# JDM ca18de(non turbo) specs vs USDM ca18de spec?



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

ok, i am wondering if thier is a such thing as a JDM non turbo ca18de, 
and if so, are the specs any different compared to here. 
specifically the 89 and newer model years. 
can someone point me in the right direction please?
i really dont want to get a 89 or 90 model yr motor and go through the problem of swaping to the older pistons for the better power(damn smog)
im ready as all hell to start shopin for motors(LOCALLY)
hopefully ill have it in two weeks. thats what im shooting for. any help is appriciated
(moderators beware i double posted) hehe well sorta.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

There is such an engine just look at Myetball's! The JDM engines have like 9.5:1 compression whereas the U.S. models have 10:1 compression.


----------



## Crazy-Mart (Jul 14, 2002)

then better go with the USDM Ca18 since youll have the extra emission crap youll need if you have to pass emissions...


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

*re*



> There is such an engine just look at Myetball's! The JDM engines have like 9.5:1 compression whereas the U.S. models have 10:1 compression.


i was under the impression( i use to have a great link for this) that the 1989 and newer USDM engines had a lower compression ratio and only had in the ball park of 90hp. while the 88 and older were the crown jewels pumping out around 125 hp due to the higher compression.

there were threads about this when i first came aboard. i can go find them i guess. but its not really what im askin...hehe

and why in the world would the JDM motor have a lower compression ratio? that seems so not normal. im use to hondas and everything else were the JDM varients always out perform the USDM counterparts.


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

So the question that begs asking is how many horsepower does the JDM CA18DE w/9.5:1 compression put out? I found a site that lists it at [email protected] ([email protected]). 

Also, are there any differences in the intake/head/exhaust that account for the 30hp drop from '88 to '89 in the USDM version?


----------



## AVERAGE (Aug 9, 2002)

hey thats my avatar!


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

*re*



> Also, are there any differences in the intake/head/exhaust that account for the 30hp drop from '88 to '89 in the USDM version?


right so lets get some R&D done guys.....fin out exactly.
ill keep looking fo links but truthfully i suck at "googling"
btw it is a nice avatar isnt it average?


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

Okay, I've done a little more searching and of the three places I've found the HP rating for the 9.5:1 JDM CA18DE is listed between 130-135hp. Here's a couple of links.


Click here 

click here


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

you found the same two i found. now i had this one from a long time ago someone gave me that had the complete specs for all nissan 4 bangers. and that is were i reember the 89 and up motor sucked major ass.

keep searching..thanks guys!


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

I think that's the one I gave you but it's all USDM engines. 

This is it.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

*re*

yes it is!

now...i found a place for the motor. its in socal tho. im in norcal. about 8 hours away...id only go if it was worth it.
heres the link
http://www.nippon-motors.com/nissan.htm

think those exa guys could help?


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

It's worth a shot. Plenty of them have done the DET swap so there may be some DE's laying in peoples garages.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

see what these guys have to say.......http://www.nissanexa.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=4375


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

I found out why the JDM engine is listed as 133 and 135 hp. It is rated at 135 PS (metric HP) which converts to 133 HP (standard HP).


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

im starting to think this hole 90hp in the 89's is a crock and it was a typo......


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

I'd be more apt to believe there is more going on in the '89 engine than just the compression. Maybe restricted intake/exhaust and perhaps some hanky panky with the program in the ECU.

So get an '89 block and put an '88 head/intake/exhaust/ecu on. May as well go for the '88 rods and pistons too.


----------



## blownb310 (Jun 10, 2002)

Myetball said:


> *I'd be more apt to believe there is more going on in the '89 engine than just the compression. Maybe restricted intake/exhaust and perhaps some hanky panky with the program in the ECU.
> 
> So get an '89 block and put an '88 head/intake/exhaust/ecu on. May as well go for the '88 rods and pistons too. *


 ***** I've never heard of a 90 hp CA18DE. That's the same as the GA16i. I think it must be a typo, no?


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

Nope, the '89 Pulsar SE w/CA18DE came with 96hp stock. For the life of us we can't figure out why. The 133hp JDM engine had the same compression ratio 9.5:1.


----------



## Mervic (May 1, 2002)

Myetball said:


> *Nope, the '89 Pulsar SE w/CA18DE came with 96hp stock. For the life of us we can't figure out why. The 133hp JDM engine had the same compression ratio 9.5:1. *


 I dont think the CA18DE 89 had only [email protected] rpm. I really believe there is a misprinted chart somewhere thats getting people confuse with the HP of the 89 SE Pulsar. I remember seeing this misprint while ago, just cant recollect where or which book. Does anybody know where can I see this list? Also, if you analyze carefully, which why I concluded it is a misprint, the GA16i started production in 1989 on both Sentra and Pulsar XE and the CA18DE last year of production was also 1989 on the Pulsar SE. The power rating of the GA16i is 90 [email protected] RPM and _*96ft/[email protected] RPM*_ while the CA18DE(from the misprint list) shows *[email protected] rpm*. Hmmm, same exact figure cept one is torque rating and one is HP rating. Go figure.


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

Now this is starting to make sense because the source we are using has the '89 CA18DE torque as [email protected] The same as the '88 torque rating.

So this whole 96hp thing may be a misprint that has perpetuated throughout the web and onto almost every source out there. So the '89 may actually be alot closer to the '88 rating of 125hp.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> I remember seeing this misprint while ago, just cant recollect where or which book. Does anybody know where can I see this list?


heres the source we are quoating 

i really hope to god thats a typo, (cuzim stuck with a 89 motor) i mean what the fuck was so important about 1989 anyways? like shit wasnt even OBD-I yet. I cant honestly think of anything that could cause that motor to loose so much percentage of power(certainly not .5 a point in compression if thats even the case...read on)....

by the way? what is the compression ratio of the ga16de for the 1989 years? if its 9.5:1 i think we have our misprint...damn lets see if we can find something to state otherwise!


----------



## Mervic (May 1, 2002)

WMengineering said:


> *
> i really hope to god thats a typo, (cuzim stuck with a 89 motor) i mean what the fuck was so important about 1989 anyways? like shit wasnt even OBD-I yet. I cant honestly think of anything that could cause that motor to loose so much percentage of power(certainly not .5 a point in compression if thats even the case...read on)....
> 
> by the way? what is the compression ratio of the ga16de for the 1989 years? if its 9.5:1 i think we have our misprint...damn lets see if we can find something to state otherwise! *


 Wm..Your 89 CA18DE should be fine. Looking at the chart it is obviously a misprint. Not only they made a mistake with the HP, even oil pressure # is a mistake. Damn, the CD17 diesel has a higher RPM peak hp than the supposedly rev happy CA18DE. Oh and all my books, CD-rom, other Pulsar nut I know says that all CA18/16DE has a compression ratio of 10:1.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> CD-rom, other Pulsar nut I know says that all CA18/16DE has a compression ratio of 10:1.


well that does it im gonna add a helms for the USDM pulsar to this mutha fing project


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

I also checked my Mitchell CD, it says the '89 CA18DE is 10:1. Looks like you'll be running 125hp minimum.

I guess this whole 96hp thing is a huge mistake perpetuated across the web for a long time. I'm glad it's been cleard up.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> I guess this whole 96hp thing is a huge mistake perpetuated across the web for a long time. I'm glad it's been cleard up.


<----says like John Malcavich(SP)
"lets nvr use that link..AGAIN!"

125 hp!!!! woohooo my d15sohc civic puts out just a tad more to the wheels with a TON of mods....., 
looks like my b12 "spanker"(thats what im going to dub it once its running) is well on its way to DOHC honda domination.


----------



## Mervic (May 1, 2002)

OK I guess this settled once and for all. Out of topic, WM(Mike), I need to know some advantages of keeping a D16 intead of swaping a B16. I have to convince my brother to forget the swap and just fix the damn tranny (2nd gear synchro is failing, I think). BTW it is a 92 hatch. Sorry again for the out of topic.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> WM(Mike), I need to know some advantages of keeping a D16 intead of swaping a B16. I have to convince my brother to forget the swap and just fix the damn tranny (2nd gear synchro is failing, I think). BTW it is a 92 hatch. Sorry again for the out of topic.


well you have lucked out. or say your brother has lucked out. i just happen to be the HEAD administrator over at ALThonda. a site devoted to SOHC and dseries hondas. i HATE the b16 with a bloody passion. 
visit this link..and do some exploring. send me a PM otherwise to keep it off of this forum, because i dont want to deal with any would be B serires enthusiasts trying to start a flame war on here(they are VERY hard headed!!!)
anyways...visit here..become a member, or tell your brother too.

hint main reason is PRICE! and useable torque

ALTernative Honda: SOHC and Dseries resource

EDIT: heres a link to a thread we just started on this subject.....
http://pub161.ezboard.com/fbseriesalternativefrm7.deleteSingle?topicID=180.topic&index=2


----------



## BennittoMallito (May 20, 2002)

Hey sorry to turn open this whole can of worms, but I just had to ask... 
My Haynes lists compression ratio as 10.5:1. So did my mechanics cd-rom manual when we looked the other day. Anyone know anything about this? 

I'll look again when I get a chance to go see him, and look for power numbers as well. Could be another typo.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

*re*



> Hey sorry to turn open this whole can of worms, but I just had to ask...


 great.....more typos, 
lets get it sorted here once and for all...
this is the place to do it.
try to get us a link man.


----------



## BennittoMallito (May 20, 2002)

Yep, I checked again, and both my Haynes #1378 for October 86-March 91 Sunny and my mech's cd-rom lists compression as 10.5;1 on CA18de, 

normal compression at 14.71 lbf/in^2 or 213 kPa minimum at 10.79 or 156

What other info do we need ot verify/deny this?


----------

