Advanced Tech Advanced tech discussion. Major rebuilds, engine theory, etc.
HIGH-END DISCUSSION ONLY - NOT FOR GENERAL TECH INFO

building my stroker, external or internal balanced??

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Oct 15, 2003 | 07:51 PM
  #16  
96ltz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 243
From: TN
SStrokerAce
How much variation have you seen on the factory flywheels/flexplates you have used? It seems like it would be very little so the replacements you would go to the dealership and order if you scrap one would not cause problems? Also are all the flexplates/flywheels (both 153 and 168 tooth) the same balance for the one piece cranks or have you ran across any that are different?
Thanks
Old Oct 16, 2003 | 12:04 AM
  #17  
SStrokerAce's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Originally posted by 96ltz
SStrokerAce
How much variation have you seen on the factory flywheels/flexplates you have used? It seems like it would be very little so the replacements you would go to the dealership and order if you scrap one would not cause problems? Also are all the flexplates/flywheels (both 153 and 168 tooth) the same balance for the one piece cranks or have you ran across any that are different?
Thanks
On factory LT1 stuff you could interchange them, they balance all of them to a set amount and then bolt them on the motors.

A one piece internal balanced setup is neutrally balanced anyways.

Bret
Old Oct 16, 2003 | 01:40 AM
  #18  
Soma07's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 670
From: Kissimmee/Orlando, FL
Originally posted by SStrokerAce
I'll just never understand AutoXing a 4th gen f-body, a C5 will walk all over it.
Apparently you don't understand autocrossing at all.

Yes, all things we equal a C5 will be quicker (but probably by not as much as you think). However, that's really irrelevant considering they run in different classes and don't compete against each other anyways.
Old Oct 16, 2003 | 01:51 AM
  #19  
SStrokerAce's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Originally posted by Soma07
Apparently you don't understand autocrossing at all.

Yes, all things we equal a C5 will be quicker (but probably by not as much as you think). However, that's really irrelevant considering they run in different classes and don't compete against each other anyways.
O.k. I don't get it at all. Other than I have numerous class wins, PAX wins in a STS GTI. (most times is a big class 8-15 cars, so they are not just morrale trophies) It's fun going out in a car with 1/2 the power, less tire and not that much less weight and running seconds ahead of ESP cars on small tracks. I should just go and take a pic of my autoX wood that cluttered up with 1st place trophies.

I just want every guy looking into spending STUPID money on a F-body suspension to take a drive in a C5. The price of the parts and labor time putting all that on a LS1 F-body would be better spent on a used C5. Why is the ZO6 the car to beat in the fastest stock class SS then?

The 4th gen has the worst camber curve ever for this crap, that's why the solid axel conversion kit (35mm Bar) works so well. It just prevents the roll from happening. I still don't see the point of racing a SS Camaro LS1 against a S2000 or a E36 M3.

Yeah I don't get it.

Bret

Last edited by SStrokerAce; Oct 16, 2003 at 02:05 AM.
Old Oct 16, 2003 | 02:15 AM
  #20  
Soma07's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Sep 1999
Posts: 670
From: Kissimmee/Orlando, FL
Originally posted by SStrokerAce
The price of the parts and labor time putting all that on a LS1 F-body would be better spent on a used C5.

And a kart will humiliate either one of them for far, far less so why bother with real cars at all?

No one said you had to run an LS1 F-body either. You could buy a $5000 LT1 F-body, throw on some Hoosiers, shocks, and a front sway bar and have a very competative FS car for about half of what a decent LS1 F-body will cost and a third of the price of a C5.

The 4th gen has the worst camber curve ever for this crap, that's why the solid axel conversion kit (35mm Bar) works so well. It just prevents the roll from happening. I still don't see the point of racing a SS Camaro LS1 against a S2000 or a E36 M3.
The camber curve isn't THAT bad, ever look at a Mustang's front suspension?

The SS/WS6's are exceptions because they're not in F Stock along with all the other F-bodies. So I'll agree with you that there is no point in autocrossing a stock SS/WS6 if you want to be competative. Just mod it and move to SM where at least you ll stand a chance.

Anyways enough with the thread hijack...
Old Oct 16, 2003 | 09:35 PM
  #21  
96ltz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 243
From: TN
Are the lt1 flexplate/flywheels balanced differently from other one piece rear main assemblies or will any of them interchange?

Originally posted by SStrokerAce
The flywheel/flexplate is included in the stock assembly for balance. So if you are keeping the LT1 parts then get the flywheel neutrally balanced and get the rotating assembly neutrally balanced. Then it's internally balanced, and if you euchre a flywheel you don't have to tear down the motor to put a new one on.
Just trying to understand why you go about it this way. It seems like this would be more expensive especially if you need heavy metal plus the cost of having the flexplate or flywheel balanced then having to have any future replacement neutral balanced unless you are worried about variations in the balance of replacements.
Old Oct 16, 2003 | 10:03 PM
  #22  
SStrokerAce's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 6,518
Originally posted by 96ltz
Are the lt1 flexplate/flywheels balanced differently from other one piece rear main assemblies or will any of them interchange?
Yeah, the LT1 stuff is different from the other 1 piece stuff. I don't think any of the parts will interchange. The flywheels don't really cost that much anyways.

Originally posted by 96ltz
Just trying to understand why you go about it this way. It seems like this would be more expensive especially if you need heavy metal plus the cost of having the flexplate or flywheel balanced then having to have any future replacement neutral balanced unless you are worried about variations in the balance of replacements.
With light racing parts and todays cranks, you don't really need heavy metal to balance most setups, and if you do it's not that big of a deal. Doing it right is more important.

Balancing the flywheel is easy, you put it on a mill. Cut down the counterweight on the inside and then have it balanced. Yeah it adds a little bit, but with more power and different bobweights from stock it seems stupid.

Yeah there is more cost there, but say you euchre the flywheel. How are you going to replace it? If you bolt another stock one on there it's not going to be perfectly balanced like the orginal assembly? So yeah, i'm worried that my zero gram balanced stuff is going to be out of wack because I put a stock part which is not as accurate on there. Plus taking the counter weight off the stock flywheel is reducing the inertia of the flywheel. It's a littler bit but that's what counts.

On a 383 stroker or a forged 355 it's pretty easy to reduce the bobweight 200g, now you have to account for that in the balancing with the flywheel on there. That makes the balancing more expensive.

Bret
Old Oct 16, 2003 | 10:38 PM
  #23  
96ltz's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 243
From: TN
Thanks
I've wondered about stituations like putting a stock lt1 in other setups that would require large flywheel or flexplate which one you could use since afaik all of the Camaros and Corvettes used small ones.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
dbusch22
Forced Induction
6
Oct 31, 2016 11:09 AM
Drtryder
LT1 Based Engine Tech
10
Apr 22, 2015 04:17 PM
Newgmman
Drivetrain
0
Feb 25, 2015 02:53 PM
squirrels
Site Help and Suggestions
4
Jul 13, 2002 01:58 AM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:58 PM.