Couple of Questions about 93's
 

So I've heard both of these alot but can not find a for sure answer.

1. Is the cam in a 93 more aggressive?

2. Are the pushrods hardened?

Thanks guys.

Yes, the 93 cam is apparently the more aggressive of the stock cams available from 93-97. No, the pushrods are not hardened on any stock cars as far as I know....

The difference isnt much though.

Think thats right?

My understanding was "some of the rods were forged" but I thought the cam was the same if not milder than later LT1s. Who knows it was all hearsay. From what I have seen personaly stock 93s are pretty slow compared to the later cars.....
BUT they are more easily modified.

Does anyone have specs on this?

I could be wrong, but I was always under the impression that LT1s dident come with hardened pushrods stock.....But theres always that chance....

Most didnt I think 93 had a few but theres no way to tell for sure.

Heres the specs on ALL the cams from the newbie guide, forgot it was in there..

Factory LTX Camshaft Specifications**:
1992 Y-body: 205/207 0.451/0.450 lift 117 LSA
1993-1995 Y-body, F-body: 202/207 0.450/0.460 lift 116 LSA
1994-1996 B-bodies (including L99 4.3L): 191/196 0.418/0.430 lift 111 LSA
1996 Y-body, 1996-1997 F-body: 200/207 0.447/0.459 lift 117 LSA
1996 Y-body, F-body LT4: 203/210 0.476/0.479 lift 115 LSA

As far as the hardened pushrods thing goes, I wouldent rely on it......

my 93 was quick bone stock. I put down 240/290 at the tires w/ 95k miles on it and no upgrades.

w/ holley 52mm tb, k&n fipk, hypertech chip, afpr, 24# injectors and pulleys it made 264/301 through a 3600 vigi on 18" vette wheels.

I've heard arguments both ways, but from what I've seen they are pretty much the same and both capable of doing good things.

From what I've read 93 does seem to have a lot of "Factory Freaks" though.

Bone stock my 93 ran 14.1 in the 1/4 mile on street tires.

I love my 93:angel:

Pretty good time for a stock car, Im sure your good driving had something to do with it too. I have seen alot of 93 "factory freaks" that seem to dyno a little higher than most of the other cars. No idea why though....

Takin off another site.
93's had slightly smaller front brake pads
93’s have “Pink” rods
Non-vented Optispark until 1995
Headers/manifolds are different. EGR gasses are only taken from right above #8 cylinder. The tube above #1 is for air injection. (94+ have an extra hole on the passenger side for a 2nd A.I.R. input.
Heater hose has a “T” in it going to the throttle body and also in the upper radiator return hose until the 1995 model.
The front brakes are different. I believe the rotors and pads are smaller (unconfirmed). I can measure my front brakes if someone with a newer lt1 can measure theirs.
Fuel pressure regulator is mounted on the passenger side as opposed to being on the driver side for 94+. Thus requiring a 93 specific FPR. TPI AFPR's are also useable on 93's.
1.46” valve springs instead of 1.25” in the newer LT1’s (unconfirmed)
Oil pressure sender is directly above the oil filter instead of on the back of the intake manifold (unconfirmed that 94+ is on the manifold)
93’s have a metal fan on the CS 144 alternator and is rated @ 124 amps. The positive ‘bat’ wire for it is attached with a bolt.
The 94+ cars have a 140 amp alternator with a plastic fan. It uses a stud and nut to attach the positive 'BAT cable.
Hardened pushrods until 95
Traction control was not an option on 93's.
93 Formulas and Trans Ams did not have the 'performance shift' option.
93's only have the A.I.R. pump mounted to the frame. Later years are mounted to the engine block.

93' did have a slightly higher lift, the do have pink forged rods, and have hardened pushrods. Oh, and the T-56 is slightly better for those of you that know of them (M-29)

Wow, good find. Now this would make me wonder why they dident continue with the pushrod deal?

GM got cheap on us! Sorry guys with 93s I by No means think that they cant be as fast as the 96-97 cars but from my old crew and experience. We had 2 93 Zs, 95z (slowest of all them) 95 TA a 96 z and my 97 Formula.
The 96 and 97 were the fastest for sure and both in the 13.9x stock the 95 Z was slowest but one day at the track it went 13.4 at 104mph out of the blue, every other run of its life was mid 14s at mid 90s. Both 93s were mid 14s also and the 95 TA ran low 14s stock and 13.70s with some bolt ons.

^^ all that info is from speeddensity.org theres some good info on there for 93's

Me too,,, Bolt-on's @ 3900 #

From all my readings here, the 93s were a tad faster than the other years. The cams are basically the same, and while I'm no cam guru, I can't see there being all that much gain between the small changes they made.

A site I have booked shows this for 93 cams
GM .450/.450 .480/.460 93 LT1 STOCK

It's 1.5/1.5 and 1.6/1.6. While it doesn't list the lobe for that year, 119 comes to mind but that just can't be right. Who knows though with the lower exhaust lift *shrug*.

EDIT: Come to think of it. I've seen .447/.459 for the 93s as well. That's what I have put into Desktop Dyno. It's a shame there's no way we can find out what it truly is :\

I think it would be 116 or 117 if anything, the stock cams were obviously meant to idle smooth but 119 is pretty high. But this is a guess...