Its likely. I advanced the timing in intervals of 2 until my ETs stopped getting better. I ran the car with 14 degrees once and saw a lot of knock counts when I was datalogging my runs.

 

thanx for the advice guys! im def going to mod the exhaust first. although the timing talk was a little over my head lol if the MR gives you high end i think ill stay away from it. i think im gonna go for low end torque. gears are def planned in the distant future!

 

Exhaust is a great place to start.
What gears do you have now?

 

WOW, that would be 50 hp more than I gained on the dyno going from 6 to 12. Then again my car ran fine with all the electronics that GM put on it from the factory.
Did I mention it was a 276h/355t auto car with stock heads/cam/bigmouth intake/headers/and all the free junk you can do?

 

alright, sunday night at the movies

 

im not sure i looked in the manuel but didnt see it anywhere. is there a site i go to and put in my info and it tell me all my specs for my vette?
ive heard thats one of the top recomended mods to do tho. thatll be later on tho maybe after my next deployment lol

 

Correct. The car dynoed 226 rwhp, 330 tq when I first got it, as it, without the cats. Timing was 6 degrees. Then the Superram came, along with 24 lb injectors, Alvin's tune and with the same 6 degrees of timing. I remember I dynoed at 243 rwhp, 340 tq. Bumped timing up 2 degrees and I dynoed roughly 9 hp more, 3 ft-lbs more. Then MAF problems arose in Feb 2006. Decided to ditch the Superram in favor of the easy Miniram. With the Miniram, car initially dynoed at 230 rwhp, 265 tq, but the timing was set way retarded at 2 degrees because of a mark on the balancer I thought was the timing mark. Took me awhile to figure out why it was running crappy and backfiring from the TB. I was still having MAF problems as well. Scrapped the MAF, got a fellow forum member to burn a custom prom for me and set timing to 6 degrees. Basically the car ran off the default airflow table which deemed to be superior to the MAF. Also the MAF lookup tables were reworked as well. the result of the initial MAFless tune was 263 rwhp, 290 tq. Added some extra AE in my chip, set timing to 12 degrees and I end up with my final figure of 275 rwhp, 305 tq, as of November 2006. And my car runs much better than it ever did. Porbably much better than it did when coming out of the factory with a highly unreliable MAF. But thanks for your "support".

 

So you got 1 less hp and 50 lbs less torque than I and you're happy?
Mine tune was a Hypercrap chip too, pretty smooth 13-1 AFR across the board.
As far as the "highly unreliable MAF," of the 4 MAF cars I've owned never did the MAF let me down.
I don't mean to bust your chops, well maybe a little, BUT your problems are specific to your car and you not troubleshooting/fixing that car properly. People will read your posts and think that your way is the correct way to solve the problem but that is far from how it should be fixed.

 

I, in no way, condone the permanent removal of the MAF as I have done. Yes, I understand the best way to solve the problem is to actually fix it, not bandaid it. But I, however, feel that this best solved my problem. Modifying and using the default airflow table via throttle position as a means to calculate the necessary airflow vs. rpms in specific BLM cells makes it 100% possible to run the car successfully and reliably without the MAF as another forum member has proven. The car runs like it should as if it had the MAF with comparable fuel economy. The car runs as a very reliable daily driver and I drive to and from work 60 miles a day, from stoplight to stoplight, highway to highway without a single problem. If I wanted to use the MAF again, all I'd have to do is buy a brand new $60 TPI MAF connector, splice it into when I neutered the old connector off, and buy a $250 MAF, connect it in and I'm on the road to a normal EFI car again. The only problem is that it is not a priority now, perhaps a low priority on the "to do" list for my car.