Never Done, Build Thread for Kenne Bell Supercharged 5.0 Explorer with Ranger Edge Front Clip

[Blown]

Naw, nope, not ready to run E85. I got to get-out and find some E85 and test it. I think the closest pump is 5 and half miles away. Finding E85 and testing it is a bit of a pain. I am concerned with cylinder lubrication, so will probably run a mix of E85 with gas. I am going to do some more research, but I think that will get me the octane needed and lubrication for the upper cylinders. I have seen that many running E85 use an additive and mixing gasoline will be cheaper as it already has the additives.

My build is currently at a bit over 9lbs of boost on 91 octane Premium (highest available in Denver) with a bottle of Lucas Octane added. I estimate 380hp and 455ftlbs of torque on this mix of fuel. She pulls hard and the blower howls louder!

My power estimates are at 408hp/485ftlbs with a true 85% ETOH E85 mix...................................................................another 28hp/30ftlbs is noticeable, but really not that much if finding E85 and mixing is a pain. A 50/50 mix may not allow the timing to be as aggressive, if so there would be less power........................................taking my time with this.

 

[Blown]

Play Time!

It's fall, temps are down enough for me to run my 9lb pulley with a couple of tuning changes.

I made changes to short shift this thing a bit at 9lbs. of boost. I am doing so because the exhaust is not big enough at higher RPM. We beat the exhaust to death in a more recent thread and with a stock cam/heads, it's not making more power at higher RPM's and 9lbs of boost. The fix is expensive: Bigger better downpipes, high flow cats, and a larger tailpipe. It is not worth the power gains to me at this point and it would be illegal in CO. I am compromising the higher RPM power at 9lbs but she pulls much harder at lower RPM. The EECV shifts at WOT by RPM, so I have lowered the RPM for 1-2 and 2-3 shifts when I am stomping on it.

I am in search of a better vacuum/boost gauge. My problem has been finding a gauge that you can see when at these lower boost levels. Many gauges go to 20-30lbs of boost and you would barely see the needle move at the 6-9lbs I am running.

I am going to put my good, boost/vacuum tuning gauge to work. I have had it forever and used for tuning with carbs.

I'll post-up some results of boost obtained and shift points.

 

[Blown]

My old reliable vacuum/boost gauge is only reading 6lbs of boost. That ain't right!

I am getting a better gauge. I am giving-up on a combo gauge and going with a simple pressure gauge with a max of 10lbs. It's plus or minus only 1.6%, accurate enough and it is not an auto gauge.

.

 

[CDW6212R]

I've always wondered how accurate some gauges are, thanks for doing some research on that. I'd like one also that's both vacuum and pressure, but I think the A/F gauge needs to be very prominent, on the top of the column. I think the boost gauge really is just for show after the tuning is finished.


What do they(CO) look at on the exhaust, is it just the cats themselves for OEM proof, or also the full length of piping? I might try to work with the idea of the cats inspection, but not the entire pipe length. I'd replace the piping in vast majority, bigger everywhere possible. For the moderate boost levels of a 302, I think 2.25" pipes are much too small(above a certain rpm as you said). That's okay for the tail pipes, but the collectors to the mufflers ought to be 2.5" at the least. That's for decent boost such as that 9psi level, or more.

 

[Blown]

My vehicles are not subject to emissions testing where I live. However, they are still subject to CARB regulations. I will not do all the work for 25-40 more horses at this point. In a couple years, I will be in full retirement and have more funds to do what I want as well..................

More exhaust size, chart from: What size exhaust is the right size? Their quote, "Thus, the rule of thumb with the calculations is to use the smallest tube diameter that supports the horsepower you are planning on making."

Tube OD Tube Radius Tube ID Radius Tube Area Max CFM Max HP

2.00 1.00 0.94 2.75 315.84 143.56

2.25 1.13 1.06 3.53 405.94 184.52 or 369.04 for duals

2.50 1.25 1.19 4.41 507.32 230.60 or 461.20 for duals

3.00 1.50 1.44 6.47 743.96 338.17

3.50 1.75 1.69 8.92 1025.76 466.26

 

[MuscleJunkie]

My vehicles are not subject to emissions testing where I live. However, they are still subject to CARB regulations. I will not do all the work for 25-40 more horses at this point. In a couple years, I will be in full retirement and have more funds to do what I want as well..................

More exhaust size, chart from: What size exhaust is the right size? Their quote, "Thus, the rule of thumb with the calculations is to use the smallest tube diameter that supports the horsepower you are planning on making."

Tube OD Tube Radius Tube ID Radius Tube Area Max CFM Max HP

2.00 1.00 0.94 2.75 315.84 143.56

2.25 1.13 1.06 3.53 405.94 184.52 or 369.04 for duals

2.50 1.25 1.19 4.41 507.32 230.60 or 461.20 for duals

3.00 1.50 1.44 6.47 743.96 338.17

3.50 1.75 1.69 8.92 1025.76 466.26

Interesting. One thing of note - even though I am putting out a great amount of torque with my setup, I did lose some torque when I changed from the Single Saleen Borla exhaust and went with the true duals

 

[Blown]

If it lost some torque, it probably gained flow and horsepower at higher rpm.

 

[MuscleJunkie]

If it lost some torque, it probably gained flow and horsepower at higher rpm.

Yes, it did gain some HP. The torque went from the RW 350's to RW 330's. I am running straight (absolutely no restrictions....) 2.5 piping (with X pipe) from the OBX Collectors back to the two Saleen Borla mufflers and then transition down to two 2.25 pipes from the individual mufflers then resonators then over the axle and out on each side.

 

[Blown]

My old reliable vacuum/boost gauge is only reading 6lbs of boost. That ain't right!

I am getting a better gauge. I am giving-up on a combo gauge and going with a simple pressure gauge with a max of 10lbs. It's plus or minus only 1.6%, accurate enough and it is not an auto gauge.
View attachment 446498.

I am good with calculations but not seeing what I calculated in the real world.

I got the gauge and finally got out to run it. I am seeing 6lbs instead of closer to 9lbs. Hmmmm, just like the old tuning gauge. My in-dash gauge actually reads high then and has fooled me from the start.

My great exhaust work, would of course, mean less restriction, so less boost but with the same or more power! Ha, Ha, HA, HA!

NOPE! I know the size of the exhaust is small so would increase boost but make less Pony's per pound of boost.

I did put my vacuum gauge on the cool air intake I made to the 75mm T-body and it was great. The transition I made from the T-body to the elbow could be smoothed-out. Some things the Stang's did not contend with: smaller cam, heads, and headers. The closest point of comparison is still a Foxbody 5.0 but with the restrictions just mentioned this shouldn't do as well in horses per pound of boost and should make a bit less boost just from intake restriction. I knew that, but don't think it is as much as I am seeing. I am going to inspect the blower and bypass.

 

[CDW6212R]

Keep digging at it, everything you learn or change helps your truck and anyone else that is trying to do something similar. I've spent too much time thinking of things, not trying something, I know that. I talked myself out of the KB 2.2 and the not to be found 2.4 version. Given the many Explorers that have had boost, in several much different combinations, we are seeing the realistic hp/lbs of boost.

I didn't want to run a KB anywhere near the 18k redline, so I kept wondering how each size would end up doing. I think I would have to push the 2.2 much harder, near the 18k redline, so I looked for any 2.4 or 2.6 examples. Everything is a Mustang example of course, and basically the 2.2 or a later generation 2.8 is the most common to find. I gave up on the 2.4 since rebuilding one is not likely since they stopped making parts for it long ago. The 2.8 should be way more than I want for a DD SUV. So I ended up planning for the 2.6, when I get my stuff going. I hope I can make that work while keeping the KB under 13k at shift points. I hope a 2:1 pulley ratio will be good for that, a 7" crank and a 3.5" blower pulley, who knows. I asked KB for advice and they will not discuss it. They are the experts but they still act like Uhaul regarding any application they haven't really build a kit for.

 

[Blown]

Theoretical boost of course does not = real world. The formula does nothing to account for restrictions in flow.

I am going to try to get a couple more pounds out of her. I have ordered a 3" pulley, am running a 3 1/4", and they say about a pound per 1/8" on these is a rule of thumb. I can verify boost now with a good gauge and I should have the pulley by the end of the week from California.

6.5/3= 2.16:1 ratio At 5,500RPM that is only pushing the blower 11,880

My power calculations:

Alt/Boost HP Torque 3% loss/1,000' elevation gained NA@10k' 179​ 219​ NA@5.5k' 215​ 263​ NA@0' 240​ 295​ 6 330​ 385​ 8 360​ 415​

​

I am dropping pushing towards anything over 8lbs of actual boost because there is not enough exhaust and I am not customizing it any further.

"She's maxed-out and can't take anymore captain".

At 2.2CFM of flow per horsepower:
A single 3” pipe flows = 747CFM. At 8lbs or 360HP it needs to flow 792CFM. That is a little short, 45CFM short or 5%.
The downpipes at 2 1/4"s flow a max 408CFM. 792CFM at 360hp/2 = downpipe CFM flow = 396CFM or close!

 

[Blown]

Keep digging at it, everything you learn or change helps your truck and anyone else that is trying to do something similar. I've spent too much time thinking of things, not trying something, I know that. I talked myself out of the KB 2.2 and the not to be found 2.4 version. Given the many Explorers that have had boost, in several much different combinations, we are seeing the realistic hp/lbs of boost.

I didn't want to run a KB anywhere near the 18k redline, so I kept wondering how each size would end up doing. I think I would have to push the 2.2 much harder, near the 18k redline, so I looked for any 2.4 or 2.6 examples. Everything is a Mustang example of course, and basically the 2.2 or a later generation 2.8 is the most common to find. I gave up on the 2.4 since rebuilding one is not likely since they stopped making parts for it long ago. The 2.8 should be way more than I want for a DD SUV. So I ended up planning for the 2.6, when I get my stuff going. I hope I can make that work while keeping the KB under 13k at shift points. I hope a 2:1 pulley ratio will be good for that, a 7" crank and a 3.5" blower pulley, who knows. I asked KB for advice and they will not discuss it. They are the experts but they still act like Uhaul regarding any application they haven't really build a kit for.

KB seems difficult at times, but they also don't want to give advice on unknowns and have us blow an engine.

I am not sure you need that large of a blower for a 5.0

If I can get 8lbs. The ratio is 6.5/3= 2.16:1 At 5,500RPM that is only pushing the blower to 11,880RPM

I suppose higher rpm, huge heads, Exhaust, etc etc and yah.

 

[CDW6212R]

That's good math application, you reworked the figures and should be narrowing down the actual results given the real world restrictions.

I just skimmed your early thread pages, looking for the crank size, blower, early plans etc. Your combination is actually the closest to mine for me to compare with or "guess on a pulley size."

Funny thing is your early boost goal and pulley sizes, the 2.1 KB, end up at virtually the same theoretical blower drive ratio. Yours was 1.68, mine looks to be 1.62 with my first boost goal and blower pulley.

((14.7+Boost) / 14.7) x (engine liters / 2)) / Supercharger Size liters = Theoretical Pulley Ratio*
Shooting for 6lbs

((14.7 + 6lbs/ 14.7) X 5.0/2)) / 2.1liter = 1.68 :1

So the not real world math said you needed about a 3.57" blower pulley. Mine suggests a 3.7" blower pulley, to get about 10psi. I've been looking at pulleys in the 3.25" range and maybe up to 4", KB vaguely suggested start with a 4" and see what it does.

 

[CDW6212R]

Do you think that 3.25" pulley is going to be your final size? If your math with your few tried combinations so far holds up, how would you alter the math with what correction factor to make the pulley match the boost goal? The math says I should need a 3.75" pulley to hit 10psi, I'd like to stay just below that with the stock engine.

I noticed Steeda makes two really nice KB pulleys, one a 2.8" and the other 3.1" I think it was, both for about $70 each. I wish I could use one that small, I much prefer those drilled steel pulleys, to the plain KB things.

Here's that cool 3.1" pulley from Steeda; Steeda Supercharger Pulley - 3.10" for 2003-04 Ford Mustang Cobra | eBay

 

[CDW6212R]

Another thought, have you looked at any other tensioners? I know you are at a mild boost level, the stock tensioner may be fine. I browsed when I was looking at pulleys, and noticed some aftermarket units made for supercharged OEM cars. This one from Steeda is made for 2005-10 Mustangs, at a glance it looks like the stock one of an Explorer. I wonder if it or another may be possible to mount in place of the stock one. I watched this scratch and dent version from Steeda on eBay, and it has a good picture of the backside, the mounting section;

Steeda Mustang GT Belt Tensioner (90mm)(Supercharged 05-10) PN:558-555-3358 | eBay

Stop your OEM belt tensioner bracket from bending with Steeda's new Tensioner kit! A real problem is when you kick the clutch and pull the next gear the RPMS suddenly drop. These kits require a 90mm idler.

www.ebay.com

edit, that tensioner is not really close to ours, the Explorer tensioner is much more compact. The swing arm for the pulley is very short on our SBF's, that Steeda unit looks like it's close to a 5" swing arm.

 

[Blown]

I think I will stick with the 3" or 2.16 ratio if it gets it to 8lbs, though it would require more octane at lower altitudes.

If I don't get 8lbs there is something else that needs work.

I am getting 6lbs with the 3 1/4" Pulley or 2:1 ratio, the calculation shows 9lbs at 5,800'. That would be an ugly, ugly 33% correction factor.

I have not had a problem with belt slippage. I do re-tighten a new belt after break-in as it will stretch some and the tensioner is not spring loaded.

That pulley is nice but I am running 6 rib KB steel pulleys for ugliness and strength.

 

[Blown]

I am living at 5,800' 14.7psi becomes 11.9psi at this altitude. I also found this is a 2.2l blower and I have a 306 which = 5.14l

I use 11.9 so pulley ratio formula for 8lbs. becomes: ((11.9 + 8lbs/11.9) X 5.14/2)) / 2.2liter = 1.95
I am looking to run 2.167 ratio for 8 in the real world.



Theoretical Boost at Sea Level = (Blower size X Pulley ratio)/(engine size/2) X 14.7 – 14.7 =

Theoretical Boost at 5,800 = (((2.2*2.16)/2.514)*11.9)-11.9=10.67lbs but I am hoping to get 8???


Crumb snatchers showing-up, Happy Halloween!

 

[CDW6212R]

I like it, that 1.95 pulley ratio needing to be 2.167 for actual 8psi would be a reasonable 1.11 correction factor. That's fairly accurate if the 2.167:1 gets you close to 8psi. But you are not really seeing that 8psi boost for that pulley either then? You are zeroing in on your goal, and the math just needs a tweak for variables like the restrictions. Please let us know how the new pulley size works out.

My altitude is 900 feet here, so the pressure is around 14.2psi. I see math for 10psi to ask for a 1.64:1 ratio, so 6/1.64 makes it again a 3.7"pulley. I'd like to use a correction factor to make the pulley guess closer to reality.

 

[Blown]

I ordered a 3" pulley yesterday. Kenne Bell was very busy, no confirmation yet.

When I get it, I'll run it and will post-up results.

I like the idea of scuffing the pulley face and painting it black at least..............I haven't done shiny stuff under the hood, all black.

 

[Blown]

3" Pulley has been delayed, but it still looks like I'll have it tomorrow. More playtime soon!

Boost Calc with Volumetric Efficiency?

I have researched VE for Twin Screw Blowers to be less than 90% at lower boost levels and above at higher boost levels. I guestimate the VE of this engine to be 83%. I think those could be used as another way to adjust the Theoretical Boost Formula.......................At a total loss of 27% that gets closer to what I am seeing real world.

Not for my rig, but I found a nice piece. A Kenne Bell pulley that was drilled and polished: