1989 & 1992 Performance difference!

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

May 28, 2006 | 01:48 PM

FoMoColover

Thread Starter

Junior User

Joined: Nov 2003

Posts: 78

Likes: 0

From: Mississippi

1989 & 1992 Performance difference!

Hello again! How many oof you guys have noticed a performance difference between these year models? My old 1989 ext will outperform the 1992 ext I have by a long shot. The only difference between the two vans is the 1992 has rear air and power options whereas the 89 only has front a/c. Both vans have the 3.73 rear ratio and 3.0 engine. You would think that the mass air flow 3.0 would be more responsive but it is not. The old 1989 feels as if it has a V8 under the hood even with the a/c on! Both vans are in tip top tune. I thought that the 3.0 received some power increase in the late 90's? The old 1989 even has 250,000 miles on it where the 1992 only has 180,000. Does the 1992 weigh that much more? Anyone ever noticed this?

May 28, 2006 | 04:21 PM

xlt4wd90

Lead Driver

Joined: Sep 2003

Posts: 7,018

Likes: 210

From: SoCal

I noticed sort of the opposite, as I mentioned in a previous post.

I test drove a 1991 4liter 2wd with front A/C. It felt a lot more responsive in general than my 1990 4liter AWD with dual A/C. The 1991 model accelerated faster and stopped quicker. I was wondering what the differences might be.

May 28, 2006 | 06:47 PM

Kruse

Fleet Mechanic

Joined: Mar 2004

Posts: 1,529

Likes: 35

From: Kansas

Quote:

Originally Posted by FoMoColover

Hello again! How many oof you guys have noticed a performance difference between these year models? My old 1989 ext will outperform the 1992 ext I have by a long shot.

I used to have a '91 and a '93. Both were (are) the 3.0 extended vans. They both got about 23 mpg on extended highway trips and they were, accessory wise, almost identical. The '91 could run circles around the '93 and my wife would always comment on the fact. I've retired the '91 (rusted away) but still have the '93. Mechanically, it's in excellent shape and I never could explain the performance difference. Yea, the rear end ratios were the same.
I've recently added a '96 to my fleet, but I really can't compare the '96 to the '93 because the '96 is a 4.0.
I'd still like to know what the difference was.

May 29, 2006 | 08:11 AM

Pablo-UA

Post Fiend

Joined: Oct 2005

Posts: 5,242

Likes: 0

From: Kiev, Ukraine

EEC-IV lets run faster! especially with custom cam-shaft!

May 29, 2006 | 09:38 AM

TitleSeventeen

Freshman User

Joined: Feb 2006

Posts: 47

Likes: 0

some of our vans feel faster then others, our 92' shorty van with the 3.0 @ 156,xxx and our 93' shorty van with the 3.0 @ 194,xxx have a huge performance difference, the 92' will run circles around the 93' i don't really get it.

May 29, 2006 | 09:48 AM

FoMoColover

Thread Starter

Junior User

Joined: Nov 2003

Posts: 78

Likes: 0

From: Mississippi

Pablo-UA,
Both vehicles are EEC-IV controlled! The 1992 has a Mass air flow sensor rather than the old speed density system on the 1989. I think it is the engine itself. I think the old 1989 3.0 has more low end torque while the 1992 has more upper end horsepower. Anyone got the specs on the two different year model engines?