Quote:
|
Originally Posted by xbgs351
I have spoken to two Melbourne based machine shops that have stated a Scat 9000 crank, Scat I beam Windsor rod and Probe pistons will most likely require heavy metal to balance. The balancing is almost as expensive as the kit.
Can anybody confirm or deny this? I was also left with the impression that the same problem would occur with 6' chev H beam rods and SRP Pistons.
Here is somebody else who has found this problem, although the manufacturer is not named:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/threa...eid=1086229684
The Eagle kits from High Performance world are meant to balance up well, but cost an additional $1300 for a 3.75" stroke cf 3.85 for the SCAT. 4" stroke is $810 dearer, but crank is ground 10/10. The Eagle kits require some clearancing.
www.highperformanceworld.com.au
|
I've never had any problems balancing my SCAT cranks. Ring up SCAT and talk to them first and foremost. You may also save money buying direct from them. They charge a minimalist fee for balancing it when you buy directly from them. Of course, it is much easier here in the USA, because of shipping costs/delays. I'd give Brian a call and ask him what can SCAT do for me.
You may also want to consider moving away from a Windsor rod and just use a Chevy 6" rod. The difference may just be in the larger big-end of the Windsor rod. A 5.956 length isn't going to be different in any critical way over a 6" rod, and the smaller 2.100" (vs 2.311" C and W sized) journal is likely to require less offset weight in the counterweights, while giving slightly more clearance, too.
I'm starting to think that you're getting a too outrageous balancing price from the people you talked to in Melbourne. Here, mallory is $55/slug. If you figure $400 for labor, which is a lot, you've got about 8-10 slugs of mallory left over in the cost...or thereabouts...maybe more! That is a lot of heavy metal. Either something isn't right, or someone is dressing you up for dinner and taking you out on the town on your charge card.
I'd ask SCAT what the intended bob weight is for the 9000 series crank you're looking at buying and try to get a handle on what it will take to balance it without simply throwing it over the fence to some balancer to price.
A set of I beams and flat tops aren't exactly a "new idea" for rotating assemblies in this stroke range. Usually you have to add weight when you:
Internally (neutral) balance
Have very high bob weight and want to bring to neutral or externally balanced.
Nobody builds (or at least nobody should build!) a stroker crank and expect you to not to run rods long enough to use the stroke with "conventional" piston designs, that are not likely to fluctuate more than maybe 100g between various designs per slug.
I don't think that the thead in the link you posted really applies here. I thought that you were doing a 393, are you doing a 408? I thought that you were talking about using the: 9-351-3850-5955-2311C part from SCAT. I would personally call SCAT and talk to them about it. Maybe they designed it to be used with a 50oz setup, which would represent the "late model" stuff.
I don't "believe" that internal balancing is that much better, if any better. The history behind internal balancing is much more like having no way to run a cast iron dampener on the end of a 9000 RPM crank without having a ballistic weapon ready to go off. Then, with "ultra" blown nitro combinations, "harmonic dampeners" just don't due to the severity of the environment.
One has to have something connected to the crank to use the power, who cares if it is a 28oz or 50oz balancing weight? Maybe guys who want to reduce the external weight as much as possible? You gotta have whatever weight is necessary to balance it somewhere, the question is really does it matter very much where? I generally like the idea of having weight on both sides of all of the main journals. Some like the idea of keeping all of the weight inside the main journals. The discussion tends to focus on flexing the crank. For really high speed applications, I just tend to go with the "proven" internally balanced choice, but I'm not so sure that an externally balanced engine wouldn't work just as well and live just as long if not perhaps in some way even better. With today's excellent, low cost SFI-rated dampeners, I don't think that external balancing is a bad choice for even a very "serious" race engine. I don't think that any of us here are in the "throw it away after 5 passes" crowd, so what "works" for Pro Stockers really doesn't matter very much for us, IMO.
:davis: