Does anyone make that for our cars? Is there any mods we could do to our stock one? Thanks.

------------------
85 2.8L Sport Coupe 5-speed.
Mods: Hpertech chip and powerstat, MSD 6A-L, Crane fireball coil, Accel Cap and Rotor, Dynomax hi-flow cat and catback system with a dynomax magnum race bullet muffler on the i-pipe, K&N filterchargers, Gutted Air Boxes, 8mm Wires, Eibach Sportlines and Tokiko springs/shocks setup, Global west sub frames, Suspension techniqs front and rear sway bars, and good ole 88 IROC wheels with Kumo Ecstas on em!
"It's not the ricers, it's those damn V8's!"

Wins: 2000 V6 Accord, 69 302 Mustang, 2000 Auto VR6 Jetta, 89 Toyota MR2, 90 Civic Si, 76 350 Camaro, 2000 3.8 5-speed Camaro, ~68 Chevelle 350, 92 CRX Si, 94 MR2 non-turbo.

<A HREF=https://www.thirdgen.org/rides/index.tgo?action=view&rideid=4880>

 

BTW, what effects would it have? I want me motor to rev very fast up and down.

------------------
85 2.8L Sport Coupe 5-speed.
Mods: Hpertech chip and powerstat, MSD 6A-L, Crane fireball coil, Accel Cap and Rotor, Dynomax hi-flow cat and catback system with a dynomax magnum race bullet muffler on the i-pipe, K&N filterchargers, Gutted Air Boxes, 8mm Wires, Eibach Sportlines and Tokiko springs/shocks setup, Global west sub frames, Suspension techniqs front and rear sway bars, and good ole 88 IROC wheels with Kumo Ecstas on em!
"It's not the ricers, it's those damn V8's!"

Wins: 2000 V6 Accord, 69 302 Mustang, 2000 Auto VR6 Jetta, 89 Toyota MR2, 90 Civic Si, 76 350 Camaro, 2000 3.8 5-speed Camaro, ~68 Chevelle 350, 92 CRX Si, 94 MR2 non-turbo.

[LINK]https://www.thirdgen.org/rides/index.tgo?action=view&rideid=4880[/LINK]

 

a lighter flywheel will let the engine rev up really fast, allmost in concert with the gas pedal., howver,comma, when you take the foot off the gas, the engine will de-rev really fast. the first McClaren F-1 supercar had this type of setup. instead of the engine reving for a little bit with a push on the gas pedal, like on an auto, rev up & down quick.

less rotating mass, qu8icker throttle response.

------------------
$150.00 2.8 Auto.
Blown Head Gasket.
turbo has arrived, but put on hold (4 now)
working on getting a better engine

 

It should step up throttle response noticably, but it may reduce your gas mileage and you'll want to maintain RPM's between shifts if you have a stick shift. I'm sure that many companies make them (aluminum?), just depends how much you want to spend... you can probably get your existing flywheel lightened (professionally) for $500 - $1000.

[This message has been edited by ChillPhatCat (edited October 24, 2001).]

 

BTW, the html tag < A href = "URL"> needs an end < /a > with a caption inbetween the two... otherwise, the code was good

 

Haha. thanks chilli... I originaly intended the post to be a sig test, but i said heck, better not waste a post eh? My bro helped me out, and i got it right now...COOL? try it out!

------------------
85 2.8L Sport Coupe 5-speed.
Mods: Hpertech chip and powerstat, MSD 6A-L, Crane fireball coil, Accel Cap and Rotor, Dynomax hi-flow cat and catback system with a dynomax magnum race bullet muffler on the i-pipe, K&N filterchargers, Gutted Air Boxes, 8mm Wires, Eibach Sportlines and Tokiko springs/shocks setup, Global west sub frames, Suspension techniqs front and rear sway bars, and good ole 88 IROC wheels with Kumo Ecstas on em!
"It's not the ricers, it's those damn V8's!"

Wins: 2000 V6 Accord, 69 302 Mustang, 2000 Auto VR6 Jetta, 89 Toyota MR2, 90 Civic Si, 76 350 Camaro, 2000 3.8 5-speed Camaro, ~68 Chevelle 350, 92 CRX Si, 94 MR2 non-turbo.

My Car

[This message has been edited by AntiVTEC (edited October 24, 2001).]

 

It will not effect gas milage, but if it did(depending on the amount of weight removed) it would be for the better. Less rotating weight means less parasitic loss means more power as well. Yes it would rev up faster but it would also decel faster too. No weight to keep it going. The main thing with dealing with lighter than stock items is that it will reduce parasitic loss allowingf your engine more "freedom" to Rev higher, easier and with less vibration. All that equals more power, how much? depends on the parts replaced and the weight shaved. But I would imaginr if you shaved say... 20 Lbs off the flywheel you'd grab about 12 HP... Not bad.

 

Now I know no one will know this.. but Unorthodox Racing Equipment makes these things for Imports(Which means I can get 'em) but if someone were to compare size, diameter, bolt hole placement and ring gear number to the imports and match one up your in bussiness. Long and tedious work though. I am not volunteering, just putting out the info for possibility.

 

I emailed a company that makes alum flywheels. They said they also do custom flywheels. I've not got the reply yet but it'll be lookin at about 1 grand. i think its worth it. HAHA.

------------------
85 2.8L Sport Coupe 5-speed.
Mods: Hpertech chip and powerstat, MSD 6A-L, Crane fireball coil, Accel Cap and Rotor, Dynomax hi-flow cat and catback system with a dynomax magnum race bullet muffler on the i-pipe, K&N filterchargers, Gutted Air Boxes, 8mm Wires, Eibach Sportlines and Tokiko springs/shocks setup, Global west sub frames, Suspension techniqs front and rear sway bars, and good ole 88 IROC wheels with Kumo Ecstas on em!
"It's not the ricers, it's those damn V8's!"

Wins: 2000 V6 Accord, 69 302 Mustang, 2000 Auto VR6 Jetta, 89 Toyota MR2, 90 Civic Si, 76 350 Camaro, 2000 3.8 5-speed Camaro, ~68 Chevelle 350, 92 CRX Si, 94 MR2 non-turbo.

My Car

 

I've heard of old-school rodders drilling their old flywheels; don't know if that's possible at all with today's newer technology, but it'd be cheaper than $1000!


------------------
-Tom P (Hot rodded 1986 Firebird 2.8l)

 

IF it can be matched up I got em for 500 .... half of that 1000.... I would not recomend drilling htem. The maetial is already pratty thin. And not to many places to drill it out anyway.

 

Guys this WILL hurt gas milage. The whole reason for a fly wheel is to keep the cycle going. When you let of the gas it wil basically die. There is a reason GM used the size they did. Trust me this is not one of those areas where they skimp. If they could have got more power and better gas milage they would have. Obviously there is some other things to consider here that your not thinking of. THink outside of the box here.
I hope somone actually goes through with this so we can find the good and bad results of this.

O yea I dont find 12hp to be worth $1000 bucks.

------------------
89 Trans Am Turbo 3.8L All stock 43,000 miles #1053 of 1555

Past Thirdgen:
86 Trans Am w/ built 355TPI with SLP goodies and too much other stuff to List. One sweet *** car, wish I would have had a good enough Job to pay insurance on three cars so I could keep it, but for a 89 Turbo Trans Am w/ Low miles, I think I made the right choice!

 

Less rotaional mass will not hurt MPG, trust me. Thats why guys use light weight naluminum flywheels, drive shafts and other ROTATING parts. The Rev down will not be as bad as you think. and what is wroing with after you letting OFF THER GAS PEDAL the engine rev down? I thought thats what supposed to happen anyway. If you want to keep the RPMS up keep a little on the gas, Hell I do that now even helps the take off into the next gear. The less rotating mass you have the less friction, vibration and less parasitic loss which gives you more power PERIOD. This will not harm MPG, if anything IT WILL IMPROVE IT. The engine has to work less to make the power. How you ask?, It has to move LESS WEIGHT. When an engine does not have to work harder it is more efficient meaning better MPG.

 

Sometimes it is impossible to explain things to people. The fly wheel is ther for a reason. Not just to couple the motor to the tranny. Yes the less weight will cause an increase in power and acceleration, but when cruizing up the higway the engine will have to work harder to just maintain because the Inertia of the fly wheel will not be hlping it. And when you let of the throttle there will be no coasting. It will be like the car just droped in first gear. This is why racers use them, but its not a popular mod for street cars.

 

n/m

[This message has been edited by 86Chicken (edited October 26, 2001).]

 

reason why people dont go out and buy lighter flywheels is for how good on the street they are

you will get better MPG if anything and more power that can be used but you will suffer in you have to slip the clutch more due to less rotating mass. bumper to bumper traffic sux as it is just think if you have to slip the clutch more all the time. also on my rotary from what I understand the car will tend to vibrate more and have a little more of a lumpy idle with a lighter flywheel do to it not absorbing the harmonic vibrations of the motor. If you guys like to drag race get ready to bog off the line also. due to less rotating mass when you dump the clutch the motor will just not have as much inertia to push the car right off the line.

So yeah Kyle F you were right GM did it for a reason but not for gas mileage.

and yes I have driven a car with an alum flywheel 9.5# and it took a while to get adjusted to it. was a rx7 and they came with a 24# flywheel I think. but I would say it was worth it just need to get adjust to it though

------------------
ICQ 4116192
AIM RXspeed87
Got rotary?
header, intake, ported TB
soon to have 4.30 rear, ported intake(just need to intall)new catback,ported motor and lighter triangle

 

I'm guessing that the reason GM did not put them on our cars is that aluminum flywheels are really expensive compared to standard.

There are tons of things that GM could have done to F-Bodys to make them better but it was not cost effective. Aluminum is one of those things.

Dale

 

The fuel mileage increase/decrease you guys keep talking about wold be so negligable(sp?) that it's really a non-issue. Maybe 1/10 mpg.

What will matter is rotating mass and inertia. He clearly states in his sig 5-speed. No way I'd lighten the flywheel with a small V-6. Your 60' times will go up and you would notice a lack of performance off the line. Without going into an engineering lesson here, you need the inertia to help you accelerate. Think about it this way, when you let out the clutch, hard, your trying to stop the engine from spinning. Since the rotating mass is causing so much inertia the clutch, by applying the weight of the vehicle to the flywheel can not stop the engine from spinning therefore causing lineal motion. Less mass and inertia would make it easier to stop the engine. In the situation of larger/more powerful engines they have more hp/tq to help overcome the loss.

Capiche?

 

N/m this is pointless now. Aluminum Fly wheels burn up faster, Thast why GM along with everyone slde does not make them a feature on street cars. Less rotaing mass helps make more power. Me personally thing that less weight to move means the faster you can get it moving. Yes the weight loss in long slow cruises will be noticable and you would have to use the clutch more then your used to.

 

How? Tell me how in this case less weight makes more power. It doesn't change direction like a piston, so you can't use that argument. All it does is spin, in the same direction, all the time. The only action on the part in question is it speeds up and slows down. How does that make power? How does it affect fuel mileage?

It doesn't. What it does do is use power to create the inertia. Ever notice how when you push in the clutch to shift gears you keep accelerating even during the shift? Thats the effect of inertia (momentum). What you would gain in high rpm performence would be lost in the low rpms where the V-6 needs it most. It's not worth the trade offs for a street driver car. Oh yeah, and drill the crap out of it to lighten it too. For every square inch of metal you remove remember to calculate it as that much less clamping surface area, totally defeating the purpose of getting an aftermarket clutch, more holding power.

I've read so many good thoughts on what would happen with a lightened flywheel in this thread. Now I'd like to hear the logic behind the thoughts. Project: 85 got it right in his first post, and Kyle (I hate to say it) has a good idea of how it works (Note: Kyle read the next chapter and you'll discover there is alot more to it than just keeping the cycle going.)

RX7Speed: Sorry to dissappoint you but what applies to your wankle engine does not always apply to a conventional 4 stroke V-6 or 8 design. The rotary engine isn't a comparison, to many differences in how, where, and the level of power they make. Interesting to note here that the rotary is a 2 stroke.

 

yes a rotary is different I do not deny that but a lot of the same things that go on with a rotary do also happen with a piston motor
and how can you call it a 2 stroke? all the strokes that you guys go through my car does also. it does not put them together as though a 2 stroke motor would.define the difference between a two stroke and a 4 stroke and tell me how the rotary is a 2 stroke motor?

as for how a lighter flywheel would make a car have more power to use lets try this ok

get some big ol 300lb guy and try to keep him moving. fairly sure you would tire out after a short time. now get some little 120lb guy sure you can keep him moving a lot easier and get him to change speeds a lot easier
almost the same thing with a flywheel
and as for the vibrations I was talking about. again same thing with the 2 ppl you get the heavy person and b/c of that mass it is going to be a lot harder to get him to move around his mass will absorb a lot of your effort though the little guy you will be able to just throw around. the inertia would help you on first drop of the clutch but once you are in motion that inertia is doing nothing more then making your motor work harder to get the same results.

just b/c I do drive a rotary around does not mean I have no clue as to how a piston motor works. or is this going to turn into I drive an import so I am a moron post?



------------------
ICQ 4116192
AIM RXspeed87
Got rotary?
header, intake, ported TB
soon to have 4.30 rear, ported intake(just need to intall)new catback,ported motor and lighter triangle

 

Ok guys , I know this is not for a V6 , but I thought it was intersting and ya'll would like to read it and see it ...damn , i cant get the link to work , well go to www.fasttoys.com and look under 82-92 camaro firebird , then go to trans and rear , yes trans and rear . and there is a lightweight flywheel in there for V8s ... ...Wayne

 

rx7, That wasn't meant as a flame, and if Mazda has improved the wankle design since the '70's p/u then I confess: My bad, I was wrong. If they haven't then my original reply stands, Sorry.

I haven't even looked at a rotary since 1990. I do know the original design of Wankle and Mazda's first incarnation of it was/is a 2 stroke. If you look at the 70's p/u it even has a seperate resivoir for the oil injection. California classifies it as a 2 stroke, Mazda called it a 2 stroke. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, it must be a duck.

Your analogy works on it surface, but take that same analogy: If you were to take a 5lb wieght and tie it on to a length of rope. Now swing that rope, with the weight on the end about 4' away from you, in a circular motion. Same thing with a 10 lb weight. A little harder to get into motion, a little more effort to keep in motion. Not by much though. Which one would you like to get hit by? Which one is easier to stop? Which one is more effective at low rpms?How much power do you think it takes to keep the heavier flywheel in motion?

Which one is best for the application is still in question here. Is he wanting more high rpm power for auto-X or does he want a better launch? Does he want it because some bozo in his freshman auto shop class said it would be cool? Granted it would help in acceleration. It will hurt his launch and the 2.8 doesn't have the power to make up what he'll lose. If he wants auto-X performance, perfect part for the problem. It will help. $1000 help, dunno, only he can answer that. Vibrations? Doesn't matter. If they are both balanced correctly there should be no difference.

 

I just have to say something about that statement.

I have never trashed someone because they drive an import. I have put a few people through the ringer for being ignorant idiots. Not that you are one.

I'm here because I have a love of motorsports and I drive/play with an 86 Z28. I have a 350/T-5 soon to be a 396/T-56. I've been spinning wrenches since I was 4 and I've learned a few things in the last 24 years. If I can help I will. I'm trying to help here by imparting some of the engineering/physics knowledge I have. You ask some of the respected people in here, KED85, Tomp, 'clock, about me. I'll be the last one to bag on you because you drive and import and the first one to congradulate(sp?) you on an honest win.

------------------

 

sorry just not a good day
and over in the racing forum all there seems to be is import trashing over there

and as for the wankle yes it does use oil in the combuistion process but the 4 strokes ( well if thats what you want to call them in a rotary ) still do go on at different times. eh either way wierd little motor.

the flywheel issue though yeah it all is what you want. I think in the between my two post I kinda came up with the same thing you did. want a good launch for the strip go with stock flywheel. you want to auto-x or the likes then go with a lighter one. and also the heavier one is a little easier to drive. more mass on the drop of the clutch.

either way though sorry I went off just not doing so great as of late. and also on this board not all but a lot of guys seem to always be trying to start crap about other import ppl.
but for my money I would go with the alum... like my car has any torque to begin with then again I spend most my time above 3500 rpms if I am trying to race or anything.


------------------
ICQ 4116192
AIM RXspeed87
Got rotary?
header, intake, ported TB.
soon to have ported intake, lighter rotors,ported motor and a T-66




[This message has been edited by rx7speed (edited October 27, 2001).]

 

why the heck is my sig not working?
I have an image that should be there
dang it
oh well




------------------
ICQ 4116192
AIM RXspeed87
Got rotary?
header, intake, ported TB.
soon to have ported intake, lighter rotors,ported motor and a T-66

 

How does less rotational mass make power.. Hmm doe the fact that it has less weight to spin make sense.????? A part may weight lets say 80 pounds. Though it may take lets say 95 pounds to get that 80Lb part moving, and another 80 something pounds of force to KEEP it moving. Now if that same part only weighs 60 pounds, guess what those numbers go WAY down. you free up 20-30 pounds of force that can continue on down the line to the wheels. Makes sense to me afterall if they did not make power they would not have been made in the first place.
I never said they will add 3 seconds to the quarter mile or they would give you 50 HP, I said 10-12 HP which IS what they typically free up. With engines like ours that heavily lack torque the faster the engine can rev helps to make you get quicker. It will take time to get used to driving no doubt, but if you get used to it and even profiecent in it you may be able to get outta the hole quicker because you would learn how and when to release the clutch.

And to RX7 owners, I know a little about these engines, and to say that they are a 2 stroke or even a 4 stroke is stupid. They are neither. They are a ROTARY, they have no intake valves, no cam or even exhaust valves. They are a completely revolutionary engine that can make incredable power for its displacement. They are not even a "4" cylinder because they have no cylinders, they have lobes. 3 per crank position. They are actually more like a 6 cylinder, beacuse of the way the engine works. They have nearly limitless RPM's, and to make power is VERY easy with them. You can add or remove spacers on the intake and exhaust to change what we American's call intake and exhaust valve duration. They are near the perfect gasoline engine, almost INSTANT throttle response, and with the correct gear ratio VERY fast outta the hole and extremely quick revs.

See RX7Speed some of us actually know about those things.. LOL

 

Ladies and gentleman, the BS-O-Meter is now overloaded.

That's alomst 10%. No way in heck it will free up that much on a 2.8 V-6. Good thinking but it will not help as much as you say. Further, the loss of initial force at the moment of clutch engagement will hurt the launch and 60' times to a point that the 2.8 would probably never overcome it in the 1/4.

 

Wow, so much has gone on ever since I last looked. Anyway, reason why I thought about it was because I was pondering about all the mods that no one has (as far as i know) applied to our 60* motor. I dont care for drag racing much. My care is for super top end.

------------------
85 2.8L Sport Coupe 5-speed.
Mods: Hpertech chip and powerstat, MSD 6A-L, Crane fireball coil, Accel Cap and Rotor, Dynomax hi-flow cat and catback system with a dynomax magnum race bullet muffler on the i-pipe, K&N filterchargers, Gutted Air Boxes, 8mm Wires, Eibach Sportlines and Tokiko springs/shocks setup, Global west sub frames, Suspension techniqs front and rear sway bars, and good ole 88 IROC wheels with Kumo Ecstas on em!
"It's not the ricers, it's those damn V8's!"

Wins: 2000 V6 Accord, 69 302 Mustang, 2000 Auto VR6 Jetta, 89 Toyota MR2, 90 Civic Si, 76 350 Camaro, 2000 3.8 5-speed Camaro, ~68 Chevelle 350, 92 CRX Si, 94 MR2 non-turbo.

My Car

 

hey AntiVTEC, what's your take on all this?

 

Go buy a Corvette.

Top end is not and never will be the V-6's strong point. Where the V-6 will really shine and show it's worth is auto-x. Given the same driver in identical cars except engines, I'll bet the V-6 will corner significantly better. With the less weight and the better front/rear weight ratios the V-6 has the advantage. The only way the V-8 car would be able to win is to have enough power to chase down the V-6 in the straights. The V-6 will still corner faster, respond better, and out brake the V-8 car everytime given the only difference is the engine. If it was my car, I'd spend the money on the biggest swaybars I can find and put the widest 50 series tires on it I could fit under the car along with other mods to increase cornering abilities.

 

Yes I do love road racing, drag racing is not too exciting. Also, when I say "care for top end" I'm speaking relative for my car. If I wanted a fast car, I would've already went out and bought a Z06.

Anyway, my take on all this flywheel stuff is that yes, there will be a significant increase in power. However, I do understand where some of these guys are getting the "bog off the line" stuff. But, although my little v6 is underpowered, in its current form, I can spin em forever. I don't even have to dump the clutch from a high rpm to get em spinning. So I'm speculating (as many of us are here doing) that higher the rpm somone launches to achieve the best time they think they'll get, the more affected they will be since they are relying more on the momentum of the motor to get the driveline goin.

As the MPG, I'll just say that if we lighten things on our driveline and will get lower gas milage, why do people bother getting lighter weight drive shafts, or drums?

None of us here however have done this mod to our little 60* v6's (as far as i know) and so here, we're all correct. Some here do have expierence with light weight flywheels, but not specific to our v6.

So, my plan is, first finish up the rear end, (posi, control arms, panhard) which should be done by the end of nov. Next is do my cams and rockers and other motor work the beggining of jan. Somewhere in between, or after, comes the flywheel. Pricey it is, but I LOVE MY CAR!

When its all done, i'll let you all know, but untill then, all we can do is speculate.

------------------
85 2.8L Sport Coupe 5-speed.
Mods: Hpertech chip and powerstat, MSD 6A-L, Crane fireball coil, Accel Cap and Rotor, Dynomax hi-flow cat and catback system with a dynomax magnum race bullet muffler on the i-pipe, K&N filterchargers, Gutted Air Boxes, 8mm Wires, Eibach Sportlines and Tokiko springs/shocks setup, Global west sub frames, Suspension techniqs front and rear sway bars, and good ole 88 IROC wheels with Kumo Ecstas on em!
"It's not the ricers, it's those damn V8's!"

Wins: 2000 V6 Accord, 69 302 Mustang, 2000 Auto VR6 Jetta, 89 Toyota MR2, 90 Civic Si, 76 350 Camaro, 2000 3.8 5-speed Camaro, ~68 Chevelle 350, 92 CRX Si, 94 MR2 non-turbo.

My Car

 

they would be more like a 4 cyl if anything. it is a 2.6L if I remember right. you get two sparks every rotation ofthe "crank" shaft. as far as rpms I dont know I hear you are not supposed to take them past 8500rpms due to the apex could hit the housing and shatter.but I have hit 9000 rpms . though yeah can be made to rev till about 12000+... soon someday I tell ya

and as for intake and exhaust duration you still have to do the old job of porting..

and the car still has no low end p[ower at all due to the design of them... but damn you hit the high rpms and the thing takes off and has almost pefect gearing from the factory

 

OK quote from my Unorthodox Racing Equipment brochure.... this is on a 99 WRX that HAS HAD other work done to it. Above 2150 RPM's the engine is starting to pull harder and has gained 11.5 HP and 32Ft Lbs. At 3500 the turbo is in full force and the car is reading 22.8 HP increase and still 32-36 Ft Lbs gained.


Now take for what its worth. To get those exact numbers they had have to have been on a dyno. Now to address that "inertia" thing you keep bringing up. Engine RPM's have very little to do with that. You have a 3200 pound car moving with force during acceleration, just becasue you engage the clutch, releasing the drivetrain to free spin does not mean that you are slowing down, you still have that 3200 pounds pushing you forward. Now what does hurt is when you engage into the next gear the RPM's drop like a rock and THEN you loose some of the momentum. Now imagine if you could rev up that engine faster?(while still in the upper gear), then you would not loose so much from the up-shift, in effect killing the rev down effect(that you supposedly think is going to happen) from the up-shift. Now you say that the lighter weight will allow the engine to rev down faster... yes duh less resistence to move, means it moves faster BOTH up and DOWN. Now when you start from a dead stop your best power is way down low correct? Thats why I can't chirp 4th gear. Now if you start to pull your engine from the lower RPMs so it can get that "PE" mode alot faster and it would be in full effect by the time you got to the RPM's you let off of. That would be a good thing. Your engine can pull harder at lower RPM's Period. What little torque we have is down low, if you can start each shift from down there you could have the starting torque from that EVERY TIME YOU SHIFT!.

I know what lighter weight has on dynamics, I am not here to teach basic physic's to you. Have fun.

I'm sorry I know about dynamics and how they work. I had to learn for the Job I did for 4 years. Lighter weight anything is good to make power PERIOD.

You say the lighter weight will hurt the 1/4 time, well until you relearn how to drive your car with the lighter componets yes it will suffer little if at all cause you'd STILL BE quicker for the less weight to have to move.

 

Sounds good hunter! That's what were all here for, have fun!

1000 bucks sounds rediculus, which it is, but if you got the money, and the time.... why not? heheh.

Have fun all.

 

That's a modded turbo car in a different application. Don't believe everything you read.


They have everything to do with the inertia of the rotating mass of the flywheel

No you don't. You have the momentum of that 3200 lbs still trying to go forward, but resistance is now applying a greater force and starting to slow acceleration.

only if you are so uncoordinated that you can't shift correctly: This is a 5-speed we're talking about here after all.

I'll give you that one

It will happen. In order for an effective gear change to take place one needs to release the throttle, and engage the next gear at a lower rpm. No progressive top fuel clutches here, sorry.

No, You can't chirp 4th gear because the engine has less leverage due to the higher overall drive ratio. Now if you had a heavier flywheel the higher rotational mass and inertia that come from it you'd be able to.

What's that got to do with this discussion? That applies no matter if the flywheel weighs 5lbs or 25 lbs.

That's good, you definatly aren't qualified to teach.

No, lighter does not make more power, it frees up power that is already there but going other places.

EDIT: If you know physics why do I have to tell you that?

The less weight your talking about here is what, 10-15 lbs? That would be less overall weight. If it is rotational weight your talking about I'll show you a 2hp weedeater that will spin the extra 15lbs @ 6000 rpm with very little effort. In the application we're talking about here it WILL HURT! It would help significantly if the car weighed 1500lbs. In that scenario(sp?) you don't need as much force to get the car moving. Since we're not talking about a race car here lets stick to the example of an 82 f-body using the 2.8 V-6 with external mods. While in theory you are something resembling correct it will not work as you say in a real world application.

[This message has been edited by 87RS402 (edited October 27, 2001).]

[This message has been edited by 87RS402 (edited October 27, 2001).]

 

LOL 87RS402 smacked yall in the face! haha that was great.

 

LMAO

87RS402 you beat me to it
I was going to put some smack down on that but damn my break was over, guess it was better for you though put a little more hurt into it



------------------
imports are cool - ricers suck
ICQ 4116192
AIM RXspeed87
Got rotary?
header, intake, ported TB.
soon to have ported intake, lighter rotors,ported motor and a T-66

 

You can say whatever you want guy. I klnow for a fact that lighter parts make power. PERIOD. If you want to go argue every little friggen thing(like spelling and what not) go for I could care less. If you have less weight to spin you get more power. If you are so worried about clutch slippage due to the lighter fly wheel do like I did and buy a heavier spring setting clutch plate. It works better even over the stock fly wheel.

And the quote I did earlier from the brochure I would take as being true or its slanderous and misinformation of which they could get sued for. And whats not to say that the engine is turboed or not makes a difference?. I would think not.

Now you can go take whatever you want and twist it a turn it around and try to prove wrong because I know what lighter flywheels do for performance.

You are aruging that a heavier flywheel keeps the engine going at higher RPM's(after the clutch is engaged) over a light weight one. DUH. But that Heavier flywheel also takes more power away from the engine because it WIEGHS IT DOWN and greates drag on the axial force of the crank shaft. Now take away THAT DRAG and what happens? you have more power PERIOD. Less rotating mass to move and to keep it moving, more power PERIOD. I am done with tring to prove this make power.

Oh and did I say I had a fu(kin PHd? no I did not. I know I am not the best speller in the world and you know what I could care less about that.

 

Not taking sides here but....Less weight DOES NOT make power. If you have a Camaro that makes 320 hp and runs the 1/4 in 13.4 secs and then you take the doors, hood, roof, hatch, and all the seats out guess what...its still gonna make 320 hp but I bet you it breaks 12s.

I have proven my point.

 

you have a few points yes but then you are only looking at one point on the flywheel

a lighter one would let the engine rev with more freedom. but that is after the clutch has pressure on the flywheel. for a launch you want to have a heavy flyweel. it gives more inertia and so you do not have to slip the clutch to get the car to move. oh yeah get a heavy spring clutch? how is that going to overcome the lack of inertia? the whole reason why you have to slip the clutch a little more when driving with a lighter flywheel is due to the fact you dont have the inertia there. so to make up for it you have one of two options slip the clutch a little more (or you stall the car) or rev it up a little mroe before you try to let the clutch out.

and it is not that a lighter flywheel will give you more power it will free up the power your motor already makes.

as for a turbo how is it different? ok I am not even goign to go into that one. if you have no clue how they are different then a normal motor I dont know if you should really be trying to fight this arguement.

and as for what they claim ok let me ask you this... I will go out tonight put the 3 cats on my car ( 2 of which are pluged ) and put my old fouled plugs back on. dyno my car then put my header and good plugs in and sell them claiming they made about prolly about 40-50 hp. am I lying? no. but is it a true claim as to what the stuff would really do. doubt it


you do have your point though again a lighter flywheel will help you if yo uwant a free reving engine but if you are trying to get power from a launch and through each shift of the gear you want to have a heavier flywheel.

so if you run the strip heavy flywheel. you run auto-x light one for the most part

just depends on what you want to do


------------------
imports are cool - ricers suck
ICQ 4116192
AIM RXspeed87
Got rotary?
header, intake, ported TB.
soon to have ported intake, lighter rotors,ported motor and a T-66

 

And lower down in the same post:
Which is it? Do lighter parts make more power or do they free up power that is already there but in use?

Who said anything abot your spelling? Not me, I was commenting on my own spelling.

I'm not worried about a lighter flywheel slipping:
I said a drilled flywheel would slip due to less surface area and you would have to go to an aftermarket clutch just keep the same holding power the stock one provides therby defeating the purpose of the aftermarket unit. PERIOD!

BTW: LOL @ Monkie and Rx7speed. This guy just doesn't get it does he?

[This message has been edited by 87RS402 (edited October 27, 2001).]

 

Ok guys... this is getting rediculous. You can get more power with the lighter parts. I would have thought that you people would have known that but I guess not. And to RX7 I know the difference between the turbo and non turbo its called forced induction. If you would have taken the writting into context from 87dip**** you would have figured out he was saying that the only reason the lighter 'wheel made power was because the motor was turboed, I said if it is or not makes no difference it still GETS MORE POWER TO THE WHEELS. I QUESS I SHOULD HAVE BEEN SAYING THAT TO KEEP YOU BABIES OFF MY BACK.

And I cannot see why you people are giving me such a hard time about this it still makes/provides more power what ever the hell you freggin people want to call it it gets more power to the wheels and thats all that matters. At least thats what I thought it was all about. power to the wheels. But I guess you all are a bunch of friggin professors and want the exact terminaology. And if you are worried about the cluch slipping get the heavier clutch pack and be done with it. That way the clutch will hold the flywheel when it spins. So as the flywheel spins up faster so with the clutch and then the trany and so on and so forth.


Either way the lighter flywheel GETS MORE POWER TO THE WHEELS PERIOD. I am now done argueing with you childeren.

 

Cmon guys, if we put the motor on a dyno, and dynoed at the crank first with a stock flywheel and then with the lightweight flywheel, isnt the lighter one gonna show higher figures? Why do we have to get all technical whether its making MORE power or FREEing power. WHO CARES? in the end, you get higher figures.

Unlike if someone changed their driveshaft to a light weight one, and then dynoed at the crank, heh, they are gonna wonder why people insisted on buying the driveshaft.

------------------
85 2.8L Sport Coupe 5-speed.
Mods: Hpertech chip and powerstat, MSD 6A-L, Crane fireball coil, Accel Cap and Rotor, Dynomax hi-flow cat and catback system with a dynomax magnum race bullet muffler on the i-pipe, K&N filterchargers, Gutted Air Boxes, 8mm Wires, Eibach Sportlines and Tokiko springs/shocks setup, Global west sub frames, Suspension techniqs front and rear sway bars, and good ole 88 IROC wheels with Kumo Ecstas on em!
"It's not the ricers, it's those damn V8's!"

Wins: 2000 V6 Accord, 69 302 Mustang, 2000 Auto VR6 Jetta, 89 Toyota MR2, 90 Civic Si, 76 350 Camaro, 2000 3.8 5-speed Camaro, ~68 Chevelle 350, 92 CRX Si, 94 MR2 non-turbo.

My Car

 

When all else fails resort to name calling and the caps lock key.

I however shall not yield to to Camaro_butt_Hunter's logic PERIOD!

 

Well then you are a lost cause.


And by the way I though we were all looking for a good piece to well.... it will get *************



[This message has been edited by Camaro_hunter_d (edited October 28, 2001).]

 

Dammit, now everyone in the office is probably wondering why I laughed so loud... "see, it's this database, it's really funny"...

Plus, we can think of it this way: If lightweight flywheels were so great for the street, you'd hear of tons of V8'ers putting 'em on. The only trans mods I hear from V8'ers with 5 speeds are (1) a better clutch, (2) a better shifter, and (3) a poly trans mount. I remember a lonnng ago article from Hot Rod (who was bought out by the guys that write Popular Hot Rodding! If Hot Rod drops to the lame content of PHR, I'm dropping my subscription). It mentioned a lightweight flywheel, but said it wasn't meant for street cars.

But hey that's still cool; that's like 614Streets proving that a budget set of 1.50 rockers for a mouse work on our heads... there is stuff left out there to be found! We'll deal with whether or not it's useful for our application later! If it was a dirt-cheap mod, I'd say "lets do it and see"... that's why I mentioned drilling a flywheel.

------------------
-Tom P (Hot rodded 1986 Firebird 2.8l)

 

[quote]<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Camaro_hunter_d:

Quote:

Originally posted by 87RS402:

I however shall not yield to to Camaro_butt_Hunter's logic PERIOD!

Well do the math. Say the fly wheel weighs 60 pounds(realistic I have removed mine)
Now it takes the engine 60 plus axial force pounds of force to Move that 60 pounds.

Now get a light weight flywheel. I have seen them at 12 pounds. Now that frees up 48 pounds of axial force that the engines does not have to move.

Hense the power is not soaked up by that heavier item anymore and it goes else where down the line.
You do not need to see the logic, But if you cannot see the simple mathmatics then .. well...

I never said they would be great on the street either. I agreed that you could possibly be messing with the clutch more then your used to. But I think the rewards of the faster revving engine and additional power would be worth the extra clutch work personally. If makes us go faster then its worth it IMO.

 

hey guys, in 1983, the thirdgen's 5.0 HO motor came with a lightweight flywheel. Check it out in the tech data section on this website under 1983.

 

DIE YOU STUPID TOPIC!
DIE!!!

Everyone is just repeating the same things and not reading what someone else said... good *** .

to sum up for all of you who skipped to the bottom

Forget about it.

------------------
1992 RS 3.1
Home Built CAI
Otherwise BONE STOCK
(new toys coming in)
Flowmaster 80
Catco High Flow

Kills,
Mitsubishi Eclipse (he grinded some serious gears!)
Various pickup trucks
3000GT
and, the gran finale
A Geo Metro! WOOHOO