
GMH Starfire 1.9L 4cyl interest?
#51
Posted 05 February 2013 - 09:54 PM
#52
Posted 06 April 2013 - 08:38 AM
And they do this to camshafts
#54
Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:08 AM
Blower had crossed my mind,but because these things vibrate like all fuk it would
seem that they have some sort of inherant balance problem that needs sorting out first.
Is there anyone on this forum that has a starfire powered Torana in which the
engine is still from factory and if they are game could they tell us if they vibrated from
factory.
#55
Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:16 AM
i dont know alot about them my self but i have noticed they dont run a harmonic balancer from factory not to sure why maybe cost?
also i have read that you are not meant to use the alloy cam gear on the starfire either again not sure why just read it in the JP gears instructions.
#56
Posted 09 April 2013 - 08:44 AM
Yep,I read that about the alloy gears as well,but I also read not to use alloy gear without balancer.But
I dont remember where I read it.
Fitted balancer and drove water pump/alt.from original s/fire pulley on front of balancer hub when it had fibre gear,made no difference to vibration problem,same deal with alloy gear.
They seem to have some other balance problem that needs attention,the way I see it is why should a s/fire have
such a bad vibration problem when there were other 1.9's out there that didnt seem to have it.
They are not a very popular chioce of engine but with the stuffing around we have done over the last 10 years they do seem
to respond to certain mods,its just the vibration problem that knocks a bit out of them.
#57
_Bomber Watson_
Posted 09 April 2013 - 06:56 PM
Got a pick of a Starfire crank NOBALLS???
#58
Posted 11 April 2013 - 08:20 AM
Yeah Bomber, got a pick of cranks but the ones we have used were balanced again
before we fitted them and the little shits of things still shake.
They definatly have a problem.Maybe just forget the whole exercise and write it off
as a nightmare.
#59
_Bomber Watson_
Posted 11 April 2013 - 09:54 AM
#60
_oldjohnno_
Posted 11 April 2013 - 11:07 AM
Yeah Bomber, got a pick of cranks but the ones we have used were balanced again
before we fitted them and the little shits of things still shake.
They definatly have a problem.Maybe just forget the whole exercise and write it off
as a nightmare.
That's really odd. An inline four with a flat crank is inherently balanced, so it shouldn't shake that much even with no counterweighting at all. The old B series BMC engines were around the same size, and a lot of them were hotted up and spun pretty quick, and they had no counterweights and only 3 mains. Something weird must be happening with the Starfire, do they tend to crack the block?
#61
Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:14 AM
Havn't had any cracked blocks,they shake almost everything thing else off that is hanging off
the block.I wont list the stuff and things that come loose or break.
It is starting to beat me,there is only a couple of other things to check out but it involves
some brain fuk type mathematics which I am not in the mood for right now.
Speaking of the flat crank,that is an area that we have not looked at properly yet,so here goes.
I have been trying to find out as much as possible about crank balancing,seems all I can find
is on v8's and singles.So if we look at a single cylinder engine the general rule for most balancing
acts seems to be based around the 50% balance factor,which basically deals with a % of reciprocating weight and 100% of rotating weight(bigend of conrod & bearings),(lets not get in to moment of mass) and ignores "hybrid" weight,lets not go there either.
So if we do some numbers on our theoretical single and end up with a number,theoreticaly thats the amount
of counter weight we need on the crank somwhere to balance things out pretty good.
Lo and behold they use the 50% factor when balancing v8's as well.
So now we look at a 4 cylinder flat crank,1&4 and 2&3 weights are 180 out of phase,all good,
if the designers got the numbers spot on in counter weight phasing and got
all the weights the same that crank should just need the journals etc. machining and
you could fit that crank in a balance machine and it would be perfectly balanced.
I have had a couple rebalanced and they came back with about a 3/8 size hole 1/16 deep in one place
that it makes one wonder why you would pay for such an act.
Now we have a perfectly balanced crankshaft,it spins nice,it is smooth,all good on the balance machine.
Now this is what i am trying to get my head around,if we then take our beutifully balanced crank shaft and
bolt some rods etc to it,is our crankshaft still balanced?,keep in mind the balance factor!...
#62
_oldjohnno_
Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:44 PM
There's a lot more to "balancing" than what a lot of people think, and just because a crank doesn't jump out of the balancing machine doesn't mean it is in fact balanced. One problem is that with the common balancing machines there is no way of determining a balance factor with a straight six or four crank. It might be 10%, or zero or 5000%, as far as the machine is concerned it'll come up just fine.
Attaching rods to the crank won't affect the balance (as shown by the machine) provided they are all the same weight. Doesn't matter if they weigh 300grams or 300kg, the machine will say it's all good. The rods (specifically the path taken by the rods) are probably the main cause of the vibrations in the four. Because the piston motion is different through bdc than it is through tdc it's impossible for any balance factor to work perfectly through both centres. It's not so bad with sixes but it seems to be bad enough with bigger fours that balance shafts have been virtually standard for a long time.
I wouldn't have expected the starfire to be so bad but then I don't know what balance factor was used from the factory. Things to try short of fitting balance shafts: the lightest pistons and pins possible along with the longest practicable rods. And then find a balance factor that is a good compromise for the engine, the mounts and the rpm range. This'll be the hard part; determining what the present factor is and then testing others. But the usual 50% would be a good place to start.
#63
Posted 12 April 2013 - 09:48 PM
I sort of remember driving several (then) new VC/VH Commodores with the 4 banger. Please remember that this was 30 years ago and I never owned one personally. But from memory they weren't real smooth.Is there anyone on this forum that has a starfire powered Torana in which the
engine is still from factory and if they are game could they tell us if they vibrated from
factory.
#64
Posted 12 April 2013 - 10:57 PM
I had a 1956 Morris Minor with the 803 engine that broke a crank at idle.The old B series BMC engines
Both of my daughters had Commodores with starfires and neither of them were super smooth, quiet engines. One VC and the other VH.
#65
Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:40 AM
Edited by hanra, 13 April 2013 - 08:40 AM.
#66
Posted 13 April 2013 - 10:00 AM
Ok,so now we know that they were not real flash from the factory,thats good to know because it virtually eliminates
what we have done as causing the problem although we may have amplified it a bit.
The shaking is probably there all the time but is most noticeable in "bands" at different rpm points,the point where
it is "nice" is at 3000 but ironically that was 100k in overdrive when the cam decided to get intimate with some
bits lower down the food chain.
I see what you mean oldjohnno,and even though multi cylinder engines will behave differently than a single what I was trying to illustrate and
try to understand is that if we take a single pot engine apart and remove the conrod from the crank and then sit the crank on knife edges
will that crank fall to the heaviest point and stay there? If it does then we would have to say that the crankshaft or rather the counter weight or some other part is the imbalance.
If we then "balance" out the difference so that the crank when on knife edges does not fall to a heavy point could we say that it is then "balanced"?
I would say yes,but, if we now go and connect a bob weight of a calculated weight to mimik the big end and a portion of reciprocating weight
will that crank and the weight behave as it should when it is rotating?.i would say no but thats just my opinion.
I could be getting way out of touch with reality and basic understanding here but should not the bit that spins be "out of balance"
untill the reciprocating and rotating bits are attached to bring it back to "some balance".I dont know,maybe i need a holiday or something.
#67
Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:55 PM
This reminds me of when we bought the UC years ago, we got it cheap because the starfire wouldn't run properly. I looked over the motor and found both manifolds had shaken loose...
#68
_barana_
Posted 13 April 2013 - 04:14 PM
so noballsuc, would u like to post the pix here plz? im interested to see em too, and i think i'm onto a similar wavelength as bomber.
#69
_oldjohnno_
Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:00 PM
I see what you mean oldjohnno,and even though multi cylinder engines will behave differently than a single what I was trying to illustrate and
try to understand is that if we take a single pot engine apart and remove the conrod from the crank and then sit the crank on knife edges
will that crank fall to the heaviest point and stay there? If it does then we would have to say that the crankshaft or rather the counter weight or some other part is the imbalance.
If we then "balance" out the difference so that the crank when on knife edges does not fall to a heavy point could we say that it is then "balanced"?
I would say yes,but, if we now go and connect a bob weight of a calculated weight to mimik the big end and a portion of reciprocating weight
will that crank and the weight behave as it should when it is rotating?.i would say no but thats just my opinion.
I could be getting way out of touch with reality and basic understanding here but should not the bit that spins be "out of balance"
untill the reciprocating and rotating bits are attached to bring it back to "some balance".I dont know,maybe i need a holiday or something.
The thing you have to keep in mind is that the majority of engines can never be perfectly balanced without using external balance shafts. So when the guy at the machine shop tells you he's balanced your rotating assembly to within a fraction of a gram he's basically full of shit. When he tells you he's added two grams for oil he's especially full of shit. The machine may say it's spot on, but in a running engine it will be compromised. The whole balancing routine with a straight six or four is just one big bunch of compromises for that matter.
For example when you choose a bobweight the more weight you add the more you reduce the vertical shakes. But the added weight creates a shake in the horizontal plane, so you have to compromise. The peak force created when the piston reaches TDC is higher than the peak at BDC, so again, it's a compromise. Engines and their mounts have their own resonances that may influence the best compromise of balance factor as well, so as you can see it's not an exact science.
I've statically balanced single cylinder bike engines on knife edges as you describe, the crank is considered "balanced" when it'll stay put with a bobweight of your chosen weight is attached, usually equal to all of the rotating mass and half of the reciprocating, or in other words 50%. But after all this is it really balanced? Nope, no way in the world, perfect balance with a single is impossible. Big singles can shake very very badly, and all you can hope for is a balance factor that doesn't set up any bad resonances in the frame or make the grips about 4" in diameter at certain speeds.
#70
Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:14 AM
^^ Yes I understand that it is always a compromise and that there is no such thing as a perfectly balanced engine,some of them even take rings into consideration.It is impossible not only due to mechanical factors but also because of the ever changing forces of induction,exhaust,combustion pressures,resonance etc.but the starfire must have a compromise factor way outside the window of tolerable compromise and thats what gave them a really bad name.
Personally I think the horrible little things do have potential to be a resonable little engine that if sorted would perform quite well for what they are.
I did read something about these engines being used in Gemini rally or something but you cant always beleive what the net says,and if they did use them they must have "fixed" the problem to a good degree or else in race conditions it is unlikley they would last too long.
Looks like I dont get out doing some numbers and possibly even some band saw work.
Will post some pics when I have finished ripping out hair
#71
_oldjohnno_
Posted 14 April 2013 - 09:47 AM
If you have some experience with solid modelling software, or access to someone who does, then you can determine the current balance factor without having to cut up a crank. If it's like a Holden six crank (and it probably is) it's likely to be severely underbalanced.
Sometimes though it's just a matter of living with the vibration by using things like additional manifold supports and remote fuel bowls. Big high revving fours like the Offys shook the old Indy cars so badly that the drivers hands would sometimes be bleeding and blistered at the end of a race, and their vision would be badly blurred.
Alternatively you could run twin external balance shafts running at twice crank speed. You could even enclose them in some sort of housing and shape the counterweights like blower rotors
#72
Posted 14 April 2013 - 03:19 PM
^^ Iam getting some ideas now.....see how we go.
I was leaning toward underbalance as well but will do some proofing as to get an idea
#73
_oldjohnno_
Posted 14 April 2013 - 04:50 PM
You could try a bit more counterweight to increase the balance factor, but even better would be to reduce the rotating/reciprocating weight. This way you can increase the balance factor (which should help reduce the vertical shakes) without adding to the horizontal plane shakes. For a start you can remove material from the rod caps and/or use lighter taper wall pins. Either way is low or no cost and easy to do and wouldn't require removing the crank for "re-balancing". I'd be inclined to pull a fair bit of weight out - say 40g or so - and then run the engine to see how it feels. If it improves markedly you could always go back and pull more weight out later.
#74
_Bomber Watson_
Posted 14 April 2013 - 06:52 PM
Ssssoooo, a supercharger is a balance shaft now??
I understand that they act like harmonic dampners...But never thought of a balance shaft....
Considering i cant convince my engineer a 4/71 is a harmonic balancer, wonder if he would believe "balance shaft".....
Cheers.
#75
_oldjohnno_
Posted 14 April 2013 - 07:17 PM
Considering i cant convince my engineer a 4/71 is a harmonic balancer, wonder if he would believe "balance shaft".....
Step 1: find out what he drinks...
2 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users