Took some more readings last night, and graphed them out on a copy of the FSM timing curves.
All reading were taken with the engine warmed up, base idle set at 650 RPM, initial timing set at 6 degrees advance.
I am "assuming" that the mechanical advance chart numbers have subtracted out the initial timing. For example, at 1,600 RPM I had total timing of 20, subtract out the initial 6, plotted 14. I assume this is the correct procedure

Mechanical advance readings recorded with vacuum advance disconnected and plugged.
This kind of confirms my thoughts. The mechanical timing advance is coming in right off idle, when it should be flat. Also, from 1,000 RPM on up to 1,600 RPM, it has too much advance, and the advance is reaching its highest level a bit too soon in the RPM range.
The below results, from the vacuum advance, was not what I expected. All readings taken with the engine at a 650 RPM idle. I used a vacuum pump to provide vacuum to the advance unit. Same as above, I recorded the total timing, subtracted out the 6 degrees of initial timing, and recorded the amount of total timing coming from the vacuum advance.
It would appear to me that the current vacuum advance can is not providing enough advance through out the curve, and it is not allowing for enough total advance at the higher vacuum readings.
So, the mechanical is too high, the vacuum advance is too low, put them together, maybe the total timing is within an acceptable range

I kind of think so.
This engine is a bit rough from idle to around 1,200 RPM, where the mechanical advance is advancing too much. When I retarded the initial timing to around 0-2 degrees, the throttle response/rough patch almost went away. I could not retard the engine below 0, it would spit out the carb.
So, I am going to try to slow down the initial mechanical advance, with I guess slightly stiffer springs.
I can install the adjustable vacuum advance can on there and dial in some more vacuum advance, too.
Assuming I am on the correct path, any comments/criticism appreciated
