Plasma Booster

[1 BAD 03 MM]

Anyone tried this setup. Read an article said it was worth 3-5 HP through the whole RPM range. Got the info from a link. I've include the 2nd page as it requires a subscription.

http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2002/12/plasmabooster/index.shtml

Read the article, and then read this:

Testing the Plasma Booster (from page 1)

We dyno tested the car with and without the Plasma Booster. The gains aren't huge, but they are there. View the data tables.

Dyno Testing
Within days after the first track outing, we took the car to Advanced Dyno Technologies in Fairfield, CA. After strapping the Mustang to the Dynojet’s rollers, a baseline pull was made with the Plasma Booster disconnected. Max horsepower was 241.9 at 4900rpm and max torque was 283.5 at 4100rpm. The torque curve was fairly flat, breaking 260ft.lbs before 3000rpm and not dropping below it until after 5000rpm, just what a street car needs.

The ground lead was reconnected and all eight LEDS showed green for the next run. We made a pair of pulls to verify consistency. We saw HP peaks of 244.5 and 244.1, and torque peaks of 286.4 and 286.6. The graph shows a consistent gain of about 2 horsepower through the whole curve. The torque is a little more interesting. It starts as a gain of 10ft.lbs at 3000rpm, 6 at 3100 and then stays between 2 and 4 up to 5000rpm. This torque gain below 5000rpm is what the driver feels on the street, and exactly what the not-so-big 281 cubic inch mod-motor needs.

Interpreting the Results
At first glance the dyno numbers were a little disappointing. We would have liked to see a nice big 15-20 horse gain at the peak. But then we sat down and thought it through. An ignition system on a naturally aspirated car is not going to yield a large gain at a particular rpm. That is not logical. Modifications which change or move the power band (namely air flow modifications) are expected to show such large-scale changes in the curve. But with an ignition modification you would expect it to do the same thing to the motor at all rpm points - either it is producing a better burn or it isn't.

So with that said, the slight, but consistent, gains across the rpm band were a sign the Plasma Booster is doing something.

Now the question remained, is that little bit of gain enough to affect the SOP meter, and more importantly change the ET and mph. The "ignition systems don't do jack" conservative in us would have thought "no", a couple HP across the board won't yield anything at the track. But the dyno operator and other experienced class-racers in the shop immediately corrected out thinking. They actually said this type of small, but wide spread, gain is exactly the type of change which can knock of a tenth. They urged us to get back to the track, and test the car more thoroughly.

Back to the Track
Scratching our heads we decided it was necessary to try another track test, this time on slicks to try and minimize the 60 foot variable.

With a set of ET Streets bolted on, our test car, tech editor, and two drivers went back to the track, this time with rigid instructions to follow the test plan. Both drivers would make runs with and without the Plasma Booster. This time the results were more meaningful.

For the owner, the little black box was worth 0.5 mph and 1.5 tenths, going from a 13.40 at 103.1mph to 13.24 at 103.6mph. The 60 ft’s were 1.85 vs. 1.86 respectively.

Our more experienced driver hit a 13.02 at 104.3mph (1.77 60ft) without the booster. With the booster, and near identical 1.76 60ft, he managed a 12.95 at 105.49mph. Drew saw a 0.7 second and 1.2 mph improvement.

Our Conclusions
We learned a couple things from our testing. First and foremost, the importance of controlled testing. We could have stopped at the first track test, and reported a 2 mph gain. That would leave any reasonably minded reader questioning why the ET didn't improve, or why we didn't test the car without the Plamsa Booster on the same day. We're not about giving out free praises and meaningless results. So we went ahead and dynoed the car, and track tested again. The point being to deliver as objective results as possible.

The dyno results showed us something interesting; that perhaps big peak gains are not important, and that even a couple lb.ft. of torque across the entire powerband is enough to make a noticeable difference in how the car feels on the road, and performs at the track. Our follow up track testing confirmed this, as the trap speed improved, due to the Plasma Booster, to 105.49 from the previous best of 103.8.

The bottom line is that the Plasma Booster does work for the 4.6L 2V COP ignition system. Whether or not it is worthy of your $300 is for you to decide. One thing to consider is that modular motor technology is still fairly young, and that means new products will cost more than comparable pushrod parts. In a mod world $300 for a tenth reduction may actually be considered a reasonable deal. F/M


Torque (lb.ft.)
2001 Mustang GT 4.6L 2V

RPM Stock Ignition Plasma Booster Gain
3000 255.3 266.2 +10.9
3100 261.3 267.7 +6.4
3200 267.5 269.7 +2.2
3300 271.8 274.3 +2.5
3400 275.6 278 +2.4
3500 276.6 279.5 +2.9
3600 276.8 281 +4.2
3700 278 281.7 +3.7
3800 280.8 283.2 +2.4
3900 282.5 285.4 +2.9
4000 283 286.3 +3.3
4100 283.5 286.4 +2.9
4200 283.1 285.8 +2.7
4300 281 283.8 +2.8
4400 279.5 281.9 +2.4
4500 275.7 278.3 +2.6
4600 272.4 275.1 +2.7
4700 269.1 270.9 +1.8
4800 264.5 267 +2.5
4900 259.3 262.1 +2.8
5000 253.9 255.7 +1.8
5100 247.4 249.1 +1.7
5200 242 242.5 +0.5
5300 236.5 238 +1.5
5400 231.7 231.7 0
5500 225 226.1 +1.1
5600 219.6 220.2 +0.6
5700 214.9 215.1 +0.2
Horsepower
2001 Mustang GT 4.6L 2V

RPM Stock Ignition Plasma Booster Gain
3000 145.8 152.1 +6.3
3100 154.2 158 +3.8
3200 163 164.3 +1.3
3300 170.8 172.3 +1.5
3400 178.4 179.9 +1.5
3500 184.3 186.3 +2
3600 189.7 192.6 +2.9
3700 195.8 198.5 +2.7
3800 203.2 204.9 +1.7
3900 209.8 211.9 +2.1
4000 215.5 218.1 +2.6
4100 221.3 223.6 +2.3
4200 226.4 228.5 +2.1
4300 230.1 232.3 +2.2
4400 234.1 236.2 +2.1
4500 236.2 238.5 +2.3
4600 238.6 241 +2.4
4700 240.8 242.4 +1.6
4800 241.8 244 +2.2
4900 241.9 244.2 +2.3
5000 241.7 243.5 +1.8
5100 240.3 241.9 +1.6
5200 239.6 240.1 +0.5
5300 238.6 240.1 +1.5
5400 238.3 238.3 0
5500 235.6 236.8 +1.2
5600 234.1 234.7 +0.6
5700 233.3 233.5 +0.2

[Warpath]

I think its hit or miss. I've read on www.corral.net that some people saw no power increase. Also, 3-5 hp is well within the measuring error of the dyno. If you were to take the car back a different day with no other changes, you may see 3-5 hp loss. It doesn't see like its worth the money or time for only 3-5 hp. A K&N filter may give you the same gains.

[Dennis Reinhart]

I tested both types I got 0 RWHP gain but I do feel it does make a hotter spark

[SergntMac]

Just my .02c on this...

I've been to half a dozen dyno tunes this year, and I've seen this mod on a number of very impressive FMC products. I'm still not clear on how it works, or why it works, but I am impressed with who uses it and on what applications I've seen it at play. Most respectable hard driving street cars, no weenies, K?

With respect to the published dyno results, I feel they can be manipulated in these small numbers easy enough. Just for s**ts and giggles, I ran did a few dyno pulls playing with tire pressure, and produced similar before and after improvements. However, at 300 bucks, these numbers are not worth it to me. Halve that to 150, and I'd play with it as a mod.

I will say this. The man who wrote the article, knows how to read dyno reports. What he points to as important, is the real 411. These "peak" and "rear wheel" figures are okay indexes, but WHERE in your powerband you see torque, is what you should be focused on. Some of us here should be able to pick up a few tips on that, and for this reason alone, this is an important thread I hope everyone read fron to back. BTW, I'm not pointing to any individual, only suggesting we all read this, and consider a new perspective on dyno tunes.

Dennis...About a year ago, you mentioned that you were testing a new ignition system, but you later stated you didn't think it was worth it, and said no more. Is this plasma thingy that product?

[1 BAD 03 MM]

Thanks for your input guys.

[HookedOnCV]

Dennis, how would this product do with the Denso plugs and a s/c application where the spark tends to get "blown out" earlier?

You tested this on a N/A car correct? Have you had a chance to try it again on your s/c application to see if it is worth the money now? Do you still have it in your shop or did you get a demo unit from the factory? Did you look for a gas mileage increase or purely test it on the dyno?

It's funny this was brought up again. I was just starting to look at this again a couple of days ago. There does seem to be some mixed reviews. Pretty much everyone here respects your opinions about whether this would be a worthwhile mod Dennis. Maybe you could take another look at it when you have time?

[Warpath]

Originally posted by SergntMac
...I've been to half a dozen dyno tunes this year, and I've seen this mod on a number of very impressive FMC products. I'm still not clear on how it works, or why it works, but I am impressed with who uses it and on what applications I've seen it at play.

This article in 5.0 Mustang and Super Fords explains a little bit on how it works:

http://www.mustang50magazine.com/howto/138_0307_plasma/index.html

They mention a 4 hp and 0 tq increase on an NA engine. Their test on a blown engine show an increase of about 12 hp and 12 tq across most of the rpm range. As I stated earlier however, I think its hit or miss. I've hear/read more people not seeing any notable increases.


Originally posted by SergntMac
...With respect to the published dyno results, I feel they can be manipulated in these small numbers easy enough. Just for s**ts and giggles, I ran did a few dyno pulls playing with tire pressure, and produced similar before and after improvements...

A change in fluid temperatures will change hp too. Hot Rod magazine mentioned they have seen single digit hp changes with changes in diff temp. That's why I take low hp and tq changes with a grain of salt. There are too many variable impacting hp measurements to have reliable measurements of small changes IMO.