Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

[UR50SLO]

I've not heard anything about the guy who was going to setup individual coil/plug setup in awhile. If he's got that project finished then it'd be awsome.

I've been doing some research and brain storming about using a Buick Coil pack

Like is used on the Buick GN. They have alot more spark energy than our single coi/cap/rotor setup by far!

Here is a diagram from 1990 OMC 4.3L(boat) that uses a GN style coil pack. The Buick V6 and Chevy V6 both have same firing order. 165432. The position of the crank sensor and cam sensor fire the coil pack and allow ignition advance/retard.

Now... If we can get the crank ballancer (as pictured below) and duplicate that spacing with a bolt on wheel to the dampner and a bolt on crank sensor. (still with me?)
The next step would be crank sensor. If I remember right the 98 flat style dist. have a cam sensor made into them. Pop that dist. in (there's your cam sensor)
A little wiring and the use of the Buick Ignition coil pack/knock sensor/module
We could have a fairly cheap DIS system for our Sy/Ty's.

1990 4.3L HO V6 DIS system

Ok.. you can kick me now :lol:

We might actually be able to run .35 gap with out blowing out the spark!
Thoughts?
Scott~

 

[H-TOWN-TYPHOON]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

go do this........RIGHT NOW

then report back. Since I can probably rummage up a coil pack for free, that's a lot cheaper of an option than the LS1 setup.

 

[Flyin Ryan]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

There was a blk/blk ty here that was running a distributerless ignition.. owner as a douche though so I never got info on it..

Go for it!!!!

 

[turbodig]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

I've not heard anything about the guy who was going to setup individual coil/plug setup in awhile. If he's got that project finished then it'd be awsome.

I've been doing some research and brain storming about using a Buick Coil pack

Like is used on the Buick GN. They have alot more spark energy than our single coi/cap/rotor setup by far!

Here is a diagram from 1990 OMC 4.3L(boat) that uses a GN style coil pack. The Buick V6 and Chevy V6 both have same firing order. 165432. The position of the crank sensor and cam sensor fire the coil pack and allow ignition advance/retard.

Now... If we can get the crank ballancer (as pictured below) and duplicate that spacing with a bolt on wheel to the dampner and a bolt on crank sensor. (still with me?)
The next step would be crank sensor. If I remember right the 98 flat style dist. have a cam sensor made into them. Pop that dist. in (there's your cam sensor)
A little wiring and the use of the Buick Ignition coil pack/knock sensor/module
We could have a fairly cheap DIS system for our Sy/Ty's.

1990 4.3L HO V6 DIS system

Ok.. you can kick me now :lol:

We might actually be able to run .35 gap with out blowing out the spark!
Thoughts?
Scott~

It's much easier than that....

Get a module/coils out of an early 90s 2.8 or 3.1. Bazillions in junkyards.
Get a mag pickup out of a Ford Ranger, or Exploder.

Make yourself a 7-tooth wheel to fit on the balancer, or notch the ring on the balancer you have. Gotta be steel for the pickup to work. At least 1/4" thick, 3/8" would be better.

Make a bracket to mount the pickup (look at an MSD or Moroso crank trigger, it's pretty close).

Couple of small chip changes. This could be done to any existing chip.

If someone wants to fab this up for public consumption, I can provide more details. A tooth wheel to fit the stock balancer would be tricky, but possible... already got some ideas cookin'. I'd hate to have it made such that it required somebody to shell out $300 for a balancer.... would be nice to be a bolt-on for stock folks.

There would be much value in this... no more cap and rotors every couple of months.
Only reason you'd need the dissy there at all is the oil pump drive...

 

[WyoSyclone]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

It's much easier than that....

Get a module/coils out of an early 90s 2.8 or 3.1. Bazillions in junkyards.
Get a mag pickup out of a Ford Ranger, or Exploder.

Make yourself a 7-tooth wheel to fit on the balancer, or notch the ring on the balancer you have. Gotta be steel for the pickup to work. At least 1/4" thick, 3/8" would be better.

Make a bracket to mount the pickup (look at an MSD or Moroso crank trigger, it's pretty close).

Couple of small chip changes. This could be done to any existing chip.

If someone wants to fab this up for public consumption, I can provide more details. A tooth wheel to fit the stock balancer would be tricky, but possible... already got some ideas cookin'. I'd hate to have it made such that it required somebody to shell out $300 for a balancer.... would be nice to be a bolt-on for stock folks.

There would be much value in this... no more cap and rotors every couple of months.
Only reason you'd need the dissy there at all is the oil pump drive...

Maybe Renz could Fab up the bracket.....

 

[turbodig]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

Maybe Renz could Fab up the bracket.....

I didn't want to volunteer him, but since you did...

The wheel could be jet-cut too, maybe?

And, a bracket to mount the coils and module to.... somewhere.

The brackets are the biggest part of the deal, the rest can be junkyard sourced.

 

[sytyguy]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

If someone wanted new stuff, here's some PNs:

Coils (3 req'd) - DR39 - $29.99 ea
Module - LX346 - $99.99

I'll get the other PNs tomorrow.

Hood

 

[91blazins10]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

opcorn2:

 

[THEMADTYPH00N]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

There is a oil drive assembly on the 92-96 LT1 & LT4 (V8). GM P/N 1103868. $52.00 in Nov, 2001 when my parts book was published.

These engines have the 'opti-spark' distributor on the front cover, but still retain the original oil pump mounting and are driven from the camshaft.

Regards,
Dave P

It won't work. There is a bolt hole cast into the lifter valley of the LT1 blocks that hold it in place. That hole doesn't exist on the 4.3 block.

 

[turbodig]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

Mallory oil pump drive 29003 is like ~$62.

Not sure why you'd spend the money... everybody already has the dissy in there.
Pull the cap and rotor and let 'er spin.

 

[cloneman315]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

other than being a lil different is there really any gains over say a stock ,or a stock with a msd?

 

[fivetodrive]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

Since I am a junkyard dog I could pull some of these parts. Someone send me a list and maybe pictures of what to get and I will pull it. Lots of exploders and rangers out there as well as a ton of 3.1's...

 

[MikeRenz]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

i'm game. just someone figure out what we need i'll make the shit.

 

[UR50SLO]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

(I was going to use that ballancer to mock up a wheel with the right spacing.) But if there's a easier way I'm all ears

There would be a huge advantage over stock or stock with MSD. On the stock system your limited to one coil providing all the spark for every cyl. There is limited "Dwell" or time for the spark energy to build up between spark cycles. The buick coil packs and 3.1 ect all use waste spark. and there is alot more time for 3 or 6 coils (which ever way you look at it) to produce a hotter spark. Plus there is less energy lost from going through the
*Traditional is COIL -to-Wire-to-cap-to-rotor-to-wire-to-plug. (suprised there's any left!)
*DIS is Coil-to-wire-to-plug. Less lost in a more direct route and less chance for problems.

The LS1 coils are better yet but as mentiond would be costly and a little more complex to setup.

I was looking for a simple answer to our spark problems. If we can all pull together on this project with Dig's genuis... Renz's Water Jet.... five's Junk yard and my fabrication and setup we could
put together a kit that could be sold with all parts or partial parts and the guys can get their own
module/packs/sensors.
It'd have to work with aftermarket ballancers and stocker's.
Wouldn't we need a camshaft sensor too? Maby I'm usto Buick's that use both.
The 3.1's use cam/crank sensors don't they?
The 98 dist. does have a cam sensor in it. 3wire.
Maby TEC would already have a wheel we could duplicate?
Just random thoughts. Thanks for all the ideas and help... I think this would be a HUGE improvement for our trucks for sure. I'm willing to do whatever it takes to get it together. Heahter's truck will be down for the winter here in the next few weeks. We can use it for a test vehicle or anyone elses... Just easier for me to work on somthing when I have a few min. if it's here.
Thanks alot guys!!! :tup:
~Scott

 

[turbodig]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

(I was going to use that ballancer to mock up a wheel with the right spacing.) But if there's a easier way I'm all ears

There would be a huge advantage over stock or stock with MSD. On the stock system your limited to one coil providing all the spark for every cyl. There is limited "Dwell" or time for the spark energy to build up between spark cycles. The buick coil packs and 3.1 ect all use waste spark. and there is alot more time for 3 or 6 coils (which ever way you look at it) to produce a hotter spark. Plus there is less energy lost from going through the
*Traditional is COIL -to-Wire-to-cap-to-rotor-to-wire-to-plug. (suprised there's any left!)
*DIS is Coil-to-wire-to-plug. Less lost in a more direct route and less chance for problems.

The LS1 coils are better yet but as mentiond would be costly and a little more complex to setup.

There is some work being done with these as well. The regular DIS needs to be done before this, though... gotta walk before you can run.

There are other mechanisms where you could get true coil-per-plug, too. One thing at a time.

I was looking for a simple answer to our spark problems. If we can all pull together on this project with Dig's genuis... Renz's Water Jet.... five's Junk yard and my fabrication and setup we could
put together a kit that could be sold with all parts or partial parts and the guys can get their own
module/packs/sensors.
It'd have to work with aftermarket ballancers and stocker's.
Wouldn't we need a camshaft sensor too? Maby I'm usto Buick's that use both.
The 3.1's use cam/crank sensors don't they?
The 98 dist. does have a cam sensor in it. 3wire.

Doesn't need a cam sensor... just the 7-tooth wheel.
Simpler is gooder.

Maby TEC would already have a wheel we could duplicate?

Doubt it.... they use lots of teeth. The wheel for this isn't that hard to make.

There are some possible gotchas with the stock balancer. The mag sensors can't have a lot of variance in gap between the wheel and the sensor. If a ring is made to go around the stock balancer, it has to be concentric with the crank centerline. This might be tougher than it sounds, due to manufacturing tolerances.

It'd be nice to be able to mount to the front of the balancer (use the holes already there), but this would throw off the alignment of the serpentine belts. Could possibly find an alternate pulley? Putting the sensor in the front also gets it away from the block a ways, which makes vibration a risk. In order for the ignition to be stable, the sensor has to be very solid.

I'll take some measurements off the stock balancer tonight, see what I can come up with.

 

[CLONE]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

Doesn't need a cam sensor... just the 7-tooth wheel.
Simpler is gooder.

Would changing the relationship of the teeth make this adaptable to an odd-fire setup?

 

[sytyguy]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

It would be nice if we could run it off the water pump, but we'd have to figure out some sizing/spacing there. It could be bolted on the front of the hub, so the belt alignment stays unchanged, plus there's plenty of mounting points (pump studs, etc...) for the magnet.

This would be cake for those with elec fans and a non-issue with a mech fan as well (even if it spaced the fan/clutch out 3/8", it wouldn't affect fan/shroud/radiator clearance at all).

Also, if you ever broke a belt, the engine would die.....might save you from overheating.

Maybe I'm not fully awake yet, but with correct size/spacing on the ring, it could work, right?

Hood

 

[CLONE]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

Maybe I'm not fully awake yet, but with correct size/spacing on the ring, it could work, right?

Belt slippage/stretching would be a problem.

 

[turbodig]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

Would changing the relationship of the teeth make this adaptable to an odd-fire setup?

I think you could make it fire in bypass that way. The ECM would have trouble calculating timing, as it would think the close teeth were an increase in RPM.

An aftermarket ECU (that supported odd-fire) might work... this would require some test.

I've looked at doing odd-fire support in the code, but it would require that the ECM knows where the #1 cylinder is.

An interesting side effect of this... you could actually make wheels that took timing out of specific cylinder pairs relative to the others. If you had one that pinged more, only pull it out of the cylinder you need.

 

[turbodig]

Re: Distributerless Ignition possiblity.. (working on it)

It would be nice if we could run it off the water pump, but we'd have to figure out some sizing/spacing there. It could be bolted on the front of the hub, so the belt alignment stays unchanged, plus there's plenty of mounting points (pump studs, etc...) for the magnet.

This would be cake for those with elec fans and a non-issue with a mech fan as well (even if it spaced the fan/clutch out 3/8", it wouldn't affect fan/shroud/radiator clearance at all).

Also, if you ever broke a belt, the engine would die.....might save you from overheating.


Hood

Bad yams. A slipping belt could make a cylinder fire 60-80 degrees early. You'd break stuff in short order.

Gotta be crank driven. A cogged belt would work... there's a reason they make timing belts the way they do.

If a guy had a wheel that went between the TC and the flexplate, that'd be legit too, but it'd be dang heavy.