Ford Focus RS Forum banner

1 - 20 of 40 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,587 Posts
Focus ST people have been doing it a bunch, but I never did it to mine. I was always in the camp of “I think I’ll trust the engineers at the 6th largest manufacturer in the world”
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
562 Posts
Focus ST people have been doing it a bunch, but I never did it to mine. I was always in the camp of “I think I’ll trust the engineers at the 6th largest manufacturer in the world”
I'm going to delete my balance shafts including the housing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,446 Posts
I'm going to delete my balance shafts including the housing.
You would do that even if it weighed .5 lbs. :)

BTW, the new motor I am building will also have it deleted.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RocketRS and mikesk

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,756 Posts
People have been doing this on foci since the duratec came out in 2004ish. It frees up roatating mass but you will experience more vibrations. Not ideal for a daily. Much better ways to achieve additional power on a turbo car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,641 Posts
The wife said "No!"
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,687 Posts
IF you already have more than a RMM + TMM and/or PMM installed on any turbo car, you will be used to the NVH of a balance shaft delete. It free's up quite a bit of rotating mass. Important thing on these engines is making sure you have a plan in place for the structural support the balance shaft housing provides from the factory.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
448 Posts
....It's either the most cost-effective method of reducing rotating mass, or the worst idea in the history of mankind. Camps appear to be split evenly.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There is a split because the huge majority of car people really don't understand the reason it exists in the first place. The balance shaft has nothing to do with "balancing" anything. They interpret "balance" as something the engine must have to operate correctly or for longevity. They would be wrong. It exists because we consumers want everything we drive to be smooth and quiet. Motorcycle oems use them in many 1, 2, and 3 cylinder designs and more accurately call them "counter-balancers".

A 4 cylinder inline engine design with two pistons up and two down (180 degree crankshaft) has perfect primary balance. However as those crankshafts rotate, at their 90 degree point, the crank journals and connecting rods are at opposite points and produce secondary (side-to-side) vibrations that are felt at the usual engine mount locations. These vibrations on engines of less than 2 liters are considered by industry to be a low enough amplitude to be absorbable by softer mounts, so less is felt by the occupants of the vehicle. Engines of 2 liters or more are considered by industry to produce vibrations with amplitude large enough that soft mounts will not absorb them, so the anti-vibration (balance) shaft is added to help counter these vibrations. It doesn't work 100% either, as everything is a compromise.

That's IT, nothing more. However the balance shaft brings with it another problem. The balance shaft in automobiles is driven by an angle-gear drive, again to reduce noise (gear whine) and as such places a constant thrust load on the crankshaft. As the engine revs up and down the thrust load varies and hits peak loads that can result in thrust bearing wear and too much crankshaft end play over time/miles. The decision to remove it should be based on logical rationale. It is like free power along the same line as a lighter flywheel, and under drive pulleys for accessory drives. They place less parasitic loads on the engine and leave the power available for accelerating the engine and driving the vehicle.

I pulled the oil pan and removed the "balance" shaft assembly from my 2007 Speed6 at 700 miles... The Fiesta ST (1.6L) didn't have one. The Mazda 1.8L didn't have one. The Honduh 2.0 does have one and Honduh have used them in smaller engines as a way to make their product more consumer-friendly (smooth and quiet). I haven't pulled it from the RS yet, but will when the head gasket fiasco is done.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
IIRC, removing it saves 18lbs and frees up hp on the car. The engine will rev faster, but also drops it faster.

I need to wait 96756 more miles or 7yrs and 9 months (which ever comes first) before I can do this.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
Didnt you already buy one? Lol
The plug is only like $30, either replace the oil pan and retro fit it with different baffle.

I can't confirm or deny that I have this part sitting in the garage.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
I completed my balance shaft delete on 09/15/18. See here: https://hanksrs.com/Balance_Shaft_Delete.htm.

My RS is driven on weekends for autox and spirited driving duties. I don't recommend this mod at all for a daily driver. The rear view mirror is useless above 2500 rpm. Sure, there are performance benefits (less rotating mass, more weight off the front), but I see the majority of RS owners regretting this after completing it. Another benefit is the aftermarket oil pan baffle to make sure autoxing on Hoosier slicks doesn't starve the oil pickup.

Lastly, my bathroom scale shows a reduction of only 11.80 lb (shafts/housing/oil pan baffle swap).
 
  • Like
Reactions: nicklulu

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,637 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,199 Posts
@Hank, what is a good guesstimate on the HP gain on this mod?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,156 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: nicklulu

·
Registered
Joined
·
343 Posts
Damn. So Hank says there is too much nvh.
Would there be any way to reduce nvh without compromising performance?
Camber plates?
 
1 - 20 of 40 Posts
Top