m90 supercharger+heavy streetport+s5 rotors+microtech= how much power?
01-10-05, 06:49 PM
#1
m90 supercharger+heavy streetport+s5 rotors+microtech= how much power?
Hey guys looks like I might have to rebuild soon so I am enquiring on an idea here. I am thinking of taking my 6 port NA motor and putting a large streetport with s5 rotors and ported TB and intake as well as headers with a Jbrown stlye m90 setup with largest possible pulleys what kind of power should I expect to be putting down?
01-12-05, 06:37 PM
#6
aight guys yes...this is something that I ma interested in doing so that those who want to look for an alternative can do it themselves as well. I can make the bracketwork and if anyone else is interested they can do it themselves and find their own m90. Many people here dont have too much to spend on their cars BUT are generally more intelligent than most and are DIY types so I can prepare some kind of DIY kit and info. I also think it would be different to do and wouldnt lead me into the turbo bug and huge amounts of money. Yes it will run me more than getting a t2 swap but I think it will be a blast and MUCH less expensive for the DIY types. So on my list would be fuel upggrades, ported and polished tb and and s5 intake mani and full on exhaust with headers and largest possible street port with haltech running it all. What is the fullest I can expect out of this setup.
01-12-05, 07:02 PM
#7
I wish I was driving!
Lets say your engine makes 180 rwhp without the M90.
Based on my calculations using airflow values at 10 psi, BSFC, blah blah blah: Expect to gain 65-75 hp to the tires.
This is assuming a decently flowing system.
Based on my calculations using airflow values at 10 psi, BSFC, blah blah blah: Expect to gain 65-75 hp to the tires.
This is assuming a decently flowing system.
Trending Topics
01-12-05, 07:46 PM
#10
I wish I was driving!
Originally Posted by Dltreezan
hmmm interesting....so around 300 flywheel horsepower then. Is 10 psi the max i could get out of it?
01-12-05, 08:27 PM
#12
Super Raterhater
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NY, MA, MI, OR, TX, and now LA or AZ!
Posts: 10,626
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
No, he would not be better off with lower compression rotors. Anyway, i've done basically this exact setup already, and it was most definatly not impressive. The m90 just doesn't move enough air (at a decent efficiency) to do much good. Scatcharts calculations were right, go with a stock turbo setup and you'll be better off.
01-12-05, 08:36 PM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wayne, NJ 07470
Posts: 416
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eaton specs the M90 at 500CFM at the sc redline and if you set up the pulleys to redline the SC at the engine redline you should be in the neighborhood of 25PSI.
Also I believe the rule of thumb is that HP*1.2 =CFM so that would be about 400HP.
In verrrry rough theoretical numbers.
ed
Also I believe the rule of thumb is that HP*1.2 =CFM so that would be about 400HP.
In verrrry rough theoretical numbers.
ed
01-13-05, 06:38 PM
#19
I wish I was driving!
Originally Posted by edmcguirk
Eaton specs the M90 at 500CFM at the sc redline and if you set up the pulleys to redline the SC at the engine redline you should be in the neighborhood of 25PSI.
Also I believe the rule of thumb is that HP*1.2 =CFM so that would be about 400HP.
In verrrry rough theoretical numbers.
ed
Also I believe the rule of thumb is that HP*1.2 =CFM so that would be about 400HP.
In verrrry rough theoretical numbers.
ed
And an M90 does not flow enough air to make 25 psi on a rotary at an 8000 rpm engine redline... the max I get is closer to 13psi, given the information listed by Eaton.Here's a website you guys can play around with... I did my calculation on paper, but this is alright for basic number fiddling...
http://not2fast.wryday.com/turbo/glo...rbo_calc.shtml
For displacement, fill in 81.0 bore x 127mm stroke, 4 cylinder, and it will give you the displacement for a rotary.
Inlet air temp: 21 degrees celsius is 70 degrees fahrenheit.
Compressor efficiency: 70% for an eaton is about right.
Manifold pressure: Up to you
Intercooler efficiency and pressure drop... this is completely dependent on you. To see what a difference intercooling makes, enter 0% for efficiency and 0 psi for pressure drop. Otherwise... 75% efficiency and 1.5 psi of pressure drop is what I would fill in for a standard front mount.
Fill in all zero's for water and methanol injection, and then put your redline for engine rpm and 80% for volumetric efficiency.
For BSFC, use .60, and for AFR, use 12.0:1.
Try fiddling with the values to find engine CFM, blah blah blah... its not completely correct, but its OK... it will at least show you the differences in power. BTW: filling in zero for PSI and zero for IC simulates an N/A engine.
01-29-05, 04:27 AM
#20
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by scathcart
Lets say your engine makes 180 rwhp without the M90.
Based on my calculations using airflow values at 10 psi, BSFC, blah blah blah: Expect to gain 65-75 hp to the tires.
This is assuming a decently flowing system.
Based on my calculations using airflow values at 10 psi, BSFC, blah blah blah: Expect to gain 65-75 hp to the tires.
This is assuming a decently flowing system.
340rwhp at 11,6 Psi
calculated on;
70 deg F outside temperature
79,81905192 CID or 1308cc
8500 redline rpm
75,00% Ev engine volumetric effiency
88,00% supercharger effiency
294,47 CFM flow at redline
0,9688277 desio ratio with a good FMIC
10271,54 rpm at the compressor pulley
and this is not a overkill for a M90... But the max rew on the charger is about 14000rpm and max pressure 14Psi, you can still get more out of it by putting on bigger pulley on the crank.
01-29-05, 10:47 AM
#21
Super Raterhater
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NY, MA, MI, OR, TX, and now LA or AZ!
Posts: 10,626
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Too bad you forgot that the rotary really sucks air like a 2.6liter. Not to mention the chargers efficiency isn't 88%. And does that also take into account the parasitic loss of the charger?
Last edited by SonicRaT; 01-29-05 at 10:50 AM.
02-03-05, 04:57 PM
#22
Full Member
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Sweden
Posts: 135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by SonicRaT
Too bad you forgot that the rotary really sucks air like a 2.6liter. Not to mention the chargers efficiency isn't 88%. And does that also take into account the parasitic loss of the charger?
and yes, the loss is about 45hp at the flywheel.
I know what i`m talking about! :o)
02-03-05, 05:24 PM
#23
Super Raterhater
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: NY, MA, MI, OR, TX, and now LA or AZ!
Posts: 10,626
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
*sigh* Yes, I'm so wrong, that's why I've got one on my car that doesn't put out more than 270rwhp (at 14+psi). Regardless, you're speaking of volumetric efficiency, which doesn't do us much good. Think in adiabatic and you'll be much better off. (This is where the m90 sucks, and why it causes so much damn heat which thus makes it LESS efficient). Secondly, the rotary sucks air like a 2.6, just look at turbo sizing and you'll find proof of that. It's a complex thing that people argue about all the time as to why it is, but for simple sakes, we'll just leave it at that, or we can invite Ted in for an hour long discussion on why. But for simple sakes, here's a simple paragraph from rx7.com:
But i'm wrong, as always. 
Oh, for the sake of definition, and understanding, what each 'efficiency' means or implies
Originally Posted by rx7.com
The key for comparing the displacement between the 4-cycle engine and the rotary engine is in studying the degrees of rotation for a thermodynamic cycle to occur. For a 4-cycle engine to complete every thermodynamic cycle, the engine must rotate 720° or two complete revolutions of the crankshaft. The rotary engine is different. The engine rotor rotates at 1/3 the speed of the crankshaft. On two rotor engines, front and rear rotors are 180° offset from each other. Each rotation of the engine (360°) will bring two faces through the combustion cycle (the torque input to the eccentric shaft). This said, it takes 1080° or three complete revolutions of the crankshaft to complete the entire thermodynamic cycle. Obviously, we have a disparity. How can we get a relatable number to compare to a 4-stroke engine? The best way is to study 720° of rotation of the two-rotor engine. Every 360° of rotation, two faces of the engine complete a combustion cycle. 720° will have a total of four faces completing their cycle. 40ci(654cc) per face times four faces equals 160ci or 2.6L. That’s a well-reasoned number and now gives us something to be able to compare to other engines. In addition, since four faces passed by in the comparison, it’s like a four cylinder engine.
Now we know, the 13B compare well to a 2.6L 4-cylinder 4-cycle engine.
Now we know, the 13B compare well to a 2.6L 4-cylinder 4-cycle engine.
Oh, for the sake of definition, and understanding, what each 'efficiency' means or implies
Originally Posted by Some blower site
* Compressors are not perfect; there is air leakage around seals, rotors and other parts within the blower. The Volumetric efficiency tells you how much a positive displacement blower leaks. If a 100 cubic inch blower displaces 97 cubic inches, it has a 97% volumetric efficiency. As you spin the blower faster there is less time for leak, which is why this type of efficiency goes up with higher rpm.
** Compressing the air makes heat. If it were possible to compress the air without raising the temperature, we could have perfect adiabatic compression. Adiabatic means no loss or gain in heat during a thermodynamic process. Perfect adiabatic compression is very hard to achieve, a temperature rise equal to the amount of work required to compress the air would give 100% adiabatic efficiency.
** Compressing the air makes heat. If it were possible to compress the air without raising the temperature, we could have perfect adiabatic compression. Adiabatic means no loss or gain in heat during a thermodynamic process. Perfect adiabatic compression is very hard to achieve, a temperature rise equal to the amount of work required to compress the air would give 100% adiabatic efficiency.
Last edited by SonicRaT; 02-03-05 at 05:29 PM.
02-03-05, 06:00 PM
#25
Is that thing Turbo?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Maryland
Posts: 1,411
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like Arvika has met his match, you will learn very quickly on this forum that just because you think you know what you are talking about doesn't mean you do. Many of our member like sonicRat are very inteligent and can teach you a thing or two, but anyway SonicRat is right on both points, i hope we've all learned something here lol