The correct way to power an HEI - Page 2 - JeepForum.com
Search  
Sign Up   Today's Posts
User: Pass: Remember?
Advertise Here
Jeep Home Jeep Forum Jeep Classifieds Jeep Registry JeepSpace Jeep Reviews Jeep Gallery Jeep Clubs Jeep Groups Jeep Videos Jeep Events Jeep Articles
Go Back JeepForum.com > Models > Jeep CJ Forum > The correct way to power an HEI

Dana 30/ Dana 44 Chromoly shaft Kits- ECGSFS: 2007-2013 Jeep Wrangler "HALO" Angel Eye KitFlowmaster's Force II Axle-back exhaust system for the 201

Reply
Unread 01-21-2012, 01:01 PM   #16
swatson454
Mall-crawlin' Hot Rodder
 
swatson454's Avatar
1983 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dripping Springs, TX (soon)
Posts: 4,729
Quote:
Originally Posted by I6CJ7 View Post
Is there a place that can curve dizzys like DUI? Some place I could send mine?
I'm not real sure off hand. If you plotted your centrifugal curve, we could take a look at it.

I'm just curious about the before/after results because a lot of the big guys are getting away from the CDI stuff and going back to inductive spark because they're having more luck with a single, long-duration spark than multiple, short sparks.

I'm just curious.


Shawn

__________________
Live in a way that those who know you but don't know God will come to know God because they know you.
swatson454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-21-2012, 02:07 PM   #17
JeepHammer
Running On Empty...
1973 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South West Indiana
Posts: 9,952
Not that I know of.
You would need a base line for them to tune to, even if you could find a shop that has a distributor machine anymore, most do since there are so few cars that use distributors now days.

I would stay with the simple HEI relay and run that a while.
Once you get the distributor tuned, it should be fine.

Unless you have a problem with emissions (un-burned fuel) hard starts in cold weather, ect.
I would stick with the HEI on a 6 cylinder if it's not a daily driver or 'Rough Service' vehicle.
When you drive it daily, the cost of the CDI will come back in short order in fuel savings,
And if you have a 'Rough Service' vehicle, you probably need all the power you can wring out of that little 6 banger...
JeepHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-21-2012, 02:21 PM   #18
JeepHammer
Running On Empty...
1973 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South West Indiana
Posts: 9,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by swatson454 View Post
I'm not real sure off hand. If you plotted your centrifugal curve, we could take a look at it.

I'm just curious about the before/after results because a lot of the big guys are getting away from the CDI stuff and going back to inductive spark because they're having more luck with a single, long-duration spark than multiple, short sparks.
Can't imagine why they would think that the CDI sparks were 'Short Duration'?
Any idea where that comes from?

I've watched the spark cycle on an oscilloscope for time duration more times than I can count, and the CDI duration is usually 6 each sparks of LONGER duration than the average factory type single spark ignition can muster.
Keeping that spark kernel going in the chamber until it becomes a flame front is a big deal, especially at slow crank speeds, and a CDI is the way to get that done without anything really exotic (and expensive) going on...

When the crank speed prohibits the 6 full sparks, you get one REALLY LONG duration, roughly twice as long, as the average 12 volt ignition can muster, with about 4 times the amperage as a factory style single spark ignition.

The spark duration is almost too long if you get much past 7,000 RPM, which we are NEVER going to do with an average Jeep engine.

There are a LOT of misconceptions out there about CDI modules,
Guys fight them tooth and nail since they simply don't understand them...
It's their hardware, so it's up to them what they *Think* works better for them, so who am I to complain...

I was just wondering where this is coming from since I haven't seen or heard about it around here yet, but if they are doing/writing about it, I'm sure it will make it's way here to my little sheltered corner of the world sooner or later...
JeepHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-21-2012, 03:57 PM   #19
I6CJ7
Registered User
1984 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 860
Well, my CJ7 is my DD, 90% of the time, except when its down for repairs or upgrades the other 10% I drive my blazer when its really bad weather or when they start salting the roads... I don't want rust, and don't want any moron crashing into me.

Ill do some research on the CDI and what people are saying, for simplicity and cheapness the relay would be the way to go, but im always lookin for cool new things to squeeze more power outta the 258.

Right now I'm gettin about 17-18 mpg with
headers, short 2.5" exhaust, 3.54 gears, 33" tires and the old sm465. Not bad in my opinion, and thanks to the guys on here ive tuned my carb and am running much less rich at idle and should see better mileage, although I need a rebuild as its seeping fuel everywhere...
I6CJ7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-22-2012, 08:26 AM   #20
swatson454
Mall-crawlin' Hot Rodder
 
swatson454's Avatar
1983 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dripping Springs, TX (soon)
Posts: 4,729
I went back and re-read some ignition material from David Vizard hoping to find anything regarding this CDI vs inductive topic but he didn't touch on it. In fact, he didn't even cover ignitions at his lecture last year. I know he likes MSD and he fully endorses Performance Distributors and has been using the D.U.I. in his engine builds for over 10 years.

The discussion started off with a mention of cryo-treated spark plugs being any better than regular plugs. Most of the guys had the opinion of "you can't really fix what isn't broken", which David Vizard agrees with, but it depends on the application. The guys discussing the CDIs are running massive boost, high rpm, nitro, multiple coils, individual cylinder afr tuning, etc and hold several current records at the Bonneville Salt Flats. That's not quite an apples to apples comparison to an ineffecient, old Jeep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselgeek
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioning the *accuracy* of spark timing. Most people here are using low resolution, one-signal-per-spark-event. Notice that the OEMs are using trigger wheels with as few as 10 degrees, 6 degrees, even 1 degree *per trigger event* - this provides far greater accuracy in spark timing than the old standard 1-event-per-90-degrees stuff that most racers use. THAT is worth power, and we've shown that on the dyno. It's not magic parts in an MSD< it's not Cryo treating a spark plug - the only thing that matters is that you have a spark that meets minimum quality/quantity, and that it's timed as accurately as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Redszus
Very hard to disagree. The shape of the ignition advance curve is a major mapping concern.
Of similar importance is the spark duration which is where CD systems fail badly. In fact, Bosch no longer makes CD ignitions due to their very short spark duration period. Ford once made a hybrid ignition system that combined the ability of CD to fire large gaps and the ability of coil induction to maintain longer duration. It take more kV to jump a pressurized gap than it takes to maintain the spark thread. But Ford concluded such a system was unncecessary. Too bad, would have made a great racing ignition if properly mapped.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselgeek
These days I *always* use inductive ignition, I have had very poor luck using CDI ignitions on high boost forced induction engines. I was able to find coils from MSD that would handle 40psi+, but they'd overheat in street driving and shut down. Once I went back to individual coils and inductive ignition, problems solved.
They went on discussing controlling the dwell time of the coils with the computer for different combinations of rpm, manifold pressure, throttle position etc.

Again, I just thought it was interesting.


Shawn
__________________
Live in a way that those who know you but don't know God will come to know God because they know you.
swatson454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-22-2012, 09:20 AM   #21
swatson454
Mall-crawlin' Hot Rodder
 
swatson454's Avatar
1983 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dripping Springs, TX (soon)
Posts: 4,729
I just found a few more...

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnym17
This is a tuffy. But I am thinking the longer duration spark of the inductive system is getting the fuel lit whereas the cd system isn't for some reason.I have had occasion where when running with no alt and an hei and the mix was a little lean putting on an alt .made the miss disapear showing to me it takes higher ignition output to fire a lean mix.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadBill
...I deduced that the ultra-short duration CD spark wasn't 'finding' the loosely-packed part throttle fuel and oxygen molecules..
Quote:
Originally Posted by W. Tripp
Maybe on the typical CDI setup, but plenty of inductive coils, coil per plug & wasted spark packs, one can control the dwell and pass as much energy as the coil and transistors can handle. It's said that the better ones can indeed kill you.
Very true. Not many realize just how strong a good inductive system can be. And that there are times when inductive systems can better match your requirements than a good CDI system due to the longer spark duration.
However, it is difficult to exceed much more than 100 mj of energy with most inductive systems (still good enough for as much as 250 hp per cylinder) before you become limited by dwell and component life, whereas CDI systems regularly produce 150-175 mj, 250 mj, or considerably more. Well more than enough to be lethal. The questions become just how much spark energy is needed, and when does "too much" become an issue for component life or engine speed?[/quote]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dieselgeek
just my opinion, but I observe the exact same thing in practical applications. I firmly believe that this is because inductive sparks, while lower "millijoules" last LONGER. I think that's more important to a reliable spark than "super high millijoules for a fraction of the time necessary"
My understanding is, MSD "multi spark discharge" exists because engines don't like to idle on super short spark duration. It's not a feature or benefit, it's there so you don't end up thinking you got screwed on your purchase because an engine won't idle. I like a lot of MSD products, but I think the whole "millijoules" thing is more marketing hype than anything else.
What works, simply works, and thats it.

I don't know the first guy but "MadBill" and "W. Tripp" know their way around a race car. I copied these because they weren't boosted salt-flat cars, although still definitely not an old Jeep

It looks like I got carried away. Sorry 'bout that.
__________________
Live in a way that those who know you but don't know God will come to know God because they know you.
swatson454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-22-2012, 09:36 AM   #22
JeepHammer
Running On Empty...
1973 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South West Indiana
Posts: 9,952
It's food for thought...

At BDS (Blower Drive Service) we did a LOT of dyno testing, and they beat the crap out of me on ignition work.
One thing that became immediately apparent with a forced induction was timing. I agree with that part.
Some of the 'Lesser' triggers would trigger cylinders with 6, even sometimes 8 degrees of crank variance when they were stressed (high RPM).

The HEI style trigger does a VERY good job with accuracy at low RPM, which is why I don't prang on it too bad.
The biggest problem I have with HEI trigger is the magnetic field.
That soggy, vinyl 'Refrigerator' magnet they use doesn't produce a strong enough field for the zero pulse when reluctor aligns.

With that soggy field, when it gets to higher RPM, you start getting 'No Trigger Events',
Not an issue with low RPM Jeep engines, why I don't prang on them too much.

What I do prang on is the Vinyl material the magnet is made of...
When it dries out and cracks, you wind up with FOUR MAGNETIC POLES instead of two poles, and you get two more poles for each crack that develops.
Each time that refrigerator magnet cracks, you wind up reducing the overall magnetic field by 50% with each crack, and the 'Failure To Trigger' increases by 50% for each crack.

A resistance test of the winding doesn't show the reduction of trigger pulse, so even if you do the proper test procedures, you won't find the issue.

-----------------------

Since this information is pretty obscure,
And every engine builder keeps any new 'Finds' close to the vest for an 'Edge' when racing for big bucks,
Anything we get out here at the tail end of the pipeline is years old, after people swap shops, take the 'Secrets' from one shop to the next,
Then it migrates out into general information before we find out about it.

So we have to figure we are on the back end of things...
I don't hang around with anyone on the cutting edge anymore, and all the work I did in previous years is pretty much common knowledge now, but was closely guarded secrets back then...

I know there were some 'Knock Offs' of MSD stuff that DID NOT have a long duration spark.
The MSD circuitry was under patent, and MSD guarded their patents JEALOUSLY...
Screwing with MSD was a SURE WAY to wind up with more lawyers in your shop than workers!

I'm wondering if the stuff you are seeing now was from 10 or 15 years ago...
Since MSD's patents have run out on their early stuff, and EVERYONE is putting out an identical copy of the most common 6 series modules, if that duration problem is still out there?
I didn't see it when I took on some of the Summit CDI modules here, they were nearly identical output to the MSD modules, and when I got a change to gut one,
The circuitry was an identical copy of the older MSD 6 series module, just everything marked with Chinese alphabet instead of English.

---------------------

Anyway, about the BEST you can hope for with a battery voltage ignition is around 1,000 Micro Seconds when the coil has time to fully saturate.
Amperage SUCKS. Just can't get a good amperage discharge with a battery voltage ignition...
Barely get tingled when you get a grip on a live wire, just enough to make you put it down.

(and yes, I still use MICRO (Micro = Ás) instead of MILLI- Industry standards... Can't help it, I'm an old dog so give me a break...)

So, if you get 1,000 Ás, and that includes IONIZATION TIME in the gap when there is no spark ('Rise Time' in industry speak),
You usually wind up with a spark lasting around 100 to 120 Ás, or 100 to 120 MILLIONTH of a second.

Amperage is even worse,
Factory coils produce about 65 to 85 mA on the average spark discharge...
Mostly due to low saturation times,

And the numbers only get worse as RPM increases and saturation times drop...

Add in resistance, capacitance losses in the plug wires, ect. and at the plugs you get what is shown above.
Use way too long of plug wires, bundle the plug wires together, run them on top of valve covers, in metal wiring looms, along the engine blocks, ect.
And the numbers can HALVE at the plugs...

I know these guys THINK I'm blowing smoke,
But it's a big deal when you don't make a good spark energy to start with,
Then loose HALF or more on the way to the plug!
JeepHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-22-2012, 09:44 AM   #23
swatson454
Mall-crawlin' Hot Rodder
 
swatson454's Avatar
1983 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Dripping Springs, TX (soon)
Posts: 4,729
No, this is all current stuff. I don't know if advancements in engine power have uncovered shortcomings in CDI or advancements in circuitry have made inductive stuff better than it was or what.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I just found the discussion interesting.


Shawn
__________________
Live in a way that those who know you but don't know God will come to know God because they know you.
swatson454 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-22-2012, 10:08 AM   #24
I6CJ7
Registered User
1984 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 860
From what I was also reading lastnight, seems like the long duration powerful spark from the HEI is better than the thin extremely fast multiple spark of the CDI for our applications at least.

And my clone HEI is using what looks like aluminum terminals for the plugs wires... instead of some quality brass terminals! And I've had to clean up the terminals under the cap a few times as they get some kind of galvanic corrosion on them?
I6CJ7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-22-2012, 11:09 AM   #25
JeepHammer
Running On Empty...
1973 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South West Indiana
Posts: 9,952
I have to go with Somkey Yunick on this one.

If what you have is working for you, then there is no reason to screw a 'Black Box' to the firewall and swap everything you have out.

With ignitions, it's a 'GO/NO GO' situation.
Either it works for you or it doesn't...
And if it doesn't, it's time for a change.

I recommend what WORKS BEST FOR THE MONEY...
If you have a breaker points or Prestolite, it's money well spent to upgrade to a RELIABLE, but mostly stock type ignition, especially when you are running a 6 cylinder...

HEI is FINE for replacing breaker points or Prestolite in a 6 cylinder engine.
It's reliable, it's cost effective, it's durable,
It has flaws, but everything does.
The flaws of the HEI aren't as big as the flaws in breaker points or Prestolite.

If you have a V-8, there are more cylinders, so you need a little help in the ignition department,
Mostly because the ignition cycle in a V-8 has to fire more often, and at higher RPM...
People turn their V-8 engines at higher RPM, that uncovers issues with coil saturation and discharge times...

So usually I recommend the stronger trigger signal Jeep/Motorcraft distributor since it throws a stronger trigger signal,
The cap/rotor/reasonable plug wires cost you NOTHING EXTRA over a standard 'Tune Up',
And it will trigger any of the common modules we use.
The cost and safety of the distributor it's self is a big selling point,
We are talking $50 here, REALLY CHEAP!

-------------------------

I DO NOT recommend you spend $2,000 on a coil on plug ignition since you don't have the port fuel injection to optimize that particular ignition,
And you will throw a rod out of the block before you ever get into an RPM range where you NEED that particular type of ignition...

Since we are NOT running 13:1 compression,
WE are NOT running super lean fuel mixture in high powered racing engines,
There isn't any need for Super Accurate trigger this or that, since the slop in the timing chain is going to mess up the crank/cam/distributor timing anyway...

We have what we have...
If someone wants to put an LS1 into a Jeep, that's fine with me and we'll talk about all that other stuff...
But for these stock engines,
the BEST thing we an do is...

1. Get a cap, rotor, plug wires on the vehicle that will control the spark energy you make.
This is first and foremost.
The small cap/short rotor were inadequate for where spark energies were with breaker points,
And they are TOTALLY INADEQUATE for the more powerful electronic ignitions.
Plug wires in particular are light years ahead of the ones the factory used,
So if you can keep from loosing 50% to 100% of your spark energy to the cap/plug wires,
DO IT.

2. Produce more spark energy since you can control it and it costs nothing in most cases.
This usually means opening up the plug gap, or a coil change.
Both are cheap and effective.

3. Get away from breaker points or Prestolite so you can have a REASONABLY RELIABLE ignition.
You can't upgrade a Prestolite, and they are getting quite expensive to maintain.
It would take another post this size to list all the problems with breaker points, so I'm not going there right now...

-----------------------------------------------

Wonder what the guys you have been quoting are working on?
Doesn't seem they have a grip on a low speed, over rich, tractor engine.
This isn't exactly cutting edge stuff we are working on!
JeepHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-22-2012, 11:24 AM   #26
JeepHammer
Running On Empty...
1973 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South West Indiana
Posts: 9,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by swatson454 View Post
No, this is all current stuff. I don't know if advancements in engine power have uncovered shortcomings in CDI or advancements in circuitry have made inductive stuff better than it was or what.

I don't have a dog in the fight, I just found the discussion interesting.


Shawn
There is ABSOLUTELY NO QUESTION that coil on plug is a very good idea.
It was a good idea when Porsche did it back in the late 60's early 70's,
but the electronics were NOT reliable enough or accurate enough to make it viable in daily drivers.
The system was POWERFUL, no question,
but it was also VERY trouble prone, took constant maintenance, and the plugs of the day wouldn't keep up...

We've tried all kinds of stupid stuff down through the years,
4 sets of breaker point on Siamese coils,
8 sets of breaker points on 8 coils,
8 electronic triggers/modules on 8 coils...
(digital control wasn't around back then...)

What I mostly found out was the slop in the timing chain ruined any gains.

Add in some really LOUSY 70's & 80's machine work on blocks & cranks,
Where the crank throws didn't come up to TDC on all cylinders at the correct crank angle,
And all that combines to pretty much screw up anything you might try to be doing with the ignition...

So having a set of cylinders 3 to 6 degrees off on the crankshaft screwed up even crankshaft triggers...

Things are MUCH better now with CNC machining instead of some hungover guy using worn out holes in an indexing head to locate the crank journals when grinding the crank!

Lets face it,
We have different length and different volume intake runners,
We have #5 in full intake velocity when #7 starts to draw, so #7 gets starved,
We have fuel introduced at the beginning of the intake tract, so fuel gets to settle out along the way,
We have low pressure fuel introduction, and actual "Suction" system putting fuel in the system, so we are a LONG WAY from proper atomization...
We have sloppy timing chains, lash in the camshaft/distributor gear sets,
We have vacuum issues...

Now, if we were using equal length & volume intake runners with mass air flow sensors, so we not only know what VOLUME of air is entering, but the DENSITY (oxygen content) as well...
We were injecting that fuel right at the intake port,
We had high pressure injectors for proper atomization,
We had precise control of the fuel entering the air stream, Resulting in the same fuel/air mixture in every cylinder...
We had combustion chambers that had 30 or 40 years more design refinement,
And we were running MUCH higher compression with much LEANER fuel mixtures,
I think a coil on plug ignition system would be worth the money...

We don't, so we work with what we have...
Hopefully, cost effectively since none of us have a $50,000 engine budget...

Quote:
Originally Posted by I6CJ7 View Post
From what I was also reading lastnight, seems like the long duration powerful spark from the HEI is better than the thin extremely fast multiple spark of the CDI for our applications at least.

And my clone HEI is using what looks like aluminum terminals for the plugs wires... instead of some quality brass terminals! And I've had to clean up the terminals under the cap a few times as they get some kind of galvanic corrosion on them?
First off,
Did your research uncover the ratio of decline vs. RPM/saturation times with the HEI?
You are getting less than half the spark energy at 2,000 RPM you were getting at idle due to shorted saturation times as RPM rises,
And with an HEI clone with plug gaps opened up to 0.050" or 0.055" like most of them recommend,
You are wasting most of the spark energy discharge in 'Rise Time' building voltage,
And wasting time building high voltage numbers WASTES amperage & duration times.

Those guy ALWAYS quote the highest outputs,
They NEVER actually give you the spark discharge data in full as RPM increases.
The HEI drops off faster than most of the 'Factory' electronic ignitions, simply because of coil size restrictions.

In 1974, it was a big jump in spark energy over breaker points,
But compared to modern single spark discharge ignitions from the past 10 years, it's a mutt.

-----------

Not a galvanic response causing that 'Corrosion'.
Aluminum is a pretty good electrical conductor when it's clean and shiny, and isn't exposed to an arc.

Aluminum is porous, so the spark discharge 'Tunnels' into the porous aluminum terminal,
Burning that aluminum into aluminum oxide (Oxidized Aluminum) as it does.

Aluminum oxide is NOT considered a conductor for our purposes.
Aluminum IS, however, cheap and easy to work with, works pretty good for a short period of time.

BRASS does NOT tunnel, it also doesn't oxidize nearly as quickly.
When brass overheats, it 'Heals' as it cools, instead of oxidizing.

Brass is more expansive and harder to work with since it's more dense, so the cap makers don't like to use it as much...
JeepHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-22-2012, 12:01 PM   #27
JeepHammer
Running On Empty...
1973 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: South West Indiana
Posts: 9,952
Not that it's relevant to this thread,
But if CDI modules, MSD in particular, were so inefficient, why such large horse power increases are made when using one on a distributor/single ignition coil engine?

Every NASCAR is a prime example.
They are limited to a single coil/distributor for ignition, and EVERY SINGLE TEAM runs a CDI of some kind...
They are also limited to ANALOG, which directly applies to us Jeep guys...

Since those guys have virtually unlimited budges, the very best of dyno & testing facilities,
I'm wondering why they haven't jumped on the 'Single Spark' band wagon if it's so much more powerful?

A couple of things come to mind,
RULES might be prohibiting the switch.
They still aren't allowed to use 'Digital Engine Management', which you can't run a more effective ignition without...

The second guess would be the single coil restriction,
The guys are allowed to use a back up ignition, but only one coil at a time.
They aren't even allowed to use an automatic switch over...
The driver has to flip the switch, they can't use sensors to switch ignitions if something detects a fault.

Since they have to use distributors & single coils (like we do) they are all still using CDI units to power up that coil...

'Street' builders, with no limitations, can use anything they want, so it would make sense they would be getting more power from their engines,
No carb limitations, no ignition limitations, fuel injection would make a HUGE difference...

Anyway, just wondering out loud...
JeepHammer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-23-2012, 05:00 PM   #28
I6CJ7
Registered User
1984 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 860
From what ive gathered reading all over, looks like CDI has its place... but it really only makes it "power claims" at super high rpm. Like NASCAR, I can see how it would benefit them, and I can see it benefitting ATV's, motorcycles and dirtbikes, as they don't have distributors and all of them have high revving engines...google what a new CRF250r revs to

But given what Rpms our tractor engines run at... there's no HP increase and the CDI's can even hurt performance, over the nice long duration fat HEI spark.
Id love to see a side by side dyno of a mild 258 with HEI vs. CDI.
I6CJ7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-06-2013, 08:01 PM   #29
Galt
Registered User
1983 CJ7 
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: , La Plata, Maryland
Posts: 699
Bump, so I can find and read later...
__________________
A=A
1983 CJ7 304 V8
1985 CJ7 258 I6
1993 RX7 1.3L Rotary/ GT40R turbo/484 rwhp
2002 F-150 Lariat 5.4L V8
2007 GMC Yukon Denali 6.2L V8
Galt is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-07-2013, 03:09 AM   #30
imafishingfred
Member
 
imafishingfred's Avatar
1981 CJ7 
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Perry, Georgia
Posts: 357
Quote:
Originally Posted by Galt View Post
Bump, so I can find and read later...
Very good info here. It helped me out last year with my son's HEI install.
Should be a STICKY don't you think?
imafishingfred is offline   Reply With Quote




Jeep, Wrangler, Cherokee, Grand Cherokee, and other models are copyrighted and trademarked to Jeep/Chrysler Corporation. JeepForum.com is not in any way associated with Jeep or the Chrysler Corp.