• Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech

Harmonic Balancers

  • Thread starter Thread starter coolblue65
  • Start date Start date Apr 20, 2007

coolblue65

Founding Member
Jul 26, 1999
1,224
2
39
Algonquin, IL
Apr 20, 2007
#1
  • Apr 20, 2007
  • #1
I am currently putting together the parts for my 347 build and I am trying to decide on a good quality balancer that isn't going to blow the budget.

Right now I am leaning towards this Summit balancer (which I am sure is made by a well known company and just rebranded) its SFI rated and only $114:

http://store.summitracing.com/partd...839044+4294871851+4294871848+115&autoview=sku

Aside from that the only ones that are under $200 are the Professional Products balancers that you find on Ebay that are about $100. They say they are SFI approved as well.

So should I just go with the Summit balancer?


Here is what I am building:

DSS 347 Shortblock
Trickflow heads
Comp XE 282 HR cam
Victor Jr intake
Fidanza Aluminum flywheel
Jet hot Hooker Competition long tubes
 
M

mustangdave

My rearend needs a stud and two nuts.
Founding Member
Feb 26, 2002
2,976
1
56
North Carolina
Apr 20, 2007
#2
  • Apr 20, 2007
  • #2
Well, one option is a stock one from NPD for a litlle under $100, but I like the easy to read markings on the aftermarket units.
 

coolblue65

Founding Member
Jul 26, 1999
1,224
2
39
Algonquin, IL
Apr 20, 2007
#3
  • Apr 20, 2007
  • #3
well i would like something thats SFI approved (and looks nice).
 

Stanger007

Founding Member
Sep 26, 2001
2,015
2
46
Baton Rouge, LA
Apr 20, 2007
#4
  • Apr 20, 2007
  • #4
I have the Professional Products SFI balancer - works great, has held up well at the track and has VERY clear markings. Be sure to get the spacer if necessary for your application.

I'm not sure how the stock balancers are for the classic mustangs, but guys over in the 94-95 forum that replace a busted stocker with another stocker end up having that one go out as well, they also frequent the track.

Wes
 

coolblue65

Founding Member
Jul 26, 1999
1,224
2
39
Algonquin, IL
Apr 20, 2007
#5
  • Apr 20, 2007
  • #5
Isn't a spacer only required on late model applications?
 

rbohm

Founding Member
Apr 12, 2002
6,698
550
204
tucson,az
Apr 20, 2007
#6
  • Apr 20, 2007
  • #6
as long as the balance factor matched the crank and flywheel/flexplate, go for it.
 

HistoricMustang

Active Member
Apr 11, 2003
2,359
0
46
Confederate States of America
Apr 20, 2007
#7
  • Apr 20, 2007
  • #7
rbohm said:
as long as the balance factor matched the crank and flywheel/flexplate, go for it.
Click to expand...

Yes, be sure to do your research on this!

HistoricMustang
 

coolblue65

Founding Member
Jul 26, 1999
1,224
2
39
Algonquin, IL
Apr 20, 2007
#8
  • Apr 20, 2007
  • #8
It will be a 28oz set-up... the rotating assembly is 28oz, the Fidanza flywheel comes with both 28 & 50oz weights, so I am covered there.
 

mstngjoe

Founding Member
Jul 26, 2002
428
0
0
Oregon
Apr 21, 2007
#9
  • Apr 21, 2007
  • #9
With the $$$ you're putting into that mill, don't scrimp on the balancer.

Romac.
 

Attachments

  • Romac1.webp
    50.6 KB · Views: 183

HookandLadder

Founding Member
Feb 17, 2001
261
0
17
St Louis
Apr 22, 2007
#10
  • Apr 22, 2007
  • #10
http://www.bhjinc.com/
 
B

badmustang

New Member
Mar 30, 2007
33
0
0
Apr 26, 2007
#11
  • Apr 26, 2007
  • #11
Stanger007 said:
I have the Professional Products SFI balancer - works great, has held up well at the track and has VERY clear markings. Be sure to get the spacer if necessary for your application.

I'm not sure how the stock balancers are for the classic mustangs, but guys over in the 94-95 forum that replace a busted stocker with another stocker end up having that one go out as well, they also frequent the track.

Wes
Click to expand...

hi the professional product damper "sfi" is that lighter than the stock damper..
 

coolblue65

Founding Member
Jul 26, 1999
1,224
2
39
Algonquin, IL
Apr 26, 2007
#12
  • Apr 26, 2007
  • #12
Seeing as how there are companies on ebay selling new Romac balancers for $199+$9 shipping, I think I will go with them. There is no way I would have payed the $300 that I see on most other websites adertising.
 
B

badmustang

New Member
Mar 30, 2007
33
0
0
Apr 27, 2007
#13
  • Apr 27, 2007
  • #13
badmustang said:
hi the professional product damper "sfi" is that lighter than the stock damper..
Click to expand...

found the damper weigt 10.25 for the power force plus damper
but can't find the weight of the oem damper of the 1969 351-w
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Fox No Boost And Stumped
  • TWEECD
  • Aug 12, 2017
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
13K
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 31, 2017
TWEECD
T
summit UDP with SFI
  • cw5billwade
  • Dec 27, 2008
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
7
Views
1K
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Dec 30, 2008
Mustang92
I searched but couldn't find the thread?
  • 02nightmaregt
  • Feb 5, 2009
  • 1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
11
Views
681
1996 - 2004 SN95 Mustang -General/Talk- Feb 16, 2009
BlownStangGT
S
Cable Clutch
  • sj9ers
  • May 11, 2009
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Replies
12
Views
3K
Classic Mustang Specific Tech May 20, 2009
golf4283
Would this mid pipe fit?
  • 9646gt
  • Apr 21, 2009
  • SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech
Replies
2
Views
888
SN95 4.6L Mustang Tech Apr 21, 2009
9646gt
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?