Cdrookie,
I am not surprised you were quick to remove your stupid and uncalled for statement “his infamous jim hand timing retort” when you realized that the truth would be posted! And exactly as I promised if you tried to mislead or lie about it, here is the truth.
I wrote an article about my street/strip wagon for the Dec, 1993 issue of High Performance Pontiac. I listed the timing specs for my car but did not discuss how to set or find correct timing.
In the Feb, 1996 issue of HPP, a reader Robert Davis asked how I obtained the specific ignition curves I had mentioned in the 1993 story. For whatever reason, the Editor Richard Lentinello gave that question to Flopper, rather then to me, to answer in the Q&A section.. He never answered the question but did advertise himself as an expert. I included his first few words, then the last section as copied below. The first two photos sort of run together. But the key is his statement beginning with "Forget that old-"
I use the technique of finding best total timing exactly as all new computer controlled engines do – advance timing until detonation/ping is detected. Then retard the timing slightly. The new engines do this continuously because max torque is developed just at the detonation point, and that is where maximum efficiency is obtained.
When I saw the garbage Flop posted about the procedure that is now used by every computer controlled engine being built, I contacted the Editor and discussed the whole situation. He agreed to try to correct the misleading info posted by Flop.
I will enclose the original question, and Flopper’s final statement. The rest of his comments are self-serving garbage and not worth the space to post.
Will then post the retraction by the HPP Editor Richard Lentinello in the April, 96 issue.
Cdrookie, I suggest that if you are going to try to dirty me, you better have more compelling stuff then this! And I doubt this incident got Flop booted from HPP – there were plenty of other reasons to do so!
Jim Hand
|