i tried setting the timing on it and i cant seem to make it change by turning the dist. its an 87 tpi car(in my sig) it stays the same on the gun even when i turn the dist. any thoughts?

 

ESC disconnected?

 

Are you unplugging the distributor (from the ECM)?

 

no the EST wire.

 

read the emmission sticker on your hood, it tells you how to and where the wire to disconnect is.....
sometimes you have to short 2 terminals on the aldl connector under the steering wheel....

 

problem with that is the car was originally an 85 carb z-28 now it has an 87 harness for TPI. and i have a Ram Air 2 hood as well. so that wouldnt help the fact of the matter either.

 

you need to unplug the EST wire

 

That's the tan wire with a black stripe on the passenger side inner fender well.

 

i know this, iv been unplugging it since iv owned the car, just recently iv had a problem, i tried 2 different timing lights as well and it made no difference, i tried setting the timing, id put it on cyl. 1 and id have to go below 0 on the gun to try to get close to 0 on my timing tab. no matter how much i turn the dist. it wont change on the gun.

 

would a bad connection at the 4 wire connector at the distributor be the problem, sometimes i can wiggle that wire with some pressure and itll stall the car out.

 

Something' whacky. When you turn the distrigutor you ARE changing the timing. Guaranteed. There is absolutely no way it CAN'T move since the magnetic pickup is bolted firmly to the distributor housing. Something's wrong with your gun or there's some sort of "operator error" involved.

 

somethings gone wack here...

 

deffinately something wrong, i have no clue what could be the problem. im deffinatly turning the distributor

 

Fix your wiring issue by the distributor and then check the E.C.M. connector to make sure its tight and free of rot, dirt and other debris. Then give it another whirl.

 

NOT IF THE EST BYPASS WIRE IS HOOKED UP.
the computer will compensate for the turned distributor.

after further pondering this issue, it is possible that the outer ring on the balancer has moved, making the mark in the wrong place.
use a piston stop screwed in the number one spark plug hole and find tdc on cylinder 1 and see if the mark is lined up with 0 (zero) on the timing tab. ( turn the engine forwards till it stops, note the timing mark, turn it backwards till it stops, note the timing mark, then split the difference, that's tdc.)

 

ill also have to have the valve cover off to make sure both valves are closed, im not sure this is a possible theory but i will check it anyways, i have another 400 balancer i could put on if i have too.

 

That almost sounds like you're degreeing a cam. If it's like degreeing a cam, then if the piston doesn't travel the same distance in degrees then something is wrong. On the balancer note, if the outer ring is slipping then he should replace it. I would've thought the harmonic difference would've created a noticeable difference. Like trying to rattle the engine out of the car. Not literally, but you know what I mean. I suppose this is a possibility. My money's still on the messed up wiring by the Distributor and possibly a dirty or rotted connection near the E.C.M. There was a guy that had the same problem on here about 3 weeks ago.

 

the engine does shake (nothing extremely noticable) but the motor mounts could be changed real soon. i want to buy a commander 950 for my car so i dont have to mess with the wiring too much and worry about bad connectors ect. i already have a problem with my CTS(lt1 john burned it for me and wont go back on his mess up) i put a stock chip back in it and it ran smooth, right now it bucks slightly and hessitates from that alone)

 

The 950 wouldn't be a bad set up. I still stand behind what I said earlier though. Sorry to here about the guy who screwed ya and won't help make it right.

 

www.lt1intakes.com was the guy john, he most likely does good work on his other items he sold but iv changed everything twice on the car and the check engine light for the CTS wouldnt go away, i even added more grounds changed the ecu changed the chip to a different, it ran smooth just threw a code for my MAF because of the low vacuum from my cam. ill figure that out some day im just trying to get at this 1 problem at a time. i was able to set it like a month or 2 ago, now i cant. im going to try messing with my dist. wires and such see if there making contact, only thing i can do really

 

I'm glad to see you're attacking this one problem at a time. Not a lot of folks are willing to do that. That's why there's so many unfinished projects out there.

 

yep, almost like degreeing a cam, where finding TDC is EXTREMELY important...
but what we're looking for is if the mark on the balancer is pointing at zero when the piston is actually at TDC.

yes, if the ring has moved, replace the balancer. if you've got another balancer, you could check the orientation of the crank keway with the timing mark on both balancers and see if they're the same, or even a brand new one, could even be a 350 balancer, all small block balancers should be oriented the same up through '92.

and no, if the ring slips, it won't change the balance enough to notice. If there aren't any drill marks in the ring of the balancer, it might not even change the balance at all. the 400 balancers have the weight on the inner portion of the part, inside the rubber ring, and 350 balancers are supposed to be neutral balanced anyway, so spinning the ring would have no effect.

...you HAVE checked the firing order and that the wires are going to the right cylinder, right?? and that the timing light pickup is on #1.
I still switch #'s 5 and 7 sometimes by accident when I'm having a blonde moment....

1-8-4-3-6-5-7-2

but if you have disconnected the est bypass wire, and turning the distributor doesn't change the timing--that's a new one on me..... I dunno what to tell you.

 

yeah i checked the firing order and made sure i was on the right cylinder the car runs good i just cant set the timing right so i dont know if i have the full potential

 

Just want to make you aware of something you might not know. The 350 balancer from 86 up is not a neutral balancer. When G.M. switched to the 1 piece rear main seal design in 86 up vehicles, they also changed them from internally balanced rotating assemblies to externally balanced ones like the 400. That's why they require a specific flywheel and different sized balancer that has the balancer couterweight on the inner hub of the balancer. The oil pan was also specific along with the rear crank flange of course. Not too many people are aware of that, and figuring you might not know, I felt I should share this info.

 

yeah i know they special flywheels(if you have a standard youll need the counterweight to bolt in between the flywheel and crank, or special crank,special harm. balancer, oil pan is a 400 pan ect.) i have another 400 small block balancer and i have a complete engine sitting at a friends house. i just dont think that would be able to happen with the balancer ill be working on the car this afternoon maybe i should try timing it and move the wires around at the same time, maybe ill have some luck

 

Actually, the info I dropped was for Gregbruce. I'm still glad you know though.

 

actually, you are wrong.
the balancers are the same, they only changed the flywheels.

350 balancers are different from 400. that's it.

ask your machinist.

 

I'm afraid I have to disagree about the balancers being different on 86 up 350's. If your machinist told you this, then you might want to have him give Lingenfelter Performance or any other high performance oriented shop that deals with these motors on a regular basis so he will no longer make this error. If you want clarification for yourself, call the tech line of A.T.I. Dampers. The number is Toll Free: (800) 284-3433. Better yet, call a smart tech guy from G.M. After talking with them I'm confident that you will agree with me. Just don't forget to tell your machinist,lol.

 

there are different timing tab locations with small blocks, thus different marks on the balancer. as far as I know, all 400's are the same.
In the gm perf parts catalog, I found a 2 degree and a 10 degree before keyway internal balanced notation.
still the best way is to use a piston stop to find ACTUAL TDC, then check your timing tab and see if the mark is correct.

but there are NO production external harmonic balanced pre 93 350 engines, wether or not the flywheel is.

look at this balancer, internal balanced, notice the outer ring, then notice the year:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1969-...97133755QQrdZ1

look at this balancer, notice the year, notice the outer ring, internal balanced:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/86-95...96590665QQrdZ1

now look at a 400 (or 383) balancer, notice the machined outer ring on the back side, external balanced:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/HARMO...spagenameZWDVW
let me know if you EVER find one of these balancers on an '86-'92 350 motor. I'll bet you won't.

from the gm website:
12555879 8" Torsional Damper
Originally used on 1970-74 350ci LT-1, Z-28, and L-82. This cast iron balancer's inertia ring is 111/16" wide; it has the 1969 and later timing mark. This damper is used on all ZZ4 engines. (which happens to be an '86 and up, one piece rear main seal crank)

6272221 6.75" Torsional Damper
This cast iron torsional damper (harmonic balancer) is used on most 1969 and later production 305 and 350ci small-block V8s. It is recommended for V6/90º racing engines and V8 applications with limited clearance. 6.75" diameter balancers have also been used successfully on drag racing small-blocks in classes which permit the use of cast iron dampers. The timing mark is 10º before keyway center line.

the differences your ati guy (desk job) is talking about is probably the timing mark location. 12 o'clock or 2 o'clock. just make sure you use the right timing tab and/or front cover.
could also be the physical size, 6.75" or 8", and I think there's a 7 " too, but I couldn't find any literature on that.

I happen to be a 20 year GM tech, certified in over 30 areas, and an ASE master tech.
I've been doing this a while, and have changed many balancers.

there's internal balanced, some different timing marks, with different diameters, and then there's external balanced.

the change in flexplates and flywheels is due to the different rear main seal setup, no extra counterweight on the crank (and a smaller bolt pattern), so they had to move the weight to the flywheel. there is no change in the rest of the crank. which means the same balancer will work.

and I have an EXTREMELY competent machinist.

 

Read John Lingenfelter's book on the smallblock and you'll see what I'm talking about. The 86 up blocks don't use a 400 balancer, nor do they use the classic 350 balancer. If I had to choose who to believe in this dilema, I would choose John Lingenfelter if for no other reason than his companies numerous builds on 86 up motors including the LT1 and LS1. That's not even counting the numerous engine build ups he did before. He had quite a few drag racing championships under his belt as well. I'm pretty sure that he would know the difference between a 400 balancer and a 350. This knowledge would also enable him to recognize a balancer that wasn't comparable to either of them as well. Therefore, I will retain my belief concerning this balancer which is backed up by a historical engine builder named John Lingenfelter.

 

yes, LT1 and LS1 balancers are different, but that's 93 and up, not what we're discussing here.
I will do some lingenfelter reading and report back what I find, thanks for the heads up.

 

After reading the book you'll see that 86 up, meaning the LT1 and LS1 are the same set up. It's a really good book from what I remember. You should enjoy it a lot.

 

your last post confuses me:

LT1's weren't out until 93, not 86.

 

I think what's confusing you is that you don't realize that the 92 Corvette LT1, and the Camaro LT1's used almost the exact same set up as the 86 up blocks. The main difference with the LT1 from what I understand is that you had to use a puller on the 86 up balancers, but the LT1 balancer can be removed by hand. The first time I took the balancer off my mom's 94 Z I couldn't believe I could take it off with my hands and a little WD-40. The balancers are different in that way only. They both still have the weight on the inner hub. You see, the only real disagreement we're having is about the 86-92 L-98 balancer. We both agree on the LT1 and LS1. I think what you didn't know was that the rotating assembly of the L-98 was carried over to the LT1's. Not trying to make you look like an idiot here, so don't take offense at my next statement. You should be able to use an L-98 rotating assembly in an LT1 without any problems. The only ugly duckling is the 305 crank. It carries the exact same part number as the 350 crank, but the crankshaft weights are different. If you use a straight ruler on a 305 crank it will be flat across the weights. This isn't so on the 350 weights. The reason is because the 305 had smaller pistons so the weights didn't have to be as heavy. This is probably the easiest way to tell the difference between the 305 and 350 cranks. Like I said, both cranks carry the same part number. I don't know why Chevy did it that way, but they did. As I stated earlier, the above statements are not intended to offend you in any way. The only reason I made them is so that you will understand that I have a pretty good understanding of what I'm talking about, and I have facts to back it up. Nobody should feel foolish for not knowing a lot of these facts because it was one of those little changes that G.M. didn't make too public. I must confess to my own lack of knowledge on this subject as well. It wasn't until after reading John Lingenfelter's book a while back that I found out. I like so many others, had believed the 86 up rotating assemblies to be internally balanced. Everybody who builds a motor and knows about building it for performance, also knows that an internally balanced motor will withstand the rigors of competition better than an externally balanced motor. Externally balanced motors have weight on both ends that is harder on the crank. Case in point, my mom's 94 Z. She gets on that car every once in a great while. It has been well maintained, as exhibited by the lack of oil leaks, smoothness in its idle and clean engine, despite having over 275,000 miles on the clock. About 2 months ago, the front crank seal started leaking. I changed it and it was fine for a little bit. Then when I went to change the oil, what did I see? The crank seal was leaking again. While changing it again, I decided to check the bearings and crank. The crank turned out to be a little more bent than it should. This is gonna but more load on the bearings and saddles, and will ensure that no crank seal I put on will ever last. It's time for a rebuild. This is why I believe that an internally balanced motor is better than an externally balanced one. Granted, cranks have gone bad in many a motor that was internally balanced, but those motors have either recently been rebuilt, or they were leaned on pretty hard during their service life. Therefore, I don't believe this would've happened if the motor had been internally balanced. That's just my opinion though. The ways stated above are the only ways I've seen a cranks fail, unless it was junk when it went in. You may have seen something different, but I haven't. Sorry this post is so long, but I like to answer questions as thoroughly as possible. Unless I've answered it in another post. Then I get lazy,lol. Post back and let me know what you think.

 

Ok well iv been kinda messing with the car and with the EST wire plugged in..... my timing is 13 degree's idling it doesnt jump around at all. im not sure if that sounds about right but it seems fairly close to me on what its supposed to be.

 

How does she run? Does she seem like she's trying to pull through the brakes or running hotter temp wise than before?

 

Well right now the clutch is going in it(i know, iv got problems) and i havnt had the time to fix everything w/ money issues and such and having 3 project cars. other than that it seems to pull alright most likely not as good as it should.

 

tpimarrow6.6:
sorry to hijack your thread about the balancers, that was not my intent.

iroczracer:
I found the lingenfelter book and the paragraph where he states about the balancers, but I have also done some field work of which I will let you know.

I have checked 5 different engines from varying years and here's what I found:
my 86 ta 305 tpi: no weight inside balancer
88 chevy pickup tbi 350 no weight in balancer
94 chevy truck tbi no weight
my 95 suburban 350 tbi no weight
my old 87 350 formula motor: no weight on balancer. (L-98)

I have checked the parts catalogs and found harmonic balancers between the 85 and 86 years did not change, ( the 305 balancer is different due to the location of the timing mark, but not a balance wieght.)
I have checked the GM performance parts catalog, and there is NO external balanced 350 or smaller cid balancer. and no specs stating for pre or post 86 model year.
I have found other publications (a day at border's book store) of small block chevy info, parts interchangeability, and there is no mention of the 86-up change in harmonic balancers (except the 305 timing marks).

based on this field work, and conversations with my engine machinist (who balances engines) I have to conclude that lingenfelter has either made a typo specifying the years, or just a plain mistake.

I do agree that the flexplate/flywheels have changed to "external" balance, and that would make the engine a "somewhat" externally balanced motor, but the balancers haven't changed until the new LT1 engine family, making 86 and up non LT1's half-breeds of balance.

maybe we should email lingenfelter and ask???

 

It doesn't matter how I say this, I'm gonna come off the wrong way. Some people are gonna think I'm being a smart aleck, others will be like whoa. So I'm just gonna say it. John Lingenfelter died while testing a new drag car. Your above post said " the flexplate had changed to a external balance set up, which is right on the money. The balancer is supposed to have more weight inside the inner hub, and that's why its considered externally balanced. You're absoulutely right that the externally balanced claim is per say. That's why I said it wasn't like the 400 hubs, so you couldn't use one of them in its place. I don't think I stated that no where near as good as you did above. That was the reason for our disagreement. Lingenfelter didn't make a typo, I was just too lazy to dig out the book and read what he wrote. It might have simplified things tremendously. It's been a while since I read that book, so I couldn't recall it as it was written. I hope that clears it up. Like I said, the way you stated it above is probably the best way it could be stated.

 

don't sound smart aleck at all.......
I was worried, and concerned that I was WAY off with my knowledge and was questioning my sanity with this bit of info.
I had doubts that for some reason went to my core and felt uneasy about it.
seems stupid, it's JUST a balancer.
there are bigger things in life, but for some reason, this was making me question life.
so much for the philosiphy (sp?)

thanks for all the replys.

 

now back to the issue originally at hand,
tpimarow6.6:

SOMETIMES you can get the timing right if you advance it till it pings when starting and then turn it back a couple degrees at a time until it stops pinging when starting and that will get it to the spot where the ENGINE likes the timing to be (cam, compression, ect.)
sometimes it won't ever ping when starting and you could end up with 40 or 50 degrees of initial advance, which is WAY too much.

sometimes the above procedure works better at wide open throttle (WOT), but that's only if you can hear it ping, like if your exhaust isn't too loud.
but it sounds like you need the clutch fixed first for that.

the next way is to go make a bunch of consistant 1/4 mile passes and adjust the timing to the best mph OR e.t. ( I actually watched this happen with an old charger with an alky hemi in it, the more he retarded the timing the faster the mph went on each run, but the et stayed almost the same, weird, huh?)

I have found that timing that's too retarded will create a slight hesitation on accel from a stop or a very slow roll, much like a bad accelerator pump. if you feel that condition, try advancing the timing slightly till that's gone.

MOST IMPORTANT THING:
timing that's too far advanced can create pre-ignition (detonation, pinging) that you also CANNOT hear, which makes cylinder pressures EXTREMELY too high and will break piston rings, ring lands, blow head gaskets, ect.
it's better to err on the low side than the high side.
hope this helps.

 

Don't feel bad. We all have our moments. I'm just glad we got it all sorted out and we now have a better understanding. The balancer thing is kinda crackish, but then so is Chevy's idea that S.U.V.'s are still the best selling vehicle to market. Now,