89' ka vs. 90' ka
01-02-2006, 08:21 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: richmond , va
Posts: 15
89' ka vs. 90' ka
i've had a chilton manual for a while, and i was reading it tonite and something really wierd caught my eye.
of course they are basically the same engines but the books specifications says the 89 has 135 horse and 144 torque with 9.0:1 compression.....vs. 142 horse and 155 torque with 8.6:1 compression.
i guess you learn something new everyday
of course they are basically the same engines but the books specifications says the 89 has 135 horse and 144 torque with 9.0:1 compression.....vs. 142 horse and 155 torque with 8.6:1 compression.
i guess you learn something new everyday
01-02-2006, 08:30 PM
#2
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 133
more power and torque on lower compression with all else identical? sounds weird to me.
01-02-2006, 08:37 PM
#3
Contributing Member
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hershey, PA
Posts: 1,634
Originally posted by soldierdude262
more power and torque on lower compression with all else identical? sounds weird to me.
more power and torque on lower compression with all else identical? sounds weird to me.
01-02-2006, 09:04 PM
#4
Registered User
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Abilene, TX
Posts: 113
yeah me either
01-03-2006, 03:36 PM
#5
Re: 89' ka vs. 90' ka
Originally posted by 4evrdftng
i've had a chilton manual for a while, and i was reading it tonite and something really wierd caught my eye.
of course they are basically the same engines but the books specifications says the 89 has 135 horse and 144 torque with 9.0:1 compression.....vs. 142 horse and 155 torque with 8.6:1 compression.
i guess you learn something new everyday
i've had a chilton manual for a while, and i was reading it tonite and something really wierd caught my eye.
of course they are basically the same engines but the books specifications says the 89 has 135 horse and 144 torque with 9.0:1 compression.....vs. 142 horse and 155 torque with 8.6:1 compression.
i guess you learn something new everyday
It makes you look dumb, when probably you aren't......
01-03-2006, 03:53 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bakersfield, Ca
Posts: 126
Sigh
01-03-2006, 05:18 PM
#7
Just for reference for now on.....
This is the SAE NET: KA24E, Single Over Head Cam (SOHC), which has 140 @ 5,600 r.p.m., 152 @ 4,400 r.p.m.
KA24DE, Dual Over Head Cams (DOHC), which has 155 @ 5,600 r.p.m., 160 @ 4,400 r.p.m.
This is the site that I had gotten the info from. There aere some typo's, but it is some what accurate.
http://home.utm.utoronto.ca/~e0gdkd0j/new_page_4.htm
This is the SAE NET: KA24E, Single Over Head Cam (SOHC), which has 140 @ 5,600 r.p.m., 152 @ 4,400 r.p.m.
KA24DE, Dual Over Head Cams (DOHC), which has 155 @ 5,600 r.p.m., 160 @ 4,400 r.p.m.
This is the site that I had gotten the info from. There aere some typo's, but it is some what accurate.
http://home.utm.utoronto.ca/~e0gdkd0j/new_page_4.htm
01-03-2006, 11:53 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,440
chilton sucks
01-04-2006, 04:04 PM
#9
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: richmond , va
Posts: 15
so your saying that chilton is wrong, so i guess when it tells me how to fix something with my car, or the cam specifications or my bore and stroke, its all wrong .... damn
01-04-2006, 04:14 PM
#10
Contributing Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Here and there, mostly here.
Posts: 2,383
Well its okay if thats all you have.
But FSM is the best to have.
But FSM is the best to have.
01-04-2006, 09:24 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,440
Originally posted by 4evrdftng
so your saying that chilton is wrong, so i guess when it tells me how to fix something with my car, or the cam specifications or my bore and stroke, its all wrong .... damn
so your saying that chilton is wrong, so i guess when it tells me how to fix something with my car, or the cam specifications or my bore and stroke, its all wrong .... damn