timing a 4.3 vortec v-6 code w???

Page 2 of 2  
Heatwave wrote:


Driving a vehicle = pollution
Stop making babies.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

(definitely missing the hypocrisy...)

If only you could have relayed that to your parents in time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Wed, 29 Aug 2007 04:45:23 GMT, aarcuda69062

ESC then but EST was what I considered 2 generation

As usually your full of it. It passed every Echeck with flying colors and passed by very wide margins too and would still today except the stopped doing checks. In the 10 years they did it here I never had any of my vehicles fail. The TDC baseline timing is so that aomw consumers can feed their addiction burn "cheap" 87 octane in them even though performance and MPG suffers. 87 octane was designed in 70's when 8 to 1 CR was the norm. When I got mine new in 89 I tried burning 87 in it for first 8K to 10K miles or so and it was a real slug in hot weather. After that I advanced timiing and started using 93 and never looked back still runs great today and 93 and timing change added about 3 to 4 MPG to highway driving on long trips and better power too. I also found during frequent trips to Colorado and Wyoming that manually advancing timing to 12 or 14 BTDC helped performance a lot above 5000 feet during extended stays because "EST" cannot do it on its own. It has been a while since I checked it but I beleive it is set at around 8 or 10 BTDC right now. People that ride in the old burb today are surprized at how well it runs and looks even today. I make many commuter trip thake my daughters to and from college on weekend during school year and it is about 75 miles one way urban driving and when gas prices are stable I make 3 trips up and back before I refuel and it averages high 16's to mid 18's on these trip cycles. ( if you keep it under 70 it will do around 18 mpg and at 70's and above MPG drops a bits towards the lower number of the stated range.) Not bad for a 4x4 burb with 180K miles too and using A/C when needed because I never drive it with windows down. BTW, except for a custom 3 inch single exhaust with a quieter flow master and timing change it is stock too. (no lift or big tires either)

TheSnoMan.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Why? They are two entirely different things.

Other than snow plowing, your credentials are?

Meaningless since IM emissions checks are orders of magnitude different and more lenient than the original federally mandated emissions regulations. You really don't want to debate this with me considering that as an employee of the vendor contracted with the state of Ohio, I traveled to Ohio many times in late 95 and early 96 laying the groundwork for Ohio's emissions testing program.

It's still considered tampering. No different than removing the catalytic convertor or an air pump or the EGR valve. You wouldn't have gotten away with it in a state where the ignition timing is actually verified to be correct.

Sorry, I'm not familiar with the phrase "aomw consumers."

Your 89 is a 5.7 liter, correct? The stock compression ratio is/was 8.2 to 1 According to you then, 87 octane was designed for that engine.

I don't know if you've noticed, but in all these years that you've been touting your kludge fix for your poochy Suburban, I've never once said that advancing the timing wouldn't change the way it runs. That still doesn't rule out that there is a malfunction that you haven't been able to diagnose in 19 years...

That pretty much dovetails with the TSBs we got at the beginning of each model year instructing on how to adjust 49 state vehicles for high altitude operation.

No surprise that they are surprised, they were horrible trashy trucks.

Please explain why this makes you special such that you are able to ignore federal law and tamper with emissions components. If you can't do that, please explain what it has to do with anything, anything at all...

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
aarcuda69062 wrote:

Oh I'm so very impressed--may I kiss your feet?

Only by the likes of you.

Untrue.
The correct ignition timing is where the engine runs best using the fuel that is in the tank. Actual timing numbers given by the manufacturer happens to be a statistically good number, but rarely the best number for all possible conditions.
If there were such a thing as "correct engine timing" as an ordained value automotive engines would never deviate from that ordained number as they do on the fly. Nor would the state allow cars with a stretched timing chain to stay on the road (for vehicles using conventional distributor ignitions.)
But then again you do sound full of shit enough to be a civil servant.

You're plainly an idiot. It is a rather ordinary mistyping of the word "some". If you look at your keyboard you might be able to see how that happens. But belonging to the civil servant class of person doubtless prevents you from understanding the ordinary things of life that aren't in your officially provided manuals.

No it wasn't. 87 octane was designed for general use, not "for that engine." (See how easy it is to act like a civil servant who behaves just like you do?)
The answer is in his better performance. Get a clue already.

And your point is?

So there is no single ordained number for ignition timing after all.

The more I read the trashier you get.

Cite the federal law. They're all on the internet. I'm tired of claims like this with no teeth in them.

He did. You haven't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Old Crow, help!!!! i have no idea if im typing this in the correct place or if im answering were someone else is having a conversation with you. please let me know if you even get this. please answer me @ snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net. sorry if i have stepped on anyones mail or notes PETE
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 22:14:47 -0700, snipped-for-privacy@sbcglobal.net wrote:

You've got mail. -- Old Crow "Yol Bolson!" '82 FLTC-P "Miss Pearl" '95 YJ Rio Grande BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, MAMBM
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.