Performance Crankshaft Pulley for C55
#26
MBWorld Fanatic!
Hello to everyone just wanted to update the progress with the AMS crankpulley. After about 2 months with it installed and the car fully adapted with it feels great tons of torque off the hole. Even with the esp on it just breaks threw like it was on dyno mode and before it didn't do that. The thing that really caught my eye was the fuel. It was advertised to help in fuel milage but was skeptical about it and also wasn't to worried about it b/c this car was not meant to be a great mpg car. It really did make a difference in fuel cosumption. With the same trips on a daily basis the fuel last now from a week 1/2 bumped up to 2 weeks i was able to get about 3 or 4 extra days. I do not look much to the mpg thing on the dash because i don't know if that is accurate but my everyday traveling is accurate to me. Once again same trips nothing changed work and back home. So there you have it performance and save fuel thats great. If intrested for pulley contact Omey at AMS performance great guy. Hope that helps for anyone that was skeptical about the pulley like i was until i tried it for myself and was happy that i jumped on it.
See yeah
PS: Merry Christmas
#27
Super Member
[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
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
#28
MBWorld Fanatic!
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
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
#29
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
All --
I had the dyno done, and need someone to post the dyno sheet for me. With the mods listed below the best 3 dyno runs of 5 are as follows:
HP: 308.12, TQ: 319.56
HP: 307.70, TQ: 319.43
HP: 306.04, TQ: 322.77
Done on a Dyno Jet at ICS in Stamford CT: 71.90 deg. f.; 29.64 in-Hg; Humidity 28%; SAE 0.99. (best run)
The dyno guy states his dyno is "stingy" and that the correct conversion from the above RWHP readings to Crank HP on an automatic for his dyno is 21% to 23%.
That means my best run showed max HP to be 400.15 at 23%, 390.02 at 21% and max TQ to be 419.18 at 23% and 408.56 at 21%.
The only unlisted engine mod. is Denso Iridium IK 22's.
Realistically, I am probably pushing 385 to 390 crank hp with the evo sport pulleys, AMS crank pulley, phenolic spacers & renntech CF airbox. (Note: I am running stock wires, the magnacor 8.55 mm wires didn't work for me). Next step: header, then quaife or renntech ecu.
The torque curve is flat above 300 lb-ft from 2.65k rpm to 5.25k rpm and the hp curve goes from 100 at 2.00k rpm to 308.12 at 5.75k rpm at a 45 degree angle.
(shoot me an email, I'll send you the dyno and then please post it in this thread).
Regards,
I had the dyno done, and need someone to post the dyno sheet for me. With the mods listed below the best 3 dyno runs of 5 are as follows:
HP: 308.12, TQ: 319.56
HP: 307.70, TQ: 319.43
HP: 306.04, TQ: 322.77
Done on a Dyno Jet at ICS in Stamford CT: 71.90 deg. f.; 29.64 in-Hg; Humidity 28%; SAE 0.99. (best run)
The dyno guy states his dyno is "stingy" and that the correct conversion from the above RWHP readings to Crank HP on an automatic for his dyno is 21% to 23%.
That means my best run showed max HP to be 400.15 at 23%, 390.02 at 21% and max TQ to be 419.18 at 23% and 408.56 at 21%.
The only unlisted engine mod. is Denso Iridium IK 22's.
Realistically, I am probably pushing 385 to 390 crank hp with the evo sport pulleys, AMS crank pulley, phenolic spacers & renntech CF airbox. (Note: I am running stock wires, the magnacor 8.55 mm wires didn't work for me). Next step: header, then quaife or renntech ecu.
The torque curve is flat above 300 lb-ft from 2.65k rpm to 5.25k rpm and the hp curve goes from 100 at 2.00k rpm to 308.12 at 5.75k rpm at a 45 degree angle.
(shoot me an email, I'll send you the dyno and then please post it in this thread).
Regards,
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...
#30
Super Member
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.
#31
Super Member
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...
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...
#33
Super Member
#35
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,949
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2008 A8L, 2002 996TT X50, 2009 X5
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...
#36
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
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
Last edited by E55 PWR; 01-07-2008 at 10:32 PM.
#37
Super Member
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
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
#38
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
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:
Uncorrected:
Corrected:
#40
MBWorld Fanatic!
Thread Starter
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.
amg, c43, c55, c63, countyline, crankshaft, difference, dragway, evosport, make, miami, performance, pulley, pullies, silver, tuning, underdrive
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)