fot
[Top] [All Lists]

[Fot] TR6 Harmonic Dampener

To: "fot@autox.team.net" <fot@autox.team.net>
Subject: [Fot] TR6 Harmonic Dampener
From: Robert Lang via Fot <fot@autox.team.net>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2025 12:56:45 +0000 (UTC)
Delivered-to: mharc@autox.team.net
Delivered-to: fot@autox.team.net
References: <1533351811.185448.1758718605121.ref@mail.yahoo.com>
--===============5767171704605011335==
        boundary="----=_Part_185447_1905711117.1758718605120"

------=_Part_185447_1905711117.1758718605120
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi,
After I got my frame straightened last year, I've noticed that the clearance 
between the ATI harmonic dampener and the front cross member and the steering 
rack seems tighter than what I previously had. Granted how much metal had been 
bent in the crash, I'm not surprised.
So, I have a question for the hive - to compensate, I plan to push the engine 
back a tad, maybe 1/4" or so using the "usual method" of installing a metal 
plate in the engine mount to frame interface. The question: in moving the 
engine back in small increments, will I have to "shorten" the driveshaft or is 
the driveshaft length (stock driveshaft and stock 4-speed TR6 transmission) 
already able to compensate for moving the engine back.
I'm not planning to go wild and make the car "mid-engined". I'm just looking to 
compensate for some "rearranged metal" in the front of the car. That and I also 
had to switch back to "stock" rubber motor mounts as opposed to the HD units 
that TRF used to sell. Else, if there's a source for stiffer stock-type TR6 
engine mounts, I'm all ears. The softer stock units allow a LOT of motion in 
both axis of motion.
After two broken cranks this season and reviewing my in-car vids, it looks like 
I'm not abusing the self-imposed redline of 6000 except occasional hell-toe 
blips on downshifts (Hi Christian!!) that I need to smooth out. But I think the 
crank is hitting the frame while spinning and that's adding more stress to the 
snout of the crank.
TIA
Bob Lang339 927 4489
------=_Part_185447_1905711117.1758718605120
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body><div class=3D"yahoo-style-wrap" style=3D"font-fami=
ly:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div dir=
=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">Hi,</div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"fal=
se"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">After I got my frame s=
traightened last year, I've noticed that the clearance between the ATI harm=
onic dampener and the front cross member and the steering rack seems tighte=
r than what I previously had. Granted how much metal had been bent in the c=
rash, I'm not surprised.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false"><br></=
div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">So, I have a question for the hi=
ve - to compensate, I plan to push the engine back a tad, maybe 1/4" or so =
using the "usual method" of installing a metal plate in the engine mount to=
 frame interface. The question: in moving the engine back in small incremen=
ts, will I have to "shorten" the driveshaft or is the driveshaft length (st=
ock driveshaft and stock 4-speed TR6 transmission) already able to compensa=
te for moving the engine back.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">=
<br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">I'm not planning to go wil=
d and make the car "mid-engined". I'm just looking to compensate for some "=
rearranged metal" in the front of the car. That and I also had to switch ba=
ck to "stock" rubber motor mounts as opposed to the HD units that TRF used =
to sell. Else, if there's a source for stiffer stock-type TR6 engine mounts=
, I'm all ears. The softer stock units allow a LOT of motion in both axis o=
f motion.</div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false"><br></div><div dir=3D=
"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">After two broken cranks this season and reviewi=
ng my in-car vids, it looks like I'm not abusing the self-imposed redline o=
f 6000 except occasional hell-toe blips on downshifts (Hi Christian!!) that=
 I need to smooth out. But I think the crank is hitting the frame while spi=
nning and that's adding more stress to the snout of the crank.</div><div di=
r=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false"><br></div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"f=
alse">TIA</div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false"><br></div><div dir=3D=
"ltr" data-setdir=3D"false">Bob Lang</div><div dir=3D"ltr" data-setdir=3D"f=
alse">339 927 4489</div></div></body></html>
------=_Part_185447_1905711117.1758718605120--

--===============5767171704605011335==
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
fot@autox.team.net

http://www.fot-racing.com

Archive: http://autox.team.net/archive http://www.team.net/pipermail/fot



--===============5767171704605011335==--

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>