'93 heads in comparison....?
'93 heads in comparison....?
is there any differences in the '93 yr heads compared to the '94/'95 i know the '96/'97 castings are different, I think i recall Rich Krause saying he thought (could be wrong tho) the 93's were different somehow, can anyone verify this and if so what are the differences?
Thanks
Steve
Thanks
Steve
Last edited by simple; Dec 14, 2003 at 06:03 AM.
Let me see if I can remember this right:
I believe it was the earlier LT1 head castings (92-93, maybe 94 too) were made from a different alloy than the later ones. Aparrently, this alloy has been shown to flow better than the later ones when worked. Don't ask me why, I don't know. I do believe that the casting design itself is essentially the same though. That's the explanation I got from the guy who did my heads. I lucked out and bought a used set, and they were the early castings.
And if it makes any difference, CNC cylinder heads bought my old 93 heads for $300.
I believe it was the earlier LT1 head castings (92-93, maybe 94 too) were made from a different alloy than the later ones. Aparrently, this alloy has been shown to flow better than the later ones when worked. Don't ask me why, I don't know. I do believe that the casting design itself is essentially the same though. That's the explanation I got from the guy who did my heads. I lucked out and bought a used set, and they were the early castings.
And if it makes any difference, CNC cylinder heads bought my old 93 heads for $300.
I know my head porter (Joe Prince) told me my'93 casting heads had more core shift than any others he had ever done. Regardless, they ended up flowing 271 CFM @ .550". Judging from performance, I'd say the '93 heads are working OK now.
Frank
Frank
Molten aluminum is poured into molds to make the head castings. Core shift is the amount the molds are misaligned when the aluminum is poured in. The top and bottom of my ports weren't aligned very well. Just as a side note, though...The engine went 12.82 @ 106 MPH with the heads like that. That was a completely stock 93,000 mile motor with exhaust manifolds, so I don't think it was hurting much...LOL
Frank
Frank
Originally posted by 12SCNDZ
The engine went 12.82 @ 106 MPH with the heads like that. That was a completely stock 93,000 mile motor with exhaust manifolds, so I don't think it was hurting much...LOL
Frank
The engine went 12.82 @ 106 MPH with the heads like that. That was a completely stock 93,000 mile motor with exhaust manifolds, so I don't think it was hurting much...LOL
Frank
I could only break a 13.09 @ 106.8 with my full exhaust, but it was SEVERELY traction limited.
Originally posted by Fastbird93
You suck!
I could only break a 13.09 @ 106.8 with my full exhaust, but it was SEVERELY traction limited.
You suck!
I could only break a 13.09 @ 106.8 with my full exhaust, but it was SEVERELY traction limited.
Frank
Originally posted by 12SCNDZ
LOL...That was with a 1.73 60 ft. time with a bone stock suspension...With ET Streets. I guess that doesn't make ya feel any better, though...LOL
Frank
LOL...That was with a 1.73 60 ft. time with a bone stock suspension...With ET Streets. I guess that doesn't make ya feel any better, though...LOL
Frank

It was REALLY cold though.
Originally posted by 12SCNDZ
I don't know of any direct comparisons, but I do know my ported '93 heads are running quicker than alot of AFR and LT4 headed cars.
If you found a good deal, I'd jump on it.
Frank
I don't know of any direct comparisons, but I do know my ported '93 heads are running quicker than alot of AFR and LT4 headed cars.
If you found a good deal, I'd jump on it.
Frank

STILL not running right.
Just wait until I get it going.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Victor Lamb
Suspension, Chassis, and Brakes
3
Aug 26, 2017 02:52 PM
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
Jan 29, 2015 07:10 PM
NewsBot
2010 - 2015 Camaro News, Sightings, Pictures, and Multimedia
0
Dec 28, 2014 06:20 PM



