Best Flywheel

Screaminyellow7 said:

Hey Boys, I just purchased a spec stage III clutch from MPH. My mechanic recommended that I replace the Flywheel also. What would be the best flywheel to replace the stock one with to go with the spec on my 01 GT. I do have close future plans of adding a blower.

Click to expand...

spec aluminum flywheel

I wouldn't suggest an aluminum flywheel...

billet steel if you were to upgrade. Other than that why don't you get your flywheel resurfaced...much cheaper and replacement isn't needed really.

5spd GT said:

I wouldn't suggest an aluminum flywheel...

billet steel if you were to upgrade. Other than that why don't you get your flywheel resurfaced...much cheaper and replacement isn't needed really.

Click to expand...

Why not ? it reduces rotating mass weight. kind of like what pulleys do .

Im going with mcleod, heard nothign but good things from them.

forpit2000gt said:

Why not ? it reduces rotating mass weight. kind of like what pulleys do .

Click to expand...

Let me copy a couple post from other discussiosn on this:

"I'm a billet steel fan...

The aluminum flywheel will help you decelerate quicker and accelerate a tick quicker if you want that little extra addition but some things to think about with the AFW is starting from a stop, particularly on hills, may require more slipping of the clutch to make up for the lower momentum than is stored in the heavier stock flywheel. Some jerking can be occured due to the loss of momentum possibly in between shifts for example as the rpm will drop sooner.

I would stay away from an aluminum flywheel on a daily driver and plus some of the harder grabbing clutches can tear up the aluminum flywheels...and aren't recommended with a aluminum flywheel.

Get a stock replacement or a nice billet steel one...(more expensive)...

This is posted from FastDriver - The answer to your question is that a 15 lbs weight would be easier to catch/stop if it has been thrown at you at the same speed as a 40 lb weight. A pretty obvious answer, but I think you are misinterpretting the results. A drag racing launch has nothing to do with ease of launch. If it did, you wouldn't launch at 6500 rpm, you'd launch right off of idle. Also, my clutch doesn't seem to have any problems grabbing my flywheel at any rpm. My tranny doesn't seem to have any problem managing the shock, and with the right tires and suspension, I will launch this car right off of redline with a single clutch drop.

The point is that you want as much stored energy to jump into your tires as possible, and you want your suspension/weight distribution/ tire combination set up so that it can handle all of the power and effectively put it to the ground - as opposed to wasting it by blowing away the tires.

In regard to your posit about stored energy being meaningless, I'll counter that stored evergy has everything to do with the difference between a heavy flywheel and a light one. In fact, stored energy is the only cause of a performance difference between an aluminum and iron flywheel.

The aluminum flywheel does not store as much energy as rpms increase which gives it an advantage in that the energy that would be stored in the flywheel has instead been exerted into the rotational force in the drivetrain and hence the driving force/power of your car.

In drag racing, that extra stored energy in the flywheel at a stop is put into your tires as soon as the clutch is dropped causing more force/power driving your car as it leaves the line. As your car moves down the track and rpms increase, the energy is transferred back and forth from the flywheel to the tires as rpms increase and then decrease (as you shift). Finally, when you cross the traps, rpms at the top of their powerband, the stored energy in the flywheel did not get put to good use. So, the advantage after you leave the line is to the lighter aluminum flywheel. Does it make up for the Iron one? Possibly. The longer the track, the more likely. However, will the difference be significant enough to justify the extra expenditure? Not to me."

"we lost like .20 on our 60 foot times with an alum flywheel. its the initial shock the torque ripping the tires is what was different and in turn they say about every .10 in the 60 foot is about .15 tenths in the quarter. i find this to be a close fact went from 11.50-11.55 to 11.68-11.71 in the quarter i dont remember mph."

"I have dyno tested several different flywheel and clutch combinations. I was part of the article for MM&FF that Robin mentioned over on HC50. If you can find that, theres alot of good info in there. Since then I have done some prototype testing for another clutch manufacturer. Believe me when I tell you, 9lbs will not make a difference on a chassis dyno doing high gear back to back pulls. If you averaged 5 or 6 pulls, making sure that engine temp, trans fluid temp, rearend oil temp, air intake temps, etc.. were the same, I'd suspect you might see 1 horsepower. Thats doing high gear pulls only. There are other ways of making pulls that will show a greater increase, and give more real world results."

"I beleive it was Eagle on here (the one that sells the rotating assemblies - Brian?) that said the AFW does react differently under normal conditions. He seems like a pretty credible source on it as well seeing how he does sell the rotating assemblies Ed Curtis and some others (can't remember) where suggesting keeping a steel flywheel in the heavier side of the cars (like 3200lbs and up)...so that is where my lx falls into.

For autocross cars, I agree...your up in the revs for 99% of the time (almost literally) and your not building up speed (revs) if your autocrossing right so the AFW would be beneficial in that case.

For the picky daily driver like me...I'm not for the AFW."


Just a couple...it isn't just "losing weight"...you lose other things as well. Driveability changes. revs drop quicker so your engine will "catch" more in between time when you shift gears...you don't have the rotational weight to help you "idle off"...

I would keep an AFW for a autocross car...not really a daily driver IMO.