Since I have the TF190's, and the SBM single plane intake, I guess I'll look at their damper. Thanks, Paul.
It should work fine, it’s the same exact part as the Pro Race Pro Sport version (I had one) available at Jegs, and the same as all the other rebranded versions out there. Being black it’ll make reading the timing marks easy compared to the metal finish versions (those are next to impossible to read with the light flickering, all glare) and they corrode over time and look nasty.
How are they on there thickness? I will need to get a new balancer for a couple of race mills in the works and the pulley alignment can be a PIA when the damper is thicker. I’m working on a 318 & 2-340’s.
I have a 5” aluminum crank pulley and had to make a spacer to align it with the wp pulley. I can measure to the belt off the balancer if you need it.
ATI, gotcha. Specific model number? The ones I seen at Summit all have notes of being extra thick by some degree. Thanks! But no… it’s not the belt size, just the damper thickness I’m looking for. I have (IIRC) the amoroso small diameter crank pulley as well. Here’s a picture… I want to keep the stock thickness of the damper if I can since everything lines up now. I just don’t know what damper will or will not copy the stock thickness.
The measurement from the face of the damper to the belt would tell you if your current pulley arrangement would work with the Innovators West damper.
Just wondering. Why not a Fluidamper? If your engine is a 70 and later aluminum pump. A 69 and earlier lower pulley aligns with with all the pulleys and it under drives . That is what was recommended when I bought the Damper years ago. Spin that thing up to extreme RPM's. and SmOOOOth . I wouldn't run anything else on our bb and sb race engines. From what I was told the floating ring also catches up so less initial reciprocating weight.
Fluid damper 4500 rpm @ 80 steady on the highway . 456's with 28" tires 5500 stall . 8000 shifts all day long on the street and at the track. Expensive but well worth the investment. Like I said they were made to run 69 and back pulley on 70 up cars for belt alignment and under drive.
That’s great and all but failed to answer the question I asked. I appreciate the testimony though. You asked “Why not a Fluidamper.” It’s not why not or why. It’s a fitment issue I’m trying to clear up before purchasing. You mention certain pullies to use. I’m not sure what pullies I have pictured above. By way of your description, you just talked me out of a a Fluidamper. So that’s why I wouldn’t run one due to the need to run special pullies, the way you worded it. I need to run old pullies w/a new style water pump. That just sounds weird to me. Hard to see things in your second picture. I’m not understanding what I see in the first besides a thick & thin damper.
If you use a fluidamper on a 70 and newer car with an aluminum pump. You would use the lower pulley from a 69 and earlier car and the rest of the 70 pulleys would line right up. You only have to change out the lower pulley. The depth of the early pulleys are shallow the same as the fluidamper's are thicker. . Also the diameter on the early pulley is smaller so it would also act as an underdrive. Which many people buy after market pulleys to accomplish. So you are killing two birds with one stone. I could not believe the difference with the fluidamper on a stock 340 . Much greater torque from start and very smooth as advertised up in RPM's More money, But you get what you pay for. The last picture I posted is a chrome 69 chrome pulley on a fluidamper. that is the way I ran it on my 71 Duster 340 with factory 71 pulleys and everything lined up perfect, I left it on the race motor for the underdrive even though I have a Large pulley GM alternator. I am telling you my experience with a Fluidamper. There are many others that work well for less money. So its all about what you want to spend. Fluidampers will eliminate most all harmonics. This is only my opinion from my experience. There are other Dampers that work well and my son buys them for many engines built here. They all work fine for the price they pay. Just not my cup of tea.
Great info in this thread, brought up some good points about thickness/pulleys...I plan on going with stock 273 "looks", so gotta measure the Tickflow thickness to compare against stock...
Not advocating for any in particular, but be sure to read the install notes for the innovators west and ATI dampers. ATI implies you can get a stock setup to line up, with just the right mix of hub and ring, but otherwise no go. Innovators west says, I think, it will work with 69 earlier, but not 70+. I don't know how else to interpret "Stock bolt pattern and spacing for 340 Mopar with Steel Crank. Internally balanced only. Will fit cast crank 340 and 360 but will not have stock spacing." Stock like bonded dampers and the new design fluidampr do line up, old man is talking about the original design with the flat face.
All factory Dampers on LA engines have the same spacing from the snout of the crank to pulley bolt surface. It is the water pump that is different . The cast iron pump being a shorter distance from the face of the block. Thus the reason for the shorter crank pulley. Even the external balance crank dampers that are weighted have the same bolt surface distance from the snout. .
Don't know if this matters, I have the trick flow on my '70 340 with stock pulleys and everything lined up perfectly.
Thanks Jeff, I'm aiming for 67 273 "look". With cadt iron water pump and all stock pulleys etc. Fingers crossed lol.
