200ci Crank pulley too far in

[drag-200stang]

You have to use the big thick washer. When the damper is tight against the stock sprocket, the end of the crank is close to where the washer the sits, it almost bottoms out. You need a spacer to make it right because of the thinner new roller chain sprocket.

 

[comet6]

What is the OD of the balancer hub that presses up against the timing sprocket?

If the OD is more than 1.750" then use McMaster Carr carbon steel shim number 3088A518.
It is 1.25" ID x 1.750" OD x .125" Thick

Package of 10 is $14.85

You will have to cut the keyway into the inside of the shim.

You need to be sure that you need a .125" thick shim.
If it is too much then the bottom pulley will stick out too far.

The next thinner shim is .093".
Part Number 3088A489

They make those shims with keyway

 

[drag-200stang]

Just to be clear, the spacer needs to go between the sprocket and the damper.

 

[alwill923]

Just a suggestion!
If the OD of the balancer is 1.75 and the OD of the crankshaft is 1.25 that leaves 0.5 difference or 0.250 on the radius all around. The OD of the shim does not have to be exactly the same as the OD of the balancer as long as it sits tight with the crankshaft timing gear. It may be possible to get a shim with a slightly smaller OD and the 1.25 ID to slide past the timing cover seal or the 1.75 could be cut down slightly. I would try this before removing the timing cover to install a shim.

I used a Cloyes timing gears and chain without the slinger and did not have a problem. The engine is together so I can not measure the crankshaft gear thickness.

Measure very carefully what thickness you need and get it right. Put a straight along the pulleys and measure the difference . Shim thickness can be cut down but needs special equipment (surface grinder). IF you are within less than a 1/16 you should be ok.

I would fix the problem or it will haunt you.

 

[awasson]

Am I reading this correctly that the balancer is too close and it’s out of alignment or contacting the cover or the block?

That seems odd. I have the same adjustable double roller sprocket set, removed the slinger and it seems to be about where it was with the original single roller chain and sprockets. To be clear, on my original setup, the balancer was extremely close to the block and now it is still extremely close but it does not contact it in any way shape or form and the belt seems to be close enough in alignment to cause no issues.

Here is mine mocked up on the stand, two summer’s ago before I installed it in the car. It’s about the best photo I have on hand. The crank pulley might be slightly rearward but not in any way that is troubling.

 

[Dustyford]

Am I reading this correctly that the balancer is too close and it’s out of alignment or contacting the cover or the block?

That seems odd. I have the same adjustable double roller sprocket set, removed the slinger and it seems to be about where it was with the original single roller chain and sprockets. To be clear, on my original setup, the balancer was extremely close to the block and now it is still extremely close but it does not contact it in any way shape or form and the belt seems to be close enough in alignment to cause no issues.

Here is mine mocked up on the stand, two summer’s ago before I installed it in the car. It’s about the best photo I have on hand. The crank pulley might be slightly rearward but not in any way that is troubling.

View attachment 29352

Yes, it is about .043 closer to the TC. 3/64” may not seem like much but it could cause stress on the water pump, alternator, and tear the belt. The new sprocket, according to Claysmith, is .020 narrower than the stock sprocket and the slinger is .023 thick. I’m surprised nobody ever worried about it in the last 25 years. I am putting a shim on it to keep the pulley in line.

 

[awasson]

Yes, it is about .043 closer to the TC. 3/64” may not seem like much but it could cause stress on the water pump, alternator, and tear the belt. The new sprocket, according to Claysmith, is .020 narrower than the stock sprocket and the slinger is .023 thick. I’m surprised nobody ever worried about it in the last 25 years. I am putting a shim on it to keep the pulley in line.

Yes, it is about .043 closer to the TC. 3/64” may not seem like much but it could cause stress on the water pump, alternator, and tear the belt. The new sprocket, according to Claysmith, is .020 narrower than the stock sprocket and the slinger is .023 thick. I’m surprised nobody ever worried about it in the last 25 years. I am putting a shim on it to keep the pulley in line.

Yep, that's interesting. Good subject. Thanks for posting this.

I'm just looking at the photo mine above on a desktop monitor and it looks like the lower pully on mine is slightly rearward. I didn't give it a second thought because with the stock TC + slinger it was so close to begin with. I actually thought my thrust bearings were worn and everything had shifted back but they were fine and it still had paper thin clearance.

I'll have to look at mine closely again. It seems better than my 60's Camaro ever was and it's miles better than the V8 Vega I cobbled together in the 80's. If I change the camshaft or do anything major, I'll shim mine to make the alignment perfect.

 

[63 Sprint]

Just thought of something.

It’s good practice to check the crankshaft the end play before purchasing a vehicle. When I purchased my 1966 Ford Fairlane with a 200 six with a C4, back in 1978, it needed a replacement crank. The thrust bearing wore through the main journal thrust surface and the crankshaft end play was near 1/8”

I remember purchasing a re-ground crankshaft with the proper undersized bearings. When the crankshaft was installed, it was not spinning freely as it should. The crankshaft was brought away and checked for straightness and all journals re-miked. It checked out good. The bearings were checked with plasti-gauge and something was not right. The main caps were in the right place and positioned properly. Had my neighbor come over to help diagnose the issue. What he found was the block mains needed to be align bored.

Whenever a used vehicle is going to be purchased. Make a point to check the crankshaft end play. I’m not sure if Ford had quality control issues on the 200 engine back in the mid 1960’s

 

[Dustyford]

Just thought of something.

It’s good practice to check the crankshaft the end play before purchasing a vehicle. When I purchased my 1966 Ford Fairlane with a 200 six with a C4, back in 1978, it needed a replacement crank. The thrust bearing wore through the main journal thrust surface and the crankshaft end play was near 1/8”

I remember purchasing a re-ground crankshaft with the proper undersized bearings. When the crankshaft was installed, it was not spinning freely as it should. The crankshaft was brought away and checked for straightness and all journals re-miked. It checked out good. The bearings were checked with plasti-gauge and something was not right. The main caps were in the right place and positioned properly. Had my neighbor come over to help diagnose the issue. What he found was the block mains needed to be align bored.

Whenever a used vehicle is going to be purchased. Make a point to check the crankshaft end play. I’m not sure if Ford had quality control issues on the 200 engine back in the mid 1960’s

Yes I checked the end play and the builder did it correctly. .007”