It's amazing how a question pertaining to a vacumn diagram transformed
into a pissing contest over aircraft systems with everybody calling
everybody else (a couple of posters excluded) morons. No wonder this
group died a painful death.
Budd... did you find your problem?? e-mail me if you need. I don't
check this group very often as you can tell.
I think I got it figured out, Denny.
Apparently, the idiot that worked on the Ramcharger last time screwed up the
vacuum system up quite well, so I have to find a manifold vacuum source and
use it to feed the vacuum motors for the heater/defroster/ AC doors.
But if you have a diagram, email it to me.
Budd, pissing contest, what'a not to like?
Did Budd ask a question and expect an inteligent answer? After all
don't all vacumn lines start at the air intake manifold? And of
those, how many go through the firewall?
What I found amazing is that a clown figured out Budd in one thread!
You are the same as you've ever been.
Actually, I did expect some good advice from one or more of the old gang
because I've not had to work on an AC control system on a D/W series truck
and so I didn't know the vacuum routing.
But as is usual for you, you give no help at all and just add to the
Typical Beekeeper all the way.
Yes, I try to be a typical Christian, helping others instead of calling
people names I don't even know and accusing people I know only from this
group of things I would do.
Remember, Beekeeper, you were one of those that assumed I was going to
"start preaching" when I came back ... and you've been wrong ... again.
I remember a new guy dropped in to ask about improving the gas mileage
of his Dakota V6. Yeah, the V6 engine, which you didn't personally like.
What king of welcome was extended to the newcomer? It went like...
'I don't know who is stupider. You for buying a V6 and expecting it to
run like a hot rod, or me for answering your question.'
That was your reply.
First off, I never said I didn't like the V-6. Actually, it's an excellent
engine ... for what it's capable of doing.
I've even considered the early carbureted version as a swap for the AMC 4.0
in my 88 Cherokee. The 318 the V-6 is based on was a much better engine that
the redesign forced on the AMC 258 to make the 4.0.
Secondly, he was wanting the V-6 to run like a bigger V-8 in a heavy truck,
get outrageous mpg and I didn't realize it fully until that point.
But you did show who was stupider ... you. By being so juvenile as to drag
that up even though you have been far worse in just this thread alone.
He said no such thing.
and I didn't realize it fully until that point.
Until what point?
It was years back, and you're only pretending to remember. It stuck in
my mind because you were astonishingly rude to the guy. My opinion of
you was fully formed that day.
Actually, it was just such an instance and I was simply my usual
non-politically correct self. If you don't like it, too bad.
I understod the OP to want better that performance modded V-8 results from a
V-6 .. sheer stupidity on his part, just you are demonstrating your own low
social IQ by trying to use it against me.
Hmm, you must have been hiding under an different screen name back then as
The nice thing about not using one is I don't have to remember which one I
Actually, "until that point" was the opening sentence of your reply.
He posted once, asking nothing at all about hot-rodding the V6, and
nothing about how much he hoped to improve the mpg.
This place has been very quiet for a couple of years now. But there
just something about a stupid clown that gets people excited. You've
got this place jumping again. I can't "add" to the argument if
someone doesn't start one.
I've been around here a long long time and I can't think of a single
time that you "helped" anyone. Generally you are too busy puffing up
your chest and struting around posting shit totally off tangent from
the subject trying to impress others of what a great wealth of
knowlege you are. Unfortunately most of us that come here can read
and interpet what we read and you emerge as what you are.
I didn't assume that you were going to start preaching but when I
first read your stupid question I did say to myself "The locals are
going to have some fun with this one." I will assume that after you
get you feelings hurt and run away from here again, as you have done
many times in the past, that when you come back you will post another
stupid question. As the old saying goes, beauty fades but stupid is
If Twain were around today and read any of your posts he would
probably write "It is better to not post at all and be thought a fool
than it is to post and remove all doubt."
Then your memory is failing. Or have you forgotten my expertise on older,
pre fuel injection, Mopar engines?
One thing is certain, Beekeeper, I never called any of your friends names
that have never posted in this group.
As for my supposed "leavings and returnings" you also fail to remember there
were several changes in ISP's during that time ... new provider = new screen
name because the old couldn't drop the username so I could use it with the
new ISP, a move from CO to UT and back.
And if that bothers you so much, get over it and grow up. It happens whether
you like it or not and may happen again as I'm looking into a cheaper DSL
Wrong. Your prize is behind the door marked "EXIT".
Magnetos still have to be timed correctly for correct tune or to compensate
for altitude. Yeah, I've worked on mags from Briggs Stratton to Wisconsin
V-4's. And on aircraft reciprocating engines both mags have to be correctly
timed. (ya see, I found a 1970's A&P training manual a long time ago and I
cn reed gud. I even considered going for my own A&P cert back then)
Ah, darn. you missed the answer again since your grey matter is lost in the
clouds (or outer space) ... as if an FAA cert means anything in a Dodge
Your second prize is behind the other door marked "FIRE EXIT" ... I wonder
if they've fixed the ladder yet . . . . . . . . .
The correct answer is: an automotive reciprocating gasoline engine can run
more initial advance at higher altitudes to compensate for loss of power due
to the altitude.
Example: The Ramcharger I mentioned had the timing set at 12 BTDC here at
5400 feet altitude and you had a small trace of "kickback" during cranking,
but at the 9000 feet the lady lives at it cranks smoothly and runs better
than her neighbor's 85 Ramcharger (same drivetrain) that was tuned to
Since she rarely comes down to my altitude, the timing will work best for
her for performance and economy.
Hey, Beryl, if you really have an FAA cert then you have a certificate
number issued that you have to put on every repair you do.
What is it? Refuse to give it and we'll assume you are a outright liar ...
you've already proved you're certainly no automotive mechanic.
And, FYI, I've been in and out of this group since the last millenium,
Beryl, look at my email address: mr_ d150 (for the D-150 pickups) and I've
owned mostly Mopars since 1967. I repaired my first engine in 1961 at age
I've also been a small engine and heavy equipment mechanic with automotive
repairs done for the fun of it.
Nope, piston airplanes fly over a wide range of altitudes, and their
magnetos do not need to be retimed to compensate for altitude as they
climb or descend. You won't find a spark timing control on the
That is not an answer to your question. You're far to sloppy to ever
pass an FAA knowledge test. It may seem cruel to you, but many
multiple-choice questions are written to weed out people like yourself.
Altitude doesn't affect engine timing. If it was 10* BTDC when you left
Orlando, and you arrive at Leadville and check it again, it's still 10*
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.