|
|
Re: Balance Shaft Elimination: Last Minute Tips?
[Re: fasteddy]
#1059077
04/22/13 08:51 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 715
Rock Warrior
|
One more time. The BS's counter a second order shaking force which is caused by the piston pin offset in ALL I4 engines. In a large I4 like the 2.6 the problem is severe. The offset pin causes the pistons to move at different speeds on the up and down stroke, causing the engine to rock back and forth. Balancing the engine will do nothing to eliminate this force. I broke a handfull of ps pump brackets, and the alloy a/c bracket broke into a dozen pieces, and the alt bracket broke several times. I also broke about 4 motor mounts. You could not see if the car following you was a cop or a semi at cruise because all the rv mirrors vibrated so much it was all a blur.
The power drain is negligible. I would never build a 2.6 without the shafts. Porsche thought so much of the bs tech that they licensed the use from mitsu for the 924/944. I've removed the BS' on 2 Porsches, both of which saw high RPM track use and abuse. There were no ill effects. Probably minimal gains, but hard to say since several things were done at a time. Though, some of it must have worked, seeing as how one of them was an 8V N/A that would keep up with a Turbo in a straight line. lol. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" /> All in all, 6 lbs is a substantial amount of rotating mass to some. For a daily driver, not so much. But for a track car, that's substantial, and people pay good money to remove that from other parts of the reciprocating assembly.
Last edited by socalmonty; 04/22/13 08:53 PM.
Sean - Orange County, CA MAIL: seanwilliams78@gmail.com1995 Montero SR - For exploring and getting away! 1994 Volvo 850 Turbo - 402hp and counting! 1966 VW Bug 2275cc - For stoplight drags!
|
|
Re: Balance Shaft Leave-Aloneness: now won't start!
[Re: ryany]
#1059078
04/22/13 08:54 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 593
OP
Rock Warrior
|
Haha. All this effort and headache for nothing. 6lbs. Still, 6lbs spinning out of phase would likely be unpleasant. Wish I'd known the balance shafts couldn't have been the problem. Impossible to time the engine with them out of phase, imo. After all this, I'm going to get it back together and have the same vibration issues. Oh well. At least it ran - cool, and leak free.
Traced the leads from positive terminal to 100A linkm up to the headlight, across the core support, to the alternator. No issues. Typical, plastic loom failure, but all wires intact, non-pinched, and away from harm.
Crawled under dash to check the starter button.
(Remember, PO bought from some kid who had a crappy alarm installed. It never worked. John had a starter button install for when the key didn't bump the starter. After I removed the alarm completely, the key no longer bumped the starter. I've been using this button.)
Connections were loose and poorly crimped. Pulled the switch, re-did connections, connected meter. 5ohm open, 0.05ohm closed. This truck is eroding my confidence by the hour, but I'm pretty sure open switch should be OL.
A CLUE? Even though the truck is NOT in gear, suppose someone sat in the cab, turned the key to START and held it there while someone else connected the battery. That kind of instantaneous load pop a 100A link?
Every time I do anything on this truck, something which wasn't originally the problem fails at random. Fuel pump died while the truck was down for overhaul earlier this year, now starter/electrical issues after I basically re-timed the truck and did an oil pan gasket. Ugh.
Thoughts?
Brian DR1665 | GBXM | Gearheads United. 89 Raider SWB [rock] | 91 Galant VR4 [roller]
|
|
Re: Balance Shaft Leave-Aloneness: now won't start!
[Re: DR1665]
#1059079
04/22/13 10:32 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 593
OP
Rock Warrior
|
UPDATE: TRUCK RUNS. Ran to Autozone, bought replacement starter switch, 3 x 100A fusible links (just in case). Came home, pulled button, connected the meter one more time. This time, it worked perfectly. Ugh. Bent the blades in the link holder together, connected the battery, and bypassed the switch. Starter turned over. Replaced the starter switch, hopped in the seat, truck rumbled to life. Ugh. Now it looks like I just need to figure out how to get the old blades out of the link holder by the battery. The other links in there slide over blades on the holder, but the 100A unit has it's own blades which look like they get pushed into a slot. A bit apprehensive about this, but it is what it is. EDIT: Never actually had to replace a bolt-in fusible link before. I've easily got 300,000 miles on cars I've played with. Fortunately, Google Images turned up a picture from a thread over here. http://www.4x4wire.com/forums/showflat.p...rt=all&vc=1Crazy. Truck runs. Feels a bit stronger, though I bet my previously marked dizzy timing line isn't right anymore. Gonna put a light on it and see what develops. All's well that ends well.
Last edited by DR1665; 04/22/13 10:59 PM.
Brian DR1665 | GBXM | Gearheads United. 89 Raider SWB [rock] | 91 Galant VR4 [roller]
|
|
Re: Balance Shaft Leave-Aloneness: now won't start!
[Re: DR1665]
#1059080
04/23/13 03:06 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 593
OP
Rock Warrior
|
UPDATE: Drove the truck to work today. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/notooth.gif" alt="" />
Stopped by the shop to borrow a timing light. Figured I'd just time it there, since I had a nice, shady parking spot. Popped the hood and noticed now the radiator cap was failing! FFS.
In any case, later last night, once the truck had cooled off, I tossed the bum cap, topped off the coolant, and put the timing light on it. Well, I tried to put the timing light on it. Our light needs replaced. Didn't want to work. Interestingly, I had to crank the dizzy all the way back/up/clockwise to get the truck to sound/drive okay. It's a bit throatier and feels stronger than ever before, but I know this isn't right.
In any case, I drove it today, and that felt pretty good.
Brian DR1665 | GBXM | Gearheads United. 89 Raider SWB [rock] | 91 Galant VR4 [roller]
|
|
Re: Balance Shaft Leave-Aloneness: now won't start!
[Re: DR1665]
#1059081
04/23/13 03:25 PM
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 6,211
Trail Leader
|
You may want to re-stab the distributor by one tooth to get the proper timing and alignment of the adjustment slot.
John B.
'87 Raider 2.6 Turbo Auto, Under Construction '95 Montero SR, 35x12.5/15 BFG M/T KM-2's, Rock sliders, Qtr panel chop, gas tank lift, 2" BL, Aisins, 5.29s '95 Pajero Mini '98 Montero Winter Ed. '04 Cadillac XLR '03 Kawasaki ZRX1200R '60 Ford Falcon 4Dr
|
|
Re: Balance Shaft Leave-Aloneness: now won't start!
[Re: JohnnyBfromPeoria]
#1059082
04/23/13 03:44 PM
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 593
OP
Rock Warrior
|
You may want to re-stab the distributor by one tooth to get the proper timing and alignment of the adjustment slot.
John B. Yeah. That's kinda what I was thinking. Isn't that indicative of timing being off, though? Every other Mitsubishi I've ever timed, those marks are pretty much the law, ya know? Set them, spin the belt a few times, they all have to come back into alignment. That's never happened for me on this truck. It's got be "close enough" if the truck runs (and runs relatively well), but still. I'm going to get some pictures uploaded to my site and share here to make sure I didn't miss something. Thanks for all the help, everyone.
Brian DR1665 | GBXM | Gearheads United. 89 Raider SWB [rock] | 91 Galant VR4 [roller]
|
|
Re: Balance Shaft Elimination: Last Minute Tips?
[Re: socalmonty]
#1059083
04/23/13 03:45 PM
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 403
Mudrunner
|
I've removed the BS' on 2 Porsches, both of which saw high RPM track use and abuse. There were no ill effects. Probably minimal gains, but hard to say since several things were done at a time. Though, some of it must have worked, seeing as how one of them was an 8V N/A that would keep up with a Turbo in a straight line. lol. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />
All in all, 6 lbs is a substantial amount of rotating mass to some. For a daily driver, not so much. But for a track car, that's substantial, and people pay good money to remove that from other parts of the reciprocating assembly.
Should be noted that the BS move at twice the speed of the engine. So that is over 12lb of rotating mass, and that doesnt include the extra chain(i know not as fast but still adds up). So you need to also consider how much wear the bearings get being twice the speed of the engine... kinda scary to think. and yes I have had the bearings go bad and brake the chain... not good since its connected to the oil pump. If it was connected to a separate belt i would be alot less likely to remove them. but its not if you have failer for the bs it will likely ruin your engine.
89 Monturbo (RIP now but the heart is in the 90!) 90 Montero with 2.6 turbo swap! (close to finished) 88 Starion MPI T3/T4 Magna M8 head..... 96 Volvo 850
|
|
Re: Balance Shaft Elimination: Last Minute Tips?
[Re: Lizzord30]
#1059084
04/23/13 09:34 PM
|
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 775
Rock Warrior
|
I've removed the BS' on 2 Porsches, both of which saw high RPM track use and abuse. There were no ill effects. Probably minimal gains, but hard to say since several things were done at a time. Though, some of it must have worked, seeing as how one of them was an 8V N/A that would keep up with a Turbo in a straight line. lol. <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> <img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />
All in all, 6 lbs is a substantial amount of rotating mass to some. For a daily driver, not so much. But for a track car, that's substantial, and people pay good money to remove that from other parts of the reciprocating assembly.
Should be noted that the BS move at twice the speed of the engine. So that is over 12lb of rotating mass, and that doesnt include the extra chain(i know not as fast but still adds up). So you need to also consider how much wear the bearings get being twice the speed of the engine... kinda scary to think. and yes I have had the bearings go bad and brake the chain... not good since its connected to the oil pump. If it was connected to a separate belt i would be alot less likely to remove them. but its not if you have failer for the bs it will likely ruin your engine. I agree<img src="/forums/images/graemlins/kewl.gif" alt="" />
Last edited by 87monty; 04/23/13 09:34 PM.
2003 limited 20 year anniversary 96 SR 87 Montero SWB=Turbo diesel 4BT T19 4sd with 205 transfer case
|
|
|
|