Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: 0078 SL timing tables vs 171/641 timing tables

  1. #1
    Moderator Turbo Mopar Staff Force Fed Mopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenville/Spartanburg SC area
    Posts
    7,557

    0078 SL timing tables vs 171/641 timing tables

    Any reason why they are different? Or were they just playing with it? (Assuming the SL stands for Shelby Lancer) Do the Shelby Lancers idle or cold start better than the others?
    Rob M.
    '89 Turbo GTC

    2.5 TIII stroker, 568 w/ OBX and 3.77 FD

  2. #2
    Visit www.boostbutton.com... Turbo Mopar Contributor ShelGame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Whitmore Lake, Michigan, Unite
    Posts
    9,918

    Re: 0078 SL timing tables vs 171/641 timing tables

    The 0078 is an ATX 2.2 T2 cal. I assume the timing is different to help de-tune the engine for ATX duarabillity...
    https://db.tt/SV7ONZpQ
    Rob Lloyd
    '89 Daytona C/S

    2.5 T1 Auto
    13.24 @ 100.5mph
    NHRA #3728 AF/S

    boostbutton.com
    tuning wiki

  3. #3
    Moderator Turbo Mopar Staff Force Fed Mopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenville/Spartanburg SC area
    Posts
    7,557

    Re: 0078 SL timing tables vs 171/641 timing tables

    I dunno, it looked like it had more timing than the others. The AdvanceFromMapPartThrottle is what's sticking out in my memory, it had a lot more timing in low vacuum/low boost area. Cold Advance was another that looked like a lot more, and something about the advance from Baro or something. I'll have to check it again tonight when I'm at my computer to name it exactly.
    Rob M.
    '89 Turbo GTC

    2.5 TIII stroker, 568 w/ OBX and 3.77 FD

  4. #4
    Visit www.boostbutton.com... Turbo Mopar Contributor ShelGame's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Whitmore Lake, Michigan, Unite
    Posts
    9,918

    Re: 0078 SL timing tables vs 171/641 timing tables

    Oh yeah, you're right. It does have more timing in vac at part throttle. WOT timing is the same, though. Not really sure why they would be different in that way.
    https://db.tt/SV7ONZpQ
    Rob Lloyd
    '89 Daytona C/S

    2.5 T1 Auto
    13.24 @ 100.5mph
    NHRA #3728 AF/S

    boostbutton.com
    tuning wiki

  5. #5
    turbo addict
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Spokane, Wa
    Posts
    9,046

    Re: 0078 SL timing tables vs 171/641 timing tables

    more drag on the motor from the Auto likes more timing in vacuum and when cold. just my thoughts anyway.

  6. #6
    Moderator Turbo Mopar Staff Force Fed Mopar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Greenville/Spartanburg SC area
    Posts
    7,557

    Re: 0078 SL timing tables vs 171/641 timing tables

    Or maybe less load on the engine due to it being an auto, when you step on it the engine can rev up due to the slippage, whereas on a stick-shift it would be lugging kinda?
    Rob M.
    '89 Turbo GTC

    2.5 TIII stroker, 568 w/ OBX and 3.77 FD

Similar Threads

  1. SBEC 3D Tables
    By 1BADVAN in forum EFI Tuning
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 02-26-2010, 10:09 PM
  2. Timing tables SMEC - SBEC
    By turbo84voyager in forum EFI Tuning
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-29-2009, 03:56 PM
  3. Timing tables SMEC - SBEC
    By turbo84voyager in forum EFI Tuning
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-29-2009, 09:45 AM
  4. Timing Tables
    By badandy in forum EFI Tuning
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-29-2008, 04:46 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •