Sorry, i may have missed something, but the Primera GT SR20DE produces 150bhp?
hardc0re_tid's Nissan AlmeraT
- Thread starter hardc0re_tid
- Start date
Sorry, i may have missed something, but the Primera GT SR20DE produces 150bhp?
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 3,040
- Location
- Norn' Iron'
sorry, i beg your pardon, the earlier GT's... did they run the non RR version which were 140ish, from what i can see in the haynes book of lies, they did as they mention about the ph1 2 and 3 engines, different throttle body housings etc is all i can see, the roller rocker version produces 150bhp yes.
the 140bhp sr20's have a precat in the downpipe and a cat along the underside which is why the boys on AOC can only assume of the lower bhp
not quite sure how they did it seeing as the RR version is the same in all late ph1 and all the ph2 almera gti's
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
[TW]Fox;14909205 said:
No.. the car WAS 140... now its 155. im sure he already has a dyno to that effect...end of...
well if you remove those cats then you can safely assume a few more bhp! ssac for the win!
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
I've done my research, it told me that the Almera GTi is not exactly a fast hot hatchback. My point stands.
It probably isn't but even if it is, wow, 155bhp. Stunning.
£3k could have bought a 200SX.
id bet money the CATs net you no power at all
He isn't disputing the fact that your car can keep up with an Almera GTi (lol).
He is saying that "keeping up with an Almera GTi" isn't anything to be proud of.
140bhp from a 2.0 engine is pretty pathetic.
Oh, and seeing as you opened the criticism door, I think it looks pretty amazingly awful. You really have to be quite skilled to make something look that bad, so well done
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 3,040
- Location
- Norn' Iron'
[TW]Fox;14910746 said:
yea, it could have, but i chose to spend all of... wait for it.... 800 quid on a car and do my own thing to it. we cant all drive about in 3 litre 5 series BM's.
ok fair enough, you did your research (not a lot by the looks of seeing as you didnt mention that the engine that i put in was infact from the gti... then you go and say that, 'i think its really fast and keeps up with my mates gti...
) he has the same mods as me btwyouve made your point that you dont like it, slagged it off like i gave you permission to, cant see how your input from here on in is going to be of any use or relevance to anyone... so kindly do one, please.
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 3,040
- Location
- Norn' Iron'
He isn't disputing the fact that your car can keep up with an Almera GTi (lol).
He is saying that "keeping up with an Almera GTi" isn't anything to be proud of.
140bhp from a 2.0 engine is pretty pathetic.
Oh, and seeing as you opened the criticism door, I think it looks pretty amazingly awful. You really have to be quite skilled to make something look that bad, so well done
thanks for the comments, i really couldnt care less what people think about it
keeping up with my mates almera gti with the same mods as me... and the fact that mine is down on compression by 3bar below his is a good enough reason to state that ''it keeps up with my mates'' dont you think?
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 3,040
- Location
- Norn' Iron'
about 1k of it was spent on audio, 800 for the car and the rest of it was spent on this an that, wheels, coilovers, doner gti, other bit and bobs
yes that would be me, EVERYTHING has been done by me bar the exhaust work and the tyre fitting
- Joined
- 4 Nov 2004
- Posts
- 3,040
- Location
- Norn' Iron'
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
[TW]Fox;14910746 said:
i know that! as i keep syaing i couldnt justify 3k on it!
but bear in mind that a 3k 200sx will also need £££ work, and cost a lot more up front to buy AND insure. but yes its better and faster.
i think you have to use context here. yes compared to modern 2litre units with VVT/vtec/VVL etc can output more, the majority of 5 year old 2.0's dont...
examples;
Ford Mondeo 2.0 petrol... 140bhp.
alfa romeo 2.0 petrol .. 150bhp (145 clover)
subaru 2.0 na ... 140bhp?
bmw 6 cylinder 2.0 na.. 150bhp (1994-98)
but yes.. clearly 150 is rubbish for an early 90's petrol engine
Toyota 3S-GE Gen2/3 produced 177bhp in the mid 90's.
My point was merely that dropping another engine in is a bit pointless if it only has 140bhp. Why not go for a turbo or a more modern engine to actually make it worthwhile?
AFAIK there was only one GT engine which produced 150bhp from start to finish.
However there was a 2.0 engine that produced 138bhp that was put in the lesser trim levels (SE, GX etc), maybe it's this one you have?
Obviously this is rubbish.
No it wasn't. Actually your point was that 140bhp from a 2.0 was pathetic.
I know this because it's........exactly what you said?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 37,804
- Location
- block 16, cell 12
and the b18 made more too. i am not disputing that there were moe powerful engines around. i am stating that 140-150 is infact on par with the majority of decent mid ninties engines. of course there is the sr20ve which made 190 from a 2.0 and now we have k20 making 200 from a 2.0 and 2z which makes 190 from a 1.8...but lets not split hairs right?
because if you read the thread the SR20 cost him £100. find me a turbo'd sr20 for £100 or a more modern engine that would NOT have to have completely custom shafts/box/mounts fitting?
going from a 1.4 sub 100bhp to a 2.0 140 (now 155bhp) is a large jump for a couple of hundred quid.