just a thought, do they make a supercharger for 2.3s

[Wicked_Sludge]

when i called the 2.3 high revving, i meant when compared to turbo cats 4.0.

there are whipple 3.0 guys putting down the better part of 240 HP at the wheels through the stock M5OD....and yes its the same internally as the 2.3 unit. you arent getting that much power to the wheels with a 2.3 without nearly 23lbs of boost. the transmission is about the LAST thing you will need to upgrade in a squeezed application.

 

[turbo cat]

sorry guys im w/ sludge on this one, and if the guy wants a super so be it his trk his money. the only thing i have to really input on this is make sure you understand how to tune the engine and do all your homework b4 you get started. a minor miscalculation can cost you the motor. the hypereutectic pistons can handle 12 psi w/ no probs if the tune is right super or turbo boost applied. the super can be done w/ that much boost and still maintain dd usage, just a decrease in economy when placing foot in throttle. the m50d trans can take a hella beating, i know, ive put one thru it. to help w/ heat generating id def look into intercooling, fmic would be my first thought and step. the cobalt ss super blows 5psi into the 2.0 and doesnt gen much hp, id look into an eaton m90 or something comparable to blow around the 10-12 psi range and generate the 50 or 60 hp your looking for, possibly more. yes your engine will have some drag on it, but if it costs 10 hp to make 80 per say, your looking at an 8% drag loss here, its still worth it imo. cooling the air that goes in will def help lower the drag loss coefficient. plus the blown in tq number will be fun for friday nite burnouts and sat nite lineups.

a turbo 2.3L can eat 12lbs iof boost on a daily basis and still be a great DD how do you state only a blower can make a DD?

 

[turbo cat]

when i called the 2.3 high revving, i meant when compared to turbo cats 4.0.

there are whipple 3.0 guys putting down the better part of 240 HP at the wheels through the stock M5OD....and yes its the same internally as the 2.3 unit. you arent getting that much power to the wheels with a 2.3 without nearly 23lbs of boost. the transmission is about the LAST thing you will need to upgrade in a squeezed application.

Hp dosent kill parts torque does. most wasted manual transmissions fail during launch as the shock of the clutch dropping massive torque is very harsh on the internals. this is why transmissions have torque ratings

 

[fastpakr]

It's also worth pointing out that a 2.3 is hammering the transmission significantly harder than a 3.0 at a given torque level.

 

[rurouni20xx]

i didnt state that only a blower can make a dd i know there are tons of turbo dds, but he can go either way safely, just the added initial torque of the blower would be fun. yes torque will destroy trans etc, but im not sure what amount of torque would destroy an m50, i do know it can take a hell of a beating. to be honest i think ill strip the rear out of my 92 2.3 trk b4 i fkn up the tranny from what im feeling when i have to drop the clutch to take off up a hill cuz some asshole is up my ass.

 

[anupaum]

I think the bottom line on this is that while you can create power either way, the engineering for the turbo has already been done. In the long run, it will be less expensive to run a turbo on a 2.3 than to go through the painstaking process of engineering everything for a supercharger, as I have done.

Given that I'm the only one in this forum who has actually RUN a supercharger on a 2.3 Ranger, I think my experience should carry some weight. The power gain is serious--even with a larger pulley to limit boost. Personally, I wouldn't go above 5 psi without forged internals, but even 5 psi really wakes this little engine up!

 

[Davis]

And while I don't have experience with a supercharger, I can tell you about what held up for me.

On 28-ish psi from a holset he351 (probably 325 rwhp)

didn't hold up
stock clutch
stock tranny (it holds up fine for some, for others it doesnt)
cylinder walls

did hold up
7.5 rear end
t-5 tranny
forged pistons

If anyone here could make a SC work on a 2.3 easier and cheaper than a turbo, you've got tricks up your sleeve none of the rest of us has seen.

Robert actually has experience with this, and he'll be the first to tell you a super is no walk in the park.

And if the extent of your automotive modification experience is installing a k&n filter, splitfire sparkplugs, and reading some tuner magazine, stop spouting off your "facts", because you've got no clue.

 

[skyy_4life]

wow that was a mouthful... but unfortunaly hes right... and who ever said only a supercharger can make a DD... and if the guy has all the money and time for a supercharger and thats wut he wants. let him go for it.

 

[rangerpimpn84]

shit guys take a midol lol. ne car with whatever can b a dd its just how u build it how u drive and preference.thanx for the feed back.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

Hp dosent kill parts torque does.

very true...and a positive displacement super on a V-6 will lay down significantly more torque than a turbocharged 4 banger.

It's also worth pointing out that a 2.3 is hammering the transmission significantly harder than a 3.0 at a given torque level.

what? torque is torque. it doesnt matter what engine its coming from. if anything, the 3.0 will be putting out more torque because its not a 4 cylinder.

didn't hold up[/B]
stock tranny (it holds up fine for some, for others it doesnt)

you arent going to get 28 PSI out of an eaton M90. so im not sure what your point was here. noone here was talking about 28 PSI.

 

[fastpakr]

what? torque is torque. it doesnt matter what engine its coming from. if anything, the 3.0 will be putting out more torque because its not a 4 cylinder...

That's not actually true. The torque rating is the force exerted, but that is produced by 50% more combustion events on a 6 cylinder than a 4 cylinder. At the same measured torque output, each combustion pulse is proportionally stronger on a 4 cylinder. This is why a transmission can have a higher rating when used against an engine with a greater cylinder count.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

the force per cylinder is larger...but the number of cylinders is smaller. the same amount of force is applied.

theres a reason people came up with a standardized measure of force and power...to avoid arguements such as this one.

250ft-lbs from a 4 cylinder is the same amount of force as 250ft-lbs from a v-6.

what would hurt worse? getting hit by a ton of bricks or getting hit by a ton of feathers?

 

[fastpakr]

the force per cylinder is larger...but the number of cylinders is smaller. the same amount of force is applied.

theres a reason people came up with a standardized measure of force and power...to avoid arguements such as this one.

250ft-lbs from a 4 cylinder is the same amount of force as 250ft-lbs from a v-6.

what would hurt worse? getting hit by a ton of bricks or getting hit by a ton of feathers?

You're still missing the point completely. The force per cylinder is larger, therefore the instantaneous impact applied along the driveline is larger. There's nothing more to it than that. The average torque is identical no matter the engine, but the instantaneous impact is not. Because it's not, parts are more likely to break.

 

[Wicked_Sludge]

so your suggesting that the 2.3 is such a poorly balanced engine that it will break rear ends and transmissions before a v-6 backed by the same gearboxes..

whatever makes you sleep better at night

 

[fastpakr]

I'm not suggesting anything other than basic physics. Stop replying for a second and think through what I'm describing. It's not complicated, nor is it anything new. It's just a concept you weren't familiar with before for some reason.