I had issues with the stock hydraulics even after I changed the clutch, same issues with a poop ton of other people.

Not sure if SD gained me much, if anything. But I really have no idea because there were other things changed in the tune as I completely rewrote it, going from a shop tune. Gained almost .2 if I remember right. It's just simpler, cheaper, and you don't have to worry about the MAF when you play with different intake configurations.

I've run a TexOZ700, and now a monster3. Both with standard steel flywheels. I've never tried a light weight setup because after a ton of research many years ago I came to the conclusion that the standard flywheel would suit me best, being that I don't have traction issues, and I don't make a lot of power.

 

As far as street manners go, the friction material of the clutch is much more important than the weight of the flywheel IMO. A heavy flywheel can be convenient because you need to put less gas in, but you quickly get used to giving it a little more gas with a light flywheel - especially with all the torque at low RPMs. On the other hand, a ceramic puck-style clutch that bucks and chatters if you try to launch at low RPMs is what will ruin the street manners - sure you can launch at 2k RPMs for it to be smooth, but who wants to drive like that around town? A heavy flywheel can definitely help with launching that style of clutch, but I'd rather go with a more appropriate clutch material for street driving. I will note here that I've heard good things about some of the ceramic twin disk clutches with light flywheels (mantic 9000 comes to mind), but there are also reports to the contrary so I'm not sure what to believe there.

At the track, you'll notice that the RPMs dip faster when coming off the line b/c of the loss in stored energy, but compensating with more revs does a fine job of equalizing the difference. The only adjustment I had to make going from a 36lb stock flywheel to a 18lb aluminum one was increasing my 2-step RPM.

My Z will definitely be getting a light weight setup with an organic/kevlar twin. Maybe RST... not sure.

 

More RPM would help, if you have more RPM to use... my 2-step is already at 6200

 

Agreed. When I switched to a alum FW I had to raise my rpms 200-300ish to achieve the same 60ft. I can recall a article in MMFF that they did the experiment and the alum FW accelerated faster but during shifts the rpms dropped faster.

I did the swap because my thought was lighter parts equals less stress on the other parts

 

+1. Many people do realize that the material of the disk drives (no pun) the characteristics on the street. I basically look at the materials like this, from least to most agressive:

Organic: OEM
kevlar
semi-metallic
ceramic
sintered iron

For smooth engagement you can get a disk that has an organic PP side and a ceramic FW side. But I've always been a fan of having the same material on both sides.

But you are right, the more aggressive the clutch the higher chance of chatter. You gotta give a little to get a little.

-Mark

 

Not to beat a dead horse but your statement is true and "not so" true. Cylinder pulses are more prevalent at lower rpms and so the energy stored and released by the flywheel is greater at that time which minimizes or smooth the pulses down (much like a damper).

As the rpms increase the frequency of the pulses also increase which means that the time between the pulse reduces (time = 1/f ; time is reciprocal of frequency). Since the pulses are shorter, the energy stored and released is smaller and so the pulse absorption of the flywheel is reduced. The forces are always active though.

 

Yea yea....i understand what you were sayin. That was my point. There are many 4 and 6 cyl stock cars out there with much lighter clutch/fly than a ls car. Some guys think a light clutch/fly combo is not driveable with a 5.7L engine. That is just not the case and i took it to the extreme with a 17lb clutch/fly.
You won't even know you put a aluminum fly in a ls car. A aluminum fly puts a ls car at your stock clutch/fly weight.
I think i have only seen one hydraulic failure in ls cars. I have beat that hydraulic dead horse a few times and it pointed to the pp every time. I run a qtr master hydraulic release bearing to get the perimeters that i need to make my tilton work. But i have what was supposed to be the "updated" master i installed back in 02.......i could tell no difference with the updated stuff.

i would like to see your car go with a light clutch on it. The et in your sig is good. But the 1.68 60' it not outta the realm of a lightweight clutch can do.
I have seen mantic stuff now that you mention it. Their stuff looks nice.

my 5.5 tilton has sintered iron discs. Everything from pedal travel vs engagement , pedal stop, shape of the nose of release bearing vs clutch springs, throttle cracker can affect drivability of a clutch.
My best times have come leaving at about 3800 rpm.....with a 17lb clutch/fly. SStrangethe despairity between them.

 

Why would you spin a baby 224/224 112 cam that high? These cams were designed to make power in the low to midrange, hence the lower duration + narrow lobe seperation angle. This isn't a "peaky" cam by any means, usually done by 6400ish. I ran this same cam except from Thunder Racing. Same specs.

My advice to the OP would be to run a different camshaft altogether. Something in the mid-230s. That will improve high rpm power and still offer exceptional driveability considering the tune is line. Some good heads would be a great addition as well. Then a FAST intake manifold or at least a ported LS6, finish up all the nick-nacks, and like others have said lighten up that drivetrain! I've had good luck with RPS on my stick f-bodies. I ran their Ultralite Billet full-Carbon Street Twin with Aluminum flywheel. The entire unit weighed in at 24-25 pounds and had a suprisingly smooth engagement and street manners. It's not cheap though.

We've entered a new era of cars that can make big power with very few modifications. The lil baby cammed, stock heads, full weight LS1's of yesteryear ain't gonna cut it.

 

I was thinking more on what the vibration the car sees. I could tell nothing after dropping about 37 lb of clutch/fly weight off my car. Actually including the udp i have about 42lb off the crank alone. Even more if you want to get into the ewp and the reduction of idlers i have done.

 

I agree on a different cam for him. I would never use a cam like that. Typically you can shift a car 400-600 rpm after peak power for best performance. .... but i think his ls1 intake is hold back some of that.

The rps clutches are very nice. I think a 25~lb clutch is about perfect for these cars.

 

Got the cam with the valve springs and pushrods for $200 couldn't say no. But I have been looking at the tick SNS stage 2 cam

 

Agreed. Much better choices out there nowadays compared to the old-school LS1 cams from almost a decade ago.

 

The Stage 2 might not give you much of an improvement over the existing cam. I'd recommend the stage 3 cam from Martin. It's design for a 346 w/ stock cathedral heads and is 235/243 .620 111+2. They even offer a milder version if that seems a little too much for you. This cam will pull to 7000-rpm and has a fat torque curve compared to other semi-large/large camshafts. If you plan to spin it that high on the SBE I'd recommend at least ARP 8740 rod bolts, preferably their 2000's. Of course, make sure you use the correct springs, and check PTV clearance JUST IN CASE.

 

I have a friend who made 455whp with a tick SNS stage 2 cam and TEA stage 3 LS6 heads with a FAST 92mm

 

I dont necessarily agree with this. A larger cam will make more power but going from what he has now to that would be 20 max and he would most certainly be sacrificing SOME low end power not to mention driveability. Big cams are cool for going fast at the track but on the street you can get 90% of performance and not hate life driving it. The SNS 3 you listed has 16 degrees of overlap. No matter how good the tune is its not going to like driving on the street in a 346.

No offense to Nick at all this isnt aimed at him. But people who mod their car like his and call it good will not cut it with newer cars. The cam could be better, but throw a fast intake, 3.90 gears, and revamp the exhaust and that car will hurt PLENTY of feelings. Add those parts and watch that car walk all over the SNS 3 car with a stock intake and stock gears. You dont need a big cam at all most of the time its cars with small cams and all the right bolt ons that run hard.

Nick I say do all the bolt ons and get her setup and see where you are. The sns stage 2 MIGHT make 10-12 more hp than what you have now. The difference between a small-medium-large cam is not all that big. If you want to change the cam I'll play devils advocate and say a 230/234 113+3 or 226/234 112+3 would be great on eps lobes

 

This. His cam isn't the problem.

 

Keep your cam and correct the other mistakes you have. The cam is not the problem. How fast do you want the car to go?

 

Good numbers using a relatively mild cam, LS6 heads seem to never dissapoint. Do you know what ET/MPH? Raceweight?

Not all large camshafts drive like **** on the street. That's an internet myth that was put out there usually by people that have no personal experience running larger camshafts. The Tick Stage 3 has been said by several to offer exceptional driveability on the street with virtually no surging as long as you use the proper gearing (proper stall/gear in an auto). Operating range for that camshaft is 2000-6700rpm. As for sacrificing some low end, that's a given with a large camshaft, but not to the point to where the car is a pain to drive on the street. As long as the tuning is right, and you have the right stall, gears etc.you'll be fine. The problem with the "smaller" camshafts is, yeah they make great power down low, but they suck *** up top, and ultimately just don't make the power something like the Tick Stage 3 will. I ran a Vindicator II from Vengeance which is, IIRC 240/244 .6xx and the car was a joy to drive on the street, and offered so much more power than my old TR224. Wasn't even comparable, quite laughable actually when my tuner first showed me an graph overlay with my old cam vs current one. Yes, you have your cake and eat it too.

Now something like a T-Rex on stock/untouched heads 346 might fall under the catagory of "not street friendly".

The comment highlighted in bold couldn't be further. I hate for a novice to read something like that and actually buy into it.

Regardless, he won't be hurting any bolt-on Mustang GT owners feelings with that baby old-tech camshaft. I don't know if you've heard the news, but these Coyote's are hitting well north of 400whp with "bolt-ons". A local guy just made 456whp on pump on a dynojet in a '12 BOSS.

And anyone who would run a Tick Stage 3 with stock gears obviously has no idea what they're doing. That type of non-sense is what has given big cams a bad name and make people skurred to run them. A "properly" setup S3 cam/heads/gears/stall/tune etc will **** all over a baby 224 cammed car. That argument is ridiculous IMO.

No disrespect, but the last comment in bold is utter non sense.

I wouldn't waste time with that cam period. You're talking about a cam that is almost a decade old for gosh sakes.

OP, I gave you solid advice, but at the end of the day, its what YOU want. Whatever you do though, ditch that old camshaft for a new one.

And people wonder why the FASTEST ls1 cars run larger camshafts.

And how would you know HiNegro? You've proven time after time you have zero knowledge of anything tech related.

Keep ridin' dem firebirds LikeAB0ss yo.

 

Poor Redfire lol

 

I'm glad you corrected the 16* overlap redbird555. I was like, 3*? Say wut