I need the specifics on the Lightning, Harley Davidson, and Cobra superchargers. From what I understand, they are all an Eaton m112 variation, but I need dimensions and such for each model specific charger. ANyone have a good website for that info or know it off hand?? I am investigating a possible supercharger addition to my 4.0 ranger. I know m90s are very popular for these, but the F-150s and Cobras have either a side intake or top intake port for the incoming air, which is much easier to deal with than a rear intake. Thanks for the help!!

 

Well first off, the Cobras use an m-90 not a 112

The lightning/Harley use a 112 (different pulleys).

That being said I do not know of any kits for a roots type supercharger for a 4.0 Ranger. Also there are differences in the 4.0 V6 depending on the year. The only supercharger kit that I’ve seen was a Whipple (twin-screw/compressor) kit for the 2001+ 3.0 Vulcan Ranger. There may be a centripetal supercharger kit out there, but I don’t know of any off the top of my head.

All the info on the Eatons can be found here.....
http://www.automotive.eaton.com/prod...erchargers.asp

 

Thanks for clearing that up. I know there arent many awesome kits out there for the 4.0 SOHC rangers, Procharger just made one for the new Mustangs 4.0 (same as my 4.0) and a company called Explorer Express make one (but it uses the M62). Both are upwards of 4000 bucks. Any idea where I can get measurements for both the M90 cobra and M112 f-150s chargers? The eaton site is very model specific on the dimensions. BOth superchargers can be found relatively cheap used, I just dont know which one to start with. IT almost looks like the m112 is smaller plus I like the top intake versus the side intake of the m90. The rear intake is going to be very difficult to set up, but it seems to be the choice when people put them on the 4.0s. I think it would be awesome to put an m112 on it since the norm is the m90. I just for-see a lot of clearance issues so I need to measure how tall to build my new intake and I want to shift it to the passenger side as far possible so I can run my Throttle body as close to the origional position as possible. I just cant afford to buy the charger first and realize it doesnt fit. Also, are both internally bypassed (thats what the valve looks like to me)? Does that mean I do not have to worry about that when I install it? Thanks a lot for helpin me get boosted!

 

I just looked at a bunch of ebay listings, they all claim the 03-04 cobras come with an m112.

 

If I were in your shoes I’d look at a turbo setup, I've thought about it after seeing my mom's 05 Mustang's 4.0 V6. A Turbo Ranger with an open atmosphere blow off valve could be fun, especially if you’ve got a manual transmission.

And yes, you are correct, I appoligise for the confusion. (it's been one of those weeks)
Lightnings and Cobras both use M112s, they just seem very different to me in the pictures I’ve seen as well as comparing my Eaton to my Friend's 03 Cobra. (The cobra’s blower reminds me more of the M90 a friend of mine took off his 3800 GTP motor, I assumed and thus the M90 response) After some more research I’ve found the model # corresponds to the displacement of the blower, not necessarily the shape. So the M112= 112ci, M90 =90ci, but as you can tell by the photos in the previous post both are rather different. It may require a lot of fabrication work to make either one work. So its either allot of time or allot of money without a kit.

 

I have been thinking turbo as well, I like the STS turbo design (turbo near the rear axle). It just looks extremely difficult to run intak pipes back into the engine compartment. I guess with the stock airbox removed I could run it up the fender well and through the inner fender (with a small hole cut). I have the 5 speed auto. I just like the stock look and feel of an m112 or m90 ontop of the engine. I want to run the lightning m112. Which f-150, the HarleyDavidson or Lightning, model runs less boost (aka larger pulley)? Which one is intercooled? I am thinking of running the Lightning m112 with a custom intercooler, I want to integrate a CO2 cooling system versus the air-to-water-to-air system cause it is lighter and much easier to set up (almost like NO2). I just need to find diagrams and cut-aways of the system so I can get confident enough to cut up my 3,000 mile ranger. I want to run very low boost, but run cool air, thats why I want the m112 versus the m90. It runs cooler and it can be found already intercooled. I was thinking about 2-4 lbs of boost, considering it is on a built 5.4 v8 versus my stock 4.0 v6. I also want to use the throttle body from the Lightning as well (to keep it simple), any idea on how the two throttle bodies vary, or am I better off making an adpater plate for my stock 4.0 throttle body?

 

Moved to proper forum.

 

I figured lightning guys could help more.

 

I'd keep that turbo under the hood unless you want to chase boot leaks the rest of the trucks life. The Harley ran less boost but I’m not sure if it was the crank or the supercharger pulley. Like I said earlier there will be allot of custom work and that gets expensive. For the price I believe you would be much happier and retain a stock look with a turbo vs. trying to get the supercharger to work right. They are finally bringing out turbo kits for the 2nd Gen Lightning’s and many of the people who have the money are jumping on them. Plus you could get allot more power out of that 4.0 safer(no parasitic loss from turning those big paddles). I have a friend who took a Pontiac 3800, and replaced the supercharger with a single turbo, then placed the whole thing in a Fiero. On pump gas 500 rwhp, 470 ftbs. His only trouble is there is only one transmission (transversely mounted) that can handle that power and its nearly $20,000. He’s using one from a Lumina minivan and its dying after one run.Here's a video of it to give you an idea you must remember he is starting out in 2nd and must completely let off in order for the transmission to shift. Imagine that power in a Ranger.
btw- his site is www.fierox.com

 

Damn, thats a fast fiero! I would much rather do the turbo, it is much easier to set up. I just cant see enough room to fit a turbo anywhere under the hood. Have you seen the engine compartment of a 4.0 Ranger? I would find it very helpful if you have seen a turboed 4.0 yet and have pics, i just dont see any room for one or two in there. I love turbos, it just seems easier to slap a m112 on top of my engine and call it done. It would take work to fit all of my stock stuff in there too, but it would fit easily.

 

I' have not seen the kits specifically for the 4.0, but Tickford does it from the factory (albeit a slightly different 4.0 ford v6). I've seen them stick them in 2nd gen Lightnings, and the Fiero (talk about cramped) I had an 02 Ranger before the L . A single turbo would work nicely on a 4.0 ranger. Many people (on 5.0s, ect ) use their stock exhaust manifolds but reverse them so that they face forward then place the turbo in front of the engine. Even thought it is crammed I think it would be a bigger pain to supercharge (without using a kit) than to turbo. If you can find a kit for the supercharger then it’s a whole different ballgame. http://www.mustangweekly.com/2005/se...NP01_09_05.ASP its for the mustang, but it may work for you.

I found this page that may help you on turbos
http://www.allfordmustangs.com/Detailed/20.shtml

 

the turbo would be nice, but the under hood idea is tough. The fender wells hug right up against the manifolds. I think I will go with a supercharger. I am trying to get hooked up at Explorer Express. An m112 would just take too muche power to turn compared to a m62. I dont want crazy power, just 250-270 to the wheels is good and reliable yet fun. But I will be puting 03 lightning rims on my truck, i am about to buy the wheel adapters.

 

Do those cat-back turbo systems really work? I can't see them being efficient since there would be so much heat loss from the time the exhaust leaves the engine until it reaches the turbo. Someone a while back said that they do work but I still don't see how the exhaust temps would be hot enough back near the rear axle to spool the turbo properly.

 

They work amazingly well. The exhaust is still moving fast and is very hot by the rear axle. And the piping back up to the engine acts like an intercooler (with usually about 50% temperature drop). The only draw back is that it is very exposed to the elements and the oil cooling lines are a bitch, usually cause you have to run a seperate oil pump, lines, and filter. That and the intake is very exposed to the elements as well. THey are very efficient though, the lag is no different than when mounted to the manifold. I like them, I just dont want an exposed turbo and air filter.