What's the verdict on the smaller SC pulley?
Thread Starter
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,603
Likes: 112
From: LA
W213 E63
What's the verdict on the smaller SC pulley?
I've read the F/S threads and people are comparing them to what a 168mm or 172mm crank pulley in terms of power.
You guys that have done some logging, what are the actual gains? Are they a legitimate source of power or is the crank pulley still the way to go?
If you were to tell me one single thing before I buy one, what would it be?
Thanks in advance for the workshop.
You guys that have done some logging, what are the actual gains? Are they a legitimate source of power or is the crank pulley still the way to go?
If you were to tell me one single thing before I buy one, what would it be?
Thanks in advance for the workshop.
Super Member
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 503
Likes: 3
From: Houston, TX
W211 E55
Honestly its a matter of what your after. If your looking for small easy gains the SC pulley is great and you will notice results. However if your after the fast route to power you will get more from a large crank. I plan to run both since you are taking sprung weight off the SC which is good in anyone's book
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
From what I've read and heard in conversations the success and durability of the smaller upper clutch pulley depends on correct shimming during the initial installation.
I forget the spec, but IIRC there is a minimum of something like 3mm to as much as 8mm.
There did seem to be a pretty strong correlation between pulley failures and those guys running large clutch gaps...excessive gaps meant that the spring material that engages the clutch is overstressed and will eventually crack near the riveted areas.
It seems that the guys who were careful to shim the pulley carefully with a gap towards the tight-end of the spec have had good success.
-G
I forget the spec, but IIRC there is a minimum of something like 3mm to as much as 8mm.
There did seem to be a pretty strong correlation between pulley failures and those guys running large clutch gaps...excessive gaps meant that the spring material that engages the clutch is overstressed and will eventually crack near the riveted areas.It seems that the guys who were careful to shim the pulley carefully with a gap towards the tight-end of the spec have had good success.
-G
Last edited by GregMB; Jul 7, 2013 at 08:26 AM.
Trending Topics
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,355
Likes: 6
E55 amg
I to would like to see a before and after dyno. A 168mm pulley is suppose to give u 30-40whp
And I've never seen anyone gain that on a dyno from the upper SC pulley. I don't think I've ever seen a dyno period with that mod before and after results. Ppl please stare if so
And I've never seen anyone gain that on a dyno from the upper SC pulley. I don't think I've ever seen a dyno period with that mod before and after results. Ppl please stare if so
Member
Joined: Oct 2012
Posts: 230
Likes: 1
From: Santa Monica
2005 e55
it is gonna increase HP. But How much
usual rule of thumb is 8-10hp per pound of boost on any F/I car(until you run out of compressors efficiency range) so I don't know why this would be any different..
usual rule of thumb is 8-10hp per pound of boost on any F/I car(until you run out of compressors efficiency range) so I don't know why this would be any different..
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,066
Likes: 37
From: Folsom, CA
2005 E55 AMG
I to would like to see a before and after dyno. A 168mm pulley is suppose to give u 30-40whp
And I've never seen anyone gain that on a dyno from the upper SC pulley. I don't think I've ever seen a dyno period with that mod before and after results. Ppl please stare if so
And I've never seen anyone gain that on a dyno from the upper SC pulley. I don't think I've ever seen a dyno period with that mod before and after results. Ppl please stare if so
it's a big difference going from the stock pulley to the S/C pulley - feels like a much broader (i.e. boost comes on quicker and longer) torque curve
I think EC posted a dyno sheet on their site...
given that lots of our cars range from 380-410 stock dyno, I'm pretty happy with 446
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jul 2012
Posts: 4,509
Likes: 1,513
From: Orbiting the planet
This place is a joke.
Mine is working great. I don't have a before/after dyno, but my numbers are right where the Kleemann K2 package falls, which is their headers, 168 pulley and tune.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 288
Likes: 2
From: FL
CLS55
Yes, that was my increase from an EC ECU tune to the SC Pulley. Same dyno, same conditions. That was my increase using the box tune that came with the pulley. My only cooling mods are an upgraded pump. Once I added headers and had Jerry dyno tune the car, the HP opened up.
Peak numbers aside, the car had more punch throughout the rpm range after the install.
Peak numbers aside, the car had more punch throughout the rpm range after the install.
Last edited by FinanceMike; Jul 8, 2013 at 07:54 AM.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 288
Likes: 2
From: FL
CLS55
I picked up over 30whp and 30wtq just from Jerry's ECU tune over stock. So if you assume a stock car plus a sc pulley and ECU tune, the numbers are close to 40whp and 50wtq.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 4,429
Likes: 61
From: Cypress, TX
'06 E55, '15 Jeep SRT8, '94 Mustang GT
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,066
Likes: 37
From: Folsom, CA
2005 E55 AMG
from Eurocharged's website
http://www.eurocharged.com/products/...2-46-16-detail
http://www.eurocharged.com/products/...2-46-16-detail
The new pulley is smaller then the current stock pulley and allows for the same amount of boost gain as the larger 172mm crank pulley!
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,355
Likes: 6
E55 amg
been told by cory from kleemann that with a 168mm expect 30-40WHP.
30WHP at the least. this is exactly why i never bought into this "its equivalent to a 168-172mm crank pulley".
sure it gives a little power but def not as claimed.
30WHP at the least. this is exactly why i never bought into this "its equivalent to a 168-172mm crank pulley".
sure it gives a little power but def not as claimed.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Dec 2011
Posts: 4,066
Likes: 37
From: Folsom, CA
2005 E55 AMG
someone with a belt wrap kit added 21 more HP just from adding the capability to 'hold on' to the belt better...
this was on top of having a tune and S/C pulley
this was on top of having a tune and S/C pulley
Last edited by Toadster; Jul 8, 2013 at 12:20 PM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,182
Likes: 15
From: Northern VA
W211
Someone else posted this info...I can't remember who.
stock==========154mm=10psi(number depends on gear and rpm)
Rentech/kleeman=168mm=12.8psi=+42rwhp
Various========172mm=13.6psi=+54rwhp
VRP===========175mm=14.2psi=+63rwhp
Various========178mm=14.8psi=+72rwhp
Evosport=======180mm=15.2psi=+78rwhp
stock==========154mm=10psi(number depends on gear and rpm)
Rentech/kleeman=168mm=12.8psi=+42rwhp
Various========172mm=13.6psi=+54rwhp
VRP===========175mm=14.2psi=+63rwhp
Various========178mm=14.8psi=+72rwhp
Evosport=======180mm=15.2psi=+78rwhp
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 12
From: The Granite State
.
What is the actual diameter of this "smaller" pulley...?
81mm?
82mm?
83mm?
84mm?
The stock pulley is 90mm, but I can't recall seeing a definitive number for what this pulley actually measures....
-G
81mm?
82mm?
83mm?
84mm?
The stock pulley is 90mm, but I can't recall seeing a definitive number for what this pulley actually measures....
-G
