I am going to convert my 63 avanti R1 from automatic to a factory 4 speed once I find the parts to do it. The boy racer in me is wanting to install an aluminum flywheel at the same time for the quicker revs they produce. Anybody used one this forum? I am wondering what this might do to the drivability of the car? [?]
IMHO you should do it if you think you want to. The factory Stude flywheel is way too heavy, and even with the aluminum flywheel there's enough inertia there that a) you still won't have to really rev the engine up to keep from stalling at a dead stop (unless you have 3.31's or similar) b) it still won't rev up as quickly as a race engine.
Only caveat is that there is no steel insert where the flywheel bolts to the crank flange, so I would use hardened flat washer and Loctite- or I think what I did on my car was to actually use the steel reinforcement ring used on an automatic's flexplate. I just didn't want lock washers digging into my aluminum flywheel.
nate
--
55 Commander Starlight
https://members.cox.net/njnagel
The idle may "lope" a little more (that's a good thing [8D])
Like Nate says, launching could be a little tougher...especially if you plan to do any drag racing (possible bog with not enough throttle...too much wheel spin with enough throttle)
I had one in my Chevy powered '54. I loved the quick revs and loping idle and put up with the less than stellar 60' times.
Just remember to get the correct length flywheel bolts and install them when you have the pan and rear main cap off.
Otherwise you will end up having to remove the stock bolts, and then drill and tap the crank end for rear install bolts.
Jeff[8D]
quote:Originally posted by stroker70
I am going to convert my 63 avanti R1 from automatic to a factory 4 speed once I find the parts to do it. The boy racer in me is wanting to install an aluminum flywheel at the same time for the quicker revs they produce. Anybody used one this forum? I am wondering what this might do to the drivability of the car? [?]
I'm using one that Ted sold. Made by Fidanza with no problems.Am also using a Centerforce Dual/friction clutch. Which makes for a lot less wear and tear on your leg and Linkages.
Karl, do you mind sharing the part numbers for the centerforce clutch assembly? I would not want to use the long style pressure plate because of the hard pedal they produce.
I have one of Ted's aluminum flywheels in my R1 4 speed powered 54 Coupe. I love the difference it gave the car. The cam lope is more pronounced. The quicker revs are fun. But I don't race, so I can't give any decent comparison from stock. I do like the sound and feel of it though.
GM unit 1 1/8 x 10 1/2 CTF-DF271675 SUMMIT $279.95
You will need to grind the two Large bumps flush.But thats all.
I use an aluminum flywheel on my R1 Lark. I drag race it and my 60' time are better. I have used both street tires and drag radials. You'll love it and be safer.
Richard
If you are not going to race it, you might consider turning the cast iron flywheel down. If you face off the front and then turn the flywheel around in the lathe, you can turn most of the weight of the flywheel off from the back. Leave the center where it bolts to the crank at full thickness, and the outer edge by the ring gear thick about an inch or so in. Leave plenty of meat where the clutch screws go in. Use big radiuses. You can remove over half the total weight and less cost than the aluminum one. Much the same benefits. It does take a big lathe, though. I used one of the big Swazey's at work.
I used a light weight nodular iron GM flywheel in my old 81 ElCamino 4 speed.I loved the way it would RPM thru the gears,but the launch was a PIA. It had a 342 posi with South Side Machine lift bars,and it would hook good and bog unless broke the tires loose.It is a trade off.I spent some $$s on it,but I really did not think it was enough of a difference after the fact to justify the cost.The motor was a 200 horse 305 out of a 86 Monte SS,with an Edelbrock intake,and the full Monte SS high flow cat and exhaust.It may have been different with more motor,but I was trying to make up for smaller cubes by getting the motor into the power band quicker.Should have built a 350 torque monster,but the great deal on the 40,000 mile wrecked Monte SS ,($500 for anything I wanted off of it) was too good to pass up.This was the SECOND car this guy slid under a semi trailer!!! The first one killed his wife.He survived both!! This world is full of STRANGE happenings!!!! I ended up putting a TH350 in the Elco,since our car club did a lot of local parades,and I had clutch foot,and got tired of smoking clutches between the parades and beating on it at the track and street.
Hi, Champ,
There is no free horsepower and flywheels are the purest form of tradeoff. Give on one end to get on the other. Your experience is the same as mine has been. If a low-horsepower car has street gears and enough tire to hook, it then it usually needs a heavy flywheel to pull a good 60-foot time. Your statement that a light flywheel has to slip the clutch disc more to pull away on the street is also what I have experienced. The flywheel is stored energy. Less weight means less stored energy to pull off the line. The upside is there is less inertia resisting acceleration once it is moving. For road-racing, lighter is always better. For any other use, it is like trying to make a string longer by cutting a piece off one end and tying it on the other. Somewhere, something is lost in the process.
thnx, jack vines
PackardV8
Champ,
The experience you had is typical of what I was told by Chevy guys, before I put the aluminum flywheel in my R1. I put it off for years based on the advice I got from a guy I worked with that raced Chevys for years, and others. I’ve raced my car in pure stock a few years, so I was concerned about safety. I ordered the new flywheel and put it in expecting to have the problems others had told me I would have. I did it for safety. I’m glad I did. I wish I had done it earlier. None of the bad stuff these people said would happen, happened. I took the car over to my Chevy friend’s house and gave him the keys so he could demonstrate to me what he had experienced with his Chevys. He was able to drive it without any of the problems he experienced with the Chevy, even when he tried to bog it. I’ve run with drag radials and street tires. I made 60 to 80 passes this year alone, some with drag radials and some with street tires, and drive the car around on the street. This subject has been discussed before and a lot of misinformation at that time was put out about the new aluminum flywheel being sold for Studebakers. It’s not anything like the old Webber one. As with anything, some people will be good with it some will not. I know several people that run this flywheel in their Studebakers, and all like it. In my case it was a good choice, I would agree with Champ that in his case it was a bad choice.
Forgive me for posting this, but it was put on “you tube” by a friend and it may help to see my Studebaker with an aluminum flywheel in action. I had qualified at 14.15@ with a 2.05 60’ on street tires, but by the time these runs were made the starting line was slick. This was the final 2 of 3 heads up shootouts. We had a double red light in the first race. You can hear the Lark get a little rubber in fourth, even with the wide ratio four speed.
Richard
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g7rq...eature=related
What's to forgive? doesn't look like you had any issues hooking up, anyway. I suspect that there's enough rotating mass with just the Stude crank that the flywheel can be as light as practical/safe without causing too many issues.
nate
--
55 Commander Starlight
https://members.cox.net/njnagel
Thanks Nate,
The light flywheel allows you to control wheel spin better, and launch at a lower RPM and still get the RPMs up quickly. Launch low and let it hook and nail it. I walked the track and found the best place to launch. We all had a hard time on that track that day, my 60' times were about .30 off, but the day before for qualifying was much better. That is Ted’s home track and is normally a good hooking track. I'll be going up to try to set a new low ET in the spring. It was hot that day.
By the way I agree with your earlier post.
Richard
I went to an aluminum wheel in the Chicken Hawk when running stock class and it went quicker but the speed was about the same. Of course it had either 4.55 or 4.89 gears but still only a 232. This was launching at 5000 rpm with 7" slicks.
Same experience with the Tomato that Richard Poe had with his R 1. The Tomato has the close ratio four speed (2.20 low) and 4.55 gears and when the traction is good, it has had 1.94 sixty foot times though normally with street tires and non-sticky tracks the sixty foot times are usually in the 2.15 range and actually would be worse with the heavier flywheel.
I believe the torque of the Stude engine is the difference and I certainly do not advocate everyone go to the aluminum gear but just my experience and like Richard, I wanted one for safety more than anything. The Fidanza wheels are SFI approved.
Phil Harris at Fairborn Studebaker sells these Fidanza aluminum flywheels with the steel insert in case anyone wants to purchase them in the future. His email is stude6@yahoo.com or phone 937-878-1576.
Ted
quote:Originally posted by stroker70
I am going to convert my 63 avanti R1 from automatic to a factory 4 speed once I find the parts to do it. The boy racer in me is wanting to install an aluminum flywheel at the same time for the quicker revs they produce. Anybody used one this forum? I am wondering what this might do to the drivability of the car? [?]
We're talking apples and oranges here. There is no one universal answer for every situation. ChampTrucking was detailing his experiences with 3.42 gears, or what most would agree is street gearing, in an almost 4000# El Camino. He experienced some drawbacks using a lighter flywheel. Ted used drag-strip gears, 4.55, 4.89, in an approx 3200# Stude. These are worlds apart. Yes, an aluminum flywheel works well on a strip with deep gears, as the lower gearing multiplies the torque and replaces the lower energy of the lighter flywheel. Yes, the car will ET better with deep gears and an aluminum flywheel. However, if used with street gears, there are tradeoffs. It is not mis-information to point out the pluses and minuses and where one works better than the other. Hint: sal and dick mentioned the engine "lopes" more at idle with the lighter flywheel. This is a direct result of less stored inertia available to keep the engine moving smoothly between power strokes. If you like the "lope" it is a plus. If not, then it is a minus.
thnx, jack vines
PackardV8
Well,Im going to bite the bullet and go light with the flywheel.Thanks to all for the input. My next question is about gear spacing in the BW T10. Is there more than one stude t10 to choose from? I would prefer a low first gear and close spacing on the rest of the gears. If there is,what case number should I look for?
There are two. 2.20 low and a 2.52 low. Neither is very low compared to modern boxes. The 2.20 low box likes a low rear end ratio (3.73's and lower). The 2.52 works fine with 3.31's. I've had both and would take the 2.52's as a daily driver and the 2.20's for the fun factor [8D].quote:Originally posted by stroker70
Well,Im going to bite the bullet and go light with the flywheel.Thanks to all for the input. My next question is about gear spacing in the BW T10. Is there more than one stude t10 to choose from? I would prefer a low first gear and close spacing on the rest of the gears. If there is,what case number should I look for?
Don't hold me to this, but ratios are about as follows...
2.52 / 1.88 / 1.46 / 1.00
2.20 / 1.64 / 1.28 / 1.00 /
INTERESTING reading all the responses...I agree the Stude motor has more torque than the 305 I had. I learned a lesson with that flywheel.It is interesting that other Chevy guys reported the same issue,with different sizes of cubic inches.Wonder how the volumetric efficency compares between the Stude and a Chevy motor at a given RPM,assuming both motors to be stock. I will guess the Stude motor has a longer stroke which results in its ability to produce more torque down low in the RPM range,making the light flywheel more friendly behind the Stude motor.
Champ,
Yes, the Studebaker 289 has a long stroke and long rods, along with a relatively heavy rotating mass, and the diameter of the flywheel.
Ted’s post is right on as always. The light flywheel isn’t for everyone. I ran mid 14s with a light flywheel and 3.73 gears.
Later, Richard
Postulating where the torque comes from takes the thread away from aluminum flywheels, but from both reading and experience:
1.The 305" SBC 3.48" stroke falls between the 3.25" stroke Stude 259"/3.625" 289" stroke. The 289" stroke is only 4% longer than the 305" SBC, and thus, wouldn't be a major factor in torque difference.
2. Engine science shows short rods produce slightly more low-speed torque and long rods produce slightly more high-RPM horsepower. Read the following thread on SpeedTalk to get dizzy about rod lengths and piston speed: https://speedtalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9133&start=0 More than I ever wanted to know or can understand.
3. The Stude perceived low-speed torque advantage, if it actually exists, is more likely to be a product of short camshaft timing and very small intake ports and valves, which results in higher port velocities at lower RPMs than does the SBCs larger ports and valves. This is also why a Stude can never compete in horsepower production with the SBC. The SBC heads can pass more air at high RPMS. As mentioned before, give on one end to get on the other.
thnx, jack vines
PackardV8
I have the aluminum flywheel Ted mentioned in my Hawk with a 3 speed overdrive and 3.54 gears. I have no complaints it is fine running around and responds well when i decide to race it. You will love it.
Erin Hays
"From Stuck and Rusty to Slick steel and sex appeal"
RZRECTD
1961 Hawk
1962 Lark
1963 Wagonaire
In case anyone wants the exact figures for the Stude T10:
Close Ratio: 2.20 1.66 1.31 1.00
Wide Ratio: 2.54 1.89 1.51 1.00
Dick's figures are probably correct for the Chevie T10 as I know the close ratio second gear is 1.64 as it has one less tooth on the cluster and two less teeth on the gear than the Stude T10
Ted.
[quote
There are two. 2.20 low and a 2.52 low. Neither is very low compared to modern boxes. The 2.20 low box likes a low rear end ratio (3.73's and lower). The 2.52 works fine with 3.31's. I've had both and would take the 2.52's as a daily driver and the 2.20's for the fun factor [8D].
Don't hold me to this, but ratios are about as follows...
2.52 / 1.88 / 1.46 / 1.00
2.20 / 1.64 / 1.28 / 1.00 /
[/quote]
FWIW, I have a vague memory of once having swapped a Ford T10 with the following gear ratios into a Studebaker, using a longer pilot bushing:
Warner T-10 2.36 1.78 1.41 1.00
The gear ratios were all-around better than either of the Studebaker transmissions. I always wondered why only Ford got that transmission.
thnx, jack vines
PackardV8
Posting Permissions
Reply
