Its a timing question

zwhitr

Founding Member
Aug 26, 2001
847
0
16
Goldsboro, NC
This one baffles me.

It just got finished installing a MSD 6AL and used the magnetic pickup on a stock dist to fire it.

The problems is I decided to check my timing and it was 10 degress ATDC so i set it on 10 BTDC and it would barely run spark knock surging above 2000 rpms.





so my questions are

1. why is my timing off or apear off cause the car runs great after setting it back down but still very hard to start even kicksback while starting

2. Is it possible I have valve timing issues.

3. I recently replaced the dist pickup disrupter (the spur looking thing)and last summer replaced the balancer.--possible culprit not indicating correct timming
 
  • Sponsors (?)


zwhitr said:
come on guys/girls no help for the weary.

ps my starter is starting to sound bad again after sounding so good for a few months :bang:

Z-man I would confirm the marks on the balancer. Take #1 plug out and rotate the engine by hand and make sure Top dead center is....ur Top dead center. If top dead center is not correct Mr. Gasket has timming tape that you can re-mark the balancer. As a bonus it is really easy to read....until it flies off anyway. Another thing to check is the wires are connected properly to the distributor. I know the MSD distributor will work if wired up backwards, but the timming will be all wacky. MSD warns you of this in the distructions. Since the MSD distributor has a pick up that looks very much like a Duraspark P/U, it would stand to reason it would be possible to hook it up backwards also. :shrug: :shrug:

Good luck dude, I owe you one for the strut rod cross member bushing P/N (thanks again) :D
 
Northern J II said:
Z-man MSD has a kick ass tech line 915 855 7123 and they actually return
e-mails too.

[email protected]

There internet sight is pretty good too

www.msdignition.com

My Boss would have a *&%$ promoting MSD on Stangnet while getting paid to sell Crane :rlaugh: :lol:


Thanks J
I actually did email them their response was "the hookup with the least amount of advance is the correct one". I tried both mine was correct plus I knew mine was right anway I wouln't risk blowing an almost $200 dollar box. Because I RTFM WROTFLMAO

It sure looks cool even it don't do anything:bs: The first thing I did was put a 3000 chip in their for fun
what spark gap do you recommend I'm at .050 right now

Glad to hear about the bushing P/N The funny thing is when I bought my bushing I told the guy what I was going to do with it. He had two resonses one was "You might as well not even put that bushing on after you cut it" I laughed knowing the condition of mine. Then he said something like "aint no way your gonna buy a bushing for your car that wasn't made for it." I made a liar out of him that day ( Another victory for the II)
Did you install it yet. Shoot me an email if you need help
 
zwhitr said:
This one baffles me.


3. last summer replaced the balancer.--possible culprit not indicating correct timming

Well I think i found it looks like the balancer even though correctly balanced not correctly aligned bought from martel bros 60.00 bux

Ignition timing marks way off look like a timing tape is in the works
10 degrees advanced is more like 40 degrees advanced
 
zwhitr said:
Thanks J
I actually did email them their response was "the hookup with the least amount of advance is the correct one". I tried both mine was correct plus I knew mine was right anway I wouln't risk blowing an almost $200 dollar box. Because I RTFM WROTFLMAO

It sure looks cool even it don't do anything:bs: The first thing I did was put a 3000 chip in their for fun
what spark gap do you recommend I'm at .050 right now

.050 sounds perfect, I am running .045 for nitrous safety sake. I have not put the strut rod crossmember bushings in yet. On one hand I can't wait to rip the Mach apart and play with it, on the other hand the weather is still holding so why not drive it?? Who needs 2nd gear and a car that does not sound like a shopping cart anyhow??
 
77sleeper said:
sounds like the isolator spun, be careful using it

I thought that too but it would have spun forward and not backward naah

I bought another balancer from advanced auto marks are in the same place and so is the counter weight in relation to the key.

Do the II have a II specific balancer with the timming marks located @ the 10:00 position rather than on top

with my engine at TDC checked with crank and positive stop method my pointer points to a position 30 degrees to the left of the original marks need a pic here
 

Attachments

  • NEWBALKEY.JPG
    NEWBALKEY.JPG
    10.5 KB · Views: 152
  • NEWBALTDC.JPG
    NEWBALTDC.JPG
    17 KB · Views: 160
As a matter of fact, yes, the Mustang II does have a particular balancer that must be used with the corresponsing pointer. They are D5ZE part numbers. (don't have my partnumbers in front of me) The easiest way to solve the problem is get a different pointer - a non **ZE part number. I think the typical common engine parts were **OE numbers. You'll need to stick to just the 302 as the 289's pointer is on the opposite side.
 
Dano78 said:
As a matter of fact, yes, the Mustang II does have a particular balancer that must be used with the corresponsing pointer. They are D5ZE part numbers. (don't have my partnumbers in front of me) The easiest way to solve the problem is get a different pointer - a non **ZE part number. I think the typical common engine parts were **OE numbers. You'll need to stick to just the 302 as the 289's pointer is on the opposite side.



Damn, Dano, you left the secret out.

There are right side/ left side ballencers where the only real difference is where the marks are on the ring, and each must be used with the correct right side/ left side indicator.

I'm not sure if the II was the only SBF to use that particular pointer and dampener, ...later
 
Oops! Dang it! :bang: :D

Yeah Actually there are 3 different COMMON 289/302 balancers out there. All using corresponding pointers.
There is the 289 balancer which is kinda thin looking and uses a pointer that is casted into the timing cover on the LH (driver's) side of the engine or the later '66-'67 pointers were removable and was held in on one end with a sheetmetal screw in a boss in teh cover and the other end with a front cover mounting bolt. The dampner itself only uses a 3-bolt lower pulley and requires the use ot he earlier waterpump which exits the RH (passenger) side of the engine. There were 2 different RH exit waterpumps used on the 289.
After the 289 Balancer is the early 302 balancer. Used from '68-'74 is has the same 'thin' appearance as the 289 balancer. What I mean buy thin is the thickness of the dampening ring. If you set a '75 302 balancer next to a '71 302 or any 289 balancer, you'll see what i'm talking about. All the 302's used a 4 bolt lower pulley. And can be interchanged with an other 302, except..... the Mustang II pulley set must be used in a 'set' only. For some unknown reason Lee and his crack team of designers found it necessary to alter the 'offset' (like on a car wheel) i think it's like 3/8". Lord (and Lee) are the only ones who know WHY they did this. Anyhow the '68-'74 balancer has a timing pointer specific to its own. It mounts on the RH side (pass) and is held on the front cover with two of the front cover bolts.
Now- the '75-up balancers kinda 'porked' out, like the fullsize cars themselves. The balancer is thicker making it larger and heavier than the others. (i weighed each balancer and have the info SOMEwhere around here) It's still a 4 bolt pulley and the timing pointer is still on the RH side...BUT... it is located slightly in a different spot and requires it's corresponding pointer. The pointer for this balancer bolts on at BOTH ends via front cover bolts.
Now here's where it gets tricky.... Like Wart, i too thought all post-74 balancers were created equal.... not so... and again, for SOME reason, a special balancer and timing pointer was created for the use in the Mustang Ii V8. No kidding. Easily identified by the D5ZE part number on both the balancer and the pointer. The normal 75-up pointer doesn't have a part number on it at all..... to my knowlege. The balancer, however will most likely have a D5OE part number.

I found all this out when building my last couple of engines. Trying to use a common post-74 pointer on a MII balancer... they were close to lining up at TDC but were off, if I remember right, about 10* or so. On my engine in my Fastback, i'm using all '70 302 pulleys, balancer and bracketry all of which is single groove V-belt running just the alternator and waterpump. (I have no PS)

Oh man , yeah Wart, I sat there in the shop thinking... "What the **** ... what was Ford THINKING on this thing..." Took me a bit to gather what the heck was going on.

You're lucky.... I found one of the pics. The one on the right is a 75-up balancer and also looks like the MII balancer. The one on the left is for '68-'74 302's. The 289 one is similiar.
 
Here's a pic of three different pointers used on the 302. I didn't have a common 75-up pointer to show you, just the Mustang II specific one.

And WHAT do I do in my SPARE time??? HA! What spare time... :nonono:
 
Wart said:
Damn, Dano, you left the secret out.

There are right side/ left side ballencers where the only real difference is where the marks are on the ring, and each must be used with the correct right side/ left side indicator.

I'm not sure if the II was the only SBF to use that particular pointer and dampener, ...later


Thanks wart and dano thats what I was hoping so my engine is in balance just need to remark my balancer or get a different pointer.

D-- which balancer is better for performance the 9 or the 10 pounder both should have the same counter balance right probably the lighter one less spun weight
 
I chose the lighter one myself, just for the simple fact to make it wind up faster. Yes, both are the exact same balance. Only caution would be if you had your rotation assembly pro-balanced and a whole unit, there is a possibility that shancing the balancers may take it out of 'True' balance. Just remember to get the corresponding pointer for that balancer.

I'd still doubble check your balancer with one alike (or the correct pointer on your engine) so you can decide to shelf ot toss the one in question. Spun counterweights on SBFs are less common than say on a SBC which eats balancers quite frequently.
 
Dano78 said:
I chose the lighter one myself, just for the simple fact to make it wind up faster. Yes, both are the exact same balance. Only caution would be if you had your rotation assembly pro-balanced and a whole unit, there is a possibility that shancing the balancers may take it out of 'True' balance. Just remember to get the corresponding pointer for that balancer.

I'd still doubble check your balancer with one alike (or the correct pointer on your engine) so you can decide to shelf ot toss the one in question. Spun counterweights on SBFs are less common than say on a SBC which eats balancers quite frequently.


I have both notice the position of the marks

the old one is 2 years old from martel bros I bought it and replaced the ford one that had a cracked keyway I have had 3 now
and the new one is from advance
both marks are in the same place in relation to the keyway
the mark on the left is where it points when TDC
 

Attachments

  • OLDBALKEY.JPG
    OLDBALKEY.JPG
    14.7 KB · Views: 119
  • OLDBALTDC.JPG
    OLDBALTDC.JPG
    12.4 KB · Views: 130
Wart said:
I'm not sure if the II was the only SBF to use that particular pointer and dampener, ...later


So much for the O'l Lady needing me NOW (then).

Dano gave you lots more info than I think I could, I have moved several times since I had a collection of ballancers and that cast iron can only follow for so many moves.

I think some applications of '69 had a 3 bolt ballancer. I remember having a set of Ford underdrive pullies I couldn't swap to a new(er) engine. Man, that irked me.

What's interesting is, in days of Yore with the factory cam chain and gears, timing marks were academic. Oh Hell, why stop there ... unless someone was sinking money into the valve train the use of a timing light was a curiosity. Not only were the cam chains sloppy the valve train geometry was a joke and the cams were made of a material closer to pot metal than iron. Sometimes change is good.

Use to be the only way to set a factory Fords timing was the roll on the throttle method.

Good stuff, Dano. I think we are in agreement with the statement that: go far enough back in Fords and parts use can become more speculation than fact. Hell, I have a '70 351C here, there were 2 ballancers used, a High Performance and a 'normal', I have hte High Perf one but what I've gathered from other sources is both types found their way to 4bbl C's. Go figure.
 
Forgot to state: If you've put money into the valve train, and even if you havent, it's a good idea to replace the distributor armature with an aftermarket unit. The factory armature is known to be degrees off.