Babybudistmonk

I'm pretty sure this one is fuel injected, but would be an awesome set up to have!

Babybudistmonk

A carb'd supercharged set up wouldn't be too bad to do. Just make sure jetting and carb/supercharger size is well thought out before you just go get parts off the shelf. Talk to some of the blown carbureted V8 guys. I'm sure they can give you some good input.

One of the biggest issues for longevity is crank strength. The guy that is pictured above last I heard was in the process of tearing down the engine because the extra stress of the belt driven charger snapped the front of his crank off.

MK7JUNKIE

I was also wondering why people said that the M90 was to big, couldn't th output be easily changed by the pulleys? Not only would that reduce the output but it would also make it easier for the engine to turn over. I'm not looking to have the most power out of a 2.3, I just want something fairly powerful but hardly ever done. I mean wouldn't you be shocked to see a mustang show up at a car show with a blower sticking out and find out it is a 2300. In my area we have a bad case of ricers, I got sick of toying with them in my 5.0 lincoln thought i would go the 2300 rout so they can't say well you have twice the motor. The 2.3 NA im building now is going to be pretty stout and shouldn't have any troubles keeping up with the ricers but a supercharged 2.3 to beat camaros would be awesome.

Babybudistmonk

The problem with changing pulleys to that extreme is that now your loosing all efficiency from the s/c, and you will be very disappointed with overall performance. The guy I know running the M90 gave up on it because it was a bit of a tuning mess, and wanted the most practical way to make power with the engines, ie the turbo.

Now I'm not saying it cant be done, because obviously it can and has been. Is it the best way to make power, no. But you can get some pretty impressive numbers from it. A supercharger robs way more power than a turbo. I was once told that if you wanted to get 500hp with a s/c 2.3, you need to be making ideally close to 600hp to compensate for the hp loss turning the charger. You know those top fuel dragsters that can do the 1/4 mile in 3.xx seconds? They make in the neighborhood of 8000hp, but it takes 500hp just to spin the charger alone.

It would be cool to see done and I have toyed around with the idea with it for a bit, but if I did it, it would be thrown in a T-bucket with no weight. So that way if you're only making 300hp, it would still be a bad *** ride, and have the cool effect.

ShooterMcGavin

I think it would be fairly easy to supercharge a 2.3 fox NA but the oil fill cap is kind of in the way

mystangisblack

I wish there was a Like button on this forum.

FoxGT

It's not too big, but going with a bigger unit & turning it slower will result in an efficiency loss & more leakage around the lobes of the supercharger so your low end will suffer. Eaton started coating their rotors with teflon to somewhat help this issue, but the supercoupe m90's were produced before that started. Ideally you want the smallest supercharger to get the job done without losing efficiency.
I don't see the tuning mess. I've found that supercharged cars are easier to tune due to the consistency. Neither should be hard with the proper understanding of the equipment/software &/or engine management being used (including stock)

Best way to make power will depend on what the users want. Most auto manufacturers use the roots because it is the best means of forced induction in many areas. Lowest maintenance, highest reliability, lowest manufacturing cost, & fuel economy. Roots superchargers can essentially freewheel when under cruise condition meaning there's next to no parasitic drag from the supercharger IF properly equipped with a bypass valve. They are lacking in the maximum power output department, there is no argument there.

Power requirement will depend on the cfm being moved & at what pressure. I would say most of your common roots supercharged setups on a 4 cylinder are taking about 15-25hp to spin (depending on the p/r) At 300hp you're looking at about a 25-40hp draw (again depending on the p/r required to achieve 300hp).

The crankshaft won't be an issue if it's properly set up & belt tension/drag isn't extremely high.
You can mount them anywhere in the engine bay providing you have a way of turning it. I've ran one with the inlet facing the front which required a jackshaft. I would advise against that setup if possible. I built one because I had very little room to work with in the engine bay.

As with Babybudistmonk, I would recommend a turbo over a roots simply because the 2.3 is not a great flowing engine & most 4 cylinder people don't spend much time below 2500rpm.

justinschmidt1

I dont know what you guys are talking about.

ive got one of those e-superchargers on my ranger and it runs great