pullies a waste??

[StangLou]

Thank you NASA! I posted my #'s as is since there was only a .3 difference. I didnt think that stating 252.0 or 251.7, would be that big of a deal. I do understand the point of your argument, but it is not relavant with the #'s I stated. This is a petty argument, so I will just shut up and everyone else can hash it out over this.
This is getting very old though, someone asks for advice and there are a specific 5-10 people on here that say everything sucks except for this. Modding your car is pointless yadda yadda. If you feel its pointless, great, good for you! Let those of us that want to play with our cars enjoy ourselves. Plain and simple, what doesnt work for one person may for another or vise versa.
Modding isnt easy, or cheap, but for most of us its fun, and thats what we enjoy, not being on here arguing over .3hp or if my dyno is better than yours.
Yes we all learn thing, I learned the difference b/t SAE and STD wasnt that much on the days I went, but it may another time.
And for all this I say

 

[just some guy]

you guys need to read up on STD and SAE, they are both forms of correction

all SAE is, is 94.4 % of std numbers, so take your STD numbers and multiply by .944 and you get SAE numbers, your numbers are not different by .3, sorry.

and pulleys suck. i have been on these boards for a long time, and have seen many dynos, and taken many trips to the track, 4.6 pulleys do not have too much drag on them, and rotational mass really does not make a difference, this is a different story on 5.os though, which had terribly designed pulleys, and where the market for the 4.6 pulleys originated from, everyone said "wow thats a good mod" thinking youd get the same gains on a 4.6 that you would on a 5.o, sorry, maybe 2-4 hp and same TQ from pulleys. spend your money elsewhere.

 

[Aaron 4.6]

This shouldn't even be a debate. Pulleys work. The physics are too simple to debate, and there are too many proven dyno runs to allow one or two examples to fly in the face of almost 10 years of data on the 4.6 motor.

My own personal anecdote was at a dyno day in my old 99 GT. At the time it had pulleys, T/A set to 16*, and weld-in Flows. I made 237 rwhp. A bone-stock 2001 GT that was basically identical to mine made 221 rwhp. No way some weld-in mufflers and a little extra timing gave me ~15 more rwhp.

 

[007]

What the hell is happening to Stangnet tech. I see why people are going to ModularDepot. Pullies are a good bolt-on mod. Of course they work.

 

[just some guy]

This shouldn't even be a debate. Pulleys work. The physics are too simple to debate, and there are too many proven dyno runs to allow one or two examples to fly in the face of almost 10 years of data on the 4.6 motor.

My own personal anecdote was at a dyno day in my old 99 GT. At the time it had pulleys, T/A set to 16*, and weld-in Flows. I made 237 rwhp. A bone-stock 2001 GT that was basically identical to mine made 221 rwhp. No way some weld-in mufflers and a little extra timing gave me ~15 more rwhp.

physics eh? sure, i guess thats why a lightweight flywheel and aluminum driveshaft give you so much too, right?

"less rotational mass" .....mmmm k.

i run at a track with gts with every useless bolt on, MAFs, TBs, Pulleys, Intake Spacers, and still trap 2-3 mph more than all of them.

did i mention i am on street tires?

also, i was on a dyno, last year, i put down 256, 296. and i out dynoed many other mustangs with all the mods listed above.

 

[2000GT]

you guys need to read up on STD and SAE, they are both forms of correction

all SAE is, is 94.4 % of std numbers, so take your STD numbers and multiply by .944 and you get SAE numbers, your numbers are not different by .3, sorry.

THANK YOU! I don't make this stuff up or give opinions without some knowlege of what I am talking about. That's why you'll never see me in the DOHC forum posting nonsense. Don't know tech info. on DOHC motors, so I don't have anything to share.

It's not always about proving someone wrong, but it's more about give facts and educating others new to this hobby and our 2V motors. This is a tech forum, not an opinion forum.

 

[Aaron 4.6]

just some guy-

Congratulations for the stupidest post I have seen this year. It lacked focus, clarity, and relevance. That's akin to winning the Triple Crown.

1. Why are you talking about rotational mass? The product is called UNDERDRIVE pulleys, not LOWERED ROTATIONAL MASS pulleys. The power gain is from using less power to spin the accessories.

2. Who cares if you trap 2-3 mph higher than cars with intake spacers and TBs? That has no bearing on whether pulleys work. My example compared two cars that were nearly identical, but with only three bolt-ons had a power differential of more than 15 ponies at the tires. Your example tells me nothing.

3. You are on street tires? Who cares? Was that meant to be here, or were you meaning to put that in a reply to a different thread?

4. You were on a dyno, you made 256, and you made more power than some other cars. [sarcasm]THANKS FOR THE TECH!!!!!!![/sarcasm] Now how about giving a little better basis of comparison by detailing what the specific combinations were, followed by the power output. Maybe then we can make some judgements, but not until.


Am I in bizzaro-world here????

 

[2000GT]

What the hell is happening to Stangnet tech. I see why people are going to ModularDepot. Pullies are a good bolt-on mod. Of course they work.

What's happening is tech talk and people are taking it personally when their opinion is proven wrong to educate the group as a whole.

 

[StangJonGT]

We truly are being invaded by morons. This site is turning into automotiveforums.com. As for the pulley issue, Aaron is right, just some guy is wrong.
If we were talking about a crank pulley, we would be discussing rotational mass. But we are discussing ACCESSORY PULLEYS, which drive our--you guessed it--accessories. Accessories rob power from the engine to run at Ford designed speeds. These speeds came more from Ford lawyers than Ford speed freaks, so there is plenty of HP/TQ to be unlocked by UNDERDRIVING them, meaning using a different size pulley to spin the accessories (alternator, water pump) slower, resulting in less power distributed to them with each engine rotation. With less being taken by the accessories, more can go to the clutch/flywheel/driveshaft and wheels.
Oh, and if you don't think you are getting more power to the ground with lightweight (here is your less rotational mass, just some guy) components in your drivetrain, you need to go back to physics 101. Lets stop the stupid posts from effusive, hyperbolic histrionic types looking for their lime.


Jon

EDIT--click here for more on dyno gains with lightweight clutch/flywheel

 

[just some guy]

some of the gain that people get from pulleys is because they are lighter weight, and thus my connection to that.

sure they, underdive the accesories, but the accs. dont really eat up too much power.
im sure none of the tests any of you have seen, were real conclusive, being that temps of all fluids were not documented, as well as the tests were not conducted in A-B-A format. if the gain was over 10-15 hp, this would be unnecessary, but with such minimal gains, it is impossible to really know, if the gain was from the pulleys, or from higher fluid temps which would provide less drivetrain loss.

and also, your mods could very easily give you 15 hp more than the other guy, you may have had a better stock tune, or your car is 5 rwhp stronger for some odd reason. so then his stock deficit is only 10 hp, which i believe is easily attainable with timing adjusted, and some mufflers.

you guys can do whatever, but my times are proof, they arent really necessary, if anyone wants to send me a set, i will put them on my car and bring it to the track and post my results.

 

[Slapyo]

i did the pullies and timing adjuster at the same time. unfortunately i didn't get a dyno done while stock. but i did get a dyno done after i put on the pullies and timing adjuster.

pic of my dyno

i did notice a difference after installing them. i haven't had any problems with the car since installing them either.

 

[StangLou]

SIGHHHHH...

Here is where I get upset...

People are like THERE IS MORE THAN A .3hp DIFFERENCE, I can not be wrong. According to your formula, you are correct. There should be more than a .3 difference. Call it a computer glitch, call it what ever the heck you want, I dont care, but with my own two eyes I saw no more than a .3 difference when I watched him on the computer select SAE and then STD. One said 251.7, the other said 252.0. On my other two runs, there was another difference of .3 on my first pull, and only a .1 difference b/t my second pull.

As for your formula, I did the calculation and it shows that with my CAI, Underdrive pullies, Diablo Chip, and Flowmasters, I am at 237hp As for a stock 5 speed GT with 260 at the fly losing 10-12% through drivetrain loss equaling 229-234hp.

If anyone has a link to a GOOD article about SAE and STD #'s I would love to read it. Not just someone saying STD #'s do this and SAE #'s do that. I am curious as to what exactly they take into account. I know now with SAE they take into account altitude and such, but what about temp changes? If you ice an intake or cool down your inlet tube on your CAI do SAE #'s account for this, or are magazines using STD #'s when they say this mod along with icing your intake b/t runs was good for another 26hp over baseline.

Just curious, let everyone flame away again

 

[Slapyo]

i found this StangLou. might be helpful.

http://www.z06registry.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=40259

 

[just some guy]

SIGHHHHH...

Here is where I get upset...

People are like THERE IS MORE THAN A .3hp DIFFERENCE, I can not be wrong. According to your formula, you are correct. There should be more than a .3 difference. Call it a computer glitch, call it what ever the heck you want, I dont care, but with my own two eyes I saw no more than a .3 difference when I watched him on the computer select SAE and then STD. One said 251.7, the other said 252.0. On my other two runs, there was another difference of .3 on my first pull, and only a .1 difference b/t my second pull.

As for your formula, I did the calculation and it shows that with my CAI, Underdrive pullies, Diablo Chip, and Flowmasters, I am at 237hp As for a stock 5 speed GT with 260 at the fly losing 10-12% through drivetrain loss equaling 229-234hp.

If anyone has a link to a GOOD article about SAE and STD #'s I would love to read it. Not just someone saying STD #'s do this and SAE #'s do that. I am curious as to what exactly they take into account. I know now with SAE they take into account altitude and such, but what about temp changes? If you ice an intake or cool down your inlet tube on your CAI do SAE #'s account for this, or are magazines using STD #'s when they say this mod along with icing your intake b/t runs was good for another 26hp over baseline.

Just curious, let everyone flame away again

sae and std are corrections,
ya know that stuff cold atmospheric conditions? like 14.7 psi is air pushing down on us, then temp, humidity and alt.

sae=Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.23 InHg (99 kPa) of dry air and 77 F (25°C) and 0 alt.
std=Power is corrected to reference conditions of 29.92 InHg (103.3 kPa) of dry air and 60 F (15.5°C) and 0 alt.

power is always 4-6% higher when using STD numbers.

 

[just some guy]

ps. you probably read the actual numbers, then he corrected to std.

 

[StangLou]

Then I am still slightly confused about one point.

You are saying that SAE #'s are acheived by converting STD #'s by multiplying by .944.

That being said, and I have not had time to read through the article posted above since I am at work and trying to post in a hurry... how can the calculation be that simple? If someone at say 4200ft above sea level dyno's and gets an STD # of 310rwhp, and someone at 200ft above sea level dyno's and gets 310 rwhp STD, how can you simply mutliply each set of #'s by .944. All that you are doing is taking away 5.6% of each #, which will result in the same # of 292.64rwhp. Since SAE takes into account altitude ect... how can both cars have the same SAE #'s at such different altitudes? Again I will have to reread through everything once I get off of work, but this just popped into my head so Im throwing it out here.

 

[robg860]

physics eh? sure, i guess thats why a lightweight flywheel and aluminum driveshaft give you so much too, right?

"less rotational mass" .....mmmm k.


Thanks for all the insight, but instead of talking physics, lets use a mathmatical term of tangent. Wow this went off on a tangent! We can conclude pullies give nominal gains, and are worth it if you can do the labor, and install them cheaply I think. Several nominal gains finally yield worthwhile gains, but pullies dont sound that good to me personally. If you wantem go for um! I agree mods are fun and definately "to each his own" This board is most helpful to diagnose problems. In posts like this you can really see egos and tenures being thrown around. Have fun, and teach the Honda guys a lesson everyday like me!!!!!

 

[dkshadow]

SIGHHHHH...

Here is where I get upset...

People are like THERE IS MORE THAN A .3hp DIFFERENCE, I can not be wrong. According to your formula, you are correct. There should be more than a .3 difference. Call it a computer glitch, call it what ever the heck you want, I dont care, but with my own two eyes I saw no more than a .3 difference when I watched him on the computer select SAE and then STD. One said 251.7, the other said 252.0. On my other two runs, there was another difference of .3 on my first pull, and only a .1 difference b/t my second pull.

As for your formula, I did the calculation and it shows that with my CAI, Underdrive pullies, Diablo Chip, and Flowmasters, I am at 237hp As for a stock 5 speed GT with 260 at the fly losing 10-12% through drivetrain loss equaling 229-234hp.

If anyone has a link to a GOOD article about SAE and STD #'s I would love to read it. Not just someone saying STD #'s do this and SAE #'s do that. I am curious as to what exactly they take into account. I know now with SAE they take into account altitude and such, but what about temp changes? If you ice an intake or cool down your inlet tube on your CAI do SAE #'s account for this, or are magazines using STD #'s when they say this mod along with icing your intake b/t runs was good for another 26hp over baseline.

Just curious, let everyone flame away again

10% drivetrain loss?

 

[StangLou]

lol whats wrong with 10-12% drivetrain loss? From what I have read on here, for a 5-Speed, normal drivetrain loss is around 10-15% at the extreme. For autos Ive read its at least a 15% loss lol is this also wrong info

Slapyo
Nice link man, thanks. Thats a great write up. I see now what the difference between the two is, but now I am curious as to why they switched to SAE to begin with. Ill read through all of the Z06 page and see what I can find

 

[mrvax]

Gentlemen, I hope you are aware that you can use a Dynojet 2 days in a row without touching the car and still have a 5 hp difference SAE corrected. This is splitting hairs here.

Pullies are known to produce small gains because the stock ones are not as bad as they were years ago. Leave it at that.