luissr20 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I have three SR20VE (FWD) motors for sale. I'd like to get $1000 each for them. You can either convert them to RWD or install the head on a RWD S13 or S14 bottom end. I have performed such swaps in the past. I know I am a newbie here but I have an excellent rep on the SR20 forum. Here is a post I wrote describing the swap process, it is pretty much the same for RWD: http://www.sr20forum.com/sr20ve-sr16ve/162336-my-ve-head-swap-how-picture-heavy-roller-rocker.html The motors are located in NorCal (bay area). Link to comment
motavated Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 So you can install this head on a ka24de rwd? Man this has got me thinking.... Link to comment
luissr20 Posted April 28, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 So you can install this head on a ka24de rwd? Man this has got me thinking.... Heh no sorry. It only works on an SR bottom end. I should have said JDM S13/S14 RWD bottom end. Link to comment
sssr20det510 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 I dont think so that swap is a sr20de bottom end with a sr20ve head Link to comment
Icehouse Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 What kinda number increases did it make on the dyno? I've read into them a bit, I like the idea of the newer heads (can't remember the exact model) having bigger water jackets to help keep detonation to a minimum :D Link to comment
72240z Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 The de to ve hp difference is hard to lock down because that de is used in like 18 or w/e vehicles most making slightly dif power. The sr20de in the 1998 180sx is 140hp - 131tq The sr20ve is the 1998 Bluebird is 187hp - 140tq There is a 2nd gen ve starting in like 2000/1? that is 5hp more. Which makes sense, it breaths better so it makes more hp. Doesn't really change the tq though. If it resists detonation more they should have upped the comp more to raise to tq a bit more. Or even designed a ling runner intake, Idk something. The motor is cool but that is some low tq even for a modern I4. Link to comment
sssr20det510 Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 (edited) So what kind of power could you expect from a sr20vet ??? This is sr20vet datsun Edited April 28, 2009 by sssr20det510 Link to comment
72240z Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Nissan makes one stock for the x trail, it makes 280hp. A motor will make w/e you build it to make though. Within reason..... Link to comment
luissr20 Posted April 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 The de to ve hp difference is hard to lock down because that de is used in like 18 or w/e vehicles most making slightly dif power. The sr20de in the 1998 180sx is 140hp - 131tq The sr20ve is the 1998 Bluebird is 187hp - 140tq There is a 2nd gen ve starting in like 2000/1? that is 5hp more. Which makes sense, it breaths better so it makes more hp. Doesn't really change the tq though. If it resists detonation more they should have upped the comp more to raise to tq a bit more. Or even designed a ling runner intake, Idk something. The motor is cool but that is some low tq even for a modern I4. The stock torque is spot on for the bore and stroke + displacement. If you look at the Honda K20A2 it makes the same or slightly less torque. These SR20VE's aren't for everybody. If you want to do an NA SR20 swap they are a great alternative. Or even a turbo setup. The VE head would raise your compression slightly since it has less CC volume. If you want to make more than average power NA or turbo with an SR swap this is the way to go. Way better breathing plus more detonation resistant than the SR20 head, stock vs. stock. Link to comment
72240z Posted April 29, 2009 Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 I'm not knocking the motor. Of course the numbers are going to be comparable against motors with similar bore/stroke/displacement, so what of it lol. My point is the tq is low, not for the motor but in general, 140 tq is 140 tq and that limits the motor to certain applications. So I'm saying if they would have upped comp or designed a more tq friendly manifold the motor would be imo more rounded and better suited to more applications. Link to comment
luissr20 Posted April 29, 2009 Author Report Share Posted April 29, 2009 I'm not knocking the motor. Of course the numbers are going to be comparable against motors with similar bore/stroke/displacement, so what of it lol. My point is the tq is low, not for the motor but in general, 140 tq is 140 tq and that limits the motor to certain applications. So I'm saying if they would have upped comp or designed a more tq friendly manifold the motor would be imo more rounded and better suited to more applications. Yeah.. but you said "even for a modern I4" :D It'll make more torque with some better cams etc. The intake manifold is kind of useless since it's for FWD so you would have to mangle it to make it work. A guy I helped with this swap ended up going with ITBs on his dime. A nice turbo would help put the torque issue to sleep :) Link to comment
Recommended Posts