3.8l sc mods
#22
Senior Member
True Car Nut
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by willwren
There'* VERY little difference in performance between the 94/95 Series 1 and the Series 2 in performance, in fact, they are pretty much neck and neck.
#24
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 95naSTA
Originally Posted by willwren
There'* VERY little difference in performance between the 94/95 Series 1 and the Series 2 in performance, in fact, they are pretty much neck and neck.
Sunbird, did you catch the note a couple of replies ago that the Z24 you linked to has a Series 1, not a Series 2?
#26
Senior Member
True Car Nut
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by willwren
Quite the contrary. Every 94/95 L67 that'* run has run even or slightly quicker than stock Series 2 cars. Mine and Martin McCoy'* are 2 of them. Even Harofreak'* 95 is quicker than his 2000. And that was AFTER de-modding the 95.
#27
DINOSAURUS BOOSTUS
![](/images/badges/Gearhead.png)
Expert Gearhead
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Not getting involved in any arguements.
I will however say, owning both a 95 SSEi and 97 SSEi, there are slight differences body wise and interior. L67 wise..hands down there is definate differences and to say there are not would be a injustice to the Series 2.
I will however say, owning both a 95 SSEi and 97 SSEi, there are slight differences body wise and interior. L67 wise..hands down there is definate differences and to say there are not would be a injustice to the Series 2.
#28
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 95naSTA
Originally Posted by willwren
Quite the contrary. Every 94/95 L67 that'* run has run even or slightly quicker than stock Series 2 cars. Mine and Martin McCoy'* are 2 of them. Even Harofreak'* 95 is quicker than his 2000. And that was AFTER de-modding the 95.
#29
Senior Member
True Car Nut
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by willwren
Originally Posted by 95naSTA
Originally Posted by willwren
Quite the contrary. Every 94/95 L67 that'* run has run even or slightly quicker than stock Series 2 cars. Mine and Martin McCoy'* are 2 of them. Even Harofreak'* 95 is quicker than his 2000. And that was AFTER de-modding the 95.
#30
Junior Member
Posts like a Ricer Type-R
![Default](https://www.gmforum.com/images/icons/icon1.gif)
Originally Posted by 95naSTA
Originally Posted by willwren
Originally Posted by 95naSTA
Originally Posted by willwren
Quite the contrary. Every 94/95 L67 that'* run has run even or slightly quicker than stock Series 2 cars. Mine and Martin McCoy'* are 2 of them. Even Harofreak'* 95 is quicker than his 2000. And that was AFTER de-modding the 95.
And before you say it'* the driver, I drove the 97 myself to it'* PB. The point I'm trying to make without ruffling feathers is that the 92-95 L67'* were intentionally underrated by GM.