I see. Their site seems a little misleading:

http://fluidampr.com/ASKTECH/7.html

As such, I dont see them selling "replacement silicone" for any refreshes.

SSM - I have no direct experience with the Fluidampr - rather with similar products used in Industrial applications & others of similar concept but proprietary.

A fair question becomes - what do they mean by "lasts forever" Ask them for sealed damper life in under hood conditions in miles.

Regarding your consumption question - see my post to Tru's thread.

Thank you for your insight.

I just tracked down your other post, and I agree.

Sure,

What a lot of people do not factor into the equation is engine load at any given rpm, rpm alone is not everything. With the crank pulley the load is less at any given rpm hence less fuel input so there are consumption savings. Sometime the load is significantly less so you actually run at a slightly lower rpm given same speed (on autos at least due to torque converter, on manuals its pretty set in stone, given rpm = given speed). On the V8s its about 2mpg from what our customers have reported to us as well as our own testing. V6s may be +/- depending on certain factors. Our M104 & 55K make a little bit more closer to 3mpg simply b/c the weight reduction on those pulleys is far more drastic (especially on the M104s). But for the NA M112/M113, the high 1s to 2mpg are typical results.

Glad to be of help

Can crankshafts break?

They can when harmonics are allowed to run amuck -






photos credit stuntman

Engine speed at any particular vehicle velocity is determined solely by effective tire rolling radius and its transmission/differential gear ratios.



Virtually all modern automatic transmissions – including MB’s - have lock-up torque converters which essentially eliminate slippage while underway at highway speeds.

i love this thread. it's so interesting and with so many people chiming in it's a great help

That's the most intact, broken crankshaft I have ever seen. They usually go nuclear...

This is not so on a Benz. It has a lock up converter & the converter is locked solid 99.9% of the time & certainly when cruising. A Benz converter stays locked from just after pull away - even on trailing throttle - there is no free wheeling possible in Drive. So torque converter slip does not come into this equation

Sorry Splinter. I did not see your post. But +1

If you look at the modal response of most cranks, they usually break close to the flywheel due to insufficient damping at the free end.

Can you supply any references on the fuel savings? I'm back in Houston for a month or so in February, and would like to visit your facility as well.

So you are saying that by lightening the pulley and changing nothing else, you reduce the load on the engine, even when operated at a constant RPM?

Once the pulley is spinning, it doesnt take any power/energy/force (just depending on what dimensions you want to consider) to keep it spinning. (OK, there is some air resistance, but the mass change doesnt affect that aspect) I agree that it will make it somewhat easier for the engine to increase RPM and accelerate though.

Much appreciated.

It does take energy to keep it spinning, it is just a very minute amount.

In high HP applications with non-harmonic dampened pulleys combined with lightweight flywheels, yes you can break crankshafts, its a lot harder than most people realize but yes its possible. Forged crankshafts are obviously stronger and able to handle more stress.

correct, If it required ZERO energy like everyone says that would imply perpetual motion and zero friction is involved (road, wind, drivetrain, etc). In the real world that is obviously not possible so some energy is required to keep a car in motion, its not a lot but there is some energy required, with the pulley the energy is less hence improved efficiency (just as Tru is reporting in real world results).

Don't overblow things. I'm sure your pulley has some advantages. Fuel consumption at constant speed won't be one of them. The energy required to keep your pulley at constant speed will be miniscule & quite insignificant compared with keeping the car at constant speed or the flywheel or torque converter at constant speed. Continuously varying engine speed is where you will see differences if they are worthwhile. See my posting on fuel consumption testing on Tru's thread. You shoot yourself in the foot by making dumb claims. I'm sure the pulley has advantages such as it's lighter than stock so it's easier to overcome the pulley inertia when accelerating the engine & that this will result in possible fuel savings & better responsiveness - so claim that. Then people will believe you. You simply can't have it everywhere. Basic science is against you.

Make sensible claims and you will be supported. You talk youself into trouble. I've been enormously patient and fair with you & your product on this thread. Any damage you might have done yourself or your product has been entirely your own doing. I'm telling you that at constant RPM that your pulley might improve consumption by 0.001%

We operate on real world results and real world dynos, always have always will. Many of our customers have reported back much higher mpg numbers post pulley install as well as dyno results. We just go by the evidence & proof they provide, nothing more.

Thanks

In the real world people frequently perceive a lot of nonesense, and that perception becomes reality in their minds because that's what they want to believe. I don't believe in butt dyno's. I've spent considerable time running engines on dynos in properly controlled conditions & have an oil company technical background of 37 years & still consulting. I've spent millions of dollars of my company's money on testing. I have some idea of testing fuel consumption accurately & you can't do that on the road.

It is more than possible that your pulley provides some fuel saving in variable engine speed conditions such as town driving or conditions of frequent acceleration. There is no chance of any meaningful saving at constant RPM or lower engine speeds or any such thing.

Just to clarify from my thread. I haven't found an improvement on the highway. I have only found an improvement during mixed or mostly city driving. I THOUGHT I would have seen an improvement on the highway, but I haven't seen anything out of my ordinary 25-28mpg...

I think the real world results (in my case), have shown what Glyn has stated.

Thanks again for all of the insightful contributions to this thread and keeping it PG-13.

TruTaing - what improvement have you see, and over what total consumption figure?

EDITED : Never mind, found the figures in the other thread.

I think this is a somewhat misleading statement. Yes, that may be one of many, many factors that could play into a crankshaft breaking. An engine has numerous intricate parts and each of these needs to work properly at all times. Something simple can come loose or let go and cause destruction. Of course I've seen the harmonics come into play with cap walk and allowing the crankshaft to flex but even a mis-aligned rocker arm or bad cam bushing could cause a chain reaction and result in failure. Also, just because an engine is making more power does not mean that it is more prone to failure.

i think john summed it up.

as glym said and i suspected. it gives somewhat better mpg local because the initial energy required to spin the lighter weight crank pulley is less, but at constant speed there's no advantage.