25-10-2024, 07:21 PM
From my research so far, it seems that Powerspark units are quite different from Accuspark units.
On the subject of coil resistance, I think that Powerspark require less coil resistance. Their literature requires a minimum of 1.5 ohms. I asked them directly whether my existing coil with 1.1 ohms would be OK. They replied saying that because my engine runs 6 volts, the resistance of 1.1 ohms would be satisfactory. From this I deduce that the requirement in their literature for 1.5 ohms must relate to 12 volt systems and because of the relative rarity of 6 volt systems they haven't bothered to mention the reduced resistance requirement. Their literature is very generic and email responses from them are very short, so I haven't bothered to enquire further on that.
I have watched a video of a man testing five different brands of electronic distributors. He classified them into two groups according to coil resistance requirement. He treats Powerspark and one other as having low coil resistance requirement and tests these with a low resistance coil. He treats Accuspark and two others as requiring a higher resistance coil and accordingly tests them with a different coil.
Incidently, he advises that Powerspark are the cheapest and not his preferred unit but doesn't give his reasons. However he couldn't fault Powerspark on his test rig.
Powerspark were adamant in requiring resistive ignition leads in their response to my email querying the need for these, but didn't give any explanation. I see that Gez runs his Powerspark with copper leads. Perhaps he is using spark plugs with sufficient resistance to meet the Powerspark need for lead resistance.
The Powerspark suggestion to use silicone ignition leads appears to be a reference to their own brand of ignition leads which are of the graphite core type.
I am awaiting the local Powerspark supplier to receive a shipment of the graphite leads, then will install the Powerspark distributor with the graphite leads and use my existing 1.1 ohm coil. I will let you know how it goes.
Thanks so much for the many well considered replies to my post.
Graham
On the subject of coil resistance, I think that Powerspark require less coil resistance. Their literature requires a minimum of 1.5 ohms. I asked them directly whether my existing coil with 1.1 ohms would be OK. They replied saying that because my engine runs 6 volts, the resistance of 1.1 ohms would be satisfactory. From this I deduce that the requirement in their literature for 1.5 ohms must relate to 12 volt systems and because of the relative rarity of 6 volt systems they haven't bothered to mention the reduced resistance requirement. Their literature is very generic and email responses from them are very short, so I haven't bothered to enquire further on that.
I have watched a video of a man testing five different brands of electronic distributors. He classified them into two groups according to coil resistance requirement. He treats Powerspark and one other as having low coil resistance requirement and tests these with a low resistance coil. He treats Accuspark and two others as requiring a higher resistance coil and accordingly tests them with a different coil.
Incidently, he advises that Powerspark are the cheapest and not his preferred unit but doesn't give his reasons. However he couldn't fault Powerspark on his test rig.
Powerspark were adamant in requiring resistive ignition leads in their response to my email querying the need for these, but didn't give any explanation. I see that Gez runs his Powerspark with copper leads. Perhaps he is using spark plugs with sufficient resistance to meet the Powerspark need for lead resistance.
The Powerspark suggestion to use silicone ignition leads appears to be a reference to their own brand of ignition leads which are of the graphite core type.
I am awaiting the local Powerspark supplier to receive a shipment of the graphite leads, then will install the Powerspark distributor with the graphite leads and use my existing 1.1 ohm coil. I will let you know how it goes.
Thanks so much for the many well considered replies to my post.
Graham