• Welcome to ClassicBroncos! - You are currently viewing the forums as a GUEST. To take advantage of all the site features, please take a moment to register. It's fast, simple and absolutely free. So please join our community today!
    If you have problems registering or can't log into your account, please contact Admin.

Timing & Vacuum Advance 101

BoureeOne

Contributor
Bronco Guru
Joined
Mar 28, 2011
Messages
3,068
Loc.
Madisonville, La
Since I just cranked my engine for the first time yesterday, and the fact that the intake I had built ( 3 Holley 2110's on an Edelbrock Intake ) does not have a ported vacuum inlet, I thought I would look for information on ported and manifold vacuum advance. The guy who built my intake has been building Hot Rod intakes for 40yrs. He told me that manifold vacuum was what was needed for my vacuum advance. In my research, I came across this comment in a thread on H.A.M.B.. I think it is the best explanation I have read so far. So I wanted to share it on here.

The authors screen name was Bigchuck, from Austin, Tx. Article was written in 2012

Below is the copied text:


As many of you are aware, timing and vacuum advance is one of my favorite subjects, as I was involved in the development of some of those systems in my GM days and I understand it. Many people don't, as there has been very little written about it anywhere that makes sense, and as a result, a lot of folks are under the misunderstanding that vacuum advance somehow compromises performance. Nothing could be further from the truth. I finally sat down the other day and wrote up a primer on the subject, with the objective of helping more folks to understand vacuum advance and how it works together with initial timing and centrifugal advance to optimize all-around operation and performance. I have this as a Word document if anyone wants it sent to them - I've cut-and-pasted it here; it's long, but hopefully it's also informative.

TIMING AND VACUUM ADVANCE 101

The most important concept to understand is that lean mixtures, such as at idle and steady highway cruise, take longer to burn than rich mixtures; idle in particular, as idle mixture is affected by exhaust gas dilution. This requires that lean mixtures have "the fire lit" earlier in the compression cycle (spark timing advanced), allowing more burn time so that peak cylinder pressure is reached just after TDC for peak efficiency and reduced exhaust gas temperature (wasted combustion energy). Rich mixtures, on the other hand, burn faster than lean mixtures, so they need to have "the fire lit" later in the compression cycle (spark timing retarded slightly) so maximum cylinder pressure is still achieved at the same point after TDC as with the lean mixture, for maximum efficiency.

The centrifugal advance system in a distributor advances spark timing purely as a function of engine rpm (irrespective of engine load or operating conditions), with the amount of advance and the rate at which it comes in determined by the weights and springs on top of the autocam mechanism. The amount of advance added by the distributor, combined with initial static timing, is "total timing" (i.e., the 34-36 degrees at high rpm that most SBC's like). Vacuum advance has absolutely nothing to do with total timing or performance, as when the throttle is opened, manifold vacuum drops essentially to zero, and the vacuum advance drops out entirely; it has no part in the "total timing" equation.

At idle, the engine needs additional spark advance in order to fire that lean, diluted mixture earlier in order to develop maximum cylinder pressure at the proper point, so the vacuum advance can (connected to manifold vacuum, not "ported" vacuum - more on that aberration later) is activated by the high manifold vacuum, and adds about 15 degrees of spark advance, on top of the initial static timing setting (i.e., if your static timing is at 10 degrees, at idle it's actually around 25 degrees with the vacuum advance connected). The same thing occurs at steady-state highway cruise; the mixture is lean, takes longer to burn, the load on the engine is low, the manifold vacuum is high, so the vacuum advance is again deployed, and if you had a timing light set up so you could see the balancer as you were going down the highway, you'd see about 50 degrees advance (10 degrees initial, 20-25 degrees from the centrifugal advance, and 15 degrees from the vacuum advance) at steady-state cruise (it only takes about 40 horsepower to cruise at 50mph).

When you accelerate, the mixture is instantly enriched (by the accelerator pump, power valve, etc.), burns faster, doesn't need the additional spark advance, and when the throttle plates open, manifold vacuum drops, and the vacuum advance can returns to zero, retarding the spark timing back to what is provided by the initial static timing plus the centrifugal advance provided by the distributor at that engine rpm; the vacuum advance doesn't come back into play until you back off the gas and manifold vacuum increases again as you return to steady-state cruise, when the mixture again becomes lean.

The key difference is that centrifugal advance (in the distributor autocam via weights and springs) is purely rpm-sensitive; nothing changes it except changes in rpm. Vacuum advance, on the other hand, responds to engine load and rapidly-changing operating conditions, providing the correct degree of spark advance at any point in time based on engine load, to deal with both lean and rich mixture conditions. By today's terms, this was a relatively crude mechanical system, but it did a good job of optimizing engine efficiency, throttle response, fuel economy, and idle cooling, with absolutely ZERO effect on wide-open throttle performance, as vacuum advance is inoperative under wide-open throttle conditions. In modern cars with computerized engine controllers, all those sensors and the controller change both mixture and spark timing 50 to 100 times per second, and we don't even HAVE a distributor any more - it's all electronic.

Now, to the widely-misunderstood manifold-vs.-ported vacuum aberration. 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.

If you look at the centrifugal advance calibrations for these "ported spark, late-timed" engines, you'll see that instead of having 20 degrees of advance, they had up to 34 degrees of advance in the distributor, in order to get back to the 34-36 degrees "total timing" at high rpm wide-open throttle to get some of the performance back. The vacuum advance still worked at steady-state highway cruise (lean mixture = low emissions), but it was inoperative at idle, which caused all manner of problems - "ported vacuum" was strictly an early, pre-converter crude emissions strategy, and nothing more.

What about the Harry high-school non-vacuum advance polished billet "whizbang" distributors you see in the Summit and Jeg's catalogs? They're JUNK on a street-driven car, but some people keep buying them because they're "race car" parts, so they must be "good for my car" - they're NOT. "Race cars" run at wide-open throttle, rich mixture, full load, and high rpm all the time, so they don't need a system (vacuum advance) to deal with the full range of driving conditions encountered in street operation. Anyone driving a street-driven car without manifold-connected vacuum advance is sacrificing idle cooling, throttle response, engine efficiency, and fuel economy, probably because they don't understand what vacuum advance is, how it works, and what it's for - there are lots of long-time experienced "mechanics" who don't understand the principles and operation of vacuum advance either, so they're not alone.

Vacuum advance calibrations are different between stock engines and modified engines, especially if you have a lot of cam and have relatively low manifold vacuum at idle. Most stock vacuum advance cans aren’t fully-deployed until they see about 15” Hg. Manifold vacuum, so those cans don’t work very well on a modified engine; with less than 15” Hg. at a rough idle, the stock can will “dither” in and out in response to the rapidly-changing manifold vacuum, constantly varying the amount of vacuum advance, which creates an unstable idle. Modified engines with more cam that generate less than 15” Hg. of vacuum at idle need a vacuum advance can that’s fully-deployed at least 1”, preferably 2” of vacuum less than idle vacuum level so idle advance is solid and stable; the Echlin #VC-1810 advance can (about $10 at NAPA) provides the same amount of advance as the stock can (15 degrees), but is fully-deployed at only 8” of vacuum, so there is no variation in idle timing even with a stout cam.

For peak engine performance, driveability, idle cooling and efficiency in a street-driven car, you need vacuum advance, connected to full manifold vacuum. Absolutely. Positively. Don't ask Summit or Jeg's about it – they don’t understand it, they're on commission, and they want to sell "race car" parts.
 

jdbronco

Full Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2010
Messages
289
Loc.
Panama City Beach
Very interesting. I will have to play around with this when I get some time. Never hurts to run better and burn less fuel in the process!
 

pcf_mark

Bronco Guru
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
3,579
"For peak engine performance, driveability, idle cooling and efficiency in a street-driven car, you need vacuum advance, connected to full manifold vacuum. Absolutely. Positively. Don't ask Summit or Jeg's about it – they don’t understand it, they're on commission, and they want to sell "race car" parts."

While I agree with this in practice and in principle there is a slight error that on a stock Bronco can bite you. If you have manifold vacuum to the vac advance can at idle you will get full vacuum advance engaged. Idle vac is 17-18" so it pulls all the advance in taking your 10-12 degrees of base timing and adding 6-12 more depending on the vac can on the distributor. Get it running nice and smooth in PARK, slow steady idle of maybe 650 rpm, life is good. Put it into DRIVE with the tight Bronco converter the idle drops because of the load. As RPM drops the vacuum drops reducing the timing from the vac advance can on the distributor. You get a double rpm drop - one from load and one from less timing causing the idle to slow down. Now your idle is 500-550 and it is not happy anymore and in the cold it stalls out. If you raise the idle in PARK to work well in DRIVE you get a clunk or a tire chirp when you shift to DRIVE or REVERSE.

So in my opinion / experience the advice you quoted is rock solid if the car is manual. If the car is auto it is still good advice if the torque converter is "loose" like on a muscle car. But on a stock automatic that will not be as nice a set up.

I have tuned a few cars in my day from 4.5" of vacuum hot street cars to 20" of vacuum stockers using a single 2 barrel to dual 4 barrels on 6-71 blower. You need to pay with your parts and find out what works for you and your combination.
 

Broncobowsher

Total hack
Joined
Jun 4, 2002
Messages
34,874
I've fixed multiple vehicles/drivability issues by removing manifold vacuum from the vacuum advance.

Excessive advance at idle makes the engine more sensitive to loads. Power steering, alternator, A/C compressor will pull the idle speed down more.

And that is before the evil catch 22 comes into play. That is you pull the idle down enough that the manifold vacuum drops, that drops the advance, timing drops, that further lowers the idle speed.

That same catch 22 comes into play with an automatic in the difference between neutral and drive idle speeds. Correct late timing and ported vacuum advance make for engines that will go into gear nicely and not pull away a bunch of idle speed. Stick shifts also fall victim as well. As you try to pull away you load the engine, that drops vacuum, advance (and power) disappear as you are trying to engage the clutch. Makes driving a stick shift very frustrating. Go back to ported vacuum, pull the timing back to a mild initial setting, that drops idle speed. Dial in the idle speed back to where is should be. Suddenly you can go back to putting the automatic in drive without bogging the engine and a stick shift will pull better as you are engaging the clutch.

That will improve drivability. It is not the most efficient. You are drawing more air and fuel through the engine at idle doing so. But you are not driving an economy car. So you burn an extra 3% more fuel at idle, you will never notice. You probably don't have the idle mix dialed in that close anyway. Now if all you care about is fuel economy at idle, add a bunch of extra timing.

Now get into EFI, the computer spark advance can get interesting. Old Chryslers are well known that when the A/C engages the computer adds timing to maintain idle speed. The computer can make changes to timing much faster than changing the position of the idle air control stepper motor.

Emissions? Late timing and ported vacuum advance reduces manifold vacuum. Which means more cylinder filling. More filling, the more pressure in the cylinder. Fuel burns off better and emissions go down. more advance at idle, you get more out of the fuel since it is peaking cylinder pressure at a better time, but you don't actually get as good of a burn. Idle emissions are higher with advanced timing. Anyone who has played the emissions game will remember that one. Back the timing off and you loose power but pass. This is where a properly curved distributor will let you keep the idle clean but still give you power at speed.

30-40 years of manifold vacuum and that all went away when emissions came about? What is that crap? Ported vacuum advance existed well before emissions controls came into play. The real reason they didn't have ported right away is no one thought of doing it that way. Put a little port in the carburetor bore above the throttle blade so it only sees vacuum at part throttle. As simple as that is now it took some creativity to come up with that idea.

HAMB has a lot of good stuff, but not all of it. I just bought a truck from an "old school" hotrodder. I am going back and fixing his mistakes. The idiot took off and threw away the motorcraft 4V intake and put on an Edelbrock. Unhooked every vacuum line except power brakes, transmission. I'm looking to see if the PCV was removed as well but it looks like it may be hooked up. Kickdown, zip tied to the side. Old school may be neat, but often it is wrong.
 

jckkys

Bronco Guru
Joined
Mar 15, 2012
Messages
5,196
Bigchuck makes some good points but my experience is different. With the same engine in the same vehicle I've experimented with both vacuum sources for the vacuum advance. The ported vacuum source works better. As the vehicle engages the clutch or torque converter the slight throttle works smoother with ported vacuum. I even had 2 vacuum gauges plumbed with Ts to both sources. Once the engine moves the vehicle, the readings were nearly identicle for any driving condition.
Bigchuck sights a few examples of emission controls that were GM strategies that Ford didn't use. There were no Ford engines with factory initial timing specs after TDC. Some GM engines did. You may want to read a small block Ford timing guide like this;
http://www.fordmuscle.com/archives/2000/03/timing/index.shtml or
http://vb.foureyedpride.com/showthread.php?22229-The-Ultimate-Duraspark-Distributor-Timing-Guide
 
Top