92/94 - Page 2 - GM Forum - Buick, Cadillac, Chev, Olds, GMC & Pontiac chat


Performance, Brainstorming & Tuning Talk about modifications, or anything else associated with performance enhancements. Have a new idea for performance/reliability? Post it here. No idea is stupid! (please use Detailing and Appearance for cosmetic ideas)

Reply
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 02-08-2004, 01:37 PM   #11
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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.
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?
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 04:07 PM   #12
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sauk Centre, MN
Posts: 5,458
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OLBlueEyesBonne is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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 SE: 2.84 ratio option F17

1994 SLE: 3.06 ratio option FW2

1994 SSE: 3.06 ratio option FW2

1994 SSEi: 2.93 ratio option ???
OLBlueEyesBonne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 04:10 PM   #13
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,432
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
J Wikoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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?
Which end of the TB, inlet or outlet(SC end)? I'm talking SC side.
J Wikoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 04:15 PM   #14
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 04:34 PM   #15
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,432
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
J Wikoff is on a distinguished road
Default

When I got my new one I measured, 92 was 58mm, 94 was 72mm(ported a little).
J Wikoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 04:39 PM   #16
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

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?
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 04:43 PM   #17
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 12,432
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
J Wikoff is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
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?
I've wondered that too. I know the ECUs aren't compatible. Maybe they slightly detuned for 93 to keep the same power, to get a bigger preceived increase in 94. You say your Jet chip did wonders? They unlocked that power.
J Wikoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 04:53 PM   #18
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
willwren is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
willwren is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 09:13 PM   #19
Senior Member
True Car Nut
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sauk Centre, MN
Posts: 5,458
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
OLBlueEyesBonne is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jr's3800
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLBlueEyesBonne
Quote:
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 SE: 2.84 ratio option F17

1994 SLE: 3.06 ratio option FW2

1994 SSE: 3.06 ratio option FW2

1994 SSEi: 2.93 ratio option ???
1994 with a 2.84 ratio... Thats odd.. And all of the SSE SC'd, and SSEi bonneville from 1992 - 1996 got the 2.97 ratio... 1997-99 had the 2.96 ratio if memory serves...

Was the 94 SE a Loaded with everything bonneville? Or just the bare bones Bonneville?
I believe the SE was the Bare-bones car amounting to at the most cloth buckets, standard 16" rims, and a rear spoiler.
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.
OLBlueEyesBonne is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-08-2004, 11:06 PM   #20
Senior Member
Certified Car Nut
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 15,928
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
BonneMeMN is on a distinguished road
Default

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.
BonneMeMN is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:20 PM.


We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.