289 engine balance internal or external? - Ford Mustang Forum
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 12 (permalink) Old 03-22-2007 Thread Starter
Rookie
 
sgomustang's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2006
Location: Detroit
Posts: 14
 
289 engine balance internal or external?

I am planning to put a T-5 transmission in my 68 stang with a 289. I thought it was 28 oz. externaly balanced eng. Then I was told by the machine shop that a 289 is internally balanced and the flywheel is netural balanced. I have not been able to find that info any where else. Does anyone else have any info on this?
sgomustang is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 12 (permalink) Old 03-22-2007
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Ravenblack67's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Summerville
Posts: 110
 
The small block fords are external balanced at 28 oz for the early years and 50 oz for the later years. Check out Tom Monroe's book on engine building.

Mr. Ed rides again
Ravenblack67 is offline  
post #3 of 12 (permalink) Old 03-23-2007
Top Dog
5.0L Member
 
meangreen92's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Southern
Posts: 3,476
 
Yep, except the 351W. Those remained 28 ouncers throughout their production. I think 302s changed in '81.

'88 GT convertible, 5 speed, 3:08 gears, A9L Mass Air conversion. Mac shorty headers and H-pipe, Magnaflow catback.
meangreen92 is offline  
post #4 of 12 (permalink) Old 03-25-2007
Made Member
Classic Member
V6 Member
 
Preacher17's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Enterprise
Posts: 433
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sgomustang View Post
Then I was told by the machine shop that a 289 is internally balanced and the flywheel is netural balanced.
Find a new machine shop...run away...quickly!!! Never call on these guys again! Sounds like they don't do much Ford work, I'd really find another shop that has Ford experience I wouldn't let these guys touch my stuff....ever.

1966 Fastback
1966 Coupe
1998 GT

"Government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem."

Ronald Reagan
Preacher17 is offline  
post #5 of 12 (permalink) Old 03-29-2007
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
67coupe's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Rock Hill
Posts: 136
 
The 271hp/289 was internaly balanced. It had no harmonic balancer on the front, just a steel pulley. Is that what you have?
67coupe is offline  
post #6 of 12 (permalink) Old 03-29-2007
Made Member
Classic Member
V6 Member
 
Preacher17's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2005
Location: Enterprise
Posts: 433
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 67coupe View Post
The 271hp/289 was internaly balanced. It had no harmonic balancer on the front, just a steel pulley. Is that what you have?
Actually the Hi-po had an external balancer as well and it was heavier than the run of the mill balancer. There is not enough room in the crankcase to balance a small block. All Ford small blocks to include the Cleveland family are externally balanced.

1966 Fastback
1966 Coupe
1998 GT

"Government is not the answer to our problems, government is the problem."

Ronald Reagan
Preacher17 is offline  
post #7 of 12 (permalink) Old 03-31-2007
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
67coupe's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2004
Location: Rock Hill
Posts: 136
 
Found this on another site. I mentions a heavier balancer, but it was inside the timing cover. My brother-in-law had a 1954 Merc with a 289hp and 4-speed and I remember it looking odd with just a cast pulley out front.

"In 1963 Ford released the 289 High Performance which produced 271 BHP @ 6000 RPM. Somewhat stronger connecting rods with 3/8" bolts, thicker main bearing caps, solid lifter cam, screw-in rocker arm studs, machined valve spring seats, forged steel exhaust valves, a dual point mechanical advance distributor, and better flowing exhaust manifolds round out the package. Those fitted to Shebly GT 350 cars rated at 306 HP also featured a high rise aluminum intake manifold and Tri-Y headers.

The 289 HP features a high nodularity cast iron crankshaft, Brinell hardness tested to ensure quality. To prevent 4th-order harmonic vibrations from destroying the crankshaft at higher RPM, the engine uses a different vibration damper and an add-on counterweight. A portion of the 28.2 oz.in. imbalance found in the normal small block damper is moved to the additional counterweight. Moving the mass in towards the front main bearing reduces bending loads on the crankshaft. The special damper also has a larger more massive inertial ring. The add-on counterweight is 0.150" thick. As a result a special crank sprocket is used, C3OZ-6306-A, itself being 0.150" thinner than the normal 289 sprocket. The counterweight is both keyed to the crankshaft and indexed to the sprocket with a 1/8" roll pin. The images below show the counterweight and sprocket with its roll pin hole, as well as a comparison of the the normal and thin sprocket. "
67coupe is offline  
post #8 of 12 (permalink) Old 05-20-2009
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
preflight99's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 62
 
Can you balance a stock 289 crank using the 289 hi po counter weight and harmonic balencer for the same benifit?
preflight99 is offline  
post #9 of 12 (permalink) Old 05-21-2009
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
66mustang86's Avatar
 
Joined: May 2009
Location: Elk Grove
Posts: 127
 
It depends on what the amchine shop meant. Were they going to turn and balance your crank and rotating assembly and externally balance it on top of that. That is how my 302 is setup
66mustang86 is offline  
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
kens67mustang's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Location: none
Posts: 237
 
Just like it says there.the 289 Hi-Po was EXTERNALLY balanced.
kens67mustang is offline  
SHELBY GT 350 Member
Classic Member
 
Ivy66GT's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2008
Location: Albuquerque
Posts: 6,191
 
The HiPo cranks were of a slightly different metal but were cast in the same molds as the normal 289 cranks so were the same shape and therefore balance. As a result of being the 'small block' there wasn't room to completely balance them internally; they all had external balance hardware. The HiPo damper was much thicker but when combined with the extra internal counterweight at the timing chain I don't know that the overall imbalance was any different. My understanding is that the added mass changed the resonant characteristics of the crank assembly to allow sustainted higher RPMs. The internal weight also had to be used with narrower timing sprockets and therefore narrower timing chain.

I don't see why you couldn't use the HiPo balancing hardware on a standard engine but since the standard engine won't run at 7k I don't know what you would gain for the extra cost and effort. Better to have the machine shop balance the engine with the parts you are going to use (including flywheel and clutch, etc) which would cost less and probably give a better balance.
Ivy66GT is online now  
Apprentice
Classic Member
 
Mike Larsen's Avatar
 
Joined: Mar 2007
Location: Modesto
Posts: 76
 
Himmmm.

This is all very intersting to me. I have a 66 289 that when we bought it, was rebuilt with about 10k miles on it. Driving it at speeds of arounf 50pmh or higher, produces a harmonic vibtration. I first suspected the wheels - 4 lug-slotted for universal fit, and swapped with no change. Then, I had new gears put in the rear end, and a new drive shaft put in, still no luck. Then I changed the motor mounts and hamonic balancer (28.2oz). Still no luck. Someone here said change the tranny mount, but I haven't done that yet, and know I'm wondering if it a result of the rebuild?
Mike Larsen is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the Ford Mustang Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a VALID email address for yourself, otherwise you will not receive the necessary confirmation email needed to confirm, validate and activate your new AFM member account.

Failure to provide a VALID email address, will result in the cancellation of your new AFM member account registration.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183