Drivetrain LightWt Crank Pulley on my MCSa
#1
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bowie, MD
Posts: 9,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LightWt Crank Pulley on my MCSa
I'm thinking of getting a Light Weight Crank Pulley (Stock Size) installed obn my MCSa. I mean why not right? Its cheap and install is pretty quick and cheap too. With horsepower increase being about the same as the cheapest CAI. About 5hp and $200. Thats not bad price to hp compared to most mods.
After Randy Webb giving it his blessing I think I'm confident to have one added to my pc. I don't track my car except going to the drag about once a month. I do drive my car hard though.
Any thoughts? I also have many mods ...see sig
After Randy Webb giving it his blessing I think I'm confident to have one added to my pc. I don't track my car except going to the drag about once a month. I do drive my car hard though.
Any thoughts? I also have many mods ...see sig
#2
#5
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bowie, MD
Posts: 9,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#7
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Bowie, MD
Posts: 9,390
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Trending Topics
#9
Randy,
If a car already has a 15% pulley and a 2% crank pulley is added doesn't that spin the SC at the same rate as having a 17% pulley?
If so, doesn't that go against your advice (FAQ re: SC pullies) not to use larger than a 15% reduction reduction pulley?
I guess the belt life would not be an issue but what about diminshing efficiency due to increased heat?
Any water pump issues?
If a car already has a 15% pulley and a 2% crank pulley is added doesn't that spin the SC at the same rate as having a 17% pulley?
If so, doesn't that go against your advice (FAQ re: SC pullies) not to use larger than a 15% reduction reduction pulley?
I guess the belt life would not be an issue but what about diminshing efficiency due to increased heat?
Any water pump issues?
#10
You are basically better off at very high RPM with the 15% and low RPM with the 17%. 17% is just past the ragged edge for efficiency. The most efficient reduction would probably be close to 14.5% reduction from stock.
I didn't find any issues with the water pump cavitating until I tested the 19%, and only then if the car ran above 6500 for extended periods and only then was it reflected in oil temp, not water temp (the oil cooler is a water to oil exchanger with a small volume of coolant).
The biggest issues are the belt, which the crank pulley takes care of, and the efficiency of the Eaton M45 at high boost, which is why I won't go beyond the 2% pulley.
Hope that helps!
Randy
I didn't find any issues with the water pump cavitating until I tested the 19%, and only then if the car ran above 6500 for extended periods and only then was it reflected in oil temp, not water temp (the oil cooler is a water to oil exchanger with a small volume of coolant).
The biggest issues are the belt, which the crank pulley takes care of, and the efficiency of the Eaton M45 at high boost, which is why I won't go beyond the 2% pulley.
Hope that helps!
Randy
#12
Randy,
Thanks.
On a bang for buck basis and also taking into account potential reliability issues how would you rank the following common performace mods in order of which you should do first, second,etc?
SC pulley, CAI, TB, Crank pulley, IC, cam, ECU remap, exhaust, cylnder head, headers, water injection.
Thanks - I promise no more questions.
Thanks.
On a bang for buck basis and also taking into account potential reliability issues how would you rank the following common performace mods in order of which you should do first, second,etc?
SC pulley, CAI, TB, Crank pulley, IC, cam, ECU remap, exhaust, cylnder head, headers, water injection.
Thanks - I promise no more questions.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
daviday
R50/R53 :: Hatch Talk (2002-2006)
1
09-25-2015 01:31 AM