spark advance tables question...differences from 2000 - 2001
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...
Trending Topics
11 Second Club
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
From: Va. beach,Va
Originally Posted by soundengineer
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...
2001 iirc was 22/24 in that same location(cells).Anyone come up with an answer???
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo
Awesome K5 Blazer Restomod Comes With C7 Corvette Power
Verdad Gallardo
10 Camaros You Should Never Buy
10 LS Engine Myths That Refuse to Die
Verdad Gallardo
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?
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.
I've also heard the timing is less aggressive due to no EGR, LS6 intake, better cylinder head design, camshaft.. etc.
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.
Last edited by SmokingWS6; Sep 26, 2005 at 09:54 PM.
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.... 
Originally Posted by John_D.
Isn't that to keep the hp output at the same level even though it has a better flowing intake?
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!!!!
DAMN GM!!!!
Last edited by UnleashedBeast; Sep 27, 2005 at 11:53 PM.
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).
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).