Sounds good from here, if it doesn't ping on lite acceleration.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Paul Brogren wrote:
>
> That's what I did. I'm running 9 deg advance disconnected. And about 15
> deg. approx, with the vacuum line to manifold. Send your Views.
>
> --
> Thanks Always !!!
> Paul '75 CJ5 258
> Vail, CO.

 

Sounds good from here, if it doesn't ping on lite acceleration.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Paul Brogren wrote:
>
> That's what I did. I'm running 9 deg advance disconnected. And about 15
> deg. approx, with the vacuum line to manifold. Send your Views.
>
> --
> Thanks Always !!!
> Paul '75 CJ5 258
> Vail, CO.

 

Sounds good from here, if it doesn't ping on lite acceleration.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Paul Brogren wrote:
>
> That's what I did. I'm running 9 deg advance disconnected. And about 15
> deg. approx, with the vacuum line to manifold. Send your Views.
>
> --
> Thanks Always !!!
> Paul '75 CJ5 258
> Vail, CO.

 

You mentioned a couple reasons why cars were so much quicker in the
sixties. Of course the advanced timing was to take advantage of higher
compression, and longer duration cams, polluted
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Steve G wrote:
>
> In as much as your change to the vacuum advance routing deviates from the
> intended method of operation, why are you worrying about what is "correct"?
> There is no correct procedure with present arrangement. The initial timing
> adjustment is calculated taking into account the rate of advance of the
> mechanical advance and the original vacuum advance rate at specific throttle
> opening.
> Personally, I'm not sure Iagree with this change of the vacuum system. This
> situation of no vacuum to the advance at an idle is not a post emmissions
> thing brought about to save the environment and take away our fun. Back in
> the 50's and 60's,(that's as far back as I go) there were vehicles
> configured both ways. They were designed to operate one way or the other.
> One isn't better than the other, they're just different from one another.
> When you consider that for one engine, say a 350 chev, there are probably
> hundred's of different part numbers for vacuum advances with different
> internal spring tensions and travel distances, how can something so
> arbitrary as switching the vacuum source be expected to produce the correct
> response.
> Also, remember that when you have manifold vacuum at an idle to the
> vacuum advance, the moment you start to accelerate the vacuum starts to drop
> quickly and the timing starts to retard, not what you want to have happening
> as you accelerate.
> I think it gives the impression of a more efficient engine because the
> engine speeds up as soon as you apply vacuum to the advance pot. Gotta be
> good, right? Not necessarily. Your engine has to operate through it's
> complete rpm range, not just idle.
> If I was looking to do timing tricks, which I've done for over 30 years,
> the first thing I would do is return the vacuum hoses back they way they
> were. I would then purchase and install an advance curve kit in the
> distributer, it simply replaces the springs and weights with lighter springs
> and heavier weights, to get your mechanical advance to come all in sooner.
> Then I'd put my timing light back in the box and throw my distributer wrench
> on the seat and go for a ride. I would advance the timing until I could
> hear it just start to ping under the heaviest loads I was likely to be
> placing on it and lock the distributer down. Run it until it's good and
> hot. Shut it off and let it sit a couple of minutes. If it starts okay,
> just leave it. If it starts hard, firing against itself ( you can tell
> this by short crank burst almost stopping in between when on the starter)
> back the timing off until you just hit the point it is no longer firing
> against itself. Now you have maximum efficiencey.
> Steve

 

You mentioned a couple reasons why cars were so much quicker in the
sixties. Of course the advanced timing was to take advantage of higher
compression, and longer duration cams, polluted
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Steve G wrote:
>
> In as much as your change to the vacuum advance routing deviates from the
> intended method of operation, why are you worrying about what is "correct"?
> There is no correct procedure with present arrangement. The initial timing
> adjustment is calculated taking into account the rate of advance of the
> mechanical advance and the original vacuum advance rate at specific throttle
> opening.
> Personally, I'm not sure Iagree with this change of the vacuum system. This
> situation of no vacuum to the advance at an idle is not a post emmissions
> thing brought about to save the environment and take away our fun. Back in
> the 50's and 60's,(that's as far back as I go) there were vehicles
> configured both ways. They were designed to operate one way or the other.
> One isn't better than the other, they're just different from one another.
> When you consider that for one engine, say a 350 chev, there are probably
> hundred's of different part numbers for vacuum advances with different
> internal spring tensions and travel distances, how can something so
> arbitrary as switching the vacuum source be expected to produce the correct
> response.
> Also, remember that when you have manifold vacuum at an idle to the
> vacuum advance, the moment you start to accelerate the vacuum starts to drop
> quickly and the timing starts to retard, not what you want to have happening
> as you accelerate.
> I think it gives the impression of a more efficient engine because the
> engine speeds up as soon as you apply vacuum to the advance pot. Gotta be
> good, right? Not necessarily. Your engine has to operate through it's
> complete rpm range, not just idle.
> If I was looking to do timing tricks, which I've done for over 30 years,
> the first thing I would do is return the vacuum hoses back they way they
> were. I would then purchase and install an advance curve kit in the
> distributer, it simply replaces the springs and weights with lighter springs
> and heavier weights, to get your mechanical advance to come all in sooner.
> Then I'd put my timing light back in the box and throw my distributer wrench
> on the seat and go for a ride. I would advance the timing until I could
> hear it just start to ping under the heaviest loads I was likely to be
> placing on it and lock the distributer down. Run it until it's good and
> hot. Shut it off and let it sit a couple of minutes. If it starts okay,
> just leave it. If it starts hard, firing against itself ( you can tell
> this by short crank burst almost stopping in between when on the starter)
> back the timing off until you just hit the point it is no longer firing
> against itself. Now you have maximum efficiencey.
> Steve

 

You mentioned a couple reasons why cars were so much quicker in the
sixties. Of course the advanced timing was to take advantage of higher
compression, and longer duration cams, polluted
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Steve G wrote:
>
> In as much as your change to the vacuum advance routing deviates from the
> intended method of operation, why are you worrying about what is "correct"?
> There is no correct procedure with present arrangement. The initial timing
> adjustment is calculated taking into account the rate of advance of the
> mechanical advance and the original vacuum advance rate at specific throttle
> opening.
> Personally, I'm not sure Iagree with this change of the vacuum system. This
> situation of no vacuum to the advance at an idle is not a post emmissions
> thing brought about to save the environment and take away our fun. Back in
> the 50's and 60's,(that's as far back as I go) there were vehicles
> configured both ways. They were designed to operate one way or the other.
> One isn't better than the other, they're just different from one another.
> When you consider that for one engine, say a 350 chev, there are probably
> hundred's of different part numbers for vacuum advances with different
> internal spring tensions and travel distances, how can something so
> arbitrary as switching the vacuum source be expected to produce the correct
> response.
> Also, remember that when you have manifold vacuum at an idle to the
> vacuum advance, the moment you start to accelerate the vacuum starts to drop
> quickly and the timing starts to retard, not what you want to have happening
> as you accelerate.
> I think it gives the impression of a more efficient engine because the
> engine speeds up as soon as you apply vacuum to the advance pot. Gotta be
> good, right? Not necessarily. Your engine has to operate through it's
> complete rpm range, not just idle.
> If I was looking to do timing tricks, which I've done for over 30 years,
> the first thing I would do is return the vacuum hoses back they way they
> were. I would then purchase and install an advance curve kit in the
> distributer, it simply replaces the springs and weights with lighter springs
> and heavier weights, to get your mechanical advance to come all in sooner.
> Then I'd put my timing light back in the box and throw my distributer wrench
> on the seat and go for a ride. I would advance the timing until I could
> hear it just start to ping under the heaviest loads I was likely to be
> placing on it and lock the distributer down. Run it until it's good and
> hot. Shut it off and let it sit a couple of minutes. If it starts okay,
> just leave it. If it starts hard, firing against itself ( you can tell
> this by short crank burst almost stopping in between when on the starter)
> back the timing off until you just hit the point it is no longer firing
> against itself. Now you have maximum efficiencey.
> Steve

 

Not all cars were quicker or more economical in the sixties. Some were real
slugs. But the point is that it was not whether it had manifold vacuum to
the advance or ported vacuum to the advance that made some slugs and others
not. Total timing advance was probably very similar, just different methods
of getting there. BTW, with knock sensors in cars today timing is running
much more advanced than it ever has.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:403AD292.D4ACC8EA@***.net...
> You mentioned a couple reasons why cars were so much quicker in the
> sixties. Of course the advanced timing was to take advantage of higher
> compression, and longer duration cams, polluted
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve G wrote:
> >
> > In as much as your change to the vacuum advance routing deviates from
the
> > intended method of operation, why are you worrying about what is
"correct"?
> > There is no correct procedure with present arrangement. The initial
timing
> > adjustment is calculated taking into account the rate of advance of the
> > mechanical advance and the original vacuum advance rate at specific
throttle
> > opening.
> > Personally, I'm not sure Iagree with this change of the vacuum system.
This
> > situation of no vacuum to the advance at an idle is not a post
emmissions
> > thing brought about to save the environment and take away our fun. Back
in
> > the 50's and 60's,(that's as far back as I go) there were vehicles
> > configured both ways. They were designed to operate one way or the
other.
> > One isn't better than the other, they're just different from one
another.
> > When you consider that for one engine, say a 350 chev, there are
probably
> > hundred's of different part numbers for vacuum advances with different
> > internal spring tensions and travel distances, how can something so
> > arbitrary as switching the vacuum source be expected to produce the
correct
> > response.
> > Also, remember that when you have manifold vacuum at an idle to the
> > vacuum advance, the moment you start to accelerate the vacuum starts to
drop
> > quickly and the timing starts to retard, not what you want to have
happening
> > as you accelerate.
> > I think it gives the impression of a more efficient engine because
the
> > engine speeds up as soon as you apply vacuum to the advance pot. Gotta
be
> > good, right? Not necessarily. Your engine has to operate through it's
> > complete rpm range, not just idle.
> > If I was looking to do timing tricks, which I've done for over 30
years,
> > the first thing I would do is return the vacuum hoses back they way they
> > were. I would then purchase and install an advance curve kit in the
> > distributer, it simply replaces the springs and weights with lighter
springs
> > and heavier weights, to get your mechanical advance to come all in
sooner.
> > Then I'd put my timing light back in the box and throw my distributer
wrench
> > on the seat and go for a ride. I would advance the timing until I could
> > hear it just start to ping under the heaviest loads I was likely to be
> > placing on it and lock the distributer down. Run it until it's good and
> > hot. Shut it off and let it sit a couple of minutes. If it starts
okay,
> > just leave it. If it starts hard, firing against itself ( you can tell
> > this by short crank burst almost stopping in between when on the
starter)
> > back the timing off until you just hit the point it is no longer firing
> > against itself. Now you have maximum efficiencey.
> > Steve

 

Not all cars were quicker or more economical in the sixties. Some were real
slugs. But the point is that it was not whether it had manifold vacuum to
the advance or ported vacuum to the advance that made some slugs and others
not. Total timing advance was probably very similar, just different methods
of getting there. BTW, with knock sensors in cars today timing is running
much more advanced than it ever has.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:403AD292.D4ACC8EA@***.net...
> You mentioned a couple reasons why cars were so much quicker in the
> sixties. Of course the advanced timing was to take advantage of higher
> compression, and longer duration cams, polluted
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve G wrote:
> >
> > In as much as your change to the vacuum advance routing deviates from
the
> > intended method of operation, why are you worrying about what is
"correct"?
> > There is no correct procedure with present arrangement. The initial
timing
> > adjustment is calculated taking into account the rate of advance of the
> > mechanical advance and the original vacuum advance rate at specific
throttle
> > opening.
> > Personally, I'm not sure Iagree with this change of the vacuum system.
This
> > situation of no vacuum to the advance at an idle is not a post
emmissions
> > thing brought about to save the environment and take away our fun. Back
in
> > the 50's and 60's,(that's as far back as I go) there were vehicles
> > configured both ways. They were designed to operate one way or the
other.
> > One isn't better than the other, they're just different from one
another.
> > When you consider that for one engine, say a 350 chev, there are
probably
> > hundred's of different part numbers for vacuum advances with different
> > internal spring tensions and travel distances, how can something so
> > arbitrary as switching the vacuum source be expected to produce the
correct
> > response.
> > Also, remember that when you have manifold vacuum at an idle to the
> > vacuum advance, the moment you start to accelerate the vacuum starts to
drop
> > quickly and the timing starts to retard, not what you want to have
happening
> > as you accelerate.
> > I think it gives the impression of a more efficient engine because
the
> > engine speeds up as soon as you apply vacuum to the advance pot. Gotta
be
> > good, right? Not necessarily. Your engine has to operate through it's
> > complete rpm range, not just idle.
> > If I was looking to do timing tricks, which I've done for over 30
years,
> > the first thing I would do is return the vacuum hoses back they way they
> > were. I would then purchase and install an advance curve kit in the
> > distributer, it simply replaces the springs and weights with lighter
springs
> > and heavier weights, to get your mechanical advance to come all in
sooner.
> > Then I'd put my timing light back in the box and throw my distributer
wrench
> > on the seat and go for a ride. I would advance the timing until I could
> > hear it just start to ping under the heaviest loads I was likely to be
> > placing on it and lock the distributer down. Run it until it's good and
> > hot. Shut it off and let it sit a couple of minutes. If it starts
okay,
> > just leave it. If it starts hard, firing against itself ( you can tell
> > this by short crank burst almost stopping in between when on the
starter)
> > back the timing off until you just hit the point it is no longer firing
> > against itself. Now you have maximum efficiencey.
> > Steve

 

Not all cars were quicker or more economical in the sixties. Some were real
slugs. But the point is that it was not whether it had manifold vacuum to
the advance or ported vacuum to the advance that made some slugs and others
not. Total timing advance was probably very similar, just different methods
of getting there. BTW, with knock sensors in cars today timing is running
much more advanced than it ever has.
"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:403AD292.D4ACC8EA@***.net...
> You mentioned a couple reasons why cars were so much quicker in the
> sixties. Of course the advanced timing was to take advantage of higher
> compression, and longer duration cams, polluted
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Steve G wrote:
> >
> > In as much as your change to the vacuum advance routing deviates from
the
> > intended method of operation, why are you worrying about what is
"correct"?
> > There is no correct procedure with present arrangement. The initial
timing
> > adjustment is calculated taking into account the rate of advance of the
> > mechanical advance and the original vacuum advance rate at specific
throttle
> > opening.
> > Personally, I'm not sure Iagree with this change of the vacuum system.
This
> > situation of no vacuum to the advance at an idle is not a post
emmissions
> > thing brought about to save the environment and take away our fun. Back
in
> > the 50's and 60's,(that's as far back as I go) there were vehicles
> > configured both ways. They were designed to operate one way or the
other.
> > One isn't better than the other, they're just different from one
another.
> > When you consider that for one engine, say a 350 chev, there are
probably
> > hundred's of different part numbers for vacuum advances with different
> > internal spring tensions and travel distances, how can something so
> > arbitrary as switching the vacuum source be expected to produce the
correct
> > response.
> > Also, remember that when you have manifold vacuum at an idle to the
> > vacuum advance, the moment you start to accelerate the vacuum starts to
drop
> > quickly and the timing starts to retard, not what you want to have
happening
> > as you accelerate.
> > I think it gives the impression of a more efficient engine because
the
> > engine speeds up as soon as you apply vacuum to the advance pot. Gotta
be
> > good, right? Not necessarily. Your engine has to operate through it's
> > complete rpm range, not just idle.
> > If I was looking to do timing tricks, which I've done for over 30
years,
> > the first thing I would do is return the vacuum hoses back they way they
> > were. I would then purchase and install an advance curve kit in the
> > distributer, it simply replaces the springs and weights with lighter
springs
> > and heavier weights, to get your mechanical advance to come all in
sooner.
> > Then I'd put my timing light back in the box and throw my distributer
wrench
> > on the seat and go for a ride. I would advance the timing until I could
> > hear it just start to ping under the heaviest loads I was likely to be
> > placing on it and lock the distributer down. Run it until it's good and
> > hot. Shut it off and let it sit a couple of minutes. If it starts
okay,
> > just leave it. If it starts hard, firing against itself ( you can tell
> > this by short crank burst almost stopping in between when on the
starter)
> > back the timing off until you just hit the point it is no longer firing
> > against itself. Now you have maximum efficiencey.
> > Steve

 

Yes, with the POS Volkswagen that began the foreign car invasion.
And of course that little Nash Rambler that the TJ still uses their
engine, but the big three sold mostly V8s and a family would be laughed
at if they bought something that wouldn't turn sixty in nine seconds.
Most of us locked the distributor in at thirty eight to forty
degrees total. Running over three hundred thirty degrees duration we had
no problem starting them: http://www.----------.com/iskenderian.jpg
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Steve G wrote:
>
> Not all cars were quicker or more economical in the sixties. Some were real
> slugs. But the point is that it was not whether it had manifold vacuum to
> the advance or ported vacuum to the advance that made some slugs and others
> not. Total timing advance was probably very similar, just different methods
> of getting there. BTW, with knock sensors in cars today timing is running
> much more advanced than it ever has.