired on its compression stroke. (ignoring the other coil, for now.) Switching 1 + 4 does nothing, except move which terminal, on the same channel of the coil, the wire attaches to.

With this 2 coil system, wasted spark system, you always have both plugs firing on both the comp and exh stroke. One is being fired on the main coil (on purpose), the other is being fired on the secondary coil (as wasted spark).
This particular thread may be dead, but i had some questions. As i understood it the cylinder firing order is 1, 3, 4, 2. Having said that the coil arrangement is;

3 1
2 4

4 2
1 3
Front

so as it stands when 1/4, 3/2, 4/1, 2/3 (compression/exhaust). when you switch the plug as described don't you end up with 4/1, 2/3, 4/1, 2/3? Which means instead of syncing the compression/exhaust plugs, you end up changing the firing order?

wouldn't you want to change it to;

2 4
2 4

1 3
1 3
front

Granted i could be wrong as i am just a beginner in DIY automotive.
 

PetesPonies

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
east coast
Vehicle Year
1983
Make / Model
Ranger
Engine Size
2.3l
Transmission
Manual
You take the firing order, cut it in half and slide the back part under the front part. That is your piston pairs, the cylinders that move together.

Save you time in trying to understand what the "persons" are trying to explain about the wasted spark hurting anything and a new firing order. They know not what they are talking about!!


retired Automotive Instructor
 

John M

New member
Joined
Dec 8, 2015
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Points
1
Location
Central NC
Vehicle Year
1996
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
2.3
Transmission
Manual
I know this is old but, piston aircraft have 2 plugs per cylinder. The separate magneto systems are for safety no. 1, better power and efficiency. Just like on these 2.3 engines if you lose one plug you know something is wrong.
 

Jon8RFC

New member
Joined
Apr 18, 2016
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Vehicle Year
1994
Transmission
Manual
Just wanted to toss out my experience for anyone NOT registered on this forum who may read this thread.

TL;DR
This did improve/increase torque on my parents' old 1994 Ranger compared to before swapping the wires, when I did this about a year or two ago. These are old vehicles with aging components, and it's worth a shot if you find the 4 cylinder underwhelming.


Regardless of what people may say, because it's fun to pretend like we know it all, in my case this did work and it's been helpful with drivability, including backing out of the driveway. The truck is mechanically maintained, without being ridiculous. Installing a new ignition and electrical system, to alleviate a 20+ year old system's potentially (likely) weakened spark, is not a worthwhile cost in this case, although if my parents were Ranger enthusiasts, it may be. It received new plugs and wires, which were a welcome improvement (by keyboard warrior logic, this shouldn't make a difference either, because a spark is a spark), but I was still disappointed with the improvement, so I swapped around the wires and things improved a bit more. I imagine this change brought the power output closer to brand new condition in 1993/1994. If you're someone out there wanting to squeeze a little bit more out of these terribly weak and old engines, this is worth a shot and you can always revert to the original, pointless configuration unless you think a 90s vehicle's biggest emission/usability issue is keeping a second spark plug firing on the exhaust stroke.

Side note: I have a 1993 rx-7 and it too has dual plugs and disconnecting the "waste spark" plug (trailing plug) results in worse performance, because it fires the trailing plug during the combustion as well as the exhaust portion of the cycle. It'll run with one, but not nearly as well. "64k should be enough memory for anyone". Not looking to argue, just sharing info for the readers rather than the posters, and encouraging an open mind--if you have an old Ranger, you very well may bring a little more life to it. If you don't notice details, also depending on the engine's performance, you may not notice a difference. If you don't notice air conditioning's power consumption on engines, you certainly won't notice this, but even if you do, it depends on your sensitivity to change and susceptibility to the placebo effect. I've done things looking to improve/restore performance on various vehicles and not felt an anticipated change, which was a waste of time and money, but this was a great improvement in our case.

The Ranger's 4cylinder is so underwhelming, and maybe this wouldn't have made as noticeable of a difference 20+ years ago, when brand new, but it absolutely makes a difference now despite the small cylinder diameter.

EDIT: Just saw the last post about aircraft. He may be referring to rotary engines there as well since some small aircraft use rotaries, but if it's a piston engine, that's a new and interesting fact to know!
 
Last edited:

PetesPonies

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
east coast
Vehicle Year
1983
Make / Model
Ranger
Engine Size
2.3l
Transmission
Manual
Well DUDE . . you don't know anything either because there is no waste spark. It's amazing how ignorant many are and try and pass it off. Wow.
 

Shran

Junk Collector
Supporting Member
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
Solid Axle Swap
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
4,424
Reaction score
213
Points
63
Location
Rapid City SD
Well DUDE . . you don't know anything either because there is no waste spark. It's amazing how ignorant many are and try and pass it off. Wow.
Apparently the butt dyno is a reliable measurement device now. . . .:rolleyes:

Swapping the plug wires around doesn't do a damn thing, I tried it several years ago in this very thread.

Having owned several 2.3 powered trucks including the one I am driving right now, I can say without a doubt that everyone who complains about a lack of power simply does not know how to drive them or accept them for what they are. 2.3's are probably one of my favorite engines ever, they just make more power at higher RPM than people are used to...let the engine wrap up and try shifting much later than you think you should and you will be shocked.
 

AllanD

TRS Technical Staff
TRS Technical Advisor
Joined
Jun 1, 2001
Messages
7,895
Reaction score
102
Points
63
Age
58
Location
East-Central Pennsylvania
Vehicle Year
1987... sorta
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
'93 4.0
Transmission
Manual
I'll say the same thing I said several years ago, I've gotten better mileage with a 2.9 5speed 2wd Supercab than even the most optimistic opium smokers have claimed here...

And I don't currently get enough worse mileage then what they claim with my 4.0 to even consider owning a 4cyl ranger at any point in my future..

Well technically not with any FORD 4cylinder engine... May Be if I could get my hands on a 4BT Cummins...

AD
 

PetesPonies

Active member
Joined
Jan 1, 2008
Messages
1,163
Reaction score
22
Points
38
Location
east coast
Vehicle Year
1983
Make / Model
Ranger
Engine Size
2.3l
Transmission
Manual
My 2.3 gives me 22 around town and 25 driving too fast on the interstates. Not bad.
 

Shran

Junk Collector
Supporting Member
Article Contributor
V8 Engine Swap
Solid Axle Swap
Joined
Mar 4, 2008
Messages
4,424
Reaction score
213
Points
63
Location
Rapid City SD
I have gotten as high as 22 in the one I'm driving now...usually I average around 18. Smaller tires might help, 30x9.50x15's on 8" wide wheels noticeably increased the truck's rolling resistance. I think I maxed my old '96 out at about 24-25mpg. I have also had one 2.9 powered truck that I could pull 25mpg out of if I was very conservative on the gas pedal.

The allure of the 2.3 for me is reliability: they are hands down better than the 2.8's or 2.9's in that aspect, and just easier to work on in general because of the physical size of the engine and location of componets vs any of the V6's.
 


Top