yeah, i know its been for sale for quite a while, originally he was asking 6500, a bit much, plus he lives in the middle of nowere, north west Alberta in a town, not a big market for selling cars lol.
I dunno, that would be my perfect solution come May, buy that car cash, if it checks out good on a mechanical inspection, then haggle to 5000 even, take er home. That mileage is low, most of it is just summer driving on the highway, he has an old truck 4wd for winter time, makes sense, up there it snows big time!
Would not having the roller rockers make a huge diffrence? Or is it the entire valve train thats diffrent starting from the cam working upward?

Ok, it'* a mess, but what I know about the 92/93 differences off the top of my head:

Some 92'* had tubular swaybars.
92'* have weaker output shafts. (P/N changed in 93).
92'* don't have the roller valvetrain, and it'* a PITA to upgrade.
Some 92'* have different sunroof trim and controls.
92'* have the woodgrain dash trim panel.
All 92 L67'* have a digital EGR, just like 93.
92'* don't have baffles in the gas tank, and have a poor strainer design.

Through countless discussions about the Series 1 power ratings always seeming to be underrated, my conclusions are that the original 92 press releases by GM were on the mild end, and they never updated it for 93. Then with the Gen change for 94/95 M62'*, they bumped the 'official' power rating. Going on this assumption, the 205 hp might be true for the 92, but it'* probably on the low side. It'* certainly on the low side based on mods and track times we've seen with other Series 1 years and models.

Does the 92 have any major unique problems other years don't? Not that I'm aware of other than the baffle-less tank stalling in turns. This can be solved by taking a full tank/pump/strainer assembly from a 93-95 SSEi and swapping in.

My biggest concern would be those low miles. I'd feel much more comfortable buying that car if it was 100k or so. I'm not kidding here. Use that to bargain down. My car sat in storage for 5 years, and I went through electrical hell with the subsystems for 6 months. I'd be concerned about engine components considering the location of that car.

makes me wonder how much performance mods it could take befor that grandpa drove car gave in.

As soon as you bring it up to redline, you'll start burning oil. The bearings stretch with high rpm runs.. thus the piston moves further up. If the car was never redlined, then there will be a ridge there, that is from the lack of wear. Then, once you bring it up to redline, you'll break your rings.. and you'll start burning oil. Not to mention you'll lose a lot of power. With only 50,000 miles... you may not be in that bad of shape.. however I wouldn't buy it. If you look at some of my engine pics with the heads off, you can see mine are smooth.. thanks to the hard driving the car has received all through her life. Although a grandpa put on 15k before my dad got the car.. and with that low mileage.. there was nothing to worry about.

Like Bill said.. you will probably go through a lot of electrical issues if the car hasn't been driven for a while. Not to mention all the stuff that is probably original in the car. Chances are nothing has ever really been done on the car, and then you've got all this stuff to replace/fix. Just like what I am going through.. and trust me, it'* not fun.

As far as the SSEi badge goes.. I think I have seen other 92s like that..


-justin

I think that happens on 93s too. My 93' would do that whenever I was around a quarter of a tank left. If i'd hit a right turn too hard, BAM i'd stall out.

the baffle less tanks were all 92'* and early production 93 SSE and SSEI'* it didnt effect the SE/SLE

To give you a poor performance comparison, My car as it sits today (basically pulley, chip, intake, exhaust) against driverjohn'* 92 with K&N dropin and exhaust, he had a huge head start at Woodburn due to his slower dial-in, and I ran him down and beat him by several lengths. Final time was well over a second on my tired trans, getting a ton of KR. I fixed some problems 2 weeks later, and got the car running quicker. I already had a margin of well over a second on him.

So does an intake, pulley, and chip really make that much difference? Hard to say, but that'* basically what it came down to. I doubt his 92 would be that quick with equal mods, but then again, there are differences just from car to car, so we may never know. He'll have a pulley on soon, and just upgraded his intake, so we may know how much difference between a chipless 92 and a chipped 93 this summer.

Both 92 and 93 L67s are rated the same. If you ask me i'd say the 93 prolly has more in the vacinity of 210hp vs. 205. This is because a year ago I test drove both a 92 SSEi and a 93 Touring Sedan and the Touring is quicker hands down. I'm sure roller rockers makes a difference even though GM didn't show it.

That'* exactly the point. Don and I have had several conversations on this topic, and both of us feel that they didn't bother re-rating the 93 after the changes. This might have been to prevent the higher 93 ratings from damaging the year-end sales on un-sold 92'*.

Someone should hit the dyno. A 92 should run and a 93 should run. I'm pretty shure a 93 has more, but the dyno will tell.