i had some people telling me it wouldnt fit with the distrib behind it. i just took some pics so that i could show them otherwise.... i just thought id share... heres the blower.. i set it on cardboard so that theres no chance of scratching the mounting surface... that last pic is for size ref... so if you want to get a idea of the length, just look at that, then at your car.. somewhere around here i have all the dimentions written down for everything i could think to measure.....along with stock 91 RS hood clearances..... i just have to find my notebook

Check out that coolant passage. I have drawings for an intake with the eaton m112, port injection at an acceptable angle, clearing the dizzy and everything. I'm only missing a few dimensions. Most of my parts for the intake will be wire EDM cut and then welded together.
Are you keeping the TBI with the blower?

at one time whipple or somebody made a kit for our cars the TBI went on the back of the blower and mounted sideways just something to consider, they did that because the TBI unit is not effected by tilt.

no no no no no.


TBI is NOT staying on this motor.

the L03 will remain mostly stock until i drop the 400 in. it will be a multiport setup.

ECM will be 749 code or a holley commander950 if i find a deal.

Why the big motor with the smallish blower?
OEM applications have that blower making ~8psi and fading off to about 6 on the ford 5.4L and the 4.6L engines.
6.6L is just going to be large for that blower, might want to take a look at the upgrade blowers for the Fords or even a dual m90 setup .

yeah but you can spin them up a lot higher than stock aps...even higher than eaton says.

18k or so if need be.

overdriving it slightly.


later on, i may port it out some like silverback did with his 11second M90.



goal here is to have a mild daily driver thats a monster when you floor it.


i dont want total boost to go over 10psi... rooster is seeing lil over 12 with his LT1 from what i can tell from the vid he posted.

i think it'll be fine.


besides, like you said, the lightning/cobra upgrade blowers just bolt on.

It won't work, running fuel through it will trash the bearings in the back of the case.

MrDude_1, how much power are you hoping to make with this thing?

no set power goal in mind... id like to be faster then a friend of mine with a LT4 *glances at fredo* but other then that, no real power goal.


i just want somthing that i can stay out of the boost on the daily commute (bypass valve takes care of that) but when i push the pedal, i dont want to wait like a centerfug charger....

this is a convertible cruiser with a lil attitude... thats all.

sorry to get off topic here but;

it might have been a different model, I mean the inlet was directly in the rear, straight in the rear.
But, come to think of it those bearings must be sealed from the fuel charge on some models. all those lightning owners with the NX single fogger do it on the inlet side of the blowers (like the 11.30 one we built back in 1999 or 2000). Magnussen told us that "nothing but air" is supposed to pass through the screws though. Its being done very prolifically by owners so far without obvious ill effect. Even new lightning ownersare doing it. I believe those have the new closer clearance gen II rotors with the lapping compound imbeded on thier faces? I dont have first hand expirience of the blown cobra mustang owners doing it. But I bet if we looked around we could find one doing it. I mean it was so easy, on the lightning to get into the 11's and if you do all those cheap little upgrades to a cobra to make 500 hp ($1400) like the articles are saying then pop a 125 shot to it like the lightning guys you would have a 9 second capable ride. The cobra has a very nice short block as far as strength (race rods, forged pistons, steel crank etc).

There is a significant difference between running a little fuel through it for a dozen, 12 second passes a year (what, less then 150 seconds a year?) and running fuel through it all the time. I know of a couple of failures that have happened in a few days of driving running gas through them.

All eaton blowers have the inlet in the same place on the case, the casting is just different to allow different connections. In none of them are the rear bearings protected from anything going through the case.

I haven't heard of lapping compound on the eatons, but the newer ones come with a Teflon/enamel coating to insulate them somewhat and take up clearances. (some of the newer holset turbos come with what could almost be described as an ablative coating on the compressor scroll. You assemble them with the wheel contacting the scroll and as it spins it cuts itself a perfect matching shape)

FWIW, I've gotten my grimy little mitts on an M112 this week and gave it a good hard look (as well as the published compressor maps…). I'm not sure that I was impressed so I sold it. It's about the same length as the M90 but with a much bulkier/more awkward case. Having had both apart and played with both and looking at the power usage (to drive it) maps I think I'd prefer the M90 for applications up to 500hp (Of course, I look at these things a bit differently…). I think that if I run by another good deal on an M90 I'll probably grab it and try it on my truck (K1500, 350 TBI), I'm thinking with 3:1 pulleys it could be a pretty sweet setup and good for a lot of broken parts (there's something about stock L05 running 13's… IN A FULL SIZE TRUCK that appeals to me).

its this "ablative" coating you described not the "abrasive" one I misused the term. It was described to me by the magnussen factory guy thats what helped to put the lightnings over the 400 hp mark (and a few other tiny things but mainly this one).

He said upon startup they would "wear" together as the coating was cut or "lapped" together.

Anyhow that blower I described was sold for years for the pickups and thirdgens (back when thirdgens were still being made) by Kenne Bell, they use a different blower that could do that "TBI on the rear" thing I guess.

I guess that ablative is the wrong word since it implies that it wears/sacrifices itself due to heat, where this is strictly a mechanical process. And yes, there are blowers that you can run gas through, the stock eatons are not them.

theres a guy round here with an 03 conv. cobra.. has a smaller pulley (wouldnt say what size), magnaflow cat back, cold air kit, and 90 shot nitrous... runs 11.9's last i heard on stock suspension (with slicks) so yeah with a better exhaust (i hear you need to get rid of the cats) and a little more nitrous, and some suspension work i bet he could get low 11's up here, thats low 10's at sea level

you cant directly compare blowers at altitude to them at sea level..

the extra density in the air down hear means that at the same pulley ratio, the air is going to heat up more, and be less efficent.... so you end up with less gain then you might think at first.

the higher altitude has a lower air density and lower percentage of O2

83 crossfire TA I bet can show us the calculation

huh? WTF are you talking about?

It's all about density. You run a compressor it will give you a certain pressure ratio (between the inlet and outlet), that doesn't change with a different inlet pressure, you get the same pressure ratio across the compressor (well, till the inlet density gets low enough that it causes the tip to stall…). The compressor has a specific adiabatic efficiency, work out the outlet temp based on the adiabatic efficiency and you've got a density ratio. Giving an extreme example, say you've got the same compressor spinning at the same rpm resulting in a 2:1 density ratio. At STP (standard temp and pressure, basically sea level), you will have 2x the mass of air getting pumped into the engine that you would without the blower. If you drop the inlet pressure to 1/2STP then you'll only have the same amount getting forced in as that engine would get without the blower at sea level. Real world, you won't even get that much since you'll probably get stall/cavitation with that low an inlet pressure unless the compressor was specifically designed for the application.

FWIW, that was written before B4Ctom1's response and in response to MrDude_1, it just didn't get posted till then because of network problems at this end…