Carr&Edwards wrote:
> Listers,
>
> We faced the same question recently, complicated by the fact that the
> cam sprocket couldn't be slid onto the camshaft with the damper in
> place--possibly the groove in the new sprocket wasn't deep enough, or
> the new damper too fat? (The old one had totally disintegrated, so
> there was no way of comparing anything.)
>
> My earlier query to this list provided one response that the 4-cyl.
> race cars didn't use the damper, so my mechanic suggested leaving it
> off. (He's had much experience with old Chevy engines--which is
> essentially what the 100 is--and says that since they never had such a
> damper, he feels that running without it would be OK.)
>
> As there were no "don't do it!" responses to the racing-engines remark
> on this list, I agreed to go along with his suggestion. It will be
> some time before the engine is test-run (small matters of repairing
> the sump and rebuilding the carbs...), so if there's anyone out there
> who feels strongly about running a 100 engine w/o the rubber damper,
> speak now!
>
>
> Sarah Carr
> BN1 in PA
Sarah, it was probably my posting that you're referring to. In 1978,
mine disintegrated and clogged everything, pegging my oil pressure
needle. I cleaned everything out and put the engine back together with
a new chain and NO damper. After 28 years and nearly 40,000 miles, I've
had zero problems. This was all street driving with no competition.
In contrast to Jerry, I have noticed no increase in noise, nor has there
been any excessive wear on the chain or sprockets.
If again faced with that question in the future, I will certainly
consider Michael Salter's suggestion of using a neoprene one. However,
I would never again use an OEM tensioner.
Bill Barnett
Santa Ana, CA
'53 BN1 #663
|