Do Pulstar Pulse plugs work?
 

Sorry if this has been covered somewhere, but would these plugs be a good investment?

If anyone has Pulstars tell me if they work!

If not, what are the best spark plugs to have?

I just put a set in my Paseo that I got for testing. I'll let you know what happens. So far they don't fit correctly though. They are too tall. The others that have also gotten them for testing have seen no real gains. Its not looking like this tank is anything special either, however its only halfway through.

I have not seen any gains either, on my 5th tank of gas with these plugs, no fitment issue on my civic.
I've tried other plugs as well, like the Bosch +4 and I did have trouble with my civic not running as smooth with those plugs.
I plan to switch back to NGK copper core v-power plugs that are recommended by Honda next time I change plugs, I've always had good luck with them.

I am glad to see us getting some data on this issue. There is so much crap out there about plugs.

I have had great luck with the NGKs in my Mertro, too.

In sohc engines(like my old metro and escort and dads jetta) i saw the best improvement with autolite platinum plugs. They are cheap from walmart and worked well. Bosch have a wierd thing where the way they route the spark tends to slow it down very minutely, but enough to basically retard the timing so anything i have tried those things on have lost alot of power and mileage. On the dohc(my civic si and my g/fs old tracker) i saw the best gains with ngk iridium plugs. My scooters and mothe rin laws bike run best on iridiums as well(i think its the fact that the tiny electrode doesn't get as dirty because it's so small). But those are my findings so far. Haven't tried pulstar though.

Someone recorded a lot of data about them here:
Brick's Pulse Plug test thread - CleanMPG Forums

They had an episode of Horsepower TV on Spike that tested these plugs vs. the standard plug. To test they ran the engine on a dyno the let everything cool down and run again with the pulstar plugs. The results fuel wise was minimal but they did gain 2 hp and 1.5 lb/ft. With that being on a Chevy 350 I doubt the plugs will make any diffrence on a 4 banger.

2hp, 1.5 torque? That's less than 1% on a V8. That's easily within the noise of testing variations. Add in the fact that these are EXPENSIVE, and it's clearly not worth it.

Well that's what I pretty much assumed. I wish they did work, it would be an easy change.
That's funny that the pulse plugs didn't fit.:eek:

There's a lot of stuff about the NGK Iridium plugs improving mileage.

i've tried e3 plugs, among others, and never noticed a measurable difference. i just use whatever plug the factory recommends.

I've had pulstars installed in my corolla for about a month now.

I haven't done any A-B-A testing, however without drasticly changing my driving habits my mpg went from 33 to 35 over my normal commuting route.

both were repeatable and i dont think i drove much differently.

biggest gain i've gotten was from adjusting my driving habits. pulled out 42.07 mpg

That sounds good. I should have made a poll to see if they work for most people or not.

Z man -

Here is a thread on the subject :

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...bonus-767.html

The bottom line is that they didn't work for me, :( .

CarloSW2

Pulstar pulse plugs
 

Hi guys. This is the CEO of Enerpulse, the maker of Pulstar pulse plugs. I see your interest in learning more about Pulstar. With all the hype out there, I can certainly understand your skepticism. Let me just say that Pulstar does not count on tip design (standard J gap) to ignited fuel. Generally, when you see a plug offering up a new tip design your should have a certain amount of skepticism.

We ignite fuel with power derived from a capacitor build into the plug. This boosts energy to the spark gap much like a camera flash boosts energy to light. This initiates ignition at a much larger aperture than a spark plug igniting more of the existing fuel in a a shorter period of time. Sort of like lighting a field of grass with a match or a bomb. Grass burns at a fixed rate, but if you initiate the burning with a larger area, the field will burn in a shorter period of time releasing all of it BTUs in that period of time. In a car BTU translates to cylinder pressure.

Sorry for the long winded discussion, but my challenge is to get consumers to understand our technology and why it is different from spark plugs. I will be happy to answer any questions you have and if one of you is willing to do a comprehensive test of the product and report your findings, I will make it available free. Email me at dparker@enerpulse.com.

boo. coulda gotten mine for free for saying i was interested in testing!!?!

o well, amazon gave me a $10 discount. $90 for 4 pulse plugs wasnt too bad

Testing
 

Well, it would have taken a little more that just saying you would test. But, you are right we often just have to trust people.

CarloSW2, I would very much like to understand your vehicle and test protocol. If you feel they didn't work maybe there is something wrong. We will stand behind our product. Give me details.

dparker -

Thank you for posting on Ecomodder!

One of your representatives (Kyle) contacted me on another forum. In the other thread, you will see my testing and results :

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...html#post47870

This is my specific posting on the subject :

http://ecomodder.com/forum/22699-post20.html - Post #20

In the above posting, I describe what happened but I *don't* come to the conclusion that the product won't work for all cars. During my interaction with Kyle, we came to the hypothesis that we didn't have the right gapping for my 1999 Saturn DOHC SW2. You state the same in the above thread. Most likely, Pulstar plugs had never been tested on my (out of production) engine.

I never paid for the Pulstar Plugs. But, I got cold feet when it didn't work twice, so I didn't want to do any more testing. It's my daily car, so I can't afford any down time.

CarloSW2

CarloSW2, you are probably right about our testing on your particular car. I certainly understand that you would not want to experiment any further. We do appreciate your honest try, though. We are constanly testing vehicles in our lab. and we occasionally find some that just don't like certain plugs by any maker. Just out of curiosity, were there other mods. to your engine that may have influenced your test? In any event, thanks.

That is all very polite sounding, but it seems the consensus here would indicate they don't work to help MPG. Do you recommend these $125 plugs for people hoping to improve mpg? Even on cleanmpg they did extensive testing and found no benefit, yet your site clearly implies these expensive plugs provide improved mpg ("tired of getting beat up at the pump")?

They don't seem to actually improve mpg from what I can tell, and they are exceptionally expensive for a spark plug. What are your lab testing methods and controls and how did you arrive at your mpg improvement claim before marketing this product?

dparker -

I think the only mod that might effect the test is my Hot-Air-Intake. That is the only mod which effects combustion (I didn't try the EFIE or the hydrogen gizmo during the test). It would have been running at IAT temperatures of around 120-130 degrees F. My car was running Denso Iridiums before and after the test, which might have put the car in a "Denso Iridium" mode. I made a point to reset the ECU/PCM during the testing, but the outcome was the same.

I think my DOHC aluminum block engine design goes back to circa 1989. I like to think of it as a "proto-Ecotec", but that really isn't true. It is a waste-spark ignition design. There are a lot of cars with this, like Jeeps, and the current Ecotec uses waste-spark also.

Here's my car and it's mods :

1999 Saturn SW2
Fuel Economy, Hypermiling, EcoModding News and Forum - EcoModder.com

CarloSW2

I don't want to sound like the fine print here, but it depends on the test. Simply driving a car without scientific equipment exposes it to too many variables.

All of the fuel economy tests Enerpulse reports are performed on an eddy current dynamometer using the EPA US06 driving cycle. We condition the car (tire pressure, fuel, new plugs) and tap into the fuel line with a digital flow meter linked to a computer to measure real time fuel flow. We then run the spark plug followed by the pulse plug and measure the difference in fuel consumption. The test driver has to follow the driving cycle on the computer screen and match it precisely. The test lasts 596 seconds at an average speed of 48 mph and includes acceleration ramps up to 80 mph. We test practically every day and have seen some gain in every vehicle we test. On average we get 6% improvement across all vehicles. For full test details see http://www.pulstarplug.com/pdf/epep.pdf.

I know that people who buy our product might feel good about our scientific tests, but they really only care about saving money. Most of them do. But, we concede not everyone will ultimately feel it in their wallets.

Thank you, so there is no A-B-A testing, just the stock plugs first, then the pulse plugs get tested after the engine is more heat soaked?!? If that is the case then the mpg claims are pretty shakey at best.

There was no mention of temperature controls in your testing document.

Great observations! Actually the US06 test is normally done as a hot start test both A and B. This avoids the problem you cite. Further, if you read our EPEP test procedure http://www.pulstarplug.com/pdf/epep.pdf. you will see that before the US06 is run we perform 3 dyno pulls and 3 acceleration tests (40-80 MPH). Then we run the US06. As you can imagine the engine warm! Your point about returning to the A test has been considered and tested. We have not seen any complelling evidence this makes a difference. Of course, doing an ABA test without scientific equipment would make a big difference!

Forgive me, but 3 dyno pulls from low rpm to redline does not imply a fully warmed up engine. nor even if you follow it with an acceleration from 40 to 80.

I wouldn't be so skeptical, but these plugs aren't turning into real world mpg results AFAICT. I mean we are talking about folks who can tell if a mirror is removed and NOT noticing any improvement with these plugs.

Understand your concern, but I don't know of anyone who would actually do a dyno pull at WOT on a cold engine. If you do, don't let them do it on your car.

By the way, does you group have a certain test procedure like those recognized by the EPA - FTP75, HWFET, US06? How are the vehicles prepared? What instruments are used to measure fuel flow? Do you use dynos or actual driving? Is there a closed loop track or course you run? From your comments concerning ABA testing there seems to be more science there than just filling the tank and looking at the odometer.

Sorry guys, I could not find that actual post from dcb, but here is his question: "Are you suggesting that the EPA method is an accurate way to predict MPG gains in the real world?"

My answer:

It is the only way I know. Certainly the Soceity of Automotive Engineers (SAE) would disregard "real world" testing without scientific methods. I am not suggesting that EPA tests necessarily reflect the actual mileage you will get. That will be influenced by altitude, vehicle condition, quality of gasoline, tire pressure, etc. But, it will scientifically demonstrate the relative benefits of any fuel economy product, which is the reason most product offerings don't do it. That's why I was interested in your test methodology. If your members do an ABA test themselves knowing which product has been installed, it is already a flawed test. If you wanted to make it more scientific, you could run a double blind test where the driver never knows what product is in the car and another person drives the car. The EPA drive cycle takes this subjectivity out of the test by forcing the driver to follow the computer. Of course it takes road conditions, traffic conditions and weather conditions out of the equation as well.

I once ran a "real world" fleet test with the U.S. government comparing products over 2 3 month test periods. One test period had 45% more idle time in it than the other. The government claimed that was "real world." I suppose if they simply parked their cars they would claim even better fuel economy. I know this sounds ridiculous, but it simply points out the subjectivity of "real world" testing. Today any company claiming fuel economy benefits and worth its salt must use recognized protocols or risk a visit from the FTC.

So, how do you guys do it?

Some of the folks who are reporting no gains with your plugs are not here, you will have to locate them to query their methods. There's nothing in it for me, they have no profit motive for saying it didn't work, in fact they have risked some in suggesting it was a mistake that they spent the money. And they are part of a community I trust in general, all the more so when they can be so honest and not afraid of ridicule.

Just saying it was done in a "lab" does not eliminate bias. The order of the tests, and the interpretation of the results are still being done with profit in mind. This is why ABA and independent verification are important, regardless of the equipment. There are still humans with human faults and biases looking for an advantage, consciously or not.

But for fun, let's assume you are both correct. That there is something about efficient driving style that negates the mpg advantage of these plugs.

Consider that these folks spend very little time idling and aren't racing down the hiway at 80mph or flooring it and slamming on the brakes everywhere.

Where does your test results actually show the improvement coming from? Is it in certain rpm and load settings? Do you have a before and after (and before again) BSFC map, that would tell the story pretty well also. And, FYI, you cannot be too detailed in describing the test setup and the assumptions and adjustments being made. The PDF file isn't really detailed enough to be considered useful.

If I understood your testing procedure I might be able to add more insights. But, if you are driving for utmost fuel economy that would mean you deliberately avoid steep transients (rapid rpm changes). A product like Pulstar is going to give greater returns through transients than at steady state. This still does not answer the question of concerning your testing. Is there a standard test procedure your group uses?

You will have to do your own work to determine why these individuals are reporting no gains with your plugs. It is your responsibility to represent your product accurately and make sure those claims hold up in the real world. I have nothing to gain by doing your work for you.

You are right, it is our responsibility to represent our product accurately and make sure those claims hold up in the real world. We have done the former and are trying to do the latter. I have put our test procedures under your group's scrutiny, but you have not offered me the same. And yet, you make claims, which are counter to industry-recognized testing and potentially damaging to my company. We certainly don't expect or need you to do our work for us. But, if you are seriously interested in fuel economy gains, then you must be serious about testing as well.

This will be my last post for I fear I have overstayed my welcome. If you care to comment on your testing I will remain interested.

Cheers.

I am just the messenger of the reports of no improvement who had some questions about your testing procedures. I could question their methods too, but I am not going to put myself in the middle. It is work, but you are the only one making any money. I really don't understand why you expect me to coordinate/quantify/justify the real world testing for you?!? And why you expect your customers to do your real world testing for that matter?

dcb -

I think we have people with test skills that are all over the map (I'm not one of the better ones, BTW).

Regarding your mirror delete example, I consider this to be a mod outside the scope of Pulstar testing (apples and oranges). We have discussed on this forum situations in which the ScanGauge is not 100% accurate with all drivetrains under all driving conditions. Without access to the SG source, we have theorized that it extrapolates MPG from other inputs by using a proprietary algorithm.

From my POV, the mirror-delete is an aerodynamic mod. I think the ScanGauge is best suited to measure these mods because aerodynamic mods have a (direct?) "positive effect" on engine load parameters that the ScanGauge measures. When the aero-mods help the engine to do less "work" to go the same speed, the SG can detect this. What I am saying is, the SG is the "right tool for the job" when it comes to measuring the effect of aerodynamic mods.

I think of the Pulstar mod as an "engine combustion mod". I don't think the SG is in a reliable position to test this. I think this needs to be done on a dynamometer, where the number of external parameters are reduced. Most of us don't have this. I am not making a claim for or against Pulstar plugs, but I am saying that our informal "test lab" may not be the "right tool for the job".

CarloSW2

LOL, this thread makes me think of Gin Rummy for some reason :)
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ksNZlKhU0As/default.jpg

"There are known unknowns! And there are unknown unknowns!"
"The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence!"

Denso Iridiums are good?

This is what I'm taking from this. :thumbup:

I think its great that the CEO of a company would join our little website here to offer his input.

Conversely, I think its a bad idea that the CEO of a company would join this site simply for the purpose of defending his product and not looking at any of the other threads at all. This could change someone's outlook on our ideas, you know?

If I were a betting man, I'd bet on the second option. I believe dparker would be a lot more understanding of our methods if he read more posts, rather than just the one pertaining to his product.

On another note, I think we could really benefit by having CEOs and other representatives of these companies could build products more in line with being "green" and using us as a sounding board. Also, a friendly relationship with someone can never hurt :-)

First tank with the pulstar plugs in netted me a 58.7 mpg tank. Pretty good, but not my best. I will report back after the next tank.


...must resist doing other mods in the mean time! :)

Now I know I am jumping into this game a little late, but here are my observations on what I have read ...

-Alot of the guys that have or are testing these currently are using older vehicles. Yes we have them working optimally, but still they are older than 4 years in most cases, throwing in all sorts of unknowns.

-Then their are the claims, without going to their site, no one here has discussed any claims regarding unburned fuel. If you have a better spark plug, shouldn't there be less or no unburned fuel and therefore a way to measure and display that data? If they can prove that then the product works and other factors then contribute to the lack of improvement made in claims.

I mean no offense but I am sure all the lab testing done with vehicles didn't include Metro's and 10 year old Civics.

"Best spark plugs to have?"
 

"The best spark plugs to..." . Whoa! Stop right there. Ask the gasoline / air mixture in your combustion chamber : ANY spark will set off the mixture. If you can make this spark ... under the conditions of pressure and
turbulence ( the spark can actually be "blown out' by these gales) over and over and over again, you'll be satisfied. We're talking many factors, here. Tip erosion, internal resistance, heat range, external corrosion, etc.
Most people have favorite brands. I have many "unfavorite" brands. You never know what you're getting, anymore. The whole world has been "outsourced"! For instance, I used to trust Robert Bosch plugs...until I happened to look closely ... stamped into the main barrel of the plug body one day ( in fine print) ..."Made in India". Oops! Not for me! Sorry.... I still put my trust in US-made Autolites, always have...no problems...ever. I never have liked Champion ( lawn mower plugs) . Other brands? I have no idea of the quality. OEM plugs? Not a good way to judge....Too much cost accounting work, here. Bean counter budgets at work. I don't trust bean counters. :confused:

whitevette,

You are right. We call that squish velocity. Spark plugs can tolerate a squish velocity of about 10 meters per second, but Pulstar can take 100 meters per second due to its compressed power.

trikkonceptz,

Also right. We make power by burning the hydrocarbons in the cylinder instead of the catalytic converter. As a result combustion products from a pulse plug are lean. BTW, 35% of vehicles using Pulstar are still under warranty and many of the vehicles we test are older than 10 years...they give us the very best results.

ajax_6531,

I understand your point. It's hard to visit all the different forums out there talking about Pulstar and have the time to detail them all. I would love to understand your methods. If you read my posts you will see that I have detailed ours. Please, someone explain how you go about testing. I think of Pulstar as a green product. Do you know that 1 gallon of gasoline weighs 6.2 lbs. and generates 19.4 pounds of carbon dioxide a prime greenhouse gas? If you have ideas of how we can get our green message across I am all ears.

All,

Thanks for listening. I welcome your insights. We are a new company with an exciting technology, but we don't always know the best way to describe it to people. There has been so much snake oil out there, that any new plug would logically be guilty on arrival. We are only looking for a fair chance to prove ourselves.

Thanks

Hi, D. Parker-
Entertain a thought, please. I mentioned the spark being extinguished in the water vapor tests ... you stated this was called "squish velocity". Is there any possibility you & I could talk further about this "green technology"?
Tell me about "snake oil" ... or the gauntlet imposed by same. :mad:
I am at [ chembustion at yahoo dot com ] . Comments? -whitevette