Yea the FD is a nice product. When I got mine I was impressed on how nice the fd really came out. Right now it is just sitting around collecting dust:eek: Since I have no need for it at this time:( .
Printable View
Yea the FD is a nice product. When I got mine I was impressed on how nice the fd really came out. Right now it is just sitting around collecting dust:eek: Since I have no need for it at this time:( .
How about a front and rear pic of that bad boy, directly into the hub, for show'n'tell?
Maybe even include the oem hb?
I want one regardless.
Fluidampr makes a nice product.
With or Without 5%...
I have had only good luck with them in 20+ years.
Have never been down the track in my BBC without one.
Even have contingency check stubs to prove...
I like it tơo.
Tried to find where to buy online, Summitt and Jegs don't carry it.
Suppose I could try my local auto parts dealer, but then I'd have to pay sales tax. Sall
OK, thanks, not sure what I did wrong...................... Just gettin ole' I guess:o
Thanks again
We have a picture of the 6.2L / 6.5L Fluidampr on our website under the Durmax page: http://www.fluidampr.com/DURAMAX.htm.Quote:
Originally Posted by gmctd
You can also purchase any of our parts thru the distributors listed on our website: http://www.fluidampr.com/WHERETOBUY.htm. The performance diesel distributors are at the bottom.
Thanks,
Dan
This little jewel may be a real plus for the 6.5/6.2 engines.
I am very certain that harmonics are the gremlin that is tearing these engines to bits under certain circumstances.
The variables that are present in production runs of these engines are what I think is the reason we see sporatic failures as opposed to a situation that can be repeated and varified over and over.
With the ability to damp out all these destructive forces the 6.5 could get some much needed help in the durability dept.
Now for the big ????????
Can their damper be used with a steel crank and of course do they provide a "ballance boss" that can be drilled slightly during the process of ballancing the engine?? The dynamics of a steel crank are going to be somewhat different than the Iron shaft.
Sounds like a very big step in the right direction.
I was recently chatting with the boys that do the work on my big Cat.
We were discussing the possibilities of bumping the HP up a little and this necessitates the addition of a "fluid damper", different turbo and a reflash of the ECM.
Obviously Cat understands the merits of the fluid dampener concept in keeping the bad vibs in check.
Just may have to give these guys a call and pick their brains a bit.
Great thread.
Robyn
Thanks for the link, Dan - I never would've looked under DMax
What is the difference between the 800141 and the 800191?Quote:
Originally Posted by Fluidampr
800141 & 800191 is the same Fluidampr except 800191 comes with the spacer that goes behind the Fluidampr. This is for the older 6.2L engines that do not have the electronic reluctor wheel that the newer 6.2L & 6.5L engines. I believe the change took place in 1988, I am sure some of you can probably tell me if I am mistaken. With the older engines you need the spacer to lengthen the hub of the damper so the pulley's line up.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaxPF
Robyn,
Yes our Fluidampr can be used with a steel crank however there is no need to drill the damper. When balancing an engine the crank is what should be drilled & balanced to the remaining rotating assembly. The damper should not be drilled whether it is stock or aftermarket. All Fluidampr components are drilled & balanced before they are assembled. Yes we are OEM for many CAT engines also, it is the same company, same technology.
If anyone has any other questions please let me know.
Thanks,
Dan
The first EFI 6.5 was released for the 1994 model year - '93-back did not require the reluctor.
The DSG Phazer timing gearset also has the separate reluctor for EFI - does the FD installation require replacement of that reluctor where the DSG set has been previously installed?
DSG reluctor is keyed for ~2deg advance - is the FD reluctor keyed for stock oem timing?
Any long-term EFI 6.5TD test results, say 50k-100kmi?
If we can assume the FD reduces the bad harmonics in these cast iron 6.5 cranks, the question I think some will ask is: "Will this end the crank failures we hear about?"
I suspect the failures we hear about will decrease, but not disappear.
Cracking failures of the 90's GM blocks could still be a contributor. Failed rubber isolated crank pulleys, defective dual-mass flywheels and loose torque converter bolts could still happen on rare occasions. Any of these pose a problem that couldn't be helped with an FD.
Another question: Could reducing crankshaft harmonics reduce the block cracking we hear about?
Jim
Now you know while I bought mine:D . It should take care of all that above if I am correct. If anything it will improve durability of the engine. Also how I look at it 500.00 over 5000.00-7000.00 and alot of agravation on getting the new parts just sucks :mad: . jmpoQuote:
Originally Posted by More Power
The Fluidampr replacement does not require replacement of the reluctor wheel. If there is no reluctor wheel or anything to take its place you will need the spacer (p/n 800191). If a reluctor wheel is present or anything else to take its place you do not need the spacer (p/n 800141).Quote:
Originally Posted by gmctd
The Fluidampr is keyed so that the timing marks on the Fluidampr are the same as TDC on the stock damper.
Unfortuantely I do not have nay long term test results with that many miles. When I do I will be happy to post them.
If anyone else has any questions please let me know.
Thanks,
Dan
Dan
The reason I mentioned drilling the damper is that in years past I have seen units that were perfectly balanced then the damper was changed for one reason or another and then the assembly rerun and the new balancer was not the same.
The factory units have a big weight on the them and I have seen many that needed tweeking a tad to get them right.
Same goes for flex plates and flywheels, the production stuff varies a bunch and this can make for issues if the unit is replaced after an engine has been balanced.
Thanks for the good input
Glad to have you on board
Robyn
I recently ran a balance test to check some of this out. We balanced a crank assembly to .06 oz-in per plane using a new damper and new flex plate. I had two other used dampers and one other new damper that we then swapped onto the assembly one at a time and checked the balance. One of the used dampers resulted in .06 oz-in per plane...no change. The other used and other new damper each produced .05 oz-in per plane...an improvement of .01 oz-in over the original balance.
The factory dampers don't seem to have much variance in them, from what I have seen.
Good Day!
This sounds like a terrific product. It would have to be at least considered if one was building a strong motor for pulling (or fun! ;) ), or just want to keep it for a real long time. Unfortunately, for us commoners, at list price they're 7.7 - 9.1 X what I can get a standard replacement part for from Rock Auto (ATP or Dorman); 6.8 - 8.0 X Rock Auto if bought from Summit. Maybe ATP and/or Dorman are junk, but they'll have to do for me for now. :(
"We have seen some applications have basically no power gain & in some we have seen a 10% gain." If I read this right, that means across all the applications they've built Fluidamprs for, you'll see 0 - 10% power (hp? torque?) improvement. This does NOT say this applies to 6.2 and/or 6.5 applications.
"...on a stock 6.5L application, we should be able to measure approximately 5% additional horsepower and torque..." "Trust but verify..." "Dan to Jim: Yes, on a stock diesel, we typically see on the order of a 5% increase." As a consumer, I guess what others have been trying to say is, don't in any way, shape, or form make the claim without any data. I know the temptation is terrific to make such claims. I work for a small (~ 20 employees) company that mfgs parts for scientific instruments; we're a 3rd party vendor of such parts. I constantly have to stop myself from saying anything I can't back up with hard data. Others here have simply expressed their desire for the data to back up the claim. Personally, I suspect you'll eventually provide this data, but I agree with the others: tell us what it provably will do, don't bother telling us what hasn't been or can't be proved.
Please accept in the spirit given. I'm a knee-jerk capitalist, & wish you all the best. I just happen to feel that you've got enough to offer if it simply reduces crank harmonics in our 6.2/6.5 engines. :D
(on edit) On second thought, maybe it doesn't matter. Even if you provided dyno plots, some folks would still say you jazzed the data. Sometimes when you're a vendor, you just can't win, eh? :rolleyes: I ran 5 gallons of Stanadyne Performance Formula through my 95 pickup, & my mpg dropped ~ 5% the full year I ran it. They claim a 3 - 8% mpg improvement. My 5% mpg drop is within what I'd consider normal data scatter for such stuff, but my mpg certainly didn't increase. So it goes...
Blessings!
Did your mileage go back up when you stopped using it?
I had a immediate drop in mileage when I switched my rear axle to synthetic. It was so dramatic I switched it back. I never recovered the lost mileage, AFAIK.
I'll have to agree with you Moondoggie, on most of that!