02-07-2020, 03:19 AM
(02-07-2020, 03:11 AM)m in sc_imp Wrote: well, I don't run cheap fuel, that's for sure. everything gets premium except the modern suv. and it definitely affects my older cars and bikes. I certainly do not run stock timing numbers, even on my stock (ish) 6-cyl 62 falcon. Thats the difference between tuned and maintained.
this is how important timing is. On a stock motored 73 kawasaki S2, i put on a dynamic timing control module, tuned in a curve and with NO PORTING put down 59 RWHP with a 45 degree power curve on the dyno graph. Chambers, timing, and jetting, thats it. the timing was the key. out of a 347 cc aircooled motor. Prior i was in the mid to high 40s at the rear wheel. I could go on and on, but i think my 'point' has been made.
No, what is your point?
I am recommending optimizing timing over stock (when feasible) and it seems that you are, also. So, what is the disagreement?
(02-07-2020, 03:11 AM)m in sc_imp Wrote: well, I don't run cheap fuel, that's for sure. everything gets premium except the modern suv. and it definitely affects my older cars and bikes. I certainly do not run stock timing numbers, even on my stock (ish) 6-cyl 62 falcon. Thats the difference between tuned and maintained.
this is how important timing is. On a stock motored 73 kawasaki S2, i put on a dynamic timing control module, tuned in a curve and with NO PORTING put down 59 RWHP with a 45 degree power curve on the dyno graph. Chambers, timing, and jetting, thats it. the timing was the key. out of a 347 cc aircooled motor. Prior i was in the mid to high 40s at the rear wheel. I could go on and on, but i think my 'point' has been made.
Sometimes there is not much choice.
Stovepipe Wells in Death Valley only sells 87 octane.
If timing is optimized for performance/fuel economy, it may need to be backed off, although at close to sea level, it may be OK.