Author Topic: 440 6 pack performance  (Read 9205 times)

Offline noschevys

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 174
440 6 pack performance
« on: September 15, 2008 - 09:00:31 PM »
Here is the story.  If the car is at idle in drive about 850 rpm and I nail the gas the car will hesitate a little, than take off and chirp 2nd than next thing you know it is over 100 mph.  If I powerbrake it to about 1500 rpm and nail it it burns rubber until it hits second.  My question is shouldn't it burn the tires from and idle?

Here is my setup:  440 6 pack, 727 with shift kit and 3500 stall converter and 3.23 gears in the rear, FBO ognition setup, w 14 initial and 34 total at 3100 rpm vac advance hookup up to manifold vacuum, mopar purple camshaft and stock heads.  Carbs setup as follows: front outboard with quick fuel plates at 78 /78 and mix. screws out 5/8 turns and tall yellow diaprham spring, center carb with 69 jets, 2 turns out on the mixture, 6.5 pv, red cam in #1 with 35 squirter, rear carb with 80 / 75 jets,5/8 turns on the mixture screws and a tall yellow spring.  The car has 17" hg at idle in drive with a rock steady needle.  The afr at cruise rpm 2200 is 12.9.  I tried every cam and squirter combo(28,31,32 and 35) and they really don't make a difference.

Is this the way this combo should run or is something a miss?




Offline 422STROKER

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 5386
  • Member Since 6/3/06
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #1 on: September 15, 2008 - 09:34:49 PM »
Manifold vacuum, not sure if it matters but if you are really using manifold vac that could be it?  Did you try ported vacuum?

Tom

 :dunno:
Tom
12.77 @ 108.87 15" Street Drag radial tires 3.23 gear

Offline AMXguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #2 on: September 15, 2008 - 09:45:12 PM »
Manifold vacuum is correct, if I run ported I'll knock like crazy.  I'm running the FBO system on my six pack and until I did i couldn't get it to run right.

 my only guess is your outboards aren't coming in fast enough, or maybe too fast? I have a 4 speed so I can't directly indenyify with your situation but I can break the tires loose at less than 3500 rpm for sure.
1970 R/T SE Challenger
 1970 Superbee
 1969 S code Mach 1
 1967  GTO

Offline noschevys

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #3 on: September 15, 2008 - 09:55:45 PM »
I tried all the differnt springs, and anything lighter than the tall yellow and the car bogs.

Offline 422STROKER

  • Sr. Resident
  • ******
  • Posts: 5386
  • Member Since 6/3/06
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #4 on: September 15, 2008 - 09:58:31 PM »
I thought manifold vac was only present at idle/off idle?  Makes no sense to me that ported would affect a WOT since there would be no(low)vacuum at wot to affect timing and allow normal full advance at the spring rate.

Tom
Tom
12.77 @ 108.87 15" Street Drag radial tires 3.23 gear

Offline AMXguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #5 on: September 16, 2008 - 12:47:07 AM »
That's the whole idea, vacuum at idle and under light loads then dump it when you don't want it at WOT.

 I tried everything with my mechanical and initial on my 440 and from 1800-2800 rpm under heavy load it knocked like crazy, hooked my vacuum advance up to manifold vac and retarded my initial back and no more problems. great power and 14.3 mpg with a  440 six pack.
 
I have a geat article on this matter of manifold vs ported vac advance if anyone ever wants to read it, ported vacuum came in with the smog era and most guys don't know any different.
1970 R/T SE Challenger
 1970 Superbee
 1969 S code Mach 1
 1967  GTO

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #6 on: September 16, 2008 - 03:30:04 AM »
I would disconnect the vacuum advance completely pull in more initial timing & I bet the power will be there , hooking the dist to manifold vacuum amkes no sense to me & doesn`t work on my planet , having full advance at idle & retarding with rpm makes my engines overheat meanwhile the mechanical advance is going the other way so the vacuum is retarding the timing while the mechanical is advancing shortening the curve to little or nothing , as I said everytime I try this the engine overheats & the milage goes to nothing , I have no clue how you are making this work

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t

Offline Roppa440

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 501
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #7 on: September 16, 2008 - 08:54:08 AM »
Don at FBO swears by the manifold vacuum trick and advises all his customers to do it that way.

However it makes no sense to me either because as Chryco says you have mechanical advance going one way and vacuum advance going the other at the same time.

Don's big thing was always tons of initial advance to clean up the idle quality. Fair enough. But I think he uses too much initial at times. He talks about doing a "kick back test" (the advance where the engine starts to kick back on the starter) to find how much initial advance you need.

But I know of two people that have suffered broken starter motors and I am convinced it is due to too much initial advance as reccommended by Don.

Recently he has also being telling people to add more idle timing by using manifold vac timing. It seems more is better in Dons book.

I am of the old "ported vacuum" school where you stick in just enough inital to get the idle nice (around 14-18 degrees) and only about 10-15 degrees max on the ported vac can or no vac can at all.
Dave
1970 Challenger R/T
1997 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #8 on: September 16, 2008 - 11:27:04 AM »
I agree with lots of initial timing , it works , I just don`t use the vacuum to remove timing curve

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t

Offline Moparal

  • Permanent Resident
  • *******
  • Posts: 13085
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #9 on: September 16, 2008 - 12:47:53 PM »
As I recall, I think chevy vacuum advances always have a vacuum on them. Or so it seems going by memory. I am with Chryco on this post as well

Offline AMXguy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1035
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #10 on: September 16, 2008 - 01:06:46 PM »
But you do get your vacuum back at partial thottle operation, the only time your vav advance isn't doing anything is under heavy looad or WOT which is when you want to back off your timing.

 It works and makes perfect sense to me but maybe I'm backwards. I can't find the original article right now but anyone who's interested google" timing and vacuum advance 101 " and you'll find a bunch of sites with the gist of it. it works for me on all 3 of my cars.
1970 R/T SE Challenger
 1970 Superbee
 1969 S code Mach 1
 1967  GTO

Offline Supercuda

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 534
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #11 on: September 16, 2008 - 07:08:34 PM »
The way that Chrysler set them up has always been correct, and the fix for a GM with poor cruise performance, or poor fuel economy, has always been to remove the vacuum hose from the manifold source, and attach it to a ported source. If this setup does not work on your application, there is a problem with the way it was set up  in the first place. Another feature of the Chrysler distributor that has made an appearance on GM distributors, is the adjustable vacuum advance. If the engine has too much advance during part-throttle cruise, then the vacuum advance needs to be either slowed down (via more spring tension in the can), or limited (generally by using a different can, with less advance available). Vacuum has been ported on Chrysler for a long time, and not just since the "smog era". There is a reason for this, and it had nothing to do with emissions. It was always about fuel economy and driveability. If you need more initial advance, then dial it in on the distributor body, and not in the vacuum advance. The mechanical timing curve is always going to need adjustment from a tame setting (factory) to a wilder one, when more performance is desired. This usually involves bringing the curve on earlier, and sometimes also involves increasing the limits. That there is a problem with too much advance, leading to detonation under light load, means that  the vacuum advance needs to change, not the way it is controlled. For a time, I even used a part on my 383 that came off a Ford vehicle, or can also be found on many 80's Chrysler FWD cars. A delay valve can also be used in the vacuum line to the distributor, to stop vacuum from being applied as soon. I found it very helpful, as it helped my car live on some really crappy fuel. By the way, how is the fuel quality for these cars that are running their distributors all wrong? I have found many problems associated with poor fuel quality, though not to the extent that Chrysler feels they are. Timing a vehicle to the maximum amount possible before "kickback" is not a good idea, ever. If one is looking for the most timing their engine will tolerate, there is an old trick that has always worked. With the engine at idle, attach a vacuum gauge to the engine at the manifold, and advance timing until no increase in manifold vacuum can be achieved; then, turn the distributor back 2 inches of vacuum, and test-drive the vehicle. If the engine detonates, retard the distributor an additional 2 degrees; test-drive again, and continue to modify timing until the best balance of performance and detonation tolerance is found. If you can't seem to get the timing to a good place, it may be that you need better fuel.

Offline noschevys

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #12 on: September 16, 2008 - 08:33:57 PM »
Thanks for all the info.  It does not seem to be a timing issue.  I put a 42 squirter in with the holley screw with the hole in it and wow what a difference.  From a standing idle it spins the tires, and from powerbraking at 1800 it starts to spin the tires, and when I let of the brake and mash the gas it goes sideways and spins iall the way up to and into second.  However, it seems to emit a tiny puff  of black smoke when revving the gas in park so I am going to lean down the jets in the center carb from 68s to 66s and also change the pv to 75 ilo 65 so it opens earlier.  Any thoughts?

Offline Chryco Psycho

  • Administrator
  • C-C.com Guru
  • *****
  • Posts: 36620
  • 70 Challenger R/T SE 70 tube Chassis Cuda now sold
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #13 on: September 17, 2008 - 01:20:44 AM »
68 would seem to be too rich but changing jets will not stop the puf as the throttle is opened make sure you do not go too lean , the plugs should be orange below the center electrode
 a 6.5 " PV will open later as it take more vacuum drop before the spring overcomes the vacuum , what is you vacuum reading at idle in gear , the PV should be 1" or more lower rated than the vacuum reading you get

Challenger - You`ll wish You Hadn`t

Offline noschevys

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 174
Re: 440 6 pack performance
« Reply #14 on: September 17, 2008 - 06:20:02 AM »
Vacuum at idle (800 rpm) in drive is 16.5" with a very steady needle.  In park it is 21"