mgs
[Top] [All Lists]

stupid timing question (last in a series)

To: mgs@autox.team.net
Subject: stupid timing question (last in a series)
From: wzehring@cmb.biosci.wayne.edu (Will Zehring)
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 1996 08:07:14 -0400
Fellow fiends:

First off, thanks to all the list members who responded to my two volume 
collection of stupid timing questions, especially to the venerable Mr. John 
Trindle!  Like my ignition system, I have moved a few degrees advanced on 
the learning curve.  

Final update:
I notched the '63s timing back up to what I'll call "15+" as my timing cover 
only indicates tdc and 5 and 10 btdc, so this is one of those 
eye-ball-o-metric determinations again.  It is running smoother and scooting 
better than it did at 12 and has an only modestly lumpy idle at about 1000.  
I can live with that and a slightly lumpy "take off" because of its improved 
running and acceleration at higher rmps.  I was intrigued to read Barney 
Gaylords posting on his A set at 20 btdc.

Indeed, the HS4 carbss/25D distributor on the '63 use a ported vacuum 
system.  I did some further testing last night and its clear my vacuum 
advance is working.  I'm still a bit concerned about my mechanical advance, 
however (i.e. I'm seeing very little advance under no load with a pinched 
vacuum line at high rpm--in my previous reports I didn't have the vacuum 
line pinched), but for now, I'm taking the bold action of not worrying about 
it too much (and not annoying the list either).  How 'bout that?

Anyway, thanks again.  And... don't worry, in the words of Arnold, I'll be back!

Will "is this group great, or what?" Zehring


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • stupid timing question (last in a series), Will Zehring <=