Finally obtained an accurate scale for testing point spring tension.

While I WILL likely replace the non-ventilated antique units that were included with the dual-point Loadomatic conversion kit I installed, I did notice that their spring tension is still a couple ounces over the max. specs., even with the spring/condenser nut loosened all the way. Aside from just swapping points until a weaker spring is found (and assuming the pivot is not binding), can anybody with extensive point ignition experience offer an alternative solution for this type of dilemma?



Also, specifically what type of pivot lube is traditional? Oil near the points is usually discouraged, so I'm thinking: greaseless lube or WD40?



P.S. I recently downloaded an article (from a link on this forum?) titled: HOW DOES A LOAD O MATIC DISTRIBUTOR WORK? Can't seem to find it again. I would like to communicate with the author re: additional tech. points concerning the text, if anyone can provide contact info?

6 VOLTS/POS. GRD. NW INDIANA

Here is good info regarding the loadomatic and spring tension testing

http://home.earthlink.net/~rchaskell/auto/sun/DT504_505_im.pdf
marv

Thanks anyway Marv, but I already have that manual. Nothing in it re: my questions.

6 VOLTS/POS. GRD. NW INDIANA

Daniel,

Try http://m571.com/yblock/loadomatic.htm If that does not work just Google Ford load o matic. Pete

Doug T (Y-Blocker) wrote an excellent article on this a couple years ago. I think it was in the Y-Block magazine, maybe he will chip in here and tell us where to find it.

Frank/Rebop

Bristol, In ( by Elkhart) 

After reviewing all my ignition literature, I see that 50s brand-X/scrub points were adjusted by simply squeezing the spring with pliers. I will try that technique and see if the tension can be brought within FoMoCo threaded adjustment specs., but worry it might distort enough to effect performance? No big deal I guess, as points are cheap.



My interest in the LOADOMATIC article concerns the apparent fact that the spark control valve feeds full manifold vacuum (20" Hg) to the distributor at low load/revs, even though max. high speed spark advance is set for only 2" Hg (teapot venturi vac.). This results in rough-running when initial timing is excessive, especially if the advance springs are set more aggressive then factory #s. Experimenting now with mechanical advance limiter.

6 VOLTS/POS. GRD. NW INDIANA

Daniel,

   When I re-read the article on load o matic distributors, the take away for me was that they preformed badly as a result of TOO LITTLE distributor advance during acceleration. Why would you want to limit advance. I do not understand how that will increase engine preformance.

   Can you explain? Pete

Daniel: Further to Pete's comment, if I'm reading it right, you say the problem occurs when initial timing is to far advanced. So, wouldn't it be prudent to set it back some?!

Paul

Pete/Paul,



Point of article was how Loadomatic advance was SLOW to catch up with revs (restrictive air passage) compared to centrifugal. Weakening the springs should provide less resistance to available low venturi vacuum, allowing quicker advance? If springs too weak, low load manifold vacuum will produce excessive advance (rough running) without a mechanical limiter. Initial advance typically should be as high as possible (limited by hard-starting/pinging) for maximum acceleration? Clear as mud?


6 VOLTS/POS. GRD. NW INDIANA

Daniel,

   It has been a long, long time since I have been inside a load o matic. Are you saying that by finding weaker springs that the points themselves are attached to you believe your distributor will advance the timing at a faster rate? What about point float at a much lower RPM? I remain skeptical of this theory. Pete