92/94
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 13
Originally Posted by willwren
Already got the valvtrain differences 
92 is the only year without roller fulcrums on the rockers.
The TB'* aren't 58-70mm. My 93 SSEi has a 77mm bore, with an 81mm outer diameter. Jseabert'* 93 SSE is identical.
The original question asked the difference between a 92 and 94 SSEi. The exhausts between all SSEi/SSE from 92-94 (and the 95 SSEi) are all identical. All the SSEi'* had the same final drive ratio in those years, too.
92 is the only year without roller fulcrums on the rockers.The TB'* aren't 58-70mm. My 93 SSEi has a 77mm bore, with an 81mm outer diameter. Jseabert'* 93 SSE is identical.
The original question asked the difference between a 92 and 94 SSEi. The exhausts between all SSEi/SSE from 92-94 (and the 95 SSEi) are all identical. All the SSEi'* had the same final drive ratio in those years, too.
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,459
Likes: 2
From: Sauk Centre, MN
Originally Posted by jr's3800
All 1994-95 SE and SSE bonnevilles got the 3.06, some may have had a 2.97 ratio I don't think there were too many NA'd 94-95'* that had that.., all of the SC'd bonnevilles had the 2.97 ratio.. 
1994 SLE: 3.06 ratio option FW2
1994 SSE: 3.06 ratio option FW2
1994 SSEi: 2.93 ratio option ???
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,433
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by willwren
Looking at the TB changes through the years, there isn't that much visible difference. Some time ago, I was trying to gather some info on the TB sizes. Perhaps someone with the 94/95 SSEi can measure the ID and OD of theirs (and 94 SE/SLE/SSE) and then a Series 2 L36 or L67?
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 13
That may be true. My measurements are for intake pipe fitting. I know I've seen the 92/93 TB side by side with the 94/95, (SC end) and there is very little difference. From 3-5 feet away, you can't tell which is which.
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,433
Likes: 2
Originally Posted by willwren
Makes me wonder what the 93 is. I don't recall it being that small. And with the valvetrain difference between 92 and 93, why did the performance numbers not change?
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 11
Likes: 13
You might be right. Since the day I bought this car, I knew there were more than subtle differences between it and the 92. For some time, I thought it was a late-production 93, that got the 225hp motor. Don and I had several offline discussions about this a year or so ago.
I've driven stock 92 and 93 SSEi'*, and there is a perceivable difference in performance.
I've driven stock 92 and 93 SSEi'*, and there is a perceivable difference in performance.
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,459
Likes: 2
From: Sauk Centre, MN
Originally Posted by jr's3800
Originally Posted by OLBlueEyesBonne
Originally Posted by jr's3800
All 1994-95 SE and SSE bonnevilles got the 3.06, some may have had a 2.97 ratio I don't think there were too many NA'd 94-95'* that had that.., all of the SC'd bonnevilles had the 2.97 ratio..
1994 SLE: 3.06 ratio option FW2
1994 SSE: 3.06 ratio option FW2
1994 SSEi: 2.93 ratio option ???
Was the 94 SE a Loaded with everything bonneville? Or just the bare bones Bonneville?
You could be right on the 2.97 ratio as I couldn't find that one in the RPO'*, was going off a cloudy memory from when I was considering putting a 4T60E-HD in my SLE.
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,928
Likes: 1
I thought i might have an early 94 a few times, but I know better now.
The engine changes are just how the rockers work, they wouldn't give better flow, or longer throw with the valves.
Maybe it was for reliability in rollers over the 92 ones.
The engine changes are just how the rockers work, they wouldn't give better flow, or longer throw with the valves.
Maybe it was for reliability in rollers over the 92 ones.