28* initial timing for a 318? How can that be?

[Newbomb Turk]

I see all the usual suspects have chimed in with their nonsense. Thank you to those who went against the onslaught & were brave enough to say MVA [ or locked timing ] worked for me. The saddest part of this thread is that I thought I had a friend amongst the posters. His comments show what a back-stabber he is.
Now for some facts [ listening TT.5? ]:
- I never tried to hide anything about the original build; using a cam with 20* less duration can be seen in the link in post#1. The reason I did not post the whole story was that the print would be too small to read, so I just provided the important info so that it made sense.
- I too would have suggested a smaller cam if I was advising the chap, but some people, for various reasons, want to stick with what they have & tune it as best they can. [ In this case I will disagree with Steve & say it needs a LOT more than 28* for best idle ]
- yes, I constantly, recommend MVA because it works. There are times when it will not work such as when the idle vac is too low; then, locked timing is an option.
- the nonsense/lies from Newbomb Turk about not publishing my own results. I have done it many times. But who am I, nobody has heard of me in the USA? Why should we believe you? He must think I am as stupid as he is... That is why I provide links to that of other people, much smarter than some on this forum, who have been using MVA & getting nicer running engines.
- it shows how little some know when, because of their own ignorance in trying to discredit MVA benefits, claim the rest of the ign curve will be compromised. I have done more MVA tuning than Turk has had hot dinners. I have three booked in at the moment, all different brands.
-lastly, for those who want learn about MVA benefits. Nick, Mopar man of Nicks Garage, did a dyno tune about 2 weeks back on a 455 Buick. At about 18 min in, he connects up MVA with the engine idling & you can hear the idle smooth out & increase about 200 rpm. He then talks about MVA for a minute or two. Maybe somebody could link the video? The idle got smoother because more of the mixture got burned at the right time & made more HP, which is why rpm increased.
- MVA works on all brands when suitable. Logo on the valve cover doesn't matter.

Calling Nick a tuner is a stretch. A looooooooooooong stretch.

Never have I seen the guy do anything other than twist the distributor to move the timing curve up or down. That’s it.

Never have I watched the guy read a plug. Ever. And I’ve seen many of his videos.

As a smart guy on Moparts always says, guys don’t use a curve because they don’t know how to do it. And because it’s easy and doesn’t require any testing.

I can show dyno numbers that proves what locked out and all in early curves do to torque and power. And it’s absolutely provable. And it happens every time.

If you want to piss away torque and power because you are too lazy to do the work or too obtuse to learn that’s on you.

I’ll continue to jump in and try and teach people the correct way to tune. It’s harder to do and it takes more time, effort and work to do it.

I’ll break it down as simply as I can.

You really need to get on an engine dyno (not a chassis dyno because you can’t load the engine) and find BEST torque at every 1000 rpm.

Then you need a distributor machine so you can get the curve in the distributor to match what the engine told you it wants on the dyno.

Just changing springs and stopping the curve isn’t getting a curve.

You see Bewy, I’ve LEARNED that engines, ALL ENGINES want LESS timing at and around peak torque and MORE timing at and around peak power.

That is the physics of it. I know you understand this, which means you are either so bull headed or lazy or both that you ignore the facts and continue to give out bad advice.

My advice for anyone building an engine is this, and it’s not easy, quick or cheap.

Measure to verify your compression ratio. Using published piston volumes is not accurate enough.

Make big boy decisions about your build. If you want a “top fuel” idle then live with the results. You will have an engine with shitty performance that is a nightmare to tune. Fuel mileage will be hideous.

In my opinion, once the giggles of the idle wears off the big cam, low compression engine will still be exactly what it is. A fuel burning, low performance pig.

You need to match your compression ratio to your cam timing. If you do that, you won’t need 30 plus degrees of initial timing to get even a decent idle.

The engine will burn the fuel much more efficiently, run cooler and use LESS timing (which reduces pumping losses) and fuel consumption will be less. Most times far less timing.

The engine will be more sensitive to header tuning.

The expansion ratio is higher with higher compression. That makes more power.

It’s simple really. Low compression, big cam engines are a loser on every count except idle.

 

[TT5.9mag]

Calling Nick a tuner is a stretch. A looooooooooooong stretch.

Never have I seen the guy do anything other than twist the distributor to move the timing curve up or down. That’s it.

Never have I watched the guy read a plug. Ever. And I’ve seen many of his videos.

As a smart guy on Moparts always says, guys don’t use a curve because they don’t know how to do it. And because it’s easy and doesn’t require any testing.

I can show dyno numbers that proves what locked out and all in early curves do to torque and power. And it’s absolutely provable. And it happens every time.

If you want to piss away torque and power because you are too lazy to do the work or too obtuse to learn that’s on you.

I’ll continue to jump in and try and teach people the correct way to tune. It’s harder to do and it takes more time, effort and work to do it.

I’ll break it down as simply as I can.

You really need to get on an engine dyno (not a chassis dyno because you can’t load the engine) and find BEST torque at every 1000 rpm.

Then you need a distributor machine so you can get the curve in the distributor to match what the engine told you it wants on the dyno.

Just changing springs and stopping the curve isn’t getting a curve.

You see Bewy, I’ve LEARNED that engines, ALL ENGINES want LESS timing at and around peak torque andMORE timing at and around peak power.

That is the physics of it. I know you understand this, which means you are either so bull headed or lazy or both that you ignore the facts and continue to give out bad advice.

My advice for anyone building an engine is this, and it’s not easy, quick or cheap.

Measure to verify your compression ratio. Using published piston volumes is not accurate enough.

Make big boy decisions about your build. If you want a “top fuel” idle then live with the results. You will have an engine with shitty performance that is a nightmare to tune. Fuel mileage will be hideous.

In my opinion, once the giggles of the idle wears off the big cam, low compression engine will still be exactly what it is. A fuel burning, low performance pig.

You need to match your compression ratio to your cam timing. If you do that, you won’t need 30 plus degrees of initial timing to get even a decent idle.

The engine will burn the fuel much more efficiently, run cooler and use LESS timing (which reduces pumping losses) and fuel consumption will be less. Most times far less timing.

The engine will be more sensitive to header tuning.

The expansion ratio is higher with higher compression. That makes more power.

It’s simple really. Low compression, big cam engines are a loser on every count except idle.

Great post.

 

[TT5.9mag]

[ listening TT.5? ]:

Yes. And what I heard was you doing the same thing you always do. Highlighting areas of articles written by other people to try to prove your point. It’s the stuff you don’t highlight that bothers me. I’m with @Newbomb Turk on this one. Post up some of YOUR stuff. Post a video of you tuning something, anything. Because credit doesn’t come from highlighters, it comes from actual results and we just ain’t seeing it and are tired of the facade. By the way, look up the definition of FACT because clearly you don’t t know what that means. You posted no FACTS.

 

[TT5.9mag]

Nick, Mopar man of Nicks Garage

Nick is a hack. Not a tuner. A glaring endorsement for MVA that is not.

 

[92b]

I can show dyno numbers that proves what locked out and all in early curves do to torque and power. And it’s absolutely provable. And it happens every time.

What kind of numbers are you talking?

 

[Newbomb Turk]

What kind of numbers are you talking?

20 and 20.

But what if it’s only 5? That still tells you the engine isn’t happy.

When do my engine I’ll see what happens because I always start with a locked out distributor so I can develop the curve.

I suspect since my engine is (according to the gurus) “so close to the edge” that it may show more than that.

And for the record, I’d love to have the ability to use the brake to get the curve correct and then use a true inertia dyno to make the pulls.

I suspect the water brake makes the gains less than what they would be if the brake didn’t control the rate of acceleration.

Obviously I can’t prove that (I could have if a guy I worked for wasn’t a slimy steaming pile of crap) but that’s my half educated guess.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Well, that's great! Happy for you. Man trans I presume. That has a pretty big cam hasn't it? I presume some initial + VA added. Do you remember the exact #s?
While there are existing members on this forum, there are also new members...or existing members that are new to the subject.

Of course I do. 20 initial and 17 on the vacuum can with 5 in the distributor. Cam is .465/250@.050 on a 108.

 

[RustyRatRod]

Calling Nick a tuner is a stretch. A looooooooooooong stretch.

Never have I seen the guy do anything other than twist the distributor to move the timing curve up or down. That’s it.

Never have I watched the guy read a plug. Ever. And I’ve seen many of his videos.

As a smart guy on Moparts always says, guys don’t use a curve because they don’t know how to do it. And because it’s easy and doesn’t require any testing.

I can show dyno numbers that proves what locked out and all in early curves do to torque and power. And it’s absolutely provable. And it happens every time.

If you want to piss away torque and power because you are too lazy to do the work or too obtuse to learn that’s on you.

I’ll continue to jump in and try and teach people the correct way to tune. It’s harder to do and it takes more time, effort and work to do it.

I’ll break it down as simply as I can.

You really need to get on an engine dyno (not a chassis dyno because you can’t load the engine) and find BEST torque at every 1000 rpm.

Then you need a distributor machine so you can get the curve in the distributor to match what the engine told you it wants on the dyno.

Just changing springs and stopping the curve isn’t getting a curve.

You see Bewy, I’ve LEARNED that engines, ALL ENGINES want LESS timing at and around peak torque and MORE timing at and around peak power.

That is the physics of it. I know you understand this, which means you are either so bull headed or lazy or both that you ignore the facts and continue to give out bad advice.

My advice for anyone building an engine is this, and it’s not easy, quick or cheap.

Measure to verify your compression ratio. Using published piston volumes is not accurate enough.

Make big boy decisions about your build. If you want a “top fuel” idle then live with the results. You will have an engine with shitty performance that is a nightmare to tune. Fuel mileage will be hideous.

In my opinion, once the giggles of the idle wears off the big cam, low compression engine will still be exactly what it is. A fuel burning, low performance pig.

You need to match your compression ratio to your cam timing. If you do that, you won’t need 30 plus degrees of initial timing to get even a decent idle.

The engine will burn the fuel much more efficiently, run cooler and use LESS timing (which reduces pumping losses) and fuel consumption will be less. Most times far less timing.

The engine will be more sensitive to header tuning.

The expansion ratio is higher with higher compression. That makes more power.

It’s simple really. Low compression, big cam engines are a loser on every count except idle.

You touch on what I call myself. I'm a learner, not a tuner. Calling yourself a tuner implies you know what to do in all situations. I don't think that's possible, because no matter what, there's ALWAYS something outside the box that trips you up and makes you LEARN. That's why I like to say I'm a learner. There's always new stuff to learn.

 

[RustyRatRod]

20 and 20.

But what if it’s only 5? That still tells you the engine isn’t happy.

When do my engine I’ll see what happens because I always start with a locked out distributor so I can develop the curve.

I suspect since my engine is (according to the gurus) “so close to the edge” that it may show more than that.

And for the record, I’d love to have the ability to use the brake to get the curve correct and then use a true inertia dyno to make the pulls.

I suspect the water brake makes the gains less than what they would be if the brake didn’t control the rate of acceleration.

Obviously I can’t prove that (I could have if a guy I worked for wasn’t a slimy steaming pile of crap) but that’s my half educated guess.

That's actually a good idea. A locked out distributor gives you a very solid base line to start on.

 

[StreetSleeper]

We keep being told that 20-22* initial is the maximum ever reqd. Hmm. Below is by Chyr guru Steve Dulcich in MM, Sept 2013. A 318 engine with a sizeable sol lifter cam. One way of getting 28* at idle would be by using MVA.

View attachment 1716398800

There is a not-too-old British book (I am not at home to take a picture) and the author categorized different combustion chamber designs (many of them every version of primitive open chamber) with corresponding initial and advance timing degrees.
Now I am just a keyboard warrior as inkjunkie would say, but with different inefficiencies in the combustion chamber, the initial advance gets larger-as I understand it.

Let the lords of wisdom correct me if I am wrong.

 

[RustyRatRod]

There is a not-too-old British book (I am not at home to take a picture) and the author categorized different combustion chamber designs (many of them every version of primitive open chamber) with corresponding initial and advance timing degrees.
Now I am just a keyboard warrior as inkjunkie would say, but with different inefficiencies in the combustion chamber, the initial advance gets larger-as I understand it.

Let the lords of wisdom correct me if I am wrong.

That's correct. Lets just say the "crappier" the chamber, the more advance the engine may need to run well.

 

[junkyardhero]

That's correct. Lets just say the "crappier" the chamber, the more advance the engine may need to run well.

that's why all them pontiacs need a boat load of initial and HEI with the magic E coil!

 

[92b]

20 and 20.

But what if it’s only 5? That still tells you the engine isn’t happy.

When do my engine I’ll see what happens because I always start with a locked out distributor so I can develop the curve.

I suspect since my engine is (according to the gurus) “so close to the edge” that it may show more than that.

And for the record, I’d love to have the ability to use the brake to get the curve correct and then use a true inertia dyno to make the pulls.

I suspect the water brake makes the gains less than what they would be if the brake didn’t control the rate of acceleration.

Obviously I can’t prove that (I could have if a guy I worked for wasn’t a slimy steaming pile of crap) but that’s my half educated guess.

This is somewhat typical of what I would see with locked timing ( timing stays with in a couple degrees throughout the power curve). There are always exceptions.

The difference in power between peak torque and peak horsepower is very little to nothing. Where I see the shift when doing timing sweeps is below peak torque and above peak horsepower at the ends of the curves Of course this is somewhat dependant on the motor combo and amount of ignition retard.

This is easier to read on these graphs because the ignition only retards a couple degrees through the power curve so you can pretty much read the graph directly. That's not always possible.

If you optimized this curve and compared it to locking at 30 you would pick up 1.6 tq at the bottom edge 3500 rpm and zero at the top end 7200. Timing was swept from 28 to 34 degrees. 34 lost on both ends and 28 made the same as 30 on the bottom and lost on the top. Again this doesn't represent every motor but I don't recall ever seeing anything that was 20 on each end. That doesn't mean it can't happen.
The link is timing measured on the engine from about 1500 (idle) to little over 7000. The power curve starts at 3500 and goes to 7200.

If it matters this is a race engine not a street engine. It's also a chevy and I'm sure that does matter. lol

Do you have the graphs where you saw 20 and 20 that you can share? It would be interesting to see what they look like.

 

[Mattax]

There is a not-too-old British book (I am not at home to take a picture) and the author categorized different combustion chamber designs (many of them every version of primitive open chamber) with corresponding initial and advance timing degrees.
Now I am just a keyboard warrior as inkjunkie would say, but with different inefficiencies in the combustion chamber, the initial advance gets larger-as I understand it.

Let the lords of wisdom correct me if I am wrong.

Exactly.
One of many factors.
When AJ posts three paragraphs comparing 'dynamic' compression ratios, that's another factor.
It boils down to things that effect the flame development time relative to piston and crank position.
This gets back to the advantages of Shrinker and to some degree Tuner's approach: That is learning to think about the process from the inside out. In this approach we work toward understanding the burn and pressure development. We're still using data, but approaching relationships from the perspective of the engine. Good examples of this are in the snips from Tuner and Shrinker posted here.
As Rusty posted, its what makes them tuners. They can look at a problem with enough understanding to solve it.

 

[Mattax]

The saddest part of this thread is that I thought I had a friend amongst the posters. His comments show what a back-stabber he is.

Geoff. This isn't tribal. People who disagree with your assertions are not traitors - that implies a personal loyalty or membership in the tribe. It's engineering, mechanics, and science. It has nothing to do with loyalty.
Secondly, a real friend tells you like it is, unless for some reason its so painful as to be inapporpriate.

He must think I am as stupid as he is

Insults like this certainly haven't helped you win friends.

But who am I, nobody has heard of me in the USA?

Yes, but you've made some outrageous claims, which makes everything else you post suspect.
Even if you were well known here, I don't know that would make a difference.
For example, I really liked David Vizard's writing. Then I got burned by following some of his guidance. Fame doesn't equate to knowledge. Not many have heard of Tuner, who prefers not to be named on the 'net, or Bruce Robertson for that matter, or Klaus, the founder of Innovate Motorsport.

Why should we believe you?

I think you are referring to the person who has posted several videos running an Allen for the collective benefit. That's a pretty generous thing to do. Anyone who had not observed this with their own testing can see the facts.
Of the other people mentioned, I actually know who they are, either directly or indirectly. A surprising number of FABO I've met in person. One even showed up at an autocross with his family a few years back.
Tuner as I mention in the other thread has worked on several road race cars of people I know. Dick Ott in particular was builder and driver I highly respect, as did everyone who knew him. The guy who first mentored me was very successful tech and builder when he was involved in stock eliminator. Ten years later Jerry Stein told me yup, that guy was good - a little nuts - but thats another story.
So why do we beleive some people and not others? Some is about credibility, and the other part is that a bunch of this isn't about belief. It's about understanding what factors play into flame development under various conditions and various ways to create spark lead time.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

You touch on what I call myself. I'm a learner, not a tuner. Calling yourself a tuner implies you know what to do in all situations. I don't think that's possible, because no matter what, there's ALWAYS something outside the box that trips you up and makes you LEARN. That's why I like to say I'm a learner. There's always new stuff to learn.

A good tuner is a great, fast learner. I learn, but I’m a stubborn prick so I don’t always jump right in and change my thinking.

But…when you get publicly exposed like I did for being SO wrong you have to fix it.

And I’m trying to but it’s hard to kick against the pricks.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

There is a not-too-old British book (I am not at home to take a picture) and the author categorized different combustion chamber designs (many of them every version of primitive open chamber) with corresponding initial and advance timing degrees.
Now I am just a keyboard warrior as inkjunkie would say, but with different inefficiencies in the combustion chamber, the initial advance gets larger-as I understand it.

Let the lords of wisdom correct me if I am wrong.

I’d love to know the title of the book.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

This is somewhat typical of what I would see with locked timing ( timing stays with in a couple degrees throughout the power curve). There are always exceptions.

The difference in power between peak torque and peak horsepower is very little to nothing. Where I see the shift when doing timing sweeps is below peak torque and above peak horsepower at the ends of the curves Of course this is somewhat dependant on the motor combo and amount of ignition retard.

This is easier to read on these graphs because the ignition only retards a couple degrees through the power curve so you can pretty much read the graph directly. That's not always possible.

If you optimized this curve and compared it to locking at 30 you would pick up 1.6 tq at the bottom edge 3500 rpm and zero at the top end 7200. Timing was swept from 28 to 34 degrees. 34 lost on both ends and 28 made the same as 30 on the bottom and lost on the top. Again this doesn't represent every motor but I don't recall ever seeing anything that was 20 on each end. That doesn't mean it can't happen.
The link is timing measured on the engine from about 1500 (idle) to little over 7000. The power curve starts at 3500 and goes to 7200.

If it matters this is a race engine not a street engine. It's also a chevy and I'm sure that does matter. lol

Do you have the graphs where you saw 20 and 20 that you can share? It would be interesting to see what they look like.




View attachment 1716399756

I do, but I’m in the middle of getting screwed by a Chrysler block and I’m going to have to drive over three hours to get it fixed.

No one here has the tool to fix it and that blows.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Geoff. This isn't tribal. People who disagree with your assertions are not traitors - that implies a personal loyalty or membership in the tribe. It's engineering, mechanics, and science. It has nothing to do with loyalty.
Secondly, a real friend tells you like it is, unless for some reason its so painful as to be inapporpriate.


Insults like this certainly haven't helped you win friends.

Yes, but you've made some outrageous claims, which makes everything else you post suspect.
Even if you were well known here, I don't know that would make a difference.
For example, I really liked David Vizard's writing. Then I got burned by following some of his guidance. Fame doesn't equate to knowledge. Not many have heard of Tuner, who prefers not to be named oin the 'net, or Bruce Robertson for that matter, or Klaus, the founder of Innovate Motorsport.

I think you are referring to the person who has posted several videos running an Allen for the collective benefit. That's a pretty generous thing to do. Anyone who had not observed this with their own testing can see the facts.
Of the other people mentioned, I actually know who they are, either directly or indirectly. A surprising number I've met in person. One even showed up at an autocross with his family a few years back.
Tuner as I mention in the other thread has worked on several road race cars of people I know. Dick Ott in particular was builder and driver I highly respect, as did everyone who knew him. The guy who first mentored me was very successful tech and builder when he was involved in stock eliminator. Ten years later Jerry Stein told me yup, that guy was good - a little nuts - but thats another story.
So why do we beleive some people and not others? Some is about credibility, and the other part is that a bunch of this isn't about belief. It's about understanding what factors play into flame development under various conditions and various ways to create spark lead time.

I’m lucky enough I can get Tuner on the horn almost any time of the day or night (he’d tell you I wake him up at all hours) and he is a wealth of information.

He has astronomically shortened my learning curve.

He’s worked me out of some very tight boxes I’ve tuned myself into many times.

Without Tuner I’d be in the weeds.

 

[Mattax]

Yup. He and Shrinker were the main two on the Innovate forum that helped me out of the hole that I had got myself in. Took a while for me to really understand - a major learning curve. Eventually stuff started to fall in place and I could connect things.

Just remember.
It's great to try to help others, but we have to make sure we don't become this guy.

 

[StreetSleeper]

I just want to thank you guys for all the wisdom that you dump here. To me, it is precious, I love this stuff!

 

[StreetSleeper]

Chapter2, 2 pages, chapter three has the timing correlated to combustion chambers, one moment

 

[StreetSleeper]

Chapter 3

 

[StreetSleeper]

3

 

[StreetSleeper]

Chapter 4 is vacuum advance if anyone wants it.