Fluidampr. VS JHM HD Overdrive Lightweight +/_

[VNA4]

Folks,
I'm aware there are bunch of threads about Fluidampr and JHM HD BUT none compare them thoroughly and after extended use stating +/- (from members that have driven them for a considerable amount of time.) Most of the treads are feedbacks from what some heard or read somewhere.

I'd like to get feedback from members that have own one or the other and share plus and minus facts.

I ordered the HE from MercRacing now all I need is to choose which crank pulley to choose from. The Fluidampr is literally 2X the cost of the JHM HD Overdrive Lightweight . Is the Fluidampr reliabelity a myth or real , if so I wouldnt pay twice the cost. PLEASE share feedback not based on what you've read but actual experience.

This car is my DD btw, family car . Most likely will keep it for 6/7 years.

THANKS ALL

[MSq5]

Folks,
I'm aware there are bunch of threads about Fluidampr and JHM HD BUT none compare them side by side with +/- (from members that have driven them for a considerable amount of time.) Most of the treads are feedbacks from what some heard or read somewhere.

I'd like to get feedback from members that have own one or the other and share plus and minus facts.

I ordered the HE from MercRacing now all I need is to choose which crank pulley to choose from. The Fluidampr is literally 2X the cost of the JHM HD Overdrive Lightweight . Is the Fluidampr reliabelity a myth or real , if so I wouldnt pay twice the cost. PLEASE share feedback not based on what you've read but actual experience.

THANKS ALL

I have posted my actual experience with the JHM 179mm in several threads here. It is all positive. I hope not to have to post it in detail once again. Sorry, but you must not have searched very much. I know our search function is weak.

Suffice it to say - lower rotation mass is a good thing. It has no increased NVH. It is easy to install and was done from below by me without having to put the Q5 in service position. It will never separate. It is much less expensive. It works very well with my EPL stage 2 tune. What else is there to say? It does what it is intended to do with no untoward side effect.

I am aware of no negatives. My experience is direct and personal, but limited just to the JHM 179mm. I have about 10,000 miles on the JHM of about 25,000 total miles on my '17 Q5.

It is unlikely that anyone would buy both, or have a reason to do so. A side-by-side comparison post would be surprising.

[VNA4]

I have posted my actual experience with the JHM 179mm in several threads here. It is all positive. I hope not to have to post it in detail once again. Sorry, but you must not have searched very much. I know our search function is weak.

Suffice it to say - lower rotation mass is a good thing. It has no increased NVH. It is easy to install and was done from below by me without having to put the Q5 in service position. It will never separate. It is much less expensive. It works very well with my EPL stage 2 tune. What else is there to say? It does what it is intended to do with no untoward side effect.

I am aware of no negatives. My experience is direct and personal, but limited just to the JHM 179mm. I have about 10,000 miles on the JHM of about 25,000 total miles on my '17 Q5.

It is unlikely that anyone would buy both, or have a reason to do so. A side-by-side comparison post would be surprising.

Thanks for the feedback i edited the post remove the side by side although i've read some members going from one to the other but those posts were from couple years back.

[Acejam]

I’ve owned both at the same time. I would 100% go with the JHM - I have the 187mm size JHM. Long story short, the Fluidampr never fit my car properly and it was clearly due to manufacturing defects in their process. I am basing this on simple measurements and comparisons between the FD and JHM/OEM units. (I had all 3 out next to each other)

I highly suggest you check out my linked thread below. In short, the Fluidampr does smooth out engine idle a tiny bit, but it’s more than twice the price and twice the weight of the JHM 187. The JHM has the same levels of NVH as the OEM pulley. In fact, I actually think the JHM might be slightly smoother too.

I ran both pulleys on the same car/tune and they pulled equally as hard. The JHM revs noticeably quicker due to it’s lighter weight (5.2 lbs), and Unitronic recently came out with their own pulley which is even lighter! (2 lbs) OEM is about ~8 lbs and the FD setup is about 14.

People will quote this post and say they’ve never heard of any Fluidampr issues. But if you dig around enough, you’ll find them, and it’s no secret that some Fluidampr owners end up with squeaking and/or snapped belts. I believe there is a reason for that and my post explains what was causing it for me.

https://www.audizine.com/forum/showt...and-squeaking)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[wangshuo1989]

For folks have JHM pulley, do you need to grind during installation?

[MKGIY]

With the 179MM JHM, you do not need to grind anything down on the motor.

[Acejam]

For folks have JHM pulley, do you need to grind during installation?

Yes I needed to cut/grind with my JHM 187. I believe the 179 does not require this though. I was able to fit an angle grinder with a cutoff disk in there so it was a 30 second operation.

I also didn’t want to risk not cutting off enough, so I went overboard on that boss.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[blackfunk]

Curious how these compare to XLR's light weight pulley which is currently on sale atm.

[Timkl25]

Curious how these compare to XLR's light weight pulley which is currently on sale atm.

or CTS Turbo Supercharger Crank Pulley Upgrade - 187mm

Om sale at https://www.ecstuning.com/b-cts-part...-hw-266-187~c/

[MSq5]

With the 179MM JHM, you do not need to grind anything down on the motor.

That may be true or not. I definitely had to cut some of that aluminum tab or post back to install the JHM 179. But, I have a Q5.

This seems to be both model specific and year specific.

However, it is easy to do. People are using all sort of tools to do it. I have a lot of electric and air power tools, but I just used a simple hacksaw. A cut off disc would be a little quicker. I just wanted a clean cut.

[rgpwr]

or CTS Turbo Supercharger Crank Pulley Upgrade - 187mm

Om sale at https://www.ecstuning.com/b-cts-part...-hw-266-187~c/

I have the CTS 187mm. Very nice piece. No installation issues. No nvh. Clearly marked offset hole.

[VNA4]

Ok so looks like Ima go with JHM

So in terms of size
The bigger the pulley the bigger low end torque but more heat yes?

2-What are the difference from 179mm > 183mm > 186mm in terms of
-Power difference
-Heat difference





Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[brs2c]

Curious how these compare to XLR's light weight pulley which is currently on sale atm.

This is what I would look at.

[VNA4]

I got an answer from 034 Motorsport



"In an ideal world with a larger SC and more cooling, the bigger the pulley the better. However, with the cooling limitations of the platform and efficiency limitations of the factory SC, you're gaining low-end and midrange torque at the expense of creating more heat in the higher RPMs. This means that sufficient cooling and higher octane fuels are needed to make the most of the dual-pulley setups.

2) This will depend a lot on what fuel you plan to run, and how good your cooling setup is. If you plan on running pump gas (91 or 93), I wouldn't run anything bigger than a 179.

If you run a 186 or larger on pump gas, even with sufficient cooling, you may make less peak horsepower up top than a Stage 1 car due to high IATs.

Nate (our calibrator) is running a 190mm crank pulley with E40, which is what I'd consider an ideal setup.

3) DP cars will generally see higher EGTs which can be detrimental to the life of the factory catalysts, but the factory catalysts tend to have issues with age/mileage even on stock cars. This is very much a "your mileage may vary" situation. We used to sell both HFCs and test pipes, but no longer do so. I'd recommend something that utilizes thick-wall tubing, not regular exhaust piping, as the EGTs in this location are rather high. Some of our customers are running gutted stock cats, and Nate's car is running aftermarket (non-performance) replacements from Magnaflow, I think. "

Thanks 034!

That being said i'm still wondering the power difference from 91 octane + 179mm to e40 blend + 190mm is the difference worth the cost of buying and HPFP + install, mixing e85 and 91 octane every week etc...

[Bartlett]

I got an answer from 034 Motorsport



"In an ideal world with a larger SC and more cooling, the bigger the pulley the better. However, with the cooling limitations of the platform and efficiency limitations of the factory SC, you're gaining low-end and midrange torque at the expense of creating more heat in the higher RPMs. This means that sufficient cooling and higher octane fuels are needed to make the most of the dual-pulley setups.

2) This will depend a lot on what fuel you plan to run, and how good your cooling setup is. If you plan on running pump gas (91 or 93), I wouldn't run anything bigger than a 179.

If you run a 186 or larger on pump gas, even with sufficient cooling, you may make less peak horsepower up top than a Stage 1 car due to high IATs.

Nate (our calibrator) is running a 190mm crank pulley with E40, which is what I'd consider an ideal setup.

3) DP cars will generally see higher EGTs which can be detrimental to the life of the factory catalysts, but the factory catalysts tend to have issues with age/mileage even on stock cars. This is very much a "your mileage may vary" situation. We used to sell both HFCs and test pipes, but no longer do so. I'd recommend something that utilizes thick-wall tubing, not regular exhaust piping, as the EGTs in this location are rather high. Some of our customers are running gutted stock cats, and Nate's car is running aftermarket (non-performance) replacements from Magnaflow, I think. "

Thanks 034!

That being said i'm still wondering the power difference from 91 octane + 179mm to e40 blend + 190mm is the difference worth the cost of buying and HPFP + install, mixing e85 and 91 octane every week etc...

That's a good response from 034.

If I were to estimate, the power difference from 91 and 179 to e40 and 190 is probably 30-35whp at sea level.

[VNA4]

30-35 whp thats yuuuuge


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

[theweebabyseamus]

30-35 whp thats yuuuuge


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine

That’s depressing.

[luciddream71]

Sure but the torque jump will be insane going up from 179 to 190


Sent from my iPhone using Audizine