Continuing ignition timing debate from the 416 thread.

[Newbomb Turk]

Interesting video. That is a whole different world. I haven't ever done a boosted motor on the dyno. The power numbers are crazy. 90% of what I do is less than 1/2 those power numbers. Only now since it's been pointed out to me that you can't develop a timing curve with a sweep on a dyno should I be skeptical of all the testing they did of being valid? I noticed they used sweeps to evaluate timing and fuel changes and no steady srate testing was done.

I need to watch the video but Steve Morris is a serial offender on timing. You can watch dozens of his videos where he puts more timing in it and it picks up peak numbers but around peak torque it hurts it.

So yes, he jacks it up. I could say more but I won’t but I will say this. There are some who refuse to learn of who don’t even consider that their tuning has an issue. Some engines are ultra sensitive to timing and others are not.

A Pontiac for example is hyper sensitive to timing. It’s far less forgiving than most engines. A SBC with 60-70’s iron heads will run anywhere between 38-44 depending on how the engine is configured. So watching a video and watching someone else do sweep tests for timing doesn’t make it correct.

Go watch the whole series of videos he did on the Noonan Hemi going in the Bonneville car. They did at least short sweeps on that as they were doing timing for EACH GEAR. I think it was a 10 speed and they didn’t do pulls for 8-10 because…I forget what Morris said.

In THAT case it would be insane to try and load several THOUSAND horsepower steady state and work a curve. You’d be pulling the engine every 20 pulls or so to change the rods. That would be idiotic so you do what you can do.

Morris also produced a video about how a change in compression ratio or boost (or both I suppose) and the timing requirement (he says) doesn’t change! And he was serious. If you don’t grasp how wrong that is I don’t know what to say. There is a reason that vacuum advance was (and still is) used and Thats because LOAD affects timing. Less load = more timing. Thats basic **** and yet Morris either ignores it or doesn’t get it.

As I said, your own testing is telling you that engine wants a curve. Why not try it? What have you got to lose?

Put a curve in it based on your sweep testing and see what happens. Then do some steady state test and see what the engine wants for a curve that way. Do that carve and see which curve makes more power.

You might learn something.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Here are a couple of comments Charlie Westcott ( who I doubt anybody here will doubt his knowledge) made to me
Newbomb Turk’s comments have some validity to them, and maybe should be given a bit of respect..lol

Charlie:

“if you have a crank trigger, you are firing off the front of the crank. If you are using a pickup in the distributor, and the gear is on the back of the cam, its gonna vary some, mosty from slack in the chain/belt. your guy that monitors it on the racepak needs to know that the racepak is just monitoring the signal from the box, not reading the actual position with a light. Its meaningless. I had a guy, Steve Yantus, that never checked the timing cause the "grid said" it was at 30. I said you are an idiot, hook up a timing light. Most cars have electronics on them that the user has no business using.”

Me:
So, is it a waste of time to look at timing with a light on the dyno at different operating rpm’s and setup a timing curve based on what the timing at those rpm’s tell you?
Or isn’t it worth chasing

Charlie:

No, thats a valid test. I am saying that if you have a crank trigger, it isnt going to move unless the pickup is odd. The holley pickup I used in PS retarded the timing and you had to comp for that.

Certainly there is far LESS retard with what they currently use in PS but it does occur.

What did he say about timing curves for all 5 gears?

 

[92b]

Put a curve in it based on your sweep testing and see what happens.

lol. If I did the curve based on my sweep testing it would be a straight 30 degrees. I wonder if somehow we aren't looking at the same graph?

 

[TT5.9mag]

Interesting video. That is a whole different world. I haven't ever done a boosted motor on the dyno. The power numbers are crazy. 90% of what I do is less than 1/2 those power numbers. Only now since it's been pointed out to me that you can't develop a timing curve with a sweep on a dyno should I be skeptical of all the testing they did of being valid? I noticed they used sweeps to evaluate timing and fuel changes and no steady srate testing was done.

The only caveat I’ll add is, none of us know how much tuning was done to the NA combo off camera to get where they were. And a couple times Steve even said, the off boost tune up hasn’t changed. They are after power. That’s it. Just power. Big numbers. He’s not tuning for drivability or making big torque. Usually on big hp boosted stuff on the dyno you absolutely ignore making torque (or focusing on it) because that’s where parts break. So you (we) purposely make it soft there and make it run hard up top where it’s less likely to hurt itself.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

That makes sense. I don't think anyone here is disputing that. I am using a timing light on the dyno when I check the timing curve. That does make me wonder if Turk is using a timing light triggered from the plug wire on his distributor machine?

I do not use a timing light on the machine. I use the machine because the electronics on my machine are far quicker than any timing light.

Using a timing light on a plug wire on the dyno adds another slew rate into the equation. The only way to determine how slow the timing light is, is to test it against a distributor machine or find several lights and test them on the same engine. The slowest light will always show the least timing.

I had a fairly new timing light crap the bed a few weeks ago. I caught it because all of a sudden I needed to add more timing to get the same power. It got replaced.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

lol. If I did the curve based on my sweep testing it would be a straight 30 degrees. I wonder if somehow we aren't looking at the same graph?

Again, that is a sweep test and you are talking about less than 1 hp between the two.

I guess you need to explain to me how the engine wants the same timing at peak torque and peak power, because the ONLY way that can be possible is if the VE is the same at both points.

And if they are, why is that? I mean we agree that a higher VE requires less timing don’t we?

 

[TT5.9mag]

lol. If I did the curve based on my sweep testing it would be a straight 30 degrees. I wonder if somehow we aren't looking at the same graph?

Isn’t 30 a compromise between best power and torque? Didn’t you say earlier that it made a little more hp and a little more tq with different timing and you split the difference? But in your opinion it was negligible.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Here is a test on the box going in my car. It’s wired up exactly as it will be in the car. I forgot I recorded this, as I had forgotten if I even tested this box and was going to pull the box back off the car just to test it.

This just happens to be a very good box.

If you watch it I have the nasty habit of using distributor and crank degrees interchangeably and that’s bad.

Every tic mark is 1 distributor degree or two crank degrees regardless of how I screw it up.

But the box does retard. If someone really wants to throw up in their mouth I can do a test with the orange box hanging on the wall and you can see what massive, early retard looks like. I think that box retards at least 8 degrees by 7k or something. It’s pretty nasty.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Isn’t 30 a compromise between best power and torque? Didn’t you say earlier that it made a little more hp and a little more tq with different timing and you split the difference? But in your opinion it was negligible.

It is negligible. But for reasons I can’t explain other than what I’ve been told about how many cycles it takes to affect a change if you steady state test for MBT (or for LBT because you do fuel and spark the same way) it will take different timing than what a sweep says it wants.

When I was dealing with a chassis dyno where I worked the single biggest complaint was once the timing was set on the dyno it would take less timing at the track.

I now know that sweep testing for a curve changes what the engine wants in the car at the track.

I suspect (especially on a water brake where the sweep rate is controlled by the dyno) that is because in the car the engine gains rpm at far faster rates (especially in first and second gear) than it does on the dyno.

In the case of the wheel dyno, you are testing in high gear (usually) where the acceleration rate is far slower than it would be in lower gears.

Somewhere on speed talk Larry Meaux posted some acceleration rates for several different engine/chassis combinations and IIRC some of them were close to or at 2000 rpm/second in the car.

You can test on a water brake dyno at close to those acceleration numbers but the test is so short the data acquired would be at best too small a sample and probably they would be useless.

There are compromises in every type of testing we do. The best we can do is research what we are doing and test what we can in every different form we can.

I have not yet performed any deceleration tests because I’m not doing something I’ve never done on a customers engine. When I get my junk together I will get it sorted out and then I will do some deceleration testing and see what I get from that.

I’ve been told I will be surprised at what I see. I’ve asked several other dyno operators if they’ve ever done them and it one has said they have. Maybe that’s true or maybe they don’t want to give something away, but if the software is capable and it’s in there, someone, somewhere is doing it.

 

[92b]

Isn’t 30 a compromise between best power and torque? Didn’t you say earlier that it made a little more hp and a little more tq with different timing and you split the difference? But in your opinion it was negligible.

That is true in some applications. Not this particular combination. Just showing some real data to back up my point.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

That is true in some applications. Not this particular combination. Just showing some real data to back up my point.

lol. You don’t think I have “real data”?

I give up. You are so obstinate that you refuse to even consider doing steady state testing for a curve.

Your customers lose out.

 

[92b]

Again, that is a sweep test and you are talking about less than 1 hp between the two.

I guess you need to explain to me how the engine wants the same timing at peak torque and peak power, because the ONLY way that can be possible is if the VE is the same at both points.

And if they are, why is that? I mean we agree that a higher VE requires less timing don’t we?

Timing requirements are affected by a multitude of factors. I can't tell what factors are in play here. I'm just showing you the result of all those factors.

You can say that my test isn't valid because it isn't a steady state test. But at one point you claimed differences in timing can't be measured on a sweep test on a chassis dyno
Then you built a distributor with a curve and tested it at that same chassis dyno and when it showed a power increase now all of the sudden the numbers are valid. When the dyno operator put a locked distributor in the motor and it lost power on a sweep test you claimed that it validated the fact that your distributor was better. On the same dyno that you said couldn't be used to evaluate Timing curves because it sweeps too fast. I apologize if I seem skeptical but should we believe the results from that dyno or not?

 

[92b]

Here is a test on the box going in my car. It’s wired up exactly as it will be in the car. I forgot I recorded this, as I had forgotten if I even tested this box and was going to pull the box back off the car just to test it.

This just happens to be a very good box.

If you watch it I have the nasty habit of using distributor and crank degrees interchangeably and that’s bad.

Every tic mark is 1 distributor degree or two crank degrees regardless of how I screw it up.

But the box does retard. If someone really wants to throw up in their mouth I can do a test with the orange box hanging on the wall and you can see what massive, early retard looks like. I think that box retards at least 8 degrees by 7k or something. It’s pretty nasty.

What is the amount of retard if you read it off your degree wheel with a timing light triggered by a sparkplug wire?

 

[92b]

lol. You don’t think I have “real data”?

Sorry if you thought that was intended for you. That was in no way how it was intended. I'm trying to keep the discussion light, I feel no need to make it personal. I was comparing real data to my own explanation of what I saw on a 602 crate. I thought a real documented test would better illustrate how in my own testing that there is not always big losses seen with a locked distributor. Which anyone is fee to agree or disagree with.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

What is the amount of retard if you read it off your degree wheel with a timing light triggered by a sparkplug wire?

It depends on the light but 2-3 degrees slow is pretty good. I’ve seen some that were 5 slow. Which is why I tell the customer to bring their Timing light and never loan it out for any reason and to only use that light because if you use a different light than what you originally tuned with it will possibly read differently than the original light and now you have no idea what the timing is.

If the customer timing light is here I hook it up and show them the difference.

That’s why I’m not at all excited about doing a distributor without having the customer timing light here. And really, I try and avoid doing a distributor that isnt being used on an engine that I dyno.

It just makes a mess when you give someone numbers and you tell them they aren’t concrete and you have to tune to the light you have. It makes it frustrating for everyone when I say 20 initial at 1k and 26 at 4k and 32 at 6k and their light needs 24, 30 and 36.

It’s almost always the light. Even when you tell them the actual numbers do not matter, it’s the shape of the curve and both of the above timing curves have the same shape, they are just higher up on the graph.

 

[92b]

Here is a test on the box going in my car. It’s wired up exactly as it will be in the car. I forgot I recorded this, as I had forgotten if I even tested this box and was going to pull the box back off the car just to test it.

This just happens to be a very good box.

If you watch it I have the nasty habit of using distributor and crank degrees interchangeably and that’s bad.

Every tic mark is 1 distributor degree or two crank degrees regardless of how I screw it up.

But the box does retard. If someone really wants to throw up in their mouth I can do a test with the orange box hanging on the wall and you can see what massive, early retard looks like. I think that box retards at least 8 degrees by 7k or something. It’s pretty nasty.

I can't see it in the in the video. Where does your distributor machine hook up to the ignition system? How is the rest of your set hooked up. Looks like you have a round something Where all the secondary spark occurs?

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Timing requirements are affected by a multitude of factors. I can't tell what factors are in play here. I'm just showing you the result of all those factors.

You can say that my test isn't valid because it isn't a steady state test. But at one point you claimed differences in timing can't be measured on a sweep test on a chassis dyno
Then you built a distributor with a curve and tested it at that same chassis dyno and when it showed a power increase now all of the sudden the numbers are valid. When the dyno operator put a locked distributor in the motor and it lost power on a sweep test you claimed that it validated the fact that your distributor was better. On the same dyno that you said couldn't be used to evaluate Timing curves because it sweeps too fast. I apologize if I seem skeptical but should we believe the results from that dyno or not?

Im not saying your testing isn’t valid. Im saying it’s not complete.

Im also not saying that you can’t change timing and make a sweep test and change the result. Obviously you can. I do it.

What I am saying is you can’t, with a sweep test determine what the engine wants or needs or however you want to say it what a proper timing curve would look like.

Certainly you can add or removing timing (assuming a locked distributor) and see the power change.

Im saying that you have no idea what the engine wants at and around peak torque and peak power if you just sweep it.

In other words, the curve you end up with using a sweep test will be different than a curve you end up with using a steady state load while varying the timing to see where peak torque occurs at that rpm.

The 395 inch example I posted in the other thread is the perfect example of that. There is no way doing a sweep test would end up with 9 crank degrees across about 5500 rpm. The sweep test would want much more timing. Or it may even be very close to locked timing.

That slow, long curve will out power both the quicker, more timing curve or locked out timing.

But the real proof is in driving the car. Ive been sorting out the carb now that it’s in the car and it’s amazing how it drives. Im still working on part throttle stuff but it is clean, smooth and very easy to drive.

And thats with 11:1, pump gas that is 258/263 @.050 with a single plane intake and 1.875 headers. Most people would consider that nasty to drive on the street but it’s not.

If it was mine and it had a stick the engine would have more timing yet but it’s a converter car so I compromised on cam timing a bit. Plus the guy that owns the car wants to be able to drive it with one hand while sipping a coffee with the other and that is very easy driving it.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

I can't see it in the in the video. Where does your distributor machine hook up to the ignition system? How is the rest of your set hooked up. Looks like you have a round something Where all the secondary spark occurs?

The machine doesn’t hook up to the ignition. It is wired up exactly as it is in the car. The machine is triggered by the signal from the distributor. Now I need to go back and look at it so I can tell you which wire triggers the machine or if you can even see it in that video.

The round thing is a distributor cap that I used to make a spark bank. I used a pretty big washer inside of it to get about a .120 gap. I made another spark bank but it’s not much more user friendly so if I ever get caught up I’ll make up a nice one.

Edit: I just ran through that video real quick and without the lights on you’ll never see how the machine gets triggered.

I’ll look through some other videos and see if it shows it. Or I can make another video and explain how this machine gets triggered and what it’s full capabilities are.

 

[92b]

The machine doesn’t hook up to the ignition. It is wired up exactly as it is in the car. The machine is triggered by the signal from the distributor. Now I need to go back and look at it so I can tell you which wire triggers the machine or if you can even see it in that video.

The round thing is a distributor cap that I used to make a spark bank. I used a pretty big washer inside of it to get about a .120 gap. I made another spark bank but it’s not much more user friendly so if I ever get caught up I’ll make up a nice one.

Edit: I just ran through that video real quick and without the lights on you’ll never see how the machine gets triggered.

I’ll look through some other videos and see if it shows it. Or I can make another video and explain how this machine gets triggered and what it’s full capabilities are.

Thankyou like to see how that hooks up. It doesn’t look like you have a cap on the distributor? is it a 2 wire msd distributor?

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Thankyou like to see how that hooks up. It doesn’t look like you have a cap on the distributor? is it a 2 wire msd distributor?

Mmmmmm, I have to go back and look. Im going to assume it’s the Unilite that Im going to use because I believe I say a vacuum can on the distributor.

Now that I type that Im not sure that is correct because the distributor in the video is locked out and I don’t think I locked that out to test with.

I need to go watch it closer. It’s hard to believe that was 4 years ago. I need to stop working on other people’s **** and finish my garbage.

 

[92b]

What I am saying is you can’t, with a sweep test determine what the engine wants or needs or however you want to say it what a proper timing curve would look like.

Still having a hard time wrapping my head around this. You can't use a sweep test on a dyno set an ignition curve because it sweeps too fast and the power changes you see won't be accurate enough to determine a curve. But, you can use a dyno in a sweep test to determine if you made any gains when you change the curve?

 

[TT5.9mag]

Still having a hard time wrapping my head around this. You can't use a sweep test on a dyno set an ignition curve because it sweeps too fast and the power changes you see won't be accurate enough to determine a curve. But, you can use a dyno in a sweep test to determine if you made any gains when you change the curve?

How often do you have the crate engines on the dyno? They’re fairly mild (~9.2:1 comp and 450hp right?) and it wouldn’t be hard to try a steady state test at peak TQ and swing the timing around. Just to see what happens. I for one do NOT have the experience on a dyno either one of you have, but I do know one of the smartest guys I’ve ever been around on a dyno did exactly that to find the timing requirements. I’d be very interested in the results of your test.

 

[TT5.9mag]

I know when we parked my twin turbo BBC at 5850rpm full load for 60 seconds it made my butt pucker up. That’s why I suggested doing it on a mild engine. Something with peak tq in that 4500 range.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

Still having a hard time wrapping my head around this. You can't use a sweep test on a dyno set an ignition curve because it sweeps too fast and the power changes you see won't be accurate enough to determine a curve. But, you can use a dyno in a sweep test to determine if you made any gains when you change the curve?

Yes.

 

[Newbomb Turk]

How often do you have the crate engines on the dyno? They’re fairly mild (~9.2:1 comp and 450hp right?) and it wouldn’t be hard to try a steady state test at peak TQ and swing the timing around. Just to see what happens. I for one do NOT have the experience on a dyno either one of you have, but I do know one of the smartest guys I’ve ever been around on a dyno did exactly that to find the timing requirements. I’d be very interested in the results of your test.

Peak torque and peak power.

The problem is if you don’t have a way to move the timing electronically you have to do it manually and thats hard to do.

You need to be able to at least see a vacuum gauge and your torque output and then check the timing with the light.

I can do all that sitting at the console.

But I’ve done it manually and if you are only doing peak torque and power it’s not all that bad. But that distributor will be very hot. Im not that smart and started turning it without a glove on. It wasn’t a pleasant experience.