Flywheel MPG
I do have more knowledge, but, at the end of the day it is personal preference.
We can argue this point day in and day out, most people do not want what you're feeding them and when they buy in to what you're saying I wind up getting the angry phone calls.
I still love you though.
We can argue this point day in and day out, most people do not want what you're feeding them and when they buy in to what you're saying I wind up getting the angry phone calls.
I still love you though.
It's not that they don't want it......most simply don't know the difference and go with what erryone else is running. Do you a 25lb~ clutch with reasonable engagement characteristics, reasonable price, advertise the benefits of it and watch it fly off the shelf.
They hear some dumbasses say how hard to drive a light clutch is......which is why I point out the weight of Mustang and Honda clutch/flys . Both have less powerful engines but somehow don't need the inertia to take off......hhhhhmmmmm Think about it.
FYI for some guys that maybe don't know. A aftermarket converter for a auto can be as much as 20lb lighter than stock........there is a reason for that.
It's not that they don't want it......most simply don't know the difference and go with what erryone else is running. Do you a 25lb~ clutch with reasonable engagement characteristics, reasonable price, advertise the benefits of it and watch it fly off the shelf.
They hear some dumbasses say how hard to drive a light clutch is......which is why I point out the weight of Mustang and Honda clutch/flys . Both have less powerful engines but somehow don't need the inertia to take off......hhhhhmmmmm Think about it.
FYI for some guys that maybe don't know. A aftermarket converter for a auto can be as much as 20lb lighter than stock........there is a reason for that.
They hear some dumbasses say how hard to drive a light clutch is......which is why I point out the weight of Mustang and Honda clutch/flys . Both have less powerful engines but somehow don't need the inertia to take off......hhhhhmmmmm Think about it.
FYI for some guys that maybe don't know. A aftermarket converter for a auto can be as much as 20lb lighter than stock........there is a reason for that.
Come work for us a bit and you'd change your mind on what others want and don't.
Converters? Come on man, there is no human error in converter engagement and lock up... apples to chicken nuggets comparison.
I agree on converters......but they don't make them heavier for better low end like some want to believe 
I'll do testing for ya on a 25lb clutch....how's that sound? You send them...I'll give you a outside point of view, test them and send them back.
I'll do testing for ya on a 25lb clutch....how's that sound? You send them...I'll give you a outside point of view, test them and send them back.
Already did that.
FormerVendor
Joined: Apr 2014
Posts: 263
Likes: 2
From: Justin, TX
I still love you too man
It's not that they don't want it......most simply don't know the difference and go with what erryone else is running. Do you a 25lb~ clutch with reasonable engagement characteristics, reasonable price, advertise the benefits of it and watch it fly off the shelf.
They hear some dumbasses say how hard to drive a light clutch is......which is why I point out the weight of Mustang and Honda clutch/flys . Both have less powerful engines but somehow don't need the inertia to take off......hhhhhmmmmm Think about it.
FYI for some guys that maybe don't know. A aftermarket converter for a auto can be as much as 20lb lighter than stock........there is a reason for that.
It's not that they don't want it......most simply don't know the difference and go with what erryone else is running. Do you a 25lb~ clutch with reasonable engagement characteristics, reasonable price, advertise the benefits of it and watch it fly off the shelf.
They hear some dumbasses say how hard to drive a light clutch is......which is why I point out the weight of Mustang and Honda clutch/flys . Both have less powerful engines but somehow don't need the inertia to take off......hhhhhmmmmm Think about it.
FYI for some guys that maybe don't know. A aftermarket converter for a auto can be as much as 20lb lighter than stock........there is a reason for that.
While a lighter rotating weight is a part of why converters improve performance, part of the reason for a smaller converter is for a higher stall speed. Good luck getting a 4,400 stall out of a stock 4L80E converter.
Worth noting that I myself am not particularly well versed in clutches/flywheels personally 
I think the best way to prove your point is by showing rotational inertia mass compared to resistance.
If light weight flywheels were of such benefit they would have been widely used by different manufacturers. You are comparing apples and oranges when looking at different vehicles rotating mass.
If your own theory held true big rigs would come with the lightest weight component available to maximize power and free up the mass added to the weight of the engine by the flywheel spinning.
At the end of the day you are comparing your own custom setup to that of thousands of vehicle dynamic engineers and saying rotational mass creating inertial force has nothing to do with power loss through the drive line.
The starter cranks the flywheel and the engine idles to keep the mass of the flywheel spinning. Because of the inertia of the spinning weight the engine does not labor harder in measurable sense to keep the flywheel turning.
A lightened flywheel however will require more force from the engine to be released as the clutch is disengaged since it does not have the larger inertial mass to absorb friction from the clutch being transferred to the rear wheels.
LS1 Tech Stories
The Best V8 Stories One Small Block at Time
Gas Monkey Built a 6-Wheel Ferrari Testarossa With a Corvette LT4 Engine
Verdad Gallardo
7 Most Reliable High-Performance Engines GM Has Ever Built
Verdad Gallardo
Amazing '71 Camaro Restomod Is Modern Muscle Car Under the Skin
Verdad Gallardo
6 Common C5 Corvette Failures and What's Involved In Repairing Them
Pouria Savadkouei
Retro Modern Bandit Pontiac Trans AM Comes With Burt Reynolds' Autograph
Verdad Gallardo
Top 10 Greatest Cadillac V Series Performance Models Ever, Ranked
Pouria Savadkouei
Top 10 Most Powerful Chevy Trucks Ever Made!
Hennessey's New Supercharged Silverado ZR2 Has 700 HP
Verdad Gallardo
Coachbuilt N2A Anteros Is an LS2-Powered C6 Corvette In Italian Clothes
Verdad Gallardo Dude....wtf are you even talking about? Wtf does big rigs have to do with this?
snl......you probably would not want me working there. As you can tell my customer service wouks suck......lmao
snl......you probably would not want me working there. As you can tell my customer service wouks suck......lmao
What does you spamming a thread and insulting members have to do with the thread topic? You literally have posted no useful information while demeaning people who have tried to relate relevant information.
No but you still think very highly of yourself.
I think the best way to prove your point is by showing rotational inertia mass compared to resistance.
If light weight flywheels were of such benefit they would have been widely used by different manufacturers. You are comparing apples and oranges when looking at different vehicles rotating mass.
If your own theory held true big rigs would come with the lightest weight component available to maximize power and free up the mass added to the weight of the engine by the flywheel spinning.
At the end of the day you are comparing your own custom setup to that of thousands of vehicle dynamic engineers and saying rotational mass creating inertial force has nothing to do with power loss through the drive line.
The starter cranks the flywheel and the engine idles to keep the mass of the flywheel spinning. Because of the inertia of the spinning weight the engine does not labor harder in measurable sense to keep the flywheel turning.
A lightened flywheel however will require more force from the engine to be released as the clutch is disengaged since it does not have the larger inertial mass to absorb friction from the clutch being transferred to the rear wheels.
I think the best way to prove your point is by showing rotational inertia mass compared to resistance.
If light weight flywheels were of such benefit they would have been widely used by different manufacturers. You are comparing apples and oranges when looking at different vehicles rotating mass.
If your own theory held true big rigs would come with the lightest weight component available to maximize power and free up the mass added to the weight of the engine by the flywheel spinning.
At the end of the day you are comparing your own custom setup to that of thousands of vehicle dynamic engineers and saying rotational mass creating inertial force has nothing to do with power loss through the drive line.
The starter cranks the flywheel and the engine idles to keep the mass of the flywheel spinning. Because of the inertia of the spinning weight the engine does not labor harder in measurable sense to keep the flywheel turning.
A lightened flywheel however will require more force from the engine to be released as the clutch is disengaged since it does not have the larger inertial mass to absorb friction from the clutch being transferred to the rear wheels.
The inertia of the flywheel helps the motor keep spinning and makes launching easier. HOWEVER if you can launch the car which with some practice is very easy then the are no downfalls, only gains. After the initial engagement the heavier assembly and lighter assembly are both spinning and fully engaged with the engine. To spin up ie. accelerate the mass and thus accelerate the car the engine needs to overcome the heavier moment of inertia which will take more power and time than with the lighter assembly. Which is dyno gains are common with lighter setups. By your big rig logic why dont we just keep the 70lb clutch that comes in the cts-v? That would store even more inertia and get an even better launch....Except on those cars a light clutch is one of the first mods and also best performance rewarding ones you can do.
Go ahead tell the svt engineers that their stock aluminum flywheel that weighs 13lbs and the whole clutch assembly that weighs under 40 in the 3800 lb 03-04 cobra will never work and performance will suffer.... Except for the fact they did it 10 years ago and it works fine.
LOL, you're a bit coarse as an individual. I get you're passionate about what you believe, but I can assure you that what I'm telling you is the truth. The masses do not want uber lightweight clutches.
The big rig thing is really out there.... No one is disputing that a larger clutch/fly will have more inertia. Comparing a 20ton big rig to a 3400lb car is a BIG stretch the extra inertia there is much more crucial. A lighter assembly is a SMALL bit trickier to drive but its a much smaller scale than something weighs 30,000 lbs.
The inertia of the flywheel helps the motor keep spinning and makes launching easier. HOWEVER if you can launch the car which with some practice is very easy then the are no downfalls, only gains. After the initial engagement the heavier assembly and lighter assembly are both spinning and fully engaged with the engine. To spin up ie. accelerate the mass and thus accelerate the car the engine needs to overcome the heavier moment of inertia which will take more power and time than with the lighter assembly. Which is dyno gains are common with lighter setups. By your big rig logic why dont we just keep the 70lb clutch that comes in the cts-v? That would store even more inertia and get an even better launch....Except on those cars a light clutch is one of the first mods and also best performance rewarding ones you can do.
Go ahead tell the svt engineers that their stock aluminum flywheel that weighs 13lbs and the whole clutch assembly that weighs under 40 in the 3800 lb 03-04 cobra will never work and performance will suffer.... Except for the fact they did it 10 years ago and it works fine.
The inertia of the flywheel helps the motor keep spinning and makes launching easier. HOWEVER if you can launch the car which with some practice is very easy then the are no downfalls, only gains. After the initial engagement the heavier assembly and lighter assembly are both spinning and fully engaged with the engine. To spin up ie. accelerate the mass and thus accelerate the car the engine needs to overcome the heavier moment of inertia which will take more power and time than with the lighter assembly. Which is dyno gains are common with lighter setups. By your big rig logic why dont we just keep the 70lb clutch that comes in the cts-v? That would store even more inertia and get an even better launch....Except on those cars a light clutch is one of the first mods and also best performance rewarding ones you can do.
Go ahead tell the svt engineers that their stock aluminum flywheel that weighs 13lbs and the whole clutch assembly that weighs under 40 in the 3800 lb 03-04 cobra will never work and performance will suffer.... Except for the fact they did it 10 years ago and it works fine.
So SNL......you think the masses of 03/04 cobro is gonna be happy with your 28lb flywheel???.....lmao I mean that alone pretty much ends the thread.......There is no reason for a 50+lb clutch fly in these cars. It's part of the reason why you see 13'sec bolt-on fcars at the track.
Most don't know or realize this......but they will continue to argue drivability
So SNL......you think the masses of 03/04 cobro is gonna be happy with your 28lb flywheel???.....lmao I mean that alone pretty much ends the thread.......There is no reason for a 50+lb clutch fly in these cars. It's part of the reason why you see 13'sec bolt-on fcars at the track.
So SNL......you think the masses of 03/04 cobro is gonna be happy with your 28lb flywheel???.....lmao I mean that alone pretty much ends the thread.......There is no reason for a 50+lb clutch fly in these cars. It's part of the reason why you see 13'sec bolt-on fcars at the track.
You're all over the place. Gear ratios, weight of the car, torque the engine produces, etc. all play a factor in this. Give me apples to apples comparisons of a large group of people with the same car in all the same given scenarios, then I'll buy your information. I've done that with the clutch shop, that's where I derive my information from.
Not to mention, nobody likes Mustangs or Hondas. LOL
TECH Veteran
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 4,985
Likes: 112
So now you're going to compare a PD car to a NA car? A PD car doesn't need the inertia off the line as the blower and low end torque help that.
You're all over the place. Gear ratios, weight of the car, torque the engine produces, etc. all play a factor in this. Give me apples to apples comparisons of a large group of people with the same car in all the same given scenarios, then I'll buy your information. I've done that with the clutch shop, that's where I derive my information from.
Not to mention, nobody likes Mustangs or Hondas. LOL
You're all over the place. Gear ratios, weight of the car, torque the engine produces, etc. all play a factor in this. Give me apples to apples comparisons of a large group of people with the same car in all the same given scenarios, then I'll buy your information. I've done that with the clutch shop, that's where I derive my information from.
Not to mention, nobody likes Mustangs or Hondas. LOL
however the blower ont he cobra or any car for that matter makes no difference. at low takeoff and light throttle the blower is doing little to nothing. boost on roots or twin screw blowers is only made when the throttle is stabbed open at cruise and light throttle the engine will stay in no boost or slightly in vacuum
You got to it before me red....I was gonna say the same same thing. But I will add to it. W/o the being in boost the 4.6 is a 8.5 compression anemic turd. They seem to have no problem with drivability with a 38lb clutch.......atleast my termi notch don't 