Mad Max Supercharger

[Tebore]

So I was sitting around on a sunday afternoon and caught the old Movie MadMax with Mel Gibson.

For those who have seen the movie you'll know where I'm going.
He has a supercharger on this old ford that he can turn on and off with a flick of a swtich. That'd be damn cool for a street car.

Is it even possible? I can sorta figure a electronic clutch to activate the supercharger and tuning the fuel mixture with a computer that just uses different mapping depending on the swtich.

But is it really possible? To have a SC that you can turn on and off...

This is just me dreaming...

[Brandon]

anything is possible. with money.

i would say it could, but i doubt it would be anything but easy.

[Tebore]

Man they just don't do car crashes and car chases like they used to in the 1970s.

[Themeneea]

seems pointless

[angrysk8r]

I guess you could have a boost bypass valve that you could turn on and off....The only real benefits I could think of would be to save a little gas or to take off some of the load on your engine

GTP's have a boost bypass or something similar don't they (not exactly sure)?

[Tebore]

That would sorta work but then you still have the drag of the SC on the engine.

If you could turn the SC off tho you would need a way to get air in to the engine that's totally unrestricted and that bypasses the SC.

[Mike94SE]

More like a cutout inline the piping between the exhaust ports and the turbo; that may be more feasible.

Or just turn down the boost

[VanishingImage]

Originally posted by angrysk8r
I guess you could have a boost bypass valve that you could turn on and off....The only real benefits I could think of would be to save a little gas or to take off some of the load on your engine

GTP's have a boost bypass or something similar don't they (not exactly sure)?

the GP's with the SC do have the bypass but I don't think its anything special

[Dargasonus]

electric sc's have on and off switches.

but, they suck bum so, it defeats the purpose unless you want to throw away money...and hp

[Mike94SE]

Originally posted by Dargasonus
electric sc's have on and off switches.

but, they suck bum so, it defeats the purpose unless you want to throw away money...and hp

And dignity. And non-ricer status.

[Tebore]

That's why this isn't about an electronic supercharger. It's a real one you can turn on and off.

[Matt95GT]

Most of the roots-type blowers have a vacuum-actuator bypass. The SC is already in bypass unless you open the throttle enough to drain the vacuum, the bypass passage closes, and boost is made. I could bypass mine with a wire tie. Or put a vacuum solenoid on the line to control it electrically... but no thanks.

[raw97gtp]

if you notice alotta factory mercedes superchargers have electronic clutches on the superchargers.. yet thy seem to go bad quite often so i'm not sure what the deal is with them but i don't see the point hell i'm almost always getting into the boost on my gtp! haha

[Bjornboy81]

I think doing this on a turbo application would prove much more practical. If you have a boost controller that can dial the boost to 0 and a wastegate big enough, you can run all engine if you want to :)

[Azrael]

Mad Max's V8 Ford Falcon was a mean machine. :)

The clutch for the drive belt could be similar to the electronic clutch used to engage an AC compressor and we all know how often those like to wear out. Knowing the time-period of the movie it could very well be a mechanical clutch that was used. The additional fuel requirements would have been solved by using a rising rate fuel pressure regulator (aka Fuel Management Unit) which is normal for all boosted engines without fuel injection.

[stefunz]

The supercharger on Max's car was just an empty shell, no internals. :D

[VanishingImage]

for it to work easily,there would have to be a clutch,like on you AC compressor,etc.. Unless its engaged,the pulley would just free spin until you engage it then it would be used.

But with a SC,you obvisouly want power and don't care about the slight gas milage drop. So if you want more power but don't want to waste more gas,stay away from SC's or turbo's. Go with Nitrous instead,only use more fuel when you actually use it

[TA^Guy]

Originally posted by stefunz
The supercharger on Max's car was just an empty shell, no internals. :D
And most of the original Dukes Of Hazard cars were the incorrect year and only shot from the front for demolition scenes like jumping riverbeds.

Resurection of a old thread to point out the obvious of movie magic...

I think the thread was originally started for the theroy aspect, not what MadMax's car was actually using.

[Colin]

Originally posted by stefunz
The supercharger on Max's car was just an empty shell, no internals. :D That's the only way i could see it working , if the drive was not engaged and the rotors not spinning how would the fuel mixture flow into the intake runners ?

[spikedsteel]

To tell the truth is its a cool idea but more just to show off. I think he had one cuz most people would just look at the car and be like its fast but when he hits that switch its like more for the effect of wow a switch and now its going faster so pretty much seems ricer for lack of a better term cuz most people might not know that your turbo kicks in not have to be turned on and they wanted you to know he was hitting the turbo in that sceen lol plus ya have a switch to turn on the s/c its the gas pedal works pretty good.

[TA^Guy]

:shake:

[Colin]

:lol:

[Harvester45]

Originally posted by VanishingImage
But with a SC,you obvisouly want power and don't care about the slight gas milage drop. So if you want more power but don't want to waste more gas,stay away from SC's or turbo's. Go with Nitrous instead,only use more fuel when you actually use it

While I can't speak to the gas milage of a SC, I do know that turbocharged cars will give you BETTER gas milage under the same conditions as a NA car, not worse. To me nitrous is a waste of money, it's power that you have to pay a lot more for in the long run than a SC or turbo.

While you only use more fuel when you're shooting the nitrous, it runs out pretty quickly and is expensive. 92 octane is pretty cheap (especially since I'm getting better gas milage now), and I only use more fuel when I go into boost (just like the NO2, huh?). So nitrous seems like a waste of money to me. Maybe it's good for drag cars, but for me in my daily driver, it doesn't make sense.

Back on topic, yes, a clutch or a bypass would be the best way to have a selectable supercharger, but you can already do the same thing with turbos (to a degree). You can have a dual stage boost controller and go from 0 to XPSI of boost on the fly. Pretty nifty.

[TA^Guy]

Originally posted by Harvester45
While I can't speak to the gas milage of a SC, I do know that turbocharged cars will give you BETTER gas milage under the same conditions as a NA car, not worse. To me nitrous is a waste of money, it's power that you have to pay a lot more for in the long run than a SC or turbo.

While you only use more fuel when you're shooting the nitrous, it runs out pretty quickly and is expensive. 92 octane is pretty cheap (especially since I'm getting better gas milage now), and I only use more fuel when I go into boost (just like the NO2, huh?). So nitrous seems like a waste of money to me. Maybe it's good for drag cars, but for me in my daily driver, it doesn't make sense.
Sorry not all motors will get better fuel ecconomy turbocharged than NA.

Yes most of the time a turbocharged motor has better volumeter efficency than a NA motor, however that only means it makes more power with less waste. Depending on the size of the turbo, where it spools, how the wastegate is adjust are all factors.

My Grand National would have boost under moderate acceleration. To accelerate with no boost you basically had old women in wheel chairs passing you.

As for nitrous, far cheeper to purchase, far easier to install, easier to upgrade, and easier to be conservitive with it. Most people with a turbo on a street car are more likely to be under positive intake pressure or boost during their ride to work more often than someone using nitrous on their daily commute.

For the price different between nitrous and a turbo setup you would have to fill a 10 pound bottle atleast 60 times. And that is if you have a cheep, basic turbo setup.

I don't know about you, but there are only 52 week in a year, if you go to the drag strip every single weekend for a year you still haven't come close to having spent as much as the next guy with a turbo.

And since nitrous is easier to install, it's also easier to remove if you want to put the car back to stock. You also don't have to worry about proper lubrication, spool down time, end play in the impeller, or having to have them rebuilt over time.

[Harvester45]

Originally posted by TA^Guy
Sorry not all motors will get better fuel ecconomy turbocharged than NA.

Yes most of the time a turbocharged motor has better volumeter efficency than a NA motor, however that only means it makes more power with less waste. Depending on the size of the turbo, where it spools, how the wastegate is adjust are all factors.

My Grand National would have boost under moderate acceleration. To accelerate with no boost you basically had old women in wheel chairs passing you.

As for nitrous, far cheeper to purchase, far easier to install, easier to upgrade, and easier to be conservitive with it. Most people with a turbo on a street car are more likely to be under positive intake pressure or boost during their ride to work more often than someone using nitrous on their daily commute.

For the price different between nitrous and a turbo setup you would have to fill a 10 pound bottle atleast 60 times. And that is if you have a cheep, basic turbo setup.

I don't know about you, but there are only 52 week in a year, if you go to the drag strip every single weekend for a year you still haven't come close to having spent as much as the next guy with a turbo.

And since nitrous is easier to install, it's also easier to remove if you want to put the car back to stock. You also don't have to worry about proper lubrication, spool down time, end play in the impeller, or having to have them rebuilt over time.

I don't know of many cars that are under boost when cruising, which is where most driving time is spent. I was simply going on my limited experience, what I have learned from others, and the premise that a properly sized turbo is more efficent than NA, SC or Nitrous under the same conditions. To preform the same way a turbocharged car does, you would have to use a lot of nitrous (at least the way I drive :lol: ).

I don't really know too much about the characteristics of the GN, but I can't imagine that under the same conditions it is less fuel efficent than the same car without turbo. While you do go into power enrichment and a lower command a/f under accel/boost, it shouldn't be enough extra gas to even negate the efficency benefits at cruise (or even acceleration).

Again, I don't know that this is true for every car, but I drive more agressively with my turbo than before, yet gas milage has gone up several MPG (and I often hit boost on acceleration).

I did say that if you only use it at the track then maybe there is a benefit to nitrous over turbo, but on my daily driver, I want power I can use whenever I want it, and not have to worry about refilling bottles and paying a lot to do so. About how long (in seconds) does a 10lb bottle of nitrous last at 75 shot? Now how much does the gas cost for my car to run at a 75+ horsepower increase because I have a turbo? And does the nitrous add to fuel economy when you're not spraying?

I do agree whole-heartedly that nitrous it is a lot less involved, and you can return to stock a lot more easily. While turbos are somewhat more expensive up front, if you're planning on having the car for a while, I believe it beats Nitrous hands down. I don't think that turbos are that hard to upgrade, either. Once you have the plumbing, the hard part is done, the rest is relatively easy.:lol:

[DomestikDemon]

With a turbo engine, pretty much if youre giving it more than 1/8 throttle, theres gonna be some amount of boost.

And yes I agree the way to achieve on/off supercharger is with an electric clutch like an AC compressor has.:)

[MantaGreen97]

Originally posted by TA^Guy
I don't know about you, but there are only 52 week in a year, if you go to the drag strip every single weekend for a year you still haven't come close to having spent as much as the next guy with a turbo. [Emphasis added.]

But that's the whole thing about nitrous. It's just for drag racing and nothing else. To even use nitrous first the throttle has to be wide open, and God forbid you should have to stop for some reason right after you hit the switch, lol.

Nitrous is otherwise pointless, it doesn't have any use for normal driving IMO. It doesn't give you more power all the time, throughout the normal driving range as does a turbo or S/C, it simply gives you more power at WOT and when you hit the button.

Sure it's cheaper but there's a reason it's cheaper--it's a far cry from doing for you what a turbocharger does.

[bballr4567]

Originally posted by MantaGreen97
[Emphasis added.]

Sure it's cheaper but there's a reason it's cheaper--it's a far cry from doing for you what a turbocharger does. Exactly. A turbo or SC will give you pure power whenever you want. NOS does to an extent.

[TA^Guy]

Originally posted by MantaGreen97
[Emphasis added.]

But that's the whole thing about nitrous. It's just for drag racing and nothing else. To even use nitrous first the throttle has to be wide open, and God forbid you should have to stop for some reason right after you hit the switch, lol.

Nitrous is otherwise pointless, it doesn't have any use for normal driving IMO. It doesn't give you more power all the time, throughout the normal driving range as does a turbo or S/C, it simply gives you more power at WOT and when you hit the button.

Sure it's cheaper but there's a reason it's cheaper--it's a far cry from doing for you what a turbocharger does.
Obivously you completely missed the point of my thread.

He is saying that a turbo motor gets better fuel ecconomy than a NA motor. That maybe true for some engines but not all. In fact very few will be more effecient. Not only does the added air need more fuel to keep a proper ratio it also needs more fuel or a higher octane to compensate for the added air tempature. So even if it does get better fuel ecconomy, good chance you'll need a higher octane to prevent any knock or denotation.

Not to mention, if you have a turbocharger or supercharger your more likely to waste more fuel because on your daily commute you're more tempeted to use that extra power.

And no, it's not a 'far cry' from a turbocharger or supercharger, in fact it does the same exact thing, introduces oxygen to the cylinder. Except if does it chemicially and not mechanically and if more efficent at doing so.

[BadBlack00Ga]

Back on the topic of the thread.

This is an idea I've actually contemplated. It can easily be done with the RSM S/C for the 2.4 and eco. Since the blower is run off a drive pulley connected to the cam, and the supercharger is the only accessory running off said pulley, the S/C has it's own tensioner.

You could fab up a linear actuator to apply pressure to the tensioner pulley. No pressure = belt turns freely and doesn't rotate the S/C shaft at all. Flick a switch, to apply pressure to the tensioner and you've got boost.

Only problem is when your running with the switch "off" you've got one hell of a restriction on you intake.

[bballr4567]

Originally posted by BadBlack00Ga
Only problem is when your running with the switch "off" you've got one hell of a restriction on you intake. Yea you would have to make it "freeflow" or something of the like.

[BadBlack00Ga]

There is the option of making a "Y" pipe before the S/C so you have a free flowing intake, but you would need to devise a way of blocking it off when under boost.

[Colin]

Originally posted by BadBlack00Ga
Only problem is when your running with the switch "off" you've got one hell of a restriction on you intake. I mentioned that about 8 posts ago ....... :P

[BadBlack00Ga]

I know, i re-read the thread after I posted and realized I said almost word for word for word what you did.

But, It will work, even without the bypass. I've run my car a couple times w/o pressure applied to the belt and it ran fine. Air can still flow around the stationary impeller blades. It's not the ideal situation, and will hinder performance when the switch is "off" but it'll work.

[Matt95GT]

Originally posted by DomestikDemon
And yes I agree the way to achieve on/off supercharger is with an electric clutch like an AC compressor has.:)

Disagree... bypass will be much more reliable. Under boost, the SC will require more rotational power than a typical AC compressor, and having a clutch engage/disengage frequently sounds like a failure waiting to happen. Plus the sudden shock to the serpentine belt might cause failures of the tensioner, or belt shredding.

All the modern Eaton blowers will already have a vacuum-actuated bypass... which is essentially a SC on/off switch that's activated by throttle position. Again... only a solenoid would be needed to electrically lock the bypass open leaving the SC 'off' during WOT. I could do this very easily, but see no point.

Originally posted by BadBlack00Ga
This is an idea I've actually contemplated. It can easily be done with the RSM S/C for the 2.4 and eco. Since the blower is run off a drive pulley connected to the cam, and the supercharger is the only accessory running off said pulley, the S/C has it's own tensioner.

You could fab up a linear actuator to apply pressure to the tensioner pulley. No pressure = belt turns freely and doesn't rotate the S/C shaft at all. Flick a switch, to apply pressure to the tensioner and you've got boost.


Yes, but with all the existing problems associated with RSM's tensioner and belt drive system, it would make for one very unreliable "feature."