NGK Ruthenium HX - Higher Ignitability?

[PRL Motorsports]

Yes but what part number are they? I have been using 91784 for 5k miles and they work and fit perfectly. I think you should try these out since you got ones that are inappropriate for the engine.

NGK provided us with LKR7AHX-S #96358 plugs, so your that may explain why your #91784's fit. It's been quite a while now, but the #96358s were the NGK recommended Rutheniums for this platform. Maybe they made a mistake, we're not quite sure, we just know that these did not fit. It may be worth reaching out to NGK in regards to the #91784s in comparison. We have not had an issue with factory plugs and most likely will not. Until we see a reason to switch we will most likely keep using factory plugs.

Sponsored

 

[Anger]

NGK provided us with LKR7AHX-S #96358 plugs, so your that may explain why your #91784's fit. It's been quite a while now, but the #96358s were the NGK recommended Rutheniums for this platform. Maybe they made a mistake, we're not quite sure, we just know that these did not fit. It may be worth reaching out to NGK in regards to the #91784s in comparison. We have not had an issue with factory plugs and most likely will not. Until we see a reason to switch we will most likely keep using factory plugs.

You d say that closing the gap for the stock plugs at 0.65mm is a good idea?

 

[PRL Motorsports]

You d say that closing the gap for the stock plugs at 0.65mm is a good idea?

Depends on the setup/car. We have our shop car at .018" on factory plugs at 35-40 PSI and 600+ hp. 0.65mm is sounds about right for a higher boost bolt-on car.

 

[JT Si]

NGK provided us with LKR7AHX-S #96358 plugs, so your that may explain why your #91784's fit. It's been quite a while now, but the #96358s were the NGK recommended Rutheniums for this platform. Maybe they made a mistake, we're not quite sure, we just know that these did not fit. It may be worth reaching out to NGK in regards to the #91784s in comparison. We have not had an issue with factory plugs and most likely will not. Until we see a reason to switch we will most likely keep using factory plugs.

The first problem I see is the part they provided you is the DFE (double fine electrode) style tip they recommend for naturally aspirated engines whereas their own website says the PSPE (projected square platinum electrode) style is the recommended style for turbocharged engines.

The second problem is the part they sent you is 5/8" whereas the factory plugs and the 91784 are 9/16". This is the real reason they did not fit.

Third problem is they were the wrong heat range. 7 vs the factory 8.

Fourth problem is they have a massive factory gap of .043". The 91784 is gapped to .032" and is a cinch to gap down to the factory spec or smaller.

That's a shame they sent you the wrong plugs. All I have to go on is the seat of my pants and I think it would be great to get some professional and quantitative analysis of the Ruthenium plugs.


Edit: The plugs they sent you were almost the correct plugs for the base model 2.0L N/A engine, but not quite. They recommend the LKAR7AHX-S which appears to share the same specification as the LKR7AHX-S except it's 9/16 instead of 5/8.

 

[Jpierro79]

So I actually have installed the ruthenium 91784 which has the exact same specs as ngk fk8 plugs. I’ve installed them in my type r. I did reset the gap to .025 cause of my tune. I see no reason why it would need to be gapped tighter running an ots map or stock tune. Due to the tip design you should use a proper gapping tool to close the gap. Do not gap it by banging it on a hard surface. That can bend the ground electrode off center and if you go to far the tip gives you nothing to grab to open the gap. The ground electrode has a square tip called PSPE. Projected square platinum electrode. It’s supposed to help ignite leaner mixtures add help deal with turbo higher pressures and better ignite fuel under compression. If you try to reopen the gap you will risk damaging the PSPE

Although the electrode insulator is exposed more they remain the sane length. It has a better electrical conductivity than iridium which helps put less strain on ignition system and under high pressure ignite fuel better. This could possibly allow a larger plug gap which can create a stronger spark. This should allow larger gap under high pressure re. It also helps igniting leaner mixture. Ruthenium has a better thermal conductivity which should help prevent preignition. Technically keep in mind it has the sane heat range as factory so that part might not matter.
As an automotive tech I am skeptical that I will feel any real difference. I reset both fuel trims and ecu memory using my snap on scanner. I’m interested to see if fuel trims end up different. I’ve only gone down the road a few times to set initial ecu trims and I did do a quick pull but till trims settle in I’ll wait to see how it feels then. I dont want a placebo effect. Even though I’m skeptical the scientific part makes sense.
I’m not running the same mixture from the old plug pictured. That’s from original plugs. I had another set I gapped and put in. I’ll compare them after some decent mileage. I expect cleaner just from leaner mix on the tune. The tune on the car remains the sane to make it an even test.
At the very least there’s no loss of power or drivability at this point. It will be interesting to see after a long drive when the engine and plugs are good and hot how it performs.

sorry if I misspelled some thing my vision has been worse lately. I can’t see the difference between n and m without my glasses.

 

[Jpierro79]

So after some miles and I can honestly say ruthenium plugs are an improvement over standard iridium plugs. As soon as I started driving I found myself creeping up speed using the same pedal input I always use. I ignored it at first figuring maybe just off today but no it took a few days to get used to using slightly less throttle input to maintain speed.

There’s no doubt it’s smoother but if I didn’t own the car and you gave it to me without ruthenium plugs and then with I might not notice. It’s not drastic but definitely there. Rev match even feels better.
the whole point if the PSPE tip is to ignite lean mixtures better. I can’t tell you if it’s from ruthenium itself or the PSPE tip. It makes more sense that the ruthenium itself makes the bigger difference. It has better thermal and electric conductivity than iridium.

I had mentioned the idea of monitoring fuel trims to see if there was a change. I really thought there was no way I’d see something different here. Its same tank of fuel which I always get from the same gas station BP fuels 93 octane. My fuel trims are now -3 cruising and -4 at higher load. The only way this can happen is if there’s more complete burn requiring less fuel to make the same mixture. I’ve gone through well over 20 tanks of fuel and even reset trims on iridium plugs and trims never reached -4. It would float -2 light throttle and -3 wot.

I do not offset fuel trims is using 10 percent ethanol setting. Mine is at zero. The same tank of fuel produced fuel reduction. 1 percent seems small but when you’ve gone through over 20 tanks and it’s never gone past -3 it’s proof that it has some significant effect and not placebo.

I’d have to say there is a power increase at high rpm. Above 5000. I did actual hope that would be the case cause better thermal and electrical conductivity gives you better more consistent spark at high compression and high temperatures. I do feel there is a noticeable difference. Not a placebo effect. I wish truly I was able to dyno before and after. The best part is the plugs are cheaper than iridium.

Turbo spool seems relatively the same. I really didn’t expect anything better there. Maybe after next oil change I will pull them to see if there’s any odd issues.

when I already had intake, intercooler and downpipe, I installed cat back exhaust on an ots map and felt no significant improvement. When I did my intake I only felt very small improvement at the very high end of the rpm band. Tiny bit after 6000 rpm. I felt more from these plugs. After I was full bolt on and did the turbo inlet I felt no change. Might be because I had already made adjustments to improve turbo spool.

Both the stock iridium and ruthenium plugs were gapped almost identical!! I went to .025 on ruthenium because I closed the gap just beyond .026 on the first plug. The iridium plugs were checked for gap after and were spot on. .001 gap difference can’t do anything. I never had an issue using stock gap either but didn’t want to risk it.

I am an automotive technician for a long time now. I do not believe 99 percent of gimmicks or claims manufacturers make. Truth is I thought these would do absolutely nothing. Most spark plug companies try to get you by saying unique ground electrode helps. It doesn’t change spark itself. I took a shot cause the better qualities of ruthenium metal itself scientifically makes sense. I’m actually surprised. I know my car very well. I know when something changes. I am now looking into seeing if they have a set of plugs for my wife’s c300.

The part number is ngk 91784 all specs match oem plug. Same gap, heat range, resistance, thread length, thread size, and socket size 9/16 or 14mm. I bought mine from ngk.
If you do gap them, use the proper tools. A feeler gauge is much more accurate than one of those 99 cent plug gappers. Don’t bang the tip down, use a 12mm plug gapping tool. Burger Motorsports sells them for 35 dollars.
https://burgertuning.com/products/bms_spark_plug_gapping_tool

Also don’t leave the feeler gauge in the gap while gapping. K-motor shows a picture doing this and that can easily damage electrode. If you go to far do not use the PSPE tip to bend it back. Get a pick and put it behind the tip length wise to spread the gap.

I have no affiliation with burger Motorsports their tool just works well. A lot of other gapping tools jam up easily or have a point instead of a flat surface to close the gap and this creates undesirable bends and angles in the ground electrode tip.

 

[fabrizzio71]

So after some miles and I can honestly say ruthenium plugs are an improvement over standard iridium plugs. As soon as I started driving I found myself creeping up speed using the same pedal input I always use. I ignored it at first figuring maybe just off today but no it took a few days to get used to using slightly less throttle input to maintain speed.

There’s no doubt it’s smoother but if I didn’t own the car and you gave it to me without ruthenium plugs and then with I might not notice. It’s not drastic but definitely there. Rev match even feels better.
the whole point if the PSPE tip is to ignite lean mixtures better. I can’t tell you if it’s from ruthenium itself or the PSPE tip. It makes more sense that the ruthenium itself makes the bigger difference. It has better thermal and electric conductivity than iridium.

I had mentioned the idea of monitoring fuel trims to see if there was a change. I really thought there was no way I’d see something different here. Its same tank of fuel which I always get from the same gas station BP fuels 93 octane. My fuel trims are now -3 cruising and -4 at higher load. The only way this can happen is if there’s more complete burn requiring less fuel to make the same mixture. I’ve gone through well over 20 tanks of fuel and even reset trims on iridium plugs and trims never reached -4. It would float -2 light throttle and -3 wot.

I do not offset fuel trims is using 10 percent ethanol setting. Mine is at zero. The same tank of fuel produced fuel reduction. 1 percent seems small but when you’ve gone through over 20 tanks and it’s never gone past -3 it’s proof that it has some significant effect and not placebo.

I’d have to say there is a power increase at high rpm. Above 5000. I did actual hope that would be the case cause better thermal and electrical conductivity gives you better more consistent spark at high compression and high temperatures. I do feel there is a noticeable difference. Not a placebo effect. I wish truly I was able to dyno before and after. The best part is the plugs are cheaper than iridium.

Turbo spool seems relatively the same. I really didn’t expect anything better there. Maybe after next oil change I will pull them to see if there’s any odd issues.

when I already had intake, intercooler and downpipe, I installed cat back exhaust on an ots map and felt no significant improvement. When I did my intake I only felt very small improvement at the very high end of the rpm band. Tiny bit after 6000 rpm. I felt more from these plugs. After I was full bolt on and did the turbo inlet I felt no change. Might be because I had already made adjustments to improve turbo spool.

Both the stock iridium and ruthenium plugs were gapped almost identical!! I went to .025 on ruthenium because I closed the gap just beyond .026 on the first plug. The iridium plugs were checked for gap after and were spot on. .001 gap difference can’t do anything. I never had an issue using stock gap either but didn’t want to risk it.

I am an automotive technician for a long time now. I do not believe 99 percent of gimmicks or claims manufacturers make. Truth is I thought these would do absolutely nothing. Most spark plug companies try to get you by saying unique ground electrode helps. It doesn’t change spark itself. I took a shot cause the better qualities of ruthenium metal itself scientifically makes sense. I’m actually surprised. I know my car very well. I know when something changes. I am now looking into seeing if they have a set of plugs for my wife’s c300.

The part number is ngk 91784 all specs match oem plug. Same gap, heat range, resistance, thread length, thread size, and socket size 9/16 or 14mm. I bought mine from ngk.
If you do gap them, use the proper tools. A feeler gauge is much more accurate than one of those 99 cent plug gappers. Don’t bang the tip down, use a 12mm plug gapping tool. Burger Motorsports sells them for 35 dollars.
https://burgertuning.com/products/bms_spark_plug_gapping_tool

Also don’t leave the feeler gauge in the gap while gapping. K-motor shows a picture doing this and that can easily damage electrode. If you go to far do not use the PSPE tip to bend it back. Get a pick and put it behind the tip length wise to spread the gap.

I have no affiliation with burger Motorsports their tool just works well. A lot of other gapping tools jam up easily or have a point instead of a flat surface to close the gap and this creates undesirable bends and angles in the ground electrode tip.

Wow, thanks so much for this. I’m definitely going to try these plugs when it’s time to change. How much boost are you running? I have my stock plugs gapped to .028 on TSP stage 1. Do you think I should go lower?

 

[JT Si]

Wow, thanks so much for this. I’m definitely going to try these plugs when it’s time to change. How much boost are you running? I have my stock plugs gapped to .028 on TSP stage 1. Do you think I should go lower?

I gapped my rutheniums to 0.027" and they work great with TSP stage 1.

 

[charleswrivers]

Interesting read... made me pull up and compare iridium and ruthenium just to look at the differences in the two materials. I'm at 93k on the Odyssey and was planning on doing the plugs on a cool afternoon late this year and may give these a try. Everything makes them seem like they'd work as well at least as well as the iridium plugs... even if it's in a NA port injected engine.

 

[Jpierro79]

Wow, thanks so much for this. I’m definitely going to try these plugs when it’s time to change. How much boost are you running? I have my stock plugs gapped to .028 on TSP stage 1. Do you think I should go lower?

I’m in a type r and running 26-27 psi. I heard similar results from civic si. I here the si has a bit inconsistent power. I’d suspect it’s due to the way ignition timing is variable and control by knock control mostly. I’ve heard knock control can fluctuate less or even go down but I have no data on si to prove this. Short term mpg is the same but I’ve only gone 100ish miles since I’ve changed th e plugs.

Originally when it comes to plug gapping on port usually 25 psi you use a .025 gap and over 30 .022. Direct injection behaves very different. Also today’s coil packs have higher ignition vintages and many systems use multi spark. Even at your current gap I would suspect improvement of spark just cause ruthenium’s properties. It can’t hurt to go a bit smaller. I really can’t see a need for you to go lower than .025.
f your running ethanol go smaller than .028 for sure. Higher fuel ratios require more ignition

 

[Jpierro79]

Interesting read... made me pull up and compare iridium and ruthenium just to look at the differences in the two materials. I'm at 93k on the Odyssey and was planning on doing the plugs on a cool afternoon late this year and may give these a try. Everything makes them seem like they'd work as well at least as well as the iridium plugs... even if it's in a NA port injected engine.

I’ve heard even using the PSPE type plug it gave smoother operation on NA vehicles. The plug ground electrode shouldn’t matter in a NA situation. There is a man running an old Camry with a 2.2 and he said it had similar effects like I had. The older 2.2 Camry is lower compression but still to have an effect. The old 2.2 only had a 9.5-1 compression ratio. The type r has more than that and it’s turbo. He was like me, very skeptical but he actually logged a slight increase in mpg.
I know you said you wanted to do your plugs on a cooler days but as a technician I have to give you a heads up sometimes the odyssey plugs do not like to come out. Like you can see in my pictures the actual threads of the older plugs have carbon on them. That threaded area isn’t in the actual combustion chamber but carbon still squeezes into the threads and can bind them. If you get a stuck plug run the car for a coupe minutes then try again. The heat usually frees them up. You might not have any issue at all.
I have never had them break like Ford F-150 triton engines that use the h-1 plug but they can be tough to remove. I’m sure you’ll get some type of improvement.

 

[charleswrivers]

I’ve heard even using the PSPE type plug it gave smoother operation on NA vehicles. The plug ground electrode shouldn’t matter in a NA situation. There is a man running an old Camry with a 2.2 and he said it had similar effects like I had. The older 2.2 Camry is lower compression but still to have an effect. The old 2.2 only had a 9.5-1 compression ratio. The type r has more than that and it’s turbo. He was like me, very skeptical but he actually logged a slight increase in mpg.
I know you said you wanted to do your plugs on a cooler days but as a technician I have to give you a heads up sometimes the odyssey plugs do not like to come out. Like you can see in my pictures the actual threads of the older plugs have carbon on them. That threaded area isn’t in the actual combustion chamber but carbon still squeezes into the threads and can bind them. If you get a stuck plug run the car for a coupe minutes then try again. The heat usually frees them up. You might not have any issue at all.
I have never had them break like Ford F-150 triton engines that use the h-1 plug but they can be tough to remove. I’m sure you’ll get some type of improvement.

Yeah... I’ll pull the coils and give the plugs a little spray before I pull them to see if they’ll come out a little easier and a touch of idle to warm the head is a good call... and’ll let her cool for the reinstall. It’s so hot down here in GA, I just don’t care to do much work outside on these hottest months.

I’m not expecting them to come out super easy but I haven’t ever had a horror-experience with plugs yet... and I’ve done quite a few sets over the years. Maybe it’ll be my turn this time around. ?

Just replacing due plugs ought to give me something... I expect the iridiums gaps have opened through use/wear. This may well be the only time these plus get changed while I own the Odyssey so I figure I’ll give them a try. I read about these plugs existing awhile back but didn’t know of any material benefits to one over the other.

 

[fabrizzio71]

I’m in a type r and running 26-27 psi. I heard similar results from civic si. I here the si has a bit inconsistent power. I’d suspect it’s due to the way ignition timing is variable and control by knock control mostly. I’ve heard knock control can fluctuate less or even go down but I have no data on si to prove this. Short term mpg is the same but I’ve only gone 100ish miles since I’ve changed th e plugs.

Originally when it comes to plug gapping on port usually 25 psi you use a .025 gap and over 30 .022. Direct injection behaves very different. Also today’s coil packs have higher ignition vintages and many systems use multi spark. Even at your current gap I would suspect improvement of spark just cause ruthenium’s properties. It can’t hurt to go a bit smaller. I really can’t see a need for you to go lower than .025.
f your running ethanol go smaller than .028 for sure. Higher fuel ratios require more ignition

Thank you!

 

[JT Si]

Absolutely a "waste of money"

Those sweet black stripes say otherwise

 

[NicKoLi]

Im at 26k for mileage. Recently became fully bolt on. Is it time I change them? Possibly tranny fluid as well ?

Sponsored