RE: Pulley Ponderings

From: Shaun.Hendricks@bergenbrunswig.com
Date: Thu Aug 13 1998 - 15:45:42 EDT


Tate helped explain things to my poor mind with:
" " " " "
Point is that they look great, removes a little bit of the most
important type of mass (moving) and the horsepower is free - i.e. it
doesn't affect dependability if done properly.
" " " " "

   Ah, now I see where the horse goes... (^_^) Okay, so it's primarilly a
'looks' thing, then preformance: THAT I can completely see.
   You mentioned removing weight from the pistons: yeah, the real deal there
is that those puppys have to reverse direction and small amounts of mass there
add up to huge savings in energy return. Pulleys rotate happily in one
direction all the time. They speed up and slow down with the motor, but being
a V8 we are primarilly discussing here, the RPM changes aren't phenominal.
With a Diesel this discussion becomes mostly irrelevant (I'd think. You try
to vary their RPM's as little as possible]).
   So, now, preformance wise: If all you really need to do is lighten the
load, to get the greatest improvments, then there I can think of some other
(read: cheaper) ways to do this than paying big bucks for a whole new set.

#1: You can take your current set and have them machined (milled) down and
polished to a nice bright sheen (or chrome plated). This won't affect running
of any accessories and Chrysler likely over built them anyway.

#2: Take your current set to a caster and have cast aluminum ones made. You
could probably have them chrome (or nickel) plated to give a tougher surface
for the belt to run on.

   This way you're not screwing around with the efficiencies of the
accessories since they are still the original diameters of the factory ones.
Personally, I'd love to have a nice flashy set of pulley's so long as they
didn't mess with my motor. That is, however, something that is a luxury and
won't necessarilly pay for itself so I can't justify the expense... -_^

Shaun
Tustin, CA



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:09:20 EDT