SOHC V6 Supercharger

The purpose of this thread is to discuss the design and possible development and installation of a supercharger for my 2000 Sport SOHC V6 engine. I have no first hand experience with forced induction systems and want to learn from forum members that have them on their vehicles. While I don't plan to implement a turbocharger system, there are many problems common to all types of forced induction systems.

The easiest and least expensive solution would be to modify a Ranger SOHC V6 Banshee kit and purchase a used Thunderbird supercoupe positive displacement blower. However, the kit makes no provisions for an aftercooler which I think is beneficial even with only 5 psi of boost.

The Explorer Express supercharger kit includes a quality looking manifold but one is very difficult to obtain.

Once again, there are no provisions for an aftercooler.

I suspect the best solution for me would be a centrifugal supercharger with a water aftercooler. With my oil coolers and remote filters I have very little room in front of the radiator for an intercooler. I am interested in a boost in the range of 5 to 8 psi - enough for a significant performance increase but not so much to adversely impact reliability and require beefing up of engine internals or the transmission/torque converter.

Procharger sells a kit for the 2005 - 2010 Mustang V6.

But the Mustang configuration is opposit to the Explorer - intake on left and battery on right. Also, there is a lot more room between the engine front and the radiator rear on the Mustang than on the Explorer.


Vortech also makes a kit for the Mustang but there are the same problems.

The logical location for a centrifugal supercharger is the same side as the air filter box and intake manifold inlet port. Unfortunately, that is where the alternator is located. I'm investigating the possibility of replacing the belt driven power steering pump with an electric motor driven pump and then relocating the alternator to the old power steering pump location.

 

[CDW6212R]

An engine should easily make a comparable amount of torque as it has cubic inches. So a 240CI 4.0 V6 could make 240lbsft maximum depending on the combination of parts, tune etc. The SOHC will have higher rpm peaks, so the torque rpm would be more like 3500+ most likely.

The positive displacement blowers should be able to make a good bit more than the CI figure, as a maximum, and at rpm's around 2500. The blower size is a big factor in that.

Blowers should be chosen in a displacement size nearer to 1/3 of the engine CI size. You can go bigger than that and end up pushing the limits of parts and IAT numbers. But much below that 1/3 point will be like the EE Explorer blower for the 302. Those are too small for anything but a 5-7psi range, before the IAT's get hot and the gains stop.

If the M90 is a 1.3 liter blower, that is right there at the 1/3 mark for a 4.0 engine. It should be able to make 240lbsft, at a reasonably low rpm. I don't know the efficiency of blowers, but the Autorotor units will make the full boost at rpm's as low as 2000rpm.

The choice of blower should be the key. Figure the cost of the whole project, and compare it to the other options.

 

[QueenCitySleeper]

That engine is not designed to operate at low rpm under load. 25-50krpm is the healthy rate for the SOHC. Running lower rpm under load greatly increases internal stresses for the entire drivetrain. The dyno chart revealed the designed engine sweet spot. Peak torque at 3500rpm, that's where it wants to be.

 

[Dono]

Maybe Streetrod and I need to trade motors.

Im sure that once the intercooler is in place, I'll easily have overachieved the 250lb-ft torque at 2500 rpm.

I really think the sohc can be made to make a ton of power, but with its high flowing heads it likes to make it higher in the rpm band.

 

[QueenCitySleeper]

Dono your gonna get some front end lift with the torque of your OHV

A sure-fire way to achieve gobs of practical low end torque in the SOHC is to turbo, stroke it, or both. Its just money anyways.

 

[2000StreetRod]

M90 displacement

. . . Blowers should be chosen in a displacement size nearer to 1/3 of the engine CI size. You can go bigger than that and end up pushing the limits of parts and IAT numbers. But much below that 1/3 point will be like the EE Explorer blower for the 302. Those are too small for anything but a 5-7psi range, before the IAT's get hot and the gains stop.

If the M90 is a 1.3 liter blower, that is right there at the 1/3 mark for a 4.0 engine. It should be able to make 240lbsft, at a reasonably low rpm. I don't know the efficiency of blowers, but the Autorotor units will make the full boost at rpm's as low as 2000rpm. . .

I think the 90 designation is for 90 cubic inches of displacement per blower revolution. 90 cubic inches = 1475 cubic centimeters
1.475/4.0 = .37 (37 %) which agrees with your guideline Don.

Ron Caster has been responsive to my emails and provided installation details for my evaluation. I am pleased that he has advanced to a cast plenum that can accomodate an internal cooler. I prefer his passenger side intake to the Explorer Express driver side intake since my oil filler cap is on the driver side. So far I've identified wiring, EGR and PCV issues to resolve. There may also be throttle body mounting pattern/diameter adapter issues. I don't want to give up my 75mm racing throttle body. I have to determine if the fuel rails are compatible. I'm also curious about bypass capability.

I checked eBay and it looks like the Super Coupe M90s go for around $350. So around $2,000 would cover the cost of most of the components. Then another $500 for odds and ends and a tune from James. That's about half the cost of an X-Charger for a system that might be more appropriate for me and my Sport.

 

[CDW6212R]

Well thanks Dale, that M90 = 90 CI would make sense. I didn't consider that the number could be an American figure. I've been reading of them in liters for so long I figured that they all would follow that.

Check on the TB the blower kits use, I'll bet they all take a Fox Mustang TB. Those are so common that I'd go that way, find a buyer for your SOHC unit and plan for the Mustang TB.

BTW, make the TB the same size as the plenum, as big as it can be. There are tons of newer vehicles with far larger TB's on them(per CI) than these 55-75mm units read about here. You can easily make use of a 90mm TB for a blown application. It reduces restriction in front of the blower, and the blower will use it.

 

[jd4242]

Well thanks Dale, that M90 = 90 CI would make sense. I didn't consider that the number could be an American figure. I've been reading of them in liters for so long I figured that they all would follow that.

Check on the TB the blower kits use, I'll bet they all take a Fox Mustang TB. Those are so common that I'd go that way, find a buyer for your SOHC unit and plan for the Mustang TB.

BTW, make the TB the same size as the plenum, as big as it can be. There are tons of newer vehicles with far larger TB's on them(per CI) than these 55-75mm units read about here. You can easily make use of a 90mm TB for a blown application. It reduces restriction in front of the blower, and the blower will use it.

Most m90 inlets are only in the range of 50-60+ish mm unless its ported.mine is about the highest I've seen and its only 78mm.I run a 75mm race tb.its 75mm at the butterfly and like 85-90mm at opening(don't quote me on the opening) reason a lot run the fox body is because they are cheap and have the aic built into them.being the tb is so close to the inlet I would see it over kill to go with anything above 75mm.intake tube and maf is a different story

 

[CDW6212R]

As long as the plenum behind the TB isn't necking down, pick the bigger TB range.

The Mustang TB's are so common, and everything is aimed at using them, the IAC and TPS sensor. I wanted to keep my 98 TPS so I modified one to work with the Mustang 75mm TB I have. I just didn't like the pigtail of the Mustang TPS, and the wiring is Explorer of course.

 

[colintrax]

Don't have much to say on super charging, but why not run the battery to the back? It doesn't have to be in the passenger compartment. I get wanting it separate, both of my batteries have spilled from the fill holes (jumping the explorer, and the ranger is just a POS) but you could mount it under the body. The spare tire area is a good place if you removed the spare. JD has a cool set up I plan on copying for a dual batt set up. As for it not carrying enough current, just run some fat wires. Maybe I'm wrong but I highly doubt 10' of more wiring is going to cause any problems with starting.

 

[jd4242]

As long as the plenum behind the TB isn't necking down, pick the bigger TB range.

The Mustang TB's are so common, and everything is aimed at using them, the IAC and TPS sensor. I wanted to keep my 98 TPS so I modified one to work with the Mustang 75mm TB I have. I just didn't like the pigtail of the Mustang TPS, and the wiring is Explorer of course.

That's what me and Don did with both.think he runs a 68mm tho.he should have measurements of the plenum.think it was in the 60-70mm range, think.

 

[Dono]

I think mine is a 70mm tb, I'll have to check. It was just slightly larger than my inlet. Very easy to port match the tb to the inlet.

Check over at sccoa for an early m90. Those guys are pretty reasonable with what they sell. I bought mine for 75. I did do a snout rebuild on it, and changed the oil. So, 200 gets you a solid early supercoupe m90.

I really think your on the right path. More work than an EE kit, but you could quite possibly exceed performance of it with the banshee kit at a better overall price.

You have an excellent attention to detail, so you will end up with a winner for sure.

 

[jd4242]

I think mine is a 70mm maf, I'll have to check. It was just slightly larger than my inlet. Very easy to port match the tb to the inlet.

Check over at sccoa for an early m90. Those guys are pretty reasonable with what they sell. I bought mine for 75. I did do a snout rebuild on it, and changed the oil. So, 200 gets you a solid early supercoupe m90.

I really think your on the right path. More work than an EE kit, but you could quite possibly exceed performance of it with the banshee kit at a better overall price.

You have an excellent attention to detail, so you will end up with a winner for sure.

You mean tb
Rocket is selling his m90 that's ported/polished and powder coated over on rps for $500.that's a steal for a rebuilt and p+p m90, but doesn't have coated blades.

http://www.rangerpowersports.com/fo...ilt-powdercoated-eaton-m90-blower-284983.html

 

[Dono]

Here's one for $120.00
No work done to it, but sounds like there are no issues.
http://www.sccoa.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129542

 

[snoranger]

Hey Dale, I think I have a spare M90 from my Supercoupe... Let me look around.

 

[2000StreetRod]

rocket's blower has been sold

. . . Rocket is selling his m90 that's ported/polished and powder coated over on rps for $500.that's a steal for a rebuilt and p+p m90, but doesn't have coated blades. . .

I contacted rocket 5979 and he informed me that his blower was sold. Too bad, I liked his powdercoat color choice. He gave me some helpful hints on purchasing one.

 

[2000StreetRod]

suitable m90?

Here's one for $120.00
No work done to it, but sounds like there are no issues.
http://www.sccoa.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129542

According to RPCaster's ebay listing: "The supercharger required is the 3rd generation m90, from the 1989 thru 1993 Ford T-Bird Supercoupe. (the inlet is oval)". I've read that the clearance between the rotors and the housing has a significant impact on the blower efficiency. Since I'm basically ignorant about selecting a suitable unit, don't know anything about rebuilding them, and want a reliable unit, I should probably buy a recently rebuilt one or purchase a used one and get it rebuilt. I have no idea what a professional rebuild costs or if I can get it done locally.

 

[2000StreetRod]

blower only

Hey Dale, I think I have a spare M90 from my Supercoupe... Let me look around.

Apparently I only need the blower unit from a Super Coupe assembly. Everything else is part of the Banshee kit.

 

[2000StreetRod]

Hood clearance?

Does anyone know for sure if there is adequate clearance between the hood of a 2nd Generation Explorer with no body lift and the stock pulley on an M90 supercharger mounted on a Banshee (R P Caster) kit?

 

[Dono]

Cant comment for sure on the sohc. On my ohv, stock pulley just rubbed the hood insulation.

 

[Carguy3J]

Does anyone know for sure if there is adequate clearance between the hood of a 2nd Generation Explorer with no body lift and the stock pulley on an M90 supercharger mounted on a Banshee (R P Caster) kit?

"Q: I have a 01 Ford Explorer Sport with a 4.0 SOHC v6. Ok my question is, will this supercharger fit under the hood with out any hood modifications? (The Stock Hood) Nov-18-05

A: If you measure from the center of the pulley torward the firewall 8 inches. Then lay a straight edge across the fender with hood open. If you have 6 inches or more to the top of the lower part of the valve cover, you should have clearance to close stock hood."

From the Banshee website, near the bottom of this page:
http://www.bansheesupercharger.com/Questions Asked.htm

At this point, everybody's 13year old vehicle is going to be a little different, due to various degrees of body mount sag, motor mount sag, etc... Or the lack therefor, due to recent replacement. So, probably best to check YOUR specific vehicle.

Of course, if it doesn't quite fit, a small, tastefully done, cowl hood (maybe just raised an inch or so) would look nice. It wouldn't be too technically difficult, just a bit tedious. You can cut the needed hole in the stock hood, and then use cut up cardboard (pizza boxes would work well) as the template for the shape of the raised cowl "scoop", reinforced and grafted to the hood with fiberglass, and finished with a little Bondo for smoothness, then painted.