20E Ignition timing question

[opelbits]

I also have a 2.0E motor. Got mine as a reman from OGTS. One thing that Gil or Dennis told me was the 2.0E timing is, IIRC, 5 degrees off from the older engines. What they said was that setting the timing using the pointer and ball in the flywheel (like you're suppose to with the older cars) means that the timing of the 2.0E is actually 5 degrees off, if you have an older 1.9 flywheel (all the US cars). Unfortunately, I can't remember if they said it was advanced or retarded.


Do you have a mechanical or electric fuel pump? If you have a stock pump, then the front timing cover has been changed to the older type. Factory 2.0E covers have no provision for the mechanical pump. If it has that type of cover, odds are good you have an entire 2.0E. If you have the older cover, then it's likely that the head has been off (it has to come off to get the timing cover off). If the head has been off, then anything could happen. Like a modified head or ?

[gr_diver]

Concerning the timing that opelbits mentions, I think, but am not sure that the 2.0E engines need 10BTDC static timing, so setting by the ball of a 1.9 flywheel would retard timing by 5 degrees...

If I am wrong correct me please...

[tekenaar]

Concerning the timing that opelbits mentions, I think, but am not sure that the 2.0E engines need 10BTDC static timing, so setting by the ball of a 1.9 flywheel would retard timing by 5 degrees...

If I am wrong correct me please...

. . . nope, you're comparing apples to oranges, i.e. crank degrees to distributor degrees, a 2:1 ratio.

All ignition timing is given in crank degrees, not distributor degrees. So, if engine requires 10BTDC initial ignition timing and you're using the flywheel ball to set it, the ball should be set 10 deg to the left of the pointer (CW crank rotation) for the initial setting . . . HTH.

[gr_diver]

This is a question that I always had in my mind! When, for every possible reason, one wants to find TDC in a CIH engine, he has to align the ball with the pointer. For setting static timing 5BTDC, we also align the ball with the pointer...

How is this correct for the both?

Thus, I meant, that if the car currently has a 1.9 flywheel (as opelbits), using a timing light and aligning the ball and the pointer would yield a 5BTDC static timing, which is 5 degrees retarder in comparison to the 10BTDC timing that the 2.0E engine requires...

About the 2.0E timing, my Haynes manual is not specific, but states that timing might be set by the front pulley instead of ball & pointer at the flywheel. If so, there would be 4 timing marks on the front timing cover (below the distributor) and timing is set by aligning a notch on the pulley with the longer of the marks...

HTH

[opelbits]

In the early 70's when Ford began detuning the engines, they altered the cam timing. Originally, the cam in the 351C 4v, the timing was 'straight up', 0 degrees. In 72, they changed the cam so that using the stock Ford parts (no adjustability, just like the Opel cam, it fits only one way) the cam was 2degrees retarded. If you put the cam in the earlier motor, it was still 2 degrees retarded.

I am assuming that if the 2.0E cam is not itself retarded/advanced like the Ford cam was, then the earlier 1.9 flywheel timing ball is in a different spot (by 5 degrees) than the later 2.0E.

So, the question is which part accounts for the 5 degrees? The cam or the flywheel?


In my installation of the 2.0E (perhaps since the motor is an actual european market motor, I should use the correct 'punctuation', 2,0E, not 2.0E), I used the stock 2,0 cover which has the timing marks on it right near the crank pulley. I panited them white. I got the motor to tdc and then made a mark on my pulley (stock 1.9 US) aligned with the longest mark on the timing cover. This gave me a reference point that was much easier to see and I could adjust by a couple of degrees either way. I ended up timing it by how the car felt. Not so hard to do when you know the difference is 5 degrees. Plus, when you make the marks, you can also makr the rear timing pointer and make a dab on the flywheel, too.

[jvandyke]

GT, 2.0E, Crane Cam ignition.
No point and ball on flywheel, PO had drawn some white marks there and on crank pulley up front.
I put her at TDC as per distributor rotor and found the POs white marks where as follows in pics. Now since they are "custom marks" I don't know why he drew them there, TDC or where he liked the timing. Here's the thing.
Before I messed with the Dizzy I shot the light at the pulley marks, it was way over to passenger side. (extreme retard?) I rotated the distributor clockwise and lined 'em up, idle went way down and it loped along. Went for gentle cruise. Lots of decel backfiring and poor power. This is with vacuum lines from distributor pulled and plugged (I wasn't sure so I plugged all loose ends! those coming from the dizzy and the nipples on the carb/intake, is that right?)
I'm trying to decide where timing "should be" and then mess with the carb as I don't know by PO's marks where timing should go. I can do it by feel but I don't trust the carb settings either so I'm worried I'm adjusting the timing for a crappy carb, or adjusting the carb for crappy timing.
Pretty ignorant here so, be gentle.
I'm heading out to reset it and "split the difference" and see how she goes.
BTW before I touched anything I'd been running the car fine for 4,000 miles or so, it couldn't have been THAT bad, right? (Might be now)

[jvandyke]

Alright, I "split the difference", rotated the distributor back half the distance it took to acheive "zero" timing (according to someone's marks anyway).
So, who's the wise guy you slipped a V6 into my GT while I was changing the timing? Wow did that make a difference! Must be gett'n close. I'd say maybe 20% more get up and go, smoother lower idle too. Cool.
Now I wonder how much this effected my attempt to fit a Weber 38 last week. The picture below shows starting point, then how far clockwise I moved it to acheive "zero". Now it's sitting half way between those two points and I'm not mess'n with it anymore. (yeah right!)

PS can't add pictures at the moment, web site issues it seems

[opelbits]

I think if you look closely at the timing cover where the original factory mark is at (in the second pic), you will find some raised ridges. These would be the marks used in conjunction with the factory mark on the pulley.
Take into account the five degrees advance/retard (whatever it was...see my posts above) of the 2.0E, and the possibilty of a stock US 1.9 flywheel, and that paint mark on the timing cover might be in the right place.

What may have happened is this: 2.0E with five degree difference in crank/cam timing (that would the static timing, correct?) has a 1.9 flywheel attached to it. The timing ball in the 2.0E flywheel is physically in a different place, so lining up the 1.9 flywheel timing ball with the pointer in the window at the back of the block, effectively puts the 2.0E engine five degrees out of time. Not knowing this, whomever made the paint marks ends up having to make new marks, because, lo and behold, things aren't lining up. Or maybe they did know about the timing difference and that is where they chose to put new marks that they would be able to see.

The various marks may be:
factory mark (groove in pulley)
initial timing with vacuum/centrifugal advance hooked up
advanced timing (using a timing light with an adjustable advance, you can use the farthest mark to see if/when you get mechanical/vacuum advance or total advance)

I'm too tired to think it all thru and work backwards to figure out what *might* have gone on, but that is my general suspicion (mainly because that is what I did).

Or it's none of the above and a Buick dealer mechanic had to work on it.

The accompanying issue may be this, if they did not know about the difference in timing and used a 1.9 block, then lined up the pointer to adjust the valves, then the valves may be adjusted incorrectly.

[jeff denton]

Worse yet the cam (valve timing) could be off.
When the timing light shows the pulley mark moving to the passenger side of the big line on the front cover, that is advancing.
Both cam and ignition timing are critical issues, they must be right for your car to run good.
Having a good TDC mark is kind of important, too. I'd start there, make sure your pulley is marked accurately.

[jvandyke]

Timing cover marks: not there (RalleyBob had a post with a great picture of them which I can't find back), my cover ain't got, which is weird.
First check of timing with light, I couldn't even see the homemade mark on the flywheel it was 'out of the window".
The one on the pulley was way out to passenger side (mega advance?) in reference to the homemade mark on the timing cover.
Set #1 to TDC and both homemade flywheel and pulley marks line up so I assume that's what the PO did.
First adjust: rotated dist. clockwise, lining up pulley marks (and flywheel marks) with above results.
Second adjust: moved dist. back half way from whence it came. MUCH better idle and overall running as compared to how she was the last 5 months.
I suppose it's academic why the marks were put where. I'm going to just time it by how she runs and call it good. I'd like to know why PO had it so far advanced though. I ran it into work today and she runs good. Seems quite a bit peppier but the big difference is the idle, it is much smoother and will idle lower too.
I'll gun it again and also rev to different RPMs and see what the marks do. I have not disassembled the dizzy to look at the advance mechanism or anything.
PS lost ability to attach pictures again, oh well.

[Bill Hoffmann]

Timing cover marks: not there (RalleyBob had a post with a great picture of them which I can't find back), my cover ain't got, which is weird.

My 2.0E has a cast pointer right behind the crank pulley, which is a heavier piece than on 1.9 engines. 1.9E blocks have a pressed-in steel pointer in the timing cover similar to the one in the flywheel window. Pre-75 blocks have a series of lines cast in the timing cover even though timing is done on the flywheel. I'm surprised you don't have one of these three, especially since the FSM specifies timing off the crank pulley on fuel injected engines, possibly because it's difficult to see the flywheel marks on these.

[jvandyke]

I'll have a closer look at the timing cover, see the picture of the pulley above I was looking for something like these.

There's a mark on the pulley (see above picture) so there might/should be a corresponding mark on the cover, you'd think. Begs the question though, if there both sets of factory marks (pulley and cover) why did the PO make his own? Maybe he didn't see 'em either! I have to pull the pulley soon anyway, oil leak at front seal is bugg'n me. (at least that's where I think it's leaking) Hoping to Redi sleeve it.

[jeff denton]

Study my flywheel teeth timing mark thread and try that. You make a new mark on the bellhousing, which is very easily visible from under the car. Use the piston stop method to find TDC, this can be very carefully done through a spark plug hole. From there you can check valve timing, and can get ignition timing perfect.

[Bill Hoffmann]

I'll have a closer look at the timing cover, see the picture of the pulley above I was looking for something like these.

There's a mark on the pulley (see above picture) so there might/should be a corresponding mark on the cover, you'd think. Begs the question though, if there both sets of factory marks (pulley and cover) why did the PO make his own? Maybe he didn't see 'em either! I have to pull the pulley soon anyway, oil leak at front seal is bugg'n me. (at least that's where I think it's leaking) Hoping to Redi sleeve it.

I double checked, and my 2.0 doesn't have the early marks like those shown in Rallybob's photos. It has one raised pointer that's part of the casting. I don't know why it would be missing unless maybe the P.O. ground it off when polishing the timing cover or something. It seems too stout to be broken off.

[jvandyke]

Study my flywheel teeth timing mark thread and try that. You make a new mark on the bellhousing, which is very easily visible from under the car. Use the piston stop method to find TDC, this can be very carefully done through a spark plug hole. From there you can check valve timing, and can get ignition timing perfect.

Wondering what proper timing is supposed to be for a 2.0E? Did we decide ever? How does one check cam timing then? by mark on cam gear? pull valve cover, set crank to TDC and mark on cam gear should be....? Yes, I've been reading ALOT, so don't chastise me!

[jeff denton]

Yes, there is a mark on the cam sprocket. Put the crank at TDC and the mark might be straight in line with a mark on the "shelf" which is a tin tab just below the gear, you have to look straight down from above to see it. If it isn't in line, rotate the crank 1 turn, to TDC again and recheck. If neither attempt got it in line, either your valve timing is off or your TDC indication is incorrect, or both, or you screwed up and rotated the crank backwards.
As far as I'm concerned, proper ignition timing is whatever works best. Base timing, vacuum advanced timing, total timing, all these factor in depending on how your engine is built, where and how you drive, what gas you use.
Not so simple, is it?

[opelbits]

Okay, here is what I did the other day....


Bear in mind that I have a 2.0E, not a modified 1.9. The 2.0E timing pointer is in a slightly different place. At this time I do not remember if the 2.0E timing pointer is 5 degrees or so different than the 1.9, or if there is a difference in cam to crank timing, or if the initial timing is slightly retarded/advanced Regardless, there is a slight difference to be taken into account. OGTS says that when using the 1.9 flywheel, align the ball embedded in the flywheel with the screw head next to the timing pointer in the 2.0 block timing window.

Disconnect the distributor vacuum lines from the distributor and plug them. Set initial timing so that the ball in the flywheel aligns with the screw head in the 2.0E block at 700-800 rpm.

Reconnect vacuum retard and use a timing light to confirm it retards the timing right about 5 degrees at the same rpm as when you set the inital timing. The ball will have appeared to move about a 1/2" or so, maybe a little more.

Reconnect vacuum advance.

Using an adjustable timing light, rev motor to 3k and see what the timing has advanced to by turning the little advance knob on the light till the ball lines up with the screw head again. Look at the dial on the timing light and it will tell you what the total advance is at that rpm.

In theory, everything should be fine.

Before connecting the retard or advance vacuum lines, I used a little Mityvac pump to check those mechanisms separately on the distributor with the motor running. I pumped the Mityvac until the retard or advance started to kick in. The gauge on the Mityvac will tell you how many inches of vacuum it took to actuate them. The FSM (preferably for the appropriaste year distributor) will tell you what inches of vacuum at what rpm produces what advance or retard is produced in degrees. It will tell you at what rpm it starts retarding or advancing. Do them one at a time. You can also use the pump to determine if the diaphragm is good. If you pump it up to the specified vacuum and it holds that reading without losing it, the the diaphragm is good.

The big question is what flywheel is on your 2.0E. If you find TDC, look at the ball. If it lines up with a 2.0E pointer, then it may be a 2.0 flywheel. If it is slightly off, it may be a 1.9 flywheel.

Or something like that. My car does run significantly better.

[jvandyke]

I did find (and paint white) a mark on timing cover (little raised ridge). Also painted white groove on pulley. These must be intended timing marks. Set timing accordingly. Will go with that for now. Warmed it up, blocked dis. retard line, set to those marks, reconnected vaccum line, timing retarded a bit. Will play more tonight if time allows. No pun intended. Thanks guys.

As for the flywheel, when at TDC I can see nothing but PO's added white marks, I couldn't even manage to see those last night, with the Manta linkage bracket and carb and all, there's no finding that needle. I'm working off the front pulley. I will be checking cam timing tonight. Want to know where it's at. Also, and somewhat worrisome, is a rather pronounced clatter at low RPM, sounds rather clunky to me, like a rod knock.

[jvandyke]

Stumbled across this post.
So, if I have non '75 distributor on a '75 motor, would this account for why the timing seems to want to be (runs better) more advanced then what the marks (factory pulley/timing cover) say it should be?
I'll have to refind the thread on id-ing distributors. Would the differences in distributors be in the springs and weights mostly? I do have the vacuum advance cansitor with line to carb, another line to manifold, thought this indicated year of dist. but can't seem to find it back.

Found it.
http://www.opelgt.com/forums/6e-tune...l-advance.html

[jvandyke]

Wondering what effect running a '70 distributor on a 2.0 might have? That's what's on there. When timing set to spec, idle is better, starts much easier, comes off idle and takes off from a stop better but (assuming not a carb issue, which it could well be) it hesitates and sputters under moderate to heavy acceleration. Cruising and slow acceleration is fine. Should I pull the thing off and examine the guts?