# ca18det v sr20det



## augimatic (Mar 23, 2004)

Maybe I should search.....

just looking to be educated here.

Is there any advantages with going with a CA18DET motor? I'm assuming that the SR20DET is a better motor and will get me more power in the long run and possibly last me longer is what I am thinking.

Any thoughts.


----------



## drift240sxdragqueen (Oct 23, 2002)

omg u didn't just make this thread...

i won't flame you. since you're asian


----------



## 200sxOwner (Jul 1, 2004)

you asians are yellow fools. augimatic, you are just like the rest of the noobs, making useless threads. my god, "just looking to be educated here" <---looks like you too stupid to do it on your own.


----------



## drift240sxdragqueen (Oct 23, 2002)

shut up racist swine.


----------



## 200sxOwner (Jul 1, 2004)

lmao, dont hate.


----------



## augimatic (Mar 23, 2004)

drift240sxdrag said:


> omg u didn't just make this thread...
> 
> i won't flame you. since you're asian



Thanks....

no, not really a noob, just trying to start a conversation that's all....sorry....geez...  

But remember, I did DSM's till about a month and half ago so I am still kinda learning...oh wait....I guess that would be a noob then huh.....oh well....

I'll shut up and search.. :fluffy:


----------



## Loki (Jan 12, 2004)

what a dumb ass noob, you should of SEARCHED first before posting something that has been talked about hella TIMES!!!!!!

I dont care if your Asian on not......your question was so dumb

and Kevin STFU now even if hes one of your kind...you must admit it was stuuuuuupid :thumbup:

J/K....welcome to HELL!!!!!! :fluffy:


----------



## drift240sxdragqueen (Oct 23, 2002)

alright hten all wise loki. plz enlighten us on the advantages of having the CA18, if you kno so well.


----------



## Loki (Jan 12, 2004)

drift240sxdrag said:


> alright hten all wise loki. plz enlighten us on the advantages of having the CA18, if you kno so well.



SURE!

CA18DET came on the frinkin old 200sx.....so this bitch is LEAGAL here in USA since we have it on the 200sx, its got about 173 HP stronger block than the SR and i think its a direct bolt on for the 89-90. clip goes about 1600-1800

SR20DET this is the little bitch all rice boys want...why? well F&F so the price boosted to 2500-2800 for a front clip, this lil hoe's got 205 HP and 203 TQ, and can own the CA (dont hate its true) but there is a great number of ppl bitching that the block breaks or something. this shit is a direct bolt on for 91+ and on the 89-90 the PS is on the opposite side so you need the PS lines from the 91+.

Thank you for reading have a nice day!

P.S......And no i didnt do any research so STFU! :fluffy:


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

Loki said:


> P.S......And no i didnt do any research so STFU! :fluffy:


it shows


----------



## Loki (Jan 12, 2004)

93blackSER said:


> it shows


yep....... you take it from here......Kevin is being gay and doesnt share the little that he knows


----------



## azRPS13 (Jun 7, 2003)

augimatic said:


> Maybe I should search.....
> 
> just looking to be educated here.
> 
> ...


If you are serious then heres your answers:

1. Cheaper
2. Strong Iron block that can take abuse
3. Rev happy engine
4. Timing BELT
5. No plastic parts
6. Easy to find stock parts
7. A CA can make just as much power as a SR

Remember... the CA is not better than the SR and vice versa


----------



## azRPS13 (Jun 7, 2003)

BTW 200sx came with the ET not DET in the US


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

that's cause he knows nothing.

i'm not going into it too much tho.
CA has a better design overall with more technology into it. a better valvetrain allows higher RPM (rev limit at 7700, valve float at 8700) in stock conditions. iron block, built for lightweight (only 4 counterweights on the crank.) can be built to withstand a lot of power. check out www.norrisdesigns.com to see their CA-powered car. there is also a way to make a CA20DET, which i know how to do and plan on doing  

SR is technologically inferior to the CA, limiting revs and having heating problems when high-rpm's are maintained. however, both can easily be fixed. a lot of problems with the SR revolves around overheating. blocks tend to warp because of this. SR's are newer than CA's (unless you order your CA from Europe where they were produced until 1994.)

that's it for now. i cant think


----------



## augimatic (Mar 23, 2004)

whoa....back up, timing belt??? okay I was just reading on google about this, I thought it said timing chain???


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

CA has a timing belt
SR has a timing chain, as does the KA


----------



## augimatic (Mar 23, 2004)

well, isn't a timing chain better then the timing belt?


----------



## azRPS13 (Jun 7, 2003)

yes no

Belt= easy to get to and replace cheaper
chain= stronger


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

if a chain breaks you end up with little metal pieces inside your engine which basically ends everything. if a belt snaps, you pull over and put a new on and you're good to go.


----------



## CA18FASTBACK92 (May 26, 2004)

does anyone know how to adjust the rev limiter on the ca?


----------



## augimatic (Mar 23, 2004)

eh....I'll stick with the SR.....


----------



## Loki (Jan 12, 2004)

augimatic said:


> eh....I'll stick with the SR.....


yet again the CA is being looked down...


----------



## azRPS13 (Jun 7, 2003)

CA18FASTBACK92 said:


> does anyone know how to adjust the rev limiter on the ca?


What do you mean by Adjust? You can change it by either upgrading the ECU or going to a Stand alone system..


----------



## azRPS13 (Jun 7, 2003)

augimatic said:


> eh....I'll stick with the SR.....


Too complicated for you??? Its cool... Thats why theres the SR haha lol jk


----------



## CA18FASTBACK92 (May 26, 2004)

azRPS13 said:


> What do you mean by Adjust? You can change it by either upgrading the ECU or going to a Stand alone system..


how long have you had your ca in your car?had any problems?


----------



## azRPS13 (Jun 7, 2003)

About 6 months now and the only probs i had were the fuel pump and the guy who did the swap


----------



## Loki (Jan 12, 2004)

azRPS13 said:


> About 6 months now and the only probs i had were the fuel pump and the guy who did the swap


what fuel pump did you get


----------



## Kelso (Apr 29, 2003)

check out his sig. walbro pump.

who did the swap and what problem did you have with him?


----------



## 200sxOwner (Jul 1, 2004)

93blackSER said:


> that's cause he knows nothing.
> 
> i'm not going into it too much tho.
> CA has a better design overall with more technology into it. a better valvetrain allows higher RPM (rev limit at 7700, valve float at 8700) in stock conditions. iron block, built for lightweight (only 4 counterweights on the crank.) can be built to withstand a lot of power. check out www.norrisdesigns.com to see their CA-powered car. there is also a way to make a CA20DET, which i know how to do and plan on doing
> ...


in other words ca is better. iron>aluminum


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

200sxOwner said:


> in other words ca is better. iron>aluminum


yes, the CA is better. production stopped on it because it cost to make to make. blah blah blah

Night7Racing did the CA install in AZ's car.


----------



## s3v3rth3stars (Mar 13, 2003)

93blackSER said:


> yes, the CA is better. production stopped on it because it cost to make to make. blah blah blah
> 
> Night7Racing did the CA install in AZ's car.


you have always defended the ca blackser im proud of you man. you have even got me to look that way. this thread informed me alot about this overlooked engine. i have one question, the sr is only .2 liters larger than the ca so why is there almost a 30 hp and tq differance between them? is it because the ca boost less stock?


----------



## 93blackSER (Feb 1, 2003)

SR is designed differently. there's plenty of things that would change the power output. i'm not even going to start naming some, i dont have time.


----------



## Joel (Jun 11, 2003)

Smaller turbo on the CA mainly. Upgrade the turbo and the two motors are pretty close in the end.


----------



## s3v3rth3stars (Mar 13, 2003)

Joel said:


> Smaller turbo on the CA mainly. Upgrade the turbo and the two motors are pretty close in the end.


i value your comments highly and hearing you say that definately makes me wonder why people put sr's in the 240's here in the states. the ca is so much cheaper


----------



## Harris (Nov 11, 2002)

s3v3rth3stars said:


> the ca is so much cheaper



And a LOT older than the SR! 

I know CAs have the capability to do a lot, but what is so wrong with someone swapping in an SR? I don't understand the opposition to that. Let people get whatever motor they want. To each his own.


----------



## s3v3rth3stars (Mar 13, 2003)

Harris said:


> And a LOT older than the SR!
> 
> I know CAs have the capability to do a lot, but what is so wrong with someone swapping in an SR? I don't understand the opposition to that. Let people get whatever motor they want. To each his own.



uh.. the point of that post was? 


this is a ca vs sr thread. the very nature of this thread is to trade arguments for or against the engines. i didnt say it was wrong to swap in an sr they are amazing motors. and yes the ca's are older but after searching i have found that these engines are still as (if not more due to the sr's cooling system) reliable as an sr. 

there is a tone to your post that i do not like, we are all getting along in here so dont come in trying to be a jackass


edit:im probably gonna be banned now...


----------



## azRPS13 (Jun 7, 2003)

lol


----------



## vsp3c (May 15, 2003)

s3v3rth3stars said:


> edit:im probably gonna be banned now...


you're not gonna get banned for posting stuff like that. he may be mod but he is still a forum member..he shoudln't get any special treatments just because he is capable of deleting/editting posts, closing/moving threads, and has access to the mod only section. if you do get banned, who cares? it will only be for 24hrs

i used to worship the sr20det. i didn't know that the sr20 was put into s13/s14/s15 because nissan wanted to cut back on cost. i just thought, "hey, the sr20det came out in 91 and ca18det's are old.. newer engine must mean that it's better!!" i'm not ragging on the sr or anything. sure it's a cheaper engine and the quality dropped a little bit compared to the ca, but it's still a GREAT engine. come on.. 500+hp on stock bottom end and capable of producing 800+hp. how can you deny 800+hp??

harris is right..to each his own. both motors have its own pros and cons and neither motor is significantly better than the other. we're only here to give our opinions, not to make the decision for them.


----------



## Nizmodore (May 9, 2003)

Well most people know my personal dis-like of the SR engines to to a number of block related failures....still they were old early S13 motors.....Still I'd personally prefer the CA18, a much better built motor.....

However I'm still a RB addict......  I've only owned one car that hasn't had a RB motor in it


----------

