Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives Forums Modifications Duratec Performance Crank Whip

I have asked this before, but I just wanted to hear again what this crank whip is. From what I understand "crank whip" is vibration from the crankshaft on the duratech motors that causes bearings to spin at high rpm. Do people really belive that this is the primary cause of engine failure in these motors? I was just wondering. If this is what crank whip is that means EVERY TIME YOU REV YOUR MOTOR up to the rpm that this "crank whip" becomes a problem you run a chance of blowing it up. I just don't see how ANY motor could make it very far at all in a car with this problem.

Roger

You summed it up right.

All engines,all cranks have degrees of whip...must have as the 'firing order' dictates the loads will never be 'opposite & even' on an engine......its the degree of crank whip that can cause a problem.I dont think the 2.5,now only produced in Ford of Europe, would have had a DMD fitted 'as standard' if there was no problem...Ford dont spend on parts just for the sake of it!

Terry - you have all the data. But an ignorant guy like me sees that the competition Ford Europe's Mondeo is going against is what - the BMW 3 series? And don't all BMW's have smooth revving DMD damped engines as well? We all know how much work (and money) goes into making cars sound and feel just right - all that sound deadening, rubber isolation mounts, hood blankets, soft rubber bushings... sure don't help performance and they arean't cheap either - but they are standard items on every car you buy.

Remember the last year of the SVT - one of the auto mags reported the engine felt "over worked" and somewhat unrefined. Hardly a characteristic that would help it fight against a BMW. Then you look here in the US, no 2.5L duratecs (MPV, Cougar) get the DMD. Look at the 2.5L Jaguar which has the same block and crank (Maybe different bearings????), no DMD there either.

Obviously the DMD is a huge step up in refinement and NVH, and for the price of only 1 lb of extra weight it's not a huge power dropper either. But, I guess I'm still not convinced that the primary goal of the DMD is not just noise and vibration handling, with maybe a small bit of reliabilty thrown in for good measure. Even the engineer at Adams software who worked on this project with Ford:

http://support.adams.com/kb-files/id_9358/Ford_Complete_Engine_2001_NAUC.pdf

indicated (in typical "not going to tell you much about this subject" fashion) that DMD dampers served to reduce noise and vibration in the 3-400 hz region, and "that's all I know about it".

I know there have been a LOT of blown SVT engines, but way back when on the American.edu mail list, before the SVT's were around much there were almost NO stories of low mileage blown 2.5's (even with a bunch of us having MTX's). Brad Hall has mentioned he heard rumors that early cranks may have had more treatment (nitriding? or something) but he never had that verified. Anyway - you obviously have the data and I'm just rambling here. But, I am curious, did you hear about the crank whip problem and DMD solution from internal Ford research, or did it come about from your own research on dead SVTs after you left Ford?

Thanks - Scott Kauffman

I know why the cranks whips,I can also tell you that the brg mfg had problems during the develpment of the Modular V6,the overall lenght an stiffness was reduced from the Porsche Proto V6,early protos also HAD to be run on Mobil 1 synth,the first batc of 2.5's ever out of C/land Engine plant were QC rejected the day before they were sent to K/C Assembly, all the cranks were changed etc etc...Yes I know what happened!

Originally posted by ScottK97SEMTX:

---

I know there have been a LOT of blown SVT engines, but way back when on the American.edu mail list, before the SVT's were around much there were almost NO stories of low mileage blown 2.5's (even with a bunch of us having MTX's).

Thanks - Scott Kauffman

---

Scott, I think its true that initially we saw the SVT failures at about 40-50K miles and I actually was talleying them. But I have noticed a second pattern emerge. Several Contours and now Cougars with somewhat higher miles (but still low for a modern car) about 70-90K with the spun bearings/broken rods. My theory is it is all high RPM area under the curve (the bending danger zone). SVTs have peak power at 6600-7000 RPM and they pull hard to redline. They are run up high and often. Normal duratecs peak a good 800-1000 RPM lower. On average, you will be less tempted to run up to 7K. No need to either with a sub 6K power peak. So SVT accumulates more RPMs faster and thus fails earlier. But, it seems that eventually many normal Duratecs get there too.


This is my speculation about why SVTs have had problems quicker. I have no data myself but this theory fits the data available. Only other possibilty I have figure is the oil cooler as a restriction. But this makes no sense as it is on Euro Mondeos which are doing about as well as regulaer Duratecs when I checked with Mondeo.org. You REALLY should talk to Judge about the issue of crank whip. I have, its scary. But in view of the fact that his job is an issue, it can't be discussed here by me. Talk to Judge....or just get the DMD..


One more thing, I think the DMD may actually gain power over stock. The 1 extra pound of such small radius is negligable BUT the reduction in crank whipping in the bearings MUST cut down on frictional power loss. It is not a small difference, you will feel it..

Dan,

I know you and Terry (and just about everyone else on the board) are probably right. Maybe I'm just slow

- on a related note -

I finally got off my @ss and emailed blackstone-labs for a test kit. In the not too distant future, I (actually "we" since I will tell everyone my results) should see how much tin or aluminum (whatever it is) bearing material I have floating around in the oil after 48,000 miles of running an UDP. Anyone want to make any bets how much higher than average my reads will be - I really have no clue???

{I had a boss back at Xerox - he was a great guy, but a real hardass. No matter how much sense something you told him made, he'd flat out refuse to accept it untill you could "show me the data". }

Is it possible that all the crank whip could cause the platic water impeller the crack and fail?????

This is one of the scariest subjects I have seen on this forum in a while. How the Duratec is still in production with such a fatal flaw is amazing to me. Can someone please tell me what the DMD thing is and if anyone has upgraded? Rather drop a bit of cash now than a lot later.

Between the water pump and now this... I'm scared to rev my motor anytime. How does one go about measuring crank whip? I've heard that the Eclipses have the same problem.

Originally posted by ScottK97SEMTX:

---

I finally got off my @ss and emailed blackstone-labs for a test kit. In the not too distant future, I (actually "we" since I will tell everyone my results) should see how much tin or aluminum (whatever it is) bearing material I have floating around in the oil after 48,000 miles of running an UDP. Anyone want to make any bets how much higher than average my reads will be - I really have no clue???

---

I wondered the same thing when I sent my first sample in.

Verdict? No signs of bearing wear after 1.5 years with the UDP.

Doesn't mean I'm not concerned about crank whip, just some interesting data. I've got another sample to send in, I'll do it soon.

-Lance

The 2.5 Duratec is still in production...in Europe only...built now in Wales....and has a DMD as 'standard'.........

Without being a jerk.


I still dont understand why the jaguar x and s would not come with it if the dmd is such a needed thing. there are cars out there running 3.0 dura's with no DMD, only mondeo. why is that? if ford realizes this prb why arent they correcting it on other cars besides the mondeo? Just seeing that the Jag doesnt have it makes me wonder if it is needed. If there is one car that I could think of that would have it on, it would be the jag. I mean you are paying 30-40k on a car and they would know about the probs but yet not have a fix for it?


I also dont understand how the dmd can fix internal vibrations. I understand how it can calm down external vibrations, but no internal. There still has to be vibration in the crank and on the flywheel side of the engine.

I am not saying the Dmd doesnt stop vibrations. I just think it doesnt fix the prob everyone is talking about.



This has nothing to do with the water pump, they are on the same belt. water pump is ran on the cam not the crank.



Micah

Originally posted by Micah:

---

Without being a jerk.


I still dont understand why the jaguar x and s would not come with it if the dmd is such a needed thing. there are cars out there running 3.0 dura's with no DMD, only mondeo. why is that? if ford realizes this prb why arent they correcting it on other cars besides the mondeo? Just seeing that the Jag doesnt have it makes me wonder if it is needed. If there is one car that I could think of that would have it on, it would be the jag. I mean you are paying 30-40k on a car and they would know about the probs but yet not have a fix for it?


Micah

---

Why some Duratecs have it and some do not...this is my conjecture, not fact..

first see my above post on high RPMs = more crank whip = more problems
Now, with the ATX you rev much less than MTX cars...SVT>MTX>ATX

Mondeo, MTX -DMD
MPV, ATX - no DMD
Taurus, ATX - no DMD
Mazda 6, MTX - DMD
Now the Jag and LS I am not sure if NEW versions have DMD or not. Are you SURE the 2002 Jag lacks DMD??

And, to reverse the arguement if it were present mostly for improved NVH, what car deserves it more than Jag??

Again, this is my speculation.

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:

---

Are you SURE the 2002 Jag lacks DMD??

---

Yes

Well, thats interesting...you would think the jag would have the DMD for BOTH NVH and whip UNLESS.....it had another solution. For example, the Duratec derived SHO V8 had trimetal bearings to tolerate crank whip better. DMD is not ness the only solution, it may just be the cheaperst...

We now build/rebuild all our engines with Clevite 77 bearings!!!!

In reply to:

---

Now, with the ATX you rev much less than MTX cars

---

Mine gets up to 5k-6k just about everyday. I really should start thinking abotu getting a DMD. I have nearly 90k now anything to look for before getting it. I'd hate to spend a couple of hundred bucks only to have the engine go a couple of days/weeks later.

Originally posted by jlanger:

---

In reply to:

---

Now, with the ATX you rev much less than MTX cars

---

Mine gets up to 5k-6k just about everyday.

---

5-6k eh... That would be taking it easy for me.

Originally posted by Terry Haines:

---

We now build/rebuild all our engines with Clevite 77 bearings!!!!

---

ok, thats good, but back on the topic do you have any reason or thought of why it wasnt on the jags? or Ls? how does the dmd change crank whip on the flywheel side of the crank?

not trying to be a jerk just want to get on the subject again.




Micah

ATX's have torque converter, not solid flywheel. That might change the natural frequency of the crank enough that it isn't the problem it is on MTX's.

fine, but that doesnt answer the questions about the jag. they come manual



Micah

Good point about the Jag. I guess they probably anticipate 99.9% sold will be automatic, and shift at or below the critical 4000 rpm point 99% of the time. Still, seems like a cheap choice on such an expensive car.

Marco!!!!! Where have you been! Welcome back chief.

http://www.contour.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=3L&Number=26807&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=7&fpart=1#Post29105

See procyon's reply

General experience says crank whip = broken cranks, oil film failure = spun bearings.

There has been much discussion here on the DMD. If crank whip is the primary cause of engine failure, I would expect to see much higher failure occurance in the engines that had underdrive/solid pullies installed. Have we seen this?
I know this seems to go against the prevailing religion in this group but I would not expect to keep a 7000 RPM street motor together and healthy for the long run by using a 5-30 oil, synthetic or conventional. I have been a strong proponent of using Mobil 1 0-40 oil in todays high performance engines (just as Porche, BMW & MB currently do). Before you guys tell me how �??thick�?� it is, take a look at a few sources of information.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/ccd0112.pdf
The above is an interesting government publication showing the �??guidance�?� the feds give the auto and oil industries which mandates 5-20 wt. Oil. The same �??guidance�?� was issued some years ago concerning 5-30. This is not a suggestion from an automotive engineer concerned with engine life, it is a directive from a Federal agency concerned with forcing us to get one tenth of one MPG better fuel consumption at the expense of engine life.
Spend some time on the Euro and Australian web sites of the auto and oil companies and see what you find when they can talk without worring about EPA guidlines.
The Euro Castrol site has an oil selector page. It specifies 10-40 or 15-40 for the Mondeo.
There are several instances of referring to 10-40 as a �??lighter weight�?� viscosity here.
Mobil Australia has the same type of oil selector guide on their site. Even though there is a footnote indicating Ford reccommends 5-30, Mobil then specifies 0-40 as the oil to use in the Mondeo.
You all might consider an upgrade from 5-30 oil if you participate in �??spirited�?� motoring with your Contours and don't want the engines to go boom.

Mark, you hit the nail on the head!!!!!

Originally posted by Mark:

---

General experience says crank whip = broken cranks, oil film failure = spun bearings.

There has been much discussion here on the DMD. If crank whip is the primary cause of engine failure, I would expect to see much higher failure occurance in the engines that had underdrive/solid pullies installed. Have we seen this?
I know this seems to go against the prevailing religion in this group but I would not expect to keep a 7000 RPM street motor together and healthy for the long run by using a 5-30 oil, synthetic or conventional. I have been a strong proponent of using Mobil 1 0-40 oil in todays high performance engines (just as Porche, BMW & MB currently do). Before you guys tell me how �??thick�?� it is, take a look at a few sources of information.
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/cert/dearmfr/ccd0112.pdf
The above is an interesting government publication showing the �??guidance�?� the feds give the auto and oil industries which mandates 5-20 wt. Oil. The same �??guidance�?� was issued some years ago concerning 5-30. This is not a suggestion from an automotive engineer concerned with engine life, it is a directive from a Federal agency concerned with forcing us to get one tenth of one MPG better fuel consumption at the expense of engine life.
Spend some time on the Euro and Australian web sites of the auto and oil companies and see what you find when they can talk without worring about EPA guidlines.
The Euro Castrol site has an oil selector page. It specifies 10-40 or 15-40 for the Mondeo.
There are several instances of referring to 10-40 as a �??lighter weight�?� viscosity here.
Mobil Australia has the same type of oil selector guide on their site. Even though there is a footnote indicating Ford reccommends 5-30, Mobil then specifies 0-40 as the oil to use in the Mondeo.
You all might consider an upgrade from 5-30 oil if you participate in �??spirited�?� motoring with your Contours and don't want the engines to go boom.

---

Where does one find 10-40 Mobil 1 or are you saying 0w-40?
Tnx
Paul

Mark, keep in mind that crank whip can also lead to oil film problems, and subsequently to spun bearings before the crank breaks, its just what decides to happen first on a given engine.

For those that have asked about buying 0-40.

The Mobil1 web site has previously said that 0-40 is only available at BMW, and MB dealers.( There's a clue about who thinks this is the oil to use in high output motors) My local auto parts supplier went out of his way to obtain 0-40 from his warehouse for me. That was last year. He now stocks it on the shelf because the demand is there. You might ask your local guy. In addition, Auto Zone stores in the NY metro area have begun stocking 0-40 just this past month.
If you want to "save a buck" you might email Wal Mart from their site contact point and request that they begin stocking 0-40 in 5 quart jugs. That would bring the price down to $3.58 per quart. They were pretty responsive in stocking Mobil 1, 0-30 shortly after Mobil brought that out.

Yes, I have heard crank flex at speed can do damage to bearings as well, although I would expect to see some broken cranks along with the spun bearings. HAve guys been reporting broken cranks? I would be curious what the majority of the failure modes have been over the years. Has this info been discussed at all?

Originally posted by Mark:

---

Yes, I have heard crank flex at speed can do damage to bearings as well, although I would expect to see some broken cranks along with the spun bearings. HAve guys been reporting broken cranks? I would be curious what the majority of the failure modes have been over the years. Has this info been discussed at all?

---

The stock crank is a very stout forged unit; breaking it is very unlikely.

The bearing has a hard tin core. The hard bearing can not get out of the way (so to speak) of the whipping crank. The higher the rpms the worse the whip!

Majority of engine failures are oil related. Normally loss of oil pressure due to bearing failure. (Which of course crank whip would precipitate)

Yes.

Forged? Hmmmm I take it just for the SVT engine? Thought Honda was one of the few that used forged vs. cast?
Tnx
Paul

Originally posted by F111D F:

---

Forged? Hmmmm I take it just for the SVT engine? Thought Honda was one of the few that used forged vs. cast?
Tnx
Paul

---

Every Duratec made (2.5L or 3L) uses the same forged billet steel & counterweighted crankshaft. SVT's just have the creme of the crop (hand selected) so to speak.

It's one tough piece of work!

Why does the crank whip so bad if the unit is a strong forging?

Strong doesn't equal rigid. Think of the crank as a very strong spring (or torsion rod if you prefer). Every time a cylinder fires, it winds the spring up a little. Then the spring unwinds a little. The twist in the spring causes the journals to angle a little bit, closing the gap (formed by the oil film) between them and the bearings. Bearings and journal touch, get hot, Babbit (bearing material) gets hot, melts, bearing friction increases, bearing spins, engine knocks, oops, new bearing and crank time.

Wow thats a pretty neat example! lets see if I understand you. The crank distorts like a spring and this causes one of the journals to cocksideways and this is what is causing the bearing to fail? Do you know if anybody has any pictures of the spun bearings after they removed them? This is interesting, I sure would like to see those bearings.

It's not an uncommon problem. Long crankshafts had it years ago. that's why V engines are "better" than straight. A straight 12 cylinder engine was really long, a BIG spring.

More bearing help, but as all springs have a natural frequency and harmonics, even short shaft can run into problems.

If I remember correctly, cast cranks suffer less from crank whip due to the even grain of the casting. But, you need forged material in high rpm applications, that is why a forged crankshaft is perfered in high rpm applications. In any case, you always use a harmonic balance to damper vibration and a dual mode damper dampens on two frequencies.

Just a thought, has anyone ever emailed the fluidamper company and requested they supply a balancer for our cars?

What could one expect to pay for the repair of a spun bearing??? Labor/Parts??????

Originally posted by holycowSVTpaul:

---

In any case, you always use a harmonic balance to damper vibration and a dual mode damper dampens on two frequencies.

---

Not true. A harmonic balancer is used on engines that are not internally balanced. The Duratec is. (as are most other engines) It uses a crank pulley with an integral damper and does not have a harmonic balancer.

Like you stated, the DMD is a damper that has two rings to dampen harmonics in 2 different frequency ranges.

In reply to:

---

Do you know if anybody has any pictures of the spun bearings after they removed them? This is interesting, I sure would like to see those bearings.

---

Let me see if I can post a pic of my bad bearing. I have it somewhere..gimme a day or so.

The flip side of straight engines is that a I6 has no really bad harmoinc problems... in other words it is a near perfect setup....

BMW doesn't need all the dampers and counter rotating shafts on its I6 engines as many I4s or V6s do because it is such a good package.

IIRC it has no first or second order vibrations that a V6 has.

It also gets away with only 2 camshafts for a DOHC setup (less rotating mass in the valve train as you have half the cam sprockets)

Originally posted by TedS:

---

The flip side of straight engines is that a I6 has no really bad harmoinc problems... in other words it is a near perfect setup....

BMW doesn't need all the dampers and counter rotating shafts on its I6 engines as many I4s or V6s do because it is such a good package.

IIRC it has no first or second order vibrations that a V6 has.

It also gets away with only 2 camshafts for a DOHC setup (less rotating mass in the valve train as you have half the cam sprockets)

---

Actually I think BMWs have a DM damper and I know at least one tuner who has strongly argued against UDPs d/t risk of bad harmonics.

and they do have only 2 cams BUT they are twice as big/heavy..

I guess terry has left the building. still waiting terry, do you have any answer?


Micah

Originally posted by TedS:

---

The flip side of straight engines is that a I6 has no really bad harmoinc problems... in other words it is a near perfect setup....

---

I'll add to Dan's statement by saying Toyota developed a DMD for the Supra I6 to quell destructive vibrations. Seems the engines were failing on the test stations with only a normal damper.

I'll see if I can find the link to a website with info about it. They even showed graphs (from 3k - 6k IIRC) of how much destructive vibrations (I.E. crank whip) a DMD reduced vs just a normal damper.

This?

http://www.supras.com/~riemer/sonictech/tet/dualratedamper.html

Originally posted by DemonSVT:

---

Originally posted by TedS:

---

The flip side of straight engines is that a I6 has no really bad harmoinc problems... in other words it is a near perfect setup....

---

I'll add to Dan's statement by saying Toyota developed a DMD for the Supra I6 to quell destructive vibrations. Seems the engines were failing on the test stations with only a normal damper.

I'll see if I can find the link to a website with info about it. They even showed graphs (from 3k - 6k IIRC) of how much destructive vibrations (I.E. crank whip) a DMD reduced vs just a normal damper.

---

Make sure to look closely at that Y-axis. Not units of life, bearing wear or stress - just db noise. I personally wouldn't present reliabilty data that way, but hey what do I know

"The factory stock pulley is designed to absorb both torsion and bending
lateral vibration from the crankshaft. This helps the crankshaft deal with
high vibration in the 400 Hz range after the #1 piston fires. Overall this
has many benefits on the bottom end. It helps the crank deal with high
continuous loads as well as overall bearing life, not to mention overall
engine life. Also the drive-line will have a more pleasing sound with very
little 400Hz vibe's setting up."

Scott, true the figure was refering to noise but this was the thrust of the discussion...

Okay, true - there will be "increased engine and bearing life", but we have NO data to indicate what the magnitude of the increase is. Did it increase from 200,000 miles to 400,000 miles? If so, I personally don't care. The only real data they show is how much quieter it got. I will admit that on the straight six supra motor the DMD may very well be required to make reasonable life - it's just not supported in any of the data they present in that paper, and even if it is that doesn't in any way carry over to it's use on our short crank V6 duratec.

Look at the initial press lit. on the PT Cruiser. It mentions that they use a new gates EPDM damper for increased crank life. Has anyone ever seen a problem with torsional excitiation failure on a low revving 4 cylinder engine? No, but theoretically they are right - the crank should last a whole lot longer with that damper. You could probably pull it out of the rusted out shell of the car in 20 years and use it again if you really wanted to

I'll readily admit that I'm just guessing, but I'm intrested to see more on procyon's opinion of the whole mess - he seems to really know his stuff and indicated he thinks the DMD is "probably" more for NVH than reliability.

Wow. I got quite a few responses here. I don't really buy this whole crank whip thing. That's why I posted this. I wanted to see the reasoning behind it. I am not saying that internal vibrations can't destroy a motor. I think that they're not a factor in the Duratech motors. I think there are some serious problems in the oiling system that cause the majority of the engine failures out there. I have blown up 3 mortors in my 98 SVT. The car only has 52,000 miles. All 3 of the motors have broken in similar ways, high speed, 2nd or 3rd gear right hand turns, taken anywhere between 3500 to 6000 maybe 6500 rpm. I don't mean I hold the car at 6000 rpm through the entire corner either. 6500 would be the max rpm on exit of a 2nd gear turn. The first motor that let go at 35,000 I belive. After a tight 2nd gear on ramp to a freeway. Engine RPM was roughly 4500. It spun several bearings and then would not rev any higher then 3500. I had the oil changed the day before so I know it was full. I watched the guy at the oil change place put the Mobil 1 in by the quart. I checked it myself to. The 2nd motor spun 1 bearing around a really fast banked off ramp I take on my drive home. If I slow down to 3500 or 4000 in 2nd and stomp on it, the car is at 7K by the bottom, 1/2 sideways (I love my Quaife). After I broke the first motor I didn't do this very often, but every once in a while I couldn't help it and at about 48K that was it. Then I did a 3.0L. I figured trap doors in the oil pan would do it. Nope. At button willow raceway my 3.0L with 5000 miles on it which I didn't run all that hard because of the 110 deg. heat, had a shattered piston, 2 broken rods, a hole in the cradle, and 6 spun rod bearings, with EVERY main bearing spun. I was sick of this crap. No one I spoke to seemed to know why this stuff was happening. I have worked at Quaife America for almost 5 years now. I have met alot of neat people (Engine builders, chassis builders, etc.). After David Z, Bito and I removed my engine about 2 months ago I disassembled it and brought it to a few motor builders that I have known. These are guys that have been building motors for record setting, and championship winning bonneville and sprint cars, rally cars etc. They were nice enough to go over these parts with me and diagnose everything. What I learned here backed up alot of the theroys I had about the flaws in the oiling system. I am not putting another 3.0L together untill I can make it bullet proof. As long as the pickup stays submurged the feed side of the oiling system works great. Here is one of the first problems. Ford is really fond of the 'G' Type oil pump I beilive it's called. THe mod motors and the duratech use this style pump. It is different from a beveled gear oil pump. It's alot more efficent, but it can not take the normal 'trash' that goes through a street motor. Ford sets the gears up very 'loose' so they can run in a street motor without jamming on the dirty oil that goes through a street car. The loose tolerences mean that the pump does not scavange well. If the pickup goes dry, it takes alot longer for the pump to pick the oil up. Obviously a very bad thing. It's not an issue in a car where the pickup never goes dry. But the Contour is a different story. If the pickup location wasn't so poor this would not be an issue. It wouldn't be an issue if my next rant wasn't a problem. OIL DRAINAGE. The cylinder heads lack the ability to drain enough oil at high rpm to keep the pickup submerged during high g cornering. Now I didn't test this, but why does the 3.0L, and the 2001 2.5L have 3 drains in the cylinder head? There is a front, middle and rear. the pre 2001 2.5L has a front and middle. what happens to oil in a turn when it is pushed to the side where there is no drain?? the sump drains. Why would ford add a 3rd drain to the 2001 2.5L? Or to take a quote from Terry "Ford don't just do things" or somthing like that. David Z and I found that on a 2.5L 2001 cougar motor he has. I belive bondurant and rousch have found high rpm drainage problems to. I have talked to 2 customers who race cougars who bought gear kits and they have not have not had engine failures since they had custom oil pans made. So I belive it is a little triangle of problems. Poor pick up location, Oil pump scavangeing problems, and oil drainage from the heads. It doesn't happen all at once, but they can happen together and wreck a motor in no time, or slowly. A dry sump or a custom pan and an accu sump are the best solutions according to the guys I spoke to. I am going to have a custom pan made. I'm going to put in a oil cooler, with a t for the Accusump. And I'M LEAVING MY UNDERDRIVE PULLEY. My crank can whip it's heart out. Oh, and I'm going to put the 2001 2.5L heads on my new 3.0L block. 3 drains. I belive a 2 quart accusump should be enough to protect a motor as long as it is checked regularly in a car that is driven hard. Sorry about the long post. I had to get it off my chest. It's getting late, and I should get to bed, I have a long ride to work. BTW, I suppose 'crank whip' could cause a problem in a corner when there is no oil pressure........

Roger

Roger, I agree that oil starvation is real. And your explaination is plausible..infact I have had many posts (old archives) on the subject & personally emailed/talked to experts at Roush, SVE, Reinke, Mirko, Capaldi, Mumm, Bondurant..universal agreement that on the track 1) oil starvation is real and 2) baffeling the pan by itself does not eliminate the problem but 3) baffling + accusump does. The old posts by Horse relayed from Roush about head drainage problems was convincing and NOW we have Ford making a new baffeled pan and extra head drainage.

However, I did a long (it was up for months and back up) survey years ago on this forum and even checked with Mondeo.org & NECO. About forty percent lost motors similar to what you describe...hard right turn at high RPM. Clear cut oil starvation. Another 10-15% low oil possibly contibuted. But about 40+% were described as no turns prior, good oil level...no suggestion of oil stavation found..and I pushed the questioning because at that time I was baffeled..I though oil starvation was the only answer. But when Judge came out on the OEM damper company testing and the problems they found, I became a believer. Many cars may not have a problem with whip..but we have a crank that was shortened after the original design was laid down and simple aluminum bearings that are not well suited to whip, and a peak power near 7K RPM, something that has SVT Duratecs near redline alot more than most domestics.

So, I believe both are problems..and for those who do not race the car, the crank whip may be the bigger problem. and we have an easy solution, why take chances. You can underdrive individual accesories if you want, I will be but power gain is minimal..just good for accesories.

and how about this...Ford has actually addressed ALL of what I consider the big 3 Duratec problems..
extra head drainage
baffeled pan
DMD
ceramic H2o pump

I personally think we should all be doing the 3 easy ones....just to play it safe. And keep 6 quarts of quality synthetic in the sump. AND keep RPMs down a bit in the hard right handers unless you spring for accusump. I bet near nobody loses a motor who does all this. I am burned out on this subject..that all Ive got.

Ummm, one thing though - all the literature states that shorter cranks (of the same diameter / geometry) will be LESS prone to whip.

My thoughts on the DMD: I beleive it was a NVH improvement made possible by cost reductions from the new non-glued elastomer pullies. My 97 SE glued damper used to cost 140 dollars. The new "cheaper" non-DMD stock pulley was like 40. Ford probably figured out that for less than what they used to pay for a single mode they could get BMW-smoothness. Cut it in on the Mondeo first (which competes in a bimmer market) and role it out accross the fleet later. Quoting procyon's post: "There are DMDs now on a lot of Ford engines. I believe that all of the Modular 4.6,5.4, 6.8L engines have them now."

The overall crank length,from the Porsche proto 2.5's ,was reduced by thinning the balance webs...not the ideal way to make a crank less prone to whip...I'm sure you agree....!

Originally posted by Dan Nixon:

---

NOW we have Ford making a new baffeled pan

---

Dan, can you clarify what you mean by the "new baffled pan". In my reply to your question in the 3.0L Forum, I thought you were referring to the baffle which bolts to the bottom of the block. This was redesigned for 2001 for reduced aeration of oil off the crank from what I've heard.

All this info has been really helpful, but we still don't have a price or location on a DMD. I would like to know where to get one, just for safety's sake.

Yes - I agree and stand corrected.

I'll tell y'all something:
I just bought a DMD from Terry a week ago and
a baffled oil pan from jiako out of our GB.

After reading those failed motor horror stories, I feel
a little safer.

I've always run 6quarts in my car, Ford used to tell me 5.5 or something. . .I guess that's how I've managed to miss oil starvation on my courageous turns at 5k+. . .knock wood.

Suneil

How does a motor like that get through quality control? I mean if there was a problem with the motor shaking it's self apart how does that make it past the engineers? They must have been a collection of idiots. But I have asked questions like this about this car before. Is this just a "we don't care" thing? I don't think any of things are true. Maybe I just don't want to believe it's true. Whatever it is, I'm convinced the DMD is just there for NVH. Just my opinion though.

Roger

Originally posted by 3.0L SVT E0:

---

How does a motor like that get through quality control? I mean if there was a problem with the motor shaking it's self apart how does that make it past the engineers? They must have been a collection of idiots. But I have asked questions like this about this car before. Is this just a "we don't care" thing? I don't think any of things are true. Maybe I just don't want to believe it's true. Whatever it is, I'm convinced the DMD is just there for NVH. Just my opinion though.

Roger

---

It may be small consolation but, "Sh!t happens"

FWIW the 2.5 in USA is now a 'dead duck' to Ford.Its production is only for vehicles built in Europe,also funny how its only the SVT motors have this problem ...wonder why...don't se many,if any Std 2.5's with spun bearings or oil starvation issues.....higher CR's ?....greater load on crank??.....same pan ,same oil pump,same bearings,'selected' cranks(yeh right!)..same rods...

Originally posted by Terry Haines:

---

FWIW the 2.5 in USA is now a 'dead duck' to Ford.Its production is only for vehicles built in Europe,also funny how its only the SVT motors have this problem ...wonder why...don't se many,if any Std 2.5's with spun bearings or oil starvation issues.....higher CR's ?....greater load on crank??.....same pan ,same oil pump,same bearings,'selected' cranks(yeh right!)..same rods...

---

Plus I am sure SVT owners spend alot more time near the red line. People buy these cars for performance "acceleration, handleing"!!! I mean look any any performance 6 or 4 cylinder.. The most recent RX-7 didn't last much over 50,000 miles before gernading, givin its a rotary engine!!!! It all comes down to if you wanna play, you gotta pay!!!! You can pay by buying a DMD for a $100.00 or by replacing your engine!!!!! However I am willing to bet, if these cars wern't drivin like there stolen all the time and well maintaned they whould stand the test of time "100,000+ miles"!!!!
Just my .02

If you do eat a bearing what options do you have as far as getting it fixed??? And how much could you expect to pay????

Originally posted by Terry Haines:

---

funny how its only the SVT motors have this problem ...wonder why...don't se many,if any Std 2.5's with spun bearings or oil starvation issues.....higher CR's ?....greater load on crank??.....same pan ,same oil pump,same bearings,'selected' cranks(yeh right!)..same rods...

---

...........more revs....more whip...(&less oil getting back to pan??)

Actually, I have seen a pretty good number of reports of spun bearings in non SVT. Difference is in SVT its usually about 40-60K miles, in non SVT 80-100K miles (still young). I believe the same process (whip, oil starvation) occurs in non SVTs but takes longer because on average they see less revs...SVT hits peak power at or near peak power (and revs faster). Regular Duratec peaks around 6K ...little need to flog it to 7K!!! Thats just my theory though.

OK,so the order of events is -at high revs the crank starts to whip and all the oil is in the heads-the whip distorts the crank to take up running clearences-the bearing liners start to move in the caps and the oilways are blocked of by the soft bearing matl and the bearing is toast...so what causes the bearing to spin, the whip or the oil in the head?...and what is the fix??

Originally posted by Terry Haines:

---

and the oilways are blocked of by the soft bearing matl and the bearing is toast...

---

Terry, out of curiosity, have you observed this on tear downs?

Why bearings spin...not enough oil film quantity/quality on the bearing surface! Why not is the real Q!

Yes,on many 2.5 teardowns,not just oil,if the running clearence is taken up by a whiping crank the oil goes,as does the clearence.the only retainer for the bearing liner is the 'tang' & the amount of 'nip' that is designed in between the I/D of the rod end or main bearing cap and the O/D of two liner halves,in the case of these rods the 'nip' is minimal so any distortion that cuses a metal to metal touch condition at high load/rpm, be it whip or lube , can cause a bearing to spin.......

I wanted to mention something that I skipped over when I was reading this topic over. Dan Nixon made a post about what cars have the DMD and what cars don't. I belive that a mfg. will add the DMD if they think that they need it to take care of NVH issues in a certan chassis. Maybe Ford was unhappy with the way the motor felt in the new Mondeo, or they couldn't add the level of refinement the X-type has, so they added the DMD. Where as the new X-Type may use a different hardness rubber in the motormount if not a different design. You have a slightly different design. The X-Type is a much more expensive car so the quality of the materials may be different to. There are alot of variables there. I think that is one clue to why the DMD is there mainly for NVH. If it was there to save the motor from shaking it's self to pieces then why isn't it there on every duratech motor? Why take the chance if you are the manufacturer? You're playing russian roulette with every motor you place in a car without this damper. What about the rental companys who buy thousands of Tauruses? those cars get hammered non stop. Everyone plays the rental car game. How about the Soccer mom who stomps on the gas to pass someone on a 2 lane road with a load of kids? It may not happen often, but it does. These motors have to stand up to alot more abuse then they are intended to see if they are maintained properly. With preventing 'crank whip' the maintaince of the motor seems to be irrelevent(other then maybe changing the weight of the oil?). 'Crank whip' may be why the redline is lower on the non SVT duratech motors. Ford just took a gamble with the SVT. That would mean 'whip' was a problem mainly past 6000 rpm. That means you wouldn't see standard duratech motors failing, just SVT's like Terry said. But Dan Nixon says he has polled the fourms and found that the SVT cars seem to fail earlier. I believe the SVT cars may get driven harder, but everyone on this fourm is an enthusiast. They all bought contours because of how well they go, stop and handle. I'm sure the majority get driven hard at one point or another. What seems strange to me is how Dan Nixons (I'm not questioning the results of the poll or attacking Dan) poll results say roughly 40% of the enginge failures were similar to mine(Oil starvation), and roughly 40%+ there were "no turns prior, good oil level, no signs of oil starvation found". It sounds to me like bearings may have been damaged by oil starvation previously and after a little time they let go. I believe that you can hurt a bearing and have it go for a time before it causes a 'rod knock'. It depends on how badly it is hurt. I'm pretty sure that once it smacks, grazes, taps, etc. the journal it's done for. It is just a matter of time before it spins if it doesn't happen immedately. A spun bearing is exactly that, spun. The bearing comes in contact with the journal, the tabs that hold it in place pop out and it spins freely inside the rod or main journal. I am curious about how someone can tell how this happened. I know when a gearbox lets go there is almost no way to tell what happened first. It is possible get to the root of the problem (I.E. a gear pair). You just can't say gear A failed before gear B. You can make an educated GUESS, but you can really never know unless you witness the the event happen. It's just to destructive. I have my 3.0L apart in containers on the floor of my garage. I'll take some pictures and post them tonight and show everyone what I'm talking about.I'm not sure if there are any good parts in that. Another thing is woudn't a tougher bearing not wear as much? Why would it prevent you from spinning a bearing? As far as I know when a bearing hits the journal that bearings life is over. A harder bearing would LAST LONGER so it wouldn't get the loose tolerances at higher mileages that a softer bearing would. I could be wrong. I'm looking to learn just like everyone else. thanks for listening again

Roger

Originally posted by 3.0L SVT E0:

---

1) Dan Nixon made a post about what cars have the DMD and what cars don't. I belive that a mfg. will add the DMD if they think that they need it to take care of NVH issues in a certan chassis. .... If it was there to save the motor from shaking it's self to pieces then why isn't it there on every duratech motor? .... What about the rental companys who buy thousands of Tauruses?

2) It sounds to me like bearings may have been damaged by oil starvation previously and after a little time they let go. I believe that you can hurt a bearing and have it go for a time before it causes a 'rod knock'. It depends on how badly it is hurt.
Roger

---

In the post you refer to I was making a point that DMD correlated with MTX (Mondeo, Mazda6) and no DMD with ATX(MPV, Taurus)...which fits with my RPM=whip comments. I think ATXs are protected from whip cause they rev much less. The "exception" to the rule is Jag..which can be had with MTX. I just remembered 2 things here...1) I recall the 3L S type with alot of engine failures of ? etio..anybody else remember this..further info??. 2) apparently the Jag V6 is undergoing numerous revisions for 2003..will be interesting to see if DMD is one. Also, again perhaps the Jag gets trimetal bearings or "another" solution to whip...just a thought.

2) You can just as easily say that "the bearings were damaged by crank whip and gave out when subjected to minor, brief oil starvation... circular arguement without data one way or another..

Again, I believe both oiling and crank harmonics are in play. We may never know as the experts have different opininons (Judge, Terry, Procyon.. all of which I respect), and Ford has adressed BOTH issues and moved on. I think we should address both and move on to. I notice the only resistance to this comming from persons with UDPs. With all the discussion at least you that keep the pulleys know the score...but for those without......think very carefully about that mod.

Why would an automatic car be protected from 'whip' more? The auto car CAN rev just as high as the manual car can. Like I said in the post,
"There are alot of variables there. I think that is one clue to why the DMD is there mainly for NVH. If it was there to save the motor from shaking it's self to pieces then why isn't it there on every duratech motor? Why take the chance if you are the manufacturer? You're playing russian roulette with every motor you place in a car without this damper."

I think that placing the DMD only on cars that are available with manual transmissions doesn't make sense to me. The ATX car can and will rev just as high as a manual car if the pedal is pushed to the floor. This is why I am of the opinion that the DMD is for dealing with NVH issues, not the cure all for internal vibration problems.

Roger

Originally posted by 3.0L SVT E0:

---

Why would an automatic car be protected from 'whip' more? The auto car CAN rev just as high as the manual car can. Like I said in the post,

---

Torque Converter.

What he said.

The torque Converter, because of the contruction, acts like a hydraulic damper. It changes the natural frequency of the crank assembly.

Originally posted by jlanger:

---

In reply to:

---

Now, with the ATX you rev much less than MTX cars

---

Mine gets up to 5k-6k just about everyday. I really should start thinking abotu getting a DMD. I have nearly 90k now anything to look for before getting it. I'd hate to spend a couple of hundred bucks only to have the engine go a couple of days/weeks later.

---

Bro Like Demon, that's cruising for me on a daily basis. Each day I drive my tour it experiences on more than one occasion, revs up to 7600rpm, YES, you read correctly, 7600 Rotations Per Minute.

All this talk about "Crank Whip", Look I've got 53,000 Miles on my SVT, I've calculated over 1000miles of legal off-road Road Course Racing, which Includes Solo 1/2 and Drag Racing. This doesn't include the daily stress I've incurred on this motor and the many run ins with the 'Curious ones' and might I add, most of those trecks on and off the street were done with a Lightened UDP, not the stock one and not the DMD and to date the car is superb. I run very good/silky/smooth/lifesaving Amsoil 0w30 Racing Sytnthetic Motor Oil religously for most of the life of this motor and regularly change my oil filter with ( I only use Amsoil Oil Filters for the superb properties of filtration ). I have recently installed a DMD and notice the benefits of a much smoother motor especially above 6500rpm which I pay a visit and much beyond more than I need to.

I'm not trying to Jinks myself and I sure hope I don't, but the point I'm trying to get across is I personally think that the whole Crank Whip deal is a bit overdated/overthought/and IMO a bit OverLame. Seriously, talking about Crank Whip won't solve the problem a problem that IMO has been greatly exasperated. If Crank Whip Concerns you than just go get the DMD. A number here can remember over a year ago when I tried to make a production start of high quality racing dampers by Fisher which could of had an underdrive of about 20% along with much better properties of dampening then the current factory DMD we all have come to know and some use, it drew much attention but fell rather quick flat on its face simply because many felt it wasn't economically priced compared to the DMD which started to make an abrupt appeareance around the time due to the Fisher Damper. Unless you work for Ford or plan on making a major impact on how Ford will make there motors, Just take Crank Whip as what it is, an Issue with an Affordable Solution, which we can now offically call IAS...

I'll say it AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, AMSOIL, AMSOIL, AMSOIL. I am a testament as to how durable this motor really is with even an underdrive pulley. Terry Haines has mentioned it's the lack of oil between the bearings and the crank that eventually lead to failures so the right oil will help greatly alleviate that to an extent.

Use Amsoil 0w30 motor oil change your filter frequently if you drive very hard like me and just be happy with a GREAT MOTOR, DMD or no DMD

It's interesting when someone says "I been driving my car for ---- years and this problem hasn't happened to me so I don't believe it's a problem."

I would like to point out that my company had 1600 Dodge Intrepids, (1996,1997,1998). Half of them failed transmissions at about 60k. The guy's who didn't have tranny trouble thought the car was great. The one's who had trouble, thought the car sucked. Half could say "I never had that problem!" So it is with the Contours. If you don't have the problem, great. But don't be too quick to poopoo (or is it poo-poo?) the idea.

Crank whip exists in ALL cranks (All engines, reciprocating compressors, steam engines, etc...). The question isn't whether whip exist, just whether the whip can be contained or controlled by the bearings, dampers, design. The best oil (I don't care, pick your brand) will not stop it. When the crank distorts beyong the physical limits of the bearing, it will push through any brand oil film and ruin the bearing. You can't stop it with oil. Denying it exists doesn't work either.

The whip on your car may be a little different than mine or others because of variances in the densities of the crank metal, couterbalance weight differences, differences in machining of the journals, and different bearing clearances. You may have a "loose" motor and the whip doesn't extend past clearance. Another car may have a "tight" motor and the whip hits the bearing.
I am glad you never had a problem with it and I hope you never do. But some have and some will and it is good to discuss reasons and ways to prevent it. The DMD is one way to reduce the displacement in whip by dampening the vibration displacement.

Richard,
Very well put.You are spot on along with the fact that this subject has been flogged to death on this and other club boards.....you can't f**k with the physics...thats the way it is.Bit loke questioning gravity .....jump off your huse roof to prove it!!

Originally posted by Contouraholic:

---

It's interesting when someone says "I been driving my car for ---- years and this problem hasn't happened to me so I don't believe it's a problem."

Denying it exists doesn't work either.

The whip on your car may be a little different than mine or others because of variances in the densities of the crank metal, couterbalance weight differences, differences in machining of the journals, and different bearing clearances. You may have a "loose" motor and the whip doesn't extend past clearance. Another car may have a "tight" motor and the whip hits the bearing.
I am glad you never had a problem with it and I hope you never do. But some have and some will and it is good to discuss reasons and ways to prevent it. The DMD is one way to reduce the displacement in whip by dampening the vibration displacement.

---

1)Boy I don't get how people make there conclusions on others comments. Where in my post did I say anything about NVH not being a Problem, because I sure don't see it!! My comment about me not having a problem, was giving members here a sense of relief. The fact of the matter is this issue has been inflated so many times over. GET with the PROGRAM already, if harmonics bother you so much, instead of trying to find an answer, answered many times, just get the DMD! Our fellow CEG'er here is looking to nitpick into the whole NVH issue to find other possible answers, FOR WHAT? Does he or anyone for that matter Honestly think talking about something "I consider Old NEWS," change anything, IMO I don't think so.


2)Denying it doesn't exist!! WTF, were did that comment come from. I clearly stated I tried to get an Aftermarket Damper off the ground. I was head first in this whole NVH issue when it blew up over a year ago, and obviously I'm fully aware of the problem.

3) First I'll shake my head, then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, that you thought I wasn't aware of variances in motors! And NO, it's not good to discuss a topic thats been discussed so many times, with the same response, same answer every time out IMO.

Try not to take this as an attack, I'm trying to make you see that you've misinterpeted my comment above. By the way, OIL does play a factor even in these situations, and even as I mentioned in my above comment, 'TO AN EXTENT!'

Originally posted by 3.0L SVT E0:

---

Why would an automatic car be protected from 'whip' more? The auto car CAN rev just as high as the manual car can. Like I said in the post,
"There are alot of variables there. I think that is one clue to why the DMD is there mainly for NVH. If it was there to save the motor from shaking it's self to pieces then why isn't it there on every duratech motor? Why take the chance if you are the manufacturer? You're playing russian roulette with every motor you place in a car without this damper."

I think that placing the DMD only on cars that are available with manual transmissions doesn't make sense to me. The ATX car can and will rev just as high as a manual car if the pedal is pushed to the floor. This is why I am of the opinion that the DMD is for dealing with NVH issues, not the cure all for internal vibration problems.

---

Part of my response is to this, that it is a NVH and not a failure problem. Part is to the claim that the right oil will prevent this failure without regarding the physical properties of motors (I read you put the DMD on, so you "know"). The response was not necessarily to educate you , but to make clear to those others without a lot of knowledge that crank whip exists, oil won't fix it, and there are remediations that can prevent it to a greater extent (i.e. DMD). I am not saying Amsoil isn't a premium, fine oil. I am not saying ---- Brand oil isnt good. That synthetic Oil isn't good. I am not saying oil starvation or loss of lubrication doesn't happen.

Since this forum is read by many people, with varying degrees of experience and knowledge, I tried to write my responce with as many clear facts so everyone understands. It was not intended to flame, just educate. It is difficult to know everyones background. Terry H., whether you have a gripe with him or not, has an extensive background. I could write to his level and lose some of those here with little or no mechanical background. So I try to keep it simple.

So, no flame intended, just making sure the "general public" doesn't lose sight of some facts in the heat of the discussion.

FWIW, I am a Mechanical Engineer, spent 9 years as a Diesel mechanic (Local 440 Machinist and Aerospace Workers), I do vibration analysis, drivetrain alignments as a Mech. Eng. I have rebuilt engines , trannies (mostly truck trannies, Spicer, Mack, Road Ranger), I weld, I've driven 18 wheelers (professionally, not just once around the block). I have a strange and diverse work history. I have a lot of education (Masters Degree) and a lot of experience. I am not a 15 year old who just received his license and a car from mommy. So, you can disagree with me, but it doesn't hurt to regard what I am saying. Not comparing myself to Terry H, but even if you don't like him, he brings a lot to the table too. Pays to regard his statements too.

Just my Humble Opinion , anyway.....:)

The point is your response to me, had no relation to my comment whatsoever. You basically completely misinterpeted my point and direction. As far as what you do, none of us may know what the other does, as far as Terry I do, and I always respect his opinions, you, well, I'm very happy you have such a background, but it still has no relation to my point of argument and we could use more knowledge here at CEG. Yet, my Argument has to do with the fact that some CEG'ers need to stop chasing after this whole NVH deal like it's some lost mystery, the chasing has been done to many times already with a logical and affordable solution. To say that maybe the DMD may not be doing it's job to the tee, OH WELL, I and many here can attest to the difference in the way the motor responds in such high revolutions, it's a night and day difference, and I can say, the only real logical solution is to rip apart the motor, something most already know about, to bad most aren't to fond of the idea. Is the DMD a must, I'm not one to say, my experience may show other wise, but the fact is people need to just get with the program. I wouldn't say such things but in this case the poster of this thread is obviously aware of the whole NVH thing!!!!

By the way, My response has nothing to do with Terry Haines..

Originally posted by 3.0L SVT E0:

---

1) Why would an automatic car be protected from 'whip' more? The auto car CAN rev just as high as the manual car can. Like I said in the post

2) I think that is one clue to why the DMD is there mainly for NVH. If it was there to save the motor from shaking it's self to pieces then why isn't it there on every duratech motor?

3) I think that placing the DMD only on cars that are available with manual transmissions doesn't make sense to me. The ATX car can and will rev just as high as a manual car if the pedal is pushed to the floor. This is why I am of the opinion that the DMD is for dealing with NVH issues, not the cure all for internal vibration problems.

Roger

---

Just to keep the fun comming..

1) It can...only if you shift it manually. A Taurus shifts automatically at 5800 RPM. Even with pedal to the metal. Even with the electric overdrive switched off. MPV, IIRC about 6K shifts. How many Taurus, MPV owners will manually shift?? I bet few have EVER visted 7K, and those that do...rarely. SVT visits 7K daily..
Oh, and also what was mentioned about the tourque converter..had not thought of that.

2) Lets flip this around...why does not the Jag have a DMD if it IS for NVH primarily. What Duratec needs better NVH control than the flagship luxury car?

3) see 1 & 2


wattspr..
It really is good that your car/engine has had no problems with a fair amount of ontrack. I do think these cars are tougher than sometimes given credit. But when talking about crank whip remember that spun bearings still happens to the minority of cars. Maybe 10%, maybe 20%, maybe even 30%...but even that leaves 70% that are fine. This is why anacdotal reports are of little use in figuring out whats going on...if you mentioned 1000 guys had a similar story as yours, it would be useful. However, several persons that race their cars HAVE had failure/spunbearings..1 even failed twice after adding a baffeled oil pan. And 58K is still pretty low mileage...an engine should last at least 3x that. And I am curious why you added the damper...you are a racer and you added an extra pound to the crank...was this really for smoothness or were you worried just a bit??

i'm tickled pink at the idea of my torque converter acting as a second vibration dampener

occasionally i will visit the high revs manually shifting (drag racing at the track) however i dont pound it into the red line as shifting a few ms before that seems to get me the best times and also allows me to avoid banging into the rev limiter even if my timing is a bit off.... my power band seems to fall flat on its face right before redline anyhow
but i digress
great thread, i feel smart today!

I noticed there was a comment about SVT's being the only ones to spin a bearing. I have a 98.5 se with 46K miles. One spun bearing another one scored and the #2 cylinder wall scuffed. Warranty denied the claim saying over revving was to blame. Total cost: $4500 not counting the 3L I got from Sho-Shop. Ford's doing the work and I was wondering if anyone else has recieved a high replacement bill like this?

An 'example' re spun bearing repairs + mods. new crank,rod,rings,bearings,headwork,uim/lim intake clean,elct w/pump,quaife,new clutch,relocate battery,Accusump,remote oil filter,air/oil engine cooler & stat,sway bar links fron,ES bushes front,Aussie bar, s/steel dress up for all hoese etc,new alternator,serp belt,..total parts $4,100..Labor..$2,760...TH

Hell yeah Terry! Put a turbo in it and call it Frankentour!

Where are people mounting their Accusumps? What about those who have the S/C or plan to have the turbo? Space is getting harder to find.
Eric

I've done quite a few Accusumps with remote filter,oil cooler,elect w/pump etc...gets a bit tight on realestate ...battery always in trunk....I find the best spot is vertical just back from the l/h headlamp with the lower clamp on the front x member of the subframe and a bracket to the inner fender to support the top...I'll get some pics ,vertical is best for an a/sump or a very slaight angle.buckshot has an angle setup etc...TH

Dan Nixon it just amuses me how this topic always raises so much interest time and time again, even by the same people. You know, I would hate for my motor to go, who wouldn't, but till it does, I've taken the MUST DO cautions, using an OIL with a High Viscosity Index and very high Flash Over Point, very much proven on race motors, and YES, I installed the DMD for the security of the motor, but you of all people should know I would want such a thing on my motor, I'm sure you recall the FISHER DAMPER!!! I do miss the way the REV's increased with the URD Pulley, I'm even tempted sometimes to put it back on.

Solution: Here's the Solution, have Terry Haines build up a properly prepped motor with the right parts, while you're at it, send the heads to my shop in Cali. and they can CNC port them/reground cams, let Terry figure out the rest, ect.ect.

No more worries, HOPEFULLY, with spun bearings! Now unless anyhere don't plan on doing this and are concerned of this issue, just go get the DMD...........

I've been watching this thread for some time now and even asked a qeustion or 2, and after all this I have another qeustion. Does anyone here think that Duratec engines are the only Ford engines to suffer spun bearings? I ask this because I never hear of anyone commenting on other Ford engines.

Originally posted by wattspxr:

---

Dan Nixon YES, I installed the DMD for the security of the motor, but you of all people should know I would want such a thing on my motor, I'm sure you recall the FISHER DAMPER!!! I do miss the way the REV's increased with the URD Pulley, I'm even tempted sometimes to put it back on.

---

Sure I remember, I was wondering if you did..cause it sounded like you were saying the concern over crank whip was overblown/overstated..maybe I misunderstood..

Yep, same folks in most of these discusions, but usually a new point or 2, a new perspective, so its not a bad thing. This is much more important than most of the BS topics that are repeated here..."which is the best intake etc." And personally, I spent a huge amount of time researching this issue, talked with MANY experts, on the whole oil starvation/crank whip yada yada issue and just want to make sure everybody gets the word. So yeah, I get pretty redundant here...

I just want to say that if a problem comes along..you must whip it..whip it good...DMD..

The whole point of these discussions are for people who want to learn, or for people who have questions, etc. If you think the discussion is redundant, if you don't care or if you don't have any thing positive or constructive to say I think you should stay the hell out. There is no reason to get angry. Even if people think this is a dead horse. Some people don't know much about this. Or like dan mentioned, some people bring new ideas along. No one puts a gun to anyones head to answer a link. I started this because I knew what crank whip was, but I wanted to know the reasoning behind it. Now I know.

Roger

Originally posted by 3.0L SVT E0:

---

The whole point of these discussions are for people who want to learn, or for people who have questions, etc.

---

IMO, this has been one of the best threads in a long time. There was no major flaming, and I learned a helluva lot about crank whip and so on. I have been following this thread from the begining, and wanted to say "Thank You" to all that contributed. This was absolutely educational, and all in all positive. Thanks guys

So is it pointless to DMD an ATX?

I dont think it could hurt. While the ATX has different harmonics, the problem area is the front of the engine, where the distance from the firing cylinder (#1) to the flywheel(or torque converter) is the greatest. So on the face of it, it would have, but may not be a dramatic as the MTX setup. Secondly, reducing the vibration means the drive train is subject to less vibration (Less wear and Tear). This can only help all in all. So i would say the DMD is a good idea for any application.

While this discussion was focusing on the bearing failure aspect, reducing NVH is always pleasant.

If you are inclined to put a DMD on, the ATX application is O.K. (in my opinion, of course).

Not pointless, I installed one in my ATX equipped Contour for the vibration reduction.

But that approx 10hp loss is huge in an atx! Or is that number off?

Originally posted by Tony D:

---

But that approx 10hp loss is huge in an atx! Or is that number off?

---

HP isn't lost by weight. A 200 HP engine has 200 HP whether it has a 300 lb flywheel or a 3 lb flywheel. The heavier one will just accelerate slower. (being picky here I guess, but an intake mod may increase HP, but not a weight change)

However, The loss in acceleration results in 1/4 mile time reduction which could be compared to an equivalent HP loss. I doubt the DMD affect on accelleration could be measured. And since vibration is an energy loss, reducing it provides more energy for other things, like acceleration. Of course, your mileage may vary.

For practical purposes, it would be interesting to see a consisent driver compare DMD and non-DMD times. A smoother engine may keep traction longer, have more HP available for acceleration than a non-dmd. Of course, I may be wrong, but I don't think you can just weigh the DMD and declare a 1lb increase will decrease peformance without considering the other factors that affect the motor positively.

its weird to find out someone alse has the same problems as dsm's. I thought we were the only ones to get "crank whip" which we call crankwalk, i assume there the same deal. interesting, but shitty. my car "95 talon tsi" crankwalked but now i have a 1st gen battom end which is ammune to crankwalk. find any fixes? i didnt really wanna read the tons of posts. peace

Originally posted by Contouraholic:

---

ATX's have torque converter, not solid flywheel. That might change the natural frequency of the crank enough that it isn't the problem it is on MTX's.

---

Well, here is my experience with installing a DMD on an ATX. I did notice a reduction in vibration in mid-upper RPMs, but it was not what I would call dramatic. I attribute this to the fluid filled torque convertor acting much as a Fluidampr would.

However, I too have already experienced an engine failure. This happened after having an oil leak fixed at my local dealer. They replaced the oil pan gasket and front main seal. As soon as I picked the car up, I noticed that it seemed down on power. However, the dealership was closing and I figured the power loss might be due to the computer needing to relearn all the sensor calibrations since they had disconnected the battery.

Well, 15 miles later it had even less power. There were no right hand sweeping turns in that 15 miles, much less any taken at high rpms. I tested the engine by holding the accelerator down through first gear. The car held 6000 rpms for about 3 seconds and then shifted into second. Normally it would shift quickly at 6250. Power was way down and at the next stop light the engine was making a mechanical knocking sound and the oil light was flashing. The car now barely had enough power to get to 35 MPH. I stopped and checked the oil which was right up to the full mark.

Eventually the dealership was forced by Ford to replace my engine. I still don't know what they screwed up, since they refused to tear the engine down to inspect it. However, it does seem like this is the same type of failure (from the symptoms) as most Duratec failures. Perhaps they installed the damper wrong? Could they have counter rotated the crankshaft (supposedly a big no-no on Duratecs, as it damages the cam chain drive system), or did they install something in the oil pump/pickup assembly wrong?

I think the latter is the least likely cause, since it should have set off the oil pressure warning light before any damage occured (and obviously it was working, since it was flashing at me at the second stop light).

It's too bad they refused to tear the engine down. I really would like to know what caused my engine to fail.

My opinion? The dealer started the car without oil during the repair. We have had a couple of failures on our service vans. We even had a Ford Service Tech. drop a screw into the intake manifold. He flagged the van, the needed to move it to disassemble the intake to take the screw out. Another tech ignored the tag, started the van to move it and the srew damaged a cylinder and piston. They have detstroyed a couple of engine with the change the oil and forget to refill too.

Not that crank whip couldn't of been the problem, but I would bet on Ford Service Error over crank whip.

DSM's do not suffer from crank whip! The 2nd gen. DSM's suffer from crank walk, they are 2 completely different problems. Crank walk is easier to solve.