# CA transmissions



## Guest (Apr 30, 2003)

Simple question: apart from the hydraulic clutch difference, will the CA16DE tranny fit the CA18DE?? Any differences in the axles or hubs?


----------



## RockyB (May 3, 2002)

> Any differences in the axles or hubs?


Sorry I don't know the answer, but I do believe the CA20E trans out of a Stanza is stronger and will bolt up to the CA18de


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> Simple question: apart from the hydraulic clutch difference, will the CA16DE tranny fit the CA18DE??


 Yes it will.


> Any differences in the axles or hubs?


 You'll need the axles that comes from a CA18DE and you can not use the stanzas axles as their hubs are bigger. Hubs are the same for the CA series, just different axles "Period".


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2003)

Great, thanks boostboy. Looks like I've finally got a line on an 88 pulsar with a CA18DE/manual but I'm thinking I'd rather have the lower final drive from the CA16DE for the kind of driving I'll be doing. If I go through the trouble of swapping clutch actuation over, do you know whether the gears/final drives can be switched from the CA16 to the CA18?


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> If I go through the trouble of swapping clutch actuation over, do you know whether the gears/final drives can be switched from the CA16 to the CA18?


 Not swappable, but nissan sells gears for both trannies if you can get in touch with them!


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2003)

OK, sorta figurer that was the case, it would be too easy otherwise. 

Boost_boy, I just saw in the thread from WMengineering (great reply BTW) that you said the CA18 tranny is much stronger than the 16 so maybe I'll just stick with that. Also, that wheel spin is an issue with a bunch of horsepower...no kidding. But on that note, I thought you had said in one of your previous posts that you had a phantom grip LSD installed. Is that the case or was I dreaming? If so, how does it work and any problems with it?? Thanks muchly,

Alex


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

I still have the tranny with phantom grip block in the diff, but now I have new gearboxes that both have helical limited slip differentials


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2003)

Where did you get those, and/or what are they from?? I'm setting the car up as a rally car so I really need a LSD of some sort.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

They are hybrid set-ups and kind of my own personal set-ups. The Phantom grip came from phantom grip itself and costs around $299.


----------



## Guest (May 1, 2003)

Did you actually drive the Phantom Grip at all? Did it help much?


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Yeah, it did what it needed to do, I guess! The real deal is always better, but I never had a chance to take that car to the track while it was making 300+hp, so I don't know what kind of times it would have posted.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

ok so the ca16de is closer ratio? correct?. this is what i plan on doing,so you tell me

1.) automatic to manual transaxle, if the ca16de tranny is cable mount, shouldnt this be easier for me to swap into the b12
2.) i have to take the bottom end apart basically and add the 88 pistons to either the 89-90 motor for the better CR, but i am stuck with the crap 89 year engine due to caliornia smog reguations.

so, if i am going to use a differnt tranny anyways(sell me on the ca16de now) then i would start assembling my own mismatched junk yard motor like this weekend( i love junkyard shopping!)
ok so this leads me to my next question. are there any other parts that are benifically interchangeable amongst model yrs./varients i should be aware of?
(im just trying to do my home work guys, i have come to the conclusion this makes projects go as easy and smoothly as posible.)
thanks guys, i really really appriciate everyones help, 
MIKE


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> 1.) automatic to manual transaxle, if the ca16de tranny is cable mount, shouldnt this be easier for me to swap into the b12


 The CA16DE's tranny would bprobably be good for autocrossing and lightning fast 60ft times as the gears are way shorter than the CA18's. It's cable mechanism will fit directly into the B12's chasis as long as you use the CA16's cable. Nothing wrong with junkyard shopping, but you can probably get those pistons cheap from nissan as well. I have turbo rods and pistons if interested for the sum of $200 complete and ready to install. I also have a manifold as well and few other pieces that are laying around collecting dust. Smog sucks! They did away with emissions tests years ago so now everyone does whatever the heck they want to with their engines. The CA16DE and the CA18DE have different parts such as tranny, axles, transmission mounts, shifter and rails, engine's wire harness, computer, tranny mounting bracket, clutch set up to include actuators (hydraulic -vs-cable) and intake hoses whereas the ca16's intake hose is pretty clean cut and the CA18's (auto) has a resonator and is more rounded and ugly looking, but everything else is pretty much the same.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

boost or anyone else, you wouldnt happen to have the gear ratios of both the ca18de/16 handy would you? id like to compare. thanks. 
MIKE


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2003)

Mike, a copy of the Nissan pulsar shop manual is posted at the link below and it has the info in it (page 285 I think it was)... the only problem is you can't really make out the numbers! I wish whomever scanned this used a slightly better resolution then it would be really useful. None the less, I don't have the numbers but if you have access to 87/88 vintage car mags like Road and Track, they have them. I did have them a couple of years back when I first looked into this swap but I have successfully managed to loose those issues...piss me off!

Alex

http://pulsarexa.netfirms.com/


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

*ok anyone else?*

yea i couldnt make it out bro, anyone else with the gear ratios of the two?

oh and to clarify the ca18de is hydro clutch correct?


----------



## Guest (May 2, 2003)

Yup, and the CA16DE is a mechanical. Easier to swap the CA16 but based on what Dee said re strength, I'd be tempted to stick with the CA18. I blew up the tranny on my E16 B12, actually it was the wife just crusing down the highway, so I'm a bit leary about these tranny's. I'm wondering though whether it's a lubrication related failure up here in winter land since I see alot of Sentras with "new transmissions" in the autotrader. With Dee's experience with the CA18DET, looks like that tranny is much tougher.


----------



## Crazy-Mart (Jul 14, 2002)

btw the Ca16de tranny and the E16 one are 2 different tranny... none are interchangeble form CA to E series....


----------



## Mervic (May 1, 2002)

Confirm this boost, is the manual tranny for Pulsar SE (CA18DE), Stanza, and Maxima all 1989 models same? I looked at their tranny codes and they were all RS5F50A 5-speed transaxle.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> Confirm this boost, is the manual tranny for Pulsar SE (CA18DE), Stanza, and Maxima all 1989 models same? I looked at their tranny codes and they were all RS5F50A 5-speed transaxle.


 Gearbox casing-wise they are pretty much related, but the internals and gearing are different. Stanza and the maxima has huge axles that will not fit the pulsar's gearbox. 1986-89 stanzas gearbox will fit the CA18, but you cannot use their axles on the pulsar/sentra. 90-92 stanza are different period. Pulsar trannies are good to about 175mph (guesstimation) seeing that I was clocked at 173mph.


----------



## Mervic (May 1, 2002)

Thanks Dee for clearing that up for me. So, axles different, gear ratios are also different, but same casings. I guess if a person really knows what he or she doing, you can mix and match gears from these trannies and find the best combinations. These are all just crazy thinking, Iam sure the Pulsar tranny is good enough for a Ca18DET.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

You can mix and match if you or someone is competent at screwing around with transmissions. Anyone of the PULSAR SE trannies are a treat for the CA18DET.


----------



## Mervic (May 1, 2002)

*Re: ok anyone else?*



WMengineering said:


> * anyone else with the gear ratios of the two?*


1st 3.285, 2nd 1.850, 3rd 1.272, 4th 0.954, 5th 0.795, Reverse 3.428 Final drive 4.471. These are gear ratios of a CA18DE tranny.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

*shift point/redline*

ok guys im little confused, i got both sets of ratios, but im mixed up to what the actual redline of the ca18de is. 
im comparing how much closer ratio the ca16 tranny really is for my use
thansk all
MIKE


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2003)

Mike, what are the ratios for the Ca16de?? Also, you said on the other thread (the guy who likes civics...I laughed!) that you found the weight of the sentra. What number did you find?? The number I recall from a Car and Driver review was about 2350 lb curb but I've seen some other numbers too. 

I've got a car simulation program (called car test) that I found on the net some time back that does pretty good acceleration predicts. Once I get the ratios, I'll run the two trannies and see what's better. You are doing the CA18DE right. What HP are you figuring you are going to get too? I'll need that too.

Alex


----------



## Guest (May 6, 2003)

Never mind the question re weight, I just found that on the other thread. The 2300 lb sounds close to what I saw before fro C&D so I suspect thats about right. None the less, let me know the ratios and the HP and I'll run the sim.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

*gear ratios and speeds for CA18de ca16de trannies*

heres the ratios, however i am going to do this thread one better as i was going to post this once i collected all the data anyways. this is in refernce to boost boy i beleive talking about the tranny options the ca series motors share. i hope theres more than this

this is using a gear ratio calulator i found online. heres the link: http://nonsense.netfirms.com/speed.html 
ok this is how it works, using 6600 rpm shifts (i dont know the optimum shift point so i just took the hp peak and added a few hundred rpm for an aprox. stab at the redline, if someone has this let me know), in a perfect world with no outside variables, "RPM1" is what it will drop to after a perfect 6600 shift, the speed is abviosly MPH at 6600 in the given gear.

ca16de tranny: (these are taking fromt he 87 nissan pulsar)

Gear RPM1* RPM2 Speed @ 6600 RPM 
1st 0 6600 29.94 
2nd 3872 6600 51.04 
3rd 4342 6600 77.58 
4th 5004 6600 102.33 
5th 5483 6600 123.18 

ok now the ca18de from a pulsar nx "xe"????: (year unknown)
Gear RPM1* RPM2 Speed @ 6600 RPM 
1st 0 6600 32.57 
2nd 3934 6600 54.64 
3rd 4363 6600 82.66 
4th 4932 6600 110.61 
5th 5532 6600 131.98 

lastly, same thing ca18de pulsar nx, but an "se" (year unknown)
Gear RPM1* RPM2 Speed @ 6600 RPM 
1st 0 6600 30.37 
2nd 3717 6600 53.93 
3rd 4538 6600 78.44 
4th 4950 6600 104.58 
5th 5500 6600 125.50 

ok as you can see the big difference inbetween these is the ca18 XE pulsar tranny and the ca16de. what this means??? i have no idea. 
ill leave this up to the "gurus" however in my book the ca16de tranny to ca18 is only worth it if you have this "xe" tranny already. otherwise its pretty close(as far as close ratio is concerdned). btw heres the values for the ratios:

CA16DE (87) 

1st 3.333 
2nd 1.955 
3rd 1.286 
4th 0.975 
5th 0.810 
REV 3.417 
F/D 4.471

ca18de pulsarNX se

1st 3.063 - 
2nd 1.826 - 
3rd 1.207 - 
4th 0.902 - 
5th 0.756 - 
R 3.417 - 
F/D 4.471 - 

ca18de pulsarNX se

1st 3.285 - 
2nd 1.850 -
3rd 1.272 -
4th 0.954 - 
5th 0.795 -
R 3.428 - 
F/D 4.471 -


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

classic2b. here is a link. save it
http://www.autobook.co.kr/data_links/nissan_small_engine_spec.htm 
figure for the 125hp of the 88 ca18de pulsar motor on that page.

also, guys sorry i tried my best to organzie that psot up there best i could. but when i hit the submit button it takes away all the spaces inbtween the charts(there were charts!!! grrrr) i will try to fix it but i dont think i know how, the spaces just go away


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Those are relatively close figures, yet I tend to disagree on them being relatively close in real time driving! The CA16's gearing ratio is significantly shorter than the CA18's. There are so many variations and ratios of the RS5F50A series boxes that it'll be hard to know when one you have until you actually put it on your car. I do know the 1988 CA18DET FWD JDM has a better final drive than all of the U.S. variants and has more teeth on it's differential as opposed to the U.S. pulsar's. Unless you have a handful of different trannies to screw around with, if you are using a CA18DE motor, I'd use the CA18's tranny and forget about the CA16's. FOr one the CA16's is too rare of a tranny and people are charging too much for them (Kinda like the SR20DE's crappy tranny). And I can promise you that you will break it as my own wasn't the happiest upon me getting a CA18's tranny, however, it's your call. The best experience is to see for yourself!


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

yea boost that was what i was basically thinking after compiling all that. i got the ratios from other ppl so who knows for sure. but basically i will be sticking with whatever tranny comes with my motor(going shopping again this weekend!!!! wish me luck)


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2003)

OK, so here are the numbers that CarTest 4.5 spits out for a CA18DE B12. From what I've read on this program, the results are pretty accurate, certainly good enough for comparing different options within the same basic car, eg, more HP, less weight, gear ratios, etc. 

The constants I used are:

weight = 2380 lb (maybe a bit light considering gas and driver)
tires = 185/60/14 
peak HP = 125 @ 6400 rpm (flywheel) 
peak torque = 115 ft-lb @ 4800 rpm 
redline = 6800 rpm (from Card and Driver article)
launch = 2200 rpm clutch dump (optimum according to CarTest)
shift points = 6800 for 1st, 2nd, and 3rd, 6650 for 4th (optmium again, same for all trannies)

I tried all the tranny ratios from above and there is no real difference in all three, the one with the 3.063 1st is slower by .1 sec across the board which is peanuts, the other two are the same. So.... drum roll.....

0-50 mph = 5.7 sec 
0-60 mph= 8.3 sec (2nd to 3rd shift between 50 and 60)
1/4 mile = 16.2 sec
top speed = 121 mph

Just to compare, the E16 version with the same weights and tires as above, but with correct HP (70) and gear ratios (little different than these) gives:

0-50 mph = 9.4 sec
0-60 mph = 13.0
1/4 mile = 19.0
top speed = 98 mph

CA18DE is a pretty big improvement over stock. And just to see what boost's car would do, I ran 300 hp and 300 ft-lb peaks at the same RPM as above, and still 6800 redline (boost, I know you said you shift way above that but anyway), you get... hold on tight...

0-50 mph = 3.3 sec
0-60 mph = 4.8 sec
1/4 mile = 12.8
top speed = 127 mph (gearing and redline limited)

If I reduce the final drive ratio to 3.9 (what are you actually running boost?) and open up the redline to 8000, times from above drop some and top speed goes up to 156 mph. 

Anyway, food for more discussion.

Alex


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Hmmm, those #'s are within the ballpark, but top speed is questionable. I use the JapSpec bluebird's CA18DET tranny which has a longer final drive! My power #'s were [email protected] and that equates to nearly 370hp at the crank. Play with those figures and tell me what you get! Remember, the bluebird is a bigger car and the diff has more teeth than the U.S. spec Pulsar (JDM has 76 and U.S. has 74).


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2003)

With 370 Hp at the flywheel, a 3.9 final drive, it tops out at 168 @ 7800 rpm, closer to your clocked 172. What final drive ratio do you actually have? Also, what was the max torque?


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> What final drive ratio do you actually have? Also, what was the max torque?


 I can't begin to explain the difference in the transmissions I use, but I asssure you the JDM tranny has a more relaxed final drive than the U.S. spec pulsar's.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

1/4 mile = 16.2 sec

lets hope that 1/4 mile time is off otherwise im throwing this project away


----------



## Guest (May 14, 2003)

What 1/4 mile time where you hoping for Mike? I can run some numbers to see what kind of HP you need to make to get there. 

Based on several comparisons I've done to magazine numbers, the program is not very far off... I'd say within ±.5 sec on the 1/4 for sure and likely closer than that. For a close comparison, this car is very close to a 2001 Honda Civic EX coupe (C&D Nov 2000) in terms of engine, gear ratios etc. The Civic is 200 lb heavier (2575) and the test numbers show a 16.7 sec 1/4 mile. Considering 200 lb less, 16.2 is probably about right for a stock CA18DE in a B12.

On one of the other threads, someone (can't remember who) weighed their car and it came in at 2140 lb, 200 lb lighter than I used. But, figure a driver in the 2140, then 2380 lb may only be a bit heavy. 

Anyway, let me know what 1/4 time you are shooting for and I'll see what you need to get there. I wouldn't want you going off spending money and time for something that won't give you what you want.

Alex


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

with the civc 4dr i have pumping out a pathetic 102 hp stock, 16.2 for the sentra seems a little weak, considering after my mods on the honda, who knows exactly what the HP/torque is, but im damn close to breaking into 14's with no nitrous or boost. 

i guess for my lil b12 with 125 hp, more torque, DOHC , i expected slightly more than 16.2......(alltho does this program take into account tire spin, or is this based on a "perfect run" scenario?)

well, this is what the plan is for.......ill add a custom intake(using a hood scoop subby style) straight 2 in pipe, no cat, and a nitrous shot eventually. (either zex or venom kit. w/smaller jets at first)
so i guess ball park that, to maybe 170hp to fly wheel or so(conservative)..and lets see what she'll throw down..... 
thanks for the effort bro,
MIKE
btw this car HAS to beat my civic.........bottom line


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> btw this car HAS to beat my civic.........bottom line


 It will! I've tested for everyone against the 2000 civic SI and waxed a few of them with a stock CA18DE with exhaust!


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> It will! I've tested for everyone against the 2000 civic SI and waxed a few of them with a stock CA18DE with exhaust!


ok good, because thats the EXACT bench mark i use for my SOHC non vtec 4 dr...beat those damn b16 vtec si's baby!!!!!. (allltho a 16.2 is a FAR cry from beating a b16 equiped SI......)


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Remember, the CA DOHC series is a emissions choked family that nissan seem to have bit their tongue on to get the engine in placed in it's new (back in 1987) pulsar and when the craze of DOHC engines with 16valves were taking over. You can actuall shake, ratle and roll with a CA18DE in your car. Playing the #s game is all well, but I believe in real time performance and I believe you'll get what you want out of this motor.


----------



## Mervic (May 1, 2002)

WM, what mods do you have in your Civic?


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> Remember, the CA DOHC series is a emissions choked family that nissan seem to have bit their tongue on to get the engine in placed in it's new (back in 1987) pulsar and when the craze of DOHC engines with 16valves were taking over.


yea i totally understand what your saying with this.......
as for....


> WM, what mods do you have in your Civic?


 all i will say is its a d15b7, a stock 1.5l liter SOHC that gets no respect from the honda camp.....and its all the better when you take one of those shiny new electron blue vtec SI's down the 1320 with it.........not to mention down shifting into 3rd on the freeway...."bye bye SI" (hehe ok now back to nizzy's)


----------



## Guest (May 16, 2003)

Mike, at 170 hp, it predicts 14.7 sec 1/4's at the 2380 lb. If I use the 2140 lb, it's 14.4 sec.

The program does factor in wheelspin, shift times, etc. This thing is really wheelspin limited. The optimum launch it calculates is a 1400 rpm clutch dump and even with that, it spins quite a bit. More RPM and most of first is blown in smoke. There is nothing I can do in the program to put in better rubber, ie, less wheel spin at launch, so you might expect some better times if you get better stick. I don't know what "level" of tire performance it assumes, but probably not sticky drag tires.

Boost, are you saying that since the CA's are emissions choked, there is a substantially more HP available by simply freeing up the exhaust?


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

14.7....yikes....ok man, thanks for your help, guess ill just have to build it and see what happens....


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

There is substantial hp available in the CA18 if properly modified. Consider that boost is working on 500whp. Granted his is a turbo but even the n/a version will respond well to modification. Also consider that the '89 CA18DE lost almost 30hp with a .5:1 reduction in compression and a more restrictive air flow.


----------



## Red_Coupe (Mar 20, 2003)

myet take out the trash bud.....


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> Boost, are you saying that since the CA's are emissions choked, there is a substantially more HP available by simply freeing up the exhaust?


 Precisely! And myetball is correct that a .5:1 reduction compression snatched just over 30hp from the poor engine. The problem was that it was still having a hard timme staying emissions competent with aga as well as staying away from detonation with the quality of fuels that people were putting in thus abusing their warranties with blown headgaskets and busted pistons. So nissan lowered the compression to preven this crap from happening and it's what ultimately lead to the ending of the CA DOHC series in general (Too much technology, too much money= CA18 way ahead of it's time). Then all of a sudden comes a watered down 2.0 litre with cheaper parts, to include block, valve train, tranny and even the oil filter. Anyone ever noticed the SR20 is nissan's only 4 cylinder that has it's own tiny oil filter whereas all others including the VG, VQ, GA, RB and CA series motors uses the same oil filters. ALso the CA series is in the same gearbox family as the stanza and maxima so it has a broader spectrum of options for gearing. If anyone ever noticed the VG30DETT, the RB20DET, RB25DET and the RB26DETT all resemble the CA16 and 18's? The CA16/18 is their momma and daddy as the tecnology was passed to them was the CA projects were scrapped.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2003)

Ya, I guess thats right, 125 hp in 88 compared to 95 hp in 89...yuck. None the less, I'm still looking for an 88. I thought I had one at the insurance write off auction the other day but on a close look, you could touch the crank with your hands, and the bellhousing also had a good size chunk taken out of it. I bid to $350 and quite at that since I really want the whole engine and there's no way to know if the crank (or block) is still good. I'll wait for the next one. I hope the guy that bought it looked underneath the car...a puddle of oil should have been a good hint! 

Boost, is the 88 still "that" restricted, it's obvious the 89 is?


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> Boost, is the 88 still "that" restricted, it's obvious the 89 is?


 The 88 SE model is still restricted in the sense that it had to follow suit of the CA16De which can rev it's little tail off. I smoked my first SE-R wit the CA16DE and they thought I had an SR20 underneath the bonnet! The CA16DE is probably the wilder of the bunch meaning that it sounded meaner and acted tough even though it was a 1.6ltr.

Dee


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> The CA16DE is probably the wlder of the bunch meaning that it sounded meaner and acted tough even though it was a 1.6ltr.


ok you got my little honda mind going.....any possibilty to use the ca16de head, on the ca18de block? and if so, would there be any benifit? is it in the head or block that is allowing the CA16 to be the "rev happy" lil counter part? 
basically...any luck with swapping CA family parts to create a frankenstien?

btw, if your wondering, this IS the strategy one must take to build a potent HONDA sohc motor...tis why i am asking...hehe


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> any possibilty to use the ca16de head, on the ca18de block?


 There's no need to do this as both heads are the same. You can change cams and use the CA16's intake cam, but really only apply if you have a CA18DET. The CA18DE can rev just like the CA16DE and produces more useable power, however the CA16DE can be used if one does not feel like changing his current motor For Pulsar and sunny owners only). Keep the CA18DE, but the biggest task will come from hokking up the vacuum hoses correctly, but I guess we'll cross that "T" when we get there, huh?


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

boost_boy said:


> *, but I guess we'll cross that "T" when we get there, huh? *


 yea cool dude thanks. btw i jsut got back from the junk yard, i found a motor with 145k on it. seemed fine, it was in a pulsar already. the guy wanted 350 for it. i duno what to do.


----------



## Myetball (Dec 15, 2002)

350 isn't a bad price. Even for motor only but if it comes with tranny, even better.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> i found a motor with 145k on it.


 If it made it that far then it must've been something well cared for because these don't seem to get past the 100,000 mile mark without someone over-heating or neglecting to change the timing belt.


----------



## Crazy-Mart (Jul 14, 2002)

maybe its been overhauled already (that would be called chance)


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

> maybe its been overhauled already


 Would be a fat chance as these things back in their day were very expensive to repair!


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> If it made it that far then it must've been something well cared for because these don't seem to get past the 100,000 mile mark without someone over-heating or neglecting to change the timing belt.


ok. now im scared, you mean to tell me these motors nvr lasted past 100k? i reliaze the timming belt issue. thats easy, change it, but is it prone to throwing it? whens the wear limit? and about the over heating, what casues this specifically in the motor? damn, now im gun shy if this motors longevity is a POS.


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

The motors longevity is not an issue, but because of it's performance characteristics, it needs to be treated like a high performance motor. The timing belts are not the issue, but they need to be changed at it's suggested intervals. I recommend changing them every 50 thousand miles if you are dogging the car on a regular. The cause of over-heating is what causes most other cars to over-heat "Fan Failure". It's actually a pretty reliable motor if stay on the maintenance side of things especially having a decent and reliable fan.


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

> but because of it's performance characteristics, it needs to be treated like a high performance motor


yea ok thats completly understandable. since most likely ill be tearing it down to put the new pistons in anyways i can check to see how most everything else is anyways. just as long as im not getting some psuedo-ford 4cyl. motor. im ok with "performance upkeep"...after all i am getting a third gen rx7(hehe)
thanks alot boost
MIKE


----------



## boost_boy (May 25, 2002)

Mike,

Good luck with the CA and definitely good luck with that 3rd Gen RX-7 as you'll need it!

Dee


----------



## WMengineering (Mar 11, 2003)

hey guys...i just want to say this thread is ok..but we did find out that that .5 compression loss after 89 in the ca18de's was a crock. it was a typo...jsut so you know that after reading this all...
the ca18de nvr lossed compression in the united states. nor did it loose that much HP rating....


----------

