timing a 4.3 vortec v-6 code w???
shiferbrains
best retarded what do i have to do to get it timed to zero on the
damper???? thank you
Old Crow
Be nice to know a year and model. On some trucks with that engine you
had to disconnect an electrical connector or ground a terminal in the
ALDL to disable the computer before you set the actual timing.
--
Old Crow "Yol Bolsun!"
'82 FLTC-P "Miss Pearl"
'95 YJ Rio Grande
BS#133, SENS, TOMKAT, MAMBM
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
SnoMan
wrote:
>Be nice to know a year and model. On some trucks with that engine you
>had to disconnect an electrical connector or ground a terminal in the
>ALDL to disable the computer before you set the actual timing.
Yes and some newer models cannot be even manually timed either.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
shiferbrains
4.3 votec code w engine that i cannot get timed what do i disconnect if
anything or where do i use a jumper thank you to the responses i got that
helped me to give more info and ask other questions to clerify my problem
Old Crow
I think you're referring to the EST (Electronic Spark Timing)
connector, which must be disconnected prior to setting your timing
with a timing light...
this is a single wire connector, wire is tan with a black
stripe...depending on your ignition system it is located under the
heater box inside the passenger compartment or right next to the
distributor on the firewall...
the correct timing for your truck should be located on the sticker on
top of the radiator or fan shroud...
SnoMan
wrote:
>
>I think you're referring to the EST (Electronic Spark Timing)
>connector, which must be disconnected prior to setting your timing
>with a timing light...
>
>this is a single wire connector, wire is tan with a black
>stripe...depending on your ignition system it is located under the
>heater box inside the passenger compartment or right next to the
>distributor on the firewall...
>
>the correct timing for your truck should be located on the sticker on
>top of the radiator or fan shroud...
Not sure they actually called it EST that year but they did when it
first came out on 305 around 83. I will give you a tip to wake engine
up some if you want to. When you disconnect lead mentioned above, set
timing to 4 to 6 BTDC and run 89 octane minimum are set it to 8 to 10
BTDC and use 93 and not only will it run better and will improve MPG
more than enough to offset fuel cost increase. Been doing that for
many years with my 89. If you stick with 87 it limits potentail a lot
and TDC or less base advance is about all you can ever run.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:26:26 -0500, Old Crow <walli...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >I think you're referring to the EST (Electronic Spark Timing)
> >connector, which must be disconnected prior to setting your timing
> >with a timing light...
> >
> >this is a single wire connector, wire is tan with a black
> >stripe...depending on your ignition system it is located under the
> >heater box inside the passenger compartment or right next to the
> >distributor on the firewall...
> >
> >the correct timing for your truck should be located on the sticker on
> >top of the radiator or fan shroud...
>
>
> Not sure they actually called it EST that year
Yes, GM called it EST.
> but they did when it
> first came out on 305 around 83.
Nope. 83 would have still been a mechanical/vacuum advance
distributor with ESC. The 305 didn't get EST until 1987 when the
fuel system went EFI. Prior year V8s back to 1981 had ESC only,
not EST.
> I will give you a tip to wake engine
> up some if you want to. When you disconnect lead mentioned above, set
> timing to 4 to 6 BTDC and run 89 octane minimum are set it to 8 to 10
> BTDC and use 93 and not only will it run better and will improve MPG
> more than enough to offset fuel cost increase. Been doing that for
> many years with my 89. If you stick with 87 it limits potentail a lot
> and TDC or less base advance is about all you can ever run.
Pollutes the air and brags about it.
> -----------------
> TheSmogMan.com
Old Crow
T'was quite common on the older TBI motors to bump the timing 3 or 4
degreees. You can't go too far or the computer complains, but 3 or 4
degrees will wake those motors up quite a bit...without affecting
emissions...it's still a closed loop system that can adjust itself.
SnoMan
<none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>In article <0428d39th5tablnil...@4ax.com>,
> SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 04:26:26 -0500, Old Crow <walli...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >I think you're referring to the EST (Electronic Spark Timing)
>> >connector, which must be disconnected prior to setting your timing
>> >with a timing light...
>> >
>> >this is a single wire connector, wire is tan with a black
>> >stripe...depending on your ignition system it is located under the
>> >heater box inside the passenger compartment or right next to the
>> >distributor on the firewall...
>> >
>> >the correct timing for your truck should be located on the sticker on
>> >top of the radiator or fan shroud...
>>
>>
>> Not sure they actually called it EST that year
>
>Yes, GM called it EST.
>
>> but they did when it
>> first came out on 305 around 83.
>
>Nope. 83 would have still been a mechanical/vacuum advance
>distributor with ESC. The 305 didn't get EST until 1987 when the
>fuel system went EFI. Prior year V8s back to 1981 had ESC only,
>not EST.
ESC then but EST was what I considered 2 generation
>
>> I will give you a tip to wake engine
>> up some if you want to. When you disconnect lead mentioned above, set
>> timing to 4 to 6 BTDC and run 89 octane minimum are set it to 8 to 10
>> BTDC and use 93 and not only will it run better and will improve MPG
>> more than enough to offset fuel cost increase. Been doing that for
>> many years with my 89. If you stick with 87 it limits potentail a lot
>> and TDC or less base advance is about all you can ever run.
>
>Pollutes the air and brags about it.
As usually your full of it. It passed every Echeck with flying colors
and passed by very wide margins too and would still today except the
stopped doing checks. In the 10 years they did it here I never had any
of my vehicles fail. The TDC baseline timing is so that aomw consumers
can feed their addiction burn "cheap" 87 octane in them even though
performance and MPG suffers. 87 octane was designed in 70's when 8 to
1 CR was the norm. When I got mine new in 89 I tried burning 87 in it
for first 8K to 10K miles or so and it was a real slug in hot weather.
After that I advanced timiing and started using 93 and never looked
back still runs great today and 93 and timing change added about 3 to
4 MPG to highway driving on long trips and better power too. I also
found during frequent trips to Colorado and Wyoming that manually
advancing timing to 12 or 14 BTDC helped performance a lot above 5000
feet during extended stays because "EST" cannot do it on its own. It
has been a while since I checked it but I beleive it is set at around
8 or 10 BTDC right now. People that ride in the old burb today are
surprized at how well it runs and looks even today. I make many
commuter trip thake my daughters to and from college on weekend during
school year and it is about 75 miles one way urban driving and when
gas prices are stable I make 3 trips up and back before I refuel and
it averages high 16's to mid 18's on these trip cycles. ( if you keep
it under 70 it will do around 18 mpg and at 70's and above MPG drops
a bits towards the lower number of the stated range.) Not bad for a
4x4 burb with 180K miles too and using A/C when needed because I never
drive it with windows down. BTW, except for a custom 3 inch single
exhaust with a quieter flow master and timing change it is stock too.
(no lift or big tires either)
>
>> -----------------
>> TheSmogMan.com
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
SnoMan
wrote:
>T'was quite common on the older TBI motors to bump the timing 3 or 4
>degreees. You can't go too far or the computer complains, but 3 or 4
>degrees will wake those motors up quite a bit...without affecting
>emissions...it's still a closed loop system that can adjust itself.
I found that it will go a lot more than that if you use better fuel
and still easily pass Echeck. Dumping 87 octane is a must do with
those TBI engines if you want them to respond well to timing changes.
-----------------
TheSnoMan.com
aarcuda69062
SnoMan <ad...@snoman.com> wrote:
> >> Not sure they actually called it EST that year
> >
> >Yes, GM called it EST.
> >
> >> but they did when it
> >> first came out on 305 around 83.
> >
> >Nope. 83 would have still been a mechanical/vacuum advance
> >distributor with ESC. The 305 didn't get EST until 1987 when the
> >fuel system went EFI. Prior year V8s back to 1981 had ESC only,
> >not EST.
>
> ESC then but EST was what I considered 2 generation
Why? They are two entirely different things.
> >> I will give you a tip to wake engine
> >> up some if you want to. When you disconnect lead mentioned above, set
> >> timing to 4 to 6 BTDC and run 89 octane minimum are set it to 8 to 10
> >> BTDC and use 93 and not only will it run better and will improve MPG
> >> more than enough to offset fuel cost increase. Been doing that for
> >> many years with my 89. If you stick with 87 it limits potentail a lot
> >> and TDC or less base advance is about all you can ever run.
> >
> >Pollutes the air and brags about it.
>
> As usually your full of it.
Other than snow plowing, your credentials are?
> It passed every Echeck with flying colors
> and passed by very wide margins too and would still today except the
> stopped doing checks.
Meaningless since IM emissions checks are orders of magnitude
different and more lenient than the original federally mandated
emissions regulations. You really don't want to debate this with
me considering that as an employee of the vendor contracted with
the state of Ohio, I traveled to Ohio many times in late 95 and
early 96 laying the groundwork for Ohio's emissions testing
program.
> In the 10 years they did it here I never had any
> of my vehicles fail.
It's still considered tampering. No different than removing the
catalytic convertor or an air pump or the EGR valve.
You wouldn't have gotten away with it in a state where the
ignition timing is actually verified to be correct.
> The TDC baseline timing is so that aomw consumers
> can feed their addiction burn "cheap" 87 octane in them even though
> performance and MPG suffers.
Sorry, I'm not familiar with the phrase "aomw consumers."
> 87 octane was designed in 70's when 8 to
> 1 CR was the norm.
Your 89 is a 5.7 liter, correct?
The stock compression ratio is/was 8.2 to 1
According to you then, 87 octane was designed for that engine.
> When I got mine new in 89 I tried burning 87 in it
> for first 8K to 10K miles or so and it was a real slug in hot weather.
> After that I advanced timiing and started using 93 and never looked
> back still runs great today and 93 and timing change added about 3 to
> 4 MPG to highway driving on long trips and better power too.
I don't know if you've noticed, but in all these years that
you've been touting your kludge fix for your poochy Suburban,
I've never once said that advancing the timing wouldn't change
the way it runs. That still doesn't rule out that there is a
malfunction that you haven't been able to diagnose in 19 years...
> I also
> found during frequent trips to Colorado and Wyoming that manually
> advancing timing to 12 or 14 BTDC helped performance a lot above 5000
> feet during extended stays because "EST" cannot do it on its own.
That pretty much dovetails with the TSBs we got at the beginning
of each model year instructing on how to adjust 49 state vehicles
for high altitude operation.
> It has been a while since I checked it but I beleive it is set at around
> 8 or 10 BTDC right now. People that ride in the old burb today are
> surprized at how well it runs and looks even today.
No surprise that they are surprised, they were horrible trashy
trucks.
> I make many
> commuter trip thake my daughters to and from college on weekend during
> school year and it is about 75 miles one way urban driving and when
> gas prices are stable I make 3 trips up and back before I refuel and
> it averages high 16's to mid 18's on these trip cycles. ( if you keep
> it under 70 it will do around 18 mpg and at 70's and above MPG drops
> a bits towards the lower number of the stated range.) Not bad for a
> 4x4 burb with 180K miles too and using A/C when needed because I never
> drive it with windows down. BTW, except for a custom 3 inch single
> exhaust with a quieter flow master and timing change it is stock too.
> (no lift or big tires either)
Please explain why this makes you special such that you are able
to ignore federal law and tamper with emissions components.
If you can't do that, please explain what it has to do with
anything, anything at all...
> >> -----------------
> >> TheSmogMan.com
aarcuda69062
Old Crow <walli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> T'was quite common on the older TBI motors to bump the timing 3 or 4
> degreees.
T'was quite common in 1975 to break off the plastic caps and run
the idle mixture screws out a few turns until the exhaust stunk
like a sulphur pit.
There's fixes and then there's half-assed back yard hack fixes.
> You can't go too far or the computer complains, but 3 or 4
> degrees will wake those motors up quite a bit...without affecting
> emissions...it's still a closed loop system that can adjust itself.
You guys must have some whimpy emissions checks. In this state,
two degrees makes way to much NOx.
nonsense
Oh I'm so very impressed--may I kiss your feet?
>>In the 10 years they did it here I never had any
>>of my vehicles fail.
>
>
> It's still considered tampering.
Only by the likes of you.
> No different than removing the
> catalytic convertor or an air pump or the EGR valve.
Untrue.
> You wouldn't have gotten away with it in a state where the
> ignition timing is actually verified to be correct.
The correct ignition timing is where the engine runs best
using the fuel that is in the tank. Actual timing numbers
given by the manufacturer happens to be a statistically
good number, but rarely the best number for all possible
conditions.
If there were such a thing as "correct engine timing" as
an ordained value automotive engines would never deviate
from that ordained number as they do on the fly. Nor would
the state allow cars with a stretched timing chain to
stay on the road (for vehicles using conventional
distributor ignitions.)
But then again you do sound full of shit enough to be
a civil servant.
>>The TDC baseline timing is so that aomw consumers
>>can feed their addiction burn "cheap" 87 octane in them even though
>>performance and MPG suffers.
> Sorry, I'm not familiar with the phrase "aomw consumers."
You're plainly an idiot. It is a rather ordinary mistyping
of the word "some". If you look at your keyboard you might
be able to see how that happens. But belonging to the civil
servant class of person doubtless prevents you from understanding
the ordinary things of life that aren't in your officially
provided manuals.
>>87 octane was designed in 70's when 8 to
>>1 CR was the norm.
> Your 89 is a 5.7 liter, correct?
> The stock compression ratio is/was 8.2 to 1
> According to you then, 87 octane was designed for that engine.
No it wasn't. 87 octane was designed for general use,
not "for that engine." (See how easy it is to act like
a civil servant who behaves just like you do?)
The answer is in his better performance. Get a clue already.
>>When I got mine new in 89 I tried burning 87 in it
>>for first 8K to 10K miles or so and it was a real slug in hot weather.
>>After that I advanced timiing and started using 93 and never looked
>>back still runs great today and 93 and timing change added about 3 to
>>4 MPG to highway driving on long trips and better power too.
> I don't know if you've noticed, but in all these years that
> you've been touting your kludge fix for your poochy Suburban,
> I've never once said that advancing the timing wouldn't change
> the way it runs. That still doesn't rule out that there is a
> malfunction that you haven't been able to diagnose in 19 years...
And your point is?
>>I also
>>found during frequent trips to Colorado and Wyoming that manually
>>advancing timing to 12 or 14 BTDC helped performance a lot above 5000
>>feet during extended stays because "EST" cannot do it on its own.
> That pretty much dovetails with the TSBs we got at the beginning
> of each model year instructing on how to adjust 49 state vehicles
> for high altitude operation.
So there is no single ordained number for ignition timing
after all.
>>It has been a while since I checked it but I beleive it is set at around
>>8 or 10 BTDC right now. People that ride in the old burb today are
>>surprized at how well it runs and looks even today.
> No surprise that they are surprised, they were horrible trashy
> trucks.
The more I read the trashier you get.
>>I make many
>>commuter trip thake my daughters to and from college on weekend during
>>school year and it is about 75 miles one way urban driving and when
>>gas prices are stable I make 3 trips up and back before I refuel and
>>it averages high 16's to mid 18's on these trip cycles. ( if you keep
>>it under 70 it will do around 18 mpg and at 70's and above MPG drops
>>a bits towards the lower number of the stated range.) Not bad for a
>>4x4 burb with 180K miles too and using A/C when needed because I never
>>drive it with windows down. BTW, except for a custom 3 inch single
>>exhaust with a quieter flow master and timing change it is stock too.
>>(no lift or big tires either)
> Please explain why this makes you special such that you are able
> to ignore federal law and tamper with emissions components.
Cite the federal law. They're all on the internet. I'm tired of
claims like this with no teeth in them.
> If you can't do that, please explain what it has to do with
> anything, anything at all...
He did. You haven't.
nonsense
> In article <flead3d7h39d6qipm...@4ax.com>,
> Old Crow <walli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>>T'was quite common on the older TBI motors to bump the timing 3 or 4
>>degreees.
>
>
> T'was quite common in 1975 to break off the plastic caps and run
> the idle mixture screws out a few turns until the exhaust stunk
> like a sulphur pit.
Now why do you suppose they did that?
> There's fixes and then there's half-assed back yard hack fixes.
Usually "half-assed back yard fixes worked well.
>>You can't go too far or the computer complains, but 3 or 4
>>degrees will wake those motors up quite a bit...without affecting
>>emissions...it's still a closed loop system that can adjust itself.
> You guys must have some whimpy emissions checks. In this state,
> two degrees makes way to much NOx.
You live in a totalitarian state.
aarcuda69062
nonsense <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> >>It passed every Echeck with flying colors
> >>and passed by very wide margins too and would still today except the
> >>stopped doing checks.
> >
> >
> > Meaningless since IM emissions checks are orders of magnitude
> > different and more lenient than the original federally mandated
> > emissions regulations. You really don't want to debate this with
> > me considering that as an employee of the vendor contracted with
> > the state of Ohio, I traveled to Ohio many times in late 95 and
> > early 96 laying the groundwork for Ohio's emissions testing
> > program.
>
> Oh I'm so very impressed--may I kiss your feet?
You sure you can get your lips unlocked from Snojobs anus?
> >>In the 10 years they did it here I never had any
> >>of my vehicles fail.
> >
> >
> > It's still considered tampering.
>
> Only by the likes of you.
Meaning; people who know what they're talking about.
> > No different than removing the
> > catalytic convertor or an air pump or the EGR valve.
>
> Untrue.
No, not untrue. the typical allowance in states where it is
actually verified is plus or minus 2 degrees.
> > You wouldn't have gotten away with it in a state where the
> > ignition timing is actually verified to be correct.
>
> The correct ignition timing is where the engine runs best
> using the fuel that is in the tank.
That is totally untrue.
> Actual timing numbers
> given by the manufacturer happens to be a statistically
> good number, but rarely the best number for all possible
> conditions.
We're not talking about all possible conditions.
> If there were such a thing as "correct engine timing" as
> an ordained value automotive engines would never deviate
> from that ordained number as they do on the fly.
When and why would ignition timing "deviate?"
> Nor would
> the state allow cars with a stretched timing chain to
> stay on the road (for vehicles using conventional
> distributor ignitions.)
And in many cases, they don't, but I guess you can't fathom the
simple difference between intentional tampering and wear and tear.
> But then again you do sound full of shit enough to be
> a civil servant.
Except that I never was a "civil servant."
My paycheck came from a private company, not the state government.
> >>The TDC baseline timing is so that aomw consumers
> >>can feed their addiction burn "cheap" 87 octane in them even though
> >>performance and MPG suffers.
>
> > Sorry, I'm not familiar with the phrase "aomw consumers."
>
> You're plainly an idiot.
At least you can type. That puts your IQ one whole point above
Snojob.
> It is a rather ordinary mistyping
> of the word "some". If you look at your keyboard you might
> be able to see how that happens.
See, that's the problem, I just CAN'T see how the inventor of the
global positioning system could possibly be so sloppy.
> But belonging to the civil
> servant class of person doubtless prevents you from understanding
> the ordinary things of life that aren't in your officially
> provided manuals.
Not civil servant and the only thing I had that was close to a
manual was a copy of the contract between the state and the
company I worked for from which I generated manuals pertinent to
my venue. But don't let that stop you from any further
projections.
> >>87 octane was designed in 70's when 8 to
> >>1 CR was the norm.
>
> > Your 89 is a 5.7 liter, correct?
> > The stock compression ratio is/was 8.2 to 1
> > According to you then, 87 octane was designed for that engine.
>
> No it wasn't.
No -what- wasn't?
> 87 octane was designed for general use,
You just contradicted Snojob's expert opinion.
> not "for that engine."
Snojob says 87 octane was designed for 8 to 1 compression ratio
engines, his Suburban specs at 8.2 to 1 compression ratio.
(real world, 8 to 1 or less)
Are you agreeing that Snojob is talking out of both sides of his
mouth, or possibly his ass?
> (See how easy it is to act like
> a civil servant who behaves just like you do?)
Wouldn't know, never been one.
> The answer is in his better performance. Get a clue already.
Better performance is meaningless. Lots of things can be done to
achieve better performance all the while increasing tail pipe
emissions above standardized levels. He could run the fucker at
12 to 1 air fuel ratio and get some sort of better performance in
some category but odds are, he'll be spewing CO at levels far
above what is/was mandated.
The thing you don't understand is; doing so isn't clever, it
isn't smart, it doesn't represent some windfall of discovery. It
just proves that he can't diagnose what's wrong with his vehicle
so he resorts to a typical hack repair. More's law; if more is
good, too much is just right.
>
> >>When I got mine new in 89 I tried burning 87 in it
> >>for first 8K to 10K miles or so and it was a real slug in hot weather.
> >>After that I advanced timiing and started using 93 and never looked
> >>back still runs great today and 93 and timing change added about 3 to
> >>4 MPG to highway driving on long trips and better power too.
>
> > I don't know if you've noticed, but in all these years that
> > you've been touting your kludge fix for your poochy Suburban,
> > I've never once said that advancing the timing wouldn't change
> > the way it runs. That still doesn't rule out that there is a
> > malfunction that you haven't been able to diagnose in 19 years...
>
> And your point is?
He's a dunce.
> >>I also
> >>found during frequent trips to Colorado and Wyoming that manually
> >>advancing timing to 12 or 14 BTDC helped performance a lot above 5000
> >>feet during extended stays because "EST" cannot do it on its own.
>
> > That pretty much dovetails with the TSBs we got at the beginning
> > of each model year instructing on how to adjust 49 state vehicles
> > for high altitude operation.
>
> So there is no single ordained number for ignition timing
> after all.
Who said there was?
> >>It has been a while since I checked it but I beleive it is set at around
> >>8 or 10 BTDC right now. People that ride in the old burb today are
> >>surprized at how well it runs and looks even today.
>
> > No surprise that they are surprised, they were horrible trashy
> > trucks.
>
> The more I read the trashier you get.
Do you -really- think I care what a little duckling like you
thinks?
Besides, late 80s GM trucks _were_ a joke, the instrument cluster
and dash board must have been designed by Ronald McDonald.
Transmissions that blew if you looked at them cross-eyed.
Throttle body injection (real high tech).
Fuel and brake lines that would rust thru in three or four years.
Paint that would peel off if you drove in a 10 MPH headwind.
> >>I make many
> >>commuter trip thake my daughters to and from college on weekend during
> >>school year and it is about 75 miles one way urban driving and when
> >>gas prices are stable I make 3 trips up and back before I refuel and
> >>it averages high 16's to mid 18's on these trip cycles. ( if you keep
> >>it under 70 it will do around 18 mpg and at 70's and above MPG drops
> >>a bits towards the lower number of the stated range.) Not bad for a
> >>4x4 burb with 180K miles too and using A/C when needed because I never
> >>drive it with windows down. BTW, except for a custom 3 inch single
> >>exhaust with a quieter flow master and timing change it is stock too.
> >>(no lift or big tires either)
>
> > Please explain why this makes you special such that you are able
> > to ignore federal law and tamper with emissions components.
>
> Cite the federal law. They're all on the internet. I'm tired of
> claims like this with no teeth in them.
http://www.epa.gov/air/caa/caa.txt
http://www.access.gpo.gov/uscode/title42/chapter85_.html
Public Law PL 91-604, 40 CFR 50-80
> > If you can't do that, please explain what it has to do with
> > anything, anything at all...
>
> He did.
He did what, tell his same old story about taking his sproggen to
college in his Suburban? Yes he did.
> You haven't.
You're right, and I never would tell that story.
Neil Nelson
nonsense <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> > T'was quite common in 1975 to break off the plastic caps and run
> > the idle mixture screws out a few turns until the exhaust stunk
> > like a sulphur pit.
>
> Now why do you suppose they did that?
Because they didn't know any better. Just like you.
> > There's fixes and then there's half-assed back yard hack fixes.
>
> Usually "half-assed back yard fixes worked well.
Probably, if that's all you're capable of.
> >>You can't go too far or the computer complains, but 3 or 4
> >>degrees will wake those motors up quite a bit...without affecting
> >>emissions...it's still a closed loop system that can adjust itself.
>
> > You guys must have some whimpy emissions checks. In this state,
> > two degrees makes way to much NOx.
>
> You live in a totalitarian state.
Maybe. So, where do you draw the line at which laws you obey and
which you don't?
Cost?
Convenience?
Expedience?
Personal preference?
Risk of being caught?
Risk of injury to others?
Risk of injury to self?
nonsense
snip loony reply
plonk
nonsense
> In article <7b637$46d61d5b$49e5da8$15...@DIALUPUSA.NET>,
> nonsense <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote:
>>>T'was quite common in 1975 to break off the plastic caps and run
>>>the idle mixture screws out a few turns until the exhaust stunk
>>>like a sulphur pit.
>>Now why do you suppose they did that?
> Because they didn't know any better. Just like you.
You know nothing about me.
>>>There's fixes and then there's half-assed back yard hack fixes.
>>Usually "half-assed back yard fixes worked well.
> Probably, if that's all you're capable of.
What works well works well regardless of how much
or how little the person making them knows. But
your petty little comment is only stupid and
argumentative and as such your comment is
insignificant.
>>>>You can't go too far or the computer complains, but 3 or 4
>>>>degrees will wake those motors up quite a bit...without affecting
>>>>emissions...it's still a closed loop system that can adjust itself.
>>>You guys must have some whimpy emissions checks. In this state,
>>>two degrees makes way to much NOx.
>>You live in a totalitarian state.
> Maybe. So, where do you draw the line at which laws you obey and
> which you don't?
> Cost?
> Convenience?
> Expedience?
> Personal preference?
> Risk of being caught?
> Risk of injury to others?
> Risk of injury to self?
All of the above along with a personalized sense of morality
coupled with some common sense. Don't try to speak of laws
as though they're always "right" because they aren't. Anyone
who blindly obeys laws simply because they're there is an
idiot.
aarcuda69062
nonsense <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> >>Now why do you suppose they did that?
>
> > Because they didn't know any better. Just like you.
>
> You know nothing about me.
I know that you're a weenie.
At 11:16 you plonked me.
Now you're replying to me.
Seems as if you like to use words without any understanding of
what they mean.
> >>>There's fixes and then there's half-assed back yard hack fixes.
>
> >>Usually "half-assed back yard fixes worked well.
>
> > Probably, if that's all you're capable of.
>
> What works well works well regardless of how much
> or how little the person making them knows. But
> your petty little comment is only stupid and
> argumentative and as such your comment is
> insignificant.
No not insignificant. Actually, this whole little sub-set points
out the trait that you and Snojob share; that you're both too
stupid to realize how stupid you are.
Dumb and Dumber.
> >>You live in a totalitarian state.
>
> > Maybe. So, where do you draw the line at which laws you obey and
> > which you don't?
> > Cost?
> > Convenience?
> > Expedience?
> > Personal preference?
> > Risk of being caught?
> > Risk of injury to others?
> > Risk of injury to self?
>
> All of the above along with a personalized sense of morality
> coupled with some common sense.
IOWs, your typical sociopath.
> Don't try to speak of laws
> as though they're always "right" because they aren't.
Where did I do that? Matter of fact, where in any of this did I
indicate agreement with the laws in question?
> Anyone
> who blindly obeys laws simply because they're there is an
> idiot.
And anyone who blindly ignores them is paying fines or in prison
or dead or headed towards all three.
Old Crow
Where I live now, in Arkansas, no checks at all. However, prior to
'93 I was in SoCal. I was also a licensed smog tech out there.
aarcuda69062
Old Crow <walli...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >You guys must have some whimpy emissions checks. In this state,
> >two degrees makes way to much NOx.
>
> Where I live now, in Arkansas, no checks at all. However, prior to
> '93 I was in SoCal. I was also a licensed smog tech out there.
That's all well and good but, things have changed drastically
since 1993, especially concerning emissions systems on
cars/trucks and the way that they're being tested.
I'm not trying to put you down OC, but I see late 80s early 90 GM
TBI trucks almost weekly that fail NOx testing and it's simply a
matter of re-setting the ignition timing to where it's supposed
to be.
Old Crow
No offense taken. You hit upon one of the very reasons I live in
Arkansas now instead of California. Too many people, too many drugs,
too much loss of personal freedom. You can have it, I don't want it.
If the truck was mine, I'd retard it back to specs for the inspection
and then advance it afterwards.
Heatwave
walli...@yahoo.com says...
> >That's all well and good but, things have changed drastically
> >since 1993, especially concerning emissions systems on
> >cars/trucks and the way that they're being tested.
> >
> >I'm not trying to put you down OC, but I see late 80s early 90 GM
> >TBI trucks almost weekly that fail NOx testing and it's simply a
> >matter of re-setting the ignition timing to where it's supposed
> >to be.
>
> No offense taken. You hit upon one of the very reasons I live in
> Arkansas now instead of California. Too many people, too many drugs,
> too much loss of personal freedom. You can have it, I don't want it.
>
> If the truck was mine, I'd retard it back to specs for the inspection
> and then advance it afterwards.
I think you're missing the hypocrisy here that is Snomans trademark. He
is so critical about NOx in other post and is sooo worried about global
warming but when the subject is engine timing he no longer gives a sh*t.
Oh and I'm still wondering why "133 lb ft" wasn't correct for the
"Caliper Bracket to Knuckle Mounting Bolts" on a 2000 Blazer.
Snojob Quote:
"When I am clearly in error I will admit it
while others do not so they are never wrong
in their mind anyway." -Snoman (Oct 17 2006)
I guess the YellowSnoman is to busy firing off wrong answers to admit
they were wroing...
-----------------------------------
Snojob Follies:
SBJ: Dumb brake question
http://tinyurl.com/2ya3wo
nonsense
> In article <krhed3p4d14dvu15i...@4ax.com>,
> walli...@yahoo.com says...
>
>
>>>That's all well and good but, things have changed drastically
>>>since 1993, especially concerning emissions systems on
>>>cars/trucks and the way that they're being tested.
>>>
>>>I'm not trying to put you down OC, but I see late 80s early 90 GM
>>>TBI trucks almost weekly that fail NOx testing and it's simply a
>>>matter of re-setting the ignition timing to where it's supposed
>>>to be.
>>
>>No offense taken. You hit upon one of the very reasons I live in
>>Arkansas now instead of California. Too many people, too many drugs,
>>too much loss of personal freedom. You can have it, I don't want it.
>>
>>If the truck was mine, I'd retard it back to specs for the inspection
>>and then advance it afterwards.
>
>
> I think you're missing the hypocrisy here that is Snomans trademark. He
> is so critical about NOx in other post and is sooo worried about global
> warming but when the subject is engine timing he no longer gives a sh*t.
Driving a vehicle = pollution
Stop making babies.
Neil Nelson
nonsense <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote:
> Heatwave wrote:
> > I think you're missing the hypocrisy here that is Snomans trademark. He
> > is so critical about NOx in other post and is sooo worried about global
> > warming but when the subject is engine timing he no longer gives a sh*t.
>
> Driving a vehicle = pollution
(definitely missing the hypocrisy...)
> Stop making babies.
If only you could have relayed that to your parents in time.
terryb...@sbcglobal.net
> On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 01:09:40 -0400, "shiferbrains"
>
Old Crow, help!!!! i have no idea if im typing this in the correct
place or if im answering were someone else is having a conversation
with you. please let me know if you even get this. please answer me
@ terryb...@sbcglobal.net.
sorry if i have stepped on anyones mail or notes PETE
Old Crow
You've got mail.
--
Old Crow "Yol Bolson!"
Refinish King
We only have a visual for now, but wait. The last county to go full IM, will
be the first county that the shops get cornholed in.
RK
"aarcuda69062" <none...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:nonelson-798A29...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com...
Refinish King
What your children, and grandchildren:
Eat
Drink
Breath.
Piss off shade tree grease monkey!
RK
"nonsense" <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:7b637$46d61d5b$49e5da8$15...@DIALUPUSA.NET...
Refinish King
with a potential 50K fine is an idiot!
Nuff Said!
RK
"nonsense" <nons...@unsettled.com> wrote in message
news:66524$46d64664$49e5d09$16...@DIALUPUSA.NET...