GMCforum
For enthusiast of the Classic GMC Motorhome built from 1973 to 1978. A web-based mirror of the GMCnet mailing list.

Home » Public Forums » GMCnet » Engine Timing (good explaination)
Engine Timing [message #276376] Tue, 21 April 2015 10:54 Go to next message
John Heslinga   Canada
Messages: 632
Registered: February 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Karma: 4
Senior Member
This is not my work and I cannot find the authors name, but I think it does a good job of explaining engine timing and the purpose of Vacuum advance.

John

This was written by a former GM engineer as a response to a similar question on a Corvette board:


As many of you are aware, timing and vacuum advance is one of my favorite subjects, as I was involved in the development of some of those systems in my GM days and I understand it. Many people don't, as there has been very little written about it anywhere that makes sense, and as a result, a lot of folks are under the misunderstanding that vacuum advance somehow compromises performance. Nothing could be further from the truth. I finally sat down the other day and wrote up a primer on the subject, with the objective of helping more folks to understand vacuum advance and how it works together with initial timing and centrifugal advance to optimize all-around operation and performance. I have this as a Word document if anyone wants it sent to them - I've cut-and-pasted it here; it's long, but hopefully it's also informative.

TIMING AND VACUUM ADVANCE 101

The most important concept to understand is that lean mixtures, such as at idle and steady highway cruise, take longer to burn than rich mixtures; idle in particular, as idle mixture is affected by exhaust gas dilution. This requires that lean mixtures have "the fire lit" earlier in the compression cycle (spark timing advanced), allowing more burn time so that peak cylinder pressure is reached just after TDC for peak efficiency and reduced exhaust gas temperature (wasted combustion energy). Rich mixtures, on the other hand, burn faster than lean mixtures, so they need to have "the fire lit" later in the compression cycle (spark timing retarded slightly) so maximum cylinder pressure is still achieved at the same point after TDC as with the lean mixture, for maximum efficiency.

The centrifugal advance system in a distributor advances spark timing purely as a function of engine rpm (irrespective of engine load or operating conditions), with the amount of advance and the rate at which it comes in determined by the weights and springs on top of the autocam mechanism. The amount of advance added by the distributor, combined with initial static timing, is "total timing" (i.e., the 34-36 degrees at high rpm that most SBC's like). Vacuum advance has absolutely nothing to do with total timing or performance, as when the throttle is opened, manifold vacuum drops essentially to zero, and the vacuum advance drops out entirely; it has no part in the "total timing" equation.

At idle, the engine needs additional spark advance in order to fire that lean, diluted mixture earlier in order to develop maximum cylinder pressure at the proper point, so the vacuum advance can (connected to manifold vacuum, not "ported" vacuum - more on that aberration later) is activated by the high manifold vacuum, and adds about 15 degrees of spark advance, on top of the initial static timing setting (i.e., if your static timing is at 10 degrees, at idle it's actually around 25 degrees with the vacuum advance connected). The same thing occurs at steady-state highway cruise; the mixture is lean, takes longer to burn, the load on the engine is low, the manifold vacuum is high, so the vacuum advance is again deployed, and if you had a timing light set up so you could see the balancer as you were going down the highway, you'd see about 50 degrees advance (10 degrees initial, 20-25 degrees from the centrifugal advance, and 15 degrees from the vacuum advance) at steady-state cruise (it only takes about 40 horsepower to cruise at 50mph).

When you accelerate, the mixture is instantly enriched (by the accelerator pump, power valve, etc.), burns faster, doesn't need the additional spark advance, and when the throttle plates open, manifold vacuum drops, and the vacuum advance can returns to zero, retarding the spark timing back to what is provided by the initial static timing plus the centrifugal advance provided by the distributor at that engine rpm; the vacuum advance doesn't come back into play until you back off the gas and manifold vacuum increases again as you return to steady-state cruise, when the mixture again becomes lean.

The key difference is that centrifugal advance (in the distributor autocam via weights and springs) is purely rpm-sensitive; nothing changes it except changes in rpm. Vacuum advance, on the other hand, responds to engine load and rapidly-changing operating conditions, providing the correct degree of spark advance at any point in time based on engine load, to deal with both lean and rich mixture conditions. By today's terms, this was a relatively crude mechanical system, but it did a good job of optimizing engine efficiency, throttle response, fuel economy, and idle cooling, with absolutely ZERO effect on wide-open throttle performance, as vacuum advance is inoperative under wide-open throttle conditions. In modern cars with computerized engine controllers, all those sensors and the controller change both mixture and spark timing 50 to 100 times per second, and we don't even HAVE a distributor any more - it's all electronic.

Now, to the widely-misunderstood manifold-vs.-ported vacuum aberration. After 30-40 years of controlling vacuum advance with full manifold vacuum, along came emissions requirements, years before catalytic converter technology had been developed, and all manner of crude band-aid systems were developed to try and reduce hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust stream. One of these band-aids was "ported spark", which moved the vacuum pickup orifice in the carburetor venturi from below the throttle plate (where it was exposed to full manifold vacuum at idle) to above the throttle plate, where it saw no manifold vacuum at all at idle. This meant the vacuum advance was inoperative at idle (retarding spark timing from its optimum value), and these applications also had VERY low initial static timing (usually 4 degrees or less, and some actually were set at 2 degrees AFTER TDC). This was done in order to increase exhaust gas temperature (due to "lighting the fire late") to improve the effectiveness of the "afterburning" of hydrocarbons by the air injected into the exhaust manifolds by the A.I.R. system; as a result, these engines ran like crap, and an enormous amount of wasted heat energy was transferred through the exhaust port walls into the coolant, causing them to run hot at idle - cylinder pressure fell off, engine temperatures went up, combustion efficiency went down the drain, and fuel economy went down with it.

If you look at the centrifugal advance calibrations for these "ported spark, late-timed" engines, you'll see that instead of having 20 degrees of advance, they had up to 34 degrees of advance in the distributor, in order to get back to the 34-36 degrees "total timing" at high rpm wide-open throttle to get some of the performance back. The vacuum advance still worked at steady-state highway cruise (lean mixture = low emissions), but it was inoperative at idle, which caused all manner of problems - "ported vacuum" was strictly an early, pre-converter crude emissions strategy, and nothing more.

What about the Harry high-school non-vacuum advance polished billet "whizbang" distributors you see in the Summit and Jeg's catalogs? They're JUNK on a street-driven car, but some people keep buying them because they're "race car" parts, so they must be "good for my car" - they're NOT. "Race cars" run at wide-open throttle, rich mixture, full load, and high rpm all the time, so they don't need a system (vacuum advance) to deal with the full range of driving conditions encountered in street operation. Anyone driving a street-driven car without manifold-connected vacuum advance is sacrificing idle cooling, throttle response, engine efficiency, and fuel economy, probably because they don't understand what vacuum advance is, how it works, and what it's for - there are lots of long-time experienced "mechanics" who don't understand the principles and operation of vacuum advance either, so they're not alone.

Vacuum advance calibrations are different between stock engines and modified engines, especially if you have a lot of cam and have relatively low manifold vacuum at idle. Most stock vacuum advance cans aren't fully-deployed until they see about 15" Hg. Manifold vacuum, so those cans don't work very well on a modified engine; with less than 15" Hg. at a rough idle, the stock can will "dither" in and out in response to the rapidly-changing manifold vacuum, constantly varying the amount of vacuum advance, which creates an unstable idle. Modified engines with more cam that generate less than 15" Hg. of vacuum at idle need a vacuum advance can that's fully-deployed at least 1", preferably 2" of vacuum less than idle vacuum level so idle advance is solid and stable; the Echlin #VC-1810 advance can (about $10 at NAPA) provides the same amount of advance as the stock can (15 degrees), but is fully-deployed at only 8" of vacuum, so there is no variation in idle timing even with a stout cam.

For peak engine performance, driveability, idle cooling and efficiency in a street-driven car, you need vacuum advance, connected to full manifold vacuum. Absolutely. Positively. Don't ask Summit or Jeg's about it they don't understand it, they're on commission, and they want to sell "race car" parts.


John and Cathie Heslinga 1974 Canyonlands 260 455, Manny tranny and 1 ton, 3:70 LS, Red Seal Journeyman, DTE, BEd. MEd. Edmonton, Alberta
Re: Engine Timing [message #276380 is a reply to message #276376] Tue, 21 April 2015 11:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Jon payne is currently offline  Jon payne   United States
Messages: 495
Registered: May 2008
Karma: 1
Senior Member
Found the post on a Camaro forum. Dates back to 2003. Could be a cut and past too.

http://www.camaros.net/forums/showpost.php?p=142020&postcount=11


Jon Payne
76 Palm Beach
Westfield,IN
Re: Engine Timing [message #276383 is a reply to message #276380] Tue, 21 April 2015 12:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Burton is currently offline  Ken Burton   United States
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
Senior Member
I agree with almost everything he says EXCEPT the last statement. Running dual vacuum gages, I measured the manifold and ported vacuum ports simultaneously under various driving conditions. They do not read the same. Obviously at idle they read different but after that they also read different with manifold vacuum being higher. So if you move the vacuum source you also need to change the vacuum advance pot to one that responds to the different vacuum range.

Also during starting you do not want the vacuum advance at full range because the engine is cranking at much slower speeds. Retarding the timing during starting makes it start easier.

Finally, unless you spend a lot time idling rather than driving, who cares if it is advanced at idle or not. It is interesting to watch what the computer on my Colorado does. At an idle my computer controlled timing runs 8 to 10 degrees advance. This equates to the same as our static timing of 8 to 12 BTDC on our GMC engines.

Leave it stock. It has worked well that way for 40 years.


Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
Re: Engine Timing [message #276391 is a reply to message #276376] Tue, 21 April 2015 14:00 Go to previous messageGo to next message
skip2 is currently offline  skip2   United States
Messages: 544
Registered: September 2011
Location: Winter Haven,FL (center o...
Karma: 3
Senior Member
This article makes you go humh? I did a little more research from an edelbrock diagram for my carb and it said the right side is ported and for emission vehicles and the left side, manifold, is for non emissions vehicles. I definitely fall into the non emissions side. The PCV valve is about the limit of my emissions control devices which I have the 140 dollar one. I guess it boils down to me trying it both ways and see which works and find that eternal fleeing "happy medium".
Thanks again
Skip hartline


74 Canyon Lands, FiTech, 3.7 FD LSD, Manny Tranny, Springfield Distributor, 2001 Chevy Tracker Ragtop Towd
Re: Engine Timing [message #276392 is a reply to message #276391] Tue, 21 April 2015 14:19 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bob de Kruyff   United States
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
Senior Member
skip2 wrote on Tue, 21 April 2015 13:00
This article makes you go humh? I did a little more research from an edelbrock diagram for my carb and it said the right side is ported and for emission vehicles and the left side, manifold, is for non emissions vehicles. I definitely fall into the non emissions side. The PCV valve is about the limit of my emissions control devices which I have the 140 dollar one. I guess it boils down to me trying it both ways and see which works and find that eternal fleeing "happy medium".
Thanks again
Skip hartline

Definitely enjoying benefits of full manifold vacuum here.


Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
Re: Engine Timing [message #276401 is a reply to message #276376] Tue, 21 April 2015 15:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
jhbridges is currently offline  jhbridges   United States
Messages: 8412
Registered: May 2011
Location: Braselton ga
Karma: -74
Senior Member
I'll be checking the advance can on the ratrod's new distributor... and the Echlin can will be on order if as I suspect, the fitted one wants to see about 15" MAP at idle. The toy is lumpy in the extreme, I suspect idle MAP is closer to 20 - 22".

--johnny


Foolish Carriage, 76 26' Eleganza(?) with beaucoup mods and add - ons. Braselton, Ga. I forgive them all, save those who hurt the dogs. They must answer to me in hell
Re: Engine Timing [message #276408 is a reply to message #276376] Tue, 21 April 2015 16:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
George Beckman is currently offline  George Beckman   United States
Messages: 1085
Registered: October 2008
Location: Colfax, CA
Karma: 11
Senior Member
John Heslinga wrote on Tue, 21 April 2015 08:54
This is not my work and I cannot find the authors name, but I think it does a good job of explaining engine timing and the purpose of Vacuum advance.

John

The key difference is that centrifugal advance (in the distributor autocam via weights and springs) is purely rpm-sensitive; nothing changes it except changes in rpm. Vacuum advance, on the other hand, responds to engine load and rapidly-changing operating conditions, providing the correct degree of spark advance at any point in time based on engine load, to deal with both lean and rich mixture conditions. By today's terms, this was a relatively crude mechanical system, but it did a good job of optimizing engine efficiency, throttle response, fuel economy, and idle cooling, with absolutely ZERO effect on wide-open throttle performance, as vacuum advance is inoperative under wide-open throttle conditions. In modern cars with computerized engine controllers, all those sensors and the controller change both mixture and spark timing 50 to 100 times per second, and we don't even HAVE a distributor any more - it's all electronic.


An interesting addition may be made concerning the lean side. When we began looking at spark tables with the EBL computer driven fuel and spark there were some shade tree misconceptions I had to get out of my head.

First, was I thought that lean would make the combustion chamber hotter. Didn't happen. Too lean, less that 12.8 to 1 on a pull will cause excessive temperatures but 16.4-mid 17s ran cooler. Didn't make much power... hence the term Lean Cruise.

The second surprise was how much spark needs to be advanced when the mixture is taken lean. It makes sense, being that vacuum is high and therefore compression is low; it is not going to ping. But that is not why it needs more advance. Lean mixtures take longer to get the fire going. 403's can take better than 5* in some cases. I run my 455 at 4.9* at a MAP of 50. (Sorry I don't have a vacuum gauge. It would be interesting.) The almost 5* extra can make the advance at the crank close to 47* at 2500 RPMs and a MAP of 50. I didn't see that coming.

When it makes the jump to Lean Cruise instant MPG goes up 1 MPG. "So, you must be getting great mileage?" Well, not really because it doesn't run at 50 MAP and 2500 all that often. Level, no head wind it can for minutes at a time. But every little overpass and mound can make it drop down... both in lean-ness and spark advance. If you want to get great MPG the coach needs to the size of a Honda.

So, if the Quadrajet is leaning out to 16:1 in a light cruise (which some have reported) then a vacuum advance can dial in more advance under those high vacuum times. When set up like Dick Paterson can... matching the carb to the distributor... the results can be quite good. Just fiddling, twiddling and guessing with it can have bad results, quite bad with 12000 lbs of coach to lug around.


'74 Eleganza, SE, Howell + EBL
Best Wishes,
George
Re: Engine Timing [message #276463 is a reply to message #276376] Wed, 22 April 2015 10:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Chris Tyler is currently offline  Chris Tyler   United States
Messages: 458
Registered: September 2013
Location: Odessa FL
Karma: 7
Senior Member
I would add a caution to the full manifold vacuum:
If you dont have a thermostatic vac switch you are probably going to have idle problems and or idle/part throttle transition problems. Especially when its cold.

I also have checked vac at manifold and at the ported pickup and found no difference, however not simultaneously.

Personally, on a street car I prefer ported vac provided the rest of the curve is optimized, generally a faster curve more initial and less total, with adjustable vac canister

But only if you are willing to dail it in


76 Glenbrook
Re: [GMCnet] Engine Timing [message #276464 is a reply to message #276463] Wed, 22 April 2015 11:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
James Hupy is currently offline  James Hupy   United States
Messages: 6806
Registered: May 2010
Karma: -62
Senior Member
You kind of have to think backwards about vacuum dashpots. When full engine
vacuum is applied to them, they provide maximum spark advance within the
limits of their operating range. As the throttle is opened, available
vacuum is reduced and the diaphragm spring within the dashpot actually
retards spark timing. But usually by this time, there are more RPM's
present and therefore more centrifugal or mechanical advance. The best fuel
economy as well as performance happens with more advance rather than less,
but push it too far and you have spark knock or pinging. This is one of the
primary purposes of the vacuum advance. It pulls out a good bit of advance
when throttles are opened and minimizes spark knock. Clear as mud, right?
Jim Hupy
Salem, Oregon
78 GMC ROYALE 403
On Apr 22, 2015 8:47 AM, "Chris Tyler" wrote:

> I would add a caution to the full manifold vacuum:
> If you dont have a thermostatic vac switch you are probably going to have
> idle problems and or idle/part throttle transition problems. Especially when
> its cold.
>
> I also have checked vac at manifold and at the ported pickup and found no
> difference, however not simultaneously.
>
> Personally, on a street car I prefer ported vac provided the rest of the
> curve is optimized, generally a faster curve more initial and less total,
> with adjustable vac canister
>
> But only if you are willing to dail it in
> --
> 76 Glenbrook
> _______________________________________________
> GMCnet mailing list
> Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
> http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist
>
_______________________________________________
GMCnet mailing list
Unsubscribe or Change List Options:
http://temp.gmcnet.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gmclist

Re: [GMCnet] Engine Timing [message #276471 is a reply to message #276464] Wed, 22 April 2015 13:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ken Burton is currently offline  Ken Burton   United States
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
Senior Member
James Hupy wrote on Wed, 22 April 2015 11:02
You kind of have to think backwards about vacuum dashpots. When full engine
vacuum is applied to them, they provide maximum spark advance within the
limits of their operating range. As the throttle is opened, available
vacuum is reduced and the diaphragm spring within the dashpot actually
retards spark timing. But usually by this time, there are more RPM's
present and therefore more centrifugal or mechanical advance. The best fuel
economy as well as performance happens with more advance rather than less,
but push it too far and you have spark knock or pinging. This is one of the
primary purposes of the vacuum advance. It pulls out a good bit of advance
when throttles are opened and minimizes spark knock. Clear as mud, right?
Jim Hupy
Salem, Oregon
78 GMC ROYALE 403
On Apr 22, 2015 8:47 AM, "Chris Tyler" wrote:

> I would add a caution to the full manifold vacuum:
> If you dont have a thermostatic vac switch you are probably going to have
> idle problems and or idle/part throttle transition problems. Especially when
> its cold.
>
> I also have checked vac at manifold and at the ported pickup and found no
> difference, however not simultaneously.
>
> Personally, on a street car I prefer ported vac provided the rest of the
> curve is optimized, generally a faster curve more initial and less total,
> with adjustable vac canister
>




Makes complete sense.

When playing with different vacuum advances there are two settings designed into them when they are built. Maximum advance, which is nothing more than a stop on the pull lever and vacuum operating range which is the determined by the strength of the spring. When changing from port to manifold vacuum, you change the operating range and usually higher vacuum is applied at a given throttle opening. So you should also change the vacuum advance with one designed to run at manifold vacuum range. Most people do not do this, they simply retard the static advance and adjust down the increased idle speed.


Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
Re: Engine Timing [message #276479 is a reply to message #276463] Wed, 22 April 2015 15:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bob de Kruyff   United States
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
Senior Member
Chris Tyler wrote on Wed, 22 April 2015 09:47
I would add a caution to the full manifold vacuum:
If you dont have a thermostatic vac switch you are probably going to have idle problems and or idle/part throttle transition problems. Especially when its cold.

I also have checked vac at manifold and at the ported pickup and found no difference, however not simultaneously.

Personally, on a street car I prefer ported vac provided the rest of the curve is optimized, generally a faster curve more initial and less total, with adjustable vac canister

But only if you are willing to dail it in

Chris, I found just the opposite. My cold engine performance is dramatically better with no transition as it starts to warm up. I don't have a hot start issue either since there isn't enough vacuum while cranking to cause a problem. Most will have to reduce the idle speed since the engine runs so much more efficiently.


Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
Re: [GMCnet] Engine Timing [message #276480 is a reply to message #276471] Wed, 22 April 2015 15:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bob de Kruyff   United States
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
Senior Member
Ken Burton wrote on Wed, 22 April 2015 12:20
James Hupy wrote on Wed, 22 April 2015 11:02
You kind of have to think backwards about vacuum dashpots. When full engine
vacuum is applied to them, they provide maximum spark advance within the
limits of their operating range. As the throttle is opened, available
vacuum is reduced and the diaphragm spring within the dashpot actually
retards spark timing. But usually by this time, there are more RPM's
present and therefore more centrifugal or mechanical advance. The best fuel
economy as well as performance happens with more advance rather than less,
but push it too far and you have spark knock or pinging. This is one of the
primary purposes of the vacuum advance. It pulls out a good bit of advance
when throttles are opened and minimizes spark knock. Clear as mud, right?
Jim Hupy
Salem, Oregon
78 GMC ROYALE 403
On Apr 22, 2015 8:47 AM, "Chris Tyler" wrote:

> I would add a caution to the full manifold vacuum:
> If you dont have a thermostatic vac switch you are probably going to have
> idle problems and or idle/part throttle transition problems. Especially when
> its cold.
>
> I also have checked vac at manifold and at the ported pickup and found no
> difference, however not simultaneously.
>
> Personally, on a street car I prefer ported vac provided the rest of the
> curve is optimized, generally a faster curve more initial and less total,
> with adjustable vac canister
>




Makes complete sense.

When playing with different vacuum advances there are two settings designed into them when they are built. Maximum advance, which is nothing more than a stop on the pull lever and vacuum operating range which is the determined by the strength of the spring. When changing from port to manifold vacuum, you change the operating range and usually higher vacuum is applied at a given throttle opening. So you should also change the vacuum advance with one designed to run at manifold vacuum range. Most people do not do this, they simply retard the static advance and adjust down the increased idle speed.

I wouldn't doubt that many people are running manifold vacuum even when they are hooked up for ported vacuum. Many folks have engines that run a bit on the hot side and the TVS have you in manifold vacuum mode.


Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
Re: Engine Timing [message #276528 is a reply to message #276376] Thu, 23 April 2015 10:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Heslinga   Canada
Messages: 632
Registered: February 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Karma: 4
Senior Member
George Beckham:

Good Additional information: can I ask a Question please? In the EBL Tables does the timing retard at closed TPS reading, High Vacuum reading from the MAP sensor, and normal engine Temperature? (During IAC Modulation)

Thanks!!


John and Cathie Heslinga 1974 Canyonlands 260 455, Manny tranny and 1 ton, 3:70 LS, Red Seal Journeyman, DTE, BEd. MEd. Edmonton, Alberta
Re: Engine Timing [message #276532 is a reply to message #276376] Thu, 23 April 2015 11:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Heslinga   Canada
Messages: 632
Registered: February 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Karma: 4
Senior Member
Bob:re:
Quote:
Chris, I found just the opposite. My cold engine performance is dramatically better with no transition as it starts to warm up. I don't have a hot start issue either since there isn't enough vacuum while cranking to cause a problem. Most will have to reduce the idle speed since the engine runs so much more efficiently


One of the other advantages is that the throttle plates are not so far open and there is not as much air flow through the venturies. The idle is better controlled by the idle circuit. (The boosters nozzle are so efficient that they actually start to add fuel to the mixture. Nozzle drip)

The inconsistent adding of drops of fuel makes the idle mixture change and smooth idle difficult to achieve. (I use a Vacuum gauge and Tach when adjusting idle)
The engine also handles the AC compressor cycling better At idle. Your Right: During cranking, there is not enough vacuum to kick in the advance which is perfect because the timing is retarded naturally during crank conditions.

What's important for everyone to know is that one change usually needs other changes to compliment or accommodate for those changes.
Timing curves can take a lot of playing for someone who kind of know what they are doing. But uf you don't the results may not be ideal. Experienced people like Dick Patterson with Distributor machines and Dynamometers create Recipes that are pretty successful.

Lets face it. Its the Recipe that makes Kentucky Fried Chicken what it is. You might come close but is it "Finger Lickin Good"?

Regards


John and Cathie Heslinga 1974 Canyonlands 260 455, Manny tranny and 1 ton, 3:70 LS, Red Seal Journeyman, DTE, BEd. MEd. Edmonton, Alberta
Re: Engine Timing [message #276572 is a reply to message #276376] Thu, 23 April 2015 18:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JohnL455 is currently offline  JohnL455   United States
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
Senior Member
I'm running ported wTVS as designed. Full vac seems to give more run-on (Dieseling). Also if you trim back the idle speed because of running full manifold and get stuck in a freeway jam in 100 deg weather, you have no TVS to pickup the idle and cool you down. Interesting because at the height of muscle cars 67-70 GM ran ported to the dist, often with TVS. Those cars didn't lack performance!

John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
Re: Engine Timing [message #276586 is a reply to message #276528] Thu, 23 April 2015 19:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
George Beckman is currently offline  George Beckman   United States
Messages: 1085
Registered: October 2008
Location: Colfax, CA
Karma: 11
Senior Member
John Heslinga wrote on Thu, 23 April 2015 08:41
George Beckham:

Good Additional information: can I ask a Question please? In the EBL Tables does the timing retard at closed TPS reading, High Vacuum reading from the MAP sensor, and normal engine Temperature? (During IAC Modulation)

Thanks!!


Not really. I suppose you could set it that way, but most of us (who have installed a Vehicle Speed Sensor (VSS)) use the fuel shut-ff (Deceleration Fuel Cut Off, DFCO). So when the throttle closes, and vehicle speed and RPMs indicate coasting the injectors stop. There are settings that allow you to decide what limits you want on this action. I actually have spark fairly advanced when nearing zero throttle and very low MAP. And, yes, I would want to not use DFCO before the engine is warm. (BTW, you can freeze in cold weather going down a 10 mile grade... the heater starts blowing cold air.JimK doesn't use DFCO in the winter.

You mention IAC and the little stepper opens it up a bit, so the "restart" is more natural, as the idle is up a bit. If you listen you hear the engine staring to run again and I have seen the tach jump a couple hundred RPMs as the engine starts helping the torque convert turn it over. I have not fiddled with this much. Many of the settings in the EBL are pretty much GM specs and I figure they did quite a bit of R&D to decide settings. THis is especially true of Power Enrichment. More than one has thought, "I don't need PE (Power Valve in carburetors) to start at 47% throttle. That is for wide open throttle!" I was glad I experimented when I had exhaust temperatures because it turns out GM was right, you better start to richen the mixture, before 50% throttle.

Good questions. I see you are thinking and wondering how all this fits together. It is fun to learn but massively complex. Those GM engineers were no Bozos.


'74 Eleganza, SE, Howell + EBL
Best Wishes,
George
Re: Engine Timing [message #276600 is a reply to message #276572] Thu, 23 April 2015 22:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
John Heslinga   Canada
Messages: 632
Registered: February 2011
Location: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Karma: 4
Senior Member
John
Firstly: I'm NOT trying to convince anyone to change what they have as stock into anything different. The stock configuration works very well because everything is set up to work together!!! (In Fact I can make it all work very well together because I've professionally tuned many, many, many 60s,70s and 80s vehicles.) (My own vehicle runs quite well too)(doesn't matter what I did because everything else is different) In fact if you just make the ported to un-ported vacuum to the stock GMC, It will likely run like a toilet!!! Other changes to tune up specs need changing to accommodate this change. Sooo nobody should do it unless it is needed or they know what you are doing. (While unlikely serious negative effects, but Who wants problems)

In Skips Case, He does not have a stock configuration, and is having problems. he is likely having these problems because of the non stock configuration, and a stock configuration ignition system. He needs to accommodate that in his tune up specs.

But: I have a few misunderstanding s of your comments. Can you help me please? First the entire quote:
JohnL455 wrote on Thu, 23 April 2015 17:51
I'm running ported wTVS as designed. Full vac seems to give more run-on (Dieseling). Also if you trim back the idle speed because of running full manifold and get stuck in a freeway jam in 100 deg weather, you have no TVS to pickup the idle and cool you down. Interesting because at the height of muscle cars 67-70 GM ran ported to the dist, often with TVS. Those cars didn't lack performance!


Now some questions and comments:
Quote:
I'm running ported wTVS as designed.

GOOD
Ported Vacuum advance actually retards the ignition at Idle. (about 5 to 15 degrees depending on application) Ported Vacuum advance should have the Temperature Vacuum Switch as part of its system because the Switch will solve a heat problem that the retarded timing (Less than Ideal Advance)has on the combustion chamber and the engine. The switch applies vacuum to the ignition system to help cool things down if it gets out of control (and it will). Especially after a nice freeway run and you take an exit and then wait at at a stop light on the next street. A comment from Bob that says that some people might actually have vacuum most times because they have hotter engines is pretty close to the truth however: I think it is not so much the hotter engines but bad switches. They are supposed to open at 225 degrees. They leak or they open earlier (Cooler temperatures)(in fact most of these switches work the same as a cooling system thermostat and most Stat failures are early opening failures - Ask us in the North) In the 70s and 80s we needed to replace many emissions parts such as temp switches( as a Dealership we repaired the emissions systems because nobody else did , and usually we made the car run better) Those switches as supposed to open at 225 degrees. By removing the retard the engine does not have the heat load and speeds up (Because it runs better) thereby cooling things down.

Quote:
Also if you trim back the idle speed because of running full manifold and get stuck in a freeway jam in 100 deg weather, you have no TVS to pickup the idle and cool you down.

Again this confuses me because the ignition system will already be at ideal advance and the heat related to a retarded spark will not be adding the heat to the engine and the heat load will be less. More advance will not be helpful. Freeway Jams may still cause overheating problems but those are other issues.

Quote:
Full vac seems to give more run-on (Dieseling)

I'm confused about this comment. "Run on" combustion is not an ignition problem but hot spots (Carbon, metal protrusions, and spark plugs and increased compression) in the combustion chamber and increased throttle openings (More fuel Air)(The spark is turned off) The heat added from a retarded spark increased the risk of hot spots in the combustion cambers. A cooler combustion chamber decreases the risk of "run on". When Air conditioning became more popular, they found that the retarded idle had some problems because the throttle needed to be too far open to provide the idle power the compressor needed. The manufactures solved some of the this by adding a throttle kicker so that throttle opened up more when the ignition was on and dropped the throttle when the ignition was turned off. Again: more equipment to accommodate the problems.

Quote:
Interesting because at the height of muscle cars 67-70 GM ran ported to the dist, often with TVS. Those cars didn't lack performance!

It is in these era cars that emissions began being managed in this manner. The reality is that Ported Vacuum, or Non Ported Vacuum really does nothing to the performance of any vehicle. Full throttle performance uses no Vacuum advance at all. (basically zero Vacuum) This was also the time that Hot fuel issues became bigger issues and Chevy began to install three port fuel filters and later 3 port fuel pumps to get hot fuel back to the fuel tank. see next 2 images and the fuel filter on the water pump. The engine heat became enormous (Recognize this in our GMCs ?(another topic for sure))
These are 60s big block chevs.
http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/3-port-fuel-pump-2c-filter-2c-and-hot-fuel/p57439-3-port-fuel-filter.html

http://www.gmcmhphotos.com/photos/3-port-fuel-pump-2c-filter-2c-and-hot-fuel/p57436-3-port-fuel-filter-from-2760s-chevy-vehicles.html

Best Regards


John and Cathie Heslinga 1974 Canyonlands 260 455, Manny tranny and 1 ton, 3:70 LS, Red Seal Journeyman, DTE, BEd. MEd. Edmonton, Alberta
Re: Engine Timing [message #276602 is a reply to message #276572] Thu, 23 April 2015 22:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Bob de Kruyff   United States
Messages: 4260
Registered: January 2004
Location: Chandler, AZ
Karma: 1
Senior Member
JohnL455 wrote on Thu, 23 April 2015 17:51
I'm running ported wTVS as designed. Full vac seems to give more run-on (Dieseling). Also if you trim back the idle speed because of running full manifold and get stuck in a freeway jam in 100 deg weather, you have no TVS to pickup the idle and cool you down. Interesting because at the height of muscle cars 67-70 GM ran ported to the dist, often with TVS. Those cars didn't lack performance!

John. if you are already running off manifold vacuum, you would never need the TVS to pick up the idle or advance to cool you down--you are already there. As those who were involved in the development of these engines, ported vacuum was a last resort for emissions with big downsides. I can't imagine any one embracing this unless you were a tree hugger in the mid 70's.


Bob de Kruyff
78 Eleganza
Chandler, AZ
Re: Engine Timing [message #276669 is a reply to message #276376] Fri, 24 April 2015 22:38 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JohnL455 is currently offline  JohnL455   United States
Messages: 4447
Registered: October 2006
Location: Woodstock, IL
Karma: 12
Senior Member
Seems if you switch from ported to manifold, you would have to decrease initial advance setting and perhaps drop idle speed at carb. By reducing initial timing you would lose total advance and WOT power. I'm I right?

John Lebetski
Woodstock, IL
77 Eleganza II
Re: Engine Timing [message #276675 is a reply to message #276669] Sat, 25 April 2015 00:17 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
Ken Burton is currently offline  Ken Burton   United States
Messages: 10030
Registered: January 2004
Location: Hebron, Indiana
Karma: 10
Senior Member
True


I am really confused by this whole thing.

Why does anyone care about the advance value at an idle? Once open up the throttle slightly the vacuum advance kick in and off you go.

Why would anyone want to screw up the advance curve for the rest of the engine operating RPM range just to add more advance at an idle?

I was watching my Colorado again today while sitting at a stop light for an extended period of time this evening. The computer controls the advance on it and it was maintaining 12 to 14 BTC at around 750 to 800 RPM. It stayed there the entire time I waited for that signal to change. I can not figure out why I would want it to be any different and what I could possible gain by trying to change it.

Those same thoughts apply to my GMC. My GMC static timing is set to 13 BTDC and at an idle I have no vacuum advance and no centrifugal advance. So my total advance at an idle is 13 BTDC. That is the same as my computer controlled Colorado.

As I came off of idle on my collie the timing jumped to 24 degrees. Guess what. My GMC does about the same thing with 13 static and about 10 vacuum and throw in couple of degrees of centrifugal so I am at about 25 or 26.

So it all makes no sense to me as to why people want to change it. Mine is close to what the engineers wanted in 1975 and also in 2005. I'm leaving it there. I have no pinging and reasonable economy.


Ken Burton - N9KB
76 Palm Beach
Hebron, Indiana
Previous Topic: [GMCnet] Steering damper
Next Topic: What is this?
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Wed Sep 25 14:30:18 CDT 2024

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.11565 seconds