fluidamper vs. ati harmonic balencer

[Bob4x4]

I've been reading these posts for sometime now and was curious if something like this would improve the symptoms that I've been experiencing lately. When demanding more power at lower rpms (1500 to 2000) my motor vibrates and growns and feels like it's going to explode. I don't remember it behaving this way when it had fewer miles. I currently have 115k on the odometer.



Thanks

Make sure to check your motor mounts,when the 3rd gens are driven with gusto especially off road miles on a suspended truck they will show their weakness. They were designed for nvh reduction not strength. Look at the gap berween the oil pan and cross member,compare it to a less experienced truck.

Carli suspension makes a bullet proof version designed to hold up to the worst conditions Baja can throw at you... ... ... of course being made from cromoly. The bushing is poly so it does add some nvh but having seen stock mounts disintegrate 100's of miles south of the border I think it is well worth a lil nvh

 

[HEMI®Dart]

That would be incorrect... ... ... . they are indeed reusable.

Bob, I value your toughts on the torque to yield bolts. But somebodys got to set the record straight.



See this thread. And see what Geno's garage give you w/ a new Fluidampr. Includes four new torque-to-yield bolts for installation (Cummins #4937228).



https://www.turbodieselregister.com...ut-torque-yield-damper-bolts.html#post2243708

 

[CSilkowski]

Installed the Fluidamper this past weekend. I did not, however, use the drill pin or loctite the bolts since it was not recommended/included by either the Dodge service manual or the Fluidamper intallation instructions for my application (<500 hp and <3500 rpms). I'll check the torque at each oil change.



Overall, much smoother. Less gear box noise when idling in gear through parking lots, less shimmying from off the line, and no more noticeable drone/vibration at 2100 rpm. Hard to believe that it made such a difference but I'm a fan now.

 

[Prairie Dog]

That is exactly what I wanted to hear CSilkowski - As you describe, this trans/clutch makes so much noise it embarrassing sometimes.
I ordered mine yesterday and will hopefully have it by the weekend.

 

[Prairie Dog]

Has anybody ever installed one of these with a SBS brace in the way?
Wonder if I should just take it off rather than try to work around it.

 

[blacksheepdiesel]

So??? Anybody done this conversion of a new Cummins fluid damper and fan pulley to a 5. 9? I definitely need a new damper on my '04. 5 and would like to go this route.

Godspeed,
Trent

 

[Prairie Dog]

I installed the Fluid dampener a couple of days ago and I'm very pleased with the results. I had lots of clutch/trans noise at slow speeds or when accelerating from slow speeds and it has all but completely gone silent. I also had a feeling of the clutch being grabby when taking off and that is gone in forward gears and greatly diminished in reverse. Also, I had a rattle at idle in my dash after the HVAC doors were replaced and that has stopped. All in all the engine seems smoother and though I can't explain why, it seems to sound different too. Even my wife noticed the difference when she drove it and that's saying something. .

For those that take on this task it helps to have a 6 point 15mm socket to really grab the 4 bolts. Mine was made a bit harder to work with because of the SBS but it's still doable. You'll also have to figure out some way to keep the eng from turning while turning the bolts. I used a barring tool with a wrench jammed against the frame.

 

[Bill Weber]

Maybe I missed it but, has anyone installed a 6. 7 dampener on a 5. 9? If so what parts are needed. What problems did it give you and how do you like the swap?

 

[Prairie Dog]

Sorry to change the subject but I made a first pull with the Fluid Dampener. I can't believe the difference. It was so smooth and QUIET that a couple of times I forgot I was only in 5th and didn't notice until I was exceeding 60. Climbing hills, I no longer had to turn up the radio or raise our voices to talk to each other - the drone was gone though I have no idea why. . Can anybody explain why the eng would be more quiet?

 

[seafish]

Maybe I missed it but, has anyone installed a 6. 7 dampener on a 5. 9? If so what parts are needed. What problems did it give you and how do you like the swap?

I don't think that anyone here yet has done it, though I still would like to try it. Here is a link to a thread on competiotiondiesel.com that has more detailed info, probably just enough to get the job done, but I also would still like to talk with the guy who actually did it. I will try to PM him and get him to update the thread.



6. 7 Dampner on a 5. 9 - Competition Diesel. Com - Bringing The BEST Together

 

[AEdelheit]

. Can anybody explain why the eng would be more quiet?

Well this is just my understanding of it, no facts: the fuidampner will help eliminate vibrations, anytime you can decrease vibrations and make things smoother noise should decrease as well. Any vibrations at the crankshaft will be in the transmission aswell, on an auto the TC may eliminate some vibrations but on a manual there is nothing to dampen them. The DMF did a good job of dampening vibrations but as soon as you replaced it with a solid flywheel it was noticeably louder.



As I said this is just my understanding of it so if anyone has a better or more factual explination id love to hear it!

 

[Bill Weber]

Thanks, seafish. please keep us informed. The Comp. Diesel site keeps talking about milling the 6. 7 dampener. Not something I want to get involved in. I think what I am reading is we would have to use the 6. 7 fan hub with the dampener but am not sure if that is all we'll run into.
Thanks, Bill

 

[seafish]

Thanks, seafish. please keep us informed. The Comp. Diesel site keeps talking about milling the 6. 7 dampener. Not something I want to get involved in. I think what I am reading is we would have to use the 6. 7 fan hub with the dampener but am not sure if that is all we'll run into.

Thanks, Bill

So far that is correct also how I understand it- I WILL try to get more info.



The advantage to going through the trouble of using a fluid filled damper from the 6. 7 CTD, versus an aftermarket Fluidamper, is strictly in the cost--

about $250 versus $425 for the part. Of course if there is more cost for the pulley and or milling, the cost advantage of $175 begins to lessen.

 

[Prairie Dog]

So far that is correct also how I understand it- I WILL try to get more info.



The advantage to going through the trouble of using a fluid filled damper from the 6. 7 CTD, versus an aftermarket Fluidamper, is strictly in the cost--

about $250 versus $425 for the part. Of course if there is more cost for the pulley and or milling, the cost advantage of $175 begins to lessen.

The other advantage of using the 6. 7 setup is being able to change the belt without removing the dampener like you do with the FD.

 

[seafish]

The other advantage of using the 6. 7 setup is being able to change the belt without removing the dampener like you do with the FD.

That's cool... didn't know that!!!



Do you know anybody who has done the conversion??

 

[Allnew2Me]

Although the 6. 7 damper might, if it does indeed work, save some money, it is still not a direct replacement for the Fluidampr in that I don't believe it is anywhere near the 24 pounds that the FD weighs. Weight is a major factor in the performance of the Fluidampr. But even if that is true, the 6. 7 is a far cry better than the stock 5. 9 damper and I think there would be an improvement in performance.



The belt removal issue is only on the third-gen trucks and unless you change your belt often, should not be that too much trouble.

 

[seafish]

Although the 6. 7 damper might, if it does indeed work, save some money, it is still not a direct replacement for the Fluidampr in that I don't believe it is anywhere near the 24 pounds that the FD weighs. Weight is a major factor in the performance of the Fluidampr. But even if that is true, the 6. 7 is a far cry better than the stock 5. 9 damper and I think there would be an improvement in performance.



The belt removal issue is only on the third-gen trucks and unless you change your belt often, should not be that too much trouble.

Actually if you read post#15 at the compdiesel link that I posted above,

The 6. 7 viscous damper is 2 or 3 pounds HEAVIER then the Fluidampr.

While I have not yet confirmed this with independent research, the guy

Who wrote the post also provided many of the other detailed specs of the

Installation.

I HAVE pm'd him and hope to hear back from him, as he seems to know his wAy around these trucks.

 

[Mhannink]

Well this is just my understanding of it, no facts: the fuidampner will help eliminate vibrations, anytime you can decrease vibrations and make things smoother noise should decrease as well. Any vibrations at the crankshaft will be in the transmission aswell, on an auto the TC may eliminate some vibrations but on a manual there is nothing to dampen them. The DMF did a good job of dampening vibrations but as soon as you replaced it with a solid flywheel it was noticeably louder.



As I said this is just my understanding of it so if anyone has a better or more factual explination id love to hear it!

this is a pretty good explanation. ive been a mech for 5 years working for cat, the noise reduction is from smoother operation, in short, the engine rpm bounces about 50rpm all the time, thats with a damper, if it didnt have a dapper the crank would snap in minutes after startup. the more reactive the damper the smoother the engine runs, less rpm bounce, the quieter it will be. some of this relates to the fact that sound is pulse wave, the engine is a pulse engine, get the pulses just right and you will get drone, or you can eliminate the noise. i know with my truck above 2500 rpm its almost silent, no joke, its really quiet. does that help?



i havent read all the posts here, but here and some other places, and for at least a while ati themselves said that their rubber balancer is superiour to fluid dampers. point is thats absolutely false, cat switched from rubber to fluid dampers back in the 80's, i think cummins and detroit did as well, all bigger engines run fluid dampers because they perform better. something to help prove my point, pittsburg power offers a crank balancer, its a mercury filled tube mounted behind the damper, it dynamically balances the crank and drivetrain. another one are the centermatic wheel balancers, or like they used to do, put bb's or golf balls in truck tires. all of these balancers work much the same as the fluid dampers. the big thing the fluid damper can handle a wider range of balancing. since the indside and outside are completely seperate, the drag of the fluid against the two surfaces is what makes it all rotate and stay in time. a rubber balancer is much more limited in operation, the rubber can only strech so far otherwise it will tear the rubber off, this means that the damper cant absorb as much crankshaft speed variation.

 

[AEdelheit]

this is a pretty good explanation. ive been a mech for 5 years working for cat, the noise reduction is from smoother operation, in short, the engine rpm bounces about 50rpm all the time, thats with a damper, if it didnt have a dapper the crank would snap in minutes after startup. the more reactive the damper the smoother the engine runs, less rpm bounce, the quieter it will be. some of this relates to the fact that sound is pulse wave, the engine is a pulse engine, get the pulses just right and you will get drone, or you can eliminate the noise. i know with my truck above 2500 rpm its almost silent, no joke, its really quiet. does that help?



i havent read all the posts here, but here and some other places, and for at least a while ati themselves said that their rubber balancer is superiour to fluid dampers. point is thats absolutely false, cat switched from rubber to fluid dampers back in the 80's, i think cummins and detroit did as well, all bigger engines run fluid dampers because they perform better. something to help prove my point, pittsburg power offers a crank balancer, its a mercury filled tube mounted behind the damper, it dynamically balances the crank and drivetrain. another one are the centermatic wheel balancers, or like they used to do, put bb's or golf balls in truck tires. all of these balancers work much the same as the fluid dampers. the big thing the fluid damper can handle a wider range of balancing. since the indside and outside are completely seperate, the drag of the fluid against the two surfaces is what makes it all rotate and stay in time. a rubber balancer is much more limited in operation, the rubber can only strech so far otherwise it will tear the rubber off, this means that the damper cant absorb as much crankshaft speed variation.

Do you work for Holt or Peterson? I worked at Peterson for 5 years.

 

[Mhannink]

http://www.fluidampr.com/DOWNLOADS/TDR73-Tech Topics.pdf you guys might like this, i dont know if it has been posted yet or not. great explanation as to what is going on.