ATI with the front drilled for Big Chev.....opens up a door to a ton of accessories that are stocked everywhere. i.e. pulleys , mandrels.

To me if its a rcae eng then ATI seems to be the best. But for a mild street/strip car like what I do I went with a Pro Sport balancer from Mancini and its not to pricey and has held up great on my 493. But remember I dont go racing every weekend and I dont street race. I drive my car alot and race it one or two times a year most of the time. Its SFI certified to like 18,000 rpm and I dont run over 6500. So its fine for what I do but all out race I would run an ATI. Ron

I have had the same Fluidampr on three engines and and my current engine is smooth as silk with that 20 year old Fluidampr.
Whenever a crankshaft breaks some builders are quick to point the finger at a Fluidampr as the cause just because they don't run them on their engines

Gus

Please stop calling them harmonic "balancers", they are harmonic dampers. They don't "balance" anything.

Had 4 ATi dampeners over the years and one BHJ,(on different engines) the outer ring on the BHJ slipped after about 4 seasons but I don't know the recommended rebuild period for them.

My first after market dampener was a Fluid Dampener, the second was a BHJ that cracked one of the spokes after limitled use, the next was a non SFI Pioneer, My next SFI dampener was a ATI and is still going strong after 12 years of use. Once Fluid Dampener went bankrupt and I saw all the bad comments on here about them, even if some of the comments may have been B.S., I have bought and used ATI I have two complete ATI aluminum units in the shop now for high dollar, high HP motor builds and one ATI long hub that I will buy one of thier three ring steel outer dampener to use on my next build with a Milidon gear drive BTW, the BHJ I bought and dyno tested was a all aluminum one that replaced a stock 340 dampener on the dyno, 7 lb differences in weight, we saw no measureable differences in HP or torque, maybe that test should have been at the track

What if you have a 360?

Those would be harmonic dalancers.

Are you sure? What's a dalancer?
The OP is building a 493. Pretty sure its a steel crank internally balanced big block.

Does anyone know if ATI makes a damper that will work with a stock pulley set up on a small block?

Thanks.

Call them tomorrow morning @ 877-298-4809, and ask for tech.

Thanks Cab.

I have an ATI on my hemi, no problems.
I have a 15+ year old Fluidamper on my Indy headed 440...no problems.

I had a BHJ damper on a 440 once. It slipped the outer ring after the first trip to the track.

So what we see here is marketing at it's very best. Maybe I missed one, but I didn't see anyone badmouth a FD who has actually USED one. Bought my first one in 1990 (IIRC) and still use them.


I do know this...if you are using an elosomer type dampner and they don't ask for your bobweight and RPM (at least) something is wrong, as elastomer type dampners are VERY sensitive to durometer, witdth, and thickness of the elastomer.

Why I went with a fluid damper.

Ran the Fluidampr for years w/no major issues but always had a little vibration then went to ATI and no more vibration FWIW. Also what always made me nervous was why the Fluidampr didn`t want you to balance your rotating assembly w/it on and no mention of that on others......

Because at relatively low balancing speeds, you don't generate enough force to center the inner ring in the housing.


Funny thing is a converter is much the same.

When I balance clutches, I always zero the disc. You'd be surprised how far off a disc can be.

Makes sense and maybe why I "heard" the Fluidampr`s were originally designed for low rpm diesel motors..............

I never used mine on the balance... and dont have any
vibration at low idle or 8000+ rpm.... maybe some of the
other parts... but the ATI is good enough to cover it..
I use both but I like the ATI because its lighter

Maybe mine was just goofy and I weighted em both and forgot exactly how much lighter the ATI was but wanna say about 2.5 lbs.