There is way too much fixed timing in that map. Your map should look more fluid, as though you have an air pump that picks up speed, volume, and efficiency with RPM and load - until it peaks and the volumetric efficiency peters off... or doesn't with forced induction. Here we are trading manifold absolute pressure for air mass but the idea is the same. Below is the timing table from my wagon, the airmass rarely goes over 0.84 g/cyl, so it is getting about 26* of timing at WOT, about 18* at idle, and 30* at cruise. There is some opinion that your VE table (fuel) should look like the inverse of your timing table - meaning that as one goes up, the other lowers and vice versa.
You really would benefit from tables what went 100 to 200 rpm increments up to a bit above your cruise RPM (say 3000), beyond that 400-500rpm increments would be plenty up until redline (you can see the jump point below at 3200rpm). So much more happens a lower speeds that impact driveability and comfort. Same goes for your MAP increments, tiny kPa increments would increase the resolution where you need it most.
For comparison sake this is a stock 3D timing map from an '02 Avalanche:
vs. a stock VE table.
And you can better see the inverse relationship as engine speed rises vs MAP/airmass.
Long story short, you don't need a MAP scale that goes to 8000rpm, you need one that goes to 6000rpm; and take those extra cells for use in the lower rev range.
I met up with Grandamman. I had a good time visiting with him and some others. I did not get very many pictures of cars, but here are a few.
These two are couple car show friends cars.
That Malibu is one bad ****. 400+ horsepower. He is building a Elcomeno like it. It will be brother and sister he said. Malibu his and Elco his wifes. The reason I did not get any more pictures,I blame on Kent, and a lot of interest in my car! I did not get any thing to eat till afterwards. I stopped at McDonald's and ate in my car on the way home :-0. It was a good time.
