Evosport Power Pulley review

[dronell3]

Originally Posted by otoupalik

Thanks for posting a "bigger" version of the Dyno graph for all to see Brad...

[lucid]

Originally Posted by dronell3

There is no downside to this mod at all as it does not modify the factory harmonics or dampening. The gains are very noticeable especially in the higher RPMs and revs are quicker.

The main potential downside is your engine running slightly warmer due to the water pump being under-driven. Brad responded to that concern here:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=158065&page=3

This won't be an issue driving around town, but if you track the car, it might be an issue. Brad responded to that concern as well on that thread. He will supply us with data on the water pump when they have them. If you check that thread, you will see member T Bone's comments on slight rise in oil temps in his M6.

I am not trying to discredit this product. I am just exercising a healthy dose of skepticism, which is a good thing if you are modifying a $70k car.

I would consider purchasing it if I see data proving that it won't result in higher oil temps at the track.

[Malarky]

Originally Posted by lucid

The main potential downside is your engine running slightly warmer due to the water pump being under-driven. Brad responded to that concern here:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=158065&page=3

This won't be an issue driving around town, but if you track the car, it might be an issue. Brad responded to that concern as well on that thread. He will supply us with data on the water pump when they have them. If you check that thread, you will see member T Bone's comments on slight rise in oil temps in his M6.

I am not trying to discredit this product. I am just exercising a healthy dose of skepticism, which is a good thing if you are modifying a $70k car.

I would consider purchasing it if I see data proving that it won't result in higher oil temps at the track.

Ah, thanks for posting this information. I was wondering if there was any sort of downside as well.

-Carl

[dronell3]

Originally Posted by lucid

The main potential downside is your engine running slightly warmer due to the water pump being under-driven. Brad responded to that concern here:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=158065&page=3

This won't be an issue driving around town, but if you track the car, it might be an issue. Brad responded to that concern as well on that thread. He will supply us with data on the water pump when they have them. If you check that thread, you will see member T Bone's comments on slight rise in oil temps in his M6.

I am not trying to discredit this product. I am just exercising a healthy dose of skepticism, which is a good thing if you are modifying a $70k car.

I would consider purchasing it if I see data proving that it won't result in higher oil temps at the track.

At high temps even stock cars will have a rise in oil temps. In his post Brad did mention that there were 3 cars that went into limp mode at the track. I guess we'll just wait and see or maybe I should test my car out at the track ... Perhaps Brad can chime in on this more....

[lucid]

Originally Posted by dronell3

At high temps even stock cars will have a rise in oil temps. In his post Brad did mention that there were 3 cars that went into limp mode at the track. I guess we'll just wait and see or maybe I should test my car out at the track ... Perhaps Brad can chime in on this more....

Of course stock cars will run higher oil temps at the track as well. If you read all of the posts in that thread you'll see that 255F on a hot day has been reported by several members. The issue is if the pulley might result in more of an increase, and cause the engine to overheat or not. There is more discussion on this in that thread, specifically on if and to what extent the water pump cavitates at high rpms.

[dronell3]

Originally Posted by lucid

Of course stock cars will run higher oil temps at the track as well. If you read all of the posts in that thread you'll see that 255F on a hot day has been reported by several members. The issue is if the pulley might result in more of an increase, and cause the engine to overheat or not. There is more discussion on this in that thread, specifically on if and to what extent the water pump cavitates at high rpms.

Like I said we will have to wait for results or I may just have to take my car out to the track...

[IWC Doppel]

Is the Rogue Engineering set up a different ratio and the Evosport reduction is greater ?

Maybe the Rogue delivers more power than 8hp ?

[Mickb]

Originally Posted by lucid

The main potential downside is your engine running slightly warmer due to the water pump being under-driven. Brad responded to that concern here:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthr...=158065&page=3

This won't be an issue driving around town, but if you track the car, it might be an issue. Brad responded to that concern as well on that thread. He will supply us with data on the water pump when they have them. If you check that thread, you will see member T Bone's comments on slight rise in oil temps in his M6.

I am not trying to discredit this product. I am just exercising a healthy dose of skepticism, which is a good thing if you are modifying a $70k car.

I would consider purchasing it if I see data proving that it won't result in higher oil temps at the track.

Thanks Lucid thats exactly the sort of info I was looking for.

Regards

Mick

[SlammedR8]

Originally Posted by IWC Doppel

Is the Rogue Engineering set up a different ratio and the Evosport reduction is greater ?

Maybe the Rogue delivers more power than 8hp ?

Same setup I believe,
I have the Rogue- great product as well!!

I havent dynoed it though, but they claim 8/9 hp

[Herms]

Originally Posted by dronell3

I tried to post the original Dyno Graph that I have on a file but the forum guidelines wouldn't allow me saying that it's too big. So I had to resize it to allow me to post it on here. Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas on how to do it? Or PM me and I'll email you a copy of it.

Thanks.

shrinkpictures.com

[DJ9]

hmm, i just had my car on a Dyno at Thunderhill this past weekend. (Stock)I was at Max Power: 347 and Max Torque 253.17. I thought this was low, but it looks like this was high in comparison to your stock numbers.

What is most interesting is that my Air/Fuel figures are very different. Mine appear right on the dashed read line and slightly dip below towards 8.

I thought mine was hampered; as I pulled into the Dynojet literally after a track session...only had an hour to spare.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by DJ9

hmm, i just had my car on a Dyno at Thunderhill this past weekend. (Stock)I was at Max Power: 347 and Max Torque 253.17. I thought this was low, but it looks like this was high in comparison to your stock numbers.

What is most interesting is that my Air/Fuel figures a very different. Mine appear right on the dashed read line and slightly dip below towards 8.

I thought mine was hampered; as I pulled into the Dynojet literally after track session...only had an hour to spare.

347 is pretty good, with a warm motor and I am guessing on a fairly warm day.

Anything in the ~350 range seems to be the norm.

[DJ9]

Originally Posted by Sticky

347 is pretty good, with a warm motor and I am guessing on a fairly warm day.

Anything in the ~350 range seems to be the norm.

Oh really. This was at 2pm yesterday at 93 degrees weather ...right after a run i drove directly into his garage off the paddock area..so oil temp at the notch past 210 and car as HOT! The tech mentioned that i would have gained about 6 to 8 extra hp if I used a 89 octane gas as it would burn easier I can scan the print out and post on another thread to avoid jacking this one.

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by DJ9

Oh really. This was at 2pm yesterday at 93 degrees weather ...right after a run i drove directly into his garage off the paddock area..so oil temp at the notch past 210 and car as HOT! The tech mentioned that i would have gained about 6 to 8 extra hp if I used a 89 octane gas as it would burn easier I can scan the print out and post on another thread to avoid jacking this one.

Would love to see your graph, I am fairly confident that you would crack 350 with a cooler motor on a cooler day.

What gear was it in?

[SlammedR8]

why would 89 octane make more hp ?
:

[T Bone]

Originally Posted by dronell3

There is no downside to this mod at all as it does not modify the factory harmonics or dampening. The gains are very noticeable especially in the higher RPMs and revs are quicker.

Just watch your temps.

[DJ9]

Originally Posted by Sticky

Would love to see your graph, I am fairly confident that you would crack 350 with a cooler motor on a cooler day.

What gear was it in?

I need to scan these and really want the groups feedback. Dyno was in 4th gear.

They also did(I could be wrong with the term used here) negative hp. So they dump the clutch and coast for several minutes to decipher how much hp you were losing at the wheel.

I was informed that you take that figure plus the 347 and that equals your at the crank(not at the wheel) hp; which is what the manufacturer advertises.

In my case, that number was 26.....so 373 in total, which is way lower that the 414 BMW states.

So many variables, and the car was piping hot, not to mention the best run was the first and worst was he 4th....so obviously the car needed to cool down.

I'll try and post these asap.

Here is the car on the dyno:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162652

I'll start a new thread. Sorry Brad!!!

[Sticky]

Originally Posted by DJ9

I need to scan these and really want the groups feedback. Dyno was in 4th gear.

They also did(I could be wrong with the term used here) negative hp. So they dump the clutch and coast for several minutes to decipher how much hp you were losing at the wheel.

I was informed that you take that figure plus the 347 and that equals your at the crank(not at the wheel) hp; which is what the manufacturer advertises.

In my case, that number was 26.....so 373 in total, which is way lower that the 414 BMW states.

So many variables, and the car was piping hot, not to mention the best run was the first and worst was he 4th....so obviously the car needed to cool down.

I'll try and post these asap.

Here is the car on the dyno:

http://www.m3post.com/forums/showthread.php?t=162652

I'll start a new thread. Sorry Brad!!!

Never heard that before, 15% losses with 414 hp should equate to 352 to the wheels. Sounds like your motor is right where it should be.

[JEllis]

Cool Mod.......

[sg///M3]

Any ideas why this won't work with the M-DCT (as per the website)? The Rogue set doesn't seem to have this restriction.

[evosport]

Well, I can answer that.

The DCT is driven off of the crank via a belt and pulley. There are some additional considerations that we are testing to make sure that under driving the DCT will not compromise the drive quality of the car.

As it is now, DCT cars are having a lot of issues at the track and during hot runs. We need to see what impact under driving that pulley will have.

This will be rectified soon.

Thanks
Brad

[sg///M3]

Originally Posted by otoupalik

Well, I can answer that.

The DCT is driven off of the crank via a belt and pulley. There are some additional considerations that we are testing to make sure that under driving the DCT will not compromise the drive quality of the car.

As it is now, DCT cars are having a lot of issues at the track and during hot runs. We need to see what impact under driving that pulley will have.

This will be rectified soon.

Thanks
Brad

Thanks for the info. Please keep us updated on this. I am interested in getting pulleys for my DCT.