Supercharge your 3.0 Vulcan for cheap


oodannyboyoo

New member
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
South Florida
Vehicle Year
2001
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
My credo
Just because it hasn't been made doesn't mean you cant build it
Hey this is my first time posting here as I have never really felt the need to post until now. I’m not going to give a biography but I am a student at my local university in south florida working towards becoming a mechanical engineer in the automotive industry. I don’t have a whole lot of free time between school and work, but have managed to just finish up building an Eaton m90 supercharger intake on MasterCam. I haven’t used mastercam since high school but this is what I really want to get into as a career. I guess it’s safe to say this is one of my hobbies.

Regardless I am really here not only to demonstrate that the Vulcan engine can not only be supercharged, but for cheap! As of now your only option as a 3.0 owner is Tom Morana racing for an m90 adapter. Which is well close to 1,000$ and more since youll need custom fuel rails and an older generation eaton m90 supercharger. Not to mention when talking to Mr Morana, his measurements and clearances were not on par with the engine bay on my truck and would require extensive cutting to get to work. Once I get this milled out this summer and tested, I will, if the demand is present, sell or simply give away the master cam files so you can send off it off to your machinist. My machinist quoted me 500$ to get this milled out but I have yet to confirm that. With my design and if all my measurements are correct you should be able to use this intake with an Eaton m90

Supercharger generation V (with bypass valve), Taurus 3.0 fuel rails, and the intake itself. The supercharger and fuel rails can be found off ebay for as little as 300$ or less for both. With the intake combined youre looking at supercharging your ranger for less than a 1,000$ easy. However, I am still in the process of confirming all this. Now granted you will need to upgrade your fuel injectors, fuel pump, and ignition system. But with low boost you might get away without it.

Here’s a picture of the whole assembly, let me know what you guys think. Id love to hear your input and any advice you might have.
 

Attachments

Last edited:


Rock Auto 5% Discount Code: 173A8B749AB83C Expires: January 1, 2020

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
74
Points
48
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
Pretty cool! The only thing I'd suggest, and maybe it can be an optional thing later on, is finding a way to incorporate a charge air cooler or water meth setup between the supercharger and intake manifold. The middle plate seems like the best option to me.

The 3.0 loves to detonate in stock form, and the Eaton builds a lot of heat. Having some way to cool the air charge would make tuning much easier, and make more power to boot. Otherwise, it seems like you've got a nice start going. I'm looking forward to seeing your progress.
 

oodannyboyoo

New member
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
South Florida
Vehicle Year
2001
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
My credo
Just because it hasn't been made doesn't mean you cant build it
Pretty cool! The only thing I'd suggest, and maybe it can be an optional thing later on, is finding a way to incorporate a charge air cooler or water meth setup between the supercharger and intake manifold. The middle plate seems like the best option to me.

The 3.0 loves to detonate in stock form, and the Eaton builds a lot of heat. Having some way to cool the air charge would make tuning much easier, and make more power to boot. Otherwise, it seems like you've got a nice start going. I'm looking forward to seeing your progress.
That's something I will definitely consider. For my truck I made this with the intent of running nothing higher than 6 psi of boost, but thats still quite a hot amount of extra air even in an ideal situation. I really do like the idea of having some kind of cooling system within the cavity plate. Its 5/8" thick which leave me a fair amount of room to work with.

What do you think would be more effective at cooling the intake? Air cooled, or water cooled?
 

oodannyboyoo

New member
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
South Florida
Vehicle Year
2001
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
My credo
Just because it hasn't been made doesn't mean you cant build it
Prototype

One thing I forgot to mention is that I have made a prototype by hand out of steel. It didn't work and the serpentine belt came out of line, however I did get to hear the supercharger whine and get an idea for how it will sit inside my engine bay.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

don4331

Active member
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
760
Reaction score
50
Points
28
Location
Calgary, AB
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.3
Transmission
Automatic
Dannyboy:

I futz around with the math last night; and hear's what I came up with:

6psi boost; Pressure Ratio = 1.42 (at sea level); Adiabatic compression ∆Tideal = 55°F.

I can only find the charts for the Gen IV M90; it has efficiency of ~77.5% @ flow rate we would see on 3.0 and PR of 1.4; therefore: ∆Tactual = 71° F; which works out to Density Ratio of ~1.25.

For 150hp 3.0 vulcan; that work out to +37.5 hp; but not so fast - m90 is taking 15hp to drive... So, you 'only' see +22 hp at flywheel.

Seems like a lot of work for 15% power increase...

Note: I also ran the numbers for the M62 supercharger... And they are 'better' in this low boost realm. M62 only needs 10hp to make this level of boost; and is at more efficient operating point. Result is 5% more usable power.

Inter-cooling: Air to water will be about 50% efficient (the exchanger in the manifold is about 70% efficient, the one in grill about same - .7 * .7 =.49; the heat loss in the piping gets you the other 1%). Air to air is about 70% but you have more ducting (more conducive to a centrifugal supercharger than a roots one...)

With M62 and air2water inter-cooler; you should have 190hp flywheel. (Grab everything from Cobalt SS/SC?)

Reminds me of the boys with their 6-71s, getting smoked on street by 4-71s, back in my misspent youth. M90 might look impressive but is too big for 3.0; M62 is better fit, IMNSHO.

I don't think Tom's prices are too out of line: $150 for materials; $500 for machining; $250 for engineering and profit and you are at his price. DIY, would be less expensive, but Tom is trying to make a living off his work.

Let me know what you think. (Detonation on the 3.0 still is a concern; but premium gas would help...)

p.s. If you want to have a career with automotive engineering; follow your dream. I occasionally regret not having done the same.

p.p.s. MasterCAM in High school!?! My high school got its 1st Computer (Apple II+) the summer after I graduated...
 

Rearanger

Active member
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
1,364
Reaction score
7
Points
38
Location
Southeast USA
Vehicle Year
2003
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Manual
I futz around with the math last night; and hear's what I came up with:
If it sounds too good to be true.....

p.s. If you want to have a career with automotive engineering; follow your dream.
Yes, follow your dreams, but if the dream is an engineering breakthrough in automotive design - it's all been tried/done before.

I like to tinker with my vehicles, make stuff by hand etc., but do it for a living - no thanks.
 

McCormack

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2008
Messages
343
Reaction score
5
Points
18
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Transmission
Automatic
The 3.0 loves to detonate in stock form, and the Eaton builds a lot of heat.
The detonation is easily dealt with by swapping out the stock 197* thermostat for a 180*, and if needed backing off the timing by a couple of degrees.
 

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
74
Points
48
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
For 150hp 3.0 vulcan; that work out to +37.5 hp; but not so fast - m90 is taking 15hp to drive... So, you 'only' see +22 hp at flywheel.
Your math may be correct, but I'd guess it's a bit conservative. A (very) general rule of thumb is that every 1psi of boost results in about 10hp gain. So, 6psi would be roughly 60hp gain.

In a more anectdotal example, the whipple supercharger that Ford Racing designed for the 3.0 often generated about 80hp gains (and even more torque) running 8-10psi on an otherwise stock engine.

The detonation is easily dealt with by swapping out the stock 197* thermostat for a 180*, and if needed backing off the timing by a couple of degrees.

The last thing I'd want to do on a boosted engine is hurt the performnce by pulling timing when it can be avoided.
 
Last edited:

don4331

Active member
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
760
Reaction score
50
Points
28
Location
Calgary, AB
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.3
Transmission
Automatic
Your math may be correct, but I'd guess it's a bit conservative. A (very) general rule of thumb is that every 1psi of boost results in about 10hp gain. So, 6psi would be roughly 60hp gain.

In a more anectdotal example, the whipple supercharger that Ford Racing designed for the 3.0 often generated about 80hp gains (and even more torque) running 8-10psi on an otherwise stock engine.
stmitch:

My math is indeed a little conservative - it predicts SS Cobalt would need 13psi (actual is 12.5) for its number; and 300hp for the Toyota (actual is 304) The 230 for the Whipple is made at 400 rpms more than stock; and supercharger does tend to increase peak hp rpm which along with radiation heat losses, I haven't completely factored (My calculation would give 221 for Whipple).

But they are close enough for girl I go with (and no one ever reprimanded me when results exceeded expectations by just a little).

The point I was trying to make was the M90 is overkill and M62 a better fit for 3.0. Takes less power to drive; operating in more efficient range and more compact/lighter.

Based on McCormack's suggestion, I believe Dan should be aiming at 10PSI and use the 180* (or 160*) thermostat to control detonation.

Rearanger:

My mom had that same attitude - having to do something for a living ruins it as a hobby...

Everything might have been tried before, but there are a lot of people making a good living making well engineered aftermarket parts...
 

oodannyboyoo

New member
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
South Florida
Vehicle Year
2001
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
My credo
Just because it hasn't been made doesn't mean you cant build it
Dannyboy:

I futz around with the math last night; and hear's what I came up with:

6psi boost; Pressure Ratio = 1.42 (at sea level); Adiabatic compression ∆Tideal = 55°F.

I can only find the charts for the Gen IV M90; it has efficiency of ~77.5% @ flow rate we would see on 3.0 and PR of 1.4; therefore: ∆Tactual = 71° F; which works out to Density Ratio of ~1.25.

For 150hp 3.0 vulcan; that work out to +37.5 hp; but not so fast - m90 is taking 15hp to drive... So, you 'only' see +22 hp at flywheel.

Seems like a lot of work for 15% power increase...

Note: I also ran the numbers for the M62 supercharger... And they are 'better' in this low boost realm. M62 only needs 10hp to make this level of boost; and is at more efficient operating point. Result is 5% more usable power.

Inter-cooling: Air to water will be about 50% efficient (the exchanger in the manifold is about 70% efficient, the one in grill about same - .7 * .7 =.49; the heat loss in the piping gets you the other 1%). Air to air is about 70% but you have more ducting (more conducive to a centrifugal supercharger than a roots one...)

With M62 and air2water inter-cooler; you should have 190hp flywheel. (Grab everything from Cobalt SS/SC?)

Reminds me of the boys with their 6-71s, getting smoked on street by 4-71s, back in my misspent youth. M90 might look impressive but is too big for 3.0; M62 is better fit, IMNSHO.

I don't think Tom's prices are too out of line: $150 for materials; $500 for machining; $250 for engineering and profit and you are at his price. DIY, would be less expensive, but Tom is trying to make a living off his work.

Let me know what you think. (Detonation on the 3.0 still is a concern; but premium gas would help...)

p.s. If you want to have a career with automotive engineering; follow your dream. I occasionally regret not having done the same.

p.p.s. MasterCAM in High school!?! My high school got its 1st Computer (Apple II+) the summer after I graduated...
Don thank you for the information, I really appreciate it. As far as your math is concerned it seems a bit conservative and I do have some proof that might say otherwise. First being this website I based the m90s specs off of http://www.mscperformance.com/specpg2.html showing that the amount of power needed to turn an m90 at about 6,000 rpm and 5psi of boost is something around 10hp not 15hp. My harmonic balancer I believe is 4 inches in diameter and the pulley on the supercharger is a quickchange 3.6", doing the math when my engine is at around 5,500 rpm the supercharger is turning at 6,111 rpm. I know for a fact the m90 I have spin freely and is in good shape as I rebuilt it when I purchased it. To be honest, its much much harder turning the pulley, even though much larger, on my powersteering than it is on the supercharger and if it is true the supercharger is dragging away 10-15 hp looks like power steering removal is next on my list! hahahahaahaha
As far as boost to net hp is concerned I do know for a fact the whipple supercharger put out numbers similar to 80 hp and 90 or so torque on 8 or so psi. I believe it is safe to say, considering how much CFM the m90 puts out for such a small displacement engine like the vulcan, I have full confidence it will power this engine with ease. Something to note is I do have 1.8 ratio roller rockers and do plan on putting headers when I get the supercharger on assisting and amplifying the net gain of the supercharger. Personally heat is my main concern, as stock my upper aluminum intake gets very very hot after a long drive, so applying some kind of cooling system to the design is on my list for sure. I will more than likely mill out what I have now and test that it works then design the cavities for the coolant or air to flow through into the cavity plate and install some kind of intercooler/radiator with an electric pump.

As far as Tom is concerned I dont quite agree with his price on the means that his design would not work, his spacer for one offered is way to small and when asked he could only provide me a spacer of 1" when I need much more with the taurus fuel rails. His intake plate is also to long and will hit my fire wall and simply not fit. The box is way to high and will hit the roof of my hood. Simple put is not very easily compatible for the 1,000$ id spend. Hence why I decided to take the time to make it myself.

Personally, I will be happy to see close to 200 hp at the wheels. With the supercharger and other mods. I like the unique aspect of supercharging this reliable but slow engine, and considering it is my first truck, it has a bit of sentimental value. Hopefully I can get it up and running and share this neat mod with everyone

As for my highschool we did have access to MasterCAM and AutoCAD with some davinci 3 axis mills but we were only taught mastercam when I took engineer course there. Its my second year in college and will start the engineering program this fall but from what I can see some time in a year I should have some classes, and therefore access, to some larger machinery. For now I will rely on my machinist to mill this all out.
 
Last edited:

don4331

Active member
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
760
Reaction score
50
Points
28
Location
Calgary, AB
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.3
Transmission
Automatic
Dannyboy:

I can understand not wanting to spend any money let alone $1k on parts that don't fit/work. :)

200 rwhp is 230-240 fwhp or more depending on accessories (fan, alternator, power steering pump, etc)*. And you aren't getting that with just 6 psi; 1.8 rockers and headers not withstanding.

Remember the flow numbers in those charts are for M90 with straight intake port connected to flow meter in lab. Adding 2 - 90* bends, tubing, throttle body, MAF and air filter is going to decrease those numbers. So, I think your 6k rpm will be low for 6psi boost (more like 7k rpm will be needed)

*Again, I might be conservative with 20% drive train loss, but that's what CarCraft's testing in '03 gave as average, but it might be 15%; it might be 35...

Ah, to live in Florida (snowed yet again here in Calgary this morning) and have to just worry about heat removal and not drive-ability in all weather conditions.

I'm not intending to be negative; just don't want to see you disappointed by being too optimistic all the way through the process.
 

oodannyboyoo

New member
Joined
May 9, 2015
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
South Florida
Vehicle Year
2001
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
My credo
Just because it hasn't been made doesn't mean you cant build it
Dannyboy:

I can understand not wanting to spend any money let alone $1k on parts that don't fit/work. :)

200 rwhp is 230-240 fwhp or more depending on accessories (fan, alternator, power steering pump, etc)*. And you aren't getting that with just 6 psi; 1.8 rockers and headers not withstanding.

Remember the flow numbers in those charts are for M90 with straight intake port connected to flow meter in lab. Adding 2 - 90* bends, tubing, throttle body, MAF and air filter is going to decrease those numbers. So, I think your 6k rpm will be low for 6psi boost (more like 7k rpm will be needed)

*Again, I might be conservative with 20% drive train loss, but that's what CarCraft's testing in '03 gave as average, but it might be 15%; it might be 35...

Ah, to live in Florida (snowed yet again here in Calgary this morning) and have to just worry about heat removal and not drive-ability in all weather conditions.

I'm not intending to be negative; just don't want to see you disappointed by being too optimistic all the way through the process.
Oh no worries I took no offense or negativity. I honestly appreciated the response and enjoy criticism and advice in all forms as long as it is not hateful. That's one of the best ways to learn right? hahahha

When you said 200hp on a rwd is 230 on a fwd are you saying the drivetrain loss is significantly less on a fwd vehicle? Perhaps the driveshaft and large differential is why? I never really new that would make such a huge difference.
 

don4331

Active member
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
760
Reaction score
50
Points
28
Location
Calgary, AB
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.3
Transmission
Automatic
Definitions:

rwhp - rear wheel horsepower - chassis dyno
fwhp - flywheel horsepower - engine dyno

On the engine dyno, there are usually no accessories (save water pump and supercharger) attached and exhaust is directed straight from headers out (no cats/mufflers/resonators. So, it isn't necessarily indicative of 'real world' performance. What it is, is convenient, consistent and repetitive.

Chassis dyno is real world - accessories are in place (alternator/power steering/air conditioner/fan), exhaust is connected, transmission, differential, brakes are all there.

So, a 4x4 (extra load of transfer case), with c4 (non lock up auto), ford 9" (with l/s) and big tires will lose 35% power to drive train loss. A 4x2 with Toyo Koygo 4-Speed and open 6-7/8" differential, electric fans, no a/c, no p/s might be down at 15%. And yes, front wheel drive is more efficient - thinner oil in transaxle, fewer parts (bearings/seals).

I was reviewing the whipple charger (M-6066-R30P) on web. They changed to 160* thermostat; changed to 4.0l Ranger MAF, 3.8l Mustang TB, and 23# injectors in the "kit". Then, of course, added a tune to make the parts work. (Note: timing was backed off 4* at full boost...). The Whipple charger was the baby - 1200AX.

They saw no advantage to headers as the stock cats/mufflers were too restrictive. To make more power, a lot of parts started needing upgrading (differential, clutch, exhaust, cooling, etc) and cost became exorbitant (not that $3k in '04 wasn't).

When you are developing your piping, remember between the throttle body and the supercharger, that is needs to be able to withstand the vacuum of supercharger at high rpm with throttle closed. (And you will be tapping it for the brake booster, and other vacuum accessories).
 

stmitch

March 2011 STOTM Winner
MTOTM Winner
2011 Truck of The Year
Joined
Jan 29, 2010
Messages
1,730
Reaction score
74
Points
48
Location
Central Indiana
Vehicle Year
2000
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Size
3.0
Transmission
Manual
I was reviewing the whipple charger (M-6066-R30P) on web. They changed to 160* thermostat; changed to 4.0l Ranger MAF, 3.8l Mustang TB, and 23# injectors in the "kit". Then, of course, added a tune to make the parts work. (Note: timing was backed off 4* at full boost...). The Whipple charger was the baby - 1200AX.

They saw no advantage to headers as the stock cats/mufflers were too restrictive. To make more power, a lot of parts started needing upgrading (differential, clutch, exhaust, cooling, etc) and cost became exorbitant (not that $3k in '04 wasn't).
I'm sorry for muddying up the OPs thread, but could you share where you found this info on the Whipple (specifically the parts about the thermostat and tuning)? I've got one, and have done a lot of research about them, but I've never heard of them switching the thermostat as part of the kit, or any specifics about the Whipple tune. Nowadays, most people get a simple handheld OBD tuner instead of having to ship their PCM someplace.

Also, you are correct that headers aren't a "must have" with the Whipple, but it's not because of the cats or exhaust. Replacing the stock manifolds with headers decreases boost, and causes a drop in hp (in otherwise stock 3.0's).


Ok, a little more on point, OP, have you considered making the intake spacer out of phenolic material instead of aluminum? it might save you a bit of money, weight, and could prevent a bit of heat soak too.
 
Last edited:

don4331

Active member
V8 Engine Swap
Joined
Sep 6, 2013
Messages
760
Reaction score
50
Points
28
Location
Calgary, AB
Vehicle Year
1999
Make / Model
Ford
Engine Type
V8
Engine Size
5.3
Transmission
Automatic
stmitch:

I can't find the web page with the tuning info (still looking). But the CARB document for the kit: D-231-23 has:

The Ford Supercharger Kit consists of the following main components: Twin Screw Whipple supercharger, intake manifold, bypass valve, 160 degree thermostat to replace the stock thermostat, and a new air cleaner housing with a high-flow element. The kit also includes a reflashed ECM and a set of high flow injectors. ... Boost is limited to 10 pound per square inch.

There are 4 different pulley sizes from 3.125 to 2.75" in .125" steps.

I believe your headers comments are completely on topic (although in conflict with my other source). If high boost levels are calling for a cam with less overlap/avoiding headers that is good to know.

Thanks.
 


Top