36 Guests, 1 User
pinto1955

Author Topic: centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?  (Read 625 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline 78_starsky

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • FeedBack: +21/-0
  • Forever Learning

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Fifth year Anniversary Windows User
centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?
« on: November 26, 2019, 12:01:29 AM »
Hi gang.  i haven't been in here in a while.  started thinking about getting a bit more out of the 2.8.  and started thinking about a few pounds of boost.  then started to really conceive the idea about a small centrifugal supercharger.  could be less hassles than a turbo set up. has anyone seen any done to such a small engine? what would be any recommendation s?

thanks for any insights.
cheers

Offline pinto_one

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • FeedBack: +70/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Pinto-One

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    1000 Posts Photographer Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Apple User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2019, 02:36:09 PM »
It all depends how much power your looking for ,  long time ago I tried a centrifugal super charger on a 2.3 , took up alot of room , it was made by paxton , blow through type , made some power but found later turbos worked much better , I have a 2.8 in my pinto and know there is no room unless you do not have A/C or power steering , then you may have enough room to do just that , and you can put TBI unjection for a blow through system , unless you already have one Its not worth buying one , few ones that could be used is one off of a 3.8 supercoup T Bird , only you will have to change the pistons for stronger ones , pluss you will have to take everything apart to adjust the valves every 15K , when I redone mine I wish I would have used the 2.9 out of a ranger , hyd lifters and is a easy bolt in , same mounts and transmission bolt up , at least you could use two very small turbos to fit , like the 3.5 ecoboost , battery will have to be placed somewhere else , just a few ideas for you to ponder on ,
76 Pinto sedan V6 , 79 pinto cruiser wagon V6 soon to be diesel or 4.0

Offline Wittsend

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 2223
  • FeedBack: +241/-0

  • Total Badges: 8
    Badges: (View All)
    Tenth year Anniversary Mobile User Topic Starter Poll Voter 1000 Posts Linux User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?
« Reply #2 on: November 27, 2019, 01:46:18 PM »
I agree with Pinto_One. There is not an off the shelf intake manifold to attach the supercharger to the 2.8 engine. So, even if you were skilled enough and had the tools enough to fabricate one, it would be FAR more work than adding a turbo.

In the long run a 2.3 Turbo swap is a better choice. But, frankly even there the Turbo Coupe that so many of us derived our setup from are almost non-existent today. The newest Turbo coupe ('88) is 32 years old! And, while it seems an easy swap on a scale of 1-10 it is still in the 6-7 category.  The Ranger 2.9 sounds interesting. You might look over at TRS (The Ranger Station) about that. Fuel Injection and a 5 Speed would certainly modernize any 2.8 Pinto.

Offline 78_starsky

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 400
  • FeedBack: +21/-0
  • Forever Learning

  • Total Badges: 3
    Badges: (View All)
    Topic Starter Fifth year Anniversary Windows User
Re: centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2019, 11:03:41 PM »
Thanks for the info guys.  I am a member at the ranger station, (currently finishing a show truck  302 - 83 ranger)

before i would put a 2.9 into a pinto I would put a 4.l in there. way stronger engine.  wasn't really what i was looking for. computer, EFI pressurized tank and the wiring hassles.

have a 5 speed that has a 2.8 bell housing that was pulled from the 83 truck, also have 2  2.8's sitting on the garage floor waiting for something... will remember for what 1 day.... lol. (supercharger build) 

wasn't looking for block splitting power out of the 2.8,  just looking for a bit more ooomph,  it is snappy as hell already, but just looking for a bit more... wasn't sure if the flat top pistons would need to be changed with something different to lower down the compression a bit to allow the boost.

anyway,  will keep searching out options for this idea.

cheers




Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?
« Reply #4 on: February 08, 2020, 12:46:47 PM »
before i would put a 2.9 into a pinto I would put a 4.l in there. way stronger engine.  wasn't really what i was looking for. computer, EFI pressurized tank and the wiring hassles.
I hesitate to acknowledge that the 2.9 even exists. Those things are terrible IMO...the polar opposite of a 4.0.

The 4.0 OHV can be converted to a carb and distributor. I don't like the 4v intake design here http://www.moranav6racing.com/category.html?CategoryID=32 , but it it's an option nonetheless.

I don't know how much hood clearance a V6 Pinto has, but a Roots blower would probably provide a much more useful power curve. Centrifugal blowers have a boost curve that goes up with RPM so they have to be geared such that they only make peak boost at redline. I liken them to a cross between turbos and roots blowers that has the power robbing of a blower and the soft low end of a turbo.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline pinto_one

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • FeedBack: +70/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Pinto-One

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    1000 Posts Photographer Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Apple User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?
« Reply #5 on: February 10, 2020, 07:05:44 AM »
If the 2.8 was pilled from the ranger it will have to have the pinto 2.8 oil pan and mounts , the trans that was pulled from the ranger probley had the hyd clutch which will not work , but if the bellhousing came from a mustang II and has a T-5 on it it will , as for the 2.9 it was not a bad engine if you took care of it , had a few over the yars , last one almost made 400K before the trans took a dump ,  My V-6 pinto has TBI from a 83 ford 5.0 with a ranger computor and a 2.9 crank to make it a small stroker , check on my photos here and you will see it , the 4.0 will fit and stock 2.8 mount will blot to it but the 2.8 oil pan will almost fit , one side will have to made to fit , a 2.9 is almost a bolt in but use the intake of a scorpio to clear the hood ,
76 Pinto sedan V6 , 79 pinto cruiser wagon V6 soon to be diesel or 4.0

Offline 65ShelbyClone

  • Pinto Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 710
  • FeedBack: +139/-0

  • Total Badges: 7
    Badges: (View All)
    Fifth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Linux User Windows User
Re: centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?
« Reply #6 on: February 10, 2020, 09:16:46 AM »
My beef with the 2.9 is the four-cylinder power and V8 fuel economy. It's much like the Toyota 3VZ-E in that respect save for the Toyota's penchant for blowing head gaskets.
'72 Runabout - 2.3T, T5, MegaSquirt-II, 8", 5-lugs, big brakes.
'68 Mustang - Built roller 302, Toploader, 9", etc.

Offline pinto_one

  • Pinto Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 1001
  • FeedBack: +70/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Pinto-One

  • Total Badges: 10
    Badges: (View All)
    1000 Posts Photographer Tenth year Anniversary Topic Starter Signature Poll Voter Mobile User Apple User Windows User Fifth year Anniversary
Re: centrifugal supercharger instead of turbo?
« Reply #7 on: February 10, 2020, 01:15:20 PM »
Wow that one must have been in bad shape to run like a four banger and zoop the gas doing so , stock is should have 145HP and around 170lbs of noodle bending tourqe ,  the only two problems with the 2.9 is the thin wall heads that crack when over heated and cam bearings that when they wear to muck you have loss of oil to the lifters , they start tapping at idle , but when the oil is changed and the cooling system is mantaned its a great engine , the 4.0 is a carry over , same rod and main bearings , block spacing and flywheel and bellhousing like the 2.8 , but can be fixed on the cheep , you should be getting good gas mileage with the 2.9 , I always got 24 to 26 most of the time , so there is a problem is you get les than that , my 4.0 ranger gets 20 to a max of 23 when you drive easy ,  mods to the 2.9 is to use 2.8 pistons (flat top) a comp cam #2 , a head clean up , and a chip for the computor , if you dont want the EFI Buton Power makes a three webber maifold for the engine , and yes you can drop in a 4.0 crank to stroke it to a 3.5 , you know how those Brits are across the pond , also check they did make a Cossworth 2.9 , same block but 24 valves and 205 HP ,
76 Pinto sedan V6 , 79 pinto cruiser wagon V6 soon to be diesel or 4.0