Message Deleted by Poster
-
-
Re: C2 Balancer Comparison
I too have a '64 300hp and had the same question years ago. The judging manual just describes the balancers as having a "step". However, I have two balancers that match that description. The one I have on my car, which is the one I believe is correct, is the balancer with the very shallow step. Not the one that I've seen on 283ci engines. However, I've seen both types on cars that's been through judging without losing any points. Hope that helps. -
Re: C2 Balancer Comparison
Mark-----
In your description, it's a bit confusing. You mention that the "shaft heights are different" and then you say that the "thicknesses are different". Usually, with resepct to balancer thickness, we describe the actual thickness of the balancer ring as measured at the outer ring. In other words, "thickness" refers to the WIDTH of the outer balancer ring (where the TDC line is cut or scribed).
The original balancer used for your application was a GM #3817684. This balancer was used for 1962-64 250 hp and 300 hp 327. If I recall correctly, it was a "stepped" type balancer. The inner hub diameter was about 4-1/2" and the outer hub diameter was about 6". This balancer was discontinued from SERVICE in November, 1964 and replaced by the 1965 PRODUCTION balancer for 250 and 300 hp, GM #3861968. I believe that the latter balancer was similar in configuration to the balancer that it replaced.
The GM #3861968 balancer was then discontinued in Novemeber, 1965 and replaced by the 66-67 300 hp balancer, GM #3861970. I am not sure of the configuration of this balancer. Folks with original 66-67 base engine cars might report.
In any event, in June, 1971, the GM #3861968 balancer was discontinued and replaced by GM #3896904 which is still available today. That balancer is of a non-stepped design. It is 6-1/8" in diameter and with a thickness of 3/4".
Although the current SERVICE balancer is of a different configuration than your original, it will SERVICE your application perfectly. If you wish to retain your original configuration balancer, I believe that Paragon, and possibly others, offer a balancer rebuilding service.In Appreciation of John HinckleyComment
-
Re: C2 Balancer Comparison
Mark -
Please don't delete your initial post - it leaves the thread "headless", and nobody knows what your question was to begin with (including those who may have helpful information for you).Comment
-
Re: C2 Balancer Comparison
Just trying to avoid looking like an idiot (quite a task sometimes)- I thought I'd gotten my original post deleted before anyone answered. My original question had to do with the relative "thickness" of the replacement balancer I purchased and the original. I was worried that this thickness (and by that I mean the distance from the pulley mounting surface to the end of the shaft on the other end) was different, my fear being that the belt alignment would be messed up. As it turns out, I went back to check again and found that the "difference" in thickness was due to some irregular raised surfaces on the old balancer studs (if that what they are) on the pulley mounting side. Turned them over (put the shaft sides down on the bench) and they are a perfect match. Felt pretty stupid so I ran in to kill the post. I guess I wasn't fast enough.Comment
-
Re: C2 Balancer Comparison
Mark - don't ever worry about something that you figure out later...this board is all about learning and the comments get saved for future reference, and we all like to treat it as an information library. That's why the "headless" posts are not a good situation. Thx for clarifying what your original question was..CraigComment
Comment