• Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

engine balance

ehall

NAXJA Member
NAXJA Member
Is the 4.0 HO internally or externally balanced?

I bought a '99 motor today for my '91 and the guy at the yard said the balance was different. He was being an ass so I let it die, but I don't want to warble my new engine to pieces so if anybody knows I'd appreciate it.
 
Every inline six I've seen is internally balanced. Period. AMC, Chevrolet, Ford, Chrysler Slant Six - even the BMW sixes are all internally balanced. The Nissan ones as well.

The inline six is actually one of the smoothest-running and easiest-to-balance engines going, from what I understand. Probably why I like them so much...
 
ehall said:
The flywheels sold on Summit are the same for 90-01 and it says they are internally balanced too. I guess the flywheel is just flat mass.

For the inline, correct. The flywheel is an inertial mass used to even out the "bump-and-coast" you get from the firing impulses. You don't have "constant" power at the flywheel - you have a pulse every 120 degrees of rotation, and a "coast" between them.

The torque converter does the same thing - it's just a different mass with an additional function. The torque convreter usually also ends up being heavier - but it's got more clutches to content with (and probably more friction area, but I never have calculated the two to compare...)
 
Ok so I have a question for 5-90 then. How do you differentiate well balanced and smooth to vibration free? Seems like smooth should be vib free. But mine's definately not. The MOORE motor mounts don't help either. So where are the vibs coming from??
 
PurpleCherokee said:
Ok so I have a question for 5-90 then. How do you differentiate well balanced and smooth to vibration free? Seems like smooth should be vib free. But mine's definately not. The MOORE motor mounts don't help either. So where are the vibs coming from??

Any internal combustion engine will have vibrations in normal operation - that's just the nature of the beast. "Smooth" means you don't notice them as much as you otherwise would (if you want "vibration free," get a turbine engine.)

Having the MORE engine mounts probably does not help - anytime you take a flexible mechanical coupling and make it more rigid, it will transmit more vibration. I used to fab up engine mounts out of tube stock for bracket racers - but these weren't dual-duty cars set for the week-end at the drags. The things were trailered there and back, and the mounts removed and inspected two or three times a year (usually replaced annually, at least.) You can make a mount out of tube stock or solid stock - but expect it to be even worse (the MORE mounts seem bad because they're using polyurethane busings - instead of a latex elastomer - and they anchor to more of the engine. I presume you're tlaking about the "bomb-proof" mounts that spread all over the sides of the block?)

Eliminating vibration is the challenge facing luxury carmakers - I know Porsche actually used a "hydraulic" mount for a while, where engine coolant was circulated through the mount and used as a cushion instead of elastomer. I believe that also made the engine mount a maintenance item - no, thanks.

There are a number of factors that go into NVH reduction (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) in the engine bay - the AMC242 casting was revised twice in the block in an effort to improve NVH response. Both times, it got lighter (that seems to be the main thing - reducing weight reduces inertia.) The ChryCo LA block was "precision cast" in later years for the same reason - the "precision casting" allowed them to use less material for the same results, meaning less weight, meaning less inertia, meaning ...

However, as long as we continue to use the internal combustion engine in the Otto cycle, the Diesel cycle, or the Wankel cycle (or even the Crower cycle, if it comes to pass...) engine vibration is still going to be a reality. I believe even the Stirling cycle engine (which uses an external heat source) is subject to NVH, as are the old EC steam engines (think "steam locomotive" and you've got it. Or any other "steam engine" used to generate motion.) Some engine patterns are going to be better than others, and when you get into V-block engines, the headaches get even larger (that's why there are two different versions of the General Motors 90-degree V6, why automakers shifted over to a 60-degree V6, ... Eight-cylinder V-block engines are usually done at 90 degrees, some were done at 45. And, there's always the horizontally-opposed engine, a la Volkwagen/Porsche/Subaru, W-blocks, V-blocks with an odd number of cylinders and a very close bank angle, ... Don't forget opposed piston engines as well, and any number of other configurations. Even a sixteen-cylinder V-block Hemi that was run upside down for an aircraft application, although I don't recall which at the moment...)

Otto cycle - four-stroke gasoline-fuelled heat engine cycle. Ignition with an electric spark
Diesel cycle - four-stroke oil-fuelled heat engine cycle. Ignited by compression.
Bank Angle - the angle between the centrelines of the cylinder bores, when the cylinder bores are not in line. Typically done with an even number of cylinders, but has been done with an odd number as well (five, mainly.)
Horizontally Opposed - an engine in which the cylinder banks have a "bank angle" of one hundred eighty degrees, making them directly opposite each other. Notable examples were the Volkswagen beetle (four-cylinder) and early Porsche (four- or six-cylinder.) Typically air-cooled, since water-cooling something like that is a royal pain (keeping it sealed is worse.) NB: Bank angle may be adjusted, in some cases, in response to packaging concerns. An eight-cylinder, for instance, can be run with a bank angle of 45/90/135/180 degrees with relative simplicity, and the engine gets shorter (top to bottom) as the bank angle increases. Six-cylinder engines can be run at 60/120/180 degrees. You get the idea.)

"Well balanced" means that the engine won't shake itself to bits underhood, although vibrations (there will always be some) may or may not be transmitted to the chassis by way of the mounts. "Vibration free" don't happen - but it get approached by a combination of mount design, cylinder/firing even timing, cylinder arrangement, and the like.
 
I understand that there'll always be vibs, perhaps I used the wrong term. What I'm tryin to ask is what I can do to REDUCE the amount of vibs, or overall NVH of my jeep :)
 
PurpleCherokee said:
I understand that there'll always be vibs, perhaps I used the wrong term. What I'm tryin to ask is what I can do to REDUCE the amount of vibs, or overall NVH of my jeep :)

Mainly, softer mount cushions. You can try reducing your CR as well, but that will reduce power/efficiency significantly, so you don't want to do that.

Really, it's just the nature of the beast. You can try to adapt a softer mount (read: luxury car, like a Caddy or a Lincoln) to work with the 4.0L, but no results are guaranteed. If you want a smoother, quieter ride, you may just want to buy a Lincoln or a Caddy anyhow. A Jeep is, after all, a truck - and not designed to be "smooth and quiet" (although the Grand probably comes close, and the Commander may be approaching that as well. The underpowered Compass/Patriot just don't count, y'ask me - neither does the Liberty.)
 
What about frame stiffeners? Seems like they could do wonders for road noise/vibration/resonance. But I haven't heard much feedback in that regard I guess mainly because most people don't install them for that reason.
 
PurpleCherokee said:
What about frame stiffeners? Seems like they could do wonders for road noise/vibration/resonance. But I haven't heard much feedback in that regard I guess mainly because most people don't install them for that reason.


I believe any kind of stiffening would just make the vibrations worse... I think the key word for reducing vibrations is soft. The more solid a rig the better it will be at carrying vibrations...

If you are REALLY into reducing vibration, you could modify your engine to add rotating mass (heavier flywheel/harmonic balancer) and reduce occilating mass (lighter and better balanced pistons, con-rods, push rods etc.).... These modifications will also lead to increased hp/torque, and less engine wear! :roll:

Most engines will also benefit from a precision balancing (pistons&rods weighed and modified to equal weightM; crankshaft balanced seperately, then with rods and pistons, then with flywheel&harmonic balancer), as most factory balancing jobs are done quick and easy... :wierd:

And, there are those modifications that will cause the engine to perform worse :tears: , but with less vibration; like lower compression, camshaft with smoother lift and different timing, retarded ignition.
 
PurpleCherokee said:
What about frame stiffeners? Seems like they could do wonders for road noise/vibration/resonance. But I haven't heard much feedback in that regard I guess mainly because most people don't install them for that reason.

A lot of that is going to depend on the design of the frame as it sits, and how the "stiffener" attaches (is there room to dampen vibrations? Does it add intertial mass to members that vibrate? ...?)

The idea of a "frame stiffener" is typically to reduce flexion of subframe assemblies, which is typically meant to increase traction, tyre grip, flexion under steering stresses, and the like - all of which are meant to improve handling not NVH issues. A frame stiffener typically is a tradeoff - you're improving handling to the detriment of ride comfort.

Of course, the typical sort of driver to install a frame stiffener isn't going to be overly concerned with NVH from the off anyhow.

And, since frames are typically designed to allow a bit of flexion in response to road conditions (both so they don't shake themselves to bits and to reduce NVH issues a bit,) stiffening the front subframe/front-back frame/rear subframe is usually going to end up increasing NVH anyhow. (Yes, most road issues are going to be handled by tyres & suspension. However, a very small percentage of it is likely to be handled by frame/chassis design, as metal is "elastic" in an engineering sense. This is what makes it useful as a construction material - elasticity, plasticity, and overall strength just aren't matched by synthetics - yet - or woods.)

The short answer is that most typical (sub)frame stiffener kits are there to reduce flexion in the frame under stress, and therefore will tend to increase NVH, not decrease it. I just wanted to make sure you understood why - most people don't explain their answers anymore (either because they're not willing to, or they can't - and if you can't explain an answer, it's just not an answer...)
 
xj88kjetil said:
If you are REALLY into reducing vibration, you could modify your engine to add rotating mass (heavier flywheel/harmonic balancer) and reduce occilating mass (lighter and better balanced pistons, con-rods, push rods etc.).... These modifications will also lead to increased hp/torque, and less engine wear! :roll:

True - but there is a point of significantly diminishing returns here. After all, if you "lighten" things too much, you'll remove far too much material - making parts weaker. Make parts weaker, they're more likely to fail. Oops.

I wouldn't want to make internals for a Jeep engine too light - in this case, I would consider durability to be primary, with NVH a long secondary (and besides, I like an engine that lets me know it's running. It doesn't have to register on the Richter scale, but I keep wanting to start up my wife's Verona every time I go to take off from a light...)
 
I wouldn't want to make internals for a Jeep engine too light - in this case, I would consider durability to be primary, with NVH a long secondary (and besides, I like an engine that lets me know it's running. It doesn't have to register on the Richter scale, but I keep wanting to start up my wife's Verona every time I go to take off from a light...)

Of course, any lightening should be done by swapping rods'n'pistons'n'stuff with lighter-higher quality-parts, but i DO agree this would be kind of a pointless excercise... Will consider it when I have done everything else I want to do with my XJ... I think I have an opening in my calendar somewhere around year 2045 :)

However! A perfectly balanced I6 is a beautiful thing! On the buses made by Volvo in the 60's you could, when the engine was perfectly tuned, place a coin on edge on top of the valve cover with the engine running at idle at 600 rpms, and it would not topple over! I have actually seen this done! Now THAT's smooth for ya!
 
Back
Top