Author Topic: harmonic balancers  (Read 24827 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Drew Pojedinec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
    • View Profile
Re: harmonic balancers
« Reply #60 on: July 24, 2015, 06:36:42 PM »
As a qualified Engineer, I feel I need to weight in on all of this.














"I like a black balancer with white letters.... the shiney ones are annoying and hard to read when you hit them with a timing light."

mike7570

  • Guest
Re: harmonic balancers
« Reply #61 on: July 24, 2015, 07:11:43 PM »
The way I picked one when I  built my first super-street car in 1983. 
Who makes an SFI damper for the Ford FE.........anyone?
I had 1 maybe 2 choices, I used the shiny black one also.

whitea62.7t

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 92
    • View Profile
Re: harmonic balancers
« Reply #62 on: July 24, 2015, 07:20:19 PM »
The Brain POWER on forum is Astounding
Thank You Guys

Autoholic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: harmonic balancers
« Reply #63 on: July 24, 2015, 07:29:54 PM »
To truly squash the shorter stroke will rev faster, you need to look at very different strokes. Changes of say half an inch in stroke won't make a drastically different engine. Compare a 2.2" stroke to a 4.2" stroke though and you will see a very different attitude for each engine. Also, to really get into the rev abilities of the rotating masses, you will most likely need overhead cams. I think the pushrod engine largely limits what an engine can do and your ability to see the limits of the crank, rods and pistons. Think Formula 1.
~Joe
"Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn."

plovett

  • Guest
Re: harmonic balancers
« Reply #64 on: July 24, 2015, 09:09:38 PM »
To truly squash the shorter stroke will rev faster, you need to look at very different strokes. Changes of say half an inch in stroke won't make a drastically different engine. Compare a 2.2" stroke to a 4.2" stroke though and you will see a very different attitude for each engine. Also, to really get into the rev abilities of the rotating masses, you will most likely need overhead cams. I think the pushrod engine largely limits what an engine can do and your ability to see the limits of the crank, rods and pistons. Think Formula 1.

I think it's true that most hobby engine guys, mechanics and machinists, even accomplished pro engine builders, tend to operate with variables of limited range, dictated by the type of engines they build.  That could make it harder to see subtle trends within the "noise" of all the other variables.  I could be wrong.  I'm only a hobby engine guy. Maybe the pro guys can say definitively what a 1/2" stroke difference will make with "all else equal" and "with all else not equal".  I say that because it's not often that you change one variable without changing several others at the same time.   I'm only speaking in vague generalities and I'm now going to bow out to those with actual experience in these matters.   :-[

paulie


Drew Pojedinec

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2117
    • View Profile
Re: harmonic balancers
« Reply #65 on: July 24, 2015, 11:13:02 PM »
Lotta folks like to take a little bit of info and take it out of context as well.

Not trying to single you out Joe/autoholic, but comparing the stroke of a 390 vs 445 for instance, doesn't require a F1 race engine reference.  Not that you aren't correct, but the application makes it irrelevant.  I'm pretty certain I'd prefer a 500hp 445 in my Galaxie over a 500hp F1 engine :P 
Just like the recent debate (which was awesome and informative much like this thread) about Iron VS Aluminum blocks.
I can totally see where the aluminum block doesn't make as much power.... makes total sense.  The references to top tier race engines tho do not hold much for those of us looking at a 550-600hp 482 engine.  In their scenario there may be a 30-40hp difference, but for a 550hp 482 that I'd toss together there might only be a 5hp difference, or none at all.

jayb

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7413
    • View Profile
    • FE Power
Re: harmonic balancers
« Reply #66 on: July 24, 2015, 11:32:44 PM »

"I like a black balancer with white letters.... the shiney ones are annoying and hard to read when you hit them with a timing light."

Now that is a savvy engineering comment!
Jay Brown
- 1969 Mach 1, Drag Week 2005 Winner NA/BB, 511" FE (10.60s @ 129); Drag Week 2007 Runner-Up PA/BB, 490" Supercharged FE (9.35 @ 151)
- 1964 Ford Galaxie, Drag Week 2009 Winner Modified NA (9.50s @ 143), 585" SOHC
- 1969 Shelby Clone, Drag Week 2015 Winner Modified NA (Average 8.98 @ 149), 585" SOHC

   

Autoholic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 422
    • View Profile
Re: harmonic balancers
« Reply #67 on: July 25, 2015, 12:23:02 AM »
Lotta folks like to take a little bit of info and take it out of context as well.

Not trying to single you out Joe/autoholic, but comparing the stroke of a 390 vs 445 for instance, doesn't require a F1 race engine reference.  Not that you aren't correct, but the application makes it irrelevant.  I'm pretty certain I'd prefer a 500hp 445 in my Galaxie over a 500hp F1 engine :P 
Just like the recent debate (which was awesome and informative much like this thread) about Iron VS Aluminum blocks.
I can totally see where the aluminum block doesn't make as much power.... makes total sense.  The references to top tier race engines tho do not hold much for those of us looking at a 550-600hp 482 engine.  In their scenario there may be a 30-40hp difference, but for a 550hp 482 that I'd toss together there might only be a 5hp difference, or none at all.

It wasn't about the application. The whole point was the vast difference between 6000 rpm 16000 rpm and the stroke is roughly different by an inch to two inches. So there is something to be said about short stroke engines revving higher and faster. In the same post though, I pointed out that a half inch difference in stroke might not make too big of an impact on how fast or how high and engine can rev. It will certainly make a decent difference in power output but the way the engine responds might not be as predictable as my other example. So I'm bringing up the point that the saying shorter strokes will rev faster and higher might be dependent upon how big of a difference are we talking? Jay has already shared info that his bigger stroke SOHC responds faster.

If we really want to get into the math behind what is possible with any stroke, we can look at the equation for mean piston speed. MPS = 2*stroke*RPM. Racing engines and high performance engines will range from 20 m/s to 30 m/s. You can find the MPS of some high performance engines to give you an idea. For an engine you want to put in a street car, I wouldn't push it much past 25 m/s. So if we use 25 m/s as our limit, the equation will look like this, with an example. This will tell you roughly how high you can run any stroke, it won't tell you about the stresses involved and how quick it will rev.

25.6 m/s =  2 * (96 mm / 1000) * (8000 rpm / 60)

The 1000 is a conversion from mm to m and the 60 is to convert rpm to rps. 96 mm is roughly the stroke for the 427 FE. The SOHC I believe can run this high without much of an issue and I've seen the valvetrain testing that says you can go higher if you use the right parts. At 9000 rpm, the 3.78" stroke has a mps of 28.8 m/s, which is probably only possible on racing gas. The coyote though for example runs something like 25.5 m/s at 7000 rpm.

I was doing some calculations on MPS and I remembered something from a Formula 1 documentary, I believe it was Cosworth behind it. They were struggling with reaching the RPM level they wanted (20,000 RPMs!!!). As they would get close to it, the engine would hit a wall. They were struggling with getting all of the fuel to burn. Their solution was to increase the fuel pressure. This increased the dynamic compression ratio and resulted in a better burn. Now the issue with increasing fuel pressure is that you most likely will increase the temperature of the combustion, so you have to watch out for this. It is something to think about for you guys though, increasing the fuel pressure could result in some rather nice gains. I'm not sure if I know of any practical ways to check combustion temps and pressures though...
« Last Edit: July 25, 2015, 01:26:18 AM by Autoholic »
~Joe
"Autoholism is an incurable addiction medicated daily with car porn."