I was not trying to start a war here. The reason I said truck motor is because of its power delevery. I never intended to offend anyone or discredit the motor. If you are wondering I have a lot of behind-the-wheel time in KA powered rigs, trucks and cars. I would have to agree with morepower2's points. As for having "more potential" in my opinion the only thing it has over an "xe" motor is displacement, and due to its shortcomings(in respect to the GA, not in general), the added displacement does not make uup for them. I would never put down a Nissan engine, and never intended to sound like I was putting down the KA, only stating that it delivers power like a truck engine. BTW I still think KA powered cars(not trucks) fly.
__________________
Patrick Scott
Yeah, thats a roll cage in there.
I shall call him...Mini-Me
Originally posted by BadMoJo as far as revs go, who cares it it doesnt rev much higher then 7k, the power band is below that anyways. You cant compare revs with the two engines, they are built differently; bore/stroke wise. Thats like ripping on the SR cuz the CA will out rev it. And as far at cast iron block goes, I see that as a good thing, stronger and no cylinder wall flex. There are a few KAs out there putting 350~ to the wheels on stock internals, and they are daily driven cars. If it came down to it I would choose, in this order; KA24DE-T......CA18DET........SR20DET. But then there is also the RB.
The KA actualy has less block integrity than the KA. You should see some of the spectacular block failures that I have in racing and turboed KA's. I don't think the CA will out rev a SR. Where did you here that?
350 hp on a stock bottom end is impressive but I think 409 hp is more impressive on a bone stock motor. I don't even know what the limit is because none of the SR's that I have tuned have blown up yet!
I am not making fun of the KA, it is a good motor but the SR is better for turboing and high performance.
Originally posted by tnord hey morepower.......iirc the SR is 70lbs lighter than the KA, or maybe even less. it's not really an issue. and why would you try and make a KA rev past 7k anyway? that's like trying to make rosie o'donnel suck dick, she wasn't made to do it, so why make her?
70 lbs on the front end of a car is a lot! At least to me it is. Hp is also a function of RPM, for street motors where you are limited by the BSFC and the MEP of what pump fuel and the combustion chamber of the motor will maintain, the only way to get more power is revs.
The KA is a good motor for reasonable power but for a lot of power, in the 400+ range, the SR is better.
Originally posted by tnord hey morepower.......iirc the SR is 70lbs lighter than the KA, or maybe even less. it's not really an issue. and why would you try and make a KA rev past 7k anyway? that's like trying to make rosie o'donnel suck dick, she wasn't made to do it, so why make her?
to make the KA rev past 7k you'd need a new crank... something fully counterweighted.... hmmm..... that doesn't sound like a bad $900 investment at all. get it with a shorter stroke and fully counterweighted, pair that up with new rods and pistons, and you'd have the opposite of a JUN stroker kit, for a lot less $$$.
(yes... that is my goal... 2.2L KA... the iron block 9k rpm machine)
i know when you put 70 lbs on the front of the car it's much worse than putting 70 lbs in the passenger seat, but it is behind the front axle, so it isn't oh so terrible. and when you consider 70lbs compared to 2800, well, it's not that big of a deal. i'm not going to debate engine stuff in detail because, well, i don't know enough.
Originally posted by tnord i know when you put 70 lbs on the front of the car it's much worse than putting 70 lbs in the passenger seat, but it is behind the front axle, so it isn't oh so terrible. and when you consider 70lbs compared to 2800, well, it's not that big of a deal. i'm not going to debate engine stuff in detail because, well, i don't know enough.
it's easily balanced placing the heavy ass battery in the trunk though...
tnord,
If people notice a difference with a carbon fiber hood on there car, then I think trimming 70lbs. from the engine would make a big difference. Not to much difference between 70lbs. in the pass. seat and on an engine, not to sound like an A-hole but play with a teeter-toter some time. Just because it is behind the front axle doesent mean its not that diff from in the pass. seat.
__________________
Patrick Scott
Yeah, thats a roll cage in there.
I shall call him...Mini-Me
to make the KA rev past 7k you'd need a new crank... something fully counterweighted.... hmmm..... that doesn't sound like a bad $900 investment at all. get it with a shorter stroke and fully counterweighted, pair that up with new rods and pistons, and you'd have the opposite of a JUN stroker kit, for a lot less $$$.
(yes... that is my goal... 2.2L KA... the iron block 9k rpm machine)
Where can you get a custom billet crank made for $900?? It's more like $2500 if you are talking one off's.
Originally posted by tnord i know when you put 70 lbs on the front of the car it's much worse than putting 70 lbs in the passenger seat, but it is behind the front axle, so it isn't oh so terrible. and when you consider 70lbs compared to 2800, well, it's not that big of a deal. i'm not going to debate engine stuff in detail because, well, i don't know enough.
Considering that 70 lbs is like taking out your seats which people do or 150% of a carbon hood which people do, it is a lot. 70 lbs is about a tenth in the 1/4. It is typicaly at least .5 seconds on your typical road course. That is a lot and it can cost a lot of money to cut that much time out of your car by adding more power.
don't think c/f hood makes that much difference, but every bit of weight saved helps a little bit, I'm impartial when it comes to KA vs. SR. they both have their uniqueness, but if you want to use torque as the basis of your arguement for having a KA, then you might as well go with an RB.
__________________
'96 240sx SE
http://communities.msn.com/grantswebpage
i was informed by a little bird that the weight difference between KA and SR is actually 5lbs. the bird said he got it out of SCC, somebody might want to doublecheck that.
Considering that 70 lbs is like taking out your seats which people do or 150% of a carbon hood which people do, it is a lot. 70 lbs is about a tenth in the 1/4. It is typicaly at least .5 seconds on your typical road course. That is a lot and it can cost a lot of money to cut that much time out of your car by adding more power.
Mike
taking the seats out??? the rear seats weigh like 10lbs, there is no way the front seats weigh 60lbs.
.5 seconds minimum on a typical road course? where do you get this info?
taking the seats out??? the rear seats weigh like 10lbs, there is no way the front seats weigh 60lbs.
.5 seconds minimum on a typical road course? where do you get this info?
look, the back seats are like styrofoam and wire, the front seats have a crap load of metal in them, they might not be 60 but i'm sure it's close...
power to weight ratios can be correlated directly with a cars performance, you shave some weight or you add some power, or do both! it'll make your car faster... 70 lbs is a great deal of weight if you actually look at it from this perspective.
taking the seats out??? the rear seats weigh like 10lbs, there is no way the front seats weigh 60lbs.
.5 seconds minimum on a typical road course? where do you get this info?
The rear seat weights about 15 lbs and the two front seats weigh about the rest. I have a lot of experiance road racing and building race cars. Take my opinion for what it's worth.
Linear Mode
