triumphs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TR] Vacuum advance/retard

To: <jimmuller@rcn.com>, <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Subject: Re: [TR] Vacuum advance/retard
From: "Joe Curry" <spitlist@cox.net>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 13:32:31 -0700
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Jim Muller" <jimmuller@rcn.com>
To: <triumphs@autox.team.net>
Sent: Thursday, December 20, 2007 1:07 PM
Subject: Re: [TR] Vacuum advance/retard


> Which that's some of wot I said in my first note, now didn't I?  The
> trimming process left out the description of why bigger engines had
> VA but little Spitfire engines didn't.

Jim,
Talking generalities can get you into trouble.  Your 1980 Spitfire didn't
have vacuum advance but my 1963 certainly did.  The changeover from advance
to retard seems to have come at the time when emissions standards came into
being (1968 I think).  As has already been stated, retarding the timing at
idle seems to lower the emissions.

Joe C.
_______________________________________________

Support Team.Net  http://www.team.net/donate.html

This list supported in part by the Vintage Triumph Register
http://www.vtr.org


Triumphs@autox.team.net
http://autox.team.net/mailman/listinfo/triumphs

http://www.team.net/archive

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>