Good balancer ?????....UPDATE....MUSCLE MOTORS..

I believe they are made down here in OZ by powerbond....... hence the PB in the part number, sold also in usa under pioneer name....ive used them before no worries and lots of 9-10 sec cars here running power bond balancers

I like the ATI super damper for racing. I have a 440source damper on my street car.

I'm pretty sure I know exactly what caliber of motor this balancer is on and there's no way I'd run it. Get an ATI.

Little more info........The engine builder put this balancer on a 4.75 stroke Callies crank. Dyno'd at 1000hp. I am not comfortable using it....going either Fluidamper or ATI. Wait....I was "TOLD" it was a Callies crank..... <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/1343795-scratchchin.gif" alt="" />

ATI period!!! No way to actually check balance on a Fluidampr also they can solidify and cause some ugly issues.

I'll be going ATI. Thanks for all the input. I thought it was a low performance / stock replacement unit. Also going to do a thorough inspection on engine. Cant trust what they have told me. Was told they would send build sheet and cam card with engine, still waiting.

...UPDATE... upon closer inspection looks like something has moved / shifted....Look where the bare metal shows no paint and you'll see it. This was after maybe 20 min on dyno...Also still waiting on build sheet, cam card, among other things promised. Patience is wearing thin.....

1 more picture....Im sure I'll be told this is normal. It's just a giant lock ring, right.

This engine supposedly made 1000 hp, yet only had 150 cyl psi. Don't see how that's possible. Must be a happy dyno. Not sure on the cam specs, they wont send me or didn't keep cam card.

Don't know what that is but I would chuck it in the thrash. Kick up the cash & get an ATI period.

...

Like someone said that is a powerbond and yes we use and sell them quite a bit with very good results. However, it has no business on the front of a 622 with 1000 Hp. ATI period. The powerbond units are great for 400 to 600 HP or so bracket style engines. Sorry for your trouble brother. But don't blame the part in this case.

I was at the ICH swap and saw the spec card and dyno sheet on a pump gas 451 MM built. Ported 452's, Purple Stripe 474 cam and 10-1 made 525 horse and 570 tq. I'm thinking way happy dyno.

Hey, you could give it to me! I'll even pay postage.

From my point of view, the rubbed off paint marks show that the damper was doing exactly what it was supposed to. As the power stroke pushes the hub ahead, the inertia ring stays behind, tethered by the rubber that's between the two. Then the rubber unstretches and the inertia ring is back to the starting point, when another power stroke happens and the same things occur again.

The rubbed off paint shows you how much the inertia ring actually moves. I'm surprised at how much it is, but I've never had a damper on a 1000? hp engine either.

R.

I don't think it's suppose to move ,but I could be wrong.

Please note: the SEMA damper standard (S.F.I. 18-1) does not rate a damper’s effectiveness, or certify that it works at all (let alone on a specific motor) - only that it didn’t explode during the test. Their interest is limited to safety and qualify control, not specific engineering results.

I put a Powerbond dampener on my 540 but wish I had used an ATI. The reason is the PB is thinner and the pulleys needed spacers to match what I had on the previous install with a different motor that had an ATI. It also interfered with the cast Indy front cover but I may have the wrong version of that and it was fixed easily enough with a milling machine.

The PB has that huge snap ring in front which I think makes them easier to rebuild. But sending the other dampener to ATI with $75 also gets that done. We'll see how it does as the 540 is very close to first fire after severely hammering on the Proparts (TTI) 2 1/8 step headers to get them to fit in the car.

Some damper designs are more tolerant of internal engine mods, in which changes to stroke are probably safer.
If you're not sure, read up.
The "harmonic orders" that cause the problems are not a function of balance, or power, or reciprocating weight. They are far more closely related to:
1. crankshaft length
2. stroke length
3. main journal size
4. rod journal size
5. number of mains

Increases to 1. & 2. reduce overall crankshaft stiffness and reduce the RPM at which harmful orders occur (from which the engine needs protection). Increases to 3., 4., & 5. increase stiffness and increase the critical RPM.

Bottom line: don't use a damper designed for an engine with different crank geometry unless you're sure its design accepts the differences.
A stock 383 has very different crank stiffness from a 4.15" stroker with BBC rods.

Is there a mathematical formula to calculate the harmonic orders and a what RPM the may become prevalent? From what you said, a common BB stroker crank with a 4.25 stroke and 2.2 Chevy pins would significantly change the RPM that the harmonics would occur.

Bottom line: Don't cheap out on a balancer.

In the MP book, in the racing BB section. They talk about dampers. They say to go with a heavy damper. I like the Pro Race brand.
http://www.pro-race.com/prorace.htm

They are SFI approved. I've always had good luck with them.