whipplem104

Hello, I have a supercharge m104 with air/water intercooling. I am redesigning
for a clean bolt on system. I was curious about actual interest in this sort of thing. There seems to be a small handful of people doing there own kits. I have been running boost at 9 lbs. on a stock motor for some time without any failures. 6lbs can easily be done without much fuel system modifications. I am also working on a low compression and going for more power. I am currently at 300 rwhp maybe more now. I have made some more modifications since I last dynoed. I also have done a 722.6 updated transmission into my car with stand alone tcm. I am still working out some of the bugs but so far it is working pretty great.
I just wanted to see what the interest level in these sort of mods is.
Thanks.

childofjuly

would love to see pictures!

whipplem104

I am planning on redesigning this layout so that the supercharger in on the intake side under the intake and the intake will have the air/water intercooler icorporated into it. Better balance and cleaner.

Real1shepherd

I would be VERY much interested in a bolt on kit for the 103 engine. Not because I don't think it would be better to supercharge a 104, but alas, that's what I have, the 103. I don't what to sacrifice longevity for power, but 50/60 more ponies wouldn't hurt anything. I've been told the tranny can take it.

Kevin

CDP

Is there anyway you can post BIGGER pictures so we can actually see the setup.

whipplem104

I could make it for a m103. That motor with cis-e can easily support a lot more than 50 60 horsepower. The main difference is the throttle actuator location is difficult. It is much easier to turbo on cis. This just requires a turbo exhaust manifold and some plumbing for oil and air on cis. Fuel can be done really easy. I first started with a cis-e m104 with the supercharger. I got up to around 350+ horsepower before i ran out of fuel.
I will try to get some better pitures up.

whipplem104

here should be some bigger pictures

Quicksilver500

Thats awesome man, good job. I am looking into the 722.6 mod also, what TCM are you using?

-Mike

appatula

Yes also interested in your TCM approach....

whipplem104

I am using Powertrain control solutions. It is pretty difficult to tune. Mainly the shift firmness at low throttle inputs. Can not quite get ride of a harsh bump.
Rest of it is fine. I am using it for better gear ratios and overdrive. I am still working with PCS about the software. I have been doing a little of their R&D
and they are working on software changes for me to continue improving the shift quality. It is almost 100% reliable at this point just not perfect.

Saijin_Naib

I'd love to see it on the early m104 that is used in the CE because well, 7K US is a bit much for a turbo kit.

whipplem104

Again turbo is better if using cis-e. The problems is the throttle actuator.
I could never make it reliable. It kept blowing the boot off the bottom of the fuel door and I had to run dual throttle actuators. One on the supercharger and
the normal one. The layout is perfect for turbo applications as is. If you get rid of the cis-e and go stand alone then supercharger is just fine. That motor is strong. Just a 103 with a different cyl. head. It does not flow as well though.

RHW

Kudos on some great looking work!

You are answering a common complaint.

Quicksilver500

Not to mention how much stronger the .6 is

Real1shepherd

I could make it for a m103. That motor with cis-e can easily support a lot more than 50 60 horsepower. The main difference is the throttle actuator location is difficult. It is much easier to turbo on cis. This just requires a turbo exhaust manifold and some plumbing for oil and air on cis. Fuel can be done really easy. I first started with a cis-e m104 with the supercharger. I got up to around 350+ horsepower before i ran out of fuel.
I will try to get some better pitures up.

Yeah I was told that-turbo much easier on the 103. If it was really the only logical choice (like $1,500 versus $3,500) and the blower setup couldn't be worked out perfectly. Still, my heart is set on a supercharger if feasible. I was being conservative with my 50/60 ponies comment, as I know blowers can add much, much more. However, I don't want to have to reinforce the tranny and drive train etc.

Seriously, keep me in mind for a blower on a 103 that's bolt on and no bugs.

Kevin

whipplem104

It can be done but will be more expensive. The supercharger has to draw through the fuel door and throttle actuator. I would have to make an intake manifold and there would not be alot of room for keeping all the stock injection. The cost of a supercharger is in the 2000 range to start, plus fabricating a kit. A very basic low boost kit without major modifications would cost in the 3500 range. The only option for this kind of kit is to use a bypass valve and this is very loud with a positive displacement blower. This is best for the centrifugal blowers, which only give boost higher in the revs.
Just what you are looking for. For my money if I were to go with a stock cis-e injection system I would use a turbo. I tried it with the supercharger most of the ways I mentioned and never liked any of them.

appatula

whipplem104, now that we are on the turbo subject regarding the M103 block, would you recommend using a stand alone engine management system (MSII) for a moderate turbo setup? An increase of 177HP to 250-280HP shouldn't require too much transmission/drive train modification correct? I was planning on swapping out the CIS-E and MSing just to explore the world of engine management, however, down the road something like this could be an asset to a future turbo build. Again thanks for sharing this with us, if you market a kit correctly for the M104 or M103 and have dyno numbers (A must!!) I bet you would be able to send out quite a few

RBYCC

The stock transmission and rear will more then handle any power you make by boosting the M103 or M104

whipplem104

The stock transmission is plenty strong if in good condition. I ran all stock for many years with no problem. I changed to the 722.6 for better gear ratios, overdrive and more control. I also have a couple clients with 500Es that are interested in the trans mod for better mileage. The only thing I did to the stock transmission was up the modulator pressure for firmer shifts.
If you are not going over about 6lbs of boost then the stock cis-e can handle it.
It can handle a little more even but not as safe. I ran up to 9lbs on my cis-e m104. I started running into fuel problems at high rpms.
As far as standalone fuel injection goes I am using Electromotive tec3r, which is great. They also have a new unit called the Tecgt. If your plans are for high power in the future I would have to recommend getting a high class ecu. I know lots of people have used MS with success, but it is worth the money for the ease of tuning with the Tec products.
Again if you are only going to low boost levels to start then I can supply a simple boost relay module that will enrich the fuel.
If you go stand alone then I suggest getting rid of the stock intake and I can make a intercooled better flowing intake.

Real1shepherd

OK, so are you interested in supplying a complete, bolt-on turbo kit for my 103, or are you mainly interested in the blower kits right now? And if so, what kind of boost rpm range are we talking about and what kind of hp gains from the turbo? Single or twin turbo?

Kevin

berti_00

mr.whipplem104 one question for you...

would the gear ratio of a e320 work on a 300e? cuz i know my dads get much more gas milage on his e320 than mine

whipplem104

As far as making a kit for someone please email me or send pm me with contact info. We can discuss the details. If your really serious.
As far as rear end gears. The differential gears are not that complex.
The main thing you want to look at is the case number. There are lots of options for different gear ratios on older cars. Whether you want better highway mileage or more acceleration.
The 722.6 will bolt up to any m103 m104 motor also m102 m111.
I have even been told but have not verified that the m116 m117 has the same bolt pattern as the m119. So it is possible to go back to that early of and engine. So far the ones I would confirm are m103 m104 m119 m111.
I do not know if the 190e has a big enough tunnel. It is tight in my 124.

Quicksilver500

m117 is pretty much same block as m119 just different heads and crank. So bolt pattern should be the same.

-Mike

whipplem104

Yes that is what I understand. In fact I was told that the crank out of a 560 is used in the 6.0 conversions on the 119. I just have never verified this personally so I do not want people taking my word on it. If it is true that the blocks are all the same then this would be great for building forced induction m119. Only the early ones can handle any boost due to the closed deck. Post 1993-1994? They become open deck and the cylinders blow out. Just remembered the bolt pattern on the two motors. They are completely different for the cylinder heads.

PeterGunz

Nice setup whipple, looks good...