Dual crank pulley

JasonNC

I am still looking for a dual groove pulley from a 54 Hudson. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Jason

Unknown

JasonNC wrote:

I am still looking for a dual groove pulley from a 54 Hudson. Any help will be greatly appreciated.

Jason

---

Best bet is a small local machine shop, easy job---BUD

JasonNC

37 Terraplane#2 wrote:

---

Best bet is a small local machine shop, easy job---BUD

I bought a single crank pulley from Dave Kostanek with the intentions of having a machine shop cut a groove in the back side to fit a small belt. My mechanic talked me out that saying it may cause the pulley to lose its balance. Another friend suggested I get a single pulley from a late 40's early 50's Chevrolet and attach it to the Hudson pulley via drilling and tapping four holes into it. Machine shop guy doesn't want to take the chance. I wish you could elaborate further Bud so I can convince a machinist that he should at least give it a try.

Jason

Unknown

Jason lets use a bit of common sense here . The pully is made of the same metal all over and removeing the same amount of metal all around is not going to change it's balance , just make it lighter . I'm not a school taught machinist but I have my own lathe and have done this exact thing many times . On my 37 Terraplane I have air conditioner, a 6v alt AND a 12v alt { the 12v is isolated } and a six blade fan . All this made it neccessary to move the fan forward 2 inches to clear everything. Made my own pullys and a spacer and it runs just fine . If your machine shop that does this kind of work for a liveing can't do it you better find another shop . I've also done the bolt together and weld together thing with no problems , just have to use a dial indicater and get things lined up . When I weld together I line it up good and put it in the lathe and true it up on the weld. How do they think this thing was made to begin with ? The little holes you see in some crank pulleys are to balance a cast crank , not the pulley . ---BUD

MikeWA

I guess I need a little education here. What is a harmonic balancer? I always thought that the crank pulley had a "harmonic balancer" built into it, but sounds like that's not the case? Is it just a chunk of iron?



signed, "Confused"

Unknown

Mike (WA) wrote:

I guess I need a little education here. What is a harmonic balancer? I always thought that the crank pulley had a "harmonic balancer" built into it, but sounds like that's not the case? Is it just a chunk of iron?



signed, "Confused"

---

Some crank pulleys are solid and will have shallow holes in them to balance the crank, a harmonic balancer is 2 parts with rubber molded between them.---BUD

JasonNC

Ken U-Tx wrote:

I have one double groove pulley, what are you willing to pay for one? Shoot me an email @ HETknnu21@yahoo.com. Please remove the HET. Kenneth

Ken,

I sent you an email. Did you get it?

Jason

[Deleted User]

1. Why not BORROW one and let a machinist build you one just like it, from billet aluminum; then return the borrowed one?



2. The following company specializes in CNC machined aluminum pulleys from 6061-T6 billet aluminum for incredible balance and strength.



Maybe they would build one if they had the Hudson specs?



http://www.rjays.com/Billet_Spec/billet-pulleys-01.htm



Possible 2 options, in my mind!;)



Bob

JasonNC

m6ride wrote:

1. Why not BORROW one and let a machinist build you one just like it, from billet aluminum; then return the borrowed one?





Bob

Bob,

As desperate as I sound, do you think anybody is going to let me BORROW one? Anybody out there want to take my word that I am an honest man....

Park_W

There are sure a lot of us out here who have grown up thinking these crank pulleys were designed to dampen harmonic vibrations in the crankshaft. If that's true, having one made from aluminum billet might create problems. Maybe Randy Maas or another real engine expert out there could weigh in on this.

RL Chilton

Jason-



I have to agree with Park here, aluminum might change the dynamics of the crank, I would look into that if that is the route you are going to go. Did Ken get back in touch with you? If he has one to offer, I'd snatch it up, they are getting harder and harder to find.



IF you need to borrow one, I have one to loan, but would certainly need it back. You can e-mail me if need be.

JasonNC

RL Chilton wrote:

Jason-



I have to agree with Park here, aluminum might change the dynamics of the crank, I would look into that if that is the route you are going to go. Did Ken get back in touch with you? If he has one to offer, I'd snatch it up, they are getting harder and harder to find.



IF you need to borrow one, I have one to loan, but would certainly need it back. You can e-mail me if need be.

I'm still waiting to hear from Ken. Thanks for the offer, but you and Park have pretty much scared me out of the aluminum reproduction idea. (Not that I ever gave it much thought.)

Jason

esfoder

I had a good talk with a man named Mike Kuhl. He was a supercharger manufacturer and NHRA top fuel champion crew chief about crank pullies and such. I bought a 8-71 kit from him and he sent it with a crank hub that was degreed for timming purposes and made of solid steel. From our conversation he said that the harmonic balancer was a compromise at best.they are also very rpm sensative. For it to be effective it would have to be very large in diameter and in the middle of the crank and that they were not very practical for an automobile engine. He said that the steel crank hub on the roots blower motors did as good a job as anything else. Pluse they don't gernade with the added stress of turning a large blower.





I run a solid steel hub on that motor and have had no problems with it?









Just my 2 cents worth.



Dusty



P.S. The billet crank pullies are put on every other make and modle of engine I think it would just make it lighter?

Unknown

Don't know Mike Kuhl but he has it right . We ran small block Chevs in sprint cars turning 8 grand and better with NO big hub. Some guys had dry sump/oil pump /water pump /fuel pump systems ran off of the front the crank--others just used a made up adapter to run water and fuel pump. Some had the crank itself balanced/ditto rods /pistons / some not/ some line bored the block/some not--and aluminum versus steel makes no differance except in weight and any small out of balance would be less problem with the aluminum. Cranks are factory balanced but NOT PERFECT, just good enogh for passenger cars . The harmonic balancer hub is the factory way of getting out of trying to balance each crank to perfection and better than a solid metal hub for passenger cars, On an all out race engine the crank/rods/pistons any moveing part is balanced to extremely high rpm's , this is not needed for a passenger car . Have no fear of a CNC machined pulley of steel or alluminum , it will be better than what the car had new . ----BUD

JasonNC

Based on what Dusty and Bud had to say, I emailed the aluminum crank company, told them about the discussion on this website, and asked if he would be interested in producing a replica crank for a 54 Hudson. If I hear back from him, anyone interested in trying to show there is a market for these babies? If he can produce and sell them at the prices comparable to what he is now offering, it sure be cheaper and easier trying to buy the real deal on EBay.

JasonNC

That last sentence should have read "It sure would be cheaper and easier THAN trying to buy the real deal on Ebay."

junkcarfann

Here is a good article about crankshaft dampeners, and what they do:



http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/engine/mopp_081027_crankshaft_damper/index.html

Unknown

junkcarfann wrote:

Here is a good article about crankshaft dampeners, and what they do:



http://www.moparmusclemagazine.com/techarticles/engine/mopp_081027_crankshaft_damper/index.html

---

Very good again and in detail, something it benifits all to understand , but this is race car talk , the perfection I mentioned , turning 3 times and more RPM's than we do with our street machines and not needed at our level so don't let it scare you . Any good machine shop with good equipment can turn out a better hub than you car had new . ---BUD

Park_W

Here's a quote from the referenced article: "Once these vibrations get to the front of the motor, something there needs to counteract that motion. That is where the damper comes into play. The damper's job is to absorb and counteract as much of the twist as it possibly can. If you have the right damper on your motor, almost all of the twist can be eliminated. With the wrong damper, however, virtually all of the twist can remain."



These comments apply across the operating range of the engine, not just at higher RPM. While the article was in Mopar Muscle, the issue is by no means limited to performance engines. When it speaks of "the right damper," it means one matched to the characteristics of the crankshaft, etc. If you just want a pulley, go for the billet job. I'll stick with the torsional vibration damper Hudson engineeered to match my engine.

[Deleted User]

If you want state-of-the-art => http://www.bhjdynamics.com/

Park_W

re: the above, does anyone who's read the entire Tech info article on damper design considerations still think a damper is just a pulley?

And I think if the original Hudson damper balancing holes were just a fine tune of the crank balance, there would be some cautions or advice in the manuals about swapping them from engine to engine. I have to conclude they're simply to balance the damper/pulley assembly. There is a useful comment in the article about "regular driver" engines vs. racing applications, which is basically that you can get away with about anything as a damper/pulley without much risk of problems.

[Deleted User]

A good, functioning damper is an absolute must on a Hudson. Cutting an extra groove in the larger steel ring of the stock damper isn't going to hurt the damper, but will lower your rpm ceiling at where the crank breaks. How much? dunno.



I really believe the stock dampers to be kinda faulty anyway. Who knows the condition of the rubber "sandwiches" that are between the bolted plates on the back on the damper? This is why the timing marks are not on the damper's edge, Hudson knew the outer part would move and make the marks completely inaccurate.



If one does not care about the originality of the damper, there is some choices. Inside the stock damper is a pretty substantial "Hub". When you look at the parts diagrams, you can see this "Hub" as being the only piece truly fastened to the crank. The elastomer discs are trapped between the outer shell (the part we see as the weight and belt sheave) and the large disc bolted to the back. You can take this hub out and redrill it to use with the better aftermarket balancers. Just call the manufacturer and give them the "heads-up" that you are using the balancer on a Hudson.



The two things they'll want to know is the engines stroke length and overall crankshaft length. The crank length is roughly 36" long, the Hash crank is about 35.5" long.



Randy Maas' drag racer is running such a outfit, although I cannot remember who's balancer he is running. Maybe he'll chime in here and give some additional insight.







Mark

Park_W

Mark, I've wondered too, at how much the aging process and hardening of that rubber has affected the damping characteristics. Glad the bottom line for us "ordinary drivers" is that it's not very critical. Wonder what the "Damper Dudes" or other damper rehab artists would do if they received one of these Hudson critters.

RL Chilton

Park W wrote:

Mark, I've wondered too, at how much the aging process and hardening of that rubber has affected the damping characteristics. Glad the bottom line for us "ordinary drivers" is that it's not very critical. Wonder what the "Damper Dudes" or other damper rehab artists would do if they received one of these Hudson critters.

I think that's an excellent question, and one I have asked of myself. The older rubber was vulcanized differently, although I don't know exactly how. Rubber (back when our cars were new) was much softer than today's standards used in reproductions and in rubber products in general. Most of today's rubber is very hard, like a hockey puck. Rubber used on Hudsons was much softer to begin with and subsequently had a lot of "give". Unfortunately, it hardens (dries out) and cracks over time. The rubber in the dampener certainly comes into question as to it's stability over 5 -6 decades. When I switched to my dual-pulley balancer, I had an NOS one and a very good used one. The rubber in the used one was in better shape than the NOS one, probably due to the fact that it had application-time and was being exercised somewhat more than the shelf queen. I chose to use the slightly used one just for this purpose.

I wish I knew more, specifically about switching one damper for another, as it has been my impression that balancers were adjusted specifically for the engine they were to be used on, Hudson being no exception.

Later on, after the switch, I began to wonder about how much more vibration would be transferred to my engine with the different balancer. Surprisingly, the change seemed to be about the same, or slightly better (concerning running engine smoothness). Hudson engines can be incredibly smooth (even the 6's), when properly balanced, which would include the dampener. Eventually, with the hardening rubber, we will have to find a workable solution, which might be milling a solid-type of harmonic balancer. Seems to me, that with a "re-fab" with modern rubber being much harder than it was "back in the day", that new challenges would have to be answered to find out if that is a viable solution. I always try not to question Hudson engineers, as they certainly knew more than I do, but they did not consider the challenges of making half-a-century old parts work properly, as we do today, either.

[Deleted User]

Park W wrote:

Mark, I've wondered too, at how much the aging process and hardening of that rubber has affected the damping characteristics. Glad the bottom line for us "ordinary drivers" is that it's not very critical. Wonder what the "Damper Dudes" or other damper rehab artists would do if they received one of these Hudson critters.

Park and Russell,



I'm actually afraid to take any good one I have apart. The only one I did take apart, the rubber was melted/bonded to the pieces. Disassembly truly disabled it. Those rubber discs get VERY hot while damping the torsional rebound of the crankshaft and had melted to the metal. I don't think Hudson had it figured out as well as we'd like to think, otherwise they wouldn't have suffered as many crank failures at 5000 rpm "back in the day". We've liqufied the stock balancer rubber on a 292 Chevy engine to the point the outer ring fell off. Hudson balancers have the discs trapped, but obviously the one I took apart had been almost liquified at one time or another.



On the new ones, Clifford had a good one made by Fisher - no longer available. I think some time back Randy had contacted the guys who had the original Hudson/Fisher damper design to see if enough of us would buy one to make a run. They were/are expensive. Most rebuilders won't touch the Hudson, because of how its made. It was made to rebuild easily, but the rubber discs aren't available anymore - which is the kicker.



I had my stroker crank remachined to accept a standard Chevy balancer. I also talked with ATI about my engine and they recommended a balancer in terms of diameter, elastomer type, etc. I bought the ATI - but haven't tried it out. One could use the same damper on a modified original Hudson hub as I mentioned before. That's about the best bet out there, a bolt-on balancer fit to an adapted inner Hudson hub. The ATI balancers with separate hub run around $475.00, but then you have the standard chevy 3-bolt accessory pulley pattern. And, a whole lot better damper to hit those high rpms with.



Mark

Unknown

Park W wrote:

re: the above, does anyone who's read the entire Tech info article on damper design considerations still think a damper is just a pulley?

And I think if the original Hudson damper balancing holes were just a fine tune of the crank balance, there would be some cautions or advice in the manuals about swapping them from engine to engine. I have to conclude they're simply to balance the damper/pulley assembly. There is a useful comment in the article about "regular driver" engines vs. racing applications, which is basically that you can get away with about anything as a damper/pulley without much risk of problems.

Normally, the only time you need to get involved in swapping balancers around is if you're going from an Internally balanced engine to an Externally balanced engine. I would think that an available balancer would fit right on the Hudson, and as long as it's internally balanced it wouldn't matter. I do know that Ford 300 6cly/302/351/3.8L V6 etc, balancers will fit a Packard straight eight and V8, so I'd think that something could be found that will fir a Hudson.



On that note, I went out and measured my '55 308 crank, and it's just a hair smaller than the Packard, so a Ford won't work for you guys. If you find a balancer that will fit and have bolt on pulleys, you'll have unlimited sources for pulleys in any configuration you need.

esfoder

I bought a 55 Hornet at an auction last year just for the dual balancer and 308 motor. I have already posted my thoughts on this subject. With that being said I will put an aftermarket damper on the front on my more radical combo. The street engine will go with the dual pulley that I drug home attached to the 55.





I can't see the piont of skimping on anything that has to do with a Hudson engine. They are not making them any more?





Dusty

RL Chilton

"I can't see the piont of skimping on anything that has to do with a Hudson engine. They are not making them any more?"

Good Point!! I tell that to people all the time.