Vacuum advance - ported vs direct manifold
July 28th, 2008, 06:27 PM
#1
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 2,212
Vacuum advance - ported vs direct manifold
The following, contains two articles:
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/show...63&postcount=2
The first, has been floating around the internet (with several different authors) for at least ten years.
Other than "0" vacuum at idle, and low initial spark timing, does this "creative writing exercise" contain any facts?
Norm
http://www.chevelles.com/forums/show...63&postcount=2
The first, has been floating around the internet (with several different authors) for at least ten years.
Originally Posted by John Z
After 30-40 years of controlling vacuum advance with full manifold vacuum, along came emissions requirements, years before catalytic converter technology had been developed, and all manner of crude band-aid systems were developed to try and reduce hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the exhaust stream. One of these band-aids was "ported spark", which moved the vacuum pickup orifice in the carburetor venturi from below the throttle plate (where it was exposed to full manifold vacuum at idle) to above the throttle plate, where it saw no manifold vacuum at all at idle. This meant the vacuum advance was inoperative at idle (retarding spark timing from its optimum value), and these applications also had VERY low initial static timing (usually 4 degrees or less, and some actually were set at 2 degrees AFTER TDC). This was done in order to increase exhaust gas temperature (due to "lighting the fire late") to improve the effectiveness of the "afterburning" of hydrocarbons by the air injected into the exhaust manifolds by the A.I.R. system; as a result, these engines ran like crap, and an enormous amount of wasted heat energy was transferred through the exhaust port walls into the coolant, causing them to run hot at idle - cylinder pressure fell off, engine temperatures went up, combustion efficiency went down the drain, and fuel economy went down with it ........
Norm
July 28th, 2008, 08:51 PM
#3
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 2,212
Ported vacuum dates back to the first use of vacuum advance, during the thirties, and was used until computers took over.
Emissions requirements date back to '55 at the earliest.
Norm
July 28th, 2008, 09:55 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Gladstone, OR
Posts: 491
OK Norm, I gotta' ask, is the part about the mixture being lean under cruise conditions correct? I'm guessing no. I would assume the mixture is right at cruise speeds, vacuum is high, load is low and the engine can tolerate more timing.
Don
Don
July 28th, 2008, 11:22 PM
#5
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 2,212
It's why I started the thread.
Yes it is. High vacuum closes the economizer valve. which restricts fuel flow to the jets.
The right mixture for cruise conditions is lean, which causes increased MPG on the highway.
Not exactly. High vacuum leans the mixture, which requires more timing. Fortunately, that same high vacuum supplies the the right amount of advance, at the right time.
Under load, there is less vacuum, the power valve opens, enriching the mixture, and the advance is reduced by the appropriate amount.
Power goes up, MPG goes down. And vice-versa.
Norm
Under load, there is less vacuum, the power valve opens, enriching the mixture, and the advance is reduced by the appropriate amount.
Power goes up, MPG goes down. And vice-versa.
Norm
July 29th, 2008, 07:50 AM
#6
Just the facts...
Join Date: May 2008
Location: THE GREAT WIDE-OPEN
Posts: 1,259
when did the nox emission standard come into play?
July 29th, 2008, 05:06 PM
#7
Junior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Southern CA
Posts: 2,212
........ when did the nox emission standard come into play?
The kit included a cap for the ported source at the carb.
Norm
July 30th, 2008, 07:52 AM
#8
Old(s) Fart
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Northern VA
Posts: 47,259
July 31st, 2008, 08:54 AM
#9
is Fast Enough ...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: dogtown
Posts: 1,308
Just to clarify, this was a Californina state mandate. People from the rest of the country likely aren't aware of it. I'll never forget the ordeal that a friend of mine experienced where he had moved to SoCal with a Dodge. He had previously installed a fully mechanical distributor. CARB made him remove that distributor and install an original vac advance unit just so he could then install the mandated NOX device that rendered the vac advance inoperative.
Got to luv california ...
I had a freind that put a "Smog" motor in his car just to pass smog ..
We also have smog check points where they set up a sniffer and pull
your car over if it's running dirty ...
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
BangScreech4-4-2
General Questions
14
September 22nd, 2016 09:26 PM
