Brakes Idea 1st Gen A possible different bigger brake idea and, Meth Injection and more

Yes I reached out to Jan, Detroit Tuned and Way over on the BBB forum. I am only to do some searching here, the MA search function is much better than over there.

 

From different web posts it appears the MINI is designed to rotate the supercharger at 2.06 times the engine speed, 6800 x 2.06 = 14,008. The 14,000 value is what all of the Eaton data I can find reflects, anything more than 14.000 is not there. I have read posts where somebody did some testing at 15,100.

First if Dave.0's ( I like to prod a Tiger) engine is redlined at 8k and if he has his foot hard on the peddle his supercharger with a stock pulley is turning 8000 x 2.06 = 16,480. So now the question come for most of us that were school prior to computers and in Vetsvette time prior to TV, does a 15% smaller pulley equate to 15% to be added to the 2.06 factor quoted earlier???? If it does than you could also apply the same reason to the JCW pulley that is around 11.8% smaller. This would mean the JCW supercharger is spinning at 6800 x 2.3 = 15,649,

 

I am so glad I am doing this here as over on the BBB forum you get you ass slapped very hard for going of topic and this is a brake thread.

I heard the Admin and one Mod over there are real buttheads . . . . . . .

 

OK, found some different data. Appears the stock crank is 140 mm and the stock sc pulley is 65.5 mm. The JCW pulley is 58 mm (about 11.5%), the 15% pulley is 55,7 mm, and the 17% pulley is 54,4 mm. Last the ATI 2% overdrive crank pulley would be 142,8 mm. On redlines, it appears the start is 6750 with fuel cut out at 7000. The problem is that if you use standard pulley ratios the stock and the JCW is reflected below but everything that Eaton has says 10 PSI at 14,000 RPM: 1.) Stock = 140/65,5 = 2.14 x 7000 = 14,980, 2.) JCW = 140/58 = 2.42 x 7000 = 16,940.

There may be some factors involved so using the 2.06 I have in a post above we have:

1.) Stock = 2.06 x 7000 RPM = 14,420 SC RPM
2.) JCW = 2.06 x 1.115 x 7000 = 16,078 SC RPM
3.) 15% = 2.06 x 1.15 x 7000 = 16,583 SC RPM
4.) 17% = 2.06 x 1.17 x 7000 = 16,871 SC RPM
5.) 19% = 2.06 x 1.19 x 7000 = 17,159 SC RPM

If these values are somewhat correct than the JCW SC RPM value is well above the 14,000 value that Eaton publishes for the M45. I have seen posts on other types of forums that talk about porting the SC in an effort to aid in lifespan when pushing higher RPM's. The question is where is the magic redline for the supercharger and does anybody have pump curves for the water pump so it can be determined where cavitation commences.

 

Wow are you the same guy I saw driving the black coupe at MOTD this year?????

 

I thought that looked like a rug on your head . . . . .

 

There was this other guy that got out of a great looking red Gen1. Had a Pennsylvania vanity plate, something to do with a woman. You know him around these parts?

 

Now back to the jacked brake thread, I just read something from years back that the M45 max is 16,000. It also appears that my 2.14 pulley ratio is correct. That means the JCW is pushing well over the 16,000 value.

So how many 17% pulley folks we have here and many miles on the car after changing to it?

 

G

Gee you guys here are sooooooo helpful. I am going to run down to Walmart and buy me a bunch of that blue stuff. The more expensive winter stuff is not on the shelves yet.

The money I am going to save . . . . . .

 

But the beard, perhaps its his brother???????

 

Do you have an electric waterpump?

Back to pulleys, running just numbers if the Redline Cutout was lowered to 6500, then a 19% pulley, that would provide more low end torque, would be spinning the supercharger at around 16,500 that is actually lower than the JCW pulley does. I could be way off base but what I am thinking is the heat is caused by the boost/pressure hitting the valves, backing up and causing the sc to work harder. So how does a cam and a high flow exhaust help mitigate the issue as they both let the air flow better through the system?