"Therefore, no vac. advance"
Sure, David...
All good points. And of course, the 40819
mech. curve is a more or less WOT curve,
the engine it was originally designed for
being an "enthusiasts" application where they figured the user would be
driving around most of the time with his foot well
into, fuel economy not being the priority.
Also, there was crank "rumble" to be
considered on transverse engined Cooper
S's (1275)....this phenomena I do not
understand. Must be a vibration sort of
thing at partial light loads wherin vac.
advance would normally be expected
to "come in" with respect to a certain
rpm range or something like that.
Cap'n. Bob
'60 :{)
|