Input request--Bonneville timeline!!
#51
Senior Member
True Car Nut
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by DeathRat
Let me check with a tech at work who'* doing this swap as we speak! If I remember right the heads are identical.
![Yellow Twitch](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/Twitch_anim.gif)
![Drool](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/drool.gif)
![Yellow Twitch](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/Twitch_anim.gif)
![Drool](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/drool.gif)
#52
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB Canada
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![DeathRat is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by jr's3800
The NA engine had improvements, and was badged as the TPI 3800, :
L27 - 1990 - 1995 Engine, (3.8L), (SFI), V6, HO, 231 CID
As for the improvements part....I don't think so, at least not on the 92 that is! 93, yes it had improvements. The 92 was a backwards step for GM in my books. Making a EGR-less engine isn't great. I should know I've got one! Cracking Exhaust Manifolds & Burnt Exhaust Valves as "NORMAL" occurances is NOT an improvement!
![Wink](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
#55
Senior Member
True Car Nut
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I know the older Luminas had 3.1.. then they also went to 3.4... I wouldn't mind doing a swap that way.. but bigger is better.... 3.8 */C'd babey
![Twisted Evil](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_twisted.gif)
#56
Senior Member
Posts like a Corvette
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ontario
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![Tamara is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by jr's3800
Originally Posted by willwren
PF78, the Data on the horsepower for the SC 92-94 is incorrect. All of them were 225.
1992 3800 TPI 170 HP 225 lb ft of torque..
3800 SC 205 HP 260 lb ft of torque
And as of 93 - 95 the SC 3800'* made 225 HP and 275 lb ft of torque..
Damn, been into Bonnvilles too longgggggg
![Wink](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Embarassed](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_redface.gif)
In order for it to make 55 more horse, it would be the series II. Series II puts out 205 HP and the first car to see Series II were those 1995 Bonnevilles that it had it ordered as an option.
Edmunds made an error on this, too. Supercharged Series I was 225 HP 92-96. Then 96 I believe got the Series II SC.
Also, the first year to get the 3800 were SOME '88s. It was an ordered option. Other than that, they had the 3.8s that can in the '87, which was the first year of the FWD model. (not 86)
#57
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
Thread Starter
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Ok, has anyone noticed the spacing difference between the driving lights on 95 bonnevilles? SSEi95, yours are close together like mine, but I've seen an SE and an SSE that are farther apart....Terminator, I think one was yours. Can anyone confirm? I'm just about wrapped up on the body styles, I'll be posting Engines tonight....then Trannies....and so on.
#58
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
Thread Starter
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
I thought Terminator had an SSE? His are farther apart. Crap. I'm probably all mixed up. Working out all the body differences is a pain. Hope the drivetrains go easier.
#59
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by willwren
I thought Terminator had an SSE? His are farther apart. Crap. I'm probably all mixed up. Working out all the body differences is a pain. Hope the drivetrains go easier.
Terminators web site
#60
Senior Member
True Car Nut
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Edmonton, AB Canada
Posts: 2,621
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
![DeathRat is on a distinguished road](https://www.gmforum.com/images/reputation/reputation_pos.gif)
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by jr's3800
Originally Posted by DeathRat
Originally Posted by jr's3800
The NA engine had improvements, and was badged as the TPI 3800, :
L27 - 1990 - 1995 Engine, (3.8L), (SFI), V6, HO, 231 CID
As for the improvements part....I don't think so, at least not on the 92 that is! 93, yes it had improvements. The 92 was a backwards step for GM in my books. Making a EGR-less engine isn't great. I should know I've got one! Cracking Exhaust Manifolds & Burnt Exhaust Valves as "NORMAL" occurances is NOT an improvement!
![Wink](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Wink](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Your wright they did start using the 3800 SFI or what we call the TPI-Tunned Port Ijection 3800 in 1990, but that was buick and possibily Olds... The Bonneville didn't see this engine here in the US untill 92 when potiac changed the the larger and more areo dynamic body style.. And true there were a lot of these 92 egr defunked cars.... These were a problem... Notice how Will'* car has one, a 93 SSEi.... But through 91 the pontiac Bonneville had the 3800 EFI engine... But for 92 the SC 3800 only produced 205 hp and for 93 with the better 3800 SFI engine being used along with the improvements to the SC unit power was pushed to 225 HP... And remember I have a 91 Bonnie with an EGR valve and stiil got a burned valve, sounded like an exahust leak.. Its been a year now seince I fixed it and it still runs like hell.....
BTW thanks for that EPROM part #
![Wink](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Evil or Very Mad](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/icon_evil.gif)
![Roll Eyes](https://www.gmforum.com/gm/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif)