Giving Up On Vacuum Advance Options

[Ansbacher]

Car = '74 2.0 Liter, Dual Dellorto Carbs

For years I have been 'adequately" running an 009 mechanical only distributor. Finally took the pervasive advice out there to go with a vacuum advance dizzy from a 1.8L 914. Since only one of my Dellorto carbs had an existing vacuum port (ported type), I had to drill a port in my other one (no problem there). I used good quality anti-pulse valves in the lines and measured a maximum vacuum of 12 inches of mercury with partial throttle.

Installed the 1.8 dizzy and set the timing, first without the vacuum lines attached. To satisfy my usual 30-32 degrees at 3500 RPM, the idle timing had to be at about 5-6 degrees (quite low for my setup which is happier at about 10 degrees. When I attached the vacuum lines my timing at 3500 RPM went sky high into the 40s. This seems way too high. Is this normal? Overall, I found the car to run better without the vacuum attached and the carbs plugged off.

Am I doing something wrong here? I don't like the numbers I am getting. Everyone said this was the way to go with carbs, but I am not seeing results. Advice appreciated.

Ansbacher

[Ansbacher]

Answers to some questions posed of me:

Yes, I am using lines from BOTH carbs with a T-fitting to the vacuum pot. I have anti-pulse valves on BOTH lines in close proximity to the carbs. I tried a single valve but still got a pulse on the vacuum gauge. Using two, smoothed it out.

No, I have not checked the curve of the dizzy, and wouldn't know how to do it anyway. I am leaning toward the suggestion that I have worn out springs in the distributor. Is it hard to replace them?

Ansbacher