Pulleys

[m3f_00poop6x_6dca3456a4]

What risks? They are people with 50k and more miles running crank pulleys. There has been no failure on a 3 series motor due to a crank pulley. For the OBDII guys we have less to worry about, our cranks are forged. I'm not getting why you guys are thinking they are dangerous. I've tracked my car many times with the crank pulley and haven't had any problems.



Check out the indepent dynos of accessory pulleys, not the ones from the company. You will see accessory pulleys give about 5 rwhp.



Yeah, I don't see why people are trippin' about the crank pullies. Bias maybe?



BTW, nice color :thumbsup:

[m3f_imports4ever858]

i'm not really arguing the fact whether its bad or not, i just heard bad so i assumed it was bad.. all i'm saying is that for $240 that i payed for evo sport set is a good deal and my next mod that i'll see at least a few hp from, besides i needed to change my belts anyways.. all i heard of is uuc, evo sport, uri, and rogue.. now rogue is only 2 pulleys and it feels like you arent getting the whole 9 yard for the $, uuc i heard the numbers weren't as good, uri is only crank which i chose to stay away from, and it just came down to evo sport for the price and value.. IMO.. and i'll post on monday after the install on how i like them..

[m3f_00poop6x_6dca3456a4]

i'm not really arguing the fact whether its bad or not, i just heard bad so i assumed it was bad.. all i'm saying is that for $240 that i payed for evo sport set is a good deal and my next mod that i'll see at least a few hp from, besides i needed to change my belts anyways.. all i heard of is uuc, evo sport, uri, and rogue.. now rogue is only 2 pulleys and it feels like you arent getting the whole 9 yard for the $, uuc i heard the numbers weren't as good, uri is only crank which i chose to stay away from, and it just came down to evo sport for the price and value.. IMO.. and i'll post on monday after the install on how i like them..



Yes please tell us, and glad to see I can relate to someone by car. :beer: I am very interested in pulley upgrade but must learn more. imports....what all have you done to that car so far?

[m3f_95RogueM3]

I think people are worried, like myself, due to the Dinan article to which there is a link off of the Rogue website I posted earlier in this thread.



The dinan article is well-known. What other people dont know is that some manufacturers dont like the crank pullies. I say this for 3 reasons:



1) there are only 2 crank pulley makers (one really..as ert isnt very popular) and more like 4 or 5 acc. pulley makers



2) the rogue website is clearly against crank pullies as they could have made one but decided against it.



2) in a recent phone conversation with Rob Levinson from UUC i asked him what he thought about crank pullies and he seemed to be against them for the gains they make.



The inline 6 motor has the longest camshaft of any produced engine (same size as the v12) which means there is alot of vibration potential as it starts small and has quite a bit more movement by the time it gets to the front of the motor.



Yes, there havent been any grenading engines with crank pullies but why put the added stress on the motor for, at most, 5rwhp more? I think with a car as well made as an m3 you might as well spend the extra $500 and get a ltw. flywheel along with some accessory pullies.



This of course can be disputed..but I chose not to get a crank pulley from the reasons above.



-Richard

[m3f_mike27t_e2fc6d42ea]

This thread has been very helpfull, as ive posted a similair question before but did not get as much feedback. Is it possible to underdrive the alternator, power steering, water pump and slap on a crank pulley? from reading the above posts it sounds like its either accesories or a crank pulley and not combine the two

[m3f_95RogueM3]

Is it possible to underdrive the alternator, power steering, water pump and slap on a crank pulley?



It is possible as Uri offers a 4 pulley package for that very purpose. www.unorthodoxracing.com



I have heard it to not provide much power over and above the crank pulley when you add accessory pullies on top..but it might be good for squeezing just a bit more power out.



-RIchard

[m3f_mike27t_e2fc6d42ea]

It is possible as Uri offers a 4 pulley package for that very purpose. www.unorthodoxracing.com



I have heard it to not provide much power over and above the crank pulley when you add accessory pullies on top..but it might be good for squeezing just a bit more power out.



-RIchard



Thanks for the info

[m3f_SG_M3_d1201712b5]

I think people are worried, like myself, due to the Dinan article to which there is a link off of the Rogue website I posted earlier in this thread.



The dinan article is well-known. What other people dont know is that some manufacturers dont like the crank pullies. I say this for 3 reasons:



1) there are only 2 crank pulley makers (one really..as ert isnt very popular) and more like 4 or 5 acc. pulley makers



2) the rogue website is clearly against crank pullies as they could have made one but decided against it.



2) in a recent phone conversation with Rob Levinson from UUC i asked him what he thought about crank pullies and he seemed to be against them for the gains they make.







Take the Dinan papers for what they are, made by dinan :roll:



2) Why would rogue make a pulley that would negate the use of their flywheel? Thats just bad business. The same goes for UUC, they make ltw fly wheels not, crank pulleys. And as much as they are "enthusiasts" they are business men first. Look on bf.c for the post by the owner of URI, he responds very well to the Dinan papers.



People can talk all day about added stresses, and harmonics cracking the crank. My friend, a local track guy also, had his oil pump nut let go, so he had to rebuild the motor. When the shop to the motor apart there was no added bearing wear, the crank looked fine, you wouldn't know he was running a crank pulley for 20k miles.



There is more of a danger of you over revving the motor than the crank pulley snapping the crank.

[m3f_1-bar]

"The dinan article is well-known. "



The reality of the matter is that it has not lead to failures as the theory purposes.



As for cost, $240 for a set of pulleys (Evosport) on sale for 5whp vs. $189 for a URI crank pulley (Racetec) on sale for 10whp. I would agree, however that if you are not comfortable for a mod one way or the other don't get it. With that said, here is a response from Unorthodox Racing to the Dinan White Papers.



Here's Shawn (owner of URI) in response to Dinan's white paper (sorry about the length):



To get the other side of the story, read what the owner of URI says on the subject:



We just want to make sure everybody read this.

Before making judgments with such wide implications it is important to recognize the fact that long-term real world use outweighs theoretical assumptions. Simply stated we have two years of pre-production testing under our belt and an additional four years of real world data (over 300 million miles). Not once in this period have we ever had even the slightest problems in regard to engine longevity, not one claim or call. The fact is that if there were a problem with our product we could never have kept it from the public because of the Internet Unfortunately we have taken the brunt of many rumors flying around the Internet about our products, like this article. Now we spoke with Mr. Dinan and he apologized for any undue problems this article may have caused us as he never directed it towards Unorthodox Racing Inc. That aside we have tried to take the time to educate our owners and potential owners of our products about the facts. It always seems to be that someone's cousin whose girlfriend's brother has a friend that had a problem with our product. Needless to say we never get a phone call, which we would think would be the first thing an owner would do if they have a problem with our product or any product they use that causes a failure. We wish that everybody would try to learn and think for themselves like the old adage "Believe non of what you hear and only half of what you see."



First mistake is that the majority of our gains do not come from underdriving. The majority of the gain from our product comes from weight loss, removal of rotational mass from the rotational assembly. We also do not cause problems with accessory output either, as each model we manufacture is tested to maintain factory acceptable parameters accessory output. So each vehicles underdrive is tailored to what the specs call for and never exceeds 20%. This is also concurrent with information we have received for CARB (California Air Research Board) stating that as long as we do not push beyond 20% underdrive we will remain within acceptable parameters set by the factories. They also mentioned that products exceeding 25% underdrive would not pass emissions requirements because all late model cars would run in a limp mode because of reduced voltage. So Steve Dinan theory one is wrong when applied to Unorthodox Racing products. Secondly the gains are not small, we have seen on BMW E36's 5-9 HP regularly and from 13-18 HP maximum. The stock crank pulley/damper is what is called an audible harmonic damper, in laymen's terms that means control of harmonics you would hear in the occupant compartment. Similar example is the factory use of baffles and resonators in the intake manifold. These methods are used because of the factories fanaticism about quiet in the occupant compartment. They have nothing to do with engine longevity. The flywheel has dramatically greater effect on engine longevity.

[m3f_1-bar]

We have our own engineering and design team but we have also had direct contact with many of the OE manufacturers on this subject. We have worked with engine builders, many of who have been in the industry since the mid fifties. We also have worked with many Speedvision racecar teams with a number of different vehicle models. One was Last Minute Racings E36, driven by Alain Chebeir. Last Minute Racing ran our 4-piece pulley kit including the crank pulley for the entire 1999 season. Not once did he ever encounter a problem with our product. We also worked with The Wheel Source/Hikari Supra, driven by David Schart. That engine is very similar in many of its characteristics when compared to the BMW straight 6. They ran our 4-piece pulley kit for the entire season, and their motor as turbocharged, making considerably more power than stock, 500-550 HP compared to 320 HP stock. They never had any problems with the use of our product. We also worked with Trac Racings two VW cars, running the VR6 engine. They have run our pulleys for two seasons now with no problems. We also worked with High Speed Racings two VW's and they have had no problem whatsoever. All of these teams have disassembled their engines at various times throughout their race seasons and have found no abnormal wear or crankshaft cranking. Now those were just the road course teams. We also work with many drag racers and one Pikes Peak car (Rod Millens Supra) and none of these teams have ever had problems. Not only these facts but the fact that we have had over 100+ sets in the field on street and street/strip BMW's including some turbo models without ever having any problems leaves you to believe that Steve did not intend to include Unorthodox Racing. All of our pulleys for other vehicles have never once caused any problems, in fact aside from the examples stated above, we have over 250+ million owner driven miles out there with our product.



Steve's association of the stock crank pulley being the primary damper is incorrect, it is the dual mass flywheel that accomplishes this task. But even replacing this dual mass damper with an aluminum flywheel would not cause long-term damage as long as the flywheel were properly balanced. To give an example lets look at the Turner Motorsports Speedvision cars. Those vehicles were running underdrive pulleys from another source. To regress slightly for historical value, we had originally engineered two designs for the BMW crank pulley section, but both kits were four pieces in total. One crank pulley design was a six-bolt pulley section replacement like the way the factory designed theirs. The other design was a complete one-piece replacement of pulley sections and the hub that mounts to the crank snout. We had sent some pulleys up to Mr. Turner for evaluation. The prototype design sent to him replaced the pulley section and the steel hub section with one unit that attaches directly to the crank, as described previously. This once piece design help eliminate the weight from the heavy steel hub. Unfortunately we could not use this design for production because the aluminum would crack shortly after installation due to the high torque specification for the bolt that attached that hub to the crank snout. Now Mr. Turner instead of working with us decided he would not tell us this, which we found out at about the same time from another local owner that worked with us. Mysteriously the following race season, with other pulleys on his car they began to have crank cracking problems. Multiple motors were broken, all at the main journal before the last rear cylinder from what we understand. It was also amazing to find out that they were also using an undampened solid aluminum flywheel. It seems amazingly odd now that the breakage occurred at the rear of the crankshaft closest to the lack of damping component. But as stated before if a properly balanced flywheel would have been used the failures would not have occurred. This is supported by the fact that all the Speedvision teams, described above, we have worked with use aluminum flywheels and have had no problems whatsoever.



We have seen a few of these products and they would not even pass inspection for factory fitment even if they had the rubber isolator. The machining quality is frightening and the products are also unbalanced. These companies cut the factory timing ring off the stock pulley and remount it, for 95 or older model year BMW's, this assumes the balance of the ring once it is removed. We laser cut our timing ring and check balance during machining and after assembly. Our tolerances are held to .001" in critical areas, where we have seen regular tolerances of .005" or more from these other manufacturers. As stated before we have tried to address these issues at various times over the years through education to our dealers to FAQ's on our web page. It unfortunately comes down to the old adage that you get what you pay for when it comes to quality. There are offshore and on-shore copies of our other pulley models out there. All of these pieces are sub-standard and would not even meet factory specifications. So why do owners keep buying them, unfortunately its lack or education/understanding and plain old dollars and cents. The same problem occurs with cam sprockets with tolerances of other products, even at supposed 0 degree factory settings, not being up to even OE specifications. Meanwhile our own sprockets are held to again .001" tolerances and have timing marks that are down to the minute (60 being in a degree). Its price that drives the consumer, so unawares they are buying product that they cannot properly adjust or product that comes loose. Our pulleys are 60-70% more expensive than the offshore and onshore copies and other underdrive only products offered. Our top of the line sprockets are 60-70% more expensive than these others. We have even introduced an entry-level sprocket, which is 15% more expensive in order to be more price competitive while offering the functional quality of our top of the line without some of the additional lightening machining and extra hardware.



One other important issue is the rather random attack on a specific performance adder without looking at power adders in general. If we wish to get technical about this type of issue then all power adders must be looked at under a more rigid standard. Based on factory testing and design even changing the oil to a non-factory used oil puts the power plant or driveline into a completely different set of parameter results. Lets use intakes systems as the first example. By increasing the intake airflow response parameters are changed to some completely different set of parameters from what the factory tested or designed too. Now this does not even take into account the change in intake resonance frequencies, which again creates deviations from the factory design. This does not even take into account that the engine may make more power from this modification, which again leaves us with a deviation from parameters the factory designed the vehicle to be within. Now to be fair lets look at supercharging or forced induction for normally aspirated cars, which dramatically affects every aspect of engine function. More boost of course means more power, which in turn means more engine and drivetrain stress. This is a product that the factory never designed the vehicle to be used in conjunction with. The drive of the supercharger puts more stress on the front of the crankshaft. Turbos put more stress on the exhaust valves from backpressure and heat. Turbos are also less dependable as far as control goes, tending to spike which causes severe engine strain. Turbos also require additional expensive products like boost controllers and turbo timer. This additional stress was encompassed into the factory design of the crankshaft or the pulley system. If the factory pulley were a damper in the traditional sense the additional stress from any modifications would eliminate any special function that the factory pulley may have had because it was never designed for the additional flex of the crankshaft nor the faster spool up of the engine. Looking at other engine systems the fuel pump was never designed to deliver the amount of fuel needed based on the new demands the supercharger puts on that system. Flow might be adequate as a function of output but is the pump up to the day-to-day stress. Another parameter the factory never designed into that system. We can go on and on with how non-factory parts, even regular service parts which are non-factory can effect a vehicle. The fact is that owners that want more power assume the risks of their desire. All the products they desire to achieve these improvements where never entered into the design equation of the factory designers.



Respectfully,

Shawn Baumgartner

President

URI

[m3f_95RogueM3]

Now to be fair lets look at supercharging or forced induction for normally aspirated cars, which dramatically affects every aspect of engine function. More boost of course means more power, which in turn means more engine and drivetrain stress. This is a product that the factory never designed the vehicle to be used in conjunction with. The drive of the supercharger puts more stress on the front of the crankshaft. Turbos put more stress on the exhaust valves from backpressure and heat. Turbos are also less dependable as far as control goes, tending to spike which causes severe engine strain. Turbos also require additional expensive products like boost controllers and turbo timer. This additional stress was encompassed into the factory design of the crankshaft or the pulley system. If the factory pulley were a damper in the traditional sense the additional stress from any modifications would eliminate any special function that the factory pulley may have had because it was never designed for the additional flex of the crankshaft nor the faster spool up of the engine. Looking at other engine systems the fuel pump was never designed to deliver the amount of fuel needed based on the new demands the supercharger puts on that system.



I think his article is informative, especially the section describing the turner cars cracking their camshafts ( i dont know for sure that the crank would crack at the point closest to the un-dampened side..but i guess it makes sense.



The quote portion above is what I disagree with. Why would he compare his power-adder to the different systems of forced induction? His power adder adds only a few horsepower whereas forced induction can effectively add more than 100whp to the i6. I think it is goofy for him to compare the two as if they are apples to apples when really they are only similar in the fact that they both put stress on the motor. I feel that the forced induction stress is a totally different and more acceptable due to the gains it provides whereas a crank pulley adds stress for a comparatively minimal amount of power.



-Richard

[m3f_SG_M3_d1201712b5]

you don't think a ltw fly adds stress?

[m3f_1-bar]

It is not a comparison in apples to apples, but the point is made that - "The drive of the supercharger puts more stress on the front of the crankshaft" and no ill affects to the crank shaft from the additional stress. The crankshaft pulley was not designed to support the additional stress of turning "a supercharger" which is probably the equilivent of 4 alternaters under full load, but it does with no problem. But if you took a perspective of an OE Engineering, they would probably say that the crank shaft *could* sheer itself off from all the stress adding resistance and the stress from increased belt tension.

[m3f_DOUGYKIM_04b96b288d]

What i got from the article was that most engines aren't planned for a dramatic increase of power and stress. BMW designed an engine that would produce a peak output of 240 hp, but I don't think they planned "let's just make sure the cams & tranny can handle twice that." Anyways, planned specs are one thing and boundaries of tolerance beyond spec is another.



I can bench like 160 pounds, which is weak as hell right guys? Well i'm not a big dude and most people my size can't bench much more over that. If I work out again, i'm sure it'll go up a bit. Doesn't mean my body can't handle it. But if i jump up and decide to try to bench like 300, i may mess myself up pretty bad. I don't know if this makes sense, but that's just what i felt like comparing increasing power over spec to.



Other than that, I watched and helped my friend Mr. Park change out his pulleys yesterday. A lot of people have been saying that the alt. pulley isn't worth the pain in the ars to take out and put on. I'd disagree. The stock alt. pulley may be the same diameter as, the ex. UUC alt. pulley, but it is quite a bit heavier. If you compare the two in each hand, you'd drop your jaw. In fact, the stock alt. pulley is the heaviest pulley out of the three taken out. However, it's the most difficult of hte three to take off. The easy way is just to not care about the stock one, and clamp it w/ wrench and torque off that one bolt out of the pulley.

[m3f_00poop6x_6dca3456a4]

What i got from the article was that most engines aren't planned for a dramatic increase of power and stress. BMW designed an engine that would produce a peak output of 240 hp, but I don't think they planned "let's just make sure the cams & tranny can handle twice that." Anyways, planned specs are one thing and boundaries of tolerance beyond spec is another.



I can bench like 160 pounds, which is weak as hell right guys? Well i'm not a big dude and most people my size can't bench much more over that. If I work out again, i'm sure it'll go up a bit. Doesn't mean my body can't handle it. But if i jump up and decide to try to bench like 300, i may mess myself up pretty bad. I don't know if this makes sense, but that's just what i felt like comparing increasing power over spec to......







So you're saying the function and ability of your body to make stronger muscles due to the stress applied over a period of time is parallel to manually building up a drivetrain to handle more power on a vehicle? Or cars can adapt to twice as much power with their intended stock components if you gradually apply small amounts of stress everyday and it will grow by themselves?



I think most engines are built by the manufacturer to not intend to have the engine increase in power in any way, they didn't build the engine ready to be modified. The car is built and sent off right from the assembly to drive day-to-day under original manufacturer parts, the car is built to last an acceptable life length for the consumer. To better analogize this, it would be like overclocking a CPU, where more processor speed equates to more heat which decreases the CPU's life expectancy. CPU's are set from the manufacturer to run at that speed for long periods of time without a quick degredation of life, but an acceptable one-the longest life running speed with the fastest processing time. Sure cars can be sent out to run and produce higher power but it may not be worth it since the life of the engine may decrease too far to be worth production.