The vacuum and centrifugal advance curves are designed to work with the
specified initial advance, so using the factory specs for a factory engine
is obviously the right thing to do.

With older engines, I prefer to use an advance timing light to set the total
advance at the specified RPM and let the initial timing be an inferred
consequence, worn parts and all.

Too much total timing is the only thing I'm worried about.

It works for me.

On 10/30/07, Geza Polony <gezapolony@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> Folks, volks,
>
> Correct if wrong, but conventional wisdom says VWOA specified ATDC timing
> in
> the early 1980s ONLY to meet pollution control standards. Is that right?
>
> It then follows that we can run these engines at other settings without
> any
> harm, and perhaps more power, if we don't care about destroying the only
> environment we have and causing mass extinction in an apocalyptic heat
> wave
> combined with unending hurricanes and general annihilation.
>
> OK, that means we can run our waterboxers at TDC, 5 BTDC, or even more, to
> good effect, except for the minor environmental probs mentioned.
>
> What I want to know is: who here are running at TDC or BTDC? How long have
> you been doing it? Has there been any identifiable engine damage? Better
> power? Better or worse fuel economy?
>
> I ran my 1.9 at around 5 BTDC before I got chicken and set it back to
> ATDC.
> It's less peppy, but there isn't really a huge amount of difference. I had
> an idea in my head that I'd burning a piston or a valve and didn't want to
> risk it. Is that right?
>
> Anybody been running BTDC for years and years?
>
> thanks
>
>
> Geza
>

--
Jake
1984 Vanagon GL
1986 Westy Weekender "Dixie"
www.crescentbeachguitar.com
http://subyjake.googlepages.com/