Technical 54 WCFB woes and my incompetence

I have used a brand new good coil with same results.

but what doesn’t make sense to me is two different fuel sources causes failures at two drastically different RPMs

 

I wish I did, but I do not. And I’m also curious as to why nobody has a theory about how we can run really good on two holes only to 2800 rpm, then on two totally separate holes up to a drastically higher rpm number?

that’s why I think it’s lean in both sets of Venturi.

but like posted by super duper moderator magnum, these jets are very hard to find, so I can’t simply swap and go until it’s all good without the flatline.

 

OK guys, you win I am going to spend money on a new set of points and condenser and this brand new coil that I have for the 6volt system is going to be replaced by another brand new coil in case this was bad out of the box, since the majority of you believe it’s ignition related.

I bend to your will, and will totally eat crow if y’all are right.

 

I guess that means it can't happen to you. Good to have lifetime protection. (Snark done.)

If that carb is original to the car and performed properly in the past, I can't see why it would need to be recalibrated.

Was the Pertronix installed to correct a perceived ignition problem, or just because?

I believe in the previous thread someone mentioned the possibility of a stopped up exhaust. I don't recall your answer, but if the old stuff isn't removed from the cylinders, there is insufficient room for the new. Check for kinks and crushes. Drop the pipes from the manifolds and run it up. Instant answer. Just a question of how much old rusty stuff you get to break along the way.

100K+ motor, have you checked for a stretched timing chain, or worst case scenario, it has jumped a tooth?

 

You see that’s just hit the Car was brought to me not running worth a ****. It was like that when she got it from her father, they took it to a mechanic somewhere. I don’t know where some shop in Sun City and they put in a pertronix unit and the car ran a little bit better, but still didn’t run where the ****, I got the car in flat lines at about 2800 RPMs or anytime you open all four Venturi.

It will run to 2800 RPMs before breaking up on the primary two cylinders separated from the rest of the carburetor actions, and it will run up to 3560 or 3860 RPMs on the secondary perfectly without any influence from the primaries before it breaks up by flat lining.

now I’ve asked sis teen times how in the world could the electronic ignition work to 2800 before failing, and 3500+ before failing using Only the secondary Venturis?

nobody so far had the answer except to tell me to install points. But I negated that necessity with the separate fuel source test and two very distinct rpm results.


I really wish I was a better explainer, I am failing you guys and I apologize , and wish I could splainbtge logic better, because nobody seems to understand what I’m saying or even acknowledges that an electronic ignition cannot fail at 2800 RPMs for one set of fuel ratio and at 3500+ RPM for another set of fuel ratios

straight up 2 inch exhaust, one band straight out the back 18 inch gl*** packs flow through nothing to collapse and clog exhaust with. The timing in a stressed chain situation is erratic, sometimes at idle, and sometimes only at rpm. This system is smooth as a hot knife through ****er at all RPMs, as far as the timing reading on the dampener.

 

Couple points:
If points and condensor are available locally, then it's worth a try. I'm not convinced it's an electrical problem yet though.
Someone said he saw black, fouled plugs. I saw a couple that were white, almost like new. In that case, it indicates a very lean condition. Bad wires or plugs will appear black or deep brown, not white. We've spent some of Gary's money here, but that wasn't the problem.

I might have missed it but I don't know the source of the carburetor,...whether original or an exchange rebuilt.
The latter sometimes come out of core piles and are pieced back together. Might not have the original jetting by now.
When an engine gets into high mileage status, they require even more fuel , especially if they are lean to begin with.
We saw that on the mid-70's 2GCs.

I would try this ..It might be redundant but..bring the primaries up to the point where is doesn't want to rev any more, then squirt some gas in and see what it does.

 

I think you might be equating a stretched timing chain would cause erratic timing and fluctuations in the reading. But think of a loose bicycle chain, one that “droops” and you still have constant contact between sprockets.
Easy check on chain slack. Pull distributor cap. Rotate the engine via crank bolt a bit, stop, rotate the opposite direction and see how much rotation it takes to begin to turn the rotor.

 

Timing chain can be easily checked.
Turn the damper one way. Watch the rotor. Turn crank in opposite direction. See how many degrees of crank rotation it takes before the rotor moves.
10-12 deg.? Yeah, it's worn but that's not the problem anyway

 

The highlighted text from my post, post number 90 does just that (offers an answer to your question) I don't know if you just missed it or chose to ignore it. You're making it rather difficult to help you.

 

Got me on a holeshot !

 

Original carb, 54 New Yorker, 331 hemi, WCFB model 2041S

and it’s fine to spend my money as long as I satisfy my client.

move never had to make such drastic measures with a carb before. 99.5% of the time, a simple rebuild is all that’s required to get a car running normal again. This one does not run normal yet. But it will because I’m determined lol

people are misinterpreting how are pertronix in it works and keep suggesting breaker points system, which is the mechanical version of the electronic points. When electronic points felt they don’t only favorite one certain rpm be either work or they don’t up to their given parameters with this has not come close to pertronix well normally work up to 7000+ RPMs. I haven’t even reached half of that.

furthermore, I just discovered that Edelbrock 1405 and 1406 jets are identical to the jets I found in the WCFB so once I locate a pin gauge set, I can start measuring jets and taking care of this lean issue that I am 99% positive is the problem….

I’m not saying that points and condenser will not solve the problem, I’m just saying that logically in electronically, it has not proven itself to be the ignition by the simple fact of different af mixtures produced different results rpm wise.

just like if it was points and they constantly failed at 2800 RPM. How could they possibly work better at 3800 RPMs was just a simple change of air fuel mixture location source? See how the logic applies here?

 

I likely missed it, I am going to go search for it now

 

Gary this is the bit he’s talking about

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.


He’s saying the primary is mixed at one ratio and the secondaries at a different ratio.

the the failure to ignite that ratio could feasibly happen at different RPM

 

Found it. But the not part of your message is logical.


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.

I have balked at doing that simply because when pertronix fail, they fail completely as stated by a moderator sharing info from their website while still trying to convince me that it’s ignition related.

now to welcome your statement, YES different AF ratios will require Different parameters for a complete burn in high performance high compression instances. In this application I have not seen an argument that would dissuade me for my current view point. Which follows:

1: the points NEVER know the forces needed to do a good ignition. They perform the same function over and over slowly deteriorating over time as the contacts wear out. They don’t ADD more spark to all four barrels being open, and lessen the spark when only idling.

2: electronic points are a Non physical wear mechanism, it’s a coil winding with a magnetic trip to close. The power going Into them does not come out the other side unless the magnetic source excites the switch to close, thus sending coil current discharge through the cap to the wire to the plug where it jumps the gap to ground this igniting the mixture. It either works or it don’t. It’s as simple as that right from the mother birds mouth from their own literature. The pertronix, just like points, simply sent the electric charge on down the line, with no need for a condenser to absorb the excess.


I swear if that don’t make sense to more than one person here, I’ll pull out my almost non existent hair….

please keep it coming. I’m not so proud as to fail admitting my mistakes, but please try explaining y’all’s logic exactly as I tried.

 

and can you tell me what ignition system known to mankind will read the combustion pressures, the AF ratio and then adjust its self to burn the mixture differently?

The spark Never changes it’s self. It’s a static constant discharge only controlled by the ability of the coil.

some af ratios combined with high chamber pressure require a hotter spark for complete combustion, but you’re talking above 10.0:1 ratios with huge amounts of air and fuel mashed into the cylinder. THAT is why they use multi spark applications for racing now, over the old school 50k volt magneto styles.

for this little engine pushing a max of 9.5:1, this is not going to be an issue.

that will remain my opinion until someone explains where my logic has failed by inserting their logic .

 

Heck, your post wasn’t there when I went to reply. I say it’s a dead heat

 

I guess it's true; you can't fix ......

 

So have ya squirted some fuel at it when it stumbles

 

@Gary Kitchens You've gotten a lot of good suggestions here, so just humor the *******s and give some of the advice a try. You've spent DAYS banging your head against a brick wall with nothing to show for it ("proving your point" is NOT getting the job done!) so give up and start listening!
With cars, as with women, logic doesn't always apply. If you haven't figured THAT out by now.....

 

You guys are correct. I am beating my head against the wall because nobody has shown me that my logic isn’t logical, therefore not valid. Just testing a set of points that I secretly really want to do but don’t wanna look like an idiot when the results come out that it was the pertronix after all, but I guess it’s too late for that because about 99% of you think I’m an idiot. But nobody has put an argument out to counter my logic that I just shared in the last two messages. …..

and even if somebody did post a logical counterpoint, that actually made sense rather than just throwing points on it ‘just to see’ I still have to wait until tomorrow to get these dang points because nobody has them in town they have to be brought in out of Seattle.

 

Also, with my newfound factoid, that the AFB jets work in the WCFB as soon as I get a set of degree pins, I will measure these jets and I will up size and see what happens. Squirting in fuel did not help, but that test was done at wide-open throttle with 4 lean Venturi, and it came from a side stream from the squirt bottle, which means the fuel was not properly emulsified, and the results were less than enthusiastic. But that does not mean it’s still not running lean, and that properly upsized jets will cure this once, and for all.

 

Pouring fuel in isn’t the best method
Spray or some kind of flammable mist from a can

Ive seen starter fluid/fuel must pulled in through a vacuum line before

 

Oh yeah that’s a good idea! My carburetor guy should be here within the hour, and I’m gonna put his 30 years of experience into listening to this

 

I run 2 (two) 1953 Carter WCFB’s AND a Pertronix ignition on my 1956 Ford Y-Block and everything works well together for 7 years. The Pertronix II has been working perfectly for 10 yrs.
The carbs came off an 8-1 compression engine and are on an 8.4-1 engine. No need for any changes as the fuel mixture is very close to original. Carbs usually need no jetting unless compression is changed and multiple does not change that. Air to fuel is what’s important.
I lost 2 condensers before s**t canning the points. I use a Pertronix coil AND a ballast resistor. Fool proof for 10 years with only cleaning the inside of the cap every 2 years..

 

That’s awesome! Are you running 12v or 6v?

and I am still waiting for a logical reason for failure at 2800 versus not until 3500+ if it’s an electrical ignition issue, but so far, I only hear crickets and I expected something logical flung back at me.

 

As Center of the Galaxie pointed out, by running the engine only on the primaries or only on the secondary's you are combusting two different A/F ratio's.

The electrical resistance of the coil or of any resistor in the system will change with temperature. The temperature change can come from ambient engine bay temperature, the length of time the coil or resistor is energized, the ability of the coil or resistor to dissipate heat, and the electrical load which will change with RPM.

You have not monitored or controlled any of these factors in your tests.

Either one of these facts or both combined can easily explain the small 760 RPM difference that you observe.

Logical?

Coming on here and asking for advice and then not taking it is a road to nowhere and will eventually turn people off.

I'm out of popcorn, out of aspirin, and out of advice.

 

No one thinks you’re an idiot, hardheaded maybe.
Kinda like that old saying “none are as blind as those who don’t open their eyes”.
You’re asking for help, you’ve got a lot of suggestions and some from who had the same/similar issue. Yet you continue to say “show me where my logic is wrong”.
I/e I can’t give you a scientific reason why driving on a tire with low air pressure is bad, but I could tell you to put air into it.

 

One other thing, I’m still looking at this thread, not to say/think “they were right, he was wrong” but just to see the outcome of it.

 

Your logic is logical and all, but it’s just wrong when it comes to the wonders of the electron. Heat, pressure, af ratio all can change the requirements of a spark plug to spark. Then if you compound the problems with too short of a dwell time you really change things up. As RPM increase so do the demands on the ignition system as a whole to function properly. You yourself said it when you squirt in extra fuel nothing good happens. Even a thick stream of fuel will eventually atomize and evaporate into burnable vapors with enough time(2-3 revolutions at 3,000 rpm say.). Even if it is 100 or more revolutions the engine should have eventually picked up by logic and the facts of physics!

 

Hi Gary, I can't help but put my two cents worth in. I have followed and read every post on both threads. I can only say I feel for you and the problem(s) you have with this car. I can feel your total frustration with it before you even asked for help on the H.A.M.B. I would think if it were an AF mixture problem and you added extra fuel to it when it stumbled and it didn't help, did you try to choke the carb with a piece of wood or something without choking it out completely? P.S. don't use your hand because it might **** the skin off of your carc***! Also, have you tried to feather/pump the carb to see if it will run better/worse, different before or at the point of stumbling? I would think if none of that makes any difference in the way it runs and you can't get another carb, I would replace what you can to eliminate what it isn't.