>>Sam what is your torque? The '93's are rated 10hp more but 10 or so
>>lbs. less torque than the '95's are because of the 3 inch cat on the
>>'93's, at least that's what I have heard. But it also seems to me that
>>someone mentioned the '93's had slightly different cam specs... ???
>I believe there's a little difference in the cam too, can't remember
>where I heard that.
I´m not an authorative source, but I believe the ´94 and ´95 models had a
de-tuned cam, and the more restrictive exhaust, because they had to get
closer to passenger car emissions. The ´96 regained all the lost
horsepower, and has a hotter cam, because the OBDII computer does a better
job of regulating fuel supply.
Now what I think would be interesting, would be to put a ´96 or later spec
engine in a ´92-´93 truck (I´ll volunteer mine) with a ´93 computer and the
less restrictive exhaust.
>I just had a dyno test run a few weeks ago, and 216.5 HP, 289.5 lbs.
>torque (with 101500 miles on truck/motor).
>
>My I didn't do a dyno run with my previously LOUD exhaust system,
>which I would bet $$$ was making more HP, but a lot less torque. Torque
>is what I lost with the 3" CAT, 3" pipe to the DT headers.
>I am glad to get it back :P
Torque is under-appreciated. Especially when you have the mass of a Dakota
to move. And these are TRUCKS we´re talking about!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:11:32 EDT