Technical 54 WCFB woes and my incompetence

I don’t understand asking for help then saying repeatedly you already know what the problem is…I don’t understand why he asked.

Just for the record (not that it matters), I think it’s ignition related as well.

 

Here are wiring diagrams for 1939 and '42-'45 Fords and one Chrysler/Dodge/Desoto from 1950. All three are 6volts and show an ignition resistor. So I guess you never worked on them? There are countless other makes with some form of resistor.

Even with your initial timing set back to 4 deg. BTDC you still have too much total timing as has already been mentioned multiple times. I would put the distributor back to stock with the factory timing curve and eliminate the Pertronix.

I'm afraid this thread is just like the last one, going in circles.

 

i’m not arguing except when people keep reiterating the same thing over and over that I have just proven. If I can work the motor up to 2800 RPMs on the primary Venturi’s and then it falls on its face, but I can make the car run to 3550 RPMs on the secondary before it falls on his face. How can that be electronically related? Electronics fail at a given moment but not at two different RPMs from two different fuel sources.

i’m not arguing with them I’m arguing for my point, because they keep saying the same thing and of the many suggestions of test that I performed one gentleman pointed out to run the engine off of the secondaries alone by disconnecting linkage between the primary and secondary.

I almost refused, but then I did it and lo and behold. It shows two very distinct different patterns of runnability that’s leading me to the logical conclusion that it is a failure in the air fuel mixture ratio that is causing the flat line that I’ve been experiencing.

but I was not arguing with people I’m simply trying to show how part of their logic doesn’t fit the scenario.

 

dear Professor,

Do you think that points going back in would make the primary two Venturi’s run the car up to 3500 where it fails on the secondaries, and not the 2800 rpm’s where it fails to run properly now?

am I not explaining my point clearly enough? I know my communication skills are sometimes a little rusty, but sometimes old Seabees like me are stubborn.
But I am here to learn, as I have stated a few times now and I’m not discounting everybody. I am simply putting counter arguments in because of tests I’ve run.

 

FTFY.

You should give Pertronix engineers a call. There absolutely are voltage and current differences between units, and using the proper coil is not simply an "upsell." I think I'm starting to understand why Pertronix products sometimes get a bad reputation from users.

 

THIS IS AWESOME INFORMATION THANK YOU!!

my voltage meter directly to the coil feed wire while this is running shows 6.5 V.

 

You also stated that adding fuel externally made zero difference, explain to me how it’s a lean issue then? You have repeatedly stated it can’t be ignition related and that it’s carb related…yet you haven’t made any headway. Maybe time to try something different regardless of how convinced you are that you already know what the problem is that you can’t fix….anyway good luck.

 

I have never had pertronix issues and I’ve always touted their performance since I started using them in 2002

 

Yes, sir Mr. Fargo that was when I was operating all four Venturi wide-open.
The squirt bottle did not make a difference. You are correct, but the metering rods being in the 94 primary‘s, and then the non-metering rod secondaries absolutely run to different rpm levels before falling on its face.
Can you give me your thoughts on that?

 

so try it just in the primary’s and see what it does, my guess is the same thing, at this point I would look at the ignition, if nothing else to prove is all wrong and show us what a super mechanic you are. Sometimes our stubbornness prevents us from trying something different. I am a journeyman mechanic and I have certainly run across stuff that didn’t make sense to me but that was how it worked…

 

It reminds me of watching a political debate...lots of talking, not so much listening. My dad used to say you were given 2 ears and only one mouth for a reason.

 

Okay the Professor is right: we are still going in circles.

So I’m going to write down one question and hopefully somebody here can answer it, because I already believe I have the answer, but I want some kind of back up and some kind of communal agreement lol


1: can ignition failure can from from ANY SOURCE (pertronix OR points) specifically at 2800 RPMs from one fuel source, but allow another fuel source to continue on up to 3560 RPM before failing?


That is it, that is where this carburetor stands at this current moment in life. How is it possible that the ignition system works two different ways on two different air fuel sources? I live my life based on logic, and that is not logical if it is an electrical issue, because electricity does not choose to fail at a different time, just because the air fuel mixture comes from a different spot, in my logic that means that the air fuel mixture’s ratio is still too poor to operate This system properly

 

dear Mr. Fargo, I did precisely that last night, and that is where my standing has been ever since, although as demonstrated several times, my ability to correctly or clearly express myself has sometimes been askew, in this point, like my last question just above here, stands.
Is there logic in the electronics to perform as stated? My opinion is no it’s not logical.

 

2 different fuel sources?
You tried another carb?

did I miss that somewhere

 

Repeatedly you have asked for help then insisted people “prove” to you why you should try their suggestions. I’m going to go drive one of my old cars that runs fine. Remember we aren’t the ones asking, as I said before, good luck

 

you also saw that the running voltage feed to the coil is 6.5 V on a 6.5 V system, correct? That tells me there is no reduced voltage by voltage numbers alone.

Yes, two different fuel sources, the primaries alone, then the secondaries alone with no primary opening.

they are separate en***ies.

there are no square board small carburetors available in my area to attempt to use a different carburetor. I bought an adapter plate and put an AVS2 edelbrock carb on, but there were too many irregularities and a vacuum leak not allowing it to operate work a **** above idle. The AVS2 is a 650 cfm carb calibrated much differently, the WCFB is a 380 cfm carb.

 

That’s the same fuel source.
But if you count that as 2 fuel sources then wouldn’t that eliminate the carb then

 

I have seen many ignition modules on GM vehicles run fine to a certain rpm then nose over. Haven’t you ever heard of heat and vibration breaking down electrical components? How come a starter solenoid will work fine one time the the next leave you walking? How come bad plug wires break down under load yet are fine at idle? **** happens!

 

Theories that make sense. No slights or insults about testing **** already tested. Read below and let’s see some Logical theories.



1: can ignition failure can from from ANY SOURCE (pertronix OR points) specifically at 2800 RPMs from one fuel source, but allow another fuel source to continue on up to 3560 RPM before failing?

Fuel source #1 is Primary Venturis only
Fuel source #2 is Secondary Venturis only

failure of clean burn in primaries is 2800 rpm
failure of clean burn in secondaries is 3560 rpm.

is it Logical, or even Possible for the ignition failure to choose TWO different rpm’s to consistently fail?

if so: Explain the probabilities please.

After that, go eat popcorn and take some aspirin.

 

See my above post. Apply your theory to that so it helps the issue.

 

If you believe it’s the carb and you have exhausted every effort you can to resolve it, why not have it professionally built?

Sounds like a money saving move for the customer.

has additional fuel been introduced to the carb at the failure rpm?

 

"1: can ignition failure can from from ANY SOURCE (pertronix OR points) specifically at 2800 RPMs from one fuel source, but allow another fuel source to continue on up to 3560 RPM before failing?"

It's fairly clear, to me at least, that the two different fuel sources you are using to do your testing are going to end up being two completely different air fuel mixtures. That by itself will change the ignition requirements to fire those two different fuel mixtures under load. Your test results actually point you in that direction, but tunnel vision is preventing you from observing that.

For the life of me I can't understand why you don't switch the pertronix out for points and condenser to at least rule out the possibility of a pertronix failure. When you know (by proving) what's not wrong, it's much easier to determine what is wrong.

 

Do you have an oscilloscope to run a test on the ignition system?