• Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech

what flywheel???

  • Thread starter Thread starter 88stangmangt
  • Start date Start date Jun 18, 2005

88stangmangt

Active Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,332
1
48
Stafford,VA
Jun 18, 2005
#1
  • Jun 18, 2005
  • #1
i am sure im geting a spec stage 3 with there alum flywheel.....my ? is 28 or 50 oz flywheel????? also im pretty sure if i get a 50 oz i have to go with a 50 oz balancer too............i am finally in the last stages of my motor.............
 

giddyup306

Founding Member
Oct 22, 2002
3,041
2
59
Jun 18, 2005
#2
  • Jun 18, 2005
  • #2
50 oz. I don't recomend the 28 oz. The stock one weighs MUCH more than that. I mean light weight replacement flywheels for small engines are a lot heavier than that. I wouldn't get an aluminum flywheel IMHO. You might run into drivability issues (an engine needs a large heavy flywheel to maintain inertia). You may have to feather the gas at an idle to keep it running. Plus you would lose torque...
 

N8Miller

I need NOS....make it 2 of the big ones
Founding Member
Jul 26, 2000
2,661
0
0
Kingston, PA, USA
Jun 18, 2005
#3
  • Jun 18, 2005
  • #3
your kit (rotating assembly) has to be balanced also. You need a matching balancer to go with that flywheel, you cant just take any flywheel and throw it on.
 

txstang84

15 Year Member
May 21, 2005
1,639
42
69
Tuscola, tx
Jun 18, 2005
#4
  • Jun 18, 2005
  • #4
what year is the bottom end? if it's setup to run 28oz, then you have to use that one, if it's a late model crank (81-up) you have to use a 50oz. a 28oz crank can be balanced to use a 50oz balancer, but you have to take a huge amount of metal from the counterweights which weakens the crank. the 28oz vs 50oz has NOTHING to do with the overall weight of the balancer, it's purely for the counterbalance on the crankshaft...I've rebuilt both types, the actual balancer weight is about the same (within 6 oz) for either application dependant upon year model
 

txstang84

15 Year Member
May 21, 2005
1,639
42
69
Tuscola, tx
Jun 18, 2005
#5
  • Jun 18, 2005
  • #5
amended: if you haven't changed anything from the original bottom end, then you will have to use a 50oz balancer/flywheel (based on viewing your webpage)

giddyup does have a point though, if you decide to run an aluminum flywheel be prepared for less low end "feel"...but the rpms will climb quicker once it gets moving...
 

88stangmangt

Active Member
Nov 25, 2003
2,332
1
48
Stafford,VA
Jun 19, 2005
#6
  • Jun 19, 2005
  • #6
txstang84 said:
amended: if you haven't changed anything from the original bottom end, then you will have to use a 50oz balancer/flywheel (based on viewing your webpage)

giddyup does have a point though, if you decide to run an aluminum flywheel be prepared for less low end "feel"...but the rpms will climb quicker once it gets moving...
Click to expand...
i have a 88 302 motor.....the internals are stock except for a set of piston's.....the steel flywheel is cheaper so i will go with a 50 OZ fly wheel and balancer...... thanks for the help huys...........
 

Grn92LX

Fidanza Man!
Founding Member
Jan 14, 2001
6,819
64
129
New York
Jun 19, 2005
#7
  • Jun 19, 2005
  • #7
Good choice on the aluminum flywheel. I bought myself one too so I can go faster

What was your rotating assembly balanced to? If its 50oz you NEED a 50oz balancer/flywheel. If its 28 oz, then you obviously need 28oz balancer/fly. Less external balance = less weight hanging off the ends of the crank and it should be better for higher rpm's. The aluminum flywheel should work great as well. Less rotating weight adding up to LESS wear and tear since its less weight the rotating assembly has to spin. You will NOT lose low end with an aluminum flywheel.
 

5spd GT

"the 5.0 owns all"
Founding Member
Aug 7, 2002
9,516
6
99
Arkansas
Jun 19, 2005
#8
  • Jun 19, 2005
  • #8
Yep, I would suggest against an aluminum flywheel due to some of the reasons shown here. If it is your daily driver I would suggest against. If you look/ask around you will most of the guys going with them have a daily driver other than their AFW equipped car. It isn't always about going half a tenth faster but keeping better rotating street manners makes it that much more worth it.

You will want a 50oz since you have a stock bottomend balance. N8Miller brought up a good point about the balancer/rotating assembly/flywheel have to be matched.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Engine Help 331 stroker
  • pdmount
  • Feb 19, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
8
Views
393
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Feb 21, 2026
pdmount
P
B
Flywheel
  • Barry
  • Mar 10, 2026
  • 1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech
Replies
4
Views
316
1974 - 1978 Mustang II Talk & Tech Mar 11, 2026
Barry
B
6
Hey all,I’m putting together a 302 for my 1968 Mustang and wanted to post the combo + some questions to make sure I’m not missing crucial
  • 68_Disgustang
  • Feb 22, 2026
  • 1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk-
Replies
5
Views
1K
1965 - 1973 Classic Mustangs -General/Talk- Oct 19, 2026
mattcrp1
M
N
Vibration after new clutch
  • nipple_looker
  • Sep 20, 2026
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • 2
Replies
23
Views
686
1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk- Sep 26, 2026
fasterthangas
F
Engine Looking for suggestions and or ideas
  • PonyGTrider
  • Aug 25, 2026
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
Replies
17
Views
671
Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech Sep 7, 2026
PonyGTrider
Share:
Bluesky Email Share Link
  • Mustang Forums
  • 1979 - 1995 (Fox, SN95.0, & 2.3L) -General/Talk-
  • Fox 5.0 Mustang Tech
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?