Talk:Alfa Romeo Twin Spark engine

Other Applications section

Does anyone else here think this section is unnecessary? The idea of using 2 spark plugs per cylinder, dates back before the Alfa Twin Cam racing engines of the 1960's to earlier racing engines and aircraft engines. Should we add every twin spark plug aircraft engine [1][2][3] to this section of the page, or should this page only cover Alfa Romeo twin spark engines? --Xagent86 (Talk | contribs) 12:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I think there should be different page to twin spark technology? and keep this page only for Alfa engine Typ932 08:26, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Did the other twin spark engines fire the plugs asynchronously? PiP 22:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

 Dear sir
In the early 1970s i made a device to enable a single spark plug to fire more than once on the 

same firing stroke by using a simple multi-vibrator system and i conected it up to my old 64 Vauxhall Victor and it worked a treat but it meant it had to fire when the points were closed instead of the conventional method (ie)when the points are open ) it improved the power and the fuel consumpsion so i went across the road to a firm called SGS Fairchild in Falkirk and i spoke to a gent about my idear and that was the last time i ever heard anything about it but a few years later the Alfa car company brought out the twin spark ign system

                Jack Tanner

I call BS on that ^^^. 1. Firing the spark plug where the fuel air mix has already burned is not the best idea in the world. 2. If you can show me a way of getting mega voltage out of an inductor when you're building up a field instead of collapsing it... PiP 04:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Other Applications

The 4 cylinder T series Toyota engine utilized Alfa Romeo's Twin spark design for its World Rally Championship engine, the 4t-gte. It was also applied in the consumer version of that engine, the 3t-gte, and is a relatively sought after design in semi-classic Toyota tuning circles.

The 1.9 litre 6 cylinder inline Porsche engine set in the racing-only 911R (of which twenty were produced) utilized the twin spark design in a souped up engine from the 911T. Production ran from 1967 to 1969 and the change to twin spark helped boost the engine's output from 130hp to 210.

The 911R was neither an inline construction nor did it have 1.9 litres. The 911R engine was a six-cylinder boxer engine like every other air-.cooled 911 engine and it did have 2.5 litres of capacity and ~250 bhp with a (very loud) sports exhaust system. Twinned spark plugs were quite largely used on fadst 911 engines, even in series production on the 964 and 993 series of the air cooled 911. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.178.124.48 (talk) 20:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

firing modes 8V and 16 V

As the method of igniting the mixture is correctly described for the 8V variants of that engine, the given description for the Fiat-derived 16V TS is simply wrong in stating that both spark plugs would fire on the compression as well as on the exhaust stroke. This is quite frankly not true. The large (centrally mounted) spark plug in each cylinder fires before TDC on the compression stroke as usual and only then and only once per combustion cycle. As the ignition coils are double-ended and the spark plugs twinned by connecting two plugs to one coil (cylinder 1 large plug and cylinder 4 small plug, cylinder 2 large plug and cylinder 3 small plug and so on) the small (laterally mounted) plug quite obviously fires on the exhaust stroke of a different combustion cycle in another cylinder at the same time. This was done in order to cut unburnt hydrocarbon emissions - or at least that is what the press blurb originally stated when these engines were introduced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.24.32.39 (talk) 11:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

See Also

Typ932 why did you revert here? "See Also" should not contain entries that are discussed in the article proper, as both Alfa Romeo Twin Cam engine and Fiat Pratola Serra modular engines are - Fiat Pratola Serra modular engines has a section highlighting the connection. Chaheel Riens (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

No response after a week, so reverting as per above rationale. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that further work has been done, rendering this moot - but the edit summary of "doesnt matter if in article or not, it easier to find" is aggressively incorrect. As per MOS: "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes". This is couched by the term "general rule", but regardless "it[sic] easier to find" is not a valid rationale for inclusion, as "easier to find" literally covers every single link in the article. At the very least, joining the discussion would be nice. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)