porting a ca18det heat (8 port)

Discuss topics related to the CA18DE and CA18DET series engines.
d.p.n.s
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:48 pm
Car: mk1 escort van

porting a ca18det heat (8 port)

Postby d.p.n.s » Sun Mar 07, 2010 7:46 pm

hi allhas anyone got any info on porting 8 port ca18det heads?or has anyone ported one and had good results?

cheersdan


User avatar
r34 gtr
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:33 am
Car: 98 Frontier XE 4x4
95.5 Audi URS6 Avant 5spd
03 BMW 330i ZHP 6spd
89 240sx base CA18DET
Location: Creepin' in your crawl space
Contact:

FN-QR

Postby r34 gtr » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:56 am

Check out Memento's build thread, "did somebody say Baller??" for some extensive 8-port CA18 porting work.

I messed around with mine a little bit and noticed a difference. Porting work yields results if done properly, its just all about how much work you want to have done, and that depends on how much power you want to make.

d.p.n.s
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:48 pm
Car: mk1 escort van

Re: FN-QR (r34 gtr)

Postby d.p.n.s » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:42 pm

ive got a mate thats into his porting headshe loves foing the old 2.0 pinto motors and has had some realy got results.and he has acsess to a flow bench.so i think ill give it to hime to have a play with.

im realy want AT LEAST 300hp at the rears.and my van its going in is about 850-900kgs lol

dan

User avatar
Frankenfourty
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:16 pm
Car: 1989 240sx CA18DET

Re: FN-QR (d.p.n.s)

Postby Frankenfourty » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:52 pm

Porting, if done right can yield some really satisfying results. So I think you will be happy you did it. I have seen a 70hp gain in some engines. Granted with our motors that are designed way better, you will not see this kind of gain with a diy port. But it still is worth it. Just make sure to port match your manifold and gaskets. And dont take out too much material, im not sure where the thin spots on a CA's ports are.

d.p.n.s
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:48 pm
Car: mk1 escort van

Re: FN-QR (Frankenfourty)

Postby d.p.n.s » Mon Mar 08, 2010 7:57 pm

ive got 3 heads for him to play withhe will probly section cut one so he can see where the week spots are.

on the pinto motors he does he takes very little outand uses expoy to shape and mound the port to flow better

there is a guy called david vissard that is the pinto manand my mates head flowed 30% better then his.

so i will have to see.

cheers

User avatar
Frankenfourty
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:16 pm
Car: 1989 240sx CA18DET

Re: FN-QR (d.p.n.s)

Postby Frankenfourty » Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:00 pm

Cool, keep us updated.

meminto
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:46 pm
Car: S13 Silvia CA18DECT

Postby meminto » Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:58 am

Porting depends on your goal.. I read you were looking at 300whp?

Based on that goal and some thinking it would be a piece of cake to achieve without porting and I would leave the butterflies in..



Here is an image of the flowbench results of my eight port head before and after..

It is interesting to note three things:

1) With all the extensive port work, I lose flow in the bottom end without the butterflies installed and working correctly. You can see the flow variation between 50 and 100 thou lift..

2) Peak lift on most drop in cams for CA18 is 8.8mm or 346 thou. You can see from 50 thou to roughly 215 thou the variation in flow rate is +- 4cfm, with a variation of 16cfm at the 350 thou mark. This is a fantastic result for me, but only because of the mammoth increase in lift and flow as a result of the amount of work..

So effectively with all my port work, larger diameter valves, angles etc, if I was to to use an off the shelf cam or the de/exhaust upgrade, I would have only gained 8% flow at the top end..

3) Proof that the butterflies are actually doing what they were designed to do...

At the end of the day 300hp is not a difficult thing to achieve with a little thought and effective component matching. Then you can spend the cash you have saved in other areas..

I kid you not, the work in that head cost me 10 grand. However attempting to extract over 600whp all day every day costs big dollars and that my friend I don't think your trying to achieve...

I hope this helps..

Modified by meminto at 3:11 AM 3/9/2010
Modified by meminto at 3:13 AM 3/9/2010

User avatar
Frankenfourty
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:16 pm
Car: 1989 240sx CA18DET

Re: (meminto)

Postby Frankenfourty » Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:00 am

So are you saying that regardless of port work you should keep the butterflies in? Correct me if im wrong but it looks like intake flow is only a tiny bit better on the low end. And exhaust side looks like it suffers. Which at first glance, makes it seem like the butterflies are not doing enough to really justify having them. I could be reading the chart wrong though.

User avatar
sjbsuperman1425
Posts: 2887
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 2:24 pm
Car: 1989 Nissan 240sx
CA18DET
Location: Bay City, MI
Contact:

Re: (Frankenfourty)

Postby sjbsuperman1425 » Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:19 am

if they work right keep them. If not, ditch them. i ditched mine on the fact that its a 1.8L, the butterflies another conundrum of things not needed, and (to me) i dont like the idea of something in the way of my airflow.

everyone has different views on this subject, but do what you want basically. either way you can still make power, you just might lose some torque in the low end without them.

boost_boy
Moderator
Posts: 7152
Joined: Thu Nov 14, 2002 7:28 am
Car: B12 sentra w/built CA18DET, B12 sentra w/fully-built CA18DET, S13 coupe w/ CA18DET, S13 hatch w/CA18DET, 2002 maxima SE
Location: Miami, FL.
Contact:

Re: (sjbsuperman1425)

Postby boost_boy » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:25 am

First of all this is a small motor that needs to be revved-up to get its power. This motor isn't going to be pulling boats at or around 3000rpm, so to hell with 'em. But what I've found over the years of extensive experiments, I found that the butterfly system works very well in the CA18DE application. To those that are chasing torque, wrong engine folks.

This puppy was designed to rev and scream as well as do it's balling in the upper rpm range, unlike your KA24 and those larger displacement engines of the sort. I've eliminated my butterfly valves and actually am impressed with the way the engine drives off boost. My secret is simple, I add timing and extra fuel in my place of the rpm range where the beloved butterfly valves do their business.

So yes, everyone is entitled to their personal views on the butterfly system, but my cars come onto boost with so much authority that it really doesn't matter. And besides, it looks so much cleaner in that perspective area where that actuator sat.

But as for the porting, don't go getting stupid with a die grinder because the intake side is very sensitive and has one port that if you grind on it too much, you'll open an oil galley and it's not that easy to repair. Focus more on the exhaust side and again, don't get too stupid unless you absolutely know what you're doing or else you will hurt performance. For you guys chasing 300hp, fuel management and turbocharger selection should help you achieve this goal. You cheap-out in this area and it will get expensive quickly from the amount of repairs and headaches you'll encounter.

Dee

Modified by boost_boy at 3:31 PM 3/9/2010
Modified by boost_boy at 6:37 PM 3/9/2010

User avatar
r34 gtr
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:33 am
Car: 98 Frontier XE 4x4
95.5 Audi URS6 Avant 5spd
03 BMW 330i ZHP 6spd
89 240sx base CA18DET
Location: Creepin' in your crawl space
Contact:

FN-QR

Postby r34 gtr » Tue Mar 09, 2010 10:25 am

Meminto, what really gets me is the ~50CFM increase at .350" on the exhaust side with the port work you did. It looks like something I would really be interested in. You gain nearly 40CFM at .300" lift, which is about where the stock cam would get you.

I don't suppose you have any pictures of the modification done to the exhaust ports on your cylinder head, do you? They were not in your build thread.

User avatar
Frankenfourty
Posts: 172
Joined: Sun Jul 26, 2009 5:16 pm
Car: 1989 240sx CA18DET

Re: (boost_boy)

Postby Frankenfourty » Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:31 pm

I would have to agree completely with boost boy.

meminto
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:46 pm
Car: S13 Silvia CA18DECT

Postby meminto » Tue Mar 09, 2010 4:13 pm

I'm not saying regardless of port work to keep the butterflies... It entirley depends on what the end result is that your chasing, I myself don't have the butterflies in my setup..

But the scientific evidence is there, small amount or not..

But remember we are discussing flow here, not airspeed so the points are entirely based on flow rate information. Although airspeed is relative, it is not being discussed..

The poor exhuast side is always forgotten about, however as far as the butterflies are concerned they have no direct influence whatsoever on the flow rate of the exhaust, as it is on the directly opposite side of the cycle..

R34 - The increase in flow on the exhaust side would be more attributed to the greater surface area of the ports, I have increased the valve head diameter from 28.15mm to 30.65mm.

I have some photos floating around I will dig out when i get a chance, work is pretty flat out at the moment..

At the end of the day, people will do what they feel is the right thing to do, regardless of advice they source.

Real, tangible evidence is far more credible than heresay and I am happy to provide my data.

As a personal observation, I seem to be the only one providing it (experience is also key, don't get me wrong), does anyone else have this sort of realtime data to add, I would like to compare for the good of the community

Cheers,

Matt

d.p.n.s
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:48 pm
Car: mk1 escort van

Re: (meminto)

Postby d.p.n.s » Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:50 pm

somw very good info there buysthank you very much just what i was after.and a lot to have a think about

cheersdan

d.p.n.s
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:48 pm
Car: mk1 escort van

Re: (d.p.n.s)

Postby d.p.n.s » Tue Mar 09, 2010 7:55 pm

on an other notewhat size injectors do you think i should go forto be safe.

it will be mildly ported head high lift camstd06h 20gcustome topmountexturnal wastgate.match ported inlet and sr20de throttle body

and looking for at least 300 at the rears.

cheersdan

User avatar
r34 gtr
Posts: 8909
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:33 am
Car: 98 Frontier XE 4x4
95.5 Audi URS6 Avant 5spd
03 BMW 330i ZHP 6spd
89 240sx base CA18DET
Location: Creepin' in your crawl space
Contact:

FN-QR

Postby r34 gtr » Wed Mar 10, 2010 5:02 am

Gasoline or Ethanol?

I would go with 650-720cc for gasoline (you only need about 550, but having some head room is extremely nice) and 1200-1600cc for Ethanol.

User avatar
float_6969
Moderator
Posts: 19426
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 1:55 pm
Car: CA18DET swapped 1995 Nissan 240sx (toy)
2003.5 Mazda Mazdaspeed Protege (lightly modded DD)
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Contact:

FN-QR

Postby float_6969 » Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:07 pm

550 @ 300whp is PLENTY for gasoline. We hit 300WHP with 470's on ethanol on my friends SR. Granted the injectors were COMPLETELY maxed out, but if we can do it on 470's with ethanol, then 550's on gas is PLENTY of injector.

As for ethanol, we later bumped him up to a 1000cc injector. He's making the same power he was before and never see's more than 30% duty cycle now.

Don't forget about fuel pressure either. I'm hoping to make 400whp w/my NISMO 555cc injectors on ethanol. I'm going to use a 2 stage fuel pump system and run about 75psi of static fuel pressure. Cheaper and easier than a set of 1000CC injectors if it works.

d.p.n.s
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:48 pm
Car: mk1 escort van

Re: FN-QR (float_6969)

Postby d.p.n.s » Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:00 pm

if you dont mind me asking mate whathave you done to your motor and what turbo ect are you running.

cheersdan

User avatar
float_6969
Moderator
Posts: 19426
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 1:55 pm
Car: CA18DET swapped 1995 Nissan 240sx (toy)
2003.5 Mazda Mazdaspeed Protege (lightly modded DD)
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Contact:

FN-QR

Postby float_6969 » Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:37 pm

Who, me?

d.p.n.s
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:48 pm
Car: mk1 escort van

Re: FN-QR (float_6969)

Postby d.p.n.s » Fri Mar 12, 2010 10:26 am

float_6969 wrote:Who, me?
yeah you mate

User avatar
float_6969
Moderator
Posts: 19426
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2002 1:55 pm
Car: CA18DET swapped 1995 Nissan 240sx (toy)
2003.5 Mazda Mazdaspeed Protege (lightly modded DD)
Location: Topeka, Kansas
Contact:

FN-QR

Postby float_6969 » Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:37 am

-Forged pistons, CP. .5 mm over w/10:1 compression pistons. W/over bore compression comes out at 10.2:1. Wasn't intentional. I thought I was getting 9.5:1 compression pistons to copy the dome off of and found out later they were 10:1 compression pistons. -Stock rods w/APR rod bolts. -Clevite 77 Bearings-JUN billet steel flywheel, approx 13lbs. -SPEC Stage III+ clutch-Rebuilt Transmission w/taller 5th gear-Rebuilt Diff w/4.363:1 gears, S15 Helical, and NISMO adapter bolts-Mild port match and polish on head-Mild port match and polish on intake manifold w/butterfly valves removed (They were leaking badly at the seals)-NISMO 555cc Injectors currently running at 36psi base fuel pressure-NISMO Adjustable FPR-KA24 Throttle body w/pulley added for cruise control-SSAC equal length turbo mani-STOCK CA18DET T25 Turbo-Race Tech SDS EM4-F Standalone-Ross Race Series Harmonic Balancer (underdrive w/ A/C and P/S eliminated)-No intercooler-E85

Just made about 185RWHP @ 7psi w/ 50°F ambient temps.

Will soon be running;-HKS turbo kit which consists of; - Cast iron, divided, T4 flanged, w/external wastegate turbo manifold - TO4E turbo. 50 trim? wheel, .50 compressor housing, with an O-trim wheel in a custom HKS .48 turbine housing- HKS 264lift, 8.8mm lift, hydro cams- Liquid to air intercooler-Cold air intake-25psi-Adjust base fuel pressure up to about 60psi-Add a Bosch 044 inline fuel pump

Should get me to 400whp.

d.p.n.s
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 8:48 pm
Car: mk1 escort van

Re: FN-QR (float_6969)

Postby d.p.n.s » Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:44 pm

very n
float_6969 wrote:-Forged pistons, CP. .5 mm over w/10:1 compression pistons. W/over bore compression comes out at 10.2:1. Wasn't intentional. I thought I was getting 9.5:1 compression pistons to copy the dome off of and found out later they were 10:1 compression pistons. -Stock rods w/APR rod bolts. -Clevite 77 Bearings-JUN billet steel flywheel, approx 13lbs. -SPEC Stage III+ clutch-Rebuilt Transmission w/taller 5th gear-Rebuilt Diff w/4.363:1 gears, S15 Helical, and NISMO adapter bolts-Mild port match and polish on head-Mild port match and polish on intake manifold w/butterfly valves removed (They were leaking badly at the seals)-NISMO 555cc Injectors currently running at 36psi base fuel pressure-NISMO Adjustable FPR-KA24 Throttle body w/pulley added for cruise control-SSAC equal length turbo mani-STOCK CA18DET T25 Turbo-Race Tech SDS EM4-F Standalone-Ross Race Series Harmonic Balancer (underdrive w/ A/C and P/S eliminated)-No intercooler-E85

Just made about 185RWHP @ 7psi w/ 50°F ambient temps.

Will soon be running;-HKS turbo kit which consists of; - Cast iron, divided, T4 flanged, w/external wastegate turbo manifold - TO4E turbo. 50 trim? wheel, .50 compressor housing, with an O-trim wheel in a custom HKS .48 turbine housing - HKS 264lift, 8.8mm lift, hydro cams - Liquid to air intercooler -Cold air intake -25psi -Adjust base fuel pressure up to about 60psi -Add a Bosch 044 inline fuel pumpShould get me to 400whp.
very nice set up

User avatar
Valvebounce
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:23 pm
Car: Datsun 1200, Datsun 510, NIssan WGC34 Stagea, Datsun Sunny PB310
Location: Christchurch New Zealand
Contact:

Re: FN-QR (d.p.n.s)

Postby Valvebounce » Wed Mar 17, 2010 7:52 pm

Id say keep an eye out for an NZ new CA head Dan. I scored a 4 port head, manifold, and fuel rail for $200. Some guys ask too much for them, but if you bide your time you'll find one at the right price. If I had the money to spare, I'd do a flowbench comparison between a four and eight port head. Maybe see if your mate who has the bench would be keen to do a compare?

User avatar
D_Stirls
Posts: 246
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 4:04 am
Car: Nissan 180sx 1990 Ca18det
Location: Adelaide,South Australia

Postby D_Stirls » Wed Mar 17, 2010 8:28 pm

Here's what you are losing by removing the butterflies.



50% loss of torque at 3000RPM and you don't recover the torque until 4200+ rpm

Some Discussion in this thread;http://www.nissansilvia.com/fo...65186

Vetal
Posts: 374
Joined: Tue Jan 06, 2004 11:41 am

Re:

Postby Vetal » Sat Mar 27, 2010 6:37 am

meminto, from these flow graphs I got impression that intake side would greatly benefit from high-lift cams, while anything over 8.8mm on exh side is not so beneficial. Am I right?

meminto
Posts: 607
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 12:46 pm
Car: S13 Silvia CA18DECT

Postby meminto » Sun Mar 28, 2010 12:54 am

Yeah pretty well, higher than stock lift anyway.. Unfortunately i didn't have the stock head tested at 600 thou..


Return to “CA18DE / CA18DET Forum”