Which is best for marine use?

All 3 appear to be anodized. ATI is rebuildable, TCI has no elastomer or fluids. I was told The fluidampr's go bad in a short time (silicone solidifies).

Any one with good or bad experiences with the above?

Other suggestions?

Call a few crankshaft MFG's. They'll give you some GOOD information over the phone on what not to use and what to use.

Chris

I have used the fluiddampr for years without any problem at all. Never heard of any problems from friends that also use them.

GOOD advice

ATI is what I see on most motors.

I think on the Fluiddamper you cant ballance the motor with them on the crank

I've always used ATI

How do the TCIs hold up in the marine environment?

I have never seen or heard of anybody using the TCI.

There rattler uses balls things rolling around in side the dampener.I don't like that idea. Just me though

Now Chris I know you know who all the big guys use ,I guess You cant say because most buy from you?

rob

I work med/safety at Michigan Speedway. The manager/lead mechanic of the IROC fleet strongly recommended A.T.I. over the other brands. I run them on my Sterlings and just put one on my '57 283 fuellie motor being rebuilt.

Rob,
No we only make crank hubs and billet timing pointers. The crank guys know first hand what is giving builders trouble and what isn't. I had one customer that was building driving school engines, 500HP Iron headed 358CID, that lost 6 engines. The cause was the harmonic damper. Call them they will be truthful.

Chris