You know I have to say this is the kind of thread I really enjoy.  You can learn alot from "listening" to experienced and knowlegeable folks going back and forth.  It never gets boring around here.

Rgds
Neil

You do the same thing you do with any drivability problem.  You fix it.  If you are setting everything in a stock engine to spec, and doing a basic tune all of the problems you sited could still be there.  And it won't run right or work properly no matter what.  You have those problems, you fix them.  Very basic.

And the numbers you site from "everyone in Chevy land" are very much good numbers, as I said before.  I don't dispute them.  They will make almost any engine run quite well.  I do highly recommend your procedure.  You gave good advice.  But when you make engine mods, things change.  You cannot predict those changes unless you have been there before.  Are those good numbers for every engine made?  Of course not.  Why? Different designs.  You change designs, you can but may not, change those numbers.  Then what do you do?  Set it there and assume it's the best you can get?  Maybe it is.  In many cases it will be.  But not always.

A very good friend of mine used to build and run NHRA.  His engines are Chevy, but don't even come close to those numbers.  Very modified granted, but what do folks with very modified engines do?  They run it, test it, and adjust it until they get the best results.  That's what Ben is doing.

ken, there are a lot of high mileage cars out there that still run fairley good, I'am sure some with loose guides, compression down a little in a cylinder or two, maybe in need of plug wires, but generally run good, do you think that they are going to do a top end just to time the motor with a vac. gauage, I wouldn't, as a matter of fact I have a bone stock 68 chev 307 two barrel with 125,000 miles hiway miles I use for work,still runs good, doesn't smoke, uses or leaks about 1.5 qts in a K, carb and timing chain about two years ago, gets about 14 to the gal.,it time's at 5BTDC would you or Ben please put Ben's method up on this tread, so that I can print it, this dog's head is pertty hard, might be a while but I want to do a comparrison.

[QUOTE=YellowLT1]

You know I have to say this is the kind of thread I really enjoy.  You can learn alot from "listening" to experienced and knowlegeable folks going back and forth.  It never gets boring around here.

Rgds
Neil

[/QUOTE]

It's even kind of depressing......just when you thought you started to make some headway toward understanding the internal combustion engine, a thread like this comes along. Oh well, must press on. This has got to be one of the most informative exchanges I've ever experienced. Thank you, all.

JR

Joe, on the slightly worn engine you site, I would use your method, not Bens.  All of those wear factors are going to have an affect.  Not many folks are not going to tear down the engine that's a bit tired.  And I don't blame them.  I have driven a lot of older tired engines and had no interest in making them run like new, or better.  They just won't do it.  But they are still quite servicable, and could go a long time.  These engines don't get Ben's method.  The results could actually be worse.  You do the best with what you have.

But when we are speaking of peak power and peformance, you have to consider if that's the priority, someone would do the work and freshen up the engine and bring it back to new condition, and perform some modifications.  Then Ben's method wins.

So it comes down to what is trying to be done.  Do the best with a bit of wear?  Nothing wrong with that, I have done it many times for many people.  Myself included.  Then your method wins.  Or perhaps just bone stock specs is the better way to go for stock engines in aged condition.  There are times when I intentionally did not want the engine to produce more power.  I didn't think it would hold up, and set it with that in mind. Just wanted it to run well and survive.

Nothing is always right.  It depends on the situation at hand, and the goal to be reached.

Would it be possible to put the method up anyway, I was talking to some friends of mine about it,they have heard about it but didn't know the procedure, maybe I can put it together from some of the posts in the debate, the debate was giving me just enough of an excuse to buy a G-Meter so I could try both and see what would happen, hell, I'll buy it anyway, Thanks Ken, Ben anips38487.7212384259

Look back through the first page of this topic.  Ben has described it there.  I believe it's the 9 post down from the start of this thread.

I wish I had a g-force meter.  That would be a lot of fun.  And interesting.

Ken, buy one they are reasonable, 199.00 and 299.00, the 299 is the same as the 199 but you can down load the more expensive one, better than trial and error seat of the pants tuning, there are knock off's that are cheaper but if you are buying a tool like this I recomend G-Tech, if you think about it it's about the same price as a screw driver set from Snap On, or four pull's on a dyno jet.anips38488.568912037

[QUOTE=anips]Ken, the numbers I used are hard numbers used by GM and just about every one else in Chevy land, never the less, the question I have is with Ben's method what if maybe you have a bad hole or two, maybe some leaky or burnt valves, weak valve springs,some worn guides,or a hidden vac. leak somewhere, marginal carb,can't forget a leaky head gasket, then what do you do?   [/QUOTE]

fix them !!

kens assertion is right..  do i waste all this time to tune every last drop of perfomance out of joe blows 84 station wagon..  no way..

but when i tune an engine for me..  yes i do waste this much time..

everytime i make a change i start over..  many times no adjustment is necessary..  but often it is..

i just recently did this on my 80 chevy 4x4 truck..  when i put a new intake on..  the cheap light i was using to get it in the ball park until i could get my vac gauge back was so far out of calibration it was miserable..

but after i tuned the truck up properly im able to light up all four mudders in first and second....  

its silly..  but its my hobby..  perhaps i should qualify some of my suggestions more..  my method is time consuming and a pain in the a$$...  but in my experience..  if you follow the procedure you will make more power and have better off the line response.

as for whether you adjust the carb then timing or timing then carb..  it doesnt matter..  i go through them a couple of times until they are both peaked simultaneously..

cthulhu38490.3974537037

OK,

well i tried to set my timing today, @3000rpm my timing was 56 BTDC.

so i adj the dist to 36 BTDC set the idle back at 750rpm and checked my base timing it was 8 ATDC, i would think i may need a new dist?

what do you guys think? the diat has ALOT of miles on it.

thanks

pete kennedy