Author Topic: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?  (Read 14935 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

chris401

  • Guest
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #15 on: October 29, 2016, 01:25:12 PM »


Something else to think about. When you are engine braking, advancing the spark will cause the combustion to help resist the engine from rotating. This can help slow down the engine. Ported vacuum won't help with advancing the spark for engine braking. Manifold vacuum will, because suddenly going to zero throttle at say 4,000 RPM will register a lot of vacuum. Food for thought, just be careful of how early the spark happens. Modern EFI systems control spark and fuel injection duty cycle involving RPM, load and throttle position, in some form or another, for various situations, including engine braking. How the engine's ECU computes load depends on the system, utilizing MAP, MAF or both (Evo X used both).
That is a good point I haven't thought about. I tried it both ways and felt more drag on ported. Next time I look at a late model I will look at the advance/retard values under engine breaking. In the past the only thing I have really watched for is full timing retard to spot a jumped timing chain. I have noticed advance in the low 60's under cruise make? model? year?, more than likely it was a 4-6 cylinder.

Yellow Truck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 608
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #16 on: October 29, 2016, 01:38:34 PM »
I spoke with the guy that set up my distributor - the pot I have on it is a Standard VC192. He is not a big fan of the Petronix Ignitor stuff and said it doesn't make sense to run an MSD box with it. If I go MSD box go with a new distributor too.
1969 F100 4WD (It ain't yellow anymore)
445 with BBM heads, Prison Break stroker kit, hydrualic roller cam, T&D rockers, Street Dominator Intake with QFT SS 830.

Paul.

Autoholic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #17 on: October 29, 2016, 04:41:08 PM »
You either go the Pertronix route or you go the MSD route. That would be pointless (pun intended) to do both. Some swear by the Ignitor method of going electronic. The Ignitor 3 has a programmable redline. You have to be careful with an Ignitor, they warn about jump starting the vehicle with one. You'll fry it.
~Joe
"Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn."

Autoholic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #18 on: October 29, 2016, 04:57:07 PM »
That is a good point I haven't thought about. I tried it both ways and felt more drag on ported. Next time I look at a late model I will look at the advance/retard values under engine breaking. In the past the only thing I have really watched for is full timing retard to spot a jumped timing chain. I have noticed advance in the low 60's under cruise make? model? year?, more than likely it was a 4-6 cylinder.

Well, an ECU won't specify engine braking. What it will specify is timing based on RPM and load or RPM and throttle position. There will be a fuel map related to this as well. At high RPM and suddenly going to closed throttle, that will have different timing values than high RPM at WOT. The RPM can be identical, what changed is throttle position / load.

The difference between a carb and EFI, is how things are controlled. One uses mechanical controls, the other electronic. You can theoretically run a carbureted vehicle identical to a vehicle with EFI, in terms of what is being controlled. The problem is, you reach a point where mechanical controls for certain things become a Da Vinci invention that makes German engineering look sane. And in the end, the EFI system would still control things better. I'm trying to imagine VVT with mechanical controls and I know it would require some sort of connection to RPM, so a mechanical advance. How that would work is beyond me right now.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2016, 05:06:45 PM by Autoholic »
~Joe
"Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn."

FirstEliminator

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #19 on: October 31, 2016, 08:14:11 PM »
I spoke with the guy that set up my distributor - the pot I have on it is a Standard VC192. He is not a big fan of the Petronix Ignitor stuff and said it doesn't make sense to run an MSD box with it. If I go MSD box go with a new distributor too.

    The Pertronix is a trigger, the MSD box is a spark enhancement. Why wouldn't they work together? I think they both have instructions on connecting one to another. If you like a stock look, a polished MSD distributor with a red cap is plain wrong. The only difference with a Pertronix is one extra wire.  Being I drive my cars long distance, I prefer to have something that uses parts that can be found at every auto parts store in the nation, which makes the Ford Duraspark my #1 choice. Yeah, I run an MSD along with it, but if there's a problem it can be converted over to a stock Duraspark box if needed.
Mark
Berkshire Transmissions
North Adams, Massachusetts

70 Cougar XR-7 460 C-6
70 Cougar XR-7 conv 351c 4v FMX
69 Cougar SS 351w AOD
69 Cougar Sunroof Eliminator 351w FMX
69 Cougar XR-7 390 C-6
68 Monterey 390 C-6
68 Monterey conv 390 C-6
64 Montclair Marauder 390 Merc-O
58 Monterey 383 Merc-O
58 Parklane 430 MultiDrive
68 Colony Park 428 C-6
68 Colony Park 390 C-6
58 Parklane 430 MultiDrive
70 Cougar Eliminator 351c 4 speed
I don't feel like a hoarder.

FirstEliminator

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 456
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #20 on: March 26, 2017, 02:16:34 AM »
    I've never picked sides on ported versus manifold vacuum for the distributor advance. Yet, I usually just run ported. Recently, I found a drawback to running the vacuum advance on manifold vacuum.
  The vehicle was an 82 Ford truck that had a 347, trick flow heads, I'd suspect around 220 or so of duration at .050--overall a good street build. Trans was a manual 5 speed--ZF 5S42. The truck had a bad driveline vibration that we fixed. Engine had a misfire and wasn't quite up to par on power. I checked out the timing and noticed the vacuum can had 20 degrees of advance and the initial was set at 12. Being hooked up to manifold vacuum there was actually 32 degrees at idle. It did idle, but was sensitive. If you let out the clutch a little fast and there was a dip in engine rpms where the vacuum would also dip, then the timing would go down to 12. The carb was closed up pretty tight to accommodate 32 degrees at free idle. With this carb setting, puling out 20 degrees of timing would then cause the engine to stall easily. 
    The best idea was to run ported and adjust the idle speed and mix with about 16 initial. Now, base throttle opening and base timing wouldn't mismatch when load was applied. The idle would maintain much better when engaging the clutch. Stalling was reduced significantly which made the truck easier to drive.  I changed to an adjustable vacuum advance and put about 10 degrees of vacuum on top of 34 total (initial and mechanical).
     In this application ported proved to be the better choice. The idle stability issue may not have been apparent in an automatic trans application. If I get time I may try changing to manifold vacuum on one of my cars to see if there is any improvement.
    My opinion on ported versus manifold is do which ever is best for the application.  With manifold vacuum I'd suspect the greatest benefit would be in the form of idle speed fuel efficiency. Which in a mild daily driver type car is important. When you're standing still, idle is just wasting gas, so use the least amount.

     Mark
Mark
Berkshire Transmissions
North Adams, Massachusetts

70 Cougar XR-7 460 C-6
70 Cougar XR-7 conv 351c 4v FMX
69 Cougar SS 351w AOD
69 Cougar Sunroof Eliminator 351w FMX
69 Cougar XR-7 390 C-6
68 Monterey 390 C-6
68 Monterey conv 390 C-6
64 Montclair Marauder 390 Merc-O
58 Monterey 383 Merc-O
58 Parklane 430 MultiDrive
68 Colony Park 428 C-6
68 Colony Park 390 C-6
58 Parklane 430 MultiDrive
70 Cougar Eliminator 351c 4 speed
I don't feel like a hoarder.

unclewill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #21 on: March 26, 2017, 08:18:16 AM »
I stole this from the Corvette forum (http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c1-and-c2-corvettes/647366-vacuum-explained-manifold-venturi-and-ported-new-article-by-lars.html)

The most sensible explanation I've read:


The timing advance curve requirements for an engine will vary a bit from one engine to another depending on cam, compression ratio and other efficiency factors. But in general terms, most V8s will produce peak power at WOT with 36-38 degrees of ignition timing. Peak fuel economy and drivability at cruise is achieved with about 52-54 degrees of advance. Best idle quality has a much wider range depending on cam & engine, but tends to be in the 12-24 degree range. Lowest emissions usually occur with timing in the 4-8 degree range.

When tuning, it is important to realize that the upper limits on timing are determining factors for how to set things up: You want the total WOT timing (the maximum timing the engine will see with vac advance disconnected and with the centrifugal advance fully deployed) to be not over 38 degrees. 36 is the best setting for most applications. Once this has been set, it automatically determines what your initial advance ends up being unless you physically alter the length of the advance curve. In most cases, once total advance has been set to 36, the initial advance will end up being about 12 degrees-or-so. And, since most vacuum advance control units pull in about 16 degrees of vacuum advance at cruise speed (where the full centrifugal advance will also be deployed), the 36-degree setting will produce 52 degrees of total combined advance at cruise with the vac advance fully deployed.

But what if your engine/cam combination idles best at 26 degrees advance? Radical cams often require quite a bit of advance at idle. If you simply bump the initial timing up from 16 to 26, your total WOT advance will go from 36 to 46. The total combined timing at cruise will go from 52 to 62. This is not acceptable, and can result in severe engine damage from detonation at WOT, and the car will chug and jerk at cruise from the over-advanced condition. An appropriately selected vacuum advance unit, plugged into manifold vacuum, can provide the needed extra timing at idle to allow a fair idle, while maintaining maximum mechanical timing at 36. A tuning note on this: If you choose to run straight manifold vacuum to your vacuum advance in order to gain the additional timing advance at idle, you must select a vacuum advance control unit that pulls in all of the advance at a vacuum level 2 in. Hg below (numerically less than) the manifold vacuum present at idle. If the vacuum advance control unit is not fully pulled in at idle, it will be somewhere in its mid-range, and it will fluctuate and vary the timing while the engine is idling. This will cause erratic timing with associated unstable idle rpm. A second tuning note on this: Advancing the timing at idle can assist in lowering engine temperatures. If you have an overheating problem at idle, and you have verified proper operation of your cooling system components, you can try running manifold vacuum to an appropriately selected vacuum advance unit as noted above. This will lower engine temps, but it will also increase hydrocarbon emissions on emission-controlled vehicles.

If, however, your engine idles best in the 12-16 degree range due to a mild cam, plug the vacuum advance control unit to a ported vacuum source to eliminate the vacuum signal at idle. You will still obtain the 36-degree WOT total, and you’ll still have 52 at cruise. Also, if you need to pass an emissions test, use the ported source to reduce your hydrocarbons.

By playing with the total length of your centrifugal advance curve, selecting between ported or manifold vacuum, and carefully selecting a matched vacuum advance control unit that meets your specification requirements, you can achieve an optimum idle, excellent off-idle throttle response, and the best fuel economy possible.
1969 Ford Cobra, 482 side oiler, BBM aluminum heads, FiTech EFI, Edelbrock 7105, Comp 292H, CR 4 speed, 9", 3.50

machoneman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3853
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #22 on: March 26, 2017, 08:32:06 AM »
Thanks for posting that 'steal'. It is an excellent representation of what actually occurs.

Interesting too the earlier statement on the mismatch between manifold vac. and idle, or idle transition. Some heavy trucks exclusively use manifold vac. primarily because the speed of movement (i.e. clutch engagement, then rpm rise) is considerably slower than say a hot street car. Put another way, they can get away with manifold vac. and not suffer a lean, off-idle stumble as noted.       
Bob Maag

unclewill

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #23 on: March 26, 2017, 10:13:13 AM »
"Radical cams often require quite a bit of advance at idle."
This is the biggest takeaway for me - if you run a mild cam, try the ported vacuum, wilder cams may require straight manifold vacuum at idle.
I run 12/38 degrees, all in at 2500 on a 482 with Comp 292H.  Later this week I am going to tune using manifold vacuum and the Pertronix adjustable advance canister to ~20 at idle (or wherever the engine is happiest with the new EFI) IF I am too lazy to use the EFI timing function with mech/vac advance locked out.
I'll report back.
1969 Ford Cobra, 482 side oiler, BBM aluminum heads, FiTech EFI, Edelbrock 7105, Comp 292H, CR 4 speed, 9", 3.50

chris401

  • Guest
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #24 on: May 26, 2017, 12:06:24 AM »
Tobbemek or others,
Do you use a scanner? I am curious about timing values when engine braking. If you downshift with throttle closed what are the timing values? If I ever noticed I do not remember, this discussion got me to thinking if anything after 2003/4 would change timing to assist in engine breaking.
Thanks

Autoholic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #25 on: May 26, 2017, 01:32:29 AM »
Tobbemek or others,
Do you use a scanner? I am curious about timing values when engine braking. If you downshift with throttle closed what are the timing values? If I ever noticed I do not remember, this discussion got me to thinking if anything after 2003/4 would change timing to assist in engine breaking.
Thanks

The ECU will have a spark advance and a AFR table that correspond RPM to load. Load will be measured in kPa (MAP and / or MAF sensor depending on the ECU) and / or IgnLoad % (throttle position sensor?). So yes, timing will change according to the table. I'm not an expert on ECU controls, so I'm not sure how IgnLoad % is measured and calculated, but I do know the tables are setup for RPM vs Load for spark advance and AFR. If you pull up the spark timing and AFR tables, you can see what the values will be at any given RPM and load. A closed throttle would be the lowest load. Put a vehicle on a dyno and have the ECU connected to a computer, you'll see all of it in real time.
~Joe
"Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn."

Heo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3287
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #26 on: May 26, 2017, 02:16:06 AM »
Modern Fuelinjected engines cut of the fuel during engine braking
over 1500 rpm so i guess the ign timing is not important then



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

chris401

  • Guest
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #27 on: May 26, 2017, 08:10:55 AM »
Tobbemek or others,
Do you use a scanner? I am curious about timing values when engine braking. If you downshift with throttle closed what are the timing values? If I ever noticed I do not remember, this discussion got me to thinking if anything after 2003/4 would change timing to assist in engine breaking.
Thanks

The ECU will have a spark advance and a AFR table that correspond RPM to load. Load will be measured in kPa (MAP and / or MAF sensor depending on the ECU) and / or IgnLoad % (throttle position sensor?). So yes, timing will change according to the table. I'm not an expert on ECU controls, so I'm not sure how IgnLoad % is measured and calculated, but I do know the tables are setup for RPM vs Load for spark advance and AFR. If you pull up the spark timing and AFR tables, you can see what the values will be at any given RPM and load. A closed throttle would be the lowest load. Put a vehicle on a dyno and have the ECU connected to a computer, you'll see all of it in real time.
I left a well paying carrier in automotive with two certs shy of being a master. I understand how it works but somehow I cannot get my question across the board. You seem to understand engine management better than some who do just test out but that still does not answer my question.

Autoholic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #28 on: May 26, 2017, 09:08:42 AM »
Looks like Heo has the solid answer.

I think carb'd engines would be far more interesting to look at under engine braking. You'd need to be on a dyno, with O2 sensors to measure lambda and a timing light. Then either a person or a camera to watch the timing light. I bet very few people outside of manufacturers have studied this for a carb'd engine. This sounds like a project for Jay to study a SOHC on an engine dyno. He could compare engine braking for manifold vs port vacuum to see what is happening. He could then publish it in Hotrod. If the timing is advanced too much under engine braking, I could see it being harmful. Lean mixture detonating too soon. What if peak combustion pressure ended up right before TDC? A study on engine braking becomes a study in engine breaking?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2017, 09:36:32 AM by Autoholic »
~Joe
"Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn."

chris401

  • Guest
Re: Timing and vacuum advance - theory and practice?
« Reply #29 on: May 26, 2017, 09:56:45 AM »
Looks like Heo has the solid answer.

I think carb'd engines would be far more interesting to look at under engine braking. You'd need to be on a dyno, with O2 sensors to measure lambda and a timing light. Then either a person or a camera to watch the timing light. I bet very few people outside of manufacturers have studied this for a carb'd engine. This sounds like a project for Jay to study a SOHC on an engine dyno. He could compare engine braking for manifold vs port vacuum to see what is happening. He could then publish it in Hotrod. If the timing is advanced too much under engine braking, I could see it being harmful. Lean mixture detonating too soon. What if peak combustion pressure ended up right before TDC? A study on engine braking becomes a study in engine breaking?
I hate to say this on a Ford forum but if you don't have manufactuer specific software I would say they best scenario would be a Modis on a GM. Take it out on the road and test it. Maybe the Verus is better now?