maybe someone mention this already...but why not do something like the 1st gen MR2 SC's...roots type blower (i.e. M62 or M90) on the side of the block (perhaps in the alternator position and move the alternator elsewhere) and just run piping up to an IC and right into the TB. the only required parts would be a adapter for the outlet of the SC to go to piping and brackets for the side of the block. this seems like the best idea IMHO, making manifolds is a PITA because then u run into decklid clearance issues. the only additional stuff i can think of that u'd need is a bypass valve or somesort, a 2bar map sensor, and a chip. perhaps running the 85GT computer w/ the knock sensor would be beneficial as well....

just my $.02

------------------
Eric -> On the lookout for a new '87 GOLD GT, Hardtop, paint must be exceptional....
RIP
'87 GT Gold/Tan 4-speed
Soon to be a bottle fed T-top

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: From the way it looks now you will need an m62, longer belt, 3.8 TB, SC to middle intake adapter, idler pulley, gaskets and possibly more doesn't sound too bad. Should be way under a grand. I hope for like $700 or so that would be sick. WHEN DO YOU PLAN ON MAKING THESE?

thats about the same list i came up with and if you are an e bay junkie you could prolly fill it pretty cheep. I've got one mocked up in poster board and one in laminet counter top meterial. Right now I'm in the process of moving so as soon as I get settled I'm gonna get that prototype together.

vafiero
if you run a streight edge across the middle intake runners you'll see that every thing will clear fine except the schrader valve to check the fuel pressure. We've got 3 options as far as that goes. One simply remove it. Two use a small brass 90 and shoot it out from under the intake. Three contour the botom plate of the intake. I think this is the best idea and it will also cause the intake to flow a little smoother. However if i start adding bends and contours it's going to raise the price.

coinball
I do agree with you, but one of the reasons i'm doing it this way is to git rid of the crapy fiero upper intake. Pluss i'm starting to like the idea of seeing a S/C hannig out of the hood lol. The GM versions of these S/C's already have a bypass on them, if you want to run a 2 bar that will be up to the owned FYI to every one the map sensor you see on the bonnies is for the factory boost gauge but it is a 2 bar so thats a source i duno if the other cars have them. Again burning a chip or 85 ecm shouldn't be nessary but darth burns them pretty cheep if you wanna go that route.

quote Originally posted by markviiisvt4: The GM versions of these S/C's already have a bypass on them, if you want to run a 2 bar that will be up to the owned FYI to every one the map sensor you see on the bonnies is for the factory boost gauge but it is a 2 bar so thats a source i duno if the other cars have them. Again burning a chip or 85 ecm shouldn't be nessary but darth burns them pretty cheep if you wanna go that route.

you are suggesting running boost without a 2bar map or a new chip?

yea dude u'r gonna need a new chip to kick up the pulse width on the injectors under boost, otherwise u'r gonna need a RRFPR and bigger injectors to mechanically adjust for boost. the upper plenum isn't a bad design, but it is worthless under laminar flow (naturally aspirated), however under boost laminar flow doesn't matter. u just overcome the resistance in the upper plenum with a smaller pulley

------------------
Eric -> On the lookout for a new '87 GOLD GT, Hardtop, paint must be exceptional....
RIP
'87 GT Gold/Tan 4-speed
Soon to be a bottle fed T-top

quote Originally posted by Kohburn: you are suggesting running boost without a 2bar map or a new chip?

I wasn't sugesting that at all. All I was implying is that it would be left up to the owner. A 2 bar and a reprogram are just a few of the ways to compensate for boost, add to that list extra injectors, rising rate regulators, alcy injection, larger injectors, or simply cutting back on the boost a little (but what fun is that). Granted some methods are far better then others but again this will have to be up to the owner. If some one wants to swing by my shope and strap their car on the dyno for a full tune their more then welcome, other wise I'm simply offering a way to bolt an eaton on a 2.8.

quote Originally posted by coinball: the upper plenum isn't a bad design, but it is worthless under laminar flow (naturally aspirated), however under boost laminar flow doesn't matter. u just overcome the resistance in the upper plenum with a smaller pulley

You are cocorrect but until pressure is built it does matter granted it's only minor but by moving the sc further from the valves you only increase it. Also by moving the SC you add brackets, plumbing, other small parts, and most importantly cost defeting the goal of this project " affordable upgradable boost." Although cheep sometimes times means a little more labor and not quite as pretty I'm sure the people I'm gearing this to don't really mind.

[This message has been edited by markviiisvt4 (edited 12-06-2005).]

quote Originally posted by coinball: u just overcome the resistance in the upper plenum with a smaller pulley

Resistance in the intake (on a SC engine) = higher intake temp and slightly lower boost. so you have to be careful when using a smaller pulley to overcome the power lost to resistance.

http://www.angelfire.com/super/ghettoretta/m90/sc.htm

hehe

I guess you will need a 2bar map and a chip at least...and a lot of fabbing and tuning to make it run right.The fiero intake and fuelrail setup doesnt make it easy to mount and route a SC(roots blower) on top, and not everyone wants to cut their hood...a centrifugal SC would be much easier (but it comes at a price, which makes it not suitable for this thread)... This is the only running M62/2.8 I know of (its from Norway)...maybe its an 3.1, not shure. But it is controlled by an Electromotive aftermarket system, also it looks the engine is tilted to make room for the SC (notice the longer dogbone). Still a little complicated but it also should be easier to plumb in an IC with such a setup

If you want to go bigger on both engine and SC it might be easier to turn to a series2 3800 with M90 and start modding that combo

quote Originally posted by Fierobsessed: http://www.angelfire.com/super/ghettoretta/m90/sc.htm hehe

SWEET!!!!

If a Beretta can fit a Eaton supercharger then a Fiero can. I used to have an 88 Beretta, it's the same engine. Someone needs to contact that guy and
see if he can help with the manifold part.

A Fiero would do 13's pretty easily if he can pull off a 14.2

I bet a Fiero could even get into high 12's with tuning and serious weight reduction.

This idea is beginning to look very appealing for CA Fiero owners like me.

quote Originally posted by blkpearl: If a Beretta can fit a Eaton supercharger then a Fiero can. I used to have an 88 Beretta, it's the same engine. Someone needs to contact that guy and see if he can help with the manifold part. A Fiero would do 13's pretty easily if he can pull off a 14.2 I bet a Fiero could even get into high 12's with tuning and serious weight reduction. This idea is beginning to look very appealing for CA Fiero owners like me.

Well, he's using a 3100 SFI, which is considerably different than the older engines like ours. However, he had to do the same thing, machine the upper plenum the bolt the SC on top of it, so in theory, we should be able to do the same. Gonna need a good plenum to put on come smog time, but I think its worth the effort.

He also had a m90 with 28 more ci of air push in every revolution.

the 3.4 guys should be all over this. Drop in a 3.4 bolt on one of these intakes and hang the **** on!

Since they say a picture says more than a 1000 words I'll have a try :.........I mocked up one simple scenario today just to see what would be involved...:*putting a M90 on top of a 2.8, what would be involved?*....(one benefit of having an engine swap still in pieces hehe). Looks reusing the upper intake could be a simple hackjob, retaining the intake and FI setup, cutting a rectangle from the upper intake that matches the outlet of the SC, and block-off the original TB....whatever, there are several other issues that will appear trying to mount a SC on the 2.8
Here the M90 is raping the 2.8 lol...it should move another inch or so to the right but I didnt have more space nor time to fiddle with it because the fiero was on duty

The M90 sitting this high makes a traditional hood setup pretty obsolete, the vent needs to be cut also to clear the snout and pully (when its there) and youll likely need a secondary crankpully like the setup of the engine it came off; to make it line up..

Ok, even with a custom intake and injectors setup there will be issues...both M62 and M90 come from 90degrees engines which *I think* have wider intake manifolds than the 60degrees 2.8's..Also the L67 has the injectors relocated into the heads to make the M90 fit...looks the M90 will be pretty wide to fit between the 2.8/60degrees heads..
Here it looks the M90 will hit the distributor first if you want to move it to a lower position

I guess the M62 has smaller dimensions but its still hard to imagine a bolt-on kit......
I dont want to be negative here but it just looks it could be pretty difficult to put such an SC somewhere up there...

Hey markviiisvt4, what about mounting it where the A/C is or is supposed to be? That way nobody ever knows your getting blown.

What If you used the edelbrock intake base for the carb 2.8 and put the blower on top with fuel rails next to the blower. The Fageol seems like it would fit between the heads with enough room for fuel rails to be added. The blower could also be placed on top of a blower plate looking thing with the fuel rail on it or inside perhaps under the blower. The injectors could aim down into the intake ports on the manifold. Kinda like this
but perhaps with the injectors inside the plate. It was just an idea that popped into my head. It seems like the wet manifold properties of the carb intake base would be good for it. Kinda like a half wet/dry combination. I have not checked all of this out for size

quote Originally posted by Fie Ro: Since they say a picture says more than a 1000 words I'll have a try :.........I mocked up one simple scenario today just to see what would be involved...:*putting a M90 on top of a 2.8, what would be involved?*....(one benefit of having an engine swap still in pieces hehe). Looks reusing the upper intake could be a simple hackjob, retaining the intake and FI setup, cutting a rectangle from the upper intake that matches the outlet of the SC, and block-off the original TB....whatever, there are several other issues that will appear trying to mount a SC on the 2.8 Here the M90 is raping the 2.8 lol...it should move another inch or so to the right but I didnt have more space nor time to fiddle with it because the fiero was on duty The M90 sitting this high makes a traditional hood setup pretty obsolete, the vent needs to be cut also to clear the snout and pully (when its there) and youll likely need a secondary crankpully like the setup of the engine it came off; to make it line up.. Ok, even with a custom intake and injectors setup there will be issues...both M62 and M90 come from 90degrees engines which *I think* have wider intake manifolds than the 60degrees 2.8's..Also the L67 has the injectors relocated into the heads to make the M90 fit...looks the M90 will be pretty wide to fit between the 2.8/60degrees heads.. Here it looks the M90 will hit the distributor first if you want to move it to a lower position I guess the M62 has smaller dimensions but its still hard to imagine a bolt-on kit...... I dont want to be negative here but it just looks it could be pretty difficult to put such an SC somewhere up there...

The dimensions of a M62 are 8.5" at the widest part of the intake flange and 25 inches from pully to TB. My upper intake is 11.75" x 8.75" where the SC mounts and 13.25" x 10'' where it mounts to the middle intake. I am not reusing/modifying the original upper intake. There will be some surgery to the decklid for sure, maby the vent on the fastbacks but not sure. I, got the belt arangment figured out with a simple idler pully so you will only need one belt, and maby a second idler but not positive eith out bolting one on an engine as of yet. Only the series II's have the injectors in the heads.

quote Originally posted by DanGT: What If you used the edelbrock intake base for the carb 2.8 and put the blower on top with fuel rails next to the blower. The Fageol seems like it would fit between the heads with enough room for fuel rails to be added. The blower could also be placed on top of a blower plate looking thing with the fuel rail on it or inside perhaps under the blower. The injectors could aim down into the intake ports on the manifold. Kinda like this but perhaps with the injectors inside the plate. It was just an idea that popped into my head. It seems like the wet manifold properties of the carb intake base would be good for it. Kinda like a half wet/dry combination. I have not checked all of this out for size

I did consider somthing like that but it would cut into the cost goal to much to be somthing the masses could afford

I just droped off my prototype off at a second party fabricator today and spent $500 of my own cash to get one built because I dont' have time to build one myself. So expect to see this on an engine in the next couple weeks, and on a car soon after that. I'm he!l bent on making this work especialy after some of the F body guys jumped on here with intrest.

Just letting you know that if you make an adapter for a M90 I'm in. I MIGHT consider a M62, but that might is there.

------------------

"all pushrod motor are better than the dohc because it has less rotational mass"
-rick17, MyMonte member, owner of a 3100 Monte Carlo LS

markviiisvt4,
I got a little bit of important info from loyde aka fastfiero the man of 3800 fieros. He told me that the 3800 SC pulley arm must be a 1/4 inch higher so that the oil doesn't run out of the SCer. He said they come mounted this way from GM.

For clarification does the m62 on series 1 and the m90 on series 2?

quote Originally posted by goatnipples2002: markviiisvt4, I got a little bit of important info from loyde aka fastfiero the man of 3800 fieros. He told me that the 3800 SC pulley arm must be a 1/4 inch higher so that the oil doesn't run out of the SCer. He said they come mounted this way from GM. For clarification does the m62 on series 1 and the m90 on series 2?

While i'm sure loyd know what he's talking about there is no evidence to suggest a difference in the hight of the intake from front to back on the series one engines it runs a steady 3 1/64'' the whole way across. If there is such a difference it has to be cast into the SC in wich case it won't matter my intake design.
yes the m62's where mounted on the series 1 engines 92 to 95 and the m90 where mounted on most 95 and later engines.

Sorry every one my computer crashed so i haven't been on here for w few days. i got my prototype back from the fab guys looks pretty good. We're gonna have it bolted to the engine somtime this week and then hopefully get on a running driving car. Stay posted

quote Originally posted by markviiisvt4: Sorry every one my computer crashed so i haven't been on here for w few days. i got my prototype back from the fab guys looks pretty good. We're gonna have it bolted to the engine somtime this week and then hopefully get on a running driving car. Stay posted

Pictures please

This is way cool and i'm definitly interested if this goes in to production. Do you know how much higher this is going to sit then the stock manifold? Or if you can measure this when it gets on the car.

Thanks

any update?

welp i gota new job and i had to sign a non compete claus so i couldn't put these into production. I sold the proto type's to some of the guys on the F body forums since it seemd all the intress here waned. I can maby draw up a blue print and post it on here and i'll be more then willing to give out any information i came up with like belt routing if some one wants to try this themselves. I just can't make any kind of profit

I was kicking around the idea of an M62 on the Edelbrock intake a couple of months ago as well, since it seemed like a possible cheap route to power, but couldn't see any way around the injector problem -- an adapter plate like shown above would inject the fuel much further away from the port than stock. Wouldn't that be a significant performance hit, or does the boost make that a moot point?

On the car w/the side-mount M90 above, where is the alternator?? No A/C I presume?

Isn't the M90 supercharger too big for the 2.8L? I mean, isn't it matched to higher volume engines more like the 3.8L? You can buy refurbished M90s quite cheaply whereas the M62 seems more like a catch-as-catch can item on ebay. This was another demerit in the M62 "cheap" scheme.

John

quote Originally posted by markviiisvt4: While i'm sure loyd know what he's talking about there is no evidence to suggest a difference in the hight of the intake from front to back on the series one engines it runs a steady 3 1/64'' the whole way across. If there is such a difference it has to be cast into the SC in wich case it won't matter my intake design. yes the m62's where mounted on the series 1 engines 92 to 95 and the m90 where mounted on most 95 and later engines.

Loyde was more than proved wrong on this over at RFT, and he is certainly incorrect.

The angle of the snout will not cause the oil to leak out.

quote Originally posted by Notorio: I was kicking around the idea of an M62 on the Edelbrock intake a couple of months ago as well, since it seemed like a possible cheap route to power, but couldn't see any way around the injector problem -- an adapter plate like shown above would inject the fuel much further away from the port than stock. Wouldn't that be a significant performance hit, or does the boost make that a moot point? On the car w/the side-mount M90 above, where is the alternator?? No A/C I presume? Isn't the M90 supercharger too big for the 2.8L? I mean, isn't it matched to higher volume engines more like the 3.8L? You can buy refurbished M90s quite cheaply whereas the M62 seems more like a catch-as-catch can item on ebay. This was another demerit in the M62 "cheap" scheme. John

the m62 is actually the cheeper of the 2 here both cost about the same to rebuild but the m62 is cheeper off the bat.

quote Originally posted by Notorio: I was kicking around the idea of an M62 on the Edelbrock intake a couple of months ago as well, since it seemed like a possible cheap route to power, but couldn't see any way around the injector problem -- an adapter plate like shown above would inject the fuel much further away from the port than stock. Wouldn't that be a significant performance hit, or does the boost make that a moot point? John

Im not sure if that would be a significant performance hit or not. A TBI system or carb systems dont have problems with roots blowers but there may be better atomization at the throttle plate or venturi than one could achieve with a injector just spraying under the blower. Normally the port injectors are best optimized by spraying as close to the intake valve as possible. They do spray pretty fine if they are clean. The air under that blower is turbulent enough to atomize the fuel I would think. Im sure at high boost this would not be a problem at all but off idle and everyday drivability might suffer. I dont know. Never tried it.

Well, another great idea out the window. I really was looking foreward to this one.. Another Fiero could'a been..............

the problem with the turbo kits is everyone crams them up to the left and runs some sort of "y" pipe adapter.they seem to be more concerned with max power production than practicality.i have seen some cars on tv lately that put a turbo way under the car where the muffler is located.this reduces ultimate boost, but does not crowd the engine compartment .it also leaves most of the emissions equipment stock. look at the area around the muffler.tons of empty space ,and a turbo muffles ,so a tiny muffler can be used.the 2.8 cant take much boost any way ,so why not a 6 lb hideaway system?.

quote Originally posted by markviiisvt4: the m62 is actually the cheeper of the 2 here both cost about the same to rebuild but the m62 is cheeper off the bat.

Do you have a quote? I looked at a number of M62s that popped up on ebay, mostly for European cars, with widely different configurations on the intake side. Any thoughts on WHICH M62 to use?

Hmmn, sounds like someone should rig an adapter w/injectors and try this idea out. If one could buy the lower manifold ($150?) and a custom adapter (?), then the M62 (?), but keep the stock fuel rails, seems like maybe <$1000 is possible. What am I forgetting?

John

you can pick an m62 off a sc 3800 for about 100 bucks. This is how i did it. i used the factory fiero lower intake manifold injectors and all that stuff. all i did was remove the upper intake plenum. Then i build a simple "box" it was about an 2 inches from the top plate to the bottom plate about 10 inches long and about 13 inches wide. the bottom plate had six holes cut in it and was made to bolt to the lower intake manifolt then on top i cut a large retangle hole in it and made it so the m62 could bolt to the top. The sc pully was lined up frot edge to front edge with the water pump pully and i added an idler between the alt and water pump.
The belt came up the right side of the crank pully, up the right side of the water pump pully around the top and down the right side of the idler. It then went around the idler and up the left side to the SC, up the right side of the sc and around the top down to the alt, around the alt and back to the crank. this was all bolted up and ready to go. the only other little mod i had to do was move the schrader valve for checking the fuel pressure. i just unbolted it screwed in a brass 90 and put it back in. simle as that. Now since it was never in a car uniing there where a few things i didnt' get to check like the long stretch of belt between the sc and alt but that could be simply solved with another pully. some one could really do this for under 500 bucks if they could cut and weld up the intake you can use rodney dickmans idler set up just put the belt on the other side, and i've got a m62 for sale for a $100 bucks it needs a coupler wich is 30 bucks from zzperformance so theres about 250 bucks worth so if you can get the steel or aluminum and weld up an intake for less then 250 your right in there.

------------------
85 fiero GT 3800 sc swap in progress
98 Sunfire waiting for 4.9 and AWD
85 S-10 turbocharged 3800
83 Citation x-11 turbocharged 3.1 with AWD 6000 running gear SOLD
94 Bonneville SLE daily driver
94 Bonneville SSEi wifes pearl pink daily driver
93 Bonneville SSEi I duno why
94 Bonneville SSEi parts for the rest of them

[This message has been edited by markviiisvt4 (edited 01-07-2006).]

Sweat! Do you have a picture of the box? It is hard for me to imagine how the fuel rail clears that. I'm assuming you've got the injectors seated on the middle intake and just the old upper intake was removed. Yes?

quote Originally posted by Notorio: Sweat! Do you have a picture of the box? It is hard for me to imagine how the fuel rail clears that. I'm assuming you've got the injectors seated on the middle intake and just the old upper intake was removed. Yes?

yes just the upper intake was removed. if you pull it off and run a straight edge across the lower intake you'll see how it worked. the only thing that is above the middle intakes upper plane is the schrader valve to check fuel pressure.

We will make it happen, any thing you have in the way of prints and such can you get that to us? I would like to pursue this.

quote Originally posted by 87SEV6Reborn05: We will make it happen, any thing you have in the way of prints and such can you get that to us? I would like to pursue this.

I can do you one better. How about the very first cereal box prototype lol (cheep place ot get poster board). I might be able to get the masonite one back from the fab guys also. Like I said I can't make any money but I can still help out.

Anything ever happen with this???? I read thought two pages of stuff only to find out it's been abandoned before it got started.

quote Originally posted by FieroVin: Anything ever happen with this???? I read thought two pages of stuff only to find out it's been abandoned before it got started.

I was dissappointed too.....I seen this thread was bumped and thought it might be resurected... dang it!

i offered the enginering to any one that wanted to run with it but no takers