When Ford balanced the 65 HiPo 289 rotating assembly, did they (Ford) include the flywheel and the thick balancer/hatchet, in the balance? I assume the balance excluded the balancer/hatchet and flywheel as those could be replaced during life of the engine without requiring a rebalance.
Thanks in advance
Quote from: mygt350 on February 21, 2022, 04:30:38 PM
When Ford balanced the 65 HiPo 289 rotating assembly, did they (Ford) include the flywheel and the thick balancer/hatchet, in the balance? I assume the balance excluded the balancer/hatchet and flywheel as those could be replaced during life of the engine without requiring a rebalance.
Thanks in advance
Randy G is better at explaining this then I am but Ford did not balance the rotating assembly like your machine shop would. It was not as precise as that. They engineered it so all of the components put together would have a acceptable balance variation range . They knew what the rods weight range ,pistons etc. etc. and it would balance within a certain range using components made to work together. Your machine shop for example can balance and compensate for eliminating the hatchet head counter weight with the precise equipment they use. Ford was mass producing the hipo engines and made it so the engines would all balance within a acceptable range with just bolting together the right components. Millions of other Ford engines were done the same way. It is not required for rebuilds but having your machine shop balance the rotating assembly helps your engine perform typically more smoothly then possibly the way it came from the factory.
Thanks Bob.
Because the "assembly line engine" process was SO quick ( about an hour total) "precision balancing" was not a possibility. So "range" weights were used when the components like pistons , rods , cranks, fly wheels and balancers were produced. The entire assembly was built and then "final balance" was "adjusted" during the "run test" EVERY engine got before shipping to an assembly plant. This is called "mass balancing". Your local machine shop CAN'T do this and has to resort to balancing the individual components. Of the entire "rotating assembly" the "hatchet" is the one item with the least weight variation. Engine "balance" on a V8 is generally accepted as "50%".What that means is 50% of the reciprocating weight is bolted to the crankshaft throws and then the crank is spun ( similar to a tire) and then adjusted to be "in balance". Some engines are "internal" balance and others are "external meaning there is additional counterweight in the fly wheel and balancer to supplement the crank counterweights. An external balance engine must have the balancer and fly wheel/flex plate bolted on then balancing for obvious reasons. Mass balancing is JUST as good as component balancing , and balancing is very important in a performance engine.
If you have more questions , just ask away.
Randy
Ideally, machine shop would gather all the rotating components and balance the complete rotating assembly. But, if needed to replace a balancer or a flywheel on an existing engine, could use a balancer or flywheel from another engine as long as the components were identical and were within the window of balance.
Am curious how the "final balance" was "adjusted" during the "run test" which EVERY engine got before shipping to an assembly plant. Surely didn't alter crank or rods. So without pulling pan off completed engine, only thing to modify would be balance er or flywheel.
Since all HiPo 289 engines were not standard shift, how did they balance engine destines for automatic transmission?
Quote from: mygt350 on February 23, 2022, 07:33:38 PM
Am curious how the "final balance" was "adjusted" during the "run test" which EVERY engine got before shipping to an assembly plant. Surely didn't alter crank or rods. So without pulling pan off completed engine, only thing to modify would be balance er or flywheel.
Since all HiPo 289 engines were not standard shift, how did they balance engine destines for automatic transmission?
What makes you think automatics are done any differently ? Of course automatics have a flex plate instead of a manual flywheel. The Hipo flex plates are weighted differently in the same way that manual flywheels are weighted differently compared to non Hipo engines.
Quote from: mygt350 on February 23, 2022, 07:33:38 PM
Am curious how the "final balance" was "adjusted" during the "run test" which EVERY engine got before shipping to an assembly plant. .............
There was no "final balance" done nor "adjustment". Either the engine passed or didn't. If a vibration out of the ordinary too place the engine was not shipped then likely scrapped or disassembled and evaluated by others if there were multiple examples suggesting a possible issue or problems with the parts used to assemble the same engines. Then it would be a specific shipment or supplier issue from there once determined
Jeff
Was curious because Randy G make the comment "The entire assembly was built and then "final balance" was "adjusted" during the "run test" EVERY engine got before shipping to an assembly plant". That statement got my interest up.
So engine was started and if it was within some vibration specs, it was sent to installation. If it failed, it was send somewhere else...
Bob
Am having difficulty understanding engine balance using flywheel and same engine using a flexplate. Understand each has weights, but they are many pounds different in weight. Just thought the rotating weight would be significantly different between the two.
That said, assume an engine originally shipped with a flywheel, could be used in a automatic application without adversely affecting balance??
Quote from: mygt350 on February 23, 2022, 11:33:03 PM
Jeff
Was curious because Randy G make the comment "The entire assembly was built and then "final balance" was "adjusted" during the "run test" EVERY engine got before shipping to an assembly plant". That statement got my interest up.
So engine was started and if it was within some vibration specs, it was sent to installation. If it failed, it was send somewhere else...
Since Randy made the statement I guess it would be best for him to answer what he meant by the statement.
For your other flywheel related question rotation total mass weight and balance are two different things if I understand correctly
Since an engine may have a flywheel for a standard or a flexplate for a automatic, am really confused just how the flywheel/flexplate is used in the overall balance equation.
When the engines were test run at the Cleveland assembly plant the balance was adjusted 'if " and as needed by drilling the flywheel or flexplate. On flexplates , you may also see small squares spot welded on to them. Service part will not have them. On the balancer you might see holes drilled into the end , or a small steel rod added to one round holes in the hub. Mass balancing is just as accurate but "could" change if any one of the components were exchanged.
Component balancing is done around a "Bob weight" no pun intended. Bob weight is the sum of rotating and 1/2 of the weight of reciprocating weights. A special fixture is used on the rods to determine "big end" weight and small end weight. both of the big end weights are used but only one small end weight plus one piston , pin , and rings weight are used. This is often around 1200 grams or more. This weight is then added to the crank throws ( all four) with special clamp on weights. the crank is then loaded into the balance machine and the fly wheel / flex plate and balancer are added . The crank is then "spun" and any out of balance is corrected the same way as a mass balance by adding or subtracting weight from the balance or flywheel flex plate.
Randy
Quote from: Bob Gaines on February 21, 2022, 05:58:49 PM
They engineered it so all of the components put together would have a acceptable balance variation range . They knew what the rods weight range ,pistons etc. etc. and it would balance within a certain range using components made to work together.
This probably what one should concentrate on in understanding the balancing procedure utilized by Ford (and others) in this period. In other words for example the O.E.M. would engineer, say for a connecting rod, establish what was required dimensionally for function, this would lead to the resultant mass and typical weights in manufacturing, and then with the variables exhibited in the manufacture of one component versus another it is necessary to balance or one might prefer the term to 'equal-weight' them in the appropriate fashion, this generally via the removal of the parent material through a grinding or milling operation in the deemed appropriate and provided for locations. Then even though the weight differentials have been narrowed their still exists a resultant tolerance value remaining necessary for mass production efficiency so then units are often batched by simular observations to further reduce the differential; all of this in each step with "acceptable" tolerance specifications, with individual units often being tossed (or redirected from Production to Parts & Service :o ) when failing to equal such along the way. This process most represents the "reciprocating" (stuff that moves up & down ::) ) balancing effort of the connecting rods (big-ends & small-ends) pistons, gudgeon pin, and known sums for the rod bearings, piston ring set and piston pin retaining rings/locks if applicable. This providing a "bob-weight" value, typically in the American V8 (but not so in other engine layouts ;) ) a sum of 50% of the reciprocating (rod small-ends, pins, locks, ring set, etc.) and 100% of the revolving (rod big-ends & bearings), in the balancing effort.
The "revolving" (stuff that goes round & round ::), crankshaft, damper, flywheel or flex-plate, etc.) balance process requires a 'spinning' operation with establishments of the effects of the reciprocating values in place and then corrections to create the desired effect, this via removal of excess material provide for as before. Unlike the local machine shops where it is required to establish "bob-weight" fixtures to simulate the effects of the rods & pistons etc., here the O.E.'s for efficient manufacturing have tooling set-ups that create the imbalance effect and the revolving units (crankshaft or crankshaft dampers or flywheels and flex-plates) are balanced, or perhaps actually imbalanced to counter this establishment, or what we in the balancing business say: to "neutral" the assembly, and whether the net result on the component is neutral balanced or providing a counter-weighted imbalance value is dependent on the set-up. But again, this to a tolerance outlined by the O.E.; one which at the local machine shop is suppose to be bettering.
And then yes, as stated above, all of the appropriate components are then assembled, having never seen one another previously, this unlike the procedure required for the local machine shop balancing effort, and it all 'should' fall within the manufacturers' acceptable tolerance; but it is the potential 'stacking' of tolerances exhibited in each individual component that really causes the problem, and here is where the factory wasn't able to compete, and even though the local balancing effort 'should' provide a narrower deviation in weights and balance, as we have all of a singular assembly in front of us and invest a greater time element. :)
"Balancing" is a rather complex subject, and there are differences of opinion on what a "balanced" unit might really be, so read up on it if interested, cause I type way-to-slow to be able to present all of the nuances here. ::)
Scott.
For a slow typer you sure are flowery. ;D
45 years ago I was at Holman Moody in Charlotte. I watched a guy assemble a Boss 429 short block. He opened a brand new box of TRW pistons and put them on the rods and eventually into the block. I questioned him about not balancing or even checking the piston weight of the assembly. His response was "what goes up and down isn't as important as what goes 'round" . "If you want to make an engine shake , pull a plug wire" . "All them pistons still weigh the same!" His name was Robert Yates (rip). I learned something that day. balancing to a "quarter of a gram" may be fine for a Swiss watch but an automotive engine doesn't care.
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on February 24, 2022, 01:32:40 PM
"what goes up and down isn't as important as what goes 'round" .
I don't disagree, just that in order to 'balance' the stuff that goes round & round accurately, one needs to have reasonably accurate bob-weight values, and in the case of the American V8 with four crank trows it is generally practiced to have these bob-weight sums consistent, this if only for the self cancelling attributes of these items in motion making for simpler offsets somewhere else; though if one weighs each component and accounts for variances in the bob-weights then what the heck! Though I would yield to the expediency factor, still I would consider it poor practice, as remember, nothing is perfectly "balanced", we are balancing these assemblies from only a singular perspective and allowing the remainder to be accepted or ignored, and reducing as many of the known variables aids in exposing the otherwise unknown. :-\
As an example, I have been involved with the light aircraft racing guys (don't tell the FAA :o ), these mostly being the 180° flat-six air-cooled units of Lycoming manufacture, and often one finds that although connecting rods attached to opposing cylinders and crank journals will prove relatively consistent in weights, the next opposed set many be significantly different, and so on! Here we see the self cancelling of the opposed banks (remember 'flat' engine configuration ;) ) consideration, but not that they all need to be equal. I have thought that the reason for this practice is as the mass of a thing changes so does the frequency of the point (R.P.M.) of 'critical' vibration, therefore if the components of the unit are of a different mass, then they won't pass thru this critical at the same R.P.M., and this reduces the cumulative effect on the hole. But in these racers' it is practiced to match rods into sets of equal weights.
Just food for thought, :-\ .......... or perhaps just fertilizer for the flowers! ::)
Scott.
Was the design requirement of the 289 hipo hatchet counterweight being incorporated to the hipo engine to avoid hitting this dynamic system's natural frequency harmonic within a normal operating rpm range?
I think the additional "hatchet" was necessary as simply a counter-weight sum to offset particularly the heavier connecting rods; this being the expedient process as otherwise a different crankshaft casting would have been required to provide this.
The vibratory "critical" frequency is the point at which things when agitated reach a harmonic sync, and if components remain in operation at this frequency of motion, parts begin to suffer fatigue failures at alarmingly short operating durations, so best avoided. The sum of the hatchet's effect on the entirety of the mass in motion it's attached to, doesn't seem to be great enough to really effect that which we are referencing as the 'critical' here. :)
An example of what this 'critical' is that we are referring too is: a simple bell that rings, the ringing is the bell vibrating do to the agitation created as it is struck by the clapper, and changing the size (mass) of the bell changes the vibratory effect (sound as heard). 8)
And, it is probably the incurred fatigue in this vibratory action (ringing) that led to the cracks the Liberty Bell :o
Scott.
It was to counteract the heavier rods ( big end weight) It was also used on other "non production" engines like the Tunnel Port 302 and Boss 302 T/A engines.
For a little look inside the process - at least for a few years prior - the first four minutes cover the engine casting, measuring and testing of a typical engine at that time. Have pictures from other years but unfortunately can post here
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_aRxkRCXD0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_aRxkRCXD0)
Quote from: gt350hr on February 24, 2022, 05:43:04 PM
It was also used on other "non production" engines like the Tunnel Port 302 and Boss 302 T/A engines.
Randy, did these engines with the crankshaft (C7FE ?) bearing the heaver counter-weights and the addition of the center weight also still require the hatchet? ???
Scott.
Is it true the hipo crank was a slightly better quality steel than a non-hip engine would receive? Assume the Brunell hardness test was only done on the HiPo crank and flywheel version of the 289 due to the anticipated stress the engine would receive. Assume same casting just better iron/steel?
Quote from: mygt350 on February 24, 2022, 07:58:59 PM
Is it true the hipo crank was a slightly better quality steel than a non-hip engine would receive? Assume the Brunell hardness test was only done on the HiPo crank and flywheel version of the 289 due to the anticipated stress the engine would receive. Assume same casting just better iron/steel?
There is a post on the HiPo site from Bob Mannel June 6 2007 about the cranks https://hipo-mustang.com/user-post-list/1706-bobmannel/?pageNo=13
In short, he spoke with someone who used to work in the foundry who claims they tossed in some extra nickel and manganese but has no documents to verify it.
The testing was not a Brinnel test which is pressing a ball bearing into the metal and measuring the indent. V8 front spindles have this test mark on the rear side, not sure about others.
The rear journal of the crank is polished and according to Bob's source, the inspectors used this to count or estimate the grains in the iron. I used to have a link to site showing the tool and grid used for this type of testing but don't know where it is now. You can get an idea of what it looks like here on page 16 https://www.thaithavorn.com/pdf/microstructure.pdf
With all due respect to all involved , ( including Mr Mannel) the material spec for the HIPO crank did not include nickle . The spec included chromium and manganese to create "nodular" iron. This increased the ductility ( ability to flex without cracking). For MANY years people have used "high nickle" yet Ford never used it. The same material was used for 428 cranks . "N" diff cases and "some" 427 FE blocks and other things too. GM used nickle but Ford didn't.
Randy
Quote from: gt350hr on February 25, 2022, 10:49:10 AM
With all due respect to all involved , ( including Mr Mannel) the material spec for the HIPO crank did not include nickle . The spec included chromium and manganese to create "nodular" iron. This increased the ductility ( ability to flex without cracking). For MANY years people have used "high nickle" yet Ford never used it. The same material was used for 428 cranks . "N" diff cases and "some" 427 FE blocks and other things too. GM used nickle but Ford didn't.
Randy
Thanks Randy. After all these years, it would nice if someone had HiPo and non-HiPo cranks tested to see what the metal content of each is. There are non destructive tests like this which would indicate any difference in nodularity but having cranks and access to a testing facility or University lab are easier said than done. https://youtu.be/FIORrrCbLbo?t=149
Quote from: gt350hr on February 24, 2022, 01:32:40 PM
For a slow typer you sure are flowery. ;D
45 years ago I was at Holman Moody in Charlotte. I watched a guy assemble a Boss 429 short block. He opened a brand new box of TRW pistons and put them on the rods and eventually into the block. I questioned him about not balancing or even checking the piston weight of the assembly. His response was "what goes up and down isn't as important as what goes 'round" . "If you want to make an engine shake , pull a plug wire" . "All them pistons still weigh the same!" His name was Robert Yates (rip). I learned something that day. balancing to a "quarter of a gram" may be fine for a Swiss watch but an automotive engine doesn't care.
Randy
Learned something. Thnx
I see the small ballbearing indentation on engine side of a known 65 Hipo flywheel. Have a 65 Hipo crank but have never really looked for any hardness test marks. So the Hipo crank used same mold as the standard 289 crank, but was ground and polished to a higher standard and the metal was mixed with a dash of chromium and manganese to create a "nodular" iron crankshaft. I do remember someone telling me if stand hipo and standard crank on and and tap snout with small hammer, the HiPo crank would "ring" much different that the standard crank.
If you "pitch" sensitive , yes the HiPo crank does ring a little higher , but not like steel. You can also look for orange paint on the next to last counterweight , or the leading edge of the last counterweight being polished as already mentioned. The other thing not mentioned is they usually have fewer "drilled holes" in the counterweights to keep more weight there for the heavier rods.
Great thread. I recall seeing a 427 short block that had the cylinders honed and the walls were almost chrome like. Clearly a visible metallurgical difference.
Since every engine was run and finish balanced before it was released for installation, would seem all 289 HiPo engines would receive the large nose balancer. And, engines destined for a 4-speed, would have a flywheel installed prior final run. Likewise, engines destined for automatic use would have a flexplate installed. Both flexplate and flywheel installed prior final balance so metal on flexplate/flywheel could be added/drilled as needed. That would imply the "completed assembly" would include the entire rotating assembly from balancer to either flexplate or flywheel before it was shipped off for installation?????
Quote from: mygt350 on February 26, 2022, 10:47:05 AM
Since every engine was run and finish balanced before it was released for installation, would seem all 289 HiPo engines would receive the large nose balancer. And, engines destined for a 4-speed, would have a flywheel installed prior final run. Likewise, engines destined for automatic use would have a flexplate installed. Both flexplate and flywheel installed prior final balance so metal on flexplate/flywheel could be added/drilled as needed. That would imply the "completed assembly" would include the entire rotating assembly from balancer to either flexplate or flywheel before it was shipped off for installation?????
I always figured it also included in the case of a manual the block plate ,clutch,pressure plate,clutch fork,throw bearing ,bell housing,starter and of course hardware.
Bob
That makes perfect sense to include the stuff unique to a standard. In the case of an automatic, wonder if they balanced the engine and flexplate with auto trans mounted?
Quote from: mygt350 on February 26, 2022, 01:39:34 PM
Bob
That makes perfect sense to include the stuff unique to a standard. In the case of an automatic, wonder if they balanced the engine and flexplate with auto trans mounted?
I wish I knew for sure .
Did auto transmissions have a removable access plate at front lower half that may be used to add weight if there was an imbalance issue? Know the standard shift plate was one piece. But since the torque converter mounts to the flexplate, the mounting bolts go thru the flexplate and thread into the converter. Only way to do that is a access plate. May be how they final balanced a engine with automatic transmission.
Quote from: mygt350 on February 26, 2022, 02:10:59 PM
Did auto transmissions have a removable access plate at front lower half that may be used to add weight if there was an imbalance issue? Know the standard shift plate was one piece. But since the torque converter mounts to the flexplate, the mounting bolts go thru the flexplate and thread into the converter. Only way to do that is a access plate. May be how they final balanced a engine with automatic transmission.
Since the lower access plate does not bolt to the flexplate it adds no weight to the rotating assembly just like the engine plate. It simply bolts to the bellhousing and because of this is was not in place when the engines were test run on the carriers.
There may be some confusion where some of use may have seen pictures of the engineering testing of completely assembled engines with transmissions and not the test running of the production engines before they were sent to the car assembly plant. Very different process
"Adjustments " to the flex plates were done by spot welding various tabs of steel to the flex plate. On a manual , "plugs" were added to the round holes ( spring locator) or smaller tabs were added to the pressure plate by spot welding. My information came from Dan Nowak , a former DEP dyno operator.
Quote from: gt350hr on February 24, 2022, 05:43:04 PM
It was to counteract the heavier rods ( big end weight) It was also used on other "non production" engines like the Tunnel Port 302 and Boss 302 T/A engines.
I read that the reason for the hatched was to move some of the counterweight a little more inwards. The increase from 28 oz.inch inbalance to ~30 for the Hipo made the front end counterweight too heavy (too much bending forces) and so a 25 oz.in damper and 5 oz.in hatchet were used instead.
Any truth to that? It sounds logical in one way, but also like a lot of effort for a modest improvement.
While you guys are thinking about harmonic balancers, can someone clue me in on what currently available balancer I should use on a new build (302) that would most accurately resemble/replicate the Hipo balancer used on the R model cars. Even if I could find an original or vintage copy, it doesn't seem like a great idea to put a 60 year old balancer on a new motor.
Quote from: mlplunkett on November 07, 2022, 07:25:47 PM
While you guys are thinking about harmonic balancers, can someone clue me in on what currently available balancer I should use on a new build (302) that would most accurately resemble/replicate the Hipo balancer used on the R model cars. Even if I could find an original or vintage copy, it doesn't seem like a great idea to put a 60 year old balancer on a new motor.
Original balancers can be rebuilt. Otherwise, there was a C8 replacement available through Ford, they are usually half or less than half the cost of an original C5 balancer.
https://store.cobraautomotive.com/harmonic-balancer-63-67-289-hi-po-28-oz-external-balance-for-3-bolt-crank-pulley/ (https://store.cobraautomotive.com/harmonic-balancer-63-67-289-hi-po-28-oz-external-balance-for-3-bolt-crank-pulley/)
Quote from: mlplunkett on November 07, 2022, 07:25:47 PM
............... can someone clue me in on what currently available balancer..................... that would most accurately resemble/replicate the Hipo balancer used on the R model cars.
This is a more complex problem than one might normally consider. But first lets backup a bit, an not to berate anyone, but lets get our terminology right as there seem to be quite the variation of vocabulary used in the description of what otherwise would seem quite a simple device. :-\
'Damper', 'Balancer', and with or without the word 'Harmonic' proceeding, these being the most common. Proper termed "Harmonic Damper" or "Vibration Damper", would provide a more accurate description of the capital responsibility of this device, with the label of "balancer" only having any relevance in those engines which would exhibit an external 'counter-balance' sum being present as part of the damper unit's assembly but still probably not the better word to be applied. :)
So are you looking for a 'balancer', such a unit which would simulate the counter-balance sum as nearly as that as used in your inquiry; or a 'damper' that would provide the harmonic vibration damping value as near to that as of your inquiry, or one that just presents the best visual representation of the original? ???
Scott.
Quote from: mlplunkett on November 07, 2022, 07:25:47 PM
While you guys are thinking about harmonic balancers, can someone clue me in on what currently available balancer I should use on a new build (302) that would most accurately resemble/replicate the Hipo balancer used on the R model cars. Even if I could find an original or vintage copy, it doesn't seem like a great idea to put a 60 year old balancer on a new motor.
Don't believe there is a reproduction of an R model balancer out there being made - available to simply order out of a catalog or web site. As mentioned there are reproductions of the non-R model or the later C8 service replacements non-R model
This IS an SAI R Model/Cobra FIA Balancer. It is fully degreed and machined in a certain way to the degree marks from the bevel. (See pics) This is the one on my car.
The R Model Balancer that CA offered at one time was close except the numbers were turned 90 degrees to the scribe marks but the machining details were correct.
Cheers,
~Earl J
Here is a pic of the R Model Balancer that Cobra Automotive offered at one time. It was a special request as it was NOT in their catalog of parts. This was sent to me by Scott Hackenson before he retired or left CA.
Notice the placement/orientation of the numbers. Other than not having the cast Ford C3OE or C5OE markings in the front of the hub, it was identical to the SAI piece.
Cheers,
~Earl J
Quote from: 1175 on November 07, 2022, 08:19:45 PM
https://store.cobraautomotive.com/harmonic-balancer-63-67-289-hi-po-28-oz-external-balance-for-3-bolt-crank-pulley/ (https://store.cobraautomotive.com/harmonic-balancer-63-67-289-hi-po-28-oz-external-balance-for-3-bolt-crank-pulley/)
To continue my series of dumb questions, will this harmonic balancer work on a later model 302 engine? Since I can't find a local engine builder I'm probably going to order a 302 stroker long block crate motor and add all the SAI externals to create the appearance of a Hipo.
Quote from: mlplunkett on November 10, 2022, 07:32:32 PM
Quote from: 1175 on November 07, 2022, 08:19:45 PM
https://store.cobraautomotive.com/harmonic-balancer-63-67-289-hi-po-28-oz-external-balance-for-3-bolt-crank-pulley/ (https://store.cobraautomotive.com/harmonic-balancer-63-67-289-hi-po-28-oz-external-balance-for-3-bolt-crank-pulley/)
To continue my series of dumb questions, will this harmonic balancer work on a later model 302 engine? Since I can't find a local engine builder I'm probably going to order a 302 stroker long block crate motor and add all the SAI externals to create the appearance of a Hipo.
mlplunkett, with out knowing any details about the crate motor, I'm going to say that the crate motor is probably already a balanced assembly. Just throwing a different balancer on would likely destroy that balance. They really do need to be matched together. It would probably work if you are willing to have a quality machine shop match the balance of the new part with the old part. I'm sure others will chime in with their own opinions.
Best of luck with your project.
When I bought my 67 in CA 1977 and shipped it to Sweden it had a 68 standard 289 with a 302 marked
block. I read in a catalog how to make it work and look like an HiPo 289, so I bought a HiPo balancer and the counterweight
together with lower gear and chain. Replaced the valvetrain and a rally friend (he competed with an Escort) ported and polished
the ports. Then a few years later I found two real HiPo engines and put one into the Shelby. Sold the standard 289 to a guy
with a 65 Mustang fastback. He was extremely happy with the performance of the engine and ran 12's at the drag strip.
The second HiPo (from a 67 mustang) I sold many years later.
12's on the strip meant that the balance of the engine must have been quite good as were the flow through the ported heads.
Texas Swede
Quote from: mlplunkett on November 10, 2022, 07:32:32 PM
...............will this harmonic balancer work on a later model 302 engine? .................I'm probably going to order a 302 stroker long block crate motor and add all the SAI externals to create the appearance of a Hipo.
Probably the first thing to sort out would be what the applicable imbalance value would be of this "crate-motor", as once stepping into the "stroker" short-blocks they come in a variety of external imbalance requirements; i.e. 28 in. oz. (as are the O.E. S.B.F.s pre-'79), 50 in. oz. (as are for example the O.E. 302's (5.0's) from '79 and up), or even quite popular for the aftermarket 0 imbalance or "neutral", these not carrying an external imbalance sum. These sums of external imbalance requirements are considered standard, but with 'custom' built engines the possibilities for this are numerus even though such is perhaps frowned upon. One will have to establish this issue without question. ;)
As far as the concern of: "Just throwing a different balancer on would likely destroy that balance." Well, that would depend on just how in depth in detail does one want to get on the subject of something being actually "balanced". As long as one establishes that their engine as received was intended to carry a ........ lets say 28 in. oz. damper, then swapping to some other like imbalance unit is generally considered acceptable. And to be honest, most of the on-line so called "crate-engines" probably are not actually balanced as an assembly with the specific damper that might come attached to ones' engine assembly; so probably "no harm no fowl". But if one contracts for an engine's revolving & reciprocating assembly to be "balanced", then this should incorporate all appropriate items in the endeavor, this including the damper of intention of use; and in this endeavor the accuracy supposedly being achieved would reveal the difference in two different damper units, as one really never seems to replicate the other, exactly, often even if it is only in the manufacturing tolerances of the same product from the same manufacture. :o
Also a proper period timing chain cover & water pump may also be required to be retrofitted for a proper timing point and alignment with the timing markings on the damper as the earlier stuff is not generally what is incorporated into the average "crate-motor". :-\
Scott.
Thanks Scott. Sounds like I'll need to talk to the engine vendor about this and, at a minimum, be sure I get a build with a 28 oz balancer and hopefully they will be able to accomodate my need for the early timing chain cover. That was something I hadn't thought about. If only I had a local engine builder.