[D0ncH]

Interesting... I'll be doing plugs this spring or summer so I may give these a try

Sent from my SM-S901W using Tapatalk

 

[TOWMA8R]

Wow!
So the nkg plugs yeah?
Crazy, now I wonder if I should get a revision for them for my tunes. Hmm

Yes, ngk, what was thought an original bad thing just may have turned out to be a good learning situation, improvement so far and the log never subtracted above 1 degree, at anytime

 

[Sirikenewtron]

Yes, ngk, what was thought an original bad thing just may have turned out to be a good learning situation, improvement so far and the log never subtracted above 1 degree, at anytime

Very interesting

 

[motorhead1991]

Update,,,,,

After two revisions and logs, here we go!

Based on the logs with these plugs, it was relayed that my truck, with these plugs likes more timing and less boost... and a couple other minor tweaks we have the best looking log so far, in many ways and the best 1/4 mile 12.42

I've found that boost makes torque, timing makes HP. I'd be curious as to where my truck is currently sitting, but I want to fix the rear end noise first before putting it back on a dyno.

Fuzzy math suggests that I'm right around that 360-370 mark still though.

 

[butthead]

That is a bit of a simplified and situational description. HP and torque are heavily related with the largest difference is peak for either at what RPM.

On the plug topic I have been looking for ruthenium equivalent to NGK Iridium 6510's. Aparently the 6510's are colder than the MC Race plugs and SP542's. NGK does not carry a ruthenium equivalent, Denso and Autolite do though. Good as ruthenium sounds I will probably stay with iridium in my 2.7, they have served me quite well. KM

 

[motorhead1991]

That is a bit of a simplified and situational description. HP and torque are heavily related with the largest difference is peak for either at what RPM.

On the plug topic I have been looking for ruthenium equivalent to NGK Iridium 6510's. Aparently the 6510's are colder than the MC Race plugs and SP542's. NGK does not carry a ruthenium equivalent, Denso and Autolite do though. Good as ruthenium sounds I will probably stay with iridium in my 2.7, they have served me quite well. KM

I'm aware. The

That is a bit of a simplified and situational description. HP and torque are heavily related with the largest difference is peak for either at what RPM.

On the plug topic I have been looking for ruthenium equivalent to NGK Iridium 6510's. Aparently the 6510's are colder than the MC Race plugs and SP542's. NGK does not carry a ruthenium equivalent, Denso and Autolite do though. Good as ruthenium sounds I will probably stay with iridium in my 2.7, they have served me quite well. KM

I'm aware, but that's just what I observed on the dyno. 19psi made 460tq, but it fell off fast. Limiting it to 14psi only made 420tq but let the power creep up to 370.

 

[snakebitten]

Well, the ruthenium high has been a bit of a minor roller coaster.
I was fixing to run down and grab a set and throw them in a low mileage 3.5 Ecoboost just because....... Well, they are the wickedest Ecoboost plug ever.

And then I procrastinated a couple of days and I'm not so sure what I'll be replacing the SP-596 with?

I think I still have a set of SP 542's somewhere for the next refresh of my 2018 tuned Ecoboost. But I don't even know if that's the choice dejur for the OEM Strategy Powerboost?
I've not ever even logged a WOT run with the truck, but I know it's like butter and no KR issues or difficulty holding full boost at sea level.

Still, I got a suspicion there's a possibility of a better plug than the OEM MC.

 

[butthead]

It a lot easier for the small turbos to maintain 14 psi that try to keep up with 19. Because RPM is a multiplying factor in the conversion more air will allow feeding higher RPM and produce more power. If that's the goal, personally I prefer the snappy low end response. That's the fun thing with these trucks, the amount of thing that can be done with them! KM

 

[snakebitten]

When I look at the tattle tale on the Boost gauge it's ~18
It's a PID though.
I have no clue how accurate it actually is.

 

[GearHead_1]

Well, the ruthenium high has been a bit of a minor roller coaster.
I was fixing to run down and grab a set and throw them in a low mileage 3.5 Ecoboost just because....... Well, they are the wickedest Ecoboost plug ever.

And then I procrastinated a couple of days and I'm not so sure what I'll be replacing the SP-596 with?

I think I still have a set of SP 542's somewhere for the next refresh of my 2018 tuned Ecoboost. But I don't even know if that's the choice dejur for the OEM Strategy Powerboost?
I've not ever even logged a WOT run with the truck, but I know it's like butter and no KR issues or difficulty holding full boost at sea level.

Still, I got a suspicion there's a possibility of a better plug than the OEM MC.

Looking forward to your updates on the Ruthenium's. 🙂

Only makes sense that the Pioneer leads the way.

 

[snakebitten]

Flattering, but I'm more comfortable following at least one or two bleeding edge fellas before stepping into the uncharted.

Trying to remember what the oem plug is for the Gen2?
Did Ford use the SP-596 back then?
And if not, I'm curious what the difference between the 2 plugs are.

 

[snakebitten]

Just looking around and noticed the SP594 was suggested as the latest Iridium to substitute for the previous SP542 and the GT performance plug.

But the SP596 is the current factory supplied plug for the 3.5 Ecoboost.

I don't know enough about heat ranges and such, but does anyone know the difference between an SP594 and an SP596

TLtech states both are recommended to be gapped at .28

 

[SrpRacing]

Just looking around and noticed the SP594 was suggested as the latest Iridium to substitute for the previous SP542 and the GT performance plug.

But the SP596 is the current factory supplied plug for the 3.5 Ecoboost.

I don't know enough about heat ranges and such, but does anyone know the difference between an SP594 and an SP596

TLtech states both are recommended to be gapped at .28

Ford eCAT shows SP596 for the 21-24 Ecoboost/Powerboost. I’ll have to look at the specs but I believe they are hotter than SP594. OR they can simply be the same plug with a slightly different base. Due to recent engine changes ( EGR/hybrid system) they may call for a different plug.

A lot of the Ford-Parts websites seem to be down.

 

[snakebitten]

Thank you.

 

[TOWMA8R]

Just looking around and noticed the SP594 was suggested as the latest Iridium to substitute for the previous SP542 and the GT performance plug.

But the SP596 is the current factory supplied plug for the 3.5 Ecoboost.

I don't know enough about heat ranges and such, but does anyone know the difference between an SP594 and an SP596

TLtech states both are recommended to be gapped at .28

Man, I wish I would have found this before I put the last set of GT plugs in, that failed........ The NGK are in for the foreseeable future, or a few 1000s miles,,,

 

[TOWMA8R]

Update,,,,,

After two revisions and logs, here we go!

Based on the logs with these plugs, it was relayed that my truck, with these plugs likes more timing and less boost... and a couple other minor tweaks we have the best looking log so far, in many ways and the best 1/4 mile 12.42

Ok we all remember the plug swap tot he NGK and the logs,,,,, well last night I went back and studied the last couple logs with the GT plugs after I swapped them in and they failed, then with the log from yesterday and I can say, the logs look better,,,,, the knock, although great, is more stabilized if that makes sense,,,,

I will see what BK says about the log, because the last log he got before the one I sent yesterday was with the GT plugs, same rev but with the NGk,,,,,

 

[snakebitten]

No worries, I suspect.

I bet the NGK and the current recommended SPxxx will both perform when they are fresh and carefully installed.

But I've always felt the 3.5 Ecoboost is a hostile combustion chamber for a spark plug. Especially when tuned like yours is. You just never know if you are going to get 50,000 miles out of them, or if one of them is going to be injured in short time.

I accept that they can be fragile. Whether in manufacturing, shipping, handling during installation, or less than perfect operating environment. (coil & boot condition)

 

[TOWMA8R]

No worries, I suspect.

I bet the NGK and the current recommended SPxxx will both perform when they are fresh and carefully installed.

But I've always felt the 3.5 Ecoboost is a hostile combustion chamber for a spark plug. Especially when tuned like yours is. You just never know if you are going to get 50,000 miles out of them, or if one of them is going to be injured in short time.

I accept that they can be fragile. Whether in manufacturing, shipping, handling during installation, or less than perfect operating environment. (coil & boot condition)

So, what are you saying, too many variables before they even get put in.....Always the voice of reason,,,,,, With that said, under the harsh combustion and tuned environment, maybe the NGK will hold up better,,,,, time will be the answer cause all the Motorcraft plugs always developed notable idle bump after a few 1000 miles.......

 

[snakebitten]

But aren't they all NGK?

Or, are NGKs more NGK than SPs are NGK? Lol

These days we sadly have to wonder if the NGK (Motorcraft) we are holding in our hand is actually an NGK! (counterfeit)

 

[GearHead_1]

Enjoying following this thread.