SOHC V6 Supercharger

[2000StreetRod]

The Roots type blower (Eaton M90) is very efficient (90%) for low rotor speeds and low boost (1.5 psi). The efficiency decreases slightly (80%) at mild rotor speeds and boost (5 psi). For medium boost (8 psi) and rotor speeds the efficiency drops to about 73%. The efficiency at 15 psi of boost is only 58%. For any given amount of boost a larger rotor will be more efficient than a smaller rotor because the rotor speed will be slower. The output of a Roots blower is pulsating rather than continuous.

[rocket 5979]

Originally Posted by 2000StreetRod

The Roots type blower (Eaton M90) is very efficient (90%) for low rotor speeds and low boost (1.5 psi). The efficiency decreases slightly (80%) at mild rotor speeds and boost (5 psi). For medium boost (8 psi) and rotor speeds the efficiency drops to about 73%. The efficiency at 15 psi of boost is only 58%. For any given amount of boost a larger rotor will be more efficient than a smaller rotor because the rotor speed will be slower. The output of a Roots blower is pulsating rather than continuous.

I can only assume you are talking about adiabatic efficiency. If that is the case then you are mistaken in your figures. The attached compressor map shows that the maximum adiabatic efficiency the Eaton M90 is able to achieve is 62% at 6.5psi with an overall flow of 510 cubic meters per hour of airflow while spinning the blower to just over 6,000 RPM. You are also mistaken in your statement that "For any given amount of boost a larger rotor will be more efficient than a smaller rotor because the rotor speed will be slower". All compressors, including Eaton roots blowers, have an efficiency range that when they are spun into attain good efficiency. Overspin a blower for the combo it is on and the ratio of hp gained per psi boost will decrease. The same can be said when underspinning it too. You have to match the compressor to the combo it is on if you want to maximize performance while keeping IAT's in check.

[2000StreetRod]

Rob, I forgot that you posted the M90 efficiency map earlier on another thread and I made the mistake of referring to a generic Roots type map posted on Wikipedia:


I learned a long time ago to weigh first hand experience over theoretical speculation and I appreciate you providing your comments. I encourage everyone to correct me when I post something that is inaccurate. We all benefit (especially me) from accurate information.

[rocket 5979]

Originally Posted by 2000StreetRod

Rob, I forgot that you posted the M90 efficiency map earlier on another thread and I made the mistake of referring to a generic Roots type map posted on Wikipedia:
Attachment 69541

I learned a long time ago to weigh first hand experience over theoretical speculation and I appreciate you providing your comments. I encourage everyone to correct me when I post something that is inaccurate. We all benefit (especially me) from accurate information.

Oh ok. No biggie. Shoot, I wish I were wrong. I wouldn't mind 90% adiabatic efficiency in ANY of the forced induction systems I am running, let alone the Eaton!

[Sedition]

subscribed...

[ExplorerSHO]

Try moving your battery to the rear of the truck and upgrade your radiator to a Performance Radiator for better engine cooling as it don't look like you didn't do an engine rebuild to withstand the extra work the engine will have to do with he added torque/work it will have to do. Don't forget a transmission cooler as well.

[2000StreetRod]

Explorer Express is offering Eaton supercharger kits for the 2005 thru 2010 Mustangs with the SOHC V6: Mustang 05-10 Superchargers. The kit includes the EATON/MAGNUSON MP90 4TH GEN SUPERCHARGER.

Explorer Express also plans to offer supercharger kits for the 2001 thru 2010 Rangers with the SOHC V6: Ranger 01-10 Superchargers. The kit includes the EATON/MAGNUSON MP62 4TH GEN SUPERCHARGER.

The MP90 is designed for 3.0L to 5.0L passenger car and light truck engines. The MP62 is designed for 2.5L to 4.0L passenger car and light truck engines. I wonder if Explorer Express will again offer a kit for the Explorer. If not, it might be possible to utilize a Mustang kit. I think the MP90 would be the better choice for the Explorer due to its weight and aerodynamic drag.

[Carguy3J]

Originally Posted by 2000StreetRod

Explorer Express is offering Eaton supercharger kits for the 2005 thru 2010 Mustangs with the SOHC V6: Mustang 05-10 Superchargers. The kit includes the EATON/MAGNUSON MP90 4TH GEN SUPERCHARGER.

Explorer Express also plans to offer supercharger kits for the 2001 thru 2010 Rangers with the SOHC V6: Ranger 01-10 Superchargers. The kit includes the EATON/MAGNUSON MP62 4TH GEN SUPERCHARGER.

The MP90 is designed for 3.0L to 5.0L passenger car and light truck engines. The MP62 is designed for 2.5L to 4.0L passenger car and light truck engines. I wonder if Explorer Express will again offer a kit for the Explorer. If not, it might be possible to utilize a Mustang kit. I think the MP90 would be the better choice for the Explorer due to its weight and aerodynamic drag.

Yeah, with a projected price of $4500 (no tuning), or $4700 (w/tuning).......

Just buy the RP Caster kit, for the lower intake and all the installation stuff, and find a good used T-Bird Supercoupe M90. Even if you feel the need to have the blower rebuilt, you'd still be waaaayy ahead of the game, compared to the $4500 for the EE kit. No wonder they never sold that many of the old Xcharger.
As for tuning, it's a pretty straight forward, known combo (assuming you stick with the stock s/c pulley- which gives about 5psi of boost, and a claimed approx 75hp increase). I'm sure James (Henson) can email you a decent tune for it pretty cheap, considering you already have his tuning on your truck.

[Bronco2]

Hello,

I run into this thread because i have a m90 xcharger mustang kit which i will install in my 98sohc bronco2 ...

I got a kit which was installed but never run because the guy didnt pay the bill..
S i got that kit but a few parts are left...
Like the alternator spacer, .. Anybody know how thick the spacer are?
Hopefully i will install it next weekend... If i get the information...

Sorry for hijacking ...

[2000StreetRod]

Explorer Express sent me a photo of their soon to be available Ranger X-Charger:

They didn't answer my question about ordering a Ranger kit with the MP90 (available for Mustang SOHC V6) instead of the MP62. They did state that no X-Charger kit is planned for the Explorer. There may not be room in front of the blower pulley for my 4 inch diameter intake tube.

I reviewed the Mustang installation instructions which assumes an electronic throttle body that mates to an inlet adapter extension. I don't know if the bolt pattern is identical to that on my 75mm racing throttle body. The stock 19 lb injectors are replaced with 39 lb injectors. The EGR capability is retained but a replacement tube is required. Apparently the stock Mustang MAF sensor is retained which surprises me. Maybe it has a higher flow rate capability than the stock 55mm Explorer MAF sensor. It's too bad they didn't retain the stock air filter enclosure instead of pulling air from inside the engine compartment. Also, I'm not thrilled about having to replace my metal valve covers with the oil filler on the driver side with the plastic valve covers with the oil filler on the passenger side.

[CDW6212R]

It's interesting, but the cost I'm sure is going to be like the other EE kit they had for the 302, too high.

Their choice of blower size and not using any air cooling system is a very low performance result. There are many Explorer members here that have gone around the EE kit, and/or made their own systems, and are beginning to see result way beyond the EE level results.

I know that swapping an engine to a different option is hard, but the V6 transmission is a very poor unit for any higher power levels. It will do fine in short trip use, where a break down isn't going to be a big deal. For use just close to home and a local track, it's okay but the risk is high.

I'd consider very carefully the task of swapping a 302/4R70W for performance use, and then upgrades don't seriously hurt reliability.

[2000StreetRod]

Originally Posted by CDW6212R

It's interesting, but the cost I'm sure is going to be like the other EE kit they had for the 302, too high.

The projected price is $4,500 for the tuneless kit and $4,700 for the tuner kit. That's expensive but comparable to other kits that include the blower.

Originally Posted by CDW6212R

Their choice of blower size and not using any air cooling system is a very low performance result. There are many Explorer members here that have gone around the EE kit, and/or made their own systems, and are beginning to see result way beyond the EE level results.

In my opinion the EE discharge manifold is superior to RP Caster's. The Mustang EE X-Charger Extreme Kit ($6,500) includes an intercooler. I assume there is a significant cost in getting the kit emissions certified. If I could purchase an EE discharge manifold and inlet adapter I'd consider a "home brew" installation.

Originally Posted by CDW6212R

I know that swapping an engine to a different option is hard, but the V6 transmission is a very poor unit for any higher power levels. It will do fine in short trip use, where a break down isn't going to be a big deal. For use just close to home and a local track, it's okay but the risk is high.

I'd consider very carefully the task of swapping a 302/4R70W for performance use, and then upgrades don't seriously hurt reliability.

I'm really not interested in max performance for strip or track. I just want low engine speed torque comparable to a 5.0L powered Explorer Sport. After more than a year of driving my 850 Turbo Wagon I've decided that while a turbo is nice it's not what I want for my Sport. I suspect that a centrifugal blower would have turbo characteristics. If I could get 250 lb-ft RWTq at 2,500 rpm I would probably be happy even if the max torque were only 250 lb-ft. A modified 5.0L with Powerdyne @ 9 psi developed 310 lb-ft at 2500 rpm and max 390 lb-ft at 4500 rpm. A stock 5.0L with Kenne Bell @ 6 psi developed 324 lb-ft at 2500 rpm and max 329 lb-ft at 3000 rpm. A slightly modified 5.8L developed 339 lb-ft at 2500 rpm and max 411 lb-ft at 4500 rpm. Below is my results before I did the intake system modifications.

[CDW6212R]

I agree about a street vehicle needing more usable power, the bottom end torque is king for typical driving. That's why I never gave a thought to a centrifugal blower. I would love to have a turbo if it would fit, and the sizing was done to make the boost early on.

I think you might do well to dig a little deeper into what a 302 can produce in NA form, for street rpm's.

Also those numbers that you listed above; "A stock 5.0L with Kenne Bell @ 6 psi developed 324 lb-ft at 2500 rpm and max 329 lb-ft at 3000 rpm." Those figures are pitiful and have got to be from an untuned combination. A mild 302 can make more power/torque than that. That 6psi engine should make close to 400lbsft. at 2500rpm.

A mild 302 can be built to compete well against a V6 with those small blowers(no IC'ing), for similar money. The budget is the key as always, you can spend the $6k kind of money and build a nice 347 and 4R70W. That would be very reliable and easy to take care of.

One other thought too, the V6 has excellent headers available for it compared to the 302, I give the V6 big points for that.

So I'm not trying to talk you out of or into something, just that other options may be better. The budget you set is the big key, and the power level you want. Most of us know the money we spend goes way past the vehicle's value, so this is about a keeper vehicle, for ourselves. Do what works best for you. Regards,

[Dono]

I would think reaching your goal of 250 rwd torque at 2500rpm will be a very atainable goal on the sohc. I cant see you even breaking a sweat doing it. Id say RPCastors kit. H does put lots of thought in to his product, and is very honest abouut everything he does.

You'r not interested in a direct bolt on anyway, so you could modify the inlet and discharge manifold slightly to make it more towards the specs you are lookng for.

There is no question, the RPCastor kit is by far the most cost effective.

Even plagued with issues due to me learning the hard way, my 4.0 ohv motor is a torque monster with that early supercoupe m90 on it.

[2000StreetRod]

Originally Posted by Dono

I would think reaching your goal of 250 rwd torque at 2500rpm will be a very atainable goal on the sohc. I cant see you even breaking a sweat doing it. Id say RPCastors kit. . .

The dyno chart posted on eBay with the Banshee kit shows a max torque of only 250 lb-ft.

At 2500 rpm the torque is only about 80 lb-ft which is about the same as my engine before the intake mod. Even at 3100 rpm the torque is only 200 lb-ft which is about 20 lb-ft more than my chart. A smaller blower pulley would increase the boost at the lower end but also raise the boost at mid range increasing engine stress. I need to learn more about blowers. Maybe the MP62 would be a better match than the MP90 for my purpose.

[Dono]

I hadn't seen that chart before. I'm really surprised my ohv is pushing so much torque then. I'm actually really confused. The sohc flows air so much better, I would have thought it would still be able to pull high numbers in the mid range. I'm way off base.

[CDW6212R]

More blower displacement size will create more boost, faster. The 4.0 engines need a blower more like an M90 than the other one.

[jd4242]

Originally Posted by 2000StreetRod

The dyno chart posted on eBay with the Banshee kit shows a max torque of only 250 lb-ft.
Attachment 73472
At 2500 rpm the torque is only about 80 lb-ft which is about the same as my engine before the intake mod. Even at 3100 rpm the torque is only 200 lb-ft which is about 20 lb-ft more than my chart. A smaller blower pulley would increase the boost at the lower end but also raise the boost at mid range increasing engine stress. I need to learn more about blowers. Maybe the MP62 would be a better match than the MP90 for my purpose.

I think you are trying to accomplish two things that just can't be.any FI will increase as rpm increases.you can't just peak at 2500 and stop without it hurting everything above that rpm.why do you even want that to be peak? I launch at higher rpms than that.250tq is pretty low even for a max tq at any level for a fi sohc.

[2000StreetRod]

Originally Posted by jd4242

I think you are trying to accomplish two things that just can't be.any FI will increase as rpm increases.you can't just peak at 2500 and stop without it hurting everything above that rpm.why do you even want that to be peak? I launch at higher rpms than that.250tq is pretty low even for a max tq at any level for a fi sohc.

My main supercharger goal is to increase daily driving pleasure. For me that means easily accelerating from a stop as if I had a V8 instead of a V6. I think that 250 lb-ft RWTq at 2500 rpm would be satisfactory but I don't want 15 psi of boost at 4500 rpm to achieve it. According to my Ford Windsor Small Block Performance book "A typical 7 psi centrifugal blower develops about 2.5 psi at 3,000 rpm, 4 psi at 4000 rpm and 7 psi at 6000 rpm. By comparison, a standard Kenne Bell blower produces 8 psi of boost from 2000 to 6000 rpm and this relationship is the same for higher boost models. . . Full boost, according to KB, comes only when the throttle is wide open." But the dyno chart for the Banshee kit with the M90 shows a large variation in torque from 2500 rpm to 4500 rpm. I'll ask R P Caster about the low rpm torque performance.

[2000StreetRod]

I found a dyno chart for a stock Mustang with the HiPo Plus X-Charger (MP90) with 11.5 psi of boost. The max RWTq was 284 lb-ft and only 200 lb-ft at 2700 rpm. It appears that 250 lb-ft is an unrealistic goal for the SOHC V6 at 2500 rpm. I'd be lucky to achieve any significant increase over normally aspirated below 2700 rpm with a max boost of 5 to 8 psi.