Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,282
Likes: 103
From: Lawrence, KS
Car: Met. Silver 85 IROC/Sold
Engine: 350 HO Deluxe (350ci/330hp)
Transmission: T-5 (Non-WC)
Axle/Gears: Limited Slip 3.23's
Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
I started my thirdgen journey as many others: a desire for performance. To that end I modded my original LG4 until it was at least the equivalent of an L69, and when retirement rolled around, I threw in a 350 HO Deluxe mated with a GM lightweight flywheel (16 pounds) and an aluminum drive shaft. Did the combo live up to my expectations? You danged betcha! But...Yeah, there's always a "but." I grew to loathe engaging the clutch from a standstill, I grew to loath the lag between shifts. So? So recently I had a clutch kit installed and I replaced the lightweight flywheel with a standard 24 pounder. The result? I have a new car, one that takes off from a stop without fuss, one that shifts so smoothly that I find myself grinning like an idiot. In my seventh decade, I'm seeking drivability, which is why I tossed the Astro Van steering shaft (the noise was awful), replaced the poly trans mount (something designed for teeth-rattling vibration in the lowest regions of hell), why I set the Koni Yellows on full soft, why I...well you get the idea. My younger self was willing to ignore the price of performance; my weary older self just desires drivability. Do I regret my journey? Not a whit.
JamesC
JamesC
Last edited by JamesC; Sep 9, 2021 at 09:02 PM. Reason: Error
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 6,521
Likes: 91
From: Aridzona
Car: `86 SS / `87 SS
Engine: L69 w/ TPI on top / 305 4bbl
Transmission: `95 T56 \ `88 200-4R
Re: Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
If you're indeed running 3.23 rear gears, it makes good sense heavier flywheel inertia would add to better drivability.
I am of the camp that happily matched gearing is a major factor in a vehicle being a slug, or being enjoyable to drive. Trans. gearing and flywheel weight are major components of all that.
I tolerated a set of not-so-round tires 20 years ago. That's another component of learning that NVH nded not be confused with performance.
I am of the camp that happily matched gearing is a major factor in a vehicle being a slug, or being enjoyable to drive. Trans. gearing and flywheel weight are major components of all that.
I tolerated a set of not-so-round tires 20 years ago. That's another component of learning that NVH nded not be confused with performance.
Member
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Aug 2012
Posts: 418
Likes: 1
From: Lascassas TN
Car: 1989 IROC G92 LB9 MK6
Engine: LB9
Transmission: MK6
Axle/Gears: 3.45
Re: Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
Did the 89 IROC 5 speed use the heavy or light flywheel?
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 5,906
Likes: 240
From: Chicagoland Suburbs
Car: 1989 Trans Am GTA
Engine: LT1, AFR 195cc, 231/239 LE cam.
Transmission: M28 T56
Axle/Gears: 3.23 10bolt waiting to explode.
Re: Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
I too considered a lightweight flywheel for my GTA when I was building it. I'm glad that in the end I decided against it.
I was considering a lightweight aluminum at 13lbs. I'm glad I didn't in the end, I would have hated the car tremendously on the street no matter how much fun it would have been on the road course.
I was considering a lightweight aluminum at 13lbs. I'm glad I didn't in the end, I would have hated the car tremendously on the street no matter how much fun it would have been on the road course.
Supreme Member




Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,863
Likes: 788
From: 212 is up in this Bit@#
Car: Resto-Mod 1987 IROC-Z Clone
Engine: Alky fed L92 Vortec Twin-Turbo 6.8L
Transmission: My own built/ design 4L80M
Axle/Gears: Custom 12 bolt (4.10:1)
Re: Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
I personally like an extremely lightweight Fly-Wheel in a Drag-Race only vehicle...
However I absolutely hate it, for street driving.
Forget "Stop and Go" traffic.

I have the most experience (using an extremely lightweight Fly-Wheel) with a Spec brand multi-disc Clutch-System, that included the Fly-Wheel.
This was used in a 3,200 Lbs Third-Gen, with an extremely modified T56 (originally from an SSR-Truck) and the usual modified Fourth-Gen Hydraulics.
This set-up worked well on both Slicks, and the now more popular "Drag-Radials".
However I absolutely hate it, for street driving.
Forget "Stop and Go" traffic.

I have the most experience (using an extremely lightweight Fly-Wheel) with a Spec brand multi-disc Clutch-System, that included the Fly-Wheel.
This was used in a 3,200 Lbs Third-Gen, with an extremely modified T56 (originally from an SSR-Truck) and the usual modified Fourth-Gen Hydraulics.
This set-up worked well on both Slicks, and the now more popular "Drag-Radials".
Re: Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
@JamesC
So where did you find a heavier flywheel? I am putting a mostly stock 350 in my 88 and all I can find are the 16-20 pound wheels. I'd love to find a 24 pound that isn't crazy expensive but if I have to pony up, I will.
So where did you find a heavier flywheel? I am putting a mostly stock 350 in my 88 and all I can find are the 16-20 pound wheels. I'd love to find a 24 pound that isn't crazy expensive but if I have to pony up, I will.
Thread Starter
Joined: Aug 1999
Posts: 19,282
Likes: 103
From: Lawrence, KS
Car: Met. Silver 85 IROC/Sold
Engine: 350 HO Deluxe (350ci/330hp)
Transmission: T-5 (Non-WC)
Axle/Gears: Limited Slip 3.23's
Re: Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
Trending Topics
Re: Lightweight or Standard Flywheel/Performance vs. Drivability
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
88Roc-z
Transmissions and Drivetrain
1
Oct 6, 2009 08:13 PM
BillD91RS
Transmissions and Drivetrain
2
Sep 3, 2002 11:26 AM







