EGR valve...
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB277C4.D0F3886E@hotmail.com...
> Shop manuals are sold (for all automakers I suspect) from a
> publishing company in MI. Often that company is listed in an
> order blank at the back of owners manual. I found the company
> for my latest vehicle by doing an internet search. Also
> dealer will often have an order card or the address.
>
> Larger jets would not cure your problems. The car as
> designed was optimized for best mileage and performance (a
> word often misrepresented in North America where low
> performance GM vehicle use large, low performance engines -
> and people foolishly called that high performance). Do not
> change the timing. That was already optimized by the original
> design. The only way you could improve engine by timing is
> make the timing more accurate - vary better to adapt the
> changing conditions. The shop manual will provide some
> limits. Notice that with mechanical timing, the actual engine
> timing can vary widely from optimum only because it is
> obsolete mechanical controls.
>
> But you don't appear to have enough knowledge yet to even
> consider timing changes. Keep asking those questions though.
> Advancing timing too much could actually be destructive.
An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
more power and mileage.
> Again, many screws on that CVCC engine's carb are not field
> adjustable. Shop manual will explain why but in not great
> detail. Changing some screws can cause irreparable problems.
>
> Reread what I said about pollution equipment. Not all (in
> fact I think none) 1969 Novas came with the high mileage
> package. Therefore it did not have all those hoses found in
> post 1970 vehicles. Those hoses are traditionally mileage
> enhances and performance adjusters - not anti pollution
> devices. Early 1970 cars typically had but a few anti
> pollution devices - called retarding the cam shaft in relation
> to the crank. That's right. Notice what the pollution
> control system was - a change on the gear at the end of one
> shaft.
Why don't you actually tell me what "those hoses" were? Hoses don't dso
anything to an engine. Tell me what they were connected to and the purpose
of those devices.
> Also known as performance destroyers. That was almost the
> pollution control system in 1970 to 1975 cars because bean
> counters (not engineers) were designing all American engines
> back then. Don't get fooled into thinking all those hoses
> were anti pollution devices. And reread what I posted in that
> earlier thread. You did not read it carefully enough and
> jumped to a different conclusion.
>
> As for that smog pump - again a classic distortion by those
> who never bothered to learn facts. What did that pump do?
> Pump air into the exhaust pipe. That was it. To get gasoline
> to burn in the exhaust pipe that was not burned by the engine
> - because engine was designed by 'bean counters'. The classic
> example is explained in DeLorean's book "On a Clear Day You
> Can See GM". Superior carburetor was Holley 5210 - designed
> by Weber of Italy. But Rochester was a GM company. Holley
> got the carburetor for the Vega because they were American
> patriots - they did the innovations. But when the last GM
> engineer left GM corporate, then Holley was removed and
> Rochester installed. That meant the car polluted more because
> Rochester made crap carburetors. So bad that engines with
> Rochester carburetors required air pumps. So bad that much
> gas was not burned in the engine and had to be burned in the
> exhaust pipe.
Yep, smog pumps are only there to water down the exhaust and encourage
'controlled backfire' to compensate for an engine that runs poorly. Timing
too far retarded will result in combustion in the exhaust pipes, as so much
of the air/fuel mixture is wasted and unburned, or still burning as it
enters the exhaust. Ever watch a new engine's cam being broken in when
the owner 'eyeballed' the timing? Sometimes it's too far advanced and
sometimes it's too far retarded. When it's too far retarded the headers will
start to glow red from the combustion taking place inside of them.
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > ...
> > Perhaps larger jets would be the cure then.
> > ...
> > What is CVCC? Factory settings are not always optimal for max
> > performance or even necessarily mileage... In fact more often
> > than not you can get better performance and mileage with some
> > tweaks... The cost is a little more pollution. I haven't touched
> > the carbs other than to spray them with some good carb cleaner,
> > which seemed to help the idle a bit.
> > ...
> > It would be interesting to see when the EGR valve opens and how
> > much at under what loads. I'll probably end up getting a sho
> > manual for the car as I plan to keep it as long as it isn't
> > prohibitively expensive to fix anything. I would assume it's
> > ported vacuum that goes to the EGR valve, as manifold vacuum
> > would open it at idle and close at higher throttle. Unless Honda
> > made some other screwy vacuum source that is waht it would ahve
> > to be, which gives me a good idea of when the EGR valve is open.
> > ...
> > I'm planning on advancing the timing as much as it will take to
> > increase mileage and perforamnce. While I'm at it I will check
> > that the mechanical advance is working properly. I'm not sure
> > that I remember there being a vacuum advance on the distributor
> > though. I will check, and ensure they are working smoothly.
> >
> > Well it must have been as it made a difference.. Also, the car no
> > longer stalls at the first stop in the morning.
> >
> >> Furthermore, all those hoses, even on the Chevy Nova, were not
> >> really anti-pollution equipment. Go back to the 60s before
> >> pollution control was required. All those same hoses, etc
> >> were on the 1960 engines that were sold as higher mileage
> >> engines. Those hoses were required so that engine adapted
> >> better to changing loads. But since MBAs were now top
> >> management, they wants to call more expensive engines evil -
> >> and called it anti-pollution equipment.
> >
> > I don't believe a '69 Nova would have had anything involing a
> > significant amount of vacuum hoses. It would have had a PCV
> > valve, with most likely a closed crankcase ventilation system
> > (fill cap vented to the air cleaner); a vacuum _retard_ in
> > addition to advance; and perhaps a smog pump if it was a
> > California car.
> >
> > > Get the vacuum gauge, monitor what those vacuum lines are
> > > doing when cold, when accelerating, etc. They replace the
> > > part that would be causing erratic operation. Easy to do with
> > > a shop manual.
> >
> > Where do I get a shop manual for an '86 Prelude 1.8? I'd rather
> > get the real thing than a Haynes or Chiltons.
news:3FB277C4.D0F3886E@hotmail.com...
> Shop manuals are sold (for all automakers I suspect) from a
> publishing company in MI. Often that company is listed in an
> order blank at the back of owners manual. I found the company
> for my latest vehicle by doing an internet search. Also
> dealer will often have an order card or the address.
>
> Larger jets would not cure your problems. The car as
> designed was optimized for best mileage and performance (a
> word often misrepresented in North America where low
> performance GM vehicle use large, low performance engines -
> and people foolishly called that high performance). Do not
> change the timing. That was already optimized by the original
> design. The only way you could improve engine by timing is
> make the timing more accurate - vary better to adapt the
> changing conditions. The shop manual will provide some
> limits. Notice that with mechanical timing, the actual engine
> timing can vary widely from optimum only because it is
> obsolete mechanical controls.
>
> But you don't appear to have enough knowledge yet to even
> consider timing changes. Keep asking those questions though.
> Advancing timing too much could actually be destructive.
An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
more power and mileage.
> Again, many screws on that CVCC engine's carb are not field
> adjustable. Shop manual will explain why but in not great
> detail. Changing some screws can cause irreparable problems.
>
> Reread what I said about pollution equipment. Not all (in
> fact I think none) 1969 Novas came with the high mileage
> package. Therefore it did not have all those hoses found in
> post 1970 vehicles. Those hoses are traditionally mileage
> enhances and performance adjusters - not anti pollution
> devices. Early 1970 cars typically had but a few anti
> pollution devices - called retarding the cam shaft in relation
> to the crank. That's right. Notice what the pollution
> control system was - a change on the gear at the end of one
> shaft.
Why don't you actually tell me what "those hoses" were? Hoses don't dso
anything to an engine. Tell me what they were connected to and the purpose
of those devices.
> Also known as performance destroyers. That was almost the
> pollution control system in 1970 to 1975 cars because bean
> counters (not engineers) were designing all American engines
> back then. Don't get fooled into thinking all those hoses
> were anti pollution devices. And reread what I posted in that
> earlier thread. You did not read it carefully enough and
> jumped to a different conclusion.
>
> As for that smog pump - again a classic distortion by those
> who never bothered to learn facts. What did that pump do?
> Pump air into the exhaust pipe. That was it. To get gasoline
> to burn in the exhaust pipe that was not burned by the engine
> - because engine was designed by 'bean counters'. The classic
> example is explained in DeLorean's book "On a Clear Day You
> Can See GM". Superior carburetor was Holley 5210 - designed
> by Weber of Italy. But Rochester was a GM company. Holley
> got the carburetor for the Vega because they were American
> patriots - they did the innovations. But when the last GM
> engineer left GM corporate, then Holley was removed and
> Rochester installed. That meant the car polluted more because
> Rochester made crap carburetors. So bad that engines with
> Rochester carburetors required air pumps. So bad that much
> gas was not burned in the engine and had to be burned in the
> exhaust pipe.
Yep, smog pumps are only there to water down the exhaust and encourage
'controlled backfire' to compensate for an engine that runs poorly. Timing
too far retarded will result in combustion in the exhaust pipes, as so much
of the air/fuel mixture is wasted and unburned, or still burning as it
enters the exhaust. Ever watch a new engine's cam being broken in when
the owner 'eyeballed' the timing? Sometimes it's too far advanced and
sometimes it's too far retarded. When it's too far retarded the headers will
start to glow red from the combustion taking place inside of them.
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > ...
> > Perhaps larger jets would be the cure then.
> > ...
> > What is CVCC? Factory settings are not always optimal for max
> > performance or even necessarily mileage... In fact more often
> > than not you can get better performance and mileage with some
> > tweaks... The cost is a little more pollution. I haven't touched
> > the carbs other than to spray them with some good carb cleaner,
> > which seemed to help the idle a bit.
> > ...
> > It would be interesting to see when the EGR valve opens and how
> > much at under what loads. I'll probably end up getting a sho
> > manual for the car as I plan to keep it as long as it isn't
> > prohibitively expensive to fix anything. I would assume it's
> > ported vacuum that goes to the EGR valve, as manifold vacuum
> > would open it at idle and close at higher throttle. Unless Honda
> > made some other screwy vacuum source that is waht it would ahve
> > to be, which gives me a good idea of when the EGR valve is open.
> > ...
> > I'm planning on advancing the timing as much as it will take to
> > increase mileage and perforamnce. While I'm at it I will check
> > that the mechanical advance is working properly. I'm not sure
> > that I remember there being a vacuum advance on the distributor
> > though. I will check, and ensure they are working smoothly.
> >
> > Well it must have been as it made a difference.. Also, the car no
> > longer stalls at the first stop in the morning.
> >
> >> Furthermore, all those hoses, even on the Chevy Nova, were not
> >> really anti-pollution equipment. Go back to the 60s before
> >> pollution control was required. All those same hoses, etc
> >> were on the 1960 engines that were sold as higher mileage
> >> engines. Those hoses were required so that engine adapted
> >> better to changing loads. But since MBAs were now top
> >> management, they wants to call more expensive engines evil -
> >> and called it anti-pollution equipment.
> >
> > I don't believe a '69 Nova would have had anything involing a
> > significant amount of vacuum hoses. It would have had a PCV
> > valve, with most likely a closed crankcase ventilation system
> > (fill cap vented to the air cleaner); a vacuum _retard_ in
> > addition to advance; and perhaps a smog pump if it was a
> > California car.
> >
> > > Get the vacuum gauge, monitor what those vacuum lines are
> > > doing when cold, when accelerating, etc. They replace the
> > > part that would be causing erratic operation. Easy to do with
> > > a shop manual.
> >
> > Where do I get a shop manual for an '86 Prelude 1.8? I'd rather
> > get the real thing than a Haynes or Chiltons.
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB277C4.D0F3886E@hotmail.com...
> Shop manuals are sold (for all automakers I suspect) from a
> publishing company in MI. Often that company is listed in an
> order blank at the back of owners manual. I found the company
> for my latest vehicle by doing an internet search. Also
> dealer will often have an order card or the address.
>
> Larger jets would not cure your problems. The car as
> designed was optimized for best mileage and performance (a
> word often misrepresented in North America where low
> performance GM vehicle use large, low performance engines -
> and people foolishly called that high performance). Do not
> change the timing. That was already optimized by the original
> design. The only way you could improve engine by timing is
> make the timing more accurate - vary better to adapt the
> changing conditions. The shop manual will provide some
> limits. Notice that with mechanical timing, the actual engine
> timing can vary widely from optimum only because it is
> obsolete mechanical controls.
>
> But you don't appear to have enough knowledge yet to even
> consider timing changes. Keep asking those questions though.
> Advancing timing too much could actually be destructive.
An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
more power and mileage.
> Again, many screws on that CVCC engine's carb are not field
> adjustable. Shop manual will explain why but in not great
> detail. Changing some screws can cause irreparable problems.
>
> Reread what I said about pollution equipment. Not all (in
> fact I think none) 1969 Novas came with the high mileage
> package. Therefore it did not have all those hoses found in
> post 1970 vehicles. Those hoses are traditionally mileage
> enhances and performance adjusters - not anti pollution
> devices. Early 1970 cars typically had but a few anti
> pollution devices - called retarding the cam shaft in relation
> to the crank. That's right. Notice what the pollution
> control system was - a change on the gear at the end of one
> shaft.
Why don't you actually tell me what "those hoses" were? Hoses don't dso
anything to an engine. Tell me what they were connected to and the purpose
of those devices.
> Also known as performance destroyers. That was almost the
> pollution control system in 1970 to 1975 cars because bean
> counters (not engineers) were designing all American engines
> back then. Don't get fooled into thinking all those hoses
> were anti pollution devices. And reread what I posted in that
> earlier thread. You did not read it carefully enough and
> jumped to a different conclusion.
>
> As for that smog pump - again a classic distortion by those
> who never bothered to learn facts. What did that pump do?
> Pump air into the exhaust pipe. That was it. To get gasoline
> to burn in the exhaust pipe that was not burned by the engine
> - because engine was designed by 'bean counters'. The classic
> example is explained in DeLorean's book "On a Clear Day You
> Can See GM". Superior carburetor was Holley 5210 - designed
> by Weber of Italy. But Rochester was a GM company. Holley
> got the carburetor for the Vega because they were American
> patriots - they did the innovations. But when the last GM
> engineer left GM corporate, then Holley was removed and
> Rochester installed. That meant the car polluted more because
> Rochester made crap carburetors. So bad that engines with
> Rochester carburetors required air pumps. So bad that much
> gas was not burned in the engine and had to be burned in the
> exhaust pipe.
Yep, smog pumps are only there to water down the exhaust and encourage
'controlled backfire' to compensate for an engine that runs poorly. Timing
too far retarded will result in combustion in the exhaust pipes, as so much
of the air/fuel mixture is wasted and unburned, or still burning as it
enters the exhaust. Ever watch a new engine's cam being broken in when
the owner 'eyeballed' the timing? Sometimes it's too far advanced and
sometimes it's too far retarded. When it's too far retarded the headers will
start to glow red from the combustion taking place inside of them.
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > ...
> > Perhaps larger jets would be the cure then.
> > ...
> > What is CVCC? Factory settings are not always optimal for max
> > performance or even necessarily mileage... In fact more often
> > than not you can get better performance and mileage with some
> > tweaks... The cost is a little more pollution. I haven't touched
> > the carbs other than to spray them with some good carb cleaner,
> > which seemed to help the idle a bit.
> > ...
> > It would be interesting to see when the EGR valve opens and how
> > much at under what loads. I'll probably end up getting a sho
> > manual for the car as I plan to keep it as long as it isn't
> > prohibitively expensive to fix anything. I would assume it's
> > ported vacuum that goes to the EGR valve, as manifold vacuum
> > would open it at idle and close at higher throttle. Unless Honda
> > made some other screwy vacuum source that is waht it would ahve
> > to be, which gives me a good idea of when the EGR valve is open.
> > ...
> > I'm planning on advancing the timing as much as it will take to
> > increase mileage and perforamnce. While I'm at it I will check
> > that the mechanical advance is working properly. I'm not sure
> > that I remember there being a vacuum advance on the distributor
> > though. I will check, and ensure they are working smoothly.
> >
> > Well it must have been as it made a difference.. Also, the car no
> > longer stalls at the first stop in the morning.
> >
> >> Furthermore, all those hoses, even on the Chevy Nova, were not
> >> really anti-pollution equipment. Go back to the 60s before
> >> pollution control was required. All those same hoses, etc
> >> were on the 1960 engines that were sold as higher mileage
> >> engines. Those hoses were required so that engine adapted
> >> better to changing loads. But since MBAs were now top
> >> management, they wants to call more expensive engines evil -
> >> and called it anti-pollution equipment.
> >
> > I don't believe a '69 Nova would have had anything involing a
> > significant amount of vacuum hoses. It would have had a PCV
> > valve, with most likely a closed crankcase ventilation system
> > (fill cap vented to the air cleaner); a vacuum _retard_ in
> > addition to advance; and perhaps a smog pump if it was a
> > California car.
> >
> > > Get the vacuum gauge, monitor what those vacuum lines are
> > > doing when cold, when accelerating, etc. They replace the
> > > part that would be causing erratic operation. Easy to do with
> > > a shop manual.
> >
> > Where do I get a shop manual for an '86 Prelude 1.8? I'd rather
> > get the real thing than a Haynes or Chiltons.
news:3FB277C4.D0F3886E@hotmail.com...
> Shop manuals are sold (for all automakers I suspect) from a
> publishing company in MI. Often that company is listed in an
> order blank at the back of owners manual. I found the company
> for my latest vehicle by doing an internet search. Also
> dealer will often have an order card or the address.
>
> Larger jets would not cure your problems. The car as
> designed was optimized for best mileage and performance (a
> word often misrepresented in North America where low
> performance GM vehicle use large, low performance engines -
> and people foolishly called that high performance). Do not
> change the timing. That was already optimized by the original
> design. The only way you could improve engine by timing is
> make the timing more accurate - vary better to adapt the
> changing conditions. The shop manual will provide some
> limits. Notice that with mechanical timing, the actual engine
> timing can vary widely from optimum only because it is
> obsolete mechanical controls.
>
> But you don't appear to have enough knowledge yet to even
> consider timing changes. Keep asking those questions though.
> Advancing timing too much could actually be destructive.
An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
more power and mileage.
> Again, many screws on that CVCC engine's carb are not field
> adjustable. Shop manual will explain why but in not great
> detail. Changing some screws can cause irreparable problems.
>
> Reread what I said about pollution equipment. Not all (in
> fact I think none) 1969 Novas came with the high mileage
> package. Therefore it did not have all those hoses found in
> post 1970 vehicles. Those hoses are traditionally mileage
> enhances and performance adjusters - not anti pollution
> devices. Early 1970 cars typically had but a few anti
> pollution devices - called retarding the cam shaft in relation
> to the crank. That's right. Notice what the pollution
> control system was - a change on the gear at the end of one
> shaft.
Why don't you actually tell me what "those hoses" were? Hoses don't dso
anything to an engine. Tell me what they were connected to and the purpose
of those devices.
> Also known as performance destroyers. That was almost the
> pollution control system in 1970 to 1975 cars because bean
> counters (not engineers) were designing all American engines
> back then. Don't get fooled into thinking all those hoses
> were anti pollution devices. And reread what I posted in that
> earlier thread. You did not read it carefully enough and
> jumped to a different conclusion.
>
> As for that smog pump - again a classic distortion by those
> who never bothered to learn facts. What did that pump do?
> Pump air into the exhaust pipe. That was it. To get gasoline
> to burn in the exhaust pipe that was not burned by the engine
> - because engine was designed by 'bean counters'. The classic
> example is explained in DeLorean's book "On a Clear Day You
> Can See GM". Superior carburetor was Holley 5210 - designed
> by Weber of Italy. But Rochester was a GM company. Holley
> got the carburetor for the Vega because they were American
> patriots - they did the innovations. But when the last GM
> engineer left GM corporate, then Holley was removed and
> Rochester installed. That meant the car polluted more because
> Rochester made crap carburetors. So bad that engines with
> Rochester carburetors required air pumps. So bad that much
> gas was not burned in the engine and had to be burned in the
> exhaust pipe.
Yep, smog pumps are only there to water down the exhaust and encourage
'controlled backfire' to compensate for an engine that runs poorly. Timing
too far retarded will result in combustion in the exhaust pipes, as so much
of the air/fuel mixture is wasted and unburned, or still burning as it
enters the exhaust. Ever watch a new engine's cam being broken in when
the owner 'eyeballed' the timing? Sometimes it's too far advanced and
sometimes it's too far retarded. When it's too far retarded the headers will
start to glow red from the combustion taking place inside of them.
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > ...
> > Perhaps larger jets would be the cure then.
> > ...
> > What is CVCC? Factory settings are not always optimal for max
> > performance or even necessarily mileage... In fact more often
> > than not you can get better performance and mileage with some
> > tweaks... The cost is a little more pollution. I haven't touched
> > the carbs other than to spray them with some good carb cleaner,
> > which seemed to help the idle a bit.
> > ...
> > It would be interesting to see when the EGR valve opens and how
> > much at under what loads. I'll probably end up getting a sho
> > manual for the car as I plan to keep it as long as it isn't
> > prohibitively expensive to fix anything. I would assume it's
> > ported vacuum that goes to the EGR valve, as manifold vacuum
> > would open it at idle and close at higher throttle. Unless Honda
> > made some other screwy vacuum source that is waht it would ahve
> > to be, which gives me a good idea of when the EGR valve is open.
> > ...
> > I'm planning on advancing the timing as much as it will take to
> > increase mileage and perforamnce. While I'm at it I will check
> > that the mechanical advance is working properly. I'm not sure
> > that I remember there being a vacuum advance on the distributor
> > though. I will check, and ensure they are working smoothly.
> >
> > Well it must have been as it made a difference.. Also, the car no
> > longer stalls at the first stop in the morning.
> >
> >> Furthermore, all those hoses, even on the Chevy Nova, were not
> >> really anti-pollution equipment. Go back to the 60s before
> >> pollution control was required. All those same hoses, etc
> >> were on the 1960 engines that were sold as higher mileage
> >> engines. Those hoses were required so that engine adapted
> >> better to changing loads. But since MBAs were now top
> >> management, they wants to call more expensive engines evil -
> >> and called it anti-pollution equipment.
> >
> > I don't believe a '69 Nova would have had anything involing a
> > significant amount of vacuum hoses. It would have had a PCV
> > valve, with most likely a closed crankcase ventilation system
> > (fill cap vented to the air cleaner); a vacuum _retard_ in
> > addition to advance; and perhaps a smog pump if it was a
> > California car.
> >
> > > Get the vacuum gauge, monitor what those vacuum lines are
> > > doing when cold, when accelerating, etc. They replace the
> > > part that would be causing erratic operation. Easy to do with
> > > a shop manual.
> >
> > Where do I get a shop manual for an '86 Prelude 1.8? I'd rather
> > get the real thing than a Haynes or Chiltons.
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB277C4.D0F3886E@hotmail.com...
> Shop manuals are sold (for all automakers I suspect) from a
> publishing company in MI. Often that company is listed in an
> order blank at the back of owners manual. I found the company
> for my latest vehicle by doing an internet search. Also
> dealer will often have an order card or the address.
>
> Larger jets would not cure your problems. The car as
> designed was optimized for best mileage and performance (a
> word often misrepresented in North America where low
> performance GM vehicle use large, low performance engines -
> and people foolishly called that high performance). Do not
> change the timing. That was already optimized by the original
> design. The only way you could improve engine by timing is
> make the timing more accurate - vary better to adapt the
> changing conditions. The shop manual will provide some
> limits. Notice that with mechanical timing, the actual engine
> timing can vary widely from optimum only because it is
> obsolete mechanical controls.
>
> But you don't appear to have enough knowledge yet to even
> consider timing changes. Keep asking those questions though.
> Advancing timing too much could actually be destructive.
An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
more power and mileage.
> Again, many screws on that CVCC engine's carb are not field
> adjustable. Shop manual will explain why but in not great
> detail. Changing some screws can cause irreparable problems.
>
> Reread what I said about pollution equipment. Not all (in
> fact I think none) 1969 Novas came with the high mileage
> package. Therefore it did not have all those hoses found in
> post 1970 vehicles. Those hoses are traditionally mileage
> enhances and performance adjusters - not anti pollution
> devices. Early 1970 cars typically had but a few anti
> pollution devices - called retarding the cam shaft in relation
> to the crank. That's right. Notice what the pollution
> control system was - a change on the gear at the end of one
> shaft.
Why don't you actually tell me what "those hoses" were? Hoses don't dso
anything to an engine. Tell me what they were connected to and the purpose
of those devices.
> Also known as performance destroyers. That was almost the
> pollution control system in 1970 to 1975 cars because bean
> counters (not engineers) were designing all American engines
> back then. Don't get fooled into thinking all those hoses
> were anti pollution devices. And reread what I posted in that
> earlier thread. You did not read it carefully enough and
> jumped to a different conclusion.
>
> As for that smog pump - again a classic distortion by those
> who never bothered to learn facts. What did that pump do?
> Pump air into the exhaust pipe. That was it. To get gasoline
> to burn in the exhaust pipe that was not burned by the engine
> - because engine was designed by 'bean counters'. The classic
> example is explained in DeLorean's book "On a Clear Day You
> Can See GM". Superior carburetor was Holley 5210 - designed
> by Weber of Italy. But Rochester was a GM company. Holley
> got the carburetor for the Vega because they were American
> patriots - they did the innovations. But when the last GM
> engineer left GM corporate, then Holley was removed and
> Rochester installed. That meant the car polluted more because
> Rochester made crap carburetors. So bad that engines with
> Rochester carburetors required air pumps. So bad that much
> gas was not burned in the engine and had to be burned in the
> exhaust pipe.
Yep, smog pumps are only there to water down the exhaust and encourage
'controlled backfire' to compensate for an engine that runs poorly. Timing
too far retarded will result in combustion in the exhaust pipes, as so much
of the air/fuel mixture is wasted and unburned, or still burning as it
enters the exhaust. Ever watch a new engine's cam being broken in when
the owner 'eyeballed' the timing? Sometimes it's too far advanced and
sometimes it's too far retarded. When it's too far retarded the headers will
start to glow red from the combustion taking place inside of them.
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > ...
> > Perhaps larger jets would be the cure then.
> > ...
> > What is CVCC? Factory settings are not always optimal for max
> > performance or even necessarily mileage... In fact more often
> > than not you can get better performance and mileage with some
> > tweaks... The cost is a little more pollution. I haven't touched
> > the carbs other than to spray them with some good carb cleaner,
> > which seemed to help the idle a bit.
> > ...
> > It would be interesting to see when the EGR valve opens and how
> > much at under what loads. I'll probably end up getting a sho
> > manual for the car as I plan to keep it as long as it isn't
> > prohibitively expensive to fix anything. I would assume it's
> > ported vacuum that goes to the EGR valve, as manifold vacuum
> > would open it at idle and close at higher throttle. Unless Honda
> > made some other screwy vacuum source that is waht it would ahve
> > to be, which gives me a good idea of when the EGR valve is open.
> > ...
> > I'm planning on advancing the timing as much as it will take to
> > increase mileage and perforamnce. While I'm at it I will check
> > that the mechanical advance is working properly. I'm not sure
> > that I remember there being a vacuum advance on the distributor
> > though. I will check, and ensure they are working smoothly.
> >
> > Well it must have been as it made a difference.. Also, the car no
> > longer stalls at the first stop in the morning.
> >
> >> Furthermore, all those hoses, even on the Chevy Nova, were not
> >> really anti-pollution equipment. Go back to the 60s before
> >> pollution control was required. All those same hoses, etc
> >> were on the 1960 engines that were sold as higher mileage
> >> engines. Those hoses were required so that engine adapted
> >> better to changing loads. But since MBAs were now top
> >> management, they wants to call more expensive engines evil -
> >> and called it anti-pollution equipment.
> >
> > I don't believe a '69 Nova would have had anything involing a
> > significant amount of vacuum hoses. It would have had a PCV
> > valve, with most likely a closed crankcase ventilation system
> > (fill cap vented to the air cleaner); a vacuum _retard_ in
> > addition to advance; and perhaps a smog pump if it was a
> > California car.
> >
> > > Get the vacuum gauge, monitor what those vacuum lines are
> > > doing when cold, when accelerating, etc. They replace the
> > > part that would be causing erratic operation. Easy to do with
> > > a shop manual.
> >
> > Where do I get a shop manual for an '86 Prelude 1.8? I'd rather
> > get the real thing than a Haynes or Chiltons.
news:3FB277C4.D0F3886E@hotmail.com...
> Shop manuals are sold (for all automakers I suspect) from a
> publishing company in MI. Often that company is listed in an
> order blank at the back of owners manual. I found the company
> for my latest vehicle by doing an internet search. Also
> dealer will often have an order card or the address.
>
> Larger jets would not cure your problems. The car as
> designed was optimized for best mileage and performance (a
> word often misrepresented in North America where low
> performance GM vehicle use large, low performance engines -
> and people foolishly called that high performance). Do not
> change the timing. That was already optimized by the original
> design. The only way you could improve engine by timing is
> make the timing more accurate - vary better to adapt the
> changing conditions. The shop manual will provide some
> limits. Notice that with mechanical timing, the actual engine
> timing can vary widely from optimum only because it is
> obsolete mechanical controls.
>
> But you don't appear to have enough knowledge yet to even
> consider timing changes. Keep asking those questions though.
> Advancing timing too much could actually be destructive.
An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
more power and mileage.
> Again, many screws on that CVCC engine's carb are not field
> adjustable. Shop manual will explain why but in not great
> detail. Changing some screws can cause irreparable problems.
>
> Reread what I said about pollution equipment. Not all (in
> fact I think none) 1969 Novas came with the high mileage
> package. Therefore it did not have all those hoses found in
> post 1970 vehicles. Those hoses are traditionally mileage
> enhances and performance adjusters - not anti pollution
> devices. Early 1970 cars typically had but a few anti
> pollution devices - called retarding the cam shaft in relation
> to the crank. That's right. Notice what the pollution
> control system was - a change on the gear at the end of one
> shaft.
Why don't you actually tell me what "those hoses" were? Hoses don't dso
anything to an engine. Tell me what they were connected to and the purpose
of those devices.
> Also known as performance destroyers. That was almost the
> pollution control system in 1970 to 1975 cars because bean
> counters (not engineers) were designing all American engines
> back then. Don't get fooled into thinking all those hoses
> were anti pollution devices. And reread what I posted in that
> earlier thread. You did not read it carefully enough and
> jumped to a different conclusion.
>
> As for that smog pump - again a classic distortion by those
> who never bothered to learn facts. What did that pump do?
> Pump air into the exhaust pipe. That was it. To get gasoline
> to burn in the exhaust pipe that was not burned by the engine
> - because engine was designed by 'bean counters'. The classic
> example is explained in DeLorean's book "On a Clear Day You
> Can See GM". Superior carburetor was Holley 5210 - designed
> by Weber of Italy. But Rochester was a GM company. Holley
> got the carburetor for the Vega because they were American
> patriots - they did the innovations. But when the last GM
> engineer left GM corporate, then Holley was removed and
> Rochester installed. That meant the car polluted more because
> Rochester made crap carburetors. So bad that engines with
> Rochester carburetors required air pumps. So bad that much
> gas was not burned in the engine and had to be burned in the
> exhaust pipe.
Yep, smog pumps are only there to water down the exhaust and encourage
'controlled backfire' to compensate for an engine that runs poorly. Timing
too far retarded will result in combustion in the exhaust pipes, as so much
of the air/fuel mixture is wasted and unburned, or still burning as it
enters the exhaust. Ever watch a new engine's cam being broken in when
the owner 'eyeballed' the timing? Sometimes it's too far advanced and
sometimes it's too far retarded. When it's too far retarded the headers will
start to glow red from the combustion taking place inside of them.
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > ...
> > Perhaps larger jets would be the cure then.
> > ...
> > What is CVCC? Factory settings are not always optimal for max
> > performance or even necessarily mileage... In fact more often
> > than not you can get better performance and mileage with some
> > tweaks... The cost is a little more pollution. I haven't touched
> > the carbs other than to spray them with some good carb cleaner,
> > which seemed to help the idle a bit.
> > ...
> > It would be interesting to see when the EGR valve opens and how
> > much at under what loads. I'll probably end up getting a sho
> > manual for the car as I plan to keep it as long as it isn't
> > prohibitively expensive to fix anything. I would assume it's
> > ported vacuum that goes to the EGR valve, as manifold vacuum
> > would open it at idle and close at higher throttle. Unless Honda
> > made some other screwy vacuum source that is waht it would ahve
> > to be, which gives me a good idea of when the EGR valve is open.
> > ...
> > I'm planning on advancing the timing as much as it will take to
> > increase mileage and perforamnce. While I'm at it I will check
> > that the mechanical advance is working properly. I'm not sure
> > that I remember there being a vacuum advance on the distributor
> > though. I will check, and ensure they are working smoothly.
> >
> > Well it must have been as it made a difference.. Also, the car no
> > longer stalls at the first stop in the morning.
> >
> >> Furthermore, all those hoses, even on the Chevy Nova, were not
> >> really anti-pollution equipment. Go back to the 60s before
> >> pollution control was required. All those same hoses, etc
> >> were on the 1960 engines that were sold as higher mileage
> >> engines. Those hoses were required so that engine adapted
> >> better to changing loads. But since MBAs were now top
> >> management, they wants to call more expensive engines evil -
> >> and called it anti-pollution equipment.
> >
> > I don't believe a '69 Nova would have had anything involing a
> > significant amount of vacuum hoses. It would have had a PCV
> > valve, with most likely a closed crankcase ventilation system
> > (fill cap vented to the air cleaner); a vacuum _retard_ in
> > addition to advance; and perhaps a smog pump if it was a
> > California car.
> >
> > > Get the vacuum gauge, monitor what those vacuum lines are
> > > doing when cold, when accelerating, etc. They replace the
> > > part that would be causing erratic operation. Easy to do with
> > > a shop manual.
> >
> > Where do I get a shop manual for an '86 Prelude 1.8? I'd rather
> > get the real thing than a Haynes or Chiltons.
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
You are describing a 1960 automobile where crude designs
were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
work.
In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
originally. But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
> without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
> set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
> new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
>
> Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
> back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
> a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
> cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
> MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
> cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
> factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
> know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> more power and mileage.
> ...
were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
work.
In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
originally. But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
> without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
> set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
> new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
>
> Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
> back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
> a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
> cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
> MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
> cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
> factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
> know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> more power and mileage.
> ...
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
You are describing a 1960 automobile where crude designs
were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
work.
In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
originally. But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
> without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
> set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
> new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
>
> Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
> back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
> a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
> cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
> MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
> cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
> factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
> know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> more power and mileage.
> ...
were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
work.
In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
originally. But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
> without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
> set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
> new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
>
> Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
> back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
> a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
> cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
> MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
> cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
> factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
> know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> more power and mileage.
> ...
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
You are describing a 1960 automobile where crude designs
were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
work.
In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
originally. But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
> without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
> set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
> new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
>
> Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
> back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
> a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
> cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
> MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
> cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
> factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
> know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> more power and mileage.
> ...
were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
work.
In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
originally. But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
> without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
> set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
> new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
>
> Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
> back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
> a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
> cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
> MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
> cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
> factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
> know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> more power and mileage.
> ...
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
You are describing a 1960 automobile where crude designs
were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
work.
In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
originally. But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
> without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
> set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
> new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
>
> Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
> back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
> a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
> cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
> MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
> cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
> factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
> know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> more power and mileage.
> ...
were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
work.
In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
originally. But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will take
> without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12 MPG
> set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted the
> new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
>
> Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss you
> back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement (quite
> a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in one
> cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from ~12
> MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG once
> cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell me
> factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if you
> know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> more power and mileage.
> ...
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB2EC56.7B3C42C8@hotmail.com...
> You are describing a 1960 automobile where crude designs
> were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
> to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
> work.
>
> In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
> factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
> forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
> poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
> 'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be tuned properly
or performance and economy will go to hell. Typically the best results in
fuel economy can be had with an Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor.
Yes, Fords own design. If kept on the same engine they came on they will
have the mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when doing a tune-up
to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest vacuum and the idle stop screw
to put the idle speed where it belongs.
Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the distributor. You
can mix and match distributors from different applications all you want, but
if you want it running optimally you'll need to re-tune the advance curve
for the new application. If everything is left stock there is not much
tuning one car do to optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do
with those engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of error in for
different conditions and variances in fuel quality, as well as emissions
reasons. Typically you can get a little more advance out of it to increase
performance and mileage. The side-effect I believe of the more complete
combustion and cooler running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
Something anyway.
> But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
> means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
> Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
>
> Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
> unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
> would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
> Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
> lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
> distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
> originally.
But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent pre-detonation under
vastly varying loads the cars could be put under anywhere in the U.S. You
can't ahve it all, everything is a compromise.
> But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
> the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
> inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them to lighter
or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical advance to either 10*
or 15* (distributor degrees, that is) depending on which stop you use. The
ability to do any of that was never removed until electronic controls. Even
then, the old TFI setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
advance curve.
There were always the same adjustments able to be made on carburetors. Fords
(Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the most simple and failure proof
design you can get. You can adjust the throttle stop, idle mixture, high
idle speed, choke spring position, choke plate position, and change jets.
That's how it is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is almost identical
to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same adjustments.
> Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
> began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a "mileage
maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it was called the
"mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good reliable and efficient
engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the
highway. Not bad considering the cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and
overdrive was a _very_ rare option.
Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those hoses" on that
'69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the connected to?
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will
take
> > without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> > energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12
MPG
> > set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> > advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> > adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted
the
> > new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> > pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
> >
> > Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss
you
> > back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement
(quite
> > a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in
one
> > cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from
~12
> > MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG
once
> > cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell
me
> > factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if
you
> > know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> > more power and mileage.
> > ...
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB2EC56.7B3C42C8@hotmail.com...
> You are describing a 1960 automobile where crude designs
> were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
> to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
> work.
>
> In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
> factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
> forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
> poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
> 'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be tuned properly
or performance and economy will go to hell. Typically the best results in
fuel economy can be had with an Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor.
Yes, Fords own design. If kept on the same engine they came on they will
have the mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when doing a tune-up
to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest vacuum and the idle stop screw
to put the idle speed where it belongs.
Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the distributor. You
can mix and match distributors from different applications all you want, but
if you want it running optimally you'll need to re-tune the advance curve
for the new application. If everything is left stock there is not much
tuning one car do to optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do
with those engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of error in for
different conditions and variances in fuel quality, as well as emissions
reasons. Typically you can get a little more advance out of it to increase
performance and mileage. The side-effect I believe of the more complete
combustion and cooler running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
Something anyway.
> But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
> means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
> Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
>
> Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
> unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
> would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
> Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
> lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
> distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
> originally.
But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent pre-detonation under
vastly varying loads the cars could be put under anywhere in the U.S. You
can't ahve it all, everything is a compromise.
> But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
> the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
> inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them to lighter
or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical advance to either 10*
or 15* (distributor degrees, that is) depending on which stop you use. The
ability to do any of that was never removed until electronic controls. Even
then, the old TFI setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
advance curve.
There were always the same adjustments able to be made on carburetors. Fords
(Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the most simple and failure proof
design you can get. You can adjust the throttle stop, idle mixture, high
idle speed, choke spring position, choke plate position, and change jets.
That's how it is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is almost identical
to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same adjustments.
> Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
> began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a "mileage
maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it was called the
"mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good reliable and efficient
engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the
highway. Not bad considering the cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and
overdrive was a _very_ rare option.
Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those hoses" on that
'69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the connected to?
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will
take
> > without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> > energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12
MPG
> > set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> > advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> > adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted
the
> > new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> > pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
> >
> > Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss
you
> > back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement
(quite
> > a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in
one
> > cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from
~12
> > MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG
once
> > cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell
me
> > factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if
you
> > know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> > more power and mileage.
> > ...
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB2EC56.7B3C42C8@hotmail.com...
> You are describing a 1960 automobile where crude designs
> were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
> to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
> work.
>
> In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
> factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
> forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
> poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
> 'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be tuned properly
or performance and economy will go to hell. Typically the best results in
fuel economy can be had with an Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor.
Yes, Fords own design. If kept on the same engine they came on they will
have the mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when doing a tune-up
to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest vacuum and the idle stop screw
to put the idle speed where it belongs.
Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the distributor. You
can mix and match distributors from different applications all you want, but
if you want it running optimally you'll need to re-tune the advance curve
for the new application. If everything is left stock there is not much
tuning one car do to optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do
with those engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of error in for
different conditions and variances in fuel quality, as well as emissions
reasons. Typically you can get a little more advance out of it to increase
performance and mileage. The side-effect I believe of the more complete
combustion and cooler running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
Something anyway.
> But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
> means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
> Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
>
> Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
> unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
> would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
> Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
> lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
> distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
> originally.
But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent pre-detonation under
vastly varying loads the cars could be put under anywhere in the U.S. You
can't ahve it all, everything is a compromise.
> But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
> the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
> inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them to lighter
or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical advance to either 10*
or 15* (distributor degrees, that is) depending on which stop you use. The
ability to do any of that was never removed until electronic controls. Even
then, the old TFI setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
advance curve.
There were always the same adjustments able to be made on carburetors. Fords
(Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the most simple and failure proof
design you can get. You can adjust the throttle stop, idle mixture, high
idle speed, choke spring position, choke plate position, and change jets.
That's how it is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is almost identical
to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same adjustments.
> Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
> began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a "mileage
maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it was called the
"mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good reliable and efficient
engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the
highway. Not bad considering the cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and
overdrive was a _very_ rare option.
Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those hoses" on that
'69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the connected to?
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will
take
> > without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> > energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12
MPG
> > set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> > advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> > adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted
the
> > new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> > pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
> >
> > Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss
you
> > back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement
(quite
> > a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in
one
> > cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from
~12
> > MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG
once
> > cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell
me
> > factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if
you
> > know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> > more power and mileage.
> > ...
#41
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
"w_tom" <w_tom1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3FB2EC56.7B3C42C8@hotmail.com...
> You are describing a 1960 automobile where crude designs
> were used for engine timing. Therefore the timing advance had
> to be set so that even a more defective distributor would
> work.
>
> In fact, most every 1960 carburetor was not even adjusted to
> factory specs. It was easier to just slap parts together and
> forget about the adjustments. Car still sold no matter how
> poorly it ran. It was the late sixties when the concept of
> 'quality be damned' became the new philosophy.
Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be tuned properly
or performance and economy will go to hell. Typically the best results in
fuel economy can be had with an Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor.
Yes, Fords own design. If kept on the same engine they came on they will
have the mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when doing a tune-up
to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest vacuum and the idle stop screw
to put the idle speed where it belongs.
Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the distributor. You
can mix and match distributors from different applications all you want, but
if you want it running optimally you'll need to re-tune the advance curve
for the new application. If everything is left stock there is not much
tuning one car do to optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do
with those engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of error in for
different conditions and variances in fuel quality, as well as emissions
reasons. Typically you can get a little more advance out of it to increase
performance and mileage. The side-effect I believe of the more complete
combustion and cooler running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
Something anyway.
> But you now have a Honda. It had finer adjustments which
> means you have minimal variance in timing 'tweaking'.
> Electronic controlled cars have even less variance.
>
> Those mileage figures for a 1960s engine are really quite
> unacceptable. For example, a 1964 Ford 390 in a large car
> would routinely get 17 MPG highway in repeated tanks.
> Sometimes even 18. Local driving numbers were not much
> lower. IOW I suspect you were really only restoring
> distributor timing advance curves to where it should have been
> originally.
But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent pre-detonation under
vastly varying loads the cars could be put under anywhere in the U.S. You
can't ahve it all, everything is a compromise.
> But again, one way routinely used to cut costs in
> the later 1960s was to eliminate adjustments to those springs
> inside distributors and other adjustments in carburetors.
Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them to lighter
or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical advance to either 10*
or 15* (distributor degrees, that is) depending on which stop you use. The
ability to do any of that was never removed until electronic controls. Even
then, the old TFI setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
advance curve.
There were always the same adjustments able to be made on carburetors. Fords
(Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the most simple and failure proof
design you can get. You can adjust the throttle stop, idle mixture, high
idle speed, choke spring position, choke plate position, and change jets.
That's how it is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is almost identical
to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same adjustments.
> Gas mileage was that irrelevant back then. Cost controls
> began replacing good designs starting with Ford's Wiz Kids.
Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a "mileage
maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it was called the
"mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good reliable and efficient
engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the
highway. Not bad considering the cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and
overdrive was a _very_ rare option.
Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those hoses" on that
'69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the connected to?
Cory
> Cory Dunkle wrote:
> > An engine will perform optimally with as much spark advance as it will
take
> > without pre-detonation. The fuel burns more completely and more of its
> > energy is used to power the engine. My '68 Galaxie with 302 got about 12
MPG
> > set at factory timing with the factory vacuum advance/retard unit. I
> > advanced my initial timing as far as I could get it, then swapped on the
> > adjustable advance only vacuum unit from my old '67 289 car. I adjusted
the
> > new vacuum advance unit to give me as much advance as possible without
> > pinging, which was more than the original unit gave.
> >
> > Right away I noticed the car was significantly faster. It would now toss
you
> > back in the seat and even chirp the tires with a little encouragement
(quite
> > a feat for a 3,600+ lb car with only a little 302, low compression in
one
> > cylinder and 2.80:1 'highway' gears out back. My mileage increased from
~12
> > MPG to 15-16 MPG with normal driving, and I even saw as high as 17 MPG
once
> > cruising the two lane blacktop at 75-85 MPH all day. Go ahead and tell
me
> > factory specs are optimal on all cars, I ahve proof otherwise. Also, if
you
> > know anything about how engines work you will know more advance gets you
> > more power and mileage.
> > ...
#42
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
I used to open 1960s carburetors constantly. The float was
never anywhere near to spec. But then I began learning it did
not have to be. We simply dumped so much 1960 gasoline down
the tube and everything worked fine. Bean counters learned
that carburetor adjustments could be ignored. Some cars did
not run as well, but they all ran good enough to sell (ie your
302 that only got 12 MPG). Carburetors were very crude
devices.
Once we cut through all the hype of that time, a carburetor
was a complex and crudely adjusted device. But car could be
sold and kept working even when carburetor adjustments were
not performed in the factory.
Springs on distributors are adjustable. The shop manuals
described how to bend tabs to make those adjustments with
timing curve charts to bend those tabs to.
You keep referring to a vehicle - the 69 Nova - that I don't
believe ever had those extra hoses (and what they connect to)
to increase fuel economy. Those high mileage engines were so
rare that I only found them in shop manuals. And what did
those early 1960 engines have? All the same hoses that later
appear in 1970 engines - as pollution control crap. IOW when
they told us price of cars had to increase do to pollution
control equipment, really they were lying. They did almost
nothing for pollution control in the early 70s. A story about
Chrysler's CAP system (where EGR valve was developed) made
that obvious why.
Back to the Honda. Carburetor manufacturers did not even
bother to adjust the float because carburetors could be
crudely adjusted (or not at all) and the car still worked. If
float was too badly out of adjustment, then any resulting
problems were solved by the idler adjustment mixing screw. In
the 60s, no one was concerned with mileage and price of gas
(even though gasoline is cheaper today than it was in the
60s).
No reason to worry about making distributor timing curves
consistent or in adjusting the carburetor in production.
Motorheads would brag about how they improved the engine when
all they had to do is perform adjustment not done in the
factory.
But EPA requirements changed all that. Low pollution is
achieved by increasing fuel mileage, horsepower, and
performance. Since many carberated engines were so poorly
adjusted, then those same engines would dump so much gas down
tailpipe as to overheat catalytic converters. Some converter
actually set leaves afire - because carburetor was so badly
adjusted. Honda, on the other hand, even had adjustment
screws outside the carburetor to adjust both primary and pre
combustion carburetor floats - and a simple procedure to make
those adjustments. The interplay between primary and pre
combustion carburetors was so finely adjusted that if you
moved linkage adjustment screws, then the fine interplay could
not be reestablished in the field.
BTW, Hondas were so superior in design that they did not
even use a PCV valve. They had a better system for crankcase
ventilation that eliminated periodic PCV replacement.
Like in the Vega story, if adjustments such as carburetor
were properly made, then no air pump was required - because a
higher mileage and high performance engine could pollute
less. It is what Honda brought to 1970s America - engines
properly adjusted in the factory so that carburetors need not
be adjusted.
Outside of the Honda carburetor, then only other one I saw
that with equivalent in 'beauty of design' was Weber 5210 that
was used both by DeLorean and by small Fords. Since 1960s
cars solved problems by dumping more gas down the intake
manifold, then 1960 carburetors were crude contraptions that
would work good enough without factory adjustments.
What MBAs did to cut costs. Eliminated many factory
adjustments such as float level. Stop performing those spring
adjustments on distributors. It would explain why your 302
could so improve gas mileage (and why a 390 cu inch got better
gas mileage) by adjusting the distributor advance - because
they stopped making factory adjustments to cut costs. It
would also explain why the Ford Pinto and Capri - both with
same engine and carburetor - performed radically different.
The Capri was built in Germany where MBAs were not designing
cars and manipulating the assembly lines. German built Capri
simply had everything adjusted to factory specs - and did not
have Henry Ford's MBA concept of fixing the cam shaft (another
story about why cars really failed).
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be
> tuned properly or performance and economy will go to hell.
> Typically the best results in fuel economy can be had with an
> Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor. Yes, Fords own design.
> If kept on the same engine they came on they will have the
> mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
> adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when
> doing a tune-up to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest
> vacuum and the idle stop screw to put the idle speed where it
> belongs.
>
> Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
> distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the
> distributor. You can mix and match distributors from different
> applications all you want, but if you want it running optimally
> you'll need to re-tune the advance curve for the new application.
> If everything is left stock there is not much tuning one car do to
> optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do with those
> engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
> retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of
> error in for different conditions and variances in fuel quality,
> as well as emissions reasons. Typically you can get a little more
> advance out of it to increase performance and mileage. The
> side-effect I believe of the more complete combustion and cooler
> running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
> Something anyway.
> ...
>
> But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent
> pre-detonation under vastly varying loads the cars could be put
> under anywhere in the U.S. You can't ahve it all, everything is
> a compromise.
> ...
>
> Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them
> to lighter or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical
> advance to either 10* or 15* (distributor degrees, that is)
> depending on which stop you use. The ability to do any of that was
> never removed until electronic controls. Even then, the old TFI
> setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
> advance curve.
>
> There were always the same adjustments able to be made on
> carburetors. Fords (Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the
> most simple and failure proof design you can get. You can adjust
> the throttle stop, idle mixture, high idle speed, choke spring
> position, choke plate position, and change jets. That's how it
> is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
> it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is
> almost identical to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same
> adjustments.
> ...
>
> Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a
> "mileage maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it
> was called the "mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good
> reliable and efficient engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon
> 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the highway. Not bad considering the
> cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and overdrive was a _very_
> rare option.
>
> Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those
> hoses" on that '69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the
> connected to?
never anywhere near to spec. But then I began learning it did
not have to be. We simply dumped so much 1960 gasoline down
the tube and everything worked fine. Bean counters learned
that carburetor adjustments could be ignored. Some cars did
not run as well, but they all ran good enough to sell (ie your
302 that only got 12 MPG). Carburetors were very crude
devices.
Once we cut through all the hype of that time, a carburetor
was a complex and crudely adjusted device. But car could be
sold and kept working even when carburetor adjustments were
not performed in the factory.
Springs on distributors are adjustable. The shop manuals
described how to bend tabs to make those adjustments with
timing curve charts to bend those tabs to.
You keep referring to a vehicle - the 69 Nova - that I don't
believe ever had those extra hoses (and what they connect to)
to increase fuel economy. Those high mileage engines were so
rare that I only found them in shop manuals. And what did
those early 1960 engines have? All the same hoses that later
appear in 1970 engines - as pollution control crap. IOW when
they told us price of cars had to increase do to pollution
control equipment, really they were lying. They did almost
nothing for pollution control in the early 70s. A story about
Chrysler's CAP system (where EGR valve was developed) made
that obvious why.
Back to the Honda. Carburetor manufacturers did not even
bother to adjust the float because carburetors could be
crudely adjusted (or not at all) and the car still worked. If
float was too badly out of adjustment, then any resulting
problems were solved by the idler adjustment mixing screw. In
the 60s, no one was concerned with mileage and price of gas
(even though gasoline is cheaper today than it was in the
60s).
No reason to worry about making distributor timing curves
consistent or in adjusting the carburetor in production.
Motorheads would brag about how they improved the engine when
all they had to do is perform adjustment not done in the
factory.
But EPA requirements changed all that. Low pollution is
achieved by increasing fuel mileage, horsepower, and
performance. Since many carberated engines were so poorly
adjusted, then those same engines would dump so much gas down
tailpipe as to overheat catalytic converters. Some converter
actually set leaves afire - because carburetor was so badly
adjusted. Honda, on the other hand, even had adjustment
screws outside the carburetor to adjust both primary and pre
combustion carburetor floats - and a simple procedure to make
those adjustments. The interplay between primary and pre
combustion carburetors was so finely adjusted that if you
moved linkage adjustment screws, then the fine interplay could
not be reestablished in the field.
BTW, Hondas were so superior in design that they did not
even use a PCV valve. They had a better system for crankcase
ventilation that eliminated periodic PCV replacement.
Like in the Vega story, if adjustments such as carburetor
were properly made, then no air pump was required - because a
higher mileage and high performance engine could pollute
less. It is what Honda brought to 1970s America - engines
properly adjusted in the factory so that carburetors need not
be adjusted.
Outside of the Honda carburetor, then only other one I saw
that with equivalent in 'beauty of design' was Weber 5210 that
was used both by DeLorean and by small Fords. Since 1960s
cars solved problems by dumping more gas down the intake
manifold, then 1960 carburetors were crude contraptions that
would work good enough without factory adjustments.
What MBAs did to cut costs. Eliminated many factory
adjustments such as float level. Stop performing those spring
adjustments on distributors. It would explain why your 302
could so improve gas mileage (and why a 390 cu inch got better
gas mileage) by adjusting the distributor advance - because
they stopped making factory adjustments to cut costs. It
would also explain why the Ford Pinto and Capri - both with
same engine and carburetor - performed radically different.
The Capri was built in Germany where MBAs were not designing
cars and manipulating the assembly lines. German built Capri
simply had everything adjusted to factory specs - and did not
have Henry Ford's MBA concept of fixing the cam shaft (another
story about why cars really failed).
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be
> tuned properly or performance and economy will go to hell.
> Typically the best results in fuel economy can be had with an
> Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor. Yes, Fords own design.
> If kept on the same engine they came on they will have the
> mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
> adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when
> doing a tune-up to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest
> vacuum and the idle stop screw to put the idle speed where it
> belongs.
>
> Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
> distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the
> distributor. You can mix and match distributors from different
> applications all you want, but if you want it running optimally
> you'll need to re-tune the advance curve for the new application.
> If everything is left stock there is not much tuning one car do to
> optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do with those
> engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
> retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of
> error in for different conditions and variances in fuel quality,
> as well as emissions reasons. Typically you can get a little more
> advance out of it to increase performance and mileage. The
> side-effect I believe of the more complete combustion and cooler
> running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
> Something anyway.
> ...
>
> But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent
> pre-detonation under vastly varying loads the cars could be put
> under anywhere in the U.S. You can't ahve it all, everything is
> a compromise.
> ...
>
> Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them
> to lighter or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical
> advance to either 10* or 15* (distributor degrees, that is)
> depending on which stop you use. The ability to do any of that was
> never removed until electronic controls. Even then, the old TFI
> setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
> advance curve.
>
> There were always the same adjustments able to be made on
> carburetors. Fords (Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the
> most simple and failure proof design you can get. You can adjust
> the throttle stop, idle mixture, high idle speed, choke spring
> position, choke plate position, and change jets. That's how it
> is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
> it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is
> almost identical to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same
> adjustments.
> ...
>
> Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a
> "mileage maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it
> was called the "mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good
> reliable and efficient engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon
> 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the highway. Not bad considering the
> cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and overdrive was a _very_
> rare option.
>
> Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those
> hoses" on that '69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the
> connected to?
#43
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
I used to open 1960s carburetors constantly. The float was
never anywhere near to spec. But then I began learning it did
not have to be. We simply dumped so much 1960 gasoline down
the tube and everything worked fine. Bean counters learned
that carburetor adjustments could be ignored. Some cars did
not run as well, but they all ran good enough to sell (ie your
302 that only got 12 MPG). Carburetors were very crude
devices.
Once we cut through all the hype of that time, a carburetor
was a complex and crudely adjusted device. But car could be
sold and kept working even when carburetor adjustments were
not performed in the factory.
Springs on distributors are adjustable. The shop manuals
described how to bend tabs to make those adjustments with
timing curve charts to bend those tabs to.
You keep referring to a vehicle - the 69 Nova - that I don't
believe ever had those extra hoses (and what they connect to)
to increase fuel economy. Those high mileage engines were so
rare that I only found them in shop manuals. And what did
those early 1960 engines have? All the same hoses that later
appear in 1970 engines - as pollution control crap. IOW when
they told us price of cars had to increase do to pollution
control equipment, really they were lying. They did almost
nothing for pollution control in the early 70s. A story about
Chrysler's CAP system (where EGR valve was developed) made
that obvious why.
Back to the Honda. Carburetor manufacturers did not even
bother to adjust the float because carburetors could be
crudely adjusted (or not at all) and the car still worked. If
float was too badly out of adjustment, then any resulting
problems were solved by the idler adjustment mixing screw. In
the 60s, no one was concerned with mileage and price of gas
(even though gasoline is cheaper today than it was in the
60s).
No reason to worry about making distributor timing curves
consistent or in adjusting the carburetor in production.
Motorheads would brag about how they improved the engine when
all they had to do is perform adjustment not done in the
factory.
But EPA requirements changed all that. Low pollution is
achieved by increasing fuel mileage, horsepower, and
performance. Since many carberated engines were so poorly
adjusted, then those same engines would dump so much gas down
tailpipe as to overheat catalytic converters. Some converter
actually set leaves afire - because carburetor was so badly
adjusted. Honda, on the other hand, even had adjustment
screws outside the carburetor to adjust both primary and pre
combustion carburetor floats - and a simple procedure to make
those adjustments. The interplay between primary and pre
combustion carburetors was so finely adjusted that if you
moved linkage adjustment screws, then the fine interplay could
not be reestablished in the field.
BTW, Hondas were so superior in design that they did not
even use a PCV valve. They had a better system for crankcase
ventilation that eliminated periodic PCV replacement.
Like in the Vega story, if adjustments such as carburetor
were properly made, then no air pump was required - because a
higher mileage and high performance engine could pollute
less. It is what Honda brought to 1970s America - engines
properly adjusted in the factory so that carburetors need not
be adjusted.
Outside of the Honda carburetor, then only other one I saw
that with equivalent in 'beauty of design' was Weber 5210 that
was used both by DeLorean and by small Fords. Since 1960s
cars solved problems by dumping more gas down the intake
manifold, then 1960 carburetors were crude contraptions that
would work good enough without factory adjustments.
What MBAs did to cut costs. Eliminated many factory
adjustments such as float level. Stop performing those spring
adjustments on distributors. It would explain why your 302
could so improve gas mileage (and why a 390 cu inch got better
gas mileage) by adjusting the distributor advance - because
they stopped making factory adjustments to cut costs. It
would also explain why the Ford Pinto and Capri - both with
same engine and carburetor - performed radically different.
The Capri was built in Germany where MBAs were not designing
cars and manipulating the assembly lines. German built Capri
simply had everything adjusted to factory specs - and did not
have Henry Ford's MBA concept of fixing the cam shaft (another
story about why cars really failed).
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be
> tuned properly or performance and economy will go to hell.
> Typically the best results in fuel economy can be had with an
> Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor. Yes, Fords own design.
> If kept on the same engine they came on they will have the
> mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
> adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when
> doing a tune-up to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest
> vacuum and the idle stop screw to put the idle speed where it
> belongs.
>
> Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
> distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the
> distributor. You can mix and match distributors from different
> applications all you want, but if you want it running optimally
> you'll need to re-tune the advance curve for the new application.
> If everything is left stock there is not much tuning one car do to
> optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do with those
> engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
> retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of
> error in for different conditions and variances in fuel quality,
> as well as emissions reasons. Typically you can get a little more
> advance out of it to increase performance and mileage. The
> side-effect I believe of the more complete combustion and cooler
> running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
> Something anyway.
> ...
>
> But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent
> pre-detonation under vastly varying loads the cars could be put
> under anywhere in the U.S. You can't ahve it all, everything is
> a compromise.
> ...
>
> Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them
> to lighter or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical
> advance to either 10* or 15* (distributor degrees, that is)
> depending on which stop you use. The ability to do any of that was
> never removed until electronic controls. Even then, the old TFI
> setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
> advance curve.
>
> There were always the same adjustments able to be made on
> carburetors. Fords (Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the
> most simple and failure proof design you can get. You can adjust
> the throttle stop, idle mixture, high idle speed, choke spring
> position, choke plate position, and change jets. That's how it
> is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
> it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is
> almost identical to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same
> adjustments.
> ...
>
> Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a
> "mileage maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it
> was called the "mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good
> reliable and efficient engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon
> 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the highway. Not bad considering the
> cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and overdrive was a _very_
> rare option.
>
> Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those
> hoses" on that '69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the
> connected to?
never anywhere near to spec. But then I began learning it did
not have to be. We simply dumped so much 1960 gasoline down
the tube and everything worked fine. Bean counters learned
that carburetor adjustments could be ignored. Some cars did
not run as well, but they all ran good enough to sell (ie your
302 that only got 12 MPG). Carburetors were very crude
devices.
Once we cut through all the hype of that time, a carburetor
was a complex and crudely adjusted device. But car could be
sold and kept working even when carburetor adjustments were
not performed in the factory.
Springs on distributors are adjustable. The shop manuals
described how to bend tabs to make those adjustments with
timing curve charts to bend those tabs to.
You keep referring to a vehicle - the 69 Nova - that I don't
believe ever had those extra hoses (and what they connect to)
to increase fuel economy. Those high mileage engines were so
rare that I only found them in shop manuals. And what did
those early 1960 engines have? All the same hoses that later
appear in 1970 engines - as pollution control crap. IOW when
they told us price of cars had to increase do to pollution
control equipment, really they were lying. They did almost
nothing for pollution control in the early 70s. A story about
Chrysler's CAP system (where EGR valve was developed) made
that obvious why.
Back to the Honda. Carburetor manufacturers did not even
bother to adjust the float because carburetors could be
crudely adjusted (or not at all) and the car still worked. If
float was too badly out of adjustment, then any resulting
problems were solved by the idler adjustment mixing screw. In
the 60s, no one was concerned with mileage and price of gas
(even though gasoline is cheaper today than it was in the
60s).
No reason to worry about making distributor timing curves
consistent or in adjusting the carburetor in production.
Motorheads would brag about how they improved the engine when
all they had to do is perform adjustment not done in the
factory.
But EPA requirements changed all that. Low pollution is
achieved by increasing fuel mileage, horsepower, and
performance. Since many carberated engines were so poorly
adjusted, then those same engines would dump so much gas down
tailpipe as to overheat catalytic converters. Some converter
actually set leaves afire - because carburetor was so badly
adjusted. Honda, on the other hand, even had adjustment
screws outside the carburetor to adjust both primary and pre
combustion carburetor floats - and a simple procedure to make
those adjustments. The interplay between primary and pre
combustion carburetors was so finely adjusted that if you
moved linkage adjustment screws, then the fine interplay could
not be reestablished in the field.
BTW, Hondas were so superior in design that they did not
even use a PCV valve. They had a better system for crankcase
ventilation that eliminated periodic PCV replacement.
Like in the Vega story, if adjustments such as carburetor
were properly made, then no air pump was required - because a
higher mileage and high performance engine could pollute
less. It is what Honda brought to 1970s America - engines
properly adjusted in the factory so that carburetors need not
be adjusted.
Outside of the Honda carburetor, then only other one I saw
that with equivalent in 'beauty of design' was Weber 5210 that
was used both by DeLorean and by small Fords. Since 1960s
cars solved problems by dumping more gas down the intake
manifold, then 1960 carburetors were crude contraptions that
would work good enough without factory adjustments.
What MBAs did to cut costs. Eliminated many factory
adjustments such as float level. Stop performing those spring
adjustments on distributors. It would explain why your 302
could so improve gas mileage (and why a 390 cu inch got better
gas mileage) by adjusting the distributor advance - because
they stopped making factory adjustments to cut costs. It
would also explain why the Ford Pinto and Capri - both with
same engine and carburetor - performed radically different.
The Capri was built in Germany where MBAs were not designing
cars and manipulating the assembly lines. German built Capri
simply had everything adjusted to factory specs - and did not
have Henry Ford's MBA concept of fixing the cam shaft (another
story about why cars really failed).
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be
> tuned properly or performance and economy will go to hell.
> Typically the best results in fuel economy can be had with an
> Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor. Yes, Fords own design.
> If kept on the same engine they came on they will have the
> mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
> adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when
> doing a tune-up to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest
> vacuum and the idle stop screw to put the idle speed where it
> belongs.
>
> Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
> distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the
> distributor. You can mix and match distributors from different
> applications all you want, but if you want it running optimally
> you'll need to re-tune the advance curve for the new application.
> If everything is left stock there is not much tuning one car do to
> optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do with those
> engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
> retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of
> error in for different conditions and variances in fuel quality,
> as well as emissions reasons. Typically you can get a little more
> advance out of it to increase performance and mileage. The
> side-effect I believe of the more complete combustion and cooler
> running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
> Something anyway.
> ...
>
> But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent
> pre-detonation under vastly varying loads the cars could be put
> under anywhere in the U.S. You can't ahve it all, everything is
> a compromise.
> ...
>
> Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them
> to lighter or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical
> advance to either 10* or 15* (distributor degrees, that is)
> depending on which stop you use. The ability to do any of that was
> never removed until electronic controls. Even then, the old TFI
> setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
> advance curve.
>
> There were always the same adjustments able to be made on
> carburetors. Fords (Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the
> most simple and failure proof design you can get. You can adjust
> the throttle stop, idle mixture, high idle speed, choke spring
> position, choke plate position, and change jets. That's how it
> is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
> it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is
> almost identical to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same
> adjustments.
> ...
>
> Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a
> "mileage maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it
> was called the "mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good
> reliable and efficient engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon
> 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the highway. Not bad considering the
> cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and overdrive was a _very_
> rare option.
>
> Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those
> hoses" on that '69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the
> connected to?
#44
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
I used to open 1960s carburetors constantly. The float was
never anywhere near to spec. But then I began learning it did
not have to be. We simply dumped so much 1960 gasoline down
the tube and everything worked fine. Bean counters learned
that carburetor adjustments could be ignored. Some cars did
not run as well, but they all ran good enough to sell (ie your
302 that only got 12 MPG). Carburetors were very crude
devices.
Once we cut through all the hype of that time, a carburetor
was a complex and crudely adjusted device. But car could be
sold and kept working even when carburetor adjustments were
not performed in the factory.
Springs on distributors are adjustable. The shop manuals
described how to bend tabs to make those adjustments with
timing curve charts to bend those tabs to.
You keep referring to a vehicle - the 69 Nova - that I don't
believe ever had those extra hoses (and what they connect to)
to increase fuel economy. Those high mileage engines were so
rare that I only found them in shop manuals. And what did
those early 1960 engines have? All the same hoses that later
appear in 1970 engines - as pollution control crap. IOW when
they told us price of cars had to increase do to pollution
control equipment, really they were lying. They did almost
nothing for pollution control in the early 70s. A story about
Chrysler's CAP system (where EGR valve was developed) made
that obvious why.
Back to the Honda. Carburetor manufacturers did not even
bother to adjust the float because carburetors could be
crudely adjusted (or not at all) and the car still worked. If
float was too badly out of adjustment, then any resulting
problems were solved by the idler adjustment mixing screw. In
the 60s, no one was concerned with mileage and price of gas
(even though gasoline is cheaper today than it was in the
60s).
No reason to worry about making distributor timing curves
consistent or in adjusting the carburetor in production.
Motorheads would brag about how they improved the engine when
all they had to do is perform adjustment not done in the
factory.
But EPA requirements changed all that. Low pollution is
achieved by increasing fuel mileage, horsepower, and
performance. Since many carberated engines were so poorly
adjusted, then those same engines would dump so much gas down
tailpipe as to overheat catalytic converters. Some converter
actually set leaves afire - because carburetor was so badly
adjusted. Honda, on the other hand, even had adjustment
screws outside the carburetor to adjust both primary and pre
combustion carburetor floats - and a simple procedure to make
those adjustments. The interplay between primary and pre
combustion carburetors was so finely adjusted that if you
moved linkage adjustment screws, then the fine interplay could
not be reestablished in the field.
BTW, Hondas were so superior in design that they did not
even use a PCV valve. They had a better system for crankcase
ventilation that eliminated periodic PCV replacement.
Like in the Vega story, if adjustments such as carburetor
were properly made, then no air pump was required - because a
higher mileage and high performance engine could pollute
less. It is what Honda brought to 1970s America - engines
properly adjusted in the factory so that carburetors need not
be adjusted.
Outside of the Honda carburetor, then only other one I saw
that with equivalent in 'beauty of design' was Weber 5210 that
was used both by DeLorean and by small Fords. Since 1960s
cars solved problems by dumping more gas down the intake
manifold, then 1960 carburetors were crude contraptions that
would work good enough without factory adjustments.
What MBAs did to cut costs. Eliminated many factory
adjustments such as float level. Stop performing those spring
adjustments on distributors. It would explain why your 302
could so improve gas mileage (and why a 390 cu inch got better
gas mileage) by adjusting the distributor advance - because
they stopped making factory adjustments to cut costs. It
would also explain why the Ford Pinto and Capri - both with
same engine and carburetor - performed radically different.
The Capri was built in Germany where MBAs were not designing
cars and manipulating the assembly lines. German built Capri
simply had everything adjusted to factory specs - and did not
have Henry Ford's MBA concept of fixing the cam shaft (another
story about why cars really failed).
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be
> tuned properly or performance and economy will go to hell.
> Typically the best results in fuel economy can be had with an
> Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor. Yes, Fords own design.
> If kept on the same engine they came on they will have the
> mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
> adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when
> doing a tune-up to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest
> vacuum and the idle stop screw to put the idle speed where it
> belongs.
>
> Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
> distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the
> distributor. You can mix and match distributors from different
> applications all you want, but if you want it running optimally
> you'll need to re-tune the advance curve for the new application.
> If everything is left stock there is not much tuning one car do to
> optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do with those
> engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
> retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of
> error in for different conditions and variances in fuel quality,
> as well as emissions reasons. Typically you can get a little more
> advance out of it to increase performance and mileage. The
> side-effect I believe of the more complete combustion and cooler
> running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
> Something anyway.
> ...
>
> But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent
> pre-detonation under vastly varying loads the cars could be put
> under anywhere in the U.S. You can't ahve it all, everything is
> a compromise.
> ...
>
> Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them
> to lighter or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical
> advance to either 10* or 15* (distributor degrees, that is)
> depending on which stop you use. The ability to do any of that was
> never removed until electronic controls. Even then, the old TFI
> setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
> advance curve.
>
> There were always the same adjustments able to be made on
> carburetors. Fords (Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the
> most simple and failure proof design you can get. You can adjust
> the throttle stop, idle mixture, high idle speed, choke spring
> position, choke plate position, and change jets. That's how it
> is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
> it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is
> almost identical to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same
> adjustments.
> ...
>
> Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a
> "mileage maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it
> was called the "mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good
> reliable and efficient engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon
> 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the highway. Not bad considering the
> cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and overdrive was a _very_
> rare option.
>
> Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those
> hoses" on that '69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the
> connected to?
never anywhere near to spec. But then I began learning it did
not have to be. We simply dumped so much 1960 gasoline down
the tube and everything worked fine. Bean counters learned
that carburetor adjustments could be ignored. Some cars did
not run as well, but they all ran good enough to sell (ie your
302 that only got 12 MPG). Carburetors were very crude
devices.
Once we cut through all the hype of that time, a carburetor
was a complex and crudely adjusted device. But car could be
sold and kept working even when carburetor adjustments were
not performed in the factory.
Springs on distributors are adjustable. The shop manuals
described how to bend tabs to make those adjustments with
timing curve charts to bend those tabs to.
You keep referring to a vehicle - the 69 Nova - that I don't
believe ever had those extra hoses (and what they connect to)
to increase fuel economy. Those high mileage engines were so
rare that I only found them in shop manuals. And what did
those early 1960 engines have? All the same hoses that later
appear in 1970 engines - as pollution control crap. IOW when
they told us price of cars had to increase do to pollution
control equipment, really they were lying. They did almost
nothing for pollution control in the early 70s. A story about
Chrysler's CAP system (where EGR valve was developed) made
that obvious why.
Back to the Honda. Carburetor manufacturers did not even
bother to adjust the float because carburetors could be
crudely adjusted (or not at all) and the car still worked. If
float was too badly out of adjustment, then any resulting
problems were solved by the idler adjustment mixing screw. In
the 60s, no one was concerned with mileage and price of gas
(even though gasoline is cheaper today than it was in the
60s).
No reason to worry about making distributor timing curves
consistent or in adjusting the carburetor in production.
Motorheads would brag about how they improved the engine when
all they had to do is perform adjustment not done in the
factory.
But EPA requirements changed all that. Low pollution is
achieved by increasing fuel mileage, horsepower, and
performance. Since many carberated engines were so poorly
adjusted, then those same engines would dump so much gas down
tailpipe as to overheat catalytic converters. Some converter
actually set leaves afire - because carburetor was so badly
adjusted. Honda, on the other hand, even had adjustment
screws outside the carburetor to adjust both primary and pre
combustion carburetor floats - and a simple procedure to make
those adjustments. The interplay between primary and pre
combustion carburetors was so finely adjusted that if you
moved linkage adjustment screws, then the fine interplay could
not be reestablished in the field.
BTW, Hondas were so superior in design that they did not
even use a PCV valve. They had a better system for crankcase
ventilation that eliminated periodic PCV replacement.
Like in the Vega story, if adjustments such as carburetor
were properly made, then no air pump was required - because a
higher mileage and high performance engine could pollute
less. It is what Honda brought to 1970s America - engines
properly adjusted in the factory so that carburetors need not
be adjusted.
Outside of the Honda carburetor, then only other one I saw
that with equivalent in 'beauty of design' was Weber 5210 that
was used both by DeLorean and by small Fords. Since 1960s
cars solved problems by dumping more gas down the intake
manifold, then 1960 carburetors were crude contraptions that
would work good enough without factory adjustments.
What MBAs did to cut costs. Eliminated many factory
adjustments such as float level. Stop performing those spring
adjustments on distributors. It would explain why your 302
could so improve gas mileage (and why a 390 cu inch got better
gas mileage) by adjusting the distributor advance - because
they stopped making factory adjustments to cut costs. It
would also explain why the Ford Pinto and Capri - both with
same engine and carburetor - performed radically different.
The Capri was built in Germany where MBAs were not designing
cars and manipulating the assembly lines. German built Capri
simply had everything adjusted to factory specs - and did not
have Henry Ford's MBA concept of fixing the cam shaft (another
story about why cars really failed).
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be
> tuned properly or performance and economy will go to hell.
> Typically the best results in fuel economy can be had with an
> Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor. Yes, Fords own design.
> If kept on the same engine they came on they will have the
> mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
> adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when
> doing a tune-up to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest
> vacuum and the idle stop screw to put the idle speed where it
> belongs.
>
> Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
> distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the
> distributor. You can mix and match distributors from different
> applications all you want, but if you want it running optimally
> you'll need to re-tune the advance curve for the new application.
> If everything is left stock there is not much tuning one car do to
> optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do with those
> engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
> retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of
> error in for different conditions and variances in fuel quality,
> as well as emissions reasons. Typically you can get a little more
> advance out of it to increase performance and mileage. The
> side-effect I believe of the more complete combustion and cooler
> running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
> Something anyway.
> ...
>
> But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent
> pre-detonation under vastly varying loads the cars could be put
> under anywhere in the U.S. You can't ahve it all, everything is
> a compromise.
> ...
>
> Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them
> to lighter or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical
> advance to either 10* or 15* (distributor degrees, that is)
> depending on which stop you use. The ability to do any of that was
> never removed until electronic controls. Even then, the old TFI
> setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
> advance curve.
>
> There were always the same adjustments able to be made on
> carburetors. Fords (Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the
> most simple and failure proof design you can get. You can adjust
> the throttle stop, idle mixture, high idle speed, choke spring
> position, choke plate position, and change jets. That's how it
> is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
> it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is
> almost identical to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same
> adjustments.
> ...
>
> Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a
> "mileage maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it
> was called the "mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good
> reliable and efficient engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon
> 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the highway. Not bad considering the
> cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and overdrive was a _very_
> rare option.
>
> Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those
> hoses" on that '69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the
> connected to?
#45
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: EGR valve...
I used to open 1960s carburetors constantly. The float was
never anywhere near to spec. But then I began learning it did
not have to be. We simply dumped so much 1960 gasoline down
the tube and everything worked fine. Bean counters learned
that carburetor adjustments could be ignored. Some cars did
not run as well, but they all ran good enough to sell (ie your
302 that only got 12 MPG). Carburetors were very crude
devices.
Once we cut through all the hype of that time, a carburetor
was a complex and crudely adjusted device. But car could be
sold and kept working even when carburetor adjustments were
not performed in the factory.
Springs on distributors are adjustable. The shop manuals
described how to bend tabs to make those adjustments with
timing curve charts to bend those tabs to.
You keep referring to a vehicle - the 69 Nova - that I don't
believe ever had those extra hoses (and what they connect to)
to increase fuel economy. Those high mileage engines were so
rare that I only found them in shop manuals. And what did
those early 1960 engines have? All the same hoses that later
appear in 1970 engines - as pollution control crap. IOW when
they told us price of cars had to increase do to pollution
control equipment, really they were lying. They did almost
nothing for pollution control in the early 70s. A story about
Chrysler's CAP system (where EGR valve was developed) made
that obvious why.
Back to the Honda. Carburetor manufacturers did not even
bother to adjust the float because carburetors could be
crudely adjusted (or not at all) and the car still worked. If
float was too badly out of adjustment, then any resulting
problems were solved by the idler adjustment mixing screw. In
the 60s, no one was concerned with mileage and price of gas
(even though gasoline is cheaper today than it was in the
60s).
No reason to worry about making distributor timing curves
consistent or in adjusting the carburetor in production.
Motorheads would brag about how they improved the engine when
all they had to do is perform adjustment not done in the
factory.
But EPA requirements changed all that. Low pollution is
achieved by increasing fuel mileage, horsepower, and
performance. Since many carberated engines were so poorly
adjusted, then those same engines would dump so much gas down
tailpipe as to overheat catalytic converters. Some converter
actually set leaves afire - because carburetor was so badly
adjusted. Honda, on the other hand, even had adjustment
screws outside the carburetor to adjust both primary and pre
combustion carburetor floats - and a simple procedure to make
those adjustments. The interplay between primary and pre
combustion carburetors was so finely adjusted that if you
moved linkage adjustment screws, then the fine interplay could
not be reestablished in the field.
BTW, Hondas were so superior in design that they did not
even use a PCV valve. They had a better system for crankcase
ventilation that eliminated periodic PCV replacement.
Like in the Vega story, if adjustments such as carburetor
were properly made, then no air pump was required - because a
higher mileage and high performance engine could pollute
less. It is what Honda brought to 1970s America - engines
properly adjusted in the factory so that carburetors need not
be adjusted.
Outside of the Honda carburetor, then only other one I saw
that with equivalent in 'beauty of design' was Weber 5210 that
was used both by DeLorean and by small Fords. Since 1960s
cars solved problems by dumping more gas down the intake
manifold, then 1960 carburetors were crude contraptions that
would work good enough without factory adjustments.
What MBAs did to cut costs. Eliminated many factory
adjustments such as float level. Stop performing those spring
adjustments on distributors. It would explain why your 302
could so improve gas mileage (and why a 390 cu inch got better
gas mileage) by adjusting the distributor advance - because
they stopped making factory adjustments to cut costs. It
would also explain why the Ford Pinto and Capri - both with
same engine and carburetor - performed radically different.
The Capri was built in Germany where MBAs were not designing
cars and manipulating the assembly lines. German built Capri
simply had everything adjusted to factory specs - and did not
have Henry Ford's MBA concept of fixing the cam shaft (another
story about why cars really failed).
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be
> tuned properly or performance and economy will go to hell.
> Typically the best results in fuel economy can be had with an
> Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor. Yes, Fords own design.
> If kept on the same engine they came on they will have the
> mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
> adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when
> doing a tune-up to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest
> vacuum and the idle stop screw to put the idle speed where it
> belongs.
>
> Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
> distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the
> distributor. You can mix and match distributors from different
> applications all you want, but if you want it running optimally
> you'll need to re-tune the advance curve for the new application.
> If everything is left stock there is not much tuning one car do to
> optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do with those
> engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
> retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of
> error in for different conditions and variances in fuel quality,
> as well as emissions reasons. Typically you can get a little more
> advance out of it to increase performance and mileage. The
> side-effect I believe of the more complete combustion and cooler
> running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
> Something anyway.
> ...
>
> But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent
> pre-detonation under vastly varying loads the cars could be put
> under anywhere in the U.S. You can't ahve it all, everything is
> a compromise.
> ...
>
> Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them
> to lighter or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical
> advance to either 10* or 15* (distributor degrees, that is)
> depending on which stop you use. The ability to do any of that was
> never removed until electronic controls. Even then, the old TFI
> setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
> advance curve.
>
> There were always the same adjustments able to be made on
> carburetors. Fords (Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the
> most simple and failure proof design you can get. You can adjust
> the throttle stop, idle mixture, high idle speed, choke spring
> position, choke plate position, and change jets. That's how it
> is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
> it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is
> almost identical to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same
> adjustments.
> ...
>
> Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a
> "mileage maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it
> was called the "mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good
> reliable and efficient engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon
> 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the highway. Not bad considering the
> cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and overdrive was a _very_
> rare option.
>
> Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those
> hoses" on that '69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the
> connected to?
never anywhere near to spec. But then I began learning it did
not have to be. We simply dumped so much 1960 gasoline down
the tube and everything worked fine. Bean counters learned
that carburetor adjustments could be ignored. Some cars did
not run as well, but they all ran good enough to sell (ie your
302 that only got 12 MPG). Carburetors were very crude
devices.
Once we cut through all the hype of that time, a carburetor
was a complex and crudely adjusted device. But car could be
sold and kept working even when carburetor adjustments were
not performed in the factory.
Springs on distributors are adjustable. The shop manuals
described how to bend tabs to make those adjustments with
timing curve charts to bend those tabs to.
You keep referring to a vehicle - the 69 Nova - that I don't
believe ever had those extra hoses (and what they connect to)
to increase fuel economy. Those high mileage engines were so
rare that I only found them in shop manuals. And what did
those early 1960 engines have? All the same hoses that later
appear in 1970 engines - as pollution control crap. IOW when
they told us price of cars had to increase do to pollution
control equipment, really they were lying. They did almost
nothing for pollution control in the early 70s. A story about
Chrysler's CAP system (where EGR valve was developed) made
that obvious why.
Back to the Honda. Carburetor manufacturers did not even
bother to adjust the float because carburetors could be
crudely adjusted (or not at all) and the car still worked. If
float was too badly out of adjustment, then any resulting
problems were solved by the idler adjustment mixing screw. In
the 60s, no one was concerned with mileage and price of gas
(even though gasoline is cheaper today than it was in the
60s).
No reason to worry about making distributor timing curves
consistent or in adjusting the carburetor in production.
Motorheads would brag about how they improved the engine when
all they had to do is perform adjustment not done in the
factory.
But EPA requirements changed all that. Low pollution is
achieved by increasing fuel mileage, horsepower, and
performance. Since many carberated engines were so poorly
adjusted, then those same engines would dump so much gas down
tailpipe as to overheat catalytic converters. Some converter
actually set leaves afire - because carburetor was so badly
adjusted. Honda, on the other hand, even had adjustment
screws outside the carburetor to adjust both primary and pre
combustion carburetor floats - and a simple procedure to make
those adjustments. The interplay between primary and pre
combustion carburetors was so finely adjusted that if you
moved linkage adjustment screws, then the fine interplay could
not be reestablished in the field.
BTW, Hondas were so superior in design that they did not
even use a PCV valve. They had a better system for crankcase
ventilation that eliminated periodic PCV replacement.
Like in the Vega story, if adjustments such as carburetor
were properly made, then no air pump was required - because a
higher mileage and high performance engine could pollute
less. It is what Honda brought to 1970s America - engines
properly adjusted in the factory so that carburetors need not
be adjusted.
Outside of the Honda carburetor, then only other one I saw
that with equivalent in 'beauty of design' was Weber 5210 that
was used both by DeLorean and by small Fords. Since 1960s
cars solved problems by dumping more gas down the intake
manifold, then 1960 carburetors were crude contraptions that
would work good enough without factory adjustments.
What MBAs did to cut costs. Eliminated many factory
adjustments such as float level. Stop performing those spring
adjustments on distributors. It would explain why your 302
could so improve gas mileage (and why a 390 cu inch got better
gas mileage) by adjusting the distributor advance - because
they stopped making factory adjustments to cut costs. It
would also explain why the Ford Pinto and Capri - both with
same engine and carburetor - performed radically different.
The Capri was built in Germany where MBAs were not designing
cars and manipulating the assembly lines. German built Capri
simply had everything adjusted to factory specs - and did not
have Henry Ford's MBA concept of fixing the cam shaft (another
story about why cars really failed).
Cory Dunkle wrote:
> Actually carburetors are very sensitive devices which must be
> tuned properly or performance and economy will go to hell.
> Typically the best results in fuel economy can be had with an
> Autolite 2100 or Autolite 4100 carburetor. Yes, Fords own design.
> If kept on the same engine they came on they will have the
> mixture set properly by way of properly sized jets. The only
> adjustments an owner/mechanic will ever need to make is when
> doing a tune-up to adjust the idle mixture screws for highest
> vacuum and the idle stop screw to put the idle speed where it
> belongs.
>
> Also, vacuum advance units were matched for particular engines and
> distributors, as was the mechanical advance curve of the
> distributor. You can mix and match distributors from different
> applications all you want, but if you want it running optimally
> you'll need to re-tune the advance curve for the new application.
> If everything is left stock there is not much tuning one car do to
> optimize an engine. One of the few things you can do with those
> engines and keep it stock is advance the timing, as it is
> retarded from the most the engine will take to put a margin of
> error in for different conditions and variances in fuel quality,
> as well as emissions reasons. Typically you can get a little more
> advance out of it to increase performance and mileage. The
> side-effect I believe of the more complete combustion and cooler
> running temperature is more NOX, either that or CO...
> Something anyway.
> ...
>
> But wasn't due to emissions reasons and/or to prevent
> pre-detonation under vastly varying loads the cars could be put
> under anywhere in the U.S. You can't ahve it all, everything is
> a compromise.
> ...
>
> Sorry buddy but you can't adjust the springs. You can change them
> to lighter or heavier springs, and you can limit the mechanical
> advance to either 10* or 15* (distributor degrees, that is)
> depending on which stop you use. The ability to do any of that was
> never removed until electronic controls. Even then, the old TFI
> setups had 'octane rods' in the distributor to adjust the
> advance curve.
>
> There were always the same adjustments able to be made on
> carburetors. Fords (Autolite) carburetors were pretty much the
> most simple and failure proof design you can get. You can adjust
> the throttle stop, idle mixture, high idle speed, choke spring
> position, choke plate position, and change jets. That's how it
> is on both of my Autolite 2100s from the '60s and that's how
> it is on my friend's '86 Motorcraft 2300. The Motorcraft is
> almost identical to my old Autolite carbs and has all the same
> adjustments.
> ...
>
> Gas mileage was not irrelevant. Why do you think you could get a
> "mileage maker" inline 6 in any of Fords passenger cars? Yes, it
> was called the "mileage maker", the 200 cube I6. It was a good
> reliable and efficient engine. In a compact car such as a Falcon
> 25+ MPG was not unheard of on the highway. Not bad considering the
> cars were as aerodynamic as a brick and overdrive was a _very_
> rare option.
>
> Anyway, why don't you let me know a little more about "those
> hoses" on that '69 Nova and what 'emissions controls' the
> connected to?