You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our community, at no cost, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is free, fast and simple, so please join our community today!
I've had this idea for several months and it's been burning through my brain to tell someone about it since similar systems have already been patented. Some day down the line I plan to do this to my MINI, but for now its just a dream.
Here it goes: I am getting into being "green", yet I am a rabid car enthusiast. Not a very good combination these days unless I can afford a Tesla Roadster. Thinking about more realistic ways of being efficient, I sought a way to make my future MCS as efficient as a MC with the power of a MCS when I wanted it. Here's my solution: Using a servo-actuated clutch system between the SC belt and shaft, in conjunction with a second ECU mode to transition to non-forced induction air/fuel ratios, why not have a cabin switch that "turns off" your blower? Easy efficiency when you need it, and when you want to go, just flick a switch and you have nearly 50 more horses at your reigns. Its like nitrous without hassle of having a finite capacity. Or engine failure. Or rice burner-ness.
What do you guys think? Using my colleges machine shop, this is actually a relatively simple upgrade if you really think about it, and you'd have way less of an impact on the environment. Makes both sides of me fuzzy all over!
Don't forget that you would have to mount an electric water pump as the stock one is run by the auxilliary drive on the back fo the s/c. It also seems that air flow through the s/c would be horrible without the rotors turning. We already have a bypass valve that does basically the same thing that you are talking about.
__________________
'09 MCC, Nighfire Red, Premium, Sport, Nav
Might have to re-program the ECU though. The computer will continue to insist there's a blower there working.
__________________ 2006 MCS-JCW No. 15543, BRG/W, Sport Pack, Chrono Pack, M7 SRP I love deadlines. I love the "whooshing" sound they make when they go by. - Doug Adams ambientpixel@mac.com
If you can figure out a way to fit a clutch mechanism into that very tight space, more power to you. But do look at the area in question before getting too fuzzy; there ain't a whole lot of room to add anything.
__________________
MINIless for the immediate future. :(
Previously owned:
06 Justa Cooper Astro Black
03 MCS BRG and lotsa mods
06 MCSA HB and even more mods
Hmm I'll probably end up running the pump through another pulley or something... I haven't actually seen the engine bay in person yet. Airflow wouldnt be much of an issue: the servo actuation would have to have a brake for the SC shaft while the unit is "off", to prevent excess bearing wear. And running a bypass valve is not the same thing. not nearly. It may bypass the incoming pressure but the friction is still there from uselessly turning the SC, and thats where the real loss of MPG comes from. Think of it this way: 90% of the time you will effectively be driving an MC, until you actually want to go fast. I just think it would be a worthwhile project, no?
Yeah, the space issue is where SolidWorks comes in. I'm thinking a very small high torque DC servo would do the trick just fine.
As for the ECU flash, correct me if I'm wrong but I believe there are ECU modifiers out there that allow you to run multiple modes, switchable by a key fob? I almost had it done on my volvo 850, but then I remembered it's a volvo. Thatd be like putting a cow in a jumpsuit: still not gonna win any races.
Uhm,
I have an '06 R53, BUT if you, say, slap a TURBO that is driven off exhaust gas (like the R56 and various conversions) then you have fewer losses through the impeller during partial loads (but then again, that's one of the things that leads to turbo lag)
CooperGear- wheres the fun in that? Why not just make a HUGE project and waste a lot of money to compensate for my heavy right foot? that sounds like a good idea.
CooperGear- wheres the fun in that? Why not just make a HUGE project and waste a lot of money to compensate for my heavy right foot? that sounds like a good idea.
Well if that is what you are shooting for... give me $50,000.00 and I will build you a MINI that will turn EVERY head at the dragon in 2008!
xsmini- you raise a good point. Does anyone know of a way around changing the compression ratio without resorting to spacers? If I can't figure that out I'm done.
The "switch on" blower is purely the stuff of Hollywood, and not based in reality. Our cars are equipped with a bypass valve that effectively limits the amount of time the blower is functional (although it is always spinning), and it does it automatically without the driver having to think, "Hey, I think I want the blower on".
Now, if you could run the blower, by belt, off of an electric motor that was controlled by a rheostat to increase rpm directly proportional to engine rpm (or just mount/incorporate the motor directly to the blower), then you would at least theoretically have a "belt driven supercharger" without the parasitic power loss. In such an arrangement, you could also adjust the rheostat function to best match the blower rpm to the needs of the engine at any given rpm/throttle position. Hmmm...
Hmm I'll probably end up running the pump through another pulley or something...
I assume you are talking about the water pump, in which case the only way to go is to put an electric one in. The stock pump is run by an aux drive gearset that is on the back side of the s/c. There would be no way to rig the pump up to the belt system. It's on the wrong end of the engine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slickfast
I haven't actually seen the engine bay in person yet. Airflow wouldnt be much of an issue: the servo actuation would have to have a brake for the SC shaft while the unit is "off", to prevent excess bearing wear.
What I was talking about is that if the rotors aren't lined up right when the s/c stops turning it seems like there would be a huge restriction in air flow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slickfast
And running a bypass valve is not the same thing. not nearly. It may bypass the incoming pressure but the friction is still there from uselessly turning the SC, and thats where the real loss of MPG comes from. Think of it this way: 90% of the time you will effectively be driving an MC, until you actually want to go fast. I just think it would be a worthwhile project, no?
I know that using a bypass is not exactly the same as not spinning the s/c, but it seems to me that once the pressure is eliminated the actual power used to turn the rotors is quite minimal. I think a much more practical, and resonable project would be to find a way to electrically actuate the bypass valve to hold it open until you really want the power. You would have a marked increase in mileage with two big buts:
1. You would have to retrain the ecu. That may be easier said that done. This is not just a matter of shifting parameters due to an engine modification. You are talking about a fundamental change in the way that the engine is operating.
2. As someone else already pointed out I think that the lower compression ratio of the "S" engine would leave you with something more anemic than the higher compression Cooper engine. It would likely have a hard time getting out of its own way without some help from the s/c.
__________________
'09 MCC, Nighfire Red, Premium, Sport, Nav
What I was talking about is that if the rotors aren't lined up right when the s/c stops turning it seems like there would be a huge restriction in air flow.
If the sc stops spinning, there will be NO airflow through it, period. In order for it to shove air through and pressurize the intake manifold, it has to create a continuous sealed barrier between "upstream" and "downstream". If the rotors stop turning, it's just a big dam.
As someone else already pointed out I think that the lower compression ratio of the "S" engine would leave you with something more anemic than the higher compression Cooper engine. It would likely have a hard time getting out of its own way without some help from the s/c.
Dirve an "S" with a broken bypass valve, and you will see how miserable a "non-supercharged" MCS is. I've been there. And, as I see on my boost gauge, even if I'm taking it easy, the needle still goes into a few lbs of boost for a bit when taking off from a stop. Without that little bit of boost available, it's a real pita to get the car moving.
As a budding engineer, I of course underestimated the work going into this project. Nevertheless, thatd be cool if I could get it to work, wouldn't it? Thanks for all the tips!
no offense but the bmw engineers are quite good. You are playing with fire trying to beat their design. if you really feel like you need a more efficient MINI get a cooper.
2006 MCS JCW #20/64 Competiton Edition (Canada's version of the GP but only 64), JCW Suspension, JCW Brakes, JCW Body kit, JCW Engine & exhaust with JCW header, ITG Filter, Brisk Plugs, RMW Tuned @ 196WHP, JCW CF dash, shifter and ebrake handle. English Panther Leather, full load, JCW R112 Challenge wheels summer and R98 webspokes winter {sig pic by COOPERation}
"HOSS" CROC #204
