I asked Grok why it was so anemic. Looking at the cylinder heads, I thought the chambers looked pretty good, as I would have loved those chambers on many of the Ford V8s. I thought maybe it had a really low compression as possible reason for low power, but no. It had 9.4:1. Besides there are other ways to increase power before adding another spark plug to each cylinder. This is what Grok had to say: The consensus on why the 4-cylinder engine in the 1995 Ford Ranger produced relatively little power can be attributed to several factors: Design and Displacement: The 1995 Ford Ranger came with a 2.3-liter inline-4 engine, which was essentially a carry-over from previous generations with minor updates. This engine, based on the Ford Lima engine family, was known for its simplicity and reliability but not for high power output. The stroke of the engine was increased to create a 2.5-liter version in 1998, but in 1995, it was still the 2.3-liter with a modest 98 horsepower. The smaller displacement inherently limited the power output compared to larger engines like V6s. Performance Tuning: The engine was tuned for fuel efficiency and reliability rather than performance. This meant that while it was dependable and could achieve good mileage, especially in the 4-cylinder configuration, it lacked the power enhancements that would have been necessary for higher outputs. The engine's design focused on providing adequate torque for the truck's intended use as a compact utility vehicle rather than focusing on raw power. Technology and Age: By 1995 standards, the technology in the 2.3L 4-cylinder wasn't cutting-edge for performance. It utilized a single overhead cam (SOHC) design, which, while effective for the time, was less advanced compared to later developments like dual overhead cams (DOHC) that allowed for better airflow and thus more power. The engine's age and the incremental improvements it received meant it wasn't on the forefront of power delivery technology. Intended Use: The Ford Ranger of that era was not primarily marketed as a performance vehicle but rather as an economical and practical pickup for everyday use. The 4-cylinder option was there to cater to buyers looking for fuel efficiency and lower purchase cost, which often means sacrificing some level of performance for economic and practical benefits. Feedback from Users: User feedback from forums and reviews tends to echo these points, with many noting the engine's adequacy for light hauling and commuting but its noticeable lack of power for more demanding tasks or quick acceleration. Users often described these engines as "slow as snails" but "dependable as anvils," highlighting the trade-off between power and reliability. In summary, the 1995 Ford Ranger's 4-cylinder engine was designed with an emphasis on fuel economy, reliability, and cost-effectiveness rather than high performance, which explains its relatively low power output.
The waste spark system was exactly that. The second spark plug fired during the exhaust stroke. Supposedly to complete burning any left over fuel during the combustion stroke. The second plug, was purely for emissions. Later models utilised both plugs during the compression stroke for a more efficient combustion cycle. The restrictive air inlet system, small camshaft, low advance on the ignition and other factors. Were all for emissions purposes. The engine itself is quite capable of making good power, while maintaining good fuel economy. It did so in many other applications.
When we were kids, one of my older buddies had his license. His father just bought a brand new '87 turbo coupe. Long story short, that summer when we went to the county fair we made it in 23 minutes. Anything else took 45mins.😂 We musta had that tach on 5500 in top gear for a good 12 minutes or so. Wow what a car. You already know ford didn't like bragging that it was 1mph faster than the mustang 5.0.
Twin I beam suspension is classic ford. Twin spark is for emmessions control because it was a dickless engine and in addition to being anemic had bad nox characteristics.
Emissions and reduction in the potential for spark knock. The flame fronts each traveled a shorter distance than if only 1 plug were used. In that respect, they could run more spark advance than if only 1 spark plug were used, so better fuel economy and power potentially. That Ranger was a bit smaller and lighter than a Dakota, so power-to-weight ratio wasn't as bad as you'd think...at least when you weren't hauling anything.
Honestly there was no comparison between the Dakota I test drove (which was a V6) and my Ranger, power wise. I bought the Ranger because it was far cheaper and thought it would be miserly on fuel. Not so much. But was a very simple easily self maintained vehicle. Just the way I like um. Thx for watching. 👍🍻
You are backwards on the spark timing, it is less with a dual plug system. I have owned and modified my '94 Ranger which has been my daily driver for over 11 years. The stock timing curve is 10* at idle and only 30* full. Here is a link to one of the things I have done to increase both mpg and performance, " ie. efficiency" .th-cam.com/video/jm_Bk1o0Chg/w-d-xo.html .
Less timing with a dual plug arrangement because pressure rises faster, I work with dual plug heads all the time building performance Harley engines in my bike shop, they really worked best with the true hemi combustion chambers of the older Harley engines that have a big piston dome sticking up into the combustion chamber, the higher compression pistons you run the bigger the problem because you've got more dome blocking the flame travel, the flame has to go over and around that big nasty dome sitting in its way, so dual plugs help greatly with the older Harley engines that were true hemis, big twin Shovelhead, Panhead and Knucklehead along with the Ironhead Sportster. Starting with the Evo engine in 84 Harley started closing the combustion chambers and running a flat top piston, similar to what you see here, that results in a vastly superior combustion chamber, it gives you a squish area between the top of the piston and the head, at the top of the compression stroke that blows the air fuel mixture into that much smaller quench area so when ignited the flame doesn't have to travel far to burn all the fuel it can before using up its supply of oxygen, which also benefits less from dual plugs, the newer Harley engines that have combustion chambers that look like these I tell my customers not to waste their money having me dual plug the heads since the gains are minimal, unless it's a full effort race engine where a thousands of a second is the difference between winning and losing it's not worth the cost, the gains are big and worth it with a true hemi engine but one with combustion chambers like you see here you'd just be ekeing out a very small gain after spending $$$, aka no "bang for the buck". If that was my engine when I was putting it together I'd tighten that squish down to .025" to .030" through the use of a thinner head gasket, those squish bands don't really come alive until you get them down to .030" or less, then they really create turbulence when the piston gets to the top of its compression stroke, that'll take another 2° of timing out of the ignition advance (which means you've got an even more efficient combustion chamber), mass production companies are afraid to use gaskets thinner than .050" which amazes me because of all the gains they pass up from doing it, the difference between a .050" thick squish area and a .030" squish is much more than dual plugging a combustion chamber like that and it's free, I've never understood why manufacturers are so shy about going less than .050", I've put engines together with as little as .015" squish, on a chilly morning with every metal part shrunk down from temperature when first started you could actually hear the pistons clapping against the bottom of the head surfaces for about 3 to 5 seconds, well before you could take the choke off it'd already quit doing it, by the time the engine would warm up enough to take the choke off to where it'd idle on its own you could already rev it to 6,500 RPM's without any contact, although experience has taught me .030" is fine since there wasn't any gains from going less than that, so as long as the clay test shows me I have .025" to .030" inch with the head torqued down that's good enough as going less has no benefit. Those are good looking combustion chambers, even without dual plugs they look good, if he's got power problems it's from somewhere else, I'd love to be able to get a good look at the ports in that head, if they're not the reason this engine doesn't make a decent amount of power per ci then it's got to be a bad cam design, bad stroke to connecting rod length ratio or a combination of all of them, but it's not because of those combustion chambers, even with single plugs those are about as good as it comes when you're talking combustion chambers.
Those engines have been made to deliver good power on the circle track poney stock cars. I think the real limiting factors were camshaft duration, overlap, and timing along with EGR used to decrease NOx. Plus it had a tiny extremely restrictive exhaust.
Twin I-beam was the same design as the full sized trucks. It IS a weak engine for what it had to push. This was basically a Pinto engine. The architecture could handle more power. Those engines can take 300 HP turbocharged.
I once had a CJ with the 2.3 liter carbed iteration of the Ford OHC engine and what stunned me was the smoothnes of it. Never had a engine i couldnt listen to the valves ticking but that 2.3 would just go Whoosh Whoosh... Such a smooth engine!!
my 1977 Dodge D100 std cab (purchased new) had slant 6, three on the tree, no power steering, no radio, no cig lighter, no side mirrors even! hated it but couldn't kill it
🤣 Now days manufacturers don’t even offer box stock models. Today’s base models were yesteryears ultra deluxe trim lines. Wonder why 🤔 💰💰💰 Cheers Denis 👍🍻
Definitely have alot of love for the 2.3 ,i see them often in my work doing generator service. About 2yrs ago, i replaced a broken timing belt on one that was determined to be around an 81-82 engine. It had 1200hrs and the original timing belt. But belts are so unreliable and break, at least thats what ive heard. I highly doubt this new belt will last that long though.
The timing belts have an expected average service life of 70,000 miles. Or 1,400 hours. Excessive heat, sand or other contaminants getting past the timing belt cover. Can both cause premature failure. I imagine heat caused premature failure in a static operation like generator use. More engine heat soak, due to much less air flow that a vehicle moving down the road would get. In static use. The belt should probably be replaced every 800-1,000 hours.
We yanked those heads, sourced 2.3 turbo heads, yanked the ignition and ECUs from a turbo Thunderbird or Mustang. Our sleeper 89 2.3T with 5-speed kicked everyone's butt. Lose the factory turbo, go big boost Garrett turbo and blowoff valve. 14-24 lbs boost. Boost it until the head gasket blows. :-P
I think the emissions reasoning is more likely; they've been using this engine, in one form or another, since the 70s, IRRC. Anything to keep costs down by continuing to use what they've already got in production.
As long as you’re not expecting much in the power/torque department, it’s a good engine in my experience. Simple, durable, easy to service. Thx for watching.👍🍻
This was a de tuned engine. It was originally designed for turbo charging with o-ringed heads instead of head gasket but it turned into a Pinto engine instead. I think they finally turbocharged it. I'm not sure. I was sick of cars by then and left the industry. The biggest problem I remember with a maintained engine was the cam shaft lobes wearing out. Very easy to replace. Timing belt stripping was just like all of them in those days. 50,000 miles you better replace it or it will leave you stranded normally on startup.
Nissan Z24i engine on D21 hardbody and WD21 pathfinder/terrano has the same setup, inline 4, 2 sparks per cylinder, distributor cap has 10 sockets (8 plugs + 2 coils). ECU controlled, throttle body injection. (kind-of) official and anecdotal (forums) reports have it that it had a slight advantage over previous carburated versions when it comes to fuel economy.
Dual spark plugs are not uncommon in the spark engine world. Some old world cars used it but these days I think it is used more for emissions. It can help prevent HP loss as opposed to other ways to meet certain emissions requirements. As you said, aircraft use them for redundancy but I think it also helps with power. The piston bore on Lycoming and Continental engines are very large. Lycoming 360 4 cyl has a 5.125" bore and 361 CI. The CI is larger than most V8 automotive engines these days. The 5.125" bore is a lot of real estate to burn the flame front across before the piston travels too far down to be as effective so in my mind the dual spark plugs probably help the combustion process. Mag drops kind of indicate this during preflight checks.
I had a 2001 Ranger with the 2.5 in it and the timing belt was changed at 60.000 the plugs and plug wires at the same time ford must have used super glue on the plug boots had to replace them all 8 and had a sirius acceleration problem sometimes it wouldn't move and ford could never get it fixed.
Interesting. Twin plugs on several 70’s 2-stroke dirt-bikes known for hard-starting and plug-fouling. one plug would be soft and one a few-grades harder. You would start on the soft then switch the plug-cap to the hot-plug once you had tickover with the choke off. Of, course one shut-down before swapping. 😅⚡️
Never heard of that… Piston powered Aircraft have a had redundant Mags from day one pretty much. The comments are proving to be educational. Thx for watching. 👍🍻
@@TheGibby3340 BTW old engine freak here. At first dual sparkplug engines' selling point was the redundancy. Early planes and military, emergency vehicles had them for that reason. But when engines have dual sparkplugs AND if the cylinder bore is around 4.75 inches or up AND it is newer than about 1935 (ignition was very reliable after that) - then the dual plugs are necessary for proper running. They lose power when one ignition is killed - they also run hotter and drink more fuel. Yes they are redundant and FAA requires that - but they would have dual plugs anyway with almost 7 inch diameter combustion chamber to get going.
The modern Hemi comes to mind with 2 plugs per cylinder.
I asked Grok why it was so anemic. Looking at the cylinder heads, I thought the chambers looked pretty good, as I would have loved those chambers on many of the Ford V8s. I thought maybe it had a really low compression as possible reason for low power, but no. It had 9.4:1. Besides there are other ways to increase power before adding another spark plug to each cylinder. This is what Grok had to say:
The consensus on why the 4-cylinder engine in the 1995 Ford Ranger produced relatively little power can be attributed to several factors:
Design and Displacement: The 1995 Ford Ranger came with a 2.3-liter inline-4 engine, which was essentially a carry-over from previous generations with minor updates. This engine, based on the Ford Lima engine family, was known for its simplicity and reliability but not for high power output. The stroke of the engine was increased to create a 2.5-liter version in 1998, but in 1995, it was still the 2.3-liter with a modest 98 horsepower. The smaller displacement inherently limited the power output compared to larger engines like V6s.
Performance Tuning: The engine was tuned for fuel efficiency and reliability rather than performance. This meant that while it was dependable and could achieve good mileage, especially in the 4-cylinder configuration, it lacked the power enhancements that would have been necessary for higher outputs. The engine's design focused on providing adequate torque for the truck's intended use as a compact utility vehicle rather than focusing on raw power.
Technology and Age: By 1995 standards, the technology in the 2.3L 4-cylinder wasn't cutting-edge for performance. It utilized a single overhead cam (SOHC) design, which, while effective for the time, was less advanced compared to later developments like dual overhead cams (DOHC) that allowed for better airflow and thus more power. The engine's age and the incremental improvements it received meant it wasn't on the forefront of power delivery technology.
Intended Use: The Ford Ranger of that era was not primarily marketed as a performance vehicle but rather as an economical and practical pickup for everyday use. The 4-cylinder option was there to cater to buyers looking for fuel efficiency and lower purchase cost, which often means sacrificing some level of performance for economic and practical benefits.
Feedback from Users: User feedback from forums and reviews tends to echo these points, with many noting the engine's adequacy for light hauling and commuting but its noticeable lack of power for more demanding tasks or quick acceleration. Users often described these engines as "slow as snails" but "dependable as anvils," highlighting the trade-off between power and reliability.
In summary, the 1995 Ford Ranger's 4-cylinder engine was designed with an emphasis on fuel economy, reliability, and cost-effectiveness rather than high performance, which explains its relatively low power output.
Interesting reading and fair commentary. Thx for the details & thx for watching. 👍🍻
The waste spark system was exactly that. The second spark plug fired during the exhaust stroke. Supposedly to complete burning any left over fuel during the combustion stroke. The second plug, was purely for emissions. Later models utilised both plugs during the compression stroke for a more efficient combustion cycle. The restrictive air inlet system, small camshaft, low advance on the ignition and other factors. Were all for emissions purposes. The engine itself is quite capable of making good power, while maintaining good fuel economy. It did so in many other applications.
"Twin I-Beam Suspension" is what Ford advertised.
Simple. Durable. So now we know why it’s obsolete 🤣
Thx for watching 👍🍻
I hated the way my first Gen Ford explorer handled 😂
Ford trucks had twin I beam from ends for decades. 2wd, 4 wd, full size and compact pickups, vans.
Understood. I was referring to other manufacturers, excluding heavy haulage. Maybe there are, none that come to mind. Thx for watching 🍻
I have a 88 Ford Thunderbird (fox chassis) with a 300 hp., 2.3. Original 190 hp. 240 torque.
Wow… That’s a long way off from my Ranger. DOHC 4 Valve ? (Edit: never mind, turbo charged I see) 👍🍻
When we were kids, one of my older buddies had his license. His father just bought a brand new '87 turbo coupe.
Long story short, that summer when we went to the county fair we made it in 23 minutes.
Anything else took 45mins.😂
We musta had that tach on 5500 in top gear for a good 12 minutes or so.
Wow what a car.
You already know ford didn't like bragging that it was 1mph faster than the mustang 5.0.
I have an 86’ Thunderbird Turbocoupe 2.3 turbo installed in my 91; Mustang.
@jeffgriffith7003 kind of a late homebuilt SVO 😀
They do handle a little nicer than a typical v8 car from what I understand
the two plugs were for emissions and fuel mileage not power
With 98 HP this makes more sense 🤣 Thx for watching. 🍻
mercedes ML320 v6 has twin plugs. they started making those in '97. super efficient
Twin I beam suspension is classic ford. Twin spark is for emmessions control because it was a dickless engine and in addition to being anemic had bad nox characteristics.
“Dickless”. One way of putting it. 🤣
Emissions and reduction in the potential for spark knock. The flame fronts each traveled a shorter distance than if only 1 plug were used. In that respect, they could run more spark advance than if only 1 spark plug were used, so better fuel economy and power potentially. That Ranger was a bit smaller and lighter than a Dakota, so power-to-weight ratio wasn't as bad as you'd think...at least when you weren't hauling anything.
Honestly there was no comparison between the Dakota I test drove (which was a V6) and my Ranger, power wise. I bought the Ranger because it was far cheaper and thought it would be miserly on fuel. Not so much. But was a very simple easily self maintained vehicle. Just the way I like um. Thx for watching. 👍🍻
You are backwards on the spark timing, it is less with a dual plug system. I have owned and modified my '94 Ranger which has been my daily driver for over 11 years. The stock timing curve is 10* at idle and only 30* full. Here is a link to one of the things I have done to increase both mpg and performance, " ie. efficiency"
.th-cam.com/video/jm_Bk1o0Chg/w-d-xo.html
.
Less timing with a dual plug arrangement because pressure rises faster, I work with dual plug heads all the time building performance Harley engines in my bike shop, they really worked best with the true hemi combustion chambers of the older Harley engines that have a big piston dome sticking up into the combustion chamber, the higher compression pistons you run the bigger the problem because you've got more dome blocking the flame travel, the flame has to go over and around that big nasty dome sitting in its way, so dual plugs help greatly with the older Harley engines that were true hemis, big twin Shovelhead, Panhead and Knucklehead along with the Ironhead Sportster.
Starting with the Evo engine in 84 Harley started closing the combustion chambers and running a flat top piston, similar to what you see here, that results in a vastly superior combustion chamber, it gives you a squish area between the top of the piston and the head, at the top of the compression stroke that blows the air fuel mixture into that much smaller quench area so when ignited the flame doesn't have to travel far to burn all the fuel it can before using up its supply of oxygen, which also benefits less from dual plugs, the newer Harley engines that have combustion chambers that look like these I tell my customers not to waste their money having me dual plug the heads since the gains are minimal, unless it's a full effort race engine where a thousands of a second is the difference between winning and losing it's not worth the cost, the gains are big and worth it with a true hemi engine but one with combustion chambers like you see here you'd just be ekeing out a very small gain after spending $$$, aka no "bang for the buck".
If that was my engine when I was putting it together I'd tighten that squish down to .025" to .030" through the use of a thinner head gasket, those squish bands don't really come alive until you get them down to .030" or less, then they really create turbulence when the piston gets to the top of its compression stroke, that'll take another 2° of timing out of the ignition advance (which means you've got an even more efficient combustion chamber), mass production companies are afraid to use gaskets thinner than .050" which amazes me because of all the gains they pass up from doing it, the difference between a .050" thick squish area and a .030" squish is much more than dual plugging a combustion chamber like that and it's free, I've never understood why manufacturers are so shy about going less than .050", I've put engines together with as little as .015" squish, on a chilly morning with every metal part shrunk down from temperature when first started you could actually hear the pistons clapping against the bottom of the head surfaces for about 3 to 5 seconds, well before you could take the choke off it'd already quit doing it, by the time the engine would warm up enough to take the choke off to where it'd idle on its own you could already rev it to 6,500 RPM's without any contact, although experience has taught me .030" is fine since there wasn't any gains from going less than that, so as long as the clay test shows me I have .025" to .030" inch with the head torqued down that's good enough as going less has no benefit.
Those are good looking combustion chambers, even without dual plugs they look good, if he's got power problems it's from somewhere else, I'd love to be able to get a good look at the ports in that head, if they're not the reason this engine doesn't make a decent amount of power per ci then it's got to be a bad cam design, bad stroke to connecting rod length ratio or a combination of all of them, but it's not because of those combustion chambers, even with single plugs those are about as good as it comes when you're talking combustion chambers.
@@dukecraig2402 How does the pressure rise faster?
Those engines have been made to deliver good power on the circle track poney stock cars. I think the real limiting factors were camshaft duration, overlap, and timing along with EGR used to decrease NOx. Plus it had a tiny extremely restrictive exhaust.
Thx for watching. 🍻
Twin I-beam was the same design as the full sized trucks. It IS a weak engine for what it had to push. This was basically a Pinto engine. The architecture could handle more power. Those engines can take 300 HP turbocharged.
The only thing more underwhelming than the power in that little Ranger was the rear wheel (2WD model) traction. Still it was a reliable vehicle. 👍🍻
I once had a CJ with the 2.3 liter carbed iteration of the Ford OHC engine and what stunned me was the smoothnes of it. Never had a engine i couldnt listen to the valves ticking but that 2.3 would just go Whoosh Whoosh... Such a smooth engine!!
Had its favourable traits too. Thx for watching 👍🍻
my 1977 Dodge D100 std cab (purchased new) had slant 6, three on the tree, no power steering, no radio, no cig lighter, no side mirrors even!
hated it but couldn't kill it
🤣 Now days manufacturers don’t even offer box stock models. Today’s base models were yesteryears ultra deluxe trim lines. Wonder why 🤔
💰💰💰 Cheers Denis 👍🍻
Nissan pickups 83-89 had the z24 engine which also had 8 spark plugs for a four cylinder 😊
Alfa Romeo Twin Spark
Your car Dave? Or something from the past?
@@TheGibby3340 Benz M155 v8 and M275 v12 were twin spark
Some Chrysler Hemi engines are also twin plugs.
Probably needed two plugs because it ran so lean it would misfire on one plug. It's not like it had a massive combustion chamber to light.
Isn't that the 2.3 engine that was used in the 80s fox body. I think the 2 spark plugs was for the turbo'd application.
Definitely have alot of love for the 2.3 ,i see them often in my work doing generator service.
About 2yrs ago, i replaced a broken timing belt on one that was determined to be around an 81-82 engine.
It had 1200hrs and the original timing belt.
But belts are so unreliable and break, at least thats what ive heard.
I highly doubt this new belt will last that long though.
Thx for watching 🍻
The timing belts have an expected average service life of 70,000 miles. Or 1,400 hours. Excessive heat, sand or other contaminants getting past the timing belt cover. Can both cause premature failure. I imagine heat caused premature failure in a static operation like generator use. More engine heat soak, due to much less air flow that a vehicle moving down the road would get. In static use. The belt should probably be replaced every 800-1,000 hours.
We yanked those heads, sourced 2.3 turbo heads, yanked the ignition and ECUs from a turbo Thunderbird or Mustang.
Our sleeper 89 2.3T with 5-speed kicked everyone's butt. Lose the factory turbo, go big boost Garrett turbo and blowoff valve. 14-24 lbs boost. Boost it until the head gasket blows. :-P
I think the emissions reasoning is more likely; they've been using this engine, in one form or another, since the 70s, IRRC. Anything to keep costs down by continuing to use what they've already got in production.
As long as you’re not expecting much in the power/torque department, it’s a good engine in my experience. Simple, durable, easy to service. Thx for watching.👍🍻
This was a de tuned engine. It was originally designed for turbo charging with o-ringed heads instead of head gasket but it turned into a Pinto engine instead. I think they finally turbocharged it. I'm not sure. I was sick of cars by then and left the industry. The biggest problem I remember with a maintained engine was the cam shaft lobes wearing out. Very easy to replace. Timing belt stripping was just like all of them in those days. 50,000 miles you better replace it or it will leave you stranded normally on startup.
I recall changing the belt, oh 25+/- years ago…Being longitudinally mounted in the Ranger of course, very simple and straightforward. Thx again. 👍🍻
Nissan Z24i engine on D21 hardbody and WD21 pathfinder/terrano has the same setup, inline 4, 2 sparks per cylinder, distributor cap has 10 sockets (8 plugs + 2 coils). ECU controlled, throttle body injection. (kind-of) official and anecdotal (forums) reports have it that it had a slight advantage over previous carburated versions when it comes to fuel economy.
@TRiToN219 Thx for watching 🍻
A bad start never equates to a good finish . The Twin I Beam suspension was Ford trucks calling card since the late 60s .
That’s well said. Thx for watching 🍻
The new hemi s have two plugs / cylinder
Seems more common than I thought. Thx for watching. 👍🍻
Even on the ram 2010 4.7L powertech has 2 spark plugs per cylinder
Dual spark plugs are not uncommon in the spark engine world. Some old world cars used it but these days I think it is used more for emissions. It can help prevent HP loss as opposed to other ways to meet certain emissions requirements. As you said, aircraft use them for redundancy but I think it also helps with power. The piston bore on Lycoming and Continental engines are very large. Lycoming 360 4 cyl has a 5.125" bore and 361 CI. The CI is larger than most V8 automotive engines these days. The 5.125" bore is a lot of real estate to burn the flame front across before the piston travels too far down to be as effective so in my mind the dual spark plugs probably help the combustion process. Mag drops kind of indicate this during preflight checks.
@garyradtke3252 Thx for watching & the insightful comment. 👍🍻
The hemi engines used in dragsters have had dual spark plugs for ages, along with dual magnetos to fire them.
I had a 2001 Ranger with the 2.5 in it and the timing belt was changed at 60.000 the plugs and plug wires at the same time ford must have used super glue on the plug boots had to replace them all 8 and had a sirius acceleration problem sometimes it wouldn't move and ford could never get it fixed.
Sounds like opposite experience I had with mine. Gutless but dirt simple and reliable. Thx for watching 👍🍻
Interesting. Twin plugs on several 70’s 2-stroke dirt-bikes known for hard-starting and plug-fouling. one plug would be soft and one a few-grades harder. You would start on the soft then switch the plug-cap to the hot-plug once you had tickover with the choke off. Of, course one shut-down before swapping. 😅⚡️
Never heard of that… Piston powered Aircraft have a had redundant Mags from day one pretty much. The comments are proving to be educational. Thx for watching. 👍🍻
Damn, nothing new under the sun.
images.app.goo.gl/Uzvd8UGdH3CtuYCs9
Changed plugs on a Nissan Wogon that had dual pligs in it's inline four.
Perhaps it’s more prevalent than I thought. Thx for watching 👍🍻
@@TheGibby3340 BTW old engine freak here. At first dual sparkplug engines' selling point was the redundancy. Early planes and military, emergency vehicles had them for that reason. But when engines have dual sparkplugs AND if the cylinder bore is around 4.75 inches or up AND it is newer than about 1935 (ignition was very reliable after that) - then the dual plugs are necessary for proper running. They lose power when one ignition is killed - they also run hotter and drink more fuel.
Yes they are redundant and FAA requires that - but they would have dual plugs anyway with almost 7 inch diameter combustion chamber to get going.
@patrickshaw8595 Thx & thx for watching 👍🍻
There are no degrees of uniqueness.
slant six runs forever but dog in stock form no power
Thx for watching 👍🍻
Nissan hard body's all the Chrysler hemi stuff. And a lot of Mercedes. I understand it's for better flame travel in some
👍 Thx for watching 🍻
Alfa romeo
Yeah my Pal who owned a Twin Spark sent me a couple of photos of his 156. Thx for watching 🍻