Kurt
That M62 we both have...You suggested it can be mounted upside down etc. Having taken a look it seems best to mount it sideways. That way the center of gravity would be closest to the iron of the engine. It weighs a lot! I cant see that hanging off the intake manifold. Actually, I think the best thing will be to re-fabricate the case to just fit into the head. Basically combine the intake manifold and the charger, keep locations the same as stock. That way the preheater,pvc,etc can be utilized without running with the joneses.

------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

I'm pretty sure you're not going to want to retain the throttle body injection. You have options such as the 1227749 ECM used in turbo Sunbirds, which handles boost, and works with the 1984 Iron duke distributor electronics. That ECM has a lot of tuning support.

Oh boy...
I may go back to my self designed sliding vane charger.... It should be essentially a low boost bolt in that wont tax the engine much. That M62 must require 5-10 HP just to run it. I think the Duke with a M62 will be worse on gas than before the charger. My SC design is low boost and low draw not like the 30-40% gains normal for Eatons. Perhaps theres something I can do for your project though. I will likely sell the M62 but I can take a plaster cast of the innards and case before.

------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

Keep the faith. Don't be too concerned about the power to turn.

Shooting for 160 crankshaft horsepower for example:
-It takes ROUGHLY 1 lb/min of air to make 10 hp in an engine.
-18 lb/min is therefore roughly enough air to make the number with a margin for driving the SC.
-18 lb/min divided by .069 gives 260 cfm
-260cfm requires about 8500 supercharger RPM. (http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/turbo/TurboMaps/M62flow.gif)
-In order to make 160/90 the original power, we'll need about 1.7x times the air density, which is roughly 10psi over atmospheric.
-8500 supercharger RPM at 10 psi requires about 17 hp. (http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/turbo/TurboMaps/M62power.gif)

-With an engine that flows better than stock (cam, porting, exhaust, custom fabricated blower intake) the power required to "force in" 260cfm of air will decrease.

The Eaton is a nice package in that it will go 100k miles with no attention, and has less "slip" at low RPM than Fageol or other "home made" type superchargers.

[This message has been edited by KurtAKX (edited 10-02-2009).]

quote Originally posted by KurtAKX: Keep the faith. Don't be too concerned about the power to turn. Shooting for 160 crankshaft horsepower for example: -It takes ROUGHLY 1 lb/min of air to make 10 hp in an engine. -18 lb/min is therefore roughly enough air to make the number with a margin for driving the SC. -18 lb/min divided by .069 gives 260 cfm -260cfm requires about 8500 supercharger RPM. (http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/turbo/TurboMaps/M62flow.gif) -In order to make 160/90 the original power, we'll need about 1.7x times the air density, which is roughly 10psi over atmospheric. -8500 supercharger RPM at 10 psi requires about 17 hp. (http://www.rbracing-rsr.com/turbo/TurboMaps/M62power.gif) -With an engine that flows better than stock (cam, porting, exhaust, custom fabricated blower intake) the power required to "force in" 260cfm of air will decrease. The Eaton is a nice package in that it will go 100k miles with no attention, and has less "slip" at low RPM than Fageol or other "home made" type superchargers.

Looks like a 2" pulley which is about max effort engine wise. I will run #s on the sliding vane which I believe is more efficient. Probably not as durable and will need attention just about every oil change, but if easier on the engine and better MPG it's more my style. Although, I am looking to get more boost at lower RPMS and less at higher. Interesting stuff, I'll get back to ya.

------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: Looks like a 2" pulley which is about max effort engine wise. I will run #s on the sliding vane which I believe is more efficient. Probably not as durable and will need attention just about every oil change, but if easier on the engine and better MPG it's more my style. Although, I am looking to get more boost at lower RPMS and less at higher. Interesting stuff, I'll get back to ya.

I am very certain you won't find a supercharger design with sliding vanes that is more efficient than what Eaton builds now. In case you are curious about the thermal efficiency of the M62, this graph should give you an idea.

You'll find that a sliding vane will take MORE power to achieve the same boost and flow rate.

The efficiency hierarchy goes something like this:
Turbocharger
Eaton TVS Series
Lysholm/Opcon
Standard Eaton "M" series roots
.
.
.
Any air compressing device with dragging friction elements such as sliding vane, piston type compressor, etc.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All you've gotta do is cast a manifold something like this and you're good to go.


More pics
http://www.theoldone.com/co...m_blower_systems.htm

Hmmm thats the orientation I would use. It looks like there are no runners at all. Now the dog bone seems in the way there. Seems doable.

------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

quote Originally posted by wftb: most old 2.8's dyno out at around 100 HP at the rear wheels .another waste of time as far as i am concerned .at least move up to a 3.4 camaro motor.plenty of those around for cheap .

124whp and 156wtorque on Mustang dyno:-)

o.k.
ran some #'s on my sliding vane type design....
68.34 cu" per rev
with a 2 1/2" pulley 164 cu"
with a 2" pulley 205.02 cu"
Assuming my Duke has an improved VE with it's porting and high lift cam, stronger spark and fuel pressure...I get the following numbers for adding the home grown supercharger....
with a 2 1/2" pulley: 118HP
with a 2" pulley: 142HP
The boost would be constant and proportionate to RPM such that the 8% or 35% boost is the same at 1000 or 5000 RPM.
With a stock crank and rough handling this is as far as I think a Duke can go.

The vane design can also be positioned before the TBI since it is internally compressed is what I've read.

Since I am new to this sort of thing it may be less efficient than on paper.
The thing about the Eaton M62 that has me concerned is that it takes a good amount of power to operate it, it creates a lot of heat and it produces a lot of boost. A typical setup may snap the crank if one doesnt baby it and over all there will be a significant loss in MPG. Those lobes on the M62 are solid and weigh 10 pounds. Totally no need for such weight and stress on the engine. The early BMW designs may be better for small engines like the Duke. I may work up a mold for the old paddle type Rootes because I think it can be made lighter. Since I purchased an M62 I will try to recondition it and get it to spin nice and easy. If that can be done.....that would work but it needs to be detuned with a larger pulley unless a stronger crank were installed.

[This message has been edited by White 84 SE (edited 10-05-2009).]

Here's my idea and to the right a simple way to mount it.


Needs a new air box which I plan to cast too.
\
the above calcuations did not take into account of the 720* cycle! Yeesh!!
reducing the swept depth gives a better ratio
109.34 cu" per cycle
with 3" pulley= 218.688 cu"
that's 44% boost absolute psi of 21
that would be a 6.3 psi boost- EXACTLY what I was looking for.
assuming the Duke gets around 100hp a 6.3 psi boost at sea level would get about 144 hp

Is this right any of you genius's out there?
------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

[This message has been edited by White 84 SE (edited 10-07-2009).]

I didn't look over your calculations very well at all, i'll be honest, but I don't believe you are taking into account all your losses through friction in your design. You are looking at what kind of power your SC will put out, but not how much it will eat up.

As for how much the duke can take, I've read the stock internals are good to about 150 without much loss in life. '88 are to about 180. If I remembered correctly. I think I have the info on a different hard drive. Anyways, it's not the horse power that will kill a duke, it's the RPM's. If you keep your redline where it is factory, you will be fine. Your peak power will probably go outside that range, but you don't want to exceed it.

I would first try the Eaton, then go your design if you are not happy with the other one.

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: Here's my idea and to the right a simple way to mount it. Needs a new air box which I plan to cast too. \ the above calcuations did not take into account of the 720* cycle! Yeesh!! reducing the swept depth gives a better ratio 109.34 cu" per cycle with 3" pulley= 218.688 cu" that's 44% boost absolute psi of 21 that would be a 6.3 psi boost- EXACTLY what I was looking for. assuming the Duke gets around 100hp a 6.3 psi boost at sea level would get about 144 hp Is this right any of you genius's out there?

Your forgetting that to compress air, it requires energy. The energy will come from your crankshaft lowering your hp.
Think about this, to go from sea level 14.7 psi to 29.4 psi you need to add 14.7 pounds of force per square inch of surface area. And that is if there is no heat generated when you compress the air. For this type of compressor your going to get quite a bit of heat. Which means that to get the same mass of air the compressor will need more power. With the added heat, the air is going to be less dense, lowering the output of the engine due to less dense air charge and knock.

Some of the energy used to compress the gas will be returned via the pistons, but not all.

------------------
'84 3800SC, XP cam, 3.2 pully, HPTuners, N* TB, 4sp, SPEC 3+ clutch, Aluminium flywheel, pacesetter headers, F355 body kit, weight reduction

quote Originally posted by Dracor: Your forgetting that to compress air, it requires energy. The energy will come from your crankshaft lowering your hp. Think about this, to go from sea level 14.7 psi to 29.4 psi you need to add 14.7 pounds of force per square inch of surface area. And that is if there is no heat generated when you compress the air. For this type of compressor your going to get quite a bit of heat. Which means that to get the same mass of air the compressor will need more power. With the added heat, the air is going to be less dense, lowering the output of the engine due to less dense air charge and knock. Some of the energy used to compress the gas will be returned via the pistons, but not all.

Hmm Yea, I didnt think of that. So the compressed air will get warmer. I think there is no way around this except via a intercooler in between the charger and the head. I have a possible solution for the friction based heat so I will assume null heat created that way for now. Now the normal intake is heated via the cooling system in an effort to help vaporize the fuel more completely. Perhaps it's a wash if I omit the water passage? It takes power to compress the air.....Is there a way to calculate the rate? I get the idea that the HP will be less than 144 which is A.OK by me but will the crank be under more or less stress than 144 HP would impose? I think that is very near the snap point of the crank.


------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

[This message has been edited by White 84 SE (edited 10-09-2009).]

http://www.codecogs.com/ref...of_a_perfect_gas.php

Power is the time derivative of work. Or here, you can take the work done from P1 to P2 and divide it by the time it takes.

And for the internals....
http://ironduke7.tripod.com/dukefaq.htm

quote >> So, maybe the way to go for a half and half is to leave the bottom end basically as it is and go for the upper.......<< The bottom end is good for 150+- HP. Maybe 180 with the right components (88 crank/S10 block). The duty cycle goes down as power output goes up. Don't expected it to last like a 100 HP production motor.

Edit: And I've never seen a snapped crank. I have seen pictures of a thrown rod however.

[This message has been edited by 86fierofun (edited 10-09-2009).]

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: Hmm Yea, I didnt think of that. So the compressed air will get warmer. I think there is no way around this except via a intercooler in between the charger and the head. I have a possible solution for the friction based heat so I will assume null heat created that way for now. Now the normal intake is heated via the cooling system in an effort to help vaporize the fuel more completely. Perhaps it's a wash if I omit the water passage? It takes power to compress the air.....Is there a way to calculate the rate? I get the idea that the HP will be less than 144 which is A.OK by me but will the crank be under more or less stress than 144 HP would impose? I think that is very near the snap point of the crank.

If you know the compressor efficiency at your target RPM, there are some websites that will give you the HP required. That sliding vane compressor is interesting, It looks like is going to generate large pulses. I am kinda thinking this will interfere with the intake pulses. I bet the engine will have a very odd torque curve for a supercharged engine. Also it looks like that is the type of compressor that will get less efficient the faster it goes. Where as most SCs for engines rise in eff then drop off. Like KurtAKX said your going to be making less HP with this type of compressor. I would also think you would have flow problems either at idle or at high rpm without a bypass (might even need a boost controler).

Either way it would be a neat project. Is your sliding vane variable displacement? That would be make it far better for this application.

If your engine had 144 hp at the flywheel, the internals would be subjected to prolly 155+ worth of HP, most likely more like 172. In a boosted engine you have to make enough power to drive the compressor too, which is lost.

Quote from ZZP, a 3800SC aftermarket developer, said this about the M90:
"Our 60HP electric motor would not pass 13psi around 14,000 rpm"
He didn't supply a pully size, but he did give a range of 50-100hp.

quote Originally posted by Dracor: Quote from ZZP, a 3800SC aftermarket developer, said this about the M90: "Our 60HP electric motor would not pass 13psi around 14,000 rpm" He didn't supply a pully size, but he did give a range of 50-100hp.

Well, for the big M90, I'd say after some extrapolation that's about right:

Yea having a M90 to study I can imagine this thing requires a lot of HP just to turn and more the faster it goes. Assuredly such a SC is not right for the Duke. I was hoping to reduce the mass and increase the efficiency using a purer air pump design. Seems for the Duke one has to detune even this idea. 5 PSI is max boost I think, for a constant add on. There is a point where the gains better the draw and dont over stress the crank. The goal is less than 150 HP at the crank and more than 120 HP to surpass draw. It is a small window. This sort of compressor is the most efficient as for the compression of air, there is little waste or mechanical mass to push around.

For anyone following this and looking for a performance mod... I see a good opportunity to install larger valves in the Duke. This will up volumetric efficiency if fuel is adequately supplied and can be had for about $100. If the exhaust valves kept the same and the intake opened a little...more torque I gather and over all better VE, HP and breathing. As for the supercharger, this design is close, just a few tweeks left. I'v talked to Dupont and they are hooking me up to a supplier for the Teflon vanes. And today I will test my foundry by duplicating a door fixture that I broke a year back. My fingers are crossed. I will show a pic later today.

------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: Yea having a M90 to study I can imagine this thing requires a lot of HP just to turn and more the faster it goes. Assuredly such a SC is not right for the Duke.

I thought you got an M62? The power draw curve is much more favorable for the small supercharger. You only need to spin the M62 up to about 8000 RPM to get the kind of power you're after.

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: 5 PSI is max boost I think, for a constant add on.

It's not really a "constant". You won't be making any boost until you open the throttle up.

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: There is a point where the gains better the draw and dont over stress the crank.

I think you'll find that at every operating point where you are making more than atmospheric pressure at the back of the intake valves, the gain will be greater than the power required to operate the SC.

quote Originally posted by KurtAKX: I think you'll find that at every operating point where you are making more than atmospheric pressure at the back of the intake valves, the gain will be greater than the power required to operate the SC.

oops your right I got the M62
8000 rpm you sure? so a 3" pulley will give max boost at 4000 crank rpm?

I drew up a design for the M62 to Duke adapter and will post later. Now I gotta get to my job.

bump

Alright,

Pretty simple aye? Gotta check pulley height cause it may be in the alternators' space.
I think the TBI mounting surface could be in line so that only an extension required to operate throttle. Since coolant goes from one side to the other atl east a passage should be made I think so that it connects to the engine via the manifold.

Easier might be to mount the SC on top of the manifold and get a little fancy for the TBI to SC passage but I think the dogbone is in the way.


------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

[This message has been edited by White 84 SE (edited 10-12-2009).]

quote Originally posted by White 84 SE: oops your right I got the M62 8000 rpm you sure? so a 3" pulley will give max boost at 4000 crank rpm? I drew up a design for the M62 to Duke adapter and will post later. Now I gotta get to my job.

The stock pulley size for 1994 and 1995 Eaton M62 superchargers is 2.85". You just gotta get a serpentine crank pulley like on 1987 and up Fieros, Celebrities, Centuries and the like with the 2.5 liter engine.

quote Originally posted by KurtAKX: Alternator will probably have to move where the AC compressor normally lives.

Well, I gotta take another look, might be easier than all that.
What do ya think of a blow in rather than draw in method? I've worked out a drive path for that...

intersting can't wait to see what happens

------------------
2001 Grand Prix GT: supercharged L36, XP Hot cam, SSAC headers, 3.4 pulley. 12.99 @107 MPH

looking for a Fiero

are you making a new intake manifold or going to use the stock one?

quote Originally posted by joshh44: are you making a new intake manifold or going to use the stock one?

New....or maybe just use a pair of adapters and a routing deal.

------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White

buump

Ha ha ha...KURT!!!
hey man, I kinda lost interest in this idea. I'd be willing to cast YOU a part in aluminum if you want. Just need a design. Do you have one of those M62s with the thottle body attached? That kind seems easy although where would the Injector go.... If I made a cast for you could you drill and tap so to fit?

------------------
84 Duke, Holley TBI, Manual Trans 4.10, CompuCam, White