# Why keep the stock motor?



## augimatic (Mar 23, 2004)

This maybe a newbie mistake. And I'm sure it's been posted. I'm too lazy to search. So humor me.

I'm new to the whole nissan thing, but if anyone here wants to know stuff about the 4G63 or 6G72 let me know I can probably help.....alittle.

Any who, it's my understanding that the KA20DE motor is a pick up truck engine that Nissan uses and for what ever reason they dropped it into 180/240 for us americans.

Stock, the 240 is a 16 second car, I've seen it, one cat ran an 18 in Chicago with I/E, still fun to drive, I'm having a blast, but why on earth would you keep the stock motor???? 

Turbo it? For the same price of the kit you could get the SR20DET....so why???


----------



## Loki (Jan 12, 2004)

first off its not a KA20 its a KA24 a damm 2.4L.....dammit, yes its a truck engine.......what do truck engines mostly have? TORQUE! so the KA in a 240 is not too bad, will cost you hella money to turbo it too and you can get a CA, RB or a SR for that same price.

get ready cuss your mostlikely gonna get flamed dude!!! for reals...

*runs*


----------



## KA24Tech (Feb 2, 2004)

Actually Nissan did make a KA20DE but it was only in the Japanese commercial vehicles (Caravan, Datsun, and Atlas 1-1.5 ton)

It is my belief Nissan chose the KA24E and DE to put in the US market cars because the KA was the largest 4 cylinder in the inventory and cubic inches are what Americans have traditionally preferred. Also it is cheaper to sell a normally-aspirated engine than a turbocharged one because of cost of production, a consumer's regular maintenance, as well as cost to insure.

The cost offset by turboing a KA are about the same as dropping in a stock SR20DET and achieving approxiamately the same horsepower. I'm saying to do the conversion correctly and turbo the KA to run the turbo safely would be about the same investment. However change the stock SR turbo and the whole dynamic changes not to mention the SR20's aftermarket support, beefier stock internals and transmission... then the stock KA becomes questionable to build or swap.

Troy


----------



## azRPS13 (Jun 7, 2003)

I dont consider it a truck motor... Its just universal... I dont see why people clown on it just because it came in a truck also. I dont ever see Honda people clown on someone for putting a B20a in a Civic or a Integra... They think its cool, Even though its in a SUV... I dunno, its just weird.


----------



## augimatic (Mar 23, 2004)

Well, I was just asking, couldn't hurt to ask. So really...there isn't a reason to keep it if you want to build up the motor, torque is good but I don't plan on towing anything with my 240


----------



## OPIUM (Aug 18, 2002)

some people keep it because no one else wants it and they pick up the motors for free. Throw on an existing turbo kit that they blew up the first one with and voila you got yourself a nice motor again. It's pretty much an endless supply of KA24's out there. So why not? Go fast for cheap


----------



## kaptainkrollio (Jul 29, 2003)

and to the guy that said why they donty sell turbo engines in US is also emissions. they would have to retune all of their existing turbos engines to pass. easier to go NA


----------



## KA24Tech (Feb 2, 2004)

kaptainkrollio said:


> and to the guy that said why they donty sell turbo engines in US is also emissions. they would have to retune all of their existing turbos engines to pass. easier to go NA


True, that too...

Troy


----------



## Kelso (Apr 29, 2003)

torque is what makes the car go. yea its great for towing but torque propels a car forward. no torque = slow


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

Kelso said:


> no torque = slow


=honda


----------



## Kelso (Apr 29, 2003)

lol i was thinkin about saying that....hondas really have like no torqu unless theyre super/turbocharged....yes theres exceptions so dont jump down my throat all you honda lovers


----------



## kaptainkrollio (Jul 29, 2003)

i can atest to that. we were sliding in my friend's acura in a dry lake bed and wed go into the slide and not have enough torque to keep going. we would just stop.


----------



## AlexAtMyNismo (Apr 16, 2004)

kaptainkrollio said:


> i can atest to that. we were sliding in my friend's acura in a dry lake bed and wed go into the slide and not have enough torque to keep going. we would just stop.


There's the problem right there...."sliding", in an Acura.... FWD don't slide that great because in a honda, one doesn't slide, one holds the ebrake up for dear life and tries to steer the locked rear end.  

-Alex B.


----------



## Harris (Nov 11, 2002)

AlexAtMyNismo said:


> There's the problem right there...."sliding", in an Acura.... FWD don't slide that great because in a honda, one doesn't slide, one holds the ebrake up for dear life and tries to steer the locked rear end.
> 
> -Alex B.



I don't understand what you're trying to get to with FWD and Honda. FWD cars in general will not slide/drift as happily as a RWD car will.


----------



## Enthalpy (Mar 17, 2004)

Anyone care to get back on topic.

So. Engine Tq isnt what makes a car move or accelerate. gear multiplied TQ to the ground is what makes a car move. that is why all the all motor hondas that are "slow" and make way less TQ than a KA does can run 12.5's on street tires. and you ned to turbo a KA to get there. ignorant blanket statemts like that about TQ only serve to try and re-inforce one side of the arguement. try to come up with something better please.


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

dont forget that those honda's weigh a couple hundred pounds less than a 240 of any year. my 96 civic coupe weighed in just over 2300lbs according to the title.


----------



## kaptainkrollio (Jul 29, 2003)

AlexAtMyNismo said:


> There's the problem right there...."sliding", in an Acura.... FWD don't slide that great because in a honda, one doesn't slide, one holds the ebrake up for dear life and tries to steer the locked rear end.
> 
> -Alex B.


 fine. it was more like ebrake turns. it wasnt easy but we did slide some, i could tell bt the tread marks.


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

tread marks dont really mean anything. you can leave those by turning too quick. and if he was using the e-brake, then the rear tires would lock, causing the marks. that doesnt mean he slid at all.


----------



## RacerJunkie (Apr 13, 2004)

Yeah, FWD cars don't powerslide as well as a RWD, but they can still be fun. Unless the boy knows nothing about driving he should have been able to whip that Acura around with ease, especially on dirt terrain (I think you said dry lake bed?). Hell, my little pussy Escort and my almost as pussified Neon would throw the rear end with ease, especially in dirt and gravel. That is, till i wore the e brake out.


----------



## augimatic (Mar 23, 2004)

I wasn't saying TQ wasn't needed. But if that's the only advantage the stock motor then well, it's not enough reason for me to keep it. 

Bottom line, I'm in the market for a SR20DET front clip.

As far as honda....well, best way to beat a S2000....race him up a hill


----------



## kaptainkrollio (Jul 29, 2003)

weel, we got stuck and thethe tread marks t-boned the car. thats not the point though, i was just saying how they make little torque. and i know we slid, i was in the car.


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

What was the American sport car market like in the early 90's?
Nissan Japan had competition from lots of other small capacity turbo cars so it developed the Silvia series. Did the US have any competition in this area? If the closest thing was the Prelude and maybe something by Chrysler then maybe the KA fit the bill in the power figures. It seemed to be more powerful than any class competator at the time...
Had turbo cars failed to sell before in the US?


----------



## billyjuan (Jan 14, 2004)

I really cant remeber any car with turbos in the 90's, i mean i am sure there was some, but we didnt hear much about them. well chrysler made a turbo LeBaron. here is a link to ebay of a LeBaron Turbo 

http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/e...item=2475886660&category=6177&sspagename=WDVW


I think they didnt sell well in the us, not sure tho


----------



## KA24Tech (Feb 2, 2004)

Joel said:


> What was the American sport car market like in the early 90's?
> Nissan Japan had competition from lots of other small capacity turbo cars so it developed the Silvia series. Did the US have any competition in this area? If the closest thing was the Prelude and maybe something by Chrysler then maybe the KA fit the bill in the power figures. It seemed to be more powerful than any class competator at the time...
> Had turbo cars failed to sell before in the US?


Nissan had turbo sports cars in the mid to late 80's in the S12 200SX and the Z31 300ZX and they sold in good numbers. The turbo cars then were not as well understood in that they needed a little more specific maintenance. So some stigma revolved around turbo cars that they were unreliable. Also the Datsun name had been changed to Nissan early in the decade (circa 1984) and the company was doing well for market share into the early 90's. With the US Nissan Motorsports program primarily the 300Z race cars, the Z being the flagship model it would be hard for Nissan to have a less expensive model which had nearly the same performance (i.e. the Silvia/180SX) when the American muscle was overweight and rather lazy power at that time. The 240SX was in the upper to mid range for power in it's class (Toyota Celica, Mazda MX-6, Acura Integra, etc.). However, in the mid to late 90's Nissan fell into some hard times and the US goverment emission regulations were only getting more rigorous so many platforms (the Z32) were being trimmed or scaled back because of slow sales. Historically, the US market for Nissan was mostly the models produced here; the Maxima, the Altima, the Sentra, and pickups so sports cars as the public saw them were nice to look at but they typically went home with the sedan.

Troy


----------

