Timing Opinions

That will slow you down a bit. Is it in a beetle (or a buggy)? If so, check out getting a sedan transmission -- if you can only source a core and live in CA (or are willing to ship a tranny) I've heard good things about Rancho trannys, and they're pretty reasonable price wise.

34 PICT's dont like 009's too much, from what I have read. Check out getting a correct distributor with vacuum advance. Time it using the strobe, and dont trust me about it, trust the shop manuals and VW. I read a Sermon (Bob Hoover) that VW stopped doing the static timing light trick in '66, and you ought to as well.

Is that bigger than stock? It will give you acceleration and take away speed. With the combo of the bus tranny and larger than stock tires, you're set up to get a lot of torque, ideal for a big vehicle or off road. Good luck!

-Kevin

Thanks Kevin,

I know the bus trans is for torque and not speed. And I'm really not into speed anyway. I even thought about swaping it out while I was doing the motor because this is a street buggy, not a hill climber or sand car. I'm sure a lot of those kind of guys would love to have this trans.

I like the 009 and have run it with a 34 for years on a '74 super daily driver and never had any problems but I am about to search ebay and the parts pile for a stock diz and give it a try. I've also been watching the thread about the pertronix and msd and might give that a shot.

Yes, 60's are much wider than stock and even though they rob power, they look way cool.

Thanks again Kevin. I'm just looking for ideas.

< TC

your timing values look good....the timing is based on RPM so any *actual* power loss should be evident in all gears at the same general engine speed.....fuel starvation could be a possibility at higher speeds where the engine uses more fuel.... your tires can also affect things by effectively changing your gear ratio(smaller would make for a quick speed up but top out early, larger would be slower to accellerate and *theoretically a higher topspeed...that of course is assuming you have enough horsepower to propel the car to the new *potential)....if you are plenty powerful in all gears and believe there is a definite problem i would suspect fuel starvation....there are tests to help confirm or rule out this...

I gave up on timing lights - especially for my bugs - a long time ago! I keep advancing them untill they kick back when starting, then retard them untill they stop. Then I drive them & put them under a load at low rpm up a hill & if it pings retard it untill it quits. Always winds up with more advance (& power) than if timed with a light. You need more top-end powwer? Dual carbs. Cam. Big valves. Money... :-) (but anyway the dual carbs will help a LOT) ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.

if you are comfortable with that procedure that is fine, but i personally would hesitate to state it so "mater-of-factly"....it is not a good practice and i have seen pistons with holes in them due to this.....not all "pinging" is even detectable.... when i loaned out my timing light to a fellow that decided to make it his own, i timed my car in the above manner...it ran great...but the two head temp guages read abit higher than i liked.....(new engine, so no "before" data to compare)...i drove it this way for awhile....while i did run "good" the power was "peaky"....turns out it was around 50BTDC at full advance....not good....actually timing it with the proper procedure made the car feel less "peppy" off the line, but overal performance(accelleration, etc) was much better....seat of the pants is not a good timing meathod.....

Thats why I did it using both methods. I used the static timing light for years and never had any problem. Then, just maybe 5 years ago or less, I had the money so I bought a cheap timing light. Mostly just the curiosity to see the difference.

Personally, I like the static method and then fine tuning by ear and feel but I've never moved it much. Was really surprised at how far up it was, the last time it was set, I did it with the strobe light. Putting in new points shouldn't make that much difference. But it's right and strong now but I still wonder about the top end performance of lack thereof.

< TC

if you are comfortable with that procedure that is fine, but i personally

would hesitate to state it so "mater-of-factly"....it is not a good practice and i have seen pistons with holes in them due to this.....not all "pinging" is even detectable.... when i loaned out my timing light to a fellow that

decided to make it his own, i timed my car in the above manner...it ran great...but the two head temp guages read abit higher than i liked.....(new engine, so no "before" data to compare)...i drove it this way for awhile....while i did run "good" the power was "peaky"....turns out it was

around 50BTDC at full advance....not good....actually timing it with the proper procedure made the car feel less "peppy" off the line, but overal performance(accelleration, etc) was much better....seat of the pants is not a good timing meathod.....

**************** WOW! 50 BTDC is unreal! In the past when I've checked mine it was never anything like that; just a little more advanced than called for in the book. Never had any problems in 30+ years messing with VWs. ~ Paul aka "Tha Driver"

America - made in China! :-(

i hear ya Paul, but not everyone can be so sure....i never used a timing light on my racecars, but on my streetcars i do...too easy to get it off and it still "sound" and run "good"....