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

[914_teener]

Ok....I'm an EFI guy so for carbs it's the way back machine for me.

So, stupid question (mine) with your first post and subsequent ones in mind...forget about EFI better or not.

Stupid question:

When you say you are using "ported" vacuum, where in relationship to the throttle plate is that that port, look at a side view of the carb?

[72hardtop]

Ok....I'm an EFI guy so for carbs it's the way back machine for me.

So, stupid question (mine) with your first post and subsequent ones in mind...forget about EFI better or not.

Stupid question:

When you say you are using "ported" vacuum, where in relationship to the throttle plate is that that port, look at a side view of the carb?

Above the throttle plate. You should have zero vacuum with the throttle closed.