Matthew4qb—I didn’t get a chance to check my “all in timing” because my wife was not home to help run the throttle while I checked timing. The reason I put the heavy spring back in is so I can keep driving the Bronco back and forth to work without pinging. It literally takes 5 minutes to change a spring, so it’s really no big deal to swap it.

I did check the meter’s functionality when I tested the battery and got 14.06v with the engine running (see post 68). I will check the voltage again with the key in the run position. I assumed the engine was supposed to be running when I did this test, but I guess not. So tomorrow I’ll turn the key to the on position and see what the meter says.

6 by 8—I was not intending to annoy you (or anyone else) by asking questions about two different engines/vehicles. The only reason I brought up the topic of the timing in my 460 is because it’s the exact same topic that we’re currently talking about with the 400 in my Bronco. The only difference was the intended usage of the two vehicles (towing with the truck vs a street driven Bronco). I have always understood that the timing on a vehicle that tows heavy loads might require a different timing setup than a regular street driven vehicle. But I realize I could be wrong, which is why I wanted to ask you guys about it. I thought it would be much easier to bring it up in this conversation since we’re already discussing the topic of setting timing rather than starting an entire new thread and end up talking about the exact same thing and repeating ourselves. I had the “kill two birds with one stone” mentality. But since it has created some confusion and has annoyed you, I won’t bring it up anymore. I’ll just focus on the Bronco/400. Sound good? Matthew4qb keeps telling me that I need to have my timing all in by 3000 (or sooner), which prompted me to ask about the 460. But I’m not going to worry about the 460 right now since it runs good. I was just hoping to pick up some more power if I was able to dial in the timing curve at 3000 instead of 3500.

No, it wasn’t a surprise that it started pinging after changing the spring to a medium one. I suspected it would. I guess the comment I made “as my luck would have it” was nothing more than sarcasm, or an “it figures” attitude.

You are correct when you asked if I couldn’t check the “all in” rpm level because my wife wasn’t home to help me. Maybe I can get her to help me with that tomorrow. I’ll swap the spring back to a medium spring and check to see where the timing curve comes in at.

I have a question….You’re having me change springs, check rpm, retard the timing even more (down to 6* and 4*), recheck, etc….however, at the same time when I do this it lowers the vacuum. But back in post 41, you mentioned that my goal is to see 21” of vacuum at 800 rpm. If the goal is to have higher vacuum by advancing the timing, why are you having me go backwards and retard the timing? I already know that retarding the timing makes the vehicle run like a turd that won’t get out of its own way. This is one reason I try to advance the timing as much as the engine will take without pinging. It runs much better and is a lot snappier and just has better overall performance. So there’s no need for me to do this just to “experience what it would feel like". Been there, done that. Or are you having me do this to figure out what the timing setup would be to run 87 octane gas and then when I’m using 91 octane, we’ll advance the timing and set it up to run on the 91 octane? Maybe you answered this question already, but it’s been a long day because my wife had me drive her all over town today to different venues, as there was a group of co-workers getting together to celebrate one of her coworkers new job assignment coming up in Arizona. I’m tired, my brain is fried and I’m trying to catch up on these posts. So bear with me.

Ok, so maybe all I needed to do was to keep reading and I probably would have answered my own question. And as far as that $10 bet goes, I’m not going to take you up on that bet because from what I’ve experienced so far, you might be right. But time will tell.

Hmm, it seems like it’s time to make some popcorn, sit back and enjoy this show between you and matthewq4b. This is getting pretty entertaining. Do you need me to referee? By all means, play nice boys. Don’t make me send you to your room for a time out. LMAO

So did you get mum’s feet all warmed up? It is pretty cold in Antarctica; she didn’t get frostbite did she? Don’t let her play with cords anymore. Sounds like she can be a danger to herself.

 

[QUOTE=6 by 8;19924115]Ok, I'm being unfair.

There's no way that you can explain why my explanation is wrong, because it is 100% correct.

And given that you said graphs are useless, and given that you are a supposed former Ford engineer, I am left questioning your competence.

Here's a quote from post 70, and it is not the first thread within which you have felt the need to mention your credentials, albeit unconfirmed.



Your latest attack on me was in post 85 wherein you said, ''Still have not figured out that base timing and when the ,mech is all in, have no relation to each other.''

I had a good giggle at that, and this is one of the many reasons that I find you entertaining.

Using Robbie's lyrics from his ''Let me entertain you'' song, I see you as this, ''You're my rock of empathy, my dear''.

The reason I had a good giggle is because you are contradicting yourself.

In post 32 you said this,

Your base timing is a function of your total minus your mech.
Your base timing is just a by-product of total minus mech.

Of course they are related. You can't have one without the other. Turn the dizzy either way, regardless of when the total is all in, and they both move identically.

Or, changing one component could lead to the necessary change of another component, which confirms they are related.

Your attack was based on my comment, ''I bet $10 that no amount of combinations of the limiters and springs will bring your total timing in by 3,000 rpms while maintaining an acceptable initial time and being detonation free.''

The Op's ideal timing curve for his engine spec and 87 octane, is obtained with the 18* black limiter and two heavy springs, all in at +/- 3,500rpms with a total timing of +/- 32* and an initial of +/- 14*.

So far you have said the following :

Post 30

Disconnect your vac advance and set up your mech first, And 32° with your build is pretty conservative.
14° base is really about as much as you want to run. Ideally, you should dial that back and increase the available mech advance. Also you want your total mech all in no later than 3000 rpm.
shoot for a base of 6-12° by adjusting your available mech.

Post 34

Well, some rather horrible advice has been disseminated in this thread.
You want to get the advance fully in by at least 3000 rpm. That is the typical street engine curve. in performance build you'd maybe want it all in by 2500 RPM. But getting your curve adjusted so it all in before 3000rpm is the first thing you do before anything else.
I suspect you will end up closer to 34° once you have kicked a few degrees back from WOT detonation. I had a similar build back in the day and I was dialed in for 34° total.

Post 46

So first thing you should do get your advance all in under 3000 RPM this will maximize your horsepower output and in turn combustion efficiency. This will necessitate a spring change to lighter springs.
Then set the advance so you are just getting light pining on at wot on Regular. Post 49

On what evidence do you surmise that getting the total in by at least 3000RPM is going to cause it to ping? What exactly are you basing that on? This ought to be good....
(Open chamber heads, flat top pistons, cam IVC, high DCR, 87 octane. This was stated already)Post 73

3000 RPM is actually considered late for full mech advance generally you want to see it all in by 2500-2800 RPM. But for trucks, it may be beneficial to push it back a bit to 3000 rpm.

And again not sure how many more times I need to say this, but need to get your mech all in before 3000rpm BEFORE doing anything else.

THEN you can adjust for your total. You are not going to have ANY idea what your total will be UNTIL you get the adavnce all in by 3000rpm.

So you need to get your mech advance in all by 300RPM "FIRST" THEN you can play with your total.

Post 75

Yes drop down the heavy spring down to a medium spring then check to see where the timing is all in at. You know your total is 18 and you are using the black bushing. The Black bushing gives you 18° of mech advance. I would swap it for the Green bushing this will give you 23° of mech advance.

Now we have mentioned diarrhea posts.

None of your suggestions will give a decent timing curve. None.

The OP has already tried a lighter spring. Pingiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing !!

You want to waste his time even more by making him change the limiters which will lead to more spring changes, and test driving, and annoyance, and continued pingiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiing.

You wanted him to go to a shop and buy limiters in post 46. (''As for you advance pull the one out of your dist take it with you to Napa AutoZone where ever and ask for one for a gm HEI distributor such as SMP VC242 for HEI or VC24A for points then you can compare it to yours.'')

You wanted him to order an adjustable vacuum advance which will be more time and money. (Post 39 ''Your part throttle pinging is ALL due to the vacuum advance.)

Umm really ? It's all vacuum advance huh ? LMAO (It's maybe, and maybe not !!)

So, I'm calling you out as either a fake, or an engineer who did not work in the Ford engines and ignition system departments. Maybe in the paint colour selection department.

A true former Ford engineer will post up a suggested mix of springs and limiter and rpm range which will give a non pinging timing curve on the current 87 octane setup with an idle of at least 10*.

In case you missed it, my suggestion is two heavy springs with the black 18* limiter.

The requirement of a new adjustable vacuum advance canister will be determined when 91 octane is in use.[/QUOTEz]



OMG you are not that bright are you.

Total timing or base timing has NOTHING to do with when the total timing is all in at. If you even had the most basic simplistic half-wit idiot understanding of how much timing worked in distributors worked you would know this.
Apparently, you do not posses simplistic half-wit idiot levels of knowledge.

If the total is set to come in fully at say 2800rpm regardless if the total is 40° or 4° it will be in at 2800rpm, When the total is all in at has ZERO impact on what the base is or what the total is they are NOT related to each other.. The base can be 2° or 25° it is NOT going to change when the total is all in at. they have NO relation to each other.
What the total is or base timing is set at and when the mech is all in, have no relation to each other.

If you even had the most basic idiot level of understanding of how the system worked you would know this instead of questioning it.

The fact that you need to question the most basic idiot simple functions of distributor timing clearly demonstrates you have ZERO functional knowledge.

Sort of like how you think you check coil voltage is at the pos and neg on the coil. That is a level of simplistic half-wit idiot levels of knowledge you fail to possess.

So now what other tidbits of absolute useless trash you going to post, cause at this point all you are doing is looking like a clueless desperate idiot trying to look relevant.

 

Good morning Mr Chauffeur,

Don't worry about annoying me as that's my problem, not yours.

Your logic behind killing two birds with one stone is spot on, and I probably would have done the same thing !

My main annoyance came from you saying that you are going to follow both sets of suggestions as I knew that would be a waste of your and my time.

When you said 'as my luck would have it', I actually thought you had become despondent. Sarcasm works for me.

On that note, yes, we knew that swapping in a lighter spring would invite the pinging back, BUT !, that was only one part of the required change.

The limiter would have to be changed also, in conjunction with the spring change.

You know that with one heavy and one light spring, you get no pinging in the 10* - 28* range.

Change the light spring to a heavy spring, so that the dizzy now has 2 heavy springs, warm up the engine and change the initial to 14*, then go for a drive.

You have already driven with a 14* - 32* range and got pinging, so we can use that as a comparison.

I know you got partial throttle pinging, but I can't remember if you said you got WOT pinging too.

Anyway, go on a test drive again and compare.

If you still get pinging then 'oh f$$k that didn't work'. (Back off to 12* initial)

If there's no pinging, try 16* etc until you do, then back off again. You know the drill.

By the way, you don't have to be on a highway in top gear to test WOT.

Hard acceleration from a standing start or from slow cruising speed is good enough. (I think you know that too.)

(If you want to try a medium spring first, go ahead, your call.)

Once you're done with testing, and you're happy with the timing (for now, on 87 octane), plot one more graph. (No need for The Boss to help you until now.)

This will be the final graph on 87 octane, but will be the starting graph for 91 octane.

Hello ??? Noooooooooooooooo !! I am not having you check 'n change everything. LOL

The former Chev mechanic is having you do that.

I suggested that it's a waste of time unless you want to use the engine as a guinea pig to learn from.

I knew that you would have to make many, many changes, simply to come right back to where you'll be later today !!

Nooooooooooo, again. LOL Back in post 41 I asked you if you would like to see 21'' at 800rpms. I didn't say that it was the goal.

As soon as you're on 91 octane with the curve dialed in, we'll be coming back to this.

Yes to ''Or are you having me do this to figure out what the timing setup would be to run 87 octane gas and then when I’m using 91 octane, we’ll advance the timing and set it up to run on the 91 octane?''

While you make popcorn to watch this thread, LOL, I'll be making popcorn to watch The World Superbike Racing.

Seeing as I am both the Host, and a Contestant, in the 'Explain This' game, I couldn't also be the referee, so thank you for asking, and yes, you're the referee.

We're still waiting for the one contestant to explain why a plotted timing curve graph is useless.

Thank you for asking about Mum.

It normally takes 2 - 3 days for her feet to get frostbite, but luckily I got the under floor heating fixed within a day, so her feet stayed acceptably warm.

She feels the cold more than me.

Between you and me, when her feet get cold, it makes her uncomfortable and distracted, and because of said distraction, the quality of her cooking is effected, hence the prompt fix.

(Read between the lines, her food would taste like dye-oh-re-ah.)

 

My god you really don't have clue do you.

 

Good morning all.

6 by 8--When you mentioned that your annoyance was when I was going to follow both yours and Matthew's suggestions......well that's the problem when you have two opposite instructions being suggested to follow. I'm caught in the middle with this. Both of you are trying to help, which I appreciate more than you know, but you and Matthew have opposite train of thought going on. So I'm like, what do I do? Who's advice do I follow? Maybe they're both right? Who knows, but the only way I'll know is to try both of your suggestions. But I understand where you're coming from.

So your latest post (this morning) makes more sense to me. Today I was going to begin by following the advice in post 81 & 84; basically going backwards by retarding the timing, checking all in rpms, etc….but today you mentioned a plan of working towards advancing the timing, by starting at 14* and installing 2 heavy springs, which makes total sense to me. Like you said, I already know that I don’t get any pinging with 10* initial with 1 heavy and 1 light spring. So in the back of my mind it really didn’t make sense to me to try to set up my 87 octane timing by continuing to retard the timing. But if I remember correctly, I think the whole point of retarding the timing was to attempt to get the mechanical advance timing to come in at 3000 or less as Matthewq4b wanted….correct? If that’s the case, then I understand the goal and the reasoning behind it.

With that said, I’m going to take a brief left turn here and ask a hypothetical question and compare two different timing curves and see what you guys think is the better setup. Then I will come back to the goal of the day.

Again, HYPOTHETICAL scenario…Let’s say we determine that the best timing curve setup is to set the initial at 6* and we find a spring combination that allows my mechanical total to come in at 2800 (a compromise between 2500 & 3000), with a total of 34* (again, a compromise between 32* & 36*). I’m going to call this scenario Matthew’s timing setup. Now on the other end of the spectrum is setting the initial at 14* with 2 heavy springs, but the mechanical doesn’t come all in until 3500 rpm and the total timing is 34* (none of this takes into consideration the vacuum advance, so ignore that for this scenario). I’m going to call this scenario 6 by 8’s timing setup. So here’s the question…..which timing setup would provide a snappier off the line, quicker revving, more power and overall better running engine? I have my opinion on what I think the better setup would be, but since I'm the student in this scenario, I want to know what you guys think.

Ok, back to the goal for today. So it seems that I don’t need to do the testing in posts 81 & 84, correct? Do I understand you correctly? So I guess today I will start by setting the timing to 14* and swap the light spring for another heavy spring, take it for a drive and see how it responds. If no pinging, I’ll try 16* and repeat. Once I find the acceptable timing, I’ll plot the timing curve with the wife and call it good. That will be my 87 octane setting. Yeah, I know I just repeated what you said, but maybe I just like to hear myself talk; or in this case, type…..LMAO. Nah, it’s more along the lines of confirmation and clarification. Ok, so that’s the plan, right? Or do I still need to go the opposite direction also and try to get the “all in” timing under 3000? This is why I asked about the hypothetical scenario above because it seems there are opposite goals between you and Matthew.

FYI….I’m almost on E on the fuel gauge (about 1/8 left in the tank), so depending on how much driving I do today, I’m about ready to fill up with the 91 octane. I might have to make another trip back and forth to work tomorrow before I put in the 91 octane, but we’ll see how it goes today. Actually, the 600 carb is getting better fuel mileage that I expected. But if I still had the 750 on it, I’d have already have the 91 octane onboard….LOL

Yeah, I know I don’t have to do the gear test on the highway. But trying to do it from a stand still will be futile because with a modified 460, 4 speed & 5:13 gears onboard, it will result in nothing but a smoke-fest of fried rubber and a possible meeting with a police officer and a judge…..LOL. Ask me how I know this. But I could do a slow cruising speed test without attracting the five-oh. But I’m not going to worry about that today. I have too many irons in the fire right now and I don’t need to add another project right now. But I will put this on my to-do list once I free up some time.

And yes, you need to do everything you can to keep mum comfortable. Having her do the cooking and providing meals is on the top of the priority list and we don’t want it tasting like diarrhea ….LOL.

 

[/QUOTEz]
Total timing or base timing has NOTHING to do with when the total timing is all in at.
If the total is set to come in fully at say 2800rpm regardless if the total is 40° or 4° it will be in at 2800rpm,
The base can be 2° or 25° it is NOT going to change when the total is all in at. they have NO relation to each other.[/QUOTE]

This makes total sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason is because it's the springs that control this function, not where the base is set or which stop bushing you have installed. Correct??? But at the same time, they do kind of effect each other because to get the mechanical advance all in by 2500 or whatever, you have to adjust the initial timing (at the very least) to compensate for pinging, just like what happened when I swapped the heavy spring for a medium spring the other day. Correct? So in that sense, they are related. So that means you're both right.

Ok, it's time for round 2. DING DING.....LOL

 

Excellent !!

Early on in your thread you said you weren't that knowledgeable on timing curves etc.

You've grasped it nicely.

I like the well thought out scenarios.

Just to add something first.

Matthew's scenario will use the red 28* limiter, hence the low initial of 6*. (6 + 28 = 34)

6 by 8's scenario will use the current black 18* limiter, but would either be 14 + 18 = 32, or 16 + 18 = 34.

6 by 8's should provide a snappier off the line. Hmmm, +/- on the other 3.

Yes, forget posts 81 and 84, and yes to the rest.

Oh FFS, LOL, with regard to the WOT tests, I thought you were talking about the Bronco/400.

LOL at meeting a Judge and an officer. Ouch !

 

This makes total sense to me. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the reason is because it's the springs that control this function, not where the base is set or which stop bushing you have installed. Correct???[/QUOTE]

Yes, it's the springs, and only the springs, which control the speed with which the timing advances.

Consider the quote in more depth though.

The initial, total, and speed, are all related. They make up a package.

You are about to change a spring. $10 says that because of that, you will change the initial and total too. Does that make sense ?

 

Yes, it's the springs, and only the springs, which control the speed with which the timing advances.

Consider the quote in more depth though.

The initial, total, and speed, are all related. They make up a package.

You are about to change a spring. $10 says that because of that, you will change the initial and total too. Does that make sense ?[/QUOTE]


I modified my original comment after you posted this response, but basically I modified it to state that they are related and you're both right.
And yes, by changing the spring, the goal is to advance the timing as much as the engine will accept and then dial in the total limit (32*, 34* or 36*). Ok, time to get in the shower and get busy.

 

I made a slight change to your quote, as highlighted.

LOL at Ding Dong round 2. Yeah, I see it now.

Good luck this afternoon.

I'm going out now, for the rest of the day, but look forward to seeing your conclusions later.

 

6 by 8 you're just giving him the attention he's after. ignore him and he'll go back to annoying his mother.

 

Ok, so here's the results of today's adventure. Before I did anything with the distributor, I tested the coil again, but this time with the key on and engine off like Matthew suggested. I put it on the setting Matthew advised and now it reads 1.5v. If you recall, the last test was with the engine running, but on the same setting and it read .55v. So there was a higher voltage with the engine off compared to it running. I took a picture of the reading on the multimeter if you guys want to see the readout and the setting. So then I tested the battery (changed the settings on the meter) and it read 14.15v with the engine running. So the battery voltage test seems to be functioning properly, but not the other setting.

So now onto the distributor. I swapped the light spring for a heavy spring so now it has 2 heavy springs. I advanced the initial timing to 14* then took it for a drive and there was no pinging. I then advanced it to 16* and it was pinging, so back to 14* it went and that's where we're at. I didn't bother checking to see what rpms the timing would be "all in" by with the two heavy springs because I think we already know what the results of that would be.

It now officially has 91 octane w/no ethanol fuel in the tank, courtesy of Conoco. I had about 1/16 of a tank of 87 octane crap left and figured while I was out and about driving this beast, I'd give it a drink with some good stuff. At $4.19 per gallon I put $50 in it and now it's on 1/2 tank. So it seems the 2 best timing setups with 87 octane is 10* initial timing with 1 heavy and 1 light spring OR 14* initial timing with two heavy springs. I might be able to get away with 12* initial timing with 1 heavy and 1 medium spring, but I didn't even think to test that.

 

My friends, family, and I, have used 'mother' many times to diss each other since I was about 14, and it has always made me laugh.

Matthewq4b has illustrated that he does in fact understand all aspects of the timing curve, so I am genuinely intrigued as to why he thinks plotting a timing curve is a waste of time, whereas I think it's a great tool.

 

Stage one complete !

(It only took 7 pages and a million posts to get there. LOL)

I'd like to go back and re-visit one thing.

In post 44 you said, ''After charting the timing curve, I took the Bronco for a drive with the idle timing at 14*, the vacuum advance disconnected and plugged. No pinging even at WOT. Then I adjusted the timing to 12*, reconnected the vacuum advance and took it for a drive. It did ping at WOT, but just barely and not for long. It seems that once I get past a certain rpm, it quits pinging. Then I adjusted it to 10*and took it for a drive again. No pinging at WOT whatsoever. I left it at 10* for now, but once I am able to use all the crappy gas and fill it with supreme, I’ll see if I can advance it back to 14* without pinging. In the mean time I sent Summit Racing and MSD/Holley an email about an adjustable vacuum advance that will fit my distributor.

If it didn't ping at 14* WOT, then it should never have pinged at 12* WOT.

WOT implies zero vacuum. Zero vacuum would have no effect on the vacuum advance and thus timing, but it did at 12* !!??

Let's assume that the pinging at WOT with the vacuum advance connected, was actually not WOT for whatever reason.

On the subject of vacuum advance, how much advance does the vacuum can produce ?

I suppose the quickest way to tell is to hold the rpm's at 1,500 and read the timing. It was 16* with nothing attached, so one could expect 16*-36* with it attached. (Yup, a faulty can will give 0*.)

One thing I don't like about ported is that if the can fails for whatever reason, how would we know that it has failed ? (E.G. The diaphragm tears)

So, if you're curious, try this :

With the engine warm, and switched off, swap the ported connection with the full manifold connection on the carb.

Start the engine, and adjust the carb to drop the rpms back down to 800. (Make a note of how many turns were required. Useful if/when you revert back to ported.)

Then, read the timing and vacuum.

The timing will now be 14* + (anywhere from 0 to 20) = 14* - 34*, and the vacuum should be up at +/- 21''.

34* is perfectly fine for idle.

I've never experienced starting issues, but I've read that it can happen.

Drive around and decide if you do or do not like full manifold vacuum advance.

Regardless of the vacuum source, it is useful to know how much extra timing is produced by the vacuum advance, and now you'll know.

That quick 'n easy observation can be done at anytime.

Next up, I reckon a good starting point for the final timing curve is two blue medium springs. Leave the 14* - 32* for now. (14* is acceptable and 32* is a safe all in.)

This should give you an all in at 3,000rpms, and should be ping free.

And carry on from there.

With regard to the voltage tests, email MSD again, but this time ask them how to measure the voltage input at the coil, and tell them you have an 8477 etc while you wait for Matthew to reply.

If you don't get a satisfactory explanation, start a new thread I reckon, and thus keep this thread for timing curves.

 

Aww how cute still all butt hurt cause you called on stupid and acting like you have a clue, So while you are still yapping from being butt hurt, why not explain how ignition timing affects the delivered fuel-air ratio from the carb.

Come on we are still waiting for you to explain that.