|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,210
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,210 |
Here is what I found on Mazda USA's site
Quote:
...and crank pulley with dual-mode damper reduces crankshaft vibration.
Dual Mode Damper, which effectively eliminates crank shaft resonance (new)
3.0 14.392@97.237 2.302 60ft
OEM 4-bolt LCA's $105 each
Watch me go
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,807
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,807 |
99 CSVT Green/Tan
# 84 of 2760
Built on Wednesday, September 30, 1998
15.376 @ 92.00 MPH Stock
75,000Km
96 Contour GL
2.5L V6 ATX 170,000Km
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,210
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 1,210 |
Noise Vibration and Harshness
3.0 14.392@97.237 2.302 60ft
OEM 4-bolt LCA's $105 each
Watch me go
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,807
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,807 |
Originally posted by 96BlackSE:
Noise Vibration and Harshness
Thanks.
99 CSVT Green/Tan
# 84 of 2760
Built on Wednesday, September 30, 1998
15.376 @ 92.00 MPH Stock
75,000Km
96 Contour GL
2.5L V6 ATX 170,000Km
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 155
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 155 |
Well, its DMD time for me, given 1 DMDs now cost as much as a premium oil change, 2 my s-belt is throwing chunks, and 3 there is a debate on +/- HP (at least it wont hurt much). I now have an order fron Bill for a DMD and a Ford S-Belt, however after researching this gatorback, I think I will be keeping the ford as a spare.
Any opinions on replacing the seal, washer, etc while I am doing this?
Thanks
Geoff C. Turner
99 Black SVT -mine
99 Blue SE V6 ATX -mom's
96 Black SE MTX -sister's
All with 278mm front rotors
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,359
Webmaster
|
|
Webmaster
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 1,359 |
Originally posted by 99fordsvt:
DemonSVT: You are missing the point. Whether the electrical load is coming straight from the alternator, or more indirectly from the battery/alternator system is irrelevant. You are splitting hairs. The load is the load.
The electrical load demanded at the alternator is what I mentioned. Going to a smaller pulley will not reduce the demanded load.
Um, a smaller pulley would spin the alternator MORE!
This is a larger pulley.
A larger pulley also has the benefit of exerting more torque for the same effort, so that would provide some benefit. Not much, but some.
I'm not sure what the alternator has in the way of bearings on the shaft, but spinning less would seem to save those as well.
All in all, it's not a big gain by any stretch of the imagination. I would mainly consider it a longevity mod.
Personally, I only went for the P/S UDP.
-Lance
Lance Kinley
CEG Webmaster
95 SE, "Cassandra"
10 years!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117
CEG\'er
|
|
CEG\'er
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 117 |
Yes, larger pulley = smaller ratio - sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602
Hard-core CEG'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG'er
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 9,602 |
Originally posted by Lance Kinley:
I'm not sure what the alternator has in the way of bearings on the shaft, but spinning less would seem to save those as well.
All in all, it's not a big gain by any stretch of the imagination. I would mainly consider it a longevity mod.
That was my whole point that he has repeated missed.
You effectively slow the alternator down which adds to longevity. Especially considering the engine's main powerband is 5000-7000rpm.
The exact same thing goes for a DMD. It reduces destructive harmonics, torsional bending, and crank whip which all get worse with rpm. Also which are an area this engine is known to have a problem in. (I.E. so many damaged rod bearings with perfect mains)
Then take into account the 5000-7000rpm main powerband and the time one would spend in it to drive this car like it meant to be driven and again it's a good idea for longevity.
It was only a "theory" you might gain power due to less bending & whip. Then a couple dynos said it may be true and this article did as well. This was never a mod that was done for the power increase.
2000 SVT #674
13.47 @ 102 - All Motor!
It was not broke; Yet I fixed it anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469
Hard-core CEG\'er
|
|
Hard-core CEG\'er
Joined: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,469 |
99FordSVT, here is the dyno thread (it is the second set of dynos..kinda need the look at the last 2/3 of the thread). gain was 3 HP, only change was DMD as verified at the end by another CEGer. http://www.contour.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=dynodrag&Number=37746&page=&view=&sb=5&o=&fpart=all&vc=1 So what do we have: 1) does DMD reduce NVH..yes. More BMW like. 2) does DMD reduce crank bending/whip. Well, per Terry Haines (Duratec developer) and Judge (OEM damper designer), yes. 3) is crank whip a problem.?? Controversial, the above 2 experts say yes. Horse, Procyon, you, say no. 4) Has a car with DMD had bearing failure yet at CEG or NECO..Not yet to my knowlege (and I am watching). Anybody know of one?? But with more time..we will see 5) Does DMD add power...only data is dyno above. Insufficent evidence to conclude. The articles from GRMS, and Dinan (BMW fame) web page do discuss power/risk issues of removing stock damper for UDP. It DOES seem likely that it does NOT decrease power... Each can use this info as they will..
1999 Amazon Green SVT Contour (#554/2760)
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use."
-Soren Kierkegaard (as posted by Jato)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 689
Veteran CEG\'er
|
|
Veteran CEG\'er
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 689 |
|
|
|
|
|
