Has anyone advanced their timing, if so how?

[Seed Guy]

Ive heard that it is possible to advance the timing on the 24 valve for up to a 50 horse gain. Is this possible or is it all just a bunch of timing fluff?

 

[pres10]

YES, many of us have

Many of us have advanced our injection timing, by use of the Van Aakin box or the Edge EZ. Both advance timing and slightly increase fuel. The EZ is also adustable where as VA is not. I have been using the VA for about 18 months and am well pleased with it. It does make a little smoke at low boost, but is CARB approved.

I think that either one would be a good choice for mild power improvement and neither one will challenge a stock drive line. I also picked up about 1. 5 MPG with the box.

 

[Bob Wagner]

a great box is ......

www.vanaaken.com





I could be swayed but the VA is one hell of of a box

 

[Evan A. Beck]

The VA and the EZ are both excellent. IMHO, the EZ had a better program in it, and is also a bit cleaner than the VA. The boxes both change the timing, and add fuel. The main difference is the EZ does it through the ECM, and the VA does it after the ECM. The EZ also has a boost module provision in it, which the latest version of the VA also has.



One thing I have noticed, is the VA makes a bit more smoke on trucks with a 12cm² turbo and a set of injectors. On the 2001 autos with the 9cm² turbo, the boost comes up fast enough, thus eliminating smoke--even with a set of injectors installed.

 

[Archive]

Originally posted by Evan A. Beck

One thing I have noticed, is the VA makes a bit more smoke on trucks with a 12cm² turbo and a set of injectors. On the 2001 autos with the 9cm² turbo, the boost comes up fast enough, thus eliminating smoke--even with a set of injectors installed.

Evan, can you go into more detail on this? I have not seen the new VA in use. Or are you talking about the old VA boxes? Are you talking about the old VA in reference to the "better program"?



What is in the program that makes you think the EZ is better?

 

[Evan A. Beck]

Well, the EZ's program is different in the respect that it doesn't advance the timing any more than the factory 275HP ISB. The VA advances it a little more, and this is why some folks get a little bit of a stumble and lots of smoke with bigger injectors--mine was a perfect example of that. Also, the fueling curve of the VA is much different because it is doing its work after the ECM. The EZ runs cleaner because it works in direct conjunction with all the ISB's sensors, whereas the VA does not--it has to do it indirectly.



VA finally got smart a while back and decided to make several versions of its unit--a 215/235 ETC version, a 245 ETH, and a 260/275 RV version. A lot of RV owners were having problems with a lot of low-end smoke, and since the release of the 260/275 RV version, the low end smoke has been cleared up. One size fits all does not apply to the electronics, and this is what VA learned.



The newest VA has a boost module in it, we have one at work right now. Pretty cool looking, and it is much different than the previous units. It's got a plastic case now, and the wiring harness is separate from the "brain" unit. It is pretty nice, and it looks like it is getting more versatile. I think the new one is prgrammable too. Not sure on a price difference though...

 

[Chad Sheets]

I've been off and on this board for over 2 years now, and I have yet to see what the factory timing parameters are and what the EZ (settings 1,2,3) advances fuel delivery to. Has ANYONE figured this out... for sure, none of this "my buddies dads friend said" stuff.



Just read a Case 4wd engine book, and says to set the injection timing 28 deg BTDC. All the old timers about filled their pants and said "no way".



Would be interesting to find out what our timing is (+/- whatever).

 

[Jeepthing]

The DD TTPM (EZ) has a timing only setting . Is anybody using this box in the timing only position and too what benifits. Thank You.

 

[Archive]

Originally posted by Chad Sheets

Would be interesting to find out what our timing is (+/- whatever).

Chad... this is the info I was asking from Evan since he seems to be in the "know"... however. either I didn't state the question right or he didn't understand it.



I also agree , "none of this "my buddies dads friend said" stuff".

 

[zman]

...not the answer, but...

Although I don't have the specifics to the timing/fueling question, I did find out that just because the 2001 ETCs have the same HP and torque ratings regardless of transmission, that there IS a difference in the timing and fueling curves between the 5 speed and the auto.



I figured something MUST be different since after I swapped in an HX35 to replace my HY35, I had a very noticible lag - even with an EZ. (reason for swap is bigger injectors in very near future - hoping that fixes the lag as well).



I sent an email to a friend who is an engineer at Cummins in Columbus, IN and this was his response:



"The fueling tables for the automatic and the manual are indeed different, at least for 2001. Reason being - emissions. Since the manual pulls a higher load off idle, the emissions map works out differently. We have to 'average' emissions from several different operating points, and try to optimize different things, like power and fuel economy, for the end user. We used a little bit different strategy on the manual vs the automatic in this case. "



So it looks like engines that appear to be exactly the same in terms of power actually have different fueling and timing curves. More data to gather.



I wonder if it is possible to reflash/reprogram the AT ECM with the 5 speed curves? Looking forward to more specifics on Marco's ECMs.



Steve

 

[Chad Sheets]

If you have the software and the database from Cummins, you can reflash the ECM. That is what I do for CAT now, flash ECM's and test all the electronic garb on the engines before sending them on to test.



Ecm's can be flashed and reflashed several times for software updates and such.