Does anyone like the balance shafts and how smooth the 2.4 runs v.s. the HO 2.3?
Well I have never been in or driven a 2.3 HO. I have drove a 2.3 (95). I did not notice much difference. The balance shafts are not a big enough deal for me to get rid of them.
FU Tuning
John Higgins wrote:Well I have never been in or driven a 2.3 HO. I have drove a 2.3 (95). I did not notice much difference. The balance shafts are not a big enough deal for me to get rid of them.
95's have balance shafts too. There really isn't a big difference in feel between the two, though. If the HO feels noticably rougher, it is because of the more ratical cams.
I have heard horror stories with Hondas idling really harsh because they removed the balance shafts, but the Quad motor(2.3L) was designed without balance shafts, and the Twin Cam (2.4L) was just a shotty afterthought of the Quad motor and is very close in design. The reason for removing the balance shafts is strictly for losing both recipricating and dead weight, as well as for increasing oil flow (and to the OP, lets not turn this into another 2.4L vs 2.3L oil system war).
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
Anyone who thinks getting rid of the balance shafts conserves energy is an idiot.
GM put them there for a reason and they don't have a performance cost!
Balance shafts cancel out motion, thus reducing the NET (not total) reciprocating force in an engine.
When you remove the balance shaft, MORE rotational energy is going towards creating vibrations, dumping more energy into the body of your car, where the balance shaft would have kept that energy from leaving the block in the first place.
The inline 4 is not an inherently balanced engine like the boxer or inline 6. There is a reason for the shaft, and it's a very good one!
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Solid Snake wrote:Anyone who thinks getting rid of the balance shafts conserves energy is an idiot.
GM put them there for a reason and they don't have a performance cost!
Balance shafts cancel out motion, thus reducing the NET (not total) reciprocating force in an engine.
When you remove the balance shaft, MORE rotational energy is going towards creating vibrations, dumping more energy into the body of your car, where the balance shaft would have kept that energy from leaving the block in the first place.
The inline 4 is not an inherently balanced engine like the boxer or inline 6. There is a reason for the shaft, and it's a very good one!
Well I totally disagree with your statements. Getting rid of the balance shafts will gain power. Also if you are doing this you are building a motor with means you should be getting it balanced, which means no ill affects from removing them. I just do not like the fact that you have to switch to a different oiling system to get rid of them.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Sunday, July 22, 2007 8:34 PM
FU Tuning
Solid Snake wrote:Anyone who thinks getting rid of the balance shafts conserves energy is an idiot.
GM put them there for a reason and they don't have a performance cost!
Balance shafts cancel out motion, thus reducing the NET (not total) reciprocating force in an engine.
When you remove the balance shaft, MORE rotational energy is going towards creating vibrations, dumping more energy into the body of your car, where the balance shaft would have kept that energy from leaving the block in the first place.
The inline 4 is not an inherently balanced engine like the boxer or inline 6. There is a reason for the shaft, and it's a very good one!
Really? And thats why I've seen dynos of up to 15 whp increases from deleting the balance shafts alone? Granted, those dynos were from chrysler 2.2/2.5 turbo motors, but reciprocating mass is reciprocating mass, no matter what engine you're talking about. And as for the "GM put them there for a reason" they put door panels there for a reason, they made it naturally aspirated for a reason, they only gave it 140-150 hp for a reason.... does that mean we shouldn't reduce weight, turbo, or modify our cars, because GM made them the way they did for a reason?
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Quote:
Well I totally disagree with your statements. Getting rid of the balance shafts will gain power. Also if you are doing this you are building a motor with means you should be getting it balanced, which means no ill affects from removing them. I just do not like the fact that you have to switch to a different oiling system to get rid of them.
Balance shafts are not there to correct for manufacturing defects, they are there to correct the imbalance which is INHERENT in inline four motors. The effect of removing them is like taking an uneven chunk out of your flywheel. Sure, it's less rotational mass to accelerate, but you get more vibrations. Flywheels (like any other rotating mass) STORE energy, they cannot sink it. The acceleration penalty you pay with a heavy flywheel is returned to you in the form of an acceleration spike when you drop it in the next gear.
It doesn't matter if you get your engine balanced, the design of the inline 4 is NOT INHERENTLY BALANCED!
Some engines are perfectly balanced and need no balance shafts. These are:
-Any boxer engine (Subaru, Porsche)
-Inline 6 (BMW, Suzuki, GM, Toyota)
-V12 (Jaguar, effectively two I6s)
Other engines are not perfectly balanced, but better balanced than I4s, these are:
-V10
-V8
-V6
-I5
I4s are not balanced because the pistons move at different speeds at the top and bottom of their strokes. The piston motion is not a perfect sine wave. When you remove balance shafts, you're robbing energy from the crankshaft as it leaves the block and is dumped into your engine mounts. The shaking is somewhat tolerable with our small motors, but larger four bangers (2.8L+) would shake themselves apart without the shafts. The Porsche 968's 3.0L I4 would have been completely impossible without balance shafts.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Solid Snake wrote:Anyone who thinks getting rid of the balance shafts conserves energy is an idiot.
GM put them there for a reason and they don't have a performance cost!
Balance shafts cancel out motion, thus reducing the NET (not total) reciprocating force in an engine.
When you remove the balance shaft, MORE rotational energy is going towards creating vibrations, dumping more energy into the body of your car, where the balance shaft would have kept that energy from leaving the block in the first place.
The inline 4 is not an inherently balanced engine like the boxer or inline 6. There is a reason for the shaft, and it's a very good one!
I do not agree. If your building a motor and have everything balance.... like you should. YOU will gain more HP from removing the balance shafts...plain and simple. Your removing rotational mass from the motor...freeing up HP. You might loose a little to vibration and what not, but your still gaining more than your loosing when removing the balance shafts.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
Balancing makes no difference. Some of you need to look up the word "inherent". It's an unavoidable imbalance that comes from the motor's design, not from manufacturing inconsistencies. Even if your pistons, rods etc are balanced to the nanogram, you're still going to have heavy vibrations.
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Please click me!
The 2.3 quad 4's are different but not that much different than the 2.4 twin cams. Under you logic all quad 4's should vibrate them selfs apart. With there inherent problems of missing balance shafts.
Inherent: Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable; as, polarity is an inherent quality of the magnet; the inherent right of men to life, liberty, and protection.
PRND321 Till I DIE
Old Motor: 160whp & 152ft/lbs, 1/4 Mile 15.4 @88.2
M45 + LD9 + 4T40-E, GO GO GO
A 2.3l quad is an inline four and they don't have balance shafts? I removed my balance shafts on my build. No heavy vibrations here.
Well, think of it this way, if GM could sell the Cavalier with an advertised extra 15HP (as some of you claim) by not including something in the engine that costs them money, adds weight to the car, and supposedly serves no meaningful purpose, why wouldn't they?
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
gm used them because of wanny babies "ohh i dont like the vibrations, oh no im going to die!!" without even realizing that these cars vibrate and sqeek due to gm poor design and cost effectiveness anyways.
the 2.3 quad 4 didnt need them. the 2.4 doesnt either. end of story, done and done. period.
Quote:
The effect of removing them is like taking an uneven chunk out of your flywheel. Sure, it's less rotational mass to accelerate, but you get more vibrations.
ok, so other than this what are you saying?
"if you remove your balance shafts your engine will shake more!!!"
..ok but I get more power
"...but you'll shake more"
vibrations aren't a primary concern for those looking for maximum power. yes, it'll vibrate, yes it may put extra wear on internal components but longevity is often traded for brute force and thats a fact.
I know of several cars (eco and 2.4) running without balance shafts that are holding out pretty well.
and how do you explain the LN2? it doesn't have balance shafts and it runs relatively smooth.
less rotational mass will have a greater impact on power than inherent vibration, and I don't think durability will be too much of an issue either. the only pitfall I can see here is vibrations, and who cares about that?
balancing the bottom end will further help this, but it'll never be perfect.
Solid Snake wrote:Anyone who thinks getting rid of the balance shafts conserves energy is an idiot.
GM put them there for a reason and they don't have a performance cost!
Balance shafts cancel out motion, thus reducing the NET (not total) reciprocating force in an engine.
When you remove the balance shaft, MORE rotational energy is going towards creating vibrations, dumping more energy into the body of your car, where the balance shaft would have kept that energy from leaving the block in the first place.
The inline 4 is not an inherently balanced engine like the boxer or inline 6. There is a reason for the shaft, and it's a very good one!
You are a moron so just STFU.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Solid Snake wrote:Well, think of it this way, if GM could sell the Cavalier with an advertised extra 15HP (as some of you claim) by not including something in the engine that costs them money, adds weight to the car, and supposedly serves no meaningful purpose, why wouldn't they?
THe balance shafts are there to reduce NVH complaints, plain and simple. Because the average idiot american consumer wants his $10k cavalier to idle just as smooth as a Benz and be equally as quiet and vibration free. Since the majority of people aren't buying a cavalier for horsepower, THAT'S why GM puts them there. NVH is one of, if not THE biggest concern nowadays, because consumers want to bitch about everys stupid little noise and rattle even in a bargain basement economy car.
Arrival Blue 04 LS Sport
Eco
Turbo
Megasquirt
'Nuff said
Quote:
ok, so other than this what are you saying?
"if you remove your balance shafts your engine will shake more!!!"
..ok but I get more power
"...but you'll shake more"
I didn't say more power, I said slightly less rotating mass, there's a difference. Before you call me a moron, show me benchmarks that prove your point. Show me an A/B test that proves your point. People who take out their balance shafts typically do more work to their engine while they're in there, so how would you know how much power you got from only removing the shaft?
2002 Cavalier 2200 5spd
Scarab (Jersey Jay 1.8T) wrote:Solid Snake wrote:Well, think of it this way, if GM could sell the Cavalier with an advertised extra 15HP (as some of you claim) by not including something in the engine that costs them money, adds weight to the car, and supposedly serves no meaningful purpose, why wouldn't they?
THe balance shafts are there to reduce NVH complaints, plain and simple. Because the average idiot american consumer wants his $10k cavalier to idle just as smooth as a Benz and be equally as quiet and vibration free. Since the majority of people aren't buying a cavalier for horsepower, THAT'S why GM puts them there. NVH is one of, if not THE biggest concern nowadays, because consumers want to bitch about everys stupid little noise and rattle even in a bargain basement economy car.
Yhea you really don't want that. Especially those 90 degree v6s and I-4s.
Next time say Honda, Toyota V6 smoothness.
Balance shaft are put in on big 4cyl just to cancel/quell the NVH through out the rev band, also on v6s when their degrees are off as well.
Quote:
Some engines are perfectly balanced and need no balance shafts. These are:
-Any boxer engine (Subaru, Porsche)
-Inline 6 (BMW, Suzuki, GM, Toyota)
-V12 (Jaguar, effectively two I6s)
Other engines are not perfectly balanced, but better balanced than I4s, these are:
-V10
-V8
-V6
-I5
Subaru's H4 and Porche's H4, H6 carries balance shafts. Also 60 degree V6s and 90 degree v8s are naturally balanced and does not need balance shafts. 90 degree V6s usually carries them, because their blueprint is unbalanced.
>>>For Sale? Clicky!<<<
-----The orginal Mr.Goodwrench on the JBO since 11/99-----
if we cared about vibrations we wouldnt be putting solid engine mounts in our cars.
i gotta say my 92 scx 2.3 W41 190hp 4cylinder , runs pretty dam smooth , actually i think its better than my both my 2.4s are
sell your snake oil else where
why is this a concern when we have the getrag death rattle no matter what?
Quote:
z yaaaa
if we cared about vibrations we wouldnt be putting solid engine mounts in our cars.
I love my solid motor/tranny mounts
-Ben
Overall Best times
60' - 1.857* (6/24/07)-(Drag Radials 205-50-15)
330' - 5.552* (6/24/07)
1/8 - 8.702* (6/24/07)
M.P.H.- 79.49 (6/17/07)
1000' - 11.388* (6/24/07)
1/4 - 13.671* (6/24/07)
M.P.H.- 100.79* (6/17/07)
Great Lakes Dragaway (6/24/07 Import Wars #3)
* - First run on the day set NEW all motor record
next run backed up record by 1% (slip in profile)
** ALL MOTOR **
* 181whp @ 7600rpm *
Website: www.benwenzeljr.com
My "built" motor with no balance shafts runs just as rough as the original stock motor did. It even has the HO cams in it. As stated before the balance shafts were added strictly for NVH control. I dont remember the exact GM publication for it but it was in some of my training on the Quad engines. I wanted a different oil pump so i got rid of the balance shafts. Honestly I couldnt tell you the difference, even a friends W41 Calais idles like a stock 2.4L.
Jacob Smith wrote:Does anyone like the balance shafts and how smooth the 2.4 runs v.s. the HO 2.3?
Seriously what was the point of this thread? Did you just want to argue with some people about the benefit of balance shafts?
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Wade Jarvis wrote:Jacob Smith wrote:Does anyone like the balance shafts and how smooth the 2.4 runs v.s. the HO 2.3?
Seriously what was the point of this thread? Did you just want to argue with some people about the benefit of balance shafts?
Jacob Smith != Solid Snake
-
"Youth in Asia"...I don't see anything wrong with that.
