C33LaurelRacer wrote:
Also, the thread was asking about Black top SR's...which put out 250ps in the S15. So, like I have said before...depends on what you want to do with the car..i.e. drifting or drag...and how deep your pockets are.

The SR's are not that common in the R32's, but they are there, and they are extrememly common in the C33's and A31's. Mostly they are used to even out the center of weight distribution and for high speed wangan runs. Kinda like the Top Secret Supra a few years back. They used a highly modified 3SG...I think...and was able to hit 200 and change and keep it pretty well stable.

And yes, the RB sounds awesome under acceleration and boost, there is no question about that.

there are also 3 Sr black tops there is the S-13 for the 94-98 180sx which was 205HPthen there is the S-14 Knotch top which puts out 225HP and then there is the S-15 knotch top which put out 250 hp and the RB sound much cooler under boost here is a Rb25http://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread?id=119374

this is were we should buy our enginesto name suppliers than been around since before the swap craze:

http://nicoclub.com/addirectory.shtml

ghetto wrote:sorry forgot about that doesn't affect the friction of the parts

Steel liners.

I dont know why someone would think a straight 6 2.0 would be a waiste as opposed to a 4 cyl 2.0. Same displacement, 8 more valves, higher revs, sounds cooler... It seems to me that the RB is better engineered than the SR, just not as supported by the aftermarket.

I bought an rb20 because it was $1000 less, more power stock, not hard to swap (at least nothing hard about it so far, never swapped an SR though), sounds way cooler, and not everyone and there uncle's gold fishes previos owner has an RB.

my 2 cents

DriftingisLame wrote:I dont know why someone would think a straight 6 2.0 would be a waiste as opposed to a 4 cyl 2.0. Same displacement, 8 more valves, higher revs, sounds cooler... It seems to me that the RB is better engineered than the SR, just not as supported by the aftermarket.

I bought an rb20 because it was $1000 less, more power stock, not hard to swap (at least nothing hard about it so far, never swapped an SR though), sounds way cooler, and not everyone and there uncle's gold fishes previos owner has an RB.

my 2 cents

Hell yeah Dude you need to join team Race Bread

Blllleck, anti-SR talk makes me want to vomit.....I almost never see modified 240's out on the road, let alone ones equiped with SR's, or any motor swap for that matter.

I think the SR has a small performance edge, but the fact of the matter is, its all about enjoying whatever you decide to put in your car. I could see myself enjoying a RB as much as my SR. Same goes with a CA or FJ or KA. For me, its about motoring around the track and to work in a sporty car, not obsessing about weather or not my car is different.

sean8564 wrote:Hell yeah Dude you need to join team Race Bread

Haha, now how would I go about doing that? I figured you'd just need to own an RB, which I do.

Is there something I gotta do to make it official?

The inline six would also proiduce boost faster than an I4 since it has jmore pulses leading to the turbo no? therefore causing less turbo lag. I dunno. I'd rock the Rb over the SR any day.

biglipzit wrote:The sr20det internals can handle alot more power than the rb20det internals.

Classic.

DriftingisLame wrote:
Haha, now how would I go about doing that? I figured you'd just need to own an RB, which I do.

Is there something I gotta do to make it official?

sure read this threadhttp://forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread?id=115978and post

J-Spec Tuner wrote:Blllleck, anti-SR talk makes me want to vomit.....I almost never see modified 240's out on the road, let alone ones equiped with SR's, or any motor swap for that matter.

I think the SR has a small performance edge, but the fact of the matter is, its all about enjoying whatever you decide to put in your car. I could see myself enjoying a RB as much as my SR. Same goes with a CA or FJ or KA. For me, its about motoring around the track and to work in a sporty car, not obsessing about weather or not my car is different.

this is going to be a daily driver

Wait up... which Blacktop SR are we speaking of?

If it's the s13 SR, you should head on down to your bakery...

If s14 or s15 then you must be rich enough to afford a 25...

I think they want top know about the S-13

biglipzit wrote:I can tell you than an rb20 isnt worth it.both are 2 litres. One is 4 cylinder and one is 6. The sr20det makes more power than the rb20det for the same displacement.

maybe a stock S15 SR20 vs a stock RB20 but they both build to the same power levels.

biglipzit wrote:The rb20 is a cast iron block and the sr20det is an aluminium block with cylinder sleeves which are easy to change and get stronger ones.

Cast iron, read "don't need cylinder sleeves". "easy to change cylinder sleeves", uh o.k.

biglipzit wrote:The sr20det internals can handle alot more power than the rb20det internals.

Haha, and how many RBs spit up their valvetrains? Fact is the SR's valvetrain design is a regression and requires beefing up on all fronts, RB? set of solid lifters and you are done.

I am a known SR detractor, taking alone it is a fine motor but placed in context next to an RB or a CA it is inferior by comparison. I give the SR the nod though for some of your other points, namely weight and aftermarket parts availability.

themadscientist wrote:I am a known SR detractor, taking alone it is a fine motor but placed in context next to an RB or a CA it is inferior by comparison.

I disagree for several reasons.

The CA engine constantly has to live up to the fact that it has a inferior head design, along with an inferior displacement. To this day I have yet to be surprised by the CA engine and it's output. It seems building the crap out of these engines is the only way to get them to hold up to stock bottom end SR numbers.

Driving a CA is only a further point to my arguement. The engine is purely lethargic below 3000 RPM, and revs no faster than your average SR. The powerband is also no where near linear on top of that.

The SR was designed by Nissan to be superior to the CA specifically as the new-age small chassis engine. It's head design is more efficient due to it's rocker design, albeit less reliable at sustained high RPM. A contrary to that is looking at the number of properly built SR's destroying rocker arms from non-driver related issues. It's about as common as a CA snapping it's timing belt.

I don't dislike the CA motor by any means, but I strongly feel it is not up to par with the SR powerplant. It's sole benefit is the reliability of it's head design, but the benefits do not simply outweigh the costs in this instance.

For absolute track performance reasoning in an S-chassis I will argue that an even an RB20/25 is a lesser choice.

Nismo_Freak wrote:The SR was designed by Nissan to be superior to the CA specifically as the new-age small chassis engine. It's head design is more efficient due to it's rocker design, albeit less reliable at sustained high RPM. A contrary to that is looking at the number of properly built SR's destroying rocker arms from non-driver related issues. It's about as common as a CA snapping it's timing belt.

The CA was dropped in favor of the SR because the CA was too expensive to produce. I fail to see how increasing the moving parts involved, parts that break, is "more efficient". CAs break belts because people don't maintain them, SRs bust valvetrains because people overrev them, both very irresponsible things for sure. The fact is I can overrev my CA all day long and I don't have to worry like an SR guy. Of course valve float is a worry but that is any engine with cams and spring-loaded valves. With the CA the fear is a collapsing hydraulic lifter and floating a valve real bad, with the SR it is the rocker arm snapping into three peices. As I have said the SR taken by itself is a very good motor but it is not better designed or more efficient than the CA, com. I hear a lot of people throwing up SR power figures and saying the CA can't compete. That is not a fair comparison. They do not make the CA anymore, consequently the aftermarket does not support it and people do not work with it anymore so it these power figures are old. Had the CA been carried on into the 90's it would be producing catastophic numbers too but and here is the point, without custom sleeve kits and replacing most of the valvetrain just to keep it together. The SR is the motor that people have to work with, the CA was the motor before, before that the FJ etc, etc. Just because everybody and their brother has SRs now ,means little, a couple of years ago they all had CAs, before than FJs and so on. This was a comparison of RB20s and SR20s though and with those two as I stated, were I in the states I would pick the SR even though it is a cruder more problematic engine due to mass and lack of good aftermarket support.

Watch and love the CA450hp all the way to 9k rpms http://www.kungfutouge.com/dyno.wmvNumbers are in the video.http://www.kungfutouge.com/bigtone.wmv650 rwhphttp://www.paddy.co.jp/powercheck/DEMOCAR_S13.wmv

themadscientist wrote:The CA was dropped in favor of the SR because the CA was too expensive to produce. I fail to see how increasing the moving parts involved, parts that break, is "more efficient".

Because those parts increased driveability and torque throughout the entire RPM range of the engine.

If the CA was so expensive to produce how is it that the RB and VG powerplants were continued for so long running essentially similar componentry? How is it that the SR powerplant has more components, more aluminum, greater dynamic balancing, yet is somehow cheaper to produce?

I have long been of the same thought but I don't see very much logic to that arguement any more.

ArticDragon192 wrote:Watch and love the CA450hp all the way to 9k rpms http://www.kungfutouge.com/dyno.wmvNumbers are in the video.http://www.kungfutouge.com/bigtone.wmv650 rwhphttp://www.paddy.co.jp/powercheck/DEMOCAR_S13.wmv

500+whp all the way to 9k

Bigtone, and the ND car are two big producers for the CA community.

Nismo_Freak wrote:If the CA was so expensive to produce how is it that the RB and VG powerplants were continued for so long running essentially similar componentry?

I bet its because they put the CA's and SR's into the Sylvia's which were most likely produced in much higher #'s than skylines/300zx's, and little cost changes made huge differences.

Just a thought, maybe I'm a retard.

Nismo_Freak wrote:Because those parts increased driveability and torque throughout the entire RPM range of the engine.

This argument is simlar to excusing a 1/2 ratchet for breaking due to smaller pawls and saying it was worth it to have "better feeling" right up until the point it broke.

Nismo_Freak wrote:If the CA was so expensive to produce how is it that the RB and VG powerplants were continued for so long running essentially similar componentry? How is it that the SR powerplant has more components, more aluminum, greater dynamic balancing, yet is somehow cheaper to produce?

I would suggest that because the RB and VGs came in upper rank cars, Skylines and Zs that the higher retail price of those vehicles mitigated the production costs whereas the CA came in the lower rank Silvias where the hit was more pronounced. This is similar to the more advanced V8 going in the vette but not a Camaro.

sean8564 wrote:this is going to be a daily driver

Your point being.......

Someone who owns a R34 GTR stateside does not impress me as much as a highschool kid who saves up hard earned cash to swap a CA18 into their beater 240 they love so dearly. Thats all I have to say about being "exclusive".

Who actually looks forward to arguing about this crap? I know people have to take a break once and a while from their engine specific forum and tell those nay-sayers how wrong they are, but please, everyone tuck their e-balls back into their pants and go do something productive on the forum (there are new comers out there in the technical wastelands who would appreciate your help).

until 2002 i was that highschool kid it took me 3.5 years to buld my 240 and it is a pain in the rear.

J-Spec Tuner wrote:Your point being.......

Someone who owns a R34 GTR stateside does not impress me as much as a highschool kid who saves up hard earned cash to swap a CA18 into their beater 240 they love so dearly. Thats all I have to say about being "exclusive".

Damned straight. I have soo much more respect for guys doing it themselves and making those hard desisions, ramen for a month or a manifold? Anytime I can help I consider it an honor to do so.

sean8564 wrote:until 2002 i was that highschool kid it took me 3.5 years to buld my 240 and it is a pain in the rear.

Well then why dont you act the part of someone who understands the what its like to want something really bad and work hard for it: take that picture out of your sig (its a joke, I know). Anti-SR propaganda does not encourage friendliness.

Go with the RB. I've done both the SR20 and The RB20. I can honestly tell you that the RB is a good choice. Not that the SR is bad, but the straight six is more fun to me. And you can find parts just as easy, the internet has everything. Also it is less common, which is a plus if you ask me. Don't follow the fanboys, you make your own decision, straight six or four cylinder. And the RB does have a little more power and definitely more torque. As for the weight difference, the RB makes up for that in power.

Baby Spartans Are Ripped!

It takes a special kind of dumb to bump an almost 3 year old thread with inane crap like that.

dont bump old threads to enhance your post count. thats not being helpful to anyone :P