http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=2461515021&category=33616


i'm looking to buy a fluidamper of some sort to my help my motor live longer and maybe gain a few hp.

i have a cheap 50 dollar stock unit now on my bbc 414ci and it gets up to 6500 rpms at times. and im looking for something better then stock balancer.

what advise can you give. should i get this one. or something else. i'm not going to spend over 150 bucks for one. otherwise i will leave the stock one in there.

check out this post....very informative
http://pub136.ezboard.com/fbulletinboard16340horsepowertalk.showMessage?topi cID=1904.topic

I am reasonably sure where that thing comes from & my suggestion would be to pass.
If you need to stay under $150 I would look at either a new stock one, a Pioneer replacment or the one made in Australia. Can't think of the name but it is supposed to be a quality piece.

Mike are you refering to the " Pro Race " brand ?

Try this part # PIO-872005 @ www.summitracing.com (http://www.summitracing.com)

Mike,
On a 6000 RPM internally balanced 496, would a stock damper work well or should one spring for an ATI. Are there any good SFI approved rubber stock type balancers out there for a 10.99 car for this 496 application?

The stock damper's that I've always used on 6500 small blocks have always seemed to work well with bearings, etc on street/strip and oval.

thanks....

I splurged on a new GM, about the same price as the Pioneer at Summit, ( maybe the same one). I'm not a believer in the fluid dampner ones at all.

Even for a street engine that shifts at 6800, IMHO, the GM hipo 8" is just fine.

the next step up, IMHO, is the PowerBond one listed here. this would be my bracket car choice.

http://www.competitionproducts.com/page106.html

I belive a lot in a new factory damper, but if you run at a track running 10.99 you are supposed to have an SFI balancer.

From what I've seen, if I wasn't going to run a good factory piece, I'd jump right to an ATI. Anything else would scare me.

Originally posted by 69LS1:
Mike are you refering to the " Pro Race " brand ? Hi Al,
Thanks for the call today, enjoyed talking with you.

I think there are a couple of them & one is the Pro somethin & the other starts with an r like Romac or something simular. I haven't used either yet but have been told by a few folks who's opinion & trust they are a pretty nice piece.

Doug,
I use ATI on everything I can. I feel it is the premier damper out there.
I do not use fluid type dampers on anything I build & do not recommend them.
A lot of folks use them & are quite happy but going on the reccomendation of most engine builders I know & the crank designers & manufacturers I deal with & have spoken to about dampers the consensus seem to be ATI is the damper of choice.
If you look at the link posted by bigjim above you will see there are varied opinions regarding damper types :D

Thank you Mike . I do appreciate your taking the time out of your busy schedule !

Everything that I have been seeing / hearing lately says the ATI style of damper is better than the Fluiddamper.

What if you already have a fluid-type damper? Is ATI that much better that it warrants the extra cost of purchasing one ($320) if you already have a Fluiddamper?

Ya know.... I still havent been able to figure out just what the definition of a Good dampner is...

I can see the use of some sort of mechanical limiting device on an elamaster type of dampner so if the outer ring does move it cant come off.That makes sence...

But just how do you tell if it's really doing it's job ? Short of tearing the engine apart and mag and inspect everything...but thats not real convienent for us street drivers.

Back in Dec of 2003 I spent an hour or so BS'ing with two guys who produce aftermarket elastermer type dampners and I tried to pin them down on just how and why a dampner works....not to just get the useuall stuff you read in magazines and in catalogs but the more tech stuff...... After going back and forth they ended up admitting they didnt know.

Others that I have talked to claim that their dampners make more HP than some other brands and therefore it has to be working better....Hmmm still not sure I'm buying that one as it's awfully easy to cheat that one.... But still no real concrete answers other than safety.

I remember during the " Dampner Wars " of the 1980's fought in National Dragster and the various magazines.... all sorts of wild claims going on.We got the chance to speak with a GM engineer about this very subject back then during the " Wars " As GM became quite intrested......They road tested, dyno tested , race tested , theory tested , retested and then did more testing.... The spent over a million dollars testing dampners.... what did the guy say ?? " They learned alot " " But they still didnt know "....

I remember during the "wars" a good cust of ours useing a brand "X" in his BBC drag race car . He made several passes and then tried to tear the engine down and couldnt get the dampner off...it welded it'self to the crank snout ! That one didnt work...tried a brand "Y" and ( one of those several mentioned above ) and never had another problem...

Others found bearings pounded with brand (Z) and yet brand (Z) never caused problems in another guys car.

GM certinally thought enough to give thin little dampners on 283's and low HP327's... Mid HP 327's got slighty thicker small diam dampners and Hi Perf ones got the big 1 5/8's thick 8 in dampners as di the 302...The 350's got a different 8 in dampner and 305's got even different ones....

Anyone got any real answers or it's it just a roll of the dice ?

Darren
Probably not.
As I said I don't use or recommend them but there are just too many engines out there happily running along with them for years that are not having any problems.
If you were or are going over about 6500 I would change it as all the tests I have seen say to about 6500 there is not a noticable difference in damping ability. From there up this changes very quickly.
The one big problem I would have with them is how do you know when it has a problem & has quit protecting your crank??
Fluid type damper technology comes from diesel engines as does cross drilled cranks but that's a whole different discussion :D
Point is, my understanding is they work very well on low rpm engines but,,,,,I believe the ones they use are VERY HEAVY.
I am not a damper expert by any means & most of this comes from people who know a lot more about this subject than I.
If you followed the post on the other board listed by bigjim above, the gentleman who posted as Damper101 is.
He spends a lot of his time in places like cup shops testing things like torsional vibrations & crank flex so I would consider him as an excellent source of information.
Obviously he is giong to be biased towards ATI but I really don't think this bias is going to influence what the NASCAR teams ultimatly run ;)
And as far as I know at this time the ATI number is at 100%

Darren
Probably not.
As I said I don't use or recommend them but there are just too many engines out there happily running along with them for years that are not having any problems.
If you were or are going over about 6500 I would change it as all the tests I have seen say to about 6500 there is not a noticable difference in damping ability. From there up this changes very quickly.
The one big problem I would have with them is how do you know when it has a problem & has quit protecting your crank??
Fluid type damper technology comes from diesel engines as does cross drilled cranks but that's a whole different discussion :D
Point is, my understanding is they work very well on low rpm engines but,,,,,I believe the ones they use are VERY HEAVY.
I am not a damper expert by any means & most of this comes from people who know a lot more about this subject than I.
If you followed the post on the other board listed by bigjim above, the gentleman who posted as Damper101 is.
He spends a lot of his time in places like cup shops testing things like torsional vibrations & crank flex so I would consider him as an excellent source of information.
Obviously he is giong to be biased towards ATI but I really don't think this bias is going to influence what the NASCAR teams ultimatly run ;)
And as far as I know at this time the ATI number is at 100%
========EDIT===============
Almost forgot to add this before someone starts the I only run to 7000 & NASCAR runs 9000 so it's not a real life comparsion or the fluid type tested slightly better to 6500 so it must be better for a lower RPM engine, I will add this even though I can't take credit for it, it was someone elses thoughts:
At Daytona, the RPMs' are in the 7200 range & I doubt you will find many teams changing dampers because of this :D
And, it is my understanding that NASCAR tested & banned the use of fluid type dampers after an incident years ago.

well guys i have been reading and reading and reading the post and what i kinda figure is that a good new stock type replacement balancer is just as good as the next one. even some of the statements seem to say that stock ones are just as good as the aftermarket style to about 6500 rpms. and after that it seems maybe an ATI or equal balancer is better then stock.

i have been running stock balancers on everything and never spent extra money for aftermarket balancers and the stock style seems to do a good enough job of keeping my motors together up to the 7200 rpm mark.

there are so many mix reviews on balancers at this time i think i will continue using stock balancers on my motors.

i just dont see anything that justifies the high cost of a aftermarket balancer over a stock one on a motor that will see 6500 rpms peak time to time.(like my motor will). even thou i have seen some of the graphs that say the stock one falls off at over 6500 rpms it seems to me running my motors to 7200 rpms from time to time in the 1/4 mile dont do enough harm to break things.......i think since the motors just peak in this area for a short split second between gear shifts that everything would be ok.........like it has been....

but im sure from what i have read that if my motors ran 6500 plus at minutes at a time that it would be a good choice to use a "better" balancer.

it also seems to me if poeple are breaking crank snouts and what not , i think there are serious problems elswhere that should be taken care of other then trying to use a balancer as a band-aid to cover it up. to me there seems that there would be certain parts in the motor that just arnt working together and causing "unnormal" freqencies that the balancer is trying so hard to "tune out".

maybe im wrong in my thinking therory's but i just dont see a really good use to use the aftermarket ones at this point. since i have been doing just fine with out them for the last 13 years of building and racing motors.

it was good information to read from you all and other posts, but i have not seen any hard core testing results that say this one type of balancer is the "best" and this balancer shows a hp gain everytime in any engine.

Thanks guys

my motor never sees anything higher than 6500 rpm's and most the time alot less than that. I was just a little concerned about crankshaft snouts breaking :eek:

That would have a tendency to ruin my day! graemlins/angry.gif