RB25 style CA intake manifold

[float_6969]

Do you guys know which one I'm talking about? The TB was pointing twords the exhaust side of the motor and the intake fed over the valve covers like the RB25. I believe these came on the older non-intercooled FWD CA's. Any others? I'd like to get my hands on one of these manifold to do some comparison's. It may work better for me on my next intercooler setup.

[The_Chosen_One]

this one?

[float_6969]

That's the dude!!! What chassis did that come in?

[The_Chosen_One]

from what I gathered.

1989 Nissan Bluebird RNU12 SSS ATTESA Limited (JDM Market)

Mid 1980s Nissan Sunny N13 (UK) (129 hp)

Nissan EXA (JDM Pulsar NX SE)

[float_6969]

Hmmm, so the n13 was a pulsar here. I wonder if it was a year based thing?

[themadscientist]

The JDM S12s with the CA18DET had it too.

[rotorific]

Your best bet would be the 88 pulsar NX SE. They only had that engine for two years though.

Although you might have a great idea...even the bluebird used the RWD CA intake manifold instead of the "RBstyle"/FWD manfiold. I dont know how much impact or better effect it would have for your car. - Gabe

[themadscientist]

look at how many RB guys kill themselves to ditch the crossover style manifold, why would you go through even more trouble to score one. I can tell you the intake is crazy. It has completely independent runners all the way from the plenum down to the butterflies. It makes your 2006 tax instructions look simple by comparison.

[float_6969]

The reason that I'm looking to go to the crossover manifold is because I'm considering a liquid/air intercooler and this setup would allow for THE shortest intake tract possible.

This is on an RB, but it is basically what I have in mind;

[RS12Turbo]

Late '88 S12's came with it like that.......I see them on Ebay every now and then.Check http://www.club-s12.org Someone may have one on there that they're getting rid of

[BACARDI_DWB]

i like the idea. equal track for each intake. BUT i think the reason most of the RB guys got rid of it is cause anytime you do as much as change your sparkplugs it has to come off.

[davidricardo86]

The reason that I'm looking to go to the crossover manifold is because I'm considering a liquid/air intercooler and this setup would allow for THE shortest intake tract possible.

This is on an RB, but it is basically what I have in mind;

That looks really cool! I bet that this air/water intercooler setup would be better than the stock side mount for sure, maybe even better than a front mount if youre talking about reducing lag, and pressure loss.

[float_6969]

I already have to dissasemble stuff as my coil packs are mounted there anyway.

[float_6969]

Late '88 S12's came with it like that.......I see them on Ebay every now and then.Check http://www.club-s12.org Someone may have one on there that they're getting rid of

Those were an 8V head. The mani is different.

[Liquid_Neon]

yeah, 87-89 SE twin cam pulsar nx's have that. in fact.. thats the manifold in my pulsar feeding my ca18det. So ur telling me its suposed to be better then the rwd mani? or do u just wanna test that theory?

[Liquid_Neon]

here, its my myspace picture.

http://viewmorepics.myspace.co...90748

thats my det so far.

[nismoplsr]

yeah, 87-89 SE twin cam pulsar nx's have that. in fact.. thats the manifold in my pulsar feeding my ca18det. So ur telling me its suposed to be better then the rwd mani? or do u just wanna test that theory?

He just wants to use it for packaging with that W/A intercooler.

Like Liquid said though. SE model pulsars 87-89 with either the CA16 or CA18. I actually thing i have one laying around, make an offer on it.

[boost_boy]

TMS is right! Though this manifold kinda resembles that of the KN13 pulsar SE or EXA, they are not the same. That turbo intake manifold comes with multiple/individual runners for every port, so you'll have 8 runners extending towards the head. The pulsar's intake manifold is just like the RWD/AWD manifold except the fact that it's throttle body is facing in a different direction. That intake manifold is a headache and one should avoid it all costs.

Dee

[ca18datsun510]

theres a kid on 240sxforums, bassrob, i dont know if hes on here. he pulled a n/a ca out of a pulsar to build for his 240. it has that intake manifold on it, and he wasnt to get a rwd manifold. perhaps he will trade.

[float_6969]

TMS is right! Though this manifold kinda resembles that of the KN13 pulsar SE or EXA, they are not the same. That turbo intake manifold comes with multiple/individual runners for every port, so you'll have 8 runners extending towards the head. The pulsar's intake manifold is just like the RWD/AWD manifold except the fact that it's throttle body is facing in a different direction. That intake manifold is a headache and one should avoid it all costs.

Dee

Not to doubt your experience, but can you expound on your, "That intake manifold is a headache and one should avoid it all costs." statement? I understand the runner difference, and although I wasn't aware of it before, I don't really see a problem with that. Is it just harder to work on? Does it not flow properly? If it's simply an issue of maintenance, then I would be willing to sacrifice that for the added simplicity of my intercooler routing.

[themadscientist]

I was going to mount an air/water core in front of the engine above the fans using the S13 intake.

One of those tube-type air/water cores would fit perfect and the pipe run wuold be very short. Straight out the turbo, one 90 degree into the core mounted in front of the timing cover then another 90 right into the TB. Sure two 90s is harsh but when the total pipe length is like 24" from exducer to throttle plate it should even out.

[Myetball]

I've got one in like-new condition with all the sensors. It's bored out to fit a KA24DE throttle body. Will trade for a RWD manifold.

[boost_boy]

Not to doubt your experience, but can you expound on your, "That intake manifold is a headache and one should avoid it all costs." statement? I understand the runner difference, and although I wasn't aware of it before, I don't really see a problem with that. Is it just harder to work on? Does it not flow properly? If it's simply an issue of maintenance, then I would be willing to sacrifice that for the added simplicity of my intercooler routing.

It is a manifold with some useful function as each individual intake port gets it's own runner which is nearly equal the diameter of the intake ports. The downside to it is not so much the maintenance, but the fact that it is set-up for a different head. That's right , the head on that engine is different than the head on 1988-1991 CA18DET engines. You can always see for yourself and you'll see just what I'm talking about. It's just different and would pose a problem for you and your modern CA18DET head. I hope that helps a little more.

Dee

[Liquid_Neon]

also it should be noted that when i was playing with the manifolds i noticed that the rwd and fwd valve covers are a lil differant. the pulsar covers have an indent for the TB to sit on top. the rwd set up isnt like that.

[float_6969]

Well poop on you guys. I guess I'll get a PWR cooler and just run it in front of the upper timing cover. That's still way shorter than a SMIC/FMIC/or my current core mount.

[bentvalves]

you didnt really want to mount that heat exchanger directly over the manifold did you?

good luck with the project!

[Sil40sK]

The downside to it is not so much the maintenance, but the fact that it is set-up for a different head. That's right , the head on that engine is different than the head on 1988-1991 CA18DET engines.

Duh, then just switch the heads Honda guys do it all the time, haha. Come on Dee I thought you were better than that man.

[davidricardo86]

Duh, then just switch the heads Honda guys do it all the time, haha. Come on Dee I thought you were better than that man.

It might be the same concept but i doubt its a "bolt in" affair. Most than likely its not and i think he was referring difference in heads, sohc or dohc, and physical shape of the heads. I suppose if it used the CA block and some kind of CA head, theres probably a way but it certainly wont be easy.

Heres another picture that i had in my photobucket.

[Sil40sK]

It might be the same concept but i doubt its a "bolt in" affair.

I was deffinatly joking man.

[themadscientist]

I was told, I have not confirmed it myself that the castings were totally different with smaller ports than the S13 head. There is also the possibility that the haed bolts might be smaller, these were out when the SOHC engines were.