Tofu

Received some info from Bob Steigemer about porting our blowers...well eat your hearts out because they are going to be doing some dyno runs on the blown LSJ and apparently they have gotten some good responses from the port work:



" We have ported those before with success we are actually going to be having one come here to the shop do before and after dynos and we will be able to give you alot more info. We have gotten good responses from the ones already ported
thanks and check back with us in a few weeks and we will have some data for you.
Stieg "

UtOhCop

I still think you guys should just forget about porting and push for an M90 upgrade kit.

Here's the problem with the M62. See at around 12000 it's only pushing out about 380cfm? That's bad


Here's the M90. At 12,000 it's pushing out a good 540cfm. More cfm = More power with less boost

ExHondaMan

I think stieg is looking at or has looked at trying to do an M90 swap.... Hopefully it works out ... thay would be pretty cool.... although a twin screw would be the best...

memphisr24

If it gains 15 or more hp I think I might port mine too.

slobalt

that is correct, i live 30min for him and he is one of my dads good friends and has done his head work for a very long time, as well as he has done all my head work, alum. and ss welding work on my cav., ive talked to him about this and he told me to get a cai and exhaust b4 he wanted to do it, but a redline came in there and he was messing with that and told me after he was done with porting that he was going to work on a m90 swap

ExHondaMan

Cant wait to see if he can work something up....

Tofu

Only problem I'd be concerned about is the parasitic loss. I'm no guru, but wouldn't it cost more hp from the motor itself to run a bigger displacement blower, especially considering there are no methods of tuning the car for such a modification?

selfinfliction

not necessarily. most of the loss comes from running high psi levels. another reason why bower porting helps out other than just from volume, is that it allows it to make the boost easier, which helps cut down on the power required to make it.

3fo893013L

An M90 swap wouldn't be as feasible. GM engineers gave us the M62 for a good reason.

The Eaton Supercharger Model 90 is designed for 3.0L to 5.0L passenger car and light truck engines, but may also be suitable for other engine sizes, depending on total system performance requirements

That's quoted directly from Eaton's website. The m90 supercharger was designed for cars with a 3.0L motor displacement or higher. I can only imagine that a 2.0L M90 would have major issues with handling the type of power it could push thru the motor.

Even the M62 isn't really for our type of displacement motor but GM made it work on the eco's.

UtOhCop

The good reason was that they knew the first mod would be slapping on a smaller pulley. That's why they gave the SS the M62


So you're saying that just because it's a bigger blower it wouldn't work right on the Eco? Then how does the 03-04 Cobra put out so much power with the Eaton M112 that's designed for truck duty?

"The Eaton Supercharger Model 112 is designed for larger passenger car and light truck engines, but may also be suitable for other engine sizes, depending on total system performance requirements. "

CobaltSS422

The Mustang Cobra has a 4.6L V8 in it. We wouldn't want to put an M112 in our cars. Just because on paper it can make a ton more power but it would also be robbing power from the engine just to turn the blower. The M62 is actually suitable for 2.5L to 4.0L according to eaton's website.. they say this:

"The Eaton Supercharger Model 62 is designed for 2.5L to 4.0L passenger car and light truck engines, but may also be suitable for other engine sizes, depending on total system performance requirements".

UtOhCop

Where did i ever say you should put the M112 on the Eco?

As for power needed to spin the blower. I'm glad you brought up that point.

M62. Takes 28 horsepower to spin the blower at 10Psi.


M90. Takes 44 Horsepower to spin the blower at 10Psi


It all boil's down to this question. Would you rather have a blower that pumps out 540 cfm and eats up 44 horsepower at 10 Psi or a 380cfm blower that eats up 28 horsepower? The M62 is a waste on the Eco and i'm sorry some of you can't see that. If the M62 is so perfect for the 2L eco. Why does Whipple recommend going with a 1600AX on the 2L? The 1600ax is a 1.6L supercharger that puts out around 700-800cfm.

selfinfliction

actually the m62 sucks up 36hp at 10psi on our cars. you don't want to measure it at 12,000 rpm you want to measure it from the max it will spin 14,000. that's like taking a honda s2000 and comparing it to the power that an srt4 puts out, and rating them at the redline of the srt4, even though the honda has a few thousand more rpm's to go

the blowers are two different designs, if you're gonna compare them... compare them to individual specs, not one or the other.


but yes who wants a blower that uses 6 less hp, and has 20% less volume... makes absolutely no sense

UtOhCop

It was an educated guess that the M62 was spinning at around 12K rpm. What size is the Crank pulley on the LSJ?

CobaltSS422

I Agree.. So we would have to figure out since the M90 pumps out and extra 160cfm but eats up 44hp to spin the blower (6 hp difference from the M62). The question if we can get the calculations right... is it worth the money for the M90 over the M62 performance wise. Right off the bat I would say yes.. Smaller pulley on that would obviously cause the blower to push more air through the system. hmmmmmm


Most of us wouldn't feel the difference of the 6hp loss. Anyways it would be made up by getting the smaller pulley.

This is a great post.. It's really making me use my thinking cap