It'* a good thing when you have a friend that owns a machine shop . Lucky for me I was in there today doing some porting on my spare supercharger. Here'* how it all turned out, the first picture is a stock M90 and the rest are mine. What doesn't show well in the photos is the sides of the large outlet actually have 2 radiuses on them, a tighter radius near the inside then blending into a larger radius on the outside.

The rib between the triangular outlet and the part where the serial number is stamped has been milled 0.125" to allow air to flow into the rear part in the event some other apperatus where also added ;







This will be installed soon along with a DUB pulley system, TOG headers and Intense PCM...should be fun. More mods to follow that soon after...

For comparison sake, here'* a photo of the underside of the Generation 5 M90:



Cheers,

Looking good there, are you planning on porting the intake manifold to match?
I'd recomend doing so for optimal gains and all since you have access to a machine shop.

Looks great Fog, but I have to tell you.....

I've spent some time on the phone with both Magnusson and Eaton in the past regarding a VERY Shitty vendor who did this. Both companies made it very clear that their research showed that the standard outlet was more than enough for a supercharger running a smaller pulley, and that little or nothing could be gained by doing this. Offhand, the lead Engineer at Eaton told me to expect less than 2% flow increase BEST case scenario (optimum NEW unit).

You're quite right to bring this up, there is considerable debate as to the gains to be had doing any mods to the outlet. There are perhaps 2 goals to consider - improved flow and reduced heat.

Few people are willing to disclose any actual testing, but ZZP has come close to making information public. If you followed the testing they did on their flow bench, it'* obvious they did quite a bit of work. ZZP deosn't actually say how each of the designs stack up relative to each other, but they did say that the outlet size had little to do with improved flow. They did alude that the trick was in the way the cutbacks are made.

I don't have any way to test what I've done and my only guide has been the testing I've seen, the feedback from some in the GP community and the actual aftermarket products available.

I would guess that from what I've done there will be little improvement in the actual flow. After all, it'* not a positive displacement blower. It injests 90 cubic inches of air per revolution and compresses it, the oulet size may be irrelevant.

On the other hand, there is considerable casting flash in the form of a seam running half way up the casting around the perimeter of the triangular opening. I would think that adds a fair bit of heat and reduces the efficiency of the blower. At best, I would hope to cut down on the heat introduced into the charge and perhaps improve the flow modestly.

Your point is well taken Will, I don't know the exact answer.

Also, I have made some changes because I anticipate installing an intercooler. It will be a custom design, the plans are made, the material is on hand and the program for the CNC mill has been created. The only difficulty is in finding time to put production aside and do the work to machine the housing.

Anyway, at the very least, it was fun to do it.

Cheers,

Holy cow, Fog. I thought I'd done pretty thorough research into this until YOU came along!

DamN!

Looks good Foghorn, I think your heat idea from removing the casting flash is very sound.
Less ability to hold heat will show improvements in blower efficiency.

Your intercooler that your making, what cooling element do you plan to use? Wish I had access to a cnc machine shop, does your buddy have a flow bench too?

Sounds to me like a very sound idea and I think it will help to lower heat.

Good Canuk innovating.

Won't be long and you will be seeing low 12'* with that intercooler.

As many of you know, I started my heat research with regards to the M62 Back in August of 2002. This was nearly 2 years ago. Many conversations with Eaton, Magnusson, Pulley Boys, ADTR, Domestic Performance, members here, and tons of time on the internet and under my hood. Applying my own knowledge of physics with known constants and research.

My conclusions were reached about a year ago. They were:

1. Seperate (heat isolate) the bottom of the SC from the lower intake.
2. Seperate the coolant flow from the engine so that it isn't common to the SC/TB.
3. Provide a seperate radiator and coolant path dedicated to the SC/TB.

This would be accomplished by a 1" aluminum or phenolic spacer between the base of the SC and the lower intake. The plate would have an ECT bypass machined between the 2 coolant ports for the lower inake, and an opposing bypass in the upper face for the new path. The new coolant lines would be ported into the SC itself, and an electric pump would circulate the new path with ignition on.

Now for the big bomb........

I found THIS 3 months ago:
http://www.aerospaceboy.com/384/index.htm

I take great comfort in the fact that I came to the same conclusions almost a year before they did. I suggest anyone with either the M62 or M90 read that link thoroghly. I can really relate to their work, as this is exactly what I do at work on an almost daily basis, including the 3D modelling. I have gone as far as preliminary design work on the spacer itself. I have the SC outlet gasket in 3D modelling already, which is really the basepoint for building the hardware. The only caveats are that the fuel rail may need to be extended, and you'd need 2 SC outlet gaskets, as well as a small motorcycle radiator and a 12v water pump.

I'm moving this down to Forced Induction, and making it sticky. This has become a VERY valuable topic.

Foghorn, I wish we lived closer. We could have alot of fun working on this. It would be invaluable to me to sit down, get drunk, and share what we've each researched.

Will, very interesting. I need to learn the details of the existing cooling setup to comment more. Does the coolant actually go into the SC on the stock setup? And where in the SC does it go?

I do mechanical design work so this is of interest to me.

What if we just came up with a 1/4 inch plastic spacer that we could put in there? This should help some and could be an easy part to make. Could use either a polyester material or maybe Ultem.

There are 2 coolant passages about an inch apart in the lower intake, feeding up into the SC base. A 1/4" spacer wouldn't be sufficient to route this coolant around. You can't simply block it off.