|
Author
|
Topic: flywheels..cast, steel, or aluminum?
|
chips67
Gearhead Posts: 272
From: louisville, ky, usa
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 09-30-2001 09:28 PM
   
im currently running a cast iron truck flywheel that i had to have rebalanced to run on my late model 5.0 motor. i love having an 11 inch clutch plate and the thing has a lot of momentum. there are some heat friction cracks and the flywheel has been to 7000 rpm a few times by accident. should i be running a steel flywheel so this motor revs quicker and hits the tires a tad lighter on launch? im guessing here that the steel one is going to be lighter than a cast one. an aluminum one might launch too soft or wear to fast or not carry enough momentum, but i could be wrong. also, does anyone make a steel flywheel for a 5.0 motor that will utilize an 11 inch disk and have the teeth that will work with my early model starter? or will i just have to get an old style and have it rebalanced again? also, will a steel flywheel help me be able to shift my toploader quicker since i have to granny shift because the gears will not slow down fast enough to let the synchronizers work? i cant afford a $2000 liberty setup or a $1200 mcleod adjustable clutch/pressure plate either. i will not race with an automatic trans, ever.------------------
67 coupe, 650dp and rpm intake on 5.0 with afr 165 heads, 4 speed, 4.11's.....best so far is [email protected] in 1/8 mile with 1.79 60ft. time.
IP: Logged |
chips67
Gearhead Posts: 272
From: louisville, ky, usa
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 10-01-2001 06:47 PM
anybody?------------------
67 coupe, 650dp and rpm intake on 5.0 with afr 165 heads, 4 speed, 4.11's.....best so far is [email protected] in 1/8 mile with 1.79 60ft. time.
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 341
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-01-2001 07:53 PM
Since the iron unit has heat cracks, I'd consider it a potential safety hazard. 7000rpm and cracked cast iron don't go together very well...  A steel flywheel will weigh about the same as cast iron. An aluminum unit will soften the launch, while allowing the engine to rev a bit more freely. Unless you are traction limited, aluminum is probably not for you... at least not without the high dollar adjustable clutch setup. There are two different flywheels for the early model cars, a 157, and a 164. The 157 won't fit an 11" clutch, so you must have the 164 (like me). If you have a 50oz-in engine (82-up), you'll need a 164 tooth 50oz-in flywheel. I believe these are available through Ford Motorsport and others. Good Luck! ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 8856
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-01-2001 08:32 PM
Steel and if you can aford it get a smaller diameter clutch also. Today's units are so much more efficiant and you do not need anywhere near the area that you have with an 11 inch.  ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator
NHRA/IHRA/SRA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00 & '01
Fleet of FoMoCo products
Moneymaker Bio
US Class Nationals link
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 341
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-01-2001 09:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Moneymaker:
Steel and if you can aford it get a smaller diameter clutch also. Today's units are so much more efficiant and you do not need anywhere near the area that you have with an 11 inch.
If you do decide to go with a smaller clutch, be aware that the 10"/10.5" pressure plate has a smaller bolt pattern than your 11". The flywheel might, or might not be drilled for both. In my opinion, if you need the extra flywheel weight, the larger clutch isn't going to hurt anything. If you are limited to a stock unit, the 11" might give you some more service life. For a car like mine that is traction limited, I'd be all over less flywheel/clutch weight... if a lighter setup was in the budget. But jeez, I'll be lucky to even get it on the road since it needs a new engine... and we have a new baby due Nov. 16. Life is about to get a bit more hectic... Good Luck! ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
IP: Logged |
JAAZZY
Gearhead Posts: 490
From: Bay Area, CA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 10-01-2001 09:18 PM
I've got two of those little ones(3,6mo) so you can imagine how hard it was for me to get mine back on the road.  Congrats! Coming from someone(me) who thought he'd never say it, there's nothing better. - Jas quote:
Originally posted by n2oMike:
baby due Nov. 16. Life is about to get a bit more hectic...
IP: Logged |
chips67
Gearhead Posts: 272
From: louisville, ky, usa
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 10-01-2001 10:25 PM
so what is the concensus here mike/alex? since i need a softer initial hit to go with a 10 inch setup? i dont mind the extra clutch wear, i can live with that. are you saying to go with a smaller flywheel/clutch and plate? if so, what unit can i use that will bolt up without any hassle? will the 157 tooth work with a 10" clutch and pressure plate? if so, will my current starter work with that flywheel or do i need another one? is the 157 tooth the most common for passenger cars with toploaders from the 60's? also, is there one made from steel availabe that also has the 50 ounce weight needed for my 1990 model 5.0 motor? and for my last question....would i be able to use a diapham style pressure plate too or do i want to avoid the diaphram style and stick with the 3 finger plate? i dont know if the diaphram would work with my early style throwout bearing. i really apreciate your experience here and the information you have. your info and opinions on this will be my guide since the old setup has got to go. ------------------
67 coupe, 650dp and rpm intake on 5.0 with afr 165 heads, 4 speed, 4.11's.....best so far is [email protected] in 1/8 mile with 1.79 60ft. time.
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 8856
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-02-2001 02:35 PM
The starters will interchange as long as you have the appropriate bell housing. I would go with a complete FRPP flywheel and diaphram clutch set up. I like the ease of engagment and the lighter weight. A big heavy flywheel and clutch will just make traction problems even more difficult to overcome. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator
NHRA/IHRA/SRA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00 & '01
Fleet of FoMoCo products
Moneymaker Bio
US Class Nationals link
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 341
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-02-2001 04:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by chips67:
what unit can i use that will bolt up without any hassle? will the 157 tooth work with a 10" clutch and pressure plate? if so, will my current starter work with that flywheel or do i need another one? is the 157 tooth the most common for passenger cars with toploaders from the 60's? also, is there one made from steel availabe that also has the 50 ounce weight needed for my 1990 model 5.0 motor? and for my last question....would i be able to use a diapham style pressure plate too or do i want to avoid the diaphram style and stick with the 3 finger plate? i dont know if the diaphram would work with my early style throwout bearing. i really apreciate your experience here and the information you have. your info and opinions on this will be my guide since the old setup has got to go.
You obviously have a 164 tooth flywheel setup right now. If you have an aftermarket bellhousing, it starter location -might- be drilled for both the 157 and the 164 tooth flywheel starter locations. If not, you'll have to come up with a bellhousing for a 157 tooth flywheel. The starters are the same for both units... their location on the bellhousing is different. (157 tooth flywheel is smaller diameter). If you DO decide to go with the smaller and lighter 157 tooth setup, (10" and 10.5" clutch) you'll have to decide between the earlier "Long" style (3 finger) pressure plate, and the newer diaphragm style. (the flywheels are drilled differently) Your choice will probably depend mainly upon which type of flywheel you can find at a good price. As for the throwout bearing, I'm not sure what you'd have to do to get the later stuff to work in the earlier car. The main possible advantage to the smaller, lighter flywheel/clutch setup is less rotating mass. This will let the engine rev a bit more freely, but will take a bit of the momentum out of the launch. If your car needs more help out of the hole, you'll do better with a heavier setup... If it is spinning too much, a lighter setup might be benificial. My best 60ft's with leaf springs and slappers come from plenty of pinion angle, and launching at redline on the 2-step. Yes, you are making it spin easier with less pinion angle, but are only 60ft'ing around 1.8. If you really want to max it out, give it a little more pinion angle and launch it WFO... Just be sure to have plenty of backup parts. All of the flywheels mentioned are available, you just have to shop around, and shell out the money.... 157 tooth early (3 finger clutch style)
157 tooth late (diaphragm clutch style)
164 tooth early (3 finger clutch style) Personally, a stock 10.5" or 11" clutch would probably be fine as long as you don't make repeated runs one directly after the other. This will make the organic material hot, and could cause it to fail. (been there, done that) Give it a little time to cool between rounds. A clutch that is TOO aggressive will break parts and make traction hard to come by. (been there, done that as well) The smaller the clutch is, the better it needs to be... Confused yet? ------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 2991
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 10-02-2001 05:17 PM
Mike and Alex,Why did I have to buy a new starter when I swapped from a 157t flywheel to a 164t 11" setup? The Lakewood housing was drilled for both, but the nose on the old starter was too long, and it's pinion stuck out farther. The correct starter for the 164t flywheel had a little short nose on it. The 164t flywheel's starter ring is closer to the engine than the 157t flywheel.  SteveW [This message has been edited by steve'66 (edited 10-02-2001).]
IP: Logged |
n2oMike
Gearhead Posts: 341
From: Spencer, WV
Registered: Jan 2001
|
posted 10-02-2001 05:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by steve'66:
[B]Mike and Alex,Why did I have to buy a new starter when I swapped from a 157t flywheel to a 164t 11" setup? The Lakewood housing was drilled for both, but the nose on the old starter was too long, and it's pinion stuck out farther. The correct starter for the 164t flywheel had a little short nose on it. The 164t flywheel's starter ring is closer to the engine than the 157t flywheel.
[B]
The old style manual transmission starter uses the shorter starter nose... at least on my car (164 tooth) Go figure...? I'm not sure about the 157 tooth setup. I would think it would use the same starter. The automatic tranny uses a different nose... I tried using the longer nosed later model starter on my car once (similar nose as the automatic) and it didn't withdrawl far enough, and was immedietly junked. Ooops! I believe the old, short one sticks out 2" Sorry, that's all the info I've got...
------------------
Mike Burch
66 mustang real street
302 4-speed 289 heads
10.63 @ 129.3
http://www.geocities.com/carbedstangs/cmml_mburch.html
http://www.fortunecity.com/silverstone/healey/367
IP: Logged |
steve'66
Gearhead Posts: 2991
From: Sonoma,CA,USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 10-02-2001 06:53 PM
Mike,The short nosed starter that I used on the 164t flywheel was for a '93 Ford Lightning P/U. I'm still
But, that's normal 
SteveW
IP: Logged |
chips67
Gearhead Posts: 272
From: louisville, ky, usa
Registered: Jul 2001
|
posted 10-02-2001 08:05 PM
alex, what is the ffrp setup? who do i need to contact to find a good price on that setup? mike, ive run with 5 degrees down and launched hard, it still blows the m/t et street tires off at 10 psi and sticky hot. thats why i really thing the cast iron truck flywheel has got to go and i think i could get away with the smaller clutch too. the car is fairly light, under 3000 race weight. i might go ahead and get an aftermarket bell too, looks like i have to change that anyway. is the LAKEWOOD a good unit? i have nightmares about an aftermarket bell not lining up well, most aftermarket parts like this dissapoint. IF THIS SETUP REVS QUICKER THAT WOULD BE SWEET. first and second gear right now go by in under 4 seconds and it feels like it takes all day to get through 3rd with 4th gear for about 1/2 a second before the traps. you know those late model 5 speed cars have 10 inch clutches and weigh a bit more than my coupe and they seem to jam the 60 ft times pretty well.------------------
67 coupe, 650dp and rpm intake on 5.0 with afr 165 heads, 4 speed, 4.11's.....best so far is [email protected] in 1/8 mile with 1.79 60ft. time.
IP: Logged |
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 8856
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 10-05-2001 03:42 PM
Steve, all of the late model gear reduction FoMoCo starters are short nose. Only the early large body units had distinctive short or longer auto vs stick starter noses. You are correct if you were using old style units. Chip, FRPP is Ford Motorsports new name. The stuff is priced well and of high quality. Lakewood makes an excellent bell housing. ------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator
NHRA/IHRA/SRA member
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA National Record Holder '00 & '01
Fleet of FoMoCo products
Moneymaker Bio
US Class Nationals link
IP: Logged | |
Mustangsandmore Forums
UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone! 
