IW 10% underdrive/2.80 FRPP Rear Exit Install

[Luke Warmwater]

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

Really? I'm happy that they did not accept the bail out but to say they were never close to bankruptcy is not accurate. That's a whole other debate I'm sure.

http://smarterspend.com/2009/03/companies-bankrupt-2009/

You speak of "a $200 million program, if there were an intelligent reason to lighten the balancer, they probably would have". Not if it had an adverse affect on long term reliability. These cars and cars in general offered to sale to the general public have to be damn near indestructible or the public balks and company images are damaged. I don't know the design parameters surrounding this part but I'll continue to assert that the entire design was full of compromises. They may have tested lighter balancers and found that engine life decreased to point that was below the required threshold. If someone comes on here and argues that using a lighter balancer has no affects on reliability then that would suggest a real difference of engineering design conclusions and one would then have to decide which team of engineers had more evidence to support their position.

 

[Shadowman]

The design of the OEM dampener is IMO "top notch"

Now having shared this a harmonic balancer is typically designed in concert with the crank as associated rotating assembly and in doing so create an assembly that will weather the test of time. The harmonic balancer is a key factor in the life span of the rotating assembly of an engine as it is constantly working to offset the vibrations caused as the engine is being operated through a wide RPM range during which the crank is twisting akin to a rubber band as such the placement for the much needed offset weight is always changing therefore if the balancer is to small/large then this process will be compromised. The particular harmonic balancer as designed for the Ford GT has a viscous fluid material within that allows for the position of the offset weight to constantly change.

If the engines operated at a single RPM all the time then the ability to balance the assembly through the process of removing and or adding material such as Mallory could result in an assembly with “no” need for a harmonic balancer however because the engine has both a wide operating range and a high internal torque/twisting action a quality harmonic balance specifically designed for the operation of this engine was and remains imperative.

I wish only the best for all that take the route of a smaller and lighter balancer however IMO the OEM balancer as designed specifically for the Ford GT’s heart is as it needs to be and as it should remain.

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[dbk]

Really? I'm happy that they did not accept the bail out but to say they were never close to bankruptcy is not accurate. That's a whole other debate I'm sure.

http://smarterspend.com/2009/03/companies-bankrupt-2009/

You speak of "a $200 million program, if there were an intelligent reason to lighten the balancer, they probably would have". Not if it had an adverse affect on long term reliability. These cars and cars in general offered to sale to the general public have to be damn near indestructible or the public balks and company images are damaged. I don't know the design parameters surrounding this part but I'll continue to assert that the entire design was full of compromises. They may have tested lighter balancers and found that engine life decreased to point that was below the required threshold. If someone comes on here and argues that using a lighter balancer has no affects on reliability then that would suggest a real difference of engineering design conclusions and one would then have to decide which team of engineers had more evidence to support their position.

It's not inaccurate, and it's a story I'm happy to tell. Look at the link you posted. It states "Only a swift turnaround in the economy led by an increase in consumer spending and complete makeover of its business will allow Ford to survive." That really couldn't have turned out to be more wrong. I may not know much, but I can tell you that there was no swift turnaround in the economy between the March 09 post date of the article and today. Likewise, for the balance of 2009, it was the worst sales year for the auto industry recorded in decades, so there was no increase in consumer spending that was going to "allow Ford to survive."

They were never in the ballpark of the minimum cash reserve required to keep the business running. There was no makeover of the business. They've been running the same overall business plan since 2006, which was three years before that article. Yet, they've posted $1.8 billion in profit so far in 09 and will undoubtedly post a profit for the full year. They were simply never close to bankruptcy. Informed of their cash position, burn rate, and the overall condition of the business, it's not a debatable subject.

For the second part, I don't think we're arguing here. Clearly, a failure to meet OEM durability requirements would be a rationale for not changing a part one way or the other. I'm not stating that a lighter balancer wouldn't gain you boost or lose you weight. I'm stating that if all else remained equal, if a lighter balancer was going to prevent stress on the crank or some other problem without causing an expense elsewhere, they would have done it (and only doing so because when this balancer originally came up it was insinuated that the OE balancer was somehow substandard or a risk to the crank, which was flat out incorrect).

p.s, we've hijacked this poor guy's thread enough. Back to the regularly scheduled programming. :lol

 

[Shadowman]

Really? I'm happy that they did not accept the bail out but to say they were never close to bankruptcy is not accurate. That's a whole other debate I'm sure.

http://smarterspend.com/2009/03/companies-bankrupt-2009/

You speak of "a $200 million program, if there were an intelligent reason to lighten the balancer, they probably would have". Not if it had an adverse affect on long term reliability. These cars and cars in general offered to sale to the general public have to be damn near indestructible or the public balks and company images are damaged. I don't know the design parameters surrounding this part but I'll continue to assert that the entire design was full of compromises. They may have tested lighter balancers and found that engine life decreased to point that was below the required threshold. If someone comes on here and argues that using a lighter balancer has no affects on reliability then that would suggest a real difference of engineering design conclusions and one would then have to decide which team of engineers had more evidence to support their position.

Your comments are well received and as you intimated; at best speculation remains with the only known being what was presented to us as the ideal piece for these gals.

Now let me set the stages; there is an element of compromise in most everything we do.

Now I have to believe that in the case of the Ford GT unlike many other development programs that even with the many compromises all were considered very carefully and were better able to be assessed and tended to because there were so many outside venders and development teams that were on board for this project; many if not most saw this project as a one time opportunity.

Having shared this when you look at the engine when in pieces you realize just how many pieces are unique to the Ford GT with the harmonic balancer IMO being one of the least costly of the items then the for me idea that the harmonic balancer was one of the compromises it is hard for me to swallowing that pill. If the cost associated with alternate harmonic balancers was significant then maybe however it is far from a scope and magnitude item. I say this because even though a 5.4 on paper the block, the crank, the main bearing layout, the rods, the pistons/rings, the heads, are all unique to these gals. If only cost was the consideration a off the shelf 5.4 could have easily been used and yet extreme development time and associated expense went into the heart for these gals.

So can an alternate harmonic balancer create better results; I suspect yes however it too will come with compromises such as it may be designed to allow for a crisper throttle response, operation within an even higher RPM range as long as the “mean piston speed” is not exceeded, etc however when companies such as Ford create a package for the masses the goal is for the product which in this case is the harmonic balancer to compliment a package through a large operating range, an endless array of operational conditions and operators, and also weather the test of time.

Again your comments are well received and my greatest reason for writing as I have is to encourage folks to think long and hard before making decision such as this because all too often folks are drawn to the proverbial light; meaning because the packaging says “more power” it must be good but what they do not know is that far too often the increase power at a moment in time has offsets in other areas which could be less power in another area, increased maintenance costs, etc. because this is never included with the packaging.

PT Barnum lives and much of his success relied on that which he never shared.

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[BlackICE]

IMO, before changing the balancer you have to define what you are expecting to achieve and at what cost and risk, e.i. a simply cost to benefit analysis.

Cost side
1. Cost of balancer
2. Cost of labor to install
3. Risk of collateral damage and complications during installation
4. The possibility of shorter engine lifespan

Benefits
1. Saves 10 lbs of rotating mass on the crankshaft.
2. Cool factor
3. An additional way to modify the blowers and accessory spin ratios, thus boost.

I doubt that lighter balancer will result in any real world performance gains on the road. I don't think the 1/4 mile or 1 mile times would measurably change nor lap times on a road course. The total rotational inertia with the driveline engaged (flywheel, clutch, transaxle, 1/2 shafts, wheels and tires) is not changed much at all. Any gains would be from under driving the accessories driven, not from the weight savings

It may rev a wee bit faster with the drive line disengaged. If you like that quick revving snarl you might give a Ferrari or CGT a try.

IMHO I don't see the balance sheet adding up for changing the balancer.

If saving rotating weight is a prime concern, one would get better results with a lighten small Stillens racing clutch, light weight brake rotors, and Hoosier tires on forged BBS wheels. The tires having the best bang for the buck.

 

[fjpikul]

I'm sorry, I can't understand why there is any comparison between the GT500 and the GT engines. Cast iron block, no dry sump, cheaper heads and valve train, clearly not the same class as a GT engine.. I did like MAD's analogy of a Family Practitioner for special procedures - time for a prostate exam buddy, or can you wait till I see you at the next Rally?

 

[Luke Warmwater]

Not sure that's a valid analogy

 

[Indy GT]

Thanks Bill and Ice our resident mechanical experts for weighing in. Frank, I like Mike's analogy as well....

Dave is right we have somewhat hijacked this thread...

So Extreme281 and SAGT what do you think?

 

[Gulf GT]

It may rev a wee bit faster with the drive line disengaged. If you like that quick revving snarl you might give a Ferrari or CGT a try.

And for an FGT I think you would need to change the crank...

I haven't looked back, but didn't Accufab look into that a few years ago?

 

[B.M.F.]

I'm sorry, I can't understand why there is any comparison between the GT500 and the GT engines. Cast iron block, no dry sump, cheaper heads and valve train, clearly not the same class as a GT engine.. I did like MAD's analogy of a Family Practitioner for special procedures - time for a prostate exam buddy, or can you wait till I see you at the next Rally?

The Gt500 was based off the Gt Motor, just made more cost effective for a major production car.
The early gt500 test motors 2003 had Gt intakes even with twin injectors and the same 2.3 whipple blower as the GT, just with a eblow for throttle body, i may no where there is one:wink. The intake though would of required higher hoods though so they were made different and short'n by a inch!

Cranks are the same minus oil pump provision, cranks would of been the same but during testing the first motor broke a snout and part of this was from there being no oil pump on the crank and stress point from oil pump drive, so they did a crank with no oil pump provision. Yes the the heads are Identical castings, intake valves and all the springs, etc are the SAME, exhaust vavles on the Gt are inconel and they are not on the gt500. ON the valve train, the gears are smaller on the Gt500 due to the fact that the valves covers wouldn't clear frame rails on installation, otherwise the rest of valve train is the same! Gt has manley H beam rods, Gt500 has a powder metal h beam due to cost! pistons are very simular in both motors. Cams are a little different but Gt500 guys have proven Gt cams to be very low in hp gains when put on a gt500. A TT GT will make 1000rwhp with 22lbs of boost and a tt Gt500 will make 1000rwhp with 22lbs of boost. I don't know if the motors could get any closer in comparision?

As of 2011 the gt500's will have the sameblock as the Gt with oil squirters, minus the dry sump.

 

[B.M.F.]

Extreme281/SAGT can't wait to see the results you guys come up with on the Install.

Subscribing

 

[BlackICE]

And for an FGT I think you would need to change the crank...

I haven't looked back, but didn't Accufab look into that a few years ago?

Anyone going to change to a flat plane crank and reprogram the ECU?

That would save some weight right off the crankshaft! :lol

 

[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

Well; now that we have taken “your” thread all over the place let me attempt to bring it back to where it began.

As shared earlier; I truly appreciate you sharing your project and that which I see looks great. I am also as stated very glad that the process of swapping the harmonic balancer caused you no grief.

Now having shared this, I not only enjoy but also appreciate folks pushing the proverbial envelope as well as personal twisting and tweaking as associated with the gals; for me this is a significant portion of the pleasure experienced during my time with them as it appears to be for you too.

By all means please continue to share your project

Takes care and thank you

Shadowman

 

[Indy GT]

The Gt500 was based off the Gt Motor, just made more cost effective for a major production car.

As of 2011 the gt500's will have the sameblock as the Gt with oil squirters, minus the dry sump.

BMF-
Please before you go confusing others with your comparisions, go read and study SAE paper 2004-01-1252.

Thanks!

 

[Gulf GT]

Now having shared this, I not only enjoy but also appreciate folks pushing the proverbial envelope as well as personal twisting and tweaking as associated with the gals; for me this is a significant portion of the pleasure experienced during my time with them as it appears to be for you too.

By all means please continue to share your project

Takes care and thank you

Shadowman

Agreed.

 

[dbackg]

BMF-
Please before you go confusing others with your comparisions, go read and study SAE paper 2004-01-1252.

Thanks!

found a link.

http://www.roush.com/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=ICbJpiMfoM4=&tabid=212&mid=932

 

[Shadowman]

BMF-
Please before you go confusing others with your comparisions, go read and study SAE paper 2004-01-1252.

Thanks!

It IMO is not the same engine; even the head castings are "not" the same.

Confusion .... hummm sadly all too often equals an interesting marketing tool.

Takes care

Shadowman

 

[BlackICE]

It IMO is not the same engine; even the head castings are "not" the same.

Confusion .... hummm sadly all too often equals an interesting marketing tool.

Takes care

Shadowman

I don't know anything about similarities between the new GT500 engine and a FGT engine. I do know it is common to reuse technology from previous designs where applicable. Only Ford employees in the know, would have the real scoop. Short of that, if one had parts to compare side by side an inconclusive comparison could be made. Companies are known to reuse the same casting molds for example on cylinder heads on other cars. Typically the casting looks identical with the exception of a different casting and part numbers. This doesn't say anything about the metallurgy used for the casting, or the post casting machine work that may been done. The new GT500 heads may be the same with the exception of the valve train components. That would be a good thing for the GT500.

IMO the engines are more similar than different. They are both great engines made by the best managed American car company! :thumbsup

 

[Luke Warmwater]

Not to beat a dead horse but I have a question. Ford Racing offers a pump gas pulley and tune to boost performance of the GT. They have more resources to develop this tune than all of the aftermarket companies out there combined. So then should we assume that either these company's tunes are substandard or they are a direct copy of the FR tune? Explain to me how no one could ever know better than Ford on balancer design but every Joe out there thinks they have a better tune than the black box FR pulley tune? How did Ford screw up the half shaft bolts? Should I buy the Ford replacements or some from the aftermarket? Help me understand when the aftermarket knows better than Ford and when they don't. Thx

 

[B.M.F.]

I don't know anything about similarities between the new GT500 engine and a FGT engine. I do know it is common to reuse technology from previous designs where applicable. Only Ford employees in the know, would have the real scoop. Short of that, if one had parts to compare side by side an inconclusive comparison could be made. Companies are known to reuse the same casting molds for example on cylinder heads on other cars. Typically the casting looks identical with the exception of a different casting and part numbers. This doesn't say anything about the metallurgy used for the casting, or the post casting machine work that may been done. The new GT500 heads may be the same with the exception of the valve train components. That would be a good thing for the GT500.

IMO the engines are more similar than different. They are both great engines made by the best managed American car company! :thumbsup

X2
I do have both sets of casting here from a gt500 and a gt. I'll post pics of the part no:s and let you all be the decider if there the same. I know they are, im not guessing. THE only difference inbetween the Gt/gt500 cylinder heads is the Exhaust valves. I have cross refferenced part no:s and all the springs, intake valves and the rest of the hardware is the same. The Ford Gt head was the lastest improvement of the 2000 Cobra head with minor changes.