Author Topic: A nice vacuum advance article  (Read 11846 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Dot Heton

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
A nice vacuum advance article
« on: May 16, 2016, 06:55:43 PM »
Someone stole this article and posted it on a forum and now I'm stealing it again since it was a nice little read. It applies to mild street driven stuff and most people on here won't be using vacuum advance. I have my stock 390 on timed port and I'm going to switch it and see what happens.

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.


C6AE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #1 on: May 16, 2016, 07:28:37 PM »
Both Holley (Ford) and Stromberg (Dodge) had timed port vacuum advance by the mid 1940's for good reasons that had nothing to do with smog control.
 
(Maybe GM was a little late to the game... Just kidding)

That article needs work.




427Fastback

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #2 on: May 16, 2016, 07:56:37 PM »
That was a good read......
1968 Mustang Fastback...427 MR 5spd (owned since 1977)
1967 Mustang coupe...Trans Am replica
1936 Diamond T 212BD
1990 Grizzly pick-up

Dot Heton

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #3 on: May 16, 2016, 08:25:51 PM »
Both Holley (Ford) and Stromberg (Dodge) had timed port vacuum advance by the mid 1940's for good reasons that had nothing to do with smog control.
 
(Maybe GM was a little late to the game... Just kidding)

That article needs work.


~~~~~~~

I give the engineer credit since half of his brain was occupied with remembering how to rebuild a quadrajet





Heo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #4 on: May 16, 2016, 08:59:38 PM »
Both Holley (Ford) and Stromberg (Dodge) had timed port vacuum advance by the mid 1940's for good reasons that had nothing to do with smog control.
 
(Maybe GM was a little late to the game... Just kidding)

That article needs work.
But Ford in the 40s had no mecanical advance in the Dist
only a Vaccum "brake" advance



The defenition of a Gentleman, is a man that can play the accordion.But dont do it

C6AE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #5 on: May 16, 2016, 11:33:53 PM »
Both Holley (Ford) and Stromberg (Dodge) had timed port vacuum advance by the mid 1940's for good reasons that had nothing to do with smog control.
 
(Maybe GM was a little late to the game... Just kidding)

That article needs work.
But Ford in the 40s had no mecanical advance in the Dist
only a Vaccum "brake" advance

Six cylinder...

Faron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Dist Recurve Service l TotalPerfEntofPa@aol.com
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #6 on: May 17, 2016, 12:44:53 AM »
Misinformation , I see this repeated from time to time  8)

Dot Heton

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #7 on: May 17, 2016, 12:53:49 AM »
Let us know what you don't agree with

Joe-JDC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1491
  • Truth stands on its own merit.
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #8 on: May 17, 2016, 09:59:04 PM »
First paragraph states that lean requires longer to burn and more advance.  Lean burns quickly, and if it lights off too quick, you get a backfire.  I quit reading after that statement, and just glanced over the rest.  I don't agree with several things.  Joe-JDC
Joe-JDC '70GT-500

FloridaMack

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #9 on: May 17, 2016, 10:52:20 PM »
Good timing for this article, it has me rethinking vacuum advance use tonight.

Ford428CJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • FE FREAK!
    • View Profile
    • Hillside Auto
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #10 on: May 17, 2016, 11:08:52 PM »
I 3rd that! I agree with Joe and Faron on that. Good luck to ya...
Wes Adams FORD428CJ 
Hillside Auto- Custom Curved, Blueprinted Distributors
03 F-250 Crew Cab 4x4 6.0 and 35's
64 Falcon 428FE
55 FORD Truck 4-link Rides on air with 428FE

Faron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Dist Recurve Service l TotalPerfEntofPa@aol.com
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #11 on: May 17, 2016, 11:11:47 PM »
Like Joe already posted the Article starts out Wrong and just gets worse , In the Beginning Ford Used Venturi Vacuum , Not Manifold ( loadamatic style ) but it was not the most reliable , starting in 57 Most fords went to a Centrifugal advance with a Vacuum advance  hooked to a PORTED SOURCE !!(The Vacuum adv was for Better economy ) this was way before SMOG / Emissions , True Ford did use the Vac adv later  to help smog ( the retard side in the Dual units ) If Vac adv was the way to go for performance IT would of been the Standard on the Performance Engines ,  Ford ( along with most other makes ) used a Centrifugal and Dual points deal for Performance If the Curve is Correct, and keep this in mind The Factory Curve in a unmolested Dist is for Warranty and ( later ) Emissions reasons NOT for the best Power or Economy if you think your engine will run the Best at Out of the Book Factory Specs , your Sadly Mistaken , nuff said

427Fastback

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #12 on: May 17, 2016, 11:46:03 PM »
Why does everybody like ported vacuum so much ??..Unless it is keeping the idle too high I always use manifold vacuum....
I have seen more engines with fluttering vacuum pots at idle using ported than I have with manifold vacuum.
Trying to get the correct idle speed in a automatic in gear with a healthy cam and ported vacuum advance can be difficult...The sweet spot isn't always there to be found..The carb is always in the transition spot..

I tend to run what works...I never plug or disconnect the advance on a street engine tho...
1968 Mustang Fastback...427 MR 5spd (owned since 1977)
1967 Mustang coupe...Trans Am replica
1936 Diamond T 212BD
1990 Grizzly pick-up

Ford428CJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • FE FREAK!
    • View Profile
    • Hillside Auto
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #13 on: May 18, 2016, 07:19:16 AM »
Why does everybody like ported vacuum so much ??..Unless it is keeping the idle too high I always use manifold vacuum....
I have seen more engines with fluttering vacuum pots at idle using ported than I have with manifold vacuum.
Trying to get the correct idle speed in a automatic in gear with a healthy cam and ported vacuum advance can be difficult...The sweet spot isn't always there to be found..The carb is always in the transition spot..

I tend to run what works...I never plug or disconnect the advance on a street engine tho...

If your cab is in the transition slot. Then you dont have your carb set up correctly then! Sound like the secondaries are too far closed and should be open up a little more so the primaries are not in the transition slot. Never ever had that problem with a so called fluttering port vacuum.

 And if its that radical.... Why bother with vacuum advance at that point. JMHO
Wes Adams FORD428CJ 
Hillside Auto- Custom Curved, Blueprinted Distributors
03 F-250 Crew Cab 4x4 6.0 and 35's
64 Falcon 428FE
55 FORD Truck 4-link Rides on air with 428FE

427Fastback

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 603
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #14 on: May 18, 2016, 10:58:09 AM »
I said transition spot not slot...as in vacuum ports
1968 Mustang Fastback...427 MR 5spd (owned since 1977)
1967 Mustang coupe...Trans Am replica
1936 Diamond T 212BD
1990 Grizzly pick-up

Ford428CJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • FE FREAK!
    • View Profile
    • Hillside Auto
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #15 on: May 18, 2016, 11:47:49 AM »
Ported vacuum spot then. It should be below that and you might have to adjust your secondaries  open a little more so the primary butterflies sits below the ported vacuum port then. Still back to proper carb adjustment
Wes Adams FORD428CJ 
Hillside Auto- Custom Curved, Blueprinted Distributors
03 F-250 Crew Cab 4x4 6.0 and 35's
64 Falcon 428FE
55 FORD Truck 4-link Rides on air with 428FE

e philpott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #16 on: May 18, 2016, 03:59:28 PM »
First paragraph states that lean requires longer to burn and more advance.  Lean burns quickly, and if it lights off too quick, you get a backfire.  I quit reading after that statement, and just glanced over the rest.  I don't agree with several things.  Joe-JDC


X2 ... you can even watch "burn time" with a ignition scope .... rich burns slow .... lean burns quick

gordonr390

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2016, 06:54:00 PM »
I don't agree on the burn time analogy either. I run a 99% factory stock/original 69 S code and decided to change up the timing advance to manifold vacuum months ago. When I discovered my factory advance was leaking I picked up a Standard pn#VC31 unit to give it a try while I figured out where to send my factory unit for refurb. I set the max timing @ 36* and at idle it settled down to 22*.  Drivability dramatically changed for the better. The car definitely is no horsepower king but the engine liked it and became more of a joy to drive. Fuel has changed sense 1969 and by running 92 octane now I felt it was a no brainer to try. 

My427stang

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3930
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2016, 09:06:00 PM »
I don't agree on the burn time analogy either. I run a 99% factory stock/original 69 S code and decided to change up the timing advance to manifold vacuum months ago. When I discovered my factory advance was leaking I picked up a Standard pn#VC31 unit to give it a try while I figured out where to send my factory unit for refurb. I set the max timing @ 36* and at idle it settled down to 22*.  Drivability dramatically changed for the better. The car definitely is no horsepower king but the engine liked it and became more of a joy to drive. Fuel has changed sense 1969 and by running 92 octane now I felt it was a no brainer to try.

If you are happy with what you have, then it's all good.  However, I would say that you'd likely be even happier with a mechanical curve that did almost the same thing at low RPM.  What happens with your setup is that if you drop the hammer, the advance goes away.  If you had a bit more initial, a quick curve, and ported you'd have the same part throttle effects and the proper curve would be present when you went to zero vacuum

That being said, I am sure it's better than the stock slow and late timing curve, so is it worth recurving on a stocker?  Maybe not, I would, but again, if you are happy, that's the key and my guess is that yours IS significantly better than the stock curve, especially part throttle and low RPM
---------------------------------
Ross
Bullock's Power Service, LLC
- 70 Fastback Mustang, 489 cid FE, Victor, SEFI, Erson SFT cam, TKO-600 5 speed, 4.11 9 inch.
- 71 F100 shortbed 4x4, 461 cid FE, headers, Victor Pro-flo EFI, Comp Custom HFT cam, 3.50 9 inch

gordonr390

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 23
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #19 on: May 19, 2016, 06:15:04 AM »
I don't agree on the burn time analogy either. I run a 99% factory stock/original 69 S code and decided to change up the timing advance to manifold vacuum months ago. When I discovered my factory advance was leaking I picked up a Standard pn#VC31 unit to give it a try while I figured out where to send my factory unit for refurb. I set the max timing @ 36* and at idle it settled down to 22*.  Drivability dramatically changed for the better. The car definitely is no horsepower king but the engine liked it and became more of a joy to drive. Fuel has changed sense 1969 and by running 92 octane now I felt it was a no brainer to try.

If you are happy with what you have, then it's all good.  However, I would say that you'd likely be even happier with a mechanical curve that did almost the same thing at low RPM.  What happens with your setup is that if you drop the hammer, the advance goes away.  If you had a bit more initial, a quick curve, and ported you'd have the same part throttle effects and the proper curve would be present when you went to zero vacuum

That being said, I am sure it's better than the stock slow and late timing curve, so is it worth recurving on a stocker?  Maybe not, I would, but again, if you are happy, that's the key and my guess is that yours IS significantly better than the stock curve, especially part throttle and low RPM


I agree. By having an aggressive curve on initial with the mechanical and a ported vacuum advance bringing up the the big end it would have more power. But I believe this engine is finished by 4500 rpm and could be almost hobbyish to pursue. I have top end set setup in the pipeline and will be using the setup you are describing when I go to assembly.

Ford428CJ

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • FE FREAK!
    • View Profile
    • Hillside Auto
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #20 on: May 19, 2016, 08:45:57 AM »
Very well said Ross! I 100% agree with that.
Wes Adams FORD428CJ 
Hillside Auto- Custom Curved, Blueprinted Distributors
03 F-250 Crew Cab 4x4 6.0 and 35's
64 Falcon 428FE
55 FORD Truck 4-link Rides on air with 428FE

cjshaker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4461
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #21 on: May 19, 2016, 09:24:19 AM »
Like most other things, it really depends on the combination and how it's used. Iron heads with less than ideal quench, a very mild cam and low octane gas, all used in a truck that's going to be lugged or used to pull heavy loads can stack the deck against being able to use a higher initial with ported vacuum. Sometimes you need that timing drop under load to stay out of pre-ignition.

I'd try it the way Ross said, but while keeping an ear out for any spark knock.
Doug Smith


'69 R-code Mach 1, 427 MR, 2x4, Jerico, 4.30 Locker
'70 F-350 390
'55 Ford Customline 2dr
'37 Ford Coupe

fryedaddy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1252
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #22 on: May 19, 2016, 11:22:40 AM »
im glad i read this,i didnt understand vacuum advance dist.
1966 comet caliente 428 4 speed owned since 1983                                                 1973 f250 ranger xlt 360 4 speed papaw bought new

falcongeorge

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #23 on: May 20, 2016, 11:05:35 PM »
Misinformation , I see this repeated from time to time  8)
He just got it off the HAMB. I am an active member on there, but getting your tech advice on there is like getting your political commentary from the National Enquirer... :o ;D

Dot Heton

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 57
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #24 on: May 20, 2016, 11:58:56 PM »
No I didn't get it from the H.A. M. B.

C6AE

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 167
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2016, 10:44:23 AM »
That article has been going around for years...

I think more accurate information can be had at the corner bar.
Just walk in, sit down and order a beer then ask the person sitting next to you "What do you think about this?"!!!


Drew Pojedinec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2116
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #26 on: May 22, 2016, 09:21:21 AM »
I don't agree on the burn time analogy either. I run a 99% factory stock/original 69 S code and decided to change up the timing advance to manifold vacuum months ago. When I discovered my factory advance was leaking I picked up a Standard pn#VC31 unit to give it a try while I figured out where to send my factory unit for refurb. I set the max timing @ 36* and at idle it settled down to 22*.  Drivability dramatically changed for the better. The car definitely is no horsepower king but the engine liked it and became more of a joy to drive. Fuel has changed sense 1969 and by running 92 octane now I felt it was a no brainer to try.

Your example is kinda like the folks that have a totally 100% original and 110% worn out front end suspension that changes over to rack and pinion and than raves to everyone about how the original steering sucks.
Why not address the issue instead of tossing band aids?
Either way, good luck, sounds like a nice car.

e philpott

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 923
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #27 on: May 22, 2016, 10:13:33 AM »
Burn time is easy to watch on a ignition scope , wether the engine likes more OR less timing at idle still doesn't change the fact that rich mixtures burn slow , I was not giving a opinion just the facts , which is same reason JDC disregarded the author of the timing story because he doesn't know what he is talking about early in his write up

falcongeorge

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 343
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #28 on: May 22, 2016, 05:30:44 PM »
No I didn't get it from the H.A. M. B.
Its all good. Thought maybe you did because of the "timing" ;D, someone started a "ported vs manifold vacuum" thread on there about a week ago, and a link to this article was posted almost immediately.

TomP

  • Guest
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #29 on: May 22, 2016, 08:12:40 PM »
Why is it I see many more aftermarket vacuum advance distributors with a cap over the vacuum nipple than a hose? They pay extra to get that vacuum version.

Faron

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 181
  • Dist Recurve Service l TotalPerfEntofPa@aol.com
    • View Profile
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #30 on: May 23, 2016, 10:32:47 PM »
Sadly Tom most don't realize two important  things with aftermarket Dist's , First they need to be re-curved ( mechanically ) along with the vac adv , BUT most aftermarket Vac adv are NOT adjustable ,With Most you can limit the total , but usually they come in too early and add too much , the companies will SELL you one to replace the NON adjustable unit >:(, or you can get one from a knowledgeable person  8) ,A Tip = if the Vac adv does not have flats going around the tapered part of the canister it is NOT adjustable and most are finding out it runs BETTER with it NOT used , They HAVE the potential , just not  Out of the Box  8)

chris401

  • Guest
Re: A nice vacuum advance article
« Reply #31 on: May 25, 2016, 05:05:40 PM »
EDIT: I am not recommending anyone to set there vacuum advance that high on an older engine. Too much will put your spark into the next cylinder at the wrong time. With modern engines other factors such as being 4 cylinder, 6 cylinder, camshaft and fuel timing are involved.


While watching PID values in modern autos I have noticed spark advance being in the 60's under cruise throttle. I get everything past the lean burn comment. Maybe he misspoke or left out a word or two, or too proud to correct his post? I think he meant the cylinder temp stays hotter longer on a lean burn, quicker temperature flash and cool on a rich burn. If he is a legitimate engineer communication and humility are not common skill sets.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2016, 05:04:22 PM by chris401 »