• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

Rotating Assembly balance???

  • Thread starter Thread starter 88-378
  • Start date Start date May 20, 2009

88-378

Member
Aug 10, 2007
14
2
16
Alpharetta, GA
May 20, 2009
#1
  • May 20, 2009
  • #1
Just got my block and rotating assembly back and balanced. Machinist said he almost has it to a zero balance ( or closest he could get with a Ford) He took weight off of the crank, flywheel, pressure plate and the balancer! does this seem right?

It was a scat crank and he said it was out.????
 

88-378

Member
Aug 10, 2007
14
2
16
Alpharetta, GA
May 21, 2009
#2
  • May 21, 2009
  • #2
Anyone???
 
Reactions: jrp27540

stykthyn

I want to measure mine. It doesn't look that tall.
15 Year Member
Jul 6, 2006
5,232
2,652
223
gainesville
May 21, 2009
#3
  • May 21, 2009
  • #3
every set up will be different, I personally believe that a balanced rotating assembly should be at the core of every build.
 
3

347HO

Member
Jan 13, 2008
462
2
16
Seattle
May 21, 2009
#4
  • May 21, 2009
  • #4
What was your bob weight before balancing?
What is the combined weight of your rods, pistons, bearings, pins, keepers and rings?
What crankshaft?

My first thought is that your rotating assy is lighter than your "bob", very common IMO.

I'm interested to know what damper and flywheel you have that needed weight removed?
Depending how much... I would have opted to return them for defect as they should be extremely close to zero balance out of the box. Now it's too late, and if they break... no warranty.
 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
May 21, 2009
#5
  • May 21, 2009
  • #5
347HO said:
What was your bob weight before balancing?
What is the combined weight of your rods, pistons, bearings, pins, keepers and rings?
What crankshaft?

My first thought is that your rotating assy is lighter than your "bob", very common IMO.

I'm interested to know what damper and flywheel you have that needed weight removed?
Depending how much... I would have opted to return them for defect as they should be extremely close to zero balance out of the box. Now it's too late, and if they break... no warranty.
Click to expand...

I agree...

just want to add these questions/comments. Was this a cast crank or a forged crank? A cast series 900 crank is made to go 28oz external balance, and most of the 4340 require Mallory to go internal but it all depends on your bob weight.
 

88-378

Member
Aug 10, 2007
14
2
16
Alpharetta, GA
May 21, 2009
#6
  • May 21, 2009
  • #6
It is a cast 9000 series Scat crank. I saw where he drilled holes into the balancer, flywheel weight and pressure plate and the grind markes on the crank.


Don dixon Hi perfomance machine did it. He does a lot of work around here in GA including my friend who owns a performance european car repair business.

i also checked with my wifes stepfather who races comp eliminator and his buddy Bobby lagana who also races.. they said the cosest you can get to a zero balance the lighter the mass and thus it revs quicker and less strain???

i just never seen this before, but it is the first engine i am assembling.

also, i have no idea of the the specs before i dropped it off..nor did i get anything from him except clearance measurements for main and rods.
 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
May 21, 2009
#7
  • May 21, 2009
  • #7
Do you know what piston and rod it has? Can you get a copy of a balance sheet?

I just did a 333 (.040) over piston and the bob weight was a little over 1600, SCAT I-beam rod, Probe SRS piston and the SCAT 9000 crank.

Personally it was a bad decision to take that rotating assembly of yours to "0" by drilling and griding on every component you had...IMO

What was the weight of the balancer and flywheel you supplied him? Now if you ever have any issues those components will need to be matched. I typically do not balance assemblies with the clutch and pp on, I know some prefer to do that.
 

88-378

Member
Aug 10, 2007
14
2
16
Alpharetta, GA
May 21, 2009
#8
  • May 21, 2009
  • #8
it was the scat I beam and probe SRS flat tops.

I guess If i ever need a new component, I should weigh them before assembly so i can match it up.
 
3

347HO

Member
Jan 13, 2008
462
2
16
Seattle
May 21, 2009
#9
  • May 21, 2009
  • #9
You should receive a computer generated result of before and after weighting.
If the machinist uses old school equipment, the results should be given to you hand written on some sort of excel type document.

The crank should not be ground down. The throws and counters should be drilled, drilled and filled.

28oz balancing averages about 200.00 to do
0 balancing can range from 350.00 to 1000.00 depending on mallory and time spent making holes and filling.

I've only seen two handful of 0 balanced assemblies and I can't remember one that didn't have mallory installed and zero had the crank ground on. On the rods... yes.
The only reason I can think of grinding on a crank would be to lop the throws for knife edging on a lathe.
 

Rick 91GT

Mustang Master
Nov 29, 1999
9,692
95
99
PA
May 22, 2009
#10
  • May 22, 2009
  • #10
Do you have any pics of the internals??
 

88-378

Member
Aug 10, 2007
14
2
16
Alpharetta, GA
Jun 5, 2009
#11
  • Jun 5, 2009
  • #11
347HO said:
You should receive a computer generated result of before and after weighting.
If the machinist uses old school equipment, the results should be given to you hand written on some sort of excel type document.

The crank should not be ground down. The throws and counters should be drilled, drilled and filled.

28oz balancing averages about 200.00 to do
0 balancing can range from 350.00 to 1000.00 depending on mallory and time spent making holes and filling.

I've only seen two handful of 0 balanced assemblies and I can't remember one that didn't have mallory installed and zero had the crank ground on. On the rods... yes.
The only reason I can think of grinding on a crank would be to lop the throws for knife edging on a lathe.
Click to expand...

Yep, that's what he did. He did drill some holes in it too, to balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Engine Help 331 stroker
  • pdmount
  • Feb 19, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
8
Views
395
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 21, 2026
pdmount
P
My next project , a 428 build!
  • horse sence
  • Jul 29, 2026
  • Classic Mustang Specific Tech
  • 9 10 11
Replies
213
Views
5K
Classic Mustang Specific Tech Wednesday at 6:44 PM
DadLife0724
N
Vibration after new clutch
  • nipple_looker
  • Sep 20, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
688
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 26, 2026
fasterthangas
F
H
1966 mustang starter and pulley troubles
  • Hotrods4ray
  • Sep 24, 2025
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
6
Views
509
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Jan 10, 2026
Realmongo
Resolved 93 Mustang 5.0 - Cranks but does not start
  • dan50
  • Jul 18, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
6
Views
463
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Jul 18, 2026
dan50
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang 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?