legacycentral bbs

What were the differences between all the years of the bc/bf turbo cars made? Is there a year that the tubo bc/bfs were the "best"?

Mechanically- 1991's are the best (standard VLSD rear diff, oil cooler etc)

Cosmetically- my own preference 1994 ( facelifted front and rear ends, cool 5 star wheels and black interior.

Mark,

As Mark mentions, 91 models have limited-slip differentials in the rear and have oil/water heat exchangers. The LSD improves traction and the oil cooler both helps the car warm up faster and helps keep oil temperature in check.

In terms of lighting functionality, 92-94s are far superior. They have headlights that provide better seeing while simultaneously providing less glare to others, and their front turn signals are visible from the side, and also clear which makes them more visible. They also have sidemarkers to make the car more visible from the side. 92 models also have clear rear turn signals, which again are more visible.

The ECUs were revised over the years, but I don't know what the difference(s) is/are. By mid-92 they had settled on the newest revision though. It's not clear that any particular revision is much better than any others. 91 ECUs, though, cannot precisely report injector pulse width to my scantool.

93-94 4EAT models have a different ABS system. It has the advantage of being able to store 3 codes in memory; the other ABS system (used on 91-92 models and 93-94 5MT models) cannot remember any codes once the car is shut down and can only display one code.

The suspension is different on 91 models. The rear has the cone-shaped springs, for one thing. I think the fronts are somewhat different, too.

I think 91s have some little extra amenities like white dots on the vent controls, an auxiliary input on the stereo, and a small storage tray above the driver's left knee.

91-92 seats are different from 93-94 seats. They have that faux leather thing going on on the edges, while later ones are all cloth.

91 models don't have airbags. Airbags were optional on 92 models, and standard equipment on 93-94 models. Having an airbag -- aside from the obvious safety difference -- makes the steering wheel look different, and removes the small storage pocket below the ashtray.

92-94 models have holes in the bumper cover where fog lights can fit pretty neatly.

91s were only available as sedans.

That's all I can think of at the moment.

It's worth noting that a lot of this stuff can be swapped around. I have an oil cooler from a WRX on my 93. A 91 LSD bolts right up to a 92-94. The front end of a 92-94 (with its good lighting) bolts up to a 91 if you get all the body parts. The ECUs are completely interchangeable. The seats swap. I believe the suspension can be swapped over if it's done completely. Et cetera.

yup, i concur, now having both pre and post facelifted models of the L trim.
Really, only in sedans? I swear I've seen 91 wagons, but i suppose I'll have to check the door jamb plate for manufacture date, as the faces are the same..

Yup, the touring wagon was introduced in 1992.

yeeeah!

You guys are great! Thanks!

94 is the best year, because that's what I have

Plus, Aegean Blue Metallic was only available in 94, and that is the sexiest color ever

I'd have to say 1993 or 1994, i'd always stay away from the first year of production on a car, or after they have a facelift or new powertrain, they always have bugs in general, but i never said these cars do

92 is the best year. first of the facelift, and the turbo wagons came in limited edition, so you got cool badges that are impossible to replace

My vote goes to the 91 - for lots of reasons.

Ignore the "facelift" vs "prefacelift" and there are lots of good reasons

1, Rear LSD
2, Engine oil cooler
3, Bigger rear swaybar
4, No Airbag - so more interior room, cubbies and better steering wheel
5, No airbag computer, and associated relays, sensors and other stuff

and the best part of all - it IS LIGHTER - so - faster.

I think the reduced weight is from lots of areas, i.e. no airbag stuff, different bumper beams, and so on - i think it is 400Lbs lighter,

Having owned 91's and a 93, the 91 is much faster, I had to get the 93 checked, as there was not as much of a seat of the pants push.

well........ and...... The 93 looks a lot like a lot of other cars - the 91 is really Japanese looking, and I like the pre-looks - hence the bias.

The rear sway bar is exactly the same size as the 92-94 turbo's 18mm

Hmm... My 93 Touring wagon has a 16"

How do you know it's a 16mm?

All the info I've seen says it should be 18mm.

my 90 fwd sedan had a 16mm rear bar.

I measured it, and then replaced it with a 18"

Is it possible they put smaller bars on the Touring Wagons because of the different weight distribution?

Could be.... But I personally think that a wagon needs a bigger rear sway.

Anyone else can confirm their 93-94 rear sway on a wagon?

Could be mine was tinkered with in its 10 years before me.

totech wrote:I measured it, and then replaced it with a 18"

you have a foot and a half wide bar under your car?

sorry couldn resist.

my sedan and wagon both have 16mm bars.

and i now vote for the 94 as the best as that is what i am about to get.

I would think an OEM would want to put a smaller sway bar on a wagon to help it understeer.

It wouldnt be surprising if the tw had a 16mm. The higher center of gravity in the rear acts like a larger swaybar would. In the wrx wagons subaru put in a smaller rear bar for this reason.