2.423 inches = 61.54 millimeters

 

Not too bad for these old mics

 

What are the biggest risks with this pulley? how much boost compared to my 64.7 mm is it creating?

 

Steve pm me

 

I found this info in another thread (for those wondering about the 62mm SC pulley) :

Based on 155mm, the crank pulley equivalent of a 62mm SC pulley is:

155 * 6200 = 62 * Srpm
Srpm = 15,500

Cd * 6200 = 74 * 15500
Cd = 185.0mm

Therefore, using the same calculation logic:

A 60mm SC pulley is equivalent to 191.2mm crank
A 61mm SC pulley is equivalent to 188.0mm crank
A 62mm SC pulley is equivalent to 185.0mm crank
A 63mm SC pulley is equivalent to 182.1mm crank
A 64mm SC pulley is equivalent to 179.2mm crank
A 65mm SC pulley is equivalent to 176.5mm crank

A 74mm SC pulley is equivalent to 155.0mm crank

More good reading here: https://www.crossfireforum.org/forum...ification.html

 

I need to jump in here (even though I know I'll probably be getting in way over my head). I've read most of the forum's 62mm S/C pulley posts and I understand the concept of the redesigned pulley along with the quest for faster acceleration. One post referenced "does it fix the problem" which I took to infer that I might expect a problem with the OEM S/C pulley down the road? Questions: 1) Is there an inherent problem with the OEM pulley? 2) There are many references to the fact that the various 62mm pulley offerings might not be available in the future. Even though the increased speed / engine power modifications are way down on my priority list, should I be moving to get a 62mm S/C pulley now while they are still available? I realize that this new E-Bay pulley offering is still untested but of the others that might be still available in the marketplace, which one is the best design and provides the best results. Thanks for sharing your expertise and pointing me in the right direction on this issue.

 

there are 2 inherent issues with the s/c pulley design regardless of the size.
1. the s/c pulley bearing is a wear item. over time the bearings go bad and need to be replaced. for the oem or the 65mm pulley they use the same bearing which is readily available. because the new 62mm s/c pulley uses a smaller design until the pulley is taken apart and a replacement bearing sourced you could in theory have a nice paperweight if the bearing fails due to the inc. speeds it spins.
2. the metal straps that attach the main pulley body to the magnetic backing plate and the associated rivets due wear over time. there is a load on the straps while the pulley is engaged so again a wear item. a few have repaired them most replace the pulley.

the diameter of the pulley makes no difference on the wear. the oem pulley can be machined down for more power, eurocharged builds a 65mm pulley for even more power and now this 62mm is being built. there are many options out there now.

 

I believe the "problem" he's referring to is the issue with the first batch of Eurocharged SC pulleys. The short answer is, time will tell.

 

The 62mm pulley came with a "spacer" that appears to mount to the front of the pulley but perhaps could go onto the SC first then the pulley that way no shims needed. I tried to include a pic of it hear but not able to do do that from my phone. Will post pic when I find that charging cord. By the way the spacer seems to be too thick to use as a spacer. Least 1/8 inch

 

The ring goes on after the pulley. It's used to make up the difference in depth from using a smaller diameter bearing.


This face goes up against the bearing after the pulley is mounted on the supercharger.


This recessed groove is where the sheave washer sits in.


What is should look like before you put the bolt and sheave washer on.

 

impressions rudy?

 

Still testing it but when it's been run through the passes, I will post everything up.

 

Thanks Rudy that is what I thought but you never know. Do you think I will need more fuel or cooling with this pulley?

 

That is what I understood from the description, putting that behind the pulley would make for a huge gap which would strain and quickly ruin the springs.

The bearing must be not as wide as the OEM bearing which I understand is 23mm wide. The diameter is smaller (47mm?) than the OEM one which is 55mm OD. That spacer thickness below the counter bore will be the difference in width of the two bearings. It looks like 5mm from the photo.

 

This pulley is no longer listed for sale on EBAY.........

 

Nice looking pulley can't wait to see the results of Rudy's testing. I am running a 185mm so probably not on my list but always good to have options.

 

Seller said this batch was sold

 

I installed mine this evening and have dyno and tuner waiting on me at 10:00 am tomorrow morning. Can't wait.

 

What's your impression of the unit during the install? Is the fitment good? Any slop, or is it a close fit?
Any issues with slop in the belt after installing the smaller pulley?

 

Well let me try this again as my response did not go through last time. The 62mm pulley appears to be a well solid built pulley. There were no issues with the install except couldn't find my strap wrench and had to go purchase a new one the 62mm pulley went on very nicely with just enough clearance to be on tight but not soon tight as to need a bigger hammer. I do not have the psk so I am worried about slippage. The. Belt did not have a lot of slop but could have been tighter. The big thing I noticed was the difference between the backing plates. On the ec and factory pulley the rivets sat in holes that had been cut into the backing plate. On the 62mm pulley there are no holes in the backing plate and the rivets are punched through then the exposed part is sanded or turned to be even with the backing plate. Hope that makes sense