Need help with HiPo engine balancing dilemma

  • Hi all, I'm new to this forum and have a question that I've posted on VMF but also wanted to see if anyone here might be able to help more specifically related to the HiPo rotating assembly.


    My engine is a 302 Mexican block but has what appears to be 289 hipo components for the rest of the engine (heads, rods/crank, damper, possibly flywheel, possibly cam). The car is new to me and I can't completely verify the specific history of the engine with the car (actually an A-code fastback GT) as I purchased the car from the family of the deceased previous owner. I don't know for certain if this engine was run successfully for a period of time or if he was just in the process of swapping it and making changes. I've run the engine in the car to do some checks and to flush the coolant but have not had it on the road yet.


    That being said, I pulled the front cover and dropped the pan to change the rear main seal and to check the oil pump and timing set and noticed that it does not have the hatchet counterweight and has a double roller timing chain in place of the original narrower timing set.

    My plan was to put it back together with a new timing cover and water pump, install a new damper (either Summit or Ford Racing 28.2oz damper) and a new 28.2oz Centerforce flywheel to go along with new Centerforce dual friction clutch kit. Was talking to my brother (Boss 302 owner/builder) and we were getting a little concerned about possibly disrupting the balance of the assembly by swapping out those parts and the uncertainty regarding if the engine was put together with the hatchet counterweight and then removed at some point for the double roller timing chain. Or, if the parts or assembly may have been balanced before reassembly accounting for the removal of the hatchet counterweight.


    I've learned that the hipo flywheels and damper/counterweights are actually 30.4 oz.in imbalance rather than 28.2 oz.in. Would that mean that even if there wasn't a question about the hatchet counterweight, would it be a bad idea to change out the damper and flywheel combination to 28.2 oz.in? Has anyone run into this dilemma?

    And then how would the counterweight factor in if both the damper and flywheel were equal not including the counterweight?

    I've been trying to go through the 289 High Performance Mustang book by Tony Gregory and Bob Mannel's Small Block book/bible for information but still need help.


    The rods do have the 3/8" bolts along with orange paint, the crank has some remnants of orange paint and has material removed at front and rear counterweights (one 3/4" hole at each). The flywheel has more of a yellow paint daub than orange but appears to have a test mark on the inner bolt circle on the clutch side (or maybe it is a locating mark?) and has a small divot (about 1/2" diameter) removed from the rough casting on the engine side of flywheel. The damper has 3 small 0.300" holes grouped together on the front side of the ring. I'm not sure if any or all of these would have been like this from the factory or if they may have been done later.


    I was ready to button everything back up with the new parts but then hit this snag. Thanks in advance!

  • It's a C3OE large K-code balancer. Was hoping to get it going without having to remove the bottom end but I know it's difficult to know what the balance is now.

    I was wondering if I could at least have the old flywheel and damper checked for amount of imbalance to at least see if anything was done to either of those or how far off they might be.


    I've read that the original K-code balancers were around 25 oz.in imbalance and the hatchet counterweight was around 5 oz.in to total up to 30.4 oz.in. And I've read that the reproduction hipo dampers are actually 28.2 oz.in. I wonder if the reproduction counterweights are still 5ish oz.in?


    It seems the smaller timing set is hard to come by?

  • I know that you will not want to hear this but Chucks302 is making the right suggestion regarding balancing. As you have already stated you have no knowledge of what has been done in the engines past life. I would go under the assumption that balancing the assembly is mandatory at this point with all of the mismatched pieces. You will never regret having done the balancing if for just the peace of mind that you did this right. Being as you plan to use an aftermarket balancer there is no need to use the hatchet as that just complicates things for you. If you plan on beating on the engine, I would go for a good billet flywheel. Take it from me, you will NEVER want to be in a car when it blows a flywheel. I luckily survived as a passenger in my friends car when he blew a flywheel. A very scary story that I have related many times.


    -Fred-

    65 Koupe early San Jose Phoenician Yellow 4 speed
    66 GT Koupe Dearborn Blue 4 speed
    66 KGT San Jose fastback pony interior Silver Frost 4 speed
    64 Falcon sedan delivery 289 4 speed
    65 Ranchero 289 4 speed
    66 Corvette roadster 427/425 4 speed

  • Thanks Fred. Right off the bat my brother told me to get a steel flywheel so I have a Centerforce billet flywheel and dual friction clutch kit that is/was ready to go on the car.


    But, I guess that's one of things that makes this confusing- if the stock hipo imbalance was 30.4 oz.in but really the only available direct replacement flywheels or dampers are 28.2 oz.in what have guys been doing all these years? If they have a stock hipo engine and replace the flywheel with what they think is the appropriate 28.2 oz.in imbalance have they been fine with 28.2 on the back of the engine and 30.4 on the front? Or have they had to recalculate and ditch the 25oz hipo damper and 5oz counterweight so they have 28.2 on the front and 28.2 on the back?


    I guess what would you advise someone to do if they knew they had a stock 289 hipo engine and just wanted or needed to replace the flywheel but 28.2 oz.in is all that is available?

  • Thanks Fred. Right off the bat my brother told me to get a steel flywheel so I have a Centerforce billet flywheel and dual friction clutch kit that is/was ready to go on the car.


    But, I guess that's one of things that makes this confusing- if the stock hipo imbalance was 30.4 oz.in but really the only available direct replacement flywheels or dampers are 28.2 oz.in what have guys been doing all these years? If they have a stock hipo engine and replace the flywheel with what they think is the appropriate 28.2 oz.in imbalance have they been fine with 28.2 on the back of the engine and 30.4 on the front? Or have they had to recalculate and ditch the 25oz hipo damper and 5oz counterweight so they have 28.2 on the front and 28.2 on the back?


    I guess what would you advise someone to do if they knew they had a stock 289 hipo engine and just wanted or needed to replace the flywheel but 28.2 oz.in is all that is available?

    When I have an engine that I know is already in balance, the correct procedure is to just get whatever flywheel that you want and have it match balanced to your existing flywheel. I have done this numerous times and not just on Hipo 289 engines. I have, in some cases, even done this on Ferrari engines. This will not really work in your case as you do not have any knowledge of whether the engine has been properly balanced. Therefore you should just step up and balance your entire assembly.


    -Fred-

    65 Koupe early San Jose Phoenician Yellow 4 speed
    66 GT Koupe Dearborn Blue 4 speed
    66 KGT San Jose fastback pony interior Silver Frost 4 speed
    64 Falcon sedan delivery 289 4 speed
    65 Ranchero 289 4 speed
    66 Corvette roadster 427/425 4 speed

  • Ok, thanks. Well, I'm trying to do this to a "running" car and I'm not able to pull the engine at this point in time. I'm not opposed to having the assembly balanced but if I was having that done I figure I would probably just go ahead and rebuild it. Was hoping to get the car on the road and then make the complete engine rebuild phase 2 or 2b in a year or two.


    It kind of seems that it's not very common knowledge about the hipo needing a 30.4oz flywheel, so I was curious as to how many people might be just installing a 28.2oz flywheel without realizing it's different.


    I was thinking about taking the old flywheel and the balancer to have the balance checked on those so I have more information as to what's there or maybe what has been done. It doesn't appear that there has been much metal removed which makes me think there may not have been additional balancing since these parts left the factory, but maybe you could shed some light on what you've seen in stock components in your experience?

    The crank has 2 holes where material was removed- 3/4" diameter hole about 0.700" deep in the front counterweight (it's actually drilled a little off-center, a little out of the counterweight) and a 3/4" diameter hole in the rear counterweight about 0.600" deep.

    The flywheel just has a 1/2" diameter divot removed on the engine side about 90degrees from the flywheel counterweight.

    The damper has three small holes grouped together (about 0.300" diameter and about 0.400" deep) on the front side of the inertia ring but the same area as the damper counterweight.


    From your experience, do those sound like evidence of factory balancing?

  • chucks that sounds like factory balance holes in the balancer & crank. balancers are sometimes prone to slipping due to the rubber getting old which would also cause imbalance, take the car out for a cruise see how it feels under a light load you never know it might not be that bad.

  • Your harmonic balancer, if it was balanced after the counterweight removal, will not matter in this. If it was not balanced at that time, which you do not know, there is no point in messing with it.


    After over 50 years of this engines' existence, there is really no way of telling whether the balance is correct or not. Not all of your pieces are from the same engine which does not help either. If you really do not want to rebuild the engine, which I understand and respect, the best thing for you to do currently is match balance your new flywheel to your existing one and call it a day. You can deal with the balancing at a later date if the balancing is too far off. Keep in mind that although the balance offset is different between a Hipo and standard flywheel, the basic casting is the same and carries the identical engineering number, but balanced differently. They are a different part number in the Ford parts book but not just for the balance reason.


    There are plenty of these engines running around with mismatched components and unless they have a really bad vibration, nobody cares, until the engine expires. : )


    -Fred-

    65 Koupe early San Jose Phoenician Yellow 4 speed
    66 GT Koupe Dearborn Blue 4 speed
    66 KGT San Jose fastback pony interior Silver Frost 4 speed
    64 Falcon sedan delivery 289 4 speed
    65 Ranchero 289 4 speed
    66 Corvette roadster 427/425 4 speed

  • Thanks again guys.

    In a perfect scenario I'd pull the engine clean up and detail the engine bay and surrounding areas, rebuild the engine or pull the assembly to have it balanced and replace gaskets clean up and paint, then put it all back together.

    But, I know the perfect scenario is not always an option, and which I have to wait on. I was just trying to replace a couple safety items (damper and flyweel) to get the car running and driving for the short term (maybe 1-2 years) and then see what I can do after that.


    I'm trying to see how quickly I can take the old and new dampers and flywheels to get balanced to see where they're at and then go from there.


    I appreciate the help!

    Greg

  • Just out of curiosity, why do you feel the need to replace the harmonic balancer? Is the hub broken or cracked, yes, it does happen?


    -Fred-

    65 Koupe early San Jose Phoenician Yellow 4 speed
    66 GT Koupe Dearborn Blue 4 speed
    66 KGT San Jose fastback pony interior Silver Frost 4 speed
    64 Falcon sedan delivery 289 4 speed
    65 Ranchero 289 4 speed
    66 Corvette roadster 427/425 4 speed

  • The rubber is cracked

    Keep in mind that even NOS ones have cracks in the rubber. Cracks in the rubber do not necessarily condemn these balancers. These balancers are only an issue if the inner part has slipped on the outer part or have a crack in the mounting hub where the seal rides.


    -Fred-

    65 Koupe early San Jose Phoenician Yellow 4 speed
    66 GT Koupe Dearborn Blue 4 speed
    66 KGT San Jose fastback pony interior Silver Frost 4 speed
    64 Falcon sedan delivery 289 4 speed
    65 Ranchero 289 4 speed
    66 Corvette roadster 427/425 4 speed

  • Looks fairly normal to me as I have fourteen of these on my shelf and the Hipo ones have more rubber than a standard balancer. If you are really concerned about the rubber, there are two places that I know of who rebuild these and I believe for less money than you will pay for your new one. People pay a lot to buy originals and you already have one so you are way ahead.


    -Fred-

    65 Koupe early San Jose Phoenician Yellow 4 speed
    66 GT Koupe Dearborn Blue 4 speed
    66 KGT San Jose fastback pony interior Silver Frost 4 speed
    64 Falcon sedan delivery 289 4 speed
    65 Ranchero 289 4 speed
    66 Corvette roadster 427/425 4 speed

  • Here is an article I came across recently regarding SBF balance,

    Small Block V8 Balancing

    There Is More Than Meets the Eye

    In the November-December 2007 Fairlaner magazine, I men- tioned that the 289 HiPo damper and extra counterweight could replace the standard 289 damper. This was based on information from Ford’s 1969 Muscle Parts catalog. However, I have subse- quently found out new information on counterweighting for the Ford small block V8 in extensive conversations with Des Ham- mill. Des is compiling a history of the Ford small block V8 which he hopes to publish this year.

    Essentially, anytime there was a change in the rotating or reciprocating mass on the Ford small block V8, the external counterweighting was changed because the crankshaft was not. The 221 V8 had the least reciprocating weight due to the small pistons. The heavier pistons of the 260 required increased exter- nal counterweight. In 1964 production, the 260 switched to the 289 connecting rods, which increased both reciprocating and rotating mass, thus the need for more external imbalance. The 289 required even more because of its heavier pistons. And, the 289 HiPo had the most counterweighting because of the heavier connecting rod bolts, nuts, and caps.

    The differences were not too great and can easily be accom- modated by a good engine machinist during rebuild. However, Ford sold parts as direct replacements, so it used unique part numbers for each application.

    So, if you are changing dampers or flywheels/flex-plates on the 221, 260, 289, or 289 HiPo, you have to be careful not to upset the factory counterweighting by swapping components between the following groups of engines: 1962-63 221, 1962-63 260, 1964 260, 1963-68 289, and 1963-67 289 HiPo.

    For dampers, identification of the various components is straightforward. The 221 V8 is easiest. It did not use a harmonic damper, but instead used a pulley adaptor. All the 221 V8s used the same counterbalanced adaptor.

    The 260 V8 used two different dampers. One was used for 1962-63 production and will carry one of three casting num- bers — C2OE-6316-A, C2OE-A, or C2OE-6316-B. Each of these dampers can be interchanged. The second damper carried the number C4OE-A1. It was used in 1964 production and has dif- ferent counterweighting than the others.

    1962-63 221 & 1962-63 260

    1963-68 289 & 1964 260

    The 260 V8 was the only Ford small block to use two different connecting rods. In 1962-63 it used the 221 rod, but switched to the 289’s in 1964.

    The standard 289 dampers (all but the 289 HiPo) can all in- terchange. The casting numbers were C3AE-F, C4AE-C, C4AE- 6316-B, C5AE-A1, C5AE-6316-A2, and C8ZE-B1.

    Likewise, the 289 HiPo dampers can interchange with each other. There were only two production dampers—C3OE-B and

    by Bob Mannel

    C5OE-A. The service replacement damper was C8ZE-A, but it had a different appearance. The 289 HiPo damper contained only part of the counterweighting. The rest was in the extra counter- weight mounted in front of the number one main bearing.

    Interestingly, the 289 HiPo damper by itself was counter- weighted exactly like the 1962-63 260 V8. In other words, you could substitute a 289 HiPo damper (without the extra counter- weight) in place of the 1962-63 260 damper and maintain proper engine balance.

    As mentioned, all these engines used the same crankshaft, except for the 289 HiPo, which used a crankshaft formed in the same mold, but made with a higher nodular cast iron. All these crankshafts were statically in balance — meaning they had no heavy side. But the counterweights at each journal pair (cylinders 1-5, 2-6, 3-7, and 4-8) did not balance with the connecting rods, bearings, and piston assemblies at those journals. Additional counterweighting was required externally and was done through imbalance at the damper and flywheel/flex-plate.

    The subject of how much counterweighting a particular engine needed was a very complex problem. Determining how much of a connecting rod was rotating mass and how much was re- ciprocating was just part of the complexity. There were dynamic factors to consider as well. These factors included the effects of pressure (or lack of it) on the pistons, friction of the piston rings, and more. However Ford did it, it did so by imbalance at the damper and flywheel/flex-plate.

    Most machine shops today balance crankshafts by using bob- weights at each crankshaft journal equal in weight to 100% of the rotating weight and 50% of the reciprocating weight. There is no perfect solution as the problem is too complex. But, over the years, this formula has proven to minimize engine vibration in most cases.

    Dividing weight between rotating and reciprocating is not particularly accurate either. The piston, rings, and piston pin are pure reciprocating. The connecting rod bearings and little bit of oil in the crankshaft journey passage are pure rotating. But, the connecting rod is both rotating (big end) and reciprocating (small end).

    Generally, the connecting rod weight is split by weighing the rod with its axis horizontal while suspending each end at the centerlines of small and large holes. The weight recorded at the large end is considered rotating weight, while the other end’s is reciprocating weight. It is not a perfect method, but works well with the formula for most stock engines.

    So, the weight to be added at each of the four connecting rod journeys as bobweights for balancing included the weight of the rod bearings for both associated cylinders, rotating weight of both connecting rods, and oil weight in the crankshaft journey passage. This is 100% of the rotating weight. Plus, one piston with piston pin, one set of rings, and one connecting rod’s re- ciprocating weight. This is 50% of the reciprocating weight. (You could add both pistons with pins, both ring sets, and both rod’s reciprocating weight, then take 50% of that to arrive at the same reciprocating weight.)

    Since the counterweights on the crankshaft were the same for all our engine applications, but the weights associated with pistons and connecting rods varied between the five groups of

      

    12 January-February 2008 j

    engines (1962-63 221, 1962-63 260, 1964 260, 1963-68 289, or 1963- 67 289 HiPo), Ford changed the counterweighting of the damper and flywheel/flex-plate to compensate.

    To keep the crankshaft in static balance, when counterweight was added to the flywheel/flex-plate, an equal amount of coun- terweight was added to the damper on the opposite side of the crankshaft (weights were 180 degrees apart). So, although we often hear about a flywheel being a “28.2 ounce,” we are really talking about a flywheel with a 28.2 ounce-inches (oz. in.) imbal- ance on one side, which was countered by a damper with 28.2 oz. in. imbalance on the opposite side of the crankshaft. This kept the crankshaft in static balance while compensating with the need for increased or decreased counterweighting.

    So, when dealing with the small blocks using the same crank- shaft, we have to keep the damper and flywheel/flex-plate together as a set within the appropriate engine group. The table above shows the sets of components that are compatible and how to identify them.

    The 302 V8 has not been mentioned until now. It used a dif-

    ferent crankshaft, so its counterweighting was not the same as the 221-260-289 series. However, Ford designed the crankshaft so that the external counterweighting would match that of the 289 (28.2 oz. in.). This meant that Ford could use the same fly- wheel/flex-plate on both the 289 and 302. Ford did not use the same damper on the 302 as on the 289 because the 302 needed increased dampening weight to better control vibrations of the larger displacement engine. But, it does mean that you can use a 302 damper on a 289 without changing engine balance while gaining the advantage of the 302’s better dampening.

    In conclusion, the division in 302s between 28 or 50 ounce fly- wheels has led many people to believe that all Ford small block V8s before the 302 used 28 ounce flywheels. But, now you know that is not true. Only the standard 289 used the same 28.2 oz. in. flywheel as the 302. When dealing with the early engines, the external coun- terweighting was different between engine groups and involved both the damper and flywheel/flex-plate. This is important when swapping parts. However, they are close enough to each other that a machinist can balance an engine using any of them. f

    j January-February 2008 13

  • Application oz. in. imbalance

    1962-63 221 23.1 damper

    23.1

    flywheel/flex-plate

    Damper Markings

    NA

    Flywheel Markings

    C2OE-6080-E casting circle A, B or E stamping

    Flex-plate Markings

    C2OE-6375-C


    1962-63 260

    24.5 damper

    24.5

    flywheel/flex-plate

    C2OE-6316-A (62) C2OE-A (62) C2OE-6316-B (62-63)

    C2OE-6380-E casting circle G stamping C6ZE-6375-A casting

    C7OE-D stamping (replacement)

    C2OE-6375-H C3OE-6375-A

    1964 260

    26.2 damper

    26.2

    flywheel/flex-plate

    C4OE-A1 (64)

    C3OE-6380-B casting circle A stamping

    C6ZE-6380-A casting

    C7OE-E stamping (replacement)

    C4OE-6375-B

    1963-68 289

    28.2 damper

    28.2

    flywheel/flex-plate

    C3AE-F (63)

    C4AE-C (64) C4AE-6316-D (64) C5AE-A1 (65-67) C5AE-6316-A2 (65-67) C8ZE-B1 (68)

    C3OE-6080-B casting no marking

    C6ZE-6380 casting

    circle B or C6ZE-B stamping C7ZE-B stamping

    C5AE-6380-E casting C5AE-6375-F stamping C6OE-6375-B stamping C7AE-A stamping

    C3AE-6375-A C3AE-6375-B C4AE-6375-B C7OP-A C7OP-B C7OP-C

    1963-67 289 HiPo

    24.5 damper

    5.9 counterweight

    30.4 total - front

    30.4

    flywheel/flex-plate

    C3OE-B

    C5OE-A

    C8ZE-B1 (replacement)

    C3OE-6080-B casting orange paint, circle C

    C6ZE-6380-A casting

    circle A or C6ZE-A stamping C7ZE-A stamping

    C5AE-6380-E casting C5OE-6375-A stamping C7OE-A stamping (replacement)

    C4OE-6375-C or none or other painted markings such as Special or HP

    C7ZP-A

    General Notes:

    1. Some flywheel and flex-plate markings might not include the 6375 base number.
    2. The C3OE-6380-B castings used 160-tooth ring gears.
    3. C6ZE-6380-A flywheel castings used 160-tooth ring gears for C6ZE stampings, and 157-tooth ring gears for C7ZE stampings.
    4. C5AE-6380-E flywheels used 168-tooth ring gears for C5AE, C5OE, and C6OE stampings, and 164-tooth for C7AE and C7OE stampings.
    5. C2OE, C3AE, C3OE, C4AE, and C4OE flex-plates used 160-tooth ring gears. C7OP and C7ZP flex-plates used 157-tooth ring gears.
    6. There were flex-plates with 168-tooth ring gears, but only for the 1965-67 Galaxie (possibly marked C5AE-6375-C).
    7. Only the 1965 Fairlane used the C5OE-6375-A flywheel. It was later serviced by C7OE-A.
    8. The C5AE-6380-E flywheel was used with the C5AA-6394-B bellhousing with associated engine plate and starter motor.
    9. The C2OE-6080-E, C3OE-6380-B, and C6ZE-6380-A flywheels were used with C2OA-6394-A (1962), C3AA-6394-C (1963-64),

      and C5DA-6394-A (1965-68) bellhousings with associated engine plates and starter motor.

    10. Pressure plate attaching holes on 113/8" diameter bolt circle (flywheel). Converter attaching holes on 101/2" diameter circle (flex-plate).
  • Regarding your intention on getting a Centerforce Dual friction. Clutch,


    I’ve put that clutch in a few ‘66 GT350’s that also had a vintage Paxton supercharger installed. With the nearly 400 horsepower via the Paxton I thought the dual friction was needed. However I never liked the heavy pedal, and on nothing more than a whim I experimentally removed it on one car while I had the transmission out anyway, so no real extra work, and installed the Centerforce One. WOW, what a pleasant eye opener. The pedal was very easy to operate, and thanks to the basic Centerforce design, in which the higher the rpm, the more holding power the clutch has. It held perfectly, and that’s in a car that saw daily excursions to 6,000 rpm and numerous high speed endurance runs lasting over an hour at continuous top speed.


    Unless you are planning major engine modifications that will Increase the power well over 400 horsepower, then save your money and install the more reasonably priced Centerforce One. You’ll save well over $200 vs. the dual friction model, and have a car that’s much more Fun to drive.


    Z

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!