IW 10% underdrive/2.80 FRPP Rear Exit Install

[SAGT]

Gulf - I've been running 19 PSI with the Whipple on 91/ 93 octane for over two years - Problems none! Tune came from Heffner and or Torrie, I can't remember but I'll bet that ~90% of the Whipples on the FGT are 19 PSI with 91/93 octane....

Thats good to know. I have seen a few GT500's running 19psi on pump gas fail. Glad to hear the GT motor is holding together. My tuner is most likley just being cautious. I know the Kenne Bell specs on there GT snout drive called for 98-100 octane at 18psi.

 

[Gulf GT]

I've been running 19 PSI with the Whipple on 91/ 93 octane for over two years - Problems none! Tune came from Heffner and or Torrie, I can't remember but I'll bet that ~90% of the Whipples on the FGT are 19 PSI with 91/93 octane....

Mad, thanks, and me too. I have been running 19 PSI for over 2 years (Whipple Gen. II), and works perfectly. After all the great info I got from that post and a few calls to some of the other known experts on the Forum it seemed like a solid decision to keep the stock dampener.

SAGT, As far as the idea of the upper vs lower size ratio, I don't know. Please let us all know what actually happens. And, definitely keep an eye on your crank seal....

 

[SAGT]

SAGT, As far as the idea of the upper vs lower size ratio, I don't know. Please let us all know what actually happens. And, definitely keep an eye on your crank seal....

Extreme 281 will be there before me, but I sure will. Thanks for all the great info! Its good to know who is using what, and what is actually working well.

 

[Shadowman]

Installing my FRPP Rear Exit kit then the balancer and Metco 2.80 upper
I have a lift but my Hot Street car has the Rear-end out so i decided to work on the floor which enough room for the job ,here is some pics

Got a local polish shop to polish Rear Exit KIt for me

This made install a little easier

It took a total of 11hrs to install the rear exit if you are going to do it right ,Taping, covering and removing the rear hatch and bumber and acc.

Removing the stock dampner was a straight foward process with standard tools and patience

This is the stock looking caterpillar balancer that is on all of 05-06 GT40 Supercars ,Innovative West is assmebling me a 10% lower balancer which will be ready tomorrow and i should reaceve by Friday and i will post pics of the install as well as the Metco Upper

Thank you for the post

I am glad that the balancer came off; did it fight you?

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[Extreme281]

Thank you for the post

I am glad that the balancer came off; did it fight you?

Takes care

Shadowman

No.not at all .i actually think it was easier than a Mustang due to the fact a didnt have a fender to lean over

 

[Shadowman]

No.not at all .i actually think it was easier than a Mustang due to the fact a didnt have a fender to lean over

Thank you for the answer

I asked because I had one that was a royal PITA as such have remained concerned about one attempting to complete this task with the gal's heart still withn her.

All the best

Shadowman

 

[Indy GT]

Mad, thanks, and me too. I have been running 19 PSI for over 2 years (Whipple Gen. II), and works perfectly. After all the great info I got from that post and a few calls to some of the other known experts on the Forum it seemed like a solid decision to keep the stock dampener.

SAGT, As far as the idea of the upper vs lower size ratio, I don't know. Please let us all know what actually happens. And, definitely keep an eye on your crank seal....

Guys, freedom of choice is a great thing! My technical position on our Ford designed harmonic balancer is of record, but if SAGT and Extreme281 want to experiment with their $30K heart, more power to them. Just not for me, and others as they have chimed in. If they want to spend $845 to replace the purposefully designed "stock looking caterpillar balancer that is on all of 05-06 GT40 Supercars" to save 10 pounds based on some machine shop sales hype of balance equivalency, more power, more torque, more everything good, that is their choice.

Let me just say, I am an owner of one of these fine "Ford GT Supercars" and have a technical curiosity as to the mechanical aspects of how she came to be. I was at Cobo in 2002 when the prototype was revealed to the public, wrote Ford stating if they would build, I would buy, and was at the Ford Centennial celebration to see Jobs 1, 2 and 3 the first production GT's. The designers and engineers elected to serve on the GT team were the "cream of the cream" in the Ford technical community. And I have talked to many of them throughout the years. All the team members had a passion for race cars, racing and delivering a benchmark Halo Ford product to an unknown buying demographic. A very, very technically savvy team with a monumental price, timeframe and performance goal to meet.

I have been told by many insiders, there were constant struggles to keep the vehicle weight within the aggressive target. The brake engineers fought for every mm of swept area on rotors against weight increases, the optional lightweight wheels were offered to reduce not only sprung weight but vehicle weight as well and the prolific use of aluminum throughout the car (including the engine block) is obvious. Weight scrutiny of all components was very closely watched and frequently challenged for justification.

Crankshaft harmonics is difficult enough for engineers to understand let alone laypeople thinking they can design a better configuration. Lighter is not necessarily better. Just use a little common sense here. To think a caterpillar OE design weighing 50% more than what was needed to sufficiently dampen critical detrimental shaft bending flew under the weight radar is just unrealistic. I will put my engineering faith with the Ford GT team who unquestionably know the design aspects of our engine best.

But please guys, if alternate light weight dampers are used on our GT engines, post up for all of us if any 4th order crankshaft harmonics lead to premature snout or crank cheek failures, just so we know. Thanks!

 

[Luke Warmwater]

So the factory engineering is superior to anything else? I can't speak to the technical details of crank balancers but I do disagree with the premise of your argument. All engineering is a compromise. A car with a TT kit putting out 1000hp is not going to have the engine life of a stocker putting out 450hp. Does that mean the TT setup is not as well engineered as the stock setup? Of course not.

 

[Indy GT]

So the factory engineering is superior to anything else? I can't speak to the technical details of crank balancers but I do disagree with the premise of your argument. All engineering is a compromise.

Asked and answered.

Luke, let us constrain the scope of this discussion to harmonic balancers for that is what I am talking about. You are an engineer and redily offer up you cannot "speak to the technical details of crank balancers". Fine, nor can I.

My premise is this: Who is in a better technical position of determining the N order crankshaft harmonics specific to our MOD 5.4 engine at the design duty cycle and designing an appropriate balancer?

1) Ford Motor Corporation engineers, or
2) ABC Machine and Tool

?????

And I agree with your statement that all engineering is a compromise, but do you know the compromise equation used for design/construction of the FGT?

Thanks for your comments.....

 

[Luke Warmwater]

I don't know the specifics of the design compromise. My guess is that long term reliability was a large factor in the design constraints of these marvelous cars hence the TT vs stock analogy. As an engineer I would weigh the potential decrease in engine longevity as a result of this mod against the additional performance of a lighter balancer. I would then consider other mods that would yield the same performance gains and their affects on engine life and chose accordingly. That said, I would guess that the lightening of the balancer aspect of this mod would end up being pretty low on the list when searching for performance gains. It's all just conjecture of course but my point is I don't believe the factory engineers are any better at their job than the non-factory engineers. Thanks for your point of view.

 

[MAD IN NC]

To Indy's point - would you go to a general practitioner for a specialized medical procedure or find a specialist in the field of your concern.

Luke - I can't believe that in this case IW knows more than FoMoCo on the 5.4 and the crank balancing/ harmonics...... The learning curve to understand the dynamics of this issue came from real life experience and resolving undefined and unplanned performance delays I'm sure over the qualification and endurance testing of the motor.

And yes I'm sure with any designed product that there are compromises to insure longevity and anticipated life of the product over immediate performance gains but I am extremely pleased as an owner of this finished product and the capability to continue to enjoy it for years to come.

 

[Gulf GT]

In all my studying of harmonic dampeners, lighter is not always better. A harmonic balancer is also not a kin to a wheel or some other component which when reducing weight has a simple direct positive effect of unsprung mass. And no other single engine component has the possibility of affecting nearly all the internal systems other than a crank balancer. Yes, a comparison can always be made to other types of modifications with associated risk, but more important “why” is the modification made for a specific risk. In my opinion, there simply is no reason in the case of the balancer to be changed in this particular application when considering the dynamics of the Ford GT system and the many paths to “high performance”. There are lots of ways to achieve the goals without that particular risk being involved at all.

 

[Luke Warmwater]

I can't intelligently debate the merits of lightening the balancer, only that I don't believe the engineers working at Ford have a monopoly on expertise. Most principles of engineering are well known and not possessed by one engineering group or another. I just have a problem with the assertion that the Ford engineers know best and no one else should offer options that differ from the factory design. Look at the brew ha over diffusers. How dare one install a diffuser that is different in design from the factory unit with their extensive wind tunnel design. Now go look at every race GT out there. Not even close. Obviously, they are working with a different set of constraints and did not make the same compromises. I'll leave it to others to debate the specifics of crankshaft harmonics but let's not be so closed minded to think that Ford engineers posses some monopoly on knowledge. These are the same companies that are on the edge of bankruptcy.

 

[B.M.F.]

Guys, freedom of choice is a great thing! My technical position on our Ford designed harmonic balancer is of record, but if SAGT and Extreme281 want to experiment with their $30K heart, more power to them. Just not for me, and others as they have chimed in. If they want to spend $845 to replace the purposefully designed "stock looking caterpillar balancer that is on all of 05-06 GT40 Supercars" to save 10 pounds based on some machine shop sales hype of balance equivalency, more power, more torque, more everything good, that is their choice.

Let me just say, I am an owner of one of these fine "Ford GT Supercars" and have a technical curiosity as to the mechanical aspects of how she came to be. I was at Cobo in 2002 when the prototype was revealed to the public, wrote Ford stating if they would build, I would buy, and was at the Ford Centennial celebration to see Jobs 1, 2 and 3 the first production GT's. The designers and engineers elected to serve on the GT team were the "cream of the cream" in the Ford technical community. And I have talked to many of them throughout the years. All the team members had a passion for race cars, racing and delivering a benchmark Halo Ford product to an unknown buying demographic. A very, very technically savvy team with a monumental price, timeframe and performance goal to meet.

I have been told by many insiders, there were constant struggles to keep the vehicle weight within the aggressive target. The brake engineers fought for every mm of swept area on rotors against weight increases, the optional lightweight wheels were offered to reduce not only sprung weight but vehicle weight as well and the prolific use of aluminum throughout the car (including the engine block) is obvious. Weight scrutiny of all components was very closely watched and frequently challenged for justification.

Crankshaft harmonics is difficult enough for engineers to understand let alone laypeople thinking they can design a better configuration. Lighter is not necessarily better. Just use a little common sense here. To think a caterpillar OE design weighing 50% more than what was needed to sufficiently dampen critical detrimental shaft bending flew under the weight radar is just unrealistic. I will put my engineering faith with the Ford GT team who unquestionably know the design aspects of our engine best.

But please guys, if alternate light weight dampers are used on our GT engines, post up for all of us if any 4th order crankshaft harmonics lead to premature snout or crank cheek failures, just so we know. Thanks!

I don't know if you are aware but FORD ENGINEERS/FORD RACING has TESTED this INNOVATORS WEST BALENCER against every other balancer in the country and choosen it to be the best. Ford also used the Ford Gt supercar balencer for 1 year on the 07 gt500 and deamed it to be two heavy and by 08 they had a balencer that weighed 10lbs and not 20-22. I am sure you are aware but 22lbs hangin off a 1'' crank snout is alot of wieght!! 10lbs less is definatly less stress on the crank also. Ford Racing is buying 75 of these at a time for the CJ and to sell in the ford Racing Catalog. Does everyone believe that FORD would be supporting this product if it was not good.

Also these engines may be 30000.00, but they are very cheap to fix if damaged, all the expensive parts on the motor are xternal parts, that are Ford Gt only!!

 

[Indy GT]

Well said Gulf GT and Mike.
Exactly my point. Thanks!

I am sorry B.M.F., you just don't get it.....

 

[dbk]

I don't think anyone is saying that Ford engineers have a monopoly on knowledge. I think they are saying that in a program with a cost in the range of $200 million dollars, if there were an intelligent reason to lighten the balancer, they probably would have. In the context of the entire car, the balancer is a cheap part, and a lighter one likely wouldn't be change the cost. The FGT engine was run at WOT in the real world for 500 miles. There is no conceivable way that any performance shop, tuner or otherwise will be able to replicate that with another piece and validate it in the real world.

Otherwise, while we're making sure people aren't being closed minded, let's be sure not to lump Ford in with other companies because of the industry they are in. Ford isn't remotely close to the edge of bankruptcy, nor were they. :wink

 

[dbk]

I don't know if you are aware but FORD ENGINEERS/FORD RACING has TESTED this INNOVATORS WEST BALENCER against every other balancer in the country and choosen it to be the best. Ford also used the Ford Gt supercar balencer for 1 year on the 07 gt500 and deamed it to be two heavy and by 08 they had a balencer that weighed 10lbs and not 20-22. I am sure you are aware but 22lbs hangin off a 1'' crank snout is alot of wieght!! 10lbs less is definatly less stress on the crank also. Ford Racing is buying 75 of these at a time for the CJ and to sell in the ford Racing Catalog. Does everyone believe that FORD would be supporting this product if it was not good.

Just as an aside, FRPP products are not subject to the same rigors that an OE piece is, and the teams that work on OE parts and aftermarket parts aren't always related.

I had the conversation with the program manager about the balancer the first time this controversy came up after the GT500 change (of which he was also the program manager), and he said the Ford GT was a different matter. He said the weight difference from the changing of the balancer would be irrelevant unless you were after making tremendous amounts of power or extremely high mileage, the likes of which 99.9% of Ford GT's would ever see (especially given that they had testers that were likely nearing the 6 figure mileage mark). It's worth noting he's a dry and dull engineer by trade :lol

 

[B.M.F.]

Just as an aside, FRPP products are not subject to the same rigors that an OE piece is, and the teams that work on OE parts and aftermarket parts aren't always related.

I had the conversation with the program manager about the balancer the first time this controversy came up after the GT500 change (of which he was also the program manager), and he said the Ford GT was a different matter. He said the weight difference from the changing of the balancer would be irrelevant unless you were after making tremendous amounts of power or extremely high mileage, the likes of which 99.9% of Ford GT's would ever see (especially given that they had testers that were likely nearing the 6 figure mileage mark). It's worth noting he's a dry and dull engineer by trade :lol

I agree for the lesser power Gt's and Gt500's the stock balencer is great! maybe 4% of the community will be interested in doing this or have it benifit them. I do think that over 1100 rwhp the balancer should be looked at and also on Blown/TT Gt or with a whipple and big boost under 1000hp due to the extra hp drive on the balancer. Also the only Difference between the Gt500 balencer and the gt balencer is a .100 thou between the 10rib and the 6 rib other wise they were the same. The Main benifit that sells the Gt500 balencers to every one is the capability of being 10-15percent overdriven so you can run a bigger blower pulley and have less belt slip issues. I guess its just preference to everyone on what there looking for!

 

[SAGT]

He said the weight difference from the changing of the balancer would be irrelevant unless you were after making tremendous amounts of power or extremely high mileage, the likes of which 99.9% of Ford GT's would ever see (especially given that they had testers that were likely nearing the 6 figure mileage mark). It's worth noting he's a dry and dull engineer by trade :lol

The weight is not the most attractive thing on this damper to me. Its that fact that its overdriven. It will let you attain boost numbers only attainable in the past by aftermarket superchargers. I just registered for the Texas Mile this morning. I will give it a good test in March and see if it's a worth while upgrade or not.

 

[dbk]

Yeah, I was just addressing the weight thing because long ago there was some controversy as if the OE balancer was substandard and a risk to the crank because it weighed too much once they changed the GT500 one. It was a pretty funny discussion given that there were already turbo and Whipple cars that had run nearly double the OE power level for 30k+ miles.