How to change a distributor in a 318

[John_Kunkel]

The use of the GM HEI module on Mopars isn't a new idea but the relay is.

Is that another joke? Here's a thread from 2006, written by Daniel Stern, a frequent Allpar.com contributor, and the guy that wrote the original online Mopar headlight relay upgrade guide from 1998 (link). Daniel Stern's HEI conversion guide is the one that's most commonly referenced online. Scroll down to the "Power relay" section of the guide:

Stern and I have had some lively disagreements on the WWW, makes sense you're a fan of his....birds of a feather. The headlight relay reference is a non-sequitur; the amp load involved in the headlight conversion is light years above the ignition.

[flyinlow]

non-sequitur......hum.... heard that in a Star Trek episode years ago and meant to look it up.  Finally did...learned something today.

[MaximRecoil]

The use of the GM HEI module on Mopars isn't a new idea but the relay is.

Is that another joke? Here's a thread from 2006, written by Daniel Stern, a frequent Allpar.com contributor, and the guy that wrote the original online Mopar headlight relay upgrade guide from 1998 (link). Daniel Stern's HEI conversion guide is the one that's most commonly referenced online. Scroll down to the "Power relay" section of the guide:

Stern and I have had some lively disagreements on the WWW, makes sense you're a fan of his....birds of a feather. The headlight relay reference is a non-sequitur; the amp load involved in the headlight conversion is light years above the ignition.

1. Your claim that the relay is a new idea in a Mopar HEI conversion has been proven wrong.

2. Your claim about how ballast resistors work has been proven wrong.

3. Your baseless assertion about me being a "fan of his" is dismissed out of hand, as all baseless assertions can be.

4. The "headlight relay reference" is not a non sequitur, given that it was simply part of a description of who Stern is.

5. Not that it is relevant, but the claim that "the amp load involved in the headlight conversion is light years above the ignition" has already been refuted (see above, in various places), just as everything else you have typed has.

By the way, according to some people on this thread, GM used a 10 gauge wire from the ignition switch to the coil/module; someone also said that their aftermarket wiring harness for a GM with HEI also used a 10 gauge wire. They draw 4-5 amps idling (up to 20-25 amps briefly upon startup as the coil is loaded), and high performance HEI modules such as from Accel draw about 8 amps, which is more than two low beam halogen headlights draw (at 70 total watts, two low beam halogen headlights draw about 5.4 amps @ 13 volts). As I said above (#5), your claim that "the amp load involved in the headlight conversion is light years above the ignition" has already been refuted; consider it refuted again.

Also, anyone who uses the "adds complexity and offers another component to fail and leave you stranded" argument against using a relay in an HEI conversion (as you did), yet at the same time endorses the headlight relay upgrade, is in a state of self-condradiction, especially since a relay failure in the headlight circuit could easily get someone killed, while a relay failure in an ignition circuit only means that the car won't start or it stalls, neither of which are likely to cause anyone any harm, much less get anyone killed.

It is no surprise that you and Stern "have had some lively disagreements on the WWW", given that you've demonstrated on this thread that you are full of bad, easily proven wrong information, and I've yet to see him demonstrate such a thing.

[Cooter]

Maximum, you must be from Moparts.....just sayin'... It's ok to dismiss out of hand..I give you permission...

[MaximRecoil]

Maximum, you must be from Moparts.....

I've only ever posted there a few times. Also, "maximum" is an adjective; "Maxim" is a name, unrelated to the adjective aside from a purely coincidental sequence of letters.

just sayin It';s ok to dismiss out of hand..I give you permission...

I only dismiss things which can legitimately be dismissed.

[maxwellwedge]

The same argument could be made of the stock ignition or any other system

Not really, given that the stock ignition system is fed low voltage anyway by design, due to the ballast resistor. That defeats the purpose of putting a relay in there.

if the wiring/switch is causing low voltage I'd say "fix that". The relay adds complexity and offers another component to fail and leave you stranded.

On the topic of the timing: I spliced a new cord onto my friend's timing light; found, cleaned, highlighted, and verified the timing marks on my car, and the timing light worked fine. The way I had it adjusted (from when I backed it off a bit the other day to stop it from pinging) turned out to be only a couple/few degrees BTDC. I set it to TDC and it runs fine. It idles much smoother than it did with the old points distributor, but it still doesn't idle as smooth as I'd like. The engine still rocks slightly back and forth when idling. I'm not sure what else to do to make it idle smoother though. I suppose I could mess with the idle mixture, and maybe get some new spark plugs. 

Try advancing it a few degrees at a time (BTDC) and test. You will probably quickly see TDC is not advanced enough for optimal performance....despite factory recommended settings.

[flyinlow]

For performance/millage tuning I shoot for a total timing ( base+centrifical) of about 34-38* on mild build RB engines. I shoot for this total advance by 2500 rpm for automatic cars.

I think SB engines run 2-4* less total , I have not experimented with them as much. Perhaps some of the 318-340 guys will chime in.

If you run premium fuel you can run more timing making more power and seeing an increase in millage that can off set the increase fuel cost making the extra power free.

[John_Kunkel]

1. Your claim that the relay is a new idea in a Mopar HEI conversion has been proven wrong.

The use of the HEI on Mopars with no relay predates the use of the HEI on Mopars with a relay.

2. Your claim about how ballast resistors work has been proven wrong.

Only if your contentions are "proof"...thus is the nature of inflated egos.

3. Your baseless assertion about me being a "fan of his" is dismissed out of hand, as all baseless assertions can be.

Hero worship is pretty easy to recognize.

4. The "headlight relay reference" is not a non sequitur, given that it was simply part of a description of who Stern is.

It is non-sequitur to this debate, the origin of Stern's use of relays in the headlight circuit is for the high-output headlamps that Stern hawks...their use in stock situations is a band-aid as is their use in ignition circuits.

5. Not that it is relevant, but the claim that "the amp load involved in the headlight conversion is light years above the ignition" has already been refuted (see above, in various places), just as everything else you have typed has.

Refuted? By whom? You? Inflated ego again.

By the way, according to some people on

Instead of quoting "some people" why not consult a GM FSM for proof. In comparing GM/Mopar systems you claimed that by the time the HEI was introduced in GM ammeters had been done away with...WRONG check how many '76 GM's still had ammeters and the same problems with them that plaque Mopars. On page one of this thread I stated "if the wiring/switch is causing low voltage I'd say "fix that" and the advice still stands...repair versus Band-Aid solutions, take your choice. The proof of your argument is out there you just aren't presenting it by other than "I said so".

Also, anyone who uses the "adds complexity and offers another component to fail and leave you stranded" argument against using a relay in an HEI conversion (as you did),

Adding an ISO relay to the circuit adds four spade connectors, the same type of connectors that you cite as the source of most low voltage problems....see a conflict there? And your statement that, if the relay failed, you'd just replace hints that the spare parts box you carry resembles a suitcase.  

yet at the same time endorses the headlight relay upgrade,

You're saying I endorse it? Where?

It is no surprise that you and Stern "have had some lively disagreements on the WWW", given that you've demonstrated on this thread that you are full of bad, easily proven wrong information, and I've yet to see him demonstrate such a thing.

Once again you see your side of the argument as "proof".  

[ws23rt]

 

[MaximRecoil]

The use of the HEI on Mopars with no relay predates the use of the HEI on Mopars with a relay.

That may or may not be true, but regardless of that, something that can be proven to be at least 7 years old is not "new", thus your claim was proven wrong.

Only if your contentions are "proof"...thus is the nature of inflated egos.

No, not my "contentions", but rather, citations; in big, bold color no less. Here's another citation for you:

ballast resistor [′bal·əst ri′sis·tər]
(electricity)
A resistor that increases in resistance as current through it increases, and decreases in resistance as current decreases. Also known as barretter (British usage).

McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific & Technical Terms, 6E, Copyright © 2003 by The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.

Again, you've been proven wrong.

Hero worship is pretty easy to recognize.

Still dismissed. See above.

It is non-sequitur to this debate, the origin of Stern's use of relays in the headlight circuit is for the high-output headlamps that Stern hawks...their use in stock situations is a band-aid as is their use in ignition circuits.

False. It wasn't part of the argument, it was part of a description of who he is, as I already said.

Refuted? By whom? You? Inflated ego again.

Refuted by the facts, which I pointed out. Again, the stock GM HEI module draws 4-5 amps idling, which is comparable to two low beam headlights being on. Aftermarket high performance modules draw up to 8 amps idling, which is comparable to two high beam headlights being on. This refutes your claim that "the amp load involved in the headlight conversion is light years above the ignition". And, given that you have nothing to offer which disputes these facts (kind of hard to come up with something to dispute facts, isn't it?), your tacit concession on the matter is noted.

Instead of quoting "some people" why not consult a GM FSM for proof.

I don't have a GM FSM. Why would I? I don't own any GMs. In any event, if you have any evidence that they are wrong, then present it.

In comparing GM/Mopar systems you claimed that by the time the HEI was introduced in GM ammeters had been done away with...WRONG check how many '76 GM's still had ammeters and the same problems with them that plaque Mopars.

None of them had full-load ammeters in 1976.

Amp gauges at the dash were standard equipment with Model A Fords, back in the late 1920's.  And the fifteen amp capacity gauge at the dash worked fine with minimal electrical systems of that period.  Current output from the small Model A generators was not even sufficient to support sealed beam headlights.  (The old Model A was equipped with a small light bulb backed up by a large reflector in the headlight assembly.)  The Model A only had one tail/brake light at the rear, a simple ignition system and a small battery about completed the electrical system.  Such a small amount of electrical current flow through good connections at the AMP gauge wiring was no problem with the Model A Ford.  And with current output limited by a cutout relay on the generator, the AMP gauge could handle the small battery charge rate.  But as electrical systems became more powerful, Ford discontinued the old AMP gauge system long before the '70's.

GM also up-graded their system long before the Dodge Boys.  When GM introduced the alternator with '63 models, it was controlled by a more complicated but more efficient voltage regulator system.  And the new GM system could support a warning light at the dash.  The warning light was often standard equipment and the gauge was an option. GM vehicles built with the gauge option also had a more modern design of AMP gauge at the dash.  The newer AMP gauge was a remote shunt type design–a length of the battery charging wire in the under-hood harness served as the shunt.  The dash gauge and related wiring no longer handled heavy current load.  Same with Ford in '65 and newer model cars–the Ford system could work with a warning light at the dash, and cars that came dash gauges had a remote shunt type amp gauge.

You don't even understand the terminology here. I suggest you find out what a full-load ammeter is; and no, the "full-load" part is not an insignificant detail that you can safely ignore.

On page one of this thread I stated "if the wiring/switch is causing low voltage I'd say "fix that" and the advice still stands...repair versus Band-Aid solutions, take your choice.

You obviously don't understand the concept of a "Band-Aid solution". Creating a new circuit, a circuit which is more efficient than the original circuit, using the tried and true automotive ISO relay, is not a "Band-Aid solution", it is a permanent fix; an upgrade in fact. This also has the bonus of taking the load off my 44-year-old ignition switch, a bonus which doesn't exist if you simply go tearing out the original wires and replacing them with e.g. 10 gauge. Another bonus of the relay is the ease of going back to stock if I ever want to.  

Adding an ISO relay to the circuit adds four spade connectors, the same type of connectors that you cite as the source of most low voltage problems....see a conflict there?

2 of those 4 connectors only see very low current, a few milliamps. But regardless of that, the Delphi/Packard 56 terminals in the Mopar bulkhead connector are not the same as standard QD terminals. The female connector of a standard QD terminal has two rolled-over edges which "dig" into the male terminal (evidenced by the two scrape lines left behind on the male terminal when you take one off). The Packard 56 female terminal relies on a springy press fit. And no, I didn't cite them "as the source of most low voltage problems", I cited them as a contributor (especially when they are decades old; being not as springy/tight and clean as they once were), along with long runs of thin wire

And your statement that, if the relay failed, you'd just replace hints that the spare parts box you carry resembles a suitcase.  

That doesn't make any sense at all. A few spare relays take up very little space. Also, I've yet to have a relay fail on me in any vehicle I've owned.

You're saying I endorse it? Where?

I referred to "anyone" who endorses it. Try reading again. By the way, do you endorse the headlight relay conversion?

Once again you see your side of the argument as "proof".  

I see facts as proof, you know, because they are proof.

In summary:

1. The relay gives higher and steadier voltage/current to the HEI module and coil than the stock wiring does.

2. Relays are reliable enough that modern cars have lots of them, even in particularly critical areas such as ABS brakes and lights. My 2001 Dodge Dakota not only has an ignition relay, but a fuel injection relay and a fuel pump relay as well. And in the unlikely event of a relay failure, it is no more dangerous than running out of gas, and replacing it is no more difficult than replacing a fuse (rewiring to bypass the relay isn't difficult either). In other words, the benefits of #1 far outweigh the trivial "what ifs?".

According to your "logic", relays should never be used in a vehicle at all. The engineers should always just specify heavy-duty switches and heavy gauge wire instead. Maybe you should get rid of the horn relay in your car, and simply "fix that", you know, just beef up the wiring all the way to the steering wheel. You say that a horn relay failure is trivial, and replacing all the wiring in the circuit would be a major pain? Doesn't matter! We can't have that "Band-Aid solution" that Chrysler's engineers slapped on your car, now can we?

[JB400]

Just thought I'd ask.  Do you have any definitive proof other than what you posted to completely disprove John of any and all statements made in his last post?  I would like a link please.

[MaximRecoil]

Just thought I'd ask.  Do you have any definitive proof other than what you posted to completely disprove John of any and all statements made in his last post?  I would like a link please.

The proof has been presented for all of my statements, and/or the statements contain independently verifiable information. If you wish to contest anything I've said, then present your argument(s).

[A383Wing]

in other words, "No, he doesn't"

[MaximRecoil]

in other words, "No, he doesn't"

That's a bald-faced lie, and as such, it is dismissed out of hand.

[ws23rt]

in other words, "No, he doesn't"

Did you tell a lie    Or did you make an observation

[JB400]

Kind of gutsy calling a respected member (one that has been here a while) a liar when all he did was answer a question directed solely at me.

WS, I would have to agree that it is an observation.

[MaximRecoil]

Kind of gutsy calling a respected member (one that has been here a while) a liar when all he did was answer a question directed solely at me.

Saying that I don't have proof when plenty of proof has already been presented in this thread is demonstrably a lie, regardless of who says it. Also, saying "in other words" and following it with a statement that doesn't in any way reflect what I said is also a lie.

And I see you have nothing that you wish to contest. So what were you doing? Just throwing stuff out there hoping it would stick, without actually having anything specific in mind for which you don't think I've provided proof or can not be independently verified?

[JB400]

Kind of gutsy calling a respected member (one that has been here a while) a liar when all he did was answer a question directed solely at me.

Saying that I don't have proof when plenty of proof has already been presented in this thread is demonstrably a lie, regardless of who says it. Also, saying "in other words" and following it with a statement that doesn't in any way reflect what I said is also a lie.

I believe I asked you for a website link that would verify your claims.  Your response to my request was that all proof has already presented by you.  You therefore failed to provide the secondary source of information that I requested.  All A383wing did was notify me in a shorter form that you do not have a secondary source of information.  Nowhere did he lie.  If he did lie, so did you.

[ws23rt]

Kind of gutsy calling a respected member (one that has been here a while) a liar when all he did was answer a question directed solely at me.

Saying that I don't have proof when plenty of proof has already been presented in this thread is demonstrably a lie, regardless of who says it. Also, saying "in other words" and following it with a statement that doesn't in any way reflect what I said is also a lie.

And I see you have nothing that you wish to contest. So what were you doing? Just throwing stuff out there hoping it would stick, without actually having anything specific in mind for which you don't think I've provided proof or can not be independently verified?

An observation is an inferred question. You side stepped the question which implies lack of interest or ability to answer.

[A383Wing]

He's kinda like the little pink energizer bunny..."Keeps going, & going...banging his own drum"

Kind of gutsy calling a respected member (one that has been here a while) a liar when all he did was answer a question directed solely at me.

It's OK..I have been called worse....by better people than him...he's forgiven

[ws23rt]

He's kinda like the little pink energizer bunny..."Keeps going, & going...banging his own drum"

There is a chain on his back to pull.   And I suspect it drives a generator for final drive. With a relay to make it reliable.

[MaximRecoil]

I believe I asked you for a website link that would verify your claims.

There have been a lot of claims, and there have been links and direct quotes as well. I'm not going to humor your whimsical request that you can't even provide a basis for. Contesting a specific point or points would give your request basis; a wholesale request of a link proving everything I've typed has no basis, and is absurd.  

Your response to my request was that all proof has already presented by you.

And/or is independently verifiable. An example of independently verifiable information would be when I stated how many amps headlights use. That is independently verifiable because if you know the wattage of standard sealed beam halogen headlights (usually 35 watts low beam / 50 watts high beam for the headlights 2nd generation Chargers use; and that can be independently verified), and you know the voltage (about 13 volts, also independently verifiable, if you don't already know), you can determine amperage via an independently verifiable formula (volts x amps = watts, or watts / volts = amps). Just blindly asking for a link for stuff like that is absurd.

You therefore failed to provide the secondary source of information that I requested.

The "secondary source of information" already exists in my posts, or can easily be found.

All A383wing did was notify me in a shorter form that you do not have a secondary source of information.  Nowhere did he lie.

It is a lie to say that I don't have a secondary source of information, as there are links and direct quotes from reference material already in my posts. His "No he doesn't" statement was a reply to your question "Do you have any definitive proof other than what you posted to completely disprove John of any and all statements made in his last post?", and that is a lie.

If he did lie, so did you.

False. See above.

And again:

And I see you have nothing that you wish to contest. So what were you doing? Just throwing stuff out there hoping it would stick, without actually having anything specific in mind for which you don't think I've provided proof or can not be independently verified?

[Cooter]

 

[MaximRecoil]

An observation is an inferred question.

No, it isn't. Cite any accepted definition of the word "observation" which says anything even remotely similar to it being an "inferred question".

You side stepped the question which implies lack of interest or ability to answer.

Negated, due to your false premise of "An observation is an inferred question", thus dismissed.

He's kinda like the little pink energizer bunny..."Keeps going, & going...banging his own drum"

There is a chain on his back to pull.   And I suspect it drives a generator for final drive. With a relay to make it reliable.

*Ching*
*Ching*

[ws23rt]

  Me too