[PSIG]

It is also a good idea to pull VR- to +5V if you plan to give the VR+ a 12V Hall signal.

Chris - thanks for ongoing improvements! I have not looked at your updates, but if there are no solder points or solder jumpers for Hall pullup on both crank and cam, please put it on the wish list to add them when possible.

Not looking to make work, but it's about time a uC pin provided this simple pullup option for Speeduino through TunerStudio, without opening the case. Would you consider making BL and Gewitterbox the first? Without a TS click option, it could still be done with AuxOut for now. In any case, the pullup resistor option is needed. Just thinking out-loud here...

[edce]

In your drawing you use A03400A for the fan switching. Can I use the same circuit for the switching of my dumb coil (1,5 Ohm).

Nope. This will not work and is far beyond the AO3400A can handle

Yes, I knew max ccurrent for A03400 is 5,7 A. But I meant : can I use the same schematic if i would use a IGBT (eg IRFR3410) with at least capability to switch 20 A ?

[chaoschris]

whats the reason you want to stick with the dumb coil?
There are plenty of alternatives out there and they are mostly cheap and working.

[edce]

whats the reason you want to stick with the dumb coil?
There are plenty of alternatives out there and they are mostly cheap and working.

In my application the lower part of the cop has to be bendable over 45°, this because space is limited. The dumb cops I have are very flexible. It is enough that the internal spring connects to the top of the sparkplug. The rubber outside does not need to be straight. Maybe I can find smart cops too which are flexible. Its hard to see on the internet pictures how flexible they are.

[PSIG]

My perspectives on the CoPs are that originals are often much better quality than cheap clones. Adding an inline coil driver is no big deal and does not force replacement of the entire coil if a component fails. While there are several more compromises in using CoPs; another one for me is that CoPs are rarely equal or higher performance than traditional packs or CNP, resulting in reduced-energy spark or using more amps to make an equivalent spark. There are exceptions, but quite expensive usually. Is it a big deal? No, if they are 'good enough' for the job. That judgment is up to you or requirements.

While everyone is free to use anything they like, my general rule-of-thumb is to avoid CoP when not required or an advantage for a specific reason. I am not anti-CoP, and use the components that fit the application best, when I can. "They look cool" is a valid reason for some projects, but I tend to be a more function-over-form person. This might help explain why I don't make CoPs the first suggested suitable option. Every choice is a compromise. That's me. Do your thing.

[Rednaxs60]

whats the reason you want to stick with the dumb coil?
There are plenty of alternatives out there and they are mostly cheap and working.

In my application the lower part of the cop has to be bendable over 45°, this because space is limited. The dumb cops I have are very flexible. It is enough that the internal spring connects to the top of the sparkplug. The rubber outside does not need to be straight. Maybe I can find smart cops too which are flexible. Its hard to see on the internet pictures how flexible they are.

I am using aftermarket COPs for my project, '85 GW CFI upgrade. Space is an issue no matter what I do. I took the COP units apart, removed the spring and replaced this with a standard spark plug wire with a high temperature spade connector. Can make the plug wire any length. Have two COP units fitted just above the spark plug and two that are off to the side like a CNP install. Had to modify the coil case as well. Picture of the change in COP:

COP Mod
Coil On Plug -5.JPG (90.56 KiB) Viewed 2349 times

I do not use the original plastic cover.

I am looking for a used set of LS1 type coils for a CNP install, but these aftermarket COP units are working well.

[edce]

AD : Rednaxs60 ;
Your solution seems rather drastic but OK. I guess a lot of solutions have to be found for applications in a confined space. Do you use the Blitzbox as ECU ? In that case which schematic (circuit) do you have between the ECU and the dumb cop ? Do you have a drawing, component layaout etc , picture ?

[Rednaxs60]

Don't use the Blitzbox. Started with the Speeduino v0.4.4 interface board with the Arduino 2560. Have since changed to a Spark Gap X4 by openlogicefi.com using the Arduino Mega Pro. Wanted a bench test ECU - the Speeduino v0.4.4 is it. Have sequential fuel and ignition so needed a 4 channel board. Use the Bosch 211 4-channel coil driver. I agree that there are options when deciding on smart or dumb coils. Schematic attached:

Spark Gap X4 Schematic - 29 Oct 2024.jpg (93.71 KiB) Viewed 2255 times

I have followed the Blitzbox and other forum ECUs for some time. The Blitzbox has all the attributes necessary for a good basic install, like the dedicated pin for the fuel pump relay - this is a bonus. Good board for a wasted spark, and paired or semi-sequential injector setup, and is great for small spaces. I hope the development of this ECU continues.

Cheers

[edce]

Thanks Ernest,
Good help.

[edce]

In your drawing you use A03400A for the fan switching. Can I use the same circuit for the switching of my dumb coil (1,5 Ohm).

Nope. This will not work and is far beyond the AO3400A can handle

Chris,
Going around all info I could gather on this forum, I come to the following : using smart cop (3 or 4 pin versions) directly on the Blitzbox is well feasable. On top of that Ernst showed that the cop can be shortened quite a bit so that space shortness does not to be an issue. Also pricewise this seem to be rather positive. The Spark Gap X4 schematics show a solution for an external MAP sensor. I can place this, when mounted on a small pcb, close to the carb.