MRAMG1

Sorry guys, I am NOT biting on that kind of a fuel milage gain. THERE is NO WAY IN H-LL that a simple lighting of the balancer can improve your miliage like what you are claiming. HP TV on spike has done a balancer change, on a dyno, and showed BSFC, thats brake specific fuel consumption, drops, by abourt 0.4, ie 20.8 pounds per hour, down to 20.4, thats a 2.0 % imporvment in BSFC . You are NOT going to get 3 or 4 extra days of driving from gains like this. Oh yeah, that was on a big block chevy, a heck of alot bigger than your engine in displacement. And oh yeah, the thing on your dash, IS alot more accurate than you maybe aweare of. I don't know what you are trying to sell here, but I HIGHLY doubt its factual in nature.


See yeah


PS: Merry Christmas

c55asleep?

[QUOTE=MRAMG1;2556837]Sorry guys, I am NOT biting on that kind of a fuel milage gain. THERE is NO WAY IN H-LL that a simple lighting of the balancer can improve your miliage like what you are claiming. HP TV on spike has done a balancer change, on a dyno, and showed BSFC, thats brake specific fuel consumption, drops, by abourt 0.4, ie 20.8 pounds per hour, down to 20.4, thats a 2.0 % imporvment in BSFC . You are NOT going to get 3 or 4 extra days of driving from gains like this. Oh yeah, that was on a big block chevy, a heck of alot bigger than your engine in displacement. And oh yeah, the thing on your dash, IS alot more accurate than you maybe aweare of. I don't know what you are trying to sell here, but I HIGHLY doubt its factual in nature.


It is sad to see that you would think i am bs here and that i would waste my time explaining what difference i felt and to help others like this forum supposed to be. What i meant (with that thing on the dash) is that i do not look at it and don't guide myself by it b/c i did not believe the pulley would do any difference but then i noticed when the fuel was lasting a little longer than before. BTW I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL ANYTHING JUST TRYING TO HELP OTHERS. PS. I DID NOT ASK YOU TO BUY IT BUT EVERYONE HAS THERE OWN OPINION. happy holidays

MRAMG1

It is sad to see that you would think i am bs here and that i would waste my time explaining what difference i felt and to help others like this forum supposed to be. What i meant (with that thing on the dash) is that i do not look at it and don't guide myself by it b/c i did not believe the pulley would do any difference but then i noticed when the fuel was lasting a little longer than before. BTW I AM NOT TRYING TO SELL ANYTHING JUST TRYING TO HELP OTHERS. PS. I DID NOT ASK YOU TO BUY IT BUT EVERYONE HAS THERE OWN OPINION. happy holidays[/QUOTE]

Hey C55asleep:

I was not trying to make a personnel attack I can assure you, but I would HIGHLY recomend watching your dash fuel milage gauge for a week. Note the Lifetime, and recent, and I feel VERY strongly that you are not going to see a HUGE difference. At best you may get 0.1-0.2 miles per gallon better. Sorry for the bad news, its just a plain physics fact about recipricating mass.

See yeah

PS: Merry Christmas

c32AMG-DTM

Hey, I know this post is from awhile ago, but here's what I'm not following, per the section I put in bold above. The AMS pullies, evo pullies, & phenolic spacers should have ZERO impact on increasing CRANK hp... right? So if you're making 385-390 crank hp (up from the stock 360 or so), the only performance mod that should be accounting for that bump is the CF airbox.

Granted, those other mods can help reduce the % of driveline loss (i.e. making the power-delivery more efficient to the wheels) which can improve rwhp... which is what's most important anyway... but then you should use a lower % when converting back to crank - 20%+ sounds like a lot, with those other efficiency mods you've done...

c55asleep?

I cannot guide myself by the mpg gauge because I dont know what it did before the pulley install. I was never concerned about fuel consumption b/c I get a fuel credit card threw my job and like I said before do not expect this car to do great numbers with fuel. When i purchased the pulley i did not buy it with any intent of saving any fuel only the extra performance. Performance did make a diference torque wise hp i Dont know i have not dynoed the car after install. But you can really feel the extra get up and go from a dead stop. If it was a piece of sh!!t i would be the first to tell that way no one gets screwed. Btw i think that carbon fiber airbox is not what i claims to be and yes i have it installed on my car but a waste of money. Well as for saving fuel thats what I saw ive had it for about 2months and recently saw the change in fuel there is nothing different since pulley install so if there is something else helping then thats great.

c55asleep?

On my car it was a 18 percent loss. That c/f airbox does nothing imop.

c55asleep?

Hey tump43 (Marc) how is your car running? This past week we had some cold weather here in Miami and mine pulled pretty well.

lauer87

why do you say the cf airbox does nothing? I would guess no more than 10 hp or maybe 2-5 rwhp. Does the car sound any different? Also, would you not recomend getting it?

c55asleep?

At least it looks nice. It is the stock one gutted out and made with c/f nothing more than that.

c32AMG-DTM

Hmmm... if what a few of you are saying is true about the CF airbox, then I really am puzzled (see my post from 12/19). I guess it comes down to 2 options:

1. Tump43 caught lucky w/ his C55, and the engine is stronger than MB's claim.

2. Conversion estimate of rwhp to crank hp is too aggressive.

Crank hp, minus driveline loss, equals rwhp... we all know that, it's pretty basic. Increased rwhp can come from either increasing crank hp, or increasing driveline efficiency (i.e. reducing loss). All performance mods mentioned above reduce driveline loss, not increase crank hp, except the CF airbox - which some owners are saying doesn't do much. If CF airbox adds negligible gains (let's say 5, just to make up a number), Tump43's crank hp should be around 365 - the fact that his rwhp is up is more likely due to reducing driveline loss from a stock range of 17-18% down to 14% or so.

In the end, it's not a big deal... what's being put down @ the wheels is what's important anyway. Now, if he adds headers and/or an ECU tune, those should definitely increase crank hp...

E55 PWR

The Renntech airbox is just a stock airbox in CF drag, its not better in anyway really, its more a show thing hence no real HP gain.

Crank pulleys do improve fuel consumption b/c they reduce parasitic drag and reduce inertia of the crank. The less mass, the less power required to overcome inertia, and more of that power gets to the rear wheels (which improved efficiency as mentioned). In addition, b/c more power is made at any given rpm, during normal driving much less throttle input is required to get the car moving which thereby improves fuel efficiency b/c less throttle is required to get the car moving.

Its simple physics101 theres no reason to doubt that, it makes perfect & logical sense.

2 cents

c55asleep?

Thank you, well said

Tump43

Well I thought I'd post my progressive dyo runs for different mods. The best runs for three different mods are on the same dyno graph. The first run was done after installation of the evosport udp's, the renntech cf airbox, and the AMS billet crank pulley. The second run was done after installation of the evosport headers. The third run was done after the evotech ecu tune. Some modest gains were realized and the car is much more fun to drive. The first graph is corrected for standard SAE atmospheric conditions and the second graph showes the same information as the car actually ran on the day in question without the SAE corrections.

Uncorrected:



Corrected:

RawAMGpower

Do have a picture of the evosport headers?

Tump43

Just go to the evosport web site. They have a picture there. There is also one or two copies of that picture on this site in the E55 forum.

SaMaS

very nice setup !!! Grtaz !