The 94 year saw the addition of the teflon-coated M62, and a larger diameter throttle body;

Can someone put forth the diameter of the 1994 version (and 93' so I can confirm). Whereprecisely is the measurement taken as well please.

Anyone with a 1994 throttle body, I'm interested in talking to you...

TIA

I believe that Bill W has all this info

Not Teflon coated. Acutally just an Epoxy coating, although some Eaton Supercharger rebuilders do use Teflon coating with great success.

There are also more differences between the 92/93 and the 94/95 than just the rotors, pulley diameter, and throttle body.

If you tell me what you're after here, maybe I can feed you more information than you want to know.

Thanks Bill...

I'm considering coring a 93' blower (exchange for rebuilt 94/95) and transplanting onto a 93' platform., and install the larger throttle body and associated MAF. DrJay has indicated this is not difficult. Known issues so far:

- higher blower flange, making it a little more difficult to properly seat fuel rail
- larger EGR hole
- requires 94/95 throttle body MAF to achieve the HP gains

Any tidbits you care to share Bill would be appreciated. I do require the throttle body I.D. to ensure units I am looking at are indeed 94'+ vintage (unless the GM PN is cast/stamped into the body itself).

Higher blower flange? No. No problems with the fuel rail.
Larger EGR hole needs to be sealed with a lead EGR type gasket (make your own).
The 94/95 TB MAF will not work without a Performance/custom PCM or AFC calibrator. I prefer NOT to use an AFC. Running lean on the top end can kill your motor. AFC'* are unreliable at times, and are not the true solution anyway.

There is also an uresolved issue regarding fuel pressure regulators. I can tell you that before you start, you better replace your fuel pump. The FPR issue should be resolved soon (there'* an odd difference that we can't quite figure out).

In addition, the Throttle Cable Bracket ends up VERY close to the throttle linkage. Not sure what to do about this one but bend the lip out of the way.

The only two cars that attempted this before me had troubles just getting the car to run. I didn't, but I did alot of prep work first, partly based on their previous experiences. My setup was quite a bit different to begin with though.

IIRC JWikoff has the 94/95 SC/TB and is running a AFC

Correct, and he'* still having problems.

I'm running the same setup WITHOUT an AFC with FEWER problems, but it'* still not quite right. I'm close enough though, that I might be able to try a very unique solution to get me there. More details when I get the details sorted out.

Long and short of it is that there ARE problems to overcome, and there are only 3 cars on this Forum that I'm aware of that have tried this, and each have problems still. John Wikoff and I are actively working on them and should have solutions soon, but because of the other unique differences between our cars, it'* making it more difficult.

I've been driving the Zilla with this setup for just over 2 weeks now.

When I first put this all together, it almost refused to idle at all with a 92 MAF, it was quite shaky with the 94 MAF, but better. I eventually got the AFC, and could make it run almost like it should. I've since taken care of a few other issues, and now it will idle pretty dang good with the 94 MAF and no AFC. The top end feels tentative about 30% of the time, and I can feel it bumping timing, the rest of the time, the top feels stronger than it has before. I need to check my fuel trims, but I'm probably gonna bump up the AFC near the top end.

All in all, I know it has more power than it did with the stock SC and TB, but I can feel that it is not running quite like it should.