Is anyone running one if these? And what are truly the benfits....really?

I really dont know a whole lot about them, but from what I have heard about them from people on here I would NOT run one on my truck. Just my .02

I don't have one, but have been toying around with the idea. I've heard several comments that 'from what I've heard/read, I wouldn't'. I haven't found any specific case where something bad happened from a FLUIDAMPR.

Yes, I've used the search... ;)

We all know how well the search function works when you need something, though...:rolleyes:

Seriously, if anyone has a link to the negatives, I'd lie to see it before I plop one on.

From the good I've heard, I'm not afraid...

search Trippin's user name and fluidampner....he has had a fewinteresting posts. IIRC some were in the manual trans section and maybe the LB7 engine forum? cant remember but look under his name :)

search Trippin's user name and fluidampner....he has had a fewinteresting posts. IIRC some were in the manual trans section and maybe the LB7 engine forum? cant remember but look under his name :)

I've seen the ones in the ZF forums.

I'll check Trippin's posts...

On Edit...

I remember reading the thread between Guy and Fluidampr. It would be cool if Guy would chip in his $0.02

Had one for years on my 10 sec gas car. Worked great, never had a problem with eng or tans.

I'm currently running one. I can't tell you I notice any difference, because I did so many changes at one time. I can tell you it's much heavier than the stocker, and the factory washer that holds the balancer on does not fit without modifications.

havent heard of any problems on the lower rpm diesels yet

I had a bad experience with them years ago and my personal preference is to not use them.

I wanted an alternative so that our community had a choice, so I developed an alternative for our Duramax engines. One for LB7/LLY and one for LBZ as the counterweighting is different.

Hopefully the dyno testing will be complete on the prototypes this weekend and I can tell you all more about it next week.

Stay tuned..................:D

I'm currently running one. I can't tell you I notice any difference, because I did so many changes at one time. I can tell you it's much heavier than the stocker, and the factory washer that holds the balancer on does not fit without modifications.


i didnt have to do any modifications to get mine to work. it basically bolted on. there was also a post reguarding a waterpump bolt that had to be modified to provide enough clearence for the fluidampnr. i did not have to modify any bolt in any fashion whatsoever.

the only difference i noticed is on the attitude monitor the rpm's will only fluctuiate about 2-3 rpms, instead of 15-20. deadeye had already mentioned this is another thread, so i checked my rpm's before and after the install to confirm.

i didnt have to do any modifications to get mine to work. it basically bolted on. there was also a post reguarding a waterpump bolt that had to be modified to provide enough clearence for the fluidampnr. i did not have to modify any bolt in any fashion whatsoever.

the only difference i noticed is on the attitude monitor the rpm's will only fluctuiate about 2-3 rpms, instead of 15-20. deadeye had already mentioned this is another thread, so i checked my rpm's before and after the install to confirm.

Did the washer fit in the counterbore on the balancer? Was it a relatively close fit? If so it is not correct. Look at the bottom of the counterbore on the balancer, there is a fairly good size radius. The washer has no radius or chamfer, so it is only making line contact all the way around the washer. The washer needs to sit flat against the bottom of the bore.

Did the washer fit in the counterbore on the balancer? Was it a relatively close fit? If so it is not correct. Look at the bottom of the counterbore on the balancer, there is a fairly good size radius. The washer has no radius or chamfer, so it is only making line contact all the way around the washer. The washer needs to sit flat against the bottom of the bore.


i've got the whole front tore off at the present time. i'll take a look, might even snap a few pics if i can get enough light in there. i'll report back with my findings. and thanks for pointing it out!

i've got the whole front tore off at the present time. i'll take a look, might even snap a few pics if i can get enough light in there. i'll report back with my findings. and thanks for pointing it out!


Not trying to be an ass, but unless there was supposed to be a new washer in the kit, I can't believe no one has caught this yet.

I had a bad experience with them years ago and my personal preference is to not use them.

I wanted an alternative so that our community had a choice, so I developed an alternative for our Duramax engines. One for LB7/LLY and one for LBZ as the counterweighting is different.

Hopefully the dyno testing will be complete on the prototypes this weekend and I can tell you all more about it next week.

Stay tuned..................:D

Cool. Do keep us posted. I know you and Fluidampr were going back and forth about harmonics testing, but there never really seemed to be an answer. If you've got something up your sleeve, I can't wait to hear about it...

Take one to a race engine builder along with your lower end and ask him to balance it for you.

Take one to a race engine builder along with your lower end and ask him to balance it for you.

You can't. Can you explain why? I only know this as I do work for a engine guy in town who dislikes them

You can't. Can you explain why? I only know this as I do work for a engine guy in town who dislikes them

That's exactly the answer I expect anyone to get. So why put one on a stock (or any) engine in the first place is my question?

here is a pic i took with my cell phone...

theres not much room around the washer, just like you said. so if the washer is only holding it on around the outside edge, i would expect to see a wear line around the outter diameter of the washer. i was gonna remove the bolt and do a little further inspection, but after replacing the turbo i just didnt feel up to it. i've got a few thousand miles on it so far, and it hasnt fell off yet...i'll let yall know when it does though...;)

Dont do it unless you modify the washer so it sits flat on the balancer, I saw one fail this weekend at Vegas..

Dan

Dont do it unless you modify the washer so it sits flat on the balancer, I saw one fail this weekend at Vegas..

Dan

Exactly. I wonder out of all the people running these balancers, how many of them are using the washer in it's stock form?

If the factory hardware will not work properly shouldn't it come with the correct hardware?

If the factory hardware will not work properly shouldn't it come with the correct hardware?


One would think so????

Dont do it unless you modify the washer so it sits flat on the balancer, I saw one fail this weekend at Vegas..

Dan

what part failed, the washer? hopefully i'll be speaking with you tomorrow..;)

Exactly. I wonder out of all the people running these balancers, how many of them are using the washer in it's stock form?

theres at least 1, ME..:eek:

If the factory hardware will not work properly shouldn't it come with the correct hardware?

:agreed:

One would think so????

:iamwithst




i called them this afternoon. left a message for dan and he is supposed to call me back tomorrow. i also sent him a PM with a link to this thread. so, maybe tomorrow we can get to the bottom of this.

my fluid damper is still onthe bench going to get it on the pickup one of these days would like to know about the washer issue.

Dont do it unless you modify the washer so it sits flat on the balancer, I saw one fail this weekend at Vegas..

Dan



Was anything else hurt internally when the dampner came off??

I know its hard to believe however this is the first time we have learned of this problem at the DHRA event at Vegas. We have sold about 125 of this part number & its the first time we have had a problem. It appears that the OEM washer needs to either have a 1/4" chamfer on the back side or you can turn the diameter of the washer down to 2-1/2".

We have ordered an OEM bolt & washer and it will be overnighted so we can look closer at one tomorrow. We have determined with our GM dealer that all the Duramax engines use the same bolt & washer over the years so that will make our solution easier.

If anyone has any input I would appreciate it. I should have a solution to this problem tomorrow.

Thanks,
Dan

There is definitely an issue that needs to be addressed immediately. I would recommend that all those running this balancer remove it immediately until a proper washer can be secured. Here's my off the cuff measurements:

OE washer 2.900"
Max diameter that will sit on the balancer "flat" is about 2.600" to 2.610". Fluidamper could confirm. My caliper will not get in deep enough so I had to eyeball.

What needs to happen is a very large chamfer be placed on the washer OR the radius needs to be removed from the balancer.

I turned a 1/4" radius on mine, and all seems to be good.

I know its hard to believe however this is the first time we have learned of this problem at the DHRA event at Vegas. We have sold about 125 of this part number & its the first time we have had a problem. It appears that the OEM washer needs to either have a 1/4" chamfer on the back side or you can turn the diameter of the washer down to 2-1/2".

We have ordered an OEM bolt & washer and it will be overnighted so we can look closer at one tomorrow. We have determined with our GM dealer that all the Duramax engines use the same bolt & washer over the years so that will make our solution easier.

If anyone has any input I would appreciate it. I should have a solution to this problem tomorrow.


Dan

I have to ask... Did you not state in an earlier thread that you tested these on trucks? If so why did the washer issue not get caught then? Also was wonering if you ever posted the harmonics data on the fluidampr compared to stock. Just wanting some data and clerification before I spend my hard earned money on one.

So lemme get this straight-

We have to have our rotating assemblies balanced with the stock dampener, then we yank that off and stick the Fluidampr on?

Fluidampr could you please address this aspect directly? Thanks.

So lemme get this straight-

We have to have our rotating assemblies balanced with the stock dampener, then we yank that off and stick the Fluidampr on?

Fluidampr could you please address this aspect directly? Thanks.

Have the crank balanced with the dampner you intend to run. There could be differences in the counterweighting for each dampner which would affect the overall dynamic balance of the crank.

Dont do it unless you modify the washer so it sits flat on the balancer, I saw one fail this weekend at Vegas..

Dan

I thought he blew his motor, it was bad

If anybody has questions please pm me...

Dan

I have to ask... Did you not state in an earlier thread that you tested these on trucks? If so why did the washer issue not get caught then? Also was wonering if you ever posted the harmonics data on the fluidampr compared to stock. Just wanting some data and clerification before I spend my hard earned money on one.

I am not sure how the mechanic missed this problem when he was installing the dampers so I am not sure what to tell you other than we will fix the problem as quickly as we can.

You can see the test data at this link: http://www.fluidampr.com/DOWNLOADS/PERF_DIESEL.pdf

As far as having to rebalance the crank with the Fluidampr this is not necessary. The Fluidampr is designed to be a direct replacement of the stock damper. We designed our Fluidampr with the same counterweight spec. as the OEM damper from the print we obtained from GM.

If you do happen to rebalance your crank for whatever reason, we recomend that you do so with the stock damper anyways. This is because a balancing machine spins the crank at a constant rpm. For the Fluidampr to work it needs to see the crank in a twisting motion that is only obtained when the engine is running due to the cylinders firing.

If anyone has any questions please let me know.

Thanks,
Dan

From what I have heard, a crankshaft was balanced with a stock balancer and then checked with the Fluidampr and was not even close.

Now of course there is the potential that the wrong unit was used, but that is something the engine builder will need to check...

From what I have heard, a crankshaft was balanced with a stock balancer and then checked with the Fluidampr and was not even close.

Now of course there is the potential that the wrong unit was used, but that is something the engine builder will need to check...

That's correct, if you balance a crank with a stock damper & then install a viscous damper they will not balance the same. When you try to balance a viscous damper there is a small shear force due to the shear gap inside the damper ring that will not balance the same at a constant rpm. If you could somehow duplicate the forces seen on a crank running in an engine on a balance machine then you would see the 2 damper types balance the same.

I hope I haven't made it more confusing! It's a complicated subject that is not easy to explain clearly.

Thanks,
Dan

From what I'm reading, if you change your rods, pistons, etc and need to balance or rebalance your engine. You would have to have the rotating assembly balanced with a stock balancer, and if you added/removed weight from the stock balancer, you would have to TRY and mimic that on the Fluidampr as conventional balancing doesn't work with the Fluidampr?? Or is material never added/removed from the balancer? I thought I've seen some with drill marks (similar to those on crank counterweights) on several gas balancers.....?



We designed our Fluidampr with the same counterweight spec. as the OEM damper from the print we obtained from GM.

If you do happen to rebalance your crank for whatever reason, we recomend that you do so with the stock damper anyways. This is because a balancing machine spins the crank at a constant rpm. For the Fluidampr to work it needs to see the crank in a twisting motion that is only obtained when the engine is running due to the cylinders firing.

If anyone has any questions please let me know.

Thanks,
Dan

From what I'm reading, if you change your rods, pistons, etc and need to balance or rebalance your engine. You would have to have the rotating assembly balanced with a stock balancer, and if you added/removed weight from the stock balancer, you would have to TRY and mimic that on the Fluidampr as conventional balancing doesn't work with the Fluidampr?? Or is material never added/removed from the balancer? I thought I've seen some with drill marks (similar to those on crank counterweights) on several gas balancers.....?

When you balance a crank for new pistons, rods, etc. if you need to correct the balance you add or remove weight from the crank not the damper. The reason you see holes drilled in the damper is from when the damper manufacturer needed to balance the damper itself from the machining process. So you will never need to drill add or remove weight from a Fluidampr or any other damper.

I hope that makes sense.

Thanks,
Dan

So, in a sense there is now way to verify proper balance with a Fluid dampner?

What if there are differences in the counterweighting between the stock balancer we use to spin the crank during balance and the Fluid dampner we install on our motor?

Perhaps a production tolerance at GM or at Vibratech?

My first hand experience with this damper on just one occasion that we have used it.

We were in process of building a motor for customer and sent the parts off to the balance shop and I forgot about the Fluidampr in the backseat of the truck, I took the balancer over to the machine shop and they rebalanced the the crank, they had to add two pieces of heavy metal to the crank when using the Fluidampr. Not sure if this is an isolated problem or what, but I know the balance was way off after the damper swap

Since you can not balance a viscous damper on a balance machine, during our manufacturing process, we individually zero balance the damper components. We will balance the housing & the inertia ring 100% before final assembly to insure that when the parts are ready to ship they are balanced parts.

We obtain our balance specs. & the tolerance for the Fluidamr directly from the OEM manufacturer damper print I obtain from SEMA. This way we know that the Fluidampr will be a direct replacement for the OEM damper without having to rebalance the crank.

I must request that when balancing a crank to use the OEM damper & not the Fluidampr. I make this request not because there is a difference in balancing spec. but because they are totally different methods of controlling torsional vibration. A rubber damper is designed to control torsional vibration at a constant rpm such as a balance machine. A viscous damper is designed to control torsional vibration specifically for an engine crankshaft that undergoes torsional vibration.

Let me know if anyone has anymore questions, it's a tricky subject.

Thanks,
Dan

fluiddampner i am glad to wait until you have a chance to research the problem i know this came out of the blue at you guys and i would rather have the right answer than a quick answer to please the masses. and i do agree that it would have been nice to be caught to start with but seems gm pumped out a bunch of junk clutches and never tried to correct it. just don't like the jump on the dog pile way this is going. jmo

fluiddampner i am glad to wait until you have a chance to research the problem i know this came out of the blue at you guys and i would rather have the right answer than a quick answer to please the masses. and i do agree that it would have been nice to be caught to start with but seems gm pumped out a bunch of junk clutches and never tried to correct it. just don't like the jump on the dog pile way this is going. jmo

I agree, we want to fix this issue quickly & correctly the first time. So everyone knows what we have decided to do is rework all the parts we have in stock & the ones we have in process including the new Fluidampr (p/n 830111) for the 2006-2007.5 Duramax engines, which were a couple weeks away from shipping. The rework will probably add a week or so until they are ready to ship.

For the ones that are out in the field we will be offering 2 options to everyone that has purchased p/n 890101. You can either exchange your Fluidampr for a new reworked Fluidampr so that the stock washer will fit correctly or we will ship you a modified washer that will correctly fit the current Fluidampr.

I apologize for this oversight & I hope one of these 2 options will satisfy everyone that has supported Fluidampr. If anyone has any questions or anything else I can help with please let me know.

Thanks,
Dan

I had a bad experience with them years ago and my personal preference is to not use them.

I wanted an alternative so that our community had a choice, so I developed an alternative for our Duramax engines. One for LB7/LLY and one for LBZ as the counterweighting is different.

Hopefully the dyno testing will be complete on the prototypes this weekend and I can tell you all more about it next week.

Stay tuned..................:D

Guy....since you are planning on producing a product to compete against fluidapmnr and this thread is specificly about fluidampnr I have to ask you to refrain from posting anymore in this thread since it violates the vendor rules you have agreed to. Thanks :)

I remember reading the thread between Guy and Fluidampr. It would be cool if Guy would chip in his $0.02

i didnt have to do any modifications to get mine to work. it basically bolted on. there was also a post reguarding a waterpump bolt that had to be modified to provide enough clearence for the fluidampnr. i did not have to modify any bolt in any fashion whatsoever.

the only difference i noticed is on the attitude monitor the rpm's will only fluctuiate about 2-3 rpms, instead of 15-20. deadeye had already mentioned this is another thread, so i checked my rpm's before and after the install to confirm.

I originally was responding to the invitation quoted above. However, I understand completely and will not post any further in this thread. ;)

I know guy;) I orriginaly told the user to search on previous posts as well...I didnt realize that you were developing a competing product ;)

just wondering where we go from here. my dampner is sitting on the bench waiting for an answer. do you want me to give you a call? what works best.

We have a few options available, if you want you can call me at 716-592-1000 & ask for Dan. If you want you can PM me your number & I can give you a call at your convenience.

Thanks,
Dan

thanks .

I can't answer how well the fluidampr works on the duramax but I have one on my 6.2. I couldn't believe how much smoother and quiter my 6.2 runs with the fluidampr on it. I pull a 7000 lb trailer and that is when I noticed the most change. you can't hear or feel the engine running in the cab anymore and it runs much smoother when pulling a hill in second running higher RPMs. I personaly think it was the best money I have spent on my truck.
Randy

Glad I brought the question up...........