10k to spend...
i didnt say i was arguing for one engine or the other there smokey, im just saying that this has been a timeless argument that has been going on for a long time, read back as far as you want, youll see that each engine possibility has its yaysayers and naysayers, they each have very good points. for me, the jury is still out, but you definatlely jumped to a conclusion way too fast to have any grounds for a conclusion like you made.
-
LaughingBull
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 7:03 am
- Car: 97 240sx
72 521
77 620
74 cb550
76 cb550 - Location: Lawrence, KS
Re: (iwantawd)
I believe Import Tuner recently had a very good article where they compared the SR and the KA. Broke down what it would take to get these engines to 250 350 450hp. Trying to find the article, but from what i remember the SR took less mods to get it to the 250 350 range, but from 350 on was pretty much a ffa because both engines are gonna need major modifications.
Re: (nismofly)
I came to my conclusion already because NO ONE IS COMING UP WITH ANY GOOD POINTS. Why don't YOU read THIS thread and realize that no one has said anything other than the SR revs higher. Big ****ing deal.nismofly wrote:i didnt say i was arguing for one engine or the other there smokey, im just saying that this has been a timeless argument that has been going on for a long time, read back as far as you want, youll see that each engine possibility has its yaysayers and naysayers, they each have very good points. for me, the jury is still out, but you definatlely jumped to a conclusion way too fast to have any grounds for a conclusion like you made.
heres one from a few days ago...
http://www.nicoclub.com/zerothread?id=89169
like i said people will just say its another engine, it may have come with the car, that makes it a bit easier, but its still one of many engines that can be used.
my biggest thing with the ka probably would be that when you start on it it already has hight mileage almost every time, lower mileage ka's are becoming rarer, whereas you can still get sr's and rb's fairly common with lower mileage, and i really dont want to build an engine just to have it crap out as soon as it runs under boost for the first time. but then again the ka does have more displacement, and the rb has more still, plus two more cylinders, the list goes on and on...
http://www.nicoclub.com/zerothread?id=89169
like i said people will just say its another engine, it may have come with the car, that makes it a bit easier, but its still one of many engines that can be used.
my biggest thing with the ka probably would be that when you start on it it already has hight mileage almost every time, lower mileage ka's are becoming rarer, whereas you can still get sr's and rb's fairly common with lower mileage, and i really dont want to build an engine just to have it crap out as soon as it runs under boost for the first time. but then again the ka does have more displacement, and the rb has more still, plus two more cylinders, the list goes on and on...
that link talks a lot about the RB's but what little is does say about the KA vs. SR specifically, id have to say the KA came out on top due to cost. one post said 2700 for a SR front clip??? thats crazy.my whole argument is that people pick an engine based on what they plan on using it for. my understanding is nissan guys dont drag race that much and are involved in road racing or drifting much more. those two sports require more torque and more torque lower in the power band which the KA can provide. a higher revving SR isn't going to help much when your gasing out of an slow apex at 3500 rpms compared to an equally built KA, imho anyways.
Re: (nismofly)
i did say when both engines are rebuilt, not stock.nismofly wrote:my biggest thing with the ka probably would be that when you start on it it already has hight mileage almost every time
well im not a drifter whatsoever, but from the little i know drifting is not done at low rpms at all, but more bouncing off the redline, thats why when you watch videos you here the engine bouncing on the rev limiter. road racing, on the other hand, yes its good to have torque but all you have to do is downshift to get right up in the torque curve, then you have more torque and power available, plus road racing is much more a game of suspension tuning and turning, cornering speed and such. Torque would come into play in autocrossing yes, but in much faster road racing it is not nearly as critical.
ps: an interesting thought about displacement is that the ultimate road racing vehicles, formula 1 cars, run a 3.0 liter v10, but still are tuned for close to 1000hp because they redline at 22000 rpms, and generally run around 16000-18000 rpms the entire race.
ps: an interesting thought about displacement is that the ultimate road racing vehicles, formula 1 cars, run a 3.0 liter v10, but still are tuned for close to 1000hp because they redline at 22000 rpms, and generally run around 16000-18000 rpms the entire race.
-
Doomed2Walk
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 7:39 pm
- Car: 2005 Subaru Impreza WRX STi WRBP on gold
- Contact:
Both the SR and KA are overbuilt and can handle 300 HP on stock internals if tuned correctly. KA pros: iron block, oil squirters, valvetrain. Cons: long stroke, HP falls flat after 5500RPM. SR pros: stock internals are considered "bulletproof" some have gotten close to 500WHP on stock internals, square stroke+bore, lets you rev higher and provides power all the way to the redline (provided you have the right turbo). Cons: Valvetrain, head
im not into drifting at all so i was under the assumption that holding a drift involved modulating the throttle not just just flooring it and pegging the tach. you mentioned downshifting in corners to find the torque but i made a point of saying slow corners where downshifting isnt an option.i didnt mention autoxing because its pretty well understood that you do that at slower speeds than road racing but i shouldnt have left it out because it is a perfect example of slow exiting corners and more people do that than road racing.
also correct me if im wrong but i thought the hp fell flat after 5500 rpms because of the stock head/cam(s). as i said stock for stock the SR is much better since it is built with a turbo already but when comparing two fully built engines like i said the heads and cam(s) would be included in this as well.
also correct me if im wrong but i thought the hp fell flat after 5500 rpms because of the stock head/cam(s). as i said stock for stock the SR is much better since it is built with a turbo already but when comparing two fully built engines like i said the heads and cam(s) would be included in this as well.
-
Doomed2Walk
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 7:39 pm
- Car: 2005 Subaru Impreza WRX STi WRBP on gold
- Contact:
What you say is correct, now I'm not sure about what you're asking anymore. However, I believe rebuilding a KA is more costly because there isn't as much support, not cheaper. That's what I assume anyhow.I think the reason for this thread though is the car is going to be kept as a daily driver, as is my car, and personally, I think the SR is an easier, although a bit more expensive route.
ok ive heard that the ka is more expensive to build up until you get up to the point of building up the internals, then they are about equal from there up.
the reason i made the comment about downshifting is i have almost never seen a corner where if you downshift to first, and even that is a rare occasion, but never where you are pulling from those rpms in first. granted there are some courses in cali that i guess you can have a configuration like that, one which would have that slow of a corner, but ive driven two courses in my car, watkins glen, and lime rock park, and in an absolutely stock 89 240 fastback, and on those two courses there are no turns where you are pulling from 3500 in first. i know some drivers dont like to shift to first because it is so tall, and you cant take it far at all before shifting to second, but that doesnt mean you cant. 3500 in first in these cars is around 15 mph in these cars, there are no turns that are that slow. now, if you dont want to shift to first and you want to use the torque to pull from 3500 or lower in second, thats another story.
finally, as i said, ive never drifted, i would love to learn how, and i know its a lot harder than it looks, but for now the only drifting i have seen is in videos and i can see where you are coming from with the throttle modulation.
the reason i made the comment about downshifting is i have almost never seen a corner where if you downshift to first, and even that is a rare occasion, but never where you are pulling from those rpms in first. granted there are some courses in cali that i guess you can have a configuration like that, one which would have that slow of a corner, but ive driven two courses in my car, watkins glen, and lime rock park, and in an absolutely stock 89 240 fastback, and on those two courses there are no turns where you are pulling from 3500 in first. i know some drivers dont like to shift to first because it is so tall, and you cant take it far at all before shifting to second, but that doesnt mean you cant. 3500 in first in these cars is around 15 mph in these cars, there are no turns that are that slow. now, if you dont want to shift to first and you want to use the torque to pull from 3500 or lower in second, thats another story.
finally, as i said, ive never drifted, i would love to learn how, and i know its a lot harder than it looks, but for now the only drifting i have seen is in videos and i can see where you are coming from with the throttle modulation.
Re: (nismofly)
what ive been trying to say is that picking an engine for a car is situational and given the more common use of a 240 (not drag racing) the added torque from a built KA would be a much better choice than the added rpms of the SR. if it were just drag racing.... i might look into the SR a bit more not sure though. i know dsm guys with stroked 4g63's are killin at the track even though they cant rev as high either. im talkin 10 second daily drivers.
maybe im not being clear enough with what im saying but i think you just said exactly what i meant. i said slow corners where downshifting isn't an option. i would probably never downshift to first so i look at 2nd gear as the lowest gear you could be in during a race on a real course. now would you agree that pulling from 3500 in second could be considered a common occurance? i would def say so. every track is different of course but id say this is def true in autoxing.nismofly wrote:the reason i made the comment about downshifting is i have almost never seen a corner where if you downshift to first, and even that is a rare occasion, but never where you are pulling from those rpms in first. granted there are some courses in cali that i guess you can have a configuration like that, one which would have that slow of a corner, but ive driven two courses in my car, watkins glen, and lime rock park, and in an absolutely stock 89 240 fastback, and on those two courses there are no turns where you are pulling from 3500 in first. i know some drivers dont like to shift to first because it is so tall, and you cant take it far at all before shifting to second, but that doesnt mean you cant. 3500 in first in these cars is around 15 mph in these cars, there are no turns that are that slow. now, if you dont want to shift to first and you want to use the torque to pull from 3500 or lower in second, thats another story.
i dont mind downshifting at all, i find that i dont lose any time in the shift that i would make up if i didnt shift and pulled from low rpms.
also in case you were wondering as far as i know there are only a few purpose built road racing 240s in the US, due to the class they are running some of them run ka's, and at the same time some of them run sr's. in this case from what i see most people run ka's just fine with a turbo, but people running the sr will bump displacement to 2.2L for the reason of increasing torque, but at the same time retain the rev capability, thereby negating the difference, of course bumping the cost of building the sr.
also in case you were wondering as far as i know there are only a few purpose built road racing 240s in the US, due to the class they are running some of them run ka's, and at the same time some of them run sr's. in this case from what i see most people run ka's just fine with a turbo, but people running the sr will bump displacement to 2.2L for the reason of increasing torque, but at the same time retain the rev capability, thereby negating the difference, of course bumping the cost of building the sr.
Re: (nismofly)
[QUOTE=nismofly]i dont mind downshifting at all, i find that i dont lose any time in the shift that i would make up if i didnt shift and pulled from low rpms.QUOTE]
to 1st gear? gotta be murder on the synchros!
to 1st gear? gotta be murder on the synchros!
well i suppose that would be true, but like i said i havent had to worry about it when im running these courses, im starting autocross next summer and thats may be a different story, and i suppose thats also true because there is only one case in my daily driving where i have to downshift to first, but i havent had to worry about it racing yet, i have also yet to ride in, nevermind drive, an sr powered 240, but that will hopefully happen soon. i do know however that the sr is torquey for its displacement, and my dads s2000 has much less torque and even with that i find pulling the few second gear corners at the glen arent bad, but i would certainly like more.
-
Doomed2Walk
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2003 7:39 pm
- Car: 2005 Subaru Impreza WRX STi WRBP on gold
- Contact:
Re: (iwantawd)
well i had a miata before this but my uncle is a nissan mechanic/racer, so he got me into this, then sold me his 89 rhs13 when he left for japan. and ill never go back. my dad has his supercharged s2000, a volvo s60r (6 speed, fun car), an old nash rambler, and i forget what year austin healey 3000, which has some surprises under the hood, its a great car. other than that my cousins jeep wrangler for going off roading is fun.iwantawd wrote:what kind of cars have you been in btw?
ya ej25, although my subaru loyalties live in wrc rallying, where the limit is 2.0 liters, hence the ej20.
-
drifter_for_life06
- Posts: 5301
- Joined: Sat Jul 05, 2003 5:18 pm
- Car: Daily: '16 WRX
Toys: '92 RPS13 400whp
Exocet - Location: SoYoCo, PA
Re: (iwantawd)
I think so as well.....I see this has become another SR vs. KA thread.iwantawd wrote:haha i dont even think the thread starter is reading this anymore
But to add on to the thread starter's request...here is what I would do....
*fix any minor problems that will urk me in the future*tune-up*brakes*suspension (coilovers, T/C rods, etc...)*rims and tires*alignment and other misc needs that are not ideal DIY tasks*exterior*powertrain (SR or KA-T)...this should be the last step...since its the most costly and never stays within budget. Also before you reach that step...you will look at cost and decide to sell your car or go on with the project.