Date:         Wed, 28 Jan 2004 09:50:20 -0800
Reply-To:     "Mike D." <md03@XOCHI.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         "Mike D." <md03@XOCHI.COM>
Subject:      Re: Bad Idle Stabilizer?
In-Reply-To:  <20040128173930.AD1455B82D@smaug.dreamhost.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

>Date:    Wed, 28 Jan 2004 05:12:03 -0500
>From:    "Daniel L. Katz" <katzd54@YAHOO.COM>
>Subject: Re: Bad Idle Stabilizer?
>
>suggest returning to 5 deg BTDC @ 900 rpm (stabilizer bypassed). remember,
>as engine surges centrifical and vacuum advance come into play, so
>significant part of timing jitter with stabilizer back in circuit may not
>actually be due to the stabilizer itself. idle may actualy be better at
>stock 5 deg ATDC initial timing, but van will run much better and offer
>better mpg with advanced setting. you may want to  bypass stabilizer and
>adjust initial timing to about 14 deg BTC @ 900 and see how the van runs
>leaving stabilizer bypassed - probably very well.

I sense this is a religious topic that I'm venturing into here, but
what the hell :)

I tried driving it at 5BTDC with the stabilizer disconnected, and it
ran pretty good.  Not even a hint of pinging on a steep hill running
89 octane gas -- I used to time my '76 Scirocco by advancing till I
got a little ping under heavy acceleration then backing it off a few
degrees.   But 14BTDC sounds like really far advanced.

This is a CA car and I will have to pass emissions (if the engine
doesn't blow up before then).   How does advanced timing affect that?