# specs



## b13nissan (May 1, 2002)

Anyone know the specs on these engine's? My friend just bought a s14.


----------



## CarbonBlack200 (Apr 30, 2002)

*KA24DE*

KA24DE 155HP at 5600rpm 160ft-lbs torque at 4400rpm


----------



## PatScottAKA99XE (Apr 30, 2002)

Truck motor...


----------



## b13nissan (May 1, 2002)

Damn! My friend just wrecked it!


----------



## CarbonBlack200 (Apr 30, 2002)

>:O OH NOOOO!!! I wanted that S14..


----------



## Grant (May 2, 2002)

PatScottAKA99XE said:


> *Truck motor... *


i dont see anything wrong with that. that truck motors got more potential than a sentra xe motor


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2002)

Do a bit more research before you say stuff like that. Just cuz your read it in SCC or another moronic mag doenst mean its gods word. The KA started its life under the hood of a 240, not a truck. The KA is a great motor, I would pick it over most any honda motor out there. Its got potential, even more so than the SR, which has been put up on a high horse just because its JDM y0! Both are good motors though, I wont deny either one of there good or bad points, but never rip on the KA because of what some un-educated fools have put into print.

my 2 cents.

peace.


----------



## James (Apr 29, 2002)

I agree. People always say 'truck motor', to me there is no difference, just because it's an iron engine doesn't mean anything to me. One of the latest SCC had a KA belting out 400+ hp... it can probably take more too! 

Just cuz a motor was in a truck doesn't mean it's a truck motor. (it's a motor).


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

BadMoJo said:


> *Do a bit more research before you say stuff like that. Just cuz your read it in SCC or another moronic mag doenst mean its gods word. The KA started its life under the hood of a 240, not a truck. The KA is a great motor, I would pick it over most any honda motor out there. Its got potential, even more so than the SR, which has been put up on a high horse just because its JDM y0! Both are good motors though, I wont deny either one of there good or bad points, but never rip on the KA because of what some un-educated fools have put into print.
> 
> my 2 cents.
> 
> peace. *


In my opinion anyway, the SR is a far superior motor. The cylinder head flows better and the piston speed is lower. The SR is much lighter. The KA also has head sealing problems in the low 20 psi range.

Because of the piston speed issues, the KA has a penchant to throw rods at much over 7k rpm. In fact even well built KA's with aftermarket rods still have issues with bottom end failure above 7k rmp due to harmonics. Spectacular failures at that as well, like the lower part of the block cracking in half.

Even the best built KA's that I have seen like Chris Mays, Simon Kim or Kenji Sumino are only good for the mid 400's in power. That's peanuts for a good SR20DE. I have gotten over 400 hp from bone stock bottom end SR's before, can even come close to that with a KA.

The KA is a pretty good motor though, just not better than the SR.

Mike


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2002)

as far as revs go, who cares it it doesnt rev much higher then 7k, the power band is below that anyways. You cant compare revs with the two engines, they are built differently; bore/stroke wise. Thats like ripping on the SR cuz the CA will out rev it. And as far at cast iron block goes, I see that as a good thing, stronger and no cylinder wall flex. There are a few KAs out there putting 350~ to the wheels on stock internals, and they are daily driven cars. If it came down to it I would choose, in this order; KA24DE-T......CA18DET........SR20DET. But then there is also the RB.


----------



## b13nissan (May 1, 2002)

CarbonBlack200 said:


> *>:O OH NOOOO!!! I wanted that S14.. *


The damage isn't that bad. Front bumper, hood, driver's side fender, foglights, airbags, and one of those slanted headlights or are they projector lights? No damage to the engine..still able to drive it. Luckily he has full coverage.


----------



## CarbonBlack200 (Apr 30, 2002)

what year is his S14? If it's the earlier model, this is the great chance to go 97'~98' front end conversion (w/ projectors). Sorry about going off topic... but I had to say..


----------



## b13nissan (May 1, 2002)

CarbonBlack200 said:


> *what year is his S14? If it's the earlier model, this is the great chance to go 97'~98' front end conversion (w/ projectors). Sorry about going off topic... but I had to say.. *



It's a dark green 97 240sx. He did ask me about upgrades about his car. I don't really know too much about the 240s both performance and cosmetic, but it's really a nice car or it was.


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2002)

hey morepower.......iirc the SR is 70lbs lighter than the KA, or maybe even less. it's not really an issue. and why would you try and make a KA rev past 7k anyway? that's like trying to make rosie o'donnel suck dick, she wasn't made to do it, so why make her?


----------



## S15dude (May 7, 2002)

tnord said:


> *hey morepower.......iirc the SR is 70lbs lighter than the KA, or maybe even less. it's not really an issue. and why would you try and make a KA rev past 7k anyway? that's like trying to make rosie o'donnel suck dick, she wasn't made to do it, so why make her? *


I like the points you made. Wasn't the KA in the Stanza before it was in the 240?


----------



## PatScottAKA99XE (Apr 30, 2002)

Whoa!!

I was not trying to start a war here. The reason I said truck motor is because of its power delevery. I never intended to offend anyone or discredit the motor. If you are wondering I have a lot of behind-the-wheel time in KA powered rigs, trucks and cars. I would have to agree with morepower2's points. As for having "more potential" in my opinion the only thing it has over an "xe" motor is displacement, and due to its shortcomings(in respect to the GA, not in general), the added displacement does not make uup for them. I would never put down a Nissan engine, and never intended to sound like I was putting down the KA, only stating that it delivers power like a truck engine. BTW I still think KA powered cars(not trucks) fly.


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

BadMoJo said:


> *as far as revs go, who cares it it doesnt rev much higher then 7k, the power band is below that anyways. You cant compare revs with the two engines, they are built differently; bore/stroke wise. Thats like ripping on the SR cuz the CA will out rev it. And as far at cast iron block goes, I see that as a good thing, stronger and no cylinder wall flex. There are a few KAs out there putting 350~ to the wheels on stock internals, and they are daily driven cars. If it came down to it I would choose, in this order; KA24DE-T......CA18DET........SR20DET. But then there is also the RB.  *


The KA actualy has less block integrity than the KA. You should see some of the spectacular block failures that I have in racing and turboed KA's. I don't think the CA will out rev a SR. Where did you here that?

350 hp on a stock bottom end is impressive but I think 409 hp is more impressive on a bone stock motor. I don't even know what the limit is because none of the SR's that I have tuned have blown up yet!

I am not making fun of the KA, it is a good motor but the SR is better for turboing and high performance.

Mike


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

tnord said:


> *hey morepower.......iirc the SR is 70lbs lighter than the KA, or maybe even less. it's not really an issue. and why would you try and make a KA rev past 7k anyway? that's like trying to make rosie o'donnel suck dick, she wasn't made to do it, so why make her? *


70 lbs on the front end of a car is a lot! At least to me it is. Hp is also a function of RPM, for street motors where you are limited by the BSFC and the MEP of what pump fuel and the combustion chamber of the motor will maintain, the only way to get more power is revs.

The KA is a good motor for reasonable power but for a lot of power, in the 400+ range, the SR is better.

Mike

The rosie thing was helly funny!


----------



## AceInHole (May 8, 2002)

tnord said:


> *hey morepower.......iirc the SR is 70lbs lighter than the KA, or maybe even less. it's not really an issue. and why would you try and make a KA rev past 7k anyway? that's like trying to make rosie o'donnel suck dick, she wasn't made to do it, so why make her? *


to make the KA rev past 7k you'd need a new crank... something fully counterweighted.... hmmm..... that doesn't sound like a bad $900 investment at all. get it with a shorter stroke and fully counterweighted, pair that up with new rods and pistons, and you'd have the opposite of a JUN stroker kit, for a lot less $$$.
(yes... that is my goal... 2.2L KA... the iron block 9k rpm machine)


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2002)

i know when you put 70 lbs on the front of the car it's much worse than putting 70 lbs in the passenger seat, but it is behind the front axle, so it isn't oh so terrible. and when you consider 70lbs compared to 2800, well, it's not that big of a deal. i'm not going to debate engine stuff in detail because, well, i don't know enough.


----------



## AceInHole (May 8, 2002)

tnord said:


> *i know when you put 70 lbs on the front of the car it's much worse than putting 70 lbs in the passenger seat, but it is behind the front axle, so it isn't oh so terrible. and when you consider 70lbs compared to 2800, well, it's not that big of a deal. i'm not going to debate engine stuff in detail because, well, i don't know enough. *


it's easily balanced placing the heavy ass battery in the trunk though...


----------



## PatScottAKA99XE (Apr 30, 2002)

tnord,
If people notice a difference with a carbon fiber hood on there car, then I think trimming 70lbs. from the engine would make a big difference. Not to much difference between 70lbs. in the pass. seat and on an engine, not to sound like an A-hole but play with a teeter-toter some time. Just because it is behind the front axle doesent mean its not that diff from in the pass. seat.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2002)

i don't think i understood that last line in your post

and people feeling a difference with a CF hood? i don't buy it.


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

AceInHole said:


> *
> 
> to make the KA rev past 7k you'd need a new crank... something fully counterweighted.... hmmm..... that doesn't sound like a bad $900 investment at all. get it with a shorter stroke and fully counterweighted, pair that up with new rods and pistons, and you'd have the opposite of a JUN stroker kit, for a lot less $$$.
> (yes... that is my goal... 2.2L KA... the iron block 9k rpm machine) *


Where can you get a custom billet crank made for $900?? It's more like $2500 if you are talking one off's.

Mike


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

tnord said:


> *i know when you put 70 lbs on the front of the car it's much worse than putting 70 lbs in the passenger seat, but it is behind the front axle, so it isn't oh so terrible. and when you consider 70lbs compared to 2800, well, it's not that big of a deal. i'm not going to debate engine stuff in detail because, well, i don't know enough. *


Considering that 70 lbs is like taking out your seats which people do or 150% of a carbon hood which people do, it is a lot. 70 lbs is about a tenth in the 1/4. It is typicaly at least .5 seconds on your typical road course. That is a lot and it can cost a lot of money to cut that much time out of your car by adding more power.

Mike


----------



## Grant (May 2, 2002)

don't think c/f hood makes that much difference, but every bit of weight saved helps a little bit, I'm impartial when it comes to KA vs. SR. they both have their uniqueness, but if you want to use torque as the basis of your arguement for having a KA, then you might as well go with an RB.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2002)

i was informed by a little bird that the weight difference between KA and SR is actually 5lbs. the bird said he got it out of SCC, somebody might want to doublecheck that.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2002)

morepower2 said:


> *
> 
> Considering that 70 lbs is like taking out your seats which people do or 150% of a carbon hood which people do, it is a lot. 70 lbs is about a tenth in the 1/4. It is typicaly at least .5 seconds on your typical road course. That is a lot and it can cost a lot of money to cut that much time out of your car by adding more power.
> 
> Mike *


taking the seats out??? the rear seats weigh like 10lbs, there is no way the front seats weigh 60lbs. 

.5 seconds minimum on a typical road course? where do you get this info?


----------



## James (Apr 29, 2002)

tnord said:


> *
> 
> taking the seats out??? the rear seats weigh like 10lbs, there is no way the front seats weigh 60lbs.
> 
> .5 seconds minimum on a typical road course? where do you get this info? *


look, the back seats are like styrofoam and wire, the front seats have a crap load of metal in them, they might not be 60 but i'm sure it's close...

power to weight ratios can be correlated directly with a cars performance, you shave some weight or you add some power, or do both! it'll make your car faster... 70 lbs is a great deal of weight if you actually look at it from this perspective. 

morepower2 knows what he's talking about.


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

tnord said:


> *
> 
> taking the seats out??? the rear seats weigh like 10lbs, there is no way the front seats weigh 60lbs.
> 
> .5 seconds minimum on a typical road course? where do you get this info? *


The rear seat weights about 15 lbs and the two front seats weigh about the rest. I have a lot of experiance road racing and building race cars. Take my opinion for what it's worth. 

Mike


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2002)

ok, i'll believe that the two front seats together weigh 60lbs, but you gotta have some kind of seat, and even lightweight seats weigh around 20lbs iirc.

i'm fully aware of power to weight ratio's and their effects. i also have road racing experience.

excuse my skepticism, but if i wasn't a skeptic, i would have bought and installed one of those "tornado" things


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

tnord said:


> *ok, i'll believe that the two front seats together weigh 60lbs, but you gotta have some kind of seat, and even lightweight seats weigh around 20lbs iirc.
> 
> i'm fully aware of power to weight ratio's and their effects. i also have road racing experience.
> 
> excuse my skepticism, but if i wasn't a skeptic, i would have bought and installed one of those "tornado" things *


Weight hurts braking, accelleration, cornering, tire and brake life in road racing.

Weight reduction is more important that power incresing in some classes.

Mike


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2002)

I think he understands that. What he doesnt agree with is the 60lb seat and neither do I. Maybe if it was a full power seat, but i think that its more like 30 or so.


----------



## Sykikchimp (May 8, 2002)

(wonderful.. new forum, and already an SR vs. KA thread. lol)


ok... KA and SR are Different breeds of engine. There are VERY few similarities. I personally feel the SR is better for road race type purposes b/c of the high redline. KA is better for straight line drag b/c of Displacement and Torque.

Think about when the engines were built and who for. The japanesse are into road racing, and drifting, etc. Applications which like High RPMS. Americans in the Early 90's where seen as Drag racers. (or at least that's how the japanese probably looked at the market.) To appeal to the V8 torque loving americans, they gave us a Big displacement 4 cyl w/ lots of torque. They were designed for DIFFERENT PURPOSES. Both have their good points, and Bad.

-chimp


----------



## Sykikchimp (May 8, 2002)

also for the Ca not out revving an SR.. See this:

From Glenn "Lumpy" Campbell on CA18 vs. Sr20

(edited out everything but the part about revving)

"Looking above the valves, the first thing that grabs you with the SR is that is only has 4 cam lobes per cam, not 8. Doesn’t it have 8 valves per side? Yep, and to get around that Nissan decided to use a rocker arm arrangement to actuate paired valves simultaneously from the single lobe. Not a bad way to do it actually. Certainly cheap to make, but at the cost of increased valve train losses and noise. The CA on the other hand has true 8 lobe cams which act directly on the top of the valves. Minimal components. Maximum revs, and no noise. 

The SR has also gone back to the classic timing chain idea, and dropped the tooth belt. My theory here is it has something to do with reduced maintenance costs and less damage when the belts fly from lack of maintenance. 

Obviously, the SR is a bigger engine in capacity, it has a relatively long stroke and is ‘over-square’ in design, meaning that the stroke is longer than the width of the bore. Fortunately the stroke to rod length ratio is at such a point that the engine can still rev, but it suffers classically from excess stroke. Sure, they rev out, but not anywhere near as willingly as the little CA with it’s square design (stroke=bore). 

Many hi-po USA engines are using oversized pistons from the 300ZX, bringing the stroke/bore relationship back a bit, and providing a cheap source for forged pistons and further increased capacity. 

Sure they rev out OK, but not anywhere near the same as a CA. I'm talking stock engines here too, not comparing an SR with aftermarket cams on modified lobe centres, which wouldn’t be a fair comparison now would it! "


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

Sykikchimp said:


> *also for the Ca not out revving an SR.. See this:
> 
> From Glenn "Lumpy" Campbell on CA18 vs. Sr20
> 
> ...


Here is my take on the SR valve train which is true. You can get more area under the lift curve with a finger follower type valvetrain due to the leverage ratio of the followers if higher order harmonics are controlled. More area= higher volumetric efficency accross the board.

This is why some F-1 engine designers are going away from direct valvetrains and switching to a finger follower design. What keeps stock SR's from revving is pump up of the hydralic lash adjusters which limits the RPM to about 8300 rpm which is plenty to make all sorts of power.

If you convert to solid lifters and use a rocker arm retainer, upwards of 9000 rpm is posible. Due to a better cylinder head, the SR will make better power than the CA up there.

None of this is nessesary though for turbo applications.

Although the KA is a good engine, it is difficult to get much more than 160 wheel hp NA with bolt ons (at least by my experiance) while the SR can get as much as 170 hp without going inside. For turbo streetable motors, the KA is limited to about 450 reliable hp while the SR can do over 500 in streetable trim, at least in my experiance. For stock bottom ends turboed, the KA is in the low 300's while the SR is in the low 400's.

The SR was designed as a sturdy turbo motor from the ground up while the KA has it's roots in the old L-Series motors.

No disrespect for Lumpy, he is one of my friends but he does not have access to the latest SR stuff like we have here. He does have far more CA experiance than I do. The CA is a popular engine down under but was only avalible in the lame old school 200SX in north america where it was a lackluster performer. My old AE86 would eat those cars.

Mike


----------



## Sykikchimp (May 8, 2002)

I don't think the KA is limited to 400 streetable horsepower. I've seen several built KA's running well over 400 hp that get driven on the street all the time.. "Streetable" is really a subjective term anyways. I am no expert, and am not in a position to argue. I am simply stating that I have seen Streeted KA running well over 500hp as well. I hate to bring it up, but remember DUY's old car? Stock, head, cams, and intake manifold... run 10's (w/N2O)

and there is an N/A 240 on this board (guy named Aries...) with 205 whp N/A, no changes to the internals.
With enough time, and money theoretically Anything is possible.


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

Sykikchimp said:


> *I don't think the KA is limited to 400 streetable horsepower. I've seen several built KA's running well over 400 hp that get driven on the street all the time.. "Streetable" is really a subjective term anyways. I am no expert, and am not in a position to argue. I am simply stating that I have seen Streeted KA running well over 500hp as well. I hate to bring it up, but remember DUY's old car? Stock, head, cams, and intake manifold... run 10's (w/N2O)
> 
> and there is an N/A 240 on this board (guy named Aries...) with 205 whp N/A, no changes to the internals.
> With enough time, and money theoretically Anything is possible. *


There is a big difference between seen or heard and done. I said 450 wheel hp, that is way more than 400 hp. I am not sure for how long either, high boosted KA's seem to have long term head gasket problems even when o-ringed. Block integrity is an issue also with lots of boost.

I find 205 wheel hp NA with no internal mods just about imposible to belive. Do you know exactly what the motor has on it? I would really like to know. Would Aries care to comment on his motor, I would like to learn some more on how he did it. I am struggling to make over 160 wheel hp with bolt ons and that is a huge disconnect between 160 and 205. Knowing the motor it does not seem posible, but hey, I am down to learn a few things, I don't know everything there is to know.

When it comes down to it, like I keep on saying, the KA is a good motor, very streetable and pleasent when turbocharged but the SR is better when building for maximum power output.

Mike


----------



## Sykikchimp (May 8, 2002)

I agree, there is a big difference b/w doing it, and hearing about it.

fyi these are from another thread in this forum:

aries240sx:

"1995 240SX 
14.677 @ 97.342 mph 
Engine: 
KA24DE 
AEM Short Ram Intake 
Jim Wolf Technologies ECU 
Greddy 4-1 Headers 
Custom 2.5" Cat-Back with Focuz Muffler 
248 Degree 1996 Nissan Altima Intake Camshaft 
246 Degree 1993 Nissan 240SX Exhaust Camshaft 
Nissan Motorsports 370CC Fuel Injectors 
300ZX TT Fuel Pump 
Transmission Cooler 
Nissan Motorsports 3.18 Gears 
Enjuku Racing Front Tower Strut 
Enjuku Racing Front Sway Bar 
Enjuku Racing Rear Sway Bar "


I'm still trying to get a few details myself on his setup, but seems reasonable. I think he also has an N2O setup on it, but he wasn't squeezing when he ran that according to him


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

Sykikchimp said:


> *I agree, there is a big difference b/w doing it, and hearing about it.
> 
> fyi these are from another thread in this forum:
> 
> ...


Although that is a well built car with good componet choices, I can assure you that that combo will not make 205 to the wheels unless there is more there than we see. That combo should put out around 160 wheel hp +-5 hp or so.

I suspect he has NOS because there is no reason why he should have a Z fuel pump and 370cc injectors with the combo he has unless he is running a JWT NOS module.

Not knocking the car, just disputing the claim that it makes 205 to the wheels all motor, if that is indeed the claim.

Mike


----------



## Sykikchimp (May 8, 2002)

honestly I'm not so sure I believe him either. I agree it shouldn't be more than about 160-170 max.. 

#1 the stock nissan exhaust cam is 248 not 246.
#2 he said the 240 came stock with a 3.23 final drive ratio, and he dropped it to a 3.18.. LOL he would be moving slow as hell with that gear, not to mention stock is a 4.08.

He says he gets 13's with nitrous.


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

Sykikchimp said:


> *honestly I'm not so sure I believe him either. I agree it shouldn't be more than about 160-170 max..
> 
> #1 the stock nissan exhaust cam is 248 not 246.
> #2 he said the 240 came stock with a 3.23 final drive ratio, and he dropped it to a 3.18.. LOL he would be moving slow as hell with that gear, not to mention stock is a 4.08.
> ...


Sounds like it does not add up to me either. You are right about the final drive!

Mike


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2002)

hmmmmmm


----------



## TheNatrix (May 2, 2002)

haha, i like that


----------



## Boosterwitch (Apr 15, 2002)

Sykikchimp said:


> *also for the Ca not out revving an SR.. See this:
> 
> From Glenn "Lumpy" Campbell on CA18 vs. Sr20
> Obviously, the SR is a bigger engine in capacity, it has a relatively long stroke and is ‘over-square’ in design, meaning that the stroke is longer than the width of the bore. Fortunately the stroke to rod length ratio is at such a point that the engine can still rev, but it suffers classically from excess stroke. Sure, they rev out, but not anywhere near as willingly as the little CA with it’s square design (stroke=bore).
> *


Hey, isn't the SR Square? I thought it was 86mm x 86mm.


----------



## AceInHole (May 8, 2002)

Isn't Don Nimi's car putting something like 180hp to the wheels?? I forgot but there was another guy that had about the same....


Anyways, my stock KA puts down:









I wouldn't imagine it would take much for me to get into the 180hp range (something along the lines of intake, exhaust, headers, as long as I can prevent torque drop off past 4200). Then again, I've seen cars with all that pulling less HP than mine


----------



## morepower2 (Apr 19, 2002)

AceInHole said:


> *Isn't Don Nimi's car putting something like 180hp to the wheels?? I forgot but there was another guy that had about the same....
> 
> 
> Anyways, my stock KA puts down:
> ...


You won't be putting out anywhere close to 180 to the wheels with basic bolt on's. 

Mike


----------



## dono200sx (May 2, 2002)

Damn... didn't look to see how old this was before I responded. Oh well. too bad I wasn't able to delete my post.


----------

