Pulse Plugs

woyster_00z71 · June 14, 2007

Has anyone heard of Pulstar Pulse Plugs? www.pulstarplug.com

I know these types of things are normally just hype and not worth it but I have a friend that is considering dropping the cash to buy them for his truck. I've told him my opinions but thought I would get some more input from you guys.

Thanks.

jaybyrd · June 14, 2007

I don't know that I've heard of them before but they seem intriguing enough with about 10% torque gain for the 5.3L and better fuel economy. However $200 for 8 plugs plus shipping is not going to make me buy them anytime soon.

az'03Silverado · June 15, 2007

Why's there a Dodge add in your post?

woyster_00z71 · June 15, 2007

I didn't put the ad in my post. Although it shows a chevy ad for me.

Drunken Sailor · June 15, 2007

As with many products these days, the advertising is spectacular but the science is pretty shaky. The automotive industry is rife with brilliantly marketed crap.

Their biggest argument is that their plugs produce more wattage than conventional plugs. They say as high as one million watts, compared to around 50 watts for conventional spark plugs. This is where you enter a grey area with "proving" the science. Remember, Watts = Volts X Amps. The voltage we will assume is the same, because the vehicle ignition coil is only capable of a certain voltage. The amperage, however, is dependent on resistance of the secondary circuit. The resistance comes from the plug wires, the resistor in the plug, but mostly, the plug gap, which is in sense an infinite resistance. Remember that "grey area" in the science that I mentioned? Here it is. While any gap is an infinite resistance, we all know that when a certain amount of voltage is applied to that gap, it can be ionized, or "bridged". This is how we get our spark. The smaller the gap, the lower the voltage required to ionize the gap. It makes sense that while any gap is technically an infinite resistance, it can be argued that a smaller gap has a lower "resistance" than a larger gap.

Back to the Watts formula. You'll notice that on their website, when you look up plugs for our truck, they specify a 0.045" gap. Our trucks call for 0.060", but they say to go no larger than 0.045". Obviously, a 45 thou gap has a much smaller "resistance" and required voltage than a 60 thou gap. Amperage = Voltage/Resistance, so with voltage being the same (remember, the coil only produces so much) amperage in the circuit goes way up with a lower resistance. Which in turn means MUCH higher wattage.

Basically, what I'm getting to is that the radical increase in wattage isn't due to any remarkable new technology, but simply due to a smaller plug gap, something you could achieve without spending a penny.

But let me shoot this down a little more. Do you want higher wattage? The answer is no. The only important number when it comes to secondary ignitions is voltage. The amperage in a secondary system is miniscule (less than one amp). A certain amount of voltage is required to inonize the gap, and the rest of the voltage available is used to keep the spark going across the gap. For example, if your coil produces a maximum of 40,000 volts, and the required voltage to ionize the gap is 20,000 volts, the other 20,000 volts is used to keep amperage flowing across the plug for 1-2 milliseconds. And this is the very most important number in ignition This "burn time", as it is called, is required to completely burn the fuel and air mixture as it swirls in the combustion chamber. This is why cars run bad when the plugs wear. More of the coil's voltage is used to inonize the increasingly larger gap, and less is left to keep the spark going for the required burn time. We call this "running out of spark".

Herin lies another major flaw in the "science" of pulse plugs. They claim that there is no burn time with their plugs; that the air/fuel mixture is instantaneously ignited due to the "sheer power" of their spark. More crap. Not only is this not possible, but remember, only the amount of voltage required to ionize the gap will be used. No more, no less. Even if this would actually be benificial, their spark can't possilbly be any more "powerful."

I'll bet my next paycheck that the only reason anybody is seeing gains with these is because they are replacing old, worn out spark plugs. New conventional plugs would yeild the same results.

Ah, the beauty of marketting. Clever, isn't it?

C & A s Dad · June 15, 2007

I am impressed. Not with the plug but with Chris' post.

I did visit the Pulstar website and you have to give them one thing, they did a great marketing job with the website. It is very professional and convincing. I mean a 8% MPG gain and over 11% TQ gain on a 5.3L, sounds nice but too good to be true.

I would love to hear from someone who has actually installed a set of these.

pastorscott · June 16, 2007

Hey lets all put one buck together and pay for one of you guys to get the plugs. Then we will know for sure. Again someone spent allot of money on that web page for Pulse plugs and they were also in Popular Science 2 full pages. I myself would like to know for sure.

Scott

Drunken Sailor · June 16, 2007

Anybody who tries them WILL notice a difference, that's the problem, because they are replacing old plugs with them. To really test these you'd have to dyno a truck twice, once with brand new irridium plugs, and once with the pulse plugs.

C & A s Dad · June 18, 2007

These things scare me a little. The ignition system on our trucks is pretty precise and complex, it is not an artifical heart or anything but it is an engineered system. I would be concerned about these things having some negative affect on the coils or PCM.

Surely someone out there has run them.

Tucson_02Silverado · June 18, 2007

$200 for 8 capacitor equipped plugs?

Maybe I'm over simplifing the product, but I think I would head towards the $600 LSx MSD coils instead.

pastorscott · June 19, 2007

Ive been looking all over the web and checking out other forum car buff sites. Everybody is asking the same questions, but nobody has tried them to see. Its the same question, the add does make you think. I just wonder if there is ANY one who really has used these plugs. I think the web page should atleast have made up comments from fake users. So lets keep searching until some guy is either smart enough, brave enough or dum enough to try them.

Scott

az'03Silverado · June 19, 2007

It's tempting but way to pricey.

GMCStepSide · June 19, 2007

Let's do the math...

Lets assume 19 mpg on your old plugs but with the "new, improved, gee whiz" plugs they claim you would see an increase of 8% or 1.52 mpg.

Assume you drive 20,000 miles per year with your truck...20,000 divided by 19 = 1053 gallons per year of fuel. With the new plugs, you would be getting 20,000 divided by 20.52 = 974 gallons of fuel which would be a savings of 79 gallons of fuel per year @ $3.00 per gallon would be an annual savings of $237 per year.

Come on woyster...you'll make back your money in the first year...go for it and let us know just how accurate my numbers are...and if they don't work out you'll be able to sell 'em on eBay for half of what you paid for them...what are you waiting for?

(And to answer your next question...No, not with my money either. )