Re: [Fwd: Ignition timing question...?]
 

Burt S. wrote:

> "Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message news:ynS4f.218349$1i.74305@pd7tw2no...
>
>
>>Fine then. Is the timing set with the advance hose attached, or not?
>>The procedure up to step 7 would suggest no - the hose is disconnected
>>and plugged, and the timing set according to the chart. So you end up
>>at 20 degrees with the hose detached.
>
>
> You obviously miss the point on step 3 that you are *not* suppose to
> leave the hoses unplugged.

Which point was that? Step three says "Disconnect the vacuum hose(s)
from the vacuum advance diaphragm and, while the engine idles, check
each hose for vacuumand plug the hose(s)." It does NOT say "replug" or
"plug in". So at best it's a typo. If that's the case, would it really
have been so hard to just say, "There's a typo in the manual; you're
supposed to plug the hose(s) back in."?


>>So if you go on testing, you're once again disconnected the hoses, but
>>now the timing is supposed to read 4 degrees?
>
>
> You are in the section on testing the vacuum advance diaphragm and
> distributor advance mechanism and is not relevant to setting the timing.

That isn't specified either. The section header says "Ignition Timing
Inspection and Setting". The entire procedure falls within that section.
Nothing says, "These first steps are just for checking the vacuum
advance, and these later steps are for setting the timing."

Can we at least agree that the whole procedure is, if nothing else,
unclear?

So I came in here to ask a simple question, and instead of a simple,
"here's how you do it" or "there's a typo there, this is what it should
say" I get on by jim beam, and when I object to that, I get on
by you. Have all the intelligent, HELPFUL people just gone away for the
weekend, or is the full moon bringing the assholes out of the woodwork?


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-0, 10/17/2005
Tested on: 10/17/2005 8:05:02 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Fwd: Ignition timing question...?]
 

"Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message news:BDZ4f.227624$tl2.68191@pd7tw3no...

> So at best it's a typo. If that's the case, would it really
> have been so hard to just say, "There's a typo in the manual; you're
> supposed to plug the hose(s) back in."?

Basically, this is *NOT* a typo. Those instructions are nearly, if not
identical to the 88, 89 Accord service manual. The Helm service
manual are not children's book. These are like a bible and I've read
them to the teeth and find "ZERO" technical error but 1 punctuation error.
Chillton's/ Haynes are cluttered with confusions, if not errors and they're
worth only to light my fireplace.

> Which point was that? Step three says "Disconnect the vacuum hose(s)
> from the vacuum advance diaphragm and, while the engine idles, check
> each hose for vacuumand plug the hose(s)." It does NOT say "replug" or
> "plug in".

It didn't say to plug it with fuel clamps. Complained to Helm Inc, the
translators. The book has no typo and with 4 editions published not
a single complaint and finally 20-years later someone complains.
Helm won't translate BMW's so this is the main reason why I'll never
buy a BMW. The Bentley service manual sucks in comparison to Helm's.-IMO

> That isn't specified either. The section header says "Ignition Timing
> Inspection and Setting". The entire procedure falls within that section.
> Nothing says, "These first steps are just for checking the vacuum
> advance, and these later steps are for setting the timing."

The headings says Timing Inspection. And you *ARE* inspecting
timing. If the timings are off then you know which mechanical part(s)
are defective and needs to replace. It's intuitive and I'm not saying
newbies are not allowed in the game.

> Can we at least agree that the whole procedure is, if nothing else,
> unclear?

To the non-mechanic, it's unclear.

> So I came in here to ask a simple question, and instead of a simple,
> "here's how you do it" or "there's a typo there, this is what it should
> say" I get on by jim beam, and when I object to that, I get on
> by you. Have all the intelligent, HELPFUL people just gone away for the
> weekend, or is the full moon bringing the assholes out of the woodwork?

An ill-mannered guy that starts a catfight and gets no quick answer. Like
Jim said, "you're not very adept at ensuring you get it."

Re: [Fwd: Ignition timing question...?]
 

"Matt Ion" <soundy@moltenimage.com> wrote in message news:BDZ4f.227624$tl2.68191@pd7tw3no...

> So at best it's a typo. If that's the case, would it really
> have been so hard to just say, "There's a typo in the manual; you're
> supposed to plug the hose(s) back in."?

Basically, this is *NOT* a typo. Those instructions are nearly, if not
identical to the 88, 89 Accord service manual. The Helm service
manual are not children's book. These are like a bible and I've read
them to the teeth and find "ZERO" technical error but 1 punctuation error.
Chillton's/ Haynes are cluttered with confusions, if not errors and they're
worth only to light my fireplace.

> Which point was that? Step three says "Disconnect the vacuum hose(s)
> from the vacuum advance diaphragm and, while the engine idles, check
> each hose for vacuumand plug the hose(s)." It does NOT say "replug" or
> "plug in".

It didn't say to plug it with fuel clamps. Complained to Helm Inc, the
translators. The book has no typo and with 4 editions published not
a single complaint and finally 20-years later someone complains.
Helm won't translate BMW's so this is the main reason why I'll never
buy a BMW. The Bentley service manual sucks in comparison to Helm's.-IMO

> That isn't specified either. The section header says "Ignition Timing
> Inspection and Setting". The entire procedure falls within that section.
> Nothing says, "These first steps are just for checking the vacuum
> advance, and these later steps are for setting the timing."

The headings says Timing Inspection. And you *ARE* inspecting
timing. If the timings are off then you know which mechanical part(s)
are defective and needs to replace. It's intuitive and I'm not saying
newbies are not allowed in the game.

> Can we at least agree that the whole procedure is, if nothing else,
> unclear?

To the non-mechanic, it's unclear.

> So I came in here to ask a simple question, and instead of a simple,
> "here's how you do it" or "there's a typo there, this is what it should
> say" I get on by jim beam, and when I object to that, I get on
> by you. Have all the intelligent, HELPFUL people just gone away for the
> weekend, or is the full moon bringing the assholes out of the woodwork?

An ill-mannered guy that starts a catfight and gets no quick answer. Like
Jim said, "you're not very adept at ensuring you get it."

Re: [Fwd: Ignition timing question...?]
 

Burt S. wrote:

>>So at best it's a typo. If that's the case, would it really
>>have been so hard to just say, "There's a typo in the manual; you're
>>supposed to plug the hose(s) back in."?
>
>
> Basically, this is *NOT* a typo. Those instructions are nearly, if not
> identical to the 88, 89 Accord service manual. The Helm service
> manual are not children's book. These are like a bible and I've read
> them to the teeth and find "ZERO" technical error but 1 punctuation error.
> Chillton's/ Haynes are cluttered with confusions, if not errors and they're
> worth only to light my fireplace.

Fine, it's not a typo; it's a poor translation.

>>Which point was that? Step three says "Disconnect the vacuum hose(s)
>>from the vacuum advance diaphragm and, while the engine idles, check
>>each hose for vacuumand plug the hose(s)." It does NOT say "replug" or
>>"plug in".
>
>
> It didn't say to plug it with fuel clamps.

It says to plug the hose. To me, that means to stick something in the
end to block it off.

>>That isn't specified either. The section header says "Ignition Timing
>>Inspection and Setting". The entire procedure falls within that section.
>> Nothing says, "These first steps are just for checking the vacuum
>>advance, and these later steps are for setting the timing."
>
>
> The headings says Timing Inspection.

AND Setting, unless you're looking at a different manual than I am, and
the section goes all the way to step 10.

>>So I came in here to ask a simple question, and instead of a simple,
>>"here's how you do it" or "there's a typo there, this is what it should
>>say" I get on by jim beam, and when I object to that, I get on
>>by you. Have all the intelligent, HELPFUL people just gone away for the
>>weekend, or is the full moon bringing the assholes out of the woodwork?
>
>
> An ill-mannered guy that starts a catfight and gets no quick answer. Like
> Jim said, "you're not very adept at ensuring you get it."

I'm not the one that "started" the "catfight". I posted a simple
question. The reply was "ill-mannered" (to use your term) at best:

"matt, if the honda factory manual says disconnect, then you disconnect.
end of story. and who are you to judge 20 degrees? you've got two
vacuum diaphragms iirc, both affect timing when connected, and their
subsequent movement produces the correct result for that engine. it's
real simple. "

I then tried to claify my problem, with:

"The thing is, the manual contradicts itself. If you actually follow
the steps in order, it's got you disconnecting the hoses twice (and btw,
only one is normally used, the other operates only when the engine is
cold), and it's got two different advance settings, one saying for the
A20A2 it should be 10, 15 or 20 degrees depending on the exact variant,
the other saying it should be 4 degrees for all A20A2s."

The response to that was an even snider:

"which manual is that matt?" - well duh, I posted links to pictures of
the pages I was looking at in the original message.

Unfortunately, I come in here looking for assistance, and instead of
anything from the couple of dozen normally helpful contributors, I get
one clown after another.

So, if you've got nothing useful to add, don't bother.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-0, 10/17/2005
Tested on: 10/17/2005 11:22:00 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

Re: [Fwd: Ignition timing question...?]
 

Burt S. wrote:

>>So at best it's a typo. If that's the case, would it really
>>have been so hard to just say, "There's a typo in the manual; you're
>>supposed to plug the hose(s) back in."?
>
>
> Basically, this is *NOT* a typo. Those instructions are nearly, if not
> identical to the 88, 89 Accord service manual. The Helm service
> manual are not children's book. These are like a bible and I've read
> them to the teeth and find "ZERO" technical error but 1 punctuation error.
> Chillton's/ Haynes are cluttered with confusions, if not errors and they're
> worth only to light my fireplace.

Fine, it's not a typo; it's a poor translation.

>>Which point was that? Step three says "Disconnect the vacuum hose(s)
>>from the vacuum advance diaphragm and, while the engine idles, check
>>each hose for vacuumand plug the hose(s)." It does NOT say "replug" or
>>"plug in".
>
>
> It didn't say to plug it with fuel clamps.

It says to plug the hose. To me, that means to stick something in the
end to block it off.

>>That isn't specified either. The section header says "Ignition Timing
>>Inspection and Setting". The entire procedure falls within that section.
>> Nothing says, "These first steps are just for checking the vacuum
>>advance, and these later steps are for setting the timing."
>
>
> The headings says Timing Inspection.

AND Setting, unless you're looking at a different manual than I am, and
the section goes all the way to step 10.

>>So I came in here to ask a simple question, and instead of a simple,
>>"here's how you do it" or "there's a typo there, this is what it should
>>say" I get on by jim beam, and when I object to that, I get on
>>by you. Have all the intelligent, HELPFUL people just gone away for the
>>weekend, or is the full moon bringing the assholes out of the woodwork?
>
>
> An ill-mannered guy that starts a catfight and gets no quick answer. Like
> Jim said, "you're not very adept at ensuring you get it."

I'm not the one that "started" the "catfight". I posted a simple
question. The reply was "ill-mannered" (to use your term) at best:

"matt, if the honda factory manual says disconnect, then you disconnect.
end of story. and who are you to judge 20 degrees? you've got two
vacuum diaphragms iirc, both affect timing when connected, and their
subsequent movement produces the correct result for that engine. it's
real simple. "

I then tried to claify my problem, with:

"The thing is, the manual contradicts itself. If you actually follow
the steps in order, it's got you disconnecting the hoses twice (and btw,
only one is normally used, the other operates only when the engine is
cold), and it's got two different advance settings, one saying for the
A20A2 it should be 10, 15 or 20 degrees depending on the exact variant,
the other saying it should be 4 degrees for all A20A2s."

The response to that was an even snider:

"which manual is that matt?" - well duh, I posted links to pictures of
the pages I was looking at in the original message.

Unfortunately, I come in here looking for assistance, and instead of
anything from the couple of dozen normally helpful contributors, I get
one clown after another.

So, if you've got nothing useful to add, don't bother.


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0542-0, 10/17/2005
Tested on: 10/17/2005 11:22:00 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2005 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com