Quote:
Originally Posted by Russ/40
Is the opinion the duration is 248 vs 260 due to the .014" lash? It seems logical to me. In any case, is the deviation from 260 durationan issue responsible for the extreme static advance I see at idle (.025*)?
I'm trying hard to follow all the observations and to make sense of it all.
Bill, I find your comment of using an indicator to track the followers from inside the valley interesting, but not practical, as I can't imagine accomplishing that with the heads on. That would be the parallel of how it would be done on an overhead valve engine. The lash compensation with a shim or lifter adjustment sounds reasonable to me. , It's a lot more correct the overriding concern which is making the engine run reasonably well. Remember the cam ran well before in a different engine with different crank and cam gears.
You guys are great, sharing your knowledge with me, and I am learning a lot about cam timing. I think I'm close to the next thing that I must do to solve the problem, and that I think is to retard the cam. Should I recheck everything with zero lash at this point or would It be reasonable to back the cam. Off one tooth now?
|
Russ ' It's a lot more practical than retarding a cam when you don't know where it's at! You don't know for sure that it is a cam timing problem.
You should find out where you're at before you start retarding the cam.
Better verify the cam is timed wrong before you change it.
Bill