Fluidampr Internally Balanced Damper
 

Another cool products was released today from Fluidampr. Pretty interesting stuff. Testing revealed consistent performance gains above 4000rpm compared to both an OEM tuned elastomer damper and a lightweight crankshaft pulley. The lightweight pulley tested provided no torsional vibration protection and left internal components susceptible to potentially destructive high frequency vibration between 5,000 - 7,000rpm.

This may be a good investment for people running built motors, or cars that see a lot of high RPM track time. Good piece of mind mod.






http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps9kmzf4bd.jpg

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0010SDd1...WyK83UPGZWBg==

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=0010SDd1...WyK83UPGZWBg==

I thought they released this like 6 months ago or is this revised.
I would also like to know if the graphs are FA20 specific because those TQ and Power numbers do not look right

I am not sure what dyno they used. I thought it looked weird too, but they started the graph 4k rpm, so the torque dip is not visible.

Thank god someone else posted this! People on here will have a field day with the theory of boxer engines being "naturally balanced" and are convinced that light weight pulley will not harm their engine! Thank you. I got flamed hard for posting a thread for a brand of performance crankshaft harmonic balancers.

I have one of these for my GTI I'm building the motor on, it's a nice product for sure. Not sure how that translates to the boxer motor though lol.

+1 that graph looks off.. and they need to show the entire RPM range unless they are hiding something.

@MAPerformance is the frequency graph for the FA20?? Or just some graph they have laying around?

That one was an actual FA20 from either an FRS/BRZ that they tested. They also released one for the Evo X, and had a specific dyno for that vehicle as well. I reached out to them to see if they can give us the full dyno graph.

Got a response back with a full dyno, as well as both waterfall plots of the torsional vibration testing, which measures the overall twist (peak-peak) resonance of the crankshaft running the Fluidampr, OEM damper, and a lightweight pulley.

The car tested was a 2013 FRS with an intake, single exhaust, and a tune done at R/T Tuning on a Mustang Dyno.

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/x...pswblb5x7z.png

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/x...psttlw01m2.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/x...ps6otnpr6h.jpg

http://i742.photobucket.com/albums/x...psnp3gmu9m.jpg

No wonder the initial graph started at 4000... didn't want to show the drop from 2800 to 3500 RPM. What's going on there?

Probably because it's heavier than the stock pulley

Would someone be so kind as to make comment on the 3 waterfall graphs? I don't know if any of what has been shown is good or bad.

I don't know what the "orders" or the "peak vibration angle" is referring to.. it might have to do with the sensor that they are using to measure the data.

Most likely correct. He did mention that they typically focus on high RPM performance since most customers use these for high RPM use, mainly track cars. But yes, very interesting indeed.

:thumbup:

Order is the harmonic frequency over the fundamental (fundamental times order is the harmonic)

I don't know what is considered destructive in this case, but the amplitude of the harmonic peaks for each damper are similar - just at different frequencies (since the peaking is both different fundamentals and orders.)

This only tells me that Toyobaru got it right from the factory. But hey, I don't know anything.

I managed to track down this PDf about the Fluidampr pulley's development.

So does order relate to vibrational modes?

Sort of answered my own question - http://www.physicsclassroom.com/clas...-and-Harmonics the harmonics and the modes are the same it seems.. 1st harmonic = 1st mode.. just a matter of terminology.

What we clearly see here is OEM performing best.
Glad to see this before someone ordering these needless pulleys. I also expect the ATI pulley not performing different than Fluidampr.

Wasn't ATI's also undersized, hence turning all the accessory pulleys at slower speeds, hence potentially more gains?

But wait!?! What about all those people that said the OEM pulley was NOT a damper/dampener and was "just a pulley"?

Seems like the people who said that "IT IS a torsional dampener and the engineers put it on there for a reason" were right.

:bonk::iono::bonk:

:bellyroll:

Fluidampr performs slightly better as it is heavier (with a damper as well).

So if I'm reading this correctly the fluidamper is probably a good pair with a light weight flywheel or if you plan to turn rpms beyond (such as the 9k element tuning motor) but otherwise it's largely a waste over your stock damper.

Just installed mine.

http://i.imgur.com/efSjynS.jpg

The motor definitely feels smoother in high RPMs. Great peace of mine for a frequently tracked 86.

How do do the physical dimensions of the Fluidampr compare to the stock balancer? I have the Nameless header that runs up in front of the engine. If the Fluidampr is too thick (measured from the face of the timing chain cover to the face where the writing is on the Fluidampr) it would be very close to the header secondaries. Thanks.

I don't know. I didn't measure them. You can contact Vibratech and get an answer from them.

Pretty much the same size!

Fluidampr has the dimensions on the product page. :bonk:

OD:: 5-7/8"
Bore Dia:: 0.787"
Length:: 1.62"
Weight / lbs (Rotating Weight / lbs):: 5.8 (3.8)

Would this product smooth your idle Rpms?

I doubt it.


humfrz