liquidh8

Ok, here it goes. Have the EBL, engine in the sidebar under my name. Q is, what kinda timing are yous guys with the vortec heads running?. I have a total timing of 32-33 d at WOT, as the WUD says. (I've had it as high as 37d) With the table and the PE added. Down low with the low map areas and the like it is pretty high, 27-39 d throughout the table. Now the EBL bin doesn't have a warm spark BIAS. Like the 4.3 bin that has alot of spark, the bias of 9 d doesn't make it so high. Also, I have tried the Vortec/LT1 bin from the infamous vortec spark thread, and it was nowhere near enough spark for this combo. I know others felt the same way when trying it out. So the original question, what kinda spark table are yous guys running?? (I know the give it what it wants!)

Teeleton

I have the same wonders about my tune. Though when I first put the LT1/Vortec map into my 7747, my blazer just woke up. It was light years better than my previous spark map. It still is, but I wonder about my top end. The low end is great, but as the higher gears run out it seems to be struggling to keep revving. I've moved the timing up and down and moved the WOT AFR, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. Sometimes I feel like I'm just shooting in the dark. Partly because I can't seem to rub enouh free minutes together to do some serious iterative testing. Partly because I don't feel like I have accurate enough data (yeah, I'm envious as hell of you EBL guys). When I go to the track I feel like I'm splitting hairs trying to decide of a change was better or worse or just a variation between runs, and even on a good night I'll only get 2-3 runs in and only see maybe half a tenth difference between all runs. It also doesn't help that I can't see the total timing in the ALDL stream. I'd love to convert to romless and put the total timing in the stream, but of everything I've read on it, I just can't seem to make heads or tails of the actual hardware mod.

FWIW, My warm bias cancels out the coolant table at normal operating temp, and the 100MAP/3600RPM cell is 28 degrees + 4 degrees on the PE map. Seems like any more timing than that tickles the knock sensor. Timing ramp is also zeroed out. On a WOT pull, the engine is only ever below 4000 RPM when coming out of the hole. Even with no timing in the PE map, it doesn't seem to help.

Sorry I'm no help, but the LT1 map seems to work great for part throttle, and then it's at WOT that it seems to fall over.

Teeleton

ttypecamaro

iTrader: (2)

I use total timing around 31d at 100kPa, but thats because I have forced induction. I lowered the timing from around 35d to smooth out the graph since I need to take out so much timing for the boost.

my static CR is ~9.4:1

in cruise cells 1600-2800rpm and 20-50kPa I use 33-37d for increased mpg

Grumpy

That's it......
Yes, the timing tables can be time consuming.
Like I've also said, go slow take notes, look for trends, and run the min amount of timing that generates the best performance.
I can't stress that enough, it really is that simple, and if you make it a HABIT, that you always follow, shortly things will begin to even *look right*.

liquidh8

I totally agree, my part throttle improved, I guess becuase it was a more agressive curve, from like 40d @ 800rpm/80-100 KPA, and going down FAST throughout the SA table. But I ended up adding much more timing at the top end to get it more responsive. I know I had the FUEL, ( using a WB ), but it was just a little rubberbandy when I was in it.


I know about running the minumin amount of timing to make it happy. I started out with the timing map RBob supplied with the EBL.bin, ran good, but the table was choppy, and it seemed that I could tell while accelerating that the table wasn't smoothed out. The I kept giving it more PE timing and it ran better. Though I could give it even more, but it would aggrivate the knock sensor. My next question though: Is it better to have a SA table with less timing, and more PE for the WOT, or should the SA table have most of the timing, and only a degree or 2 in the PE SA table?? This way here the is less timing when I am out of the gas. BUt on the other hand, when the ECM goes into lean cruise, the HWY SA vs MAP table adds timing, so I was thinking it would be better just to have more timing all the time. Thank guys.

zipfast

iTrader: (2)

The only problem with putting all the timing in the main SA table is: If you live up in the hills you can hit 100 MAP -WITHOUT- hitting PE. I take out what ever the engine does not want from the main SA and I put it back in the PE table.

Grumpy

PE, and lean cruise shouldn't be sharing the same areas of the timing table, IMO.

FWIW, I haven't used a PE timing adder in over a decade of doing chips.
----------
While you might be doing that, it seems that you PE TPS enable is really high. Personnally, I can't think of a reason to run it that lean at that high of load for any reason. Unless, your setup just really doesn't load the motor down. I'm not saying your wrong to do it your way, but, the reason for richness at the higher loads is for in cylinder cooling, and more HP.

liquidh8

That is kinda where my tune led me. I have maybe 1.4 d of SA in the PE adder. one day when I make it to the track, I wanna play with the total WOT timing, and work my way down. Right now the blacktop dyno isn't cutting it. I know my particular engine, with the vortec heads, likes lots of timing down low. It's trying to perfect the curve from low KPA/RPM to the high KPA/RPM that is taking some time. I could sway a few degrees +/- from what the engine wants, and it feels the same. Hence my question of what was better, leave it lower, or add the 2 degrees and leave it higher? Especially if it doesn't feel different.

For me this is a good time to tune iming with the temperature being higher. I am also using 89 octane gas, so with 9.75/1 comp and the vortecs, I am taking it slow with the timing table.