Hrm... Didn't know that? Too bad he was too much of a... jerk... to say that.

That's about right, but people will argue that.

 

shoebox is right.

it's probably better to compare 93 vs. 94-95 vs. 96-97 in batches

since the rated hp is due to the exhaust and if you're planning on ripping it all out and throwing in headers and full exhaust, it won't matter anyway.

then it will be down to OBD-I vs. OBD-II, vented vs. unvented, and other trans options in 93 vs. the rest, and mileage on the car.

 

That's probobly true, but then you have to throw that odd year in there, '95.

'95:

Dual cat car...
Vented Opti...
Still OBD-1...

So the '95 model kinda screws up your grouping. Now that I think about it... '93-'95 all cars had a big difference from one another...

'93 was non-MAF, rather Speed Density... Then you have the '94 which was the re-introduction of the MAF... Then '95, listed above...

 

I would have to say 95 also.
The cam in the 95 is larger then the 96 and 97. it is also on the 115 ls instead of the 117 that is in the 97. I am in class right now so i dont have the link to the site that has this info, but i will post it later
BTW, i have a 97 with a 95 motor in it

 

Actually only California 95's had dual cats. All the other states got single cat But 95 is a weird year, it is alto the only hear that has the weird pcm connector, its like an obd2 connector but its obd1

Jason

 

I always thought it was 94, because it had more cam than any other years, and that it had 10.5:1 cr as compared to 10:4 in later years

 

Yeah, I kinda have to vote for the '94 as well.

 

Another vote for the 94

 

The differences between the different years isn't great enough IMO to overcome the factory tolerance differences. Meaning, take a random pick of one car from each year and line them up all with equal drivers. Do this again and again and each time a different year car could and most likely will win.

There just isn't a big enough difference for it to matter so I wouldn't pick one over another when worrying about horse power. Instead, you should be looking at the mods you will want to do in the future and pick the best year that suits your needs. i.e., OBDI or OBDII? MAF or no MAF? then go from there.

 

1995s had 10.5:1 CR

... and I have said it until I am blue in the face that only California emissions 1995s had dual cats. I know, JWA95TA said it too.

 

i have a 97 trans am with 561 castings heads. I am in the process of rebuilding the block to a 383 stroker ( well not myself but im paying to ahve it done) Anyhow The engine builder ahd a set of 95 Z28 heads laying around in his shop and we decided to do a test to see which heads flowed better stock for stock and which heads flowed better ported. As far as stock for stock the 561 castings heads actualy flow about 4 cfm less on the intake side at .500 lift however flow 5 cfm more on the exhaust side than the older style LT1 heads of OBD1 cars. This is consistant from .050 lift all teh way up to .600 lift. Basically the exhaust to intake flow ratio is better than previous year heads. THIS in conjunction with dual CATS gave 10 more HP. ( altho its a bit underrated from , its more like 15 FWHP) Also they are lighter and you can see where they took material away form the heads in the casting process to shave weight. But the older style heads have more room for porting so we chose to use the heads from the 95Z28.

SO NOT ALL LT1 HEADS ARE THE SAME!
I belive they started using 561 casting heads late in 96, so maybe a few 96 year cars got them but not many but all 97's should have them. my car is a 97 model year but was built in November 96'

 

This has been beat to death. There isn't enough of a difference in any of them. Like someone siad, you line them up and it will come down to the driver.

 

Uh, guys. My last Z-28 was a 95' and at the time i was very impressed with it. Actually, everyone who rode or drove it told me it felt stronger than any others they had been in.. So i like ,thought that was great and stuff. So we took it to the track and me nor my friend could get it lower than a 14.7. At the time , ididnt think it was all that bad. So ,next went on the Granetelli mass air meter, Edelbrock TES. exhaust. Taylor10.4 SP wires, airfoil and it already had an American Thunder exhaust under it. For the life of me all we could get out of it was a 13.73@100.18mph, and that was with my friend(who weighs less than me i might add) ,and the perfect light he cut .500..What makes me the maddest is ,i recently purchased a 93 W/141,324 mi on it .It has factory exhaust w/ a flo mated to the stock intermediate pipe. No converter. The only thing i bought for the car is that SLP IAT module, and a tune up. This is the WOW!part. We went to Montgomery Motorsports Park, in Alabama, where i live on the 8th of Nov . Due to an unexpectedbracket race, everyone only got to run once. I was running my best friend Eric. He has a 95' w/M6 and mine is an A4. When we launched he bogged out of the hole. My car however did not.That sucker just went to ridin.I would have never expected to see on my time slip what i was about to look at. At the end of the race, i pulled back around to where my friends were at, and looked at my time slip.It blew me away. R/T .572 1/8 8.80 slow 1/4 13.69 @ 100.60 mph.I couldnt belive it . A vertually stock 93'Z. So my point is 94-97's are great, but i REALLY like my 93' now. I've always heard that the 93's were faster than the other production years. I also know for fact that not all F-bodies are created equal. Some run from the factory ,and some dont. Thanks for listening guys. I know im to danged long winded. Sorry, in just a country boy .Later

 

93 cam..
lift LSA
.450 .450 ???

94-95 cam
lift LSA
.450 .460 116

96 cam LSA
.447 .459 117


97 i dont know... but my 97 ss would go a 13.9 at 101 stock...and i sutcked at drivin then

cam info from..........
http://www.malcams.com/legacy/misc/CamData.htm

 

95