Make a donation

Author Topic: Intake waste of money?  (Read 39302 times)

Offline pudding

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 670
  • Posts: 8228
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #90 on: December 23, 2016, 11:58:22 am »
Pulley will make sod all difference except throw the engine balance out (...)

This is the manufacturer's product information:
Quote
Best Lightweight Pulley Kit for VW Golf GTI Mk5 2.0t 04-09: The Go Fast Bits Golf mk5 crank pulley-non underdrive
GFB's lightweight non-underdrive crank pulley (part number 2012) is made from anodized aircraft-grade billet 6061-T6 aluminium and offers sharper throttle response and faster acceleration. Kit includes: crank pulley, 6 x bolts, 6 x washers (original factory belt is used).

GFB pulleys are designed to improve acceleration by reducing the rotational mass (inertia) on the crankshaft. The effect is similar to a lighter flywheel, and the engine feels more lively and willing to rev.

We know that people are sometimes concerned about possible adverse effects of lightweight pulleys, but rest assured we have done our homework! Whilst it is true that some engine types do suffer harmonic issues from lightweight pulleys, we steer clear of those. The kits we release are thoroughly application tested and do NOT cause engine damage in the short or long term.

Our products are manufactured in Australia and the company is accredited to ISO 9001, which ensures our products meet stringent quality requirements at all stages of manufacture.

GFB have Australia's best performance turbo management solutions. See more of our range at www.gfb.com.au.

This is what Rotamass states the following about their lightweight crank pulley for the 2.0 TSI engine:
Quote
There is a common misconception that the factory crank pulley is a harmonic balancer which is not the case. The Volkswagen/Audi TSI engine's rotating section is fully balanced from the factory prior to the accessory drive pulley being installed. Since our Rotamass Lightweight Crank Pulley is precision balanced by both design and manufacturing, it performs nearly identical to the factory part it replaces. With our test engine, we removed the crankshaft prior to the installation of the pulley, measured the bearings and crankshaft journals. During all of our testing there was absolutely zero signs of abnormal engine wear.

I suppose the TFSI engine works the same. The OEM part didn't look like having any damper included.

And this is more information about the GFB crank pulley but for the BRZ/FR-S engine:
Quote
WHY NO HARMONIC BALANCER?

A better name for a harmonic balancer would be "torsional dampener" since its main task is to absorb the rotational pulses inflicted on the crankshaft by the pistons. Most often it is incorporated into the crank pulley by attaching the outer belt drive ring to the inner by means of vulcanized rubber. At the right RPM, it is possible for a resonant frequency to be set up torsionally on the crankshaft. Resonant frequency occurs when the pulses of the engine correspond with the natural frequency of the crankshaft and it ancillary components. However, since factory pulleys are often comparatively heavy (reasons for this are described later) it is actually the large mass (and therefore inertia) of the factory harmonic balancer and flywheel that will help to excite this natural frequency. So by dramatically reducing the weight and inertia of the crank pulley, the natural frequency of the crankshaft is shifted and its ability to self-excite is greatly reduced. So in fact it is the harmonic balancer's own weight that necessitates the dampening, and since the weight of a GFB crank pulley is typically about 20% of the factory component it cannot supply an exciting force significant enough to damage the crankshaft.

An opinion often expressed is "if the manufacturer put it there, it must be there for a reason". However, if you look at it from the car manufacturer's point of view, casting pulleys from steel is very cheap and easy, because they can be produced in large numbers and there is no waste (as opposed to machining them from billet). But because the resulting pulley weighs significantly more than one made from aluminium alloy, it requires dampening.

Manufacturers will always build cars (even high performance cars) to suit the widest possible selection of driving scenarios and drivers, which means there are always compromises. The weight of the flywheel and pulley also affect how fast the revs drop between gear shifts, and a production car is designed to only allow the revs to drop fast enough for average shifts. If you hurry the shift the revs will be too high for the next gear, resulting in a sharp jerk as the momentum of the engine transmits through the drivetrain. Reducing the engines' inertia with a lightweight pulley kit allows faster and smoother shifting.

When looking at high performance engines such as those found in Honda VTEC equipped cars and the S2000, it is obvious that manufacturers do understand the benefits of reducing engine inertia, and have utilized lightweight pulleys to help the power output and responsiveness without the use of a harmonic balancer.

However, this is not the case for all engines, many of them do require the use of the harmonic balancer to prevent failure. Skylines with the RB20, 25 and 26 are a good example of this, which is why we don't make a pulley kit for them. The pulley kits we do make are for engines that do not rely on the balancer to any significant degree.

Are you still sure that my lightweight crank pulley which is also a balanced part has thrown my engine out of balance? :thinking:

(...)And people say intakes are a waste of money......  :signLOL: As you cab tell I gave up arguing this point a few pages back :grin:

Now I can say for sure that this engine likes a good intake. I wasn't expecting +20 CV from the it, to be honest. :innocent:

I think he means it removes the harmonic balancing (torsional vibration absorption), not the rotational balance.  Lightweight and/or under-drive pullies can be very destructive at very high rpms (7500-8000).  I've seen them destroy 1.8T blocks on track days.  You should be fine as you don't exceed 7000rpm very often?

Thanks for the intake info  :happy2:  6% gain, so true to VWR's claims but I wonder how much of that 6% was down to the pulley?  Either way, you're happy, so that's good!

Ignoring his childish "I told you so" comment, the original debate was where you get the gains, and as I predicted, you get them right at the top end, which not everyone is concerned about.  The good thing about the VWR is it doesn't take anything away low down, which is what I wanted to see, therefore it is a good one! Your plot starts at 1500rpm, which is also great.  Nearly all others start at 2500rpm.  Based on your findings, it's probably the intake I'll go for when/if I need one  :happy2:

How are the noise levels under normal driving?


2007 ED30 | 2009 TDI 140 | 2016 BMW 330D

Offline Shoduchi

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 220
  • -Receive: 429
  • Posts: 4173
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,95592.msg952042.html
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #91 on: December 23, 2016, 01:34:10 pm »
I think he means it removes the harmonic balancing (torsional vibration absorption), not the rotational balance.  Lightweight and/or under-drive pullies can be very destructive at very high rpms (7500-8000).  I've seen them destroy 1.8T blocks on track days.  You should be fine as you don't exceed 7000rpm very often?

Thanks for the intake info  :happy2:  6% gain, so true to VWR's claims but I wonder how much of that 6% was down to the pulley?  Either way, you're happy, so that's good!

Ignoring his childish "I told you so" comment, the original debate was where you get the gains, and as I predicted, you get them right at the top end, which not everyone is concerned about.  The good thing about the VWR is it doesn't take anything away low down, which is what I wanted to see, therefore it is a good one! Your plot starts at 1500rpm, which is also great.  Nearly all others start at 2500rpm.  Based on your findings, it's probably the intake I'll go for when/if I need one  :happy2:

How are the noise levels under normal driving?
I know he means the harmonic balancing. The manufacturers state that this engine doesn't use a damper so there's no problem with reducing the weight of the crank pulley.

I'm happy with the noise levels. Only higher when on WOT but it's also a deeper sound. Not annoying for me. :smiley:





Offline Dan_FR

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 132
  • -Receive: 189
  • Posts: 1845
  • wait...what?
    • Email
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #92 on: December 23, 2016, 06:22:42 pm »
If you look around online, you will find the end result of what these lightweight pulleys achieve. One such example from JNL racing:
https://www.facebook.com/JNLRacing/posts/1141770932518180

And quoting JP from JNL racing discussing the original pulley:
Quote
They are designed to cancel out secondary harmonics from combustion cycle. Remove them and the big end bearings will fail over time especially at high rpm. Will damage journal but not snap/break Forged crank from can engines.

Not one I'll be risking personally  :signLOL:
TFSI... Revo Stage 2+... . WMI.... VCDS HEX + CAN, MPPS, VAG Commander & VAG tacho - South Wales

Offline AJP

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 392
  • -Receive: 316
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #93 on: December 23, 2016, 06:34:34 pm »
Good result @Shoduchi

You'll definitely benefit the extra top end on your track days. Day to day, all you could hope for was no adverse effects at low to mid rpm, and it seems good in that respect. I wonder how much these closed ITG intakes cost before VWR got their hands on them!

As for the pulley, that's beyond my knowledge, but fingers crossed for you it doesn't cause any issues.

Offline Shoduchi

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 220
  • -Receive: 429
  • Posts: 4173
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,95592.msg952042.html
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #94 on: December 23, 2016, 07:00:31 pm »
If you look around online, you will find the end result of what these lightweight pulleys achieve. One such example from JNL racing:
https://www.facebook.com/JNLRacing/posts/1141770932518180

And quoting JP from JNL racing discussing the original pulley:
Quote
They are designed to cancel out secondary harmonics from combustion cycle. Remove them and the big end bearings will fail over time especially at high rpm. Will damage journal but not snap/break Forged crank from can engines.

Not one I'll be risking personally  :signLOL:
Now I see what you mean. It's the secondary harmonics from the combustion cycle that I haven't seen mentioned before in my searches. :surprised:

Not liking it now... :sad1:

Offline Shoduchi

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 220
  • -Receive: 429
  • Posts: 4173
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,95592.msg952042.html
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #95 on: December 23, 2016, 07:09:53 pm »
Good result @Shoduchi

You'll definitely benefit the extra top end on your track days. Day to day, all you could hope for was no adverse effects at low to mid rpm, and it seems good in that respect. I wonder how much these closed ITG intakes cost before VWR got their hands on them!

As for the pulley, that's beyond my knowledge, but fingers crossed for you it doesn't cause any issues.
Thanks AJP! I still need to check my long term fuel trims to see if they change to a lean combustion... My tuner says that the MAF now won't read all the air that goes through the intake due to the different intake pipe cross section. He has tested plenty of aftermarkets intakes and has made a K04 reach 385 CV (with race fuel and more boost) with the factory airbox so he doesn't believe in CAI. :thinking:

Offline AJP

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 392
  • -Receive: 316
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #96 on: December 23, 2016, 07:32:33 pm »
Good result @Shoduchi

You'll definitely benefit the extra top end on your track days. Day to day, all you could hope for was no adverse effects at low to mid rpm, and it seems good in that respect. I wonder how much these closed ITG intakes cost before VWR got their hands on them!

As for the pulley, that's beyond my knowledge, but fingers crossed for you it doesn't cause any issues.
Thanks AJP! I still need to check my long term fuel trims to see if they change to a lean combustion... My tuner says that the MAF now won't read all the air that goes through the intake due to the different intake pipe cross section. He has tested plenty of aftermarkets intakes and has made a K04 reach 385 CV (with race fuel and more boost) with the factory airbox so he doesn't believe in CAI. :thinking:
The OEM MAF pipe is oval if I remember correctly? I'm sure I've read a thread where @Dan_FR discussed experimenting with the pipe. It made interesting reading.

Hopefully the LTFTs are within range.

Offline andyy

  • Just Arrived
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 1
  • -Receive: 1
  • Posts: 24
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #97 on: December 24, 2016, 02:01:49 pm »
Just wondering peoples thoughts on intakes. A lot of people say they are worth buying whilst a lot of people also say that they just suck in warm air from the engine bay and can mess with MAF. I also read that it does not matter how much air you suck in as it still has to go through the throttle body.

Every time I read up on intakes my mind gets changed from buying one to not buying one!

If you do have one which type do you guys have? the EVOMS intake seems a poplular choice.

I have a edition 30 at stage 1.
I have an EVOMS and I like it just for the noise. The 4pot's noise is a bit sh*t coming from an R32.

Offline spwd

  • Always Involved
  • ****
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 2
  • -Receive: 16
  • Posts: 339
  • Hello I'm Steve.
    • Email
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,110133.msg1073872.html#new
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #98 on: December 25, 2016, 12:43:54 am »
Can I just ask what they are  supposed to sound like, put my twintake on and can hear it wheezing low down but nothing higher up?

Offline 22

  • Just Arrived
  • **
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 0
  • -Receive: 0
  • Posts: 13
    • Email
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #99 on: December 25, 2016, 10:57:51 pm »
I just installed my VWR on my K03. Im stage 2 as well.

I reckon there's a substantial difference over stock intake, engine feels a lot more responsive and is linear towards the redline.

Only thing I have is that annoying goose honk.  I need to get myself a DV+ to fix it.

Offline AJP

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 392
  • -Receive: 316
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #100 on: December 25, 2016, 11:21:12 pm »
I just installed my VWR on my K03. Im stage 2 as well.

I reckon there's a substantial difference over stock intake, engine feels a lot more responsive and is linear towards the redline.

Only thing I have is that annoying goose honk.  I need to get myself a DV+ to fix it.
I'm not sure that'll eliminate the resonance you're hearing. From what I've gathered your best bet would be relocating the dv to the front, as in the k04 engines, regardless of which dv you have fitted. Let us know if it works though - the one thing putting me off an intake is that potential noise.

I'm Stage 2 k03 too, so it's encouraging to hear you felt some benefit from the VWR intake.

Offline Shoduchi

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 220
  • -Receive: 429
  • Posts: 4173
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,95592.msg952042.html
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #101 on: December 27, 2016, 06:11:19 pm »
The OEM MAF pipe is oval if I remember correctly? I'm sure I've read a thread where @Dan_FR discussed experimenting with the pipe. It made interesting reading.

Hopefully the LTFTs are within range.
Well, LTFT are 3,8%, so not bad after 1 week of running the intake, I think. :smiley:

Offline AJP

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 392
  • -Receive: 316
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #102 on: December 27, 2016, 06:26:35 pm »
The OEM MAF pipe is oval if I remember correctly? I'm sure I've read a thread where @Dan_FR discussed experimenting with the pipe. It made interesting reading.

Hopefully the LTFTs are within range.
Well, LTFT are 3,8%, so not bad after 1 week of running the intake, I think. :smiley:
Yes, pretty close. All in all a success then?

Offline Shoduchi

  • Just look at my post count
  • ******
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 220
  • -Receive: 429
  • Posts: 4173
  • My Ride: http://www.mk5golfgti.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,95592.msg952042.html
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #103 on: December 27, 2016, 07:10:06 pm »
Yes, pretty close. All in all a success then?
About the intake, I think so. I'll probably revert to the OEM crank pulley just for peace of mind, though. :thinking:

Offline AJP

  • Global Moderator
  • Just look at my post count
  • *
  • Thank You
  • -Given: 392
  • -Receive: 316
  • Posts: 3212
Re: Intake waste of money?
« Reply #104 on: December 27, 2016, 07:12:16 pm »
Yes, pretty close. All in all a success then?
About the intake, I think so. I'll probably revert to the OEM crank pulley just for peace of mind, though. :thinking:
That might be wise! Bit of a shame but I can understand it. I'd forever be thinking it might go wrong.