Honda Car Forum

"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> My 1985-1995 Chilton's manual labels the capacitor Jim replaced as the
> "Radio Noise Condenser." Is this the same drawing as the one in your Helm?
> The UK site's ignition system schematics do not show it, for some reason.

Oops; wrong. I think it was just the UK Concerto manual's site that does not
show it, and maybe because the condenser was omitted a bit earlier in the
UK.

All other 1991 and earlier manuals show the condenser.

Elle wrote:
> "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>
>>My 1985-1995 Chilton's manual labels the capacitor Jim replaced as the
>>"Radio Noise Condenser." Is this the same drawing as the one in your Helm?
>>The UK site's ignition system schematics do not show it, for some reason.
>
>
> Oops; wrong. I think it was just the UK Concerto manual's site that does not
> show it, and maybe because the condenser was omitted a bit earlier in the
> UK.
>
> All other 1991 and earlier manuals show the condenser.

the radio suppression thing doesn't seem to be relevant. the crx
[condenserless] distributor on my civic hatch made no difference to car
radio noise whatsoever - there wasn't any in either case.

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> >
> >>My 1985-1995 Chilton's manual labels the capacitor Jim replaced as the
> >>"Radio Noise Condenser." Is this the same drawing as the one in your
Helm?
> >>The UK site's ignition system schematics do not show it, for some
reason.
> >
> >
> > Oops; wrong. I think it was just the UK Concerto manual's site that does
not
> > show it, and maybe because the condenser was omitted a bit earlier in
the
> > UK.
> >
> > All other 1991 and earlier manuals show the condenser.
>
> the radio suppression thing doesn't seem to be relevant. the crx
> [condenserless] distributor on my civic hatch made no difference to car
> radio noise whatsoever - there wasn't any in either case.

I suspect the CRX distributor you used is of the "igniter-with a
built-in-condenser" design.

See for example the label on igniter on the schematic at
http://www.honda.co.uk/owner/Concert...k301/16-44.pdf .

So the UK site Concerto manual does show a radio noise condenser, but the
design is different.

My Chilton's notes that the built-in condenser commenced with 1992 and later
Hondas. The external condensers were used in 1991 and earlier, roughly. The
UK site schematics generally support this. I say "generally" because I'm
guessing there were slight variations in the year this
igniter-with-built-in-radio-noise-condenser came out, depending on the
country.

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>My 1985-1995 Chilton's manual labels the capacitor Jim replaced as the
>>>>"Radio Noise Condenser." Is this the same drawing as the one in your
>
> Helm?
>
>>>>The UK site's ignition system schematics do not show it, for some
>
> reason.
>
>>>
>>>Oops; wrong. I think it was just the UK Concerto manual's site that does
>
> not
>
>>>show it, and maybe because the condenser was omitted a bit earlier in
>
> the
>
>>>UK.
>>>
>>>All other 1991 and earlier manuals show the condenser.
>>
>>the radio suppression thing doesn't seem to be relevant. the crx
>>[condenserless] distributor on my civic hatch made no difference to car
>>radio noise whatsoever - there wasn't any in either case.
>
>
> I suspect the CRX distributor you used is of the "igniter-with a
> built-in-condenser" design.
>
> See for example the label on igniter on the schematic at
> http://www.honda.co.uk/owner/Concert...k301/16-44.pdf .
>
> So the UK site Concerto manual does show a radio noise condenser, but the
> design is different.
>
> My Chilton's notes that the built-in condenser commenced with 1992 and later
> Hondas. The external condensers were used in 1991 and earlier, roughly. The
> UK site schematics generally support this. I say "generally" because I'm
> guessing there were slight variations in the year this
> igniter-with-built-in-radio-noise-condenser came out, depending on the
> country.
>
>
i think all recent igniters are capable of running as "condenserless".
the igniter in the crx distibutor is identical to the igniter in my
civic hatch.

history was, 89 civic:
with old condenser - performance "ho hum"
with crx distributor - performance "ripping"
with old dist. new cond. - performance "ripping"
with new [old] dist. old cond. - performance "ho hum"

all with new the new type of igniters.

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> >
> >>Elle wrote:
> >>
> >>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>My 1985-1995 Chilton's manual labels the capacitor Jim replaced as the
> >>>>"Radio Noise Condenser." Is this the same drawing as the one in your
> >
> > Helm?
> >
> >>>>The UK site's ignition system schematics do not show it, for some
> >
> > reason.
> >
> >>>
> >>>Oops; wrong. I think it was just the UK Concerto manual's site that
does
> >
> > not
> >
> >>>show it, and maybe because the condenser was omitted a bit earlier in
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>UK.
> >>>
> >>>All other 1991 and earlier manuals show the condenser.
> >>
> >>the radio suppression thing doesn't seem to be relevant. the crx
> >>[condenserless] distributor on my civic hatch made no difference to car
> >>radio noise whatsoever - there wasn't any in either case.
> >
> >
> > I suspect the CRX distributor you used is of the "igniter-with a
> > built-in-condenser" design.
> >
> > See for example the label on igniter on the schematic at
> > http://www.honda.co.uk/owner/Concert...k301/16-44.pdf .
> >
> > So the UK site Concerto manual does show a radio noise condenser, but
the
> > design is different.
> >
> > My Chilton's notes that the built-in condenser commenced with 1992 and
later
> > Hondas. The external condensers were used in 1991 and earlier, roughly.
The
> > UK site schematics generally support this. I say "generally" because I'm
> > guessing there were slight variations in the year this
> > igniter-with-built-in-radio-noise-condenser came out, depending on the
> > country.
> >
> >
> i think all recent igniters are capable of running as "condenserless".

I wouldn't call them "condenserless." The schematics in the manuals say they
are not.

> the igniter in the crx distibutor is identical to the igniter in my
> civic hatch.
>
> history was, 89 civic:
> with old condenser - performance "ho hum"
> with crx distributor - performance "ripping"
> with old dist. new cond. - performance "ripping"
> with new [old] dist. old cond. - performance "ho hum"
>
> all with new the new type of igniters.

I'd want to investigate your igniters more closely. You said the CRX dizzy
had been "reconditioned."

Based on everything Terry, Tegger, and you* posted, and a few other sources
I've read, I am at the point where I am convinced the presnce and proper
operation of this radio noise condenser is vital to proper operation of
either the igniter, ECU, or both.

In other words, there's gotta be one present when your Civic is performing
'rippingly.'

I think there's more to the story of why Honda started using igniters with
built-in condensers starting about 1992, BTW. Maybe that was the bloody
design defect that caused that recall (or TSB; can't remember)? The igniters
with external condensers were too prone to failure?

Tomorrow I shall take myself to beneath the hood of my 91 Civic and find
this condenser. If it ain't external (as it surely originally was), then
it's built-into my relatively new ignitor.

I see Tegger's site
http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ignit...ion/index.html shows two
different igniter designs. Could this be the difference?

Maybe it's obvious to someone else. I'm still studying the matter. (This is
before I really do take a hammer to my old, non-OEM igniter--#2 for my
car--and whack the thing apart to see if any more secrets become revealed.
Never could get it apart with a screwdriver.)

*I'm not flattering anyone here. Everyone's commentary has put significant
pieces of the puzzle in place with the sharing of anecdotal experience,
theory, study of the electronics, etc.

As for you in particular, you may have launched the beginning of a routine
recommendation to posters, flailing about with the proverbial busted car, of
regularly replacing this external condenser, or else face a failed igniter
sooner rather than later.

As the kids say, 'way cool.'

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>>>
>>>
>>>>Elle wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>"Elle" <honda.lioness@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>My 1985-1995 Chilton's manual labels the capacitor Jim replaced as the
>>>>>>"Radio Noise Condenser." Is this the same drawing as the one in your
>>>
>>>Helm?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>The UK site's ignition system schematics do not show it, for some
>>>
>>>reason.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Oops; wrong. I think it was just the UK Concerto manual's site that
>
> does
>
>>>not
>>>
>>>
>>>>>show it, and maybe because the condenser was omitted a bit earlier in
>>>
>>>the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>UK.
>>>>>
>>>>>All other 1991 and earlier manuals show the condenser.
>>>>
>>>>the radio suppression thing doesn't seem to be relevant. the crx
>>>>[condenserless] distributor on my civic hatch made no difference to car
>>>>radio noise whatsoever - there wasn't any in either case.
>>>
>>>
>>>I suspect the CRX distributor you used is of the "igniter-with a
>>>built-in-condenser" design.
>>>
>>>See for example the label on igniter on the schematic at
>>>http://www.honda.co.uk/owner/Concert...k301/16-44.pdf .
>>>
>>>So the UK site Concerto manual does show a radio noise condenser, but
>
> the
>
>>>design is different.
>>>
>>>My Chilton's notes that the built-in condenser commenced with 1992 and
>
> later
>
>>>Hondas. The external condensers were used in 1991 and earlier, roughly.
>
> The
>
>>>UK site schematics generally support this. I say "generally" because I'm
>>>guessing there were slight variations in the year this
>>>igniter-with-built-in-radio-noise-condenser came out, depending on the
>>>country.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>i think all recent igniters are capable of running as "condenserless".
>
>
> I wouldn't call them "condenserless." The schematics in the manuals say they
> are not.
>
>
>>the igniter in the crx distibutor is identical to the igniter in my
>>civic hatch.
>>
>>history was, 89 civic:
>>with old condenser - performance "ho hum"
>>with crx distributor - performance "ripping"
>>with old dist. new cond. - performance "ripping"
>>with new [old] dist. old cond. - performance "ho hum"
>>
>>all with new the new type of igniters.
>
>
> I'd want to investigate your igniters more closely. You said the CRX dizzy
> had been "reconditioned."

well, it was clean & shiny with all new internals.

>
> Based on everything Terry, Tegger, and you* posted, and a few other sources
> I've read, I am at the point where I am convinced the presnce and proper
> operation of this radio noise condenser is vital to proper operation of
> either the igniter, ECU, or both.
>
> In other words, there's gotta be one present when your Civic is performing
> 'rippingly.'

not so. the dist. that works well has a new condenser. the one that's
ho hum has an old condenser. the crx one worked well and it had no
condenser fitted at all.

>
> I think there's more to the story of why Honda started using igniters with
> built-in condensers starting about 1992, BTW. Maybe that was the bloody
> design defect that caused that recall (or TSB; can't remember)? The igniters
> with external condensers were too prone to failure?
>
> Tomorrow I shall take myself to beneath the hood of my 91 Civic and find
> this condenser. If it ain't external (as it surely originally was), then
> it's built-into my relatively new ignitor.
>
> I see Tegger's site
> http://www.tegger.com/hondafaq/ignit...ion/index.html shows two
> different igniter designs. Could this be the difference?

no. all 3 dist.s had/have identical igniters.

>
> Maybe it's obvious to someone else. I'm still studying the matter. (This is
> before I really do take a hammer to my old, non-OEM igniter--#2 for my
> car--and whack the thing apart to see if any more secrets become revealed.
> Never could get it apart with a screwdriver.)

carve out the sealant from around the top.

>
> *I'm not flattering anyone here. Everyone's commentary has put significant
> pieces of the puzzle in place with the sharing of anecdotal experience,
> theory, study of the electronics, etc.
>
> As for you in particular, you may have launched the beginning of a routine
> recommendation to posters, flailing about with the proverbial busted car, of
> regularly replacing this external condenser, or else face a failed igniter
> sooner rather than later.

maybe, but probably not. it doesn't stop the car working. and most
people replace the whole distributor anyway from what i've seen. i'm
just posting my own observations. make of them what you will.

fwiw, if you disconnect the condenser mounting post from the distributor
body, you effectively now have a "condenserless" system like my crx. i
guess i need to test that option on my "ho hum" dist., but i really
don't have the desire to take my good dist. off again right now. the ho
hum one lives with the spare tire so i can limp home if occasion demands.

>
> As the kids say, 'way cool.'
>
>

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > As for you in particular, you may have launched the beginning of a
routine
> > recommendation to posters, flailing about with the proverbial busted
car, of
> > regularly replacing this external condenser, or else face a failed
igniter
> > sooner rather than later.
>
> maybe, but probably not. it doesn't stop the car working.

I would have been hesitant to predict it would.

Right now (that is, without further study and experimenting), I would expect
increasingly degraded performance over time, though.

> and most
> people replace the whole distributor anyway from what i've seen.

I don't think so. I think the DIYers just replace the igniter or just the
coil, one at a time. The housing's too expensive. Of course, god knows what
dealers and independent shops talk their customers into. I got talked into a
new housing (no new ignitor; no new coil; just the housing) when the problem
was actually the coil a few years ago.

> i'm
> just posting my own observations. make of them what you will.
>
> fwiw, if you disconnect the condenser mounting post from the distributor
> body, you effectively now have a "condenserless" system like my crx.

I guess this saga will continue. I remain baffled about how your CRX can
have no condenser (not built-into the igniter nor external to the igniter)
while the schematics and manuals say otherwise. The condenser is so
prominent in them, too. Why even mention it being "built-in" on the igniter,
for example?

From my reading, the radio noise condenser is fairly sizable, similar
actually to the old Kettering.

Also, at this point it seems fair to say that the radio noise condenser
takes care of /electronic/ problems with energy pulses in circuits, while
the Kettering condenser takes care of /electrical problems/ with energy
pulses in circuits. You originally said they do the same thing. I think they
do different, yet analogous, thing.

> guess i need to test that option on my "ho hum" dist., but i really
> don't have the desire to take my good dist. off again right now. the ho
> hum one lives with the spare tire so i can limp home if occasion demands.

I agree this would be the next best step, but I understand. Maybe I'll do
some prodding on my own 91 Civic.

Thanks for posting this interesting history.

Elle wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
>
>>Elle wrote:
>>
>>>As for you in particular, you may have launched the beginning of a
>
> routine
>
>>>recommendation to posters, flailing about with the proverbial busted
>
> car, of
>
>>>regularly replacing this external condenser, or else face a failed
>
> igniter
>
>>>sooner rather than later.
>>
>>maybe, but probably not. it doesn't stop the car working.
>
>
> I would have been hesitant to predict it would.
>
> Right now (that is, without further study and experimenting), I would expect
> increasingly degraded performance over time, though.
>
>
>>and most
>>people replace the whole distributor anyway from what i've seen.
>
>
> I don't think so. I think the DIYers just replace the igniter or just the
> coil, one at a time. The housing's too expensive. Of course, god knows what
> dealers and independent shops talk their customers into. I got talked into a
> new housing (no new ignitor; no new coil; just the housing) when the problem
> was actually the coil a few years ago.
>
>
>> i'm
>>just posting my own observations. make of them what you will.
>>
>>fwiw, if you disconnect the condenser mounting post from the distributor
>>body, you effectively now have a "condenserless" system like my crx.
>
>
> I guess this saga will continue. I remain baffled about how your CRX can
> have no condenser (not built-into the igniter nor external to the igniter)

it's got no external condenser. if all modern igniters have one built
in, then it's effectively still got one, but it's definitely /not/
present in the location of the condenser of my other two distributors!

> while the schematics and manuals say otherwise. The condenser is so
> prominent in them, too. Why even mention it being "built-in" on the igniter,
> for example?
>
> From my reading, the radio noise condenser is fairly sizable, similar
> actually to the old Kettering.

i'm not comforable calling it a radio noise suppressor. my civic's
radio was completely unaffected while running the crx's dist. and don't
forget all the radio suppression stuff on the h.t. side of the sparking
gear.

>
> Also, at this point it seems fair to say that the radio noise condenser
> takes care of /electronic/ problems with energy pulses in circuits, while
> the Kettering condenser takes care of /electrical problems/ with energy
> pulses in circuits. You originally said they do the same thing. I think they
> do different, yet analogous, thing.

i think this condenser does the same thing as kettering. and i found
this good explanation:

"A condenser or capacitor is used to promote a faster collapse of the
magnetic field. Neither component will allow direct current to pass
through it to ground; however, alternating current is able to pass
through. A direct current that pulses veiy fast becomes alternating
current and can pass through the condenser or capacitor. This allows the
current in the primary coil circuit to pass through either of these
components to ground.

The condenser is connected to the primary winding (Fig. 6). Once the
current stops, the magnetic field falls back into the primary winding to
stabilize the current within the winding. The faster the current in the
primary winding dissipates through the condenser, the faster the
magnetic field will collapse. The rapid movement of the magnetic field
increases the induction within the secondary winding and the current,
being pushed by a high voltage of up to 50kV, will look for a pathway or
circuit."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...n13640862/pg_2

so, if i understand correctly, a condenser in good working order will
promote a strong healthy spark - which corresponds with good engine
performance. now all we need to do is figure out how an igniter with a
built-in condenser works well with an external condenser, works well
with no condenser, but doesn't work as well with an aged condenser. terry?

>
>
>>guess i need to test that option on my "ho hum" dist., but i really
>>don't have the desire to take my good dist. off again right now. the ho
>>hum one lives with the spare tire so i can limp home if occasion demands.
>
>
> I agree this would be the next best step, but I understand. Maybe I'll do
> some prodding on my own 91 Civic.
>
> Thanks for posting this interesting history.
>
>

"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote
> Elle wrote:
> > I guess this saga will continue. I remain baffled about how your CRX can
> > have no condenser (not built-into the igniter nor external to the
igniter)
>
> it's got no external condenser. if all modern igniters have one built
> in, then it's effectively still got one, but it's definitely /not/
> present in the location of the condenser of my other two distributors!

I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. For your 1989 Civic,
you replaced the part identified as "noise suppressor" (#8) at the following
site, right?

http://www.hondaautomotiveparts.com/...p?inputstate=5
&catcgry1=Civic&catcgry2=1989&catcgry3=4DR+LX&catc gry4=KA5MT&catcgry5=DISTRI
BUTOR

(The exact same noise suppressor and igniter appears on all the 1991 CRX
distributor drawings at Majestic, too.)

> > while the schematics and manuals say otherwise. The condenser is so
> > prominent in them, too. Why even mention it being "built-in" on the
igniter,
> > for example?
> >
> > From my reading, the radio noise condenser is fairly sizable, similar
> > actually to the old Kettering.
>
> i'm not comforable calling it a radio noise suppressor. my civic's
> radio was completely unaffected while running the crx's dist.

My take is it's called a radio noise suppressor not so much because of
concerns about interfering with the car radio, but because the energy pulses
that result from the igniter action definitionally are radio frequency
interference (or "RFI"), meaning they're at frequencies capable of
interfering with any connected electronics systems, such as the ECU and I
believe the igniter's NPN base input voltage.

> and don't
> forget all the radio suppression stuff on the h.t. side of the sparking
> gear.

What stuff is that?

I don't see anything on the schematics, but nor have I gone looking for more
detailed wiring diagrams.

> > Also, at this point it seems fair to say that the radio noise condenser
> > takes care of /electronic/ problems with energy pulses in circuits,
while
> > the Kettering condenser takes care of /electrical problems/ with energy
> > pulses in circuits. You originally said they do the same thing. I think
they
> > do different, yet analogous, thing.
>
> i think this condenser does the same thing as kettering.

The condenser described below (excerpted from the May 2005 Motor Magazine)
attaches to the negative side of the ignition coil. I think it's supposed to
be one of the capacitors internal to all igniters (regardless of year).
Graham's site shows four such capacitors in a photo of the internals of an
actual igniter, for example. This article's capacitor is not, from what I
can tell, the radio noise condenser shown in manual schematic's.

The schematic taken from Chilton's (and posted at my site
http://home.earthlink.net/~honda.lioness/id5.html) shows the radio noise
condenser attached to the + side of the coil. This distinction is remarked
on elsewhere on the net. Which side of the ignition coil a capacitor
attaches says a lot about the capacitor's function...

> and i found
> this good explanation:

snip see http://www.motor.com/MAGAZINE/Pdf/052005_04.pdf , especially page
34 and Figure 6

> so, if i understand correctly, a condenser in good working order will
> promote a strong healthy spark - which corresponds with good engine
> performance. now all we need to do is figure out how an igniter with a
> built-in condenser works well with an external condenser,

Are you now assuming the three igniters you've been using all are some new
design (compared to the original ones installed in 1991 and earlier Hondas?)
and so have the built-in radio noise condensers??

I don't know if they have the built-in condenser or not. It was just a guess
on my part.

jim beam wrote:
>
> so, if i understand correctly, a condenser in good working order will
> promote a strong healthy spark - which corresponds with good engine
> performance. now all we need to do is figure out how an igniter with a
> built-in condenser works well with an external condenser, works well
> with no condenser, but doesn't work as well with an aged condenser. terry?
>
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I did some simple test Sunday afternoon.
I got my scope back and nmade several "Speed" runs.
Run#1 stock
Run#2 capacitor disconnected

With the cap out of circuit I noticed some "flutter" in the
ignition drive from the ECU. I used a 100Meg to sneak a look
at teh HV out and it too had the flutter. The primary FI had
over a 10% reduction in n width. And accleration was sluggish.
I expected to experience back fires but other then a very
slight "stumble" no gross effects.

It did wipe out my radio reception, both AM and FM. And The Kenwwod
had ignition pulses while playing MP3s from a Rio self powered MP3
player.

When we got back home I pulled the floor cover from the ECU and was
able to "see" farily high amplitude ingitno spikes that are not there
when the cap is in place.


With effects like this I expected to see some effect on the dwell
time at hihger RPM , but noe was observed.

So the capacitor is important, and should be checked for capacitance,
and ESR. I wish I had a bad one, but all the ones I have checked within
~10%. A none issue for non tunned circuit cpacitors.

As I expected adding more capacitance, IE paralleling several caps,
made no difference.

Terry



Terry