Logo
FULL SITE MENU

Timing a 318

greasemonkey said:
Rick, these boys are having a field day with your buttocks
Click to expand...
Oh I'm sure that a few are.
But by day's end, wouldn't it be best if Mr. Jfreeman actually received some help for his issue?

Why have you not chimed in and offered some useful help?
Or are you going to pile onto the unhelpful heep as well, just as you do elsewhere?

.
 
Last edited:
RicardoMarine said:
The JJ suggested the digitally advancing timing light, but we still don't have any useful TA numbers for the 318 engine.
It becomes moot until then.
Click to expand...


You're wrong again. I suggested the use of digitally advancing timing light to set BASE timing BECAUSE he can't locate a timing tab. How is he supposed to determine 5* BTDC without a tab? You need a digital light in order to use the TDC mark on the flywheel and bellhousing.

You're so obsessed with TA numbers that you infected this thread with it. That's why no one likes you man.


-JJ
 
JJ, I do understand that we don't need a pointer in order to see any ignition spark event with this style timing light.... including seeing the progressive as RPM is increased.
However, if we don't know what Chrysler's 318 engine TA specs are, all we can do is set BASE, and watch the progressive.
We can even plot out the viewed progressive, but there's nothing to compare it to without the OEM specs.


Many of these mechanically advancing marine ignition distributors that are discussed here, are 20, 25 and even 30 years old by now.
They've spent their lives in a marine environment.
Rusty flyweights and rusty flyweight returns springs become compromised.
When the return springs become compromised, they loose spring tension... they don't gain spring tension.
When they loose spring tension, the advance comes on too early, not too late (baring that the flyweights are still free to move).

What are you going to tell an owner if you were to set a BASE of 5* and see an advance of 28* @ 2k RPM?
(you and I both know that this is a recipe for detonation)

Or.... if you were to set a BASE of 5* and see an advance of 15* @ 3k RPM?
(you and I both know what this does for performance)

Are you going to send them out the door...... or are you going to start looking for OEM specs, and make the necessary corrections?

Perhaps I give more importance to Marine load detonation potential, LPCP and Marine ignition TA than the average Joe does.

Edit:
Let me ask you a serious, non-combative, non-argumentative question.
If you fully understand (and I'm sure that you do) how important it is that your 1000 HP High Performance engine is given the correct BASE advance, the correct progressive advance, and the correct TA...... then why is it not equally important for this little over-worked-as-it-is 318 Chrysler engine, as to also be given the correct timing advance throughout it's RPM range?

And who knows better what this should be than the Chrysler Marine Corp...... but no where can this be found as of yet... and I sure wish that we could be found.



BTW, it was Tahoerover who mentioned "sub par reading and comprehension".
Perhaps a few of us are having the same issue today.


.
 
Last edited:
RicardoMarine said:
Absolutely ZERO in Jfreeman's 318 Chrysler engine thread.
Is it possible to stay on task here for the sake of Mr. Jfreeman..... or do the two of you wish to take his thread further into the toilet?

And BTW, there is no mention of the 1k hp engine in post #49. So I'll ask.... just who is having an issue with sub par reading comprehension?


I'm sorry.... I don't normally become rude on these forums.... but you two seem to desire this on some level... and I don't quite understand that.
Mr. Jfreeman, I'm sorry for the disruption of your thread here... it's totally uncalled for, and is out of line.


********************************************

I am not upset nor angry either.... it's just a cyber conversation... nothing more than that.

Let's summarize this:

First... Jfreeman's thread (the one that we are reading) is regarding his 318 cu in Chrysler V-8 Marine engine. He has not been able to locate useful timing indexing marks.

Then incorrect ignition specs were posted for this 318 Chrysler engine thread. No harm/no foul.... we caught it.

The JJ suggested the digitally advancing timing light, but we still don't have any useful TA numbers for the 318 engine.
It becomes moot until then.

Then we clarified what 5* BTDC meant.

The the PDF file was posted, but lead to a dead end. No TA numbers again.

We were then referred back to post #15.... again, a dead end.

Then I said; "We can't make a curve from those numbers.... been there/done that!"

It was then suggested to: "Adjust your idle to 500-600 rpm and set your timing to 5* BDTC. That's your base timing.
When you're done, adjust your idle back to 750-850 rpm."
That's all great.... but what do we do without a TA spec?


Then it was asked; "why can't you make a curve?"
If anyone can make a successful and useable curve from those numbers, you're a better man than I am.
I've plotted them out, and they do not work for me!

I followed that with: "It's possible that I made a mistake when I plotted this out.
If anyone wants to take another shot at it, by all means please do."
No one has done so yet!


I then explained what occurs when a distributor goes bad... flyweights, springs, etc.
No challenges, so apparently we were all in agreement.


I then explained detonation for Jfreeman.


Then I explained why I am reluctant to use a digitally advancing timing light for Marine....yada yada yada, and so on.


Posts #29 and #30, JJ gets a bit nippy with me as though I'm trying to tell him how to do this.... and IMO, looses complete sight of this being a forum.


Then Woodie chimes in..... and I'll tell you, Woodie knows what he's talking about.
But you two can pay little attention to Woodie if you choose to. I know his experience level.


Post #34 I took the time to explain just why ignition timing is so important, but it appears as though it was futile to JJ..., in fact causing him to become upset over it as though I gravely underestimated his level of experience.
There was no implication to that affect what so ever. Conjectur!

BTW, Mr. Jfreeman has been a gentleman throughout the thread, and I want to help him, not turn his thread into a pissing match as apparently two members do.

I used a full disclaimer in post #45 as to ease the Nah Sayers a bit, and I did so politely.


I received a nice sarcastic response in post #47.

And not necessarily in order here, but it was mentioned that here on ME.com, no one has been able to successfully find OEM Chrysler Marine Corp ignition timing specs for this engine... other than BASE advance numbers.
Would it be safe to assume that we'd all like to see these numbers if they are available???? I sure would!



I then suggested viewing ignition timing in Real Degrees/Real Time using a standard timing light and fully marked off timing degrees, -vs- using the algorithm of a digitally advancing timing light.
This is my preference and an opinion ONLY........ Not marching instructions for anyone.... Sheesh!


Somewhere in the mix, I suggested against haphazardly changing flyweight springs without knowing fully what we are doing.
I think that it was also suggested that TA be checked, regardless of what an owner thinks his system is doing.
That can't be bad advice, can it?


So where is the issue that you are having?
Was my delivery not gentle enough for forum use?
Was I not simply sharing my experience, and as a suggestion ONLY?

**********************************************

Look, let's cut to the chase here. Wouldn't it be better for Jfreeman if his thread could remain on task, and that we could actually help him?
Instead of bickering back and forth over ideas and suggestions that are completely personal and opinions ONLY...., let's be grown ups, and offer the guy some real help.
If a member has nothing constructive to add to Jfreeman's thread, perhaps it would be best if these people were to bow out.

That is an Opinion ONLY!


.
Click to expand...

You didn't answer the question and figured baffling them with BS would be the best bet. Since your such closed minded chebby boy, I will spoon feed you. A MSD distributor can be modified to meet USCG specs. it would be the third option to the Mallory or Pertronix.
 
Did my comprehension of the English language take a wrong turn recently or are we actually debating/disputing the importance of TA? Just want to make sure I'm still all there!
 
I think I understand the importance , I just want to know how to address the timing issue, so the engine will R up and operate the way it should. Can someone please instruct me the steps I should take in order to do so. Thanks
 
WoodieMan said:
Did my comprehension of the English language take a wrong turn recently or are we actually debating/disputing the importance of TA? Just want to make sure I'm still all there!
Click to expand...
Nope.... you are OK, Woodie! :D

Jfreeman1412 said:
I think I understand the importance , I just want to know how to address the timing issue, so the engine will R up and operate the way it should. Can someone please instruct me the steps I should take in order to do so. Thanks
Click to expand...
Jfreeman, I have a question first.... is this the original 1973 Chrysler Marine mechanical advance VR type ignition distributor?
If so, this is almost 40 years old.
I'd not expect too much from it, but it's certainly worth testing.

In my opinion, and with the group's permission, I believe that you have several choices.

1... throw either style timing light on #1 spark plug wire, see if you can at least strobe the mark in the balancer, and while referencing the strobed marking (I know... you do not have a tab or pointer) and as you increase RPM, see if it climbs towards Stbd. (Std LH Rotation engine)
This is test only to see if you have any advance occuring at all.

2.... throw a digitally advancing timing light on #1 spark plug wire, and adjust the timing light as you increase RPM, see if you can read any progressive advance.
Again, this is test only to see if you have any advance occuring at all.

3..... pull the distributor, and send it to a shop who can run it on a machine, and plot out whatever curve it offers.
However, in order for them to do any changes, they'll need the non-existant OEM curve.
Back to square 1 as I mentioned earlier.

4... repeat # 2, and plot out what you see @ 1k, 1.5k, 2k, 2.5k, 3k and 3.5K rpm....... and post it here.
The worst that we could do, would be to tell you, NO.... do not use it as is.... or..... YES, you may be safe to use it as is!
You have nothing to loose by at least checking it.

5.... replace the distributor with an OEM replacement (VR, photo eye, Hall Effect, or ????), set BASE advance, give it a TA check, and if reasonable enjoy your engine.

None of us can be more specific until we see an OEM spec for this.


.
 
Last edited:
That's MSD's 'Timing Curve from factory' chart not Chrysler's..... sorry

.....but it doesn't look too far of from what I'm reading.

Jack
 
throw a digitally advancing timing light on #1 spark plug wire, and adjust the timing light as you increase RPM, see if you can read any progressive advance.
Again, this is test only to see if you have any advance occuring at all.
Click to expand...

Will a digital advancing timing light show the degrees digitally or how will i know if i am getting any advance?
 
Jfreeman1412 said:
Will a digital advancing timing light show the degrees digitally or how will i know if i am getting any advance?
Click to expand...
YES and rpm and voltage,broke it out the other day on a buddys 350 chebby! I thought it was 500 low at 3000 and it was


You set the gun for what you think would be right which should be 22-25 degrees,rev it up hold it at 2500 adjust the gun till she hits on the mark

dont forget base is 5 before top center ,so 27-30 degrees*before top center should be all in @2300 lets say

you can make that mark on your balancer and shoot for that with a regular gun

matter of fact

chart it out at 500rpm increments go up to 3K so we can all do our own chart and get to the bottom of this pesky littlle TAT issue
 
You set the gun for what you think would be right which should be 22-25 degrees,rev it up hold it at 2500 adjust the gun till she hits on the mark

dont forget base is 5 before top center ,so 27-30 degrees*before top center should be all in @2300 lets say
Click to expand...

And this is done at the flywheel? or the balancer?
 
Jfreeman1412 said:
And this is done at the flywheel? or the balancer?
Click to expand...
most 318s have a front timing chain cover with marks you can use when YOU find #1 topdeadcenter,look closely at the flywheel when you do

on the beveled edge of the flywheel there may be the cast for the marks and this would be a better place to time because of the nice pointer

make sure your on the compressionstroke,where all the valves are closed and mr. piston is at the top,not the exhaust stroke where the ex. valve will be open to let the smokies out
 


greasemonkey said:
Jfreeman1412 said:
Will a digital advancing timing light show the degrees digitally or how will i know if i am getting any advance?
Click to expand...
You set the gun for what you think would be right which should be 22-25 degrees,rev it up hold it at 2500 adjust the gun till she hits on the mark

1.... dont forget base is 5 before top center , so 27-30 degrees*before top center should be all in @2300 lets say

you can make that mark on your balancer and shoot for that with a regular gun

2.... matter of fact chart it out at 500rpm increments go up to 3K so we can all do our own chart and get to the bottom of this pesky littlle TAT issue
Click to expand...

1.... GM, I have to disagree with you on this one.
If his 318 engine sees 27-30* BTDC @ 2.3K RPM, he'll likely detonate it!

The 318 has some simiarities with the 5.0L SBC, in that both incorporate a wedge area within the combustion chamber, both use a similar piston style, the bore and stroke are reasonably close to one another, and the expectations of each each engine are very similar.
318 ...... bore 3.910" stroke 3.310" rod length 6.123" and a 62- 65cc chamber.
5.0L ..... bore 3.740" stroke 3.480" rod length 5.700" and a 65cc chamber.

If I allowed a SBC Marine engine to see 30* @ 2,300 RPM, I can just about guarantee you that it will detonate under marine loads.
We don't typically allow for 30* until about 3,200 RPM, of which is approx 1,000 RPM difference.

2.... Now this we agree on! Very good advice! :D
Plotting this in increments of 500* will give him some meaningful numbers to look at.



Jfreeman1412 said:
And this is done at the flywheel? or the balancer?
Click to expand...
Either one if you are using the digitally advancing timing light, and if you TDC mark is accurate. There has to be a reference.

Again, this is where this thread went south either by not reading or by not comprehending.
I originally explained the use a standard light in conjuction with a fully marked off balancer. In your case, that won't work unless you establish a corresponding TDC mark that aligns with your balancer TDC mark.


.
​
 
Yeah I have one mark on the balancer but no stationary numbers up front. Kind of weird they would put the one mark on it and not put a plate or other marks there to time it off of. So my only other option is the flywheel with a digital advance light? Granted I can find a TDC mark on the bell housing?
 
kimcrwbr1 said:
You can use that mark to see if you are advancing just make a mark on the timing cover you can line the mark on the damper up to and watch the marks as you increase rpms the advance should be smooth with engine rpm gain. If you can get a good angle you can make your own scale on the damper pully using a protractor and a sharp yellow crayon, the mark on the damper being TDC go 45 degrees in both directions and mark every 5 degrees in between then you can estimate pretty close how far your dizzy is advancing from a idle to all in. Look at engine rpm when the advance stops moving.
Click to expand...
I agree! This needs to be done.


Here is a simple method for transfering full scale markings (0* to approx 30* or 35*) to a harmonic balancer when the outside diameter is known.
For accuracy, make each new mark in 5* increments using the balancer TDC mark each time.




In post #20, Tahoerover noted that the flywheel cover should offer the corresponding TDC marks for 2.5, 5, 7.5 and 10 degrees.
If this is so on YOUR engine, then this may be the better location for checking your ignition advance.
Or.... bring this flywheel mark around to TDC (does not matter which stroke it is on), and transfer a new mark at the front area that corresponds with the harmonic balancer TDC mark.

Now you'll have two options.

***********************************

BTW, Tahoerover asked me earlier why I could not make a curve from the Chrysler numbers.
During the previous "M440X timing" thread from November last year. I did attempt to plot out Chrysler's specs.... of which appear to be as goofy as the 318 specs!
Below is what the OEM 440 Chrysler specs look like when a curve is attempted to be plotted out. (blue graph line)
The heavy black line is a suggested curve for the GM Marine Engines.

(I simply over-laid this onto an existing curve in order to show the difference and the ramp up aggressiveness, of which would be dangerous, IMO)

As usual, this is showing mechanical advance only, and is minus BASE advance (at the vertical scale).


No one else bothered to do this, but you are certainly welcome to.
I'd like to see what the 318 numbers look like.


Jfreeman, we're now 77 posts into your thread. It's high time to ask you to do the work.

Throw your timing light on your engine, and strobe #1 cylinder.
Plot this out as per what Greasemonkey suggested earlier.
Post the results, and we can take it from there.

Meanwhile, if any member can come up with an OEM Chrysler Marine Corp ignition timing spec.... and I mean a useful curve (not simply BASE)....... that would be excellent! :D

.
 

Attachments

  • Degrees transfered to Harmonic Balancer.jpg
    Degrees transfered to Harmonic Balancer.jpg
    46.4 KB · Views: 9,459
  • Chrysler 440 wrong curve.jpg
    Chrysler 440 wrong curve.jpg
    92.5 KB · Views: 4,809
Ok....sounds good. Thanks for your help! I will be heading out to the boat next week. I will report back. If you think of anything else, feel free to let me know. Thanks to everyone that has helped so far.
 


As touchy as this subject has been lately, note that this is my opinion only!

daves69 said:
1/16" = 1° on a 7.25" diameter harmonic balancer if you are going to mark it off.
Click to expand...

Dave, if you know for certain that is accurate, it may work just fine. You'd certainly want to be as accurate as you could be.

However, and I'm just tossing this into the mix here....., if we were off by even a very small fraction, the error of each 1/16" increment would be multiplied times the degree increments up to our 30* or 35* markings.
IOW, for a 30* marking that would equal thirty 1/16" increments.
If we did have an error of 1/250" (for example), 30 x's a 1/250" error = 30/250" total error.
You'd have to do the math in order to see what that may equal in degrees.

I believe that we'd be better off to use a converted dimension via 10 or even 5 degree increments!
Or... do a direct transfer from a degree wheel. A degree is a degree no matter which radius or diameter.

This method below is not Goof Proof either. One could just as easily make a mistake here.




 
You're also assuming that when the balancer mark is at 12 o'clock that means TDC. I do not believe this is the case. On my engine that does have a timing tab, 0* TDC is between 1 and 2 o'clock.

-JJ
 
JJDebeers said:
You're also assuming that when the balancer mark is at 12 o'clock that means TDC. I do not believe this is the case. On my engine that does have a timing tab, 0* TDC is between 1 and 2 o'clock.
-JJ
Click to expand...
I don't know who you are addressing with the "assumption" comment!
The location of the balancer makes little difference here at this time.
Both Dave and myself are commenting on how to mark off a balancer into useable degrees, to later be used for setting and checking ignition timing.
This has nothing to do with a front cover markings yet! Later it will!

Once the balancer is marked off (Dave's method, my method, a Mr. Gasket degree decal, or ???), then we can discuss how to find true TDC, and make some meaningful and corresponding markings at the front engine cover.
Perhaps by aligning the flywheel and flywheel cover markings to TDC, and then going back to the front area.

Would you agree?

BTW, this same principle would apply to most any Marine Gasser. If we ignition time from the front, we require a TDC reference point at both the harmonic balancer (crankshaft indexing) and somewhere on the stationary front engine cover.

It does not need to be at 12:00 O'clock, nor at 2:00 O'clock , nor at XX:XX O'clock!
As long as there is a correlation between the two locations that reference # 1 cylinder TDC, we can ignition time the engine.

Would you agree here also?


.
 
Last edited:
JJDebeers said:
I think that's a great idea actually.

-JJ
Click to expand...
JJ, do you mean that the two of us actually agree on something? :D

Let me extend this to you. Seriously... I'm not being sarcastic!

cutcaster-photo-100535731-Happy-business-man-wanting-to-shake-hands-with-you.jpg
 
Kim, don't get me wrong here, I fully agree that the dial indicator method will work! When we end up with no reference at all, some sort of measures need to be applied in order to find a more true TDC for ignition timing purposes.
I've used both the dial indciator method, and the PPS procedure.

I have found the dial indicator method to be more accurate when the readings are taken at a point where the piston is further away from the end of stroke. For example; an indicator reading of .125" or so, rather than a dial indicator reading taken at only a few thousandths from the top (if I understood you).
This gives us a larger split by getting further away from the short little crankshaft angle that occurs during/near TDC.

This is done quite often using a PPS procedure with a 60 +/- degree split (30 +/- degrees each side).
When 60 +/- degrees of separation is split, we gain a larger sampling range by getting us further from the short little crankshaft angle, as I mentioned above.

IMO, both get the job done!
The PPS is actually a tad bit more accurate because we bring things to a halt as the piston contacts the "stop" in either direction!
In a rather crude sense, I guess you could say that we eliminate any slack via the positive stop!

Shoot for perfection, but know full well that we won't achieve it, and we'll still end up closer than average Joe. :D

.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top