Well The CA20 crank look very similar Im unsure if they would actually fit I should
measure them up as I have mine out at moment after a bad incident with flywheel coming
loose :( You would have to get some custom rods as the CA20 ones are small in
comparison .
If I where to build from scratch again A stroker would be interesting. As for the CA of
FJ the CA is very similar in design to the RB style engines just minus the other 2
cylinders. They are no slug either My engine produces over 300hp on 14psi boost and is
very drivable can run upto 18 psi 340-350hp. More Hp is obtainable but would need much
larger turbo loosing its bottom end pull and reliability aswell honestly think running
say 18-20 psi with modified cams bigger turbo 400 hp would be obtainable. I still run
stock cams and manifolds on my engine just a large intercooler GT25 roller bearing
turbo
and a little bit of head porting.
I know over 500hp is obtainable for the FJ engine but at a lot higher revs the CA
has
max power at 6500 max torque at 4000 but pulls hard from 2500 the FJ engines are more
4000rpm plus and are not quite a smooth. Parts for the CA are quite expensive but not
as
bad as the SR20 engines valvetrain in the SR engines need a lot of work to get high hp
reliably l.Im unsure about prices on FJ engine parts but being older Im sure after
market
bits should be available at a resonable price
My 2 cents worth.
Andrew
Zac Campbell wrote:
> Crappy plasticy huh? Well take off the spark plug cover, polish the rocker cover
> and well, look at that - it looks like 2/3 of a Japanese 1000hp RB26DETT!! except
> for the small turbo..
>
> If ya ask me, you can't beat the CA for $/power/value. The FJ20s, a top engine,
> but getting a bit old now and hard to find good low K examples. The SR20 has
> been recognised as an excellent engine so now they are in high demand so every
> dude can then check one in his escort, gemini, corolla, etc. As a result they
> are more expensive!
>
> The CA18 is in the middle. People think it's plastic and shit but it ain't.
> They have less power than both (~130kW) but still have potential. They have
> more technology than an FJ20 and less age. I've been in a couple of CA18det
> powered cars and they have power. Sure, they lack the low rpm torque but they
> still have a turbo so they honk up the rev scale! If you want a more
>detailed/specific
> rundown of the CA18det I can do that too :)
>
> Andrew, do you think a CA18DET could be stroked with a CA20 crank and then bored
> a little aswell? ~2.1l would be nice!
>
> zac
>
> >Listers
> >I'm just looking into different engine options, and something I'm trying to
>
> >get some opinions on is whats a better option between the CA18det and a
> >FJ20det, I know more about the FJ, but not so much of the CA, I have been
>
> >told their crappy plasticy and all, but others tell me they have a lot of
>
> >potential and are almost as good as an SR, plus their closely matched on the
>
> >kw scale I've read. So anyone got any info and/or personal opinions of the
>
> >two, I myself lean towards the FJ at the moment. Thanks to those who will
>
> >reply,
> >Tim
>
--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]/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
