Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Guys I have a rb25 and curretnly rebuilding it and want to know is there are any after market pulleys? I have seen a ballancer for $550 and was wanting to know if they give much advantage for a street car or not?

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/147707-after-markey-pulleys/
Share on other sites

The Ross balancer is 2 or 3 kg lighter than stock unit. The reduced inertia on top of a better balancer for high po applications is better than a poke in the eye. By going billet alloy for the alternator , water pump and power steering pulleys you drop a kg or so there too, and it looks 'bling'. Trust/greddy do a kit alternatively for the same money I'm sure you could get a local machine shop to make a set based on a stock set.

hmm so no real benifet for a street driven car then

thanks fo rthe reply I can move on to looking at the next part of the engine :laugh:

Didn't say that.

The benifits are quite worthwhile since they directly effect the accelleration of the car. Every little bit helps and with the balancer you get reliabilltiy and bling to boot.

Have a look at the budget and see what they cost. The balancer will net a decent gain, the smaller pulleys less so. While your at it lose the belt driven fan and go electric.

Let me revise this,

You would use a lighter balancer to compliment ur new crank/conrod setup where the weights and balance will be different, which you wouldve Built for High rev power i.e drag, Otherwise You dont need a lighter balancer.

For ur streeter, leave it stock. if u want looks, maybe paint it :laugh:, the other wheels for alt etc. if u can save some weight on those, go for it.

Edited by silverbulletR33

you don't 'need' a lightweight balancer. It will however give you faster accelleration, 2.1kg or so is nothing to sneeze at for a reduction in rotational mass off the front of the crank.

You get performance and accelleration without a fuel or wear penalty. These sorts of mods do eventually pay for themselves by comparison to the blunt approach to power only for the same accelleration gain.

No big deal if you don't do it, pretty much most people ever give it any thought.

  • 5 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...