Smaller Super Charger pulley
11-17-2013, 08:46 PM
#1
Super Member
Thread Starter
Smaller Super Charger pulley
How do I know if I have been supplied a smaller pulley that might be from a bad batch? Just want to know before installing with a load of other parts.
Checked what I could on the site and its not really clear, colour of bearing, size of the 3 tabs......... rumors?
cheers
Checked what I could on the site and its not really clear, colour of bearing, size of the 3 tabs......... rumors?
cheers
11-17-2013, 08:52 PM
#2
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Granite State
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
8 Posts
.
That one looks like the "large tab" version. (2nd design, IIRC)
Just be careful to keep the clutch gap as tight as possible to avoid over stressing those riveted areas...
-G
Just be careful to keep the clutch gap as tight as possible to avoid over stressing those riveted areas...
-G
11-19-2013, 07:48 PM
#3
Super Member
Thread Starter
many thanks, yes the tabs look very similar if not slightly larger than the original pulley on the car. Will shim the gap close
11-20-2013, 10:14 AM
#4
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: The Granite State
Posts: 1,835
Likes: 0
Received 12 Likes
on
8 Posts
.
Just to clarify, here are a couple of photos I just stumbled across in my files....
S/C Pulley (1st Design):
S/C Pulley (2nd Design):
You can see that the 2nd Design, has a much larger "button" on those three mounting positions....almost completely covering the spring steel underneath. This I believe was to mitigate the stress-risers and cracking of the steel spring material itself.
To be fair, I also believe that many of the early failures were a result of incorrect shimming which caused that spring to be stretched beyond it's design limit and that is what initiated the "tearing" at those riveted spots.
I suppose it's possible that either design could be made to work if the shimming were properly done.
-G
S/C Pulley (1st Design):
S/C Pulley (2nd Design):
You can see that the 2nd Design, has a much larger "button" on those three mounting positions....almost completely covering the spring steel underneath. This I believe was to mitigate the stress-risers and cracking of the steel spring material itself.
To be fair, I also believe that many of the early failures were a result of incorrect shimming which caused that spring to be stretched beyond it's design limit and that is what initiated the "tearing" at those riveted spots.
I suppose it's possible that either design could be made to work if the shimming were properly done.
-G
11-20-2013, 05:32 PM
#5
Super Member
Thread Starter
Thanks very useful pictures and for what it worth I have the 2nd design, the one in the picture has a decent size piece missing from the clutch plate.
Sounds like shim gap is very important in regards to metal fatigue of the lugs. I thought about no gap, but I might as well have got a fixed pulley?
Please confirm the tolerance gap?
Sounds like shim gap is very important in regards to metal fatigue of the lugs. I thought about no gap, but I might as well have got a fixed pulley?
Please confirm the tolerance gap?
Just to clarify, here are a couple of photos I just stumbled across in my files....
S/C Pulley (1st Design):
S/C Pulley (2nd Design):
You can see that the 2nd Design, has a much larger "button" on those three mounting positions....almost completely covering the spring steel underneath. This I believe was to mitigate the stress-risers and cracking of the steel spring material itself.
To be fair, I also believe that many of the early failures were a result of incorrect shimming which caused that spring to be stretched beyond it's design limit and that is what initiated the "tearing" at those riveted spots.
I suppose it's possible that either design could be made to work if the shimming were properly done.
-G
S/C Pulley (1st Design):
S/C Pulley (2nd Design):
You can see that the 2nd Design, has a much larger "button" on those three mounting positions....almost completely covering the spring steel underneath. This I believe was to mitigate the stress-risers and cracking of the steel spring material itself.
To be fair, I also believe that many of the early failures were a result of incorrect shimming which caused that spring to be stretched beyond it's design limit and that is what initiated the "tearing" at those riveted spots.
I suppose it's possible that either design could be made to work if the shimming were properly done.
-G
