|
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#21 (permalink) | |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
What BHP differences would you see on a 15% and 17% back to back? |
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
#22 (permalink) | |
|
Becoming Addicted
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 2,919
Thanks: 186
Thanked 155 Times in 139 Posts
|
Quote:
![]()
__________________
13.7@103.9@2846lbs USED to be Worlds Quickest & Fastest M45 Cooper S running stock clutch and not stripped out ![]() M3 CSL 360bhp sold Cooper S Was 270+bhp . . . .now ~200bhp
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#24 (permalink) |
|
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Because some people fit a 15% first then want to increase, or do what alex did and add a 3% to his JCW pulley that the car came with to make 14%ish
Jaw, maybe theres no difference in total BHP figure, but I'm pretty sure there will be more low down hp/torque |
|
|
|
#26 (permalink) |
|
Becoming Addicted
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Merseyside
Posts: 2,919
Thanks: 186
Thanked 155 Times in 139 Posts
|
Yes it moves the power in the rev range
__________________
13.7@103.9@2846lbs USED to be Worlds Quickest & Fastest M45 Cooper S running stock clutch and not stripped out ![]() M3 CSL 360bhp sold Cooper S Was 270+bhp . . . .now ~200bhp
|
|
|
|
|
|
#27 (permalink) |
|
Frequent User
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Portugal
Posts: 920
Thanks: 162
Thanked 115 Times in 95 Posts
|
I've got the 15% S/C pulley and the 2% Crank pulley combo, and from what I've read, it is quite identical to having a 17% S/C pulley, with the advantage of losing some weight on the crank which, theoretically speaking, makes the car "looser", revving faster.
|
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to citro For This Useful Post: | Reedy (25-07-08) |
|
|
#28 (permalink) |
|
Becoming Addicted
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,237
Thanks: 21
Thanked 60 Times in 58 Posts
|
15 +2 = 17 .... its not quite that simple!
Yes basically the theory is if you fit X supercharger pulley, and then add Y crank you get more boost though ... You can kind of expect a 15+2 to make around the same power as 17 ... not far off anyhow. There are concerns expressed on cranks, but in my eyes some of this is people who just dont know worrying unduly, some is scarmongering, and as yet knowone really knows. I have yet to have anyone actually show me a cranked car thats had a failure that can be tracked directly to the crank pulley, as the same fault has been seen on non cranked cars! |
|
|
|
| The Following User Says Thank You to R53mcs For This Useful Post: | Reedy (28-07-08) |
|
|
#29 (permalink) |
|
MINI!
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Southampton
Posts: 2,702
Thanks: 74
Thanked 176 Times in 149 Posts
|
A few questions you need to ask too:
1) is +2% the eqivalant of 2% on the SC or 2% increase in crank size. On the SC this will be much much more than 2% ![]() 2) Think of gear ratios..... now whats easier for the engine to turn. 15% SC and +2% Crank or 17% SC pulley. Anyone done the test? |
|
|
|
|
|
#30 (permalink) |
|
Becoming Addicted
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 1,237
Thanks: 21
Thanked 60 Times in 58 Posts
|
The other bonus of oversized cranks, if there is any
is that as its a 2% increase over stock this means the contact area is larger with the belt. A common issue with 17 and more reduced pulleys is tendency for belt stretch and slip, as the contact area for the belt is reduced. If you fit a 15-17 reduction scharge pulley and an oversize crank you gain some of this contact area back thus giving the added bonus of a slightly reduced risk of slip, and maybe a reduced risk of stretch but with increased boost?! |
|
|
|
![]() |
| Bookmarks |
| Tags |
| 19%, differences, pulley |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|