289 Hipo Balancer?

[LMH]

A friend was asking me about Hipo balancers for 289 and I'm not 100% sure of the answer. The Hipo used a balancer in conjunction with a bob weight behind the crank sprocket. So is the balancer itself lighter to compensate for the bob weight, for a total of 28oz?
Larry

[vector1]

I understand that the hipo balancer was thicker than the lesser hp production stuff and was a good way to tell the difference between different hp levels, on production stuff.

[Jac Mac]

'Ford Small Block' by Des Hammill gives some insight in this, at first thought it would appear that the extra small counterweight is to make up for the exra rod weight, but there were/are several evolutions of blocks, cranks, rods, pistons and a major rethink of the balancing requirements for the race engines to consider as well..

[LMH]

Thanks Guys! I think my original question is a little misleading and should have been worded better. I was after the imbalance of the Hipo balancer used with the bob weight. I would think the imbalance weight of the balancer would be less than a standard balancer (28oz) to allow the use of the bob weight. What we are finding is the new Hipo balancers are 28oz imbalance and I would think that with the bob weight it would be too much imbalance and the crank would spin out of balance. My friends not sure what to buy for his original Hipo engine.
Larry

[vector1]

Okay, I know what you are talking about, had to dig through two books to find it. I'll type fast....

The high performance 289 crankshaft is of higher nodularity than std, and comes with add-on counterweight for optimum high-rpm use.

additionally

the hp 289 unitis of higher nodularity than others, and it also comes with a .150 thick add-on counterweight at the front to improve high-rpm balance. If you are using this crank, with the extra counterweight, be sure to use the proper timing chain crank sproket; and if you want to install a multi-index crank sprocket, mill .150 from the back surface to retain proper alignment. Ford used two different types of timing gears, a thick set and a thin set. pre 65 engines use the thick gears and timing chain, and crank sprocket has a spacer that fits behind it. all 65 and newer engines use the thinner chain and gears, and crank sprocket has a shoulder which spaces it properly from the crank. Entire sets can be interchanged from one engine to another, but do not mix componenets from a thick or thin set.

I also think the counterweight was for the thicker rod bolts or heavier rods, but just a wag. Your machinist is going to balance it in the end, the counterweight deal might have been a bandaid.

[LMH]

Wow, thank you! It's looking like the Hipo balancer and the standard balancer are/were the same 28oz imbalance! The weight was added for high rpm use!
Appreciate it much Vector1!
Larry

[cobrakiwi]

If the engine uses the extra counter weight behind the crank sprocket you need to use the narrow timing chain and sprockets.
My early 64 k code 289 hipo has the counter weight and the narrow timing chain/sprockets.
Bob Mannel has a great book out, Mustang and Ford small block V8 that has great info about the hipo engines.

[CompClassics]

You would be looking for a C30E balancer, C50E would also work as it is physically the same part but with a 1965 part number. Either of the above would have a chamfer on the side closest to the timing cover. The Ford replacement part was a C8ZE part but with a noticeable difference physically. The real rare version to find is the fully degreed variants.

[CompClassics]

There is a seller on ebay selling a reproduction of the hipo balancer that is weighted for use in non-hipo applications. As stated above, if you use the extra counter weight "hatchet" you must use the narrower sprockets and chain. You can run the hipo balancer with or without the narrower timing chain assembly and "hatchet" counter weight. The balance between a standard non-hipo balancer and a original hipo balancer are not the same.
The rotating assembly in my engine uses a C30E fully degreed balancer with a standard (modern) double roller timing chain assembly and an "XE" Indy quad cam crankshaft.

[LMH]

Thanks guys! I appreciate all the info. I'll pass it along.
Larry

[Jac Mac]

Originally Posted by CompClassics

You would be looking for a C30E balancer, C50E would also work as it is physically the same part but with a 1965 part number. Either of the above would have a chamfer on the side closest to the timing cover. The Ford replacement part was a C8ZE part but with a noticeable difference physically. The real rare version to find is the fully degreed variants.

I notice that the outer ring has been drilled during balance work, safer place to add/subtract weight is in center hub, either by pushing weight material into the holes already there or enlarging those holes... drilling outer ring creates possible failure points as well as the potential for weight position shift if the outer ring slips/moves.