Leighton, It's a great idea if you want to do something different because lets face it, 16 valves, 2 cams, a turbo AND cubes is a good starter for big torque and big horsepower. Trouble is, doing something different and doing something for big bang-for-buck are two totally different things! Except for one example I can think of; the VG 510 over here, it's cost the owner a fair bit but how else would you get over 450hp!?
Leighton wrote: >Hey errol thanx heaps for all your info > >your atolerant bloke > >I dunno i suppose i am/was looking for sumthing different? but still fittig >the usual criteria ie injected twin cam turbo etc but the torquey KA seemed >like a great setup - i mean there are forums all over the US dedicated >tomodifying these engines and lot of them end up fighting about modifying >their already in KA24DE or sticking in a fresh SR20det - i have to say alot >of the stuff thay do is wank factor and only follow the crowd - but the >blokes who turbo their KA's are all completey happy with there driveabilty >and then huge torqey power - i mean there are shit loads of them in >americ!!! there is one guy who pulls a Mid 10 second 1/4 - I have the VIDEO >and its an official run and he only pulls the thing to 5k with very lazy >gear shifts - i mean this thing freaking hauled and he has done it on a >stock crank and block??? > >that was atractive to me > >Thanx > >Sorry about the length (Ill shut up now guys - you have prolly seen my name >too much and are thouroghly sick of me) > >Leighton >----- Original Message ----- >From: "E Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Saturday, March 09, 2002 12:02 AM >Subject: RE: Capacity issue > > >>Leighton, >>It also depends on how hard you are working them as well. To say 6000 rpm >>they are probably bullet proof, but run them to 7000 and the deficiencies >>show up I believe. >> >>The 89 mm bore and 96 mm stroke means that they are a very torquey engine, >>but friction from high piston speeds is a performance killer. The rod >>bearing areas are small for the loads put on them above the maximum power >>developed of 143 hp at 5600 Rpm. The high torque of 154 ft lb at 4000 rpm >> >is > >>not bad. >> >> They were very successful in the 240SX's (Stanza's) in the states but >> >these > >>were fairly heavily modified. >> >>Cheers >>Feral Errol >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Leighton >>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2002 11:03 PM >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Subject: Re: Capacity issue >> >>hmm that reliabilty issue is in direct contradiction to what the yanks - i >>have been talking to those guys for a few months now and that all seem to >>rate the KA24DE >>(16 valve) as fairly bullet proof and very reliable engine??? >> >>im beginning to see the problem as being any time part are needed i shel >> >out > >>big bucks or source them from yanke land?? >> >>hmm i dunno >> >>Leighton >>----- Original Message ----- >>From: "Terry Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>Sent: Friday, March 08, 2002 8:47 PM >>Subject: RE: Capacity issue >> >> >>>I've only had a couple of them in the family but they were both the FWD >>>version - Errol will know if its the same engine as the Navara. Bad news >>>both of them, a Pintara 12 valve SSS and a U13SSS - both had similar >>>problems with valve gear and general reliability, both crack header and >>>broke studs off in the head, something that I've never experienced with >>> >>any >> >>>other Nissan engine. The Pintara was new so it was always fixed under >>>warranty and got rid of as soon as it was out of it, but the Bluey was >>> >2nd > >>>hand and the cost of the parts even at trade were prohibitive. It was >>> >got > >>>rid of too. >>> >>>regards >>>Terry >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Leighton >>>Sent: Friday, 8 March 2002 9:40 AM >>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>Subject: Re: Capacity issue >>> >>> >>>well i need to ask what esperiences you have had >>> >>>i would like to know >>> >>>thanx >>> >>>Leighton >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>From: "Terry Rudd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 11:50 PM >>>Subject: RE: Capacity issue >>> >>> >>>>I have to agree here too, the only experiences I've ever had with KA >>>> >>>engines >>> >>>>have not been good ones - I wouldn't touch one with a bargepole, let >>>> >>alone >> >>>a >>> >>>>turbocharged bargepole. >>>> >>>>TR >>>> >>>>-----Original Message----- >>>>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of E Smith >>>>Sent: Thursday, 7 March 2002 9:01 PM >>>>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>>Subject: RE: Capacity issue >>>> >>>> >>>>I agree whole heartedly Tom. Bang for your buck, the LZ24ET would be >>>> >>heaps >> >>>>better and easier to fit maintain as well. The KA's are expensive for >>>> >>>parts! >>> >>>>Cheers >>>>Feral Errol >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> > > --membersozdat------------------------------------------------------- OZDAT Mailing List Please Note:- Send (un)subscribe requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send submissions to [EMAIL PROTECTED] No unauthorised redistribution of this email http://www.ozdat.com/ozdatonline/index.htm http://www.ozdat.com/ozdatonline/listindex.html http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------
