[BruceWilkie]

Originally Posted by elevatorman51

I just checked mine out it reads 07 17 f and A429310 didnt have any failure but it did seem loose on the crank and was around 4thous. larger than the Powerbond. How loose is too loose?

Interesting comment on Scats website under crank snout failure. note comment regarding viscous or rattle type balancers. http://www.scatcrankshafts.com/PDFs/ScatCrank07.pdf
page 55. Also somewhere when I was researching which crank and which damper and which cam timing gear, I was shopping for, I ran across a note to avoid 9 key timing gear as it wasnt good for crank life. I wish I would have saved the link. Maybe it was Cloyes site???? If I stumble on it I'll post it

How loose? I have seen evidence that an interference fit is better than loose. Both in writings of others and personal observations(wear spots that werent there when assembled and crank bolt still tight on tear down). Most Pontiacs are loose fit, but high rpm we can survive these days suggests we change our ways and stop relying soley on 160 ft lbs to keep it from dancing. If loose fit it "has" to be affected by harmonics and vibration. Engines without tightly doweled main caps walk all over even with high clamp loads.

[440GP69]

Originally Posted by BruceWilkie

Interesting comment on Scats website under crank snout failure. note comment regarding viscous or rattle type balancers. http://www.scatcrankshafts.com/PDFs/ScatCrank07.pdf
page 55. Also somewhere when I was researching which crank and which damper and which cam timing gear, I was shopping for, I ran across a note to avoid 9 key timing gear as it wasnt good for crank life. I wish I would have saved the link. Maybe it was Cloyes site???? If I stumble on it I'll post it

How loose? I have seen evidence that an interference fit is better than loose. Both in writings of others and personal observations(wear spots that werent there when assembled and crank bolt still tight on tear down). Most Pontiacs are loose fit, but high rpm we can survive these days suggests we change our ways and stop relying soley on 160 ft lbs to keep it from dancing. If loose fit it "has" to be affected by harmonics and vibration. Engines without tightly doweled main caps walk all over even with high clamp loads.

http://www.atiperformanceproducts.co...pers/index.htm Hmmmm, Seams it played into the other Damper Companies hand nicely

[Jack Gifford]

Originally Posted by elevatorman51

... was around 4thous. larger than the Powerbond. How loose is too loose?

.004" is like a mile, regarding balancer fit. Any balancer that measures .004" larger than any other one will be way too loose.

[75cancup]

My SFI card # is A314848 Looks likes i have a new door stopper .

[mr68]

Well I did receive a new balancer from Professional Products, it arrived Friday. They did hold to their word on the replacement, just not sure how I like them not letting us know the issue at hand and a chance to correct it before a failure happened.

[jimdavis]

Originally Posted by 75cancup

My SFI card # is A314848 Looks likes i have a new door stopper .

That number is the SFI number for that damper and has nothing to do with the build date. The build date is stamped on the back face of the damper, usually in yellow ink.

Jim Davis
Professional Products

[jimdavis]

Originally Posted by mr68

Well I did receive a new balancer from Professional Products, it arrived Friday. They did hold to their word on the replacement, just not sure how I like them not letting us know the issue at hand and a chance to correct it before a failure happened.

In retrospect I could have posted something on this forum about the damper issue. In most instances we don't know who our retailers or end user customers are. Most of our products are sold to Warehouse Distributors who in turn sell to retailers who in turn sell to the end user customers. There is no practical way to notify end users of a problem. Unlike car companies who know who owns the cars they sell and can do a recall, we have no practical way to do that.

However, in a tight community like the Pontiac owners, we could have made an attempt to notify you on this forum. But the idea never occurred to me at the time. I will try to do better in the future but hopefully we won't have any more issues.

The bonding issue did not affect every damper we had. I try to keep a handle on warranty returns and I just didn't see very many Pontiac returns. So it didn't appear that it was an issue with Pontiacs but obviously that was not the case or I wouldn't be reading about it in this forum.

[79TA455STROKED]

Originally Posted by 70 Lemans

Email from Jim,

On the back face of the damper is a date stamp. I can't' remember exactly how it is presented but if it is all numbers, then it is the older version before we changed the bonding procedure and you will need to send it back and I will send you a new one. If the date code is numbers and letters (or maybe just one letter) then it is the later version with the improved bonding.


Regards - Jim Davis

Jim,i just looked at mine.I bought it through Butler and its the sfi one.
The date on back is 01 20 2005 and has a sfi number of a357784.
Although i have not had a problem yet with it,i understand it is part of the old batch you are having a problem with.
I do not have alot of time on this motor,just got it together with new combo,old combo had 1900 miles.
I would like to exchange it for the newer improved damper before having a problem,i have LOTS of money in this motor.
Is this possible?
Thanks Jim!

[mysticmissle]

I just looked at my BAD pro products balancer date is almost same as above. Id replace it asap. My date is 01 20 2005 and the ser # is a357798. The outer shell move 3/8 of an inch! I also emailed Jim Direct I hope to get a replacement as well.
I do think the company needs to be commended for admitting it had a faulty product and attempting to now rectify its support network and warrantee these items
I also think that PY deserves all the credit for bringin these issue up and getting our members some restitution. Thanks to all. Jeff

[grandville455]

Yes i agree!! I give him alot of credit for doing so!!.. But I am still weary.. but maybe they are fine now?... if so I would take a replacement as well!

[79TA455STROKED]

Originally Posted by mysticmissle

I just looked at my BAD pro products balancer date is almost same as above. Id replace it asap. My date is 01 20 2005 and the ser # is a357798. The outer shell move 3/8 of an inch! I also emailed Jim Direct I hope to get a replacement as well.
I do think the company needs to be commended for admitting it had a faulty product and attempting to now rectify its support network and warrantee these items
I also think that PY deserves all the credit for bringin these issue up and getting our members some restitution. Thanks to all. Jeff

I emailed him last night and sent a pm to him.Hopefully he can replace this one for me,im not comfortable running it on my new combo.Especially knowing it was made the same day as your bad one and only a few away.
I bought it in 07 even though it has a production date of 05 on it.

[79TA455STROKED]

Well,i just want to Thank Jim for replying to my email.
He said he will send me a new one.

Not many companies would stand by there product like this so i think even with the failures that have happened,they deserve a thanks for stepping up to the plate.
Mine had not even failed yet but is being replaced because they relize there was a problem.
a++ in my opinion.
Thanks again Jim!

[Half-Inch Stud]

I simply cannot tell whose Balancer I got.
Can sombody upload a Front & back pictures so I/we can see the PP balancer in question?

[baron_]

I have serial number A428631
Is that an affected one?

[mysticmissle]

whats the date stamp? Im guessing it is by the serial number its 7000 0f or so! Id email Jim. He immediately responded. Maybe there is hope for this hobby yet.

[grandville455]

HIS Look at the very first page i put up pics!

[greaserdegreaser]

dont want to sound dumb but i have three pp balancers 1 nib 1 off alum 508 about 40 passes both have 1 letter and #'s in yellow ink on back if they are the old bonding type where do i ship to get them replaced ?

the third is on my street strip 66 goat with about 5000 street mile and 70-80 passes @ track it has been in car for three years or so if it is old bonding can and where do i get a replacement thanks eric

[Jack Gifford]

Jim Davis- Have you corrected the erroneous markings on the non-SFI street-performance balancer? I received no replies to my correspondence with your firm (3-4 years ago). The markings were very "pretty" but wrong by close to 10%. Simply laying a protractor on the balancer easily showed the 40` mark to be about 36` from zero (or maybe vice-versa- just know it was 4` off).

How about the I.D. dimension? Mine was .002" under the nominal 1.375" Pontiac crank snout size. This much of an interference-fit does NOT constitute a "press-fit"; it would require a pressing force in the range of 100,000 lb., referenced to the back of the snout (behind the first crank throw arm) and the snout and balancer hub would "become one" forever!

Thanks for posting here on PY forums.

Edit: Sorry for mentioning a 'street' item in the 'RACE' forum- but I didn't see any posts by Jim in the 'STREET' forum.

[Half-Inch Stud]

Ohhhhh, the black anodized units. Never owned one.

I gots some SFI-approved Degree'd, stainless PMD unit from Austrailia with some large TH400-like retaining ring on the front. ...from Spottsperformance.com

[440GP69]

HIS Thats the Powerbond SFI Race Piece, made by Precision parts out of Australia, No complaints on that one that ive heard of. here you go http://www.precisionparts.com.au/Pag.../powerbond.htm