F18Rep

Not to sound like some sort of professor wannabe but ... a p9201 reading of 2.7 on cam belt does not mean it has the same tension as a p9201 reading of 2.7 on balance belt. These two should really not be compared; but if you must as some sort of sanity check, you would (at least) have to factor in the differences in belt thickness (0.221 for a typical used cam belt and 0.316 for a typical used balance belt). With those two very different thicknesses and realizing the P9201 gets its deflection value in such a way that it includes the thickness of the belt you can start to see that belt thickness plays a big role in P9201 readings. Consequently; 2.7 on a cam belt does not equal 2.7 on a balancer belt....Bruce

PS...Please direct me to the FSM page with the 3.5 balance belt specification.

Mark944na86

Thanks Bruce -- i was hoping you'd see this and help clarify what's going on.

So: Do you think it is true that 4.0+-0.3 on the 9210 corresponds to 40 lbs, and 2.7+-0.3 corresponds to 37.5+-0.5 lbs on the T-Belt?

Still seems highly counterintuitive that such a small difference in absolute tension could result in such a large scale reading difference on the 9201 (40.0 -> 37.5 lbs = 6.25% tension difference, 4.0 -> 2.7 = 32.5% scale difference).

Has this been measured directly on a properly tensioned used T-belt using the 9201 and another device such as your 920X or the Krikit? Direct calibration in this way would seem to be the only way to know what the 9201 readings really mean...

F18Rep

Yes, but remember the 40 lb and 37.5 lb numbers are krikit values (which are ballpark numbers).

I hear ya, about the only thing I can suggest is that you buy a krikit and a P9201 (get them from one of the site sponsors). The testing is pretty easy to do and it may be the only way to really be convinced. .

Yes, but we would all welcome another tester's perspective.

Bruce