Hi guys as some of you know I work in the aftermarket auto industry and thus have access to manufacturers who we use to make performance parts.

I noticed that with the RL there is no real parts available to us. However this can change. I have been speaking to one of the companies we use about manufacturing a underdrive pulley.

A lightweight crankshaft pulley as most of you are aware off can make a big difference in performance of the car. As we all know the RL is not exactly a fast car so any extra power is welcome. The original pulley is made out of steel and is quite heavy, but using a billet aluminum pulley you can free up power due to less rotational loss.

The TL guys seem to love them on there cars and I would estimate a 15hp gain for our RL's.

Here is a dyno with a pulley on a CL v-6 (borrowed from the tl forums)-



The pulley will be CNC-machined from lightweight 6061-T6 aluminum billet. Premium 6061-T6 aluminum billet ensures the consistency of the material's strength and balance. Tolerances are held to within .001", and numerous machining steps will be used to ensure the lightest and strongest possible design. Pulley will also be anodized (most likely I think black to give a oem look). Price estimate on this pulley will be $150-$195 depending on how many members buy.

Right now I'd just like to get a list of people who would be interested in buying a pulley.

Feel free to ask any questions that you may have. Thanks.

1. Touge
2.
3.
etc

 

1. Touge
2. UW RL
3.



how about some cold air intake and exhaust systems? Hook us up, man!

 

Hi UW RL, those parts would also be nice to have for our RL's. I guess it all depends on how many RL owners are interested in performance. Hopefully we can get at least 20 members for this pulley, this way manufacturers will take us seriously.

 

How hard is it to install? Does it void warranties?

 

1. Touge
2. UW RL
3. TheAcAvenger

I'd definitely pay a few hundred dollars to get my dad's RL a pulley for christmas. He's got the modding bug after seeing what i've done the TL and is pretty ugged about the serious lack of parts for the car. Every other week he says something about, "When's comptech coming out with a supercharger for a REAL acura".. hahhah

 

1. Touge
2. UW RL
3. TheAcAvenger
4. jcb-memphis

 

Hi dwboston, installation shouldn't be too hard. I will be installing it myself and will post up pictures and a step by step guide. Most shops can do it in 30 mins or less. It shouldn't cause any warranty issue, because by law the dealer has to prove the performance part installed caused the issue. Also since it will be black, it will look just like the oem part so most dealers wouldn't even notice it there. Thanks.

I'm very excited to see the response guys. A 305hp RL vs a 290hp RL is alot more fun to drive

 

Underdrive pulleys are going to slow down your alternator, A/C compressor, water pump, etc., aren't they?

Not to be a wet blanket, but I doubt most of us would be able to detect the 10-12hp a pulley might add, and charging or overheating problems in hot climes and city drivng make it questionable in a daily driver. JMHO, of course ...
.
.

 

Touge has permission from Astroboy (our site admin) to post this. This sounds like a good idea and I definitely am encouraging it.

Back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

Mike_TX, thanks for the question. I've had pullies on all my cars that I have owned and I definitely feel the difference. Sometimes numbers don't give you the whole impression, but behind the wheel it's a whole new feeling. Remember torque is also increase by 10-15 ft-lb.

The slower speed of the components is not noticeable at all. To minimize that effect even more, I plan to underdrive the pulley by only 10% . UR, AEM, and other companies usually underdrive 20%-30%. By doing 10% you won't see any issues with your engine accessories. Since we are building this pulley from the ground up we have complete control over the specs.

Ps big thanks to the admin of this site astroboy for letting us talk about this item.

 

I agree, 10% shouldn't be a problem.
.
.

 

1. Touge
2. UW RL
3. TheAcAvenger
4. jcb-memphis
5. psa#33

 

how does the underdrive percentage affect the HP gain? By decreasing the underdrive percentage we would also see a decrease in HP/torque gain, right?

 

UW RL, 70% of the power advantage of a pulley comes from the weight reduction, the rest is from underdriving. So by using 10% instead of the normal 20% we loose very little in performance, but keep our a/c , p/s and alt happy. Of course if you guys want I can bump it up to say 15%, but that's the most I would underdrive it.

 

I'll trust your better judgement Touge... just give us some GO!

 

Ya know, I have to ask... if switching to an aluminum pulley with a slightly smaller diameter is such a magical fix that it wondrously boosts HP by 5%....why doesn't it come that way from the factory? Given all the aluminum on this car already, and how Acura's pretty much wrung all it can from this engine while keeping it ULEV....

I smell snake oil. Maybe it might make the engine rev up a bit quicker and drop RPM a bit faster (like a lighter flywheel) but intuitively, I think a 15 HP gain is probably very optimistic....

Further, I call bogus on the dyno graph, because horsepower = torque on every motor at 5252 RPM, by definition. You can see that this crossover is approximately in the right place on the red curve, but it's moved forward on the blue one -- bogus!

 

jftjr, it's much cheaper for them to produce a stamped steel pulley so that's one of the main reason all manufacturers do it. Also if you venture to other car forums or even just our TL forum you will see many users are very happy with the performance gain from the pulley and there are many other dyno charts available.

It's easy to knock something that you haven't tried, but trust me they really make a difference that is feelable. Reading and theory is one thing, but real world is something else.

 

Well, I'm just being skeptical. The graph posted is obviously wrong, it just *can't* be the case that putting a pulley on a car fundamentally alters the hp/torque equation.... but again, does putting a flywheel on a car increase the HP? No... it just reduces rotational mass and allows it to rev faster. That may be "feelable" but it's not a HP gain.

Then again, if you spend a few hundred bucks and a few hours installing something on your car, you're often likely to feel an effect -- it's called "placebo."

I'm not saying anything one way or the other, except that (a) that graph is *obviously* fake, and (b) I find a 15 hp gain to be a bit optimistic. So, buyer beware.

 

Wait a sec jftjr, your logic is only correct at the surface. Lets not forget that there are two types of HP. HP rated to the flywheel, and HP rated at the wheels. What we see in the magazines are HP at the flywheel. So you're right, if you lightened or shrank something in the drovetrain to lower its moment of inertia, you would see no numerical difference in power to the flywheel. But as you can tell from the dynos, power is lost from the engine to the wheels... Where is it lost? In the drivetrain. Thus, modifications like this increase engine efficiency in that you lose LESS power to the wheels because the engine has to do less work to turn the shaft. Comprendes!?

Edit: But I will admit that 15whp seems super far fetched... I'm guessing more like 6-7?

 

No argument. You're in essence agreeing with me -- I think 15 HP is very much far fetched. It can make *a* difference, but not 15 HP... and really, I think any gains in losing rotational mass may be lost in the fact that your accessories have to work harder at lower RPM (i.e., if you're drawing 30A off your alternator, that requires a certain amount of power to generate, regardless of the RPM it's turning at...).

But regardless of whether you measure HP at the flywheel or at the drivewheel, some old guy named Watt taught us a long time ago that HP = torque X RPM / 5252..... and that graph is bogus.

 

jftjr, you can check the TL forums or unorthodox's site for more dyno graphs. That is just a random graph I saw on the TL forums.

I wouldn't call it a placebo affect either, I've seen with my own eyes the difference before and after on a dynojet, this was on a 4 cylinder 2.0 car that I used to own. It made 7whp to the wheels. Also that power was all across the power band, even at low rpms.

Now on a bigger motor like ours with a much heavier stock pulley we surely can expect more. Also that 15hp estimate is flywheel and not to the wheels. Two different things. I understand that you maybe still skeptical and that's ok as this item obviously is not for you. Thanks.

 

1. My gut says if Honda could get another 15 HP out of a part that is very easy to mass produce they would be on it in a heartbeat.

2. The HP graph reminds me of one you used to see on some other ads. Makes you wonder if the higher HP run was done at photoshop! No discredit to the original poster, I think he is "just passing it on" just wonder where a graph like that would come from.

 

The problem is you have marketing people who set a price point, adding a aluminum pulley stock would raise up the cost of the car and when you are making alot of cars that extra cost can add up very fast. Plus the engineers at honda feel 290hp is more than enough for the target audience of this car. Also a stamped steel pulley is also much easier to produce and there is less tolerances needed.

The dyno is only for a approximation of the power, actual gains will be different. Here is another dyno of a TSX dyno by someone else -

 

Also just wanted to add I spoke to a dynojet rep, the 1st graph is accurate, the reason the hp/tq don't cross at that point is because whoever owns that dyno uses different scaling as you can see on the left for hp and the right for tq. That does not mean the graph is inaccurate he was saying. It's just another way to view the data.

 

Hmm... well, both HP and torque (Y axes) are plotted against RPM (X axis)... so if they use different scaling on the Y axis for the two curves, it's only going to affect where they intersect on the Y, not the X. And further, unless they used different scaling for all 4 plots, the intersection point should still line up vertically.... in other words, if the inaccurate crossover point is a function of scale, the crossover on the "increased" graph isn't going to be moved forwards relative to the "stock" graph -- they'd both be moved forwards the same amount. So, um... I know it isn't your graph, but I call shennanigans.

See the second graph you posted? The crossovers all occur at the same speed. That's probably a real graph, or at least one faked by someone with a clue. Since MPH is a function of RPM and tire circumference, the speed they cross over at is constant.... because in any engine, anywhere, whether it's a lawn mower or a jumbo jet, HP = torque * RPM / 5252, so it *has* to look like that.

 

Well what the rep told me is that if the scales were the same, then indeed it would have crossed over at the 5252 point. I think this is because it would change the pitch of the curve. If you look at the dates on the graph it clear they overlayed the data and on the 2nd pull the rpm matching point is different. Probably some calibration issue on there part, regardless we can still use both graph's to give us a estimate on power with our RL's.

 

My only issue is one of warranty. I know the "law" says no big deal, but what have dealers done in TL users' cases when engine issues cropped up?

Thanks!

I am in, btw. If need be, I'll hold it until my warranty expires... :-)

JB

 

i only know of one TL engine that has ever gone bad. and i dont know if it was actually bad or if it was just that he used too much NOS.

 

Hi JB, that is a valid concern. However as mentioned you can see alot of people using this item on the TL with no issues. Also the motor on the TL is very similar to our RL motor minus the displacement.

List updated -

1. Touge
2. UW RL
3. TheAcAvenger
4. jcb-memphis
5. psa#33
6. jcb-memphis

 

I am only #4 (only have one RL).

JB

 

opps sorry about that, new list -

1. Touge
2. UW RL
3. TheAcAvenger
4. jcb-memphis
5. psa#33
6.
7.