Being very uneducated in the ways of viscous torsional dampening I had to do some googling.
Found stuff on technical websites saying things like" “Understand, a damper will not add horsepower”
The only places I could find it referencing increased horsepower was on the fluidampr website, INA saying it increased horsepower, or another reseller saying it increased horsepower.
But what do I know, clearly this sort of advanced technology requires a very specific degree that I don’t have.
Goodness, just looking at the complexity of this space age equipment is overwhelming.
Just keep silicone in stripper boobies where it belongs.
:
The marketing data you posted was from a bone stock MK4 R32 Naturally Aspirated Golf with 3 accessories being driven the crankshaft pulley none of which are a Supercharger.
Comparing that to a Stage 2+ 3.0 Supercharged motor is an absolute joke. No matter what I post , you are going to rebuttal with an adenine uneducated reply making this discussion pointless.
You will never understand viscous torsional dampers and there benefits.
Good Luck.
signed
The Snake Oil Salesman.
Do you have any evidence of actual performance gains? Or just speculation, dynos and hope?
Your argument appears to be ‘fluidsauce works because I sell it/say it works’. And ‘you don’t understand torsional dampers’ which is a fancy way of trying to scare someone out of an argument. Popular tactic for snake oil salespeople. Unfortunately for you, those tactics aren’t work. So…anything else?
Dynos - are bullshit and prove that ink sticks to paper, that’s about it. But if you want to post some, post away. Make sure that none of them were performed by anyone with a vested interest in your product. Not by you, not by your dealer, not by some non-dealer shop who is selling the crank pulley.
Acceleration - 1/4 mile testing to show gains of 20-30 whp would be pretty easy. That’s the equivalent of about 2-3 tenths and 2-3 MPH of trap speed, all else being equal (DA, mods, driver, tires, etc).
So let’s see it.
Here’s the only independent test I could find. They tested a BRZ, and compared stock, LW and fluidampr. Not a dealer. Not a customer who is panning fluidamprs online like bhvrdr. Just a guy with a blog.
The result? Fluidampr gained 0 HP and 0 tq on the independent dyno. In fact it posted a loss of about 0.1 WHP and 0.8 WTQ lol.
Oops.
[quote]So now we come down to the numbers game, the bottom line of this test.
OEM Subaru - the Light Heavyweight = 179.19 peak WHP with 139.81 ft. lbs max torque
Perrin - the Flyweight = 177.82 peak WHP with 138.29 ft. lbs max torque
Fluidampr - the reigning Heavyweight = 179.05 peak WHP with 139.03 ft. lbs max torque
[/quote]
and the fluidampr actually was about half a pound heavier than stock, which as we know is the answer for worse performance, not better when dealing with rotating mass at the crank
Being very uneducated in the ways of viscous torsional dampening I had to do some googling.
Found stuff on technical websites saying things like" “Understand, a damper will not add horsepower”
The only places I could find it referencing increased horsepower was on the fluidampr website, INA saying it increased horsepower, or another reseller saying it increased horsepower.
But what do I know, clearly this sort of advanced technology requires a very specific degree that I don’t have.
Goodness, just looking at the complexity of this space age equipment is overwhelming.
Just keep silicone in stripper boobies where it belongs.
where’s the note that says this won’t add horsepower? We may need to link that for Issam@INA ENgineering and his specialsauce Canadian crank pulleys that he claims add 20-25 whp on 8 speed automatic B8 S4s
The first link states clearly that they won’t increase power, the second suggest they might help in minimizing power loss from vibration. The 3rd link is fluidampr getting roasted:
[QUOTE=Hondarider552;1748223]So why is your balencer 10 lbs heavier than a stock balencer and 12 lbs heavier than a ATI?
edit; Fact is your balencer is a substantial amount heavier than the competiton and OEM. Dmax’s already have an issue breaking cranks, so adding more weight to a known problem area is not smart, IMO. This is wy 99% of dmax builds use socal/ATI or stock.
[/quote]
There’s plenty more, but…
These are all in diesel truck and large marine engines. A little car engine doesn’t need it.
Although the 8 speed automatic B8 s4 might, not sure what engine is in that car.
where’s the note that says this won’t add horsepower? We may need to link that for Issam@INA ENgineering and his specialsauce Canadian crank pulleys that he claims add 20-25 whp on 8 speed automatic B8 S4s
The first link states clearly that they won’t increase power, the second suggest they might help in minimizing power loss from vibration. The 3rd link is fluidampr getting roasted:
[QUOTE=Hondarider552;1748223]So why is your balencer 10 lbs heavier than a stock balencer and 12 lbs heavier than a ATI?
edit; Fact is your balencer is a substantial amount heavier than the competiton and OEM. Dmax’s already have an issue breaking cranks, so adding more weight to a known problem area is not smart, IMO. This is wy 99% of dmax builds use socal/ATI or stock.
[/quote]
There’s plenty more, but…
These are all in diesel truck and large marine engines. A little car engine doesn’t need it.
Although the 8 speed automatic B8 s4 might, not sure what engine is in that car.
These are all in diesel truck and large marine engines. A little car engine doesn’t need it.
Although the 8 speed automatic B8 s4 might, not sure what engine is in that car.
[/quote]
Where do you see “a little car engine doesn’t need it” I read your links and must have missed it
These are all in diesel truck and large marine engines. A little car engine doesn’t need it.
Although the 8 speed automatic B8 s4 might, not sure what engine is in that car.
[/quote]
Where do you see “a little car engine doesn’t need it” I read your links and must have missed it
funny they quote the worst run that MDUBZ had that night. A few things need to be said
he ran 12.2 @ 118 later on. Still not that great, but miles better than 13.6 lol. He was still on the 91 tune so left lots on the table. Still, 12.2 @ 118 isn’t great but at least we know it ran that.
they’re trying to back up their buddy audi2.7what aka DanteCaul who ran 14.5 @ 98 mph that night because we posted that on the forums. The reason we posted that on the forums was simple
a) that was his best run of the night (lol I’m serious)
b) he was running against the APR tuned RS7 and that was the RS7’s best run so it ended up on youtube and people asked about the 2.7junker
c) Dante himself has trolled the fuck out of the 4.2 guys for 2 years, and flapped his gums about how great his ‘600 whp’ build 2.7T with built motor and big turbos was going to be…only to fall on his face when we put a pencil to it.
So it makes sense the B5 guys argue this way.
If they wanted, they could say 'built motor and he only went 12.2 @ 118? I would agree with them that the car needs to be better, as would the owner of the car. He was struggling to put a time down and made 5 or 6 passes
At the end of the day
the fastest 2.7 that day went 14.5 @ 98 (the other one with no bumpers was too shy to show his times)
the fastest 4.2 that day went 12.2 @ 118
the fastest 3.0T that day went 11.8 @ 117
the fastest 4.0T that day went 10.8 @ 130
Anyone still excited about the 2.7T needs to change their perspective lol
funny they quote the worst run that MDUBZ had that night. A few things need to be said
he ran 12.2 @ 118 later on. Still not that great, but miles better than 13.6 lol. He was still on the 91 tune so left lots on the table. Still, 12.2 @ 118 isn’t great but at least we know it ran that.
they’re trying to back up their buddy audi2.7what aka DanteCaul who ran 14.5 @ 98 mph that night because we posted that on the forums. The reason we posted that on the forums was simple
a) that was his best run of the night (lol I’m serious)
b) he was running against the APR tuned RS7 and that was the RS7’s best run so it ended up on youtube and people asked about the 2.7junker
c) Dante himself has trolled the fuck out of the 4.2 guys for 2 years, and flapped his gums about how great his ‘600 whp’ build 2.7T with built motor and big turbos was going to be…only to fall on his face when we put a pencil to it.
So it makes sense the B5 guys argue this way.
If they wanted, they could say 'built motor and he only went 12.2 @ 118? I would agree with them that the car needs to be better, as would the owner of the car. He was struggling to put a time down and made 5 or 6 passes
At the end of the day
the fastest 2.7 that day went 14.5 @ 98 (the other one with no bumpers was too shy to show his times)
the fastest 4.2 that day went 12.2 @ 118
the fastest 3.0T that day went 11.8 @ 117
the fastest 4.0T that day went 10.8 @ 130
Anyone still excited about the 2.7T needs to change their perspective lol
