guess not

Yes SE-R · 2008-10-16 20:13:06

i was gonna order the unorthodox crank pulley but i read that if you have a system in your car and an underdrive pulley your shit blows up.
lol obv not literally but i am pushing about 1000W RMS through my system and the website states "We always keep our underdrive percentage under 20% which is what allows us to maintain factory specified outputs for all your accessories. Our testing has found for most vehicle models you can upgrade your stereo to a system of up to 600 watts (RMS) and not have any charging problems."

boogerboy72 · 2008-10-16 20:16:00

i think youll be fine. our alternators are fairly stout.

nismored · 2008-10-16 20:18:35

pulley=waste of money

Yes SE-R · 2008-10-16 20:33:02

im getting mixed messages with pulleys, some people say they are great. some ppl say its not worth it...

nismored · 2008-10-16 20:34:37

you buttdyno is going to show huge gains. Pointless mod in my opinion. Its going to feel like you got some power but there isnt going to be much of anything

boogerboy72 · 2008-10-16 20:36:37

nismored wrote:
you buttdyno is going to show huge gains. Pointless mod in my opinion. Its going to feel like you got some power but there isnt going to be much of anything

so your saying taking weight off the crank dosnt make gains.

BRILLIANT

nismored · 2008-10-16 20:37:47

im saying that its fucking stupid to change the harmonics of the engine. its been known to cause damage. Yeah there is going to be some small gain, but overall, not worth it.

boogerboy72 · 2008-10-16 20:38:31

nismored wrote:
im saying that its fucking stupid to change the harmonics of the engine. its been known to cause damage. Yeah there is going to be some small gain, but overall, not worth it.

its been known to cause damage on engines that arent balanced internally.

nismored · 2008-10-16 20:39:31

if I got one for free, i would sell it.
pointless modification. spend another 300 and get N2O

donspecv02 · 2008-10-16 23:04:58

boogerboy72 wrote:
nismored wrote:
you buttdyno is going to show huge gains. Pointless mod in my opinion. Its going to feel like you got some power but there isnt going to be much of anything
so your saying taking weight off the crank dosnt make gains.

BRILLIANT

Maybe 1 whp......

JPE16 · 2008-10-16 23:08:39

actually it is about 1whp isn't it?
check out nissanperformance mag they did a dyno test. Imo if you're questioning the saftey of such a trivial mod, it isn't worth the risk. You'll feel the difference in response but, the actual hp gain isn't much. Kind of like the bsr kit. Yeah you gain a bit of power, but the big difference is in response, and that's what fools people into thinking they made a bunch of power.

donspecv02 · 2008-10-16 23:14:17

JPE16 wrote:
actually it is about 1whp isn't it?
check out nissanperformance mag they did a dyno test. Imo if you're questioning the saftey of such a trivial mod, it isn't worth the risk. You'll feel the difference in response but, the actual hp gain isn't much. Kind of like the bsr kit. Yeah you gain a bit of power, but the big difference is in response, and that's what fools people into thinking they made a bunch of power.

The BSR makes a good 5 whp across the board man, and it increases reliability.

JPE16 · 2008-10-16 23:31:57

^^ re-read what I read...I never said it didn't make power...and realistically..who the hell is gonna feel 5 whp?

donspecv02 · 2008-10-16 23:52:44

JPE16 wrote:
^^ re-read what I read...I never said it didn't make power...and realistically..who the hell is gonna feel 5 whp?

I don't use the butt dyno. Dynojets are alot more accurate.

JPE16 · 2008-10-17 00:30:48

eeeeeeeeeexactly...and significantly less hairy.

Yes SE-R · 2008-10-17 01:28:22

true so fuck that i dont want shit blowin up on me...
just looking for some other mods i can do on a low budget, i already have intake, exhaust, ordered my header, and getting MMI's next week. but just looking for other shit i can do that isnt gonna cost an arm,leg and a lung

cute02spec · 2008-10-17 01:30:32

i haven't heard of a single spec v blowing up because of a crank pulley...

i've had one for well over 20k with no issues...

Yes SE-R · 2008-10-17 01:33:41

cute02spec wrote:
i haven't heard of a single spec v blowing up because of a crank pulley...

i've had one for well over 20k with no issues...

well not necessarily blowing up per say. i just like to say shit blows up...i just dont want any problems you know. even though most people say there are no problems..although i can say that for any mod and not mod my car at all..hmm i'll see

cute02spec · 2008-10-17 01:34:35

these cars blow up stock, too!

Yes SE-R · 2008-10-17 01:36:16

cute02spec wrote:
these cars blow up stock, too!

haha yea this is true. cant wait to get my header. ordered it today, and i changed my oil today. only thing i have to complain about my car is the shitty gears. mad crunching in that shit, maybe ill change the erl

Marcatarkon · 2008-10-17 02:03:11

boogerboy72 wrote:
i think youll be fine. our alternators are fairly stout.

Mmm... Performance wise, I'll agree. Longevity wise not so much from what I've experienced. Sitting right above the header doesn't help IMO.

To the OP, pulleys are usually for guys who have done 'all their other' mods first. The return on investment isn't much. Can't speak personally, just what I gather from reading.

Just my $.02

Last edited by Marcatarkon (2008-10-17 02:03:32)

ssd-spec · 2008-10-17 19:11:29

The Unorthodox pulley uses the same belt. Same diameter just lighter.

MisterNuts · 2008-10-20 04:56:27

^Surprised no one mentioned this earlier... the UR pulley has the same diameter as stock and shouldn't affect your alternators output.

boogerboy72 wrote:
i think youll be fine. our alternators are fairly stout.

I haven't heard of many people having issues with theirs, but when I was running two 400 watt amps, my alternator lasted about 24k until it went out. Now I'm on my third alternator with less than 90k. Maybe I just have shitty luck?

MisterNuts · 2008-10-20 14:33:01

^ I did not know this. Thanks for the correction.

2.5ALTIMA · 2008-10-24 16:13:08

So even if you still have the balance shafts in and haven't removed them the lightened stock diameter pulley could still cause damage? Also even on a car that is heavier than the spec and is auto the pulley would still be a worthless mod? I would think having the engine rev quicker in an auto would be nice, not for racing but for passing people on the highway and what not. I'm in it to do a performance mod here and there because leaving a car stock bugs me. Cute02spec you still have a ralco pulley on your auto se-r right? Does it make noise and give you problems?

punisher · 2008-10-24 18:51:01

Save the lightened pulley for last or don't bother IMO. You be better off taking your text books out of your car or whatever is in there and gain more performance. The performance gain is pretty much nill with a crank pulley.

2.5ALTIMA · 2008-10-27 18:05:29

I guess it is defiantly a personal preference thing. I just don't see how it would hurt the engine if the diameter stays the same and it just weighs less than stock. I'm not in it for all out performance at the track but rather mods that will benefit in everyday driving like better acceleration and possibly better gas mileage.

Board footer

2008-10-16 20:13:06 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 59 minutes 56 seconds) #1895650 | | view posts since this #1

guess not

2008-10-16 20:16:00 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 57 minutes 2 seconds) #1895657 | | view posts since this #2

Re: guess not

2008-10-16 20:18:35 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 54 minutes 27 seconds) #1895660 | | view posts since this #3

Re: guess not

2008-10-16 20:33:02 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 40 minutes) #1895676 | | view posts since this #4

Re: guess not

2008-10-16 20:34:37 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 38 minutes 25 seconds) #1895677 | | view posts since this #5

Re: guess not

2008-10-16 20:36:37 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 36 minutes 25 seconds) #1895679 | | view posts since this #6

Re: guess not

nismored wrote:

2008-10-16 20:37:47 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 35 minutes 15 seconds) #1895681 | | view posts since this #7

Re: guess not

2008-10-16 20:38:31 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 34 minutes 31 seconds) #1895682 | | view posts since this #8

Re: guess not

nismored wrote:

2008-10-16 20:39:31 (11 weeks 6 days 5 hours 33 minutes 31 seconds) #1895683 | | view posts since this #9

Re: guess not

2008-10-16 23:04:58 (11 weeks 6 days 3 hours 8 minutes 4 seconds) #1895822 | | view posts since this #10

Re: guess not

boogerboy72 wrote:

nismored wrote:

2008-10-16 23:08:39 (11 weeks 6 days 3 hours 4 minutes 23 seconds) #1895826 | | view posts since this #11

Re: guess not

2008-10-16 23:14:17 (11 weeks 6 days 2 hours 58 minutes 45 seconds) #1895834 | | view posts since this #12

Re: guess not

JPE16 wrote:

2008-10-16 23:31:57 (11 weeks 6 days 2 hours 41 minutes 5 seconds) #1895846 | | view posts since this #13

Re: guess not

2008-10-16 23:52:44 (11 weeks 6 days 2 hours 20 minutes 18 seconds) #1895859 | | view posts since this #14

Re: guess not

JPE16 wrote:

2008-10-17 00:30:48 (11 weeks 6 days 1 hour 42 minutes 14 seconds) #1895884 | | view posts since this #15

Re: guess not

2008-10-17 01:28:22 (11 weeks 6 days 44 minutes 40 seconds) #1895931 | | view posts since this #16

Re: guess not

2008-10-17 01:30:32 (11 weeks 6 days 42 minutes 30 seconds) #1895936 | | view posts since this #17

Re: guess not

2008-10-17 01:33:41 (11 weeks 6 days 39 minutes 21 seconds) #1895940 | | view posts since this #18

Re: guess not

cute02spec wrote:

2008-10-17 01:34:35 (11 weeks 6 days 38 minutes 27 seconds) #1895941 | | view posts since this #19

Re: guess not

2008-10-17 01:36:16 (11 weeks 6 days 36 minutes 46 seconds) #1895942 | | view posts since this #20

Re: guess not

cute02spec wrote:

2008-10-17 02:03:11 (11 weeks 6 days 9 minutes 51 seconds) #1895963 | | view posts since this #21

Re: guess not

boogerboy72 wrote:

2008-10-17 19:11:29 (11 weeks 5 days 7 hours 1 minute 33 seconds) #1896679 | | view posts since this #22

Re: guess not

2008-10-20 04:56:27 (11 weeks 2 days 21 hours 16 minutes 35 seconds) #1898484 | | view posts since this #23

Re: guess not

boogerboy72 wrote:

2008-10-20 14:33:01 (11 weeks 2 days 11 hours 40 minutes 1 second) #1898739 | | view posts since this #24

Re: guess not

2008-10-24 16:13:08 (10 weeks 5 days 9 hours 59 minutes 54 seconds) #1903280 | | view posts since this #25

Re: guess not

2008-10-24 18:51:01 (10 weeks 5 days 7 hours 22 minutes 1 second) #1903405 | | view posts since this #26

Re: guess not

2008-10-27 18:05:29 (10 weeks 2 days 8 hours 7 minutes 33 seconds) #1905751 | | view posts since this #27

Re: guess not