Balancer?
08-13-2003, 05:11 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Long Island,NY
Posts: 164
Balancer?
Just got back from engine shop that is putting together my 383,The guy said if I use the Fluiddamper that I put its going to crack the crank.His reason was because at start up the fluid is at the bottom of the balancer and the motor is not balanced at start causeing damage.Please help me out I dont know wether to return it and go with stock balancer.He said I should use the ATI damper its better he said then the fluiddamper one that I got.Thanx in advane.
08-13-2003, 05:30 PM
#2
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,475
Re: Balancer?
Originally posted by ChevyIron
Just got back from engine shop that is putting together my 383,The guy said if I use the Fluiddamper that I put its going to crack the crank.His reason was because at start up the fluid is at the bottom of the balancer and the motor is not balanced at start causeing damage.Please help me out I dont know wether to return it and go with stock balancer.He said I should use the ATI damper its better he said then the fluiddamper one that I got.Thanx in advane.
Just got back from engine shop that is putting together my 383,The guy said if I use the Fluiddamper that I put its going to crack the crank.His reason was because at start up the fluid is at the bottom of the balancer and the motor is not balanced at start causeing damage.Please help me out I dont know wether to return it and go with stock balancer.He said I should use the ATI damper its better he said then the fluiddamper one that I got.Thanx in advane.
yea they dont work AS WELL when their cold but its nothing that your gonna notice!! and by all means its not gonna crack your crank excellent choice on the fluidamper! now u can key your crank too
08-13-2003, 05:42 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Long Island,NY
Posts: 164
Thankyou for clear that up for me
The more this guy tells me he knows what hes doin the more I am worrying.Thanx again I know I can count on the people on this board to keep me from more problems.
The more this guy tells me he knows what hes doin the more I am worrying.Thanx again I know I can count on the people on this board to keep me from more problems.
08-13-2003, 06:01 PM
#4
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,475
Originally posted by ChevyIron
Thankyou for clear that up for me The more this guy tells me he knows what hes doin the more I am worrying.Thanx again I know I can count on the people on this board to keep me from more problems.
Thankyou for clear that up for me
The more this guy tells me he knows what hes doin the more I am worrying.Thanx again I know I can count on the people on this board to keep me from more problems.
08-14-2003, 01:58 PM
#5
Administrator
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: Hell was full so they sent me to NJ
Posts: 70,664
Its really amazing how many people don't understand what's in a Fluidampr..... its full of a homogeneous, controlled-viscosity liquid. It can't "settle" out on the bottom and leave voids on the top, because the cavity is full. And since is is a uniform, homogeneous liquid, there is nothing to settle out of the liquid. And since they know the viscosity characteristics and can control it through compostition, it is easy to insure it acts the way they want it to, at the various temperatures it will see.
That is not to say that everyone likes Fluidampr. Seems like one of the areas where people either love them or hate them, and refuse to even consider changing their minds. When I built my engione, ATI was the only game in town. But the shop that assembled my motor absolutely hated Fluidampr. They wouldn't use one on the cars they built, including their 6-second Pro 5.0 Mustang, or George Baxter's 9.04-second LT1. But Warren Johnson endorses FLuidampr, and with his "no BS" attitude, I doubt he would do that unless he really felt that way.
That is not to say that everyone likes Fluidampr. Seems like one of the areas where people either love them or hate them, and refuse to even consider changing their minds. When I built my engione, ATI was the only game in town. But the shop that assembled my motor absolutely hated Fluidampr. They wouldn't use one on the cars they built, including their 6-second Pro 5.0 Mustang, or George Baxter's 9.04-second LT1. But Warren Johnson endorses FLuidampr, and with his "no BS" attitude, I doubt he would do that unless he really felt that way.
08-14-2003, 02:23 PM
#6
Banned
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 1,475
Originally posted by Injuneer
Its really amazing how many people don't understand what's in a Fluidampr..... its full of a homogeneous, controlled-viscosity liquid. It can't "settle" out on the bottom and leave voids on the top, because the cavity is full. And since is is a uniform, homogeneous liquid, there is nothing to settle out of the liquid. And since they know the viscosity characteristics and can control it through compostition, it is easy to insure it acts the way they want it to, at the various temperatures it will see.
That is not to say that everyone likes Fluidampr. Seems like one of the areas where people either love them or hate them, and refuse to even consider changing their minds. When I built my engione, ATI was the only game in town. But the shop that assembled my motor absolutely hated Fluidampr. They wouldn't use one on the cars they built, including their 6-second Pro 5.0 Mustang, or George Baxter's 9.04-second LT1. But Warren Johnson endorses FLuidampr, and with his "no BS" attitude, I doubt he would do that unless he really felt that way.
Its really amazing how many people don't understand what's in a Fluidampr..... its full of a homogeneous, controlled-viscosity liquid. It can't "settle" out on the bottom and leave voids on the top, because the cavity is full. And since is is a uniform, homogeneous liquid, there is nothing to settle out of the liquid. And since they know the viscosity characteristics and can control it through compostition, it is easy to insure it acts the way they want it to, at the various temperatures it will see.
That is not to say that everyone likes Fluidampr. Seems like one of the areas where people either love them or hate them, and refuse to even consider changing their minds. When I built my engione, ATI was the only game in town. But the shop that assembled my motor absolutely hated Fluidampr. They wouldn't use one on the cars they built, including their 6-second Pro 5.0 Mustang, or George Baxter's 9.04-second LT1. But Warren Johnson endorses FLuidampr, and with his "no BS" attitude, I doubt he would do that unless he really felt that way.
like i said i have np's w/ my fluidamper and ive seen the dyno results where the fluidamper worked best from 0-7000rpms wheres the ATI went best from 7000 and up! i oly rev to 7k so the fluidamper seemed like a better choice for me
08-14-2003, 02:31 PM
#7
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: PA
Posts: 1,591
Re: Balancer?
Originally posted by ChevyIron
His reason was because at start up the fluid is at the bottom of the balancer and the motor is not balanced at start causeing damage.
His reason was because at start up the fluid is at the bottom of the balancer and the motor is not balanced at start causeing damage.
-Motor is under no load,
-cylinders are going be firing unevely anyways,
-low rpm,
-the fluid is only going to take a fraction of a second to start moving and balance itself out.
He's describing a TINY effect IMO.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post