quarter mile times

[Scott-93 TransAm]

I googled "quarter mile performance". Found a great site with tons of information. My question: why is my 93 TransAm so much slower than 94 or 95? I really didn't think there was that much of a change. Is there some change I'm not aware of? Thank goodness my car is far from stock.

Thanks guys

[Injuneer]

The 93 fuel injection is substantially different, with the ECM running speed-density, rather than using a mass air flow sensor like the 94+ cars. And the injection on the 93's is batch-fire, rather than full sequential (94+). The injectors are also smaller, at 22 #/HR rather than 24 #/HR (94+). But in reality, of these makes much of a difference in performance on a relatively stock LT1. If you have the 6-speed manual, the gearbox ratios and rear axle ratios are different than all the 94+ M6's. Again, no big difference off the line.

Once you start to modify, the 93 requires a bit more tuning, because of the volumetric efficiency (VE) tables used in speed-density, and tuning is a bit of a pain because its the only year with the removable chip, but again, with correct tuning, no real difference.

I don't know what references you found, but the 93 is definitely no slower than the 94-97 LT1's. In fact you will find many 93 owners who feel the 93 is better than the later cars. I've owned my 94 since I bought it new, and never noticed any significant difference in performance between the 93's and the later cars.

Have you had your car to the track? What does it run?

[Joe 1320]

The difference in performances between cars from 93-97 comes from what options the car has. For example, a base automatic with 2.73 rear gears would not accelerate as quickly as the same car with the 3.23 performance axle option. The same goes for exhaust options. an extra 10 HP by having dual cats in 96-97 cars.