DSMTalk Forums: Mitsubishi Eclipse, Plymouth Laser, and Eagle Talon Forum banner
41 - 60 of 61 Posts
If this were so true, wouldn't we see a ton of failures? We don't, and usually when we do it can be traced back to some other issue, not related to "whip". I don't need some technical jargon to prove it to me, I've seen it work for years and years in the real world.
 
Same here. David pretty much hit it right on the head, Jack's isn't known for their world record holding engine builds.
 
As a newb, I have to point out that the nearly-square 4G61T does not come with balance shafts, stock. All the BS-delete kits for the 63T are based around factory parts...

In any situation with the potential for high RPM rotation, I'd prefer to have as little as possible hitting those RPMs.
 
Hello all! Thought I would spend some time to chime in here...

I made the page on our site for our customers considering an engine build from us. I did not expect it to explode all over the web and with so many comments. It is merely there to allow the customer to make an educated decision as to keep or remove their balance shafts. Our experience has proven to us that it's best to keep them.

Our transmissions are built to handle excessive torsional stress, so this is not about voiding any warranties. As long as you follow our clutch drag info, you will be fine if you choose the right build for your goals.

We are not a company which caters to the 1% which want a car built to run in the single digits. We cater to the average person and many road racers which want to most logical options for their goals. Those of us who want a car that we can drive every day, and then take it to the track for some fun is what we are all about. Due to this we have become very successful and what we do seems to work quite well. We don't break any records because that's not what we do. We just build cars which will work and live a very long service life.

Due to the fact that our customers are just average people, we want them to have an engine which they will love. A smooth engine on the street is a very nice thing to have and many customers appreciate this. I know I personally loved how much better my car felt the first time I reinstalled my balance shafts. Most builders don't care about the comfort factor and will build you the same loud and buzzy engine for the car that is daily driven as they do for their race cars. We don't believe this is appropriate.

You are free to make your own decisions as to what you want to do with your engine. We are not forcing anyone to do anything and are more than happy to build anything you want.

Good luck to all with your 4G63 adventures! :)

Jack
 
Jack it was good of you to make a post.
I understand what you are trying to say but the way your article is worded it makes it seem that you are saying that not having balance shaft will kill your motor and anything around it.

Maybe you could redo the article stating what you said in your last post.

It all comes down to the end user, Removing the balance shafts on stock motor mounts generally mean you end up not being able to tell. It is when you do urethane inserts or solid mounts that you really can tell.

The biggest issue is that people do things to there cars because of either it's just something that they want and they honestly do not need it or they do it because it is what they read that they should run.

Most users do not need solid motor mounts or urethane inserts but it is what someone told them. If the person truly needs them and they track there car then they are more than likely are not concerned about the extra buzz from the mounts plus the balance shaft delete.

I like what you are trying to do honestly but like I said maybe the article should be redone. Some of those things you list as being caused by no balance shafts are things that 10 other things could have caused.

At any rate, The best thing to do is sit back. Re-evaluate and go from there. Not everyone is always right, I have been plenty wrong plenty of times. It has even costed some high HP engine along the way, I recognized the failure and if I see someone trying the route I was taking then I will do my best to intervene and help.

You would be surprised the people that just do not want the help though. All you can do is try though.

I see plenty of people rebuilding triple disc clutches without realizing that the clutch assembly has to be rebalanced. Does that mean imminent failure? Probably not but it comes balanced and if you rebuild it you throw the balance off. Simple stuff like that a lot of people do not know.
 
Thanks, I very much appreciate the advice.

When I wrote the article it was less than 1 day before it was copied and pasted all over the place. It was a quick draft and I didn't have time to run through it yet. Since then I cleaned it up a little bit and fixed a few errors as far as grammar was concerned.

Since it ended up being such a big deal, I will very likely rewrite the whole thing so it makes more sense. I had known about these issues for the past couple of years and have been very reluctant to put any info on the site about it. Due to the amazing number of people with clutch related issues due to this, I thought I'd better put something up.

The coasting/deceleration noises, spline wear, clutch drag and clutch failures associated with this has become an epidemic in the DSM and EVO communities. I didn't want to add to this by building more engines which would increase these issues and try to give customers another option.

Jack
 
Jacks isn't the first to state this as an issue. A lot of drivetrain specialists state that harmonics can negatively affect the drivetrain. Personally, I have had a BS belt fail on me, so I hate the little bastards. I also don't believe that the balance shafts negate any harmonics in the rotating assembly at all.
 
The biggest potential issue I see (aside from the obvious belt breaking) is the clutch drag. But I don't understand how the BS could be the culprit. The lighter flywheel makes since because it reduces inertia on the rotating assembly and is directly bolted to the flywheel, so it will defiantly have an effect on it's harmonics. But if you were to bolt a ATI superdamper or Fluidamper which ever fits your wallet and fancy better to the other end of the crank shaft it is my opinion that since it's superior to the OEM damper, not only would it reduce harmonics on the crank, but everywhere in the rpm band vs the OEM unit which only does this in a specific rpm range. But likely do it so much more effectively than the OEM unit, it would offset the negative effect of the lighter flywheel.

Question: How many DSM/Evo's with clutch drag and damage issues thats suspected to be a result of harmonics have a aftermarket silicon fluid type harmonic dampener?



P.S, I still have my balance shaft installed. and my engine is close to 120,000 miles. My biggest reasons for not removing them? Oil pressure increase (having to resolve the issue to have normal oil pressure again) and the felt vibrations as I fear it's removal would make the car less enjoyable to drive. Plus I don't have to worry about the stub shaft issues, which sorta seem more common than broken BS belts or spun BS bearings.
 
First of all,... I know I know, old thread back from the dead etcetera. etcetera.

I honestly forgot what I was searching for when I found this thread, but there is SO MUCH misinformation in this thread that I just HAD to respond.

First of all I'd like to start off by saying torque whip is not a thing. What I believe Mr. Jack is trying to refer to is torsional vibrations. Honestly, there is a pretty big gap between a fabricator/mechanic and an automotive engineer. Buschur is correct in that he has the most experience drag racing these engines of anyone in this country and probably anyone in the world, but at the end of the day that doesn't mean that he understands why what he is doing works (nor did he try and make this claim). In my opinion as much as I hate to admit it this is a case of "shut up it works". Unfortunately we don't live in the fantasy world in my head where everyone gets a degree in engineering before they go off and do whatever job they are currently, and the reality is that it is unrealistic to expect engine builders and transmission builders to have engineering degrees regardless of the platform. So I will attempt to explain what is going on here so that people can understand why Buschur is correct. (For the record I would absolutely love it if every sales guy and manager had a degree in engineering because they would understand why we can't do what they are asking me to do.)

Anyways, getting on to the engineering of this. What we have here causing the issues Jack has brought up (broken cranks and such) are first order and second order mode shape torsional vibrations. Higher mode shapes as well as half mode shapes do exist, but these are the two mode shapes that cause damage (and it is mostly the first mode anyways) so our focus will be on these.

Torsional vibrations in crankshafts

First order torsional vibrations - imagine if you held one end of the crankshaft perfectly still (say the flywheel) and rotated the other end of the flywheel with a torque back and forth. If you drew a dotted line down the side of the crankshaft, this would look like a half sine wave as it vibrated back and forth.

http://www.bhjdynamics.com/images/WP/DWP01_illo01_500.gif


Second order torsional vibrations - Now imagine you are still holding the flywheel, but then you also grab onto the main bearing between cylinders 1 and 2 (the far side from the flywheel). Your dotted line would now become 1.5 sine waves. It won't be at exactly the main between cylinders 1 and 2 I just am using that as an example so you can visualize this. It will vary from crankshaft to crankshaft depending on the width of the main bearings, rod bearings, and cylinder spacing, as well as how far the flywheel is from the last cylinder and how far the harmonic damper is etcetera. It's fairly complicated which is the reason why these things have to be evaluated both digitally and with physical testing.

http://www.bhjdynamics.com/images/WP/DWP01_illo02_500.gif


So, we understand how the crankshaft is vibrating, but what is causing this vibrations?

When a combustion event occurs, the individual cylinder that is combusting accelerates the rotational speed of the crankshaft. However, some other cylinder somewhere in the cycle is on the compression phase right now and is effectively taking energy out of the crankshaft slowing it down to compress its own air/fuel charge. What does this mean? The crankshaft must twist between these two cylinders because it is not infinitely stiff and hopefully not brittle. depending on your crankshaft layout and the number of cylinders you have, these events occur in a frequency that will excite certain vibrations and possibly not others.

A 4g63 (and frankly almost every single 4 cylinder engine out there) has what is called a flat plane crank (oh, hello their moto-gp. I didn't see you and your friend the Yamaha R1 there, what? You say you've got more examples of cross plane inline 4 cylinder engines? Cool, we aren't talking about that right now...). This means the combustions occur at an even frequency offset 180 degrees from each other. Every 180 degrees of crankshaft rotation, something goes boom. This should be a nice smooth even dynamic order of events, right?

Wrong. In addition to these torsional vibrations caused from the rotation and offset torque application (and removal) we have other imbalances in the system.

We must look at the entire system to fully understand the force acting on the crankshaft and causing these vibrations as well as additional other vibrations. As a piston moves up and down, it is accelerated and decelerated. If you put a piston at top dead center and rotate the crankshaft 90 degrees, where is the piston? Most of you would say half way down the cylinder, but this is not actually the case. Because the connecting rod is not infinitely long, the piston is actually more than halfway down the cylinder of the engine. Now, rotate the crankshaft another 90 degrees. The piston is at the bottom of the cylinder, but since it started out more than half way down, it has moved less than it did for the first 90 degrees. What does this mean? The piston's average speed from 90 degrees before top dead center and 90 degrees after top dead center is always higher than the average speed over the 180 degrees opposite to this. This increased velocity comes at a price. The crankshaft is always getting pulled and pushed more in the top half of its rotation by these masses' inertia than the bottom half. The result is a net force vector acting upwards. Hello imbalance, how are you today? By having the balance shafts spin at twice the engine speed with eccentric weights, these imbalance forces can be cancelled out.

I would also like to point out at this point that torque is a function of force and distance. The angle of the connecting rod as well as any piston wrist pin offset can cause the torque applied to the crank to vary depending on where the crankshaft is through its rotation. This means that earlier when we were talking about the torque difference between a cylinder during combustion and a cylinder during compression, we also have to take into account the angle of the connecting rod as a "multiplier" to this difference in forces. Basically, the torque being applied by a given cylinder varies very greatly over the 720 degree combustion cycle and overlapping the four cylinders torque production graphs over a full 1440 degree cycle will allow you to look at the torque being applied to the crankshaft at any given point in time. This doesn't really effect my premise, but hopefully it gives you a better understanding of what is going on.

SO HERE IS THE PROBLEM.

The above imbalance caused from the piston moving at different speeds during the rotation of the crankshaft are called "secondary non-sinusoidal vibrations" and are not the cause of wear and tear on your transmission.

As any good automotive engineer knows, now would be a good time to bust out the good ole bosch automotive handbook bible:

http://www.bimmerzone.com/mm5/graphics/00000001/H016.jpg

and turn to page 417.

http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j223/tstkl/20140711_000857_zps7964489f.jpg

Because the balance shafts are attached to the front of the engine by a rubber medium, they are in fact, damping the first order torsional vibrations of the engine as well as the second order torsional vibrations of the engine. HOWEVER, based on their design (belt driven) the delay in rotation needed to effectively dampen first order torsional vibrations is very small. One side of the belt is always in tension, so the delay in rotation is limited to the amount of "stretch" the belt has linearly. In order for the balance shafts to work (there are two of them) the stretch of the belts relative to the amount of drag being placed on the belt must be similar (otherwise they would be out of phase with each other). The timing belt drives the oil pump (and then first balance shaft so that it rotates in the opposite direction of the other balance shaft). The distance between the crank pulley and the oil pump is very very very short, and the timing belt is very very very stiff, so the linear expansion and contraction between these two points is very small. Because the camshafts can supply some pretty big drag loads on the timing belt, it is significantly thicker and the distance between the crank and oil pump is significantly shorter than the second balance shaft. Because the second balance shaft effectively produces no drag, the belt remains relatively unstressed and the deflections are very small.

Another side note, the reason why the balance shafts rotate in opposite directions to each other is so that their lateral (side to side) vibrations cancel each other out and only a net upward or downward force is induced.

The balance shafts are designed to produce forces on the engine block in a net downward direction every time a piston pair is producing a net upward force. This means that the forces cancel each other out and engine block vibrates less violently. The balance shafts produce a net upward force when the crankshaft is more or less parallel to the ground and producing neither an upward or downward force. This does not however, stop the torsional vibrations from occurring in the crankshaft itself. You can't feel those vibrations because they are torsional vibrations of the crankshaft, not .

But here's the biggest kicker.

Secondary imbalances or non sinusoidal imbalances and second order crankshaft torsional vibrations are COMPLETELY IRRELIVANT. Yes they both say secondary, but no they are not the same thing.

Secondary imbalances are called non-sinusoidal imbalances because they are a result of the piston's non sinusoidal movements as a slider crank system. These imbalances will never cause torsional vibrations.

NEVER.


EVER EVER EVER.

So cancel them out all you want, you haven't done SHIT to the torsional vibrations that exist in your vehicles crankshaft.

Re-read the bosch reference page I've posted. Second order torsional vibrations are dampened by the crank damper, first order torsional vibrations are dampened by flywheel mass dampers. Balance shafts are not mentioned AT ALL because they are fucking irrelevant.

Will removing your balance shaft or changing the mass of your flywheel change the resonate frequency of the system? Yes. Could that make the mass damper on the front of your engine less effective in some marginal way? Yes. Does your mass damper work a different frequencies in the summer than in the winter? Yes. Do some four cylinder engines run without balance shafts from the factory? Yes.

Basically, you could make an argument for either side without hard numbers to back anything up, but at the core of it, it is obvious that the design intent of the balance shafts themselves had nothing to do with anything Jack pointed out in his post. However, as they are all part of the same system it is entirely possible that these negative effects are occurring, for different reasons than why people think.

To summarize

First order torsional vibrations break transmissions.

Balance shafts cancel out second non-sinusoidal vibrations.

They aren't directly related.

If you have the Bosch Automotive Handbook I suggest also reading pages 421-424, however since this post is probably already longer than most DSM'ers attention span I will not be covering that material.
 
My head hurts reading all that... :eek:

I was also personally skeptical of the balance shafts really having any effect on the crankshaft but it's nice to see the post done with real evidence and someone that understands the literature/physics of why they don't have the effect, or at least if they do isn't by design really.

Tree for you :tree::tree:
 
I'm just going to post here to let Ben know that my car suffers from WOMP WOMP WOMP and he can verify that in person any time he wants to :p.
 
Discussion starter · #60 ·
I'm glad this was able to continue! Very good discussion. tstkl, thank you for the time and effort put into your post to contribute to the thread. :tree:

Much appreciated!
 
41 - 60 of 61 Posts