• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-

Aluminum Flywheel

  • Thread starter Thread starter GT_green_GT
  • Start date Start date Feb 10, 2009

GT_green_GT

New Member
Dec 31, 2005
118
0
0
Feb 10, 2009
#1
  • Feb 10, 2009
  • #1
Any one here running an aluminum flywheel? Pros and cons?
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 10, 2009
#2
  • Feb 10, 2009
  • #2
I am, no cons as of yet and don't see why there would be. It revs and runs smoother, and I'm positive it'll help in the 1320.
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
Feb 11, 2009
#3
  • Feb 11, 2009
  • #3
The argument goes both ways.

Its harder to take off in city driving since you have less momentum. I noticed this with a 302....not so much with the 351(extra cubes covered it up probably)


There's less shock in the drivetrain....harder to break lose....revs faster.




If you got the cash i would not hesitate to get one.
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Feb 11, 2009
#4
  • Feb 11, 2009
  • #4
Only con is the $300 price tag (if you consider that a con) Other than that, been con free since 2005
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 11, 2009
#5
  • Feb 11, 2009
  • #5
Grn92LX said:
Only con is the $300 price tag (if you consider that a con) Other than that, been con free since 2005
Click to expand...



Don't know where all this 'is harder to take off' talk is coming from. I love it. Think about it like this, aluminum d/s, aluminum flywheel, aluminum underdrive pulleys, aluminum wheels, that is a WHOLE lot of rotating mass weight savings.
 

GT_green_GT

New Member
Dec 31, 2005
118
0
0
Feb 11, 2009
#6
  • Feb 11, 2009
  • #6
I am completly convinced. Im gonna be using the stock 351 crank with the lightweight speed pro forged pistons. With that aluminum fly wheel and driveshaft this thing is gonna rev QUICK


Any recommendations on brands tho? I was looking at the Fidanza one.

Thanx for the help everyone. :SNSign:
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
Feb 12, 2009
#7
  • Feb 12, 2009
  • #7
95Vert said:


Don't know where all this 'is harder to take off' talk is coming from. I love it. Think about it like this, aluminum d/s, aluminum flywheel, aluminum underdrive pulleys, aluminum wheels, that is a WHOLE lot of rotating mass weight savings.
Click to expand...

ITS A FACT lol

rotating mass weight savings is a plus.



People have different goals...different intentions with their car. Someone who races rarely and does a ton of driving in traffic might like a heavy flywheel that makes the clutch move the car more. Point being, always present ALL of the changes one will experience as we all expect different things....besides if you dont, someone reads this.....

then goes to a different site....and posts that nothing happens in the way the car drives except it revs quicker....

so then another guy gets amped and buys one....only to be pissed at the result because he didnt see it coming.


LIke i said, i'd buy one everytime cause i like it. Dont be surprised when you cant bang 2nd as hard as you could with the heavy one though
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 12, 2009
#8
  • Feb 12, 2009
  • #8
I understand your point Nate, but aside from resetting my idle and getting a little used to the new clutch and flywheel set-up nothing hard about it. It's different, sure, because of the rotating mass, but revs quicker and runs, IMO, smoother.
 

final5-0

Mustang Master
Apr 6, 2003
6,817
12
79
DFW Texas
Feb 12, 2009
#9
  • Feb 12, 2009
  • #9
nmcgrawj said:
ITS A FACT lol

rotating mass weight savings is a plus.



People have different goals...different intentions with their car. Someone who races rarely and does a ton of driving in traffic might like a heavy flywheel that makes the clutch move the car more. Point being, always present ALL of the changes one will experience as we all expect different things....besides if you dont, someone reads this.....

then goes to a different site....and posts that nothing happens in the way the car drives except it revs quicker....

so then another guy gets amped and buys one....only to be pissed at the result because he didnt see it coming.


LIke i said, i'd buy one everytime cause i like it. Dont be surprised when you cant bang 2nd as hard as you could with the heavy one though
Click to expand...


Well said Nate

When I was a kid hanging out at the 1320

You bet ... I ran em :Word:

Now a days ... I do the street thing

Heck fire .. When I'm just cruisin around town ....

I do what I like to call ... My Power Glide Mode ... of driving

2 to 5

You need the momentum to do that kinda thing

For you young guys ... You may not know what a Power Glide is

Ask JT

Grady
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
Feb 13, 2009
#10
  • Feb 13, 2009
  • #10
To be honest...i dont like the stang to be super smooth. If i wanted that...i'd get a 4.6. The 5.0 is more torquey....which a steel flywheel contributes to.


final5-0 said:
Well said Nate

When I was a kid hanging out at the 1320

You bet ... I ran em :Word:

Now a days ... I do the street thing

Heck fire .. When I'm just cruisin around town ....

I do what I like to call ... My Power Glide Mode ... of driving

2 to 5

You need the momentum to do that kinda thing

For you young guys ... You may not know what a Power Glide is

Ask JT

Grady
Click to expand...


Haha True ENOUGH! That weight does indeed come in handy.





I'd like to see some good same day results of upgrading to aluminum driveshafts and flywheels....no doubt that it allows stuff to spin faster but i'd like to see if that turns into faster times.


Here's a twister.....with a lighter car like a fox it would be good to get an aluminum flywheel....but with our cars that weigh 35-3600lbs....do we not need that momentum to move our weight?

This is where it'd be interesting to test the results. Maybe aluminum parts win from a roll...and not from a stand still. Who knows
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 13, 2009
#11
  • Feb 13, 2009
  • #11
nmcgrawj said:
I'd like to see some good same day results of upgrading to aluminum driveshafts and flywheels....no doubt that it allows stuff to spin faster but i'd like to see if that turns into faster times.
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't it? Doesn't spinning faster with less or the same amount of force allow for faster acceleration leading to faster times. There is such a thing of upgrading stuff and not gaining ANY hp/tq and still be faster, it's called acceleration.
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
Feb 13, 2009
#12
  • Feb 13, 2009
  • #12
95Vert said:
Why wouldn't it? Doesn't spinning faster with less or the same amount of force allow for faster acceleration leading to faster times. There is such a thing of upgrading stuff and not gaining ANY hp/tq and still be faster, it's called acceleration.
Click to expand...


If thats the case why doesnt everyone run a 4.56 rear gear, or better yet, a 5.10?


Only point i was trying to make was to move weight, you need torque. Its easier to move a fox then it is a 94-95(on average). I presented this argument because its easy to see a light car benefiting from lighter parts. But take a 3600lb vert, the take off "should" be stronger with a steel flywheel. Once you're moving the lighter flywheel could benefit you, but like i said before, what difference has it been proven to make? You gotta look at the whole package rather than 1 aspect.

Its kinda like how a 351w has a heavier rotating weight than a 347. A 347 will run faster at the track....but which motor would you rather have in a 35-3600lb. SN95?


:SNSign:
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 14, 2009
#13
  • Feb 14, 2009
  • #13
nmcgrawj said:
Its kinda like how a 351w has a heavier rotating weight than a 347. A 347 will run faster at the track....but which motor would you rather have in a 35-3600lb. SN95?


:SNSign:
Click to expand...

A 347ci, HANDS DOWN. Unless it's a 418, but not a 351 just because it's heavier.

Regarding the 4.56 gear, most people don't run them because of their goals, some may stay n/a, others go power adders or others just want to cruise. Soon I will have the 4.56s in my fox AND that aluminum flywheel. I guess I'll keep you guys posted. My goals are to be as quick as within reason in the 1320 but my car will still be driven daily to work will all accessories.

I still don't understand why you can't slam 2nd gear as 'hard' with an aluminum as with a steel flywheel?
 

nmcgrawj

Advanced Member
Sep 28, 2003
3,651
4
68
Indianapolis, IN
Feb 14, 2009
#14
  • Feb 14, 2009
  • #14
Lol, well I'd take a 351. Too limited with a 302 block. Upgrade the block?....then that whole weight issue isn't so clear of a winner. I still think a 351 will feel better...and if not do a cheap upgrade to a 393.

Damn a 4.56 huh? Don't do much highway cruising huh?


And aluminum has less change in momentum. Its easier on the drivetrain...steel sends more shock thru the drive train...thus you hit "harder".


Really personal preference to me. 1st gear has to suck with 4.56s though. Plan on starting in 2nd?
 

95Vert

New Member
Aug 19, 2004
1,785
0
0
North Mexico (deep south Texas)
Feb 15, 2009
#15
  • Feb 15, 2009
  • #15
nmcgrawj said:
Lol, well I'd take a 351. Too limited with a 302 block. Upgrade the block?....then that whole weight issue isn't so clear of a winner. I still think a 351 will feel better...and if not do a cheap upgrade to a 393.

Damn a 4.56 huh? Don't do much highway cruising huh?


And aluminum has less change in momentum. Its easier on the drivetrain...steel sends more shock thru the drive train...thus you hit "harder".


Really personal preference to me. 1st gear has to suck with 4.56s though. Plan on starting in 2nd?
Click to expand...

I'll let you know how it works out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

351w aluminum oil pump?
  • Kid wita 5oh
  • Oct 28, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
3
Views
164
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 28, 2025
Mustang5L5
Fox Mid Pipe
  • 93gtmustang
  • Oct 20, 2025
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
252
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Oct 21, 2025
Mustang5L5
B
Flywheel
  • Barry
  • Mar 10, 2026
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
4
Views
152
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Mar 11, 2026
Barry
B
O
Powdercoating aluminum wheels?
  • optionizerSS
  • Feb 6, 2026
  • Mustang Sound & Shine All
Replies
2
Views
370
Mustang Sound & Shine All Feb 15, 2026
optionizerSS
O
H
Aluminum timing chain guides ?
  • healy1963
  • May 5, 2026
  • 2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk-
Replies
0
Views
74
2005 - 2014 S-197 Mustang -General/Talk- May 5, 2026
healy1963
H
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
Menu
Log in

Register

  • Forums
  • What's new
  • Media
  • Resources
  • Contact
  • Sponsor
X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?

X

Privacy & Transparency

We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:

  • Personalized ads and content
  • Content measurement and audience insights

Do you accept cookies and these technologies?