thoughts on '93 F-bodies??
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 202
I am very happy with mine, and the responce to every mod I've done has been great.
Rooster did the chip for mine and I've been happy with it. He is very quick and cares about doing the job right. I do need to get some wide band data with my my SLP's (with and without cutout open, seems lean open) to fine tune my chip, but I'll probably wait till I get my springs and rockers in.
162,000 miles and my daily commuter car, I average 22-23 mpg city/hwy and 25-27 mpg hwy (75-80 MPH Avg).
Rooster did the chip for mine and I've been happy with it. He is very quick and cares about doing the job right. I do need to get some wide band data with my my SLP's (with and without cutout open, seems lean open) to fine tune my chip, but I'll probably wait till I get my springs and rockers in.
162,000 miles and my daily commuter car, I average 22-23 mpg city/hwy and 25-27 mpg hwy (75-80 MPH Avg).
Registered User
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 753
From: Annapolis Md. USA
Thats the first time I have ever heard that the 93 m6 trany was weak. I have always heard they were pretty strong.
93 model year is not bad at all. it is not better ither..Just has some differences.
Oh wait, one bd thing with 93's. That ugly yellow cluster
Registered User
Joined: Jun 2001
Posts: 102
From: SF Bay Area, CA
This is from the F-body FAQ:
What are the stock tranny gear ratios and torque capacities?
The following were available by year:
[CODE]
Year Model/Opt 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Final
---- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
1993 Manual/M28 3.36 2.07 1.35 1.00 0.80 0.62 2.73 (GU2)
1993 Manual/M29 2.97 2.07 1.43 1.00 0.80 0.62 3.23 (GU4)
1993 Auto/MX0 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 -- -- 2.73 (GU3)
1993 Auto/MX0 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 -- -- 3.23 (GU5)
1994 Manual/MN6 2.66 1.78 1.30 1.00 0.74 0.50 3.42 (GU6)
1994 Auto/MX0 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 -- -- 2.73 (GU3)
1994 Auto/MX0 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 -- -- 3.23 (GU5)
[/CODE]
The '95s and later have the same ratios as the '94s. Aside from the CAGS provision and different gearing/input shaft (on the post 93's), all of the 6-speed transmissions are basically the same. Because of differences in the ratios, the torque capacities are different for each model. The shorter the tranny gear (higher numerically), the less torque it can handle. Note that these ratings from GM can be are considered conservative as they are most likely measured at normal load over 100,000 miles:
[CODE]
Year Model/Opt Torque Capacity
---- ---------- ---------------
1993 Manual/M28 360 lbs-ft
1993 Manual/M29 400 lbs-ft
1993 Auto/MX0 400 lbs-ft
1994 Manual/MN6 450 lbs-ft
1994 Auto/MX0 400 lbs-ft
[/CODE]
Note that the '95s and later have ratings that are the same as the '94s as nothing changed.
The following were available by year:
[CODE]
Year Model/Opt 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th 6th Final
---- ------------- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -----
1993 Manual/M28 3.36 2.07 1.35 1.00 0.80 0.62 2.73 (GU2)
1993 Manual/M29 2.97 2.07 1.43 1.00 0.80 0.62 3.23 (GU4)
1993 Auto/MX0 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 -- -- 2.73 (GU3)
1993 Auto/MX0 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 -- -- 3.23 (GU5)
1994 Manual/MN6 2.66 1.78 1.30 1.00 0.74 0.50 3.42 (GU6)
1994 Auto/MX0 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 -- -- 2.73 (GU3)
1994 Auto/MX0 3.06 1.63 1.00 0.70 -- -- 3.23 (GU5)
[/CODE]
The '95s and later have the same ratios as the '94s. Aside from the CAGS provision and different gearing/input shaft (on the post 93's), all of the 6-speed transmissions are basically the same. Because of differences in the ratios, the torque capacities are different for each model. The shorter the tranny gear (higher numerically), the less torque it can handle. Note that these ratings from GM can be are considered conservative as they are most likely measured at normal load over 100,000 miles:
[CODE]
Year Model/Opt Torque Capacity
---- ---------- ---------------
1993 Manual/M28 360 lbs-ft
1993 Manual/M29 400 lbs-ft
1993 Auto/MX0 400 lbs-ft
1994 Manual/MN6 450 lbs-ft
1994 Auto/MX0 400 lbs-ft
[/CODE]
Note that the '95s and later have ratings that are the same as the '94s as nothing changed.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,827
From: Waynesboro, PA
93's arent that bad. I own two. And rooster is right about the tuning, and I must say that He's the man at tuning the 93's.
The six speeds were rated slightly lower than the 94+, but as for being undergeared, whoever said it was misinformed.
The close ratio 93 T-56, coded M29, coupled with a 3.23 rear end actually produces a higher overall ratio than the standard 94+ T-56 and a 3.42 rear. Look at the ZO6 vette, is has almost the same gearing as the 93 M29 cars. Coincidence?? Probably not.
93's have their own little things, but all in all I prefer them because you
A: Don't have to worry about frying your computer when updating your tune. Just pull the chip and put a new one in. Not that convenient, but neither is sending in your whole computer when it gets fryed. There's those who have and those who will.
B: The gearing, as already stated.
C: AFPR; The computer in a 93 won't compensate for pressure changes like in the 94+ models, so there IS power to be gained from pressure changes.
D: 93's are just plain faster. 
The six speeds were rated slightly lower than the 94+, but as for being undergeared, whoever said it was misinformed.
The close ratio 93 T-56, coded M29, coupled with a 3.23 rear end actually produces a higher overall ratio than the standard 94+ T-56 and a 3.42 rear. Look at the ZO6 vette, is has almost the same gearing as the 93 M29 cars. Coincidence?? Probably not.
93's have their own little things, but all in all I prefer them because you
A: Don't have to worry about frying your computer when updating your tune. Just pull the chip and put a new one in. Not that convenient, but neither is sending in your whole computer when it gets fryed. There's those who have and those who will.
B: The gearing, as already stated.
C: AFPR; The computer in a 93 won't compensate for pressure changes like in the 94+ models, so there IS power to be gained from pressure changes.
D: 93's are just plain faster.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 676
From: palmview, TX (RGV)
picked up my T/A on monday for 5200 133k with some cosmetic and performance mods done to it. really nice car, guy had no clue how much of a good car he sold. quick question, do i have to program my chip if i want to run shortie or LT headders with a cut out or will it run just as well without a tune? also what are the rear disc brake specs?
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,634
From: Newark, Delaware
My '93 went 12.82 without ever pulling a valvecover, and still running exhaust manifolds.
The new head/cam combo is still using the original 95,000 mile bottom end, and went 12.0 @ 112 MPH last year with a "small" CC305 cam and MAC headers @ full weight.
Everyone claims you can't get a "mail order" tune to perform. Well, mine runs on a mail order tune from Rooster (PCMFORLESS). It hasn't even been on a dyno for any tuning since the swap was done last year. I sent Rooster the specs, and he mailed me a chip.
Frank
The new head/cam combo is still using the original 95,000 mile bottom end, and went 12.0 @ 112 MPH last year with a "small" CC305 cam and MAC headers @ full weight.
Everyone claims you can't get a "mail order" tune to perform. Well, mine runs on a mail order tune from Rooster (PCMFORLESS). It hasn't even been on a dyno for any tuning since the swap was done last year. I sent Rooster the specs, and he mailed me a chip.
Frank
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
carcrazyQT
Site Help and Suggestions
15
Sep 17, 2002 07:54 AM