427 Gearhead Question Survey for the Pro's

[CSX 4027]

For those of you who really know the 427 and have had Dyno experience in squeezing horsepower out of this motor. Let's see who gets this right.

Which harmonic damper (balancer) made the most horsepower on the dyno?

[CSX 4027]

I will post the right answers Monday

[CSX 4027]

..Most are going with the old 60's light weight tech.
...Answers tomorrow

[Tom Kirkham]

Steve which way are you measuring power? The are several ways of measuring power: One way is steady state (constant RPM) (Boneville cars, Superspeedway cars, Generators would find this method most accurate). Another method is by accelerating a given weight (typically a drum) and measuring the acceleration and then calculating the power. Another method is to specify an acceleration rate and measure the power (Superflow dynos typically do this). Another method is to simulate the RPM curve that the engine will see on say a race track and then measure the power (Ford did this for the GT40 program at LeMans). As the acceleration rate increases the rotational (and reciprical for that matter) componets become more and more important. In the above componets the lighter componet will "make" more power than a heaver componet in a dyno that is based more on acceleration. The dampner that reduces harmonics better will "make" more power than a lighter componet on a steady state (constant RPM) dyno. As an aside typically torque is measured and power is then calculated from Ppwer = Torque x Rate/ constant. Another problem I have is were all the varibles controlled on the dyno so as to make the comparision valid? Were the parts tested on the same engine? On the same dyno? was the oil temprature the same for all tests? Like computers garbage in garbage out.

[CSX 4027]

Tom,
This was a published test done on an engine dyno with one motor set up as the baseline and simply testing 4 different dampers. Temps, pressures, and all other values were the same throughout in order to determine which made the big HP.
Tom, Simple excelerating test performed on a superflow 901
Starting at 3500 RPM's and running straight up to 6500 RPM's
One had a significant advantage that will be posted Monday.

[CSX 4027]

Only 3 of the 12 that voted got it right....


The Stock Ford piece that weighs 12 lbs was the winner.
TOM KIRKHAM..It made 18 more HP than the Aluminum Damper which made the least amount of power.

In quarter mile times
Assumptions at this point are that each 100lb reduction in weight reduces ET by .10 seconds while each horsepower gained will also reduce ET by .10 seconds.
The aluminum hub weighs 2.5lbs. while the OEM 427 damper weighs 12 lbs. By sheer weight difference alone, the vehicle should be .0095 seconds quicker with the aluminum hub by virtue of weight. Now, the 427 damper made 18 more horsepower which makes it .18 seconds quicker. The net difference is that the 427 damper will be .085 seconds quicker the aluminum hub or almost a full tenth quicker.

[Tom Kirkham]

Steve that is very interesting since both the lightweight and the stock dampner have the same inertia ring. It would be interesting to compare Fords dyno runs .... You know for a company that had unlimited funds to win LeMans and was well known to dyno test everything, that they would have used the dampner that gave up 18 HP does not seem likely. Where can we read the article?

[CSX 4027]

This was published in the 4th quarter 2002 issue of the FE Club of America.
From a technical standpoint...wouldn't it make more sense that the heavier piece has more dampening ability and the lighter piece.
The reason the aluminum wasn't a popular piece is that the aluminum was difficult to remove after any amount of time and usually started to gall or weld to the crankdue to harmonics or shake. Why are they so hard to find and why don't more make replacements in aluminum?
As for the Ford testing and tech, they used the 427 to win LeMans because that's what they had. As you recall AJ and Gurney talked about not killing the motor and finishing the race. We all know the 427 was not either the most powerful or the most reliable motor back then. The GT 40 design was more a part of it than the motor. Let's face it, the heads really didn't breath back then and the cam tech was low. You make the power on the upper end. The LeMans carb was also a bit on the restrictive side leaning to fuel starvation.

[Tom Kirkham]

Steve the damping effect mostly (like 99%) comes from the inertia ring. Galling and other problems do not show up on the dyno. Steve, Ford had both dampners availble to them. I don't ever remeber dampner failure as one of the problems with the engine. As an interesting side note: sprint car engines run without dampners or flywheels for that matter. I have never heard of a sprint car driver ever giving away power.

[CSX 4027]

I am only repeating what I read. I didn't do the test.
??Sprint cars?? What motor? Would the cubes and harmonics have anything to do with the need for a damper?