after reading this…
I like the CA
While it doesnt have the torque of any of the other engines discussed here, I’ll point out that it and the RB have all the features of the SR, and then some. In particular, the CA can boast:
A higher redline - they have been known to run reliably in stock form while being pushed to 8500rpm frequently. Internal mods to increase this even more are more effective on the CA than SR since it has hydraulic lifters, as opposed to the SRs rocker arms which cause valve float at high RPM.
The CA is also a “square” motor, in that bore = stroke, whereas the SR is oversquare: the stroke is longer than the bore. Square and undersquare engines will always rev higher and more smoothly than oversquare engines.An iron block, especially important for reliable high boost applications. The CA and SR block weigh the same amount, so there is no weight savings.
In terms of power, it’s important to note that the SR has a 200cc advantage in displacement, and a bigger turbo (a .80a/r or .86a/r turbine in a T25, vs the CAs .48a/r).
The only advantages the SR has are parts availability, and a larger displacement… but those are very significant advantages.
The CA is imo overall a more versatile and durable motor, but the SR cannot be beaten as a budget motor with the potential for high power at a relatively low cost. Though a CA costs less to purchase, to make the same power as an SR will be more expensive, because of the popularity and availability of performance parts, if nothing else.
originally posted by Axlerod in the KA VS CA VS SR VS VQ thread
no. haha i have no beef with the CA.
in fact.
id love a CA considering im NA KA 