The truth about SR's

[Ghast]

I think the best engine is the one with the biggest stack of money next to it....

I wish i had big stacks of money.



One Love,

Ghasty

"You already know how this will end" - Devotchka

[sjbsuperman1425]

the CA is still torque IMO. i haven't driven mine since October and i have only driven it around the block (no insurance), but i was impressed with it..but if you go by the #'s, the SR is supposed to have about 30 ft-lb tq. more than the CA.

the CA just lags power before 3000rpms, but after that, its decent. btw im running 12psi

[sjbsuperman1425]

also, the CA's aftermarket support isn't that bad. The whole bottom and top end can be found online in the US.

[Ghast]

also, the CA's aftermarket support isn't that bad. The whole bottom and top end can be found online in the US.

But HOW big is the stack of money next to the CA?...... HummMMmmmMMmmm?

[blkhatch97]

torque is overated...... j/k

[jr_ss]

No offense, but they did away with the CA and replaced it with the SR for a reason...

The stock CA bottomend cannot make nor handle as much power as a stock SR bottomend can...

And yes, these trq arguments are h0m0, more liter means more trq. Stop being stupid.

[urcaptnspeaking]

And yes, these trq arguments are h0m0, more liter means more trq. Stop being stupid.

thats untrue as a general statement. Example.. the LS1 has more torque than the 403 thats in like 1979 trans ams . Ls1 5.7L-ish . 403 6.6L

[White Comet]

very true, but the ls1 is much newer and utilizes newer technology and developments to make that power

[sjbsuperman1425]

No offense, but they did away with the CA and replaced it with the SR for a reason...

The stock CA bottomend cannot make nor handle as much power as a stock SR bottomend can...

And yes, these trq arguments are h0m0, more liter means more trq. Stop being stupid.

thats like saying they did away with the RB25 for a reason..or that GM got rid of the Camaro for a reason, it makes no sense.

and its all in the tune..ppl praise the KA's with 500whp on stock bottom, its all in the tune. the CA is reportedly supposed to handle 300whp or so.

you are ill-informed..oh sorry, i thought we were having a state the obvious competition. the CA is torquey, but probably not as much as the SR. btw, you are glorifying an engine based on .2L..btw, do you know what makes a car have more displacement anyway?

[jr_ss]

thats like saying they did away with the RB25 for a reason..or that GM got rid of the Camaro for a reason, it makes no sense.

and its all in the tune..ppl praise the KA's with 500whp on stock bottom, its all in the tune. the CA is reportedly supposed to handle 300whp or so.

you are ill-informed..oh sorry, i thought we were having a state the obvious competition. the CA is torquey, but probably not as much as the SR. btw, you are glorifying an engine based on .2L..btw, do you know what makes a car have more displacement anyway?

But they did get away from the RB25 for a reason... Newer technology, same reason they no longer have the RB26...

GM did do away with the Camaro for a reason too moron... Lack of sales contributed to the demise of it.

Perhaps you should do some research before you come in here acting like you know everything and telling me I'm misinformed...

Bore and Stroke determine trq characteristics... The longer the stroke, the more trq you'll have with a lower redline. There are other aspects to contribute to the amount of trq an engine has but those are the 2 big contributors... A shorter stroke allows higher reving, but means a lower peak trq number. Are you with me or did I lose you?

You're "it's all in the tune" agrument is full of fail... First, we are talking about trq and you reference Hp. 300hp on a CA, holy crap... Stock bottomend Sr's have seen upwards of 600hp. Tuning is detrimental to an engines performance, but you're fighting a losing battle. The CA just can't make the power an SR can.

I'm not preaching SR, anyone can put anything, in any car they want. I like my SR, but I'm sure I'd like the RB's trq over the SR's too, not to mention the 8k redline.

Captn- you're comparing an Olds crap motor to an LS1, that's like apples to oranges, you can't do that. Not to mention, those were the days of low emissions and no motor in that era was a power house... The 6.6 was a dog by any and all means from the factory.

[White Comet]

the CA is torquey

how much of a dog is the 6.6? i'm kinda curious but since its from 1979 it can't be that good. muscle cars started having less power in the early to mid 70s

[cody180sx]

plus there is alot of fail in 500hp tune for a ka. 500hp on an sr its in the tune .ls1 500 its in the tune. 500 hp rb its in the tune. any thing can make 500hp on a tune

[jr_ss]

White Comet- The 79 6.6 had a measly 180hp and 325ftlbs of torque. It used an Oldsmobile 403...

[mrzabala]

But they did get away from the RB25 for a reason... Newer technology, same reason they no longer have the RB26...

GM did do away with the Camaro for a reason too moron... Lack of sales contributed to the demise of it.

Perhaps you should do some research before you come in here acting like you know everything and telling me I'm misinformed...

Bore and Stroke determine trq characteristics... The longer the stroke, the more trq you'll have with a lower redline. There are other aspects to contribute to the amount of trq an engine has but those are the 2 big contributors... A shorter stroke allows higher reving, but means a lower peak trq number. Are you with me or did I lose you?

You're "it's all in the tune" agrument is full of fail... First, we are talking about trq and you reference Hp. 300hp on a CA, holy crap... Stock bottomend Sr's have seen upwards of 600hp. Tuning is detrimental to an engines performance, but you're fighting a losing battle. The CA just can't make the power an SR can.

I'm not preaching SR, anyone can put anything, in any car they want. I like my SR, but I'm sure I'd like the RB's trq over the SR's too, not to mention the 8k redline.

Captn- you're comparing an Olds crap motor to an LS1, that's like apples to oranges, you can't do that. Not to mention, those were the days of low emissions and no motor in that era was a power house... The 6.6 was a dog by any and all means from the factory.

Calm down noob, don't get your panties wedge in. Be the better person and actually help the wrong and not help on the pride/ego or whatever BS you think of it. THE END

[White Comet]

wow thats worse then i expected

[sjbsuperman1425]

jr_ss, you arguement made it seem like the CA is just "inferior" to the SR, which it is not. the SR has .2L more and a better turbo, thats it. give the CA the SR T25 and its almost the same. Yea the CA is an old motor, but yet, the S13 SR's are still as old. Yes new technology is why the CA went away, but that doesn't make it less of an engine than the SR. i agree with the reason why they got rid of it, but why would i "take offense" to the reason of technology? that statement to me seems like you are saying its just an all around better engine, which it isn't.

[QUOTE=jr_ss]You're "it's all in the tune" agrument is full of fail... First, we are talking about trq and you reference Hp. 300hp on a CA, holy crap... Stock bottomend Sr's have seen upwards of 600hp. Tuning is detrimental to an engines performance, but you're fighting a losing battle. The CA just can't make the power an SR can.

I'm not preaching SR, anyone can put anything, in any car they want. I like my SR, but I'm sure I'd like the RB's trq over the SR's too, not to mention the 8k redline. QUOTE]

that is FULL of fail. we are talking about tq and you throw in HP as well. this isn't a tq specific thread. dont be a fool. 300hp is basic mods to be safe with for the AVERAGE PERSON, not the tuning shop with unlimited resources..why dont you go build a stock bottom 600whp SR then? the CA has been proved tomake 600whp, so yes it CAN make the kind of power the SR can.

btw, the CA has an 8k redline..yay for me and my better head design

[sjbsuperman1425]

btw jr_ss, have you seen, drove, or know anything about the CA18DET?

[mattblancarte]

But they did get away from the RB25 for a reason... Newer technology, same reason they no longer have the RB26...

They got rid of the 26 because they don't race within a 2.6 liter class anymore.

[sjbsuperman1425]

ok let me say this..i think most would agree that the average person with an SR makes around 350whp on stock bottom and thats the limit. its about the same for the CA. then most recommend you get forged pistons and such and a good tune.

plus there is alot of fail in 500hp tune for a ka. 500hp on an sr its in the tune .ls1 500 its in the tune. 500 hp rb its in the tune. any thing can make 500hp on a tune

thats my point, its in the tune. he said the CA can't handle what the SR can handle, but yet, with the right tune, it can..you see what im saying?

[Koshin]

actually from those words, the CA is a far superior engine than the SR is. CA is lighter, has higher revving, and fits with correct weigth dist. as well. hehe. the SR is just more expensive and has about 20 more hp, something that can easily achived with the difference

SR is a good engine though. I want one later on lol. take care of it and it'll be just fine

no....

If the CA is so much better in your opinion, whay would you want to switch to an SR...I thnk tha most people just like what they have inder the hood and will justify anything in their head to think theirs is superior...there is only one superior engine that has been mentioned in this whole thread, and thats the SR, LOL

[White Comet]

thats my point, its in the tune. he said the CA can't handle what the SR can handle, but yet, with the right tune, it can..you see what im saying?

the ca's stock bottom end can't handle as much power as a stock sr bottom end, no matter how good the tune is, it won't change that

you can't really compare a stock sr to a ca with a t25 turbo. you either have to compare both engines equally modded or both bone stock

[jr_ss]

I know enough about the CA18det to know that I wouldn't own one. Sure it has a better head design than the SR, but lower literage and .2L does make a big difference. Less aftermarket support, not to mention it's 6 years older than my SR and it's newer technology.

In my opinion, the CA may have some strong points, but it's like polishing a turd, no matter the amount of money you put into it, it's still going to be a turd. In the end it's your money, not mine, do what you want with it.

And yes the CA can make big numbers, with unlimited resources, which I highly doubt you have, no offense.

I don't want a dyno queen, otherwise I would build a 600hp stock bottomend SR. My car is street oriented, meaning I want a responsive setup that doesn't take lightyears to spool the turbo.

[mattblancarte]

To be honest, I can't see any good application for the CA18DET unless you are doing a spec restoration. Doesn't seem like it would be ideal vs. the competition in any category (i.e. power band, parts availability, reliability, etc.). It's kinda ugly, too.

As it's been said a bajillion times, though, it's your car.

[sjbsuperman1425]

it has the same LOOKS as an RB, just 2 less cylinders.

stock SR vs stock CA, SR wins, it does have a bigger turbo and .2L

i never said the CA was superior, i was refering to what was said in a previous post. he said the SR was lighter, free revving, and weight distribution, which the CA surpasses the SR at in all 3 catergories.

the CA is from 1989, SR from 1991..so its not THAT OLD.

as i said before, there is aftermarket in the US. its not hard to find, i've found everything i need.

the only reason you gave to why the CA is not a good engine is because its 2 yrs older and has .2L less than the SR. mind as well say the SR is a turd because it will never surpass a KA because the KA is newer and has .4L more..its a bad arguement IMO.

oh and the CA has an iron block, which i was told is better than aluminum? CA is boost happy forone thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkwK_tTBoas

[Samurai C]

i run a KA-T with a GT28 11psi daily i love it never drove a SR and my boy is doin a LS1 swap as we speak my motor has 133000 and runs like a dream i just got my death rattle so i got to do the chain but i wanna get a s14 and do a SR the parts market is better for the SR but if look hard you can find good stuff for the KA i was thinking RB but i was worried about getting parts and what not for it

[sjbsuperman1425]

i run a KA-T with a GT28 11psi daily i love it never drove a SR and my boy is doin a LS1 swap as we speak my motor has 133000 and runs like a dream i just got my death rattle so i got to do the chain but i wanna get a s14 and do a SR the parts market is better for the SR but if look hard you can find good stuff for the KA i was thinking RB but i was worried about getting parts and what not for it

i forgot about the RB's, which dont have just as much aftermarket support in the states as the CA does, from what i've seen. My friend and I were destined for so long to get an SR, but he got a RB25 and i got the CA lol. we are both pleased with our purchases..SR just has way to many fanboi's who think its a "God" engine that is untouchable..maybe i'll do single cam KA-T in an S12 haha

[jr_ss]

I'm not saying the CA is a bad engine, it's just not the engine I would want in my car... I'm pointing out facts.

We aren't talking about the KA stupid. Its the CA verse the SR here, pay attention. And stock for stock the SR is better than the KA. So what if it has .4L more displacement, it's NA if you know what that means.

So what if it's iron, that's what they make sleeves for, problem sloved...

This is like arguing with a child

[sjbsuperman1425]

I'm not saying the CA is a bad engine, it's just not the engine I would want in my car... I'm pointing out facts.

We aren't talking about the KA stupid. Its the CA verse the SR here, pay attention. And stock for stock the SR is better than the KA. So what if it has .4L more displacement, it's NA if you know what that means.

So what if it's iron, that's what they make sleeves for, problem sloved...

This is like arguing with a child

your are pointing out your OPINIONS (its a turd)..not fact.

and i wasn't talking stock to stock about the KA to SR. "no matter the amount of money you put into it"..sound familiar? if thats the case, the KA is the best out of the 3 nissan 4 cylinders, in your terms anyway.

the facts you have listed are either wrong or just obvious.

this is like arguing with a person who had to much fun with the gym teacher in the locker room..

[Ghast]

oh and the CA has an iron block, which i was told is better than aluminum? CA is boost happy forone thing

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkwK_tTBoas

Haha that was pretty cool, Wish i could video edit like that!

Unnecessary Power i would piss myself.

The fact that he can spin the tires at like 60mph is pretty nuts though.( i have really never seen anything like that, not counting drifting )

You think 300wtq could do that?

[Ghast]

We aren't talking about the KA stupid.

This is like arguing with a child

Yellow Card!

For name calling!