I've seen those claims, only problem with them though is those cars are HEAVILY modified and there's really no way of proving that the main failure was due to the pulley. I can say however, I've heard alot of bitching and moaining about DSM's, but I've yet to hop on a DSM board and see a post about someone fucking their car up because they used an undampened pulley.

 

That's fair enough. That is, if you're going to make a conclusion about UR crank pulleys, you need to have valid premises to support that conclusion. However, if there is a remote correlation (and of course, that is not to say that correlation means "x" causes "y") then is it worth the risk? Why save $50 on a pulley that may cause engine failure? Is a marginal power gain worth it and $50 worth engine failure? I'm not debating whether marginal gain is worth the risk (everyone takes that risk for gains, but I don't know anyone that installs parts KNOWN to cause engine failure), but is it worth it when there's the more expensive alternative and the risk is eliminated? Not to mention, I don't believe that "gain" is even proven. I wouldn't install a UR crank pulley.

EDIT: Would you install an air filter that's suspected to filter horribly, but allow more flow, in order to save $10?

 

Ah but you forget, these are DSMs....we risk engine failure just by driving our cars.


One question that does arise though, how come only one company offers a dampened pulley? I'm sure these manufacturers put alot of money into R&D....if there was a chance that this was truly a valid claim, don't you think these manufacturers would make the proper pully in order to uphold customer satisfaction, not to mention draw a greater profit?