When my engine was rebuilt last summer, I used the SACCity barbell:
https://www.saccitycorvette.com/Billet-BarBell.html

Since then, Improved Racing released their version:
http://www.improvedracing.com/hardwa...ell-p-976.html

Both companies are site vendors. I need to replace the clutch and/or slave cylinder soon, so I'll already be in the vicinity of the rear main cover. Which version is a better design?

 

I was gonna go with the sac city version for my build, but I like the improved racing design with the addition of a second oring. Looks like there should be virtually no leak by.

 

The reason GM didn’t use double o-rings is because you can cut the oring when installing it through the gap. The more precision billet piece without the o-ring or factory GM would be preferred.

 

A plastic barbell with a single o-ring is also the cheapest, which is why GM used them for mass production on assembly lines. If you are taking your time and hand assembling the engine with proper lubrication, two o-rings shouldn’t be an issue. Just my 2cents

 

That oil gallery has a very sharp machined edge. Being careful or not it can still cut etc. How are you going to tell if you cut the o ring or not? You cant.
The saccity is the best as we have tested.

 

Couldn't it be installed, then pulled to check if the o-ring was damaged? If there’re no cuts then it would be safe to say a reinstallation should produce the same result? Not saying I have done this, just speaking in theory. As stated, I haven’t made my final selection.

 

Youll never know. Thats the rub. And assuming isnt knowing either.

There is a reason we use the saccity still in every gasket kit and complete rebuild kit. And in my personal stuff.

 

GM could have easily molded a second o-ring into the plastic part, and risk of cutting it is the reason they didn’t.

I love the improved racing guys but there’s a reason that o-ring isn’t there in other designs.

 

Hi Everyone,
We feel that the Oring is just another unnecessary part in the engine that can fail, especially if it were to get damaged when stalling it.
I say unnecessary because our Billet Barbell is such a good fit that if anything that could get by it would be such a small micro size that it would pass through the filter anyway.
http://www.saccitycorvette.com/OilSy...provement.html
Nothing against Improved Racing, they make some good stuff.

Thank you!
Christian

 

Doing it twice won't improve your odds.

 

Okay, I'll stick with what I have, thanks fellas

 

It is true that if you put an O-ring on the front of the barbell and design it with a standard amount of squeeze for a piston in bore style O-ring gland the O-ring will become damaged on the sharp intersecting bores during installation. We found this during development of this product. However, we were then able to come up with a design that installs easily without any risk of damage to the O-ring, while still providing a positive seal between the two sides of the oil galley to prevent fluid from bypassing the filter.

We have actually never seen any of the other billet barbells that are out there on the market in person. We designed our barbell based off GM's CAD models of those components, data on factory manufacturing tolerances, as well as analysis and measurements from the factory barbell and engine block. This is why our design is a little different, From that information we concluded the best way to positively seal off those two passages while still ensuring the barbell will fit all engine blocks was with an O-ring. We had not seen this done before, so we decided to develop our own with this feature.

Now that said, there is nothing wrong with the "non-O-ring" design or even with the factory barbell. In our opinion, even the factory barbell is good enough to prevent any particles that could damage the engine from bypassing the filter. However the aluminum barbells are more durable, easier to install and remove, and can be manufactured to more precise tolerances, so if you are rebuilding an engine block, you might as well replace it with a billet barbell.

We are also not in the business of simply copying other products. While we welcome competition, we've had several of other companies create EXACT replicas of our own products, and we don't think that's cool. Our philosophy is that we only manufacture a product if we believe our design is an improvement over what's already out there. If our final design had no differentiating features it would not have made it to production. We believe the double O-ring seal design is a slight improvement, so we decided to offer it to our customers.

 

The ribs on the gm barbells act basically as sleusing riffles that trap and hold stuff. Every single one ive pulled out, which are quite a few" had something still stuck in them from who knows how long ago. Definitely a poor design that i dont recommend and will never use in any personal builds. And again thats why we offer them as std equipment in our complete gasket kits and complete rebuild kits. We automatically provide the better option so the customer doesnt have to worry.

 

For Improved Racing to say "We have actually never seen any of the other billet barbells that are out there on the market in person." seems not genuine since we have been selling the Billet Barbell for 3 year here on
LS1Tech, Corvette Forum and can be seen all over the internet. Theirs looks a lot like ours with the exception of the O-ring, they even have the threaded removal hole. Only difference I see is our shaft is 30% smaller then stock for better
oil flow and we use 7075 Aluminum for strength and durability. We also have several Chinese and American companies copying our products. But when compared, the quality is not even close to ours.

Christian

 

We have definitely seen them online, what I’m saying is we have never seen one in person. We didn’t buy one and copy it. We just designed ours from scratch, which ensures it’s our own interpretation. So ours also has a different tip, which fits into the hole at the end of the galley, and also has a bull nose at the end, plus the second O-ring, etc. The threaded hole on the end for removal is definitely needed, it’s one of the most annoying things about the OEM barbell. Not trying to start an argument or anything, just letting you know we didn’t just clone your part. The concept is a great idea, the threaded hole on the end was a great idea, we just really wanted one with an O-ring on the tip.

We have seen the Chinese copies too and they are exact copies of your part, just again of lower quality and probably not made to the same tolerances (which is critical for this part). That totally sucks. There is no mistaking our barbell for yours though. You may want to start marking your parts like we do so that customers can tell them apart from Chinese copies as well. PM me if you want any info on how to do that.

 

No problem and I agree you made the front of yours with the O-ring and that is what companies like yours and ours do, we are always trying to improve products and thats a good thing.
Also, I didn't think purchased one of ours to copy because a company like yours wouldn't need to. I was mainly talking about the aluminum and threaded hole idea. Anyway were cool.

Thanks
Christian

 

Improved your mail box is full, I can't PM you.

Thanks,
Christian

 

Sorry about that, I cleared it out and you can message us now.

 

It seems kind of silly to call out the material and that removal hole as something they could have copied. What alternative would they use besides aluminum? Tool steel?
and the first thing anyone that’s ever tried removing that stupid plastic one would want is an easier way to pull it.

 

Some things are just plain logical...