2000 and 2001 tables are drastically different...
why so much???

2000


2001

 

anyone???

 

minor differences such as the cam, intake, etc. They have different VE/MAF tables too

 

00 has egr 01 doesnt

 

My car ran a ton better on the 98-00 table versus the stock '01 table.

 

the table on my 2000 ws6 looks different then that one.not much but i can def tell its not the same mine has a big dip at 4200-4600 where that one is flat in the yellow area.

 

sorry..the flat spot is because I pulled it from my pcm...I was able to remove the torque valley with no adverse effects on my car... it usually has a dip there stock...

 

Good topic. My 98 timing is 28/29 in the bottom right hand corner where the
2001 iirc was 22/24 in that same location(cells).Anyone come up with an answer???

 

I noticed the very same thing. I was tuning a 01 WS6 car and looked at the high and low octane spark tables. My 99 LS1 TA has a much more agressive spark tune than the 01 car does. I thought this was due to the different cam grind and the lack of EGR. The lower spark advance was so the car could pass the sniffer test in California without EGR. Am I wrong about this fellas?

 

The 98's seems to have the most aggressive timing table, more aggressive than some tunes i've seen on 99+ cars.

 

So what would happen if I copied a 99 stock high octane spark table to the 01 cars tune replacing the 01 high and low with the 99 cars high table?

 

I went from the 99 to 01 OS and I haven't touched my timing tables (yet).. but under WOT passes i'm only seeing a 1-2 degree difference.. being the 99 is 27-28 vs. 25-26 for 01.. overall.

I've also heard the timing is less aggressive due to no EGR, LS6 intake, better cylinder head design, camshaft.. etc.

 

Isn't that to keep the hp output at the same level even though it has a better flowing intake?

 

I don't think the more aggressive tables had to do with the EGR. If you look at the Egr's timing advance table its programed to advance timing under certain loads when its open.

 

The difference in the tables is more than likely due to having the fbody platform not being able to produce more power than the corvette "for sales reasons". Also the way it is set up, Kinda Limits the amount of hp the STOCK vehicle will produce to make them more even with all the other 2002 fbodys. The more hp it makes, the less timing it will have to try to push it back to that hp level... People would be pretty pissed when buying a corvette and then a car that is 20,000 less in price dyno the same or more hp... Even though the motors where damn near identical....

 

Oh yah, Egr has nothing to do with it.

Egr has always had its own timing adder table.

 

I agree. I have heard that the 98-2000 timing tables are more optimized than the 01-02 tables. EGR has nothing to do with it, as stated. The 01 and up models got several improvements (LS6 intake, different cam) that are worth more than the 5 hp that GM raised the rating to (probably worth 25-30 hp more). GM used the intake and cam to save money, not really to give the camaro/firebird more power. So, easy way to keep the power down is to "weaken" the timing tables. Try running an older table and see what happens.

 

I replaced my friends high and low octane tables in his 2001 car with the table from my stock 99 high octane table and OMG.....you honestly can feel the difference in the car. Even the throttle response is better. For some reason his car was tuned to only allow for 19* spark advance max in high octane table and 10* in the low octane table. His car was seriously detuned from the factory. I wonder how many other cars from 01-02 was like this and the owners don't even have a clue what their missing.

DAMN GM!!!!

 

I thought about replacing my timing table with one from a '99. But, I've noticed KR at 22* advance around 4800 RPMs during WOT. So, I don't think going to 27~28* is going to help anything. I even get KR every now and then in the stock table (between .48 and .64 g/cyl) when the torque converter is locked up. Switching would just be asking for trouble with mine. I can't imagine it being much different on other '02s.

 

The early table's right-hand plateau is, I think,
unreasonable. Spark should pull back with the
increase in CylAir. I suspect with worse intake
and exhaust, that the higher CylAir values were
not seen on a stock motor and so they didn't
get around to making sensible predictions for
what spark ought to do - it's rather an extend-
the-last-value, than a sensible extrapolation
(let alone a fit to actual needs, which can't be
done in the stock airflow config).