balance shaft

balance shaft

Postby PowerRam348 » Sat Dec 04, 2010 9:48 pm

i'm rebuilding my 89 d50's 2.6 and am wondering what to do about the balance shaft. i've seen alot of mixed reviews about it, but the thing i have seen more of is not to mess with it unless i'm puting it on the track. anyway, i'm stepping up the bore to 92.5mm and using wiseco pistons with pauter 4340 x-beam rods... is there a shorter crank out there?? i was also wondering if i could use a turbo camshaft to achieve better top end on a non-turbo motor? one last thing, should i use a thicker head gasket if i shaved the head a little? if i don't, will it mess with the timing? looking forward to any feedback. :D
User avatar
PowerRam348

 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:21 am
Engine Size: 2.6
What year vehicle do you own?: 1989

Re: balance shaft

Postby pennyman1 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 5:55 pm

Not sure why you are using forged pistons and high end rods for an NA motor. If you plan on using a turbo, supercharger, or nitrous, then yes; but otherwise, it is a waste of good money. Are you aware that the stock rods are forged and will work in all but the most radical motors? This is a truck motor, and mitsu used the identical internals and block in all of their starquests 2.6 turbo motors; they added oil squirters to spray the bottom of the pistons as added insurance. I am building a conquest 2.6 turbo motor with hypereutetic pistons and reconned stock rods. They are good to at least 15psi boost all day and are not much more than stock pistons. Also, check your block and timing chain cover height before putting on the head; a minor difference here can cause a premature head gasket failure due to the head not sitting flat.
Pennyman1
Living the D-50 life since 1980
The best Dodge that Dodge never made
User avatar
pennyman1
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 541
Joined: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:30 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Re: balance shaft

Postby PowerRam348 » Sun Dec 05, 2010 9:59 pm

basically what i'm doing is: balancing everything and i want be able to tow about a 4000 pound trailer better. it did a pretty good job before, but i want a little better. i've got the money to spend, so i'm gonna. she's getting tired, so i'm giving her some really good parts and a balance job. i was thinking of maybe turboing it later on, but for now no. thanks for the input... will probably need alot more.
User avatar
PowerRam348

 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Dec 03, 2010 12:21 am
Engine Size: 2.6
What year vehicle do you own?: 1989

Re: balance shaft

Postby wrngwae » Mon Dec 06, 2010 11:51 am

well if your gonna tear her down and potentially turbo it buy a turbo block for it or put in the oil squirters. just in case you really do.
!!!!Real Trucks Don't Need Spark Plugs!!!!
or Chinese parts!!!!
764  768 
User avatar
wrngwae
Super Mod
Super Mod
 
Posts: 425
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 3:22 am
Location: Laporte Indiana
Engine Size: 2.3
What year vehicle do you own?: 1987

Re: balance shaft

Postby capev86 » Tue Dec 07, 2010 7:13 pm

they are intended to cancel out vibration from having a long stroke crankshaft and it has some effect. Porsche reportedly used this same technology on some of its models. Chrysler borrowed the idea from Mitsubishi when they dropped the 2.6 from the K car lineup in favor of stroking their own 2.2 out to a 2.5. the big Mopar 4-banger had better fuel economy with about the same performance thanks to the efficiency of more stroke and smaller pistons than the 2.6. all n/a and turbo 2.5's (and some of the later turbo 2.2's) had balance shafts except on the Dakota as there was no room to fit that deep oil pan over the cross member. from personal experience i like the balance shafts as a 2.5 with shafts feels somewhat smoother than a 2.2 without them. eliminating the shafts on a 2.2/2.5 will give you an extra dozen horsepower at red line but that equates to only about 3 hp at 3,000rpm where the engine spends a lot more time. the shafts do put drag on the engine (like spinning an extra accessory) and that will slightly hamper it's ability to rev quickly. also on the 2.2/2.5, keeping the deeper pan after ditching the shafts gives you an extra quart's worth of oil capacity but the trade off is you still have less ground clearance than the standard oil pan (so lowering and back road driving demands some consideration). ditching the shafts requires cutting the chain that drives the shafts, pulling the shafts and tapping and plugging the oil feed hole. someone else can chime in on the pros and cons and what's involved on the Mitsubishi equivalent setup.
User avatar
capev86
Member
Member
 
Posts: 31
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 4:52 pm
Engine Size: 2.0
What year vehicle do you own?: 1987

Re: balance shaft

Postby camoit » Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:42 pm

Me I like to have everything ballanced internaly. As for what Max said I don't know if this happens on thies engines. But I don't mind the viberations that is produced. As for what Wrngwae said about the oil squirters I know that an engine will produce more HP with out oil. This is why they dry sump engines. But that will run you around 3000 just for the parts. Thats why I'm not dry sumpping my build. But I would get around 50 HP more. Thats $60 per HP. That will be the next step if I decide to go that way. My truck is going to be hard enough to get the HP to the ground.
Here is my BUILD THREAD.
Live Class 6 off road race truck build. CLICK HERE FOR FEED.

http://www.onsiteconcrete.net
User avatar
camoit
Admin
Admin
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Feb 18, 2010 11:22 pm
Location: Sac, Ca.
Engine Size: 2.6L
What year vehicle do you own?: 1980

Re: balance shaft

Postby 4doorciv » Tue Dec 07, 2010 8:57 pm

I agree that the balance shafts are there for a reason, but on my engine I'm eliminating it. To me, it's just another part that'll break but without the proper balancing it will wear on other parts as stated. My engine of course is the dsm 4g63 turbo motor, not the g63b that originally came in my truck if your wondering.
-Ryan-
1989 mighty max 4g63 turbo. -down-
1995 Eagle talon tsi awd. -daily-
1992 Honda civic b18c1. -sold-
User avatar
4doorciv
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 540
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 1:14 pm
Location: Honolulu, HI
Engine Size: 4g63
What year vehicle do you own?: 1989


Return to Head & Block.


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron