Joined
·
2,091 Posts
Two observations:
1. Why add multiple single-points-of-failure to a design (4, 6, or 8 'coil packs'), where previously there was only 1 single-point-of-failure i.e. the centralized ignition tower? Did they achieve at least an 4/6/8 fold reduction in defects and 4/6/8 fold increase in MTBF? I'd have to work the numbers out, but I'm guessing they'd actually need something like a 30 or 40 fold increase in reliabilty of each to wind up with the same likelihood of failure overall.
2. Coil packs rest directly on the engine block. Gee, I thought heat was the enemy of electronics? At least they didn't put the packs on the turbo exhaust housing?
So, if these are the risks, what are the advantages?
1. Why add multiple single-points-of-failure to a design (4, 6, or 8 'coil packs'), where previously there was only 1 single-point-of-failure i.e. the centralized ignition tower? Did they achieve at least an 4/6/8 fold reduction in defects and 4/6/8 fold increase in MTBF? I'd have to work the numbers out, but I'm guessing they'd actually need something like a 30 or 40 fold increase in reliabilty of each to wind up with the same likelihood of failure overall.
2. Coil packs rest directly on the engine block. Gee, I thought heat was the enemy of electronics? At least they didn't put the packs on the turbo exhaust housing?

So, if these are the risks, what are the advantages?