Nissan Forum banner

1 - 20 of 48 Posts
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Do a bit more research before you say stuff like that. Just cuz your read it in SCC or another moronic mag doenst mean its gods word. The KA started its life under the hood of a 240, not a truck. The KA is a great motor, I would pick it over most any honda motor out there. Its got potential, even more so than the SR, which has been put up on a high horse just because its JDM y0! Both are good motors though, I wont deny either one of there good or bad points, but never rip on the KA because of what some un-educated fools have put into print.

my 2 cents.

peace.
 

·
in^3,N20,RPM,PSI
Joined
·
4,652 Posts
I agree. People always say 'truck motor', to me there is no difference, just because it's an iron engine doesn't mean anything to me. One of the latest SCC had a KA belting out 400+ hp... it can probably take more too!

Just cuz a motor was in a truck doesn't mean it's a truck motor. (it's a motor).
 

·
Icy Hot Stunta
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
BadMoJo said:
Do a bit more research before you say stuff like that. Just cuz your read it in SCC or another moronic mag doenst mean its gods word. The KA started its life under the hood of a 240, not a truck. The KA is a great motor, I would pick it over most any honda motor out there. Its got potential, even more so than the SR, which has been put up on a high horse just because its JDM y0! Both are good motors though, I wont deny either one of there good or bad points, but never rip on the KA because of what some un-educated fools have put into print.

my 2 cents.

peace.
In my opinion anyway, the SR is a far superior motor. The cylinder head flows better and the piston speed is lower. The SR is much lighter. The KA also has head sealing problems in the low 20 psi range.

Because of the piston speed issues, the KA has a penchant to throw rods at much over 7k rpm. In fact even well built KA's with aftermarket rods still have issues with bottom end failure above 7k rmp due to harmonics. Spectacular failures at that as well, like the lower part of the block cracking in half.

Even the best built KA's that I have seen like Chris Mays, Simon Kim or Kenji Sumino are only good for the mid 400's in power. That's peanuts for a good SR20DE. I have gotten over 400 hp from bone stock bottom end SR's before, can even come close to that with a KA.

The KA is a pretty good motor though, just not better than the SR.

Mike
 
B

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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. :rolleyes:
 

·
Nissan Wizard
Joined
·
193 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
CarbonBlack200 said:
>:O OH NOOOO!!! I wanted that S14..
The damage isn't that bad. Front bumper, hood, driver's side fender, foglights, airbags, and one of those slanted headlights or are they projector lights? No damage to the engine..still able to drive it. Luckily he has full coverage.
 

·
Platinum
Joined
·
462 Posts
what year is his S14? If it's the earlier model, this is the great chance to go 97'~98' front end conversion (w/ projectors). Sorry about going off topic... but I had to say..
 

·
Nissan Wizard
Joined
·
193 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
CarbonBlack200 said:
what year is his S14? If it's the earlier model, this is the great chance to go 97'~98' front end conversion (w/ projectors). Sorry about going off topic... but I had to say..

It's a dark green 97 240sx. He did ask me about upgrades about his car. I don't really know too much about the 240s both performance and cosmetic, but it's really a nice car or it was.
 
T

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
tnord said:
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?
I like the points you made. Wasn't the KA in the Stanza before it was in the 240?
 

·
ex-Super *********
Joined
·
1,410 Posts
Whoa!!

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.
 

·
Icy Hot Stunta
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
BadMoJo said:
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. :rolleyes:
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.

Mike
 

·
Icy Hot Stunta
Joined
·
2,366 Posts
tnord said:
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.

Mike

The rosie thing was helly funny!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
tnord said:
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)
 
T

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Top