under drive pullies(udp)
Senior Member
SL Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 1,458
From: Everywhere
Originally Posted by oldman
I should also note that if you are talking the engine damper this is more then a pulley: it removes the vibration from the engine. A near crazy idea to remove this. As it directly effects the longevity of the engine, if not why would the factory, you know the guys that give you a warranty, go through all the trouble of making a heavy three piece damper if it was NOT needed? Simple it is needed especially with a steel crank which I assume the tC has. As steel tends to ring more then a cast crank. Also longer stroke cranks ala tC also tend to ring more. Basically meaning only a cringing newbie with no knowledge of fundamental engine dynamics would ever contemplating bolting on a light weight solid aluminum damper. THIS WILL VOID YOUR WARRANTY PERIOD.
http://dinancars.com/whitepapersFile.asp?ID=5
Fact: the factory spends big $$$ on each and every engine to make and install harmonic dampers.
Fact: MPG and HP would go up if the factory just milled a cheap aluminum pulley.
Fact: no factory does it. Why?
OK break-up into small grounps and discuss amoung yourselves.
http://dinancars.com/whitepapersFile.asp?ID=5
Fact: the factory spends big $$$ on each and every engine to make and install harmonic dampers.
Fact: MPG and HP would go up if the factory just milled a cheap aluminum pulley.
Fact: no factory does it. Why?
OK break-up into small grounps and discuss amoung yourselves.
Correct me if I am wrong (which I am sure someone will
) but the crank pulley on our cars are only for the belt. On most vehicles it is called a harmonic balancer but I don't belive our cars have this b/c of the balancer shafts in the engine. So it would actually help in our cases for a few.
Senior Member
SoCal tC Club
SL Member
Scinergy
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 152
From: Fullerton, CA
oldman, you're obviously more interested in arguing for the sake of having an argument over actually listening to what anyone says.
you said:
You clearly say “better designs” are passed over because the cost too much or that there was some strategy against the design. I completely missed the part about economies of scale providing an over engineered part one that cost significantly more to produce landing on a lesser car.
i talked about the economy of scale (although without using that exact phrase) here, which obviously you didn't read:
Many parts on production vehicles are borrowed from other production vehicles. If the cost of mass-producing one "expensive complicated part" (whatever THAT might be; usually anything "complicated" is comprised of subassemblies) is less than smaller-volume production of two simpler parts, then sure -- the "expensive complicated" part will be used.... even if it's not engineered specifically for each car.
as for this statement you made:
So the over engineered application would be the Camry automatic driven by grandma to church, not the tC driven by a male Gen Y.
yes, the tC is going to be driven to death and modded out, unlike grandma's Camry. however, mr. smart engineer, you completely miss the fact that the Camry came first by a long time. there was no tC in the mix when the 2.4L engine was designed. sheesh, talk about "egregious logic error"...
continuing the logic errors you make:
since your blather above indicates that economies of scale would dictate the part had to have been designed for grandma’s Camry auto, Toyota must have clearly felt it was NEEDED in an auto Camry with a sheltered life.
no, no, no. you excel at not listening. i think you are just looking for a way to make yourself supposedly look smart by quoting occam's razor.
toyota may have had many different applications in mind when they put the 3-piece damper on our engine. "grandma's sheltered camry" may not have been one. perhaps they considered this engine for use in a small truck? again, you have a penchant for cooking up a silly hypothetical scenario and then talking about it as if it was real.
we have no idea what was in the minds of toyota's engineers or product planners. so we can't assume that just because "toyota did it this way" that the way they chose is the best. everything i have said in reply to you has been on the principle that all design is a compromise. YOU have chosen to say, ad nauseam, that extra power from a UDP is not worth what YOU consider to be a risk of engine damage someday in the future. fine, goodie for you. don't use a UDP. but stop being a jerk over the subject as if YOUR opinion is the ONLY one which is valid.
as for this:
Sure complaining customers will have their 15 minutes in front of an advocate and I don’t know if your dad’s expertise based on him tinkering with the family lawnmower is going to win against a Toyota prepared white paper on the subject of UD pulleys.
i do most of my own repair and mod work, my dad doesn't have anything to do with it nor does he tinker with the family lawnmower. you're just trying to somehow insult me here, and that's just sad. you have to stoop to insults to "prove" your point. i feel sad for you.
and then THIS:
So let me get this straight you are the first person I ever heard of blowing a Miata engine, and your are so happy that Mazda lost a ton of money on you. Great so you scammed a company to fixed something that you probable broke under tremendous abuse and conned poor company using their good will into fixing. I’m sure Mazda wants you as a customer. Come now Zack, how did you blow the Miata, did you miss shift playing out your version of F&F were you on the bottle, or did you screw up some performance part? Oh I know, I got it all wrong and you were driving down the street at normal speeds and the crank just flew out of the block, could happen to anyone.
I reasonably sure Toyota would be happy if you were not their customer, I’m sure they have delt with many “professional” SCA uber males. Loser
incredible. you don't know ANYTHING about what happened with my Miata, yet you've already decided that i scammed Mazda and somehow abused the engine. in a nutshell, at 22,000 miles a mazda dealer improperly put on the oil plug after an oil change (this was before i knew how to change my own oil). leaving from the dealer, it was not apparent that the plug was not threaded correctly. driving at freeway speeds down to san diego, the plug popped out and i lost all the oil. i did manage to "save" the engine by turning it off before all the oil was gone. after getting a new plug and oil, another dealer said the engine "seemed" fine but there was no way to really know. at 76,503 miles, with no more or less wear and tear than any other miata in the miata club (and this was before the UDP), my miata threw a rod (and no i was not racing when the rod was thrown). the thrown rod was directly attributed to the early loss of most oil within the engine. conjecture is that a hairline crack was formed which grew until the failure.
oh, and for all the people saying "lock this thread" -- here's a wild idea. just don't read it.
you said:
You clearly say “better designs” are passed over because the cost too much or that there was some strategy against the design. I completely missed the part about economies of scale providing an over engineered part one that cost significantly more to produce landing on a lesser car.
i talked about the economy of scale (although without using that exact phrase) here, which obviously you didn't read:
Many parts on production vehicles are borrowed from other production vehicles. If the cost of mass-producing one "expensive complicated part" (whatever THAT might be; usually anything "complicated" is comprised of subassemblies) is less than smaller-volume production of two simpler parts, then sure -- the "expensive complicated" part will be used.... even if it's not engineered specifically for each car.
as for this statement you made:
So the over engineered application would be the Camry automatic driven by grandma to church, not the tC driven by a male Gen Y.
yes, the tC is going to be driven to death and modded out, unlike grandma's Camry. however, mr. smart engineer, you completely miss the fact that the Camry came first by a long time. there was no tC in the mix when the 2.4L engine was designed. sheesh, talk about "egregious logic error"...
continuing the logic errors you make:
since your blather above indicates that economies of scale would dictate the part had to have been designed for grandma’s Camry auto, Toyota must have clearly felt it was NEEDED in an auto Camry with a sheltered life.
no, no, no. you excel at not listening. i think you are just looking for a way to make yourself supposedly look smart by quoting occam's razor.
toyota may have had many different applications in mind when they put the 3-piece damper on our engine. "grandma's sheltered camry" may not have been one. perhaps they considered this engine for use in a small truck? again, you have a penchant for cooking up a silly hypothetical scenario and then talking about it as if it was real. we have no idea what was in the minds of toyota's engineers or product planners. so we can't assume that just because "toyota did it this way" that the way they chose is the best. everything i have said in reply to you has been on the principle that all design is a compromise. YOU have chosen to say, ad nauseam, that extra power from a UDP is not worth what YOU consider to be a risk of engine damage someday in the future. fine, goodie for you. don't use a UDP. but stop being a jerk over the subject as if YOUR opinion is the ONLY one which is valid.
as for this:
Sure complaining customers will have their 15 minutes in front of an advocate and I don’t know if your dad’s expertise based on him tinkering with the family lawnmower is going to win against a Toyota prepared white paper on the subject of UD pulleys.
i do most of my own repair and mod work, my dad doesn't have anything to do with it nor does he tinker with the family lawnmower. you're just trying to somehow insult me here, and that's just sad. you have to stoop to insults to "prove" your point. i feel sad for you.
and then THIS:
So let me get this straight you are the first person I ever heard of blowing a Miata engine, and your are so happy that Mazda lost a ton of money on you. Great so you scammed a company to fixed something that you probable broke under tremendous abuse and conned poor company using their good will into fixing. I’m sure Mazda wants you as a customer. Come now Zack, how did you blow the Miata, did you miss shift playing out your version of F&F were you on the bottle, or did you screw up some performance part? Oh I know, I got it all wrong and you were driving down the street at normal speeds and the crank just flew out of the block, could happen to anyone.
I reasonably sure Toyota would be happy if you were not their customer, I’m sure they have delt with many “professional” SCA uber males. Loser
incredible. you don't know ANYTHING about what happened with my Miata, yet you've already decided that i scammed Mazda and somehow abused the engine. in a nutshell, at 22,000 miles a mazda dealer improperly put on the oil plug after an oil change (this was before i knew how to change my own oil). leaving from the dealer, it was not apparent that the plug was not threaded correctly. driving at freeway speeds down to san diego, the plug popped out and i lost all the oil. i did manage to "save" the engine by turning it off before all the oil was gone. after getting a new plug and oil, another dealer said the engine "seemed" fine but there was no way to really know. at 76,503 miles, with no more or less wear and tear than any other miata in the miata club (and this was before the UDP), my miata threw a rod (and no i was not racing when the rod was thrown). the thrown rod was directly attributed to the early loss of most oil within the engine. conjecture is that a hairline crack was formed which grew until the failure.
oh, and for all the people saying "lock this thread" -- here's a wild idea. just don't read it.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
AlphaSquad
Seven City Scions
SL Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 558
From: Virginia Beach, VA
Originally Posted by RacerZack
oldman, you're obviously more interested in arguing for the sake of having an argument over actually listening to what anyone says.
you said:
You clearly say “better designs” are passed over because the cost too much or that there was some strategy against the design. I completely missed the part about economies of scale providing an over engineered part one that cost significantly more to produce landing on a lesser car.
i talked about the economy of scale (although without using that exact phrase) here, which obviously you didn't read:
Many parts on production vehicles are borrowed from other production vehicles. If the cost of mass-producing one "expensive complicated part" (whatever THAT might be; usually anything "complicated" is comprised of subassemblies) is less than smaller-volume production of two simpler parts, then sure -- the "expensive complicated" part will be used.... even if it's not engineered specifically for each car.
as for this statement you made:
So the over engineered application would be the Camry automatic driven by grandma to church, not the tC driven by a male Gen Y.
yes, the tC is going to be driven to death and modded out, unlike grandma's Camry. however, mr. smart engineer, you completely miss the fact that the Camry came first by a long time. there was no tC in the mix when the 2.4L engine was designed. sheesh, talk about "egregious logic error"...
continuing the logic errors you make:
since your blather above indicates that economies of scale would dictate the part had to have been designed for grandma’s Camry auto, Toyota must have clearly felt it was NEEDED in an auto Camry with a sheltered life.
no, no, no. you excel at not listening. i think you are just looking for a way to make yourself supposedly look smart by quoting occam's razor. toyota may have had many different applications in mind when they put the 3-piece damper on our engine. "grandma's sheltered camry" may not have been one. perhaps they considered this engine for use in a small truck? again, you have a penchant for cooking up a silly hypothetical scenario and then talking about it as if it was real.
we have no idea what was in the minds of toyota's engineers or product planners. so we can't assume that just because "toyota did it this way" that the way they chose is the best. everything i have said in reply to you has been on the principle that all design is a compromise. YOU have chosen to say, ad nauseam, that extra power from a UDP is not worth what YOU consider to be a risk of engine damage someday in the future. fine, goodie for you. don't use a UDP. but stop being a jerk over the subject as if YOUR opinion is the ONLY one which is valid.
as for this:
Sure complaining customers will have their 15 minutes in front of an advocate and I don’t know if your dad’s expertise based on him tinkering with the family lawnmower is going to win against a Toyota prepared white paper on the subject of UD pulleys.
i do most of my own repair and mod work, my dad doesn't have anything to do with it nor does he tinker with the family lawnmower. you're just trying to somehow insult me here, and that's just sad. you have to stoop to insults to "prove" your point. i feel sad for you.
and then THIS:
So let me get this straight you are the first person I ever heard of blowing a Miata engine, and your are so happy that Mazda lost a ton of money on you. Great so you scammed a company to fixed something that you probable broke under tremendous abuse and conned poor company using their good will into fixing. I’m sure Mazda wants you as a customer. Come now Zack, how did you blow the Miata, did you miss shift playing out your version of F&F were you on the bottle, or did you screw up some performance part? Oh I know, I got it all wrong and you were driving down the street at normal speeds and the crank just flew out of the block, could happen to anyone.
I reasonably sure Toyota would be happy if you were not their customer, I’m sure they have delt with many “professional” SCA uber males. Loser
incredible. you don't know ANYTHING about what happened with my Miata, yet you've already decided that i scammed Mazda and somehow abused the engine. in a nutshell, at 22,000 miles a mazda dealer improperly put on the oil plug after an oil change (this was before i knew how to change my own oil). leaving from the dealer, it was not apparent that the plug was not threaded correctly. driving at freeway speeds down to san diego, the plug popped out and i lost all the oil. i did manage to "save" the engine by turning it off before all the oil was gone. after getting a new plug and oil, another dealer said the engine "seemed" fine but there was no way to really know. at 76,503 miles, with no more or less wear and tear than any other miata in the miata club (and this was before the UDP), my miata threw a rod (and no i was not racing when the rod was thrown). the thrown rod was directly attributed to the early loss of most oil within the engine. conjecture is that a hairline crack was formed which grew until the failure.
oh, and for all the people saying "lock this thread" -- here's a wild idea. just don't read it.
you said:
You clearly say “better designs” are passed over because the cost too much or that there was some strategy against the design. I completely missed the part about economies of scale providing an over engineered part one that cost significantly more to produce landing on a lesser car.
i talked about the economy of scale (although without using that exact phrase) here, which obviously you didn't read:
Many parts on production vehicles are borrowed from other production vehicles. If the cost of mass-producing one "expensive complicated part" (whatever THAT might be; usually anything "complicated" is comprised of subassemblies) is less than smaller-volume production of two simpler parts, then sure -- the "expensive complicated" part will be used.... even if it's not engineered specifically for each car.
as for this statement you made:
So the over engineered application would be the Camry automatic driven by grandma to church, not the tC driven by a male Gen Y.
yes, the tC is going to be driven to death and modded out, unlike grandma's Camry. however, mr. smart engineer, you completely miss the fact that the Camry came first by a long time. there was no tC in the mix when the 2.4L engine was designed. sheesh, talk about "egregious logic error"...
continuing the logic errors you make:
since your blather above indicates that economies of scale would dictate the part had to have been designed for grandma’s Camry auto, Toyota must have clearly felt it was NEEDED in an auto Camry with a sheltered life.
no, no, no. you excel at not listening. i think you are just looking for a way to make yourself supposedly look smart by quoting occam's razor.
toyota may have had many different applications in mind when they put the 3-piece damper on our engine. "grandma's sheltered camry" may not have been one. perhaps they considered this engine for use in a small truck? again, you have a penchant for cooking up a silly hypothetical scenario and then talking about it as if it was real. we have no idea what was in the minds of toyota's engineers or product planners. so we can't assume that just because "toyota did it this way" that the way they chose is the best. everything i have said in reply to you has been on the principle that all design is a compromise. YOU have chosen to say, ad nauseam, that extra power from a UDP is not worth what YOU consider to be a risk of engine damage someday in the future. fine, goodie for you. don't use a UDP. but stop being a jerk over the subject as if YOUR opinion is the ONLY one which is valid.
as for this:
Sure complaining customers will have their 15 minutes in front of an advocate and I don’t know if your dad’s expertise based on him tinkering with the family lawnmower is going to win against a Toyota prepared white paper on the subject of UD pulleys.
i do most of my own repair and mod work, my dad doesn't have anything to do with it nor does he tinker with the family lawnmower. you're just trying to somehow insult me here, and that's just sad. you have to stoop to insults to "prove" your point. i feel sad for you.
and then THIS:
So let me get this straight you are the first person I ever heard of blowing a Miata engine, and your are so happy that Mazda lost a ton of money on you. Great so you scammed a company to fixed something that you probable broke under tremendous abuse and conned poor company using their good will into fixing. I’m sure Mazda wants you as a customer. Come now Zack, how did you blow the Miata, did you miss shift playing out your version of F&F were you on the bottle, or did you screw up some performance part? Oh I know, I got it all wrong and you were driving down the street at normal speeds and the crank just flew out of the block, could happen to anyone.
I reasonably sure Toyota would be happy if you were not their customer, I’m sure they have delt with many “professional” SCA uber males. Loser
incredible. you don't know ANYTHING about what happened with my Miata, yet you've already decided that i scammed Mazda and somehow abused the engine. in a nutshell, at 22,000 miles a mazda dealer improperly put on the oil plug after an oil change (this was before i knew how to change my own oil). leaving from the dealer, it was not apparent that the plug was not threaded correctly. driving at freeway speeds down to san diego, the plug popped out and i lost all the oil. i did manage to "save" the engine by turning it off before all the oil was gone. after getting a new plug and oil, another dealer said the engine "seemed" fine but there was no way to really know. at 76,503 miles, with no more or less wear and tear than any other miata in the miata club (and this was before the UDP), my miata threw a rod (and no i was not racing when the rod was thrown). the thrown rod was directly attributed to the early loss of most oil within the engine. conjecture is that a hairline crack was formed which grew until the failure.
oh, and for all the people saying "lock this thread" -- here's a wild idea. just don't read it.
i was with you until that last statement. The only reason why i said to lock this topic was due to the fact of oldman turning it into a arguement and dissing people.
Senior Member
SoCal tC Club
SL Member
Scinergy
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 152
From: Fullerton, CA
Originally Posted by "Gmoney
i was with you until that last statement. The only reason why i said to lock this topic was due to the fact of oldman turning it into a arguement and dissing people.
Thread Starter
Senior Member
AlphaSquad
Seven City Scions
SL Member
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 558
From: Virginia Beach, VA
Originally Posted by RacerZack
Originally Posted by Gmoney
i was with you until that last statement. The only reason why i said to lock this topic was due to the fact of oldman turning it into a arguement and dissing people.
no worries
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
evolving_machine
Scion tC 2G Drivetrain & Power
17
Oct 21, 2023 01:16 PM