KC95SC400

iTrader: (3)

Do you plan to boost?

Everyone is forgetting to mention the thin rods of the 96 and up.

KC

twizted

iTrader: (2)

Well usually that not somthing we really consider in asking because not many people what so ever are boosting sc400's in any fasion unless its a inline 6 conversion...

KC95SC400

iTrader: (3)

Mine is a 95 SC400 and I just purchased a vortech V-9 SQ, and have every intention of boosting.

Just thought it should be brought up.

KC

twizted

iTrader: (2)

I feel totally safe boosting my car to 7-8 pounds stock. Guess ill see end of this year. I mean good lord some forged internals and 6 bolt mains from factory! They built this thing tuff.....

O. L. T.

iTrader: (17)

There is a small difference. Most noticeable in the midrange. All irrelevant once you step into a VVTI SC. The 300 is still a rubber band that takes off BLAH, but the 400 is a monster.

over40driv

I had a 30,000 mile 97 z-28 camaro advertized at 285 H.P. I beleive except for the soft takeoff torque converter, my 95 sc4 has as much or more real world H.P. Back to the question at hand the distributorless ignition of the 98-00 is a major selling point to me as well.

greyBLITZ

iTrader: (2)

I definitely agree with 97+, it looks better than 92-96. I especially love the "body kit" on it, rear spoiler and tail lights.

Actually I used the previous official number of 250HP and the dyno number of 176RWHP (Soarer Central or Planet Soarer). The 176RWHP comes from the V8 with a true 250HP, so I just used the same loss percentage and calculated it with 220 crank HP, leaving me with 154RWHP. It certainly does sound scary, but if you think of it as 30 less HP at crank, then 22 less RWHP is fairly reasonable though. This is all just speculation and calculation, maybe someone can confirm an actual number?

sonyman

The 1992-1995 models do not have 220HP at the crank. At the very least, 1995 models do not dyno any higher than 1992-1994. They use the same drivetrain.

LexAnt

iTrader: (2)

The 95SC4s share the same engine as the 92-94s. I can tell you now that when I had my 95 SC4 dyno'ed stock, it only put out roughly 180rwhp. Also in the 96, it's more than just cam and compression, there's also the less restrictive maf design, as well as other things. I had a list of the cam specs that compared the two which would show the 96-97 to have a true 260hp rating. Also as far as i know, the 96-97 engines also became interference engines with that increased lift that they got. I have also driven the obd2 design 1uzfe as well and can say that it definitely has more perk to it than my obd1.

as for the 92-95 being underrated as stated by greyblitz, that's wrong. if you search for threads by jbrady, he did all the research into it. Apparently when they rated the crank hp, it was with tubing connected only to the headers (no cats). That's just one variable in the equation.

over40driv

So your telling me the H.P. ratings info. stated on intellectual.net is all wrong, which states the95 sc4 as 250 h.p.