( click thumbnails to enlarge )
Cleaning the Intercooler
| MaxPower Senior Member |
 Intercoolor
Cleaning - A How-To...Well, spent the better part of my Monday off taking out the intercooler to clean it. Here's some stuff I learned in the process... I plan on posting a few times, so be patient before replying as I can only post once a minute I think... Some tools you will DEFINITELY need (I found out the hard way...had to bike to the damn hardware store): * 10mm, 13mm Deep sockets (found a whole
set for $12.99 at Sears Hardware) Before you begin, it might be easiest if you remove the belt from the supercharger and drain the intercooler. There's a pet**** (heh) valve on the passenger side of the heat exchanger. Put a bucket uner that and open it up. Should drain almost a gallon of fluid. Start by pulling off the boot between the Throttle Body and MAF. Put it off to the side. Remove the hardware that hold the cables to the TB (3 10mm bolts). Remove the TB (this is where you'll need the deep 10mm socket for the bottom 2 bolts) Remove the rusty EGR setup. Open-ended
wrench and socket (10mm from what I remember) Remove all hoses and cables from anything connected to the TB, upper intake plenum, supercharger and InterCooler. Remove the upper intake plenum. The back bolts are a bear to get at, but with a swivel and your 10mm socket shouldn't be a problem. Mine was pretty dirty... Here's the front and bottom:
...continued ...
|
| MaxPower Senior Member |
Part II Now remove the supercharger. You'll need to remove the bolts that hold down the intercooler lines on the passenger side, and the bolts that hold the whole EGR setup on the driver side.
Remove the rest of the bolts using the 13mm deep socket and swivels. The back 2 bolts are a PAIN to get out, but have faith, they can be removed. The fiberglass type heat shield along the back top of the firewall kind of gets in the way... With the supercharger out, there's only 4
bolts that hold in the InterCooler. There's a vacuum line on the drivers side of the IC that needs to be pulled off. Remove the 4 bolts at the rear of the IC with the 13mm socket and swivels. I removed the IC lines close to the front of the IC, where the hard lines connect with the robber hoses. Left room so fluid would spill out when removing the IC. ...continued...
|
| MaxPower Senior Member |
 Part
IIIThe IC comes out it you lift up on it, and angle the front higher than the back. It's pretty deep, but there's room to get it out. Here's a pic of the bottom of the IC to
give you an idea... Clean all the parts real good with this: |
| MaxPower Senior Member |
Part
IV - the end Here's some after pix... note the towel underneath the IC. It was WORSE after I was all done. And a LOT of it ended up on the mulch on the side of my house...heh
Put everything back together in reverse. I tightened everything back up real good on the IC and S/C. I didnt use a torque wrench, as I didn't know the specs, but from what it took to get the bolts off, I pretty much duplicated the efforts putting them back on. Remember to check that ALL hoses are back on. When I first started it after I was done, it wouldn't even stay running. Realized later that I forgot to connect the one hose that causes ALL this mess - the rear passenger side hose from the crankcase vent. Took it for a ride afterwards, and OMG!! It was like I had a new truck! Couldn't believe how much of a difference it made!!! I plan on installing the PCV setup to keep oil from being pulled up that rear hose on the upper plenum. I found I had -0- oil in my rubber intake boot, it was all coming form that back one. He//, when I pulled off that hose, it was DRIPPING with oil! Hope this helps anyone wanting to do it. It was about a 4 hour job, start to finish. Well worth it IMHO. -Jeff
|
| MaxPower Senior Member |
quote: Originally posted by Speedin Bob I have some pix of that...
notice the nice puddle of oil at bottom...
...and OOPS! on the s/c bolts. I don't think I hurt anything putting them back on?
|
| Speedin Bob Senior Member |
additional
musings If your truck has over (or close to) 30K miles and since the blower is already off, it is an opportune time to drain the supercharger oil then refill once it is reinstalled.
|
| RollinLimp2001 Senior Member |
The lower
and upper gaskets to the intercooler are metal (read: some feel that metal gaskets dont
need to be replaced; replace them if you want to). The gaskets for the upper plenum,
throttle body, and EGR are all designed with fibers that crush so you should replace them.
As far as torque to yield bolts, if they are the ones you torque and turn an additional 90
degrees, then the throttle body uses them. Also the upper plenum bolts may be TTY. I just replaced the gaskets so here's the part numbers on those: Lower intercooler: 1L3Z9462BA I didn't need to replace this one but here it is anyway... Throttle Body: F81Z9E936AA I got my parts for half the price most dealerships are charging here Genuine Ford Parts Good luck
|
| PoorSvtMan Senior Member |
part
number for the GM supercharger oil is 12345982. Got it the other day at work. I know i brought this post back from the dead but i had it saved because i plan on doing this after xmas.
|
| collins8 Senior Member |
Thanks My lightning is a 2000 which has a different bolt pattern on the supercharger. I would assume the part numbers are different for some of the gaskets?? Rob
|
| RollinLimp2001 Senior Member |
Ya the
part numbers for the upper and lower intercooler gaskets say 2001-2003, so you would
prolly need a different gasket for both since the supercharger bolts run through the
intercooler as well. I wouldn't see why the upper intake or EGR would be different though.
Try giving them a call...I'm sure they will help you out. Good luck
|
Kenne Bell Information
Kenne Bell info.....
Until a week ago, Kenne Bell was never involved in forum discussions.
We were one of the last to even have a website. For all those years, we never visited a
single enthusiast site or made a post - out of sight, out of mind. We just never allocated
the time. In retrospect, we now realize that was a mistake, as we were never there to
respond to questions or defend ourselves against complaints or allegations. Instead we did
it by phone or not at all.
That now has changed. It doesn’t mean we’ll be active on these boards on a daily
basis but we will certainly make an attempt to address and/or discuss issues on a more
timely basis, particularly those that are confusing or misleading our customers or
potential customers.
I don’t believe vendors, or some supporters who sound like vendors, should be on a
site hawking and promoting their products, so I perceive our posts to be sparse -
certainly not in the hundreds and thousands as some we’ve seen.
I hope our posts will instead be mostly informative and educational with a minimum of
commercialism.
There seems to be an abundance of interest in the twin screw, the technology and who the
players are. Here is a quick overview.
The twin screw concept was developed years ago. It has always been recognized by engineers
as the most efficient supercharger. The problem has always been cost. They are very
expensive to manufacture. Whipple was first to introduce the twin screw to the U.S. with
the GM kits. Kenne Bell followed with Ford passenger car and trucks and has used the
Autorotor exclusively since 1991. Whipple has used Sprintex, Autorotor, and now Lysholm
(SRM), which was formed by an ex Autorotor engineer. This year, in October ‘03
Autorotor purchased Lysholm. Both are Swedish companies. Kenne Bell does not resell
superchargers to other kit builders or competitors nor do we sell through middleman
internet “product listers” companies. We engineer our own kits, based mostly on
superchargers Autorotor has designed specifically for us. We then sell our kits factory
direct to our customers or to a dealer/installer who installs and services the kits for
our customers. Whipple sells Lysholm direct, to dealers, through internet “product
listers” or other kit manufactures such as The Works.
The third manufacture’ is IHI in Japan. They only sell OEM. Mercedes and Mazda
Milenia use their twin screw.
Eaton manufactures the Roots style only. No twin screws for OEM or aftermarket. Eaton
does, however, have a licensing agreement with Autorotor/Lysholm who is manufacturing the
Ford GT twin screw for Eaton in Sweden. Autorotor is also deeply involved in fuel cell
technology with the twin screw.
50 state legal kits are what we’re all interested in, so here is how it breaks down.
Whipple has designed kits for the GM truck and SUV pre ‘99 and ‘99 up, PT
Cruiser and Ford V-10.
Kenne Bell has designed kits for ‘99 up GM V8's, Miata 1.8, Ford
V-10,Expedition/F-150 4.6,5.4, Ford trucks 5.0,5.8, Lightning 5.8, Mustang 5.0, Lincoln,
T-bird 5.0, ‘99 up Mustang 4.6 2v, ‘96-‘98 Cobra 4v, ‘03 Cobra 4v, Gen
II Lightning/Harley 5.4, Escape 3.0, Dodge 5.2,5.9, Dodge/Jeep 4.7, Jeep 4.0 and Hemi 5.7.
As can be seen above this is a lot of hi-tech kits so at times our phones are very busy.
We’re working on it. Magnuson is the aftermarket distributor for Eaton Roots style
superchargers.
Eaton Roots vs. Twin Screw future?
Engineers throughout the industry and the OEM supercharger manufactures unanimously agree
that the Roots type is a good old reliable, low cost, proven low boost concept but it will
never match the efficiency of the Twin Screw, especially at the higher HP and boost levels
we’re all interested in.
For the Roots style, it’s akin to trying to beat an overhead V8 with a flathead V8.
Ain’t never going to happen. Just look at the failed attempts so far.
Now lets get to superchargers.
First it was the hybrid Eaton that was going to make all this power and replace the stock
Cobra’s and Lightning factory superchargers. Then it was a rear inlet Eaton. Now were
hearing about the Lysholm 2.3. In all my 35 years in high performance business, I’ve
never seen so much psycho babble (comparisons, predictions, assurances, assumptions,
fictitious power numbers etc.) on products that were never accurately tested/or even
available to the general public.
That isn’t the way we do it at Kenne Bell. We research, test the product, compare it
to the competition and then go with it. We do not criticize any company by using negative
sales campaigns against any their approach or products.
Expect us to respond when our products are continually singled out, bashed and compared
unfavorably to unproven or yet to be introduced products.
Here’s is a perfect example of board bashing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Venomous Mofo says :KB's are complete crap sitting next to a Works 140.
What’s even more misleading are the boost claims people think the KB is good for.
That blower is out of steam at 20 psi.
Works 140 is just taking off at that speed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our opinion, Venomous Mofo is a little too pro Works, too confused and definitely too
crude in his comparisons. He has put up far too many board bashes about Kenne Bell. This
is our first post versus his 1000 or so, so I think we have the right to be heard. I
designed our kit. I didn’t think it “looked like crap”, besides, true
beauty is HP! We’ve never had a complaint from our customers who purchased our kit
but Venomous is entitled to his opinion. Mofo, have you been living in a cave? You think
our boost claims are misleading? I haven’t had a single complaint. Our supercharger
develops exactly the boost we claim. We publish the exact boost and hp to expect from
9-20+ psi. Who else does this? Here again, not one complaint, just another one of your
fabrications. You also claim our blower is “out of steam at 20 psi”. Really? Now
how did you arrive at this mystic decision? I think you have us confused with the stock
Eaton, check out all the magazine tests and the dyno tests on our own web site. The same
new hybrid 2.2 rotors are used in the Kenne Bell Lightning and ‘03 Cobra
superchargers. At 20 psi we made 511hp on a bone stock Lightning and 617 on a bone stock
Cobra. The only mod was a 12" filter, so the supercharger could breathe. Johnny
Lightning made 520 at 20psi, then he made 560 at 24 psi with Muscle Mustang & Fast
Ford attending. Now I have a dyno test in hand that reads 647 hp and 735 ft. lbs. I really
don’t think the Kenne Bell is “out of steam” at 20 psi. The boost
didn’t drop off. How can it be “out of steam”? Mofo are you sure of your
facts - “the works 140 is just taking off at that speed?” Mofo, remember that
you must first get there before you “take off.”
Richard (Hammer) made 660 hp at 18 psi with a 7.5x3 pulley on 93 octane and then 690+ at
20 psi with 100 octane. It would have made 700 if the clutch hadn’t fried. He can,
and will eventually run it up to 24 psi and I will guarantee it still won’t be out of
steam. Now that is a supercharger truly “just taking off at that speed.” Not one
of my customers has reported that the Kenne Bell boost drops off. When it does, as with
the Eaton, that is the tale sign a supercharger is “out of steam”. Mofo, where
did you get your facts and test data? Surely, this isn’t just hearsay. The real
questions in our minds is; “Can the Works/Lysholm even match the efficiency, boost
and power and proven reliability of the Kenne Bell at higher rpms and boost levels?”
I’m not aware of any Lysholm ever being run under those conditions. We were aware the
Lysholm 2.3 might be a future competitor. Our choice was a 2.4, 2.2. or 2.0. Autorotor
furnished us the tested air flow, temperature and power consumption (hp to drive the
supercharger) for the Lysholm 2.3 and the Autorotor 2.0,2.2 and the 2.4. We verified that
data on our dyno and test vehicles.
We’ll just say this. None of our customers will ever be embarrassed to run against a
Lysholm 2.3 with a proven Kenne Bell. We too could have used an off-the-shelf 2.0, 2.2, or
2.4 Autorotor and fabricated a new inlet as Works did . That would have been far less
costly than designing an entirely new supercharger from the ground up. Even Ford was
impressed with our Lightning supercharger. We chose to use the highly efficient stock
inlet manifold. It flowed gobs of air, and looked good as well. We did not like the idea
of twisting and sandwiching a new manifold between the firewall and the rear entry of an
off-the-self supercharger. So we popped for a brand new top inlet design that accepted the
stock manifold and would reliably handle 2-3 times the stock boost without boost drop off.
This entirely new supercharger design required a tidy investment and considerable testing
to determine HP potential. Again, Johnny Lightning has made 647 through a power robbing
automatic trans. That’s enough power for him to run in the 9's. There’s a saying
on our dyno “a good dyno test is worth a thousand opinions.” Today, we can offer
a proven, torture tested, highly efficient supercharger that makes tremendous power and
the capability of running 26 psi without boost drop off/ “running out of steam”.
Our customers have 30% more boost potential that the 20 psi limit falsely listed by Mofo.
The same is true for the Kenne Bell Cobra.
Supercharger size?
Eaton rates their supercharger (theoretical displacement) in cubic inches. Autorotor and
Lysholm rates theirs in liters (61.0 cu” = 1 liter.) Here is where the confusion
exists. Just because a supercharger is “rated” at 112 cu” (1.84L)
doesn’t mean it, in fact, produces 112 cu” of air at any rpm and boost.
That’s where volumetric efficiency ratings come into play. If a supercharger pulls in
100 cfm of air and discharges only 60 cfm, it has a 60 % volumetric efficiency and
produces less boost than another supercharger with 90 cfm discharge (90% efficiency).
Look at the Eaton vs Kenne Bell test conducted by 5.0 Mustang magazine. Between 4000 and
6000 the Eaton boost drops off 2.5 psi from 13.0 to 10.5 and 417HP whereas the Kenne Bell
increases boost 1 psi and produces 489 HP (72 HP more) That test, Venomous Mofo, is a
documented factual example of a supercharger “running out of steam”. Perhaps you
just got the superchargers mixed up. So, cu” or liters rating is not the complete
picture. Let’s use this analogy, We have two engines, one is rated at 350 cu inches
(5.7 liters) and one is rated at 340 inches (5.6 liters) but the smaller displacement
engine (engines are air pumps just like superchargers) has a better intake manifold,
headers, a hotter cam profile, and takes less friction to rotate than the larger 5.7
engines. The same is true for the supercharger. In addition to displacement, rotor
profile, inlet flow, discharge flow and power consumption must be all considered when
designing the supercharger.
Venomous Mofo stated the Kenne Bell boost claims are misleading. Our website lists the
boost claims we publish for the Lightning and Cobra. There is nothing misleading. They are
based on actual data logged tests. Our kits were engineered to make 700 RWHP - and more -
on a Cobra and 600 RWHP on an automatic trans Lightning with the Kenne Bell Boost-A-Pump
(42 or 55 lbs. injectors) and Boost-A-Spark (15psi and up). For racing, these numbers
could be increased up to as much as 26 psi. Johnny Lightning and Richard (Hammer) have
clearly verified this potential. That’s enough raw HP and Torque to twist input
shafts, fry clutches and snap half shafts on a Cobra and exceed the capacity of the
Lightning trans. I’d say we met our objectives and claims and have not mislead our
customers as Mofo claims. Now let’s wait and see what a Lysholm 2.3 will do - and how
it holds up under these boost levels and rpm loads. Since Autorotor owns Lysholm, we have
no problem doing some comparisons and explaining why we prefer the features of the
Autorotor. Both are excellent superchargers but there are some very basic differences. We
knew the Lysholm 2.3 was an excellent choice for everyday low boost applications, but the
Autorotor was better suited for the high boost, high rpm applications. Before introducing
the new Kenne Bell/Autorotor supercharger design, we spent considerable time with the
Autorotor engineers establishing the criteria. The end result was 2 superchargers designed
specifically for Kenne Bell’s Cobra and Lightning kits. Foremost was that we knew
only too well that our Lightning and Cobra superchargers would be revved beyond the normal
recommended Lysholm rpm limit, so rotor stability, shaft diameter and bearing size were
all critical to these applications. As you will see, there is more to supercharger design
than a size rating. SHORTER ROTORS: The Autorotor pack is 1" shorter resulting in
less flex at higher rpm and boost levels.
Since twin screw clearance is only .010", it’s easy to see why shorter more
stable rotors were preferred. Although shorter, the Autorotor was still more efficient
than the Lysholm. ROTORS:
The Kenne Bell/Autorotor is a 4 x 6 (4 lobe male x 6 lobe female) vs the Lysholm weaker 3
x 5 arrangement. More lobes make for stronger reduced flex rotors. ROTOR SPEED: The
Lysholm
3 x 5 drive ratio (1.66) is also 10% higher than the Autorotor 4 x 6 ratio (1.5) so the
Lysholm torque of inertia is higher. In other words, the Lysholm requires more torque to
spin. - Like the larger wheel/tire or taller gears (2nd vs 1st gear etc.) Another
disadvantage is that with the same male rotor pulley ratio/boost, the Lysholm will spin
the female 11 % faster than the Autorotor yet the rotor weights are very close in weight.
Shorter, lower rpm, more rigid rotors with a more efficient profile and long bearing and
shaft life is what we strived for. BEARINGS: The Kenne Bell/Autorotor configuration also
sports larger O.D. bearings and shafts which hold up better under the higher loads
generated by elevated boost and rpm. Lysholm and Eaton both use the smaller bearings and
shafts. Again we’re not berating Lysholm no more than GM berates their production 350
engines when comparing it to the GM NASCAR engine. They both perform well for what they
were intended for, but one is stronger and more efficient than the other. Kenne Bell
designs and sells Ford supercharger kits that meet our power and boost claims. In house
testing and our customers tests have clearly proven these products are both reliable and
durable. Yes, Mofo, there is more than meets the eye in superchargers technology.
Feel free to consult us on the higher boost level applications.
Problems? We had a few Lightning failures. We increased the rotor to case clearance and
solved the problem. In checking with our service department, there has not been a single
‘03 Cobra supercharger failure. Before leaving Mofo, we’d like to know why you
posted a 1 year old post by Dustin Whipple? Why didn’t you post the other half - my
letter? Was the intent to point out that Lysholm is involved in supplying superchargers
for the GT and therefore “quality” must be higher - and Autorotor must be lower?
That’s is total b.s.
Finally, there appears to be some confusion on supercharger quality that I feel we can
clear up.
I can personally state with confidence that the “quality” of Autorotor, Lysholm
and Eaton, OEM or aftermarket, is equally high for all superchargers. However, more
importantly than perceived quality is how the supercharger performs and lives in
aftermarket Lightning’s and Cobra’s that push the envelope. Aw, that’s not
a concern, is it? All you guys are running the same 9 psi low stock boost and therefore
not revving the supercharger any higher than designed by the OEM. You’re perfectly
content with just the Twin Screw HP gains from lower power consumption. Let’s get
real. Many of you will and do push performance to the limit. That’s what going fast
is all about. It’s our job to thoroughly test the product for performance and
reliability and then make our recommendations, Regardless of Mofo’s
“opinions,” we stand by our boost and power printed data.
Again, Kenne Bell feels confident that we have designed the ultimate Cobra and Lightning
kit.
Kenne Bell is dedicated to helping our customers improve the performance of their
Lightning’s
and Cobras. It’s fun. We enjoy seeing the Lightning and Cobras kick A$$. We promise
to do our best to keep our customers happy !
