or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Mad Max: Fury Road - Page 3

post #61 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

Behind The Real Mad Max Cars



http://www.lastinterceptor.com/real.html

More "Hollywood Fiction" is built into this car. Notice the "air spoiler" on the roof - looks really cool doesn't it? (A special version of the AMC Javelin had one in I think 1969/1970) Unfortunately it does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do. Air Spoilers are put on the back of cars to exert down pressure on the back end of the car at high speed keeping the rear tires firmly planted on the ground. But a roof spoiler sends the air over the back of the car then it turbulates literally lifting the rear end of the car up. Don "The Snake" Purdomme found this out when he mounted a roof spoiler on one of his Funny Cars in the early 1970's
post #62 of 130
Dads car, which was directly influenced by Mad Max:

post #63 of 130
^^^What a beaut! And probably a brute, too.
post #64 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

Dads car, which was directly influenced by Mad Max:


VERY nice! Whose supercharger is that?

This is the new Edelbrock, under the hood supercharger:

http://www.edelbrock.com/automotive_...chargers.shtml
post #65 of 130


http://www.superchargers4less.com/procharger/index.html

Now we know why Jaguar uses an intercooled supercharger
post #66 of 130
It's a little B&M 144.
post #67 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

It's a little B&M 144.

Did you change the cam before you bolted it on?
post #68 of 130
My lacking engine knowledge shows up again. Supposedly, you can install a clutch drive on a roots supercharger. So, what Mad Max was doing in the movies is indeed possible by engaging and disengaging it.

"I must say the early Mad Max films influenced my decisions on modifications to my Mustang. I never installed the clutch on the drive like Mad Max had to disengage the unit when not needed. The cam shaft was replaced as well as the intake manifold and carburetor. I later had to change the ignition system with one that retarded the ignition timing as the boost pressure increased and also altered the carburetor vacuum secondary sensing. The pistons also had to be changed to cast steel as the higher combustion chamber pressures sheared several of the stock cast aluminum piston ring glands."
post #69 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post


http://www.superchargers4less.com/procharger/index.html

Now we know why Jaguar uses an intercooled supercharger
Yes. It's a completely self-contained system as well. They say it should never need servicing. I did notice from that link that sometimes air filters are involved, and if so they need to be periodically cleaned or replaced. But I'm not aware of any such filters being part of my supposedly no-maintenance supercharger.
post #70 of 130
Lot of folks here know something about SC.

Here is the one on my 96 Mystic Cobra:
http://kennebell.net/KBWebsite/Home_...s/Homepage.htm
It is called "twin-screw."
Which is supposed to be more efficient than roots or centrifugal.

My Lightning had the Ford roots blower.
post #71 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post
My lacking engine knowledge shows up again. Supposedly, you can install a clutch drive on a roots supercharger. So, what Mad Max was doing in the movies is indeed possible by engaging and disengaging it.
Not the same. With a clutch drive, the belt still turns but the supercharger just free-wheels until engaged. If the belt doesn't turn, then the rotors don't turn and you now have severe air/fuel blockage, The engine would starve itself and just shut off.

Quote:
"I must say the early Mad Max films influenced my decisions on modifications to my Mustang. I never installed the clutch on the drive like Mad Max had to disengage the unit when not needed. The cam shaft was replaced as well as the intake manifold and carburetor. I later had to change the ignition system with one that retarded the ignition timing as the boost pressure increased and also altered the carburetor vacuum secondary sensing. The pistons also had to be changed to cast steel as the higher combustion chamber pressures sheared several of the stock cast aluminum piston ring glands."
Did you have someone with supercharger experience help you?
post #72 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post
Lot of folks here know something about SC.

Here is the one on my 96 Mystic Cobra:
http://kennebell.net/KBWebsite/Home_...s/Homepage.htm
It is called "twin-screw."
Which is supposed to be more efficient than roots or centrifugal.
That's a roots style blower. "Twin Screw" just means two rotors inside the casing. Then you have the difference in lobes on the rotors, their degree and their size. All that is is a larger displacement supercharger

Quote:
My Lightning had the Ford roots blower.
Yep.
post #73 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post
Yes. It's a completely self-contained system as well. They say it should never need servicing. I did notice from that link that sometimes air filters are involved, and if so they need to be periodically cleaned or replaced. But I'm not aware of any such filters being part of my supposedly no-maintenance supercharger.
Usually there needs to be an oil change for the supercharger itself. But it could be a "lubed for life" one.
post #74 of 130
Some supercharger trivia . . .

In 1962, Andy Granatelli (who owned a supercharger company - Paxton - sold it to Studebaker) of STP fame took a "stock" 1962 Avanti with the R3 (304.5 CI) engine and bolted on dual superchargers then went to the Bonnevile Salt Flats to try to set a record of 200MPH (he called the car the Due Cento which is Italian for 200) but because he was using "stock" tires, he only made it up to 198 MPH.

One of THE fastest Muscle Cars of the 1962 - 1972 era was . . . the 1963/1964 Studebaker R2/R3 Super Lark. A 304.5 CI with a Paxton supercharger:





Rear end: Twin Traction, 4.56 gears

Best ET: 12.85 seconds at 111 MPH on street tires

If any of you have seen the Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Nationals, you will see this little nothing car kick the crap out of LS6 Chevelles, A12 440 Six Pack Roadrunners and Hemi 'Cudas

post #75 of 130
Sequel

Quote:
Plans for the fourth film of the Mad Max series, tentatively known as Mad Max 4: Fury Road, or simply Mad Max 4,[3] hit financial difficulties early on, and was in development hell for around 25 years. George Miller announced in 2003 that a script had been written for a fourth film, and that pre-production was in the early stages.[4] Although the project was given the green light for a $100 million USD budget to begin shooting in Australia in May 2003, Mad Max 4 almost immediately entered hiatus due to security concerns related to trying to film in Namibia, because the United States and many other countries have tightened travel and shipping restrictions. With the outbreak of the Iraq War, Mad Max 4 was (at that time) abandoned as what was a potentially politically sensitive film.

Filming will take place near Broken Hill, New South Wales. Gibson will not be reprising his old role in Mad Max 4: Fury Road which will star British actor Tom Hardy alongside Charlize Theron.

In November 2006, George Miller had stated that he still had full intentions to make Fury Road, telling the press that he was considering doing the film without Mel Gibson, saying, “There's a real hope. The last thing I wanted to do is another Mad Max, but this script came along, and I'm completely carried away with it."[5][6] The film's screenplay was co-written with cult British comic creator Brendan McCarthy, who also designed many of the new characters and vehicles.

Miller again confirmed his desire to make another Mad Max at the 2007 Aurora film maker initiative. However, he did say he thought Mel Gibson would not be interested in the film because he is too old.[7][8]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_Max_(franchise)
post #76 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by archiguy View Post

Yes. It's a completely self-contained system as well. They say it should never need servicing. I did notice from that link that sometimes air filters are involved, and if so they need to be periodically cleaned or replaced. But I'm not aware of any such filters being part of my supposedly no-maintenance supercharger.

What year is your Jag?
Is it an OEM supercharger?
post #77 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

What year is your Jag?
Is it an OEM supercharger?

2003 XKR coupe. The "R" designates an OEM supercharger. Bumps base HP up from 320 in "stock" XK engine to around 400. She'll do 0-60 in 5.3 seconds.



This photo was taken on the day I bought her a couple of years ago. If you notice the far left edge of the picture, you'll see the back end of my buddy's '86 Bitter SC coupe. Very rare; they only made about 450 of them, 400 for the American market.
post #78 of 130
Some nice pics. Arch, nice car! With the advent of computer control, supercharging is much more steetable than it was prior to that.

larry
post #79 of 130
I agree with Larry, that is a sweet ride Arch.

I thought about buying a Jag years ago (including the XKR).
Modern Jags are utterly beautiful IMO, very hard NOT to notice one going down the road.

With the current situation of American car companies and workers, I have been buying domestics.
But it sure doesn't mean I don't salivate over Mercedes, Maserati, Lambos, and especially Ferrari (drove the new 458 Italia last winter in Vegas....holy moly).
post #80 of 130
All I need is a stock MX5 or similar with a MT and I'm happy. I dont need complex high hp cars that I will never have a chance to reach max speed. But that's just me. As long as it's fun and obtainable, i'm there.
post #81 of 130
Lee,

That was a quote from the pops. He's the mechanical guy; knows lots about this stuff. I've built an engine before (under his guidance), and have done some research with my own car (I restored a 65 Galaxie). Done lots of welding/mechanical work to both engine, mounts, and bodywork. As I've mentioned, I find the enjoyment is with paint/body and that's where my expertise lies:

FendersRule in person:



Skim coating is the key to perfection. Though, Mad Max's car was far from perfect:



Finished product:








He's off showing the car right now, actually.
post #82 of 130
Very very nice. Good luck with it!
post #83 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by randosel View Post

All I need is a stock MX5 or similar with a MT and I'm happy. I dont need complex high hp cars that I will never have a chance to reach max speed. But that's just me. As long as it's fun and obtainable, i'm there.

It isn't about "max speed."
Sure, some of these cars can get up to 200 mph.
But NOBODY drives them that fast (and remains in the Land of the Living for long).

It is about 0-60 times, it's the 1/4 mile times.
It's about the handling, it's the high speed cornering.
It's about aircraft carrier braking, it's the burning of rubber on command.
It's about the beautiful aesthetics, inside and out.
It's about the exclusiveness.
It's about passion.

Like I said, it most certainly ain't about 200 miles per hour....
post #84 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by FendersRule View Post

He's off showing the car right now, actually.

Very well done....congrats!
post #85 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

It isn't about "max speed."
Sure, some of these cars can get up to 200 mph.
But NOBODY drives them that fast (and remains in the Land of the Living for long).

It is about 0-60 times, it's the 1/4 mile times.
It's about the handling, it's the high speed cornering.
It's about aircraft carrier braking, it's the burning of rubber on command.
It's about the beautiful aesthetics, inside and out.
It's about the exclusiveness.
It's about passion.

Like I said, it most certainly ain't about 200 miles per hour....

AND . . . .

Women more attracted to men in expensive cars

Quote:


Men who drive expensive cars really are more attractive to women, according to a study by university researchers.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ive-cars.html]

post #86 of 130
After all this discussion about how superchargers can and cannot work, don't you wonder if this is a perplexing aspect to resolve in making a new MM movie? Do you just retain the fictional aspect of a roots blower that can be activated via clutch and bypass-breathes when deactivated, or sacrifice an iconic, theatric element to MM with a SC that is simply always-on, or do you think up some contrived way it could be possible just to facilitate a satisfactory explanation for devout gear heads?
post #87 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee Stewart View Post

AND . . . .

Women more attracted to men in expensive cars



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/...ive-cars.html]


Actually, it's the money the cars represent that women are attracted to.
post #88 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

After all this discussion about how superchargers can and cannot work, don't you wonder if this is a perplexing aspect to resolve in making a new MM movie? Do you just retain the fictional aspect of a roots blower that can be activated via clutch and bypass-breathes when deactivated, or sacrifice an iconic, theatric element to MM with a SC that is simply always-on, or do you think up some contrived way it could be possible just to facilitate a satisfactory explanation for devout gear heads?

What you could do is rig up a "car" with a Supercharger AND a Nitrous Oxide System.
The visual discharge of excess gasses when the system is purged can be quite dramatic.
post #89 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

After all this discussion about how superchargers can and cannot work, don't you wonder if this is a perplexing aspect to resolve in making a new MM movie? Do you just retain the fictional aspect of a roots blower that can be activated via clutch and bypass-breathes when deactivated, or sacrifice an iconic, theatric element to MM with a SC that is simply always-on, or do you think up some contrived way it could be possible just to facilitate a satisfactory explanation for devout gear heads?

That would be a choice made by George Miller when producing the new MM movie.

My purpose was to show the difference between fact and fiction. Hollywood is "make believe" anyways so I have no problem using fiction to heighten the drama of a scene. LOL - it isn't the first time and it sure won't be the last time that Hollywood invents it's own way of doing things that doesn't equal truth/facts.
post #90 of 130
Yes, I know all of that. I was just asking how or if they would address this once and for all since this is an opportunity to revision the whole thing...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home