2000 Cobra R balancer upgrade

[Rusty67]

I wanted to do under drive pullys on my Mach 1 and I was talking to some people about it. I've head that there are issues with aftermarket ballancers not dampening vibration enough and killing oil pumps after some time of driving them around. I was also told that the 2000R ballancer was a really nice upgrade and was already setup as an under drive pully from the factory. Any ideas on this ?

I couldn't find the 2000R ballancer anywhere but Ford is selling this one for the 08 Cobra. 300 bux is a bit expensive but if it is a fuid dampener, it is provably worth it. I imagine it will fit the crank but will the pullys line up ? I would think they will. Is this a worth while upgrade ?

Ford Racing Performance Parts [M-6312-SVT*]

Any other suguestions for ballancers ?

 

[trinity_gt]

IMHO, one of the worst hp/$ ratio upgrades.

The oil pump concerns are real, BTW.

 

[SaleenGT2001]

waste of money

the only time you should swap the balancer is for an OVERDRIVE unit!

 

[Rusty67]

I don't see how this is a waste of money. Reducing front end drag is a proven way to get more HP/Torque and reliability out of your motor. I don't know how heavy the stock ballancer wieghs but I can check my dad's stock ballancer as he has a March unit on his now. If you lose 5 lbs off of the crank that should make a real difference in the way the motor runs. Even if I only pick up a slight gas milage gain, it will still make the motor last longer and I'm all for that.

BTW, I'd have to say that a throttle body would be a much bigger waste of cash unless you are running a FI setup.

 

[bdcardinal]

i can definitely see the oil pump concerns since the mod motors have crank driven pumps. i wouldn't do the swap just to do it unless i was doing something else at the same time.

 

[BurningRubber]

If you get UD pullies, I suggest Steeda brand as they use an SFI approved balancer and not something cheap that will fit, but may not offer the full protection of a stock balancer.

Alot of the people that were having problems with oil pump faliures were using piggyback pullies. My guess is that they were incorrectly installed, or they were not balanced properly when they were made.

I wouldn't hesitate to put a set of Steeda's on my car, but I wouldn't jump at anything else.

 

[Rusty67]

The March unit is SFI approved as well however, I've heard that even with those units there have been issues. Thats why I'm wondering if this 300 dollar piece for the 08 Cobra will fit. It should as long as the cranks are the same.

 

[SaleenGT2001]

if i bought one i'd get an Innovators West pulley. they have both underdrive and overdrive units

 

[jprovence]

I don't understand your relaibity argument with this one though. Stock 4.6 balancers last forever in N/A applications. Heavy yes, but alot more reliable then aftermarket units. And I beleive the SVT unit posted won't fit at all. Looks like its meant for driving a blower belt as well. The depth on the picture is nothing like a regular 4.6 dampner.

 

[BurningRubber]

The March unit is SFI approved as well however, I've heard that even with those units there have been issues. Thats why I'm wondering if this 300 dollar piece for the 08 Cobra will fit. It should as long as the cranks are the same.

I have heard some fishy things about March products also. Like I said, I'd trust the Steeda over the other aftermarket ones as they have a ton of experience with Ford and beating the crap out of their products.

As far as the Shelby balancer, the cranks arent the same between the two motors (4.6 vs 5.4). It may physically bolt up (or not), but I imagine they aren't built to the same specs as far as balancing, and like jprovence said it is on a blower car and it may have more ribs for that reason.

 

[the98stang]

I don't see how this is a waste of money.

If it's not a blower, juice, or turbo it's a waste of money

No really....your going to screw sh1t up with those mods. Oil pump goes out your screwed. Plus I doubt you'll see more than 6-7whp gain. Get some gears or something and be happy...

 

[Rusty67]

I don't understand your relaibity argument with this one though. Stock 4.6 balancers last forever in N/A applications. Heavy yes, but alot more reliable then aftermarket units. And I beleive the SVT unit posted won't fit at all. Looks like its meant for driving a blower belt as well. The depth on the picture is nothing like a regular 4.6 dampner.

The reliability arguement is simple. You reduce the load on the engine, it lasts longer because it doesn't have to work as hard. Also, a fuild dampener will do a better job then a rubber bonded one. I'm not sure that those units are fluid type, but if I could find a fluid type that is light and reliable, that would be optimal.

If it's not a blower, juice, or turbo it's a waste of money

No really....your going to screw sh1t up with those mods. Oil pump goes out your screwed. Plus I doubt you'll see more than 6-7whp gain. Get some gears or something and be happy...

First off, are you serious ? Gears ARE NOT A POWER ADDER !

Second, the Mach came with 3.55 gears in them so there is no reason to change those as it is basically the perfect ratio for me so why would I change them ?

Finally, I'm doing research so I don't break anything. Thats the point of asking about the experiences that other people have had. Undrive pullies/shorter belts are time tested/proven methods to reduce the load on an engine which frees up HP and Torque so that it can go to the rear wheels instead of the accessory drive or drivetrain.

 

[trinity_gt]

The reliability arguement is simple. You reduce the load on the engine, it lasts longer because it doesn't have to work as hard.

The alleged gains from not having to accelerate and decelerate a damper ring (and I'm not convinced that, given the already massive loads the engine faces simply moving the car, dealing with clutch thrust loads etc, reducing the snout mass by a pound or two or three will have any tangible effect on any dimensioned part within the engine) will be more than offset by the threat to the engine in the form of increased torsional vibrations seen by the crank snout and oil pump.

Ford powertrain engineers spent many hours computer modeling and on the dyno with sophisticated equipment determining the vibration characteristics of the crankshaft, the accessories and what damper mass and elastomer durometer would best reduce torsional vibrations at the snout to allow maximum reliability. If a lighter damper was the way to go instead of the one chosen, that's the path they would have chosen. Remember too that Ford was trying to meet fuel efficiency targets too: A lighter damper could conceivably return and hundredth or two better MPG and even get some weight off the nose of the car but instead they again chose the heavier part because it made the best engineering sense.

One of the first mods I did with my 02 GT was a set of March piggyback UDPs and they worked fine. Because they left the factory damper in place, I was not concerned about crank vibrations and the oil pump. I saw 4.5rwHP with them which is honestly not really noticeable on the street. These pulleys retail for about $160. In retrospect, given the initial cost and the effort to install them, I wouldn't do it again.

YMMV.

 

[Rusty67]

You don't think a lighter ballancer can be felt at the seat of your pants ? Ever driven a car with a mechanical fan and then converted it to an electric fan ? You can definately feel the difference. That weight comes off the water pump. If you take a significant percentage of weight directly off the crank you have GOT to be able to feel that when you take it around the block.

As far as the statement about Ford engineers spending countless hours to figure out the best weight of the dampener, that is rediculous. Ford engineers spend time trying to save money these days. If they cared about using the best part, they would be using a fuid dampener, not a ruber bonded piece. Also, if what you are saying about maximum reliability was true then why did Ford use a completely different and significantly lighter unit on the 2000 Cobra R ? Because it gave REAL gains and had different requirements because of the higher RPMs the motor was running. If I could get my hands on those then I'd use them but Ford wont sell them to you if you don't already have a 2000R. So you see, Ford engineers support what I'm trying to do, not fight against it. They build for cheapest parts on regular production and step it up for only the most special vehicles.

4.5HP at the wheels for 160 bux is actually a perty good deal. You put a good throttle body on a 4.6L and will cost you a lot more and you be lucky to see 1HP at the wheels. It takes me about an hour to install a pully set, maybe an hour and a half, so I don't think the time to install them is going to hurt me at all.

 

[trinity_gt]

You don't think a lighter ballancer can be felt at the seat of your pants ?

First, it's not a "balancer." The modular engine is internally balanced and thus does not require external balance weights. It is more correctly termed a "damper."

Second, I had a set on my car and all I really noticed was that at idle the A/C output was somewhat reduced and that the power steering would sometimes require increased effort.

If you take a significant percentage of weight directly off the crank you have GOT to be able to feel that when you take it around the block.

Can't really say I did. Just telling you what I observed.

As far as the statement about Ford engineers spending countless hours to figure out the best weight of the dampener, that is rediculous. Ford engineers spend time trying to save money these days.

Part of saving money is to reduce the number of cars visiting dealership service bays with shattered oil pump gears. If they have to put some extra engineering time up front to prevent numerous failures down the road, that's what they'll do.

Also, if what you are saying about maximum reliability was true then why did Ford use a completely different and significantly lighter unit on the 2000 Cobra R ? Because it gave REAL gains and had different requirements because of the higher RPMs the motor was running.

Exactly:

"The Cobra R’s forged crankshaft is fitted with Federal Mogul rod bearings, Carrillo billet-steel connecting rods and forged aluminum pistons. The forged-aluminum pistons are similar to those found in the SVT Lightning. They are modified with increased wall and pin strength for high rpm use, and with flat tops to increase the Cobra R’s compression ratio to 9.60:1. The engine also has a new crankshaft vibration damper, which is tuned for increased firing loads and higher rpm."

Mustangworld: The 2000 Cobra R

It was a requirement because of that engine's unique configuration and operating conditions.

In your OP you asked "Any ideas on this ?" and "Is this a worth while upgrade ?" I'm answering your questions from first hand experience with UDPs. It sounds like you've actually already made up your mind so the question begs: Why did did you solicit other people's opinions when clearly you're not all that interested in hearing things counter to what you already think?

 

[2000GTdriver]

I ordered some "bargain" UDP's on sale. Not much of a bargain as due to concerns about the shattered oil pump gear issue they are still sitting in a box out in the shed. If I could have a do-over I would have spent the extra money on Steeda pulleys or just not bothered. Still if you can do a few mods each worth 5-10hp they will add up to a decent gain.

 

[Rusty67]

trinity_gt, I didn't realize that the 4.6 motor was a zero imballance. Apparently it is a dampner and pully only. I am not looking into a piggy back system like you have put on. I am looking to improve the setup by reducing the front end weight drag on the crank. A piggy back system does not achieve this goal.

And you are right, I have made a decision in my mind already about this upgrade. I'm just trying to find the best one on the market to make my car that much better. I'm trying to use a tried and true method of reducing load on my engine. I asked for help because I recently heard about oil pump failure issues and so I'm trying to find the BEST unit out there. Thats why I asked for help.

If the Cobra R setup is made for higher RPM like we have both stated, then its perfect for my car which has a higher red line then a standard GT. Remember that the R damper is both smaller in diamete and lighter then the regular unit used on production Mustangs.

I think you can agree that if I were to get my hands on the Cobra R setup that I would see a reasonable improvement.

 

[trinity_gt]

I am not looking into a piggy back system like you have put on. I am looking to improve the setup by reducing the front end weight drag on the crank. A piggy back system does not achieve this goal.

Sean Hyland's book on building performance 4.6L engines has a fair amount of copy devoted to the damper and the risks to the oil pump gears. He even describes a number of dampers Ford had used over the years on various incarnations of the 4.6 modular V8s. He describes some of them:

F3A3-6316-A
- 5.8-lbs
- used on 92-98 Crown Vics

F6ZZ-6312-AB
- 6.5-lbs
- used on 93-01 MkVIII and Cobra motors

XR3Z-6312-DA
- 8.95-lbs
- 99-03 2V GTs

1W7Z-6312-AA
- 9.9-lbs
- used on 03 Marauder and 03 Mach 1s with automatics

Hyland recommends using the F6ZZ-6312-AB damper on "all manual transmission, forged-crank applications", the XR3Z-6312-DA damper for "cast-crank, manual transmission applications" and the 1W7Z-6312-AA part for all cast-crank, automatic transmission applications.

If weight is your only concern you could always try an F3A3-6316-A damper...

I think you can agree that if I were to get my hands on the Cobra R setup that I would see a reasonable improvement.

I don't know about that. I don't know that after bolting it on you'd notice any improvement other than that which you hope is there...

When it comes to moments of inertia of rotating rigid bodies, it's not just absolute mass that matters but its effective distance and distribution from the axis of rotation. I just don't think a 5-9 pound damper has a large enough diameter and mass to have a drastic effect on an engine's response.

Now, if you really want to see an improvement in throttle response and lower-gear performance (i.e. where rates of angular acceleration of the crankshaft are highest), look into a lightened flywheel like a Fidanza aluminum piece. The flywheel is much larger in diameter than the damper and thus has more of its much more considerable mass distributed further from the axis of rotation. You'll get better results with that than with the damper...

 

[Rusty67]

trinity_gt, thank you ! This is the type of information I was looking for.

I remember reading that fluid type dampers are the most efficient so I'm going to keep looking for one but I'll keep those in mind. I'll have to check the diameter of the crank pully on the units I am considering vs the unit I have as weight + diameter are the total concern.

I am already considering an aluminum flywheel (Fidanza specifically) both for my Mach 1 and my 67 Mustang. I'm going to wear out the stock clutch first, which already has over 60,000 miles on it. I am expecting it to wear out somewhere between 90,000 and 120,000 depending on how rough I am on it (I do a lot of highway driving, not much stop and go). Once that is worn out, an aluminum flyhweel is in my car's future as well as a T56 and an aluminum drive shaft. I am also considering doing an electric water pump at some point as well.

I'm going to keep looking for other ballancer options and see what I find but those weights are definately interesting to me.

 

[Rusty67]

After siting on this for a while and coming back to it, I looked up the stock part number for the Mach 1. The part number matches the F6ZZ-6312-AB ballancer which you listed.

Another thing I didn't think about but relized today is that the stock unit has a rubber ring which will wear out over time and make the damper less effective and will eventually fail. This long term problem is solved with a 1 piece ballancer like this one:
Fluidampr 660201 - Fluidampr Harmonic Dampers - summitracing.com

Interestingly enough, summit lists 2 ballancers but one of them appears to actually be for a Honda K series motor. I think they have the info in their database screwed up. On top of that, the 660201 part number doesn't exist on Fluidamper's website, its 660202. This is provably just a typo.

In any event, this piece wieghs in at 1lb heavier then the stock ballancer. It looks like the factory piece may be the lightest weight option for this motor right now.

Have there been any reported issues with these types of ballancers ?

Edit:
BTW, some dimentions on the stock ballancer
Ford PN F6ZZ 6312-AB
Diameter - 6-13/16"(inches)
Width - 2-1/16" (inches)