Alaskan Rover
02-03-2011, 03:51 AM
I recently broke my last inductive timing light (they don't seem to build good ones anymore), and now am thinking of just going with the static timing procedure that the rover manual recommends.
Anybody have any input on which leads to better timing on a 2.25 liter series engine w/ points? Static or timing light?
I've always encountered a conumdrum when using the timing light: I initially set the engine RPM at 750, and then turn the distributer to get the timing marks to line-up to specs depending on octane as per manual. But here's the rub: Turning the distributer CHANGES the engine RPM, seemingly ruining your attempts to get 750 rpm. A blasted conundrum!
It seems for a points car, static timing would eliminate this "shifting RPM while timing" problem, thus resulting in more accurate timing, but removing #1 spark plug to find TDC and then hooking up a test light on the point-set takes much more time than simply hooking up a timing light.
Any ideas? Which is your preference? Static timing is certainly CHEAPER...but is it more accurate??
Anybody have any input on which leads to better timing on a 2.25 liter series engine w/ points? Static or timing light?
I've always encountered a conumdrum when using the timing light: I initially set the engine RPM at 750, and then turn the distributer to get the timing marks to line-up to specs depending on octane as per manual. But here's the rub: Turning the distributer CHANGES the engine RPM, seemingly ruining your attempts to get 750 rpm. A blasted conundrum!
It seems for a points car, static timing would eliminate this "shifting RPM while timing" problem, thus resulting in more accurate timing, but removing #1 spark plug to find TDC and then hooking up a test light on the point-set takes much more time than simply hooking up a timing light.
Any ideas? Which is your preference? Static timing is certainly CHEAPER...but is it more accurate??